5.3. SR 06-21-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Case File: CU 10-09 Page 4 Tiller CUP Ciryof Elk River • Second paragraph, second sentence, which reads: "But stopping ERL's Landfill expansion is no reason to deny Tiller's mining expansion, particularly given that Tiller's mining expansion within the 200-foot buffer is in no way dependent on ERL's Landfill expansion." Response: Tiller's conditional use permit to mine the Landfill property allows mining activities which prepare the property for the deposit of solid waste. Mining within the 200-foot buffer is directly dependent on Landfill expansion, because if the Landfill does not expand into or beyond the 200-foot buffer area, no mining is allowed within that buffer. • Paragraph three, at the top of page two, states that denying Tiller the opportunity to mine the buffer would be a severe economic blow to Tiller during a trying economic time for the mining industry. In response, staff would point out that Tiller does not and never has had the right to mine the 200-foot buffer. This buffer has been protected by both Tiller's conditional use permit and the Landfill's conditional use permit for years. Moreover, Tiller has hundreds of acres within the City, including 109 acres directly south of the 200-foot buffer, which are available for mining at this time. According to the first full paragraph on page three of the Landfill's letter, Tiller has an approximately 60- yearsupply of gravel just within that 109 acres. • Page 2, paragraph numbered No. 1, states that: "The one and only issue is screening." Response: As noted above, there are a number of issues with the proposal to mine the Landfill's buffer, including the fact that to do so would be a violation of the Landfill's conditional use permit. It is false to saythat the one and only issue is screening. • Page 2, numbered paragraphs 2 and 3, continue with the argument that the existing screening along 221st Avenue is sufficient. Response: City staff does not agree that the existing screening on 221st Avenue would screen Landfill operations if the 200-foot buffer area at the southern edge of the Landfill is removed. Furthermore, as noted above, removal of the existing berm and the mature, native trees located on it will expose Landfill operations to view from 221st Avenue during the period the Landfill is operating, and will leave the closed Landfill visible permanently. In the paragraph beginning at the bottom of page 2 and extending on to page 3, it is stated, in the last sentence, that the City could impose a CUP condition requiring Tiller to erect an earthen berm if there will be visual impacts. In fact, the City has required, and both Tiller and the Landfill have agreed, to the establishment of the existing 200-foot buffer at the southern edge of the Landfill property. This condition has been in place for manyyears and, in its present form, was agreed to bythe Landfill when its existing conditional use permit was approved in February of this year. This condition is binding on the City, the Landfill and Tiller. N:\Departments\CommunityDevelopment\Plannuig\Case Files\CCJP\CU 10-09 Tiller Coop\Staff report to CGCU 10-09.doc