PCP 02-01-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Even without thc loss of eight spaces, Celestica already had less than the required 440 parking spaces. They have indicated that there is inadequate parking on the site. To . compensate for the inadequatc parking, Celestica has a privatc agrecmcnt to allow employees to use approximately 20 parking spaces in an adjacent parking lot that is on land under thc samc ownership as the Celestica building. In order to resolve the parking issucs, Cclestica applicd for spccial use permit amendment to increase parking on thc site. Planning Case 01-12a and 01-12b was approved to increase parking by 65 parking spaces for a total of 473 parking spaces. However, since Ce1estica did not act on these approvals within thc rcquired timeframe, thcsc amcndment approvals have expired. lfthc prcviously approved parking expansion had been implemented, Celestica would have cxceeded the parking requirement by 25 spaces for a total of 465 parking spaces (once the eight spaccs for the air handling units arc removed). Celestica is requesting to maintain thc current arrangcmcnt for off-site parking. As long as the off-site parking is meeting Ce1estica's and the tenants of the other buildings needs, it is unlikely that allowing the current parking situation to continuc would have a detrimental affect on the property or neighborhood. Sincc there is a contingency plan available to provide sufficicnt on-sitc parking should the off-site parking arrangement end, staff does not believe that the parking situation is a barrier to installing the air handling units. However, in ordcr to implemcnt thc contingency plan, the applicants would be required to rcsubmit an application for a special use pennit amendmcnt to reinstate the expircd permits to expand parking. 3. Environmental Pollution - Noise . Scction 6 Subd. G(5) states: 5. Environmental Pollution: Emission or crcation of noise, odors, vibrations, dust, smoke, heat and toxic or noxious fiunes shall conform to such standards as are from time to time established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. None of these shall bc at a level that is objectionable to surrounding properties. Based on the information submitted by thc applicant, the air handlers will produce a sound level 73 Decibels at 30 feet from thc air handling unit. At this level, the air handling unit does slightly exceed thc Minnesota Pollution Control Agency limits of 65 (L50) decibels and 70 (L 1 0) Decibels. However, the property line is approximately 200 feet to the west and 150 feet to thc south of the proposed air handling units. At the property linc, it is unlikely that the sound from the air handlers would have any noticcable impact on ncighhoring properties and would not exceed MPCA guidelines. City ofArdell Hills Planning Commission Aleetingfor FebruGI)' /, 2006 . IIMetl"O-inel.uslardenhiflslPlanningIPlanning CaseS'12006106-003 Cefestica SUP nmel1dmenllOJ f806 PC report - Celes/lea SUP amendment. doc Page 4 of7