View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
November 29, 2010
1. Roll Call
Mayor Klausing called to order a Special Meeting of the
Roseville City Council at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed everyone. Mayor
Klausing noted that the Special Meeting was for the specific purpose to
consider a Request by Bituminous Roadways for Conditional Use Approval to Allow
the Outdoor Storage of Aggregate Materials at 2280 Walnut Street. (Voting and
Seating Order for November: Pust; Johnson; Roe; Ihlan; and Klausing). City
Attorney Charles Bartholdi was also present.
Mayor Klausing announced that Councilmember Pust had
previously advised that she would be unable to attend tonight’s special meeting
due to a prior conflict.
On an unrelated note, Mayor Klausing asked Councilmembers of
their availability on December 6, 2010 at 5:00 pm for a Closed Executive
Session to complete the annual review of City Manager Malinen; noting that the
Truth in Taxation public hearing was scheduled for 6:00 pm. By consensus,
those members present concurred with a 5:00 pm start time for a Closed Executive
Session on Monday, December 6, 2010. Staff was directed to provide due notice
of this meeting.
(See Item 14 on page 13: Council changed the time of this
Executive Session to 5:30 p.m.)
2. Approve Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Klausing called for public
comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one appeared to
speak at this time.
12. Business Items (Action Items)
Consider Request by Bituminous Roadways for Conditional use
Approval to Allow the Outdoor Storage of Aggregate Materials at 2280 Walnut
Mayor Klausing reviewed the
procedure for the City Council’s consideration for this land use application;
noting that the City Council would hear a summation and recommendation by City
staff; followed by any questions of Councilmembers to staff; and comments of
the applicant at their discretion. Mayor Klausing advised that the City
Council would then hear public comment, asking that questions be addressed to
him as the Chair of the meeting; with questions and comments then receiving response
from staff, the applicant, or the Chair following public comment, and as applicable
and appropriate. At that point, Mayor Klausing advised that the City Council
would take the matter under advisement, with that discussion limited to Councilmembers
with no further applicant or public comment received.
Community Development Director
Patrick Trudgeon provided a brief overview and timeline of the request of
Bituminous Roadways for outdoor storage of aggregate materials as a CONDITIONAL
USE in support of the operation of an asphalt plant at 2280 Walnut Street; and
provided a background of the request to-date, as detailed in the Request for
Council Action (RCA) dated November 29, 2010. Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the
land use action before the City Council tonight was to review the original Conditional
Use application by the applicant for outdoor storage of aggregate materials
related to, but not specific to use as an asphalt plant; however, he noted that
the proposed use of the site for an asphalt plant would be addressed by staff
as part of the Conditional Use request. Mr. Trudgeon advised that portions of
the asphalt plant, including any subordinate use for outdoor aggregate and fuel
storage, were prohibited.
A copy of Roseville City Code, Chapter
1007 Industrial Districts, Section 1007.01 General Requirements, a part of
Ordinance 1303, dated February 9, 2004, was provided as a bench handout,
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that, in
conjunction with the City Attorney, and following their extensive review of the
public record related to this application, staff was recommending that the
CONDITIONAL USE be denied, based on the facts and findings detailed in the RCA,
and attachments to the report made part of the record.
Related to the amendment to City
Ordinance, Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the information available to staff and staff’s
original review of that information when the application was first received in
March of 2009 for the manufacturing use as initially proposed; the ordinance
amendment enacted in October of 2010; reasoning that rock crushing was not a
manufacturing use; the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) process and subsequent
public comment. Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was staff’s determination to recommend
that the City Council deny the CONDITIONAL USE application for outdoor storage
of material piles, based on the related asphalt plant not being a permitted use
in a General Industrial District, and on the findings contained in Section 5 of
the RCA dated November 29, 2010.
Councilmember Ihlan questioned
whether the EAW was mandatory or voluntary.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that the mandatory portion of the EAW was related to fuel
tanks proposed for the site, which use went beyond voluntary, but had not been
part of the original request. Mr. Trudgeon advised that when the EAW process
was initiated by a petition of concerned citizens, and voluntarily agreed to by
the applicant Bituminous Roadways, noting that their future development of the
site would include fuel storage tanks, the applicant decided to include the
fuel tanks in the EAW process.
Mr. Trudgeon noted one staff
correction to the draft Resolution (Attachment M) included in the RCA packet
dated November 29, 2010 (Attachment M), on page3 and 4, lines 171 – 173, the
referenced source for findings listed under “Item G” should be page 8 of a letter
dated September 10, 2010, rather than August 11, 2010; and authored by Joseph
G. Maternowski of Moss & Barnett on behalf of UC06 Roseville MN LLC.
Greg Korstad, Attorney with Larkin
Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd., for the applicant, Bituminous Roadways.
Mr. Korstad noted that the President of Bituminous Roadways, Kent Peterson, was
also present at tonight’s meeting.
Mr. Korstad referenced written
correspondence on record for the applicant and his client, Bituminous Roadways,
seeking continuation of their original request for a Conditional Use in the
City’s General Industrial zone for the purpose of construction of an asphalt
plant. Mr. Korstad opined that the company felt their operation fit well in
that zone; and noted their only concern was that a point had been arrived at in
the process without completion of the environmental review and fully answering
all the questions and concerns raised by the City and public. Mr. Korstad
requested that if that environmental review process were allowed to continue,
it would address those public and community concerns, and that his client’s
proposal could be evaluated on its merits.
A copy of the Larkin Hoffman letter
dated October 21, 2010 to the City Council providing supplemental technical
data related to the Bituminous Roadways Asphalt Plant was provided by staff as
a bench handout, and as a supplemental to Attachment F in the staff report, attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
Mr. Korstad asked that the City
Council determine not to review the project under its new ordinance, opining
that this was changing the rules and unfairly applying that new set of rules to
the Conditional Use request already in process; asked that the City Council,
based on that review of the project under original regulatory framework, advise
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) that their review process of the
project should continue allowing the public information process and response to
continue; and asked that the City Council recognize the additional studies
provided by his client related to evaluation of traffic, noise and odor
Mr. Korstad reviewed the process
and considerable time and monetary resources provided by his client to-date to
respond to public and City concerns; and asked that the City Council ensure
that their performance standards for this general industrial area were applied
to everyone in that area, expressing his hope that this wasn’t serving as a
test case of the City’s air quality standards.
Mayor Klausing addressed case law
referenced by Mr. Korstad (Interstate) and presumptions by the applicant’s
legal counsel and opposing views from Mayor Klausing’s perspective as an
attorney, as well as that of the City’s legal counsel; and specific procedures
outlined in that case related to legislative versus adjudicatory functions of
the City Council, and the City Council’s consideration of this Conditional Use
Councilmember Ihlan clarified her
understanding of Mr. Korstad’s November 10, 2010 letter and request for the City
Council to take up the Conditional Use application on its merits versus
continuing the EAW review by the MPCA. Councilmember Ihlan questioned Mr.
Korstad on what evidence and arguments had been submitted to the City Council
to show the proposed project met Conditional Use standards and Industrial Zoning
District performance standards in the Roseville City Code. Councilmember Ihlan
further clarified that based on the materials in the record and included in
tonight’s packet, the Conditional Use request for outdoor storage of materials
was integrally related to and part of a proposed asphalt plant.
Mr. Korstad advised that the
supporting documentation had been submitted to the City Council in his October
11, 2010 letter. Mr. Korstad advised that his client had asked the City
Council to grant approval for an asphalt plant in March, and had been directed
by staff to proceed with a Conditional use application process for the related
outdoor storage; followed by the environmental review of the project conducted
at the request of a number of citizens, as well as the City; with the
application connecting those two components.
Written Comment provided as bench
handouts, attached hereto and made a part hereof:
November 24, 2010 letter from Don
Siggelkow, Assistant Superintendent, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board,
in opposition; and a letter dated November 28, 2010 from Liz Wielinski,
Commissioner, District 1 (Eastside), Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, also
Francis “Frank” Rondoni,
Attorney with Chestnut and Cambrone, representing Old Dutch Foods, 2375
Terminal Road, Roseville
On behalf of his client, Mr.
Rondoni advised that written comment had been submitted and included in packet
materials for the record, and in an effort to respect the City Council’s time.
Mr. Rondoni provided a brief background of Old Dutch’s 42-year history in
Roseville, with 300 plus employees, and its location across Terminal Road from
the proposed asphalt plant. Mr. Rondoni noted the concerns, as addressed in
writing and reviewed by experts in the field, on the potential absorption of
odors during potato manufacturing as well through packaging during transit from
their manufacturing facility if the plant was located adjacent to their
property. Mr. Rondoni questioned the MPCA’s specific consideration of food
manufacturing and potential negative and significant impacts on the Old Dutch
product, based on industry studies and food processing being susceptible to
chemicals and odors during the manufacturing process. Mr. Rondoni referenced a
blind study commissioned at his client’s expense at Kansas State University to
test the absorption of one of the many chemicals to be emitted in the air by
the proposed asphalt plant, hydrogen sulfide, and the findings of that study in
the chemical being absorbed even through the product packaging. Mr. Rodoni
also referenced a report from a medical expert on food absorption, and his
findings, based on the EAW and Kansas State report, that it was virtually
certain that absorption of chemical odors would occur in their product if the
asphalt plant was built. Mr. Rondoni respectfully requested that the City
Council consider the devastating health and safety issues that would impact his
client and impair their business, their product, and their brand; and asked
that they reject this proposed use in a legally-appropriate manner, opining
that there was a better use for this property
Councilmember Ihlan clarified that,
while the studies referenced by Mr. Rondoni were not part of tonight’s meeting
materials, they had been previously submitted and were part of the record by
Five Designated Speakers
Neighbors Against the Asphalt
Dick Klick, 2999 Fairways Lane,
Mr. Klick introduced himself as co-chair
of NAAP and on behalf of the group, asked that the City Council reject the
Conditional Use application. Mr. Klick advised that as a group, they had
reviewed local and other metropolitan asphalt plants since they’d become aware
of the original application of Bituminous Roadways, and their submittal of
formal comments and a contested case hearing petition to the MPCA; with those
issues remaining unanswered by the MPCA or any other regulatory body. Mr. Klick
questioned the actual proposed operation moving forward, as it continued to
evolve. Mr. Klick referenced written comment provided in the packet by Ms.
Megan Dushin, Mr. Greg Nelson, and Mr. Gary Grefenberg, as well as two (2)
letters from representatives of the Minneapolis Park Board, adjacent to the
proposed plant; and other materials. Mr. Klick asked that the City make an effort
to develop the property so that all of Roseville could be proud.
Randy Neprash, 1276 Eldridge
Mr. Neprash provided written
comments in opposition by Neighbors Against the Asphalt Plant (NAAP) to the
Roseville City Council dated November 29, 2010, as a bench handout, attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
Mr. Neprash reviewed responses
included in the written response addressing NAAP’s perceived
mischaracterization of the status of the EAW; their opinion that the proposed
resolution denying the Conditional Use application provided sufficient findings
to support the City Council’s denial; and their request to add one (1)
additional finding to the list provided in the draft resolution, specifically
addressing explosives, and provided proposed language for the finding, as well
as a list of explosions and/or fires at asphalt plants in the United States and
Canada between 1997 and 2010. Mr. Neprash opined that NAPP was amenable that
denial of the Conditional Use application would not finalize addressing and
responding to public comments and concerns already raised; and expressed the
group’s willingness to accept that result. Mr. Neprash noted that the
supplemental information provided by the applicant in their October 21, 2010
letter was submitted after deadline, and not formally part of the MPCA’s formal
review process and protocols that had already received very high scrutiny
state-wide; and asked that the City Council discount that material appropriately.
Mr. Neprash expressed the favorable impression with the administrative record
researched and/or compiled by staff related to this issue.
Nancy Nelson, County Road B at
Ms. Nelson read her comments in
opposition, based on negative financial impacts to market values of residences
and businesses adjacent to the site; and referenced negative impacts from a
North Carolina asphalt plant, as well as Ms. Dushin’s research regarding the
Bituminous Roadways – Minneapolis – plant and experience of adjacent neighbors
related to their experience with odors from that plant.
Gretchen Ternes, 2328 Terminal
Road, Owner of Building and Occupant of Suite B
As a business owner, Ms. Ternes
spoke on behalf of the numerous business owners in the area adjacent to the
proposed asphalt plant and their negative experiences with past concrete
crushing operations in that same vicinity. Ms. Terns noted that, while that
was an Interim Use, this use was proposed as a permanent use and opined that
the negative ramifications would be significant. Ms. Ternes noted that, as an
existing taxpayer having owned the building for over twenty-six (26) years, she
should be respected. Ms. Ternes advised that no business owners that she had
spoken to had been supportive of the proposed plant; and that they were all concerned
with the potential diminishing property values; loss of existing tenants; and
concerns with renegotiating leases with the current soft economy, as well as in
the future with the negative impacts of the proposed asphalt plant on those
lease renewals with multiple tenants.
Susan Buckner, 2190 Midland View
Ms. Buckner offered her gratitude
to each individual Councilmember for their difficult decision-making on this
issue; and expressed her gratitude as well to the Roseville City staff for
their professional review and analysis of the application; and their willingness
to community with their neighborhood group and the public in general. Ms.
Buckner also thanked residents for their thoughtful attention to and investment
in time and research, as well as attending meetings throughout this lengthy
process. Ms. Buckner encouraged the City Council, as the elected
representatives of Roseville citizens, to deny this request and come to the
right conclusion for all Roseville residents and businesses in order to preserve
the community’s quality of life.
Additional Public Comment
John Bachhuber, 2223 Marion Road
Mr. Bachhuber opined that, as the
process progressed, it became clear that the Conditional Use application
contained multiple errors and omissions; that the “warm mix” was not the
primary use; and assertions regarding peak traffic, property values, odors
and/or particulate matters were not accurately presented. Mr. Bachhuber referenced
the volumes of information presented throughout the process and part of the
record, and opined that the plant would not meet current or former standards of
Judy Makowske, St. Anthony Village
resident (2919 Rankin Road)
Ms. Makowske thanked the City
Council for including residents of St. Anthony in the public meeting notices;
and expressed concern about adverse health and property value impacts of the
proposed plant; and asked that the City Council take those concerns into
consideration in their decision-making.
Lana Marks, 2123 Fairways Lane
Ms. Marks, as a long-term employee
of an infusion-related pharmaceutical company dealing with clients experiencing
multiple respiratory issues, asked that the City Council consider businesses
operating in the area that they may not even be aware of. Ms. Marks opined
that, once an approval was granted, there would be no second chances to remove
the negative impacts of odors and emissions being faced from the asphalt plant
operations. Ms. Marks noted that an aging population would only get sicker and
sicker and impacts from such odors and emissions would only affect more people
unless steps were taken to prevent and/or eliminate those negative impacts.
Emma Jeanne Kydd, 2224 Eustice
Ms. Kydd noted when she had
purchased her property, the surrounding area was an office park, with no major
highways adjacent to the property, while recognizing that things change.
However, Ms. Kidd opined that an asphalt plant was not appropriate to the
community of Roseville, specifically this area that served as the western gateway
to the City of Roseville. Ms. Kydd noted potential negative impacts to sports
activities, pedestrians and bicyclers, children playing outside in surrounding
playgrounds; and possible additional unknown negative and cumulative implications
from those already brought forward. Ms. Kydd also noted negative impacts to
the broader area with golf courses, the University of Minnesota research plots,
the Raptor Center, and the flyway for songbirds, in addition to honeybees. Ms.
Kydd opined that an asphalt plant didn’t belong in Roseville; and the treasured
City of Roseville needed to be preserved. Ms. Kydd thanked everyone for their
excellent, educational study of the issues; and commended staff and the City
Council for that research; and asked that the City Council consider the broad
implications and dramatic impacts to Roseville residents by such a proposed
Paul Zisla, Attorney with Moss
and Barnet, representing Gladstone Commercial Corporation and its affiliate,
UCO6 Roseville MN LLC (Gladstone), owner of the “Unisys Building” at 2501
Walnut Street (also 2470 Highcrest), across the Walnut and Terminal
intersection from proposed asphalt plant
Written comments from Mr. Zisla,
and supporting documents, were submitted and included in the staff report as
“Attachment L” and made a part of the record, dated November 23, 2010, and
authorized by Mr. Zisla. Supporting documents also made part of that
attachment included an August 11, 2010 letter authored by Chris Massey, Vice
President of UC06 Roseville MN LLC, c/o Gladstone Commercial Corporation; and a
September 10, 2010 letter authored by Joseph G. Maternowski of Moss &
Barnett on behalf of UC)6 Roseville MN LLC. Mr. Zisla referenced concurred
with Mayor Klausing’s legal interpretation of the Interstate case law; and
noted his client’s concerns for adverse and negative impacts on their property
Additional written comments dated
November 29, 2010 in the form of a letter from UC06 Roseville MN LLC to Members
of the Roseville City Council, and authored by Chris Massey, Vice President,
were provided as a bench handout at the meeting, and are attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
End of Public Comments
Mayor Klausing noted the November
24, 2010 memorandum from its legal counsel Erickson, Bell, Beckman & Quinn
(Attachment H), detailing and related to the recommended procedure for the City
Council’s decision-making related to this application. Mayor Klausing reminded
the public that the City Council was serving in its adjudicatory function, not
making or interpreting policy; clarified that the City was not proposing this
use, but addressing the land use application currently before them.
Mayor Klausing opined that the
additional finding suggested related to explosives was not specific in City
Code to consideration in this use; and asked for staff’s interpretation.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that Finding
#7 in the draft resolution addressed decomposition by explosion and types of
materials proposed for use; and following discussions with the City’s Fire
Marshal and Fire Chief, they opined that the performance standards did not
apply to the proposed asphalt plant use.
Councilmember Roe noted that the
City had other existing uses in the community (tank farms, fuel tanks, etc.)
that were subject to other regulatory processes and the types of equipment that
could be used; and opined that the City Code appeared to allow for those types
of materials, when properly regulated.
Mr. Trudgeon confirmed that
information, noting that the State Fire Code provided for a series of
Councilmember Ihlan addressed the
performance standards in current code, applicable when the application first
came forward (Chapter 1007, Industrial Districts, Section 1007.01 General
Requirements, D. Performance Standards), provided as a bench handout, attached
hereto and made a part hereof. Councilmember Ihlan referenced the additional
finding related to explosives suggested by Mr. Neprash for consideration in the
draft resolution as additional evidence that the application didn’t meet the
City’s previously-existing industrial code performance standards.
Councilmember Johnson concurred
with Councilmember Ihlan, and including the finding related to explosions, even
though regulated, to remain mindful that accidents can and do happen even when
Mayor Klausing noted that the
findings and evidence had been incorporated by the City Attorney into the draft
resolution; and addressed in the procedures outlined in the November 24, 2010
legal memorandum from the City’s legal counsel.
Discussion ensued among
Councilmembers and City Attorney Bartholdi regarding application of the new
Ordinance 13907; and supporting evidence for the previous Ordinance as well as
the Amended Ordinance.
Councilmember Ihlan opined that she
was basing her interpretation on the existing ordinance at the time of the
application; and further opined that additional findings should be discussed
and included based on evidence provided throughout the review process. Councilmember
Ihlan stated her interpretation that an asphalt plant was not a permitted use
under the industrial zoning code existing at the time of the application, and
agreed with the reasons outlined in Finding #7 on page 2 of the draft
resolution. Councilmember Ihlan further opined that outdoor storage and
crushing operations are both integral parts of the proposed asphalt plant
operations. Councilmember Ihlan stated that based on evidence in the record,
denial of the Conditional Use application for outdoor storage of aggregate
materials also includes denial of the entire proposed asphalt plant.
Councilmember Ihlan noted that much
evidence was referenced in the draft resolution and findings; however, she
expressed concern that there was a wealth of information that went into the
determinations that were reviewed but not sufficiently referenced as evidentiary
materials in the draft resolution. Councilmember Ihlan proceeded to review
each finding and additional evidence not included in the document.
Mayor Klausing, as a point of
information, noted that there was at this time no motion on the table to
consider amending; and proceeded to make a motion to facilitate further discussion.
Klausing moved, Johnson
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10861 (Attachment M) entitled, “A
Resolution DENYING a Conditional Use Permit for Bituminous Roadways, Inc. for
the Outdoor Storage of Aggregates;”
Councilmember Ihlan requested that
the findings should include a description of the record being considered by the
council, and that any additional evidence referenced in the findings be included
in the record.
At the request of Mayor Klausing,
City Attorney Bartholdi responded that performance standards applied before and
after the ordinance amendment, as detailed in the proposed draft resolution
language; however if the City Council deemed it necessary, additional language
could be added referencing other evidence as submitted, either specifically identified,
or referenced in a general manner.
Councilmember Johnson expressed
interest in any additional amendments Councilmember Ihlan wished to have
Mayor Klausing suggested adding a
general paragraph addressing other evidence presented in this matter and on
Councilmember Ihlan agreed with the
findings detailed in the proposed resolution that the proposed asphalt plant
operations would not meet the industrial performance standards in Section
1007.01D of the Roseville City Code. Councilmember Ihlan noted that the
Conditional Use analysis findings on page 6 focus on outdoor storage; but that
the impacts of the outdoor storage cannot be separated from the impacts of the
asphalt plant operations, because all components are necessary parts of the operation
of an asphalt plant. Councilmember Ihlan suggested amended language in the
Conditional Use findings to address both the negative impacts of the proposed
asphalt plant and its outdoor storage.
City Attorney Bartholdi clarified
that the actual item before the City Council tonight was the Conditional Use
application of Bituminous Roadways, and was the basis of the findings for
denial; with the asphalt plant corollary to this particular action. Mr.
Bartholdi advised that, if a permitted use is not allowed, then accessory uses
are not allowed.
Councilmember Johnson spoke in
support of the motion, opining that over the last eighteen (18) months, the
City Council had received input from the public, through public comment, as
well as him individually through the 892 e-mails and numerous phone calls he’d
personally received. Councilmember Johnson thanked everyone for their input,
opining that it meant a lot to him as an elected official representing his
constituents, and providing him with a sense of the support and unity in the
community, addressing how the community was defined. Councilmember Johnson,
specifically addressing the Conditional Use application and his initial hearing
of it, and the concerns in the area publically noticed about the proposal, he
was aware of the seriousness of the issue. Councilmember Johnson reviewed his
personal tours of various asphalt plans in the metropolitan area, and proposed warm
temperature versus hot mix operations. Councilmember Johnson advised that, at
the time originally proposed for the City Council’s consideration of the application,
he was prepared to vote against the Conditional Use application; however, he
noted that the vote was unfortunately not addressed; and expressed his concern
about the additional stress created for residents due to the delay in taking
action. Based on his review of negative impacts to traffic, parks, streets and
infrastructure, compatibility to the site plan, market values, and other issues
raised, Councilmember Johnson reiterated his support for the motion.
Councilmember Roe reviewed his
personal review, including field trips of other asphalt plants, at
approximately the same time referenced by Councilmember Johnson; and his
analysis and conclusions, and his interpretation that there was no significant
odor. However, Councilmember Roe noted that he couldn’t depend on his personal
sensory perceptions, and needed to consider others in the neighborhood that may
have more sensitive senses. Councilmember Roe shared Councilmember Johnson’s
concern that the application hadn’t been acted upon earlier; however, he noted
the additional information provided through the EAW process and environmental
impacts of such a use; and review of the City’s performance standards under
existing and amended ordinance; and noted his extensive review of potential negative
impacts to contiguous properties and the ability to use those properties, both
for residential and/or business uses. Councilmember Roe noted that previous
crushing or storage operations had been Interim Uses and not long-term as
proposed with this Conditional Use application; and opined that he had been
amenable to accept impacts for a short period of time, but with this proposed
long-term use that would proceed with the land, he could not support it even
with mitigation efforts. Councilmember Roe questioned how such a use could be
good for the neighborhood, given long-term issues from crushing; and expressed
his support for the motion. Councilmember Roe expressed his appreciation for the
significant background information provided as part of the record; and opined
that the resolution provided strong findings. Councilmember Roe expressed his
appreciation to the neighbors for their thoughtful and informative input; and
reiterated a statement made often during testimony, as well as one he’d
personally expressed, that once something was built and in operation, it was
more difficult to police the property and operations.
Mayor Klausing suggested an
amendment to the original motion that the resolution, page 9, under #13,
include a statement that “the City Council’s findings are determined and based
on the above referenced items and all information presented to the City
With the permission of the Mayor,
City Attorney Bartholdi suggested the following language amendments for
incorporation into the proposed findings of the draft resolution.
Page 3, Finding #8 – Introductory Sentence, amend to read
“The use of the subject
property for an Asphalt Plant is not a permitted use under the Performance
Standards stated in Section 1007/01D of the Roseville City Code for the following
reasons, based upon evidence presented to the City Council as well as the
Page 6, Finding #11 – Introductory Sentence, amend to read
“The City Council finds the
following with respect to the Conditional Use Permit Application, based upon
evidence presented to the City Council as well as the following sources:”
Page 4 and 5, Finding 8G - Change date and letter reference
of source as indicated by Mr. Trudgeon.
Page 9, Additional Findings, #13
Delete Section #13 entirely.
City Attorney Bartholdi noted that the draft resolution referenced
“Exhibit A,” the legal description of the property located at 2280 Walnut
Street; however, it was not included as an attachment to the draft resolution,
“Attachment M;” however, noted that it would be incorporated into the final resolution
Mayor Klausing and
Councilmember Johnson, as makers of the original motion, concurred with the
friendly amendments suggested by City Attorney Bartholdi.
Councilmember Ihlan expressed her
preference to include language of what the staff report consisted of, as
detailed in Section 5.2, #3 of that report.
Mayor Klausing opined that the
language as amended by City Attorney Bartholdi sufficiently addressed that
referenced evidence presented.
City Attorney Bartholdi concurred,
and further noted that the fifth and sixth “WHEREAS” statements of the
resolution (Attachment M), lines 28 – 30 and 32 – 35 respectively, also were
intended to incorporate that evidence as well.
On behalf of the City Council,
staff and the community, Mayor Klausing thanked everyone present at tonight’s
meeting for their presentations and respectful participation in a highly charged
Councilmember Ihlan spoke in
support of the motion and thanked everyone for their work and thoughtful
comments and information gathered throughout this complex process.
Councilmember Ihlan outlined her position with several points and reviewed her
personal approach to determine whether the proposal met land use codes for Industrial
Zoning, and her continued interpretation that the industrial performance
standards were not met under previous or amended ordinance. Councilmember Ihlan
further opined that the odor would be perceptible beyond the property boundaries;
and other clear evidence through the MPCA process as well as other evidentiary
materials that the proposed use would not meet performance standards under Conditional
Use criteria. Councilmember Ihlan reviewed additional negative impacts from
projected traffic; air emissions from plant operations and hauling of the
material; safety and other compatibility issues from additional heavy truck
traffic on roadways not built to accommodate such uses; impacts to parks and
other facilities; and impacts to adjacent Minneapolis Park Board properties.
Councilmember Ihlan reviewed and provided comment on each finding and criteria
used for that evaluation; and reiterated her request to include a statement
related to negative impacts to the community’s general health, safety and
welfare from this proposed use.
By consensus, Mayor Klausing noted
the addition of Councilmember Ihlan’s statement related to negative public
health risks as an additional finding under #13 of the draft resolution.
Councilmember Johnson thanked staff
for their significant analysis of this application and subsequent data.
A vote was then taken by the City
Council to adopt Resolution 10861, attached hereto and made a part hereof,
denying the Conditional Use Permit Application of Bituminous Roadways, Inc.
Roe; Ihlan; and Klausing.
14. City Manager Future Agenda Review
City Manager Malinen noted the
previously agreed-upon start time of 5:00 pm in Closed Executive Session on
December 6, 2010.
Upon further consideration,
Councilmember Johnson questioned whether the conclusion of the annual City
Manager review would take a full hour; and suggested that one-half hour should
Mayor Klausing questioned if Councilmembers wished to have time for some refreshments
prior to starting the 6:00 pm business meeting; further noting that the Truth
in Taxation public hearing for the 2011 Budget and Levy was scheduled at 6:00 pm,
and he preferred not to have that meeting delayed.
Councilmember Ihlan expressed her
preference to meet at 5:30 pm as well.
By consensus, the Closed Executive
Session was rescheduled to begin at 5:30 p.m. on December 6, 2010; with members
being cognizant of the 6:00 p.m. advertised time for the Truth in Taxation
City Manager Malinen noted the
reception for retiring Mayor Klausing and Councilmember Ihlan on December 13,
2010, immediately prior to the regular business meeting.
The meeting was
adjourned at approximately 8:22 p.m.