5.3. SR 06-21-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

B R I G G S AND M O R G A N Ells River City Council June 11, 2010 Page 3 along 221st Avenue prove that Tiller's existing screening along 221st Avenue already visually screens any such loss of trees within the interior of the property. Indeed the only break in this screening is due to Tiller's narrow site entrance along 221st Avenue. Tiller and ERL are, nevertheless, willing to further enhance this existing screening along 221st Avenue to address any reasonable concern raised by City. For example, to the extent that City can substantiate that the view shed from 221st Avenue looking north at Tiller's existing entrance on 221st Avenue, coupled with the destruction of the trees in the middle of the 200-foot buffer, would cause a material adverse visual impact, then it can impose a CUP condition requiring Tiller to erect an earthen berm immediately inside its entrance on 221st Avenue which would screen this view of the affected area. Per the district court's April 2, 20 i 0 Order, any reference to the existing screening of this view shed as "short"-term is a complete misnomer. Per Tiller's testimony with regard to ERL's March 30, 2009 requested expansion of the SWF overlay district onto the 108.8-acre SDA, Tiller will not finish mining the 10$.8-acre SDA until "approximately the year 2070" unless ERL's 73.4-acre landfill expansion is approved. ERL 14/2/10 Order at 10, Finding 30; id. at 11, Finding 38; id. at 30. Thus, because of City's September 21, 2009 denial of ERL's requested expansion of the SWF overlay district onto the 108.8-acre SDA, the district court has already determined that City is "unable to plan anything for that property for sixty years." Id. City has, moreover, already recognized that the existing trees within the middle portion of the buffer could be replaced with "a new berm and screen" literally decades before the site could be developed for anon-mining commercial use in "approximately the year 2070." City's May 17, 2010 denial of ERL's requested CUP/license amendments far the 13-acre landfill expansion contained the following finding of fact: 21. The plans indicate that a new berm and screen would not be installed until at or near the end of Landfill operations, meaning that operations in the expansion area, the existing 200-foot buffer zone, would be visible through most of the remaining three years of capacity within the Landfill as currently permitted and the additional four to seven years that the Application indicates the Landfill would remain open as a result of the proposed expansion, for a total of seven to ten years. It would be man~years after that before new trees on a new berm would reach maturity and provide a screen comparable to the existing mature, native trees. Ex. 188 at 7-8, Finding 21. Using City's timeline "of the remaining three years of capacity within the Landfill" exclusive of any expansion (id. ), which is unaffected by ERL's previously submitted estimate of "a minimum of 12 months" for mining the buffer area (5/12/10 Stolz Aff. ¶ 9), ERL's "new berm and screen" could be in place by approximately 2014 with those trees reaching maturity within 8 to 12 years, or by 2022 to 2026. In other words, ERL's "new berm and screen" would "provide a screen comparable to the existing mature, native trees" over 40