Loading...
06-09-2009 PC MINMEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 2009 Members Present: Chair Scott, Commissioners Anderson, Ives, Staul and Westberg Members Absent: Commissioner Lemke Staff Present: Lori Johnson, City Administrator, Jeremy Barnhart, Planning Manger; Chris Leeseberg, Park Planner, Rebecca Haug, Environmental Administrator; Peter Beck, City Attorney; Debbie Huebner, Recording Secretary 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 Scott. 2. Consider 06/09/09 Planning Commission Agenda MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STAUL AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTBERG TO APPROVE THE JUNE 9, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 3.1. Consider 4/ 14/09 Planning Commission Minutes MOVED BY COMMISSIONER IVES AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STAUL TO APPROVE THE APRIL 14, 2009 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED 5- 0. 3.2. Consider 5/12/09 Planning Commission Minutes MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STAUL AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTBERG TO APPROVE THE MAY 12, 2009 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Planning Commission Representative to Attend City Council Meeting Commissioner Westberg will attend the June 15, 2009 City Council meeting. 5.1. Request by Knife River for Conditional Use Permit to Amend Existing Permit to Allow Washing Operation, Public Hearing — Case No. CU 09-14 Rebecca Haug presented the staff report. Knife River wishes to amend their existing conditional use permit to place a portable wash plant at the Ernest Toth site. She explained how the wash plant water would be recycled and stored. Ms. Haug stated that noise levels must meet EPA requirements and dust is covered in the MPCA permit. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and drainage plan. Staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that all comments in the memo dated June 4, 2009 from Liesch Associates, Inc. shall be addressed. Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2009 --------------------------- Chair Scott opened the public hearing. Page 2 Ron Klinker, representative for Knife River - Stated that the closest residence is 2,000 feet east of the proposed wash site, and the next closest residence is 3,300 feet north. He explained that the process involves recycling of the wash water, with additional water only added as needed. Since the water draw is quite small, the impact on the water in the area is minimal. He stated that they will respond to any problems immediately. Eileen Schulz, 116612251h Avenue - asked if there would be any change in the hours of operation with the wash site. Mr. Klinker stated no, the hours would remain the same as the musing. There being no other public continent, Chair Scott closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER IVES, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTBERG TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY KNIFE RIVER FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW GRAVEL WASHING/PROCESSING OPERATIONS AT THE ERNEST TOTH MINING SITE, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. ALL COMMENTS FROM THE MEMO DATED JUNE 4, 2009 FROM MARK OLSON, LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC. SHALL BE ADDRESSED. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 5.2. Request by Q of Elk River for Ordinance Amendment to Land Use Regulations Regarding Massage Therapy in the DT Downtown District, Public Hearing - Case No. OA 09-03 Chris Leeseberg presented the staff report. He noted that the City Council authorized staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to remove therapeutic massage as a conditional use in the Downtown District. Staff recommends approval of the amendment as proposed. Chair Scott opened the public. There being no one to speak to this issue, Chair Scott closed the public hearing. MOTION BY ANDERSON, SECONDED BY WESTBERG TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUEST TO REMOVE THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT, CASE NO. OA 09-03. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 5.3. Request byElk River Landfill, Inc. for Land Use Amendment to Change the Land Use of Certain Property from Mining to Landfill, Public Hearing - Case No. LU 09-01 Rebecca Haug presented the staff report. She provided an overview and history of the existing landfill. She also provided information regarding Waste Management's proposal to expand, as detailed in her staff report to the Commission dated June 9, 2009. Ms. Haug stated that although the Comprehensive Plan contemplates amendment, it also states the plan should not be amended capriciously. A great deal of thought, time and energy went into the creation of this Plan, and the same effort must go into any Planning Conunission Minutes June 9, 2009 --------------------------- Page 3 amendment. She continued by stating that in order to consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan the following should be considered: 1) Is the project consistent with the land use plan? 2) Does the project move Elk River towards its vision for the future? 3) Is the project consistent with the policies contained in the Plan? Ms. Haug stated that the issue is not with Waste Management and how they operate the landfill. She noted that they have been a good corporate citizen and use state-of-the-art technology. The issue is whether a significant expansion of this land use is consistent with the Gty's policies and goals as reflected in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Brad Scheib, Land Use Planner with Hoisington-Koegler — stated his firm was the primary author of the City of Elk River's Comprehensive Plan in 2004. He stated that one of the initiatives of the plan included working with the city last year to explore alternative land use options for the gravel mining area. Their charge was to look land use and fiscal impacts related to an expansion of the landfill. He reviewed direct and peripheral impacts (peripheral representing 2,000 ft. from the landfill) with two scenarios: 1) the existing landfill boundary, 2) landfill boundarywith the expansion. He stated that their assumptions were based on the marketplace, similar projects in Elk River, property values, phasing of the gravel mining and closing of the landfill in 2030. He stated that they came up with a model to demonstrate economic impacts with each scenario, factoring in the information provided the landfill and gravel mining companies. He stated that based on this information, they project a possible $400 million differentiation in property tax revenues between 2009 and 2080, should the landfill expand. He stated the potential job loss differentiation was similar to the tax base loss. Ms. Haug introduced John Kellas, representing Waste Management. Mr. Kellas, Area Manager, discussed benefits to the community provided bythe landfill. He stated that the landfill was established in 1972, and was the first landfill in the state to install a synthetic liner and leachate collection system. He stated that Waste Management took over in 1995. He discussed the methane recoveryproject which is a joint project with Elk River Municipal Utilities and Sherburne County, noting that the project received the EPA project of the year award. Mr. Kellas noted that Waste Management submitted a full application, including the conditional use permit request for the expansion, but that staff recommended the land use amendment and rezoning be reviewed first. Mr. Kellas provided a diagram of the process they have followed in planning for this expansion. He stated that they have gone through a very extensive regulatory process including EAW (Environmental Assessment Worksheet), EIS (Environmental Impact Statement), the MPCA, NPDES Permit, gas plant permits, Met Council permits, as well as Sherburne County, and are now seeking city approval. Mr. Kellas stated that Waste Management has spent $14 million paying vendors in the city of Elk River over the last five years. This figure does not take into account indirect benefits to the community such as patronizing local hotels, restaurants, and retail. He stated that their payroll is $1 million/year and employees have a combined 175 years of services. He stated that the average length of employment is 12 years and average employee salary is $65,000/year. He stated that property taxes, gravel mining fees, and landfill fees total $1 million/year. Mr. Kellas explained that the methane power generating facility produces green power for 7,500 homes and the number of engines will be increased from four to twelve. He noted that Waste Management contributes $50,000 in local donations. Mr. Kellas suggested that instead of the annual city clean up event, Waste Management could mail out a free coupon twice a year to each resident to drop off their items at the landfill. He noted they are continually working to expand the number of items that can be Punning Commission Minutes June 9, 2009 --------------------------- Page 4 disposed of at the site. He stated that there is a large wetland behind their facility and that they are working with Wildlife Habitat Council to preserve the area. He noted that the Environmental Learning Center has been very successful and have given manytours. He noted that the environmental learning center is the only one in North America. He stated that Waste Management supports the Energy City statement by providing the city with green power. Mr. Kellas stated that information is available on the EPA website, tracking 500 projects/companies that use landfill gas. He felt this was an opportunityto attract businesses and jobs to the area. Mr. Kellas provided a slide presentation of the project and the proposed progression of development. He concluded by stating that Waste Management feels that the project meets the city's goals. John Shardlow, of Bonestroo, representing Waste Management — provided his credentials in the planning and zoning field. He stated that he has assisted over 100 cites and counties in developing their comprehensive plans; he has provided planning and zoning training to elected and appointed officials for 29 years, and has been a land use/planning consultant with the City of Burnsville throughout that time. He noted that the City of Burnsville has three landfills. Mr. Shardlow discussed elements that must be considered in an amendment to a comprehensive plan. He discussed compatibility of the miring and landfill operations. He stated that the current plan guides the expansion for mining and that does not change and the only change is in the end use. He stated that he has discussed aesthetics with staff and that this issue will be looked at in the conditional use permit discussions. Mr. Shardlow stated that his firm was contracted by the State of Minnesota to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement for the landfill expansion project. He stated that a number of end use plans are available, and examples can be found around the country. He stated that the City has not shown any interest in anything other than passive recreation for the site. Mr. Shardlow noted that the city's zoning map dated March 30, 2009 labeled the area south of the existing landfill as Elk River Landfill. He stated that the expansion area is expected to be completed in 2033 and reclaimed as open space. Tiller has stated that if the expansion is not approved, they will not start mining this area for approximately40 years. He stated that the city would lose approximately $663,000 (6 cents/ton) in landfill tax and $14.9 million in property taxes (2010 — 2015). He stated that if the expansion does not happen, only $242,000 in property taxes would be generated between 2010 and 2030. Mr. Shardlow provided a comparison of revenues generated byMedtronics, Best Buy and the Elk River Landfill over a 30-year period He concluded that there would be a substantial loss of revenues to the city without the expansion, and he could not think of another use that would have the same benefit to the city. Mr. Shardlow stated that the only way to grow a business is to expand. He noted that the Ruprecht appraisal states that the expansion would not have a significant impact on property values. He discussed HKGi's report and questioned which studies were used and where they could be found. Mr. Shardlow stated that they feel Mr. Scheib's report makes a lot of assumptions and they question the accuracy of those assumptions. Mr. Shardlow stated that the staff report he received on Friday prior to this evening's meeting contained new information and there was not sufficient time to get their questions Planning Conuivssion Minutes Page 5 June 9, 2009 --------------------------- answered. He reviewed questions provided in a letter form and distributed to staff and the Planning Commission. Mr. Shardlow stated that the City of Burnsville has a market value of $6.7 billion. He noted that Burnsville Center is only 3 miles from a landfill and 2 miles from the heart of the city. He stated he has never heard any adverse comments about the landfills from a developer. Mr. Shardlow stated that Mr. Scheib does not identify the studies he used in making his assumptions and is anxious to hear answers to his questions. He asked how HKGi can predict the level of revenue loss, given the information from Tiller on their plans. He stated that they have fundamentally different views that Mr. Scheib on the impacts of the expansion, and questioned if his assumptions are accurate. Mr. Shardlow stated that there are various waste -to -energy projects happening around the world. He stated that it may not be unreasonable to imagine there could be a wayto convert waste to clean energy by the year 2080. Chair Scott opened the public hearing. Chair Scott encouraged members of the Commission to utilize the expertise of the CityAttorneyand City Administrator in helping them through the process. He asked that comments be focused on the land use and financial impacts, and the city as a whole. Stephen Rohlf, 11282 188th Avenue, Elk River - stated he was in favor of the expansion. He stated he had 22 years experience working for the City of Elk River, and worked closely with the land fill for 20 years and Waste Management for 10 years. He stated that not all garbage can or should be burned and it needs to go somewhere. He stated that Elk River Landfill voluntarily subjected themselves to be regulated bythe city in 1998. He explained that the city understood the capacity of the current landfill was 30 - 50 years. Mr. Rohlf stated that Waste Management was a tremendous corporate citizen and has contributed to charitable local organizations in including the Boys & Girls Club. He stated that business is environmentally sound and uses state-of-the-art technology. He noted that the landfill gas - to -energy project was awarded the 1998 US. Environmental Protection Agency Project of the Year. Mr. Rohlf stated that the soils in this area are extremely stratified and porous. He explained that a pre-existing landfill contamination problem took over a decade to figure out the hydrology of the area, and it was found the contamination was moving toward Rice Lake. He stated that Management has been doing the clean up, even though they were not responsible for the contamination. He stated that he would be more confident that Waste Management will complete the cleanup if they are allowed to continue operations, than if they were closed. Mr. Rohlf stated that he did not want to see his garbage going to an inferior landfill. He also did not agree with statements made bythe City's Economic Development Director in her memo dated June 4, 200, stating that he did not foresee any push for commercial development in this area for at least 20 - 30 years. He stated that as a taxpayer, he would not want to see a loss of $.5 million/year in revenue to the citythrough surcharge fees. He stated that the city would have to cut services or personnel. Gary Sauer, Tiller Corporation - stated that Tiller has operated in Elk River for over 30 years. He questioned the process used to make the assumptions stated in the HKGi report, and felt they were highly unrealistic. He stated that he is very aware of end use planning. He stated that Tiller began mining in the Maple Grove area in 1940 and they began planning the Arbor Lakes area in the 1980's. He stated that development began in the 1990's and that less than one-third of the property has been developed. Mr. Sauer stated mining and Panning Commission Minutes Page 6 June 9, 2009 --------------------------- development will continue for 40 — 60 years. He stated that the end use planning was a cooperative effort of the owners, citizens and city officials. Mr. Sauer stated that HKGi's studies are based on the gravel mining being completed in 2030. He stated that if the expansion is approved, they will expedite mining of the expansion area. If the expansion does not move forward, Tiller will not start mining in the expansion area for 40 years. It would take approximately20 years to mine out the reserves, so it will be approximately60 years or more before the property would be ready for development. He stated he felt the city's consultant's projections were fabricated to shock the Commission to a vote. Mr. Sauer stated that there a number of vendors that have high wage jobs depending upon the project. He felt the consultant's $400 million figure for lost revenues is unrealistic, as well as the statement that 2,000 jobs would be lost from this 100- acre site. He stated there is no 100-acre site in Elk River that provides 2,000 jobs. He stated that the process in Maple Grove was very open, but that has not been the case here. He stated that it would have been nice to be asked what their plans were. He stated that the focus of the study area was originally to have been the entire mining area, but somehow staff chose to focus on this 100-acre site. He stated he felt that staff is attempting to push the issue in a particular direction. Bruce Weaver, 13625 320th Avenue (Livonia Township) - he supports the project as a supervisor of a small business that depends on Waste Management. He stated that there would be a significant impact to many small businesses if the expansion is not approved. Shane Steinbrecher — He has operated a small roll -off business for 15 years and stated that having landfill nearby keeps his costs down. He stated that landfill staff helps sort out various materials he brings in so that they are disposed of properly. He noted he also utilizes Tiller's business to recycle concrete. He felt that Elk River Landfill has a state of the art operation and does everything they can to see that the environment is protected. Jeff Vassar, Site Manager for Waste Management — stated he has been with Elk River Landfill for many years. He stated that many jobs will be impacted if they are not able to expand. Ricky Solomen, Executive Director for the Boys and Girls Club — stated that 14 percent of their budget comes from Waste Management, their number one fonder, and that they receive a check from them every month. Terry Morrell, 10752 173td Avenue NW — stated that his family company is transitioning to their third generation. He stated that Waste Management is a good company to work for. He noted that Waste Management partnered with a local church to help resolve large soil contamination issues, so that the project could move forward. He stated that Waste Management provides local jobs and is involved in the community. Richard Toth, property owner — stated that his family owns the land to the southeast and is in favor of the expansion. Deb Walters, representative for Elk River Landfill, Inc./Waste Management — stated that she has been the District Manager for Waste Management for the 12 years. She asked that the Commission recommend approval of the expansion. Charles Schuldt, 12600 Ridgewood Drive — stated that he disagreed with the expansion in the past, but has changed his opinion somewhat. His concern was with the impact of the Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2009 --------------------------- Page 7 heavy truck traffic due to the mining and refuse haulers on Proctor Road. He felt improvements for the roads should be assessed to the mining companies and the landfill. He stated that he felt Waste Management was a good company, but should be accountable for maintenance of Proctor. Tom Schulz, 1611 Highway 169 - stated that he lives across from the landfill and owns 500 acres. He also is an employee of Elk River Landfill. He stated he has lived there for 30 years and has never had an issue with the landfill. Maureen Griffiths, 20760 York Street - stated that she has been a resident of Elk River for 16 years and is employed by Elk River Landfill. She stated that the company provides opportunities for growth. She stated that she has served on the board of the Energy City Commission, and enjoys teaching children about recycling and respecting the environment in the learning center. She stated that there are a large number of direct and indirect employees, as well as temporary labor that would be impacted if the expansion is not approved. She stated that Elk River Landfill is a good company to grow with, and that they are a good neighbor and good citizen. There being no further public comment, Chair Scott closed the public hearing. Commissioner Anderson stated that he was uneasy with the conflict between the reports by the City's consultant and Waste Management's consultant. He stated that he felt it would be in Tiller's best interest to expedite the mineral extraction. He stated he had concerns with reclaiming 99 acres for recreation. He stated that there were many more options for redevelopment of mining property versus landfill. He stated he had great concerns with the visual impact of landfill at the entrance to the city. Commissioner Anderson stated that he possibly could support a carefully written conditional use permit. Commissioner Westberg stated he concurred with Commissioner Anderson regarding the visual impact. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan does address the image element. He stated that he felt Waste Management presented a good case, regarding the City's Energy City goals. He stated that he felt buffers would be needed for any development around the landfill site. He stated that issues in the letter from Waste Management received this evening need to be looked at further. He noted that no one spoke in opposition of the request. Chair Scott stated he also had concerns that the assumptions of the two consultants who have very similar occupations were so different. He stated he would like to see consensus on the assumptions, and some effort to provide facts to support them. Commissioner Staul stated that all comments received this evening were in favor of the request and asked who was notified of the public hearing. He stated he would like more information. Chair Scott stated that surrounding property owners were notified of the public hearing. Ms. Haug provided a map of the area which was sent public hearing notices regarding the request. Commissioner Ives stated he had concerns with the timeliness of new information and felt more time may be needed to provide a response to Waste Management's questions presented in the letter this evening. City Attorney Peter Beck stated that potential impacts may be decades out and there is Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2009 Page 8 --------------- certainly room for differences of opinion. He stated that for the most part, he did not disagree with most of what was presented tonight. He felt there could be differences in assumptions. Mr. Beck stated that he did not feel a landfill was quite the benefit that was portrayed by Waste Management, and has not heard of any communities offering tax increment financing assistance to get a landfill. He noted that staff has always said there are pluses and minuses with this project. He stated that if the Commission would like, staff could take a look at the letter from Waste Management and respond to it. He stated that the Planning Commission needs to act on this issue no later than June 23, 2009 in order to stay on the 120-day schedule for City Council action. Mr. Beck explained that there is always a crunch to send out the staff report on Friday prior to a meeting and there was no attempt to blind side Waste Management; that is simplythe process. He stated that there is some time built into the schedule for the Planning Commission to further review the application by scheduling a special meeting on June 23rd. He noted that he did not feel the Commission will see agreement between the two parties, and that there is room for differences in opinion. Mr. Beck stated that staff needs to correct a couple of statements made by Waste Management, in particular regarding the land use map. He explained that that the land use of the existing land fill has clearly been Landfill, and the land use of the expansion area has been Mining. He also stated he would take strong exception to the comments from Tiller that staff has a predetermined result in mind. He noted that Steve Rohlf, who spoke earlier, was with the city for many years and worked with Waste Management, as did Rebecca Haug and he. He stated they have had a great relationship with Waste Management. Mr. Beck stated that he has never seen a staff position one way or the other on the issue. He stated they have attempted to have the application analyzed including the one most important issue — the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the city felt they needed to go to an outside consultant to help staff, the Planning Comrnission and City Council in that process. Mr. Beck stated there was not attempt to reach a conclusion, only to evaluate the issues and potential benefits, pluses and minuses. Mr. Beck stated that staff can look at the letter and ask Mr. Scheib to review the points that have been made by Waste Management. He asked that Elk River Landfill make sure staff receives copies of the PowerPoint slides so that they are part of the record. He stated that the city is not looking to make this an adversarial situation. He stated that the city will try to refine its analysis to see if it comes any closer to Waste Management's, but he did not feel the Commission will see one single position. He stated this is simply because there is a lot of speculation involved and the impacts are going to be decades from now. Chair Scott asked if it is possible the city and Waste Management's assumptions could potentially have more similarities, but that it is a matter of timing? Mr. Beck stated that tuning is certainly a big part of the issue. He noted that something that was glossed over in Waste Management's presentation was the fact that at least 90 acres will be completely undevelopable and will generate no revenue, since it will be full of garbage. This is a direct impact. Peripheral impacts include the 110 acres surrounding the site are up for speculation. He stated it is ultimately up to the City Council made the call whether or not to amend the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the city has known for a long time that this portion of the review would be fairly intensive from staff's point of view, and time has been budgeted to continue working on the issue, if needed. Chair Scott noted that this topic has generated significantly more data than other issues the Planning Commission has reviewed. He suggested that the request be continued in order to allow staff and the applicant time to review some of the background information used in Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2009 Page 9 --------------------------- formulating their respective assumptions, and also to give the Commission time to think about what was presented this evening. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER IVES TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST BY ELK RIVER LANDFILL, INC. FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM MINING TO LANDFILL, CASE NO. LU 09-01. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER IVES TO AMEND THE MOTION TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST TO A SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON JUNE 23, 2009 AT 6:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 5.4. Request by Elk River LandfillInc for Rezoning to Change the Zoning from AI Agricultural Conservation to SWF (Solid Waste Facility Public Hearing Case No ZC 09 01 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER IVES TO POSTPONE THE REQUEST BY ELK RIVER LANDFILL, INC. FOR A REZONING TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM 1A AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION TO SWF SOLID WASTE FACILITY, CASE NO. ZC 09-01, TO A SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 23, 2009. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 6. Ocher Business - None 7. Adjournment There being no further business, MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STAUL TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Minutes prepared b bbie Huebner. Tina Allard City Clerk Kevin Scott Acting Chair