09/11/2001 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 8 Regarding greenspace, staff stated a maximum of 90% of the site could be impervious surface in the General Industrial and Light Industrial zones. The proposal would not exceed this. With respect to traffic, staff explained the proposed new building would not interfere with or impact traffic on surrounding roads. Internal circulation was governed by the manufacturing process and storage needs. Truck parking on the roads was governed by the CUP. Regarding parking, staff stated there was no parking requirement listed in the ordinance for heavy manufacturing. An analysis in 1997 of previous action on the site included a parking needs calculation using as a basis the parking requirement for a light manufacturing facility. The standard for a light manufacturing facility was one parking space for each employee or one space for each 2000 square feet of gross floor area, whichever was greater. Staff explained the total square footage was 110,200 sf for existing and time, future anticipated buildings. The analysis resulted in a requirement of 55 • street . ' king spaces. A "future" manufacturing building of 35,000 sf on the old plan wa le to this new building, which was about 38,000 sf. The office building that as . 'lt i 11 sf rather than the 4800 sf anticipated in 1997. There are 76 existing par Staff stated if off -street parking caused a problem in t uturei, the 1' ty could re- examine the site to determine means of eliminating any safety concern With respect to Stormwater management, staff reviewed by the Rice Creek Watershed Di ct proposed plan included enlarging an ex new pond in the interior of the site, was subject to the review of the C. Regarding wetlands, staff e wetland in the southeast c Rice Creek Watershed District the northwest corner o rading and drainage plan was ed preliminary approval. The e northwest corner of the site, creating a n area between the two. The drainage plan oposed project would require filling of an existing the s e. Applicant had received preliminary approval from the the wetland impacts. Additional wetland would be created in enlarging the pond there. With respect to signage, aff indicated applicant had not proposed new signage. Staff reviewed the 1997 Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Interim Use Permit. With respect to noise, staff stated applicant had a noise measurement analysis performed in October 2000 by Wenck Associates. On October 24, the firm took readings from 4:30 am to 5:30 am and from 5:30 am to 6:30 am. On October 25, the firm took readings from 4:30 am to 5:30 am. The readings indicated no violation of MPCA noise rules during those times. MPCA did state in a conversation with City staff that if a test was conducted by established methods, MPCA typically accepts the results of the test. Staff stated neighbors were not satisfied by the Wenck analysis. It was possible to arrange another analysis. Staff contacted the MPCA to see if MPCA could conduct the analysis. This was possible, but there is a waiting period of several months. Staff was recommending a condition that requires a noise analysis by another consultant to be arranged for the near future. This analysis should be conducted during a typical working day at the plant.