pf09-010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� � 32 A citizen's petition requesting that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be -� 33 conducted for the proposed asphalt plant was submitted to the Minnesota Environmental Quality 34 Board. The petition cited numerous environmental concerns with the proposal. The Minnesota 35 Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) was designated to conduct the environmental review. Based 36 on the start of the EAW, the City suspended any review and decision on the coNDiT[otvaL usE 37 until the environmental review was completed. 38 On July 9, 2010, the MPCA released the draft EAW to the public for comment and review. The 39 MPCA took public comments until September 10, 2010. In total, the MPCA received 167 40 comments, with almost every comment citing concerns about the asphalt plant and pointing out 41 flaws with EAW and requesting that the MPCA conduct an Environmental Impact Statement 42 (EIS) for the proposed asphalt plant. 43 On October 11, 2010, the City adopted an amendment to the City Code that the prohibited 44 numerous uses, including asphalt plants, in Industrial Zoning Districts. Based on that action, the 45 MPCA, in a letter dated October 29, 2010, informed the City that the agency had suspended the 46 environmental review since the newly adopted ordinance prohibited the proposed asphalt plant 47 and that it does not conduct environmental review for uses that are not allowed. 48 Subsequent to the MPCA decision, the Roseville City Attorney contacted the legal counsel of 49 Bituminous Roadways, Gregory E. Korstad of Larkin Hoffman, informing the applicant of the 50 MPCA's decision and asking how Bituminous Roadways would like to proceed with their 51 application. Mr. Korstad requested in a letter dated November 10, 2010, that the City find that 52 that the new ordinance prohibiting asphalt plants does not apply and that Bituminous Roadway's 53 conditional use request be considered under the previous ordinance. -� 54 S.O STAFF COMMENTS SS City staff, in conjunction with the City Attorney has reviewed the full record regarding 56 Bituminous Roadways proposal to construct an asphalt plant at 2280 Walnut Street. This record 57 includes all application materials submitted by Bituminous Roadways in 2009, meeting minutes 58 of the Planning Commission, the City Public Works, Environment and Transportation 59 Commission, and City Council discussions on the proposal, the Draft EAW and Draft Air 60 Emissions Facility Permit; the 167 written public comments provided during the public review 61 period, and written and oral information provided by interested parties, including surrounding 62 property owners, residents, and Bituminous Roadways. 63 From the extensive review of the public record, City staff has come to the conclusion that the 64 proposed conditional use should be denied. This recommendation is based on the following 65 facts: 66 1) Section 1017.15 of the Roseville City Code expressly prohibits asphalt plants in the I-2 67 Industrial Zoning Districts. Any subordinate use (whether permitted ar a conditional use) 68 to a prohibited use cannot be allowed to operate on the site. Therefore, the conditional 69 use to have outdoor storage of material piles needs to denied. 70 2) Under City Code that existed at the time of the original application for a conditional use, 71 the overall operation of the asphalt plant as proposed was not allowed. While the actual 72 manufacture of asphalt could be considered a permitted use under the 2009 code, other 73 parts of the asphalt plant operation were not permitted. These components include 74 outdoor storage of piles (a conditional use) and outdoor storage of fuel tanks (a --� 75 conditional use). In addition, under both the 2009 code and the current code, crushing of 101129 RCA_Bituminous Roadway CU.doc Page 2 of 5