5.3. PCSR 02-09-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Case File: CU 10-02 Page 4 ERL CUP City o~ Elk River As you can see, Staff's only revision is to incorporate a ref erence to the end use plan, which is discussed below. The Applicant has requested, in a letter from its attorney dated January 2S, 2010, and in an email dated February 3, 2010, that the CUP be amended to allow the Applicant to fill within the buffer zone, apparently up to the property line. According to the January 2S, 2010 letter, this would constitute a 1,b71, 300 cubic yard expansion of the landfill, Although one schematic drawing showing such an expansion was submitted with the January 2S letter, the Applicant has submitted none of the other plans and materials which would be required for the Cityto review, evaluate and act on the proposed expansion. For this reason, staff sent a letter to the Applicant, dated February 3, 2010 advising the Applicant that, to the extent the January 2S letter constituents an amendment to the pending application, it is incomplete for failure to provide the required application materials. A copy of this letter is attached. The 200 foot buffer zone provided for in paragraph 3 is required not only by the CUP, but also by State Regulation (Muinesota Rule 7035.2815, Subp. 5), which requires that any new fill area at a land disposal facility must be located at least 200 feet from the nearest property line unless otherwise approved by the State, through the MPCA's issuance of a variance. Because the Applicant has submitted nothing to indicate that it could fill within the buffer zone under its state approvals, and because the Applicant has not submitted the required plans and other materials detailing an expansion of the landfill into the buffer zone, staff is recommending that paragraph 3 remain in the C[JP, as proposed by staff. 3. Para~~aph 4 (29} Ce1117 - Staf f is recommending a revision to paragraph 4 ~29} which would require Applicant to submit a modif ied development and closure plan f or Cell 17. Applicant has objected to this revision, stating that it has an approved construction plan for Cell 17. However, the only construction plan f or Cell 17 on f ile within the City assumes that the landfill will expand to the south, into the Tiller property. Because applicants request to expand the landfill into the Tiller property has been denied, a new development and closure plan for Cell 17 needs to be submitted. For this reason, staff recommends the Commission approve the revisions to paragraph 4 ~2q} as proposed bystaff. 4. Paragraph 4 (30) Alternative Cover -Staff agrees with the Applicant's request to allow alternate cover and recommends adoption of paragraph 4 (30) as proposed. 5. Paragraph 4 (31) End Use Plan -The Applicant has objected to paragraph 4 (31) as proposed by staff on the grounds that the Landfill has an approved end use plan. However, this is not the case. Although the Elk River Park and Recreation Commission reviewed proposed End Use Plans for the ERL in connection with the proposed expansion into the Tiller property, and they made recommendations to the City Council on proposed end use plans as they relate to Park and Recreation use, the City Council has not approved an end use plan for ERL. Staff is proposing that an End Use Plan be submitted to the CitybyDecember 31, 2011 that indicates passive recreational use of the ERL property within the City limits following final closure of the Landfill. If the z:1PLANNING MATN1Case FileslCUP1CU 10-02 ER Landfilllstaff report to PGCU 10.02,doc