100222_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment E 5� Additional discussion included any impacts, perceived as minimal by the applicant, to the pond on the east side of 5F Dale Street, with the reservoir being currently empty and no discharge planned prior to demolition, with only the 5E SPRWS draining the tank down periodically for normal maintenance; and the new tank having less impact on the 5; pond than the current tank based on its smaller capacity. 5i Public Comment 59 Mr. Lloyd advised that, following public notice, staff had received one e-mail from a neighbor seeking additional 60 information related to noise, traffic, and water in the reservoir, similar to those already addressed this evening, 6� and that staff had responded to the individual. 6: Kathleen Winters, 676 Pineview Court 6: Ms. Winters expressed appreciation for the additional details available at tonight's meeting, than at the public 64 meeting held in November of 2009; and sought assurances that asbestos and mercury switches had been 6� addressed. Ms. Winters respectfully requested that staff ensure that the environmental survey was 6E, comprehensive enough to cover all materials not allowed to be in structures when demolished, including the 67 reservoir and any additional service buildings. Ms. Winters advised that area residents, including her, were 68 interested if other areas of the park or trails from the main gate would be utilized by contractors for access to the 69 construction site. 7c Mr. Lloyd advised that the majority of the truck traffic was expected to occur before or during demolition and 7�. construction, but not during the crushing operation itself. Mr. Lloyd advised that the City's Parks Department was 72 working with the applicant to close off the work site while allowing access to the remainder of the park through 7^ use of fences and signage. 7� Bob Guthrie, 1610 Alameda Street 7� Mr. Guthrie opined that a number of people in the neighborhood had not been aware of this meeting, including a 76 number of residents utilizing the park on the north and south side. Mr. Guthrie further opined that, while water 7? pressure was not an issue, the lasting visual impact was a concern, specifically taking the footprint as displayed, 7�, using the crushed concrete as a base, and extending vertically another 15'. Mr. Guthrie referenced City Code, 79 Chapter 1011.08 related to design standards; zoning of the area for Parks and Open Space; and whether the 80 structure had to be screened; or if a cross-section view was available to allow residents to determine future 8' aesthetics. 8: Mr. Paschke clarified that the only item before the Planning Commission is the crushing of the existing structure 8: and utilizing that for base materials. Mr. Paschke advised that water towers and how the City regulates them are 84 exempt from code; and that both the City and SPRWS are aware of the height of the new tower and are working 85 cooperatively to minimize the visual impact. Mr. Paschke advised that the new tower would be required, based on 8� other City Code regulations, to meet exterior finish restrictions; however, with no final plans submitted to-date, 8; staff was unable to address those issues until receipt of those plans, which would be handled administratively. Mr. 8� Paschke noted, however, that water towers are exempt from screening and height requirements. 8� Mr. Klebeck advised that the height of the new tower was still being worked out, with cost considerations a part of 9c that equation based on the type of construction materials used. Mr. Klebeck anticipated that the final overall 9� height would be thirty feet (30'). Mr. Klebeck advised that the height considerations were further based on service 9: to the City in maintaining pumping pressure and high-service pumps with limited operations during peak energy 9� times. 94 Mr. Klebeck assured the Commissioners and public that the final height consideration, while still under discussion, 9� and impacts to the neighborhood aesthetically for surrounding streets, park land, homes, and the entire 9E neighborhood was a prime concern in their attempts to minimize that impact. 97 Mr. Paschke committed to having finalized designs, once submitted, available on the City's website for public 98 dissemination, with boards displayed at City Hall as well. 99 Commissioner Wozniak suggested that the applicant consider having information displayed at the park for public 100 information as well. 101 Mr. Lloyd noted that the Community Development Department web page was consistently updated with more 10: significant developments occurring in the community and would be the place to find information about the 10:� reservoir project as it became available. 104 Carole Rust, 1826 Alameda Street Ms. Rust questioned impacts to the surrounding old-growth forest during construction, noting that the Page 2 of 3