05-28-1986 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986 Page Two . Chairman Tralle further indicated that if this variance is granted, one of the conditions of the conditional use permit should be a hold harmless clause. Chairman Tralle asked Steve Rohlf ,Building & Zoning Administrator to give a definition of the hold harmless clause. The Building and Zoning Administrator indicated that the "Hold Harmless Clause was a clause to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend against liability claims by NSP/UPA or third persons due to inadequacy of Elk River fire fighting equipment to combat fires in a building of the permitted height. He indicated this was not the exact wording but will give you some idea what is meant by a hold harmless clause. Chairman Tralle opened the public hearing. Mr. Gary Peterson of Elk River was present and was against the variance request he felt another type of business would be more beneficial and give us a better tax base. He further indicated once a precedent is set we are open to wide variety of situations. Also was concerned about the health and safety of the people and does NSP have a training background regarding hazards waste that might end up in that facility. Mr. Peterson was interesting in knowing how many similiar facilities do we have in the state. Peter Jones representative from NSP indicated there were three that he was aware of. Mr. Peterson wanted to know the five standards for a variance. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator was asked to read the five standards for a variance and NSP repesentatives commented on the these. . Mr. Don Chmiel from NSP comment on variance standard 1/1 was undue hardships would be caused to the applicant by the literal enforcement of the ordinance because the flail mills enclosure vents to the atmosphere and the magnetic ferrous drum which extracts metal are an integral part of our project in order to have safety precautions and provide the separation of processing solid waste. Because of ground water conditions we cannot lower the structure. Mr. Chmiel's comment on variance standard #2 was the specific hardship would not be characteristic of potential structures which could be located in the I-I district, because the hardship is unique to a RDF facility. Mr. Chmiel's comment to variance standard #3 was waste processing is an acceptable use within the I-I ordinance. The applicant should have the right to process and recover fuel and other materials from solid waste without extraordinary measures. Mr. Chmiel's comment on circumstances are due to fundamental to the safe and variance standard #4 was special conditions the integral design of the RDF facility and efficient operation of this facility. and are . Mr. Chmiel's comment on variance standard #5 was the issuance of the variance would not have an injurious effect on the residents of the City because of the intent of NSP/UPA to be in conformance with ordinance requirements. It is our understanding that the City Staff is recommending to the Planning Commission that the Variance if issued be conditioned upon issuance of a Conditional Use Permit which would include specific conditions.