Laserfiche WebLink
Motion by Commissioner Holland and seconded by Commissioner Terry to recommend that City <br />Council grant preliminary plat approval to Sunfish Estates, with the recommendation to eliminate <br />the trail along the rear of Lots 14, 15 and 16, and contingent upon compliance with City Staff <br />Review Letter dated February 16, 1996. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Bawden, Commissioners Holland, Terry, Deemer, <br />La.Due, and Thorud. Voting No: None. .. <br /> <br />Case #7: <br /> <br />Request for Revision to Approved Preliminary Plat for Chestnut <br />Ridge 2nd Addition; Case of John Peterson, Good Value Homes <br /> <br />Zoning Administrator Frolik recounted that City Council granted preliminary plat approval in <br />August 1994 to Chestnut Ridge 2nd Addition, which consisted of 73 single family lots. At this <br />time, the developer is requesting a minor modification to the approved preliminary plat to construct <br />the cul-de-sac on the north side of Sunwood Drive as a through street to intersect with Sunwood <br />Drive. This modification is precipitated by the realignment of Sunwood Drive to the north, which <br />made the lots on the south end of the cul-de-sac substandard and forcing the road to go through as <br />a through street The developer then gained developable property on the south side of Sunwood <br />Drive thereby replacing the lot lost on the north side of Sunwood Drive. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Deemer and seconded by Commissioner Holland to recommend that City <br />Council approve the modification to the Chestnut Ridge 2nd Addition preliminary plat, and that the <br />Transportation Impact Fee be reserved for traffic control at the intersection of Sunwood Drive and <br />Potassium Street should that occur. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Bawden, Commissioners Deemer, Holland, LaDue, <br />Ten'y, and Thorud. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case q5"3: <br /> <br />Request for an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit; Case of Alloy <br />Recovery Company <br /> <br />Zoning Administrator Frolik explained that Alloy Recovery Company established an aluminum <br />processing facility at 7060 142nd Avenue N.W. by a conditional use permit (CUP) issued by the <br />City in 1991. They have now applied for a CUP to enlarge the facility with a 9,000 square foot <br />addition to the principal building on the site in order to get more of the operation indoors. Upon <br />research of the facility, City Staff learned that not all the permits seem to be in order. The <br />following items need to be addressed: <br /> <br /> 1. The Enforcement Unit of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) advises that there is <br /> not an Ak Quality Permit in effect, however, Alloy Recovery has applied for same and the <br /> permit will most likely be issued. <br />2. ALloy Recovery has not complied with the CUP requirement to conduct an annual furnace <br /> emissions test and provide the City with a copy of the report. <br /> 3.. In checking with Anoka County Environmental Services, Staff was informed that Alloy does <br /> not have a hazardous waste generator's license. Also, Alloy has not been providing the City <br /> with copies of shipping manifests for hazardous wastes on a quarterly basis. <br />4. Exterior storage of materials has gone beyond the allowed 30' x 50' area behind the building <br /> and is occ~g on the total site. <br />5. Ash is being stored in a semi-trailer rather than a building while awaiting shipment off the site. <br />6. When the CUP was issued, the City was notified of the facility that would be accepting the <br /> ash. If that has changed, Alloy should provide the City with up-to-date information. <br />7. Staff doesn't have the expertise to determine whether or not the water quality requirement is <br /> being complied with. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/March 4, 1996 <br /> Page 12 of 15 <br /> <br /> <br />