Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpm_060503 City of Roseville - Planning Commission Minutes for May 3, 2006Page 1 of 9 C C ITYOUNCIL City of Roseville Planning Commission Meeting Wednesday, May 3, 2006 1.Call to Order Chair Traynor called the May 3, 2006 regular meeting of the City of Roseville Planning Commission to order at 6:30 PM in the Roseville City Hall Council Chambers. 2.Welcome, Roll Call Present: Roe, Bakeman, Doherty, Wozniak, Boerigter, Chair Traynor Absent: White Staff present: Bryan Lloyd, Associate Planner and Thomas Paschke, City Planner 3.Approval of Minutes Motion: Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Doherty, to approve the minutes of March 1, 2006 Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Abstain: 1 Motion carried: 5-0 Motion: Member Doherty moved, seconded by Member Bakeman, to approve the minutes of April 5, 2006 with typographic corrections Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Abstain: 0 Motion carried: 6-0 4.Communications and Recognitions a.From the Public: none b.From the Commission: None 5.Public Hearings http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/council/planning/minutes/2006/pm0503.htm12/13/2006 City of Roseville - Planning Commission Minutes for May 3, 2006Page 2 of 9 Planning File 3717: Roseville Twin Lakes LLC request for an INTERIM USE PERMIT to allow the establishment of a temporary concrete & asphalt recycling operation on the property addressed at 2814 Cleveland Avenue Chair Traynor opened the hearing and requested City Planner Thomas Paschke to provide a verbal summary of the proposal based on the staff report dated May 3, 2006 Mr. Paschke explained that the American Semi (Dorso) parcel is currently underutilized and being used for truck trailer storage (all trailers to be removed by the end of May 2006). The Master Plan for this parcel identifies the future use as office, and the staging plan indicates a 2007/2008 redevelopment time frame. This site is one of the last parcels to be developed under the current Development Team staging plan. The batch and aggregate uses were deleted from the list of permitted industrial uses in 2003 (Section 1007) because the few remaining industrial areas in Roseville are close to office and/or residential areas. General concerns would center on noise and vibrations created by the crushing and hauling operation with frontage along Cleveland Avenue. No residential structures are within 1,100 feet of the proposed crushing operation and, at that distance, noise will be indistinguishable from the background noise emitted by I-35W and other industrial activities. Roseville Twin Lakes LLC (representatives) has provided data that indicates negligible off site vibrations and noise levels under MPCA requirements. No EAW or other environmental document is required for this activity. In review of the proposal, staff has concluded that utilizing an internal road network, as well as County Road C2 and Cleveland Avenue, will create less of an impact and disruption (i.e., vehicle conflicts) to the businesses along County Road C; the paved roads will also reduce dust. The total time and the number of trucks and other equipment necessary to assist in the recycling of site/construction material (concrete and bituminous) would be reduced because of the proximity of the temporary recycling site. This in turn reduces the amount of fuel used and exhaust fumes emitted. Locating the recycling operation on the American Semi (Dorso) parcel is an efficient and effective way to stage the construction of public roads and private parking lots within Twin Lakes Phase I, which can reduce overall construction time. Additionally, the American Semi parcel is the least contaminated (petroleum) of the group of parcels to be redeveloped. It is a logical choice for staging the temporary recycling process because it allows the remediation of the other more intensely contaminated parcels without interruption. Further, the crushing/stockpiling site design will aid in reducing noise from the crushing equipment/operation by creating the by-product stockpiles along the north and east sides of the property, which will act as a noise barrier (see attached plan). The City Planner indicated that staff is recommending approval of the request, subject to 8 conditions listed in the report dated May 3, 2006. Chair Traynor asked the City Planner what the standard was for reviewing Interim Use Permits. The City Planner indicated that there is no stated standard or list of criteria that is used to review Interim Use Permits because they are not required to follow zoning or comp plan requirements. The City Planner added that, in the case of the proposed temporary use, issues related to dust, noise and vibrations would be logical choices of items that require further analysis and consideration of their potential impact on the surrounding community. Chair Traynor asked if the standard for review was tied to general health, safety, and welfare of the area/community (yes). Member Bakeman asked the City Planner to review/describe the difference between the proposed crushing operation and others in the past. The City Planner indicated that Shafer Construction received Council approval (IUP) for a crushing operation on a vacant parcel at Walnut and Terminal Road. The equipment used was larger than what is proposed here; the purpose was to recycle the former County Road C and use it as sub-base. There were no recorded complaints. The other recent crushing operation occurred with the Target redevelopment – this operation did not receive an IUP, was located within 200 feet of multi-family residential, and experienced dust issues. http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/council/planning/minutes/2006/pm0503.htm12/13/2006 City of Roseville - Planning Commission Minutes for May 3, 2006Page 3 of 9 Chair Traynor discussed traffic as presented in report and within the narrative by the applicant. The City planner stated that traffic will mostly be internal, reducing vehicle movements along County Road C and Cleveland Avenue. Chair Traynor asked the City Planner to read the eight conditions of approval. Chair Traynor asked what alternatives exist if the IUP is not supported/approved. The City Planner indicated that the razed buildings would most likely not be recycled, but trucked off site to a construction material landfill, or the demoed material could be trucked to an off-site facility, crushed, and then trucked back--both alternatives add upwards of 13,000 truck movements to City and County Roads. Member Boerigter asked why the difference between the staff report and the applicant’s narrative. The City Planner indicated that staff concluded that crushing hours between 7 am and 8 pm were reasonable and not concerned about those weekday hours and there was no distinct difference-- those in the narrative have been offered by the applicant--should the Commission conclude a change is necessary, they can amend the condition accordingly. The applicant, Theresa Greenfield (Rottlund Homes/David Bernard Builders & Developers), introduced Jim Wutzke, Frattalone Companies (contractor for crushing/recycling operation) and Jason Kunze, Braun Intertec (pre-demo survey and environmental analysis) and provided additional details on the proposed recycling operation. Specifically indicating that recycling is a common practice in construction reuse of existing material and keeping most demo product out of landfills, also further reduces product mining. Greenfield stated that it would take nearly 13,000 vehicles to remove demoed material to another site and to provide the necessary fill. Greenfield explained that the contractor desires to crush/recycle in 1 cycle and that the estimated 60,000 tons of demoed material will take approximately 5 weeks. She also added that the hours of operation are not an issue, except that the contractors prefers a 10 hour day. Would like to keep operation/activity internal and not place trucks on County Road C or Cleveland Avenue. However, some trucks will be required to remove non-useable product. The Dorso site is ideal and preferred because it’s located in the last stage of redevelopment, requires limited environmental clean-up, and is suited well for stockpiling. Greenfield added that there were not many options available within the Phase I area due to either remediation or infrastructure construction (roads & utilities), specifically Twin Lakes Boulevard. She added that crushing/recycling does create dust and noise which they plan to control; Frattalone is permitted by the MPCA for air emissions regarding the type of activity, which is the main reason they were selected. She added she has read through the report and is comfortable with the stated conditions. Chair Traynor wanted to follow-up on traffic--if IUP were not supported what would be the number of trucks per day. Jim Wutzke, Frattalone Companies (contractor) indicates a minimum of 160 trucks. Jim further explained the MPCA regulates dust and they are required to maintain a 1.5% moisture content in the product. The pile is tested after demo material is crushed and Frattalone usually maintains a moisture content of between 6.5% and 7%. The demo pile is watered down prior to crushing; the crushing device also waters the material during crushing; and the recycled-material stockpile is watered as necessary. Wutzke added that when the site is set-up they are required to contact the MPCA. They also complete a perimeter air test to determine the quantity of particulates being produced--if within permitted standard they discontinue testing and implement a visual survey. They also complete a similar type of test for vibrations--typically no noticeable vibration past 150 feet. Member Doherty asked how tall the stockpile would be and Wutzke indicated between 25 and 30 feet in height. Member Roe asked additional questions regarding winter crushing and Wutzke provided answers. http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/council/planning/minutes/2006/pm0503.htm12/13/2006 City of Roseville - Planning Commission Minutes for May 3, 2006Page 4 of 9 Concrete and asphalt crush better in colder temperatures and the moisture in the pile recycled materials creates a frozen shell which also helps to minimize dust. Chair Traynor asked for an explanation on decibel levels. Wutzke responded that the crushed typically emits an 85 to 90 decibel level which requires approved ear protection for workers. At 100 to 150 feet people should be able to carry a conversation. Member Doherty asked whether the MPCA regulated noise. Wutzke responded that they do not. Frattalone, however, utilizes the federal minimum standard. Doherty further asked if the silt fence would reduce noise (no). Doherty asked whether this site would experience dust like in the video. Wutzke indicated the goal is zero visibility emission. Member Wozniak asked about controlling runoff (control on site) given close proximity to adjacent water body. Wutzke indicated that most water used to control dust is absorbed in product--however rains like past few days can create standing water. Silt fencing (double row) usually controls run-off-- has not been an issue in the past. Chair Traynor asked whether lights would be used and how intense. Wutzke stated that they employ spot lights that shine directly on certain aspects of the operation, which may cause a glow similar to auto dealers along west side of 35W but light will not be directed off the site. Traynor asked Jason Kunze, Braun Intertec (environmental consultant) questions related to environmental impact from structure demolition. Kunze stated that no impacts should exist--a pre- demo hazardous survey is required/approved by MPCA, which requires the removal of all hazardous material (like mercury switches & asbestos) to be removed prior to demolition. Member Wozniak added that is he heard the Chair’s question correctly--interested in knowing whether any building material (slab/wall section) can be contaminated. Kunze indicated there is always a potential but identification and abatment is a requirement of the process--if determined it would be hauled off the site prior to demo. Member Doherty asked about asphalt driveways and parking area that are contaminated with gas or oil. Kunze stated that asphalt is petroleum and therefore by nature contaminated. Where spills and certain stains are detected they would analyze and take appropriate action so as not to contaminate the pile. Traynor asked whether there is a secondary check before/during crushing in case something does slip through undetected. Wutzke stated that the crew is trained to spot such items and if identified the process is stopped and a technician is sent out to evaluate and take appropriate action Member Roe asked whether the dust--other than being a nuisance--has additional environmental concerns when leaving the site, getting into the surface waters, on people’s property, or on people. Kunze stated that there would need to be a very high concentration (substantial dust) to be a health risk especially with the site’s open environment. Karen Milton, 2939 Mildred Drive, addressed the Commission with a question regarding the timing of the temporary operation--if the site is to be used until 2008 when would crushing be completed a second time. Theresa Greenfield stated that they hope to complete all crushing this construction season, but if they are unsuccessful in acquiring the Hagan parcel they would come back before Planning Commission seeking an extension. Milton added that based on current language in IUP, the applicant could crush until May 2007. Greenfield stated that their intention is to crush only until the second or third week of February 2007. Milton asked how wildlife would be impacted. Greenfield stated that no detailed analysis had been completed--but noise and vibrations from 35W and industrial activities have not appeared to impact existing wildlife. She added that there will continue to be construction activity (outside of the crushing operation) that will generate noise and vibrations. Tamara McGehee, asked how the item/hearing was noticed. The City Planner indicated that staff used the recent Council supported notification process whereby the longest length of a project site is http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/council/planning/minutes/2006/pm0503.htm12/13/2006 City of Roseville - Planning Commission Minutes for May 3, 2006Page 5 of 9 used as the notification distance/radius. In the case of this request the distance was 1,000 feet. McGehee commented on the aerial photo indicating distance from the crushing site and wondered the distance to Veritas. The report indicated 450 feet to the structure. McGehee indicated she was aware of older concrete that included fly ash, fiberglass, and asbestos and was interested in knowing how the buildings would be tested for such items. Jason Kunze, explained that materials are sampled and analyzed as a component of the structure evaluation. McGehee asked about the permitting process. Jim Wutzke indicated they are regulated by the MPCA and required to provide notice within 48 hours of establishing new site. Each site must comply with a number of regulations. Chair Traynor asked if MPCA conducts random checks (yes). McGehee asked why not monitor/measure dust continually. Wutzke stated the main reason is cost-- if a baseline is established below threshold and measures are employed to control--visual checks usually suffice. Member Roe asked what happens if a problem arises. Wutzek stated the project is shut down until resolved. McGehee asked about adding a condition regarding crushing November to February--Traynor stated it is a condition. McGehee asked why the City provides for a 12 hour operation, which does not appear to be consistent with neighborhood schedules or uses. Chair Traynor explained his view point on the operation: slightly longer hours--shorter crushing timeline. Chair Traynor read into the record a letter pertaining to the proposed recycling operation from “Amy” and an email from Sheila McComb pertaining to cement kiln dust. Tom Varno, 1866 County Road C2, stated he was glad there was an effort to recycle materials, but he’s concerned for the well-being of his family and protection of a peaceful neighborhood. The process will be noisy and dusty. Feels that the noise will be added to that which already exists. Developer watching out for their benefit/self interest--saving the project money and creating a negative impact of surrounding residents. He requested that the site be moved. Karen Milton stated she wanted to go on record opposing the request--indicated the developer would like you to believe that if this site is not approved then all materials will be trucked off and not recycled--not a logical assumption. Milton provided information from Federal Register (2003) which discussed similar operation being located a minimum 1,300 feet from residences. Milton also provided internet information from a person who lived by a crushing operation (since moved) that had issues with dust, noise and smell. Carol Erickson, 2925 Mildred Drive, stated she and Pat Johnson spearheaded the effort to preserve Langton Lake and establish park. Stated she was very surprised that two signs were illegally placed on park property claiming park would change. Ms. Erickson stated that the path and the park will not change if this temporary crushing is approved. Also a resident concerned about the environment and wildlife, but trusts that the City, staff and MPCA will regulate operation. She supports the project. Patricia Johnson Nygard, the second half of the effort to save the lake, spent 34 years to establish park around lake. Supports this application. She is an environmentalist who thinks it’s time to get serious about saving the planet and likes the idea that materials will not be trucked all over Ramsey or Hennepin County and the recycling site layout. The proposed project is an effective and responsible way to handle the demolition. Johnson Nygard added that residents will hear demo and construction activity, and there will be dust. Wildlife was there through the construction of all industrial sites and has lived with the interstate. Wildlife will live through this interim use and construction--the park and area is a good home--the wildlife will adjust/adapt. Developers have proven they are responsible. Gail Pederson stated she does not live in area, but works at Twin Lakes Medical. Supports the recycling efforts of the developer and energy conservation that will occur, and supports the requested site. http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/council/planning/minutes/2006/pm0503.htm12/13/2006 City of Roseville - Planning Commission Minutes for May 3, 2006Page 6 of 9 Tamara McGehee added that perhaps individuals are unaware that the north basin is impaired water under the pollution control regulations as is the middle basin. The south basin is not impaired, but is located adjacent to the proposal and its dust. McGehee stated that this is not a matter of the demo material not being recycled and/or cannot be recycled if this request is not supported. Frattalone has a permanent yard in Little Canada and the material could be taken there. The Commission thanked those who addressed them as well as the detailed information provided by Frattalone Company and Braun Intertec. The Planning Commission voted (6-0) to recommended approval of an INTERIM USE PERMIT for Roseville Twin Lakes LLC allowing a temporary concrete and asphalt operation at 2814 Cleveland Avenue based on the comments of Section 5 of the project report and subject to the following revised conditions: a.Condition “c” to be changed as follows: Water and dust palliatives shall be used to control dust from trucks on unpaved roads and during the crushing/recycling operation and as required by City staff. b.Condition “d” to include the City’s street cleaning policy in Council packet. c.Condition “f” to be removed--determined unnecessary d.Condition “h” changed to February 22, 2007--versus the current date February 22, 2006. e.Adding a new condition requiring the IUP to be consistent with the site plan and letter submitted by Theresa Greenfield on behalf of Twin lakes LLC, dated May 3, 2006. Motion: Member Bakeman moved, second by Member Doherty to recommend approval of INTERIM USE PERMIT for Roseville Twin Lakes LLC to establish a temporary concrete and asphalt recycling operation on the 10-acre parcel as County Road C2 and Cleveland Avenue (southeast corner) for a period of one year, based on the comments of Section 5 and subject to the conditions (as amended) listed in Section 6 of the project report dated March 3, 2006. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Abstain: 0 Motion carried: 6-0 b.Planning File 3728: Jim Alexander, 920 Parker Avenue, request for an INTERIM USE PERMIT to allow the temporary use of recreational vehicle as a living quarters during home reconstruction Chair Traynor opened the hearing and requested City Planner Thomas Paschke to provide a verbal summary of the proposal based on the staff report dated May 3, 2006 The City Planner explained that Mr. Alexander proposes to remove the existing residence and garage from the site and construct a new residence and attached garage. During the period in which there is no inhabitable residence on the property, the applicant seeks permission to live in a camper/travel trailer parked adjacent to a utility pole (supplying electricity and cable TV signal) behind the required 30-foot setback. A temporary storage container would also be on the site during the same time period for the storage of home furnishings. Requests like this are uncommon but no unheard-of. The Code is silent with respect to such interim uses. Mr. Alexander would use a 200- gallon tank beneath the camper to contain sewage until it is pumped out at weekly intervals. Several neighbors have expressed support for the proposed interim use and none has dissented. Environmental assessment of the home prior to removal of the home has begun. Permit has been granted to remove the structures. Mr. Alexander has the survey of the lot including the new home and he has the materials list/blue prints to be reviewed by the Building Official in order to get the http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/council/planning/minutes/2006/pm0503.htm12/13/2006 City of Roseville - Planning Commission Minutes for May 3, 2006Page 7 of 9 building permit. Member Doherty inquired about who will live in the trailer and for how long. Only Mr. and Mrs. Alexander will live in the camper with occasional visits by an adult daughter. Construction of the new home is estimated at 4 months (enclosed in 4 weeks) and Mr. Alexander will do much of the interior work himself. Member Doherty asked about how the structures will be moved when the camper is in place. Mr. Alexander explained that the buildings will be moved via the driveway and the area to the east of the driveway. Member Boerigter asked why the camper isn’t required to be parked on a paved surface during the construction (as it would be normally). The City Planner explained that the nature of an IUP is such that the uses aren’t normally permitted and don’t need to conform to the Code. Any damage caused to the lawn during the interim use would be consistent with that caused in the normal course of construction. Member Boerigter asked about the reason for the location of the camper and whether a permit is needed to connect to electric service. The location is next to a utility pole and meets the 30-foot setback requirement and Mr. Alexander is in the process of obtaining the proper permit. Condition “C” should include an option (at the discretion of the City) to tap into the existing sewer line instead of utilizing the regularly-pumped tank. Member Boerigter inquires into the need for a temporary Certificate of Occupancy prior to moving people or furniture being moved back into the structure. The City Planner is unsure of what official permission is needed. As to the temporary storage unit also proposed on the site, the City Planner explained that such containers are common on construction sites and is therefore reasonable on this site. Member Boerigter asked what happens if winter comes before the construction is finished. The City Planner explained that Mr. Alexander would have to apply for an extension to the IUP. Member Boerigter asked about the size and type of storage container and conditions for its location. The container is a 10x20-foot metal shipping container, and the conditions will be modified to specify that its location will be consistent with the site plan included with the staff report. Member Roe inquired about vehicle parking and foot traffic between driveway and camper. Vehicles will be parked off-street and the logistics of the site prevent orientation of the trailer to put the door closer to the driveway. Member Boerigter asked about the potential for this IUP to set a precedent. The City Planner doesn’t believe that it’s likely to generate more requests like this than would normally arise. Member Doherty asked whether the new structure will be in the location of the existing buildings. The existing foundation will be removed and the new residence will have an attached garage. Community Development staff recommends approval of the request. Motion: Member Bakeman moved (subject to amended condition “C” and an additional condition related to locating the storage container according to the site plan in the staff report), second by Member Roe to recommend approval of, subject to the conditions (as amended) listed in Section 7 of the project report dated May 3, 2006. Member Wozniak recommended ending the sentence in condition “D” after “… December 31st. and inserting a subsequent sentence explaining that an extension to the IUP must be applied for 3- months prior to the IUP expiration date. Ayes: 6 http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/council/planning/minutes/2006/pm0503.htm12/13/2006 City of Roseville - Planning Commission Minutes for May 3, 2006Page 8 of 9 Nays: 0 Abstain: 0 Motion carried: 6-0 c.Planning File 3628: Continuation -- Request by the City of Roseville to consider amendments to Section 1009 Sign Regulations, of the Roseville City Code Chair Traynor opened the continued hearing and asked the City Planner how he would like the discussion/consideration to proceed. City Planner Paschke indicated it would be best to start at the beginning of the Code – definitions section and to proceed through those areas where the Commission previously had made remarks and/or had concerns. The City Planner and Commission discussed at length how electronic and/or flashing signs should be identified and defined, and it was determined that the issue needs further thought outside of the Planning Commission hearing. Chair Traynor will make an initial attempt at formulating a definition based on the Commission’s discussion. Chair Traynor and Member Bakeman have assorted, general modifications that were briefly discussed, but the bulk of the consideration and changes will occur between the City Planner, Commission Members and the City Attorney outside of the Planning Commission Meeting. The Master Sign Plan is a new part of the Code that addresses comprehensive signage for assorted uses, like PUDs. Chair Traynor is concerned about specifying churches and places of worship. Member Bakeman recommended addressing requirements for churches and other similar types of uses using a phrase like “institutional uses”. The period for appealing a decision related to a Master Sign Plan should be changed from 30 days to 45 days. Next steps can involve approving the sign code with the modifications discussed by the Commission and subject to review by the City Attorney and approval by the City Council. Motion: Member Roe moved, second by Member Bakeman to approve the sign code with the modifications discussed. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Abstain: 0 Motion carried: 6-0 d.Planning File 3692: Continuation -- Introduction to Roseville Comprehensive Plan Update Process It was immediately agreed that the hour was too late to begin detailed discussion of the goals and policies of the Plan and the Metropolitan Council System Statements, but general discussion took place regarding the overall process and how to approach the various facets of the visioning process. Member Doherty raised the issue of Commission Members volunteering to participate in the visioning topics that interest them. Member Roe provided introduction to the memos and matrices he developed for reviewing the current goals and policies. General discussion ensued that reached tentative agreement that the next steps involve reorganization of the existing document without changing its content – content information will come out of the visioning process. Members Roe and Doherty, along with Chair Traynor will work over the next month on restructuring the environmental section as a pilot project to determine the feasibility of reworking the rest of the document. http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/council/planning/minutes/2006/pm0503.htm12/13/2006 City of Roseville - Planning Commission Minutes for May 3, 2006Page 9 of 9 6.Information and Reports Mr. Paschke brought up a housing bus tour that the Commissioners might like to participate in. Time and date of the tour are yet to be determined. 7.Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 PM Return to Planning Commission http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/council/planning/minutes/2006/pm0503.htm12/13/2006