pf09-010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� � Community Comments & Editorial Responses We received varied and welcome comments on our first issue. Some thought SWARN was a misspelling, not understanding the meaning of the masthead's whimsical quote of Ichabod Crane's equally fictitious brother. So we put Ichabod's brother back to sleep. One reader suggested we replace the ��ord Network w�th Monitor in our title, thus allowing us to stay HRth our bee theme and making our acronym SWARM. Another suggested we include the neighborhood east of Snelling and south of the HarMar Shopping Center, a neighborhood hea��ily impacted by the shopping center and Snelling Avenue's congestion. Since of development impact upon neighborhoods is our focus, iYs a natural to now include this neighborhood in our coverage. Pat Trudgeon, Roseville's Community Development Director, contacted us to indicate some concern that our first issue may have give the impression that no public notice had been given on the asphalt plant proposal. We believe our first edition was clear in describing the its public notice given the asphalt plant proposal as inadequate; we didn't use the word "nonexistent." Our point remains: the City's notification rules are inadequate and must be updated. The following excerpts from a letter of Council member Dan Rce to a SW Rose��ille resident also raise this issue, as well as explains how the asphalt plant proposal came in under the radar of neighborhood notice. We have reprinted a major portion because of our interest in pro��ding balanced coverage, and also because the council member is a citizen of our communit��. SOUTHWEST AREA ROSEVILLE MONITOR CITIZENS FORUM PAGE A Roseville Council Member's Response to a SW Roseville resident who had expressed concern over the lack of notice and the Asphalt Plant itself My understanding is that virtually all environmental regulation of asphalt plants is done by the state PCA, so the role of the City is very limited. The only thing I can guarantee is that there will be some emissions from an asphalt plant, and those emissions, by law, have to be within EPA-established limits. Still, the asphalt plant proposal not one that, by itself, requires any council approval, based on an interpretation of our zoning requirements. What needs Council approval is the associated storage of materials and equipment. (I know that sounds hard to believe, but that is the interpretation that we have been presented at this point--no council approval is required for asphalt plants in our industrial zone.) That is why the minutes and notices to the public talk about storage as being the proposal. I would tend to agree with folks who say that a clearer indication of the connection of the storage to the asphalt plant use would have been more appropriate in our communications with the public. Even so, the fact is that there is no approval of the plant itself requested of the council, since the interpretation of our city code seems to be that such approval is not required. I know this explanation is very technical and complicated, and I will tell you that that it is highly frustrating to me, as much as I am sure that it is to most residents who hear it. Unfortunately, as happens with zoning language, it was written years ago, and this may be the first time that it has been interpreted regarding this type of proposal. Therefore, we need to not only deal with this proposal in a way that makes sense, but also fix and clarify our code so that the same type of issue is easier to deal with in the future. I can tell you that I have visited 4 different asphalt plants around the Twin Cities, and most council members have also visited at least 1 plant. Honestly, we all had varying experiences with what was smelled and at what distance. That leads me to conclude that I can't support a plant so close to residential areas. [Editorial Note: Emphasis Added.] (Some people are more sensitive to the odors than others, and just because I may not have had a problem with the smell does not mean someone else would not have.) Now, the issue is how do we handle the approval process once it comes back before the council? For certain, based on the Council's action this past Monday, there will be notification of residents up to as far away as Co Rd B and Cleveland Ave. That notice will happen at least 14 days before any action by the City Council. Right now, the matter has been held up by a petition request for environmental review. Until the state Environmental Quality Board determines what agency is to handle the review, no action is allowed on the application from Bituminous Roadways. Once the EQB determines what agency will do the environmental review (it could be the state PCA or the City of Roseville, or another agency--whoever is determined to have primary responsibility for regulation of the proposed plant), then that agency will conduct its review. If that agency is to be Roseville, then we would provide our 14-day notice to residents before that matter is considered by the Council. Dan Roe