pf_02319 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville Planning Commission 11/22/91 3 . These include the fact that the car wash would be partially below the grade of the adjacent alley and apartment property, and there will be a solid wood fence, with vines growing on it, all along this edge. We contacted Mr. Brausen early in the week and got some general information about the car wash. We found out that, unobstructed, the drying blowers might pose a noise problem. He was out of town for the remainder of the week when we attempted to contact him again for more specific information on the type of equipment he is proposing. Neither his architect, contractor, nor anyone else in his organization knew this information. Since we could not determine exactly what type of equipment he will utilize at this site, we visited four other Amoco stations with various types of car washes. We also contacted Dr. David Braslau, the fonner head of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Noise Section, who is now a private consultant. He has a great deal of noise testing experience and specializes in industrial noise mitigation. From our field visits we found that the car wash equipment varies widely, from the typical automated system with just water and brushes, through a variety of different newer models that incorporate drying equipment. We observed, and Dr. Braslau concurred, that if it is just water and brushes, noise would not be a problem (particularly given the grade separation and fence in this instance). The only potential concern would be a direct, line-of-sight relationship between a blower and an open window at the apartment. Obviously that would only occur during warm summer months. The attached plan view drawing shows that the only scenario that could result in a noise problem would be if the blower were mounted right at the exit from the car wash and the northernmost set of windows were open. Some of the car washes we observed had blowers mounted near the exit and some had them recessed further inside the building. We also measured the length of these other car wash buildings and found that the maximum was 44' long. The proposed car wash addition is 51' long, so there would appear to be no reason why we could not insist that the blower be recessed as shown on the attached sketch. In summary, if we assume a 9' -wide exit door, with the blower equipment recessed into the building at least 8', there will be no direct-line blower noise to any adjacent apartment windows. We will follow up on this issue and make certain that it is properly addressed in the City Council action and covered in the PUD Agreement. We are glad that this question carne up and we believe the proposed development will be a better neighbor as a result of this inquiry and subsequent construction modifications. You should also know that our standard PUD Contract contains provisions that would allow us to require mitigation if problems arise in the future. Also, the noise ordinance would apply to this property, though that is admittedly a more cumbersome course to follow for enforcement purposes.