02/10/88 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

........ Asphalt Plant In The I-I Industrial Distric~= Case Of Commercial Asphalt Company: Ms. Norris reported that Commercial Asphalt is requesting a conditional use permit to establish an asphalt plant on the southeast 20 acres of the former Prestressed Concrete site. Planning and Zoning has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the revised proposed conditional use permit. copies of which were provided to Council separate from the agenda packet. Ms. Norris noted that the Airport Commission referred the request to Federal Aviation Administration and they have determined that the use will have no significant impact on Gateway North Industrial Airport. Gary Sauer of Commercial Asphalt noted that the alternate access to the to the site from Hwy. #10 which is mentioned in Item #16 of the proposed findings of fact would require approval of Burlington Northern. MnDOT. Anoka County and City of Ramsey. Motion by Councilmember Cox and seconded by Councilmember Sorteberg to adopt Findings of Fact 0192 relating to Commercial Asphalt Company's request for a conditional use permit to establish a commercial asphalt bituminous plant in the I-I Industrial District. (Please refer to findings of fact file for Findings of Fact 0192). Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Reimann, Councilmembers Sorteberg, Cox. DeLuca and Pearson. Voting No: None. ') Ms. Norris reaffirmed that FAA, Merland Otto and the operator of Gateway Airport are aware of the request and the fact that there are 75 foot towers associated with the asphalt operation. Motion by Councilmember Cox and seconded by Councilmember Sorteberg to approve Commercial Asphalt Company's request for a conditional use permit to establish a commercial asphalt bituminous plant in the I-I Industrial District. Further Discussion: Mr. Ed Hamilton, an owner of property adjacent to the subject site, noted that the proposed use is not a permitted use in the Industrial District; that the findings of fact say the plant will operate 9 hours per day and the proposed conditional use permit indicates it will operate up to 14 hours per day; still has misgivings with items 3, 4~ 5 and 6 of the proposed conditional use permit regarding noise, odor, smoke and fly ash; feels that the proposed use will impact his property value; the proposed use will conflict with recommendations coming out of the Ci ty" s $25,000 Hwy. #10 Corridor Study. Mr. Sauer replied that he is applying for a conditional use permit because an asphalt plant is not a permitted use; it is a seasonal business and the hours of operation were increased to avoid the need to bother city staff each time it is necessary to operate longer than 8 hours/day; noise, odor and smoke are regulated by ~PCA requirements. Mr. Tom Kurak noted that a business of this type may not add to the City"s tax base because of it"s temporary nature. Mr. Sauer noted that Ramsey would save in asphalt costs because of the proximity of the plant; there is a sales tax on the product which is paid to the State and redistributed among cities; the operation does not pay property taxes. City Council/January 12, 1988 Page 4 of 13