2015.05.26 CC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

May 26, 2015 Page 9 of 11 Attorney Yarosh commented that the only other concern of the applicant was with regard to allowing rail car storage for third parties. He explained that rail cars would only be allowed for 110 days. For this reason, he requested that Condition 5 be removed. He requested that the number of acres of additional storage be increased from 8 to 11. He did not believe that the public safety, health or welfare would be impacted by the three additional acres of requested pile storage. He reported additional trees would be planted to assist with screening the site. Mayor Jacobsen requested comment from staff on why eight acres was being recommended versus the applicants requested 11 acres. Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development/Planning Director Gundlach explained that unsightliness and aesthetics were a concern along with dust and noise. She discussed how the new acreage (8 acres) would allow the business to grow their business by over 33 %. Staff felt the eight acres was reasonable given the level of piles already on the site. She noted that staff was recommending the nibble pile also be limited. She discussed the third parry rail car limitation and stated that the Planning Commission's intent was to keep unrelated rail cars not used for salt sales off of the rail sidings. Councilmember Strub asked where rail car storage could take place. Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development/Planning Director Gundlach reviewed the potential location of rail cars. Councilmember Bauman could not support the storage of third party rail cars. She believed this was another proposed business expansion. She also believed that eight acres of additional storage was more than adequate. She was concerned that the applicant was continuing to push the envelope and stated if the motion were to include more than eight acres of additional storage and third party rail cars, she would not support the request. Mayor Jacobsen expressed concern with what type of third party rail cars would be stored on the Bell Air site. He understood there was a shortage of rail sidings, but he did not want to see highly explosive rail cars parked in the City for lengthy periods of time. Mr. Murlowski stated he was uncertain what type of cars may be stored, and reported his intent was not to propose another business expansion. Councilmember Burg noted that the salt sales would occur in the winter months when windows were closed. However, she was concerned with how additional rail car storage would increase noise and dust. Councilmember Strub did not support the Council overstepping and nucromanaging how Mr. Murlowski conducted his business. He was in favor of allowing rail car storage. Councilmember Burg believed that the proposed business expansion on this site would impact the adjacent property owners and for that reason, the Council had to be diligent in making a decision. Councilmember Jacobsen did not support the storage of additional rail cars on the site. He viewed this as another expansion of the business. City Attorney Gilchrest advised that based on the Council's discussion he would not be deleting the condition that states third party rail car storage is prohibited. He commented that the last issue for the Council to address would be to allow either 8 or 11 acres of additional aggregate storage. Mr. Murlowski offered a compromise of 9'/z acres. There was Council consensus to support the compromise. Councilmember Bauman asked if rail cars could be stored on the site for 110 days out of the year City Attorney Gilchrest reported this was the case so long as they were used for salt sales. Councilmember Bauman did not believe that it was necessary for rail cars to be located on the site for 110 days out of the year. Mr. Murlowski indicated it was not his intention to store rail cars on the siding as this would be an expense to him. It was in his best financial interest to get the rail cars unloaded and off his property. City Attorney Gilchrest summarized the proposed amendments to the conditions as agreed upon by Council consensus to the Ordinance and Special Use Permit. Motion by Councilmember Burg, seconded by Councihnember Strub to Adopt Ordinance 832, amending the Environmental Constraint Overlay Area zoning district, including the salt storage use via a Special Use Permit, as amended. 3 Ayes, 2 Nays (Bauman and Jacobsen opposed) - Motion Carried