07/11/2007 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

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