2016-01-06_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, December 2, 2015 Page 12 Mr. Haun stated that while it may be a concern, tests to-date indicate no leaching.Mr. 553 Haun stated that, given the previous useof the property, expected contaminants were 554 petroleum-based, with no other unusual indications seen on reports received to-date (e.g. 555 no underground tanks, plumes, or water tables moving). 556 Mr. Haun advised that, under a worst case scenario, their firm would choose not to use 557 the research plots on the west side, noting that the most contaminated areas are to the 558 far east. 559 Mr. Paschke advised that any of those issues would be addressed by the City’s 560 Brownfields consultant to ensure no future problems occurred. 561 Member Murphy commended the applicant for their creative use of this property next to 562 parkland, which was unique, and wished them well in their efforts. 563 Member Cunningham expressed her personal concerns as a nearby homeowner and 564 with anything agriculture due to potential pesticide use, and asked that the applicant 565 provide a better understanding of how those things would be regulated (e.g. air quality). 566 Living on the other side of Langton Lakes, Member Cunningham admitted this use made 567 her nervous, as well as new research indicating the demise in bees due to pesticide use, 568 noting her concerns were also probably shared by other neighbors or Roseville residents. 569 Mr. Haun advised that their firm shared air quality and other concerns related to 570 insecticide andpesticide use; and wanted to use chemicals only if and when needed.Mr. 571 Haun reiterated his previous comments related to the limited use and quantity of those 572 chemicals similar to a typical household; and only intended for application for insect 573 infestations in a targeted fashion, not as would be typical for an average farm operation. 574 Mr. Haun stated that their preference would be to never use pesticides; and clarified that 575 they weren’t seeking to maximize their crop yield by such a chemical application, since 576 these were only test plots for research and development of seeds and plants. 577 Specific to bees, Mr. Haun advised that bees were not problematic for them, and if any 578 were inadvertently or accidently targeted, it would only be a small area and a small 579 number of bees impacted. 580 Referencing the applicant’s narrative, Member Cunningham noted their projected 581 expanded employee base, and asked if that would be in Phase I or a combined total for 582 Phases I and II. 583 Mr. Haun advised they anticipated moving from 25 to100 employees in Phase I. 584 If that was the case, Member Cunningham questioned the need for 120 parking stalls for 585 Phase I. 586 Mr. Haun clarified that this was a preliminary drawing by the architect and was only an 587 estimate.Mr. Haun noted that, with the City’s recent zoning change and transportation 588 study, this made the architect’s renditions even more preliminary, and noted the need to 589 bring any future plans into compliance with city code and zoning regulations before 590 developing a final plat. 591 As a bee keeper himself, Member Bullasked about specific pesticidesproposed to be 592 used by the applicant. 593 Mr. Haun advised he was unfamiliar with the pesticide referenced by Member Bull, but 594 advised they would be consulting on any potential use of pesticides if and when an insect 595 infestation was found; and any regulated applications would be approved by certified 596 chemists.Mr. Haun advised that a member of their firm was certified for indoor 597 application, and was seeking the next level of annual certificationfor outdoor application, 598 similar to that done by the U of MN for their staff. 599 Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 8:17p.m.;no one spokefor or against 600 MOTION 601 Member Bull moved, seconded by MemberMurphy torecommend to the City 602