CC_Minutes_2010_1129 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, November 29, 2010 Page 9 Councilmember Ihlan opined that she was basing her interpretation on the existing ordin- ance at the time of the application; and further opined that additional findings should be discussed and included based on evidence provided throughout the review process. Councilmember Ihlan stated her interpretation that an asphalt plant was not a permitted use under the industrial zoning code existing at the time of the application, and agreed with the reasons outlined in Finding #7 on page 2 of the draft resolution. Councilmember Ihlan further opined that outdoor storage and crushing operations are both integral parts of the proposed asphalt plant operations. Councilmember Ihlan stated that based on evi- dence in the record, denial of the Conditional Use application for outdoor storage of ag- gregate materials also includes denial of the entire proposed asphalt plant. Councilmember Ihlan noted that much evidence was referenced in the draft resolution and findings; however, she expressed concern that there was a wealth of information that went into the determinations that were reviewed but not sufficiently referenced as eviden- tiary materials in the draft resolution. Councilmember Ihlan proceeded to review each finding and additional evidence not included in the document. Mayor Klausing, as a point of information, noted that there was at this time no motion on the table to consider amending; and proceeded to make a motion to facilitate further dis- cussion. Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10861 (Attachment M) entitled, "A Resolution DENYING a Conditional Use Permit for Bituminous Roadways, Inc. for the Outdoor Storage of Aggregates;" Councilmember Ihlan requested that the findings should include a description of the record being considered by the council, and that any additional evidence referenced in the findings be included in the record. At the request of Mayor Klausing, City Attorney Bartholdi responded that performance standards applied before and after the ordinance amendment, as detailed in the proposed draft resolution language; however if the City Council deemed it necessary, additional language could be added referencing other evidence as submitted, either specifically identified, or referenced in a general manner. Councilmember Johnson expressed interest in any additional amendments Councilmemb- er Ihlan wished to have considered. Mayor Klausing suggested adding a general paragraph addressing other evidence pre- sented in this matter and on record. Councilmember Ihlan agreed with the findings detailed in the proposed resolution that the proposed asphalt plant operations would not meet the industrial performance standards in Section 1007.01D of the Roseville City Code. Councilmember Ihlan noted that the