My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
VN-225
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
PLANNING
>
Planning
>
Variance Files PLZ 02400
>
VN 201-300
>
VN-225
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/9/2007 6:39:15 AM
Creation date
3/8/2007 3:10:37 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
December 17, 1982 <br />CONCEPT DISCUSSION <br />WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITY <br />PURPOSE <br />To discuss the potential development of a Waste-To-Engery Facility on <br />the Walburn LTD property. _ <br />BACKGROUND <br />Richard Bury, President of Midwest Asphalt, as re-submitted his- applica- <br />tions for a building permit and special use permit for the construction <br />of a "Waste-To-Energy Facility". This facility would burn garbage and <br />produce steam heat. Mr. Bury is proposing to build this facility on <br />his property adjacent to Midwest Asphalt. <br />On December 14, 1982 the City Council held <br />ordinance rezoning Mr. Bury's property fro <br />I-3, Limited Industrial. The Council will <br />of the ordinance on December 28th. <br />DISCUSSION <br />This is a concept discussion and therefore <br />practice has been to discuss and point out <br />the first reading oa an <br />m I-2, Heavy Industrial to <br />consider the second reading <br />no action is required. The <br />concerns that may exist. <br />In this regard I would first note that I am not convinced at this time <br />that the applications now submitted are valid. As contained in Joan <br />Archer's previous reports there is a requirement for a EAQ and I do <br />not know for certain what the time frame is for that action. The <br />determination of whether this is a valid application will be made in <br />the next few weeks. <br />As for the proposal my thoughts/concerns include: <br />1. Compatibility with I-3 standards; <br />2. Relationship to Long Lake Park; <br />3. Relationship to development of the overall property; <br />4. Environmental impact; and <br />5. Relationship to surrounding properties. <br />I would suggest that there are other advisory boards in the City that <br />have an interest in this project and Mr. Bury should probably present <br />his project to these boards. <br />Again, as a concept discussion this is a no action item. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />That the Planning Commission recommend to the applicant that he present <br />his proposal to other city Advisory Boards for their comments. <br />~~/i ~ <br />J es F. Wink s, Director <br />Community Development Department <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.