Loading...
11-12-1986 PC MIN . . . SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AT THE ELK RIVER SENIOR HIGH COMMONS AREA WEDNESDAY. NOVEMBER 12. 1986 Members Present: Acting Chairman Barrett. Commissioners Temple. Fuchs. Kropuenske. Morton and K~ball Members Absent: Chairman Wilson Staff Present: Pat Klaers. City Administrator; Peter Beck. City Attorney; Terry Maurer. City Engineer; and Dave Sellergren. City Attorney Dirk Barrett. Acting Chairman. called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. 10/21/86 Council Minutes Commissioner Temple indicated that on page 1. fourth paragraph. "Chairman Wilson" should replace the words Chairman Tralle. COMMISSIONER AS AMENDED . FUCHS MOVED TO APPROVE THE 10/21/ 86 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES COMMISSIONER MORTON SECONDED THE MOTION. . . THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. SOLID WASTE ORDINANCE Peter Beck. the City's Attorney. explained that the City is attempting to adopt an ordinance to create a new solid waste facilities zoning district which take into consideration certain types of solid waste facilities. and further that these facilities would need a license to operate in the City of Elk River. Mr. Beck then proceeded to explain the changes proposed in the draft ordinance. The following is a brief explanation of the recommended changes by Mr. Beck. the City's Attorney. 1) Mr. Beck explained that the solid waste facilities would be an overlay zoning district and. therefore could retain the underlying zoning and could be used as a solid waste facility with a license and conditional use permit. Mr. Beck noted that this was recommended by NSP. 2) Language was added on page two of Section 900.12. 3) Page 3. an amendment to cross reference of zoning ordinance and solid waste ordinance. 4) Section 604.08. Mr. Beck noted that the .15 fee is only applicable to landfills and noted this was changed in the draft ordinance. 5) Section 604.10 revised to more clearly set forth the application of Council and City review procedures. . . . PAGE 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 12. 1986 6) Mr. Beck briefly explained the majority of changes in the draft ordinance to page #24 and at this time explained that there are smaller changes throughout the remainder of the ordinance. Acting Chairman Barrett questioned the hours of operation. Mr. Beck stated that the City Council will set hours of operation for individual facilities as they are licensed. Mr. Beck further noted that this was at the suggestion of the landfill operators. Commissoner Temple questioned what affect this ordinance would have on any facilities in the City currently operating if they are in violation of one or more of the regulations specified in the ordinance. Mr. Beck explained that the existing facilities would have to comply within 120 days. this ordinance compared with other noted that this ordinance is very other surrounding communities. Commissioner Kimball questioned how communities in the area. Mr. Beck comprehensive compared with ordinances in Acting Chairman Barrett opened the public hearing. Roger Miller. Attorney for NSP, 402 Dovers Bank Building, S. St. Paul made the following comments regarding the draft ordinance. 1) He stated that the present zoning regulations coupled with the conditional use permit is a effective means in which to carry out the objectives of the City without this license and ordinance regulations. 2) Stated that the detailed license requirement standards for license should obviate any requirements for a conditional use permit. 3) Stated the solid waste facility should be a permitted use with the only requirement to be licensing. 4) Questioned if a conditional use permit is required, and if so. does each of the uses require a separate conditional use permit or do all the facilities come under one conditional use permit? 5) 604.04(5) - What is intended by the word stored? Some material may be left on the site for a short time, is this permissible? 6) 604.08(2) - Stated that fees can only be imposed as a fee on landfill according to State Statute. feels it is unfair to impose a fee three times for the; processing plant, burn facility and landfill. 7) 604.10(f) - Is best available technology meant for conditional use permit or license? Also felt best available technology is a vague term from an operating standpoint. Stated the term is not defined in the ordinance. 8) 604.12 - Stated that the insurance should be the maximum amount required by the City Ordinance. . . . PAGE 3 Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 1986 9) 604.14 (1 & 2) - #2 should state even numbered year. 10) 604.14 (3) (b&c) violations and distinguish from - Stated violations should be characterized as material also material violations should be taken into account to technical violations. 11) 604.28 - Redundant and duplicative possibly be a conflict between sufficient. regulations. There could Feels the State laws are of the state two. 12) 604.28(2)(K&L) - Feels this materials should be able to be furnished in a timeframe of not less than 90 days from the operation of the facility. 13) 604.28(3)(0) - Questioned the type inappropriate to the power plant. of attendant, felt this was 14) 604.28(4)(d) - Power plant is operated 24 hours per day, cannot operate with any hours of restriction on the power plant. (g) Clarify that the ordinance does not speak to fossil fuel residue, but only to RDF residue. (k) What is the performance test required? Feels this is duplicative of state requirements. 15) 604.30(3)(n&0) - Questioned stacking and fencing. 16) 604.34 - Feels this should be material violations. This concluded Mr. Miller's comments. Chirs Kreger of the Elk River Landfill - 22460 Highway 169 gave a brief history of the Elk River Landfill. He further stated he has never been aware of the City s interest in adopting a Solid Waste Ordinance. Mr. Kreger stated that he objected to being regulated three times by the County, City and MPCA. He stated that MPCAis rules are 600 pages long and felt this was adequate. Mr. Kreger stated that if this ordinance were passed, he would have a problem with the bond regulations. He noted that any person wanting to start a small business could not come up with a $100,000 bond. and further that a sanitary landfill could not get bonding. Mr. Kreger stated that he felt if the City wishes to regulate the landfill, they should put up the money themselves. Mr. Kreger indicated that he disagreed with the definition of Codisposal being considered as dangerous waste. He stated that all material is dangerous. He noted that codisposal should be listed under mixed municipal waste instead of dangerous. . . . PAGE 4 Planning Commission Minutes November 12. 1986 Mr. Kreger stated he disagreed with the stated he could be charged with a complied with. He noted he felt he was portion of the proposed ordinance that misdemeanor if the ordinance was not being treated as a criminal. Mr. Murray McNair of 1227 Main Street stated he felt the proposed ordinance was a slap in the face to UPA. He stated the proposed ordinance would not regulate but would kill the plant. He stated he would not like to see this passed unless revised so as to be acceptable to UPA. Schroeder stated he was a 19 year resident of Elk River. He stated the City had the right and obligation to protect the Community and to it the safest place it can be. He stated he felt the City is doing a job in looking at the situation. Gerry that make good Mr. Tom Woods of 544 5th Street stated that applicants tell the City..."we can't control the burn plant; we cant tell them were to dispose of the ash, we can't tell them when to run the plant, or what roads to use." He noted that the public and applicants should be ready to accept local regulations. Mr. Woods further stated he would like to see more strict emissions control in the proposed ordinance, and would like to see something added to the ordinance to allow the City to pass stricter regulations than the State and MPCA. Commissioner Kropuenske stated that in order for the City to set higher standards they would have to hire outside consultants and this would triple expenses. Mr. John Baccus of 19718 Tyler Street stated he felt it was in the City's best interest to have local control so we can monitor NSP s actions and enforce the ordinance. He highly recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance and stated that licensing would be a good legal standpoint for the City to take. Mr. Ronald Myhre of 10022 175th Avenue stated he was very impressed with the Planning Commission and the City Council and the CCAPG. He noted he felt the ordinance is the best step the City can take from all angles. Mr. Ken Stoquist of 9121 Viking Boulevard stated he was a UPA Board Member. He noted he encourages the project and stated the ordinance may be too strict and may be a hindrance to other businesses wishing to locate in Elk River. He further noted that he was more worried about the water from the landfill that the emissions from the garbage burning plant. Mr. Lloyd Milguard of 15571 NE 9th Street stated he has been to many meetings regarding this subject and feels everything he hears is negative. He would like to see more answers as to what can be done about the situations. Marilyn Schroeder of 13575 Highland Drive stated she is concerned about the public health of the people in the community. She noted the dioxins and furons are her main concerns. She stated that many people move to Elk River because of the clean air and she noted that we may be adding more pollution to the environment with the proposed garbage burning plant. . . . PAGE 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 12. 1986 Marlene Hintges of 12137 223rd Avenue stated she felt the staff and Council are doing something to keep the air clean in Elk River by proposing the Solid Waste Facility Ordinance. She noted the City should be aware of where the ash is going and further stated her concern about the traffic control. Ms. Hintges stated that if the ordinance is accepted. it will send a message to MPCA, the Legislature and the world that we in Elk River really care. Acting Chairman Barrett closed the public hearing at this time. City Attorney, Peter Beck, responded to Attorney Miller's responses to the proposed ordinance. In response to Mr. Miller's question of making the facility a permitted use, Mr. Beck stated that he would recommend the CUP because it affords the City the most amount of control. He noted that both the CUP and the license is duplicative and stated it was set up this way so we don't have to add licensing requirements to the City's Zoning Ordinance. In response to Mr. Miller's comments on page 7 - storage of hazardous waste, Mr. Beck stated that he recommends the Planning Commission clarify the term temporary storage materials that come through the plant. Mr. Beck stated that the section regarding fees will be revised. He noted the fees are for regulating and stated the language would be amended to clarify this. In response to Mr. Miller's comment on the best available technology, Mr. Beck stated he felt the ordinance was clear enough in guiding the City in making future decisions in any other facilities and stated he felt no need to incorporate federal and state regulations. Mr. Beck responded to Mr. Miller's comments regarding the lowering of the insurance coverage to equal the City's maximum by questioning if the City wants to limit the public protection. Mr. Beck responded to Mr. Miller's comments regarding the ordinance being redundant and duplicative by stating that the intent was to give the City a chance to look at and make decisions about the facility. Mr. Beck stated that regarding the hours of operation, each request would be handled in a case by case situation and felt there would be no change required. Mr. Beck commented on Mr. Miller's concern regarding the ordinance regulating fossil fuel. He stated the ordinance is not directed toward fossil fuel. Mr. Kropuenske stated that he was not quite sure how to vote on the proposed ordinance. He stated the City already has zoning and conditional use permit to control and protect the City and stated that now the City is looking at a very restrictive ordinance pointed to limited industries. PAGE 6 Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 1986 . Mr. Kropuenske questioned how future industries would view coming to the City of Elk River if they find that restrictive ordinances have been established. He noted that UPA has been a good neighbor and stated the economic impact on our community must be considered. He further stated he does not want to pollute the air and stated there is a broad scope to be looked at. Acting Chairman Barrett stated he agreed with Commissioner Kropuenske in that the City can't be too restrictive on the industry side, but further stated that they must look at the public concerns regarding health, safety and welfare. He stated he felt there is some local control necessary. He stated he was concerned about the term of "best available control and technology" and felt there should be a better definition of this. Commissioner Fuchs stated he was concerned that the RDF would be an addition to the City of Elk River. He stated that he felt the MPCA should be able to regulate and that he does not like to duplicate their regulations. Commissioner Kimball stated his concern regarding the traffic issue. Commissioner Kropuenske stated his concern regarding the potential power the ordinance gives the Council such as the hours of operation and traffic on the roads when this has no affect with pollutants in the air. . The Planning Commission recessed for fifteen minutes. The Planning Commission reconvened. COMMISSIONER KROPUENSKE MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE WITH MINOR REVISIONS AS ADDRESSED BY COUNSEL, PETER BECK; THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS CONCERNED WITH THE ORDINANCE BEING TOO SPECIFIC IN THE CONTROL OF THE HOURS OF OPERATION AND THE TRANSPORTATION LIMITS; AND FURTHER IF OTHER AGENCIES HAVE SIGNIFICANT STANDARDS OF OPERATION THAT THE CITY NOT DUPLICATE THESE STANDARDS. COMMISSIONER FUCHS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND HEIGHT VARIANCE City Attorney, Dave Sellergren, noted that many of the changes were previously discussed at the last Planning Commission Meeting held October 28. 1986. The City Attorney briefly discussed the amendments to the Conditional Use Permit as shown in DRAFT 1/4. Acting Chairman Barrett opened the public hearing. Attorney, Roger Miller, made the following comments regarding the conditional use permit: . 1) #1 - Mr. Miller stated that the Emission Facility Permit No. was incorrect and stated the correct number to be 147A-86-0T-l. 2) #10 States that Main Street cannot be used. Mr. Miller stated he would like UPA to have an opportunity to explore this. . . . PAGE 7 Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 1986 3) #20 Would like to see RDF residue added so as not to get confused with fossil fuel. 4) #21 Mr. Miller felt #21A relating to the Permittee paying direct costs incurred was unreasonable. Mr. Miller commented on item #21B. 5) Mr. Miller noted that item #23 should state Attention "Plant" Manager and further that UPA's address is as follows: Attn: Manager, Plant Operations, Elk River, MN 55330. 6) #24 - Mr. Miller stated this should state Bi-Annual. Acting Chairman Barrett closed the public hearing. Terry Maurer, City Engineer, explained that at the last public hearing the drainage material had just been received so he had no recommendation or comments at that time. Mr. Maurer explained the drainage at this time. Mr. Maurer stated that he felt the comments received from NSP prior to tonight's meeting are sufficient and stated they would make appropriate changes and submit detailed drawings at a later date. Duane Kropuenske suggested wording after the words "the Facility shall use Counc il . " the following change on item #10 - delete all "Burn Facility shall use", and add the following - highways and streets as negotiated with the City Commissioner Temple noted there sentence in #15. She further changed to overground. was noted an error in the wording in the first that the word underground should be City Attorney. Dave Sellergren, responded to Mr. Miller's comments to the Draft #4 Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Morton Highway #10 and 169. residential homes on 169 intersection has stated that he did not agree with using anything but He noted that the alternate route would be going by two a regular basis. and further that Main Street and Highway poor traffic congestion already. Commissioner permit that Morton stated that he would like included in the conditional use any access be either on or from Highway #10 or Highway #169. Commissioner noted that Highway 169. Fuchs noted that he agreed with Commissioner Kropuenske. He if the State Highway Department does not allow the accesses from then Main Street may have to be used. . . . PAGE 8 Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 1986 OOMMISSIONER KROPUENSKE MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT RESOLUTION (DRAFT 14) GRANTING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND HEIGHT VARIANCE DRAFT 1/4 BE ACCEPTED WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES.... PAGE 2, PARAGRAPH 10 - ALL WORDING AFTER "BURN FACILITY SHALL USE" BE DELETED AND THE WORDS "TO HIGHWAYS AND STREETS AS NEGOTIABLE WITH THE CITY COUNCIL" BE ADDED; PAGE 3, PARAGRAPH 15, THAT THE WORD EQUIPMENT BE CORRECTED WITH THE PROPER WORDING AND THAT UNDERGROUND BE CHANGED TO ABOVEGROUND; PAGE 4, PARAGRAPH 20 .... THE WORD "RDF" BE INSERTED AFTER ALL REJECTS; PAGE 6, PARAGRAPH 23 .... "PLAN MANAGER" BE CHANGED TO "PLANT MANAGER" AND THAT THE ADDRESS FOR UNITED POWER ASSOCIATION BE INSERTED AS "ATTENTION MANAGER, PLANT OPERATIONS, ELK RIVER, MINESOTA 55330;" PAGE 6, PARAGRAPH 24 - "SEMI-ANNUAL" BE CHANGED TO "BI-ANNUAL"; AND FURTHER THAT THE EMISSION FACILITY PERMIT NO. BE CORRECTED TO READ "147A....86....0T-l"; PAGE 2, PARAGRAPH 3 - THE WORDS "AS PRESENTED BY NSP"BE ADDED AFTER THE WORDS "CONSTRUCTION PLANS". MARY TEMPLE SECONDED THE MOTION. At this time much discussion from the audience was held regarding the truck traffic using Main Street. A majority of the people from the audience speaking were opposed to the trucks using Main Street. COMMISSIONER MORTON AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE "THAT TRUCK TRAFFIC ENTERING OR EXITING THE PROCESSING FACILITY OR THE BURN FACILITY SHALL USE ONLY STREETS OR HIGHWAYS AS NEGOTIATED WITH THE CITY'COUNCIL AVOIDING THI UOI 0' MAIN STREET' OR RESIDENTIAL STREETS IF POSSIBLE." COMMISSIONER TEMPLE SECONDED THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION. COMMISSONER KROPUENSKE AND AND COMMISSIONER TEMPLE INDICATED THEY WOULD ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION. THE MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 4-2. COMMISSIONER KIMBALL AND ACTING CHAIRMAN BARRETT VOTED AGAINST THE MOTION. There being no further business, COMMISSIONER BARRETT MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AND COMMISSIONER TEMPLE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. The Elk River Planning Commission Meeting Adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Sandy Thackeray r{,. (, \:)6/.\.../v" ndl-e...' Recording Secretary