CCP 02-13-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . e Even without the 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 inadequate parking, Celestica has a private agreement to allow employees to use approximately 20 parking spaces in an adjacent parkiug lot that is on land under the same ownership as the Celestica building, In order to resolve the parking issues, Celestica applied for a special use permit amendment to increase parking on the 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 Celestica did not act on these approvals within the required timeframe, these amendment approvals have expired. If the previously approved parking expansion had been implemented, Celestica would have exceeded the parking requiremcnt by 25 spaces for a total of 465 parking spaces (once the eight spaces for the air handling units are removed). Celestica is requesting to maintain the current arrangement for off-site parking. As long as the off-site parking is meeting Celestica's and the tenants of the other buildings needs, it is unlikely that allowing the current parking situation to continue would have a detrimental affect on the property or neighborhood, Since there is a contingency plan available to provide sufficient on-site parking should the off-site parking arrangement end, staff does not belicve that the parking situation is a barrier to installing the air handling units. However, in order to implement the contingency plan, the applicants would be required to resubmit an application for a special use permit amendment to reinstate the expired permits to expand parking, 3. Environmental Pollution - Noise Section 6 Subd. G(5) states: 5. Environmental Pollution: Emission or creation of noise, odors, vibrations, dust, smoke, heat and toxic or noxious fumes shall conform /0 such standards as are from time to time established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. None of these shall be at a level that is objectionable to surrounding properties. Based on the information submitted by the applicant, the air handlers will produce a sound level of 73 decihels at 30 feet from the air handling unit. At this level, the air handling unit does slightly exceed the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency limits of 65 (L50) decibels and 70 (Ll 0) decibels. However, the property line is approximately 200 feet to the west and 150 feet to the south of the proposed air handling units. At the property line, it is unlikely that the sound from the air handlers would have any noticeable impact on neighboring properties 311d would not exceed MPCA guidelines. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting/or February J, 2006 \\Metro-inet.us\ordenhillsIP!(tnningIPlanning Cases\2006\06-003 Ce/eSlicn SUP amendmenl\OJ /806 PC repOrl- CeleSlica SUP amcnfimenUloc Page 4 of 7