05/08/91 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Glen Rychner, Aluminum Recycling, Inc., felt the Findings of Fact were funOamentally flawe~ to begin with because they Ola not include the fact that outside storage for inOustr}es abutting reslOential areas Is not aliowe~ until December 6. He sal~ he kept changing his plans in response to what the City ha~ tol~ him. His business cannot operate sufficiently without some outside storage, and when he found out it was not allowed, he withdrew hts request. Mr. Rychner state~ if the issue ha~ been pointed out at the onset In October, he wou]d never have pursued the request beyond the first permit. He has paid about $1,300 on this, with total charges of about $9,000 in legal, site plans, and other paperwork. Most of the expense woul~ not have been necessary if he had known the ramifications of the abutment to R-! ~esl~entlal. Mrs. Hailing clarified the City's costs totalled $4,419.64. The $89I proposed credit Is the actual amount of time spent on researching the ordinance and could provide reference for the future. Sba didn't think Staff ¢ou]~ recommend any ad3ustment other than that. - Mr. Rychner stated he paid $1,445.92 to the City already. The abutment issue ma~e all the difference as to whether they could use the land or not, again pointing out that that fact was not noted until December 6, almost two months after the application was made, which is when the application of Ordinance #9D-5 was made to his permit. He contended that ordinance was not applied to an identical-type operation which had been permitted one month before. He was surprised It was applied to him, and he did not feel it was appropriate because ]t Is the So]id Waste Landfill Ordinance. Attorney Goodrich explained his memorandum stating Ordinance #90-5 applied to Mr. Rychner's permit was written on December 3, 1990, in response to the discussion at the November 20, 1990 public hearing. Ms. Frollk explained the Findings of Fact were drafted by Mer]an~ Otto, Hakanson Anderson Associates, with input from Staff; however, the Planning and Zoning Commission claims authorship after reviewing, altering, and acting on them. She also explained that she, Mr. Otto, and Mr. Jankows~i met with Mr. Rychner and went over the ramifications o~ Ordinance ~90-5 if it applied to the proposal. Mr. Rychner repeated his Issue is not with Ordinance #90-5, though he did not see how it can be interpreted to apply to his business. He could have met those requirements with some variances. It is the abutment issue that caused him to withdraw his application because he cannot operate without some outside storage. Further discussion noted the difference between Mr. Rycnner's request and the City's reconm'nen~ation ]s about $2,000. Mayor Gj]bertson suggested he meet with Mr. Rychner, Mrs. He]ling anG Mr. Otto to negotiate the item. CITY COUNCIL/APRIL 9, 1991 Page 6 of 11