05-11-2010 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 May 11, 2010 --------------------------- • Chair Westberg stated the city's attorney was present to answer any questions the Planning Commissron may have. He noted that the Plaruung Commissron needs to address the land use issue, but that litigation issues should be addressed bythe City Council. Commissioner Scott asked if the 13 acres in this request v,~as part of the 109 acres. Mr. Beck stated the 13 acres proposed to be filled is not pan of the 109. He explained that the 13 acres is the buffer between the existing approved fill area and the Tiller property. Mr. Beck stated that they are proposing to fill up to the existing propeny line, and create a new buffer zone on what is now the Tiller property. Mr. Beck noted that there is no recommendation in the staff report for denial. He explained that the Planning Commission is encouraged to consider the merits of the application in light of the legal issues and the compliance v,~ith the CUP standards. Mr. Beck explained that a CUP can be denied if the standards for issuance of a CUP cannot be met. He stated there is an ownership issue for the properryto the south, as well as the compliance issue. He felt these two reasons provide a factual basis to denythe application. He stated that if ownership is acquired, it maybe possible to move the application forward. He stated it is not accurate to saythat if this application does not move forward, that the buffer area would be mined anyway. He stated it would not, and the area would have to remain the buffer zone for the existing landfill under the existing conditional use permit. He explained how the buffer zone would be impacted by approval of this expansion, or the original 109-acre expansion request. Mr. Beck stated that it is true the city has until June 21ST to act on this proposal, but that requires action by the City Council. He suggested that the Planning Commission move ahead with a recommendation one way or the other, so that the Council would have two meetings to address the application, if needed. Mr. Beck stated that the Planning Commission is not asked to look at the legal issues; that they are an advisory body and should look at the application on its merits from a land use perspective and make a recommendation apart from coon decisions and litigation on whether or not to allow this expansion. He stated that expansion could be accomplished without taking out manytrees to the east and west, but the trees in the area to the south would be removed. Commissioner Johnson asked if the buffer would be outside of the SWF if this expansion were allowed. Mr. Beck explained the area which was impacted bythe recent land use amendment and zoning. He stated that the buffer would be outside of this area. Commissioner Johnson stated that he would recommend denial, since the buffer zone should be located within the SWF district. Commissioner Bell stated that he felt if the Commission does not know if Waste Management does not own the property, the decision for them is relatively easy. Commissioner Anderson stated that he sees the issue as being out of compliance with the city and state regulations. Commissioner Ives stated that he felt the Commission must consider the application as conditions exist today and would concur to recommend denial of the request. •