2016-07-13_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 13, 2016 Page 8 silt fencing or hay bales. Mr. Paschke advised that the Commission could choose to add 346 a condition related to security fencing, but noted that would be part of staff’s review of the 347 demolition permit and site monitoring to place such requirements on the site for security 348 purposes and for any other concerns. 349 Chair Boguszewski suggested language for an additional condition, such as: “Erosion 350 control methods will be approved by the city and put in place as approved. 351 Mr. Paschke suggested additional language that: “City staff shall review and consider 352 best management practices for erosion control and security of the site after demolition is 353 complete. 354 Chair Boguszewski asked the contractor to discuss their standard erosion and fencing 355 practices, as well as monitoring the crushing operations and watering. 356 Mr. Bollhaber, while admitting he was not an expert on crushing permits, agreed with the 357 comments of Mr. Callaghan as to MPCA requirements for minimum moisture content, 358 and noted by adding spray water that requirement could be achieved. As to the testing 359 frequency requirement of the MPCA, Mr. Bollhaber advised he was unable to address 360 that aspect. 361 Regarding the intended fencing, Mr. Bollhaber noted most of the site already has a chain 362 link fence with the exception of one segment; and agreed it was a good idea to enclose 363 the entire site again during demolition and stockpiling; and saw no problem in doing so, 364 while he was unable to speak as to the intent of the property owner. 365 Mr. Bollhaber noted the construction activities needed to and would comply with national 366 code for the MPDS permit system, and agreed to comply with any other conditions 367 deemed necessary by the city. 368 Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 7:43 p.m.; no one else spoke for or 369 against. 370 MOTION 371 Member Bull moved, seconded by Member Gitzen to recommend to the City 372 Council APPROVAL of the INTERIM USE of the property addressed as 2690 Prior 373 Avenue, based on the comments and findings of this report and conditions as 374 detailed in lines 119 – 129 of the staff report; amended as follows: 375  Additional Condition: City staff shall work with the applicant/contractor to set 376 standards for monitoring and security for erosion control of the property; with 377 city staff reviewing and considering best management practices for that 378 erosion control and security of the site after demolition is completed. 379  Clarification that Conditions 1 and 2 timing will be aligned to involve the same 380 timeframe once all permits are received. 381 Speaking from his personal experience with adjacent crushing operations and impacts to 382 an office environment, Member Murphy stated he had found no noise impacts on 383 employees or their operations. Other than the aesthetics of the stockpile, Member 384 Murphy noted he found no concerns, noting that this sit was shielded by parks and trees 385 from residents, and the only views most impacted were those corporate hotel operators 386 and their guests. 387 Chair Boguszewski questioned the need for a full two years for the IU, especially if at the 388 end of the timeframe approaches, and if the market wasn’t moving the property, the 389 applicant could apply for an extension. Chair Boguszewski questioned if shortening the 390 timeframe puts any undue financial risk on the applicant given their ability to extend the 391 IU, while providing a comfort level for the Commission and residents that there was an 392 end in sight. 393 Member Cunningham stated she found a 12-month timeframe more comfortable; and 394 while appreciating the reduced carbon emissions from doing recycling of materials on site 395