2016-08-03_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 13, 2016 Page 5 Member Cunningham stated she could support Chair Boguszewski relating to aligning 196 conditions for the timeframe; but noted her concerns related to length of time for the IU. 197 Member Kimble asked if there was a potential for additional truck traffic with this 198 approval; and asked what the stockpile would look like in size and height. 199 Mr. Paschke again referred to the contractor or applicant to respond to those questions. 200 Mr. Paschke stated he was unsure of the uses for the byproduct other than as a sub- 201 base for driveways, but noted there may be other construction or building uses that the 202 contractor could identify. 203 Noting the extension of Twin Lakes Parkway in this vicinity, Member Daire asked if any of 204 these Class 5 materials could be used as a base. 205 Mr. Paschke agreed that was a good question, but again deferred to the contractor for a 206 response. 207 If the IU is not approved, Member Gitzen noted that the applicant would still have a right 208 to demolish the building and haul materials offsite with no public input; with Mr. Paschke 209 confirming that process statement. 210 Given the amount of materials and foundation to be removed, Member Daire asked if a 211 jackhammer would be used, noting the additional concussions that would be involved to 212 break up that foundation prior to its crushing. Member Daire expressed concern that this 213 could involve more than the 10-25 days of noise, including truck back-up alarms that 214 would start at 7:00 a.m. and continue until 10:00 p.m. 215 Mr. Paschke responded that he was unsure of the intended plans for breaking up the 216 foundation; noting that would be addressed through a standard demolition permit under 217 Roseville city code. 218 As noted by Member Gitzen, Chair Boguszewski clarified that, if this proposed crushing 219 operation didn’t happen, no other demolition activities would be pertinent to this IU 220 request, whether that involved jackhammers or truck alarms, or other issues. Chair 221 Boguszewski noted the Commission’s only role is to consider approval of an IU for 222 crushing operations and stockpiling. No matter how long the demolition operation took, 223 Chair Boguszewski noted it was outside the Commission’s role and not within its domain. 224 Mr. Paschke concurred, noting that the demolition of the foundations was permitted under 225 the city’s permit process; and only the crushing operation itself, the machine crushing 226 byproduct, and stockpiling materials were currently before the Commission. Mr. Paschke 227 advised that any truck alarms or other demolition activities were covered under city code 228 as standard demolition practice, and governed by those city code provisions and 229 requirements. 230 Member Daire advised that his only reason for asking about jack hammering was to get a 231 clear picture of the potential noise duration coming from the site, whether or not the 232 Commission deals with it, he opined it was a reality that everyone needed to understand 233 outside the realm of the crushing operation and whether or not the city was monitoring 234 the situation. Member Daire expressed his interest in avoiding any misperceptions. 235 Member Cunningham asked the ramifications if the contractor discovered in the middle of 236 the timeline, that they needed to implement a contingency plan, and asked what that 237 process would involve. 238 Assuming the applicant or contractor ran into a major issue, Mr. Paschke responded that 239 the applicant would need to return to staff and subsequently the Commission. However, 240 Mr. Paschke deferred to the contractor for further response, noting he would be best able 241 to answer the expediency of that situation and how it would be addressed, and whether 242 the proposed 30 days is workable for a contingency plan based on their experience. 243