Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning camnission Meeting, 6-03-92 . <br /> Page 4 <br /> CJ\SE #92-06 (<XNl"Dl: <br /> The Architect explained the car wash equipment does not cx:munence washing vehicles <br /> until they are conpletely within the car wash bay, which should eliminate any <br /> noise to adjaCent site. The only possible noise may be caused from the dryers <br /> when the cars exit the bay. The proposed driers are to eliminate residual <br /> dripping and excess water before vehicles enter the street. <br /> He stated he feels that Option A is the most conducive altenJative for the <br /> general public, the surrounding neighbors and the car wash site. <br /> Clair Probst asked if there were any questions. <br /> The Planner stated the owner of the Dentist Office, Dr. Anderson, prefers Option <br /> A because of the removal of parking and the more intensive landscaping that could <br /> be place along the property line. <br /> Ted Brauson, owner of the Amoco Station, supported Option A. <br /> Clair Probst asked if there was anyone present to speak in favor of or opposed <br /> to this project. <br /> Dr. Anderson, owner of the Dentist office, expressed concern that the water . <br /> dripping from existing vehicles may cause icy corrlitions at the easterly <br /> driveway/access to his property. He also requested sufficient landscaping on the <br /> east property line so that no headlights would shine into the office reception <br /> area. <br /> Clair Probst asked if there were any questions from the members. <br /> Member Carlson questioned the age of the underground tanks. <br /> Ted Brausen advised tanks are five years old and meet all pollution control <br /> -requirements. He also stated the proposed propane dispensing station was being <br /> pursued at the request of the Ramsey County Sheriff's Deparbnent, for use as a <br /> back-up system. He advised he has no interest in pursuing the dispensing station. <br /> Clair Probst stated there were 2 fundamental issues for Connnission to address: <br /> 1. Whether or not the additional intensity of use will be acceptable; and 2. <br /> Resolution of a number of open items in conjunction with the original SUP and <br /> proposed. future use of the site. <br /> Member Winiecki expressed concern regarding the SUP Amendment and stated her <br /> strong opposition to Option A, base don the intense use of the site. <br /> Clair Probst stated c:once:rns regarding the trash enclosures and des=ibed other <br /> sites that have =eated problems. <br /> . <br /> ---- <br />