Loading...
06-08-2010 PC MIN• MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2010 Members Present: Chair Westberg, Commissioners Anderson, Bell, Johnson, Lemke and Scott Members Absent: Commissioner Ives Staff Present: JeremyBarnhart, Planning Manger; Chris Leeseberg, Planner/Park Planner; Rebecca Haug, Environmental Adiiunistrator; Debbie Huebner, Recording Secretary Call Meeting To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Plannuzg Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Westberg. 2. Consider 6/8/ 10 Planning Commission Agenda MOVED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO APPROVE THE JUNE 8, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. • 3. Consider 3/9/10 Planning Commission Minutes MOVED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO APPROVE THE MARCH 9, 2010 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Planning Commission Representative to Attend City Council Meeting Commissioner Bell will attend the June 21, 2010 City Council meeting. 5.1. Request by Tiller Corp. to amend Conditional Use Permit to allow mineral excavation of ~~roximately 13 acres of property owned by Waste Management Inc - CU 10-09 The staff report was presented byRebecca Haug. She stated that staff recommends denial of Tiller's request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), noting staff's finding for denial as listed in the staff report to the Planning Conunission dated June 8, 2010. Chair Westberg opened the public hearing. Kristen Pauley, registered civil engineer and registered geologist with Sunde Engineering representing the applicant -stated that Tiller requests they be allowed to mine the final phase of their 1996 CUP, which is up to the southern edge of the Landfill property. She stated their request has nothing to do with the Landfill's expansion request. Ms. Pauley explained that now is the time to mine out the resources, before the final phase • of the landfill liner is completed. She noted that the 200-foot buffer area has been part of past mining activities and there are a number of haul roads on the site. Ms. Polly stated that there are many areas where trees have been removed forthe access routes for manyyeais. Planning Comnussion Minutes June 8, 2010 Page 2 Ms. Pauleyprovided photographs of various views of the buffer area. She noted that there • are no major roads but the photos show gaps in the trees from previous haul routes. Ms. Pauley stated that the photos show that the view/screening of the landfill will not be impacted if the subject area is mined. Ms. Pauley noted existing berming and screening along the highway. She stated that the trees to be removed are predominantly oaks, and that there is significant oak wilt. She did not feel removing the trees would cause a significant impact on the area. Ms. Pauley requested that Tiller be allowed to mine the approximately one million ton of sand and gravel that is available to be removed. She stated that Tiller's opportunityto remove the resources will be greatly diminished when the landfill liner is complete. Jack Perry of Briggs & Morgan, representing Elk River Landfill/Waste Management -stated that the value of the mining resources are estimated between 5.5 to 8.6 million dollars. He stated that the issue at the May 17th City Council meeting was screening. He stated that few companies know better howto screen than Waste Management and Tiller Corporation. Mr. Perryprovided 22 photos of the view along 221St Avenue from the power poles, beginning at Ridges of Rice Lake subdivision, heading east to Highway 169. He stated that the photos show that the areas cannot be seen except at the gate to the Tiller site. He stated there would be no impact in screening to the east and west; the landfill is to the north, and the only impact is to the south which is Tiller's property. He stated that the city is obligated to approve the CUP with conditions. Mr. Perry discussed court findings regarding CUP's. He stated that the only issue he has heard from the cityis screening, and that the Landfill and the applicant are willing to meet conditions to address this issue. He asked what the citywanted regarding screening. There being no other public comments, Chair Westberg closed the public hearing. • Commissioner Scott asked for clarification on the reference in the staff report regarding screening in the 1996 Tiller permit. Ms. Haug provided information regarding the existing permit and the proposed amendment regarding Cond. # 20, screening and buffering. Commissioner Scott asked if the citywas not interested in some type of berm. Ms. Haug explained that if the Pl~nn'na Commission were to approve their request, it would be in violation of the CUP for the Landfill, which the City Council has denied. Commissioner Scott stated that it really is not a question of the type of screening, but the conflict with the Landfill CLJP. Ms. Haug stated yes. Mr. Perry stated that he did not believe Ms. Haug's statement to be true; that is, the City cannot approve Tiller's request because the Landfill CUP has a buffer requirement. He stated that the Landfill has been operating 37 years and the issue of the buffer is one the Landfill has to satisfy. )=3e stated that the Landfill's infrastructure will be within the buffer area. He stated the only issue is the screening of trees. He stated there is no impact of the removal of trees except to the Landfill and Tiller. He stated that the screening can be enhanced. He did not feel there was any issue that should bar their request. He stated he did not see the connection between Tiller's mining request. Ms. Pauleysuggested that if removing the vegetation is in violation of the Landfill CUP, a condition could be created on Tiller's CUP that it would be subject to amending the Landfill that would permit removing vegetation in a specific and defined area to allow mining and to eliminate that conflict. Comrrussioner Lemke asked Mr. Perry to describe the buffer in the Landfill CUP and the • buffer in the Tiller CUP. Mr. Perry stated that the buffer does not disallow any use of that Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 June 8, 2010 --------------------------- • area. Commissioner Lemke asked if there was a requirement in the mining CLIP for screenu7g. Mr. Perry stated yes, as far as the buffer goes. Mr. Perry stated that the State requires a 200-foot buffer for a landfill, with two very different functions. He stated the number one reason for the buffer is logistically, an area is needed for off-site monitoring wells, sedimentation ponds, haul roads, etc. Mr. Lemke asked if it was correct that there is no screening requirement on the landfill. Mr. Perry stated it depends on where it is. He stated that the affected partyhas another berm already. He stated that there is screening in the middle of two very large parcels. He explained that the screening on the sides has a function, and that the screening in the middle has no function. Commissioner Lemke asked if theyplan to put refuse in the 200-foot buffer of the area Tiller Corporation is planning to mine. Mr. Perry stated no, that cannot be done; this CUP is purely f or mining. Ms. Haug explained that Tiller is currentlypermitted to mine out areas that are permitted for solid waste within the Landfill's property. He asked if the Tiller CUP has a buffer and screening requirement. Ms. Haug stated yes. Commissioner Lemke if the Landfill CUP has a screening requirement. Ms. Haug explained that it is a combined buffer/screening requirement. She noted that both CUP's have very similar language. Commissioner Lemke stated he did not see the harm in removing the screening. He stated that CUP's are amended all the time. He realized that changing one CUP does not remove a bamer in another CUP, so that may mean changing the requirement in another CLIP. He stated he was in favor of recommending approval of the request. Chair Westberg asked if Tiller were allowed to mine, was there a potential that solid waste must be allowed to go in that area. Ms. Haug stated no. • Commissioner Bell stated that he was not sure it was fair to not allowthem to mine on their property. Ms. Haug stated that it is not Tiller's property. All the mature, native trees and topography would be removed, so there would not be a break in the topography between the two sites. Commissioner Bell asked if it would be just one flat area when the restoration is done. Ms. Haug stated yes, unless bernzing was required. Commission Anderson stated he sees this as two separate CUP's. He did not see how they could recommend approval of this CUP and the other was denied last month, since they are both for the same area. Commissioner Anderson stated that if the city allowed the 200-foot buffer and trees to be removed, it would not make any sense, and he would recommend denial of the request. Commissioner Johnson stated he would not be in favor of recommending approval of the request. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY TILLER CORP. TO AMEND THEIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CASE NO. CU 10-09, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING MATURE, NATIVE TREES AND MINING OF THE LANDFILL'S 200 FOOT BUFFER ZONE WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH AND CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE FEBRUARY 1G, 2010 CUP FOR THE LANDFILL, WHICH REQUIRES • THAT THE PRESERVATION OF TREES WITHIN THE BUFFER ZONE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR DURING THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND END USE OF THE LANDFILL. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 June 8, 2010 --------------------------- 2. MINING THE EXISTING 200 FOOT BUFFER ZONE WILL • DETRIMENTALLY AFFECT THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF OTHER PROPERTY IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY, BECAUSE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND VEGETATION IN THE BUFFER ZONE WILL BE REMOVED, MAKING LANDFILL OPERATIONS VISIBLE FROM 221sT AVENUE AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH AND WEST. 3. MINING THE EXISTING 200 FOOT BUFFER ZONE WILL RESULT IN THE DESTRUCTION, LOSS OR DAMAGE OF NATURAL FEATURES WHICH ARE OF MAJOR IMPORTANCE BECAUSE THE EXISTING NATIVE, MATURE TREES AND NATURAL TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS WHICH SCREEN AND BUFFER LANDFILL ACTIVITIES FROM 221sT AVENUE AND SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AREAS TO THE SOUTH AND WEST WILL BE REMOVED. THIS EXISTING SCREENING IS OF MAJOR IMPORTANCE IN THAT IT SCREENS LANDFILL OPERATIONS FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND WILL SCREEN THE LANDFILL PERMANENTLY ONCE OPERATIONS CEASE. 4. MINING THE EXISTING BUFFER ZONE DOES NOT FULLY COMPLY WITH THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF CITY CODE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH AND A VIOLATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE EXISTING CUP FOR THE LANDFILL. MOTION CARRIED G-4. Corrurussioners Bell and Lemke opposed 5.2. Request bvSchuer, Inc. (Roger Schmidtl for a Conditi The staff report for this item was presented by Rebecca Haug. Staff recommended approval of the request. Chair Westberg opened the public hearing. Roger Schmidt, applicant -stated he had no problem with any of the conditions recommended bystaff. There being no other comments, Chair Westberg closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY SCHUER, INC. FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW WASHING/PROCESSING OPERATIONS, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: • 1. NO STOCKPILING OF WASH POND SEDIMENT SHALL BE ALLOWED UNLESS AN APPROVED DUST CONTROL PLAN IS IN PLACE. 2. NO OTHER WATER SOURCES BE ALLOWED TO SUPPLEMENT THE SUPPLY POND UNLESS APPROVED BY THE CITY. • Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 June 8, 2010 --------------------------- • 3. PROVIDE THE CITY WITH COPIES OF ALL STORM WATER AND RELATED PERMIT COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS, FOR EXAMPLE ANY SWPPP DOCUMENT, OR SPCC PLAN. 4. PROVIDE ANNUAL SAMPLING OF INTAKE WATER FOR TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS. 5. PROVIDE A SPILL RESPONSE PLAN IF AN SPCC IS NOT IN PLACE TO ADDRESS THE RELEASE OF ANY PETROLEUM PRODUCTS INTO EITHER POND. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.3. Request b~ Clty of Elk River for Ordinance Amendment to add new Elk River Plaza Zoning District, Public Hearing -Case No. OA 10-06 5.4. Request by City of Elk River for Rezoning of Elk River Plaza PUD, Public Hearing -Case No. ZC 10--03 The staff report was presented by Chris Leeseberg. He noted that the only change to the amendment since the Planning Commission's last review of this item is that instead of a PUD overlay, the plat area will become a new zoning district called Mixed Use -Elk River Plaza. He stated that along with the proposed zoning change for E1kRiver Plaza, a new section of the ordinance needs to be created forthe new zoning district. Mr. Leeseberg noted that the City attorney advised that the PUD district be removed and rezoned to a new zone. Commissioner Anderson asked if, when reviewing other PUD's, would they be renamed this • way. Mr. Leeseberg stated that staff would possiblyutilize the "mixed use" and include a name or number, such as MLA 1, since space on the zoning map is limited. Chair Westberg stated that it seemed the previous idea to use an overlaywould be more flexible. He asked if the new zoning would be classified as Highway Commercial. Mr. Leeseberg stated no. He stated that they could have called it C5, but the list of uses will not change from the way it has evolved over the past 28 years, other than some minor changes. Chair Westberg opened the public hearing. Rich Schulz, owner of 510 Freeport -stated that he was not comfortable with the new change. He stated he has been told that the revised zoning will have no impact on his taxes, but the tax assessor will not commit to that statement in writing. He asked if the city attorney or City Council could give him a document that would prevent the assessor from increasing his taxes. Mr. Schulz stated he would like to see the impact the new zoning would have on other PUD's fast. He asked if there were issues for others; would the City Council revert to the old zoning. Commissioner Anderson stated that the taxes are not an issue for the Planning Commission and City Council. He felt it is the Conunission's taskto determine what fits the development. He stated that it seems logical to move forward with the rezoning; as it places the PUD is a better position for redevelopment or new development. Mr. Schulz stated that it is unknown if the new zoning will help or hurt the PUD. He stated • that except for one building, he does not see the need to change it. Mr. Schulz explained that his building and the Star News building are very different from others in the PUD, and suggested they be "cut out" of the new zoning. Planning Conunission Minutes Page 6 June 8, 2010 --------------------------- Commissioner Anderson stated that he does not foresee any significant changes with the • new zoning. He stated that Mr. Schulz and the Star News have the option of bringing a request forward. Mr. Schulz asked if he could applyfor a rezoning. Mr. Barnhart stated yes, he can request a different zoning. Mr. Barnhart explained that he did not feel this change opens the door for the assessor to make changes. He stated that the amendment is drafted to codifythe new zoning district into the city's ordinance to make it easier for everyone to understand. Mr. Schulze stated that he felt everything was fine the way it was. Mr. Barnhart stated that eventually the city may look at other areas, but none have been identified at this time. He explained that the Elk River Plaza area was identified as an area in need of change. He continued that he feels this is a problem solving endeavor and best for the overall subdivision. Mr. Schulz stated he disagreed. There being no further public comment, Chair Westberg closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lemke stated he was in favor of the request and appreciated Mr. Barnhart's comments. He stated his only concern is what it will look like in ten years if there are a number of these types of zoning districts and whether or not it will be confusing. He asked if an area could be labeled the same as a parcel on the other side of the city. Mr. Leeseberg stated yes. Commissioner Lemke asked if any existing businesses would become nonconforming bythe ordinance amendment and rezoning. Mr. Leeseberg stated no, that it will actually improve the situation. He noted that the theater is currently nonconforming and will become an . approved conditional use. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ADD NEW ELK RIVER PLAZA ZONING DISTRICT, CASE NO. OA 10-06, AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT TO THE COMMISSION DATED JUNE 8, 2010. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER TO REZONE ELK RIVER PLAZA PUD TO MIXED USE-ELK RIVER PLAZA. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.5. The staff report for this item was presented byJeremyBarnhart. Mr. Barnhart stated that a third industrial zoning district, entitled General Industrial is being proposed for industrially guided property, outside of the urban services district that is not likelyto be incorporated into the urban services district. He explained that uses such as mini storage, would then be located in areas not likelyto have water and sewer. Mr. Barnhart stated the city's goal with industrial • Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2010 --------------------------- Pane 7 • is job creation, which brings residents, and residents bring business to the city. Commissioner Bell asked what would happen to existing mini-storage facilities in the I-1 and I-2. Mr. Barnhart explained that they would be "grandfathered" in and allowed to continue as nonconforming uses. Chair Westberg opened the public hearing. There being no comments, Chair Westberg closed the public hearing. Commissioner Scott stated he likes the idea of preserving areas along the corridors for job creation, but feels that MnDOT has more to do with how that happens. Mr. Barnhart stated that while that is true, the city wants to have a plan in place. He stated the Maple Grove area as an example. Commissioner Anderson stated he also would like to keep what we have prime for job- creating development. He stated that if the current uses are allowed to continue, he supported the amendment. Commissioner Lemke stated he was generallyin favor of the amendment, but had a concern that the city would be telling property owners what they can and cannot do with their property. Commissioner Bell questioned the listing of "bottling distribution" in more than one section. Mr. Barnhart stated he would review and make the necessary correction. • MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING I-1 AND I-2 INDUSTRIAL ZONES IN THE URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT, AS WRITTEN AND ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT TO THE COMMISSION DATED JUNE 8, 2010. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.6. Consider FAST Plan and Recommendation for Adoption of Plan to City Council JeremyBarnhart, Planning Manager, provided an overview of the FAST StudyPlan. He stated that the first step will be amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning. He reviewed areas where changes will be made and which areas will remain the same. Mr. Barnhart noted that the greatest issue affecting implementation is transportation. He explained that the plan identifies where an interchange is desired. Commissioner Lemke noted that the list of Planning Commissioners needs to be updated Chair Westberg expressed his appreciation for all the hours that were put into this project. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FAST PLAN. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 6. Commissioner Lemke Item Commissioner Lemke stated now that the FAST StudyPlan is nearly complete, he would be • in favor of holding regular workshop meetings again. Commissioner Scott concurred. Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2010 --------------------------- 7. Adjournment There being no further business, MOVED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Minutes prepared byDebbie Huebner. ~_. C--., Tina Allard City Clerk ad Westberg Chair Page S • • •