CC_Minutes_2010_1129 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, November 29, 2010 Page 10 Conditional Use analysis findings on page 6 focus on outdoor storage; but that the im- pacts of the outdoor storage cannot be separated from the impacts of the asphalt plant op- erations, because all components are necessary parts of the operation of an asphalt plant. Councilmember Ihlan suggested amended language in the Conditional Use findings to address both the negative impacts of the proposed asphalt plant and its outdoor storage. City Attorney Bartholdi clarified that the actual item before the City Council tonight was the Conditional Use application of Bituminous Roadways, and was the basis of the find- ings for denial; with the asphalt plant corollary to this particular action. Mr. Bartholdi advised that, if a permitted use is not allowed, then accessory uses are not allowed. Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of the motion, opining that over the last eigh- teen (18) months, the City Council had received input from the public, through public comment, as well as him individually through the 892 e-mails and numerous phone calls he'd personally received. Councilmember Johnson thanked everyone for their input, opining that it meant a lot to him as an elected official representing his constituents, and providing him with a sense of the support and unity in the community, addressing how the community was defined. Councilmember Johnson, specifically addressing the Condi- tional Use application and his initial hearing of it, and the concerns in the area publically noticed about the proposal, he was aware of the seriousness of the issue. Councilmember Johnson reviewed his personal tours of various asphalt plans in the metropolitan area, and proposed warm temperature versus hot mix operations. Councilmember Johnson advised that, at the time originally proposed for the City Council's consideration of the applica- tion, he was prepared to vote against the Conditional Use application; however, he noted that the vote was unfortunately not addressed; and expressed his concern about the addi- tional stress created for residents due to the delay in taking action. Based on his review of negative impacts to traffic, parks, streets and infrastructure, compatibility to the site plan, market values, and other issues raised, Councilmember Johnson reiterated his sup- port for the motion. Councilmember Roe reviewed his personal review, including field trips of other asphalt plants, at approximately the same time referenced by Councilmember Johnson; and his analysis and conclusions, and his interpretation that there was no significant odor. How- ever, Councilmember Roe noted that he couldn't depend on his personal sensory percep- tions, and needed to consider others in the neighborhood that may have more sensitive senses. Councilmember Roe shared Councilmember Johnson's concern that the applica- tion hadn't been acted upon earlier; however, he noted the additional information pro- vided through the EAW process and environmental impacts of such a use; and review of the City's performance standards under existing and amended ordinance; and noted his extensive review of potential negative impacts to contiguous properties and the ability to use those properties, both for residential and/or business uses. Councilmember Roe noted that previous crushing or storage operations had been Interim Uses and not long -term as proposed with this Conditional Use application; and opined that he had been amenable to accept impacts for a short period of time, but with this proposed long -term use that would