02/05/91 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mayor Reinlann:~ s!ated· his opinion was based on the petition and letter in opposition to the proposal. Councilmemb& Pearson felt the concerns of the citizens have been satisfied and it was approved by the Plannln~ and Zoning though was Commission, he still concerned about the tower versus tile location of~the 4irport. ,, Motion by C0~ncilmember Pearson and seconded by Councitmember Peterson to adopt Findings of Fact #1~289.1[ Further discUs~ion~ Mr. Youngquist noted it still has to be approved by the FAA, which will address the %4ceres about the airport. Motion carriedl VOting Yes: Councilmembers Pearson, Peterson, Cich and DeLuca. Voting No: Mayor ReimS. Discussion ensfled ~egarding the proposed conditional use permit. Ms. Frohk sUl~gested the add,non in Item #8 of a time table m which the trees for screening should be pl4n~ted. 'lit should read as follows: "The trees are to be planted by the fall of 1991, and in the event ani of the trees die, they should be replaced by the spring of 1992. It was also agr{.ed t~o add Item #10 as suggested by the City Attorney Goodrich. It should read as follows: "Thi~t cor/ditional use pern'fit is contingent upon the applicant receiving favorable FAA approval for itl' g construction of the proposed tower. In the event that approval is not obtained, this conditiorta,, user permit shall be null and void". : Motion by CoCncilmember Pearson and seconded by Councilmember Peterson to approve Mr. James M.onson[]s rer[lUeSt for a conditional use permit with the two amendments to the conditional use permit. Motion carried3 V6ting Yes: Councilmembers Pearson, Peterson, Cich and DeLuca. Voting No: Mayor Reiman~. Case #3: ' Reqtlest for a Conditional Use Permit for an Aluminum Processing ~nd !~aste Recycling Facdity; Case of Aluminum Recycling, Inc. Mr. Hartley eXl: lainCd the petition was initiated some time ago. Since the public hearing was held, the request ha~s :.ha3ged substantially, and what is being proposed now is significantly different than what was c rigigally applied for. According to State law and City Code, the City Council may choose to hol~l tnother public hearing because of those changes. He believed it would be in the best interest Of he City, the applicant, and the residents to hold another public hearing, and to be sure due procest ha~ taken place. Attorney Go0d~ich Confirmed the position that the Statute allows the Council to have additional public h~earingslwhe:rn it deems necessaD,, and there is some precedence for that in the City. If that is the case, t}q~deqision is whether the hearing should be held by the City Council or by the Plannino~ and Z~r ning Commission. Mr. Otto reviewed the differences between the orioinal armlication for an aluminum processin~o facihty and fult-se~,ice drop-off recycling operation and the present petition to only receiv~ aluminum, c0pOer, bronze, and other non-ferrous metals. Mr. Otto also ?oted a discrepancy the Findings OftFact~. They show the operation will be open 24- hours a da), when the intent is'the City Council/December 18, 1990 Page 7 of 13