Agenda - Council - 02/23/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE # REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT; CASE OF DANNY'S ALUMINUM PROCESSING, INC. By: Zoning Administrator Sylvia Frolik Background: In December the City Council received complaints of continued non-compliance on the part of Mr. Karst and City Staff was directed to initiate action necessary for Council to consider revocation of the conditional use permit. In accordance with City Code procedures, I inspected the facility and sent Mr. Karst a letter on December 3 which described the violations and gave him 30 days to correct the violations or a public hearing would be scheduled to consider revocation. On January 6, 1993, I inspected the site as a finality to the 30 da), time frame. Mr. Karst was in compliance with his conditional use permit. This information was provided to City Council on January 12 and they ceased proceedings to consider revocation of Mr. Karst's permit. At the January 12 Council meeting, Mr. Karst was present and explained that in order to be in compliance with his conditional use permit, he had to shut down the engine and transmission disassembly line and lay off the employees on that line. He requested that City Council reconsider a conditional use permit amendment to allow for the disassembly of engines and transmissions based on the fact that a similar facility in Ramsey is permitted to do so and in order that the employees could be placed back on the payroll. Council directed City Staff to proceed to work with Mr. Karst for a conditional use permit amendment as expeditiously as possible. Observations: On February 2, 1993, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding Mr. Karst's request for a conditional use permit amendment to allow for the disassembly of engines and transmissions within the building on the site. On February 1, I received a package containing a piece of metal debris and a letter from Jerry Martin stating his non-support of Mr. Karst's request for a conditional use permit amendment. These items were submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission at the public hearing. Due to the late hour, the Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned their meeting prior to taking action on Mr. Karst's request and the meeting was continued to February 16. At the February 16 meeting, Mr. Karst presented the Planning and Zoning Commission with several wrirten rebuttals to Mr. Martin's claim that he is not policing the area effectively. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of Mr. Karst's request for a conditional use permit amendment to disassemble engines and transmissions on the site. The Commission also directed that Mr. Karst's conditional use permit be amended to read item for item like the conditional use permit issued to Alloy Recovery Company except in the following areas: a) b) c) Hours of operation would not be restricted. Preparation of feedstock would be permitted within a screened area. The provisions for afterburners on the furnaces would be applicable to Mr. Karst's situation as it relates to MPCA's attention to his perm/t application. Accordingly, I have amended the proposed conditional use permit to match that of Alloy Recovery's. However, the exceptions noted above and the fact that Alloy Recovery's application involved new construction that was not applicable to Mr. Karst's situation, resulted in Mr. Karst's CUP having 6 less terms than Alloy Reeovery's CUP.