Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Glen Rychner, Aluminum Recycling, Inc., felt the Findings of <br />Fact were fundamentally flawed to begin with because they did not <br />include the fact that outside storage for industries abutting R-1 <br />residential areas is not allowed until December 6. He said he kept <br />changing his plans in response to what the City had told him. His <br />business cannot operate sufficiently without some outside storage, <br />and when he found out it was not allowed, he withdrew his request. <br />Mr. Rychner stated if the issue had been pointed out at the onset <br />In October, he would never have pursued the request beyond the <br />first permit. He has paid about $1,300 on this, with total charges <br />of about $9,000 in legal, site plans, and other paperwork. Most of <br />the expense would not have been necessary If he had known the <br />ramifications of the abutment to R-1 ~esldentlal. <br /> <br />Mrs. Helling clarified the City's costs totalled $4,419.64. The <br />$891 proposed credit Is the actual amount of time spent on <br />researching the ordinance and could provide reference for the <br />future. She didn't think Staff could recommend any adjustment other <br />than that. <br /> <br />Mr. Rychner stated he paid $1,445.92 to the City already. The <br />abutment issue made all the difference as to whether they could <br />use the land or not, again pointing out that that fact was not <br />noted until December 6, almost two months after the application was <br />made, which Is when the application of Ordinance #90-5 was made to <br />his permit. He contended that ordinance was not applied to an <br />identical-type operation which had been permitted one month before. <br />He was surprised It was applied to him, and he did not feel it was <br />appropriate because it Is the Solid Waste Landfill Ordinance. <br /> <br />Attorney Goodrich explained his memorandum stating Ordinance #90-5 <br />applied to Mr. Rychner's permit was written on December 3, 1990, in <br />response to the discussion at the November 20, 1990 public <br />hearing. <br /> <br />Ms. Frollk explained the Findings of Fact were drafted by Merlan~ <br />Otto, Hakanson Anderson Associates, with input from Staff; however, <br />the Planning and Zoning Commission claims authorship after <br />reviewing, altering, and acting on them. She also explained that <br />she, Mr. Otto, and Mr. Jankowski met with Mr. Rychner and went over <br />the ramifications of Ordinance #90-5 if it applied to the proposal. <br /> <br />Mr. Rychner repeated his Issue Is not with Ordinance #90-5, though <br />he did not see how it can be Interpreted to apply to his business. <br />He could have met those requirements with some variances. It is <br />the abutment issue that caused him to withdraw his application <br />because he cannot operate without some outside storage. <br /> <br />Further discussion noted the difference between Mr. Rychner's <br />request and the City's recommendation is about $2,000. Mayor <br />Gilbertson suggested he meet with Mr. Rychner, Mrs. Helling and Mr. <br />Otto to negotiate the Item. <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL/APRIL 9, 1991 <br /> Page 6 of 11 <br /> <br /> <br />