2016-07-13_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 13, 2016 Page 3 Corrections: 96  Page 6, Line 258 (Murphy) 97 Typographical correction: Change year designation from “200” to “2008. 98 Ayes: 6 99 Nays: 0 100 Abstentions: 1 (Boguszewski) 101 Motion carried. 102 Member Gitzen moved, Member Kimble seconded, submission of Member Daire’s non- 103 substantive spelling and grammatical changes to staff following tonight’s meeting. 104 Ayes: 7 105 Nays: 0 106 Motion carried 107 5. Public Hearings 108 Chair Boguszewski reviewed public hearing protocol and the process. 109 a. PLANNING FILE 16-015 110 Request by PIK Terminal Company Limited Partnership and Nanette Pikovski for 111 approval of a temporary crushing and stockpiling of building foundations and 112 pavement material as an INTERIM USE (IU) at 2690 Prior Avenue 113 Chair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for PLANNING FILE 16-015 at 6:48 p.m. 114 City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the request and staff’s analysis of the IU 115 application as detailed in the staff report and related attachments dated July 13, 2016. 116 Mr. Paschke noted the applicant seeks to establish a temporary storage area for the 117 aggregate/gravel by-product. Mr. Paschke advised that the crushing facility and stockpile 118 would be located along the western side of the property adjacent to Mount Ridge Road. 119 Mr. Paschke further noted the recycled aggregate/gravel would then be used when the 120 site is redeveloped or the material would be transported to other sites yet to be identified. 121 For reference, Mr. Paschke advised that he had observed and videotaped similar 122 crushing operations in the Roseville area by MnDOT at Highway 36 and another by 123 Ramsey County at I-694 and Rice Street. Mr. Paschke reported that based on his 124 observations, even closer to the site, he found no adverse noise or dust situations. Ms. 125 Paschke both operations used water spray bars as well as other water resources when 126 the wind was blowing or when there could have been excessive dust, both serving to 127 mitigate any issues. Mr. Paschke advised that, once the product is crushed, it develops a 128 crust and thereafter didn’t produce as much dust as typical sand or aggregate may 129 produce. 130 Mr. Paschke stated that staff did not believe this particular facility would create excessive 131 dust or noise, based on the applicant’s Response Action Plan required by the Minnesota 132 Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), and the applicant’s contingency plan as outlined in the 133 staff report. Mr. Paschke stated staff anticipated few if any problems related to the 134 proposed project; but noted Condition 4 as outlined in lines 100-110 of the staff report as 135 an added precaution, should the Commission support the IU request. Mr. Paschke noted 136 that this condition was similar to previous stockpiling conditions applied to prior IU 137 applications and projects (e.g. Walnut Avenue) for the Community Development 138 Department to monitor the site periodically or if and when issues arose and additional 139 water added to the piles. 140 Chair Boguszewski thanked staff for their foresight in 2006 to videotape previous 141 crushing operations; with Mr. Paschke responding it was intended to provide context for 142 what could be expected with such a project. 143 Chair Boguszewski noted the condition related to timing in conjunction with MPCA permit 144 approval, and asked if that created any additional risk to that timeframe or if it would be 145