pf09-010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� --� Thc Honorable Mayor Craig Klausing City Council Members October 11. 2010 Page 3 � This issue was also addressed in Norlhern States Power Co. v Ciry ofMendo[a Heights, 646 N W 2d 919 (Minn. App. 2002). In this case, [he Court found that "where the city gave no e�planation for the enactment of its franchise ordinance, and acknowledged that its sole purposc was to deieat Xccl's permit, the city is precluded from relying on its latter enacted ordinance to deny the permit." This is very analogous of the current circumstance in that tlus ordinance is being rushed through the process in an effort to block lhe Company's proposed facility. This is exactly the type of fegislative abuse that the cour[s have found to be improper. The Ciri's Amendment Procedure Should Be Observed The Roseville Ciry Code, Section 1016 describes the amendment proccss the City has developcd for making changes to ihe Zoning Code. Section ] 016.01 provides for zoning ordinance amendments to bc initiated by property owners, or the City Council on its own motion. Section 1026.03 requires the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing in accordance with Chapter l OR of the Ciry Code. Chapter 108 of the City Code requires that there be a public hearing and more specifically that all parties interested shall be given an opportunity to be heazd. Notice of the time and place of the hearing is to be published over 10 days in advance of the hearing. In the event the ]teazing involves a particulaz parcel of land, mailed notice shall be given to the owner and property owners within �UO feet. It is clear from a review of the staff report that this ac[ion was intended to prevent tbe Company's asphalt plan[. The Company has been working with City staff and the City Council for severaf months relating to this projecL That the Company was not advised of the Planning Commission action prevented i[ from meaningfully participating in [he public hearing and prevented it from an opportunity to be heazd on this proposal aimed directly at ii. The Cunent Code Is Effectivc to Reculate Asohalt Plant The currenl ordinance code fully addresses each and every issue raised by anyone commenting on the Company's proposed project and regulation of asphalt plants in the City. Thc Ciry's industrial district perY'ormance standards address issues of noise, smoke, dust, toxic or noxious materials, odors, vibration, glare, heat, and explosives use. Perfomiance standards have been developed in a thoughtful way to assure that these considerations aze addressed in connection with applicacions for ]and use approvals. The effect of the proposed ordinance is to abdicate the use ofjudgment in cvaluating cnvironmenta] performance for the Company's project. The effect of this is that the last several months worth of analysis and evaluation of the proposed project by the Company, MPCA, affected parties and City staff is effectively discarded in favor of outlawing the asphalt plant use in response to popular opinion. As rcccndy as today, both City staff and advocates for project proponents are cited in newspaper articles as con[inuing a tlioughtful evaluation of the project and its potential efFects. !'he Comprehensive Plan Doesn't Suoport the Chan�es Proposed. l he Comprehensive Plan continues to support heavy industria] uses at die site of the proposed project. The specific detail of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the industrial zoned azeas of the City as places for heavy manufacturing. Undcr the curren[ code and under the proposed changed