pf09-010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� Members of the Roseville City Council November 23, 2010 Page 3 -. G�E�C �ioss & Barnett c. The asphalt plant and the outdoor storage of piles of rubble are so fully integrated with each other that the consideration of a conditional use for outdoor storage necessarily has to include consideration of the asphalt plant. When the Council first reviewed the project, members expressed reluctance to evaluate the outdoor storage independently of an analysis of the asphalt plant. That reluctante was well-founded. The uses do not function independently, and the effecks of the outdoor storage cannot be isolated from those of the asphalt plant. The Council should consider the project as a whole. The Council has the authority to determine that the Code treats the outdoor storage and asphalt plant as linked, and if necessary, to affirm that point, including by making appropriate modifications to the Code. 3. The factual record establishes that the project dces not meet the requirements and perFormance standards set forth in Section 1007.01 of the City Code. The Ciry record already provides ample fadual grounds for the Council to conclude that the project, as proposed, does not meet the performance standards in Section 1007.O1.D, and therefore is orohibited. The City developed a substantial rxord when it decided to request an EIS. Public comments to the Council, and the Letters and expert reports and the comments made to the MPCA, all of which are available to the City, demonstrate that the project does not and cannot meet the perFormance standards. The attached November 18, 2010 letter from Patrick J. Muiloy, the expert who completed the technical analysis for the Letters, unequivocally establishes that the project fails to meet the standards. a. No�se will constitute a nuisance. Noise will be perceptible beyond the site itself. The EAW purports to show that the asphalt plant operation complies with MPCA's noise standards, but the EAW fails to consider the actual use of the properties adjacent to and nearby the site, and fails to consider a number of specific site and activity features. (See pages 3- 5 of Gladstone's August 11 Letter.) The EAW comments regarding sound barriers are vague and there is no pian for a sound barrier high enough to deFlect noise heading toward the Gladstone building or other sensitive uses. Notably, the analysis does not consider what happens when the adivities at the site operate concurrently nor the penetrating sound of truck operations, including backup signals and the cianking of gates as rubble is moved around the site. The Council should keep in mind that the rubble piles may be as high as 40 feet and that trucks may be opereting well over the height of any contemplated "buffering" shown in the plans provided to the City. As such, the applicant has yet to satisfy the perFormance standards. Extensive additional work is required before the City can conclude that the standard could be satisfied. b. Smoke and particulate matter will be perceptible beyond the premises and will constitute a nuisance. With regard to particulate matter, the EAW assumes that the mitigation technology works as well as purported, which the Letters note has yet to be demonstrated. Further, the EAW focuses on health risks. It does not thoroughly consider nuisance dust and the effect of that dust on the existing nearby uses. (See pages 12 and 13 of the September 10, 2010 Letter.) These effects cannot be dismissed simpiy on the grounds that the property is in an I-2 Industrial District. Office use is a permitted use of the Gladstone building. Gladstone's air quality expert has confirmed that dust and particulate matter will be