2012-05-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 02, 2012 Page 4 Mr. Lloyd advised that the State required notification; and their property was within the 141 500’ property notice proscribed by the City Council via code; and advised that Hennepin 142 County’s Park Board, manager of the adjacent golf course, had also been notified. Mr. 143 Lloyd advised that no comment from either body had been received. 144 Applicant Representative, Jeff Dufresne – Minnehaha Transportation 145 Mr. Dufresne advised that their firm had been in operation now for six (6) years, and as a 146 former School Principal, the business had been established to serve area charter 147 schools. Mr. Dufresne advised that, now that he has retired, the business continues to 148 grow and they found they were outgrowing their previous location. 149 Mr. Dufresne advised that his firm did not want to preclude the possibility of limited 150 outside truck storage. Even though the firm was a school bus company with forty-five (45) 151 buses and ten (10) vans, However, Mr. Dufresne advised that he wanted to be clear 152 upfront that they served a diverse and particular community, with many of their drivers 153 and the community they served of East African descent, and using their facility in off 154 hours for repair and maintenance of their personal vehicles, some of which were semi- 155 trucks. Mr. Dufresne noted that the trucks would come and go from the site and facility; 156 and not be stored long-term on-site. However, Mr. Dufresne advised that he did not want 157 to preclude that use, since this had been part of their rationale in considering this parcel. 158 Member Cunningham clarified that the intent was that the truck drivers, once trucks were 159 repairs, would not be stored on the parcel; but may be there for some short period of time 160 (e.g. several days), but not a permanent storage area per se, but only while under 161 maintenance and/or repair. Member Cunningham asked Mr. Dufresne to define “truck.” 162 Mr. Dufresne advised that some of the drivers’ personal vehicles could include 19- 163 wheelers. Mr. Dufresne advised that his firm was not currently using the property; but 164 was hoping to purchase in the future. 165 Chair Boerigter questioned, if Mr. Dufresne purchased the property, would he have any 166 opposition to the City regulating under this Conditional Use, that there would be no right 167 to continue any operations as a non-conforming use once this Conditional Use was 168 granted. Chair Boerigter clarified that the current outdoor truck/trailer storage was 169 allowed to operate as a legally, non-conforming use; however, if this Conditional Use 170 application is approved and moves forward, with the City Council’s final approval, for this 171 specific requested use, if this use was found out of compliance in the future the City 172 would have the ability to revoke it. 173 Mr. Dufresne sought clarification as to what manner the property was currently out of 174 compliance. 175 Chair Boerigter advised that outdoor storage was not permitted without a Conditional 176 Use; however, since the current property owner/tenant had been using it for that purpose 177 for a significant amount of time, it had been allowed as a legally, non-conforming use. 178 Mr. Lloyd further clarified that use of the property did not include or allow for outdoor 179 storage of trailers; and approval of this Conditional Use would remove that previous 180 legally, non-conforming use. From his perspective, Mr. Lloyd opined hat buses and trucks 181 could be kept on the site in compliance with this Conditional Use; however, no piles of 182 material, construction equipment or truck bodies not considered fleet vehicles would be 183 allowed under this use. 184 Mr. Dufresne interpreted the City’s preference and intent to avoid the property becoming 185 a scrap yard. 186 Member Boguszewski further noted that, if in the future, the applicant was found to have 187 broken down, inoperable vehicles on site, the City could then revoke this Conditional Use 188 as it would be out of compliance; and the use of the property could not revert back to 189