Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20140527 PCM RM PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 1 Call to Order: Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 27, 2014. Chairperson Wade Miller called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with Commissioners Kenninger, Husain, and Forster present. Commissioner Kurle was absent. Also in attendance were Senior Planner Zweber, Planner Lindahl, and Recording Secretary Kladar. The Pledge of Allegiance was read. Additions to Agenda:None. Audience Input: None. Consent Agenda: a. Approval of the April 22, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes MOTION by Forster to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Kenninger. Ayes: 4. Nays: 0. Motion approved. Public Hearing : 5.a. Request by SKB Environmental for IUP to allow construction and operation of a recycling This is a continuation of the public hearing opened at the April facility on their site (14-24-IUP). 22, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. Senior Planner Zweber presented a summary of the staff report in which SKB Environmental, Inc. (SKB) has proposed an 11,520 square foot building for Gem-Ash Processing, LLC to operate a non-ferrous metal recycling facility. The recycling facility will include a 4,200 square foot outdoor concrete pad for trucks to deposit the waste to be recycled. This outdoor pad is inconsistent with the 2013 Waste Facility Interim Use Permit (IUP) that included an indoor recycling/transfer facility. SKB is requesting an amendment to their 2013 IUP to allow for a recycling facility up to 14,976 square feet and a 4,200 outdoor waste depositing pad. The public hearing was opened at 6:50 p.m. The applicant John Domke of SKB, 13222 Downy Trail, Apple Valley, was present to answer questions. Chairperson Miller inquired about Section 4.0 of Operation and Closure Plan which stated there may be additional hours. Domke advised that while he anticipated additional hours of operation eventually this would not occur right away. Chairperson Miller inquired about the storage and marketing of recyclables discussed in Sections 7.1 and 7.2. Domke said he anticipated storing ferrous and non-ferrous metals such as copper, aluminum, nickel and zinc from the waste. Domke advised that Gem-Ash has an individual on staff to monitor world markets for selling the recyclables. Chairperson Miller inquired further about the on-site storage as those items may be subject to RCRA permitting. The rules state that 75% of materials must be recycled within a year or two to avoid the permit requirement. Domke said SKB is familiar with the RCRA requirements and didn’t think this would be an issue. Chairperson Miller asked Domke about the acceptance of tires in the future discussed in Section 7. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 2 Domke advised that SKB may potentially accept tires. City staff had encouraged SKB to try to encompass some of these future items to avoid having to amend the permit. Domke stated there are metals and other items in tires that are currently landfilled that could be pulled to recycle. Chairperson Miller stated if tires are going to be accepted in the future Planning will need to review as it would be subject to permitting by the PCA and Planning may need to look at the Interim Use Permit at that time. Domke advised that SKB is already permitted to maintain up to 500 passenger tires. Geoff Strack, 251 Starkey Street, St. Paul, Engineer with SKB addressed the tire storage question. Strack advised that those parts of the plan were included if this new operation ceases to exist. The facility was permitted through the City IUP, County and MPCA in the past to be a solid waste transfer station. SKB included those items in the plan as a fallback position if the new venture doesn’t work out. There are no plans to run these operations simultaneously. They would use the new building as they had described in the 2013 IUP. Miller stated that if a facility is receiving the tires in a landfill operation there may be some additional requirements. Strack advised that SKB does not have a permit that would allow them to take more than 500 passenger tires. Chairperson Miller noted that in Section 8 refers Minnesota Rules 7035.2845 Subparts 4 and 4b which he believes should be Subparts 3 and 4b. Chairperson Miller inquired what the EAW study included last year. Domke replied that the EAW study included composting, recycling, ponds and runoff. Chairperson Miller inquired about the leachate discharge. Domke advised that SKB currently maintains a wastewater permit which is adequate for new building in terms of volume and strength. Commissioner Husain inquired about the size of the non-ferrous metals. Domke advised that the machines can harvest very small amounts of metals that can’t be seen with the naked eye. This type of operation is being used widely in Europe and a facility was built in Massachusetts about a year ago using this same technology and pulling out non-ferrous metals. SKB will use this technology to pull out the non-ferrous metals to be stored and shipped to market. Commissioner Husain inquired about the storing and recycling of tires by SKB. Domke advised that there are some markets for shredded tires but SKB has no plans to do that right now. The tires and other items from previous IUP are included as a fallback position as the plans are for the new facility to be used for ferrous and non-ferrous metals. MOTION by Husain to close the public hearing. Second by Kenninger. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 7:04 p.m. Zweber inquired about the discussion about reviewing the tires and future permitting because if those items stayed in the permit it wouldn’t be addressed again until the 5-year IUP expires. Miller didn’t think further discussion was necessary as per Domke, it was Miller’s understanding that this matter would go through the appropriate permitting process with the PCA. Commissioner Husain inquired about the reason for condition number 7 regarding no recycling/transfer facility permitted beyond the building as shown. Zweber advised that there was no sufficient area anywhere on the property that SKB owns to install a second facility. The condition is added to clarify that this facility is being approved and no other recycling facilities are PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 3 approved as SKB would need to demonstrate what they are taking away to build a second building. All of the rest of the land area has a purpose either in landfill, storm water management, offices or haul roads. MOTION by Kenninger to recommend that the City Council Amend Resolution 2013-93 Exhibit A Interim Use Permit Agreement to Approve the Recycling Facility/Transfer Facility, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Operations and Closure Plan dated March 2014. 2. Compliance with the Appendix A: Section 14: Operations Plan dated March 2014. 3. Compliance with the Conestoga-Rovers Memorandum dated May 9, 2014. 4. Compliance with the Recycling Facility Site Plan revised May 2014. 5. Compliance with the Interim Use Permit to SKB Environmental, Inc. for the Operation of a Waste Facility (Resolution 2013-93) not otherwise Amended by Conditions 1 through 4 above. 6. Compliance with the Interim Use Permit Agreement Reissuance to SKB, Inc. not otherwise Amended by Conditions 1 through 4 above. 7. No recycling/transfer facility is permitted beyond the 114 foot by 104 foot building with expansion shown on Figure 2: Site Plan and Drawing A1.1: Proposed Building Plan. 8. When the recycling building is expanded to the southeast, the lower 17 feet of all the new walls will be precast concrete similar to the initial building. 9. Compliance with the City Engineer’s Memorandum dated May 21, 2014. Second by Forster. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Old Business None. : New Business : th 7.a. Request by US Homes Corporation (Lennar) for the Approval of Prestwick Place 10 Addition (The applicant, Lennar Corporation (Lennar), requests approval of a Final . Final Plat 14-35-FP) Plat for Prestwick Place 10th Addition to allow development of 26 single family lots. Senior Planner Zweber provided a summary of the staff report in which Lennar Corporation th (Lennar) requests approval of a Final Plat for Prestwick Place 10 Addition to allow development of 26 single family lots. The final plat is necessary to facilitate subdivision of the subject property into individual residential lots. Ailesbury Avenue will be completed from its existing terminus at th Prestwick Place 7 to the northwest, to the intersection with Connemara Trail. This road extension will complete the grading and adjacent infrastructure for Prestwick Park. Staff finds the application th consistent with the Prestwick Place 9 Addition Preliminary Plat that was approved by the City Council on July 16, 2013 and recommends approval of this application subject to the conditions within the recommended action. Commissioner Husain requested more details about condition number 1 regarding the drainage and utility easements. The properties affected by the easements can still have a fence they would need to install a gate that the City’s public works employees can use to maintain any infrastructure. The gate would need to be large enough to allow for equipment. The purpose of the condition is to identify these lots if a homeowner submits a fence permit. Commissioner Kenninger requested clarification regarding condition number 1. The easement PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 4 access issue would be reviewed with the resident if they came in for a fence permit to locate the infrastructure and where it makes sense to place the gate access. MOTION by Kenninger to approve the Final Plat for Prestwick Place 10th Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Drainage and utility easements with storm sewer infrastructure may contain fences but shall be required to include gates to provide truck access; shall prohibit sheds or other accessory structures; and shall prohibit landscaping that would impede drainage. 2. 1.04 acres of Prestwick Park dedication will be attributed to these 26 lots. 2.63 acres of Prestwick Park dedication remain for the next Lennar final plat. 3. Compliance with the conditions and standards within the City Engineer’s Memorandum dated May 21, 2014. 4. Compliance with the conditions and standards within the Park and Recreation Director’s Memorandum dated March 21, 2014. Second by Forster. Ayes: 4. Nays: 0. Motion approved. Audience: Shawn Kurth, 2217 Birch Street West. Kurth stated he has been trying to get a permit for a home addition since February or March 2014 and keeps coming into roadblocks. He’s been advised that his plans go over the 30’ setback by about 18”. Kurth wants to know how to get a variance for this setback. The second issue is when he bought a lot he was told part of Birch Park would be behind house and there is a 30’ easement in the back of his house. It was later determined to put in housing instead but never changed the easement. Kurth is requesting information on how to get it changed to 10’ instead. Chairperson Miller recessed the Regular Planning Commission meeting and opened the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. (7:21 PM) Chairperson Miller directed Kurth’s comments to staff and opened up Board of Appeals and Adjustments regarding the setback item. Chairperson stated that the easement issue would have to be brought before Council. Lindahl stated that this item was currently not on the meeting’s agenda so it could not be addressed. Lindahl advised that the way to address Kurth’s request depends on how his plans are finalized and some portions of his plans have been in flux. The two issues were potentially setback but primarily the drainage and utility easements in the back yard. Jason advised that they initially addressed the setback and easement issues for the 22’ addition. In that process the deck came into play and it has a separate setback but it would still encroach into drainage and utility easement. The process would initially be to talk to staff about what the easement is for and how it functions. In the past the engineering department has been able to adjust easements for certain items. The adjustment of easements is not under the authority of the Planning Commission and there is nothing on the agenda to address tonight. Chairperson Miller inquired whether there was a setback item that the Board of Appeals and Adjustments should be aware of. Lindahl advised that the way the application is written there is no setback issue to address. He advised that if a variance is needed it requires a public hearing after an PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 5 application is submitted. The application noticed in paper and to surrounding property owners at least 10 days prior to the meeting. Chairperson Miller inquired what applicant needed to do for City Council. Lindahl advised that he needed to finalize his plans and determine what the encroachment is and talk to staff about resolving the issues. Depending on how the project lays out the engineers may be able to shift easement around. This issue has not been addressed with engineers yet as there is no defined project yet. Currently the planning staff signed off on his application and it is being processed for the building inspector to review the construction site. Chairperson Miller summarized to resident that the application as it stands has no concerns associated with it and inquired of staff about the next steps. Lindahl said that if the resident wants to amend current application, staff can help them work through that process as it doesn’t appear as though the changes would require resubmitting or pulling the current application. Staff recommends resident work with staff and engineering. MOTION by Miller to close Board of Appeals hearing. Second: Kenninger. Ayes: 4. Nays: 0. Motion approved. Recess the Board of Appeals and Adjustments and re-convene the Regular Planning (7:28 PM) Commission meeting. Reports : 8.a. Resilient Community Project – City of Rosemount. Planner Lindahl provided an update to the Commission regarding Rosemount’s Resilient Communities Project (RCP) application. In late March, the University of Minnesota selected the City of Rosemount as its RCP partner community for the 2014-15 academic year. The RCP will apply the wide-ranging expertise of the U of M faculty and students to study and address community identified sustainability issues and needs. This partnership will enhance the City of Rosemount’s established commitment to sustainability. Commissioner Husain asked for more information about the non-motorized transportation assessment. Lindahl stated that the City has made an effort to promote bicycle and pedestrian plan in addition to the sidewalk and trail plan. It is designed to be an analysis of the level of non- transportation occurring now and address how the City’s existing plans and facilities meet the goals. The purpose of this study is to look at how the City can measure the amount of non-motorized transportation and the effectiveness of what the City has done. Zweber said that is only one of a number of transportation issues identified and some of other projects deal with other forms of transportation. These include the travel shed analysis, a transit line, analyzing business clusters, and the construction of alleys. Commissioner Husain feels the transportation is very important to the business of the city and access to transportation is one aspect that should be considered. Commission Forster requested an update on the potential YMCA in Rosemount. Zweber said the city hopes to get a YMCA. There is a working group which includes the YMCA, DCTC, UMore and the city that included a phone survey to determine interest in memberships which yielded a positive result. YMCA is currently working on a five year CIP. The city is working with YMCA to try to identify a site. Originally DCTC had offered some property and UMore is also a possibility. The city is currently working on this issue but for the YMCA to size their facility they need to know the local interest and resources. The City Council has expressed interest in an aquatic facility and PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 6 would contribute to make that happen. YMCA has stated they need to pick a site to move into next phase of capital campaign. Chairperson Miller asked for more information about the alternative sources of energy. Does it tie back to the city’s alternative energy ordinance? Lindahl stated that this study is more targeted than the previous discussions at Planning Commission. This study is specifically targeted for specific public facilities to be more efficient and sustainable. Zweber advised that there is another part of the study entitled green energy impacts on the environment focused on energy similar to what city just did with solar energy. There is also another study which focuses just on UMore. Zweber advised that the study has been awarded. The RCP is pushing to find professors and classes that match up with the studies. Some of the topics may merge or drop off if they can’t find a school or program and how the studies can be packaged. Zweber said they try to find multiple classes for these projects. Some of the deliverables would be a report or presentation in front of the appropriate commission. Zweber expects to have something before the November and April Planning Commission meetings. Adjournment There being no further business to come before this Commission, Chairperson : Miller adjourned the meeting at 7:48 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Karin Kladar, Recording Secretary