Loading...
97-1303Council File # t" f -13 d 3 Green Sheet # b073 / RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 34 40 Referred To Committee: Date WF�REAS, �rank Wallner, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.204(a) filed an administrative appeal from a deterinination by the Saint Paul Zoning Admuustrator concerning the legal status of semi-trailers located at 1701 Pierce Butler Route and commonly known as the Burlington Northem Sante Fe (BN5F) Midway Hub Facility East of Snelling Avenue; and lo WI3EREAS, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.204, the Boazd of Zoning Appeais (BZA) conducted public hearings on May 5, 1997 and June 2, 1997, and at the conclusion of these public hearings, the BZA, in BZA Resolution No. 97-076 dated June 16, 1497, upheld the Zoning Administrator's determinafion that the semi-trailers located at the BNSF Midway Hub Facility East of Snelling Avenue are "pazked" as distinguished from "stored" and are, therefore, a legal non-conforming use of the said properry. Accordingly, the BZA denied the appeal of Frank Wallner. The BZA based its decision, as substantially reflected in the hearing minutes, upon the following: 1. The semi-trailers on BNSF's properry East of Snelling are used at least once a week based on staff inspectlons of the site, information from a metropolitan counsel study, and information from BNSF. Trailers used on a weekly basis constitute "parking" rather than "storage". Therefore, the semi-trailers on BNSF's property East of Snelling are "parked" rather than "stored". Because the trailers are parked and not stored, they are not subject to the requirement that outside storage be at least 300 feet from residentialiy zoned property. 2. BNSF's intermodal freight operation was a permitted use in the late 1980's when the trailers were first brought to the area East of Snelling. The trailers meet a11 the zoning regulations that were in effect at that rime. However, BNSF's operafion became a legal non-conforniing use in 1992 when intermodal freight operations were made a use that required a special condit3on use permit in an I-2 Zoning District. Therefore, the area being used for the trailers cannot be expanded. In addition, if the trailers were to remain on the site in excess of one week, they would be considered storage and be in violation of the requirements that outside storage be at least 300 feet from residentially zoned property. �t?-13o3 2 WI-IEREAS, on June 17, 1997, Frank Wallner, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Pau1 3 Legislative Code § 64.205, duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the BZA's June 16, 4 1997 determination and requested a hearing before the Council of the City of Saint Paul for the 5 purpose of considering the determivation of the BZA; and 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 WI-IEREAS, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64.205 -§§ 64.208, and upon norice to affected patties, public hearings were duly conducted by the Council of the City of Saint Paul on August 6, 1997 and August 20, 1997, wherein all interested parties were given an opportuniTy to be heard; and �VHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paui, on September 3, 1997, having considered the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the BZA and the testimony received during the public hearing DOES HEREBY; RESOLVE, that the decision of the BZA in this matter be upheld based upon the following findings of the Council: Having heazd the pubiic testimony and considered all the records filed in this matter, the Council finds first that there was no error of procedure on the part of the BZA. Mr. WalLner was given the opportunity to present testimony to the BZA on matters presented to the Zoning Administrator. Second, there was no enor of fact. The evidence presented prompted the BZA to conclude that the trailers were parked and not stored. No evidence was presented demonstrating enor on the part of the BZA's factual conclusions. Finally, there was no error 3n findings. The BZA's conclusion that BNSF parks, rather than stores, trailers on the subj ect property is a finding based upon a reasonable interpretation of the zoning codes and the Council accordingly adopts and incorporates as its own the Fmdings of the BZA as set forth in BZA Resolution No. 97-076; AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above findings, that the appeal of Frank Wallner be and is hereby denied; AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, despite this denial of the appeal by Frank Wallner, it is apparent to this Council that BNSF, by its own admission, has in the past stored, rather than parked, semi-trailers on the subject properiy in violation of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. The City wi11 not tolerate future violations. To that end, BNSF has stated its willingness to wark with the City and the District 11 Community Councii to ensure that future violations will not occur on the subject properiy. In particulaz, BNSF stated that it will provide monthly reports of trailer movements at the Midway Hub Facility. The City Council thoroughly expects BNSF to abide by its word not only on this particulaz point but also with respect to BNSF's professed commitment to insure against future violations; AND, BE IT °�7-17fl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 FURTI-�R RESOLVED, that the will of this Council, as expressed in Council File No. 97-1099, requesting the Saint Paul Planning Commission to review the present zoning ordivauces goveming pazking and storage for the purpose of clarifying the distinction beiween pazkiug and storage and for the purpose of shortening the present bright line time period between pazking and storage is hereby reiterated; AND, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Frank Wallner, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, the Zoning Administrator, the Planuiug Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals. Requested by Department of: Adopted by Council: Date _,`�q� Adoption Certified I�y Council Secretasy By` �`°— � Approved by Mayox: Date t, � it441^ By: Form Apgro d 6y City Attorney By: .�.����. Approved by Mayos fox Submission to Covncil By: 3y: coun�il Councilmember Megard 266-8640 October 29, 1997 � x�weae wrt TOTAL # OF SIC3NATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET OEh�RT1BIfcncClat q.'1-�� No 60'7�9 an�capaa ❑ CRYAAObEY ❑ LIIYGDIN ❑ mawuuamurESOn. ❑ rrwtu�mnnKCro ❑wro�eton.wur.rm ❑ {CUP /(LL L�CATIONS FORSIGNATURE) Finalizing City Council Action taken September 3, 1997, denying the appeal of Frank Wallner to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals on the legal status of semi-trailers on Burlington Northern's intermodal hub facility, 1701 Piezce Butler Route. PLANNING COMMtSSION C16 COMMITTEE CNIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF TRANSACTION SOURCE lias thie P�su�rm everwdkeE untler a coMmet fortfiie departroeM? YES � Has mis o�sorJfirm ever been a cllv emPbyee� , vES NO Does Ihis Persw�firm 0�8�%a sldli not rwrmallYP� M anY curteM utY emDbyee9 YES NO Is Mis persoMrm a tarqeted vendWt � YES NO COSTrttEVENUE BUD6EfED (CIRCLE ONq ACTNRY NIIMBER YEE NO (p�WN) OFFICE OF'I'f� CITY ATTORNEY PegBir75 CityAttorney �A �) 303 ! CITY OF SAINT PAUL N�rm Coieman, Mayor Civi1 Division 400 City Hall IS West KelloggBlvd. Saent Paui, Minnesota 55102 Telephone: 612 266-8910 Facsimik: 612 298-5679 October 16, 1997 Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretuy Saint Paul City Council Room 310 Saint Paul Ciry Hall RE: Appeal of Frank Wallner of BZA Resolution No. 97-076 pertaining to BNSF Midway Intermodal Facility. BZA File 97-192. Dear Ms. Anderson: Attached please find the signed original of a resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in the above entitled matter. The resolution should be placed on the Council's Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Very truly yours, ���/��,�,.�. Peter W. Warner a�-13o3 ay ■ SPENCE, RICKE & THURMER, P.A. Suite 600, Dea ee of Honor Building 325 Cedar Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612-223-8000 Fax 612-223-8�03 Glam OlanderQuamme D'�xectUial: (612) 292-3359 August 2Q 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310, City Hall St. Paul, MN 55102 TAOMAS W. SPENCE NLNS W. GERNES .4amiaed i� �.L�`, wf Admitted m'.�LV, WI MEG.4N K. RICKE GLENN OLANDER-Qi7ANIl�1E wdm,ua�n�vn wamma�x,�,wi SliSAN D. THURMER DIANE P GERTH Adm�dinbPLW'[A. A�uedivMiv,Wt ALFONSE I. COCCHIARELLA TIMOTHY K. MASTERSON Admittedin`.L�.�4i AdminedinSi� PATRICK 7. SWEEN naa�uta �a �, cn, m TERRLE J. WII.LIAMS KERRY S. BURT SHARI A. WII,LIAMS CHERYL W. TECHAR HFLENA.ROEN SHARON L. TAYLOR Psmle3als VIA MESSENGER Re: Zoning File �l9-192 (Wallner/Burlington Northern) Burlington Northern Midway Aub Zoning Appeal of Frank X. Wallner City Council Hearing Date: August 20, 1997 Our File 0514 Dear Ms. Anderson: I enclose an original and ten copies of a letter that should be inciuded in the file materials to be considered by the Council in the above matter. It is my understanding that you will provide copies to the Office of the City Attorney and the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection. If that is inconect, please let me lrnow immediately, and I will arrange to send them copies. Thank you for your assistance in this matCer. Very truly yours, C% �y� ,.r.r Glenn Olander-Quamme GOQlllblmidway/anderson cc: (wlenc.) Dennis W. Wilson, Bsq. Richazd L. Ebel Ray Robinson Michael L. Burke John Ackerman Brian 7. Sweeney �'1-l�� ■ SPENCE, RICKE & THURMER, P.A. Suite 600, Degee of Honor Building 325 Cedar Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 672-223-8000 FaY 612-223-8003 THOMAS W, SPENCE NLNS W. GERNES Adwtt d in 4L�, W[ Admii[� in �L\, WI MEGAN K 12ICKE GLENN OLANDER-QUA.uLME .w�nw �a M, wi ad�mea in �, vn SliSPvLD.THU&�R DIANEP.GERTH AdwnwmY.F,w"4FL ndm;¢w�vhLV,wi AJ..FONSE S. COCCHIARELLA TIMOTHY K?rIASTERSON Admived in �, WI .4tlmared w n1� Glenn OlanderQuamme Di�ct Dial: (612) 2923359 August 20, 1997 Cl� C011IlCll City of St. Paul Room 310, City Aall St. Pau1, MN 55102 PAIRICK i SWEENEY Adm�ned in �, C.1 CO Re: Zoning File #9-192 (Wallner/Burlington Northern) Burlington Northern Midway Hub Zoning Appeal of �ank X. Wallner City Council Hearing Date: Wednesday, August 20, 1997 Our File 0514 To the Honorable Members of the St. Paul City Council: TERRIE J. WII,LIAMS KERRl' $. $1JRT SHARI A. WILLSAMS CHERYL W. TECHAR HELEN A. ROEN SHAAON L. 7AYLOR Pa�ategats I represent The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF), formerly lmown as Burlington Northern Railroad Company. During the last Council hearing on this matter, the Council requested certain additional informafion concerning the parldng of semi-trailers on that portion of BNSF's Midway Intermodal Hub located east of Snelling Avenue. For purposes of simplicity, I refer to that area as the Pazking Area. The Pazking Area is used for the temporary placement of semi-trailers pending their re- use. Those trailers are valuabie business assets, and it is in BNSF's best interest to use them as much as possible. If they sit idle, they do not generate revenue. Accardingly, BNSF has a very real economic interest in seeing that the trailers are parked for as little ume as osn sible. Indeed, in an ideal world, trailers would be parked for mere minutes, if at all. The cri6cal point is that BNSF is using the Parking Area to temporarilv place uailers on a short-term basis, with the expectation and desire that they will be used as quickly as possible. BNSF's analysis of trailer parking at the Midway Hub is consistent with BNSF's desire and intention that the trailers not sit idle. That analysis indicate that trailers aze pazked on average for 3.5 days or less. We believe BNSF's use of the Parking Area constitutes "parking" under any reasonable, legal definition of that term. � Q'1-4�0� An example may help to illustrate why we believe BNSF's use is by definition parking, as opposed to storage. When I place my car in my garage, T expect to use it again in the near term -- perhaps tomorrow, perhaps a week from now. In other words, I am temporarily �mrking my car in the garage, just as BNSF is narlanQ trailers in the Pazking Area. My friend Dick, on the other hand, has a vintage Thunderbird that he uses only in the summer. During the winter, he rents a heatefl space in a downtown building, puts the car up on blocks, drains the oil, and covers it with a tarpaulin. Dick does this because he does not intend to use the car again in the near term. He is storine the car, not parking it. We beHeve that the key to the pazking/storage issue is BNSF's purpose and intent in placing the trailers in the Parldng Area. Since that purpose and intent is re-use in the near term, the use is parking, not storage. At the last hearing, the Council asked for further information conceming the historic use of the Pazking Area. BNSF has been parking trailers in the Parking Area since 1987. PrSoz to 1987, BNSF usefl the Parking Area as part of an automobile marshaling facility; that is, a facility where new automobiles were unloaded from railcars, parked, and later picked up by trucks for delivery to automobile dealerships. In 1987, the automobile marshaling facility was moved from the Midway Aub to BNSF's Dayton's Bluff facility. As automobile parking was phased out, trailer parking was phased in. Thus, the Pazldng Area was in use for trailer parking as early as 1987. By 1991, the entire Pazldng Area was paved and in use for trailer parking. That use was a legal use ancillary to the intermodai operations at the Hub. The use became a legal nonconforming use when the Zoning Code was amended in late-1992 to create special wning for intermodal facilities. During the hearings before the Boazd of Zoning Agpeals and the Council, there has been some discussion of fencing along the southerly edge of the Parldng Area (i.e., the area long Pierce BuUer Route east of Snelling). BNSF originally intended to begin construction of the fence this summer. However, given Mr. Wallner's appeal, Tom Beach of the Office of License, Inspec6ons and Environmental Protecrion (LIEP) suggested that BNSF might want to defer construction of the fence until the appeal was resolved. Unfortunately, the appeal is still pending, thereby placing the construction schedule in jeopardy. BNSF has therefore determined to proceed with the construction of the fence notwithstanding the lack of a formal resolution of this matter. Construction will start shortly after Labor Day and is expected to take approximately two months to complete. The fence has been designed to shield the Parking Area from view from the Pierce Bufler Route and wil] be similar to a fence installed some months ago on BNSF's Dale Street property. Mr. Beach is familiar with the design and can provide further details if the Council so desires. The estimated construction cost is in excess of half a million dollars. At the conclusion of the last Council meeting, the City Attorney was asked whether occasional violations of the 7-day "bright line" rule would result in forfeiture of 2 q� _��a3 BNSF's legal right to park uailers in the Pazldng Area. BNSF has considered the issue and submits that the answer is no. I have a friend who lives in a St. Paul neighborhood where the houses were buiit prior to the enactment of setback requirements. Those houses are legal nonconfornring uses. One of the neighbors built a deck without fust obtaining a permit. The deck extettded beyond the setback line and was a clear violation of the Code. (See Zoning Code § 62.102(d)(2) ("A nonconfornvng use shall not be ... extended to occupy a greater area of land"}.) If one assumes that a violation of the Code triggers a forfeiture of the legal nonconforming use, then the proper result in that case would have been to require the violator to tear down the house, as well as the deck. Such a result would offend both common sense and the law. Instead, LIEP followed the course the law allows. It explored first whether a variance might be possible. When that proved infeasible, LIEP ordered the violator to remove the deck. But LIEP did not, and legally could not, require him to demolish the house. Rather, LIEP fitted the punishment to the crime, by targeting the illegal act itself. The same logic applies to the Parking Area. If one assumes that BNSF is illegally "storing" a trailer, the City has ample enforcement tools to address that conduct. Far example, it could cite BNSF for a misdemeanor, or it could seek an injunction to abate the violation. (Zoning Code at §§ 64.502 and 64.503.) The case of State v. RegitschniQ, 1991 W.L. 2761$5 (Minn. App. 1991) (copy attached) is a typical example of how this works in actual practice. Mr. Regitschnig owned and operated a mobile home park in Medford, Minnesota. His business was a legal nonconforming use. The zoning code prohibited expansion of the pazk beyond the 14 units that existed when the use became nonconforming. Mr. Regitschnig added two additional units and was cited for a misdemeanor violafion of the zoning code. He was not required to shut down the mobile home park itself. A hypothetical example will further demonstrate that occasional "storage" would not and couid not result in a forfeiture of the right to pazk trailers in the Pazking Area. Assume that Acme Fruit Company operates a wholesale fruit wazehouse, which is a legal nonconforming use. Acme sets up a small stand in its parking lot to sell fruit at retail. Retail food sales are not permitted by the zoning for that property. Thus, Acme has violated the Code by introducing a new illegal use. BNSF submits that the City of St. Paul would respond to such a situation as follows. First, LIEP would consult with the property owner and nearby property owners to explore whether a variance or conditional use permit would be feasible. If not, LIEP would probably order the owner to remove the stand. But the City would not and could not order Acme to shut down its otherwise legal wholesale operation. To do so would be totally disproporkionate to the violafion and would result in the abrogafion and forfeiture of valuable vested property rights. Forfeitures are not favored at law. E�P., 22 Dunnell Minnesota Digest, Forfeitures §§ 1.00, lAl (4th ed.). Furthermore, any interpretation of the Code that would authorize the abrogarion and forfeiture of Acme's vested rights would be an unconstitutional taking without just compensarion. See K. Young, 1 Anderson's 3 a� _��o� American Law of Zonine, § 6.06 (4th ed.); 7 Dunnell Minnesota Digest, Constitutional Law § 8.02(a) & n. 12 (4th ed.). At the last Council hearing, the Council raised questions concerning the application of the 7-day "bright line" rule to the Pazidng Area. BNSF recognizes the benefit of bright line rules as guides to behavior. However, BNSF dces not necessarily agree that the Zoning Code contemplates a 7-day bright line distinction between parking and storage, nor does it necessarily agree that any such bright line rule would be applicable to its long-standing use of the Parldng Area for trailer pazldng. In closing, BNSF believes the time has come to put the cunent appeal to rest. BNSF's use of the Parldng Area is parking, not storage, and the decision of LIEP should be affirnied. Sincerely, G � ,��1 Glenn Olander-Quamme GOQlllbimidway/citycou2 � Not Reported in N.W.2d (Cite as: 1991 WL 276185 (Minn.App_)) NOTICE: THIS OPIIVION IS DESIGNATED AS UNPUBLISHED AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY MINN. ST. SEC. 480A.0$(3). STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v . John H. I2EGTTSCI�iIG, Appellant. No. CX-91-1023. Cour[ of Appeals of Minnesota. Dec. 31, 1991. Appeal from District Cour[, Steele Counry; Casey J. Chrisrian, Judge. Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Attomey General, St. Paul, Richard E. Tollefson, Medford Ciry Attomey, Owaconna, for responden[. John H. Regitschnig, pra se. Considered and decided by HUSPENT, P.J. and PETERSON and FOLEY, [FN*] JJ. UNPUBLISHED OPINTON FOLEY, Judge *1 Appellant was convic[ed of a misdemeanor violadon of a Medford Ciry zoning ordinance prohibiting ex ansion of his nonconforming mobile ome park. e aza es on appeal tt�at the ordinance works a taking of his properry withou[ jus[ compensation and that he was entided to inctease the number of units in lus pazk by vume of the ordinance's grandfather clause. We affirm. FACTS In 1987, the Medford Ciry Council enac[ed Ordinance Number 127 to regulate mobile home pazks within rhe ciry. The ordinance pemvtted the continuance of ffie park as a nonconforming use but prohibited expansion beyond [he 14 units then existing. With full Imowledge of the exis[ence of the ordinance and of the resuictions on the property, appellant purchased the 13-unit park in Sanuary 1990. Appellant placed [wo addirional mobile homes in ffie park and was charged and convicted of a misdemeanor violarion of the zoning ordinance. This appeal followed. DECISION Page 1 0�� „�7 The 2ria1 court's inrerpretarion of an oidinance is a quesrion of law which we review independenfly wichout according any special deference. Honn v. Ciry of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 415 (Minn.1981). The trial court concluded [hat appellant had violaced [he ordinance by adding a fifteenth unic and rhat the ordinance's consa[urionaliry was no[ ac issue. We conclude rha[ the aial court erred in finding rhe cons[iturionality of the ordinance irrelevan� to appellant's guitt or innocence. Appellant is enatled io challenge the vatidity of the ordinance under which he has been convic[ed as the ozdinance's validiry has a direct relationship to his ]e�al responsibility for violating it. The defendant must be able to defend against culpabiliry on the ground of rhe invalidiry of [he ordinance and have the issue determined by a court. Counry of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 98, 203 N.W.2d 323, 325 (1972). Thus, [he trial wurt erred in declining ro address the constitu[ionaliry of [he ordinance as applied. However, we conclude thac the constitudonal issue is not ripe for ceview by the trial court or this courc because, prior to a[tackina an ordinance's constirutionality as applied, the aggrieved party must first e�aus[ all available remedies. See Counry of Pine v. State. Dep't of Namral Resources, 280 N.W2d 625, 629 (Minn.1979). For appellant [o have e�austed his available remedies, he must have applied for and been denied a variance from tlie regulations restricting development of his properry. See Hay v. Ciry of Andover, 436 N.W.2d 800, 804 (Mntn.App.1989); see also State, Dep't of Narural Resources v. Olson, 275 N.W.2d 585, 587 (Minn.1979) (failure to apply for a pemut rendered the unconstirutional takings issue noc ripe). Appellant did not ara e that he applied for and was denied a variance from the zoning oidinance or that an application for a variance would have been futite. Addidonally, he did not show any evidence ffiat he had attempted co seek a variance co allow him to use the property in some manner other ffian expansion of the uailer park. See Hay, 436 N.W.2d at 804. Thus, we conclude that he has not e�austed his available nonjudiciai remedies and reject his constitutional challenge to the ordinance as not ripe for review. *2 We a�ree with the uial couit that ffie addition of Ihe fifreenth unit is a prohibited expansion of an Copr. �O West 1997 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Not Reported in N. W.2d (Cite as: 1991 WL 276185, *2 (Minn.App.)) ocherwise legal �nconfoznung use of rhe properry. Appellanc's predecessor in interest was using 14 sites when the ordinance was passed and appellant himself had consistendy used only 13 of those sices despite lus asserted intent w rent 18 sites. The purpose for which the owner acmally used the properry at the time it became subject to the zoning ordinance and not future plaas for iu use de[ermines tfie scope of the nonconforming use excepted from the resuicaons imposed by the ordinance. 1 Anderson, American Law of Zoning 3d § 6.23 at 511-12 (1486). Generally, vre view a zoning ozdinance in light of its underlying policy, wluch in flais case is the gradual eliminacion of a nonconfo ina use ihrough obsolescence, e�austion or destruction. See Oswalt v. Counry of Ramsey, 371 N.W.2d 241, 246 (Minn.App.1985), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 13, 1989). In light of this policy, we aze reluctant to pernu[ the placement of addirional uniu which wou]d result in a continuaaon of a disfavored use. This result is con[rary to the intent of the resaictive zoning ordina�ce and we decline to reach that result. In Sta[e ex rel. Howard v. Village of Roseviile, 244 Minn. 343, 70 N.W2d 404 (1955), the supreme court disallowed precisely this rype of expansion. The owner of a trailer pazk sought to expand the number of units in fus nonconforming trailer park. The court rejected the attempt, noting that the nonconforming clause of the ordinance lunited the use of the properry to the 20 mobile home sites in use when the ordinance was passed. Id. at 349, 70 N.W.2d at 408. We find this case deternunative and, accordingly, conclude that appellanCs use of the park is limited to the 14 sites in use when ordinance 127 was passed. Appellan[ also contends that lus placemenc of a Page 2 G ��-�10� fifteenth home was a conrinuadon of a peimitted preexisting business and not an expaasion of the park. He analo�izes the pazk to an apazrmen[ building and the placemenc of a new mobile home to a new [enan[ moving into the apamnent building. However, the placement of a mobile home entails actually placing a new strucmre on land where no suucture previousiy existed; whereas a new aparmient isnant is merely a new occupant of a preexisting structure. We f�ave pxeviously conduded that ihe placement of a new strucmze where one did not previously exist is an expansion of a nanconfomung use in the same manner as is an addition to an existing building, Prior Lake Aggregates, Inc. v. Ciry of Savage, 349 N. W.2d 575, 579 (Minn.App1984) (citing Claussen, 203 N.W.2d at 326). Thus, his placement of a new s[ructure where none had previously existed is a prolubited expansion of an otherwise legal nonconfocming use. Appellant's challenge to the constituuonaliry of the ordinance is not yet ripe for review by the trial court or this courc, as he had not exhausted his available remedies. He also has no[ shown that his nonconforming use entitles him to expand the number of uni[s beyond those existing when the ordinance was enacted. Accordingly, we find chat his placemen[ of the fifteenih mobile home consdtutes an expansion of the nonconforming use which violates the letter and the spiric of the ordinance. *3 Affirmed. FN* Re[ired judge of the Court of appeals, acting by appomtment pursuant to Minn. Const. art VI, � 2. END OF DOCUMENT Copr. OO West 1997 No Claim ro Orig. U.S. Gov[. Works i P �� P � a �9 , Z � SO � • � sO �o y 's f L WESTMIDW4V�� August 18, 1997 �►� - i�o� ST. ANTHONY PARK COMMUNiTY COUNCIL 890 Cromweil • Sf. Pauf, Minnesota 55114 292-7884 Councilmember Roberta Megard St. Paul City Council 310 Ciry Hall St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Conncilmember Megazd 'I'he St Anthony Pack Community Council ltas for some time been actively concemed about the impact on surrounding neighborhoods af tk�e Burlington Norlhem Imermodal Freight Hub adjacent to Pierce Butler Route. 77te noise, truck tr�t, train tr�q and air pollution have had a deh-imental effect on certain residential areas near the Hab facidity. Our neighborhood, located west of the facility, Las eaperienced significant increases in complainu about the Hub and tu�s become incteasing(y concemed about attempts by Burlington Northem to expand Hub activities, both in St. Paul and across the border in Minneapolis. At the Communiry Council's meeting on August 13, 1997, the Council discussed the matter of the Hub once again and voted w strongiy encourage the Ciry Council to uphold the appeal of Frank Wallner. Mr. Wallner's appeal is on the City Council's agenda for later this month The St. Anthony Park neighborhood believes tbat it is critical that the City enforce ordinances and the non-conforming use permit given to Burlington Northem, and keep the railroad within the boundazies of the existing Hub facility. Already, Bwlington Northem has effectively expanded iu Hub activities by leasing land in Miimeapolis on which to store intecmodat containers. We are deeply concerned that any additional ea�ansion will seriously harm ad,}acent residential neighborhoods. The City must stop expansion. The St. Anthony Park Communiiy Council has followed with great interest the efforts by the Metropolitan Council to develop a shared imermodal faci]ity in a more appropriate locarion in the metro azea. We encoucage both the Ciry of St. Paul and Burlington Northem to work towud implementation of zhe MIIZTS recommendations. In the meantime, Burlington Northem must not eapend iu Midway hub activities. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, St. Amhoiry Park Commimity Council ������1�� Executive Director a: Mayor Norm Coleman Councilmember Jeny Blakey Councilmember Dave T'hune Conncihnember Ivlike Haais Councilmember 3oe Collins Councilmember Dan Bostrom Councilmember Gladys Morton OFFiCE OF LICENSE, INSPECTYONS AND ENVIl20NMENTAL PROTECTION Robett Kesster, Director CTTY OF 5AINT PAUL No�m Coteman, Mayor 7u1y 21, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson Ciry Council Reseazch Office Room 31Q Ciry Aa11 Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: B UIIIJING INSPECFION AND DESZGN 350 St Peter Street Suite 3I0 Saint Paul, Mimnesota 55102-I510 q � _��0 3 aa Teiephone: 6I2-266-9001 Fitcsimile: 612-266-9099 I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the Ciry Council is scheduled for Wednesday, August 6, 1997 for the following zoning case: Appellant: File Number: Purpose: Location: Frank Wallner 97-076 Appeal of a decision by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals on the legal stams of semi-trailers on Burlington Northern's intermodal hub faciliry. 1701 Pierce Butler Route I haue confirmed this date with the office of Councilmember Megazd. My understanding is that this public heazing request will appeaz on the agenda of the City Council at your eazliest convenience and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-4086 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tom Beach Zoning Section NOTICE OR PUSLIC HEARING CC: AIIll C18S131C �e Saiat Paul City Council will conduct a public hearing on Wednesdag, August 6, 1997 at 4:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Third Floor City Hall-Court House, to consider the appeal of Frank Waliner to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals on the legal status of semi-trailers on Burlington Northem's iateimodal hub faciliry, 1701 Pierce Butier Route. - ' . Dated: July 24, 1997 � ` � NANCY ANDERSON _ , . Assistant City Councii Secretarp� - _ - -- _ - � (July 26. 1997) � �- - . OFFICE OF LICENSE, WSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTTON Robert Kessier, Directar � q1-1�� SAINT PAUL � AAAII CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Cofeman, Mayar LOA'RY PROFESSIONAL BUILDING Suite 300 350 SY. Peter StreM Saitu Paul, Minnesota 55102-I510 Te(ephone: 612-2669090 Facsimile: 612-266-9099 612-266-9124 � Ju1y 30, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 31Q City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Zoning File #97-192 (WallnerBwlington Northern) City Council Hearing Date: Wednesday, August 6, 1997 PL7RPOSE: To consider an appeal of a decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Frank Wallner has filed an appeal of a decision by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals to uphold the Zoning Administrator's determination that semi-trailers on Burlington Northern's intermodal freight facility on Pierce Butler Route east of Snelling aze stored rather than parked and that they are a legal nonconforming use. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ACTION: determination (5-1 on June 16, 1497) SUPPORT: None Burlington Northern Deaz Ms. Anderson: Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's Frank Wallner filed an appeal with the Boatd of Zoning Appeals of a deterrnination by the Zoning Administrator that trailers located on the easterly portion of Burlington Northem's intermodal freight aze pazked rather than stored and constitute a legal nonconforming use. The Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing on May 19 and June 2 and voted 5- 1 to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's determination. The Boazd of Zoning Appeals agreed with the Zoning Administrator that for zoning purposes, these trailers constitute pazking rather than storage because they aze used on a weekly basis. The distinction between parking and storage is important because storage must be located at least 300 feet from residentially zoned property and most of the semi-trailers are located closer than 300 feet to residentially zoned property. On June 17, Mr. Wallner filed an appeal of this decision to the City Council. Mr. Wallner's appeal makes three main points. (See attached appeal.} These are summazized below with staff's response: � 1. The trailers aze not used for periods of more than one week and therefore should be treated as storage. {Inspections by stafF indicated that the trailers aze used a weekly basis.) 2. The City's position in 1987 was that trailers constitute storage. Therefore the trailers in question were not a legal use when they were first brought to the site in the late 1980's and cattnot be considered a Iegal nonconforming use. (In 1987 BN proposed a major expansion of its faciliTy west of SneIling and the Zoning Administrator made a determination that the additional trailers constituted storage. BN appealed this decision to the Boazd of Zoning Appeals. BN later dropped its planned expansion and the appeal was never heazd. However, in response to Mr. Wallner's current complaint about BN's trailers, the Zoning Administrator asked the City Attomey for a legal opinion on the issue of pazking versus storage. The City Attomey advised that under the zoning regulations in effect in 1987, the trailers should haven been considered parking if they were used on a weekly basis J This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on Angust 6. Please norify me if any member ofthe City Council wishes to have slides ofthe site presented at the public heazing. (The Boazd of Zoning Appeals did not consider the EAW because it was not a part of the decision by the Zoning Administer that was under appeal. Furthermore, the "projecP' that the EAW refers to was a major expansion primazily west of Snelling Avenue which was never commenced, and not the use of tite eitisting paved azea east of Snelling for trailers J pa�� 3. The Board of Zoning Appeals erred by not considering issues raised about noise and tr�c in an Environmental Assessmem Worksheet (EA� that was triggered in 1987 by BN's expansion plans. In 1988 the Environmental Qnality Boazd commented on the EAW and said that "no fmal govemmental action to grant a permit or other approvai required to commence the project shall be made prior to" a decision being made on the EAW. Sincerely, � Tom Beach g NS y7 50 52. 4S C' cc: City Councilmembers Attachments Chronology of BN intermodal facility Application from Frank Wallner to City Council for appeal Resolution, tninutes and staff report from Boazd of Zoning Appeals Appiication &om Frank Wallner to Boazd of Zoning Appeals I,etter from Frank Wallner to Tom Beach Letter from City to John Ackerman (BN} Letter from Peter Wamer (Office of City Attomey to Robert Kessler (LIEP) Letter from City to James Hamilton (Bl� Aerial photo and site location map 6/17/97 5/19/97, 6/2/9�, 6/16/97 3/31/97 3/13197 2/27/97 1/30/97 10/28/96 C� � � CHRONOLOGY FOR BURLINGTON NORTHERN INTERMODAL FACILITY Q � , `3 p 3 - t � Early 1900's Railroad yard is established on the site � 1974 Intermodal freight operations begins. Freight containers are transferred between railroad cars and trucks. Early 1980's Burlington Northem (BI� begins using Its properry east of Snelling Avenue for receiving shipments of new automobiles arriving on rai]road cars. A portion of the area is already paved. 1982 BN obtains approval from the City to pave more of the area east of Snelling for its automobile operations. City approval is subject to a screening fence being built along Pierce Butler Route. BN builds a chain link fence instead. Mid 1980's Automobile operations are moved to another site in Saint Paul near Highway 61. January 1987 BN submits a site plan to City for expansion of the existing intermodal freight facility. East of Snelling, a new entrance to the site would be built. West of Snelling, an additional 35 acres would be paved for uailers and containers and some tracks would be relocated. May 1487 There is neighborhood opposition to the proposed expansion and an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAV� is prepazed. The EAW concludes that the proposed expansion of the intermodal facility should not occur without the completion of an Environment Impact Statement (EIS). However, the City never takes any fotmal action on the EAW and an EIS is never prepared. The proposed expansion is never built. November 1987 The City informs BN that ptoposed storage of trailers for the proposed expansion within 300 feet of residential property is not permitted under the zoning code. BN files an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City's determination that these trailers constitute storage rather than pazking. Aowever, the public heazing is laid over until the EAW can be completed. The City never acts on the EAW and the public hearing on the question of storage is never held. Late 1980's BN begins using the area east of Snelling Avenue for semi-trailers. This area had previously been used for receiving shipments of new automobiles arriving on railroad cars. Eazly 1990's City begins a 40 Acre Study on intermodal freight facilities. December 1992 City adopts 40 Acre Study and zoning amendments that make intermodal freight facilities a Special Condition Use in an I-2 zoning district. BN's proper[y is zoned I- 1 and therefore BN's operations become a legal nonconforming use which cannot be expanded or enlazged. � Mazch 1996 Frank Wallner requests that the City investigate the legal standing of semi-trailers on BN's property east of Snelling Avenue. January 1997 City Attomey provides a legal opinion for the Zoning Administrator that semi- trailers constitute parking rather than storage if they are used on at least a weekly basis. � February 1997 The Zoning Administrator makes a determination that BN's semi-trailers east of Snelling consritute pazking rather than storage and are therefore a legal nonconforming use, not subject to the 300 foot setback from residential property. Mazch 1997 Frank Wallner appeals the Zoning Administrator's determination to the Boazd of Zoning Appeals. June 1997 The Boazd of Zoning Appeals upholds the Zoning Administrator's determination that BN's semi-trailers east of Snelling conskitute pazking rather than storage and aze tfierefore a legal nonconforming use. June 1947 Frank Wallner appeals the decision of the Boazd of Zoning AppeaIs to the Ciry Council. . r � �� r �, SAINT ..ff.. � AAAA APPL{CATION FOR APPEAL Department of Planning and Ecnnomic Dwelopment Zoning Section i100 City Hal1 Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN SSIO2 266-6589 APPELLANT �G�C Daytime ph PROPERTY Zoning File LOCATtON _ .. _ TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeai to the: � Board of Zoning Appeals C3�City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph appeai a decision made by the on (date of decision) 19_ File number: of the Zo�ing Code, to GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an er�or in any requirement, permit, decision or refusai made by an admiRistrative officiai, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appea{s or the P{anning Commission. ���� � ��e S ��rr�/' P�:�fl;' Y�C•C �7i' S�+:i{'S ?}�u� i v'r�Tii.'f�iSiLt ru _vT' Attach additionai sheet if Appiicant's signature v p � � Rate�/�/� ��r�f �ity ageni .,�, �� � � � � a'''i . L'�L 7/ry�q � On June 6, i997 the Board of Zon+ng Appeals considered my appeal that BN/SF should never have been af(owed to park or store trailers east of Snelling Avenue. I also appealed the Zoning Administrator's pasirion that trailers are parked rather than stored. The Board of Zoning Appeals ruled against my appeals and conduded that: i. Trailers are used at least once per week and therefore are parked rather than stored and not subject to the requirement that outside storage be at least 3Q0 feet from residential(y zoned property. 2. 8N's intecmodal freight operatian was a permitted use in the late 1980's when trailers were first brought to the area east of Snelling. The trailers met all zoning regulations that were in effect at the time. My appeai to the City Council is based on the following. With rEgard to point number 1: Photographic (time datedJ etidertce clearly shows that trailers are +n place for periods much longer than two weeks west of Sne(ling Avenue. Also, persona( observafion during the winter months dearly show thaE trailers east of Snelling Ave. are stored for ►onger periods than one week. This can be easify proven during the winter months. I observed newty falien snow which was teft undisturbed around the trailer's tires for periods longer than one week. City staff's conclusion that trailers are usec! weekly was based on two site visits during a period in which BNlSF new they were being scrutinized. Aiso, BN/SF is not required to document weekly use of trailers. With regard to point number 2 a6ove: The Board of Zoning Appeals conciuded that -"8N's intermodal fireight operation was a permitted use in the late 1980's when trailers were first brought to the area east of Snelling." This statement is not true based on the city's own correspondence. On November 5, i987 BN/SF wrote to the Zoning Administrator requesting agreement that parking of trailers within 300 feet of the set back are in confiormance with Section 6Q.613 (3) of the Zoning Cafe. !n response to 8N/SPs request, the Zoning Administrator intormed BN/SF that "Outdoor storage in an industriaf zoning district cannot be iocated within 300 feet of a residential zoning district pursuant to Section 60.613. (3) of the St. Paul Zoning code" (Letter datecf November 13, 1987). Rerial photographic evidence c(eariy show that BN/SF p(aced trai(ers within the 300 foot set back. Conclusion: Aerial photos clearly show that BN/SF placed traiEers within the 300 fooi in vio►ation of the Zoning Administrators November t3, 1987 decision. Therefore the Zoning Administrator's conclusion that "Trailers met ali zoning regulations that were in r C� � n LJ � q'f -17 � effect at the time." cannot be used as a grousxis to deny my appeal. 3. When BNlSF first proposed to expand the Intermodai Hub by using land east of Sneliing Avenue, the St. Paul Planning Commissio� required that an Environmentai Assessment Worksheet (EAW ) be conducted. After conducting the EAW the Minnesota Environmental Quafity Board (EQS) concfuded in a Sune 8, i988 letter that: °Pursuant to Minnesota Rules part 4410.3100, subpart 1, no final qovernmental action to qrant a permit or other approvat reau+red to commence the proiect shal! be made unt71 a nepative decfaration or ElS adequacv determination has been made". At the June 2, '1997 Board meeting the City Attorney stated that the issue of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet on BN/SF's plans fo expand east of Sneliing was not germane to the discussion_ My be4ief if that this is a very important matter which shouid be considered by the City Councii. Conclusion: The Board of Zoning Appeafs approved BN/SF's use of traifers east of Snef(ing Avenue in viofation of Minnesota Rufes, part 4410.3100, subpart 1. � ,� C �e����2- �� 3 . • ,.., .. ; • �, :s �uw �� � �m � GEORCE UTIMER MAYOR ,• November 13, 1957 Darrel H. Berkowitz TKDA 2500 American National Bank Building St. P�ul, 1�Lt 55101-1843 CiTY OF SAINT PAUL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING INSPECTION At�ID DESIGN DIV1StON .City Hali, Samc Paul, Minnesoca - � 612-29� RE: Midway Hub Facility North Side Pierce Butler Route Wast of Snelling Dezr Mr. Bericowitz: We have reviewed your request of November 5, 1987 for the BurZington Northezn RaiZroad Midway Hub Facility. The property is located in an Z-1 (lighc industrial} zoning district. Outdoor stotage in an industrial zoning district cannnt be I.oceted within 300 feet of a tesidential zc:ing district pursuant to' Section 60.6L3.(3) of the St. Paul Zoning Code. The site p22n submitted indicates that semi trailers, in transitioa Erom railroad f zt e s to tractors, wou e � stored �� the Mi way Hu aci ity wit in ee[ o a tesi entia zonzng ine, approximatel.y following the centerline of Pierce Butler Rout The 300 foot spaci.ng requirexent was added to the Zoning Code when it was ' entirely rewritten, effective Oc�ober 25, Z975. Prior to tnat date, outdoor storzge was permitted ia an industriai district without regard to locztion on the Iot. The trailer storage arez that esisted at the Mi.dvay Hub Eacility in 1975 w2s allowed to re�ain under the new code, although not in conforsance with the setback standard. That same eszsting no¢conFor¢ting setback line can be maintafned with the proposed improvements to the Eacility. However, as sfiow-n on the site p1an, the oucLoor storage arza nroposed would be iocated further SOL'L:1� C�050L CG the :ZS?C;flbClc� ZCIIl.^.o liae, :har. C:1° 0%15L_II$ SLO.^noe 2r°2. AZong with a series of proposed test amendments, the Planning Commissioa has recommended that the above 3d0 foot setback standard be removed from the Zoning Code, because the required fencing zpparently provides 2 sufficient barrier between industrizl and zesidentiaZ arezs. The City Council may choose to adoat the Plenaing Commissioa recom,-�endaci,on, reject it, or approve it c:itn modification. f�ny new change wnuld not become effective for at least two montfis. � � f .� ..:� ��� { �.3: � �.;������� �°.�..�. ,D� ys � PllBUC HEAR{NG NOTlCE CITY QF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ar1' 1��� : THE ACTION OF THE BOARD AT TNIS NEARING 4lILL BE T� LAY THIS CASE OVEP. UNTIL AFTER THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET IS COMPLETED. YOU WILL RECEIVE A NEW NOTICE WHEN THE BOARD WILL R V E4! IS CASE. `Zi7 APPUCAN7 PURPOSE �CATION OF PROPERTY T(ME OF HEARfNG PIACc OF HEbRIt+iG � Property Owners 4tithin 35Q feet; Representatives of Planning District 11 BURLING70N PlORTHERN RAILROAD C0. An Administrative Review of the Zoning Administrator's decision which determined that a BN expansion proposal was for outdoor storaqe of truck trailers and not parkinq.. Outdoor stroage requires setback from the zoning boundary line and parking does not have this requirement. The applicant states that the determination was in error. Present Zoning: I-1 (Industrial) 17�1 Pierce Butler Raute Tuesday, January 26, 1988 1:30 P.P4. 3th flocr conference room, City Hall Annex, 25 W. 4th Street, _ u ii� c • + Paiil - H OW TO PARTIClPATE ` 1. You may attend hearing and testify. (See note above) I 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to the Board of Zoning Appeals, 25 West Fourth St., St. Paul, MN. ANY QUESTIONS o• Call the Zoning office at 298-4154 ( Donna Datsko ) or your District Counc�l representative ( 646-1986 ) �rith the following information: Zoning file No. 1�245 Zoning file Name BURLINGTON P70RTHERN RR 1-15-88 Mailing Date ------� �J " r1�itl►�l►�l�.`i�J/:f7►�191:i�.J1��I�%�'1�l�lP_�1TIi7::��:� `� 3Q0 Cerrtennral8rm"ding•658 CedarStreet•Sf. Paul, Minnesota 55155 • •R .�"I s12-2ss-2s03 June 8, 1988 Donna L. Datsko City Planner 25 West Fourth Street 1100 City Hall Annex St. Paul, MN 55102 RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Burlington Northern Midway Aub FaciZity Dear Ms. Datsko: This Zetter acknowledges receipt of the EAW for the above-named project. The Environmental Review Program rules (at Minnesota Rules, part 4410.1500B.) require that a press release containing notice of the EAw availability be provided to at least one newspaper of generaZ� circulation within the area anc2 that capies of the EAW be distributed to all points on the EQB distribution list. We presume that these requirements have been mef.. Notice of the EAW availability will be pubZished in the EOB Monitor on June 13, 1988. The 3o-day comment period wi21 begin on that day and will expire on July 13, 1988. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 44Z0.3100, subpart 1, no fina2 � governmental 8ecision to grant a permit or other approval required to commence the project shali be made until a negative declaration or EIS adequacy determination has been made. Please contact me if any questions arise about the Review process. My ghone number is (6I2) 296-8253, toll-free by dialing 1-800-652-9747 and asking for Quality Board, Environmental Review Program. Sincerely, )'� ta• I�'".'r""„ Gregg M. Downing Environmental Review Coordinator cc: � Enviranmental or you may call the Environmental � . : •... .. � �'l -��o� � June 3, 1997 Dear Board of Zoning Appeals Members: Thank you for considering my appeal regarding the 8urfington Northern (BN) Midway Hub issue. Aithough I was disappointed in your decision I respect the process. The purpose ofi this fetter is to bring your attention to what I believe is a very important misunderstanding. At the meeting City staff communicated to you that BN had always used land to park traiiers. This was cited as a key reason to deny my appeai. However, in a letter dated November 13, 1987 the City of St. Paui specificaily responded to the parking versus storage issue at the request of BN. In that {etter the City cleariy informed BN that "Outdoor storaqe in an industriai zoninq district cannot (3) of the St. Pauf Zoninq Code° was not established, and therefore appeal. It does �ot seem right, or � parking of trailers as a continuance trailers were being stored. the precedent for parking traiiers should not be affowed as grounds to deny my �ven legal, that the City should be able to cite use when in fact the City had determined BN's � I wanted to bring this point to your attention at the meeting but respected your decision to not aliow me to speak. However, before i bring this matter before the fuli City Councii, I request that the Board of Zoning Appeals reconsider this issue. If reconsiderat+on of this issue is not aAowed then 1 request that the City Attorney expiain why parking trailers can be cited as a continuace use, when in fact BN was in vio)ation of the City's November 3, 1987 letter which conc(uded that the trailers constituted outdoor storage. This is a very significant issue because allowing BN to park hundreds of additionai traiiers resuited in a significant increase in noise for the Neweil Park neighborhood. S+nce�� �`��!���L6'� Frank X. Wallner � �-��.���-� cc: Bobby Megard, City Councii Woman Tom Beach, LIEP � � CITY OF SAINT PAiTI, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER 97-076 DATE June 16, 1997 WHEREAS, FRANK WALLNER has applied for an Administrative Review of a determination by the Zoning Administrator about the legal status of semi-trailers in the I-1 zoning district at 1701 PIERCE BUTLER ROUTE; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on OS/OS/97, and 06/�2/97, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.205 of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board.of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantialiy reflected in the minutes, n�ade the following findings of fact: � 1. The semi-trailers on BN's property east of Snelling are used at least once a week based on staff inspections of the site, information from a Metropolitan Council study, and information from BN. Trailers used on a weekly basis constitute "pazking" rather than "storage." � Therefore, the semi-trailers on BN's property east of Snelling are parked rather than stored. Because the trailers are parked and not stored, they are not subjeci to the requirement that outside storage be at least 300 feet from residentially zoned property. 2. BN's intermodal freight operation was a permitted use in the late 1980's when the trailers were first brought to the area east of Snelling. The trailers met all the zoning regulations Yhat ware in effect at that time. However, the BN's operation became a Iegal nonconforming use in 1992 when intermodat freighY operations were made a use that required a Special Condition Use Permit in an I-2 zoning district. Therefore, the azea being used for the trailers cannot be expanded. In addition, if the trailers were to remain on the site in excess of one week, they would be considered stora�e and be in violation of the requirement that outside storage be at least 300 feet from residentially zoned property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals denies the appeal and upholds the Zoning Administrator's determination that the semi-trailers east of Selling Avenue are parked and therefore are a legal nonconforming use on property located at 1701 PIERCE BUTLER ROUTE and legally described as SEE ATTACHMENT; in accordance with the applica[ion for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning •" Adminis[raTOr. -[''� q'i -1�0� � File #97-076 Page Two MOVED BY: T„n SECONDED BY : Scherman IN FAVOR: s AGAINST: i ABSTAIN: i MAILED: ]une 17, 1997 TTi41E LINIIT: No order of the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a building or off-street parking facility shall be valid for a period longer than one year, unless a building permlt for such erection or alteration is obtained within such period and such erection or alteration is proceeding pursuant to the terms of such permit. The Board o£ Zoning Appeals or the City Council may grant an extension not to exceed one year. In granting such extension, the Board of Zoning Appeals may decide to hold a public hearing. , PP AL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City Council within 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Building permits shall not be issued after an apQeal has been Filed. If permits have been issued before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construction shall cease until the City Council has made a P�nal determination of the appeal. CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoina copy with the original record in my office; and fmd the same to be a true and correct copy of said original and o£ the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes of the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on May 19, 199�, and 3une 2, �997, and on record in the Of�ce of License Inspection and Environtnental Protection, 350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paui, Niinnesota. SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZOi�'ING APPEALS C2L3,lCDC � Sue Synstegaard Secretary to the Board � MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS � CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, JUNE 2, 1997 R N: Mmes. Maddox and Bogen; Messrs.Donohue, Scherman, Tully and Wilson of the Board of Zoning AppeaIs; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Hardwick, Mr. Beach and Ms_ Synstegaard of the Office of License,Inspection, and Environmental Protecfion. BS NT: Mr. Alton * * Excused The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair. �RANK WALLNER (#97 0761 -1701 PIERCE BUTLER ROUTE: The applicant has requested that ihe Board of Zoning Appeals review a determination by Ciry staff on the legal status of semi-trailers located east of Sneliing at Burlington Northern's (BN} intermodal hub faciliry. Ciry staff's determ4nation was that these trailers are a legal nonconforming use and may stay. The applicant was present. There was /was no opposition present at the hearing. Ms. Maddox stated that this is a continued matter and the Board had asked for a legai opinion on the legalnonconforming use. Mr. Warner stated that the Board can heaz the issue of the nonconforming use. He added that at the discussion at the last meeting the same agreement was ceached and stated he would like to articulate the reasons more clearly. The timing requirements that are set forth in the Legislative Code in Chapter 64.204 sets forth a particular time line in which a person has to make an appeal, which is 30 days. He stated that in going back and looking at the Ordinance, it is his reading of the Ordinance, that that time line is a jurisdictional requizement. Generally in Minnesota you cannot waive jurisdictional requirements. A person has to meet that requirement in order for the Boazd to bold jurisdiction ovec the matter that is before them. He stated that in looking at the facts that LIEP staff has before it, it appears that this matter first came to the attention of LIEP by a letter from the applicant that was dated Mazch 22, 1996. As a resuit of that Ietter, LIEP did begin to [ake some investigatian into the matter. He sYated that on October 28, 1996 LIEP reached a preliminary conclusion over the issue of the nonconforming use and sent that preiiminary conclusion by letter to BNSF. That same information was copied to the applicant. The record then shows that LIEP sent what can be described as their final determination with respect to this matter, to BNSF on February 27, 1497, and that same letter was copied to the appiicant. He stated that based upon his review of the facts and the law in this situation, fhe $oard could conclude that the issue conceraing the October 28, 1996 pzeliminary conclusion which went to the nonconforming use, is appropriately before the Board here today because the matter simply wasn't concluded until the February 27, 19971etter. He stated that his advise to the Board is that it would be appropriate for the Board to consider the applicant's appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination with respect to nonconfomung use. � ■ q�-���� Fite 1{97-076 � Page Two Mr. Warner stated that the second issue the Board had asked him to look into was what do you do once you can hear the matters on the nonconforming use. The Legislative Code, Chapter. 64.204 gives the . Board the power to hear and decide the appeais of any decision of the Zoning Administrator and so in the context of the matter before the Board today, the Board can either grant the Administrative Appeal of the applicant by fmdin� that there was an expansion of the nonconforming use by BNSF at the . facility and/or that the trailers ac the facility or stored and not parked. The alternative is that the Boazd could deny the Administrative Appeal, and in that sense the Board would be agreeing with the Zoning Administrator's finding that BNSF did not expand the nonconforming use of the facility and(or that the trailers are parked and not stored. Mr. Wamer stared that if the Board choose to grant the Administrative Appeal, then for all intent and purpose, the Board's further inquiry is limited because what happens with nonconforming use pemuts is the provence of the Planning Commission. Rather then getting into the various issues that eiiher party might choose, depending on what the Board does, the best thing for the Board to do today is to make a decision as to whether or not to grant or den, the applicant's appeal and not be concemed about what would happen, other then to make that finding. Ms. Maddox asked if the Board were to deny this and find that staff had not erred, what other options does the applicant have with the information provided in the packet to the Board? Mr. Warner repiied . that the Legislative Code is written in such a way thac the applicant's next logical step would be to challenge the Board's deniai of his appeal to the Saint Paul City Council. That in turn would be at a public hearing with testimony taken, and then the Council would be afforded to make an opportunity to either uphold or overrurn the Board's decision. The next logical step might be that the applicant, depending on the Council's action, could then perceive in District Court. There are any number of avenues that the applicant could take. Ms. Maddox stated she was speaking in terms of the site plan review and some of the steps that had not taken place with the Planning Commission in terms of what other options the applicant has. Mr. Wamer asked if Ms. Maddox meant Mr. Waliner's contention that there was no site plan done in 1980? Mr. Wamer stated that he doesn't understand that issue to be properly before the Boazd today. Mr. Beach stated that he included the letter dated October 28, 1996 in the packet for the Board. Ms. Maddox stated that the public portion of the meeting had been closed on May 19, 1997, and the issue before the Board is whether or not this is parking or storage. Ms. Bogen asked if the Board is also able to determine if it is a legal nonconforming use and whether or not it has expanded since 1992 illegally. In reviewing Mr. Wallner's application Mr. Warner replied that the issue of whether or not it is an expansion of a legal nonconforming use is no. That advise is based on the fact that LIEP staff determined that the property was a legal nonconforming use and chat there was no expansion in the � zoning context in determining the expansion of the use after 1987. In other words, Burlington 11 File #97-076 Page Three Northern has always used the parcel east of Snelling Avenue for some type of railroad related purposes, whether it is loading or untoading automobiles, parking trailers, storing trailers, etc. The conclusion by LIEP staff is that it is a iegal nonconforming use and not an expansion of a conforming use. Ms. Maddox asked if it went with the land and not with the number of trailers? Mr. Warner replied yes. Ms. Bogen asked if that also hoids true even if the property was vacant for some periods of time? Mr. Wamer replied that Mr. Beach can address the factual basis on which he made that determination. Mr. Beach sta[ed that in the October 1496 letter LIEP staff considered the trailers stored, based on some earlier decisions. Staff s determination was that even if it is storage it has not expanded since 1992. Later on after some other issues came up LIEP consulted the City Attomey and decided that the trailers are not actually stored but are parked. The other facts remained unchanged that LTEP had determined that parking of the uailers had not expanded since this use had become a legal nonconforming use of 1992. � Ms. Bo�en asked what that was based on? Mr. Beach replied it was based on a number of facts Qiscussed in his letter of October 1996 which stated that the number of uailers has increased however, . it appeared even when there were fewer trailers that the entire paved area east of SneIling had been used for trailers. Whether the trailers were parked or maneuvered, the proper[y was being used by $N. Ms. Bogen asked if staff lmew when the area was paved? Mr. Beach replied that the azea was paved in the early 1980's and used for storing automobiles. Ms. Bogen asked if it was considered storage when automobiles were on the Iand prior to 1987? Mr. Beach replied yes, that it appeazed that automobiles were brought in and then taken off to various dealers but that issue wasn't investigated as to whether or not the automobiles were stored or pazked. Ms. Bogen asked how the use of the parcel east of Snetling changed to become an exganded facIliry working at an increased capaciry without having gone through the Boazd of Zoning Appea2s? She asked if BN ibnored the City of Saint Paul and slowly moved their trucks onto the land without having gone through the process that they were required to go through? Mr. Beach replied that there was a pavec3 area on the site and the use changed from automobiles to trailers. The site plan review that was before the City in 2987 was for a much lazger project, it wasn't j¢st for this area but involved new facilities, relocating tracks, etc. Ms. Bogen asked if the area in question was incIuded in that site pian? Mr. Beach replied tttat he has had a hard time locating the site plan but the written description talks primarily about the area west of Snelling Avenue and notes that there is an area east of Snelling. � 12 c�'1-13� M File #97-076 Page Four Ms. Bogen stated that the BZA had requested an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and that talks about the fact that the easterly area is a flat paved area vacant and formerly used as a automobile unloading azea. It also speaks about an operation of the expanded facility on the east side being identical to the current facility but at an increased capacity. Ic also states that BN was going to expand the paved area to increase the number of traiiers spaces on the lot from 540 to 1149 spaces. Ms. Bogen asked if all this information regarding the use was from the site plan had not been approved? Mr. Beach replied yes, the site plan had not been approved but that it was for a much larger operation. Ms. Bogen stated that the same plan included an entrance to the eastem area and a road. Mr. Beach stated that that entrance was never constructed and added that there are only 200 parking sgaces east of Snelling. Ms. Bogen stated that she believes BN did something they shouldn'c have done in 1987 and didn't foliow the provisions of the Code. Ms. Maddox asked Mr. Beach if it is possible for LIEP to go back and require BN to go through the site plan review process since it wasn't done at the time they expanded. Mr. Beach replied that he isn't sure whether a site plan review would be required or not because BN didn't make any physical changes to the property but just a change of use. � Ms. Bogen stated that BN dropped the site plan review afrer they were told they had to get an Environmental Assessment Worksheet by the BZA. She stated that the Board doesn't know if BN went out and expanded on their own and got away with it. Mr. Wamer stated that Mr. Beach doesn't have the benefit of the site plan so he doesn't have the City's perspective on how to reply to Ms. Bogen's question. He pointed out that up until 1992 the property was I-1 and that didn't change until the City established a new zoning use classification for that property. He referred the Board back to his Ianuary 30, 19961etter to Mr. Kessler where he briefly describes how that happened. Ae stated that he feels it is important that the Board understand that up until 1992 or 1993, whenever that new use classification was voted in, that it was a legal permitted use whether they were storing trailers or parking trailers. He stated that the intensity of the use fluctuated up and down depending on the uses. He asked the Board to keep these issues in mind and realize that it is very difficult for Mr. Beach to answer specific questions when he doesn't have the benefit of the site plan. Mr. Scherman moved to deny the appeal and uphold staff's determination that the semi-trailers east of Snelling Avenue are parked and are a legal nonconforming use. The use of the land may continue but the use may not be extended to occupy a greater area of land or moved to another portion of the lot. Mr. Tully seconded the motion, which passed on a roil call vote of 5 to 1(Bogen). Submitted by: � Tom Beach roved by � ' ohn Tully, Secretary �3 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS � CITY COLTNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CTTY HALL ST. PALJL, MINNESOTA, MAY 14, 1997 PRESENT: Mmes. Maddo�c, Bogen and Liston; Messrs. Donohue, Scherman, Tully and WiLson of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Hardwick, Mr- BeacU, Ms. Lane and Ms. Synstegaard of the Office of License, Inspection, and Environmental Protection. ABSENT Mr. Alton * * Excused The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair. FRANK WALLNER (#97-0761-1701 PIERCE BIT'I'LER ROiJTE: The applicant has requested that the Boazd of Zoning Appeals review a detemunation by City staff on the legal status of semi-trailers located east of Snelling at Burlington Northem's (BI� intemodal hub facility. City staff's determination was that these trailers aze a legal nonconfomung use and may stay. The applicant was present. There was opposition present at the hearing. Mr. Beach showed slides of fhe site and reviewed the staff ieport with a recommendatiou that the Boazd of + Zoning Appeals deny the appeal and uphold staff's determination that the semi-traiiers east of Snelling Avenue aze pazked and aze a legal nonconforming use. The use of the land may continue but the use may not be extended to occupy a greater azea of land or moved to another portion of the lo� Mr. Scherman questioned the fence. Mr. Beach stated that the fence was required and Burlington Northem states they will put one in. If BN doesn't start gutting one in by July 1,1997, staff will start enforcement action An engineer from TKDA is worldng on a plan to inctude a fence on the proper[y. Mr. Wamer stated that he wrote a legal opinion at Mr. Beach's requested regazding Mr. Beach's letter of Februazy 27,1997, to Mr. Ackerman conceming the differences between pazldng and storage. Mr. Wamer asked if there was any previous question involving noise allegations at the facility. Mr. Beach stated that there have been issues regazding noise. Mr. Wazner asked Mr. Beach if he had azry conversations with Mr. Ackerman in the last year regarding noise at the BN facility? Mr. Beach replied no. Mr. Wamer stated tfiat the reason he raises that issue is because in the appeal before the Board today, Item 3, grounds for appeai, raises issues conceming noise. Mr. Wamer stated that his recollection af events and the question that Mr. Beach was reseazching, had nothing to do with noise. Ivtr. Wazner stated tfiat he is hying to determine whether or not the issue of noise is propedy before the Board of Zoning Appeals today. Mr. Wamer stated that he suspects it is no� Mr. Wazner asked Mr. Beach if he could give the Boazd any more information about LIEP's sfndies about noise and when the last ona was done it might prompt him to advise the Boazd that Item 3 on the documeat entitled, "Attachment to Application for Appeal" the grounds for appeal is not properly before the Board and that would be a way to limit the testimony today. Mr. Beach stated Yhat the detemunation he made did nof address noise alfhough the Appeal raises it. Mr. Beach stated that he tmows � �� °[� -t�o� . File #97-076 Page Two that noise has been an issue and there were some studies done in the late 1980's when there was a wning study being done on &eight facilities and it did indicate that BN was not in compliance with the Noise Ordinance. Mr. Beach stated he dcesn't Imow what the current situation is because there have not been any measurements done in the past few years that he is awaze of. Ms. Maddox stated that her question was centering in the noise issue also. She stated that she was wondering if any noise sNdies had been done, if erecting the fence would assist in the noise problem or if the fence was just for visual effects. Mr. Beach replied he is not aware of any current noise studies and he didn't any request any. He stated that the fence being proposed is for primarily visual. The azea east of Snelling is where trailers are pazked and moved as needed wtuch he dcesn't believe generates a lot of noise. He stated that most of the noise problem comes from the west side of Snelling where the equipment is picking up the traifers and dropping them an the railroad cazs. He added that he would be surprised if the area east of Snelling is contributing to the noise problem. Mr. Wilson stated that under Finding F., stating that the use of the land may continue but the use may not be extended to occupy a greater azea of land or moved to another portion of the lot. Mr. Wilson asked if staff is speaking of the lot that was in use back then because the lot is not totaling paved. Mr. Beach replied that the azea east of Snelling is paved and being utilized for trailers. He stated that there may be other portions of BN's site west of Snelling that may not be utilized. What that would unply is that BN could not take the • trailers and put them on the portion of land that isn't being utilized. He stated that he laiows there has been some discussion of the composting site operated by Ramsey County being moved but trailers would not be able to be moved into that area. Frank Wallner, 1698 Taylor Avenue, passed out several handouts to the Boazd and stated that he has lived in the area for eig�t years. He stated that the noise has increased dramatically since he has moved into the area. He pointed ont that it wasn't a case where he moved into a situauon Imowing that there was a noise problem. The noise has been disruptive and he is convinced from the nights he has had to use ear plugs or a fan so he would be able to sleep. He stated that there are editorials that date back to 1987 regazding the noise problem. He stated that the District Council is focussing on noise reduction equipment for BN. He stated his focus is on the site east of Snelling. He stated that when they load the semilrailers onto train cars it is extremely loud. He stated he was a part of the Noise Committee for BN and believes BN has a responsibility to its neighbors to act more responsibly. He recognized thaY BN has put advanced muIIlers on their equipment and adjusted some of its operations which has helped some. The qualiry of life in the Ciry is highly dependable on the City Ordinances and he believes they need to be more thoroughly enforced by the Ciry. He went over a brief history of BN's application to the City of St. Paul to expand their Midway Hub. He stated that his main focus is on the EIS process. Ae stated that in 1987 the BZA laid over their decision on BN's expansion plans and on the storage verses pazking decision until a EAW was performed. Mr. Beach stated that the EIS was - for west of Snelling and this is a key point because the EIS is for the land east of Snelling as well. One of the main purposes of the proposed expansion was to increase the number of trailers. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agancy conducted a Noise Survey on June 13, 1995, which showed accedence of the State Noise Standazd. The primary reason for the EAW was to increase parldng spaces which has occurred. That decision was never voted on by the Planning Comcnission, which it should have, but BN dropped their formal � plans. Mr. Walilner contends that BN continued to expand east of Snelling with the use of trailers which resuited in increased noise despite the fact that they didn't have the Planning Commission's approval. �� F�e #97-076 Page Thzee Mr. Wallner stated that allowing BN Yo continue Yo store or park trailers on the area east of Snelling allowed a drawatic increase in their basiness. That increase in business resulted in a dramatic increase in no�se. Mr. WalIner continued to review his packet of materiaLs he provided to the Board. Whether BN's trailers are stored or parked BN should not have been ailowed to eicpand east of Snelling. The EQB reviewed the EIS, made a determination that there was a problem and before any govemmental agency couid approve the expansion of BN east of Snelling they either had to make a negative declazation or an EIS had to be performed and neither happened. Mr. Wal]ner asked the Boazd to not allow BN's Lrailers to be pazked east of Snelling Avenne and thaY BN be required to remove all their trailers east of Snelling. If the City had looked at this closer, ttcey would have recognized the fact that there were trailers slowly starting to creep to BN's land east of Snelling. BN has been unresponsive to the neighborhood's comptaints aad the Noise Committee has worked for over eight yeazs and nofhing has happened except for the muffters. Pazldug is deemed as "one week" and Mr. Wallner passed out pictures proving that trailers have been pazked longer than one week Ms. Maddox stated that as a resident of St. Paul that is subject to the air craft noise, the tug boat noise and the train noise she sympaflvzes with Mr. Wallner but the Boazd is being asked to look aY the parldng and the storage. She stated that the Boazd is not being asked to address the noise. She asked Mr. Beach to address the issue of the site plan not being reviewed by the Planning Commissioa � Mr. Wallner stated he is confused because the whole object of his presentation was to show that paztdng or storage should not be allowed due to the fact that it has resulted in increased business. � Mr. Wamer stated he is having a hazd time in framing the Mr. Wallner's issue. He stated that in looldng at the atiachments to the application to appeal and listening Yo the presentation he is not necessarily cleaz on what Mt Wallner is asking for in tke appeal. He stated that what he �mderstands iY to be is that Mr. Wallner is asking ihe Boazd to not atiow the trailers to be parked east of Snelling Aveuue and that the trailers should not be pazked there in any event because it constitutes an expansion of the BN operation east of Suelling Avenue in violarion of a site plan which was never approved by the Planning Commission according to Mr. Wallner. Mr. Wamer asked Mr. Beach if the site plan was ever approved by the Planning Cammission that Mr. Waltner is speaking of. Mr. Beach reptied no. Mr. Wamer stated that what the law states in respeck to Administrative Appeals is that what is before the Boazd of Zoning Appeals today is an appeal df a decision made by LIEP staff conceming the issue of sforage verses pazldng. The other matters relating to noise, whether or not a site plan was approved or not and other matters relating to Environmental Assessment Worksheets or Environmental Impact Statements az'e not propedy before the Board today. The applicant does have a recourse on these issues. The Boazd is limited to the testimony that is pertinent to the interpretation by LIEP YhaY the BN trailers at the facility east of Snelling aze pazked and not stored. Mr. Wallner stated that if the question comes down to pazking and storage, then he would ask the Boazd to override LIEP's decision that it is pazking. If the Boazd agrees that it is storage then BN has to be in compliance with a 300-foot setback wlrich would accomplish the same thing, to remove the trailers east of � Snelling. By allowing parking the Boazd is allowing the use of the entire facility against all of the history presented today. He stated his goal is to reduce the noise. He stated he will come back to another body with %� 0 cl� �l�o� • File #97-�76 Page Four lus other issues. He stated that before he paid $200 he pleaded with City staf£to give him more time because he didn't understand what he was asking. He was assured by City staff that he could present the information today and believes he was inadvertendy mislead by City staf£ Ae stated that he would like his issue to be thoroughly addressed. He stated he is very disappointed to hear that because it means all of the work he has done means notl�ing. He stated that he believes he has shown a lot in that BN has ignored the EIS, ignored the Planning Commission and all those issues aze so important. He added that he was assured by City staff that he could bring up new issues today before the Boazd Ms. Bogen stated that the Boazd dcesn't have copies of the letters from last swnmer but in Mr. Warner's letter to Mr. Kessier he talks about whetiier or not it is an expansion of a nonwnforming use. Mr. Beach wrote a letter in October 1496 where he brought up the issue of whether there has been an e�ansion of a nonconforming use. Ms. Bogen stated that the expansian of this nonconfornung use is an issue that has been dealt with during this process since the applicant first wrote a letter to the City asking for this to be looked at. She stated that just because one particulaz letter of February 27, 1997, is only taiking about patking xerses storage, she dcesn't see why the Boazd cannot go fwther into whether or not there is a nonconforniing use here that has expanded over time and especially in the last four yeazs after the changes were made in the Zoning Code. Mr. Wallner stated that the way he reads the provision in the Ordinance is that it is extended to occupy a � greater azea of the lot and that is what has happened. The Ordinance dcesn't refer to a lazger piece of land but rather it refets to extending a greater area of the lot which is what happened. Ms. Maddox pointed out that the issue of the nonconforming use would be the Piamvng Commission's determination and not the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. Bogen stated that it states in the BZA's materials that the applicant requested LIEP to investigate a complaint that BN was expanding its nonconfomung use at the Midway site. Mr. Beach wrote a letter in July where he concluded that there was an expansion and now there was storage also that was not complying with the City Ordinances. From there the issue was whether or not it was parking or storage to get azound the issue that this is an expansion of a nonconfomvng use. That is what the original request was of the applicant on page 73 of the packet. Mr. Hardwick stated that he was involved years ago on this issue. He stated that on the Application for Apgeal Mr. Wallner makes reference to the letter of February 27, 1997 to Mr. Beach. Mr. Wallner also has an attachment to his Appeal which references the determination of LIEP staff that it is a legal nonconfomring use. Mr. Hardwick stated that Ms. Bogen has a valid point in that even thoug,h the actual application references the letter of Fehruary 27, 1997, he believes there aze two issues before the BZA. The fust issue is pazlang verses storage and the second issue is whether or not BN's facility is a legal nonconforming use or not. That decision was made by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Hazdwick stated that in Mr. Beach's staff report he references the date of the ordinance change. Prior to the ordinance change BN's use of the properiy east of Snelling would have been a confomring use. The Board needs to keep in mind when determining tlus legal nonconfornung status if indeed Mr. Wamer concurs with his conclusion, that that is one of the issues . here. The issue being in whether or not the use e�cisted legally on that date. The other informa6on Mr. Wallner has presented regarding noise and EAW aze not pertinent to this hearing. If there are objections, neighbors may file a complaint at LIEP's office. �� File #97-076 Page Five rJ Mr. Wamer stated that the difficulty here is that in Mr. Beach's correspondence, which isn't included in the packet today, Mr. Beach advised BN on October 28, 1996, that he had revised his original opinion from July 8, 1996, and found that Yhe current use of the property for storing trailers appears to be a legal nonconforming use. He stated thaY it is his recollection from the correspondence £ile that he reviewed in preparing the opinion thaf the information was also communicaYed to the applicanY. Mr. Warner asked Mr, Beach if that was correcL Mr. Beach replied yes. Mr. Waruer stated that if you look at the language in the Zoning Code, specificatly in Chapter 64.204(c) it states that any person can appeal a decision from the Zoning Administrator but that appeai fias to be fiied within 30 days of receipt of that detam�ination by the owner of the properiy in quesrion. Mr. Wamer stated that he wouId agree that iniiially and maybe througfiout this process that the appiicant here today has raised the issue of the determination about legal nonconforming use on the part of LIEP staff. The Code is clear that one has 30 days to appeal from that decision and that decision was made on October 28, 1996. The application for appeal is dated Mazch 31, 1997, so it is faz outside of the time provision that is provided for by the Code. Mr. Wamer stated that represents a dif£cult question, if you want to entertain the motion here Yhat the detemvnation by LIEP staff with respect to its nonconforming use is before the Board, then you are violating the provisions of the Code that states you have 30 days. That is a very strict reading of the Code. The Board could choase to waive that if they wanted to, the pmbtem wouid be that the Board doesn't have a report from skaff on thaY pazticulaz point. That would require a resotution of that issue and it would have to be laid over and statl would have to vndertake a study of that. Staffwoutd need to ask his legal opinion on fhat and that couid take any number of days. The basis the Boazd could have in ignoring the ruie of taw is that the applicant originaliy raised tfie point That wouid � be a decision the Boud would have to make and unfortunately he cannot advise the Boazd legally whether or not they have the right to do that. If the Boazd would like to do that he asked the Boazd to lay the matter over so that he can reseazch the basic issue of whether or not the Boud can for equity purposes avoid the iules that have been established in the Ordinance and give the Boazd an opuuon on that Tf it tums out that the Boazd can do that then it would be appropriate to heaz that pazt of the appeal. Mr. Wazner stated that issue is not before the Boazd to@ay. Ms. Bogen stated that she believes for equities in this matter tkat the BZA should consider doing that only because the applicant did raise a number of issues in his ear&er Ietters to staff and possibly was waiting for a final letter that addressed all of tfie issues. She asked why the applicant should appeal eacfi Ietter received from LIEP staff dealing with only part of what he had originally asked staffto Iook at Mr. Wallner stated that Ms. Bogen stated exactly what he was trying to say prior to paying $200 in that he had a lot more issues to bring up. He stated that he was advised by LIEP staff that he could bring the issues up. He Yold staff that he didn't wanf to pay $200 for every issue regarding this case. Mr. Wacner stated he a�ees in principle with Ms. Bogen's statement that strikes him as a realistic interpretation of what is going on but he has to respond to the applicani with respect to the allegations of being mistead Mr. Wamer stated that the law is the law. Mr. Beach stated that in going over this case he has been hying to write a letter that stated LIEP's position He stated he addressed pazldng verses storage and perhaps he didn't state it as cleazly as he meant to that staff was saying that this was a legal nonconfomung use. The issue with the EAW came up after he wrote the • letter. Mr. Wallner had requested some clarification on the February 27, 1997, and wrote a letter dated � �' °i�'��� � � � File #97-076 Page S"vc March 13, 1997, making swe that all of the issues were covered. He stated he wouldn't have any objection to the issue of the nonconfomvng use being considered since it was his intent to state that in the letter but the EAW issue came in aftenvards and he was surprised to see it in the appeai form Ms. Bogen asked Mr. Beach if he intended to make that statement in the letter. Mr. Beach replied yes and that it was an intent to clarify the issue that yes this was a nonconfomung issue. They had detennined that the trailers were pazked verses stored. Mr. Tully questioned where Mr. Wallner's photos were taken because it appears they were taken on the west side. If this is true, the photos would have no bearing on ihe east side of Sneliing Avenue and Hus case is pertaining to the east side. Mr. Wallner stated he could have taken pictures on the east side of 5nelling Avenue to prove ]us point. Mr. Wallner asked for clarification on the statement that City. staff's detemvnation was that these trailers are. a legal nonconfornvng use and asked if his presentation about the previous history in that the Planning Commission should have voted on it, approved it and the EAW has implications for nonconfornilng use. He stated that he believes that all of those points do have implications and he is hying to show that that is the foundation by which he is stating it shou]d not be designated that way. He stated that pazking in tkiat azea is a confomvng use so he doesn't understand how one can designate something legal nonconforming when in fact pazking is a confomiing use for this zoned azea. Mr. Beach stated that this is pazking which is accessory to a nonconfornaing use and therefore would be considered nonconforming. He stated that regarding EAW, it tallcs about the scope of the project that the EAW was looking it. It spoke about increasing the paved area on the site from 15 to 35 acres and talldng about putting in new entrances into the site, relocating railroad tracks. He stated that the area east of Snelling was paved at that time. The emphasis of the EAW was on the azea west of Snelling. Ms. Maddox asked Mr. Beach if his intent was to clarify the issue of the nonconforming use but it really wasn't addressed? She asked Mr. Beach if he feels the Boazd has enough information in the packet to address that or would staff have more information to provide to the BZA on that. Mr. Beach replied that he did hy to address it in the staff report and he would not have any fiuther information to add for the Board's detemvnation. Diane Gerth, Attomey representing BN, introduced John Ackerman, Manager of the Midway Hub Facility. She stated that with respect to the EAW, Mr. Wallner is using an abandoned expansion plan from 10 years ago to confuse the issue which is very nazrow that is before the Boazd today. That issue is whether or not City staff is correct in its determination that the land east of Sne]ling Avenue is indeed pazking verses storage. Ciry staff conclusion is that the equipment is left on the site for no longer than 84 hours. That is the legal opinion that has been set forth by the Ciry Attomey's Office, pazking rather than storage. She stated that if the Boazd is going to consider the deteanination that Uus is a legal nonwnfomvng use BN would object for the reasons that the City Attorney set forth. She stated that what she tUinks the applicant is trying to do is to redefine the word expansion The Ordinance is cleaz that expansion means the use of a greater area of land. The applicant used a series of pictures that show on different dates that more trailers were pazked in the area than on other dates. Mr. Ackerman has told her that on certain times of the year, depending upon the �� File #97-076 Page Seven availability of equipment, you will find that the land east of Snetling has more or less trailers on it Ttus is due to the transiency of the trailers on that site. That is because it is a parking facility where trailers come and go constantiy. The Midway Hub has gone up and down in its capacity but the same amount of land is being used, its just that the number of irailers have varied. Regazding the fence, they understand that TKllA has submitted drawings to the City. They aze waiting for pemuts to go forwazd and the fence is budgeted for and ready to go. She staYed she has no explanation as to why a recommendation that took place in 1982 has not yet been acted upoa. Mr. Ackerman has only beea oa the site for a year. Ms. Maddox questioned the statement that the cazs aze pazked for no longer than 84 hours and asked if there aze records on the movemenL Ms. Crerth replied that it was a Mertz study that made a conclusion that 84 hours was the longest peria3 of time. � Mr. Ackerman stated that the azea east of Snelling is used only for empty equipment. There aze no Ioads staged, parked or stored there. St. Paul is a equipment deficit azea and they do get a certain amount of empty equipment that comes in on the railroad in addition to the empty equipment Yhat comes in off the street What they do for the ease of the ttuckers to pick up equipment to go back ou the street is to put that equipment in one specific place. How that works is that when an empty piece of equipment comes in it is graded. If it is a good piece of equipment on midnight on that day all of the orders from various customers aze filled from t6at empty supply of equipment The customers then have 48 hours to pick up that equipment or it gets reassigaed to another customer. In most cases your looking at the day the piece of equipmenY comes in plus a � maximum of 48 hours until it woutd go out If someone doesn't pick up their equipment at midnight 48 hours later, it is reassigned so you could be looking at a fow-day turnazound. He stated he cannot say that there isn't a piece of equipment that sat on the lot for longer than they thought but normally it is a 48-hour hunaround and in ihe worst case a 96-hour tumarovnd The area east of Snelling holds 225 trailers. During the first part of the week the lot is neazly full and by Friday the lot is less than haif-full. Ms. Liston asked if a trailer comes in and it is on the lot for 84 hours, if it is moved 8 feet over and pazked it is stored and not pazked because it has not moved Yhe properiy. Mr. Ackerman replied they do not that so they can say that the equipment is parked rather than stored He added that the equipment on tke east side of Snelling is being put and picked up by the customers and not BN. Mr. Beach stated that the Code talks about how often a vehicle is used and picldng up a trailer and moving it 8 feet over would not be considered "using" the trailer. Mr. Wallner stated that Mr. Ackerman talked about storage and he dcesn't lmow fiow much of a difference it makes but in the doc;umenY thaY was prepazed for the Metropolitan Council by BN it cleazly refers to storage of trailers. Storage is part of their operation. IIe asked the Board to keep in mind that the more trailers on the site, the more noise for fhe neighborhood. He stated fhat during a snow storm it was clear from no Gracks on the lot that trailers hadn't been moved for weeks at a time. Mr. Wallner asked the City Attomey if his point regazding the EQB is perkinent here because as he refers to their letter it states in reference to the EIS it states that p�usuant to Minnesota Rules, part 4410, no fiaal govemmental decision to grant a permit or other approval required to commence the project shalt be made until negative dectaration or EIS adequately detemunation has been made. He stated that pazkuig and storage of the irailers east of Snelling was parf of BN's project and for the Boazd to approve pazldng would seem to kum to be against the letter from EQB. Mr. . Wazner replied that that is not germane here today. Zd �1�-i� � File #97-076 Page Eight Ms. Maddox stated she has some concem wer the nonconforming use issue on the determination and she would like that clarified by the Attomey. Ms. Maddox asked if the Boazd could delay the matter for 2 weeks to allow Mr. Waener to provide that information. Mr. Wamer stated he could have that determination at today's meeting for the Boazd. Ms. Bogea stated the Boazd could ask the applicant if he would be in favor of continuing the matter over past the 60-day deadline. Mr. Wallner replied he would be in favor of a continuance and asked for clarification. Ms. Maddox replied that the Board is asking to continue the matter in 2 w�ks for fhe determination of the nonconforming use if that is something this Boazd should be addressing. Mr. Wa]]ner asked if at that meeting he could bring up his points about the EIS and his other issues. Ms. Maddox replied no that the Boazd has all of the information from Mr. Wallner regarding that. She added that if it is not up to the BZA to make that detemiinarion, the Boazd will give Mr. Wallner guidance on where he could bring that information to. Ms. Bogen moved to continue the mat[er with the applicant's approval until June 2, 1997. Mr. Scherman seconded the motion. Mr. Hazdwick asked if it is the Boazd's intent to continue the public portion of the meeting at the June 2, 1947 continuance. Ms. Maddox after consulting the Boazd members replied that it is the full Boazd's � decision to ciose the public portion of the meeting. The motion to continue the matter until June 2, 199�, which passed on a unanimous voice vote of 7 to 0. Submitted by: Tom Beach � Approved by: John Tuliy, Secretazy ZI � -SUMMARY OF APPEAL TO THE ST. PAUL BOARD C1F ZONlNG ISSUE: BURLtNGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD DATE OF MEETING: MAY 19, 1997_. PERSUN �R,PPE�R�.lN�� ��A.�t� �r�� _� t+r�� � � Z2 ( �l'1-1�� � Historv of Burfi r November 5, 1987: BN submits a Site Pian to the city ofi St. Paul which would extend the use of the Midway Hub east of Snetling Avenue. The Site Plan specifically refers to the temporary parking of traifers within the site. November 13, � J87: The city of St. Paul Zoning - Administrator responds to BN's request by concluding that semi-trailers would be stored and that the setback and screening requirements apply. � November 13, 1987: A second {etter frorn the City informs BN that their Site Pian must be reviewed by the futl Planning Commission. The letter states that this is requirecl because unusualty large and controversial projects are often referred to the pfanning Commission fior action. December 12, 1987: BN requests an administrative review of the Zoning Administrator's decision that semi-trailers are being stored and not p�rked. -January 15, 1988 - Board of Zoning Appeats lays over their decision on BN's expansion pfans until an Environmentai Assessment Worksheet (EAVI� is compteted. The City recognized the potentiaf ! negative impacts to the Newel Park neighborhood if BN were a1lowed to expand the 1 Hub. 23 ^�L `� •--�� . • �✓ !/.�n... �i �� � � ' - - _ - Z'�"F''�, ��L �{ 7Alr2,KING.OUVA[�,ANOEaS� �1 ANO ASSOGATEi INCOFOOF� ENGINEERS ARCHI7ECT5 Pf.ANVERS j5pp>WEA�CaMN6T10P0lBANK8V�l0�NG " $.11Ni i4Ut, MiNNES�T? 55101.1897 � � 812:$92.dLQ . cAX 6t 3 - 192A083 Novemher 5, 1987 Mr. Jan P. &asterland Bujfd(ng Code Ofiftcer Building lnspection and Design Division Depari of Community Services Cfty of St. Paui T5 W. KeI(aga St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Mtdway Hub Facittty Burlingfion Northern Railroad Commfssion No. 9069-01 Dear Mr. 6asferiznd: The Burlington Northern Ratlroad proposes to make Improvements to thelr Hub � Facility properfiy whic& ttes xest of Snetting Avenue and nor�h of Pferce Butler Route.. Y1e are requesting your agreement that the proposed improvements neet the requfrements oP the Bulldtng Code. The improvements wtthl� the s(te inctude the retocatlon of existtng ratlroad track, concrefie pavtng a�d construci of an entrance, storm dralnage system znd offfce and xarehouse butldtngs. The Improvements are reoted an the ertclosed site plan. Praposed tmprove:nenfis, includtn concrete pav(nq and fiemporary par ng ofi tra[lers operation xithin the site), lie wfthin the 300 foot sethack which Is referenced tn the Bullting Code under lndustrial Distrfcts Sec�Io❑ b0.613(3?. The existtng hub_Facility (s a coniorntng use which begzn oy,erafiions on May 14, 1974; the exlsting use began prior to the formal adoptlon date of Oci 25, i975 for the present Bufld(rtg Code rrhich is referenced above. The site pfan enclosed atso fndicates the existing zoning ltne, the 3Q0 foot satback line from the zo�tng lFne, and the approximate Hub Facitfty s(te ope�attons t(ne af tnftia( start-up on Mzy i4, i974. Due to the fact that - tha exlsfiing Hub Faciliiy is a conforming use'placed in operatfon prior to the present Zon(ng Code znd aiso tha the existtng code wder Sect(o� 60.6t3(3) does not cfearly def(ne par(cing of 't�atlers as siorage, we feel that the proposed improvement ts in conformznce. •- We atso understand that the City Piannfng Commission has approved the � r�noval of Seci 60.613(3) fran the BuildTng Code and that the required hearings for amendment cooid begtn as early as fihe f(rst xeek In December, 1987. ! .�;, .� �. ;.. 3 a :� : .+°� Y^ r; Z �' ti I � 2 � { ��ye±`d'3a�!'� 6 ��..� � . • .., . : • �, : ltllil S �:� I III '�� � � CEORC£ 1,A71MER � MAYOR November 13, 19&7 � ( • Darrel H. Berkowicz TKDA 2500 American National Bank Building St. Paul, MN 55101-1893 °l'1-1'3 � �' CITY OF SAINT PqV � DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNiTY SrRViCtS BUILD{rtG INSPECTION.tivD DESIGN DlviSION ..Gry Haii, Saint Paui, Minnesoca i51p? 61:-?98-:Z7? RE: Midway fiub Facility North Side Pierce Butler Raute West of Snelling Dezr Mr. Berkowitz: We have zeviewed your request of November 5, 19$7 for the Burlington Northern Railroad rIidway Hub Facility. The property is located in an I-1 (LighC industrizi) zonir.g district. Outdoor storztr=_ in aa industrial zoning district cannot be located wichin 300 feet of a residenCial zoning district pursuant to Section 60.613.(3) of the St. Paul Zoning Code. The site plzn submitted indicates t hat semi trailers, in transit from railroad f at e s to tractors, wou e - -- ------- --- ---- -_ .. _ �.. .��,��, tely followin� tF.e centerline of Pierce Sucler RmteP_ The 300 foot spacing requirement was added to the Zoning Code when it was ' entirely rewritten, effective October 25, 1975. Prior to tha[ date, outdoor storage was permiCted in an industrial district without regard to location on the loc. The trailer storage area tnat ssisted at the Midwzy Hub Facility in i975 was allowed to re�ain under the new code, although not in confotmance with the setback standard. Thzt same esiscing noncon£orming setback line can be maintained with the proposed improvements to the Facilicy. Aowever, as shown or. ehe site o1an, t4e oucdoor storage area oroposed would be located further south, closer to the residential zoning line, than the existino storage area. Along with a series of proposed test amendments, the Planning Co�ission has recommended that che above 300 foot setback standard be removed from the Zoning Coc'=_, because the required fencing apparently provides 2 sufficienz bzrzier between industrial and residential areas_ The City Council mzy choose to adoot the Planning Con�issioa recoQSier,dation, reject it, or approve it with modiiication. Any new change wQUld noe become effective for at least two monChs. � �� j`�4 �. $ i1 lw: Y ' � � V � � �J � a.+''+Rd� �'Si 9 � � � �" : �. � 25 �✓ GEORGE t/�TIMER MAYOR CITY OF SAIN7 PAU� DEPARTMEN'i-0E-PL-ANNIPfG ECONOMK DEVEIOPMENT i.�` . i?. %'.. 1. DIVISION OF PLANNI�+tC C. ..• . 25 West Fourth Slree4, Linl Pau� A7in�ewt� � 6t2.22ft- L� November 13, 1�87 Mr. Darrel Berkowitz y TKDA and Associates ZSOQ American National Bank $uilding Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Re; Sice P1an Review for Burlingtan Northerr. Midway FFul� Facility Dear Mr. Berkowitz: I am writing to confirm whac I have told you that the Planning Commission w e reviewing t e site p an you are wor Lng on or Burlington ort ern's i wav u aci itv_ on ��Pm Pr rr,,, vi�,...;.,o �ommission approved a motion by Kathy Zieman requesting that the site plan review application be reviewed by the full Planning Commission vhen it is formally submfcted. The Saint Pau1 Zoning Code,gives the planning Comlaission jurisdiction over review of site plans. Because of the large voZwae of siCe plans, the PZanning Commission has delegated this responsibility to the PLanning staff. However, site plans 'for unusually large or controversial developments are often re erred to the fu11 Planning Commission for their action, Tite action of the Planning Com.rnisszon is zna un ess someone appeals the deczsion to the Cfty Council wiGhin 15 days. W'hea the Planning Commission reviews.a site p1an, they are zequired by law co have a public hearing. As T to2d you over the phone, if we recezve your conaZeted application by November 20, we vi11 schedule a Planning Commission puolic hezring or. the matter on Jec>s�er 1S, 1987. Zf there is cor*_tove>_sv y[ the public hearing, I e.cpecc t'r.e sice plan wi11 be reYerred back to the Zoning Committee for its recommendation on January 7, 2988 and brought back to the PZanning Com�ission on January 15, 1988. Please feel free to ca11 me at 228-3362 or Larry Zangs at 228-3392 when you have ques[ions. Sincerely, ���� /�*��NtJ �Y/ r vLr. U' srrence Sodernolm Principal Planner - Zoning cc: Wendy Lane 26 ...,. - ; ` -�� `#� � � �! .� ,:s �i;..+' '• a � .� � S � r � L� PU8L1C HEARtNG NOTICE CITY OF SA4KT PAUL BOARD OF 20NlNG APPEALS q1-I�a� : THE ACTION OF THE BOARD AT THIS HEARINf� WILI BE TO LAY THIS CASE �VEP. UNTIL AFTER THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSNEE7 IS C�MPLETED. YOU WILI RECEIVE A NEW NOTICE WHEN THE SOARD WILL R U W S CASE. �� APPL{CAN7 PURPOSE �CATION OF PROPERTY TfNSE OF HEARING PIACE OF HEARiNG HOW TO PARTICIPATE ANY QUESTIONS � Property Owners Within 350 feet; Representatives of Planning District I1 BURLIN6TON f�ORTHER�! RAILROAD C0. An Administrative Review of the Zoning Administrator's decision which determined that a BN expansion proposal uutaoor stroage requlres setback from tne zoaing boun line and parking does not have this requirement. The applicant states that the determination was in error. Present Zoning: I-1 (Industrial) 1701 Pierce Butler Route Tuesday, January 26, 1988 1:30 P.P4. 3th floor conPerence room, City k{al1 Ar,nex, 25 W. 4th S�reet, Rr`r�.e� F�..n..� ('i4.. Noll � S>in� Onnl __— 1. You may attend hearing and testify. (See note above) 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to the Board of Zoning Appeats, 25 West Eourth St., St. Paul, MN. 5510'c Call the Zoning office at 248-4154 � Donna Datsko � or your District Cauncil representative ( 646-1986 )�+ith the following information: Zoning Fi1e No. 10245 Zoning File Name BURLINGTON PlORTHERN RR �� Mailing Oate 1-15-88 _ Environmental Assessment Worksheet Conclusions 1. June 6, 1988 - An EQW is submitted to the Minnesota Environmentat comment. Quaiity Board (EQB) for review and 2. The EAW makes it clear that BN's Site Pian proposes to expand east of Snelling Avenue - the EAW states: "The project area can be divided into two sections, the section East of Sne�lin Avenue and the section West of Sne ling venue...". "The operation of the ex anded facility will be identical to the curren�iiity but at increased capacity." 3. One of the main purposes of the proposed expansion was to increase the number of trailer spaces. BN's Site Plan/EAW estimated that the number of trailer spaces would increase from 540 to 1,149 spaces. C� � � Z a = {�ie o Y.-, E l� W � 5, Descrfbe the proposed project compZetelp. L h �� �1� ���� �� The total projecC area is about 53 acres. The project area can be divided into two sections, the section east of Snelling Avenue and the section west of Snelling Avenue; the project is s own on t e site p an, Attac ent 4,B,3. The two areas are joined under the Snelling Avenue overpass, just south of the BN main line tracks. The westerly section is about 49.1 acres and is bounded on the east by the west right-of-way line of Snelling Avenue and on the north from the most southerly through-railroad track. The south boundary is at the property line and the north right-of-way line of Pierce Butler Route. On the west, the project boundary follows the limits of developable land near the top of the bank surrounding the SN pond. The easterly section is triangular-shaped area about 4.3 acres; it is a flat paved area now vacant but formerly used as a new automobile unloading area, It runs between the Snelling Avenue right-of-way on the west, the northerly right-of-way line of Pierce Butler Route and the BN main line tracks. 0� '� The operation o£ the expanded £acility will be identical to the current facility but at an increase capac ty. Trains with flat cars carrying trailers and containers are received from the Seattle and Chicago regions. The trailers are unloaded fzom the train's cars by large diesel powered vehicles called piggy packers. The piggy packers work alone or in pairs and typically can load 24 units in a two hour peziod. Hostler tractors reposition the trailers and containers oa the site until semi-trucks arrive to haul them away. Ten jobs will be added to the 24 hour period total, increasing the � complement to 60 workers. The paved axea o£ the site wi11 increase from 12 acr=s to 47,4 acres, An area about .8 acres will remain gravel but will be used as the azea for washing packers and as a"safe haven" (a "safe haven" is a four £oot deep pit with an impervious liner used to contain any spillage from a leaking container or trailer, see item No. 24.) A 5.2 acre landscaped area will be ir.stalled. The dimensions of the BN pond, just west of the project area, will remain unchanged, 18.2 acres. r u increase £rom about 540 to 1149 svaces, auto narking will increase £rom 30 to 50 spaces, hostler and packer parking will be provided at the rate of six and three spaces respectively. A main entrance will be built in the easterly section o£ the site and an entrance road will run north and parallel Co the Pierce Butler Route. The entrance road will have three in-bound and one out-bound traffic lanes. A control booth used for checking and inspecting trucks entering and leaving the site and a small support o£fice wi11 be constructed in this area. All trucks diopping o£f or picking up trailers or coxrtainers will have to use this main entrance and will pass under the Snelling Avenue overpass to the facility`s main storage area. Some tracks will be repositioned to accommodate truck movements from one section of the facility to the other section. Z i ` —�v o m l`l5 {^e'o o�et f� t�i e. �"Y��C f�u�o o�i fr,�V! CO c.vi c c� , TABLE 2 TERMINAI CNARACTERlSTlCS USED 1N CAPACITY ANALYSIS BN MIDWAY HUB Acreage Terminal Working Area Woods and Hit(top Hours Operated Week Qays Week Ends Number/Length of.Tracks lnside Yard: Load/Unload #4 toad/Unload #3 Load/Unload #2 N and S "- • • Subtotal Outside: Storage (4 Tracks) Number of Lift Machinss Number of Hostling Tractors Number of Emplo e Number of Parking Spaces Trucks Per Day (Weekdays) 52.1 Acres 9.7 Acres 24 Hours 18 2,500 2, 670 2,350 2, 200 11,650. 2,600 4 8 46 Feet 34 Feet/Track Lifts + 50-100 � � �J 3a q�_j30� The EA' � ���c:�t� noise for The EAW concluded that: "With the simuttaneous operation of two packers with new sound shieiding mufflers (these have recently been instalfed} on the rail nearest the Aldine receptor (308) feet, noise standards wouid be exceeded by any type of operation". And that: "Operation ofi one packer at the nearest rait and one at the middte rait would exceed the noise standard" in a letter dated July 14, 1988 the Minnesota • Poltution Controi Agency reviewed the EAW and informed the City of S. Pauf that: "With the proposed expansion ....... It appears that the Hub operation will almost double. Violations o�E the state noise standards wift occur without noise mitigation". Those predictions were accurate: On June 13, 1995 the MPCA conducted a noise survey which showed that: "Noise feveis monitored were above limits for a residentiat area as defined by MPCA noise poltution contro{ standards." � 31 r�, /}(� � 10 _-- . . The study calibrated traffic and piggy packer noise levels for various operation levels at the site. porst-case estimated noise levels based on operations closest to the sensitive receptor sites were established, The study determined that while hostlez tractors produce noise similar � to that of the packers, their use is more intermittent and they aze often shielded by the rows of trailers and containers and therefore their use was not factored into this analysis. With the simultaneous operation of two packers with new sound shielding � mufflers (t ese ave recent y een insta ed on t e rail nearest the ` A dine receptor eet , noise stan ar s wou e excee e y any With the operation of packers having the new mufflers and working at the middle rail, noise standards likely would not exceeded. Operation of one packer at the nearest rail and one at the middle rail would exceed the noise standatds. A S dBA reduction in ihe equipment could allow a single packer to operate on this rail during the nighttime hours without vio2ating the standard. The operation of two packers with new mufflers at the i Impact noise £rom bouncing and parking trailers and containers may also contribute to Lhe noise generated on-site. Uneven gravel surfaces and uneven rail crossings cause the ,jostling of trailers and containers, which when empty are especially noisy. Paving the surface snd • rebuilding the rail crossings wili reduce this type o£ equipment noise. D. Odors. No specific data on odor thresholds for diesel-type emissions are available. The study established an approximate threshold value for hydrocarbons of 0.1 ppm, The Minnesota P,mbient Aiz Quality Standards for hydrocarbons are 0.24 ppm for a 3-hour period. The predicted truck h;�drocarbon Ievels at t?�e closect r>ceptor site at Fairview Avenue, 30 meters south of the BN entrance, was ,015 ppm. 24. Describe the type and amount of solid or hazardous rraste including sludges and ashes that wi1Z be generated and the me[hod and Iocatlon of disposal. No solid or hazardous waste wiZZ be generated at this site. According to the hub faci2ity manager, less than S percent of the containers or trazlers being transoortad throu�h the ya*d contain ar.y hazzrdous material. Of those hazardous materials brought through the yard, the largest containers are 55 gallon-drums, Theze aze no tanker-type rail cars brought through this facility. 6 The facility now provides a waste containment site for any potential hazardous waste spiZZs. The expanded facility will have a pit or "safe haven" which wi21 be abaut four feet deep and lined with an impervious • material to conCain any spill and prevent it from reaching the BN pond. In case of a very sudden spill in which hazardous material reaches the storm sewer system, there would be opportunity to b].ock the storm sewez az ,, � � � ; , _ • ,> e Minnesota Pollufiion Contro{ Donna L. Datso City Planner II City of Saint Paul 25 West 4th Street 1100 City Hall Annex Saint Paul; Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Datso: �i�-Nsa� �,�G � �� ����� �d 5 > �� . Re: Burlington:Northern Midway Hub Facility Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) , The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency {MPCA) staff has reviewed . the above referenced document and has comments to offer regarding potential noise and air quality and traffic impacts_due to the project. Noise A noise analysis was conducted for the existing Burlington Northern facility by the MPCA and the St. Paul City Health Department in August of 1987. It was concluded from the study that, although noise levels were sligkLtly in excess of the state noise standar3s aao ci Tevels, a si nificant noise prob em did not exzst due to the facility. Noise impacts from Pierce Sut er Roa were t ou�g t t be Che larger contributor, by far, to the problem than the Burlington Northern operation. In addition, much of the noise from the facility is intermittent and consis'ts of the "banging and clanging" of empty trucks and containers associated with the operation. re at, currently, there are s ---- - -- aci ity represented in the EAW the staff is currently conducting site to evaluate these impacts. cant noise thE AlC11rie Site). AS SllCh, rther noise monitoring at the u Phone• 520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Regional Offices • DuluthlBrainerdlDetroit Lakes/MarshalllRochester Equal ODDartunity Employer 33 July 14, 1988 �v�o w+ YY1 !�G}1- ��etkv2. Ms. Da'tso ��� �v�� �� �.Y O 0 � Page��.Two _ � � '� -= - `' ``, With the proposed expansion of the facility, it is estimated by Burlington Northern that the five day (weekj average of 428 trucks per day into and out of the facility will increase to 700 trucks per day. Zt appears that Hub operations will almost double. Vi of the state noise standards will occuz wit_out_noise mitig The staff (David Kelso at 61 T3T recommen s that all of the noise mitigation measvres listed at pages 33, 34, and 50 of the EAW be implemented to achieve compliance with the state noise standards._ Currently, on2y part of the recommended noise mitigation measures have been completed or are planned for the facility. Those measures that are recommended, but not planned for or completed, include: 1) control of piggy packer noise by enclosing_the engines, contro.11ing night operations, erecting berms and barriers, and exploring ways by which impact noise from the lock in arn might be reduced, 2) control of noise due to the Hostler tractors by moving the exhaust lower on the tractor, �' 3) control of noise due to id2ing trucks by building berms or barriers, and 4) control of noise due to departing trucks by relocating the entrance. As is stated in the EAW, the resu2t of implementing the completed, planned, and recommended abatement measures in the EAw is that the proposed (and existing) facility should be able to operate within the City of St. Paul Ordinance and Minnesota noise standards. Air Quality and Traffic Impacts An Indirec� Source Permit (IS:) is not required £or the proposed project: Air quality issues are adequately addressed in the document. The modelled concentrations for hydrocarbons, which is the primary air pollutant from tha proposed project, were well belaw the state standard. Carbon monoxide (CO} and nitrogen oxide levels were also low, therefore, no violations of the state air quality standards are exgected to occur as a result of the project. The staff wishes to note, however, that some potential traffic impacts are expected at the Sne2lina and University Avenue incersection due to an increase in truck traffic from the proposed project. It is anticipated that 20 percent of the hourly truck trips passing north and south through this intersection woul.d be associated with the facility. Though this percentage might appear insignificant, it isn't. Actually, on=_ heavy truck is believed to be the equivalent of five cars, traffic-wise. These trucks will be displacing cars who will otherwise be queuing up to use this intersection. The document . � *- , � L • 3 �f 9'1-i�o� � NOISE SURVEY MPCA INVESTIGATOR: Brian Timerson INSTRUMENTATION: Larson Dav:is Labs 870M SiN A0125 DATE: 06/13/1995 TIME START: 22_28 PM TIIvIE END: 23:28 AM SOURCE: Burlin�ton Northern Midway Intermodai Hub .�MONITOR LOCATTON: Residential Area South of Hub. NAG1 DIAGRAM (INDICATE - NOISE SOURCE, NOISE RECENER, MICROPHONE LOCATION, REFLECTING OB7ECTS/OBSTRUCTIONS AND DISTANCES.) � Budington Northem C� Intermada! Hub � ro � m Meteorological Condi.tions Comments: The Intermodal loading activities were not the major source of noise for the total of the hour long monitoring. CALIBRATION Wind Speed / Direction c� TEMPERAT'CTRE: 23 °C �� j� IBRATOR SERIAL NUMBER: 1392 CALTBR.ATTON FREQUENCY: 250 Hz �CfTI�'IAL: 114.0 dBA FINAL: 114.0 dBA RESULTS L10 59 dBA L50 54 dBA 3 .s was never On November 5, 1987, which is the date that BN applied for expanding its facility, an air photo was #aken of the area east of Snelling Avenue. This air photo shows no trailers stored or parked east of Sneiling Avenue. A second air photo taken in 1993 shows a row of trailers east of Sneiling Avenue. � tn a photo taken April 12, 1997, the area east of S�eiling is completely filted with two rows of trailers. ` r., �� 36 � < '� -: $ �': -��':'�. j ... t � � r .' - � � � '. .� ^-.-�-r ��.� F�� c �� k4 .� i3.'' f � "�?' a s .. .. -:. � t����..r �� �• s e � �' — a � } � 7 < ' �} g- � ¢ " � k: ,'y� ..n F.s' .� u�va � s �' , � S�c� �.cn.�G�"K.F 4 �' ^^r* � a� •�S 4 ; ] ,� tryv,. +r � y y � �� - � C�Y' � '� '"� p � .,: �a ��•-C � .. � " i �'x 4 ti " rr f f n. �� � � � `� y F r y � � d i T � Y . � � t� �'� � l' j � - K` F� �•`�` � k .{S' iPF", A� � A � 1 �� �� 1 1: �' .' +t '��� � 3�Y. J-f � } �e�� _ c .. � � ( � . � e � ��`�� s "'�z � ' a� ..r.-� �. °3 ,�� ._.21N�.-N . . j � w �� � v�g r Y .' ._ .: �-a.� '"{} { y � �* r �� ry � ' ' S h : �' � � � t � �Y4• �„!' .s. s' .� . � - ....-r "" 2 i �� �a� Y � j, � �' t- �� " �r s E.i ;' _., _ � �" s � u � y � r ...,}, � . � . . `{""'.. . �4R�ia� � L[ � ` � - s �� . a .�.� ��� + ` � �'�{ �i � �p � �� j � � . �, ' ._., _ � w , �" _ �' " . ., f r- — F ...,i.. x � l ,.Y. r[ � �U l 9 yl ' + _'�""�` y -_ �, y S �i s �. �-.' � - { + c � F r �^ � �, [,� t � �:.5 r .. ::� . . �.3 _ �i y f �` -�+:ta . �.�„{' w � �- `� � : � � � ' � 3 . �?' � ��: °3 C.' % v -: �.�`�, _ �` �?-�. n "�li . l _ . � � , 4 i.. _...�c�z'F=t�:� , . �' . . ,� s��t.'�.', ��.�.5 :� �+r�� t`�,.J�:?"� , - � �. a .. .-_. :- , - ...�. �.n � : .r c��... .: - i . . — . . ' ." .� ._ � �� . _ 7>�a+'n;F-'N 'arx�'+"' `.s--:4r �fia. �mw - ».i`se�s'� M1::�C�' .'�; • . £ `yf� `� _ ti = . . a � . , . . - . . .: a�-��o3 • � � � /31V .����1 /Z / �°� ��G� t� e , ����� �r��� ��:5� c� 5,��� 1 Sl�oc���vt� l�r' �cb�pl�t��� ,_/ �.- J J l 1 inJ 1�� �� i y� �l LtJ :S C) � �'ot� ��°i�S _ 3f � � � BN's use of land east of Snellin Avenue to store or ! par trailers as at owe the s pre �ct�ons to occur. EAW Prediction 1,149 trailer spaces 3 lift machines 6 hostlers trucks Idoise standards would be violated Current Status 1,050 as of 1995 5 lift machines 8 as of 1995 MPCA 1995 noise survey confirms noise violations By BN's own account the (oading and unloading of trailers increased by 22% for 1994 alone. BN/SF's 1995 report to the Metropolitan Counci! states that: "Over the past four years, the volume of inter modal freight moved to and from Minnesota by BN has ir�creased each year except 1991.... All but 10% of this inter modal traffic moves by truck in and out of BN's Midway Hub in St. Paul" � �� � y a � c�7_��03 � CONCLUStON er BN' ue. 1. BN's application to expand its Midway Hub inctuded land east of Snelling Avenue. The - applieation specificalfy refers to "temporary parking of trailers". 2. Because of the controversial nature of BN's expansion plans, including the parking of trailers, the issue �vas r�fe�resi t� the City Planning Commission. 3. Prior to voting on BN's Site Pfan, the Pfanning � Commission required that an EAW be conducted. 4. The EAW predicted negative impacts for the Neweli Park neighborhood if the expansion were aliowed, 5. The Planning Commission never approved BN's Site P(an which included the use o# land east of Snetting Avenue. 6. BN began using the land east of Snelling despite the EAW's conclusions that noise would increase, and despite the fact that their Site Pfan was never approved by the Planning Commission. As a result the amount of loads in and out of the Midway Hub incre�sed dramaticaily - and so did noise for the • Newei Park neighborhood �� �� 7. In reference to BN's 1987 ptans to expand {which � includes trailer spaces on land east of Sne!ling Avenue) the State of Minnesota Environmen#ai Quaiity Board informed the city of St. Paut that: "Pursuant to Minnesota Rutes, part 4410.3100, subpart y, no final governmentat decision to grant a permit or other approval required to commence the project shall be made until a negative declaration or EtS adequacy determination has been made". � d � kZ �; � � y l Yv� 1• 300 Centennia( Bur7ding� 658 Cedar Streef •St pau�, Mnnesota 55755 612 ' June 8, 1988 City Planner 25 West Fourth Street 1100 City Ha12 Annex St. Paul, MN 55102 RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Burlington Northern Midway Hub-Facility _ Donna L. Datsko Dear Ms. Datsko: This letter acknowledges receipt of the EAW for the above-named project. The Environmental Review Program rules (at Minnesota Rules, � part 4410.1500B.) require that a press release containing notice of the EAW availability be provided to at least one newspaper of general circulation within tha area and that copies of the EAW be distributed to all points on the EQB distribution list. We presume that these requirements have been met. Notice of the EAW availability will be published in the EOB Monitor on June 13, 1988. The 30-day comment period will begin on that day and will expire on 3uly 13, 1988. • Pursuant to Minnesota Ru1es, part 441�.3100, subpart 1, no final governmental decision to grant a permit or other approval required to commence the project shall be made until a negative declaration or EIS adequacy determination has been made. Please contact me if any questions arise about the Review process. My phone numbez is (612) 296-8253, toll-free by dialing 1-800-652-9747 and asking for Quality Board, Environmental Review Program. Sincerely, �"'-�`� �� �'1 �' Gregg M. Downing Environmental Review Coordinator cc: 43 An EqualOpportunity.EmpFoyer Environmental or you may call the Environmental L �- r� u 1. Not allow BN to park trailers east of Snel(ing Avenue. it wouid appear that if parking is a!lowed the Zoning Board would violate Minnesota Rule 441 U.3100. 2. That BN be required to remove ait trailers from their land east of Sneliing Avenue. The t�e�rre( Park neighborhood has endured years of very aggravating noise as a resuit of BN's incr�ased activity. Requiring BN to remove trailers east of � Snetling Avenue will not destroy their business, but wilt reduce their capacity to the level it was before BN's application to expand - an application that was never approved by the Planning Commission. This will help reduce the noise impacting the Newel Park neighborhod - a reduction that is long overdue. Thank you for your time and consideration to this matter. Frank X. Wallner � Hy =�r ✓ °l'1-l�0� SAINi r�vi � IIAAA APPLICATIOt3 �OR APPEAL Department ojPlanning and Economic Deve(optnen[ Zoni�rg Section II00 City Aa!! Annex 25 West Fourlh Street Saint Paul, MN 53102 266-6589 APPELLANT Name �tr�,�, � �,/�� /i!1 rt'�� Address j � � ,� /� �•� -� City S-1. �.� �/ St.�jY ,,Zip � S/L'`t Daytime phone �z 2°iE� N l�11 27 29 2i 3 2 000/ PRdPER7Y Zoning File Name��/ �S f— /�c„ (ro r:, �� v r cYw"." �/� LOCATION AddresslLocation_T,1-c� QS r c-f-, ��� n'� S�, o_//, � Y�r / ��?_� ,� �� _ n J .n . �J TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: [�' Board of Zoning Appeafs ❑ City Councii under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to �ppeal a decision made by the ��c� Q'�L,�ste�� �, v. 1 c�� Cr on rf �,r�o �-z � 2. � , 19� File number. (date of decisi� GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any sequirement, parmit, decision or refusal made by an administrative o�ciai, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Soard of Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission. S� e /�-�«ti P�Q ��-��,� ( 0��31t97vcoza12.44�ti CLE2Y;� 4�8� VAfiSt�'e,CE ��2�� t3C7 CHfCK � �.a40 Attach additional sheet if AppficanYs Date,;,�[3 �' City agent y� Atiachment to Application for Appeal Grounds for Appeai 1. The Office of Licensing Inspections and Environmentat Protection has failed to correctly interpret St. Paul Legislative Code 60.214.N and therefore the use of land east of Snetiing shouid not be a iega[ nonconforming use. 2. Even if the land east of Snelling is a legai nonconforming use BN/SF has expanded and/or extended the use of its tand east of Sneliing Avenue since 1992 - in violation of St. Paul Legislative Code 62.142 {d) {2) and (3). � U 3. tn 1987 the City wnducted an Environmerrtai Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the BN/SF Intermodal Hub. The ERW concluded that noise was a significant probiem and that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was necessary before expansion is allowed. Photographic evidence cleariy shows that BN/SF has expanded its operations since 1987 by storing (or parking) serrti-trailers on land east of Snelling Avenue, and yet an EIS was not condueted. Storing {or parking) semi-traifers east of Snelling Avenue has allowed BN/SF to expand its operations by 22% between 1993 � and 1994 alone (BN(SF's own figures). This expanded use of tand east of Sneliing Avenue resulted in increased noise for the Newe! Park neighborhood. 4. In a letter to the City, SNISF committed to fencing and screening a portion of its property atong Pierce Butter Route some time in 1982. tn a memorandum from the City's Attorney Office dated January 30, �997 the City Attomey offers to draft a letter to BN/SF asking fhem when BtV/SF wiil make good on fts original representations. The Office ot LIEP should follow through with this support by requiring BN/SF to a construet a screening fence along Pierce Butler Route. � `�` °t�-t�a3 Mr. Tom Beach March 13, 1997 • Office of Licensing and Inspections Lowry Professional Building Suite 300 350 St. Peter Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 Dear Mr. Beach: I am in receipt of your February 27, 19971etter to John Ackerman of BN/SF Railroad. The letter is in response to concerns I raised in my letter of November 27, 1996. Your letter concluded that BN/SF semi-trailers are parked and not stored. Hawever, your letter addresses only the parking versus storage issue. Please note that my 1Vovember 27th letter brought up other issues which I do not believe were addressed. As you are aware, I do plan to appeal this decision to the Boazd of Zoning Appeals. Before I pay the fee for an appeal I want to make sure that the City responds to all of my concerns so that I do not have to appeal a second time. • The specific points in my letter which were not addressed are Part B- Continuous Use; Part C- Eapansion; and the part on Extended Use. I am especially interested in the City's response to my belief that BN1SF is in violation of City Ordinance 62.102 (d) 2 and (3) because BN JSF e�rtended the use of its intermodai operations. I will clarify my position now that the City has concluded that the serni-trailers are parked rather than stored. The City has concluded that BN/SF trailers are parked rather than stored. However, I contend that if trailers are not being stored the only conclusion to be made is that they are being "used". In fact, without the use of semi-trailers BN/SF's facility could not operate. City Ordinance 62.102 (d) 2 and 3 cleazly states that: a non conforming use of land shall not be"extended to occupy a greater area of land than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this code" - and that -" A nonconforxning use shall not be moved in whole, or in part, to any other portion of the lot". By the City's own rulings and records it is an undeniable fact that the BN/SF facility is a nonconfonning use, and that BN/SF has e�ended the use of its semi -trailers to occupy � greater area of land East of Snelling Avenue (see photo}. Please note that in reference to the property East of Snelling Avenue BN/SF wrote in a September 3, 1996 letter that: "This properly is currently in use in connection with freight handling operations at Burlington Northem's Midway Iniermodal Hub." (emphasis added). � y� � In summary let me emphasize that: 1. The City has ruled that BN/SF intermodal operations is a nonconforming use. � 2. If trailers are being parked rather than stored then the only conclusion is that they are being used for intermodal operations. BN/SF admits that the semi-fsailers are being used in connection with iatermodal operations . 3 Photographic evidence clearly shows that BN/SF has extended the use of its semi-trailers to occupy a greater area of land east of SneIiing Avenue. 4. City Ordinance 62.102 (d) 2 and (3) clearly forbids a nonconforming use from occupying greater area of land or moved in whole or in part to ofher portions of a lot. Conclusion: I. The BN/SF Railroad is in violation of City Ordinance 62.202 {d) 2 and 3 and • should not have been allowed to e�end onto the land east of Snelling Avenue. 2. The City of St. Paui should require BN/SF Rai3road to remove all semi- trailers east of Snelling Avenne - or as a compromise - should be required to erect a screening fence along the entire length of the property along Pierce Bntler Route, and comply a�th the 300 foot set baek requirement. I hope this elarifies my position. In your letter you mention that an appeal must be made within 30 days. Although I am wiIling to appeal the storage issue the City's letter does not respond to all of my poiats. I assume that I can only appeal issues that the LIEP Department has commented on. Therefore I ask that you take another look at my November 27 1996 letter and respond to each of tYze issues. It would seem that once the City comments on ail the issues I raise in my November 27, 1996 letter I would then have 30 days to appeal. If this is not a correct assumption please let me know as soon as possible. � �� °t � -t'k� 3 � By allowing BiV/SF to e�rtend the use of land east of Snelling Avenue, the City has allowed BN/SF to increase the use of the Midway Intermodal Hub and therefore increased the noise for Newell Park residents. From 1993 to I994, a period during which BNf SF increased the use of land east of Snel2ing Avenue , the Midway Intermodal Hub (according to the Intermodal study) �icreased the number of loaded trailers by 32,000 - a 22°h increase. It simply does not seem right that the City allowed such an increase given the number of yeazs residents have voiced their concerns both to BN/SF and the City. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 646 7028. 5incerely, � �, �� / � , .� . ,- r� u cc: Bobbi Megard, City Council Woman n LJ �l % � CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor February 21, 1997 John Ackerman Saint Pau] Hub Operations Burlington Northern 1701 Pierce Butler Route Saint Paul, MN SSI04 OFF[CE OF LICEDiS£, (YSPECITONS AND ENVIRONMEMAL PROTEGT[ON RobertKessler, Di�ector LOO{'RY PROFESSIONRL BUILDLVG Suite 300 330St. PeterSlreet SairstPav[, AfiRnesota 55102-1il0 Teleplroae: 6l2-26d-90� Facsimile: 612-166-9099 612-266-912d RE: Semi-Vailers at Burlina on Northem's Pierce Butler property Deaz Mr. Ackerman: As you kaow, our o�ce has been invesTigating the legal status of semi-trailers ]ocated on Burlington Northern's property north of Pierce Butler Route and east of Snelling. PAI2KING VERSUS STORAGE One question that was raised as part of this investigation, is whether these trailers should be considered "parked" or "stored" under the zoning regulations that were in effect at the time the traiters were introduced to the property in I987. Tfie distinction between storage and parking is important because the zoning code requires that outside storane be set back at least 300 feet from residentially zoned property but there is no setback requirement for parked vehic]es. Most of Burlina on Northern's paved azea east of Snetling is within 300 feet of residentially zoned property. In prepazing this determination, our office asked the City Attomey's Office to provide us with a legal opinion. The Assisiant Ciry Attomey assigned Yo zonina issues noted that past court cases on the issue of "pazking" versus "storage" can be read to create a general rale that a caz, truck or semi-trailer is "pazked" if it remains there only for a short period of time but it is "stored" if it remains there for a long period of time. This, of course, raises the question of what should be considered a short period of time versus a long period of time. The Assistant City Attorney was unable to ftnd any Minnesota case law which makes a clear distinction on this. However, he noted that Section 60.219.S of the Zoning Code defines storage as "The placement of items such as, but not limited to the following: merchandise for sale or rent; materials awaiting servicing, processing or manufacturing finished products of a service, processing or manufaciuring operation; equipment, secaittuck trailers; portable storage containers but excluding trash containers for garage dumpsters which are accessory to the main use; and commerciai vehicles not used on a weekly basis." (Emphasis added.) Therefore, by inference, a semi-trai(er that is used on a weekly basis could be considered parked rather than stored. (See the attached letter from the Assistant City Attorney dated January 30, 1497.) r 1 U • sa °l� -1�03 USE OF THE BDi'S TRAILERS � It appears that Burlington Northem's trailers on the property in question are used at least once a week_ This is based on the folfowing: - Burlington Northem's letter of 9/3/96 states that "on the average, these freight containers are set out for a period of 24 hours or less, before being �emoved by BN's customers or loaded on flat cars by BN:' - LIEP staff inspected the site last summer and found that in a 36 hour period approximately half of the trailers had been moved. - A 1995 Metropolitan Council study of intermoda] freight facilities says that on the average the trailers at this facility are moved every 84 hours. CONCLUSIONS Based on information above, our office has determined that: - Semi-trailers which are used on a weekly basis constitute "parking" rather than "storage" under the zoning regulations that were in effect in 1987 when the trailers were introduced to the property. - The semi-trailers on Burlington Northern's property east of Snelling are used on a weekly basis. - These semi-trailers are thereFore "parked" rather than "stored" and may therefore stay on the property. However, as stated in the letter from the Assistant City Attorney "This is not to say that all trailers on BN's site may always be presumed to be `parked'. If, for instance, it appears that BN allows trailers to . remain on the site in excess of seven days, doing so would constitute `storage'." The trailers would then have to comply with regulations for outside storage, including a 300 foot setback from residentially zoned properiy. This setback requirement prohibits most of the paved area east of Snelling owned by Burlington Northem from being used for storage. APPEALS The zoning code allows for appeals of decisions by this office. (See attached copy of Section 64.204.) Appeals may be filed by any interested individual or organization. Appeais must be filed within 30 days of the date of this letter, which in this case would be Monday, March 31, 1997. Apgeals are heazd by the Board of Zoning Appeals at a public hearing. Any decision of the Board of Zoning Appeais can be appealed on to the City Council. If you have any questions, please call me at 266-9086. Sincerely, �� Tom Beach Zoning Section cc: Frank Wallner Glenn Olander-Quamme, Spence Ricke and Thurmer Councilmember Bobbi Megard Andy Schneider, District 1 I ! Michael Madigan, Attomey Peter Wamer, Office of the City Attorney Bob Kessler, LIEP �/ CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co[eman, Mayror January 30, 1997 Robert KessleY Department of Licenses, Inspections and Environmental Protection Room 300 Lowry Professional Building 350 St. Peter St. Saint Paul, MN 55101 OFFICE OF Tf� CTTY ATTORNEY Timot7ryEMm. CftyRttomey CivllDivtsion 400CiryNaII rswenx�sn�a. SaintPau� Mrnrtesota 55102 TeZephane:611266-87f0 • Factimile: 672 2A8-5619 RE: Opinion as to whether trailers located at a portion oE Buriington Northern's Midway Intermodal Hub north of Pierce � Butler Route and East of Snelling Avenue are either "parked" or "stored" under zoning reguSations in effect in 1987 Dear Mr. Kessler: You have asked the Office of the City Attorney (CAO) to give its opinion on whether trailers at BurZington Northern's Midway Intermodal Aub (BN) are "parKed" or "stored" within the meaning of the zoning regulations in effect for this property in 1987. Your opinion request is in response to a zoning complaint to LIEP concerning BN's present use of its property. You indicated that the distinctioa between parking and storage is very important because if the trailers are in "storage" BN must maintain a 300 foot setback from residentially zoned property. You also indicated that a 30o foot setback would prohibit most of BN's present use of the property. Background A. Recent History of Zoning Use Definitions for the Property: LIEP provided information showing that the subject property is zoned as an I-1 Industrial District. Prior to 1992, the use of the property was defined by the City as a"Railroad and Terminal Freight Facility", a principal permitted use in I-1 Tndustrial � Districts pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 60.612(11). S Z- ��-��o� � Page 2 Robert Kessler January 30, 1997 Following a 1992 amendment to the zoninq code, the property use is now defined as an "Intermodal Freight Yard", a first permitted use, subject to s�ecial conditions, in I-2 Industrial Districts. Intermodal Freight Yards are defined at Saint Paul Legislative Code § 60.209.(T) as: "A site or location where large units of freight, including containerized freight and semitrailers, are trans£erred between different transportation modes (such as from railroad cars to semitrucks or from barges to railroad cars) using heavy and/or specialized equipment (such as piggy-packers or gantry cranes)." The special conditions applicable to Intermodal Freight Yards include all standard special conditions setforth in Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.300(c), any required conditions set forth for I-2 uses in Leq. Code. § 60.623 and the following additional special conditions for Intermodal Freiqht Yards set forth in Leg. Code § 60.624(16): . a. Intermodal freight yards shall be sited in a manner which prevents unreasonable disturbance to nearby residential properties from the adverse effects of heavy traPfic, noise, dust, vibration and excessive lighting. b. The operational area of an intermodal freight yard shall be at least one thousand (1,000) feet from property zoned for, or occupied by, residential uses within the City of Saint Paul measured at the point of shortest distance separating the operational area from the residentially zoned or used property. a. Adequate landscapinq and sound barriers where deemed necessary to provide mitigation of increased noise and to provide a reasonable visual barrier between the site and adjoining properties shall be installed and maintained on the site and adjacent to roadways accessing the site. d. Facilities shall be sited in a manner that allows primary access to the site via roads designed for use by heavy trucks or are designated as "haul � roads " or " truck routes. " As a result of the 1992 rezoning amendment creating the Intermodal Freight Yard use, the BN site was transformed into a"legal non- �''; S� m Page 3 Robert Kess].er January 30, 1997 conforming use" which is defined in Saint Paul Legislative Code § 60.214.N as: "A Zawful use existing on the effective date of adoption (OCtober 24, 1975) or amendment of this code but that is not now permitted in the district in which it is located." B. Zoning Code ordinances Regulating Non-Conforming IIses: Saint Paul Legislative Code § 62.102 sets forth the general provisions of the Saint PauZ Zoning Code as they affect non- conforming uses. Legislative Code § 62.102(a) entitled "intent" states in pertinent part: There exist within the districts established by this code and subsequent amendments ... uses of land ... that were lawful before this code was ... amended that would be prohibited ... under the terms of this code-or future amendments. It is the intent of this code to permit legal nonconforming .., uses to continne until they are removed. Legislative Code § 62.102(d) entitled "Non-conforming use of land" is directly applicable to BN's present legal non-conforming use of the parcel in light of the 1992 use reclassi£ication and reads in pertinent part: (i) (2} (3) (4) (5) A use shall not be enlarged ... extended to occupy a greater area of land than occupied at the effective date of adoption amendment of this code. A nonconforming use shall not be moved in whole in part to any other portion of the lot. C. Complaint Correspondence. nor was or or In a letter received March 22, 1996, a private citizen requested LIEP to investigate a complaint that BN was violating the City's "storage ordinance" by expanding it's non-conforming use at the Midway site by storing trailers east of Snelling and North of Pierce Butler. • � In response to this complaint, LIEP's Tom Beach conducted an investigation into the complaint. In a letter to a BN facility � employee dated July 8, 1996, Mr. Beach concluded, based upon his investigations, that: 6 [: Sy °l'1 �l�o � Page 4 • Robert Kessler January 30, 1997 "The current use of the property for storing trailers does not appear to comply with Section 60.613.3 of the zoning code that requires outside storage to be located at least 300 feet from residentially zoned property and to be screened for public streets.�' Mr. Beach's Ju1y 8, 1996 letter further concluded that the subject property "was not.used for storage during the late 1970's and most of the 1980's". This conclusion was apparently based upon a review of aerial photos of the site. Based upon this conclusion, the letter advised BN that the site was now subjec� to those zoning rules in effect "at the time". Presumably this means that BN's facility is in compliance with the Zoning Code in effect prior to 1992 as a legal non-conforming use with no outdoor storage subject to a 30o foot sat-back from any residential district or dwelling. The July 8, 1996 letter from LIEP prompted a response from BN's attorney in a letter dated September 3, 1996. Tn the letter, BN raised three points of contention. First, BN argued that it used the property not for "storaqe" but for "parkinq". Second, BN claimed that even if the property were used for storage, the site � had been "continuously in use" for freight handling "since before adoption of the code in 1975". Finally, BN claimed that "any expansion of use was `approved' by the City in 1982 in connection with the grading, paving and fencing of the property. For the purposes of this opinion, only the first arqument zaised by BN is analyzed. The second BN argument has been resolved by virtue of Mr. Beach's October 28, 1996, letter discussed below. The third BN argument is summarily discussed in the conclusion to �his opinion. In a reply letter to the BN attorney dated October 28, 1996, Mr. Beach advised that he had reached certain "preliminary conclusions" based upon information contained in City records as well as information provided by BN in its September 3, 1996 letter. These preliminary conclusions were: 1. That the property has been used continuously for outside storage. 2. That the current use of the property for storing trailers appears to be a legal non-conforming use. That the current arrangement of the trailers does not appear to be an expansion of a non-conforminq use. � 4. That the City had required BN to screen 800 feet if property along Pierce Butler Route from view but that this has never been done. � SS D. Analysis: Paqe 5 Robert Kessler January 30, 1997 Most, if not City staff aF BN's facilit that the tra� The purpose c "storage" in the facts at That the fence along BN's property was in need of repair. all, of the previous analysis of this situation by pears to be based on the premiss that the trailers at y are in "storaqe". BN's premiss, in contrast, is lers are "parked" at the facility awaiting reshipment. f my analysis is to differentiate the terms "park" and a zoning context and appZy the differentiated terms to hand. The term "park" or "parking", as it might apply to any zoning use, including the use at the BN Pacility, is not defined in the Saint Paul Zoning Code. However, the term "storage" is defined in the Zoning Code at § 60.219.5. as: "The placement of items such as, but not limited to, the Pollowing: merchandise for sale or rent; materials awaiting servicing, processing or manufacturing; finished products of a servicing, processing or manufacturing operation; equipment; semitruck trailers; portable storage containers but excluding trash containers or garbage dumpsters which are accessory to the main use; and commercial vehicles not used on a weekly basis." This definition of storage was not added to the Zoninq Code until 1993. Cases from Minnesota and from foreign jurisdictions have interpreted the differences between "parking" and "storage". The leading Minnesota case interpreting the legal differences between "parking" and "storage" is �tate v Larson Transfer and Stora Inc., 310 Minn. 295, 246 N.W.2d 176 (Minn. 1976). That case involved a criminal citation issued by the City of Bloomington to Larson for it's failure to pave an off-street parking lot as required under Bloomington city ordinance. Larson argued that vehicles on it's lot were "stored", not "parked" and, therefore, did not have to pave the lot as Bloomington required. In support of this argument, Larson argued [as does BN presently] that the Bloomington or@i.nance contained no specific dePinition of what constituted a parking area which would distinguisYx it from a As early as November Administrator advised BN allowed within 300 feet added). i' 5, 1987, the City's Zoning that "outdoor -�toraae" was not of a residential use. (emphasis • � � �� q�-1^�03 � Page 6 Robert Kessler January 30, 1997 storaqe area. id. at 179. The Minnesota Supreme Court, in finding against I,arson, noted: "Not only does the term 'parking area' have a common and generally accepted meaning but it also has been adequately defined and distinguished from a storage area in prior judicial. decisions. Courts have consistently distinguished the parking of vehicles from the storage of vehicles on the ground that parkinq connotes transience while storage implies a certain degree o£ permanency". ..(citations omitted).. This distinction comports with a dictionary definition of 'park' which is '�o set and leave temporarily "'. (citation to footnote omitted). � Foreign jurisdiction have construed the "parking" vs. "storage" distinction in a similar fashion. In Serv�ce Realty Corp v Planninq and Zoning Board of Agoeals o£ Town of Greenwich, 109 A.2d 256 (Conn. 1954) the Supreme Court of Connecticut, noted "[t}here is a substantial distinction, clearly cognizable, between the meaning of 'storage' and 'parking'. One has a certain degree of permanency, while the other connotes transience." id. at 260. In Tncorporated Villac�e o£ Great Neck v Green, 106 N.Y.S..2d 219 (N.Y.App.Div. 1957) the court there had before it the question of whether new automobiles brought to vacant land adjacent to a new car sales lot were in storage. The Green court held "[w]hen automobiles are left for months on end at a given place, there can be no doubt that they are stored and not parked. Parking is of short duration and measured by hours or at most by a day or two". id. at 221. These cases can be read to create the following general rule £or determining whether something like a car, truck or trailer is either parked or stored on a parcel of land: things, like cars, trucks or semi-trailers, are "parked" on a parael of land if they remain there for only a short period of time. on the other hand, if these things remain on a parcel of land for a long period of time, they are "stored". In order to distinguish between "parking" and "storage" a meaningful "bright line" between a short and a long period of time must be established. Although I was unable to locate any Minnesota case law which made such a clear distinction fox zoning Z Saint Paul Legislative Code § 60.101, entitled "Intent � and Purpose" states at subdivision 10, that the purpose of the Zoning Code is "[t}o fix reasonable standards to which ... uses shall conform." (�, .S 7 Page 7 Robert Kessler January 30, 1997 matters, the deEinition of "storage" found at Legislative Code § 60.219.S. does, in my opinion, offer a useful distinguishing point between short and long periods time. Storage is defined in pertinent part in Leg. Code § 60.219.5. as: "The placement following: ... added). of items such as, but not limited to, the not used on a weeklv basis." (emphasis This definition provides a useful "bright line" for Zoning Code applications upon which to determine whether things are in storage. Under this definition, things located on property longer that seven days are �'stored". Things located on property seven days or less are, by inference, "parked". Adopting the seven day period as the dividing line between parking and storage for this particular zoning application only, it is my legal opinion that BN is ar in trailers on the subject property. This opinion is basecZ upon the average length of time a trailer is on the property which appears to be somewhere between "less than 24 hours" [£rom BN's I.etter dated 9-3-96] and "84 hours" (3.5 c2ays) (from letter of a private citizen complainant dated 11-27-96, which included a reference to the Metropolitan Couhcil's 'T'W�tt City Region Intermodal Terminal Needs Study {1995) which appears to be a compilation of time during which trailers are located on BN's property and which, according to the aitizen letter dated 11-27-96, were based upon data provided by BN]. E. Conclusion: Based upon the information provided to the CAO, it is our conclusion that trailers located at the BN's Midway Intermodal Hub are "parked" not "stored". This opinion is contrary to the opinion of Mr. Beach, expressed as Preliminary Conclusion no. 1 in his letter of October 28, 1996. This is not to say that a12 trailers on BN's site may always be presumed to be '"parked". If, for instance, it appears that BN allows trailers to remain on the site in excess of seven days, doing so would constitute "storage". Storage of trailers by BN would require BN to conform to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 60.613(3a) and 60.613(3b) which sets forth outdoor storage restrictions applicable to I-1 Zoninq District users (BN's use is stiil a legal non-conforming use subject to pre-1993 zoning regulations), These restrictions include a 300 foot set-back requirement from residentially zoned property. BN wouid have to comply with these set-back requirements. Finally, there was some discussion between the City and BN over {"�% � • � 5 � °��-��a3 Page 8 • Robert Kessler January 30, 1997 B23's Yailure �o either £enae or maintain the fence alonq the perimeter of the facility. It appears from LIEP's records that BN inc3icated that it would fence and screen a portion o£ the property from view along Pierce Butler sometime in 1982. In it's letter dated September 3, 1996, BN's attorney makes a somewhat disingenuous statement professinq confusion as to why the City desired BN to fence a portion of the property. The BN attorney suggests that he would try to locate BN files which would shed light on the City's fencing request. LIEP has in its files correspondence from BN indicating that BN will fence and scYeen some 80o feet of the subject property. This would seem to clarify the City's position rather concisely. If you desire, I can prepare a letter to the BN attorney asking him when BN wi11 make good on its original representations. If you have any additional questions please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours, ,;� ���--_ ' Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney • ��i �`9 �� Mr. Tom Beach St. Paul Office of Licenszng and Fnspections Lowry Professionai Buiiding - Suite 300 350 St. Peter Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55102-151 November 27,1996 � t?ear Mr. 8each Thank you for taking the tiffte Yo meet with me on two separate occasions, and for the opportunity to comment on the City's October 28, 1996 ietter regarding Burlington Northern /Sante Fe Railroad's (BN/SF) Midway Intermodal Hub on Pierce Butler Route. In a July 8, 19961etter to BN/SF the City concluded that BN/SF's current use of the property does not appear to rnmply with Section 60.613.3 of the zoning code which requires outside storage to be located at least 300 feet from residentially zoned property and to be screened from public streets. This deterrstination was made in response to a concern raised about BN/SF's increased ievel of storage of semi-trailers on land east of Snelling Avenue. In a letter dated September 3,1996 BN/SF's aftorney objected Eo the Cit�s posiEion and offered counter arguments. In response to BN/SF's letter the City turned back its earlier decision and tentatively concluded that 8N/SF's use of the property appeazs to be a legal nonconfomting use. This is a significant conciusion as it essentially allows BN/ SF to increase traffic Yhrough its Midway Intermodal Hub which in tuzn increases noise for the neighborhood. With all due respect to the Cit�s posiLion my research of City files, aerial photography, and BN/SF correspondence has lead me to conclude that the City is mistaken in its interpretation, and that BN/SF should never have been allowed to store so many semi-trailers on property east of Snelling Avenue. At the very least BN/SF should be required to comply �vith screening and seY-back requirements as required in Section 60.613.3 of the zoning code. In its September 3, 19961etter BN/SF presents three main points to justify the use of property east of Snelling Avenue for storing semi-trailers without screening and within the 300 foot set-back. Those arguments aze summarized as follows: i. $N/SF daims that semi-trailers placed on the land east of Snelling Avenue do not constitute storage because the trailers aze "...in place only temporariiy and are, on the average, in place for less than 24 hours". 2. BN/SF claims that the property in question has been continuously used for the purpose of freight handling since before adoption of the code in 1975 which required screening and a 300 foot seEback from areas zoned residenEiai. u � �O a'1 � l'�o� • 3. BN/SF daims that any expansion of the use was approveci by the City in 1982 because the Ciiy granted permits that allowed paving and £encing of the azea for automobile loading and unloading. After researching these three claims it seems cleaz that the City should reassess its conclusion presented in the October 28, 19961etter. Please seriously consider the following counter points to BN/SF's justifications: A.STORAGE 1. The Metropolitan Covncil published the Twin Cities Region Intermodal Terminal Needs Study in January, 1995. A Capacity Analysis done for the study deYermined that in 1993 trailers at the BN/SF Midway Intermodal Hub were stored for an average o£ 84 hours (See Attachment #1). BN/SF's daim that trailers are in- place for an average of less than 24 hours is simpiy not true, and contradicts the Intermodal Study for which BN/SF provided information. Piease also note that the Intermodal Study specifically looked at "Storage Capacity" at the BN/SF Midway Intermodal Huh (page 37). This section concluded that � "Current volume levels and previously noted dwell tunes indicate that on average storaee is 70 percent utilized. Peak and dynamic demands dictate the need to use all available acreage adjacent to lead tracks to provide additional stora�e of trailers and containers on chassis". (Emphasis added). BN/SF's claun that trailers are parked and not stared is incorrect. In fact, parking spots aze being used for storage. The Intermodal Study states: "In mid-1994, the Midway facility converted from a grounding/stacking operation to a 100 percent wheeled operation, whereby all containers are stored on chassis. Storage requirements, therefore, are configured in terms of parking spots". 2. In a May 17, 1996, "Addendum to Non-Confornivlg Use Pernut Application" BN/SF states that: "The use of the shelter is clearly consistent with activity immediately surrounding the site. This consists of movement and temporarv stora�e of semi-trailers, containers and other heary equipment." (emphasis added) BN/SF should not be allowed to azgue that semi-trailers east of Snelling Avenue aze not being stored while saying trailers west of Snelling Avenue aze. 3. On November 22, 1996 St. Paul received its first significant snow fall. Observations of the trailers on November 25, 1996 cleariy showed that many of the trailers east o£ Snelling Avenue had not disturbed the snow. Several trailers east of Snelling Avenue, and many carriages west of Snelling had still not disturbed the • snoa• on November 27, 1996. I mention this because it provides up to date documentation that BNiSF dces store trailers for periods longer than 24 hours. G! CONCLUSION: It is clear from the Metropolitan Council's Intermodal Study, • BN/SF correspondence, aerial photography, and personnel observation that BN/SP is storing semi-trailers east of Snelling Avenue. Consequently BN/SF should be required to comply with Section 60.613.3 of the Zoning code which requires outside storage to be set back at least 300 feet from residentially zoned property and to be screened from public streets. B. Continuous Use: $N/SF claims Yhat the property east of Snelling Avenue has been in continuous used far storage prior to the 1975 storage ordinance and therefore screening and set- back requirements do not apply. 1. To jusHfy this ctaim BN/SF relies on the property's use as an automobile unloading area from about 1982 to 19 87. However, a crificai �oint to make i: "Outdoor storage areas shall be fenced or walled. On those sides of tlte district abutting a public thoroughfare or any district other than an industrial district, the fence shall be totally obscuzing to a height of six (6) #eet. Outdoor stora�e excevti� r1 � BN/SF should not be allowed to cite an exempted use (automobiles) to justify a ctaim that the property was continuously used for nonconfomung storage of trailers. Aerial photography shows that BN/SF did not begin storing trailers until 1988 - thirteen years after the 1975 ordinance which requires a 300 foot set back and screening. Section 62.Id2.d.4 states Ehat: "If such a nonconforming use of iand ceases for any reason for a period of 90 days or more, any subsequent use of such land shall conforui to the regulations specified by this code for tlie district in which such land is Iocated..." CONCLUSION: BN/SF did not wntinuously vse the properly for storing trailers prior to and subsequent to the 1475 storage ordinance, and thereEore should be subject to Section 60.613.3. C. EXPANSION: i. BN/SF ciaims that any expansion of the use of the property was approved by the City in 2982, in rnnnection with the grading, paving and fencing of the property, and therefore can be used to store traiters. However, the 1982 General Building Permit (#146662) issued by the City states that "Grade and pave with asphalt paving and storm drain systems 5.48 acres of parkin�z area". The permit was issued for a parking area for automobiles (which �vere exempted from the 1975 storage � Gz °l� -13 ordinance), and was not issued for a storage azea. • EXTEI`jDED USE: City Ordinance 62.102 (d) (2) and (3) clearly state that: a nonconformutg use o# Iand shaIl not be "extended to occupy a greater azea of land than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this code' and that " A nonconforming use shall not be moved in whole, or in pazt, to any other portion of the lot". Aerial photography clearly shows that BNiSF did in fact extend a nonconforming use to land east of Snelling Avenue and that parts of the nonconfomung use (trailers) have been moved to another portion of the lot. Please consider the following as proof of extended use: Aeriai photography shows without a doubt that in 1977 there were zero trailers east of Snelling Avenue; in 1985 there were zero trailers east of Snelling Avenue; in 1988 there were three or four trailers east of Snelling Avenue; in 1991 there was a row of trailers and carriages stored along the south edge of the property east of Snelling Avenue. As of Novemher 2, 1996 the row af trailers occupied even more land east of Snelling Avenue (see photo). Please note that in reference to the property east of Snelling Avenue, BNiSF wrote • in a September 3, 19961etter that: "This property is currenYly in use in connection with freight handling operations at Burlington Northern's Midway Intermodal Hub."(emphasis added). The use of the Midway Intermodal Hub has cleazly been extended to occupy a greater area of land east of Snelling Avenue. CONCLUSIQNS: BN/SF has extended and moved a nonconforming use to occupy more land area east of Snelling Avenue which is in clear violation of 62.1�2 (d) (2) and (3j. By allowing BN/SF to store mnre trailers east of Snelling Avenue, BN(SF has extended and increased the use of the Midway Intermodal Hub and therefore increase the noise for Newell Pazk residents. From 1993 to 1994, a period during which B1V/SF increased the use of land east of Snelling Avenue , the Midway Intermodal Hub (according to the Intermodal siudy} increased the number of loaded trailers by 32,000 - a 22% increase. This does not seem fair to the Newel Park neighborhood. Nor does it seem right that the City allowed such an increase given the number of yeazs residents have voiced their concerns both to BI�3/SF and the City. � Ch�e of the principai foundations of the St. Paul Zoning Code, as with all municipalities, is that they offer protection to the ciiizens of the City from such 63 nuisances as noise. I believe that the above points justify an action by the City to require BN/SF to remove the trailers east of Snelling Avenue. At a minimum, the City should direct BN/SF to screen the property from public view along the entire length of the property, and should require that semi-trailers be set back 300 feet from residentially zoned property. Your attention and serious consideration to this letter would be appreciated. Sincerely, ���� � � / Frank X. Wallner cc_ 8obbi Megazd, City Council Tunothy Marx, City Attorney Michael Madigan, Attorney St. Paul Planning Commission members Mayor Norm Coleman Andy Schneider, Community Organizer HamlineJMidway Cammittee on BN/SF Noise Jim $aztin, Metropolitan Council Chazles L. Schizltz, BN/SF - Senior Vice President of Intermodal • � � 6f� October 28,1446 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor . James Hamilton Spence, Ricke and Thurmer Degree of Honor Building Suite 600 325 Cedaz Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 OFFfCEOFLiCENS$ .NSPECTIONSAND ENVIRONMENTALPROTECfI013 ���1�03 RobeRXesster, Dirufor IAWRY PROFESS/ONAL BUIIIJING Suite 300 350SLPeterStreet SainrPau�Mrnrsesora 55l02-IS/0 Telephane: 612-2669090 Facsrmile: 612-26G9099 6l2-2669729 RE: Burlington Northern Property north of Pierce Butler Route and east of Snelling Avenue Deu Mr. Hamilton: In July 1996 I sent a letter to BN about storing trailers on the properry referenced above. In September 199b you responded with a letter. (See attached letters.) Based on information in Ciry records and your letter, I have reached some preliminary conclusions and these are listed below. Aowever, before making a final detemilnation, I want to make sure that ail interested parties have a chance for input. Therefore, I will not make a£mal determination before November 22, 1996. If you or anyone else wishes to discuss the issues raised in this letter, please write me or cali me at 266-9086. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS After discussing the matter with you and reviewing yow letter of September 3, 1996, I have reached the following preliminary conclusions: 1. The property appears to have been used continuously for outside storage. The current use of the property for storing trailers appears to be a IegaS nonconforming use and the current arrangement of the trailers on the property does not appear to be an espansion of a nonconforming use. This conclusion is based on the follo�ving: You said that prior to 1987, BN used the properry for receiving shipments of automobiles ihat were delivered by train. This is supported by the fact that some cars can be seen on the aerial photographs. You noted that in this type of operation there can be extended periods of time beriveen shipments when fhere would be only a few or no cazs on the property. You also pointed out that the lot was paved and there was no evidence, such as vegetationhveeds, that wouid normally be associated with vacant properiy. Doug Rodel, an BN employee who worked there at the time, can verify that the properiy was used in this way. � - In 1987 a new facility for receiving shipments of automobiles was opened east of do�mtown near Wamer Road. You said that at that time the use of the property changed from receiving shipments of automobiles to its current use of storing trailers used for BN's &eight faciliry. In 1987 BN's freight faciliry was considered a"railroad and ternunal &eight facility" which was a permitted use for the 6S property's I-1 wning. In 1992 the zoning code was amended to incIude a definition for "intermodal fraight facility" which requires a Special Condition Use Pemut in an I-2 zoning district. BN's . facility falls under this defuution and therefore it has been a legal nonconforcning use since 1992. T'he number of trailers stored on the property appeazs to have increased from �vhat is shown on a 1991 aerial photo and what is there now. However, this does not by itsetf constitute an expansion of a legal non conforming use. Section 62.102{d) of the zoning code says that a nonconforming use of land cannot be "extended to occupy a greater area of land" or "moved... to any other portion of the lot". Whi(e there may be more traiters stored there now, it appears that the entire pareel east of Snelling has al�vays been utilized for storage and so the extent of Iand used has not changed. 2. City records irtd"ecate that in 1982 the CiYy reqaired that 800 feet of BN's property along Pierce Bufler be screened from view. This was never done. Tn addition, the existing fence along Pierce Butler is in poor condition. The screening must be provided and the existing fence must be repaired or reptaced. This conclusion is based on the Following: - Aerizl photographs show that the eastem third of the properry was paved beh��een I977 w^d 1985. At that time the property was being used for receiving shipments of automobiles that were delivered by train. In 1982 the City issued a permit for the properry for paving and fencing. A 19821etter from BN to the Ciry about these pemuts and requirements for screening said that BN had been advised by the City that: "A variance is required to install a chain link fence in the City of St. Paui or provisions made by • the owner to provide scceening along Pierce Butler Road using plantings of some rype.... BN will conform to the ciry code requirements and provide the necessary screening of the fence along Pierce Butler Road (new portion only approximately 800 L. FJ.... A sepazate proposal will be fumished to your off:ce for approval regazding the screening." The site is not currently screened and the City has no record that show BN ecer submitted a proposat for screening or obtained a variance. - Section 34.08.5 of the Saiat Paut tegislative code requires that fences be kept in good repair. NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS As I said at the start of the letter, these conclusions ue based on City records and on information you have fiunished me. Given the neighborhood interest in BN's operations, I want to make sure that all inYerested parties have an opportunity for input before I make a fmaI determination. If you or any other interzsted party have additional informadon about the use of this properry that might be helpful, I wouid be happy to discuss it between now and November 22, 1996, ff you have any questions, please call me at 266-9086. SinceJ �G�. Tom Beach Zouing Section cc: Councilmember Megazd • Frank Wallner Andy Schneider Michael Madigan 6C Ms. Wendy Lane � Licensing and inspections/Environmentai Protection 35U SL Peter Sfreet fioom # 30d St. Paul, Minnesota 55i02 � � Oear Ms. Lane: �t��13o3 R�G�� �'E� GFF�^= ;-����, �Qlt ZZ � 03 }�( '� 4 am a member ot the HamtinelM'sdway Noise Gom+nittee which is focused on a no'sse probiem caused by 8uriington Northem's {SiV) Miciway tiub Transfer Station. i think i can speak for the Commi!#ee uvhen ! express our appreciaEion €or Tom Beech's wodc regarding the stnicture which was built at the BIV faci4ity w(thout proper City approvals. The purpose of tnis letter, however is to formatly request that the Ciry ticerising and inspections Department investigate what appears to be a sto�age ordinance viotation by BN. As you may know the SN trans�ex station is a nan-eonforming use, and as such i understand that BN cannot expand its operations. However, ifi you check the land Just east of Sne4(ing on Pierce Butter route you wil4 see that Bt� has continued to expand into this area. Observations by residents, and asrial photograph'sc evidence, clearly show that BN has expanded into this area and is using it to siore tteeir unused trailers. Pfease assign your staff to check this area aut to cfetermine: 1. If BN is expand'+ng +ts operatians in vioiation of non-conforming use cestrictions. 2. If B�! is in ufolation of applieable storage and/or screenirtg requirerr�ents. Piease note that the fence behind which the traifers are stored has been wrecked by trailers backing into them. It is very ansightly and something the neighborhood shoutd not have to put up with. P4ease do what you can to heip us resoive this issue. For your ir�fiormation, BN alsa sto�es a tat of trai6ers at the intersection ofi M7nnet�aha and Date_ tC is very unsightly and a(thaugh 1 cio not live near this area, there are newer town hornes/apartments right accoss the stseei Ptease look into the above matter at your ear(iest convenience. in your response ptease also copy Andy Schneider Comrnunity Orga�"szec; and Mike Madigan, Attocney for the Noise Committee. �7 'FE�a�k you and t I�k fonnrard to your response. t� you have any questions p{ease feeF � free to cali me at 296 7443 (1lV�, or at 646 7028 (N}. Sincer Fy, '�i /�--`�C%��G%%`�Z___ Frank X. Wailner cc: Andy Schne�der, Community Organizer f 564 t_afond Avenue St. Paui, Minnesota 55404 Michael Madigan, Attomey Johnson and Madigan 500 Saker Buitder 706 Second Avenue South Minneapotis, M9nnesota 55402 \J • �� �� � I � � O I � ���� � - l�I I � ; I = -� � � � f � I � �-'' �� � i �. 4'-7 c� � _ �� � �;-:: . , , _�: � �/ � . , _� � ,� � � ;: :� � �, � , N _ 4 � 1 ' :. � � ���_�� �. _ - . _.� �- : � � � „� . -- ' �� � . � - �,� _ o :,., T � � � ��' � 1:�_ 1 } -, , ;,, ��;, i � �' � i � i / f' €1 , t �=- � � ; �' � • I� ; �� �� �i i ' � �� � _� I �; �,\, f � � , �,: � : �.::: _ :.-�. �� � ` � r = ' I . . ,� c�C�I '` � �.--° { � ! - --� _-`-� C _ CS 0`i I ._ . i ; , �. ;' � "' � � "..' ^� � . `J . �-.� [.-`� jJ � � � I � : � �-�� - ' - i � p � o� i I; ��„ �i � Q � o �^� ' � �.<� id �, -�� ��^ u � w � _ _ � _ _ � „ i , � _�. t � 1�f-1 , � � � �.�� _-- .1 �; ._ � t , , , �. i =a � - � • " � � r _�� '� �= ��,_ :�.. -�:� _ � . __ :��.��: _ : � � �_; , , _ ' ... .. ... ..; - ... .,. - .... - _ _ .:::.. ,;� ;_._ _ . ... - .,- � ; � ... � �.. . � .... ,. �, _..._., , � _ ... ... ,, _ � � � �. _ -�� � �, ... _ _� - _ �.._. �f;E ' _ ._. � � .. T � y�:. �� � — __, � .� - . -- '-'°.. . __ � .:.. ... . _ .. -' � __ . ,- ., : . _... -- - � . . , _ .1 -' � : � n t � � . . __4, 1 � E� - 'f'_ � � ��. " .• .�..' �. -, —._: � �� �Y _ � �� r. { • , -' j , . ... �._:� ' _i t` � -� ).! . ; .f 'L_d! _'_... $=-... ` �C�� �.._... • �� �. .. . ___.� ., �_�. r . .. ._... . . � y . f _.w . � �+ _ __' ' ..__.� - _�. � ' F � _�, : .. . = . . _.�, . _ .. � : : , _•_�, __.... • � : , ----- - - = • ,....., � ; . .,_ : . , . , . , • , , . . - __. . ...} . , . � _ — _�, . ; ;I . . . , -=_ �- - = - �-��� - G C �� =� i�= � :�;: ; _'i_ •-� : i i. � � _-��=�� = ` �� �'� �;;� �.. .� � . _ . . ==;;�,_..:�= - I = � ., ; =.. �..-,__ ' `S � .��x ' i .:::: .:-, - ._ . ., ::: �� � r. -. .,` � — ; - '.j -}� � � - _ "`^ `: � - •� f ` • r' � � i � '`j' a � .. � C � s: � �:. ��'::� " \ � � ' a � �:�1 - _ i... .'•� -� � _ . i• - � �% '�tr.� � � .::.: r : ' 's - '• � I � _J�. �:_ •i :, .: __ � _ _ r � .-r •:ii:��'..�� �-.' �,.:�i. �i�� � • t . }}- . = � _' ; '- .-, �;�a �� =- ,�,-=�-�� =_ — .. -^ �� . {:. _ ; r; . -.- �-�i . . :�� s,:�� ., � • DISTRICT 11 STATE FRI2G�IlUM0.S � � � I I �. / - I� � J �� - � , :5,_:� � _ u ' 1 '_"-__ �- --___ , � '----_ � � � � ___'-;,-------- �/ , ��. � � , ,. , � --���_ ;: _� ��__ �----- a, i d ��� � �{ „,�, B`JRLIri�T04 i109iXERN R.R. - - ' � I ' I ,� �� � ' � (�`�LaOC� � � ��0� � ; � ; �, �CG , , n � -- [�� = �C�(�0 � �� � oEP�� � ���,.,�.��onn= � � Pf1iAAK� � � �0�0�� • � a �oy� .� a � -I �o3 �Ve.� o � tt � �Fast o� SMe {!t� � k�r�(� � �\ o� �luc.c. (iu'�le piNLEiIC FIElO � �IT�-_ `�C7`��i� _-. �OC�C�o�� --- �L�'�C� ❑��a°o aooc�o 00000 00000 00000 �0000 C �� �r ■ SPENCE, RICKE & THURMER, P.A. 5uite 600, Degree of Honor Building 325 Cedzr Sffeet, St Paul, Minnesota 55101 612-223-8000 Fax 612-223-8003 Glem OlandervQuamme Direct DiaL' (612) 292-3359 August 5, 1997 City Council City of St. Paul c/o Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310, City Hall St. Paul, MN 55102 ���-� S � `�?�'� � � � - R �.,-��,.� THOMAS W SPENCE NLNS W ERNES Adm�eedinMN,W[ Admit[edivhIIV,WI MEGAN K RICKE GLENN OLANDER-QUAtvLME. Admifced'm MN, WI AdmiaeA m K^i, M SUSAN D. THURMER DIANE P. GERTH Admivcd in hPv. M. FL Admiaed w�1N, M ALFONSE J. COCCHIARELLA TIMOTHY K. MASTERSON Adm�tled �n hLV. Wf Adauved in!rLY PATRICK i SWEENEY wam�a ��, cn, co T'ERRIE J. WII,LIAMS VIA Re: Zoning File lt9-192 (Wallner(Burlington Northern) Burlington Northern Midway Hub Zoning Appeal of Frank X. Wallner City Council Hearing Dnte: Wednesday, August 6, 1997 Our File 0514 To the Honorable Members of the St. Paul City Council: KERRY S. BURT SHARIA WII,LIAMS CHERYL W TECHAR HbLEN A. ROEN SHARON L. TAYLOR ramlegals I represent The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF), formerly known as Burlington Northern Railroad Company (B1V). BNSF owns a railroad facility located northerly of Pierce Butler Route from east of Snelling Avenue to approximately Prior Avenue. That facility is currenUy known as the Midway Tntermodal Hub (the Hub). The Hub is an intermodal facility where semi-trailers and freight containers are loaded and unioaded from trucks to railcars and from railcars to trucks. The major portion of the operation, where the loading and unloading occurs, is located west of Snelling Avenue. Frank X. Wallner has filed a zoning appeal challenging BNSF's use of an approximately six acre parcel (the Parking Area) located along Pierce Butier Route east of Snelling. BNSF uses that parcel for the parking of empty semi-trailers, pending pickup by truck. Mr. Wallner challenges BNSF's use of the Parking Area on three grounds: �� He contends that the trailers are stored, not parked. He contends that the use of the Parking Area for trailer parking is not a legal nancanforming use. C �1- . He contends that the use of the Parking Area for trailer parking is an expansion of the Hub facility for which no environmental review process was compieted. Mr. Wallner's appeal was initially heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals (the Board). On 7une 6, 1997, the Boazd rejected Mr. Waliner's appeal in its entirety. Mr. Wallner subsequenfly filed this appeai, in which he petitions the Council to overturn the Board's decision. BNSF will briefly address each of Mr. Waliner's contentions. I. THE PARKING AREA IS USED ROR PARKING OF TRAILERS, NOT STORAGE By letter dated Febniary 27, 1997, the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) made the following determinations: (i) that the temporary placement of trailers which are used on a weekly basis constitutes parking as opposed to storage; (ii) that the trailers in the Parking Area are generally used on a weekly basis; and (iii) that such trailers are therefore parked rather than stored "and may therefore stay on the property." LIEP acts as the City's zoning administrator. (Zoning Code § 64.100.) T'he Hub property is zoned as an I-1 Industrial District. In an I-1 district, outdoor storage is permitted subject to certain conditions, one of which is that "outdoor storage shall be no closer than three hundred (300) feet to a residential district." It appears that all or substantially al] of the Parking Area is within 300 feet of an RT-1 residenfial district. Mr. Wallner contends that BNSF uses the Parking Area for "storage" of the trailers, hence that the use is not permissible for those portions of the Parking Area located within 300 feet of the RT-1 residential district. The zoning adminisuator's investigation revealed that the trailers placed in the Parldng Area aze typically used at least once a week and that the placement of the trailers in the Pazldng Area for a week or less constitutes parking rather than storage. The administrator therefore conciuded that the Parking Area did not trigger the 300 foot setback requirements for outdoor storage. The administrator's decision was based on the administrator's investigation of BNSF's use of the Parking Area and a carefully reasoned legal opinion from the Office of the City Attorney (the OCA), a copy of which was attached to the zoning administrator's decision. The OCA opinion, authored by Assistant City Attomey Peter W. Wamer, reasoned that there is a legal difference between parking and storage, with the former connoring a more transient form of use 1 The Zoning Map is not entirely clear as to the location of the dividing line between the RT-1 district and the I-1 dis[rict, uor is it entirely clear as to the location of the Pazking Area. Furthermore, the Zoning Map sbows a small B-1 business district bordering a poRion of che I-1 district. A survey would be required to detemune whether all of the Parking Area is within 300 feet of the RT-1 disirict. 2 �� ���0� and the latter a more permanent form of use. Mr. Warner further reasoned that the Zoning Code's definition of storage provides a useful bright line distincfion between parldng and storage, with storage being defined with reference to items not used on a weekly basis. He therefore concluded that the temporary placement of trailers for seven days orless constitutes parking. In his notice of appeal to the Council, Mr. Waliner refers to evidence that trailers aze in place west of Snelling Avenue for more than a week. That evidence is irrelevant to the Pazlang Area, which is located east of Snelling Avenue. Mr. Wallner also asserts that his personal observations show that some trailers east of Snelling were in place for more than a week. Mr. Wallner had ampie opportunity to present such evidence to the Boazd. He failed to present any credible evidence to support his assertion. This is an appeal of the Board's decision. Mr. Wallner should not be permitted to submit new evidence at this time. Moreover, even assuming for the sake of argument that Mr. Wallner were able to demonstrate that a parkicular trailer was not used within a week, the evidence would at most show a violation with respect to that trailer. Such a violation would not invalidate the use of the Parking Area for trailer pazking. The zoning administrator's investigation and the OCA opinion provide ample justification for the zoning administrator's decision, and Mr. Wallner has offered no factual or legal basis for overturning that decision. The Board correctly denied Mr. Wailner's appeal as to this issue, and the Council should affirm the Board's decision. II. TFTE COUNCIL SHOULD AFFIRM THE BOARD'S REJECTION OF MK. WALLNER'S NONCONFORMING USE ARGUMENT 1. Mr Wallner's "Apneal" of the Nonconforming Use Tssue is Procedurally Imoroper and Must Be Rejected. Pursuant to the Zoning Code, the Board "shall have the power to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged by the appellant that there is an error in any order, requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by the zoning administrator ...." (Zoning Code at § 64.204(a).) An appeal "may be taken by any person ... affected by a decision of the zoning administrator ... within thirty (30) days after the decision appealed from shall have been served either in person or by mail upon the owner of the property which is the subject matter of the decision ...." (Id. at § 64.204(c).) Mr. Waliner contends that the use of the Parking Area constitutes an illegal nonconforming use. The February 27 letter from LIEP addressed the issue of parking versus storage but did not specifically address the issue of nonconforming use. BN5F submits that the nonconforming use issue was decided by LIEP in its letter of October 28, 1996. If BNSF is correct, Mr. Wailner's appeal to the Board was 3 a�..��03 untimely, since it was not brought within the 30-day period specified in the Zoning Code. Id. If the nonconforming use issue was not decided by the October 28, 1996 letter, then LIEP has never made a formal decision on that issue. If so, Mr. Wallner's appeal is improper because there is no decision of the zoning administrator from which to avoeal. (Id. at § 60.204(a),(c).) Thus, Mr. Wallner's appeal is either too late (because it is in effect an appeal from a decision made in October of last year) or too early (because it purports to "appeai" from a decision that has yet to be made by the zoning administrator). In either case, the so-called "appeal" is procedurely improper. 2. The Use of the Parking Area for Trailer Parldng is a Legal NonconforminQ Use. One of the permitted uses in an I-1 Industrial District is "[r]ailroad and terminal freight facilities." (Zoning Code § 60.612(11).) Prior to 1992, intermodal facilities such as the Hub were considered railroad and terminal freight facilities and were therefore a permitted use on the Hub property. That changed in 1992, when special zoning for "intermodal freight yazds" was added to the Zoning Code. (Id. at § 60.209.) Under the current version of the Zoning Code, the Hub is an "intermodal freight yard." Such faciliues are allowed as a special use in I-2 Industrial Districts (id. at § 60.624(16)) and, by implication, are no longer permitted in I-1 Industrial Districts. Thus, the creation of special zoning for "intermodal freight yards" changed the status of the Hub operation from a permitted use to a legal nonconforming use. (E.e., id. ak § 62.102(a); Board of Zoning Appeals Staff Report a[ p. 2.) The Pazking Area has been used to park trailers since the late 1980s -- prior to the "intermodal freight yard" amendments to the Zoning Code. Moreover, the photographic evidence (e.g., aerial photograph dated April, 1991, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A) shows that the endre Parking Area was paved and in use for trailer parking prior to the "intermodal freight yard" amendments. (Accord Board of Zoning Appeals Staff Report at p. 4.) Since there has been no further expansion of the Parldng Area, the use of the entire Parking Area for trailer parking remains a legal nonconforming use. Mr. Wallner contends that a November 13, 1987 letter (the 11/13/87 Lztter) from the zoning administrator to BN shows that the use of the Parking Area would not have been a legal use in 198'7, hence that its current use is not a legal nonconforming use. At the ume of the 11/13/87 Letter, the zoning adminisuator was operating on the enoneous 2 Zoning Code § 62.102(d)(1) ("A nonconforming use may con[inue"). See aiso id. at § 62.102(d)(2) ("A nonconforming use shall not be ... extendecl to occupy a greater area of land than was occupied at the effective date of ... amendment of this code"). � belief that BN's proposed use was "storage." That enor has now been conected. Moreover, the 11/13/87 Letter pertains to the area west of Snelling, whereas the Parldng Area is located east of Snelling. Accordingly, the ii/13l87 Letter is not relevant to this proceeding. The record is clear that BN and BNSF have continuously and legally used the Parldng Area for trailer parkin� (not storage) since prior to the 1992 amendments that made that use nonconforming. III. TI3E COUNCIL SHOULD AFFIIiM THE BOARD'S REJECTION OF NIIi. WALLNER'S EAW ARGUMENT 1. Mr Wallner's "A�peal" of the EAW Issue is Procedurally Improper and Must Be Rejected. Mr. Wallner's appeal was triggered by the February 27 letter from LIEP to BNSF. That letter does not mention the EAW, much less make any decision or determination with respect to same. Mr. Wallner has not identified any "order, requirement, permit, decision or refusal" of the zoning administrator from which an appeal of the EAW issue may be taken. I3is so-called "appeal" is not an appeal at all, and the Boazd rightfully declined to consider it. 2. The EAW is Irrelevant to the Use of the Parkin Area for Trailer Parkine. At the hearing before the Board, Mr. Wallner presented selected pages from the EAW in an attempt to support his so-called "appeal." BNSF has now located a complete copy of the EAW, and it is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The EAW was prepared in conjunction with a BNSF proposal to expand and restructure the Hub facility. That proposal was subsequently dropped. The EAW did not address the use of the Pazking Area for trailer parking. To the contrary, it contempiated that the Parldng Area would be the primary entrance to the Hub Facility. (See EAW at pp. 2("A main entrance will be built in the easterly section of the site"), 8("The cunent proposal has moved the main entrance and the entrance roadway to the easterly section of the site, east of Snelling Avenue"), 12 and attachment 4.b.3 (showing the proposed entrance area east of Snelling Avenue).) The EAW is simpiy not relevant to the use of the Pazking Area for trailer pazldng. 3 The 11/13/87 I,etter identifies the property as "North Side Pierce Butler Route West of Snelling." ° Zouing Code § 64.204(a). F7 a� _ ��o� CONCLUSIONS Mr. Wallner's appeal is without merit and should be rejected in its enurety. Of the three issues raised by Mr. Wallner, only one (i.e., the parldng/storage issue) is a timely appeal from a decision of the zoning administrator. The other two issues (i.e_, the nonconforming use and EAW issues) are not proper issues on appeal, either because they are untimely or because they do not chalienge any action or determination of the zoning administrator. Mr. Wallner's appeal of the parking/storage issue fails on the merits. The zoning administrator correcdy concluded, on the basis of its investigation and an opinion from the Office of the City Attorney, that BNSF's use of the Parking Area constitutes parking, not storage, hence that the 300-foot setback requirement for outdoor storage is inapplicable. Mr. Wallner has failed to articulate any rationale for overtuming that decision. With respect to the nonconforming use issue, the record demonstrates that the Pazking Area was paved and in use for trailer parking prior to the 1992 amendments to the Zoning Code. When those amendments were promulgated, the use of the Pazking Area for trailer parking became a legal nonconforming use -- a status which it retains to this day. The EAW "issue" is a non-issue, in that it is premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of the scope and purpose of the EAW. The EAW is absolutely irrelevant to the use of the Parking Area for trailer parking. Sincerely, G� Glenn Olander-Quamme GOQ/llb/midway/citycoun cc: (w/enc.) Tom Beach (LIEP) (via messenger) Peter W. Warner, Esq. (Office of the City Attorney) (via messenger) Dennis W. Wilson, Esq. Richard L. Ebel Ray Robinson Michael L. Burke John Ackerman Brian J. Sweeney � �� �-: : -, = ;�- } �; �;� � • � ,� �: : _ E.R.#(FIIS,ED ZN BY EQB) E2'�IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORRSHEET (EAW) Regular EAW X Scoping EAW 5/31/88 ��—'��� NOTE TO kEVIEWERS: For regular EAWs, written ccnrnents shouZd address the accuracy a*±d completeness of the EAW information, potential itRpacts tnat may warrant investigation and/or tne need for an EZS. For scoping EAWs, written comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the information and suggesc issues for investigation in the EZS. Such conraents must be submit�ed to the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) durzng the 30-day period following notice of the availability in the EQB Monitor. Contact the EQB (metro: 622/296-8253; non-metro 2-800-b52-9747, astc for environmental review program) or the RG'IT to find out when the 30-day comment period ends. 1 P.] fc3 4 Project Name: ProjecL Proposer Contact Person: Address: Phone: RGU: Buriington Northern Midway Hub Facility Burlington Northern Railroad Douglas M. Northup Twin Cities Region, 176 E. Sth St. P.O. Box b4960, St. Paul, MN 55364 612-298-7666 City of St. Paul Contact Person: Donna L. Datsko Tit1e: City Planner II Address: 25 West 4th St., I100 City Hall Annex St. Paul, MN 55102 Phone: 612-228-3395 Project Location: SW1/4 Sec.28, T.29N, R.23W A. County Name: Ramsey City or Township: St. Paul B. Copies of the Following Maps Appear as Attachments: 1. a county map showing the geneYal area of the project 2. a copy(ies) of USGS 7 1/2 minute, 1:24,000 scale map 3. a site plan showing signi£icant features such as proposed structures, roads, extent of floodplain, wetlands, wells, etc. 4. an existing land use map and a zoning map of the immediate area. EXHIBIT B 2 5. Describe the proposed project completeZp. ��"��� The total project area is about 53 acres_ The project area can he divided into two sections, the section east of Snelling Avenue and the section west of Snelling Avenue; the project is shown on the site plan, Attachment 4.B.3. The two areas are joined under the Snelling Avenue overpass, just south of the BN sain line tracks. The westerly section is about 49.1 acres and is bounded on the east by the west right-o£-way line of Snelling Avenue and on the north from the most southerly through-railroad track. The south boundary is at the property line and the north right-o£-way line of Pierce Butler Route. On the west, the project boundary follows the limits of developable land near the top of the bank surrounding the BN pond. The easterly section is triangular-shaped area about 4.3 acres; it is a£lat paved area now vacant but formerly used as a new automobile unloading area. It runs between the Snelling Avenue sight-of-way on the west, the northerly right-of-way line of Pierce Butler Route and the BN main line tracks. The operation of the expanded facility will be identical to the current facility but at an incxeased capacity. Trains with flat cars cazrying trailers and containers are received from the Seattle and Chicago regions. The trailers are unloaded from the train's cars by large diesel powered vehic3es called piggy packers. The piggy packers work alone or in pairs and typically can load 24 units in a two hour period. Hostler tractors reposition the trailers and containers on �he site until semi-trucks arrive to haul them away. Ten jobs will be added to the 24 hour period total, increasing the complement to 60 workers. The paved area of the site will increase from 12 acres to 47.4 acres. An area about .8 acres will remain gravel but will be used as the area for washing packers and as a"safe haven" (a "safe haven" is a four foot deep pit with an impervious liner used to contain any spillage from a leaking container or trailer, see item No. 24.) A 5.2 acre landscaped area will be installed. The dimensions of the BN pond, just west of the project area, will remain unchanged, 18.2 acres. With the expanded paved asea the number o£ trailer spaces on the lot will increase £rom about 540 to 1144 spaces, auto parking will increase from 30 to 50 spaces, hostler and packer parking will be provided at the rate o£ six and three spaces respectively. A main entrance will be built in the easterly section of the site and an entrance road will run north and parallel to the Pierce Butler Route. The entrance road will have three in-bound and one out-bound traffic lanes. A control booth used for checking and inspecting trucks entering and leaving the site and a small support office wili be constructed in this area. All trucks dropping off or picking up trailers or containers will have to use this main entrance and will pass under the Snelling Avenue overpass to the facility's main storage area. Some tracks will be repositioned to accommodate truck movements from one section of the £acility to the other section. � �� -��'3 The westerly, and main area o£ the development, will contain all the spaces for trailer and container storage. Three spur tracks will swing south into this area and xun paiallel from the main line into the site. Another txack will be relocated about two feet south of its existing location at the rorth edge of the site. A small maintenance building will be constructed and an existing small office will remain. Access to the o£fice and maintenance buildiags wiil be £rom the existing curb cut on Pierce Butler Road. 6. Reason for Assessment: Discretionary List all mandatory category rule :'s which apply: Mtv' Rules Ch 4410.1000 7. Estimated Construction Costs: $9,854,000 8. Tota1 Project Area: 53.4 (acres), or length (miles) N/A 0 10 E�1 Number of rasidential units: 0 or commerczal, industriaZ, or institutionaZ square footage: 9,800 sq. ft. o£ new structures Number of proposed parking spaces: storage spaces for 1149 trailers, 50 automobiles, 6 hostlers, 3 piggy packers List a1I Imown local, state and federal permits/approvals/funding required: Level of Govexnment: Tyne of Application: Status• Federal: None State: PCA Local: City of St Storage Tank Permit Future Paul Administrative Review Pending Site Plan Review Pending Building Permit Future 12. Is the proposed project inconsistent with the Iocal adopted comprehensive Zand use plan or any other adopted pZans? Zf pes, explain: X No Yes The city of St. Paul Land Use element of the Comprehensive Plan (dated November 20, 1980) states as policy 4.6-2 that "the city will encourage, through zoning, careful site plan review, and judicious use of its £iscal and nonfiscal development incentives, the use of industriallp zoned land ad�acent to railroads for rail-related activities." The plan also acknowledges that trailer-on-flat-car operations are a large part of the railroad freight hauling business and that "while this type of labor-extensive use will not usually be encouraged by the city, the continuance of this type of business is vital to the future o£ railroads and is keeping with the city's goal of energy efficiency." The Land Use Plan element also includes the area of the proposed expansion in a larger section o£ the (then) proposed Enexgy Park and designates the larger area as appropriate for a new employment/housing cluster development. The . Pinal adopted Energy Park Master Plan (dated October, 1981) does not include the BN trailer-on-£lat-car area as part o£ the Energy Park project. � The District 11 component o£ the Comprehensive Plan (dated October 4, 1979) identifies the proposed development area as future use for Burlington Northern Railroad/industry. The District Plan also acknowledges the importance of retaining the stor'm water ponding capabilities of the BN pond and recommends that the immediate area surrounding the pond be acquired and developed as park space. The Parks and Recreation component of the Comprehensive Plan (dated March 21, 1985) does not include any reference to developing the BN pond area as park space however. 13. Descr*_be current and recent pasC area Zand uses and deveZopment on and near the site: Accoxding to information provided by the proposer, prior to the mid-1950s the property was used as an icing £acility. Railroad cars carrying fresh produce were brought to the area and ice was added to the cars for cooling the produce. From about mid-1960 to 1974, Western Fruit Express, a subsidiary o£ the Great Northern Railroad, used this site as a railroad car cleaning facility. oi � ' ��03 Since 1974, Burlington Northern Railroad has operated a piggyback intermodal system at its Midway Hub Facility. This system involves the transfer of truck trailers and containers from railroad flat cars to a storage area for eventual pick up by semi-trucks. I.arge, diesel powered, rubber wheeled piggypacker vehicles circulate within the track area loading and unloading the trailers and containers from the flat cars to the lot. Hostler vehicles reposition the trailers on the lot prior to pick up. The facility operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week and employs 50 people during a 24 hour period. Approximately 12 acres of the total site is paved; the remainder is unpaved and covexed with gravel (29.6 acres) or undeveloped {11.7 acres). In the westerly section of the site are spaces for about 540 trailers, hostlers and packers and 30 spaces £or automobiles. Two parallel tracks now run just south o£ the main BN line and provide access to the £lat cars carrying the trailers. One smail o£fice building is located in the south central area of the site. The easterly section of the site is an unused paved area. It was formerly the site £or unloading new automobiles £oY metro-wide delivery. That operation was moved to a larger site near Pigs Eye in 1987. 14. Approximately how many acres of the site are in each of the following categories? (Acreages should add up to total project area before and after construction.) Before After F'orest wooded Cropland [�] 0 Wetland (types 3-8) 0 Impervious Surface 0 Other: (specify) gravelfdirt landscaped � Brush grassland 11.7 (this area includes some trees) Before After 0 0 12.1 47.4 29_6 .8 0 5.2 The dimensions of the BN pond, a type 5 wetland, will not change and it is thez'efore considered outside of the development area. � 15. Describe the sofls on the site, giving the SCS soiZ classification n ,�� types, if Imown: � (� According to the Soi1 Survev o£ Washin�ton and Ramsev Counties Minnesota, the area o£ development includes the following soil classifications: Chetek sandy loam, Udarthents (wet substratum), Urban Land and Mahtomedi, loamy sand. In August, 1986, Twin City Testing completed 30 hand auger borings of the site and found the general soil profile to be as £ollows: "At these locations, tha soil profile consists of roughly 3" to b" of base material overlying natural clayey sand/sandy lean clay giacial till. The base material does not have a high content o£ gravel and the coarse aggregate within the base is not a crushed material. The underlying glacial till appears to be in a relatively stiff condition, except within the upper several inches where disturbance is apparent. The stiffer, undisturbed till does not appear to have an overly high moisture content. For the most part, the glacial till appears to be a reasonably stable subgrade material." 16. Dces the site contain peat soils, highly erodibZe soiZs, steep slopes, sinkholes, shalZow Zimestone formatfons, abandoned we1Zs, or any geo3ogic hazards? If pes, show on site map and explain: X No Yes 17. The approximate depth (in feetj to: a. groundwater 14' Min. 20' Avg. b, bedrock 150' Min. 165' Avg. 18. Does any part of Che project area involve: a. Shoreland zoning district? X No Yes b. Delineated 1Q0 year floodplain? X No Yes c. State or federally designated rivex land use distxict? X No Yes If yes, identi£y water body and applicable classification(s) and describe measures to protect water and related land resources. 19. Describe any physical alteration e.g., dikes, excavation, fi3l, stream diversions of any drainage system, Zake, stream, and or wetZand. Describe measures to minimize impairment of the water-reZated resources. Estimate quantity of material to be dredged and indicate where spoiZs wi1Z be deposited. No dikes, excavation, fill or stream diversions will occur with this development. 0 20. A. WiZ1 the project require an appropriation of ground or surface Q � water? If yes, explain (indicate quantity and souzce): n/��,� —� 1 No X Yes B. IJiZ1 the project affect groundwater ZeveZs in any we11s (on or off the site)? If yes, explain: No X Yes 21 Describe the erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after construction of the project. The control o£ erosion will not be a significant pxoblem because of the flat terrain on the site. During construction, the contractor will be required to provide temporary erosion control measures as necessary to prevent silt from entering the city storm sewer system, the ditch along Pierce Butler Route or the BN pond. Bale checks will be used around unfinished storm sewer inlets where erosion is potential problem. Earth berms are proposed between Pierce Butler Route and the westerly area of the site. Silt fence will be used as necessary at the toe of the berms to prevent silt £rom eroding into the ditch along Pierce Butler Route. The silt fence would remain in place until a turf cover is established on the berm slope. After construction the entire project will have a non-erodable cover -- pavement, tur£, or landscaping treatments. 22. A. WiZ1 the project generate: 1. Surface and stormwater runoff? 2. Sanitary wastewater? 3. Industrial wastewater? 4. Cooling water (contact and noncontact)? No X Yes No X Yes X No Yes X No Yes If yes, identify sources, volumes, quality (i£ other than normal domestic sewage), and treatment methods. Give the basis or methodology of estimates. A.l Surface and stormwater runoff. Calculations which follow detail the activity at the western, and major area of the development pxoposal. Stormwater runoff £ram the site will be from 43.2 acres of pavement and roof area and 6.0 acres o£ unpaved area. The esti.mated stormwater runoff from this site during a 100 year storm event is a 20.77 acre-£eet during a 24 hour period. The maximum rate of discharge from the site is 219 cubic feet per second. See the Attachment 22.A.2, Stormwater Management Plan. � A.2. Sanitary wastewater. q�-t�S� Normal domestic sanitary sewage is expected to be generated from the new and existing office buildings. The existing sanitary sewer service line will be used to serve both buildings. The estimated waste water from these two buildings is as follows: Estimated Wastewater Discharge Existing office building 50 employee x 20 gal/day/emp Proposed new office building 10 employees x 40 gal/day/emp Total = 1,Q00 gslfday 400 �al/dav 1,400 gal/day B. Identify receiving waCers, including groundwater, and evaivate the impacts of the discharges Zisted above. If discharges to groundwater are anticipated, provide percaZation permeability and other hydrogeological test data, if available. Stoxmwater xunoff wi11 discharge to the BN pond. The quality of this runoff will be better than typical urban stormwater runoff because the amount of sediments, fertilizers and de-icing chemicals are all expected to be much less than is typical for urban stormwater. There is no apparent outfall £rom the BN pond in working condition now. The proposer plans to to provide an easement across railroad property that would permit the city to construct an outfall pipe £rom the pond to the storm sewer at Energy Park Drive to the north. This pipe would be sized to accommodate the discharge from the BN site plus £lows Prom other sources that discharge into the BN pond. City policy limits the peak stormwater discharge rate to 1.64 cubic feet per second per acre of site. Based on this policy, discharge from the BN site must not exceed 80.7 cfs (49.2 x 1.64 = 80.7). Runof£ £rom the BN site exceeding a discharge rate of 80.7 cfs would be retained in the BN pond. Based on hydrologic calculations, the maximum storage in the pond would be 230,000 cubic feet. This volume would raise the water level in the pond 0.29 feet. The peak storage requirement would be met after a 35 minute rain. After that, allowable discharge from the pond would exceed the runoff into the pond and the pond water elevation would begin to recede. After approximately 2 hours, the pond would return to normal water levels. According to a study conducted by Pace Laboratories, Inc., "Stormwater Quality Znvestigation - Burlington Northern Midway Hub Center", dated March 10, 1988, and submitted as Attachment 22.B, a positive net impact may result in the BN pond storm water quality in reiation to oil and grease. Now the facility operators apply clazified oil to the rail yard as a dust suppressent during the summer and fall mon.ths. According to 1987 records, 19,600 gallons of clarified oil were used to suppress the dust in the rail yard. Some of this oil was carried with stormwater runo£f into the BN pond. With the proposed improvement and paving, the need for oil as a dust suppressent will be eliminated. � Another possible source of oil and grease would be from leaking semi- ��� tractors or maintenance vehicles. This amount should be equal to or less than levels associated with typical urban runoff according to the Pace Report. Estimates for concentrations o£ sodium and chloride in snowmelt runoff as a result of salting operations in the rail yard were £ound to be substantially lower than those concentrations found in typical uiban highway snowmelt runoff. Sand applications during the winter months are not expected to have significant wate= quality impacts aceording to the Pace study. 23. Wi11 the project generate (either during or after construction): A. Air pollution? No X Yes B. Dust? No X Yes C. Noise? No X Yes D. Odors? No X Yes I£ yes, explain, including as appropxiate distances to sensitive land uses; expected levels and duration of noise; types and quantities of air pollutants from stacks, mobile sources, and fugitive emissions (dust), odor sources; and mitigative measures for any impacts. Give the basis or methodology o£ estimates. A. Air pollution. David Braslau and Associates, Inc, analyzed the air quality impact o£ the proposed development using the MOBILE 3 mobile source emissions model and HIWAY 2 dispersion model; the "Noise and Air Quality Report" dated March 27, 1988 is included as Attachment 23. When this study was conducted, BN planned to solely use the westerly site for all expansion activity, from Snelling Avenue on the east to the BN pond on the west, Therefore some references within the text may not accurately re£lect the current proposal which has moved the main entrance and the entrance roadway to the easterly section of the site, east of Snelling Avenue. However, the conclusions remain valid because moving the entrance way was recommended as a noise and air quality mitigative development option within the report. In addition, the receptor site on Fairview Avenue (the Yesidence referenced in the report from which measurements were made) is closer to the potential queue of waiting trucks than is any residential xeceptor at the new entrance location. The primary air pollution concern from truck activity on site is from (1)the potential queue of vehicles waiting along the new entrance check- in and {2)off-site Cruck activity at the entrance roadway. The pollutant of primary interest for which estimates can be made is hydrocarbons, a primary contributor to diesel odors. According to the $raslau report, no adverse impacts to sensitive land uses from vehicle emissions are anticipated for the parameters oE hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide, based on measurements of current activity and models of future activity at the site. From a receptor 30 meters to the south, the closest sensitive land use, vehicie air emissions ali fall belom the levels established in the Iiinnesota Ambient Air Quality Standards. 0 The Braslau study also considered the potential impacts of increased �, truck traffic at the Snelling and University Avenue intersection. This intersection has registered the highest carbon monoxide levels in the Twin Cities area. The study states that while heavy trucks associated with the BN facility could make up 20 percent of the hourly truck trips passing north and south through the intersection both now and in the year 2000, the number of vehicles or 1eve1 of traffic is within Lhe margin of error of any air quality model (9 trucks out of 46 trucks each houx projected £or the year 200� coming into inte�section from south approach). Therefore the impacts of traffic to and from the the BN facility through this intersection cannot be modeled and are insigni£icant. B. Dust. As the majority of the land now used for parking, storing and access is unpaved, paving these areas as proposed will reduce the amount of dust generated on-site, particularly during the summer and £all months. Dust from construction activities will be controlled. The contractor will use the application o£ water and other appropriate dust suppression measures as necessary to comply with the Minnesota Rule 7005..550 on prevention o£ particulate matter from becoming airborne. C. Noise. There are two primary sources oP noise associated with this proposal - traf£ic noise and equipment noise. Traffic Noise: A detailed 24 hour traffic count was made by TKDA and Associates, Inc. on February 18, 1988. These counts provided information not only on tra£fic along PieYCe Butler Route, but showed the direction of travel both of passing traffic and traffic going to and from the BN facility. These counts were used by David Braslau and Associates, Inc. to model traffic noise levels at sensitive receptor sites along Piezce Butler Route with and without the current £acility and with the new facility in place. The study indicates that at the closest receptor site to the Pierce Butler Route, about 22 meters at 917 Aldine, both daytime and nighttime state noise standards are exceeded. However, when current traffic noise levels are compared with levels that would would be expected in the future with an expanded hub facility, the difference is less than 1 dBA. The study concludes that the new facility will have an insignificant impact on noise levels near the site. Equipment Noise: Equipment noise levels were modeled using the octave band data, IVIE Sound Spectrvm Analyzer. The model takes into account attenuation with distance and atmospheric absorption. 10 The study calibrated traffic and piggy packer noise levels £or various 7 operation levels at the site. Worst-case estimated noise levels based '�� on operations closest to the sensitive receptor sites were established. �� � The study determined that while hostler tractors produce noise similar to that of the packers, their use is more intermittent and they are often shielded by the rows of trailers and containers and therefore their use was not factored into this analysis. With the simultaneous mufflers (these have Aldine receptor (308 type of operation. operation of two packers with new sound shielding recently been installed) on the rail nearest the feet), noise standards would be exceeded by any With the operation of packexs having the new mu£flers and working at the middle rail, noise standards likely would not exceeded. Operation of one packer at the nearest rail and one at the middle rail would exceed the noise standards. A 5 dBA reduction in the equipment could a11ow a single packer to operate on this raii during the nighttime hours without violating the standard. The operation of two packers with new mufflers at the northerly track would not exceed noise level standards. Impact noise from bouncing and parking trailers and containers may also contribute to the noise generated on-site. Uneven gravel surfaces and uneven rail crossings cause the jostiing of trailers and containera, which when empty are especially noisy. Paving the surface and rebuilding the rail crossings will reduce this type of equipment noise. D. Odors. No specific data on odor thresholds for diesel-type emissions are available. The study established an approximate threshold value for hydrocarbons of 0.1 ppm. The Minnesota Ambient Air Quality Standards for hydrocarbons are 0.24 ppm for a 3-hour period. The predicted truck hydrocarbon levels at the closest receptor site at Fairview Avenue, 30 meters south of the BN entrance, was .015 ppm. 24. Describe the type and amount of so�id or hazardous waste incZuding sludges and ashes that wi11 be generated and the method and Zocation of disposaZ. No solid or hazardous waste will be generated at this site. According to the hub facility manager, less than 5 percent of the containers or trailers being transported through the yard contain any hazardous material. Of those hazardous materials brought through the yard, the largest containers are 55 gallon drums. There are no tanker-type rail cars brought through this facility. The facility now provides a waste containment site for any potential hazardous waste spills. The expanded Pacility will have a pit or "safe haven" which will be about Pour feet deep and lined with an impervious material to contain any spiil and prevent it from reaching the BN pond. In case of a very sudden spill in which hazardous material reaches the storm sewer system, there would be opportunity to block the storm sewer ii system downstream, thereby preventing the spill from reaching the pond. The spilled material would then be removed from the storm sewer by �� ����� pumping. Attachment 24 contains the "Hazardous Material Emergency Response Y1an" for the hub facility. The hub facility has three above-ground storage tanks for diesel fuel. The tanks can store approximately 200 gallons each and are located outdoors without any spill containment provisions. Minnesota state rules require a permit for above-ground storage tanks and a containment area with a leak or spi11 holding capacity of the largest tank plus at least one foot of freeboard. 25. Wi11 the project affect: a. Fish or wildlife habitat, or movement of animals? b. Any native species that are officially listed as state endangered, threatened, and o£ special concern (animals and/or plants? No �_Yes X No Yes Zf yes, explain, identify species and describe impact. The impact on wildlife in this area will be confined to the loss of grassland areas to paved or landscaped areas. The BN pond will not be altered by the development proposal and should continue as a brood rearing site for ducks and other wetland birds. Railroad corridors have traditionally been habitats for mammals such as £ox and for species o£ birds such as red wing blackbirds who nest and forage in adjacent woody axeas. With the recent reintroduction of peregrine falcons to the T�in Cities area, the BN pond site and surrounding environs may lie within the falcon feeding range. See Attachment 25.B.for the DNR Response on endangered species in the area. 26. Do anp historicaZ, archaeological or architectural resources exist on or near the project site? Zf yes, explain {show resources on a site map and describe impact). X No Yes The Minnesota Historical Society has reviewed the project location and has determined that "no known sites of historic, architectural, cultural, archaeological, or engineering significance (lie) within the area of the proposed project. There are no sites in the project area which are on the National Register." See Attachment 26. 27, Will the project cause the fmpairment or destruction of: a. Designated park or recreation areas? x No Yes b. Prime or unique farmlands? X No Yes c. Ecologically sensitive areas? X No Yes d. Scenic views and vistas? X No Yes e. Other unique resources (specify)? X No Yes 12 At the present time trucks enter and exit the hub yard and queue in an ,0� area which is directly across from the neighborhood Newell Park. The q�1�� proposal to move the main entrance to the easterly section o£ the project area would eliminate this situation. Automobiles would still enter in this area however. 28. For each affected road indicate the current average dai3y traffic (ADT), increase in ADT contributed by the project and the directionaZ distribu[ion of traffic. Pierce Butler Route: Between Prior and Snelling 10,800 ADT(S/86) Between Snelling and Hamline 8,625 ADT(9/86) Snelling Avenue: At the Pierce Butler Route 30,125 ADT(9/83) The average daily truck trips for the week days is 427. The proposer states that average daily truck traffic will increase to 700 trips per day and that othes trips will increase to 250 trips per day £or a total of 1050 ADT for the hub facility. This represents 525 trips into and out of the facility. According to hub records for the week of September 20-26, 1987, 70 to 79 percent of all truck activity at the site occurs between the hours o£ 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. A traffic count taken November 4, 1987, taken between these hours established the directional distribution o£ the trips as shown below: To or from the East To or £rom the West Truck trips 52� 48$ Non-truck (auto, pickups, vans) 678 33� Additional traf£ic in£ormation including counts and distributional directions are included in the "Noise and Air Quality Report" compiled by David Braslau and Associates, Inc. and included here as Attachment 23. 29. Are adequate utflities and public services now avai2able to service the project7 If not, what additional utilities and or services wi1Z be required? No X Yes SUMMARY OF ISSUES For regular EAWs, list the issues as identified by "yes" answers above. Discuss alternatives and mitigative measures for these issues. For scoping EAWs, list known issues, alternatives, and mitigative measures to be addressed in EIS. Sur£ace and Stormwater Imnacts The stoxmwater management plan proposes to convey the stormwater runo£f in a storm sewer system from the site to the city drainage system on the south side of the site. Tt�o storm sewers from the facility would drain to the city storm sewer along Pierce Butler Route, four other on-site storm sewers would drain to the city ditch and two other on-site storm sewers would drain directly to 13 the BN pond. An on-site drainage plan was submitted by the project proposer and was reviewed by the city's Public Works' Sewer Design Division. Public �� .1� Works has agreed with the concept of the plan but approval will be in conjunction with final site plan approvai for the development. See Attachment 22.A.1. Sanitarv wastewater 9s noted in response to question 22, normal domestic sanitary sewage will be generated at this site and will be routed to existing sanitary sewer lines. Air Pollution Air quality is not anticipated to be a problem either on-site or off-site but measures can be implemented that can insure minimal impaets. A berm or barrier constructed along the west end of the property would provide scxeening and would reduce potential transport of truck-generated pollutants towards the residential area south o£ Pierce Butler Route. A plan to distribute alternative route information to drivers using the £acility could help to reduce the number of vehicles passing through the Snelling and University Avenue intersection. An improvement o£ Eneigy Park Drive at Raymond Avenue that is now under construction will make access to TH 2S0 simpler and quicker and may divert some trucks away £rom the Snelling and University Avenue intersection. Dust The proposed project should help to reduce problems of blowing dust because the majority of the surface will be paved. Noise Noise abatement alternatives were proposed in the David Braslau Associates, Inc, report, Attachment 23. Some of these measures were implemented since the report was issued. The following table indicates the alternatives that were recommended: SourceLEouipment Mitigative Measure Piggy Packer Hostler tractor Idling train engines Idling trucks (check-in) Aail crassings Surface roughness Departing trucks Install mufflers Reduce back-up alarm Enclose engine Control night operations Erect berms/barriers Move exhaust lower Relocate to remote area Build berm/barrier Install smooth rubber crossings Pave surface Relocate entrance 14 oaor �,�,��o� Screening of the entrance roadway with a berm or barrier will reduce the impact o£ odor from queuing vehicles. Relocating the entrance area to the easterly portion of the site will limit the impact of odor to sensitive land uses. Wildlife Sose disturbance of wildli£e habitat is expected. Nearly 12 acres of brush and grassland will be replaced by about five acres of landscaped area. Sensitive landscape treatment may continue to provide opportunity for wildlife habitat however. ------------------------------�----------------- ---�---------------- — ------- CERTIFZCATION BY RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT I hereby certify th`at the information contained in this document is true and complete to the best of my knowledge and that copies o£ the completed EAW have been made available to all points on the official EQB distribution 1ist. Signature Date 15 ��-I�o-3 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 4.B.1. County map showing project area. 4.B.2. Copy of USGS 7 1/2 min., 1:24,000 scale map. 4.B.3. A site plan. 4.B.4.a 4.B.4.b 22.A.1. 22.A.2. 22.B. 23. 24. 25.B. 26. Existing land use map. Zoning map. Memo from city's Public Works Department. Stormwater management plan. Pace Laboratories, Inc. report, "Stormwater Quality Investigation." David Braslau and Associates, Inc. report "Noise and Air Quality." BN "Hazardous Material Emergency Response Plan." Letter from D.N.R. Minnesota Historical Society letter. ' cc: ��� .� . : �,,. ceorge lactimer Mayw �(„ (�� c.5on/ S.D. iHuRrn� �tr iN,�. �,�; g �s August 2, 1988 DEPARTMENT , i 5: I vG ; � , °`� Douglas J. Rodel H!ib Manager - Bttrlington Northarn Tnten�cdel Service Midway Hub Center 1701 Pierce Butler Route st. Paul, i+ID7 551�4 Dear Mr. Rcdel 100th et� 8�� CONVENTIO(V OCT. 1988 S7. LOUlS Y 5T. LOUIS SECTION 1VR5 RoAD i/ZAfF+c ELfM�N�%�� Lc�tn�� �i9ss�.:� �R.�i.+�s Ex�cuaEO � The Division of Ptiblic Health imnitored sound levels at the L�,u'linq� n Northerit Hiz}i Yard betwc-�n the haurs of 16:45 p.m., July 2a and 6:45 a.m., Suly 26, 1988. I�bnitors were Iocated at. the foSlowing loca�ions. 1. Burlington NortRern property Iine east of main gate 2. Burlingt.on Northern prtrperty line north oE Aldine 3. Bur2ington R'orthern north property line south o£ Midway Stadirmi. Hourly rear�ings inclicated L10 soand levels greater than the 55 dSA a2losaeci by the Sairit Paul Noise Ordirsance, Chapter Z93. LCX4E3t L.LO East of ttain gate North af Aldine :3orth pmperty line � .:•. Hiqhest L10 66.5 d&� fi2.5 dR�1 54.5 dPA Sound levels at tha Burlington Northern Hub Yard property line ccaast not exceed an L10 af 55 dB.� between the hours 10:40 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. IE you t��.�y gxestions, £eel free to contact me at 292-77p5. Si�rely, , ! ter . tCi.shel Occu�tional Sdfety and Health Analyst P`I'K: jm _. . . _ I � � '�� , � � � - ,� -� ._ R � � ��� � �tr � , i � \ �,` "� . � l � � i +, ' • �T. 'LL I `` �J'�.�:�."i H . •�� �ARPCNTCVI _ _ _ , _ _ ; __ .� �I II •.� •� � ATTACHMENT 4.6.2. q,•� ����,3 _ t .� - - s�o � II \I _. ` r ��� �! ��:'� % � �- � I4EHk725' OF MI?:NFjSp A � , `c!; orr � � I ;: � � � ��' _ �' , ��� ' N vncEr -.' j.� 1 � � 7-,�i Rui GmDV �i i : � W �I �i '��e! $tJ2hta� r. �.: r �eva� ' � � :�F�.. -. � � ,��/ -=� I r � I � 1 � + � - � � �� � �.� ,�;, �_—�_ � � 3.s�. ,,_ � r -� � � � _�^' Q �' .1fvc' � � .�7J� ,- �I: vlJ�..^��� 'u ^^ "/ - `� -+ w. �• r -_ { � C�..Jbi�� .�� �'��tJi.•n�qY;� � � ' ��'`_����-� � � •) /•1 ��'SeNeV Ii � il �' - ' 1 ..: �,� _ , � ., �+-�- . - .1 � ��' x� ��. I. t✓ iy'�J�r -�- _ `�� -' i• 1:� jl I��`-V:Y�;� 'i � y z -� � ' `� ± �: "�`k�e : _�; � _�. — - -- E � (� ' �=- ; � � , � Lll h �� h .. _ ��^ R�.wG-On' �._�. .. ���) I{ 2�1 '. W Z2� � -� � �I '..L_\�..l��:: �-.:�}r,',� ��L.: " �_. II � �j� � �j „ 3� � ��J � ? � s ^ . . _ _ =c �_�_�: �. � i . - � 9p. Z � �F ��� l �� I �" �. " tr'' `�� �.! T� - i� �=, -_:. '. :•= �✓��� cF�� ?� :�:'-� • �� ;�,�-� 'a3•ti vc' , = 7ry I:. . ___ ^. , � � / ��-z� � ,i o' ,.� ? - �J. e � •r ST tf.�_.. � �;� S �/ I I i! .��,.-z. ��. —� . 4 � �[� mr'_-'- ' ♦___ �. _.1 i �V . Kb WsY�_�yI' �? ' � ` 1 � �^.— f � u1 ^�= .. - . � _ _ �SeKw.r ; -� � � - ' 1 r c� - u` , '��;'_ :az� -._ '.. -:— _7_e�-: IJ �... :' - �� h ' ^� _—� � �r 7� }',, �v `��� t��:���� r-;`=�ATR�RICi;k'�J'�';�,.�5.^i . �r `{�'r, �� � � - ; '�_�:^ _' � / ;"�a . -n:.`wt � J�'% s sT _ s�- • J�_ _ _ c= i i c .' U ' �.. � _ , . '. ' . ' . �: ,,- � : y„ . _: - " 1 � t� -�--T`. �< !_--�� � _ > �� '(. L ' �.'' �-�'� ` . �_�` � i! ' �> � +�.- o j�a�j�Pa� �': �,:� �� �� � ~-- � � `�m'""�"' ,�-�. t tn.ad � <vc P ��� - " . � � � � C . Y./_' � _ { � / --, I. ' � i �f,1 �� . �I� aoiol..� -�C�=J� I` SIB ' 1 '\.;` .x {� ti, - '// `. �� � ������N ,�,iowe. ���� . _', - '* �_'`� " l�\ �^ ... , ' _� � —� E ��J'� ��� i� _ o � � rt � � i v';':?': , li �i. ��p L ., �. _ !� � o �. 7 5?Ci i ` -���� �� ��� �. ' ,4 _r�s. i a - _ �_ �C :�:r? � -, _� t�, j �i�� f � I?' --__ � " ,�3a o- @ � ���^. .'' _ � L^1��,�j�-_ —.__ _ �wa���_ ' —. '- `�,�_� ' -:� __ _ .t�Gs - - — _, • {� � — ��=��'� �•� ':. / i�T'.'� '' �� ��� � - _ _- ��. ca�R:� � ,.� 1 � aw ,,� �R x! �' �\ � 3Fa, r�\�� e .� ` _ �Y��-1��� - cilverDn,� '�,\ StTtl �m �7 6 �-� i il �-.a . (� � .����. ' 'C'�� ( � .. `°---_� � 9 oT; ��� -... . .- R J ��,��;��'` 1� ,�\: • ,.: �n `-' c . _-_ s•_= _��� \ � L n R - ` v � - � • '--- _ . i:.��` '=,�3�': \" �R _ � � :� Fv-`._ ! .�J."_ . � 11 � ,G ��\.�� � �` � . Park I� $F° `�I. I i q ii �)�;; : r r �.- :� ����':'�: ,� � �� o �, ;. �� - e .� n a, �..�,..�. �� �, ,5 � ; � � � : p� ,— �I� ` � ` i `�wo�,�,:_'�? �-!�� � 7 � �: �� ` �� J � � '� �� • - x��, am � ere � � �, _. �, � ������` °�. ���� � ��';� - i�,� -- 't� �;�\ . M j �� i � l � � � �'�� ' � � na� ����. "� { � 8 -s �Pu �'°- \ ` ��c �--`--�.-_� .`��lL� �Is z�d. � � i�� II� ' � �� �.\ ������-�' p� �� • _�._,_J;���Ji rt��.a6 _� fi ..�� r-. �� ,,��� I� LaM � r❑Ll�i- .-�. �V' , �! V' � �' ���nn� a T, •� C � �--� , �--� � c, �u`J�C �J'� . J - : � l� � � ���.� Z���'_� "�� ���1_"`�J�.ibr 1�1 ��''� � �� �� ;��' � ` � � ,_ �, ; ;.� r ; , � �''����; 'Lh'!I�i'_ �i�-r !' ( t , � Q � , �U" _• ��a ! �'���1_}O_��,.a� AvC �-L..���� j( ; r , � _ .� �: � _� '�a�s�4 ���' � 9 lI I J _ f w �, 9�' I��� ����— [ ��� � : � N 3 � \�J � . , _-'�� ` . � —�• I `fi; � 4,� ��y s�n ' �= � '�" � _ i �' '=;�4,; � °—' �---�'_ =�=�' U aI� � i � Pmi SemiOar9i l ti.vLOZH���_�'�" � i �� I� . / � �c ``. -j � .1 •' � /i� .-��j� .� l�i f �i �„' - _ Q - °� � :t '� � _ ; � f ,� �^ _ . �_ � _ �_ r � __ _ _��`--���r ,�., � � : \ - �� � Fa4iM0 u_xr ' � V£ I O 1t . ` i \ - . �: _ �—�%J �ry I. . ' t � . �_, ,� � ,-7-u: -,- � 1,�. �....:_.. . , ,-�� �— �' ;--%u � _ •"�•^ ' _ OIC 1� -' � SaMb — 1 . �V __ d✓E � ; ? e Sch � . . =1 c �t_� C d Ptrk f.h �'° .:J�—��.�_. s' 9� _ H I � ErP �v 19:8 ¢ � i323' � . �.I _y, �� `�,.��r�_'`�'`_'1F �— a i - �T-=� - _ � �__ — �'•=:> j �...i. ie;>`q' a ,<---� 5 f/i /,--: L. D nva- Fre�.. � �3a 1� 3a � � = s � � i �A �Cgntra7 H� h Se]�"' �� - T •�3l�ll{LAN� y . i i � �� ��a'9:n�TtlHer �'. �� �� '� r+KUE� �I �� _�— \ � t �^ - I � \ ,���.� I I �� S S'J'V �v`y1 i�_� _�J_ —��-� _ • ` T� ( I � L�fl i � � 0 � } V r� � � , � w � _ � � � � ., � I i � � � . ; � i �, , �� I ; . I _ ,� :,,ts�,. . � m �4 � � � � �� I � ,: � �� � ,� �\,, .; . , 1 \ ., .i. l,.' ' `' ' ',' . ' �''' � � � i —' i i ' ", ��' ';. .. �; C� r � �, , � � ' ! � U(�, I a \, ' r,(6 ,if -- U�� � 1 . ✓-..;.' _> _: 1 i�� '�Itl„�' .-1 �� � � `��, . _ I ._,. I S�� , -----�-- 1.: - :'�` � :"7�' �.5: _�u.. .�I ��• ' -. �/!_ _, j i � ( �. � � � ��� , � I��������� � �' r �� � ��,'�. : � "' � � � I' i �. � � �� ' ' � �n� I I� r. �fiJ�"cr �i�.�� �;, -� T�� .�n�� :''� ) � .� _.;, ?T�. � ` \"��7 ,� ��,, �� �,�,'�,� � �,,�� � ;,� �;��; '\' �{� i , � I •, i Ili ��:� �` �,�� l '�., I"� �i� 41 JI ' f",� . �;'i ,., � �•� e��:�u ,'� � �� � r �^ � ���ra'1�"`'�f i .� t;:—,� �� � '� a ��� ��"� �� �� t „ + ��, i -y ;-� I ���- �, � � � f�.! ;. ' i,.� � 7S! 1 io��,�U. .���� , �.� ,� ��I� i��r.�;i ,t,�.- �' � �I'T til �.`' S, .�X(.7,�. � i �,.�r��l� i iL���� ",�4+" � i'lt� �.`� qiF i'' '. I — � _ _ _—� _ _ . h�—r ; �...i; ���r.;r;,%`�;`� .��.� ,a+.�����s ��p,��.,' ��,�i.l�'rpr°� i � ',�' �v�-� �� 1 1 I� �, �a�� ;1��5 7, v �._, r:� , �. , G �� ��. ��� ��� `� � '��'i}.11. �., Fi � � �� F! ' �, � y � � �i� � � � � � ' �) \ •') I• �� � I �'��i��'rYd�U�'.� �� � . �,+��, � �:. �ir � i r , ^�� ;� � 1. , ' ,- r:.�_ c{.: ,.�� � � �� a:; � ,� . � '.'����'���9��� r ' . �s ��'�t."�t��l"�+:% �<. � ^__ ,�� c�=— �$ � _�-:�i, � , � � � / •.iM I � . � �- �. � �, @ l�lf � ,�� .�.�� � _ .� �. � ,� � %!;'',=� � � �: �,. � - • ; � .'� � � �, � �;A� ��. �: ��� � , ., , , ; , . � ; I R `�a �1i ��,. .�.,�. , � •�; � :.-d i _ � � �� _��.,.� q: , . 1 _..... _. J=`� -- � �.� � ` r _ � � ,, � �I Jf .� � � ; � �-- z w � _ � ¢ � � d q�.l'�°� t ' L ATTACHMENT 22.A.1. f S �� 1 �� CITY OF SAINT PAUL ��_ {IYTERDfPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Donna Datsko Planning & Economic Development 1100 City Hali Annex FROM: David Conley ° �' l �� " / Sewer Design Division, PW 700 City Hail Annex DATE: Hay 11, 1988 SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Midway Hub Facility This division has reviewed the "Stormwater Management Plan" for the Midway Hub Facility prepared by TKDA dated November 20, 1987 and agree with the cancept of the plan. To help you prepare the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for this project, I wouid recommend for you to reference the "Stormwater Management Plan" as the basis for the estimate of the source, volume, and method of control for the surface and stormwater runoff this project will generate. Also, normal domestic sanitary sewage is expected to be generated fram the new office buiiding. At this time, site plan approval has not been granted. Agreements for the overflow pipe from the,pond to the City storm sewer system at Energy Park Drive have not been made. Zf you have any further questions, please call me. cc: Mike Rassan Sewer Division .� ATTACHPIENT 22.A.2. �� �''0� MIDMAY HUB FAClLITY � BtJRL IN6TON NORTHEF2N RAILROAD MINNESOTA D!VlS10N STORM WATER MANMEI�NT PLAN Prepared by TOLTZ, K1N6, WYALL, ANDEf2SON AND ASSOCIATES, INCORR�ftATED SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Novenber 20, 7987 �,�, ��o� MID4VAY HU$ FACILITY STORM WAT£R F�ANA6EN�NT PLAN The proQosed means fa managing on-sFi dratoage is sharn on the submitted Site Plan. Existing artd proposed mntours defining the routing of storm wai'er a�e shown on the SSte Plan, Sheet 1, Gradin8 and Pavin�Qian. The Sifie Plan, Sheet 3, Storm DrainaPe and Litil ity Pian shar the boundartes of the separate drainage areas. The attached Table 1 iists the areas in acres of pervious and tmpervious surfaces for each drainage area. As sharn on the drainege p1an, tt ts proposed to convey #he storm water runoff in a storm serer system from the site to the city drainage system on the south side of the site. The city system ioctudes a proposed 36° sfi orm sewer on the north side of Pierce Butler Route extending from the east to a point approximately 1400 feet west of Snettfng Avenue. From the�e, to the xest, the city sysi�em uses an open ditch for approxtmately 1800 feet. The outiet for this ditch is the BN Pond. As sho+rn on the drainage pian, txo storm sewers from the MTdway Hub �acilifiy couid dratn to the proposed city storm sexer atong Pierce 8utler Route. Four other on-site storm sewers would drain to the city dttch. Two other on-site storm sewers wouid drain directiy to the BN Pond. The Socation and sizes of each of these storm sewers are sharn on tha drainage p! an. Following are caicuiations of the aitowable discharge rate and the detentton for the 100-year sfiorm as required by City of SairrF Paul poiicy: Site development Area = 49.1 Acres Allavabls Oischarge - 1.64 x 49.1 = 80.5 CFS The present pond area is 38.2 acres. The aatar surface elevation on November it, 1987 was 19b.1. 7o store the required 230,000 cubic feet of runoff would ralse the pond elevatlon 0.29 feet. An easement across BN property ts praposed to provtde fa� an overftav pipe from the pond to the ci#y storm sewer at Energy Park Dr(ve. The size ot this overflrnr pipe wii � be based on the totat runoff irrto the BN Pond. Besides the runofif from the subJect SN sifie, there are dtscharges from th ree city starm sexers. Two 36-inch storm sewers nave outfalis into the ditch oo the north side of Pferce Butler Route and a 72-inch storm sewer has an oufilet directiy into the southeast �rner ot the pond. 1 9069-Oi TABLE 7 HIDWAY HUB FACILITY CATA FOR EACH DRAtNAGE AftEA q�-13o Average Slope Drainage Area Imperv3ous lmpervTous of Pervious ArP� N�.nP SA Ft Area Sq. Ft. 4 Areas 7 97,040 74,050 Si.3 0.005 Ft/Ft 2A 83,200 83,200 100.1 - ZB 42,690 14,810 34.7 O.D05 F 3A 82,200 83,200 700.0 - 36 8t,890 81,890 100.0 - 4 229,990 13b,780 59.5 0.005 FtJFt 5A 83,200 83,200 i00.0 - 5B 83,200 83,200 100.0 - 5C 41,380 35,720 86.3 0.01 FtJFt 5D 83,200 83,200 t00.Q - 5E 83,200 83,200 100.0 - SF 31,800 2,180 6.9 0.01 Ft/Ft 5G A7,OdD 31,800 67.6 0.01 Ft/Ft 6 89,300 43,996 49.3 0.01 Ft/Ft 7A 83,200 83,200 100.0 - 78 83,200 83,200 100.0 - 7C 82,330 82,330 i00.0 - 7B 57,060 37,030 64.9 0.01 FtjFt 8A 33,200 83,200 100.0 - 88 101,490 90I,490 100.0 - 8C 108,030 108,030 100.0 - 8D 83,640 83,640 100.0 - 8E d8,350 48,350 100.0 - 9 22,b50 1A,810 65.4 0.01 Ft/Ft t0A 70,130 7Q,130 100.0 - 108 54,450 5d,450 100.0 - 10C 105,420 105,420 100.0 - TOTAL 2,137,480 1,875,700 •r.• � q�-\�o� TABLE 2 Dusation Min. 5 10 15 30 fi0 120 180 364 REQUiRED DETENTION FOR 100 YEAR RAINSTORM Rat nfal t Inches v 0.84 3.38 1.7b 2.44 3.15 3.50 3.80 4.40 Accumulated Runoff Cu.Ft. Z/ 128,500 211,200 269,300 373,300 482,000 535,500 583,400 673,200 Atlarabie Discharge Cu.ft. � 24,150 d8,300 72,d00 144,900 289,800 579,GD0 869,400 1,738,800 Storage Requi�ed Cu.Ft. 4/ 104,400 762,900 196,9Q0 228,400 192,200 0 0 0 Max. Storage Req�d = 230,000 Cu.Ft. ]./ From City of St. Paul Sfiormwater Management Site Pian Reviea Guidettnes. y Qa = $2 x (CxA) x 43,560 Q = Accumu4ated runo#f in caDtc feet R= Rainfaii durTng time period Tn inches C = Coefflclent of runoff A= Drainage area ln acres Pind C x A for totai stte devetopment area: 8 � Sax9 Paved Area 43.1 Ac. 0.95 40.95 Unpaved Area 6.� Ac. 0,20 t_20 Totai 42.15 3l Allowable discharge = Allavable rate of discharge x ttme in seconds _ $0.5 x time tn seconds 4/ Required Storage Capacity = Accumulated runo#f - aliavable discharge .,,. � � _ _�,� s. �� � �G�'JOCUtO�'�PS► inc. nwezzs�wu �wurric.a oawnrer a u.cwrtae.�c ATTACHMENT 22.B. p11 `\,� 3 Minneapotis, Minnesota Tampa. Fiorida Coralrille, Iowa 1710 Dougias �rive North a Minneapol9s, Mt2 55422 o Phone (612) 544-5543 o fAX (6i2) 564-3974 STORM WATER QUALi7Y INVES7IGATION BllRIINGTON NORTNERN MIDWAY HUB CENTER Qrepared For: Mr. Douglas Northup 6urlington Northern Prepared By; Date PACE Laboratories, Inc. Minneapolis, MN March 10, 1988 Project No. 880224.200 �, labor�tories� �. .+ortssawu �wun�cu au.esrer a e..wrie.Ic �t'1-1��3 Offices Mmneapoiis, Minnesok Tampa, �lorida Corelvil{e, lowa 1710 Dougias Drive North o Minneapoiis, MN 55422 o Ahone (612} 544-5543 o FAX {6t2j 544-3974 March 10, i988 Mr. Douglas Northup Regional Engineer Burtington Northern 176 East Fifth Street P.O. Box 64950 St. Paul, MN 55164 RE: Storm Water Quality Investigation PACE Project no. 880224.200 Dear Mr. Northup: As requested, PACE Laboratories, Inc. CPACE) has prepared this report to assess the potential storm water quality impacts on an existinq retention pond <B.N. Pond> that wouid likely result from proposed on—site resurfacing and drainage pians at the Burlington Northern Midway Hub Center site in St. Paul. MN. Specific detaits of the proposed on—site drainage modification are identified in the Storm Water Management Plan prepared by Tolz, King, DuVala, Anderson and Associates, Inc. (TKDA) on November 20, 1487. This report is organized as folloNS: ection I. II III IV BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE S70RM WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS A. DNR 6. MPCA C. City of St. Paul POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Spill Containment B. Above—Ground Storage Tanks C. Salt Impacts D. Sedi.ment i� Runaff E. Oil and Grease in Runaff CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS V. REfERENCES . ATTACHMENTS •.,_ . 2 2 3 3 3 4 5 6 6 7 9 an Pmrol nnnnn••nre.. emnln...+� PACE Laboratories, Inc. _Z_ Mr. Douglas Northup 8urlington Northern March 10, 1988 If you have any questions reqarding this submittal, please do not hesitate to contact us at 544-5543. We appreciate thts opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, � _ d // , �.%i�.v��� � � d'frv' .,�., 3effrey L. Behnken, E.I.T. Project Engineer � �� J � Donald P. Duffy, P.E. Project Maneger JLB:DPQ/emb Attachments 9� -��03 I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE In November, 1987, Burlington tlorthern Railroad submitted a Storm Water Management Plan to the City of St. Paul for a proposed resurfacing and drainage project to be implemented at their Midway Hub Center facitity tocated near the iotersection of Pierce 8utier Route and Sneiling Avenue i� St. Paul. It is our understanding that the project will invoive relocation of raiTroad tracks and site buildings, and the paving of the facility's yard to provide more efficient utilization of the space available. A storm sewer system has been developed to convey storm water runoff from the paved site to outfalls wfiich drain to tfie BN Pond. The total paving and draining project encompasses 49 acres. Existing and proposed site storr� Water conveyance is to the. 18 acre BN Pond. Numerous documents, maps, plans and specificattons whieh pravide details of site drainage modifications have been submitted by Burlington Northern to the City of Ste Paul since the fall of 1987. As a resutt ofi these submittals to the Cifiy of 5t. Paul, there has been some concerns raised as to the potent9al environmental impacts that the storm water runoff from the rail yard r+ould have on the BN Pond. This report xill address those concerns and point out some Nater quatity impacts which should result from the paving project. II. STORM WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS To better ascertain the current status of requirements or guidelines for the quality of storm aaters discharging into the BN Pond, PACE tontacted the Minnesota Department of Naturai Resources tDNR), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency <MPCA> and the City of St. Paul. The results of these contacts are summarized as foiloKS: � A_ DNR In a conversation with Mr_ Mike Muelier of the DNR — Metro Reqion office, it xas discusseQ Khether the DNR had any such storm water quality guSdelines or reguirements. His comments were that the ONR is concerned mainly Kith hox the water quantity is handled, not the Hater quality and that tfie QNR had no such requirements or guidelines. Mr. Mueller did co�nent that the BN Pond is classifled as a "protected wetland" , With the DNR. Because of this classification, any changes to the pond fi.e. pfoposed storm water outfalls or related structuresl below the normal high wa#er leveT of the pond Hoa7d require a permit with the DNR, A DNR permit apptication form is provided as Attachment A. The City of St- Paul and Burtington Northern are aware of this permit requirement as documented per IYem 1 in an October 27, 1987 TKDA memorandum to Mr. Clyde Stack and Mr. Doug Northup. B. MPCA Mr. Doug Hall of the MPCA Water Qualtty Permfts Divlsion xas contacted regarding any storm aater quality requirements that the State impTements. He commented that the MPCA reviews requirements on a site—by—site basts with regard to potential environmentat concerns. He added that the �State does have some sites that requlre an 2ndustrial Waste Discharge PermSt for storm water runoff, but due to the fact that no railroad car maintenance is done at the Midway Hub Center facility, this type of permit probably xould not be required. 2 a'1-1�a'3 Mr. Hali did tomment that the drainage system ou�fall to the 8N Pond may require a NPDES—Point Source permit in the future. Regulations regarding storm water runoff are being updated to reflett the Congressionat passage of the Water Quatity Act of 1987. In our opinion, passage of any specifit Federal regulation requirements which might impact this site is at ieast 4 to 12 months away. C. City of St. Paul Storm Water Management Plan Guidelines xere received by PACE from Ms. Donna Datsko o,` the City of St. Paul Planning Department. Upon review of these guidelines, there was no mention of storm water quatity or treatment requirements. In summary, based on review of current policies and regulations of State, Federal and City agencies, t here does not appear to be any requirements or g�idetines for the quality of storm water that xould be discharged into the BN Pond. III. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Based on reviex of the Storm Water Management Plan, project meeting memorandums, conversations with the City of St. Paul and Burlingto� Northern staff, the potential environmental impacts on the quatity of storm water from the paving and drainage project at the Midway Hu6 Genter facility are as foilows: e A. On—Site Spili Containment Tn tonversations aith Mr. Doug Rodel, Burlington Northern Nvb Center Manaqer, it Has estinated that less than SX of the containers or trailers being transported the�ough the rail yara contatn any hazardous materials. Of those hazardous materlats 3 brought through the yard, the largest containers �re 55.gallon drums. There are no tanker—type rail cars brought through this facility. The Midway Hub Center presentty provides a waste containment site for any potential hazardous waste spflls. U�der the proposed improvement plan, Burlington Northern ailt provide a tined ptt on the site for ptacing any container or trailer that develops a leak. 7hs pit or "5afe Haven" as 1t is cailed, aili be approximately four feet deep with an tmpervious liner to retain any hazardous chemicai spill and prevent it from reaching the BN Pond. Burlington Northern wilt also implement a Spilt Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan at the M9dway Hub facility. A SPCC Pian identifies emergenty toordinators, contacts, response teams aith telephone numbers and procedures to be followed si�outd a spill or emergency occur. B. Above — Ground Storage Tanks Burtington Nortfiern currently has on—site three above—ground storage tanks for diesel fue7. These tanks store approximateiy Z00 ga]lons each and are located outdoors, uncovered and without spitt contafinment provisions. Minnesota State rules require that owners� af above—ground ' storage tanks obtain a permit for those tanks with the MPCA. As part of the permitting criteria. there must be a containment area xith a leak or spili holding capacity of the largest tank ptus at least one foot of freeboard. 7his containment area typically tonsists oP an impervious base and diking. 4 �� -t�°� It is our recommendation that Surlington Northern obtain permits for these tanks and implement a spili containment area to prevent any spills or leaks from reaching the BN Pond. It is also recommended that if these continue to remain outside, that a roof or covering be placed over them to prevent rainwater accumulation in the containment area and to protect the tanks from corrosion. C. Satt Impact A5 part of current xinter operations at the Midway Hub Center yard, a salt/sand mixture is spread for de-icing and to improve vehitle trattion on the yard. During the winter of 1987, six 30-ton truckloads of this mir.ture aere applied to the yard. This mixture is reported as being to be 907. sand and 10� sa)t. It is assumed that this practice witl continue after the proposed paving of the yard is eompleted, even though the amount of salt/sand mixture used should be redueed due to improve SnoK removal on the paved area. Inevitably, salt wiil be washed away in the snowmelt runoff and routed to the BN pond. Estimates of the concentrations of sodium and chioride in the snowmelt runoff were calculated to be 178 mg/i and 27Z mq/1, respectively. These caiculations can be found in Attachment B. Shese concentrations Nere compared to Minnesota Department of Transportation Water Quality Data for typical urban highway runoff snowmelt (Reference 1). The concentrations for sodium and chloride in this referenced study uere 2605 mg/1 and 4500 mg/l, respectively. S. Sased on Yhe above information, the concentrations of sodium and chloride in the sno�oelt runoff as a result of salttrtg operattons on the Midxay Nub yard are expected to be su6stantialiy loNer than those concentrations found i� typical urban highway snoxmeit runoff. Also, no water quality degradation has been noted at the BN Pond as a resuit of historic de-icing operations. D_ Sediment in Runoff As part of the prevlousty mentioned Hinter sanding operations at the Midway Hub facitity, the sand portion of mixture is aiso washed in the snowmelt. runoff_ Estimates were talculated with regard to what the impact Would be if ail the sand applied to the Midway Hub yard Was conveyed through the drainage system and into th? BN Pond. These calcuiatfions can be found in Attachment C. As indicated, the sediment toad tras calculated to be 0.17X of the BN Pond volume annually. We do not consider this load to result in any significant water quality impact on the BN Pond. To minimize such sediment impacts, we encourage Burlinqton Northern to utilize good snox piowing technfques within the proposed paved area and exercise prudent judqment in relation to salt/sand spreading practices. E. Oil & Grease in Runoff In the past, Burlington Northern received �permisslon from Mr. Dick Kable of the MPCA to appfy ciarified oiT to the raii yard as a dust suppressent during the summer and fali months. According to 1987 records, 19,fi00 aallons of clarified oil were used to suppress the dust on the rail yard. InevitabTy, some of this oil xas carried Hith storm xater runoff i�to the BN Pond in the past. With the proposed improvement , 6 `l'1-i�a'3 plan, the gravel and dirt yard Will noN be paved and the need for the clarifted oil as a dust suppressent wilt be e]iminated. The other posstble source of oii and grease vrouid be fram teaking semi—tractors or maintenante vehicles, but this amou�t should be equal to or less than levels assotiated with typicai urbdn runoff. Estimates were made to compare existing and projected oii and 9rease loads to the BN Pond as shown in Attachment D. As indicated, we expect an improvement to water quatity at the BN Pond in con�u�ttion xith the proposed paving and drainage modifitations. IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIQNS Our conctusions and recommendations regarding this storm water quality investigation are summarized as follows: i. Based on review of current pottcies and regulations of State, Federal and City agencies, there does not appear to be any specific requirements for the quality of storm xater that Noutd be discharged into the BN Pond. � 2. Surlington Horthern proposes to provide a"Safe Haven" on—site to retain any spiTl of hazardous material resulting from a leaking or damaged container or trailer, A SPCC Ptan wilt be impiemented should an emergency spili occur. 3. It is our recommendation that a permit be requested for the three above—ground storaqe tanks that are on—site. A spili containment area consisting of a base with diking should be impiemented. A roof or cover should be ptaced over these tanks to prevent rainNater accumulation in the containment area. , 7 4. The estimated coacentrattons of sodtam and chloride tn tha snowmel# runoff as a result of salt9ng operations on the rati yard are substaotialiy iower that those concentrations found in typical urban highway snorrmelt runoff. Based on these estimates, along xith historic practices at tfiis site, future salting operations are not expected to have serious xater quality impacts. 5. The water quality impacts of the sand applied during winter operations are not expected to be sfignfficanto To heip avoid any lmpacts, xe recommend that Burlington Northern utilize appropriate snox ploWing methods so as to minimize the use of sandJsalt de-iting mixtures. 6. With the paving improvements proposed, the need for dust suppression using clarified oil aill be eliminated. Accordingly, He est4mate a net pos9tive impact in relation to oil and grease concerns on the SN Pond storm xater quality. , � �1' 7 -t7o3 R£FERENCES T. "Characteristics of Urban higfixay Runoff <Phase 1)", Mtnneso#a Department of Transportation, June, 1981. 2. Kuehnast, E.l., Baker, D.G. and Enz, J.W., "Climate of Mi�nesota: Part VIII - Precipitation Patterns in the Minneapolis - St. Paul MeYropolitan Area and Surrounding Counties," UnSversity of Mi�nesota, Agricultural Experiment Station, Technical�Bulletin 301, 1975. . • : "1 i ---' �'� -1'� � 3 REGION i (&BEMIDJI Area) ���i ,?�'�;; � ._���_ _ _.. . • _ ... - . - ' _ _ . .. J Re9tcnat Hydrologist . . _.:;_ ' . ' ' -- - . . . . _ ` --�-.- - Dtiw-Division of-Yaters.--�— - = D!VlSiO(10fiWATEF?S` � ' - ' " . _ _ 2115 Birchmont 8eack'ROad S.E. ' `� . .5 , , ; -=���;�_: ' ' ... ,: �.r`. ~� BeciiCJi, HN 56601 FF:C� ��. :-" � � (218} 755-3913 � ' �' - "—�� ' __.AOMINtSTRA7lYE .'__.. . _ . .. _-_-. "-, -: : - -- - - - -- - � � FiEGIONS_AND AREAS • Detroii Lakes Area � , � � � ` �` ..Area Hydrolo9isi �- .�., , .. _. ..._ ' -'--=-- --' --•-. , • . DHR-DivlSiort of Mniers` = � . • � ._ - _ _ . � � ' � .. - � �• P.O. Box SZ3 � Detroit Lakes, MA_ 56501 . . . __ _ _ __ .. _ _ _ . ___ . i218)8+t1-1519: _. - � - ----- � ----- `-� - - - - - - - -::`-- _ . Fergus Falls Area�-.- : -�. � _ Area HydT'OlogiSt -- -- T��f R;ver F Ils . . _ ':: :.^ .. .o. _ . ..DhR-�ivision_of.Sinters_ :.. ���...- --- �-� -- -� - � � � �, � . , .. _ , - _ . _ . .-- -- . ..-' - - -- -' -- � - .. .. . . 1221 FirAvmue East - - _� - : � ,..: Fergas Fa175, HR b6537 : "-� --. �L_� �'�° � - - - -�-�.-•. (218) 739=7576 ..: ... . - - ..._. - �_ � �.. • Thief River Falts`Aiea. . - : � . .� � �eE ian .` _- � - : . �: - . .... . ,, . .._ � --- .... -.°a � � - ; .. _.,, '- . ; : >, ,-:..�� . :.; . ...... .. . .' . .. ; :. . :.: : . _ .._. ...- :.. � Area�Hydro7ogisL �--_.: ... -; � _-. ..-� -� -. e.�.. �..._.- . . -- _. - DItR-Division-of:Ynters.''�" - •GRAN � �- --- ' 123 l4dt0 AYE. H. � "�. RAPIDS . ' ' Thief River Fal1s, ri!t 55701 � �� (218j b81-7789 Detroit Lakes Duluth � ■ _"° � . . REGION 2 {&GRAND RAPIDS �-� � Regtonal Hydro7ogist � AfeB) - . - � � . Oftk-Dlvfsion of Waters FergusFai�s -- 120: East Highway 2 ■ •BR �NEaD -=�-� � _ . Grand RaDfdS, HN 55744 � � ' . � (218) 327-i416 °°� � �u s Regionai Office "`puluth Area � � s Regional Soundary Arec NydroloySZY : --:=��=iArea Office DNk�Division of Yaters � " ~ = Area $oundar French Rtrer Haichery °°°` �� � ��� ■�� ridge � . Y - ' 10029 North Shon Drive "" ` � • - Dulath, !W 558bt - ' i ..`. .. ..�. _ .,,_ _ - - (218) 723-478b � , ; .Sp� j"' .. - ,� J _€ , _ REGION 3 (& BRAINERD Area) y . � � � I � pAUL - . ' � Re9ional Hydrotogist . � ,�.,. "' - ONF-Division of Ynters � - .v, � � - C24 FronL -SL., 8oz 64$ � �°"' °' - � . �� . . Brainerd, Hf1 56CO2 . ` ' �218) 828-2605 r�al� 4: � o �1c1N LY.1 Cambridge Area , - �- -�- . � " � . ' � . Area Hydrologf5t . n zro � •R HES � � - . DNR-DiviStan ot Yaters . - �915 South.Highvay b5 '. ° �� Cambridge. MN 55008 ' I� ._ {_ ,. (612) 689-2832 - 1 - St.Cloud "Area . , REGION 4 ConYd REGION 5 - . Area Hydretogiit � _-. _ -. Regiona7 Hydmlogis2 �- - � DN�-Division of LtaLers . . � . � � � . ..Matlkato Afea � DNR-DirlSion af-Yaters - � -= � 3725 I2th St..,NOrth . , �� '� �Aret HyEro7ogi5:�� � �P•0. 8ox 6247�' '� _ ,' �f'_0. Boz.370 .' =-. .� � � ,- '; •ONR-Dirtsion of fiRters=--- ' � Rochester; NN 55903. = � ;�St. C7oud, Kii 56302.='-; ;�_-_ `--'- , ` - Nicholz Oftice Center - � (SQ7� 285-743(3,- -. = -(612}� =:.='-_.- � ` Sui,e 180, 41D.tackson St.. , - . � "� _ :` . - .: :.: .... , .: ,--.- . _.. . _ . --- ' -:_ '_ - .. . , :.. . : ., . . . - .. _ _, • ._ � HdnkttG !(x .56�01 . . _ -.. - .'... .. , REGtON 6 ��-:._�;,; .. REGiOtd 4(&t1EW.11LIJ!•Area} ;__�;-�� ; .;;.:--z: �:;? �- ;r� t�,�:..Aeglanat-?Iydrotoyist= �.;_" _:=` _( 507 j • 389-Z151. ':_ ;:, c-.•c , : : Regionai Hydrologist ``:_ : r.". -=,:: :. ;;:.;°:-zc .c . -- � _ . - �. ' -_. �NR-Divisiohrof;itaterz.�-:" --� '-UNR-DivisSOn of Maurs-.'.;;'.:-`'•..:; -: - ., : ` , .. _ _ �,°t,_,Marshalf Area .' � " - -. 120Q Starner Road . � � '° � _" :�-Boz 156, Nighray'15...SoutA.,::: ; -�-:.' � _ <.� .��' r...r� Area Xy4rolOgis. :_.:. :, _ _ .:��St`: Paui;:liN;..5510b'rs.�-_. `Her in..}S1i:.55073- �`',-°�''•- :�,.-�. :- _ .. .. . _.... -- -� _ ,�N ,:...- .:.. _ of Yacen;-; ,� �- _ .- -----�_.. . i507 s ;..� ��, _` - - . , ::,::srz� . eox ill, It80 E. tYon: ''' . . . CEt�{TRAL OFFICE ;� - , ` "�: ' Spicer Area J " � _ . - � � Marsna7l ; !91 55258 - � � � � - kre'a Hydrologist`�" - - ---='-- - -- _ = -^( 507 } 537-7258 -. ---_ _ . . -.._:rDNR-Dtrision of Yaters - : : - . �. J.. . ._ . __..'_.. . . ,:500 CafayeLte Rond = flKR-Dtvislon of Watert y -- . . .' � DNR Bulldin9 P.O. 6ox <57 St. Paui, MN 55155-4032 232 Lake Ave.'South - ' ' "- (bl2) 2%-6800 • Spicer, Mli '.6288 , . . .. - . i612) 231-5<?S ' - ' ,. � �o wn,p�vtaa Oy aPP��centJ ,PitOJEC7 LOCATfON or PAFlT E 1 hereby submit this. application for permit to: (mark proper box} . Signature of App(icant Date aappropriate water .: �work in protected waters X ._ . � . Seciion tt (Ta be comp(eted by loca/ unit ol governmenf) '--"-----'---------- The tollowing local unit of government comments and/or recommendations are submittad�for consideration bythe .;, � Department of Natura[ Resourcesin the dispo5ltfon of the referenced permlf appllcatlon. (YOUR RES?ONSE MUST 8E . ' SUBMfTTED.TO THE DNR WITHIN 30 DAYS.) Wa2er Appropriation psrmtt Appifcatbns are to be sani to tbe Central pf-.. ;, fica, St. Paul, and Pratected Waters Permit Appllcatlons to the DNR Regio�al Office. SEE qEVERSE SIDE FOR CORRECT . MAILiNG ADDRESSESj. _ - � i :. a - -- . _ . : :"i' _ vc,' � _- � .. _ . � - -. . - . . �= !t. . ' , as tbe proposed projecbfieid.lnspected by this local untt ot�government2 �: :,- NO "�. :�-:`�-: �.. , ,. -. .iewer's Name . , � �YES Yes:'9ive viewe��s'name)'� . - Tii1e . .. ^. .-- .-... :.,;' yi _ . � ' - - .� ♦ � �R� ` .. - � � `-ill�l' .. . uthonzed Signafure _ � - Titie , ' - . � Date Telephone�No.CArea:Code)�� - � . _ .-. . . � . _;.. . . - ` ... � � ame of responding Soti.and Water Conservatlon District, Watershsd District, City or County - - • Address (of the above named locai uN2 of govemmanf) � � . � , (DNR — Div(sion of Waters adtlraues on back) at . . : Hrru�.ai w�v ruti A Ntrtml I IU WUtiK t(� PROTECTED WATERS OR WETLANDS �� ``� O 3 . � ' i ` INNESOTA Department ol s► I Natural Resources � ; �ms�on ol � aters � � - PLEASE READ CAREFULLY - Statutory Authority M�nrxwca Siarvta.5eciun 705.<2 rt�es rt w�Wwt�i 1« fne s[aie. anyperson, partnersrvp_ aswoa[ron, pr,vaie w pu6hc corporm�on, canry, rt�ahy y o[tkr Dd�ixa� w�oncsqn oi tne slate. tochanqe «dunaxsn me coWSe. currenl or cross-sectron of arry protec«ed waters a wetWrw's wrthan a w'iztm perm2 perqu5ly oC'�a�ea ��om ��e CuMxsseu�er ot kawcal Azsovrces - WARNfiVG - PROCEED3NG WITHOUTA PERMIT Anv �� n woiecteC waiers or wetlantls wh�ch reqwres a ce�*ut camor iegany pe startetl uma a pem�a and a Naice of PemK Card have Eeen isy�d yy yr�e DeDartmm� of Nacura� Resources. Any work m pro[ecte� waiers o� weclanCS wrtnouc a cermrc �s a m�sdemexqr and'¢ punistaple by fries up to 570p antllor 9p Oays n jad. The Camyssroner al5p has ihe authorny to repure iesrwatian of any wprk Qm¢ wrthpuc a p¢rm� p� peyp� � y ,,p* ��p��y p�, a �� �� assess Owde tne a6�i�un�� a0d�tqn tees. as well as ihe xtual cost for any E�W nSpeC�iprt, 1bU ShWIE 315p bE dwMG thdt Oth¢! (¢QMdI, Sidt¢ drld bf21 pertT�tS Tdy bC fCqUit�, yyhj� a�e �� ���yy��j�, t0 ObW NI. WHO APPLJES AoD��t�a+Rwst De matle on the anached tonn aM wbm�rteE io cne Departmen[ ot Na[ua� Resources Regqnal pH;ce Por ghe arga wlx,ye the propos�,y pqect vs Iocase0lsee rt,aA m Wst page). t AvP:rc.atbn rtnst be submtttE6 bY Ihe npanan lslw�eLne! owner of the WM On wtu�h (t�¢ pp�t is D�WOSed. excEpt: a A governmmt agency. a�Elic uuL[y. w corporation aumor,zed Ey Ww to contlutt tne a�orec[ may apdv �f Me property riyhts acqwred wtp be acpuired are (uuy Oescriy_d ,n th¢ zoC�,tanon. An authwuea agen; snov�tl De.tlentiiieE on 2tie app��catwn in PaR 1 anp �,9n n part Xil. D. F nplper o`appropr�ate Dro�erty rghts wc� a5 a lea5e a easement may apdY P�ovdtd that the app�icatron is [wntc+signed 6y Yhe own¢r� �pty�� Dy a coDV oi the lease or other a9reement. A permn wili be i55ued fa the term of ttie lease oniy. G �.O�asCx:'veksseeofstate�ownedfantlsmavapdvto�aperm;inMS.Terownnameaheraleasehasbeenre0uestcdfromlhepepartmmt�esponyMefa t�e ariected WnCS, The lease rep�esc antl [he pe+mt apWiCa2ron wilt E2 processeC ca�currently. FEES Mimesota Law reoares the Comrttisvmer of Natural Rewurces to cWVrt cersam fees fo� me process�rg of pro[enea waters ce���s. No pertrvt ran be prpces•,ed ��►apoGra�b" ir_s ha+K been Peid. Fees must be oad by check or monev order ma0e pavaWe ro"Depanment of Natural Resources". Cash payments camot be accepttd. Appli�zfan lees wn onlr be ret�MeO wnen rt rs Oe�ermmetl tna� no permrt n repu,reE lor the proposetl Oro�ect. Apoication Fees AG permrt appli;atans must be a[cortpanMtl by an app�iUtron le¢ based on the foilow�rg ist; Type of Pemvt AppGed For 6uda or flepav Dam Unaer Minnesoca's Dam Safery Aules, insiau R�wap ro ConmolShorNme fros�on. Fd! S++ore'w�e �o Reco�er Shoreland Lost ro Ero� swn «Omer Naturai forces li.e. Ke Camagel. an other aqec[s. � Fee 530.00 5 50 00 5 $0 00 550.00 o�u: a posveie aaehwnxt aOW�catwn fee Casetl on me po- �eci s wsc a�W comaezrty lcan- not De more ihan 5280.001.' sNeaeL te4s v ztre __ _' __. _'_".... ��„ .,,,,�.�.....,� ,,,�.�,,, q,w��u„„vw�caiwn iees. n any. �a yaxpro�ett. M the Department aPP�oves Y� D�qKt. you will be se�tt a bie t« any aCdrtional apd�tion tee, along with a scatemix,c Ees:ndng the scoce of the permrt to be �ssueE. lf yau do not pay the a6didorw( app(ica:qn fee wrth�n 306aYS. ihe permrt rrwy ye p¢nky. No pertrit v.il pe awed undai fees ere rercived. if the Department tle[Wes ro Ceny yar pertnrt application. rq �qrW Fees are rcrowre0, Fdd k�svecrom Fxs S� �Pa+t+�+en: wry charge for rASt of f�efC inspecirons for any pro�ec[ wn¢h� Il! repu�res an env�ronmental assessmeni wwksheet IEAWI a an environmental �Oact statement (EtSI ry�rsuant to Minnewta Staiuces Secuon t i6D.(2t �s undertaken wrthout a ce�mrt apppwnon; or f31 is undertakm n eatess ol an asued a�^'t- TM �+sM'�cwn 1ee wd( irxiude the rosts of necessary surveys e�+C wdi be Dasetl upon tne actuai cost of the msoeCiron. The cost of Fieid nspeCtqns w�p ye at kast 525.00, p;r, rqt more4han 5750 00. � (OVER) qppGcatan insvuctions Each sea�on bebw corresDO^ds to the ao7�ov��e sectanm the �ooca�b^ !«m. ltse biad Dan o� G�^, o� tortn mhsrd sr(ace. aM o2ss f*^+h Part 1. ADP��'Yt Name and Atldress. , PatC ContianorProposedP+S'xt:Theaop�icationmuscrckitleMebcat�onotthea��MGo.ertrnrrtloLGx�d.W�t��°^•�' ta�. townsh�o rwm6ec �arge. md canry as stww+� m the aCstraC[ ot Mk. �f ihe pMM is ii a plaRed xea. the b[ i�d doct eMRlberRd #m wpa,vs;on nane must Oe reponed- The fre ro.. Oo: rw.. or saGress of the 0�� s4e, must be iMicated and a bra6o� mec � in ordc m � ��� � preniees. k�ckde the wR+e ad nunbE* 6( knownl ot the iake. wefla�d a wasacdxsem'dved. hrt t. 7rpe of Nbk ProW�: Pfease c�eck ct+e aov'W��e Do�lai. See i++e AOdina�al Mfomiatwn AewKed secnon of rt+ese insauctiax rc¢xd�➢ y„pppMg Md�� t00e Sub*Y.ieO wrtt� tne a0DK2t�on. Art N. Prqect Aid: Aease C+ecf. tTe aODrooNie Do:lesi. Part V. Estme�ea P'aeCt Cost: Wt+a1 s�ne sad estmace0 ms� ot tt.s va�' IMuOe me cost ot au matma�s. scw�ces. eWR�^� p+�K a renta�. an0 �aCw a:o�� t« tt+e o�m ot �ne wMK� a�a+"�v .n�u�g v�+ecled wm«x. py¢W. Le�ginol5lwrel'vieAttecteQ:MW�ca[eN+etotalrnanMrnlfbe�atsnwe4+eihMnnrtpeaHecteCDytl�epopOSeOOrM'�t•���5����� sbes os e wnev.wrse mun nCWS ane tnwNrt�e aHeRetl anDOth sitles. Pert VII. Vdume of Material Flled or &cava[ed: Indicate U�? tocal eumDer of aac yaeds of arry material �o be fi9�W a exw2ted � woiecied •+s�ers. Ca�culate voWme 4y muhiDW�g 2he shoreline aHened by [he C�i�ness a depth of the materiai. Ihen muhidy+g W� d'�M� � a°1K'� ez• tentls waterward.0�e f i l cudCYard eqw�s cwentyseven {271 a#_ teec.IF the proposed pmjetc ticesroc nwNe f�f a eacavavon. yxe "none" m mis space. p,�y�. B darc IX. Purpose ot Pro�ect: Ezpiain wny ttus Dro�ect is necessary- Be scech+c as m wha[ the o6�ec[rves of the pro7ec[ a�e. Rep4es s� as "lake �p°"b meni' a"navigata� ano�ovement' are too vague co be ot neip n assess�rg che memsaf tne appl'icacon. if mae space a reedetl to fuuy e�lain. or m wDGH ocher apol;c2ble �fortnaiwn. a¢ach ectta EXHIBtTS IDWns. sketches. photos, etc.1. px X. Ennronmencal hnpan: Comp�e[e this serion bY ��l'^g: D�o�seG Cwnges in land ard water feacures. character. or qualiry. ard atso eHects that are, w maY ��R^ful but wuva6aWe li.e. bs ot wi161de haM�at. nveased Oownstream Flppdsg. etc.L Fa Wrae a very eom�ex W�s Minnesou Stacuces Chavier t 76D mayrequ�re anEnrronmencal Impacz Swie�*renc IftSI. or Environrnental Assess'ren[ VJarksheec (EAWi before a pertnrt can be �ssuetl. pyi X(. Ahematives: Gescnbe any and ail posvbie altemaerves to the yo7oseC project. lAttach additwnai sheeu d necessa�Yl. PaK Xtl. Nour¢anon: Notanzanon is reouved. No app4cacan can be co�sA^rea wmpie[e unless poperly notarized by a ticensed NotMY PudK• Additional {nformation Required �, aasc�o�w �c o� -�o� r�u Pro�ea:: 5efwe Y� aOW�non can Ge convtlered comPlete. the toilowv�g infwmx[on aM atca[M�ents m�st be i�duded. A. Generai Attachments: The fo:lowing tlata is reW�retl m suoo�R af a pertnit avo��t�� i. G�ound Levet Rwtolsi stwwing: a Water conOmons ac tne Oro�ett site. b. UpWnd [Onditron5. [ Aqu3bC v2yE[ai�. i1 any- ' c ProposeC spod d�sposal srte 6f appi¢a0ief 2. Tat Maps � manCatory rf pr000s�d Wo7xt is on w�pertY w�'hm a�aneC area. The property beuntlar�es of �h ad���g ��7 owned by 4he apW�ran� r �he pro�ect 3rea sttw�d De w+diCateo on the D�t or subninetl as a sepa�ata map. 3. Skecches�Eno�nee���g Rans - The anphcant musc anacn a aeta�ie� s'r.e[ch w engmeermg pta� diso�aymg [he Wliw+w+9 mtormacio^: a GoSS�sectiona�lvCe�v�ewl5ket[h Ttussketchs+nuitltlayaythefoilownau�fortna[wnasRpertamsto.ou*o�o�eCt��[WCespeci(Kd�mensd+s where possblel: 7 t Wate( �el fW;tuar�ons IWesmt. h�gt�est. aM bwest kvNs1. 21 Wace�aep[R 31 Lake be6 elevatw� a stteam beo st�ce. 4� Locauon aM E�mensions cf proposeo pro�^:'t•sttu[ture 1vnSth, wdth, elevatron. tlept�, siCe sbpe, tcCJ. 51 Locacan and Gmenswns ot any aauai�c vege[atwn. � 61 ltlemiN ane W6et iate oeo ana scream bea ca+artwns aM mater�ais. . C. Too v�v tove�t+eaCl ske2cR Indrcate [he fot�owrr IinduCe a.�u�ons where possdcl: 7) R�erry bow�0aries aM b[ dimens�ons. 2t Shoreiu�e and wzcer wcacron- 31 Dimensions of proposeE Oro�e[t I�engch. wAm. eieva[wn. eccl' 41 Points of refnence levsm+g ha+ses. suu^.tu�es. tlocks. e:c.�. Be wre to mGCate wMCh d�rectpn �s "North". 51 Extmt aM bcacwn af anY aauatK vegetauon- 61 Locatron ot spal and d�svosai srtes fit aDDliraWel. � 4. ( la'�md�k3. GlL.). � 5. EQU�yneni � Ind�cate tAe type ot matMnery 16uIIGOZr. Cre6ge. e:c.l [nat wdt De use0 to to�sttutt your O�oi�� 6 lease Agreement - Man6atory it apphcant rs not tne �a�tlovmer. 7 Fenai Rw[olsi - MaMatory 10� warercourse reahgnrient proposa!s. fi. Atltlnw�al InEormaoon - My aa0rtw�a� mforcnacwn t: ac you fer w�tt furthe� ezoW�n your project is tieto�ul and s!au�d be incheCed. E EztensrveaComplexPrqMS-Foreatensrveorcomo�z�ro�ecis,u�eDe�artmentmaY�equestsuWlemenurymtom+atroninciudmg6ucnotirrti[edtothe �(ouowvg: Sopog�aotic mao. water ta0le mav. ��� ���s. tleptn swrbr.ys, aeral photographs, mvirom�e�tat assessment. a�+O/a engv�eerHg �M�S. AOd;:wru! mtortnanM wli De �eCUrted. � .. °"'"'"°�': 9�-i�o3 t awened ..na a rrerixia urrwi ee kg Wy da+rc0 u�kss me xea oeinp Erar�e0 a'r}aced bv an su ot eawt a qeaca nacvs resouce v�+ue. � '� vw arc apdy+g to Man a wecWid. you wnn be asked m wbr�ic a Sum Wata 8ant Progrm appicamn to detnrtrie your dg�y ty State Water Br�t � Lompenzaccn. A Sq�e Water Bank acv�ntan must Le sub'nnM betae the De*+m aoo�ri:cn nn 6e consderetl �mp�Ne. v+ease wecs s+r wesnans w�+mar rwe �o tne aeyw��Kyerobgist x me oNa s+egew once serv.g �ou. N. B�idge and GM.*t Projects ttvoumw000s+�'9tocaumc niomanon.M �YdrobgU�y7rxlit YoultavG a�1' ouest�or�s regararg bdge and aYvert WoR'��. 0� ronlaCt 1ne Aeg�oni� Mytl�Diog�st. N. Q�ms IDan Safary Projeasl: 11 vw xe qoposmg to const�uct. Narye. aher. remove, aEanCOn 0� tpquc( rtgpr rqy an a Eam you myy pe asfc¢E io SutxM aC6aa�al .�FOrmatwn. for Wrtncr nto'mac�on on dam saletr �ements. contatt me Oam Sateq ilrat, U�sono! vraters. Deparuner,t ot Naura� �+esou�ces. 500 tafayene Roatl, St. Paul Nsnnesata SSt a6. tekW�orie:16 7 21 296-a803. V. IhzcY Crossiyt Mmnewta Stawtes. Cnaoter Sa.a t 5 arq M"ru�eso[a Ruks Part 6135 proh�ts utYUy passege over, �yWer or �rou prrnK�eef ,,,mM �SS a Gcenx hu p�n pevw�s�y ornameC iran the cmr*xssmer ot Nanuai Resources. thW ues nUWe te�etra+e. teieynDR antl Nectnc oowcr Yres, cat� or coMUits, untler- grama a omerwne. artwuis or nDeMxs Fa gases. YvuWS. a sdds� wsoension. Ro�s reQU*^9 a utwryaassag Mca�se m3not rew.eae�ocected wacers permt Furtne. niama�ron concem�ng umrty trossugs can be obta�ned by emtanuig: Departmnt of Naewa� Resources � land Bureau. 500 ta:ayetee Road St. Paui, M�nnew�a SSta6. tekphorul612� 2%4a96. SUBMITTING APPLICATION Make sure ma2 y� furnish a�� �+fortnanon mat is reques[etl an0 s9n aM fwiar¢e Ne apphca•,,nn to�m fortnschat are c�cor�ecciy tiued out, a 4ack repuested infy- matron, wdi �use Eelay m your applicata�. AhH Y0u �2ve GomD�eted thC 2PO��C2Iq/�. kCeG thC 1352 COPY IG2naly) aM MP nSINCtiOn ShlY: (Dr Yq+fKO/tl5.8M (M'/Xtl SMltnNining G�GKS with TrvG I5152I5 O( 2q SYPOOrtutg maD5.O4an5. SDKSfKatiOnS. EiC. t0 i1�2 �Ni� REg�Ona10f4�Ct SerWg Y�- Myy aC6P55G5 Can DE IOUf�d On V1C ks[ p39¢. $�c $URE T� INCL�1� AU. APPLICAT�ON FEES WITH YOUR APRlCATION. QUESTIONS If you have any quesnons w� tne Oroceewe lormakmq avv���atwn. pl1,ase contact tne DNRFw�oria10Hice serviny ypu The adEress x�C t��e mxnber of each DNR ofhce can be founC on ihe last page SEE MAP ON OTMER SIDE pF rHis race WATERS OF THE UNtTED STATES 1bu ShouW D¢ awa�e tfut D�o)eCts whiCn wYt c'ndve dtd��dge. eccavaUOn. f•� a�*q0✓A:�eni 01 w�ildnds a watCrs ot (he lhxtP'� SI2IL5. Gven ihOSC rvl1WMS . Msde Of tne ryrrsd�Uro� Of the DNR. maY teQUrcp an ndrvKlual perrtut from S�e US. �.�.'�y CupS o1 EngrtKers. Persons propos.�9 suC� O�qK�s sMaC Contatt tM ReguWtory Funn�ons &ancn, U.S. Artny Cwps ol En9�r�eers. 7135 U.S- Pwt Ott� r�e Custom ttouse, St.?aui. M�mesou SS10t ttekpnu+e:672 �2575571 fa lurthe�ntormatron_ - ' — AdDENDUM — NOTICE TO APPLICANTS FOR DNR PERMfT 70 CHAIVGE THE COURSE, CURRENT OR CROSS-SECTION OF PROTECTED WATERS TAe Depanmenc of Natural Resources IDNRI aM cne PoiWtron Co�2rd Agerx��!'C.�� are waki� tooeihe� to avoid duplicatn�� siare aaency pemut �exiew of prooased actrvmes aHea�ng proteccetl waiers in 1Jdnnemra. Tbe anacFietl fo�m v.�s preoa�� by tl+eDNR and the PCAto �ze yax wak in cantaqing siate a9mcre51or pro�ecl apD�ova�. Rease canpleie fiis form by dacirg an 'X" vn the appropriate bos w bozes. C yar a�o'�t doesmt invaHe anyot the aciionsLtted M this form, ptace an "X" m the 6ox aher nem 9. If you� pro7r[ wdimvGve any of Me act�ons 6sted ior bo:es t tMOUgh H, a wprof ywrpNR p_amt ap�iCanon wilt be tOrwardedtothePOl�utw� Co�trof AgM�Cp IP�AI fw ihe�r revrew. It a separaie PCA pemui or aDO�ova1 is repuiretl. you w�:� be so novf� bv rt+e PCA. P1ace an "X" m tt+e Ooz. if appFCable. 1. The Wo�ec[ vnA mwl�.¢ the tlepOSrt�a+Of aSphaM, ConCrete. Gut vegetation a othr so:i waste as fili materiai. '� 2. TheDro7ectv+ilimvo�veezwvationotmaterialsfromprotec[edwatersmrarntheuseofany0evicewhiChrejnovesmaterwEsWp�anpingOr b.e.�ydraubcdredoingl. ' L 3. The prqect wi�i mvoive ezwvacion of more than t,OpO cuhic yards of mate dt from Cw_ beds of tfie fNtowing waters: a. Lake Pepn on the M�svssipDi River fRrver rrnles 763 to 787 USCE Qarts!. � b. Pool e2 in the Mfssissippi River irom lock 8 Oam s 1 lNe Ford Dam) 20 lnck 8 Oxn � 2(HasYvgs�River mles 725 to 874 USCE pwnsl. � c. flinnesota fLver (rom Savage to ¢s rrwuch ai [he Mississippi krvzr thliie FrG l.5� ftiver tnartt. n tl. DuWth Superio� Harbor and tfie $t. Louis Bay area ol Me St.latis FrvertneMifr._ m Sprtt lake. � e. The Faimwn: chain ot lakes induding Budd, Siseton. Hali, and Amber Laws i+Matin Counry. � t. tilbertLealake,Freebomtam�v � g �VaROad Pover Upper Harbor Area extendmg irwn the mouth o� the �VarnaC Frvr. to CS�+li No. 7 7. � h. Red R�ver o� the North from Wahpetw to the Canad�an bordec � 4. T1�e po�ec[ w;A nvatveezcavation and/a fill inpniec[ed waters fa conacnn�m of �sivry Gnes ra�eyig any materials ezcept veated wate�� a fiquid a semi-solq state. e�Guding but rwt 4mrted to petrdeum or petrpleum Produttt. U�c'rcals. sewage a Coal yurrir,. ❑ 5. The po�c: wiA mvolve cons!ructwn oi Gocks, piers or wharves which wili rn�oive new fue� hxdimg facilities. a b. 7he pro/ect will mvolve riew construction, mconstruction M repair ot sttucives fo� cp�� era;ion af hydrcelectric powec . � 7. The pro�e`t w�ll invofve constructron ot new anuliary facilities for san¢ary uwers, bx. punparts, on-srte waste 2reatment or hddrtv3 tanks- � £. The prqect v+iP mvolve the on•sne 6isposa� by bummg of vegetanon to 6e rr.ww_i d:ring proiect constniction. � ❑ 9. Th= p�o�ect .vdl not involve any of the ebove. C ADa'xan; name ttvce or pnnU ad7ress DIVtSION OF WATERS ADMINIS7RATIVE REGIONS 7 � AEGtON 3 REGION 1 Regional Hydrolooist DNA - Division af W2ters 2it5 Birchmon, Beach Roatl N.E. Bemidji, MN 56601 (218) 7553973 REGION 2 Regional Hydro�ogist DNR - Division of Waters t201 East Ftignway 2 Grantl Rapids, MN"55744 (278) 327-4416 Fiegional Hydrologist GNFi - Oivision of Waters 7501 Minnesota OrivC E:a�nerC. MN 56601 12tE; E2"o-2fiC5 AEGION 4 Fec�onz: Hytlralogist DNF - Drvison Of Waters £�s 75E. Hignway t5 South hew� U�^. Mh 56073 ;SG%� �S<-2t96 REGIDN 5 Regional Hydroiogisi ONR - Division of Waters P.O. Box 6247 Rochester, MN 559Q3 (5�7j 285-7C30 REGION 6 Reg�onal riydrologisl DNR - Division o� Water5 7200 Warner Road S. Paul MN SSt06 (612) 29E-7523 NA—D2622-03 Rev. t2/85 PEBMf7 APPUCA710N Of°ARTMENT oF � TO WORK IK PROTECTED WATERS Otl YIEiLkNDS '^a=�¢����` �IMp.U01M6 DAM SI,FES71 ��--^ NATURAI RESOURCES ► s Please read instructior.s before ariempting to compiete th+s appiication. �� �'/i�✓ OFAICE�USE ONLY. Q$WCD OGC Q W.D. Q{1SCOE I. Applicant 5 Name �Last. First. M.I.) Authonzetl Agent (if appt�cabie) 7elEphone Numberaa.eaccae ( } Address (Street, FFD. Box Number, Ciry. State. Zip Code) I. LOCATION OF PROPdSED PROJECT (BESURE TO INCLUDc SKETCH SHOWIn1G HOW TO GET TO THE SITE} Government Lot(s) fluarter Section(s) Section(s) No. Township(s) No. Range(s) No_ Lot. Btock. Subdivision Fire No.. Box No. or Project Address Counry Project wdtattect p Lake.O WeUantl or O Watercourse (nart+e 8 number. rl knOwn' I�• TYPE OF WORK PROPOSED �CHECK ONE) IY. TYPE O� PROJECT (CHECK ONc) ❑ excavate ❑ repa�r O shoreiine ❑ shore-protection ❑ obstruction D dam � tiil ❑ remove ❑ channel p harbor � 6ridge t7 other ❑ drain ❑ abandon (�., sand b(anket ❑ permanent dock ❑ cuivert {specify) ❑ construct p other (speCify) � install O riprap ❑ whari 1• ESTlMATF� Pti0.{ECT COST $ V1. l£NGTH OF SFfORELiNE AFFECTED t113 FEET)� l. VOLUME OF MATERIAL FILLED OR EXCAVATED (1N CUBIC YARDS)� 1. SRIEF EXPLANAT101J OF PROJECT�(EXPLAIN wHAT PROJECT CONSISTS OF AND HOVt WORK Wlll. BE DONc) X. PURPOSE OF PROJECT: (Explai� � this project is needed) �;=s-��; � �: " '':° , X. ENYIR�MMElfTAI IMPACi (Anticipated changes to the water and related iand resources, inciuding unavoidable but detrimentai effects) !. Ai7ERMATiYES {pther aiternatives to the aciion proposed) II_ i Aereoy make aao�+canon pursuam to Mmnesota Stamtes Cnapter 105.<2 and atl supportmg rules tor a perm�t to work m or attecf tne aAove nameE protecieC . �o«� „� ��� awv, ua,u;e n�ui eu >uuV���ny nmps, pians, ano ome� mrprmaimn suommtd wrt� [�is appli[atiDn 7ne mtormatan suommea ana statemrnts maae concen�ng this appi¢ahon are irue and correp to the Dest of my knowledge. SSATE Of COVNTY OF SuOSCnbM an0 swwn ro Eeture me this day of My commiSSion erpires 79_ S�gnature ot Owner or Autnorqe0 Aqrnt �ate S�gnature oi leasee Date Distribution: S�gnature ot Natary White: ONR Blue: SWCD Green: Watershed Oistrict Goidenrod: Ciry or County Pink: Army Corps o( Engineers Canary: Appiicant ���i laboratories, �. mo nwy.. ua.e �.m Mtnnwpeiia, MN SSf22 P�a� (612) Stt-SSt3 --, f °l'1 •\ao3 Ciient ��lRli N6TDU (��ae 1�h( gy `,IL," Date 3 8- Project STa2Nt WA-T�� '�VtJD�� Sheet No. a{ Subject �a�� � K �vtnwvYre i�' Project No�0224• Z _ . . . - _ : _ : . _ � : - , : � . _ : .:_"___' """—_'—..�'_c .__ _"_ _'_""__' "'__ ' _ __' :'_ '_c_'-_: . [_` __' '_;"_._: : � . . : � -. EST� MAT�D :_-'SA,LLT �CoN Ce1�:T2�Ti O�N .:: _t t. _ S+�owME.LT � - - -- --_ _ .._._._. ._. _... _, _ - --- - - - - - _.� ,.- — _. -- - - -- ---- o:�F —=- _ . ___ _ �__.. . _.�__ ._ ._. ^_ - :--- - ----__ , , _ --- - -. -- _ �..__� -- -- _ ..._---- --_..: . . ._ ._ -- : - - =- =- - - _—; _. ._._ ___ __.._ - - - __�:.___...-- _ - - - -- - ``= - --=-- �- - -- � - - -�--, _.. .. _: _KN.o�N N_=__=�B -- :V S2,cI . _:.S iX _ �ffl> _: __�I-I'1 i r �- V_, . 'f"oY_1 �"�^v c.�cl_oiadSS� : < -- 1 -- - ... ---- ° --.:.__. _ - - �._ ----- -- ---- - _ :...:-.; - -_-,----°f ---.-SaE"t'��SCLn� _mixi'"��e.:. °-=ro � _ - --._.� _ _ _-- - --._ .......... .. .. ..__. :_---• ' --• �-{ _ _. .. .._._..---._._... .._;_ _ -- ----- --� �____�-- _ _ ' -- _ , _. .. - -: - -�; , �t.on. `� is`W r!1�#E.Y :�:.. _. - Th2 _�rn �. �_:i s �._- ` _ . . ..- - -- ___._..- : -• -�rz.c_ _._.__. _.. _ .. . _. _. _ . _: _ .. . .. . ........ _ -. _. _:. _. _._. _... ... _ _ , _.___; _�._=._�__�.�-� �o��. sQ :-._�_--`_---_� :__.__..:-__-�_�} ._..---. . .____ . ... ..�...�_ ___ _ ..._ ,_ _ _ _ _ ._ . ; _.-_-- - ; _ . .. _._---:._:. .;-- _ : .- - .=_.___-,� _ . _ EST1MP�fi�N .'^t�ta:��_. GL � C.vU �EKT�R - i N__5f.iov.wmErc':�zvr�oFF : . _ _._. . .- - . ;.. ._ -�----- - -- - - ___. ._ __. _� _ _ ....�---- - - .. ._ - . --. � .. . .., .."�,ve..rC�F� ."_�/.t�:�'.i'�'2`[`.. �2G�� ��.+iot1 �--- - � � -' - - --- r�_. ° ' R �� c _ _ _ _ __...__. ._._---�.._.. . ._..._ .. ,._... . __. .._.' _ R';r4 e.. c� � ;._. : . : � _.-- ---._Y. _.. _ _ _--•-- .. ..A��-�q� - �_.. _ ._. __. _ : . . ,� -- -:. .. �`o'vi-= � . . _,.. -- . ._ t�rec �p . yn�4-�es _ .._ - -�a.vt JI - --�areu p.-}a�4-i ov� ____. ._.. - . . .: _..__.. . .. . ___ . .. _ � _..... :._. .-., . _ . . _ - - �0.T'�"�Y --- _.. ._�_.. .._.:_ . -- - - -..._ :.- ..i . Z(o �-- _ _ _. .. _ MhPis. = St. Pa. _ ,. NS "iV� ' .. .. . ....... .._ ,.._ . OV.. _. ... __.... . ... .. . . . . - • . . _.��' --.--_.... �...___..._.�.—______ _... _..__. ______._ .__.. __.__ _.t✓w�',-ro?ot�3 Q,Ye.4___.�d _ . _ . _ . -- -... - De_c: : _ _ ...... _.... � . a t - - - - ' . _..__ ___.....;.... .. ...-- - -- . -- -�ro�nd;+�� �'ovr __. ... .. . _ _.. . . _ _.... ._..._. _.._.. _._ . ,.__ _.. __ _---.. ._ - � - -- __ � .._..._.._—: - - - - :SQ.v� ::_:.' _- .._.. ......---.._..�.._ ...... . __� _... _�_�� ' .__ _; �.�.�_�i.._��.-��..r..��.�..�... .. . -.-r�-�.�..._� . ...i.._...__ �.� ..__. . F i . _ ..- ' - - ._-_ .... _ -_�.�2rD.._.; �_. c_..__:.._... __. ._-�--- �---. - -... ... __ _..._...__— � Q.� _ . : . , - . .. .{� .'_.._:-'.__._,_.-._.. . . "'___ ' -'_' _ .,.. . ._ _ _ _ . _ ........_... .,. _ ' .... ... ___ ... ........_ ._.._.'. ... . _... ._ ."'.'.' _' . . ._. ,..... . . � ,.. _ -----.__ �._._Mav-.=-�-`-- � -3L----- --- ---. . .._ .V .__ -- - . �� _� __ ..:...__.. .�._... --•-, . ...__ - - - --- __ ......--- - • --- - - _..� �.�.�:. � --�-- - --- -..._...... _.u..__._�.- --_ . - --- --...F. -- _ __....: . . . _�_. : ._ _.:.._: =._ ..__. . _ _.__--�-�- - -.. _.... . --- - - - �. _ -- ------.��__. __�'T }_'-- 2: 35 . _ . ._ _ .. _ : ._ ... . ..: ... : * �;_� . -- - ------ ---- - -- -- - _._� - -- _� . _ --: -_, .._.: _.�....--- ... __. ..._ - - -�- - ... - �� , — _ _ _ `— , _. _.. _ .. .____..___._.�_..._.......;..__...___To. �:1:.:_° ._.___. �:1? ���t,es.__....___. . _ . -_._. . --___ --` -- __.___._, _ .---�__.._. ---_ _------ -- ---_ ... .__. . _ _. . , �� _ r_.:�-----__ .-� - ---, .. �..._..._----- -. - --- -- --_ , . :._ -. .. .. : . . : .: . ::. � :::_ _ . . . . : . .. � i , : _ .----°� - - .._ i. ZL_LIL'(�T�'p�S_..__.. �.____.._.__-_-._.�__ � ; y : , _ ._ �. _ ---'-._._��. . , � : _ -- -.., . . . - -- -� - �._ - -. -'__ . -' -- - --- :-___..__._...---..->-.._..._...__..,_..---�-'.._,.�.....-_. , - -. -.__. . .._.._. _--.._..--. ._._... - - .. __ ..... _ ., . .: _ . _._' :_ .� LL -i ,....____ .= ._.:_ '_ : Y-- �_�:._ ;0:10 S�t_ 3o 2o°o�lbs - - - _ ;� ` _ .. _ ._ -°-� _�.� __ . . - v - - __. . - -- - --- ---- --- -- - --- �� _�- -- , ----=a �H _joad__. _ :_ . ��''. . _ � ='r _...._ _ __...- - - .._ �r.� - - - . . . . :_; » .��..- ��._� —___._... _ T.... �i � --s ..._,_�_ .�.. ; � � . . . . "._... _ .. _. ... . .� .��� ..�.,.... . . . . .��.��.� _ Y ♦ � . �_.. � ----ylE �S�t,v�a.�e:t�=- �'1;.wtQ.�C'-.?r2c:a�o_-�iovn_.�Jrio �:..R�::$�t1-�S'� - = ._._. _.:_.__..._�.___;..._..---°--- -----�-- -- --- - � T_..-. .�.. �--�-- �_ _ _ '._.._--- ...... ..,-_- �_--- - -. _.--- ....� ,..,.. c__. "^ � i � -- a� 2- ivicJ�es-�ec'v ,- -asi-� - �cre - . �t- ra35la�-�S�" r �'t° 4 j` 'x. i - - -- - - � 1 1 �_��.�tl�1�CiDrt�{m'�s _:,..: ,� .-.; s�t�:-- -�,z - � -- - -=.�3 �---- --- - - ��. _ __'_�_'_t___ __._.j--..__.r'_, ...—__�___.__ � " �t�'rC ��/ \ � - . , , _ . . , . . - - -'- -� --� - - �-- .. _�... _ _ -�.. ---- � - ---.._.�_._�_��_._�,--..._ . . , � : _.. . . -_ -- .�-_.__ . . _ . - - ' ' - - - - . :..... �. � � - - .... _._.. . _._ _ _._. -- --' �'-a ;SoD�vM �Co}�G:�- .�3(a,00O Ibs X 23 ,M t�la j� _`'''',9��:.:�_._ = �l_7�8 } int �:ovaME�.? 1OtO . ..alivns i-. . _ �JS..4.n �, .—.. . ! . --.PVNOFE. -- ---� --� � -- .. . _ _ �._�aCC --- �.� A'ID �al.^ -- -.�..._�` '- . -_'--. ' -'-:.._ e._ ..:. --� '. --. _ .__.. . ' . . GNLORID��:Co1.lC.. `.� 3��OOO -16 N4C1. v- � : - �-'- (; -- ,� �owm�tr_=: • 1Y X �5.� "� �L X m Q _.c._ .27�_Mf.IX , '' , ,- . . _. .. ..q X�IOb-G4��oNS/yv- . �.�t' rnq ryaC� . . .8�� X�D4Gt� .,� � , tJ .. -_' }ZVAID�F_ '. ' . . . J : __ J J J ' . �1�EZ � � •,� 0 3 ' Ctien t_B . , .Rt_WlaTOM 1foKTNeRN g LB DVD Date 3-8- l aboratories, tr1C. Project �T°�m WArs�C ��•✓o�F Sheet No. pf_ mo oo�y. on,. w�m Sub'ect S�o' /iJ S.vo w/yJEcT MlnmapolFa,MN55t22 1 �Project No �Sa Pl+ena:(612) Saa•SSf3 ' _"'_' '�_�,�_"_�'_. - • --. _: E3T/H!.¢TED . .SE�/MF�/T ?LoAp' .;TO 3/+� �oN� - -- C�rLeu�,�T�o.�s: - - -_-_ _ - _ . � �'t --- . _. .. - -----. .. -- : _ - f� 3s�.ne : .5 A-ND , -- - _ DE�os /Tiow/ ._. ...... _ :_ . - 3F: t�ouN.ps .S�rD UsFa --- : . 0• 90_ `aCne� 3 D. 74� n _" . . ' "54If�Sa�,a�/i1�1'7��e 'lea�/ rsa„d = - -- - ` NwlK�FLLY:" : _" _ ' . X _6 -/oads - - 2r�oo /S -- --- --x�- _ = r. . ... ... . -..Y...: --.'.�a� . �I�° /zo /6�� 3 --- -- - - -. t . -----�_.. _ . = 3a �; .bao" /6: : �'t � . --X - r . . .." ---- -- .... —..`___. {za !6 ------- 2�700 �t`� - r ..:.�_ = D.06z acrc -�t�, . �----- ; : .: ; . . ;._._..... 1/Otvmt;------- _-_' - .-- :._ : .. _---� - ---- - . - .. ._ _ . : � F __�-s¢%5.�^�-t ,� �,�-" : �=- �'.�(`. r —�. _.._.tv._� ���.�- �ft,_o - - _ , , , - �---�-- --- -...------ ------- - - — -- poni 0 - - - - - - -- --- - ---- ,lfc :. . . _- , . . - ---- ---- ^--- � -- - . � • --- _ , i i . . . .. . . .. ... ' '_"'_'._ __ ' �_"__" _' _ __' "� . _. : _. . _ _ _ ' - _ . _ . . . _" __'" "" _ ... � _ ._ �--- , . .- - . . . .-a �� -x /�,2 a�,-es � _ 36 �4�.� - - .__ , __. . ;. . . . , . . ---- - ---- --- --- ----- - _--- - . .___ -- - _ . ._---� - �--- - - -. _ . , . -- - --- __. . -- _ ..--= - _ -. --- - ; __- -- -- ----- � - -. - . - . -: ::-, -_�_. ._ - -... .-.-_-: ._---� , , �----�,---------:___.;_:.__-- _. _--: ------ - �- -----�---- -- �S�A77rsFN�T LO�.D-- - -- = - -_ -- --- � - -- - � - -- - - _�_ r-� ;_^-------- - - , --- - _ .�- = -- _ - - - --.... . . _ � • - �- ---. ., .. . .. :.- - - - - - - 4 :ob-Z ..GGrt:- � s��y�- . '- ---- ' TD-�..Pon/.�._. _.. ._.._. _ - -- �- - - __. ... . __; - - - ' '-----: _ - --- - - • - . . . , . --� --- -. _ . _ • ... _ � . , --- --- -- 3 t . d; 4 �%,� - - —P°'�'f _ . . . _ .— __� � ----- - � - -_ - ' '— _' - - . _. .. - -- - .. �._ . _._ - ---= - ; _ . . . - - -�- � ..- - . _._ _�.. I-- --- - = -----�- - ' ' ' � �. r---------.:.:..:_- ::---_. ..- ----. . _ --- -_--_ : _ ' '- .---- -� . _---} , -- - • - • - - O/' -- -O. � ye---a-nnua.7/y . :: — - ----- ----- - 7 ..- - -. . . . . - `.-- -- �---- -. _. . . . -- -- -------� : _ .. - - . . - - - . _ _.. ___.. - �•--- +- _.. __..;. . . -_ / i ... . . , - -- --- - -- ------ * --- -- - - . _ :._ , - . - - - � . ... _. _..__ . . _- - -- -- -- ----- . _ ._.. .___ . , , - ... ...... ....... --- - -�----°=--=--- --=-- -- - - ; : .. �.'-_—.--_... - - = =-- - . . - --=-- - ----_ : _:_� , -- - ..._____--�--�--- , .._ .- ---- --. - •-- -- - - -- t , - - --- - - �-•--- -- , ._.� --.. . ..--• - ------ -- a-�-- - -�+ . , - -- _:- : ---- - �------�---- : � � : -�._�_..__ .._--" " ..-_�__ : :.-.� -� -- - �- - i -- ---- � - - .. . . � _ . . T --"-- — ' -- - '—'—... . _ . _ . . _, __.. � , _ _ _ '_ • � � � • - - - - '--- -�_. .__ _...__ . . -- - - ---- - - jA_,-__c _'_._.._'._"___4. . , . ..__ ____ � _'.. _ . ' � J ' _'____ : , . � ' � - � . :.. � . . . _ _ �---�"_" "_' '_'_' . _ ' . .. __ . . _ "'_' . . ' '__'_... .. _.. ' _ . ' . . � . . .. ...' ' " ' "'_"'__._— ' ' ' ' "'_'_ . . . : � � "" "'� ' ' _ _ "_. ' ' __ . .�'_"__.�__ . _ . _ _ . -a „'" ' '__ ' . ".: . f . • , ! . .� , . ...__... . ____' . ... � � � . . . . '_" i �___�'_..�.r'__"_..... _..�_—..— ' _ • ' _ __ ....-.. _ _ . . —__'—�_^__—'—_ )�—'_'_'_" " " "_._. . . ._�_' � " _' �" , . � . . __ . . . - ' "' " "___. _ , . . . - • ___' ' '— ' ' -' - - : , ..�.. _. � __ . . .. : . . . . ' . . ..._ _ _ . . .. _ �.. s , __' _' .. .. � � ' '_. ' _ ' _ ' " ' _. .. . , � - . . . . ' ' . ' ' _' ' ' _ " ' . . .. .. . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . .. ' ' t--'_" : _ " ' . .. .. . . __ . : . . . . � ' "_. - ... _ _ . ... _' . . { . . � � . . . . . . . ... ... ....... � . .3 _____" "'"" �� ___' ' ' __"'"___�'_"_" '_'_"___'_ �1" ' ' _ . . : ' . _ . . . -'_'_'..__. _"' "_�'' ".`. "'_ ____"_""""'__' �— _ -.� _ .. . . .. . . . . _ . _ . . - ' . . . ' ' ' t - . . . . . . " ' , ... . . . . . . . . : . _ . . . _ . ' r.___'_ "' _ . ... _ _ __ "_ _" '_ ' "' .. _ .._ . - ._ _ ..'� _ ' '__-,-"""_'__'_' . p__"'_ . . : . . . . . . . .. , . , . __' _"_ .__. '"_ .._,_ _ ... �._"_ _'. . . -, _ . . i . . . ; . ' � _ . " ' . . � . � , ; . � _" " ' t___" ' _ . � . • . . . . . . . . l " ,��� g laboratories, �. mo oa ch.. Ham Mlnn�apWU. MN SSa22 PhoM: (612) Sft-SSf3 °l'1-I�o3 Client ����N �✓oGrN��n/ gY JLD DP Date3-�-c Project S��^' ���'� ��^'"�F Sheet No. of_ Subject Or� f�6�cE�fS'F C"o�JC6reNS Project Na B�Z2�S/.Z� Cvl2E�/T VS, f� it0✓E�TF� OiL ;./s2Ef}SE° Lp�D � - . - --- —� -- -- - . _. _ _. _ . . . . . . . �-- _ _.. .. ._.._. .. _ ._:. ,. . . ..... , . ._ t ' -- - ;L'u<t�MT C. DAD _ . . _ : . ' _ - • - ----- ----�- -- ---- � - -- -- -- -------�---- __ :. .. __..:_ . . . :--- -� • - - -- - -.... , _ . . • --- • . . .. .... ._ '_ . - - . ��� . - -: :- - -: . . bo0 - a!/6»s :o:{� c/v�i�Tlc� oi � ' ��± rcai �P�/i4�_ ' _ : : �-- : ._. :.__...._ 5 ...--=- ` _._.... _ , •.—_.._,-..'_� vr_ : A�K:s f .._ G C� L � !o %-._ _ - : . -- • - � - - -- �__— ---�----.. . --- --... . .._--.- _ . .. . . _ _ .. .. . - - -- � . _ .. . . . , ... - -- . ... . - -- • :-- -- -� -- � ..�SSnMG ' � � � - - ' . . . ._ _. . - -_� , . �.x..: �___ - -- _. __ `.---- -- --- _.__._... . �._-_v.9 - :. _,. -- ---- - --- ._.. - - - . . .._._._ _._. � ...... .. -- .- -: , _ -- __..� : - � - --_ - - - . .. - . . .. _ --- ----. . _ ... _.: f�mo:.nLF' ��.ifX��eq�� i/� icfna� __ , - �i _ ;.. ... _.__. -. . . ":- � _:. � • � - -- ---- --'-- � -' � .,,---�----�------- - . _..---_-'_ _-- -- - - . . � - -- _ . . ..:_.. _. __ �---*--- -------------_�...—; _ . : - /9, Gd0 w.� . . . . : ' . : . ... ' _ : . .: _ : . -'� - � ... . . ._ . _._._. - ._ J---- . ._... . _ - . . , - . . .. .._..x O: 90=;; _-8� 3� -/6=- - � - . .._.: _ _ - --x .,__._�:—__ �-_ ._`�_ . -5 - y- _ - . . . . - - _-._ . . � /o . . :. Y. . ... . : _ a/---•--- ---- -- -- - _.__ ------ _. ...__. _._. 5--. -- . _ . : . _ . . . _. . . . . -- -:_.__._ . . - -. ,- - .. eoa y�o , - -------------- --------� --=- --o' /.''- te'uSG --,. :_ . .__. - - - _ ._ . .. -- - - ------ --' , . _.....�_ - ' •- -- - - -- - - - - � � - __ _.._. . ; y r -- - --; - � --- - . _. . -- = .._--- -�- ---�- - -._:. . � - -- ---- K'o�F�TE � ----;---- -- � -- - � -- - . . _ ;_ � - - -- - - -- --- -- - - - --- -- _. . . . �.�_� _ .. , . _- __.__ _ . _.... _. . ..__ ' ss...nE - -G.c� - -- �-----; ---- . __ -- — G �eF E�- ..v.r . _ Si..,, a: �r�; - - T° - : '�..._�.__ . � '�uN=o�F �._. �___ _....._.._...--- ------ � -'- - i----- �F _ m3� �. .. y�'.e.r .. ; . �.--- ._._� ::- _ - - -_::_ -=i =:__-� _.. - -- _. , , - � - ---------- ,.. :.. . ' -'--_-�_-�--------'--� �._... . `- - .. . _----� sz�G� _s?�c: _-i � G� E fts E_ C,orv�N7X.4�/� _.. . . .--- -- � -- � - - - =-- -- _. t . . . . . . - - - - �. _�.---! 'FE �RGE�. -- —___-------'-.-_..--'.,;..__..._..; __ Ie. _ .._a �_, ..� - '-- � ' - - - . __ _- - `---- -' ; --=--' _. ._- ---...... . - • -- --- - - •_ _ - - ` -_. _-- - - - --�-- -- : -_ ---- - � _,�_:.r—�� .:- - . _ _. ___ _ _ - . ,-__ � --------- - --- ___ -�- . ' - -_ . , � . . - ---X - - ..__. _..T__...._; . .�I_.-----�- .._5'9_ ;y ;a�•-�s� ---; , ----------- - - - - -...- ---- --- t----�---- .._.._�_.--: ' __- --- • ----- --•-• ----� , . � , �--- � -- - - ---- • � --------� . ;- : - ----- -- - -� - — ---- -- � , - -. - -._,___..�_'_ - - -- - - Y-- ---- -- =-----�/ S6D-- _____.:�----- � �' j--_____;__ , 3 rt� _, �l�'_ ; - _-- - - - : - - - -- - : ... - --- - —° " � ' ---_._--__, __-- - - - ,�B _ s r------ - �----- - - _ - �__ 'R� - -`--- ;- --1---- --------a�.•-o:.-.�;_.-_� . 'x�.-�:=--38.7_n?�i�.o�.iGx//.:r�, �,�_ — -- - ; . _ ----�--�--•-- ------ --- -- . r-=- - - -��' - -- . . --- - � � -- - - ._ � -_;-----� -i-- _. -------�---- ' , ----- --- �- ------�--- . ,�- ----_ . --- --�,-- - - - -- - -- . .. . ----. _ _._._ _ . _ _. _ _ . . , =.'. � . - _ . . -- - --�-- - - - �----- . . - .----__�_._ ,.. . . ; -- - -� - . _. . --- - ---- , -- . � -.O� /-,�:�are-Loaa�.� _ • -- -� -- -,� - ' _ � --- � ' - - r- ____—__--=-- - �- � ----' - " � �-_ _ ----- -- - � - - - � - i ----�-- - - - - -- --- � - -- - - - - -- . ;- . . . - - ` - - -..._.. i- � --• -- --�_ ' } . � • ; • ' . : , _ �,'-:�i , : - --'-- -----. �-___ -=�•8: -7'-m �/�p, - _ =�3— - --- --- --- = ---- �--=' � . � -- *_-•---- - - �-• t • - . . _ . �i%/:i, - -- y ,'SoO ! ---'- -- ---- Y --`- ` —�'---- �— --�-- � � 3 . -i . -- ' -_� t � - . , , _ _..� � � --- . -___--• -----r— ' . ----; - • . . . .. . . . . .. . ..- - ---��- - ' , J ; _-_.__..---�--------- -- • �-----;.-.. _ '.---.-. . _._�..- --•-•- � -- � r---==:.-P2d�EcT�D -_..,-:--3Soo�/l.� �-_ ;- � ; - • -- :._ ' .: _-i.:.'�.; ,_. -,. 4 -- �- --�- - - ..; , - ---•- - - :_.r__ - :- _--, - - = � . . . _._ _ . . , ..._ -� , ---._.---:_-- ..: . .. .:..........:--,-•----.=���,.. -• - , - ---------- ---�-___ _�_— ,--- � . . _ . .- - - .. . . � : -- . __ _ _ ...__ . ..; - =- �- - . ._;----- r- - - • • - - --- -.. ._ � t _ : -- +-- ---: , ; ,Po1FeT�D'" o��_ sri.».ir� ,. _ ' 'G`✓�¢RFNT - ' ' --... :._._ ._.. -�-- • - .. . . ._ : - `---' ,- . . `.�pv�__fyoo�_yj.--�:.... _ ..... . . _ ....__; r- _•------------' � � To B E � S•�o So7 . , -_-'-_ � - - - -_ --- ._ , --- _- _ ,_... ---- - -- ..._. ... . 4.� ... . _ � . ...; - ..� .� i . . � ,- � � � . . � . . . . . . . . . . . . . � �� _ .I � , PUG-29-1997 69�14 . .� � �� q�„�go3 REASO?dS TO DENY THE AppEAI, OF FRANK WALLNER • ZOI3ING �TLE NO. 97-192 SAINT PAT3L LEGISLATIVE CODE § 64206(a) PROVIDES THE CIIY COIJ�TCII, W(TH Tf� POWER TO DECIDE APPEAi,S FROM DECISIONS OF Tf� BOARD OF ZONINGr APPEALS (BZA). SUCH APPEALS ARE LIMITED TO CLAIMS OF AERTZOR IN ANY FACT, FII�ING OR PROCEDURE ON TI� PART OF THE BZA. ----- SAINT PAUL LEGTSLATI'VE CODE § 64.207 PROVIDES THAT THE CI'TY �OUNCIL, WFiEN HEARING APAEALS FROM B7A DECJSIONS AMAY REVERSE OR AFFIRM, WHOLL'Y 012 PARTLY, OR MAY MOD�'Y ... THE DETERMINATIQN APPEALED FROM AND MAY MAKE SUCH ORDEIt, REQUIREMENT, DECISION OR DETERMIl�IATION AS OUGHT TO BB MADE.o MR. WALLNER'S APPEAL RAISED TfiREE BASIC ISSUES. TTiE ISSLTES ARE SLR'vIlvlARiZED IN MR. BEACH'S JIJi,Y 30, 1997, ADVISORY MEIvIO TO THE CITY COUNCII. AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE. FOR TF� FOLLOWlNG REASONS I WOULD MOVE TO DENY MR. WAI,LNER'S AYPEAL. FIRST, TT�RE WAS NO ERROit AS TO ANY PROCEDUI2�. MR. WALLNER WAS • GIVEN TIiE OPPOItTUNITY TO PRESENT TESTIMONY ON THE MATTERS HE FT12ST PRESENTED TO THE BZA. W1TH RESPECT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEN`I' WORKSHEET{EAW}, TT� BZA DID NOT CONSIDER THE EAW AND IT IS NOT PART OF THE RECORD OF DECISION OF THE BZA. SECOND, TI�RE WAS NO ERROR OF FACT. TfIE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO Ti� BZA WITH RESPECT TO PARKING VS. STORAGE CAUSED THE BZA TO CONCLUDE THAT TRAILERS WERE PARKED AND NOT STORED. NO 01`I�R CREDIBLE EViDENCE WAS PRESENTED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH VJOULD DEMONSTRATE ERROR ON Tf� PART OF Tf� BZA WITI-I RESPECT TO THIS ISSUE. THIRD, THERE WAS NO ERROR IN FINDINGS. TF� BZA CONCLLJSTON TT�AT BNSF PARK TRAILERS ON TI� SITE, IN LIGH'T OF TI� OPR�IIQN OF BZA STAFF AND THE OPII�]ION OF T�3E CITY ATTQRNBY ADVISING BZA STAFF, IS BASED UPON A REASONABLB It�TERPRETA"I"�ON f?� THE ZOI3ING CODE. THE BZA'S FINDINGS AR� NOT ETtTtON�OUS GTVEN TFTE FACTS PTtESENTED. FOR ALL THE A$OVE REASONS, YOU CQULD MOVE TO DENY TI� APPEAL AI�TD ADOPT AS THE FACTUAL BASIS SUPPORTING YOUR DECISION, THE FINDINGS STATED ABOVE AS WELL AS TIiE FINDII3GS OF 'I'HE BZA iN TiiIS MATTE.R. THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT MR WALLNER HAS NQT RAISED VERY IMPORTANT • QUESTIONS CONCERNING BNSF'S CONDUCT AT THE MIDWAY HUB FACILfTY. SY RUG-29-1997 09�14 .. .. BNSF'S OWN ADMISSION BEPORE TI� CTTY COUI3CIL, BN�F HAS, IN TF� PAST, � STORED 'T'R An.RR c ON THE PROPERTY IN EXCES3 OF SEVEN DAYS. THIS IS A CLEAR VIOLATION O� THE ZONII�TG CODE AS It3TERPRETEb By TFIE BZA. BI�35F CANN07 CREATE ITS OWN FREE FLOATING LAND USE CLASSIFICATION BY DECIDE WHERE AND WE�TT TT WII.L PARK TRAII,ERS AND WHERE AND WHEN IS WILL STORB T12AILERS ON TT3E PROPERTY. THIS IS NOT AN ACCEPTABL$ STATE OF AFFAIRS. Tf� CITY, NOT BNSF, DETERMINES HOVJ LAND IS USED AND WHAT THE LANU ZOI�IING CLASSIFICATIpN MIGHT BE. - TO THAT ENB, THE SE�EN DAY DIVIDING LINE BE1'WEEN PARKING AND - STORAGE AS DETERMII�rED BY Tf� BZA FOR LAND ZONED INDUSTRIAL IS T00 LONG. A SEVEN DAY PERIOD IS ALSO UNREALISTIC IN THAT IT MAKES ZONING COMPLIANCE DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO E�tFORCE. IN THIS CASE, BNSF STOOD BEFORE THE COUNCIL AND ADMITTED T�iAT IT HAD, UNDER THE SEVEN DAY DIVIDING LINE DISTINGLIISHING BETWEEN PARKING AND STORAGE AS ADOPTEb BY THE BZA, ALLOVJED TRAILERS TO REMAIN ON THE LAND IN QUESTION FOR A PERI01� OF TIME TN EXCESS OP SEVEN DAYS. THIS CONSTIT[3TES A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE ZONING CODE FOR THIS PARCBL OF LAND. TN ORbEIt TO RESOLVE THIS SIIUATION, I WOLTLD CALL FOR A SUSPENSION OF • TFIE RULES AND INTRODUCE A RESOL'LT'TTOI� FOR T�IE COUNCIL CONSII}ERATIpN WHTC�i WTLL CALT. POR ZONING STAFF TO EXAMIIdE AND CLARIFY �D�� G CODE WITH RESPECI' TO THE TIME DISTINCTION BETWEEN $�?����1 ° STOR.AGB AND TO SUCH CHANGES TO THE ZONING CODE SO THAT TLT,EGAL CON]7L7CT, LI TFiAT ADMITTED TO BY BNSF AT ITS MiDWAY HUB FACII,ITY WII,L NOT OCC IN THE FU1`URE. ��Q Go-N---�--�---<1 - , w�� � • .� c.� �.-�-� � `,-� Y� �� �,�_►303 TOTRL P.94 q�-���� Frank X. Waliner 1698 Taylor Avenue • St. Paui, MN 55104 August 7, 1997 Dear City Council Members: Thank you for the opportunity to present my position regarding the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe (BN/S� Hub facility. - i appreciated your decision to lay over this case for one week. Unfortunately I wiil be on vacation aIl ne� week. Consequentiy, I respectfully request that you consider the fotlowing information prior to making a decision on my appeai. 1. In a January, 1995 report to the Metropolitan Councii entitled " Twin Cities intermodal Terminal Needs Stud�' the authors talk at length about the importance of storage at intermodal freight yards. Please see the enclosed page 23 from that report. Storage of semi-trailers is in fact a vitai park of BN/SF's operations. 2. Although BN/SF's position is that land east of Snelling is for parking areas, they fail to mention that the parking areas are also used for storage. The report to the Metropolitan Councii cleariy talks about the use of parking spots for storage. Piease � see the attached pages 37 and 38. , 3. As you may recali, the attorney for BN/SF criticized my reference to aerial photos to show that trailers were being stored east of Snelling Avenue. Please recalf that just a fe;v rr°ir.�t�:, iater :`:, same attorney r�ferenced an Gir Fhcto to prove BN/SF's position that trailers were always parked east of Snelling Avenue. i trust that you realize the contradiction in his argument. if the City Council decides that BN/SF can park trailers easi of Sneiling Avenue I ask that you require at least the following: 1. BN/SF should provide monthly reports on the length of time each trailer is parked east of Snelling to the Hamline Midway Coalition. BN�F staff stated that such � information is available. This information would allow residents to monitor and confirm rf trailers are in place for less than a week. 2. The area east of Snelling Avenue is zoned as I-1. Parking in an !-1 area is a conforming use - not a legal nonconforming use. As such, the St. Paul Zoning Code � (Sec. 62.104) requires that a Site Plan be submitted for review and approvai, and � ultimately ailows for pubtic comment. A Site Plan specific to the parking of trailers east of Snelling was never submitted. A Site Plan for the expansion of the BN/5F hub was submitted in 1987. However, BN/SF's attomey stated that the Site Plan only proposed a truck entrance east of Snelling and was not for parking. The Newel Park neighborhood was never given the opportunity to comment on BN/SF's use of land east of Sneiling Avenue - a use that resulted in a significant increase in noise for residents. Requiring a Site Plan wouid help ensure that BN/SF's use of land east of Gnelling for parking meets storm water runoff, set back, screening, and dust suppression rQquirements, as�,veli as precautions when handling hazardous materials. —According to BN some trailers that go through the facility contain hazardous materiais (ref. page 10 of EAW). Thank you for taking the time to consider these points in addition to my testimony at the City Council meeting. If you have not already done so, please read over pages 22 to 44 in the packet presented to you. And finally, please realize that this is an important issue not just for me, but for all Newel Park residents. Sincerely, L ����L�1C� � �, Frank X. Wallner cc: Kathy Lilty, Hamline Midway Community Organizer Wendy Lane, LIEP i � � � � Council File # t" f -13 d 3 Green Sheet # b073 / RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 34 40 Referred To Committee: Date WF�REAS, �rank Wallner, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.204(a) filed an administrative appeal from a deterinination by the Saint Paul Zoning Admuustrator concerning the legal status of semi-trailers located at 1701 Pierce Butler Route and commonly known as the Burlington Northem Sante Fe (BN5F) Midway Hub Facility East of Snelling Avenue; and lo WI3EREAS, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.204, the Boazd of Zoning Appeais (BZA) conducted public hearings on May 5, 1997 and June 2, 1997, and at the conclusion of these public hearings, the BZA, in BZA Resolution No. 97-076 dated June 16, 1497, upheld the Zoning Administrator's determinafion that the semi-trailers located at the BNSF Midway Hub Facility East of Snelling Avenue are "pazked" as distinguished from "stored" and are, therefore, a legal non-conforming use of the said properry. Accordingly, the BZA denied the appeal of Frank Wallner. The BZA based its decision, as substantially reflected in the hearing minutes, upon the following: 1. The semi-trailers on BNSF's properry East of Snelling are used at least once a week based on staff inspectlons of the site, information from a metropolitan counsel study, and information from BNSF. Trailers used on a weekly basis constitute "parking" rather than "storage". Therefore, the semi-trailers on BNSF's property East of Snelling are "parked" rather than "stored". Because the trailers are parked and not stored, they are not subject to the requirement that outside storage be at least 300 feet from residentialiy zoned property. 2. BNSF's intermodal freight operation was a permitted use in the late 1980's when the trailers were first brought to the area East of Snelling. The trailers meet a11 the zoning regulations that were in effect at that rime. However, BNSF's operafion became a legal non-conforniing use in 1992 when intermodal freight operations were made a use that required a special condit3on use permit in an I-2 Zoning District. Therefore, the area being used for the trailers cannot be expanded. In addition, if the trailers were to remain on the site in excess of one week, they would be considered storage and be in violation of the requirements that outside storage be at least 300 feet from residentially zoned property. �t?-13o3 2 WI-IEREAS, on June 17, 1997, Frank Wallner, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Pau1 3 Legislative Code § 64.205, duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the BZA's June 16, 4 1997 determination and requested a hearing before the Council of the City of Saint Paul for the 5 purpose of considering the determivation of the BZA; and 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 WI-IEREAS, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64.205 -§§ 64.208, and upon norice to affected patties, public hearings were duly conducted by the Council of the City of Saint Paul on August 6, 1997 and August 20, 1997, wherein all interested parties were given an opportuniTy to be heard; and �VHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paui, on September 3, 1997, having considered the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the BZA and the testimony received during the public hearing DOES HEREBY; RESOLVE, that the decision of the BZA in this matter be upheld based upon the following findings of the Council: Having heazd the pubiic testimony and considered all the records filed in this matter, the Council finds first that there was no error of procedure on the part of the BZA. Mr. WalLner was given the opportunity to present testimony to the BZA on matters presented to the Zoning Administrator. Second, there was no enor of fact. The evidence presented prompted the BZA to conclude that the trailers were parked and not stored. No evidence was presented demonstrating enor on the part of the BZA's factual conclusions. Finally, there was no error 3n findings. The BZA's conclusion that BNSF parks, rather than stores, trailers on the subj ect property is a finding based upon a reasonable interpretation of the zoning codes and the Council accordingly adopts and incorporates as its own the Fmdings of the BZA as set forth in BZA Resolution No. 97-076; AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above findings, that the appeal of Frank Wallner be and is hereby denied; AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, despite this denial of the appeal by Frank Wallner, it is apparent to this Council that BNSF, by its own admission, has in the past stored, rather than parked, semi-trailers on the subject properiy in violation of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. The City wi11 not tolerate future violations. To that end, BNSF has stated its willingness to wark with the City and the District 11 Community Councii to ensure that future violations will not occur on the subject properiy. In particulaz, BNSF stated that it will provide monthly reports of trailer movements at the Midway Hub Facility. The City Council thoroughly expects BNSF to abide by its word not only on this particulaz point but also with respect to BNSF's professed commitment to insure against future violations; AND, BE IT °�7-17fl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 FURTI-�R RESOLVED, that the will of this Council, as expressed in Council File No. 97-1099, requesting the Saint Paul Planning Commission to review the present zoning ordivauces goveming pazking and storage for the purpose of clarifying the distinction beiween pazkiug and storage and for the purpose of shortening the present bright line time period between pazking and storage is hereby reiterated; AND, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Frank Wallner, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, the Zoning Administrator, the Planuiug Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals. Requested by Department of: Adopted by Council: Date _,`�q� Adoption Certified I�y Council Secretasy By` �`°— � Approved by Mayox: Date t, � it441^ By: Form Apgro d 6y City Attorney By: .�.����. Approved by Mayos fox Submission to Covncil By: 3y: coun�il Councilmember Megard 266-8640 October 29, 1997 � x�weae wrt TOTAL # OF SIC3NATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET OEh�RT1BIfcncClat q.'1-�� No 60'7�9 an�capaa ❑ CRYAAObEY ❑ LIIYGDIN ❑ mawuuamurESOn. ❑ rrwtu�mnnKCro ❑wro�eton.wur.rm ❑ {CUP /(LL L�CATIONS FORSIGNATURE) Finalizing City Council Action taken September 3, 1997, denying the appeal of Frank Wallner to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals on the legal status of semi-trailers on Burlington Northern's intermodal hub facility, 1701 Piezce Butler Route. PLANNING COMMtSSION C16 COMMITTEE CNIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF TRANSACTION SOURCE lias thie P�su�rm everwdkeE untler a coMmet fortfiie departroeM? YES � Has mis o�sorJfirm ever been a cllv emPbyee� , vES NO Does Ihis Persw�firm 0�8�%a sldli not rwrmallYP� M anY curteM utY emDbyee9 YES NO Is Mis persoMrm a tarqeted vendWt � YES NO COSTrttEVENUE BUD6EfED (CIRCLE ONq ACTNRY NIIMBER YEE NO (p�WN) OFFICE OF'I'f� CITY ATTORNEY PegBir75 CityAttorney �A �) 303 ! CITY OF SAINT PAUL N�rm Coieman, Mayor Civi1 Division 400 City Hall IS West KelloggBlvd. Saent Paui, Minnesota 55102 Telephone: 612 266-8910 Facsimik: 612 298-5679 October 16, 1997 Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretuy Saint Paul City Council Room 310 Saint Paul Ciry Hall RE: Appeal of Frank Wallner of BZA Resolution No. 97-076 pertaining to BNSF Midway Intermodal Facility. BZA File 97-192. Dear Ms. Anderson: Attached please find the signed original of a resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in the above entitled matter. The resolution should be placed on the Council's Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Very truly yours, ���/��,�,.�. Peter W. Warner a�-13o3 ay ■ SPENCE, RICKE & THURMER, P.A. Suite 600, Dea ee of Honor Building 325 Cedar Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612-223-8000 Fax 612-223-8�03 Glam OlanderQuamme D'�xectUial: (612) 292-3359 August 2Q 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310, City Hall St. Paul, MN 55102 TAOMAS W. SPENCE NLNS W. GERNES .4amiaed i� �.L�`, wf Admitted m'.�LV, WI MEG.4N K. RICKE GLENN OLANDER-Qi7ANIl�1E wdm,ua�n�vn wamma�x,�,wi SliSAN D. THURMER DIANE P GERTH Adm�dinbPLW'[A. A�uedivMiv,Wt ALFONSE I. COCCHIARELLA TIMOTHY K. MASTERSON Admittedin`.L�.�4i AdminedinSi� PATRICK 7. SWEEN naa�uta �a �, cn, m TERRLE J. WII.LIAMS KERRY S. BURT SHARI A. WII,LIAMS CHERYL W. TECHAR HFLENA.ROEN SHARON L. TAYLOR Psmle3als VIA MESSENGER Re: Zoning File �l9-192 (Wallner/Burlington Northern) Burlington Northern Midway Aub Zoning Appeal of Frank X. Wallner City Council Hearing Date: August 20, 1997 Our File 0514 Dear Ms. Anderson: I enclose an original and ten copies of a letter that should be inciuded in the file materials to be considered by the Council in the above matter. It is my understanding that you will provide copies to the Office of the City Attorney and the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection. If that is inconect, please let me lrnow immediately, and I will arrange to send them copies. Thank you for your assistance in this matCer. Very truly yours, C% �y� ,.r.r Glenn Olander-Quamme GOQlllblmidway/anderson cc: (wlenc.) Dennis W. Wilson, Bsq. Richazd L. Ebel Ray Robinson Michael L. Burke John Ackerman Brian 7. Sweeney �'1-l�� ■ SPENCE, RICKE & THURMER, P.A. Suite 600, Degee of Honor Building 325 Cedar Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 672-223-8000 FaY 612-223-8003 THOMAS W, SPENCE NLNS W. GERNES Adwtt d in 4L�, W[ Admii[� in �L\, WI MEGAN K 12ICKE GLENN OLANDER-QUA.uLME .w�nw �a M, wi ad�mea in �, vn SliSPvLD.THU&�R DIANEP.GERTH AdwnwmY.F,w"4FL ndm;¢w�vhLV,wi AJ..FONSE S. COCCHIARELLA TIMOTHY K?rIASTERSON Admived in �, WI .4tlmared w n1� Glenn OlanderQuamme Di�ct Dial: (612) 2923359 August 20, 1997 Cl� C011IlCll City of St. Paul Room 310, City Aall St. Pau1, MN 55102 PAIRICK i SWEENEY Adm�ned in �, C.1 CO Re: Zoning File #9-192 (Wallner/Burlington Northern) Burlington Northern Midway Hub Zoning Appeal of �ank X. Wallner City Council Hearing Date: Wednesday, August 20, 1997 Our File 0514 To the Honorable Members of the St. Paul City Council: TERRIE J. WII,LIAMS KERRl' $. $1JRT SHARI A. WILLSAMS CHERYL W. TECHAR HELEN A. ROEN SHAAON L. 7AYLOR Pa�ategats I represent The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF), formerly lmown as Burlington Northern Railroad Company. During the last Council hearing on this matter, the Council requested certain additional informafion concerning the parldng of semi-trailers on that portion of BNSF's Midway Intermodal Hub located east of Snelling Avenue. For purposes of simplicity, I refer to that area as the Pazking Area. The Pazking Area is used for the temporary placement of semi-trailers pending their re- use. Those trailers are valuabie business assets, and it is in BNSF's best interest to use them as much as possible. If they sit idle, they do not generate revenue. Accardingly, BNSF has a very real economic interest in seeing that the trailers are parked for as little ume as osn sible. Indeed, in an ideal world, trailers would be parked for mere minutes, if at all. The cri6cal point is that BNSF is using the Parking Area to temporarilv place uailers on a short-term basis, with the expectation and desire that they will be used as quickly as possible. BNSF's analysis of trailer parking at the Midway Hub is consistent with BNSF's desire and intention that the trailers not sit idle. That analysis indicate that trailers aze pazked on average for 3.5 days or less. We believe BNSF's use of the Parking Area constitutes "parking" under any reasonable, legal definition of that term. � Q'1-4�0� An example may help to illustrate why we believe BNSF's use is by definition parking, as opposed to storage. When I place my car in my garage, T expect to use it again in the near term -- perhaps tomorrow, perhaps a week from now. In other words, I am temporarily �mrking my car in the garage, just as BNSF is narlanQ trailers in the Pazking Area. My friend Dick, on the other hand, has a vintage Thunderbird that he uses only in the summer. During the winter, he rents a heatefl space in a downtown building, puts the car up on blocks, drains the oil, and covers it with a tarpaulin. Dick does this because he does not intend to use the car again in the near term. He is storine the car, not parking it. We beHeve that the key to the pazking/storage issue is BNSF's purpose and intent in placing the trailers in the Parldng Area. Since that purpose and intent is re-use in the near term, the use is parking, not storage. At the last hearing, the Council asked for further information conceming the historic use of the Pazking Area. BNSF has been parking trailers in the Parking Area since 1987. PrSoz to 1987, BNSF usefl the Parking Area as part of an automobile marshaling facility; that is, a facility where new automobiles were unloaded from railcars, parked, and later picked up by trucks for delivery to automobile dealerships. In 1987, the automobile marshaling facility was moved from the Midway Aub to BNSF's Dayton's Bluff facility. As automobile parking was phased out, trailer parking was phased in. Thus, the Pazldng Area was in use for trailer parking as early as 1987. By 1991, the entire Pazldng Area was paved and in use for trailer parking. That use was a legal use ancillary to the intermodai operations at the Hub. The use became a legal nonconforming use when the Zoning Code was amended in late-1992 to create special wning for intermodal facilities. During the hearings before the Boazd of Zoning Agpeals and the Council, there has been some discussion of fencing along the southerly edge of the Parldng Area (i.e., the area long Pierce BuUer Route east of Snelling). BNSF originally intended to begin construction of the fence this summer. However, given Mr. Wallner's appeal, Tom Beach of the Office of License, Inspec6ons and Environmental Protecrion (LIEP) suggested that BNSF might want to defer construction of the fence until the appeal was resolved. Unfortunately, the appeal is still pending, thereby placing the construction schedule in jeopardy. BNSF has therefore determined to proceed with the construction of the fence notwithstanding the lack of a formal resolution of this matter. Construction will start shortly after Labor Day and is expected to take approximately two months to complete. The fence has been designed to shield the Parking Area from view from the Pierce Bufler Route and wil] be similar to a fence installed some months ago on BNSF's Dale Street property. Mr. Beach is familiar with the design and can provide further details if the Council so desires. The estimated construction cost is in excess of half a million dollars. At the conclusion of the last Council meeting, the City Attorney was asked whether occasional violations of the 7-day "bright line" rule would result in forfeiture of 2 q� _��a3 BNSF's legal right to park uailers in the Pazldng Area. BNSF has considered the issue and submits that the answer is no. I have a friend who lives in a St. Paul neighborhood where the houses were buiit prior to the enactment of setback requirements. Those houses are legal nonconfornring uses. One of the neighbors built a deck without fust obtaining a permit. The deck extettded beyond the setback line and was a clear violation of the Code. (See Zoning Code § 62.102(d)(2) ("A nonconfornvng use shall not be ... extended to occupy a greater area of land"}.) If one assumes that a violation of the Code triggers a forfeiture of the legal nonconforming use, then the proper result in that case would have been to require the violator to tear down the house, as well as the deck. Such a result would offend both common sense and the law. Instead, LIEP followed the course the law allows. It explored first whether a variance might be possible. When that proved infeasible, LIEP ordered the violator to remove the deck. But LIEP did not, and legally could not, require him to demolish the house. Rather, LIEP fitted the punishment to the crime, by targeting the illegal act itself. The same logic applies to the Parking Area. If one assumes that BNSF is illegally "storing" a trailer, the City has ample enforcement tools to address that conduct. Far example, it could cite BNSF for a misdemeanor, or it could seek an injunction to abate the violation. (Zoning Code at §§ 64.502 and 64.503.) The case of State v. RegitschniQ, 1991 W.L. 2761$5 (Minn. App. 1991) (copy attached) is a typical example of how this works in actual practice. Mr. Regitschnig owned and operated a mobile home park in Medford, Minnesota. His business was a legal nonconforming use. The zoning code prohibited expansion of the pazk beyond the 14 units that existed when the use became nonconforming. Mr. Regitschnig added two additional units and was cited for a misdemeanor violafion of the zoning code. He was not required to shut down the mobile home park itself. A hypothetical example will further demonstrate that occasional "storage" would not and couid not result in a forfeiture of the right to pazk trailers in the Pazking Area. Assume that Acme Fruit Company operates a wholesale fruit wazehouse, which is a legal nonconforming use. Acme sets up a small stand in its parking lot to sell fruit at retail. Retail food sales are not permitted by the zoning for that property. Thus, Acme has violated the Code by introducing a new illegal use. BNSF submits that the City of St. Paul would respond to such a situation as follows. First, LIEP would consult with the property owner and nearby property owners to explore whether a variance or conditional use permit would be feasible. If not, LIEP would probably order the owner to remove the stand. But the City would not and could not order Acme to shut down its otherwise legal wholesale operation. To do so would be totally disproporkionate to the violafion and would result in the abrogafion and forfeiture of valuable vested property rights. Forfeitures are not favored at law. E�P., 22 Dunnell Minnesota Digest, Forfeitures §§ 1.00, lAl (4th ed.). Furthermore, any interpretation of the Code that would authorize the abrogarion and forfeiture of Acme's vested rights would be an unconstitutional taking without just compensarion. See K. Young, 1 Anderson's 3 a� _��o� American Law of Zonine, § 6.06 (4th ed.); 7 Dunnell Minnesota Digest, Constitutional Law § 8.02(a) & n. 12 (4th ed.). At the last Council hearing, the Council raised questions concerning the application of the 7-day "bright line" rule to the Pazidng Area. BNSF recognizes the benefit of bright line rules as guides to behavior. However, BNSF dces not necessarily agree that the Zoning Code contemplates a 7-day bright line distinction between parking and storage, nor does it necessarily agree that any such bright line rule would be applicable to its long-standing use of the Parldng Area for trailer pazldng. In closing, BNSF believes the time has come to put the cunent appeal to rest. BNSF's use of the Parldng Area is parking, not storage, and the decision of LIEP should be affirnied. Sincerely, G � ,��1 Glenn Olander-Quamme GOQlllbimidway/citycou2 � Not Reported in N.W.2d (Cite as: 1991 WL 276185 (Minn.App_)) NOTICE: THIS OPIIVION IS DESIGNATED AS UNPUBLISHED AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY MINN. ST. SEC. 480A.0$(3). STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v . John H. I2EGTTSCI�iIG, Appellant. No. CX-91-1023. Cour[ of Appeals of Minnesota. Dec. 31, 1991. Appeal from District Cour[, Steele Counry; Casey J. Chrisrian, Judge. Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Attomey General, St. Paul, Richard E. Tollefson, Medford Ciry Attomey, Owaconna, for responden[. John H. Regitschnig, pra se. Considered and decided by HUSPENT, P.J. and PETERSON and FOLEY, [FN*] JJ. UNPUBLISHED OPINTON FOLEY, Judge *1 Appellant was convic[ed of a misdemeanor violadon of a Medford Ciry zoning ordinance prohibiting ex ansion of his nonconforming mobile ome park. e aza es on appeal tt�at the ordinance works a taking of his properry withou[ jus[ compensation and that he was entided to inctease the number of units in lus pazk by vume of the ordinance's grandfather clause. We affirm. FACTS In 1987, the Medford Ciry Council enac[ed Ordinance Number 127 to regulate mobile home pazks within rhe ciry. The ordinance pemvtted the continuance of ffie park as a nonconforming use but prohibited expansion beyond [he 14 units then existing. With full Imowledge of the exis[ence of the ordinance and of the resuictions on the property, appellant purchased the 13-unit park in Sanuary 1990. Appellant placed [wo addirional mobile homes in ffie park and was charged and convicted of a misdemeanor violarion of the zoning ordinance. This appeal followed. DECISION Page 1 0�� „�7 The 2ria1 court's inrerpretarion of an oidinance is a quesrion of law which we review independenfly wichout according any special deference. Honn v. Ciry of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 415 (Minn.1981). The trial court concluded [hat appellant had violaced [he ordinance by adding a fifteenth unic and rhat the ordinance's consa[urionaliry was no[ ac issue. We conclude rha[ the aial court erred in finding rhe cons[iturionality of the ordinance irrelevan� to appellant's guitt or innocence. Appellant is enatled io challenge the vatidity of the ordinance under which he has been convic[ed as the ozdinance's validiry has a direct relationship to his ]e�al responsibility for violating it. The defendant must be able to defend against culpabiliry on the ground of rhe invalidiry of [he ordinance and have the issue determined by a court. Counry of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 98, 203 N.W.2d 323, 325 (1972). Thus, [he trial wurt erred in declining ro address the constitu[ionaliry of [he ordinance as applied. However, we conclude thac the constitudonal issue is not ripe for ceview by the trial court or this courc because, prior to a[tackina an ordinance's constirutionality as applied, the aggrieved party must first e�aus[ all available remedies. See Counry of Pine v. State. Dep't of Namral Resources, 280 N.W2d 625, 629 (Minn.1979). For appellant [o have e�austed his available remedies, he must have applied for and been denied a variance from tlie regulations restricting development of his properry. See Hay v. Ciry of Andover, 436 N.W.2d 800, 804 (Mntn.App.1989); see also State, Dep't of Narural Resources v. Olson, 275 N.W.2d 585, 587 (Minn.1979) (failure to apply for a pemut rendered the unconstirutional takings issue noc ripe). Appellant did not ara e that he applied for and was denied a variance from the zoning oidinance or that an application for a variance would have been futite. Addidonally, he did not show any evidence ffiat he had attempted co seek a variance co allow him to use the property in some manner other ffian expansion of the uailer park. See Hay, 436 N.W.2d at 804. Thus, we conclude that he has not e�austed his available nonjudiciai remedies and reject his constitutional challenge to the ordinance as not ripe for review. *2 We a�ree with the uial couit that ffie addition of Ihe fifreenth unit is a prohibited expansion of an Copr. �O West 1997 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Not Reported in N. W.2d (Cite as: 1991 WL 276185, *2 (Minn.App.)) ocherwise legal �nconfoznung use of rhe properry. Appellanc's predecessor in interest was using 14 sites when the ordinance was passed and appellant himself had consistendy used only 13 of those sices despite lus asserted intent w rent 18 sites. The purpose for which the owner acmally used the properry at the time it became subject to the zoning ordinance and not future plaas for iu use de[ermines tfie scope of the nonconforming use excepted from the resuicaons imposed by the ordinance. 1 Anderson, American Law of Zoning 3d § 6.23 at 511-12 (1486). Generally, vre view a zoning ozdinance in light of its underlying policy, wluch in flais case is the gradual eliminacion of a nonconfo ina use ihrough obsolescence, e�austion or destruction. See Oswalt v. Counry of Ramsey, 371 N.W.2d 241, 246 (Minn.App.1985), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 13, 1989). In light of this policy, we aze reluctant to pernu[ the placement of addirional uniu which wou]d result in a continuaaon of a disfavored use. This result is con[rary to the intent of the resaictive zoning ordina�ce and we decline to reach that result. In Sta[e ex rel. Howard v. Village of Roseviile, 244 Minn. 343, 70 N.W2d 404 (1955), the supreme court disallowed precisely this rype of expansion. The owner of a trailer pazk sought to expand the number of units in fus nonconforming trailer park. The court rejected the attempt, noting that the nonconforming clause of the ordinance lunited the use of the properry to the 20 mobile home sites in use when the ordinance was passed. Id. at 349, 70 N.W.2d at 408. We find this case deternunative and, accordingly, conclude that appellanCs use of the park is limited to the 14 sites in use when ordinance 127 was passed. Appellan[ also contends that lus placemenc of a Page 2 G ��-�10� fifteenth home was a conrinuadon of a peimitted preexisting business and not an expaasion of the park. He analo�izes the pazk to an apazrmen[ building and the placemenc of a new mobile home to a new [enan[ moving into the apamnent building. However, the placement of a mobile home entails actually placing a new strucmre on land where no suucture previousiy existed; whereas a new aparmient isnant is merely a new occupant of a preexisting structure. We f�ave pxeviously conduded that ihe placement of a new strucmze where one did not previously exist is an expansion of a nanconfomung use in the same manner as is an addition to an existing building, Prior Lake Aggregates, Inc. v. Ciry of Savage, 349 N. W.2d 575, 579 (Minn.App1984) (citing Claussen, 203 N.W.2d at 326). Thus, his placement of a new s[ructure where none had previously existed is a prolubited expansion of an otherwise legal nonconfocming use. Appellant's challenge to the constituuonaliry of the ordinance is not yet ripe for review by the trial court or this courc, as he had not exhausted his available remedies. He also has no[ shown that his nonconforming use entitles him to expand the number of uni[s beyond those existing when the ordinance was enacted. Accordingly, we find chat his placemen[ of the fifteenih mobile home consdtutes an expansion of the nonconforming use which violates the letter and the spiric of the ordinance. *3 Affirmed. FN* Re[ired judge of the Court of appeals, acting by appomtment pursuant to Minn. Const. art VI, � 2. END OF DOCUMENT Copr. OO West 1997 No Claim ro Orig. U.S. Gov[. Works i P �� P � a �9 , Z � SO � • � sO �o y 's f L WESTMIDW4V�� August 18, 1997 �►� - i�o� ST. ANTHONY PARK COMMUNiTY COUNCIL 890 Cromweil • Sf. Pauf, Minnesota 55114 292-7884 Councilmember Roberta Megard St. Paul City Council 310 Ciry Hall St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Conncilmember Megazd 'I'he St Anthony Pack Community Council ltas for some time been actively concemed about the impact on surrounding neighborhoods af tk�e Burlington Norlhem Imermodal Freight Hub adjacent to Pierce Butler Route. 77te noise, truck tr�t, train tr�q and air pollution have had a deh-imental effect on certain residential areas near the Hab facidity. Our neighborhood, located west of the facility, Las eaperienced significant increases in complainu about the Hub and tu�s become incteasing(y concemed about attempts by Burlington Northem to expand Hub activities, both in St. Paul and across the border in Minneapolis. At the Communiry Council's meeting on August 13, 1997, the Council discussed the matter of the Hub once again and voted w strongiy encourage the Ciry Council to uphold the appeal of Frank Wallner. Mr. Wallner's appeal is on the City Council's agenda for later this month The St. Anthony Park neighborhood believes tbat it is critical that the City enforce ordinances and the non-conforming use permit given to Burlington Northem, and keep the railroad within the boundazies of the existing Hub facility. Already, Bwlington Northem has effectively expanded iu Hub activities by leasing land in Miimeapolis on which to store intecmodat containers. We are deeply concerned that any additional ea�ansion will seriously harm ad,}acent residential neighborhoods. The City must stop expansion. The St. Anthony Park Communiiy Council has followed with great interest the efforts by the Metropolitan Council to develop a shared imermodal faci]ity in a more appropriate locarion in the metro azea. We encoucage both the Ciry of St. Paul and Burlington Northem to work towud implementation of zhe MIIZTS recommendations. In the meantime, Burlington Northem must not eapend iu Midway hub activities. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, St. Amhoiry Park Commimity Council ������1�� Executive Director a: Mayor Norm Coleman Councilmember Jeny Blakey Councilmember Dave T'hune Conncihnember Ivlike Haais Councilmember 3oe Collins Councilmember Dan Bostrom Councilmember Gladys Morton OFFiCE OF LICENSE, INSPECTYONS AND ENVIl20NMENTAL PROTECTION Robett Kesster, Director CTTY OF 5AINT PAUL No�m Coteman, Mayor 7u1y 21, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson Ciry Council Reseazch Office Room 31Q Ciry Aa11 Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: B UIIIJING INSPECFION AND DESZGN 350 St Peter Street Suite 3I0 Saint Paul, Mimnesota 55102-I510 q � _��0 3 aa Teiephone: 6I2-266-9001 Fitcsimile: 612-266-9099 I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the Ciry Council is scheduled for Wednesday, August 6, 1997 for the following zoning case: Appellant: File Number: Purpose: Location: Frank Wallner 97-076 Appeal of a decision by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals on the legal stams of semi-trailers on Burlington Northern's intermodal hub faciliry. 1701 Pierce Butler Route I haue confirmed this date with the office of Councilmember Megazd. My understanding is that this public heazing request will appeaz on the agenda of the City Council at your eazliest convenience and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-4086 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tom Beach Zoning Section NOTICE OR PUSLIC HEARING CC: AIIll C18S131C �e Saiat Paul City Council will conduct a public hearing on Wednesdag, August 6, 1997 at 4:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Third Floor City Hall-Court House, to consider the appeal of Frank Waliner to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals on the legal status of semi-trailers on Burlington Northem's iateimodal hub faciliry, 1701 Pierce Butier Route. - ' . Dated: July 24, 1997 � ` � NANCY ANDERSON _ , . Assistant City Councii Secretarp� - _ - -- _ - � (July 26. 1997) � �- - . OFFICE OF LICENSE, WSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTTON Robert Kessier, Directar � q1-1�� SAINT PAUL � AAAII CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Cofeman, Mayar LOA'RY PROFESSIONAL BUILDING Suite 300 350 SY. Peter StreM Saitu Paul, Minnesota 55102-I510 Te(ephone: 612-2669090 Facsimile: 612-266-9099 612-266-9124 � Ju1y 30, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 31Q City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Zoning File #97-192 (WallnerBwlington Northern) City Council Hearing Date: Wednesday, August 6, 1997 PL7RPOSE: To consider an appeal of a decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Frank Wallner has filed an appeal of a decision by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals to uphold the Zoning Administrator's determination that semi-trailers on Burlington Northern's intermodal freight facility on Pierce Butler Route east of Snelling aze stored rather than parked and that they are a legal nonconforming use. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ACTION: determination (5-1 on June 16, 1497) SUPPORT: None Burlington Northern Deaz Ms. Anderson: Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's Frank Wallner filed an appeal with the Boatd of Zoning Appeals of a deterrnination by the Zoning Administrator that trailers located on the easterly portion of Burlington Northem's intermodal freight aze pazked rather than stored and constitute a legal nonconforming use. The Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing on May 19 and June 2 and voted 5- 1 to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's determination. The Boazd of Zoning Appeals agreed with the Zoning Administrator that for zoning purposes, these trailers constitute pazking rather than storage because they aze used on a weekly basis. The distinction between parking and storage is important because storage must be located at least 300 feet from residentially zoned property and most of the semi-trailers are located closer than 300 feet to residentially zoned property. On June 17, Mr. Wallner filed an appeal of this decision to the City Council. Mr. Wallner's appeal makes three main points. (See attached appeal.} These are summazized below with staff's response: � 1. The trailers aze not used for periods of more than one week and therefore should be treated as storage. {Inspections by stafF indicated that the trailers aze used a weekly basis.) 2. The City's position in 1987 was that trailers constitute storage. Therefore the trailers in question were not a legal use when they were first brought to the site in the late 1980's and cattnot be considered a Iegal nonconforming use. (In 1987 BN proposed a major expansion of its faciliTy west of SneIling and the Zoning Administrator made a determination that the additional trailers constituted storage. BN appealed this decision to the Boazd of Zoning Appeals. BN later dropped its planned expansion and the appeal was never heazd. However, in response to Mr. Wallner's current complaint about BN's trailers, the Zoning Administrator asked the City Attomey for a legal opinion on the issue of pazking versus storage. The City Attomey advised that under the zoning regulations in effect in 1987, the trailers should haven been considered parking if they were used on a weekly basis J This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on Angust 6. Please norify me if any member ofthe City Council wishes to have slides ofthe site presented at the public heazing. (The Boazd of Zoning Appeals did not consider the EAW because it was not a part of the decision by the Zoning Administer that was under appeal. Furthermore, the "projecP' that the EAW refers to was a major expansion primazily west of Snelling Avenue which was never commenced, and not the use of tite eitisting paved azea east of Snelling for trailers J pa�� 3. The Board of Zoning Appeals erred by not considering issues raised about noise and tr�c in an Environmental Assessmem Worksheet (EA� that was triggered in 1987 by BN's expansion plans. In 1988 the Environmental Qnality Boazd commented on the EAW and said that "no fmal govemmental action to grant a permit or other approvai required to commence the project shall be made prior to" a decision being made on the EAW. Sincerely, � Tom Beach g NS y7 50 52. 4S C' cc: City Councilmembers Attachments Chronology of BN intermodal facility Application from Frank Wallner to City Council for appeal Resolution, tninutes and staff report from Boazd of Zoning Appeals Appiication &om Frank Wallner to Boazd of Zoning Appeals I,etter from Frank Wallner to Tom Beach Letter from City to John Ackerman (BN} Letter from Peter Wamer (Office of City Attomey to Robert Kessler (LIEP) Letter from City to James Hamilton (Bl� Aerial photo and site location map 6/17/97 5/19/97, 6/2/9�, 6/16/97 3/31/97 3/13197 2/27/97 1/30/97 10/28/96 C� � � CHRONOLOGY FOR BURLINGTON NORTHERN INTERMODAL FACILITY Q � , `3 p 3 - t � Early 1900's Railroad yard is established on the site � 1974 Intermodal freight operations begins. Freight containers are transferred between railroad cars and trucks. Early 1980's Burlington Northem (BI� begins using Its properry east of Snelling Avenue for receiving shipments of new automobiles arriving on rai]road cars. A portion of the area is already paved. 1982 BN obtains approval from the City to pave more of the area east of Snelling for its automobile operations. City approval is subject to a screening fence being built along Pierce Butler Route. BN builds a chain link fence instead. Mid 1980's Automobile operations are moved to another site in Saint Paul near Highway 61. January 1987 BN submits a site plan to City for expansion of the existing intermodal freight facility. East of Snelling, a new entrance to the site would be built. West of Snelling, an additional 35 acres would be paved for uailers and containers and some tracks would be relocated. May 1487 There is neighborhood opposition to the proposed expansion and an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAV� is prepazed. The EAW concludes that the proposed expansion of the intermodal facility should not occur without the completion of an Environment Impact Statement (EIS). However, the City never takes any fotmal action on the EAW and an EIS is never prepared. The proposed expansion is never built. November 1987 The City informs BN that ptoposed storage of trailers for the proposed expansion within 300 feet of residential property is not permitted under the zoning code. BN files an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City's determination that these trailers constitute storage rather than pazking. Aowever, the public heazing is laid over until the EAW can be completed. The City never acts on the EAW and the public hearing on the question of storage is never held. Late 1980's BN begins using the area east of Snelling Avenue for semi-trailers. This area had previously been used for receiving shipments of new automobiles arriving on railroad cars. Eazly 1990's City begins a 40 Acre Study on intermodal freight facilities. December 1992 City adopts 40 Acre Study and zoning amendments that make intermodal freight facilities a Special Condition Use in an I-2 zoning district. BN's proper[y is zoned I- 1 and therefore BN's operations become a legal nonconforming use which cannot be expanded or enlazged. � Mazch 1996 Frank Wallner requests that the City investigate the legal standing of semi-trailers on BN's property east of Snelling Avenue. January 1997 City Attomey provides a legal opinion for the Zoning Administrator that semi- trailers constitute parking rather than storage if they are used on at least a weekly basis. � February 1997 The Zoning Administrator makes a determination that BN's semi-trailers east of Snelling consritute pazking rather than storage and are therefore a legal nonconforming use, not subject to the 300 foot setback from residential property. Mazch 1997 Frank Wallner appeals the Zoning Administrator's determination to the Boazd of Zoning Appeals. June 1997 The Boazd of Zoning Appeals upholds the Zoning Administrator's determination that BN's semi-trailers east of Snelling conskitute pazking rather than storage and aze tfierefore a legal nonconforming use. June 1947 Frank Wallner appeals the decision of the Boazd of Zoning AppeaIs to the Ciry Council. . r � �� r �, SAINT ..ff.. � AAAA APPL{CATION FOR APPEAL Department of Planning and Ecnnomic Dwelopment Zoning Section i100 City Hal1 Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN SSIO2 266-6589 APPELLANT �G�C Daytime ph PROPERTY Zoning File LOCATtON _ .. _ TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeai to the: � Board of Zoning Appeals C3�City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph appeai a decision made by the on (date of decision) 19_ File number: of the Zo�ing Code, to GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an er�or in any requirement, permit, decision or refusai made by an admiRistrative officiai, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appea{s or the P{anning Commission. ���� � ��e S ��rr�/' P�:�fl;' Y�C•C �7i' S�+:i{'S ?}�u� i v'r�Tii.'f�iSiLt ru _vT' Attach additionai sheet if Appiicant's signature v p � � Rate�/�/� ��r�f �ity ageni .,�, �� � � � � a'''i . L'�L 7/ry�q � On June 6, i997 the Board of Zon+ng Appeals considered my appeal that BN/SF should never have been af(owed to park or store trailers east of Snelling Avenue. I also appealed the Zoning Administrator's pasirion that trailers are parked rather than stored. The Board of Zoning Appeals ruled against my appeals and conduded that: i. Trailers are used at least once per week and therefore are parked rather than stored and not subject to the requirement that outside storage be at least 3Q0 feet from residential(y zoned property. 2. 8N's intecmodal freight operatian was a permitted use in the late 1980's when trailers were first brought to the area east of Snelling. The trailers met all zoning regulations that were in effect at the time. My appeai to the City Council is based on the following. With rEgard to point number 1: Photographic (time datedJ etidertce clearly shows that trailers are +n place for periods much longer than two weeks west of Sne(ling Avenue. Also, persona( observafion during the winter months dearly show thaE trailers east of Snelling Ave. are stored for ►onger periods than one week. This can be easify proven during the winter months. I observed newty falien snow which was teft undisturbed around the trailer's tires for periods longer than one week. City staff's conclusion that trailers are usec! weekly was based on two site visits during a period in which BNlSF new they were being scrutinized. Aiso, BN/SF is not required to document weekly use of trailers. With regard to point number 2 a6ove: The Board of Zoning Appeals conciuded that -"8N's intermodal fireight operation was a permitted use in the late 1980's when trailers were first brought to the area east of Snelling." This statement is not true based on the city's own correspondence. On November 5, i987 BN/SF wrote to the Zoning Administrator requesting agreement that parking of trailers within 300 feet of the set back are in confiormance with Section 6Q.613 (3) of the Zoning Cafe. !n response to 8N/SPs request, the Zoning Administrator intormed BN/SF that "Outdoor storage in an industriaf zoning district cannot be iocated within 300 feet of a residential zoning district pursuant to Section 60.613. (3) of the St. Paul Zoning code" (Letter datecf November 13, 1987). Rerial photographic evidence c(eariy show that BN/SF p(aced trai(ers within the 300 foot set back. Conclusion: Aerial photos clearly show that BN/SF placed traiEers within the 300 fooi in vio►ation of the Zoning Administrators November t3, 1987 decision. Therefore the Zoning Administrator's conclusion that "Trailers met ali zoning regulations that were in r C� � n LJ � q'f -17 � effect at the time." cannot be used as a grousxis to deny my appeal. 3. When BNlSF first proposed to expand the Intermodai Hub by using land east of Sneliing Avenue, the St. Paul Planning Commissio� required that an Environmentai Assessment Worksheet (EAW ) be conducted. After conducting the EAW the Minnesota Environmental Quafity Board (EQS) concfuded in a Sune 8, i988 letter that: °Pursuant to Minnesota Rules part 4410.3100, subpart 1, no final qovernmental action to qrant a permit or other approvat reau+red to commence the proiect shal! be made unt71 a nepative decfaration or ElS adequacv determination has been made". At the June 2, '1997 Board meeting the City Attorney stated that the issue of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet on BN/SF's plans fo expand east of Sneliing was not germane to the discussion_ My be4ief if that this is a very important matter which shouid be considered by the City Councii. Conclusion: The Board of Zoning Appeafs approved BN/SF's use of traifers east of Snef(ing Avenue in viofation of Minnesota Rufes, part 4410.3100, subpart 1. � ,� C �e����2- �� 3 . • ,.., .. ; • �, :s �uw �� � �m � GEORCE UTIMER MAYOR ,• November 13, 1957 Darrel H. Berkowitz TKDA 2500 American National Bank Building St. P�ul, 1�Lt 55101-1843 CiTY OF SAINT PAUL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING INSPECTION At�ID DESIGN DIV1StON .City Hali, Samc Paul, Minnesoca - � 612-29� RE: Midway Hub Facility North Side Pierce Butler Route Wast of Snelling Dezr Mr. Bericowitz: We have reviewed your request of November 5, 1987 for the BurZington Northezn RaiZroad Midway Hub Facility. The property is located in an Z-1 (lighc industrial} zoning district. Outdoor stotage in an industrial zoning district cannnt be I.oceted within 300 feet of a tesidential zc:ing district pursuant to' Section 60.6L3.(3) of the St. Paul Zoning Code. The site p22n submitted indicates that semi trailers, in transitioa Erom railroad f zt e s to tractors, wou e � stored �� the Mi way Hu aci ity wit in ee[ o a tesi entia zonzng ine, approximatel.y following the centerline of Pierce Butler Rout The 300 foot spaci.ng requirexent was added to the Zoning Code when it was ' entirely rewritten, effective Oc�ober 25, Z975. Prior to tnat date, outdoor storzge was permitted ia an industriai district without regard to locztion on the Iot. The trailer storage arez that esisted at the Mi.dvay Hub Eacility in 1975 w2s allowed to re�ain under the new code, although not in conforsance with the setback standard. That same eszsting no¢conFor¢ting setback line can be maintafned with the proposed improvements to the Eacility. However, as sfiow-n on the site p1an, the oucLoor storage arza nroposed would be iocated further SOL'L:1� C�050L CG the :ZS?C;flbClc� ZCIIl.^.o liae, :har. C:1° 0%15L_II$ SLO.^noe 2r°2. AZong with a series of proposed test amendments, the Planning Commissioa has recommended that the above 3d0 foot setback standard be removed from the Zoning Code, because the required fencing zpparently provides 2 sufficient barrier between industrizl and zesidentiaZ arezs. The City Council may choose to adoat the Plenaing Commissioa recom,-�endaci,on, reject it, or approve it c:itn modification. f�ny new change wnuld not become effective for at least two montfis. � � f .� ..:� ��� { �.3: � �.;������� �°.�..�. ,D� ys � PllBUC HEAR{NG NOTlCE CITY QF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ar1' 1��� : THE ACTION OF THE BOARD AT TNIS NEARING 4lILL BE T� LAY THIS CASE OVEP. UNTIL AFTER THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET IS COMPLETED. YOU WILL RECEIVE A NEW NOTICE WHEN THE BOARD WILL R V E4! IS CASE. `Zi7 APPUCAN7 PURPOSE �CATION OF PROPERTY T(ME OF HEARfNG PIACc OF HEbRIt+iG � Property Owners 4tithin 35Q feet; Representatives of Planning District 11 BURLING70N PlORTHERN RAILROAD C0. An Administrative Review of the Zoning Administrator's decision which determined that a BN expansion proposal was for outdoor storaqe of truck trailers and not parkinq.. Outdoor stroage requires setback from the zoning boundary line and parking does not have this requirement. The applicant states that the determination was in error. Present Zoning: I-1 (Industrial) 17�1 Pierce Butler Raute Tuesday, January 26, 1988 1:30 P.P4. 3th flocr conference room, City Hall Annex, 25 W. 4th Street, _ u ii� c • + Paiil - H OW TO PARTIClPATE ` 1. You may attend hearing and testify. (See note above) I 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to the Board of Zoning Appeals, 25 West Fourth St., St. Paul, MN. ANY QUESTIONS o• Call the Zoning office at 298-4154 ( Donna Datsko ) or your District Counc�l representative ( 646-1986 ) �rith the following information: Zoning file No. 1�245 Zoning file Name BURLINGTON P70RTHERN RR 1-15-88 Mailing Date ------� �J " r1�itl►�l►�l�.`i�J/:f7►�191:i�.J1��I�%�'1�l�lP_�1TIi7::��:� `� 3Q0 Cerrtennral8rm"ding•658 CedarStreet•Sf. Paul, Minnesota 55155 • •R .�"I s12-2ss-2s03 June 8, 1988 Donna L. Datsko City Planner 25 West Fourth Street 1100 City Hall Annex St. Paul, MN 55102 RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Burlington Northern Midway Aub FaciZity Dear Ms. Datsko: This Zetter acknowledges receipt of the EAW for the above-named project. The Environmental Review Program rules (at Minnesota Rules, part 4410.1500B.) require that a press release containing notice of the EAw availability be provided to at least one newspaper of generaZ� circulation within the area anc2 that capies of the EAW be distributed to all points on the EQB distribution list. We presume that these requirements have been mef.. Notice of the EAW availability will be pubZished in the EOB Monitor on June 13, 1988. The 3o-day comment period wi21 begin on that day and will expire on July 13, 1988. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 44Z0.3100, subpart 1, no fina2 � governmental 8ecision to grant a permit or other approval required to commence the project shali be made until a negative declaration or EIS adequacy determination has been made. Please contact me if any questions arise about the Review process. My ghone number is (6I2) 296-8253, toll-free by dialing 1-800-652-9747 and asking for Quality Board, Environmental Review Program. Sincerely, )'� ta• I�'".'r""„ Gregg M. Downing Environmental Review Coordinator cc: � Enviranmental or you may call the Environmental � . : •... .. � �'l -��o� � June 3, 1997 Dear Board of Zoning Appeals Members: Thank you for considering my appeal regarding the 8urfington Northern (BN) Midway Hub issue. Aithough I was disappointed in your decision I respect the process. The purpose ofi this fetter is to bring your attention to what I believe is a very important misunderstanding. At the meeting City staff communicated to you that BN had always used land to park traiiers. This was cited as a key reason to deny my appeai. However, in a letter dated November 13, 1987 the City of St. Paui specificaily responded to the parking versus storage issue at the request of BN. In that {etter the City cleariy informed BN that "Outdoor storaqe in an industriai zoninq district cannot (3) of the St. Pauf Zoninq Code° was not established, and therefore appeal. It does �ot seem right, or � parking of trailers as a continuance trailers were being stored. the precedent for parking traiiers should not be affowed as grounds to deny my �ven legal, that the City should be able to cite use when in fact the City had determined BN's � I wanted to bring this point to your attention at the meeting but respected your decision to not aliow me to speak. However, before i bring this matter before the fuli City Councii, I request that the Board of Zoning Appeals reconsider this issue. If reconsiderat+on of this issue is not aAowed then 1 request that the City Attorney expiain why parking trailers can be cited as a continuace use, when in fact BN was in vio)ation of the City's November 3, 1987 letter which conc(uded that the trailers constituted outdoor storage. This is a very significant issue because allowing BN to park hundreds of additionai traiiers resuited in a significant increase in noise for the Neweil Park neighborhood. S+nce�� �`��!���L6'� Frank X. Wallner � �-��.���-� cc: Bobby Megard, City Councii Woman Tom Beach, LIEP � � CITY OF SAINT PAiTI, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER 97-076 DATE June 16, 1997 WHEREAS, FRANK WALLNER has applied for an Administrative Review of a determination by the Zoning Administrator about the legal status of semi-trailers in the I-1 zoning district at 1701 PIERCE BUTLER ROUTE; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on OS/OS/97, and 06/�2/97, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.205 of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board.of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantialiy reflected in the minutes, n�ade the following findings of fact: � 1. The semi-trailers on BN's property east of Snelling are used at least once a week based on staff inspections of the site, information from a Metropolitan Council study, and information from BN. Trailers used on a weekly basis constitute "pazking" rather than "storage." � Therefore, the semi-trailers on BN's property east of Snelling are parked rather than stored. Because the trailers are parked and not stored, they are not subjeci to the requirement that outside storage be at least 300 feet from residentially zoned property. 2. BN's intermodal freight operation was a permitted use in the late 1980's when the trailers were first brought to the area east of Snelling. The trailers met all the zoning regulations Yhat ware in effect at that time. However, the BN's operation became a Iegal nonconforming use in 1992 when intermodat freighY operations were made a use that required a Special Condition Use Permit in an I-2 zoning district. Therefore, the azea being used for the trailers cannot be expanded. In addition, if the trailers were to remain on the site in excess of one week, they would be considered stora�e and be in violation of the requirement that outside storage be at least 300 feet from residentially zoned property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals denies the appeal and upholds the Zoning Administrator's determination that the semi-trailers east of Selling Avenue are parked and therefore are a legal nonconforming use on property located at 1701 PIERCE BUTLER ROUTE and legally described as SEE ATTACHMENT; in accordance with the applica[ion for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning •" Adminis[raTOr. -[''� q'i -1�0� � File #97-076 Page Two MOVED BY: T„n SECONDED BY : Scherman IN FAVOR: s AGAINST: i ABSTAIN: i MAILED: ]une 17, 1997 TTi41E LINIIT: No order of the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a building or off-street parking facility shall be valid for a period longer than one year, unless a building permlt for such erection or alteration is obtained within such period and such erection or alteration is proceeding pursuant to the terms of such permit. The Board o£ Zoning Appeals or the City Council may grant an extension not to exceed one year. In granting such extension, the Board of Zoning Appeals may decide to hold a public hearing. , PP AL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City Council within 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Building permits shall not be issued after an apQeal has been Filed. If permits have been issued before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construction shall cease until the City Council has made a P�nal determination of the appeal. CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoina copy with the original record in my office; and fmd the same to be a true and correct copy of said original and o£ the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes of the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on May 19, 199�, and 3une 2, �997, and on record in the Of�ce of License Inspection and Environtnental Protection, 350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paui, Niinnesota. SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZOi�'ING APPEALS C2L3,lCDC � Sue Synstegaard Secretary to the Board � MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS � CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, JUNE 2, 1997 R N: Mmes. Maddox and Bogen; Messrs.Donohue, Scherman, Tully and Wilson of the Board of Zoning AppeaIs; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Hardwick, Mr. Beach and Ms_ Synstegaard of the Office of License,Inspection, and Environmental Protecfion. BS NT: Mr. Alton * * Excused The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair. �RANK WALLNER (#97 0761 -1701 PIERCE BUTLER ROUTE: The applicant has requested that ihe Board of Zoning Appeals review a determination by Ciry staff on the legal status of semi-trailers located east of Sneliing at Burlington Northern's (BN} intermodal hub faciliry. Ciry staff's determ4nation was that these trailers are a legal nonconforming use and may stay. The applicant was present. There was /was no opposition present at the hearing. Ms. Maddox stated that this is a continued matter and the Board had asked for a legai opinion on the legalnonconforming use. Mr. Warner stated that the Board can heaz the issue of the nonconforming use. He added that at the discussion at the last meeting the same agreement was ceached and stated he would like to articulate the reasons more clearly. The timing requirements that are set forth in the Legislative Code in Chapter 64.204 sets forth a particular time line in which a person has to make an appeal, which is 30 days. He stated that in going back and looking at the Ordinance, it is his reading of the Ordinance, that that time line is a jurisdictional requizement. Generally in Minnesota you cannot waive jurisdictional requirements. A person has to meet that requirement in order for the Boazd to bold jurisdiction ovec the matter that is before them. He stated that in looking at the facts that LIEP staff has before it, it appears that this matter first came to the attention of LIEP by a letter from the applicant that was dated Mazch 22, 1996. As a resuit of that Ietter, LIEP did begin to [ake some investigatian into the matter. He sYated that on October 28, 1996 LIEP reached a preliminary conclusion over the issue of the nonconforming use and sent that preiiminary conclusion by letter to BNSF. That same information was copied to the applicant. The record then shows that LIEP sent what can be described as their final determination with respect to this matter, to BNSF on February 27, 1497, and that same letter was copied to the appiicant. He stated that based upon his review of the facts and the law in this situation, fhe $oard could conclude that the issue conceraing the October 28, 1996 pzeliminary conclusion which went to the nonconforming use, is appropriately before the Board here today because the matter simply wasn't concluded until the February 27, 19971etter. He stated that his advise to the Board is that it would be appropriate for the Board to consider the applicant's appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination with respect to nonconfomung use. � ■ q�-���� Fite 1{97-076 � Page Two Mr. Warner stated that the second issue the Board had asked him to look into was what do you do once you can hear the matters on the nonconforming use. The Legislative Code, Chapter. 64.204 gives the . Board the power to hear and decide the appeais of any decision of the Zoning Administrator and so in the context of the matter before the Board today, the Board can either grant the Administrative Appeal of the applicant by fmdin� that there was an expansion of the nonconforming use by BNSF at the . facility and/or that the trailers ac the facility or stored and not parked. The alternative is that the Boazd could deny the Administrative Appeal, and in that sense the Board would be agreeing with the Zoning Administrator's finding that BNSF did not expand the nonconforming use of the facility and(or that the trailers are parked and not stored. Mr. Wamer stared that if the Board choose to grant the Administrative Appeal, then for all intent and purpose, the Board's further inquiry is limited because what happens with nonconforming use pemuts is the provence of the Planning Commission. Rather then getting into the various issues that eiiher party might choose, depending on what the Board does, the best thing for the Board to do today is to make a decision as to whether or not to grant or den, the applicant's appeal and not be concemed about what would happen, other then to make that finding. Ms. Maddox asked if the Board were to deny this and find that staff had not erred, what other options does the applicant have with the information provided in the packet to the Board? Mr. Warner repiied . that the Legislative Code is written in such a way thac the applicant's next logical step would be to challenge the Board's deniai of his appeal to the Saint Paul City Council. That in turn would be at a public hearing with testimony taken, and then the Council would be afforded to make an opportunity to either uphold or overrurn the Board's decision. The next logical step might be that the applicant, depending on the Council's action, could then perceive in District Court. There are any number of avenues that the applicant could take. Ms. Maddox stated she was speaking in terms of the site plan review and some of the steps that had not taken place with the Planning Commission in terms of what other options the applicant has. Mr. Wamer asked if Ms. Maddox meant Mr. Waliner's contention that there was no site plan done in 1980? Mr. Wamer stated that he doesn't understand that issue to be properly before the Boazd today. Mr. Beach stated that he included the letter dated October 28, 1996 in the packet for the Board. Ms. Maddox stated that the public portion of the meeting had been closed on May 19, 1997, and the issue before the Board is whether or not this is parking or storage. Ms. Bogen asked if the Board is also able to determine if it is a legal nonconforming use and whether or not it has expanded since 1992 illegally. In reviewing Mr. Wallner's application Mr. Warner replied that the issue of whether or not it is an expansion of a legal nonconforming use is no. That advise is based on the fact that LIEP staff determined that the property was a legal nonconforming use and chat there was no expansion in the � zoning context in determining the expansion of the use after 1987. In other words, Burlington 11 File #97-076 Page Three Northern has always used the parcel east of Snelling Avenue for some type of railroad related purposes, whether it is loading or untoading automobiles, parking trailers, storing trailers, etc. The conclusion by LIEP staff is that it is a iegal nonconforming use and not an expansion of a conforming use. Ms. Maddox asked if it went with the land and not with the number of trailers? Mr. Warner replied yes. Ms. Bogen asked if that also hoids true even if the property was vacant for some periods of time? Mr. Wamer replied that Mr. Beach can address the factual basis on which he made that determination. Mr. Beach sta[ed that in the October 1496 letter LIEP staff considered the trailers stored, based on some earlier decisions. Staff s determination was that even if it is storage it has not expanded since 1992. Later on after some other issues came up LIEP consulted the City Attomey and decided that the trailers are not actually stored but are parked. The other facts remained unchanged that LTEP had determined that parking of the uailers had not expanded since this use had become a legal nonconforming use of 1992. � Ms. Bo�en asked what that was based on? Mr. Beach replied it was based on a number of facts Qiscussed in his letter of October 1996 which stated that the number of uailers has increased however, . it appeared even when there were fewer trailers that the entire paved area east of SneIling had been used for trailers. Whether the trailers were parked or maneuvered, the proper[y was being used by $N. Ms. Bogen asked if staff lmew when the area was paved? Mr. Beach replied that the azea was paved in the early 1980's and used for storing automobiles. Ms. Bogen asked if it was considered storage when automobiles were on the Iand prior to 1987? Mr. Beach replied yes, that it appeazed that automobiles were brought in and then taken off to various dealers but that issue wasn't investigated as to whether or not the automobiles were stored or pazked. Ms. Bogen asked how the use of the parcel east of Snetling changed to become an exganded facIliry working at an increased capaciry without having gone through the Boazd of Zoning Appea2s? She asked if BN ibnored the City of Saint Paul and slowly moved their trucks onto the land without having gone through the process that they were required to go through? Mr. Beach replied that there was a pavec3 area on the site and the use changed from automobiles to trailers. The site plan review that was before the City in 2987 was for a much lazger project, it wasn't j¢st for this area but involved new facilities, relocating tracks, etc. Ms. Bogen asked if the area in question was incIuded in that site pian? Mr. Beach replied tttat he has had a hard time locating the site plan but the written description talks primarily about the area west of Snelling Avenue and notes that there is an area east of Snelling. � 12 c�'1-13� M File #97-076 Page Four Ms. Bogen stated that the BZA had requested an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and that talks about the fact that the easterly area is a flat paved area vacant and formerly used as a automobile unloading azea. It also speaks about an operation of the expanded facility on the east side being identical to the current facility but at an increased capacity. Ic also states that BN was going to expand the paved area to increase the number of traiiers spaces on the lot from 540 to 1149 spaces. Ms. Bogen asked if all this information regarding the use was from the site plan had not been approved? Mr. Beach replied yes, the site plan had not been approved but that it was for a much larger operation. Ms. Bogen stated that the same plan included an entrance to the eastem area and a road. Mr. Beach stated that that entrance was never constructed and added that there are only 200 parking sgaces east of Snelling. Ms. Bogen stated that she believes BN did something they shouldn'c have done in 1987 and didn't foliow the provisions of the Code. Ms. Maddox asked Mr. Beach if it is possible for LIEP to go back and require BN to go through the site plan review process since it wasn't done at the time they expanded. Mr. Beach replied that he isn't sure whether a site plan review would be required or not because BN didn't make any physical changes to the property but just a change of use. � Ms. Bogen stated that BN dropped the site plan review afrer they were told they had to get an Environmental Assessment Worksheet by the BZA. She stated that the Board doesn't know if BN went out and expanded on their own and got away with it. Mr. Wamer stated that Mr. Beach doesn't have the benefit of the site plan so he doesn't have the City's perspective on how to reply to Ms. Bogen's question. He pointed out that up until 1992 the property was I-1 and that didn't change until the City established a new zoning use classification for that property. He referred the Board back to his Ianuary 30, 19961etter to Mr. Kessler where he briefly describes how that happened. Ae stated that he feels it is important that the Board understand that up until 1992 or 1993, whenever that new use classification was voted in, that it was a legal permitted use whether they were storing trailers or parking trailers. He stated that the intensity of the use fluctuated up and down depending on the uses. He asked the Board to keep these issues in mind and realize that it is very difficult for Mr. Beach to answer specific questions when he doesn't have the benefit of the site plan. Mr. Scherman moved to deny the appeal and uphold staff's determination that the semi-trailers east of Snelling Avenue are parked and are a legal nonconforming use. The use of the land may continue but the use may not be extended to occupy a greater area of land or moved to another portion of the lot. Mr. Tully seconded the motion, which passed on a roil call vote of 5 to 1(Bogen). Submitted by: � Tom Beach roved by � ' ohn Tully, Secretary �3 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS � CITY COLTNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CTTY HALL ST. PALJL, MINNESOTA, MAY 14, 1997 PRESENT: Mmes. Maddo�c, Bogen and Liston; Messrs. Donohue, Scherman, Tully and WiLson of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Hardwick, Mr- BeacU, Ms. Lane and Ms. Synstegaard of the Office of License, Inspection, and Environmental Protection. ABSENT Mr. Alton * * Excused The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair. FRANK WALLNER (#97-0761-1701 PIERCE BIT'I'LER ROiJTE: The applicant has requested that the Boazd of Zoning Appeals review a detemunation by City staff on the legal status of semi-trailers located east of Snelling at Burlington Northem's (BI� intemodal hub facility. City staff's determination was that these trailers aze a legal nonconfomung use and may stay. The applicant was present. There was opposition present at the hearing. Mr. Beach showed slides of fhe site and reviewed the staff ieport with a recommendatiou that the Boazd of + Zoning Appeals deny the appeal and uphold staff's determination that the semi-traiiers east of Snelling Avenue aze pazked and aze a legal nonconforming use. The use of the land may continue but the use may not be extended to occupy a greater azea of land or moved to another portion of the lo� Mr. Scherman questioned the fence. Mr. Beach stated that the fence was required and Burlington Northem states they will put one in. If BN doesn't start gutting one in by July 1,1997, staff will start enforcement action An engineer from TKDA is worldng on a plan to inctude a fence on the proper[y. Mr. Wamer stated that he wrote a legal opinion at Mr. Beach's requested regazding Mr. Beach's letter of Februazy 27,1997, to Mr. Ackerman conceming the differences between pazldng and storage. Mr. Wamer asked if there was any previous question involving noise allegations at the facility. Mr. Beach stated that there have been issues regazding noise. Mr. Wazner asked Mr. Beach if he had azry conversations with Mr. Ackerman in the last year regarding noise at the BN facility? Mr. Beach replied no. Mr. Wamer stated tfiat the reason he raises that issue is because in the appeal before the Board today, Item 3, grounds for appeai, raises issues conceming noise. Mr. Wamer stated that his recollection af events and the question that Mr. Beach was reseazching, had nothing to do with noise. Ivtr. Wazner stated tfiat he is hying to determine whether or not the issue of noise is propedy before the Board of Zoning Appeals today. Mr. Wamer stated that he suspects it is no� Mr. Wazner asked Mr. Beach if he could give the Boazd any more information about LIEP's sfndies about noise and when the last ona was done it might prompt him to advise the Boazd that Item 3 on the documeat entitled, "Attachment to Application for Appeal" the grounds for appeal is not properly before the Board and that would be a way to limit the testimony today. Mr. Beach stated Yhat the detemunation he made did nof address noise alfhough the Appeal raises it. Mr. Beach stated that he tmows � �� °[� -t�o� . File #97-076 Page Two that noise has been an issue and there were some studies done in the late 1980's when there was a wning study being done on &eight facilities and it did indicate that BN was not in compliance with the Noise Ordinance. Mr. Beach stated he dcesn't Imow what the current situation is because there have not been any measurements done in the past few years that he is awaze of. Ms. Maddox stated that her question was centering in the noise issue also. She stated that she was wondering if any noise sNdies had been done, if erecting the fence would assist in the noise problem or if the fence was just for visual effects. Mr. Beach replied he is not aware of any current noise studies and he didn't any request any. He stated that the fence being proposed is for primarily visual. The azea east of Snelling is where trailers are pazked and moved as needed wtuch he dcesn't believe generates a lot of noise. He stated that most of the noise problem comes from the west side of Snelling where the equipment is picking up the traifers and dropping them an the railroad cazs. He added that he would be surprised if the area east of Snelling is contributing to the noise problem. Mr. Wilson stated that under Finding F., stating that the use of the land may continue but the use may not be extended to occupy a greater azea of land or moved to another portion of the lot. Mr. Wilson asked if staff is speaking of the lot that was in use back then because the lot is not totaling paved. Mr. Beach replied that the azea east of Snelling is paved and being utilized for trailers. He stated that there may be other portions of BN's site west of Snelling that may not be utilized. What that would unply is that BN could not take the • trailers and put them on the portion of land that isn't being utilized. He stated that he laiows there has been some discussion of the composting site operated by Ramsey County being moved but trailers would not be able to be moved into that area. Frank Wallner, 1698 Taylor Avenue, passed out several handouts to the Boazd and stated that he has lived in the area for eig�t years. He stated that the noise has increased dramatically since he has moved into the area. He pointed ont that it wasn't a case where he moved into a situauon Imowing that there was a noise problem. The noise has been disruptive and he is convinced from the nights he has had to use ear plugs or a fan so he would be able to sleep. He stated that there are editorials that date back to 1987 regazding the noise problem. He stated that the District Council is focussing on noise reduction equipment for BN. He stated his focus is on the site east of Snelling. He stated that when they load the semilrailers onto train cars it is extremely loud. He stated he was a part of the Noise Committee for BN and believes BN has a responsibility to its neighbors to act more responsibly. He recognized thaY BN has put advanced muIIlers on their equipment and adjusted some of its operations which has helped some. The qualiry of life in the Ciry is highly dependable on the City Ordinances and he believes they need to be more thoroughly enforced by the Ciry. He went over a brief history of BN's application to the City of St. Paul to expand their Midway Hub. He stated that his main focus is on the EIS process. Ae stated that in 1987 the BZA laid over their decision on BN's expansion plans and on the storage verses pazking decision until a EAW was performed. Mr. Beach stated that the EIS was - for west of Snelling and this is a key point because the EIS is for the land east of Snelling as well. One of the main purposes of the proposed expansion was to increase the number of trailers. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agancy conducted a Noise Survey on June 13, 1995, which showed accedence of the State Noise Standazd. The primary reason for the EAW was to increase parldng spaces which has occurred. That decision was never voted on by the Planning Comcnission, which it should have, but BN dropped their formal � plans. Mr. Walilner contends that BN continued to expand east of Snelling with the use of trailers which resuited in increased noise despite the fact that they didn't have the Planning Commission's approval. �� F�e #97-076 Page Thzee Mr. Wallner stated that allowing BN Yo continue Yo store or park trailers on the area east of Snelling allowed a drawatic increase in their basiness. That increase in business resulted in a dramatic increase in no�se. Mr. WalIner continued to review his packet of materiaLs he provided to the Board. Whether BN's trailers are stored or parked BN should not have been ailowed to eicpand east of Snelling. The EQB reviewed the EIS, made a determination that there was a problem and before any govemmental agency couid approve the expansion of BN east of Snelling they either had to make a negative declazation or an EIS had to be performed and neither happened. Mr. Wal]ner asked the Boazd to not allow BN's Lrailers to be pazked east of Snelling Avenne and thaY BN be required to remove all their trailers east of Snelling. If the City had looked at this closer, ttcey would have recognized the fact that there were trailers slowly starting to creep to BN's land east of Snelling. BN has been unresponsive to the neighborhood's comptaints aad the Noise Committee has worked for over eight yeazs and nofhing has happened except for the muffters. Pazldug is deemed as "one week" and Mr. Wallner passed out pictures proving that trailers have been pazked longer than one week Ms. Maddox stated that as a resident of St. Paul that is subject to the air craft noise, the tug boat noise and the train noise she sympaflvzes with Mr. Wallner but the Boazd is being asked to look aY the parldng and the storage. She stated that the Boazd is not being asked to address the noise. She asked Mr. Beach to address the issue of the site plan not being reviewed by the Planning Commissioa � Mr. Wallner stated he is confused because the whole object of his presentation was to show that paztdng or storage should not be allowed due to the fact that it has resulted in increased business. � Mr. Wamer stated he is having a hazd time in framing the Mr. Wallner's issue. He stated that in looldng at the atiachments to the application to appeal and listening Yo the presentation he is not necessarily cleaz on what Mt Wallner is asking for in tke appeal. He stated that what he �mderstands iY to be is that Mr. Wallner is asking ihe Boazd to not atiow the trailers to be parked east of Snelling Aveuue and that the trailers should not be pazked there in any event because it constitutes an expansion of the BN operation east of Suelling Avenue in violarion of a site plan which was never approved by the Planning Commission according to Mr. Wallner. Mr. Wamer asked Mr. Beach if the site plan was ever approved by the Planning Cammission that Mr. Waltner is speaking of. Mr. Beach reptied no. Mr. Wamer stated that what the law states in respeck to Administrative Appeals is that what is before the Boazd of Zoning Appeals today is an appeal df a decision made by LIEP staff conceming the issue of sforage verses pazldng. The other matters relating to noise, whether or not a site plan was approved or not and other matters relating to Environmental Assessment Worksheets or Environmental Impact Statements az'e not propedy before the Board today. The applicant does have a recourse on these issues. The Boazd is limited to the testimony that is pertinent to the interpretation by LIEP YhaY the BN trailers at the facility east of Snelling aze pazked and not stored. Mr. Wallner stated that if the question comes down to pazking and storage, then he would ask the Boazd to override LIEP's decision that it is pazking. If the Boazd agrees that it is storage then BN has to be in compliance with a 300-foot setback wlrich would accomplish the same thing, to remove the trailers east of � Snelling. By allowing parking the Boazd is allowing the use of the entire facility against all of the history presented today. He stated his goal is to reduce the noise. He stated he will come back to another body with %� 0 cl� �l�o� • File #97-�76 Page Four lus other issues. He stated that before he paid $200 he pleaded with City staf£to give him more time because he didn't understand what he was asking. He was assured by City staff that he could present the information today and believes he was inadvertendy mislead by City staf£ Ae stated that he would like his issue to be thoroughly addressed. He stated he is very disappointed to hear that because it means all of the work he has done means notl�ing. He stated that he believes he has shown a lot in that BN has ignored the EIS, ignored the Planning Commission and all those issues aze so important. He added that he was assured by City staff that he could bring up new issues today before the Boazd Ms. Bogen stated that the Boazd dcesn't have copies of the letters from last swnmer but in Mr. Warner's letter to Mr. Kessier he talks about whetiier or not it is an expansion of a nonwnforming use. Mr. Beach wrote a letter in October 1496 where he brought up the issue of whether there has been an e�ansion of a nonconforming use. Ms. Bogen stated that the expansian of this nonconfornung use is an issue that has been dealt with during this process since the applicant first wrote a letter to the City asking for this to be looked at. She stated that just because one particulaz letter of February 27, 1997, is only taiking about patking xerses storage, she dcesn't see why the Boazd cannot go fwther into whether or not there is a nonconforniing use here that has expanded over time and especially in the last four yeazs after the changes were made in the Zoning Code. Mr. Wallner stated that the way he reads the provision in the Ordinance is that it is extended to occupy a � greater azea of the lot and that is what has happened. The Ordinance dcesn't refer to a lazger piece of land but rather it refets to extending a greater area of the lot which is what happened. Ms. Maddox pointed out that the issue of the nonconforming use would be the Piamvng Commission's determination and not the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. Bogen stated that it states in the BZA's materials that the applicant requested LIEP to investigate a complaint that BN was expanding its nonconfomung use at the Midway site. Mr. Beach wrote a letter in July where he concluded that there was an expansion and now there was storage also that was not complying with the City Ordinances. From there the issue was whether or not it was parking or storage to get azound the issue that this is an expansion of a nonconfomvng use. That is what the original request was of the applicant on page 73 of the packet. Mr. Hardwick stated that he was involved years ago on this issue. He stated that on the Application for Apgeal Mr. Wallner makes reference to the letter of February 27, 1997 to Mr. Beach. Mr. Wallner also has an attachment to his Appeal which references the determination of LIEP staff that it is a legal nonconfomring use. Mr. Hardwick stated that Ms. Bogen has a valid point in that even thoug,h the actual application references the letter of Fehruary 27, 1997, he believes there aze two issues before the BZA. The fust issue is pazlang verses storage and the second issue is whether or not BN's facility is a legal nonconforming use or not. That decision was made by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Hazdwick stated that in Mr. Beach's staff report he references the date of the ordinance change. Prior to the ordinance change BN's use of the properiy east of Snelling would have been a confomring use. The Board needs to keep in mind when determining tlus legal nonconfornung status if indeed Mr. Wamer concurs with his conclusion, that that is one of the issues . here. The issue being in whether or not the use e�cisted legally on that date. The other informa6on Mr. Wallner has presented regarding noise and EAW aze not pertinent to this hearing. If there are objections, neighbors may file a complaint at LIEP's office. �� File #97-076 Page Five rJ Mr. Wamer stated that the difficulty here is that in Mr. Beach's correspondence, which isn't included in the packet today, Mr. Beach advised BN on October 28, 1996, that he had revised his original opinion from July 8, 1996, and found that Yhe current use of the property for storing trailers appears to be a legal nonconforming use. He stated thaY it is his recollection from the correspondence £ile that he reviewed in preparing the opinion thaf the information was also communicaYed to the applicanY. Mr. Warner asked Mr, Beach if that was correcL Mr. Beach replied yes. Mr. Waruer stated that if you look at the language in the Zoning Code, specificatly in Chapter 64.204(c) it states that any person can appeal a decision from the Zoning Administrator but that appeai fias to be fiied within 30 days of receipt of that detam�ination by the owner of the properiy in quesrion. Mr. Wamer stated that he wouId agree that iniiially and maybe througfiout this process that the appiicant here today has raised the issue of the determination about legal nonconforming use on the part of LIEP staff. The Code is clear that one has 30 days to appeal from that decision and that decision was made on October 28, 1996. The application for appeal is dated Mazch 31, 1997, so it is faz outside of the time provision that is provided for by the Code. Mr. Wamer stated that represents a dif£cult question, if you want to entertain the motion here Yhat the detemvnation by LIEP staff with respect to its nonconforming use is before the Board, then you are violating the provisions of the Code that states you have 30 days. That is a very strict reading of the Code. The Board could choase to waive that if they wanted to, the pmbtem wouid be that the Board doesn't have a report from skaff on thaY pazticulaz point. That would require a resotution of that issue and it would have to be laid over and statl would have to vndertake a study of that. Staffwoutd need to ask his legal opinion on fhat and that couid take any number of days. The basis the Boazd could have in ignoring the ruie of taw is that the applicant originaliy raised tfie point That wouid � be a decision the Boud would have to make and unfortunately he cannot advise the Boazd legally whether or not they have the right to do that. If the Boazd would like to do that he asked the Boazd to lay the matter over so that he can reseazch the basic issue of whether or not the Boud can for equity purposes avoid the iules that have been established in the Ordinance and give the Boazd an opuuon on that Tf it tums out that the Boazd can do that then it would be appropriate to heaz that pazt of the appeal. Mr. Wazner stated that issue is not before the Boazd to@ay. Ms. Bogen stated that she believes for equities in this matter tkat the BZA should consider doing that only because the applicant did raise a number of issues in his ear&er Ietters to staff and possibly was waiting for a final letter that addressed all of tfie issues. She asked why the applicant should appeal eacfi Ietter received from LIEP staff dealing with only part of what he had originally asked staffto Iook at Mr. Wallner stated that Ms. Bogen stated exactly what he was trying to say prior to paying $200 in that he had a lot more issues to bring up. He stated that he was advised by LIEP staff that he could bring the issues up. He Yold staff that he didn't wanf to pay $200 for every issue regarding this case. Mr. Wacner stated he a�ees in principle with Ms. Bogen's statement that strikes him as a realistic interpretation of what is going on but he has to respond to the applicani with respect to the allegations of being mistead Mr. Wamer stated that the law is the law. Mr. Beach stated that in going over this case he has been hying to write a letter that stated LIEP's position He stated he addressed pazldng verses storage and perhaps he didn't state it as cleazly as he meant to that staff was saying that this was a legal nonconfomung use. The issue with the EAW came up after he wrote the • letter. Mr. Wallner had requested some clarification on the February 27, 1997, and wrote a letter dated � �' °i�'��� � � � File #97-076 Page S"vc March 13, 1997, making swe that all of the issues were covered. He stated he wouldn't have any objection to the issue of the nonconfomvng use being considered since it was his intent to state that in the letter but the EAW issue came in aftenvards and he was surprised to see it in the appeai form Ms. Bogen asked Mr. Beach if he intended to make that statement in the letter. Mr. Beach replied yes and that it was an intent to clarify the issue that yes this was a nonconfomung issue. They had detennined that the trailers were pazked verses stored. Mr. Tully questioned where Mr. Wallner's photos were taken because it appears they were taken on the west side. If this is true, the photos would have no bearing on ihe east side of Sneliing Avenue and Hus case is pertaining to the east side. Mr. Wallner stated he could have taken pictures on the east side of 5nelling Avenue to prove ]us point. Mr. Wallner asked for clarification on the statement that City. staff's detemvnation was that these trailers are. a legal nonconfornvng use and asked if his presentation about the previous history in that the Planning Commission should have voted on it, approved it and the EAW has implications for nonconfornilng use. He stated that he believes that all of those points do have implications and he is hying to show that that is the foundation by which he is stating it shou]d not be designated that way. He stated that pazking in tkiat azea is a confomvng use so he doesn't understand how one can designate something legal nonconforming when in fact pazking is a confomiing use for this zoned azea. Mr. Beach stated that this is pazking which is accessory to a nonconfornaing use and therefore would be considered nonconforming. He stated that regarding EAW, it tallcs about the scope of the project that the EAW was looking it. It spoke about increasing the paved area on the site from 15 to 35 acres and talldng about putting in new entrances into the site, relocating railroad tracks. He stated that the area east of Snelling was paved at that time. The emphasis of the EAW was on the azea west of Snelling. Ms. Maddox asked Mr. Beach if his intent was to clarify the issue of the nonconforming use but it really wasn't addressed? She asked Mr. Beach if he feels the Boazd has enough information in the packet to address that or would staff have more information to provide to the BZA on that. Mr. Beach replied that he did hy to address it in the staff report and he would not have any fiuther information to add for the Board's detemvnation. Diane Gerth, Attomey representing BN, introduced John Ackerman, Manager of the Midway Hub Facility. She stated that with respect to the EAW, Mr. Wallner is using an abandoned expansion plan from 10 years ago to confuse the issue which is very nazrow that is before the Boazd today. That issue is whether or not City staff is correct in its determination that the land east of Sne]ling Avenue is indeed pazking verses storage. Ciry staff conclusion is that the equipment is left on the site for no longer than 84 hours. That is the legal opinion that has been set forth by the Ciry Attomey's Office, pazking rather than storage. She stated that if the Boazd is going to consider the deteanination that Uus is a legal nonwnfomvng use BN would object for the reasons that the City Attorney set forth. She stated that what she tUinks the applicant is trying to do is to redefine the word expansion The Ordinance is cleaz that expansion means the use of a greater area of land. The applicant used a series of pictures that show on different dates that more trailers were pazked in the area than on other dates. Mr. Ackerman has told her that on certain times of the year, depending upon the �� File #97-076 Page Seven availability of equipment, you will find that the land east of Snetling has more or less trailers on it Ttus is due to the transiency of the trailers on that site. That is because it is a parking facility where trailers come and go constantiy. The Midway Hub has gone up and down in its capacity but the same amount of land is being used, its just that the number of irailers have varied. Regazding the fence, they understand that TKllA has submitted drawings to the City. They aze waiting for pemuts to go forwazd and the fence is budgeted for and ready to go. She staYed she has no explanation as to why a recommendation that took place in 1982 has not yet been acted upoa. Mr. Ackerman has only beea oa the site for a year. Ms. Maddox questioned the statement that the cazs aze pazked for no longer than 84 hours and asked if there aze records on the movemenL Ms. Crerth replied that it was a Mertz study that made a conclusion that 84 hours was the longest peria3 of time. � Mr. Ackerman stated that the azea east of Snelling is used only for empty equipment. There aze no Ioads staged, parked or stored there. St. Paul is a equipment deficit azea and they do get a certain amount of empty equipment that comes in on the railroad in addition to the empty equipment Yhat comes in off the street What they do for the ease of the ttuckers to pick up equipment to go back ou the street is to put that equipment in one specific place. How that works is that when an empty piece of equipment comes in it is graded. If it is a good piece of equipment on midnight on that day all of the orders from various customers aze filled from t6at empty supply of equipment The customers then have 48 hours to pick up that equipment or it gets reassigaed to another customer. In most cases your looking at the day the piece of equipmenY comes in plus a � maximum of 48 hours until it woutd go out If someone doesn't pick up their equipment at midnight 48 hours later, it is reassigned so you could be looking at a fow-day turnazound. He stated he cannot say that there isn't a piece of equipment that sat on the lot for longer than they thought but normally it is a 48-hour hunaround and in ihe worst case a 96-hour tumarovnd The area east of Snelling holds 225 trailers. During the first part of the week the lot is neazly full and by Friday the lot is less than haif-full. Ms. Liston asked if a trailer comes in and it is on the lot for 84 hours, if it is moved 8 feet over and pazked it is stored and not pazked because it has not moved Yhe properiy. Mr. Ackerman replied they do not that so they can say that the equipment is parked rather than stored He added that the equipment on tke east side of Snelling is being put and picked up by the customers and not BN. Mr. Beach stated that the Code talks about how often a vehicle is used and picldng up a trailer and moving it 8 feet over would not be considered "using" the trailer. Mr. Wallner stated that Mr. Ackerman talked about storage and he dcesn't lmow fiow much of a difference it makes but in the doc;umenY thaY was prepazed for the Metropolitan Council by BN it cleazly refers to storage of trailers. Storage is part of their operation. IIe asked the Board to keep in mind that the more trailers on the site, the more noise for fhe neighborhood. He stated fhat during a snow storm it was clear from no Gracks on the lot that trailers hadn't been moved for weeks at a time. Mr. Wallner asked the City Attomey if his point regazding the EQB is perkinent here because as he refers to their letter it states in reference to the EIS it states that p�usuant to Minnesota Rules, part 4410, no fiaal govemmental decision to grant a permit or other approval required to commence the project shalt be made until negative dectaration or EIS adequately detemunation has been made. He stated that pazkuig and storage of the irailers east of Snelling was parf of BN's project and for the Boazd to approve pazldng would seem to kum to be against the letter from EQB. Mr. . Wazner replied that that is not germane here today. Zd �1�-i� � File #97-076 Page Eight Ms. Maddox stated she has some concem wer the nonconforming use issue on the determination and she would like that clarified by the Attomey. Ms. Maddox asked if the Boazd could delay the matter for 2 weeks to allow Mr. Waener to provide that information. Mr. Wamer stated he could have that determination at today's meeting for the Boazd. Ms. Bogea stated the Boazd could ask the applicant if he would be in favor of continuing the matter over past the 60-day deadline. Mr. Wallner replied he would be in favor of a continuance and asked for clarification. Ms. Maddox replied that the Board is asking to continue the matter in 2 w�ks for fhe determination of the nonconforming use if that is something this Boazd should be addressing. Mr. Wa]]ner asked if at that meeting he could bring up his points about the EIS and his other issues. Ms. Maddox replied no that the Boazd has all of the information from Mr. Wallner regarding that. She added that if it is not up to the BZA to make that detemiinarion, the Boazd will give Mr. Wallner guidance on where he could bring that information to. Ms. Bogen moved to continue the mat[er with the applicant's approval until June 2, 1997. Mr. Scherman seconded the motion. Mr. Hazdwick asked if it is the Boazd's intent to continue the public portion of the meeting at the June 2, 1947 continuance. Ms. Maddox after consulting the Boazd members replied that it is the full Boazd's � decision to ciose the public portion of the meeting. The motion to continue the matter until June 2, 199�, which passed on a unanimous voice vote of 7 to 0. Submitted by: Tom Beach � Approved by: John Tuliy, Secretazy ZI � -SUMMARY OF APPEAL TO THE ST. PAUL BOARD C1F ZONlNG ISSUE: BURLtNGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD DATE OF MEETING: MAY 19, 1997_. PERSUN �R,PPE�R�.lN�� ��A.�t� �r�� _� t+r�� � � Z2 ( �l'1-1�� � Historv of Burfi r November 5, 1987: BN submits a Site Pian to the city ofi St. Paul which would extend the use of the Midway Hub east of Snetling Avenue. The Site Plan specifically refers to the temporary parking of traifers within the site. November 13, � J87: The city of St. Paul Zoning - Administrator responds to BN's request by concluding that semi-trailers would be stored and that the setback and screening requirements apply. � November 13, 1987: A second {etter frorn the City informs BN that their Site Pian must be reviewed by the futl Planning Commission. The letter states that this is requirecl because unusualty large and controversial projects are often referred to the pfanning Commission fior action. December 12, 1987: BN requests an administrative review of the Zoning Administrator's decision that semi-trailers are being stored and not p�rked. -January 15, 1988 - Board of Zoning Appeats lays over their decision on BN's expansion pfans until an Environmentai Assessment Worksheet (EAVI� is compteted. The City recognized the potentiaf ! negative impacts to the Newel Park neighborhood if BN were a1lowed to expand the 1 Hub. 23 ^�L `� •--�� . • �✓ !/.�n... �i �� � � ' - - _ - Z'�"F''�, ��L �{ 7Alr2,KING.OUVA[�,ANOEaS� �1 ANO ASSOGATEi INCOFOOF� ENGINEERS ARCHI7ECT5 Pf.ANVERS j5pp>WEA�CaMN6T10P0lBANK8V�l0�NG " $.11Ni i4Ut, MiNNES�T? 55101.1897 � � 812:$92.dLQ . cAX 6t 3 - 192A083 Novemher 5, 1987 Mr. Jan P. &asterland Bujfd(ng Code Ofiftcer Building lnspection and Design Division Depari of Community Services Cfty of St. Paui T5 W. KeI(aga St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Mtdway Hub Facittty Burlingfion Northern Railroad Commfssion No. 9069-01 Dear Mr. 6asferiznd: The Burlington Northern Ratlroad proposes to make Improvements to thelr Hub � Facility properfiy whic& ttes xest of Snetting Avenue and nor�h of Pferce Butler Route.. Y1e are requesting your agreement that the proposed improvements neet the requfrements oP the Bulldtng Code. The improvements wtthl� the s(te inctude the retocatlon of existtng ratlroad track, concrefie pavtng a�d construci of an entrance, storm dralnage system znd offfce and xarehouse butldtngs. The Improvements are reoted an the ertclosed site plan. Praposed tmprove:nenfis, includtn concrete pav(nq and fiemporary par ng ofi tra[lers operation xithin the site), lie wfthin the 300 foot sethack which Is referenced tn the Bullting Code under lndustrial Distrfcts Sec�Io❑ b0.613(3?. The existtng hub_Facility (s a coniorntng use which begzn oy,erafiions on May 14, 1974; the exlsting use began prior to the formal adoptlon date of Oci 25, i975 for the present Bufld(rtg Code rrhich is referenced above. The site pfan enclosed atso fndicates the existing zoning ltne, the 3Q0 foot satback line from the zo�tng lFne, and the approximate Hub Facitfty s(te ope�attons t(ne af tnftia( start-up on Mzy i4, i974. Due to the fact that - tha exlsfiing Hub Faciliiy is a conforming use'placed in operatfon prior to the present Zon(ng Code znd aiso tha the existtng code wder Sect(o� 60.6t3(3) does not cfearly def(ne par(cing of 't�atlers as siorage, we feel that the proposed improvement ts in conformznce. •- We atso understand that the City Piannfng Commission has approved the � r�noval of Seci 60.613(3) fran the BuildTng Code and that the required hearings for amendment cooid begtn as early as fihe f(rst xeek In December, 1987. ! .�;, .� �. ;.. 3 a :� : .+°� Y^ r; Z �' ti I � 2 � { ��ye±`d'3a�!'� 6 ��..� � . • .., . : • �, : ltllil S �:� I III '�� � � CEORC£ 1,A71MER � MAYOR November 13, 19&7 � ( • Darrel H. Berkowicz TKDA 2500 American National Bank Building St. Paul, MN 55101-1893 °l'1-1'3 � �' CITY OF SAINT PqV � DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNiTY SrRViCtS BUILD{rtG INSPECTION.tivD DESIGN DlviSION ..Gry Haii, Saint Paui, Minnesoca i51p? 61:-?98-:Z7? RE: Midway fiub Facility North Side Pierce Butler Raute West of Snelling Dezr Mr. Berkowitz: We have zeviewed your request of November 5, 19$7 for the Burlington Northern Railroad rIidway Hub Facility. The property is located in an I-1 (LighC industrizi) zonir.g district. Outdoor storztr=_ in aa industrial zoning district cannot be located wichin 300 feet of a residenCial zoning district pursuant to Section 60.613.(3) of the St. Paul Zoning Code. The site plzn submitted indicates t hat semi trailers, in transit from railroad f at e s to tractors, wou e - -- ------- --- ---- -_ .. _ �.. .��,��, tely followin� tF.e centerline of Pierce Sucler RmteP_ The 300 foot spacing requirement was added to the Zoning Code when it was ' entirely rewritten, effective October 25, 1975. Prior to tha[ date, outdoor storage was permiCted in an industrial district without regard to location on the loc. The trailer storage area tnat ssisted at the Midwzy Hub Facility in i975 was allowed to re�ain under the new code, although not in confotmance with the setback standard. Thzt same esiscing noncon£orming setback line can be maintained with the proposed improvements to the Facilicy. Aowever, as shown or. ehe site o1an, t4e oucdoor storage area oroposed would be located further south, closer to the residential zoning line, than the existino storage area. Along with a series of proposed test amendments, the Planning Co�ission has recommended that che above 300 foot setback standard be removed from the Zoning Coc'=_, because the required fencing apparently provides 2 sufficienz bzrzier between industrial and residential areas_ The City Council mzy choose to adoot the Planning Con�issioa recoQSier,dation, reject it, or approve it with modiiication. Any new change wQUld noe become effective for at least two monChs. � �� j`�4 �. $ i1 lw: Y ' � � V � � �J � a.+''+Rd� �'Si 9 � � � �" : �. � 25 �✓ GEORGE t/�TIMER MAYOR CITY OF SAIN7 PAU� DEPARTMEN'i-0E-PL-ANNIPfG ECONOMK DEVEIOPMENT i.�` . i?. %'.. 1. DIVISION OF PLANNI�+tC C. ..• . 25 West Fourth Slree4, Linl Pau� A7in�ewt� � 6t2.22ft- L� November 13, 1�87 Mr. Darrel Berkowitz y TKDA and Associates ZSOQ American National Bank $uilding Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Re; Sice P1an Review for Burlingtan Northerr. Midway FFul� Facility Dear Mr. Berkowitz: I am writing to confirm whac I have told you that the Planning Commission w e reviewing t e site p an you are wor Lng on or Burlington ort ern's i wav u aci itv_ on ��Pm Pr rr,,, vi�,...;.,o �ommission approved a motion by Kathy Zieman requesting that the site plan review application be reviewed by the full Planning Commission vhen it is formally submfcted. The Saint Pau1 Zoning Code,gives the planning Comlaission jurisdiction over review of site plans. Because of the large voZwae of siCe plans, the PZanning Commission has delegated this responsibility to the PLanning staff. However, site plans 'for unusually large or controversial developments are often re erred to the fu11 Planning Commission for their action, Tite action of the Planning Com.rnisszon is zna un ess someone appeals the deczsion to the Cfty Council wiGhin 15 days. W'hea the Planning Commission reviews.a site p1an, they are zequired by law co have a public hearing. As T to2d you over the phone, if we recezve your conaZeted application by November 20, we vi11 schedule a Planning Commission puolic hezring or. the matter on Jec>s�er 1S, 1987. Zf there is cor*_tove>_sv y[ the public hearing, I e.cpecc t'r.e sice plan wi11 be reYerred back to the Zoning Committee for its recommendation on January 7, 2988 and brought back to the PZanning Com�ission on January 15, 1988. Please feel free to ca11 me at 228-3362 or Larry Zangs at 228-3392 when you have ques[ions. Sincerely, ���� /�*��NtJ �Y/ r vLr. U' srrence Sodernolm Principal Planner - Zoning cc: Wendy Lane 26 ...,. - ; ` -�� `#� � � �! .� ,:s �i;..+' '• a � .� � S � r � L� PU8L1C HEARtNG NOTICE CITY OF SA4KT PAUL BOARD OF 20NlNG APPEALS q1-I�a� : THE ACTION OF THE BOARD AT THIS HEARINf� WILI BE TO LAY THIS CASE �VEP. UNTIL AFTER THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSNEE7 IS C�MPLETED. YOU WILI RECEIVE A NEW NOTICE WHEN THE SOARD WILL R U W S CASE. �� APPL{CAN7 PURPOSE �CATION OF PROPERTY TfNSE OF HEARING PIACE OF HEARiNG HOW TO PARTICIPATE ANY QUESTIONS � Property Owners Within 350 feet; Representatives of Planning District I1 BURLIN6TON f�ORTHER�! RAILROAD C0. An Administrative Review of the Zoning Administrator's decision which determined that a BN expansion proposal uutaoor stroage requlres setback from tne zoaing boun line and parking does not have this requirement. The applicant states that the determination was in error. Present Zoning: I-1 (Industrial) 1701 Pierce Butler Route Tuesday, January 26, 1988 1:30 P.P4. 3th floor conPerence room, City k{al1 Ar,nex, 25 W. 4th S�reet, Rr`r�.e� F�..n..� ('i4.. Noll � S>in� Onnl __— 1. You may attend hearing and testify. (See note above) 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to the Board of Zoning Appeats, 25 West Eourth St., St. Paul, MN. 5510'c Call the Zoning office at 248-4154 � Donna Datsko � or your District Cauncil representative ( 646-1986 )�+ith the following information: Zoning Fi1e No. 10245 Zoning File Name BURLINGTON PlORTHERN RR �� Mailing Oate 1-15-88 _ Environmental Assessment Worksheet Conclusions 1. June 6, 1988 - An EQW is submitted to the Minnesota Environmentat comment. Quaiity Board (EQB) for review and 2. The EAW makes it clear that BN's Site Pian proposes to expand east of Snelling Avenue - the EAW states: "The project area can be divided into two sections, the section East of Sne�lin Avenue and the section West of Sne ling venue...". "The operation of the ex anded facility will be identical to the curren�iiity but at increased capacity." 3. One of the main purposes of the proposed expansion was to increase the number of trailer spaces. BN's Site Plan/EAW estimated that the number of trailer spaces would increase from 540 to 1,149 spaces. C� � � Z a = {�ie o Y.-, E l� W � 5, Descrfbe the proposed project compZetelp. L h �� �1� ���� �� The total projecC area is about 53 acres. The project area can be divided into two sections, the section east of Snelling Avenue and the section west of Snelling Avenue; the project is s own on t e site p an, Attac ent 4,B,3. The two areas are joined under the Snelling Avenue overpass, just south of the BN main line tracks. The westerly section is about 49.1 acres and is bounded on the east by the west right-of-way line of Snelling Avenue and on the north from the most southerly through-railroad track. The south boundary is at the property line and the north right-of-way line of Pierce Butler Route. On the west, the project boundary follows the limits of developable land near the top of the bank surrounding the SN pond. The easterly section is triangular-shaped area about 4.3 acres; it is a flat paved area now vacant but formerly used as a new automobile unloading area, It runs between the Snelling Avenue right-of-way on the west, the northerly right-of-way line of Pierce Butler Route and the BN main line tracks. 0� '� The operation o£ the expanded £acility will be identical to the current facility but at an increase capac ty. Trains with flat cars carrying trailers and containers are received from the Seattle and Chicago regions. The trailers are unloaded fzom the train's cars by large diesel powered vehicles called piggy packers. The piggy packers work alone or in pairs and typically can load 24 units in a two hour peziod. Hostler tractors reposition the trailers and containers oa the site until semi-trucks arrive to haul them away. Ten jobs will be added to the 24 hour period total, increasing the � complement to 60 workers. The paved axea o£ the site wi11 increase from 12 acr=s to 47,4 acres, An area about .8 acres will remain gravel but will be used as the azea for washing packers and as a"safe haven" (a "safe haven" is a four £oot deep pit with an impervious liner used to contain any spillage from a leaking container or trailer, see item No. 24.) A 5.2 acre landscaped area will be ir.stalled. The dimensions of the BN pond, just west of the project area, will remain unchanged, 18.2 acres. r u increase £rom about 540 to 1149 svaces, auto narking will increase £rom 30 to 50 spaces, hostler and packer parking will be provided at the rate of six and three spaces respectively. A main entrance will be built in the easterly section o£ the site and an entrance road will run north and parallel Co the Pierce Butler Route. The entrance road will have three in-bound and one out-bound traffic lanes. A control booth used for checking and inspecting trucks entering and leaving the site and a small support o£fice wi11 be constructed in this area. All trucks diopping o£f or picking up trailers or coxrtainers will have to use this main entrance and will pass under the Snelling Avenue overpass to the facility`s main storage area. Some tracks will be repositioned to accommodate truck movements from one section of the facility to the other section. Z i ` —�v o m l`l5 {^e'o o�et f� t�i e. �"Y��C f�u�o o�i fr,�V! CO c.vi c c� , TABLE 2 TERMINAI CNARACTERlSTlCS USED 1N CAPACITY ANALYSIS BN MIDWAY HUB Acreage Terminal Working Area Woods and Hit(top Hours Operated Week Qays Week Ends Number/Length of.Tracks lnside Yard: Load/Unload #4 toad/Unload #3 Load/Unload #2 N and S "- • • Subtotal Outside: Storage (4 Tracks) Number of Lift Machinss Number of Hostling Tractors Number of Emplo e Number of Parking Spaces Trucks Per Day (Weekdays) 52.1 Acres 9.7 Acres 24 Hours 18 2,500 2, 670 2,350 2, 200 11,650. 2,600 4 8 46 Feet 34 Feet/Track Lifts + 50-100 � � �J 3a q�_j30� The EA' � ���c:�t� noise for The EAW concluded that: "With the simuttaneous operation of two packers with new sound shieiding mufflers (these have recently been instalfed} on the rail nearest the Aldine receptor (308) feet, noise standards wouid be exceeded by any type of operation". And that: "Operation ofi one packer at the nearest rait and one at the middte rait would exceed the noise standard" in a letter dated July 14, 1988 the Minnesota • Poltution Controi Agency reviewed the EAW and informed the City of S. Pauf that: "With the proposed expansion ....... It appears that the Hub operation will almost double. Violations o�E the state noise standards wift occur without noise mitigation". Those predictions were accurate: On June 13, 1995 the MPCA conducted a noise survey which showed that: "Noise feveis monitored were above limits for a residentiat area as defined by MPCA noise poltution contro{ standards." � 31 r�, /}(� � 10 _-- . . The study calibrated traffic and piggy packer noise levels for various operation levels at the site. porst-case estimated noise levels based on operations closest to the sensitive receptor sites were established, The study determined that while hostlez tractors produce noise similar � to that of the packers, their use is more intermittent and they aze often shielded by the rows of trailers and containers and therefore their use was not factored into this analysis. With the simultaneous operation of two packers with new sound shielding � mufflers (t ese ave recent y een insta ed on t e rail nearest the ` A dine receptor eet , noise stan ar s wou e excee e y any With the operation of packers having the new mufflers and working at the middle rail, noise standards likely would not exceeded. Operation of one packer at the nearest rail and one at the middle rail would exceed the noise standatds. A S dBA reduction in ihe equipment could allow a single packer to operate on this rail during the nighttime hours without vio2ating the standard. The operation of two packers with new mufflers at the i Impact noise £rom bouncing and parking trailers and containers may also contribute to Lhe noise generated on-site. Uneven gravel surfaces and uneven rail crossings cause the ,jostling of trailers and containers, which when empty are especially noisy. Paving the surface snd • rebuilding the rail crossings wili reduce this type o£ equipment noise. D. Odors. No specific data on odor thresholds for diesel-type emissions are available. The study established an approximate threshold value for hydrocarbons of 0.1 ppm, The Minnesota P,mbient Aiz Quality Standards for hydrocarbons are 0.24 ppm for a 3-hour period. The predicted truck h;�drocarbon Ievels at t?�e closect r>ceptor site at Fairview Avenue, 30 meters south of the BN entrance, was ,015 ppm. 24. Describe the type and amount of solid or hazardous rraste including sludges and ashes that wi1Z be generated and the me[hod and Iocatlon of disposal. No solid or hazardous waste wiZZ be generated at this site. According to the hub faci2ity manager, less than S percent of the containers or trazlers being transoortad throu�h the ya*d contain ar.y hazzrdous material. Of those hazardous materials brought through the yard, the largest containers are 55 gallon-drums, Theze aze no tanker-type rail cars brought through this facility. 6 The facility now provides a waste containment site for any potential hazardous waste spiZZs. The expanded facility will have a pit or "safe haven" which wi21 be abaut four feet deep and lined with an impervious • material to conCain any spill and prevent it from reaching the BN pond. In case of a very sudden spill in which hazardous material reaches the storm sewer system, there would be opportunity to b].ock the storm sewez az ,, � � � ; , _ • ,> e Minnesota Pollufiion Contro{ Donna L. Datso City Planner II City of Saint Paul 25 West 4th Street 1100 City Hall Annex Saint Paul; Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Datso: �i�-i�a� �,�G � �� ����� �d 5 > �� . Re: Burlington:Northern Midway Hub Facility Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) , The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency {MPCA) staff has reviewed . the above referenced document and has comments to offer regarding potential noise and air quality and traffic impacts_due to the project. Noise A noise analysis was conducted for the existing Burlington Northern facility by the MPCA and the St. Paul City Health Department in August of 1987. It was concluded from the study that, although noise levels were sligkLtly in excess of the state noise standar3s aao ci Tevels, a si nificant noise prob em did not exzst due to the facility. Noise impacts from Pierce Sut er Roa were t ou�g t t be Che larger contributor, by far, to the problem than the Burlington Northern operation. In addition, much of the noise from the facility is intermittent and consis'ts of the "banging and clanging" of empty trucks and containers associated with the operation. re at, currently, there are s ---- - -- aci ity represented in the EAW the staff is currently conducting site to evaluate these impacts. cant noise thE AlC11rie Site). AS SllCh, rther noise monitoring at the u Phone• 520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Regional Offices • DuluthlBrainerdlDetroit Lakes/MarshalllRochester Equal ODDartunity Employer 33 July 14, 1988 �v�o w+ YY1 !�G}1- ��etkv2. Ms. Da'tso ��� �v�� �� �.Y O 0 � Page��.Two _ � � '� -= - `' ``, With the proposed expansion of the facility, it is estimated by Burlington Northern that the five day (weekj average of 428 trucks per day into and out of the facility will increase to 700 trucks per day. Zt appears that Hub operations will almost double. Vi of the state noise standards will occuz wit�out noise mitig The staff (David Kelso at 61�-1��T3T recommen s that all of the noise mitigation measvres listed at pages 33, 34, and 50 of the EAW be implemented to achieve compliance with the state noise standards._ Currently, on2y part of the recommended noise mitigation measures have been completed or are planned for the facility. Those measures that are recommended, but not planned for or completed, include: 1) control of piggy packer noise by enclosing_the engines, contro.11ing night operations, erecting berms and barriers, and exploring ways by which impact noise from the lock in arn might be reduced, 2) control of noise due to the Hostler tractors by moving the exhaust lower on the tractor, �' 3) control of noise due to id2ing trucks by building berms or barriers, and 4) control of noise due to departing trucks by relocating the entrance. As is stated in the EAW, the resu2t of implementing the completed, planned, and recommended abatement measures in the EAw is that the proposed (and existing) facility should be able to operate within the City of St. Paul Ordinance and Minnesota noise standards. Air Quality and Traffic Impacts An Indirec� Source Permit (IS:) is not required £or the proposed project: Air quality issues are adequately addressed in the document. The modelled concentrations for hydrocarbons, which is the primary air pollutant from tha proposed project, were well belaw the state standard. Carbon monoxide (CO} and nitrogen oxide levels were also low, therefore, no violations of the state air quality standards are exgected to occur as a result of the project. The staff wishes to note, however, that some potential traffic impacts are expected at the Sne2lina and University Avenue incersection due to an increase in truck traffic from the proposed project. It is anticipated that 20 percent of the hourly truck trips passing north and south through this intersection woul.d be associated with the facility. Though this percentage might appear insignificant, it isn't. Actually, on=_ heavy truck is believed to be the equivalent of five cars, traffic-wise. These trucks will be displacing cars who will otherwise be queuing up to use this intersection. The document . � *- , � L • 3 �f 9'1-i�o� � NOISE SURVEY MPCA INVESTIGATOR: Brian Timerson INSTRUMENTATION: Larson Dav:is Labs 870M SiN A0125 DATE: 06/13/1995 TIME START: 22_28 PM TIIvIE END: 23:28 AM SOURCE: Burlin�ton Northern Midway Intermodai Hub .�MONITOR LOCATTON: Residential Area South of Hub. NAG1 DIAGRAM (INDICATE - NOISE SOURCE, NOISE RECENER, MICROPHONE LOCATION, REFLECTING OB7ECTS/OBSTRUCTIONS AND DISTANCES.) � Budington Northem C� Intermada! Hub � ro � m Meteorological Condi.tions Comments: The Intermodal loading activities were not the major source of noise for the total of the hour long monitoring. CALIBRATION Wind Speed / Direction c� TEMPERAT'CTRE: 23 °C �� j� IBRATOR SERIAL NUMBER: 1392 CALTBR.ATTON FREQUENCY: 250 Hz �CfTI�'IAL: 114.0 dBA FINAL: 114.0 dBA RESULTS L10 59 dBA L50 54 dBA 3 .s was never On November 5, 1987, which is the date that BN applied for expanding its facility, an air photo was #aken of the area east of Snelling Avenue. This air photo shows no trailers stored or parked east of Sneiling Avenue. A second air photo taken in 1993 shows a row of trailers east of Sneiling Avenue. � tn a photo taken April 12, 1997, the area east of S�eiling is completely filted with two rows of trailers. ` r., �� 36 � < '� -: $ �': -��':'�. j ... t � � r .' - � � � '. .� ^-.-�-r ��.� F�� c �� k4 .� i3.'' f � "�?' a s .. .. -:. � t����..r �� �• s e � �' — a � } � 7 < ' �} g- � ¢ " � k: ,'y� ..n F.s' .� u�va � s �' , � S�c� �.cn.�G�"K.F 4 �' ^^r* � a� •�S 4 ; ] ,� tryv,. +r � y y � �� - � C�Y' � '� '"� p � .,: �a ��•-C � .. � " i �'x 4 ti " rr f f n. �� � � � `� y F r y � � d i T � Y . � � t� �'� � l' j � - K` F� �•`�` � k .{S' iPF", A� � A � 1 �� �� 1 1: �' .' +t '��� � 3�Y. J-f � } �e�� _ c .. � � ( � . � e � ��`�� s "'�z � ' a� ..r.-� �. °3 ,�� ._.21N�.-N . . j � w �� � v�g r Y .' ._ .: �-a.� '"{} { y � �* r �� ry � ' ' S h : �' � � � t � �Y4• �„!' .s. s' .� . � - ....-r "" 2 i �� �a� Y � j, � �' t- �� " �r s E.i ;' _., _ � �" s � u � y � r ...,}, � . � . . `{""'.. . �4R�ia� � L[ � ` � - s �� . a .�.� ��� + ` � �'�{ �i � �p � �� j � � . �, ' ._., _ � w , �" _ �' " . ., f r- — F ...,i.. x � l ,.Y. r[ � �U l 9 yl ' + _'�""�` y -_ �, y S �i s �. �-.' � - { + c � F r �^ � �, [,� t � �:.5 r .. ::� . . �.3 _ �i y f �` -�+:ta . �.�„{' w � �- `� � : � � � ' � 3 . �?' � ��: °3 C.' % v -: �.�`�, _ �` �?-�. n "�li . l _ . � � , 4 i.. _...�c�z'F=t�:� , . �' . . ,� s��t.'�.', ��.�.5 :� �+r�� t`�,.J�:?"� , - � �. a .. .-_. :- , - ...�. �.n � : .r c��... .: - i . . — . . ' ." .� ._ � �� . _ 7>�a+'n;F-'N 'arx�'+"' `.s--:4r �fia. �mw - ».i`se�s'� M1::�C�' .'�; • . £ `yf� `� _ ti = . . a � . , . . - . . .: a�-��o3 • � � � /31V .����1 /Z / �°� ��G� t� e , ����� �r��� ��:5� c� 5,��� 1 Sl�oc���vt� l�r' �cb�pl�t��� ,_/ �.- J J l 1 inJ 1�� �� i y� �l LtJ :S C) � �'ot� ��°i�S _ 3f � � � BN's use of land east of Snellin Avenue to store or ! par trailers as at owe the s pre �ct�ons to occur. EAW Prediction 1,149 trailer spaces 3 lift machines 6 hostlers trucks Idoise standards would be violated Current Status 1,050 as of 1995 5 lift machines 8 as of 1995 MPCA 1995 noise survey confirms noise violations By BN's own account the (oading and unloading of trailers increased by 22% for 1994 alone. BN/SF's 1995 report to the Metropolitan Counci! states that: "Over the past four years, the volume of inter modal freight moved to and from Minnesota by BN has ir�creased each year except 1991.... All but 10% of this inter modal traffic moves by truck in and out of BN's Midway Hub in St. Paul" � �� � y a � c�7_��03 � CONCLUStON er BN' ue. 1. BN's application to expand its Midway Hub inctuded land east of Snelling Avenue. The - applieation specificalfy refers to "temporary parking of trailers". 2. Because of the controversial nature of BN's expansion plans, including the parking of trailers, the issue �vas r�fe�resi t� the City Planning Commission. 3. Prior to voting on BN's Site Pfan, the Pfanning � Commission required that an EAW be conducted. 4. The EAW predicted negative impacts for the Neweli Park neighborhood if the expansion were aliowed, 5. The Planning Commission never approved BN's Site P(an which included the use o# land east of Snetting Avenue. 6. BN began using the land east of Snelling despite the EAW's conclusions that noise would increase, and despite the fact that their Site Pfan was never approved by the Planning Commission. As a result the amount of loads in and out of the Midway Hub incre�sed dramaticaily - and so did noise for the • Newei Park neighborhood �� �� 7. In reference to BN's 1987 ptans to expand {which � includes trailer spaces on land east of Sne!ling Avenue) the State of Minnesota Environmen#ai Quaiity Board informed the city of St. Paut that: "Pursuant to Minnesota Rutes, part 4410.3100, subpart y, no final governmentat decision to grant a permit or other approval required to commence the project shall be made until a negative declaration or EtS adequacy determination has been made". � d � kZ �; � � y l Yv� 1• 300 Centennia( Bur7ding� 658 Cedar Streef •St pau�, Mnnesota 55755 612 ' June 8, 1988 City Planner 25 West Fourth Street 1100 City Ha12 Annex St. Paul, MN 55102 RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Burlington Northern Midway Hub-Facility _ Donna L. Datsko Dear Ms. Datsko: This letter acknowledges receipt of the EAW for the above-named project. The Environmental Review Program rules (at Minnesota Rules, � part 4410.1500B.) require that a press release containing notice of the EAW availability be provided to at least one newspaper of general circulation within tha area and that copies of the EAW be distributed to all points on the EQB distribution list. We presume that these requirements have been met. Notice of the EAW availability will be published in the EOB Monitor on June 13, 1988. The 30-day comment period will begin on that day and will expire on 3uly 13, 1988. • Pursuant to Minnesota Ru1es, part 441�.3100, subpart 1, no final governmental decision to grant a permit or other approval required to commence the project shall be made until a negative declaration or EIS adequacy determination has been made. Please contact me if any questions arise about the Review process. My phone numbez is (612) 296-8253, toll-free by dialing 1-800-652-9747 and asking for Quality Board, Environmental Review Program. Sincerely, �"'-�`� �� �'1 �' Gregg M. Downing Environmental Review Coordinator cc: 43 An EqualOpportunity.EmpFoyer Environmental or you may call the Environmental L �- r� u 1. Not allow BN to park trailers east of Snel(ing Avenue. it wouid appear that if parking is a!lowed the Zoning Board would violate Minnesota Rule 441 U.3100. 2. That BN be required to remove ait trailers from their land east of Sneliing Avenue. The t�e�rre( Park neighborhood has endured years of very aggravating noise as a resuit of BN's incr�ased activity. Requiring BN to remove trailers east of � Snetling Avenue will not destroy their business, but wilt reduce their capacity to the level it was before BN's application to expand - an application that was never approved by the Planning Commission. This will help reduce the noise impacting the Newel Park neighborhod - a reduction that is long overdue. Thank you for your time and consideration to this matter. Frank X. Wallner � Hy =�r ✓ °l'1-l�0� SAINi r�vi � IIAAA APPLICATIOt3 �OR APPEAL Department ojPlanning and Economic Deve(optnen[ Zoni�rg Section II00 City Aa!! Annex 25 West Fourlh Street Saint Paul, MN 53102 266-6589 APPELLANT Name �tr�,�, � �,/�� /i!1 rt'�� Address j � � ,� /� �•� -� City S-1. �.� �/ St.�jY ,,Zip � S/L'`t Daytime phone �z 2°iE� N l�11 27 29 2i 3 2 000/ PRdPER7Y Zoning File Name��/ �S f— /�c„ (ro r:, �� v r cYw"." �/� LOCATION AddresslLocation_T,1-c� QS r c-f-, ��� n'� S�, o_//, � Y�r / ��?_� ,� �� _ n J .n . �J TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: [�' Board of Zoning Appeafs ❑ City Councii under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to �ppeal a decision made by the ��c� Q'�L,�ste�� �, v. 1 c�� Cr on rf �,r�o �-z � 2. � , 19� File number. (date of decisi� GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any sequirement, parmit, decision or refusal made by an administrative o�ciai, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Soard of Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission. S� e /�-�«ti P�Q ��-��,� ( 0��31t97vcoza12.44�ti CLE2Y;� 4�8� VAfiSt�'e,CE ��2�� t3C7 CHfCK � �.a40 Attach additional sheet if AppficanYs Date,;,�[3 �' City agent y� Atiachment to Application for Appeal Grounds for Appeai 1. The Office of Licensing Inspections and Environmentat Protection has failed to correctly interpret St. Paul Legislative Code 60.214.N and therefore the use of land east of Snetiing shouid not be a iega[ nonconforming use. 2. Even if the land east of Snelling is a legai nonconforming use BN/SF has expanded and/or extended the use of its tand east of Sneliing Avenue since 1992 - in violation of St. Paul Legislative Code 62.142 {d) {2) and (3). � U 3. tn 1987 the City wnducted an Environmerrtai Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the BN/SF Intermodal Hub. The ERW concluded that noise was a significant probiem and that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was necessary before expansion is allowed. Photographic evidence cleariy shows that BN/SF has expanded its operations since 1987 by storing (or parking) serrti-trailers on land east of Snelling Avenue, and yet an EIS was not condueted. Storing {or parking) semi-traifers east of Snelling Avenue has allowed BN/SF to expand its operations by 22% between 1993 � and 1994 alone (BN(SF's own figures). This expanded use of tand east of Sneliing Avenue resulted in increased noise for the Newe! Park neighborhood. 4. In a letter to the City, SNISF committed to fencing and screening a portion of its property atong Pierce Butter Route some time in 1982. tn a memorandum from the City's Attorney Office dated January 30, �997 the City Attomey offers to draft a letter to BN/SF asking fhem when BtV/SF wiil make good on fts original representations. The Office ot LIEP should follow through with this support by requiring BN/SF to a construet a screening fence along Pierce Butler Route. � `�` °t�-t�a3 Mr. Tom Beach March 13, 1997 • Office of Licensing and Inspections Lowry Professional Building Suite 300 350 St. Peter Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 Dear Mr. Beach: I am in receipt of your February 27, 19971etter to John Ackerman of BN/SF Railroad. The letter is in response to concerns I raised in my letter of November 27, 1996. Your letter concluded that BN/SF semi-trailers are parked and not stored. Hawever, your letter addresses only the parking versus storage issue. Please note that my 1Vovember 27th letter brought up other issues which I do not believe were addressed. As you are aware, I do plan to appeal this decision to the Boazd of Zoning Appeals. Before I pay the fee for an appeal I want to make sure that the City responds to all of my concerns so that I do not have to appeal a second time. • The specific points in my letter which were not addressed are Part B- Continuous Use; Part C- Eapansion; and the part on Extended Use. I am especially interested in the City's response to my belief that BN1SF is in violation of City Ordinance 62.102 (d) 2 and (3) because BN JSF e�rtended the use of its intermodai operations. I will clarify my position now that the City has concluded that the serni-trailers are parked rather than stored. The City has concluded that BN/SF trailers are parked rather than stored. However, I contend that if trailers are not being stored the only conclusion to be made is that they are being "used". In fact, without the use of semi-trailers BN/SF's facility could not operate. City Ordinance 62.102 (d) 2 and 3 cleazly states that: a non conforming use of land shall not be"extended to occupy a greater area of land than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this code" - and that -" A nonconforxning use shall not be moved in whole, or in part, to any other portion of the lot". By the City's own rulings and records it is an undeniable fact that the BN/SF facility is a nonconfonning use, and that BN/SF has e�ended the use of its semi -trailers to occupy � greater area of land East of Snelling Avenue (see photo}. Please note that in reference to the property East of Snelling Avenue BN/SF wrote in a September 3, 1996 letter that: "This properly is currently in use in connection with freight handling operations at Burlington Northem's Midway Iniermodal Hub." (emphasis added). � y� � In summary let me emphasize that: 1. The City has ruled that BN/SF intermodal operations is a nonconforming use. � 2. If trailers are being parked rather than stored then the only conclusion is that they are being used for intermodal operations. BN/SF admits that the semi-fsailers are being used in connection with iatermodal operations . 3 Photographic evidence clearly shows that BN/SF has extended the use of its semi-trailers to occupy a greater area of land east of SneIiing Avenue. 4. City Ordinance 62.102 (d) 2 and (3) clearly forbids a nonconforming use from occupying greater area of land or moved in whole or in part to ofher portions of a lot. Conclusion: I. The BN/SF Railroad is in violation of City Ordinance 62.202 {d) 2 and 3 and • should not have been allowed to e�end onto the land east of Snelling Avenue. 2. The City of St. Paui should require BN/SF Rai3road to remove all semi- trailers east of Snelling Avenne - or as a compromise - should be required to erect a screening fence along the entire length of the property along Pierce Bntler Route, and comply a�th the 300 foot set baek requirement. I hope this elarifies my position. In your letter you mention that an appeal must be made within 30 days. Although I am wiIling to appeal the storage issue the City's letter does not respond to all of my poiats. I assume that I can only appeal issues that the LIEP Department has commented on. Therefore I ask that you take another look at my November 27 1996 letter and respond to each of tYze issues. It would seem that once the City comments on ail the issues I raise in my November 27, 1996 letter I would then have 30 days to appeal. If this is not a correct assumption please let me know as soon as possible. � �� °t � -t'k� 3 � By allowing BiV/SF to e�rtend the use of land east of Snelling Avenue, the City has allowed BN/SF to increase the use of the Midway Intermodal Hub and therefore increased the noise for Newell Park residents. From 1993 to I994, a period during which BNf SF increased the use of land east of Snel2ing Avenue , the Midway Intermodal Hub (according to the Intermodal study) �icreased the number of loaded trailers by 32,000 - a 22°h increase. It simply does not seem right that the City allowed such an increase given the number of yeazs residents have voiced their concerns both to BN/SF and the City. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 646 7028. 5incerely, � �, �� / � , .� . ,- r� u cc: Bobbi Megard, City Council Woman n LJ �l % � CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor February 21, 1997 John Ackerman Saint Pau] Hub Operations Burlington Northern 1701 Pierce Butler Route Saint Paul, MN SSI04 OFF[CE OF LICEDiS£, (YSPECITONS AND ENVIRONMEMAL PROTEGT[ON RobertKessler, Di�ector LOO{'RY PROFESSIONRL BUILDLVG Suite 300 330St. PeterSlreet SairstPav[, AfiRnesota 55102-1il0 Teleplroae: 6l2-26d-90� Facsimile: 612-166-9099 612-266-912d RE: Semi-Vailers at Burlina on Northem's Pierce Butler property Deaz Mr. Ackerman: As you kaow, our o�ce has been invesTigating the legal status of semi-trailers ]ocated on Burlington Northern's property north of Pierce Butler Route and east of Snelling. PAI2KING VERSUS STORAGE One question that was raised as part of this investigation, is whether these trailers should be considered "parked" or "stored" under the zoning regulations that were in effect at the time the traiters were introduced to the property in I987. Tfie distinction between storage and parking is important because the zoning code requires that outside storane be set back at least 300 feet from residentially zoned property but there is no setback requirement for parked vehic]es. Most of Burlina on Northern's paved azea east of Snetling is within 300 feet of residentially zoned property. In prepazing this determination, our office asked the City Attomey's Office to provide us with a legal opinion. The Assisiant Ciry Attomey assigned Yo zonina issues noted that past court cases on the issue of "pazking" versus "storage" can be read to create a general rale that a caz, truck or semi-trailer is "pazked" if it remains there only for a short period of time but it is "stored" if it remains there for a long period of time. This, of course, raises the question of what should be considered a short period of time versus a long period of time. The Assistant City Attorney was unable to ftnd any Minnesota case law which makes a clear distinction on this. However, he noted that Section 60.219.S of the Zoning Code defines storage as "The placement of items such as, but not limited to the following: merchandise for sale or rent; materials awaiting servicing, processing or manufacturing finished products of a service, processing or manufaciuring operation; equipment, secaittuck trailers; portable storage containers but excluding trash containers for garage dumpsters which are accessory to the main use; and commerciai vehicles not used on a weekly basis." (Emphasis added.) Therefore, by inference, a semi-trai(er that is used on a weekly basis could be considered parked rather than stored. (See the attached letter from the Assistant City Attorney dated January 30, 1497.) r 1 U • sa °l� -1�03 USE OF THE BDi'S TRAILERS � It appears that Burlington Northem's trailers on the property in question are used at least once a week_ This is based on the folfowing: - Burlington Northem's letter of 9/3/96 states that "on the average, these freight containers are set out for a period of 24 hours or less, before being �emoved by BN's customers or loaded on flat cars by BN:' - LIEP staff inspected the site last summer and found that in a 36 hour period approximately half of the trailers had been moved. - A 1995 Metropolitan Council study of intermoda] freight facilities says that on the average the trailers at this facility are moved every 84 hours. CONCLUSIONS Based on information above, our office has determined that: - Semi-trailers which are used on a weekly basis constitute "parking" rather than "storage" under the zoning regulations that were in effect in 1987 when the trailers were introduced to the property. - The semi-trailers on Burlington Northern's property east of Snelling are used on a weekly basis. - These semi-trailers are thereFore "parked" rather than "stored" and may therefore stay on the property. However, as stated in the letter from the Assistant City Attorney "This is not to say that all trailers on BN's site may always be presumed to be `parked'. If, for instance, it appears that BN allows trailers to . remain on the site in excess of seven days, doing so would constitute `storage'." The trailers would then have to comply with regulations for outside storage, including a 300 foot setback from residentially zoned properiy. This setback requirement prohibits most of the paved area east of Snelling owned by Burlington Northem from being used for storage. APPEALS The zoning code allows for appeals of decisions by this office. (See attached copy of Section 64.204.) Appeals may be filed by any interested individual or organization. Appeais must be filed within 30 days of the date of this letter, which in this case would be Monday, March 31, 1997. Apgeals are heazd by the Board of Zoning Appeals at a public hearing. Any decision of the Board of Zoning Appeais can be appealed on to the City Council. If you have any questions, please call me at 266-9086. Sincerely, �� Tom Beach Zoning Section cc: Frank Wallner Glenn Olander-Quamme, Spence Ricke and Thurmer Councilmember Bobbi Megard Andy Schneider, District 1 I ! Michael Madigan, Attomey Peter Wamer, Office of the City Attorney Bob Kessler, LIEP �/ CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co[eman, Mayror January 30, 1997 Robert KessleY Department of Licenses, Inspections and Environmental Protection Room 300 Lowry Professional Building 350 St. Peter St. Saint Paul, MN 55101 OFFICE OF Tf� CTTY ATTORNEY Timot7ryEMm. CftyRttomey CivllDivtsion 400CiryNaII rswenx�sn�a. SaintPau� Mrnrtesota 55102 TeZephane:611266-87f0 • Factimile: 672 2A8-5619 RE: Opinion as to whether trailers located at a portion oE Buriington Northern's Midway Intermodal Hub north of Pierce � Butler Route and East of Snelling Avenue are either "parked" or "stored" under zoning reguSations in effect in 1987 Dear Mr. Kessler: You have asked the Office of the City Attorney (CAO) to give its opinion on whether trailers at BurZington Northern's Midway Intermodal Aub (BN) are "parKed" or "stored" within the meaning of the zoning regulations in effect for this property in 1987. Your opinion request is in response to a zoning complaint to LIEP concerning BN's present use of its property. You indicated that the distinctioa between parking and storage is very important because if the trailers are in "storage" BN must maintain a 300 foot setback from residentially zoned property. You also indicated that a 30o foot setback would prohibit most of BN's present use of the property. Background A. Recent History of Zoning Use Definitions for the Property: LIEP provided information showing that the subject property is zoned as an I-1 Industrial District. Prior to 1992, the use of the property was defined by the City as a"Railroad and Terminal Freight Facility", a principal permitted use in I-1 Tndustrial � Districts pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 60.612(11). S Z- ��-��o� � Page 2 Robert Kessler January 30, 1997 Following a 1992 amendment to the zoninq code, the property use is now defined as an "Intermodal Freight Yard", a first permitted use, subject to s�ecial conditions, in I-2 Industrial Districts. Intermodal Freight Yards are defined at Saint Paul Legislative Code § 60.209.(T) as: "A site or location where large units of freight, including containerized freight and semitrailers, are trans£erred between different transportation modes (such as from railroad cars to semitrucks or from barges to railroad cars) using heavy and/or specialized equipment (such as piggy-packers or gantry cranes)." The special conditions applicable to Intermodal Freight Yards include all standard special conditions setforth in Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.300(c), any required conditions set forth for I-2 uses in Leq. Code. § 60.623 and the following additional special conditions for Intermodal Freiqht Yards set forth in Leg. Code § 60.624(16): . a. Intermodal freight yards shall be sited in a manner which prevents unreasonable disturbance to nearby residential properties from the adverse effects of heavy traPfic, noise, dust, vibration and excessive lighting. b. The operational area of an intermodal freight yard shall be at least one thousand (1,000) feet from property zoned for, or occupied by, residential uses within the City of Saint Paul measured at the point of shortest distance separating the operational area from the residentially zoned or used property. a. Adequate landscapinq and sound barriers where deemed necessary to provide mitigation of increased noise and to provide a reasonable visual barrier between the site and adjoining properties shall be installed and maintained on the site and adjacent to roadways accessing the site. d. Facilities shall be sited in a manner that allows primary access to the site via roads designed for use by heavy trucks or are designated as "haul � roads " or " truck routes. " As a result of the 1992 rezoning amendment creating the Intermodal Freight Yard use, the BN site was transformed into a"legal non- �''; S� m Page 3 Robert Kess].er January 30, 1997 conforming use" which is defined in Saint Paul Legislative Code § 60.214.N as: "A Zawful use existing on the effective date of adoption (OCtober 24, 1975) or amendment of this code but that is not now permitted in the district in which it is located." B. Zoning Code ordinances Regulating Non-Conforming IIses: Saint Paul Legislative Code § 62.102 sets forth the general provisions of the Saint PauZ Zoning Code as they affect non- conforming uses. Legislative Code § 62.102(a) entitled "intent" states in pertinent part: There exist within the districts established by this code and subsequent amendments ... uses of land ... that were lawful before this code was ... amended that would be prohibited ... under the terms of this code-or future amendments. It is the intent of this code to permit legal nonconforming .., uses to continne until they are removed. Legislative Code § 62.102(d) entitled "Non-conforming use of land" is directly applicable to BN's present legal non-conforming use of the parcel in light of the 1992 use reclassi£ication and reads in pertinent part: (i) (2} (3) (4) (5) A use shall not be enlarged ... extended to occupy a greater area of land than occupied at the effective date of adoption amendment of this code. A nonconforming use shall not be moved in whole in part to any other portion of the lot. C. Complaint Correspondence. nor was or or In a letter received March 22, 1996, a private citizen requested LIEP to investigate a complaint that BN was violating the City's "storage ordinance" by expanding it's non-conforming use at the Midway site by storing trailers east of Snelling and North of Pierce Butler. • � In response to this complaint, LIEP's Tom Beach conducted an investigation into the complaint. In a letter to a BN facility � employee dated July 8, 1996, Mr. Beach concluded, based upon his investigations, that: 6 [: Sy °l'1 �l�o � Page 4 • Robert Kessler January 30, 1997 "The current use of the property for storing trailers does not appear to comply with Section 60.613.3 of the zoning code that requires outside storage to be located at least 300 feet from residentially zoned property and to be screened for public streets.�' Mr. Beach's Ju1y 8, 1996 letter further concluded that the subject property "was not.used for storage during the late 1970's and most of the 1980's". This conclusion was apparently based upon a review of aerial photos of the site. Based upon this conclusion, the letter advised BN that the site was now subjec� to those zoning rules in effect "at the time". Presumably this means that BN's facility is in compliance with the Zoning Code in effect prior to 1992 as a legal non-conforming use with no outdoor storage subject to a 30o foot sat-back from any residential district or dwelling. The July 8, 1996 letter from LIEP prompted a response from BN's attorney in a letter dated September 3, 1996. Tn the letter, BN raised three points of contention. First, BN argued that it used the property not for "storaqe" but for "parkinq". Second, BN claimed that even if the property were used for storage, the site � had been "continuously in use" for freight handling "since before adoption of the code in 1975". Finally, BN claimed that "any expansion of use was `approved' by the City in 1982 in connection with the grading, paving and fencing of the property. For the purposes of this opinion, only the first arqument zaised by BN is analyzed. The second BN argument has been resolved by virtue of Mr. Beach's October 28, 1996, letter discussed below. The third BN argument is summarily discussed in the conclusion to �his opinion. In a reply letter to the BN attorney dated October 28, 1996, Mr. Beach advised that he had reached certain "preliminary conclusions" based upon information contained in City records as well as information provided by BN in its September 3, 1996 letter. These preliminary conclusions were: 1. That the property has been used continuously for outside storage. 2. That the current use of the property for storing trailers appears to be a legal non-conforming use. That the current arrangement of the trailers does not appear to be an expansion of a non-conforminq use. � 4. That the City had required BN to screen 800 feet if property along Pierce Butler Route from view but that this has never been done. � SS D. Analysis: Paqe 5 Robert Kessler January 30, 1997 Most, if not City staff aF BN's facilit that the tra� The purpose c "storage" in the facts at That the fence along BN's property was in need of repair. all, of the previous analysis of this situation by pears to be based on the premiss that the trailers at y are in "storaqe". BN's premiss, in contrast, is lers are "parked" at the facility awaiting reshipment. f my analysis is to differentiate the terms "park" and a zoning context and appZy the differentiated terms to hand. The term "park" or "parking", as it might apply to any zoning use, including the use at the BN Pacility, is not defined in the Saint Paul Zoning Code. However, the term "storage" is defined in the Zoning Code at § 60.219.5. as: "The placement of items such as, but not limited to, the Pollowing: merchandise for sale or rent; materials awaiting servicing, processing or manufacturing; finished products of a servicing, processing or manufacturing operation; equipment; semitruck trailers; portable storage containers but excluding trash containers or garbage dumpsters which are accessory to the main use; and commercial vehicles not used on a weekly basis." This definition of storage was not added to the Zoninq Code until 1993. Cases from Minnesota and from foreign jurisdictions have interpreted the differences between "parking" and "storage". The leading Minnesota case interpreting the legal differences between "parking" and "storage" is �tate v Larson Transfer and Stora Inc., 310 Minn. 295, 246 N.W.2d 176 (Minn. 1976). That case involved a criminal citation issued by the City of Bloomington to Larson for it's failure to pave an off-street parking lot as required under Bloomington city ordinance. Larson argued that vehicles on it's lot were "stored", not "parked" and, therefore, did not have to pave the lot as Bloomington required. In support of this argument, Larson argued [as does BN presently] that the Bloomington or@i.nance contained no specific dePinition of what constituted a parking area which would distinguisYx it from a As early as November Administrator advised BN allowed within 300 feet added). i' 5, 1987, the City's Zoning that "outdoor -�toraae" was not of a residential use. (emphasis • � � �� q�-1^�03 � Page 6 Robert Kessler January 30, 1997 storaqe area. id. at 179. The Minnesota Supreme Court, in finding against I,arson, noted: "Not only does the term 'parking area' have a common and generally accepted meaning but it also has been adequately defined and distinguished from a storage area in prior judicial. decisions. Courts have consistently distinguished the parking of vehicles from the storage of vehicles on the ground that parkinq connotes transience while storage implies a certain degree o£ permanency". ..(citations omitted).. This distinction comports with a dictionary definition of 'park' which is '�o set and leave temporarily "'. (citation to footnote omitted). � Foreign jurisdiction have construed the "parking" vs. "storage" distinction in a similar fashion. In Serv�ce Realty Corp v Planninq and Zoning Board of Agoeals o£ Town of Greenwich, 109 A.2d 256 (Conn. 1954) the Supreme Court of Connecticut, noted "[t}here is a substantial distinction, clearly cognizable, between the meaning of 'storage' and 'parking'. One has a certain degree of permanency, while the other connotes transience." id. at 260. In Tncorporated Villac�e o£ Great Neck v Green, 106 N.Y.S..2d 219 (N.Y.App.Div. 1957) the court there had before it the question of whether new automobiles brought to vacant land adjacent to a new car sales lot were in storage. The Green court held "[w]hen automobiles are left for months on end at a given place, there can be no doubt that they are stored and not parked. Parking is of short duration and measured by hours or at most by a day or two". id. at 221. These cases can be read to create the following general rule £or determining whether something like a car, truck or trailer is either parked or stored on a parcel of land: things, like cars, trucks or semi-trailers, are "parked" on a parael of land if they remain there for only a short period of time. on the other hand, if these things remain on a parcel of land for a long period of time, they are "stored". In order to distinguish between "parking" and "storage" a meaningful "bright line" between a short and a long period of time must be established. Although I was unable to locate any Minnesota case law which made such a clear distinction fox zoning Z Saint Paul Legislative Code § 60.101, entitled "Intent � and Purpose" states at subdivision 10, that the purpose of the Zoning Code is "[t}o fix reasonable standards to which ... uses shall conform." (�, .S 7 Page 7 Robert Kessler January 30, 1997 matters, the deEinition of "storage" found at Legislative Code § 60.219.S. does, in my opinion, offer a useful distinguishing point between short and long periods time. Storage is defined in pertinent part in Leg. Code § 60.219.5. as: "The placement following: ... added). of items such as, but not limited to, the not used on a weeklv basis." (emphasis This definition provides a useful "bright line" for Zoning Code applications upon which to determine whether things are in storage. Under this definition, things located on property longer that seven days are �'stored". Things located on property seven days or less are, by inference, "parked". Adopting the seven day period as the dividing line between parking and storage for this particular zoning application only, it is my legal opinion that BN is ar in trailers on the subject property. This opinion is basecZ upon the average length of time a trailer is on the property which appears to be somewhere between "less than 24 hours" [£rom BN's I.etter dated 9-3-96] and "84 hours" (3.5 c2ays) (from letter of a private citizen complainant dated 11-27-96, which included a reference to the Metropolitan Couhcil's 'T'W�tt City Region Intermodal Terminal Needs Study {1995) which appears to be a compilation of time during which trailers are located on BN's property and which, according to the aitizen letter dated 11-27-96, were based upon data provided by BN]. E. Conclusion: Based upon the information provided to the CAO, it is our conclusion that trailers located at the BN's Midway Intermodal Hub are "parked" not "stored". This opinion is contrary to the opinion of Mr. Beach, expressed as Preliminary Conclusion no. 1 in his letter of October 28, 1996. This is not to say that a12 trailers on BN's site may always be presumed to be '"parked". If, for instance, it appears that BN allows trailers to remain on the site in excess of seven days, doing so would constitute "storage". Storage of trailers by BN would require BN to conform to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 60.613(3a) and 60.613(3b) which sets forth outdoor storage restrictions applicable to I-1 Zoninq District users (BN's use is stiil a legal non-conforming use subject to pre-1993 zoning regulations), These restrictions include a 300 foot set-back requirement from residentially zoned property. BN wouid have to comply with these set-back requirements. Finally, there was some discussion between the City and BN over {"�% � • � 5 � °��-��a3 Page 8 • Robert Kessler January 30, 1997 B23's Yailure �o either £enae or maintain the fence alonq the perimeter of the facility. It appears from LIEP's records that BN inc3icated that it would fence and screen a portion o£ the property from view along Pierce Butler sometime in 1982. In it's letter dated September 3, 1996, BN's attorney makes a somewhat disingenuous statement professinq confusion as to why the City desired BN to fence a portion of the property. The BN attorney suggests that he would try to locate BN files which would shed light on the City's fencing request. LIEP has in its files correspondence from BN indicating that BN will fence and scYeen some 80o feet of the subject property. This would seem to clarify the City's position rather concisely. If you desire, I can prepare a letter to the BN attorney asking him when BN wi11 make good on its original representations. If you have any additional questions please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours, ,;� ���--_ ' Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney • ��i �`9 �� Mr. Tom Beach St. Paul Office of Licenszng and Fnspections Lowry Professionai Buiiding - Suite 300 350 St. Peter Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55102-151 November 27,1996 � t?ear Mr. 8each Thank you for taking the tiffte Yo meet with me on two separate occasions, and for the opportunity to comment on the City's October 28, 1996 ietter regarding Burlington Northern /Sante Fe Railroad's (BN/SF) Midway Intermodal Hub on Pierce Butler Route. In a July 8, 19961etter to BN/SF the City concluded that BN/SF's current use of the property does not appear to rnmply with Section 60.613.3 of the zoning code which requires outside storage to be located at least 300 feet from residentially zoned property and to be screened from public streets. This deterrstination was made in response to a concern raised about BN/SF's increased ievel of storage of semi-trailers on land east of Snelling Avenue. In a letter dated September 3,1996 BN/SF's aftorney objected Eo the Cit�s posiEion and offered counter arguments. In response to BN/SF's letter the City turned back its earlier decision and tentatively concluded that 8N/SF's use of the property appeazs to be a legal nonconfomting use. This is a significant conciusion as it essentially allows BN/ SF to increase traffic Yhrough its Midway Intermodal Hub which in tuzn increases noise for the neighborhood. With all due respect to the Cit�s posiLion my research of City files, aerial photography, and BN/SF correspondence has lead me to conclude that the City is mistaken in its interpretation, and that BN/SF should never have been allowed to store so many semi-trailers on property east of Snelling Avenue. At the very least BN/SF should be required to comply �vith screening and seY-back requirements as required in Section 60.613.3 of the zoning code. In its September 3, 19961etter BN/SF presents three main points to justify the use of property east of Snelling Avenue for storing semi-trailers without screening and within the 300 foot set-back. Those arguments aze summarized as follows: i. $N/SF daims that semi-trailers placed on the land east of Snelling Avenue do not constitute storage because the trailers aze "...in place only temporariiy and are, on the average, in place for less than 24 hours". 2. BN/SF claims that the property in question has been continuously used for the purpose of freight handling since before adoption of the code in 1975 which required screening and a 300 foot seEback from areas zoned residenEiai. u � �O a'1 � l'�o� • 3. BN/SF daims that any expansion of the use was approveci by the City in 1982 because the Ciiy granted permits that allowed paving and £encing of the azea for automobile loading and unloading. After researching these three claims it seems cleaz that the City should reassess its conclusion presented in the October 28, 19961etter. Please seriously consider the following counter points to BN/SF's justifications: A.STORAGE 1. The Metropolitan Covncil published the Twin Cities Region Intermodal Terminal Needs Study in January, 1995. A Capacity Analysis done for the study deYermined that in 1993 trailers at the BN/SF Midway Intermodal Hub were stored for an average o£ 84 hours (See Attachment #1). BN/SF's daim that trailers are in- place for an average of less than 24 hours is simpiy not true, and contradicts the Intermodal Study for which BN/SF provided information. Piease also note that the Intermodal Study specifically looked at "Storage Capacity" at the BN/SF Midway Intermodal Huh (page 37). This section concluded that � "Current volume levels and previously noted dwell tunes indicate that on average storaee is 70 percent utilized. Peak and dynamic demands dictate the need to use all available acreage adjacent to lead tracks to provide additional stora�e of trailers and containers on chassis". (Emphasis added). BN/SF's claun that trailers are parked and not stared is incorrect. In fact, parking spots aze being used for storage. The Intermodal Study states: "In mid-1994, the Midway facility converted from a grounding/stacking operation to a 100 percent wheeled operation, whereby all containers are stored on chassis. Storage requirements, therefore, are configured in terms of parking spots". 2. In a May 17, 1996, "Addendum to Non-Confornivlg Use Pernut Application" BN/SF states that: "The use of the shelter is clearly consistent with activity immediately surrounding the site. This consists of movement and temporarv stora�e of semi-trailers, containers and other heary equipment." (emphasis added) BN/SF should not be allowed to azgue that semi-trailers east of Snelling Avenue aze not being stored while saying trailers west of Snelling Avenue aze. 3. On November 22, 1996 St. Paul received its first significant snow fall. Observations of the trailers on November 25, 1996 cleariy showed that many of the trailers east o£ Snelling Avenue had not disturbed the snow. Several trailers east of Snelling Avenue, and many carriages west of Snelling had still not disturbed the • snoa• on November 27, 1996. I mention this because it provides up to date documentation that BNiSF dces store trailers for periods longer than 24 hours. G! CONCLUSION: It is clear from the Metropolitan Council's Intermodal Study, • BN/SF correspondence, aerial photography, and personnel observation that BN/SP is storing semi-trailers east of Snelling Avenue. Consequently BN/SF should be required to comply with Section 60.613.3 of the Zoning code which requires outside storage to be set back at least 300 feet from residentially zoned property and to be screened from public streets. B. Continuous Use: $N/SF claims Yhat the property east of Snelling Avenue has been in continuous used far storage prior to the 1975 storage ordinance and therefore screening and set- back requirements do not apply. 1. To jusHfy this ctaim BN/SF relies on the property's use as an automobile unloading area from about 1982 to 19 87. However, a crificai �oint to make i: "Outdoor storage areas shall be fenced or walled. On those sides of tlte district abutting a public thoroughfare or any district other than an industrial district, the fence shall be totally obscuzing to a height of six (6) #eet. Outdoor stora�e excevti� r1 � BN/SF should not be allowed to cite an exempted use (automobiles) to justify a ctaim that the property was continuously used for nonconfomung storage of trailers. Aerial photography shows that BN/SF did not begin storing trailers until 1988 - thirteen years after the 1975 ordinance which requires a 300 foot set back and screening. Section 62.Id2.d.4 states Ehat: "If such a nonconforming use of iand ceases for any reason for a period of 90 days or more, any subsequent use of such land shall conforui to the regulations specified by this code for tlie district in which such land is Iocated..." CONCLUSION: BN/SF did not wntinuously vse the properly for storing trailers prior to and subsequent to the 1475 storage ordinance, and thereEore should be subject to Section 60.613.3. C. EXPANSION: i. BN/SF ciaims that any expansion of the use of the property was approved by the City in 2982, in rnnnection with the grading, paving and fencing of the property, and therefore can be used to store traiters. However, the 1982 General Building Permit (#146662) issued by the City states that "Grade and pave with asphalt paving and storm drain systems 5.48 acres of parkin�z area". The permit was issued for a parking area for automobiles (which �vere exempted from the 1975 storage � Gz °l� -13 ordinance), and was not issued for a storage azea. • EXTEI`jDED USE: City Ordinance 62.102 (d) (2) and (3) clearly state that: a nonconformutg use o# Iand shaIl not be "extended to occupy a greater azea of land than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this code' and that " A nonconforming use shall not be moved in whole, or in pazt, to any other portion of the lot". Aerial photography clearly shows that BNiSF did in fact extend a nonconforming use to land east of Snelling Avenue and that parts of the nonconfomung use (trailers) have been moved to another portion of the lot. Please consider the following as proof of extended use: Aeriai photography shows without a doubt that in 1977 there were zero trailers east of Snelling Avenue; in 1985 there were zero trailers east of Snelling Avenue; in 1988 there were three or four trailers east of Snelling Avenue; in 1991 there was a row of trailers and carriages stored along the south edge of the property east of Snelling Avenue. As of Novemher 2, 1996 the row af trailers occupied even more land east of Snelling Avenue (see photo). Please note that in reference to the property east of Snelling Avenue, BNiSF wrote • in a September 3, 19961etter that: "This property is currenYly in use in connection with freight handling operations at Burlington Northern's Midway Intermodal Hub."(emphasis added). The use of the Midway Intermodal Hub has cleazly been extended to occupy a greater area of land east of Snelling Avenue. CONCLUSIQNS: BN/SF has extended and moved a nonconforming use to occupy more land area east of Snelling Avenue which is in clear violation of 62.1�2 (d) (2) and (3j. By allowing BN/SF to store mnre trailers east of Snelling Avenue, BN(SF has extended and increased the use of the Midway Intermodal Hub and therefore increase the noise for Newell Pazk residents. From 1993 to 1994, a period during which B1V/SF increased the use of land east of Snelling Avenue , the Midway Intermodal Hub (according to the Intermodal siudy} increased the number of loaded trailers by 32,000 - a 22% increase. This does not seem fair to the Newel Park neighborhood. Nor does it seem right that the City allowed such an increase given the number of yeazs residents have voiced their concerns both to BI�3/SF and the City. � Ch�e of the principai foundations of the St. Paul Zoning Code, as with all municipalities, is that they offer protection to the ciiizens of the City from such 63 nuisances as noise. I believe that the above points justify an action by the City to require BN/SF to remove the trailers east of Snelling Avenue. At a minimum, the City should direct BN/SF to screen the property from public view along the entire length of the property, and should require that semi-trailers be set back 300 feet from residentially zoned property. Your attention and serious consideration to this letter would be appreciated. Sincerely, ���� � � / Frank X. Wallner cc_ 8obbi Megazd, City Council Tunothy Marx, City Attorney Michael Madigan, Attorney St. Paul Planning Commission members Mayor Norm Coleman Andy Schneider, Community Organizer HamlineJMidway Cammittee on BN/SF Noise Jim $aztin, Metropolitan Council Chazles L. Schizltz, BN/SF - Senior Vice President of Intermodal • � � 6f� October 28,1446 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor . James Hamilton Spence, Ricke and Thurmer Degree of Honor Building Suite 600 325 Cedaz Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 OFFfCEOFLiCENS$ .NSPECTIONSAND ENVIRONMENTALPROTECfI013 ���1�03 RobeRXesster, Dirufor IAWRY PROFESS/ONAL BUIIIJING Suite 300 350SLPeterStreet SainrPau�Mrnrsesora 55l02-IS/0 Telephane: 612-2669090 Facsrmile: 612-26G9099 6l2-2669729 RE: Burlington Northern Property north of Pierce Butler Route and east of Snelling Avenue Deu Mr. Hamilton: In July 1996 I sent a letter to BN about storing trailers on the properry referenced above. In September 199b you responded with a letter. (See attached letters.) Based on information in Ciry records and your letter, I have reached some preliminary conclusions and these are listed below. Aowever, before making a final detemilnation, I want to make sure that ail interested parties have a chance for input. Therefore, I will not make a£mal determination before November 22, 1996. If you or anyone else wishes to discuss the issues raised in this letter, please write me or cali me at 266-9086. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS After discussing the matter with you and reviewing yow letter of September 3, 1996, I have reached the following preliminary conclusions: 1. The property appears to have been used continuously for outside storage. The current use of the property for storing trailers appears to be a IegaS nonconforming use and the current arrangement of the trailers on the property does not appear to be an espansion of a nonconforming use. This conclusion is based on the follo�ving: You said that prior to 1987, BN used the properry for receiving shipments of automobiles ihat were delivered by train. This is supported by the fact that some cars can be seen on the aerial photographs. You noted that in this type of operation there can be extended periods of time beriveen shipments when fhere would be only a few or no cazs on the property. You also pointed out that the lot was paved and there was no evidence, such as vegetationhveeds, that wouid normally be associated with vacant properiy. Doug Rodel, an BN employee who worked there at the time, can verify that the properiy was used in this way. � - In 1987 a new facility for receiving shipments of automobiles was opened east of do�mtown near Wamer Road. You said that at that time the use of the property changed from receiving shipments of automobiles to its current use of storing trailers used for BN's &eight faciliry. In 1987 BN's freight faciliry was considered a"railroad and ternunal &eight facility" which was a permitted use for the 6S property's I-1 wning. In 1992 the zoning code was amended to incIude a definition for "intermodal fraight facility" which requires a Special Condition Use Pemut in an I-2 zoning district. BN's . facility falls under this defuution and therefore it has been a legal nonconforcning use since 1992. T'he number of trailers stored on the property appeazs to have increased from �vhat is shown on a 1991 aerial photo and what is there now. However, this does not by itsetf constitute an expansion of a legal non conforming use. Section 62.102{d) of the zoning code says that a nonconforming use of land cannot be "extended to occupy a greater area of land" or "moved... to any other portion of the lot". Whi(e there may be more traiters stored there now, it appears that the entire pareel east of Snelling has al�vays been utilized for storage and so the extent of Iand used has not changed. 2. City records irtd"ecate that in 1982 the CiYy reqaired that 800 feet of BN's property along Pierce Bufler be screened from view. This was never done. Tn addition, the existing fence along Pierce Butler is in poor condition. The screening must be provided and the existing fence must be repaired or reptaced. This conclusion is based on the Following: - Aerizl photographs show that the eastem third of the properry was paved beh��een I977 w^d 1985. At that time the property was being used for receiving shipments of automobiles that were delivered by train. In 1982 the City issued a permit for the properry for paving and fencing. A 19821etter from BN to the Ciry about these pemuts and requirements for screening said that BN had been advised by the City that: "A variance is required to install a chain link fence in the City of St. Paui or provisions made by • the owner to provide scceening along Pierce Butler Road using plantings of some rype.... BN will conform to the ciry code requirements and provide the necessary screening of the fence along Pierce Butler Road (new portion only approximately 800 L. FJ.... A sepazate proposal will be fumished to your off:ce for approval regazding the screening." The site is not currently screened and the City has no record that show BN ecer submitted a proposat for screening or obtained a variance. - Section 34.08.5 of the Saiat Paut tegislative code requires that fences be kept in good repair. NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS As I said at the start of the letter, these conclusions ue based on City records and on information you have fiunished me. Given the neighborhood interest in BN's operations, I want to make sure that all inYerested parties have an opportunity for input before I make a fmaI determination. If you or any other interzsted party have additional informadon about the use of this properry that might be helpful, I wouid be happy to discuss it between now and November 22, 1996, ff you have any questions, please call me at 266-9086. SinceJ �G�. Tom Beach Zouing Section cc: Councilmember Megazd • Frank Wallner Andy Schneider Michael Madigan 6C Ms. Wendy Lane � Licensing and inspections/Environmentai Protection 35U SL Peter Sfreet fioom # 30d St. Paul, Minnesota 55i02 � � Oear Ms. Lane: �t��13o3 R�G�� �'E� GFF�^= ;-����, �Qlt ZZ � 03 }�( '� 4 am a member ot the HamtinelM'sdway Noise Gom+nittee which is focused on a no'sse probiem caused by 8uriington Northem's {SiV) Miciway tiub Transfer Station. i think i can speak for the Commi!#ee uvhen ! express our appreciaEion €or Tom Beech's wodc regarding the stnicture which was built at the BIV faci4ity w(thout proper City approvals. The purpose of tnis letter, however is to formatly request that the Ciry ticerising and inspections Department investigate what appears to be a sto�age ordinance viotation by BN. As you may know the SN trans�ex station is a nan-eonforming use, and as such i understand that BN cannot expand its operations. However, ifi you check the land Just east of Sne4(ing on Pierce Butter route you wil4 see that Bt� has continued to expand into this area. Observations by residents, and asrial photograph'sc evidence, clearly show that BN has expanded into this area and is using it to siore tteeir unused trailers. Pfease assign your staff to check this area aut to cfetermine: 1. If BN is expand'+ng +ts operatians in vioiation of non-conforming use cestrictions. 2. If B�! is in ufolation of applieable storage and/or screenirtg requirerr�ents. Piease note that the fence behind which the traifers are stored has been wrecked by trailers backing into them. It is very ansightly and something the neighborhood shoutd not have to put up with. P4ease do what you can to heip us resoive this issue. For your ir�fiormation, BN alsa sto�es a tat of trai6ers at the intersection ofi M7nnet�aha and Date_ tC is very unsightly and a(thaugh 1 cio not live near this area, there are newer town hornes/apartments right accoss the stseei Ptease look into the above matter at your ear(iest convenience. in your response ptease also copy Andy Schneider Comrnunity Orga�"szec; and Mike Madigan, Attocney for the Noise Committee. �7 'FE�a�k you and t I�k fonnrard to your response. t� you have any questions p{ease feeF � free to cali me at 296 7443 (1lV�, or at 646 7028 (N}. Sincer Fy, '�i /�--`�C%��G%%`�Z___ Frank X. Wailner cc: Andy Schne�der, Community Organizer f 564 t_afond Avenue St. Paui, Minnesota 55404 Michael Madigan, Attomey Johnson and Madigan 500 Saker Buitder 706 Second Avenue South Minneapotis, M9nnesota 55402 \J • �� �� � I � � O I � ���� � - l�I I � ; I = -� � � � f � I � �-'' �� � i �. 4'-7 c� � _ �� � �;-:: . , , _�: � �/ � . , _� � ,� � � ;: :� � �, � , N _ 4 � 1 ' :. � � ���_�� �. _ - . _.� �- : � � � „� . -- ' �� � . � - �,� _ o :,., T � � � ��' � 1:�_ 1 } -, , ;,, ��;, i � �' � i � i / f' €1 , t �=- � � ; �' � • I� ; �� �� �i i ' � �� � _� I �; �,\, f � � , �,: � : �.::: _ :.-�. �� � ` � r = ' I . . ,� c�C�I '` � �.--° { � ! - --� _-`-� C _ CS 0`i I ._ . i ; , �. ;' � "' � � "..' ^� � . `J . �-.� [.-`� jJ � � � I � : � �-�� - ' - i � p � o� i I; ��„ �i � Q � o �^� ' � �.<� id �, -�� ��^ u � w � _ _ � _ _ � „ i , � _�. t � 1�f-1 , � � � �.�� _-- .1 �; ._ � t , , , �. i =a � - � • " � � r _�� '� �= ��,_ :�.. -�:� _ � . __ :��.��: _ : � � �_; , , _ ' ... .. ... ..; - ... .,. - .... - _ _ .:::.. ,;� ;_._ _ . ... - .,- � ; � ... � �.. . � .... ,. �, _..._., , � _ ... ... ,, _ � � � �. _ -�� � �, ... _ _� - _ �.._. �f;E ' _ ._. � � .. T � y�:. �� � — __, � .� - . -- '-'°.. . __ � .:.. ... . _ .. -' � __ . ,- ., : . _... -- - � . . , _ .1 -' � : � n t � � . . __4, 1 � E� - 'f'_ � � ��. " .• .�..' �. -, —._: � �� �Y _ � �� r. { • , -' j , . ... �._:� ' _i t` � -� ).! . ; .f 'L_d! _'_... $=-... ` �C�� �.._... • �� �. .. . ___.� ., �_�. r . .. ._... . . � y . f _.w . � �+ _ __' ' ..__.� - _�. � ' F � _�, : .. . = . . _.�, . _ .. � : : , _•_�, __.... • � : , ----- - - = • ,....., � ; . .,_ : . , . , . , • , , . . - __. . ...} . , . � _ — _�, . ; ;I . . . , -=_ �- - = - �-��� - G C �� =� i�= � :�;: ; _'i_ •-� : i i. � � _-��=�� = ` �� �'� �;;� �.. .� � . _ . . ==;;�,_..:�= - I = � ., ; =.. �..-,__ ' `S � .��x ' i .:::: .:-, - ._ . ., ::: �� � r. -. .,` � — ; - '.j -}� � � - _ "`^ `: � - •� f ` • r' � � i � '`j' a � .. � C � s: � �:. ��'::� " \ � � ' a � �:�1 - _ i... .'•� -� � _ . i• - � �% '�tr.� � � .::.: r : ' 's - '• � I � _J�. �:_ •i :, .: __ � _ _ r � .-r •:ii:��'..�� �-.' �,.:�i. �i�� � • t . }}- . = � _' ; '- .-, �;�a �� =- ,�,-=�-�� =_ — .. -^ �� . {:. _ ; r; . -.- �-�i . . :�� s,:�� ., � • DISTRICT 11 STATE FRI2G�IlUM0.S � � � I I �. / - I� � J �� - � , :5,_:� � _ u ' 1 '_"-__ �- --___ , � '----_ � � � � ___'-;,-------- �/ , ��. � � , ,. , � --���_ ;: _� ��__ �----- a, i d ��� � �{ „,�, B`JRLIri�T04 i109iXERN R.R. - - ' � I ' I ,� �� � ' � (�`�LaOC� � � ��0� � ; � ; �, �CG , , n � -- [�� = �C�(�0 � �� � oEP�� � ���,.,�.��onn= � � Pf1iAAK� � � �0�0�� • � a �oy� .� a � -I �o3 �Ve.� o � tt � �Fast o� SMe {!t� � k�r�(� � �\ o� �luc.c. (iu'�le piNLEiIC FIElO � �IT�-_ `�C7`��i� _-. �OC�C�o�� --- �L�'�C� ❑��a°o aooc�o 00000 00000 00000 �0000 C �� �r ■ SPENCE, RICKE & THURMER, P.A. 5uite 600, Degree of Honor Building 325 Cedzr Sffeet, St Paul, Minnesota 55101 612-223-8000 Fax 612-223-8003 Glem OlandervQuamme Direct DiaL' (612) 292-3359 August 5, 1997 City Council City of St. Paul c/o Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310, City Hall St. Paul, MN 55102 ���-� S � `�?�'� � � � - R �.,-��,.� THOMAS W SPENCE NLNS W ERNES Adm�eedinMN,W[ Admit[edivhIIV,WI MEGAN K RICKE GLENN OLANDER-QUAtvLME. Admifced'm MN, WI AdmiaeA m K^i, M SUSAN D. THURMER DIANE P. GERTH Admivcd in hPv. M. FL Admiaed w�1N, M ALFONSE J. COCCHIARELLA TIMOTHY K. MASTERSON Adm�tled �n hLV. Wf Adauved in!rLY PATRICK i SWEENEY wam�a ��, cn, co T'ERRIE J. WII,LIAMS VIA Re: Zoning File lt9-192 (Wallner(Burlington Northern) Burlington Northern Midway Hub Zoning Appeal of Frank X. Wallner City Council Hearing Dnte: Wednesday, August 6, 1997 Our File 0514 To the Honorable Members of the St. Paul City Council: KERRY S. BURT SHARIA WII,LIAMS CHERYL W TECHAR HbLEN A. ROEN SHARON L. TAYLOR ramlegals I represent The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF), formerly known as Burlington Northern Railroad Company (B1V). BNSF owns a railroad facility located northerly of Pierce Butler Route from east of Snelling Avenue to approximately Prior Avenue. That facility is currenUy known as the Midway Tntermodal Hub (the Hub). The Hub is an intermodal facility where semi-trailers and freight containers are loaded and unioaded from trucks to railcars and from railcars to trucks. The major portion of the operation, where the loading and unloading occurs, is located west of Snelling Avenue. Frank X. Wallner has filed a zoning appeal challenging BNSF's use of an approximately six acre parcel (the Parking Area) located along Pierce Butier Route east of Snelling. BNSF uses that parcel for the parking of empty semi-trailers, pending pickup by truck. Mr. Wallner challenges BNSF's use of the Parking Area on three grounds: �� He contends that the trailers are stored, not parked. He contends that the use of the Parking Area for trailer parking is not a legal nancanforming use. C �1- . He contends that the use of the Parking Area for trailer parking is an expansion of the Hub facility for which no environmental review process was compieted. Mr. Wallner's appeal was initially heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals (the Board). On 7une 6, 1997, the Boazd rejected Mr. Waliner's appeal in its entirety. Mr. Wallner subsequenfly filed this appeai, in which he petitions the Council to overturn the Board's decision. BNSF will briefly address each of Mr. Waliner's contentions. I. THE PARKING AREA IS USED ROR PARKING OF TRAILERS, NOT STORAGE By letter dated Febniary 27, 1997, the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) made the following determinations: (i) that the temporary placement of trailers which are used on a weekly basis constitutes parking as opposed to storage; (ii) that the trailers in the Parking Area are generally used on a weekly basis; and (iii) that such trailers are therefore parked rather than stored "and may therefore stay on the property." LIEP acts as the City's zoning administrator. (Zoning Code § 64.100.) T'he Hub property is zoned as an I-1 Industrial District. In an I-1 district, outdoor storage is permitted subject to certain conditions, one of which is that "outdoor storage shall be no closer than three hundred (300) feet to a residential district." It appears that all or substantially al] of the Parking Area is within 300 feet of an RT-1 residenfial district. Mr. Wallner contends that BNSF uses the Parking Area for "storage" of the trailers, hence that the use is not permissible for those portions of the Parking Area located within 300 feet of the RT-1 residential district. The zoning adminisuator's investigation revealed that the trailers placed in the Parldng Area aze typically used at least once a week and that the placement of the trailers in the Pazldng Area for a week or less constitutes parking rather than storage. The administrator therefore conciuded that the Parking Area did not trigger the 300 foot setback requirements for outdoor storage. The administrator's decision was based on the administrator's investigation of BNSF's use of the Parking Area and a carefully reasoned legal opinion from the Office of the City Attorney (the OCA), a copy of which was attached to the zoning administrator's decision. The OCA opinion, authored by Assistant City Attomey Peter W. Wamer, reasoned that there is a legal difference between parking and storage, with the former connoring a more transient form of use 1 The Zoning Map is not entirely clear as to the location of the dividing line between the RT-1 district and the I-1 dis[rict, uor is it entirely clear as to the location of the Pazking Area. Furthermore, the Zoning Map sbows a small B-1 business district bordering a poRion of che I-1 district. A survey would be required to detemune whether all of the Parking Area is within 300 feet of the RT-1 disirict. 2 �� ���0� and the latter a more permanent form of use. Mr. Warner further reasoned that the Zoning Code's definition of storage provides a useful bright line distincfion between parldng and storage, with storage being defined with reference to items not used on a weekly basis. He therefore concluded that the temporary placement of trailers for seven days orless constitutes parking. In his notice of appeal to the Council, Mr. Waliner refers to evidence that trailers aze in place west of Snelling Avenue for more than a week. That evidence is irrelevant to the Pazlang Area, which is located east of Snelling Avenue. Mr. Wallner also asserts that his personal observations show that some trailers east of Snelling were in place for more than a week. Mr. Wallner had ampie opportunity to present such evidence to the Boazd. He failed to present any credible evidence to support his assertion. This is an appeal of the Board's decision. Mr. Wallner should not be permitted to submit new evidence at this time. Moreover, even assuming for the sake of argument that Mr. Wallner were able to demonstrate that a parkicular trailer was not used within a week, the evidence would at most show a violation with respect to that trailer. Such a violation would not invalidate the use of the Parking Area for trailer pazking. The zoning administrator's investigation and the OCA opinion provide ample justification for the zoning administrator's decision, and Mr. Wallner has offered no factual or legal basis for overturning that decision. The Board correctly denied Mr. Wailner's appeal as to this issue, and the Council should affirm the Board's decision. II. TFTE COUNCIL SHOULD AFFIRM THE BOARD'S REJECTION OF MK. WALLNER'S NONCONFORMING USE ARGUMENT 1. Mr Wallner's "Apneal" of the Nonconforming Use Tssue is Procedurally Imoroper and Must Be Rejected. Pursuant to the Zoning Code, the Board "shall have the power to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged by the appellant that there is an error in any order, requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by the zoning administrator ...." (Zoning Code at § 64.204(a).) An appeal "may be taken by any person ... affected by a decision of the zoning administrator ... within thirty (30) days after the decision appealed from shall have been served either in person or by mail upon the owner of the property which is the subject matter of the decision ...." (Id. at § 64.204(c).) Mr. Waliner contends that the use of the Parking Area constitutes an illegal nonconforming use. The February 27 letter from LIEP addressed the issue of parking versus storage but did not specifically address the issue of nonconforming use. BN5F submits that the nonconforming use issue was decided by LIEP in its letter of October 28, 1996. If BNSF is correct, Mr. Wailner's appeal to the Board was 3 a�..��03 untimely, since it was not brought within the 30-day period specified in the Zoning Code. Id. If the nonconforming use issue was not decided by the October 28, 1996 letter, then LIEP has never made a formal decision on that issue. If so, Mr. Wallner's appeal is improper because there is no decision of the zoning administrator from which to avoeal. (Id. at § 60.204(a),(c).) Thus, Mr. Wallner's appeal is either too late (because it is in effect an appeal from a decision made in October of last year) or too early (because it purports to "appeai" from a decision that has yet to be made by the zoning administrator). In either case, the so-called "appeal" is procedurely improper. 2. The Use of the Parking Area for Trailer Parldng is a Legal NonconforminQ Use. One of the permitted uses in an I-1 Industrial District is "[r]ailroad and terminal freight facilities." (Zoning Code § 60.612(11).) Prior to 1992, intermodal facilities such as the Hub were considered railroad and terminal freight facilities and were therefore a permitted use on the Hub property. That changed in 1992, when special zoning for "intermodal freight yazds" was added to the Zoning Code. (Id. at § 60.209.) Under the current version of the Zoning Code, the Hub is an "intermodal freight yard." Such faciliues are allowed as a special use in I-2 Industrial Districts (id. at § 60.624(16)) and, by implication, are no longer permitted in I-1 Industrial Districts. Thus, the creation of special zoning for "intermodal freight yards" changed the status of the Hub operation from a permitted use to a legal nonconforming use. (E.e., id. ak § 62.102(a); Board of Zoning Appeals Staff Report a[ p. 2.) The Pazking Area has been used to park trailers since the late 1980s -- prior to the "intermodal freight yard" amendments to the Zoning Code. Moreover, the photographic evidence (e.g., aerial photograph dated April, 1991, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A) shows that the endre Parking Area was paved and in use for trailer parking prior to the "intermodal freight yard" amendments. (Accord Board of Zoning Appeals Staff Report at p. 4.) Since there has been no further expansion of the Parldng Area, the use of the entire Parking Area for trailer parking remains a legal nonconforming use. Mr. Wallner contends that a November 13, 1987 letter (the 11/13/87 Lztter) from the zoning administrator to BN shows that the use of the Parking Area would not have been a legal use in 198'7, hence that its current use is not a legal nonconforming use. At the ume of the 11/13/87 Letter, the zoning adminisuator was operating on the enoneous 2 Zoning Code § 62.102(d)(1) ("A nonconforming use may con[inue"). See aiso id. at § 62.102(d)(2) ("A nonconforming use shall not be ... extendecl to occupy a greater area of land than was occupied at the effective date of ... amendment of this code"). � belief that BN's proposed use was "storage." That enor has now been conected. Moreover, the 11/13/87 Letter pertains to the area west of Snelling, whereas the Parldng Area is located east of Snelling. Accordingly, the ii/13l87 Letter is not relevant to this proceeding. The record is clear that BN and BNSF have continuously and legally used the Parldng Area for trailer parkin� (not storage) since prior to the 1992 amendments that made that use nonconforming. III. TI3E COUNCIL SHOULD AFFIIiM THE BOARD'S REJECTION OF NIIi. WALLNER'S EAW ARGUMENT 1. Mr Wallner's "A�peal" of the EAW Issue is Procedurally Improper and Must Be Rejected. Mr. Wallner's appeal was triggered by the February 27 letter from LIEP to BNSF. That letter does not mention the EAW, much less make any decision or determination with respect to same. Mr. Wallner has not identified any "order, requirement, permit, decision or refusal" of the zoning administrator from which an appeal of the EAW issue may be taken. I3is so-called "appeal" is not an appeal at all, and the Boazd rightfully declined to consider it. 2. The EAW is Irrelevant to the Use of the Parkin Area for Trailer Parkine. At the hearing before the Board, Mr. Wallner presented selected pages from the EAW in an attempt to support his so-called "appeal." BNSF has now located a complete copy of the EAW, and it is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The EAW was prepared in conjunction with a BNSF proposal to expand and restructure the Hub facility. That proposal was subsequently dropped. The EAW did not address the use of the Pazking Area for trailer parking. To the contrary, it contempiated that the Parldng Area would be the primary entrance to the Hub Facility. (See EAW at pp. 2("A main entrance will be built in the easterly section of the site"), 8("The cunent proposal has moved the main entrance and the entrance roadway to the easterly section of the site, east of Snelling Avenue"), 12 and attachment 4.b.3 (showing the proposed entrance area east of Snelling Avenue).) The EAW is simpiy not relevant to the use of the Pazking Area for trailer pazldng. 3 The 11/13/87 I,etter identifies the property as "North Side Pierce Butler Route West of Snelling." ° Zouing Code § 64.204(a). F7 a� _ ��o� CONCLUSIONS Mr. Wallner's appeal is without merit and should be rejected in its enurety. Of the three issues raised by Mr. Wallner, only one (i.e., the parldng/storage issue) is a timely appeal from a decision of the zoning administrator. The other two issues (i.e_, the nonconforming use and EAW issues) are not proper issues on appeal, either because they are untimely or because they do not chalienge any action or determination of the zoning administrator. Mr. Wallner's appeal of the parking/storage issue fails on the merits. The zoning administrator correcdy concluded, on the basis of its investigation and an opinion from the Office of the City Attorney, that BNSF's use of the Parking Area constitutes parking, not storage, hence that the 300-foot setback requirement for outdoor storage is inapplicable. Mr. Wallner has failed to articulate any rationale for overtuming that decision. With respect to the nonconforming use issue, the record demonstrates that the Pazking Area was paved and in use for trailer parking prior to the 1992 amendments to the Zoning Code. When those amendments were promulgated, the use of the Pazking Area for trailer parking became a legal nonconforming use -- a status which it retains to this day. The EAW "issue" is a non-issue, in that it is premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of the scope and purpose of the EAW. The EAW is absolutely irrelevant to the use of the Parking Area for trailer parking. Sincerely, G� Glenn Olander-Quamme GOQ/llb/midway/citycoun cc: (w/enc.) Tom Beach (LIEP) (via messenger) Peter W. Warner, Esq. (Office of the City Attorney) (via messenger) Dennis W. Wilson, Esq. Richard L. Ebel Ray Robinson Michael L. Burke John Ackerman Brian J. Sweeney � �� �-: : -, = ;�- } �; �;� � • � ,� �: : _ E.R.#(FIIS,ED ZN BY EQB) E2'�IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORRSHEET (EAW) Regular EAW X Scoping EAW 5/31/88 ��—'��� NOTE TO kEVIEWERS: For regular EAWs, written ccnrnents shouZd address the accuracy a*±d completeness of the EAW information, potential itRpacts tnat may warrant investigation and/or tne need for an EZS. For scoping EAWs, written comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the information and suggesc issues for investigation in the EZS. Such conraents must be submit�ed to the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) durzng the 30-day period following notice of the availability in the EQB Monitor. Contact the EQB (metro: 622/296-8253; non-metro 2-800-b52-9747, astc for environmental review program) or the RG'IT to find out when the 30-day comment period ends. 1 P.] fc3 4 Project Name: ProjecL Proposer Contact Person: Address: Phone: RGU: Buriington Northern Midway Hub Facility Burlington Northern Railroad Douglas M. Northup Twin Cities Region, 176 E. Sth St. P.O. Box b4960, St. Paul, MN 55364 612-298-7666 City of St. Paul Contact Person: Donna L. Datsko Tit1e: City Planner II Address: 25 West 4th St., I100 City Hall Annex St. Paul, MN 55102 Phone: 612-228-3395 Project Location: SW1/4 Sec.28, T.29N, R.23W A. County Name: Ramsey City or Township: St. Paul B. Copies of the Following Maps Appear as Attachments: 1. a county map showing the geneYal area of the project 2. a copy(ies) of USGS 7 1/2 minute, 1:24,000 scale map 3. a site plan showing signi£icant features such as proposed structures, roads, extent of floodplain, wetlands, wells, etc. 4. an existing land use map and a zoning map of the immediate area. EXHIBIT B 2 5. Describe the proposed project completeZp. ��"��� The total project area is about 53 acres_ The project area can he divided into two sections, the section east of Snelling Avenue and the section west of Snelling Avenue; the project is shown on the site plan, Attachment 4.B.3. The two areas are joined under the Snelling Avenue overpass, just south of the BN sain line tracks. The westerly section is about 49.1 acres and is bounded on the east by the west right-o£-way line of Snelling Avenue and on the north from the most southerly through-railroad track. The south boundary is at the property line and the north right-o£-way line of Pierce Butler Route. On the west, the project boundary follows the limits of developable land near the top of the bank surrounding the BN pond. The easterly section is triangular-shaped area about 4.3 acres; it is a£lat paved area now vacant but formerly used as a new automobile unloading area. It runs between the Snelling Avenue sight-of-way on the west, the northerly right-of-way line of Pierce Butler Route and the BN main line tracks. The operation of the expanded facility will be identical to the current facility but at an incxeased capacity. Trains with flat cars cazrying trailers and containers are received from the Seattle and Chicago regions. The trailers are unloaded from the train's cars by large diesel powered vehic3es called piggy packers. The piggy packers work alone or in pairs and typically can load 24 units in a two hour period. Hostler tractors reposition the trailers and containers on �he site until semi-trucks arrive to haul them away. Ten jobs will be added to the 24 hour period total, increasing the complement to 60 workers. The paved area of the site will increase from 12 acres to 47.4 acres. An area about .8 acres will remain gravel but will be used as the area for washing packers and as a"safe haven" (a "safe haven" is a four foot deep pit with an impervious liner used to contain any spillage from a leaking container or trailer, see item No. 24.) A 5.2 acre landscaped area will be installed. The dimensions of the BN pond, just west of the project area, will remain unchanged, 18.2 acres. With the expanded paved asea the number o£ trailer spaces on the lot will increase £rom about 540 to 1144 spaces, auto parking will increase from 30 to 50 spaces, hostler and packer parking will be provided at the rate o£ six and three spaces respectively. A main entrance will be built in the easterly section of the site and an entrance road will run north and parallel to the Pierce Butler Route. The entrance road will have three in-bound and one out-bound traffic lanes. A control booth used for checking and inspecting trucks entering and leaving the site and a small support office wili be constructed in this area. All trucks dropping off or picking up trailers or containers will have to use this main entrance and will pass under the Snelling Avenue overpass to the facility's main storage area. Some tracks will be repositioned to accommodate truck movements from one section of the £acility to the other section. � �� -��'3 The westerly, and main area o£ the development, will contain all the spaces for trailer and container storage. Three spur tracks will swing south into this area and xun paiallel from the main line into the site. Another txack will be relocated about two feet south of its existing location at the rorth edge of the site. A small maintenance building will be constructed and an existing small office will remain. Access to the o£fice and maintenance buildiags wiil be £rom the existing curb cut on Pierce Butler Road. 6. Reason for Assessment: Discretionary List all mandatory category rule :'s which apply: Mtv' Rules Ch 4410.1000 7. Estimated Construction Costs: $9,854,000 8. Tota1 Project Area: 53.4 (acres), or length (miles) N/A 0 10 E�1 Number of rasidential units: 0 or commerczal, industriaZ, or institutionaZ square footage: 9,800 sq. ft. o£ new structures Number of proposed parking spaces: storage spaces for 1149 trailers, 50 automobiles, 6 hostlers, 3 piggy packers List a1I Imown local, state and federal permits/approvals/funding required: Level of Govexnment: Tyne of Application: Status• Federal: None State: PCA Local: City of St Storage Tank Permit Future Paul Administrative Review Pending Site Plan Review Pending Building Permit Future 12. Is the proposed project inconsistent with the Iocal adopted comprehensive Zand use plan or any other adopted pZans? Zf pes, explain: X No Yes The city of St. Paul Land Use element of the Comprehensive Plan (dated November 20, 1980) states as policy 4.6-2 that "the city will encourage, through zoning, careful site plan review, and judicious use of its £iscal and nonfiscal development incentives, the use of industriallp zoned land ad�acent to railroads for rail-related activities." The plan also acknowledges that trailer-on-flat-car operations are a large part of the railroad freight hauling business and that "while this type of labor-extensive use will not usually be encouraged by the city, the continuance of this type of business is vital to the future o£ railroads and is keeping with the city's goal of energy efficiency." The Land Use Plan element also includes the area of the proposed expansion in a larger section o£ the (then) proposed Enexgy Park and designates the larger area as appropriate for a new employment/housing cluster development. The . Pinal adopted Energy Park Master Plan (dated October, 1981) does not include the BN trailer-on-£lat-car area as part o£ the Energy Park project. � The District 11 component o£ the Comprehensive Plan (dated October 4, 1979) identifies the proposed development area as future use for Burlington Northern Railroad/industry. The District Plan also acknowledges the importance of retaining the stor'm water ponding capabilities of the BN pond and recommends that the immediate area surrounding the pond be acquired and developed as park space. The Parks and Recreation component of the Comprehensive Plan (dated March 21, 1985) does not include any reference to developing the BN pond area as park space however. 13. Descr*_be current and recent pasC area Zand uses and deveZopment on and near the site: Accoxding to information provided by the proposer, prior to the mid-1950s the property was used as an icing £acility. Railroad cars carrying fresh produce were brought to the area and ice was added to the cars for cooling the produce. From about mid-1960 to 1974, Western Fruit Express, a subsidiary o£ the Great Northern Railroad, used this site as a railroad car cleaning facility. oi � ' ��03 Since 1974, Burlington Northern Railroad has operated a piggyback intermodal system at its Midway Hub Facility. This system involves the transfer of truck trailers and containers from railroad flat cars to a storage area for eventual pick up by semi-trucks. I.arge, diesel powered, rubber wheeled piggypacker vehicles circulate within the track area loading and unloading the trailers and containers from the flat cars to the lot. Hostler vehicles reposition the trailers on the lot prior to pick up. The facility operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week and employs 50 people during a 24 hour period. Approximately 12 acres of the total site is paved; the remainder is unpaved and covexed with gravel (29.6 acres) or undeveloped {11.7 acres). In the westerly section of the site are spaces for about 540 trailers, hostlers and packers and 30 spaces £or automobiles. Two parallel tracks now run just south o£ the main BN line and provide access to the £lat cars carrying the trailers. One smail o£fice building is located in the south central area of the site. The easterly section of the site is an unused paved area. It was formerly the site £or unloading new automobiles £oY metro-wide delivery. That operation was moved to a larger site near Pigs Eye in 1987. 14. Approximately how many acres of the site are in each of the following categories? (Acreages should add up to total project area before and after construction.) Before After F'orest wooded Cropland [�] 0 Wetland (types 3-8) 0 Impervious Surface 0 Other: (specify) gravelfdirt landscaped � Brush grassland 11.7 (this area includes some trees) Before After 0 0 12.1 47.4 29_6 .8 0 5.2 The dimensions of the BN pond, a type 5 wetland, will not change and it is thez'efore considered outside of the development area. � 15. Describe the sofls on the site, giving the SCS soiZ classification n ,�� types, if Imown: � (� According to the Soi1 Survev o£ Washin�ton and Ramsev Counties Minnesota, the area o£ development includes the following soil classifications: Chetek sandy loam, Udarthents (wet substratum), Urban Land and Mahtomedi, loamy sand. In August, 1986, Twin City Testing completed 30 hand auger borings of the site and found the general soil profile to be as £ollows: "At these locations, tha soil profile consists of roughly 3" to b" of base material overlying natural clayey sand/sandy lean clay giacial till. The base material does not have a high content o£ gravel and the coarse aggregate within the base is not a crushed material. The underlying glacial till appears to be in a relatively stiff condition, except within the upper several inches where disturbance is apparent. The stiffer, undisturbed till does not appear to have an overly high moisture content. For the most part, the glacial till appears to be a reasonably stable subgrade material." 16. Dces the site contain peat soils, highly erodibZe soiZs, steep slopes, sinkholes, shalZow Zimestone formatfons, abandoned we1Zs, or any geo3ogic hazards? If pes, show on site map and explain: X No Yes 17. The approximate depth (in feetj to: a. groundwater 14' Min. 20' Avg. b, bedrock 150' Min. 165' Avg. 18. Does any part of Che project area involve: a. Shoreland zoning district? X No Yes b. Delineated 1Q0 year floodplain? X No Yes c. State or federally designated rivex land use distxict? X No Yes If yes, identi£y water body and applicable classification(s) and describe measures to protect water and related land resources. 19. Describe any physical alteration e.g., dikes, excavation, fi3l, stream diversions of any drainage system, Zake, stream, and or wetZand. Describe measures to minimize impairment of the water-reZated resources. Estimate quantity of material to be dredged and indicate where spoiZs wi1Z be deposited. No dikes, excavation, fill or stream diversions will occur with this development. 0 20. A. WiZ1 the project require an appropriation of ground or surface Q � water? If yes, explain (indicate quantity and souzce): n/��,� —� 1 No X Yes B. IJiZ1 the project affect groundwater ZeveZs in any we11s (on or off the site)? If yes, explain: No X Yes 21 Describe the erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after construction of the project. The control o£ erosion will not be a significant pxoblem because of the flat terrain on the site. During construction, the contractor will be required to provide temporary erosion control measures as necessary to prevent silt from entering the city storm sewer system, the ditch along Pierce Butler Route or the BN pond. Bale checks will be used around unfinished storm sewer inlets where erosion is potential problem. Earth berms are proposed between Pierce Butler Route and the westerly area of the site. Silt fence will be used as necessary at the toe of the berms to prevent silt £rom eroding into the ditch along Pierce Butler Route. The silt fence would remain in place until a turf cover is established on the berm slope. After construction the entire project will have a non-erodable cover -- pavement, tur£, or landscaping treatments. 22. A. WiZ1 the project generate: 1. Surface and stormwater runoff? 2. Sanitary wastewater? 3. Industrial wastewater? 4. Cooling water (contact and noncontact)? No X Yes No X Yes X No Yes X No Yes If yes, identify sources, volumes, quality (i£ other than normal domestic sewage), and treatment methods. Give the basis or methodology of estimates. A.l Surface and stormwater runoff. Calculations which follow detail the activity at the western, and major area of the development pxoposal. Stormwater runoff £ram the site will be from 43.2 acres of pavement and roof area and 6.0 acres o£ unpaved area. The esti.mated stormwater runoff from this site during a 100 year storm event is a 20.77 acre-£eet during a 24 hour period. The maximum rate of discharge from the site is 219 cubic feet per second. See the Attachment 22.A.2, Stormwater Management Plan. � A.2. Sanitary wastewater. q�-t�S� Normal domestic sanitary sewage is expected to be generated from the new and existing office buildings. The existing sanitary sewer service line will be used to serve both buildings. The estimated waste water from these two buildings is as follows: Estimated Wastewater Discharge Existing office building 50 employee x 20 gal/day/emp Proposed new office building 10 employees x 40 gal/day/emp Total = 1,Q00 gslfday 400 �al/dav 1,400 gal/day B. Identify receiving waCers, including groundwater, and evaivate the impacts of the discharges Zisted above. If discharges to groundwater are anticipated, provide percaZation permeability and other hydrogeological test data, if available. Stoxmwater xunoff wi11 discharge to the BN pond. The quality of this runoff will be better than typical urban stormwater runoff because the amount of sediments, fertilizers and de-icing chemicals are all expected to be much less than is typical for urban stormwater. There is no apparent outfall £rom the BN pond in working condition now. The proposer plans to to provide an easement across railroad property that would permit the city to construct an outfall pipe £rom the pond to the storm sewer at Energy Park Drive to the north. This pipe would be sized to accommodate the discharge from the BN site plus £lows Prom other sources that discharge into the BN pond. City policy limits the peak stormwater discharge rate to 1.64 cubic feet per second per acre of site. Based on this policy, discharge from the BN site must not exceed 80.7 cfs (49.2 x 1.64 = 80.7). Runof£ £rom the BN site exceeding a discharge rate of 80.7 cfs would be retained in the BN pond. Based on hydrologic calculations, the maximum storage in the pond would be 230,000 cubic feet. This volume would raise the water level in the pond 0.29 feet. The peak storage requirement would be met after a 35 minute rain. After that, allowable discharge from the pond would exceed the runoff into the pond and the pond water elevation would begin to recede. After approximately 2 hours, the pond would return to normal water levels. According to a study conducted by Pace Laboratories, Inc., "Stormwater Quality Znvestigation - Burlington Northern Midway Hub Center", dated March 10, 1988, and submitted as Attachment 22.B, a positive net impact may result in the BN pond storm water quality in reiation to oil and grease. Now the facility operators apply clazified oil to the rail yard as a dust suppressent during the summer and fall mon.ths. According to 1987 records, 19,600 gallons of clarified oil were used to suppress the dust in the rail yard. Some of this oil was carried with stormwater runo£f into the BN pond. With the proposed improvement and paving, the need for oil as a dust suppressent will be eliminated. � Another possible source of oil and grease would be from leaking semi- ��� tractors or maintenance vehicles. This amount should be equal to or less than levels associated with typical urban runoff according to the Pace Report. Estimates for concentrations o£ sodium and chloride in snowmelt runoff as a result of salting operations in the rail yard were £ound to be substantially lower than those concentrations found in typical uiban highway snowmelt runoff. Sand applications during the winter months are not expected to have significant wate= quality impacts aceording to the Pace study. 23. Wi11 the project generate (either during or after construction): A. Air pollution? No X Yes B. Dust? No X Yes C. Noise? No X Yes D. Odors? No X Yes I£ yes, explain, including as appropxiate distances to sensitive land uses; expected levels and duration of noise; types and quantities of air pollutants from stacks, mobile sources, and fugitive emissions (dust), odor sources; and mitigative measures for any impacts. Give the basis or methodology o£ estimates. A. Air pollution. David Braslau and Associates, Inc, analyzed the air quality impact o£ the proposed development using the MOBILE 3 mobile source emissions model and HIWAY 2 dispersion model; the "Noise and Air Quality Report" dated March 27, 1988 is included as Attachment 23. When this study was conducted, BN planned to solely use the westerly site for all expansion activity, from Snelling Avenue on the east to the BN pond on the west, Therefore some references within the text may not accurately re£lect the current proposal which has moved the main entrance and the entrance roadway to the easterly section of the site, east of Snelling Avenue. However, the conclusions remain valid because moving the entrance way was recommended as a noise and air quality mitigative development option within the report. In addition, the receptor site on Fairview Avenue (the Yesidence referenced in the report from which measurements were made) is closer to the potential queue of waiting trucks than is any residential xeceptor at the new entrance location. The primary air pollution concern from truck activity on site is from (1)the potential queue of vehicles waiting along the new entrance check- in and {2)off-site Cruck activity at the entrance roadway. The pollutant of primary interest for which estimates can be made is hydrocarbons, a primary contributor to diesel odors. According to the $raslau report, no adverse impacts to sensitive land uses from vehicle emissions are anticipated for the parameters oE hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide, based on measurements of current activity and models of future activity at the site. From a receptor 30 meters to the south, the closest sensitive land use, vehicie air emissions ali fall belom the levels established in the Iiinnesota Ambient Air Quality Standards. 0 The Braslau study also considered the potential impacts of increased �, truck traffic at the Snelling and University Avenue intersection. This intersection has registered the highest carbon monoxide levels in the Twin Cities area. The study states that while heavy trucks associated with the BN facility could make up 20 percent of the hourly truck trips passing north and south through the intersection both now and in the year 2000, the number of vehicles or 1eve1 of traffic is within Lhe margin of error of any air quality model (9 trucks out of 46 trucks each houx projected £or the year 200� coming into inte�section from south approach). Therefore the impacts of traffic to and from the the BN facility through this intersection cannot be modeled and are insigni£icant. B. Dust. As the majority of the land now used for parking, storing and access is unpaved, paving these areas as proposed will reduce the amount of dust generated on-site, particularly during the summer and £all months. Dust from construction activities will be controlled. The contractor will use the application o£ water and other appropriate dust suppression measures as necessary to comply with the Minnesota Rule 7005..550 on prevention o£ particulate matter from becoming airborne. C. Noise. There are two primary sources oP noise associated with this proposal - traf£ic noise and equipment noise. Traffic Noise: A detailed 24 hour traffic count was made by TKDA and Associates, Inc. on February 18, 1988. These counts provided information not only on tra£fic along PieYCe Butler Route, but showed the direction of travel both of passing traffic and traffic going to and from the BN facility. These counts were used by David Braslau and Associates, Inc. to model traffic noise levels at sensitive receptor sites along Piezce Butler Route with and without the current £acility and with the new facility in place. The study indicates that at the closest receptor site to the Pierce Butler Route, about 22 meters at 917 Aldine, both daytime and nighttime state noise standards are exceeded. However, when current traffic noise levels are compared with levels that would would be expected in the future with an expanded hub facility, the difference is less than 1 dBA. The study concludes that the new facility will have an insignificant impact on noise levels near the site. Equipment Noise: Equipment noise levels were modeled using the octave band data, IVIE Sound Spectrvm Analyzer. The model takes into account attenuation with distance and atmospheric absorption. 10 The study calibrated traffic and piggy packer noise levels £or various 7 operation levels at the site. Worst-case estimated noise levels based '�� on operations closest to the sensitive receptor sites were established. �� � The study determined that while hostler tractors produce noise similar to that of the packers, their use is more intermittent and they are often shielded by the rows of trailers and containers and therefore their use was not factored into this analysis. With the simultaneous mufflers (these have Aldine receptor (308 type of operation. operation of two packers with new sound shielding recently been installed) on the rail nearest the feet), noise standards would be exceeded by any With the operation of packexs having the new mu£flers and working at the middle rail, noise standards likely would not exceeded. Operation of one packer at the nearest rail and one at the middle rail would exceed the noise standards. A 5 dBA reduction in the equipment could a11ow a single packer to operate on this raii during the nighttime hours without violating the standard. The operation of two packers with new mufflers at the northerly track would not exceed noise level standards. Impact noise from bouncing and parking trailers and containers may also contribute to the noise generated on-site. Uneven gravel surfaces and uneven rail crossings cause the jostiing of trailers and containera, which when empty are especially noisy. Paving the surface and rebuilding the rail crossings will reduce this type of equipment noise. D. Odors. No specific data on odor thresholds for diesel-type emissions are available. The study established an approximate threshold value for hydrocarbons of 0.1 ppm. The Minnesota Ambient Air Quality Standards for hydrocarbons are 0.24 ppm for a 3-hour period. The predicted truck hydrocarbon levels at the closest receptor site at Fairview Avenue, 30 meters south of the BN entrance, was .015 ppm. 24. Describe the type and amount of so�id or hazardous waste incZuding sludges and ashes that wi11 be generated and the method and Zocation of disposaZ. No solid or hazardous waste will be generated at this site. According to the hub facility manager, less than 5 percent of the containers or trailers being transported through the yard contain any hazardous material. Of those hazardous materials brought through the yard, the largest containers are 55 gallon drums. There are no tanker-type rail cars brought through this facility. The facility now provides a waste containment site for any potential hazardous waste spills. The expanded Pacility will have a pit or "safe haven" which will be about Pour feet deep and lined with an impervious material to contain any spiil and prevent it from reaching the BN pond. In case of a very sudden spill in which hazardous material reaches the storm sewer system, there would be opportunity to block the storm sewer ii system downstream, thereby preventing the spill from reaching the pond. The spilled material would then be removed from the storm sewer by �� ����� pumping. Attachment 24 contains the "Hazardous Material Emergency Response Y1an" for the hub facility. The hub facility has three above-ground storage tanks for diesel fuel. The tanks can store approximately 200 gallons each and are located outdoors without any spill containment provisions. Minnesota state rules require a permit for above-ground storage tanks and a containment area with a leak or spi11 holding capacity of the largest tank plus at least one foot of freeboard. 25. Wi11 the project affect: a. Fish or wildlife habitat, or movement of animals? b. Any native species that are officially listed as state endangered, threatened, and o£ special concern (animals and/or plants? No �_Yes X No Yes Zf yes, explain, identify species and describe impact. The impact on wildlife in this area will be confined to the loss of grassland areas to paved or landscaped areas. The BN pond will not be altered by the development proposal and should continue as a brood rearing site for ducks and other wetland birds. Railroad corridors have traditionally been habitats for mammals such as £ox and for species o£ birds such as red wing blackbirds who nest and forage in adjacent woody axeas. With the recent reintroduction of peregrine falcons to the T�in Cities area, the BN pond site and surrounding environs may lie within the falcon feeding range. See Attachment 25.B.for the DNR Response on endangered species in the area. 26. Do anp historicaZ, archaeological or architectural resources exist on or near the project site? Zf yes, explain {show resources on a site map and describe impact). X No Yes The Minnesota Historical Society has reviewed the project location and has determined that "no known sites of historic, architectural, cultural, archaeological, or engineering significance (lie) within the area of the proposed project. There are no sites in the project area which are on the National Register." See Attachment 26. 27, Will the project cause the fmpairment or destruction of: a. Designated park or recreation areas? x No Yes b. Prime or unique farmlands? X No Yes c. Ecologically sensitive areas? X No Yes d. Scenic views and vistas? X No Yes e. Other unique resources (specify)? X No Yes 12 At the present time trucks enter and exit the hub yard and queue in an ,0� area which is directly across from the neighborhood Newell Park. The q�1�� proposal to move the main entrance to the easterly section o£ the project area would eliminate this situation. Automobiles would still enter in this area however. 28. For each affected road indicate the current average dai3y traffic (ADT), increase in ADT contributed by the project and the directionaZ distribu[ion of traffic. Pierce Butler Route: Between Prior and Snelling 10,800 ADT(S/86) Between Snelling and Hamline 8,625 ADT(9/86) Snelling Avenue: At the Pierce Butler Route 30,125 ADT(9/83) The average daily truck trips for the week days is 427. The proposer states that average daily truck traffic will increase to 700 trips per day and that othes trips will increase to 250 trips per day £or a total of 1050 ADT for the hub facility. This represents 525 trips into and out of the facility. According to hub records for the week of September 20-26, 1987, 70 to 79 percent of all truck activity at the site occurs between the hours o£ 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. A traffic count taken November 4, 1987, taken between these hours established the directional distribution o£ the trips as shown below: To or from the East To or £rom the West Truck trips 52� 48$ Non-truck (auto, pickups, vans) 678 33� Additional traf£ic in£ormation including counts and distributional directions are included in the "Noise and Air Quality Report" compiled by David Braslau and Associates, Inc. and included here as Attachment 23. 29. Are adequate utflities and public services now avai2able to service the project7 If not, what additional utilities and or services wi1Z be required? No X Yes SUMMARY OF ISSUES For regular EAWs, list the issues as identified by "yes" answers above. Discuss alternatives and mitigative measures for these issues. For scoping EAWs, list known issues, alternatives, and mitigative measures to be addressed in EIS. Sur£ace and Stormwater Imnacts The stoxmwater management plan proposes to convey the stormwater runo£f in a storm sewer system from the site to the city drainage system on the south side of the site. Tt�o storm sewers from the facility would drain to the city storm sewer along Pierce Butler Route, four other on-site storm sewers would drain to the city ditch and two other on-site storm sewers would drain directly to 13 the BN pond. An on-site drainage plan was submitted by the project proposer and was reviewed by the city's Public Works' Sewer Design Division. Public �� .1� Works has agreed with the concept of the plan but approval will be in conjunction with final site plan approvai for the development. See Attachment 22.A.1. Sanitarv wastewater 9s noted in response to question 22, normal domestic sanitary sewage will be generated at this site and will be routed to existing sanitary sewer lines. Air Pollution Air quality is not anticipated to be a problem either on-site or off-site but measures can be implemented that can insure minimal impaets. A berm or barrier constructed along the west end of the property would provide scxeening and would reduce potential transport of truck-generated pollutants towards the residential area south o£ Pierce Butler Route. A plan to distribute alternative route information to drivers using the £acility could help to reduce the number of vehicles passing through the Snelling and University Avenue intersection. An improvement o£ Eneigy Park Drive at Raymond Avenue that is now under construction will make access to TH 2S0 simpler and quicker and may divert some trucks away £rom the Snelling and University Avenue intersection. Dust The proposed project should help to reduce problems of blowing dust because the majority of the surface will be paved. Noise Noise abatement alternatives were proposed in the David Braslau Associates, Inc, report, Attachment 23. Some of these measures were implemented since the report was issued. The following table indicates the alternatives that were recommended: SourceLEouipment Mitigative Measure Piggy Packer Hostler tractor Idling train engines Idling trucks (check-in) Aail crassings Surface roughness Departing trucks Install mufflers Reduce back-up alarm Enclose engine Control night operations Erect berms/barriers Move exhaust lower Relocate to remote area Build berm/barrier Install smooth rubber crossings Pave surface Relocate entrance 14 oaor �,�,��o� Screening of the entrance roadway with a berm or barrier will reduce the impact o£ odor from queuing vehicles. Relocating the entrance area to the easterly portion of the site will limit the impact of odor to sensitive land uses. Wildlife Sose disturbance of wildli£e habitat is expected. Nearly 12 acres of brush and grassland will be replaced by about five acres of landscaped area. Sensitive landscape treatment may continue to provide opportunity for wildlife habitat however. ------------------------------�----------------- ---�---------------- — ------- CERTIFZCATION BY RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT I hereby certify th`at the information contained in this document is true and complete to the best of my knowledge and that copies o£ the completed EAW have been made available to all points on the official EQB distribution 1ist. Signature Date 15 ��-I�o-3 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 4.B.1. County map showing project area. 4.B.2. Copy of USGS 7 1/2 min., 1:24,000 scale map. 4.B.3. A site plan. 4.B.4.a 4.B.4.b 22.A.1. 22.A.2. 22.B. 23. 24. 25.B. 26. Existing land use map. Zoning map. Memo from city's Public Works Department. Stormwater management plan. Pace Laboratories, Inc. report, "Stormwater Quality Investigation." David Braslau and Associates, Inc. report "Noise and Air Quality." BN "Hazardous Material Emergency Response Plan." Letter from D.N.R. Minnesota Historical Society letter. ' cc: ��� .� . : �,,. ceorge lactimer Mayw �(„ (�� c.5on/ S.D. iHuRrn� �tr iN,�. �,�; g �s August 2, 1988 DEPARTMENT , i 5: I vG ; � , °`� Douglas J. Rodel H!ib Manager - Bttrlington Northarn Tnten�cdel Service Midway Hub Center 1701 Pierce Butler Route st. Paul, i+ID7 551�4 Dear Mr. Rcdel 100th et� 8�� CONVENTIO(V OCT. 1988 S7. LOUlS Y 5T. LOUIS SECTION 1VR5 RoAD i/ZAfF+c ELfM�N�%�� Lc�tn�� �i9ss�.:� �R.�i.+�s Ex�cuaEO � The Division of Ptiblic Health imnitored sound levels at the L�,u'linq� n Northerit Hiz}i Yard betwc-�n the haurs of 16:45 p.m., July 2a and 6:45 a.m., Suly 26, 1988. I�bnitors were Iocated at. the foSlowing loca�ions. 1. Burlington NortRern property Iine east of main gate 2. Burlingt.on Northern prtrperty line north oE Aldine 3. Bur2ington R'orthern north property line south o£ Midway Stadirmi. Hourly rear�ings inclicated L10 soand levels greater than the 55 dSA a2losaeci by the Sairit Paul Noise Ordirsance, Chapter Z93. LCX4E3t L.LO East of ttain gate North af Aldine :3orth pmperty line � .:•. Hiqhest L10 66.5 d&� fi2.5 dR�1 54.5 dPA Sound levels at tha Burlington Northern Hub Yard property line ccaast not exceed an L10 af 55 dB.� between the hours 10:40 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. IE you t��.�y gxestions, £eel free to contact me at 292-77p5. Si�rely, , ! ter . tCi.shel Occu�tional Sdfety and Health Analyst P`I'K: jm _. . . _ I � � '�� , � � � - ,� -� ._ R � � ��� � �tr � , i � \ �,` "� . � l � � i +, ' • �T. 'LL I `` �J'�.�:�."i H . •�� �ARPCNTCVI _ _ _ , _ _ ; __ .� �I II •.� •� � ATTACHMENT 4.6.2. q,•� ����,3 _ t .� - - s�o � II \I _. ` r ��� �! ��:'� % � �- � I4EHk725' OF MI?:NFjSp A � , `c!; orr � � I ;: � � � ��' _ �' , ��� ' N vncEr -.' j.� 1 � � 7-,�i Rui GmDV �i i : � W �I �i '��e! $tJ2hta� r. �.: r �eva� ' � � :�F�.. -. � � ,��/ -=� I r � I � 1 � + � - � � �� � �.� ,�;, �_—�_ � � 3.s�. ,,_ � r -� � � � _�^' Q �' .1fvc' � � .�7J� ,- �I: vlJ�..^��� 'u ^^ "/ - `� -+ w. �• r -_ { � C�..Jbi�� .�� �'��tJi.•n�qY;� � � ' ��'`_����-� � � •) /•1 ��'SeNeV Ii � il �' - ' 1 ..: �,� _ , � ., �+-�- . - .1 � ��' x� ��. I. t✓ iy'�J�r -�- _ `�� -' i• 1:� jl I��`-V:Y�;� 'i � y z -� � ' `� ± �: "�`k�e : _�; � _�. — - -- E � (� ' �=- ; � � , � Lll h �� h .. _ ��^ R�.wG-On' �._�. .. ���) I{ 2�1 '. W Z2� � -� � �I '..L_\�..l��:: �-.:�}r,',� ��L.: " �_. II � �j� � �j „ 3� � ��J � ? � s ^ . . _ _ =c �_�_�: �. � i . - � 9p. Z � �F ��� l �� I �" �. " tr'' `�� �.! T� - i� �=, -_:. '. :•= �✓��� cF�� ?� :�:'-� • �� ;�,�-� 'a3•ti vc' , = 7ry I:. . ___ ^. , � � / ��-z� � ,i o' ,.� ? - �J. e � •r ST tf.�_.. � �;� S �/ I I i! .��,.-z. ��. —� . 4 � �[� mr'_-'- ' ♦___ �. _.1 i �V . Kb WsY�_�yI' �? ' � ` 1 � �^.— f � u1 ^�= .. - . � _ _ �SeKw.r ; -� � � - ' 1 r c� - u` , '��;'_ :az� -._ '.. -:— _7_e�-: IJ �... :' - �� h ' ^� _—� � �r 7� }',, �v `��� t��:���� r-;`=�ATR�RICi;k'�J'�';�,.�5.^i . �r `{�'r, �� � � - ; '�_�:^ _' � / ;"�a . -n:.`wt � J�'% s sT _ s�- • J�_ _ _ c= i i c .' U ' �.. � _ , . '. ' . ' . �: ,,- � : y„ . _: - " 1 � t� -�--T`. �< !_--�� � _ > �� '(. L ' �.'' �-�'� ` . �_�` � i! ' �> � +�.- o j�a�j�Pa� �': �,:� �� �� � ~-- � � `�m'""�"' ,�-�. t tn.ad � <vc P ��� - " . � � � � C . Y./_' � _ { � / --, I. ' � i �f,1 �� . �I� aoiol..� -�C�=J� I` SIB ' 1 '\.;` .x {� ti, - '// `. �� � ������N ,�,iowe. ���� . _', - '* �_'`� " l�\ �^ ... , ' _� � —� E ��J'� ��� i� _ o � � rt � � i v';':?': , li �i. ��p L ., �. _ !� � o �. 7 5?Ci i ` -���� �� ��� �. ' ,4 _r�s. i a - _ �_ �C :�:r? � -, _� t�, j �i�� f � I?' --__ � " ,�3a o- @ � ���^. .'' _ � L^1��,�j�-_ —.__ _ �wa���_ ' —. '- `�,�_� ' -:� __ _ .t�Gs - - — _, • {� � — ��=��'� �•� ':. / i�T'.'� '' �� ��� � - _ _- ��. ca�R:� � ,.� 1 � aw ,,� �R x! �' �\ � 3Fa, r�\�� e .� ` _ �Y��-1��� - cilverDn,� '�,\ StTtl �m �7 6 �-� i il �-.a . (� � .����. ' 'C'�� ( � .. `°---_� � 9 oT; ��� -... . .- R J ��,��;��'` 1� ,�\: • ,.: �n `-' c . _-_ s•_= _��� \ � L n R - ` v � - � • '--- _ . i:.��` '=,�3�': \" �R _ � � :� Fv-`._ ! .�J."_ . � 11 � ,G ��\.�� � �` � . Park I� $F° `�I. I i q ii �)�;; : r r �.- :� ����':'�: ,� � �� o �, ;. �� - e .� n a, �..�,..�. �� �, ,5 � ; � � � : p� ,— �I� ` � ` i `�wo�,�,:_'�? �-!�� � 7 � �: �� ` �� J � � '� �� • - x��, am � ere � � �, _. �, � ������` °�. ���� � ��';� - i�,� -- 't� �;�\ . M j �� i � l � � � �'�� ' � � na� ����. "� { � 8 -s �Pu �'°- \ ` ��c �--`--�.-_� .`��lL� �Is z�d. � � i�� II� ' � �� �.\ ������-�' p� �� • _�._,_J;���Ji rt��.a6 _� fi ..�� r-. �� ,,��� I� LaM � r❑Ll�i- .-�. �V' , �! V' � �' ���nn� a T, •� C � �--� , �--� � c, �u`J�C �J'� . J - : � l� � � ���.� Z���'_� "�� ���1_"`�J�.ibr 1�1 ��''� � �� �� ;��' � ` � � ,_ �, ; ;.� r ; , � �''����; 'Lh'!I�i'_ �i�-r !' ( t , � Q � , �U" _• ��a ! �'���1_}O_��,.a� AvC �-L..���� j( ; r , � _ .� �: � _� '�a�s�4 ���' � 9 lI I J _ f w �, 9�' I��� ����— [ ��� � : � N 3 � \�J � . , _-'�� ` . � —�• I `fi; � 4,� ��y s�n ' �= � '�" � _ i �' '=;�4,; � °—' �---�'_ =�=�' U aI� � i � Pmi SemiOar9i l ti.vLOZH���_�'�" � i �� I� . / � �c ``. -j � .1 •' � /i� .-��j� .� l�i f �i �„' - _ Q - °� � :t '� � _ ; � f ,� �^ _ . �_ � _ �_ r � __ _ _��`--���r ,�., � � : \ - �� � Fa4iM0 u_xr ' � V£ I O 1t . ` i \ - . �: _ �—�%J �ry I. . ' t � . �_, ,� � ,-7-u: -,- � 1,�. �....:_.. . , ,-�� �— �' ;--%u � _ •"�•^ ' _ OIC 1� -' � SaMb — 1 . �V __ d✓E � ; ? e Sch � . . =1 c �t_� C d Ptrk f.h �'° .:J�—��.�_. s' 9� _ H I � ErP �v 19:8 ¢ � i323' � . �.I _y, �� `�,.��r�_'`�'`_'1F �— a i - �T-=� - _ � �__ — �'•=:> j �...i. ie;>`q' a ,<---� 5 f/i /,--: L. D nva- Fre�.. � �3a 1� 3a � � = s � � i �A �Cgntra7 H� h Se]�"' �� - T •�3l�ll{LAN� y . i i � �� ��a'9:n�TtlHer �'. �� �� '� r+KUE� �I �� _�— \ � t �^ - I � \ ,���.� I I �� S S'J'V �v`y1 i�_� _�J_ —��-� _ • ` T� ( I � L�fl i � � 0 � } V r� � � , � w � _ � � � � ., � I i � � � . ; � i �, , �� I ; . I _ ,� :,,ts�,. . � m �4 � � � � �� I � ,: � �� � ,� �\,, .; . , 1 \ ., .i. l,.' ' `' ' ',' . ' �''' � � � i —' i i ' ", ��' ';. .. �; C� r � �, , � � ' ! � U(�, I a \, ' r,(6 ,if -- U�� � 1 . ✓-..;.' _> _: 1 i�� '�Itl„�' .-1 �� � � `��, . _ I ._,. I S�� , -----�-- 1.: - :'�` � :"7�' �.5: _�u.. .�I ��• ' -. �/!_ _, j i � ( �. � � � ��� , � I��������� � �' r �� � ��,'�. : � "' � � � I' i �. � � �� ' ' � �n� I I� r. �fiJ�"cr �i�.�� �;, -� T�� .�n�� :''� ) � .� _.;, ?T�. � ` \"��7 ,� ��,, �� �,�,'�,� � �,,�� � ;,� �;��; '\' �{� i , � I •, i Ili ��:� �` �,�� l '�., I"� �i� 41 JI ' f",� . �;'i ,., � �•� e��:�u ,'� � �� � r �^ � ���ra'1�"`'�f i .� t;:—,� �� � '� a ��� ��"� �� �� t „ + ��, i -y ;-� I ���- �, � � � f�.! ;. ' i,.� � 7S! 1 io��,�U. .���� , �.� ,� ��I� i��r.�;i ,t,�.- �' � �I'T til �.`' S, .�X(.7,�. � i �,.�r��l� i iL���� ",�4+" � i'lt� �.`� qiF i'' '. I — � _ _ _—� _ _ . h�—r ; �...i; ���r.;r;,%`�;`� .��.� ,a+.�����s ��p,��.,' ��,�i.l�'rpr°� i � ',�' �v�-� �� 1 1 I� �, �a�� ;1��5 7, v �._, r:� , �. , G �� ��. ��� ��� `� � '��'i}.11. �., Fi � � �� F! ' �, � y � � �i� � � � � � ' �) \ •') I• �� � I �'��i��'rYd�U�'.� �� � . �,+��, � �:. �ir � i r , ^�� ;� � 1. , ' ,- r:.�_ c{.: ,.�� � � �� a:; � ,� . � '.'����'���9��� r ' . �s ��'�t."�t��l"�+:% �<. � ^__ ,�� c�=— �$ � _�-:�i, � , � � � / •.iM I � . � �- �. � �, @ l�lf � ,�� .�.�� � _ .� �. � ,� � %!;'',=� � � �: �,. � - • ; � .'� � � �, � �;A� ��. �: ��� � , ., , , ; , . � ; I R `�a �1i ��,. .�.,�. , � •�; � :.-d i _ � � �� _��.,.� q: , . 1 _..... _. J=`� -- � �.� � ` r _ � � ,, � �I Jf .� � � ; � �-- z w � _ � ¢ � � d q�.l'�°� t ' L ATTACHMENT 22.A.1. f S �� 1 �� CITY OF SAINT PAUL ��_ {IYTERDfPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Donna Datsko Planning & Economic Development 1100 City Hali Annex FROM: David Conley ° �' l �� " / Sewer Design Division, PW 700 City Hail Annex DATE: Hay 11, 1988 SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Midway Hub Facility This division has reviewed the "Stormwater Management Plan" for the Midway Hub Facility prepared by TKDA dated November 20, 1987 and agree with the cancept of the plan. To help you prepare the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for this project, I wouid recommend for you to reference the "Stormwater Management Plan" as the basis for the estimate of the source, volume, and method of control for the surface and stormwater runoff this project will generate. Also, normal domestic sanitary sewage is expected to be generated fram the new office buiiding. At this time, site plan approval has not been granted. Agreements for the overflow pipe from the,pond to the City storm sewer system at Energy Park Drive have not been made. Zf you have any further questions, please call me. cc: Mike Rassan Sewer Division .� ATTACHPIENT 22.A.2. �� �''0� MIDMAY HUB FAClLITY � BtJRL IN6TON NORTHEF2N RAILROAD MINNESOTA D!VlS10N STORM WATER MANMEI�NT PLAN Prepared by TOLTZ, K1N6, WYALL, ANDEf2SON AND ASSOCIATES, INCORR�ftATED SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Novenber 20, 7987 �,�, ��o� MID4VAY HU$ FACILITY STORM WAT£R F�ANA6EN�NT PLAN The proQosed means fa managing on-sFi dratoage is sharn on the submitted Site Plan. Existing artd proposed mntours defining the routing of storm wai'er a�e shown on the SSte Plan, Sheet 1, Gradin8 and Pavin�Qian. The Sifie Plan, Sheet 3, Storm DrainaPe and Litil ity Pian shar the boundartes of the separate drainage areas. The attached Table 1 iists the areas in acres of pervious and tmpervious surfaces for each drainage area. As sharn on the drainege p1an, tt ts proposed to convey #he storm water runoff in a storm serer system from the site to the city drainage system on the south side of the site. The city system ioctudes a proposed 36° sfi orm sewer on the north side of Pierce Butler Route extending from the east to a point approximately 1400 feet west of Snettfng Avenue. From the�e, to the xest, the city sysi�em uses an open ditch for approxtmately 1800 feet. The outiet for this ditch is the BN Pond. As sho+rn on the drainage pian, txo storm sewers from the MTdway Hub �acilifiy couid dratn to the proposed city storm sexer atong Pierce 8utler Route. Four other on-site storm sewers would drain to the city dttch. Two other on-site storm sewers wouid drain directiy to the BN Pond. The Socation and sizes of each of these storm sewers are sharn on tha drainage p! an. Following are caicuiations of the aitowable discharge rate and the detentton for the 100-year sfiorm as required by City of SairrF Paul poiicy: Site development Area = 49.1 Acres Allavabls Oischarge - 1.64 x 49.1 = 80.5 CFS The present pond area is 38.2 acres. The aatar surface elevation on November it, 1987 was 19b.1. 7o store the required 230,000 cubic feet of runoff would ralse the pond elevatlon 0.29 feet. An easement across BN property ts praposed to provtde fa� an overftav pipe from the pond to the ci#y storm sewer at Energy Park Dr(ve. The size ot this overflrnr pipe wii � be based on the totat runoff irrto the BN Pond. Besides the runofif from the subJect SN sifie, there are dtscharges from th ree city starm sexers. Two 36-inch storm sewers nave outfalis into the ditch oo the north side of Pferce Butler Route and a 72-inch storm sewer has an oufilet directiy into the southeast �rner ot the pond. 1 9069-Oi TABLE 7 HIDWAY HUB FACILITY CATA FOR EACH DRAtNAGE AftEA q�-13o Average Slope Drainage Area Imperv3ous lmpervTous of Pervious ArP� N�.nP SA Ft Area Sq. Ft. 4 Areas 7 97,040 74,050 Si.3 0.005 Ft/Ft 2A 83,200 83,200 100.1 - ZB 42,690 14,810 34.7 O.D05 F 3A 82,200 83,200 700.0 - 36 8t,890 81,890 100.0 - 4 229,990 13b,780 59.5 0.005 FtJFt 5A 83,200 83,200 i00.0 - 5B 83,200 83,200 100.0 - 5C 41,380 35,720 86.3 0.01 FtJFt 5D 83,200 83,200 t00.Q - 5E 83,200 83,200 100.0 - SF 31,800 2,180 6.9 0.01 Ft/Ft 5G A7,OdD 31,800 67.6 0.01 Ft/Ft 6 89,300 43,996 49.3 0.01 Ft/Ft 7A 83,200 83,200 100.0 - 78 83,200 83,200 100.0 - 7C 82,330 82,330 i00.0 - 7B 57,060 37,030 64.9 0.01 FtjFt 8A 33,200 83,200 100.0 - 88 101,490 90I,490 100.0 - 8C 108,030 108,030 100.0 - 8D 83,640 83,640 100.0 - 8E d8,350 48,350 100.0 - 9 22,b50 1A,810 65.4 0.01 Ft/Ft t0A 70,130 7Q,130 100.0 - 108 54,450 5d,450 100.0 - 10C 105,420 105,420 100.0 - TOTAL 2,137,480 1,875,700 •r.• � q�-\�o� TABLE 2 Dusation Min. 5 10 15 30 fi0 120 180 364 REQUiRED DETENTION FOR 100 YEAR RAINSTORM Rat nfal t Inches v 0.84 3.38 1.7b 2.44 3.15 3.50 3.80 4.40 Accumulated Runoff Cu.Ft. Z/ 128,500 211,200 269,300 373,300 482,000 535,500 583,400 673,200 Atlarabie Discharge Cu.ft. � 24,150 d8,300 72,d00 144,900 289,800 579,GD0 869,400 1,738,800 Storage Requi�ed Cu.Ft. 4/ 104,400 762,900 196,9Q0 228,400 192,200 0 0 0 Max. Storage Req�d = 230,000 Cu.Ft. ]./ From City of St. Paul Sfiormwater Management Site Pian Reviea Guidettnes. y Qa = $2 x (CxA) x 43,560 Q = Accumu4ated runo#f in caDtc feet R= Rainfaii durTng time period Tn inches C = Coefflclent of runoff A= Drainage area ln acres Pind C x A for totai stte devetopment area: 8 � Sax9 Paved Area 43.1 Ac. 0.95 40.95 Unpaved Area 6.� Ac. 0,20 t_20 Totai 42.15 3l Allowable discharge = Allavable rate of discharge x ttme in seconds _ $0.5 x time tn seconds 4/ Required Storage Capacity = Accumulated runo#f - aliavable discharge .,,. � � _ _�,� s. �� � �G�'JOCUtO�'�PS► inc. nwezzs�wu �wurric.a oawnrer a u.cwrtae.�c ATTACHMENT 22.B. p11 `\,� 3 Minneapotis, Minnesota Tampa. Fiorida Coralrille, Iowa 1710 Dougias �rive North a Minneapol9s, Mt2 55422 o Phone (612) 544-5543 o fAX (6i2) 564-3974 STORM WATER QUALi7Y INVES7IGATION BllRIINGTON NORTNERN MIDWAY HUB CENTER Qrepared For: Mr. Douglas Northup 6urlington Northern Prepared By; Date PACE Laboratories, Inc. Minneapolis, MN March 10, 1988 Project No. 880224.200 �, labor�tories� �. .+ortssawu �wun�cu au.esrer a e..wrie.Ic �t'1-1��3 Offices Mmneapoiis, Minnesok Tampa, �lorida Corelvil{e, lowa 1710 Dougias Drive North o Minneapoiis, MN 55422 o Ahone (612} 544-5543 o FAX {6t2j 544-3974 March 10, i988 Mr. Douglas Northup Regional Engineer Burtington Northern 176 East Fifth Street P.O. Box 64950 St. Paul, MN 55164 RE: Storm Water Quality Investigation PACE Project no. 880224.200 Dear Mr. Northup: As requested, PACE Laboratories, Inc. CPACE) has prepared this report to assess the potential storm water quality impacts on an existinq retention pond <B.N. Pond> that wouid likely result from proposed on—site resurfacing and drainage pians at the Burlington Northern Midway Hub Center site in St. Paul. MN. Specific detaits of the proposed on—site drainage modification are identified in the Storm Water Management Plan prepared by Tolz, King, DuVala, Anderson and Associates, Inc. (TKDA) on November 20, 1487. This report is organized as folloNS: ection I. II III IV BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE S70RM WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS A. DNR 6. MPCA C. City of St. Paul POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Spill Containment B. Above—Ground Storage Tanks C. Salt Impacts D. Sedi.ment i� Runaff E. Oil and Grease in Runaff CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS V. REfERENCES . ATTACHMENTS •.,_ . 2 2 3 3 3 4 5 6 6 7 9 an Pmrol nnnnn••nre.. emnln...+� PACE Laboratories, Inc. _Z_ Mr. Douglas Northup 8urlington Northern March 10, 1988 If you have any questions reqarding this submittal, please do not hesitate to contact us at 544-5543. We appreciate thts opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, � _ d // , �.%i�.v��� � � d'frv' .,�., 3effrey L. Behnken, E.I.T. Project Engineer � �� J � Donald P. Duffy, P.E. Project Maneger JLB:DPQ/emb Attachments 9� -��03 I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE In November, 1987, Burlington tlorthern Railroad submitted a Storm Water Management Plan to the City of St. Paul for a proposed resurfacing and drainage project to be implemented at their Midway Hub Center facitity tocated near the iotersection of Pierce 8utier Route and Sneiling Avenue i� St. Paul. It is our understanding that the project will invoive relocation of raiTroad tracks and site buildings, and the paving of the facility's yard to provide more efficient utilization of the space available. A storm sewer system has been developed to convey storm water runoff from the paved site to outfalls wfiich drain to tfie BN Pond. The total paving and draining project encompasses 49 acres. Existing and proposed site storr� Water conveyance is to the. 18 acre BN Pond. Numerous documents, maps, plans and specificattons whieh pravide details of site drainage modifications have been submitted by Burlington Northern to the City of Ste Paul since the fall of 1987. As a resutt ofi these submittals to the Cifiy of 5t. Paul, there has been some concerns raised as to the potent9al environmental impacts that the storm water runoff from the rail yard r+ould have on the BN Pond. This report xill address those concerns and point out some Nater quatity impacts which should result from the paving project. II. STORM WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS To better ascertain the current status of requirements or guidelines for the quality of storm aaters discharging into the BN Pond, PACE tontacted the Minnesota Department of Naturai Resources tDNR), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency <MPCA> and the City of St. Paul. The results of these contacts are summarized as foiloKS: � A_ DNR In a conversation with Mr_ Mike Muelier of the DNR — Metro Reqion office, it xas discusseQ Khether the DNR had any such storm water quality guSdelines or reguirements. His comments were that the ONR is concerned mainly Kith hox the water quantity is handled, not the Hater quality and that tfie QNR had no such requirements or guidelines. Mr. Mueller did co�nent that the BN Pond is classifled as a "protected wetland" , With the DNR. Because of this classification, any changes to the pond fi.e. pfoposed storm water outfalls or related structuresl below the normal high wa#er leveT of the pond Hoa7d require a permit with the DNR, A DNR permit apptication form is provided as Attachment A. The City of St- Paul and Burtington Northern are aware of this permit requirement as documented per IYem 1 in an October 27, 1987 TKDA memorandum to Mr. Clyde Stack and Mr. Doug Northup. B. MPCA Mr. Doug Hall of the MPCA Water Qualtty Permfts Divlsion xas contacted regarding any storm aater quality requirements that the State impTements. He commented that the MPCA reviews requirements on a site—by—site basts with regard to potential environmentat concerns. He added that the �State does have some sites that requlre an 2ndustrial Waste Discharge PermSt for storm water runoff, but due to the fact that no railroad car maintenance is done at the Midway Hub Center facility, this type of permit probably xould not be required. 2 a'1-1�a'3 Mr. Hali did tomment that the drainage system ou�fall to the 8N Pond may require a NPDES—Point Source permit in the future. Regulations regarding storm water runoff are being updated to reflett the Congressionat passage of the Water Quatity Act of 1987. In our opinion, passage of any specifit Federal regulation requirements which might impact this site is at ieast 4 to 12 months away. C. City of St. Paul Storm Water Management Plan Guidelines xere received by PACE from Ms. Donna Datsko o,` the City of St. Paul Planning Department. Upon review of these guidelines, there was no mention of storm water quatity or treatment requirements. In summary, based on review of current policies and regulations of State, Federal and City agencies, t here does not appear to be any requirements or g�idetines for the quality of storm water that xould be discharged into the BN Pond. III. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Based on reviex of the Storm Water Management Plan, project meeting memorandums, conversations with the City of St. Paul and Burlingto� Northern staff, the potential environmental impacts on the quatity of storm water from the paving and drainage project at the Midway Hu6 Genter facility are as foilows: e A. On—Site Spili Containment Tn tonversations aith Mr. Doug Rodel, Burlington Northern Nvb Center Manaqer, it Has estinated that less than SX of the containers or trailers being transported the�ough the rail yara contatn any hazardous materials. Of those hazardous materlats 3 brought through the yard, the largest containers �re 55.gallon drums. There are no tanker—type rail cars brought through this facility. The Midway Hub Center presentty provides a waste containment site for any potential hazardous waste spflls. U�der the proposed improvement plan, Burlington Northern ailt provide a tined ptt on the site for ptacing any container or trailer that develops a leak. 7hs pit or "5afe Haven" as 1t is cailed, aili be approximately four feet deep with an tmpervious liner to retain any hazardous chemicai spill and prevent it from reaching the BN Pond. Burlington Northern wilt also implement a Spilt Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan at the M9dway Hub facility. A SPCC Pian identifies emergenty toordinators, contacts, response teams aith telephone numbers and procedures to be followed si�outd a spill or emergency occur. B. Above — Ground Storage Tanks Burtington Nortfiern currently has on—site three above—ground storage tanks for diesel fue7. These tanks store approximateiy Z00 ga]lons each and are located outdoors, uncovered and without spitt contafinment provisions. Minnesota State rules require that owners� af above—ground ' storage tanks obtain a permit for those tanks with the MPCA. As part of the permitting criteria. there must be a containment area xith a leak or spili holding capacity of the largest tank ptus at least one foot of freeboard. 7his containment area typically tonsists oP an impervious base and diking. 4 �� -t�°� It is our recommendation that Surlington Northern obtain permits for these tanks and implement a spili containment area to prevent any spills or leaks from reaching the BN Pond. It is also recommended that if these continue to remain outside, that a roof or covering be placed over them to prevent rainwater accumulation in the containment area and to protect the tanks from corrosion. C. Satt Impact A5 part of current xinter operations at the Midway Hub Center yard, a salt/sand mixture is spread for de-icing and to improve vehitle trattion on the yard. During the winter of 1987, six 30-ton truckloads of this mir.ture aere applied to the yard. This mixture is reported as being to be 907. sand and 10� sa)t. It is assumed that this practice witl continue after the proposed paving of the yard is eompleted, even though the amount of salt/sand mixture used should be redueed due to improve SnoK removal on the paved area. Inevitably, salt wiil be washed away in the snowmelt runoff and routed to the BN pond. Estimates of the concentrations of sodium and chioride in the snowmelt runoff were calculated to be 178 mg/i and 27Z mq/1, respectively. These caiculations can be found in Attachment B. Shese concentrations Nere compared to Minnesota Department of Transportation Water Quality Data for typical urban highway runoff snowmelt (Reference 1). The concentrations for sodium and chloride in this referenced study uere 2605 mg/1 and 4500 mg/l, respectively. S. Sased on Yhe above information, the concentrations of sodium and chloride in the sno�oelt runoff as a result of salttrtg operattons on the Midxay Nub yard are expected to be su6stantialiy loNer than those concentrations found i� typical urban highway snoxmeit runoff. Also, no water quality degradation has been noted at the BN Pond as a resuit of historic de-icing operations. D_ Sediment in Runoff As part of the prevlousty mentioned Hinter sanding operations at the Midway Hub facitity, the sand portion of mixture is aiso washed in the snowmelt. runoff_ Estimates were talculated with regard to what the impact Would be if ail the sand applied to the Midway Hub yard Was conveyed through the drainage system and into th? BN Pond. These calcuiatfions can be found in Attachment C. As indicated, the sediment toad tras calculated to be 0.17X of the BN Pond volume annually. We do not consider this load to result in any significant water quality impact on the BN Pond. To minimize such sediment impacts, we encourage Burlinqton Northern to utilize good snox piowing technfques within the proposed paved area and exercise prudent judqment in relation to salt/sand spreading practices. E. Oil & Grease in Runoff In the past, Burlington Northern received �permisslon from Mr. Dick Kable of the MPCA to appfy ciarified oiT to the raii yard as a dust suppressent during the summer and fali months. According to 1987 records, 19,fi00 aallons of clarified oil were used to suppress the dust on the rail yard. InevitabTy, some of this oil xas carried Hith storm xater runoff i�to the BN Pond in the past. With the proposed improvement , 6 `l'1-i�a'3 plan, the gravel and dirt yard Will noN be paved and the need for the clarifted oil as a dust suppressent wilt be e]iminated. The other posstble source of oii and grease vrouid be fram teaking semi—tractors or maintenante vehicles, but this amou�t should be equal to or less than levels assotiated with typicai urbdn runoff. Estimates were made to compare existing and projected oii and 9rease loads to the BN Pond as shown in Attachment D. As indicated, we expect an improvement to water quatity at the BN Pond in con�u�ttion xith the proposed paving and drainage modifitations. IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIQNS Our conctusions and recommendations regarding this storm water quality investigation are summarized as follows: i. Based on review of current pottcies and regulations of State, Federal and City agencies, there does not appear to be any specific requirements for the quality of storm xater that Noutd be discharged into the BN Pond. � 2. Surlington Horthern proposes to provide a"Safe Haven" on—site to retain any spiTl of hazardous material resulting from a leaking or damaged container or trailer, A SPCC Ptan wilt be impiemented should an emergency spili occur. 3. It is our recommendation that a permit be requested for the three above—ground storaqe tanks that are on—site. A spili containment area consisting of a base with diking should be impiemented. A roof or cover should be ptaced over these tanks to prevent rainNater accumulation in the containment area. , 7 4. The estimated coacentrattons of sodtam and chloride tn tha snowmel# runoff as a result of salt9ng operations on the rati yard are substaotialiy iower that those concentrations found in typical urban highway snorrmelt runoff. Based on these estimates, along xith historic practices at tfiis site, future salting operations are not expected to have serious xater quality impacts. 5. The water quality impacts of the sand applied during winter operations are not expected to be sfignfficanto To heip avoid any lmpacts, xe recommend that Burlington Northern utilize appropriate snox ploWing methods so as to minimize the use of sandJsalt de-iting mixtures. 6. With the paving improvements proposed, the need for dust suppression using clarified oil aill be eliminated. Accordingly, He est4mate a net pos9tive impact in relation to oil and grease concerns on the SN Pond storm xater quality. , � �1' 7 -t7o3 R£FERENCES T. "Characteristics of Urban higfixay Runoff <Phase 1)", Mtnneso#a Department of Transportation, June, 1981. 2. Kuehnast, E.l., Baker, D.G. and Enz, J.W., "Climate of Mi�nesota: Part VIII - Precipitation Patterns in the Minneapolis - St. Paul MeYropolitan Area and Surrounding Counties," UnSversity of Mi�nesota, Agricultural Experiment Station, Technical�Bulletin 301, 1975. . • : "1 i ---' �'� -1'� � 3 REGION i (&BEMIDJI Area) ���i ,?�'�;; � ._���_ _ _.. . • _ ... - . - ' _ _ . .. J Re9tcnat Hydrologist . . _.:;_ ' . ' ' -- - . . . . _ ` --�-.- - Dtiw-Division of-Yaters.--�— - = D!VlSiO(10fiWATEF?S` � ' - ' " . _ _ 2115 Birchmont 8eack'ROad S.E. ' `� . .5 , , ; -=���;�_: ' ' ... ,: �.r`. ~� BeciiCJi, HN 56601 FF:C� ��. :-" � � (218} 755-3913 � ' �' - "—�� ' __.AOMINtSTRA7lYE .'__.. . _ . .. _-_-. "-, -: : - -- - - - -- - � � FiEGIONS_AND AREAS • Detroii Lakes Area � , � � � ` �` ..Area Hydrolo9isi �- .�., , .. _. ..._ ' -'--=-- --' --•-. , • . DHR-DivlSiort of Mniers` = � . • � ._ - _ _ . � � ' � .. - � �• P.O. Box SZ3 � Detroit Lakes, MA_ 56501 . . . __ _ _ __ .. _ _ _ . ___ . i218)8+t1-1519: _. - � - ----- � ----- `-� - - - - - - - -::`-- _ . Fergus Falls Area�-.- : -�. � _ Area HydT'OlogiSt -- -- T��f R;ver F Ils . . _ ':: :.^ .. .o. _ . ..DhR-�ivision_of.Sinters_ :.. ���...- --- �-� -- -� - � � � �, � . , .. _ , - _ . _ . .-- -- . ..-' - - -- -' -- � - .. .. . . 1221 FirAvmue East - - _� - : � ,..: Fergas Fa175, HR b6537 : "-� --. �L_� �'�° � - - - -�-�.-•. (218) 739=7576 ..: ... . - - ..._. - �_ � �.. • Thief River Falts`Aiea. . - : � . .� � �eE ian .` _- � - : . �: - . .... . ,, . .._ � --- .... -.°a � � - ; .. _.,, '- . ; : >, ,-:..�� . :.; . ...... .. . .' . .. ; :. . :.: : . _ .._. ...- :.. � Area�Hydro7ogisL �--_.: ... -; � _-. ..-� -� -. e.�.. �..._.- . . -- _. - DItR-Division-of:Ynters.''�" - •GRAN � �- --- ' 123 l4dt0 AYE. H. � "�. RAPIDS . ' ' Thief River Fal1s, ri!t 55701 � �� (218j b81-7789 Detroit Lakes Duluth � ■ _"° � . . REGION 2 {&GRAND RAPIDS �-� � Regtonal Hydro7ogist � AfeB) - . - � � . Oftk-Dlvfsion of Waters FergusFai�s -- 120: East Highway 2 ■ •BR �NEaD -=�-� � _ . Grand RaDfdS, HN 55744 � � ' . � (218) 327-i416 °°� � �u s Regionai Office "`puluth Area � � s Regional Soundary Arec NydroloySZY : --:=��=iArea Office DNk�Division of Yaters � " ~ = Area $oundar French Rtrer Haichery °°°` �� � ��� ■�� ridge � . Y - ' 10029 North Shon Drive "" ` � • - Dulath, !W 558bt - ' i ..`. .. ..�. _ .,,_ _ - - (218) 723-478b � , ; .Sp� j"' .. - ,� J _€ , _ REGION 3 (& BRAINERD Area) y . � � � I � pAUL - . ' � Re9ional Hydrotogist . � ,�.,. "' - ONF-Division of Ynters � - .v, � � - C24 FronL -SL., 8oz 64$ � �°"' °' - � . �� . . Brainerd, Hf1 56CO2 . ` ' �218) 828-2605 r�al� 4: � o �1c1N LY.1 Cambridge Area , - �- -�- . � " � . ' � . Area Hydrologf5t . n zro � •R HES � � - . DNR-DiviStan ot Yaters . - �915 South.Highvay b5 '. ° �� Cambridge. MN 55008 ' I� ._ {_ ,. (612) 689-2832 - 1 - St.Cloud "Area . , REGION 4 ConYd REGION 5 - . Area Hydretogiit � _-. _ -. Regiona7 Hydmlogis2 �- - � DN�-Division of LtaLers . . � . � � � . ..Matlkato Afea � DNR-DirlSion af-Yaters - � -= � 3725 I2th St..,NOrth . , �� '� �Aret HyEro7ogi5:�� � �P•0. 8ox 6247�' '� _ ,' �f'_0. Boz.370 .' =-. .� � � ,- '; •ONR-Dirtsion of fiRters=--- ' � Rochester; NN 55903. = � ;�St. C7oud, Kii 56302.='-; ;�_-_ `--'- , ` - Nicholz Oftice Center - � (SQ7� 285-743(3,- -. = -(612}� =:.='-_.- � ` Sui,e 180, 41D.tackson St.. , - . � "� _ :` . - .: :.: .... , .: ,--.- . _.. . _ . --- ' -:_ '_ - .. . , :.. . : ., . . . - .. _ _, • ._ � HdnkttG !(x .56�01 . . _ -.. - .'... .. , REGtON 6 ��-:._�;,; .. REGiOtd 4(&t1EW.11LIJ!•Area} ;__�;-�� ; .;;.:--z: �:;? �- ;r� t�,�:..Aeglanat-?Iydrotoyist= �.;_" _:=` _( 507 j • 389-Z151. ':_ ;:, c-.•c , : : Regionai Hydrologist ``:_ : r.". -=,:: :. ;;:.;°:-zc .c . -- � _ . - �. ' -_. �NR-Divisiohrof;itaterz.�-:" --� '-UNR-DivisSOn of Maurs-.'.;;'.:-`'•..:; -: - ., : ` , .. _ _ �,°t,_,Marshalf Area .' � " - -. 120Q Starner Road . � � '° � _" :�-Boz 156, Nighray'15...SoutA.,::: ; -�-:.' � _ <.� .��' r...r� Area Xy4rolOgis. :_.:. :, _ _ .:��St`: Paui;:liN;..5510b'rs.�-_. `Her in..}S1i:.55073- �`',-°�''•- :�,.-�. :- _ .. .. . _.... -- -� _ ,�N ,:...- .:.. _ of Yacen;-; ,� �- _ .- -----�_.. . i507 s ;..� ��, _` - - . , ::,::srz� . eox ill, It80 E. tYon: ''' . . . CEt�{TRAL OFFICE ;� - , ` "�: ' Spicer Area J " � _ . - � � Marsna7l ; !91 55258 - � � � � - kre'a Hydrologist`�" - - ---='-- - -- _ = -^( 507 } 537-7258 -. ---_ _ . . -.._:rDNR-Dtrision of Yaters - : : - . �. J.. . ._ . __..'_.. . . ,:500 CafayeLte Rond = flKR-Dtvislon of Watert y -- . . .' � DNR Bulldin9 P.O. 6ox <57 St. Paui, MN 55155-4032 232 Lake Ave.'South - ' ' "- (bl2) 2%-6800 • Spicer, Mli '.6288 , . . .. - . i612) 231-5<?S ' - ' ,. � �o wn,p�vtaa Oy aPP��centJ ,PitOJEC7 LOCATfON or PAFlT E 1 hereby submit this. application for permit to: (mark proper box} . Signature of App(icant Date aappropriate water .: �work in protected waters X ._ . � . Seciion tt (Ta be comp(eted by loca/ unit ol governmenf) '--"-----'---------- The tollowing local unit of government comments and/or recommendations are submittad�for consideration bythe .;, � Department of Natura[ Resourcesin the dispo5ltfon of the referenced permlf appllcatlon. (YOUR RES?ONSE MUST 8E . ' SUBMfTTED.TO THE DNR WITHIN 30 DAYS.) Wa2er Appropriation psrmtt Appifcatbns are to be sani to tbe Central pf-.. ;, fica, St. Paul, and Pratected Waters Permit Appllcatlons to the DNR Regio�al Office. SEE qEVERSE SIDE FOR CORRECT . MAILiNG ADDRESSESj. _ - � i :. a - -- . _ . : :"i' _ vc,' � _- � .. _ . � - -. . - . . �= !t. . ' , as tbe proposed projecbfieid.lnspected by this local untt ot�government2 �: :,- NO "�. :�-:`�-: �.. , ,. -. .iewer's Name . , � �YES Yes:'9ive viewe��s'name)'� . - Tii1e . .. ^. .-- .-... :.,;' yi _ . � ' - - .� ♦ � �R� ` .. - � � `-ill�l' .. . uthonzed Signafure _ � - Titie , ' - . � Date Telephone�No.CArea:Code)�� - � . _ .-. . . � . _;.. . . - ` ... � � ame of responding Soti.and Water Conservatlon District, Watershsd District, City or County - - • Address (of the above named locai uN2 of govemmanf) � � . � , (DNR — Div(sion of Waters adtlraues on back) at . . : Hrru�.ai w�v ruti A Ntrtml I IU WUtiK t(� PROTECTED WATERS OR WETLANDS �� ``� O 3 . � ' i ` INNESOTA Department ol s► I Natural Resources � ; �ms�on ol � aters � � - PLEASE READ CAREFULLY - Statutory Authority M�nrxwca Siarvta.5eciun 705.<2 rt�es rt w�Wwt�i 1« fne s[aie. anyperson, partnersrvp_ aswoa[ron, pr,vaie w pu6hc corporm�on, canry, rt�ahy y o[tkr Dd�ixa� w�oncsqn oi tne slate. tochanqe «dunaxsn me coWSe. currenl or cross-sectron of arry protec«ed waters a wetWrw's wrthan a w'iztm perm2 perqu5ly oC'�a�ea ��om ��e CuMxsseu�er ot kawcal Azsovrces - WARNfiVG - PROCEED3NG WITHOUTA PERMIT Anv �� n woiecteC waiers or wetlantls wh�ch reqwres a ce�*ut camor iegany pe startetl uma a pem�a and a Naice of PemK Card have Eeen isy�d yy yr�e DeDartmm� of Nacura� Resources. Any work m pro[ecte� waiers o� weclanCS wrtnouc a cermrc �s a m�sdemexqr and'¢ punistaple by fries up to 570p antllor 9p Oays n jad. The Camyssroner al5p has ihe authorny to repure iesrwatian of any wprk Qm¢ wrthpuc a p¢rm� p� peyp� � y ,,p* ��p��y p�, a �� �� assess Owde tne a6�i�un�� a0d�tqn tees. as well as ihe xtual cost for any E�W nSpeC�iprt, 1bU ShWIE 315p bE dwMG thdt Oth¢! (¢QMdI, Sidt¢ drld bf21 pertT�tS Tdy bC fCqUit�, yyhj� a�e �� ���yy��j�, t0 ObW NI. WHO APPLJES AoD��t�a+Rwst De matle on the anached tonn aM wbm�rteE io cne Departmen[ ot Na[ua� Resources Regqnal pH;ce Por ghe arga wlx,ye the propos�,y pqect vs Iocase0lsee rt,aA m Wst page). t AvP:rc.atbn rtnst be submtttE6 bY Ihe npanan lslw�eLne! owner of the WM On wtu�h (t�¢ pp�t is D�WOSed. excEpt: a A governmmt agency. a�Elic uuL[y. w corporation aumor,zed Ey Ww to contlutt tne a�orec[ may apdv �f Me property riyhts acqwred wtp be acpuired are (uuy Oescriy_d ,n th¢ zoC�,tanon. An authwuea agen; snov�tl De.tlentiiieE on 2tie app��catwn in PaR 1 anp �,9n n part Xil. D. F nplper o`appropr�ate Dro�erty rghts wc� a5 a lea5e a easement may apdY P�ovdtd that the app�icatron is [wntc+signed 6y Yhe own¢r� �pty�� Dy a coDV oi the lease or other a9reement. A permn wili be i55ued fa the term of ttie lease oniy. G �.O�asCx:'veksseeofstate�ownedfantlsmavapdvto�aperm;inMS.Terownnameaheraleasehasbeenre0uestcdfromlhepepartmmt�esponyMefa t�e ariected WnCS, The lease rep�esc antl [he pe+mt apWiCa2ron wilt E2 processeC ca�currently. FEES Mimesota Law reoares the Comrttisvmer of Natural Rewurces to cWVrt cersam fees fo� me process�rg of pro[enea waters ce���s. No pertrvt ran be prpces•,ed ��►apoGra�b" ir_s ha+K been Peid. Fees must be oad by check or monev order ma0e pavaWe ro"Depanment of Natural Resources". Cash payments camot be accepttd. Appli�zfan lees wn onlr be ret�MeO wnen rt rs Oe�ermmetl tna� no permrt n repu,reE lor the proposetl Oro�ect. Apoication Fees AG permrt appli;atans must be a[cortpanMtl by an app�iUtron le¢ based on the foilow�rg ist; Type of Pemvt AppGed For 6uda or flepav Dam Unaer Minnesoca's Dam Safery Aules, insiau R�wap ro ConmolShorNme fros�on. Fd! S++ore'w�e �o Reco�er Shoreland Lost ro Ero� swn «Omer Naturai forces li.e. Ke Camagel. an other aqec[s. � Fee 530.00 5 50 00 5 $0 00 550.00 o�u: a posveie aaehwnxt aOW�catwn fee Casetl on me po- �eci s wsc a�W comaezrty lcan- not De more ihan 5280.001.' sNeaeL te4s v ztre __ _' __. _'_".... ��„ .,,,,�.�.....,� ,,,�.�,,, q,w��u„„vw�caiwn iees. n any. �a yaxpro�ett. M the Department aPP�oves Y� D�qKt. you will be se�tt a bie t« any aCdrtional apd�tion tee, along with a scatemix,c Ees:ndng the scoce of the permrt to be �ssueE. lf yau do not pay the a6didorw( app(ica:qn fee wrth�n 306aYS. ihe permrt rrwy ye p¢nky. No pertrit v.il pe awed undai fees ere rercived. if the Department tle[Wes ro Ceny yar pertnrt application. rq �qrW Fees are rcrowre0, Fdd k�svecrom Fxs S� �Pa+t+�+en: wry charge for rASt of f�efC inspecirons for any pro�ec[ wn¢h� Il! repu�res an env�ronmental assessmeni wwksheet IEAWI a an environmental �Oact statement (EtSI ry�rsuant to Minnewta Staiuces Secuon t i6D.(2t �s undertaken wrthout a ce�mrt apppwnon; or f31 is undertakm n eatess ol an asued a�^'t- TM �+sM'�cwn 1ee wd( irxiude the rosts of necessary surveys e�+C wdi be Dasetl upon tne actuai cost of the msoeCiron. The cost of Fieid nspeCtqns w�p ye at kast 525.00, p;r, rqt more4han 5750 00. � (OVER) qppGcatan insvuctions Each sea�on bebw corresDO^ds to the ao7�ov��e sectanm the �ooca�b^ !«m. ltse biad Dan o� G�^, o� tortn mhsrd sr(ace. aM o2ss f*^+h Part 1. ADP��'Yt Name and Atldress. , PatC ContianorProposedP+S'xt:Theaop�icationmuscrckitleMebcat�onotthea��MGo.ertrnrrtloLGx�d.W�t��°^•�' ta�. townsh�o rwm6ec �arge. md canry as stww+� m the aCstraC[ ot Mk. �f ihe pMM is ii a plaRed xea. the b[ i�d doct eMRlberRd #m wpa,vs;on nane must Oe reponed- The fre ro.. Oo: rw.. or saGress of the 0�� s4e, must be iMicated and a bra6o� mec � in ordc m � ��� � preniees. k�ckde the wR+e ad nunbE* 6( knownl ot the iake. wefla�d a wasacdxsem'dved. hrt t. 7rpe of Nbk ProW�: Pfease c�eck ct+e aov'W��e Do�lai. See i++e AOdina�al Mfomiatwn AewKed secnon of rt+ese insauctiax rc¢xd�➢ y„pppMg Md�� t00e Sub*Y.ieO wrtt� tne a0DK2t�on. Art N. Prqect Aid: Aease C+ecf. tTe aODrooNie Do:lesi. Part V. Estme�ea P'aeCt Cost: Wt+a1 s�ne sad estmace0 ms� ot tt.s va�' IMuOe me cost ot au matma�s. scw�ces. eWR�^� p+�K a renta�. an0 �aCw a:o�� t« tt+e o�m ot �ne wMK� a�a+"�v .n�u�g v�+ecled wm«x. py¢W. Le�ginol5lwrel'vieAttecteQ:MW�ca[eN+etotalrnanMrnlfbe�atsnwe4+eihMnnrtpeaHecteCDytl�epopOSeOOrM'�t•���5����� sbes os e wnev.wrse mun nCWS ane tnwNrt�e aHeRetl anDOth sitles. Pert VII. Vdume of Material Flled or &cava[ed: Indicate U�? tocal eumDer of aac yaeds of arry material �o be fi9�W a exw2ted � woiecied •+s�ers. Ca�culate voWme 4y muhiDW�g 2he shoreline aHened by [he C�i�ness a depth of the materiai. Ihen muhidy+g W� d'�M� � a°1K'� ez• tentls waterward.0�e f i l cudCYard eqw�s cwentyseven {271 a#_ teec.IF the proposed pmjetc ticesroc nwNe f�f a eacavavon. yxe "none" m mis space. p,�y�. B darc IX. Purpose ot Pro�ect: Ezpiain wny ttus Dro�ect is necessary- Be scech+c as m wha[ the o6�ec[rves of the pro7ec[ a�e. Rep4es s� as "lake �p°"b meni' a"navigata� ano�ovement' are too vague co be ot neip n assess�rg che memsaf tne appl'icacon. if mae space a reedetl to fuuy e�lain. or m wDGH ocher apol;c2ble �fortnaiwn. a¢ach ectta EXHIBtTS IDWns. sketches. photos, etc.1. px X. Ennronmencal hnpan: Comp�e[e this serion bY ��l'^g: D�o�seG Cwnges in land ard water feacures. character. or qualiry. ard atso eHects that are, w maY ��R^ful but wuva6aWe li.e. bs ot wi161de haM�at. nveased Oownstream Flppdsg. etc.L Fa Wrae a very eom�ex W�s Minnesou Stacuces Chavier t 76D mayrequ�re anEnrronmencal Impacz Swie�*renc IftSI. or Environrnental Assess'ren[ VJarksheec (EAWi before a pertnrt can be �ssuetl. pyi X(. Ahematives: Gescnbe any and ail posvbie altemaerves to the yo7oseC project. lAttach additwnai sheeu d necessa�Yl. PaK Xtl. Nour¢anon: Notanzanon is reouved. No app4cacan can be co�sA^rea wmpie[e unless poperly notarized by a ticensed NotMY PudK• Additional {nformation Required �, aasc�o�w �c o� -�o� r�u Pro�ea:: 5efwe Y� aOW�non can Ge convtlered comPlete. the toilowv�g infwmx[on aM atca[M�ents m�st be i�duded. A. Generai Attachments: The fo:lowing tlata is reW�retl m suoo�R af a pertnit avo��t�� i. G�ound Levet Rwtolsi stwwing: a Water conOmons ac tne Oro�ett site. b. UpWnd [Onditron5. [ Aqu3bC v2yE[ai�. i1 any- ' c ProposeC spod d�sposal srte 6f appi¢a0ief 2. Tat Maps � manCatory rf pr000s�d Wo7xt is on w�pertY w�'hm a�aneC area. The property beuntlar�es of �h ad���g ��7 owned by 4he apW�ran� r �he pro�ect 3rea sttw�d De w+diCateo on the D�t or subninetl as a sepa�ata map. 3. Skecches�Eno�nee���g Rans - The anphcant musc anacn a aeta�ie� s'r.e[ch w engmeermg pta� diso�aymg [he Wliw+w+9 mtormacio^: a GoSS�sectiona�lvCe�v�ewl5ket[h Ttussketchs+nuitltlayaythefoilownau�fortna[wnasRpertamsto.ou*o�o�eCt��[WCespeci(Kd�mensd+s where possblel: 7 t Wate( �el fW;tuar�ons IWesmt. h�gt�est. aM bwest kvNs1. 21 Wace�aep[R 31 Lake be6 elevatw� a stteam beo st�ce. 4� Locauon aM E�mensions cf proposeo pro�^:'t•sttu[ture 1vnSth, wdth, elevatron. tlept�, siCe sbpe, tcCJ. 51 Locacan and Gmenswns ot any aauai�c vege[atwn. � 61 ltlemiN ane W6et iate oeo ana scream bea ca+artwns aM mater�ais. . C. Too v�v tove�t+eaCl ske2cR Indrcate [he fot�owrr IinduCe a.�u�ons where possdcl: 7) R�erry bow�0aries aM b[ dimens�ons. 2t Shoreiu�e and wzcer wcacron- 31 Dimensions of proposeE Oro�e[t I�engch. wAm. eieva[wn. eccl' 41 Points of refnence levsm+g ha+ses. suu^.tu�es. tlocks. e:c.�. Be wre to mGCate wMCh d�rectpn �s "North". 51 Extmt aM bcacwn af anY aauatK vegetauon- 61 Locatron ot spal and d�svosai srtes fit aDDliraWel. � 4. ( la'�md�k3. GlL.). � 5. EQU�yneni � Ind�cate tAe type ot matMnery 16uIIGOZr. Cre6ge. e:c.l [nat wdt De use0 to to�sttutt your O�oi�� 6 lease Agreement - Man6atory it apphcant rs not tne �a�tlovmer. 7 Fenai Rw[olsi - MaMatory 10� warercourse reahgnrient proposa!s. fi. Atltlnw�al InEormaoon - My aa0rtw�a� mforcnacwn t: ac you fer w�tt furthe� ezoW�n your project is tieto�ul and s!au�d be incheCed. E EztensrveaComplexPrqMS-Foreatensrveorcomo�z�ro�ecis,u�eDe�artmentmaY�equestsuWlemenurymtom+atroninciudmg6ucnotirrti[edtothe �(ouowvg: Sopog�aotic mao. water ta0le mav. ��� ���s. tleptn swrbr.ys, aeral photographs, mvirom�e�tat assessment. a�+O/a engv�eerHg �M�S. AOd;:wru! mtortnanM wli De �eCUrted. � .. °"'"'"°�': 9�-i�o3 t awened ..na a rrerixia urrwi ee kg Wy da+rc0 u�kss me xea oeinp Erar�e0 a'r}aced bv an su ot eawt a qeaca nacvs resouce v�+ue. � '� vw arc apdy+g to Man a wecWid. you wnn be asked m wbr�ic a Sum Wata 8ant Progrm appicamn to detnrtrie your dg�y ty State Water Br�t � Lompenzaccn. A Sq�e Water Bank acv�ntan must Le sub'nnM betae the De*+m aoo�ri:cn nn 6e consderetl �mp�Ne. v+ease wecs s+r wesnans w�+mar rwe �o tne aeyw��Kyerobgist x me oNa s+egew once serv.g �ou. N. B�idge and GM.*t Projects ttvoumw000s+�'9tocaumc niomanon.M �YdrobgU�y7rxlit YoultavG a�1' ouest�or�s regararg bdge and aYvert WoR'��. 0� ronlaCt 1ne Aeg�oni� Mytl�Diog�st. N. Q�ms IDan Safary Projeasl: 11 vw xe qoposmg to const�uct. Narye. aher. remove, aEanCOn 0� tpquc( rtgpr rqy an a Eam you myy pe asfc¢E io SutxM aC6aa�al .�FOrmatwn. for Wrtncr nto'mac�on on dam saletr �ements. contatt me Oam Sateq ilrat, U�sono! vraters. Deparuner,t ot Naura� �+esou�ces. 500 tafayene Roatl, St. Paul Nsnnesata SSt a6. tekW�orie:16 7 21 296-a803. V. IhzcY Crossiyt Mmnewta Stawtes. Cnaoter Sa.a t 5 arq M"ru�eso[a Ruks Part 6135 proh�ts utYUy passege over, �yWer or �rou prrnK�eef ,,,mM �SS a Gcenx hu p�n pevw�s�y ornameC iran the cmr*xssmer ot Nanuai Resources. thW ues nUWe te�etra+e. teieynDR antl Nectnc oowcr Yres, cat� or coMUits, untler- grama a omerwne. artwuis or nDeMxs Fa gases. YvuWS. a sdds� wsoension. Ro�s reQU*^9 a utwryaassag Mca�se m3not rew.eae�ocected wacers permt Furtne. niama�ron concem�ng umrty trossugs can be obta�ned by emtanuig: Departmnt of Naewa� Resources � land Bureau. 500 ta:ayetee Road St. Paui, M�nnew�a SSta6. tekphorul612� 2%4a96. SUBMITTING APPLICATION Make sure ma2 y� furnish a�� �+fortnanon mat is reques[etl an0 s9n aM fwiar¢e Ne apphca•,,nn to�m fortnschat are c�cor�ecciy tiued out, a 4ack repuested infy- matron, wdi �use Eelay m your applicata�. AhH Y0u �2ve GomD�eted thC 2PO��C2Iq/�. kCeG thC 1352 COPY IG2naly) aM MP nSINCtiOn ShlY: (Dr Yq+fKO/tl5.8M (M'/Xtl SMltnNining G�GKS with TrvG I5152I5 O( 2q SYPOOrtutg maD5.O4an5. SDKSfKatiOnS. EiC. t0 i1�2 �Ni� REg�Ona10f4�Ct SerWg Y�- Myy aC6P55G5 Can DE IOUf�d On V1C ks[ p39¢. $�c $URE T� INCL�1� AU. APPLICAT�ON FEES WITH YOUR APRlCATION. QUESTIONS If you have any quesnons w� tne Oroceewe lormakmq avv���atwn. pl1,ase contact tne DNRFw�oria10Hice serviny ypu The adEress x�C t��e mxnber of each DNR ofhce can be founC on ihe last page SEE MAP ON OTMER SIDE pF rHis race WATERS OF THE UNtTED STATES 1bu ShouW D¢ awa�e tfut D�o)eCts whiCn wYt c'ndve dtd��dge. eccavaUOn. f•� a�*q0✓A:�eni 01 w�ildnds a watCrs ot (he lhxtP'� SI2IL5. Gven ihOSC rvl1WMS . Msde Of tne ryrrsd�Uro� Of the DNR. maY teQUrcp an ndrvKlual perrtut from S�e US. �.�.'�y CupS o1 EngrtKers. Persons propos.�9 suC� O�qK�s sMaC Contatt tM ReguWtory Funn�ons &ancn, U.S. Artny Cwps ol En9�r�eers. 7135 U.S- Pwt Ott� r�e Custom ttouse, St.?aui. M�mesou SS10t ttekpnu+e:672 �2575571 fa lurthe�ntormatron_ - ' — AdDENDUM — NOTICE TO APPLICANTS FOR DNR PERMfT 70 CHAIVGE THE COURSE, CURRENT OR CROSS-SECTION OF PROTECTED WATERS TAe Depanmenc of Natural Resources IDNRI aM cne PoiWtron Co�2rd Agerx��!'C.�� are waki� tooeihe� to avoid duplicatn�� siare aaency pemut �exiew of prooased actrvmes aHea�ng proteccetl waiers in 1Jdnnemra. Tbe anacFietl fo�m v.�s preoa�� by tl+eDNR and the PCAto �ze yax wak in cantaqing siate a9mcre51or pro�ecl apD�ova�. Rease canpleie fiis form by dacirg an 'X" vn the appropriate bos w bozes. C yar a�o'�t doesmt invaHe anyot the aciionsLtted M this form, ptace an "X" m the 6ox aher nem 9. If you� pro7r[ wdimvGve any of Me act�ons 6sted ior bo:es t tMOUgh H, a wprof ywrpNR p_amt ap�iCanon wilt be tOrwardedtothePOl�utw� Co�trof AgM�Cp IP�AI fw ihe�r revrew. It a separaie PCA pemui or aDO�ova1 is repuiretl. you w�:� be so novf� bv rt+e PCA. P1ace an "X" m tt+e Ooz. if appFCable. 1. The Wo�ec[ vnA mwl�.¢ the tlepOSrt�a+Of aSphaM, ConCrete. Gut vegetation a othr so:i waste as fili materiai. '� 2. TheDro7ectv+ilimvo�veezwvationotmaterialsfromprotec[edwatersmrarntheuseofany0evicewhiChrejnovesmaterwEsWp�anpingOr b.e.�ydraubcdredoingl. ' L 3. The prqect wi�i mvoive ezwvacion of more than t,OpO cuhic yards of mate dt from Cw_ beds of tfie fNtowing waters: a. Lake Pepn on the M�svssipDi River fRrver rrnles 763 to 787 USCE Qarts!. � b. Pool e2 in the Mfssissippi River irom lock 8 Oam s 1 lNe Ford Dam) 20 lnck 8 Oxn � 2(HasYvgs�River mles 725 to 874 USCE pwnsl. � c. flinnesota fLver (rom Savage to ¢s rrwuch ai [he Mississippi krvzr thliie FrG l.5� ftiver tnartt. n tl. DuWth Superio� Harbor and tfie $t. Louis Bay area ol Me St.latis FrvertneMifr._ m Sprtt lake. � e. The Faimwn: chain ot lakes induding Budd, Siseton. Hali, and Amber Laws i+Matin Counry. � t. tilbertLealake,Freebomtam�v � g �VaROad Pover Upper Harbor Area extendmg irwn the mouth o� the �VarnaC Frvr. to CS�+li No. 7 7. � h. Red R�ver o� the North from Wahpetw to the Canad�an bordec � 4. T1�e po�ec[ w;A nvatveezcavation and/a fill inpniec[ed waters fa conacnn�m of �sivry Gnes ra�eyig any materials ezcept veated wate�� a fiquid a semi-solq state. e�Guding but rwt 4mrted to petrdeum or petrpleum Produttt. U�c'rcals. sewage a Coal yurrir,. ❑ 5. The po�c: wiA mvolve cons!ructwn oi Gocks, piers or wharves which wili rn�oive new fue� hxdimg facilities. a b. 7he pro/ect will mvolve riew construction, mconstruction M repair ot sttucives fo� cp�� era;ion af hydrcelectric powec . � 7. The pro�e`t w�ll invofve constructron ot new anuliary facilities for san¢ary uwers, bx. punparts, on-srte waste 2reatment or hddrtv3 tanks- � £. The prqect v+iP mvolve the on•sne 6isposa� by bummg of vegetanon to 6e rr.ww_i d:ring proiect constniction. � ❑ 9. Th= p�o�ect .vdl not involve any of the ebove. C ADa'xan; name ttvce or pnnU ad7ress DIVtSION OF WATERS ADMINIS7RATIVE REGIONS 7 � AEGtON 3 REGION 1 Regional Hydrolooist DNA - Division af W2ters 2it5 Birchmon, Beach Roatl N.E. Bemidji, MN 56601 (218) 7553973 REGION 2 Regional Hydro�ogist DNR - Division of Waters t201 East Ftignway 2 Grantl Rapids, MN"55744 (278) 327-4416 Fiegional Hydrologist GNFi - Oivision of Waters 7501 Minnesota OrivC E:a�nerC. MN 56601 12tE; E2"o-2fiC5 AEGION 4 Fec�onz: Hytlralogist DNF - Drvison Of Waters £�s 75E. Hignway t5 South hew� U�^. Mh 56073 ;SG%� �S<-2t96 REGIDN 5 Regional Hydroiogisi ONR - Division of Waters P.O. Box 6247 Rochester, MN 559Q3 (5�7j 285-7C30 REGION 6 Reg�onal riydrologisl DNR - Division o� Water5 7200 Warner Road S. Paul MN SSt06 (612) 29E-7523 NA—D2622-03 Rev. t2/85 PEBMf7 APPUCA710N Of°ARTMENT oF � TO WORK IK PROTECTED WATERS Otl YIEiLkNDS '^a=�¢����` �IMp.U01M6 DAM SI,FES71 ��--^ NATURAI RESOURCES ► s Please read instructior.s before ariempting to compiete th+s appiication. �� �'/i�✓ OFAICE�USE ONLY. Q$WCD OGC Q W.D. Q{1SCOE I. Applicant 5 Name �Last. First. M.I.) Authonzetl Agent (if appt�cabie) 7elEphone Numberaa.eaccae ( } Address (Street, FFD. Box Number, Ciry. State. Zip Code) I. LOCATION OF PROPdSED PROJECT (BESURE TO INCLUDc SKETCH SHOWIn1G HOW TO GET TO THE SITE} Government Lot(s) fluarter Section(s) Section(s) No. Township(s) No. Range(s) No_ Lot. Btock. Subdivision Fire No.. Box No. or Project Address Counry Project wdtattect p Lake.O WeUantl or O Watercourse (nart+e 8 number. rl knOwn' I�• TYPE OF WORK PROPOSED �CHECK ONE) IY. TYPE O� PROJECT (CHECK ONc) ❑ excavate ❑ repa�r O shoreiine ❑ shore-protection ❑ obstruction D dam � tiil ❑ remove ❑ channel p harbor � 6ridge t7 other ❑ drain ❑ abandon (�., sand b(anket ❑ permanent dock ❑ cuivert {specify) ❑ construct p other (speCify) � install O riprap ❑ whari 1• ESTlMATF� Pti0.{ECT COST $ V1. l£NGTH OF SFfORELiNE AFFECTED t113 FEET)� l. VOLUME OF MATERIAL FILLED OR EXCAVATED (1N CUBIC YARDS)� 1. SRIEF EXPLANAT101J OF PROJECT�(EXPLAIN wHAT PROJECT CONSISTS OF AND HOVt WORK Wlll. BE DONc) X. PURPOSE OF PROJECT: (Explai� � this project is needed) �;=s-��; � �: " '':° , X. ENYIR�MMElfTAI IMPACi (Anticipated changes to the water and related iand resources, inciuding unavoidable but detrimentai effects) !. Ai7ERMATiYES {pther aiternatives to the aciion proposed) II_ i Aereoy make aao�+canon pursuam to Mmnesota Stamtes Cnapter 105.<2 and atl supportmg rules tor a perm�t to work m or attecf tne aAove nameE protecieC . �o«� „� ��� awv, ua,u;e n�ui eu >uuV���ny nmps, pians, ano ome� mrprmaimn suommtd wrt� [�is appli[atiDn 7ne mtormatan suommea ana statemrnts maae concen�ng this appi¢ahon are irue and correp to the Dest of my knowledge. SSATE Of COVNTY OF SuOSCnbM an0 swwn ro Eeture me this day of My commiSSion erpires 79_ S�gnature ot Owner or Autnorqe0 Aqrnt �ate S�gnature oi leasee Date Distribution: S�gnature ot Natary White: ONR Blue: SWCD Green: Watershed Oistrict Goidenrod: Ciry or County Pink: Army Corps o( Engineers Canary: Appiicant ���i laboratories, �. mo nwy.. ua.e �.m Mtnnwpeiia, MN SSf22 P�a� (612) Stt-SSt3 --, f °l'1 •\ao3 Ciient ��lRli N6TDU (��ae 1�h( gy `,IL," Date 3 8- Project STa2Nt WA-T�� '�VtJD�� Sheet No. a{ Subject �a�� � K �vtnwvYre i�' Project No�0224• Z _ . . . - _ : _ : . _ � : - , : � . _ : .:_"___' """—_'—..�'_c .__ _"_ _'_""__' "'__ ' _ __' :'_ '_c_'-_: . [_` __' '_;"_._: : � . . : � -. EST� MAT�D :_-'SA,LLT �CoN Ce1�:T2�Ti O�N .:: _t t. _ S+�owME.LT � - - -- --_ _ .._._._. ._. _... _, _ - --- - - - - - _.� ,.- — _. -- - - -- ---- o:�F —=- _ . ___ _ �__.. . _.�__ ._ ._. ^_ - :--- - ----__ , , _ --- - -. -- _ �..__� -- -- _ ..._---- --_..: . . ._ ._ -- : - - =- =- - - _—; _. ._._ ___ __.._ - - - __�:.___...-- _ - - - -- - ``= - --=-- �- - -- � - - -�--, _.. .. _: _KN.o�N N_=__=�B -- :V S2,cI . _:.S iX _ �ffl> _: __�I-I'1 i r �- V_, . 'f"oY_1 �"�^v c.�cl_oiadSS� : < -- 1 -- - ... ---- ° --.:.__. _ - - �._ ----- -- ---- - _ :...:-.; - -_-,----°f ---.-SaE"t'��SCLn� _mixi'"��e.:. °-=ro � _ - --._.� _ _ _-- - --._ .......... .. .. ..__. :_---• ' --• �-{ _ _. .. .._._..---._._... .._;_ _ -- ----- --� �____�-- _ _ ' -- _ , _. .. - -: - -�; , �t.on. `� is`W r!1�#E.Y :�:.. _. - Th2 _�rn �. �_:i s �._- ` _ . . ..- - -- ___._..- : -• -�rz.c_ _._.__. _.. _ .. . _. _. _ . _: _ .. . .. . ........ _ -. _. _:. _. _._. _... ... _ _ , _.___; _�._=._�__�.�-� �o��. sQ :-._�_--`_---_� :__.__..:-__-�_�} ._..---. . .____ . ... ..�...�_ ___ _ ..._ ,_ _ _ _ _ ._ . ; _.-_-- - ; _ . .. _._---:._:. .;-- _ : .- - .=_.___-,� _ . _ EST1MP�fi�N .'^t�ta:��_. GL � C.vU �EKT�R - i N__5f.iov.wmErc':�zvr�oFF : . _ _._. . .- - . ;.. ._ -�----- - -- - - ___. ._ __. _� _ _ ....�---- - - .. ._ - . --. � .. . .., .."�,ve..rC�F� ."_�/.t�:�'.i'�'2`[`.. �2G�� ��.+iot1 �--- - � � -' - - --- r�_. ° ' R �� c _ _ _ _ __...__. ._._---�.._.. . ._..._ .. ,._... . __. .._.' _ R';r4 e.. c� � ;._. : . : � _.-- ---._Y. _.. _ _ _--•-- .. ..A��-�q� - �_.. _ ._. __. _ : . . ,� -- -:. .. �`o'vi-= � . . _,.. -- . ._ t�rec �p . yn�4-�es _ .._ - -�a.vt JI - --�areu p.-}a�4-i ov� ____. ._.. - . . .: _..__.. . .. . ___ . .. _ � _..... :._. .-., . _ . . _ - - �0.T'�"�Y --- _.. ._�_.. .._.:_ . -- - - -..._ :.- ..i . Z(o �-- _ _ _. .. _ MhPis. = St. Pa. _ ,. NS "iV� ' .. .. . ....... .._ ,.._ . OV.. _. ... __.... . ... .. . . . . - • . . _.��' --.--_.... �...___..._.�.—______ _... _..__. ______._ .__.. __.__ _.t✓w�',-ro?ot�3 Q,Ye.4___.�d _ . _ . _ . -- -... - De_c: : _ _ ...... _.... � . a t - - - - ' . _..__ ___.....;.... .. ...-- - -- . -- -�ro�nd;+�� �'ovr __. ... .. . _ _.. . . _ _.... ._..._. _.._.. _._ . ,.__ _.. __ _---.. ._ - � - -- __ � .._..._.._—: - - - - :SQ.v� ::_:.' _- .._.. ......---.._..�.._ ...... . __� _... _�_�� ' .__ _; �.�.�_�i.._��.-��..r..��.�..�... .. . -.-r�-�.�..._� . ...i.._...__ �.� ..__. . F i . _ ..- ' - - ._-_ .... _ -_�.�2rD.._.; �_. c_..__:.._... __. ._-�--- �---. - -... ... __ _..._...__— � Q.� _ . : . , - . .. .{� .'_.._:-'.__._,_.-._.. . . "'___ ' -'_' _ .,.. . ._ _ _ _ . _ ........_... .,. _ ' .... ... ___ ... ........_ ._.._.'. ... . _... ._ ."'.'.' _' . . ._. ,..... . . � ,.. _ -----.__ �._._Mav-.=-�-`-- � -3L----- --- ---. . .._ .V .__ -- - . �� _� __ ..:...__.. .�._... --•-, . ...__ - - - --- __ ......--- - • --- - - _..� �.�.�:. � --�-- - --- -..._...... _.u..__._�.- --_ . - --- --...F. -- _ __....: . . . _�_. : ._ _.:.._: =._ ..__. . _ _.__--�-�- - -.. _.... . --- - - - �. _ -- ------.��__. __�'T }_'-- 2: 35 . _ . ._ _ .. _ : ._ ... . ..: ... : * �;_� . -- - ------ ---- - -- -- - _._� - -- _� . _ --: -_, .._.: _.�....--- ... __. ..._ - - -�- - ... - �� , — _ _ _ `— , _. _.. _ .. .____..___._.�_..._.......;..__...___To. �:1:.:_° ._.___. �:1? ���t,es.__....___. . _ . -_._. . --___ --` -- __.___._, _ .---�__.._. ---_ _------ -- ---_ ... .__. . _ _. . , �� _ r_.:�-----__ .-� - ---, .. �..._..._----- -. - --- -- --_ , . :._ -. .. .. : . . : .: . ::. � :::_ _ . . . . : . .. � i , : _ .----°� - - .._ i. ZL_LIL'(�T�'p�S_..__.. �.____.._.__-_-._.�__ � ; y : , _ ._ �. _ ---'-._._��. . , � : _ -- -.., . . . - -- -� - �._ - -. -'__ . -' -- - --- :-___..__._...---..->-.._..._...__..,_..---�-'.._,.�.....-_. , - -. -.__. . .._.._. _--.._..--. ._._... - - .. __ ..... _ ., . .: _ . _._' :_ .� LL -i ,....__.__. _ :��_i?o,,;�s:_:5�11". - �hvivafi ._.:- '_ : Y-- �_�:._ ;0:10 S�t_ 3o 2o°o�lbs - - - _ ;� ` _ .. _ ._ -°-� _�.� __ . . - v - - __. . - -- - --- ---- --- -- - --- �� _�- -- , ----=a �H _joad__. _ :_ . ��''. . _ � ='r _...._ _ __...- - - .._ �r.� - - - . . . . :_; » .��..- ��._� —___._... _ T.... �i � --s ..._,_�_ .�.. ; � � . . . . "._... _ .. _. ... . .� .��� ..�.,.... . . . . .��.��.� _ Y ♦ � . �_.. � ----ylE �S�t,v�a.�e:t�=- �'1;.wtQ.�C'-.?r2c:a�o_-�iovn_.�Jrio �:..R�::$�t1-�S'� - = ._._. _.:_.__..._�.___;..._..---°--- -----�-- -- --- - � T_..-. .�.. �--�-- �_ _ _ '._.._--- ...... ..,-_- �_--- - -. _.--- ....� ,..,.. c__. "^ � i � -- a� 2- ivicJ�es-�ec'v ,- -asi-� - �cre - . �t- ra35la�-�S�" r �'t° 4 j` 'x. i - - -- - - � 1 1 �_��.�tl�1�CiDrt�{m'�s _:,..: ,� .-.; s�t�:-- -�,z - � -- - -=.�3 �---- --- - - ��. _ __'_�_'_t___ __._.j--..__.r'_, ...—__�___.__ � " �t�'rC ��/ \ � - . , , _ . . , . . - - -'- -� --� - - �-- .. _�... _ _ -�.. ---- � - ---.._.�_._�_��_._�,--..._ . . , � : _.. . . -_ -- .�-_.__ . . _ . - - ' ' - - - - . :..... �. � � - - .... _._.. . _._ _ _._. -- --' �'-a ;SoD�vM �Co}�G:�- .�3(a,00O Ibs X 23 ,M t�la j� _`'''',9��:.:�_._ = �l_7�8 } int �:ovaME�.? . _r_; 1O . .alivns i-. . _ �JS..4.n �°— . ! . --.PVNOFE. -- ---� --� � -- .. . _ _ �._�aCC --- �.� A'ID �al.^ -- -.�..._�` '- . -_'--. ' -'-:.._ e._ ..:. --� '. --. _ .__.. . ' . . GNLORID��:Co1.lC.. `.� 3��OOO -16 N4C1. v- � : - �-'- (; -- ,� �owm�tr_=: • 1Y X �5.� "� �L X m Q _.c._ .27�_Mf.IX , '' , ,- . . _. .. ..q X�IOb-G4��oNS/yv- . �.�t' rnq ryaC� . . .8�� X�D4Gt� .,� � , tJ .. -_' }ZVAID�F_ '. ' . . . J : __ J J J ' . �1�EZ � � •,� 0 3 ' Ctien t_B . , .Rt_WlaTOM 1foKTNeRN g LB DVD Date 3-8- l aboratories, tr1C. Project �T°�m WArs�C ��•✓o�F Sheet No. pf_ mo oo�y. on,. w�m Sub'ect S�o' /iJ S.vo w/yJEcT MlnmapolFa,MN55t22 1 �Project No �Sa Pl+ena:(612) Saa•SSf3 ' _"'_' '�_�,�_"_�'_. - • --. _: E3T/H!.¢TED . .SE�/MF�/T ?LoAp' .;TO 3/+� �oN� - -- C�rLeu�,�T�o.�s: - - -_-_ _ - _ . � �'t --- . _. .. - -----. .. -- : _ - f� 3s�.ne : .5 A-ND , -- - _ DE�os /Tiow/ ._. ...... _ :_ . - 3F: t�ouN.ps .S�rD UsFa --- : . 0• 90_ `aCne� 3 D. 74� n _" . . ' "54If�Sa�,a�/i1�1'7��e 'lea�/ rsa„d = - -- - ` NwlK�FLLY:" : _" _ ' . X _6 -/oads - - 2r�oo /S -- --- --x�- _ = r. . ... ... . -..Y...: --.'.�a� . �I�° /zo /6�� 3 --- -- - - -. t . -----�_.. _ . = 3a �; .bao" /6: : �'t � . --X - r . . .." ---- -- .... —..`___. {za !6 ------- 2�700 �t`� - r ..:.�_ = D.06z acrc -�t�, . �----- ; : .: ; . . ;._._..... 1/Otvmt;------- _-_' - .-- :._ : .. _---� - ---- - . - .. ._ _ . : � F __�-s¢%5.�^�-t ,� �,�-" : �=- �'.�(`. r —�. _.._.tv._� ���.�- �ft,_o - - _ , , , - �---�-- --- -...------ ------- - - — -- poni 0 - - - - - - -- --- - ---- ,lfc :. . . _- , . . - ---- ---- ^--- � -- - . � • --- _ , i i . . . .. . . .. ... ' '_"'_'._ __ ' �_"__" _' _ __' "� . _. : _. . _ _ _ ' - _ . _ . . . _" __'" "" _ ... � _ ._ �--- , . .- - . . . .-a �� -x /�,2 a�,-es � _ 36 �4�.� - - .__ , __. . ;. . . . , . . ---- - ---- --- --- ----- - _--- - . .___ -- - _ . ._---� - �--- - - -. _ . , . -- - --- __. . -- _ ..--= - _ -. --- - ; __- -- -- ----- � - -. - . - . -: ::-, -_�_. ._ - -... .-.-_-: ._---� , , �----�,---------:___.;_:.__-- _. _--: ------ - �- -----�---- -- �S�A77rsFN�T LO�.D-- - -- = - -_ -- --- � - -- - � - -- - - _�_ r-� ;_^-------- - - , --- - _ .�- = -- _ - - - --.... . . _ � • - �- ---. ., .. . .. :.- - - - - - - 4 :ob-Z ..GGrt:- � s��y�- . '- ---- ' TD-�..Pon/.�._. _.. ._.._. _ - -- �- - - __. ... . __; - - - ' '-----: _ - --- - - • - . . . , . --� --- -. _ . _ • ... _ � . , --- --- -- 3 t . d; 4 �%,� - - —P°'�'f _ . . . _ .— __� � ----- - � - -_ - ' '— _' - - . _. .. - -- - .. �._ . _._ - ---= - ; _ . . . - - -�- � ..- - . _._ _�.. I-- --- - = -----�- - ' ' ' � �. r---------.:.:..:_- ::---_. ..- ----. . _ --- -_--_ : _ ' '- .---- -� . _---} , -- - • - • - - O/' -- -O. � ye---a-nnua.7/y . :: — - ----- ----- - 7 ..- - -. . . . . - `.-- -- �---- -. _. . . . -- -- -------� : _ .. - - . . - - - . _ _.. ___.. - �•--- +- _.. __..;. . . -_ / i ... . . , - -- --- - -- ------ * --- -- - - . _ :._ , - . - - - � . ... _. _..__ . . _- - -- -- -- ----- . _ ._.. .___ . , , - ... ...... ....... --- - -�----°=--=--- --=-- -- - - ; : .. �.'-_—.--_... - - = =-- - . . - --=-- - ----_ : _:_� , -- - ..._____--�--�--- , .._ .- ---- --. - •-- -- - - -- t , - - --- - - �-•--- -- , ._.� --.. . ..--• - ------ -- a-�-- - -�+ . , - -- _:- : ---- - �------�---- : � � : -�._�_..__ .._--" " ..-_�__ : :.-.� -� -- - �- - i -- ---- � - - .. . . � _ . . T --"-- — ' -- - '—'—... . _ . _ . . _, __.. � , _ _ _ '_ • � � � • - - - - '--- -�_. .__ _...__ . . -- - - ---- - - jA_,-__c _'_._.._'._"___4. . , . ..__ ____ � _'.. _ . ' � J ' _'____ : , . � ' � - � . :.. � . . . _ _ �---�"_" "_' '_'_' . _ ' . .. __ . . _ "'_' . . ' '__'_... .. _.. ' _ . ' . . � . . .. ...' ' " ' "'_"'__._— ' ' ' ' "'_'_ . . . : � � "" "'� ' ' _ _ "_. ' ' __ . .�'_"__.�__ . _ . _ _ . -a „'" ' '__ ' . ".: . f . • , ! . .� , . ...__... . ____' . ... � � � . . . . '_" i �___�'_..�.r'__"_..... _..�_—..— ' _ • ' _ __ ....-.. _ _ . . —__'—�_^__—'—_ )�—'_'_'_" " " "_._. . . ._�_' � " _' �" , . � . . __ . . . - ' "' " "___. _ , . . . - • ___' ' '— ' ' -' - - : , ..�.. _. � __ . . .. : . . . . ' . . ..._ _ _ . . .. _ �.. s , __' _' .. .. � � ' '_. ' _ ' _ ' " ' _. .. . , � - . . . . ' ' . ' ' _' ' ' _ " ' . . .. .. . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . .. ' ' t--'_" : _ " ' . .. .. . . __ . : . . . . � ' "_. - ... _ _ . ... _' . . { . . � � . . . . . . . ... ... ....... � . .3 _____" "'"" �� ___' ' ' __"'"___�'_"_" '_'_"___'_ �1" ' ' _ . . : ' . _ . . . -'_'_'..__. _"' "_�'' ".`. "'_ ____"_""""'__' �— _ -.� _ .. . . .. . . . . _ . _ . . - ' . . . ' ' ' t - . . . . . . " ' , ... . . . . . . . . : . _ . . . _ . ' r.___'_ "' _ . ... _ _ __ "_ _" '_ ' "' .. _ .._ . - ._ _ ..'� _ ' '__-,-"""_'__'_' . p__"'_ . . : . . . . . . . .. , . , . __' _"_ .__. '"_ .._,_ _ ... �._"_ _'. . . -, _ . . i . . . ; . ' � _ . " ' . . � . � , ; . � _" " ' t___" ' _ . � . • . . . . . . . . l " ,��� g laboratories, �. mo oa ch.. Ham Mlnn�apWU. MN SSa22 PhoM: (612) Sft-SSf3 °l'1-I�o3 Client ����N �✓oGrN��n/ gY JLD DP Date3-�-c Project S��^' ���'� ��^'"�F Sheet No. of_ Subject Or� f�6�cE�fS'F C"o�JC6reNS Project Na B�Z2�S/.Z� Cvl2E�/T VS, f� it0✓E�TF� OiL ;./s2Ef}SE° Lp�D � - . - --- —� -- -- - . _. _ _. _ . . . . . . . �-- _ _.. .. ._.._. .. _ ._:. ,. . . ..... , . ._ t ' -- - ;L'u<t�MT C. DAD _ . . _ : . ' _ - • - ----- ----�- -- ---- � - -- -- -- -------�---- __ :. .. __..:_ . . . :--- -� • - - -- - -.... , _ . . • --- • . . .. .... ._ '_ . - - . ��� . - -: :- - -: . . bo0 - a!/6»s :o:{� c/v�i�Tlc� oi � ' ��± rcai �P�/i4�_ ' _ : : �-- : ._. :.__...._ 5 ...--=- ` _._.... _ , •.—_.._,-..'_� vr_ : A�K:s f .._ G C� L � !o %-._ _ - : . -- • - � - - -- �__— ---�----.. . --- --... . .._--.- _ . .. . . _ _ .. .. . - - -- � . _ .. . . . , ... - -- . ... . - -- • :-- -- -� -- � ..�SSnMG ' � � � - - ' . . . ._ _. . - -_� , . �.x..: �___ - -- _. __ `.---- -- --- _.__._... . �._-_v.9 - :. _,. -- ---- - --- ._.. - - - . . .._._._ _._. � ...... .. -- .- -: , _ -- __..� : - � - --_ - - - . .. - . . .. _ --- ----. . _ ... _.: f�mo:.nLF' ��.ifX��eq�� i/� icfna� __ , - �i _ ;.. ... _.__. -. . . ":- � _:. � • � - -- ---- --'-- � -' � .,,---�----�------- - . _..---_-'_ _-- -- - - . . � - -- _ . . ..:_.. _. __ �---*--- -------------_�...—; _ . : - /9, Gd0 w.� . . . . : ' . : . ... ' _ : . .: _ : . -'� - � ... . . ._ . _._._. - ._ J---- . ._... . _ - . . , - . . .. .._..x O: 90=;; _-8� 3� -/6=- - � - . .._.: _ _ - --x .,__._�:—__ �-_ ._`�_ . -5 - y- _ - . . . . - - _-._ . . � /o . . :. Y. . ... . : _ a/---•--- ---- -- -- - _.__ ------ _. ...__. _._. 5--. -- . _ . : . _ . . . _. . . . . -- -:_.__._ . . - -. ,- - .. eoa y�o , - -------------- --------� --=- --o' /.''- te'uSG --,. :_ . .__. - - - _ ._ . .. -- - - ------ --' , . _.....�_ - ' •- -- - - -- - - - - � � - __ _.._. . ; y r -- - --; - � --- - . _. . -- = .._--- -�- ---�- - -._:. . � - -- ---- K'o�F�TE � ----;---- -- � -- - � -- - . . _ ;_ � - - -- - - -- --- -- - - - --- -- _. . . . �.�_� _ .. , . _- __.__ _ . _.... _. . ..__ ' ss...nE - -G.c� - -- �-----; ---- . __ -- — G �eF E�- ..v.r . _ Si..,, a: �r�; - - T° - : '�..._�.__ . � '�uN=o�F �._. �___ _....._.._...--- ------ � -'- - i----- �F _ m3� �. .. y�'.e.r .. ; . �.--- ._._� ::- _ - - -_::_ -=i =:__-� _.. - -- _. , , - � - ---------- ,.. :.. . ' -'--_-�_-�--------'--� �._... . `- - .. . _----� sz�G� _s?�c: _-i � G� E fts E_ C,orv�N7X.4�/� _.. . . .--- -- � -- � - - - =-- -- _. t . . . . . . - - - - �. _�.---! 'FE �RGE�. -- —___-------'-.-_..--'.,;..__..._..; __ Ie. _ .._a �_, ..� - '-- � ' - - - . __ _- - `---- -' ; --=--' _. ._- ---...... . - • -- --- - - •_ _ - - ` -_. _-- - - - --�-- -- : -_ ---- - � _,�_:.r—�� .:- - . _ _. ___ _ _ - . ,-__ � --------- - --- ___ -�- . ' - -_ . , � . . - ---X - - ..__. _..T__...._; . .�I_.-----�- .._5'9_ ;y ;a�•-�s� ---; , ----------- - - - - -...- ---- --- t----�---- .._.._�_.--: ' __- --- • ----- --•-• ----� , . � , �--- � -- - - ---- • � --------� . ;- : - ----- -- - -� - — ---- -- � , - -. - -._,___..�_'_ - - -- - - Y-- ---- -- =-----�/ S6D-- _____.:�----- � �' j--_____;__ , 3 rt� _, �l�'_ ; - _-- - - - : - - - -- - : ... - --- - —° " � ' ---_._--__, __-- - - - ,�B _ s r------ - �----- - - _ - �__ 'R� - -`--- ;- --1---- --------a�.•-o:.-.�;_.-_� . 'x�.-�:=--38.7_n?�i�.o�.iGx//.:r�, �,�_ — -- - ; . _ ----�--�--•-- ------ --- -- . r-=- - - -��' - -- . . --- - � � -- - - ._ � -_;-----� -i-- _. -------�---- ' , ----- --- �- ------�--- . ,�- ----_ . --- --�,-- - - - -- - -- . .. . ----. _ _._._ _ . _ _. _ _ . . , =.'. � . - _ . . -- - --�-- - - - �----- . . - .----__�_._ ,.. . . ; -- - -� - . _. . --- - ---- , -- . � -.O� /-,�:�are-Loaa�.� _ • -- -� -- -,� - ' _ � --- � ' - - r- ____—__--=-- - �- � ----' - " � �-_ _ ----- -- - � - - - � - i ----�-- - - - - -- --- � - -- - - - - -- . ;- . . . - - ` - - -..._.. i- � --• -- --�_ ' } . � • ; • ' . : , _ �,'-:�i , : - --'-- -----. �-___ -=�•8: -7'-m �/�p, - _ =�3— - --- --- --- = ---- �--=' � . � -- *_-•---- - - �-• t • - . . _ . �i%/:i, - -- y ,'SoO ! ---'- -- ---- Y --`- ` —�'---- �— --�-- � � 3 . -i . -- ' -_� t � - . , , _ _..� � � --- . -___--• -----r— ' . ----; - • . . . .. . . . . .. . ..- - ---��- - ' , J ; _-_.__..---�--------- -- • �-----;.-.. _ '.---.-. . _._�..- --•-•- � -- � r---==:.-P2d�EcT�D -_..,-:--3Soo�/l.� �-_ ;- � ; - • -- :._ ' .: _-i.:.'�.; ,_. -,. 4 -- �- --�- - - ..; , - ---•- - - :_.r__ - :- _--, - - = � . . . _._ _ . . , ..._ -� , ---._.---:_-- ..: . .. .:..........:--,-•----.=���,.. -• - , - ---------- ---�-___ _�_— ,--- � . . _ . .- - - .. . . � : -- . __ _ _ ...__ . ..; - =- �- - . ._;----- r- - - • • - - --- -.. ._ � t _ : -- +-- ---: , ; ,Po1FeT�D'" o��_ sri.».ir� ,. _ ' 'G`✓�¢RFNT - ' ' --... :._._ ._.. -�-- • - .. . . ._ : - `---' ,- . . `.�pv�__fyoo�_yj.--�:.... _ ..... . . _ ....__; r- _•------------' � � To B E � S•�o So7 . , -_-'-_ � - - - -_ --- ._ , --- _- _ ,_... ---- - -- ..._. ... . 4.� ... . _ � . ...; - ..� .� i . . � ,- � � � . . � . . . . . . . . . . . . . � �� _ .I � , PUG-29-1997 69�14 . .� � �� q�„�go3 REASO?dS TO DENY THE AppEAI, OF FRANK WALLNER • ZOI3ING �TLE NO. 97-192 SAINT PAT3L LEGISLATIVE CODE § 64206(a) PROVIDES THE CIIY COIJ�TCII, W(TH Tf� POWER TO DECIDE APPEAi,S FROM DECISIONS OF Tf� BOARD OF ZONINGr APPEALS (BZA). SUCH APPEALS ARE LIMITED TO CLAIMS OF AERTZOR IN ANY FACT, FII�ING OR PROCEDURE ON TI� PART OF THE BZA. ----- SAINT PAUL LEGTSLATI'VE CODE § 64.207 PROVIDES THAT THE CI'TY �OUNCIL, WFiEN HEARING APAEALS FROM B7A DECJSIONS AMAY REVERSE OR AFFIRM, WHOLL'Y 012 PARTLY, OR MAY MOD�'Y ... THE DETERMINATIQN APPEALED FROM AND MAY MAKE SUCH ORDEIt, REQUIREMENT, DECISION OR DETERMIl�IATION AS OUGHT TO BB MADE.o MR. WALLNER'S APPEAL RAISED TfiREE BASIC ISSUES. TTiE ISSLTES ARE SLR'vIlvlARiZED IN MR. BEACH'S JIJi,Y 30, 1997, ADVISORY MEIvIO TO THE CITY COUNCII. AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE. FOR TF� FOLLOWlNG REASONS I WOULD MOVE TO DENY MR. WAI,LNER'S AYPEAL. FIRST, TT�RE WAS NO ERROit AS TO ANY PROCEDUI2�. MR. WALLNER WAS • GIVEN TIiE OPPOItTUNITY TO PRESENT TESTIMONY ON THE MATTERS HE FT12ST PRESENTED TO THE BZA. W1TH RESPECT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEN`I' WORKSHEET{EAW}, TT� BZA DID NOT CONSIDER THE EAW AND IT IS NOT PART OF THE RECORD OF DECISION OF THE BZA. SECOND, TI�RE WAS NO ERROR OF FACT. TfIE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO Ti� BZA WITH RESPECT TO PARKING VS. STORAGE CAUSED THE BZA TO CONCLUDE THAT TRAILERS WERE PARKED AND NOT STORED. NO 01`I�R CREDIBLE EViDENCE WAS PRESENTED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH VJOULD DEMONSTRATE ERROR ON Tf� PART OF Tf� BZA WITI-I RESPECT TO THIS ISSUE. THIRD, THERE WAS NO ERROR IN FINDINGS. TF� BZA CONCLLJSTON TT�AT BNSF PARK TRAILERS ON TI� SITE, IN LIGH'T OF TI� OPR�IIQN OF BZA STAFF AND THE OPII�]ION OF T�3E CITY ATTQRNBY ADVISING BZA STAFF, IS BASED UPON A REASONABLB It�TERPRETA"I"�ON f?� THE ZOI3ING CODE. THE BZA'S FINDINGS AR� NOT ETtTtON�OUS GTVEN TFTE FACTS PTtESENTED. FOR ALL THE A$OVE REASONS, YOU CQULD MOVE TO DENY TI� APPEAL AI�TD ADOPT AS THE FACTUAL BASIS SUPPORTING YOUR DECISION, THE FINDINGS STATED ABOVE AS WELL AS TIiE FINDII3GS OF 'I'HE BZA iN TiiIS MATTE.R. THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT MR WALLNER HAS NQT RAISED VERY IMPORTANT • QUESTIONS CONCERNING BNSF'S CONDUCT AT THE MIDWAY HUB FACILfTY. SY RUG-29-1997 09�14 .. .. BNSF'S OWN ADMISSION BEPORE TI� CTTY COUI3CIL, BN�F HAS, IN TF� PAST, � STORED 'T'R An.RR c ON THE PROPERTY IN EXCES3 OF SEVEN DAYS. THIS IS A CLEAR VIOLATION O� THE ZONII�TG CODE AS It3TERPRETEb By TFIE BZA. BI�35F CANN07 CREATE ITS OWN FREE FLOATING LAND USE CLASSIFICATION BY DECIDE WHERE AND WE�TT TT WII.L PARK TRAII,ERS AND WHERE AND WHEN IS WILL STORB T12AILERS ON TT3E PROPERTY. THIS IS NOT AN ACCEPTABL$ STATE OF AFFAIRS. Tf� CITY, NOT BNSF, DETERMINES HOVJ LAND IS USED AND WHAT THE LANU ZOI�IING CLASSIFICATIpN MIGHT BE. - TO THAT ENB, THE SE�EN DAY DIVIDING LINE BE1'WEEN PARKING AND - STORAGE AS DETERMII�rED BY Tf� BZA FOR LAND ZONED INDUSTRIAL IS T00 LONG. A SEVEN DAY PERIOD IS ALSO UNREALISTIC IN THAT IT MAKES ZONING COMPLIANCE DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO E�tFORCE. IN THIS CASE, BNSF STOOD BEFORE THE COUNCIL AND ADMITTED T�iAT IT HAD, UNDER THE SEVEN DAY DIVIDING LINE DISTINGLIISHING BETWEEN PARKING AND STORAGE AS ADOPTEb BY THE BZA, ALLOVJED TRAILERS TO REMAIN ON THE LAND IN QUESTION FOR A PERI01� OF TIME TN EXCESS OP SEVEN DAYS. THIS CONSTIT[3TES A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE ZONING CODE FOR THIS PARCBL OF LAND. TN ORbEIt TO RESOLVE THIS SIIUATION, I WOLTLD CALL FOR A SUSPENSION OF • TFIE RULES AND INTRODUCE A RESOL'LT'TTOI� FOR T�IE COUNCIL CONSII}ERATIpN WHTC�i WTLL CALT. POR ZONING STAFF TO EXAMIIdE AND CLARIFY �D�� G CODE WITH RESPECI' TO THE TIME DISTINCTION BETWEEN $�?����1 ° STOR.AGB AND TO SUCH CHANGES TO THE ZONING CODE SO THAT TLT,EGAL CON]7L7CT, LI TFiAT ADMITTED TO BY BNSF AT ITS MiDWAY HUB FACII,ITY WII,L NOT OCC IN THE FU1`URE. ��Q Go-N---�--�---<1 - , w�� � • .� c.� �.-�-� � `,-� Y� �� �,�_►303 TOTRL P.94 q�-���� Frank X. Waliner 1698 Taylor Avenue • St. Paui, MN 55104 August 7, 1997 Dear City Council Members: Thank you for the opportunity to present my position regarding the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe (BN/S� Hub facility. - i appreciated your decision to lay over this case for one week. Unfortunately I wiil be on vacation aIl ne� week. Consequentiy, I respectfully request that you consider the fotlowing information prior to making a decision on my appeai. 1. In a January, 1995 report to the Metropolitan Councii entitled " Twin Cities intermodal Terminal Needs Stud�' the authors talk at length about the importance of storage at intermodal freight yards. Please see the enclosed page 23 from that report. Storage of semi-trailers is in fact a vitai park of BN/SF's operations. 2. Although BN/SF's position is that land east of Snelling is for parking areas, they fail to mention that the parking areas are also used for storage. The report to the Metropolitan Councii cleariy talks about the use of parking spots for storage. Piease � see the attached pages 37 and 38. , 3. As you may recali, the attorney for BN/SF criticized my reference to aerial photos to show that trailers were being stored east of Snelling Avenue. Please recalf that just a fe;v rr°ir.�t�:, iater :`:, same attorney r�ferenced an Gir Fhcto to prove BN/SF's position that trailers were always parked east of Snelling Avenue. i trust that you realize the contradiction in his argument. if the City Council decides that BN/SF can park trailers easi of Sneiling Avenue I ask that you require at least the following: 1. BN/SF should provide monthly reports on the length of time each trailer is parked east of Snelling to the Hamline Midway Coalition. BN�F staff stated that such � information is available. This information would allow residents to monitor and confirm rf trailers are in place for less than a week. 2. The area east of Snelling Avenue is zoned as I-1. Parking in an !-1 area is a conforming use - not a legal nonconforming use. As such, the St. Paul Zoning Code � (Sec. 62.104) requires that a Site Plan be submitted for review and approvai, and � ultimately ailows for pubtic comment. A Site Plan specific to the parking of trailers east of Snelling was never submitted. A Site Plan for the expansion of the BN/5F hub was submitted in 1987. However, BN/SF's attomey stated that the Site Plan only proposed a truck entrance east of Snelling and was not for parking. The Newel Park neighborhood was never given the opportunity to comment on BN/SF's use of land east of Sneiling Avenue - a use that resulted in a significant increase in noise for residents. Requiring a Site Plan wouid help ensure that BN/SF's use of land east of Gnelling for parking meets storm water runoff, set back, screening, and dust suppression rQquirements, as�,veli as precautions when handling hazardous materials. —According to BN some trailers that go through the facility contain hazardous materiais (ref. page 10 of EAW). Thank you for taking the time to consider these points in addition to my testimony at the City Council meeting. If you have not already done so, please read over pages 22 to 44 in the packet presented to you. And finally, please realize that this is an important issue not just for me, but for all Newel Park residents. Sincerely, L ����L�1C� � �, Frank X. Wallner cc: Kathy Lilty, Hamline Midway Community Organizer Wendy Lane, LIEP i � � � � Council File # t" f -13 d 3 Green Sheet # b073 / RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 34 40 Referred To Committee: Date WF�REAS, �rank Wallner, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.204(a) filed an administrative appeal from a deterinination by the Saint Paul Zoning Admuustrator concerning the legal status of semi-trailers located at 1701 Pierce Butler Route and commonly known as the Burlington Northem Sante Fe (BN5F) Midway Hub Facility East of Snelling Avenue; and lo WI3EREAS, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.204, the Boazd of Zoning Appeais (BZA) conducted public hearings on May 5, 1997 and June 2, 1997, and at the conclusion of these public hearings, the BZA, in BZA Resolution No. 97-076 dated June 16, 1497, upheld the Zoning Administrator's determinafion that the semi-trailers located at the BNSF Midway Hub Facility East of Snelling Avenue are "pazked" as distinguished from "stored" and are, therefore, a legal non-conforming use of the said properry. Accordingly, the BZA denied the appeal of Frank Wallner. The BZA based its decision, as substantially reflected in the hearing minutes, upon the following: 1. The semi-trailers on BNSF's properry East of Snelling are used at least once a week based on staff inspectlons of the site, information from a metropolitan counsel study, and information from BNSF. Trailers used on a weekly basis constitute "parking" rather than "storage". Therefore, the semi-trailers on BNSF's property East of Snelling are "parked" rather than "stored". Because the trailers are parked and not stored, they are not subject to the requirement that outside storage be at least 300 feet from residentialiy zoned property. 2. BNSF's intermodal freight operation was a permitted use in the late 1980's when the trailers were first brought to the area East of Snelling. The trailers meet a11 the zoning regulations that were in effect at that rime. However, BNSF's operafion became a legal non-conforniing use in 1992 when intermodal freight operations were made a use that required a special condit3on use permit in an I-2 Zoning District. Therefore, the area being used for the trailers cannot be expanded. In addition, if the trailers were to remain on the site in excess of one week, they would be considered storage and be in violation of the requirements that outside storage be at least 300 feet from residentially zoned property. �t?-13o3 2 WI-IEREAS, on June 17, 1997, Frank Wallner, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Pau1 3 Legislative Code § 64.205, duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the BZA's June 16, 4 1997 determination and requested a hearing before the Council of the City of Saint Paul for the 5 purpose of considering the determivation of the BZA; and 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 WI-IEREAS, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64.205 -§§ 64.208, and upon norice to affected patties, public hearings were duly conducted by the Council of the City of Saint Paul on August 6, 1997 and August 20, 1997, wherein all interested parties were given an opportuniTy to be heard; and �VHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paui, on September 3, 1997, having considered the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the BZA and the testimony received during the public hearing DOES HEREBY; RESOLVE, that the decision of the BZA in this matter be upheld based upon the following findings of the Council: Having heazd the pubiic testimony and considered all the records filed in this matter, the Council finds first that there was no error of procedure on the part of the BZA. Mr. WalLner was given the opportunity to present testimony to the BZA on matters presented to the Zoning Administrator. Second, there was no enor of fact. The evidence presented prompted the BZA to conclude that the trailers were parked and not stored. No evidence was presented demonstrating enor on the part of the BZA's factual conclusions. Finally, there was no error 3n findings. The BZA's conclusion that BNSF parks, rather than stores, trailers on the subj ect property is a finding based upon a reasonable interpretation of the zoning codes and the Council accordingly adopts and incorporates as its own the Fmdings of the BZA as set forth in BZA Resolution No. 97-076; AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above findings, that the appeal of Frank Wallner be and is hereby denied; AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, despite this denial of the appeal by Frank Wallner, it is apparent to this Council that BNSF, by its own admission, has in the past stored, rather than parked, semi-trailers on the subject properiy in violation of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. The City wi11 not tolerate future violations. To that end, BNSF has stated its willingness to wark with the City and the District 11 Community Councii to ensure that future violations will not occur on the subject properiy. In particulaz, BNSF stated that it will provide monthly reports of trailer movements at the Midway Hub Facility. The City Council thoroughly expects BNSF to abide by its word not only on this particulaz point but also with respect to BNSF's professed commitment to insure against future violations; AND, BE IT °�7-17fl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 FURTI-�R RESOLVED, that the will of this Council, as expressed in Council File No. 97-1099, requesting the Saint Paul Planning Commission to review the present zoning ordivauces goveming pazking and storage for the purpose of clarifying the distinction beiween pazkiug and storage and for the purpose of shortening the present bright line time period between pazking and storage is hereby reiterated; AND, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Frank Wallner, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, the Zoning Administrator, the Planuiug Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals. Requested by Department of: Adopted by Council: Date _,`�q� Adoption Certified I�y Council Secretasy By` �`°— � Approved by Mayox: Date t, � it441^ By: Form Apgro d 6y City Attorney By: .�.����. Approved by Mayos fox Submission to Covncil By: 3y: coun�il Councilmember Megard 266-8640 October 29, 1997 � x�weae wrt TOTAL # OF SIC3NATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET OEh�RT1BIfcncClat q.'1-�� No 60'7�9 an�capaa ❑ CRYAAObEY ❑ LIIYGDIN ❑ mawuuamurESOn. ❑ rrwtu�mnnKCro ❑wro�eton.wur.rm ❑ {CUP /(LL L�CATIONS FORSIGNATURE) Finalizing City Council Action taken September 3, 1997, denying the appeal of Frank Wallner to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals on the legal status of semi-trailers on Burlington Northern's intermodal hub facility, 1701 Piezce Butler Route. PLANNING COMMtSSION C16 COMMITTEE CNIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF TRANSACTION SOURCE lias thie P�su�rm everwdkeE untler a coMmet fortfiie departroeM? YES � Has mis o�sorJfirm ever been a cllv emPbyee� , vES NO Does Ihis Persw�firm 0�8�%a sldli not rwrmallYP� M anY curteM utY emDbyee9 YES NO Is Mis persoMrm a tarqeted vendWt � YES NO COSTrttEVENUE BUD6EfED (CIRCLE ONq ACTNRY NIIMBER YEE NO (p�WN) OFFICE OF'I'f� CITY ATTORNEY PegBir75 CityAttorney �A �) 303 ! CITY OF SAINT PAUL N�rm Coieman, Mayor Civi1 Division 400 City Hall IS West KelloggBlvd. Saent Paui, Minnesota 55102 Telephone: 612 266-8910 Facsimik: 612 298-5679 October 16, 1997 Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretuy Saint Paul City Council Room 310 Saint Paul Ciry Hall RE: Appeal of Frank Wallner of BZA Resolution No. 97-076 pertaining to BNSF Midway Intermodal Facility. BZA File 97-192. Dear Ms. Anderson: Attached please find the signed original of a resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in the above entitled matter. The resolution should be placed on the Council's Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Very truly yours, ���/��,�,.�. Peter W. Warner a�-13o3 ay ■ SPENCE, RICKE & THURMER, P.A. Suite 600, Dea ee of Honor Building 325 Cedar Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612-223-8000 Fax 612-223-8�03 Glam OlanderQuamme D'�xectUial: (612) 292-3359 August 2Q 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310, City Hall St. Paul, MN 55102 TAOMAS W. SPENCE NLNS W. GERNES .4amiaed i� �.L�`, wf Admitted m'.�LV, WI MEG.4N K. RICKE GLENN OLANDER-Qi7ANIl�1E wdm,ua�n�vn wamma�x,�,wi SliSAN D. THURMER DIANE P GERTH Adm�dinbPLW'[A. A�uedivMiv,Wt ALFONSE I. COCCHIARELLA TIMOTHY K. MASTERSON Admittedin`.L�.�4i AdminedinSi� PATRICK 7. SWEEN naa�uta �a �, cn, m TERRLE J. WII.LIAMS KERRY S. BURT SHARI A. WII,LIAMS CHERYL W. TECHAR HFLENA.ROEN SHARON L. TAYLOR Psmle3als VIA MESSENGER Re: Zoning File �l9-192 (Wallner/Burlington Northern) Burlington Northern Midway Aub Zoning Appeal of Frank X. Wallner City Council Hearing Date: August 20, 1997 Our File 0514 Dear Ms. Anderson: I enclose an original and ten copies of a letter that should be inciuded in the file materials to be considered by the Council in the above matter. It is my understanding that you will provide copies to the Office of the City Attorney and the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection. If that is inconect, please let me lrnow immediately, and I will arrange to send them copies. Thank you for your assistance in this matCer. Very truly yours, C% �y� ,.r.r Glenn Olander-Quamme GOQlllblmidway/anderson cc: (wlenc.) Dennis W. Wilson, Bsq. Richazd L. Ebel Ray Robinson Michael L. Burke John Ackerman Brian 7. Sweeney �'1-l�� ■ SPENCE, RICKE & THURMER, P.A. Suite 600, Degee of Honor Building 325 Cedar Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 672-223-8000 FaY 612-223-8003 THOMAS W, SPENCE NLNS W. GERNES Adwtt d in 4L�, W[ Admii[� in �L\, WI MEGAN K 12ICKE GLENN OLANDER-QUA.uLME .w�nw �a M, wi ad�mea in �, vn SliSPvLD.THU&�R DIANEP.GERTH AdwnwmY.F,w"4FL ndm;¢w�vhLV,wi AJ..FONSE S. COCCHIARELLA TIMOTHY K?rIASTERSON Admived in �, WI .4tlmared w n1� Glenn OlanderQuamme Di�ct Dial: (612) 2923359 August 20, 1997 Cl� C011IlCll City of St. Paul Room 310, City Aall St. Pau1, MN 55102 PAIRICK i SWEENEY Adm�ned in �, C.1 CO Re: Zoning File #9-192 (Wallner/Burlington Northern) Burlington Northern Midway Hub Zoning Appeal of �ank X. Wallner City Council Hearing Date: Wednesday, August 20, 1997 Our File 0514 To the Honorable Members of the St. Paul City Council: TERRIE J. WII,LIAMS KERRl' $. $1JRT SHARI A. WILLSAMS CHERYL W. TECHAR HELEN A. ROEN SHAAON L. 7AYLOR Pa�ategats I represent The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF), formerly lmown as Burlington Northern Railroad Company. During the last Council hearing on this matter, the Council requested certain additional informafion concerning the parldng of semi-trailers on that portion of BNSF's Midway Intermodal Hub located east of Snelling Avenue. For purposes of simplicity, I refer to that area as the Pazking Area. The Pazking Area is used for the temporary placement of semi-trailers pending their re- use. Those trailers are valuabie business assets, and it is in BNSF's best interest to use them as much as possible. If they sit idle, they do not generate revenue. Accardingly, BNSF has a very real economic interest in seeing that the trailers are parked for as little ume as osn sible. Indeed, in an ideal world, trailers would be parked for mere minutes, if at all. The cri6cal point is that BNSF is using the Parking Area to temporarilv place uailers on a short-term basis, with the expectation and desire that they will be used as quickly as possible. BNSF's analysis of trailer parking at the Midway Hub is consistent with BNSF's desire and intention that the trailers not sit idle. That analysis indicate that trailers aze pazked on average for 3.5 days or less. We believe BNSF's use of the Parking Area constitutes "parking" under any reasonable, legal definition of that term. � Q'1-4�0� An example may help to illustrate why we believe BNSF's use is by definition parking, as opposed to storage. When I place my car in my garage, T expect to use it again in the near term -- perhaps tomorrow, perhaps a week from now. In other words, I am temporarily �mrking my car in the garage, just as BNSF is narlanQ trailers in the Pazking Area. My friend Dick, on the other hand, has a vintage Thunderbird that he uses only in the summer. During the winter, he rents a heatefl space in a downtown building, puts the car up on blocks, drains the oil, and covers it with a tarpaulin. Dick does this because he does not intend to use the car again in the near term. He is storine the car, not parking it. We beHeve that the key to the pazking/storage issue is BNSF's purpose and intent in placing the trailers in the Parldng Area. Since that purpose and intent is re-use in the near term, the use is parking, not storage. At the last hearing, the Council asked for further information conceming the historic use of the Pazking Area. BNSF has been parking trailers in the Parking Area since 1987. PrSoz to 1987, BNSF usefl the Parking Area as part of an automobile marshaling facility; that is, a facility where new automobiles were unloaded from railcars, parked, and later picked up by trucks for delivery to automobile dealerships. In 1987, the automobile marshaling facility was moved from the Midway Aub to BNSF's Dayton's Bluff facility. As automobile parking was phased out, trailer parking was phased in. Thus, the Pazldng Area was in use for trailer parking as early as 1987. By 1991, the entire Pazldng Area was paved and in use for trailer parking. That use was a legal use ancillary to the intermodai operations at the Hub. The use became a legal nonconforming use when the Zoning Code was amended in late-1992 to create special wning for intermodal facilities. During the hearings before the Boazd of Zoning Agpeals and the Council, there has been some discussion of fencing along the southerly edge of the Parldng Area (i.e., the area long Pierce BuUer Route east of Snelling). BNSF originally intended to begin construction of the fence this summer. However, given Mr. Wallner's appeal, Tom Beach of the Office of License, Inspec6ons and Environmental Protecrion (LIEP) suggested that BNSF might want to defer construction of the fence until the appeal was resolved. Unfortunately, the appeal is still pending, thereby placing the construction schedule in jeopardy. BNSF has therefore determined to proceed with the construction of the fence notwithstanding the lack of a formal resolution of this matter. Construction will start shortly after Labor Day and is expected to take approximately two months to complete. The fence has been designed to shield the Parking Area from view from the Pierce Bufler Route and wil] be similar to a fence installed some months ago on BNSF's Dale Street property. Mr. Beach is familiar with the design and can provide further details if the Council so desires. The estimated construction cost is in excess of half a million dollars. At the conclusion of the last Council meeting, the City Attorney was asked whether occasional violations of the 7-day "bright line" rule would result in forfeiture of 2 q� _��a3 BNSF's legal right to park uailers in the Pazldng Area. BNSF has considered the issue and submits that the answer is no. I have a friend who lives in a St. Paul neighborhood where the houses were buiit prior to the enactment of setback requirements. Those houses are legal nonconfornring uses. One of the neighbors built a deck without fust obtaining a permit. The deck extettded beyond the setback line and was a clear violation of the Code. (See Zoning Code § 62.102(d)(2) ("A nonconfornvng use shall not be ... extended to occupy a greater area of land"}.) If one assumes that a violation of the Code triggers a forfeiture of the legal nonconforming use, then the proper result in that case would have been to require the violator to tear down the house, as well as the deck. Such a result would offend both common sense and the law. Instead, LIEP followed the course the law allows. It explored first whether a variance might be possible. When that proved infeasible, LIEP ordered the violator to remove the deck. But LIEP did not, and legally could not, require him to demolish the house. Rather, LIEP fitted the punishment to the crime, by targeting the illegal act itself. The same logic applies to the Parking Area. If one assumes that BNSF is illegally "storing" a trailer, the City has ample enforcement tools to address that conduct. Far example, it could cite BNSF for a misdemeanor, or it could seek an injunction to abate the violation. (Zoning Code at §§ 64.502 and 64.503.) The case of State v. RegitschniQ, 1991 W.L. 2761$5 (Minn. App. 1991) (copy attached) is a typical example of how this works in actual practice. Mr. Regitschnig owned and operated a mobile home park in Medford, Minnesota. His business was a legal nonconforming use. The zoning code prohibited expansion of the pazk beyond the 14 units that existed when the use became nonconforming. Mr. Regitschnig added two additional units and was cited for a misdemeanor violafion of the zoning code. He was not required to shut down the mobile home park itself. A hypothetical example will further demonstrate that occasional "storage" would not and couid not result in a forfeiture of the right to pazk trailers in the Pazking Area. Assume that Acme Fruit Company operates a wholesale fruit wazehouse, which is a legal nonconforming use. Acme sets up a small stand in its parking lot to sell fruit at retail. Retail food sales are not permitted by the zoning for that property. Thus, Acme has violated the Code by introducing a new illegal use. BNSF submits that the City of St. Paul would respond to such a situation as follows. First, LIEP would consult with the property owner and nearby property owners to explore whether a variance or conditional use permit would be feasible. If not, LIEP would probably order the owner to remove the stand. But the City would not and could not order Acme to shut down its otherwise legal wholesale operation. To do so would be totally disproporkionate to the violafion and would result in the abrogafion and forfeiture of valuable vested property rights. Forfeitures are not favored at law. E�P., 22 Dunnell Minnesota Digest, Forfeitures §§ 1.00, lAl (4th ed.). Furthermore, any interpretation of the Code that would authorize the abrogarion and forfeiture of Acme's vested rights would be an unconstitutional taking without just compensarion. See K. Young, 1 Anderson's 3 a� _��o� American Law of Zonine, § 6.06 (4th ed.); 7 Dunnell Minnesota Digest, Constitutional Law § 8.02(a) & n. 12 (4th ed.). At the last Council hearing, the Council raised questions concerning the application of the 7-day "bright line" rule to the Pazidng Area. BNSF recognizes the benefit of bright line rules as guides to behavior. However, BNSF dces not necessarily agree that the Zoning Code contemplates a 7-day bright line distinction between parking and storage, nor does it necessarily agree that any such bright line rule would be applicable to its long-standing use of the Parldng Area for trailer pazldng. In closing, BNSF believes the time has come to put the cunent appeal to rest. BNSF's use of the Parldng Area is parking, not storage, and the decision of LIEP should be affirnied. Sincerely, G � ,��1 Glenn Olander-Quamme GOQlllbimidway/citycou2 � Not Reported in N.W.2d (Cite as: 1991 WL 276185 (Minn.App_)) NOTICE: THIS OPIIVION IS DESIGNATED AS UNPUBLISHED AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY MINN. ST. SEC. 480A.0$(3). STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v . John H. I2EGTTSCI�iIG, Appellant. No. CX-91-1023. Cour[ of Appeals of Minnesota. Dec. 31, 1991. Appeal from District Cour[, Steele Counry; Casey J. Chrisrian, Judge. Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Attomey General, St. Paul, Richard E. Tollefson, Medford Ciry Attomey, Owaconna, for responden[. John H. Regitschnig, pra se. Considered and decided by HUSPENT, P.J. and PETERSON and FOLEY, [FN*] JJ. UNPUBLISHED OPINTON FOLEY, Judge *1 Appellant was convic[ed of a misdemeanor violadon of a Medford Ciry zoning ordinance prohibiting ex ansion of his nonconforming mobile ome park. e aza es on appeal tt�at the ordinance works a taking of his properry withou[ jus[ compensation and that he was entided to inctease the number of units in lus pazk by vume of the ordinance's grandfather clause. We affirm. FACTS In 1987, the Medford Ciry Council enac[ed Ordinance Number 127 to regulate mobile home pazks within rhe ciry. The ordinance pemvtted the continuance of ffie park as a nonconforming use but prohibited expansion beyond [he 14 units then existing. With full Imowledge of the exis[ence of the ordinance and of the resuictions on the property, appellant purchased the 13-unit park in Sanuary 1990. Appellant placed [wo addirional mobile homes in ffie park and was charged and convicted of a misdemeanor violarion of the zoning ordinance. This appeal followed. DECISION Page 1 0�� „�7 The 2ria1 court's inrerpretarion of an oidinance is a quesrion of law which we review independenfly wichout according any special deference. Honn v. Ciry of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 415 (Minn.1981). The trial court concluded [hat appellant had violaced [he ordinance by adding a fifteenth unic and rhat the ordinance's consa[urionaliry was no[ ac issue. We conclude rha[ the aial court erred in finding rhe cons[iturionality of the ordinance irrelevan� to appellant's guitt or innocence. Appellant is enatled io challenge the vatidity of the ordinance under which he has been convic[ed as the ozdinance's validiry has a direct relationship to his ]e�al responsibility for violating it. The defendant must be able to defend against culpabiliry on the ground of rhe invalidiry of [he ordinance and have the issue determined by a court. Counry of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 98, 203 N.W.2d 323, 325 (1972). Thus, [he trial wurt erred in declining ro address the constitu[ionaliry of [he ordinance as applied. However, we conclude thac the constitudonal issue is not ripe for ceview by the trial court or this courc because, prior to a[tackina an ordinance's constirutionality as applied, the aggrieved party must first e�aus[ all available remedies. See Counry of Pine v. State. Dep't of Namral Resources, 280 N.W2d 625, 629 (Minn.1979). For appellant [o have e�austed his available remedies, he must have applied for and been denied a variance from tlie regulations restricting development of his properry. See Hay v. Ciry of Andover, 436 N.W.2d 800, 804 (Mntn.App.1989); see also State, Dep't of Narural Resources v. Olson, 275 N.W.2d 585, 587 (Minn.1979) (failure to apply for a pemut rendered the unconstirutional takings issue noc ripe). Appellant did not ara e that he applied for and was denied a variance from the zoning oidinance or that an application for a variance would have been futite. Addidonally, he did not show any evidence ffiat he had attempted co seek a variance co allow him to use the property in some manner other ffian expansion of the uailer park. See Hay, 436 N.W.2d at 804. Thus, we conclude that he has not e�austed his available nonjudiciai remedies and reject his constitutional challenge to the ordinance as not ripe for review. *2 We a�ree with the uial couit that ffie addition of Ihe fifreenth unit is a prohibited expansion of an Copr. �O West 1997 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Not Reported in N. W.2d (Cite as: 1991 WL 276185, *2 (Minn.App.)) ocherwise legal �nconfoznung use of rhe properry. Appellanc's predecessor in interest was using 14 sites when the ordinance was passed and appellant himself had consistendy used only 13 of those sices despite lus asserted intent w rent 18 sites. The purpose for which the owner acmally used the properry at the time it became subject to the zoning ordinance and not future plaas for iu use de[ermines tfie scope of the nonconforming use excepted from the resuicaons imposed by the ordinance. 1 Anderson, American Law of Zoning 3d § 6.23 at 511-12 (1486). Generally, vre view a zoning ozdinance in light of its underlying policy, wluch in flais case is the gradual eliminacion of a nonconfo ina use ihrough obsolescence, e�austion or destruction. See Oswalt v. Counry of Ramsey, 371 N.W.2d 241, 246 (Minn.App.1985), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 13, 1989). In light of this policy, we aze reluctant to pernu[ the placement of addirional uniu which wou]d result in a continuaaon of a disfavored use. This result is con[rary to the intent of the resaictive zoning ordina�ce and we decline to reach that result. In Sta[e ex rel. Howard v. Village of Roseviile, 244 Minn. 343, 70 N.W2d 404 (1955), the supreme court disallowed precisely this rype of expansion. The owner of a trailer pazk sought to expand the number of units in fus nonconforming trailer park. The court rejected the attempt, noting that the nonconforming clause of the ordinance lunited the use of the properry to the 20 mobile home sites in use when the ordinance was passed. Id. at 349, 70 N.W.2d at 408. We find this case deternunative and, accordingly, conclude that appellanCs use of the park is limited to the 14 sites in use when ordinance 127 was passed. Appellan[ also contends that lus placemenc of a Page 2 G ��-�10� fifteenth home was a conrinuadon of a peimitted preexisting business and not an expaasion of the park. He analo�izes the pazk to an apazrmen[ building and the placemenc of a new mobile home to a new [enan[ moving into the apamnent building. However, the placement of a mobile home entails actually placing a new strucmre on land where no suucture previousiy existed; whereas a new aparmient isnant is merely a new occupant of a preexisting structure. We f�ave pxeviously conduded that ihe placement of a new strucmze where one did not previously exist is an expansion of a nanconfomung use in the same manner as is an addition to an existing building, Prior Lake Aggregates, Inc. v. Ciry of Savage, 349 N. W.2d 575, 579 (Minn.App1984) (citing Claussen, 203 N.W.2d at 326). Thus, his placement of a new s[ructure where none had previously existed is a prolubited expansion of an otherwise legal nonconfocming use. Appellant's challenge to the constituuonaliry of the ordinance is not yet ripe for review by the trial court or this courc, as he had not exhausted his available remedies. He also has no[ shown that his nonconforming use entitles him to expand the number of uni[s beyond those existing when the ordinance was enacted. Accordingly, we find chat his placemen[ of the fifteenih mobile home consdtutes an expansion of the nonconforming use which violates the letter and the spiric of the ordinance. *3 Affirmed. FN* Re[ired judge of the Court of appeals, acting by appomtment pursuant to Minn. Const. art VI, � 2. END OF DOCUMENT Copr. OO West 1997 No Claim ro Orig. U.S. Gov[. Works i P �� P � a �9 , Z � SO � • � sO �o y 's f L WESTMIDW4V�� August 18, 1997 �►� - i�o� ST. ANTHONY PARK COMMUNiTY COUNCIL 890 Cromweil • Sf. Pauf, Minnesota 55114 292-7884 Councilmember Roberta Megard St. Paul City Council 310 Ciry Hall St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Conncilmember Megazd 'I'he St Anthony Pack Community Council ltas for some time been actively concemed about the impact on surrounding neighborhoods af tk�e Burlington Norlhem Imermodal Freight Hub adjacent to Pierce Butler Route. 77te noise, truck tr�t, train tr�q and air pollution have had a deh-imental effect on certain residential areas near the Hab facidity. Our neighborhood, located west of the facility, Las eaperienced significant increases in complainu about the Hub and tu�s become incteasing(y concemed about attempts by Burlington Northem to expand Hub activities, both in St. Paul and across the border in Minneapolis. At the Communiry Council's meeting on August 13, 1997, the Council discussed the matter of the Hub once again and voted w strongiy encourage the Ciry Council to uphold the appeal of Frank Wallner. Mr. Wallner's appeal is on the City Council's agenda for later this month The St. Anthony Park neighborhood believes tbat it is critical that the City enforce ordinances and the non-conforming use permit given to Burlington Northem, and keep the railroad within the boundazies of the existing Hub facility. Already, Bwlington Northem has effectively expanded iu Hub activities by leasing land in Miimeapolis on which to store intecmodat containers. We are deeply concerned that any additional ea�ansion will seriously harm ad,}acent residential neighborhoods. The City must stop expansion. The St. Anthony Park Communiiy Council has followed with great interest the efforts by the Metropolitan Council to develop a shared imermodal faci]ity in a more appropriate locarion in the metro azea. We encoucage both the Ciry of St. Paul and Burlington Northem to work towud implementation of zhe MIIZTS recommendations. In the meantime, Burlington Northem must not eapend iu Midway hub activities. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, St. Amhoiry Park Commimity Council ������1�� Executive Director a: Mayor Norm Coleman Councilmember Jeny Blakey Councilmember Dave T'hune Conncihnember Ivlike Haais Councilmember 3oe Collins Councilmember Dan Bostrom Councilmember Gladys Morton OFFiCE OF LICENSE, INSPECTYONS AND ENVIl20NMENTAL PROTECTION Robett Kesster, Director CTTY OF 5AINT PAUL No�m Coteman, Mayor 7u1y 21, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson Ciry Council Reseazch Office Room 31Q Ciry Aa11 Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: B UIIIJING INSPECFION AND DESZGN 350 St Peter Street Suite 3I0 Saint Paul, Mimnesota 55102-I510 q � _��0 3 aa Teiephone: 6I2-266-9001 Fitcsimile: 612-266-9099 I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the Ciry Council is scheduled for Wednesday, August 6, 1997 for the following zoning case: Appellant: File Number: Purpose: Location: Frank Wallner 97-076 Appeal of a decision by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals on the legal stams of semi-trailers on Burlington Northern's intermodal hub faciliry. 1701 Pierce Butler Route I haue confirmed this date with the office of Councilmember Megazd. My understanding is that this public heazing request will appeaz on the agenda of the City Council at your eazliest convenience and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-4086 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tom Beach Zoning Section NOTICE OR PUSLIC HEARING CC: AIIll C18S131C �e Saiat Paul City Council will conduct a public hearing on Wednesdag, August 6, 1997 at 4:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Third Floor City Hall-Court House, to consider the appeal of Frank Waliner to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals on the legal status of semi-trailers on Burlington Northem's iateimodal hub faciliry, 1701 Pierce Butier Route. - ' . Dated: July 24, 1997 � ` � NANCY ANDERSON _ , . Assistant City Councii Secretarp� - _ - -- _ - � (July 26. 1997) � �- - . OFFICE OF LICENSE, WSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTTON Robert Kessier, Directar � q1-1�� SAINT PAUL � AAAII CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Cofeman, Mayar LOA'RY PROFESSIONAL BUILDING Suite 300 350 SY. Peter StreM Saitu Paul, Minnesota 55102-I510 Te(ephone: 612-2669090 Facsimile: 612-266-9099 612-266-9124 � Ju1y 30, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 31Q City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Zoning File #97-192 (WallnerBwlington Northern) City Council Hearing Date: Wednesday, August 6, 1997 PL7RPOSE: To consider an appeal of a decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Frank Wallner has filed an appeal of a decision by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals to uphold the Zoning Administrator's determination that semi-trailers on Burlington Northern's intermodal freight facility on Pierce Butler Route east of Snelling aze stored rather than parked and that they are a legal nonconforming use. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ACTION: determination (5-1 on June 16, 1497) SUPPORT: None Burlington Northern Deaz Ms. Anderson: Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's Frank Wallner filed an appeal with the Boatd of Zoning Appeals of a deterrnination by the Zoning Administrator that trailers located on the easterly portion of Burlington Northem's intermodal freight aze pazked rather than stored and constitute a legal nonconforming use. The Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing on May 19 and June 2 and voted 5- 1 to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's determination. The Boazd of Zoning Appeals agreed with the Zoning Administrator that for zoning purposes, these trailers constitute pazking rather than storage because they aze used on a weekly basis. The distinction between parking and storage is important because storage must be located at least 300 feet from residentially zoned property and most of the semi-trailers are located closer than 300 feet to residentially zoned property. On June 17, Mr. Wallner filed an appeal of this decision to the City Council. Mr. Wallner's appeal makes three main points. (See attached appeal.} These are summazized below with staff's response: � 1. The trailers aze not used for periods of more than one week and therefore should be treated as storage. {Inspections by stafF indicated that the trailers aze used a weekly basis.) 2. The City's position in 1987 was that trailers constitute storage. Therefore the trailers in question were not a legal use when they were first brought to the site in the late 1980's and cattnot be considered a Iegal nonconforming use. (In 1987 BN proposed a major expansion of its faciliTy west of SneIling and the Zoning Administrator made a determination that the additional trailers constituted storage. BN appealed this decision to the Boazd of Zoning Appeals. BN later dropped its planned expansion and the appeal was never heazd. However, in response to Mr. Wallner's current complaint about BN's trailers, the Zoning Administrator asked the City Attomey for a legal opinion on the issue of pazking versus storage. The City Attomey advised that under the zoning regulations in effect in 1987, the trailers should haven been considered parking if they were used on a weekly basis J This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on Angust 6. Please norify me if any member ofthe City Council wishes to have slides ofthe site presented at the public heazing. (The Boazd of Zoning Appeals did not consider the EAW because it was not a part of the decision by the Zoning Administer that was under appeal. Furthermore, the "projecP' that the EAW refers to was a major expansion primazily west of Snelling Avenue which was never commenced, and not the use of tite eitisting paved azea east of Snelling for trailers J pa�� 3. The Board of Zoning Appeals erred by not considering issues raised about noise and tr�c in an Environmental Assessmem Worksheet (EA� that was triggered in 1987 by BN's expansion plans. In 1988 the Environmental Qnality Boazd commented on the EAW and said that "no fmal govemmental action to grant a permit or other approvai required to commence the project shall be made prior to" a decision being made on the EAW. Sincerely, � Tom Beach g NS y7 50 52. 4S C' cc: City Councilmembers Attachments Chronology of BN intermodal facility Application from Frank Wallner to City Council for appeal Resolution, tninutes and staff report from Boazd of Zoning Appeals Appiication &om Frank Wallner to Boazd of Zoning Appeals I,etter from Frank Wallner to Tom Beach Letter from City to John Ackerman (BN} Letter from Peter Wamer (Office of City Attomey to Robert Kessler (LIEP) Letter from City to James Hamilton (Bl� Aerial photo and site location map 6/17/97 5/19/97, 6/2/9�, 6/16/97 3/31/97 3/13197 2/27/97 1/30/97 10/28/96 C� � � CHRONOLOGY FOR BURLINGTON NORTHERN INTERMODAL FACILITY Q � , `3 p 3 - t � Early 1900's Railroad yard is established on the site � 1974 Intermodal freight operations begins. Freight containers are transferred between railroad cars and trucks. Early 1980's Burlington Northem (BI� begins using Its properry east of Snelling Avenue for receiving shipments of new automobiles arriving on rai]road cars. A portion of the area is already paved. 1982 BN obtains approval from the City to pave more of the area east of Snelling for its automobile operations. City approval is subject to a screening fence being built along Pierce Butler Route. BN builds a chain link fence instead. Mid 1980's Automobile operations are moved to another site in Saint Paul near Highway 61. January 1987 BN submits a site plan to City for expansion of the existing intermodal freight facility. East of Snelling, a new entrance to the site would be built. West of Snelling, an additional 35 acres would be paved for uailers and containers and some tracks would be relocated. May 1487 There is neighborhood opposition to the proposed expansion and an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAV� is prepazed. The EAW concludes that the proposed expansion of the intermodal facility should not occur without the completion of an Environment Impact Statement (EIS). However, the City never takes any fotmal action on the EAW and an EIS is never prepared. The proposed expansion is never built. November 1987 The City informs BN that ptoposed storage of trailers for the proposed expansion within 300 feet of residential property is not permitted under the zoning code. BN files an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City's determination that these trailers constitute storage rather than pazking. Aowever, the public heazing is laid over until the EAW can be completed. The City never acts on the EAW and the public hearing on the question of storage is never held. Late 1980's BN begins using the area east of Snelling Avenue for semi-trailers. This area had previously been used for receiving shipments of new automobiles arriving on railroad cars. Eazly 1990's City begins a 40 Acre Study on intermodal freight facilities. December 1992 City adopts 40 Acre Study and zoning amendments that make intermodal freight facilities a Special Condition Use in an I-2 zoning district. BN's proper[y is zoned I- 1 and therefore BN's operations become a legal nonconforming use which cannot be expanded or enlazged. � Mazch 1996 Frank Wallner requests that the City investigate the legal standing of semi-trailers on BN's property east of Snelling Avenue. January 1997 City Attomey provides a legal opinion for the Zoning Administrator that semi- trailers constitute parking rather than storage if they are used on at least a weekly basis. � February 1997 The Zoning Administrator makes a determination that BN's semi-trailers east of Snelling consritute pazking rather than storage and are therefore a legal nonconforming use, not subject to the 300 foot setback from residential property. Mazch 1997 Frank Wallner appeals the Zoning Administrator's determination to the Boazd of Zoning Appeals. June 1997 The Boazd of Zoning Appeals upholds the Zoning Administrator's determination that BN's semi-trailers east of Snelling conskitute pazking rather than storage and aze tfierefore a legal nonconforming use. June 1947 Frank Wallner appeals the decision of the Boazd of Zoning AppeaIs to the Ciry Council. . r � �� r �, SAINT ..ff.. � AAAA APPL{CATION FOR APPEAL Department of Planning and Ecnnomic Dwelopment Zoning Section i100 City Hal1 Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN SSIO2 266-6589 APPELLANT �G�C Daytime ph PROPERTY Zoning File LOCATtON _ .. _ TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeai to the: � Board of Zoning Appeals C3�City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph appeai a decision made by the on (date of decision) 19_ File number: of the Zo�ing Code, to GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an er�or in any requirement, permit, decision or refusai made by an admiRistrative officiai, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appea{s or the P{anning Commission. ���� � ��e S ��rr�/' P�:�fl;' Y�C•C �7i' S�+:i{'S ?}�u� i v'r�Tii.'f�iSiLt ru _vT' Attach additionai sheet if Appiicant's signature v p � � Rate�/�/� ��r�f �ity ageni .,�, �� � � � � a'''i . L'�L 7/ry�q � On June 6, i997 the Board of Zon+ng Appeals considered my appeal that BN/SF should never have been af(owed to park or store trailers east of Snelling Avenue. I also appealed the Zoning Administrator's pasirion that trailers are parked rather than stored. The Board of Zoning Appeals ruled against my appeals and conduded that: i. Trailers are used at least once per week and therefore are parked rather than stored and not subject to the requirement that outside storage be at least 3Q0 feet from residential(y zoned property. 2. 8N's intecmodal freight operatian was a permitted use in the late 1980's when trailers were first brought to the area east of Snelling. The trailers met all zoning regulations that were in effect at the time. My appeai to the City Council is based on the following. With rEgard to point number 1: Photographic (time datedJ etidertce clearly shows that trailers are +n place for periods much longer than two weeks west of Sne(ling Avenue. Also, persona( observafion during the winter months dearly show thaE trailers east of Snelling Ave. are stored for ►onger periods than one week. This can be easify proven during the winter months. I observed newty falien snow which was teft undisturbed around the trailer's tires for periods longer than one week. City staff's conclusion that trailers are usec! weekly was based on two site visits during a period in which BNlSF new they were being scrutinized. Aiso, BN/SF is not required to document weekly use of trailers. With regard to point number 2 a6ove: The Board of Zoning Appeals conciuded that -"8N's intermodal fireight operation was a permitted use in the late 1980's when trailers were first brought to the area east of Snelling." This statement is not true based on the city's own correspondence. On November 5, i987 BN/SF wrote to the Zoning Administrator requesting agreement that parking of trailers within 300 feet of the set back are in confiormance with Section 6Q.613 (3) of the Zoning Cafe. !n response to 8N/SPs request, the Zoning Administrator intormed BN/SF that "Outdoor storage in an industriaf zoning district cannot be iocated within 300 feet of a residential zoning district pursuant to Section 60.613. (3) of the St. Paul Zoning code" (Letter datecf November 13, 1987). Rerial photographic evidence c(eariy show that BN/SF p(aced trai(ers within the 300 foot set back. Conclusion: Aerial photos clearly show that BN/SF placed traiEers within the 300 fooi in vio►ation of the Zoning Administrators November t3, 1987 decision. Therefore the Zoning Administrator's conclusion that "Trailers met ali zoning regulations that were in r C� � n LJ � q'f -17 � effect at the time." cannot be used as a grousxis to deny my appeal. 3. When BNlSF first proposed to expand the Intermodai Hub by using land east of Sneliing Avenue, the St. Paul Planning Commissio� required that an Environmentai Assessment Worksheet (EAW ) be conducted. After conducting the EAW the Minnesota Environmental Quafity Board (EQS) concfuded in a Sune 8, i988 letter that: °Pursuant to Minnesota Rules part 4410.3100, subpart 1, no final qovernmental action to qrant a permit or other approvat reau+red to commence the proiect shal! be made unt71 a nepative decfaration or ElS adequacv determination has been made". At the June 2, '1997 Board meeting the City Attorney stated that the issue of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet on BN/SF's plans fo expand east of Sneliing was not germane to the discussion_ My be4ief if that this is a very important matter which shouid be considered by the City Councii. Conclusion: The Board of Zoning Appeafs approved BN/SF's use of traifers east of Snef(ing Avenue in viofation of Minnesota Rufes, part 4410.3100, subpart 1. � ,� C �e����2- �� 3 . • ,.., .. ; • �, :s �uw �� � �m � GEORCE UTIMER MAYOR ,• November 13, 1957 Darrel H. Berkowitz TKDA 2500 American National Bank Building St. P�ul, 1�Lt 55101-1843 CiTY OF SAINT PAUL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING INSPECTION At�ID DESIGN DIV1StON .City Hali, Samc Paul, Minnesoca - � 612-29� RE: Midway Hub Facility North Side Pierce Butler Route Wast of Snelling Dezr Mr. Bericowitz: We have reviewed your request of November 5, 1987 for the BurZington Northezn RaiZroad Midway Hub Facility. The property is located in an Z-1 (lighc industrial} zoning district. Outdoor stotage in an industrial zoning district cannnt be I.oceted within 300 feet of a tesidential zc:ing district pursuant to' Section 60.6L3.(3) of the St. Paul Zoning Code. The site p22n submitted indicates that semi trailers, in transitioa Erom railroad f zt e s to tractors, wou e � stored �� the Mi way Hu aci ity wit in ee[ o a tesi entia zonzng ine, approximatel.y following the centerline of Pierce Butler Rout The 300 foot spaci.ng requirexent was added to the Zoning Code when it was ' entirely rewritten, effective Oc�ober 25, Z975. Prior to tnat date, outdoor storzge was permitted ia an industriai district without regard to locztion on the Iot. The trailer storage arez that esisted at the Mi.dvay Hub Eacility in 1975 w2s allowed to re�ain under the new code, although not in conforsance with the setback standard. That same eszsting no¢conFor¢ting setback line can be maintafned with the proposed improvements to the Eacility. However, as sfiow-n on the site p1an, the oucLoor storage arza nroposed would be iocated further SOL'L:1� C�050L CG the :ZS?C;flbClc� ZCIIl.^.o liae, :har. C:1° 0%15L_II$ SLO.^noe 2r°2. AZong with a series of proposed test amendments, the Planning Commissioa has recommended that the above 3d0 foot setback standard be removed from the Zoning Code, because the required fencing zpparently provides 2 sufficient barrier between industrizl and zesidentiaZ arezs. The City Council may choose to adoat the Plenaing Commissioa recom,-�endaci,on, reject it, or approve it c:itn modification. f�ny new change wnuld not become effective for at least two montfis. � � f .� ..:� ��� { �.3: � �.;������� �°.�..�. ,D� ys � PllBUC HEAR{NG NOTlCE CITY QF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ar1' 1��� : THE ACTION OF THE BOARD AT TNIS NEARING 4lILL BE T� LAY THIS CASE OVEP. UNTIL AFTER THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET IS COMPLETED. YOU WILL RECEIVE A NEW NOTICE WHEN THE BOARD WILL R V E4! IS CASE. `Zi7 APPUCAN7 PURPOSE �CATION OF PROPERTY T(ME OF HEARfNG PIACc OF HEbRIt+iG � Property Owners 4tithin 35Q feet; Representatives of Planning District 11 BURLING70N PlORTHERN RAILROAD C0. An Administrative Review of the Zoning Administrator's decision which determined that a BN expansion proposal was for outdoor storaqe of truck trailers and not parkinq.. Outdoor stroage requires setback from the zoning boundary line and parking does not have this requirement. The applicant states that the determination was in error. Present Zoning: I-1 (Industrial) 17�1 Pierce Butler Raute Tuesday, January 26, 1988 1:30 P.P4. 3th flocr conference room, City Hall Annex, 25 W. 4th Street, _ u ii� c • + Paiil - H OW TO PARTIClPATE ` 1. You may attend hearing and testify. (See note above) I 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to the Board of Zoning Appeals, 25 West Fourth St., St. Paul, MN. ANY QUESTIONS o• Call the Zoning office at 298-4154 ( Donna Datsko ) or your District Counc�l representative ( 646-1986 ) �rith the following information: Zoning file No. 1�245 Zoning file Name BURLINGTON P70RTHERN RR 1-15-88 Mailing Date ------� �J " r1�itl►�l►�l�.`i�J/:f7►�191:i�.J1��I�%�'1�l�lP_�1TIi7::��:� `� 3Q0 Cerrtennral8rm"ding•658 CedarStreet•Sf. Paul, Minnesota 55155 • •R .�"I s12-2ss-2s03 June 8, 1988 Donna L. Datsko City Planner 25 West Fourth Street 1100 City Hall Annex St. Paul, MN 55102 RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Burlington Northern Midway Aub FaciZity Dear Ms. Datsko: This Zetter acknowledges receipt of the EAW for the above-named project. The Environmental Review Program rules (at Minnesota Rules, part 4410.1500B.) require that a press release containing notice of the EAw availability be provided to at least one newspaper of generaZ� circulation within the area anc2 that capies of the EAW be distributed to all points on the EQB distribution list. We presume that these requirements have been mef.. Notice of the EAW availability will be pubZished in the EOB Monitor on June 13, 1988. The 3o-day comment period wi21 begin on that day and will expire on July 13, 1988. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 44Z0.3100, subpart 1, no fina2 � governmental 8ecision to grant a permit or other approval required to commence the project shali be made until a negative declaration or EIS adequacy determination has been made. Please contact me if any questions arise about the Review process. My ghone number is (6I2) 296-8253, toll-free by dialing 1-800-652-9747 and asking for Quality Board, Environmental Review Program. Sincerely, )'� ta• I�'".'r""„ Gregg M. Downing Environmental Review Coordinator cc: � Enviranmental or you may call the Environmental � . : •... .. � �'l -��o� � June 3, 1997 Dear Board of Zoning Appeals Members: Thank you for considering my appeal regarding the 8urfington Northern (BN) Midway Hub issue. Aithough I was disappointed in your decision I respect the process. The purpose ofi this fetter is to bring your attention to what I believe is a very important misunderstanding. At the meeting City staff communicated to you that BN had always used land to park traiiers. This was cited as a key reason to deny my appeai. However, in a letter dated November 13, 1987 the City of St. Paui specificaily responded to the parking versus storage issue at the request of BN. In that {etter the City cleariy informed BN that "Outdoor storaqe in an industriai zoninq district cannot (3) of the St. Pauf Zoninq Code° was not established, and therefore appeal. It does �ot seem right, or � parking of trailers as a continuance trailers were being stored. the precedent for parking traiiers should not be affowed as grounds to deny my �ven legal, that the City should be able to cite use when in fact the City had determined BN's � I wanted to bring this point to your attention at the meeting but respected your decision to not aliow me to speak. However, before i bring this matter before the fuli City Councii, I request that the Board of Zoning Appeals reconsider this issue. If reconsiderat+on of this issue is not aAowed then 1 request that the City Attorney expiain why parking trailers can be cited as a continuace use, when in fact BN was in vio)ation of the City's November 3, 1987 letter which conc(uded that the trailers constituted outdoor storage. This is a very significant issue because allowing BN to park hundreds of additionai traiiers resuited in a significant increase in noise for the Neweil Park neighborhood. S+nce�� �`��!���L6'� Frank X. Wallner � �-��.���-� cc: Bobby Megard, City Councii Woman Tom Beach, LIEP � � CITY OF SAINT PAiTI, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER 97-076 DATE June 16, 1997 WHEREAS, FRANK WALLNER has applied for an Administrative Review of a determination by the Zoning Administrator about the legal status of semi-trailers in the I-1 zoning district at 1701 PIERCE BUTLER ROUTE; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on OS/OS/97, and 06/�2/97, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.205 of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board.of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantialiy reflected in the minutes, n�ade the following findings of fact: � 1. The semi-trailers on BN's property east of Snelling are used at least once a week based on staff inspections of the site, information from a Metropolitan Council study, and information from BN. Trailers used on a weekly basis constitute "pazking" rather than "storage." � Therefore, the semi-trailers on BN's property east of Snelling are parked rather than stored. Because the trailers are parked and not stored, they are not subjeci to the requirement that outside storage be at least 300 feet from residentially zoned property. 2. BN's intermodal freight operation was a permitted use in the late 1980's when the trailers were first brought to the area east of Snelling. The trailers met all the zoning regulations Yhat ware in effect at that time. However, the BN's operation became a Iegal nonconforming use in 1992 when intermodat freighY operations were made a use that required a Special Condition Use Permit in an I-2 zoning district. Therefore, the azea being used for the trailers cannot be expanded. In addition, if the trailers were to remain on the site in excess of one week, they would be considered stora�e and be in violation of the requirement that outside storage be at least 300 feet from residentially zoned property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals denies the appeal and upholds the Zoning Administrator's determination that the semi-trailers east of Selling Avenue are parked and therefore are a legal nonconforming use on property located at 1701 PIERCE BUTLER ROUTE and legally described as SEE ATTACHMENT; in accordance with the applica[ion for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning •" Adminis[raTOr. -[''� q'i -1�0� � File #97-076 Page Two MOVED BY: T„n SECONDED BY : Scherman IN FAVOR: s AGAINST: i ABSTAIN: i MAILED: ]une 17, 1997 TTi41E LINIIT: No order of the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a building or off-street parking facility shall be valid for a period longer than one year, unless a building permlt for such erection or alteration is obtained within such period and such erection or alteration is proceeding pursuant to the terms of such permit. The Board o£ Zoning Appeals or the City Council may grant an extension not to exceed one year. In granting such extension, the Board of Zoning Appeals may decide to hold a public hearing. , PP AL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City Council within 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Building permits shall not be issued after an apQeal has been Filed. If permits have been issued before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construction shall cease until the City Council has made a P�nal determination of the appeal. CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoina copy with the original record in my office; and fmd the same to be a true and correct copy of said original and o£ the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes of the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on May 19, 199�, and 3une 2, �997, and on record in the Of�ce of License Inspection and Environtnental Protection, 350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paui, Niinnesota. SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZOi�'ING APPEALS C2L3,lCDC � Sue Synstegaard Secretary to the Board � MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS � CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, JUNE 2, 1997 R N: Mmes. Maddox and Bogen; Messrs.Donohue, Scherman, Tully and Wilson of the Board of Zoning AppeaIs; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Hardwick, Mr. Beach and Ms_ Synstegaard of the Office of License,Inspection, and Environmental Protecfion. BS NT: Mr. Alton * * Excused The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair. �RANK WALLNER (#97 0761 -1701 PIERCE BUTLER ROUTE: The applicant has requested that ihe Board of Zoning Appeals review a determination by Ciry staff on the legal status of semi-trailers located east of Sneliing at Burlington Northern's (BN} intermodal hub faciliry. Ciry staff's determ4nation was that these trailers are a legal nonconforming use and may stay. The applicant was present. There was /was no opposition present at the hearing. Ms. Maddox stated that this is a continued matter and the Board had asked for a legai opinion on the legalnonconforming use. Mr. Warner stated that the Board can heaz the issue of the nonconforming use. He added that at the discussion at the last meeting the same agreement was ceached and stated he would like to articulate the reasons more clearly. The timing requirements that are set forth in the Legislative Code in Chapter 64.204 sets forth a particular time line in which a person has to make an appeal, which is 30 days. He stated that in going back and looking at the Ordinance, it is his reading of the Ordinance, that that time line is a jurisdictional requizement. Generally in Minnesota you cannot waive jurisdictional requirements. A person has to meet that requirement in order for the Boazd to bold jurisdiction ovec the matter that is before them. He stated that in looking at the facts that LIEP staff has before it, it appears that this matter first came to the attention of LIEP by a letter from the applicant that was dated Mazch 22, 1996. As a resuit of that Ietter, LIEP did begin to [ake some investigatian into the matter. He sYated that on October 28, 1996 LIEP reached a preliminary conclusion over the issue of the nonconforming use and sent that preiiminary conclusion by letter to BNSF. That same information was copied to the applicant. The record then shows that LIEP sent what can be described as their final determination with respect to this matter, to BNSF on February 27, 1497, and that same letter was copied to the appiicant. He stated that based upon his review of the facts and the law in this situation, fhe $oard could conclude that the issue conceraing the October 28, 1996 pzeliminary conclusion which went to the nonconforming use, is appropriately before the Board here today because the matter simply wasn't concluded until the February 27, 19971etter. He stated that his advise to the Board is that it would be appropriate for the Board to consider the applicant's appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination with respect to nonconfomung use. � ■ q�-���� Fite 1{97-076 � Page Two Mr. Warner stated that the second issue the Board had asked him to look into was what do you do once you can hear the matters on the nonconforming use. The Legislative Code, Chapter. 64.204 gives the . Board the power to hear and decide the appeais of any decision of the Zoning Administrator and so in the context of the matter before the Board today, the Board can either grant the Administrative Appeal of the applicant by fmdin� that there was an expansion of the nonconforming use by BNSF at the . facility and/or that the trailers ac the facility or stored and not parked. The alternative is that the Boazd could deny the Administrative Appeal, and in that sense the Board would be agreeing with the Zoning Administrator's finding that BNSF did not expand the nonconforming use of the facility and(or that the trailers are parked and not stored. Mr. Wamer stared that if the Board choose to grant the Administrative Appeal, then for all intent and purpose, the Board's further inquiry is limited because what happens with nonconforming use pemuts is the provence of the Planning Commission. Rather then getting into the various issues that eiiher party might choose, depending on what the Board does, the best thing for the Board to do today is to make a decision as to whether or not to grant or den, the applicant's appeal and not be concemed about what would happen, other then to make that finding. Ms. Maddox asked if the Board were to deny this and find that staff had not erred, what other options does the applicant have with the information provided in the packet to the Board? Mr. Warner repiied . that the Legislative Code is written in such a way thac the applicant's next logical step would be to challenge the Board's deniai of his appeal to the Saint Paul City Council. That in turn would be at a public hearing with testimony taken, and then the Council would be afforded to make an opportunity to either uphold or overrurn the Board's decision. The next logical step might be that the applicant, depending on the Council's action, could then perceive in District Court. There are any number of avenues that the applicant could take. Ms. Maddox stated she was speaking in terms of the site plan review and some of the steps that had not taken place with the Planning Commission in terms of what other options the applicant has. Mr. Wamer asked if Ms. Maddox meant Mr. Waliner's contention that there was no site plan done in 1980? Mr. Wamer stated that he doesn't understand that issue to be properly before the Boazd today. Mr. Beach stated that he included the letter dated October 28, 1996 in the packet for the Board. Ms. Maddox stated that the public portion of the meeting had been closed on May 19, 1997, and the issue before the Board is whether or not this is parking or storage. Ms. Bogen asked if the Board is also able to determine if it is a legal nonconforming use and whether or not it has expanded since 1992 illegally. In reviewing Mr. Wallner's application Mr. Warner replied that the issue of whether or not it is an expansion of a legal nonconforming use is no. That advise is based on the fact that LIEP staff determined that the property was a legal nonconforming use and chat there was no expansion in the � zoning context in determining the expansion of the use after 1987. In other words, Burlington 11 File #97-076 Page Three Northern has always used the parcel east of Snelling Avenue for some type of railroad related purposes, whether it is loading or untoading automobiles, parking trailers, storing trailers, etc. The conclusion by LIEP staff is that it is a iegal nonconforming use and not an expansion of a conforming use. Ms. Maddox asked if it went with the land and not with the number of trailers? Mr. Warner replied yes. Ms. Bogen asked if that also hoids true even if the property was vacant for some periods of time? Mr. Wamer replied that Mr. Beach can address the factual basis on which he made that determination. Mr. Beach sta[ed that in the October 1496 letter LIEP staff considered the trailers stored, based on some earlier decisions. Staff s determination was that even if it is storage it has not expanded since 1992. Later on after some other issues came up LIEP consulted the City Attomey and decided that the trailers are not actually stored but are parked. The other facts remained unchanged that LTEP had determined that parking of the uailers had not expanded since this use had become a legal nonconforming use of 1992. � Ms. Bo�en asked what that was based on? Mr. Beach replied it was based on a number of facts Qiscussed in his letter of October 1996 which stated that the number of uailers has increased however, . it appeared even when there were fewer trailers that the entire paved area east of SneIling had been used for trailers. Whether the trailers were parked or maneuvered, the proper[y was being used by $N. Ms. Bogen asked if staff lmew when the area was paved? Mr. Beach replied that the azea was paved in the early 1980's and used for storing automobiles. Ms. Bogen asked if it was considered storage when automobiles were on the Iand prior to 1987? Mr. Beach replied yes, that it appeazed that automobiles were brought in and then taken off to various dealers but that issue wasn't investigated as to whether or not the automobiles were stored or pazked. Ms. Bogen asked how the use of the parcel east of Snetling changed to become an exganded facIliry working at an increased capaciry without having gone through the Boazd of Zoning Appea2s? She asked if BN ibnored the City of Saint Paul and slowly moved their trucks onto the land without having gone through the process that they were required to go through? Mr. Beach replied that there was a pavec3 area on the site and the use changed from automobiles to trailers. The site plan review that was before the City in 2987 was for a much lazger project, it wasn't j¢st for this area but involved new facilities, relocating tracks, etc. Ms. Bogen asked if the area in question was incIuded in that site pian? Mr. Beach replied tttat he has had a hard time locating the site plan but the written description talks primarily about the area west of Snelling Avenue and notes that there is an area east of Snelling. � 12 c�'1-13� M File #97-076 Page Four Ms. Bogen stated that the BZA had requested an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and that talks about the fact that the easterly area is a flat paved area vacant and formerly used as a automobile unloading azea. It also speaks about an operation of the expanded facility on the east side being identical to the current facility but at an increased capacity. Ic also states that BN was going to expand the paved area to increase the number of traiiers spaces on the lot from 540 to 1149 spaces. Ms. Bogen asked if all this information regarding the use was from the site plan had not been approved? Mr. Beach replied yes, the site plan had not been approved but that it was for a much larger operation. Ms. Bogen stated that the same plan included an entrance to the eastem area and a road. Mr. Beach stated that that entrance was never constructed and added that there are only 200 parking sgaces east of Snelling. Ms. Bogen stated that she believes BN did something they shouldn'c have done in 1987 and didn't foliow the provisions of the Code. Ms. Maddox asked Mr. Beach if it is possible for LIEP to go back and require BN to go through the site plan review process since it wasn't done at the time they expanded. Mr. Beach replied that he isn't sure whether a site plan review would be required or not because BN didn't make any physical changes to the property but just a change of use. � Ms. Bogen stated that BN dropped the site plan review afrer they were told they had to get an Environmental Assessment Worksheet by the BZA. She stated that the Board doesn't know if BN went out and expanded on their own and got away with it. Mr. Wamer stated that Mr. Beach doesn't have the benefit of the site plan so he doesn't have the City's perspective on how to reply to Ms. Bogen's question. He pointed out that up until 1992 the property was I-1 and that didn't change until the City established a new zoning use classification for that property. He referred the Board back to his Ianuary 30, 19961etter to Mr. Kessler where he briefly describes how that happened. Ae stated that he feels it is important that the Board understand that up until 1992 or 1993, whenever that new use classification was voted in, that it was a legal permitted use whether they were storing trailers or parking trailers. He stated that the intensity of the use fluctuated up and down depending on the uses. He asked the Board to keep these issues in mind and realize that it is very difficult for Mr. Beach to answer specific questions when he doesn't have the benefit of the site plan. Mr. Scherman moved to deny the appeal and uphold staff's determination that the semi-trailers east of Snelling Avenue are parked and are a legal nonconforming use. The use of the land may continue but the use may not be extended to occupy a greater area of land or moved to another portion of the lot. Mr. Tully seconded the motion, which passed on a roil call vote of 5 to 1(Bogen). Submitted by: � Tom Beach roved by � ' ohn Tully, Secretary �3 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS � CITY COLTNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CTTY HALL ST. PALJL, MINNESOTA, MAY 14, 1997 PRESENT: Mmes. Maddo�c, Bogen and Liston; Messrs. Donohue, Scherman, Tully and WiLson of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Hardwick, Mr- BeacU, Ms. Lane and Ms. Synstegaard of the Office of License, Inspection, and Environmental Protection. ABSENT Mr. Alton * * Excused The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair. FRANK WALLNER (#97-0761-1701 PIERCE BIT'I'LER ROiJTE: The applicant has requested that the Boazd of Zoning Appeals review a detemunation by City staff on the legal status of semi-trailers located east of Snelling at Burlington Northem's (BI� intemodal hub facility. City staff's determination was that these trailers aze a legal nonconfomung use and may stay. The applicant was present. There was opposition present at the hearing. Mr. Beach showed slides of fhe site and reviewed the staff ieport with a recommendatiou that the Boazd of + Zoning Appeals deny the appeal and uphold staff's determination that the semi-traiiers east of Snelling Avenue aze pazked and aze a legal nonconforming use. The use of the land may continue but the use may not be extended to occupy a greater azea of land or moved to another portion of the lo� Mr. Scherman questioned the fence. Mr. Beach stated that the fence was required and Burlington Northem states they will put one in. If BN doesn't start gutting one in by July 1,1997, staff will start enforcement action An engineer from TKDA is worldng on a plan to inctude a fence on the proper[y. Mr. Wamer stated that he wrote a legal opinion at Mr. Beach's requested regazding Mr. Beach's letter of Februazy 27,1997, to Mr. Ackerman conceming the differences between pazldng and storage. Mr. Wamer asked if there was any previous question involving noise allegations at the facility. Mr. Beach stated that there have been issues regazding noise. Mr. Wazner asked Mr. Beach if he had azry conversations with Mr. Ackerman in the last year regarding noise at the BN facility? Mr. Beach replied no. Mr. Wamer stated tfiat the reason he raises that issue is because in the appeal before the Board today, Item 3, grounds for appeai, raises issues conceming noise. Mr. Wamer stated that his recollection af events and the question that Mr. Beach was reseazching, had nothing to do with noise. Ivtr. Wazner stated tfiat he is hying to determine whether or not the issue of noise is propedy before the Board of Zoning Appeals today. Mr. Wamer stated that he suspects it is no� Mr. Wazner asked Mr. Beach if he could give the Boazd any more information about LIEP's sfndies about noise and when the last ona was done it might prompt him to advise the Boazd that Item 3 on the documeat entitled, "Attachment to Application for Appeal" the grounds for appeal is not properly before the Board and that would be a way to limit the testimony today. Mr. Beach stated Yhat the detemunation he made did nof address noise alfhough the Appeal raises it. Mr. Beach stated that he tmows � �� °[� -t�o� . File #97-076 Page Two that noise has been an issue and there were some studies done in the late 1980's when there was a wning study being done on &eight facilities and it did indicate that BN was not in compliance with the Noise Ordinance. Mr. Beach stated he dcesn't Imow what the current situation is because there have not been any measurements done in the past few years that he is awaze of. Ms. Maddox stated that her question was centering in the noise issue also. She stated that she was wondering if any noise sNdies had been done, if erecting the fence would assist in the noise problem or if the fence was just for visual effects. Mr. Beach replied he is not aware of any current noise studies and he didn't any request any. He stated that the fence being proposed is for primarily visual. The azea east of Snelling is where trailers are pazked and moved as needed wtuch he dcesn't believe generates a lot of noise. He stated that most of the noise problem comes from the west side of Snelling where the equipment is picking up the traifers and dropping them an the railroad cazs. He added that he would be surprised if the area east of Snelling is contributing to the noise problem. Mr. Wilson stated that under Finding F., stating that the use of the land may continue but the use may not be extended to occupy a greater azea of land or moved to another portion of the lot. Mr. Wilson asked if staff is speaking of the lot that was in use back then because the lot is not totaling paved. Mr. Beach replied that the azea east of Snelling is paved and being utilized for trailers. He stated that there may be other portions of BN's site west of Snelling that may not be utilized. What that would unply is that BN could not take the • trailers and put them on the portion of land that isn't being utilized. He stated that he laiows there has been some discussion of the composting site operated by Ramsey County being moved but trailers would not be able to be moved into that area. Frank Wallner, 1698 Taylor Avenue, passed out several handouts to the Boazd and stated that he has lived in the area for eig�t years. He stated that the noise has increased dramatically since he has moved into the area. He pointed ont that it wasn't a case where he moved into a situauon Imowing that there was a noise problem. The noise has been disruptive and he is convinced from the nights he has had to use ear plugs or a fan so he would be able to sleep. He stated that there are editorials that date back to 1987 regazding the noise problem. He stated that the District Council is focussing on noise reduction equipment for BN. He stated his focus is on the site east of Snelling. He stated that when they load the semilrailers onto train cars it is extremely loud. He stated he was a part of the Noise Committee for BN and believes BN has a responsibility to its neighbors to act more responsibly. He recognized thaY BN has put advanced muIIlers on their equipment and adjusted some of its operations which has helped some. The qualiry of life in the Ciry is highly dependable on the City Ordinances and he believes they need to be more thoroughly enforced by the Ciry. He went over a brief history of BN's application to the City of St. Paul to expand their Midway Hub. He stated that his main focus is on the EIS process. Ae stated that in 1987 the BZA laid over their decision on BN's expansion plans and on the storage verses pazking decision until a EAW was performed. Mr. Beach stated that the EIS was - for west of Snelling and this is a key point because the EIS is for the land east of Snelling as well. One of the main purposes of the proposed expansion was to increase the number of trailers. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agancy conducted a Noise Survey on June 13, 1995, which showed accedence of the State Noise Standazd. The primary reason for the EAW was to increase parldng spaces which has occurred. That decision was never voted on by the Planning Comcnission, which it should have, but BN dropped their formal � plans. Mr. Walilner contends that BN continued to expand east of Snelling with the use of trailers which resuited in increased noise despite the fact that they didn't have the Planning Commission's approval. �� F�e #97-076 Page Thzee Mr. Wallner stated that allowing BN Yo continue Yo store or park trailers on the area east of Snelling allowed a drawatic increase in their basiness. That increase in business resulted in a dramatic increase in no�se. Mr. WalIner continued to review his packet of materiaLs he provided to the Board. Whether BN's trailers are stored or parked BN should not have been ailowed to eicpand east of Snelling. The EQB reviewed the EIS, made a determination that there was a problem and before any govemmental agency couid approve the expansion of BN east of Snelling they either had to make a negative declazation or an EIS had to be performed and neither happened. Mr. Wal]ner asked the Boazd to not allow BN's Lrailers to be pazked east of Snelling Avenne and thaY BN be required to remove all their trailers east of Snelling. If the City had looked at this closer, ttcey would have recognized the fact that there were trailers slowly starting to creep to BN's land east of Snelling. BN has been unresponsive to the neighborhood's comptaints aad the Noise Committee has worked for over eight yeazs and nofhing has happened except for the muffters. Pazldug is deemed as "one week" and Mr. Wallner passed out pictures proving that trailers have been pazked longer than one week Ms. Maddox stated that as a resident of St. Paul that is subject to the air craft noise, the tug boat noise and the train noise she sympaflvzes with Mr. Wallner but the Boazd is being asked to look aY the parldng and the storage. She stated that the Boazd is not being asked to address the noise. She asked Mr. Beach to address the issue of the site plan not being reviewed by the Planning Commissioa � Mr. Wallner stated he is confused because the whole object of his presentation was to show that paztdng or storage should not be allowed due to the fact that it has resulted in increased business. � Mr. Wamer stated he is having a hazd time in framing the Mr. Wallner's issue. He stated that in looldng at the atiachments to the application to appeal and listening Yo the presentation he is not necessarily cleaz on what Mt Wallner is asking for in tke appeal. He stated that what he �mderstands iY to be is that Mr. Wallner is asking ihe Boazd to not atiow the trailers to be parked east of Snelling Aveuue and that the trailers should not be pazked there in any event because it constitutes an expansion of the BN operation east of Suelling Avenue in violarion of a site plan which was never approved by the Planning Commission according to Mr. Wallner. Mr. Wamer asked Mr. Beach if the site plan was ever approved by the Planning Cammission that Mr. Waltner is speaking of. Mr. Beach reptied no. Mr. Wamer stated that what the law states in respeck to Administrative Appeals is that what is before the Boazd of Zoning Appeals today is an appeal df a decision made by LIEP staff conceming the issue of sforage verses pazldng. The other matters relating to noise, whether or not a site plan was approved or not and other matters relating to Environmental Assessment Worksheets or Environmental Impact Statements az'e not propedy before the Board today. The applicant does have a recourse on these issues. The Boazd is limited to the testimony that is pertinent to the interpretation by LIEP YhaY the BN trailers at the facility east of Snelling aze pazked and not stored. Mr. Wallner stated that if the question comes down to pazking and storage, then he would ask the Boazd to override LIEP's decision that it is pazking. If the Boazd agrees that it is storage then BN has to be in compliance with a 300-foot setback wlrich would accomplish the same thing, to remove the trailers east of � Snelling. By allowing parking the Boazd is allowing the use of the entire facility against all of the history presented today. He stated his goal is to reduce the noise. He stated he will come back to another body with %� 0 cl� �l�o� • File #97-�76 Page Four lus other issues. He stated that before he paid $200 he pleaded with City staf£to give him more time because he didn't understand what he was asking. He was assured by City staff that he could present the information today and believes he was inadvertendy mislead by City staf£ Ae stated that he would like his issue to be thoroughly addressed. He stated he is very disappointed to hear that because it means all of the work he has done means notl�ing. He stated that he believes he has shown a lot in that BN has ignored the EIS, ignored the Planning Commission and all those issues aze so important. He added that he was assured by City staff that he could bring up new issues today before the Boazd Ms. Bogen stated that the Boazd dcesn't have copies of the letters from last swnmer but in Mr. Warner's letter to Mr. Kessier he talks about whetiier or not it is an expansion of a nonwnforming use. Mr. Beach wrote a letter in October 1496 where he brought up the issue of whether there has been an e�ansion of a nonconforming use. Ms. Bogen stated that the expansian of this nonconfornung use is an issue that has been dealt with during this process since the applicant first wrote a letter to the City asking for this to be looked at. She stated that just because one particulaz letter of February 27, 1997, is only taiking about patking xerses storage, she dcesn't see why the Boazd cannot go fwther into whether or not there is a nonconforniing use here that has expanded over time and especially in the last four yeazs after the changes were made in the Zoning Code. Mr. Wallner stated that the way he reads the provision in the Ordinance is that it is extended to occupy a � greater azea of the lot and that is what has happened. The Ordinance dcesn't refer to a lazger piece of land but rather it refets to extending a greater area of the lot which is what happened. Ms. Maddox pointed out that the issue of the nonconforming use would be the Piamvng Commission's determination and not the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. Bogen stated that it states in the BZA's materials that the applicant requested LIEP to investigate a complaint that BN was expanding its nonconfomung use at the Midway site. Mr. Beach wrote a letter in July where he concluded that there was an expansion and now there was storage also that was not complying with the City Ordinances. From there the issue was whether or not it was parking or storage to get azound the issue that this is an expansion of a nonconfomvng use. That is what the original request was of the applicant on page 73 of the packet. Mr. Hardwick stated that he was involved years ago on this issue. He stated that on the Application for Apgeal Mr. Wallner makes reference to the letter of February 27, 1997 to Mr. Beach. Mr. Wallner also has an attachment to his Appeal which references the determination of LIEP staff that it is a legal nonconfomring use. Mr. Hardwick stated that Ms. Bogen has a valid point in that even thoug,h the actual application references the letter of Fehruary 27, 1997, he believes there aze two issues before the BZA. The fust issue is pazlang verses storage and the second issue is whether or not BN's facility is a legal nonconforming use or not. That decision was made by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Hazdwick stated that in Mr. Beach's staff report he references the date of the ordinance change. Prior to the ordinance change BN's use of the properiy east of Snelling would have been a confomring use. The Board needs to keep in mind when determining tlus legal nonconfornung status if indeed Mr. Wamer concurs with his conclusion, that that is one of the issues . here. The issue being in whether or not the use e�cisted legally on that date. The other informa6on Mr. Wallner has presented regarding noise and EAW aze not pertinent to this hearing. If there are objections, neighbors may file a complaint at LIEP's office. �� File #97-076 Page Five rJ Mr. Wamer stated that the difficulty here is that in Mr. Beach's correspondence, which isn't included in the packet today, Mr. Beach advised BN on October 28, 1996, that he had revised his original opinion from July 8, 1996, and found that Yhe current use of the property for storing trailers appears to be a legal nonconforming use. He stated thaY it is his recollection from the correspondence £ile that he reviewed in preparing the opinion thaf the information was also communicaYed to the applicanY. Mr. Warner asked Mr, Beach if that was correcL Mr. Beach replied yes. Mr. Waruer stated that if you look at the language in the Zoning Code, specificatly in Chapter 64.204(c) it states that any person can appeal a decision from the Zoning Administrator but that appeai fias to be fiied within 30 days of receipt of that detam�ination by the owner of the properiy in quesrion. Mr. Wamer stated that he wouId agree that iniiially and maybe througfiout this process that the appiicant here today has raised the issue of the determination about legal nonconforming use on the part of LIEP staff. The Code is clear that one has 30 days to appeal from that decision and that decision was made on October 28, 1996. The application for appeal is dated Mazch 31, 1997, so it is faz outside of the time provision that is provided for by the Code. Mr. Wamer stated that represents a dif£cult question, if you want to entertain the motion here Yhat the detemvnation by LIEP staff with respect to its nonconforming use is before the Board, then you are violating the provisions of the Code that states you have 30 days. That is a very strict reading of the Code. The Board could choase to waive that if they wanted to, the pmbtem wouid be that the Board doesn't have a report from skaff on thaY pazticulaz point. That would require a resotution of that issue and it would have to be laid over and statl would have to vndertake a study of that. Staffwoutd need to ask his legal opinion on fhat and that couid take any number of days. The basis the Boazd could have in ignoring the ruie of taw is that the applicant originaliy raised tfie point That wouid � be a decision the Boud would have to make and unfortunately he cannot advise the Boazd legally whether or not they have the right to do that. If the Boazd would like to do that he asked the Boazd to lay the matter over so that he can reseazch the basic issue of whether or not the Boud can for equity purposes avoid the iules that have been established in the Ordinance and give the Boazd an opuuon on that Tf it tums out that the Boazd can do that then it would be appropriate to heaz that pazt of the appeal. Mr. Wazner stated that issue is not before the Boazd to@ay. Ms. Bogen stated that she believes for equities in this matter tkat the BZA should consider doing that only because the applicant did raise a number of issues in his ear&er Ietters to staff and possibly was waiting for a final letter that addressed all of tfie issues. She asked why the applicant should appeal eacfi Ietter received from LIEP staff dealing with only part of what he had originally asked staffto Iook at Mr. Wallner stated that Ms. Bogen stated exactly what he was trying to say prior to paying $200 in that he had a lot more issues to bring up. He stated that he was advised by LIEP staff that he could bring the issues up. He Yold staff that he didn't wanf to pay $200 for every issue regarding this case. Mr. Wacner stated he a�ees in principle with Ms. Bogen's statement that strikes him as a realistic interpretation of what is going on but he has to respond to the applicani with respect to the allegations of being mistead Mr. Wamer stated that the law is the law. Mr. Beach stated that in going over this case he has been hying to write a letter that stated LIEP's position He stated he addressed pazldng verses storage and perhaps he didn't state it as cleazly as he meant to that staff was saying that this was a legal nonconfomung use. The issue with the EAW came up after he wrote the • letter. Mr. Wallner had requested some clarification on the February 27, 1997, and wrote a letter dated � �' °i�'��� � � � File #97-076 Page S"vc March 13, 1997, making swe that all of the issues were covered. He stated he wouldn't have any objection to the issue of the nonconfomvng use being considered since it was his intent to state that in the letter but the EAW issue came in aftenvards and he was surprised to see it in the appeai form Ms. Bogen asked Mr. Beach if he intended to make that statement in the letter. Mr. Beach replied yes and that it was an intent to clarify the issue that yes this was a nonconfomung issue. They had detennined that the trailers were pazked verses stored. Mr. Tully questioned where Mr. Wallner's photos were taken because it appears they were taken on the west side. If this is true, the photos would have no bearing on ihe east side of Sneliing Avenue and Hus case is pertaining to the east side. Mr. Wallner stated he could have taken pictures on the east side of 5nelling Avenue to prove ]us point. Mr. Wallner asked for clarification on the statement that City. staff's detemvnation was that these trailers are. a legal nonconfornvng use and asked if his presentation about the previous history in that the Planning Commission should have voted on it, approved it and the EAW has implications for nonconfornilng use. He stated that he believes that all of those points do have implications and he is hying to show that that is the foundation by which he is stating it shou]d not be designated that way. He stated that pazking in tkiat azea is a confomvng use so he doesn't understand how one can designate something legal nonconforming when in fact pazking is a confomiing use for this zoned azea. Mr. Beach stated that this is pazking which is accessory to a nonconfornaing use and therefore would be considered nonconforming. He stated that regarding EAW, it tallcs about the scope of the project that the EAW was looking it. It spoke about increasing the paved area on the site from 15 to 35 acres and talldng about putting in new entrances into the site, relocating railroad tracks. He stated that the area east of Snelling was paved at that time. The emphasis of the EAW was on the azea west of Snelling. Ms. Maddox asked Mr. Beach if his intent was to clarify the issue of the nonconforming use but it really wasn't addressed? She asked Mr. Beach if he feels the Boazd has enough information in the packet to address that or would staff have more information to provide to the BZA on that. Mr. Beach replied that he did hy to address it in the staff report and he would not have any fiuther information to add for the Board's detemvnation. Diane Gerth, Attomey representing BN, introduced John Ackerman, Manager of the Midway Hub Facility. She stated that with respect to the EAW, Mr. Wallner is using an abandoned expansion plan from 10 years ago to confuse the issue which is very nazrow that is before the Boazd today. That issue is whether or not City staff is correct in its determination that the land east of Sne]ling Avenue is indeed pazking verses storage. Ciry staff conclusion is that the equipment is left on the site for no longer than 84 hours. That is the legal opinion that has been set forth by the Ciry Attomey's Office, pazking rather than storage. She stated that if the Boazd is going to consider the deteanination that Uus is a legal nonwnfomvng use BN would object for the reasons that the City Attorney set forth. She stated that what she tUinks the applicant is trying to do is to redefine the word expansion The Ordinance is cleaz that expansion means the use of a greater area of land. The applicant used a series of pictures that show on different dates that more trailers were pazked in the area than on other dates. Mr. Ackerman has told her that on certain times of the year, depending upon the �� File #97-076 Page Seven availability of equipment, you will find that the land east of Snetling has more or less trailers on it Ttus is due to the transiency of the trailers on that site. That is because it is a parking facility where trailers come and go constantiy. The Midway Hub has gone up and down in its capacity but the same amount of land is being used, its just that the number of irailers have varied. Regazding the fence, they understand that TKllA has submitted drawings to the City. They aze waiting for pemuts to go forwazd and the fence is budgeted for and ready to go. She staYed she has no explanation as to why a recommendation that took place in 1982 has not yet been acted upoa. Mr. Ackerman has only beea oa the site for a year. Ms. Maddox questioned the statement that the cazs aze pazked for no longer than 84 hours and asked if there aze records on the movemenL Ms. Crerth replied that it was a Mertz study that made a conclusion that 84 hours was the longest peria3 of time. � Mr. Ackerman stated that the azea east of Snelling is used only for empty equipment. There aze no Ioads staged, parked or stored there. St. Paul is a equipment deficit azea and they do get a certain amount of empty equipment that comes in on the railroad in addition to the empty equipment Yhat comes in off the street What they do for the ease of the ttuckers to pick up equipment to go back ou the street is to put that equipment in one specific place. How that works is that when an empty piece of equipment comes in it is graded. If it is a good piece of equipment on midnight on that day all of the orders from various customers aze filled from t6at empty supply of equipment The customers then have 48 hours to pick up that equipment or it gets reassigaed to another customer. In most cases your looking at the day the piece of equipmenY comes in plus a � maximum of 48 hours until it woutd go out If someone doesn't pick up their equipment at midnight 48 hours later, it is reassigned so you could be looking at a fow-day turnazound. He stated he cannot say that there isn't a piece of equipment that sat on the lot for longer than they thought but normally it is a 48-hour hunaround and in ihe worst case a 96-hour tumarovnd The area east of Snelling holds 225 trailers. During the first part of the week the lot is neazly full and by Friday the lot is less than haif-full. Ms. Liston asked if a trailer comes in and it is on the lot for 84 hours, if it is moved 8 feet over and pazked it is stored and not pazked because it has not moved Yhe properiy. Mr. Ackerman replied they do not that so they can say that the equipment is parked rather than stored He added that the equipment on tke east side of Snelling is being put and picked up by the customers and not BN. Mr. Beach stated that the Code talks about how often a vehicle is used and picldng up a trailer and moving it 8 feet over would not be considered "using" the trailer. Mr. Wallner stated that Mr. Ackerman talked about storage and he dcesn't lmow fiow much of a difference it makes but in the doc;umenY thaY was prepazed for the Metropolitan Council by BN it cleazly refers to storage of trailers. Storage is part of their operation. IIe asked the Board to keep in mind that the more trailers on the site, the more noise for fhe neighborhood. He stated fhat during a snow storm it was clear from no Gracks on the lot that trailers hadn't been moved for weeks at a time. Mr. Wallner asked the City Attomey if his point regazding the EQB is perkinent here because as he refers to their letter it states in reference to the EIS it states that p�usuant to Minnesota Rules, part 4410, no fiaal govemmental decision to grant a permit or other approval required to commence the project shalt be made until negative dectaration or EIS adequately detemunation has been made. He stated that pazkuig and storage of the irailers east of Snelling was parf of BN's project and for the Boazd to approve pazldng would seem to kum to be against the letter from EQB. Mr. . Wazner replied that that is not germane here today. Zd �1�-i� � File #97-076 Page Eight Ms. Maddox stated she has some concem wer the nonconforming use issue on the determination and she would like that clarified by the Attomey. Ms. Maddox asked if the Boazd could delay the matter for 2 weeks to allow Mr. Waener to provide that information. Mr. Wamer stated he could have that determination at today's meeting for the Boazd. Ms. Bogea stated the Boazd could ask the applicant if he would be in favor of continuing the matter over past the 60-day deadline. Mr. Wallner replied he would be in favor of a continuance and asked for clarification. Ms. Maddox replied that the Board is asking to continue the matter in 2 w�ks for fhe determination of the nonconforming use if that is something this Boazd should be addressing. Mr. Wa]]ner asked if at that meeting he could bring up his points about the EIS and his other issues. Ms. Maddox replied no that the Boazd has all of the information from Mr. Wallner regarding that. She added that if it is not up to the BZA to make that detemiinarion, the Boazd will give Mr. Wallner guidance on where he could bring that information to. Ms. Bogen moved to continue the mat[er with the applicant's approval until June 2, 1997. Mr. Scherman seconded the motion. Mr. Hazdwick asked if it is the Boazd's intent to continue the public portion of the meeting at the June 2, 1947 continuance. Ms. Maddox after consulting the Boazd members replied that it is the full Boazd's � decision to ciose the public portion of the meeting. The motion to continue the matter until June 2, 199�, which passed on a unanimous voice vote of 7 to 0. Submitted by: Tom Beach � Approved by: John Tuliy, Secretazy ZI � -SUMMARY OF APPEAL TO THE ST. PAUL BOARD C1F ZONlNG ISSUE: BURLtNGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD DATE OF MEETING: MAY 19, 1997_. PERSUN �R,PPE�R�.lN�� ��A.�t� �r�� _� t+r�� � � Z2 ( �l'1-1�� � Historv of Burfi r November 5, 1987: BN submits a Site Pian to the city ofi St. Paul which would extend the use of the Midway Hub east of Snetling Avenue. The Site Plan specifically refers to the temporary parking of traifers within the site. November 13, � J87: The city of St. Paul Zoning - Administrator responds to BN's request by concluding that semi-trailers would be stored and that the setback and screening requirements apply. � November 13, 1987: A second {etter frorn the City informs BN that their Site Pian must be reviewed by the futl Planning Commission. The letter states that this is requirecl because unusualty large and controversial projects are often referred to the pfanning Commission fior action. December 12, 1987: BN requests an administrative review of the Zoning Administrator's decision that semi-trailers are being stored and not p�rked. -January 15, 1988 - Board of Zoning Appeats lays over their decision on BN's expansion pfans until an Environmentai Assessment Worksheet (EAVI� is compteted. The City recognized the potentiaf ! negative impacts to the Newel Park neighborhood if BN were a1lowed to expand the 1 Hub. 23 ^�L `� •--�� . • �✓ !/.�n... �i �� � � ' - - _ - Z'�"F''�, ��L �{ 7Alr2,KING.OUVA[�,ANOEaS� �1 ANO ASSOGATEi INCOFOOF� ENGINEERS ARCHI7ECT5 Pf.ANVERS j5pp>WEA�CaMN6T10P0lBANK8V�l0�NG " $.11Ni i4Ut, MiNNES�T? 55101.1897 � � 812:$92.dLQ . cAX 6t 3 - 192A083 Novemher 5, 1987 Mr. Jan P. &asterland Bujfd(ng Code Ofiftcer Building lnspection and Design Division Depari of Community Services Cfty of St. Paui T5 W. KeI(aga St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Mtdway Hub Facittty Burlingfion Northern Railroad Commfssion No. 9069-01 Dear Mr. 6asferiznd: The Burlington Northern Ratlroad proposes to make Improvements to thelr Hub � Facility properfiy whic& ttes xest of Snetting Avenue and nor�h of Pferce Butler Route.. Y1e are requesting your agreement that the proposed improvements neet the requfrements oP the Bulldtng Code. The improvements wtthl� the s(te inctude the retocatlon of existtng ratlroad track, concrefie pavtng a�d construci of an entrance, storm dralnage system znd offfce and xarehouse butldtngs. The Improvements are reoted an the ertclosed site plan. Praposed tmprove:nenfis, includtn concrete pav(nq and fiemporary par ng ofi tra[lers operation xithin the site), lie wfthin the 300 foot sethack which Is referenced tn the Bullting Code under lndustrial Distrfcts Sec�Io❑ b0.613(3?. The existtng hub_Facility (s a coniorntng use which begzn oy,erafiions on May 14, 1974; the exlsting use began prior to the formal adoptlon date of Oci 25, i975 for the present Bufld(rtg Code rrhich is referenced above. The site pfan enclosed atso fndicates the existing zoning ltne, the 3Q0 foot satback line from the zo�tng lFne, and the approximate Hub Facitfty s(te ope�attons t(ne af tnftia( start-up on Mzy i4, i974. Due to the fact that - tha exlsfiing Hub Faciliiy is a conforming use'placed in operatfon prior to the present Zon(ng Code znd aiso tha the existtng code wder Sect(o� 60.6t3(3) does not cfearly def(ne par(cing of 't�atlers as siorage, we feel that the proposed improvement ts in conformznce. •- We atso understand that the City Piannfng Commission has approved the � r�noval of Seci 60.613(3) fran the BuildTng Code and that the required hearings for amendment cooid begtn as early as fihe f(rst xeek In December, 1987. ! .�;, .� �. ;.. 3 a :� : .+°� Y^ r; Z �' ti I � 2 � { ��ye±`d'3a�!'� 6 ��..� � . • .., . : • �, : ltllil S �:� I III '�� � � CEORC£ 1,A71MER � MAYOR November 13, 19&7 � ( • Darrel H. Berkowicz TKDA 2500 American National Bank Building St. Paul, MN 55101-1893 °l'1-1'3 � �' CITY OF SAINT PqV � DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNiTY SrRViCtS BUILD{rtG INSPECTION.tivD DESIGN DlviSION ..Gry Haii, Saint Paui, Minnesoca i51p? 61:-?98-:Z7? RE: Midway fiub Facility North Side Pierce Butler Raute West of Snelling Dezr Mr. Berkowitz: We have zeviewed your request of November 5, 19$7 for the Burlington Northern Railroad rIidway Hub Facility. The property is located in an I-1 (LighC industrizi) zonir.g district. Outdoor storztr=_ in aa industrial zoning district cannot be located wichin 300 feet of a residenCial zoning district pursuant to Section 60.613.(3) of the St. Paul Zoning Code. The site plzn submitted indicates t hat semi trailers, in transit from railroad f at e s to tractors, wou e - -- ------- --- ---- -_ .. _ �.. .��,��, tely followin� tF.e centerline of Pierce Sucler RmteP_ The 300 foot spacing requirement was added to the Zoning Code when it was ' entirely rewritten, effective October 25, 1975. Prior to tha[ date, outdoor storage was permiCted in an industrial district without regard to location on the loc. The trailer storage area tnat ssisted at the Midwzy Hub Facility in i975 was allowed to re�ain under the new code, although not in confotmance with the setback standard. Thzt same esiscing noncon£orming setback line can be maintained with the proposed improvements to the Facilicy. Aowever, as shown or. ehe site o1an, t4e oucdoor storage area oroposed would be located further south, closer to the residential zoning line, than the existino storage area. Along with a series of proposed test amendments, the Planning Co�ission has recommended that che above 300 foot setback standard be removed from the Zoning Coc'=_, because the required fencing apparently provides 2 sufficienz bzrzier between industrial and residential areas_ The City Council mzy choose to adoot the Planning Con�issioa recoQSier,dation, reject it, or approve it with modiiication. Any new change wQUld noe become effective for at least two monChs. � �� j`�4 �. $ i1 lw: Y ' � � V � � �J � a.+''+Rd� �'Si 9 � � � �" : �. � 25 �✓ GEORGE t/�TIMER MAYOR CITY OF SAIN7 PAU� DEPARTMEN'i-0E-PL-ANNIPfG ECONOMK DEVEIOPMENT i.�` . i?. %'.. 1. DIVISION OF PLANNI�+tC C. ..• . 25 West Fourth Slree4, Linl Pau� A7in�ewt� � 6t2.22ft- L� November 13, 1�87 Mr. Darrel Berkowitz y TKDA and Associates ZSOQ American National Bank $uilding Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Re; Sice P1an Review for Burlingtan Northerr. Midway FFul� Facility Dear Mr. Berkowitz: I am writing to confirm whac I have told you that the Planning Commission w e reviewing t e site p an you are wor Lng on or Burlington ort ern's i wav u aci itv_ on ��Pm Pr rr,,, vi�,...;.,o �ommission approved a motion by Kathy Zieman requesting that the site plan review application be reviewed by the full Planning Commission vhen it is formally submfcted. The Saint Pau1 Zoning Code,gives the planning Comlaission jurisdiction over review of site plans. Because of the large voZwae of siCe plans, the PZanning Commission has delegated this responsibility to the PLanning staff. However, site plans 'for unusually large or controversial developments are often re erred to the fu11 Planning Commission for their action, Tite action of the Planning Com.rnisszon is zna un ess someone appeals the deczsion to the Cfty Council wiGhin 15 days. W'hea the Planning Commission reviews.a site p1an, they are zequired by law co have a public hearing. As T to2d you over the phone, if we recezve your conaZeted application by November 20, we vi11 schedule a Planning Commission puolic hezring or. the matter on Jec>s�er 1S, 1987. Zf there is cor*_tove>_sv y[ the public hearing, I e.cpecc t'r.e sice plan wi11 be reYerred back to the Zoning Committee for its recommendation on January 7, 2988 and brought back to the PZanning Com�ission on January 15, 1988. Please feel free to ca11 me at 228-3362 or Larry Zangs at 228-3392 when you have ques[ions. Sincerely, ���� /�*��NtJ �Y/ r vLr. U' srrence Sodernolm Principal Planner - Zoning cc: Wendy Lane 26 ...,. - ; ` -�� `#� � � �! .� ,:s �i;..+' '• a � .� � S � r � L� PU8L1C HEARtNG NOTICE CITY OF SA4KT PAUL BOARD OF 20NlNG APPEALS q1-I�a� : THE ACTION OF THE BOARD AT THIS HEARINf� WILI BE TO LAY THIS CASE �VEP. UNTIL AFTER THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSNEE7 IS C�MPLETED. YOU WILI RECEIVE A NEW NOTICE WHEN THE SOARD WILL R U W S CASE. �� APPL{CAN7 PURPOSE �CATION OF PROPERTY TfNSE OF HEARING PIACE OF HEARiNG HOW TO PARTICIPATE ANY QUESTIONS � Property Owners Within 350 feet; Representatives of Planning District I1 BURLIN6TON f�ORTHER�! RAILROAD C0. An Administrative Review of the Zoning Administrator's decision which determined that a BN expansion proposal uutaoor stroage requlres setback from tne zoaing boun line and parking does not have this requirement. The applicant states that the determination was in error. Present Zoning: I-1 (Industrial) 1701 Pierce Butler Route Tuesday, January 26, 1988 1:30 P.P4. 3th floor conPerence room, City k{al1 Ar,nex, 25 W. 4th S�reet, Rr`r�.e� F�..n..� ('i4.. Noll � S>in� Onnl __— 1. You may attend hearing and testify. (See note above) 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to the Board of Zoning Appeats, 25 West Eourth St., St. Paul, MN. 5510'c Call the Zoning office at 248-4154 � Donna Datsko � or your District Cauncil representative ( 646-1986 )�+ith the following information: Zoning Fi1e No. 10245 Zoning File Name BURLINGTON PlORTHERN RR �� Mailing Oate 1-15-88 _ Environmental Assessment Worksheet Conclusions 1. June 6, 1988 - An EQW is submitted to the Minnesota Environmentat comment. Quaiity Board (EQB) for review and 2. The EAW makes it clear that BN's Site Pian proposes to expand east of Snelling Avenue - the EAW states: "The project area can be divided into two sections, the section East of Sne�lin Avenue and the section West of Sne ling venue...". "The operation of the ex anded facility will be identical to the curren�iiity but at increased capacity." 3. One of the main purposes of the proposed expansion was to increase the number of trailer spaces. BN's Site Plan/EAW estimated that the number of trailer spaces would increase from 540 to 1,149 spaces. C� � � Z a = {�ie o Y.-, E l� W � 5, Descrfbe the proposed project compZetelp. L h �� �1� ���� �� The total projecC area is about 53 acres. The project area can be divided into two sections, the section east of Snelling Avenue and the section west of Snelling Avenue; the project is s own on t e site p an, Attac ent 4,B,3. The two areas are joined under the Snelling Avenue overpass, just south of the BN main line tracks. The westerly section is about 49.1 acres and is bounded on the east by the west right-of-way line of Snelling Avenue and on the north from the most southerly through-railroad track. The south boundary is at the property line and the north right-of-way line of Pierce Butler Route. On the west, the project boundary follows the limits of developable land near the top of the bank surrounding the SN pond. The easterly section is triangular-shaped area about 4.3 acres; it is a flat paved area now vacant but formerly used as a new automobile unloading area, It runs between the Snelling Avenue right-of-way on the west, the northerly right-of-way line of Pierce Butler Route and the BN main line tracks. 0� '� The operation o£ the expanded £acility will be identical to the current facility but at an increase capac ty. Trains with flat cars carrying trailers and containers are received from the Seattle and Chicago regions. The trailers are unloaded fzom the train's cars by large diesel powered vehicles called piggy packers. The piggy packers work alone or in pairs and typically can load 24 units in a two hour peziod. Hostler tractors reposition the trailers and containers oa the site until semi-trucks arrive to haul them away. Ten jobs will be added to the 24 hour period total, increasing the � complement to 60 workers. The paved axea o£ the site wi11 increase from 12 acr=s to 47,4 acres, An area about .8 acres will remain gravel but will be used as the azea for washing packers and as a"safe haven" (a "safe haven" is a four £oot deep pit with an impervious liner used to contain any spillage from a leaking container or trailer, see item No. 24.) A 5.2 acre landscaped area will be ir.stalled. The dimensions of the BN pond, just west of the project area, will remain unchanged, 18.2 acres. r u increase £rom about 540 to 1149 svaces, auto narking will increase £rom 30 to 50 spaces, hostler and packer parking will be provided at the rate of six and three spaces respectively. A main entrance will be built in the easterly section o£ the site and an entrance road will run north and parallel Co the Pierce Butler Route. The entrance road will have three in-bound and one out-bound traffic lanes. A control booth used for checking and inspecting trucks entering and leaving the site and a small support o£fice wi11 be constructed in this area. All trucks diopping o£f or picking up trailers or coxrtainers will have to use this main entrance and will pass under the Snelling Avenue overpass to the facility`s main storage area. Some tracks will be repositioned to accommodate truck movements from one section of the facility to the other section. Z i ` —�v o m l`l5 {^e'o o�et f� t�i e. �"Y��C f�u�o o�i fr,�V! CO c.vi c c� , TABLE 2 TERMINAI CNARACTERlSTlCS USED 1N CAPACITY ANALYSIS BN MIDWAY HUB Acreage Terminal Working Area Woods and Hit(top Hours Operated Week Qays Week Ends Number/Length of.Tracks lnside Yard: Load/Unload #4 toad/Unload #3 Load/Unload #2 N and S "- • • Subtotal Outside: Storage (4 Tracks) Number of Lift Machinss Number of Hostling Tractors Number of Emplo e Number of Parking Spaces Trucks Per Day (Weekdays) 52.1 Acres 9.7 Acres 24 Hours 18 2,500 2, 670 2,350 2, 200 11,650. 2,600 4 8 46 Feet 34 Feet/Track Lifts + 50-100 � � �J 3a q�_j30� The EA' � ���c:�t� noise for The EAW concluded that: "With the simuttaneous operation of two packers with new sound shieiding mufflers (these have recently been instalfed} on the rail nearest the Aldine receptor (308) feet, noise standards wouid be exceeded by any type of operation". And that: "Operation ofi one packer at the nearest rait and one at the middte rait would exceed the noise standard" in a letter dated July 14, 1988 the Minnesota • Poltution Controi Agency reviewed the EAW and informed the City of S. Pauf that: "With the proposed expansion ....... It appears that the Hub operation will almost double. Violations o�E the state noise standards wift occur without noise mitigation". Those predictions were accurate: On June 13, 1995 the MPCA conducted a noise survey which showed that: "Noise feveis monitored were above limits for a residentiat area as defined by MPCA noise poltution contro{ standards." � 31 r�, /}(� � 10 _-- . . The study calibrated traffic and piggy packer noise levels for various operation levels at the site. porst-case estimated noise levels based on operations closest to the sensitive receptor sites were established, The study determined that while hostlez tractors produce noise similar � to that of the packers, their use is more intermittent and they aze often shielded by the rows of trailers and containers and therefore their use was not factored into this analysis. With the simultaneous operation of two packers with new sound shielding � mufflers (t ese ave recent y een insta ed on t e rail nearest the ` A dine receptor eet , noise stan ar s wou e excee e y any With the operation of packers having the new mufflers and working at the middle rail, noise standards likely would not exceeded. Operation of one packer at the nearest rail and one at the middle rail would exceed the noise standatds. A S dBA reduction in ihe equipment could allow a single packer to operate on this rail during the nighttime hours without vio2ating the standard. The operation of two packers with new mufflers at the i Impact noise £rom bouncing and parking trailers and containers may also contribute to Lhe noise generated on-site. Uneven gravel surfaces and uneven rail crossings cause the ,jostling of trailers and containers, which when empty are especially noisy. Paving the surface snd • rebuilding the rail crossings wili reduce this type o£ equipment noise. D. Odors. No specific data on odor thresholds for diesel-type emissions are available. The study established an approximate threshold value for hydrocarbons of 0.1 ppm, The Minnesota P,mbient Aiz Quality Standards for hydrocarbons are 0.24 ppm for a 3-hour period. The predicted truck h;�drocarbon Ievels at t?�e closect r>ceptor site at Fairview Avenue, 30 meters south of the BN entrance, was ,015 ppm. 24. Describe the type and amount of solid or hazardous rraste including sludges and ashes that wi1Z be generated and the me[hod and Iocatlon of disposal. No solid or hazardous waste wiZZ be generated at this site. According to the hub faci2ity manager, less than S percent of the containers or trazlers being transoortad throu�h the ya*d contain ar.y hazzrdous material. Of those hazardous materials brought through the yard, the largest containers are 55 gallon-drums, Theze aze no tanker-type rail cars brought through this facility. 6 The facility now provides a waste containment site for any potential hazardous waste spiZZs. The expanded facility will have a pit or "safe haven" which wi21 be abaut four feet deep and lined with an impervious • material to conCain any spill and prevent it from reaching the BN pond. In case of a very sudden spill in which hazardous material reaches the storm sewer system, there would be opportunity to b].ock the storm sewez az ,, � � � ; , _ • ,> e Minnesota Pollufiion Contro{ Donna L. Datso City Planner II City of Saint Paul 25 West 4th Street 1100 City Hall Annex Saint Paul; Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Datso: �i�-Nsa� �,�G � �� ����� �d 5 > �� . Re: Burlington:Northern Midway Hub Facility Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) , The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency {MPCA) staff has reviewed . the above referenced document and has comments to offer regarding potential noise and air quality and traffic impacts_due to the project. Noise A noise analysis was conducted for the existing Burlington Northern facility by the MPCA and the St. Paul City Health Department in August of 1987. It was concluded from the study that, although noise levels were sligkLtly in excess of the state noise standar3s aao ci Tevels, a si nificant noise prob em did not exzst due to the facility. Noise impacts from Pierce Sut er Roa were t ou�g t t be Che larger contributor, by far, to the problem than the Burlington Northern operation. In addition, much of the noise from the facility is intermittent and consis'ts of the "banging and clanging" of empty trucks and containers associated with the operation. re at, currently, there are s ---- - -- aci ity represented in the EAW the staff is currently conducting site to evaluate these impacts. cant noise thE AlC11rie Site). AS SllCh, rther noise monitoring at the u Phone• 520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Regional Offices • DuluthlBrainerdlDetroit Lakes/MarshalllRochester Equal ODDartunity Employer 33 July 14, 1988 �v�o w+ YY1 !�G}1- ��etkv2. Ms. Da'tso ��� �v�� �� �.Y O 0 � Page��.Two _ � � '� -= - `' ``, With the proposed expansion of the facility, it is estimated by Burlington Northern that the five day (weekj average of 428 trucks per day into and out of the facility will increase to 700 trucks per day. Zt appears that Hub operations will almost double. Vi of the state noise standards will occuz wit_out_noise mitig The staff (David Kelso at 61 T3T recommen s that all of the noise mitigation measvres listed at pages 33, 34, and 50 of the EAW be implemented to achieve compliance with the state noise standards._ Currently, on2y part of the recommended noise mitigation measures have been completed or are planned for the facility. Those measures that are recommended, but not planned for or completed, include: 1) control of piggy packer noise by enclosing_the engines, contro.11ing night operations, erecting berms and barriers, and exploring ways by which impact noise from the lock in arn might be reduced, 2) control of noise due to the Hostler tractors by moving the exhaust lower on the tractor, �' 3) control of noise due to id2ing trucks by building berms or barriers, and 4) control of noise due to departing trucks by relocating the entrance. As is stated in the EAW, the resu2t of implementing the completed, planned, and recommended abatement measures in the EAw is that the proposed (and existing) facility should be able to operate within the City of St. Paul Ordinance and Minnesota noise standards. Air Quality and Traffic Impacts An Indirec� Source Permit (IS:) is not required £or the proposed project: Air quality issues are adequately addressed in the document. The modelled concentrations for hydrocarbons, which is the primary air pollutant from tha proposed project, were well belaw the state standard. Carbon monoxide (CO} and nitrogen oxide levels were also low, therefore, no violations of the state air quality standards are exgected to occur as a result of the project. The staff wishes to note, however, that some potential traffic impacts are expected at the Sne2lina and University Avenue incersection due to an increase in truck traffic from the proposed project. It is anticipated that 20 percent of the hourly truck trips passing north and south through this intersection woul.d be associated with the facility. Though this percentage might appear insignificant, it isn't. Actually, on=_ heavy truck is believed to be the equivalent of five cars, traffic-wise. These trucks will be displacing cars who will otherwise be queuing up to use this intersection. The document . � *- , � L • 3 �f 9'1-i�o� � NOISE SURVEY MPCA INVESTIGATOR: Brian Timerson INSTRUMENTATION: Larson Dav:is Labs 870M SiN A0125 DATE: 06/13/1995 TIME START: 22_28 PM TIIvIE END: 23:28 AM SOURCE: Burlin�ton Northern Midway Intermodai Hub .�MONITOR LOCATTON: Residential Area South of Hub. NAG1 DIAGRAM (INDICATE - NOISE SOURCE, NOISE RECENER, MICROPHONE LOCATION, REFLECTING OB7ECTS/OBSTRUCTIONS AND DISTANCES.) � Budington Northem C� Intermada! Hub � ro � m Meteorological Condi.tions Comments: The Intermodal loading activities were not the major source of noise for the total of the hour long monitoring. CALIBRATION Wind Speed / Direction c� TEMPERAT'CTRE: 23 °C �� j� IBRATOR SERIAL NUMBER: 1392 CALTBR.ATTON FREQUENCY: 250 Hz �CfTI�'IAL: 114.0 dBA FINAL: 114.0 dBA RESULTS L10 59 dBA L50 54 dBA 3 .s was never On November 5, 1987, which is the date that BN applied for expanding its facility, an air photo was #aken of the area east of Snelling Avenue. This air photo shows no trailers stored or parked east of Sneiling Avenue. A second air photo taken in 1993 shows a row of trailers east of Sneiling Avenue. � tn a photo taken April 12, 1997, the area east of S�eiling is completely filted with two rows of trailers. ` r., �� 36 � < '� -: $ �': -��':'�. j ... t � � r .' - � � � '. .� ^-.-�-r ��.� F�� c �� k4 .� i3.'' f � "�?' a s .. .. -:. � t����..r �� �• s e � �' — a � } � 7 < ' �} g- � ¢ " � k: ,'y� ..n F.s' .� u�va � s �' , � S�c� �.cn.�G�"K.F 4 �' ^^r* � a� •�S 4 ; ] ,� tryv,. +r � y y � �� - � C�Y' � '� '"� p � .,: �a ��•-C � .. � " i �'x 4 ti " rr f f n. �� � � � `� y F r y � � d i T � Y . � � t� �'� � l' j � - K` F� �•`�` � k .{S' iPF", A� � A � 1 �� �� 1 1: �' .' +t '��� � 3�Y. J-f � } �e�� _ c .. � � ( � . � e � ��`�� s "'�z � ' a� ..r.-� �. °3 ,�� ._.21N�.-N . . j � w �� � v�g r Y .' ._ .: �-a.� '"{} { y � �* r �� ry � ' ' S h : �' � � � t � �Y4• �„!' .s. s' .� . � - ....-r "" 2 i �� �a� Y � j, � �' t- �� " �r s E.i ;' _., _ � �" s � u � y � r ...,}, � . � . . `{""'.. . �4R�ia� � L[ � ` � - s �� . a .�.� ��� + ` � �'�{ �i � �p � �� j � � . �, ' ._., _ � w , �" _ �' " . ., f r- — F ...,i.. x � l ,.Y. r[ � �U l 9 yl ' + _'�""�` y -_ �, y S �i s �. �-.' � - { + c � F r �^ � �, [,� t � �:.5 r .. ::� . . �.3 _ �i y f �` -�+:ta . �.�„{' w � �- `� � : � � � ' � 3 . �?' � ��: °3 C.' % v -: �.�`�, _ �` �?-�. n "�li . l _ . � � , 4 i.. _...�c�z'F=t�:� , . �' . . ,� s��t.'�.', ��.�.5 :� �+r�� t`�,.J�:?"� , - � �. a .. .-_. :- , - ...�. �.n � : .r c��... .: - i . . — . . ' ." .� ._ � �� . _ 7>�a+'n;F-'N 'arx�'+"' `.s--:4r �fia. �mw - ».i`se�s'� M1::�C�' .'�; • . £ `yf� `� _ ti = . . a � . , . . - . . .: a�-��o3 • � � � /31V .����1 /Z / �°� ��G� t� e , ����� �r��� ��:5� c� 5,��� 1 Sl�oc���vt� l�r' �cb�pl�t��� ,_/ �.- J J l 1 inJ 1�� �� i y� �l LtJ :S C) � �'ot� ��°i�S _ 3f � � � BN's use of land east of Snellin Avenue to store or ! par trailers as at owe the s pre �ct�ons to occur. EAW Prediction 1,149 trailer spaces 3 lift machines 6 hostlers trucks Idoise standards would be violated Current Status 1,050 as of 1995 5 lift machines 8 as of 1995 MPCA 1995 noise survey confirms noise violations By BN's own account the (oading and unloading of trailers increased by 22% for 1994 alone. BN/SF's 1995 report to the Metropolitan Counci! states that: "Over the past four years, the volume of inter modal freight moved to and from Minnesota by BN has ir�creased each year except 1991.... All but 10% of this inter modal traffic moves by truck in and out of BN's Midway Hub in St. Paul" � �� � y a � c�7_��03 � CONCLUStON er BN' ue. 1. BN's application to expand its Midway Hub inctuded land east of Snelling Avenue. The - applieation specificalfy refers to "temporary parking of trailers". 2. Because of the controversial nature of BN's expansion plans, including the parking of trailers, the issue �vas r�fe�resi t� the City Planning Commission. 3. Prior to voting on BN's Site Pfan, the Pfanning � Commission required that an EAW be conducted. 4. The EAW predicted negative impacts for the Neweli Park neighborhood if the expansion were aliowed, 5. The Planning Commission never approved BN's Site P(an which included the use o# land east of Snetting Avenue. 6. BN began using the land east of Snelling despite the EAW's conclusions that noise would increase, and despite the fact that their Site Pfan was never approved by the Planning Commission. As a result the amount of loads in and out of the Midway Hub incre�sed dramaticaily - and so did noise for the • Newei Park neighborhood �� �� 7. In reference to BN's 1987 ptans to expand {which � includes trailer spaces on land east of Sne!ling Avenue) the State of Minnesota Environmen#ai Quaiity Board informed the city of St. Paut that: "Pursuant to Minnesota Rutes, part 4410.3100, subpart y, no final governmentat decision to grant a permit or other approval required to commence the project shall be made until a negative declaration or EtS adequacy determination has been made". � d � kZ �; � � y l Yv� 1• 300 Centennia( Bur7ding� 658 Cedar Streef •St pau�, Mnnesota 55755 612 ' June 8, 1988 City Planner 25 West Fourth Street 1100 City Ha12 Annex St. Paul, MN 55102 RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Burlington Northern Midway Hub-Facility _ Donna L. Datsko Dear Ms. Datsko: This letter acknowledges receipt of the EAW for the above-named project. The Environmental Review Program rules (at Minnesota Rules, � part 4410.1500B.) require that a press release containing notice of the EAW availability be provided to at least one newspaper of general circulation within tha area and that copies of the EAW be distributed to all points on the EQB distribution list. We presume that these requirements have been met. Notice of the EAW availability will be published in the EOB Monitor on June 13, 1988. The 30-day comment period will begin on that day and will expire on 3uly 13, 1988. • Pursuant to Minnesota Ru1es, part 441�.3100, subpart 1, no final governmental decision to grant a permit or other approval required to commence the project shall be made until a negative declaration or EIS adequacy determination has been made. Please contact me if any questions arise about the Review process. My phone numbez is (612) 296-8253, toll-free by dialing 1-800-652-9747 and asking for Quality Board, Environmental Review Program. Sincerely, �"'-�`� �� �'1 �' Gregg M. Downing Environmental Review Coordinator cc: 43 An EqualOpportunity.EmpFoyer Environmental or you may call the Environmental L �- r� u 1. Not allow BN to park trailers east of Snel(ing Avenue. it wouid appear that if parking is a!lowed the Zoning Board would violate Minnesota Rule 441 U.3100. 2. That BN be required to remove ait trailers from their land east of Sneliing Avenue. The t�e�rre( Park neighborhood has endured years of very aggravating noise as a resuit of BN's incr�ased activity. Requiring BN to remove trailers east of � Snetling Avenue will not destroy their business, but wilt reduce their capacity to the level it was before BN's application to expand - an application that was never approved by the Planning Commission. This will help reduce the noise impacting the Newel Park neighborhod - a reduction that is long overdue. Thank you for your time and consideration to this matter. Frank X. Wallner � Hy =�r ✓ °l'1-l�0� SAINi r�vi � IIAAA APPLICATIOt3 �OR APPEAL Department ojPlanning and Economic Deve(optnen[ Zoni�rg Section II00 City Aa!! Annex 25 West Fourlh Street Saint Paul, MN 53102 266-6589 APPELLANT Name �tr�,�, � �,/�� /i!1 rt'�� Address j � � ,� /� �•� -� City S-1. �.� �/ St.�jY ,,Zip � S/L'`t Daytime phone �z 2°iE� N l�11 27 29 2i 3 2 000/ PRdPER7Y Zoning File Name��/ �S f— /�c„ (ro r:, �� v r cYw"." �/� LOCATION AddresslLocation_T,1-c� QS r c-f-, ��� n'� S�, o_//, � Y�r / ��?_� ,� �� _ n J .n . �J TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: [�' Board of Zoning Appeafs ❑ City Councii under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to �ppeal a decision made by the ��c� Q'�L,�ste�� �, v. 1 c�� Cr on rf �,r�o �-z � 2. � , 19� File number. (date of decisi� GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any sequirement, parmit, decision or refusal made by an administrative o�ciai, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Soard of Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission. S� e /�-�«ti P�Q ��-��,� ( 0��31t97vcoza12.44�ti CLE2Y;� 4�8� VAfiSt�'e,CE ��2�� t3C7 CHfCK � �.a40 Attach additional sheet if AppficanYs Date,;,�[3 �' City agent y� Atiachment to Application for Appeal Grounds for Appeai 1. The Office of Licensing Inspections and Environmentat Protection has failed to correctly interpret St. Paul Legislative Code 60.214.N and therefore the use of land east of Snetiing shouid not be a iega[ nonconforming use. 2. Even if the land east of Snelling is a legai nonconforming use BN/SF has expanded and/or extended the use of its tand east of Sneliing Avenue since 1992 - in violation of St. Paul Legislative Code 62.142 {d) {2) and (3). � U 3. tn 1987 the City wnducted an Environmerrtai Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the BN/SF Intermodal Hub. The ERW concluded that noise was a significant probiem and that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was necessary before expansion is allowed. Photographic evidence cleariy shows that BN/SF has expanded its operations since 1987 by storing (or parking) serrti-trailers on land east of Snelling Avenue, and yet an EIS was not condueted. Storing {or parking) semi-traifers east of Snelling Avenue has allowed BN/SF to expand its operations by 22% between 1993 � and 1994 alone (BN(SF's own figures). This expanded use of tand east of Sneliing Avenue resulted in increased noise for the Newe! Park neighborhood. 4. In a letter to the City, SNISF committed to fencing and screening a portion of its property atong Pierce Butter Route some time in 1982. tn a memorandum from the City's Attorney Office dated January 30, �997 the City Attomey offers to draft a letter to BN/SF asking fhem when BtV/SF wiil make good on fts original representations. The Office ot LIEP should follow through with this support by requiring BN/SF to a construet a screening fence along Pierce Butler Route. � `�` °t�-t�a3 Mr. Tom Beach March 13, 1997 • Office of Licensing and Inspections Lowry Professional Building Suite 300 350 St. Peter Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 Dear Mr. Beach: I am in receipt of your February 27, 19971etter to John Ackerman of BN/SF Railroad. The letter is in response to concerns I raised in my letter of November 27, 1996. Your letter concluded that BN/SF semi-trailers are parked and not stored. Hawever, your letter addresses only the parking versus storage issue. Please note that my 1Vovember 27th letter brought up other issues which I do not believe were addressed. As you are aware, I do plan to appeal this decision to the Boazd of Zoning Appeals. Before I pay the fee for an appeal I want to make sure that the City responds to all of my concerns so that I do not have to appeal a second time. • The specific points in my letter which were not addressed are Part B- Continuous Use; Part C- Eapansion; and the part on Extended Use. I am especially interested in the City's response to my belief that BN1SF is in violation of City Ordinance 62.102 (d) 2 and (3) because BN JSF e�rtended the use of its intermodai operations. I will clarify my position now that the City has concluded that the serni-trailers are parked rather than stored. The City has concluded that BN/SF trailers are parked rather than stored. However, I contend that if trailers are not being stored the only conclusion to be made is that they are being "used". In fact, without the use of semi-trailers BN/SF's facility could not operate. City Ordinance 62.102 (d) 2 and 3 cleazly states that: a non conforming use of land shall not be"extended to occupy a greater area of land than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this code" - and that -" A nonconforxning use shall not be moved in whole, or in part, to any other portion of the lot". By the City's own rulings and records it is an undeniable fact that the BN/SF facility is a nonconfonning use, and that BN/SF has e�ended the use of its semi -trailers to occupy � greater area of land East of Snelling Avenue (see photo}. Please note that in reference to the property East of Snelling Avenue BN/SF wrote in a September 3, 1996 letter that: "This properly is currently in use in connection with freight handling operations at Burlington Northem's Midway Iniermodal Hub." (emphasis added). � y� � In summary let me emphasize that: 1. The City has ruled that BN/SF intermodal operations is a nonconforming use. � 2. If trailers are being parked rather than stored then the only conclusion is that they are being used for intermodal operations. BN/SF admits that the semi-fsailers are being used in connection with iatermodal operations . 3 Photographic evidence clearly shows that BN/SF has extended the use of its semi-trailers to occupy a greater area of land east of SneIiing Avenue. 4. City Ordinance 62.102 (d) 2 and (3) clearly forbids a nonconforming use from occupying greater area of land or moved in whole or in part to ofher portions of a lot. Conclusion: I. The BN/SF Railroad is in violation of City Ordinance 62.202 {d) 2 and 3 and • should not have been allowed to e�end onto the land east of Snelling Avenue. 2. The City of St. Paui should require BN/SF Rai3road to remove all semi- trailers east of Snelling Avenne - or as a compromise - should be required to erect a screening fence along the entire length of the property along Pierce Bntler Route, and comply a�th the 300 foot set baek requirement. I hope this elarifies my position. In your letter you mention that an appeal must be made within 30 days. Although I am wiIling to appeal the storage issue the City's letter does not respond to all of my poiats. I assume that I can only appeal issues that the LIEP Department has commented on. Therefore I ask that you take another look at my November 27 1996 letter and respond to each of tYze issues. It would seem that once the City comments on ail the issues I raise in my November 27, 1996 letter I would then have 30 days to appeal. If this is not a correct assumption please let me know as soon as possible. � �� °t � -t'k� 3 � By allowing BiV/SF to e�rtend the use of land east of Snelling Avenue, the City has allowed BN/SF to increase the use of the Midway Intermodal Hub and therefore increased the noise for Newell Park residents. From 1993 to I994, a period during which BNf SF increased the use of land east of Snel2ing Avenue , the Midway Intermodal Hub (according to the Intermodal study) �icreased the number of loaded trailers by 32,000 - a 22°h increase. It simply does not seem right that the City allowed such an increase given the number of yeazs residents have voiced their concerns both to BN/SF and the City. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 646 7028. 5incerely, � �, �� / � , .� . ,- r� u cc: Bobbi Megard, City Council Woman n LJ �l % � CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor February 21, 1997 John Ackerman Saint Pau] Hub Operations Burlington Northern 1701 Pierce Butler Route Saint Paul, MN SSI04 OFF[CE OF LICEDiS£, (YSPECITONS AND ENVIRONMEMAL PROTEGT[ON RobertKessler, Di�ector LOO{'RY PROFESSIONRL BUILDLVG Suite 300 330St. PeterSlreet SairstPav[, AfiRnesota 55102-1il0 Teleplroae: 6l2-26d-90� Facsimile: 612-166-9099 612-266-912d RE: Semi-Vailers at Burlina on Northem's Pierce Butler property Deaz Mr. Ackerman: As you kaow, our o�ce has been invesTigating the legal status of semi-trailers ]ocated on Burlington Northern's property north of Pierce Butler Route and east of Snelling. PAI2KING VERSUS STORAGE One question that was raised as part of this investigation, is whether these trailers should be considered "parked" or "stored" under the zoning regulations that were in effect at the time the traiters were introduced to the property in I987. Tfie distinction between storage and parking is important because the zoning code requires that outside storane be set back at least 300 feet from residentially zoned property but there is no setback requirement for parked vehic]es. Most of Burlina on Northern's paved azea east of Snetling is within 300 feet of residentially zoned property. In prepazing this determination, our office asked the City Attomey's Office to provide us with a legal opinion. The Assisiant Ciry Attomey assigned Yo zonina issues noted that past court cases on the issue of "pazking" versus "storage" can be read to create a general rale that a caz, truck or semi-trailer is "pazked" if it remains there only for a short period of time but it is "stored" if it remains there for a long period of time. This, of course, raises the question of what should be considered a short period of time versus a long period of time. The Assistant City Attorney was unable to ftnd any Minnesota case law which makes a clear distinction on this. However, he noted that Section 60.219.S of the Zoning Code defines storage as "The placement of items such as, but not limited to the following: merchandise for sale or rent; materials awaiting servicing, processing or manufacturing finished products of a service, processing or manufaciuring operation; equipment, secaittuck trailers; portable storage containers but excluding trash containers for garage dumpsters which are accessory to the main use; and commerciai vehicles not used on a weekly basis." (Emphasis added.) Therefore, by inference, a semi-trai(er that is used on a weekly basis could be considered parked rather than stored. (See the attached letter from the Assistant City Attorney dated January 30, 1497.) r 1 U • sa °l� -1�03 USE OF THE BDi'S TRAILERS � It appears that Burlington Northem's trailers on the property in question are used at least once a week_ This is based on the folfowing: - Burlington Northem's letter of 9/3/96 states that "on the average, these freight containers are set out for a period of 24 hours or less, before being �emoved by BN's customers or loaded on flat cars by BN:' - LIEP staff inspected the site last summer and found that in a 36 hour period approximately half of the trailers had been moved. - A 1995 Metropolitan Council study of intermoda] freight facilities says that on the average the trailers at this facility are moved every 84 hours. CONCLUSIONS Based on information above, our office has determined that: - Semi-trailers which are used on a weekly basis constitute "parking" rather than "storage" under the zoning regulations that were in effect in 1987 when the trailers were introduced to the property. - The semi-trailers on Burlington Northern's property east of Snelling are used on a weekly basis. - These semi-trailers are thereFore "parked" rather than "stored" and may therefore stay on the property. However, as stated in the letter from the Assistant City Attorney "This is not to say that all trailers on BN's site may always be presumed to be `parked'. If, for instance, it appears that BN allows trailers to . remain on the site in excess of seven days, doing so would constitute `storage'." The trailers would then have to comply with regulations for outside storage, including a 300 foot setback from residentially zoned properiy. This setback requirement prohibits most of the paved area east of Snelling owned by Burlington Northem from being used for storage. APPEALS The zoning code allows for appeals of decisions by this office. (See attached copy of Section 64.204.) Appeals may be filed by any interested individual or organization. Appeais must be filed within 30 days of the date of this letter, which in this case would be Monday, March 31, 1997. Apgeals are heazd by the Board of Zoning Appeals at a public hearing. Any decision of the Board of Zoning Appeais can be appealed on to the City Council. If you have any questions, please call me at 266-9086. Sincerely, �� Tom Beach Zoning Section cc: Frank Wallner Glenn Olander-Quamme, Spence Ricke and Thurmer Councilmember Bobbi Megard Andy Schneider, District 1 I ! Michael Madigan, Attomey Peter Wamer, Office of the City Attorney Bob Kessler, LIEP �/ CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co[eman, Mayror January 30, 1997 Robert KessleY Department of Licenses, Inspections and Environmental Protection Room 300 Lowry Professional Building 350 St. Peter St. Saint Paul, MN 55101 OFFICE OF Tf� CTTY ATTORNEY Timot7ryEMm. CftyRttomey CivllDivtsion 400CiryNaII rswenx�sn�a. SaintPau� Mrnrtesota 55102 TeZephane:611266-87f0 • Factimile: 672 2A8-5619 RE: Opinion as to whether trailers located at a portion oE Buriington Northern's Midway Intermodal Hub north of Pierce � Butler Route and East of Snelling Avenue are either "parked" or "stored" under zoning reguSations in effect in 1987 Dear Mr. Kessler: You have asked the Office of the City Attorney (CAO) to give its opinion on whether trailers at BurZington Northern's Midway Intermodal Aub (BN) are "parKed" or "stored" within the meaning of the zoning regulations in effect for this property in 1987. Your opinion request is in response to a zoning complaint to LIEP concerning BN's present use of its property. You indicated that the distinctioa between parking and storage is very important because if the trailers are in "storage" BN must maintain a 300 foot setback from residentially zoned property. You also indicated that a 30o foot setback would prohibit most of BN's present use of the property. Background A. Recent History of Zoning Use Definitions for the Property: LIEP provided information showing that the subject property is zoned as an I-1 Industrial District. Prior to 1992, the use of the property was defined by the City as a"Railroad and Terminal Freight Facility", a principal permitted use in I-1 Tndustrial � Districts pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 60.612(11). S Z- ��-��o� � Page 2 Robert Kessler January 30, 1997 Following a 1992 amendment to the zoninq code, the property use is now defined as an "Intermodal Freight Yard", a first permitted use, subject to s�ecial conditions, in I-2 Industrial Districts. Intermodal Freight Yards are defined at Saint Paul Legislative Code § 60.209.(T) as: "A site or location where large units of freight, including containerized freight and semitrailers, are trans£erred between different transportation modes (such as from railroad cars to semitrucks or from barges to railroad cars) using heavy and/or specialized equipment (such as piggy-packers or gantry cranes)." The special conditions applicable to Intermodal Freight Yards include all standard special conditions setforth in Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.300(c), any required conditions set forth for I-2 uses in Leq. Code. § 60.623 and the following additional special conditions for Intermodal Freiqht Yards set forth in Leg. Code § 60.624(16): . a. Intermodal freight yards shall be sited in a manner which prevents unreasonable disturbance to nearby residential properties from the adverse effects of heavy traPfic, noise, dust, vibration and excessive lighting. b. The operational area of an intermodal freight yard shall be at least one thousand (1,000) feet from property zoned for, or occupied by, residential uses within the City of Saint Paul measured at the point of shortest distance separating the operational area from the residentially zoned or used property. a. Adequate landscapinq and sound barriers where deemed necessary to provide mitigation of increased noise and to provide a reasonable visual barrier between the site and adjoining properties shall be installed and maintained on the site and adjacent to roadways accessing the site. d. Facilities shall be sited in a manner that allows primary access to the site via roads designed for use by heavy trucks or are designated as "haul � roads " or " truck routes. " As a result of the 1992 rezoning amendment creating the Intermodal Freight Yard use, the BN site was transformed into a"legal non- �''; S� m Page 3 Robert Kess].er January 30, 1997 conforming use" which is defined in Saint Paul Legislative Code § 60.214.N as: "A Zawful use existing on the effective date of adoption (OCtober 24, 1975) or amendment of this code but that is not now permitted in the district in which it is located." B. Zoning Code ordinances Regulating Non-Conforming IIses: Saint Paul Legislative Code § 62.102 sets forth the general provisions of the Saint PauZ Zoning Code as they affect non- conforming uses. Legislative Code § 62.102(a) entitled "intent" states in pertinent part: There exist within the districts established by this code and subsequent amendments ... uses of land ... that were lawful before this code was ... amended that would be prohibited ... under the terms of this code-or future amendments. It is the intent of this code to permit legal nonconforming .., uses to continne until they are removed. Legislative Code § 62.102(d) entitled "Non-conforming use of land" is directly applicable to BN's present legal non-conforming use of the parcel in light of the 1992 use reclassi£ication and reads in pertinent part: (i) (2} (3) (4) (5) A use shall not be enlarged ... extended to occupy a greater area of land than occupied at the effective date of adoption amendment of this code. A nonconforming use shall not be moved in whole in part to any other portion of the lot. C. Complaint Correspondence. nor was or or In a letter received March 22, 1996, a private citizen requested LIEP to investigate a complaint that BN was violating the City's "storage ordinance" by expanding it's non-conforming use at the Midway site by storing trailers east of Snelling and North of Pierce Butler. • � In response to this complaint, LIEP's Tom Beach conducted an investigation into the complaint. In a letter to a BN facility � employee dated July 8, 1996, Mr. Beach concluded, based upon his investigations, that: 6 [: Sy °l'1 �l�o � Page 4 • Robert Kessler January 30, 1997 "The current use of the property for storing trailers does not appear to comply with Section 60.613.3 of the zoning code that requires outside storage to be located at least 300 feet from residentially zoned property and to be screened for public streets.�' Mr. Beach's Ju1y 8, 1996 letter further concluded that the subject property "was not.used for storage during the late 1970's and most of the 1980's". This conclusion was apparently based upon a review of aerial photos of the site. Based upon this conclusion, the letter advised BN that the site was now subjec� to those zoning rules in effect "at the time". Presumably this means that BN's facility is in compliance with the Zoning Code in effect prior to 1992 as a legal non-conforming use with no outdoor storage subject to a 30o foot sat-back from any residential district or dwelling. The July 8, 1996 letter from LIEP prompted a response from BN's attorney in a letter dated September 3, 1996. Tn the letter, BN raised three points of contention. First, BN argued that it used the property not for "storaqe" but for "parkinq". Second, BN claimed that even if the property were used for storage, the site � had been "continuously in use" for freight handling "since before adoption of the code in 1975". Finally, BN claimed that "any expansion of use was `approved' by the City in 1982 in connection with the grading, paving and fencing of the property. For the purposes of this opinion, only the first arqument zaised by BN is analyzed. The second BN argument has been resolved by virtue of Mr. Beach's October 28, 1996, letter discussed below. The third BN argument is summarily discussed in the conclusion to �his opinion. In a reply letter to the BN attorney dated October 28, 1996, Mr. Beach advised that he had reached certain "preliminary conclusions" based upon information contained in City records as well as information provided by BN in its September 3, 1996 letter. These preliminary conclusions were: 1. That the property has been used continuously for outside storage. 2. That the current use of the property for storing trailers appears to be a legal non-conforming use. That the current arrangement of the trailers does not appear to be an expansion of a non-conforminq use. � 4. That the City had required BN to screen 800 feet if property along Pierce Butler Route from view but that this has never been done. � SS D. Analysis: Paqe 5 Robert Kessler January 30, 1997 Most, if not City staff aF BN's facilit that the tra� The purpose c "storage" in the facts at That the fence along BN's property was in need of repair. all, of the previous analysis of this situation by pears to be based on the premiss that the trailers at y are in "storaqe". BN's premiss, in contrast, is lers are "parked" at the facility awaiting reshipment. f my analysis is to differentiate the terms "park" and a zoning context and appZy the differentiated terms to hand. The term "park" or "parking", as it might apply to any zoning use, including the use at the BN Pacility, is not defined in the Saint Paul Zoning Code. However, the term "storage" is defined in the Zoning Code at § 60.219.5. as: "The placement of items such as, but not limited to, the Pollowing: merchandise for sale or rent; materials awaiting servicing, processing or manufacturing; finished products of a servicing, processing or manufacturing operation; equipment; semitruck trailers; portable storage containers but excluding trash containers or garbage dumpsters which are accessory to the main use; and commercial vehicles not used on a weekly basis." This definition of storage was not added to the Zoninq Code until 1993. Cases from Minnesota and from foreign jurisdictions have interpreted the differences between "parking" and "storage". The leading Minnesota case interpreting the legal differences between "parking" and "storage" is �tate v Larson Transfer and Stora Inc., 310 Minn. 295, 246 N.W.2d 176 (Minn. 1976). That case involved a criminal citation issued by the City of Bloomington to Larson for it's failure to pave an off-street parking lot as required under Bloomington city ordinance. Larson argued that vehicles on it's lot were "stored", not "parked" and, therefore, did not have to pave the lot as Bloomington required. In support of this argument, Larson argued [as does BN presently] that the Bloomington or@i.nance contained no specific dePinition of what constituted a parking area which would distinguisYx it from a As early as November Administrator advised BN allowed within 300 feet added). i' 5, 1987, the City's Zoning that "outdoor -�toraae" was not of a residential use. (emphasis • � � �� q�-1^�03 � Page 6 Robert Kessler January 30, 1997 storaqe area. id. at 179. The Minnesota Supreme Court, in finding against I,arson, noted: "Not only does the term 'parking area' have a common and generally accepted meaning but it also has been adequately defined and distinguished from a storage area in prior judicial. decisions. Courts have consistently distinguished the parking of vehicles from the storage of vehicles on the ground that parkinq connotes transience while storage implies a certain degree o£ permanency". ..(citations omitted).. This distinction comports with a dictionary definition of 'park' which is '�o set and leave temporarily "'. (citation to footnote omitted). � Foreign jurisdiction have construed the "parking" vs. "storage" distinction in a similar fashion. In Serv�ce Realty Corp v Planninq and Zoning Board of Agoeals o£ Town of Greenwich, 109 A.2d 256 (Conn. 1954) the Supreme Court of Connecticut, noted "[t}here is a substantial distinction, clearly cognizable, between the meaning of 'storage' and 'parking'. One has a certain degree of permanency, while the other connotes transience." id. at 260. In Tncorporated Villac�e o£ Great Neck v Green, 106 N.Y.S..2d 219 (N.Y.App.Div. 1957) the court there had before it the question of whether new automobiles brought to vacant land adjacent to a new car sales lot were in storage. The Green court held "[w]hen automobiles are left for months on end at a given place, there can be no doubt that they are stored and not parked. Parking is of short duration and measured by hours or at most by a day or two". id. at 221. These cases can be read to create the following general rule £or determining whether something like a car, truck or trailer is either parked or stored on a parcel of land: things, like cars, trucks or semi-trailers, are "parked" on a parael of land if they remain there for only a short period of time. on the other hand, if these things remain on a parcel of land for a long period of time, they are "stored". In order to distinguish between "parking" and "storage" a meaningful "bright line" between a short and a long period of time must be established. Although I was unable to locate any Minnesota case law which made such a clear distinction fox zoning Z Saint Paul Legislative Code § 60.101, entitled "Intent � and Purpose" states at subdivision 10, that the purpose of the Zoning Code is "[t}o fix reasonable standards to which ... uses shall conform." (�, .S 7 Page 7 Robert Kessler January 30, 1997 matters, the deEinition of "storage" found at Legislative Code § 60.219.S. does, in my opinion, offer a useful distinguishing point between short and long periods time. Storage is defined in pertinent part in Leg. Code § 60.219.5. as: "The placement following: ... added). of items such as, but not limited to, the not used on a weeklv basis." (emphasis This definition provides a useful "bright line" for Zoning Code applications upon which to determine whether things are in storage. Under this definition, things located on property longer that seven days are �'stored". Things located on property seven days or less are, by inference, "parked". Adopting the seven day period as the dividing line between parking and storage for this particular zoning application only, it is my legal opinion that BN is ar in trailers on the subject property. This opinion is basecZ upon the average length of time a trailer is on the property which appears to be somewhere between "less than 24 hours" [£rom BN's I.etter dated 9-3-96] and "84 hours" (3.5 c2ays) (from letter of a private citizen complainant dated 11-27-96, which included a reference to the Metropolitan Couhcil's 'T'W�tt City Region Intermodal Terminal Needs Study {1995) which appears to be a compilation of time during which trailers are located on BN's property and which, according to the aitizen letter dated 11-27-96, were based upon data provided by BN]. E. Conclusion: Based upon the information provided to the CAO, it is our conclusion that trailers located at the BN's Midway Intermodal Hub are "parked" not "stored". This opinion is contrary to the opinion of Mr. Beach, expressed as Preliminary Conclusion no. 1 in his letter of October 28, 1996. This is not to say that a12 trailers on BN's site may always be presumed to be '"parked". If, for instance, it appears that BN allows trailers to remain on the site in excess of seven days, doing so would constitute "storage". Storage of trailers by BN would require BN to conform to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 60.613(3a) and 60.613(3b) which sets forth outdoor storage restrictions applicable to I-1 Zoninq District users (BN's use is stiil a legal non-conforming use subject to pre-1993 zoning regulations), These restrictions include a 300 foot set-back requirement from residentially zoned property. BN wouid have to comply with these set-back requirements. Finally, there was some discussion between the City and BN over {"�% � • � 5 � °��-��a3 Page 8 • Robert Kessler January 30, 1997 B23's Yailure �o either £enae or maintain the fence alonq the perimeter of the facility. It appears from LIEP's records that BN inc3icated that it would fence and screen a portion o£ the property from view along Pierce Butler sometime in 1982. In it's letter dated September 3, 1996, BN's attorney makes a somewhat disingenuous statement professinq confusion as to why the City desired BN to fence a portion of the property. The BN attorney suggests that he would try to locate BN files which would shed light on the City's fencing request. LIEP has in its files correspondence from BN indicating that BN will fence and scYeen some 80o feet of the subject property. This would seem to clarify the City's position rather concisely. If you desire, I can prepare a letter to the BN attorney asking him when BN wi11 make good on its original representations. If you have any additional questions please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours, ,;� ���--_ ' Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney • ��i �`9 �� Mr. Tom Beach St. Paul Office of Licenszng and Fnspections Lowry Professionai Buiiding - Suite 300 350 St. Peter Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55102-151 November 27,1996 � t?ear Mr. 8each Thank you for taking the tiffte Yo meet with me on two separate occasions, and for the opportunity to comment on the City's October 28, 1996 ietter regarding Burlington Northern /Sante Fe Railroad's (BN/SF) Midway Intermodal Hub on Pierce Butler Route. In a July 8, 19961etter to BN/SF the City concluded that BN/SF's current use of the property does not appear to rnmply with Section 60.613.3 of the zoning code which requires outside storage to be located at least 300 feet from residentially zoned property and to be screened from public streets. This deterrstination was made in response to a concern raised about BN/SF's increased ievel of storage of semi-trailers on land east of Snelling Avenue. In a letter dated September 3,1996 BN/SF's aftorney objected Eo the Cit�s posiEion and offered counter arguments. In response to BN/SF's letter the City turned back its earlier decision and tentatively concluded that 8N/SF's use of the property appeazs to be a legal nonconfomting use. This is a significant conciusion as it essentially allows BN/ SF to increase traffic Yhrough its Midway Intermodal Hub which in tuzn increases noise for the neighborhood. With all due respect to the Cit�s posiLion my research of City files, aerial photography, and BN/SF correspondence has lead me to conclude that the City is mistaken in its interpretation, and that BN/SF should never have been allowed to store so many semi-trailers on property east of Snelling Avenue. At the very least BN/SF should be required to comply �vith screening and seY-back requirements as required in Section 60.613.3 of the zoning code. In its September 3, 19961etter BN/SF presents three main points to justify the use of property east of Snelling Avenue for storing semi-trailers without screening and within the 300 foot set-back. Those arguments aze summarized as follows: i. $N/SF daims that semi-trailers placed on the land east of Snelling Avenue do not constitute storage because the trailers aze "...in place only temporariiy and are, on the average, in place for less than 24 hours". 2. BN/SF claims that the property in question has been continuously used for the purpose of freight handling since before adoption of the code in 1975 which required screening and a 300 foot seEback from areas zoned residenEiai. u � �O a'1 � l'�o� • 3. BN/SF daims that any expansion of the use was approveci by the City in 1982 because the Ciiy granted permits that allowed paving and £encing of the azea for automobile loading and unloading. After researching these three claims it seems cleaz that the City should reassess its conclusion presented in the October 28, 19961etter. Please seriously consider the following counter points to BN/SF's justifications: A.STORAGE 1. The Metropolitan Covncil published the Twin Cities Region Intermodal Terminal Needs Study in January, 1995. A Capacity Analysis done for the study deYermined that in 1993 trailers at the BN/SF Midway Intermodal Hub were stored for an average o£ 84 hours (See Attachment #1). BN/SF's daim that trailers are in- place for an average of less than 24 hours is simpiy not true, and contradicts the Intermodal Study for which BN/SF provided information. Piease also note that the Intermodal Study specifically looked at "Storage Capacity" at the BN/SF Midway Intermodal Huh (page 37). This section concluded that � "Current volume levels and previously noted dwell tunes indicate that on average storaee is 70 percent utilized. Peak and dynamic demands dictate the need to use all available acreage adjacent to lead tracks to provide additional stora�e of trailers and containers on chassis". (Emphasis added). BN/SF's claun that trailers are parked and not stared is incorrect. In fact, parking spots aze being used for storage. The Intermodal Study states: "In mid-1994, the Midway facility converted from a grounding/stacking operation to a 100 percent wheeled operation, whereby all containers are stored on chassis. Storage requirements, therefore, are configured in terms of parking spots". 2. In a May 17, 1996, "Addendum to Non-Confornivlg Use Pernut Application" BN/SF states that: "The use of the shelter is clearly consistent with activity immediately surrounding the site. This consists of movement and temporarv stora�e of semi-trailers, containers and other heary equipment." (emphasis added) BN/SF should not be allowed to azgue that semi-trailers east of Snelling Avenue aze not being stored while saying trailers west of Snelling Avenue aze. 3. On November 22, 1996 St. Paul received its first significant snow fall. Observations of the trailers on November 25, 1996 cleariy showed that many of the trailers east o£ Snelling Avenue had not disturbed the snow. Several trailers east of Snelling Avenue, and many carriages west of Snelling had still not disturbed the • snoa• on November 27, 1996. I mention this because it provides up to date documentation that BNiSF dces store trailers for periods longer than 24 hours. G! CONCLUSION: It is clear from the Metropolitan Council's Intermodal Study, • BN/SF correspondence, aerial photography, and personnel observation that BN/SP is storing semi-trailers east of Snelling Avenue. Consequently BN/SF should be required to comply with Section 60.613.3 of the Zoning code which requires outside storage to be set back at least 300 feet from residentially zoned property and to be screened from public streets. B. Continuous Use: $N/SF claims Yhat the property east of Snelling Avenue has been in continuous used far storage prior to the 1975 storage ordinance and therefore screening and set- back requirements do not apply. 1. To jusHfy this ctaim BN/SF relies on the property's use as an automobile unloading area from about 1982 to 19 87. However, a crificai �oint to make i: "Outdoor storage areas shall be fenced or walled. On those sides of tlte district abutting a public thoroughfare or any district other than an industrial district, the fence shall be totally obscuzing to a height of six (6) #eet. Outdoor stora�e excevti� r1 � BN/SF should not be allowed to cite an exempted use (automobiles) to justify a ctaim that the property was continuously used for nonconfomung storage of trailers. Aerial photography shows that BN/SF did not begin storing trailers until 1988 - thirteen years after the 1975 ordinance which requires a 300 foot set back and screening. Section 62.Id2.d.4 states Ehat: "If such a nonconforming use of iand ceases for any reason for a period of 90 days or more, any subsequent use of such land shall conforui to the regulations specified by this code for tlie district in which such land is Iocated..." CONCLUSION: BN/SF did not wntinuously vse the properly for storing trailers prior to and subsequent to the 1475 storage ordinance, and thereEore should be subject to Section 60.613.3. C. EXPANSION: i. BN/SF ciaims that any expansion of the use of the property was approved by the City in 2982, in rnnnection with the grading, paving and fencing of the property, and therefore can be used to store traiters. However, the 1982 General Building Permit (#146662) issued by the City states that "Grade and pave with asphalt paving and storm drain systems 5.48 acres of parkin�z area". The permit was issued for a parking area for automobiles (which �vere exempted from the 1975 storage � Gz °l� -13 ordinance), and was not issued for a storage azea. • EXTEI`jDED USE: City Ordinance 62.102 (d) (2) and (3) clearly state that: a nonconformutg use o# Iand shaIl not be "extended to occupy a greater azea of land than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this code' and that " A nonconforming use shall not be moved in whole, or in pazt, to any other portion of the lot". Aerial photography clearly shows that BNiSF did in fact extend a nonconforming use to land east of Snelling Avenue and that parts of the nonconfomung use (trailers) have been moved to another portion of the lot. Please consider the following as proof of extended use: Aeriai photography shows without a doubt that in 1977 there were zero trailers east of Snelling Avenue; in 1985 there were zero trailers east of Snelling Avenue; in 1988 there were three or four trailers east of Snelling Avenue; in 1991 there was a row of trailers and carriages stored along the south edge of the property east of Snelling Avenue. As of Novemher 2, 1996 the row af trailers occupied even more land east of Snelling Avenue (see photo). Please note that in reference to the property east of Snelling Avenue, BNiSF wrote • in a September 3, 19961etter that: "This property is currenYly in use in connection with freight handling operations at Burlington Northern's Midway Intermodal Hub."(emphasis added). The use of the Midway Intermodal Hub has cleazly been extended to occupy a greater area of land east of Snelling Avenue. CONCLUSIQNS: BN/SF has extended and moved a nonconforming use to occupy more land area east of Snelling Avenue which is in clear violation of 62.1�2 (d) (2) and (3j. By allowing BN/SF to store mnre trailers east of Snelling Avenue, BN(SF has extended and increased the use of the Midway Intermodal Hub and therefore increase the noise for Newell Pazk residents. From 1993 to 1994, a period during which B1V/SF increased the use of land east of Snelling Avenue , the Midway Intermodal Hub (according to the Intermodal siudy} increased the number of loaded trailers by 32,000 - a 22% increase. This does not seem fair to the Newel Park neighborhood. Nor does it seem right that the City allowed such an increase given the number of yeazs residents have voiced their concerns both to BI�3/SF and the City. � Ch�e of the principai foundations of the St. Paul Zoning Code, as with all municipalities, is that they offer protection to the ciiizens of the City from such 63 nuisances as noise. I believe that the above points justify an action by the City to require BN/SF to remove the trailers east of Snelling Avenue. At a minimum, the City should direct BN/SF to screen the property from public view along the entire length of the property, and should require that semi-trailers be set back 300 feet from residentially zoned property. Your attention and serious consideration to this letter would be appreciated. Sincerely, ���� � � / Frank X. Wallner cc_ 8obbi Megazd, City Council Tunothy Marx, City Attorney Michael Madigan, Attorney St. Paul Planning Commission members Mayor Norm Coleman Andy Schneider, Community Organizer HamlineJMidway Cammittee on BN/SF Noise Jim $aztin, Metropolitan Council Chazles L. Schizltz, BN/SF - Senior Vice President of Intermodal • � � 6f� October 28,1446 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor . James Hamilton Spence, Ricke and Thurmer Degree of Honor Building Suite 600 325 Cedaz Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 OFFfCEOFLiCENS$ .NSPECTIONSAND ENVIRONMENTALPROTECfI013 ���1�03 RobeRXesster, Dirufor IAWRY PROFESS/ONAL BUIIIJING Suite 300 350SLPeterStreet SainrPau�Mrnrsesora 55l02-IS/0 Telephane: 612-2669090 Facsrmile: 612-26G9099 6l2-2669729 RE: Burlington Northern Property north of Pierce Butler Route and east of Snelling Avenue Deu Mr. Hamilton: In July 1996 I sent a letter to BN about storing trailers on the properry referenced above. In September 199b you responded with a letter. (See attached letters.) Based on information in Ciry records and your letter, I have reached some preliminary conclusions and these are listed below. Aowever, before making a final detemilnation, I want to make sure that ail interested parties have a chance for input. Therefore, I will not make a£mal determination before November 22, 1996. If you or anyone else wishes to discuss the issues raised in this letter, please write me or cali me at 266-9086. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS After discussing the matter with you and reviewing yow letter of September 3, 1996, I have reached the following preliminary conclusions: 1. The property appears to have been used continuously for outside storage. The current use of the property for storing trailers appears to be a IegaS nonconforming use and the current arrangement of the trailers on the property does not appear to be an espansion of a nonconforming use. This conclusion is based on the follo�ving: You said that prior to 1987, BN used the properry for receiving shipments of automobiles ihat were delivered by train. This is supported by the fact that some cars can be seen on the aerial photographs. You noted that in this type of operation there can be extended periods of time beriveen shipments when fhere would be only a few or no cazs on the property. You also pointed out that the lot was paved and there was no evidence, such as vegetationhveeds, that wouid normally be associated with vacant properiy. Doug Rodel, an BN employee who worked there at the time, can verify that the properiy was used in this way. � - In 1987 a new facility for receiving shipments of automobiles was opened east of do�mtown near Wamer Road. You said that at that time the use of the property changed from receiving shipments of automobiles to its current use of storing trailers used for BN's &eight faciliry. In 1987 BN's freight faciliry was considered a"railroad and ternunal &eight facility" which was a permitted use for the 6S property's I-1 wning. In 1992 the zoning code was amended to incIude a definition for "intermodal fraight facility" which requires a Special Condition Use Pemut in an I-2 zoning district. BN's . facility falls under this defuution and therefore it has been a legal nonconforcning use since 1992. T'he number of trailers stored on the property appeazs to have increased from �vhat is shown on a 1991 aerial photo and what is there now. However, this does not by itsetf constitute an expansion of a legal non conforming use. Section 62.102{d) of the zoning code says that a nonconforming use of land cannot be "extended to occupy a greater area of land" or "moved... to any other portion of the lot". Whi(e there may be more traiters stored there now, it appears that the entire pareel east of Snelling has al�vays been utilized for storage and so the extent of Iand used has not changed. 2. City records irtd"ecate that in 1982 the CiYy reqaired that 800 feet of BN's property along Pierce Bufler be screened from view. This was never done. Tn addition, the existing fence along Pierce Butler is in poor condition. The screening must be provided and the existing fence must be repaired or reptaced. This conclusion is based on the Following: - Aerizl photographs show that the eastem third of the properry was paved beh��een I977 w^d 1985. At that time the property was being used for receiving shipments of automobiles that were delivered by train. In 1982 the City issued a permit for the properry for paving and fencing. A 19821etter from BN to the Ciry about these pemuts and requirements for screening said that BN had been advised by the City that: "A variance is required to install a chain link fence in the City of St. Paui or provisions made by • the owner to provide scceening along Pierce Butler Road using plantings of some rype.... BN will conform to the ciry code requirements and provide the necessary screening of the fence along Pierce Butler Road (new portion only approximately 800 L. FJ.... A sepazate proposal will be fumished to your off:ce for approval regazding the screening." The site is not currently screened and the City has no record that show BN ecer submitted a proposat for screening or obtained a variance. - Section 34.08.5 of the Saiat Paut tegislative code requires that fences be kept in good repair. NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS As I said at the start of the letter, these conclusions ue based on City records and on information you have fiunished me. Given the neighborhood interest in BN's operations, I want to make sure that all inYerested parties have an opportunity for input before I make a fmaI determination. If you or any other interzsted party have additional informadon about the use of this properry that might be helpful, I wouid be happy to discuss it between now and November 22, 1996, ff you have any questions, please call me at 266-9086. SinceJ �G�. Tom Beach Zouing Section cc: Councilmember Megazd • Frank Wallner Andy Schneider Michael Madigan 6C Ms. Wendy Lane � Licensing and inspections/Environmentai Protection 35U SL Peter Sfreet fioom # 30d St. Paul, Minnesota 55i02 � � Oear Ms. Lane: �t��13o3 R�G�� �'E� GFF�^= ;-����, �Qlt ZZ � 03 }�( '� 4 am a member ot the HamtinelM'sdway Noise Gom+nittee which is focused on a no'sse probiem caused by 8uriington Northem's {SiV) Miciway tiub Transfer Station. i think i can speak for the Commi!#ee uvhen ! express our appreciaEion €or Tom Beech's wodc regarding the stnicture which was built at the BIV faci4ity w(thout proper City approvals. The purpose of tnis letter, however is to formatly request that the Ciry ticerising and inspections Department investigate what appears to be a sto�age ordinance viotation by BN. As you may know the SN trans�ex station is a nan-eonforming use, and as such i understand that BN cannot expand its operations. However, ifi you check the land Just east of Sne4(ing on Pierce Butter route you wil4 see that Bt� has continued to expand into this area. Observations by residents, and asrial photograph'sc evidence, clearly show that BN has expanded into this area and is using it to siore tteeir unused trailers. Pfease assign your staff to check this area aut to cfetermine: 1. If BN is expand'+ng +ts operatians in vioiation of non-conforming use cestrictions. 2. If B�! is in ufolation of applieable storage and/or screenirtg requirerr�ents. Piease note that the fence behind which the traifers are stored has been wrecked by trailers backing into them. It is very ansightly and something the neighborhood shoutd not have to put up with. P4ease do what you can to heip us resoive this issue. For your ir�fiormation, BN alsa sto�es a tat of trai6ers at the intersection ofi M7nnet�aha and Date_ tC is very unsightly and a(thaugh 1 cio not live near this area, there are newer town hornes/apartments right accoss the stseei Ptease look into the above matter at your ear(iest convenience. in your response ptease also copy Andy Schneider Comrnunity Orga�"szec; and Mike Madigan, Attocney for the Noise Committee. �7 'FE�a�k you and t I�k fonnrard to your response. t� you have any questions p{ease feeF � free to cali me at 296 7443 (1lV�, or at 646 7028 (N}. Sincer Fy, '�i /�--`�C%��G%%`�Z___ Frank X. Wailner cc: Andy Schne�der, Community Organizer f 564 t_afond Avenue St. Paui, Minnesota 55404 Michael Madigan, Attomey Johnson and Madigan 500 Saker Buitder 706 Second Avenue South Minneapotis, M9nnesota 55402 \J • �� �� � I � � O I � ���� � - l�I I � ; I = -� � � � f � I � �-'' �� � i �. 4'-7 c� � _ �� � �;-:: . , , _�: � �/ � . , _� � ,� � � ;: :� � �, � , N _ 4 � 1 ' :. � � ���_�� �. _ - . _.� �- : � � � „� . -- ' �� � . � - �,� _ o :,., T � � � ��' � 1:�_ 1 } -, , ;,, ��;, i � �' � i � i / f' €1 , t �=- � � ; �' � • I� ; �� �� �i i ' � �� � _� I �; �,\, f � � , �,: � : �.::: _ :.-�. �� � ` � r = ' I . . ,� c�C�I '` � �.--° { � ! - --� _-`-� C _ CS 0`i I ._ . i ; , �. ;' � "' � � "..' ^� � . `J . �-.� [.-`� jJ � � � I � : � �-�� - ' - i � p � o� i I; ��„ �i � Q � o �^� ' � �.<� id �, -�� ��^ u � w � _ _ � _ _ � „ i , � _�. t � 1�f-1 , � � � �.�� _-- .1 �; ._ � t , , , �. i =a � - � • " � � r _�� '� �= ��,_ :�.. -�:� _ � . __ :��.��: _ : � � �_; , , _ ' ... .. ... ..; - ... .,. - .... - _ _ .:::.. ,;� ;_._ _ . ... - .,- � ; � ... � �.. . � .... ,. �, _..._., , � _ ... ... ,, _ � � � �. _ -�� � �, ... _ _� - _ �.._. �f;E ' _ ._. � � .. T � y�:. �� � — __, � .� - . -- '-'°.. . __ � .:.. ... . _ .. -' � __ . ,- ., : . _... -- - � . . , _ .1 -' � : � n t � � . . __4, 1 � E� - 'f'_ � � ��. " .• .�..' �. -, —._: � �� �Y _ � �� r. { • , -' j , . ... �._:� ' _i t` � -� ).! . ; .f 'L_d! _'_... $=-... ` �C�� �.._... • �� �. .. . ___.� ., �_�. r . .. ._... . . � y . f _.w . � �+ _ __' ' ..__.� - _�. � ' F � _�, : .. . = . . _.�, . _ .. � : : , _•_�, __.... • � : , ----- - - = • ,....., � ; . .,_ : . , . , . , • , , . . - __. . ...} . , . � _ — _�, . ; ;I . . . , -=_ �- - = - �-��� - G C �� =� i�= � :�;: ; _'i_ •-� : i i. � � _-��=�� = ` �� �'� �;;� �.. .� � . _ . . ==;;�,_..:�= - I = � ., ; =.. �..-,__ ' `S � .��x ' i .:::: .:-, - ._ . ., ::: �� � r. -. .,` � — ; - '.j -}� � � - _ "`^ `: � - •� f ` • r' � � i � '`j' a � .. � C � s: � �:. ��'::� " \ � � ' a � �:�1 - _ i... .'•� -� � _ . i• - � �% '�tr.� � � .::.: r : ' 's - '• � I � _J�. �:_ •i :, .: __ � _ _ r � .-r •:ii:��'..�� �-.' �,.:�i. �i�� � • t . }}- . = � _' ; '- .-, �;�a �� =- ,�,-=�-�� =_ — .. -^ �� . {:. _ ; r; . -.- �-�i . . :�� s,:�� ., � • DISTRICT 11 STATE FRI2G�IlUM0.S � � � I I �. / - I� � J �� - � , :5,_:� � _ u ' 1 '_"-__ �- --___ , � '----_ � � � � ___'-;,-------- �/ , ��. � � , ,. , � --���_ ;: _� ��__ �----- a, i d ��� � �{ „,�, B`JRLIri�T04 i109iXERN R.R. - - ' � I ' I ,� �� � ' � (�`�LaOC� � � ��0� � ; � ; �, �CG , , n � -- [�� = �C�(�0 � �� � oEP�� � ���,.,�.��onn= � � Pf1iAAK� � � �0�0�� • � a �oy� .� a � -I �o3 �Ve.� o � tt � �Fast o� SMe {!t� � k�r�(� � �\ o� �luc.c. (iu'�le piNLEiIC FIElO � �IT�-_ `�C7`��i� _-. �OC�C�o�� --- �L�'�C� ❑��a°o aooc�o 00000 00000 00000 �0000 C �� �r ■ SPENCE, RICKE & THURMER, P.A. 5uite 600, Degree of Honor Building 325 Cedzr Sffeet, St Paul, Minnesota 55101 612-223-8000 Fax 612-223-8003 Glem OlandervQuamme Direct DiaL' (612) 292-3359 August 5, 1997 City Council City of St. Paul c/o Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310, City Hall St. Paul, MN 55102 ���-� S � `�?�'� � � � - R �.,-��,.� THOMAS W SPENCE NLNS W ERNES Adm�eedinMN,W[ Admit[edivhIIV,WI MEGAN K RICKE GLENN OLANDER-QUAtvLME. Admifced'm MN, WI AdmiaeA m K^i, M SUSAN D. THURMER DIANE P. GERTH Admivcd in hPv. M. FL Admiaed w�1N, M ALFONSE J. COCCHIARELLA TIMOTHY K. MASTERSON Adm�tled �n hLV. Wf Adauved in!rLY PATRICK i SWEENEY wam�a ��, cn, co T'ERRIE J. WII,LIAMS VIA Re: Zoning File lt9-192 (Wallner(Burlington Northern) Burlington Northern Midway Hub Zoning Appeal of Frank X. Wallner City Council Hearing Dnte: Wednesday, August 6, 1997 Our File 0514 To the Honorable Members of the St. Paul City Council: KERRY S. BURT SHARIA WII,LIAMS CHERYL W TECHAR HbLEN A. ROEN SHARON L. TAYLOR ramlegals I represent The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF), formerly known as Burlington Northern Railroad Company (B1V). BNSF owns a railroad facility located northerly of Pierce Butler Route from east of Snelling Avenue to approximately Prior Avenue. That facility is currenUy known as the Midway Tntermodal Hub (the Hub). The Hub is an intermodal facility where semi-trailers and freight containers are loaded and unioaded from trucks to railcars and from railcars to trucks. The major portion of the operation, where the loading and unloading occurs, is located west of Snelling Avenue. Frank X. Wallner has filed a zoning appeal challenging BNSF's use of an approximately six acre parcel (the Parking Area) located along Pierce Butier Route east of Snelling. BNSF uses that parcel for the parking of empty semi-trailers, pending pickup by truck. Mr. Wallner challenges BNSF's use of the Parking Area on three grounds: �� He contends that the trailers are stored, not parked. He contends that the use of the Parking Area for trailer parking is not a legal nancanforming use. C �1- . He contends that the use of the Parking Area for trailer parking is an expansion of the Hub facility for which no environmental review process was compieted. Mr. Wallner's appeal was initially heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals (the Board). On 7une 6, 1997, the Boazd rejected Mr. Waliner's appeal in its entirety. Mr. Wallner subsequenfly filed this appeai, in which he petitions the Council to overturn the Board's decision. BNSF will briefly address each of Mr. Waliner's contentions. I. THE PARKING AREA IS USED ROR PARKING OF TRAILERS, NOT STORAGE By letter dated Febniary 27, 1997, the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) made the following determinations: (i) that the temporary placement of trailers which are used on a weekly basis constitutes parking as opposed to storage; (ii) that the trailers in the Parking Area are generally used on a weekly basis; and (iii) that such trailers are therefore parked rather than stored "and may therefore stay on the property." LIEP acts as the City's zoning administrator. (Zoning Code § 64.100.) T'he Hub property is zoned as an I-1 Industrial District. In an I-1 district, outdoor storage is permitted subject to certain conditions, one of which is that "outdoor storage shall be no closer than three hundred (300) feet to a residential district." It appears that all or substantially al] of the Parking Area is within 300 feet of an RT-1 residenfial district. Mr. Wallner contends that BNSF uses the Parking Area for "storage" of the trailers, hence that the use is not permissible for those portions of the Parking Area located within 300 feet of the RT-1 residential district. The zoning adminisuator's investigation revealed that the trailers placed in the Parldng Area aze typically used at least once a week and that the placement of the trailers in the Pazldng Area for a week or less constitutes parking rather than storage. The administrator therefore conciuded that the Parking Area did not trigger the 300 foot setback requirements for outdoor storage. The administrator's decision was based on the administrator's investigation of BNSF's use of the Parking Area and a carefully reasoned legal opinion from the Office of the City Attorney (the OCA), a copy of which was attached to the zoning administrator's decision. The OCA opinion, authored by Assistant City Attomey Peter W. Wamer, reasoned that there is a legal difference between parking and storage, with the former connoring a more transient form of use 1 The Zoning Map is not entirely clear as to the location of the dividing line between the RT-1 district and the I-1 dis[rict, uor is it entirely clear as to the location of the Pazking Area. Furthermore, the Zoning Map sbows a small B-1 business district bordering a poRion of che I-1 district. A survey would be required to detemune whether all of the Parking Area is within 300 feet of the RT-1 disirict. 2 �� ���0� and the latter a more permanent form of use. Mr. Warner further reasoned that the Zoning Code's definition of storage provides a useful bright line distincfion between parldng and storage, with storage being defined with reference to items not used on a weekly basis. He therefore concluded that the temporary placement of trailers for seven days orless constitutes parking. In his notice of appeal to the Council, Mr. Waliner refers to evidence that trailers aze in place west of Snelling Avenue for more than a week. That evidence is irrelevant to the Pazlang Area, which is located east of Snelling Avenue. Mr. Wallner also asserts that his personal observations show that some trailers east of Snelling were in place for more than a week. Mr. Wallner had ampie opportunity to present such evidence to the Boazd. He failed to present any credible evidence to support his assertion. This is an appeal of the Board's decision. Mr. Wallner should not be permitted to submit new evidence at this time. Moreover, even assuming for the sake of argument that Mr. Wallner were able to demonstrate that a parkicular trailer was not used within a week, the evidence would at most show a violation with respect to that trailer. Such a violation would not invalidate the use of the Parking Area for trailer pazking. The zoning administrator's investigation and the OCA opinion provide ample justification for the zoning administrator's decision, and Mr. Wallner has offered no factual or legal basis for overturning that decision. The Board correctly denied Mr. Wailner's appeal as to this issue, and the Council should affirm the Board's decision. II. TFTE COUNCIL SHOULD AFFIRM THE BOARD'S REJECTION OF MK. WALLNER'S NONCONFORMING USE ARGUMENT 1. Mr Wallner's "Apneal" of the Nonconforming Use Tssue is Procedurally Imoroper and Must Be Rejected. Pursuant to the Zoning Code, the Board "shall have the power to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged by the appellant that there is an error in any order, requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by the zoning administrator ...." (Zoning Code at § 64.204(a).) An appeal "may be taken by any person ... affected by a decision of the zoning administrator ... within thirty (30) days after the decision appealed from shall have been served either in person or by mail upon the owner of the property which is the subject matter of the decision ...." (Id. at § 64.204(c).) Mr. Waliner contends that the use of the Parking Area constitutes an illegal nonconforming use. The February 27 letter from LIEP addressed the issue of parking versus storage but did not specifically address the issue of nonconforming use. BN5F submits that the nonconforming use issue was decided by LIEP in its letter of October 28, 1996. If BNSF is correct, Mr. Wailner's appeal to the Board was 3 a�..��03 untimely, since it was not brought within the 30-day period specified in the Zoning Code. Id. If the nonconforming use issue was not decided by the October 28, 1996 letter, then LIEP has never made a formal decision on that issue. If so, Mr. Wallner's appeal is improper because there is no decision of the zoning administrator from which to avoeal. (Id. at § 60.204(a),(c).) Thus, Mr. Wallner's appeal is either too late (because it is in effect an appeal from a decision made in October of last year) or too early (because it purports to "appeai" from a decision that has yet to be made by the zoning administrator). In either case, the so-called "appeal" is procedurely improper. 2. The Use of the Parking Area for Trailer Parldng is a Legal NonconforminQ Use. One of the permitted uses in an I-1 Industrial District is "[r]ailroad and terminal freight facilities." (Zoning Code § 60.612(11).) Prior to 1992, intermodal facilities such as the Hub were considered railroad and terminal freight facilities and were therefore a permitted use on the Hub property. That changed in 1992, when special zoning for "intermodal freight yazds" was added to the Zoning Code. (Id. at § 60.209.) Under the current version of the Zoning Code, the Hub is an "intermodal freight yard." Such faciliues are allowed as a special use in I-2 Industrial Districts (id. at § 60.624(16)) and, by implication, are no longer permitted in I-1 Industrial Districts. Thus, the creation of special zoning for "intermodal freight yards" changed the status of the Hub operation from a permitted use to a legal nonconforming use. (E.e., id. ak § 62.102(a); Board of Zoning Appeals Staff Report a[ p. 2.) The Pazking Area has been used to park trailers since the late 1980s -- prior to the "intermodal freight yard" amendments to the Zoning Code. Moreover, the photographic evidence (e.g., aerial photograph dated April, 1991, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A) shows that the endre Parking Area was paved and in use for trailer parking prior to the "intermodal freight yard" amendments. (Accord Board of Zoning Appeals Staff Report at p. 4.) Since there has been no further expansion of the Parldng Area, the use of the entire Parking Area for trailer parking remains a legal nonconforming use. Mr. Wallner contends that a November 13, 1987 letter (the 11/13/87 Lztter) from the zoning administrator to BN shows that the use of the Parking Area would not have been a legal use in 198'7, hence that its current use is not a legal nonconforming use. At the ume of the 11/13/87 Letter, the zoning adminisuator was operating on the enoneous 2 Zoning Code § 62.102(d)(1) ("A nonconforming use may con[inue"). See aiso id. at § 62.102(d)(2) ("A nonconforming use shall not be ... extendecl to occupy a greater area of land than was occupied at the effective date of ... amendment of this code"). � belief that BN's proposed use was "storage." That enor has now been conected. Moreover, the 11/13/87 Letter pertains to the area west of Snelling, whereas the Parldng Area is located east of Snelling. Accordingly, the ii/13l87 Letter is not relevant to this proceeding. The record is clear that BN and BNSF have continuously and legally used the Parldng Area for trailer parkin� (not storage) since prior to the 1992 amendments that made that use nonconforming. III. TI3E COUNCIL SHOULD AFFIIiM THE BOARD'S REJECTION OF NIIi. WALLNER'S EAW ARGUMENT 1. Mr Wallner's "A�peal" of the EAW Issue is Procedurally Improper and Must Be Rejected. Mr. Wallner's appeal was triggered by the February 27 letter from LIEP to BNSF. That letter does not mention the EAW, much less make any decision or determination with respect to same. Mr. Wallner has not identified any "order, requirement, permit, decision or refusal" of the zoning administrator from which an appeal of the EAW issue may be taken. I3is so-called "appeal" is not an appeal at all, and the Boazd rightfully declined to consider it. 2. The EAW is Irrelevant to the Use of the Parkin Area for Trailer Parkine. At the hearing before the Board, Mr. Wallner presented selected pages from the EAW in an attempt to support his so-called "appeal." BNSF has now located a complete copy of the EAW, and it is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The EAW was prepared in conjunction with a BNSF proposal to expand and restructure the Hub facility. That proposal was subsequently dropped. The EAW did not address the use of the Pazking Area for trailer parking. To the contrary, it contempiated that the Parldng Area would be the primary entrance to the Hub Facility. (See EAW at pp. 2("A main entrance will be built in the easterly section of the site"), 8("The cunent proposal has moved the main entrance and the entrance roadway to the easterly section of the site, east of Snelling Avenue"), 12 and attachment 4.b.3 (showing the proposed entrance area east of Snelling Avenue).) The EAW is simpiy not relevant to the use of the Pazking Area for trailer pazldng. 3 The 11/13/87 I,etter identifies the property as "North Side Pierce Butler Route West of Snelling." ° Zouing Code § 64.204(a). F7 a� _ ��o� CONCLUSIONS Mr. Wallner's appeal is without merit and should be rejected in its enurety. Of the three issues raised by Mr. Wallner, only one (i.e., the parldng/storage issue) is a timely appeal from a decision of the zoning administrator. The other two issues (i.e_, the nonconforming use and EAW issues) are not proper issues on appeal, either because they are untimely or because they do not chalienge any action or determination of the zoning administrator. Mr. Wallner's appeal of the parking/storage issue fails on the merits. The zoning administrator correcdy concluded, on the basis of its investigation and an opinion from the Office of the City Attorney, that BNSF's use of the Parking Area constitutes parking, not storage, hence that the 300-foot setback requirement for outdoor storage is inapplicable. Mr. Wallner has failed to articulate any rationale for overtuming that decision. With respect to the nonconforming use issue, the record demonstrates that the Pazking Area was paved and in use for trailer parking prior to the 1992 amendments to the Zoning Code. When those amendments were promulgated, the use of the Pazking Area for trailer parking became a legal nonconforming use -- a status which it retains to this day. The EAW "issue" is a non-issue, in that it is premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of the scope and purpose of the EAW. The EAW is absolutely irrelevant to the use of the Parking Area for trailer parking. Sincerely, G� Glenn Olander-Quamme GOQ/llb/midway/citycoun cc: (w/enc.) Tom Beach (LIEP) (via messenger) Peter W. Warner, Esq. (Office of the City Attorney) (via messenger) Dennis W. Wilson, Esq. Richard L. Ebel Ray Robinson Michael L. Burke John Ackerman Brian J. Sweeney � �� �-: : -, = ;�- } �; �;� � • � ,� �: : _ E.R.#(FIIS,ED ZN BY EQB) E2'�IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORRSHEET (EAW) Regular EAW X Scoping EAW 5/31/88 ��—'��� NOTE TO kEVIEWERS: For regular EAWs, written ccnrnents shouZd address the accuracy a*±d completeness of the EAW information, potential itRpacts tnat may warrant investigation and/or tne need for an EZS. For scoping EAWs, written comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the information and suggesc issues for investigation in the EZS. Such conraents must be submit�ed to the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) durzng the 30-day period following notice of the availability in the EQB Monitor. Contact the EQB (metro: 622/296-8253; non-metro 2-800-b52-9747, astc for environmental review program) or the RG'IT to find out when the 30-day comment period ends. 1 P.] fc3 4 Project Name: ProjecL Proposer Contact Person: Address: Phone: RGU: Buriington Northern Midway Hub Facility Burlington Northern Railroad Douglas M. Northup Twin Cities Region, 176 E. Sth St. P.O. Box b4960, St. Paul, MN 55364 612-298-7666 City of St. Paul Contact Person: Donna L. Datsko Tit1e: City Planner II Address: 25 West 4th St., I100 City Hall Annex St. Paul, MN 55102 Phone: 612-228-3395 Project Location: SW1/4 Sec.28, T.29N, R.23W A. County Name: Ramsey City or Township: St. Paul B. Copies of the Following Maps Appear as Attachments: 1. a county map showing the geneYal area of the project 2. a copy(ies) of USGS 7 1/2 minute, 1:24,000 scale map 3. a site plan showing signi£icant features such as proposed structures, roads, extent of floodplain, wetlands, wells, etc. 4. an existing land use map and a zoning map of the immediate area. EXHIBIT B 2 5. Describe the proposed project completeZp. ��"��� The total project area is about 53 acres_ The project area can he divided into two sections, the section east of Snelling Avenue and the section west of Snelling Avenue; the project is shown on the site plan, Attachment 4.B.3. The two areas are joined under the Snelling Avenue overpass, just south of the BN sain line tracks. The westerly section is about 49.1 acres and is bounded on the east by the west right-o£-way line of Snelling Avenue and on the north from the most southerly through-railroad track. The south boundary is at the property line and the north right-o£-way line of Pierce Butler Route. On the west, the project boundary follows the limits of developable land near the top of the bank surrounding the BN pond. The easterly section is triangular-shaped area about 4.3 acres; it is a£lat paved area now vacant but formerly used as a new automobile unloading area. It runs between the Snelling Avenue sight-of-way on the west, the northerly right-of-way line of Pierce Butler Route and the BN main line tracks. The operation of the expanded facility will be identical to the current facility but at an incxeased capacity. Trains with flat cars cazrying trailers and containers are received from the Seattle and Chicago regions. The trailers are unloaded from the train's cars by large diesel powered vehic3es called piggy packers. The piggy packers work alone or in pairs and typically can load 24 units in a two hour period. Hostler tractors reposition the trailers and containers on �he site until semi-trucks arrive to haul them away. Ten jobs will be added to the 24 hour period total, increasing the complement to 60 workers. The paved area of the site will increase from 12 acres to 47.4 acres. An area about .8 acres will remain gravel but will be used as the area for washing packers and as a"safe haven" (a "safe haven" is a four foot deep pit with an impervious liner used to contain any spillage from a leaking container or trailer, see item No. 24.) A 5.2 acre landscaped area will be installed. The dimensions of the BN pond, just west of the project area, will remain unchanged, 18.2 acres. With the expanded paved asea the number o£ trailer spaces on the lot will increase £rom about 540 to 1144 spaces, auto parking will increase from 30 to 50 spaces, hostler and packer parking will be provided at the rate o£ six and three spaces respectively. A main entrance will be built in the easterly section of the site and an entrance road will run north and parallel to the Pierce Butler Route. The entrance road will have three in-bound and one out-bound traffic lanes. A control booth used for checking and inspecting trucks entering and leaving the site and a small support office wili be constructed in this area. All trucks dropping off or picking up trailers or containers will have to use this main entrance and will pass under the Snelling Avenue overpass to the facility's main storage area. Some tracks will be repositioned to accommodate truck movements from one section of the £acility to the other section. � �� -��'3 The westerly, and main area o£ the development, will contain all the spaces for trailer and container storage. Three spur tracks will swing south into this area and xun paiallel from the main line into the site. Another txack will be relocated about two feet south of its existing location at the rorth edge of the site. A small maintenance building will be constructed and an existing small office will remain. Access to the o£fice and maintenance buildiags wiil be £rom the existing curb cut on Pierce Butler Road. 6. Reason for Assessment: Discretionary List all mandatory category rule :'s which apply: Mtv' Rules Ch 4410.1000 7. Estimated Construction Costs: $9,854,000 8. Tota1 Project Area: 53.4 (acres), or length (miles) N/A 0 10 E�1 Number of rasidential units: 0 or commerczal, industriaZ, or institutionaZ square footage: 9,800 sq. ft. o£ new structures Number of proposed parking spaces: storage spaces for 1149 trailers, 50 automobiles, 6 hostlers, 3 piggy packers List a1I Imown local, state and federal permits/approvals/funding required: Level of Govexnment: Tyne of Application: Status• Federal: None State: PCA Local: City of St Storage Tank Permit Future Paul Administrative Review Pending Site Plan Review Pending Building Permit Future 12. Is the proposed project inconsistent with the Iocal adopted comprehensive Zand use plan or any other adopted pZans? Zf pes, explain: X No Yes The city of St. Paul Land Use element of the Comprehensive Plan (dated November 20, 1980) states as policy 4.6-2 that "the city will encourage, through zoning, careful site plan review, and judicious use of its £iscal and nonfiscal development incentives, the use of industriallp zoned land ad�acent to railroads for rail-related activities." The plan also acknowledges that trailer-on-flat-car operations are a large part of the railroad freight hauling business and that "while this type of labor-extensive use will not usually be encouraged by the city, the continuance of this type of business is vital to the future o£ railroads and is keeping with the city's goal of energy efficiency." The Land Use Plan element also includes the area of the proposed expansion in a larger section o£ the (then) proposed Enexgy Park and designates the larger area as appropriate for a new employment/housing cluster development. The . Pinal adopted Energy Park Master Plan (dated October, 1981) does not include the BN trailer-on-£lat-car area as part o£ the Energy Park project. � The District 11 component o£ the Comprehensive Plan (dated October 4, 1979) identifies the proposed development area as future use for Burlington Northern Railroad/industry. The District Plan also acknowledges the importance of retaining the stor'm water ponding capabilities of the BN pond and recommends that the immediate area surrounding the pond be acquired and developed as park space. The Parks and Recreation component of the Comprehensive Plan (dated March 21, 1985) does not include any reference to developing the BN pond area as park space however. 13. Descr*_be current and recent pasC area Zand uses and deveZopment on and near the site: Accoxding to information provided by the proposer, prior to the mid-1950s the property was used as an icing £acility. Railroad cars carrying fresh produce were brought to the area and ice was added to the cars for cooling the produce. From about mid-1960 to 1974, Western Fruit Express, a subsidiary o£ the Great Northern Railroad, used this site as a railroad car cleaning facility. oi � ' ��03 Since 1974, Burlington Northern Railroad has operated a piggyback intermodal system at its Midway Hub Facility. This system involves the transfer of truck trailers and containers from railroad flat cars to a storage area for eventual pick up by semi-trucks. I.arge, diesel powered, rubber wheeled piggypacker vehicles circulate within the track area loading and unloading the trailers and containers from the flat cars to the lot. Hostler vehicles reposition the trailers on the lot prior to pick up. The facility operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week and employs 50 people during a 24 hour period. Approximately 12 acres of the total site is paved; the remainder is unpaved and covexed with gravel (29.6 acres) or undeveloped {11.7 acres). In the westerly section of the site are spaces for about 540 trailers, hostlers and packers and 30 spaces £or automobiles. Two parallel tracks now run just south o£ the main BN line and provide access to the £lat cars carrying the trailers. One smail o£fice building is located in the south central area of the site. The easterly section of the site is an unused paved area. It was formerly the site £or unloading new automobiles £oY metro-wide delivery. That operation was moved to a larger site near Pigs Eye in 1987. 14. Approximately how many acres of the site are in each of the following categories? (Acreages should add up to total project area before and after construction.) Before After F'orest wooded Cropland [�] 0 Wetland (types 3-8) 0 Impervious Surface 0 Other: (specify) gravelfdirt landscaped � Brush grassland 11.7 (this area includes some trees) Before After 0 0 12.1 47.4 29_6 .8 0 5.2 The dimensions of the BN pond, a type 5 wetland, will not change and it is thez'efore considered outside of the development area. � 15. Describe the sofls on the site, giving the SCS soiZ classification n ,�� types, if Imown: � (� According to the Soi1 Survev o£ Washin�ton and Ramsev Counties Minnesota, the area o£ development includes the following soil classifications: Chetek sandy loam, Udarthents (wet substratum), Urban Land and Mahtomedi, loamy sand. In August, 1986, Twin City Testing completed 30 hand auger borings of the site and found the general soil profile to be as £ollows: "At these locations, tha soil profile consists of roughly 3" to b" of base material overlying natural clayey sand/sandy lean clay giacial till. The base material does not have a high content o£ gravel and the coarse aggregate within the base is not a crushed material. The underlying glacial till appears to be in a relatively stiff condition, except within the upper several inches where disturbance is apparent. The stiffer, undisturbed till does not appear to have an overly high moisture content. For the most part, the glacial till appears to be a reasonably stable subgrade material." 16. Dces the site contain peat soils, highly erodibZe soiZs, steep slopes, sinkholes, shalZow Zimestone formatfons, abandoned we1Zs, or any geo3ogic hazards? If pes, show on site map and explain: X No Yes 17. The approximate depth (in feetj to: a. groundwater 14' Min. 20' Avg. b, bedrock 150' Min. 165' Avg. 18. Does any part of Che project area involve: a. Shoreland zoning district? X No Yes b. Delineated 1Q0 year floodplain? X No Yes c. State or federally designated rivex land use distxict? X No Yes If yes, identi£y water body and applicable classification(s) and describe measures to protect water and related land resources. 19. Describe any physical alteration e.g., dikes, excavation, fi3l, stream diversions of any drainage system, Zake, stream, and or wetZand. Describe measures to minimize impairment of the water-reZated resources. Estimate quantity of material to be dredged and indicate where spoiZs wi1Z be deposited. No dikes, excavation, fill or stream diversions will occur with this development. 0 20. A. WiZ1 the project require an appropriation of ground or surface Q � water? If yes, explain (indicate quantity and souzce): n/��,� —� 1 No X Yes B. IJiZ1 the project affect groundwater ZeveZs in any we11s (on or off the site)? If yes, explain: No X Yes 21 Describe the erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after construction of the project. The control o£ erosion will not be a significant pxoblem because of the flat terrain on the site. During construction, the contractor will be required to provide temporary erosion control measures as necessary to prevent silt from entering the city storm sewer system, the ditch along Pierce Butler Route or the BN pond. Bale checks will be used around unfinished storm sewer inlets where erosion is potential problem. Earth berms are proposed between Pierce Butler Route and the westerly area of the site. Silt fence will be used as necessary at the toe of the berms to prevent silt £rom eroding into the ditch along Pierce Butler Route. The silt fence would remain in place until a turf cover is established on the berm slope. After construction the entire project will have a non-erodable cover -- pavement, tur£, or landscaping treatments. 22. A. WiZ1 the project generate: 1. Surface and stormwater runoff? 2. Sanitary wastewater? 3. Industrial wastewater? 4. Cooling water (contact and noncontact)? No X Yes No X Yes X No Yes X No Yes If yes, identify sources, volumes, quality (i£ other than normal domestic sewage), and treatment methods. Give the basis or methodology of estimates. A.l Surface and stormwater runoff. Calculations which follow detail the activity at the western, and major area of the development pxoposal. Stormwater runoff £ram the site will be from 43.2 acres of pavement and roof area and 6.0 acres o£ unpaved area. The esti.mated stormwater runoff from this site during a 100 year storm event is a 20.77 acre-£eet during a 24 hour period. The maximum rate of discharge from the site is 219 cubic feet per second. See the Attachment 22.A.2, Stormwater Management Plan. � A.2. Sanitary wastewater. q�-t�S� Normal domestic sanitary sewage is expected to be generated from the new and existing office buildings. The existing sanitary sewer service line will be used to serve both buildings. The estimated waste water from these two buildings is as follows: Estimated Wastewater Discharge Existing office building 50 employee x 20 gal/day/emp Proposed new office building 10 employees x 40 gal/day/emp Total = 1,Q00 gslfday 400 �al/dav 1,400 gal/day B. Identify receiving waCers, including groundwater, and evaivate the impacts of the discharges Zisted above. If discharges to groundwater are anticipated, provide percaZation permeability and other hydrogeological test data, if available. Stoxmwater xunoff wi11 discharge to the BN pond. The quality of this runoff will be better than typical urban stormwater runoff because the amount of sediments, fertilizers and de-icing chemicals are all expected to be much less than is typical for urban stormwater. There is no apparent outfall £rom the BN pond in working condition now. The proposer plans to to provide an easement across railroad property that would permit the city to construct an outfall pipe £rom the pond to the storm sewer at Energy Park Drive to the north. This pipe would be sized to accommodate the discharge from the BN site plus £lows Prom other sources that discharge into the BN pond. City policy limits the peak stormwater discharge rate to 1.64 cubic feet per second per acre of site. Based on this policy, discharge from the BN site must not exceed 80.7 cfs (49.2 x 1.64 = 80.7). Runof£ £rom the BN site exceeding a discharge rate of 80.7 cfs would be retained in the BN pond. Based on hydrologic calculations, the maximum storage in the pond would be 230,000 cubic feet. This volume would raise the water level in the pond 0.29 feet. The peak storage requirement would be met after a 35 minute rain. After that, allowable discharge from the pond would exceed the runoff into the pond and the pond water elevation would begin to recede. After approximately 2 hours, the pond would return to normal water levels. According to a study conducted by Pace Laboratories, Inc., "Stormwater Quality Znvestigation - Burlington Northern Midway Hub Center", dated March 10, 1988, and submitted as Attachment 22.B, a positive net impact may result in the BN pond storm water quality in reiation to oil and grease. Now the facility operators apply clazified oil to the rail yard as a dust suppressent during the summer and fall mon.ths. According to 1987 records, 19,600 gallons of clarified oil were used to suppress the dust in the rail yard. Some of this oil was carried with stormwater runo£f into the BN pond. With the proposed improvement and paving, the need for oil as a dust suppressent will be eliminated. � Another possible source of oil and grease would be from leaking semi- ��� tractors or maintenance vehicles. This amount should be equal to or less than levels associated with typical urban runoff according to the Pace Report. Estimates for concentrations o£ sodium and chloride in snowmelt runoff as a result of salting operations in the rail yard were £ound to be substantially lower than those concentrations found in typical uiban highway snowmelt runoff. Sand applications during the winter months are not expected to have significant wate= quality impacts aceording to the Pace study. 23. Wi11 the project generate (either during or after construction): A. Air pollution? No X Yes B. Dust? No X Yes C. Noise? No X Yes D. Odors? No X Yes I£ yes, explain, including as appropxiate distances to sensitive land uses; expected levels and duration of noise; types and quantities of air pollutants from stacks, mobile sources, and fugitive emissions (dust), odor sources; and mitigative measures for any impacts. Give the basis or methodology o£ estimates. A. Air pollution. David Braslau and Associates, Inc, analyzed the air quality impact o£ the proposed development using the MOBILE 3 mobile source emissions model and HIWAY 2 dispersion model; the "Noise and Air Quality Report" dated March 27, 1988 is included as Attachment 23. When this study was conducted, BN planned to solely use the westerly site for all expansion activity, from Snelling Avenue on the east to the BN pond on the west, Therefore some references within the text may not accurately re£lect the current proposal which has moved the main entrance and the entrance roadway to the easterly section of the site, east of Snelling Avenue. However, the conclusions remain valid because moving the entrance way was recommended as a noise and air quality mitigative development option within the report. In addition, the receptor site on Fairview Avenue (the Yesidence referenced in the report from which measurements were made) is closer to the potential queue of waiting trucks than is any residential xeceptor at the new entrance location. The primary air pollution concern from truck activity on site is from (1)the potential queue of vehicles waiting along the new entrance check- in and {2)off-site Cruck activity at the entrance roadway. The pollutant of primary interest for which estimates can be made is hydrocarbons, a primary contributor to diesel odors. According to the $raslau report, no adverse impacts to sensitive land uses from vehicle emissions are anticipated for the parameters oE hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide, based on measurements of current activity and models of future activity at the site. From a receptor 30 meters to the south, the closest sensitive land use, vehicie air emissions ali fall belom the levels established in the Iiinnesota Ambient Air Quality Standards. 0 The Braslau study also considered the potential impacts of increased �, truck traffic at the Snelling and University Avenue intersection. This intersection has registered the highest carbon monoxide levels in the Twin Cities area. The study states that while heavy trucks associated with the BN facility could make up 20 percent of the hourly truck trips passing north and south through the intersection both now and in the year 2000, the number of vehicles or 1eve1 of traffic is within Lhe margin of error of any air quality model (9 trucks out of 46 trucks each houx projected £or the year 200� coming into inte�section from south approach). Therefore the impacts of traffic to and from the the BN facility through this intersection cannot be modeled and are insigni£icant. B. Dust. As the majority of the land now used for parking, storing and access is unpaved, paving these areas as proposed will reduce the amount of dust generated on-site, particularly during the summer and £all months. Dust from construction activities will be controlled. The contractor will use the application o£ water and other appropriate dust suppression measures as necessary to comply with the Minnesota Rule 7005..550 on prevention o£ particulate matter from becoming airborne. C. Noise. There are two primary sources oP noise associated with this proposal - traf£ic noise and equipment noise. Traffic Noise: A detailed 24 hour traffic count was made by TKDA and Associates, Inc. on February 18, 1988. These counts provided information not only on tra£fic along PieYCe Butler Route, but showed the direction of travel both of passing traffic and traffic going to and from the BN facility. These counts were used by David Braslau and Associates, Inc. to model traffic noise levels at sensitive receptor sites along Piezce Butler Route with and without the current £acility and with the new facility in place. The study indicates that at the closest receptor site to the Pierce Butler Route, about 22 meters at 917 Aldine, both daytime and nighttime state noise standards are exceeded. However, when current traffic noise levels are compared with levels that would would be expected in the future with an expanded hub facility, the difference is less than 1 dBA. The study concludes that the new facility will have an insignificant impact on noise levels near the site. Equipment Noise: Equipment noise levels were modeled using the octave band data, IVIE Sound Spectrvm Analyzer. The model takes into account attenuation with distance and atmospheric absorption. 10 The study calibrated traffic and piggy packer noise levels £or various 7 operation levels at the site. Worst-case estimated noise levels based '�� on operations closest to the sensitive receptor sites were established. �� � The study determined that while hostler tractors produce noise similar to that of the packers, their use is more intermittent and they are often shielded by the rows of trailers and containers and therefore their use was not factored into this analysis. With the simultaneous mufflers (these have Aldine receptor (308 type of operation. operation of two packers with new sound shielding recently been installed) on the rail nearest the feet), noise standards would be exceeded by any With the operation of packexs having the new mu£flers and working at the middle rail, noise standards likely would not exceeded. Operation of one packer at the nearest rail and one at the middle rail would exceed the noise standards. A 5 dBA reduction in the equipment could a11ow a single packer to operate on this raii during the nighttime hours without violating the standard. The operation of two packers with new mufflers at the northerly track would not exceed noise level standards. Impact noise from bouncing and parking trailers and containers may also contribute to the noise generated on-site. Uneven gravel surfaces and uneven rail crossings cause the jostiing of trailers and containera, which when empty are especially noisy. Paving the surface and rebuilding the rail crossings will reduce this type of equipment noise. D. Odors. No specific data on odor thresholds for diesel-type emissions are available. The study established an approximate threshold value for hydrocarbons of 0.1 ppm. The Minnesota Ambient Air Quality Standards for hydrocarbons are 0.24 ppm for a 3-hour period. The predicted truck hydrocarbon levels at the closest receptor site at Fairview Avenue, 30 meters south of the BN entrance, was .015 ppm. 24. Describe the type and amount of so�id or hazardous waste incZuding sludges and ashes that wi11 be generated and the method and Zocation of disposaZ. No solid or hazardous waste will be generated at this site. According to the hub facility manager, less than 5 percent of the containers or trailers being transported through the yard contain any hazardous material. Of those hazardous materials brought through the yard, the largest containers are 55 gallon drums. There are no tanker-type rail cars brought through this facility. The facility now provides a waste containment site for any potential hazardous waste spills. The expanded Pacility will have a pit or "safe haven" which will be about Pour feet deep and lined with an impervious material to contain any spiil and prevent it from reaching the BN pond. In case of a very sudden spill in which hazardous material reaches the storm sewer system, there would be opportunity to block the storm sewer ii system downstream, thereby preventing the spill from reaching the pond. The spilled material would then be removed from the storm sewer by �� ����� pumping. Attachment 24 contains the "Hazardous Material Emergency Response Y1an" for the hub facility. The hub facility has three above-ground storage tanks for diesel fuel. The tanks can store approximately 200 gallons each and are located outdoors without any spill containment provisions. Minnesota state rules require a permit for above-ground storage tanks and a containment area with a leak or spi11 holding capacity of the largest tank plus at least one foot of freeboard. 25. Wi11 the project affect: a. Fish or wildlife habitat, or movement of animals? b. Any native species that are officially listed as state endangered, threatened, and o£ special concern (animals and/or plants? No �_Yes X No Yes Zf yes, explain, identify species and describe impact. The impact on wildlife in this area will be confined to the loss of grassland areas to paved or landscaped areas. The BN pond will not be altered by the development proposal and should continue as a brood rearing site for ducks and other wetland birds. Railroad corridors have traditionally been habitats for mammals such as £ox and for species o£ birds such as red wing blackbirds who nest and forage in adjacent woody axeas. With the recent reintroduction of peregrine falcons to the T�in Cities area, the BN pond site and surrounding environs may lie within the falcon feeding range. See Attachment 25.B.for the DNR Response on endangered species in the area. 26. Do anp historicaZ, archaeological or architectural resources exist on or near the project site? Zf yes, explain {show resources on a site map and describe impact). X No Yes The Minnesota Historical Society has reviewed the project location and has determined that "no known sites of historic, architectural, cultural, archaeological, or engineering significance (lie) within the area of the proposed project. There are no sites in the project area which are on the National Register." See Attachment 26. 27, Will the project cause the fmpairment or destruction of: a. Designated park or recreation areas? x No Yes b. Prime or unique farmlands? X No Yes c. Ecologically sensitive areas? X No Yes d. Scenic views and vistas? X No Yes e. Other unique resources (specify)? X No Yes 12 At the present time trucks enter and exit the hub yard and queue in an ,0� area which is directly across from the neighborhood Newell Park. The q�1�� proposal to move the main entrance to the easterly section o£ the project area would eliminate this situation. Automobiles would still enter in this area however. 28. For each affected road indicate the current average dai3y traffic (ADT), increase in ADT contributed by the project and the directionaZ distribu[ion of traffic. Pierce Butler Route: Between Prior and Snelling 10,800 ADT(S/86) Between Snelling and Hamline 8,625 ADT(9/86) Snelling Avenue: At the Pierce Butler Route 30,125 ADT(9/83) The average daily truck trips for the week days is 427. The proposer states that average daily truck traffic will increase to 700 trips per day and that othes trips will increase to 250 trips per day £or a total of 1050 ADT for the hub facility. This represents 525 trips into and out of the facility. According to hub records for the week of September 20-26, 1987, 70 to 79 percent of all truck activity at the site occurs between the hours o£ 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. A traffic count taken November 4, 1987, taken between these hours established the directional distribution o£ the trips as shown below: To or from the East To or £rom the West Truck trips 52� 48$ Non-truck (auto, pickups, vans) 678 33� Additional traf£ic in£ormation including counts and distributional directions are included in the "Noise and Air Quality Report" compiled by David Braslau and Associates, Inc. and included here as Attachment 23. 29. Are adequate utflities and public services now avai2able to service the project7 If not, what additional utilities and or services wi1Z be required? No X Yes SUMMARY OF ISSUES For regular EAWs, list the issues as identified by "yes" answers above. Discuss alternatives and mitigative measures for these issues. For scoping EAWs, list known issues, alternatives, and mitigative measures to be addressed in EIS. Sur£ace and Stormwater Imnacts The stoxmwater management plan proposes to convey the stormwater runo£f in a storm sewer system from the site to the city drainage system on the south side of the site. Tt�o storm sewers from the facility would drain to the city storm sewer along Pierce Butler Route, four other on-site storm sewers would drain to the city ditch and two other on-site storm sewers would drain directly to 13 the BN pond. An on-site drainage plan was submitted by the project proposer and was reviewed by the city's Public Works' Sewer Design Division. Public �� .1� Works has agreed with the concept of the plan but approval will be in conjunction with final site plan approvai for the development. See Attachment 22.A.1. Sanitarv wastewater 9s noted in response to question 22, normal domestic sanitary sewage will be generated at this site and will be routed to existing sanitary sewer lines. Air Pollution Air quality is not anticipated to be a problem either on-site or off-site but measures can be implemented that can insure minimal impaets. A berm or barrier constructed along the west end of the property would provide scxeening and would reduce potential transport of truck-generated pollutants towards the residential area south o£ Pierce Butler Route. A plan to distribute alternative route information to drivers using the £acility could help to reduce the number of vehicles passing through the Snelling and University Avenue intersection. An improvement o£ Eneigy Park Drive at Raymond Avenue that is now under construction will make access to TH 2S0 simpler and quicker and may divert some trucks away £rom the Snelling and University Avenue intersection. Dust The proposed project should help to reduce problems of blowing dust because the majority of the surface will be paved. Noise Noise abatement alternatives were proposed in the David Braslau Associates, Inc, report, Attachment 23. Some of these measures were implemented since the report was issued. The following table indicates the alternatives that were recommended: SourceLEouipment Mitigative Measure Piggy Packer Hostler tractor Idling train engines Idling trucks (check-in) Aail crassings Surface roughness Departing trucks Install mufflers Reduce back-up alarm Enclose engine Control night operations Erect berms/barriers Move exhaust lower Relocate to remote area Build berm/barrier Install smooth rubber crossings Pave surface Relocate entrance 14 oaor �,�,��o� Screening of the entrance roadway with a berm or barrier will reduce the impact o£ odor from queuing vehicles. Relocating the entrance area to the easterly portion of the site will limit the impact of odor to sensitive land uses. Wildlife Sose disturbance of wildli£e habitat is expected. Nearly 12 acres of brush and grassland will be replaced by about five acres of landscaped area. Sensitive landscape treatment may continue to provide opportunity for wildlife habitat however. ------------------------------�----------------- ---�---------------- — ------- CERTIFZCATION BY RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT I hereby certify th`at the information contained in this document is true and complete to the best of my knowledge and that copies o£ the completed EAW have been made available to all points on the official EQB distribution 1ist. Signature Date 15 ��-I�o-3 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 4.B.1. County map showing project area. 4.B.2. Copy of USGS 7 1/2 min., 1:24,000 scale map. 4.B.3. A site plan. 4.B.4.a 4.B.4.b 22.A.1. 22.A.2. 22.B. 23. 24. 25.B. 26. Existing land use map. Zoning map. Memo from city's Public Works Department. Stormwater management plan. Pace Laboratories, Inc. report, "Stormwater Quality Investigation." David Braslau and Associates, Inc. report "Noise and Air Quality." BN "Hazardous Material Emergency Response Plan." Letter from D.N.R. Minnesota Historical Society letter. ' cc: ��� .� . : �,,. ceorge lactimer Mayw �(„ (�� c.5on/ S.D. iHuRrn� �tr iN,�. �,�; g �s August 2, 1988 DEPARTMENT , i 5: I vG ; � , °`� Douglas J. Rodel H!ib Manager - Bttrlington Northarn Tnten�cdel Service Midway Hub Center 1701 Pierce Butler Route st. Paul, i+ID7 551�4 Dear Mr. Rcdel 100th et� 8�� CONVENTIO(V OCT. 1988 S7. LOUlS Y 5T. LOUIS SECTION 1VR5 RoAD i/ZAfF+c ELfM�N�%�� Lc�tn�� �i9ss�.:� �R.�i.+�s Ex�cuaEO � The Division of Ptiblic Health imnitored sound levels at the L�,u'linq� n Northerit Hiz}i Yard betwc-�n the haurs of 16:45 p.m., July 2a and 6:45 a.m., Suly 26, 1988. I�bnitors were Iocated at. the foSlowing loca�ions. 1. Burlington NortRern property Iine east of main gate 2. Burlingt.on Northern prtrperty line north oE Aldine 3. Bur2ington R'orthern north property line south o£ Midway Stadirmi. Hourly rear�ings inclicated L10 soand levels greater than the 55 dSA a2losaeci by the Sairit Paul Noise Ordirsance, Chapter Z93. LCX4E3t L.LO East of ttain gate North af Aldine :3orth pmperty line � .:•. Hiqhest L10 66.5 d&� fi2.5 dR�1 54.5 dPA Sound levels at tha Burlington Northern Hub Yard property line ccaast not exceed an L10 af 55 dB.� between the hours 10:40 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. IE you t��.�y gxestions, £eel free to contact me at 292-77p5. Si�rely, , ! ter . tCi.shel Occu�tional Sdfety and Health Analyst P`I'K: jm _. . . _ I � � '�� , � � � - ,� -� ._ R � � ��� � �tr � , i � \ �,` "� . � l � � i +, ' • �T. 'LL I `` �J'�.�:�."i H . •�� �ARPCNTCVI _ _ _ , _ _ ; __ .� �I II •.� •� � ATTACHMENT 4.6.2. q,•� ����,3 _ t .� - - s�o � II \I _. ` r ��� �! ��:'� % � �- � I4EHk725' OF MI?:NFjSp A � , `c!; orr � � I ;: � � � ��' _ �' , ��� ' N vncEr -.' j.� 1 � � 7-,�i Rui GmDV �i i : � W �I �i '��e! $tJ2hta� r. �.: r �eva� ' � � :�F�.. -. � � ,��/ -=� I r � I � 1 � + � - � � �� � �.� ,�;, �_—�_ � � 3.s�. ,,_ � r -� � � � _�^' Q �' .1fvc' � � .�7J� ,- �I: vlJ�..^��� 'u ^^ "/ - `� -+ w. �• r -_ { � C�..Jbi�� .�� �'��tJi.•n�qY;� � � ' ��'`_����-� � � •) /•1 ��'SeNeV Ii � il �' - ' 1 ..: �,� _ , � ., �+-�- . - .1 � ��' x� ��. I. t✓ iy'�J�r -�- _ `�� -' i• 1:� jl I��`-V:Y�;� 'i � y z -� � ' `� ± �: "�`k�e : _�; � _�. — - -- E � (� ' �=- ; � � , � Lll h �� h .. _ ��^ R�.wG-On' �._�. .. ���) I{ 2�1 '. W Z2� � -� � �I '..L_\�..l��:: �-.:�}r,',� ��L.: " �_. II � �j� � �j „ 3� � ��J � ? � s ^ . . _ _ =c �_�_�: �. � i . - � 9p. Z � �F ��� l �� I �" �. " tr'' `�� �.! T� - i� �=, -_:. '. :•= �✓��� cF�� ?� :�:'-� • �� ;�,�-� 'a3•ti vc' , = 7ry I:. . ___ ^. , � � / ��-z� � ,i o' ,.� ? - �J. e � •r ST tf.�_.. � �;� S �/ I I i! .��,.-z. ��. —� . 4 � �[� mr'_-'- ' ♦___ �. _.1 i �V . Kb WsY�_�yI' �? ' � ` 1 � �^.— f � u1 ^�= .. - . � _ _ �SeKw.r ; -� � � - ' 1 r c� - u` , '��;'_ :az� -._ '.. -:— _7_e�-: IJ �... :' - �� h ' ^� _—� � �r 7� }',, �v `��� t��:���� r-;`=�ATR�RICi;k'�J'�';�,.�5.^i . �r `{�'r, �� � � - ; '�_�:^ _' � / ;"�a . -n:.`wt � J�'% s sT _ s�- • J�_ _ _ c= i i c .' U ' �.. � _ , . '. ' . ' . �: ,,- � : y„ . _: - " 1 � t� -�--T`. �< !_--�� � _ > �� '(. L ' �.'' �-�'� ` . �_�` � i! ' �> � +�.- o j�a�j�Pa� �': �,:� �� �� � ~-- � � `�m'""�"' ,�-�. t tn.ad � <vc P ��� - " . � � � � C . Y./_' � _ { � / --, I. ' � i �f,1 �� . �I� aoiol..� -�C�=J� I` SIB ' 1 '\.;` .x {� ti, - '// `. �� � ������N ,�,iowe. ���� . _', - '* �_'`� " l�\ �^ ... , ' _� � —� E ��J'� ��� i� _ o � � rt � � i v';':?': , li �i. ��p L ., �. _ !� � o �. 7 5?Ci i ` -���� �� ��� �. ' ,4 _r�s. i a - _ �_ �C :�:r? � -, _� t�, j �i�� f � I?' --__ � " ,�3a o- @ � ���^. .'' _ � L^1��,�j�-_ —.__ _ �wa���_ ' —. '- `�,�_� ' -:� __ _ .t�Gs - - — _, • {� � — ��=��'� �•� ':. / i�T'.'� '' �� ��� � - _ _- ��. ca�R:� � ,.� 1 � aw ,,� �R x! �' �\ � 3Fa, r�\�� e .� ` _ �Y��-1��� - cilverDn,� '�,\ StTtl �m �7 6 �-� i il �-.a . (� � .����. ' 'C'�� ( � .. `°---_� � 9 oT; ��� -... . .- R J ��,��;��'` 1� ,�\: • ,.: �n `-' c . _-_ s•_= _��� \ � L n R - ` v � - � • '--- _ . i:.��` '=,�3�': \" �R _ � � :� Fv-`._ ! .�J."_ . � 11 � ,G ��\.�� � �` � . Park I� $F° `�I. I i q ii �)�;; : r r �.- :� ����':'�: ,� � �� o �, ;. �� - e .� n a, �..�,..�. �� �, ,5 � ; � � � : p� ,— �I� ` � ` i `�wo�,�,:_'�? �-!�� � 7 � �: �� ` �� J � � '� �� • - x��, am � ere � � �, _. �, � ������` °�. ���� � ��';� - i�,� -- 't� �;�\ . M j �� i � l � � � �'�� ' � � na� ����. "� { � 8 -s �Pu �'°- \ ` ��c �--`--�.-_� .`��lL� �Is z�d. � � i�� II� ' � �� �.\ ������-�' p� �� • _�._,_J;���Ji rt��.a6 _� fi ..�� r-. �� ,,��� I� LaM � r❑Ll�i- .-�. �V' , �! V' � �' ���nn� a T, •� C � �--� , �--� � c, �u`J�C �J'� . J - : � l� � � ���.� Z���'_� "�� ���1_"`�J�.ibr 1�1 ��''� � �� �� ;��' � ` � � ,_ �, ; ;.� r ; , � �''����; 'Lh'!I�i'_ �i�-r !' ( t , � Q � , �U" _• ��a ! �'���1_}O_��,.a� AvC �-L..���� j( ; r , � _ .� �: � _� '�a�s�4 ���' � 9 lI I J _ f w �, 9�' I��� ����— [ ��� � : � N 3 � \�J � . , _-'�� ` . � —�• I `fi; � 4,� ��y s�n ' �= � '�" � _ i �' '=;�4,; � °—' �---�'_ =�=�' U aI� � i � Pmi SemiOar9i l ti.vLOZH���_�'�" � i �� I� . / � �c ``. -j � .1 •' � /i� .-��j� .� l�i f �i �„' - _ Q - °� � :t '� � _ ; � f ,� �^ _ . �_ � _ �_ r � __ _ _��`--���r ,�., � � : \ - �� � Fa4iM0 u_xr ' � V£ I O 1t . ` i \ - . �: _ �—�%J �ry I. . ' t � . �_, ,� � ,-7-u: -,- � 1,�. �....:_.. . , ,-�� �— �' ;--%u � _ •"�•^ ' _ OIC 1� -' � SaMb — 1 . �V __ d✓E � ; ? e Sch � . . =1 c �t_� C d Ptrk f.h �'° .:J�—��.�_. s' 9� _ H I � ErP �v 19:8 ¢ � i323' � . �.I _y, �� `�,.��r�_'`�'`_'1F �— a i - �T-=� - _ � �__ — �'•=:> j �...i. ie;>`q' a ,<---� 5 f/i /,--: L. D nva- Fre�.. � �3a 1� 3a � � = s � � i �A �Cgntra7 H� h Se]�"' �� - T •�3l�ll{LAN� y . i i � �� ��a'9:n�TtlHer �'. �� �� '� r+KUE� �I �� _�— \ � t �^ - I � \ ,���.� I I �� S S'J'V �v`y1 i�_� _�J_ —��-� _ • ` T� ( I � L�fl i � � 0 � } V r� � � , � w � _ � � � � ., � I i � � � . ; � i �, , �� I ; . I _ ,� :,,ts�,. . � m �4 � � � � �� I � ,: � �� � ,� �\,, .; . , 1 \ ., .i. l,.' ' `' ' ',' . ' �''' � � � i —' i i ' ", ��' ';. .. �; C� r � �, , � � ' ! � U(�, I a \, ' r,(6 ,if -- U�� � 1 . ✓-..;.' _> _: 1 i�� '�Itl„�' .-1 �� � � `��, . _ I ._,. I S�� , -----�-- 1.: - :'�` � :"7�' �.5: _�u.. .�I ��• ' -. �/!_ _, j i � ( �. � � � ��� , � I��������� � �' r �� � ��,'�. : � "' � � � I' i �. � � �� ' ' � �n� I I� r. �fiJ�"cr �i�.�� �;, -� T�� .�n�� :''� ) � .� _.;, ?T�. � ` \"��7 ,� ��,, �� �,�,'�,� � �,,�� � ;,� �;��; '\' �{� i , � I •, i Ili ��:� �` �,�� l '�., I"� �i� 41 JI ' f",� . �;'i ,., � �•� e��:�u ,'� � �� � r �^ � ���ra'1�"`'�f i .� t;:—,� �� � '� a ��� ��"� �� �� t „ + ��, i -y ;-� I ���- �, � � � f�.! ;. ' i,.� � 7S! 1 io��,�U. .���� , �.� ,� ��I� i��r.�;i ,t,�.- �' � �I'T til �.`' S, .�X(.7,�. � i �,.�r��l� i iL���� ",�4+" � i'lt� �.`� qiF i'' '. I — � _ _ _—� _ _ . h�—r ; �...i; ���r.;r;,%`�;`� .��.� ,a+.�����s ��p,��.,' ��,�i.l�'rpr°� i � ',�' �v�-� �� 1 1 I� �, �a�� ;1��5 7, v �._, r:� , �. , G �� ��. ��� ��� `� � '��'i}.11. �., Fi � � �� F! ' �, � y � � �i� � � � � � ' �) \ •') I• �� � I �'��i��'rYd�U�'.� �� � . �,+��, � �:. �ir � i r , ^�� ;� � 1. , ' ,- r:.�_ c{.: ,.�� � � �� a:; � ,� . � '.'����'���9��� r ' . �s ��'�t."�t��l"�+:% �<. � ^__ ,�� c�=— �$ � _�-:�i, � , � � � / •.iM I � . � �- �. � �, @ l�lf � ,�� .�.�� � _ .� �. � ,� � %!;'',=� � � �: �,. � - • ; � .'� � � �, � �;A� ��. �: ��� � , ., , , ; , . � ; I R `�a �1i ��,. .�.,�. , � •�; � :.-d i _ � � �� _��.,.� q: , . 1 _..... _. J=`� -- � �.� � ` r _ � � ,, � �I Jf .� � � ; � �-- z w � _ � ¢ � � d q�.l'�°� t ' L ATTACHMENT 22.A.1. f S �� 1 �� CITY OF SAINT PAUL ��_ {IYTERDfPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Donna Datsko Planning & Economic Development 1100 City Hali Annex FROM: David Conley ° �' l �� " / Sewer Design Division, PW 700 City Hail Annex DATE: Hay 11, 1988 SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Midway Hub Facility This division has reviewed the "Stormwater Management Plan" for the Midway Hub Facility prepared by TKDA dated November 20, 1987 and agree with the cancept of the plan. To help you prepare the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for this project, I wouid recommend for you to reference the "Stormwater Management Plan" as the basis for the estimate of the source, volume, and method of control for the surface and stormwater runoff this project will generate. Also, normal domestic sanitary sewage is expected to be generated fram the new office buiiding. At this time, site plan approval has not been granted. Agreements for the overflow pipe from the,pond to the City storm sewer system at Energy Park Drive have not been made. Zf you have any further questions, please call me. cc: Mike Rassan Sewer Division .� ATTACHPIENT 22.A.2. �� �''0� MIDMAY HUB FAClLITY � BtJRL IN6TON NORTHEF2N RAILROAD MINNESOTA D!VlS10N STORM WATER MANMEI�NT PLAN Prepared by TOLTZ, K1N6, WYALL, ANDEf2SON AND ASSOCIATES, INCORR�ftATED SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Novenber 20, 7987 �,�, ��o� MID4VAY HU$ FACILITY STORM WAT£R F�ANA6EN�NT PLAN The proQosed means fa managing on-sFi dratoage is sharn on the submitted Site Plan. Existing artd proposed mntours defining the routing of storm wai'er a�e shown on the SSte Plan, Sheet 1, Gradin8 and Pavin�Qian. The Sifie Plan, Sheet 3, Storm DrainaPe and Litil ity Pian shar the boundartes of the separate drainage areas. The attached Table 1 iists the areas in acres of pervious and tmpervious surfaces for each drainage area. As sharn on the drainege p1an, tt ts proposed to convey #he storm water runoff in a storm serer system from the site to the city drainage system on the south side of the site. The city system ioctudes a proposed 36° sfi orm sewer on the north side of Pierce Butler Route extending from the east to a point approximately 1400 feet west of Snettfng Avenue. From the�e, to the xest, the city sysi�em uses an open ditch for approxtmately 1800 feet. The outiet for this ditch is the BN Pond. As sho+rn on the drainage pian, txo storm sewers from the MTdway Hub �acilifiy couid dratn to the proposed city storm sexer atong Pierce 8utler Route. Four other on-site storm sewers would drain to the city dttch. Two other on-site storm sewers wouid drain directiy to the BN Pond. The Socation and sizes of each of these storm sewers are sharn on tha drainage p! an. Following are caicuiations of the aitowable discharge rate and the detentton for the 100-year sfiorm as required by City of SairrF Paul poiicy: Site development Area = 49.1 Acres Allavabls Oischarge - 1.64 x 49.1 = 80.5 CFS The present pond area is 38.2 acres. The aatar surface elevation on November it, 1987 was 19b.1. 7o store the required 230,000 cubic feet of runoff would ralse the pond elevatlon 0.29 feet. An easement across BN property ts praposed to provtde fa� an overftav pipe from the pond to the ci#y storm sewer at Energy Park Dr(ve. The size ot this overflrnr pipe wii � be based on the totat runoff irrto the BN Pond. Besides the runofif from the subJect SN sifie, there are dtscharges from th ree city starm sexers. Two 36-inch storm sewers nave outfalis into the ditch oo the north side of Pferce Butler Route and a 72-inch storm sewer has an oufilet directiy into the southeast �rner ot the pond. 1 9069-Oi TABLE 7 HIDWAY HUB FACILITY CATA FOR EACH DRAtNAGE AftEA q�-13o Average Slope Drainage Area Imperv3ous lmpervTous of Pervious ArP� N�.nP SA Ft Area Sq. Ft. 4 Areas 7 97,040 74,050 Si.3 0.005 Ft/Ft 2A 83,200 83,200 100.1 - ZB 42,690 14,810 34.7 O.D05 F 3A 82,200 83,200 700.0 - 36 8t,890 81,890 100.0 - 4 229,990 13b,780 59.5 0.005 FtJFt 5A 83,200 83,200 i00.0 - 5B 83,200 83,200 100.0 - 5C 41,380 35,720 86.3 0.01 FtJFt 5D 83,200 83,200 t00.Q - 5E 83,200 83,200 100.0 - SF 31,800 2,180 6.9 0.01 Ft/Ft 5G A7,OdD 31,800 67.6 0.01 Ft/Ft 6 89,300 43,996 49.3 0.01 Ft/Ft 7A 83,200 83,200 100.0 - 78 83,200 83,200 100.0 - 7C 82,330 82,330 i00.0 - 7B 57,060 37,030 64.9 0.01 FtjFt 8A 33,200 83,200 100.0 - 88 101,490 90I,490 100.0 - 8C 108,030 108,030 100.0 - 8D 83,640 83,640 100.0 - 8E d8,350 48,350 100.0 - 9 22,b50 1A,810 65.4 0.01 Ft/Ft t0A 70,130 7Q,130 100.0 - 108 54,450 5d,450 100.0 - 10C 105,420 105,420 100.0 - TOTAL 2,137,480 1,875,700 •r.• � q�-\�o� TABLE 2 Dusation Min. 5 10 15 30 fi0 120 180 364 REQUiRED DETENTION FOR 100 YEAR RAINSTORM Rat nfal t Inches v 0.84 3.38 1.7b 2.44 3.15 3.50 3.80 4.40 Accumulated Runoff Cu.Ft. Z/ 128,500 211,200 269,300 373,300 482,000 535,500 583,400 673,200 Atlarabie Discharge Cu.ft. � 24,150 d8,300 72,d00 144,900 289,800 579,GD0 869,400 1,738,800 Storage Requi�ed Cu.Ft. 4/ 104,400 762,900 196,9Q0 228,400 192,200 0 0 0 Max. Storage Req�d = 230,000 Cu.Ft. ]./ From City of St. Paul Sfiormwater Management Site Pian Reviea Guidettnes. y Qa = $2 x (CxA) x 43,560 Q = Accumu4ated runo#f in caDtc feet R= Rainfaii durTng time period Tn inches C = Coefflclent of runoff A= Drainage area ln acres Pind C x A for totai stte devetopment area: 8 � Sax9 Paved Area 43.1 Ac. 0.95 40.95 Unpaved Area 6.� Ac. 0,20 t_20 Totai 42.15 3l Allowable discharge = Allavable rate of discharge x ttme in seconds _ $0.5 x time tn seconds 4/ Required Storage Capacity = Accumulated runo#f - aliavable discharge .,,. � � _ _�,� s. �� � �G�'JOCUtO�'�PS► inc. nwezzs�wu �wurric.a oawnrer a u.cwrtae.�c ATTACHMENT 22.B. p11 `\,� 3 Minneapotis, Minnesota Tampa. Fiorida Coralrille, Iowa 1710 Dougias �rive North a Minneapol9s, Mt2 55422 o Phone (612) 544-5543 o fAX (6i2) 564-3974 STORM WATER QUALi7Y INVES7IGATION BllRIINGTON NORTNERN MIDWAY HUB CENTER Qrepared For: Mr. Douglas Northup 6urlington Northern Prepared By; Date PACE Laboratories, Inc. Minneapolis, MN March 10, 1988 Project No. 880224.200 �, labor�tories� �. .+ortssawu �wun�cu au.esrer a e..wrie.Ic �t'1-1��3 Offices Mmneapoiis, Minnesok Tampa, �lorida Corelvil{e, lowa 1710 Dougias Drive North o Minneapoiis, MN 55422 o Ahone (612} 544-5543 o FAX {6t2j 544-3974 March 10, i988 Mr. Douglas Northup Regional Engineer Burtington Northern 176 East Fifth Street P.O. Box 64950 St. Paul, MN 55164 RE: Storm Water Quality Investigation PACE Project no. 880224.200 Dear Mr. Northup: As requested, PACE Laboratories, Inc. CPACE) has prepared this report to assess the potential storm water quality impacts on an existinq retention pond <B.N. Pond> that wouid likely result from proposed on—site resurfacing and drainage pians at the Burlington Northern Midway Hub Center site in St. Paul. MN. Specific detaits of the proposed on—site drainage modification are identified in the Storm Water Management Plan prepared by Tolz, King, DuVala, Anderson and Associates, Inc. (TKDA) on November 20, 1487. This report is organized as folloNS: ection I. II III IV BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE S70RM WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS A. DNR 6. MPCA C. City of St. Paul POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Spill Containment B. Above—Ground Storage Tanks C. Salt Impacts D. Sedi.ment i� Runaff E. Oil and Grease in Runaff CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS V. REfERENCES . ATTACHMENTS •.,_ . 2 2 3 3 3 4 5 6 6 7 9 an Pmrol nnnnn••nre.. emnln...+� PACE Laboratories, Inc. _Z_ Mr. Douglas Northup 8urlington Northern March 10, 1988 If you have any questions reqarding this submittal, please do not hesitate to contact us at 544-5543. We appreciate thts opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, � _ d // , �.%i�.v��� � � d'frv' .,�., 3effrey L. Behnken, E.I.T. Project Engineer � �� J � Donald P. Duffy, P.E. Project Maneger JLB:DPQ/emb Attachments 9� -��03 I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE In November, 1987, Burlington tlorthern Railroad submitted a Storm Water Management Plan to the City of St. Paul for a proposed resurfacing and drainage project to be implemented at their Midway Hub Center facitity tocated near the iotersection of Pierce 8utier Route and Sneiling Avenue i� St. Paul. It is our understanding that the project will invoive relocation of raiTroad tracks and site buildings, and the paving of the facility's yard to provide more efficient utilization of the space available. A storm sewer system has been developed to convey storm water runoff from the paved site to outfalls wfiich drain to tfie BN Pond. The total paving and draining project encompasses 49 acres. Existing and proposed site storr� Water conveyance is to the. 18 acre BN Pond. Numerous documents, maps, plans and specificattons whieh pravide details of site drainage modifications have been submitted by Burlington Northern to the City of Ste Paul since the fall of 1987. As a resutt ofi these submittals to the Cifiy of 5t. Paul, there has been some concerns raised as to the potent9al environmental impacts that the storm water runoff from the rail yard r+ould have on the BN Pond. This report xill address those concerns and point out some Nater quatity impacts which should result from the paving project. II. STORM WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS To better ascertain the current status of requirements or guidelines for the quality of storm aaters discharging into the BN Pond, PACE tontacted the Minnesota Department of Naturai Resources tDNR), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency <MPCA> and the City of St. Paul. The results of these contacts are summarized as foiloKS: � A_ DNR In a conversation with Mr_ Mike Muelier of the DNR — Metro Reqion office, it xas discusseQ Khether the DNR had any such storm water quality guSdelines or reguirements. His comments were that the ONR is concerned mainly Kith hox the water quantity is handled, not the Hater quality and that tfie QNR had no such requirements or guidelines. Mr. Mueller did co�nent that the BN Pond is classifled as a "protected wetland" , With the DNR. Because of this classification, any changes to the pond fi.e. pfoposed storm water outfalls or related structuresl below the normal high wa#er leveT of the pond Hoa7d require a permit with the DNR, A DNR permit apptication form is provided as Attachment A. The City of St- Paul and Burtington Northern are aware of this permit requirement as documented per IYem 1 in an October 27, 1987 TKDA memorandum to Mr. Clyde Stack and Mr. Doug Northup. B. MPCA Mr. Doug Hall of the MPCA Water Qualtty Permfts Divlsion xas contacted regarding any storm aater quality requirements that the State impTements. He commented that the MPCA reviews requirements on a site—by—site basts with regard to potential environmentat concerns. He added that the �State does have some sites that requlre an 2ndustrial Waste Discharge PermSt for storm water runoff, but due to the fact that no railroad car maintenance is done at the Midway Hub Center facility, this type of permit probably xould not be required. 2 a'1-1�a'3 Mr. Hali did tomment that the drainage system ou�fall to the 8N Pond may require a NPDES—Point Source permit in the future. Regulations regarding storm water runoff are being updated to reflett the Congressionat passage of the Water Quatity Act of 1987. In our opinion, passage of any specifit Federal regulation requirements which might impact this site is at ieast 4 to 12 months away. C. City of St. Paul Storm Water Management Plan Guidelines xere received by PACE from Ms. Donna Datsko o,` the City of St. Paul Planning Department. Upon review of these guidelines, there was no mention of storm water quatity or treatment requirements. In summary, based on review of current policies and regulations of State, Federal and City agencies, t here does not appear to be any requirements or g�idetines for the quality of storm water that xould be discharged into the BN Pond. III. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Based on reviex of the Storm Water Management Plan, project meeting memorandums, conversations with the City of St. Paul and Burlingto� Northern staff, the potential environmental impacts on the quatity of storm water from the paving and drainage project at the Midway Hu6 Genter facility are as foilows: e A. On—Site Spili Containment Tn tonversations aith Mr. Doug Rodel, Burlington Northern Nvb Center Manaqer, it Has estinated that less than SX of the containers or trailers being transported the�ough the rail yara contatn any hazardous materials. Of those hazardous materlats 3 brought through the yard, the largest containers �re 55.gallon drums. There are no tanker—type rail cars brought through this facility. The Midway Hub Center presentty provides a waste containment site for any potential hazardous waste spflls. U�der the proposed improvement plan, Burlington Northern ailt provide a tined ptt on the site for ptacing any container or trailer that develops a leak. 7hs pit or "5afe Haven" as 1t is cailed, aili be approximately four feet deep with an tmpervious liner to retain any hazardous chemicai spill and prevent it from reaching the BN Pond. Burlington Northern wilt also implement a Spilt Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan at the M9dway Hub facility. A SPCC Pian identifies emergenty toordinators, contacts, response teams aith telephone numbers and procedures to be followed si�outd a spill or emergency occur. B. Above — Ground Storage Tanks Burtington Nortfiern currently has on—site three above—ground storage tanks for diesel fue7. These tanks store approximateiy Z00 ga]lons each and are located outdoors, uncovered and without spitt contafinment provisions. Minnesota State rules require that owners� af above—ground ' storage tanks obtain a permit for those tanks with the MPCA. As part of the permitting criteria. there must be a containment area xith a leak or spili holding capacity of the largest tank ptus at least one foot of freeboard. 7his containment area typically tonsists oP an impervious base and diking. 4 �� -t�°� It is our recommendation that Surlington Northern obtain permits for these tanks and implement a spili containment area to prevent any spills or leaks from reaching the BN Pond. It is also recommended that if these continue to remain outside, that a roof or covering be placed over them to prevent rainwater accumulation in the containment area and to protect the tanks from corrosion. C. Satt Impact A5 part of current xinter operations at the Midway Hub Center yard, a salt/sand mixture is spread for de-icing and to improve vehitle trattion on the yard. During the winter of 1987, six 30-ton truckloads of this mir.ture aere applied to the yard. This mixture is reported as being to be 907. sand and 10� sa)t. It is assumed that this practice witl continue after the proposed paving of the yard is eompleted, even though the amount of salt/sand mixture used should be redueed due to improve SnoK removal on the paved area. Inevitably, salt wiil be washed away in the snowmelt runoff and routed to the BN pond. Estimates of the concentrations of sodium and chioride in the snowmelt runoff were calculated to be 178 mg/i and 27Z mq/1, respectively. These caiculations can be found in Attachment B. Shese concentrations Nere compared to Minnesota Department of Transportation Water Quality Data for typical urban highway runoff snowmelt (Reference 1). The concentrations for sodium and chloride in this referenced study uere 2605 mg/1 and 4500 mg/l, respectively. S. Sased on Yhe above information, the concentrations of sodium and chloride in the sno�oelt runoff as a result of salttrtg operattons on the Midxay Nub yard are expected to be su6stantialiy loNer than those concentrations found i� typical urban highway snoxmeit runoff. Also, no water quality degradation has been noted at the BN Pond as a resuit of historic de-icing operations. D_ Sediment in Runoff As part of the prevlousty mentioned Hinter sanding operations at the Midway Hub facitity, the sand portion of mixture is aiso washed in the snowmelt. runoff_ Estimates were talculated with regard to what the impact Would be if ail the sand applied to the Midway Hub yard Was conveyed through the drainage system and into th? BN Pond. These calcuiatfions can be found in Attachment C. As indicated, the sediment toad tras calculated to be 0.17X of the BN Pond volume annually. We do not consider this load to result in any significant water quality impact on the BN Pond. To minimize such sediment impacts, we encourage Burlinqton Northern to utilize good snox piowing technfques within the proposed paved area and exercise prudent judqment in relation to salt/sand spreading practices. E. Oil & Grease in Runoff In the past, Burlington Northern received �permisslon from Mr. Dick Kable of the MPCA to appfy ciarified oiT to the raii yard as a dust suppressent during the summer and fali months. According to 1987 records, 19,fi00 aallons of clarified oil were used to suppress the dust on the rail yard. InevitabTy, some of this oil xas carried Hith storm xater runoff i�to the BN Pond in the past. With the proposed improvement , 6 `l'1-i�a'3 plan, the gravel and dirt yard Will noN be paved and the need for the clarifted oil as a dust suppressent wilt be e]iminated. The other posstble source of oii and grease vrouid be fram teaking semi—tractors or maintenante vehicles, but this amou�t should be equal to or less than levels assotiated with typicai urbdn runoff. Estimates were made to compare existing and projected oii and 9rease loads to the BN Pond as shown in Attachment D. As indicated, we expect an improvement to water quatity at the BN Pond in con�u�ttion xith the proposed paving and drainage modifitations. IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIQNS Our conctusions and recommendations regarding this storm water quality investigation are summarized as follows: i. Based on review of current pottcies and regulations of State, Federal and City agencies, there does not appear to be any specific requirements for the quality of storm xater that Noutd be discharged into the BN Pond. � 2. Surlington Horthern proposes to provide a"Safe Haven" on—site to retain any spiTl of hazardous material resulting from a leaking or damaged container or trailer, A SPCC Ptan wilt be impiemented should an emergency spili occur. 3. It is our recommendation that a permit be requested for the three above—ground storaqe tanks that are on—site. A spili containment area consisting of a base with diking should be impiemented. A roof or cover should be ptaced over these tanks to prevent rainNater accumulation in the containment area. , 7 4. The estimated coacentrattons of sodtam and chloride tn tha snowmel# runoff as a result of salt9ng operations on the rati yard are substaotialiy iower that those concentrations found in typical urban highway snorrmelt runoff. Based on these estimates, along xith historic practices at tfiis site, future salting operations are not expected to have serious xater quality impacts. 5. The water quality impacts of the sand applied during winter operations are not expected to be sfignfficanto To heip avoid any lmpacts, xe recommend that Burlington Northern utilize appropriate snox ploWing methods so as to minimize the use of sandJsalt de-iting mixtures. 6. With the paving improvements proposed, the need for dust suppression using clarified oil aill be eliminated. Accordingly, He est4mate a net pos9tive impact in relation to oil and grease concerns on the SN Pond storm xater quality. , � �1' 7 -t7o3 R£FERENCES T. "Characteristics of Urban higfixay Runoff <Phase 1)", Mtnneso#a Department of Transportation, June, 1981. 2. Kuehnast, E.l., Baker, D.G. and Enz, J.W., "Climate of Mi�nesota: Part VIII - Precipitation Patterns in the Minneapolis - St. Paul MeYropolitan Area and Surrounding Counties," UnSversity of Mi�nesota, Agricultural Experiment Station, Technical�Bulletin 301, 1975. . • : "1 i ---' �'� -1'� � 3 REGION i (&BEMIDJI Area) ���i ,?�'�;; � ._���_ _ _.. . • _ ... - . - ' _ _ . .. J Re9tcnat Hydrologist . . _.:;_ ' . ' ' -- - . . . . _ ` --�-.- - Dtiw-Division of-Yaters.--�— - = D!VlSiO(10fiWATEF?S` � ' - ' " . _ _ 2115 Birchmont 8eack'ROad S.E. ' `� . .5 , , ; -=���;�_: ' ' ... ,: �.r`. ~� BeciiCJi, HN 56601 FF:C� ��. :-" � � (218} 755-3913 � ' �' - "—�� ' __.AOMINtSTRA7lYE .'__.. . _ . .. _-_-. "-, -: : - -- - - - -- - � � FiEGIONS_AND AREAS • Detroii Lakes Area � , � � � ` �` ..Area Hydrolo9isi �- .�., , .. _. ..._ ' -'--=-- --' --•-. , • . DHR-DivlSiort of Mniers` = � . • � ._ - _ _ . � � ' � .. - � �• P.O. Box SZ3 � Detroit Lakes, MA_ 56501 . . . __ _ _ __ .. _ _ _ . ___ . i218)8+t1-1519: _. - � - ----- � ----- `-� - - - - - - - -::`-- _ . Fergus Falls Area�-.- : -�. � _ Area HydT'OlogiSt -- -- T��f R;ver F Ils . . _ ':: :.^ .. .o. _ . ..DhR-�ivision_of.Sinters_ :.. ���...- --- �-� -- -� - � � � �, � . , .. _ , - _ . _ . .-- -- . ..-' - - -- -' -- � - .. .. . . 1221 FirAvmue East - - _� - : � ,..: Fergas Fa175, HR b6537 : "-� --. �L_� �'�° � - - - -�-�.-•. (218) 739=7576 ..: ... . - - ..._. - �_ � �.. • Thief River Falts`Aiea. . - : � . .� � �eE ian .` _- � - : . �: - . .... . ,, . .._ � --- .... -.°a � � - ; .. _.,, '- . ; : >, ,-:..�� . :.; . ...... .. . .' . .. ; :. . :.: : . _ .._. ...- :.. � Area�Hydro7ogisL �--_.: ... -; � _-. ..-� -� -. e.�.. �..._.- . . -- _. - DItR-Division-of:Ynters.''�" - •GRAN � �- --- ' 123 l4dt0 AYE. H. � "�. RAPIDS . ' ' Thief River Fal1s, ri!t 55701 � �� (218j b81-7789 Detroit Lakes Duluth � ■ _"° � . . REGION 2 {&GRAND RAPIDS �-� � Regtonal Hydro7ogist � AfeB) - . - � � . Oftk-Dlvfsion of Waters FergusFai�s -- 120: East Highway 2 ■ •BR �NEaD -=�-� � _ . Grand RaDfdS, HN 55744 � � ' . � (218) 327-i416 °°� � �u s Regionai Office "`puluth Area � � s Regional Soundary Arec NydroloySZY : --:=��=iArea Office DNk�Division of Yaters � " ~ = Area $oundar French Rtrer Haichery °°°` �� � ��� ■�� ridge � . Y - ' 10029 North Shon Drive "" ` � • - Dulath, !W 558bt - ' i ..`. .. ..�. _ .,,_ _ - - (218) 723-478b � , ; .Sp� j"' .. - ,� J _€ , _ REGION 3 (& BRAINERD Area) y . � � � I � pAUL - . ' � Re9ional Hydrotogist . � ,�.,. "' - ONF-Division of Ynters � - .v, � � - C24 FronL -SL., 8oz 64$ � �°"' °' - � . �� . . Brainerd, Hf1 56CO2 . ` ' �218) 828-2605 r�al� 4: � o �1c1N LY.1 Cambridge Area , - �- -�- . � " � . ' � . Area Hydrologf5t . n zro � •R HES � � - . DNR-DiviStan ot Yaters . - �915 South.Highvay b5 '. ° �� Cambridge. MN 55008 ' I� ._ {_ ,. (612) 689-2832 - 1 - St.Cloud "Area . , REGION 4 ConYd REGION 5 - . Area Hydretogiit � _-. _ -. Regiona7 Hydmlogis2 �- - � DN�-Division of LtaLers . . � . � � � . ..Matlkato Afea � DNR-DirlSion af-Yaters - � -= � 3725 I2th St..,NOrth . , �� '� �Aret HyEro7ogi5:�� � �P•0. 8ox 6247�' '� _ ,' �f'_0. Boz.370 .' =-. .� � � ,- '; •ONR-Dirtsion of fiRters=--- ' � Rochester; NN 55903. = � ;�St. C7oud, Kii 56302.='-; ;�_-_ `--'- , ` - Nicholz Oftice Center - � (SQ7� 285-743(3,- -. = -(612}� =:.='-_.- � ` Sui,e 180, 41D.tackson St.. , - . � "� _ :` . - .: :.: .... , .: ,--.- . _.. . _ . --- ' -:_ '_ - .. . , :.. . : ., . . . - .. _ _, • ._ � HdnkttG !(x .56�01 . . _ -.. - .'... .. , REGtON 6 ��-:._�;,; .. REGiOtd 4(&t1EW.11LIJ!•Area} ;__�;-�� ; .;;.:--z: �:;? �- ;r� t�,�:..Aeglanat-?Iydrotoyist= �.;_" _:=` _( 507 j • 389-Z151. ':_ ;:, c-.•c , : : Regionai Hydrologist ``:_ : r.". -=,:: :. ;;:.;°:-zc .c . -- � _ . - �. ' -_. �NR-Divisiohrof;itaterz.�-:" --� '-UNR-DivisSOn of Maurs-.'.;;'.:-`'•..:; -: - ., : ` , .. _ _ �,°t,_,Marshalf Area .' � " - -. 120Q Starner Road . � � '° � _" :�-Boz 156, Nighray'15...SoutA.,::: ; -�-:.' � _ <.� .��' r...r� Area Xy4rolOgis. :_.:. :, _ _ .:��St`: Paui;:liN;..5510b'rs.�-_. `Her in..}S1i:.55073- �`',-°�''•- :�,.-�. :- _ .. .. . _.... -- -� _ ,�N ,:...- .:.. _ of Yacen;-; ,� �- _ .- -----�_.. . i507 s ;..� ��, _` - - . , ::,::srz� . eox ill, It80 E. tYon: ''' . . . CEt�{TRAL OFFICE ;� - , ` "�: ' Spicer Area J " � _ . - � � Marsna7l ; !91 55258 - � � � � - kre'a Hydrologist`�" - - ---='-- - -- _ = -^( 507 } 537-7258 -. ---_ _ . . -.._:rDNR-Dtrision of Yaters - : : - . �. J.. . ._ . __..'_.. . . ,:500 CafayeLte Rond = flKR-Dtvislon of Watert y -- . . .' � DNR Bulldin9 P.O. 6ox <57 St. Paui, MN 55155-4032 232 Lake Ave.'South - ' ' "- (bl2) 2%-6800 • Spicer, Mli '.6288 , . . .. - . i612) 231-5<?S ' - ' ,. � �o wn,p�vtaa Oy aPP��centJ ,PitOJEC7 LOCATfON or PAFlT E 1 hereby submit this. application for permit to: (mark proper box} . Signature of App(icant Date aappropriate water .: �work in protected waters X ._ . � . Seciion tt (Ta be comp(eted by loca/ unit ol governmenf) '--"-----'---------- The tollowing local unit of government comments and/or recommendations are submittad�for consideration bythe .;, � Department of Natura[ Resourcesin the dispo5ltfon of the referenced permlf appllcatlon. (YOUR RES?ONSE MUST 8E . ' SUBMfTTED.TO THE DNR WITHIN 30 DAYS.) Wa2er Appropriation psrmtt Appifcatbns are to be sani to tbe Central pf-.. ;, fica, St. Paul, and Pratected Waters Permit Appllcatlons to the DNR Regio�al Office. SEE qEVERSE SIDE FOR CORRECT . MAILiNG ADDRESSESj. _ - � i :. a - -- . _ . : :"i' _ vc,' � _- � .. _ . � - -. . - . . �= !t. . ' , as tbe proposed projecbfieid.lnspected by this local untt ot�government2 �: :,- NO "�. :�-:`�-: �.. , ,. -. .iewer's Name . , � �YES Yes:'9ive viewe��s'name)'� . - Tii1e . .. ^. .-- .-... :.,;' yi _ . � ' - - .� ♦ � �R� ` .. - � � `-ill�l' .. . uthonzed Signafure _ � - Titie , ' - . � Date Telephone�No.CArea:Code)�� - � . _ .-. . . � . _;.. . . - ` ... � � ame of responding Soti.and Water Conservatlon District, Watershsd District, City or County - - • Address (of the above named locai uN2 of govemmanf) � � . � , (DNR — Div(sion of Waters adtlraues on back) at . . : Hrru�.ai w�v ruti A Ntrtml I IU WUtiK t(� PROTECTED WATERS OR WETLANDS �� ``� O 3 . � ' i ` INNESOTA Department ol s► I Natural Resources � ; �ms�on ol � aters � � - PLEASE READ CAREFULLY - Statutory Authority M�nrxwca Siarvta.5eciun 705.<2 rt�es rt w�Wwt�i 1« fne s[aie. anyperson, partnersrvp_ aswoa[ron, pr,vaie w pu6hc corporm�on, canry, rt�ahy y o[tkr Dd�ixa� w�oncsqn oi tne slate. tochanqe «dunaxsn me coWSe. currenl or cross-sectron of arry protec«ed waters a wetWrw's wrthan a w'iztm perm2 perqu5ly oC'�a�ea ��om ��e CuMxsseu�er ot kawcal Azsovrces - WARNfiVG - PROCEED3NG WITHOUTA PERMIT Anv �� n woiecteC waiers or wetlantls wh�ch reqwres a ce�*ut camor iegany pe startetl uma a pem�a and a Naice of PemK Card have Eeen isy�d yy yr�e DeDartmm� of Nacura� Resources. Any work m pro[ecte� waiers o� weclanCS wrtnouc a cermrc �s a m�sdemexqr and'¢ punistaple by fries up to 570p antllor 9p Oays n jad. The Camyssroner al5p has ihe authorny to repure iesrwatian of any wprk Qm¢ wrthpuc a p¢rm� p� peyp� � y ,,p* ��p��y p�, a �� �� assess Owde tne a6�i�un�� a0d�tqn tees. as well as ihe xtual cost for any E�W nSpeC�iprt, 1bU ShWIE 315p bE dwMG thdt Oth¢! (¢QMdI, Sidt¢ drld bf21 pertT�tS Tdy bC fCqUit�, yyhj� a�e �� ���yy��j�, t0 ObW NI. WHO APPLJES AoD��t�a+Rwst De matle on the anached tonn aM wbm�rteE io cne Departmen[ ot Na[ua� Resources Regqnal pH;ce Por ghe arga wlx,ye the propos�,y pqect vs Iocase0lsee rt,aA m Wst page). t AvP:rc.atbn rtnst be submtttE6 bY Ihe npanan lslw�eLne! owner of the WM On wtu�h (t�¢ pp�t is D�WOSed. excEpt: a A governmmt agency. a�Elic uuL[y. w corporation aumor,zed Ey Ww to contlutt tne a�orec[ may apdv �f Me property riyhts acqwred wtp be acpuired are (uuy Oescriy_d ,n th¢ zoC�,tanon. An authwuea agen; snov�tl De.tlentiiieE on 2tie app��catwn in PaR 1 anp �,9n n part Xil. D. F nplper o`appropr�ate Dro�erty rghts wc� a5 a lea5e a easement may apdY P�ovdtd that the app�icatron is [wntc+signed 6y Yhe own¢r� �pty�� Dy a coDV oi the lease or other a9reement. A permn wili be i55ued fa the term of ttie lease oniy. G �.O�asCx:'veksseeofstate�ownedfantlsmavapdvto�aperm;inMS.Terownnameaheraleasehasbeenre0uestcdfromlhepepartmmt�esponyMefa t�e ariected WnCS, The lease rep�esc antl [he pe+mt apWiCa2ron wilt E2 processeC ca�currently. FEES Mimesota Law reoares the Comrttisvmer of Natural Rewurces to cWVrt cersam fees fo� me process�rg of pro[enea waters ce���s. No pertrvt ran be prpces•,ed ��►apoGra�b" ir_s ha+K been Peid. Fees must be oad by check or monev order ma0e pavaWe ro"Depanment of Natural Resources". Cash payments camot be accepttd. Appli�zfan lees wn onlr be ret�MeO wnen rt rs Oe�ermmetl tna� no permrt n repu,reE lor the proposetl Oro�ect. Apoication Fees AG permrt appli;atans must be a[cortpanMtl by an app�iUtron le¢ based on the foilow�rg ist; Type of Pemvt AppGed For 6uda or flepav Dam Unaer Minnesoca's Dam Safery Aules, insiau R�wap ro ConmolShorNme fros�on. Fd! S++ore'w�e �o Reco�er Shoreland Lost ro Ero� swn «Omer Naturai forces li.e. Ke Camagel. an other aqec[s. � Fee 530.00 5 50 00 5 $0 00 550.00 o�u: a posveie aaehwnxt aOW�catwn fee Casetl on me po- �eci s wsc a�W comaezrty lcan- not De more ihan 5280.001.' sNeaeL te4s v ztre __ _' __. _'_".... ��„ .,,,,�.�.....,� ,,,�.�,,, q,w��u„„vw�caiwn iees. n any. �a yaxpro�ett. M the Department aPP�oves Y� D�qKt. you will be se�tt a bie t« any aCdrtional apd�tion tee, along with a scatemix,c Ees:ndng the scoce of the permrt to be �ssueE. lf yau do not pay the a6didorw( app(ica:qn fee wrth�n 306aYS. ihe permrt rrwy ye p¢nky. No pertrit v.il pe awed undai fees ere rercived. if the Department tle[Wes ro Ceny yar pertnrt application. rq �qrW Fees are rcrowre0, Fdd k�svecrom Fxs S� �Pa+t+�+en: wry charge for rASt of f�efC inspecirons for any pro�ec[ wn¢h� Il! repu�res an env�ronmental assessmeni wwksheet IEAWI a an environmental �Oact statement (EtSI ry�rsuant to Minnewta Staiuces Secuon t i6D.(2t �s undertaken wrthout a ce�mrt apppwnon; or f31 is undertakm n eatess ol an asued a�^'t- TM �+sM'�cwn 1ee wd( irxiude the rosts of necessary surveys e�+C wdi be Dasetl upon tne actuai cost of the msoeCiron. The cost of Fieid nspeCtqns w�p ye at kast 525.00, p;r, rqt more4han 5750 00. � (OVER) qppGcatan insvuctions Each sea�on bebw corresDO^ds to the ao7�ov��e sectanm the �ooca�b^ !«m. ltse biad Dan o� G�^, o� tortn mhsrd sr(ace. aM o2ss f*^+h Part 1. ADP��'Yt Name and Atldress. , PatC ContianorProposedP+S'xt:Theaop�icationmuscrckitleMebcat�onotthea��MGo.ertrnrrtloLGx�d.W�t��°^•�' ta�. townsh�o rwm6ec �arge. md canry as stww+� m the aCstraC[ ot Mk. �f ihe pMM is ii a plaRed xea. the b[ i�d doct eMRlberRd #m wpa,vs;on nane must Oe reponed- The fre ro.. Oo: rw.. or saGress of the 0�� s4e, must be iMicated and a bra6o� mec � in ordc m � ��� � preniees. k�ckde the wR+e ad nunbE* 6( knownl ot the iake. wefla�d a wasacdxsem'dved. hrt t. 7rpe of Nbk ProW�: Pfease c�eck ct+e aov'W��e Do�lai. See i++e AOdina�al Mfomiatwn AewKed secnon of rt+ese insauctiax rc¢xd�➢ y„pppMg Md�� t00e Sub*Y.ieO wrtt� tne a0DK2t�on. Art N. Prqect Aid: Aease C+ecf. tTe aODrooNie Do:lesi. Part V. Estme�ea P'aeCt Cost: Wt+a1 s�ne sad estmace0 ms� ot tt.s va�' IMuOe me cost ot au matma�s. scw�ces. eWR�^� p+�K a renta�. an0 �aCw a:o�� t« tt+e o�m ot �ne wMK� a�a+"�v .n�u�g v�+ecled wm«x. py¢W. Le�ginol5lwrel'vieAttecteQ:MW�ca[eN+etotalrnanMrnlfbe�atsnwe4+eihMnnrtpeaHecteCDytl�epopOSeOOrM'�t•���5����� sbes os e wnev.wrse mun nCWS ane tnwNrt�e aHeRetl anDOth sitles. Pert VII. Vdume of Material Flled or &cava[ed: Indicate U�? tocal eumDer of aac yaeds of arry material �o be fi9�W a exw2ted � woiecied •+s�ers. Ca�culate voWme 4y muhiDW�g 2he shoreline aHened by [he C�i�ness a depth of the materiai. Ihen muhidy+g W� d'�M� � a°1K'� ez• tentls waterward.0�e f i l cudCYard eqw�s cwentyseven {271 a#_ teec.IF the proposed pmjetc ticesroc nwNe f�f a eacavavon. yxe "none" m mis space. p,�y�. B darc IX. Purpose ot Pro�ect: Ezpiain wny ttus Dro�ect is necessary- Be scech+c as m wha[ the o6�ec[rves of the pro7ec[ a�e. Rep4es s� as "lake �p°"b meni' a"navigata� ano�ovement' are too vague co be ot neip n assess�rg che memsaf tne appl'icacon. if mae space a reedetl to fuuy e�lain. or m wDGH ocher apol;c2ble �fortnaiwn. a¢ach ectta EXHIBtTS IDWns. sketches. photos, etc.1. px X. Ennronmencal hnpan: Comp�e[e this serion bY ��l'^g: D�o�seG Cwnges in land ard water feacures. character. or qualiry. ard atso eHects that are, w maY ��R^ful but wuva6aWe li.e. bs ot wi161de haM�at. nveased Oownstream Flppdsg. etc.L Fa Wrae a very eom�ex W�s Minnesou Stacuces Chavier t 76D mayrequ�re anEnrronmencal Impacz Swie�*renc IftSI. or Environrnental Assess'ren[ VJarksheec (EAWi before a pertnrt can be �ssuetl. pyi X(. Ahematives: Gescnbe any and ail posvbie altemaerves to the yo7oseC project. lAttach additwnai sheeu d necessa�Yl. PaK Xtl. Nour¢anon: Notanzanon is reouved. No app4cacan can be co�sA^rea wmpie[e unless poperly notarized by a ticensed NotMY PudK• Additional {nformation Required �, aasc�o�w �c o� -�o� r�u Pro�ea:: 5efwe Y� aOW�non can Ge convtlered comPlete. the toilowv�g infwmx[on aM atca[M�ents m�st be i�duded. A. Generai Attachments: The fo:lowing tlata is reW�retl m suoo�R af a pertnit avo��t�� i. G�ound Levet Rwtolsi stwwing: a Water conOmons ac tne Oro�ett site. b. UpWnd [Onditron5. [ Aqu3bC v2yE[ai�. i1 any- ' c ProposeC spod d�sposal srte 6f appi¢a0ief 2. Tat Maps � manCatory rf pr000s�d Wo7xt is on w�pertY w�'hm a�aneC area. The property beuntlar�es of �h ad���g ��7 owned by 4he apW�ran� r �he pro�ect 3rea sttw�d De w+diCateo on the D�t or subninetl as a sepa�ata map. 3. Skecches�Eno�nee���g Rans - The anphcant musc anacn a aeta�ie� s'r.e[ch w engmeermg pta� diso�aymg [he Wliw+w+9 mtormacio^: a GoSS�sectiona�lvCe�v�ewl5ket[h Ttussketchs+nuitltlayaythefoilownau�fortna[wnasRpertamsto.ou*o�o�eCt��[WCespeci(Kd�mensd+s where possblel: 7 t Wate( �el fW;tuar�ons IWesmt. h�gt�est. aM bwest kvNs1. 21 Wace�aep[R 31 Lake be6 elevatw� a stteam beo st�ce. 4� Locauon aM E�mensions cf proposeo pro�^:'t•sttu[ture 1vnSth, wdth, elevatron. tlept�, siCe sbpe, tcCJ. 51 Locacan and Gmenswns ot any aauai�c vege[atwn. � 61 ltlemiN ane W6et iate oeo ana scream bea ca+artwns aM mater�ais. . C. Too v�v tove�t+eaCl ske2cR Indrcate [he fot�owrr IinduCe a.�u�ons where possdcl: 7) R�erry bow�0aries aM b[ dimens�ons. 2t Shoreiu�e and wzcer wcacron- 31 Dimensions of proposeE Oro�e[t I�engch. wAm. eieva[wn. eccl' 41 Points of refnence levsm+g ha+ses. suu^.tu�es. tlocks. e:c.�. Be wre to mGCate wMCh d�rectpn �s "North". 51 Extmt aM bcacwn af anY aauatK vegetauon- 61 Locatron ot spal and d�svosai srtes fit aDDliraWel. � 4. ( la'�md�k3. GlL.). � 5. EQU�yneni � Ind�cate tAe type ot matMnery 16uIIGOZr. Cre6ge. e:c.l [nat wdt De use0 to to�sttutt your O�oi�� 6 lease Agreement - Man6atory it apphcant rs not tne �a�tlovmer. 7 Fenai Rw[olsi - MaMatory 10� warercourse reahgnrient proposa!s. fi. Atltlnw�al InEormaoon - My aa0rtw�a� mforcnacwn t: ac you fer w�tt furthe� ezoW�n your project is tieto�ul and s!au�d be incheCed. E EztensrveaComplexPrqMS-Foreatensrveorcomo�z�ro�ecis,u�eDe�artmentmaY�equestsuWlemenurymtom+atroninciudmg6ucnotirrti[edtothe �(ouowvg: Sopog�aotic mao. water ta0le mav. ��� ���s. tleptn swrbr.ys, aeral photographs, mvirom�e�tat assessment. a�+O/a engv�eerHg �M�S. AOd;:wru! mtortnanM wli De �eCUrted. � .. °"'"'"°�': 9�-i�o3 t awened ..na a rrerixia urrwi ee kg Wy da+rc0 u�kss me xea oeinp Erar�e0 a'r}aced bv an su ot eawt a qeaca nacvs resouce v�+ue. � '� vw arc apdy+g to Man a wecWid. you wnn be asked m wbr�ic a Sum Wata 8ant Progrm appicamn to detnrtrie your dg�y ty State Water Br�t � Lompenzaccn. A Sq�e Water Bank acv�ntan must Le sub'nnM betae the De*+m aoo�ri:cn nn 6e consderetl �mp�Ne. v+ease wecs s+r wesnans w�+mar rwe �o tne aeyw��Kyerobgist x me oNa s+egew once serv.g �ou. N. B�idge and GM.*t Projects ttvoumw000s+�'9tocaumc niomanon.M �YdrobgU�y7rxlit YoultavG a�1' ouest�or�s regararg bdge and aYvert WoR'��. 0� ronlaCt 1ne Aeg�oni� Mytl�Diog�st. N. Q�ms IDan Safary Projeasl: 11 vw xe qoposmg to const�uct. Narye. aher. remove, aEanCOn 0� tpquc( rtgpr rqy an a Eam you myy pe asfc¢E io SutxM aC6aa�al .�FOrmatwn. for Wrtncr nto'mac�on on dam saletr �ements. contatt me Oam Sateq ilrat, U�sono! vraters. Deparuner,t ot Naura� �+esou�ces. 500 tafayene Roatl, St. Paul Nsnnesata SSt a6. tekW�orie:16 7 21 296-a803. V. IhzcY Crossiyt Mmnewta Stawtes. Cnaoter Sa.a t 5 arq M"ru�eso[a Ruks Part 6135 proh�ts utYUy passege over, �yWer or �rou prrnK�eef ,,,mM �SS a Gcenx hu p�n pevw�s�y ornameC iran the cmr*xssmer ot Nanuai Resources. thW ues nUWe te�etra+e. teieynDR antl Nectnc oowcr Yres, cat� or coMUits, untler- grama a omerwne. artwuis or nDeMxs Fa gases. YvuWS. a sdds� wsoension. Ro�s reQU*^9 a utwryaassag Mca�se m3not rew.eae�ocected wacers permt Furtne. niama�ron concem�ng umrty trossugs can be obta�ned by emtanuig: Departmnt of Naewa� Resources � land Bureau. 500 ta:ayetee Road St. Paui, M�nnew�a SSta6. tekphorul612� 2%4a96. SUBMITTING APPLICATION Make sure ma2 y� furnish a�� �+fortnanon mat is reques[etl an0 s9n aM fwiar¢e Ne apphca•,,nn to�m fortnschat are c�cor�ecciy tiued out, a 4ack repuested infy- matron, wdi �use Eelay m your applicata�. AhH Y0u �2ve GomD�eted thC 2PO��C2Iq/�. kCeG thC 1352 COPY IG2naly) aM MP nSINCtiOn ShlY: (Dr Yq+fKO/tl5.8M (M'/Xtl SMltnNining G�GKS with TrvG I5152I5 O( 2q SYPOOrtutg maD5.O4an5. SDKSfKatiOnS. EiC. t0 i1�2 �Ni� REg�Ona10f4�Ct SerWg Y�- Myy aC6P55G5 Can DE IOUf�d On V1C ks[ p39¢. $�c $URE T� INCL�1� AU. APPLICAT�ON FEES WITH YOUR APRlCATION. QUESTIONS If you have any quesnons w� tne Oroceewe lormakmq avv���atwn. pl1,ase contact tne DNRFw�oria10Hice serviny ypu The adEress x�C t��e mxnber of each DNR ofhce can be founC on ihe last page SEE MAP ON OTMER SIDE pF rHis race WATERS OF THE UNtTED STATES 1bu ShouW D¢ awa�e tfut D�o)eCts whiCn wYt c'ndve dtd��dge. eccavaUOn. f•� a�*q0✓A:�eni 01 w�ildnds a watCrs ot (he lhxtP'� SI2IL5. Gven ihOSC rvl1WMS . Msde Of tne ryrrsd�Uro� Of the DNR. maY teQUrcp an ndrvKlual perrtut from S�e US. �.�.'�y CupS o1 EngrtKers. Persons propos.�9 suC� O�qK�s sMaC Contatt tM ReguWtory Funn�ons &ancn, U.S. Artny Cwps ol En9�r�eers. 7135 U.S- Pwt Ott� r�e Custom ttouse, St.?aui. M�mesou SS10t ttekpnu+e:672 �2575571 fa lurthe�ntormatron_ - ' — AdDENDUM — NOTICE TO APPLICANTS FOR DNR PERMfT 70 CHAIVGE THE COURSE, CURRENT OR CROSS-SECTION OF PROTECTED WATERS TAe Depanmenc of Natural Resources IDNRI aM cne PoiWtron Co�2rd Agerx��!'C.�� are waki� tooeihe� to avoid duplicatn�� siare aaency pemut �exiew of prooased actrvmes aHea�ng proteccetl waiers in 1Jdnnemra. Tbe anacFietl fo�m v.�s preoa�� by tl+eDNR and the PCAto �ze yax wak in cantaqing siate a9mcre51or pro�ecl apD�ova�. Rease canpleie fiis form by dacirg an 'X" vn the appropriate bos w bozes. C yar a�o'�t doesmt invaHe anyot the aciionsLtted M this form, ptace an "X" m the 6ox aher nem 9. If you� pro7r[ wdimvGve any of Me act�ons 6sted ior bo:es t tMOUgh H, a wprof ywrpNR p_amt ap�iCanon wilt be tOrwardedtothePOl�utw� Co�trof AgM�Cp IP�AI fw ihe�r revrew. It a separaie PCA pemui or aDO�ova1 is repuiretl. you w�:� be so novf� bv rt+e PCA. P1ace an "X" m tt+e Ooz. if appFCable. 1. The Wo�ec[ vnA mwl�.¢ the tlepOSrt�a+Of aSphaM, ConCrete. Gut vegetation a othr so:i waste as fili materiai. '� 2. TheDro7ectv+ilimvo�veezwvationotmaterialsfromprotec[edwatersmrarntheuseofany0evicewhiChrejnovesmaterwEsWp�anpingOr b.e.�ydraubcdredoingl. ' L 3. The prqect wi�i mvoive ezwvacion of more than t,OpO cuhic yards of mate dt from Cw_ beds of tfie fNtowing waters: a. Lake Pepn on the M�svssipDi River fRrver rrnles 763 to 787 USCE Qarts!. � b. Pool e2 in the Mfssissippi River irom lock 8 Oam s 1 lNe Ford Dam) 20 lnck 8 Oxn � 2(HasYvgs�River mles 725 to 874 USCE pwnsl. � c. flinnesota fLver (rom Savage to ¢s rrwuch ai [he Mississippi krvzr thliie FrG l.5� ftiver tnartt. n tl. DuWth Superio� Harbor and tfie $t. Louis Bay area ol Me St.latis FrvertneMifr._ m Sprtt lake. � e. The Faimwn: chain ot lakes induding Budd, Siseton. Hali, and Amber Laws i+Matin Counry. � t. tilbertLealake,Freebomtam�v � g �VaROad Pover Upper Harbor Area extendmg irwn the mouth o� the �VarnaC Frvr. to CS�+li No. 7 7. � h. Red R�ver o� the North from Wahpetw to the Canad�an bordec � 4. T1�e po�ec[ w;A nvatveezcavation and/a fill inpniec[ed waters fa conacnn�m of �sivry Gnes ra�eyig any materials ezcept veated wate�� a fiquid a semi-solq state. e�Guding but rwt 4mrted to petrdeum or petrpleum Produttt. U�c'rcals. sewage a Coal yurrir,. ❑ 5. The po�c: wiA mvolve cons!ructwn oi Gocks, piers or wharves which wili rn�oive new fue� hxdimg facilities. a b. 7he pro/ect will mvolve riew construction, mconstruction M repair ot sttucives fo� cp�� era;ion af hydrcelectric powec . � 7. The pro�e`t w�ll invofve constructron ot new anuliary facilities for san¢ary uwers, bx. punparts, on-srte waste 2reatment or hddrtv3 tanks- � £. The prqect v+iP mvolve the on•sne 6isposa� by bummg of vegetanon to 6e rr.ww_i d:ring proiect constniction. � ❑ 9. Th= p�o�ect .vdl not involve any of the ebove. C ADa'xan; name ttvce or pnnU ad7ress DIVtSION OF WATERS ADMINIS7RATIVE REGIONS 7 � AEGtON 3 REGION 1 Regional Hydrolooist DNA - Division af W2ters 2it5 Birchmon, Beach Roatl N.E. Bemidji, MN 56601 (218) 7553973 REGION 2 Regional Hydro�ogist DNR - Division of Waters t201 East Ftignway 2 Grantl Rapids, MN"55744 (278) 327-4416 Fiegional Hydrologist GNFi - Oivision of Waters 7501 Minnesota OrivC E:a�nerC. MN 56601 12tE; E2"o-2fiC5 AEGION 4 Fec�onz: Hytlralogist DNF - Drvison Of Waters £�s 75E. Hignway t5 South hew� U�^. Mh 56073 ;SG%� �S<-2t96 REGIDN 5 Regional Hydroiogisi ONR - Division of Waters P.O. Box 6247 Rochester, MN 559Q3 (5�7j 285-7C30 REGION 6 Reg�onal riydrologisl DNR - Division o� Water5 7200 Warner Road S. Paul MN SSt06 (612) 29E-7523 NA—D2622-03 Rev. t2/85 PEBMf7 APPUCA710N Of°ARTMENT oF � TO WORK IK PROTECTED WATERS Otl YIEiLkNDS '^a=�¢����` �IMp.U01M6 DAM SI,FES71 ��--^ NATURAI RESOURCES ► s Please read instructior.s before ariempting to compiete th+s appiication. �� �'/i�✓ OFAICE�USE ONLY. Q$WCD OGC Q W.D. Q{1SCOE I. Applicant 5 Name �Last. First. M.I.) Authonzetl Agent (if appt�cabie) 7elEphone Numberaa.eaccae ( } Address (Street, FFD. Box Number, Ciry. State. Zip Code) I. LOCATION OF PROPdSED PROJECT (BESURE TO INCLUDc SKETCH SHOWIn1G HOW TO GET TO THE SITE} Government Lot(s) fluarter Section(s) Section(s) No. Township(s) No. Range(s) No_ Lot. Btock. Subdivision Fire No.. Box No. or Project Address Counry Project wdtattect p Lake.O WeUantl or O Watercourse (nart+e 8 number. rl knOwn' I�• TYPE OF WORK PROPOSED �CHECK ONE) IY. TYPE O� PROJECT (CHECK ONc) ❑ excavate ❑ repa�r O shoreiine ❑ shore-protection ❑ obstruction D dam � tiil ❑ remove ❑ channel p harbor � 6ridge t7 other ❑ drain ❑ abandon (�., sand b(anket ❑ permanent dock ❑ cuivert {specify) ❑ construct p other (speCify) � install O riprap ❑ whari 1• ESTlMATF� Pti0.{ECT COST $ V1. l£NGTH OF SFfORELiNE AFFECTED t113 FEET)� l. VOLUME OF MATERIAL FILLED OR EXCAVATED (1N CUBIC YARDS)� 1. SRIEF EXPLANAT101J OF PROJECT�(EXPLAIN wHAT PROJECT CONSISTS OF AND HOVt WORK Wlll. BE DONc) X. PURPOSE OF PROJECT: (Explai� � this project is needed) �;=s-��; � �: " '':° , X. ENYIR�MMElfTAI IMPACi (Anticipated changes to the water and related iand resources, inciuding unavoidable but detrimentai effects) !. Ai7ERMATiYES {pther aiternatives to the aciion proposed) II_ i Aereoy make aao�+canon pursuam to Mmnesota Stamtes Cnapter 105.<2 and atl supportmg rules tor a perm�t to work m or attecf tne aAove nameE protecieC . �o«� „� ��� awv, ua,u;e n�ui eu >uuV���ny nmps, pians, ano ome� mrprmaimn suommtd wrt� [�is appli[atiDn 7ne mtormatan suommea ana statemrnts maae concen�ng this appi¢ahon are irue and correp to the Dest of my knowledge. SSATE Of COVNTY OF SuOSCnbM an0 swwn ro Eeture me this day of My commiSSion erpires 79_ S�gnature ot Owner or Autnorqe0 Aqrnt �ate S�gnature oi leasee Date Distribution: S�gnature ot Natary White: ONR Blue: SWCD Green: Watershed Oistrict Goidenrod: Ciry or County Pink: Army Corps o( Engineers Canary: Appiicant ���i laboratories, �. mo nwy.. ua.e �.m Mtnnwpeiia, MN SSf22 P�a� (612) Stt-SSt3 --, f °l'1 •\ao3 Ciient ��lRli N6TDU (��ae 1�h( gy `,IL," Date 3 8- Project STa2Nt WA-T�� '�VtJD�� Sheet No. a{ Subject �a�� � K �vtnwvYre i�' Project No�0224• Z _ . . . - _ : _ : . _ � : - , : � . _ : .:_"___' """—_'—..�'_c .__ _"_ _'_""__' "'__ ' _ __' :'_ '_c_'-_: . [_` __' '_;"_._: : � . . : � -. EST� MAT�D :_-'SA,LLT �CoN Ce1�:T2�Ti O�N .:: _t t. _ S+�owME.LT � - - -- --_ _ .._._._. ._. _... _, _ - --- - - - - - _.� ,.- — _. -- - - -- ---- o:�F —=- _ . ___ _ �__.. . _.�__ ._ ._. ^_ - :--- - ----__ , , _ --- - -. -- _ �..__� -- -- _ ..._---- --_..: . . ._ ._ -- : - - =- =- - - _—; _. ._._ ___ __.._ - - - __�:.___...-- _ - - - -- - ``= - --=-- �- - -- � - - -�--, _.. .. _: _KN.o�N N_=__=�B -- :V S2,cI . _:.S iX _ �ffl> _: __�I-I'1 i r �- V_, . 'f"oY_1 �"�^v c.�cl_oiadSS� : < -- 1 -- - ... ---- ° --.:.__. _ - - �._ ----- -- ---- - _ :...:-.; - -_-,----°f ---.-SaE"t'��SCLn� _mixi'"��e.:. °-=ro � _ - --._.� _ _ _-- - --._ .......... .. .. ..__. :_---• ' --• �-{ _ _. .. .._._..---._._... .._;_ _ -- ----- --� �____�-- _ _ ' -- _ , _. .. - -: - -�; , �t.on. `� is`W r!1�#E.Y :�:.. _. - Th2 _�rn �. �_:i s �._- ` _ . . ..- - -- ___._..- : -• -�rz.c_ _._.__. _.. _ .. . _. _. _ . _: _ .. . .. . ........ _ -. _. _:. _. _._. _... ... _ _ , _.___; _�._=._�__�.�-� �o��. sQ :-._�_--`_---_� :__.__..:-__-�_�} ._..---. . .____ . ... ..�...�_ ___ _ ..._ ,_ _ _ _ _ ._ . ; _.-_-- - ; _ . .. _._---:._:. .;-- _ : .- - .=_.___-,� _ . _ EST1MP�fi�N .'^t�ta:��_. GL � C.vU �EKT�R - i N__5f.iov.wmErc':�zvr�oFF : . _ _._. . .- - . ;.. ._ -�----- - -- - - ___. ._ __. _� _ _ ....�---- - - .. ._ - . --. � .. . .., .."�,ve..rC�F� ."_�/.t�:�'.i'�'2`[`.. �2G�� ��.+iot1 �--- - � � -' - - --- r�_. ° ' R �� c _ _ _ _ __...__. ._._---�.._.. . ._..._ .. ,._... . __. .._.' _ R';r4 e.. c� � ;._. : . : � _.-- ---._Y. _.. _ _ _--•-- .. ..A��-�q� - �_.. _ ._. __. _ : . . ,� -- -:. .. �`o'vi-= � . . _,.. -- . ._ t�rec �p . yn�4-�es _ .._ - -�a.vt JI - --�areu p.-}a�4-i ov� ____. ._.. - . . .: _..__.. . .. . ___ . .. _ � _..... :._. .-., . _ . . _ - - �0.T'�"�Y --- _.. ._�_.. .._.:_ . -- - - -..._ :.- ..i . Z(o �-- _ _ _. .. _ MhPis. = St. Pa. _ ,. NS "iV� ' .. .. . ....... .._ ,.._ . OV.. _. ... __.... . ... .. . . . . - • . . _.��' --.--_.... �...___..._.�.—______ _... _..__. ______._ .__.. __.__ _.t✓w�',-ro?ot�3 Q,Ye.4___.�d _ . _ . _ . -- -... - De_c: : _ _ ...... _.... � . a t - - - - ' . _..__ ___.....;.... .. ...-- - -- . -- -�ro�nd;+�� �'ovr __. ... .. . _ _.. . . _ _.... ._..._. _.._.. _._ . ,.__ _.. __ _---.. ._ - � - -- __ � .._..._.._—: - - - - :SQ.v� ::_:.' _- .._.. ......---.._..�.._ ...... . __� _... _�_�� ' .__ _; �.�.�_�i.._��.-��..r..��.�..�... .. . -.-r�-�.�..._� . ...i.._...__ �.� ..__. . F i . _ ..- ' - - ._-_ .... _ -_�.�2rD.._.; �_. c_..__:.._... __. ._-�--- �---. - -... ... __ _..._...__— � Q.� _ . : . , - . .. .{� .'_.._:-'.__._,_.-._.. . . "'___ ' -'_' _ .,.. . ._ _ _ _ . _ ........_... .,. _ ' .... ... ___ ... ........_ ._.._.'. ... . _... ._ ."'.'.' _' . . ._. ,..... . . � ,.. _ -----.__ �._._Mav-.=-�-`-- � -3L----- --- ---. . .._ .V .__ -- - . �� _� __ ..:...__.. .�._... --•-, . ...__ - - - --- __ ......--- - • --- - - _..� �.�.�:. � --�-- - --- -..._...... _.u..__._�.- --_ . - --- --...F. -- _ __....: . . . _�_. : ._ _.:.._: =._ ..__. . _ _.__--�-�- - -.. _.... . --- - - - �. _ -- ------.��__. __�'T }_'-- 2: 35 . _ . ._ _ .. _ : ._ ... . ..: ... : * �;_� . -- - ------ ---- - -- -- - _._� - -- _� . _ --: -_, .._.: _.�....--- ... __. ..._ - - -�- - ... - �� , — _ _ _ `— , _. _.. _ .. .____..___._.�_..._.......;..__...___To. �:1:.:_° ._.___. �:1? ���t,es.__....___. . _ . -_._. . --___ --` -- __.___._, _ .---�__.._. ---_ _------ -- ---_ ... .__. . _ _. . , �� _ r_.:�-----__ .-� - ---, .. �..._..._----- -. - --- -- --_ , . :._ -. .. .. : . . : .: . ::. � :::_ _ . . . . : . .. � i , : _ .----°� - - .._ i. ZL_LIL'(�T�'p�S_..__.. �.____.._.__-_-._.�__ � ; y : , _ ._ �. _ ---'-._._��. . , � : _ -- -.., . . . - -- -� - �._ - -. -'__ . -' -- - --- :-___..__._...---..->-.._..._...__..,_..---�-'.._,.�.....-_. , - -. -.__. . .._.._. _--.._..--. ._._... - - .. __ ..... _ ., . .: _ . _._' :_ .� LL -i ,....____ .= ._.:_ '_ : Y-- �_�:._ ;0:10 S�t_ 3o 2o°o�lbs - - - _ ;� ` _ .. _ ._ -°-� _�.� __ . . - v - - __. . - -- - --- ---- --- -- - --- �� _�- -- , ----=a �H _joad__. _ :_ . ��''. . _ � ='r _...._ _ __...- - - .._ �r.� - - - . . . . :_; » .��..- ��._� —___._... _ T.... �i � --s ..._,_�_ .�.. ; � � . . . . "._... _ .. _. ... . .� .��� ..�.,.... . . . . .��.��.� _ Y ♦ � . �_.. � ----ylE �S�t,v�a.�e:t�=- �'1;.wtQ.�C'-.?r2c:a�o_-�iovn_.�Jrio �:..R�::$�t1-�S'� - = ._._. _.:_.__..._�.___;..._..---°--- -----�-- -- --- - � T_..-. .�.. �--�-- �_ _ _ '._.._--- ...... ..,-_- �_--- - -. _.--- ....� ,..,.. c__. "^ � i � -- a� 2- ivicJ�es-�ec'v ,- -asi-� - �cre - . �t- ra35la�-�S�" r �'t° 4 j` 'x. i - - -- - - � 1 1 �_��.�tl�1�CiDrt�{m'�s _:,..: ,� .-.; s�t�:-- -�,z - � -- - -=.�3 �---- --- - - ��. _ __'_�_'_t___ __._.j--..__.r'_, ...—__�___.__ � " �t�'rC ��/ \ � - . , , _ . . , . . - - -'- -� --� - - �-- .. _�... _ _ -�.. ---- � - ---.._.�_._�_��_._�,--..._ . . , � : _.. . . -_ -- .�-_.__ . . _ . - - ' ' - - - - . :..... �. � � - - .... _._.. . _._ _ _._. -- --' �'-a ;SoD�vM �Co}�G:�- .�3(a,00O Ibs X 23 ,M t�la j� _`'''',9��:.:�_._ = �l_7�8 } int �:ovaME�.? 1OtO . ..alivns i-. . _ �JS..4.n �, .—.. . ! . --.PVNOFE. -- ---� --� � -- .. . _ _ �._�aCC --- �.� A'ID �al.^ -- -.�..._�` '- . -_'--. ' -'-:.._ e._ ..:. --� '. --. _ .__.. . ' . . GNLORID��:Co1.lC.. `.� 3��OOO -16 N4C1. v- � : - �-'- (; -- ,� �owm�tr_=: • 1Y X �5.� "� �L X m Q _.c._ .27�_Mf.IX , '' , ,- . . _. .. ..q X�IOb-G4��oNS/yv- . �.�t' rnq ryaC� . . .8�� X�D4Gt� .,� � , tJ .. -_' }ZVAID�F_ '. ' . . . J : __ J J J ' . �1�EZ � � •,� 0 3 ' Ctien t_B . , .Rt_WlaTOM 1foKTNeRN g LB DVD Date 3-8- l aboratories, tr1C. Project �T°�m WArs�C ��•✓o�F Sheet No. pf_ mo oo�y. on,. w�m Sub'ect S�o' /iJ S.vo w/yJEcT MlnmapolFa,MN55t22 1 �Project No �Sa Pl+ena:(612) Saa•SSf3 ' _"'_' '�_�,�_"_�'_. - • --. _: E3T/H!.¢TED . .SE�/MF�/T ?LoAp' .;TO 3/+� �oN� - -- C�rLeu�,�T�o.�s: - - -_-_ _ - _ . � �'t --- . _. .. - -----. .. -- : _ - f� 3s�.ne : .5 A-ND , -- - _ DE�os /Tiow/ ._. ...... _ :_ . - 3F: t�ouN.ps .S�rD UsFa --- : . 0• 90_ `aCne� 3 D. 74� n _" . . ' "54If�Sa�,a�/i1�1'7��e 'lea�/ rsa„d = - -- - ` NwlK�FLLY:" : _" _ ' . X _6 -/oads - - 2r�oo /S -- --- --x�- _ = r. . ... ... . -..Y...: --.'.�a� . �I�° /zo /6�� 3 --- -- - - -. t . -----�_.. _ . = 3a �; .bao" /6: : �'t � . --X - r . . .." ---- -- .... —..`___. {za !6 ------- 2�700 �t`� - r ..:.�_ = D.06z acrc -�t�, . �----- ; : .: ; . . ;._._..... 1/Otvmt;------- _-_' - .-- :._ : .. _---� - ---- - . - .. ._ _ . : � F __�-s¢%5.�^�-t ,� �,�-" : �=- �'.�(`. r —�. _.._.tv._� ���.�- �ft,_o - - _ , , , - �---�-- --- -...------ ------- - - — -- poni 0 - - - - - - -- --- - ---- ,lfc :. . . _- , . . - ---- ---- ^--- � -- - . � • --- _ , i i . . . .. . . .. ... ' '_"'_'._ __ ' �_"__" _' _ __' "� . _. : _. . _ _ _ ' - _ . _ . . . _" __'" "" _ ... � _ ._ �--- , . .- - . . . .-a �� -x /�,2 a�,-es � _ 36 �4�.� - - .__ , __. . ;. . . . , . . ---- - ---- --- --- ----- - _--- - . .___ -- - _ . ._---� - �--- - - -. _ . , . -- - --- __. . -- _ ..--= - _ -. --- - ; __- -- -- ----- � - -. - . - . -: ::-, -_�_. ._ - -... .-.-_-: ._---� , , �----�,---------:___.;_:.__-- _. _--: ------ - �- -----�---- -- �S�A77rsFN�T LO�.D-- - -- = - -_ -- --- � - -- - � - -- - - _�_ r-� ;_^-------- - - , --- - _ .�- = -- _ - - - --.... . . _ � • - �- ---. ., .. . .. :.- - - - - - - 4 :ob-Z ..GGrt:- � s��y�- . '- ---- ' TD-�..Pon/.�._. _.. ._.._. _ - -- �- - - __. ... . __; - - - ' '-----: _ - --- - - • - . . . , . --� --- -. _ . _ • ... _ � . , --- --- -- 3 t . d; 4 �%,� - - —P°'�'f _ . . . _ .— __� � ----- - � - -_ - ' '— _' - - . _. .. - -- - .. �._ . _._ - ---= - ; _ . . . - - -�- � ..- - . _._ _�.. I-- --- - = -----�- - ' ' ' � �. r---------.:.:..:_- ::---_. ..- ----. . _ --- -_--_ : _ ' '- .---- -� . _---} , -- - • - • - - O/' -- -O. � ye---a-nnua.7/y . :: — - ----- ----- - 7 ..- - -. . . . . - `.-- -- �---- -. _. . . . -- -- -------� : _ .. - - . . - - - . _ _.. ___.. - �•--- +- _.. __..;. . . -_ / i ... . . , - -- --- - -- ------ * --- -- - - . _ :._ , - . - - - � . ... _. _..__ . . _- - -- -- -- ----- . _ ._.. .___ . , , - ... ...... ....... --- - -�----°=--=--- --=-- -- - - ; : .. �.'-_—.--_... - - = =-- - . . - --=-- - ----_ : _:_� , -- - ..._____--�--�--- , .._ .- ---- --. - •-- -- - - -- t , - - --- - - �-•--- -- , ._.� --.. . ..--• - ------ -- a-�-- - -�+ . , - -- _:- : ---- - �------�---- : � � : -�._�_..__ .._--" " ..-_�__ : :.-.� -� -- - �- - i -- ---- � - - .. . . � _ . . T --"-- — ' -- - '—'—... . _ . _ . . _, __.. � , _ _ _ '_ • � � � • - - - - '--- -�_. .__ _...__ . . -- - - ---- - - jA_,-__c _'_._.._'._"___4. . , . ..__ ____ � _'.. _ . ' � J ' _'____ : , . � ' � - � . :.. � . . . _ _ �---�"_" "_' '_'_' . _ ' . .. __ . . _ "'_' . . ' '__'_... .. _.. ' _ . ' . . � . . .. ...' ' " ' "'_"'__._— ' ' ' ' "'_'_ . . . : � � "" "'� ' ' _ _ "_. ' ' __ . .�'_"__.�__ . _ . _ _ . -a „'" ' '__ ' . ".: . f . • , ! . .� , . ...__... . ____' . ... � � � . . . . '_" i �___�'_..�.r'__"_..... _..�_—..— ' _ • ' _ __ ....-.. _ _ . . —__'—�_^__—'—_ )�—'_'_'_" " " "_._. . . ._�_' � " _' �" , . � . . __ . . . - ' "' " "___. _ , . . . - • ___' ' '— ' ' -' - - : , ..�.. _. � __ . . .. : . . . . ' . . ..._ _ _ . . .. _ �.. s , __' _' .. .. � � ' '_. ' _ ' _ ' " ' _. .. . , � - . . . . ' ' . ' ' _' ' ' _ " ' . . .. .. . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . .. ' ' t--'_" : _ " ' . .. .. . . __ . : . . . . � ' "_. - ... _ _ . ... _' . . { . . � � . . . . . . . ... ... ....... � . .3 _____" "'"" �� ___' ' ' __"'"___�'_"_" '_'_"___'_ �1" ' ' _ . . : ' . _ . . . -'_'_'..__. _"' "_�'' ".`. "'_ ____"_""""'__' �— _ -.� _ .. . . .. . . . . _ . _ . . - ' . . . ' ' ' t - . . . . . . " ' , ... . . . . . . . . : . _ . . . _ . ' r.___'_ "' _ . ... _ _ __ "_ _" '_ ' "' .. _ .._ . - ._ _ ..'� _ ' '__-,-"""_'__'_' . p__"'_ . . : . . . . . . . .. , . , . __' _"_ .__. '"_ .._,_ _ ... �._"_ _'. . . -, _ . . i . . . ; . ' � _ . " ' . . � . � , ; . � _" " ' t___" ' _ . � . • . . . . . . . . l " ,��� g laboratories, �. mo oa ch.. Ham Mlnn�apWU. MN SSa22 PhoM: (612) Sft-SSf3 °l'1-I�o3 Client ����N �✓oGrN��n/ gY JLD DP Date3-�-c Project S��^' ���'� ��^'"�F Sheet No. of_ Subject Or� f�6�cE�fS'F C"o�JC6reNS Project Na B�Z2�S/.Z� Cvl2E�/T VS, f� it0✓E�TF� OiL ;./s2Ef}SE° Lp�D � - . - --- —� -- -- - . _. _ _. _ . . . . . . . �-- _ _.. .. ._.._. .. _ ._:. ,. . . ..... , . ._ t ' -- - ;L'u<t�MT C. DAD _ . . _ : . ' _ - • - ----- ----�- -- ---- � - -- -- -- -------�---- __ :. .. __..:_ . . . :--- -� • - - -- - -.... , _ . . • --- • . . .. .... ._ '_ . - - . ��� . - -: :- - -: . . bo0 - a!/6»s :o:{� c/v�i�Tlc� oi � ' ��± rcai �P�/i4�_ ' _ : : �-- : ._. :.__...._ 5 ...--=- ` _._.... _ , •.—_.._,-..'_� vr_ : A�K:s f .._ G C� L � !o %-._ _ - : . -- • - � - - -- �__— ---�----.. . --- --... . .._--.- _ . .. . . _ _ .. .. . - - -- � . _ .. . . . , ... - -- . ... . - -- • :-- -- -� -- � ..�SSnMG ' � � � - - ' . . . ._ _. . - -_� , . �.x..: �___ - -- _. __ `.---- -- --- _.__._... . �._-_v.9 - :. _,. -- ---- - --- ._.. - - - . . .._._._ _._. � ...... .. -- .- -: , _ -- __..� : - � - --_ - - - . .. - . . .. _ --- ----. . _ ... _.: f�mo:.nLF' ��.ifX��eq�� i/� icfna� __ , - �i _ ;.. ... _.__. -. . . ":- � _:. � • � - -- ---- --'-- � -' � .,,---�----�------- - . _..---_-'_ _-- -- - - . . � - -- _ . . ..:_.. _. __ �---*--- -------------_�...—; _ . : - /9, Gd0 w.� . . . . : ' . : . ... ' _ : . .: _ : . -'� - � ... . . ._ . _._._. - ._ J---- . ._... . _ - . . , - . . .. .._..x O: 90=;; _-8� 3� -/6=- - � - . .._.: _ _ - --x .,__._�:—__ �-_ ._`�_ . -5 - y- _ - . . . . - - _-._ . . � /o . . :. Y. . ... . : _ a/---•--- ---- -- -- - _.__ ------ _. ...__. _._. 5--. -- . _ . : . _ . . . _. . . . . -- -:_.__._ . . - -. ,- - .. eoa y�o , - -------------- --------� --=- --o' /.''- te'uSG --,. :_ . .__. - - - _ ._ . .. -- - - ------ --' , . _.....�_ - ' •- -- - - -- - - - - � � - __ _.._. . ; y r -- - --; - � --- - . _. . -- = .._--- -�- ---�- - -._:. . � - -- ---- K'o�F�TE � ----;---- -- � -- - � -- - . . _ ;_ � - - -- - - -- --- -- - - - --- -- _. . . . �.�_� _ .. , . _- __.__ _ . _.... _. . ..__ ' ss...nE - -G.c� - -- �-----; ---- . __ -- — G �eF E�- ..v.r . _ Si..,, a: �r�; - - T° - : '�..._�.__ . � '�uN=o�F �._. �___ _....._.._...--- ------ � -'- - i----- �F _ m3� �. .. y�'.e.r .. ; . �.--- ._._� ::- _ - - -_::_ -=i =:__-� _.. - -- _. , , - � - ---------- ,.. :.. . ' -'--_-�_-�--------'--� �._... . `- - .. . _----� sz�G� _s?�c: _-i � G� E fts E_ C,orv�N7X.4�/� _.. . . .--- -- � -- � - - - =-- -- _. t . . . . . . - - - - �. _�.---! 'FE �RGE�. -- —___-------'-.-_..--'.,;..__..._..; __ Ie. _ .._a �_, ..� - '-- � ' - - - . __ _- - `---- -' ; --=--' _. ._- ---...... . - • -- --- - - •_ _ - - ` -_. _-- - - - --�-- -- : -_ ---- - � _,�_:.r—�� .:- - . _ _. ___ _ _ - . ,-__ � --------- - --- ___ -�- . ' - -_ . , � . . - ---X - - ..__. _..T__...._; . .�I_.-----�- .._5'9_ ;y ;a�•-�s� ---; , ----------- - - - - -...- ---- --- t----�---- .._.._�_.--: ' __- --- • ----- --•-• ----� , . � , �--- � -- - - ---- • � --------� . ;- : - ----- -- - -� - — ---- -- � , - -. - -._,___..�_'_ - - -- - - Y-- ---- -- =-----�/ S6D-- _____.:�----- � �' j--_____;__ , 3 rt� _, �l�'_ ; - _-- - - - : - - - -- - : ... - --- - —° " � ' ---_._--__, __-- - - - ,�B _ s r------ - �----- - - _ - �__ 'R� - -`--- ;- --1---- --------a�.•-o:.-.�;_.-_� . 'x�.-�:=--38.7_n?�i�.o�.iGx//.:r�, �,�_ — -- - ; . _ ----�--�--•-- ------ --- -- . r-=- - - -��' - -- . . --- - � � -- - - ._ � -_;-----� -i-- _. -------�---- ' , ----- --- �- ------�--- . ,�- ----_ . --- --�,-- - - - -- - -- . .. . ----. _ _._._ _ . _ _. _ _ . . , =.'. � . - _ . . -- - --�-- - - - �----- . . - .----__�_._ ,.. . . ; -- - -� - . _. . --- - ---- , -- . � -.O� /-,�:�are-Loaa�.� _ • -- -� -- -,� - ' _ � --- � ' - - r- ____—__--=-- - �- � ----' - " � �-_ _ ----- -- - � - - - � - i ----�-- - - - - -- --- � - -- - - - - -- . ;- . . . - - ` - - -..._.. i- � --• -- --�_ ' } . � • ; • ' . : , _ �,'-:�i , : - --'-- -----. �-___ -=�•8: -7'-m �/�p, - _ =�3— - --- --- --- = ---- �--=' � . � -- *_-•---- - - �-• t • - . . _ . �i%/:i, - -- y ,'SoO ! ---'- -- ---- Y --`- ` —�'---- �— --�-- � � 3 . -i . -- ' -_� t � - . , , _ _..� � � --- . -___--• -----r— ' . ----; - • . . . .. . . . . .. . ..- - ---��- - ' , J ; _-_.__..---�--------- -- • �-----;.-.. _ '.---.-. . _._�..- --•-•- � -- � r---==:.-P2d�EcT�D -_..,-:--3Soo�/l.� �-_ ;- � ; - • -- :._ ' .: _-i.:.'�.; ,_. -,. 4 -- �- --�- - - ..; , - ---•- - - :_.r__ - :- _--, - - = � . . . _._ _ . . , ..._ -� , ---._.---:_-- ..: . .. .:..........:--,-•----.=���,.. -• - , - ---------- ---�-___ _�_— ,--- � . . _ . .- - - .. . . � : -- . __ _ _ ...__ . ..; - =- �- - . ._;----- r- - - • • - - --- -.. ._ � t _ : -- +-- ---: , ; ,Po1FeT�D'" o��_ sri.».ir� ,. _ ' 'G`✓�¢RFNT - ' ' --... :._._ ._.. -�-- • - .. . . ._ : - `---' ,- . . `.�pv�__fyoo�_yj.--�:.... _ ..... . . _ ....__; r- _•------------' � � To B E � S•�o So7 . , -_-'-_ � - - - -_ --- ._ , --- _- _ ,_... ---- - -- ..._. ... . 4.� ... . _ � . ...; - ..� .� i . . � ,- � � � . . � . . . . . . . . . . . . . � �� _ .I � , PUG-29-1997 69�14 . .� � �� q�„�go3 REASO?dS TO DENY THE AppEAI, OF FRANK WALLNER • ZOI3ING �TLE NO. 97-192 SAINT PAT3L LEGISLATIVE CODE § 64206(a) PROVIDES THE CIIY COIJ�TCII, W(TH Tf� POWER TO DECIDE APPEAi,S FROM DECISIONS OF Tf� BOARD OF ZONINGr APPEALS (BZA). SUCH APPEALS ARE LIMITED TO CLAIMS OF AERTZOR IN ANY FACT, FII�ING OR PROCEDURE ON TI� PART OF THE BZA. ----- SAINT PAUL LEGTSLATI'VE CODE § 64.207 PROVIDES THAT THE CI'TY �OUNCIL, WFiEN HEARING APAEALS FROM B7A DECJSIONS AMAY REVERSE OR AFFIRM, WHOLL'Y 012 PARTLY, OR MAY MOD�'Y ... THE DETERMINATIQN APPEALED FROM AND MAY MAKE SUCH ORDEIt, REQUIREMENT, DECISION OR DETERMIl�IATION AS OUGHT TO BB MADE.o MR. WALLNER'S APPEAL RAISED TfiREE BASIC ISSUES. TTiE ISSLTES ARE SLR'vIlvlARiZED IN MR. BEACH'S JIJi,Y 30, 1997, ADVISORY MEIvIO TO THE CITY COUNCII. AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE. FOR TF� FOLLOWlNG REASONS I WOULD MOVE TO DENY MR. WAI,LNER'S AYPEAL. FIRST, TT�RE WAS NO ERROit AS TO ANY PROCEDUI2�. MR. WALLNER WAS • GIVEN TIiE OPPOItTUNITY TO PRESENT TESTIMONY ON THE MATTERS HE FT12ST PRESENTED TO THE BZA. W1TH RESPECT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEN`I' WORKSHEET{EAW}, TT� BZA DID NOT CONSIDER THE EAW AND IT IS NOT PART OF THE RECORD OF DECISION OF THE BZA. SECOND, TI�RE WAS NO ERROR OF FACT. TfIE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO Ti� BZA WITH RESPECT TO PARKING VS. STORAGE CAUSED THE BZA TO CONCLUDE THAT TRAILERS WERE PARKED AND NOT STORED. NO 01`I�R CREDIBLE EViDENCE WAS PRESENTED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH VJOULD DEMONSTRATE ERROR ON Tf� PART OF Tf� BZA WITI-I RESPECT TO THIS ISSUE. THIRD, THERE WAS NO ERROR IN FINDINGS. TF� BZA CONCLLJSTON TT�AT BNSF PARK TRAILERS ON TI� SITE, IN LIGH'T OF TI� OPR�IIQN OF BZA STAFF AND THE OPII�]ION OF T�3E CITY ATTQRNBY ADVISING BZA STAFF, IS BASED UPON A REASONABLB It�TERPRETA"I"�ON f?� THE ZOI3ING CODE. THE BZA'S FINDINGS AR� NOT ETtTtON�OUS GTVEN TFTE FACTS PTtESENTED. FOR ALL THE A$OVE REASONS, YOU CQULD MOVE TO DENY TI� APPEAL AI�TD ADOPT AS THE FACTUAL BASIS SUPPORTING YOUR DECISION, THE FINDINGS STATED ABOVE AS WELL AS TIiE FINDII3GS OF 'I'HE BZA iN TiiIS MATTE.R. THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT MR WALLNER HAS NQT RAISED VERY IMPORTANT • QUESTIONS CONCERNING BNSF'S CONDUCT AT THE MIDWAY HUB FACILfTY. SY RUG-29-1997 09�14 .. .. BNSF'S OWN ADMISSION BEPORE TI� CTTY COUI3CIL, BN�F HAS, IN TF� PAST, � STORED 'T'R An.RR c ON THE PROPERTY IN EXCES3 OF SEVEN DAYS. THIS IS A CLEAR VIOLATION O� THE ZONII�TG CODE AS It3TERPRETEb By TFIE BZA. BI�35F CANN07 CREATE ITS OWN FREE FLOATING LAND USE CLASSIFICATION BY DECIDE WHERE AND WE�TT TT WII.L PARK TRAII,ERS AND WHERE AND WHEN IS WILL STORB T12AILERS ON TT3E PROPERTY. THIS IS NOT AN ACCEPTABL$ STATE OF AFFAIRS. Tf� CITY, NOT BNSF, DETERMINES HOVJ LAND IS USED AND WHAT THE LANU ZOI�IING CLASSIFICATIpN MIGHT BE. - TO THAT ENB, THE SE�EN DAY DIVIDING LINE BE1'WEEN PARKING AND - STORAGE AS DETERMII�rED BY Tf� BZA FOR LAND ZONED INDUSTRIAL IS T00 LONG. A SEVEN DAY PERIOD IS ALSO UNREALISTIC IN THAT IT MAKES ZONING COMPLIANCE DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO E�tFORCE. IN THIS CASE, BNSF STOOD BEFORE THE COUNCIL AND ADMITTED T�iAT IT HAD, UNDER THE SEVEN DAY DIVIDING LINE DISTINGLIISHING BETWEEN PARKING AND STORAGE AS ADOPTEb BY THE BZA, ALLOVJED TRAILERS TO REMAIN ON THE LAND IN QUESTION FOR A PERI01� OF TIME TN EXCESS OP SEVEN DAYS. THIS CONSTIT[3TES A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE ZONING CODE FOR THIS PARCBL OF LAND. TN ORbEIt TO RESOLVE THIS SIIUATION, I WOLTLD CALL FOR A SUSPENSION OF • TFIE RULES AND INTRODUCE A RESOL'LT'TTOI� FOR T�IE COUNCIL CONSII}ERATIpN WHTC�i WTLL CALT. POR ZONING STAFF TO EXAMIIdE AND CLARIFY �D�� G CODE WITH RESPECI' TO THE TIME DISTINCTION BETWEEN $�?����1 ° STOR.AGB AND TO SUCH CHANGES TO THE ZONING CODE SO THAT TLT,EGAL CON]7L7CT, LI TFiAT ADMITTED TO BY BNSF AT ITS MiDWAY HUB FACII,ITY WII,L NOT OCC IN THE FU1`URE. ��Q Go-N---�--�---<1 - , w�� � • .� c.� �.-�-� � `,-� Y� �� �,�_►303 TOTRL P.94 q�-���� Frank X. Waliner 1698 Taylor Avenue • St. Paui, MN 55104 August 7, 1997 Dear City Council Members: Thank you for the opportunity to present my position regarding the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe (BN/S� Hub facility. - i appreciated your decision to lay over this case for one week. Unfortunately I wiil be on vacation aIl ne� week. Consequentiy, I respectfully request that you consider the fotlowing information prior to making a decision on my appeai. 1. In a January, 1995 report to the Metropolitan Councii entitled " Twin Cities intermodal Terminal Needs Stud�' the authors talk at length about the importance of storage at intermodal freight yards. Please see the enclosed page 23 from that report. Storage of semi-trailers is in fact a vitai park of BN/SF's operations. 2. Although BN/SF's position is that land east of Snelling is for parking areas, they fail to mention that the parking areas are also used for storage. The report to the Metropolitan Councii cleariy talks about the use of parking spots for storage. Piease � see the attached pages 37 and 38. , 3. As you may recali, the attorney for BN/SF criticized my reference to aerial photos to show that trailers were being stored east of Snelling Avenue. Please recalf that just a fe;v rr°ir.�t�:, iater :`:, same attorney r�ferenced an Gir Fhcto to prove BN/SF's position that trailers were always parked east of Snelling Avenue. i trust that you realize the contradiction in his argument. if the City Council decides that BN/SF can park trailers easi of Sneiling Avenue I ask that you require at least the following: 1. BN/SF should provide monthly reports on the length of time each trailer is parked east of Snelling to the Hamline Midway Coalition. BN�F staff stated that such � information is available. This information would allow residents to monitor and confirm rf trailers are in place for less than a week. 2. The area east of Snelling Avenue is zoned as I-1. Parking in an !-1 area is a conforming use - not a legal nonconforming use. As such, the St. Paul Zoning Code � (Sec. 62.104) requires that a Site Plan be submitted for review and approvai, and � ultimately ailows for pubtic comment. A Site Plan specific to the parking of trailers east of Snelling was never submitted. A Site Plan for the expansion of the BN/5F hub was submitted in 1987. However, BN/SF's attomey stated that the Site Plan only proposed a truck entrance east of Snelling and was not for parking. The Newel Park neighborhood was never given the opportunity to comment on BN/SF's use of land east of Sneiling Avenue - a use that resulted in a significant increase in noise for residents. Requiring a Site Plan wouid help ensure that BN/SF's use of land east of Gnelling for parking meets storm water runoff, set back, screening, and dust suppression rQquirements, as�,veli as precautions when handling hazardous materials. —According to BN some trailers that go through the facility contain hazardous materiais (ref. page 10 of EAW). Thank you for taking the time to consider these points in addition to my testimony at the City Council meeting. If you have not already done so, please read over pages 22 to 44 in the packet presented to you. And finally, please realize that this is an important issue not just for me, but for all Newel Park residents. Sincerely, L ����L�1C� � �, Frank X. Wallner cc: Kathy Lilty, Hamline Midway Community Organizer Wendy Lane, LIEP i � � � �