06-08-2010 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Comnussion Minutes June 8, 2010 Page 2 Ms. Pauleyprovided photographs of various views of the buffer area. She noted that there • are no major roads but the photos show gaps in the trees from previous haul routes. Ms. Pauley stated that the photos show that the view/screening of the landfill will not be impacted if the subject area is mined. Ms. Pauley noted existing berming and screening along the highway. She stated that the trees to be removed are predominantly oaks, and that there is significant oak wilt. She did not feel removing the trees would cause a significant impact on the area. Ms. Pauley requested that Tiller be allowed to mine the approximately one million ton of sand and gravel that is available to be removed. She stated that Tiller's opportunityto remove the resources will be greatly diminished when the landfill liner is complete. Jack Perry of Briggs & Morgan, representing Elk River Landfill/Waste Management -stated that the value of the mining resources are estimated between 5.5 to 8.6 million dollars. He stated that the issue at the May 17th City Council meeting was screening. He stated that few companies know better howto screen than Waste Management and Tiller Corporation. Mr. Perryprovided 22 photos of the view along 221St Avenue from the power poles, beginning at Ridges of Rice Lake subdivision, heading east to Highway 169. He stated that the photos show that the areas cannot be seen except at the gate to the Tiller site. He stated there would be no impact in screening to the east and west; the landfill is to the north, and the only impact is to the south which is Tiller's property. He stated that the city is obligated to approve the CUP with conditions. Mr. Perry discussed court findings regarding CUP's. He stated that the only issue he has heard from the cityis screening, and that the Landfill and the applicant are willing to meet conditions to address this issue. He asked what the citywanted regarding screening. There being no other public comments, Chair Westberg closed the public hearing. • Commissioner Scott asked for clarification on the reference in the staff report regarding screening in the 1996 Tiller permit. Ms. Haug provided information regarding the existing permit and the proposed amendment regarding Cond. # 20, screening and buffering. Commissioner Scott asked if the citywas not interested in some type of berm. Ms. Haug explained that if the Pl~nn'na Commission were to approve their request, it would be in violation of the CUP for the Landfill, which the City Council has denied. Commissioner Scott stated that it really is not a question of the type of screening, but the conflict with the Landfill CLJP. Ms. Haug stated yes. Mr. Perry stated that he did not believe Ms. Haug's statement to be true; that is, the City cannot approve Tiller's request because the Landfill CUP has a buffer requirement. He stated that the Landfill has been operating 37 years and the issue of the buffer is one the Landfill has to satisfy. )=3e stated that the Landfill's infrastructure will be within the buffer area. He stated the only issue is the screening of trees. He stated there is no impact of the removal of trees except to the Landfill and Tiller. He stated that the screening can be enhanced. He did not feel there was any issue that should bar their request. He stated he did not see the connection between Tiller's mining request. Ms. Pauleysuggested that if removing the vegetation is in violation of the Landfill CUP, a condition could be created on Tiller's CUP that it would be subject to amending the Landfill that would permit removing vegetation in a specific and defined area to allow mining and to eliminate that conflict. Comrrussioner Lemke asked Mr. Perry to describe the buffer in the Landfill CUP and the • buffer in the Tiller CUP. Mr. Perry stated that the buffer does not disallow any use of that