Minutes - Council - 12/18/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mayor Reimann stated his opinion was based on the petition and letter in opposition to the proposal. Councilmember Pearson felt the concerns of the citizens have been satisfied and it was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, though he was still concerned about the tower versus the location of the airport. Motion by Councilmember Pearson and seconded by Councilmember Peterson to adopt Findings of Fact #0289. Further discussion: Mr. Youngquist noted it still has to be approved by the FAA, which will address the concerns about the airport. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Councilmembers Pearson, Peterson, Cich and DeLuca. Voting No: Mayor Reimann. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed conditional use permit. Ms. Frolik suggested the addition in Item #8 of a time table in which the trees for screening should be planted. It should read as follows: "The trees are to be planted by the fall of 1991, and in the event any of the trees die, they should be replaced by the spring of 1992. It was also agreed to add Item #10 as suggested by the City Attorney Goodrich. It should read as follows: "This conditional use permit is contingent upon the applicant receiving favorable FAA approval for the construction of the proposed tower. In the event that approval is not obtained, this conditional user permit shall be null and void". Motion by Councilmember Pearson and seconded by Councilmember Peterson to approve Mr. James Monson's request for a conditional use permit with the two amendments to the conditional use permit. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Councilmembers Pearson, Peterson, Cich and DeLuca. Voting No: Mayor Reimann. Case #3: Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Aluminum Processing and Waste Recycling Facility; Case of Aluminum Recycling, Inc. Mr. Hartley explained the petition was initiated some time ago. Since the public hearing was held, the request has changed substantially, and what is being proposed now is significantly different than what was originally applied for. According to State law and City Code, the City Council may choose to hold another public hearing because of those changes. He believed it would be in the best interest of the City, the applicant, and the residents to hold another public hearing, and to be sure due process has taken place. Attorney Goodrich confirmed the position that the Statute allows the Council to have additional public hearings when it deems necessary, and there is some precedence for that in the City. If that is the case, the decision is whether the hearing should be held by the City Council or by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Otto reviewed the differences between the original application for an aluminum processing facility and full-service drop-off recycling operation and the present petition to only receive aluminum, copper, bronze, and other non-ferrous metals. Mr. Otto also noted a discrepancy in the Findings of Fact. They show the operation will be open 24 hours a day, when the intent is the City Council/December 18, 1990 Page 7 of 13