5.3. SR 06-21-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Case File: CU 10.09 Tiller CUP Page 3 City of Elk River Response: The approved plan for the Landfill does not require any mining within the buffer area and, as noted above, the Landfill's conditional use permit does not allow the removal of trees within the buffer area. The approved plan for the Landfill provides for expansion of the Landfill to its approved boundaries and the preservation of the 200-foot buffer zones on the east, west, and south sides. Musing in the buffer area is not allowed by either Tiller's or the Landfill's existing conditional use permits, and is certainly not "consistent with the parties' standard practice since 1996." There is no need or reason to mine the buffer area in order to expand the Landfill to its current permitted boundaries. • Fast paragraph, sentence five, which reads: "For undisputed logistical reasons, Tiller needs to promptly commence the mining of the aggregate in this buffer area or forever lose its $5.5 million to $8.6 million value." Response: City staff is aware of no reason, logistical or otherwise, whythere is an imminent need to mine the buffer area at this time. Tiller's conditional use permit for mining the Landfill property, and the Landfill's conditional use permit for landfilling its property, both provide that the buffer area and the vegetation on it will be preserved. Therefore, Tiller should not have ever planned to generate revenue by mining the protected buffer area. Furthermore, Tiller has 109 acres located immediately south of the buffer area which it is free to mine at this or any other time pursuant to an existing conditional use permit. First paragraph, sentence six, which reads: "As reflected in the City Staff Report, there is neither an operational nor an environmental reason for the City to deny Tiller's requested mining within this buffer area. Ex. 189. Rather City staff's sole substantive issue with mining in this buffer area is its trumped up concern with the loss of screening for the view shed from 221st Avenue looking north." Response: As set forth above, and in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission, City staff has raised several issues with respect to the proposal to mine the existing buffer area. The most significant of these is the fact that mining this area would constitute a violation of the Landfill's existing conditional use permit. Perhaps counsel for the Landfill does not believe this is a substantive issue, but it is. • First paragraph, sentence seven, which reads: "The fallacy of this concern has been exposed; Tiller's existing earthen berm with trees along 221st Avenue already fully screens the buffer area." Response: Tiller's existing earthen berm on 221st Avenue does not fully screen the buffer area. Furthermore, the issue is not screening the buffer area but screening the Landfill. The buffer which Tiller seeks to remove screens the Landfill. Removal of this buffer exposes Landfill operations to 221st Avenue and removes the existing topography and mature, native trees which, in addition to screening Landfill operations, will constitute the backdrop for future development at 221st Avenue and Highway 169 and screen the closed Landfill from these areas and from 221st Avenue. N:\Departtxrents\ComnnuutyDevelopment\Plaruxixrg\Case Files\CUP\CU 10-09 Tiller Corp\Staff report to CGCU 10.09.doc