09-17-96 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of construction on Silver Lake Road and he is tired of construction noise. Seward asked if anyone has done an environmental impact study on the noise. Kramer answered the City of Minneapolis Water Works is trying to come up with the least disruptive plan possible. Seward said the area was totally residential. Kramer said construction would occur during normal business hours, six days per week. Livingston asked if there were more comments from the audience. There was no response. Motion by Knuth, . seconded by O’Brien to 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Knuth stated she sympathized and understands the concerns of area residents. Those of us who live farther away may not be able fully to appreciate those concerns. Having lived next to construction sites herself, Knuth said she had to look at a larger picture than the inconvenience to her family. The Minneapolis Water Works has convincingly outlined the need for a reservoir in New Brighton. No one can be so parochial to only consider New Brighton’s needs. There is a larger picture that must be considered. Knuth said she was grateful to the Minneapolis Water Works for considering the larger picture in terms of emergency planning. Knuth said she was sorry the construction would inconvenience some New Brighton residents, but was certain the Water Works would be as sensitive as possible to their concerns. Zisla asked how specific the landscape plan is for the west boulevard. Mattila said the City Forester recommended that a formal landscape plan be submitted showing the Caragana and Amur Maple shrubs on the banks of the reservoir and American Linden, Oak, or Norway Maple trees at 15 foot intervals outside the fence. The City of Minneapolis has agreed to put this plan together. Zisla asked if the plan would be ready for the City Council approval at its next meeting. Mattila responded that is the hope. Blomquist stated we have raised three primary issues tonight. First, Blomquist said, Minneapolis should develop a better, more specific plan than the one presented tonight. The length of construction and the traffic generaedt were issues that need to be more clearly defined. Blomquist said he agreed for the need for the project, but felt Minneapolis must address these issues. Motion by Blomquist, seconded by O’Brien, to CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE APPLICANT . SUBMITS MORE SPECIFIC PLANS Zisla asked how this motion would impact the construction schedule. What would be the mechanism for reviewing the construction traffic? The traffic issue came up when the City of Minneapolis cleared soil from the site. Minneapolis was concerned when New Brighton suggested they cover their trucks to contain the dirt. They should deal those issues in a formal rather than a causal manner. Mattila stated the issues outlined by Blomquist are issues that we should address. The motion could be rephrased to direct Staff to work with the applicant to address those issues before next Tuesday’s City Council meeting so we can bring the proposal to the City Council as soon as possible. Blomquist answered he felt they should bring back the proposal to the Planning Commission so the Commission can address it in a public hearing. Zisla asked about the project cost. Izraelev responded $15 million would be the cost. Zisla asked about the date Staff received the application. Mattila responded August 30. Livingston asked if a continuation would hamper the Minneapolis Water Works construction schedule. Whitaker responded they would do whatever New Brighton requires, but it would set the schedule back. A month delay may be okay, but longer would be very difficult. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1996\09-17-96.WPD 6