Loading...
06-23-2009 PC MINSPECIAL MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 2009 Members Present: Chair Scott, Commissioners Anderson, Ives, Lemke, Staul, and Westberg Members Absent: None Staff Present: City Administrator Lori Johnson, Environmental Administrator Rebecca Haug, and Recording Secretary Jessica Miller Call Meeting To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Planning Coniinission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Scott. 2• Consider 06 /23 /09 Planning Commission Agenda MOVED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STAUL TO APPROVE THE JUNE 23, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 3.1. Request by Elk River Landfill Inc for Land Use Amendment to Change the Land Use of Certain Protierty from Mining to Landfill Case No LU 09 01 John Kellas, Landfill Area Manager, presented a PowerPoint addressing concerns raised at the June 9, 2009 PC meeting. John Shardlow, Bonestroo -reviewed key Comprehensive Plan considerations and SDA consistency with the Plan as outlined in the PowerPoint. Gary Sauer, Chairman of the Board for Tiller Corporation -stated that one of the key assumptions made in the HKgI report stated that gravel mining will take place from 2009 - 2021 when in reality if the landfill doesn't expand the gravel mining will likely continue to at least 2070. Mr. Sauer also expressed concern with lost revenue from the landfill and with taxpayers inheriting the burden. Mr. Beck explained that a land use amendment is required for the landfill expansion in order to redesignate the property from gravel Honing to landfill. He explained that one factor for the Planning Commission to consider is the consistency of the proposal with the balance of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the landfill has done a good job of presenting their case on how the expansion is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He further explained that staff has evaluated the issue from an objective point of view which is the reason the consultant who prepared the Comprehensive Plan was retained to assist with evaluating the request. Btad Scheib, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc.- responded to questions raised by Waste Management related to the information presented by HKgI as outlined in the staff report. Plazming Commission Minutes June 23, 2009 Page 2 Ms. Johnson explained that staffls intent is to ensure that the Planning Commission and City Council understand the significance of this request and to provide as much information as possible so an educated decision can be made. Commissioner Staul indicated that both analyse show the overall benefit to the City as positive whether or not the landfill expansion is approved. He stated that he supports the request because it provides the city with an opportunity to assist an existing business without affecting the long-term goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Westberg questioned the landfill gas lifespan with expansion. Mr. Kellas stated that with emerging technologies, the landfill gas lasting unti12070 is a fair assumption. He noted that the plant would be running on only about four engines by about 2065. Commissioner Anderson questioned the landfill gas lifespan of the four engine plant with no expansion. Mr. Kellas stated approximately 30 years past the landfill closure (approximately 35 years from now). Commissioner Anderson questioned the ultimate height of the existing northern development as methane is extracted and what the long term view of southern development area would be. Mr. Kellas explained that the current waste mass equates fox about 100 feet. He stated that the southern development area is generally flat. Mr. Kellas added that Waste Management recently announced a joint venture nationally with INENT"EC, a company that recovers power from waste streams. Commissioner Anderson questioned the size of the existing site. Mr. Kellas indicated that the foot print of the property inside the waste mass is 65-70 acres. Commissioner Anderson stated he cannot support a change in the Comprehensive Plan because he sees having a 65-70 acre green space on the northern edge of the community as an asset. He added that he understands the economics and benefits of the landfill today but he cannot get over long term losses. He sees a landfill expansion as a significant future loss unless technology comes along that would assist with reclaiming land. Chair Scott acknowledged this is a big issue and sees positives whether or not the landfill expands. He stated that he is not comfortable recommending a land use change because not making a change offers the city and community more flexibility in future. Commissioner Lemke indicated he is struggling with agreeing to the Comprehensive Plan amendment tonight because he does not want it to be the approval for all future steps. He questioned what happens if the landfill closes. Ms. Johnson stated that an example of another landfill that closed in Sherburne County shows the tax value becomes insignificant and it basically becomes useless land. She added that the landfill she is referencing is 28 acres and has a tax value of approximately $10,000. Mr. Beck noted that the property would stay in Waste Management's ownership and they would be responsible for monitoring wells, etc. Mr. Kellas indicated that the gas plant would continue as well as closure, monitoring, and facility maintenance. He stated that Waste Management will continue to pay taxes on the property and they would hope that the property would be viewed and used as in one of the examples presented. Commissioner Lemke questioned end use regulations. Mr. Kellas stated that an end use plan is submitted to the MPCA for approval. Mr. Kellas added that that they understand there is a process that would need to be followed after approval. Mr. Shardlow explained that the Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2009 Page 3 technology is available to remediate landfills and as quickly as technology changes he urged the commission to understand the landfill doesn't have to be forever. Mr. Beck explained that the Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate the landfill expansion but amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are contemplated and it is not out of the ordinary to amend the Plan. He added that the amendment should not be undertaken lightly but should not be dismissed. He stated that the burden of the Planning Commission and City Council is to evaluate the proposed amendment against the Comprehensive Plan and the best interest of the city. Commissioner Lemke questioned if other approval steps will exist if the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved tonight. Mr. Beck explained that the decision whether or not to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is the decision whether or not to allow the landfill expansion. He added that if the Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved it would be unreasonable to deny the request for rezoning. He further explained that based on the city's experience with the landfill, there is every expectation that if we get to the Conditional Use Permit process the landfill would produce an application that deserves approval. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY ELK RIVER LANDFILL, INC. FOR LAND USE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM MINING TO LANDFILL, CASE NO. LU 09-01. Motion failed due to lack of a second. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER IVES AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STAUL TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY ELK RIVER LANDFILL, INC. FOR LAND USE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM MINING TO LANDFILL, CASE NO. LU 09-01. MOTION FAILED 2-4. Coinuussioners Anderson, Lemke, Westberg, and Scott opposed. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY ELK RIVER LANDFILL, INC. FOR LAND USE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM MINING TO LANDFILL, CASE NO. LU 09-O1. MOTION CARRIED 4-2. Commissioners Ives and Staul opposed. 3.2. Re uest b Elk River Landfill Inc. for Rezonin to Chan e the Zonin from Al Agricultural Conservation (Mineral Excavation) to Al SWFLAgricultural Conservation ISohd Waste Facility)- Case No ZC 09 01 MOVED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY ELK RIVER LANDFILL, INC. FOR REZONING TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM A1(ME) AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION (MINERAL EXCAVATION) TO A1(SWF), AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION (SOLID WASTE FACILITY), CASE NO. ZC 09-01. MOTION CARRIED 4-2. Commissioners Ives and Staul opposed. Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2009 4 Other Business There was no other business. 5. Adiou~, rnment There being no further business, the meeting of the Elk River Planning Coininission adjourned at 8:04 p.m. Minutes repared by es ica Miller. ~~~ Tina Allard City Clerk ~ ~~ Kevin Scott Acting Chair Page 4