pf09-010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� � � Once again, it is impossible not to conclude that the CUP application and nan•ative is significantly misleading. This should Iead the Council to turn down the CUP application and require a new CUP application if the proposer should choose to mave forward. ltem 3. Compatibilit�� ith Contiguous Properties The anal��sis in the CUP application and narrative on this point is non existent. Tl�ey did not try to determine if an asphalt plant would be compatible wit11 neighbors, but rather simply said they would construct a benn and put up a fence. This completely misses the point of the question. Their avoidance of analysis on this point leads one to suspeci that they knew the proposed plant would not be compatible with neighbors, and to not respond to tlie item in any �ueaningful manner. Item 4. impact on Market Value of Contiguous Properties The CUP application and narrative offers the completely unsubstantiated conclusion that, `TIo impacts to contiguous property values or other property in the near vicinity is expected." Additionally, the CL1P Narrative actually asserts that "...the effect on the ncighboring properties is expected to be neutral to positive..." The basis for such an assertion is not stated. We are convinced no professional market analysis was perfoi7ned. It appears now that they did zlot even have conversations with ^ neighboring commei•cial property owners. Their assertion that the proposed asphalt plant may actually increase the market value of neighboring properties is such a haseless self serving statement that it is difficult to even respond to it. Item 5. �mpact on Public Health, Safety, and Genera! V1'elfare Sub-items: Air �missions and Odor and Warm Mix Pa��e�nent 'I�echnolo�v Multiple readings of this section submitted by the company ��ould lead to the conclusion that no odor would leave the plant site. This is due, the company says, to the particles ��vhich carry the odor being removed and recycled back into the process. This section of the CUP narrative (page � j says that the warm mix technology will provide for the "eli�nination of visible smoke and odor." Data in the LAVV and EAW background information clearly indicate that this not the case for the prop�sed plant. The EAW backgrouild information and that presented by MPCA staff at the Roseville meeting this summer clearly indicate that I-�2S will leave the property. Once again, it is impossible not to conclude that the Bituminous Roadways CUP application ns misleading. This should lead the Council to turn down the CUP a�plication and require a new Cl►P application if the proposer chooses to move fon��ard. � Sub-item: Noise