5.3. SR 06-21-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BRIGGS AND M O R G A N Elk River City Council June 11, 2010 Page 2 At the June 8, 2010 City Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend the denial of Tiller's requested mining CUP amendments to mine within the 200-foot buffer of ERL's existing 137.4-acre landfill property. The Planning Commission's recommendation, if followed by City Council, will be a severe economic blow to Tiller during a trying economic time for the mining industry. A denial will also send a chilling message to Tiller and the rest of City's significant mining industry and labor force. As Planning Commissioner Lemke pointed out in advocating for the approval of Tiller's request, City's fight is with the landfill, not with Tiller or the mining industry. Two Planning Commissioners were in favor of Tiller's request (i.e., Paul Bell and Lemke) and four were against it. Despite the split vote, each and every one of the four Planning Commissioners who spoke appeared to agree upon the following: 1. The one and only issue is screening -that is, whether the destruction of the trees in the 200-foot buffer will cause a "short"-term or "long"-term loss of screening. 2. The potential loss of screening at issue is limited to the view looking north from 221st Avenue -that is, the east and west views will be unaffected because the trees within the 200-foot buffer on the east and west will be undisturbed. There is no legitimate concern with the "short"-term loss of screening because {a) there is an existing earthen berm with trees along 221st Avenue (Ex. 185) which is effective and (b) Tiller and ERL have both pledged their willingness to not only enhance as necessary but also maintain this screening as reasonably required by the City (which can be reinforced by City's imposition of CUP conditions}. Planning Commissioner Anderson, speaking for the majority, clarified that the concern is with the "long"-term loss of screening when Tiller's existing earthen berm with trees along 221st Avenue is removed and the landfill is exposed from 221st Avenue. He identified two scenarios when this could happen -namely, when either (a) Tiller's 108.8-acre SDA is "commercially developed" after the aggregate has been mined or (b) MnDOT constructs its TH 169/221 st Avenue interchange. Because Planning Commissioner Anderson`s concern regarding the purported "long"-term loss of screening arose for the first time after the public testimony portion of the hearing had ended, neither Tiller nor ERL had the opportunity to address his new concern. That was unfortunate because Planning Commissioner Anderson's concern is easily debunked. The "short"-term view shed at issue is the visual impact, if any, from 221st Avenue looking north due to the destruction of the trees within the middle of the 200-foot buffer while Tiller's earth berm with trees along 221st Avenue is in place. Exhibit 185 and a 30-second drive