Laserfiche WebLink
facility in Redwing. There was consensus that St. Paul Terminals manages their recycling <br />facilities in an acceptable manner and it is to their credit that their ultimate goal is for an all <br />indoor operation and agree to 100% opacity screening in the interim. City staff contacted the <br />Anoka County Environmental Services Department. Thy indicate the facility is currently in full <br />compliance with regulatory requirements and they are very pleased with the improvements to the <br />property since St. Paul Terminals started managing the site. City staff recommended approval of <br />the request for a conditional use permit. <br /> <br />Citizen Input <br /> <br />There was none. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Reeve, to close the public <br />hearing. <br /> <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Johnson, Reeve, Kociscak, and <br />Watson. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />The public hearing closed at 10:49 p.m. <br /> <br />Commission Business <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt called the regular meeting of the Planning Cormnission back to order at 10:49 <br />p.m. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt inquired if the 13 foot high concrete barrier will be constructed as part of the <br />conditional use permit. <br /> <br />Jeff Schott, St. Paul Terminals, replied yes. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt inquired if there should be a time frame set to make sure that the wall is <br />constructed. <br /> <br />Mr. Schott replied that he would anticipate having it completed in 1 ½ years. <br /> <br />Consensus of the Commission was to require that the wall be constructed within 24 months. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt inquired if the granting of the conditional use permit was conditioned upon the <br />revocation of the existing conditional use permit. <br /> <br />Brad Martinson, Attorney, stated that issue of revocation of the other permit affects how they <br />approach the new permit. He explained that St. Paul Terminals purchase agreement with Mr. <br />Karst is contingent upon them having a permitted use on the property. They would need to be <br />granted the new conditional use permit prior to the revocation of the existing permit. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/June 5, 2001 <br /> Page 25 of 28 <br /> <br /> <br />