Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />t~ouncil Meeti ng Hi nutes <br />June 26, 1990 <br /> <br />~~S'uncil.~iness, continued <br /> <br />The 51 te nonconformiti es i nvo 1 ve: 1 ack of bi tumi nouS or concrete <br />drive, loading, maneuvering, or parking areas; lack of concrete <br />curbing; lack of exterior storage setbacks and screening; and odor <br />',,,;::"i sshms. The proposed nonconformi ti es correcti ons are: <br /> <br />A 10n of the main drive and the off-street parking area would be <br />paved and bituminouS material will cover the remaining drive. <br /> <br />Cun curb and gutter would be installed along the east si of <br />the drive serving the existing office parking lot. <br /> <br />Ci ty standards requ'j re a 40 foot setback for storage areas 1 but the <br />ie,ant c'1 aims s,>,tback enforcement woul d impose severe operatj Dna 1 <br />reD ;j c:tl ons. Th~~ Pl anni ng Commi ssi on does not recommend ~)etback <br />tHCement, but the that area be screened wi th an 8 foot hi gh <br /> <br />has identh ,'!d pentachlorophenol, used in the pole tre:Jting <br />,a hazar'dol J ~"aste. EPA requires Bell pole to be mon:ton:;d <br />im;,pected by var"lous public agencies. The proposed fadl1ty <br />would ~Ilclose the treating process and reduce odors from the 3ite. <br /> <br /> <br />discussions with Bell pole involved approval of the <br />ior'ining use permit conditioned upon facility relocathm or <br />operation discontlnuation. Bell pole was unwilling to agree <br />conditions. The Company did, however, offer the following <br />The Company agrees that in the event the City aC4~ires <br />!::unij)a.(IY! s prop8ity by use of emi nent domain at any poi nt after <br />from the data of the issuance of this permit, then t~e city <br />"11 ab 1 e for the then fai r market va.l ue of the equ.'1 p'ment <br />h!:d '1 n the nevi treatment fac i 1 ity bu i 1 ding or the cost of <br />movi the equipment to another location so long as the Company may <br />reta"ln ownership of that equipment if it so desires in such a <br />condemnation proceeding. <br /> <br /> <br />Upon revi ew, LeFevere found enforcement of <br />questionable, but noted the agreement was a good <br />the applicant which carries the weight of <br />responsi bil i ty. <br /> <br />this provision <br />faith offer from <br />a moral/ethical <br /> <br />Benke feels the agreement should not be considered at this time, and <br />noted continuing discussions regarding pole visibility concerns. <br /> <br />Brandt Rebelein confirmed the agreement's legality and enforcement <br />difficulty, but feels it should be added to the permit approval. <br /> <br />Council Business <br /> <br />Bell pole Site Plan <br />Review & Nonconforminc <br />Use Permit - <br />Report 90-143 <br />Resolution 90-60 <br />Resolution 90-61 <br />