8. Interim Use Permit for Outdoor Storage1
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSU
P.C. DATE: 6 -15 -94
C.C. DATE: 8 -22 -94
CASE: 94-1 ]UP _
BY: Al -Jaff J
�
�a
U
�a
la
1
1
1
1
�Q
H
p
'W
F-
r
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Interim Use Permit to provide Outdoor Storage for Commercial
Dumpsters
LOCATION: North and adjacent to Highway 212 and east and adjacent to Highway
101. Address: 10500 Great Plains Boulevard
APPLICANT: Admiral Waste Management, Inc.
Mr. Patrick Blood and Ms. Nancy Lee
714 West 3rd Avenue
Shakopee, MN, MN 55379
PRESENT ZONING: BF, Fringe Business District
ACREAGE: 13.27 acres
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N -
S-
E -
W-
SEWER AND WATER: Sery
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
A -2; large lot single family residential and
abandoned Railroad Right -of -Way
A -2; Minnesota River Valley
BF; Vacant commercial (previously sold used cars)
BF; existing Brooks Motel
ices are not available to the site.
The site is undeveloped and contains the footings of a
demolished farm house. Vegetation is concentrated along
the parameters of the site. The center of the site is void
of vegetation. There is a Natural Wetland located along
the south edge of the site. There is an intermittent stream
located to the southeast of the site which drains into the
Minnesota River Valley (Wildlife Refuge).
F
"SI
CO
0
SCOTT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0 0
2
LYM
PARK
PARK
RD
R
PUD-A
HE'GH's
BA
coomll/r, LAKE
BARK
RILEY
SF
"'J
4,
A0.
IL
O
A2
81- UFF
CREEK
PARK
IIEE w001)
ss FAP. D
S \69 e,
Qv
R AUTHORI
\tA,
R
A KE
A2
"SI
CO
0
SCOTT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0 0
2
J
Admiral Waste Management
August 22, 1994
Page 2 '
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit to store commercial dumpsters on property
zoned BF; Fringe Business District. The site is located north and adjacent to Highway 212
and east and adjacent to Highway 101. Access to the site is gained off of Hwy 101.
There are no proposed structures on the site with the exception of a 150 foot long wood fence
proposed along the south edge of the site to provide screening for the dumpsters. City '
ordinances also require that landscaping be used in conjunction with fencing. There is
existing vegetation on the site; and the applicant is proposing to plant an additional 42 spruce
trees, 1 1 /2 feet in height, along the north and south edge of the site. Trees along the north will t
provide a buffer for the neighbors in future years, and trees to the south will soften the
overall look of the 150 foot long wood fence and provide additional screening from views off
of Hwy 212. '
Staff is recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined in the staff report.
BACKGROUND
On February 8, 1988, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for a Contractors '
Yard on this site. Conditional Use Permits expire within one year unless substantial
work/construction has taken place on the site. The applicants had delayed their construction
of the improvements due to anticipated changes in their operation specifically for recycling.
On February 27, 1989, the same application appeared before the City Council for an I
extension. The City Council moved to deny the extension.
On November 30, 1993, staff responded to a complaint regarding outdoor storage of
dumpsters on the applicant's property. Staff counted approximately 50 dumpsters. Staff sent
the applicant a letter informing them that the outdoor storage taking place on their property
located at 10500 Great Plains Boulevard is illegal. We also stated that all fifty dumpsters '
must be removed from the site by December 17, 1993.
Staff, the applicant's attorney, and the city attorney began meeting to resolve this issue in
December of 1993. An agreement was finally reached as shown in attachment #3. As a
result of this agreement and to fulfill its conditions, the applicant is making this application.
On May 5, 1994, staff visited the site again. We noticed 58 dumpsters, which we viewed as
an increase to the original count. The applicant sent a letter stating that they have not added
any new dumpsters. t
1 �
1
Admiral Waste Management
August 22, 1994
Page 3
On May 19, 1994, staff visited the site and documented the serial numbers of all dumpsters
on site. There was a total of 58 dumpsters.
INTERIM USE PERMIT
The applicant is requesting an interim use permit for the outdoor storage of commercial
dumpsters. The purpose and intent of an IUP, as defined in Sec. 20 -381 of the zoning
ordinance, is to allow a use for a brief period of time until a permanent location is obtained
or while the permanent location is under construction, and to allow a use that is presently
acceptable but that with anticipated development will not be acceptable in the future.
Sec. 20 - 383. of the Zoning Ordinance lists the following criteria for issuance standards:
A. Meets the standards of a conditional use permit as outlined in section 20 -232 of the
City Code. The following constitutes our review of this proposal against conditional
use permit standards.
GENERAL ISSUANCE STANDARDS
1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or city.
FINDING - The site is zoned BF. The proposed use will not create any significant
or unexpected impacts from this use if screened properly; no dumping
of compost or miscellaneous material will occur.
2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this
chapter.
FINDING - The proposed use would be consistent with the City Zoning Ordinance.
We will be making recommendations to address the screening of
dumpsters to ensure they are not visible from Hwy 212.
3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in
appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will
not change the essential character of that area.
FINDING - The site is located adjacent to a major highway and a collector road. It
is in the Fringe Business district. The site does not have access to
sewer and water, thus there are limited types of commercial uses
permitted within this zone. An outdoor storage facility is fully
consistent with this site as long as it is appropriately screened.
n
Admiral Waste Management
August 22, 1994
Page 4 '
4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
FINDING - There will be no measurable impacts to the existing or planned
neighboring uses. This use will be screened from the surrounding area
with the exception of the property located to the north of the site and on
top of a bluff. It is impossible to screen the dumpsters from the
northerly view, short of constructing a storage building and storing the
dumpsters inside it.
5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including
streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and
sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and
services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of
the proposed use. ,
FINDING - The site will not require sewer and water. Access to the site is gained
via Hwy 101. It is capable of handling the access needs of this
proposal. The applicant should obtain an access permit from MnDOT
and comply with their conditions.
6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will
not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
'
FINDING - There are no projected needs for public facilities and services that staff
is aware of.
7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of
operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare
because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors,
rodents, or trash.
FINDING - This site will not create adverse impacts to persons, property or the
general welfare of the area as long as there is compliance with the
conditions of approval. Hours of operation and orientation of the
storage area will be regulated under the conditions of approval.
8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic
t
congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
FINDING - The site is visible from a major highway and is accessible from Hwy
101. The number of trips to the site will depend on demand for
dumpsters. There will be no direct traffic impacts to any area
Admiral Waste Management
August 22, 1994
Page 5
residential neighborhood. The applicant must obtain an access permit
from MnDOT and comply with their conditions.
9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic
or historic features of major significance.
FINDING - The development of this site will not result in the loss of any features
once screening of the site is implemented properly.
10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
FINDING - The applicant must provide adequate landscaping and buffering from
adjoining properties to make the site compatible.
11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
FINDING- Fencing and additional landscaping of the site will be required as a
condition of approval. This added element will improve the appearance
of the area. It will not depreciate surrounding property values.
12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article.
FINDING - The following is our review of conditions of approval and appropriate
findings:
a. All outdoor storage must be completely screened with one - hundred percent
opaque fence or landscaped screen.
FINDING - As a condition of approval, the applicant submitted a landscaping/
screening plan.
B. Conforms to the zoning regulations, is the second issuance standard for an IUP.
FINDING - Outdoor storage is permitted under the BF district as an Interim Use
Permit. This allows the Planning Commission and City Council to
attach conditions to the proposal. Sec. 20 -1180 of the Zoning
' Ordinance addresses screening for visual impacts. Outdoor storage is
required to be screened from all public views by a combination of
fences, walls, earth berms, hedges or other landscaping materials. The
applicant has submitted a screening plan. The plan consist of a wood
fence and 42 spruce trees. The height of the trees is 1'h feet.
Admiral Waste Management
August 22, 1994
Page 6
C. The use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning district.
FINDING - The use is listed as an interim use in the BF district.
D. The date of event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty.
FINDING - Staff is proposing that the use be permitted for ten years. We are also
recommending that the use be terminated after one year of inclusion of
the site within the Municipal Urban Service Area or if conditions of
approval have been violated, whichever comes first.
will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public
E. The use p P
to take the property in the future.
FINDING - The proposed use will not impose any additional costs on the public.
F. The user agrees to any conditions that the city council deems appropriate for
permission of the use.
FINDING - The City Council can attach any conditions they deem appropriate. 1
Based upon the foregoing findings, staff is recommending that the interim use permit be
approved with appropriate conditions.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE I
On July 20, 1994, the Planning Commission tabled action on the Interim Use Permit
application (IUP #94 -1) for the second time, due to lack of detailed landscaping screening
plans.
On August 3, 1994, the Planning Commission reviewed the application for the third time and
unanimously recommended approval of the application with conditions.
The applicant proposed 42 spruce trees at 1 feet in height along the north and south portions
of the site as shown in the attached landscaping plans. The Planning Commission
recommended that the applicant provide varying heights from 1 to 6 feet. They also
recommended the fence be built at a height of 8 feet.
The Planning Commission discussed the length of the Interim Use Permit term. They felt
that 10 years was a long term and wanted to see it limited to 5 years.
Admiral Waste Management
August 22, 1994
Page 7
A third issue was the total number of dumpsters to be stored on site. The Planning
Commission recommended the total number of dumpsters on site not exceed 58 dumpsters.
The applicant requested the number be increased to 140. Staff made a recommendation that
the number of dumpsters be limited to a number that can be adequately screened, not to
exceed 140 dumpsters.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves the request for Interim Use Permit #94 -1 as shown on the plans
dated August 3, 1994 and subject to the following conditions:
1. A final landscaping plan shall be approved by staff. The fence shall be 8 feet in
I height with 42 trees of varying height from 1 feet to 6 feet constructed and the
landscaping shall be planted prior to October 22, 1994.
2. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and
9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturday. Work on Sundays and holidays is not permitted.
3. There shall be no outdoor speaker system.
4. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the Minnesota Department of
Transportation.
5. The number of dumpsters shall be limited to a number that can be adequately
screened, not to exceed 140 dumpsters. Only empty dumpsters may be stored on the
site.
6. There shall be a yearly review of this site to ensure compliance.
7. The length of the term shall not exceed 10 years. The use shall be terminated within
one year of inclusion of the site within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area or if
conditions of approval have been violated, whichever comes first. The applicant may
request an extension for the interim use permit prior to it's expiration.
8. The applicant shall replace any of the new trees that die within one year."
4
fl
Admiral Waste Management
August 22, 1994
Page 8
ATTACHMENTS
1. Site Plans dated August 3, 1994.
2. Letter from William C. Griffith, Jr. dated August 10, 1994 and July 26, 1994.
3. Letter from Nancy Lee dated July 5, 1994.
4. Planning Commission Minutes dated June 15, 1994, July 20, 1994 and August 3,
1994.
n
LJ
u
t
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CoN'TP. .►ER
Ali G 0
CHANHASSEN PANNING DEPT.
CO NTR I NESZ, �
T
lam'
;lio i $�o I e3
F'�NC.E
a KE
—770
- (lcol
-7 50
— r N b —�a3
�3$
io 5 0
ti
9
i
�
I
i
5
�
I
3
� I
;lio i $�o I e3
F'�NC.E
a KE
—770
- (lcol
-7 50
— r N b —�a3
�3$
io 5 0
[I
PROPOSED FENCE
i
I
I
Warranty Against
Rot Decay
zj Dog Eared Treated Panel
reallVid cut corners to bring you this Dog Eared panel. Thick
11/16 x -3/4"; boards nailed to three 2" x 3" - 8' backrails. Pressure
Q'treated and built to last. 6' high x 8' long panels. Green in color. 173.1365
Ouantity Materials Total
Docl Eared Panels
4" x 4" • 10' Permawood Posts
Total
5W.
Also available in western red cedar.
7 4
%
l ip
I
I
F
h
I
k
I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
17 EC.E. IVED
A 0 7 ,
U -� J?�4
CH"ANHASSEN PLANNING DA.
I
II � r�
I � �
�
L
i
�
�
``
�I i �` I
I�
��
i .i.
jl; :�I
JII �I
I
I
F
h
I
k
I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
17 EC.E. IVED
A 0 7 ,
U -� J?�4
CH"ANHASSEN PLANNING DA.
I
r,pAt KS
dp
PICO
serf N V✓� Y
w ° N/G
_ -- -,' -- - -_ -
2"s 1 //1'E OFTiS'E HEST
116 , 23
`^ -
I
5W.1MP
/
X1.3
PARC
v V E W -
13
1 4 9 14o
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
REC.EiVED
Au' 0 94
CH ",k'HAS6EN PLANNING QEK.
JAMES P. LARLIN
ROiiRT L. ND MranuJ
JACIC F. CaLY
D. LENNLTH LNIDGREN
0£k4LD H. FAJEDELL
ALLAN E. MULLIGAN
JAM Ed C. ER"C ON
�DV /AJID J. DRISe GLL
GONE N,
FULL-:A
JOHN D FULLMER
ROBERT E. RDYN
PAANK I.MARVEY
CMARLF6 S. MODELL
CHRISTOPHRR J. OIMEN
JOHN A. x9ATT1E
LINDA H FISHER
THOMAS P. 57, 00VAN
MICHAEL G. JI LKMAN
JOHN E_ DIE
HL
JON S. SwrfuLw +KI
THOMA: J. PLYPIN
JAME9 F. DUINN
TG DOL FREEMAN
PBTLR L. "
.10ME H. A AHN i E
GLRALD L- t=K
JQM" B. WNDDLIR3T
DAYL9 NOLAN'
YHOMA9 B. HUMPHREY, JR.
JOHN A. COTTER'
BEATRICE A. ROTHwi1L{W
PAUL D. PLVNICPR
ALAN L. "Cow
AA" HL°E'J M IEWmAN
MLCHAFL 8. LEBARON
GREGORY L. [ORSTAD
GARY A. VAN CLEVE-
August 10, 1994
LAR-vaN, HOFFMAN, DALY &. LINDGREN LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1$00 NoRWEEY FINANCIAL CEMTER
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 -1194
TELEPHONE (612) 836.3E00
FAX 1812) 896-3333
Mayor of the City of Chanhassen
City Council for the City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
DANIEL L. B O W IJE9
TIMOTHY J, MaMANL,i
TIMOTHY J, X&M
ALAN M. ANDERSON
ODNMA L ROSALIE
MICHAEL W. SCHLEY
G
LIZA A. 4AY
GARY A. RENNELE
GHRIi TOrfILR J. HAKgJg kAL
MICHAEL A. kD ?M%6N
BRUCE J. DOUGLAS
wIWAAA c. ORIPPIYH. Ak
JOHN J. U19FFLNHACEN
DANIEL W. V098
JOHN R, HILL
-FT& J. GOYL£
MICHAEL J. 6M;TH
VIUG B. INDE
DWIGHT N. HOLMBA
..4w F, PEAkw
ANN M. MEYER
FREDERICL L. HAU3ER ill
MARY E. VOS
LARRY D. MARL W
JANE E. BREMEi
RENEE L. TOENGES
MARCY R. LRS112AAN
MARIEL E. PHLDLA
5"ON E. SCR iAMM
STEPHEN J. LAIAINSAI
OF COUNSEL
W ENDELL R. ANDERSON
JOSEPH GM
MARL A, RUF IF.
AALSO ADMITTED IN w1SCON5IN
I
VIA PACSYMILE
937 -5739
RE: Interim Use Permit to provide Outdoor Storage for Commercial
Dumpsters by Admiral Waste Management, Inc. adjacent to
Highway 212 and Highway 101
Our File No 16,737 - 02
Dear Mayor and City Council:
We represent Admiral Waste Management, Inc, the applicant for Interim Use
Permit on the above - referenced property. we have worked for several
months with City Planner, Sharmin Al -Jaff and City Attorney Elliott
Knetsch to provide documentation of proposed screening to screen the
dumpsters from the view of passing motorist. Following a recent visit to
the site, we reached agreement on appropriate conditions of approval to
allow the property owner reasonable use of the property while protecting
City interests and the views of surrounding properties. However, at the
recent Planning commission Meeting of August 3, 1994, the Commission
disregarded the understanding we reached with staff regarding the
conditions of approval and adopted conditions which were substantially
more restrictive. Therefore, I have the following torments with regard to
the conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission:
1. Regarding the hours of operation, the applicant would like to be
permitted to operate on holidays since it is not unusual for waste;
hauling businesses to collect waste on holidays, especially when
holidays fall on week days.
2. With regard to the number of dumpsters allowed on the site, we would
ask that the permit specify 140 dumpsters. Through the site visit: and
f
1
t
Y 7-7 7
-
L.RxIN, floumAN, DALY & liNDGREN, LTD.
Mayor of the City of Chanhassen
City Council for the City of Chanhassen
August 10, 1994
p 2
materials submitted to staff, we have demonstrated that approximately
140 dumpsters can fit comfortably behind the proposed screening.
Since the objective is to screen the dumpsters, not necessarily to
arbitrarily limit the reasonable use of the property, we feel that the
numbers should be 140. At the Planning Commission, we stated that we
could accept 58 dumpsters as a limit and apply for an amendment to the
Interim Use Permit. However, the pTocess is somewhat cumbersome, and
if all parties agree that 140 dumpsters can be accommodated on site,
it seems that this would be the appropriate limitation to be
established with a permit.
3. With regard to the length of the term of the permit, we would ask that
it be 10 years, rather than 5 years as recommended by the Planning
Commission. When we began our discussion with City Staff, we
initially agreed to a 15 year term, or when the property is included
in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area, whichever Came later. We
agreed to delete the reference to the urban service area because it is
difficult for anyone to know exactly when that extension may occur.
Therefore, with staff we agreed to a 10 -year term. We would ask the
City to recognize the substantial costs to the property owner in
providing a 150 foot fence with evergreen plantings. Also, the past
history of the site is significant since the applicant had obtained
approval of a conditional use permit which was denied when they sought
a one -year extension of the permit. Finally, through all of this
period, there has not been any use which has been permitted as a
matter of right. Therefore, in fairness to the applicant, the term of
the permit should be at least 10 years.
With these changes, I believe we would be in agreement with the conditions
of approval for the permit. We will plan to attend the City Council
Meeting of Monday, August 15, 1994 and present our position to the City
Council and to answer the City Council's questions regarding this matter.
Thank you for your careful consideration of our request.
' Sincerely,
William C. Griffith, Jr., for
LARKIN, HOVFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
Enclosure
CC. Ms. Nancy Lee (via facsimile)
Ms. Sharmin Al -Jaff (via facsimile)
Mr. Elliott B. Knetsch (via facsimile)
I WCG:PZ7s
JAMES P. LARKIN
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
DANIEL L. BOW LES
ROBERT L. HOFFMAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TIMOTHY J. MWIANUS
TIMOTHY J. KEANE
JACK F. DALV
ALAN M. ANDERSON
D. KENNETH LINDGREN
GERALD H. FRIEDELL
DONNA L. ROBACK
ALLAN E. MULUGAN
,
MICHAEL SCHLEY
JAMES C. ERICKSON
EDWARD J. DRISCOLL
-
1500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER -
A
USA A. GRAY
- GARY A. RENNEKE
GENE N. FULLER
JOHN D. FULLM ER
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH
CHRISTOPHER J. HARRISTHAL
MICHAEL A. ROBERTSON
,
ROBERT E. BOVLE
- - BRUCE J. DOUGLAS
FRANK I. HARVEY
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 56431-1194
-, WILLIAM C. GRIFFITH, JR.
CHARLES S. MODELL
JOHN J. STEFFENHAGEN
TELEPHONE (612) 835 -3800
DANIEL W. VOSS
CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN
JOHN R. BEATME
FAX (612) 896 -3333
JOHN R, HILL
PETER J. COY LE
UNDA H. FISHER
'
MICHAEL J. SMITH
THOMAS P. STOLTMAN
,
VIUS R. INDE
MICHAEL C. JACKMAN
JOHN E. DIEHL
DWIGHTN. HOLMBO
JON S. SWIERZEWSKI
ANDREW F. PERRIN
THOMAS J. FLYNN
ANN M. MEYER
JAMES P. QUINN
FREDERICK K, HAUSER III
TODD I. FREEMAN
MARY E. VOS
PETER K. BECK
LARRY D. MARTIN
JANE E. BREMER
JEROME H. KAHNKE
RENEE L. TOENGES
GERALD L. SECK
MARCY R. KREISMAN
JOHN B. LUNDOUIST
MARIEL E. PIILOLA
DAYLE NOLAN'
DAM ON E. SCH RAMM
THOMAS S. HUMPHREY, JR.
STEPHEN J. KAMINSKI
JOHN A. COTTER*
BEATRICE A. ROTHWEILER
OF COUNSEL
PAUL B. PLUNKETT
WENDELL R. ANDERSON
ALAN L. K LDOW
JOSEPH GITIS
KATHLEEN M. NEWMAN
MARK A. RURIK
MICHAEL B. LEBARON
GREGORY E. KORSTAD
'ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN
GARY A. VAN CLEVE'
July 26, 1994
Elliott B. Knetsch, Esq.
Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs, P.A.
317 Eagandale Office Center
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, MN 55121
RE: Interim Use Permit for Outdoor Storage
10500 Great Plains Blvd., Admiral Waste Management;
Our File No. 18,737 -02
Dear Elliott:
This letter is a follow -up to our conversation of July 25, 1994,
,
regarding the above - referenced application.
As you know, our client, Nancy Lee, was disappointed that she was not
given the opportunity to address the Planning Commission as she had
requested both by her letter, dated July 5, 1994 and my letter, dated
,Tu1y__19, 1994. We understood that the Planning Commission_ meeting was
,
a continuance of the public hearing on Admiral Waste's application
opened in this matter on June 15, 1994. Therefore, the action of the
Planning Commission chair in tabling this matter without allowing my
client an opportunity to speak violated her right to due process and
contributed to unnecessary delay and additional costs to the
applicant.
I will attend the Planning Commission at its meeting of Wednesday,
August 3, 1994 to make a presentation on behalf of my client. In
addition, we request that the Planning Commission make a final
recommendation to the City Council at its next meeting so that we have
'
a timely decision with regard to my client's application.
To resolve the matters regarding the required level of landscaping
,
and /or screening, we have scheduled a site visit with you and I, and
I L ARKIN, HO FFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Elliott B. Knetsch, Esq.
July 26, 1994
Page 2
the applicant and City Planner, for Friday, July 29, 1994, at
3:00 p.m. We will provide additional detail regarding plans for
landscaping to screen the dumpsters on the property and will review
the cleared location of compost.
We appreciate your time in meeting on site. It should resolve the
remaining issues with regard to required landscaping.
1 Sincerely, /
Wim C. Griffith, �for
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
WCG:PW7s
cc: Nancy Lee, Admiral Waste
Sharmin Al -Jaff
t
NANCY LEE
PATRICK BLOOD
, ADMIRAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.
P.O. BOX 377
SHAKOPEE , MN. 55379
496 -3053
N 5`1A 7
C 3r� on i�.<r: b — of Conta , ers
W ar°7,? a- , 11ylrtg for the IUP to store our dumpsters as needed.
W wi l �_:ori,!Ply ;:iit.it tyre screening requirements. Based upon the
scre, r;in<_; i:>r'oywose and the elevation of the property, 140
d umpst.er�-: c:� n he: stored on the property without creating a
V j. a 1 n Is a. n c: e.
3 _ 1 "_� F T e r rr
I ha,d p,'evious:ly requested information on MUSA and the time
frames for extension of the MUSA to include our Property. Please
Provide t. Ih is inforrnat.ion.
i\u ) ;t; 'e t �i t)f 15 year oT at the time the pT'OpeT "t.y
whichever � cater is
.
RECEIVED
I J U L 0 1994 �.
Z _ 1
, a'
re tthrt �'
` :ir,
tf ;is
znform� - ' icn
to
YOU by
-,., iy 8
1994
so
Pl:
c = <<
on trTe Duly
20
1994
Plannir,g
Commissic:°
tJ1th
Bill Warden
of
MnDOT.
He., sa
th
we dt
n e _.r.
_ c c _._ _>
v.)�;r r,,...t.
at. t.his
tame.
He
also said
that:.
he
.i ncle comp' a'
n�
about
us/our usage
of the
C 3r� on i�.<r: b — of Conta , ers
W ar°7,? a- , 11ylrtg for the IUP to store our dumpsters as needed.
W wi l �_:ori,!Ply ;:iit.it tyre screening requirements. Based upon the
scre, r;in<_; i:>r'oywose and the elevation of the property, 140
d umpst.er�-: c:� n he: stored on the property without creating a
V j. a 1 n Is a. n c: e.
3 _ 1 "_� F T e r rr
I ha,d p,'evious:ly requested information on MUSA and the time
frames for extension of the MUSA to include our Property. Please
Provide t. Ih is inforrnat.ion.
i\u ) ;t; 'e t �i t)f 15 year oT at the time the pT'OpeT "t.y
whichever � cater is
.
RECEIVED
I J U L 0 1994 �.
4. ScT eening!L��nd�_t_:aping�
Fn , , Iosed is a detailed plan showing the land as it appears on
the surveys. A lso listed on this plan are:
4,r•c --a wh =:re containers will be placed.
p l a n shows a side view.. with grades and location of
1 (`. P, ._ ._< 1' S
;-h e +:,..., c' � _n __ a copy of the first plan detailing the
of tree: to be planted, with the circle showing what
r mature :_::ire wi l]. be. We plan to plant them every 15 feet..
1 "he; ai- t:' is on the south side of the property,
highway 212. The Only containers that can be
from ou.,' pro perty on Hwy. 212 are the containers that were
<<... ...
f r _h ::r 1_;p the hill _ The containers that were placed
1.ot.o�F Y" were never JiSit7} 3 because of the ele vation Cif the
yY y. - •,i._ - Fronta e is f•!ll of assorted trees, bushes, and
P. 1 ! is ?` O: c3. ma tliT "' wi t h app roxi ma te l y 25 FOOL. UT"
is one area of 100' that. ss not f:!lly
y !� t: reel, however it is ful screened with
d ? ;... rE ° . eve TaI feE' t8._L..L , i 1 is this clrea. than t. we
'00 chain link fenzc:e if necessary
L<`/ bUs'hes and Plants as coverage they e , but we
' P nt severa' Norway Spruce in this area as well
eC_" T'CIVJ faSt. c;'1 E& lar dy to "40 degrees F ., and g T';':w to
-;h o" 35 and width Of 20' . We already have
c ti { e Waiting to plant these 1/2' and 2'.
t; ' of the completion o th,i:_ ity proces -S.
°'... O i:� L of the property On t'1e North sldv
file 1 aT e :SC:ts Of tree .lines before you reach the
d ' ' c')e" t . y . " he West side of the property is completely
the r a line. The mast side of the property i5
>' y seen d y rol.liric_; hills.
we (:> .ciC:c3 Our contai is already very we
:..,. ;.Jay i s , i- ,ght:. now, y hi wil be s1how,: by a v �
i C'r t•
;: "oP, -T_ty 2<t the rlannin9 Com,^,,issinn hearing.
`:.• . .: ' t.'3 c' . c-:t_ Pment. so that- we may review this video with
incere.ly
Na.rTcy L_ c;
vic e P ::.i.d &nt-
c'c - _._' _ _ _t KrTet sc:h!, City' fittorney
1
t
� r
too m m m w wr' m �r
:
r
E R�kfir'e9 M 1 F 1 n
,. fR
' Y
�4
.. , ' , s� �, ; ..., t T, ,.� - .... • . ,�;" , ?. �' 1, nt - � k' �-� --rim sv r . v .., ' : r
. .. ,.�. a S j' -,.r. • r �/.. v : . -. : : >.;, ;..' �.: .b r. �k � . }: a ', / � �. ,� y �p! _ r3 �5..,_ . k. :-
s.
x 1
u• ;a .$.�, ",: ... "`.;., .. :,:' ._. _a:: ..+ � ,.> ....,"• ..i .'+ 2 ....3._ i...':.1�, tea- ,�,,. - ",5,.. - t.,,y' ,k. ..+ .txw. �w, .. r .".":-? :.t
N'
.4. ,. - • rrt y .+thi+ r;,�xv,� :4
r k r
Fh:�:.�' :ai.' sx?*+`..' ^, s•+r:.. ;r � - .c.. ,...c. .,, �, , �.fl - ;i_ f` �:i r "T n ^'C • s
k �
r < - , . + -. . - i, ,,.-, • r.,. <.. 7 [ .. ,u. o r } , i� i;., ,4 a r..,y,' ",;; s + < • . +r\�y:�. r . a
' I M,
,�v.. - �. 't -9 •. ,::. t {+. � Y t t { 1 :�- 5' �f } Y '���t� E :�5 'f.
"�. _.
yq,: s.,. ar .. -, ��,, t: �::.,.., '.., t .- ..�.: ' -. ,; ..� ,......,, tf `Z 't 1' i �,�� ��:�' '�� ". "�'#• " �: .Y� :1`�i f�
i
'
-,':...�'.._.,:,::_ ,4r)s''�: �•..: ^.:,- ,:.,,..• i - . : . a • � : „1 i ;.. � _. � 1 .�,� .i9, t o "'� F ;...,Ea :,�� !q
ff
a: �- , r.: ,.:� , .,ter. '. o .,.: .. a� ... .,� ... ....,Y.';, t ......;.;; _, ♦: b .>• `:-b < v�` :.'�'S` /. i - ... „.�> s + 1k.. "r
�;:,_, ,.. _ 'fir . ,:: ... .., , . x ...,.. , >, : � ,, , . t;:� . - . , � 'a r .�t � , �, fi ;� :, � ,z, �s ��t tf � , .�,_ � • - �,..,�';,,
F. �.. , 1. . a ':.. ,4 ? e i. e ;i':. •-,
't£, "1' f{ �. .g :" - .t j,�r
, j' � ��'y`. .� 3_'. � {.., 4': f..
�,i _ - ,� ?`'y � i 1 � f 1 ,.� F. _t � . N Rt 1 1 r .Y !� � { � � •11 j f 3 `} � i � �: � S '.�
�,�,' K't' x. ,f, �.;i+ .f - � -�, -. �.f � r -' r .. .. .� .:t�- 4`,`+ 4� ��e{. '4 Y`:r t '�E � i • i t... �” ? �:'.t' °'F tr'3`H �-,".
c l is t 't , l i s .t
ai Je,.
r
j �-<
' . -. Ji^ ^, ' fi'x. �S;r�'; -.•.._ c` ,C [ ...t ..r}4. �" :�',, f: y 't 1 ,5�� -I ^. ;. .f,. �r,:.
q y
i.
,)•• Iri.. . };. M.� _ ,� / ., is
}
r
v:' 1 , � , 9. �.: �' �� 1 - �' �.. � t r � �r . �' •; 4 'P r, ,�g� ;Y• ! d 7' � � 7
�`, �f "...�. ,._ s._ y - , d- f y' �t., 1 i...� ,. :a,..i. ��� _ s .� :Sa.• a.4 -.. �'.�. ' i #�;� rj:
-
r t �S! '•ri .., .� ._.� .. • S. -.; ...;... 1 ._' ..; .: �: � r ,.: , 3:�- a�,.�, � x � l �. ,t � � � �.
, - , .„ a • - .:y ¢. '+ ` 'l1 y t^ f., - .i / s } - .
r
y« � r ..
. y p
ittl,:rri':' I t� r -, „','' �.. f r.' -} t. �i ...:'.„r, t' s<.,{ . "ka 1 .x yam. ✓ «' }' 3 t..
a�� �<'� �- r a »a.«. -n . S . � • , k t /� t �� '� ,�,' � i ' —;;1: , . > �#y, � ' e � a �' ' 1 t
'!• ' i.}� r a �;, {{ " { • , 1 '� �, {'
it •1 •,ti �. d�•� S
• + r
tt .....,. ,. .. ..: ,. ,.,.a ,.. ,,., ,- �...,'. , -. y'., } -�.,: ;�A ,- .. "'�.. •. ; .j.:�.,{ -..; ..: ��i. -'.`. f. a, w. M'�F�'^�:...w,... ,M`>f,t. �.+y •:.�.,. },�� T�',; ��,'.'.�i ..
�r-
- �4--
,r
�.r
r:. 9
!+
ot
J � _r
r
v
u
w
.. ,�dt►• "7+"•! "'..F r,y�..,.:; ,'k' yea.-- .+w,... . .� - r —.�..» - -^.'. • �E�a ,- jw .4�M:`.,},rR:` ...
Of 17wz
P AR C ov' lOT 9� SEC. 3l0 f. L.
i* - ra l rr - � - I* ri rr rr r rr rr 1r rr rr
�r
J � _r
r
v
u
w
.. ,�dt►• "7+"•! "'..F r,y�..,.:; ,'k' yea.-- .+w,... . .� - r —.�..» - -^.'. • �E�a ,- jw .4�M:`.,},rR:` ...
Of 17wz
P AR C ov' lOT 9� SEC. 3l0 f. L.
i* - ra l rr - � - I* ri rr rr r rr rr 1r rr rr
{ y 5 �� 5 f � i 7 � r '+ !
"- 4-0
42-
_V, S.-
JL
' �riir ., cl,'. y . .... .:.:.... �. .. ;.,. ,.b -. .. �. ., _.. .a .,,) ,b.r -� >: .,-i Zr p ,I � �;'�,'. ~„i °k - `,k. �o < �s•fw j v.� �.
4
AA
�� � " t -�� •i r -� t a r;.. ..'.: ..,c ...... ..?j.;r , 1'i , 7 - ��/ ' `•..:1.. :'24 ,n "R .v. :,, �.. 1,
`�" 1. ..., s r .,. .. q .. .. .... �F S r ''7 a;+.. ';?, y�,i _ s t A;• ` PP
07Z
4 4, ,.; �.:, 'r, � °� r f`::, -E.,, 4 r.� 7o- a' 'n :v'z°,", .X ..�, . { 7 71
1
IW
&IkA A r
OR V "T 4 Z I!;
A�l
4Wf
.�. ..� �,`, iv i�'. ..: .':'�; r .. � ^..�. � �. � ";.(.. �. .:: i ,.- }jj y 44
't
Al _L
"2N
Sy
c .wt 1 � k., E:. k '.� R f' rye •n, r L f Y: I:.:a. } . ,,\«
V - A
; "
,.4:; , f, . � :. 2 7v.k ..'� . f ^'�`, •:.•..& 't ^.r. F., 1. ...� . ,L.. .. yk - „ . � - t � z , , - 2' r S ,'`�::,'' �"�' , 7. �" .
g. �'F �1:! ^. ?� r 5, "�• i 3- .,i1 -:i: "MT v. �,' '�ti., s:7r ,d :'� Ia .A:':, ...{,<8;._� $�° 1— -R I , , , - 't �' 1. .� 'A :;•�+. 1 . z,.,J
, 1 8 }. ir. j f ,i+'4 �:� � r „y. �,•k,a' s4x'k ;i � - �a :� ;
. _ .. } .. . ,i [. ,. rr %i :.:: 9 C -.t.n4 *��.�' i�: ,rim_ {' u«. ',. /,�r •�4 °.^r =�.t Tt+ ;`, r?!Wr„
A 42�
Ic)
- AP&:
w4ea t A i,-',
2f
kp
>r .a: _ -� - _x,�..r'•zt• ♦ .. a •.w• -__ � {tr_ �. �- .R"�•21'r r,. l�Y. -.� trr __ �
•.. ".
4C
TWO
'iL;' �
a �: r?r ^T :R�� � .7i. • �i �.a.o +
1
4*A
100� 1
t
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Aanenson: It goes to City Council on July llth.
Conrad: It's real important that you stay there.
Scott: Don't be on vacation. Good.
Conrad: Go to the City Council meeting.
Scott: Yeah Jul 11th. And check the agenda to make sure it's actually on too. Good.
Y g Y
Thank you all for coming.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE IN
THE BF, BUSINESS FRINGE DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1050.0 GREAT PLAINS
BOULEVARD, ADMIRAL WASTE MANAGEMENT.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Laverne Wheeler
445 Lakota Lane
Nancy Lee
Admiral Waste
Patrick Blood
Admiral Waste
Verne Severson
675 Lakota Lane
M. Happy
495 Lakota Lane
,
L.M. Campbell
415 Lakota Lane
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. I
Scott: In your opinion, how responsive has the applicant been to, I mean I read the staff
report and it seems like there's, the city of Chanhassen is kind of chasing these people and '
spending a lot of time trying to get them to conform existing agreements. Have they been
somewhat uncooperative? Very uncooperative? I'm trying to get a sense for what the
relationship is because, the reason why I'm asking the question is I recall last year we had a
contractor's yard situation where it was pretty much a mess and there was a lot of legal time
spent on both sides. The intent that I perceived on behalf of the applicant was that they had
no intention of conforming to anything and I'm trying to separate these two issues. Hoping '
that we're not running into the same thing again.
Al -Jaff: Yes. We spent some time working on this. I think that the applicants had some
35 1
I Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
personal, I think a member f
p be o their family was taken ill and they had to leave town for a
while so a lot of the meetings were postponed that were scheduled and some of the reasons
were legitimate. It took us a while to reach an agreement but we did reach an agreement.
Scott: Okay, enough said. Questions. Comments from commissioners for staff? None?
Okay. Would the applicant or their representative like to speak? Is there anyone here?
' Nancy Lee: My name is Nancy Lee. I'm the applicant. I don't know where to start and I
don't want to get long winded. We are, and always have been in the past, 100% cooperative.
I think for anybody ... I don't know if any of you received the letter that I had sent as a back-
up to ... If you looked at the...We did not build anything on the property ... It was brought to our
attention... and if you notice the dates ... We want to be as cooperative as we can. We thought
we were alright in having our containers on the property. In the letters... We want to do a lot
more with the land. We did have conditions... was denied, even though at the ... wrote a nasty
letter and told we had to get them off right away. We contacted the city to see what could be
done. We are, we worked with the city right away. The first meeting was with their
attorney... Those pictures, I'm not aware what you're looking at. I know I had taken pictures
earlier...
I
Conrad: Is there ever any refuse in the containers when they're on site?
Nancy Lee: No. They're construction containers that we take to the sites but we don't fill
them with garbage.
Conrad: And is the 58 number that staff has proposed acceptable?
Nancy Lee: No it's not...
Conrad: I guess I'm not sure why, when did you start storing these there and under what?
Nancy Lee: They've been there since we had the conditional use permit.
Conrad: And the conditional use allowed this?
Nancy Lee: Yes it did. We have a letter from.
Conrad: Allowed dumpsters? It said that we allow dumpsters?
Nancy Lee: I have a letter from Barb Dacy, the previous city planner, and she had a limit on
what...
36
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 1
I
Conrad: You're aware of what our, this business district is all about? Do you know what
we're trying to do down there and what we're not trying to do? Have you talked to staff
about the intent of the.
Nancy Lee: ...I know we haven't had a lot of direct answers.
Conrad: Well it's in print. It's in print so you can always go and ask staff to say, what are
they trying to do in that fringe business district. You should do that just so you know how
we react when we look at an application. Thank you for your comments.
Nancy Lee: Well actually on that, I don't know if you'll remember or not, we have been
trying to find out from you...
Conrad: You know and I'll fill in and maybe because you may not get to the report but that
area is a pretty area. And the intent typically has been down there that we don't want to
intensify. Yet there were businesses there and we didn't want to harm their right because
they had that business. And so under that, we have a very natural looking area. We have an
area that's not serviced with Chanhassen services. In terms of water, sewer. We're trying to
maintain that area in terms of it's natural appearance but give business an opportunity to
But really not to because it's not serviced and we have these other conflicts.
survive. grow
So I think if you had looked at the intent, and the intent has been there for quite a while.
Since I've been around, for that particular district, I think that would tell you what you can
and can't do and maybe might tell you why staff might react to some of the things you do the
,
way they do. But again, thanks for your comments.
Mancino: I have a question for Ladd I guess. In Barbara Dacy's conditional use permit that
was given, there was a limit of 50 dumpsters when the conditional use permit was granted. Is
that correct?
,
Al -Jaff: With that conditional use permit, they were going to have a building actually. There
was supposed to be a garage and an office.
'
Mancino: Oh, and the dumpsters were supposed to be in the building.
Al -Jaff: They were going to have vehicles stored in that area and it was ... I mean it was
indoor, enclosed storage and.
'
Mancino: It was just never done?
Al -Jaff: Nancy, do you want to elaborate? I
37 1
I
t
L�
LJ
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Nancy Lee: Yeah. It was going to be ... It was a garage ... and outdoor storage. It was ... That's
not true ... We would like to build on it. A building would be wonderful but there...
Scott: Are there any services to that site? Electricity, water, sewer.
Al -Jaff: Definitely not sewer and water. No. It's outside the MUSA area.
Scott: But electricity though. They could get electricity.
Nancy Lee made a statement that was not picked up on the tape.
Scott: Okay. So this was originally a conditional use permit. It was a lot like the
contractors yard where 12 months you have to have substantial construction, etc, etc. Okay.
Nancy Lee: We were originally told that garbage companies don't fit anywhere ... we were
told that we would be under a contractors yard and we also applied for—so we did that and
that's how they granted... Then when we had that change so that we would fit in that
category, according to what they wanted us to do, then ... So we don't fit anywhere in an area
with contractors yards and everything else.
Mancino: Sharmin, tell me about the operation hours and days. I see 7:00 in the morning
until 6:00 at night.
Al -Jaff: On weekdays. Assuming that ... or to take a dumpster.
Mancino: But I see that's Monday thru Saturday. Aren't there homes in that area?
Al -Jaff: There is one part of the site. There are two...
Mancino: Do we usually in the business fringe allow the Saturday, the 7:00 in the morning
until 6:00 p.m.? And is there a need?
Nancy Lee: There's quite a distance... property but I think people would have to come to the
very edge of their property to even see on our land. We're down by 212. And they're up
over the railroad tracks and they have to go—There's not a lot of activity...
Mancino: Would you support keeping those hours as the area gets developed? Around it.
And is there a way to change those if you get more development around?
f Aanenson: Sharmin has indicated that there are, the neighbor ... has complained but the
u
38
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
recommendation...
,
Mancino: Well I would certainly, I don't care whether it's one house or 10 houses. Saturday
at 7:00 in the morning would not, I would change those hours on Saturday to 9:00 to 5:00 as
reasonable for people living in that area. No other questions at this time.
Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant? No? Do you have any other
comments you'd like to make?
,
Nancy Lee: No.
,
Scott: Okay, thanks. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir. Please
identify yourself and give us your address.
Verne Severson: I'm Verne Severson and I'm the property owner who's directly north of the
lot in question. So I have a few thoughts that I guess I'd like you to think about and then I
have a list of problems... First, I guess living in the south end, and having to pay what we
feel are very high property taxes and we don't get the same benefit or advantages that other
residents of Chanhassen have, we don't have the, like in city parks, we don't get playgrounds.
We're forced to use a Chaska address and we're living in Chanhassen. And it's always been
a safety issue. We don't have sewer and water. We have difficulty getting our local street
paved or properly maintained and we get no help in our request for, to make Highway 101
safer for walking and biking and jogging. And then our desire to work on taking advantage
of the abandoned rail corridor, which was met with great disinterest by the city. So overall
we feel that we're somewhat ignored by the city and so when something like this comes up, it
'
peaks our interest. The problems we have, these are I think quite simple. One is we have
high expectations of our quality of life in Chanhassen. It's a prestigious city and we want to
be part of that but we feel that the noise and smells and the views of dumpsters aren't really
'
consistent with that. I don't know, I guess it's been commented that the site is presentable
but I tend to disagree with that. I think it is quite ugly really. We can't see it from our
house but people who walk on the trail along there can see it ... And number two I think, and
those are selfish reasons of course. Number two, I think Chanhassen should be concerned...
This is the southern entrance to Chanhassen. State Highway 101, people come up there. I
know that that area's been called ugly town and it has been quite ugly and is still quite ugly
,
but I think that you as city planners should be trying to be considering that. Trying to at
least improve that ... and do it quickly and rapidly but maybe you should just be concerned
with Chanhassen and start working on that... Like I mentioned, it is the southern entrance to
'
Chanhassen and also there's the biking and hiking trail to be developed along there so you'll
have more people to have a view of that area. It's a very pretty area and I guess I'd like to
see it kept for... And third, we're being asked to make some sacrifices. Especially the
39 1
1
I Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
,FJ
concern of the preservation of the bluff area. There's some restrictions being put on us
' because of that. And I guess I feel our neighbors should also help preserve the area and keep
it looking nice. The report, the staff report says they didn't feel the property value would be
decreased by that. Well, I guess I'd dispute that. A dumpster is a dumpster and a dumpster
really is a garbage, it's associated with garbage and that's not good for your property value.
And I guess my last point is that, approving this area for storage of dumpsters is one thing
and maybe something can be worked out where that can be allowed but what happens is that
leads to something else. And we're afraid that if that's allowed, that something else is going
to be ... and uglier and it will be difficult to stop so it comes back to my first point I guess. I
guess I feel that you should be paying a little more attention to the area at the south end of
Chanhassen and try to pay as much attention to us I guess as you do to the Kings Road area.
Thanks.
Scott: Good, thank you sir. Anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir.
Laverne Wheeler: My name's Laverne Wheeler. I live at 445 Lakota Lane. Just down the
block to the east. I just second what Verne had said and I just had a couple questions that
people might answer for me. A commercial dumpster. I have an image of what it is but, and
what it might contain but maybe if I was informed a little more on the type of materials that
these things contain and if there are any refuse left in them at the point when they're stored at
all.
I Conrad: They said no.
' Laverne Wheeler: They're ... and cleaned out.
Scott: Has the applicant seen those pictures? I don't think she has.
'
Laverne Wheeler: I would just, in talking about making that area more presentable, I think
this abandoned railway and improvements that are happening there is just an outstanding
' thing to improve that area for both the residents of Chanhassen and people who might enter
and leave through that gateway. And if the storage site can be screened from those people
adequately, with something that's attractive. The dumpsters are clean and neat dumpsters. I
mean something that we ... other things, I don't object to dumpsters. I've got one in my
driveway right now because I've been improving but I think if we can find a way to either
collect them in an area where they could be screened entirely from view of the people who
' are around there. If they don't provide an odor or don't support animals or anything like that,
I wouldn't have a problem. But I would encourage some dramatic screening so that the items
themselves can't be viewed.
40
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? Seeing none, I'd like to have a
motion to close the public hearing please. '
Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Farmakes: I'd agree with the residents. For Chan's future, I think that those type of uses '
along that area have got to go. For some reason along that road just seems to be a magnet to
that type of use. I guess I wasn't back here in the 50's and 40's and.
Conrad: No, I haven't been on here that long.
Farmakes: I think it's pretty obvious. I don't know if waiting until the MUSA expands there
is necessarily criteria that we should use for that.
Mancino: Well then what would be it based on?
Farmakes: Well for instance, we have some developments, large lot developments that
squeezed into those areas before we get MUSA and it increases the population. I think the
criteria being that there's going to be enough people to object to that type of usage. Kind of
does the trees fall until you hear it. We're talking about an area that not only us but the
federal government are looking at trying to enhance and I'm not against approving this permit
but I'm wondering if we should entertain a time limit for review or if we're just going to
leave it open ended criteria for it. I'm not sure how you do that with an existing use that is
incompatible, or you think is incompatible long term with the goals of the area. How is the
position that we take to nudge that out and allow the person a reasonable amount of time to
make arrangements elsewhere. I
Conrad: See we don't have a master plan for this area. If Tim Erhart was here, he'd love
this conversation because he's always been real concerned with that corridor. And we don't
have a plan and the only thing that's going to force the plan is city services down there and
then you can start doing something but nobody's really said let's turn it into a preserve
because you'd have to buy it. There's no money to do a natural thing down there so
therefore we've always taken the easy. Well I don't know if it's the easy way out but
nobody's had a vision Jeff to really do something that might be quite different. So therefore
status quo has been.
Farmakes: And I'm not talking about initiating this now. I'm just talking about in the future.
Whether that 10 years from now. It seems to me that a master plan will be done for that area
41 1
i
,
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
prior to sewer and water going there. And I'm just, they're talking about fringe businesses
and some of the other ones that we see along that road. Either mining operations or the type
of thing that you would not expect out here. The reason that they haven't been objectionable
is it is an isolated area. But long term, and in particular. Not just... federal government is
becoming more involved in that area. We may be thinking about what we should do long
term planning with that area and again allow some reasonable time for the business owners of
that area to.
Conrad: You're thinking right but we don't know so it's hard to tell. We shouldn't really
make up something out of the clear blue.
Aanenson: Can I just make a comment? When we went through the goals with the City
Council, we promised them that we'd start working on the, we had the 1995 study area south
of Lyman and as you know we put together what we're doing in the agenda ... but we've
committed to the Council that we were going to try to wrap in the BF district in the 1995
study area and start working on that this fall. So in short—we also have to start looking at
the BF district ... so we have committed to the Council that we'll do the 1995 study area ... It is
a priority.
Mancino: So are you saying you would feel comfortable with a recommendation that not
only, you whichever is less then, the use shall be terminated after one year of inclusion of the
site within the Municipal Service or conditions of the permit have been violated, whichever
comes first. Or the Highway 1995 study is concluded and passed or?
Aanenson: That might be a good way to wrap it into. To do an evaluation of that as we
review the study area...
Conrad: Can't we put terms on conditional uses though? Can't we put.
Aanenson: You can bring it back every year if you want.
Conrad: But your trade off is, the applicant is only willing to put in so much money into the
site given the fact they may lose.
Mancino: Every year they may lose it.
Conrad: Right. So you've got to say, what do you want them to do right now and to prorate
that over a life of, if it's only one year. If we give them one year, they don't want to do it
and that's one way to defeat their proposal. But there's a lot of stuff I think coming in down
t here. I guess you just have to weigh.
El PA
Planning ommission Meeting - June 15 1994
g g
Aanenson: That's why we're going to be looking at these issues... and we'll also be looking ,
at a Bluff Creek study area which we talked about earlier tonight working with the watershed
district and ... that was part of this charette we had recently. Trying to get some additional
funding for Bluff Creek and is ... enhance Bluff Creek and the surrounding watershed area. So '
there are a couple things happening with that study that will...
Mancino: I guess I want to ask Ladd. Do you have a vision for that area? I
Conrad: Long term, that whole area? It's a tough one. It should be natural. Absolutely. It
should be, but the fact of the matter is, nobody's going to. There's not going to be a
government body that comes forth with a lot of money to buy it. But it is, it's beautiful
territory. Should be connected to Eden Prairie is I think a preserve or I don't know what it's
called to the northeast of it so we should be connected there. It's pretty stuff. But remember
we've got a dump down there and auto graveyard and it's, there's a lot of poor uses that are
,
ecologically just horrendous. Just horrendous so, a vision for the area, I don't know what it's
going to be. It's also on a highway. It's a great highway. If I were a business person in the
highway business area, I'd just love to have a gas station down there if it has the right road
access and what have you. It's just, it's 15,000 cars or big numbers. Big enough to really
develop a commercial deal but the right use is natural park or passive. In terms of tonight,
and I'm going to ask staff but I really think we should be tabling this tonight because the real
issue. Well, the real issue, I guess there are other deeper issues but the only way you can
look at this is if it's screened. That's the only way. They're coming in for a conditional use
,
and they've got something that's less intensive than what they were planning before with
building something and fencing something and putting trucks in there and so really I don't
mind the use if you can handle it. If you can screen. So screening is the major issue and if
you can't screen it, I don't want to take a look at it.
Mancino: So you want to see the landscape plan and see what they can do.
Conrad: Absolutely. Point number one, we'd recommend that it's approved, that the. Well
if the applicant can't furnish us a landscape plan that we think is acceptable to us, then in my
'
mind this doesn't fly at all. So I think it should be tabled. If staff feels that's the right thing
to do. Because I think there's been some communications back and forth and I don't know,
is here
some of the, all the background to why this tonight.
Farmakes: You're making my comments shorter.
Mancino: I'd support tabling it.
Ledvina: Likewise.
43 1
L�
I
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Scott: Can I have a motion please?
Conrad: I move that we, hold on. I move that we table Planning Case #94 -1, IUP.
Scott: Is there a second?
Mancino: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table case #94 -1 IUP. Is there any discussion?
Conrad moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the
Interim Use Permit #94 -1 for Admiral Waste Management. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
A CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO
REZONE 89.59 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO
PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO CREATE 34 BLOCKS AND 3 OUTLOTS FOR
A 166 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF 34 BUILDINGS OF
EITHER 2, 3, 4, 6 OR 8 UNITS IN EACH. THE UNITS ARE TWO STORY, SLAB
ON GRADE CONSTRUCTION WITH ATTACHED ONE OR TWO CAR GARAGES.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, AUTUMN RIDGE,
GOOD VALUE HOMES, INC. (BETTY O'SHAUGHNESSY PROPERTY).
Public Present:
Name Address
Jim & Sue Avis 8190 Galpin Blvd.
Chuck Gabrielson 2600 Arboretum Blvd.
Howard Dahlgren 1786 Irving Avenue So, Mpls.
Derrick Passe 9445 E. River Road, Mpls. Suite 201
John Peterson 9445 E. River Road, Mpls. Suite 201
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Bob, can you please show me where the 4 or 5 single family homes are. I've
never seen them on any of their drawings. On Galpin east of the development? And how
many are there? Can you draw that in?
0
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
they've done some good massing on that west side so I feel real comfortable. That's all my
questions.
Scott: Good, any other discussion? If there's no more discussion, I'd like to have a vote on
the question.
Harberts moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission approve the
architectural detailing incorporated in the detached commercial/office building being
developed as part of the West Village Center. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE IN
THE BF FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED_ AT 10500 GREAT PLAINS
BOULEVARD, ADMIRAL WASTE MANAGEMENT.
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Any questions or comments for staff? Okay, any discussion?
Conrad: Well yeah. We went from a request of 40 some dumpsters up to 100. We went
from 58 dumpsters up to whatever.
Mancino: 140.
Conrad: And staff agrees. Because why?
Al -Jaff: Originally it wasn't specified how many they wanted on the site so basically what
we did was we went out and we counted how many dumpsters were there and we said... A
letter came from the applicant requesting 140 so staff discussed this issue and we made the
recommendation that as long as there is screening of those. As long as the screening works,
then it would be.
Conrad: Okay. Shielding 58 is different than shielding 140 or whatever that number is so.
Well, I still haven't seen a plan that shows me how it's done so I guess I'm, I think we could
pass it along. But on the other hand our duty is to see it first and then pass our
recommendations of the plan to the City Council and I still don't see a plan that's acceptable.
So I guess I would have to recommend that we table this item until we see a plan that works.
Mancino: What do you want to see in the plan Ladd?
K
t
I
C
1
t
ri
L
i
L
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Conrad: I don't know, just something that staff feels comfortable with. It'd be really easy
for us to pass it along and just say hey, yeah it looks like a good plan but I think we just owe
it, or we're owed a good plan that staff makes a positive recommendation on.
Mancino: Yeah, I'd actually like to see in the plan where the 140 are. You know layout
where they would be on the plan.
Conrad: Yeah. It's not that this is a bad use. You know if it's screened, this could be a
good use for the parcel. I don't have a problem with the use as long as there's some wording
in the recommendation that I think has to be changed a little bit to make sure that we really
don't have storage in the dumpsters. The applicant said there's no refuse or whatever but I
really would want to make sure that that was specified in our language. But again, it's
probably an acceptable, as long as the traffic and noise is handled, it's probably an acceptable
use for that. But again, we need a plan that we can see that staff has shown us works.
Scott: Okay, any other questions or comments? Okay. Can I have a motion please?
Conrad: I would move that we table this particular item, the interim use permit to provide
outdoor storage for commercial dumpsters per the staff report. I would have it tabled until
the applicant and staff can present a screening plan that meets staff's requirements.
Scott: Okay. Is there a second?
Mancino: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table the item. Is there any discussion?
Ledvina: Yes. I also think that we should know specifically where the dumpsters are going
to be stored on site. It's a rather large site so we, I need to know what space 150 dumpsters
occupies and then that those dumpsters are going to be screened. So I think just to, I think
you said that but just to also know where those dumpsters are being stored.
Mancino: Yeah. I have a question on that. We're asking for screening right now and I
mean one of the only ways we'll get it is to get either a perspective drawing or something
perspectively that we're on TH 212 and either they're going to berm or not and then how, if
we're going to see 42 trees there, how tall are the trees. And if the trees are 6 feet tall, the
span of a 6 foot tall spruce is going to be 4 feet. So if you only have 42 trees, I mean how
much screening is that going to be if it's 6 feet tall? So we need to know the height and if
we're talking about screening all year, or complete screening, we're going to have to know
how tall the trees are and what the span is.
4
I
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Scott: And then bearing in mind that there's a 20 foot change in elevation over the area
where they could be potentially stored so.
Ledvina: The criteria though for screening is from the highway 212. That's what we're
talking about. Okay.
Scott: Yeah.
Mancino: And there may even need to be a little bit of berming to help in that height
because the trees will start out at 6 feet and it really won't do it. And it takes them about a
couple years to really start growing. So and then they'll start after 2 years growing about a
foot a year. But the most screening you'll get from a coniferous tree is about 15 feet wide. I
mean it grows 15 to 20 is the widest and that's after 25 years. So I mean there needs to be
some calculations and looking at it.
Scott: Any other comments or questions?
Al -Jaff: Mr. Chairman?
Scott: Yes.
Al -Jaff: Do you have any comments regarding...
Ledvina: The time line. The term of the permit. Are we talking about 15 years? Or MUSA
line extension, whichever comes later. What?
Al -Jaff: We're recommending that it be 10 years or until the MUSA.
Ledvina: Whichever comes first.
Al -Jaff: Correct. The applicant is requesting that that be changed to whichever comes later.
We're also recommending that the applicant be permitted to request an extension for interim
use permit prior to it's expiration.
Conrad: Are there a lot of costs in developing this property to the point where it can take the
dumpsters? Are we imposing a lot of financial hardship? Are we imposing a lot of financial
tasks that appear unreasonable? Have we asked for paving?
Al -Jaff: Paving of the property?
E
i
i
�I
77
1L
J
L'
I Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Conrad: Again, when '
g e you do a 10 year permit, that's a long time. I would do that if I
' thought we were imposing some real financial hardships. I think that it's important to get
some security. But I don't know right now that we are. I think we're asking for screening.
Anything else?
Mancino: Well one time the building was.
Scott: Well that was the original.
Conrad: You know you put a building there, you need the return. You need time to get a
return on that building. Really they need a time period to get a return, right now, on the
screening, which are trees. Which could be 42 trees. Probably more. And I'm not sure that
the 10 years is, if I were them I'd want the 10 years. I'd want to know that there was a
' chance for re- issuing the permit and I think we can probably, if they run a good operation,
which I'm sure they would, I think we would renew that. But I'm not sure that the 10 years
is necessary right now. It could be 5.
Ledvina: Yeah, I think we talked about 5 last time.
Conrad: But again, it's all based on finances. If they have to put a lot of money in, then I'd
say 10. I don't see it so I think 5 looks pretty good. I think the other thing the applicant will
probably care about is the hours of operation. You know 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 was struck and
now it's 9:00 to 5:00 and 9:00 to 5:00 is not really a commercial type operation so. I would
think that they'd be very nervous about that. Those hours.
' Scott: Any other comments?
' Mancino: On recommendation number 6. The second sentence. I would just add, only
empty dumpsters may be stored on the site. And I agree with Ladd on the 5 years and hours
of operation. I didn't know that they worked on holidays. Picked up waste on hohdays. It's
' interesting.
Al -Jaff: I believe this was an item of discussion at the last meeting. It's on page 38 of the
Minutes. And the request was to, page 39. I'm sorry. Top of the page. That the hours be
changed Saturday to.
' Conrad: See those are Saturday hours. That may be but not Monday thru Friday. Monday
thru Friday, that's just not reasonable. I think we should leave them with the typical 7:00 to
6:00.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Al -Jaff: On weekdays and then.
Mancino: 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturdays. ,
Conrad: 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturday I think is right. ,
Al -Jaff: Alright.
Scott: Anything else? '
Y g
Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to table interim use permit to allow screened outdoor '
storage in the BF for Admiral Waste Management. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously. '
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE T O THE BF, FRINGE BUSINESS TO AMEND
BY ADDING ADDITIONAL PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES.
Public Present: I
Name
Address
Verne Severson
675 Lakota Lane
Tim Wise
425 Lakota Lane
Leon & Delores Mesenbrink
250 Flying Cloud Drive
Nancy Lee
Admiral Waste Management
Patrick Blood
Admiral Waste Management
Jim Sulerud
730 Vogelsberg Trail
Richard Vogel
105 Pioneer Trail
'
Willard Halver
470 Flying Cloud Drive
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Any questions or comments? I just have one. When you're talking about some of
that property being zoned or rezoned to a higher use level, is that something that would come f
about due to, first of all the MUSA line being available? And then, we would basically see
what sort of development plans would come in and if it happens to be a PUD, it would be a
PUD. If it happens to be, is it depending upon.
F I
L
1
I INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE IN THE
BF, FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 10500 GREAT PLAINS
BOULEVARD, ADMIRAL WASTE MANAGEMENT.
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: If you were to rate the intensity of use over the, let's say the last 12 months, what's
your best guesstimate as to the intensity of that use with regards to the number of containers
that are stored there on the average? Do you have a feel for that?
' Al -Jaff: The maximum I have been able to count on there has been 58. It has never gone
beyond that.
I Scott: Why the extra 100?
Al -Jaff: I think the applicant should answer that question at this point.
' Scott: Well since we're not having a public hearing, this will be a good time to do it so.
Bill Griffith: Mr. Chair, Planning Commissioners, my name is Bill Griffith. I'm an attorney
representing Admiral Waste. What we've discussed on site was essentially what is required
to screen the containers, whether it be 58 or 140 or 200. The topography provides essentially
a buffer to the north. The existing vegetation provides screening year round because of it's
density and intensity around the area. And so what is being provided now is a 150 foot fence
at 6 to 8 feet in height and the addition of the spruce trees provides a break in the look of
that linear screening method. What we discussed is whether the applicant could come back at
a future time and say, based on experience, we've got 140 out there now. There are still 2 or
3 rows left, in which we could provide dumpsters based upon that. Showing pictures or
whatever type of documentation would be acceptable. Could we obtain essentially an
P-j
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
amendment of the deferment. That's what we desire. I think in fact the city code allows the
applicant to come in, amend a permit and where it complies with the standards for approval, '
obtain an amendment for that permit. That's all that we're discussing. It really is a statement
of what's allowed by code. We wanted to see a clear statement as there is in the, I think the
last condition. For instance it states, the applicant may request an extension of the interim '
use permit prior to it's expiration. Similar to that kind of statement which is a statement of
essentially the obvious that we can't request an extension. No guaranteed implied. We
wanted to say that the applicant can request additional dumpsters if they demonstrate those '
dumpsters can be screened and that's what this full exercise is about. Demonstrating that we
can screen the dumpsters which are now located on the property and those that are capped at
140 today and maybe at some number in the future. That's essentially what we discussed. '
Scott: Any questions for the applicant? I
Ledvina: Did you look at how many dumpsters can actually, physically fit in that area? In
terms of putting the dumpsters there. Maneuvering them. Having access to a large type of '
truck vehicle and things like that.
Bill Griffith: The plan which has been submitted to the staff would provide the ability to
locate the 140 dumpsters. Today there are 4 rows, or there have been 4 rows. Again, they
reduced the number of dumpsters down 20 to 58. We certainly know that 58 could be
allowed. ,
Ledvina: What's the size of the dumpster? The dimension of the dumpster.
Bill Griffith: I don't have that.
Nancy Lee: They're about... I
Ledvina: 1 1/2 to 10?
Nancy Lee: They go anywhere from 1 1/2 foot deep to 10 to 12 foot deep, depending on '
the ... diagram in that demonstrates when I put in these dumpsters, utilizing 12 foot dumpsters.
Ledvina: I'm sorry, could you say that again? ,
Nancy Lee: Sharmin has the ... the southwest corner. ,
Ledvina: Right, I see that but.
t
[I
iJ
7
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Nancy Lee: ...is a 5 x 4 foot...
Ledvina: Right, I see that. But I guess what I'm thinking about is they all, you know they
all pack in there nice but that's not, it doesn't seem to me the logistics of getting the things in
and out. Are you literally packing them in there tight and how do you get equipment in that
area to.
Nancy Lee: ...dumpsters you use the back of the truck. You back up so you can hook it up
to the back of the truck. Obviously we park the dumpsters in line so all we have to do is
back up to it and take it away. Obviously we can't get the dumpsters at the very back end.
We utilize those in the front first.
Bill Griffith: Maybe I can get to the point of your question. The experience has been that 58
dumpsters in loosely aligned rows, because these were aligned before this issue arose. 58
dumpsters in 4 rows at 100 feet fits comfortably on the property and allows for a truck to
come down and move it around. Based upon the discussions with city staff, we've increased
the width of the area to 150 feet. That's the width of the, or the length of the fence. And
the number of rows, because of the concerns about screening, are more closely spaced and the
rows are now, 12 are shown on the plan but if you have 10 let's say at 150 feet, you could
comfortably get in the 140 dumpsters and we would maybe at that point come back a year or
two from now and say, can we increase the number. But it's been demonstrated that they can
fit within the area shown on the plan.
Mancino: Yeah, it hasn't been demonstrated to me yet. Don't we require a site plan as we
do on any subdivision, any building site where we can see that the trucks can get in off
Highway 101? I mean I went there and I was very concerned about big trucks getting into
and onto that site. And I haven't seen a site plan that shows that the trucks can get in and
out. And I haven't seen a site plan that shows us exactly where the 140 dumpsters will go
and if the and if the land is graded. I haven't seen any grading plan or anything. Do we
require that? There hasn't been any physical, visual thing for us to look at, at all. For the
last, boy this started, we requested an actual landscaping plan, let's see. We met in June
about this. We met in July about it and now we're meeting in August about it and we
haven't seen anything.
Scott: It's also unfair to have us react to something that's not in our packet. So it's very
difficult for us. I mean fortunately you've had a chance to meet with the applicant and stuff
but as a Planning Commission, I mean we don't have the benefit of those conversations. Nor
do we have the benefit or did we have the benefit of what you have and it's very difficult for
us to make a decision in a span of 10, 15, 20 minutes on something like this, so. I don't
know how you want to respond to that.
3
11
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Al -Jaff: I believe there are conditions in the staff report, and we have amended some of
those conditions as well. We haven't had a chance to go through them yet but with the '
conditions in the staff report, we believe that we will achieve the desirable results.
Scott: What about the, I noticed that there's some, a number of trees to be planted along the '
railroad right -of -way. Will that impart any screening benefit to the residents or from what I
know of the area, that's fairly steep. There may be 40, 50 feet above the property.
Al -Jaff: It won't, we won't an et benefits in the near future, no. '
g Y
Scott: What, and the reason for planting the trees along the railroad grade is for future ,
eventual screening for the people on the bluff?
Al -Jaff: Correct. '
Scott: Okay. 1
Mancino: Dave, how do you feel about big trucks entering TH 101 and coming off TH 101
in that area? I mean it's one, hard to find. The entrance. I went there two different times ,
looking for it and yet there was, when you're coming down that hill, it's right on the top of
the hill going down to 212. And you don't see anything coming out of the east side there...
Do you have any thoughts? '
Hempel: Yes, TH 101 is a curvy road in that area. There probably are some sight
considerations to be concerned with. It's my understanding ... it has been accessed in the past. ,
Mancino: But we're intensifying the use. We're going to have more traffic there because
we're going to have more dumpsters.
Hempel: The other consideration I guess is TH 101 is a State highway and MnDot would
have jurisdiction of the access. There probably could be the most concerns from a liability ,
standpoint... necessary site improvements. There's traffic control signs to be placed and truck
hauling signs and similar to that that could be posted on TH 101 ... the potential is there.
Mancino: Because those trucks, I would think move pretty slow as they're getting ready to ,
turn and somebody coming down that hill. The other thing is, as I remember it's gravel into
there. The roadway off TH 101 is gravel. Don't we require, I know that we do in a '
residential areas, where you need driveways to be asphalt, 7 ton and MnDot requirements, etc.
Is there? ,
4 1
J
I r �
LJ
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Hempel: We do for two reasons. One is for emergency access. All weather, in the winter
time conditions, spring thaw conditions. The other is from an erosion standpoint. Hilly
terrain. There's not adequate site drainage to the site... potential to have erosion problems
there but I think that site's been there for some time. I'm not aware of any kind of erosion
problem. I haven't been made aware of anything yet to date. If I'm not mistaken, we did
have a site plan at one time for this that did show either existing or proposed conditions.
And we did have some remarks with regards to that site plan. At this time I don't think...
Al -Jaff: Another thing we like to have... emergency access. There really isn't anyone living
on this site. So that's something... There is some very minor, minor erosion. It's not even
erosion. It's more of a pothole in the entrance as you go into the site.
Mancino: So you would not recommend paving it as we do residential driveways?
I Al -Jaff: Yes.
Mancino: Okay.
Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff or the applicant?
Al -Jaff: Could we, if I may, go through some conditions that need to be amended.
I Scott: Sure.
u
Al -Jaff: On condition number 1. It should read, the applicant shall demonstrate. No, we
take out the applicant shall demonstrate that the submitted landscaping screening plans will
provide adequate screening year round. But it will read, all final plans shall be approved by
staff. The fence and landscaping shall be constructed and planted prior to October 22, 1994.
We originally chose the September 15th because that's the DOT deadline for landscaping.
However, you can plant trees beyond that date and that's what the applicant requested and we
can work with that. And condition number 5. This condition has been satisfied. When we
went to the site we noticed that the compost materials had been removed. We also would
like to add a condition to read that, the applicant shall replace any dead trees within one year.
Or anything that dies within one year shall be replaced. Any new planted trees.
Mancino: Anything on the property that dies.
Scott: Also there should be a condition here that storage of compost materials, tires or plants,
it says furniture or other refuse, shall not be stored on this site. And I don't know, I'm
looking at the July 11th version.
5
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Al -Jaff: Okay. We made a change to condition number 6 to read only empty dumpsters may
be stored on the site.
Scott: Okay, thank you.
Mancino: Did ou want to say anything about MnDot? Oh, you have of that. '
Y Y Y g Y g
Al -Jaff: We do have that condition. '
Mancino: Yes, on 4. And how do you feel about the length of the term shall not exceed 10 '
years? Weren't we also talking about Sharmin last time, not only should it be terminated
within one year of inclusion of the site within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area, but
according to the study, 1995 plan. How that's guided. Didn't we say something about that '
last time?
Ledvina: Are you saying that we should tie that into that? ,
Mancino: Yes.
Scott: Tie the use. ,
Mancino: Tie the use into that. Oh, but then we were concerned with. '
Ledvina: That's open ended.
Mancino: Well, so are all of these.
Al -Jaff: I believe that was the amendment of the BF district. The zoning ordinance
amendment would apply then rather than this specific application.
Scott: Any other comments or questions? Matt. I
Ledvina: Well, I don't know. I don't care to be surprised when it comes to these meetings
as it relates to what we have. You know I specifically, I asked last time that we have the '
applicant demonstrate on paper that x amount of dumpsters can be fit in the screened area and
that they shall screen from all sides. I don't know I don't have a very good level of comfort '
that I see enough information to tell me that. I hate to say come back again and show us
your plan. Let's see that plan in a little more detail. The contours on all sides because
essentially, I mean you've said that yes. There's plantings there. There's trees but I'm not
necessarily convinced of that because I haven't seen a detailed plan of that. I guess I'm still
6 1
1
j
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
not comfortable with moving this along at this point. I think the applicant is on the right
track certainly in terms of finalizing this thing but I'd like to know what I'm voting on and I
don't have that level of comfort yet.
Al -Jaff: Do you feel that condition number 6 addresses that concern? Or shall be limited to
the number that can be adequately screened.
Ledvina: Well, I'd like to know that going in up front. I think we can turn everything over
to the staff but then at that point you know, what's our role. I think we need to, it's my
understanding of the role that we want to make sure that the conditions of these types of
permits are adequate. That the site plans are adequate and I don't have that level of comfort.
Scott: Okay, Nancy.
Mancino: Gosh, I guess I kind of feel the same way as Matt. I think that the applicant is in
the right direction and I'm glad that staff and the applicant met to go over a landscape plan.
Something that we've been requesting but I agree with Matt. We did ask to see a layout of
the dumpsters and egress and ingress points and how that all works and I would feel much
more comfortable waiting to see that.
Scott: Okay, Jeff.
Farmakes: I won't argue with that. Obviously a time limit in there and... In general I'm not
wildly enthusiastic about expansion of those uses. I go back to the mining issue that we had
here many times. That's a pretty big percentage of expansion. Currently under the rules and
regulations that we have, that's allowed but I go back again to the planning issue. I think it's
enough property probably to live with that amount of dumpsters. But I think it might be a
bad precedent for what we're doing. Or something at least to look at. And if they're going
to study this for long term, next year or in the next season, I think that that's a good thing. I
think we should do that. I think we should come to a conclusion as to what they're going to
do with those businesses. We're going to permit that type of expansion...
Mancino: I had a question for Sharmin. When we conditional use with Barbara Dacy. I
think when she was Planning Director. When the conditional use was first given to the
applicant. How many dumpsters? Wasn't it 50 at that time? Was there a limit?
Al -Jaff: It was going to be enclosed within a building. There was supposed to be a building
on this site. It was completely enclosed.
Mancino: So that the dumpsters were going to be inside the building. Was that it? Or was
7
n
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
the building for some other maintenance reasons? Or was the thinking at the time that the
dumpsters were all fitting inside the out building or the big?
Al -Jaff: There was supposed to be vehicles in the building as well. Nancy, were there
supposed to be vehicles as well as dumpsters?
Nancy Lee: Dumpsters were not going to be stored in the building.
Bill Griffith: Let me see if I can address the question please. I think the letter you're
referring to from, is it Barb Dacy? That's the planner at the time. Allowed for the
temporary storage of 50 dumpsters on the property pending the development of the site. As
you may recall from earlier discussions, the City Council denied the request for an extension
of the conditional use permit. As you may also recall, our concerns is there are very limited
uses in the BF district and the applicant has been using this property in the interim for the
storage of dumpsters. Essentially all they can use the property for because of limitations.
That is why we're in here for an interim use permit. And that is probably why you have
some discomfort level with the amount of materials submitted or the level of detail. This is
not ... a conditional use permit for a permanent use. This is not a commercial building.
Something that you're maybe more familiar seeing at this Planning Commission level. This
is an interim use permit essentially to install a fence to screen dumpsters on the property.
Maybe if we established that the existing number, 58 would be the cap for this round and
install the improvements and demonstrate to staff in the next season that we can store more
on the property, maybe that would get us off of dead center. But as far as the level of detail,
we do not intend to hire a professional landscape planner to provide detail on a fence. It just
isn't going to be done for this level of use. This is an interim use permit. It's to store
dumpsters on the property and we believe through site visits and through documentation that
we've satisfied the city code and demonstrated that to city staff. I apologize and I'm sorry
that hasn't been for 3 meeting brought your comfort level up but that's really where we're at.
So maybe to get off dead center, if we propose the 58 that have been allowed to this point
and demonstrate in the next season that we can store more. Once the improvements are there,
maybe we can get this thing moved onto City Council. We have a season for construction
and we have a season for installation of plantings and any further delays may put us beyond
that season by the time we get out of City Council so that would be my proposal to move this
thing along.
Scott: What do you guys think about that?
Mancino: I would be glad with not intensifying a use and keeping it 58 and also the term of
the length being 5 years. Not 10 years as it says. For a interim use permit.
I
1
LJ
J
L �
I�
0
0
1
n
r1
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Farmakes: I find that acceptable.
' Scott: 5 years?
' Mancino: And not intensifying the use and keeping the dumpster count at 58.
Farmakes: Sure.
Ledvina: Well, I think if we reduce the numbers and kept the, allow some plantings the same
that would bring about certainly 3 times the chance of that area being screened so that seems
reasonable to me in terms of that approach.
i Mancino: And it doesn't intensify the traffic on TH 101 and it allows.
■ Scott: How many, in your report, how many conditions do you have? You're working off
the July 11th? I just want to make sure what I'm putting in.
' Al -Jaff: July 28th.
' Scott: May I have a motion by the way.
Mancino: Yeah, I move that the Planning Commission approve the Interim Use Permit #94 -1
' for outdoor storage of dumpsters as shown on plans received July 7, 1994 with the following
conditions. Sharmin, could you please read the revised number 1?
' Al -Jaff: Okay. A final landscaping plan shall be approved by staff. The fence shall be
constructed and the landscaping shall be planted prior to October 22, 1994.
Mancino: And could you just add in that the 46 trees so we have a count as to what the
landscaping is made up of
' Al -Jaff: 46 spruce trees.
Mancino: And how tall? 6 feet?
Al -Jaff: The applicant has purchased the trees at 1 1/2 feet tall. They have been planted.
Bill Griffith: The number is 42. They have been planted and they are, the trees are not
providing the screening.
t
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Al -Jaff: At the site, Nancy mentioned that they have been planted on her site.
Nancy Lee: No. They're not planted.
Al -Jaff: I misunderstood. They are 1 1/2 feet high and they are.
Mancino: And they are, I mean the reason why we, they're planting 46 trees is to break the
horizontal line, right? I mean isn't that what we were told. And the fence is going to be 8
feet tall, because it can screen more dumpsters being 8 feet tall. And now we're going to
have 1 1/2 feet trees. I'm going to stop and can we go back to the discussion on that?
What's our ordinance say as far as landscaping and? Don't we have a minimum coniferous
size?
Al -Jaff: 6 feet.
Mancino: 6 feet, okay. So if we are asking for landscaping and we do have a minimum city
size, thank you.
Elliott Knetsch: If I may be allowed. You've seen my face at the last couple meetings. I'm
Elliott Knetsch from the City Attorney's office and I guess I just wanted to say to you that in
staff's opinion we've been looking at this for a long time. Obviously the level of submittals
is not on a par with what you might see for Goodyear's conditional use permit to put an auto
store on Highway 5. But the level of submittal is commensurate with the nature of the use
and this is a temporary use. It's an interim use. It will only last under this permit as
proposed for 10 years. It's basically a use that's existed out there since I think 1988 or '89.
And we have to ask ourselves, what can we ask them to do. What kind of investment can we
ask them to make in return for a 10 year use of the property. And they've been somewhat
struggling with this property. Their plans, it was proposed back in '89 or so for a conditional
use didn't come off and now we are left with a zoning district that provides zero permitted
uses as it stands right now for that property. There's not one thing they could come in and
get a site plan and do out there.
Mancino: We just passed.
Elliott Knetsch: Again that's, you recommended at the last meeting that we increase those
permitted uses but that's not on the books yet. That still has to go to the City Council. I
would suggest trying to make a decision tonight. If you feel that you just can't approve it,
then I think you should make that recommendation. But if you can, if you do think the use
can work out there with the conditions as outlined by staff, I think that's what should happen
tonight. The applicants are here as far as some of your specific questions about trucks getting
10
1
r,
1
r
U
1
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
in and out. I think they have provided a great deal more detail. We know where the storage
area is going to be. It's outlined on their site plan so dumpsters won't be stored willy nilly
all across the property. She's got a boxed in storage area there behind the fence. That's the
only place a dumpster could go. The tree issue. They are not for screening. They are to
break up the fence. They're 1 1/2 to 2 foot high spruce which if any of you have them
know, they grow fast. You know within just a couple years. They will be very noticeable
against that fence. If they aren't originally. Again, the site has a lot of vegetation on it.
There's a bluff coming up from Highway 212 which provides some natural screening and a
natural barrier in addition to the fence and so forth. So I guess what I really wanted to tell
you is, it's apparent from these last three meetings that you're somewhat frustrated by the
level of submittals and the information and then today you get something that's not in the
report and that's certainly understandable but I guess our request, and the applicant's request
is that you make a decision tonight one way or the other and state your reasons for that.
Thank you for letting me speak.
Scott: Thank you. Motion?
Mancino: I'll try this one again. I move that we approve the Interim Use Permit #94 -1 for
outdoor storage of dumpsters as shown on plans received July 7, 1994 with the following
conditions. And Sharmin if you could state that again, and I would like to add, in specifics
there if you could, that the fence be 8 feet in height and there are 46 trees be in varying
height from 1 1/2 feet to 6 feet.
Scott: Is there a second?
Mancino: Oh, and the other one. Then number 2 stands as is. The hours of operations.
Number 3, there shall be no outdoor speaker system stands as is. Number 4 stands as is.
Number 5 we can delete?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Mancino: Number 6. The number of dumpsters shall be limited to a number that can be
adequately screened, not to exceed 58 dumpsters. And retain only empty dumpsters may be
stored on the site. Number 7 remains as is. Number 8, the length of the term shall not
exceed 5 years. And the rest remains as is. And number 9, Sharmin could you please.
About the applicant shall replace any new trees that die within one year.
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Ledvina: I'd second that.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Scott: It's been moved and seconded. Unless there's any discussion.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to
approve Interim Use Permit #94 -1 for the outdoor storage of dumpsters as shown on
plans received July 7, 1994, with the following conditions:
1. A final landscaping plan shall be approved by staff. The fence shall be 8 feet in
height with 46 trees of varying height from 1 1/2 feet to 6 feet constructed and the
landscaping shall be planted prior to October 22, 1994.
2. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and
9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturday. Work on Sundays and holidays is not permitted.
3. There shall be no outdoor speaker system.
4. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the Minnesota Department of
Transportation.
5. The number of dumpsters shall be limited to a number that can be adequately screened,
not to exceed 58 dumpsters. Only empty dumpsters may be stored on the site.
6. There shall be a yearly review of this site to ensure compliance.
7. The length of the term shall not exceed 5 years. The use shall be terminated within one
year of inclusion of the site within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area or if conditions
of approval have been violated, whichever comes first. The applicant may request an
extension for the interim use permit prior to it's expiration.
8. The applicant shall replace any of the new trees that die within one year.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
12
I
u
1
0