CC_Minutes_2010_1011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The Honorable Mayor Craig Klausing City Council Members October 11, 2010 Page 3 This issue was also addressed in Northern States Power Co. v City of Mendota Heights, 646 NW 2d 919 (Minn. App. 2002). In this case, the Court found that "where the city gave no explanation for the enactment of its franchise ordinance, and acknowledged that its sole purpose was to defeat Xcel'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 this ordinance is being rushed through the process in an effort to block the Company's proposed facility. This is exactly the type of legislative abuse that the courts have found to be improper. The City's Amendment Procedure Should Be Observed. The Roseville City Code, Section 1016 describes the amendment process the City has developed for making changes to the Zoning Code. Section 1016.01 provides for zoning ordinance amendments to be initiated by property owners, or the City Council on its own motion. Section 1016.03 requires the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing in accordance with Chapter 108 of the City 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 heard. 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 hearing involves a particular parcel of land, mailed notice shall be given to the owner and property owners within 500 feet. It is clear from a review of the staff report that this action was intended to prevent the Company's asphalt plant. The Company has been working with City staff and the City Council for several months relating to this project. That the Company was not advised of the Planning Commission action prevented it from meaningfully participating in the public hearing and prevented it from an opportunity to be heard on this proposal aimed directly at it. The Current Code Is Effective to Regulate Asphalt Plant. The current 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. The City's industrial district performance standards address issues of noise, smoke, dust, toxic or noxious materials, odors, vibration, glare, heat, and explosives use. Performance standards have been developed in a thoughtful way to assure that these considerations are addressed in connection with applications for land use approvals. The effect of the proposed ordinance is to abdicate the use of judgment in evaluating environmental 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 recently as today, both City staff and advocates for project proponents are cited in newspaper articles as continuing a thoughtful evaluation of the project and its potential effects. The Comprehensive Plan Doesn't Support the Changes Proposed. The Comprehensive Plan continues to support heavy industrial uses at the site of the proposed project. The specific detail of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the industrial zoned areas of the City as places for heavy manufacturing. Under the current code and under the proposed changed