Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />May 22, 1990 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />functions. He indicated that Elk River Landfill and Conteck are two <br />separate entities. Mr. Kreger noted that if Elk River Landfill becomes <br />a co-applicant and Conteck fails, the Elk River Landfill still has a <br />valid permit for a thermal processor. <br /> <br />Tim Keane, City Attorney, indicated that he had discussed this with <br />staff and there were several factors involved. Mr. Keane indicated that <br />the principal question in his mind is whether this should be treated as <br />an amendment to the existing license, a separate license by the <br />operating entity, or the operating entity and cooperative relationship <br />wi th Elk River Landfill. Mr. Keane indicated he would make a <br />recommendation to confer with Mr. Kreger and his advisors to come up <br />with a solution. It was the general consensus of the commission that <br />Tim Keane, City Attorney, explain the legal ties between Elk River <br />Landfill and Conteck. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />1jabili ~~ <br />The Planning Commission was concerned with the liability to the public <br />and the City. Steve Rohlf indicated that staff is recommending a hold <br />harmless clause in their permit to protect the City. Mr. Kreger stated <br />that the Elk River Landfill has a one million dollar general liability <br />policy, which is required by the state. Staff stated that they were <br />not uncomfortable with the general liability by Conteck and felt this <br />was adequate. Mr. Rohlf further indicated that if Conteck were to go <br />out of business, Elk River Landfill would have to deal with the problem <br />as they own the property. <br /> <br />AIR_~MISSIONS <br />Staff suggested that John Litcher check with MPCA <br />recommended .1 grain per dry standard cubit foot for <br />This was discussed by the Planning Commission and staff. <br /> <br />on why they <br />particulates. <br /> <br />Chris Kreger addressed a number of concerns he had with staff's <br />recommendation addressed in staff's memo dated 5/15/90. Mr. Kreger <br />stated that he does not have a problem with the City requesting <br />reimbursment for costs incurred provided that other similar uses are <br />given the same consideration. He stated that he feels the City needs <br />to consider the cost that it applies to it's businesses in relationship <br />to the entire economy of Minnesota. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Mr. Kreger stated that he was concerned wi th staff's recommendation <br />that Conteck or Elk River Landfill be allowed to store two days worth <br />of processed soil or 4,500 cubic yards. He felt this was being <br />unreasonable. Mr. Kreger stated that he did not know how they could <br />get rid of enough material to keep the stock pile down to 4,500 cubic <br />yards. He felt that this material is not going to be any more of a dust <br />problem than stock piles at the gravel pit. John Litcher stated that <br />he did not see a need for keeping a large stock pile of material on the <br />site. Staff suggested that Elk River Landfill and/or Conteck <br />Environmental Services be allowed to store up to 10,000 cubic yards of <br />treated soil with staff having the di Rcretion to Hmi t the stock pile <br />to whatever amount is needed to control fugitive dust, including no <br />stock pile. <br /> <br />e <br />