10/06/87 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

A~phalt Plant..In The I-1 Industrial District; Case Of Commercial Asphalt Company: Mr. Gary Sauer, President of Commercial Asphalt Company, and his consulting engineer, Don Obernolte, were present. Mr. Obernolte stated that he has met with City Engineer Raatikka regarding concerns of the asphalt operation interfering with proposed airport improvements. It has been determined that the protected airspace is at an elevation of II0 feet in the proposed vicinity of asphalt silos; the silos are approximately 45 feet high with an additional 15 feet added for conveyors; this 60 foot structure is approximately 54 feet below protected airspace. The only portion of the asphalt operation that would be included im airport acqusition is the access and alternate access routes have been planned for in the event a variance cannot be obtained to continue to use that portion of the property for access. Mr. Gary Sauer noted that the current operation is located in Anoka, across the street from a Ramsey residential area. Supplies are delivered on trucks via Hwy. #10 from Elk River. The new location would not involve any new traffic to the area and would divert the existing traffic from a residential area to an industrial area. Mr. Gary Sauer stated that Oakridge Construction and Ed Hamilton submitted letters at the public hearing opposing the request based on traffic and odor concerns. Mr. Sauer noted that his earlier statement addresses traffic concerns and odors are regulated by EPA and PCA. Mr. Sauer noted that Commercial Asphalt has an FAA application for airspace approval in process. Ms. Norris provided the Commission with copies of the proposed findings of fact which varies from what was provided in the meeting agenda. Commissioner Howell noted that at the last meeting in which this case was discussed he requested information regarding the request and how it relates to the Hwy. ~10 study in progress and he also requested photos of other Commercial Asphalt operations. Ms. Norris stated that the Commission also requested a legal determination as to whether or not using the incorrect corporate name on the hearing notices impacts the request and the City Attorney has determined that it does not. City Engineer Raatikka stated he would like to see a more detailed description of accesses in the site plan and they should be reviewed by Mn/Dot, Burlington Northern and Anoka County. The Commission proceeded to review the proposed findings of fact. Item #8 should read as follows: 'That the proposed plant will require silos and conveyors totalling approximately 65 feet in height.~ Item #13 should read as follows: 'That the proposed use will be in operation from approximately mid-April through mid-November of each year and the plant will run approximately 9 hours per day while in Planning & Zoning Commission/October 6, 1987 Page3 of 8