Loading...
1985 10 09 - e - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 9, 1985 Chairman Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Bill Ryan, Ladd Conrad, Howard Noziska and Mike Thompson. MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF PRESENT Barbara Dacy, City Planner and vicki Churchill, Secretary. PUBLIC HEARING Site plan Review #85-6 for Sunnybrook Development Corporation for a Country Inn and Conference Center on 33 Acres of Land Zoned P-4/P-3 and Located in Chanhassen Lakes Business Park between Hwy. 5 and Lake Susan, Barney Schlender, applicant Public Present Wanda Squire-Schlender Barney Schlender Jim & Gail Murphy Milton Bathke John H. Ward J.G. Raidt Austin Uland B.C. Perning Timothy & Terry OWens Kathy Holtmeier Marian Paulson Terry & Betty Clark Roger & Nora Casey applicant applicant 8500 Great Plains Blvd. 8404 Great Plains Blvd. 5916 Hansen Road, Minneapolis 930 Baker Bldg., Minneapolis 226 Summit Ave., St. Paul 244 Dayton Ave., st. Paul 8520 Great Plains Blvd. 8524 Great Plains Blvd. 8528 Great Plains Blvd. 8522 Great Plains Blvd. 8506 Great Plains Blvd. Dacy stated that staff and the applicants met with the Lake Susan Homeowner's Association last Wednesday evening and they are fami- liar with what has been done to this date. She stated that the subdivision and rezoning matters have been approved based on staff recommendations that the final plat and rezoning not take place until the Lake Drive East realignment issue has been resolved and the development contract and financial securities are received. She stated, however, that at the September 25, 1985 meeting the Planning Commission directed staff to advertise the request as a public hearing so that they could receive input from surrounding property owners regarding this request. She stated that the commission also asked staff to verify that the applicant had met with representatives of the Ward Estate and they did so on August 20, 1985. - e e Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1985 Page 2 Bill Monk stated that the city previously completed a feasibility study for Lake Drive East for extensions of watermain, storm sewer and street services between T.H. 101 and County Road 17. He stated that this proposal was based on the original plat and did not include the northward realignment of the frontage road which raises concerns regarding development impact on the Ward property to the east and soil conditions in the area of the wetlands. He stated that severe soil borings had been completed that indicated the realignment was questionable from a construc- tion viewpoint. He stated that two tests were taken and found that there was 16 feet of fill on top of 45 feet of swamp depo- sits. He stated that after discussing the results of the tests with the applicants, they would like the city to do additional tests but he felt that his recommendation would not change. He stated that the existing driveway that services the church right now goes between two existing wetlands and that the proposed street would follow the same alignment. Wanda Squire-Schlender gave a slide presentation for the new Commissioners to show them the proposal as was presented last year. Mr. Jim Murphy, President of the Lake Susan Homeowner's Association stated that the proposed development was beautiful but they would like to see it on Lake Ann. He stated the asso- ciation felt there would be more intensity of lights with the tennis courts, softball fields and the yard lights than the Detroit Diesel proposal. He felt that because of the type of use, the area would be well lit giving the impression of gay occaisions, etc. He stated that noise carries very well over a lake and felt there might be a problem. He also stated that there would be competition on the lake and the lake is very sen- sitive. He stated that traffic was another concern because of the conference rooms and also the proposed 50 sleeping rooms. He stated that what was most irritant to the neighborhood was that five years ago they compromised the zoning of the site to p-4 and did that because there would be no competition on the lake. He stated that zoning the site p-3 is wide open zoning. He was con- cerned about the Ward property and from T.H. 101 to Hwy. 5 becoming commercialized. Wanda Squire-Schlender stated that the lights will be shut down at a reasonable hour. She stated that as far as concerns about a gay occaision setting, they are looking for a peaceful setting and felt that there was no need for the neighbors to be concerned about that. She stated that the setback of the building was in compliance with city and DNR regulations. She also added that there would be very limited use through the Lake Susan public access with a few canoes and maybe paddleboats. She felt that the traffic would be confined to Hwy. 5 and County Road 17 and feels there would be no problems with that. e Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1985 Page 3 Mr. John Ward stated that the most concern is about the placement of the roadway. He stated that it would significantly change the character of their property and there would be about a two hundred foot strip between Highway 5 and the realignment. He stated that it limits the possibilities of their site tremen- dously. Barney Schlender stated they are open to any reconfiguration of the road realignment. Monk stated that the realignment as proposed will affect the Ward property because it will be entering his property from the west at a more northerly point and affect the configuration of the Ward's Highway 5 frontage. Jerome Raidt, Attorney for the Ward Estate, asked if the wetlands were on their property? Monk stated that the wetlands comes right up to the property line and if there is wetland on the property it is only minor. Noziska moved, seconded by Emmings, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e Noziska felt that the lighting issue had not been sufficiently addressed. He felt that the building would not be compatible with the setting. Conrad stated that he sees alot of improvements over the previous plan for Detroit Diesel and the setting for the inn seems to be more appropriate than for an industrial site. He felt that because there was less impervious surface it was better for the lake. He stated that he felt that the proposal had to fit into a neighborhood setting in regards to the noise and that the lighting needed to be looked at carefully because of the neigh- bors across the lake. He stated that he was not concerned about the traffic in the area. He stated that overall this project is much improved over what Detroit Diesel had to offer. Siegel felt that the apllicant is putting the cart in front of the horse in regards to the Lake Drive East realignment. He felt that discussion on this item should wait until the results of the study have been completed. - Schlender stated that the realignment was an important part of the site plan but felt that until after additional tests were taken to prove that it was just not feasible or economical they would like initial approval. He also stated that they are very open to suggestions on any type of lighting that staff or the homeowner's might suggest. e Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1985 Page 4 Siegel asked staff what could be done about anyone trying to get the whole area changed to P-3 or commercial uses? Dacy stated that any rezoning application would have to be pro- cessed through the Planning Commission and City Council. She stated that the new Zoning Ordinance provides for industrial and some commercial uses such as hotels, bars, lodges, etc. Emmings stated that he agrees with Conrad's comments. He felt that this project fits into the new rop zone also. He asked staff if Detroit Diesel had proposed a night shift? Dacy stated that there was no indication of it in the staff report for the Diesel application, but she stated that she did not know for sure. Jim Murphy stated that even if Detroit Diesel had a night shift there would be a set number of traffic. He stated that this pro- posal depends on customer turnover and felt that would be the problem. He also stated that this use would be heavily used on the weekends and felt that there would be a lot of activity and a lot of competition for the lake. e Emmings stated that it was said the problems were more severe to the north than the south of the wetlands and wondered if that was based on soil tests? Monk stated that it was based on soil found on the surface which showed no extensive problems and there was no testing down south of the wetlands. Emmings asked if it would make sense as far as sampling further north to see if there is a problem to the south of the swamp. Monk stated that if the applicant wishes to pursue further testing to the north they will do so. He also stated that there will probably be limited testing done to the south. - Ryan felt that because the neighborhood accepted the p-4 District they were accepting a lot of different kinds of industrial uses that may not have necessarily wanted. He stated that this property was selected to be industrial because the of transpor- tation needs (the highway and railroad). He stated that industrial uses are ususally located along frontage roads such as Lake Drive East. He stated that you could even see a fine restaurant and or hotel in the industrial zoning, such as in Minneapolis. However, he felt that if the road was realigned as proposed, it may be taking rights away from the adjacent property owner by chopping his property into something that would not be useable for anything except maybe a fast food restaurant. He also asked staff about a wetland alteration permit because the grading would be disturbing the wetlands. e Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1985 Page 5 Dacy stated that because the proposed realignment would be a public improvement project and the revised feasibility study would study the impact on the wetland, the city has not processed a permit. Ryan stated that the applicant's proposed drive between the wetlands would justify a wetland alteration permit from the applicant. Jerome Raidt stated that Mr. Schlender did meet with some of the members of the Ward family and there was no disagreement with the proposal that at time. Conrad moved, seconded by Noziska, to table the item until the following conditions are met: 1. The applicant comes back with an agreement on the road align- ment. 2. That the city process a wetland alteration permit. 3. That the applicant come back with a lighting scheme program that would incorporate the concerns of the neighborhood, not 4It only locations, times and lighting procedures. 4. Look at a more realistic look at elevation from the lakeside that the Commission could review. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING Reuter, Inc., 8301 Audubon Road: Subdivision #85-18 to plat a 6.5 acre parcel of land zoned R-la, Agricultural Residence and Rezoning #85-5 a 6.5 acre parcel from R-la, Agricultural Residence to P-4, Planned Industrial Development Public Present Don Brauer Brad Bainey Reuter, Inc./Preferrable Fuel Systems Welsh Construction e Dacy stated the subject parcel has been zoned R-Ia since the effective date of the zoning Ordinance. She stated that the 1990 Land Use Plan identifies this parcel as industrial. She noted that when the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park PUD was approved, this area was not included because it was in separate ownership. She stated that the proposed plat is platting the existing metes and bounds described parcel into a one lot subdivision. She e Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1985 Page 6 stated that the municipal utilities will require extension of existing services from the northeast in the business park. She stated that the subdivision should be conditioned upon private or municipal extension of utilities to serve the site. Noziska moved, seconded by Conrad, to close public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Noziska moved, seconded by Siegel, to recommend approval of Subdivision #85-18 based on the preliminary plat stamped "Received September 18, 1985" subject to private or municipal extension of sanitary sewer lines and watermains. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Dacy stated that the applicant is proposing to rezone the parcel from R-la, Agricultural Residence to P-4, Planned Industrial Development. She stated that because the 1990 Land Use Plan identified this parcel as industrial, rezoning to the P-4 District is consistent with the Land Use Plan. M. Thompson asked what adjacent properties were zoned. Dacy stated that to the north, south, and east is zoned e industrial and to the west, across Audubon Road, is agricultural. Siegel moved, seconded by Noziska, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Siegel moved, seconded by Noziska to recommend approval of Rezoning Request #85-5 from R-la, Agricultural Residence to P-4, Planned Industrial Development District. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Site Plan Review #85-8 for a 50,000 square foot manufacturing/ processing building, Reuter, Inc. e Dacy stated that the applicant is proposing to locate a 50,000 square foot building for manufacturing mechanical devices and machinery for vehicles/trucks used to pick-up and transport recyclable materials. She stated that the structure could also be used for manufacturing the plastic moldings for garbage cans for recyclable materials. She explained that in the applicant's letter, they are intending to occupy the site for either a manu- facturing use or a resource recovery facility. She noted that location of a resource recovery facility in the P-4 District requires a zoning ordinance amendment. She stated that the applicant is presently pursuing approval for a resource recovery facility in Eden Prairie. She stated that if the Eden prairie site is not approved, the applicant will reapply to have a resource recovery facility on the proposed location. She stated that the zoning ordinance amendment must be approved and the e - e planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1985 Page 7 applicant must prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet before any city approvals. She explained that if Eden prairie does approve the resource recovery facility, the applicant still intends to manufacture mechanical devices or plastic moldings at the proposed location. She noted that this application is not for the resource recovery use. Dacy explained that the applicant is proposing the location of the structure in the approximate center of the property to be served by two driveways. She stated that the first phase of development contains the 50,000 square foot building and parking area in the southeast corner of the site. She stated that there will be a total of 60 employees over two shifts. She stated that the parking area includes 57 parking stalls which is adequate to accommodate each shift and shift changes. She stated that the building height is 24 feet for the majority of the building and the northeast corner of the building will extend to 40 feet in height. She noted that the off street loading area will be on the eastern side of the building completely shielded from Audubon Road. Dacy also explained that the proposed stormwater management plan indicates that the runoff will be directed to the parcel to the east which the applicant may purchase. She explained that if the property is not obtained, then the developer will be required to revise the site plan and modify the stormwater mangement plan so that adequate retention on site is provided to meet city and watershed district drainage requirements. She also noted that, as stated in the subdivision report, extension of water and sewer mains must be accomplished from the business park area before issuance of a building permit. She stated that the applicant submitted a landscaping plan incorporating the maintenance of existing vegetation and the provision for additional screening. She stated that silt fences should be installed along the east property line to control erosion and overland drainage leaving the site and all areas should be sodded or seeded as soon as possible after grading. Don Brauer confirmed to the Commission that the site is being looked at for a resource recovery facility. He stated that if the resource recovery facility is not approved in Eden prairie, they want the proposed site as an alternative. M. Thompson asked about the difference in truck traffic between the manufacturing use and the resource recovery facility. Dacy stated that the manufacturing use will create about 100 ADT (average daily trips) where the resource recovery facility will create about 200 ADT. She noted that the traffic generated from this use is similar to other manufacturing uses in the industrial area. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1985 Page 8 e Conrad was concerned about the amount of truck traffic generated by the manufacturing facility. Don Brauer stated that the manufacturing plant is one of the lowest that he has seen in terms of density, trips, employees, etc. He also stated that there will be no air emissions from this plant. Noziska moved, seconded by M. Thompson, to recommend approval of site Plan Review #85-8 for a 50,000 square foot manufacturing facility based on the site plan stamped "Received October 2, 1985" subject to the following conditions: 1. Private or municipal extension of sanitary sewer lines and watermain shall be required prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. City requirements for control of the rate of runoff shall be met by an on or off site retention/detention drainage system. 3. Adherence to all watershed district conditions. e 4. Installation of concrete curb at the edge of all bituminous surfaces. 5. Installation of culverts under street accesses as required to provide for continuous ditch drainage along Audubon Road. Size and location of such culverts to be determined by the city at the time construction documents are submitted. 6. Compliance with the landscaping plan stamped "Received October 2, 1985". 7. All disturbed areas shall be sodded/seeded as soon as possible after grading. 8. A silt fence shall be installed along the eastern property line for erosion control. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING zoning Ordinance Amendment #85-4 to Amend Section 17, the P-4, Planned Industrial Development District of zoning Ordinance No. 47 to allow resource recovery facilities as a con- ditional use, Reuter, Inc. e Don Brauer: I am a planner, and the Project Engineer for Preferrable Fuels and Systems, who are in the business of selling - e e Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1985 Page 9 the equipment for resource recovery facilities. with me is Brad Bainey, who is Project Manager for Welsh Construction Company, who has been retained to be the builders of this facility. This is a very complicated subject. I don't know how much you people know about resource recovery and what is going on in the metropolitan area for closing landfills and the alternatives which are required to be provided by each county, and such things as designation plans. Are you familiar with what a County Wide Designation Plan is? O.K., I will start with that point. The Metropolitan Council and the legislature have decided that we are not going to put unprocessed wastes in landfills after 1990. The legislature has given every county the authority to control all of the garbage within its boundaries, all around the metro area and all counties of the state. They will do that by passing an ordinance which designates where each garbage can go. If a private business person wishes to get some of that garbage, to get their resources recovered or to do whatever they want with it, they must apply for an exclusion from that time. Mr. Reuter had decided and we at Preferrable Fuels, and I should go back and say, I am Don Brauer, and the Brauer and Associates firm has done planning in Chanhassen. Years ago I did some planning here, but the downtown plan which is being done now is being done by Brauer and Associates, the former business I owned. I do not own that now. However, I am retained as a consultant by the City on the Lake Ann Sewer. The Brauer and Associates which is doing the planning now is not the company that I own anymore. However, in all of the years that I was in that business, we redid a lot of park plans, 2000 of them. Most of the cities had us plan parks on were ruled as "peat bogs" and old river stops. So I learned a lot about solid waste disposal and garbage. Because of that, I really felt that I wanted to be involved in that kind of business and that is why I am where I am now. I have been a consultant with Hennepin County over the years in solid waste disposal and that is the background that brought me to this place. The Reuter Corporation decided that it wanted to build a plant to recycle recyclable materials and to make a fuel, a densified fuel. In others word a coal, a coal substance by densifying the burnable parts of that garbage. We were in the process of designing and designating a site for that when Hennepin County decided to apply for a designation plan. When they did that, anybody who wants to do this as a private venture has 18 months from the date that they applied for that designation plan to get an exclusion from that plan from the Metropolitan Council and to build an operative plant. Eighteen months, that is all the time we have. The clock is running. Now, when you do that process, we got from the Metropolitan Council the first exclusion. Many people ask and they have not granted any and we got an exclusion for 400 tons a day of waste from Hennepin County. The county is not very happy with that. They would like to take it all downtown and burn it in the two large burning plants. So they are not very coopera- tive at all. After we got that exclusion, each month we must go back to the Metropolitan Council and prove to them that we are e e e Planning commission Minutes October 9, 1985 Page 10 making some progress towards this eighteen months or we lose that exclusion entirely. They are also in charge of a thing called the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Ordinarily, in the 28 years that I have been in the planning business and we did the first environmental assessments in the state. The first environ- mental impact statements I helped design that process, so I understand it. Ordinarily, the environmental assessment worksheet for a project of any kind in the City of Chanhassen would be the responsibility of the City of Chanhassen. However, for a resource recovery facility, it is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Council. In order to get an environmental assessment worksheet through that Council it takes 120 days. I am sure it doesn't take that long in Chanhassen, and if it does, I don't understand why. We need a site somewhere other than in Hennepin County. At the present time, we have a site which was selected as the transfer station in Eden Prairie. We have the concurrence of the City of Eden prairie informally to build on that site, but they require 14 permits to build a plant like this, whether it is on your site in Chanhassen or whether it is in another town. One of those is a county permit. Hennepin County is not very likely to give us a permit for that site. They are likely to drag their feet long enough so that it is infeasible to build a site. We have no choice but to have a second site. Fortunately, the Reuter Manufacturing Corporation is growing and in the processing of acquiring another small busi- ness and they would like to have a second site to expand their current business, not the resource recovery business. So we said fine, why don't we find a site that is appropriate for that manu- facturing plant and get it zoned for whatever it needs to be zoned, and get the site plan approved and begin the basic site prepara- tion for construction of that plant for general manufacturing purposes. And at the time that Hennepin County pulls the rug out from under us for a resource recovery site as we have planned in Eden Prairie, we will transfer that facility then to this other facility and if that doesn't happen this will go on to be a manufacturing site as we designated it. The dimensions in this particular building have been designed or specified by Reuter so that they fit the requirements for his manufacturing process. The machinery to do resource recovery can fit into any shape, practically, that has this much square feet. It would not necessarily, the other plants that I have been involved in for instance for resource recovery, are not square. He wants it to be square because that is the way he sees the manufacturing operations going on. If we come out here and say that we have decided that the resource recovery plant is going to go on your site and make an application for that permit, we are out of busi- ness for 120 days. You can not take any action on it and we can not pursue it any further until an environmental assessment worksheet is done. We can't even make an application. I think if you would take a look at the calendar and take away 120 days from that and figure we have only got until next September to get e e e Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1985 Page 11 this thing built and operating, I think you can see that we don't have a project. Secondly, we quite agree with the city when we came out here, that this particular kind of use was probably not contemplated in your ordinance and that we also agree with Barb's suggestion that it ought to be a conditional use, so that when and if someone comes along to propose this, some things like for instance, this ought to be the recycling center for this com- munity. It ought to have some advantages to the community. Now the facility itself, the next time you go down through Iowa, I would invite you to stop at the little town of Ames, Iowa. I am a graduate of that university and so are my children, so I have been down there many times over the last fifteen years. They have a resource recovery, an RDF plant operating in that town. It has been operating for fifteen years. It is a smaller plant. It would take you fifteen minutes to drive off of Interstate 35 to look at it. They started it on a city block, 300 feet square. There are single family residences across the street on two sides. The power plant is two blocks away on one side and old Highway 30 is on the other side. It is the plant that makes shredded refuse derived fuel. That is RDF, which stands for refuse derived fuel. It just shreds up non-paper and non- combustible things and then it goes through a tube. They then feed it into the municipal power plant to give it its coals and that's fuel for that plant. In all the years, some 20 or 25 of these plants I have visited there are some very definite short comings and I won't get involved in that kind of business. One of which is that you must use it within two or three days. One of the reasons that I came with the densified kind of fuel as a solution is that once you get it into a cured form it has a shelf life of three to five years. It is like coal in effect, it is as cured as almost anything can be bacterialogically, biologi- cally and any other way and it can be used by people during the heating season. Unlike that paper fuel, you have to find a customer that uses it every day, you can't store it other than about three days. So, therefore, you only have one customer when you do it that way and that is the power plant. The power plant has the lowest price of a fuel of anybody in the world. So you are competing, you are selling your fuel to the people who have the lowest price around and secondly, a power company, we folks in this society, we demand a very high degree of liability from their system. Therefore, again, their specifications for fuel are very high. So if you build a plant to make refuse derived fuel that is densified you have opened up to a lot customers. Every facility in the State of Minnesota will be required, before the end of next year that would be feasible, to convert to natural biological fuels. Which means in Minnesota, peat or wood chips for densified fuels. So the customers for this kind of thing are numerous and they can use it for their heating season which is their high bills. Secondly, this can be gasified very easily and we expect that many plants and large facilities of any kind wil~ put ?a~ifiers in, burn the fuel, convert it to gas and fuel the1r gas1f1er inside. The thing that has held th b . e US1ness e e e Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1985 Page 12 up for many years is two things, separating the garbage and getting out all the things that are not burnable. Mr. Reuter is in the business of buying pelletized recycled plastic materials and unlike almost every other that you will hear in this busi- ness, he intends to separate plastic materials as well. Once they are out, while they are combustible and need for good fuel, they also provide for our pollution problems and that is one of the sources of dioxin from the large garbage burning plants that we have. The rest of the fuel is better than any coal other than high grade anthracite coals from the east. But any of the western coals, this fuel is better fuel, has less particulate matter and it has no sulfur. It has no other kinds of synthetic/organic, not none but it has a so minute amount that it is better than most coal. To the specific thing, that is the background. If we have a zone set for an industrial building so that we can prepare that site this fall season, by that I mean do the basic site grading and perhaps pour footings, it will be entirely feasible for us to go through the lengthy process of approval that would be required for a resource recovery plant and accomplish the target date which we must accomplish or we lose the designation. I should also mention that both Scott County and Carver County have asked the Reuter Company informally, not formally at all, to consider the possibility of processing their wastes at this site as well. No decision has been made on that. In your county, for instance, there is 75 tons a day, not all of which could possibly get there but probably 50 to 60 tons a day in addition to Hennepin County. The County of Carver will be under the same obligation as Hennepin and all the other counties in the state by 1990 to see that unprocessed waste or garbage does not go to landfills. So whether it is this plant or some other plant or some other processes the county makes, somewhere that waste will be processed. That is a long answer to a very simple question, but we believe that this is the approach that we must take under the weight of the process which is put upon us by the Metropolitan Council. Siegel asked why he stated that Hennepin County might drag their feet. Brauer stated that Hennepin County has the approval from state legislature to build two 1000 ton a day burning plants and they are now under a contract with a company to build and have an operation by 1995. He stated that there were two exclusions granted to them for 400 tons a day and another for 200 tons. He stated that the 600 tons will effectively make it impossible for them to get enough burnage for that second large scale burning plant to make it feasible. Siegel asked if they needed approval from Carver County. Brauer stated that was correct. He stated that Carver County informally stated that if this site is approved, they will ask us e Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1985 p ag e 13 to make a proposal to accept the Carver County waste as well. He stated that it would not be feasible to build a plant to take just 75 tons a day. He stated that 400 tons would come from a transfer station in large trucks and the truck difference between the proposed manufacturing use and the resource recovery facility would be about half or 40%. M. Thompson asked what the advantage to the community was for this faci Ii ty . e Brauer stated that every community will be required by the county to increase its source separation. He felt that every county will have a source separation, either curb side pick up or some kind of program with recovering bottles, cans, etc., by 1990. He stated that there are two things that the community will have a problem with, one that you will not only have to pick them up, but will have to store them somewhere and market it. He stated that the greatest advantage if this plant in operating it is in the process of marketing those materials and its going to have a better marketing contract and the City of Chanhassen is going get much better than the whole County of Carver could get. He stated that the City should impose a condition in the amendment that would require the developer and operator of this plant to accept the responsibility of the storage, the sorting, the transpor- tation and marketing of these materials. M. Thompson asked what kind of vehicular traffic he was talking abou t . Brauer stated that it would generate about 200 trips or 100 vehicles, one trip in and one trip out, including a reasonable number of visitors. Ryan felt that the zoning at the business park was light industrial and this proposal is for a heavy industrial use. Dacy stated that the definition in the p-4 District under per- mitted uses states manufacturing compounding, processing, packaging, treatment and assembly of products and materials but excluding uses engaged principally in the processing of used products or materials and excluding the processing of animals. She stated that this process as submitted to her was compaction and densifying which are similar to the other industrial uses. Conrad moved, seconded by Emmings to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e M. Thompson asked how staff arrived at the proposed wording for the amendment. Dacy stated that the wording was based on research of the EAW that was prepared for the Eden prairie site. She also contacted e Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1985 Page 14 officials from Pennington County (Thief River Falls), Carver County and review the proposals for Dakota County as well as researching the documents that are included in the staff report. Noziska asked how one can separate all the various materials without getting into some potential toxic chemicals? Dacy stated that during the process of separation the different types of wastes are identified. e Brauer stated that technically speaking, household wastes do not contain toxic materials. He stated that the Commission should visit the plant in Ames, Iowa. He stated that all of the European countries have had plants like this for fifty years. He stated that it is a matter of training the people that operate the machinery, starting with the dumping and moving it around on the dumping floor. He stated that they begin looking and picking out items, both with mechanical devices and by hand. He stated that it then goes through a conveyor which is strictly for the purpose of sorting out those kinds of things before it gets to the shredder. He noted that the water and sewer use with this type of plant is very minimal in that it uses less than 1000 gallons a day. He explained that there is a closed drainage system which recycles the water and it is used again. He stated that this type of plant is very closely regulated as opposed to a chemical plants with some 30 types of toxic wastes that are not regulated and are flushed into the sewer system. He stated that he could get a list of 400 sites of which they are being disposed of in Minnesota today. He stated that only 30 % of them are regu- lated. He added that the resource recovery plant has very strict regulations. Conrad asked what kind of trucks bring the material to a site like this? Brauer stated that the trucks will be the same kind of garbage trucks that pick up in front of your house. He stated that materials will mostly be corning from transfer stations and would be semi-trailers that are special container trucks. Conrad felt uncomfortable that there was only one condition on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. He doesn't know if we have con- sidered all of the alternatives. He stated that he has a concern about the amount of truck traffic. M. Thompson stated that if you compared it to another use in the industrial park and maybe in this case it is less traffic. e Conrad stated that this is not another use that brings 200 trucks a day. M. Thompson stated that his house probably brings out 20 trips a day. He stated that what you are thinking of is a big truck full Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1985 Page 15 e of garbage that smells. He stated that you have the trucks going up and down the highway already along with the cattle trucks. Conrad asked that the 200 trips a day is that an average or is that top capacity? Brauer stated that the expansion shown on the plan would be to accommodate Carver County waste. He stated that they can not get any more from Hennepin County which is 400 tons. He stated that on this size of site, you could have a manufacturing plant that employed lots of people and you could easily get a 140,000 square foot building and have 300 employees. Conrad asked how the wastes were dumped off of the trucks? Brauer stated that the trucks go right into the building, the door closes. He stated that all of this plus all the air that goes in it has to be treated. He stated that the waste is dumped on a large tipping floor and there it is separated. M. Thompson asked if the question was addressed if they have to take the some of our waste product. e Dacy stated that you could make that a condition, however, I did not address it and looked at the use from a zoning standpoint. Brauer felt that the zoning ordinance amendment should state that resource recovery facilities should be a conditional use and that specific conditions can be placed on specific proposals. He stated that they are looking for sites in the western suburbs and as far as trucks on Highway 5 is concerned, they would still be using Highway 5. Ryan asked why not Dakota or Scott County for this facility? Brauer stated that it would be too far to transfer the garbage that they have control of. Ryan stated that they had a proposal with Dakota County and asked what happened to that plan? Brauer stated that they chose to do business with NSP, to make their kind of refuse derived fuel which is shredded paper, like the sites in Washington and Ramsey County, to burn in their plants. Siegel asked if they were negotiating or proposing in another county? e Brauer stated that by other locations that Mr. Reuter owns, he meant in the united States. e e e Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1985 Page 16 Ryan felt that the zoning at the business park was light industrial and this proposal is for a heavy industrial use. He stated that when you are processing 40 tons of waste an hour, he considers that a heavy industrial use. He asked about on-site storage. Brauer stated that when the machine makes the pellets they go into hopper bottom containers which are inside the building and then loaded into trucks, so they are stored inside until they are loaded onto the trucks. Conrad moved, seconded by M. Thompson, to pass the Zoning Ordinance Amendment on to the City Council with no action. The Commission stated that they were not qualified to define con- ditions on the amendment. The Commission suggests that the City Council appoint a committee to research this, define the major impacts on the community and have them make a recommendation for a long term ordinance amendment. M. Thompson, Noziska, Conrad, Ryan and Emmings voted in favor. Siegel abstained. Motion carried.