Minutes - Planning Commission - 04/10/2000 - Special Meeting

Home

Mr. Sharp explained that with Phase 1, the trucks leave in the morning empty, return empty, and the employees go home. The material is dumped at Elk River and several other places. With Phase 2 and the transfer station, a truck will leave in the morning empty. Thirty to 40 percent of the trucks will return and dump on the floor so it can be placed in larger tracks and transported to Elk River or one of the other places. The other 70% of the trucks will come back empty. Commissioner Kociscak asked where their transfer station is now. Mr. Berkopec stated they do not currently have a transfer station but want one to provide flexibility in disposal options. He stated they could never build a facility large enough to handle all of their waste, but this would provide another option to them. Commissioner Nixt asked if they operate a transfer station now. Mr. Berkopec stated that they do not. Motion by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Nixt to amend the findings of fact as follows: 11. The proposed use will adversely impact traffic in the area. 12. The proposed use will not be dangerous or detrimental to persons or to the public welfare. 13. The proposed use will adversely impair the use, enjoyment and market value of surrounding properties. 14. The proposed use will not be operated and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing character of the general vicinity and will change the essential character of the area. 15. That the proposed use will be adequately served by essential public services. 16. The proposed use will create additional requirements at public cost for facilities and services. 17. The proposed use will be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 18. The proposed use will be disturbing or hazardous to existing or future neighboring uses. 19. The proposed use will involve uses, activities, processes, materials, and equipment and conditions of operation that may be detrimental to persons and property by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke or glare. 20. The proposed use will not be in accordance with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and City Code. Further discussion: Commissioner Johnson stated he is making this motion because he does not believe enough facts have been presented. He stated the evidence presented identifies a significant traffic impact and he does not know enough about the odor issue to conclude otherwise. He stated a number of questions were raised that are beyond the scope of the Planning Commission; the Council, County, or State would have to speak to them. Commissioner Johnson stated he is reasonably sympathetic to the need for a transfer station but needs more information before determining whether it would work at this particular site. He stated if more information is available, he would be willing to revisit this issue. Planning Commission/April 10, 2000 Page 10 of 16