Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />October 21. 1986 <br /> <br />Item 17. This item should include only roads associated with the <br />processing facility. <br /> <br />Item 20. "Residue" should be deleted. City should waive disposal; is <br />adequately regulated by the landfill. <br /> <br />Item 21A. Permittee asks that a maximum of $30.000 be required for these <br />costs. <br /> <br />B. Should be "Processing Facility" not "Facility". Mr. Miller <br />explained that they understood the hold harmless clause was included <br />primarily because of the height encroachment, but did not feel they <br />should indenmify the city for acts of negligence. ommission. or <br />willful activities. <br /> <br />C. The permittee does not feel it is appropriate to release the City in <br />this manner and they are not prepared to waive their rights. <br /> <br />D. The Permitte questions the costs of enforcement. They believe it is <br />appropriate to charge for permit costs and litigation costs for <br />consultants and attorney fees. within reason. <br /> <br />Item 24. Mr. Miller stated that they object to the language g~v~ng the City <br />the right to revoke. amend. or impose additional conditions. <br /> <br />Discussion was carried on regarding access to the UPA generating site. <br />It was explained that UPA wished to construct a frontage road along the <br />west side of Highway #169 to UPA and trucks would be traveling 300 ft. <br />west on Main Street to access the proposed frontage road. <br /> <br />Mr. Sel1ergren explained the City's position that the processing plant. <br />burn facility and truck movement should all be considered integral parts <br />of the RDF process and included in the conditional use permit. Mr. <br />Se11ergren stated that on the basis described, he felt the position would <br />be legally defensible. if challenged. <br /> <br />Mr. Tom Woods stated that a petition with 600 signatures has been <br />presented to the City opposing the proposed RDF facility and burning <br />plant. He explained that he believed the two operations should be <br />considered jointly and that the attempt to separate them was a move to <br />avoid local control. Mr. Woods stated that they (the citizen's group) <br />felt that issuance of a permit would be in violation of the City's <br />Ordinance. and the proposed RDF facility would endanger and injure its <br />citizens. would have a detrimental affect on the community, and would <br />affect the citizen's rights to use and enjoy their property. He also <br />cited there would be violations regarding traffic. dust. odor. etc. <br />