pf09-010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� 0 Attachment L ��: �IOS� 8� �a�'Ci�� F=. Pro;`ess;�rai <;��c�:?t�c�:-: November 23, 2010 Members of the Roseville City Cauncil City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 Re: Bituminous Roadways Proposed Asphalt Plant Our Fle No.: 51429.2 Dear Members of the City Council: We represent Gladstone Commercial Corporation, and its affiliate, UC06 Roseville MN LLC ("Gladstone'�, the awner of the office building ("Unisys Building'� at 2501 Walnut Street (also 2470 Highcrest) in Roseville. Gladstone's building is across the Walnut and Terminal intersection from where Bituminous Roadways {"Bituminous'� proposes developing an asphalt plant. In letters dated August 11, 2010 and September 10, 241Q to the MPCA (the "Letters'?, Gfadstone stated in detail the results of a technical analysis of the EAW record and the reasons for its request that the MPCA require an EIS. The Letters are attached to our September 21 letter to the City Council summarizing the deficiencies in the EAW. We understand that after the MPCA suspended the EAW process, the Council scheduled a special meeting to be held November 29, 2010 to consider whether the proposed project is a legal use under the City Code and alternatives for handling the application by Bituminous for a conditional use for outdoor storage. Gladstone requests that the Council (i} find that the asphalt plant is a prohibited use under the current Code, (ii) determine that the asphalt plant was not a permitted use under the Code as it existcci prior to the Texi Amendmeni effective �ctober 18, 2030, �iii) make appropriate findings terminating furthering consideration ofi the conditional use application, and (iv) dismiss the application. To support Gladstone's request, we offer into the �ity record this letter analyzing certain provisions of the Code, including the performance standards for the I-2 Industrial District and the following items, copies of which are attached: the Letters; our September 21 letter to the Council; and the November 18, 2010 letter by air quality expert Patrick J. Mulloy analyzing odor issues relating to the asphalt plant. Muiloy's analysis shows that the project as described by its proponent does not and cannot satisfy the performance standard for odor. The legal analysis and factual record are conclusive. The proposed asphalt plant is not a legal use. 1. The City Code expressly prohibits an asphatt ptant in the Industria( District. The Text Amendment effertive October 18, 2010 clarifies Section 1007.15B, and expressly states that asphalt plants are a prohibited use. Minnesota law is well established that the controlling law for zoning decisions is the law in effect at the time of the decision. Rosedrff Landscape Nursery v. Rosemount, 467 N.W.2d 641 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); see also Properiy Rese�rch and Deve%pment Co. v. City ofEagan, 289 N.W.2d 157, 158 (Minn. 1980). .�.. 9. <'•-,�` . _ �a�;��.� o.xrizu �� a-y��