2015.04.21 PC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the tracks, the applicant desires to construct a 1000’ rail siding that can accommodate up to 10 rail cars. The applicant’s narrative states federal rail laws prohibit stopping/blocking of the main lines, thus the need for the siding. Staff acknowledges the site is adjacent to railroad tracks and thus should be permitted to make reasonable use of rail transport. Staff’s primary concerns related to construction of the rail siding include:  Unsightliness of cars sitting on the tracks for long periods of time  The noise associated with hooking and unhooking  The ability to store material in the cars that couldn’t otherwise be stored on site In an effort to mitigate these negative impacts, staff recommends the 1000’ rail siding be permitted on the condition that parking of rail cars on the siding shall be limited to no more than 110 days per calendar year. The applicant must also keep record of the number of days in a year rail cars are stored on the siding and when loading and unloading occurs, and make this log available for review during the annual inspection (required under the ECOA). Screening Site visibility has always been a concern regarding uses allowed under the ECOA. The existing code, Section 6-770 (7) states “site is either not visible from a public roadway or visibility is highly limited due to existing topography, vegetation and land uses”. Prior to the applicant acquiring the expansion property, the site was screening from the south and east by existing vegetation on the expansion property. The applicant has since removed all the vegetation (mature tree cover) to accommodate the environmental cap required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Unfortunately, this opened-up view sheds into the property from the south and from Old Highway 8 NW and condition 7 of Section 6- 770 must be stricken from the ECOA. Existing buffers and screening methods from the west will not be impacted (the vegetated earthen berm will remain intact). No screening methods have existed to the north due to those adjacent uses also being industrial in nature. With the removal of vegetation on the expansion property, the applicant is proposing to construct an 8’+- vegetated berm along the east boundary of the “Belair Construction Equipment & Supply Storage” area shown on the Site Plan. Staff finds the 8’ vegetated berm to be an appropriate level of screening for the equipment storage area, so long as the berm is at least 8’ in height and is vegetated (not constructed of rubble). Unfortunately, an 8’ berm will not screen the larger aggregate and rubble piles that exist farther west into the site. Acknowledging this won’t be possible, especially with pile height allowances of 40’, the applicant has proposed preserving the 130’ x 656’ stretch of property between Old Highway 8 NW and the equipment storage area (also referred to in past reports as the finger). Staff finds this to be reasonable given all the other constraints on the property.