Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />May 9, 2007 <br />Page 10 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />about drinking water, heavy loaders possibly degrading Pheasant Run, vibration, and if <br />there are contingency plans for operating damages. <br /> <br />Mr. Studenski stated that a ny activity adversely affecting neighbors is the responsibility <br />of the applicant. He added that the city will monitor truck traffic, a nd if issues occur they <br />will be addressed. <br /> <br />Mr. Hyden reiterated that the RCWD is i nvolved in monitoring this project. <br /> <br />Mr. Parker addressed hydrology questions. He explained that the DNR is the authority <br />and they will work closely with them. He said that runoff will go through other wetlands <br />before reaching the ditch. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden made a MOTION to close the P ublic Hearing at 9:38 p.m. Motion was <br />supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 6 – 0. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden said he was concerned about the truc k traffic being allowed next to a city park <br />during hours when activities ar e occurring with children and on-street parking. That’s <br />where he sees greatest danger. He proposed limiting or eliminating truck traffic during <br />evening hours. <br /> <br />Board Members agreed to amend Condition No. 12 to read Monday – Friday 7 a.m. to 5 <br />p.m. <br /> <br />Mr. Rafferty said he is concerned about city streets but is not su re they can contain <br />people from development that is already a pproved. Mr. Rafferty suggested adding a <br />condition to reduce the speed of trucks to 20 mph. <br /> <br />Board Members agreed to add Condition No. 18 to say that trucks will be limited to a <br />maximum speed of 20 mph. <br /> <br />Board Members agreed to add Condition No. 19 to say that the city will monitor traffic <br />and define traffic signage to include the nece ssary use of flagmen and hauling signage at <br />the contractor’s expense. <br /> <br />Mr. Studenski confirmed that neighbors would be notified of work to be done and that a <br />neighborhood meeting would be held. <br /> <br />After discussion about the sil t/snow fencing, Mr. Bourassa agreed to use snow fence <br />instead of silt fence, and to continue the fence southward until it r eaches the wooded area. <br /> <br />Mr. Pogalz specified that the board is c onsidering a CUP for excavation, storage and <br />transporting of material and asked if anyone could explain the difference between this <br />application and the Royal Oaks Realty appl ication that was previously denied. Mr. <br />Studenski stated that both applications consist of on-site mate rial being taken off site, and <br />the differences include the site of destination, what is to be removed, the time frame and <br />the restoration plan. Staff reminded the board that with this applic ation, the use will not <br />continue on indefinitely, they know that this will be a concen trated effort once activity is