Loading...
10-21-1986 PC MIN . . . SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT VANDENBERGE JR. HIGH SCHOOL GYMNASIUM TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1986 Members Present: Chairman Wilson, Commissioners Kropuenski, Barrett Temple, Fuchs and Morton Members Absent: None Staff Present: Stephen Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator; David Sellergren; City Attorney; Terry Maurer, City Engineer John Klovning; Consultant, Kay Kruse, Stanton, Consultant's Assistant Proposed aDF Plant Conditional Use and Variance Request/Public Hearing 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Wilson. Commissioner Kropuenske made an announcement to the group that the Governor's Design Team would be in Elk River October 24th and 25th at the Elk River Senior High School at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Wilson introduced the City Staff, members of the Planning Commission, and City Consultants. It was noted that on Page 3 of the staff's memo to the Planning Commission, Item 5, the date for the solid waste permit hearing should be October 28, not October 21. Chairman Tral1e- explained that the format for the discussion would be as follows: 1. Address the five site plans presented by NSP. 2. Comments and questions from the Planning Commission staff and public on each individual site plan. 3. Review of the conditional use permit and variance. 4. Comments and questions from the Planning Commission, staff and public. Mr. Don Chmiel, Senior Permitting Consultant for NSP explained the reasons why they chose the site on 165th Avenue, as follows: 1. Properly zoned for proposed use. 2. Access to major highway. 3. Adequate size parcel (37 acres). 4. Price of land reasonable. 5. Within union jurisdiction. 6. Close proximity to burn facility. 7. Lower transportation costs. . . . Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1986 Mr. Chmiel stated that the environmental concerns were addressed in the EIS (Environmental Impact Study) such as traffic, odor, noise abatement, etc., and that they feel they have developed a plan which will alleviate those concerns. Mr. Chmiel commented that the Elk River plant is designed after their Baltimore, Maryland plant and that some improvements have been included to make this the best facility possible using the most up-to-date technology. The site plan for Resource Recovery Facility were reviewed and discussed as follows: 1. Landscape Plan Chairman Wilson opened the public hearing at this time. Mr. Chmiel reviewed the landscape plan. No comments from those present were made at this time. 2. Signs. Electric and Gas Mr. Chmiel explained where the following signs would be placed; stop signs, parking area designations including handicapped, emergency, handling area, ingress and egress. He stated that the total amount of signage would be 362 square feet including a 12 ft. by 8 ft. exterior sign for Anoka County Resource Recovery Facility, a 12 ft. by 8 ft. sign to show where the citizens drop off would be. and 5 ft. by 3 ft. signs showing visitor parking and receiving building. Mr. Chmiel stated that the signs would be metal and non-illuminated. 3. Ingress and Egress Mr. Chmiel explained the routing of traffic through the proposed facility including the primary entrance, emergency second entrance, citizens refuse disposal area, and receiving area. Mr. Chmiel stated that the proposed receiving building will be 160 ft. by 360 ft. long, the processing building will be 125 ft. by 344 ft. long, the administration building will be 83 ft. by 112 ft. long, the service building will be 83 ft. by 120 ft. long and the transfer station will be 83 ft. by 75 ft. long. Mr. Chmiel stated that there will be 165 parking spaces for employees and visitors. He further explained where the hot load area, fire protection, water storage, well and drainfie1d areas will be. Mr. Rohlf lane on questioned 165th was whether or not the proposed widening for a bypass acceptable to Terry Maurer, City Engineer. . . . Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1986 Commissioner Kropuenske asked what the water storage capacity would be for fire protection. and was told 200.000 gallons by Mr. Chmiel. Discussion was carried on regarding the possibility of a fire in the proposed facility, the probability that a pumper truck would not be able to keep up emptying the 10,000 gallon wash water holding tank whether or not the site would be able to retain the large quantity of water that may be needed to fight a fire. and what level of contamination. water running off the property would have. Mr. Peter that from fire and a Jones of NSP stated that he felt this was not a serious issue; a practical aspect these would be a very low probability for very low probability of contamination. 4. Building Elevation Mr. Chmiel stated that a variance is needed because the building height will exceed the City Ordinance's maximum allowance by 24 to 30 feet. He explained that a 53 ft. long segment of the processing plant (the flail mill area) will reach a height of approximately 64 ft. 8 inches and further. that the solid waste receiving building would reach a height of 52 ft. 8 inches. Commissioner Fuchs questioned what the type of construction material would be. Mr. Norm Schiefe1 stated that the building would be all steel with steel I-Beams. Commissioner Fuchs further questioned what the likelihood for fire would be. Mr. Norm Schiefe1 stated that there would be very little combustible material and low probability for fire. Mr. Chmiel stated that depending on which contractor received the bid award, at this time there is a 10 inch to 6 foot difference in the possible maximum height of the building and that a variance for a maximum of 70 ft. 8 inches would cover the issue. Further discussion was carried on regarding fire protection measures. Mr. Chmiel stated that the flail mill area would be protected by both he10n and sprinklers. Mr. Chmiel commented that the Baltimore facility has been approved by the State Fire Marshal and this facility will be build like it. 5. Drainage Plan Mr. Chmiel explained the flow and flow containment and how the contours will be designed to direct flows back to the retention pond. Mr. Terry Maurer stated that he had just recieved this evening. the calculations and information he had requested from NSP on the drainage and will not be able to make a judgement at this time whether or not the information is adequate. He also stated that just from paging through the documents. it appears his questions and concerns have been answered. . . . Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1986 ---------------------------- Discussion was carried on regarding the underground water flow toward the river. the probability of the retention pond becoming full and discharging onto Mr. Specht's property, and what the potential for groundwater pollution on would be. Mr. K10vning stated that with the remote likelihood of a fire occurring; this facility is planned to have a better means of containment for water than the Baltimore facility. Mr. Jones stated problem, but that amount of time taken. that he they felt and that realized that an overflow could be a serious they could recapture the site in a reasonable they would insure that proper action would be Mr. Rohlf expressed his concerns for the volume of water that is likely to run off onto Mr. Specht's property on occasion Mr. Jones suggested that approval of this item could be contingent upon the City Engineer's approval and that perhaps the City Engineer could meet with their (NSP's) engineer to resolve this issue. Mr. Tom Woods, representing himself and the concerned citizens group. expressed his concern that the likelihood of fire is much greater than the City is being told it is. Mr. Woods reviewed statistics for shutdowns of RDF facilities taken from a 1984 Waste Age survey. Mr. Peter Vanderpool questioned Mr. Wood's information; whether it was a survey of National or International RDF facilities. and the time frame of the shutdowns-minutes, hours, days and whether the shutdowns were temporary or permanent. Mr. Gene Haas, Superintendent of the proposed plant, stated that he felt there was a very low probability for fire. He stated that if a fire was to occur, he agreed that there would be a great deal of water, but that the severity of the fire would depend on how much material was in the building at the time and where in the building the fire occurred. He further stated that no building is designed to handle a large quantity of water, but felt that the apron conversion pits would handle some of the water. Mr. Haas stated that it would not be feasible to have a drain system because the MSW would plug up any drain. Mr. Haas further stated that contamination of run off water would be minimal as the outside area will be kept very clean with a type of dry cleaning compound and swept up with a sweeper. . . . Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1986 DRAFT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mr. Se11ergren gave a brief history of the conditional use process from the first draft to the present 3rd draft. which is the result of meetings among city staff. Mr. K10vning. Ms. Kruse. Stantion, and himself. Mr. Se11ergren then reviewed the highlights of the draft CUP itself for the Planning Commission. staff and audience present. Mr. Roger Miller, Attorney representing NSP. then expressed the following comments: The scope of permit is over-extended. Some of the conditions imposed affect the processing plant unfairly. since it is tied to the generating operation. NSP objects to permit language which ties the processing facility with the UPA generating facility. NSP feels that the City ordinance and laws of this State do not grant the City the authority to impose the conditions on the processing plant and on the UPA plant as well. They feel that the second "Whereas" should be deleted because it is not within the rights of the City to include it. Mr. Miller offered his comments on "Exhibit A - Conditional Use Permit" items as follows: Item 1- he feels processing The description of the facility includes the generating plant. the City has no lawful authority at a site other than the site for This permit. Item 6. This item should only include the processing facility. Item 7. include the park vehicles The permittee obj ects to the term "Facility" as it would generating facility. also. that they should be able to on adjacent land. if they own the land. Item 10. Mr. Miller stated that he believes the intent is to control trucks hauling MSW, but as the language now stands, it would cause problems for their trucks hauling the RDF and rejects. He explained that the State has denied them an access from 169 and if the City denies them the use of Main Street, they will be denying them access to the power plant. Item 11. The rejects be from keep the facility permittee is 4:00 am to clean and to requesting that the hours for transporting 8:00 pm., to allow them the opportunity to get into the landfill. Item could 12. This item should only apply to the process facility. or they not wash any trucks at UPA if the generating facility is included. Item 16. The definitions should be clarified as follows: a. north should be east should read "one half mile east on Hwy. 10" from intersection of 165th b. . . . Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 21. 1986 Item 17. This item should include only roads associated with the processing facility. Item 20. "Residue" should be deleted. City should waive disposal; is adequately regulated by the landfill. Item 21A. Permittee asks that a maximum of $30.000 be required for these costs. B. Should be "Processing Facility" not "Facility". Mr. Miller explained that they understood the hold harmless clause was included primarily because of the height encroachment, but did not feel they should indenmify the city for acts of negligence. ommission. or willful activities. C. The permittee does not feel it is appropriate to release the City in this manner and they are not prepared to waive their rights. D. The Permitte questions the costs of enforcement. They believe it is appropriate to charge for permit costs and litigation costs for consultants and attorney fees. within reason. Item 24. Mr. Miller stated that they object to the language g~v~ng the City the right to revoke. amend. or impose additional conditions. Discussion was carried on regarding access to the UPA generating site. It was explained that UPA wished to construct a frontage road along the west side of Highway #169 to UPA and trucks would be traveling 300 ft. west on Main Street to access the proposed frontage road. Mr. Sel1ergren explained the City's position that the processing plant. burn facility and truck movement should all be considered integral parts of the RDF process and included in the conditional use permit. Mr. Se11ergren stated that on the basis described, he felt the position would be legally defensible. if challenged. Mr. Tom Woods stated that a petition with 600 signatures has been presented to the City opposing the proposed RDF facility and burning plant. He explained that he believed the two operations should be considered jointly and that the attempt to separate them was a move to avoid local control. Mr. Woods stated that they (the citizen's group) felt that issuance of a permit would be in violation of the City's Ordinance. and the proposed RDF facility would endanger and injure its citizens. would have a detrimental affect on the community, and would affect the citizen's rights to use and enjoy their property. He also cited there would be violations regarding traffic. dust. odor. etc. . . . Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes October 21. 1986 Mr. Woods expressed his concern over pollutants. expecially dioxins. Mr. Woods stated that he felt the site was the worst possible location for such a facility because the area is lower than surrounding areas. He felt this would create maximum air pollution in an area that is a home and market garden area. Mr. Woods cited comments of a Danish study regarding the negative impact of dioxins created by RDF. He further stated that he felt the permit should be delayed until more study could be done regarding dioxins. Mr. Woods concluded that Anoka County. NSP and UPA selected the site and the City was disinfranchised, and further. that (1) they don't want the involvement of the citizen's of Elk River (2) they don't want to pay if there are problems (3) they don't want the City to have the power to shut them down. and finally. that he finds the proposal unacceptable and asks that the City deny the permit. Mrs. Marlene Hentges expressed her concern regarding the negative traffic conditions which would be created by issuing the permit and allowing the facility to be built. Commissioner burn plant operation. Barrett expressed his and traffic movement support that the processing plant. should be considered as part of one Discussion was carried on regarding where distinction needed to be generating facilities. points of clarification in the permit made between the processing and the Mr. Se11ergren stated that the following clarification could be made at this time. Item 6 - line 4 - insert the word "processing" before facility. Item 7 - last line - insert the word "on" after "or". and add the words "not owned by permittee" after the word lands". Item 10 - line 1 - after the word "all" insert "MSW". Item 11 line 1 delete the word "rejects", and also. that the following be added "Rejects may be transported between the hours of 4:00 am and 8: 00 pm." Item 12 - line 1 - Insert the word "processing" before facility". Also the following sentence should be added. "No RDF or Residue trucks may be washed at the burns facility." Item 16 line 3 - "East" should be inserted in place of "north". and line 5 - "on Highway 1110" should be added after the word "east". Item 17 - line 3 - insert the word "processing" before the word facility" in each instance. Page 8 Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1986 . Discussion was carried on regarding the conditions of the permit. Further discussion was caried on regarding truck access to UPA and the number of trucks travelling there. Discussion of the PCA permit followed. as well as discussion of the likelihood of a shutdown if a violation occurred. emou SnONlR FUCHS MOVED TO TABLE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL GRANT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE RDF FACILITY UNTIL A 4TH DRAFT OF THE PERMIT INCORPORATING THE CHANGES AND CONCERNS ADDRESSED AT THIS MEETING HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY STAFF. COMMISSIONER MORTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. November 12, 1986 was established as the date for continuation of the public hearing. There being no further business. COMMISSIONER FUCHS MOVED THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. COMMISSIONER BARRETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:27 p.m. . Respectfully submitted. J)~oiWL ,{J~ Deborah Kleckner ~ Recording Secretary .