My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_0725
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_0725
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/26/2016 2:31:57 PM
Creation date
8/17/2016 1:47:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/25/2016
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, July 25, 2016 <br />Page 21 <br />In the RAP, Councilmember Etten noted it spoke to MPCA testing and approvals <br />(pages 3-4) and what happened with known contaminated soils and how any con- <br />tamination would be addressed. Councilmember Etten asked if there was a pro- <br />cess in place dictated at some level by the MPCA. <br />Specific to Condition 1 recommended by staff and the Planning Commission, <br />Councilmember Laliberte asked if it should be amended to include Ramsey Coun- <br />ty as well; with Mr. Paschke clarifying he was not aware of any county permits <br />needed. <br />At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon advised he was unsure, but <br />noted sometimes demolition required both city and county approval, and while it <br />may or may not be required in this specific case, since it involved a foundation, he <br />suggested including the county in Condition 1 as a safeguard. <br />Without objection, the maker and seconder of the motion agreed to amend Condi- <br />tion #1 to state; "all government agencies." <br />Since there were several foundations involved, Councilmember Laliberte spoke in <br />support of testing all of them, regardless of when they were poured, since it was <br />unclear of their status without further expert information on when use of asbestos <br />was banned. Councilmember Laliberte stated she'd prefer not to have the lan- <br />guage so precise as proposed in the motion for the year 1970; and asked that the <br />specific year be removed from new Condition #7. <br />Councilmember Willmus stated his opposition to removing that year, opining it <br />would be highly unlikely to find asbestos in concrete poured after 1970, as refer- <br />enced in RCA information. Councilmember Willmus reiterated his preference to <br />test the area of the building built before 1970. <br />Laliberte moved, McGehee secorcded, amendment to the motion that Condition <br />#7 be revised to state "all concrete will be tested, regardless of the date poured," <br />with removal of the specific 1970 date. <br />If that was done, Councilmember Etten suggested the need to specify somehow <br />that testing was done on each separate iteration of the foundation addition sepa- <br />rately. <br />Dan — I'm not sure if that was an actual motion, but I didn't record a vote if so. <br />Councilnaember Etten suggested, Roe seconded arrzendment to Condition #7 to <br />specify that testing be separately done on each foundation addition inde- <br />pendently. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.