View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

November 29, 2010


1.         Roll Call

Mayor Klausing called to order a Special Meeting of the Roseville City Council at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed everyone.  Mayor Klausing noted that the Special Meeting was for the specific purpose to consider a Request by Bituminous Roadways for Conditional Use Approval to Allow the Outdoor Storage of Aggregate Materials at 2280 Walnut Street. (Voting and Seating Order for November: Pust; Johnson; Roe; Ihlan; and Klausing).  City Attorney Charles Bartholdi was also present.


Mayor Klausing announced that Councilmember Pust had previously advised that she would be unable to attend tonight’s special meeting due to a prior conflict.


On an unrelated note, Mayor Klausing asked Councilmembers of their availability on December 6, 2010 at 5:00 pm for a Closed Executive Session to complete the annual review of City Manager Malinen; noting that the Truth in Taxation public hearing was scheduled for 6:00 pm.  By consensus, those members present concurred with a 5:00 pm start time for a Closed Executive Session on Monday, December 6, 2010.  Staff was directed to provide due notice of this meeting.


(See Item 14 on page 13: Council changed the time of this Executive Session to 5:30 p.m.)

2.         Approve Agenda

The agenda was approved as presented.   

3.         Public Comment

Mayor Klausing called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.  No one appeared to speak at this time. 

12.      Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Consider Request by Bituminous Roadways for Conditional use Approval to Allow the Outdoor Storage of Aggregate Materials at 2280 Walnut Street

Mayor Klausing reviewed the procedure for the City Council’s consideration for this land use application; noting that the City Council would hear a summation and recommendation by City staff; followed by any questions of Councilmembers to staff; and comments of the applicant at their discretion.   Mayor Klausing advised that the City Council would then hear public comment, asking that questions be addressed to him as the Chair of the meeting; with questions and comments then receiving response from staff, the applicant, or the Chair following public comment, and as applicable and appropriate.  At that point, Mayor Klausing advised that the City Council would take the matter under advisement, with that discussion limited to Councilmembers with no further applicant or public comment received.


Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon provided a brief overview and timeline of the request of Bituminous Roadways for outdoor storage of aggregate materials as a CONDITIONAL USE in support of the operation of an asphalt plant at 2280 Walnut Street; and provided a background of the request to-date, as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated November 29, 2010.  Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the land use action before the City Council tonight was to review the original Conditional Use application by the applicant for outdoor storage of aggregate materials related to, but not specific to use as an asphalt plant; however, he noted that the proposed use of the site for an asphalt plant would be addressed by staff as part of the Conditional Use request.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that portions of the asphalt plant, including any subordinate use for outdoor aggregate and fuel storage, were prohibited. 


A copy of Roseville City Code, Chapter 1007 Industrial Districts, Section 1007.01 General Requirements, a part of Ordinance 1303, dated February 9, 2004, was provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that, in conjunction with the City Attorney, and following their extensive review of the public record related to this application, staff was recommending that the CONDITIONAL USE be denied, based on the facts and findings detailed in the RCA, and attachments to the report made part of the record.


Related to the amendment to City Ordinance, Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the information available to staff and staff’s original review of that information when the application was first received in March of 2009 for the manufacturing use as initially proposed; the ordinance amendment enacted in October of 2010; reasoning that rock crushing was not a manufacturing use; the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) process and subsequent public comment.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was staff’s determination to recommend that the City Council deny the CONDITIONAL USE application for outdoor storage of material piles, based on the related asphalt plant not being a permitted use in a General Industrial District, and on the findings contained in Section 5 of the RCA dated November 29, 2010.


Councilmember Ihlan questioned whether the EAW was mandatory or voluntary.

Mr. Trudgeon advised that the mandatory portion of the EAW was related to fuel tanks proposed for the site, which use went beyond voluntary, but had not been part of the original request.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that when the EAW process was initiated by a petition of concerned citizens, and voluntarily agreed to by the applicant Bituminous Roadways, noting that their future development of the site would include fuel storage tanks, the applicant decided to include the fuel tanks in the EAW process.


Mr. Trudgeon noted one staff correction to the draft Resolution (Attachment M) included in the RCA packet dated November 29, 2010 (Attachment M), on page3 and 4, lines 171 – 173, the referenced source for findings listed under “Item G” should be page 8 of a letter dated September 10, 2010, rather than August 11, 2010; and authored by Joseph G. Maternowski of Moss & Barnett on behalf of UC06 Roseville MN LLC.


Applicant Representative

Greg Korstad, Attorney with Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd., for the applicant, Bituminous Roadways.  Mr. Korstad noted that the President of Bituminous Roadways, Kent Peterson, was also present at tonight’s meeting.


Mr. Korstad referenced written correspondence on record for the applicant and his client, Bituminous Roadways, seeking continuation of their original request for a Conditional Use in the City’s General Industrial zone for the purpose of construction of an asphalt plant.  Mr. Korstad opined that the company felt their operation fit well in that zone; and noted their only concern was that a point had been arrived at in the process without completion of the environmental review and fully answering all the questions and concerns raised by the City and public.  Mr. Korstad requested that if that environmental review process were allowed to continue, it would address those public and community concerns, and that his client’s proposal could be evaluated on its merits. 


A copy of the Larkin Hoffman letter dated October 21, 2010 to the City Council providing supplemental technical data related to the Bituminous Roadways Asphalt Plant was provided by staff as a bench handout, and as a supplemental to Attachment F in the staff report, attached hereto and made a part hereof.


Mr. Korstad asked that the City Council determine not to review the project under its new ordinance, opining that this was changing the rules and unfairly applying that new set of rules to the Conditional Use request already in process; asked that the City Council, based on that review of the project under original regulatory framework, advise the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) that their review process of the project should continue allowing the public information process and response to continue; and asked that the City Council recognize the additional studies provided by his client related to evaluation of traffic, noise and odor concerns.


Mr. Korstad reviewed the process and considerable time and monetary resources provided by his client to-date to respond to public and City concerns; and asked that the City Council ensure that their performance standards for this general industrial area were applied to everyone in that area, expressing his hope that this wasn’t serving as a test case of the City’s air quality standards.


Mayor Klausing addressed case law referenced by Mr. Korstad (Interstate) and presumptions by the applicant’s legal counsel and opposing views from Mayor Klausing’s perspective as an attorney, as well as that of the City’s legal counsel; and specific procedures outlined in that case related to legislative versus adjudicatory functions of the City Council, and the City Council’s consideration of this Conditional Use application.


Councilmember Ihlan clarified her understanding of Mr. Korstad’s November 10, 2010 letter and request for the City Council to take up the Conditional Use application on its merits versus continuing the EAW review by the MPCA.  Councilmember Ihlan questioned Mr. Korstad on what evidence and arguments had been submitted to the City Council to show the proposed project met Conditional Use standards and Industrial Zoning District performance standards in the Roseville City Code.  Councilmember Ihlan further clarified that based on the materials in the record and included in tonight’s packet, the Conditional Use request for outdoor storage of materials was integrally related to and part of a proposed asphalt plant.


Mr. Korstad advised that the supporting documentation had been submitted to the City Council in his October 11, 2010 letter.  Mr. Korstad advised that his client had asked the City Council to grant approval for an asphalt plant in March, and had been directed by staff to proceed with a Conditional use application process for the related outdoor storage; followed by the environmental review of the project conducted at the request of a number of citizens, as well as the City; with the application connecting those two components.

Public Comment

Written Comment provided as bench handouts, attached hereto and made a part hereof:

November 24, 2010 letter from Don Siggelkow, Assistant Superintendent, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, in opposition; and a letter dated November 28, 2010 from Liz Wielinski, Commissioner, District 1 (Eastside), Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, also in opposition.


Francis “Frank” Rondoni, Attorney with Chestnut and Cambrone, representing Old Dutch Foods, 2375 Terminal Road, Roseville

On behalf of his client, Mr. Rondoni advised that written comment had been submitted and included in packet materials for the record, and in an effort to respect the City Council’s time.  Mr. Rondoni provided a brief background of Old Dutch’s 42-year history in Roseville, with 300 plus employees, and its location across Terminal Road from the proposed asphalt plant.  Mr. Rondoni noted the concerns, as addressed in writing and reviewed by experts in the field, on the potential absorption of odors during potato manufacturing as well through packaging during transit from their manufacturing facility if the plant was located adjacent to their property.  Mr. Rondoni questioned the MPCA’s specific consideration of food manufacturing and potential negative and significant impacts on the Old Dutch product,  based on industry studies and food processing being susceptible to chemicals and odors during the manufacturing process.  Mr. Rondoni referenced a blind study commissioned at his client’s expense at Kansas State University to test the absorption of one of the many chemicals to be emitted in the air by the proposed asphalt plant, hydrogen sulfide, and the findings of that study in the chemical being absorbed even through the product packaging.  Mr. Rodoni also referenced a report from a medical expert on food absorption, and his findings, based on the EAW and Kansas State report, that it was virtually certain that absorption of chemical odors would occur in their product if the asphalt plant was built.  Mr. Rondoni respectfully requested that the City Council consider the devastating health and safety issues that would impact his client and impair their business, their product, and their brand; and asked that they reject this proposed use in a legally-appropriate manner, opining that there was a better use for this property


Councilmember Ihlan clarified that, while the studies referenced by Mr. Rondoni were not part of tonight’s meeting materials, they had been previously submitted and were part of the record by reference.


Five Designated Speakers Representing

Neighbors Against the Asphalt Plant (NAAP)


Dick Klick, 2999 Fairways Lane, RV

Mr. Klick introduced himself as co-chair of NAAP and on behalf of the group, asked that the City Council reject the Conditional Use application.  Mr. Klick advised that as a group, they had reviewed local and other metropolitan asphalt plants since they’d become aware of the  original application of Bituminous Roadways, and their submittal of formal comments and a contested case hearing petition to the MPCA; with those issues remaining unanswered by the MPCA or any other regulatory body.  Mr. Klick questioned the actual proposed operation moving forward, as it continued to evolve.  Mr. Klick referenced written comment provided in the packet by Ms. Megan Dushin, Mr. Greg Nelson, and Mr. Gary Grefenberg, as well as two (2) letters from representatives of the Minneapolis Park Board, adjacent to the proposed plant; and other materials.  Mr. Klick asked that the City make an effort to develop the property so that all of Roseville could be proud.


Randy Neprash, 1276 Eldridge Avenue

Mr. Neprash provided written comments in opposition by Neighbors Against the Asphalt Plant (NAAP) to the Roseville City Council dated November 29, 2010, as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.


Mr. Neprash reviewed responses included in the written response addressing NAAP’s perceived mischaracterization of the status of the EAW; their opinion that the proposed resolution denying the Conditional Use application provided sufficient findings to support the City Council’s denial; and their request to add one (1) additional finding to the list provided in the draft resolution, specifically addressing explosives, and provided proposed language for the finding, as well as a list of explosions and/or fires at asphalt plants in the United States and Canada between 1997 and 2010.  Mr. Neprash opined that NAPP was amenable that denial of the Conditional Use application would not finalize addressing and responding to public comments and concerns already raised; and expressed the group’s willingness to accept that result.  Mr. Neprash noted that the supplemental information provided by the applicant in their October 21, 2010 letter was submitted after deadline, and not formally part of the MPCA’s formal review process and protocols that had already received very high scrutiny state-wide; and asked that the City Council discount that material appropriately.  Mr. Neprash expressed the favorable impression with the administrative record researched and/or compiled by staff related to this issue.


Nancy Nelson, County Road B at Fulham Street

Ms. Nelson read her comments in opposition, based on negative financial impacts to market values of residences and businesses adjacent to the site; and referenced negative impacts from a North Carolina asphalt plant, as well as Ms. Dushin’s research regarding the Bituminous Roadways – Minneapolis – plant and experience of adjacent neighbors related to their experience with odors from that plant.


Gretchen Ternes, 2328 Terminal Road, Owner of Building and Occupant of Suite B

As a business owner, Ms. Ternes spoke on behalf of the numerous business owners in the area adjacent to the proposed asphalt plant and their negative experiences with past concrete crushing operations in that same vicinity.  Ms. Terns noted that, while that was an Interim Use, this use was proposed as a permanent use and opined that the negative ramifications would be significant.  Ms. Ternes noted that, as an existing taxpayer having owned the building for over twenty-six (26) years, she should be respected.  Ms. Ternes advised that no business owners that she had spoken to had been supportive of the proposed plant; and that they were all concerned with the potential diminishing property values; loss of existing tenants; and concerns with renegotiating leases with the current soft economy, as well as in the future with the negative impacts of the proposed asphalt plant on those lease renewals with multiple tenants.


Susan Buckner, 2190 Midland View Court N

Ms. Buckner offered her gratitude to each individual Councilmember for their difficult decision-making on this issue; and expressed her gratitude as well to the Roseville City staff for their professional review and analysis of the application; and their willingness to community with their neighborhood group and the public in general.  Ms. Buckner also thanked residents for their thoughtful attention to and investment in time and research, as well as attending meetings throughout this lengthy process.  Ms. Buckner encouraged the City Council, as the elected representatives of Roseville citizens, to deny this request and come to the right conclusion for all Roseville residents and businesses in order to preserve the community’s quality of life.


Additional Public Comment

John Bachhuber, 2223 Marion Road

Mr. Bachhuber opined that, as the process progressed, it became clear that the Conditional Use application contained multiple errors and omissions; that the “warm mix” was not the primary use; and assertions regarding peak traffic, property values, odors and/or particulate matters were not accurately presented.  Mr. Bachhuber referenced the volumes of information presented throughout the process and part of the record, and opined that the plant would not meet current or former standards of City Code.


Judy Makowske, St. Anthony Village resident (2919 Rankin Road)

Ms. Makowske thanked the City Council for including residents of St. Anthony in the public meeting notices; and expressed concern about adverse health and property value impacts of the proposed plant; and asked that the City Council take those concerns into consideration in their decision-making.


Lana Marks, 2123 Fairways Lane

Ms. Marks, as a long-term employee of an infusion-related pharmaceutical company dealing with clients experiencing multiple respiratory issues, asked that the City Council consider businesses operating in the area that they may not even be aware of.  Ms. Marks opined that, once an approval was granted, there would be no second chances to remove the negative impacts of odors and emissions being faced from the asphalt plant operations.  Ms. Marks noted that an aging population would only get sicker and sicker and impacts from such odors and emissions would only affect more people unless steps were taken to prevent and/or eliminate those negative impacts.


Emma Jeanne Kydd, 2224 Eustice Street

Ms. Kydd noted when she had purchased her property, the surrounding area was an office park, with no major highways adjacent to the property, while recognizing that things change.  However, Ms. Kidd opined that an asphalt plant was not appropriate to the community of Roseville, specifically this area that served as the western gateway to the City of Roseville.  Ms. Kydd noted potential negative impacts to sports activities, pedestrians and bicyclers, children playing outside in surrounding playgrounds; and possible additional unknown negative and cumulative implications from those already brought forward.  Ms. Kydd also noted negative impacts to the broader area with golf courses, the University of Minnesota research plots, the Raptor Center, and the flyway for songbirds, in addition to honeybees.  Ms. Kydd opined that an asphalt plant didn’t belong in Roseville; and the treasured City of Roseville needed to be preserved.  Ms. Kydd thanked everyone for their excellent, educational study of the issues; and commended staff and the City Council for that research; and asked that the City Council consider the broad implications and dramatic impacts to Roseville residents by such a proposed use.


Paul Zisla, Attorney with Moss and Barnet, representing Gladstone Commercial Corporation and its affiliate, UCO6 Roseville MN LLC (Gladstone), owner of the “Unisys Building” at 2501 Walnut Street (also 2470 Highcrest), across the Walnut and Terminal intersection from proposed asphalt plant

Written comments from Mr. Zisla, and supporting documents, were submitted and included in the staff report as “Attachment L” and made a part of the record, dated November 23, 2010, and authorized by Mr. Zisla.  Supporting documents also made part of that attachment included an August 11, 2010 letter authored by Chris Massey, Vice President of UC06 Roseville MN LLC, c/o Gladstone Commercial Corporation; and a September 10, 2010 letter authored by Joseph G. Maternowski of Moss & Barnett on behalf of UC)6 Roseville MN LLC.  Mr. Zisla referenced concurred with Mayor Klausing’s legal interpretation of the Interstate case law; and noted his client’s concerns for adverse and negative impacts on their property values.


Additional written comments dated November 29, 2010 in the form of a letter from UC06 Roseville MN LLC to Members of the Roseville City Council, and authored by Chris Massey, Vice President, were provided as a bench handout at the meeting, and are attached hereto and made a part hereof.

End of Public Comments


Mayor Klausing noted the November 24, 2010 memorandum from its legal counsel Erickson, Bell, Beckman & Quinn (Attachment H), detailing and related to the recommended procedure for the City Council’s decision-making related to this application.  Mayor Klausing reminded the public that the City Council was serving in its adjudicatory function, not making or interpreting policy; clarified that the City was not proposing this use, but addressing the land use application currently before them.


Mayor Klausing opined that the additional finding suggested related to explosives was not specific in City Code to consideration in this use; and asked for staff’s interpretation.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that Finding #7 in the draft resolution addressed decomposition by explosion and types of materials proposed for use; and following discussions with the City’s Fire Marshal and Fire Chief, they opined that the performance standards did not apply to the proposed asphalt plant use.


Councilmember Roe noted that the City had other existing uses in the community (tank farms, fuel tanks, etc.) that were subject to other regulatory processes and the types of equipment that could be used; and opined that the City Code appeared to allow for those types of materials, when properly regulated.


Mr. Trudgeon confirmed that information, noting that the State Fire Code provided for a series of regulations.


Councilmember Ihlan addressed the performance standards in current code, applicable when the application first came forward (Chapter 1007, Industrial Districts, Section 1007.01 General Requirements, D. Performance Standards), provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.  Councilmember Ihlan referenced the additional finding related to explosives suggested by Mr. Neprash for consideration in the draft resolution as additional evidence that the application didn’t meet the City’s previously-existing industrial code performance standards.


Councilmember Johnson concurred with Councilmember Ihlan, and including the finding related to explosions, even though regulated, to remain mindful that accidents can and do happen even when highly regulated.


Mayor Klausing noted that the findings and evidence had been incorporated by the City Attorney into the draft resolution; and addressed in the procedures outlined in the November 24, 2010 legal memorandum from the City’s legal counsel.


Discussion ensued among Councilmembers and City Attorney Bartholdi regarding application of the new Ordinance 13907; and supporting evidence for the previous Ordinance as well as the Amended Ordinance.



Councilmember Ihlan opined that she was basing her interpretation on the existing ordinance 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 evidence in the record, denial of the Conditional Use application for outdoor storage of aggregate 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 evidentiary 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 discussion.


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 Councilmember Ihlan wished to have considered.


Mayor Klausing suggested adding a general paragraph addressing other evidence presented 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 Conditional Use analysis findings on page 6 focus on outdoor storage; but that the impacts of the outdoor storage cannot be separated from the impacts of the asphalt plant operations, 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 findings 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 eighteen (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 Conditional 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 application, 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 additional 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 support 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.  However, Councilmember Roe noted that he couldn’t depend on his personal sensory perceptions, and needed to consider others in the neighborhood that may have more sensitive senses.  Councilmember Roe shared Councilmember Johnson’s concern that the application hadn’t been acted upon earlier; however, he noted the additional information provided 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 proceed with the land, he could not support it even with mitigation efforts.  Councilmember Roe questioned how such a use could be good for the neighborhood, given long-term issues from crushing; and expressed his support for the motion.  Councilmember Roe expressed his appreciation for the significant background information provided as part of the record; and opined that the resolution provided strong findings.  Councilmember Roe expressed his appreciation to the neighbors for their thoughtful and informative input; and reiterated a statement made often during testimony, as well as one he’d personally expressed, that once something was built and in operation, it was more difficult to police the property and operations.


Mayor Klausing suggested an amendment to the original motion that the resolution, page 9, under #13, include a statement that “the City Council’s findings are determined and based on the above referenced items and all information presented to the City Council.”


With the permission of the Mayor, City Attorney Bartholdi suggested the following language amendments for incorporation into the proposed findings of the draft resolution.

§  Page 3, Finding #8 – Introductory Sentence, amend to read as follows:

“The use of the subject property for an Asphalt Plant is not a permitted use under the Performance Standards stated in Section 1007/01D of the Roseville City Code for the following reasons, based upon evidence presented to the City Council as well as the following sources:”

§  Page 6, Finding #11 – Introductory Sentence, amend to read as follows:

“The City Council finds the following with respect to the Conditional Use Permit Application, based upon evidence presented to the City Council as well as the following sources:”

§  Page 4 and 5, Finding 8G - Change date and letter reference of source as indicated by Mr. Trudgeon.

§  Page 9, Additional Findings, #13

Delete Section #13 entirely.

§  City Attorney Bartholdi noted that the draft resolution referenced “Exhibit A,” the legal description of the property located at 2280 Walnut Street; however, it was not included as an attachment to the draft resolution, “Attachment M;” however, noted that it would be incorporated into the final resolution as adopted.


Mayor Klausing and Councilmember Johnson, as makers of the original motion, concurred with the friendly amendments suggested by City Attorney Bartholdi.


Councilmember Ihlan expressed her preference to include language of what the staff report consisted of, as detailed in Section 5.2, #3 of that report.


Mayor Klausing opined that the language as amended by City Attorney Bartholdi sufficiently addressed that referenced evidence presented.


City Attorney Bartholdi concurred, and further noted that the fifth and sixth “WHEREAS” statements of the resolution (Attachment M), lines 28 – 30 and 32 – 35 respectively, also were intended to incorporate that evidence as well.


On behalf of the City Council, staff and the community, Mayor Klausing thanked everyone present at tonight’s meeting for their presentations and respectful participation in a highly charged atmosphere.


Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of the motion and thanked everyone for their work and thoughtful comments and information gathered throughout this complex process. Councilmember Ihlan outlined her position with several points and reviewed her personal approach to determine whether the proposal met land use codes for Industrial Zoning, and her continued interpretation that the industrial performance standards were not met under previous or amended ordinance.  Councilmember Ihlan further opined that the odor would be perceptible beyond the property boundaries; and other clear evidence through the MPCA process as well as other evidentiary materials that the proposed use would not meet performance standards under Conditional Use criteria.  Councilmember Ihlan reviewed additional negative impacts from projected traffic; air emissions from plant operations and hauling of the material; safety and other compatibility issues from additional heavy truck traffic on roadways not built to accommodate such uses; impacts to parks and other facilities; and impacts to adjacent Minneapolis Park Board properties.  Councilmember Ihlan reviewed and provided comment on each finding and criteria used for that evaluation; and reiterated her request to include a statement related to negative impacts to the community’s general health, safety and welfare from this proposed use.


By consensus, Mayor Klausing noted the addition of Councilmember Ihlan’s statement related to negative public health risks as an additional finding under #13 of the draft resolution.


Councilmember Johnson thanked staff for their significant analysis of this application and subsequent data.


A vote was then taken by the City Council to adopt Resolution 10861, attached hereto and made a part hereof, denying the Conditional Use Permit Application of Bituminous Roadways, Inc.


Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Roe; Ihlan; and Klausing.

Nays: None.


14.      City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen noted the previously agreed-upon start time of 5:00 pm in Closed Executive Session on December 6, 2010.


Upon further consideration, Councilmember Johnson questioned whether the conclusion of the annual City Manager review would take a full hour; and suggested that one-half hour should be sufficient. 

Mayor Klausing questioned if Councilmembers wished to have time for some refreshments prior to starting the 6:00 pm business meeting; further noting that the Truth in Taxation public hearing for the 2011 Budget and Levy was scheduled at 6:00 pm, and he preferred not to have that meeting delayed.


Councilmember Ihlan expressed her preference to meet at 5:30 pm as well.


By consensus, the Closed Executive Session was rescheduled to begin at 5:30 p.m. on December 6, 2010; with members being cognizant of the 6:00 p.m. advertised time for the Truth in Taxation Budget hearing.


City Manager Malinen noted the reception for retiring Mayor Klausing and Councilmember Ihlan on December 13, 2010, immediately prior to the regular business meeting.

16.      Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:22 p.m.