Laserfiche WebLink
Motion by Commissioner Deemer and seconded by Commissioner LaDue to table Mr. Dan Karst's <br />request for a conditional use permit to expand an aluminum recovery and processing business. <br /> <br />Further discussion. Commissioner Deemer stated that a special meeting should be scheduled to <br />address Mr. Karst's case because of the complexity of it. <br /> <br />Motion carded. Voting Yes: Chairman Zimmerman, Commissioners Bawden, Deemer, LaDue, <br />Terry and Thorud. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Hendriksen. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Deemer and seconded by Commissioner Thorud to schedule a special <br />Planning and Zoning Commission for October 16, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. to address Mr. Karst's <br />request for an amended conditional use permit. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Zimmerman, Commissioners Bawden, Deemer, LaDue, <br />Terry and Thorud. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Hendriksen. <br /> <br />Case #5: Report on Elk River Plan Share Conference, <br /> <br />The Commission noted receiving a transmittal regarding discussions held at the first area Plan <br />Share Conference in Elk River on July 17, 1990. The Commission provided Sylvia Frolik with <br />their input regarding issues that should be suggested for discussion at the next Plan Share <br />Conference. Ms. Frolik was instructed to forward those suggestions to Elk River. <br /> <br />Case W/: Request for Site Plan Review: Case of Bernie Vev¢~ of V¢-V¢, In¢, <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski stated that the City received Mr. Vevea's site plan last Friday and on Monday, he <br />was able to give it a brief review. He has the following comments: <br /> <br />The structure is proposed to be metal which is inconsistent with City Code which requires that the <br />exteriors be 50% other than metal. Mr. Vevea stated that he does not have the funds to revise his <br />plans to meet City Code .re.quirements and he is also trying to facilitate his needs in a limited <br />construction season remmmng. Mr. Vevea noted that he does have a masonry facade on the <br />exterior portion of the building where his office is located. Mr. Vevea noted that 8 or 9 of his <br />neighbors also have metal structures with no masonry facades added to them. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski noted that City Code would also require Mr. Vevea to improve the property by <br />paving the drive and parking area and installing curbing. If the City is inclined to require Mr. <br />Vevea to upgrade his property, then a topographical survey and drainage plan will have to be <br />submitted. <br /> <br />Ms. Frolik stated that in the Commission's review of Mr. Vevea's site plan application and <br />resulting required improvements, consideration should be given to uniform enforcement of the <br />Code with respect to expansions. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski noted that in the past, the City has taken the position that when there is a significant <br />upgrade in the property, the City requires any nonconformities on the existing site to be brought up <br />to code. <br /> <br />Mr. Vevea stated that he is opposed to having to pave and curb a facility that is located on a dirt <br />road. <br /> <br />Planning and Zoning Commission/October 2, 1990 <br /> Page 6 of 8 <br /> <br /> <br />