3.1. & 3.2. PCSR 06-23-2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ # v-~ ~ . 4 ~ a.: Hoisin ton Koe ler Grou Inc. ~ ~ _ "~" `~ g g p 4„f 4, ,,j ..~ r ' .l To: Lori Johnson, City Manager From: Brad Scheib, AICP Subject: Response to letter from WMI to Mayor Klinzing and the City Council regarding the Planning Commission Report for the June 9th PC Public Hearing. Date: 16 June 2009 This memorandum is a supplement to the June 9th Planning Commission report and a direct response to the questions raised by WMI related to the information from Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. A series of slides highlighting the key assumptions outlined in this report are attached. These slides also provide two graphs that highlight the long term impacts on property taxes and job development related to the expansion of the landfill. The slides are a summary of the information represented in this memorandum and the June 9th PC meeting report. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan The comprehensive plan is a 20 year plan that envisions the gravel mining area being used for mining for the life of the plan (i. e. 2025). The comprehensive plan will ultimately be updated (probably multiple times) prior to development occurring in the project area. The ultimate end use for the SDA will not be mining or agriculture use. We evaluated potential land use impacts using the Highway 169 land use study as a basis for our land use assumptions. This study demonstrates a reasonable ultimate land use pattern within the Highway 169 corridor. A chart showing the land uses assumed for each scenario is included in the attached slides. Background Rationale for 2,000 foot peripheral impact area In understanding the impacts of the expansion, we evaluated two separate areas: the direct expansion area (SDA) and a peripheral area. Defining a peripheral area of impact was based on research of available online and hard copy resources held on file or obtained through MPCA. The findings were that there is not a specific uniform distance that defines an impact area but that a peripheral impact was more based on features unique to the site. Areas that sited various distances we referenced include: Monterey County, CA (Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority); Florence County, SC; Sacramento County, CA (Kiefer Buffer Lands Land Use and Feasibility Analysis Final Report); Ontario, Canada; Northwest and Nunavut Territories, Canada (Residential Land Use Related to Landfill in Sites in Cold Region Communities); Eden Prairie, MN (Health Consultation for the Flying Cloud Landfill); Andover, MN (MPCA Land Use Plan); Hampton Township, M1V (MPCA Land Management Plan Dakhue Landfill); Inver Grove Heights, MN (Pine Bend Land Fill). We conducted visual analysis; however, we were limited to public right-of-way and did not enterprivateproperty. Furthermore, we did not have access to detailed contour data beyond the ERL or SDA site. It is our opinion that developing within approximately 2, 000 feet of a closed landfill will have an impact on what is developed and that impact will be related to the type of use proximate to the land fill. We recognize the distance selected has an impact on the results of the comparison. However, it does not impact the results of the analysis on the area of direct impact (SDA). We have provided slides that highlight the impacts ofjust the direct area and illustrate the various land uses assumed for existing conditions and future build out under each scenario. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-3800 Fx (612) 338-6838 www.hkgi.com Direct (612) 252-7122 Email bscheib@hkgi.com