09/04/84 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I it ':s:i staff and resources. That finding does not directly rela{e to the North 80, but can be generalized because of 8i~i!la~ conditions between the two. The residences did not, in ;~.d of themselves, make the site unsuitable for use as a Iandlfill and indicate that those problems can probably be SolVed either by acquisition or proper design and operation. Conditional Use Permit Application which requires that Waste Manage~,ent meet County and State requirements for operation of t'aniifill and addresses City body and citizen concerns. ReqUes~ that the Commission review that conditional use permit which includes $10,000/month fee for disposal, remedial act.ion !and indemnification provisions. 3. Home A~alysis; compilation of data obtained from Minneapolis Board ~f Realtors listing which indicated that in the vicinity of ~heilandfill, the average length of time of homes on the market iwas 60 days and average drop in asking price was $2400. Twb~ho~es sold that were closest to the landfill sold for: .a. The asking price in 107 days b.~ $1000 less than asking price in 103 days 4. Mr..~Ha~k Cook's response to Minnesota Soil and Conservation letter[ dated June 28, 1984; statements in Minnesota Conservation letterl conflict with findings of Metro Council and PCA. 5. A prepared findings with supporting testimony and documents ~c0ncli~ding that if conditions are met, the conditional use permit~ should be granted. Mr. Moersfelder stated that Waste Management is requesting a conditional use permit for a very active and temporary use. Any constCUct~.on that takes place has impacts associated with it; if these '~mpacts in the construction process were a bar to the activftie.-~, then any new private and industrial development would stand still. Beyond the construction stage, certain impacts may be found to be objectionable in the eyes of the residents and this pertains o other types of businesses as well as landfill operations. The diffe 'ence between those types of uses versus this landfill expansion!is that after 5 years on the North 80 and 3 years on the South 80, active use of the site will cease; R~msey will be left with openf~ess and quietness in that area. Mr. Moers~elder requested that the Commission analysis focus on facts On ~ecord that strongly support a recommendation to Council that the :,~ermit be granted. The Commission should look at the long termlbenefits to the City not only from a financial aspect but from .~he aspect that the alternative use that mav take place, in placebf the proposed ~se, may have longer reachi{~g affects and return to Council a positive recommendation for a conditional use p'ermi~. Mr. ~oOdr~ch stated that he and Mr: LeFevere have drafted a proposed findings bf fact to base denial or approval of application on, Comm~s,~io~er Deemer inquired as to the time limitation on the landfi~il'tg_iven the existing situation, i.e., operation being controlled by City of Anoka and the lawsuit. ' P & Z/August 7, 1984 ~_.t Page 6 of 8