Loading...
05-11-2010 PC MINMEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, MAY I I, 2010 Members Present: Chair Westberg, Conunissioners Anderson, Bell, Ives, Johnson and Scott Members Absent: Conunissioner Lemke Staff Present: Lori Johnson, City Administrator; JeremyBarnhart, Planning Manger; Chris Leeseberg, Planner/Park Planner; Rebecca Haug, Environmental Administrator, Debbie Huebner, Recording Secretary Also Present: Councilmember Paul Motin, City AttorneyPeter Beck, Samuel Clark of Greene Espel, and Matt Ledvina of Landmark Environmental, LLC Call Meeting To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Westberg. 2. Consider 5/11/10 Planning Cornrnission Agenda MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT AND SECONDED BY • COMMISSIONER NES TO APPROVE THE MAY 11, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: 1. REMOVE ITEMS 5.3, 5.4. AND 5.5 2. CONSIDER ITEMS 5.3., 5.4. AND 5.5. BEFORE ITEMS 5.2. AND 5.3. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 4. Planning Commission Representative to Attend May City Council Meeting Commissioner Lemke will attend the May 17, 2010 City Council meeting. 5.3. Request byLeaming Blocks Childcare, Inc. for Conditional Use Permit, Public Hearing - Case No. CU 10-11 The staff report for this item was presented by Chris Leeseberg. Staff recommends approval of the request with the conditions listed in the staff report. Chair Westberg opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak to this issue, Chair Westberg closed the public hearing. Chair Westberg stated he was in favor of this request, with the conditions recommended by staff. • MOTION BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY LEARNING BLOCKS CHILDCARE, INC. FOR A Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 2010 --------------------------- Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CASE NO. CU 10-11, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT, THE APPLICANT SHALL APPLY FOR ALL REQUIRED PERMITS. 2. SIGN PERMITS WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY SIGNAGE. 3. THE APPLICANT SHALL OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED LICENSING FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA PRIOR TO OPERATION. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.4. Request b~print for Rezoning of a portion of property owned by Elk River Sportsman's Club to Antenna CGverlavDistrict, Public Hearing -Case No. ZC 10-04 5.5. Request by Sprint for Conditional Use Permit for Antenna Tower Public Hearing -Case I~?o. CU 10-10 The staff report for this item was presented byJeremyBarnhart. Staff recommends approval of the request with the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Bell asked for clarification on condition # 1. Mr. Barnhart stated that the cites ordinance requires that the tower be designed to accommodate two additional users. CouncilmemberMotin asked howmuch of the properrywould be covered bythe overlay. Mr. Barnhart stated that the overlay only covers the lease area. Chair Westberg opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the public, • Chair Westberg closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER IVES TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY SPRINT TO REZONE A PORTION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY ELK RIVER SPORTSMANS CLUB TO ANTENNA OVERLAY DISTRICT, CASE NO. ZC 10-04. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER IVES TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY SPRINT FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ANTENNA TOWER, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: 1. THE TOWER MUST BE DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE TWO ADDITIONAL USERS. 30-1837 D-(2) 2. TOWERS AND THEIR ANTENNAS SHALL BE CERTIFIED BY A QUALIFIED AND LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER TO CONFORM TO THE LATEST STRUCTURAL STANDARDS AND WIND LOADING REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE AND THE ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE REVIEWING AGENCIES. 30-1837 E-(2) 3. ENGINEERED FALL ZONE ANALYSIS SHALL BE CONDUCTED BY A QUALIFIED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. THIS REPORT SHALL SPECIFY • IN WRITING THAT ANY COLLAPSE OF THE TOWER WOULD OCCUR Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 May 11, 2010 ------ -- ------------- ------ • WITHIN A SPECIFIED FALL ZONE WITHIN A LESSER DISTANCE THAN THE SETBACK. SECTION 30-1837 H-(5) 4. ALL SIGNAL AND REMOTE CONTROL CONDUCTORS OF LOW ENERGY EXTENDING SUBSTANTIALLY HORIZONTALLY ABOVE THE GROUND BETWEEN A TOWER OR ANTENNA AND A STRUCTURE, OR BETWEEN TOWERS, SHALL BE AT LEAST EIGHT FEET ABOVE THE GROUND AT ALL POINTS, UNLESS BURIED UNDERGROUND. 30-1837 E-(5) 5. AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT, THE APPLICANT SHALL APPLY FOR ALL REQUIRE PERMITS. 6. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL MEET ALL APPLICABLE FIRE CODES. THE FIRE CHIEF SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL FIRE HYDRANTS, AND MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL HYDRANTS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS. ONGOING: 7. ALL TOWERS SHALL BE PROTECTED AGAINST UNAUTHORIZED CLIMBING. THE BOTTOM OF THE TOWER (MEASURED FROM GROUND LEVEL TO 12 FEET ABOVE GROUND LEVEL) SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN SUCH A MANNER TO PRECLUDE UNAUTHORIZED CLIMBING. THE TOWER, ANTENNA AND SUPPORTING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE ENCLOSED BY AN EIGHT- FOOT-HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH A LOCKED GATE. 30-1837 E-(6) 8. METAL TOWERS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF, OR TREATED WITH, CORROSIVE RESISTANT MATERIAL. 30-1837 E-(7) 9. ONLY ONE TOWER SHALL EXIST AT ANY ONE TI11'IE ON ANY LOT OR PARCEL. THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT SHALL BE ONE ACRE. 30-1837 E-(8) 10. TOWERS AND ANTENNAS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO BLEND INTO THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT THROUGH THE USE OF BUILDING MATERIALS, COLOR, TEXTURES, CAMOUFLAGING ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING, EXCEPT IN INSTANCES WHERE THE COLOR IS DICTATED BY FEDERAL OR STATE AUTHORITIES SUCH AS THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION. 30-1837 F-(1) 11. NO ADVERTISING, LOGOS OR IDENTIFICATION OF ANY KIND IS PERMITTED, EXCEPT AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITIES. 30-1837 G MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.1. Request by City of Elk River for Land Use Map Amendment to Change Existing Land Use from Agricultural to Landfill, Public Hearing -Case No. LU 10-01 The staff repon was presented by Rebecca Haug. Staff recommends approval of the request. Chair Westberg opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Westberg closed the public hearing. • Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 2010 --------------------------- 5.2. Page 4 Mr. Beck noted that the ordinance listed in the attachments in the memo to the Planning Conunission should be listed as No. 10-05. 112OTION BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER TO AMEND THE LAND USE AZAP ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSNE PLAN TO DESIGNATE THE CERTAIN PROPERTY AS "LANDFILL", CASE NO. LU 10-01. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. - Flk River T anrifill_ Tnr Pn}~lir uPa Y1 Y1Q _ The staff report was presented by Rebecca Haug. She provided visuals of the existing site and what it might look like with the expansion. She noted staff is looking for a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ives stated that it appears the Landfill may go beyond their property line to provide a 200-foot buffer from the expansion area. Mr. Beck stated one of the city's concerns is that state law requires a 200-foot buffer area between the fill area and the property line. He stated that the city cannot confirm that the state law has been complied with. If there were a recommendation to approve the request, there mould need to be a condition that the Landfill complies with state law. He indicated that unless the Landfill can prove otherwise, the buffer area would be outside the SWF District, which would not comply with the current city code. He explained that an amendment to the City Code would be required to allow the buffer area outside the property. Chair Westberg opened the public hearing. Jack Perry, Briggs & Morgan, counsel for Waste Management/Elk River Landfill, Inc. -stated that based on the staff report, there are four reasons why staff is recommending denial of the application: 1) the city's consultant Matt Ledvina opinion that there are issues of compliance with MPCA rules. Mr. Perry stated that Elk River Landfill is aware there are items that need to be met and they are willing to satisfy his concerns; 2) the expansion will require the destruction of trees in the southern buffer area. Mr. Perry stated that the trees in this area only provide screening for the property to the south, which is proposed to be mined by Tiller. He stated that Tiller has the right to mine their property, whether or not the Landfill expansion is approved. He explained that the trees to the east and west will remain. Mr. Perry stated that the Landfill has proposed screening, once the operations are complete; 3) the 200-foot buffer is proposed on propertythe Landfill does not own. Mr. Percy stated that it has been determined by district court that the Landfill has an interest in the property to the south. He stated that the court has noted if there are concerns that the city has which can be addressed with conditions, they must approve the request; 4) the city's interpretation that Judge Varco's order does not compel the cityto approve the Landfill's application. Mr. Perry stated that it is his opinion that the judge's order does compel the cityto allowthe 109-acre expansion. Mr. Perryfurther discussed issues related to the Landfill's lawsuit against the city and how they pertain to this application. He asked that the Commission postpone a decision on this application until they receive clarification from their legal counsel. There being no further public comment, Chair Westberg closed the public hearing. • Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 May 11, 2010 --------------------------- • Chair Westberg stated the city's attorney was present to answer any questions the Planning Commissron may have. He noted that the Plaruung Commissron needs to address the land use issue, but that litigation issues should be addressed bythe City Council. Commissioner Scott asked if the 13 acres in this request v,~as part of the 109 acres. Mr. Beck stated the 13 acres proposed to be filled is not pan of the 109. He explained that the 13 acres is the buffer between the existing approved fill area and the Tiller property. Mr. Beck stated that they are proposing to fill up to the existing propeny line, and create a new buffer zone on what is now the Tiller property. Mr. Beck noted that there is no recommendation in the staff report for denial. He explained that the Planning Commission is encouraged to consider the merits of the application in light of the legal issues and the compliance v,~ith the CUP standards. Mr. Beck explained that a CUP can be denied if the standards for issuance of a CUP cannot be met. He stated there is an ownership issue for the properryto the south, as well as the compliance issue. He felt these two reasons provide a factual basis to denythe application. He stated that if ownership is acquired, it maybe possible to move the application forward. He stated it is not accurate to saythat if this application does not move forward, that the buffer area would be mined anyway. He stated it would not, and the area would have to remain the buffer zone for the existing landfill under the existing conditional use permit. He explained how the buffer zone would be impacted by approval of this expansion, or the original 109-acre expansion request. Mr. Beck stated that it is true the city has until June 21ST to act on this proposal, but that requires action by the City Council. He suggested that the Planning Commission move ahead with a recommendation one way or the other, so that the Council would have two meetings to address the application, if needed. Mr. Beck stated that the Planning Commission is not asked to look at the legal issues; that they are an advisory body and should look at the application on its merits from a land use perspective and make a recommendation apart from coon decisions and litigation on whether or not to allow this expansion. He stated that expansion could be accomplished without taking out manytrees to the east and west, but the trees in the area to the south would be removed. Commissioner Johnson asked if the buffer would be outside of the SWF if this expansion were allowed. Mr. Beck explained the area which was impacted bythe recent land use amendment and zoning. He stated that the buffer would be outside of this area. Commissioner Johnson stated that he would recommend denial, since the buffer zone should be located within the SWF district. Commissioner Bell stated that he felt if the Commission does not know if Waste Management does not own the property, the decision for them is relatively easy. Commissioner Anderson stated that he sees the issue as being out of compliance with the city and state regulations. Commissioner Ives stated that he felt the Commission must consider the application as conditions exist today and would concur to recommend denial of the request. • Planning Coinnussion Minutes Page 6 May i 1, 2010 --------------------------- Chair Westberg stated that there are zoning issues here as well as other items that require more evidence to be discussed at the Council level. He also concurred with denial. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER IVES AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON TO RECOMMEND DEI~TIAL OF THE REQUEST BY WASTE MANAGEMENT FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SOLID WASTE FACILITY LICENSE TO ALLOW AN APPROXIMATELY 13-ACRE EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING LANDFILL BY DEVELOPING THE EXISTING 200-FOOT BUFFER ZONE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE LANDFILL FOR THE DEPOSIT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (n'fSW), CU 10-OS. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Other Business -None 7. Adiournment There being no further business, MOVED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Minutes~'repared by bbie Huebner. ~, Tina Allard City Clerk Chad Westberg Chair