08-18-98 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Thomas questioned the documentation the City of Minneapolis has provided. On the front of the document it says there will be 4,000 trucks going there and 4,120 loads. The numbers on the back page do not add up to that. Thomas said it was not a question of whether or not the City of Minneapolis should be granted their request. The City of Minneapolis has been such a rotten neighbor that it should not be allowed to do anything. There is no reason for storing the fill on the site. The soil would have to be handled twice. The truck traffic may or may not be an issue. The truck traffic would remain the same. The only reason the City of Minneapolis wants to store the soil there is because the soil is available now. Craig Phair, 400 Wyndham Circle West, asked if there was any attempt to control dust during the first phase. If so, it was unsuccessful. Baker asked Kramer what attempts were made to control dust in the first phase. Kramer responded there was watering and, when the complaints came in, the watering was increased. Kramer said the City of Minneapolis could look at using calcium chloride in addition to the water. Hartman said the 8-inch pipe to which Thomas referred was put there at the request of the City of New Brighton because when Minneapolis did its grading for the barrow pit a pond was inadvertently created. New Brighton staff had them install this drainage pipe temporarily so the water would not come so close to our homes. The retaining wall on Stinson Boulevard was on the landscape plan, but there was supposed to be room to plant boulevard trees to offset the view of the wall. There were 100 year old oaks there. When the neighbors complained, the City of Minneapolis installed the retaining wall on the Columbia Heights side. It does not make sense that the City of Minneapolis would have done that later because they built the supporting wall of earth. Why would the supporting wall be built of earth and the security fence be in place if they intended to take the fence down, excavate some soil, and put in a retaining wall? It seems Minneapolis said it would be done, but then it decided to go ahead and not do it. Hartman said he agreed with Thomas that Minneapolis definitely violated the 45-foot rule, outlined in the conditions. The idea of bringing soils to suit the schedule of the City of Minneapolis is clearly a cost-saving measure, and is not in the best interest of the neighbors. Barbara Goulet, 2768 Stinson in Columbia Heights, stated she could not believe Ms. Israelev’s statement that there has been no problems. Ms. Israelev had a meeting with our neighbors and everyone talked about the poor dust control. Goulet said the residents could not have their windows open all summer. Goulet said her house vibrated beginning at 7:30 a.m. Goulet said she could stand by her basement wall and see sunlight. Goulet said she did not know if her home could take sixty-one trucks per day for sixty-seven days. Kevin Hansen, Director of Public Works for the City of Columbia Heights, stated that from the perspective of impact of truck traffic, Columbia Heights would support the current request in terms of spreading the load and the traffic over a longer period. Schiferl stated he would like to see these issues addressed by the New Brighton Staff and the City of Minneapolis. Teague said, in hindsight, Staff should probably have had Minneapolis come back and do an amendment for their Special Use Permit for the barrow pit. Truck traffic was the focus of the review when the original permit was granted. Staff saw the barrow pit as a way to reduce truck traffic. Teague said that he was not at the City of New Brighton then, but felt this was the basis of the administrative approval. Kramer said he concurred with Teague. Kramer stated Minneapolis met with New Brighton Staff, the Council, and the School Board, and with the Columbia Heights City Council on truck traffic. Truck traffic was the major issue. Kramer said when Minneapolis presented the option of the barrow pit it may be an answer to reducing truck traffic. Schiferl asked about the vibration issue. Schiferl said he did not recall the vibration issue being anticipated during the approval process. Schiferl asked how the City of Minneapolis was dealing with the vibration issue. Kramer said that, during other construction projects, Minneapolis installed sensors in houses and proved there I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1998\08-18-98.WPD 7