Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPark and Recreation Advisory Commission Packet 02-04-1982Plymouth Park and Recreation dvisory Commission Regular Mee -ing of February 40 1982 - 7<30 ppm, Plymouth, City Center Council Chambers Conference Room AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Nana tea Visitor Presentations a. Athletic Associations: b, Others Report on :hast Council Action S. Un:inished Business a. Comprehensive Park System Plan b. Playfeld Update c, 1981 Annual, Report d., City Parks S New Business a. New Plats b. Beei Permits for Designated Parka c. Distribution of Park Dedication Funds d. 1982 Park Usage Policies e. Hazardous Waste processing 7. Commission Presentation 8. Staff Communications 9 Adjournment Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission January I, 1982 Page 1, Commissioners Present; games Rice, Steve Chesebrough., Betty Threinen,, John WIlan, Frank Dvorak, Davin Berg Commissioner Absentz Barbara Edwards Staff Present Eric Blank, Rick Busch, Mary Patterson: Staff Absent: Nancy Helgeson Others Present; Councilmember Pat Moen 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7.3S p.m, by Chairman Rice. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion, to approve the minutes of the December meeting was made by Commissioner Chesebrough and seconded by Commissioner Threinen., Motion carried with all ayes 3. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS a. Athletic Association Representatives.. No one was present from this group.. b., Mary Patterson and Rick Busch. Mary Patterson gave a, review of the year- to-date totals of recreation programs and a brief outline of the new programs that will be taking place in January and February. She also asked the Commission to give her their opinions on types of music that might he popular in Plymouth for summer concerts in 1982. Commission members will have their suggestions ready for the February meeting. Rick Busch presented naterial with regard to athletics. He gave infor- mation about the broomball program starting and the skating lessons that have taken place over Christmas vacation and the ones scheduled for January and February after school. He also announced that a boot hockey tourv? „went would, be held on President's Day,, February IS, for school-age ldven. Participants must register at the warming houses. This is the final day for warming houses to be open during the, 198? season. Chairman Rice indicated to Rick that lie was interested in including ir. tho annual report the percentages of participants enrolled in hockey, soccer, softball, etc., this past year. More information regarding the annual report is discussed later in the minutes The Commission expressed soave concern over what our current role: is with the different athletic associations throughout the City.. One of the suggestions made by Chairman Rice was that we consider training youth volunteer coaches, and lie asked Rick Busch to explore this possibility. 4. REPORT ON PAST COUNCIL ACTION Director Blank- had nothing to report on this item, PRAC Minutes of January 7, 1982 Page 2 5, UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Comprehensive Park: System Plan. Director Blank reviewed the proposed Compre ensive Park System Plan for the Commission. During this review, he highlighted. the questions that had arisen, during the earlier public hearing and: the responses as. to whether or not staff would recommend changes made to the proposed plan because of concerns that had come forth, During his presentation, Director Blank highlighted answers to the most often -asked questions. These were; 1) why was one: site selected over alternative sites, 2) the time line for acquisition of various sites, 3) the method of acquisition, 4) the funding mechanisms for acquisition, and S) the interim use by landowners of property up until the time the Council deems it necessary to purchase it for park. purposes. Some of the specific sites which were reviewed were: 1) the Troy Land Company site. Staff recommended that the. alternative site further south on Elm Creel: be incorporated into the plan as the neighborhood park for the northwest Corner of Plymouth. 2) The Pomerleau Lake site should remain as proposed in the plan.. 3) The Hennepin County Regional Trail's proposed location. Staff noted that the trail's proposed location was accurately reflected on the maps 4) The Harold Reimer property site should be moved slightly to the north so that it coincides with a property line, rather than leaving a narrow strip of land between the park a different land owner's property. S) Staf" noted that they had reviewed both the proposed sites owned by Lundgren Bros. and Richard Dezeil and recommended that neither proposed site be dropped from the plan at this time. After presenting the Park, System Plan, Director Blank reviewed. the Comprehensive Trail System Flan. He noted some recommended changes that were different frc", the last time PRAC saw, this plan,. One was the addition of a Class I trail going north from Gleanl;och Park intersecting with the Luce Line Trail. Second was the reclassification of the trail on. the east side of Medicine Lake from a community trail to a regional trail, He also pointed out a number of minor graphic changes to better delineate on which side of the road a particular trail was and a short trail in a small, cul-de-sac that had been overlooked on previous drafts. He reviewed the concern raised by Don Myron with regard to a trail on the east side of Highway 101 going north from OakwoodElementary. He reiterated that staff was. recommending that this trail should be a Class I off-road trail. Following brief comments and questians by PRAC' COMMISSIONER THREINEN MOVED: AND COMMISSIONER DVORAK SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE COMPRE- HENSIVE PARK AND "TRAIL'SYSTEM PLANS''AND',RECOMMENDED THEN( FOR ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Following the motion, Chairman Rice invited questions and comments from the commissioners. In response to a question from John Mullan regarding, whether or not East Medicine Lake Park was a City park, John Worrall indicated that it was a special use park. Mr, Mullan was also concerned about some information given on Page 16 of the Comprehensive Plan regarding discrepancies between the deficiencies FRACMinutes of January 7, 1982 age 3 resulting from neighborhood park standards and the actual property acquisition. He felt that this part of the paragraph needed to be more clear, and he made suggestions for simplifying it. Steve Chesebrough indicated that he also had numerous comments which he said he would write down and send to Director Blank for inclusion. in the final draft of the plan. He suggested that each page and map be numbered and dated for those whQ may be studying: the plan several years from now. Director Blank reviewed for the commission where snowmobil.ng is allowed in Plymouth based on a question from .john Mullan. David Berg was concerned about how the commission's actions affect the residents of Plymouth., particu,!rly in the case of acquiring private land for use as a park. He asked if the Council, always accepts all of PRAC's recommendations regardless of who they might impact. Chairman Rice responded that the Council does not always adopt every PRAC recommendation, but. that they do give much respect to the long hours put into projects by the various advisory boards. Following these comments and questions, the vote was taken and the 7ation, carried with. all ayes. b. Playlield Update. Director Blank reviewed the status of all playfield. construction to date, and noted that it was anticipated that the skating rink, pleasure -rink and.shelter at Zachary Playfield would be open by mid-January. C. Elm Creek Golf Course. Director Blank reviewed the contents of a memo he wrote to PRAC dated December 31, 1981. fie. • indicated that the City was not in a position at this time to undertake the purchase of Elm Creek Golf Course because of the projected deficit. of $100,000 to 150,00'0 annually in bond and interest debt payments. The Conunission accepted his recommendation and took.no further action. Director Blank did. recommend that when the Commission annually reviews the Comprehensive System Plan, which he expects will be done: again as early as August or September of 1982, that the Commission_ should look at identifying future golf courses for public ownership. City Park: Concept Plans.. John Worrall presented the concept plans for West Medicine Lake Park. This was an information -item only. Park and Recx?,ation Advisory Commission members asked a variety of questions dealing with,the size of parking lots, road relocation,. trail locations and containment or dredging of soil to create a ponding area. This item will be further discussed and reviewed at subsequent PRAC meetings. 1981 Annual Report, Director Blank handed out draft copies of the 1981 Annual Report for Commission review. Upon paging through the report very quickly, a number of suggestio-as were made by FRAC for staff review. One was the inclusion of pie charts to show the PRAC'Minutes of January 7, 1982. Page 4 distribution of revenues and funds for the department, also charts to depict expenditures per capita., the percentage of Cit} budget, source of revenue, and charts to show youth athletic participation. Commission members will take their reports home and indi,ridually review and send. comments to the director :for inclusion in the final draft. C. NEW BUSINESS a. New Plats. No new plats were presented. b. Phone Survey. Director Blank handed out the preliminary results from the Telephone survey showing attitudes. and interests of Plymouth residents,. General discussion of this material followed. Chairman Rice asked that staff research the passibility of cross tabbing questions 32 and 33 by age and location. The Commission was also interested in learning if there was a different response from long-term versus short-term, residents of the community, c. Director Blank reviewed ice rink reservation rules and charts showing which groups have reserved ice time for the winter season.. 7 COMISSICN PRESENTATION Mone. B'. STAFF CONHUNICATION None:, 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10.15 p.m. PRAC Minutes of January 7, 1982. Page 4 distribution of revenues and funds for the department, also charts to depict expenditures per capita, the percentage ofCity budget, source of revenue, and charts. to show youth athletic participation. Commission members will take their reports home and individually review and send comments to the director for inclusion in the final draft. 5. NEW BUSINESS a. New Plats No new plats were presented. b. Phone Survey. Director Blank handed out the preliminary results from the telephone survey showing attitudes and interests of Plymouth residents.. General discussion of this material followed, Chairman Rice asked that staff research the possibility of cross tabbing questions 32 and 33 by age and location. The Commission was also interested in learning if there was a different response from long-term versus short-term residents of the community. c., Director Blank reviewed ice rink reservation rules and chart`' showing which groups have reserved ice time for the winter season. 7. COMMISSION' PRESENTATION None, 8. STAFF CONtIUNICATION None. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M. CITY CSF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNF-80TA 55441 TELEPHONE, (612) 559-2800 MEM DATE; January 29, 1982 TO PRAC FROM. Eric Blank SUBJECT., Plymouth Site Volunteered for Hazardous Waste Processing Facility Steve Chesebrougli suggest--d that we discuss the attached information. at our February meeting. Z will attempt 4o have further information available by thee. lnh Att; r IMPORTANT SPECIAL, PUBLIC MEETING—Thursday, January 21, 1982, Armstrong High School --Auditorium, 10635 --36th Ave. N. Between County Rd. 18 and lachary Lane on 36th Ave. N'. 7:30 P.M. t+DRTM Plymouth W -22-8t volunteered site) Maple Grove Medicine Lake HAZARDOUS WASTE PROCESSING Piymou'ch Site Volunteered For Hazardous 1.111'aste Processing Facility! A BURNING ISSUE that Will Affect. You! FLAMMABLE socio I/ A Nt: A4 POISON We can label it:; We can legislate it—but can we control it incur densely populated communities? Experts say --Not Likely r Minnesota Waste Management Board says—Plymouth is the only volunteered site of the remaining 17 sites in Minnesota. Anchor Industries says= -Trust us, Give us more time. CLEAN says Protect your interests --Now is the time for action. The Minnesota Waste Management Board (WMB) has selected 17 proposed hazardous waste sites for the state. Our Plymouth site is the ONLY "volunteered" site remaining and the ONLY site in Hennepin County, The Plymouth site was "volunteered" by Anchor Industries as an incineration, transfer/storage and chemical processing facility. There is a GREAT possibility that this site will be chosen for the Final Inventory of Preferred Sites due in February or March 1982.. Statements made by an international expert in. the field of hazardous waste management showed that Plymouth does not meet the criteria established by the WMB, Furthermore, the Top Ten Most Hazardous Waste Sites in the USA have followedEPA and state guidelines and stili have contaminated air and local drinking water, supplies. Our community's environmental and health concerns are: Pollution of air, drinking water, recreational waters, parks, wildlife, extreme fire danger from volatile liquids or chemicals and dangerous chemical truck transporting. Protect your interestsi Learn more orxbecome involved by attending; a special publi; meeting Thuraday, January 21, 7:30 P.M. at P1y"10TIY'fMIty""Wil. CLEAN—(Community League for Environmentally Acceptable Neighborhoods, Inc.) 5020 Forestview Lane • Plymouth, MN 55442 Phone 559-1642, 559-4479, or 559-2492 CIT` OF PLYMOUTH, 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55441 TELEPHONE (612) 553-2800 February 1 1982MEMO TO PPA FROM, Eric Blank SUBJECT: Hazardous Waste Site Attached is additional information for Agenda Item 6. e. on the Hazardous Waste Site. nh « CITY" OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55441 TELEPHONE (612) '559-2800 J M G DATE: January 29, 1482 T0: Mayor City Council FR0FA James G. Willis, City Manager SUBJECT, HAZARD01jS MMEpWCESSING FACILITY STATUS REPORT Sumna ' The Hearing Examiner's report on the suitability of the Aglite site has been received. 11be report recommends that the Aglite site be included in the Waste Management Board's inventory of preferred sites. We have also received a letter from the Chairman of the Waste Management. Board inviting us to appointment an individual and an alternate to represent Plymouth on a "Citizens Task Force", the purpose of which is to serve as a link between the Board and the local cce munities. Can January 26 we received a copy of Hearing Examiner Alan Nettles' report: on the public hearing held at the Plymouth City Center on November 9. The hearing examiner notes that his report is a reocmnendation to the Waste Management Board and that the. Board alone will make the final decision with respect to the establishment of an inventory of preferred sites. Nonetheless, the hearing examiner has that the Aglite site b,e included; within the Waste. Management Board's inventory of pret.,xred sites for hazardous waste processing, incineration and/or a transfer and . age facility. The t irxj examiner's x>tport will now be reviewed by the waste ManagementBoardanditsstaffinconjunctionwithalltheotherhearingexaminer reports coming from the numerous public hearings held during the latter part of 1981. Tht Waste Management Board following its review will establish its own inventory of preferred sites. be rite Msnagenent Hoard has recently established a "Citizens Task paroe", which is to include representatives of those areas under active consideration for inclusion on the preferred site inventory lista The Task Force is designed to serve as a link between the Boar and the ,local cam pities. Given the wide distribution of Task Force I am oonfident that it will also serve as a means of r M Hazardous Wkeste Processing Facility January 29 1982 Page Two sensitizing* respect ae task rianbe to the points of view of other ndi6 cels who are oonc ernec about hazardous waste practices proposed in their own areas. individuals appointed to this task force can nticipate a substantial time ocmnitnent and it is important therefore, that any individual appointed by the Council be fully aware tj-,at a substantial amount of their time could be required to carry out the task force responsibilities, ass well as communicating with the city Council. Clouncilm ether `T'hreinen has indicated that vne of the i,* bers of CLEAN, Gay Varerka, would be an ideal individual if considered as a task force member. Prior to the meeting Monday ev ening, mayor Davenport Councibtie—rber Threinen and I will be meeting with representatives of CLEAN andthe Waste Management Boards to Further discuss the status of the Herd's consideration of the Aglite site, as well as matters dealing with the siting proce8sing yet to be followed by the Board:. We will be in the position to report verbally cn this meeting to the full Council Monday evening. Also arttached to this. my are other iters which the Council may wish to review before our meeting mmday evening. First, is a copy of the City's position. statement which was read into the records at the public hearing by Gerry Neils. Second, are several pieces of correspondence which we have been provided by CLEAN. Their correspondence is with various parties interested ir, the hazardous waste siting process and indicates the depth and scope of their Cf.'mititment thein concern about the suitability of t_he. Aglite site. JGW: jM attach STATE OF MINNESOTA WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD 23 TH,ORSON BUILDING 7323 58TH AVENUE NORTH CRYSTAL, MINNESOTA 55428 January 20, 1982 The Honorable David: Davenport 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Mayor Davenport; ROBERT'G DUNN CHAIRMAN TELEPHONE ME"RO ARES t612 535 0816 OUTSTATE 1,800.652,9747 On January 14 the Minnesota Waste Management Board decided to establish a specialCitizens' Task Force" that will serve as a link between the Board and local communi- ties on issues concerning hazardous waste management in Minnesota. The Task Force will include representatives of 20 "proposed candidate areas" in 12 Minnesota Counties now under consideration by the Board as possible hazardous waste disposal sites, In addition, it will include residents from 17 areas in or near 14 Minnesota communities, proposed by the Board as "preferred areas" for hazardous waste processing facilities. We are ,writing to request that the Plymouth City Council appoint one Task Force member and one alternate to represent the community of Plymouth, which includes an area pro- posed by the Board as a "preferred area" for hazardous waste processing facilities. The boundaries for that area are as follows: approximately 250 acres owned by the AgLite Company, west of Interstate 494 between County Roads 9 and 10. The Cltizons' Task Force willbecome an important group who will interact with the Waste Management Board as they continue the process of siting hazardous waste facili- ties in Minnesota and in developing a comprehensive state hazardous waste management plan. Task Force members will be asked to act as leaders of the Local communities in the siting process, conveying the views and terns of citizens to the `Taste Manage- ment Board and serving as sources of information for residents in or near the proposed siting areas. Task Force members will be asked to attend as many meetings of the Waste Management Board as possible, from the time they are appointed in early February until the appoint- ment, in July, of "Local Project Review Committees" in each of the six candidate disposal sites, to be selected by the Board in June in accordance with state law. When the Local Project Review Committees are formed the Citizens" Task Force will dissolve. It is hoped that -in addition to attending and participating In regular Waste Management Board meetings.—Task Force members will help arrange for and participate in periodic public meetings within the siting area communities and will keep local residents informed on the work of the Board and ascertain their views, on hazardous .-caste management Issues. In thein activities and deliberations the members of the Task Force will be assisted by the staff and resources of the Waste Management Board. Board members and staff wild, at the request of Task. Force members, attend as many local meetings as possible. The Task Force will begin its activities with, a special two-day seminar, February 18 and 19 at the Minnesota Department of Transportation Training Center at Arden Hills. That DOARD MEMBERS: DIST11OCT 1 0{STRICT 2 D15TRICT 3 DISTRICT A LAUAENCE HUNTER. HoNinps KEITH KUITERS. Grit Grove WKUAM K1111CHNER, RkfMMid MILTON KNOLL JR. WM@ Dow lake DISTRICT S LOUISE KUDERLING, MMOSPOW DISTRK;T 6 THOMAS RENNER. Elk Rover DISTRICT T ALLAN EOE, H 1N"q@ DISTRICT B DAVID HARTLEY, HeMsintOwn Mayor Davenport Page 2 January 20, 19$2 .._ seminar, and other Taste Force seminars to follow in the. coming weeks, will discuss a variety of topics and issues related to hazardous waste mons gement, including; The 1980: Waste Management Act; The Waste Management Board's development of a comprehensive Minnesota Hazardous Waste Management Plan; The two siting processes now being conducted by the Board; klazordosos waste management activities in other states and nations; and Such siting issues as ficbility for hazardous waste facilities and the feasibil- ity of above- or below- ground storage of hazardous wastes.. All Task Force representatives and alternates will be invited to opening seminar February IS and 19. Following that date the oppoinied representative for each area --or the alternate acting on his or her bPholf--will be asked to attend Waste Management Board meetings. Each Task Force rrnember will be reimbursed by the Waste Management Board =or ex- penses incurred in serving on the Task Force, including mileage, meals, and lodging. State statute does not allow the Board to pay "per diem" salaries to Task Force members. For each of the 20 tQproposed candidate ureas" for hazordous waste disposal sites, the Waste Management Board is requesting the County Boards of the 12 affected counties to appoint a Task Force member and alternate. Eleven of the seventeen proposed areas for hazardous waste processing facilities include parts of bath municipalities and townships. The Waste Management Board is requesting each County Board concerned with those areas to appoint a Task Force member and alternate who will represent both the town and township. The other six areas proposed as "preferred areas" for hazardous waste processing focilitiess however, lie entirely within municipalities: in those instances City Councils are being asked to appoint the Task Force representatives. For each community with more than one proposed hazardous waste processing facility area, the Board hes asked that one Task Force representative and one alternate be appointed to represent that community. The members of the Waste Management Board are confident that the Task Force will oddress the hazardous waste issue comprehensively and effectively. The Task Force will serve as a tool to foster dialogues and cooperation among the various proposed siting areas, and to help fGcilitate further public involvement in the work of the Waste Manage- ment Board. Please respond iro the Bocrd with your appointments by Friday, February S. If you have further questicx s or need additional information, please contact Tom Johnson, the Assis- tant to the Board Chairman. Thank you for your consideration and assistance. the Waste Manogement Board, rt G. Dunn Chairman RGDsm cc: Patricia Hoyt Virgil Schneider. G. H. Neils M STATE OF MINNESOTA - OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR THE MINNESOTA WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD WMB42-010-AN In the Matter of the Proposed Finditags of Fact, Conclusions, Recommendations, Hazardous Waste Processing Facility and Memorandum Area in the City of. Plymouth The above -entitled matter came on for hearing before Alan R. Nettles, Hearing Examiner, on: November 9, 1961 at the Plyattorath, City Hall at 1:03 p.m. and 7x00 p.m. LeRoy Paddock, Esq., Special Assis'ant Attorney Gcnerxi, 1935 West County Road B2, Roseville, Minnesota 55113. and Sharon Decker, Project Manager, Waste Management Board, 123 Thorson Building, 7323 58th Avenue North, Crystal, Minnesota appeared on behalf of the State of Mirresots Waste Management. Board (hereinafter NMB). Appearances by members of the public are recorded in the Transcript of the Hearing and included statements by the following public officialft; Gerald Neils, acting Mayor, City of Plymouth, Howard Hunt,, former Mayor city of Plymouth, David Crain, Plymouth Board of Zoning Appeals and James Rimstad, Minnesota Senate.. The record closed December 8, 1981. NOTICE Notice is hereby given that this report includes a number of recommendations based upon facts elicited at the public hearing. it Is not a final decision. The 'WMB will make the final decision to include or eliminate this proposed site from its inventory of preferred sites after a comparative review of similar reports on other potential preferred sites throughout the State of Minnesota. Even inclusion within the Inventory of preferred sites dots rot constitute a final decision that a hazardous waste facility of any type will be located within the proposed area, because issues re- lated to specific plans or facility design must be resolved prior to the operation of any facility. Perscns interested in +pie procedures to be followed by the WMB may contact Special Assistant, Attorney General, LeRoy Paddock at (612) 296-7726. ISSUE ether the proposed area located within the City of Plymouth, Minnesota and more specifically described ass An area of approximately 250 acres located in the central part of Plymouth west of Interstate 494, south of Mud Lake, and east and southeast of Pomerleau Lake. The property is owned by Anchor bndustrive and InckkW their Aglite Facility. should be considered for inclusion within the inventory of preferred areas as a location for a huwdmA waste processing, incineration and/or transfer and storage f kellity., Based, upon the proceedings herein, the Hearing Examiner makes -the following: FINDINGS OF FACT T'sat between Deceiitt4er and April of 1981, the WMB held 8 citizen participation, meetings regarding the siting of hazardous waste facilities throughout the state, including the Hennepin County region. in addition, the WMR Circulated and. evaluated citizen questionaires to determine local attitudes and local concerns regarding hazardous waste facilities (WMB Exhibit G). The WNIB a also sought the views and advice of representatives of state agencies, industries and waste management firms on siting criteria. 2. That the WhIB solicited the volunteering of hazardous waste facility sites. (11; S Exhibits J, K) 3. That the W b1B staff prcposed the area involved herein for inclusion in the inventory of preferred areas on September 11, 1981. (WMB Exhibit 1`F)• 4. That notice of the proposal for inclusion in the inventory was published on October 19, 1981 in the State R ister. Notice of the hearing was also published in the Minneapoilis Tribune on October 22, 1981, in the New Hope -Plymouth Post and North Hennepin Post-Robbinsdale on October 22, 1981; in Finance end Commerce on October 22, 1981 On October 16, 1981 a news release was mailed by the WMB to the Edina Sun, ABCNewspapers, Post Publications, Skyway News, KUaL AM), KRSI (AM -FM) and WCCO (AM -FM) and TV, several other stations and to local officials in the affected and surrounding communities. (Y'NIB Exhibits FF, JJ, HH, KK) S. That the Hearing Examiner viewed the proposed area before the hearing on November 12,, 1981 with LeRoy Paddock, Esq., Ms. Sharon Decker, Allan Gebhardt, Barr Engineering and Daniel Hoklas, Anchor Industries. 6. That as required by Minn. Stat. 5 115A.09, Subd. 2 the follow-iteris were addressed when evaluating the suitability of the area as a potential hazardot s waste pro t'-.%.ing facility site: A) Would siting at the area be conA:tent with: 1) siting requirements found in easing state and federal regulations? ti) existing local lend use and land use controls? fio the protection of agriculture and natural resources? B) What effect would the siting have on existing and future development patterns? C) Are transportation and *they services appropriate to hazardous waste facilities available? D) What need exists for a hazardous waste facility in this area and where are the waste generators:lmatsd In relation to it? 7. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. g 115A.09, li" 2, the WMB must, 3n addition to the aforesaid criteria, compare the quality of this site to the quality of other potential sites. Z- 8. State and. Federal Regulations. All land within a 100 year flood plain, protected wetlands as identified by the Department of Natural Resources, and all land that is shoreland was eliminated from consideration prior to the WMB's proposal to include the Coon Rapids site in the preferred site inventory. The WMB definitions of hazardous waste and waste processing ere basically consistent with federal regulation. 9. Local Land Use and Land Use Controls. The site is made up of land zoned industrial or future restricted development (?RD). The. city land use regulations: and zoning regulations allow for industrial districts. FRD districts permit future residential and non-residential urban type uses. For areas not having city water and sewer available, a variance must be secured and the regulations require the petitioner to demonstrate that no unreasonable burden on the city's ability to provide services or deleterious impact on the natural environment will result. The type of development allowed is any manufacturing, production, processing, cleaning, storage, servicing, repair or testing of material, goods or products that is wholly contained within a building and meets and maintains Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards. Conditional use permits can be obtained for permitted or accessory industrial uses, including the storage of materials, products or vehicles, not contained within a building. (t NIS Exhibit P-6) 10. Protection of Agriculture and Natural Resources. A. Soils Conditions The proposed area has a wide variety of soils types. Both north and south of the Soo Line Railroad tracks, which roughly bisect the proposed area, most of the area is covered with Hayden clay loam and Hamel and Nessel loams, which have clay and clay loam materials present within them. These soils have low permeability properties. The exception to these soils conditions is in the northwest corner of Section 10 where some organic soils and a gravel pit are present. It is unknown whether the `ravel pit has clay soils beneath it. The topography is comprised of many short elopes and the surface water drainage is to the west and southeast where Manic soils are present.. 7Aare is evidence of limestone present in the soil of the proposed site. The proposed area is of generally higher elevation than the surrounding areas. (WUB Exhibit R, Anchor Exhibit N) B. _Aquifer/ Municiyal Water Supply/water Qualitd UWndards There is no municipal water supply in the area. A well lag for that portion of the area upon which the Aglite Facility has been located indicates clay at the anrface and that the well taps a bodiroek water supply approximately 100 feet below the surface in the Prairie du. Chien level• (Anchor Exhibit 8). The area includes two unprotected wetlands which are likely to become flooded seasonally 3M - J 1 I a or following,storms and are of significant size: Icing T and N acres. A portion of Bass Greek Inter- sects the site and a marsh exists within the area. (Public Exhibit U laud Lake, Basi Lake, Schmidt Lake, Pomerleau Lake and Turtle Iake are afi) located within appro imatalg t'100 to 7,000 fest. of the boundaries. of the proposed area. The shoreland of Pomerleau Lake $ within the northwest corner, of the site. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources shoreland regulations (Minn Rei N R 81) defines shoreland as land within 1.000 feet of a lake or within 300 feet of a stream. Protected wetlands exist within approximately $00 feet Of the site, lying just east of Interstate 494 (W.NIB Exhibit R, Anchor Exhibit 10, C. Air Qualit The area is located within an area which is designated as a non -attainment area for total suspended particulates (TSP), Sulfur Dioxin (SO2). and Carbon Monoxide (GOi Any new source of emissions would be subject to the off -set rule, and would have to comply with the USFP A Pre- vention of Significant Deterioration Rules. Because an air emissions facility has been operated historically 8t the volunteered site pursuant. to an MPGA permit. "off -sets" are available to be used. The prevailing wind currents over, the area are from the northwest at an average spelt lo.5 miles per hour. T;.e proposed area is generally west-northwest of the major population L In the, Twin City Metropolitan arpa. (Anchor Exhibit 13, Public Exhibit 11) D. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Soils -Aquifer implications Analysis White the clay texture of the subsoil appears to have natural properties to help mitigate: the effect of accidental spills and lsachh4 through slow percolation and attenuation of contaminants, control of runoff to protectedand unprotected wetlands is an important coneern. (WMB' Exhibit R) Existing and Future Development Patterns. All land zoned and planned for residential use as of July L 1961 was Ominated from consideration prior to the Waste Management Board's proposal to include the Illymouth site in the preferred site nirssntory. (WKS zxwt as) The City of Plymouth has been one of the wroat rapidly growing population centers in the. Metropolitan sm. The city and its' rosidents have a; legi x proposed preferred site include 'a golf course, a, junk yard and a septic tank. manufacturer! There are also a number of midential projects existing orplanaed by Privato entrepreneurs within a mile to two miles from the site. A'140 family residential development has been approved by the city for an area about one mile east of the Site, ;Industrial zoning currently covers about 10%, of the total area, but. covers About two-thirds of the portion represented by Anchor Industries as the area most likely to be developed for hazardous waste, pmeessing, incineration, tranJrfer or storage., Southwest of the site, a residential planned unit has been sorted, but is not complete.. (Anchor Exhibit 14, Public Exhibit 16) 17:. Vansportation and Services Appropriate to iiazardo4s Waste Facilities, The. proposed area is adjacent,, but without direct access to, Interstate 494 which has an average daily 'traffic of 73,000 vRhicles (north and south) and is classified as a primrry arterial highway. The- accident rate on 494 is 3.5 accidents per million vehicle miles which is less than the statewide. average of 4.2 accidents. Approximately one-half milt south of the site, County Road 9 which is a minor arterial highway, crosses 494, East of 454, the average daily traffic on County Road 9 is 9,000 to 9,000 vehicles per day, but drops to 3,500 vehicles per day west of 494. A. collector highway, County P oad 47, is 'located about one mile north of the site. It crosses under 494 and has no access to it, Also north of the site is County Road 10, !lass Lake Road, a minor arterial high- way. All the county roads have 10 tont spring weight .load limits. The seasonal Aglite shipping which has been carried on at tht proposed site has been primarily across 494, County Road 9 and West Medicine Lake. Road. Tho location of the Mzardous waste facility on: the, proposed oite could require the upgtad6* of access into the site itself by either installing a full or partial interchange to 494 at 49th Avinue. North, a frontage road west of 494 from County Road 10 or from County Road 9 or completion of proposed County Highway 61 between County Roads 9 and 10 on the cast side of 464 (Anchor Exhibit. 7,14 The area is afro serviced by the Soo Lha* main track which bisects the proposed area, north of existing Agl to facility. Thttraek in that section is rated as sate for freight at ipeods Of 60 wiles per hour. (LIMB Exhibit V, Anchor Exhibit 11. The City of Plymouth hes a (ire insurance tratieg of L The city is Serviced by the Pigs Eye tewsp Tteatsaent. Plant in st. Paul. There are M KPCA permitted sanitary land fill sitar within 26 MUSSofthe propasd area which n ny be able to accept certain types of residues from the various treatment processes contemplated. (WNIB Exhibit R) M rogation of Hasardoo Waste t3anee tora. That the 7 +county M tmeapOVa-dt. Paul Metropolitan area generates approximately eighty- five thousand (85,000) tons of potentially hazardous waste annually. (WMB Exhibit C) i- h. . duality of Other Potential Areas: At the date hereof, no other reports from othtr<proposed sitar are available, thus making comparison to other sites impossible in thin report. Ultimately, the. Hoard mutt compare, the various sites, which are proposed foe inclusion In the inventory of preferred areas, 13. "'That the WMR also eorWdered the fallowing factors in determining whether any` particular site be proposed for consideration for inclusion in the preferred site inventory, natural heritage sad archeological sites, local attitude toward industrial development, and, in: the case of Volunteered sites, the Uklihood that a volunteered sit* would be developed. 16. Natural lieritaee and Areheolecical Sites. here arc no listed prehistoric archeologiceel sites or structures on the National Register of Historic Places located within the proposed site. (WMB Exhibit T). Z?, Local Attitude TowardIndustrial Development. The local attitude toward industrial development of the hazardous waste processing; t}ape is very negative. The comments of the various members, of the public are too numerous and lengthy to recite In this Report, but: may be reviewed in the transcript of the hearing and. In Public Exhibits I through 27: Generally, the comments fall within the following ar tast a) hazardous wastes are o." unknown toxicity to humans and therefore should be processed at a sate distance from: population centers (Public Exhibit 18) b) the proposed area is steep and has adjacent wetlands which would make it impossible to eeontrol waste spillage run off in a storm- c) that the. volunteers Anchor Industries, is associated with the Aglite Facility and Aglite is perceived to have had a poor air pollution compliance record (Public Exhibit 3)- d) that accidental spills and emissions occur despite compliance standards (Public Exhibit 1,94 e) that public expenditure for environmental eantrois and eontroling agencies such as the MpCA, (night be cut back and Um provide lea regulatory supererfsioni f) that the proposed ares will become a regional facility that will process waste; from other communities and that that would be, unfair to the eftisens of Plymouth; g) That the values of existing and ;future housliq will be diminished due to the proximity of the hazardous waste facility whieh'may emit unplaasant odors and be visually unattraca tiva; k) that the proposed site was Fret included as a result of a ft'Wutar search conducted by the Waste Management Board to identify potential areas and is therefore being selected on the basis of different criteria from other, non -volunteered, sites, 4- T f a it that not enough study of the potential risks to the environment and human health have been made rMarding the proposed area. Ut, Liklihood that a Volunteered Site will be Developed; It is likely that Anchor LAduatries. Kill proceed with the necessary plans and permit applications to develop at least a portion of this site for, hazardous waste processing, incineration and/or transfer and storage. The portion on which Anchor Industries would most probably recommend for actual construction of a hazardous waste facility isthe approximate site of the present Aglite flacllity 19. That no; alternative site was proposed by, the county. Based on the foregoirq Findings of Fact,, the, bearing Examiner makes the following CONCLUSIONS 1. Pursuant to 1981 Minn. haws, Ch., 352, S 10 (to be codified as Minn. Stat. S 115A.09), this hearing, is neither a rulemaking proceeding nor a contested ease proceeding. The hearing did afford all interested persons an opportunity to ask quutions, testify, and present evidence on the subject matter. 2: The Minnesota Pollution Vontrol Agency fulfilled its statutory obligation, pursuant to 1981 Minn. Laws, Ch. 352, 110 (to be codified as Minn. Stat, S 115,A.09, Subd. 2), by preparing a suitability report on the proposed hazardous waste processirg facility area in Plymouth,, I The Minnesota Waste, Management Board has eomprmd with all requirements of substan- tiae and procedural law, The Minnesota Waste Management Board and the Hearing, Examiner have jurisdiction in this matter, 4. Any of the foregoing Conclusions which should be more properly deemed Findings, or any of the foregoi:V Findings which should be more properly deemed Conclusions, are hereby* adopted as such; Bared upon the foregoing Findings of Fast and Com"04k the Hearing Examiner makes the following. RECOMMEh_ "DA71ONS' L That the propose area daeuibed as; An area of approximately 250 serer located in aha aentral part of Plymouth Meat of interstate ill, Lauth of Mad Laka„ and east and southeast of Pomarlaau Lake, The property i8 owmd by Anchor k0ustries and includes their Aglita: Facility. int eonsidared far inchWen in: the iiwwtarlt Of preferred ayes for the iooation of a 1103erd"d waste chemical pr geembW (wilily, a Aasardowr waste inekwration facility and a hazardous waste storage and trwdar facllity., f a it that not enough study of the potential risks to the environment and human health have been made rMarding the proposed area. Ut, Liklihood that a Volunteered Site will be Developed; It is likely that Anchor LAduatries. Kill proceed with the necessary plans and permit applications to develop at least a portion of this site for, hazardous waste processing, incineration and/or transfer and storage. The portion on which Anchor Industries would most probably recommend for actual construction of a hazardous waste facility isthe approximate site of the present Aglite flacllity 19. That no; alternative site was proposed by, the county. Based on the foregoirq Findings of Fact,, the, bearing Examiner makes the following CONCLUSIONS 1. Pursuant to 1981 Minn. haws, Ch., 352, S 10 (to be codified as Minn. Stat. S 115A.09), this hearing, is neither a rulemaking proceeding nor a contested ease proceeding. The hearing did afford all interested persons an opportunity to ask quutions, testify, and present evidence on the subject matter. 2: The Minnesota Pollution Vontrol Agency fulfilled its statutory obligation, pursuant to 1981 Minn. Laws, Ch. 352, 110 (to be codified as Minn. Stat, S 115,A.09, Subd. 2), by preparing a suitability report on the proposed hazardous waste processirg facility area in Plymouth,, I The Minnesota Waste, Management Board has eomprmd with all requirements of substan- tiae and procedural law, The Minnesota Waste Management Board and the Hearing, Examiner have jurisdiction in this matter, 4. Any of the foregoing Conclusions which should be more properly deemed Findings, or any of the foregoi:V Findings which should be more properly deemed Conclusions, are hereby* adopted as such; Bared upon the foregoing Findings of Fast and Com"04k the Hearing Examiner makes the following. RECOMMEh_ "DA71ONS' L That the propose area daeuibed as; An area of approximately 250 serer located in aha aentral part of Plymouth Meat of interstate ill, Lauth of Mad Laka„ and east and southeast of Pomarlaau Lake, The property i8 owmd by Anchor k0ustries and includes their Aglita: Facility. int eonsidared far inchWen in: the iiwwtarlt Of preferred ayes for the iooation of a 1103erd"d waste chemical pr geembW (wilily, a Aasardowr waste inekwration facility and a hazardous waste storage and trwdar facllity., 4 i wxnw •a`+k`w a rz.. S. 4 2;. That When the Minnesota Waste Management Board considers including the'proposed. area in Plymouth in the final preferredarea inventory. the Waste Management Board should. consider the following factorst a) -'tw proximity of population centers to the proposed area and surrounding the transpor- tation routes servicing tate; areal b) Thr prevalent northwest wind and population centers downwind from the: site; c) The non -attainment status of the are in respect td certain air pollutants', d) Toe problems, caused by runoff In case of storms, a) The presence of limestone deposits in the solll f) The local. ordinances restricting the type and characteristics of industrial operations within the eltyl g) The; proximity of protected wetlands, marsh, creeks and recreatio!asIty-used lakes to the area-, h) The possibility of leakage, spills and accidents regardless of design and regulatory safe- guards,, ii The possibility of unknown toxic effects of the chemical' waste which might be processed or produced at such facility,, j) The naturally mitigative and low permtobility p;rperties of the clay soil in the area; k) The probable to allabillty of air pollution ",qff-sets" for facility located at the site; 1) The probability that Anchor Industries, will proceed to develop plans and seek permits necessary to locate: &,hazardous waste processing plant on the site- m) The historic use of tt`e site for industrial purposes s1wee 1959. 1: It is further recommended that the Waste Management Board reduce the Area of the proposed site by eliminating therefrom, unprotected wetlands. and that portion of the proposed site which is in within 1,000 feet of the shoreline of Vomerleau Lake. Dated thisA.ZiR`rday of January, 1912. c n ett as Bearing Examiner NOTICE Minn. Stat. Ch. 15 and I MCAR S 2.215 C do not govern this proceeding. Therefore the WMp is not required to serve its final decision on the Bearing Examiner. However, the: Board is respect- fully requested to do so. A i` Ilk MEMORANDUM slim Slat. 116A.03 Cl1) dafines Maardous Waste as .. any refuse: or discarded material or combinations of refuse or discarded materials in solid,, semi-solid, liquid or gaseous form which cannot be handled by routine waste management techniques because; they pose a substantial present or potential haaard to human. health or other living organisms because of their chemical, biological or physical properties. Categories of hazardous. waste materials include, but are not limited to. Explosives, flsmtnables, oxidisers, poisons, irritants,, and corrosives.: Hazardous waste does not include sewage sludge: and sotarce, special nuclear, or by-product material as: defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1951, as amended. In Minnesota, approximately 123,000 tons of potetzdally, hazardous waste is ii'.Wnerated each year, of the total tons generated, an estimated 15,000 ton; (66%) per year Of Potentially hazardous. waste ren be identified as being,generated in the Minneapolis -St, Paul metropolitan area alone. Approximately e6% of this is waste oil, with, over half of the waste oil generated by motor vehicle maintenance. The second largest category is miscellaneous chemical sludge (11% of theidentified total). lion -combustible pesticide containers (plus container rinsate) equals about L3% of the hazardous waste stream in the metropolitan area. Even in the 80 counties outside the Minneapolis -St. Paul metropolitan ataa, an estimated 43,000 tons (34% of the State's total) are generated each year. As in the case; In the metropolitan area, generation ouUtate is dominated by waste oil, which represents 47% ^f'the total. Miscellaneous. chemical sludge is the next highest total (Yl%), followed by non-combustible pesticide containers plus eontainer rinsate) (about 18%) and than solvents (1596). Aftwding to a report entitled, "liazardmw Waste. ManapMont: Minnesota's WuesfOptions" W,yB Far, C), approximately 57% (73,600 tons)of the total has &-is wasteenerated annuallyY I, in Minnesota is disposed of €slroug4+, enviranmentallyt tnn aund methods. Hasardous wastes are likely disposed. of In publiely- owned unitary sewer systems, sanitary landfills or unwsigulaeed land. disposal @its& no unregulated dispels) of hazardous waste into them throe a wre" sanies in obvious: and signifiorant human and enrironsaental risk. Ila1960 Hinneeots Legislature,, aware that the indiscriminate and unregulated disposal of hazardous waste pceft a potential threat to the public health and natural rew react, enacted the insets. K&ft-rmwct Act, Mitre. Stat. Ch U5A. Under the Acta a Waste Manmip.ment Board was emoted and (mandated by law to prepare an inventory of "Preferred areas" for commercial hazardous caste processing facilities. `nus inventory must include at just three areas for a chemical process4 facility, 1 161 incineration facility and a transfer and storage facility.,, *lone of the preferred inventa[y arts will be. developed by the state rovarnment, )instead, any preferred area must be rdevdoped by private industry. The inventory of preferredat*" is; a first step In encouraging de. velapment of processing facilitles. which we 1mg overdue to help manage the state's hazardous waste problem. The VMS's Criteria. Under the waste Managamant Act, the: Board is . P . "scot required to promulgate rules pursuant to Chapter 16 to govern its evaluation and, selection of araAe for the Inventory of preferred. areas.: 1981 ldinnP Laws, M 3521 110 (to be codified as Minn, Stat, § l)SA.04, subd. 2, requires the Board to consider at least the following factors`,: l'he consistency ofareas with state and federal regulations, local land use and land usecontrols, the protection of agriculture and natural resources, existing and future developmentpattam, .,41risportation and other, services appraf+ritte to the, hazardous waste facilities, the cluslit,; of other pottlitial areas, and the location of hazardous waste generators,," Before com\,qencing its search for preferred areas, the Board held a series of public meetings throng wt the Stag: to allow citizens to suggest to the Board what factors should be used in ldcntifying areas for the preferred area inventory. Based on the information received at those meetings, the requirements in the act and: technical input, the Board devised very general criteria. The criteria developed by the board, in very general terms, were the processing ffoilities should be (I) near the source of generation of hazardous waste, (2) on or near safe transportation routes, (3) located in a manner to, protect water quality (i.e., avoid wetlands, skoreland' areas and areas having a sustained Yield of surf icial deposits greater than 800 gallons per minute), and: (t) compatible with existing 1. A hazardous waste chemical processing facility separates the unusable portims and contaminants from the usable portions of certain types of hazard" waste ((such as solvents, oils and volatile organics), Through such chemical proeeases asextraction, separation and purificat'lon, some valuable aomponenta of hazardous waste can be recovered and reintroduced into the market - piece. Any aharaioai pr__ng *par tion will tikety ranerate by-products and waste, residues, which will require some form of additional treatment and disposal (further Incineration or burial at a regulated land fill after detoxifieatisnl, 1lazardroua waste Imbi gyration swolvar tM Wo temperatcxe Zonvaetion of hydrooarbonr-hayed hazardous waste to harmless by-oroducts such as oartion dioxide, steam, and ;eon -toxic ash residues. exhaust pats are passed through air pollutIOA teruabers for cleaning and removalofharmfulfumes. An avwage Iasinoration facility would require approximately fou touffive acre of land,, eze"ve of the land required for ash dkpoaal and treatment of spun bber fluids. A hazardous waste transfer/stdr a facility taill be w: 1N4marily for the collection and short- term storage of hazardous waste front multiple loom to preparation for shipment to a final destination point for trestmoat, disposal or ultimate storage. A transfer/storage stationpneraUyconsistsofanumberofstoragetanksandassociatedbuildingstoshorewastebefore. they art hauled to an Incinerator, chemical:pI g. plant or a land disposal facility. Trans- portation to and from a transfer/storage facility can be accomplished by true=k or rail, land uses and with current land use plans (i,c., avoid urban residential. lands and use industrial lands) using these criteria and: & eomputeriaed: regiooal screening CecM**, t0 preliminary areas. were identified for possible Inclusion in the preferred area inventory, I August,, 19$1, the ;'Werth: developedadditional criteria cc factors which were to be applied first to the preliminary areas to reduce the number of areas. These factors, are listed below; Chemical Prucessiae andd lncinerailon kenos Factarx 2nd Level of 205 ideration Transportation access Nan -protected wetlands ii+ailslaquifer Solid waste landfills towage treatment capacity Air quality Liklihoad of Development (volunteered sites) liistorie}'archeologicalsites Ist Level of Coosideration 3rd Level of Consideration Geographic distribution Water supply reservoir Amount of available compatibIt industrial land Economic hub Fire rating Local community attitude toward industrial development Natur l heritage Transfer and Storaee_Facilities lNajor Factors Ind Level of Consideration Geographic distribution basedon waste, sheds Sonslaquifer minimum 5,000 tans per year gener&tion) Non -protected wetlands Number of generators Wastewater treatment Liklihoad of Development (preferred, sites) Historic/archeological sites Availability of industrial land Ist Level of Consideration 3rd Level of Cti)nsideratlon Transportation access; Air quality Fire rating Racal attitude toward industrial development Natural heritcge Uistint landfills, Water supply reservoir The major factors were applied first to reduce the number of (Ti) preliminary areas,. Then, the minor, tactors were listed on "fact, sheets"' for each of twee romaln nS areas. 'These remaining areas were then fated, using a "point, system" and giving "weight"to the )minor tactors in the designated order of preference,, After a comparative review of each area, the Board selected V areas for possible inclusion in the preferred area inventory: As allowed by statute, the board solieitod Kroiunteteered site" from, private waste management firm iU determining; whethw a v" iteeurd site should be ineloded in the preferred inventory proposal, the Board considered the lklfhood of development as the major tactor. ,At the hearing, a, uuumber of e t Ow sosataanted that Vol cot side -ed the inalnsdon and weighting of this factor to be inappropriate because different criteria were followed' for non-valunteered sites, Tine inclusion and weighting of this factor * h0w0m, appropriate brecause it war earidsred in conjunction with. the gt+tYtWUy-"jdstod neaten set forth In M.S A. MA.89 Subdiv. !, ftwort for the board's diaer+ationary powers to include and weight this factor may be found in. the exemption from rulemaking w a and the ratiuire:iaent that private; industry develop the actual facilities, Minn, Stat. 115A.10 states; n preparing k , , the inventory of processing facility sites under 115A,09 .. , the Beard shell solicit thw active participation of private, waste m6nag4ment firm and a conduct its acti- vities as to eneuragt pAvate permit applicatkno for faeUltim needed in the state.'" All the faders Mwidered MUl receive furthsr and asoee detaUedd ewytiny when the Board; makes its,eomparetive review of the k site& and when permits for the +sperstion of actual processing, facilities are ht. ARN is LISTQF EXHIBIT'S ANCHOR INDUSTRIES L Map of volunteered area, 2. Map of volunteered area, larger scale., s< Map of.' volunteered area showing transportation access, j. Map of volunteered vraa showing existing land use. S. Map of volunteered area slowing present coning, 8. Mapof volunteered area showing planned future land use, T. Hennepin, County Envision Public Works Intersection Accident Rates, and, Segment Accident Rates.. i. Log of Bedrock We?l located on volunteered area. 9 zoning map, Cite of Plymouth revised per City Ordinances 80-15 through 81-2.2, 10. Land Use Guide Flan, City of Plymouth. 11.. Topographical map of volunteered area. 12. Letter, MMT Environmental, Inc. to Mr. ban Hokles, Aglite Inco 13, Supplemental testimony, of Daniel W. Hoklas before the WMB. 1, Barr Engineering, Supplemental Information in support of Testimony of Allan Gerhard,, Barr Engineering Co, Representing Anchor Industries Plymouth Volunteered Hazardous Waste Processing Facility Area. PUBLIC EX4113rm 1. Zoning Haag, City; of Plymouth. USGS map,.. City of Plymouth (shading explained at Tr... 46-54). J. Written statement concerning Aglite Ines compliance with air Quality regulations, i. Letter, Charlton Consolidated Companies, Inc. to WMB 5. Petition by Concerned Citizens of the City of Plymouth and Members of the Dasa Lake Naighbonccod., i. City of Plymouth Capital Improvement Plant 1982; T., (Letter, Jim Ramstad, Minnesota Sonsto to Heating Eau+miner. 8. Written statement of Gerald Wails. 9. Written statement of ", GlIvin. A. Written statement of Wendell Davidson. 1l: Written statement of Howard L. Hunt, former Mayas, City of Plymouth. IL Petition by Ceneerned C tBcens of Plymouth and Members of On Schmidt Lake improvement Association. u— 13, Letter, Larry & Mary Loftus; to WMB, 14.. City of Maple Grove, Resolution No. 81-188 and letter from Gerald E. Butcher, City of Maple Grove, City Engineer to Hearing Examiner. 1s. Letter, Richard and Janette Nissen to Hearing Examiner. 16, Latter, Marvin H. Anderson Construction Company to Hearing Examiner, 17., Letter, Assoclation of Medicine Lake Area Citizens to WMB. lt. Letter, H. David Grain to Nearing Examiner with'report of John. M. wood,; Professor of Biochemistry and Ecology, Gray freshwater Biological Institute, University of Minnesota, Navarre, Minnesota. 19. Petition, Concerned Citizens of the City of Plymouth and Members of the Schmidt: Lake improvement Association- 20. Written statement of Kingsview Juneau Lane Neighborhood 21. Petition, Citizens of Plymouth. 22. Petition, Concerned Citizens of the City of Plymouth and. Surrounding Areas: 23. Petition, Concerned Citizens of the City of Plymouth and of the Bass Lake Neighborhood,. 24. Written of statement Jack Serger. 25, Resolution Regarding Hazardous Waste Disposal (sic) Site in the City of Plymouth, Independent School District No. 294, Wayzata, Minnesota. 26. Letter, Loren A. Scheibe, NorOwest Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce to WMB. 27., Letters, (identical) to WMB from interested citizens. PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL STATEMENT ON INCLUSION OF AGLITE VOLUNTEERED SITE IN AN INVENTORY OF PREFERRED AREAS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE PROCESSING' FACILITIES 1.1/12/81. I am Gerald Neils and I reside at 3890 Orleans Lane, Plymouth, Minnesota. I am a Plymouth City Council Member and appear before you as Acting Mayor, representing the City Council. As a City Council, we accept the premise that our society produces "hazardous wastes, and that there exists a. real and compelling need to improve our society's: management of these waste streams. We recognize hazardous waste management encompasses the components of packaging, collection, storage, processing and ultimate disposition of a wide variety of .materials. We acknowledge a serious need to establish and site physical facilities to implement a rational hazardous waste management ` plan. he subject of this hearing is Consideration of a "volunteered site" in Plymouth as a potential location to accommodate as yet undefined hazardous wast(, management components for as yet unspecified hazardous waste streams. Recogizing that at this stage the Waste Management. Board has in a preliminary Nay designated the site as suitable for all components of waste management including incineration, but has no specific proposal' to put before us, the City Council can respond only in terms of general concerns on behalf of our citizens. First, we are concerned with the appearance that: this site, volunteered by Aglite Company. is being rushed to public hearing cerely because it is a volunteered site. Our reading of statute and rule indicates the Board has an obligation to evaluate a proposed site against the Board's preliminary site selection criteria prior to taking a site to public hearing to determine whether that site MMU be included in the final inventory of "preferred areas." After two very recent occasions of discussion with haste Management Boardstaffmembers, we can find no indication such a site selection evaluation has been accomplished to date. We have examined the suitability report prepared and issued by the PCA for this site. It does not address the Board's site selection criteria. It drawn no conclusion as to intrinsic suitability. It discusses hydrology and soils only very generally. The report suggests, from limited information and without site survey vi:itq that some parts of the site wi ht be suitable for something depending on what might ultimately be proposed. to the point, the information evailable.indicateR that neither the PCA nor the Waste Management Board have yet fulfilled the Board's obligation to measure the site against the Board's site selection criteria. Yet we find ourselves at this public hearing to ascertain t" whether the site should remain on the final inventory when no apparent measure was made against the criteria to judge whether the site was suitable for inclusion on the preliminary inventory list. A few observations are in order relative to the Board's site selection criteria; 1. The Aglite site has no access to an interstate highway by way of improved roads. Its only access route is an unimproved cartway embellished with gravel from time to time It has not been construLtod as an engineered gravel roadway with suitable subgrade and thus becomes virtually impassable in we.t weather. 2. Only a small portion of the 240 acre site has been classified and zoned for industrial use. The: present extraction industry is a non -conforming interim land use, and most of the balance of the site is classified for residential use. 3. The site lies within the headwaters of Shingle Creek; is in the immediate proximity of wetlands and in near proximity of three lakes of that watershed. Incidentally, the upper reaches of Bass Creek:, which the PCA report so ignominiously refers, to as an "undefined ditch," actually bisects the only portion of the site zoned and classified for industrial use., This makes the site unusually sensitive to potential consequences ofchronic or accidental liquid discharges which might emanate from a waste management facility. 4. Historical experience with the present industrial use reveals evidence that the site resides in a topography that has an unusually high incidence and persistence of local atmospheric inversions. Hence this site is unusually sensitive to unaccept- able consequences of potential chronic or accidental airborne releases which might emanate from a hazardous waste management facility. 5. Public sewer and water services are not available to the site at this time, and the schedule for extending these public services to the site is indeterminate. The site is near the boundary of the Metropolitan Urban ServiceArea, and the City is obligated under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act to preclude "leap -frog" extension of these s,ry#ces across intervened un -urbanized open lands. In the role of City government we acknowledge that we have some direct or reciprocal responsibility for the management Of hazardous wastes generated within our city. However, it js patently obvious that, if this site is ultiawtely approved and developed as a hazardous waste managemnt faciiityoitwouldnecessarilyprovidearegionalserviceandreceivewastesoriginating from far beyond our city bcundaries. 3.. Since it would necessarily be a regional facility, Plymouth would have a responsibility to defend our citizens against the imposition of costs and risks that could potentially be imposed upon us as a consequence of developing this site to provide a regional waste management services. More to the point, we don't want hazardous wastes of regional origin trans- ported to the site through our city and our residential neighborhoods on local streets and local thoroughfares.. Nor do we want to see our citizens bear the local cost of building highways and interchanges to provide an appropriate regional transportation access to the site. The only acceptable regional access to the site would be direct access from 1.494, and that requires construction of a new interchange. If after due process and detailed technical review, this site is approved for development of a hazardous waste management facility, then an interchange will have to be part of the program. In summary, w submit that this site has not been adequately evaluated and would not likely pass an evaluation against the Board's own preliminary site selection criteria. We further submit that because of other site - related factors, this site should not and would notass the PCA detailed evaluation test of intrinsic suitability. And finally, should this site ultimately be approved for development as a regional waste management facility without concurrent development of regioi)al access by way of an 1-494 inter- change at no cost to Plymouth, then a most difficult impasse will have been created. k;LEAH Community League for Environmentally Acceptable Neighborhoods, Inc. o w etaln; us -l"2 rwd mum Jim oar W -W 37 At 01601""Iff W-06120 tbpet Eppen 54 SM Kee [slot 69 5.422 Me RtyV,V,tea 555 16,42 s. 151 Ee KVrrch -t 659.4272 Donna Maus 359-!1539 John -E Maeyan 59.1119 Don Miller 559-264? y Gerald Neils 5!5.2619 Don Pemrick- 669-0620 Stan Phelps 5•251 Spencer !ianken 669.!0075 Patricia Vomhot 564.5243 Sieve weld ss U23 Janxaary 28, 1982 Mr. Robert Dunn, Chairman. Minnesota Waste Management Hoard 7.2r3 58th Ave. No. Crystal, MN 55428 Dea Mr. Dunn: On Thursday, January 14,; Howard Hunt advised Sharon, Decker that Anchor Industries lease on the site in Piymouth they volunteered for hazardous waste processing had expired on December 31,, 1961. Anchor had rejected a six month. lease extension offered by the land; owner. You were advised of this situation on Monday, January 18 at your meeting with.Plymouth City officials and representatives of CLEAN. As Anchor does not have any control of the site now, and has not had control since December 31.1 1981,.we believe the site should receive no further consideration. by the Taste Management Board. Certainly no further action on the site should be takenuntil this issue is reviewed by the Attorney General's office and an attorney General's opinion on the continuing validity of the volunteering of this site is issued. Sin erely ours, Davis Crain President DC/mm cc: Warren Spanaus LeRoy Paddock Tom Johnson Andy Datko Sharon Docker Dave Davenport. J TreinanmWillis M PomtWow Lone a Mynnouft UN 51442 0 Phone 559-1642 CLEAN Community League for Environmentally Acceptable Neighborhoods, Inc. Davit Chin it_su Howard "b"t tiW3W Jim Dunbar, 6-os37 At CWtOr"N et US -M) doge` E4gen 646-n» Ken Ester 559-5422; Wayne Eeyermsen 539-1132 or Hili 653-1365 Ed Karschke 539.4272 tpnns Maus SSR -1039 John E. Meeaan 5501119 Dan Miler 69.2447 Gerald Nails 6454679 Don Pemriick SY-0620; Stan Phelps 539-2,7st sP+cer ianken E"75 Patricil Vomnol 569.5243 a"" weld S-5223 January 27, 1982 Mr. Alan.R. Nettles 1814 First Bank Place. West Minneapolis., MN 55402 Dear Mr. Nettles Yesterday we received a copy of your report on the Plymouth, site volunteered: by Anchor Industries for hazardous waste processing. We found the report disappointing but not surprising. It is unfortunate that you were forced to base your analysis on the fase and mis-leading information provided by the. PCA and Anchor. We will be making every effort to get accurate data before the WMB prior to their final decision. One troublesome portion of your 'report is the: attached memorandum in which you address the need for processing facilities, the WMg criteria and the legitimacy of volunteered sites. particularly bothersome is your use of Minn. Stat. 115A.10 in discussion of the legitimacy of volunteered sites. In the memorandum you quoted part of 115A.10: "In pre paring . . the inventory of processing facility sites. under 11.5A.04 . the board shall solicit the active participation of private waste management firms and, Conduct its activities as to encourage private permit applications for facilities needed in the state." Anchor Industries does not qualify under -this portion of the Waste ManagementAct Anchor is not a waste management f irm. Furthermorer a following portion of 115A.10 states; "she board shall promulgate rules for acceptingr evaluating, and selecting applications for permits for the Construction and operation of facilities at sites preferred or selected by the board pursuant to section 115A.09 or sections 115A.1h to 115A.30. The rules shall include standards and procedures for making determinations on the minimum qualifications, including technical co tence (emphasis added) and financial capabl y, o permi applicants." 1020 FOMtuiuw Larm 9 Plymouth, MN $5442 * Phoao $59-1642 Mr-. Alan R. NOttlea January 27, 1982: Paige c Technical competence should be a criterion applied to Anchor in considering their volunteered site. Anchor has presented no evidence of technical competence. in fact, they have shown technical incompetence as evidenced by their violations of PCA, •tandard)c in operating A lite (Public exhibit 3). The. technology involved in the Aglite operation is extremelyelementaryincomparisontothatwhichwouldbeinvolved in operating hazardous waste facilities. Obviously, we are concerned that your flimited and selective application of 115A.10 will create ion of Anchor and its volunteering of the site where we believe such an impression unwarranted. Sinperely,yours I Dave Crain President HDC/Mn" Enclosure CC: Robert Dunn Tom Johnson Andy Datxo Sharon Decker LeRoy Paddock, Esq. T, J 1 January 6, 1982 Mr. Richard Schumacher,. Vice -President, Anchor Block Company P. 0. box 43360 St. Paul, MN 55164 Dear Dick, This letter is to reiterate the position of the Community League for Environmentally Acceptable Neighborhoods, Inc. (CLEAN) relative to Anchor Block Company's volunteering; of their Aglite location in Plymouth for processing hazardous wastes. We recognize the serious need for the establishment of proper facilities and procedures for handling and.making safe the volume of toxic substances being gen orated in Minnesota. The major incidents such as creosote in the St. Louis Park water supply and the contamination occurring around the Ironwood landfill have become all too frequent and must be stopped. However, it is irrational to pretend to solve the current problem by placing hazardous waste processing facilities of anykindinthecenterofHennepinCountyonasitesurroundedbypro- tected wetlands and bisected by the headwaters of a major drainage creek that feeds several lakes in the metropolitan area. CLEAN is an organization of concerned citizens in Plymouth and Maple. Grove. Our Board of Directors is composed of the leadership of the neighborhood associations in central and. eastern Plymouth and parts of Maple Grove, and individuals who are not associated with a,neighborhovd association. we are also receiving support from some of the developers and companies located in Plymouth. According to Aongtime active citizens of Plymou h, CLEM is by far the largest organization of its, type ever put together in Plymouth. The board. and other active members include many of the most politically active and civic vAnded residents of the city. We recognize the situation that Anchor is in, in that you have a major investment in the Aglite facility that has become unprofitable due to the extended weakness in the construction industry. Weare also fully aware of the serious_ problems facing any attempted development of the Plymouth site due to inadequate access and the lack of sewer and eater. These development problems would be difficult and time-consuming to solve under circumstances of even normal citizen concerns about new industrial development. As you are also awerep Anchor already has a very poor reputation in Plymouth due tothepollution problems associated with Aglite. utever the size of your investment or your intention* past or present, your track record in Plymouth. and the Odors of Aglite and violations of PCA standards are what the residents of that area Will resrmber kr. Richard Schumacher January 60 1982 Page Z in light of our desire to have the Aglite site withdrawn fromconsiderationforhazardouswasteprocessingandrecognizing your problems with developing the area,th/e Board of CLEAN authorized Gay Varecka,, Howard Hunt, Trygve ward and myself to meet with you and discuss possible approaches for resolving both our problems. us, therefore, met with you and Mike Wolford.on December, 1+6. At that meeting we expressed our willi;3gness to work with. AnchorforanearlydevelopmentoftheAglitesitewithinthepresentlyestablishedlanduseguideplansandthepermittedusesdescribed in the present zoning ordinances oftheCity of Plymouth,. we told you that with the proper development of your site you couldturnaverystrongcitizengroupfromapersistentoppoAentinto a friend. At the worst, from your perspective, if you would withdraw your vonteering of the site from consideration by the WMB you would neu°,;,raxlize a force that will make it virtually impossible to develop your site for hazardous waste processing. After much discussion it was agreed that we would explore theimplications; of a modular combustion unit on the site that would, by burning the garbage generated in Plymouth, serve as a heat source for a small industrial park. Mike told us that if our examination of this possibility led. us to believe that this approach would be more acceptable than hazardous waste processing, Anchor would let us know by January 6 whether you would withdraw yourvolunteeringofthesitefromconsiderationbytheWMB. Following this meeting I toured the facility recently installed at St. John's University and talked at length with Hennepin Countyofficialsandtechnicalexpertsaswellaswithairqualityexperts at the FCA. other members of our group also talked with county and PCA personnel as well as with many other members of CLEAN. Our conclusion was that while we have concerns about garbage incineration at the Aglite site, we feel the problems are far easier solved and the threat to the health and safety of our families is far less than with toxic waste processing. Paraphrasing a chemical engineer at the PCA; it is possible to develop a clean modular combustion facility. we again met with you and Mike on December 31 with the intentionofexpressingthispositionandseekinginformationonthestatus of your plans. Needless to say we were extremely disappointed to discover that you would not be able on January 6 to tell us your plans. Mike said that it would be the and of January before youcouldsortoutyouroptionsasyouwereawaitingdevelopmentson at least a couple of new possibilities. We advised you that due to the pressures of a WMB decision in. March we must proceed fullscalewithourplanstofightagainstplacinghazardouswaste facilities in Plymouth, in particular we must go ahead with a mass community information meeting on January 21. Xr. Richard Hchwnacher January 6, 1982 rage 2 CU W would still rather work with Anchor than against Anchor. The people of Plymouth can be very cooperative with industry when industry meets the quiLde plans and zoning laws of the city. On Sunday, January 3g the board of CL AN unanimously passed the enclosed resolution asevidenceofourContinuedwillingnesstocooperateintheproper development of the Aglite site - However, time for this cooperation is running very short. The antagonistic attitudes towards Anchor are going to harden very soon.. In fact I believe that after the meeting on the 21st Anchor willrunintoextremelystiffoppositiontoanyproposalyoubring forth after that time. We don't want to have to spend the time and money that would be involved in fighting a toxic waste processing facility, but we will. Any proposal that threatens the health and safety of our families will be fought through every agency and court necessary until the threat is removed. I 'know Anchor has made a major investment in the site and in the studying of what to do with it. However, you must keep in mind that the hundreds of people you would be fighting have a far greater investment in their families, homes, lakes, and parks. We have the resources, people and money, to carry the battle on for as long as it, takes Dick, I again urge you to immediately withdraw your site from. consideration by the Waste Veagbutnwe canaandCwill defeat theN can be a good friend for Anchor hazardous. waste processing proposal. Vincerely yours H. David Crain Chairman of the Board CLEAN 5020 Forestview LN Plymouth, MN 55442 HDC/MM cc: Mr. dames Nerhaugen, President Mr. John K. Bush, Vice-president Mr. Vince Eichten, Treasurer Ms Eulslia Villoar secretary Mr. Mike Wolford Pursuant to dwr aall and aotics thereof, a directors "ating of tM Cseeawaity La&" for ttrirassMastally AcceptableNeighborhoods Ma Sold this Ste gay -of January, 1982. Stan pj»lps introduced the toilowing dissolution and s+vvsd its adoption: iM", a site knows as the gagelits Site, In Plys"th, sot& was volunteered as a possible hazardous waste treatwmt facility site to the K Nwsota waste X&u&gsmnt Board. The "Agelite Site` via volunteered by ]ichor Iadws1"t'i+ss with approval of the owner of the site, lortk Central, Lightweight Aggregate Coff"nY, and.; VKZRW, an organisation meed the COMPAMity Lague for Asviroawentallr kccsptsble neighborhoods. bereinaftar *=*times referred to as CLtJ1N, has been organised for thQ purpose of otirevenng the use of the site in this Mannar through. its sass membership and resouzcasr andz WBU, CLIA recognises tbst development of the site could not be detrimental to the City or its neighborhoods if such development seats the standards of the guide plan maps adopted by the City of Plymouth and is within the permitted uses described in the City of plymouth's current zoning ordinances, and; U :IT Ts EW- ORi ltfSOL,jE,O, that cI.E7!1N urges Anchor industries. and North Central Ligbtv!sight !Aggregate Company to notify the Ainnesota Waste ddanag"wnt Soard, at the earliest possible date, that they are withdrawing the application volunteering the site as a possible hazardous waste trestMMt facglity and thereby demand that the site receive W furter consideration as a possible hawdous waste trestsent.facility, and; 1t IT tLiR'1'llL1t RC$OiLvm• that CLZAN Will got oppose an early dewalopment of the site nitbis nessatly Mst busied lased, use guide 13asa ami tie MMitUd 'tea destribsd is the present soaiAg os0 a of idle City of Plymouth- W Resolution was Ales Notion for tis adoption of tie toreq dull MaODW by pat moi as& ape Grote taken thereon, the diasolatios`was dwalared duly Passed and adopted f. t ASM N.MA/h'••Yi/W1^ December 30p 1991. Mr. Dale L. wikre Director, Solid s Hazardous Waste Division Minnesota pollution Control Agency 1935 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 Dean Mrd Wikre I recently came into possession of a copy of the ,suitability" report prepared by the MPCA .for use by the Waste Managemtheent Board in their consideration of sites rfor incuslusiteonon sing. inventory of preferred areas for hazeAsaresidentofPlymouthandChairman of the Community League. table Neighborhoods (CLEAN), I am for Environmentally Accep antit of data and, the poor qualityappalledbytheladeofquYportionofthisreport. of analysis contained in the Plymouth e and commenting on only the 250 acreIbelieve- your examining site in Plymouth will result in the WMB making inappropriate comparisons of this stir w1thofheourCrevewepermitsalternative MPCA areas. The limited geographic scope yive andthe wMB to ignore the istel nadjacentttoof sthispsiteCteThe waters and wetlands immed Y Land immediately to theeastdirectly into Bassof this site is lLake andlhence protected wetlands Which go into Shingle Creek and the oat rnortheast of theus lakes that hproposedesite irunsthrough. To the meds in Plymouth are more protek'sdthlrecip ands and pomerleau run-offfrom aSchmidtLakeandTurtle . La Hennepin County's the site, are less than a mile from the site. Medicine Lake Regional Park is also Yess than a mile from the site. From your reports on the other areas, these eaters and arks would have a major impact on the !MPCA assessment of sksn of the Plymov th location uitability were a. ass myopic view ta. The mpCA analysis ignores the fact that a major portion of the run-off from this site flows into the "unnamed ditch" inf he area.. This unnamed ditch bisects the proposed yeast to the protected wetlands and Bass Lake. indeed f Bass Creek. this unnamed ditch, is the beginning o i, Mr.; Dale L. wikre 12/30/81 Page 2 Paragraph 2, .Addressing the soils in the area is inconsistent with the soil boring data provided by Anchor to the City of Plymouth. The boring data indicates that much.of the soil is of a type called clayey sand with pockets of sand. Paragraph 3, "Aquifer/Soil Suitability Implicatiogls" states the completely unwarranted conclusion that "Generally,corditions in the area are expected to provide a degree of safety overandabovethatwhichwouldbebuiltintothefacilityasre- quired by state and federal rules and regulations.." This con- clusion ignores not only the surrounding water and wetlandscitedabovebutalsothewatertableatadepthof: 10`-l5 feetdescribedinparagraphlofthereportonthePlymouthsite. This water table so near the surface must be a part of the waters and wetlands in the area. Any contaminants that reach this water table must get into the neighboring lakes and pro- tected wetlands. This certainly does not 1°provide a degree of safety over and above " Paragraph 4, "Municipal water Supply Reservoir", ignores the fact that the wells serving Maple Grove are not far away and in a likely direction of flow of the underlying aquifer. Again, the MPCA narrow view of the Plymouth site biases possible conclusions by the WMB. In summary, the report on Plymouth prepared by the NPCA is short- sighted and misleading. The fact that this report can lead in part to the placing of an ecological time bomb in the center of Hennepin County is frightening. The way the WMB and the MPCA is going about the whole processofsitinghazardouswasteprocessingfacilitiesisinviting tragedy. It is absolutely critical that such facilities be developed as soon as possible. The diaasters such as St. Louis Park's water supply and the Ironwood dump site, which are surfacing with increasing frequency, must not be allowed to continue. However, the current problems gill not be solved by placing hazardous waste processing facilities in ecologicallysensitiveareasinthemidstofamajormetropolitanarea. The placing of these facilities should be a technological pro- cess conducted in a competent manner by experts. One of the world's leading experts is readily available to the WMB and MPGA. Dr. John Wood of the University of Minnesota's Gray FreshwaterBiologicalInstituteconsultsseveralcountriesplususwastlnyU.S. es and and international agencies on dealing with pollution. It is senseless, shortsighted and irresponsible for the.agencias responsible for siting hazardous waste processing facilities to ignore his advice. I strongly urge you and by 1 Mr, Dale L. Wikre. 1.2/30/51 Page 3 copy the vm to take advantage of Dr. wood's knowledge and skills. R modest delay and re-evaluation of proceduresandcriteriaatthispointwillavoiddisasterinthefuture. Sincerely o rs, H. David Crain 5020 Forestview LN Plymouth, MN 55442 612-559-1642) cc. Dr,. John Wood John Holck, MPGA Robert G. Dunn Laurence E. Hunter Keith Kuiters William Kirchner Milton L. Knoll, Jr.. Louise. Kuderling, Thomas T. Renner Allan Po Eide David Hartley Al. Shlepsky Sharon Decker