2016-07-13_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 13, 2016 Page 7 For cars parked at area motels, during the crushing operation, Member Murphy asked if 296 they would experience a coating of dust. 297 Mr. Bollhaber advised that they should not, as the air emissions permit issued by the 298 MPCA to the crushing contract stipulated that no off site dust emissions or any visible 299 dust on site was allowed, and if found the spray bar system would be needed. Based on 300 his conversations with their crushing contractor, Mr. Bollhaber advised that their intent 301 was to use the spray bar full-time during the stockpile’s monitoring over the next 1 to 2 302 years; and other provisions as mandated by the MPCA and beyond the purview of the 303 Planning Commission. 304 Again, for area motel patrons, Member Murphy asked if they would experience any noise 305 that may negatively impact meetings of interfere with their hotel business during the 306 crushing operations and noise penetration of their walls. 307 Mr. Bollhaber clarified that the most piercing noise would be the truck back-up alarms, 308 noting that the crushing operation wasn’t that noticeable beyond typical background 309 noises. Mr. Bollhaber anticipated no noise for residential properties that would be 310 noticeable either. 311 Public Comment 312 Tim Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane 313 In his review of the staff report, Mr. Callaghan brought forward several questions: 314 1) Would the spray be used continuously? From his recollection of the open house for 315 this project, they only considered using it sometimes, and Mr. Callaghan noted his 316 appreciation for their reconsideration. 317 2) Staff monitoring of water content weekly or less seemed to Mr. Callaghan infrequent, 318 noting the MPCA requirement that the water be monitored to determine if more was 319 needed to keep dust down. 320 Mr. Paschke clarified that the stockpile would be monitored weekly. 321 Mr. Callaghan addressed his interpretation of MPCA requirements and those 322 presented by staff. 323 Mr. Paschke clarified that the proposed condition for IU approval did not address 324 what Mr. Callaghan was referencing, with those requirements up to the MPCA, not 325 the city. 326 3) Based on his understanding of MPCA requirements, Mr. Callaghan stated erosion 327 control measures were required around the stockpiles to limit materials entering 328 Langton Lake. Mr. Callaghan noted that these concrete materials would contain 329 alkaline material that could destroy the lake. Mr. Callaghan stated he was 330 encouraged in reading the proposal that straw bales would surround the stockpile, 331 which he found better than erosion fences or silt fences as reference tonight by the 332 contractor, seeking clarification. 333 4) Mr. Callaghan also expressed his preference that a security/safety fence be installed 334 around the site and stockpile, especially with a 25’ high pile that may be 250’ long. 335 Mr. Callaghan noted that residents were told at the open house that this would be a 336 natural attraction for children; and stated that he didn’t want to see the city party to 337 any wrongful death lawsuit. 338 Mr. Callaghan noted that overall this revised proposal sounded better than some of the 339 issues raised during the open house discussion. 340 Mr. Paschke reviewed the city’s process as a component of any demolition permit, and if 341 the IU was approved for the crushing operation and stockpiling on site, he noted that all 342 would be reviewed by city staff and conditions added as appropriate. Mr. Paschke 343 advised that best management practices were used for this type of project for erosion 344 control, based on what was needed and how best to control the situation, whether with 345