HomeMy WebLinkAbout8B - Buckingham Disposal
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
DISCUSSION:
STAFF AGENDA REPORT
8 B
Donald Rye
Planning Director
Consider appeal of Buckingham Disposal from ordinance
interpretation
October 16,1995
In June, City staff was made aware of the existence of a
recycling operation conducted by Buckingham Disposal at
5980 Credit River Road. The facility was opened without
benefit of a Certificate of Occupancy and a subsequent
determination was made by the Planning Director that the use
was not a permitted or conditional use in the 1-2 zoning district.
The owner of Buckingham Disposal appealed this decision
pursuant to Section 7.4 of the zoning ordinance. The Planning
Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, heard this
request on August 28 and, following its deliberations,
recommended that the City Council uphold the appellant's
contention that the recycling operation fits within the definition
of light manufacturing as contained in the zoning ordinance.
Section 7.4 states that the Council shall make its decision by
resolution within 60 days.
The issue to be resolved is whether the City Council agrees
with the staff interpretation of the ordinance or with the
appellants view that the recycling operation falls within the
definition of light manufacturing in the zoning ordinance.
Attached to this report are the planning commission staff
report, the use listing in the 1-2 zoning district, a letter to Mr.
Buckingham from the City Manager, the staff memorandum
making the determination of use, a memo from the building
official, a letter from Mr. Buckingham describing the operation,
a letter from the City Manager, a letter from Mr. Buckingham's
attorney filing the appeal, a response to the appeal letter from
the Planning Director, a summary of operations and a letter
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ISSUES:
from Scott County indicating that the facilities license has been
denied.
The planning report had three options specified:
1. Recommend support of the staff determination
2. Recommend support of the appellants position
3. Recommend the staff determination be upheld and that
staff be directed to conduct a study pursuant to Section 2.5
of the zoning ordinance to determine under what
circumstances a recycling center may be allowed in the 1-2
zoning district.
The staff recommendation was alternative 3. The Planning
Commission recommended alternative 2.
If Council believes that a recycling operation as described by
the appellant does not fit the definition of light manufacturing as
discussed in the planning report, it should uphold the staff
determination.
If Council believes that the recycling operation fits the definition
of light manufacturing, it should uphold the appellant.
If Council believes that a recycling operation is sufficiently
different from other traditional light manufacturing uses, it
should direct staff to conduct the appropriate study to define
how such a facility should be regulated.
Staff is of the opinion that such a use raises some particular
concerns related to outside storage, appearance, storage of
potentially hazardous materials on site such as
chlorofluorocarbons in appliances and control of traffic and
drainage. The only effective way to establish criteria and
monitor compliance with respect to such uses is to define
recycling as a conditional use in the 1-2 zone. The study
recommended by the staff would define any other safeguards
that would be appropriate to consider for this use.
2.
3.
Uphold the staff interpretation of the ordinance that a
rec~cling operation. does ~ot fit the curr~nt definit~o~~.. '. .' .
of light manufacturing. This would effectively prohibit /
continued operation of the recycling operation.
Uphold the appellants position
Uphold the staff interpretation and direct staff to
conduct a study to determine the proper method of
regulation for recycling operations
ALTERNATIVES:
1.
RECOMMENDATION: Alternative 3. No further enforcement action would be
taken pending the outcome and council action on such a
study. It is our expectation that the study would
recommend that recycling be a conditional use in the 1-2
zone.
ACTION REQUIRED: Motion to direct pre aration of a resolution consistent
with the City Counci action.
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: 4
SUBJECT:Consider appeal of Buckingham Disposal from ordinance interpretation
SITE:5980 Credit River Road
PRESENTER:Donald Rye
PUBLIC HEARING:
DA TE:August 28,1995
YES
X NO-N/A
--
INTRODUCTION:
In June, City staff was made aware of the operation of a recycling operation conducted
by Buckingham Disposal at the above address. The facility was opened without benefit of
a Certificate of Occupancy and a subsequent determination was made by the Planning
Director that the use was not a permitted or conditional use in the 1-2 zoning district. The
owner of Buckingham Disposal is appealing this decision pursuant to Section 7.4 of the
zoning ordinance. The Board of Adjustment has the responsibility to hear the appeal and
make a recommendation to the City Council to either uphold the interpretation by staff,
determine that the staff interpretation was incorrect and grant the appeal or to recommend
some alternative resolution of the issue such as a zoning ordinance amendment.
DISCUSSION:
The letter from Tom Buckingham dated July 18 describes the operation of his business
and presents the rationale under which he believes his use is a permitted use in the zoning
district. The staff memorandum dated July 21 presents the reasoning leading to. the
conclusion that the use is not permitted in the 1-2 district.The letter from the appellants
attorney dated August 9 constitutes the formal appeal.As of August 21, the detailed
statement referred to in the third paragraph of Mr. Cairns letter has not been received.
The role of the Planning Commission in the appeal process is advisory only. Once the
Commission determines a position, a recommendation is to be made to the City Council
for final action.
In considering the appeal, the Commission should consider all of the material contained
in the staff report as well as testimony offered by the appellant on his behalf. The
language of the ordinance should be read in such a way as to allow all provisions of the
PCREPT.DOT
16200 Eagle Creek Ave., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTIJNITY EMPLOYER
ordinance to be applied in a consistent fashion. Consequently, the Commission should
look beyond the case before it and consider the implications of its recommendation.
The ordinance currently defines light manufacturing as " the processing and fabrication of
certain materials where no process involved will produce noise, vibrations, air pollution,
fire hazards or noxious emissions which will disturb or endanger neighboring properties."
Fabricate is defined as "To construct by combining and assembling" while manufacturing
is defined as "to make or process a raw material into a finished product, esp. by means of
a large-scale industrial operation." Staff does not believe that a recycling center where
used materials are gathered, separated and, in some case~, reduced in bulk, conforms to
either definition. The staff memorandum also lists other reasons why it was felt that
recycling centers are not currently permitted in the 1-2 district.
AL TERNA TIVES:
The Planning Commission has three alternatives:
1. Recommend that the City Council uphold the staff determination and direct continued
enforcement actions to be taken.
2. Recommend that the City Council uphold the appellant and direct termination of
zoning ordinance enforcement.
3. Recommend that the City Council uphold the staff determination and direct that staff
conduct a study pursuant to Section 2.5 of the zoning ordinance to determine under
what circumstances, if any,
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend Alternative 3 to the City
Council.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion to adopt Alternative 3.
BUCKAP.DOC
-
-,
.J
- J
]
G
C-1
S-D
2.3
2.4
2.5
the taxable value and to promote the public health, safety and welfare. (Ord.93-18)(C)\-~C' '))
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT is intended to provide areas of the community which will
allow general industrial uses which due to their size and nature would not conform to the
Special Industrial District.
CONSERVATION DISTRICT is provided to recognize vital environmental resources of
the community as steep slopes, wetland and unstable soil conditions and allow
development only after careful analysis.
SHORELAND DISTRICT is established to protect water and shoreland resources
from unwise development and water pollution and to preserve economic and natural
environmental qualities of the shoreland environment. Land located within the following
distances from protected waters is considered to be within the Shoreland District: 1000
feet from the ordinary high water mark of a lake, pond, or flowage and 300 feet from a
river or stream, or the landward extent of a flood plain on such river or stream, whichever
is greater.
DISTRICT BOUNDARIES: District boundaries shown within the lines of the roads,
streams, and transportation rights-of-way shall be deemed to follow the centerlines. The
vacation of roads shall not affect the location of such district boundaries. When the
Zoning Officer cannot definitely determine the location of a district boundary by such
centerlines, by the scale or dimensions stated on the Zoning Map, or by the fact that it
clearly coincides with a property line, he shall interpret the location of the district
boundary with reference to the scale of the Zoning Map and the purposes set forth in all
relevant provisions of the Ordinance. Where a district boundary line divides a lot of
record into two or more districts, any portion of the lot within fifty (50) feet of such division
may be used for any use of either district as approved by the Board of Adjustment.
DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS: Except for Planned Unit Developments, all buildings and
uses in each district shall be subject to the requirements listed under Sections 3 through
9. Planned Unit Development standards may be applied to any Residential Districts at
the request of the land owner and at the discretion of the City Council. Where Planned
Unit Development standards differ from the original district standards, the Planned Unit
Development standards shall apply.
USES NOT DESIGNATED: A use not specifically designated as a permitted or
conditional use anywhere in the City is considered prohibited. In such a case, the
Council, Commission or a property owner may request a study by the City to determine if
the use is acceptable and if so, what Zoning District would be most appropriate for the
use and what conditions an.d standards, if any, should be attached to the development of
the use. If found acceptable an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance may be initiated by
the Councilor Commission permitting the use. (Ord. 83-6)
Section 2, Page 2
...~"-......_~_......_--_..-----_......~--............,.....~,,..~..~--".~----.----
PERMITTED USES
CONDITIONAL USES
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. Light Manufacturing 1. Manufacturing
2. Research Laboratories 2. Public Utility
Buildings
3. Testing Laboratories 3. Water & Sewer
Treatment Facilities
4. Offices 4. Airports
5. Supply Yards 5. Truck & Railroad
Terminals
6. Warehousing 6. Grain Elevators
7. Truck Terminals 7. Commercial
. Recreation
8. Public Parking 8. Animal Clinics
9. Parking Lots 9. Food Product
Processing
10. Mini-Storage Units
C-1 CONSERVATION
1. Agriculture 1. Water & Sewer
Treatment Facilities
2. Single Family Dwellings 2. Commercial
Recreation
3. Camps & Cottages 3. Airports
4. Public Parks & Playgrounds 4. Cemeteries
5. Public & Parochial Schools 5. Radio & TV Stations
6. Hunting Preserves 6. Sanitary Land Fills
7. Golf Courses 7. Animal Clinics
8. Specialized Animal Raising 8. Animal Feed Lots For
9. Stables & Riding Academies more than 10 animals
10. Public Buildings
11. Marina (Ord. 83-6)
12. Wholesale Plant Nurseries (Ord 90-07)
13. Agricultural Preserve (Ord 93-12)
Section 3, Page 5
~/L
June 30, 1995
Tom Buckingham
Buckingham Disposal
5980 Credit River Road SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Subject: Recycling Center Located in Prior Lake
Dear lVlr. Buckingham:
Building Official, Gary Staber, and Planning Director, Don Rye, have had the
opportunity to review the materials you submitted on Friday, June 23. In addition,
they inspected the site on June 26. I am attaching a copy of their written findings.
Based upon the materials you submitted, the site inspection and a review of the
City's Zoning Ordinance and Uniform Building Code, our findings can be
summarized as follows:
1. Recycling is not a permitted or conditional use in the 1-2 Zone.
2. The plans provided were not to scale, and did not show both first and
second floor layout. A code analysis should be completed by a qualified
engineer or architect focusing on such issues as exiting, sanitation
facilities, occupancy separations, allowable square footage and site access
in generaL
3. It is apparent that alterations have been made to the building without
proper permits, either by the current or former occupant.
In short, the recycling operation continues to be contrary to the City's Zoning
Ordinance, City Code and Uniform Building Code.
According to Gary Staber, the Uniform Building Code issues are resolvable. What
needs to occur first is that the Council should consider whether it wishes to add
recycling as a permitted or conditional use in the 1-2 Zoning District and, if so, what
safe guards should be associated with such usage.
BUCKHAi\12.DOC
16200 Eag1eCreeI< Ave., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTIJNnY E~1PLOYER
Page 2
Tom Buckingham
June 30, 1995
If you desire to have the Council consider such a request please provide me with a
letter to that effect which we will submit to the Council together with supporting
materials. You can expect that staff will recommend numerous safeguards if the
Council is positively inclined to allow recycling uses as a conditional use or
permitted use.
Until the Zoning Ordinance is revised and your operation comes into complete
compliance with the City Code, Uniform Building Code, County and State
requirements, you may not operate the recycling facility from this location. To do
other wise is contrary to the law and undertaken at your sole and exclusive risk.
If you have anlestions please feel free to contact me, Don Rye or Gary Staber.
FB:db
Attachment
/ Fax (612) 447-4245
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
June 26, 1995
Frank Boyles, Gary Staber
Don Rye
Buckingham Disposal
DATE:
I have reviewed the material presented to us on Friday, June 23 by Tom Buckingham. In addition, I
have reviewed the zoning ordinance and visited the site on June 26 with Gary. I have concluded that a
recycling center is not a permitted or conditional use in the 1-2 Industrial zoning district.
I base this finding on several factors as follows:
. When the ordinance was written in 1983, recycling \vas fairly well established as a legitimate land
use and yet the ordinance makes no specific provision for such a use.!t is possible to conclude from
this that this use was not considered as a viable use in this district.
. Light manufacturing is a permitted use in the 1-2 district and is defined as " The processing and
fabrication of certain materials where no process involved will produce noise, vibrations, air
pollution, fire hazards or noxious emission which will disturb or endanger neighboring properties."
The definition of manufacturing is" to make or process ( a raw material) into a finished product,
esp., by means of a large-scale industrial operation:' The notion of a recycling center where used
materials are gathered. separated and reduced in bulk does not conform to the traditional definition
of manufacturing.
. A significant portion of the recycling operation is conducted outside.Large metal bins,semi trailers
and trucks are located around the site and the recycled materials are stored outside until moved
elsewhere.In addition, the general public drops off material outside in the storage yard. In that
respect, the recycling operation has a distinct commercial aspect to it as it generates traffic much as
a retail use might.
. The zoning ordinance provides that uses not specifically designated as permitted or conditional uses
are prohibited. I believe that the recycling operation is sufficiently different from uses which would
qualify as light manufacturing as to put it into the prohibited category. In that case, the ordinance
provides for a study of the use to determine if the use is acceptable and, if so, in what zoning district
and with \vhat additional conditions and standards, if any.
Based on the foregoing, I conclude that Buckingham Disposal operating as a recycling center is not a
permitted or conditional use in the 1-2 district.
Frank Boyles
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Gary Staber
Frank Boyles
Don Rye
Buckingham Disposal
Monday, June 26, 1995 3:53PM
Hi Frank, Buckingham came in with some information late on Friday afternoon. Don and I had a chance to go
out and tour the site today. We met Tom Buckingham on site and told him after our tour that we would be going
back to City Hall to write memos regarding the facility.
My comments are as follows:
1. A code analysis should be completed by a qualified engineer or architect. Items such as
exiting, sanitation facilities, occupancy separations, allowable square footages, and site access in general should
be addressed.
2. Building plans should be to scale, 1/8 or 1/4 inch per foot is preferred.
3. Building plans should be complete showing both the first and second floor layouts.
When Don and I were touring the structure it became quite obvious that the former tenant made several
alterations to the building without proper permits. It was also noted that Buckingham made some alterations and
modifications to the building without proper permits. Mr. Buckingham while being cooperative, is not totally
innocent in that this situation we are reacting to seems to have been created largely by Mr. Buckingham himself.
Rather than giving my first impressions at this time, I would rather wait for the architect's code analysis for a
more thorough response.
Page 1
~ ~(!.~.: ~ ~ 1 \ z. II G S"' J?d3
BUCKINGHAM DISPOSAL, INC.
5980 Credit River Road
Prior lake MN 55372
Phone: 226.6441
Fax: 226-6442
(612) 334-8532
July 18, 1995
Frank Boyles, Manager
City of Prior Lake
Prior Lake Courthouse
4629 Dakota Street S. E.
Prior Lake MN 55372-1714
Dear Mr. Boyles:
In the past week or so I have had discussions with a number of advisors regarding your
concern about our operations in Prior Lake. This letter is to offer a view of the situation that
I believe will support a conclusion on the City's part that my use of the property is entirely
consistent with the City's Zoning Code.
As you know, my business services over 1000 Prior Lake residences. In addition to picking
up MSW from those residences, I also have a contractual obligation to do weekly curbside
recycling pick-up. There is no realistic alternative to processing the recyclables at my property.
If I am not able to do so, even for a brief period of time, the effect may be adverse to the Prior
Lake residents that I serve.
In addition, I offer residential generators drive-in and drop-off service for recyclables and
compostable materials (the latter being regularly used by Prior Lake residents since they can
avoid the $2.00 per bag charge for curbside pick-up).
Since it is not clear to me that earlier staff review of my operations reflect a thorough
understanding of what my business and use of the property is, let me offer specifics. There
are a number of components to my business: there are offices; my trucks are parked overnight
and operate from the property; I warehouse certain materials for limited periods of time; I
maintain and store supplies for my business; and I run a recyclable materials processing
operation which, in my view, is clearly a permitted "light manufacturing" use.
Let me also clarify what my business is not. It is not a site for processing or transferring
Mixed Municipal Solid Waste (commonly known as "garbage") as that term is defined by
Minnesota law.
Your staff has indirectly seemed concerned that my property in Prior Lake will have some
processing of MSW done there. That is not the case. My vehicles for MSW pick-up are stored
overnight at the property. Otherwise, under my Scott County Licenses, I am prohibited from
726139.1
processing MSW; and I do not have an MSW transfer station license nor do I have any
intention to secure such.
You have raised the concern that my use of the property is not for Light Manufacturing as
permitted by the 1-2 Zoning classification. I ask that you reconsider this tentative conclusion
for the following reasons:
1. My business is "processing" materials. The raw materials are the
unsorted recyclables. My process is the sorting, compacting and
packaging of the recyclables into marketable form. The City definition
of Light Manufacturing is properly broad enough to encompass clearly
what we do. The "finished" material or product is sold to end-users for
incorporation into additional manufactured products. In effect, we are
the first of several manufacturers/processors that allow the entire
recycling system to function effectively.
2. My processing does not produce "noise, vibrations, air pollution, fire
hazards or noxious emissions..." All of my processing is now and will be
done indoors; and the sorted materials are stored in enclosed shipping
containers until volumes adequate for transport are collected.
3. The only portion of my processing which is "outdoors" is the mere
placing of the separated materials into distinct and enclosed containers.
4. My operations have no commercial aspects. I do not sell anything to the
public; I merely pay generators of recyclables a fee for their delivery.
None of the persons dropping materials off need parking on-site as the
time they are on the property is minimal. The number of trips per day by
such persons will likely not exceed 35 during the week and perhaps as
many as 100 on Saturdays. These vehicle movements will hardly be
noticed on County Road 21, especially when it becomes a four lane road
which I understand is planned for the future.
5. As to the Becker Ice Arena use of a portion of the property, I am
unaware of any City Zoning Code provision that requires a conclusion
that my manufacturing and Becker's need be "compatible." In fact, they
clearly are; otherwise I would not have been able to secure their sub-
lease of a portion of the building. Becker has other operations in the
immediate area; its continued location and expansion in Prior Lake is
welcomed, I am sure, by the City.
As to building code issues, your staff is aware that I have engaged Prior Lake architect Pat
O'Keefe (O'Keefe Design Associates) to advise on how to assure that the modest interior
alterations we have made (building one partition wall and eliminating a couple of others) to
the property are up to code. We will do our best within reason to do the same with
726139.1
improvements, if any, done by the prior owner/user that may not have been done with permits
or up to code.
The only significant physical change to the building which I "viII seek permits for is the
addition of a canopy at the west end of the building to provide weather protection for people
dropping off reyclables. And that is not really my first preference. I would prefer to add a drive
through door on the south side of the building so that customers would actually come into the
building, drop off materials, and then exit to the north. This procedure would be much easier
for the customers and more consistent with my business practice of running all processing
operations of my business indoors. This would be consistent with the telephone company's
use of its building just to the west of my property.
Of course, I am very concerned about your suggestion that we cease the recycling operations
pending consideration of a zoning amendment which I believe is unnecessary. I understand
that such a process may take up to 90 days. In the meantime, I have contractual and license
obligations to provide services to your residents. If I cannot continue the light manufacturing
processing that I am doing, there may be serious disruption in those services --- and possibly
some additional expenses to your residential generators since any interim solution is bound
to be more expensive than what is happening now.
I assure you, and you can independently ascertain if you wish, that I have and will own and
manage a sound business providing needed and cost-effective service to my customers, most
of which are Prior Lake residents. A great majority of these customers have been serviced by
my business for many years; they would not continue with me if my work was not exemplary.
~rUIYf(' --1
lb~ b~c."-,~~'
cc: Mayor and City Council Members
John A. Cairns, Briggs & Morgan
726139.1
I
r
-------
August 1, 1995
Tom Buckingham
Buckingham Disposal, Inc.
5980 Credit River Road
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Subject: Appeal to City Code Requirements
Dear Mr. Buckingham,
..... '"
Thank you for your July 18, 1995 letter. After reviewing the letter, it is clear
that there is a disagreement regarding the interpretation of the zoning
ordinance with regard to recycling operations. Two portions of the City's
o.rdinance are instructive: Section 2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance entitled "Uses
not designated" provides that:
"A use not specifically designated as permitted or conditional use
anywhere in the City is considered prohibited. In such a case, the
Council, Commission or property owner may request a study by the
city to determine if the use is acceptable and, if so, what zoning district
would be most appropriate for the use, and what conditions and
standards, if any, should be attached to the development of the use. If
found acceptable an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance may be
initiated by the Council or Commission permitting the use."
The City Code goes on to say in Chapter 5-6-4 Appeals that "An appeal from
a ruling of the Zoning Officer may be made by the property owner or agent
. within thirty (30) days after the order utilizing the procedure as follows:
A. The property owner or agent shall file with the Zoning Officer a
notice of appeal stating the specific grounds upon which the appeal
is made.
B. The Zoning Officer shall transmit the appeal to the Board of
Adjustment for study and recommendation at its next regular
meeting.
C. The Board of Adjustments shall make its recommendation within
sixty (60) days and transmit to the City Council for official action.
BUCKNGHM.DOC. .
16200 EagTeCreeK" Ave. , P"nor Lake, Mmnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTIJNITY E.'1PLOYER
D. The City Council shall make its decision by Resolution within sixty
(60) days and a copy of the resolution shall be mailed to the
applicant by the Zoning Officer."
Planning Director, Don Rye, has reviewed the City Code with respect to
recycling operations and provided his interp"retation. Your July 18
memorandum outlines your interpretation. Don Rye, in his capacity as the
Zoning Officer, does not believe that the Zoning Ordinance addresses
recycling operations as either permitted or conditional uses. Consequently,
. you have the opportunity to appeal Mr. Rye's findings to the Board of
Adjustment which is the City's Planning Commission. The Board of
Adjustment, and subsequently, the City Council have the option of
supporting Mr. Rye's interpretation and/or directing that revisions be made
to the Zoning Ordinance to address recycling operations specifically. To
expedite this process, I have interpreted your July 18 letter to be a notice of
appeal as required under the code. I have asked the Planning Department to
initiate the process set forth in 5-6-4 and 2.5.
In the meantime, I must advise you that until the Zoning Ordinance is
revised and your operation comes into complete compliance with the City
Code, Uniform Building Code, County and State Requirements, you may not
operate the facility from this location. To do otherwise is contrary to the law,
and undertaken at your sole and exclusive risk.
. Whether or not the Zoning Ordinance is revised to accommodate the recycling
use, it will be necessary for you to submit a building permit application,
supporting materials and fees in order that the work already accomplished
will be deemed legal under the State Building code laws.
Feel free to contact Planning Director Don Rye, or Assistant Planner Deb
Garross, to schedule the appeal you are requesting before the Planning
Commission and City Council.
cc:
Don Rye, Gary Staber an
ns
16200lb~~W~~.R2S,rior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTIJNITY EMPLOYER
LAW OFFICES
BRIGGS AND MORGAN
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
2400 IDS CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS.. MINNESOTA 1515402
TELEPHONE (612/ 334 - 8400
FACSIMILE (612) 334-86150
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
SAINT PAUL OFFICE
2200 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ~at01
TELEPHONE (612) 223 - 6600
FACSIMILE (612) 223 - 64150
(612) 334-8532
INTERNET ADDRESS:
CAIJOH@EMAILBRIGGS.COM
,"4
August 9, 1995
Frank Boyles, Manager
City of Prior Lake
Prior Lake Courthouse
4629 Dakota Street S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
Dear Mr. Boyles:
We have confirmed that the Buckingham Disposal, Inc. matter will be on the planning commission
agenda for August 28, 1995. I have asked Don Rye to set the matter towards the end of the
agenda as I will not be able to get to Prior Lake much before 8:00 that evening.
We do not agree with your statement of the situation in your August 1 letter. In particular, we
disagree with the options that are on the table for consideration. The Planning Commission and
City Council could accept our view of the situation rather than supporting Mr. Rye's flawed (in
our view) interpretation or directing revisions of the ordinance.
Prior to the meeting, we will submit a more detailed statement of our view of the situation.
Included will be a recitation of the discussions held with city staff before your first
correspondence and other facts that we believe are material to the situation.
We will try to get this material to you by August 18 so that it can be assessed by the staff as they
prepare their report and considered by Planning Commission members ahead of the meeting.
728106.1
MEMBER, LEX MUNDI, A GLOBAL ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT LAW FIRMS
BRIGGS A.ND MORGAN
Frank Boyles
August 9, 1995
Page 2
In the interim, I would appreciate receiving from you and your staff:
1. A list of the Planning Commission members; and
2. A description of the circumstances under which the City permits the operation of
Lloyd's Construction Services, Inc. to operate in the 1-2 zoning district.
yours,
JAC/vkh
cc: Tom Buckingham
Steve Rathke, Esq., City Attorney
728106.1
August 14,1995
Mr. John A. Cairns
Briggs And Morgan
2400 IDS Center
Minneapolis, l\1N. 55402
Dear Mr. Cairns:
Frank Boyles asked me to respond to your letter of August 9 concerning Buckingham
Disposal. I have enclosed a Planning Commission roster for your information.
Concerning Lloyd's Construction Services, it appears that they have occupied the
building without benefit of a Certificate of Occupancy and their circumstances in that
regard are similar to those of your client. The Building Department will be following up
with this to rectify the apparent code violation Thank you for bringing this matter to our
attention.
r)nc. erely, . ./ .
'---iJ' i,~/I ~
Donald Rye (j
Director of Planning
cc: Frank Boyles
Gary S taber
Document2
16200 Eagle Creek Ave.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNIT'.' E~lPLOYER
BUCKINGHAM DISPOAL, INe
5980 CREDIT RIVER ROAD
PRIOR LAKE,:MN 55372
612-226-6441
6/95
SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS
BUCKINGHAM DISPOSAL COMPANY WAS FORMED 27 YEARS AGO WITH
TIm RECYCLING OPERATIONS STARTED IN JANUARY OF 1988.
BUCKINGHAM RECYCLES IS OPEN TO 1HE PUBUC FROM 9 AM TIIL
3 P.M, MONDAY TIIRU FRIDAY WITH THE EXc~ON OF lHURSDA Y
EVENING WIllCH IS TIIL 7 P.M AND EVERY SATURDAY FROM 10 AM
J'llr4-P:M- MATERIAL-ACcl:fr' 1l:ill AT THIS F AcnJTY INCLUDE SCRAP METAL,
- ..-.DRAIN.O~MAGAZINES~(~SPAPgR>omCE PAPER, PHONEBOOKS,
~tiJq), tIN-CAm;t;tA~~, ~.~'1ffiliB~.
OTHER. RECYCLING ITEMS ~AKEN.BUT MAY INCLUDE A SMALL SERVICE
.. ,- . ~
FEE ARE:. CO:MPOS~ ApPuANCE,'TIRES;' AND T.V. 'So
ALUMIN1.JM---cx:Ns'" ARE-PoR:c:a:A.SlID FROM 1HE PUBLIC. WE OPERAlE OUT
OF AN ENCLOSED Btm.DING OF APPROX. 14,000 SQ. Fr. ALL RECYCLING
MATERIAL IS PROCESSED HERE BY OUR OWN EMPLOYEE'S (GENERALLY
THREE FUlL 'I'Th1E) THAT DO STRIC'lL Y RECYCLING SUCH AS BALING
CARDBOARD OR PLASTIC OR SIMPLY CRUSHING CANS OR HELPING
CUSTO:MERS. MATERIALS ARE THEN TAKEN DmECIL Y OUTDOORS AND
PUT INTO S:a1I- TRAILERS AND ARE SHIPP.BD DmEC'IL Y TO THE MILLS.
ON A D~ Y BASIS BUCKINGHAM HANDLES APPROX ONE TON OF
CARDBOARD AND ONE THOUSAND POUNDS OF ALUMINUM CANS.
SCRAP :METAL, MAGAZINES NEWSPAPER AND O'IHERRELATED ITEMS ARE
CONTAINED IN SMALL AMOUNTS IN CAGED TYPE CONTAINERS AND
lRANSFERRED INTO ROLL-OFF BOXES OUTDOORS. WE THEN lRANSPORT
OUR OWN MATERIALS TO MARKET. DR:1\iN-OILIS CONTAINED IN A
SECONDARY CONrAINER. STORAGE TANK AND IS El\1.t'lltlJ FEEKLY BY:
EDEL OIL SERVICE OF NORTHFIELD, lvfN EP A #.MND-985-742-774.
BUCKINGHAM ALSO OPERATES A SOLID W ASlE COILECTION BUSINESS
AND A ROIL-OFF CONSTRUCTION BOX RENTAL C011P ANY WITH AN
ADDmONAL lHREEEVn'LOYEEs:-nm TOTAL EMPLOYEES FOR ALL
OPERATIONS ARE NINE WEnCH INCLUDES MY WIFE AND MYSELF.
BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS, INC. IS A 1ENANr OF OURS RENTING APPROX.
9~600 SQET. THEY MANUF ACTIJRE ICE HOCKEY ARENAS AND Elv1PLOY LESS
mAN SIX ffiv1PLOYEES. 1HEIR MAIN OFFICE IS LOCATED ON COTTONWOOD
LANE IN PRIOR LAKE.
BUCKINGHAM ALSO FOLLOWS 1liE SCOTT COUNTY REQUIREMENTS
WInCH ARE AS FOILOWS:
lHE Nl.11vfBER OF W ASlE APPLIANCES STORED AT THE FACILITY SHAIL
NOT EXCEED SIXTY. ONCE TIm NUMBER OF APPLIANCES REACHES
SIXTY, '!HE liCENSEE SHAIL HA VB AIL APPLIANCES RElvfOVED FROM
THE FACILITY. ALL APPLIANCES THAT CONTAIN HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
(CFCtS, PCB CAPACITORS AND :MERCURY SHALL BE RElvfOVED FROM THE
SITE BY AN APPLIANCE COILECTOR OR DELIVERED TO A FACILITY lHAT
WILL RElvfOVE TIIE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL. THE VENDOR WE USE IS JR'S
APPLIANCE DISPOSAL, INC. OF INVER. GROVE HEIGHrS, :MN.
USED OIL AND WASTE BATIERlES ARE MANAGED IN ACCORDANCE WI1H
THE SCOTT COUNTY HAZARDOUS W AS1E ORDINANCE NO. 12
THE NUMBER OF W ASIE TIRES DO NOT EXCEED FIFTY. THE TIRES ARE 'J
STORED IN AN ENCLOSED BUILDING OR ON AN AREA IN DIRECT SUNLIGIIT,
VOID OF ANYVEGETATION.- ._- ----
ACCESS SHALL BE CONIROILED BY WHAlEVER MEANS THE OWNER!
LICENSEE DETERMINES TO BE WORKABLE. THE OWNER/UCENSEE SHAIL
BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RErv10V AL AND PROPER DISPOSAL OF ALL
UNACCEPTABLE W AS1ES.
ONLY SEPARATED RECYCLABLES ARE MANAGES AT TInS SITE. :MIXED
MUNICIPAL SOLID W ASlE IS NOT lRANSFERRED, STORED IN CONTAINERS
OlHER 1HAN COlLECTION VEHICLES OR lIPPED FOR PROCESSING OR
lRANSFERRED FROM TInS SITE.
SCOTI COUNTY HAS NO llrlJilJ US THAT THE PRESENT SEWER SYS'IEv! IS
ADEQUATE AND ACCEPTABLE AS TIm CITY HAS APPROVED.
TIm COUNTY HAS ALSO INFORMED US THAT THEY HA VB MAILED
NECESSARY FORMS AND mAT liCENSES WOULD BE APPROVED BY THEM
ONCES WE HA VB CO:MPLIED WI1H THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCES.
THE BUCKINGHAM COMPANIES
EMPLOYEE SUMMARY
AREA 6- 1-95
DRIVERS 3
AD:MINISTRATION 3
RECYCLING CENTER 2
CLERICAL OFFICE I
TOTAL 9
SCOTT COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
COURTHOUSE A 102
428 HOLMES ST~~TI:i5, 1995
SHAKOPEE, MN 55379-1393 (612) 496-81 n
Tom Buckingham
Buckingham Recycling Center
5980 Credit River Road
Prior Lake, Minnesota
Re: Solid Waste Facility License
Dear Mr. Buckingham:
This letter regards your application to operate a Recycling Facility in the
City of Prior Lake. We have reviewed your application and must deny your
license for the following reasons:
1. Lack of approval (zoning, conditional use, etc.) by the City of
Prior Lake.
2. Failure to obtain and submit a Permit-By-Rule from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency.
In accordance with the Scott County Administrative Procedures Ordinance No.
1, Section 7.01, you have the right to make a written appeal to this
decision. I have enclosed a copy of this Ordinance for your review.
We will be sending you a refund of your annual license fee of $100.00. The
application fee that you submitted of $50.00 is non-refundable.
Denial of this license application does not prevent you from reapplying
once the above mentioned items have been addressed and satisfactorily
completed.
All operations relating to the acceptance, storage and sorting of
recyclable material must cease at this location until a license is obtained
from this Office. Continued operation is a violation of the Scott County
Solid Waste Ordinance NO.2, and subject to those penalties outlined in
that Ordinance. If you are close to resolving the above noted issues, or
if you have any questions please contact Jeff Peterson or myself at 496-
8177.
Sincerely,
a~
Allen Frechette
Environmental Health Manager
cc: Dick Underferth, County Commissioner, District 4
Frank Boyles, City Manager, City of Prior Lake!
John Roach, Assistant County Attorney
O:\S~\BUCKINGH.VIO
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action/Safety Aware Employer