My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-21-1986 PC MIN
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Minutes
>
1980 - 1989
>
1986
>
10-21-1986 PC MIN
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:35:33 AM
Creation date
9/19/2005 3:29:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PCM
date
10/21/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />October 21, 1986 <br /> <br />DRAFT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT <br /> <br />Mr. Se11ergren gave a brief history of the conditional use process from <br />the first draft to the present 3rd draft. which is the result of meetings <br />among city staff. Mr. K10vning. Ms. Kruse. Stantion, and himself. Mr. <br />Se11ergren then reviewed the highlights of the draft CUP itself for the <br />Planning Commission. staff and audience present. <br /> <br />Mr. Roger Miller, Attorney representing NSP. then expressed the following <br />comments: <br /> <br />The scope of permit is over-extended. Some of the conditions imposed <br />affect the processing plant unfairly. since it is tied to the generating <br />operation. NSP objects to permit language which ties the processing <br />facility with the UPA generating facility. NSP feels that the City <br />ordinance and laws of this State do not grant the City the authority to <br />impose the conditions on the processing plant and on the UPA plant as <br />well. They feel that the second "Whereas" should be deleted because it <br />is not within the rights of the City to include it. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller offered his comments on "Exhibit A - Conditional Use Permit" <br />items as follows: <br /> <br />Item 1- <br />he feels <br />processing <br /> <br />The description of the facility includes the generating plant. <br />the City has no lawful authority at a site other than the <br />site for This permit. <br /> <br />Item 6. <br /> <br />This item should only include the processing facility. <br /> <br />Item 7. <br />include the <br />park vehicles <br /> <br />The permittee obj ects to the term "Facility" as it would <br />generating facility. also. that they should be able to <br />on adjacent land. if they own the land. <br /> <br />Item 10. Mr. Miller stated that he believes the intent is to control <br />trucks hauling MSW, but as the language now stands, it would cause <br />problems for their trucks hauling the RDF and rejects. He explained that <br />the State has denied them an access from 169 and if the City denies them <br />the use of Main Street, they will be denying them access to the power <br />plant. <br /> <br />Item 11. The <br />rejects be from <br />keep the facility <br /> <br />permittee is <br />4:00 am to <br />clean and to <br /> <br />requesting that the hours for transporting <br />8:00 pm., to allow them the opportunity to <br />get into the landfill. <br /> <br />Item <br />could <br /> <br />12. This item should only apply to the process facility. or they <br />not wash any trucks at UPA if the generating facility is included. <br /> <br />Item 16. The definitions should be clarified as follows: <br /> <br />a. <br /> <br />north should be east <br />should read "one half mile east on Hwy. 10" from intersection of <br />165th <br /> <br />b. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.