My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2010-02-03_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2010
>
2010-02-03_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/18/2011 1:38:57 PM
Creation date
2/18/2011 1:38:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
2/3/2010
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, February 03, 2010 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br />Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed staff’s analysis of the request by St. <br />44 <br />Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) to reuse the concrete from the <br />45 <br />demolition of the existing reservoir in the construction of the new reservoir, rather <br />46 <br />than trucking out the concrete rubble, at the Dale Street Reservoir at 1901 Alta <br />47 <br />Vista Drive. The request seeks approval of a temporary concrete <br />48 <br />crushing/recycling operation as an INTERIM USE, pursuant to City Code, <br />49 <br />Section 1013.09. <br />50 <br />Mr. Lloyd noted that the most significant issues would be noise and vibrations <br />51 <br />during the crushing operations; however, he noted that there were no residents <br />52 <br />within 150’ of the proposed crushing site, with the closest residence being <br />53 <br />approximately 500’ from the location, so impact in the neighborhood should be <br />54 <br />minimal. Mr. Lloyd advised that, to mitigate any potential noise concerns, City <br />55 <br />Code stipulated hours of operation on weekdays from 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m., <br />56 <br />and 9:00 a.m. – 9:00 p.m. on weekends; and staff was recommending an <br />57 <br />additional condition further reducing those times of operation to 8:00 a.m. – 8:00 <br />58 <br />p.m. on weekdays; and 9:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m. on weekends for even less <br />59 <br />interruption of residents’ mornings and evenings. <br />60 <br />Mr. Lloyd noted that any potential runoff and dust were regulated by City Code, <br />61 <br />through watering down of the piles as part of the process; and further monitored <br />62 <br />by state level agencies. <br />63 <br />Staff recommended approval of the requested INTERIM USE, based on the <br />64 <br />comments and findings of Sections 4 – 6, and subject to conditions as detailed in <br />65 <br />Section 7 of the staff report dated February 03, 2010. Mr. Lloyd advised that the <br />66 <br />only condition still pending agreement between staff and the applicant was the <br />67 <br />ending date suggested for April 30, 2010; with the applicant seeking an additional <br />68 <br />two (2) weeks, until May 15, 2010, to facilitate any potential delays. Mr. Lloyd <br />69 <br />further advised that staff had determined that this extension should cause no <br />70 <br />major impacts to the process. <br />71 <br />Discussion included the number of anticipated days required for the crushing <br />72 <br />operations; completion of demolition with materials stockpiled, then crushed <br />73 <br />within a contracted period of time, prior to construction of the new facility; and <br />74 <br />plans of the applicant for dust mitigation. <br />75 <br />Applicant Representative, John Klebeck, Short Elliott Hendrickson <br />76 <br />Mr. Klebeck advised that the start date of the demolition portion of the project is <br />77 <br />projected to be approximately March 1, 2010, with a bid opening scheduled for <br />78 <br />February 24, and pending contract processing. Mr. Klebeck advised that there <br />79 <br />was no date scheduled yet for the crushing, and would be up to the contractor, <br />80 <br />but that it was anticipated to begin as early as possible, with the projected Mary <br />81 <br />15, 2010 deadline for completion of that portion of the operation. <br />82 <br />Discussion among Commissioners, staff and the applicant included the process <br />83 <br />for demolition, crushing and use of the crushed materials for the foundation base <br />84 <br />of the new reservoir; footprint of the new reservoir the same as the original; <br />85 <br />height of the new reservoir, with final design still pending, but anticipated to be a <br />86 <br />concrete tank with a domed top and somewhat taller than the original, with <br />87 <br />bermed materials stockpiled and reused during the re-grading of area around the <br />88 <br />new tank, which will project further from the ground than the original, even <br />89 <br />though it capacity will be less than the original tank. <br />90 <br />Mr. Klebeck advised that the original tank was constructed in 1918, stipulated <br />91 <br />where the actual crushing operations would occur on site; changes to the <br />92 <br />topography of the site the new construction based on gravity flow; composition of <br />93 <br />materials to be crushed according to MPCA guidelines; identification of project <br />94 <br />manager Steve Campbell from S.E.H. Engineering for identification of the project <br />95 <br />scope; and attempts to keep the crushing operation to as limited a time as <br />96 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.