96-624�L
Council Eile # 9G - C � �
Ordinance #
Green Sheet # 3 G 4 a G
ORDINANCE �/
CITY OF S AUL, MINNESOTA
Presented y
� � ��� ,
Referred To Committee: Date
1
2 An interim ordinance preserving the status quo with respect to
3 the use of property within the City of Saint Paul pending the
4 completion of studies of possible amendments to the City's
5 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations relating to
6 Recycling Processing Centers, said ordinance enacted pursuantto
7 Minnesota Statutes § 462355, subd. 4.
8
9 THE COUNCIL OF T'HE CITY OF SA1NT PAUL DOES ORDAIN:
10
11 Section 1
12
13 The Saint Paul City Council hereby directs the Department of Planning and Economic
14 Development to undertake a study of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations
15 relating to recycling processing centers, so calied "automobile shredders" and similar
16 processing technologies. The Planning Commission is to study these matters and submit a
17 report to the Council together with any recommendations that the City's present
18 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations be amended.
19
20 Section 2
21
22 Pending the complefion of the study and for the purposes of prohibiting the
23 establishment of any recycling processing center operating an"automobile shredder" or similar
24 technological process as a permitted use within the City of Saint Paul, and until such time as
25 a study of possible amendments to the City's comprehensive plan and zoning code relating to
26 recycling processing centers has been completed and the Council of the City of Saint Paul has
27 taken action on any recoxnmendations contained therein, no permit or license for the
28 establishment of any recycling processing centers incorparating such technological processes
24 shall be issued or approved by the City, its officers, employees, agents or commissions. The
30 prohibirion is enacted for the purposes of protecting the City's plamiing process and the
31 health, welfaze and safety of its citizens in addifion to the other purposes expressed herein or ��
32 in an accompanying resolution.
33
34 Section 3
35
36 For a period of time not to exceed twelve (12) months from the effective date of this
37 ordinance, and for the purposes of prohibiting any development that might be inconsistent
38 with the pending study and any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan or Zoning
39 Regulations, the prohibifions shall continue in fixll force unril a comprehensive policy for the
40 City can be adopted. In the event the studies and recommenda6ons of the Planning
��� 1 Commission and the deliberations of the City Council require additional tune, these
2
3
4
5
6
7
prohibitions may be eatended, by sepazate resolution of the City Council, for additional
periods of time not to exceed an additional eighteen (18) months.
Section 4
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its
passage, approval and publication.
PIIANCUen
AUG 311996
BY� � . � iv-��i..ra_---
Approved by Mayor: Date S
B y : � !�- .5�
Requested by Department of:
By:
Form Approved by City Attorney
q�_G�
BY: �..r�G/��^�-- .r-z�-G�
Approved by Mayor for Submission to
Council
By:
Adopted by Council: Date � �
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
�M��v�a�a �I�lp, 9G- ��.�/
DEPCRT CIL DATE INRIATED GREEN SHEE �� �° 3 6 4 2 6 '
CONTAGT PERSON & PHONE INRIAUDATE INITIAUDATE
�DEPARTMENTDIRECTOR OC(P/COUNqL
Dave Thune 266-8620 ���N �CITYATTOBNEY OCIiYCLERK
Ml1ST BE ON CqUNCIL AGENDA BY (DAT� R � BIIUGET �IREGTOR O FIN. 8 MGT. SERVICES DIR.
ONDEfl O MAYOR (OR ASSISTAHn �
SOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
ACf�ON REQUESTED:
Interim ordinance--preserving the�status quo with xespect to pioperty pending completion
o£ studies relating to Recycling Processing Centers. Testimony was received and it is the
intent of both the staff and Cit Council to move briskl withont takin an shortcuts and
come o reso u ion as soon as rac ica .
FiECOMMENOATiONS: npprova (A) a Reject (R) PEHSONAL SEFiVICE CONTpACTS MUST ANSWEH THE FOLLOWING �UESTIONS:
_ PLANNING COMMISSION _ CML SEflVICE CAMMISSION ��� HeS this pef5on/Firtn ev¢r worketl under a Conhac[ for thi5 depdrtment? -
_ qB COMMITTEE � �'ES NO
2. Has this personffirm ever been a city employee?
— �� — YES NO
_ oiSiRiCi COUR7 _ 3. Does this personttirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any curreM city employee?
SUPPORISWHICHCOUNCILOBJECTIVE? YES NO
Ezplafn all yea anawe�s o� sapareta aheet and attach W gree� aheet
INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITV (Wlw. Wha[. When. Where, Why):
Multiple proposals for automobile shredders exist, current zoning may not adequately
address potential concerns.
ADVANTAGES IFAPPflOVED:
Land use wi11 remain the same until study is completed by PED staff.
DISADVANTAGES IP APPROVED:
None.
DISAOVqNTAGES IF NOT APPROVEO
The City could see a proliferation of automobile shredders on the Riverfront or near
residential uses.
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSAC710N S COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIpCLE ONE) YES NO
FUNDIfiG SOUHCE ACTIVITY NUMBER
FINANCIAL INFORMATION� (EXPLAIN)
:` -� 9�-�ay
��a��q�
ALTER TR�DL\G CORPORATION POSTI'ION AGAINST ZO1V'ING MORATORNM
In 1990, the Sa:nt Paul City Council amended iu Zoning Ordinance to permit recycling
processing centers within certain industrial districu. A recycling processing center is defined
to be a faciliry that accepu, stores, and processes recyclable material. Significantiy, processing
is expressly defined to include the "shredding" of recyclable materials. Based on that relatively
recent Council action and a 30-year old Ixzse with the Saint Paul Port Authority, Alte: Trading
Corporation ("Aiter") submitted a Special Condition Use Permit Applicarion to the City of Saint
Paui at the end of last July; now some 11 months ago.
At the time that Aiter filed iu Special Condition Use Permit Application to install a metal-
shredding operation, it also voluntarily filed with che City an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet on iu proposed project. The Special Condition Use Permit Application and
Em�ironmental Assessment Worksheet set forth in detail the specifics of the project.
The issue before the City Council is whether a moratorium is necessary to evaluate �he adequacy
of the current Zoning Ordinance reladve to recycling processing centers. bi'e submit that a
moratorium is simply unnecessary. The f�ct is the moratorium is nothing more than special
interest legisiadon aimed at only stopping this individual project and, as such, must be denied.
Indeed, the fact that the City Council is currendy considering a montorium as opposed to
Alter's Special Condition Use Permit Application simply iliusuates [he unfair and prejudicial
treatment this project has received. This moratorium proposal erroneously presumes that the
Zoning Ordinance does not and cannot address recycling processing centers such as we are
proposing. However, the test of the Ordinance is in iu appiication and, to date, the City has
not allowed the Ordinance to be applied to this project. The proponents of the moratorium say
it is necessary because of the muitiple proposals facing the City. The fact is Altez is the only
company that has submitted an application for a shredding opezation. No other company has
submitted an application during the 11 months that the Alter application has been ostensibiy
subject to the City's review. The City must recognize that threats made by other companies to
add shredders are nothing more than fear tactics in the interest of competition. These
compeators would like nothing more than to have the City stop this project to do politicaily that
which they cannot do economically, which is, compete in the marketplace. In the end, given
Alter is the only company to have submitted an application, this moratorium is clearly aimed at
this single project and only Aiter wiIl be disadvantaged by a moratorium.
The fact that Alter is being prejudicially singled out by this moratorium is further evidenced by
the timing of the proposal. First, in 1990, a recyciing processing center with a shredder was
in opention within the City. If there was a legitimate concern regarding this type of facility,
it could have, and arguably should have, been raised at that time. Second, at the dme that Alter
submitted the proposal, a competitor threatened a comparable project, but this was over ten
months ago and, to date, no applicadon has been filed. Third, only now after this sinele project
has been subjected to an inordinate and excessive review is a moratorium being proposed. Since
the filing of its application, Alter and Aiter alone has been subject to a comprehensive
environmental review process which has had the input of not simply the City but multiple Sta[e
qc.—��`�
and federai agencies. The State and the Planning and Economic DeveIopment Department have
had over 11 months to analyze this project.
While the issue before the Council is the moratorium and not the individual project, I would
simply state that the facu of the project speak for themselves. Notwithstanding all ihe
misinformation which has been circulated regarding this project, the plain fact is the project can
and does meet alI necessary environmental standards - air, water, and noise.
In all due respect to the members of this Council, Alter dces not see this moratorium as a call
for a study but simply as the overt attempt to end this project before it begins. Numerous
individuais have openly stated that ihis project may meet the zoning standards, but these aze the
same individuals who have likewise openly stated that they oppose this project. They are not
intezested in a study of the facts, they are simply asldng the Council to ban this project by
whatever means possible.
Saint Paul has a detailed Zoning Ordinance. Alter asked nothing more [han to have its project
evaluated under the terms of the exisring Zoning Ordinance. The Council should noc enact a
montorium aimed at preventing the fair and lawful review of this project. Fach project will
succeed or faii on iu own meriu under the Ordinance with each project subject to the review
of this Council. Alter respectfully request ihat this Council give both ihe Company and the
Ordinance the chance to prove that they�work.
John W. Genukow
Alter Trading Corporation
2117 State Sueet
Suite 250
Bettendorf, IA 52722-5097
Phone: (319) 344-5287
Facsimile: (319) 344-5261
r�w:so9-i
Testimony of Andy Driscoll, 835 Linwood Avenue, St. Paut, MN 551Q5
before the Saint Paul City Council
Wednesday, June 26, 2996
In re; Proposed Moratorium on Construction Shredders (Recycling Facilities)
Mr. President, members of the Council:
My name is Andy Driscoll. I reside at 835 Linwood Avenue in Saiat Paul.
a�-��.y
��a��
I join with most of the voices here today supporting President Thune's foresightful
proposal to suspend further progress in the permitting and construction of inetal-
shredding facilities within the Mississippi River corridor. You are hearing today the
anguished cries of many citiaens who cannot understand why any development that flies in
the face of puhiic policy and common sense should be allowed to proceed. Several of us
believe that facilities of the types thus far proposed may well be illegal under current state
law and federal regulations.
Your proposed moratorium is supported by more than personal concern. You have the law
and policy squarely in your corner on this matter. The common sense part speaks for itself.
Why in the name of everything this city has discussed for the past 15 years shouid we look
twice at any strip of our riverfront as the proper locale for a business as fiithy, noisy and
downright dangerous as these shredders promise to be?
Oh yes. We need jobs, all right; hut too often in our desperate reach for family wage work
have otherwise reasonable peopie been willing to compromise the future health of our
families, our neighborhoods and our city for even a few jobs. Economic development that
sacrifices even one person's life or health is never worth it.
Alter Trading Corporation and its alties at the state pollution control agency, despite PCA
staff s publicly stated concerns for the long term health effects of that company's proposed
shredder, insist that the project meets minimum state standards for air quality and noise.
The question we never seem to ask is whose minimums are they. It strikes me that when
you're operating a banging, grinding metal sriredder spitting who knows what all into the
air and the river a few hundred feet from a heaviiy populated neighborhood, any minimum
above zero is excessive. Now, the owners of the Minneapolis Kondirator are exploring
q4-G�y
shredder possibilities near our present shredder at North Star Steel. Will anyone be 2
measuring the accumulated effects on minimum standards of two shredders operating side
by side?
One of the most needed but sorely neglected laws in this state is the Critical Areas Act of
1973. As a result of that taw, the Metro corridor of the Mississippi was permanently
designated a critical area which gives it special protections and considerations from any
activity that would threaten its important historic, cultural or aesthetic values, or naturai
systems or could result in irreversible damage to these resources, decrease their value and
utility for pubiic purposes or unreasonably endanger life and property. Local governments
are left to make sure we compiy with that law. An examination o� the law will reveal that
industrial threats of this nature definitely run contrary to the law and legislative will.
They're probably illegal.
Political views may diverge among activists hereabout; but the one thing I have not heard is
general dissent on what we believe the river and its beautifui banks should be about from
now on: People. People and animals and greenery and clean air and clean water. Our
common goals have emerged in missiott statements and resolutions of the Riverfront
Development Corporation, of the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area
management plan, and in the pubiic pronouncements of our Mayors, members of this
Council, the Press and most neighborhood and other organizations concerned with the
quality of urban life. This is no 1VTMBY issue; if it is, then this is your backyard and my
backyard and the backyard of every resident of Saint Paul, West St. Paul, and South St.
Paul. This directly affects every citizen and visitor in this great Metro Area. Our children
and children's children should never witness what we have over the last 4Q years of self
interest: a sewer for a river. Thank you so much for your consideration of the moratorium.
��
�
��
Qi�-L �.y
�)a� �9.6
�
�I