2010-02-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 03, 2010 Page 3 possible during the spring before windows/doors are opened to keep impacts 97 minimal for the benefit of the neighbors. 98 Further discussion included materials and/or chemicals that may be or may have 99 been stored in the gatehouses, also scheduled for demolition, with roofing and 100 brick materials proposed to be trucked off-site and not reused; electrical service 101 nodes and alarms as part of the SCADA system for the City of Roseville and St. 102 Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS); and recommendation of Commissioner 103 Wozniak to contact Ramsey County Environmental Health prior to demolition of 104 the gatehouses to facilitate disposal of fluorescent lighting and other hazardous 105 wastes in the gatehouses. 106 Mr. Paschke advised that, as standard practice, Ramsey County was notified by 107 staff during the permitting process. 108 Additional discussion included any impacts, perceived as minimal by the 109 applicant, to the pond on the east side of Dale Street, with the reservoir being 110 currently empty and no discharge planned prior to demolition, with only the 111 SPRWS draining the tank down periodically for normal maintenance; and the 112 new tank having less impact on the pond than the current tank based on its 113 smaller capacity. 114 Public Comment 115 Mr. Lloyd advised that, following public notice, staff had received one e-mail from 116 a neighbor seeking additional information related to noise, traffic, and water in 117 the reservoir, similar to those already addressed this evening, and that staff had 118 responded to the individual. 119 Kathleen Winters, 676 Pineview Court 120 Ms. Winters expressed appreciation for the additional details available at 121 tonight’s meeting, than at the public meeting held in November of 2009; and 122 sought assurances that asbestos and mercury switches had been addressed. 123 Ms. Winters respectfully requested that staff ensure that the environmental 124 survey was comprehensive enough to cover all materials not allowed to be in 125 structures when demolished, including the reservoir and any additional service 126 buildings. Ms. Winters advised that area residents, including her, were interested 127 if other areas of the park or trails from the main gate would be utilized by 128 contractors for access to the construction site. 129 Mr. Lloyd advised that the majority of the truck traffic was expected to occur 130 before or during demolition and construction, but not during the crushing 131 operation itself. Mr. Lloyd advised that the City’s Parks Department was working 132 with the applicant to close off the work site while allowing access to the 133 remainder of the park through use of fences and signage. 134 Bob Guthrie, 1610 Alameda Street 135 Mr. Guthrie opined that a number of people in the neighborhood had not been 136 aware of this meeting, including a number of residents utilizing the park on the 137 north and south side. Mr. Guthrie further opined that, while water pressure was 138 not an issue, the lasting visual impact was a concern, specifically taking the 139 footprint as displayed, using the crushed concrete as a base, and extending 140 vertically another 15’. Mr. Guthrie referenced City Code, Chapter 1011.08 related 141 to design standards; zoning of the area for Parks and Open Space; and whether 142 the structure had to be screened; or if a cross-section view was available to allow 143 residents to determine future aesthetics. 144 Mr. Paschke clarified that the only item before the Planning Commission is the 145 crushing of the existing structure and utilizing that for base materials. Mr. 146 Paschke advised that water towers and how the City regulates them are exempt 147 from code; and that both the City and SPRWS are aware of the height of the new 148