1988-04-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 1988 LeFevere stated if the asphalt plant in its current form is a lawful non-conforming use and, if none of the concerns he raised are real concerns (no noise, no rear yard problems, nothing that requires screening, etc.), the city would not have the legal authority to deny the plat. Benke asked for clarification that the perpetuation of existing non-conformities, because they are grandfathered in, would be permissable, but expansion of non-conformities is something coun- cil can resist. LeFevere stated a six-foot screen is required to shield the material from sight by the public traveling on the public right-of-way; now there will be a new public right-of-way and if there is no fence and there cannot be a fence, that would be a concern. Williams added that LeFevere's review has been valuable because they are all legitimate questions and of concern to him, although there may be one or two that do not apply; has difficulty believ- ing that the kind of establishments we would like to have move into the two new lots will be of major proportions without some insurance that the asphalt plant will be moved out; and reads nothing in the resolution that speaks to the issue of the asphalt plant using the material and then moving off-site, and it needs to be stated that nothing would be added to the current stockpile. Mattila stated he understood that when the aggregate avail&ble on the site was depleted, there would then be action ~o move the facility to the Elk River site which has been purchased. Harold Peterson, James R. Hill, Inc., representing the applicant, stated the applicant does not intend to leave in a short time, (it will be when the aggregate in the general area is depleted so that it becomes uneconomical to operate the plant where it is); with regard to the screening and the 40-foot front yard setback, two years ago they did agree to provide for 40-foot front yard set- backs for all structures which would be landscaped and screened in the form of a fence (possibly berming); where the stockpiling of the material will be, Peterson could not answer at this time. Benke indicated we do not have answers to all of the questions at this time and it will take a few weeks to consider everything; recalled, from similar discussions eight years ago, the aggregate would be gone in a few years; if there is going to be a short-term use, need screening and the applicant needs to consider some com- mitment for termination of use (other than the aggregate supply issue) at which point they would move -- because the aggregate level could be forever. Motion by Williams, seconded by Gunderman, to CONTINUE TO MAY 24, 1988, AND DIRECT STAFF TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT AND CITY ATTOR- NEY TO DEVELOP INFORMATION ON THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED; AND TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF A PETITION FOR CITY STREETS AND UTILITIES FOR WALBURN INDUSTRIAL PARK. Benke asked that staff review the information with the Planning Commission Chairman. Page 8