Agenda - Council - 06/26/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

100% opacity screening and will be the base structure from which the storage bins will be constructed within the yard. Outdoor storage of containers and company trucks and the retail sale of timbers is proposed on Lot 2 (no activity is proposed for Lots 3 and 4). Mr. Schort is currently in discussions with the City to formulate a master plan for the future expansion of the facility to the east versus to the north on Lots 2, 3, and 4 for public safety reasons if 141~t Avenue is extended from the west to intersect with Basalt. 'St. Paul Terminals has two other facilities; one in St. Paul Park and one in Redwing. City Staff contacted Barry Sittlow, the City Administrator for St. Paul Park. He states that St. Paul Terminals runs a clean operation and they are a cooperative commercial neighbor. The only complaints the City receives relate to noise. Apparently, the use is on a lawful nonconforming or 'grandfathered' site nestled in a residential area. He stated St. Paul Terminals manages their facility in a manner that would be acceptable and appropriate in an industrial zone. Some City staff persons and Councilmembers Kurak and Anderson visited the facility in Redwing. There was consensus that St. Paul Terminals manages their recyling facilities in an acceptable manner and it is to their credit that their ultimate goal is for an all indoor operation and agree to 100% opacity screening in the interim. I I I I I I City. Staff contacted the Anoka County Enviromnental Services Department. Thy indicate the facility is currently in full compliance with regulatory requirements and they are very pleased with the improvements to the property, since St. Paul Terminals started managing the site. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 5, 2001, and there were no written or verbal comments submitted regarding St. Paul Terminal's request. Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting on June 5, the City Attorney reviewed the proposed conditional use permit and recommended some modifications. The modifications consist of amending term #1 to state that the Permit i's conditioned upon the applicant providing the City with proof of ownership of the property. Item #21 was added to require a financial surety to ensure that the concrete screening wall is installed within the two year time frame established. Per the Planning Commission's request, City Staff is reviewing insurance requirements and limits. -346- Recommendation: Council Action: ~ Moion to adopt Resolution #0t-06- request for a conditional use permit Motion to adopt Resolution #01-06- _ based on the findings of fact, and ado The Planning Commission recommends approval of the request for a conditional use permit. ~dopting findings of fact ' to St. Paul Terminals' '~:ycling and aluminum processing facility. ~~roving St. Paul~T~nals request for a conditional use pe~it 'Resolution ¢01-06-~°declaring te~s of same. -or- Motion to deny St. Paul Te~inals' request for a conditional use pe~it b~ed on the findings of fact. Review Checklist: City Attorney CC: 06/26/01