CC PACKET 02092021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 4 choice of three other car washes that are nearby so he was wondering if that will possibly 1 mitigate some of the traffic or reduce some of the traffic that might go into this particular 2 location and reduce the amount of car exhaust that people are concerned about. Mr. Grittman 3 explained with regard to car exhaust on site, certainly idling vehicles create car exhaust but just 4 as Councilmember Jenson pointed out, there are car wash facilities and other commercial drive 5 through facilities all over the Metro area that have existed for many years and the State Pollution 6 Control Agency manages air quality in the Metro area and he is not aware of any situations 7 where idling cars in drive throughs have caused a violation of any of the PCA standards for air 8 pollution. Staff’s presumption here is that this would be similar to all the other facilities that are 9 out there within the allowances for what the State has set for air quality. 10 11 Councilmember Randle asked if the applicant was aware of the new proposed conditions. Mr. 12 Grittman indicated the applicant was aware and at the Planning Commission meeting when these 13 were first proposed and actually had reviewed the staff report and has been a part of the process 14 since December and fully aware of the eleven conditions that the Planning Commission has 15 recommended. 16 17 Mayor Stille stated there is talk of the Minnesota Noise Standards and he wondered how that 18 factored into staff’s recommendation and Planning Commission, if at all, in regard to meeting 19 those or violating those. Mr. Grittman explained the State has noise regulations which is a 20 pollution control agency set of standards and staff’s presumption is that any commercial use, this 21 one included, is going to be required to meet the noise requirements of the PCA. The City 22 cannot issue a permit that would create a violation of those standards. If the applicant is granted 23 a permit and construct and violate those standards, they would not be violating the Conditional 24 Use Permit but would also be violating State Standards and could be penalized or otherwise dealt 25 with for that. The applicant is obligated to meet those standards and staff builds that into their 26 review. Staff’s expectation is that noise mitigation staff is proposing is to reduce that well below 27 what State Standards are so staff is not using that as its expectation, staff is using something 28 lower. 29 30 Mayor Stille stated as staff talked about with the exercise, the mitigants, and what the City is 31 striving to accomplish here in response to this application, what are the ramifications if the 32 Council denies this. Mr. Grittman thought denial would have to be based on solid, factual 33 evidence that leads the Council to believe that it is not possible for the applicant to operate this 34 facility within the confines of what the Ordinance allows and there is a presumption in the law 35 that Conditional Use Permits are an allowed use on the property. The City has a high burden to 36 meet if the Council were to deny the permit. If the Council does deny the permit the City is open 37 to a potential lawsuit. A lot of conditions can be added that are reasonable to avoid potential 38 issues, but it is hard to deny one. 39 40 Mr. Tom Archambault, applicant, and owner of Boulevard Auto Works, 2801 Kenzie Terrace, 41 addressed the City Council. 42 43 Councilmember Walker Mr. Archambault how he will control noise pollution from the car wash 44 itself. Mr. Archambault explained the noise pollution from Kenzie Terrace is 68-85 decibels 45 standing twenty feet away from the street. A Mr. Car Wash franchise, located in Shoreview, the 46 4