06-09-2009 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2009 Page 8 certainly room for differences of opinion. He stated that for the most part, he did not disagree with most of what was presented tonight. He felt there could be differences in assumptions. Mr. Beck stated that he did not feel a landfill was quite the benefit that was portrayed by Waste Management, and has not heard of any communities offering tax increment financing assistance to get a landfill. He noted that staff has always said there are pluses and minuses with this project. He stated that if the Commission would like, staff could take a look at the letter from Waste Management and respond to it. He stated that the Planning Commission needs to act on this issue no later than June 23, 2009 in order to stay on the 120-day schedule for City Council action. Mr. Beck explained that there is always a crunch to send out the staff report on Friday prior to a meeting and there was no attempt to blind side Waste Management; that is simplythe process. He stated that there is some time built into the schedule for the Planning Commission to further review the application by scheduling a special meeting on June 23~. He noted that he did not feel the Conunission will see agreement between the two parties, and that there is room for differences in opinion. Mr. Beck stated that staff needs to correct a couple of statements made by Waste Management, in particular regarding the land use map. He explained that that the land use of the existing land fill has clearly been Landfill, and the land use of the expansion area has been Mining. He also stated he would take strong exception to the comments from Tiller that staff has a predetermined result in mind. He noted that Steve Rohlf, who spoke earlier, was with the city for manyyears and worked with Waste Management, as did Rebecca Haug and he. He stated they have had a great relationship with Waste Management. Mr. Beck stated that he has never seen a staff position one way or the other on the issue. He stated they have attempted to have the application analyzed including the one most important issue - the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the city felt they needed to go to an outside consultant to help staff, the Planning Commission and City Council in that process. Mr. Beck stated there was not attempt to reach a conclusion, onlyto evaluate the issues and potential benefits, pluses and minuses. Mr. Beck stated that staff can look at the letter and ask Mr. Scheib to review the points that have been made by Waste Management. He asked that Elk River Landfill make sure staff receives copies of the PowerPoint slides so that they are part of the record. He stated that the city is not looking to make this an adversarial situation. He stated that the city will try to refine its analysis to see if it comes any closer to Waste Management's, but he did not feel the Commission will see one single position. He stated this is sunplybecause there is a lot of speculation involved and the impacts are going to be decades from now Chair Scott asked if it is possible the city and Waste Management's assumptions could potentially have more similarities, but that it is a matter of timing? Mr. Beck stated that tuning is certainly a big part of the issue. He noted that something that was glossed over in Waste Management's presentation was the fact that at least 90 acres will be completely undevelopable and will generate no revenue, since it will be full of garbage. This is a direct impact. Peripheral impacts include the 110 acres surrounding the sne are up for speculation. He stated it is ultimately up to the City Council made the call whether or not to amend the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the city has known for a long time that this portion of the review would be fairly intensive from staff's point of view, and time has been budgeted to continue working on the issue, if needed. Chair Scott noted that this topic has generated significantly more data than other issues the Planning Commission has reviewed. He suggested that the request be continued in order to allow staff and the applicant time to review some of the background information used in