5.6. & 5.7. PCSR 05-11-2010~j
E1 REQUEST FOR ACTION
River
To Item Number
Ci Council 5.6. & 5.7.
Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by
Communi Develo meat Se tember 21, 2009 Lori ohnson, Ci Administrator
Item Description Reviewed by
5.6. Request by Elk River Landfill, Inc. for Land Use
Amendment to change the Land Use of Certain Reviewed by
Property from Mining to Landfill, Public Heatuig-
Case No. LU 09-01 and
5.7. Request by Elk River Landfill, Inc. for Rezoning to
change the zoning from Al (ME) Agricultural
Conservation (Mineral Excavation) to AI (SWF),
Agricultural Conservation (Solid Waste Facility),
Public Heari -Case No. ZC 09-01
Action Requested
Consider request by Elk River Landfill, Inc. (ERL} for a land use amendment to change the land use of
certain property from mining to landfill, and to rezone to change the zoning from Al (ME) agricultural
conservation (mineral excavation) to AI (SWF?, agricultural conservation {solid waste facility). Action to
deny or approve these items must be taken by September 26, 2009.
BackgroundlDiscussion
At the September 14, 2009, Council worksession, ERL representatives presented their design
modifications as submitted to the City on September 8. ERL's request, however, remains the same as
originally submitted, which is to amend the land use for 109 acres known as the Southern Development
Area (SDA) from mining to landfill, and to rezone those 109 acres from agricultural conservation
(mineral excavation) to agricultural conservation (solid waste facility).
In response to ERL's design modifications, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. (HKGi) updated the
property and host fee annual impact and employment estimates and prepared revised charts that were
included in the September 14 staff report. Based on the design modifications, there is still a sizable
difference in the future property tax revenue generated under the two scenarios of expansion as requested
and no expansion. The design modifications to add approximately 23 acres to future commercial
development narrow the gap in tax revenues. The reduction in landfill footprint and additional
commercial development area reduces but does not eliminate the substantial difference in future market
value and property tax revenue that could be generated if there is no landfill expansion.
At the August 17 meeting, the City Council scheduled another public hearing so that the public may have
the opportunity to express its views on the information presented at the September 14 meeting.
Therefore, the Mayor must open the public hearing to take additional public comment on ERL's request
for a land use amendment and rezoning.
S:\Council\Lori\2009\Landfill memo 09 2109.doc
Finally, the Council must take action on this item by September 26, 2009. City Attorney Peter Beck has
prepared revised resolutions for Council consideration based on the design modifications submitted by
ERL. Action of the Council to approve or deny ERL's applications as noted above must be taken by
adopting the appropriate resolution to either approve or deny the request for a land use amendment and
rezoning of 109 acres.
Attachments
Resolution Approving the Application of the Elk River Landfill, Inc. for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Rezoning to Allow Expansion of the Elk River Landfill (Requires four votes for
approval.)
Resolution Denying the Application of the Elk River Landfill, Inc. for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Rezoning to Allow Expansion of the Elk River Landfill
Comment Letters from Angela. Mathison, Ridges of Rice Lake Resident; Michael Caron, Tiller
Corporation; and Wayne Hanson, Great River Energy
Action Motion by Second by Vote
Follow Up
S:\Council\Lori\2009\Landfill memo 09 21 09.doc
RESOLUTION 09-
A Resolution Approving the Application of Elk River Landfill, tnc. for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning to Allow Expansion of the Elk
River Landfill
WHEREAS, Elk River Landfill, Inc. (ERL), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Waste
Management, Inc. (WM>), is the owner and operator of the Elk River Landfill (Landfill}; and
WHEREAS, Capital Land Group, a land holding company for Tiller Corporation (Tiller), is
the owner of an approximately 109-acre parcel of land identified as the Southern Development Area
(SDA) located immediately south of the existing Landfill; and
WHEREAS, ERL and Tiller have submitted a land use application (Application) to the City
requesting:
An amendment to the City's 2004 Comprehensive Plan to amend the Land
Use Map Element of the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation of the 109-
acre SDA from "Mining" to "Landfill"; and
2. An amendment to the City of Elk River Zoning Map to rezone the 109-acre
SDA from A-1(ME), Agricultural Conservation (Mineral Excavation), to A-1(SWF),
Agricultural Conservation (Solid Waste Facility); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes and the Elk River City
Code, the Application was referred to the City of Elk River Planning Commission for the purpose
of holding a public hearing and making a recommendation to the Elk River City Council on the
Application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Application on June 9,
2009, at which time ERL, WMI, Tiller and their consultants were provided as much time as they
desired to present the Application and all information and data they desired in support of the
Application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission took testimony from all members of the public who
desired to speak at the June 9, 2009 public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission closed its public hearing on the Application on June
9, 2009, but continued its discussion of the Application to a special meeting on June 23, 2009; and
WHEREAS, ERL, WMI and Tiller were provided the opportunity to submit additional
testimony and written materials for the record prior to and at the Planning Commission's June 23,
2009 continued discussion of the Application; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2009, the Elk River Planning Commission adopted a resolution
recommending to the Elk River City Council that the Application for a comprehensive plan
amendment and rezoning of the SDA be denied; and
WHEREAS, the Elk River City Council, on July 6, 2049, held a public hearing on the
Application and considered the Planning Commission's recommendation; and
WHEREAS, ERL, WMI, Tiller and all members of the public desiring to speak at the July 6,
2009 public hearing before the City Council were provided the opportunity to do so; and
WHEREAS, all written materials submitted by ERL, WMI, Tiller, and all other members of
the public prior to and at the public hearing on July 6, 2009 were accepted into the record; and
WHEREAS, during the July 6, 2009 public hearing, the City Council discussed the merits of
the Application, directed that staff prepare alternative resolutions denying and approving the
Application, and continued the public hearing to its regular meeting of August 17, 2009, in order to
provide ERL, WMI, and Tiller the opportunity to present additional materials to address issues
raised iu the staff reports, during the public hearing, and by the City Council during their discussion;
and
2
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2009, the Elk River City Council continued with the public
hearing on the Application and provided ERL, WMI and Tiller, as well as all members of the public
desiring to do so, the opportunity to present additional testimony and written evidence to the Ciry
Council; and
WHEREAS, after all parties desiring to present testimony and offer evidence fox or against
the Application had had the opportunity to do so, the Elk River Ciry Council closed the public
hearing on the Application and continued its discussion of the Application; and
WHEREAS, by letter dated July 15, 2009, and at the August 17, 2009 City Council hearing,
ERL requested an opportunity to present additional materials and a revised plan to the City Council
in a workshop session; and
WHEREAS, at the close of its session on August 17, 2009, the Elk River City Council
directed:
• That any additional materials be submitted so that a staff report could be distributed
to the Ciry Council on September 8, 2009;
• That the Application be placed on the Ciry Council's regular workshop agenda fox
September 14, 2009;
• That the September 14, 2009 workshop session regarding the landfill be a joint
meeting with the City of Elk River Planning Commission; and
• That the Application be scheduled fox another public hearing at the City Council's
regularly scheduled meeting of September 21, 2009; and
WHEREAS, representatives of ERL and Ciry Staff met on August 25, 2009 and September
8, 2009 to review additional materials submitted by ERL regarding the Application, including a
revised plan for the landfill expansion, a report entitled "Is Landfill Expansion a Good Investment
for Elk River" (the "Voith Report") and a letter dated September 1, 2009 (revised September 8,
2009) outlining design modifications to the expansion proposal, the end use plan for the landfill, and
other issues; and
WHEREAS, City Staff and City consultants reviewed the revised plans, the Voith Report,
the September 8, 20091etter and all other materials submitted by ERL, and prepared a staff report
which was delivered to the City Council and Planning Commission, along with all of the materials
submitted by ERL, on September 8, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission met in joint workshop session on
September 14, 2009 to discuss the materials submitted by ERL, including the revisions to the
expansion proposal for the Landfill; and
WHEREAS, ERL was provided an opportunity to present its revised plans and proposed
design modifications for the expansion to the City Council and the Planning Commission at the
September 14, 2009 workshop session and the City Council had the opportunity to discuss and ask
questions regarding the revised proposal; and
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2009 the Elk River City Council held a public hearing on the
Application and provided ERL, WMI and Tiller, as well as all members of the public desiring to do
so, the opportunity to present additional testimony and comment on the Application, as revised, and
to submit additional written evidence; and
WHEREAS, after all parties desiring to present testimony and offer evidence for or against
the Application had had the opportunity to do so, the Elk River City Council closed the public
hearing on the Application, continued its discussion of the Application, and reached the decision
incorporated in this resolution; and
WHEREAS, ERL has agreed in writing to an extension o£ the City's time deadline for acting
on the application under Minnesota Statutes, Section 15.99 to September 26, 2009.
4
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Ciry of Elk River makes the following
Findings of Fact and Decision with respect to the Application of ERL, WMI, and Tiller for a
comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning of the SDA to allow expansion of the Landfill:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Landfill was first approved to operate on 40 acres of land in 1971 and first
permitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in 1972.
2. The Landfill was granted its first approvals and permits by the City of Elk River
pursuant to the City's Solid Waste Facilities Ordinance in 1988.
3. In 1997, the Ciry granted approval for the Landfill to expand the area approved for
Mixed Solid Waste (MSW) disposal from its original 40 acres to the current 93-acre footprint.
4. In 1988, the Landfill received approval from Livonia Township to expand the area
approved for construction and demolition debris disposal (C & D) to a total permitted footprint of
75 acres.
5. The Mixed Solid Waste and Construction and Demolition Debris operations at the
Landfill therefore currently cover 168 acres.
6. The Application originally proposed the development of additional MSW disposal
space on 8.6 acres on the southern most portions of existing Landfill property and on 60.2 acres of
the SDA, an increase in the MSW disposal area within the Landfill from the existing 93 acres to a
total of 162 acres, or an expansion of approximately 75 percent.
7. As revised, the Application proposes an increase in the MSW disposal area within the
Landfill of 49.3 acres, an expansion of over 50%.
8. Total MSW and C & D disposal areas at the Landfill would be approximately 217
acres if the Application is approved.
9. The proposed expansion of the Landfill would extend the life of the Landfill beyond
its current expected closing date. The Application as revised proposes that the Landfill would close
no later than 2029 if the Application is approved.
10. The City of Elk River has been proactively planning fox its future and regulating
solid waste facilities since the 1980's. The City adopted its Solid Waste Facilities Ordinance in 1986,
and the Landfill was rezoned to the Solid Waste Facilities C-verlay Zoning District in 1988.
11. The City adopted its first growth management plan in 1988 and its first
comprehensive plan in 1995. The City's current comprehensive plan (the Comprehensive Plan) was
adopted on August 16, 2004.
12. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan consists of 13 elements, including the Land Use
Element. The Land Use Plan incorporated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan
designates the current Landfill as "Landfill" and the proposed expansion area (the SDA) as
"Mining". The designation of the SDA as Mining has not been changed since adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan in 2004.
13. Changing the designation of the SDA from Mining to Landfill on the Land Use Map
requires the approval and adoption of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan by the City
Council, as provided by Minnesota Statutes.
14. The Comprehensive Plan states that it should not be amended capriciously and that
the following questions should be considered when changes to the Comprehensive Plan are
proposed:
Is the project consistent with the Land Use Plan?
Does the project move Elk River towards its vision for the future?
Is the project consistent with the policies contained the Comprehensive Plan?
6
15. Policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan which are relevant to the Application
include:
• Provide a balanced land use pattern which supports a sustainable mix of jobs and
housing.
• Guide the scale of development to be consistent with the surrounding land uses and
general character.
• Guide commercial land use to areas that can utilize an appropriately-designed
transportation system without infringing upon residential neighborhoods.
• Allow commercial areas to develop when they can be designed to be compatible with
surrounding land uses.
• Include adequate buffering of commercial and industrial developments and adjacent
to non-compatible land uses.
• Require adequate transition of buffers between differing, non-compatible land uses,
making use of natural land characteristics, whenever possible.
• Require development of proposals to consider the impacts on transportation and
natural systems beyond the boundaries of the individual projects.
16. Throughout the Comprehensive Plan there is an emphasis on attracting
commercial/industrial development. This is important to the City as this type of development
builds a community's tax base and creates more job opportunities.
17. Another fundamental element mentioned throughout the Comprehensive Plan is the
need to establish and maintain a positive community image by maintaining the edges and buffers
that define and protect adjacent land uses.
18. Preservation of open spaces is also an important policy and goal of the
Comprehensive Plan.
19. The Comprehensive Plan provides that the gravel mining area of the City, which is
located along both sides of North Highway 169 and includes the SDA, be guided for future
development of commercial and industrial uses. This area of the City is envisioned by the City
Council as the future economic engine of the City. The goal is to have this area develop with
commercial and industrial uses as the gravel is mined out. The tax base generated by commercial
7
and industrial development in this area is intended to support the financial viability of residential
development throughout the City by making it possible to maintain municipal services without
increasing taxes. Although this is very long range planning, and. there are not yet timetables for
extending public utilities into this area to serve those future uses, this is the vision of the
Comprehensive Plan and the City Council for this area of the City. The SDA is also located
adjacent to the future Highway 169/2215L Avenue Interchange, which has great potential for future
commercial/industrial development.
20. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan was prepared with the assistance of the planning firm
of Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc.(HKGi). In anticipation of the proposed expansion of the
Landfill the City retained HKGi to take a closer look at the potential impacts of an expansion of the
Landfill on the gravel mining area of the City. HKGi's report, the North Highway 169 Land Use
Study, dated November 10, 2008, identified a number of potential impacts related to an expansion
of the Landfill and suggested land use, transportation and aesthetic strategies for addressing these
impacts.
21. Following receipt of the Application to expand the Landfill, the City retained HKGi
to take a closer look at the immediate area which would be potentially impacted by a Landfill
expansion and to analyze the potential financial and fiscal impacts on the City of an expansion of the
Landfill. HKGi's report on these issues is dated June 2, 2009, was subsequently updated on June 15,
2009, and was updated again on September 8, 2009, following submission by ERL of its revised plan
for expansion of the Landfill. (The HKGi November 10, 2008, June 6, 2009, June 15, 2009 and
September 8, 2009 reports are hereafter collectively referred to as the "HKGi reports".)
22. The HKGi reports project potential significant impacts of Landfill expansion on
economic development in this area of the City and on future tax revenues generated from the SDA
and the surrounding area.
8
23. ERL, WMI, Tiller and their consultants have strongly contested the methodology
and findings of the HKGi reports, and the City Council has listened to and carefully considered the
evidence and testimony presented by the applicants and their consultants. The City Council also
recognizes the inherent difficulty in attempting to project the potential impacts of a current land use
on future development which may or may not occur decades from now.
24. The City Council recognizes that there are positive economic impacts to the City
while operations at the Landfill are on-going, including the host fees which the City collects from
the Landfill and the business which ERL does with local residents and businesses. These economic
benefits to the city will be extended if the Landfill expands.
25. The Ciry Council finds that the revisions to the Application proposed by ERL,
including: reducing the additional MSW disposal space from 60.2 acres to 49.3 acres; increasing the
area available for future development at the Highway 169/2213` Avenue Interchange from 10 acres
to 33 acres; and shortening the life span of the Landfill from a closure date of 2033 to 2029; have
addressed the concerns the City Council had with the expansion as proposed in the original
Application.
26. The City Council finds that ERL and WMI have been excellent corporate citizens
and have made every effort to eliminate or mitigate impacts from the Landfill, such as litter, truck
traffic, noise and odor.
27. It is the City Council's conclusion, from all of the evidence submitted and the
testimony taken, that:
(1) Expansion of the Landfill will extend the period of time that the Ciry, its
residents and its businesses will benefit from the host fees and other positive economic
impacts which ongoing operations at the Landfill generate;
9
(2) The negative impacts associated with an operating Landfill can be mitigated
through appropriate regulations and conditions;
(3) The long term negative economic impacts identified in the KHGi reports are
somewhat speculative, given the lengthy time between now and the potential impacts;
(4) The Landfill could, if expanded and operated appropriately, generate some
commercial and industrial development in the area and some positive economic impacts for
the Ciry;
(5) Expansion of the Landfill could generate some additional permanent open space
in the City for future public benefit;
(6) The balance between the benefits of a Landfill expansion and the potential
impacts weigh in favor of an expansion, if an expansion is done, and the Landfill is
operated, appropriately.
DECISION
THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Elk River makes the following Decision with
respect to the Application to amend the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Elk River to redesignate
the SDA from Mining to Landfill and to rezone the SDA from A-1 (ME} to A-1 (SWF~:
A. All of the Findings of Fact and Recitals set forth in this Resolution are hereby adopted and
incorporated within the City Council's Decision on this matter.
B. The record in this matter shall include all materials submitted to the City and presented to
the Planning Commission and City Council, including those materials presented in the staff
reports, by the City staff and by the City's consultants, and all materials and testimony
10
submitted by or on behalf of ERL, WMI, Tiller and their consultants, and all testimony
received from the public, as of the date of this Resolution.
C. The Application of ERL to amend the Land Use Map Element of the Ciry of Elk River
2004 Comprehensive Plan to redesignate the 109-acre Southern Development Area from
the Land Use category "Mining" to the Land Use category "Landfill", and to rezone the
SDA from A-1 (ME) to A-1 (SW~, is hereby granted.
D. This approval is specifically conditioned on ERL submitting a revised Application for and
receiving approval of, a Conditional Use Permit for the modified expansion plan presented
to the City Council on September 8 and September 21, 2009.
THIS RESOLUTION PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of September, 2009.
Stephanie Klinzing, Mayor
Tina Allard, City Clerk
GP:2G29147 v2
11
RESOLUTION 09-
A Resolution Denying the Application of Elk River Landfill, Inc. for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning to Allow Expansion of the Elk
River Landfill
WHEREAS, Elk River Landfill, Inc. (ERL), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Waste
Management, Inc. (WMI), is the owner and operator of the Elk River Landfill (Landfill); and
WHEREAS, Capital Land Group, a land holding company for Tiller Corporation (Tiller), is
the owner of an approximately 109-acre parcel of land identified as the Southern Development Area
(SDA) located immediately south of the existing Landfill; and
WHEREAS, ERL and Tiller have submitted a land use application (Application) to the City
requesting.
1. An amendment to the City's 2004 Comprehensive Plan to amend the Land
Use Map Element of the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation of the 109-
acre SDA from "Mining" to "Landfill"; and
2. An amendment to the City of Elk River Zoning Map to rezone the 109-acre
SDA from A-1(ME), Agricultural Conservation (Mineral Excavation), to A-1(SWF),
Agricultural Conservation (Solid Waste Facility); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes and the Elk River City
Code, the Application was referred to the City of Elk River Planning Commission for the purpose
of holding a public hearing and making a recommendation to the EIk River City Council on the
Application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Application on June 9,
2009, at which time ER.L, WMI, Tiller and their consultants were provided as much tune as they
desired to present the Application and all information and data they desired in support of the
Application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission took testimony from all members of the public who
desired to speak at the June 9, 2009 public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission closed its public hearing on the Application on June
9, 2009, but continued its discussion of the Application to a special meeting on June 23, 2009; and
WHEREAS, ERL, WMI and Tiller were provided the opportunity to submit additional
testimony and written materials for the record prior to and at the Planning Commission's June 23,
2009 continued discussion of the Application; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2009, the Elk River Planning Commission adopted a resolution
recommending to the Elk River City Council that the Application for a comprehensive plan
amendment and rezoning of the SDA be denied; and
WHEREAS, the Elk River City Council, on July 6, 2009, held a public hearing on the
Application and considered the Planning Commission's recommendation; and
WHEREAS, ERL, WMI, Tiller and all members of the public desiring to speak at the July 6,
2009 public hearing before the City Council were provided the opportunity to do so; and
WHEREAS, all written materials submitted by ERL, WMI, Tiller, and all other members of
the public prior to and at the public hearing on July 6, 2009 were accepted into the record; and
WHEREAS, during the July 6, 2009 public hearing, the City Council discussed the merits of
the Application, directed that staff prepare alternative resolutions denying and approving the
Application, and continued the public hearing to its xegula,r meeting of August 17, 2009, in order to
provide ERL, WMI, and Tiller the opportunity to present additional materials to address issues
raised in the staff reports, during the public hearing, and by the City Council during their discussion;
and
2
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2009, the Elk River City Council continued with the public
hearing on the Application and provided ERL, WMI and Tiller, as well as all members of the public
desiring to do so, the opportunity to present additional testimony and written evidence to the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, after all parties desiring to present testimony and offer evidence for or against
the Application had had the opportunity to do so, the Elk River City Council closed the public
hearing on the Application and continued its discussion of the Application; and
WHEREAS, by letter dated July 15, 2009, and at the August 17, 2009 City Council hearing,
ERL requested an opportunity to present additional materials and a revised plan to the City Council
in a workshop session; and
WHEREAS, at the close of its session on August 17, 2009, the Elk River City Council
directed:
• That any additional materials be submitted so that a staff report could be distributed
to the City Council on September 8, 2009;
• That the Application be placed on the City Council's regular workshop agenda for
September 14, 2009;
• That the September 14, 2009 workshop session regarding the landfill be a joint
meeting with the City of Elk River Planning Commission; and
• That the Application be scheduled for another public hearing at the City Council's
regularly scheduled meeting of September 21, 2009; and
WHEREAS, representatives of ERL and City Staff met on August 25, 2009 and September
8, 2009 to review additional materials submitted by ERL regarding the Application, including a
revised plan for the landfill expansion, a report entitled "Is Landfill Expansion a Good Investment
for Elk River" (the "Voith Report") and a letter dated September 1, 2009 (revised September 8,
2009) outlining design modifications to the expansion proposal, the end use plan for the landfill, and
other issues; and
WHEREAS, City Staff and City consultants reviewed the revised plans, the Voith Report,
the September 8, 20091etter and all other materials submitted by ERL, and prepared a staff report
which was delivered to the City Council and Planning Commission, along with all of the materials
submitted by ERL, on September 8, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission met in joint workshop session on
September 14, 2009 to discuss the materials submitted by ERL, including the revisions to the
expansion proposal for the Landfill; and
WHEREAS, ERL was provided an opportunity to present its revised plans and proposed
design modifications for the expansion to the City Council and the Planning Commission at the
September 14, 2009 workshop session and the City Council had the opportunity to discuss and ask
questions regarding the revised proposal; and
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2009 the Elk River City Council held a public hearing on the
Application and provided ERL, WMI and Tiller, as well as all members of the public desiring to do
so, the opportunity to present additional testimony and comment on the Application, as revised, and
to submit additional written evidence; and
WHEREAS, after all parties desiring to present testimony and offer evidence for or against
the Application had had the opportunity to do so, the Elk River City Council closed the public
hearing on the Application, continued its discussion of the Application, and reached the decision
incorporated in this resolution; and
WHEREAS, ERL has agreed in writing to an extension of the City's time deadline for acting
on the application under Minnesota Statutes, Section 15.99 to September 26, 2009.
4
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Elk River makes the following
Findings of Fact and Decision with respect to the Application of ERL, WMI, and Tiller for a
comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning of the SDA to allow expansion of the Landfill:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Landfill was first approved to operate on 40 acres of land in 1971 and first
permitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in 1972.
2. The Landfill was granted its first approvals and permits by the Ciry of Elk River
pursuant to the City's Solid Waste Facilities Ordinance in 1988.
3. In 1997, the City granted approval for the Landfill to expand the area approved for
Mixed Solid Waste (MSW) disposal from its origina140 acres to the current 93-acre footprint.
4. In 1988, the Landfill received approval from Livonia. Township to expand the area
approved for construction and demolition debris disposal (C & D) to a total permitted footprint of
75 acres.
5. The Mixed Solid Waste and Construction and Demolition Debris operations at the
Landfill therefore currently cover 168 acres.
6. The Application originally proposed the development of additional MSW disposal
space on 8.6 acres on the southern most portions of existing Landfill property and on 60.2 acres o£
the SDA, an increase in the MSW disposal area within the Landfill from the existing 93 acres to a
total of 162 acres, or an expansion of approximately 75 percent.
As revised, the Application proposes an increase in the MSW disposal area within the
Landfill of 49.3 acres, an expansion of over 50%.
8. Total MSW and C & D disposal areas at the Landfill would be approximately 217
acres if the Application is approved.
5
The proposed expansion of the Landfill would extend the life of the Landfill beyond
its current expected closing date. The Application as revised proposes that the Landfill would close
no later than 2029 if the Application is approved.
10. The City of Elk River has, been proactively planning for its future and regulating
solid waste facilities since the 1980's. The City adopted its Solid Waste Facilities Ordinance in 198b,
and the Landfill was rezoned to the Solid Waste Facilities Overlay Zoning District in 1988.
11. The City adopted its first growth management plan in 19$8 and its first
comprehensive plan in 1995. The City's current comprehensive plan (the Comprehensive Plan) was
adopted on August 1b, 2004.
12. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan consists of 13 elements, including the Land Use
Element. The Land Use Plan incorporated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan
designates the current Landfill as "Landfill" and the proposed expansion area (the SDA) as
"Mining". The designation of the SDA as Mining has not been changed since adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan in 2004.
13. Changing the designation of the SDA from Mining to Landfill on the Land Use Map
requires the approval and adoption of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan by the City
Council, as provided by Minnesota Statutes.
14. The Comprehensive Plan states that it should not be amended capriciously and that
the following questions should be considered when changes to the Comprehensive Plan are
proposed:
Is the project consistent with the Land Use Plan?
Does the project move Elk River towards its vision for the future?
• Is the project consistent with the policies contained the Comprehensive Plan?
6
15. Policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan which are relevant to the Application
include:
• Provide a balanced land use pattern which supports a sustainable mix of jobs and
housing.
• Guide the scale of development to be consistent with the surrounding land uses and
general character.
• Guide commercial land use to areas that can utilize anappropriately-designed
transportation system without infringing upon residential neighborhoods.
• Allow commercial areas to develop when they can be designed to be compatible with
surrounding land uses.
• Include adequate buffering of commercial and industrial developments and adjacent
to non-compatible land uses.
• Require adequate transition of buffers between differing, non-compatible land uses,
making use of natural land characteristics, whenever possible.
• Require development of proposals to consider the impacts on transportation and
natural systems beyond the boundaries of the individual projects.
16. Throughout the Comprehensive Plan there is an emphasis on attracting
commercial/industrial development. This is important to the City as this type of development
builds a community's tax base and creates more job opportunities.
17. Another fundamental element mentioned throughout the Comprehensive Plan is the
need to establish and maintain a positive community image by maintaining the edges and buffers
that define and protect adjacent land uses.
18. Preservation of open spaces is also an important policy and goal of the
Comprehensive Plan.
19. The Comprehensive Plan provides that the gravel mining area of the City, which is
located along both sides of North Highway 169 and includes the SDA, be guided for future
development of commercial and industrial uses. This area of the City is envisioned by the City
Council as the future economic engine of the City. The goal is to have this area develop with
commercial and industrial uses as the gravel is mined out. The tax base generated by commercial
7
and industrial development in this area is intended to support the financial viability of residential
development throughout the City by making it possible to maintain municipal services without
increasing taxes. Although this is very long range planning, and there are not yet timetables for
extending public utilities into this area to serve those future uses, this is the vision of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Ciry Council for this area of the City. The SDA is also located
adjacent to the future Highway 169/2215` Avenue Interchange, which has great potential for future
commercial/industrial development.
20. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan was prepared with the assistance of the planning firm
of Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc.(HKGi). In anticipation of the proposed expansion of the
Landfill the City retained HKGi to take a closer look at the potential impacts of an expansion of the
Landfill on the gravel mining area of the City. HKGi's report, the North Highway 169 Land Use
Study, dated November 10, 2008, identified a number of potential impacts related to an expansion
of the Landfill and suggested land use, transportation and aesthetic strategies for addressing these
impacts.
21. Following receipt of the Application to expand the Landfill, the City retained HKGi
to take a closer look at the immediate area which would be potentially impacted by a Landfill
expansion and to analyze the potential financial and fiscal impacts on the City of an expansion of the
Landfill. HKGi's report on these issues is dated June 2, 2009, was subsequently updated on June 15,
2009, and was updated again on September 8, 2009, following submission by ERL of its revised plan
for expansion of the Landfill. (I'he HKGi November 10, 200$, June 6, 2009, June 15, 2009 and
September 8, 2009 reports are hereafter collectively referred to as the "HKGi reports".)
22. The HKGi reports project potential significant impacts of Landfill expansion on
economic development in this area of the Ciry and on future tax revenues generated from the SDA
and the surrounding area.
8
23. ERL, WMI, Tiller and their consultants have strongly contested the methodology
and findings of the HKGi reports, and the City Council has listened to and carefully considered the
evidence and testimony presented by the applicants and their consultants. The City Council also
recognizes the inherent difficulty in attempting to project the potential impacts of a current land use
on future development which may or may not occur decades from now.
24. However, it is the conclusion of the City Council that an expansion of the Landfill
will inevitably have a long term negative impact on economic development within and tax revenue
generated by at least a portion of the North Highway 10 area of the City, in particular the SDA and
the area immediately surrounding the SDA. Given the importance of this area to the future of the
City, the City Council cannot ignore these impacts.
25. The City Council has also considered potential impacts of the Landfill expansion on
the Economic Development Strategic Plan prepared by the Elk River Economic Development
Authority and the Elk River Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Expansion of the Landfill
could have a negative impact on the following goals in that plan:
• To diversify the commercial/industrial tax base of the City to strive for
higher quality developments including professional services, corporate
campuses, energy related and technology businesses;
• To preserve high priority commercial areas for development;
To identify and project a higher image and vision for the City that enables
the City to successfully recruit and retain the desired commercial/industrial
development identified above.
26. The City Council finds that an additional expansion of the Landfill, beyond that
approved in 1997 by the City and in 1998 by Livonia Township, is not consistent with the City's
policies and goals as reflected in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the work of the its Economic
9
Development Authority, Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Planning Commission and City
Council.
27. .The City Council finds that image is a huge driver in encouraging development in the
community, that having the Landfill located at the northern entrance to the City adversely impacts
the image the City wishes to portray to visitors, residents and potential new businesses, and that
expanding the Landfill and extending its life span will significantly increase these negative impacts.
28. The City Council further finds that expansion of the Landfill will prevent future
development, at a minimum, in that portion of the SDA which will be filled with Mixed Solid Waste,
and could discourage the type of high quality commercial/industrial development which the City is
seeking for the important area of the City immediately surrounding the SDA, including the critical
area around the future interchange at Highway 169 and 2215` Avenue.
29. The City Council recognizes that there are some positive economic impacts related
to the Landfill, including the host fees which the City collects from the Landfill and the business
which ERL does with local residents and businesses. However, these are short term economic
benefits which will end once the Landfill closes. At that point, the portion of the SDA filled with
MSW will generate virtually no revenue to the City, and tax revenues generated from the immediate
surrounding area will be negatively impacted to some degree.
30. The City Council finds that the Landfill also has non-economic negative impacts on
the City and on surrounding residential uses while it is open, including litter on Highway 169 and
other public streets from trucks moving to and from the Landfill, the truck traffic itself, road
maintenance impacts, noise and odor. Although ERL and WMI have been excellent corporate
citizens and have made every effort to mitigate these impacts, they are not capable of being fully
mitigated until the Landfill is closed. Expanding the size and extending the life of the Landfill will
prolong the period of time that the City and surrounding residents must endure these impacts.
10
31. The City Council has reviewed and carefully considered, along with all other
materials submitted by ERL, the Voith Report. As set forth above, the Council recognizes the
potential for some positive economic impacts related to the Landfill. However, the council finds
that:
• The Voith Report overstates the potential positive economic impacts of the Landfill,
for the reasons set forth in the September 8, 2009 Memorandum from the City
Administrator, which are incorporated in these Findings of Fact;
The potential for positive economic impacts is only one of many criteria and
considerations to be weighed in making a decision to amend the City's
Comprehensive Plan; and
The City Council does not agree that a present value economic analysis of any
proposed use should be a deterrn;ning factor in making a land use decision.
32. The City Council has considered and appreciates the efforts of ERL to mitigate the
negative impacts of a landfill expansion, particularly on the important Highway 169/2215[ Avenue
interchange, by reducing the size of the proposed expansion in the revised proposal and by making
an additiona120 acres of land available for potential development at the Interchange. However, the
Council finds that the Plan revisions do not outweigh the negative impacts of the proposed
expansion, or change the Findings of Fact set forth in this Resolution.
33. It is the City Council's conclusion, from all of the evidence submitted and the
testimony taken, that:
(1) An expansion of the Landfill will prolong the negative short term impacts of the
Landfill on the City and will inevitably have a long term negative impact on the tax base
generated from this area of the City;
11
(2) This area of the City is planned to generate the tax base that will support the
financial viability of the balance of the City indefinitely;
(3) Given the importance of this area to the future of the City, the potential benefits
of a Landfill expansion are outweighed by the negative impacts of an expansion; and
(4) An amendment of the Land Use Map Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan
to expand the area of the City designated for Landfill into the SDA is inconsistent with the
policies and goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan and would not be in the best interest of
the City, its residents and its taxpayers.
DECISION ON LAND USE AMENDMENT
THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Elk River makes the following Decision with
respect to the Application to amend the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Elk River to redesignate
the SDA from Mining to Landfill:
A. All of the reports and materials prepared by City Staff and City Consultants, as well as the
Findings of Fact and Recitals set forth in this Resolution, are hereby adopted and
incorporated within the City Council's Decision on this matter.
B. The record in this matter shall include all materials submitted to the City and presented to
the Planning Commission and City Council, including those materials presented in the staff
reports, by the City staff and by the City's consultants, and all materials and testimony
submitted by or on behalf of ERL, WMI, Tiller and their consultants, and all testimony
received from the public, as of the date of this Resolution.
C. The Application of ERL to amend the Land Use Map Element of the City of Elk River
2004 Comprehensive Plan to redesignate the 109-acre Southern Development Area from
the Land Use category "Mining" to the Land Use category "Landfill" is hereby denied.
12
DECISION ON REZONING
The City Council of the City of Elk River further makes the following Decision with respect
to the Application of ERL for rezoning of the 109-acre Southern Development Area from A-1
(ME), agricultural conservation (mineral excavation), to A-1 (SWF), agricultural conservation (sofid
waste facility):
A. All of the reports and materials prepared by City Staff and City Consultants, as well as the
Findings of Fact and Recitals set forth in this Resolution, are hereby adopted and
incorporated within the City Council's decision on this matter
B. The record in this matter shall include all materials submitted to the City and presented to
the Planning Commission and City Council, includvng those materials presented in the staff
reports, by the City staff and by the City's consultants, and all materials and testimony
submitted by or on behalf of ERL, WMI, Tiller and their consultants, and all testimony
received from the public as of the date of this resolution.
C. Based on all of the above, and on the additional fact that the Application to reguide the
SDA from "Mining" to "Landfill" has been denied, so that rezoning the SDA from A-1
(ME) to A-1 (SWF) would result in an inconsistency between the Land Use Map Element
of the City's 2004 Comprehensive Plan and the City of Elk River's Zoning Map, the
Application to rezone the SDA from A-1 (ME) to A-1 (SWF) is denied.
THIS RESOLUTION PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of September, 2009.
Stephanie Klinzing, Mayor
Tina Allard, City Clerk
GP:2629426 v2
13
Comments on the SDA landfill expansion petition by Waste Management, registered by Angela
Mathison on behalf of the residents of Ridges of Rice Lake, Elk River, MN.
1. Waste Management is "100% committed" to placing a new 8 burner gas plant on the 109
acre proposed expansion.
- The EIS completed in 2006 does not outline plans for a gas plant
- Debra Moynihan at MN PCA was contacted. She could not state with any
certainty whether the addition of the gas plant would impact the relevance of
the EIS. She could not have an answer for us until Monday, September 215L at
the earliest.
- There has been no commitment from Waste Management as to where that plant
would be located on the 109 acre site.
2. There is allegedly some leakage from the old liners in the current site. Has this been
addressed and fixed? This should be addressed. If it has been addressed and fixed, do we have
evidence that it has been repaired in a permanent fashion?
3. The EIS did not address the issue of ground water safety. The potential health impacts have
not been met in regards to the ground water issue.
4. Waste Management has done a poor job in maintaining a visually aesthetic entrance to the
current site. The landscaping is poorly maintained and there is garbage throughout the medians
and ditches along 169, as well as a terrible odor. Will this prob{em expand with the expansion
of the landfill? It lends itself to a poor welcome into our city and perpetuates our reputation as
"the city with the dump".
5. The initial EIS was done with the proposal for the entire 109 acres of land to be used as a
lined solid waste dump (9 new cells that would extend to the corner of 221st and 169). Our
understanding is that Waste Management has consistently stated that the site would be
closed/capped in 2030.
- As we understand it, the initial proposal contends that they would reach capacity in
2030 using all 109 acres for lined solid waste dump
- The revised proposal was for 60 acres of lined solid waste dump, but still closing in 2030
- The most recent revision is for 40 acres of lined solid waste dump and yet still
closing capping in 2030
- If the initial proposa! for 109 acres was going to take them to 2030 to reach capacity,
and they now contend that they only need 40 acres, there is high probability that they
will reach capacity before 2030. If the permit is granted for the 109 acres, what stops
them from expanding that lined footprint to extend the life of the site?
6. The footprint of the landfill can never be used for commercial/residential property. The
northern expansion of the city will be stunted by the southern expansion of the landfill.
Businesses are not going to want to build next to a landfill and the land being used for the SDA
expansion is useless to us until after they have capped the site, at the earliest. That is 21 years
from now. Arbor Lakes in Maple Grove is an excellent example of prosperous commercial
development. The question should be asked, would that development have been built next to a
landfill?
7.Our city is providing a dumping site for trash from all over the state. Only 7.01% comes from
Sherburne County.
8. How will the berm be developed? If the landfill expands south and they do not plant very
large evergreen trees and a deep berm and maintain it well, the landfill will be fully visible as
169 curves just past 2215`. Those commuters driving north will have astraight-on view of the
site instead of having to consciously turn your head to left, as it sits now.
9. There were several concerns from the worksession on Monday, September 14t", 2009:
- Again, while WM decreased the footprint of the actual dump site, they are still
requesting approval for the entire 109 acres. When questioned about the use of the
remaining 69 acres (including the 33.1 acres of commercially developable land), WM
communicated inconsistent rationale messages:
- - At the beginning of the meeting, they stated that they would not be using the 33.1
acres of developable land. They went on to say that they might need to use it for
things like forced main, leachate storage tanks, support items, etc.
- - Later, they stated that it would be impossible for them to run the dump with only
the 76 acres of land and WILL need to use the developable land.
- - Waste Management also noted that they would want to possibly put the HHW and
recycling center on developable land and/or use it for infrastructure.
- - It was made very clear that Waste Manaeement does not have a alan in alace for
how thev intend to use the developable land. They simply made it clear that they
want the land.
- Waste Management was asked if they were granted the petition for the 109 acres,
what is to prevent them from expanding the footprint farther south? WM indicated
that they would stipulate to language in the contract that would prevent them from
being able to expand farther south.
- - However, our understanding is that this may not entirely preclude them from
expanding that footprint.
- 1f the petition is granted to Waste Management, there is no guarantee that they won't
be back in 2020 or 2025 initiating this process all over again to expand even farther
south. To our knowledge, Waste Management has not agreed to cap and leave the
City of Elk River in 2030. One expansion allowance opens the door for subsequent
requests. We need to be certain that this is the direction we want to see our city go
and this is the face and reputation we want for our city.
- In Monday night's worksession, Waste Management addressed the issue of end-use
for the land. Waste Management stated, "We are building a golf course on the site in
Burnsville." This statement was given in present-tense. They also offered several other
examples of end-use projects that they had completed, but with no specifics such as
where, how long after the site was capped and photographic or written evidence.
After speaking with the MN PCA and the City of Burnsville, that site is still fully
operational, and, according to the City of Burnsville, they are not aware of any plans
for the end-use of that land. According to Burnsville, "They are still using that site and
if there are any plans it won't be for many years to come."
- There was a lot of ambiguity from WM at the worksession. They were very non-
committal about their plans for the developable land and changed their answers on
the use of that land several times. They weren't sure when the mining of the land
would be completed, couldn't say where structures and infrastructure would go and
went from stating that they would not need to use the developable land to we can't
operate without using it. WITHOUT A CONCRETE, SPECIFIC, DESCRIPTIVE PLAN AND
TIME-LINE WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THEIR INTENTIONS ARE.
Thank you for taking the time to review these points prior to the next City Council meeting.
Angela Mathison
22382 Tipton Street NW
Elk River, MN 55330
~~ oLisa~w~iu
Corporate t3ffice:
PO Box 1480
7200 Hemlcxk l.~~sxte, Suite 200
Maple Grave, Minnesota x5311
September 16, 2009
Mayor anci Council Members
City of Elk River
130b5 Orono Parkway
Elk River, MN 55330
Re: Elk River Landfill Expansion
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
Tiller Corporation
rrrrd its oixrntingrtinisiorrs
Barton Sanrl & Gravel Ca.
Contnzercial Aaphrrtt Co.
Barton Enterprises, lne.
general: (76;1) 425-4191.
farsntile: (763) 425-71.53
web: +n•ww.Hl2ercarp.cam
We write to express our support for Elk River Landfill's request to change the land use of
our property which will. allow for the Southern Development Area (SDA} expansion of their
landfill. Representatives from Tiller testified before the Planning Commission and. at
Council ]neetings and work sessions about the proposed. expansion. One of the major
points we have made was how our mining plans would be modified to accommodate Elk
River Landfill's proposed expansion. 'I`hc purpose of this letter i.s to reiterate the timing of
our mining on the 109 acre SDA property.
Our Current Mining Plans
We have au.r hot mix asphalt plant located on the SDA property. Presently we supply
aggregate materials for this plant from. our pit north of the landfill in Livonia. The mining
activity on the SDA property has been low the last five years anal if the Iandfill does not
expand our activity on the SDA property will remain law. However, there are high quality
aggregate reserves an the SDA property which represent approximately 20 years of
reserves.
if the landfill does not expand, our intent would be to continue to mine in Livol~ia and after
concluding oux activities to the north., we would begin mare intense mining of the SDA
property. The Livonia reserves represent 35 to 50 years of aggregate reserves. Assuming
the landfill does not expand, we would not begin meaningful mining of the SDA property
until approx.irrlately 2050 (201.0 plus ~40 years). As mentioned above, the SDA ;property has
This Company is an Equal Opportunity Employer
Septe~eher IG, 2009
Page 2 of 3
approximately 20 years of reserves. Under this mining plan, the SDA property will not be
mined and reclaimed until at least 2070 (2050 start date for intense rni.ning plus -24 years).
This mining plan is consistent with the information Tiller supplied the City while the 1994
Elk River Gravel Mining District Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was being
prepared. Table 3.1-1 Land Ownership and Usage of the EIS identifies properties by PID
numbers. The PID numbers associated with the SDA property are shocnln as beiz7g mined
through 2070 which is the last year considered in the EIS.
Proposed Mining,Plans With Landfill Expansion
However, if the landfill expands, our mining plans will be significantly different. The
landfill requires access to the airspace provided by the SDA property at an accelerated rate.
To accommodate their requirements we will. expedite our mining of the SDA property
through a combination of re-orienting our Livonia mining operation and exporting material
from Elk River to our other facilities that currently receive material from other markets.
This will have the effect of compressing the timeframe which active mining takes place in
this area of. Elk River. We believe this compression is desirable and znay allow adjacent
properties to develop earlier in concert with Elk River Landfill's business park plan.
Tiller's operating agreement with Elk River Landfill on the SDA property will be require us
to progressively remove material from individual landfill cells by certain dates. The dates
are reviewed on a regular basis and depending ozi Elk River Landfill's needs they will be
adjusted as necessary. Mining on the entire 109 acre SDA will be completed by Tiller as
directed by the new property owner, Elk River Landfill.
The accelerated mining rate on the SDA property will not affect Tiller's mining property
along County Road 33 and County Road 77 (CR33/77}. The material in the CR33/77 area is
used to feed our wash plant operation located at 12450 Ranch Road NW. This operation is
independent from the operations on our Livonia property and the SDA property.
Final Reclamation Grads and Timing
The intersection of TH 169 and 221st Avenue is proposed to be realigned and built as an
interchange. 221st Avenue is also proposed to be extended to the east. The land east of the
proposed TH 169/22151 Avenue interchange is at lower elevations than Iand west of the
proposed interchange. In the future the City az~td area property owzlers may find it desirable
to have the new alignment of 221st Avenue west of TH 169 at an elevation that is lower than
what exists today. We may actually end up with 221St Avenue going under TH 169.
Se}~temher 16, 20(19
PRge 3 of 3
For these reasons, Tiller believes it is essential that the City maintain flexibility with the
reclamation grades in this area. It is also important not to establish an exact date for final
reclamation until the interchange design and 221ti~ Avenue alignment and elevation are
certain.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate ko call. As always we stand ready to
provide input to the study of our land, our mining plans and our development aspirations.
I may be reached at (763) 425-4191.
Sincerely,
Tiller Corporation
Michael Caron
Director of Land Use Affairs
Miller, Jessica
From: Hanson, Wayne GREMG [WHANSON@GREnergy.com]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 9:12 AM
To: Miller, Jessica
Cc: Johnson, Lori
Subject: FW: Future of Elk River Power Plant
I am OK with you including this in the packet for the city council.
From: Hanson, Wayne GRE/MG
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 3:37 PM
To: 'mayorer@q.rnm'; 'nick.zerwas@ci.elk-river.mn.us'; 'iwgump@yahoo.com'; 'westgaard@nsatel.net'; 'pmotin@aol.com'
Cc: Rebecca Haug (rhaug@ci.elk-river.mn.us); Lori Johnson (Ijohnson@ci.elk-river.mn.us)
Subject: Future of Elk River Power Plant
I am providing this additional information to support the City Council decision regarding the expansion of the Elk River landfill. At the
August 17 City Council meeting I voiced the importance of retaining the Elk River landfill for receiving rejected materials from the
Elk River RDF processing plant. The processing plant converts 80 to 85 percent of the municipal solid waste (MSW} received into
fuel for the Elk River power plant. The rejected material from the processing plant averages 70,000 tons a year and has been
disposed of in the Elk River landfill for the past 20 years. If the Elk River landfill does not receive the requested expansion and
closes, the additional transportation cost to the processing plant for the disposal of this material at the next closest landfill will be
about $15/ton or an additional $1 million per year. This additional expense could be a fatal blow to the operation of the processing
plant and the Elk River power plant.
GRE has also been working closely with Waste Management (WM) to supply the needed MSW to the project. WM clearly
understands the importance to the City and also the state of Minnesota to keep the Elk River power plant operating. WM has
historically been the supplier of the largest quantity of MSW to this project and they have agreed to continue to support the project
at this same level in the future. Without this support from WM, the project clearly will not have sufficient MSW to fuel the Elk River
power plant and keep the project viable.
The Elk River power plant has continued to operate these past 20 years only because of the availability of refuse derived fuel
produced at the Elk River processing plant. GRE has studied other options to fuel the power plant but have been unsuccessful in
finding a fuel of sufficient quantity that is priced low enough to keep the facility financially viable. Therefore, if RDF from the Elk
River processing plant is not available in the future the project will shut down. The economic impact to the Elk River community will
be very significant if this project goes away. Currently, over a $1 million per year in property taxes are paid between the Elk River
power plant and the processing plant. These facilities employ over 100 employees, many who live in the Elk River area and suppor
the local economy. The facilities annually infuse into the area economy over $18 million for other operating and maintenance
expenses. The Elk River power plant also supports the region by .producing reliable, low cost renewable energy.
As GRE takes over the ownership and operation of the Elk River processing facility we see many opportunities to provide additiona
support for the Elk River community ftom this facility. We are looking at new technologies to improve recycling efficiencies and hell
solve other waste challenges such as the management of source separated organics from the Elk River area. We are taking a
serious look at installing an anaerobic digester as an odorless and effective method to convert organics to electricity. We have alsc
studied ways to more efficiently recover the energy from the fuel in the Elk River power plant. Along this line we have done an
engineering study for the installation of a district heating system to take waste heat from the Elk River power plant and heat the Elk
River school buildings. This improves the efficiency of the power plant, reduces school district expenses and supports the Energy
City program.
All these opportunities and benefits may be lost if the landfill expansion is not supported by the City Council and the closing of the
Elk River landfill impacts the economic viability of the Elk River power plant and processing plant. Please consider these factors in
your decision on the Elk River landfill expansion. If you have any questions, please feel flee to call me at 763-445-5818.
w~~ Nom.
Director, MN Generation
Great River Energy
09/18/2009
12300 Elm Creek Boulevard
Maple Grove, MN 55369-4718
753-445-5818
Fax 763-445-6618
whanson GREnergy com
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: The information contained in this message from
Great River Energy and any attachments are confidential and intended
only for the named recipient(s). If you have received this message in
error, you are prohibited from copying, distributing or using the
information. Please contact the sender immediately by return email and
delete the original message.
09/18/2009
;~ ~ ~°~
RESOLUTION NO. 09-
A Resolution Denying the Application of Ellc River Landfill, Ine. for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning to Allow Expansion of the Elk
River Landfill
WHEREAS, Ella River Landfill, Inc. (ERL), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Waste
Management, Inc. (WMI), is the owner and operator of the Elk River Landfill {Landfill); and
WHEREAS, Capital Land Group, a land holding company for Tiller Corporation (Tiller), is
the owner of an approximately 109-acre parcel of land identified as the Southern Development Area
(SDA) located iriunediately south of the existing Landfill; and
WHEREAS, ERL and Tiller have submitted a land use application (Application) to the City
requesting:
1. An amendment to the City's 2004 Comprehensive Plan to amend the Land
Use Map Element of the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation of the 109-
acre SDA from "Mining" to "Landfill"; and
2. An amendment to the City of Elk River Zoning Map to rezone the 109-acre
SDA from A-1(ME), Agricultural Conservation (Mineral Excavation), to A-1(SWF),
Agricultural Conservation {Solid Waste Facility); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes and the Elk River City
Code, the Application was referred to the City of Elk River Planning Convnission for the pw-pose
of holding a public hearing and making a reco~ntnendation to the Elk River CitST Council on the
Application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Application on June 9,
2009, at which time ERL, WMI, Tiller and their consultants were provided as much tune as they
S:\Resolutions\Resolutlon_Denpin~Application for_Comp_Plvi_Amend_and_Rezoiung 2.llOC
desired to present the Application and all information and data they desired in support of the
Application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission took testimony from all members of the public who
desired to speak at the June 9, 2009 public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planrlirlg Commission closed its public hearing on the Application on June
9, 2009, but continued its discussion of the Application to a special meeting on June 23, 2009; and
WHEREAS, ERL, WMI and Tiller were provided the opportunity to submit additional
testimony and written materials for the record prior to and at the Planning Commission's June 23,
2009 continued discussion of the Application; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2009, the Ells River Planning Commission adopted a resolution
recommending to the Ella River City Council that the Application for a comprehensive plan
amendment and rezoning of the SDA be denied; and
WHEREAS, the Elk River City Council, on July 6, 2009, held a public hearing on the
Application and considered the Planl~ling Commission's recommendation; and
WHEREAS, ERL, WMI, Tiller and all members of the public desiring to speak at the July 6,
2009 public hearing before the City Council were provided the opportunity to do so; and
WHEREAS, all written materials submitted by ERL, WMI, Tiller, and all other members of
the public prior to and at the public hearing on July 6, 2009 were accepted into the record; and
WHEREAS, during the July 6, 2009 public hearing, the CitST Council discussed the merits of
the Application, directed that staff prepare alternative resolutions denying and approving the
Application, and continued the public hearing to its regular meeting of August 17, 2009, in order to
provide ERL, WMI, and Tiller the opportunity to present additional materials to address issues
raised in the staff reports, during the public hearing, and by the City Council during their discussion;
and
S:\Resolu[ions\ResoluLi~~n_Denying_Application_for_Comp_Plan_Amend_and_Rezoning 2.DOC
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2009, the Ells River City Council continued with the public
hearing on the Application and provided ERL, WMI and Tiller, as well as all members of the public
desiring to do so, the opportunity t0 present additional testimony and written evidence to the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, after all parties desiring to present testimony and offer evidence for or against
the Application had had the opportunity to do so, the Ella River City Council closed the public
hearing on the Application and continued its discussion of the Application; and
WHEREAS, by letter dated July 15, 2009, and at the August 17, 2009 City Council hearing,
ERL requested an opportunity to present additional materials and a revised plan to the City Council
in a workshop session; and
WHEREAS, at the close of its session on August 17, 2009, dze Ells River City Council
directed:
• That any additional materials be submitted so that a staff report could be distributed
to the City Council on September 8, 2009;
• That the Application be placed On the City Council's regular workshop agenda for
September 14, 2009;
• That the September 14, 2009 workshop session regarding the landfill be a joint
meeting with the CitjT of Ells River Planning Commission; and
• That the Application be scheduled for another public hearing at the City Council's
regularly scheduled .meeting of September 21, 2009; and
WHEREAS, representatives of ERL and City Staff met on August 25, 2009 and September
8, 2009 to review additional materials submitted by ERL regarding the Application, including a
revised plan for the landfill expansion, a report entitled "Is Landfill Expansion a Good Investment
for Elk River" (the "North Report") and a letter dated September 1, 2009 (revised September 8,
5:\Resolutions\Resolut~n_Den}rin~Application_for_Comp_Plan_Amend_and 12ezoiung 2.DOC
2009) outlining design modifications to the expansion proposal, the end use plan for the landfill, and
other issues; and
WHEREAS, City Staff and City consultants reviewed the revised plans, the Voith Report,
the September 8, 2009 letter and all other materials submitted by ERL, and prepared a staff report
which was delivered to the City Council and Planning Corrunission, along with all of the materials
submitted by ERL, on September 8, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission met in joint workshop session on
September 14, 2009 to discuss the materials submitted by ERL, including the revisions to the
expansion proposal for the Landfill; and
WHEREAS, ERL was provided an opportunity to present its revised plans and proposed
design modifications for the expansion to the City Council and the Planning Commission at the
September 14, 2009 workshop session and the City Council had the opport~ulity to discuss and ask
questions regarding the revised proposal; and
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2009 the Ells River City Council held a public hearing on the
Application and provided ERL, WMI and Tiller, as well as all members of the public desiring to do
so, the opportunity to present additional testimony and comment on the Application, as revised, and
to submit additional written evidence; and
WHEREAS, after all parties desiring to present testimony and offer e~ridence for or against
the Application had had the opportunity to do so, the Ella River City Council closed the public
hearing on the Application, continued its discussion of the Application, and reached the decision
incorporated in this resolution; and
WHEREAS, ERL has agreed in writing to an extension of the City's tuize deadline fox acting
on the application under Minnesota Statutes, Section 15.99 to September 26, 2009.
S:\Resolutions\Resolu¢~n_Denyiu~Application_for_Comp_Plan_Amend_nnd_Rezorung 2.DOC
NO~K1, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Elk River makes the following
Findings of Fact and Decision with respect to the Application of ERL, WMI, and Tiller fox a
comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning of the SDA to allow expansion of the Landfill:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Landfill was fv:st approved to operate on 40 acres of land in 1971 and fast
peunitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in 1972.
2. The Landfill was granted its first approvals and permits by the City of Elk River
pursuant to the City's Solid Waste Facilities Ordinance in 1988.
3. In 1997, the City granted approval for the Landfill to expand the area approved for
Mixed Solid Waste (MSW) disposal from its origina140 acres to the current 93-acre footprint.
4. In 1988, the Landfill received approval from Livonia Township to expand the area
approved for construction and demolition debris disposal (C & D) to a total permitted footprint of
75 acres.
The Mixed Solid Waste and Construction and Demolition Debris operations at the
Landfill therefore cw-rently cover 168 acres.
6. The Application originally proposed the development of additional MSW disposal
space on 8.6 acres on the southern most portions of existing Landfill property and on 60.2 acres of
the SDA, an increase in the MSW disposal area within the Landfill from the existuZg 93 acres to a
total of 162 acres, or an expansion of approximately 75 percent.
As revised, the Application proposes an increase in the MSW disposal area witlvn the
Landfill of 49.3 acres, an expansion of over 50%.
8. Total MSW and C & D disposal areas at the Landfill would be approxunately 217
acres if the Application is approved.
S:\Resolutions\Resolut~m_Denyin~Applicarion_for_Comp_Plan_Amend_1nd_Rezoning 2DOC
The proposed expansion of the Landfill would extend the life of the Landfill beyond
its current expected closing date. The Application as revised proposes that dze Landfill would close
no later than 2029 if the Application is approved.
10. The City of Elk River has been proactively planning for its future and regulating
solid waste facilities since the 1980's. The City adopted its Solid Waste Facilities Ordinance in 1986,
and the Landfill was rezoned to the Solid Waste Facilities Overlay Zoning Distiict in 1988.
11. The CitS= adopted its first. growth management plan in 1988 and its first
comprehensive plan in 1995. The City's current comprehensive plan (the Comprehensive Plan) was
adopted on August 16, 2004.
12. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan consists of 13 elements, including the Land Use
Element. The Land Use Plan incorporated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan
designates the current Landfill as "Landfill" and the proposed expansion area (the SDA) as
"Mining". The designation of the SDA as Mining has not been changed since adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan in 2004.
13. Changing the designation of the SDA from Mining to Landfill on the Land Use Map
requires the approval and adoption of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan by the City
Council, as provided by Minnesota Statutes.
14. The Comprehensive Plan states that it should not be amended capriciously and that
the following questions should be considered when changes to the Comprehensive Plan are
proposed:
Is the project consistent with the Land Use Plan?
Does the project move Ella River towards its vision for the fut~ire?
Is the project consistent with the policies contained the Comprehensive Plan?
S:\Resolutions\Resolut~n_Denyu~g_Application_for_Comp_Pinn_Amend_and_Rezoning 2.DOC
15. Policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan which are relevant to the Application
include;
o Provide a balanced land use pattern which supports a sustainable Infix of jobs and
housing.
® Guide the scale of development to be consistent with the surrounding land uses and
general character.
® Guide commercial land use to areas that can utilize an appropriately-designed
transportation system without infringing upon residential neighborhoods.
® Allow commercial areas to develop when they can be designed to be compatible with
surrounding land uses.
• Include adequate buffering of commercial and industrial developments and adjacent
to non-compatible Iand uses.
® Requite adequate transition of buffers between differing, non-compatible land uses,
making use of natural land characteristics, whenever possible.
® Require development of proposals to consider the impacts on transportation and
natural systems beyond the boundaries of the individual projects.
16. Throughout the Comprehensive Plan there is an emphasis on attracting
commmercial/industrial development. This is important to the City as this type of development
builds a colnlnunity's tax base and creates more job opportunities.
17. Another fundamental element mentioned throughout the Comprehensive Plan is the
need to establish and maintain a positive community image by maintaining the edges and buffers
that define and protect adjacent land uses.
18. Preservation of open spaces is also an important policy and goal of the
Comprehensive Plan.
19. The Comprehensive Plan provides that the gravel mii~ling area of the City, which is
located along both sides of North Highway 169 and includes the SDA, be guided for future
development of commercial and industrial uses. Tlv area of the City is envisioned by the City
Council as the futw-e economic engine of the City. The goal is to have this area develop with
commercial and industrial uses as the gravel is mined out. The tax base generated by commercial
S:\Resolutions\ResolutT~in_Denyin~Application_for_Comp_Plan_Amend_1nd_Rezoning ~.DOC
and industrial development in this area is intended to support die financial viability of residential
development throughout the City by making it possible to maintain municipal services without
increasing taxes. Although this is very long range planning, and there are not yet timetables for
extending public utilities into this area to serve those future uses, this is the vision of the
Comprehensive Pian and the City Council for this area of the City. The SDA is also located
adjacent to the future Highway 169/22150 Avenue Interchange, which has great potential for future
commercial/industrial development.
20. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan was prepared with the assistance of the planning firm
of Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc.(HKGi). In anticipation of the proposed expansion of the
Landfill the City retained HKGi to take a closer look at the potential impacts of an expansion of the
Landfill on the gravel mining area of die City. HKGi's report, the Nortli Highway 169 Land Use
Study, dated November 10, 2008, identified a number of potential unpacts related to an expansion
of the Landfill and suggested land use, transportation and aesthetic strategies for addressing these
impacts.
21. Following receipt of the Application to expand the Landfill, the City retained HKGi
to take a closer look at die immediate area which would be potentially impacted by a Landfill
expansion and to analyze die potential financial and fiscal impacts on the City of an expansion of the
Landfill. HKGi's report on tl7ese issues is dated June 2, 2009, was subsequently updated on June 15,
2009, and was updated again on September 8, 2009, followilig submission by ERL of its revised plan
for expansion of the Landfill. (The HKGi November 10, 2008, June 6, 2009, June 15, 2009 and
September 8, 2009 reports are hereafter collectively referred to as the "HKGi reports".)
22. The HKGi reports project potential significant impacts of Landfill expansion on
economic development in this area of the City and on future tax revenues generated from the SDA
and the surrounding area.
S:\12esolutions\Resolut~ii Denying_Application_for_Comp_Plan_Amend_and_Rezoivng 2.DOC
23. ERL, WIYII, Tiller and their consultants have strongly contested the methodology
and findings of the HKGi reports, and the City Council has listened to and carefully considered the
e~ridence and testimony presented by the applicants and their consultants. The City Council also
recognizes the inherent difficulty in attempting to project the potential impacts of a current land use
on future development which may or may not occur decades from now.
24. However, it is the conclusion of the City Council that an expansion of the Landfill
will inevitably have a long term negative impact on economi icd'evelopment within and tax revenue
generated by at least a portion of the North Highwa 10 iea of the City, in particular the SDA and
the area immediately surrounding the SDA. Given the unportance of this area to the future of the
City, the City Council cannot ignore these impacts.
25. The City Council has also considered potential impacts of the Landfill expansion on
the Economic Development Strategic Plan prepared by the Elk River Economic Development
Authority and the Elk River Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Expansion of the Landfill
could have a negative impact on the following goals in that plan:
To diversify the corrunercial/industrial tax base of the City to strive for
higher quality developments including professional services, corporate
campuses, energy related and technology businesses;
To presei-~Te high priority cointizercial areas for development;
To identify and project a higher unage and vision for the City that enables
the City to successfully recrtut and retain the desired commercial/industrial
development identified above.
26. The City Council finds that an additional expansion of the Landfill, beyond that
approved in 1997 by the Cit~T and in 1998 by Livonia Township, is not consistent with the City's
policies and goals as reflected in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the work of its Economic
S:\Resolutions\Resolul~~n_Denyin~Application_for_Comp_Plan_flmend_and_Rezoning 2.DOC
Development Authority, Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Planning Commission and City
Council.
27. The City Council finds that image is a huge driver in encouraging development in the
community, that having the Landfill located at the northern entrance to the City adversely unpacts
die unage the City wishes to portray to visitors, residents and potential new businesses, and that
expanding the Landfill and extending its life span will significantly increase these negative impacts.
28. The City Council further finds that expansion of the Landfill will prevent future
development, at a tninitnum, in that portion of the SDA which will be filled with Mixed Solid Waste,
and could discourage the type of high quality commercial/industrial development which the City is
seeking for the important area of the Cit~T unmediately surrounding the SDA, including the critical
area around the future interchange at Highway 169 and 221St Avenue.
29. The City Council recognizes that there are some positive economic impacts related
to the Landfill, including the host fees which the City collects from the Landfill and the business
which ERL does with local residents and businesses. However, these are short term economic
benefits which will end once die Landfill closes. At that point, the portion of the SDA filled with
MSW will generate virtually no revenue to the City, and tax revenues generated from the itnmediate
surrounding area will be negatively impacted to some degree.
30. The City Council finds that the Landfill also has non-economic negative impacts on
the City and on surrounding residential uses wlvle it is open, including litter on Highway 169 and
other public streets from trucks moving to and from the Landfill, the truck traffic itself, road
maintenance unpacts, noise and odor. Although ERL and WMI have been excellent corporate
citizens and have made every effort to mitigate these impacts, they are not capable of being fully
mitigated until the Landfill is closed. Expanding the size and extending the life of the Landfill will
prolong the period of time that the City and surrounding residents must endure these impacts.
S.\Resolutions\12esoluliQi 7_Denying_Application_for_Comp_Plan_Amettd_and_Rezoning 2.DOC
31. The City Council is also concerned about the potential environmental impacts
related to d1e operation of an expanded landfill over the next 20 years and the potential
environmental unpacts related to a significantly expanded landfill footprint following closure of the
landfill. The City Council recognizes that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has completed
an Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed expansion of the Landfill, but notes that there
are environmental unpacts and risks inherent in this land use which cannot be mitigated other than
by limiting the expansion of the Landfill.
32. The City Council has reviewed and carefully considered, along with all other
materials submitted by ERL, the Voith Report. As set fords above, the Council recognizes the
potential for some positive economic unpacts related to the Landfill. However, the council finds
that:
The Voith Report overstates the potential positive economic unpacts of the Landfill,
for the reasons set forth in the September 8, 2009 Memorandum from the City
Administrator, which are uicorporated in these r'indings of Fact;
• The potential for positive economic impacts is only one of many criteria and
considerations to be weighed in making a decision to amend the City's
Comprehensive Plan; and
The City Council does not agree that a present value economic analysis of any
proposed use should be a determining factor in making a land use decision.
33. The City Council has considered and appreciates the efforts of ERL to mitigate the
negative impacts of a landfill expansion, particularly on the important Highway 169/22151 Avenue
interchange, by reducing the size of the proposed expansion in the revised proposal and by making
an additional 20 acres of land available for potential development at the Interchange. However, the
S:\Resolurions\Resolulic~n_Denhuig Application_for_Comp_Plan_tlmend_and_Rezonuig 2.DOC
Council finds that the Plan revisions do not outweigh the negative unpacts of the proposed
expansion, or change the Findings of Fact set forth in this Resolution.
34. It is the City Council's conclusion, from all of the evidence submitted and the
testimony taken, that:
(1) An expansion of the Landfill will prolong the negative short term unpacts of the
Landfill on the City and will inevitably have a long term negative unpact on the tax base
generated from this area of the City;
(2) This area of the City is planned to generate the tax base that will support the
financial viability of the balance of the City indefinitely;
(3) Given the importance of this area to the future of the City, the potential benefits
of a Landfill expansion are outweighed by the negative economic, environmental and land
use unpacts of an expansion; and
(4) An amendment of the Land Use Map Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan
to expand the area of the City designated for Landfill into the SDA is inconsistent with the
policies and goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan and would not be in the best interest of
the City, its residents and its taxpayers.
DECISION ON LAND USE AMENDMENT
THEREFORE, the City Council of tlne City of Elk River makes the following Decision with
respect to the Application to amend dne Comprehensive Plan of the City of Ella River to redesignate
the SDA from Mining to Landfill:
A. All of the reports and materials prepared by City Staff and City Consultants, as well as the
Findings of Fact and Recitals set forth in this Resolution, are hereby adopted and
incorporated within the City Council's Decision on this matter.
S:\Resolutions\12esoluli~i7_DenyinprApplication_fox_Coinp_Plan_Amend_and_Rezorung 2DOC
B. The record in this matter shall include all materials submitted to the City and presented to
the Planning Com~.nission and City Council, including those materials presented in the staff
reports, by the City staff and by the City's consultants, and all materials and testimony
submitted by or on behalf of ERL, WMI, Tiller and dieit consultants, and all testunony
received from the public, as of the date of this Resolution.
C. The Application of ERL to amend the Land Use Map Element of die Cite of Ella River
2004 Comprehensive Plan to redesignate the 109-acre Southern Development Area from
the Land Use category "M.ining" to the Land Use category "Landfill" is hereby denied.
DECISION ON REZONING
The City Council of the City of Elk River further makes the following Decision with respect
to the Application of ERL for rezoning of the 109-acre Southern Development Area from A-1
(ME), agricultural conservation (mineral excavation), to A-1 (SWF), agricultural conservation (solid
waste facility):
A. All of the reports and materials prepared by City Staff and City Consultants, as well as the
Findings of Fact and Recitals set forth in this Resolution, are hereby adopted and
incorporated within the City Council's decision on this matter
B. The record in this matter shall include all materials submitted to the City and presented to
the Planning Commission and City Council, including those materials presented in the staff
reports, by the City staff and by the City's consultants, and all materials and testimony
submitted by or on behalf of ERL, WMI, Tiller and their consultants, and all testimony
received from die public as of the date of this resolution.
C. Based on all of the above, and on the additional fact drat the Application to reguide the
SDA from "Minix>g" to "Landfill" has been denied, so that rezoning the SDA from A-1
S:\Resolutions\Resoluli(3n_Deuying_Application_for_Comp_Plan_Amend_and_Rezotvng 2.DOC
(ME) to A-1 (SWF~ would result in an inconsistency between the Land Use Map Element
of the City's 2004 Comprehensive Plan and the City of Elk Rivet's Zoning Map, the
Application to rezone the SDA from A-1 (ME) to A-1 (SW~ is denied.
THIS RESOLUTION PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of September, 2009.
Stephanie Klinzing, Mayor
Tina Allard, City Clerk
S:\Resolutions\Resoh~i~ii_Denying_Applicadon_for_Comp_Plan_Ainend_and_Rezoning 2.DOC
P
~~~
Zehringer Consulting
18920 Concord St NW
Elk River, MN 55330
Sept 21, 2009
To: Eik River City Council
Subject: Elk River Landfill Expansion
Elk River was named Energy City in 1996 by the Minnesota Environmental Initiative
(MEI). We were officially designated Energy City by the State of Minnesota in 2006 acid
received both a State and Federal trademark for same, so no other City can use this
designation. Being Minnesota's only Energy City is good! It's good to have a
designated location within the State to demonstrate leading edge alternative energy and
energy efficiency technologies. It's also good for notoriety and business!
We have 28 demonstration sites featuring 24 different technologies in our portfolio.
Perhaps the best known and most frequently toured demonstration site is our
Environmental Learning Center and adjoining Landfill Gas Electric Generating Plant. In
the past, that facility has been toured by Scout groups, 4-H groups, home schooled
classes, grade school and high school classes, groups from many electric coops, U of M
engineering classes, St Thomas engineering and continuing education classes, and a host
of foreign visitors. As example, a group from 17 European countries will be touring the
LFG Electric Plant and learning more about what Energy City is all about this Friday,
Sept 25. Another group from Central and South America did likewise in June. Both
groups came to us through the Minnesota International Center and we are now on their
list of things to do when foreign dignitaries visit Minnesota. I know there are many other
tours conducted by Elk River Landfill staff as well.
Elk River Municipal Utilities owns the Landfill Gas Electric Generating Plant and it
generates 12% of Elk River's electrical needs. If the landfill expands and another six
enginelgenerators are added to this expansion, we will generate 30% of our electrical
needs from landfill gas -and this is a 35 year plus source. Electricity generated by
landfill gas is recognized as "green power" and is a valuable asset for any utility to own.
This asset is operated and maintained by F,lk River Landfill personnel.
In summary, please consider the advantages our landfill brings to the community when
making your decision. I know first hand that it's a facility that is well managed and
efficient. It also provides a resource that would otherwise be wasted. Allowing the
expansion of the Elk River Landfill will not only guarantee continued employment for 20
plus families, but will put us in the "drivers seat" when our municipal electric utility
looks for a new wholesale power supplier.
Sincerely,
Vance Zehrir~ er
__
~~a
_.
~.
_ _..
~~ ~~' ~ F
,r .,
,
,
~
~#
#
..
x'
_ .
,.
,. ,
~
,
t
>
a
~. , . t
F
f t
i
. ~ ~
~
~ r
r k
.. .- - ...
.:. s
E,
~`:,.
~' #
~ ~,
~ ~ >:.
r ~t
~
~
C
{
S
~~
' ~ ~. t {~`.
~~~
~Zr 4i
ill..'
>.r.
_..,. _ y. _.,.:
~ .
;:~~ . ~
k ~~~ ~4
w .. FM... ~ ~ N
• $18,000,000+ in Host Fees to City
• $36,000,000+ in Fees to County
"ri.'4 t
t
"~~ i
;~
Based on 6,$33 households in City & City representing 26% of County households. ""~' ~ "` '?~
~~~~ ~~~~~~r
~~
E t ,
~4~rr h
} i,
_. ;;a~. ~~ .,
~can~i~~.n~~~~
Landfill indirectly influences
employment at several area
businesses:
,~ E
`'
~:~
t, ~ : ~'ai
H 1»
~~~,~ ~~
~ ~ ~
. ~~~
~~, ~ ~
FIm ' Y
.~ ~ Landfill directly employs 15 people
Waste processing related companies
Over 100 RRT & GRE jobs (Elk River Star News.,
September 11, 2009 and September 16, 2009 a-mail from Wayne Hanson)
Area hauling companies
Transportation dependent industries (fuel and
parts suppliers., gas stations, restaurants)
Construction companies
_.`
~- ~~~~
~~~ ;~ .
~.
~.;~
~
L ~ ~~
~;~.
..~
~
-
.
~•
. r
a
~
. .
..
~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~(?
°
~
~ ~
..
~.
`~~~
~ ~ ~ te ~
~ ~ ,r
•:
.. ~ t:;
.
.
:
~. L .~
:
.
, ~
,~ ~
..,
~
,.:...
L
ti
~
~ L
~
~~ :. _
'~
/" ~
\
~
*y
/~
w ~_ g
4 ~
~ a~
~ ~ ~ /~~
` T
9
~~~~.~
~~
~F~
.
~„ :~rT- .
~'S 1~a. ~K. t; I :.Itaall.ti ~.t~~S.,
,~
~•
C ,. . ..
~,.
z „~.~
a~ ~_~ ~
Ceti _
~ ~~a~
l° ~.:<: ,
.` .,~
,,.,.......,..s ~ ~... ,? ..r ...
rte..- , ~;
~~~ i~u~~n t~r•~~
r~x ~xe,,..~,~.
P ~. p,~era
,~~- t~r~
'~1;'
,~~'~`¢~ ~ r ~.
~I ~IIIIIIIIII IIII~~ III
~~
,,~`;~
~?i#a~"t2~~'t~ P't~ ~~3"~ '~' +._ t^ a~"Ldv^L' ;~t7~" ( tGt3~ iC.' ~,C~fi~dz'
.,
~r~~ .
>.r..i ::
~ !{
~~~ ~~~
u~ani~y
rl~
,~
r•s `'
~« .. '.
~~ ~ ~~
Elk River High School
~'
:~ ~ ~r
Landfill is a cammit~l ene~~-~
partner ith the ;-iry
Landfill currently supplies '12% of the City's electrical
reeds, helping the City meet i s renewable energy
objective
With 2nd gas. plant. -the landfill will produce enough electricity for every
home within the. City of Elk River
~-
~-
~.
~.., ~ ~ ~_
~~
..~
:~ ~ .~~:
,a_ x-.... ~~ ~~
~~ s~
~.,.
-,:
-;
~''
~~ ~
~:
Future commercial area. businesses can use alternative
energy from. the Landfill
Currently several alternative forms of heat energy
Rapidly adding new technologies all the time
Low-cost green alternative energy is a benefit and
marketable asset for future development
Numerous examples of companies that choose to locate near
landfills due. to the. available low-cost energy
Low-cost green.. energy will help draw in development (versus use of
other types of City incentives)
;~ ~'
'~ `.
->.- ,,.
54T fli
r~".. ~:~
lr~ C„ .•
~
~
«a
t `
~ ,~yt: G
~ ~ ~ i z~
F F
r ~ ~F
' ~ .'II. ~ f
~ ~: ~
~ Y
-.1 . {~ rr3~ ry
.
r~
.
~ ~~ $ v~}
~~ M ~ rv
S
.
..
T ,. .
~
~; .
.
as
F- ~ a~;. ~~
~,
~ ~
µ Y -i
~i r ~
S
~
i% l. '
~~ ~' ~
n ~, w
' Y.
r
~ ~
d~
1 I ; 3
d4 .~ _
~
~ ~ ~ 5.
'
' 1 1 `j
~ `
/
/~
~
~ ,
O • L
. ~ 4~ ~'Y^~
~
~
~
~gj (~ ` ~ ~
~
.
51. ~
1
~ R h
,~
_ _~
/ ^~ ~ _
VA ..
N ~
• O ~ ~f'
' I r
~~
{ ~
O ~ ~ 1
i
~~ .
~ '~ ~ f
^~
~
s~x ~`
.x
~
~
~
~ ~,
V ~ .`~ O ~ 9
3 ~
~
~
`Zr
~~ ~ i
`
~
''J
,
t~, -~.
L ~IWW•
~ ~
f
#
~ I
v~
~~ ~;
~~~ ~
C
~ ~ ~ ~
~
!~ "+ ~_ ~i
{f' ~ 7 ~ "
'
, '1 1
i,
~~ '! p r
-' +ti, ,~'~ 4 fr
4..-~...... ~ ,
_ 3ti
{
4
• Millions of Dollars to the Community
• 100's of Jobs (Direct & Indirect)
• Supporting Local Businesses
s Charitable Contributions
• Green Power =Energy City
• Open Space and Future Development
t.Y '~:
x~~xs~ ~~.re~sigMxrsa-r
~~...
RES®LUTI®IV N®. 09- 51
A Resolution ®enying the Application of Elk River Landfill, Inc. for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning to Allow Expansion of the Ellc
River Landfill
~XIHEREAS, Elk River Landfill, Inc. (ERL), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Taste
Management, Inc. (~X~MI), is the owner and operator of the Elk River Landfil] (Landfill); and
WHEREAS, Capital Land Group, a land holding company for Tiller Corporation (Tiller), is
the owner of an approximately 109-acre parcel of land identified as the Southern Development Area
(SDA) located immediately south of the existing Landfill; and
WHEREAS, ERL and Tiller have subnvtted a land use application (Application) to the City=
requesting:
1. An amendment to the City's 2004 Comprehensive Plan to amend the Land
Use Map Element of the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation of the 109-
acre SDA from "Mining" to "Landfill"; and
2. An amendment to the City of Ells River Zoning Map to rezone the 109-acre
SDA from A-1(ME), Agricultural Conservation (Mineral Excavation), to A-1(SWF),
Agricultural Conservation (Solid Waste Facility=); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes and the Elk River City
Code, the Application was referred to the City of Ella River Planning Corninission for the purpose
of holding a public hearing and making a recommendation to the Ells River Citj= Council on the
Application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Conunission held a public hearing on the Application on June 9,
2009, at which time ERL, WMI, Tiller and their consultants were provided as much time as dzey
S:\Resolutions\Resolutlon_Denping..,Application_for_comp_Plan_Amend_and_Rezoning ~.DOC
desired to present the Application and all information and data they desired in support of the
Application; and
WHEREAS, die Planning Connt-nission took testimony from all members of the public who
desired to speak at d1e June 9, 2009 public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission closed its public hearing on the Application on June
9, 2009, but continued its discussion of the Application to a special meeting on June 23, 2009; and
WHEREAS, ER.L, WMI and Tiller were provided the opportunity to submit additional
testmony and written materials for the record prior to and at the Plannung Conntnission's June 23,
2009 continued discussion of the Application; and
~X~HEREAS, on June 23, 2009, d1e Ells River Planning Cointnission adopted a resolution
recommending to d1e Ells River City Council that die Application for a comprehensive plan
amendment and rezoning of the SDA be denied; and
WHEREAS, the Ells River Citj=Council, on July 6, 2009, held a public hearing on the
Application and considered the Planning Commission's recommendation; and
WHEREAS, ERL, WMI, Tiller and all mennbers of die public desiring to speak at the July 6,
2009 public hearing before the City Council were provided die opportunity to do so; and
WHEREAS, all written materials submitted by ERL, WMI, Tiller, and all other members of
die public prior to and at the public hearing on July 6, 2009 were accepted into the record; and
WHEREAS, during the JulS= 6, 2009 public hearing, the CitjT Council discussed the merits of
die Application, directed that staff prepare alternative resolutions denying and approving the
Application, and continued dze public hearing to its regular meeting of August 17, 2009, i17 order to
provide ERL, WMI, and Tiller die opportunit~T to present additional materials to address issues
raised in the staff reports, during d1e public hearing, and by the CitS= Council during dzeit discussion;
and
S:\Resolutions\ResoluClin_Denyuz~Application_for_Comp_Plan_Ainend_and_Rezoning 2.DOC
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2009, the Elk River City Council continued with the public
healing on the Application and provided ERL, WMI and Tiller, as well as all members of the public
desiring to do so, the opportunity to present additional testimony and written e~=idence to the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, after all parties desiring to present testimony and offer evidence for or against
the Application had had the opportunity to do so, the Elk River CitS~ Council closed the public
hearing on the Application and continued its discussion of the Application; and
WHEREAS, by letter dated July 15, 2009, and at the August 17, 2009 City Council hearing,
ERL requested an opportunity to present additional materials and a revised plan to the Cite Council
in a workshop session; and
WHEREAS, at the close of its session on August 17, 2009, the Elk River CitS~ Council
directed:
• That any additional materials be submitted so that a staff report could be distributed
to the City Council on September 8, 2009;
• That the Application be placed on the City Council's regular workshop agenda for
September 14, 2009;
• That the September 14, 2009 workshop session regarding the landfill be a joint
meeting with the CitSr of Elk River Planning Coininission; and
• That the Application be scheduled for another public hearing at dze City Council's
regularly scheduled meeting of September 21, 2009; and
WHEREAS, representatives of ERL and City Staff inet on August 25, 2009 and September
8, 2009 to review additional materials submitted by ERL regarding the Application, including a
revised plan for the landfill expansion, a report entitled "Is Landfill Expansion a Good Invesi7nent
for Ella River" (the `~oith Report") and a letter dated September 1, 2009 (ie~rised September 8,
S:\Resolutions\Resolur~n_Detipin~Application_for_Comp_Plan_f~mend_1nd_Rezoning 2.DOC
2009) outlining design modifications to the expansion proposal, the end use plan for the landfill, and
other issues; and
~XIHEREAS, CitST Staff and CitsT consultants reviewed the revised plans, die Void1 Report,
the September 8, 20091etter and all other materials submitted by ERL, and prepared a staff report
which was delivered to d1e City Council and Planning Commission, along wide all of d1e materials
submitted by ERL, on September 8, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission met in joint workshop session on
September 14, 2009 to discuss the materials submitted by ERL, including the revisions to the
expansion proposal for dze Landfill; and
WHEREAS, ERL was pro~rided an opportunity to present its revised plans and proposed
design modifications for the expansion to the Cite Council and d7e Plamiing Commission at dze
September 14, 2009 workshop session and the City Council had the opportunity to discuss and ask
questions regarding the reprised proposal; and
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2009 die Elk River City Council held a public hearing on die
Application and provided ERL, WA2I and Tiller, as well as all members of the public desiring to do
so, d1e opportunity to present additional testimony and comment on die Application, as retrised, and
to subunit additional written evidence; and
WHEREAS, after all parties desiring to present testimony and offer evidence for or against
d1e Application had had d1e opportunity to do so, the Ells River City Council closed the public
hearing on the Application, contuiued its discussion of d1e Application, and reached d1e decision
incorporated in dlis resolution; and
WHEREAS, ERL has agreed in writing to an extension of the City's time deadline for acting
on dle application under Minnesota Statutes, Section 15.99 to September 26, 2009.
S:\Resolutions\Resolut~in_Denpu7~Application_for_Comp_Plan_Amend_Znd_Rezoning 2.DOC
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the CitST of Ells Rivet makes the following
Findings of Fact and Decision c~~idi respect to the Application of ERL, WMI, and Tiller for a
comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning of the SDA to allow expansion of the Landfill:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Landfill teas first approved to operate on 40 acres of land in 1971 and first
permitted by die Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in 1972.
2. The Landfill was granted its first approvals and permits by the City of Ella Rivet
pursuant to the City's Solid Waste Facilities Ordinance in 1988.
In 1997, die City granted approval for the Landfill to expand die area approved for
Mixed Solid Waste (MS~X~ disposal from its otigina140 acres to the current 93-acre footprint.
4. In 1988, the Landfill received approval from Livonia Township to expand die area
approved for construction and demolition debris disposal (C & D) to a total permitted footprint of
75 acres.
5. The Mixed Solid Waste and Construction and Demolition Debris operations at dze
Landfill therefore cutrendy cover 168 acres.
The Application originally proposed the development of additional MSW disposal
space on 8.6 acres on dze soudietn most portions of existing Landfill propertST and on 60.2 acres of
dze SDA, an increase in dze MSW disposal area within the Landfill from dze existing 93 acres to a
total of 162 acres, or an expansion of approxmately 75 percent.
7. As revised, the Application proposes an u7crease in the MSW disposal area witlvn dze
Landfill of 49.3 acres, an expansion of over 50%.
8. Total MSW and C & D disposal areas at die Landfill would be approximately 217
acres if d1e Application is approved.
S:\Resofutions\Resolut~m_Den}rinp Application_foL_Comp_Plan_Amend_and_Rezoning?.DOC
9. The proposed expansion of the Landfill would extend the life of the Landfill beyond
its current expected closing date. The Application as revised proposes that dze Landfill would close
no later than 2029 if die Application is approved.
10. The CitjT of Ells River has been proactively planiung for its future and regulating
solid waste facilities since the 1980's. The City adopted its Solid Waste Facilities Ordinance in 1986,
and the Landfill was rezoned to the Solid Waste Facilities Overlay Zoning District in 1988.
11. The Cite adopted its first growth management plan in 1988 and its first
comprehensive plan in 1995. The Cit~T's curient comprehensive plan (the Comprehensive Plan) was
adopted on August 16, 2004.
12. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan consists of 13 elements, including the Land Use
Element. The Land Use Plan incorporated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan
designates the current Landfill as "Landfill" and the proposed expansion area (the SDA) as
"Mining". The designation of the SDA as Mining has not been changed since adoption of die
Comprehensive Plan in 2004.
13. Changing the designation of dze SDA from Mining to Landfill on the Land Use Map
requites the approval and adoption of an amendment to die Comprehensive Plan by the City
Council, as provided by Muinesota Statutes.
14. The Comprehensive Plan states dzat it should not be amended capriciously and that
die following questions should be considered when changes to the Comprehensive Plan are
proposed;
Is the project consistent wide dze Land Use Plan?
Does the project move Ella Rivei towards its vision for the future?
Is the project consistent v~ith the policies contained the Comprehensive Plan?
S:\Resolu[ions\Resolut~n_Denpinp~Application_for_Comp_Plan_.9mend_and_Rezoning 2.DOC
15. Policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan which are relevant to the Application
include:
® Provide a balanced land use pattern which supports a sustainable min of jobs and
housing.
® Guide the scale of development to be consistent with the surrounding land uses and
general character.
® Guide commercial land use to areas that can utilize an appxopriatel~T-designed
transportation system widlout infringing upon residential neighborhoods.
® Allow commercial areas to develop when they can be designed to be compatible with
surrounding land uses.
® Include adequate buffering of commercial and industrial developments and adjacent
to non-compatible land uses.
® Require adequate transition of buffers between differing, non-compatible land uses,
making use of natural land characteristics, whenever possible.
® Require development of proposals to consider the impacts on transportation and
natural systems beyond the boundaries of the individual projects.
16. Throughout the Comprehensive Plan there is an emphasis on attracting
commercial/industrial development. This is important to the CitjT as this tSTpe of development
builds a cointnunity's tam base and creates more job opportunities.
17. Another fundamental element mentioned throughout the Comprehensive Plan is the
need to establish and maintain a positive community image by maintaining the edges and buffers
that define and protect adjacent land uses.
18. Presei-~Tation of open spaces is also an unpoxtant policy and goal of the
Comprehensive Plan.
19. The Comprehensive Plan provides that the gravel mining area of the CitS~, which is
located along both sides of North Highway 169 and includes the SDA, be guided for future
development of commercial and industrial uses. This area of the CitST is envisioned by the City
Council as the future economic enguie of the Cits~. The goal is to have this area develop with
commercial and industrial uses as the gravel is mined out. The tam base generated by commercial
S:\Resolutions\Resoluri~~n_Denyuin~Applicnuon_for_Comp_Plan_Amend_and_Rezoiung 2.DOC
and industrial development in this area is intended to support the fuhancial ~=iability of residential
development throughout the Cit~T by making it possible to maintain municipal sei~=ices without
increasing taxes. Although this is vei-~= long range planning, and there are not yet timetables for
extending public utilities into this area to sei~=e Close future uses, tus is the vision of the
Comprehensive Plan and the City Council for this area of tie City. Tlie SDA is also located
adjacent to tie future Highway 169/221" Avenue Interchange, which has great potential for future
corninercial/industrial development.
20. Tlie 2004 Comprehensive Plan was prepared wits t7e assistance of tie planning fitrn
of Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc.(HKGi). In anticipation of the proposed expansion of tie
Landfill tie City retained HKGi to take a closer lool~ at the potential unpacts of an expansion of the
Landfill on the gravel mining area of tie Cit~T. HKGi's report, the North Highway 169 Land L'se
Study, dated November 10, 2008, identified a number of potential impacts related to an expansion
of the Landfill and suggested land use, transportation and aesthetic strategies for addressing these
unpacts.
21. Following receipt of the Application to expand the Landfill, the City retained HKGi
to take a closer look at the immediate area which would be potentially impacted by a Landfill
expansion and to analyze the potential financial and fiscal impacts on the City of ail expansion of the
Landfill. HKGi's report on these issues is dated June 2, 2009, was subsequenty updated on June 15,
2009, and was updated again on September 8, 2009, following submission by ~RL of its revised plan
for expansion of the Landfill. (The HKGi November 10, 2008, June 6, 2009, June 15, 2009 and
September 8, 2009 reports are hereafter collectively referred to as the "HKGi reports".)
22. The HKGi reports project potential significant impacts of Landfill expansion on
economic development iih this area of the City and on future tax revenues generated from the SDA
and the surrounding area.
S.\Resolutions\Resolut~n_Denping._Application_for_Comp_Plan_f~mend_and_Rezoiung Z.DOC
23. ERL, WI\~II, Tiller and their consultants have strongly contested the tnetliodology
and findings of the HKGi reports, and the City Council has listened to and carefully considered the
evidence and testimony presented by the applicants and their consultants. The Citj=Council also
recognizes d7e inherent difficulty in attempting to project the potential impacts of a current land use
on future development which may or may not occur decades from now.
24. However, it is the conclusion of the City Council that an expansion of the Landfill
will inevitably have a long term negative impact on economic development within and tax revenue
generated by at least a portion of the North Highway 10 area of the CitS=, in particular the SDA and
the area immediately surrounding the SDA. Given the importance of this area to the future of the
City, the City Council cannot ignore these impacts.
25. The CitS= Council has also considered potential impacts of the Landfill expansion on
the Economic Development Strategic Plan prepared by the Ells River Economic Development
Authority and the Elk River Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Expansion of the Landfill
could have a negative impact on the following goals in that plan:
To diversify the corrunercial/industrial tax base of the CitS= to strive for
higher quality developments including professional services, corporate
campuses, energy related and technology businesses;
To presei-~=e high priority commercial areas for development;
To identify and project a higher linage and vision for the City= that enables
the Citj= to successfully recruit and retain the desired commercial/industrial
development identified above.
26. The City Council finds that an additional expansion of the Landfill, beyond that
approved in 1997 by the City= and in 1998 by Livonia Township, is not consistent with the City's
policies and goals as reflected in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the v=ork of its Economic
S:\Resolutions\Resolut~>n_Denying_Application_for_Comp_Plan_Amend_and_Rezoning 2.DOC
Development AutlioritjT, Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Planning Commission and City
Council.
27. The City Council finds that linage is a huge driver in encouraging development in the
colntnunitjT, that having the Landfill located at the northern enhance to the Cit~T adversely impacts
the image the City wishes to portray to visitors, residents and potential new businesses, and that
expanding the Landfill and extending its life span will significantly increase these negative impacts.
28. The CitlT Council further finds that expansion of the Landfill will prevent future
deg=elopment, at a ininitnum, in that portion of the SDA which will be filled with Mixed Solid Waste,
and could discourage the tSTpe of high quality coixunercial/industrial development which the CitST is
seeking fox the important area of the City immediately surrounding the SDA, including the critical
area around the future interchange at Highway 169 and 221St Avenue.
29. The Cits~ Council recognizes that there are some positive economic unpacts related
to the Landfill, including the host fees which the CitjT collects from the Landfill and the business
which ERL does with local residents and businesses. However, these are short term economic
benefits which will end once the Landfill closes. At that point, the portion of the SDA filled with
MSW will generate virtually no revenue to the CitST, and tax revenues generated from the unmediate
sw:xounding area will be negatively impacted to some degree.
30. The City Council finds that the Landfill also has non-economic negative impacts on
the CitjT and on surrounding residential uses while it is open, vlcluding litter on Highway 169 and
other public streets from trucks moving to and from the Landfill, dze buck haffic itself, road
maintenance impacts, noise and odor. Although ERL and ~X~MI have been excellent corporate
citizens and have made every effort to mitigate these impacts, they are not capable of being fully
nv.tigated until the Landfill is closed. Expanding the size and extending dze life of the Landfill will
prolong the period of time that the City and surrounding residents must endure these unpacts.
S:\Resolutions\Resoluli~_Denping_Application_for_Comp_Plan_tlmend_and_Rezoning 2DOC
31. The City= Council is also concerned about the potential enviror>snental impacts
related to the operation of an expanded landfill over the next 20 years and the potential
environmental impacts related to a significantly expanded landfill footprint following closure of the
landfill. The City Council recognizes that the 1\~Iinnesota Pollution Control Agency has completed
an Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed expansion of the Landfill, but notes that there
are environmental unpacts and risks inherent in tlvs land use which cannot be mitigated other than
by litiliting the expansion of the Landfill.
32. The CitS= Council has reviewed and carefully considered, along with all other
matei7als submitted by ERL, the Voith Report. As set fords above, the Council recognizes the
potential for some positive economic impacts related to the Landfill. However, the council finds
that:
Tlie Voith Report overstates the potential positive economic impacts of the Landfill,
for the reasons set forth in the September 8, 2009 Memorandum from the CitS=
Administrator, which are incorporated in these Findings Of Fact;
The potential £or positive economic impacts is only one of many criteria and
considerations to be weighed in making a decision to amend the Citj='s
Comprehensive Plan; and
The City Council does not agree that a present value economic analysis of any
proposed use should be a determining factor in snaking a land use decision.
33. The City Council has considered and appreciates the efforts Of ERL to instigate the
negative impacts of a landfill expansion, particularly On the important Highway 169/221" Avenue
interchange, by reducing the size of the proposed expansion in the reprised proposal and by making
an additsonal 20 acres of land available for potential development at the Interchange. However, the
S:\Resolutions\Resoluli4n_Denying_Applica[ion_for_Comp_Plan_Amend_and_Rezoning 2.DOC
Council finds that the Plan revisions do not outweigh the negative impacts of the proposed
expansion, oz change the Findings of Fact set forth in this Resolution.
34. It is the CitsT Council's conclusion, from all of the e~ridence submitted and the
testiizlony taken, that:
(1) An expansion of the Landfill will prolong the negative short term unpacts of the
Landfill on the Citj7 and will inevitably have a long term negative impact on the tax base
generated ftoin this area of the CitST;
{2) This area of the City is planned to generate the tax base that will support the
fuiancial viabiIitS~ of the balance of the City indefinitely;
(3) Given the unportance of this area to the future of the CitST, the potential benefits
of a Landfill expansion are outweighed by the negative economic, environmental and land
use impacts of an expansion; and
(4) An amendment of the Land Use Map Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan
to expand the area of the City designated for Landfill into the SDA is inconsistent with the
policies and goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan and would not be in the best interest of
the CitsT, its residents and its taxpayers.
DECISION ON LAND USE AMENDMENT
THER)/I'ORE, the CitjT Council of the City of Elk River .makes the following Decision with
respect to the Application to amend the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Ells River to redesignate
the SDA from Mining to Landfill:
A. All of the reports and materials prepared by CitST Staff and CitST Consultants, as tivell as the
Findings of Fact and Recitals set forth in this Resolution, are hereby adopted and
incorporated within the CitST Council's Decision on this matter.
S:\Resolutions\ResolulicZn_Denpin~Application_foT_Comp_Plan_~Lnend_and_Rezoning 2.DOC
B. The record in this matter shall include all materials submitted to the CitS~ and presented to
the Planning Commission and City Council, including those materials presented in the staff
reports, by the CitS= staff and by the CitS='s consultants, and all materials and testimony
submitted by or on behalf of ERL, ~X~MI, Tiller and their consultants, and all testimony
received from the public, as of the date of this Resolution.
C. The Application of ERL to amend the Land Use Map Element of die City of Ells River
2004 Comprehensive Plan to redesignate the 109-acre Southern Development Area from
the Land Use category "Mining" to the Land Use category "landfill" is hereby denied.
DECISION ON REZONING
The City Council of the City of Elk River fiuther makes the following Decision with respect
to the Application of ERL for rezoning of the 109-acre Southern Development Area from A-1
(ME), agricultural conservation (mineral excavation), to A-1 (SWF), agricultural consei-~=anon (solid
waste facility):
A. All of the reports and materials prepared by CitS= Staff and Citj= Consultants, as well as the
Findings of Fact and Recitals set forth in this Resolution, are hereby adopted and
incorporated within d1e City Council's decision on this matter
B. The record in this matter shall include all materials submitted to the CitS~ and presented to
the Planning Commission and Citj= Council, includng those materials presented in the staff
reports, by the City staff and by the Citj='s consultants, and all materials and testunony
submitted by or on behalf of ERL, WMI, Tiller and their consultants, and all testimony
received from the public as of the date of this resolution.
C. Based on all of the above, and on the additional fact tlzat the Application to reguide the
SDA from "Mining" to "Landfill" has been denied, so that rezoning the SDA from A-1
S:\Resolutions\Resoluli~i_Den}~inn~Application_foi Comp_Plan_Amend_and_Rezoning2.DOC
(I~2E) to A-1 (SWF) would result in an inconsistency between the Land Use Map Element
of the City's 2004 Compxehensit=e Plan and the CitS= of Ells River's Zoning Map, the
Application to rezone the SDA from A-1 (ME) to A-1 (SWF~ is denied.
THIS RESOLLiTION PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of September, 2009.
. ,
Steph 'e Klinzing, M
~~,,
Tina Allard, CitS= Clerk
S:\Resolutions\Resoluli~n_Denying_Application_for_Comp_Plan_tlmend_and_Rezoning 2.DOC