Loading...
98-586�R#GINAi. ,�� Presented By l�� Refened To Council File # 18 - 5$�. Green Sheet # �p�\b`l Committee: Date �Z 2 WI�REAS, Alter Trading Corporation [Alter], in Zoning File 95-170 applied to the 3 Saint Paul Planning Commission [Commission] for a Special Condition Use Permit [SCUP] for a 4 "recycling processing center," more commonly known as a"metal shredder" on property 5 commonly known as 801 Barge Channel Road and legally described as: (see Zoning File 95-170 6 for a complete legal description); and 8 WHEREAS, the Commission's Zoning Committee [Committee] conducted a public 9 hearing on August 31, 1995, after having provided notice to affected property owners. At this 10 public hearing, the City Attorney's Office advised the Committee to delay any decision upon 11 Alter's SCUP applicarion until the completion of an Environmental Assessment Warksheet 12 [EAW] which would show whether the metal shredder would require an Environmental Impact 13 Statement; and 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 WI3EREAS, based upon the advice of the City Attorney's Office, the Committee laid the matter of Alter's SCUP application over until an EAW was completed; and WI�EREAS, public heazings were scheduled in October and November of 1995 but were canceled due to the need to compile additional data and analysis to complete the EAW; and WHEREAS, during late 1995, all of 1996, and into 1997, City planning staff worked with Alter, Altez's environxnental consultant, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Department of Health, to compile additional data and analysis needed to complete the EAW; and WIIEREAS, before the EAW {and its accompanying Record of Decisaon) were released on March 21, 1997, the Council of the City of Saint Paul [Council], in Council File 96-625, and pursuant to Minn. Stat. § G62355, Subd. 4, passed an internn ordinance which temporarily banned recycling processing centers; and WI�REAS, in Council File 96-624, adopted in August 1996, the Couucil also directed the City's Depar[ment of Planning and Economic Development [PED] to study the City's comprehensive plan and zoning regulations relaring to recycling processing centers and directed the Commission to study and submit a report to the Council with any needed planning ar zoning amendments; and WHEREAS, the Commission conducted the siudy as directed by the Council and released an interim study report on April 1, 1997. A fmal siudy report was issued on Apri129, 1997; and RESOLUTION SAINT P °i �r —SS� a 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 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 WI�REAS, on August 22, 1997, the Comxnission conducted a public hearing on the final study report and recommended zoning code and land use plan amendments which would prohibit lazge metai shredders within the City. The Commission's reasons for recommending that prohibitions against large metal shredders be incorporated into the zoning code and land use plan were as follows: The nature of e�ting industrial azeas in Saint Paul makes it inappropriate to locate lazge metal shredders in the city. There is no e�ting or potentiat industrial site in the City which has condifions sufficient to protect adjacent land uses from the negative impact of inetal shredders. There aze no industrial areas lazge enough to provide adequate sepazation of non- heavy industrial uses from large metal shredders, while providing sufficient highway access, buffering and visual screening. 2. 1995 state legislation requires the City of Saint Paul to update its comprehensive pian. The City has received a grant through the United States Department of the Interior to update the river corridor plan and evaluate new zoning regulations within the river comdor. It is inappropriate and premature to consider new or expanded extensive heavy industrial land uses within the Mississippi River corridor prior to completing the updates to the comprehensive plan and Mississippi River comdor plan. Large metal shredders shouid be prohibited from developing or eapanding in the river comdor at this time. 3. Large metal shredders should be prohibited in the City of Saint Paul because there is no need to locate such facilities in central cities and there are other areas, more appropriate than urban centers, in which to locate such facilities. Scrap metal is generated from a very lazge region, often encompassing more than one state. The economic feasibility of operating a large metal shredder does not appear contingent upon any single location within a particular region from which scrap metal resources are drawn. There also does not appear to be any essential locational criteria which would require a large metal shredder to be located in a major urban center as opposed to a less urban or rural location."; and WHEREAS, on December 3, and on December 10, 1997, the Council conducted a public hearing on the Commission's recommended amendments to the zoning code and land use plan and, at the conclusion of the public hearing, voted to adopt the recommended amendments which barred large metal shredders within the City; and WHEREAS, in a letter dated January 30, 1998, PED staff asked Alter whether, given that its proposed metal shredder was no longer a permitted use, did Alter still want a public hearing on its SCUP application for a large metal shredder. Alter advised that it wanted such a public hearing and on April 16, 1998, the Committee of the Commission conducted a public hearing on Alter's application after having provided notice to affected properiy owners, and, thereafter, the Committee submitted its recommendation to the Commission; and -Z- q�•s� 2 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2Q 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 WI�REAS, the Commission, by its resolution number 98-29 adopted Apri124, 1998, denied Alter's application based upon the following fmdings and conclusions: 1. 2. Sections 60.213.M. of the zoning code defines large metal shredders as follows: "Metal shredder, Zarge. A facility that accepts, stores, and shreds lazge used recyclable metal products, inciuding motor vehicles, appliances, sheet uon, industrial clips, whether oz not maintained in connecfion with another business. Shredding is the reducrion in size of the metal products by means of a rotor equipped with hammers, including in and out conveyors, serubbers, sepaza6on and dust collection equipment, and other connected machines." Secfion 60.623(3) required conditions of the I-2 Zoning District prohibits lazge metal shredders as foliows: "(3) The refining of petroleum or gasoline, stock yards, meat pacldng plants, large metal shredders, the incinerafion of infectious wastes and the crushing of rock, asphalt, or concrete for recycling are prohibited in this district." In 1989 a site plan review for a building expansion was approved. On July 31, 1995, Alter Trading Corporation formally applied for a special condition use permit (SCUP) for a recycling processing center. The applicafion proposed to install new technology known as a"Texas Shredder" and an"Eddy Current Separation PIanY'. PED staff authored a report finding that Alter's proposed use met the general standazds for a SCUP and specific standards for a recyciing processing center. The report anticipated that additional conditions would be suggested based on the outcome of a noise assessment and traffic assessment that were presentiy pending. The report also noted that a Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA� was being prepared. At the August 31, 1995, public hearing, the Zoning Committee was advised by the City Attorney's Office to delay discussion of the SCUP application until after the EAW analysis showed whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project was needed. If an EIS was needed, the SCUP application would be held in abeyance until completed. The staff report was revised to incorporate information about noise and traffic. Public hearings were scheduled for October and November, 1995, but were canceled because of the need far additional data and analysis in order to complete the EAW. During late 1995 through 1996, and into 1997, PED staff warked with Alter, Alter's consultant, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Minnesota Deparhnent of Health to complete the EAW. -3- ar-ss 2 4 5 On March 21, 1997, the City released a Record of Decision that an EIS was not needed for the proposed recycling center. However, PED could not act on Alter's SCUP because a moratorium on recycling centers had been adopted in 1996. 6 In June, 1996, before the EAW was completed, the City Council passed a 7 resolurion adopting a temporary moratorium (CF 96-625) on recycling processing 8 centers. The moratorium was temporary unril an ordinance could be adopted. 9 The council said questions had been raised as to whether the impacts of 10 automobile and steel shredders were fuliy understood and considered when the il 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 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 City considered the definifion of recycling centers adopted in an amendment in 1990. The Council questioned whether the conditions incorporated in the 1990 amendxnent were ineffective or obsolete in mitigating potenfial adverse effects of lazge metal shredders. The Council said it understood that three new automobile metal shredders were being considered in or neaz the West Side and Mississippi River flood Plain and questioned whether such a concentration of such uses would have a detrimentai impact on the area. In August 1996, the Council adopted an ordinance that directed the Department of Plamiing and Economic Development to undertake a study of the City's comprehensive plan and zoning regulations relating to recycling centers, automobile shredders and similar technologies (CF-96-624) and asked the Plamiing Commission to study and submit a report to the council with any needed planning or zoning amendments. The ordinance also enacted the moratorium on automobile shredders and similar technologies. The Plam�ing Commission designated the Meta1 Shredder Shxdy Committee to conduct the study. The City hired Dean Jolmson of Resource Strategies Corporation to assist it in completing the pianning and zoning studies. The studies were published in an Interim Report of April 1, 1997, and a Final Report of Apri129, 1997. The studies were considered by the Commission's committee in April and May, 1997. After considering its committee's recommendations and the public hearing testimony of August 22, 1997, the commission recommended zoning code and land use plan amendments to prohibit large metal shredders within the City. The reason for the prohibition, set forth in the Land Use Plan Amendment, were: "The nature of existing industrial areas in St. Paul make it in appropriate to locate lazge metal shredders in the City. There is no e�s6ng or potential industrial site in the city which has conditions sufficient to protect adjacent land uses from the negative impacts of inetal shredders. There aze no industrial azeas lazge enough to provide adequate separation of non-heavy industrial uses from lazge metal shredders, while providing sufficient highway access, buffering and visual screeniug." 2. "1995 state legislation requires the City of Saint Paul to update its comprehensive plan. The Ciry has received a grant through the U.S. Departrnent of the Interior to update the River Corridor Plan and evaluate -4- � °[� -s�� new zoning regulations within the river corridor. It is inappropriate and premature to consider new or expanded ea�tensive heauy industrial land 3 uses withiu the Mississippi River Corridor prior to completing the updates 4 to the Comprehensive Plan and Mississippi River Corridor Plan. Lazge 5 metal shredders shouid be prohibited from developing or expanding in the 6 river corridor at this time." 10 ll 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 43 A4 45 46 47 48 49 3. "Large metal shredders should be prolubited in the City of Saint Paul because there is no need to locate such facilities in central cities and there aze other areas, more appropriate than urban centers, in which to locate such facilities. Scrap metal is generated from a very large region, often encompassing more thau one state. The economic feasibility of operating a large metal shredder does not appeaz contingent upon any single location within a particular region from which scrap metal resources are drawn. There also does not appear to be any essential locational criteria which would require a large metal shredder to be located in a major urban center as opposed to a less urban or rural location." The City Council held a public hearing on the Commission's recomxnended amendments on December 3, 1997, and on December 10, 1997, voted to adopt the Commission's recommendations. In a letter of January 30, 1998, PED staff asked Alter that given that its proposed metai shredder is no longer a permitted use in the City did it still desire a public hearing on its SCUP application for a large metal shredder. Alter was also advised that it could choose to withdraw its application. (The letter states that the amendment was published January 17; its was published on January 10.) In a letter of February 10, 1998, Alter asked for review and action on its application. PED staff on February 26, 1998, e�ended the time limit to consider the applicarion by 60 days. The extension ends on May 8, 1998. (Letters of 7anuary 30 and Febivaiy ] 0 and 26, 1998, are a part of file.) 3. Alter Trading Corporation is proposing to expand its existing metal recycling operation by constructing a metal recycling plant on an existing industrial site. Tiie new plant will be 40,000 squaze feet in size. An `Bddy Current Separation Plant" used to recover the maximum percentage of non-ferrous metals from the shredder system wi11 be installed and take an additional i5,OQ0 square feet, to be located adjacent to the main plant. The function of the plant is to recycle scrap metal such as automobile bodies, industrial scrap and miscellaneous light gauge steel. The majority of scrap metal received by the plant will be from local scrap yazds. The plant will recycle approximately 750 to 900 net tons of scrap metal daily. Once the material is sl�redded, it will be transported by bazge, rail, or huck to various customers. The northem portion of the site currenfly used for storing coal and salt will be replaced with the recycling plant. Automobile bodies will be accepted from salvage operations which have dismantled and drained to remove major wastes, including used oil, antifreeze, solvents, batteries, oil filters, tires, CCS, and mercury. -5- R�-S�'6 2 Historically, the company has operated shears on the properiy to cut scrap metal. 3 The company is replacing the shears previously located at the site with a more 4 efficient model for recyciing the material. 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 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 � Site prepazation methods will be taken to m;nim;ze soil erosion problems by use of siit fences, earth diversion berms and bale diversions. 5urface water runoff from the facility will be directed to a designed detention pond. Since the facility will be constructed on fill so that it is elevated at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation, a pernut for construcfion in the river corridor is not necessary. The recycling plant will have about 35 employees. The planned hours of operation aze 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days per week. Most of the tr�c on site will occur during daylight hours. There aze 105 vehicles coming to the site each day currenfly (9 multi-�le trucks and 46 two-a�e vehicles). That number increased by 207 vehicles for a total of 312 (60 multi-asle trucks and 252 two- axle vehicles). Alter's proposed use as described in finding 3 above is a"lazge metal shredder" as defined by the Ciry's Zoning Code as follows: "Alter Trading Corporafion is proposing to expand its e�sting metal recycling operation by constructing a metal recycling plant on an existing industrial site. The new plant wiil be 40,000 square feet in size. An "Eddy Current Sepazation Plant" used to recover the maYimum percentage of non-ferrous metals from the slu�edder system will be installed and take an additional 15,000 square feet, to be located adjacent to the main plant. The function of the plant is to recycle scrap metal such as automobile bodies, industrial scrap and miscellaneous light gauge steel. The majority of scrap metal received by the plant wili be from local scrap yards. The plant will recycle approximately 750 to 900 net tons of scrap metal daily." "Automobile bodies will be accepted from salvage operations which have dismantled and drained to remove major wastes, including use oil, antifreeze, soivents, batteries, oil filters, tires, CCS, and mercury." 5. Section 60.623(3) of the zoning code prohibits large metal shredders in I-2 districts. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206, Alter duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determination made by the Commission requesting that a hearing be held before the Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the Commission; and WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64.206 - 64.208, and upon notice to afFected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the Saint Paul City Council on June 3, 1998, where ali interested parties were given and opportunity to be heazd; and �'L `ISr-S$� 2 WIIEREAS, the Council, having heazd the statements made, and having considered the 3 application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Committee and of the 4 Commission, does hereby; RESOLVE, that the decision of the Commission in this matter be affirmed based upon the following findings: 10 11 iz 13 14 15 16 17 18 1. The Council finds that there was no error in fact, finding or procedure by the Commission in this matter and, accordingly, the Council adopts the findings of the Commission as its own; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Alter is hereby denied; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shail mail a copy of this resolution to Alter Trading Corporarion, Suite 250, 2115 State Street, Bettendorf, Iowa, 52722; Mr. Lloyd Grooms, attorney for Alter, 3200 Minnesota World Trade Center, 30 East Seventh Street, Saint Paul, MN 55101; the Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator. ORIGINAL Requested by Department of: Adopted by Council: Date \�`Y�� \\ U ` By: Form Appr ed by City Attorney BY: ��W(�MA�!^ �uQ / Adoption Certified by Counci Sec et ry Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: 8�, Approved by Mayor te �` By: CiCy Council NJTACT PERSON & P110ME Chris Coleman, 266-8620 TQTAL � OF SIGNATURE PAGES 6J23(98 q�r- S� GREEN SHEET No fi�l6w' LJ oa.,Rirarto.ee.a� V arveonrx _ ❑�..� o�.�_ ❑.�,�� ❑.��.� ❑wroiewu�aan�u+n ❑ (CLIP AL1 LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Finalizing City Council action taken b-3-98 denying the applicaeion of Alter Trading Corporation for a Special Condition Use Permit tor a recyciing process center at 801 Barge Channel Road. PLANNMG CAMMISSION CIBCAMMI'TTE£ CNIL SERVICE CAMMISSION tfas this cew«Nirm aMerv.«kea waer a conaact ra thie aeaartmener YES NO Hes t�is P�� aver been a aYY �PbYe�� . YES NO Does this Pa�soNfi�m P� a SidN not nonnallYP�3esaed M' �Y curreirt cm' emPloYee� YES NO �6 Rh16 QE189N�1lif18181QC�fd V!lIdOR YES NO okin eq v0e anawe,s on ueerate Sheet 8nE etlach W nteen sheet L7:':��'�4. 1�,'��e���;>h ii�!�1'�Q, ��3� � � �T11 NAOUNT DF TRANBACTION S COETIREYENUE Bl H61NSi SOURCE ACTNITY tiUMBFJI wCV�L MFORW.TIOH (EXPiNN) �GRCLE ON� YEE NO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY PegSirls CiryAttorney �� - � � CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Maynr Ciuil Division 400 Ciry Hall I S West Kellogg Blvd Saint PauJ, Minnesata 53102 L__ Telephone: 6I2 266-8770 Facsimile: 672 298-5619 June 23, 1998 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Appeal of Alter Trading Corporation Zoning File No. 98-137 City Council Hearing Date: June 3, 1998 Dear Ms. Anderson: Attached please find a signed copy of a resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in the above-entitled matter. Would you please have this resolution placed on the Council's Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, ,� ,��//l�-. eter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney PWW/rmb Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor May 13, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Reseazch Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: Division of Pimuw�g 25 WestFouith SYreet Sa'vn Pmal, MN 55102 �;j��0� �--- Z� TeLephone: 612-266�6565 Facslmite: 612-228-3314 t� �� ��� �'�'�`�. V�''"""_` ��3�q� � I wouid like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday June 3, 1998, for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a special condition use permit to allow a lazge metal shredder: Appellant: ALTER TRADING CORPORATION File Number: Appeal of file #95-170 Purpose: Address: Appeal a Planning Commission decision to deny a special condition use permit to allow a large metal shredder. 801 Bazge Channel ltoad Legal Description of Properiy: See file Previous Action: Zoning Committee Recommendation: Denial; vote: 4-1; April 16, 1998 Planning Commission Decision: Denial; vote: 16-1; Apri124, 1998 My understanding is that this public heazing request will appeaz on the agenda for the May 20, 1998 City Council meefing and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul L,egal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6582 if you have any questions. Sincerel �� Kady Dadlez City Planner cc: File #95-170 Paul Dubruiel Pattie Kelly Wendy Lane, LIEP •F�srRrnv• iiOTICE OF.POSLIC HF.ARiNG The 3aint Paul City Council will conduct a public heazing on Wedriesday, June 3, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. in the Gity Council Chaznbers. Third Floor City Hall-Court House to consider -the appeal of Nter 1Yading Corporation to a decisIon of the Planning Commission denying a special condition use perm3t to altow a large metal shredder at 801 Barge,Channel Road. . .. Dated9 May 14, 1998 . NANCY ANDERSON � ' , . � Assistant �ty Counci7 Secretaly , � � - (May 16, 1998) � � DEPART�N1' OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELAPMENT Pamela Wheelack Directot CTI'Y OF SAINi' PAUL Norm Coleman. Mayor 15 West Fourth Stree[ Sa±ntPaul. MN55102 May 22, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Zoning File #98-137: ALTER TRADING CORPORA'ITON City Council Hearing; June 3, 1998, 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers �� �~� ��b ...-��� Tetephone: 612-166-6565 Facsim'rZe: 612-218-33]q PURPOSE: Appeal a planning commission to deny a special condition use permit to allow a large metal shredder on property located at 801 Bazge Channel Road. PLANNINGCOMMISSIONACTION: Denial; 16-1 ZONING COMMIT"TEE ACTION: Denial; 4-1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial SUPPORT: No one spoke in support of the special condition use permit. OPPOSITION: One person spoke in opposition to the special condition use permit Deaz Ms. Anderson: ALTER TRADING CORPORAT'ION has appealed the decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission to deny a special condition use permit to allow a large metal shredder at 801 Barge Channel Road. The zoning committee held a public hearing on the appeal on April 16, 199&. The applicant addressed the commirtee. At the close of the public hearing the committee voted 4-1 to deny the request. The Saint Paul Planning Commission upheld the committee's recommendation on a vote of 16-1 on April 24, 1998. This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on June 3, 1998. Please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, "�� C - '1 Kenneth Ford Plannsng Administrator Attachments cc: City Council members � � � � See Attached. r Attach additiona! sh t if ApplicanYs signatur SAINi TAUL � 1111A APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Department oJPlanning and Economic Development Zoning Section II00 City Hall Anner 25 West Fourth Sireet Sainr Paul, MN 55102 266-6389 APPELLANT PROPERTY LOCATION Name Alter Trading Corporation Address 2115 State StreetJSuite 25� City Bettendorf St.IA Zip 52722 Daytime phone(319) 344-52 � Zoning File Name Aiter Tradinz Cornoration AddresslLocation 801 Baree Channel Road/St. Paul. MN TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: ❑ Board of Zoning Appeals � City Councii under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 206 , Paragraph a of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the Plannin� Commission on April 24 , 199$ . File number: 95-170/Res. No. 98-29 (dafe of decision) ! GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Expiain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusai made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission, Date 5/13/98 City -� � t3 Aiter Trading Corporation ("Aiter") appeals from the City of Saint Paul ("Ciry") Plamung � Commission's ("Commission") April 24, I998 decision to deny Alter's appiication for a Speciai Condition Use Pernut ("SCUP") for its proposed metal shredder. Both the Zoning Committee ("Committee") and Commission voted to deny Alter's SCUP application based on the recent amendment to the Zoning Code prohibiting large metal shredders. Because Alter believes the Committee and Commission should have applied the City Zoning Code as it e�sted at the time Alter applied for the SCUP in 1495, which ea�pressly pernutted the proposed use, Alter respectfully requests that the Commission's decision be overturned and its SCUP application be granted. The SCUP should have been considered under the Zoning Code as iY existed at the tnne of the SCUP application for the following reasons: i. The use praposed in the SCUP is permitted under State law and the City may not enact an ordinance that forbids what State law etcpressiy pernuts; and to the e�ent that it does regulate the use, it should enforce land use controls, regulations, and ordinances existing at the time of the pernut application. Z. Alter made e�enditures unique to the proposed project including, but not limited to an e�ctensive environmenta] assessment, relying in good faith on City representations that the SCUP compIied with the CiYy's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code and wouId be considered upon the City's issuance of a Record of Decision fuiding that an Environmental � Impact Statement ("EIS") for the project was not needed. 3. The validity of the moratorium on whick the City relies as a justification of its failnre to act on Alter's SCUP is cunentty being litigated. For the above reasons, the City Council must reverse the Commission's denial of the Alter's SCUP. STPl: 452743•1 i -.. � � � �`" ��� � S � 5 r �0 _ � ' �. r tl 'S � � A �2� � - -� .. _ s _� a� �� _ :ti__�__ 7 r S e P 2 � ���, '.:���,� ���a7\_ \ 71 , �\ i \ \` ��v,-�—� ���i.��i' 51 Z� ' �I -'t�:...� �I..� x � ` ���s�w_ i� �l - - - ,_, ,�, CPT'IZ.EivT PAI2TTCIPATIOi`I PLANNING DISTRICTS � \� ; 7. SUNFtAY•BATTLECREEK 2. RI; HADEN•PP.OSPERI�l HILLCREST , 3 ��'ES SIDE 4. DAXTOti'S BLUFF 5. PAYh°�-PHALEN 6. N012TH END 7, THO�LAS-DALE S. SUMMIT-UNIVERSITX 9, tiVEST SEVENTH 10. COMO 11. HAMLIi�TE-MTDWAY 12. ST. f�NT�IO� TX PARK 13. MERKIt1M PARK-LEKL�GTON HAMLih'E•S� HAMLIT'F 14. MACALESTER GROVELAN7� 15. HIGHIAND , 16. SL3tvSMTT T�ILI- 17. DOWN"t'OWN ___ � � ZOi�fNG �ILE `��=-�-- � 3 ! ..._ ---=- - -- . _ E��� : : .,� .-. � ��-_—�--'_ �.�: '? r ";�:` �',.<,. •l :. .'.✓. �. .. ' ; . • , �-.,. �. - ; _ < �:-'- -..: .•. ",;o _ - -- ...:- _._` ,�.° _ �,.,; _: _>+.:�� -, . i , -- _;_�.. .�: _ -- ;.. i-.— ` �.,'�''�-.:'' ��.: :._° __ti'� t_` -..��- %;_� .:-t. �.�,.. .: . • �- .. ...... .-.. L' '`Sj-`. ' "•� � ..,.... . .'. :, . _... , i:�1 �,. ' ".,. '3.. �..� . _ _ _— . "__ . ._' _ ` _. - . . :;.`� . . . .. . �_ . +y ' �.' � rvi\ �. _-_-�,_ _ _ �_, ,...s._�2__:.:• •�...' ; —"_ — _ ' � . _. .. . ��.� ,.` ��-' ..� "• ' —'r' .•�� '_`'' l j �+ ` � '/ ` .� : - �. - f�jri C� /� _ _'-._. "__� _ ��,L�..::.'�. . .\ \` / _ -- ,-�'.. ._±._�'� . _ ; f ��• e .,. ' � . � _ +'.. . -- -� • - _ _ _ . �„ =ii :°=- -';% �5=;�: __^°� .____ ..I �.i�/ - -- • -- - =_ .�:" jr" -- � . y> _ _____-__-- - j ) /�_ �'. J `\ � /� '•� '� ''`��. �__ _ -____..:- ^ \l?.. '' /�/'/ V .% '� ~� ' l - ' ....{'. `�' � �L� _ � � � F ' �� - `-=�-��'�/� �;......... . ,�� , __ � �.... � ;. � �/i� %`,,- i ' . "�� . I _�i� � •. : ' `.:?::: .i.%%�- . � './` '.,-„-:r- ;.,�r , ::� �� ; � ...:__ : .,:"-\L.. �,---. ,...� --__ - .i , _;,,_. ,,, '•;.' . . �<_ - _� s y ?,� 4_..--; — r '4� :' . � �, � �.,� \ ;" � l 'C .� a:.� _ ` �\ - - "=�t% `. � ' �'-` l` l , ` �_ ` � L. '1... � :^��\.`� ^� '`.. _ ,_ \� .'' :. \ . _ • �-' _ ` _�_- _;_ __ _�..:, :,`\ WEST SIOE DFSTP,ICT 3 Pi ,.,, '_ ,,, � ����tNG FlLE ��-� ._ � ! i 0 �� Q r �V �86'� � � APPLICANT_ '`f � `�r T�GtC�(�n( � p« n LEGEND PURPOSE_ � /IIWnX �..�.�... zoning district boundary FILE #i ~ y �' ��� DATE 'S� f�� 0 �� subject property n.� orth�.. PWG.DIST.—� MAP#—_ �n o onefamily •� � commerciai r�- ' �! f.y � two family � .,..,, industrial __ __ ...��� � y � muftiple familY V vacanf 5' -- - - -----�— --- -------- , city of saint paul pianning commission resolution file number 98-29 �te April 24, 1998 WHEREAS, ALTER TRADING CORPORATION, file #95-170, has applied for a Special Condition Use Permit under the provisions of Sections 60.623(3) and 64300(d} of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, to allow a Iarge metai shredder on property located at 801 BARGE CHANNEL ROAD, legally described in the file; and WHEREAS, the Zonin� Committee of the Planning Commission held public hearings on August 31, 1995, and April 16, 1998, at �vhich all persons present tivere given an opportunity to be heazd pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and �VHEREAS, the Saint Paul Plannin� Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public kearin�s, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: Sections 60.213.M. of the zoning code defines large metal shredders as fotlows: "Metal shredder, Zarge. A facility that accepts, stores, and shreds large used recyclable metal products, including motor vehicles, appliances, sheet iron, industrial clips, whether or not maintained in connection with another business. Shreddin� is the reduction in size of the metal products by means of a rotor equipped with haminers, including in and out conveyors, scrubbers, separation and dust collection equipment, and other connected machines." Section 60.623 (3) required conditions of the I-2 Zoning District prohibits large metal shredders as follows: "(3) The reftning of petroleum or gasoline, stock yazds, meat packing plants, lazge metal shredders, the incineraYion of infectious wastes and the crushing of rock, asphalt, or concrete for recyctin� are prohibited in this district," moved by Vaught seconded by in favor a�IC1S� z6 1 (Chavez} � � i � a• � Zoning File #95-170 Page Two 2. In 1989 a site plan review for a buiiding expansion was approved. ���G� On July 31, 194�, Alter Trading Corporation formally applied for a special condition use permit (SCUP) for a recyclin� processing center. The application proposed to install ne�v technology known as a"Texas Shredder" and an "Eddy Current Separation PIanP'. PED staff authored a report findin� that Alter's proQosed use met the general standards for a SCUP and specific standards for a recycling processin� center. The report anticipated that additional conditions would be su�gested based on the outcome of a noise assessment and traffic assessment that were presently pending. The report aiso noted that a Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was being prepared. At the August 31, 1995, public hearing, the Zoning Committee was advised by the City Attorney's Office to delay discussion of the SCUP agplication until after the EAW analysis showed �vhether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project was needed. If an EIS �vas needed, the SCUP application �vould be held in abeyance until completed. � The staff report was revised to incorporate information about noise and traffic. Public hearings were scheduled for October and November 1995 but were canceled because of the need for additional data and analysis in order to complete the EA�W. During late 1995, through 1996, and into 1997 FED staff worked with Alter, Alter's consultant, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Minnesota Department of Health to complete the EAW. On March 21, 1997, the City released a Record of Decision that an EIS �vas not needed for the proposed recycling center. However, PED could not act on Alter's SCUP because a moratorium on recycling centers had been adopted in 1996. In June 1996, before the EAW was completed, the City Councii passed a resolution adopting a temporary moratorium (CF 96-625) on recycling processing centers. The moratorium was temporary until an ordinance could be adopted. The council said questions had been raised as to whether the impacts of automobile and steel shredders were fully understood and considered when the city considered the definition of recyclin� centers adopted in an amendment in 199Q. The Council questioned whether the conditions incorporated in the 1940 amendment �vere ineffective or obsolete in mitigating potential adverse effects of large metal shredders. The council said it understood that three new automobile metal shredders were being considered in or near the West Side and Mississippi River Flood Plain and questioned whether such a concentration of such uses �vould have a detrimental impact on the area. / In August 1996, the council adopted an ordinance that duected the Department of � Zoning Fi1e #95-170 Page Three Plannin� and Economic Development to undertake a study of the City's comprehensive plan and zoning reguIations relating to recycling centers, automobile shredders and similar technologies (CF-96-624) and asked the PIannin� Commission to study and submit a report to the council with any needed planning or zoning amendments. The ordinance also enacted the moratorium on automobile shredders and similar technologies. The planning commission desianated tiie Mefai Shredder Study Committee to conduct the study. The City hired Dean Johnson of Resource Strategies Corporation to assist it in completing the plannin� and zonin� studies. The studies were published in an Interim Report af April i, 1997, and a Final Report of Apri129, 1997. The studies were considered by the commission's committee in April and May 1997. After considering its committee's recommendation and the public hearing testimony of August 22, 1997, the commission recommended zoning code and land use plan amendments to prohibit large metal shredders �vithin the City. The reasons for the prohibition, set forth in the Land Use Plan Amendment, �i�ere: � "The nature of existin� industrial areas in St. Paul makes it inappropriate to locate large metal shredders in the City. There is no existing or potential industrial site � in the city which has conditions sufficient to protect adjacent land uses from Yhe negative impacts of inetal shredders. There are no industrial areas large enough to provide adequate separation of non-heavy industrial uses from large metai shredders, while providin� sufficient highway access, buffering and visual screening." 2. `'1995 state legislation requizes the City of Saint Paul to update its comprehensive plan. The City has received a grant through the U.S. Depar[ment of the Interior to update the River Corridor Plan and evatuate ne�v zoning regulations �i�ithin the river conidor. It is inappropriate and premature to consider new or expanded extensive heavy industrial Iand uses within the Mississippi River corridor prior to completing the updates to the Comprehensive Plan and Mississippi River Conidor Plan. Large metal shredders should be prohibited from developin� or expanding in the river corridor at this time." 3. "Large metal shredders should be prohibited in the City of St. Paul because there is no need to locate such facilities in centzal cities and there are other areas, more appropriate than urban centers, in which to locate such faciliTies. Scrap metaI is aenerated from a very large region, often encompassin� more than one state. The economic feasibility of operating a large metal shredder does not appear contingent upon any single location within a particular region from which scrap metal resources aze drawn. There also does not appear to be any essential _ 'w � � Zoning File �9�-170 Page Pour � � 'J � locational criteria cvhich would require a large metal shredder to be located in a niajor urban center as opposed to a less urban or rural location." The City Council held a public hearing on the commission's recommended amendments on December 3, 1997, and on December 1Q, 1997 voted to adopt the commission's recommendations. In a letter of January 30, 1998, PED staff asked Alter that given that its proposed metal shredder is no longer a permitted use in the City did it still desire a public hearing on its SCUP application for a large metal shredder. Alter �vas also advised that it could choose to withdraw its application. (The letter states that the amendment was published on January 17; it was published on January 10.) In a letter of February 10, 1998, Alter asked for review and action on its application. PED staff on February 26, 1998, extended the time limit to consider the application by 60 Days. The extension ends on May 8, 1998. (Letters of January 30 and February 10 and 26, 1998, are a part of file.) � 3. Alter Trading Corporation is proposing to expand its existing metal recyclin� operatlon by constructing a metal recyclin� plant on an existing industrial site. The new plant will be 40,000 square feet in size. An "Eddy Cunent Separation Plant" used to recover the maximum percentage of non-fenous metals from the shredder system will be installed and take an additional 15,OQ0 square feet, to be located adjacent to the main plant. The function of the plant is to recycle scrap metal such as automobile bodies, industrial scrap and miscellaneous light gauge steel. The majority of scrap metal received by the plant will be from local scrap yards. The plant will recycle approximately 750 to 900 net tons of scrap metal daily. Once the material is shredded, it will be transported by barge, rai1, or truck to various customers. The northern portion of the site currently used for storing coat and salt wi11 be replaced with the recycling plant. Automobile bodies �vill be accepted from salvage operations which have dismantled and drained to remove major wastes, including used oil, antifreeze, solvents, batteries, oil filters, tires, CCS, and mercury. Historically, the company has operated shears on the property to cut scrap metal. The company is replacing the shears previously located at the site with a more efficient model for iecycling the mateiial. Site preparation methods wi(I be taken to minimize soil erosion problems by use of silt � fences, earth diversion berms and bale diversions. Surface water runoff from the facility will be directed to a designed detention pond. Since the facility �vill be constructed on fill I Zoning File #95-170 Page Five so that it is etevated at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation, a permit for construction in the river corridar is not necessary. The recycling plant will have about 35 employees. The planned hours of operation are 7:00 a..m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days per week. Most of the traffic on site wili occur during daylight hours. There are 105 vehicles coming to the site each day currentiy (9 multi-axle trucks and 96 two-axle vehicles). That number will increase by 207 vehicles for a total of 312 (6Q multi-axte trucks aad 252 t�vo-axle vehicles). 4. Alter's proposed use as described in finding 3 above is a"large metal shredder" as defined by the City's Zonin� Code as follows: �� "Aiter Trading Corporation is proposing to expand its existing metal recycling operation by constructing a metal recycling plant on an existing industrial site. The new planY wili be 40,000 square feet in size. An "Eddy Cunent Sepazation Plant" used to recover the ma�cimum percentage of non-ferrous metals from the shredder system will be instalied and take an additional 15,000 square feet, to be located adjacent to the main plant. The function of the plant is to recycle scrap metal such as automobile � bodies, industrial scrap and miscellaneous light gauge steel. The majority of scrap metat received by the plant will be from local scrap yards. The plant will recycle approximately 750 to 900 net tons of scrap metal daily." "Automobile bodies wiil be accepted from salvage operations which have dismantled and drained to remove major wastes, including used oit, antifreeze, solvents, batteries, oil filters, tires, CCS, and mercury." 5. Section 60.623 (3) of the zoning code prohibits lazge metal shredders in I-2 districts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the authority of the City's I,egislative Code, the appiication for a Special Condition Use Pezmit to allow a large metal shredder at 801 BARGE CHANNEL ROAD is hereby denied. i l� • Saint Paul Planning Cammission City Aall Conference Center 15 Keliogg Boulevard FVest n �' � � p � , ..; � A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, Apri124, 1998, at 830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Mmes. Duarte, En�h, Faricy, Geisser, Maddox, Morton, Nordin, Treichel, and Present: Wencl and Messrs. Chavez,. Field Jr., Geroais, Gordon, Kong, Kramer, Mardell, McDonell, Nowlin, and Vaught. Commissioners Messrs. *Johnson and Sharpe Absent: *Excused � Commissioner Field asked that the minutes be amended to include the words "the applicant said thaf' before the words "they agreed to° in line two on page six. Staff agreed to add those words. The motion fo approve the anaennded ntinufes of.4pril IQ 1998 carried unttnimously on a vaice vote. Zoning Committee Commissioner Vaught provided the committee report. #95-170 Alter Tra�a ��rnoration - Conclude special condition use permit process for a large metal shredder at 801 Barge Channel Road. (TCady Dadlez, 266-6574) 1�T9'C1nN: Con:ritissioi:er Var�glrt moved derrial oflhe reqteested special ca:ditin�e iese ; pennit to allorv a Zarge metal shredder at 80I Barge Ckannel Road Commissioner Chavez noted that he would not support the motion. Commissioner Gordon stated that although he would have preferred fo accommodate that use, he will vote to deny because there is no choice since the Ciry Counci] voted to prohibit large � metal shredders in the City of Saint Paul. Commissioner Vaught stated that his position and his vote are the same as Commissioner Gordon's. Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Kady Dadlez, Donna Drummond, Nancy Homans, and Larry Soderholm, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff. T. Approval of Minutes of April 10, 1997 MnTiON: Cornmissioner McDonetl �uoved approvat oftke ntinutes ofApril 1 D, I998; Con:missioner Field seco�:ded ike motio�:. IV, � � � _ The n:otio�z on tlsefloor to derry tlte requested special condition use pemiit to a17ow a Carge "� mefal skredder at 80Y Barge Chamiel Rottd carried on a voice vote of I6 - I(ChaveZ). l� MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE Thursday, April 16, 1998 - 3:30 p.m. City Councii Chambers, 3rd Floor City Hail and Court House 15 West Ke(logg Boulevard PRESENT: ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chavez, Gordon, Kramer, Morton and Vaught Faricy, Field, and Wencl (excused) Peter Wamer, Assistant City Attorney; Beth Bartz, Kady Dadlez, Donna Drummond, Patt+e Keiley, and Roger Ryan of PED The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Vaught. ALTER TRADtNG CORPORATfON - Zoning File 95-170 - Conclude Speciat Condition Use process for a large metal shredder. Roger Ryan presented the slide presentation and staff report with a recommendation for deniai of the permit. He gave a brief history of this application which included obtaining an EAW analysis to determine whether an Environmental lmpact Statement (E!S) for the project was needed. Mr. Ryan stated that during 1995 and into 1997, PED staff worked with Alter Corporation, their consultant, the Minnesota Pollution Controt Agency, and fhe Sfafe Department of Health to complete the EAW, and on March 29, 1997, the City released their record of decision that an EIS was not needed for the proposed recycting cenfer. Mr. Ryan further explained that PED could not act on Alter Trading Corporations request for a SCUP because during this process a moratorium on recycling centers had been adopted. Mr. Ryan also noted that the West Side Citizens Organization recommends denial of the permit. John Gentzkow, Vice President of Operations for Alter Trading Corporation, appeared and spoke in opposition to fF�e recommendation for deniaf. He also gave a brief history of this process and stated they are disappointed it has faken this long to come fo a pubiic hearing before tfiis Commiftee. He said they believe the intent of the City in rushing for this pubiic hearing today is in order to influence the Court in its decision, which they believe to be misguided, inappropriate and desperate. Mr. Gentzkow stated the decision the Zoning Committee must make today should be based on the zoning code in existence at the time their appiication was originally submiited. He said the City has failed to act in a timely fashion as required by Minnesota law, and unlawfully enacted a moratorium when no environmentai or land use justifications could deny the project. Mr. Gentzkow referred to his letter which contains Yhe balance of his arguments, which he submitted to the Committee for their record. No one spoke in support of fhe appiication. Sherilyn Young, 71 W. Isabel Street, appeared on behalf of NO SHAMS!, a grassroots organization of citizens. She thanked the Committee for the work put into the issue of large metai shredders in our City, and she spoke in support to deny the SCUP to Alter Trading. She further asked the Committee to acknowledge thaE this company was denied a permit based upon the generai standards applicable to conditiona! use permits. Ms. Young also referred to findings in the code which must be made betore a condifional use permit can be granted, and she noted three of those standards are not met by the proposal. No one eise appeared, and the public fiearing was closed. u � � � �2 • • . Zoning Committee Minutes Meeting of April 16, 1998 Alter Trading Corporation (95-170) Page Two ^ � � C1 C3 � r — At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Warner explained that the Commiriee is to vote based upon the Zoning Code as it exists today and not as it existed at the time the application was made. Commissioner Morton moved denial of the Special Condition Use Permit based on Findings 1 through 3 of the staff report, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Kramer. Commissioner Chavez spoke in sirong opposition stating he will not support the motion for denial. Commissioner Gordon stated he believes environmentai concerns coutd have been accommodated and the Zoning Code structured in a way which would have permitted large shredders consistent with the environment and without adverse consequence. However, the Zoning Code as it is today prohibits a large shredder and Counsel has advised this Committee that we are obligated to vote on the current existing Zoning Code. Commissioner Vaught said he understands the advice Counsei has given this Committee, but he considers the decision to prohibit metal shredders to be among one least justified decisions made by the Planning Commission and the City Council. He stated he also believes there were ways to deal with environmentaf concerns, and although he would like to vote to deny the staff recommendation, he wiil support it because of the current existing Code. There was no further discussion, and roll call was taken to deny the Special Condition Use Permit. Adopted Yeas - 4 Drafted by: Nays -1 (Chavez) Submitted by: Approved by: ' �L�c� lLu./ t�-v ` " �% �'ti' `+ " ��'�.�'� �F, Pattie Kelley� (� Larry o erholm Mark Vaught Recording Secretary for Roger Ryan Acting Chair Southeast Team l3 MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE Thursday, April 2, 1998 - 3:30 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: City Council Chambers, 3rd Fioor City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Chavez, Faricy, Field, Gordon, Kramer, and Vaught Morton (excused), and Wencl (arrived at a point during the meeting) Peter Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Beth Bartz, Donna Drummond, Pattie Kelley, Roger Ryan, and Jim Zdon of PED. The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field. After Trading Corporafion, Zoning File 95-170 - Conclude special condition use process for a large metaf shredder. Roger Ryan stated there were approximately five property owners with 350 feet of the Alter property which we did not send out a public hearing notice to. He stated because proper notice was not given, he is requesfing a two to four week layover. Commissioner Vaught moved the layover, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Gordon. Roll call. Adopted Yeas - 7 Drafted by: Pattie Kelle Recording Secretary Nays - 0 Submitted by: � � Rog yan Litton Southeast Team Chair • � � �� � � u April 15, 1998 n J ��� , Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota SS I55-40 Phone: 299-2401; faz 296-5439 E-mail: sandy.fechtQdnr,state.mn.us Ciry of St. Paui Planning Commission c% Kady Dadlez - Zoning Section City of St. Paul Planning and Economic Development 1100 City Aall Annex 25 West Fourth St. St. Paul, MN 55102 RECEIVED APR 2 u i998 ZONIN� By frtt and mait RE: Special Condition Use Permit (SCI3P) hearing for Alter Trading Corporation proposal for lazge metal shredder Deaz Commission Members: Thank you for the notification of the SCUP heazing for the Alter Trading Corporation's proposal for a large metal shredder on their existing recycling site. This site is within the designated Urban Diversified District of the Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor District, as well as the Mississippi I3ational River and Recreation Area (MNRRA), ln 1995, both the Deparhnent of Natural Resources (DNR) and National Pazk Service submitted comments during the Bnvironmental Assessment Worksheet process that out]ined concems and issues. Since that time, responsibility for duties for management of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area has been transferred from the Environmental Quality Boazd to DNR. • We understand that during the intervening yeazs the City estabiished a moratodum, studied the land use zoning issues of lazge metal shredders, and amended the ordinance and plan to prohibit such use in the City. Because of our concerns, we would support a City decision to follow the new ordinance amendments on prohibited uses. However, lf the decision new or in the future is to issae a SCUP, we urge yeu to carefially eonsider alt of the relevant factors listed in Sec. 65.503 of your Code for approval of a SCiIP within the River Corridor, including: • the relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan, and floodplain management for the city • the importance of the services provided to the community • the compatibility of the proposed use with existing and potential development • the compatibility oF the proposed use with existing characteristics of biologic communities • the requiremenu of the facility for a river-dependent location • impacts from encroachments and flooding • the availabifity of altemarive locations or configurations. and other natural DNR Information:6J2-296-6157, ]-800-766-6000 • TTY:612-296-5484, t-800-65?-3929 An Equul OpporNmry Employe� �}• Pnnmd on RecydeA Pdper Conr.unuir a WhobeluetiDu�n�ity ��111mimumoCl(7lPosPConcumesR'a+ee l5 We question whether alt of these factors can be met satisfactorily. In addition to the previous concems outlined by the DNR and National Park Service in 1995, all River Corridor ordinance requirements from your Code shall be complied with, especially those for ranoff, protection of water quality, and floodplain. We have serious concems about ensuring that the river is not poliuted by runoff from the site. If the decision is to approve a SCUP, Critical Area requirements shoutd also be met, including: • minimization of direct runoff and improvement of quality of runoff • controi of noise in open space and recreational areas • minimization of adverse effects • standards to ensure that structure, construction placement, and storm water runoff aze wmpatible �vith the character and use of the conidor in the Urban Diversified District to protect natutal, scenic, and environmentaf resources, maintain diversity of uses, and expand public access to and enjoyment of the river • specific conditions with regazd to buffering, landscaping, and revegetation of the site . minimization of interference with views of and from the river, except for ases requiring river access. Shucmres and machinery mast be raised to the Regalatory Floadplain Protection Elevation, or floodproofed to the standards required in the City`s Floodplain Ordinance. During periods of flooding, the piles of inetal must be removed from the floodway in accordance with floodplain standazds. Piles of meta] in the flood fringe must be protected from erosion during periods of flooding. All other floodplain standards shall be followed. � Any work that needs to be done to the bazge siip or other activities below the ordinary high water levei � must be approved by DNR Waters through a Protected Waters Permit. DNR Waters is also responsible for any Appropriation Permit. Thank you for protecting and preserving the Mississippi Critical Area Corridor. If you have any further questions on Criticai Area concerns or conditions, piease don't hesitate to call me; for Floodplain, Protected Waters Permits, or Appropriation Permits, please contact Area Hydrologist Molly Shodeen at 772-7910. Sincerely, cc: Nationa] Pazk Service - Nancy Duncan Mehopolitan Councit - Sandra Pinel Area Hydrologist Molly ShodeenJJoe Richter Steve 7ohnson DNR Office of Budget and Management - Environmental Review r � ��J _� �-/�, i a �6, �998 ���° � a 6 Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission 15 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55101 RE: Special Condition Llse Permit Aear Zoning Committee Members: Thank you for the opportunity to address the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission ("Zoning Committee") regarding Alter Trading Corporation's ("Alter") Special Condition Use Permit ("SPUC") application for a metal shredder in the City of Saint Paul ("City"). My name is John Gentzkow and I address you in my capacity as Vice President of Operations for Alter. My purpose today is to request that the Zoning Committee approve Alter's application based on the Zoning Code in e�stence at the time of the original application. FACTUAL BACKGROUND � It is important to note that the Alter project has, over the last two plus years, provided detailed information regarding shredders; detailed information that, in fact, refutes many of the criticisms raised against shredders. This information appears to have been ignored or glossed over. The facts are as follows: 1 Alter is entitled, according to the City's Zoning Code, to develop its Property with a metal shredder. The applicable Zoning Code in place at the time Alter filed its application expressly provides that a"Recycling Processing Center" is a permitted use subject to special condition in a I-2 Industrial District. A Recycling Processing Center is defined as a facility that processes recyclable materials which includes the shreddina of ferrous metals. Z. The Department of Planning and Economic Development ("PED") staff recommended approval of the Permit on two occasions in 1995 (August and October, 1995) based on its fandings that Alter's proposed metal shredder project complies with the Comprehensive Pian and meets all of the requirements set forth in the Zoning Code for conditional uses ("StaffReports"). The Staff Reports recommended approval of the Recycling Processing Center proposed by Aiter, subject to the condition that the applicant shall obtain, and maintain, all required permits and licenses in compliance with State and locallaws. • �� Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission April 16, 1998 Page 2 The StaffReports made the specific finding that: The conditions of Section 64300(d) ofthe Zoning Code are met; that is: a. The extent, location and intensity of the use will be in substantial compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and any applicable subarea plans which were approved by the Council. b. The use will provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize traffic congestion in tke public streets. c. The use will not be detrimenTal to the e�sting character of the development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger the public health, safety and general welfaze. d. The use will not impede the normai and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses pemritted in the district. e. The use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. � The Property is anpropriate� zoned for the expanded use and the heavy industrial use is in keepine with the � the area has developed . and is bein� used. Nothing has changed since the time of the Staff Reports. 3. Alter is Iocated in a heavy industriai azea with many recycling operations. The shredder is consistent with these existing uses. As the StaffReports stated, "(t]he Property is surrounded by industriat uses in an I-2 zoning district including railroad right-of-way and the City unpound lot to the southwest and the barge channel, airport, and wastewater treatment plant to the northeast." The Staff Reports went on to find that, "the Property is appropriately zoned for the expanded use, and the heavy industrial use is in keeping with the way the area has developed and is being used. The eapanded use will not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties, and will not unpede normal and orderlq development and improvement of surrounding property for uses pemutted in the I- 2 zoning district." 4. The City issued a Negative Declaration on the Alter Environmental Assessment Worksheet ("EAW '} prepared for the metal sfiredder project. In March 1997, twenty-one (21) months after Alter had originally submztted a voluntary EAW to the City, fhe City finaliy issued a Negative Deciaration with the £oUowing conciusion: "The EAW and the supplementary reports and analyses prepared at the • request of the MPCA, MDH and the RGU, together with this Record of " t� • � Zoning Committee ofthe Saint Paul Planning Commission April 16, 1998 Page 3 5 � �' �U�J Findings, have identified and discussed all potential envuonmental impacts related to the Project. These documents, together with the input received from State agencies and the public, have generated information adequate to detemrine whether the Project has the potential for significant environmental effects. Areas where the potential for significant environmental effects may have er.isted have been identified and appropriate mitigation measures have been identified to ensure that there will be no potential for significant environmental effects. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, Subpart 7, the Proiect does not have the ot� ential for si�nificant environmental effects...." (Emphasis added.) The City has no plans for redevelopment of the Alter Property other than to allow the area to continue to be used for industrial purposes. The prohibition ignores that much of the river corridor, including AIYer's Property, is zoned by heavy industry, occupied for heauy industry, and that it will continue to be used for heavy industry into the far foreseeable future. In addition to previous City plans which recognize the area of the Alter Property as a river-oriented industrial area, in the recently released discussion paper, Saint Paul Land Use Opportunities, the Alter site is designated as industrial and not considered a location for "significant land use change through the year 2020." 6. The Mississippi National River and Recreational Area ("NII�IRRA") Comprehensive Management Flan ("MNRRA Plan") does not prohibit metal shredders. The MNRRA Plan recognizes the Mississippi River as a"working river" and includes policies to: preserve riverfront land for economic uses that rely on the river, continue existing land uses in the corridor, and allow redevelopment and expansion of corridor business. As stated in the Negative Declaration, the National Park Service determined, for purposes of determining conformance with MNRRA policies, Alter's proposed metal facility would be the continuation and expansion of an existing business (recycling of inetal) in the MI�TRRA corridor. In addition, we believe the St. Paul metal shredder complles with the MNRRA Plan's site development policies. While the Mississippi River Coordinating Commission raised questions regarding conformance with the resource protection policies described in the M�IRRA Plan, these were addressed in the Negative Declaration's findings ofno potential for significant environmental effects. 7. Other intensive uses are permitted in the I-2 zoning district; such as: • • Electric power and steam-generating plants. • Chemicals, derivation or refinement from materials in a raw or natural state. !1 Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission April 16, 1998 Page 4 • Explosives. • Forge plants or forge hammering. • Garbage, offal or dead animal incineration, reduction, transfer starion or bailing operation. • Hazardous waste processing facilities. • Metal or metal ores, processing, reduction, refining, smelting, alloying or recycling, excluding junk yards. • Metal or metal products, treatment or processing, including enameling, japanning lacquering, galvanizuig or similar processes. • Municipal incinerators. • Railroad yards, shops or similar facilities. 8. Prior objections are based on speculative, unsubstantiated fears rather Yhan facts. � Air, water, noise, vibration, and traffic have been raised as concerns. But, the City has made the following findings as to the Alter project: Noise - the metal shredder project meets or exceeds City and State standazds. • Water Pollution — the project meets or exceeds federal and State standuds. Significantiy, the Alter site did not flood this spring. Air Pollution — the project meets or exceeds federal and State standards. Traffic — as stated in the Staff Reports, "[t]he Department of Public Works has reviewed traffic data recently cotlected in the area and Alter's plans for the site. The Department has identified no problem with Alter's pian as far as traffic is concerned and believes the existing road system in this industrial area is capable of accommodating the type and amount of traffic expected by the proposed use." (emphasis added.) 9. The clearest evidence that the Alter project complied with all City zoning requirements and would not cause significant environmental effects is the City ban on shredders. Having neither a factual nor legal basis to disapprove the shredder and unwilling to impose reasonable conditions as pernutted by the Zoning Code, the City has instead imposed a ban. The change itself demonstrates the act is not simpty unreasonable, but arbitrary and capricious. • 4 2� Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission "^-. ��� April 16, 1998 � `� � Page 5 CONCLUSION A Saint Paul Pioneer Press editorial written Aecember 17, 1995, captured the essence of the argument. The editorial concluded as follows: `...Mark Vaught, a member of the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, says a person has to ask: "If you were going to put a metal shredder in St. Paul, where else would you put it?" Indeed, it is worth remembering that the Alter shredder is not a project the City is promoting or subsidizing. The issue is whether the City has defensible leDal grounds to block Alter's plans simply because it is changing its philosophy about land use along the river. Assuming science-based environmental concems can be resolved, it would represent an abrupt, startling and previously unannounced transformation of land use philosophy for the City to refuse Alter's proposal. Alter is planning a job- creating environmental industry in a district long reserved for exactly this kind of intensive industrial activity. • The City is not a city that can afford to be indifferent to business and employment growth. If industry has any future, whatever, on the City's riverfront, Alter's metal shredder has a right to be part of it, absent any inability to meet responsible, scientifically-sound environmental standards." Another St. Paul Pioneer Press editorial published on December 3, 1997 reiterated the principal issues and the reasons for approval. "Today the St. Paul City Council will conduct a public hearing on the future of metal shredders in the city. The council will doubtless hear much support for that idea from well-organized West Side residents who have for years been fighting a proposed shredder on the riverfront. Although shredders are undeniably heavy industry that must be meticulously regulated, their environmental effects are manageable, at least according to various state agencies that have examined them. St. Paul was unabie to justify ordering an e�chaustive environmental impact . statement for the proposed Alter Tradina shredder on the river. That lack of real environmental issues triggered the effort to block the shredder politically. � Zoning Committee ofthe Saint Paul Planning Commission April 16, 1998 Page 6 It hardly sounds like prudent and fle�cible economic development policy to declare that a type of industry accepted by potlution and health agencies can never be located anywhere in the city no matter what efforts are made to mitigate noise and other impacts on surrounding azeas." As Alter has stated for the last two years, and as has been bome out by facts and analyses, metal shredding facilities can e�st within I-2 Industrial Districts within the river corridor. The Special Condition Use Permit process offers a means to evaluate any individual project and provide the necessary restrictions to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Based on the foregoing, Alter respectfully requests that the Zoning Committee approve Alter's SCUP application. Thank you, ALTER T G CO ORATION J W. Gentzkow Vice President of Operations STPl; 447039-1 2Z � � r� L .� � � '-i-��-q� = J- ��6 � # Chairperson ��� and committeepersons: I thank you once again for the long and difficuit work that you put into the issue of large metal shredders in our city. f aiso support your deniai of a speciaf condition use permit to Alter Trading company for construction of a shredder which is now properly and appropriately banned in St.. Pau{. In addition, 1 ask you to acknowledge that, even without the change in the zoning code, this proposal is properly denied a permit based upon the general standards applicable to conditional use permits. Section 64.300 (d) of the code specifies five findings that must be made before a conditionai use permit can be granted. Sy referring to the extensive and thorough record made on these topics prior to and during the moratorium, your committee will cleariy see how at least three of these standards are not met by this proposai. First, the extent, {ocation and intensity of the use wilf not be in substantial compliance with the Comprehensive plan and applicable subarea plans. We noted in detail previously how the spirit of the river corridor overlay would be violated by this proposat and its inconsistency with the MNRRA corridor plan. Second, the use wiil not Qrovide adequate ingress and egress to minimize traffic • congestion in the pubiic streets. Prior testimony and submissions are replete with the congestion problems that would be caused by the addition of severaf hundred additional truck trips a day through the area. Barge channel road is frequentfy blocked by trains causing 4arge traffic backups on Concord Street and is the only access road ior acea residences and th�CAP school. Third, this use would be detrimenta! to the existing character of the development in the immediate neighborhood and would endanger the public health, safety and general welfare. This committee can refer to the extensive record on the human and animal heafth and safety caused by such a use that the noise generated would be at or near the ma�cimum alfowable fimit and that cumulative impacts were noi considered, that heavy metais and dangerous particulates wouid be spewed into the river and our homes, schools and churches, that expiosions wouid often occur, and that hazardous residue woufd be trucked through our streets. Any one of these findings on its own is enough to support denial of a conditionaf use permit. All ot them combined demand denial of the permit. Thank you. /l,� � S{f'fi� S r � t �7 W _ u4'n,`�u( S-� Snt }��F � /�s�l .��/07 2�r3-I�D�S 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 REVISSD ZONING COMMITTES STAPF RfiPORT BILE # 95-170 APPLICAN'P: ALTER TRADING CORPORATION DATE OF BEARING: 4/16/98 CLAS3IFICATION: Special Condition Use LOCATION: 801 BARGE CFIANNEL ROAD PLANNZNG DISTRICT: 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: see file PRESENT ZONING: I-2 ZONING CODS REFBR�NCS: §60.213. M. & 60.623(3) � 7. STAFF INVESTSGATION AND REPORT: DATfi: 4/9/98 BY: Roger Ryan 8. DATfi RECEIVED: 7/31/95 DfiADL2NE FOR ACTION: May 8, 1998 _____________________�___________________________________�__°_�°___��________ �____________________�_____°�____�_____________________=__°__��____________» A B PARPOSH: Special condition use permit to allow an large metal shredder. PARCEL SIZB: The Alter Trading Corporation site is located on the north side of Barge Channel Road and is about 20 acres in size; the portion of the site under consideration in this application is about 1.3 acres. � C. EXSSTING LAND IISS: The property is occupied by three office/warehouse structures, miscellaneous free-standing structures, and piles of scrap metal. About 20.4 acres are located in Ramsey County and 20 acres in Dakota County. D. SIIRROIINDING LAND II3E: The property is surrounded by heavy industrial uses in an I-2 zoning district including railroad right-of-way and the city impound lot to trie southwest and the barge channel, airport, and waste water treatment plant to the northeast. E. ZONING CODE CITATION: Sections 60.213.M. of the zoning code defines large metal shredders as follows: "Metal shredder, large. A facility that accepts, stores, and shreds large used recyclable metal producCs, including moCor vehi,cles, appliances, sheet iron, industrial clips, whether or not maintained in connection with another business. Shredding is the reduction, in size of the metal producLS by means of a rotor equipped with hammers, including in and out conveyors, scrubbers, separation and dust collection equipment, and other connected machines." - 1 4 2� ^ �`-��� � Section 60.623 (3) required conditions of the I-2 Zoning Distriat prohibits large metal shredders as follows: "(3) The re£ining o£ petroleum or gasoline, stock yards, meat packing plants, large metal shredders, the incineration of infectious wastes and the crushing of rock, asphalt, or concrete for recycling are prohibited in this district_" F. HISTORY/DISCIISSI�N: In 1989 a site plan review for a building expansion was approved. 6n 3uly 31, 1995, Alter Trading Corporation formally applied for a special condition use permit (SCUP1 for a recycling processing center. The application proposed to install new technology known as a"Texas Shredder" and an "Eddy Current Separation Plant". PED staff authored a report finding that Alter's proposed use met the general standards for a SCUP and specific standards for a recycling processing center. The report anticipated that additional conditions would be suggested based on the outcome of a noise assessment and traffic assessment that were presently pending. The report also noted that a Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was being prepared. At the August 31, 1995, public hearing, the Zoning Committee was advised by the City Attorney's Office to delay discussion of the &CUP application until after the EAW analysis showed whether an Environmental Impact • Statement (EIS) for the project was needed. If an EIS was needed, the SCUP application would be held in abeyance until completed. The staff report was revised to incorporate information about noise and trafYic. Public hearings were scheduled for October and November 1995 but were canceled because of the need Eor additional data and analysis in order to complete the EAW. During late 1995, through 1996, and into 1997 PED staff worked with Alter, Alter's consultant, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Minnesota Department of Health to complete the EAW. On March 21, 1997, the City released a Record of Decision that an EIS was not needed for the proposed recycling center. However, PED could not act on A1ter's SCUP because a moratorium on reaycling centers had been adopted in 1996. In Sune 1996, before the EAW was completed, the City Council passed a resolution adopting a temporary moratorium (CF 96-625) on recycling processing centers. The moratorium was temporary until an ordinance oould be adopted. The council said questions had been raised as to whether the impacts of automobile and steel shredders weze fully understood and considered when the city considered the definition of recycling centers adopted in an amendment in 1990. The Council questioned whether the conditions incorporated in the 1990 amendment were ineffective or obsolete in mitigating potential adverse effects of large metal , 2 � shredders. The council said it understood that three new automobile metal � shredders were being considered in or near the West Side and Mississippi River Flood Plain and questioned whether such a concentration o£ such uses would have a detrimental impact on the area. Sn August 1996, the council adopted an ordinance that directed the Department of Planning and Economic Development to vndertake a study of the City's comprehensive plan and zoning regulaCions relating to recycling centers, automobile shredders and similar technologies (CF-96- 624) and asked the Planning Commission to st�dy and submit a report to the council with any needed planning or zoning amendments. The ordinance a2so enacted the moratorium on automobile shredders and similar technologies. The planning commission designated the Metal Shredder Study Committee to conduct the study. The City hired Dean Johnson of Resource Strategies Corporation to assist it in completing the planning and zoning studies. The studies were published in an Interim Report of Apri1 1, 1997, and a Final Report of April 29, 1997. The studies were considered by the commission's Committee in April and May 1997. After considering its committee's recommendation and the public hearing testimony o£ August 22, 1997, the commission recommended zoning code and land use plan amendments to prohibit large metal shredders within the City. The reasons for the prohibition, set forth in the Land Use Plan Amendment, were: 1. "The nature of existing industrial areas in St. Paul makes it � inappropriate to locate large metal shredders in the City. There is no existing or potential industrial site in the city which has conditions sufficient to protect adjacent land uses from the negative impacts of inetal shredders. Tkere are no industrial areas large enough to provide adequate separation of non-heavy industrial uses from large metal sl2redders, while providing sufficient highway access, buffering and visual screening." 2. "1995 state legislation requires the City af Saint Paul to update its compreriensive plan. The City has received a grant through the U.S. Department of the Interior to update the River Corridor Plan and evaluate new zoning regulations within the river corridor. It is inappropriate and premature to consider new or expanded exLensive heavy industrial land uses within the Mississippi River corridor prior to completing the updates to the Comprehensive Plan and Mississippi River Corridor Plan. Large metal shredders should be prohibited £rom developing or ezcpanding in the river corridor at this time." 3. "Large metal shredders should be prohibited in the City of St. Paul because there is no need to locate such facilities in central cities and there are other areas, more appropriate than urban centers, in which to locate such facilities. Scrap metal is generated from a - � y 2� ��`��� • very large region, often encompassing more than one state. The economic £easibility of operating a large metal shredder does not appear contingent upon any single location within a particular region from which scrap metal resources are drawn. There also does not appear to be any essential locational criteria which would require a large metal shredder to be located in a major urban center as opposed to a less urban or rural location." The City Council held a public hearing on the commission's recommended amendments on December 3, 1997, and on December 10, 1997 voted to adopt the commission's recommendations. In a letter of January 30, 1998, PED staff asked Alter that given that its proposed metal shredder is no longer a permitted use in the City did it still desire a public hearing on its SCUP application for a large metal shredder. Alter was also advised that it could choose to withdraw its application. (The letter states that the amendment was published on January 17; it was published on January 10.) In a letter of February 10, 1998, Alter asked for review and aCtion on its application. PED staff on February 26, 1998, extended the time limit to consider the application by 60 Days. The extension ends on May S, 1998. (Letters o£ January 30 and February 10 and 26, 1998, are attached.) G. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: The West Side Citizen's Organization � recommends denial of the permit. (Recommendation of April 2, 1998, a part of the file.) H. FINDINGS• . 1. Alter Trading Corporation is proposing to expand its existing metal recycling operation by constructing a metal recycling plant on an existing industrial site. The new plant will be 40,000 square feet in size. An "Eddy Current Separation Plant" used to recover the maximum percentage of non-ferrous metals from the shredder system will be installed and take an additional 15,000 square feet, to be located adjacent to the main plant. The function of the plant is to recycle scrap metal such as automobile bodies, industrial scrap and misaellaneous light gauge steel. The majority of scrap metal received by the plant will be from local scrap yards. The plant will recycle approximately 750 to 900 net tons of scrap metal daily. Once the material is shredded, it will be transported by barge, rail, or truck to various customers. The northern portion of the site currently used £or storing coal and salt will be replaced with the recycling plant. Automobile bodies will be accepted from salvage operations which have dismantled and drained to remove major wastes, including used oi1, antifreeze, solvents, batteries, oil filters, tires, CCS, and mercury. Historically, the company has operated shears on the property to cut � 27 scrap metal. The company is replacing the shears previously located . at the site with a more efficient model £or recycling the material. Site preparation methods wilZ be taken to minimize soil erosion probZems by use of silt fences, earLh diversion berms and bale diversions. Surface water runoff from the facility will be directed to a designed detention pond. Since the faciSity will be constructed on fill so that it is elevated at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation, a permit for construction in the river corridor is not necessary. The recycling plant will have about 35 employees. The planned hours of operation are 7:00 a..m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days per week. Most of the traffic on site will occur during daylight hours. There are i05 vehicles coming to the site each day currently (9 multi-axle trucks and 96 two-axle vehicles}. That number will increase by 207 vehicles for a totaS of 312 (60 multi-axle trucks and 252 two-axle vehicles). 2. Alter's proposed use as described in finding 1 above is a"large metal shredder" as defined l�y the City's Zoning Code as £ollows: "Alter Trading Corporation is proposing to expand its existing metal recycling operation by constructing a metal recycling plant on an existing industrial site. The new plant will be 40,000 square feet in size. An "Eddy Current Separation Plant" used to recover the maximum � percentage of non-ferrous metals from the shredder system will be installed and take an additional 15,000 square feet, to be located adjacent to the main plant. The function of the plant is to recycle scrap metal such as automobile bodies, industrial scrap and miscellaneous light gauge steel. The majority of scrap metal received by the plant will be from local scrap yards. The plant will recycle approximately 75o to 90o net tons of scrap meta2 daily.•' "Automobile bodies will be accepted from salvage operations which have dismantled and drained to remove major wastes, including used oil, antifreeze, solvents, batteries, oil filters, tires, CCS, and mercury." 3. Section 60.623 {3) of the zoning code prohibits large metal shredders in I-2 districts. J. STAFF RECOP4fENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 3 staffs recommends denia2 of the special condition use permit. � $ F z$ • CJ orcCIAL C7NDITION US� T'ERMIT APPLICATION Departn:enf of Planning and .Ecor:omic Developmei7t Zoning Sec[i0n ll DD City Hall Anner 25 West Pourth Street Saint Paul, NSN 35IO2 266-6589 APPLICANT PROPERTY LOCATION � :; �.5 � 6 ng aFF,�a �ise anfy �o. �� _:`' , /t` IC� %: §�Y:�': :. Name �ter Tradino Corporation, John Gentzko:: Address �117 4rara 4rraor� g �Sn City Bettendorf St. IA Zip 52722 D2ytime phoneC 344-5287 tVame of owner (if different) �obert Goldstein Address/! ocation 801 Barge Channel P.oad, St. Paul, I�i 55107 Legal description: S�� 4, SE 4 Section 9, T28N, H22�d Current Zoning I�2 (attach additionaf sheef if ne cessary) TYPE OF PERMlT: Application is hereby made under the provisions of Chapter 60 Section 60.624_ paragraph �• of the Zoning Code for a: L7 Special Condition Use Permit ❑ Modification of River Corridor Sfandards ❑ River Corridor Conditionai Use Permit LJ SUPPOR7tNG INFORMATION: in the space belo�v supp{y information that is appiicable to your type of permit (attach additional sheets if n=cessary) • SPECIAI CONDITION USE Explain ho�v the us= will me=_t each cf the sp-�ia' condi.io;+s • RIVER COr�R1DOP, CONDiTION;;L USE. Describe how t�e use wilf ine=: tn= a�oliczble conditions. • MODIFICATION OF RIVER CORRIDOR STANDARDS: Explain why modifications are needed. site olan is attached [� ApplicanYs signature 2ti q s C1ty agent ��1 ��f_��" � t' Apr-03-98 01:17P Snell Ham Merriam Park Zonina Committee of the Saint J'aul Planning Commission Planning & Economic f�evelopment C)epartment 25 WesY 4th 5lreet Saint Pauf, MN 55102 Apri12, 1998 P.02 6'25 Strykor Avr,nue St. Puuf. MN 55107 . P11on� (b17.)'>.93�191)g Fax (Gi2) 293-U115 Dcax Zoning Committee mcmbers: Thank you for the op�nunity to comment on A(ter Tradin� Corporation's appltication for a Special Condition Use Permit fvr a metal shredder to be located on the West Side of Sz. PauL We are the West Side Citir.ens Organization, which rs one of the 17 designated planning districts in Saint Paul. Our mission is to be an action oriented, neighborhood-based argani�ation empowering residcnts tcs participate in and advocate li�r �]utions to West Side c�mmunity issues. We recommend denial ofthe Alter T'radin� app[icati<m because, among other reasons, the proposal does not satisfy the S general siandards reyuired to be mct bc:fore graating a specia! conditian use pennit. #t. The extent, Incation and intensity of the use rvill not be in substantial compliance with the � Saint Paul Comprehen9ive Pian or aoy app[icabte sui�-area pfans approved by the C:ity Council. #,5. 'Che use wiil not, in a�l other respects, eonform to the applicab►e re�ulations uf the District ia whic6 it is tocated, which arc listed as tollows: R. Wes�,yidc Riverfront Dev�lo�q�,r.nt Princinles (1�194) The proposed project does not meet the guidelines adopted by the Wcst Side Citizens Organization and community which reyuire that af! ziverfront deveiopments be designed [o make the river accessibie to ihe public, connect the neighborhood to the river, provzde.job and husiness opportuaities for West Side residents, and provide quality residentiai areas. $. St y�1 �licsic�ig;, River CorridorY.l�Si (198t/t947) T'he $yPaul Mississ1�2�1 iver ('ortidor Plan contains multiple policies intended to ensure wise management oCthe floodptain, sa�ls and storm �vater and protection oFthe shore and sutiacc waters, wetlands, vegeTaiion, wildlilc and visws. (pages 5-lU). nne vfthe "Uvcral} Pplicy and Ubjectives" f'or this plan clearly states that future planning and management efforts shali stress p�otection and enhancement of'che unique and timited cnvironmental resources found withi� the river corridor. (puge 5). T'he scvcn goals that frame the recommendations in the River Cc�rridor Plan ovenvhelmingly urge caution and carc in the development of the corridor; *'Co protect a�d preserve the Mississippi River Corridor as a unique and valuab)c resource for the benefit of the health, safety and weIfare of"the citizens of the state and regiun. *7'o prevent and mitigate danger to the life and properry of thc citi�ens vf the state artd region. "To prevent and mitigate �rreversible damagc to the Mississippi River Corridor as a state and regional � resource. WSCU comments page 1 � Apr-03-98 01:18P Snell Ham Merriam Park WEST SIDE � � ORGANI S ZATION � �J P_03 �,��Sb � f �25 Strykcr Avenun St. Pc�u� MN .`iS107 Fhone (612) 243-17pR E'ax C6I2) 29:i 0115 *To proteet and preserve the Mississippi Kivcr Corridvr as an cssential element in the fcderal state, regional and local recreation, transportation, sewer and water systems. •To maintain the River Conidor's value and utility for residential, commerc;ai, industriat und pubtic purposcs. *"i�o protect and preserve the St. Paul Mississippi River C;orridor's biolo�ical and ecological functions. "To ptcserve and enhance thc St. Paul Mississippi River Carridor's aesthctic, cultural, scicntific and historic functions (page 4). C�. $�iT1t Pauf on the Missietii�ni. River I;famewprk I)ev,Cl ome,� D.52L4LaUl� �� '.��(llcc.1997) Section GQ623.(3), (1-2 Uistrict), of lhe Saint Paul I.egislative Codc reacLs, ..,large metal shredders,,, are prohibited in this 1)istrict." Aaicie (V, Section 65 40( states that the objective ot'(zoning� ssandards and criroria is to maintain the aesthetic intcgrity and naturai environment of lhe river cc�rridor in conformance to the St. Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan by reducing the ct'fects ot' poorly ptanncd shoreline and hluffline devclopment; providing sufticient sethack for sanitary lacilities; preventing pollution of surfacc and groundwater; minimizin#; flood damage; preventing soi! eroswn; and implemcnting mctropo(itan plans, policics and stanciards. E. �LllS�.uLCDmnrehensive Yfan (DeC. 1997) Reccnt amendments to the Plan incorporate thc Pollowing as metal shrcdder policy, "Large metal shredders will not bc permiited in Saint !'aul." F. �conomie Deve(9 nlen S r� +( l99U). <)ne of five central principies of the Ciry's F.conomic (�cveferpmcnt Strategy is econcnn�c devefopment should bc c�rried oui in a manncr which respects the envimnmental quality of thc city. Gconomie and environmental objectives need nvt bc in cvnflict if approtached m a rcasonable manner, lt is in thc ov�vall long-ienn interest ol'the St_ Pau! business communiry to bc part of a clean and hca{thful city. By addressing prvblems such as air pollution, water eontamination and hazardous waste before they rea.ch crisis proportions, tfie community can avoid sevcre restricuons on development heing taced in other cn�es. (page 9). It also stated that SouthpoR (is) to be a river oriented industrial area Transferrin;; and storage ol'bulk commodities will continue to bc the primary operation. (pagc 4Q}. �. 1h� L�[tSSiS�p1�s1L4z�'stLKrver an Recr i n Ar�a's �'omp_ r, Manasem.�tint I�{sn cites guide(ines for the height c�f buildting within thc river corridor. Masimum buitding hcights ul'30 fcct within 200 fcet vf thc shorcline and 4S feet w�thin 3(?0 fect of thc shorelinc are r�commended. Wit a 55 foot maeimum hcight, this proposal wil! not conf'orm to those guidefines. #2. The use wilt not provide sdeyuate ingress and eQress to minimi�e traft'ic con�e.tion in the pubfic strcets. Arrivtn� at the facility wilt be scrap metal, including auto bodies, piled on semi-trailers. Leaving the facility will be a portion of the recydcd metal and "t1ufT" to bc transported to a landfill for disposal. 'l�hc u.ee woufd add at lcas� 174 extra trucks, each making o�e trip in and one trip out. io t�e a}rer�dy con5ested intersection of Barge Channel i2oad and Concord Street. No mitigation to this has been m�dc part of�the appiication. S'his unmi�ib ted increase will cause largcr traffic back-ups and prcvent fast W5C0 comments page ? 3� Apr-03-98 01:18P Snell Ham Merriam Park wEST . SIDE CITtZENS ORGANIZATIQN P.04 A�5 Stiyker 11v�>ttue Sr. Paul. NFN.`,.Si07 PlzOtlr; CG i 2) 293-t 7t78 1'ax (6i2)293 0115 emergency vehic(e access to the resideneas and businesses near the site. Ahhnugh tra(7ie en�ineers e�timate that this increase will fit within the capacity of'thc roadways, it witl stiii increase ihe ne�;ative imFract on the adjaeent uses, not minimize con{;estion. #3. The use wil[ be detrimental to the existing character of the develupment in the immediate neighborhood aud wiil endanger the public health, safety and geoeret welfare_ The Nationa] �ark Scrvice (U.S, i7ept. of" Interior) cites the adverse visual impact of the proposed shredder, especially on river recreationa[ users. (sec lettcr from Yark Superintendent JoAnh Kyrat, dated Oct. 6, 1995). "Ihe Minnesota Degt. oFNatural Resources staied thete is a bald eagle roost site on Pig's Eye lsland No. l, located across lhe river frnm the proposed automobile shredder This romt has had between 6-! U eagles each winter f'or the past few years. (see letter from Joan Galli, Nnn-game Wildlife Specialist, dated Oct. (1, I995). T'he operation of'a metai shredder will make the area's• habitat even more detrime�tal to eaglcs. One of the most well aitended churches in the neighborhood is locsted a cpuple of btvcks f'rom the proposed shredder and at the main enirancc to the site. Immediatety adjaccnt to that is an altemative schoo! and approximatety 20 single family homes and 2 apariment buildings. The sdded traffic, noise and poltution finm tE�e operation of a metal shrecider and its accompaaying trafTic wi31 endxnger the public health, safety and weifare thcough additional iraffic cortgestion, noise frcrm irucks and the shredder, and air poUution from the trucks and shredder opetatron. 7�he M}�CA advises that, "Pcitentiai for hum�n heaith and eco(ogicat risk at lwo pound per h�ur Eiarticulafe emission rate is a source of'cvncern among professional analysts. We based this ooncem on our experience with another scrap metal shredder project, on H�hich a risk ass�ssment was dorte, noting that review of that project had iJenYiGed !he potenYial for sia iticattt hwnan healeh and ecolc�gical risk, despite ihe fact that predkted emissions and discl�arges from the facility wqutd meet the standard regulatory timitations. White it is irue tfiat meeting regulatory limitations is usually sufficient tn justif'y issuing a permit, the above finc3ing is impossible for us to i�ore. We therefore c;oncladed our comments by noting our bclief that Alter shauld eithee show by means of convincing cvidence that no such potential r�sk exists in connection with the Alter proposal, or quantitativeiy assess that potential risk and propose mitigatian to reduce it to acceptable levels, if necessary." {MYCA letter, Uctober 5, 2945). T'he Rivcr Corridor area directly across Ihe river from the proposed autvmobife metal shredder is a non-atrainment area f'or the pollulant PM-10. Concentrations of PM-10 (minute po[(utsu�ts that are aitbome and environmental heaith hazsird} have exceeded Environmental Protection Agency Stane{arcLc az recentiy as May, I995. Thc Minnesota Pollucion Control Agency (MPCA} states in a]etter, dated Oc,-t. 5, 1995. that: "The statemant in the response that Alter's cmissivns would not "sibniftcantfy" affect the nearby non-attainment area is unsupported. '3`he definition of the tcrn� "signiYicantfy" is clearty important, but not given, nor could it be without a quantif�tive assessment. Further, our revie�v of thc :nodeling data in the permit application that accompatti�d this responsc indicates that data are insu�cient to suppott a judgment on this issua pne way or the other". . � 1� � WSCO comments page 3 3� Apr-D3-98 01-18P Snell Ham Merriam Park � wEST � � SIDE CITZZENS ORGANIZATION � � P_O5 625 SYryket Avnntie St. P¢ul, MN 551U7 Yhone C612) 7.93-1708 Fax (G12)�93-011.'� ln('vrmation from the weather service has shotivn the stoan water management system to be unab)e to handle the volume ot'rain thc arca receivcs. 'Iherc are concerns about the el7ectiveness of'a storm water detention basin in the flood plain in the event ol'hard rain, because record� Yrom January to Ju{y in 199? show ihat the capacity oFThe planned storm water hasin would havc been exceeded tive times. 1'he ATC automohi(e metal shredder wilt result in unaccept�ble noise polluuon, The incrcase of mulLi-asle truck tra(Tic into the site �vil1 increase thc noise associa(ed with air brakes and extended trailers. While it is true that the impact oFnoise is not cumulativc, the shreddcr witl be the source ofa constant Icvel ot'noise m an area where mulriple sourccs of noise a{rcady disturb ncighbors and communily lifc. fl4. The use will impede the normal and orderly devclopment and im�rovement ot'the surrounding property for uses permitted in the District. Limited access to the industria( area channel� ali trafTic through a smaN msiden[iai area whero ihe noise is disruptive to normat community lile. Railroad tracks impcde traffic into the industriul area on a regular basis, rotensilying noise, traffic congestions and automotive pcdlution, as trueks aw-aii aceess Any increase in traftie wiil impede furthcr Jevelopment of the adjacent uses. l�ttached is a staiemcnt fram a Reattnr {amiliar with the West Side neighborhood, who statcs in a protessional opinion, "that if the shredder is Constructed thc houses in the immcdiatc neighborhood would talf in value anywhere from 5 to2fl percent." This st�tement sup�rts the claim that the proposal will impcde the �mprvvement of residential prnperties permitted in thc sunoundin� area. Sincerely, ���°'� � ��s �Y��a�� Wcst Side C'itizens Organization contact; Sheri{yn young, 224-7308 or isabei Chanslor, 293-1708 WSCU commcnts pagc 4 33 Apr-03-98 01:19P Snell Ham Merriam Park Stevens � Reatty, inc.� Since 1911 October 9; Z997 To whom It May Concern: This letter is regarding praperty vaiues on the west Side oE St_ Paul in relation to the proposed Alter metal ,shredder. My name is Ron Stevens. I am the owner-broker of Stevens Realty at 7I1 Smith Ave_ So., St.Paul, MN. Started in 191I by my grand£ather, stevens Realty is a family business and has been Iocated in the Wese Side-west St, Paul area since then. I have been helping people buy and sell homes since T obtained my real estate license in 1977. At the renuest of Hortense Quesada, owner of the property at 696 Concord St., St. Paul, I have made an appraisal oP her home for the purpose of estimating its market value_ On the basis of an inspection of the property and a£ter careful consideration of.the factors infZuencing market value, it is my opinion the value as o£ October 9, 1997, is $62,500. Zf the metal shredder is built across the street from her house, witri its acconypanying air, noise and visual pollution, in m_v, opinion the value would decrease to the $52,000-554,000 range. 2 believe that if the shredder is c�nstructed the houses in the immediate neighborhood would fa11 in value anywhere from 5 to 20 percent_ I� the average house price in that neighborhood is about 565,000, which is reasonable, and there are about 20o houses close by, then that is a decline in propexty values of approximately 51,700,000_ Thzs analysis is for the immediate neighborhood. Z also believe that the proposed shredder would have a negative effect on the whole west Side neighborhood property values if constructed. Tf there are any questions on the above, please call me any time at 227-0012. � Sincerely, /,/ ��� ��y, � (/ Ronald J. Stevens Sroker - Stevens ReaZty 711 South Smith Avenue tJ Saint Paul, Minnesota 55147 L(612) 227-0012 r:a�� � . � .�!� ���nlea.nN e0y mt �n 1009: pocfKCnmxnp� Deper L,J � .s's. 3� � � LJ n � � rt �.� p � i / /4� C f�]LeL�..�,.' �-- � ��-„-� , 1 !//U //U .� � 1 S Sl i � � G (' C.i. r\ �� G ir 1 _Si� '� �.1 �1) �`� b�2� �3 ��� j�� z� f%2c� �I7G Cc` �G �C 2��C' �G CZI�C �G' G� / ,S C; � �-r)vG �G ��i� S G �»2;✓ CGLI�7/ z� 4! /- �l Ga !� ,�G � �,,1` c 2.� /e: b c �,��,zr �"' `�z� h� �d ��� s �'>��sG lLS� ��� �� � �� ��.� �» �»;�y 1 r� ��- ��- �i s� L��,� 1 j� v l 'Y}a11 e r Hc,y,,, ,J>✓ �67 ����" f G�ti��" o�/z� //'7 � h 1 �� 2r�� �2LC� ��IZlir�� �,°Z`r ulzJ G ' Lo �- � ) � � � a'7� 2G- � /j �c� / //pd � 1 a�l� U�' � ��? �i'� � J r / 5 �'!� z f d 1- �- � I� '. ��, � G Gi/ '1'7 2 C`G LC� Z l� "11 l LtJc� � L�(`JJ^C. r��G ' L �'�Ch � ic ��v� l� ' l-z>Du l j 6/ �`1 e1.0 � /7 °-1 c� ; U i �I/l z� �� z'-� J `�'' 1 �;," ,,� �' �� ��� GcJ� � ��/ -�-� ziu t � �t -ri����- ��o1J� � �,� 1����I� h� I n1� 1� 7�� � 1 ! C��z ��,� . 1�s � s Ch=�� z,�. ��>,,: ���� �,,��-� (� � �t/L ����; c,�� �zi, c J� ���c e ��o oil �t-zf/�� � ' a � � �1-�� G�� ; l-, Jf� ��- � r>>i��>� w�7� � G�> >/ !,� I� L,t �}�<<�� o�' 1 z��� , I.��'�E, G/ .��� ! � . 1 sz S L�� ., �c�'C �z1 n�cv�-� i � � � l�� ' u U f� 2�< <� � e. � c � � t,cJ c1 �- z LaJ 9�, c y"t, � � G�-� .�-, (3�i;. � S P) Z r-� p�% !�Vi G G� J� c i `l G `� G � S ) C L (3 I L� t� u1 v� G; „ G' Iz:.J /�'! (/G t� � ��j2o�1� �L(�i .l � '� G Ct-c� � ��/ I �7 � a l �rti � 35 04114/199fl 08:19 6124508703 PAGE 01 : �, . -. � ...� ,2' ...°°�� %i�kc'� _ Mn �� 1(/.THLEEN A- GAYLORD MAYOR • ClTY OF 4s�21 s5ae�oa 50dJTH �T. PAl3i Fax[a12�asa•s�as ';ZS THf'<i1 A4'R''':•.�� r..,;.� : SO'-:T!tS'LFAItt..FSfNN{.'�[t::. � u .. April 13, 1998 Mr David McDoneli, Chair St Vau] Planning Commiseic�xi c/u St. Paul PEA 2S West 4th Strett St. !'aul MN 55102 Ucar Mr. McDanell: 1'he City of South 5t Peul hi�ab�eh eans►stent[y concecned ahoat the proposed Alter Corporation h4etal Shredder since it waa fii�t��cspoe�l some t2�ree Yea� ago. It is our understaz►ding that the St. Paul Plannittg Commis§ion �t�-�told:e public hearing on this matter on April t6, 1998. Ptease accept this letter tls oua�!"ic t�tmony against the proposad facility. The City of South St. f'aut continues to work osi th6 fl�velippti?ent of a gol£ courae directly adjacent to the Aicer property and the proposed inte�sif cstlda.<+€� G�m"�i land use would be dehimental to our go(f course. In acidition, this proposal is bot�k��$�+'i�h the efforts of St. Paul and South Si. Paui to ciean up U�e Mississippi Rivar nnd enlYe�s t�►e s�}SOrelines. linciosed for your informatftii�as Yh¢ South St. Pau] City Council Resolution adopted iast Yea�' ce�ncerning the ptoposed shr�dtler• P'�ease keep us informed about the status of thia request. Sincere�y, ., � � ������.f Kathte A. Gaylord Mayor KAG/ja linclosure :id<ryna118Ja 767t Oaee�� post-�Y fax �te � p 'i � � � O �70C1 3�, 04/14/1998 08:19 6124508703 PAGE 02 � � C�� af South St. Pau1 � � � � � � �u1cQ{a County, Minnesota r R£S�3.LITION NO. 97-170 RESOLUTION REQ�E�`I`T1V'G THE ST. PAUL PLANNING COMMISSION TO PRO�fIBI'� ?�IRGE ME'I'AI- SHR�DDER5 IN ST. PAUL WI the City z.� Sou� St. Paul has consistently objected to this project since it was proposed; Wj.�E�',�S,Q{�r y�tr�'of s'tudy i# is c1ecQ that the nahu'e of existing industrial areas in St. Pezul mdkes it irKt�p�'opriate to locai metal shredders in the City; WHEREAS, the sp�ciflc �ite for a metal shredder proposed by the A1ter Corporation does no# havtt� �brld�tfons sufficient to protect the adjacent existing and proposed 1�d uses in Sc�t�th St• Paul or St. Paul; VVHEREAS,bcatl'i Scstith St: Paul cmd St• Paul have worked hard over the last . ten ye�'s to separate storr� and �tmitcay sewers in order to make the Mississippi River cz cleaner natural4��source; WHEREAS. South St• Pattl �d St. Paul have worked hcsd to develop trcdls and boating facilities alot'� �e.Mississippi River; Wi-IEREAS, in 19$8,.Cong'ress recogruzedthe importcmce of the Mississippi River as a recreation¢1 fccciiit`y when it establish the Missisaippi Nationcrl Recreation Area (MNRRA?� WHEREAS, ihe Ci{Si o# �South St. Paul is currendy in the prelimincay stages of developing an 18 hol� t�o3�'Cnurse directly south of the proposed Alter metal shredder; WHEREAS, tha City of �outh St. Paul has adopted Ordincmce 1063 which prohibits metal sktz�ddets.in th�e ca'ea immediately south of St. Paul because they are incompatible with th'e peiz�i3tted icmd uses in that atea; ❑ 37 04/14/1996 08:19 6124508703 Resolution I3o. 97-170 August 18, 1999 Page 2 PAGE 03 NOW THER�FDI�,° BE T�' R�SOLVEB that the South St. Paui oi n� l�d hereby requests that the S� � P�"�°��g CO�ssion adopt the app p use cmd zoning code carie�i�nisuts which will Prohibit lcsge metczl shredders in the City of Sf. Pau2. Adopted this 18th daX oE �k�'g��.. j997. Approved; � ��L'1-:------ Mayor � � � A � REAP i River Environmental Action Project � ��� P.O. Box 374, South St. Paul, MN 55075 tel. 451-1038 Apri17, 1998 Mr. Roger Ryan St. Paul Department of Planning & Economic Development 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 RE: Special Conditional Use Pernut Application - Alter Trading Company Dear Mr. Ryan; I am writing on behalf of the River Environmental Action Project (R.E.A.P.) of South St. Paul, Minnesota. As you know, R.E.A.P. and its members passed several resolutions over the past two years • opposing the construction and operation of inetal shredders in St. Paui. We submitted those resolutions and appeared before the City Council and Planning Commission to speak in opposition to shredders. As Alter Company pursues approval of it original Special Conditional Use Application with the City of St. Paul, we once again write to express our opposition to the application and urge the Planning Commission to deny any and all attempts by Alter to construct or operate a metal shredder on their property at the northern border of South St. Paul, or anywhere within the City of St. Paul, Minnesota. Thank you for forwarding our comments to the Planning Commission for the April 16, 1998 meeting. . Sinc° relv yours, U � 1<��r Lois Glewwe, Coordinator R.E.A.P. Council � B�I�� -i INTERTEC Bmun Interte< Gorpomtion 1345 Northland Drive Mendoto Heights, Hlinnesota 551 20-7 1 4 t 612-h83-8700 Faz:683-8888 Engineen ond Sclenhsh Serving Jhe Built ond No)u�al Envi�onmenls° July 26, 1995 Project No. CMXX-95-0048 Ms. Kady A. Dadlez City of Saint Paul Department of Plannin� and Economic Development 1100 C.H.A. 25WestFourthStreet �/��,1l�� �t�� � St. Paul MN 55102 �.d'Itli Deaz b4s. Dadiez: Re: Special Condi[ion Use Parmit Application for Alter Trading Corporation's (Alter) Proposed Recyclino Plant Braun Intertec Corporation (Braun Intertec) was retained by Atter to prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and related permitting for a proposed recycling plant located on Bar�e Channel Road in Saint Paul, Minnesota. This letter/permi[ application includes the foliocvin�: A. B. C. !7 E. Addrass and legal description of the propeRy A dzscription of the proposed use A description of how the conditions of the zoning code will be met. There are five ocher general conditions that aiso have to be met for all Special Condition Use Permits (Sec. 64300, Sub. d, Par. I-5} The name and daytime telephone number of a contact person (see application or lezter). A fil[n� fee of $610 is eaclosed. A. The proposed recycling facility will b9innzsota. Thz ]t�al dzs�ription is Township 28 Ivorih, and Range 22 be located at 801 Barge Channel Road, St. Paul, : snuthwest quartar, southeast quarter, Section 9, �Vest. B. Alter is proposing to expand its existing metal recycling operation by buildin� a metal recycling plant on a praviously disturbed industrial site {see attached Locational Map). The project area is approximately 20.4 acres in s�ze, of which about 1.3 acres will be used for the recycling plant. The proposed recyclin� plant will be 40,000 square feet in size. An "Eddy Current Separation Plant" wilf bz an additianal 15,000 square feet and ]ocated adjacent to the main plant. Historicaliy, the company has operated shears on the property to cut scrap metal. The company is replacing the shears previously located at the site with a more efticient model. Tiie recycting facility's function is to racycle scrap matal such as autoinobile bodies, industrial scrap and misce(Ianeous light gau�e steel. The majori[y of scrap metal received by the facility wiil be from local scrap yards. The faeility wil! recycle a�proximately 750 to 900 nei tons of scrap metal daily. Once the materiat is recycled, it wiit be transported by harge, rail or truck to various consumers. u � � - `l�/ -� � � �8b`1 �J City of Saint Paul Projzcc No. Ch1XX-95-0048 3ulq 26, 1995 Page 2 A 17,250-square-foot expansion of the buildin� that houses the non-ferrous material will be constructed within 36 months to accommodate the expanded operation. Construction is anticipated ro begin during the early fall of 1995 and should be completed 60 to 90 days later. Site preparation methods wil! be taken to minimize soil erosion problems by use of silt fences, earth diversion berms and bale diversions; and restoration will take place as soon as possible. Prior to construction, a Soil ,- Erosion and Sedimentation Control P1an witt be implemented and follo�v2d throughout the co�struction and restoration phases of the project. C. The following is a description of how the conditions of the zoning code (Section 60.624, kl) wifl be met: a. Outdoor processing, salva�in; and stora�e of materials and motor vehicles will be from the shortest distance, 408 feat to the R-4 Zone (30Q feet is the minimum requirement). The area used fot ihe outdoor processing, salvaging and storage will be behind a noise mitigation wall ranging from 20 fe2t to 28 faet in hei�ht and 27S feet in length. There is also an 8-foo[ high . chairnlink fence bordering the property on Barge Channet Road. b. There �vill be no outdoor open burnin� on the site. c. Material may be stacked at a maximum of 60 feet hi;hzr than the fence due to the sec back (of the material) which will be over 1,Q00 feec from the nearest zesidentiaV property line. The following information, listed below, addresses the conditions (as outlined in the Zonin� Code, Section 60.624, #18) relating to uses which service, proczss or manufacture outside of a completely enclosed building: a. The shurtest di;tance from the proposed recyclin� facility's ouuide property line to the R-4 Zone is 408 feet. b. All outdoor servicins, processing, manufacturing will be conducted, operated and maintained in accordance with any necessary permits of Mir,nesota Poifutic�n Control Agency, the county and the city. The status of these pennits are pendin�. c. An Application For 3ite Plan Review tiviil be submitted on, or shortly Y'ollowing this Special Condition Use Permit Application. A site pian showing the stated requirements, as outlined in the Zoning Code, is enclosed with this apglication. A narrative stating the measures the applicant will take to contain . on the property any dust, odor, noise or other potentially adversz affects fpIIOWS. � ��3�#�N� �iLE `����-�� 41 - City of Saint Paut Projact No. C�SkX-95-0048 7uly 26, 1995 � Page 3 The project wilt not generace any unusual amounts of dust, odors, or noise durinb construction. Likewise, no strong or potential[y offensivz odors are expacted durin� normal operation, start-up, and shutdown. Durin� operation, sevaral minor sources of fugitive dust may exist. Fugitive d�ist amounts from vehicle trave] have bean estimated usin� anticipated traftic volumes for trucks dalivering and hauling, u wetl as front-end loaders traveling on the premises. This fu�itive dus[ was quan[iYied as P,�I, Other sources of fugitive dust likely to be on the premises includz transfer points for Yluff, as weil as extremely minor wind erosion from a smaIl remporary fluff srora�a bin. These sources were inctuded in the ISCSTZ air quality modei Version 93109 with all other anticipated sources of PM,p emissions from the f�cility. Tha facility as a whole showed no impact on the P�4, nonattainment area whose border nearest the site is the center of the Mississippi River. Mitigative maasures for these sourees include maintaining either an asphalt or concrete surface, as �s•ell as usin� water or chemical dust suppressant when necessary. Applicable noise standards are contained in the Saint Paul I�oise Ordinance and the Minnesota Poi(u[ion Control Agency re�ulations. Of primary interest • for this projzct is the L50 daytime standard of 60 dBA for residential land uses since the continuous feed may generate noise for at Izast 50 percent or 30 minutes of the hour. The most sensitive land use adjacent m the site is the residential area west of Concord Avenue which is approximatzIy I,200 feet from the proposed plantlocation. Noise levets were predicted at the nearest home west of Concord Avenue usin� a computer niodel that takes into account attenuation with distance and atmosphere. The project will comply with the bIPCA aad Sain[ Paul noise standar�ti by mi�i�acion of a noise ��at(. Five other general conditions that also have to be met for al! Special Condition Use Permits (Section 64.300, Sub. d, Par. I-5} are iisted below: The extent, location and intensity of the proposed recyclinQ facility is in comptiance with tha Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan because i[ is located in an area zoned heavy industry. The use provides adequate in�rass and egress from Barge Channei Road. 3. The use or development of the recyclin� facility will be an improvzment to the existin� site and conforms to the industrial zone. A noisa watl witl miti�ate noise Iz��zis and visual impacts from thz surroundina industrial sites � and the nei�hborhood located west of the site. � Z��II�t� ���.E qS�c�D � �FZ • : ��� City of Saint Paul �` Project n`o. ChfXX-95-0048 Ju]y 26, 1995 Pa�e 4 4. The recyc]in� facility will not impede the industrial devzlopment and improvement of the surrounding property as stated above. 5. The recyc]in� facility will conform to the I-2 zone in which it is located. Thz followino supplemental information is provided to document that issues which may be of concern to the Minnesota Department of h'atural Resourees have been addressed, as well as issues pertaining to the national park system. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Natura] Heritaoe and Nongame �Vildlife Probram) was contacted and theit "Information System Data Reques[ Form" was completed requesting information on rare plant and animal species or other si�niticant natural Yeatures that are known to occur on die site or within a I-mile radius of the site (see the EA�V for correspondence letters). There is a historicat record of the mi4i: sn2ke (Lampropeltis trian�ulum) beina located in the general area, althou�h there is no recent documentations of this state-listed special concern sf�ecies in the vicinity of the project. The preferred habitat of the • milk snake is in old woodiots, rocky areas and associated Toresis. In the spring and fall, they are found in uplands, hills and bluffs. Therefore, due to the existing site development, the proposed project location is not suitable habitat for thz milk snake. The Minnesota Natural Heritaae dataUase addresses the potential impact of the project on the Balc{ Eagle (Haliaeatus leucocephalus), a species listed as both federally and state-threatened. A known bald eagle nest is located on the eastern side of the river downstream from the pcoposed project site, in Section 15. In addition to this nesting area, bald eaales are known tv forage alon; both the western and eastern shorelines of the Mississippi River, and the area just south of the railroxd hridge located southeast uf the sita. Eagles also utilizz tha Pigs Eye Island as a winter roostino arza. Tha Bald Ea�,la's prafzrrzd habitat is along lakes and rivers in furested areas where larae traas ara available fur nestin�. In Minnesota, red or whita pines wlth large canopies are often selecte�. Due to the past development of thz sita, pines or large treas are not prasent, ef iminating the proposed site as a putentiai Bald Eagle habitat. • The si[e is wiUiin the hlississippi National River and Recreation Area (�fNRRA), a unit of the nacional park system. The Comprehensive Management Plzn written for MNRRA states that the river corridor have a continuous public or private open space alon� the shoreline ro the maximum extent practical, and it would be connect2d to the downtowns and neighhorhuods by open space and traiis. Except in existing commercial amd industrial developments, downtown areas and histuric districts, the rivarfront and bluff area would appear mostly natural from thz river and its shoreline areas (as observed from tha opposite bank). The project will have no zffect on the existing shorelina. d. � � ! 1 �i � (- � � � --�-`� `_'-= � --�-�--.._.,... � City of Saint PauI Project No. CMXX-95-0048 July 26, 199� • Page 5 Your timely review is greatly appreciated. By submitting this application on July 31, 1995, Al[et anticipates being on the Zoning Committee agenda August 31, 1995 and the Planning Commission agenda September 8, I99�. This witi allow Alter to meet its construction schedule the last week of September 1995. D. Should yon have further questions regarding this Spacial Condition Use Permit Application or EAW, please contact Michelle Bissonnette of Braun Intertec at (612) 683-8810 or John Genakow of Alter at (319) 344-5287. Sincerely, `�'lu'���E� � ��r�r� Michelie F. Bissonnette Braun Intertec Corporation � \ L 3 �`�,;� 7ohn W. Ge�rrk� Alter Trading Corporation Enclosures c: Charles L. McGuire City of Saint Paul Lioyd W. Grooms Winthrop & Weinstine f:\wpfile s\cmxx\95\00.18\OOi8.L04 ZC3[�iii�#�'s ���.� ° ����?O � � C� ,. '� �-5�6 C7� I � V, i�L� i� ( � � 4 � V: { _�:: i f , �� y, s�;n �.,., T � _f"�� � i rr 1 �� � � �'t: //' T�� � r � 1� r � :� �, � • I ���` . � Cl f ���: { �Dell,\ o�_ I ��� 1 i . � �s �� " ih �reParlc_ �;�, RPll�:rn'v,. . A O . � �P�ine S ... // � . a� ' � � ;i �IQorth Saini�Paui�, �� ; f � �lacLstone " ' � ./� �� , 5 �_ SITE LOCATION �� �k'� ,-�-_� 1�� �. V � _ : J� , 'S �dvale - 69a :y:� '' 1 L �, � �I �J . � °. ... Oa7cdale_� � � '— � — :�_i_._.,,,.a � Sc Paul Down �������.P11r�d__`� LEGEND Scalz 1:125,000 (at cenrer) Pooulofron Cen;e� _ _ County ?oundary `�2 �fiies � O Stc;= Ro�'te — Mcjor S�e=[/P,occ ,� Siace Cooitoi o Sicte Ro:ce 2K.�i ' o Tow�. Srnat: Ccy o incerscc:e Hignwoy p Lar�e . o US niGrwCy � �n'*.°rstc;z. T�rnpiR2 �r i_anc Mcss � i15 HiGnv+cy ,-�;,��;; Ope� `Plc:zr P � A��field . y■ B RAY Nw PROJECT LOCATION RAMSEY COUNTY MAP PROPOSED ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA PLANT iNTE[2TEC ALTER TRADING CORPORAIION BENT7ENDORF,IOWA ���1 �:_���:��� '_' , ., ; ��_ � Rr4VfSEY COUNTY hfAP Ma� 12.00 Wed Feb 22 11:42:48 1995 INT RENSION SHEET ORAWN BY: LOL 02-24-95 APP'D BY: MB DZ-24—JS OF ,loe No. CMXX-95-0048 9WG. No. MXSOD48L FlGUftE sCa� NONE n TJ ".:-°"�"=-:' �31�31NI _ran�ga �1..[�ps ' :yP24ii�i3 ' _ ':�: .` ivs: , - .:.,'___.�4; �.;i , . ..�,_o-..-- - , E� c .�„�., .� ,�., �s ���:.,o.�� :. �,: ,�, , �.r. �.�>.�„ <��.�„ x�n �J1S+s 3 0rowvno aErv nrpghvs -- 1 � . n.tv — / � \ �\�` �i -� � �. . � � , �. ,�' . = T � �:`�:��,: �.,. ,�� '. - � ,� \�. � .. ' �� ,, %�E��� ��� •. \\'i.%'; �- � `�'� %� �l� � ` ,�` �', •' � \ a '/ � ^ �J' . � s / % i.��. o �l :�: � � � � t !1, �:1' . . -(� - P i� �� r \�� y � f _/. �ISl I �l �`1/ �/ ��_ �i'"���I� � � � 'a'� i • y r � . � �`. ' �_ L . i'�i,i ��� � l:'i �� . � `� � .i�\ � \ \� _.'��Y.��'/ • _'�"' /�' � s',i:�`�• � /� . Y \ V:/� _ � �'� \ ) � �� �.�` � �1 i,I�H��� O v •^ � ' l : ' f � P / �l" '�/.�� `. jo `�''`1'� d� � : l. (� �: - .�_J :7i�/'�- - ___:^l% �/ ' ��1 ' �.i< , _ , _� ( f � , ��� `�.n.%', �,�� � , i I�' � T - ;j / Y � ` �.'� ��� '�: i'„di;� :� , " s ' �`� �' '��,'���� ' � • . t - � -'.� -�,i :��� I � G "F'd!j' j ��' 13� r�.� ( �;: , I C. ; i � ''- r � , --,. ��:� . ,F.y - u'3"�,i ' ` i : � � :'7 , , e.. � 'G �'— ... .,� %1�`t1'.. � � Y ,.-: . � * �� � �i���C� f , � �U ; ` . r..� . I i= 1 � I� � ` v'. /; _./ .. ' �/ l r , ��iy�� , � / '1 ��d\�I', - �r'r .i. 9 � l ( / � � — — - :r �,. �...�.`. �..'�r; — �^ 1 � �T -7��; � � — . /" U• I .... �,, 3 \ I � :_��:.�� 'eN J � � / ,• , � � . ., - , F � _=� . G' �' �_. ;�<'\� /'' /,:��, r �.� ^ r /'� `� 'a\ \��\ �� �,` � � •i' = °Gf���"i/�� . � : • � , �,�: �/..,�. „ ; � ���` ,�• �\\ �CC� F � ��� � ' _,• - . � � '\ i �. �� ��='�ry�Ji ! /. \ '.. i � � :,� ��.' 4;�, � z% " . , -' /" / ':�i�' ��\`. .��. i � ' _ -�S�'� % � � j, /! � �- ,����.:: ����� : ,', �` � - �.� ' / �� r �C ,.�� � � 'C ��,-� � . . .: ,..� _ .,- , \ ����'� �-- N ^:., ,^��z'`''' � ` � / � � , � I..�;., �.�� �/�. �'"�, , �? } � _ " �° �� � . ' �1 �� � �' ��� ��/ '�' J � � �' . �. ./, . v��-.�-- - -� ���i � � � .� � .�\ ' :� � � `� � �-�: . -.� :�' / ��i�� ^ ` � .,\� ' /.' � � � » =' ir ��� .,�'-� � `� , � .'!� �' � , ,�- � _� i - . ,�/,- - - S, � � � � �/���:� ������ �1L�-'� � . -:,�-�% � � - - - = = �I ,. DLPAR7b7E13T OT PLA`ti1NG fi [CONO�fIC DGVELOP�iHNT Pamelo iYheelock, Dveclor �� ��� • CITY OF SA1NI' PAUL h'onn Coleman, dfayor 2� 3Yesl Foerr�h Slreel SaixtPou( M.V5510? 7elephone: 612-26G-65C: Fncsimife: -611-228-33 /: January 30, 1998 Mr. John Gentzlco�v Alter Trading Corporation 211� State Street, Suite 250 Bettendorf, Ia 52722 Dear Mr. Gent2kow: As you are a�vare, the Saint Paul Zoning Code was recently amended so that large metal shredders of the type proposed by Alter are no longer permitted uses within the City of Saint Paul. • Alter's Special Condition Use Permit application, which had been held in abeyance pending the City's determination on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement, as �vell as the expiration of the City's interim ordinance prohibiting construction of a facility like Alter's proposed metal shredder pending any amendment of the City's Zoning Code, will become "active" as of thirty days after the date of the pubiication of amendments to the Zoning Code. These amendments were published on January 17, 1998. Alter's permit application will become "active" as of February 16, 1998. Given that Alter's proposed metal sluedder is no longer a permitted use in the City of Saint Paul, does Alter still desire a public hearing on its Special Condition Use Permit application? If Alter desires a public heazing on the matter the public hearing wil] be set before the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission as soon as is practicable after February 16, 1998. Alter may also choose to withdraw its application in light of the changes in the Zoning Code. In either event, would you kindly advise me in �vriting at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, Roger Ryan City Planner � cc; Peter Wamer, City Attorney �7 Alter Trading Corporation John W. Genfzkow Vc�Presidenf, Operations 2177 State SVeet Bette�dort, Iw.a 52772 Phone 319�344-5287 Fax 379-3445317 February 10, 1998 Mr. Roger Ryan City Planner t7epartment of Pianning and Economic Developmenf City of Saint Paul 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, MN. 55102 Re: Alter Trading Corporation's Appiication for Specia! Condition Use Permit u I am in receipt of your letter dated January 30, 1998. Please be advised that, as has been • the case since the time Alter Trading Corporation {"Alter") filed its application for a Special Condition Use Permit ("SCUP") on or about July 31, 1995, Alter confinues to demand lawful review and action on its application. 7his year we wili observe the third anniversary of Alter's filing of the application at issue. If the City believes that a public hearing is necessary in order to finally act upon the application, Alter is prepared to appear and parficipafe in fhat pub(ic hearing. However, and in any event, Alter reiterates its demand that pursuant to the applicabie City ordinances as we!! as the requirements of Minnesota law, the City is obligated to issue Alter's application for a SCUP forthwith. Sincerely, u� n W. Gentzkow RECEIVED �E� I 3 i998 ZONING � 0 DEPARTMLNTOFPLANNING & GCONOMIC DIVGLOPb1LNT Pawe(a fVheelack, D+recfor • crrY oF sa�rr rat�, Norm Colemax, Mayor February 26, 1998 Mr. John Gentzkow Alter Trading Corporation 2117 State Street, Suite 25� Bettendorf, Ia 52722 Dear Mr. Gentzkow: 25 West Faurth Stree1 Sain! Paul. MN 55102 ^����� Telephone: 6/7-266-6565 Facsiinile: 611-228-3314 This is written in response to your February 10, 1998, letter regazding your desire for a public • heazing on your application for a special condition use permit for a large metai shredder on Barge Channel Road in the Southport Industrial area. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 15.99, Subd. 3(�, the Department of Planning and Economic Development is extending the time limit to consider your application by 60 days. The reasons for the 60 day extension is that additional time is needed to secure an up-to-date roll of property owners within 350 feet of your property, to mail notices of the public hearing to those property owners, to publish legal notices, and to prepare a new staff report. I will schedule the public heazing before the Zoning Committee for Apri12, 1498. The Planning Commission can act on the application on April 10, 1998. Sincerely, Rog r yan City er • cc: Peter Warner, City Attorney ..• _O O� O � U � � ' �\ � O � � ; 0 _ _ AIAPORT e � ' ( LlklTS -_ — . ----- ' � ��4'i G� c � � � L r{ �o �o POUCE \ IAiP0UN0�NC� ActEA v ' � ,. , � � \ � � I � . � � — � \ � / ` \ � , \ \ ` APPUCANT ��/� �Y�rDlN� G6{Z�'. LEGEND PURPOSE _ ���� ��� zoningdistrictboundary FILE � � � ' � � b , DATE � � �' � S � subject property n°� or�h-°-• PLfJG. DlST � MAP � 3 � o o�e tamily • � � co^merc:a: � � twofamily � ..� ind:;s:',a! SCALE T" = 400' �_^ �-¢-� multiple 3amily V v2car.' ,. � �� _. CITY COUNCIL TESTIlYIONY �' �- ��� Thank you for the opportunity to address the Saint Paul City Council ("City Council"). vIy name is John Gentzkow and I address you in my capacity as Vice President of Operations for Alter Trading Corporation ("Alter"). Alter appeals from the City of Saint Paul ("City") Planning Commission's ("Corrunission") Apri124, 1998 decision to deny Alter's appiication for a Special Condition Use Pernut ("SCUP") for its proposed metal shredder. Both the Zoning Committee ("Committee") and Commission voted to deny Alter's SCUP application base�t �� �'-- t to the Zoning Code ("Zoning Code"} prohibiting I� ;s the Committee and Commission should have apptic time Alter applied for the SCUP in 1995, wMch exp� 'Pectfully requests the Council overturn the Commissic �`, �� �cation. The grounds for Alter's appeal are set forth o �/� As you have heard many times, E of discussing the project with i Development ("PED"). While necessity of an Environmental A: project did not meet City land us stated over and over again, before twice, that the project complied w. � i � �fGi`� J � � � ����� � veral months d Economic :he practical sted that the as we have iot once, but In fact, Alter was given every ind __�... Y ,wiae sufficient evidence to justify a Negative Declazation; i.e., no neeti for an EIS for the project, the SCUP application would be reviewed in due course. Alter persistently pressed the City for a format and timely decision on the SCCTP. In response, Alter received numerous and repeated representations that the City wouid act "in the neaz term". Relying on those representations, Alter acted in "good faith" and spent considerable sums to show that its project is environmentally sound. However, after Alter performed, the City reneged on its prior commitment and instead enacted a moratorium which has since led ta a Zoning Code amendment prohibiting Iarge metal shredders in the City. These aze not my conclusions, these are the City's own statements. For instance, in an October 6, 1995 memorandum to the Committee, the PED staff stated that: "The city will make that detemunation [whether an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required) on Monday October 9, 1995....if an EIS is not needed, the planning commission wiii proceed with the special condition use permit application and hold a pubtic hearing on October 12, 1995." 1 ^ J y � � � A November 1, 1995 unsigned letter from the then Director of the PED, Larry Buegler, to John Gentzlcow stated that: "... Saint Paui... has deteanined that No Environmental Impact Statement is required for this project, provided that the project proposer Alter Trading Corporation: Arranges for a study to be conducted under the joint direction of the Minnesota Department of Health, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Saint Paul P.E.D., which addresses the potential for significant human heaith and ecologicai risk associated with emissions and discharges resulting from the long term operation of a metal shredder at this location, and provided that the assessment concludes that the potentiai risks aze or can be brought within acceptable standazds; 2. Works with City of Saint Faul to address the negative impacts of increased traffic through a residential neighborhood; and 3. Receives written confirmation from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that ali relevant licensing and permitting requirements are met. As communicated to your Attorney, this decision was reached Wednesday, October 25, 1995, and as of that date we have initaated processing of the Special Condition Use Pemut application for this facility." A December 11, 1995, Interdepartmental Memorandum from Charles McGuire to Janice Kelly- Dunkins stated: "We know that Alter would like to avoid further delay, and we want to conciude the process as quickly as we can." Then, in a December 14, 1995 letter, Mr. Buegler stated: "At our meeting November 30, 1495 we outlined a tentative schedule for completion of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and making a final declaration...we understand your preference for a declaration at the earliest possible date, we feel committed to the schedule we outlined and we believe the process will work more smoothly if we continue along this course." 2 ^ , j ` � V � Significantly, these representations were not only made to Alter, but to other public officials including the City Councii. A memorandum from Ken Ford to Lori Louder and Gzeg Drehmel of the Saint Paul Port Authority ("Port Authority") stated that: "The 60-day period for completion of the Special Condition Use Permit will be�in immediately upon publication of a negative declaration on the EIS question... and we want to conclude the process as quickly as we can." Furthermore, a December 29, 1995 Interdepartmental Memorandum from Ken Ford to Council Member Mike Harris, detailed the steps Alter had taken in preparing the EAW and reiterated that "[i]f no EIS is required, the process for review and approval of a Special Condition Use Permit wili begin immediately." The memorandum specifically stated: "Land use issues wi11 be addressed in a Special Condition Use Permit grocess. Under the Saint Paul Zoning Code, a recycling plant is allowed at Alter's site subject to speciai conditions." Between submission of its SCUP application and the moratorium, AIteT spent hundreds of thousands of dollars answering questions either raised by the City or which the City required to be answered based on the City's continuing representations that the SCUP application would be reviewed upon the timely completion of the environmeniai review. Not ance did the City ever raise the question that the project did not meet locai zoning and planning requirements. Indeed, the City consistently stated that the project met City requirements. The City staff was saying to the City Councii the same thing it was saying to Alter - Alter has performed and is continuing to perform various tasks for the City and when the evidence supports a finding that no EIS is required, the SCUP process wili begin. Significantly, on May 17, 1996, the City published its intent to issue a Negative Deciaration in a Community Meeting Draft of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Record of Decision. Rather than commencing the SGUP, three weeks later, the City announced the interim moratorium. The City had the power through the zoning process to institute and impiement special conditions and you chose to ignore that process. We aze truly disappointed with how this process has been hand(ed. This all began in July of 1995, some 32 months ago. This is the seventh time that Altec has appeared before either the Committee, Commission, Metal Shredders Study Committee, or the City Council and we have never wavered from our basic request — objectively review our SCUP application. When Alter came to the City in 1995, it knew the process and it followed it. Ia contrast, the City abandoned the process. The City did not find something wrong with the metal recycling process - - they just simply opposed it and they opposed it because of politics -- not planning. In the end, the treatment of Alter's SCUP appiication has been arbitrary and capricious. There were no environmental or land use justifications for denying the project. The only way to stop Alter was to change the rules. 3 �= :,` ��� On any objective basis, the City's actions in this matter have been simply wrong. Certain members of the Commission recognized the unfairness of the City's action, Their comments speak volumes, so let me shaze them with you. "I was astonished at how it was handled and finally voted on. I don't intend to support this motion. I didn't support it the last time because I didn't feel due process was made and I'll end with that " "I also think that the Planning Comrnission, and for that matter, the City Council missed the boat with respect to amending the Zoning Ordinance because I felt then and i feel now that we couid have accommodated the environmental concems and structured a Zoning Code that would have omitted large shredders consistent with the environment and without visiting any significantiy adverse consequence." "I wondered whether he [Mr. Gentzkow] knew that of the five of us sitting here, he had three of us who voted against what eventually happened with respect to amendment ofthe Code...- to prohibit metal shredders....In the 8'/z years that I've sat on the Commission, I consider...the decision to prohibit metai shredders to be among the most incomprehensible and least justified decisions that I have seen made either by the Commission or the City Council. I felt that then. T continue to feel that." The decision that you as a City Council have to make -- the one you must make -- is based on the Zoning Code that was in e�cistence at the time the application was originally submitted, not the Zoning Code that now has been rewritten in response to that application. Only you can grant Alter its pernut under the prior Zoning Code. It is what you can do; it is what you should do. STPl: 453747-I � „ DEPAR'[�*fT OF P(.a[�MMG � g ECONOMiC DEVELOP�?+T � ^ . �,- 5�b CI1Y OF SP.LvT PAL�I. .YOrM Co(nnae. .Naya� DATE: TO: FROM: RE: OCTOBER 6, 1995 ZONL*IG COMA4TIEE Dnuun of Pimm+ng :1 �err Favrh Svrer Sew Pau[ .NN;3102 Tr4ywo.r: 6I2.166-6J63 Faeznn,le: 6l1-I1d-331i K.wY DnntFZ �/,�,y - r--- t ALTER TR4DING CORPORATiON'S SPECIAL CONDtfION USE PERMrf APPLIG2TON As you recali the zoning commiuee delayed the puhiic hearing on this cau unril after the determination had beea made as to whether an mviroameatal impact stazemrnt (EIS) is required. 'Ihe ciry wili make that dctermination on Monday Qctober 9, 1995. If aa E1S is needed, the plaaniag ' commission's action on this special condition use pc:mit application wiil not be naded unul aRa the EIS has been campltted. Convecsely, if an EIS is not needed, the plaaning commission wiIl procxd with the special condition use permit application aad hoId the public heazing on Ocsober 12, 1995. Please note thaz this packes iacludss an updmed zaning commiuee staff teport aad auachmeau. Also amchcd for yoar infocmazion is a summary of commeau received on the rnvironmrnta3 a«�+*+eat worksheet and the appticaat's response to t�e comments. 'Ihis is beiag pro�ided to you as background information about eoncems raised by govemmental agrncia aad ciriuns' groups aboui the proposed use of the proQerty aad the applicaat's rsspoase to thae concems. " �- ��b � " zoxz:rc coaac.^.�ss s.arr stspoRS - �' iitiiitiiftflliyiiiiffi��iifs TZL3 M 95-170 S. .1PP:.�GiDi�: di.:=eZ '2.7:.ZYG C:.I2?OR.1�'�C:1 D7►'�S 07 41 jeT'iG: 10/12/95 2. C'..aSS�?�G1��OH: Spec:aS Cor.dit-ca IIse 3. LOU:�ON: H�1 3.�ZGE C�ANN'a:. .�O.L7 4. PLA2IISSSTG DISSRZC:: 3 5. L3GAL DESGRIPTIOH: aee :ile 6. PR858N: 202r2NG: T-2 G eZC-Z 20HZ27G CODS RI7ERII'IGS: 560.624(1) G 64.300(d) '7. ST7�PF 2DiVE3'fIWTZOH 7�D REPOR7: DATE: 8/24/95 8Z: Rady Dar2lez 8. DATS RBGSSVED: 10/9I35 D=7�DLIIiE TOR I�C'ZON: 12/7/95 ��aaa�aa�sasaa�aastaaas�s�as�aa�s�aass�saf�s�tta�a�����a�s���w�s��t�ar�s��a�� s � a aa a a:a:ssasa��a�.saa��aa��.ssara�s.s��....�s��ass�s.s.s�a���s�aaysa����s�a A, pvRPOSS: Special condition use permit to allov a reeycliag procesaing • center. g. PAftC3L S:ZB: The A1ter Trading CorporaLion site is loeaLed on the aarLh side of 3arge CSannel Road and is about 20 acres in �ize; Lhe portioa of the site uader eonsidezation ia thi9 applieation is about 1.3 acrea. C. EXIST.2�tG ZJ�ND IIsB: The pzoperty is oecupfed by three offiee/warehouse strscts es, miscellaaeous free-ecanding ntruetures, aad outdoor atorage of coal aad salt. Abouc 20.a aeres are located i.a Ramsey Couaty and 20 acres ia Dakoca Couaty. D, g4RROIIND2NG LAND IISB: The property is aurouaded by induetrial uses ia an 2-2 zca:.ag district including railroad right-of-vay aad the city impouad '_oc to the southwest and the barga c2uaael, airpazc, aad waste water treatmeat plaat to the aortheast. g. ZONTNG GOIIB CZTATZOli: SeCtioas 60.624 aad 64.304(d1 Of the zaai.ag eode allow recyelinq processing centers ia Z-2 zaaing districts subject to the f,au�ags decailed ia findiags #3 aad tt4 of Lhis rtpon. F. �TSTORY/DI3CJ3320N: Shere is oae previoua 2oaing cases coaee�aiag this propercy, it is a site plaa review from 1989 !or a buiidiag expan�iaa which was aFproved. Ia additioa there is i cusreat nite plaa zeviev ease :or tha aew recycliag facility. G. DZS2'RTC_' COONCSL 7tECODD�IDat20H: The West Side Citizea' a Orgaaizatiaa opposes r.Yse special conditioa use permit applicatioa. 8. l2:7DZ2tc8• 1. Alter Tzading Corporatiaa fs pzoposiag to ezpaad its exiatiag metal recycl3y operatioa hy constructiag a metal recycling plaat oa aa existiag industrial site. The aew plaat rri.Il be 40,000 aquare feet ia - size. Aa 'Eddy Clirrenc Separatioa Plaat' used to recover the �^�r+^^^* perc�ztage of noa-ferous metais from the shredder syscem will he installed and take aa additioaal 15,000 nquare Eeet, to be loeated adjaceat to the maia plaat. 'She fuaction of she p2aat ia to recycle scrap mecal such as autoa�bile bodiea, industrial acrap and Z��—:S -_,A ss_-�;a � � 586 Page .ac :�:scs_:aaecus _:cht gacye s:ee:. The ma;cr_t� o_ scrap metal received bv =:e �:aa� •+:ll be _=cn lacal sc:ap yar:'s. ':'::e rlant w_:� recfcle ac�rcx::nateiy 750 �0 900 aec tor.s of scra� meca2 da:ly. Cnce .he ma�e:=a: is sh:ed@ed, _ vi:l be transpc==ec �y bazge, rail, or tzuck cc •�a._ous cust�mers. The aorc.*.e� pozc�on o: the s3u a:rseatly used :cr st�r::g ccal aad salt viil be replaced v:th the recycl_.g piant. ;.L:tomc�:2e bodies vi1Z be accepted :zem salvace ooerat:oas vhi.ch h.ave d-sma^.�led, d:aized, and othezs+ise pzocessed '...i'e units co remove major vastes, iacluding used o31, anL:_'reeze, solve:ts, bat�e:ias, oil filters, cires, CFCS, and merctLry. H:sto=_cally, the ecncpany Las operated shears ca che praperty to cut sc:ap metal. The company is replacing the shears previous2y located at t:e site vith a more ef=icient model Eor recycling the material. Ccast_act:on is aatieipaced to begia this fall and be eompleted 60 to 90 days later. Site preparacioa methods will be cakea to minimize soil ezosioa problems by use of silt feaces, ea�h diversioa berms aad bale diversioas. SurPaee vater runoff from the facility vi11 be direc:ed co a desir,ned deceaciea poad. Siaee tse facility vill be ceastracted on till so that it is elevated at ar above the rcgulacory flood protec�_oa elevatioa, a per.nit for coasL�uctioa in the river cor__dor is not necessary. ' The recycling plaat will have about 35 employees. The plaaned houza of oneracion are �:00 a..m. to 10:00 p.m., nevea dnys per week. Moat of the trafEic on site will occuz during daylight hours. There ue 1o5 vekicles coming to the site each day currently (9 multi-axle tzucks and 96 two-axle vehicles). That aumber vill iaczease by 207 vetuc'_es for a tocal of 312 (60 mulci-axle trueks �52 tvo-axle vehicles). A discretionary E�v:ronmental Assessment worksheet was pzepazed for the expanded recycl�ng operatian on the site. The decisioa as to whetl^.e= an eavironmeatal impact scatemeat (EZS) is needed vill be made on oecober 9, 1995. Zf aa EZS is aeeded, the plaauing co�nisaioa'n ac_'_cn on thi.s spec-al eoaditioa use pexmit application will r.ot be necessary uacil aftez the ESS has been eocrtpleted. 3. Sectioa 60.624(1) of t:te zoaing code permits recycling proceaaiag cente=s subjec� to special eonditions. The required conditions aad the aFplicaas's ability to meet thoae coaditions are :a follovs: QaGdoar yrcc�++�ag, talvaging, sad itosage ot maLaria2� :ad motor sehicZst sha11 lu ae e1o+�r t�aa Chr�e hssadrrd f300J ts�t to s yroperLy oeccpied ritb a oae-, rio-, ehree-, tour•, or s¢c1tSple- fs:aily dr�Iltag or torahoui� drel2lag. Sh� aru wed for ta� outdoor yroeessSng, sa2vagiag. :ad stosag� �lsaZ2 b� �++*^a aa tight-toot-high ob+carSng raSZ, leaee, or Zaad+e:ped balfsr. Tbe plaaaiag eo�tutoa msy modlfy tLit rsqss�r�m�ae nkess a raS1, teae�, or bssffer may iaLerfere riLts ths oDeraLiaa o! the bwiaeir. Th:.s eeadizioa is met. The site is aa9 feet frem the aearest resideatially zaaed property. There is also aa eight foot high r}+� ia-link lence bordezi.ag the property on Barge Cbaaael Road. �� T'he area used for outdooz procesaing, aalvaging, and atorage rill be behind a noise mieigation waZl ranging fram 20 feec in height 28 feec ia height and a�0 feet ia length. The lengsh ot the vall vas inczeased from t'sat originally proposed ia response to additional infozmatioa leazned about noise levels. r<,��0� Zoniag F:'_e �55-_70 Page T.'Lee b. �.'e.e ahaSZ be no oue3ooz opea b�^�Sag oa u'e :ite. The uae of e;;t-:ag �o=�.:ea, f�,:.�aeea, aad oG'ier sr,�,ai�eat rh�c:t produe• a �:s.ae rh:SS ao� be coasc.ieced cc coastituze opea b*�^��g. "_::s cc��= =:o ::s mec. There vi:l be ao auc.a.oar open bu.-��:.g oa t :e s:ce. c_ ^ere :8a21 bs ao ataekiag of aeeerSaZ abovs the h�ighc of L�e r:1Z ar lesee, sxcept th:t materis2 set bacJC tbre: huadred l3001 teec :raa .:�e aear�rt ruideat�al prcparty Ita� msy b� stack�d one !Z) fooc hjg�er ov�r the rsZ1 or lsae� up Co a���{�*�- of �2sty (60J fsec tor t9Qr]/ IS7Q (S) feet LCe mater�al ti s�t back iro� tye aetreat rvidsatial ysapetCy ISae. ��s cond:t:on is met. The applicaat eLates that material may be s�acked a maximum of 60 feet higher than the fence due to the sec back of the macerial which vill be ovez 1,000 lest irom the r.eazesc reszdential prope�ty liae. 4. Sect:ca 64.300(d� of the zoniaq code zequizes t'sat before the pla�^inq coc�¢nission may graat appreval af a griacipal use subjecs to special cor.�t:ons, cht eonacuss-on shall fiad thac: Tke esteat, Zoe:tica tnd iatsaiity of Lha ss+� r1S2 be ia • rubicanttal eempliaaee r�th r.he SaSat P:ss2 Camyr�h�a+2w Plaa aad aay :pplSeabSe sub�re: pIaas rhjch wrs �pprowd by tCe elty eeuaei2. b. c . d. •. 2he use riSl yrovids adsquats Sngrus aad �press to miaisai:e traf�tc eoagestSon frs th� pssblie �ue�ti. 2�e we ri11 aot be deesimsataZ to t1s� ex3,�tlag clsuaetar o! t2s� developmeat 1a Li' e taedtaes ae�gttborlsaod os �adaager tht publlc IIealth, safsey tad geaeral reZfue. ?he use riSl aot Smyed� th• normal aad ordarZy d�v�Sopmeat aad �rovam�at of ih� iurroaading proyerty for wer pezmttt�d ia t�e dtttrict. ?he use sktZ1, ta a12 oChez rr+p�ctt, enaform ta the :ppZie:ble rsguZatSnas ot th: di�trict ia rhich tt is Socat�d. These condi,tions aze met. The pzoperty is appz�riately zoaed for c: e e�cpaaded u�e and the heavy induszrial we ia in keeping ++ith the vay the azea has developed and ia beiag used_ The site is .dentified in the Laad IIne Plaa as a"labor extensive heavy iaduscrial area•_ 2'he expaaded uae will noc have aa adver�e itapac� oa adjacent praperty aad will aot impede aesmal aad orderly develapmeac aad improvemeat of surzouadiag praperty for usea pezmisted izc u` e I-2 zoaiag distriei. A aoise asseesment was conducted foz the shreddiag operatioa. TThee most aers it�ve land use ad}acent to the eite is the resideatial area weat of Coacord Street vtich is approximately 1,20o feet from ttte proposed plaat locatioa. Withons the aoise wall the pzojeeted noiae levnl exceeds the day t:me ataadard. 'Sherefore, eonstruecioa of a aoise barrier to mitigate aoise ia needed to ensure that che eity aad 2�CA noise staadards area met. A1ser is gla^�*�^g to eanst�uct a self-staading souad wall vest of the shzedder to ensure thac aoise scaadards are met duriag shredder Zor.:nc -zle �95-=70 ^ '� _ � " � Page ?ccr c�crat_r.., vcise ievels are p:ojected to be vit�=a the day t:.r.e star:car'_s wce : :.._se :ra:i :s y. place. '"::e aYpi:ca.^.� sta=es that •+:_: :`:e �rcpcsed bar_ ar, aaise :evels ac t.*.e :lcsest :es:d�ces aloag Concor� St=eet are rred:cted to c�iy vith !"3U dayc_ae ac=se sta^.c'ar3s. Ac=ord_^g �o sta.�._ :=om the of=_ce af License. I:seect:oas, and :-;r:ranmeacal arotec=:cn :ae propcsed vall, des=yned :a screea che source eY :he noise, w:ll be aden�:ate to keep c'ay time aoise levels i7 a.m. co 10 p.m.) wi�h:a �iLy aad state esaadarP.s. The day time L10 scaa2ard :s 65 d�'ia; the esc:mated aoise Ievel ac the neareet zesideace :s 62 d3a. 3 d8a less than the nLaadar3. Peter ICishel, LI�P, is ia the pzxass of gather-.:g addi.icnal ia_ozaacica aad �.r:Il provide PID ataff vith a vriLten swmnary of his findiags and recortanendations zelaciag to aoise. That sunm�arf r+ill be available at the public hear�ag. 6. The Department of P�u'lic Aorks 2us revieved tra=:-c data ree�tly col:ecced i..z the azea and Alcer Corporatioa'a plaaa .or the site. The depar:aent has ider.t:f:ed no problem with Che campaay's glacs as faz as tra::ic is eoncer..ed and believes the existiag road ayntem ia this induscr:al area is capable of aceommodatiag the type aad amauat of t�af:ic expected by the propaaed use. A zeview of the data eolSeeted iadi�ates that betveea 25 and 55 gereeat of the traf:ic on Bar,re C�anael Road is truck trafEie, due to the industrial nature of the area (this pezceatage includes nemi-trailers aad st=aight trucks but aoc gick-ug trucks or vaas). Zn add:.tion, the moniag ar.d evening peaks oa Barge Chaanel Road de aot coiacide with the moring and evening peaks on Coacord Street. Rathez, truck tzaffic is spzead thzoughout the day. During the moraiag peak, 7:15 to 8:15, there are 172 t��*+�+++g mcvements ac the Coacord & Ba:^ge Channel intersectioa: 1J 2a right tssrns ia vhich is eompr±sed of 6 multi-ax:e vehicles and 18 two-a�c].e vehicies; 2) 49 r:ght t.�^as ouc whscs is comprised of 35 multi-axle vehicles nnd 14 two-axle vehicles; 3) eI leEt tusxs ia which is eoertprised o! 16 multi- axle vehicles aad 65 cwa-axle vehicles; and 4) IS left turas out whieh is comprised of e mulei-axle vehicles and ia to+o-azle vehi.cles, During the afteraooa peak, �:15 to 5:15, there are 2H6 t*•r^�^g movements at che Concord a Barge Chanael iater�ec:ioa: 1) I4 right turas ia whieh is coa�Qrised of 1 multi-axle vehicle aad 14 tw-ax:e veh:cles; 2) 156 righc turas out vtuch ie comgr:sed of 1� m�alei-axle vehi.cles and 156 tw-axle vehiclen; 37 79 left turna ia which i9 eempzised oP 21 multi-axle vehicle� aad 58 tvo-axle �ehicles; aad 4) 3? le.t tu_-as out which is comprised of 5 multi-axle oehicles aad 32 iw- axie vehicle�. AVEFJ�GY D7SS.Y TSWTZC I�VIItkGE DiII1��t 07 P�CLt3 Y�t 804R OT T� 82Cffi9T 3 80IIR.5 YSR II7►Y Robie StreeL 732 53 earge Channel -- south of Rnbie 3,627 350 Bazge Chan.'zel easc of Robie 1,427 132 Zca�.g ?_=e �5.-110 Bage ?ive � „ acz=_:or. �c t�.is spec:al cond-�icn uae pe^ait, rhe applicazc must orta.. _'_:e :o'_leviag ap_r_ovals, liceases, and pe�its; all o: the aFpi:ca�:or.s are cur=ent:y in pzocesaiag aad pendiag. �.,=>s ?.V_:.__�x �H:`7?S'•Z1"?CN Nec:ce e: Pseposed C�ascructioa ST_A"=' Cr M:�7N_50?A r Pollutlea Caatrol llg�acy StoracWater Managemeat ?laa fer Constxuctioa Site/NPDES Star.nva[er Discharge Associaeed with Zadwstrial Activity �:= 2ezmi.t - Zastallatioa aad Operatioa Pezmit D�partmaat ef Natvral R�ioure�� A�nropriatioa Pezmit D�par�at of S�alth Xa�ez We1Z Variaace, if necessasy RAF!5^f COUNT"I Ut:lity Permi.ts CI?Y Q° SAZNT PAIIL S�Le Plan Review Buildiag Permit Licease for the Reeyeling Procesaing Ceate: Z, STAP! RBCCSIDffi7DATZON: Saaed on fiadings 1 through 3 ataff recoc�eads approval of the special eoaditioa use pezmit, subje�t io the following coadition: The apglicant shall obtaia, and maiataia, all re�ired permitn and licers es ia compliaace with State aad loeal laws. Staf: may suggest additional conditione, based upon the outcome of furthez review of �ae noise assesamrst by the Otfiee of Lieense, Znsgections, aad Eavironme:.tal Proeectioa. ThaL ia£ozmatioa wiSl be pzeaeated u the public hear:ag on October 12, 1995. R�sDaR: I^se decision as to vhctSer aa eavizoameatal it�act statemeat (SSSl ia needed vill be made on October 9, 5995. Zf aad HZS is aseded, the pl�^^+^g eomni.ssion•s accian on this special eonditioa uae pezmit applicatiaa vill not be aeeded uncil aftez the E2S bas beea comglet�d. It an EIS is aot aeeded the pl�^*+=nq co:cmiissien will proceed vith the apeeial coadit�oa use gexmit applicatioa and hold the publie heariag oa Oetober 12. 1995. . .� . " i CIIY OF SAIlVT PAUL ti�o»n Colernan Meyo� NOVCTi1bCf 1, I�S Mr. John Grntzkow Vice Presidrnt of Operdtions Alter Trrding Corporazion 21 ] 7 State S�et BettendorF IA 52722 Dcaz Mr. Genakow: DEPAR7ME`? OF PLA?MI1yG t ECON0IAC DEVEIAPMEN7 La.*�' A Bs�r=k.. Ilnecrw IJ Wut Favrh Sarer Sont Per(. Mf� S3J02 ^ ��- 586 TrlepJrp�t 6l1-266-6"00 Fccznule 611-22d-326f 7his ietter is W�rittcn to inform you that on the basis of the Environmrntal Assessmrnt Workst�ee[, the commcnu recieved from reviewing agencia, projezt proposer responses to those commrnu, and additional infonnation recieved in connection with this project as refleesed in the Raord of Decisien, and consistrnt with the provisions of §10.05.(7) of the Saint Paul Adminiseative Code, the Ciry of Saint Paul u the Responsibte Govemmrnul Unit (RGU) fot the proposed Aiter Trading Company Metal Shrcdder projea at 801 Barge Channel Road in Saint Paul hss daermined that No Em•ironmentai Impact Sutement is required for this project, provided that the project proposer Alter Trading Corporetion: 2. 3. Arranges for a study to be condueted unda the joint diiscrion of the Minnesota Departrnrnt of Health, the Minnesota Pollution Conuoi Agrney and Saint Paut P.E.D., which addresses the potmtial for significant human hahh and eeoiogical risk associued with emissions md discharga muiting from the long tam opa�aDOn of a metal shrsdder at this Iocarion, and provided that the auessmmt concluda thst ti�e pouatial r'ssks are or cnn be braught witbin uceptable standards; Works with the City of Saint Paui to �ddtess the negadve impacu of incraud traflic t3uongh a raidrntia! ncighborhood; and Rxciva w�ium confmnttion from the Mianesota Polluaon Control Agrnry t3�at all rolevant liceasing and pesmitting roquiiemeats att mec. As communicated to your Anorney, this daision wss reachod on Wednaday October 25, 5995, aad ss 2 � lohn Grnti3cow November 1, 1995 Page two � � - 5 8 6'� of that daze we have iaitiaud processing of the Speeial Coaditioa Use Pamit applintion for this ficiliry. Please eontact Cbuia MeGuire u 266-6553 if you mquirs turtha iaformation eonetraing this matter. Sincercly. Latry Buegler, Director Saint Paul Pianning & Ecanomic Devdopment � DATE: TO: Interdepartmentai Memorandum CCTY OF SAII•T PALZ December 11, 1995 Janiee KcIly-D�mkins ^�—��� FROy1: Ctsatiss MeGuire RE: Update on statvs of mvironmrnnl rsluaIIOn of the Proposed Alter Meuf Raycling Faciliry at 801 Buge Chauncl Road, Saint Paul. The Putiealue Dispasion and Deposition Modeling :eport prcpusd bY Bnua Intrruc Corpoasion, daced November 3, I995, is presa�dy being rsvirwed by the Minnaota Poliution Contro� Agmry aad ths Minnesota Deputrnmt of Halth. We �ers iafnrmed by t6em ort Novaaba 17 thst thry �riil comp{ete their ir�ievr by Decemba IS st the tasest 2he impocnace of the environmrnta! imp�et of dcpositions fram plsnt emissions, m�lca it asential that we tsave their response m tAis nepert befo� we ciou the EAW Qrocas. ' Mo[her cancun thu effects our sehedule is neighborhood undazsaading. While tbas will not l�cely be genera! agreemrnt on conctvsians wt Rach eaaeaaing eitha t�e nad for �a Es�vironmmnl Impact Sruemrnt or permitting for wnsaveboo of t3�e faeiliry, it is impotsaat for the eonrinuing procas that interssced puria. ineludiag neig3sbofiood intesssts, fa�ow tt�ry have beea �{e tc review aad cama�eat on the basis for our decisions. Siace tbe Env'voammnl Assasmeat Wo�kshxt is 'eompleud' ia piecemea! fsshion, we believe it ensonabie w pcovide fec ceview of a complersd EAW before our deeision is final. For thae reasons, we have outlined tfie following zehedule for complerion of the F1iW procrss aad the exunsion of time that t3�is wiil requ'ue: Decaaber 22 Jsauasy 26 Publish Fiadings aad DaFarazion for commrnt paiod to e4ose Jmuvy I5. Es�e 6aat Fmdinp a�d Declaeation Eariier receipt of commast from the a�mcia wiIl asable us tn comptese and relese our susement arlia. We knav that Atra wcwld 4lct to svoid fietir dday, a�d we �et o0 ooeclode t!x pr0ass u quieiclY as we �,^ �th nrw iaformmon on aitini �view issua �ceived �nd t�e uapo:saace of m open process for the cacamuaity. we believe tlut tbis is f� minima! �edule. plase le� me know if yon nxd addioonal iafotm�on. K:�SESJ.AIDtMCC LN.TSGD t ECOHOMI[ JEVELOPME?.; ta. c e�. cd.��o. � OF SALtiT PALZ Honw Calewraw Xeyer Dersmba 14, I995 Mr. 3ohn Gmtziccw Vice Prssidmt of Operations AIter Tndiag Corporuion 21 i7 Stue Semt Betsendorf IA 52 .2 Deat Mz. Gastzkow: 11 K'etr fwvr.� Sce'+ Saw�m�L F/N:7/0: r `,"P`�' �6 ;.ry.d.: ctaus�s-oa f�v�.�ts.- i!I-ISE-316/ At our meeting Novembez 30, 1995 we artlined a trntuirve sehedufe for eamplttion of the Envirommcal Assessmrnt Wor9csheec �nd making a finaI deetaravon tt�aeon. Ttris x�sednie wu baxd on an undessta:sding that we wouid receive fuul cammenu from t�e Miaaeson Depu�eat of Hn}th {MnDH) and the Minneson PoiIution Coaco( Agrnry (I�CA) witf� respect w potart+al Iu�aa md eeologicai toziciry pmbtems by IJecetnber I5, 1995, provided thry rstieved �dditiona! informsaon they tsquaud within a short cime aRer ouz November 17, 1995 mceciag with the ageaeia. We andersrand from youz eansu}nat Bnua Intertec, thu the agmry �uamd iafo�itioa is te become available u them today, md will take a week or so for than to evaiwu. While we will IIy to hoid u elose u possibie to the time ftame out3iaed in the schedule we verbally discassed rt t�e Novem6er 30, 1495 mating, it wiI1 aot be pouble to mxt t6e origias! d:tn dixvsud, riaee we cta noc camptete the dnft Rececd of Decision uatiI we receive rhese commma. Although we uadastaad your prtfecsna far a dxlsr:tion a dx eaiiest pom�ble data de feet eammitted to the sthedule we oudined and belie�+e the proceu witl wor;c more saoothly if we continue along this cou:se. If you have aay quarions about our pasicon, Pleue coanc Krn Ford a(612) 266-6577, or myxl£ Thank you for yow cooperarien us this caatta. Sin Hu c. D'cator Pianning uid Econosaie eIogmenc CC: Lloyd Grooms Peser Beck z.�swaEev.sccui-unur.zzr To: � t,�a� � 5 � 6 Greg Dsehmol " FAX: 223-5198 FROM: Kea Ford � Tca drafted for a Ierrer thar probably xnn 7 bt scnt. br¢ this aalines thc schedulr for rht F� procuslor thr Alser proposal as wt see ir end tJie necso�s jor ir. 71u 60�day periad �or eamplaion oj t1u Speda! Condisioe Use Penais will begin i�nr�i�eh r�on P�blirarion of a reegame drrlaration orr rhe IIS qyestioa (alrerr+�ively na �msil a�s IIS is conrplded}. � . .. � .. ... .. - • - • • • • \ � • � y� � •• ���� � �'♦ � • • • • /1� • • • • •- � • • � • ��1� •1 � •�\�� � • � J/� • � • � • ���1 � � _ •• •�1� � 1. • •. H\ { N�\. �� ����� • • • • � • • • • • •• { • ���• • •• • • ��. pi0CLS5. Another concern that effecu our schedule is, of course commuairy understandin8. Wbile thete will not likely be grneral agreement on the conclacion we tucb concerning eitber tbe �ed for an Environmenta] Impaa Suttment or permitung for coamuctioa of tbe fsciliry, it is imporranc for che conanuing process tLac imerested puties. iac2udinQ �iYhDorhood ia�eruu, Imo�x they have betn able to review aad Comme� on the bisis for out detisioas. Since the Enviro�aensaI Assessment Worksheet is 'com�ler�d' ia pi� fishion, we believe that it is reasonable to provide for review of n completed FAa' befois o� daision is final. For these reasons, wc have ouflined the scbedule beloa for compietion of the EAW process and roquest yoiu concurrence with thc ezttnsion of dme thu thiz will aquire: � _ ... . t• � ...,. _ .. ��..... .� .... .�_ ... �_ ., ..., _ . . .�. .. � - • • • �� ��rA�l • � 1� ' ti1 .��� • • •��� '� •� �� • •�' •�•1 • � ♦ • ��� •. /• • � � • �� � • ��� • �1 • � • � 1� � � • ����� • • � • • 11 • �� �� �� �����1 �� � �1 ��1 • •�� • Interdepartmentai Memorandum C1TY OF � �T PALl �� 5�6 DAZE: Decaabrs 29, 1995 TO: Camcil Membet Mr7�e Hur'ss FROM: Xea Fad � Subjcet: Altcr Tndia; Cempany Ptcpoaal, Plaiu aad Sehcdnie. In cssponse to your rsquat, thc following dacribes the Alttt Ttading Company proposal to add a meul shredder to their oQeruion on Barge Channel Raad in S�iat Paul, u�d the City's �view process for their proposal. The Environmenta! Asussmcnt Worksheet process addrasa arvuoamenra! issuu associated with the proposa! and will conciude with a decision that an Environmcntal Impzct Statement iz oc is not aeeded. An Environmrnta! tmpact Statemrnt will be ulled for if, u the eonclusioa of tf�e usrssment, there is still a significant luk of information necasary to answer environmmul conea:ss. Lcrrd scse iuues will be addrused in a Special Condition Use Pamit process. Uada the Saint Pwl Zoning Code, a iscycling plant u allowed at AIuPs siu subjeet to speciaJ condiaons. Atur is a resycling 5ciliry, buc chey were "grandfichaed in" uada thi.s mniae code wishocc a special conditon use petmit, so a persait will be sequired for this expaasioa The wmpany 4�as submitssd �a applieaIIOn for a SCiTP which wiIl be decided try t�e pIanaiag eommissioa. P:ocessiaY af t�is sppli�oa will not begin uatiI m savironmeatal 'smpsct statcmeat is complued, or a decisioa is made that ta - eavironmental impact sntement wilf aot be required. 'I�c faciIiry wiU aiso stquirt an ait qustiry permit fiom the siate and a Nuiotul Poilaiion Disclaatge Elimination System permit At pmsnt, we ats aear wmpleCOn of the Eavironmucnl Assessmeat Wor�shea proeess. We will issue a stuemmt of tLe dxision snd a deeision iscard, ia dralt fo�, earty ia lm�ry (depeadia8 on receipt of information we ue pesseatly iwaiting fsflm stite a�eacies). We wiil alIow s paiod of time for rcview aad cocnmea� inctuding t pubtic haring, thm issue a fia�J daisioa aRer ceviewing ilt comment cseeived. The foilowing describa the rnvirortmmu! sssessment worksheet proerss to due. A iocuion map utd s site dnwing us aaactsed- • In June of this year. Atur Tradin� Com¢any and its coasultancs �proached the Pott A�ority _ u�d the Ciry indiating shat they wu�ud to ezgaad their saap metsi p:ocessing businar u their 801 Buge Clunnd Raad siu wirh she sddition of a meu�I shredda. To avoid tbe possibiliry of prolonged dekys, tlxy nlced thu a vofunta[y EAW (Eavimamasa! Assasmmt Woricshac) De P�P� desailusg the pojecs md possihle usociaud mvirenmmul �oescerns. T6e CitY ag�s�d Council Member Hasris December 22. 1995 p3g� z to act u the "Raponsb[e C»vanmenul Uaif (RGiJj for t�e process- � �_ ,�, ... � $ b , the proposed project would iavolve inssalIition of a maal shreddc sad miteriais handting equipment on the site m ocpaad the ezisting reeyeling business. c�P�� �e buzinas of other commoditia (coa1, sa1� fvtiIize ae.) shipPia� saussSaaeat 2he m�chiaay wrould be e�able of shredding becwem 700 tad 900 toas of saap meul a day. iaeluding shas scee� �usomobile bodia md othc scrip. 2he major eoccaas with thc projai eenta on air quality. w�ater qvalitY, noise, utd Baffic. • An EQB rula review iadicated dsu the proposed project did not filt within aay maadatory teview ntegory imdc ths Minnesoa Eavironmmnt Pmteetion Aa (MEPA). The Ciry a�sed to ut u the RGU unda the conditioo thu the Assessmrnt be prepared at t3�e developa's cost by a qualified environmmisl consulhnc Alter hsd alteady rzuined Braun Intatee, a local environmenta( consulting fum, knovm to staff from prior mvironmenul wodc. • At the rnd of June 1995, a dnft EAW wu delive:rd by Bnun Intatee for review by city suff. ARa some modifscuions resultiag from oar eeview and discussion witb Bnua, a draR w�s roleased for cirsuluion Jniy 15, 1995, and fiunithed to the standard EQB list of seview �.geneia for tocat pmjats- • Since a pras tsleue roquired by EQB Ruia conr.sraiag t�e avaiZsbi2iry of the draft for review wss`not celeued within the isquired time, the draft wu "tr�ttleued" u the end of July; md the "opcn wmment paiod," w�tich wzs to have cIosed on ar about Augusc IS, 1995, wu camde� w the ead of August , • Copia of the dnR re+rievr were made avaiIsb(e to siI iadividuals �adla ageacia avho roquated it u required ut�da the EQB rula. • ,hgency md otba seviewa eommeatt csaived prior ta tbe ead of Au�ust iadiared sigaifiesnt concttns whieh stsff beliered mi�ht be raalved with the pso'visioa of addiaooal iafarmaion by the projecs proposer. Ahc. A menociadum aotifyin� the EQB of the City's daision ta requat additionai infosmatien wu seat to the EQB on Septembe E, 1995. T6tt memoaadum otrtlined additional inforsnuion rueded �aording to the reviews 6y sevaal aeencies md agmiaaons inciuding tf�e Nuional Park Savicr, the Minnesota Depsnmrnt of Halth, Mituiaan Departmeat of Nuurat Resoa�t�s. th° M'n'es°u Poliurion Control A�enry, Frieads of t3se Mississippi River, and the Met:opolitan Councii. Raponse to a luge anmba of concerns wu requesced, focusing mostty on: - a. Conrrol of partieulue anissions; b. Likelihood of emissions coatrol faiIures and the impuu of same: Councii Member Har,is December 22, 1995 Page 3 `�� �� � 5 8 � �-�, c. Storm water muuganent for the 1.3 acre s�da pad, including the specifics aoud for the entize siu; d_ Aa aosion eontroi plan for before usd aPta consrtucaron; e. Equipment generued nciu snd 'caspped" aoise acenuatioa a+�a disunce; f. Impact of noise on the use and mjoysamt of the Mississippi River, tad g. Msuuru to ufeguazd soils snd alI pountial esuiving wucs � d e esel � I fuel rtonge consaminttion which may a:isa out of spills imm t�e proQosed �° tank. • During the earty part of Septanber. mpensa to a8ency �°cnmeat' wese devetoped hy the projeet proposcr, their consuttant and Ciry suff- This information was ft+misAed tc th° i8uu'a and commentaa in the laner part of September. Additional commrnu uid questiens were submitted by the rcviewas car(y in October, iniciazing an additional round of informuion deveSopment • In the last weeSc in Sepcember. Ciry suff a+�d she project proposer were invited to a mating with neighbofiood midcnu at the Gaadalupe Area Project buiiding. A teQrcsentaci�e of Alur Trading atso responded ta questions u thu meeting. Sercral meatings ha�e been hetd with atea gibups and agrncy persennel to eiuifY issua and • concems - most all of which centa on the environmaiul dem�a� m�tioned above. 'lhere is signifieant coneem about pouible deposition oP heavy me2als in tfse sail sad th° "muaB of inetal particulua to the aanosphas whieh is still beiag ncamined. � Ciry suff and suff from tf�e Miaaaoa Department of Hnith aad the M�a.nesora Pollurion � • Coatrot Agency ma to discuss outsonding questions aad timia� fa eompieaon ef the exa:ainition of sddiuocsal dsn ia Ne�aaba Csome ncighborhood reptssea �� �a � eir meetin�. A tmutive dm of December 15 wu givea fot the �stt a$eneY woric if alI the informsrioa th�Y �equ�s� arss milable wRt�in a'few wxks.' Th� �s4ua� ieformation w�s not mitabk uaal ariY in tbo w�ed� af Daeemba lE, 1995. Zhis w'iU delsY a�ency �ssponsc aad add to tfie dacisioa tmdiae fa the EIS D�clantion- . Whcn fuui agrnry commenu ue sseived, staff will compiae a'DeaR Record of Daisioa' for � �W �d ttleue the dnft for additiossa! pubic review �nd eomma�t A puDlic haring will be hetd in tfu neighbochood. s�d s final 'Record of Daision" wii{ be mxit sefleeting the dec�sion of the RGU concernin8 the nxd for an EIS. If no IIS is �quined, the ptoeas for m,�rvr and appcovai of a Special Condition Use Permit will begio immedjue�7• lf an EIS is � no {y�a worlc n,n bc done on the projea �ustil tf�e EIS is compleud. . gecause of time toss for sespenses and r�Pti�s. a+�d the need for time to set aP a pabiic hnriag. we cumntty atimate that the due for finsi 'EIS Decision' wiIl be ibout mid FebrtcarY• Councii Member Harris December Z2, I995 Page4 �� ��� We will sry to kecp you spprised of any chanQa irt xhedule. Pteue la me or Charics McGaiss (of my ssaf� fasov+ if you need aaY additiona! informscion conceming this pcajat McGuire aa be rsached by phone u 266-6553. Amefianeau: Lacuioa Map Siu Ptan cr. Couna'I Pissident Thunc Counci! Manbas Mryor Caleman Lacry Buegla Peser Wama _ _ cu�cowwu��.TX* �. lo I // I I�� / Gµ�+iie Bor.IIuch �i ���' / • , N DeUreed .� ( I ;:���\ . .�" `w � I' , ,• I � ' � ��.�`� ,� , $he�' "�_I _I ,�?"^�� •. �: � _ ." • y,1 V � �� � t.. ' ��� � I I y / /�Lake Shore��\ � htc �` 4 n<.�� �r-- ��` � , ��' �J . �r \, 7 .1 �s.�ia�r ' � `�'j ' ��a � =,�t�,.�.A���,.�, , � il 1 _ . .: ��,..= t� � �--�--- �J' � n,«;�.:ooa ����� � e�Q��Lh<o� �1� // '� � -. � " � .�� � r' � Vadnau Hu�hts � � ��'?tytt'�e. � � �'� � '' � � =t�'fiterai 1 �-��� �-=� I� :�___,- o� ,� .�r • " ' ` I�r�'� ��.�".�.. '�. // - .�.. � � �:.-�� � �.� ;��-J� -.:: � � - �,r' I f�• , .::': • :oPin . - 0 - } � •'. - �'� V��`�� s i � ', / ' _,}�a ) .'':.� I� f�" :�:-r ..� � '"�� -���i�c.�-: ... . _ -_ � _ : : � _ , - .j' .� '<r4 �,�.- L ' !; �L1tU 6anids �'jr, �1' _�:jY._�:. . � .:� - ` 4 y r - �� �'� �� _ _- � .� , ` `:� �..• . �,:� :. . � = ?,:: . �.,, 'i� Sa�nc Ancno� ''�� � � � ' � .'. ," � � ..� • � -� -t.i' � J : �' = ' y = , .''� . - tierth S�la! Pi.il;�� : "" .•, ..,; .. _ .�� - •_ _ ..:_--. ,�� ..: - ::�.:�';:_ '�..-,'- , . .. _ _,� - - •.-.-_ _,_. ,. � �� -. �,�� . , f a���' K'� �w� i r. t��� � �. l. 4 ; � t , �� . f fGLdstene � : t�,-':= ' - (;.suderdals :��' � `� . � .� S-: j: =�:� ,._ -� ��: :. •_.J � � . : � .:�?°- ` ,.:�. � .:�=. , .�, _ :.�.; ;. ., , F,<<a� s'<��� C � SiTE LOCATION .a P��,�- 1 � .�. , : ���r �. � :��� �j ..._,-.- :_,�� ���: ; :�_...��� �ti�,.� • � . .I � �� �r r:'_ • � •: �L' j ' i . a9 . . _- .�; .loj� •_i '3r�lr.; � ' � '�' .' . '. .,., ' " �• "�i.'1.-:-f-�' _.. �1 � �� `�:. � i• , �.M 3-��:.1! .� _ .'r ^� / ' `�'/: .-.. ;� i''r'.: St i ,:i'�`t• • � � '��.•'� :�r°wi � •�l.•' ��.� S f,w', _ , ll � . � .'� : .•' ` : .r�: � .�. .� .� ." • ' ... . ��� ^:, •i.`':�� ",`1�•.�r`�.}"'� y ai %' �� � 1"' �(--i��i S%py.`.�1' � ,.i.� I<�COd �•��� 1 : .. _ . a ':' - .. : ':�� .:.� `�'�� � �• _ M� _ . _ 6 �� i ��;;;�� •q: 7' cI� (^ t-� •1• I • :p, D 7`T'-•�':I { v` � � ' .` .' `1 .. -. �..3J�� 0 �' ' A <e� �wr.v v .. . S( ��' . J ` � ..� �M1L { � �':. �.,� : .. ....:y-•' "� ::r;.� ai ��t' aul �-= :: �2_.`� ":i L �� �_��r~� ro^-..c <.`. '• .. -i � "� �.�', ,:�, �tl ' _.: ...�'Fl A��-S�' - ° ` w v� : . � � •.i'.� .'.�. -�; �T:C-•.s':�'Li• 16' � t = "r'_ �' �d.: � 3t Piul De+'n , ° r:: , � � , ` � S �'^ c.��Y'�' �'��`� �• 4• . y '• lF. 3� �- J ��.9' 1 i ` �C�T'�• �' ` i '�'. .. . Z . �.. ,! si Z", ^" � ' . a � ` ��t-.� ' ��. � S!s'} iy • �f.I.. !T . . :.'.. � . .,�; � : ; �:,, �,, �,�} � ' :. : � ' f J3 ).i .. �_yIy dal� r e� nc •ul c r , ' .` •T 'y`'y: c � �:: -. 7.. r ..%�' ,�� - :ri"• I � • 't �' 7 � � �.� .' '�' - � .�' :Y: -;:r>. . `e,= (I' i\ 1 ,.'=1 'l :_ .F:':• , -; :� .;: • 1993 • �<to�^c �+, 0�_^9�' Scale l:1Z!.000 (it emeu) LEG c.*7D , .: PoPutoGOn Genler __ County 9oundcry 2Mu�� . O Slcte Ro�te �� uajor Street/Rocd 2t--��j : � f StN.e C�o�to� �� Stote Route � , TOwn. SnC!1 `�ity �-� Int[.'SIC:t Hic�hwCy o lorge C�ty ` �-e u5 r.�Sn•oY � � Inte�s:c;e. Turnpi�e ,r�' Lo�c �cis ° US H�Sne.ey �. �=:.1 OOer woter �v � � �.i•(ield I B R�U Ny P�CJ�CT LOCATtON RAMS�Y COU�"' �+A� PROPOSED St. PAUL. MINNESC'A °�Ati' � AITcR TitADfNG CORPOaAT1C�: 1NTERTEC BENTTENOORF, tOWA , �1� � ��eod���.i r � t'�' . i ��} ti �� � /., � l':i_.�"��j'� '// '� c'� • .: . RAM$£`.' C'JU'� iY MAP ?4as 1ZN we6Fen.. �I az.aa t99s � N T e��N9vN 9��' pR..V e.. LC_ C2-2a-9 • ,rr� e•: u9 � C2-��- � ,pa �, Cwxz-;S-OOSB DK �e iix°_:+o��F1GURE•� � r L y � � � � Communiry Meeang Drafc E�vironmental Assessment Worksheet Record of Decision Proposed Atter Trading Corporation Recycling P/anf Ramsey County Saint Paui, Minnesota �� � S 0��"�. QU�� FpR O�S�'� City of Saint Paul Norm Coleman, Mayor May 17, 1996 Questions shoufd be directed to: Chartes L McGuire Department of Pianning and Economic Development (612) 266-6553 ���586 The City of Saint Paul does not discriminate on the basis of disability, rece, sex, sexual or affedional orientation, age, color, creed, national origin or ancestry, marital status, religion, veteran status, or 5tatus with regard to pub(ic assistance in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs or activities. Table of Contents r ��- �8� Description of the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Process for Public Notice and Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comments, Responses and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Issues Related to the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 Particulate Dispersion and Deposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Particulate Emission Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Composition of Particulate Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Deposition of Particulates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3(a) Impact on PM10 Non-attainment Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 13(b) Effect on Air Qualiry in Closest Residential Area ..... 1.3(c) Effect on Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3(d) Potential Effea on Soil Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Potential Effect on Human Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Potential Effed on Wildlife and Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Potential for Failure of Pollution Control System . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 Particulates in Water Vapor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 Storm Water Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Stormwater Characteristics, Flows and Discharge Destinatio� .................................... 2.2 Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Sensitivity ot Floodplain Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0 Impact on the Flood Plain and Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Ftood P1ain Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Wetland Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 Soil and Groundwater Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Existing Contamination oi the Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Potentiaf Soil and Groundwater Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 Well ConstructionlGround Water Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Water Well Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Water Resource Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 Accidental Spilfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0 Disposition of Shredder Residue (Fluffl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Composition of Shredder Residue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Residue Handling and Disposal Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0 Noise .............................................. 8.1 Noise Levels by 7ime of Day at the Closest Residences ..... 8.2 Impacts on Recreational Users of the Mississippi River ...... 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 4 7 8 10 11 13 14 76 23 24 26 26 29 31 32 32 33 34 34 35 37 37 38 40 42 42 43 45 45 49 Community Mee[ing D2fr / `� J ��� Issues Related to Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0 Tra�c ..-• ......................................... 9.1 Projected Levels of Truck Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �9.2 Access to the Site and Neighboring Residentiat Community ... 10.0 AesthetidRetreational impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 General Impacu on Aesthetic and Recreational Resources .... 10.2 Pig's Eye Regional Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • - • - . . . . . . . 10.3 City of South Saint Paul Riverfront Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.0 MNRRA Plan Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.1 Appropriateness/Necessity of a Riverfront Site . . . . . _ . . . . . . 17.2 Consistency with Resource Protection Policies/No inaeased Nonconformity ..............:........••-•.....•- 11.3 Relationship to Minn. Siat. 116.G.151 iMinnesota River Critical Areas Ad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.0 RiverfronUNeighborhood Development Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Issues Related to the Review Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.0 Consideration of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0 Related or Anticipated Future Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.0 Other Comments Raised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.0 Public Notice .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.0 Adequacy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet . . . . . . . . . . 17.1 Description of Facility Under Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.2 GeneralConcems ................................ 18.0 Need for an Environmental Impact Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 51 57 52 54 54 56 57 58 59 67 63 66 69 69 70 72 73 76 76 77 80 Declaration .......................................................... 84 - APPen ices .......................................................... 8� Communiry Meeting Drah `_ �-�8b Description of the Project Alter Trading Corporation proposes to expand its existing metal recycling faciliry by instaliing metal recyCling equipment manutactured by Texas Shredder, Incorporated on an existing, already devetoped industrial site located at 751-78t Barge Channel Road in Saint Paul. The plant and associated eddy current separation system wouid cover 55,000 square feet. The planYs fundion would be to recycle approximately 750 to 900 tons per day of scrap metal such as industriai scrap, automobile bodies, and miscelianeous Iight gauge steel. Most oi the metal would be purchased and trensported from local industries and scrap yards. Once the material is processed, it would be transported by barge, rail or truck to various consumers. Installing this metal recycling plant on the site wouid resuit in the removal of stockpiles of coal and salt currently stored at the location of the proposed expansion and wo�id preclude the use of the site for the transfer of other commodities. Purpose of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Process The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA� is a standardized list of questions in a worksheet format designed to disciose the necessary iniormation to screen the project for signiiicant environmental effects. It is intended to ensure that decision makers at all levefs have the necessary information to make inrormed judgemenu on licensing, land use or funding decisions. While the informaCion included in the EAW will likely be used in the required review associated with project permits, approvaf or denial of any permit appfication is not part of tfie worksheet review process. A Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) is obligated by the rules of the Environmental Quality Board to review the information provided in an EAW and determine if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared. The rules state: An EIS shalt be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effecu. !n decrding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental eirects the RGU shal( compare the impacu that may reasonab(y be expected to occur from the project witn the criteria: A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effecu; 8. Cumulative potentra/ effects of re/ated or anticipated future projeccs; C. 7he extent to which environmenral effects are subjecc to mitigation by ongoing pu6lic regulatory authority; and D. The extent io whith environmenial effecu can be anticipated and coniro{led as a result of o[her environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, or of EISs previousfy prepared. This Record of Decision details the comments and information received by the City of Saint Paul and records its findings relative to the potential for significant environmental effect, and, theretore, the need ior an Environmentai impact Statement. Gommnniry Meen� Drak r �� ��� Process 4or Pubiic Notice and Comment July 16, 1995 Environmen[a! Assessment Worksheet prepared and submitted to the City of Saint Paul Department of Planning and Economic Development by Breun lntertec Corporation Juty 17, 1995 No2ice of avai4ability o4 EAW for seview published in the Environmental Review Board's EQB Monitor Volume 20, #2. July 27, 1995 Press release provided to three newspapers of general circulation in the area: West Side Voice, Saint Paul Pioneer Press, and Minneapolis Star Tribune. A copy of the press release is attached (Appendix A). July 31, 1995 EAW comment period extended until August 31, 1995 in a notice published in the EQB Monitor 4otume 20 #3. September 8, 7995 City of Saint Paul notified the Environmenta! Quatity Board that the "El5 Need Decision" was postponed under the provisions of Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp.2a.6 because reviewer comme�ts indicated the need for additional detailed information on: air quality impacts, stormwater management, erosion controt, noise abatement and the possibility of fuet tanks spiils. September 25, 1995 Responses to agency comments mailed. October 72, 1995 Technical ending date of "?ostponment Period" under Mi�nesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp.2a.6. A complete tisting of correspondence and technicat documentation used in the development of the following record is contained in Appendices B and C of this report. Communiry Meeting D2ft 2 Declaration NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8E1NG PREPARED BY PETER BECK , �_5$6 Community Meeting Draft $4 NEIGBBORS ORGAMIIEp. !O 570P , , �8- � $� fl1E 11AtARDS OF ALL MElAL SNREapERS: 127 W. Winifred St•Sai¢t Paul, MN 55107•(612) 293-1708 Saint Paul City Council . City Ha11, 3rd floor 15 West Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55107 June 3, 1998 Deaz President Bostrom and City Council members: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Alter Trading Corporation's appeal for a special condition use permit for a metal shredder to be located on the West Side of St. Paul. NO SIIAMS! recommends you uphold the denial of the Alter Trading special condition use permit for three reasons. First, because the use is prohibited by the Saint Paul zoning code. Second, because the proposal does not satisfy the 5 general standards required to be met before granting a special condition use permit. I ask you to refer to yow packet, wlvch includes ow testimony from the April 16 zoning committee meeting highlighring how these standards wili not be met by the shredder proposal. Third, becat�se 16 of the 19 District Planning Councils have gone on record recommending the City Council prohibit large matal shredders in Saint Paul. Thank you. SincereIy, ,���,�„ Sheril7n Young� Co-Chair cc: WSCO Board A Project of it�estSide Citizens Orgcmization • Funded by Grants from ii'ortbauestArec� Foiendation � The Hec�d:oaters Fund �R#GINAi. ,�� Presented By l�� Refened To Council File # 18 - 5$�. Green Sheet # �p�\b`l Committee: Date �Z 2 WI�REAS, Alter Trading Corporation [Alter], in Zoning File 95-170 applied to the 3 Saint Paul Planning Commission [Commission] for a Special Condition Use Permit [SCUP] for a 4 "recycling processing center," more commonly known as a"metal shredder" on property 5 commonly known as 801 Barge Channel Road and legally described as: (see Zoning File 95-170 6 for a complete legal description); and 8 WHEREAS, the Commission's Zoning Committee [Committee] conducted a public 9 hearing on August 31, 1995, after having provided notice to affected property owners. At this 10 public hearing, the City Attorney's Office advised the Committee to delay any decision upon 11 Alter's SCUP applicarion until the completion of an Environmental Assessment Warksheet 12 [EAW] which would show whether the metal shredder would require an Environmental Impact 13 Statement; and 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 WI3EREAS, based upon the advice of the City Attorney's Office, the Committee laid the matter of Alter's SCUP application over until an EAW was completed; and WI�EREAS, public heazings were scheduled in October and November of 1995 but were canceled due to the need to compile additional data and analysis to complete the EAW; and WHEREAS, during late 1995, all of 1996, and into 1997, City planning staff worked with Alter, Altez's environxnental consultant, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Department of Health, to compile additional data and analysis needed to complete the EAW; and WIIEREAS, before the EAW {and its accompanying Record of Decisaon) were released on March 21, 1997, the Council of the City of Saint Paul [Council], in Council File 96-625, and pursuant to Minn. Stat. § G62355, Subd. 4, passed an internn ordinance which temporarily banned recycling processing centers; and WI�REAS, in Council File 96-624, adopted in August 1996, the Couucil also directed the City's Depar[ment of Planning and Economic Development [PED] to study the City's comprehensive plan and zoning regulations relaring to recycling processing centers and directed the Commission to study and submit a report to the Council with any needed planning ar zoning amendments; and WHEREAS, the Commission conducted the siudy as directed by the Council and released an interim study report on April 1, 1997. A fmal siudy report was issued on Apri129, 1997; and RESOLUTION SAINT P °i �r —SS� a 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 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 WI�REAS, on August 22, 1997, the Comxnission conducted a public hearing on the final study report and recommended zoning code and land use plan amendments which would prohibit lazge metai shredders within the City. The Commission's reasons for recommending that prohibitions against large metal shredders be incorporated into the zoning code and land use plan were as follows: The nature of e�ting industrial azeas in Saint Paul makes it inappropriate to locate lazge metal shredders in the city. There is no e�ting or potentiat industrial site in the City which has condifions sufficient to protect adjacent land uses from the negative impact of inetal shredders. There aze no industrial areas lazge enough to provide adequate sepazation of non- heavy industrial uses from large metal shredders, while providing sufficient highway access, buffering and visual screening. 2. 1995 state legislation requires the City of Saint Paul to update its comprehensive pian. The City has received a grant through the United States Department of the Interior to update the river corridor plan and evaluate new zoning regulations within the river comdor. It is inappropriate and premature to consider new or expanded extensive heavy industrial land uses within the Mississippi River corridor prior to completing the updates to the comprehensive plan and Mississippi River comdor plan. Large metal shredders shouid be prohibited from developing or eapanding in the river comdor at this time. 3. Large metal shredders should be prohibited in the City of Saint Paul because there is no need to locate such facilities in central cities and there are other areas, more appropriate than urban centers, in which to locate such facilities. Scrap metal is generated from a very lazge region, often encompassing more than one state. The economic feasibility of operating a large metal shredder does not appear contingent upon any single location within a particular region from which scrap metal resources are drawn. There also does not appear to be any essential locational criteria which would require a large metal shredder to be located in a major urban center as opposed to a less urban or rural location."; and WHEREAS, on December 3, and on December 10, 1997, the Council conducted a public hearing on the Commission's recommended amendments to the zoning code and land use plan and, at the conclusion of the public hearing, voted to adopt the recommended amendments which barred large metal shredders within the City; and WHEREAS, in a letter dated January 30, 1998, PED staff asked Alter whether, given that its proposed metal shredder was no longer a permitted use, did Alter still want a public hearing on its SCUP application for a large metal shredder. Alter advised that it wanted such a public hearing and on April 16, 1998, the Committee of the Commission conducted a public hearing on Alter's application after having provided notice to affected properiy owners, and, thereafter, the Committee submitted its recommendation to the Commission; and -Z- q�•s� 2 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2Q 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 WI�REAS, the Commission, by its resolution number 98-29 adopted Apri124, 1998, denied Alter's application based upon the following fmdings and conclusions: 1. 2. Sections 60.213.M. of the zoning code defines large metal shredders as follows: "Metal shredder, Zarge. A facility that accepts, stores, and shreds lazge used recyclable metal products, inciuding motor vehicles, appliances, sheet uon, industrial clips, whether oz not maintained in connecfion with another business. Shredding is the reducrion in size of the metal products by means of a rotor equipped with hammers, including in and out conveyors, serubbers, sepaza6on and dust collection equipment, and other connected machines." Secfion 60.623(3) required conditions of the I-2 Zoning District prohibits lazge metal shredders as foliows: "(3) The refining of petroleum or gasoline, stock yards, meat pacldng plants, large metal shredders, the incinerafion of infectious wastes and the crushing of rock, asphalt, or concrete for recycling are prohibited in this district." In 1989 a site plan review for a building expansion was approved. On July 31, 1995, Alter Trading Corporation formally applied for a special condition use permit (SCUP) for a recycling processing center. The applicafion proposed to install new technology known as a"Texas Shredder" and an"Eddy Current Separation PIanY'. PED staff authored a report finding that Alter's proposed use met the general standazds for a SCUP and specific standards for a recyciing processing center. The report anticipated that additional conditions would be suggested based on the outcome of a noise assessment and traffic assessment that were presentiy pending. The report also noted that a Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA� was being prepared. At the August 31, 1995, public hearing, the Zoning Committee was advised by the City Attorney's Office to delay discussion of the SCUP application until after the EAW analysis showed whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project was needed. If an EIS was needed, the SCUP application would be held in abeyance until completed. The staff report was revised to incorporate information about noise and traffic. Public hearings were scheduled for October and November, 1995, but were canceled because of the need far additional data and analysis in order to complete the EAW. During late 1995 through 1996, and into 1997, PED staff warked with Alter, Alter's consultant, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Minnesota Deparhnent of Health to complete the EAW. -3- ar-ss 2 4 5 On March 21, 1997, the City released a Record of Decision that an EIS was not needed for the proposed recycling center. However, PED could not act on Alter's SCUP because a moratorium on recycling centers had been adopted in 1996. 6 In June, 1996, before the EAW was completed, the City Council passed a 7 resolurion adopting a temporary moratorium (CF 96-625) on recycling processing 8 centers. The moratorium was temporary unril an ordinance could be adopted. 9 The council said questions had been raised as to whether the impacts of 10 automobile and steel shredders were fuliy understood and considered when the il 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 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 City considered the definifion of recycling centers adopted in an amendment in 1990. The Council questioned whether the conditions incorporated in the 1990 amendxnent were ineffective or obsolete in mitigating potenfial adverse effects of lazge metal shredders. The Council said it understood that three new automobile metal shredders were being considered in or neaz the West Side and Mississippi River flood Plain and questioned whether such a concentration of such uses would have a detrimentai impact on the area. In August 1996, the Council adopted an ordinance that directed the Department of Plamiing and Economic Development to undertake a study of the City's comprehensive plan and zoning regulations relating to recycling centers, automobile shredders and similar technologies (CF-96-624) and asked the Plamiing Commission to study and submit a report to the council with any needed planning or zoning amendments. The ordinance also enacted the moratorium on automobile shredders and similar technologies. The Plam�ing Commission designated the Meta1 Shredder Shxdy Committee to conduct the study. The City hired Dean Jolmson of Resource Strategies Corporation to assist it in completing the pianning and zoning studies. The studies were published in an Interim Report of April 1, 1997, and a Final Report of Apri129, 1997. The studies were considered by the Commission's committee in April and May, 1997. After considering its committee's recommendations and the public hearing testimony of August 22, 1997, the commission recommended zoning code and land use plan amendments to prohibit large metal shredders within the City. The reason for the prohibition, set forth in the Land Use Plan Amendment, were: "The nature of existing industrial areas in St. Paul make it in appropriate to locate lazge metal shredders in the City. There is no e�s6ng or potential industrial site in the city which has conditions sufficient to protect adjacent land uses from the negative impacts of inetal shredders. There aze no industrial azeas lazge enough to provide adequate separation of non-heavy industrial uses from lazge metal shredders, while providing sufficient highway access, buffering and visual screeniug." 2. "1995 state legislation requires the City of Saint Paul to update its comprehensive plan. The Ciry has received a grant through the U.S. Departrnent of the Interior to update the River Corridor Plan and evaluate -4- � °[� -s�� new zoning regulations within the river corridor. It is inappropriate and premature to consider new or expanded ea�tensive heauy industrial land 3 uses withiu the Mississippi River Corridor prior to completing the updates 4 to the Comprehensive Plan and Mississippi River Corridor Plan. Lazge 5 metal shredders shouid be prohibited from developing or expanding in the 6 river corridor at this time." 10 ll 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 43 A4 45 46 47 48 49 3. "Large metal shredders should be prolubited in the City of Saint Paul because there is no need to locate such facilities in central cities and there aze other areas, more appropriate than urban centers, in which to locate such facilities. Scrap metal is generated from a very large region, often encompassing more thau one state. The economic feasibility of operating a large metal shredder does not appeaz contingent upon any single location within a particular region from which scrap metal resources are drawn. There also does not appear to be any essential locational criteria which would require a large metal shredder to be located in a major urban center as opposed to a less urban or rural location." The City Council held a public hearing on the Commission's recomxnended amendments on December 3, 1997, and on December 10, 1997, voted to adopt the Commission's recommendations. In a letter of January 30, 1998, PED staff asked Alter that given that its proposed metai shredder is no longer a permitted use in the City did it still desire a public hearing on its SCUP application for a large metal shredder. Alter was also advised that it could choose to withdraw its application. (The letter states that the amendment was published January 17; its was published on January 10.) In a letter of February 10, 1998, Alter asked for review and action on its application. PED staff on February 26, 1998, e�ended the time limit to consider the applicarion by 60 days. The extension ends on May 8, 1998. (Letters of 7anuary 30 and Febivaiy ] 0 and 26, 1998, are a part of file.) 3. Alter Trading Corporation is proposing to expand its existing metal recycling operation by constructing a metal recycling plant on an existing industrial site. Tiie new plant will be 40,000 squaze feet in size. An `Bddy Current Separation Plant" used to recover the maximum percentage of non-ferrous metals from the shredder system wi11 be installed and take an additional i5,OQ0 square feet, to be located adjacent to the main plant. The function of the plant is to recycle scrap metal such as automobile bodies, industrial scrap and miscellaneous light gauge steel. The majority of scrap metal received by the plant will be from local scrap yazds. The plant will recycle approximately 750 to 900 net tons of scrap metal daily. Once the material is sl�redded, it will be transported by bazge, rail, or huck to various customers. The northem portion of the site currenfly used for storing coal and salt will be replaced with the recycling plant. Automobile bodies will be accepted from salvage operations which have dismantled and drained to remove major wastes, including used oil, antifreeze, solvents, batteries, oil filters, tires, CCS, and mercury. -5- R�-S�'6 2 Historically, the company has operated shears on the properiy to cut scrap metal. 3 The company is replacing the shears previously located at the site with a more 4 efficient model for recyciing the material. 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 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 � Site prepazation methods will be taken to m;nim;ze soil erosion problems by use of siit fences, earth diversion berms and bale diversions. 5urface water runoff from the facility will be directed to a designed detention pond. Since the facility will be constructed on fill so that it is elevated at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation, a pernut for construcfion in the river corridor is not necessary. The recycling plant will have about 35 employees. The planned hours of operation aze 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days per week. Most of the tr�c on site will occur during daylight hours. There aze 105 vehicles coming to the site each day currenfly (9 multi-�le trucks and 46 two-a�e vehicles). That number increased by 207 vehicles for a total of 312 (60 multi-asle trucks and 252 two- axle vehicles). Alter's proposed use as described in finding 3 above is a"lazge metal shredder" as defined by the Ciry's Zoning Code as follows: "Alter Trading Corporafion is proposing to expand its e�sting metal recycling operation by constructing a metal recycling plant on an existing industrial site. The new plant wiil be 40,000 square feet in size. An "Eddy Current Sepazation Plant" used to recover the maYimum percentage of non-ferrous metals from the slu�edder system will be installed and take an additional 15,000 square feet, to be located adjacent to the main plant. The function of the plant is to recycle scrap metal such as automobile bodies, industrial scrap and miscellaneous light gauge steel. The majority of scrap metal received by the plant wili be from local scrap yards. The plant will recycle approximately 750 to 900 net tons of scrap metal daily." "Automobile bodies will be accepted from salvage operations which have dismantled and drained to remove major wastes, including use oil, antifreeze, soivents, batteries, oil filters, tires, CCS, and mercury." 5. Section 60.623(3) of the zoning code prohibits large metal shredders in I-2 districts. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206, Alter duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determination made by the Commission requesting that a hearing be held before the Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the Commission; and WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64.206 - 64.208, and upon notice to afFected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the Saint Paul City Council on June 3, 1998, where ali interested parties were given and opportunity to be heazd; and �'L `ISr-S$� 2 WIIEREAS, the Council, having heazd the statements made, and having considered the 3 application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Committee and of the 4 Commission, does hereby; RESOLVE, that the decision of the Commission in this matter be affirmed based upon the following findings: 10 11 iz 13 14 15 16 17 18 1. The Council finds that there was no error in fact, finding or procedure by the Commission in this matter and, accordingly, the Council adopts the findings of the Commission as its own; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Alter is hereby denied; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shail mail a copy of this resolution to Alter Trading Corporarion, Suite 250, 2115 State Street, Bettendorf, Iowa, 52722; Mr. Lloyd Grooms, attorney for Alter, 3200 Minnesota World Trade Center, 30 East Seventh Street, Saint Paul, MN 55101; the Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator. ORIGINAL Requested by Department of: Adopted by Council: Date \�`Y�� \\ U ` By: Form Appr ed by City Attorney BY: ��W(�MA�!^ �uQ / Adoption Certified by Counci Sec et ry Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: 8�, Approved by Mayor te �` By: CiCy Council NJTACT PERSON & P110ME Chris Coleman, 266-8620 TQTAL � OF SIGNATURE PAGES 6J23(98 q�r- S� GREEN SHEET No fi�l6w' LJ oa.,Rirarto.ee.a� V arveonrx _ ❑�..� o�.�_ ❑.�,�� ❑.��.� ❑wroiewu�aan�u+n ❑ (CLIP AL1 LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Finalizing City Council action taken b-3-98 denying the applicaeion of Alter Trading Corporation for a Special Condition Use Permit tor a recyciing process center at 801 Barge Channel Road. PLANNMG CAMMISSION CIBCAMMI'TTE£ CNIL SERVICE CAMMISSION tfas this cew«Nirm aMerv.«kea waer a conaact ra thie aeaartmener YES NO Hes t�is P�� aver been a aYY �PbYe�� . YES NO Does this Pa�soNfi�m P� a SidN not nonnallYP�3esaed M' �Y curreirt cm' emPloYee� YES NO �6 Rh16 QE189N�1lif18181QC�fd V!lIdOR YES NO okin eq v0e anawe,s on ueerate Sheet 8nE etlach W nteen sheet L7:':��'�4. 1�,'��e���;>h ii�!�1'�Q, ��3� � � �T11 NAOUNT DF TRANBACTION S COETIREYENUE Bl H61NSi SOURCE ACTNITY tiUMBFJI wCV�L MFORW.TIOH (EXPiNN) �GRCLE ON� YEE NO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY PegSirls CiryAttorney �� - � � CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Maynr Ciuil Division 400 Ciry Hall I S West Kellogg Blvd Saint PauJ, Minnesata 53102 L__ Telephone: 6I2 266-8770 Facsimile: 672 298-5619 June 23, 1998 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Appeal of Alter Trading Corporation Zoning File No. 98-137 City Council Hearing Date: June 3, 1998 Dear Ms. Anderson: Attached please find a signed copy of a resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in the above-entitled matter. Would you please have this resolution placed on the Council's Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, ,� ,��//l�-. eter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney PWW/rmb Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor May 13, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Reseazch Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: Division of Pimuw�g 25 WestFouith SYreet Sa'vn Pmal, MN 55102 �;j��0� �--- Z� TeLephone: 612-266�6565 Facslmite: 612-228-3314 t� �� ��� �'�'�`�. V�''"""_` ��3�q� � I wouid like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday June 3, 1998, for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a special condition use permit to allow a lazge metal shredder: Appellant: ALTER TRADING CORPORATION File Number: Appeal of file #95-170 Purpose: Address: Appeal a Planning Commission decision to deny a special condition use permit to allow a large metal shredder. 801 Bazge Channel ltoad Legal Description of Properiy: See file Previous Action: Zoning Committee Recommendation: Denial; vote: 4-1; April 16, 1998 Planning Commission Decision: Denial; vote: 16-1; Apri124, 1998 My understanding is that this public heazing request will appeaz on the agenda for the May 20, 1998 City Council meefing and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul L,egal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6582 if you have any questions. Sincerel �� Kady Dadlez City Planner cc: File #95-170 Paul Dubruiel Pattie Kelly Wendy Lane, LIEP •F�srRrnv• iiOTICE OF.POSLIC HF.ARiNG The 3aint Paul City Council will conduct a public heazing on Wedriesday, June 3, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. in the Gity Council Chaznbers. Third Floor City Hall-Court House to consider -the appeal of Nter 1Yading Corporation to a decisIon of the Planning Commission denying a special condition use perm3t to altow a large metal shredder at 801 Barge,Channel Road. . .. Dated9 May 14, 1998 . NANCY ANDERSON � ' , . � Assistant �ty Counci7 Secretaly , � � - (May 16, 1998) � � DEPART�N1' OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELAPMENT Pamela Wheelack Directot CTI'Y OF SAINi' PAUL Norm Coleman. Mayor 15 West Fourth Stree[ Sa±ntPaul. MN55102 May 22, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Zoning File #98-137: ALTER TRADING CORPORA'ITON City Council Hearing; June 3, 1998, 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers �� �~� ��b ...-��� Tetephone: 612-166-6565 Facsim'rZe: 612-218-33]q PURPOSE: Appeal a planning commission to deny a special condition use permit to allow a large metal shredder on property located at 801 Bazge Channel Road. PLANNINGCOMMISSIONACTION: Denial; 16-1 ZONING COMMIT"TEE ACTION: Denial; 4-1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial SUPPORT: No one spoke in support of the special condition use permit. OPPOSITION: One person spoke in opposition to the special condition use permit Deaz Ms. Anderson: ALTER TRADING CORPORAT'ION has appealed the decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission to deny a special condition use permit to allow a large metal shredder at 801 Barge Channel Road. The zoning committee held a public hearing on the appeal on April 16, 199&. The applicant addressed the commirtee. At the close of the public hearing the committee voted 4-1 to deny the request. The Saint Paul Planning Commission upheld the committee's recommendation on a vote of 16-1 on April 24, 1998. This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on June 3, 1998. Please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, "�� C - '1 Kenneth Ford Plannsng Administrator Attachments cc: City Council members � � � � See Attached. r Attach additiona! sh t if ApplicanYs signatur SAINi TAUL � 1111A APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Department oJPlanning and Economic Development Zoning Section II00 City Hall Anner 25 West Fourth Sireet Sainr Paul, MN 55102 266-6389 APPELLANT PROPERTY LOCATION Name Alter Trading Corporation Address 2115 State StreetJSuite 25� City Bettendorf St.IA Zip 52722 Daytime phone(319) 344-52 � Zoning File Name Aiter Tradinz Cornoration AddresslLocation 801 Baree Channel Road/St. Paul. MN TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: ❑ Board of Zoning Appeals � City Councii under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 206 , Paragraph a of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the Plannin� Commission on April 24 , 199$ . File number: 95-170/Res. No. 98-29 (dafe of decision) ! GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Expiain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusai made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission, Date 5/13/98 City -� � t3 Aiter Trading Corporation ("Aiter") appeals from the City of Saint Paul ("Ciry") Plamung � Commission's ("Commission") April 24, I998 decision to deny Alter's appiication for a Speciai Condition Use Pernut ("SCUP") for its proposed metal shredder. Both the Zoning Committee ("Committee") and Commission voted to deny Alter's SCUP application based on the recent amendment to the Zoning Code prohibiting large metal shredders. Because Alter believes the Committee and Commission should have applied the City Zoning Code as it e�sted at the time Alter applied for the SCUP in 1495, which ea�pressly pernutted the proposed use, Alter respectfully requests that the Commission's decision be overturned and its SCUP application be granted. The SCUP should have been considered under the Zoning Code as iY existed at the tnne of the SCUP application for the following reasons: i. The use praposed in the SCUP is permitted under State law and the City may not enact an ordinance that forbids what State law etcpressiy pernuts; and to the e�ent that it does regulate the use, it should enforce land use controls, regulations, and ordinances existing at the time of the pernut application. Z. Alter made e�enditures unique to the proposed project including, but not limited to an e�ctensive environmenta] assessment, relying in good faith on City representations that the SCUP compIied with the CiYy's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code and wouId be considered upon the City's issuance of a Record of Decision fuiding that an Environmental � Impact Statement ("EIS") for the project was not needed. 3. The validity of the moratorium on whick the City relies as a justification of its failnre to act on Alter's SCUP is cunentty being litigated. For the above reasons, the City Council must reverse the Commission's denial of the Alter's SCUP. STPl: 452743•1 i -.. � � � �`" ��� � S � 5 r �0 _ � ' �. r tl 'S � � A �2� � - -� .. _ s _� a� �� _ :ti__�__ 7 r S e P 2 � ���, '.:���,� ���a7\_ \ 71 , �\ i \ \` ��v,-�—� ���i.��i' 51 Z� ' �I -'t�:...� �I..� x � ` ���s�w_ i� �l - - - ,_, ,�, CPT'IZ.EivT PAI2TTCIPATIOi`I PLANNING DISTRICTS � \� ; 7. SUNFtAY•BATTLECREEK 2. RI; HADEN•PP.OSPERI�l HILLCREST , 3 ��'ES SIDE 4. DAXTOti'S BLUFF 5. PAYh°�-PHALEN 6. N012TH END 7, THO�LAS-DALE S. SUMMIT-UNIVERSITX 9, tiVEST SEVENTH 10. COMO 11. HAMLIi�TE-MTDWAY 12. ST. f�NT�IO� TX PARK 13. MERKIt1M PARK-LEKL�GTON HAMLih'E•S� HAMLIT'F 14. MACALESTER GROVELAN7� 15. HIGHIAND , 16. SL3tvSMTT T�ILI- 17. DOWN"t'OWN ___ � � ZOi�fNG �ILE `��=-�-- � 3 ! ..._ ---=- - -- . _ E��� : : .,� .-. � ��-_—�--'_ �.�: '? r ";�:` �',.<,. •l :. .'.✓. �. .. ' ; . • , �-.,. �. - ; _ < �:-'- -..: .•. ",;o _ - -- ...:- _._` ,�.° _ �,.,; _: _>+.:�� -, . i , -- _;_�.. .�: _ -- ;.. i-.— ` �.,'�''�-.:'' ��.: :._° __ti'� t_` -..��- %;_� .:-t. �.�,.. .: . • �- .. ...... .-.. L' '`Sj-`. ' "•� � ..,.... . .'. :, . _... , i:�1 �,. ' ".,. '3.. �..� . _ _ _— . "__ . ._' _ ` _. - . . :;.`� . . . .. . �_ . +y ' �.' � rvi\ �. _-_-�,_ _ _ �_, ,...s._�2__:.:• •�...' ; —"_ — _ ' � . _. .. . ��.� ,.` ��-' ..� "• ' —'r' .•�� '_`'' l j �+ ` � '/ ` .� : - �. - f�jri C� /� _ _'-._. "__� _ ��,L�..::.'�. . .\ \` / _ -- ,-�'.. ._±._�'� . _ ; f ��• e .,. ' � . � _ +'.. . -- -� • - _ _ _ . �„ =ii :°=- -';% �5=;�: __^°� .____ ..I �.i�/ - -- • -- - =_ .�:" jr" -- � . y> _ _____-__-- - j ) /�_ �'. J `\ � /� '•� '� ''`��. �__ _ -____..:- ^ \l?.. '' /�/'/ V .% '� ~� ' l - ' ....{'. `�' � �L� _ � � � F ' �� - `-=�-��'�/� �;......... . ,�� , __ � �.... � ;. � �/i� %`,,- i ' . "�� . I _�i� � •. : ' `.:?::: .i.%%�- . � './` '.,-„-:r- ;.,�r , ::� �� ; � ...:__ : .,:"-\L.. �,---. ,...� --__ - .i , _;,,_. ,,, '•;.' . . �<_ - _� s y ?,� 4_..--; — r '4� :' . � �, � �.,� \ ;" � l 'C .� a:.� _ ` �\ - - "=�t% `. � ' �'-` l` l , ` �_ ` � L. '1... � :^��\.`� ^� '`.. _ ,_ \� .'' :. \ . _ • �-' _ ` _�_- _;_ __ _�..:, :,`\ WEST SIOE DFSTP,ICT 3 Pi ,.,, '_ ,,, � ����tNG FlLE ��-� ._ � ! i 0 �� Q r �V �86'� � � APPLICANT_ '`f � `�r T�GtC�(�n( � p« n LEGEND PURPOSE_ � /IIWnX �..�.�... zoning district boundary FILE #i ~ y �' ��� DATE 'S� f�� 0 �� subject property n.� orth�.. PWG.DIST.—� MAP#—_ �n o onefamily •� � commerciai r�- ' �! f.y � two family � .,..,, industrial __ __ ...��� � y � muftiple familY V vacanf 5' -- - - -----�— --- -------- , city of saint paul pianning commission resolution file number 98-29 �te April 24, 1998 WHEREAS, ALTER TRADING CORPORATION, file #95-170, has applied for a Special Condition Use Permit under the provisions of Sections 60.623(3) and 64300(d} of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, to allow a Iarge metai shredder on property located at 801 BARGE CHANNEL ROAD, legally described in the file; and WHEREAS, the Zonin� Committee of the Planning Commission held public hearings on August 31, 1995, and April 16, 1998, at �vhich all persons present tivere given an opportunity to be heazd pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and �VHEREAS, the Saint Paul Plannin� Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public kearin�s, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: Sections 60.213.M. of the zoning code defines large metal shredders as fotlows: "Metal shredder, Zarge. A facility that accepts, stores, and shreds large used recyclable metal products, including motor vehicles, appliances, sheet iron, industrial clips, whether or not maintained in connection with another business. Shreddin� is the reduction in size of the metal products by means of a rotor equipped with haminers, including in and out conveyors, scrubbers, separation and dust collection equipment, and other connected machines." Section 60.623 (3) required conditions of the I-2 Zoning District prohibits large metal shredders as follows: "(3) The reftning of petroleum or gasoline, stock yazds, meat packing plants, lazge metal shredders, the incineraYion of infectious wastes and the crushing of rock, asphalt, or concrete for recyctin� are prohibited in this district," moved by Vaught seconded by in favor a�IC1S� z6 1 (Chavez} � � i � a• � Zoning File #95-170 Page Two 2. In 1989 a site plan review for a buiiding expansion was approved. ���G� On July 31, 194�, Alter Trading Corporation formally applied for a special condition use permit (SCUP) for a recyclin� processing center. The application proposed to install ne�v technology known as a"Texas Shredder" and an "Eddy Current Separation PIanP'. PED staff authored a report findin� that Alter's proQosed use met the general standards for a SCUP and specific standards for a recycling processin� center. The report anticipated that additional conditions would be su�gested based on the outcome of a noise assessment and traffic assessment that were presently pending. The report aiso noted that a Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was being prepared. At the August 31, 1995, public hearing, the Zoning Committee was advised by the City Attorney's Office to delay discussion of the SCUP agplication until after the EAW analysis showed �vhether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project was needed. If an EIS �vas needed, the SCUP application �vould be held in abeyance until completed. � The staff report was revised to incorporate information about noise and traffic. Public hearings were scheduled for October and November 1995 but were canceled because of the need for additional data and analysis in order to complete the EA�W. During late 1995, through 1996, and into 1997 FED staff worked with Alter, Alter's consultant, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Minnesota Department of Health to complete the EAW. On March 21, 1997, the City released a Record of Decision that an EIS �vas not needed for the proposed recycling center. However, PED could not act on Alter's SCUP because a moratorium on recycling centers had been adopted in 1996. In June 1996, before the EAW was completed, the City Councii passed a resolution adopting a temporary moratorium (CF 96-625) on recycling processing centers. The moratorium was temporary until an ordinance could be adopted. The council said questions had been raised as to whether the impacts of automobile and steel shredders were fully understood and considered when the city considered the definition of recyclin� centers adopted in an amendment in 199Q. The Council questioned whether the conditions incorporated in the 1940 amendment �vere ineffective or obsolete in mitigating potential adverse effects of large metal shredders. The council said it understood that three new automobile metal shredders were being considered in or near the West Side and Mississippi River Flood Plain and questioned whether such a concentration of such uses �vould have a detrimental impact on the area. / In August 1996, the council adopted an ordinance that duected the Department of � Zoning Fi1e #95-170 Page Three Plannin� and Economic Development to undertake a study of the City's comprehensive plan and zoning reguIations relating to recycling centers, automobile shredders and similar technologies (CF-96-624) and asked the PIannin� Commission to study and submit a report to the council with any needed planning or zoning amendments. The ordinance also enacted the moratorium on automobile shredders and similar technologies. The planning commission desianated tiie Mefai Shredder Study Committee to conduct the study. The City hired Dean Johnson of Resource Strategies Corporation to assist it in completing the plannin� and zonin� studies. The studies were published in an Interim Report af April i, 1997, and a Final Report of Apri129, 1997. The studies were considered by the commission's committee in April and May 1997. After considering its committee's recommendation and the public hearing testimony of August 22, 1997, the commission recommended zoning code and land use plan amendments to prohibit large metal shredders �vithin the City. The reasons for the prohibition, set forth in the Land Use Plan Amendment, �i�ere: � "The nature of existin� industrial areas in St. Paul makes it inappropriate to locate large metal shredders in the City. There is no existing or potential industrial site � in the city which has conditions sufficient to protect adjacent land uses from Yhe negative impacts of inetal shredders. There are no industrial areas large enough to provide adequate separation of non-heavy industrial uses from large metai shredders, while providin� sufficient highway access, buffering and visual screening." 2. `'1995 state legislation requizes the City of Saint Paul to update its comprehensive plan. The City has received a grant through the U.S. Depar[ment of the Interior to update the River Corridor Plan and evatuate ne�v zoning regulations �i�ithin the river conidor. It is inappropriate and premature to consider new or expanded extensive heavy industrial Iand uses within the Mississippi River corridor prior to completing the updates to the Comprehensive Plan and Mississippi River Conidor Plan. Large metal shredders should be prohibited from developin� or expanding in the river corridor at this time." 3. "Large metal shredders should be prohibited in the City of St. Paul because there is no need to locate such facilities in centzal cities and there are other areas, more appropriate than urban centers, in which to locate such faciliTies. Scrap metaI is aenerated from a very large region, often encompassin� more than one state. The economic feasibility of operating a large metal shredder does not appear contingent upon any single location within a particular region from which scrap metal resources aze drawn. There also does not appear to be any essential _ 'w � � Zoning File �9�-170 Page Pour � � 'J � locational criteria cvhich would require a large metal shredder to be located in a niajor urban center as opposed to a less urban or rural location." The City Council held a public hearing on the commission's recommended amendments on December 3, 1997, and on December 1Q, 1997 voted to adopt the commission's recommendations. In a letter of January 30, 1998, PED staff asked Alter that given that its proposed metal shredder is no longer a permitted use in the City did it still desire a public hearing on its SCUP application for a large metal shredder. Alter �vas also advised that it could choose to withdraw its application. (The letter states that the amendment was published on January 17; it was published on January 10.) In a letter of February 10, 1998, Alter asked for review and action on its application. PED staff on February 26, 1998, extended the time limit to consider the application by 60 Days. The extension ends on May 8, 1998. (Letters of January 30 and February 10 and 26, 1998, are a part of file.) � 3. Alter Trading Corporation is proposing to expand its existing metal recyclin� operatlon by constructing a metal recyclin� plant on an existing industrial site. The new plant will be 40,000 square feet in size. An "Eddy Cunent Separation Plant" used to recover the maximum percentage of non-fenous metals from the shredder system will be installed and take an additional 15,OQ0 square feet, to be located adjacent to the main plant. The function of the plant is to recycle scrap metal such as automobile bodies, industrial scrap and miscellaneous light gauge steel. The majority of scrap metal received by the plant will be from local scrap yards. The plant will recycle approximately 750 to 900 net tons of scrap metal daily. Once the material is shredded, it will be transported by barge, rai1, or truck to various customers. The northern portion of the site currently used for storing coat and salt wi11 be replaced with the recycling plant. Automobile bodies �vill be accepted from salvage operations which have dismantled and drained to remove major wastes, including used oil, antifreeze, solvents, batteries, oil filters, tires, CCS, and mercury. Historically, the company has operated shears on the property to cut scrap metal. The company is replacing the shears previously located at the site with a more efficient model for iecycling the mateiial. Site preparation methods wi(I be taken to minimize soil erosion problems by use of silt � fences, earth diversion berms and bale diversions. Surface water runoff from the facility will be directed to a designed detention pond. Since the facility �vill be constructed on fill I Zoning File #95-170 Page Five so that it is etevated at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation, a permit for construction in the river corridar is not necessary. The recycling plant will have about 35 employees. The planned hours of operation are 7:00 a..m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days per week. Most of the traffic on site wili occur during daylight hours. There are 105 vehicles coming to the site each day currentiy (9 multi-axle trucks and 96 two-axle vehicles). That number will increase by 207 vehicles for a total of 312 (6Q multi-axte trucks aad 252 t�vo-axle vehicles). 4. Alter's proposed use as described in finding 3 above is a"large metal shredder" as defined by the City's Zonin� Code as follows: �� "Aiter Trading Corporation is proposing to expand its existing metal recycling operation by constructing a metal recycling plant on an existing industrial site. The new planY wili be 40,000 square feet in size. An "Eddy Cunent Sepazation Plant" used to recover the ma�cimum percentage of non-ferrous metals from the shredder system will be instalied and take an additional 15,000 square feet, to be located adjacent to the main plant. The function of the plant is to recycle scrap metal such as automobile � bodies, industrial scrap and miscellaneous light gauge steel. The majority of scrap metat received by the plant will be from local scrap yards. The plant will recycle approximately 750 to 900 net tons of scrap metal daily." "Automobile bodies wiil be accepted from salvage operations which have dismantled and drained to remove major wastes, including used oit, antifreeze, solvents, batteries, oil filters, tires, CCS, and mercury." 5. Section 60.623 (3) of the zoning code prohibits lazge metal shredders in I-2 districts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the authority of the City's I,egislative Code, the appiication for a Special Condition Use Pezmit to allow a large metal shredder at 801 BARGE CHANNEL ROAD is hereby denied. i l� • Saint Paul Planning Cammission City Aall Conference Center 15 Keliogg Boulevard FVest n �' � � p � , ..; � A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, Apri124, 1998, at 830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Mmes. Duarte, En�h, Faricy, Geisser, Maddox, Morton, Nordin, Treichel, and Present: Wencl and Messrs. Chavez,. Field Jr., Geroais, Gordon, Kong, Kramer, Mardell, McDonell, Nowlin, and Vaught. Commissioners Messrs. *Johnson and Sharpe Absent: *Excused � Commissioner Field asked that the minutes be amended to include the words "the applicant said thaf' before the words "they agreed to° in line two on page six. Staff agreed to add those words. The motion fo approve the anaennded ntinufes of.4pril IQ 1998 carried unttnimously on a vaice vote. Zoning Committee Commissioner Vaught provided the committee report. #95-170 Alter Tra�a ��rnoration - Conclude special condition use permit process for a large metal shredder at 801 Barge Channel Road. (TCady Dadlez, 266-6574) 1�T9'C1nN: Con:ritissioi:er Var�glrt moved derrial oflhe reqteested special ca:ditin�e iese ; pennit to allorv a Zarge metal shredder at 80I Barge Ckannel Road Commissioner Chavez noted that he would not support the motion. Commissioner Gordon stated that although he would have preferred fo accommodate that use, he will vote to deny because there is no choice since the Ciry Counci] voted to prohibit large � metal shredders in the City of Saint Paul. Commissioner Vaught stated that his position and his vote are the same as Commissioner Gordon's. Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Kady Dadlez, Donna Drummond, Nancy Homans, and Larry Soderholm, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff. T. Approval of Minutes of April 10, 1997 MnTiON: Cornmissioner McDonetl �uoved approvat oftke ntinutes ofApril 1 D, I998; Con:missioner Field seco�:ded ike motio�:. IV, � � � _ The n:otio�z on tlsefloor to derry tlte requested special condition use pemiit to a17ow a Carge "� mefal skredder at 80Y Barge Chamiel Rottd carried on a voice vote of I6 - I(ChaveZ). l� MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE Thursday, April 16, 1998 - 3:30 p.m. City Councii Chambers, 3rd Floor City Hail and Court House 15 West Ke(logg Boulevard PRESENT: ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chavez, Gordon, Kramer, Morton and Vaught Faricy, Field, and Wencl (excused) Peter Wamer, Assistant City Attorney; Beth Bartz, Kady Dadlez, Donna Drummond, Patt+e Keiley, and Roger Ryan of PED The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Vaught. ALTER TRADtNG CORPORATfON - Zoning File 95-170 - Conclude Speciat Condition Use process for a large metal shredder. Roger Ryan presented the slide presentation and staff report with a recommendation for deniai of the permit. He gave a brief history of this application which included obtaining an EAW analysis to determine whether an Environmental lmpact Statement (E!S) for the project was needed. Mr. Ryan stated that during 1995 and into 1997, PED staff worked with Alter Corporation, their consultant, the Minnesota Pollution Controt Agency, and fhe Sfafe Department of Health to complete the EAW, and on March 29, 1997, the City released their record of decision that an EIS was not needed for the proposed recycting cenfer. Mr. Ryan further explained that PED could not act on Alter Trading Corporations request for a SCUP because during this process a moratorium on recycling centers had been adopted. Mr. Ryan also noted that the West Side Citizens Organization recommends denial of the permit. John Gentzkow, Vice President of Operations for Alter Trading Corporation, appeared and spoke in opposition to fF�e recommendation for deniaf. He also gave a brief history of this process and stated they are disappointed it has faken this long to come fo a pubiic hearing before tfiis Commiftee. He said they believe the intent of the City in rushing for this pubiic hearing today is in order to influence the Court in its decision, which they believe to be misguided, inappropriate and desperate. Mr. Gentzkow stated the decision the Zoning Committee must make today should be based on the zoning code in existence at the time their appiication was originally submiited. He said the City has failed to act in a timely fashion as required by Minnesota law, and unlawfully enacted a moratorium when no environmentai or land use justifications could deny the project. Mr. Gentzkow referred to his letter which contains Yhe balance of his arguments, which he submitted to the Committee for their record. No one spoke in support of fhe appiication. Sherilyn Young, 71 W. Isabel Street, appeared on behalf of NO SHAMS!, a grassroots organization of citizens. She thanked the Committee for the work put into the issue of large metai shredders in our City, and she spoke in support to deny the SCUP to Alter Trading. She further asked the Committee to acknowledge thaE this company was denied a permit based upon the generai standards applicable to conditiona! use permits. Ms. Young also referred to findings in the code which must be made betore a condifional use permit can be granted, and she noted three of those standards are not met by the proposal. No one eise appeared, and the public fiearing was closed. u � � � �2 • • . Zoning Committee Minutes Meeting of April 16, 1998 Alter Trading Corporation (95-170) Page Two ^ � � C1 C3 � r — At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Warner explained that the Commiriee is to vote based upon the Zoning Code as it exists today and not as it existed at the time the application was made. Commissioner Morton moved denial of the Special Condition Use Permit based on Findings 1 through 3 of the staff report, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Kramer. Commissioner Chavez spoke in sirong opposition stating he will not support the motion for denial. Commissioner Gordon stated he believes environmentai concerns coutd have been accommodated and the Zoning Code structured in a way which would have permitted large shredders consistent with the environment and without adverse consequence. However, the Zoning Code as it is today prohibits a large shredder and Counsel has advised this Committee that we are obligated to vote on the current existing Zoning Code. Commissioner Vaught said he understands the advice Counsei has given this Committee, but he considers the decision to prohibit metal shredders to be among one least justified decisions made by the Planning Commission and the City Council. He stated he also believes there were ways to deal with environmentaf concerns, and although he would like to vote to deny the staff recommendation, he wiil support it because of the current existing Code. There was no further discussion, and roll call was taken to deny the Special Condition Use Permit. Adopted Yeas - 4 Drafted by: Nays -1 (Chavez) Submitted by: Approved by: ' �L�c� lLu./ t�-v ` " �% �'ti' `+ " ��'�.�'� �F, Pattie Kelley� (� Larry o erholm Mark Vaught Recording Secretary for Roger Ryan Acting Chair Southeast Team l3 MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE Thursday, April 2, 1998 - 3:30 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: City Council Chambers, 3rd Fioor City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Chavez, Faricy, Field, Gordon, Kramer, and Vaught Morton (excused), and Wencl (arrived at a point during the meeting) Peter Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Beth Bartz, Donna Drummond, Pattie Kelley, Roger Ryan, and Jim Zdon of PED. The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field. After Trading Corporafion, Zoning File 95-170 - Conclude special condition use process for a large metaf shredder. Roger Ryan stated there were approximately five property owners with 350 feet of the Alter property which we did not send out a public hearing notice to. He stated because proper notice was not given, he is requesfing a two to four week layover. Commissioner Vaught moved the layover, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Gordon. Roll call. Adopted Yeas - 7 Drafted by: Pattie Kelle Recording Secretary Nays - 0 Submitted by: � � Rog yan Litton Southeast Team Chair • � � �� � � u April 15, 1998 n J ��� , Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota SS I55-40 Phone: 299-2401; faz 296-5439 E-mail: sandy.fechtQdnr,state.mn.us Ciry of St. Paui Planning Commission c% Kady Dadlez - Zoning Section City of St. Paul Planning and Economic Development 1100 City Aall Annex 25 West Fourth St. St. Paul, MN 55102 RECEIVED APR 2 u i998 ZONIN� By frtt and mait RE: Special Condition Use Permit (SCI3P) hearing for Alter Trading Corporation proposal for lazge metal shredder Deaz Commission Members: Thank you for the notification of the SCUP heazing for the Alter Trading Corporation's proposal for a large metal shredder on their existing recycling site. This site is within the designated Urban Diversified District of the Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor District, as well as the Mississippi I3ational River and Recreation Area (MNRRA), ln 1995, both the Deparhnent of Natural Resources (DNR) and National Pazk Service submitted comments during the Bnvironmental Assessment Worksheet process that out]ined concems and issues. Since that time, responsibility for duties for management of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area has been transferred from the Environmental Quality Boazd to DNR. • We understand that during the intervening yeazs the City estabiished a moratodum, studied the land use zoning issues of lazge metal shredders, and amended the ordinance and plan to prohibit such use in the City. Because of our concerns, we would support a City decision to follow the new ordinance amendments on prohibited uses. However, lf the decision new or in the future is to issae a SCUP, we urge yeu to carefially eonsider alt of the relevant factors listed in Sec. 65.503 of your Code for approval of a SCiIP within the River Corridor, including: • the relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan, and floodplain management for the city • the importance of the services provided to the community • the compatibility of the proposed use with existing and potential development • the compatibility oF the proposed use with existing characteristics of biologic communities • the requiremenu of the facility for a river-dependent location • impacts from encroachments and flooding • the availabifity of altemarive locations or configurations. and other natural DNR Information:6J2-296-6157, ]-800-766-6000 • TTY:612-296-5484, t-800-65?-3929 An Equul OpporNmry Employe� �}• Pnnmd on RecydeA Pdper Conr.unuir a WhobeluetiDu�n�ity ��111mimumoCl(7lPosPConcumesR'a+ee l5 We question whether alt of these factors can be met satisfactorily. In addition to the previous concems outlined by the DNR and National Park Service in 1995, all River Corridor ordinance requirements from your Code shall be complied with, especially those for ranoff, protection of water quality, and floodplain. We have serious concems about ensuring that the river is not poliuted by runoff from the site. If the decision is to approve a SCUP, Critical Area requirements shoutd also be met, including: • minimization of direct runoff and improvement of quality of runoff • controi of noise in open space and recreational areas • minimization of adverse effects • standards to ensure that structure, construction placement, and storm water runoff aze wmpatible �vith the character and use of the conidor in the Urban Diversified District to protect natutal, scenic, and environmentaf resources, maintain diversity of uses, and expand public access to and enjoyment of the river • specific conditions with regazd to buffering, landscaping, and revegetation of the site . minimization of interference with views of and from the river, except for ases requiring river access. Shucmres and machinery mast be raised to the Regalatory Floadplain Protection Elevation, or floodproofed to the standards required in the City`s Floodplain Ordinance. During periods of flooding, the piles of inetal must be removed from the floodway in accordance with floodplain standazds. Piles of meta] in the flood fringe must be protected from erosion during periods of flooding. All other floodplain standards shall be followed. � Any work that needs to be done to the bazge siip or other activities below the ordinary high water levei � must be approved by DNR Waters through a Protected Waters Permit. DNR Waters is also responsible for any Appropriation Permit. Thank you for protecting and preserving the Mississippi Critical Area Corridor. If you have any further questions on Criticai Area concerns or conditions, piease don't hesitate to call me; for Floodplain, Protected Waters Permits, or Appropriation Permits, please contact Area Hydrologist Molly Shodeen at 772-7910. Sincerely, cc: Nationa] Pazk Service - Nancy Duncan Mehopolitan Councit - Sandra Pinel Area Hydrologist Molly ShodeenJJoe Richter Steve 7ohnson DNR Office of Budget and Management - Environmental Review r � ��J _� �-/�, i a �6, �998 ���° � a 6 Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission 15 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55101 RE: Special Condition Llse Permit Aear Zoning Committee Members: Thank you for the opportunity to address the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission ("Zoning Committee") regarding Alter Trading Corporation's ("Alter") Special Condition Use Permit ("SPUC") application for a metal shredder in the City of Saint Paul ("City"). My name is John Gentzkow and I address you in my capacity as Vice President of Operations for Alter. My purpose today is to request that the Zoning Committee approve Alter's application based on the Zoning Code in e�stence at the time of the original application. FACTUAL BACKGROUND � It is important to note that the Alter project has, over the last two plus years, provided detailed information regarding shredders; detailed information that, in fact, refutes many of the criticisms raised against shredders. This information appears to have been ignored or glossed over. The facts are as follows: 1 Alter is entitled, according to the City's Zoning Code, to develop its Property with a metal shredder. The applicable Zoning Code in place at the time Alter filed its application expressly provides that a"Recycling Processing Center" is a permitted use subject to special condition in a I-2 Industrial District. A Recycling Processing Center is defined as a facility that processes recyclable materials which includes the shreddina of ferrous metals. Z. The Department of Planning and Economic Development ("PED") staff recommended approval of the Permit on two occasions in 1995 (August and October, 1995) based on its fandings that Alter's proposed metal shredder project complies with the Comprehensive Pian and meets all of the requirements set forth in the Zoning Code for conditional uses ("StaffReports"). The Staff Reports recommended approval of the Recycling Processing Center proposed by Aiter, subject to the condition that the applicant shall obtain, and maintain, all required permits and licenses in compliance with State and locallaws. • �� Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission April 16, 1998 Page 2 The StaffReports made the specific finding that: The conditions of Section 64300(d) ofthe Zoning Code are met; that is: a. The extent, location and intensity of the use will be in substantial compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and any applicable subarea plans which were approved by the Council. b. The use will provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize traffic congestion in tke public streets. c. The use will not be detrimenTal to the e�sting character of the development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger the public health, safety and general welfaze. d. The use will not impede the normai and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses pemritted in the district. e. The use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. � The Property is anpropriate� zoned for the expanded use and the heavy industrial use is in keepine with the � the area has developed . and is bein� used. Nothing has changed since the time of the Staff Reports. 3. Alter is Iocated in a heavy industriai azea with many recycling operations. The shredder is consistent with these existing uses. As the StaffReports stated, "(t]he Property is surrounded by industriat uses in an I-2 zoning district including railroad right-of-way and the City unpound lot to the southwest and the barge channel, airport, and wastewater treatment plant to the northeast." The Staff Reports went on to find that, "the Property is appropriately zoned for the expanded use, and the heavy industrial use is in keeping with the way the area has developed and is being used. The eapanded use will not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties, and will not unpede normal and orderlq development and improvement of surrounding property for uses pemutted in the I- 2 zoning district." 4. The City issued a Negative Declaration on the Alter Environmental Assessment Worksheet ("EAW '} prepared for the metal sfiredder project. In March 1997, twenty-one (21) months after Alter had originally submztted a voluntary EAW to the City, fhe City finaliy issued a Negative Deciaration with the £oUowing conciusion: "The EAW and the supplementary reports and analyses prepared at the • request of the MPCA, MDH and the RGU, together with this Record of " t� • � Zoning Committee ofthe Saint Paul Planning Commission April 16, 1998 Page 3 5 � �' �U�J Findings, have identified and discussed all potential envuonmental impacts related to the Project. These documents, together with the input received from State agencies and the public, have generated information adequate to detemrine whether the Project has the potential for significant environmental effects. Areas where the potential for significant environmental effects may have er.isted have been identified and appropriate mitigation measures have been identified to ensure that there will be no potential for significant environmental effects. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, Subpart 7, the Proiect does not have the ot� ential for si�nificant environmental effects...." (Emphasis added.) The City has no plans for redevelopment of the Alter Property other than to allow the area to continue to be used for industrial purposes. The prohibition ignores that much of the river corridor, including AIYer's Property, is zoned by heavy industry, occupied for heauy industry, and that it will continue to be used for heavy industry into the far foreseeable future. In addition to previous City plans which recognize the area of the Alter Property as a river-oriented industrial area, in the recently released discussion paper, Saint Paul Land Use Opportunities, the Alter site is designated as industrial and not considered a location for "significant land use change through the year 2020." 6. The Mississippi National River and Recreational Area ("NII�IRRA") Comprehensive Management Flan ("MNRRA Plan") does not prohibit metal shredders. The MNRRA Plan recognizes the Mississippi River as a"working river" and includes policies to: preserve riverfront land for economic uses that rely on the river, continue existing land uses in the corridor, and allow redevelopment and expansion of corridor business. As stated in the Negative Declaration, the National Park Service determined, for purposes of determining conformance with MNRRA policies, Alter's proposed metal facility would be the continuation and expansion of an existing business (recycling of inetal) in the MI�TRRA corridor. In addition, we believe the St. Paul metal shredder complles with the MNRRA Plan's site development policies. While the Mississippi River Coordinating Commission raised questions regarding conformance with the resource protection policies described in the M�IRRA Plan, these were addressed in the Negative Declaration's findings ofno potential for significant environmental effects. 7. Other intensive uses are permitted in the I-2 zoning district; such as: • • Electric power and steam-generating plants. • Chemicals, derivation or refinement from materials in a raw or natural state. !1 Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission April 16, 1998 Page 4 • Explosives. • Forge plants or forge hammering. • Garbage, offal or dead animal incineration, reduction, transfer starion or bailing operation. • Hazardous waste processing facilities. • Metal or metal ores, processing, reduction, refining, smelting, alloying or recycling, excluding junk yards. • Metal or metal products, treatment or processing, including enameling, japanning lacquering, galvanizuig or similar processes. • Municipal incinerators. • Railroad yards, shops or similar facilities. 8. Prior objections are based on speculative, unsubstantiated fears rather Yhan facts. � Air, water, noise, vibration, and traffic have been raised as concerns. But, the City has made the following findings as to the Alter project: Noise - the metal shredder project meets or exceeds City and State standazds. • Water Pollution — the project meets or exceeds federal and State standuds. Significantiy, the Alter site did not flood this spring. Air Pollution — the project meets or exceeds federal and State standards. Traffic — as stated in the Staff Reports, "[t]he Department of Public Works has reviewed traffic data recently cotlected in the area and Alter's plans for the site. The Department has identified no problem with Alter's pian as far as traffic is concerned and believes the existing road system in this industrial area is capable of accommodating the type and amount of traffic expected by the proposed use." (emphasis added.) 9. The clearest evidence that the Alter project complied with all City zoning requirements and would not cause significant environmental effects is the City ban on shredders. Having neither a factual nor legal basis to disapprove the shredder and unwilling to impose reasonable conditions as pernutted by the Zoning Code, the City has instead imposed a ban. The change itself demonstrates the act is not simpty unreasonable, but arbitrary and capricious. • 4 2� Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission "^-. ��� April 16, 1998 � `� � Page 5 CONCLUSION A Saint Paul Pioneer Press editorial written Aecember 17, 1995, captured the essence of the argument. The editorial concluded as follows: `...Mark Vaught, a member of the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, says a person has to ask: "If you were going to put a metal shredder in St. Paul, where else would you put it?" Indeed, it is worth remembering that the Alter shredder is not a project the City is promoting or subsidizing. The issue is whether the City has defensible leDal grounds to block Alter's plans simply because it is changing its philosophy about land use along the river. Assuming science-based environmental concems can be resolved, it would represent an abrupt, startling and previously unannounced transformation of land use philosophy for the City to refuse Alter's proposal. Alter is planning a job- creating environmental industry in a district long reserved for exactly this kind of intensive industrial activity. • The City is not a city that can afford to be indifferent to business and employment growth. If industry has any future, whatever, on the City's riverfront, Alter's metal shredder has a right to be part of it, absent any inability to meet responsible, scientifically-sound environmental standards." Another St. Paul Pioneer Press editorial published on December 3, 1997 reiterated the principal issues and the reasons for approval. "Today the St. Paul City Council will conduct a public hearing on the future of metal shredders in the city. The council will doubtless hear much support for that idea from well-organized West Side residents who have for years been fighting a proposed shredder on the riverfront. Although shredders are undeniably heavy industry that must be meticulously regulated, their environmental effects are manageable, at least according to various state agencies that have examined them. St. Paul was unabie to justify ordering an e�chaustive environmental impact . statement for the proposed Alter Tradina shredder on the river. That lack of real environmental issues triggered the effort to block the shredder politically. � Zoning Committee ofthe Saint Paul Planning Commission April 16, 1998 Page 6 It hardly sounds like prudent and fle�cible economic development policy to declare that a type of industry accepted by potlution and health agencies can never be located anywhere in the city no matter what efforts are made to mitigate noise and other impacts on surrounding azeas." As Alter has stated for the last two years, and as has been bome out by facts and analyses, metal shredding facilities can e�st within I-2 Industrial Districts within the river corridor. The Special Condition Use Permit process offers a means to evaluate any individual project and provide the necessary restrictions to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Based on the foregoing, Alter respectfully requests that the Zoning Committee approve Alter's SCUP application. Thank you, ALTER T G CO ORATION J W. Gentzkow Vice President of Operations STPl; 447039-1 2Z � � r� L .� � � '-i-��-q� = J- ��6 � # Chairperson ��� and committeepersons: I thank you once again for the long and difficuit work that you put into the issue of large metal shredders in our city. f aiso support your deniai of a speciaf condition use permit to Alter Trading company for construction of a shredder which is now properly and appropriately banned in St.. Pau{. In addition, 1 ask you to acknowledge that, even without the change in the zoning code, this proposal is properly denied a permit based upon the general standards applicable to conditional use permits. Section 64.300 (d) of the code specifies five findings that must be made before a conditionai use permit can be granted. Sy referring to the extensive and thorough record made on these topics prior to and during the moratorium, your committee will cleariy see how at least three of these standards are not met by this proposai. First, the extent, {ocation and intensity of the use wilf not be in substantial compliance with the Comprehensive plan and applicable subarea plans. We noted in detail previously how the spirit of the river corridor overlay would be violated by this proposat and its inconsistency with the MNRRA corridor plan. Second, the use wiil not Qrovide adequate ingress and egress to minimize traffic • congestion in the pubiic streets. Prior testimony and submissions are replete with the congestion problems that would be caused by the addition of severaf hundred additional truck trips a day through the area. Barge channel road is frequentfy blocked by trains causing 4arge traffic backups on Concord Street and is the only access road ior acea residences and th�CAP school. Third, this use would be detrimenta! to the existing character of the development in the immediate neighborhood and would endanger the public health, safety and general welfare. This committee can refer to the extensive record on the human and animal heafth and safety caused by such a use that the noise generated would be at or near the ma�cimum alfowable fimit and that cumulative impacts were noi considered, that heavy metais and dangerous particulates wouid be spewed into the river and our homes, schools and churches, that expiosions wouid often occur, and that hazardous residue woufd be trucked through our streets. Any one of these findings on its own is enough to support denial of a conditionaf use permit. All ot them combined demand denial of the permit. Thank you. /l,� � S{f'fi� S r � t �7 W _ u4'n,`�u( S-� Snt }��F � /�s�l .��/07 2�r3-I�D�S 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 REVISSD ZONING COMMITTES STAPF RfiPORT BILE # 95-170 APPLICAN'P: ALTER TRADING CORPORATION DATE OF BEARING: 4/16/98 CLAS3IFICATION: Special Condition Use LOCATION: 801 BARGE CFIANNEL ROAD PLANNZNG DISTRICT: 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: see file PRESENT ZONING: I-2 ZONING CODS REFBR�NCS: §60.213. M. & 60.623(3) � 7. STAFF INVESTSGATION AND REPORT: DATfi: 4/9/98 BY: Roger Ryan 8. DATfi RECEIVED: 7/31/95 DfiADL2NE FOR ACTION: May 8, 1998 _____________________�___________________________________�__°_�°___��________ �____________________�_____°�____�_____________________=__°__��____________» A B PARPOSH: Special condition use permit to allow an large metal shredder. PARCEL SIZB: The Alter Trading Corporation site is located on the north side of Barge Channel Road and is about 20 acres in size; the portion of the site under consideration in this application is about 1.3 acres. � C. EXSSTING LAND IISS: The property is occupied by three office/warehouse structures, miscellaneous free-standing structures, and piles of scrap metal. About 20.4 acres are located in Ramsey County and 20 acres in Dakota County. D. SIIRROIINDING LAND II3E: The property is surrounded by heavy industrial uses in an I-2 zoning district including railroad right-of-way and the city impound lot to trie southwest and the barge channel, airport, and waste water treatment plant to the northeast. E. ZONING CODE CITATION: Sections 60.213.M. of the zoning code defines large metal shredders as follows: "Metal shredder, large. A facility that accepts, stores, and shreds large used recyclable metal producCs, including moCor vehi,cles, appliances, sheet iron, industrial clips, whether or not maintained in connection with another business. Shredding is the reduction, in size of the metal producLS by means of a rotor equipped with hammers, including in and out conveyors, scrubbers, separation and dust collection equipment, and other connected machines." - 1 4 2� ^ �`-��� � Section 60.623 (3) required conditions of the I-2 Zoning Distriat prohibits large metal shredders as follows: "(3) The re£ining o£ petroleum or gasoline, stock yards, meat packing plants, large metal shredders, the incineration of infectious wastes and the crushing of rock, asphalt, or concrete for recycling are prohibited in this district_" F. HISTORY/DISCIISSI�N: In 1989 a site plan review for a building expansion was approved. 6n 3uly 31, 1995, Alter Trading Corporation formally applied for a special condition use permit (SCUP1 for a recycling processing center. The application proposed to install new technology known as a"Texas Shredder" and an "Eddy Current Separation Plant". PED staff authored a report finding that Alter's proposed use met the general standards for a SCUP and specific standards for a recycling processing center. The report anticipated that additional conditions would be suggested based on the outcome of a noise assessment and traffic assessment that were presently pending. The report also noted that a Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was being prepared. At the August 31, 1995, public hearing, the Zoning Committee was advised by the City Attorney's Office to delay discussion of the &CUP application until after the EAW analysis showed whether an Environmental Impact • Statement (EIS) for the project was needed. If an EIS was needed, the SCUP application would be held in abeyance until completed. The staff report was revised to incorporate information about noise and trafYic. Public hearings were scheduled for October and November 1995 but were canceled because of the need Eor additional data and analysis in order to complete the EAW. During late 1995, through 1996, and into 1997 PED staff worked with Alter, Alter's consultant, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Minnesota Department of Health to complete the EAW. On March 21, 1997, the City released a Record of Decision that an EIS was not needed for the proposed recycling center. However, PED could not act on A1ter's SCUP because a moratorium on reaycling centers had been adopted in 1996. In Sune 1996, before the EAW was completed, the City Council passed a resolution adopting a temporary moratorium (CF 96-625) on recycling processing centers. The moratorium was temporary until an ordinance oould be adopted. The council said questions had been raised as to whether the impacts of automobile and steel shredders weze fully understood and considered when the city considered the definition of recycling centers adopted in an amendment in 1990. The Council questioned whether the conditions incorporated in the 1990 amendment were ineffective or obsolete in mitigating potential adverse effects of large metal , 2 � shredders. The council said it understood that three new automobile metal � shredders were being considered in or near the West Side and Mississippi River Flood Plain and questioned whether such a concentration o£ such uses would have a detrimental impact on the area. Sn August 1996, the council adopted an ordinance that directed the Department of Planning and Economic Development to vndertake a study of the City's comprehensive plan and zoning regulaCions relating to recycling centers, automobile shredders and similar technologies (CF-96- 624) and asked the Planning Commission to st�dy and submit a report to the council with any needed planning or zoning amendments. The ordinance a2so enacted the moratorium on automobile shredders and similar technologies. The planning commission designated the Metal Shredder Study Committee to conduct the study. The City hired Dean Johnson of Resource Strategies Corporation to assist it in completing the planning and zoning studies. The studies were published in an Interim Report of Apri1 1, 1997, and a Final Report of April 29, 1997. The studies were considered by the commission's Committee in April and May 1997. After considering its committee's recommendation and the public hearing testimony o£ August 22, 1997, the commission recommended zoning code and land use plan amendments to prohibit large metal shredders within the City. The reasons for the prohibition, set forth in the Land Use Plan Amendment, were: 1. "The nature of existing industrial areas in St. Paul makes it � inappropriate to locate large metal shredders in the City. There is no existing or potential industrial site in the city which has conditions sufficient to protect adjacent land uses from the negative impacts of inetal shredders. Tkere are no industrial areas large enough to provide adequate separation of non-heavy industrial uses from large metal sl2redders, while providing sufficient highway access, buffering and visual screening." 2. "1995 state legislation requires the City af Saint Paul to update its compreriensive plan. The City has received a grant through the U.S. Department of the Interior to update the River Corridor Plan and evaluate new zoning regulations within the river corridor. It is inappropriate and premature to consider new or expanded exLensive heavy industrial land uses within the Mississippi River corridor prior to completing the updates to the Comprehensive Plan and Mississippi River Corridor Plan. Large metal shredders should be prohibited £rom developing or ezcpanding in the river corridor at this time." 3. "Large metal shredders should be prohibited in the City of St. Paul because there is no need to locate such facilities in central cities and there are other areas, more appropriate than urban centers, in which to locate such facilities. Scrap metal is generated from a - � y 2� ��`��� • very large region, often encompassing more than one state. The economic £easibility of operating a large metal shredder does not appear contingent upon any single location within a particular region from which scrap metal resources are drawn. There also does not appear to be any essential locational criteria which would require a large metal shredder to be located in a major urban center as opposed to a less urban or rural location." The City Council held a public hearing on the commission's recommended amendments on December 3, 1997, and on December 10, 1997 voted to adopt the commission's recommendations. In a letter of January 30, 1998, PED staff asked Alter that given that its proposed metal shredder is no longer a permitted use in the City did it still desire a public hearing on its SCUP application for a large metal shredder. Alter was also advised that it could choose to withdraw its application. (The letter states that the amendment was published on January 17; it was published on January 10.) In a letter of February 10, 1998, Alter asked for review and aCtion on its application. PED staff on February 26, 1998, extended the time limit to consider the application by 60 Days. The extension ends on May S, 1998. (Letters o£ January 30 and February 10 and 26, 1998, are attached.) G. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: The West Side Citizen's Organization � recommends denial of the permit. (Recommendation of April 2, 1998, a part of the file.) H. FINDINGS• . 1. Alter Trading Corporation is proposing to expand its existing metal recycling operation by constructing a metal recycling plant on an existing industrial site. The new plant will be 40,000 square feet in size. An "Eddy Current Separation Plant" used to recover the maximum percentage of non-ferrous metals from the shredder system will be installed and take an additional 15,000 square feet, to be located adjacent to the main plant. The function of the plant is to recycle scrap metal such as automobile bodies, industrial scrap and misaellaneous light gauge steel. The majority of scrap metal received by the plant will be from local scrap yards. The plant will recycle approximately 750 to 900 net tons of scrap metal daily. Once the material is shredded, it will be transported by barge, rail, or truck to various customers. The northern portion of the site currently used £or storing coal and salt will be replaced with the recycling plant. Automobile bodies will be accepted from salvage operations which have dismantled and drained to remove major wastes, including used oi1, antifreeze, solvents, batteries, oil filters, tires, CCS, and mercury. Historically, the company has operated shears on the property to cut � 27 scrap metal. The company is replacing the shears previously located . at the site with a more efficient model £or recycling the material. Site preparation methods wilZ be taken to minimize soil erosion probZems by use of silt fences, earLh diversion berms and bale diversions. Surface water runoff from the facility will be directed to a designed detention pond. Since the faciSity will be constructed on fill so that it is elevated at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation, a permit for construction in the river corridor is not necessary. The recycling plant will have about 35 employees. The planned hours of operation are 7:00 a..m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days per week. Most of the traffic on site will occur during daylight hours. There are i05 vehicles coming to the site each day currently (9 multi-axle trucks and 96 two-axle vehicles}. That number will increase by 207 vehicles for a totaS of 312 (60 multi-axle trucks and 252 two-axle vehicles). 2. Alter's proposed use as described in finding 1 above is a"large metal shredder" as defined l�y the City's Zoning Code as £ollows: "Alter Trading Corporation is proposing to expand its existing metal recycling operation by constructing a metal recycling plant on an existing industrial site. The new plant will be 40,000 square feet in size. An "Eddy Current Separation Plant" used to recover the maximum � percentage of non-ferrous metals from the shredder system will be installed and take an additional 15,000 square feet, to be located adjacent to the main plant. The function of the plant is to recycle scrap metal such as automobile bodies, industrial scrap and miscellaneous light gauge steel. The majority of scrap metal received by the plant will be from local scrap yards. The plant will recycle approximately 75o to 90o net tons of scrap meta2 daily.•' "Automobile bodies will be accepted from salvage operations which have dismantled and drained to remove major wastes, including used oil, antifreeze, solvents, batteries, oil filters, tires, CCS, and mercury." 3. Section 60.623 {3) of the zoning code prohibits large metal shredders in I-2 districts. J. STAFF RECOP4fENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 3 staffs recommends denia2 of the special condition use permit. � $ F z$ • CJ orcCIAL C7NDITION US� T'ERMIT APPLICATION Departn:enf of Planning and .Ecor:omic Developmei7t Zoning Sec[i0n ll DD City Hall Anner 25 West Pourth Street Saint Paul, NSN 35IO2 266-6589 APPLICANT PROPERTY LOCATION � :; �.5 � 6 ng aFF,�a �ise anfy �o. �� _:`' , /t` IC� %: §�Y:�': :. Name �ter Tradino Corporation, John Gentzko:: Address �117 4rara 4rraor� g �Sn City Bettendorf St. IA Zip 52722 D2ytime phoneC 344-5287 tVame of owner (if different) �obert Goldstein Address/! ocation 801 Barge Channel P.oad, St. Paul, I�i 55107 Legal description: S�� 4, SE 4 Section 9, T28N, H22�d Current Zoning I�2 (attach additionaf sheef if ne cessary) TYPE OF PERMlT: Application is hereby made under the provisions of Chapter 60 Section 60.624_ paragraph �• of the Zoning Code for a: L7 Special Condition Use Permit ❑ Modification of River Corridor Sfandards ❑ River Corridor Conditionai Use Permit LJ SUPPOR7tNG INFORMATION: in the space belo�v supp{y information that is appiicable to your type of permit (attach additional sheets if n=cessary) • SPECIAI CONDITION USE Explain ho�v the us= will me=_t each cf the sp-�ia' condi.io;+s • RIVER COr�R1DOP, CONDiTION;;L USE. Describe how t�e use wilf ine=: tn= a�oliczble conditions. • MODIFICATION OF RIVER CORRIDOR STANDARDS: Explain why modifications are needed. site olan is attached [� ApplicanYs signature 2ti q s C1ty agent ��1 ��f_��" � t' Apr-03-98 01:17P Snell Ham Merriam Park Zonina Committee of the Saint J'aul Planning Commission Planning & Economic f�evelopment C)epartment 25 WesY 4th 5lreet Saint Pauf, MN 55102 Apri12, 1998 P.02 6'25 Strykor Avr,nue St. Puuf. MN 55107 . P11on� (b17.)'>.93�191)g Fax (Gi2) 293-U115 Dcax Zoning Committee mcmbers: Thank you for the op�nunity to comment on A(ter Tradin� Corporation's appltication for a Special Condition Use Permit fvr a metal shredder to be located on the West Side of Sz. PauL We are the West Side Citir.ens Organization, which rs one of the 17 designated planning districts in Saint Paul. Our mission is to be an action oriented, neighborhood-based argani�ation empowering residcnts tcs participate in and advocate li�r �]utions to West Side c�mmunity issues. We recommend denial ofthe Alter T'radin� app[icati<m because, among other reasons, the proposal does not satisfy the S general siandards reyuired to be mct bc:fore graating a specia! conditian use pennit. #t. The extent, Incation and intensity of the use rvill not be in substantial compliance with the � Saint Paul Comprehen9ive Pian or aoy app[icabte sui�-area pfans approved by the C:ity Council. #,5. 'Che use wiil not, in a�l other respects, eonform to the applicab►e re�ulations uf the District ia whic6 it is tocated, which arc listed as tollows: R. Wes�,yidc Riverfront Dev�lo�q�,r.nt Princinles (1�194) The proposed project does not meet the guidelines adopted by the Wcst Side Citizens Organization and community which reyuire that af! ziverfront deveiopments be designed [o make the river accessibie to ihe public, connect the neighborhood to the river, provzde.job and husiness opportuaities for West Side residents, and provide quality residentiai areas. $. St y�1 �licsic�ig;, River CorridorY.l�Si (198t/t947) T'he $yPaul Mississ1�2�1 iver ('ortidor Plan contains multiple policies intended to ensure wise management oCthe floodptain, sa�ls and storm �vater and protection oFthe shore and sutiacc waters, wetlands, vegeTaiion, wildlilc and visws. (pages 5-lU). nne vfthe "Uvcral} Pplicy and Ubjectives" f'or this plan clearly states that future planning and management efforts shali stress p�otection and enhancement of'che unique and timited cnvironmental resources found withi� the river corridor. (puge 5). T'he scvcn goals that frame the recommendations in the River Cc�rridor Plan ovenvhelmingly urge caution and carc in the development of the corridor; *'Co protect a�d preserve the Mississippi River Corridor as a unique and valuab)c resource for the benefit of the health, safety and weIfare of"the citizens of the state and regiun. *7'o prevent and mitigate danger to the life and properry of thc citi�ens vf the state artd region. "To prevent and mitigate �rreversible damagc to the Mississippi River Corridor as a state and regional � resource. WSCU comments page 1 � Apr-03-98 01:18P Snell Ham Merriam Park WEST SIDE � � ORGANI S ZATION � �J P_03 �,��Sb � f �25 Strykcr Avenun St. Pc�u� MN .`iS107 Fhone (612) 243-17pR E'ax C6I2) 29:i 0115 *To proteet and preserve the Mississippi Kivcr Corridvr as an cssential element in the fcderal state, regional and local recreation, transportation, sewer and water systems. •To maintain the River Conidor's value and utility for residential, commerc;ai, industriat und pubtic purposcs. *"i�o protect and preserve the St. Paul Mississippi River C;orridor's biolo�ical and ecological functions. "To ptcserve and enhance thc St. Paul Mississippi River Carridor's aesthctic, cultural, scicntific and historic functions (page 4). C�. $�iT1t Pauf on the Missietii�ni. River I;famewprk I)ev,Cl ome,� D.52L4LaUl� �� '.��(llcc.1997) Section GQ623.(3), (1-2 Uistrict), of lhe Saint Paul I.egislative Codc reacLs, ..,large metal shredders,,, are prohibited in this 1)istrict." Aaicie (V, Section 65 40( states that the objective ot'(zoning� ssandards and criroria is to maintain the aesthetic intcgrity and naturai environment of lhe river cc�rridor in conformance to the St. Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan by reducing the ct'fects ot' poorly ptanncd shoreline and hluffline devclopment; providing sufticient sethack for sanitary lacilities; preventing pollution of surfacc and groundwater; minimizin#; flood damage; preventing soi! eroswn; and implemcnting mctropo(itan plans, policics and stanciards. E. �LllS�.uLCDmnrehensive Yfan (DeC. 1997) Reccnt amendments to the Plan incorporate thc Pollowing as metal shrcdder policy, "Large metal shredders will not bc permiited in Saint !'aul." F. �conomie Deve(9 nlen S r� +( l99U). <)ne of five central principies of the Ciry's F.conomic (�cveferpmcnt Strategy is econcnn�c devefopment should bc c�rried oui in a manncr which respects the envimnmental quality of thc city. Gconomie and environmental objectives need nvt bc in cvnflict if approtached m a rcasonable manner, lt is in thc ov�vall long-ienn interest ol'the St_ Pau! business communiry to bc part of a clean and hca{thful city. By addressing prvblems such as air pollution, water eontamination and hazardous waste before they rea.ch crisis proportions, tfie community can avoid sevcre restricuons on development heing taced in other cn�es. (page 9). It also stated that SouthpoR (is) to be a river oriented industrial area Transferrin;; and storage ol'bulk commodities will continue to bc the primary operation. (pagc 4Q}. �. 1h� L�[tSSiS�p1�s1L4z�'stLKrver an Recr i n Ar�a's �'omp_ r, Manasem.�tint I�{sn cites guide(ines for the height c�f buildting within thc river corridor. Masimum buitding hcights ul'30 fcct within 200 fcet vf thc shorcline and 4S feet w�thin 3(?0 fect of thc shorelinc are r�commended. Wit a 55 foot maeimum hcight, this proposal wil! not conf'orm to those guidefines. #2. The use wilt not provide sdeyuate ingress and eQress to minimi�e traft'ic con�e.tion in the pubfic strcets. Arrivtn� at the facility wilt be scrap metal, including auto bodies, piled on semi-trailers. Leaving the facility will be a portion of the recydcd metal and "t1ufT" to bc transported to a landfill for disposal. 'l�hc u.ee woufd add at lcas� 174 extra trucks, each making o�e trip in and one trip out. io t�e a}rer�dy con5ested intersection of Barge Channel i2oad and Concord Street. No mitigation to this has been m�dc part of�the appiication. S'his unmi�ib ted increase will cause largcr traffic back-ups and prcvent fast W5C0 comments page ? 3� Apr-03-98 01:18P Snell Ham Merriam Park wEST . SIDE CITtZENS ORGANIZATIQN P.04 A�5 Stiyker 11v�>ttue Sr. Paul. NFN.`,.Si07 PlzOtlr; CG i 2) 293-t 7t78 1'ax (6i2)293 0115 emergency vehic(e access to the resideneas and businesses near the site. Ahhnugh tra(7ie en�ineers e�timate that this increase will fit within the capacity of'thc roadways, it witl stiii increase ihe ne�;ative imFract on the adjaeent uses, not minimize con{;estion. #3. The use wil[ be detrimental to the existing character of the develupment in the immediate neighborhood aud wiil endanger the public health, safety and geoeret welfare_ The Nationa] �ark Scrvice (U.S, i7ept. of" Interior) cites the adverse visual impact of the proposed shredder, especially on river recreationa[ users. (sec lettcr from Yark Superintendent JoAnh Kyrat, dated Oct. 6, 1995). "Ihe Minnesota Degt. oFNatural Resources staied thete is a bald eagle roost site on Pig's Eye lsland No. l, located across lhe river frnm the proposed automobile shredder This romt has had between 6-! U eagles each winter f'or the past few years. (see letter from Joan Galli, Nnn-game Wildlife Specialist, dated Oct. (1, I995). T'he operation of'a metai shredder will make the area's• habitat even more detrime�tal to eaglcs. One of the most well aitended churches in the neighborhood is locsted a cpuple of btvcks f'rom the proposed shredder and at the main enirancc to the site. Immediatety adjaccnt to that is an altemative schoo! and approximatety 20 single family homes and 2 apariment buildings. The sdded traffic, noise and poltution finm tE�e operation of a metal shrecider and its accompaaying trafTic wi31 endxnger the public health, safety and weifare thcough additional iraffic cortgestion, noise frcrm irucks and the shredder, and air poUution from the trucks and shredder opetatron. 7�he M}�CA advises that, "Pcitentiai for hum�n heaith and eco(ogicat risk at lwo pound per h�ur Eiarticulafe emission rate is a source of'cvncern among professional analysts. We based this ooncem on our experience with another scrap metal shredder project, on H�hich a risk ass�ssment was dorte, noting that review of that project had iJenYiGed !he potenYial for sia iticattt hwnan healeh and ecolc�gical risk, despite ihe fact that predkted emissions and discl�arges from the facility wqutd meet the standard regulatory timitations. White it is irue tfiat meeting regulatory limitations is usually sufficient tn justif'y issuing a permit, the above finc3ing is impossible for us to i�ore. We therefore c;oncladed our comments by noting our bclief that Alter shauld eithee show by means of convincing cvidence that no such potential r�sk exists in connection with the Alter proposal, or quantitativeiy assess that potential risk and propose mitigatian to reduce it to acceptable levels, if necessary." {MYCA letter, Uctober 5, 2945). T'he Rivcr Corridor area directly across Ihe river from the proposed autvmobife metal shredder is a non-atrainment area f'or the pollulant PM-10. Concentrations of PM-10 (minute po[(utsu�ts that are aitbome and environmental heaith hazsird} have exceeded Environmental Protection Agency Stane{arcLc az recentiy as May, I995. Thc Minnesota Pollucion Control Agency (MPCA} states in a]etter, dated Oc,-t. 5, 1995. that: "The statemant in the response that Alter's cmissivns would not "sibniftcantfy" affect the nearby non-attainment area is unsupported. '3`he definition of the tcrn� "signiYicantfy" is clearty important, but not given, nor could it be without a quantif�tive assessment. Further, our revie�v of thc :nodeling data in the permit application that accompatti�d this responsc indicates that data are insu�cient to suppott a judgment on this issua pne way or the other". . � 1� � WSCO comments page 3 3� Apr-D3-98 01-18P Snell Ham Merriam Park � wEST � � SIDE CITZZENS ORGANIZATION � � P_O5 625 SYryket Avnntie St. P¢ul, MN 551U7 Yhone C612) 7.93-1708 Fax (G12)�93-011.'� ln('vrmation from the weather service has shotivn the stoan water management system to be unab)e to handle the volume ot'rain thc arca receivcs. 'Iherc are concerns about the el7ectiveness of'a storm water detention basin in the flood plain in the event ol'hard rain, because record� Yrom January to Ju{y in 199? show ihat the capacity oFThe planned storm water hasin would havc been exceeded tive times. 1'he ATC automohi(e metal shredder wilt result in unaccept�ble noise polluuon, The incrcase of mulLi-asle truck tra(Tic into the site �vil1 increase thc noise associa(ed with air brakes and extended trailers. While it is true that the impact oFnoise is not cumulativc, the shreddcr witl be the source ofa constant Icvel ot'noise m an area where mulriple sourccs of noise a{rcady disturb ncighbors and communily lifc. fl4. The use will impede the normal and orderly devclopment and im�rovement ot'the surrounding property for uses permitted in the District. Limited access to the industria( area channel� ali trafTic through a smaN msiden[iai area whero ihe noise is disruptive to normat community lile. Railroad tracks impcde traffic into the industriul area on a regular basis, rotensilying noise, traffic congestions and automotive pcdlution, as trueks aw-aii aceess Any increase in traftie wiil impede furthcr Jevelopment of the adjacent uses. l�ttached is a staiemcnt fram a Reattnr {amiliar with the West Side neighborhood, who statcs in a protessional opinion, "that if the shredder is Constructed thc houses in the immcdiatc neighborhood would talf in value anywhere from 5 to2fl percent." This st�tement sup�rts the claim that the proposal will impcde the �mprvvement of residential prnperties permitted in thc sunoundin� area. Sincerely, ���°'� � ��s �Y��a�� Wcst Side C'itizens Organization contact; Sheri{yn young, 224-7308 or isabei Chanslor, 293-1708 WSCU commcnts pagc 4 33 Apr-03-98 01:19P Snell Ham Merriam Park Stevens � Reatty, inc.� Since 1911 October 9; Z997 To whom It May Concern: This letter is regarding praperty vaiues on the west Side oE St_ Paul in relation to the proposed Alter metal ,shredder. My name is Ron Stevens. I am the owner-broker of Stevens Realty at 7I1 Smith Ave_ So., St.Paul, MN. Started in 191I by my grand£ather, stevens Realty is a family business and has been Iocated in the Wese Side-west St, Paul area since then. I have been helping people buy and sell homes since T obtained my real estate license in 1977. At the renuest of Hortense Quesada, owner of the property at 696 Concord St., St. Paul, I have made an appraisal oP her home for the purpose of estimating its market value_ On the basis of an inspection of the property and a£ter careful consideration of.the factors infZuencing market value, it is my opinion the value as o£ October 9, 1997, is $62,500. Zf the metal shredder is built across the street from her house, witri its acconypanying air, noise and visual pollution, in m_v, opinion the value would decrease to the $52,000-554,000 range. 2 believe that if the shredder is c�nstructed the houses in the immediate neighborhood would fa11 in value anywhere from 5 to 20 percent_ I� the average house price in that neighborhood is about 565,000, which is reasonable, and there are about 20o houses close by, then that is a decline in propexty values of approximately 51,700,000_ Thzs analysis is for the immediate neighborhood. Z also believe that the proposed shredder would have a negative effect on the whole west Side neighborhood property values if constructed. Tf there are any questions on the above, please call me any time at 227-0012. � Sincerely, /,/ ��� ��y, � (/ Ronald J. Stevens Sroker - Stevens ReaZty 711 South Smith Avenue tJ Saint Paul, Minnesota 55147 L(612) 227-0012 r:a�� � . � .�!� ���nlea.nN e0y mt �n 1009: pocfKCnmxnp� Deper L,J � .s's. 3� � � LJ n � � rt �.� p � i / /4� C f�]LeL�..�,.' �-- � ��-„-� , 1 !//U //U .� � 1 S Sl i � � G (' C.i. r\ �� G ir 1 _Si� '� �.1 �1) �`� b�2� �3 ��� j�� z� f%2c� �I7G Cc` �G �C 2��C' �G CZI�C �G' G� / ,S C; � �-r)vG �G ��i� S G �»2;✓ CGLI�7/ z� 4! /- �l Ga !� ,�G � �,,1` c 2.� /e: b c �,��,zr �"' `�z� h� �d ��� s �'>��sG lLS� ��� �� � �� ��.� �» �»;�y 1 r� ��- ��- �i s� L��,� 1 j� v l 'Y}a11 e r Hc,y,,, ,J>✓ �67 ����" f G�ti��" o�/z� //'7 � h 1 �� 2r�� �2LC� ��IZlir�� �,°Z`r ulzJ G ' Lo �- � ) � � � a'7� 2G- � /j �c� / //pd � 1 a�l� U�' � ��? �i'� � J r / 5 �'!� z f d 1- �- � I� '. ��, � G Gi/ '1'7 2 C`G LC� Z l� "11 l LtJc� � L�(`JJ^C. r��G ' L �'�Ch � ic ��v� l� ' l-z>Du l j 6/ �`1 e1.0 � /7 °-1 c� ; U i �I/l z� �� z'-� J `�'' 1 �;," ,,� �' �� ��� GcJ� � ��/ -�-� ziu t � �t -ri����- ��o1J� � �,� 1����I� h� I n1� 1� 7�� � 1 ! C��z ��,� . 1�s � s Ch=�� z,�. ��>,,: ���� �,,��-� (� � �t/L ����; c,�� �zi, c J� ���c e ��o oil �t-zf/�� � ' a � � �1-�� G�� ; l-, Jf� ��- � r>>i��>� w�7� � G�> >/ !,� I� L,t �}�<<�� o�' 1 z��� , I.��'�E, G/ .��� ! � . 1 sz S L�� ., �c�'C �z1 n�cv�-� i � � � l�� ' u U f� 2�< <� � e. � c � � t,cJ c1 �- z LaJ 9�, c y"t, � � G�-� .�-, (3�i;. � S P) Z r-� p�% !�Vi G G� J� c i `l G `� G � S ) C L (3 I L� t� u1 v� G; „ G' Iz:.J /�'! (/G t� � ��j2o�1� �L(�i .l � '� G Ct-c� � ��/ I �7 � a l �rti � 35 04114/199fl 08:19 6124508703 PAGE 01 : �, . -. � ...� ,2' ...°°�� %i�kc'� _ Mn �� 1(/.THLEEN A- GAYLORD MAYOR • ClTY OF 4s�21 s5ae�oa 50dJTH �T. PAl3i Fax[a12�asa•s�as ';ZS THf'<i1 A4'R''':•.�� r..,;.� : SO'-:T!tS'LFAItt..FSfNN{.'�[t::. � u .. April 13, 1998 Mr David McDoneli, Chair St Vau] Planning Commiseic�xi c/u St. Paul PEA 2S West 4th Strett St. !'aul MN 55102 Ucar Mr. McDanell: 1'he City of South 5t Peul hi�ab�eh eans►stent[y concecned ahoat the proposed Alter Corporation h4etal Shredder since it waa fii�t��cspoe�l some t2�ree Yea� ago. It is our understaz►ding that the St. Paul Plannittg Commis§ion �t�-�told:e public hearing on this matter on April t6, 1998. Ptease accept this letter tls oua�!"ic t�tmony against the proposad facility. The City of South St. f'aut continues to work osi th6 fl�velippti?ent of a gol£ courae directly adjacent to the Aicer property and the proposed inte�sif cstlda.<+€� G�m"�i land use would be dehimental to our go(f course. In acidition, this proposal is bot�k��$�+'i�h the efforts of St. Paul and South Si. Paui to ciean up U�e Mississippi Rivar nnd enlYe�s t�►e s�}SOrelines. linciosed for your informatftii�as Yh¢ South St. Pau] City Council Resolution adopted iast Yea�' ce�ncerning the ptoposed shr�dtler• P'�ease keep us informed about the status of thia request. Sincere�y, ., � � ������.f Kathte A. Gaylord Mayor KAG/ja linclosure :id<ryna118Ja 767t Oaee�� post-�Y fax �te � p 'i � � � O �70C1 3�, 04/14/1998 08:19 6124508703 PAGE 02 � � C�� af South St. Pau1 � � � � � � �u1cQ{a County, Minnesota r R£S�3.LITION NO. 97-170 RESOLUTION REQ�E�`I`T1V'G THE ST. PAUL PLANNING COMMISSION TO PRO�fIBI'� ?�IRGE ME'I'AI- SHR�DDER5 IN ST. PAUL WI the City z.� Sou� St. Paul has consistently objected to this project since it was proposed; Wj.�E�',�S,Q{�r y�tr�'of s'tudy i# is c1ecQ that the nahu'e of existing industrial areas in St. Pezul mdkes it irKt�p�'opriate to locai metal shredders in the City; WHEREAS, the sp�ciflc �ite for a metal shredder proposed by the A1ter Corporation does no# havtt� �brld�tfons sufficient to protect the adjacent existing and proposed 1�d uses in Sc�t�th St• Paul or St. Paul; VVHEREAS,bcatl'i Scstith St: Paul cmd St• Paul have worked hard over the last . ten ye�'s to separate storr� and �tmitcay sewers in order to make the Mississippi River cz cleaner natural4��source; WHEREAS. South St• Pattl �d St. Paul have worked hcsd to develop trcdls and boating facilities alot'� �e.Mississippi River; Wi-IEREAS, in 19$8,.Cong'ress recogruzedthe importcmce of the Mississippi River as a recreation¢1 fccciiit`y when it establish the Missisaippi Nationcrl Recreation Area (MNRRA?� WHEREAS, ihe Ci{Si o# �South St. Paul is currendy in the prelimincay stages of developing an 18 hol� t�o3�'Cnurse directly south of the proposed Alter metal shredder; WHEREAS, tha City of �outh St. Paul has adopted Ordincmce 1063 which prohibits metal sktz�ddets.in th�e ca'ea immediately south of St. Paul because they are incompatible with th'e peiz�i3tted icmd uses in that atea; ❑ 37 04/14/1996 08:19 6124508703 Resolution I3o. 97-170 August 18, 1999 Page 2 PAGE 03 NOW THER�FDI�,° BE T�' R�SOLVEB that the South St. Paui oi n� l�d hereby requests that the S� � P�"�°��g CO�ssion adopt the app p use cmd zoning code carie�i�nisuts which will Prohibit lcsge metczl shredders in the City of Sf. Pau2. Adopted this 18th daX oE �k�'g��.. j997. Approved; � ��L'1-:------ Mayor � � � A � REAP i River Environmental Action Project � ��� P.O. Box 374, South St. Paul, MN 55075 tel. 451-1038 Apri17, 1998 Mr. Roger Ryan St. Paul Department of Planning & Economic Development 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 RE: Special Conditional Use Pernut Application - Alter Trading Company Dear Mr. Ryan; I am writing on behalf of the River Environmental Action Project (R.E.A.P.) of South St. Paul, Minnesota. As you know, R.E.A.P. and its members passed several resolutions over the past two years • opposing the construction and operation of inetal shredders in St. Paui. We submitted those resolutions and appeared before the City Council and Planning Commission to speak in opposition to shredders. As Alter Company pursues approval of it original Special Conditional Use Application with the City of St. Paul, we once again write to express our opposition to the application and urge the Planning Commission to deny any and all attempts by Alter to construct or operate a metal shredder on their property at the northern border of South St. Paul, or anywhere within the City of St. Paul, Minnesota. Thank you for forwarding our comments to the Planning Commission for the April 16, 1998 meeting. . Sinc° relv yours, U � 1<��r Lois Glewwe, Coordinator R.E.A.P. Council � B�I�� -i INTERTEC Bmun Interte< Gorpomtion 1345 Northland Drive Mendoto Heights, Hlinnesota 551 20-7 1 4 t 612-h83-8700 Faz:683-8888 Engineen ond Sclenhsh Serving Jhe Built ond No)u�al Envi�onmenls° July 26, 1995 Project No. CMXX-95-0048 Ms. Kady A. Dadlez City of Saint Paul Department of Plannin� and Economic Development 1100 C.H.A. 25WestFourthStreet �/��,1l�� �t�� � St. Paul MN 55102 �.d'Itli Deaz b4s. Dadiez: Re: Special Condi[ion Use Parmit Application for Alter Trading Corporation's (Alter) Proposed Recyclino Plant Braun Intertec Corporation (Braun Intertec) was retained by Atter to prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and related permitting for a proposed recycling plant located on Bar�e Channel Road in Saint Paul, Minnesota. This letter/permi[ application includes the foliocvin�: A. B. C. !7 E. Addrass and legal description of the propeRy A dzscription of the proposed use A description of how the conditions of the zoning code will be met. There are five ocher general conditions that aiso have to be met for all Special Condition Use Permits (Sec. 64300, Sub. d, Par. I-5} The name and daytime telephone number of a contact person (see application or lezter). A fil[n� fee of $610 is eaclosed. A. The proposed recycling facility will b9innzsota. Thz ]t�al dzs�ription is Township 28 Ivorih, and Range 22 be located at 801 Barge Channel Road, St. Paul, : snuthwest quartar, southeast quarter, Section 9, �Vest. B. Alter is proposing to expand its existing metal recycling operation by buildin� a metal recycling plant on a praviously disturbed industrial site {see attached Locational Map). The project area is approximately 20.4 acres in s�ze, of which about 1.3 acres will be used for the recycling plant. The proposed recyclin� plant will be 40,000 square feet in size. An "Eddy Current Separation Plant" wilf bz an additianal 15,000 square feet and ]ocated adjacent to the main plant. Historicaliy, the company has operated shears on the property to cut scrap metal. The company is replacing the shears previously located at the site with a more efticient model. Tiie recycting facility's function is to racycle scrap matal such as autoinobile bodies, industrial scrap and misce(Ianeous light gau�e steel. The majori[y of scrap metal received by the facility wiil be from local scrap yards. The faeility wil! recycle a�proximately 750 to 900 nei tons of scrap metal daily. Once the materiat is recycled, it wiit be transported by harge, rail or truck to various consumers. u � � - `l�/ -� � � �8b`1 �J City of Saint Paul Projzcc No. Ch1XX-95-0048 3ulq 26, 1995 Page 2 A 17,250-square-foot expansion of the buildin� that houses the non-ferrous material will be constructed within 36 months to accommodate the expanded operation. Construction is anticipated ro begin during the early fall of 1995 and should be completed 60 to 90 days later. Site preparation methods wil! be taken to minimize soil erosion problems by use of silt fences, earth diversion berms and bale diversions; and restoration will take place as soon as possible. Prior to construction, a Soil ,- Erosion and Sedimentation Control P1an witt be implemented and follo�v2d throughout the co�struction and restoration phases of the project. C. The following is a description of how the conditions of the zoning code (Section 60.624, kl) wifl be met: a. Outdoor processing, salva�in; and stora�e of materials and motor vehicles will be from the shortest distance, 408 feat to the R-4 Zone (30Q feet is the minimum requirement). The area used fot ihe outdoor processing, salvaging and storage will be behind a noise mitigation wall ranging from 20 fe2t to 28 faet in hei�ht and 27S feet in length. There is also an 8-foo[ high . chairnlink fence bordering the property on Barge Channet Road. b. There �vill be no outdoor open burnin� on the site. c. Material may be stacked at a maximum of 60 feet hi;hzr than the fence due to the sec back (of the material) which will be over 1,Q00 feec from the nearest zesidentiaV property line. The following information, listed below, addresses the conditions (as outlined in the Zonin� Code, Section 60.624, #18) relating to uses which service, proczss or manufacture outside of a completely enclosed building: a. The shurtest di;tance from the proposed recyclin� facility's ouuide property line to the R-4 Zone is 408 feet. b. All outdoor servicins, processing, manufacturing will be conducted, operated and maintained in accordance with any necessary permits of Mir,nesota Poifutic�n Control Agency, the county and the city. The status of these pennits are pendin�. c. An Application For 3ite Plan Review tiviil be submitted on, or shortly Y'ollowing this Special Condition Use Permit Application. A site pian showing the stated requirements, as outlined in the Zoning Code, is enclosed with this apglication. A narrative stating the measures the applicant will take to contain . on the property any dust, odor, noise or other potentially adversz affects fpIIOWS. � ��3�#�N� �iLE `����-�� 41 - City of Saint Paut Projact No. C�SkX-95-0048 7uly 26, 1995 � Page 3 The project wilt not generace any unusual amounts of dust, odors, or noise durinb construction. Likewise, no strong or potential[y offensivz odors are expacted durin� normal operation, start-up, and shutdown. Durin� operation, sevaral minor sources of fugitive dust may exist. Fugitive d�ist amounts from vehicle trave] have bean estimated usin� anticipated traftic volumes for trucks dalivering and hauling, u wetl as front-end loaders traveling on the premises. This fu�itive dus[ was quan[iYied as P,�I, Other sources of fugitive dust likely to be on the premises includz transfer points for Yluff, as weil as extremely minor wind erosion from a smaIl remporary fluff srora�a bin. These sources were inctuded in the ISCSTZ air quality modei Version 93109 with all other anticipated sources of PM,p emissions from the f�cility. Tha facility as a whole showed no impact on the P�4, nonattainment area whose border nearest the site is the center of the Mississippi River. Mitigative maasures for these sourees include maintaining either an asphalt or concrete surface, as �s•ell as usin� water or chemical dust suppressant when necessary. Applicable noise standards are contained in the Saint Paul I�oise Ordinance and the Minnesota Poi(u[ion Control Agency re�ulations. Of primary interest • for this projzct is the L50 daytime standard of 60 dBA for residential land uses since the continuous feed may generate noise for at Izast 50 percent or 30 minutes of the hour. The most sensitive land use adjacent m the site is the residential area west of Concord Avenue which is approximatzIy I,200 feet from the proposed plantlocation. Noise levets were predicted at the nearest home west of Concord Avenue usin� a computer niodel that takes into account attenuation with distance and atmosphere. The project will comply with the bIPCA aad Sain[ Paul noise standar�ti by mi�i�acion of a noise ��at(. Five other general conditions that also have to be met for al! Special Condition Use Permits (Section 64.300, Sub. d, Par. I-5} are iisted below: The extent, location and intensity of the proposed recyclinQ facility is in comptiance with tha Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan because i[ is located in an area zoned heavy industry. The use provides adequate in�rass and egress from Barge Channei Road. 3. The use or development of the recyclin� facility will be an improvzment to the existin� site and conforms to the industrial zone. A noisa watl witl miti�ate noise Iz��zis and visual impacts from thz surroundina industrial sites � and the nei�hborhood located west of the site. � Z��II�t� ���.E qS�c�D � �FZ • : ��� City of Saint Paul �` Project n`o. ChfXX-95-0048 Ju]y 26, 1995 Pa�e 4 4. The recyc]in� facility will not impede the industrial devzlopment and improvement of the surrounding property as stated above. 5. The recyc]in� facility will conform to the I-2 zone in which it is located. Thz followino supplemental information is provided to document that issues which may be of concern to the Minnesota Department of h'atural Resourees have been addressed, as well as issues pertaining to the national park system. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Natura] Heritaoe and Nongame �Vildlife Probram) was contacted and theit "Information System Data Reques[ Form" was completed requesting information on rare plant and animal species or other si�niticant natural Yeatures that are known to occur on die site or within a I-mile radius of the site (see the EA�V for correspondence letters). There is a historicat record of the mi4i: sn2ke (Lampropeltis trian�ulum) beina located in the general area, althou�h there is no recent documentations of this state-listed special concern sf�ecies in the vicinity of the project. The preferred habitat of the • milk snake is in old woodiots, rocky areas and associated Toresis. In the spring and fall, they are found in uplands, hills and bluffs. Therefore, due to the existing site development, the proposed project location is not suitable habitat for thz milk snake. The Minnesota Natural Heritaae dataUase addresses the potential impact of the project on the Balc{ Eagle (Haliaeatus leucocephalus), a species listed as both federally and state-threatened. A known bald eagle nest is located on the eastern side of the river downstream from the pcoposed project site, in Section 15. In addition to this nesting area, bald eaales are known tv forage alon; both the western and eastern shorelines of the Mississippi River, and the area just south of the railroxd hridge located southeast uf the sita. Eagles also utilizz tha Pigs Eye Island as a winter roostino arza. Tha Bald Ea�,la's prafzrrzd habitat is along lakes and rivers in furested areas where larae traas ara available fur nestin�. In Minnesota, red or whita pines wlth large canopies are often selecte�. Due to the past development of thz sita, pines or large treas are not prasent, ef iminating the proposed site as a putentiai Bald Eagle habitat. • The si[e is wiUiin the hlississippi National River and Recreation Area (�fNRRA), a unit of the nacional park system. The Comprehensive Management Plzn written for MNRRA states that the river corridor have a continuous public or private open space alon� the shoreline ro the maximum extent practical, and it would be connect2d to the downtowns and neighhorhuods by open space and traiis. Except in existing commercial amd industrial developments, downtown areas and histuric districts, the rivarfront and bluff area would appear mostly natural from thz river and its shoreline areas (as observed from tha opposite bank). The project will have no zffect on the existing shorelina. d. � � ! 1 �i � (- � � � --�-`� `_'-= � --�-�--.._.,... � City of Saint PauI Project No. CMXX-95-0048 July 26, 199� • Page 5 Your timely review is greatly appreciated. By submitting this application on July 31, 1995, Al[et anticipates being on the Zoning Committee agenda August 31, 1995 and the Planning Commission agenda September 8, I99�. This witi allow Alter to meet its construction schedule the last week of September 1995. D. Should yon have further questions regarding this Spacial Condition Use Permit Application or EAW, please contact Michelle Bissonnette of Braun Intertec at (612) 683-8810 or John Genakow of Alter at (319) 344-5287. Sincerely, `�'lu'���E� � ��r�r� Michelie F. Bissonnette Braun Intertec Corporation � \ L 3 �`�,;� 7ohn W. Ge�rrk� Alter Trading Corporation Enclosures c: Charles L. McGuire City of Saint Paul Lioyd W. Grooms Winthrop & Weinstine f:\wpfile s\cmxx\95\00.18\OOi8.L04 ZC3[�iii�#�'s ���.� ° ����?O � � C� ,. '� �-5�6 C7� I � V, i�L� i� ( � � 4 � V: { _�:: i f , �� y, s�;n �.,., T � _f"�� � i rr 1 �� � � �'t: //' T�� � r � 1� r � :� �, � • I ���` . � Cl f ���: { �Dell,\ o�_ I ��� 1 i . � �s �� " ih �reParlc_ �;�, RPll�:rn'v,. . A O . � �P�ine S ... // � . a� ' � � ;i �IQorth Saini�Paui�, �� ; f � �lacLstone " ' � ./� �� , 5 �_ SITE LOCATION �� �k'� ,-�-_� 1�� �. V � _ : J� , 'S �dvale - 69a :y:� '' 1 L �, � �I �J . � °. ... Oa7cdale_� � � '— � — :�_i_._.,,,.a � Sc Paul Down �������.P11r�d__`� LEGEND Scalz 1:125,000 (at cenrer) Pooulofron Cen;e� _ _ County ?oundary `�2 �fiies � O Stc;= Ro�'te — Mcjor S�e=[/P,occ ,� Siace Cooitoi o Sicte Ro:ce 2K.�i ' o Tow�. Srnat: Ccy o incerscc:e Hignwoy p Lar�e . o US niGrwCy � �n'*.°rstc;z. T�rnpiR2 �r i_anc Mcss � i15 HiGnv+cy ,-�;,��;; Ope� `Plc:zr P � A��field . y■ B RAY Nw PROJECT LOCATION RAMSEY COUNTY MAP PROPOSED ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA PLANT iNTE[2TEC ALTER TRADING CORPORAIION BENT7ENDORF,IOWA ���1 �:_���:��� '_' , ., ; ��_ � Rr4VfSEY COUNTY hfAP Ma� 12.00 Wed Feb 22 11:42:48 1995 INT RENSION SHEET ORAWN BY: LOL 02-24-95 APP'D BY: MB DZ-24—JS OF ,loe No. CMXX-95-0048 9WG. No. MXSOD48L FlGUftE sCa� NONE n TJ ".:-°"�"=-:' �31�31NI _ran�ga �1..[�ps ' :yP24ii�i3 ' _ ':�: .` ivs: , - .:.,'___.�4; �.;i , . ..�,_o-..-- - , E� c .�„�., .� ,�., �s ���:.,o.�� :. �,: ,�, , �.r. �.�>.�„ <��.�„ x�n �J1S+s 3 0rowvno aErv nrpghvs -- 1 � . n.tv — / � \ �\�` �i -� � �. . � � , �. ,�' . = T � �:`�:��,: �.,. ,�� '. - � ,� \�. � .. ' �� ,, %�E��� ��� •. \\'i.%'; �- � `�'� %� �l� � ` ,�` �', •' � \ a '/ � ^ �J' . � s / % i.��. o �l :�: � � � � t !1, �:1' . . -(� - P i� �� r \�� y � f _/. �ISl I �l �`1/ �/ ��_ �i'"���I� � � � 'a'� i • y r � . � �`. ' �_ L . i'�i,i ��� � l:'i �� . � `� � .i�\ � \ \� _.'��Y.��'/ • _'�"' /�' � s',i:�`�• � /� . Y \ V:/� _ � �'� \ ) � �� �.�` � �1 i,I�H��� O v •^ � ' l : ' f � P / �l" '�/.�� `. jo `�''`1'� d� � : l. (� �: - .�_J :7i�/'�- - ___:^l% �/ ' ��1 ' �.i< , _ , _� ( f � , ��� `�.n.%', �,�� � , i I�' � T - ;j / Y � ` �.'� ��� '�: i'„di;� :� , " s ' �`� �' '��,'���� ' � • . t - � -'.� -�,i :��� I � G "F'd!j' j ��' 13� r�.� ( �;: , I C. ; i � ''- r � , --,. ��:� . ,F.y - u'3"�,i ' ` i : � � :'7 , , e.. � 'G �'— ... .,� %1�`t1'.. � � Y ,.-: . � * �� � �i���C� f , � �U ; ` . r..� . I i= 1 � I� � ` v'. /; _./ .. ' �/ l r , ��iy�� , � / '1 ��d\�I', - �r'r .i. 9 � l ( / � � — — - :r �,. �...�.`. �..'�r; — �^ 1 � �T -7��; � � — . /" U• I .... �,, 3 \ I � :_��:.�� 'eN J � � / ,• , � � . ., - , F � _=� . G' �' �_. ;�<'\� /'' /,:��, r �.� ^ r /'� `� 'a\ \��\ �� �,` � � •i' = °Gf���"i/�� . � : • � , �,�: �/..,�. „ ; � ���` ,�• �\\ �CC� F � ��� � ' _,• - . � � '\ i �. �� ��='�ry�Ji ! /. \ '.. i � � :,� ��.' 4;�, � z% " . , -' /" / ':�i�' ��\`. .��. i � ' _ -�S�'� % � � j, /! � �- ,����.:: ����� : ,', �` � - �.� ' / �� r �C ,.�� � � 'C ��,-� � . . .: ,..� _ .,- , \ ����'� �-- N ^:., ,^��z'`''' � ` � / � � , � I..�;., �.�� �/�. �'"�, , �? } � _ " �° �� � . ' �1 �� � �' ��� ��/ '�' J � � �' . �. ./, . v��-.�-- - -� ���i � � � .� � .�\ ' :� � � `� � �-�: . -.� :�' / ��i�� ^ ` � .,\� ' /.' � � � » =' ir ��� .,�'-� � `� , � .'!� �' � , ,�- � _� i - . ,�/,- - - S, � � � � �/���:� ������ �1L�-'� � . -:,�-�% � � - - - = = �I ,. DLPAR7b7E13T OT PLA`ti1NG fi [CONO�fIC DGVELOP�iHNT Pamelo iYheelock, Dveclor �� ��� • CITY OF SA1NI' PAUL h'onn Coleman, dfayor 2� 3Yesl Foerr�h Slreel SaixtPou( M.V5510? 7elephone: 612-26G-65C: Fncsimife: -611-228-33 /: January 30, 1998 Mr. John Gentzlco�v Alter Trading Corporation 211� State Street, Suite 250 Bettendorf, Ia 52722 Dear Mr. Gent2kow: As you are a�vare, the Saint Paul Zoning Code was recently amended so that large metal shredders of the type proposed by Alter are no longer permitted uses within the City of Saint Paul. • Alter's Special Condition Use Permit application, which had been held in abeyance pending the City's determination on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement, as �vell as the expiration of the City's interim ordinance prohibiting construction of a facility like Alter's proposed metal shredder pending any amendment of the City's Zoning Code, will become "active" as of thirty days after the date of the pubiication of amendments to the Zoning Code. These amendments were published on January 17, 1998. Alter's permit application will become "active" as of February 16, 1998. Given that Alter's proposed metal sluedder is no longer a permitted use in the City of Saint Paul, does Alter still desire a public hearing on its Special Condition Use Permit application? If Alter desires a public heazing on the matter the public hearing wil] be set before the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission as soon as is practicable after February 16, 1998. Alter may also choose to withdraw its application in light of the changes in the Zoning Code. In either event, would you kindly advise me in �vriting at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, Roger Ryan City Planner � cc; Peter Wamer, City Attorney �7 Alter Trading Corporation John W. Genfzkow Vc�Presidenf, Operations 2177 State SVeet Bette�dort, Iw.a 52772 Phone 319�344-5287 Fax 379-3445317 February 10, 1998 Mr. Roger Ryan City Planner t7epartment of Pianning and Economic Developmenf City of Saint Paul 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, MN. 55102 Re: Alter Trading Corporation's Appiication for Specia! Condition Use Permit u I am in receipt of your letter dated January 30, 1998. Please be advised that, as has been • the case since the time Alter Trading Corporation {"Alter") filed its application for a Special Condition Use Permit ("SCUP") on or about July 31, 1995, Alter confinues to demand lawful review and action on its application. 7his year we wili observe the third anniversary of Alter's filing of the application at issue. If the City believes that a public hearing is necessary in order to finally act upon the application, Alter is prepared to appear and parficipafe in fhat pub(ic hearing. However, and in any event, Alter reiterates its demand that pursuant to the applicabie City ordinances as we!! as the requirements of Minnesota law, the City is obligated to issue Alter's application for a SCUP forthwith. Sincerely, u� n W. Gentzkow RECEIVED �E� I 3 i998 ZONING � 0 DEPARTMLNTOFPLANNING & GCONOMIC DIVGLOPb1LNT Pawe(a fVheelack, D+recfor • crrY oF sa�rr rat�, Norm Colemax, Mayor February 26, 1998 Mr. John Gentzkow Alter Trading Corporation 2117 State Street, Suite 25� Bettendorf, Ia 52722 Dear Mr. Gentzkow: 25 West Faurth Stree1 Sain! Paul. MN 55102 ^����� Telephone: 6/7-266-6565 Facsiinile: 611-228-3314 This is written in response to your February 10, 1998, letter regazding your desire for a public • heazing on your application for a special condition use permit for a large metai shredder on Barge Channel Road in the Southport Industrial area. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 15.99, Subd. 3(�, the Department of Planning and Economic Development is extending the time limit to consider your application by 60 days. The reasons for the 60 day extension is that additional time is needed to secure an up-to-date roll of property owners within 350 feet of your property, to mail notices of the public hearing to those property owners, to publish legal notices, and to prepare a new staff report. I will schedule the public heazing before the Zoning Committee for Apri12, 1498. The Planning Commission can act on the application on April 10, 1998. Sincerely, Rog r yan City er • cc: Peter Warner, City Attorney ..• _O O� O � U � � ' �\ � O � � ; 0 _ _ AIAPORT e � ' ( LlklTS -_ — . ----- ' � ��4'i G� c � � � L r{ �o �o POUCE \ IAiP0UN0�NC� ActEA v ' � ,. , � � \ � � I � . � � — � \ � / ` \ � , \ \ ` APPUCANT ��/� �Y�rDlN� G6{Z�'. LEGEND PURPOSE _ ���� ��� zoningdistrictboundary FILE � � � ' � � b , DATE � � �' � S � subject property n°� or�h-°-• PLfJG. DlST � MAP � 3 � o o�e tamily • � � co^merc:a: � � twofamily � ..� ind:;s:',a! SCALE T" = 400' �_^ �-¢-� multiple 3amily V v2car.' ,. � �� _. CITY COUNCIL TESTIlYIONY �' �- ��� Thank you for the opportunity to address the Saint Paul City Council ("City Council"). vIy name is John Gentzkow and I address you in my capacity as Vice President of Operations for Alter Trading Corporation ("Alter"). Alter appeals from the City of Saint Paul ("City") Planning Commission's ("Corrunission") Apri124, 1998 decision to deny Alter's appiication for a Special Condition Use Pernut ("SCUP") for its proposed metal shredder. Both the Zoning Committee ("Committee") and Commission voted to deny Alter's SCUP application base�t �� �'-- t to the Zoning Code ("Zoning Code"} prohibiting I� ;s the Committee and Commission should have apptic time Alter applied for the SCUP in 1995, wMch exp� 'Pectfully requests the Council overturn the Commissic �`, �� �cation. The grounds for Alter's appeal are set forth o �/� As you have heard many times, E of discussing the project with i Development ("PED"). While necessity of an Environmental A: project did not meet City land us stated over and over again, before twice, that the project complied w. � i � �fGi`� J � � � ����� � veral months d Economic :he practical sted that the as we have iot once, but In fact, Alter was given every ind __�... Y ,wiae sufficient evidence to justify a Negative Declazation; i.e., no neeti for an EIS for the project, the SCUP application would be reviewed in due course. Alter persistently pressed the City for a format and timely decision on the SCCTP. In response, Alter received numerous and repeated representations that the City wouid act "in the neaz term". Relying on those representations, Alter acted in "good faith" and spent considerable sums to show that its project is environmentally sound. However, after Alter performed, the City reneged on its prior commitment and instead enacted a moratorium which has since led ta a Zoning Code amendment prohibiting Iarge metal shredders in the City. These aze not my conclusions, these are the City's own statements. For instance, in an October 6, 1995 memorandum to the Committee, the PED staff stated that: "The city will make that detemunation [whether an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required) on Monday October 9, 1995....if an EIS is not needed, the planning commission wiii proceed with the special condition use permit application and hold a pubtic hearing on October 12, 1995." 1 ^ J y � � � A November 1, 1995 unsigned letter from the then Director of the PED, Larry Buegler, to John Gentzlcow stated that: "... Saint Paui... has deteanined that No Environmental Impact Statement is required for this project, provided that the project proposer Alter Trading Corporation: Arranges for a study to be conducted under the joint direction of the Minnesota Department of Health, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Saint Paul P.E.D., which addresses the potential for significant human heaith and ecologicai risk associated with emissions and discharges resulting from the long term operation of a metal shredder at this location, and provided that the assessment concludes that the potentiai risks aze or can be brought within acceptable standazds; 2. Works with City of Saint Faul to address the negative impacts of increased traffic through a residential neighborhood; and 3. Receives written confirmation from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that ali relevant licensing and permitting requirements are met. As communicated to your Attorney, this decision was reached Wednesday, October 25, 1995, and as of that date we have initaated processing of the Special Condition Use Pemut application for this facility." A December 11, 1995, Interdepartmental Memorandum from Charles McGuire to Janice Kelly- Dunkins stated: "We know that Alter would like to avoid further delay, and we want to conciude the process as quickly as we can." Then, in a December 14, 1995 letter, Mr. Buegler stated: "At our meeting November 30, 1495 we outlined a tentative schedule for completion of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and making a final declaration...we understand your preference for a declaration at the earliest possible date, we feel committed to the schedule we outlined and we believe the process will work more smoothly if we continue along this course." 2 ^ , j ` � V � Significantly, these representations were not only made to Alter, but to other public officials including the City Councii. A memorandum from Ken Ford to Lori Louder and Gzeg Drehmel of the Saint Paul Port Authority ("Port Authority") stated that: "The 60-day period for completion of the Special Condition Use Permit will be�in immediately upon publication of a negative declaration on the EIS question... and we want to conclude the process as quickly as we can." Furthermore, a December 29, 1995 Interdepartmental Memorandum from Ken Ford to Council Member Mike Harris, detailed the steps Alter had taken in preparing the EAW and reiterated that "[i]f no EIS is required, the process for review and approval of a Special Condition Use Permit wili begin immediately." The memorandum specifically stated: "Land use issues wi11 be addressed in a Special Condition Use Permit grocess. Under the Saint Paul Zoning Code, a recycling plant is allowed at Alter's site subject to speciai conditions." Between submission of its SCUP application and the moratorium, AIteT spent hundreds of thousands of dollars answering questions either raised by the City or which the City required to be answered based on the City's continuing representations that the SCUP application would be reviewed upon the timely completion of the environmeniai review. Not ance did the City ever raise the question that the project did not meet locai zoning and planning requirements. Indeed, the City consistently stated that the project met City requirements. The City staff was saying to the City Councii the same thing it was saying to Alter - Alter has performed and is continuing to perform various tasks for the City and when the evidence supports a finding that no EIS is required, the SCUP process wili begin. Significantly, on May 17, 1996, the City published its intent to issue a Negative Deciaration in a Community Meeting Draft of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Record of Decision. Rather than commencing the SGUP, three weeks later, the City announced the interim moratorium. The City had the power through the zoning process to institute and impiement special conditions and you chose to ignore that process. We aze truly disappointed with how this process has been hand(ed. This all began in July of 1995, some 32 months ago. This is the seventh time that Altec has appeared before either the Committee, Commission, Metal Shredders Study Committee, or the City Council and we have never wavered from our basic request — objectively review our SCUP application. When Alter came to the City in 1995, it knew the process and it followed it. Ia contrast, the City abandoned the process. The City did not find something wrong with the metal recycling process - - they just simply opposed it and they opposed it because of politics -- not planning. In the end, the treatment of Alter's SCUP appiication has been arbitrary and capricious. There were no environmental or land use justifications for denying the project. The only way to stop Alter was to change the rules. 3 �= :,` ��� On any objective basis, the City's actions in this matter have been simply wrong. Certain members of the Commission recognized the unfairness of the City's action, Their comments speak volumes, so let me shaze them with you. "I was astonished at how it was handled and finally voted on. I don't intend to support this motion. I didn't support it the last time because I didn't feel due process was made and I'll end with that " "I also think that the Planning Comrnission, and for that matter, the City Council missed the boat with respect to amending the Zoning Ordinance because I felt then and i feel now that we couid have accommodated the environmental concems and structured a Zoning Code that would have omitted large shredders consistent with the environment and without visiting any significantiy adverse consequence." "I wondered whether he [Mr. Gentzkow] knew that of the five of us sitting here, he had three of us who voted against what eventually happened with respect to amendment ofthe Code...- to prohibit metal shredders....In the 8'/z years that I've sat on the Commission, I consider...the decision to prohibit metai shredders to be among the most incomprehensible and least justified decisions that I have seen made either by the Commission or the City Council. I felt that then. T continue to feel that." The decision that you as a City Council have to make -- the one you must make -- is based on the Zoning Code that was in e�cistence at the time the application was originally submitted, not the Zoning Code that now has been rewritten in response to that application. Only you can grant Alter its pernut under the prior Zoning Code. It is what you can do; it is what you should do. STPl: 453747-I � „ DEPAR'[�*fT OF P(.a[�MMG � g ECONOMiC DEVELOP�?+T � ^ . �,- 5�b CI1Y OF SP.LvT PAL�I. .YOrM Co(nnae. .Naya� DATE: TO: FROM: RE: OCTOBER 6, 1995 ZONL*IG COMA4TIEE Dnuun of Pimm+ng :1 �err Favrh Svrer Sew Pau[ .NN;3102 Tr4ywo.r: 6I2.166-6J63 Faeznn,le: 6l1-I1d-331i K.wY DnntFZ �/,�,y - r--- t ALTER TR4DING CORPORATiON'S SPECIAL CONDtfION USE PERMrf APPLIG2TON As you recali the zoning commiuee delayed the puhiic hearing on this cau unril after the determination had beea made as to whether an mviroameatal impact stazemrnt (EIS) is required. 'Ihe ciry wili make that dctermination on Monday Qctober 9, 1995. If aa E1S is needed, the plaaniag ' commission's action on this special condition use pc:mit application wiil not be naded unul aRa the EIS has been campltted. Convecsely, if an EIS is not needed, the plaaning commission wiIl procxd with the special condition use permit application aad hoId the public heazing on Ocsober 12, 1995. Please note thaz this packes iacludss an updmed zaning commiuee staff teport aad auachmeau. Also amchcd for yoar infocmazion is a summary of commeau received on the rnvironmrnta3 a«�+*+eat worksheet and the appticaat's response to t�e comments. 'Ihis is beiag pro�ided to you as background information about eoncems raised by govemmental agrncia aad ciriuns' groups aboui the proposed use of the proQerty aad the applicaat's rsspoase to thae concems. " �- ��b � " zoxz:rc coaac.^.�ss s.arr stspoRS - �' iitiiitiiftflliyiiiiffi��iifs TZL3 M 95-170 S. .1PP:.�GiDi�: di.:=eZ '2.7:.ZYG C:.I2?OR.1�'�C:1 D7►'�S 07 41 jeT'iG: 10/12/95 2. C'..aSS�?�G1��OH: Spec:aS Cor.dit-ca IIse 3. LOU:�ON: H�1 3.�ZGE C�ANN'a:. .�O.L7 4. PLA2IISSSTG DISSRZC:: 3 5. L3GAL DESGRIPTIOH: aee :ile 6. PR858N: 202r2NG: T-2 G eZC-Z 20HZ27G CODS RI7ERII'IGS: 560.624(1) G 64.300(d) '7. ST7�PF 2DiVE3'fIWTZOH 7�D REPOR7: DATE: 8/24/95 8Z: Rady Dar2lez 8. DATS RBGSSVED: 10/9I35 D=7�DLIIiE TOR I�C'ZON: 12/7/95 ��aaa�aa�sasaa�aastaaas�s�as�aa�s�aass�saf�s�tta�a�����a�s���w�s��t�ar�s��a�� s � a aa a a:a:ssasa��a�.saa��aa��.ssara�s.s��....�s��ass�s.s.s�a���s�aaysa����s�a A, pvRPOSS: Special condition use permit to allov a reeycliag procesaing • center. g. PAftC3L S:ZB: The A1ter Trading CorporaLion site is loeaLed on the aarLh side of 3arge CSannel Road and is about 20 acres in �ize; Lhe portioa of the site uader eonsidezation ia thi9 applieation is about 1.3 acrea. C. EXIST.2�tG ZJ�ND IIsB: The pzoperty is oecupfed by three offiee/warehouse strscts es, miscellaaeous free-ecanding ntruetures, aad outdoor atorage of coal aad salt. Abouc 20.a aeres are located i.a Ramsey Couaty and 20 acres ia Dakoca Couaty. D, g4RROIIND2NG LAND IISB: The property is aurouaded by induetrial uses ia an 2-2 zca:.ag district including railroad right-of-vay aad the city impouad '_oc to the southwest and the barga c2uaael, airpazc, aad waste water treatmeat plaat to the aortheast. g. ZONTNG GOIIB CZTATZOli: SeCtioas 60.624 aad 64.304(d1 Of the zaai.ag eode allow recyelinq processing centers ia Z-2 zaaing districts subject to the f,au�ags decailed ia findiags #3 aad tt4 of Lhis rtpon. F. �TSTORY/DI3CJ3320N: Shere is oae previoua 2oaing cases coaee�aiag this propercy, it is a site plaa review from 1989 !or a buiidiag expan�iaa which was aFproved. Ia additioa there is i cusreat nite plaa zeviev ease :or tha aew recycliag facility. G. DZS2'RTC_' COONCSL 7tECODD�IDat20H: The West Side Citizea' a Orgaaizatiaa opposes r.Yse special conditioa use permit applicatioa. 8. l2:7DZ2tc8• 1. Alter Tzading Corporatiaa fs pzoposiag to ezpaad its exiatiag metal recycl3y operatioa hy constructiag a metal recycling plaat oa aa existiag industrial site. The aew plaat rri.Il be 40,000 aquare feet ia - size. Aa 'Eddy Clirrenc Separatioa Plaat' used to recover the �^�r+^^^* perc�ztage of noa-ferous metais from the shredder syscem will he installed and take aa additioaal 15,000 nquare Eeet, to be loeated adjaceat to the maia plaat. 'She fuaction of she p2aat ia to recycle scrap mecal such as autoa�bile bodiea, industrial acrap and Z��—:S -_,A ss_-�;a � � 586 Page .ac :�:scs_:aaecus _:cht gacye s:ee:. The ma;cr_t� o_ scrap metal received bv =:e �:aa� •+:ll be _=cn lacal sc:ap yar:'s. ':'::e rlant w_:� recfcle ac�rcx::nateiy 750 �0 900 aec tor.s of scra� meca2 da:ly. Cnce .he ma�e:=a: is sh:ed@ed, _ vi:l be transpc==ec �y bazge, rail, or tzuck cc •�a._ous cust�mers. The aorc.*.e� pozc�on o: the s3u a:rseatly used :cr st�r::g ccal aad salt viil be replaced v:th the recycl_.g piant. ;.L:tomc�:2e bodies vi1Z be accepted :zem salvace ooerat:oas vhi.ch h.ave d-sma^.�led, d:aized, and othezs+ise pzocessed '...i'e units co remove major vastes, iacluding used o31, anL:_'reeze, solve:ts, bat�e:ias, oil filters, cires, CFCS, and merctLry. H:sto=_cally, the ecncpany Las operated shears ca che praperty to cut sc:ap metal. The company is replacing the shears previous2y located at t:e site vith a more ef=icient model Eor recycling the material. Ccast_act:on is aatieipaced to begia this fall and be eompleted 60 to 90 days later. Site preparacioa methods will be cakea to minimize soil ezosioa problems by use of silt feaces, ea�h diversioa berms aad bale diversioas. SurPaee vater runoff from the facility vi11 be direc:ed co a desir,ned deceaciea poad. Siaee tse facility vill be ceastracted on till so that it is elevated at ar above the rcgulacory flood protec�_oa elevatioa, a per.nit for coasL�uctioa in the river cor__dor is not necessary. ' The recycling plaat will have about 35 employees. The plaaned houza of oneracion are �:00 a..m. to 10:00 p.m., nevea dnys per week. Moat of the trafEic on site will occuz during daylight hours. There ue 1o5 vekicles coming to the site each day currently (9 multi-axle tzucks and 96 two-axle vehicles). That aumber vill iaczease by 207 vetuc'_es for a tocal of 312 (60 mulci-axle trueks �52 tvo-axle vehicles). A discretionary E�v:ronmental Assessment worksheet was pzepazed for the expanded recycl�ng operatian on the site. The decisioa as to whetl^.e= an eavironmeatal impact scatemeat (EZS) is needed vill be made on oecober 9, 1995. Zf aa EZS is aeeded, the plaauing co�nisaioa'n ac_'_cn on thi.s spec-al eoaditioa use pexmit application will r.ot be necessary uacil aftez the ESS has been eocrtpleted. 3. Sectioa 60.624(1) of t:te zoaing code permits recycling proceaaiag cente=s subjec� to special eonditions. The required conditions aad the aFplicaas's ability to meet thoae coaditions are :a follovs: QaGdoar yrcc�++�ag, talvaging, sad itosage ot maLaria2� :ad motor sehicZst sha11 lu ae e1o+�r t�aa Chr�e hssadrrd f300J ts�t to s yroperLy oeccpied ritb a oae-, rio-, ehree-, tour•, or s¢c1tSple- fs:aily dr�Iltag or torahoui� drel2lag. Sh� aru wed for ta� outdoor yroeessSng, sa2vagiag. :ad stosag� �lsaZ2 b� �++*^a aa tight-toot-high ob+carSng raSZ, leaee, or Zaad+e:ped balfsr. Tbe plaaaiag eo�tutoa msy modlfy tLit rsqss�r�m�ae nkess a raS1, teae�, or bssffer may iaLerfere riLts ths oDeraLiaa o! the bwiaeir. Th:.s eeadizioa is met. The site is aa9 feet frem the aearest resideatially zaaed property. There is also aa eight foot high r}+� ia-link lence bordezi.ag the property on Barge Cbaaael Road. �� T'he area used for outdooz procesaing, aalvaging, and atorage rill be behind a noise mieigation waZl ranging fram 20 feec in height 28 feec ia height and a�0 feet ia length. The lengsh ot the vall vas inczeased from t'sat originally proposed ia response to additional infozmatioa leazned about noise levels. r<,��0� Zoniag F:'_e �55-_70 Page T.'Lee b. �.'e.e ahaSZ be no oue3ooz opea b�^�Sag oa u'e :ite. The uae of e;;t-:ag �o=�.:ea, f�,:.�aeea, aad oG'ier sr,�,ai�eat rh�c:t produe• a �:s.ae rh:SS ao� be coasc.ieced cc coastituze opea b*�^��g. "_::s cc��= =:o ::s mec. There vi:l be ao auc.a.oar open bu.-��:.g oa t :e s:ce. c_ ^ere :8a21 bs ao ataekiag of aeeerSaZ abovs the h�ighc of L�e r:1Z ar lesee, sxcept th:t materis2 set bacJC tbre: huadred l3001 teec :raa .:�e aear�rt ruideat�al prcparty Ita� msy b� stack�d one !Z) fooc hjg�er ov�r the rsZ1 or lsae� up Co a���{�*�- of �2sty (60J fsec tor t9Qr]/ IS7Q (S) feet LCe mater�al ti s�t back iro� tye aetreat rvidsatial ysapetCy ISae. ��s cond:t:on is met. The applicaat eLates that material may be s�acked a maximum of 60 feet higher than the fence due to the sec back of the macerial which vill be ovez 1,000 lest irom the r.eazesc reszdential prope�ty liae. 4. Sect:ca 64.300(d� of the zoniaq code zequizes t'sat before the pla�^inq coc�¢nission may graat appreval af a griacipal use subjecs to special cor.�t:ons, cht eonacuss-on shall fiad thac: Tke esteat, Zoe:tica tnd iatsaiity of Lha ss+� r1S2 be ia • rubicanttal eempliaaee r�th r.he SaSat P:ss2 Camyr�h�a+2w Plaa aad aay :pplSeabSe sub�re: pIaas rhjch wrs �pprowd by tCe elty eeuaei2. b. c . d. •. 2he use riSl yrovids adsquats Sngrus aad �press to miaisai:e traf�tc eoagestSon frs th� pssblie �ue�ti. 2�e we ri11 aot be deesimsataZ to t1s� ex3,�tlag clsuaetar o! t2s� developmeat 1a Li' e taedtaes ae�gttborlsaod os �adaager tht publlc IIealth, safsey tad geaeral reZfue. ?he use riSl aot Smyed� th• normal aad ordarZy d�v�Sopmeat aad �rovam�at of ih� iurroaading proyerty for wer pezmttt�d ia t�e dtttrict. ?he use sktZ1, ta a12 oChez rr+p�ctt, enaform ta the :ppZie:ble rsguZatSnas ot th: di�trict ia rhich tt is Socat�d. These condi,tions aze met. The pzoperty is appz�riately zoaed for c: e e�cpaaded u�e and the heavy induszrial we ia in keeping ++ith the vay the azea has developed and ia beiag used_ The site is .dentified in the Laad IIne Plaa as a"labor extensive heavy iaduscrial area•_ 2'he expaaded uae will noc have aa adver�e itapac� oa adjacent praperty aad will aot impede aesmal aad orderly develapmeac aad improvemeat of surzouadiag praperty for usea pezmisted izc u` e I-2 zoaiag distriei. A aoise asseesment was conducted foz the shreddiag operatioa. TThee most aers it�ve land use ad}acent to the eite is the resideatial area weat of Coacord Street vtich is approximately 1,20o feet from ttte proposed plaat locatioa. Withons the aoise wall the pzojeeted noiae levnl exceeds the day t:me ataadard. 'Sherefore, eonstruecioa of a aoise barrier to mitigate aoise ia needed to ensure that che eity aad 2�CA noise staadards area met. A1ser is gla^�*�^g to eanst�uct a self-staading souad wall vest of the shzedder to ensure thac aoise scaadards are met duriag shredder Zor.:nc -zle �95-=70 ^ '� _ � " � Page ?ccr c�crat_r.., vcise ievels are p:ojected to be vit�=a the day t:.r.e star:car'_s wce : :.._se :ra:i :s y. place. '"::e aYpi:ca.^.� sta=es that •+:_: :`:e �rcpcsed bar_ ar, aaise :evels ac t.*.e :lcsest :es:d�ces aloag Concor� St=eet are rred:cted to c�iy vith !"3U dayc_ae ac=se sta^.c'ar3s. Ac=ord_^g �o sta.�._ :=om the of=_ce af License. I:seect:oas, and :-;r:ranmeacal arotec=:cn :ae propcsed vall, des=yned :a screea che source eY :he noise, w:ll be aden�:ate to keep c'ay time aoise levels i7 a.m. co 10 p.m.) wi�h:a �iLy aad state esaadarP.s. The day time L10 scaa2ard :s 65 d�'ia; the esc:mated aoise Ievel ac the neareet zesideace :s 62 d3a. 3 d8a less than the nLaadar3. Peter ICishel, LI�P, is ia the pzxass of gather-.:g addi.icnal ia_ozaacica aad �.r:Il provide PID ataff vith a vriLten swmnary of his findiags and recortanendations zelaciag to aoise. That sunm�arf r+ill be available at the public hear�ag. 6. The Department of P�u'lic Aorks 2us revieved tra=:-c data ree�tly col:ecced i..z the azea and Alcer Corporatioa'a plaaa .or the site. The depar:aent has ider.t:f:ed no problem with Che campaay's glacs as faz as tra::ic is eoncer..ed and believes the existiag road ayntem ia this induscr:al area is capable of aceommodatiag the type aad amauat of t�af:ic expected by the propaaed use. A zeview of the data eolSeeted iadi�ates that betveea 25 and 55 gereeat of the traf:ic on Bar,re C�anael Road is truck trafEie, due to the industrial nature of the area (this pezceatage includes nemi-trailers aad st=aight trucks but aoc gick-ug trucks or vaas). Zn add:.tion, the moniag ar.d evening peaks oa Barge Chaanel Road de aot coiacide with the moring and evening peaks on Coacord Street. Rathez, truck tzaffic is spzead thzoughout the day. During the moraiag peak, 7:15 to 8:15, there are 172 t��*+�+++g mcvements ac the Coacord & Ba:^ge Channel intersectioa: 1J 2a right tssrns ia vhich is eompr±sed of 6 multi-ax:e vehicles and 18 two-a�c].e vehicies; 2) 49 r:ght t.�^as ouc whscs is comprised of 35 multi-axle vehicles nnd 14 two-axle vehicles; 3) eI leEt tusxs ia which is eoertprised o! 16 multi- axle vehicles aad 65 cwa-axle vehicles; and 4) IS left turas out whieh is comprised of e mulei-axle vehicles and ia to+o-azle vehi.cles, During the afteraooa peak, �:15 to 5:15, there are 2H6 t*•r^�^g movements at che Concord a Barge Chanael iater�ec:ioa: 1) I4 right turas ia whieh is coa�Qrised of 1 multi-axle vehicle aad 14 tw-ax:e veh:cles; 2) 156 righc turas out vtuch ie comgr:sed of 1� m�alei-axle vehi.cles and 156 tw-axle vehiclen; 37 79 left turna ia which i9 eempzised oP 21 multi-axle vehicle� aad 58 tvo-axle �ehicles; aad 4) 3? le.t tu_-as out which is comprised of 5 multi-axle oehicles aad 32 iw- axie vehicle�. AVEFJ�GY D7SS.Y TSWTZC I�VIItkGE DiII1��t 07 P�CLt3 Y�t 804R OT T� 82Cffi9T 3 80IIR.5 YSR II7►Y Robie StreeL 732 53 earge Channel -- south of Rnbie 3,627 350 Bazge Chan.'zel easc of Robie 1,427 132 Zca�.g ?_=e �5.-110 Bage ?ive � „ acz=_:or. �c t�.is spec:al cond-�icn uae pe^ait, rhe applicazc must orta.. _'_:e :o'_leviag ap_r_ovals, liceases, and pe�its; all o: the aFpi:ca�:or.s are cur=ent:y in pzocesaiag aad pendiag. �.,=>s ?.V_:.__�x �H:`7?S'•Z1"?CN Nec:ce e: Pseposed C�ascructioa ST_A"=' Cr M:�7N_50?A r Pollutlea Caatrol llg�acy StoracWater Managemeat ?laa fer Constxuctioa Site/NPDES Star.nva[er Discharge Associaeed with Zadwstrial Activity �:= 2ezmi.t - Zastallatioa aad Operatioa Pezmit D�partmaat ef Natvral R�ioure�� A�nropriatioa Pezmit D�par�at of S�alth Xa�ez We1Z Variaace, if necessasy RAF!5^f COUNT"I Ut:lity Permi.ts CI?Y Q° SAZNT PAIIL S�Le Plan Review Buildiag Permit Licease for the Reeyeling Procesaing Ceate: Z, STAP! RBCCSIDffi7DATZON: Saaed on fiadings 1 through 3 ataff recoc�eads approval of the special eoaditioa use pezmit, subje�t io the following coadition: The apglicant shall obtaia, and maiataia, all re�ired permitn and licers es ia compliaace with State aad loeal laws. Staf: may suggest additional conditione, based upon the outcome of furthez review of �ae noise assesamrst by the Otfiee of Lieense, Znsgections, aad Eavironme:.tal Proeectioa. ThaL ia£ozmatioa wiSl be pzeaeated u the public hear:ag on October 12, 1995. R�sDaR: I^se decision as to vhctSer aa eavizoameatal it�act statemeat (SSSl ia needed vill be made on October 9, 5995. Zf aad HZS is aseded, the pl�^^+^g eomni.ssion•s accian on this special eonditioa uae pezmit applicatiaa vill not be aeeded uncil aftez the E2S bas beea comglet�d. It an EIS is aot aeeded the pl�^*+=nq co:cmiissien will proceed vith the apeeial coadit�oa use gexmit applicatioa and hold the publie heariag oa Oetober 12. 1995. . .� . " i CIIY OF SAIlVT PAUL ti�o»n Colernan Meyo� NOVCTi1bCf 1, I�S Mr. John Grntzkow Vice Presidrnt of Operdtions Alter Trrding Corporazion 21 ] 7 State S�et BettendorF IA 52722 Dcaz Mr. Genakow: DEPAR7ME`? OF PLA?MI1yG t ECON0IAC DEVEIAPMEN7 La.*�' A Bs�r=k.. Ilnecrw IJ Wut Favrh Sarer Sont Per(. Mf� S3J02 ^ ��- 586 TrlepJrp�t 6l1-266-6"00 Fccznule 611-22d-326f 7his ietter is W�rittcn to inform you that on the basis of the Environmrntal Assessmrnt Workst�ee[, the commcnu recieved from reviewing agencia, projezt proposer responses to those commrnu, and additional infonnation recieved in connection with this project as refleesed in the Raord of Decisien, and consistrnt with the provisions of §10.05.(7) of the Saint Paul Adminiseative Code, the Ciry of Saint Paul u the Responsibte Govemmrnul Unit (RGU) fot the proposed Aiter Trading Company Metal Shrcdder projea at 801 Barge Channel Road in Saint Paul hss daermined that No Em•ironmentai Impact Sutement is required for this project, provided that the project proposer Alter Trading Corporetion: 2. 3. Arranges for a study to be condueted unda the joint diiscrion of the Minnesota Departrnrnt of Health, the Minnesota Pollution Conuoi Agrney and Saint Paut P.E.D., which addresses the potmtial for significant human hahh and eeoiogical risk associued with emissions md discharga muiting from the long tam opa�aDOn of a metal shrsdder at this Iocarion, and provided that the auessmmt concluda thst ti�e pouatial r'ssks are or cnn be braught witbin uceptable standards; Works with the City of Saint Paui to �ddtess the negadve impacu of incraud traflic t3uongh a raidrntia! ncighborhood; and Rxciva w�ium confmnttion from the Mianesota Polluaon Control Agrnry t3�at all rolevant liceasing and pesmitting roquiiemeats att mec. As communicated to your Anorney, this daision wss reachod on Wednaday October 25, 5995, aad ss 2 � lohn Grnti3cow November 1, 1995 Page two � � - 5 8 6'� of that daze we have iaitiaud processing of the Speeial Coaditioa Use Pamit applintion for this ficiliry. Please eontact Cbuia MeGuire u 266-6553 if you mquirs turtha iaformation eonetraing this matter. Sincercly. Latry Buegler, Director Saint Paul Pianning & Ecanomic Devdopment � DATE: TO: Interdepartmentai Memorandum CCTY OF SAII•T PALZ December 11, 1995 Janiee KcIly-D�mkins ^�—��� FROy1: Ctsatiss MeGuire RE: Update on statvs of mvironmrnnl rsluaIIOn of the Proposed Alter Meuf Raycling Faciliry at 801 Buge Chauncl Road, Saint Paul. The Putiealue Dispasion and Deposition Modeling :eport prcpusd bY Bnua Intrruc Corpoasion, daced November 3, I995, is presa�dy being rsvirwed by the Minnaota Poliution Contro� Agmry aad ths Minnesota Deputrnmt of Halth. We �ers iafnrmed by t6em ort Novaaba 17 thst thry �riil comp{ete their ir�ievr by Decemba IS st the tasest 2he impocnace of the environmrnta! imp�et of dcpositions fram plsnt emissions, m�lca it asential that we tsave their response m tAis nepert befo� we ciou the EAW Qrocas. ' Mo[her cancun thu effects our sehedule is neighborhood undazsaading. While tbas will not l�cely be genera! agreemrnt on conctvsians wt Rach eaaeaaing eitha t�e nad for �a Es�vironmmnl Impact Sruemrnt or permitting for wnsaveboo of t3�e faeiliry, it is impotsaat for the eonrinuing procas that interssced puria. ineludiag neig3sbofiood intesssts, fa�ow tt�ry have beea �{e tc review aad cama�eat on the basis for our decisions. Siace tbe Env'voammnl Assasmeat Wo�kshxt is 'eompleud' ia piecemea! fsshion, we believe it ensonabie w pcovide fec ceview of a complersd EAW before our deeision is final. For thae reasons, we have outlined tfie following zehedule for complerion of the F1iW procrss aad the exunsion of time that t3�is wiil requ'ue: Decaaber 22 Jsauasy 26 Publish Fiadings aad DaFarazion for commrnt paiod to e4ose Jmuvy I5. Es�e 6aat Fmdinp a�d Declaeation Eariier receipt of commast from the a�mcia wiIl asable us tn comptese and relese our susement arlia. We knav that Atra wcwld 4lct to svoid fietir dday, a�d we �et o0 ooeclode t!x pr0ass u quieiclY as we �,^ �th nrw iaformmon on aitini �view issua �ceived �nd t�e uapo:saace of m open process for the cacamuaity. we believe tlut tbis is f� minima! �edule. plase le� me know if yon nxd addioonal iafotm�on. K:�SESJ.AIDtMCC LN.TSGD t ECOHOMI[ JEVELOPME?.; ta. c e�. cd.��o. � OF SALtiT PALZ Honw Calewraw Xeyer Dersmba 14, I995 Mr. 3ohn Gmtziccw Vice Prssidmt of Operations AIter Tndiag Corporuion 21 i7 Stue Semt Betsendorf IA 52 .2 Deat Mz. Gastzkow: 11 K'etr fwvr.� Sce'+ Saw�m�L F/N:7/0: r `,"P`�' �6 ;.ry.d.: ctaus�s-oa f�v�.�ts.- i!I-ISE-316/ At our meeting Novembez 30, 1995 we artlined a trntuirve sehedufe for eamplttion of the Envirommcal Assessmrnt Wor9csheec �nd making a finaI deetaravon tt�aeon. Ttris x�sednie wu baxd on an undessta:sding that we wouid receive fuul cammenu from t�e Miaaeson Depu�eat of Hn}th {MnDH) and the Minneson PoiIution Coaco( Agrnry (I�CA) witf� respect w potart+al Iu�aa md eeologicai toziciry pmbtems by IJecetnber I5, 1995, provided thry rstieved �dditiona! informsaon they tsquaud within a short cime aRer ouz November 17, 1995 mceciag with the ageaeia. We andersrand from youz eansu}nat Bnua Intertec, thu the agmry �uamd iafo�itioa is te become available u them today, md will take a week or so for than to evaiwu. While we will IIy to hoid u elose u possibie to the time ftame out3iaed in the schedule we verbally discassed rt t�e Novem6er 30, 1495 mating, it wiI1 aot be pouble to mxt t6e origias! d:tn dixvsud, riaee we cta noc camptete the dnft Rececd of Decision uatiI we receive rhese commma. Although we uadastaad your prtfecsna far a dxlsr:tion a dx eaiiest pom�ble data de feet eammitted to the sthedule we oudined and belie�+e the proceu witl wor;c more saoothly if we continue along this cou:se. If you have aay quarions about our pasicon, Pleue coanc Krn Ford a(612) 266-6577, or myxl£ Thank you for yow cooperarien us this caatta. Sin Hu c. D'cator Pianning uid Econosaie eIogmenc CC: Lloyd Grooms Peser Beck z.�swaEev.sccui-unur.zzr To: � t,�a� � 5 � 6 Greg Dsehmol " FAX: 223-5198 FROM: Kea Ford � Tca drafted for a Ierrer thar probably xnn 7 bt scnt. br¢ this aalines thc schedulr for rht F� procuslor thr Alser proposal as wt see ir end tJie necso�s jor ir. 71u 60�day periad �or eamplaion oj t1u Speda! Condisioe Use Penais will begin i�nr�i�eh r�on P�blirarion of a reegame drrlaration orr rhe IIS qyestioa (alrerr+�ively na �msil a�s IIS is conrplded}. � . .. � .. ... .. - • - • • • • \ � • � y� � •• ���� � �'♦ � • • • • /1� • • • • •- � • • � • ��1� •1 � •�\�� � • � J/� • � • � • ���1 � � _ •• •�1� � 1. • •. H\ { N�\. �� ����� • • • • � • • • • • •• { • ���• • •• • • ��. pi0CLS5. Another concern that effecu our schedule is, of course commuairy understandin8. Wbile thete will not likely be grneral agreement on the conclacion we tucb concerning eitber tbe �ed for an Environmenta] Impaa Suttment or permitung for coamuctioa of tbe fsciliry, it is imporranc for che conanuing process tLac imerested puties. iac2udinQ �iYhDorhood ia�eruu, Imo�x they have betn able to review aad Comme� on the bisis for out detisioas. Since the Enviro�aensaI Assessment Worksheet is 'com�ler�d' ia pi� fishion, we believe that it is reasonable to provide for review of n completed FAa' befois o� daision is final. For these reasons, wc have ouflined the scbedule beloa for compietion of the EAW process and roquest yoiu concurrence with thc ezttnsion of dme thu thiz will aquire: � _ ... . t• � ...,. _ .. ��..... .� .... .�_ ... �_ ., ..., _ . . .�. .. � - • • • �� ��rA�l • � 1� ' ti1 .��� • • •��� '� •� �� • •�' •�•1 • � ♦ • ��� •. /• • � � • �� � • ��� • �1 • � • � 1� � � • ����� • • � • • 11 • �� �� �� �����1 �� � �1 ��1 • •�� • Interdepartmentai Memorandum C1TY OF � �T PALl �� 5�6 DAZE: Decaabrs 29, 1995 TO: Camcil Membet Mr7�e Hur'ss FROM: Xea Fad � Subjcet: Altcr Tndia; Cempany Ptcpoaal, Plaiu aad Sehcdnie. In cssponse to your rsquat, thc following dacribes the Alttt Ttading Company proposal to add a meul shredder to their oQeruion on Barge Channel Raad in S�iat Paul, u�d the City's �view process for their proposal. The Environmenta! Asussmcnt Worksheet process addrasa arvuoamenra! issuu associated with the proposa! and will conciude with a decision that an Environmcntal Impzct Statement iz oc is not aeeded. An Environmrnta! tmpact Statemrnt will be ulled for if, u the eonclusioa of tf�e usrssment, there is still a significant luk of information necasary to answer environmmul conea:ss. Lcrrd scse iuues will be addrused in a Special Condition Use Pamit process. Uada the Saint Pwl Zoning Code, a iscycling plant u allowed at AIuPs siu subjeet to speciaJ condiaons. Atur is a resycling 5ciliry, buc chey were "grandfichaed in" uada thi.s mniae code wishocc a special conditon use petmit, so a persait will be sequired for this expaasioa The wmpany 4�as submitssd �a applieaIIOn for a SCiTP which wiIl be decided try t�e pIanaiag eommissioa. P:ocessiaY af t�is sppli�oa will not begin uatiI m savironmeatal 'smpsct statcmeat is complued, or a decisioa is made that ta - eavironmental impact sntement wilf aot be required. 'I�c faciIiry wiU aiso stquirt an ait qustiry permit fiom the siate and a Nuiotul Poilaiion Disclaatge Elimination System permit At pmsnt, we ats aear wmpleCOn of the Eavironmucnl Assessmeat Wor�shea proeess. We will issue a stuemmt of tLe dxision snd a deeision iscard, ia dralt fo�, earty ia lm�ry (depeadia8 on receipt of information we ue pesseatly iwaiting fsflm stite a�eacies). We wiil alIow s paiod of time for rcview aad cocnmea� inctuding t pubtic haring, thm issue a fia�J daisioa aRer ceviewing ilt comment cseeived. The foilowing describa the rnvirortmmu! sssessment worksheet proerss to due. A iocuion map utd s site dnwing us aaactsed- • In June of this year. Atur Tradin� Com¢any and its coasultancs �proached the Pott A�ority _ u�d the Ciry indiating shat they wu�ud to ezgaad their saap metsi p:ocessing businar u their 801 Buge Clunnd Raad siu wirh she sddition of a meu�I shredda. To avoid tbe possibiliry of prolonged dekys, tlxy nlced thu a vofunta[y EAW (Eavimamasa! Assasmmt Woricshac) De P�P� desailusg the pojecs md possihle usociaud mvirenmmul �oescerns. T6e CitY ag�s�d Council Member Hasris December 22. 1995 p3g� z to act u the "Raponsb[e C»vanmenul Uaif (RGiJj for t�e process- � �_ ,�, ... � $ b , the proposed project would iavolve inssalIition of a maal shreddc sad miteriais handting equipment on the site m ocpaad the ezisting reeyeling business. c�P�� �e buzinas of other commoditia (coa1, sa1� fvtiIize ae.) shipPia� saussSaaeat 2he m�chiaay wrould be e�able of shredding becwem 700 tad 900 toas of saap meul a day. iaeluding shas scee� �usomobile bodia md othc scrip. 2he major eoccaas with thc projai eenta on air quality. w�ater qvalitY, noise, utd Baffic. • An EQB rula review iadicated dsu the proposed project did not filt within aay maadatory teview ntegory imdc ths Minnesoa Eavironmmnt Pmteetion Aa (MEPA). The Ciry a�sed to ut u the RGU unda the conditioo thu the Assessmrnt be prepared at t3�e developa's cost by a qualified environmmisl consulhnc Alter hsd alteady rzuined Braun Intatee, a local environmenta( consulting fum, knovm to staff from prior mvironmenul wodc. • At the rnd of June 1995, a dnft EAW wu delive:rd by Bnun Intatee for review by city suff. ARa some modifscuions resultiag from oar eeview and discussion witb Bnua, a draR w�s roleased for cirsuluion Jniy 15, 1995, and fiunithed to the standard EQB list of seview �.geneia for tocat pmjats- • Since a pras tsleue roquired by EQB Ruia conr.sraiag t�e avaiZsbi2iry of the draft for review wss`not celeued within the isquired time, the draft wu "tr�ttleued" u the end of July; md the "opcn wmment paiod," w�tich wzs to have cIosed on ar about Augusc IS, 1995, wu camde� w the ead of August , • Copia of the dnR re+rievr were made avaiIsb(e to siI iadividuals �adla ageacia avho roquated it u required ut�da the EQB rula. • ,hgency md otba seviewa eommeatt csaived prior ta tbe ead of Au�ust iadiared sigaifiesnt concttns whieh stsff beliered mi�ht be raalved with the pso'visioa of addiaooal iafarmaion by the projecs proposer. Ahc. A menociadum aotifyin� the EQB of the City's daision ta requat additionai infosmatien wu seat to the EQB on Septembe E, 1995. T6tt memoaadum otrtlined additional inforsnuion rueded �aording to the reviews 6y sevaal aeencies md agmiaaons inciuding tf�e Nuional Park Savicr, the Minnesota Depsnmrnt of Halth, Mituiaan Departmeat of Nuurat Resoa�t�s. th° M'n'es°u Poliurion Control A�enry, Frieads of t3se Mississippi River, and the Met:opolitan Councii. Raponse to a luge anmba of concerns wu requesced, focusing mostty on: - a. Conrrol of partieulue anissions; b. Likelihood of emissions coatrol faiIures and the impuu of same: Councii Member Har,is December 22, 1995 Page 3 `�� �� � 5 8 � �-�, c. Storm water muuganent for the 1.3 acre s�da pad, including the specifics aoud for the entize siu; d_ Aa aosion eontroi plan for before usd aPta consrtucaron; e. Equipment generued nciu snd 'caspped" aoise acenuatioa a+�a disunce; f. Impact of noise on the use and mjoysamt of the Mississippi River, tad g. Msuuru to ufeguazd soils snd alI pountial esuiving wucs � d e esel � I fuel rtonge consaminttion which may a:isa out of spills imm t�e proQosed �° tank. • During the earty part of Septanber. mpensa to a8ency �°cnmeat' wese devetoped hy the projeet proposcr, their consuttant and Ciry suff- This information was ft+misAed tc th° i8uu'a and commentaa in the laner part of September. Additional commrnu uid questiens were submitted by the rcviewas car(y in October, iniciazing an additional round of informuion deveSopment • In the last weeSc in Sepcember. Ciry suff a+�d she project proposer were invited to a mating with neighbofiood midcnu at the Gaadalupe Area Project buiiding. A teQrcsentaci�e of Alur Trading atso responded ta questions u thu meeting. Sercral meatings ha�e been hetd with atea gibups and agrncy persennel to eiuifY issua and • concems - most all of which centa on the environmaiul dem�a� m�tioned above. 'lhere is signifieant coneem about pouible deposition oP heavy me2als in tfse sail sad th° "muaB of inetal particulua to the aanosphas whieh is still beiag ncamined. � Ciry suff and suff from tf�e Miaaaoa Department of Hnith aad the M�a.nesora Pollurion � • Coatrot Agency ma to discuss outsonding questions aad timia� fa eompieaon ef the exa:ainition of sddiuocsal dsn ia Ne�aaba Csome ncighborhood reptssea �� �a � eir meetin�. A tmutive dm of December 15 wu givea fot the �stt a$eneY woric if alI the informsrioa th�Y �equ�s� arss milable wRt�in a'few wxks.' Th� �s4ua� ieformation w�s not mitabk uaal ariY in tbo w�ed� af Daeemba lE, 1995. Zhis w'iU delsY a�ency �ssponsc aad add to tfie dacisioa tmdiae fa the EIS D�clantion- . Whcn fuui agrnry commenu ue sseived, staff will compiae a'DeaR Record of Daisioa' for � �W �d ttleue the dnft for additiossa! pubic review �nd eomma�t A puDlic haring will be hetd in tfu neighbochood. s�d s final 'Record of Daision" wii{ be mxit sefleeting the dec�sion of the RGU concernin8 the nxd for an EIS. If no IIS is �quined, the ptoeas for m,�rvr and appcovai of a Special Condition Use Permit will begio immedjue�7• lf an EIS is � no {y�a worlc n,n bc done on the projea �ustil tf�e EIS is compleud. . gecause of time toss for sespenses and r�Pti�s. a+�d the need for time to set aP a pabiic hnriag. we cumntty atimate that the due for finsi 'EIS Decision' wiIl be ibout mid FebrtcarY• Councii Member Harris December Z2, I995 Page4 �� ��� We will sry to kecp you spprised of any chanQa irt xhedule. Pteue la me or Charics McGaiss (of my ssaf� fasov+ if you need aaY additiona! informscion conceming this pcajat McGuire aa be rsached by phone u 266-6553. Amefianeau: Lacuioa Map Siu Ptan cr. Couna'I Pissident Thunc Counci! Manbas Mryor Caleman Lacry Buegla Peser Wama _ _ cu�cowwu��.TX* �. lo I // I I�� / Gµ�+iie Bor.IIuch �i ���' / • , N DeUreed .� ( I ;:���\ . .�" `w � I' , ,• I � ' � ��.�`� ,� , $he�' "�_I _I ,�?"^�� •. �: � _ ." • y,1 V � �� � t.. ' ��� � I I y / /�Lake Shore��\ � htc �` 4 n<.�� �r-- ��` � , ��' �J . �r \, 7 .1 �s.�ia�r ' � `�'j ' ��a � =,�t�,.�.A���,.�, , � il 1 _ . .: ��,..= t� � �--�--- �J' � n,«;�.:ooa ����� � e�Q��Lh<o� �1� // '� � -. � " � .�� � r' � Vadnau Hu�hts � � ��'?tytt'�e. � � �'� � '' � � =t�'fiterai 1 �-��� �-=� I� :�___,- o� ,� .�r • " ' ` I�r�'� ��.�".�.. '�. // - .�.. � � �:.-�� � �.� ;��-J� -.:: � � - �,r' I f�• , .::': • :oPin . - 0 - } � •'. - �'� V��`�� s i � ', / ' _,}�a ) .'':.� I� f�" :�:-r ..� � '"�� -���i�c.�-: ... . _ -_ � _ : : � _ , - .j' .� '<r4 �,�.- L ' !; �L1tU 6anids �'jr, �1' _�:jY._�:. . � .:� - ` 4 y r - �� �'� �� _ _- � .� , ` `:� �..• . �,:� :. . � = ?,:: . �.,, 'i� Sa�nc Ancno� ''�� � � � ' � .'. ," � � ..� • � -� -t.i' � J : �' = ' y = , .''� . - tierth S�la! Pi.il;�� : "" .•, ..,; .. _ .�� - •_ _ ..:_--. ,�� ..: - ::�.:�';:_ '�..-,'- , . .. _ _,� - - •.-.-_ _,_. ,. � �� -. �,�� . , f a���' K'� �w� i r. t��� � �. l. 4 ; � t , �� . f fGLdstene � : t�,-':= ' - (;.suderdals :��' � `� . � .� S-: j: =�:� ,._ -� ��: :. •_.J � � . : � .:�?°- ` ,.:�. � .:�=. , .�, _ :.�.; ;. ., , F,<<a� s'<��� C � SiTE LOCATION .a P��,�- 1 � .�. , : ���r �. � :��� �j ..._,-.- :_,�� ���: ; :�_...��� �ti�,.� • � . .I � �� �r r:'_ • � •: �L' j ' i . a9 . . _- .�; .loj� •_i '3r�lr.; � ' � '�' .' . '. .,., ' " �• "�i.'1.-:-f-�' _.. �1 � �� `�:. � i• , �.M 3-��:.1! .� _ .'r ^� / ' `�'/: .-.. ;� i''r'.: St i ,:i'�`t• • � � '��.•'� :�r°wi � •�l.•' ��.� S f,w', _ , ll � . � .'� : .•' ` : .r�: � .�. .� .� ." • ' ... . ��� ^:, •i.`':�� ",`1�•.�r`�.}"'� y ai %' �� � 1"' �(--i��i S%py.`.�1' � ,.i.� I<�COd �•��� 1 : .. _ . a ':' - .. : ':�� .:.� `�'�� � �• _ M� _ . _ 6 �� i ��;;;�� •q: 7' cI� (^ t-� •1• I • :p, D 7`T'-•�':I { v` � � ' .` .' `1 .. -. �..3J�� 0 �' ' A <e� �wr.v v .. . S( ��' . J ` � ..� �M1L { � �':. �.,� : .. ....:y-•' "� ::r;.� ai ��t' aul �-= :: �2_.`� ":i L �� �_��r~� ro^-..c <.`. '• .. -i � "� �.�', ,:�, �tl ' _.: ...�'Fl A��-S�' - ° ` w v� : . � � •.i'.� .'.�. -�; �T:C-•.s':�'Li• 16' � t = "r'_ �' �d.: � 3t Piul De+'n , ° r:: , � � , ` � S �'^ c.��Y'�' �'��`� �• 4• . y '• lF. 3� �- J ��.9' 1 i ` �C�T'�• �' ` i '�'. .. . Z . �.. ,! si Z", ^" � ' . a � ` ��t-.� ' ��. � S!s'} iy • �f.I.. !T . . :.'.. � . .,�; � : ; �:,, �,, �,�} � ' :. : � ' f J3 ).i .. �_yIy dal� r e� nc •ul c r , ' .` •T 'y`'y: c � �:: -. 7.. r ..%�' ,�� - :ri"• I � • 't �' 7 � � �.� .' '�' - � .�' :Y: -;:r>. . `e,= (I' i\ 1 ,.'=1 'l :_ .F:':• , -; :� .;: • 1993 • �<to�^c �+, 0�_^9�' Scale l:1Z!.000 (it emeu) LEG c.*7D , .: PoPutoGOn Genler __ County 9oundcry 2Mu�� . O Slcte Ro�te �� uajor Street/Rocd 2t--��j : � f StN.e C�o�to� �� Stote Route � , TOwn. SnC!1 `�ity �-� Int[.'SIC:t Hic�hwCy o lorge C�ty ` �-e u5 r.�Sn•oY � � Inte�s:c;e. Turnpi�e ,r�' Lo�c �cis ° US H�Sne.ey �. �=:.1 OOer woter �v � � �.i•(ield I B R�U Ny P�CJ�CT LOCATtON RAMS�Y COU�"' �+A� PROPOSED St. PAUL. MINNESC'A °�Ati' � AITcR TitADfNG CORPOaAT1C�: 1NTERTEC BENTTENOORF, tOWA , �1� � ��eod���.i r � t'�' . i ��} ti �� � /., � l':i_.�"��j'� '// '� c'� • .: . RAM$£`.' C'JU'� iY MAP ?4as 1ZN we6Fen.. �I az.aa t99s � N T e��N9vN 9��' pR..V e.. LC_ C2-2a-9 • ,rr� e•: u9 � C2-��- � ,pa �, Cwxz-;S-OOSB DK �e iix°_:+o��F1GURE•� � r L y � � � � Communiry Meeang Drafc E�vironmental Assessment Worksheet Record of Decision Proposed Atter Trading Corporation Recycling P/anf Ramsey County Saint Paui, Minnesota �� � S 0��"�. QU�� FpR O�S�'� City of Saint Paul Norm Coleman, Mayor May 17, 1996 Questions shoufd be directed to: Chartes L McGuire Department of Pianning and Economic Development (612) 266-6553 ���586 The City of Saint Paul does not discriminate on the basis of disability, rece, sex, sexual or affedional orientation, age, color, creed, national origin or ancestry, marital status, religion, veteran status, or 5tatus with regard to pub(ic assistance in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs or activities. Table of Contents r ��- �8� Description of the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Process for Public Notice and Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comments, Responses and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Issues Related to the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 Particulate Dispersion and Deposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Particulate Emission Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Composition of Particulate Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Deposition of Particulates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3(a) Impact on PM10 Non-attainment Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 13(b) Effect on Air Qualiry in Closest Residential Area ..... 1.3(c) Effect on Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3(d) Potential Effea on Soil Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Potential Effect on Human Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Potential Effed on Wildlife and Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Potential for Failure of Pollution Control System . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 Particulates in Water Vapor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 Storm Water Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Stormwater Characteristics, Flows and Discharge Destinatio� .................................... 2.2 Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Sensitivity ot Floodplain Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0 Impact on the Flood Plain and Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Ftood P1ain Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Wetland Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 Soil and Groundwater Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Existing Contamination oi the Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Potentiaf Soil and Groundwater Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 Well ConstructionlGround Water Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Water Well Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Water Resource Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 Accidental Spilfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0 Disposition of Shredder Residue (Fluffl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Composition of Shredder Residue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Residue Handling and Disposal Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0 Noise .............................................. 8.1 Noise Levels by 7ime of Day at the Closest Residences ..... 8.2 Impacts on Recreational Users of the Mississippi River ...... 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 4 7 8 10 11 13 14 76 23 24 26 26 29 31 32 32 33 34 34 35 37 37 38 40 42 42 43 45 45 49 Community Mee[ing D2fr / `� J ��� Issues Related to Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0 Tra�c ..-• ......................................... 9.1 Projected Levels of Truck Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �9.2 Access to the Site and Neighboring Residentiat Community ... 10.0 AesthetidRetreational impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 General Impacu on Aesthetic and Recreational Resources .... 10.2 Pig's Eye Regional Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • - • - . . . . . . . 10.3 City of South Saint Paul Riverfront Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.0 MNRRA Plan Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.1 Appropriateness/Necessity of a Riverfront Site . . . . . _ . . . . . . 17.2 Consistency with Resource Protection Policies/No inaeased Nonconformity ..............:........••-•.....•- 11.3 Relationship to Minn. Siat. 116.G.151 iMinnesota River Critical Areas Ad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.0 RiverfronUNeighborhood Development Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Issues Related to the Review Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.0 Consideration of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0 Related or Anticipated Future Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.0 Other Comments Raised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.0 Public Notice .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.0 Adequacy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet . . . . . . . . . . 17.1 Description of Facility Under Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.2 GeneralConcems ................................ 18.0 Need for an Environmental Impact Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 51 57 52 54 54 56 57 58 59 67 63 66 69 69 70 72 73 76 76 77 80 Declaration .......................................................... 84 - APPen ices .......................................................... 8� Communiry Meeting Drah `_ �-�8b Description of the Project Alter Trading Corporation proposes to expand its existing metal recycling faciliry by instaliing metal recyCling equipment manutactured by Texas Shredder, Incorporated on an existing, already devetoped industrial site located at 751-78t Barge Channel Road in Saint Paul. The plant and associated eddy current separation system wouid cover 55,000 square feet. The planYs fundion would be to recycle approximately 750 to 900 tons per day of scrap metal such as industriai scrap, automobile bodies, and miscelianeous Iight gauge steel. Most oi the metal would be purchased and trensported from local industries and scrap yards. Once the material is processed, it would be transported by barge, rail or truck to various consumers. Installing this metal recycling plant on the site wouid resuit in the removal of stockpiles of coal and salt currently stored at the location of the proposed expansion and wo�id preclude the use of the site for the transfer of other commodities. Purpose of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Process The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA� is a standardized list of questions in a worksheet format designed to disciose the necessary iniormation to screen the project for signiiicant environmental effects. It is intended to ensure that decision makers at all levefs have the necessary information to make inrormed judgemenu on licensing, land use or funding decisions. While the informaCion included in the EAW will likely be used in the required review associated with project permits, approvaf or denial of any permit appfication is not part of tfie worksheet review process. A Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) is obligated by the rules of the Environmental Quality Board to review the information provided in an EAW and determine if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared. The rules state: An EIS shalt be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effecu. !n decrding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental eirects the RGU shal( compare the impacu that may reasonab(y be expected to occur from the project witn the criteria: A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effecu; 8. Cumulative potentra/ effects of re/ated or anticipated future projeccs; C. 7he extent to which environmenral effects are subjecc to mitigation by ongoing pu6lic regulatory authority; and D. The extent io whith environmenial effecu can be anticipated and coniro{led as a result of o[her environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, or of EISs previousfy prepared. This Record of Decision details the comments and information received by the City of Saint Paul and records its findings relative to the potential for significant environmental effect, and, theretore, the need ior an Environmentai impact Statement. Gommnniry Meen� Drak r �� ��� Process 4or Pubiic Notice and Comment July 16, 1995 Environmen[a! Assessment Worksheet prepared and submitted to the City of Saint Paul Department of Planning and Economic Development by Breun lntertec Corporation Juty 17, 1995 No2ice of avai4ability o4 EAW for seview published in the Environmental Review Board's EQB Monitor Volume 20, #2. July 27, 1995 Press release provided to three newspapers of general circulation in the area: West Side Voice, Saint Paul Pioneer Press, and Minneapolis Star Tribune. A copy of the press release is attached (Appendix A). July 31, 1995 EAW comment period extended until August 31, 1995 in a notice published in the EQB Monitor 4otume 20 #3. September 8, 7995 City of Saint Paul notified the Environmenta! Quatity Board that the "El5 Need Decision" was postponed under the provisions of Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp.2a.6 because reviewer comme�ts indicated the need for additional detailed information on: air quality impacts, stormwater management, erosion controt, noise abatement and the possibility of fuet tanks spiils. September 25, 1995 Responses to agency comments mailed. October 72, 1995 Technical ending date of "?ostponment Period" under Mi�nesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp.2a.6. A complete tisting of correspondence and technicat documentation used in the development of the following record is contained in Appendices B and C of this report. Communiry Meeting D2ft 2 Declaration NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8E1NG PREPARED BY PETER BECK , �_5$6 Community Meeting Draft $4 NEIGBBORS ORGAMIIEp. !O 570P , , �8- � $� fl1E 11AtARDS OF ALL MElAL SNREapERS: 127 W. Winifred St•Sai¢t Paul, MN 55107•(612) 293-1708 Saint Paul City Council . City Ha11, 3rd floor 15 West Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55107 June 3, 1998 Deaz President Bostrom and City Council members: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Alter Trading Corporation's appeal for a special condition use permit for a metal shredder to be located on the West Side of St. Paul. NO SIIAMS! recommends you uphold the denial of the Alter Trading special condition use permit for three reasons. First, because the use is prohibited by the Saint Paul zoning code. Second, because the proposal does not satisfy the 5 general standards required to be met before granting a special condition use permit. I ask you to refer to yow packet, wlvch includes ow testimony from the April 16 zoning committee meeting highlighring how these standards wili not be met by the shredder proposal. Third, becat�se 16 of the 19 District Planning Councils have gone on record recommending the City Council prohibit large matal shredders in Saint Paul. Thank you. SincereIy, ,���,�„ Sheril7n Young� Co-Chair cc: WSCO Board A Project of it�estSide Citizens Orgcmization • Funded by Grants from ii'ortbauestArec� Foiendation � The Hec�d:oaters Fund �R#GINAi. ,�� Presented By l�� Refened To Council File # 18 - 5$�. Green Sheet # �p�\b`l Committee: Date �Z 2 WI�REAS, Alter Trading Corporation [Alter], in Zoning File 95-170 applied to the 3 Saint Paul Planning Commission [Commission] for a Special Condition Use Permit [SCUP] for a 4 "recycling processing center," more commonly known as a"metal shredder" on property 5 commonly known as 801 Barge Channel Road and legally described as: (see Zoning File 95-170 6 for a complete legal description); and 8 WHEREAS, the Commission's Zoning Committee [Committee] conducted a public 9 hearing on August 31, 1995, after having provided notice to affected property owners. At this 10 public hearing, the City Attorney's Office advised the Committee to delay any decision upon 11 Alter's SCUP applicarion until the completion of an Environmental Assessment Warksheet 12 [EAW] which would show whether the metal shredder would require an Environmental Impact 13 Statement; and 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 WI3EREAS, based upon the advice of the City Attorney's Office, the Committee laid the matter of Alter's SCUP application over until an EAW was completed; and WI�EREAS, public heazings were scheduled in October and November of 1995 but were canceled due to the need to compile additional data and analysis to complete the EAW; and WHEREAS, during late 1995, all of 1996, and into 1997, City planning staff worked with Alter, Altez's environxnental consultant, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Department of Health, to compile additional data and analysis needed to complete the EAW; and WIIEREAS, before the EAW {and its accompanying Record of Decisaon) were released on March 21, 1997, the Council of the City of Saint Paul [Council], in Council File 96-625, and pursuant to Minn. Stat. § G62355, Subd. 4, passed an internn ordinance which temporarily banned recycling processing centers; and WI�REAS, in Council File 96-624, adopted in August 1996, the Couucil also directed the City's Depar[ment of Planning and Economic Development [PED] to study the City's comprehensive plan and zoning regulations relaring to recycling processing centers and directed the Commission to study and submit a report to the Council with any needed planning ar zoning amendments; and WHEREAS, the Commission conducted the siudy as directed by the Council and released an interim study report on April 1, 1997. A fmal siudy report was issued on Apri129, 1997; and RESOLUTION SAINT P °i �r —SS� a 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 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 WI�REAS, on August 22, 1997, the Comxnission conducted a public hearing on the final study report and recommended zoning code and land use plan amendments which would prohibit lazge metai shredders within the City. The Commission's reasons for recommending that prohibitions against large metal shredders be incorporated into the zoning code and land use plan were as follows: The nature of e�ting industrial azeas in Saint Paul makes it inappropriate to locate lazge metal shredders in the city. There is no e�ting or potentiat industrial site in the City which has condifions sufficient to protect adjacent land uses from the negative impact of inetal shredders. There aze no industrial areas lazge enough to provide adequate sepazation of non- heavy industrial uses from large metal shredders, while providing sufficient highway access, buffering and visual screening. 2. 1995 state legislation requires the City of Saint Paul to update its comprehensive pian. The City has received a grant through the United States Department of the Interior to update the river corridor plan and evaluate new zoning regulations within the river comdor. It is inappropriate and premature to consider new or expanded extensive heavy industrial land uses within the Mississippi River corridor prior to completing the updates to the comprehensive plan and Mississippi River comdor plan. Large metal shredders shouid be prohibited from developing or eapanding in the river comdor at this time. 3. Large metal shredders should be prohibited in the City of Saint Paul because there is no need to locate such facilities in central cities and there are other areas, more appropriate than urban centers, in which to locate such facilities. Scrap metal is generated from a very lazge region, often encompassing more than one state. The economic feasibility of operating a large metal shredder does not appear contingent upon any single location within a particular region from which scrap metal resources are drawn. There also does not appear to be any essential locational criteria which would require a large metal shredder to be located in a major urban center as opposed to a less urban or rural location."; and WHEREAS, on December 3, and on December 10, 1997, the Council conducted a public hearing on the Commission's recommended amendments to the zoning code and land use plan and, at the conclusion of the public hearing, voted to adopt the recommended amendments which barred large metal shredders within the City; and WHEREAS, in a letter dated January 30, 1998, PED staff asked Alter whether, given that its proposed metal shredder was no longer a permitted use, did Alter still want a public hearing on its SCUP application for a large metal shredder. Alter advised that it wanted such a public hearing and on April 16, 1998, the Committee of the Commission conducted a public hearing on Alter's application after having provided notice to affected properiy owners, and, thereafter, the Committee submitted its recommendation to the Commission; and -Z- q�•s� 2 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2Q 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 WI�REAS, the Commission, by its resolution number 98-29 adopted Apri124, 1998, denied Alter's application based upon the following fmdings and conclusions: 1. 2. Sections 60.213.M. of the zoning code defines large metal shredders as follows: "Metal shredder, Zarge. A facility that accepts, stores, and shreds lazge used recyclable metal products, inciuding motor vehicles, appliances, sheet uon, industrial clips, whether oz not maintained in connecfion with another business. Shredding is the reducrion in size of the metal products by means of a rotor equipped with hammers, including in and out conveyors, serubbers, sepaza6on and dust collection equipment, and other connected machines." Secfion 60.623(3) required conditions of the I-2 Zoning District prohibits lazge metal shredders as foliows: "(3) The refining of petroleum or gasoline, stock yards, meat pacldng plants, large metal shredders, the incinerafion of infectious wastes and the crushing of rock, asphalt, or concrete for recycling are prohibited in this district." In 1989 a site plan review for a building expansion was approved. On July 31, 1995, Alter Trading Corporation formally applied for a special condition use permit (SCUP) for a recycling processing center. The applicafion proposed to install new technology known as a"Texas Shredder" and an"Eddy Current Separation PIanY'. PED staff authored a report finding that Alter's proposed use met the general standazds for a SCUP and specific standards for a recyciing processing center. The report anticipated that additional conditions would be suggested based on the outcome of a noise assessment and traffic assessment that were presentiy pending. The report also noted that a Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA� was being prepared. At the August 31, 1995, public hearing, the Zoning Committee was advised by the City Attorney's Office to delay discussion of the SCUP application until after the EAW analysis showed whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project was needed. If an EIS was needed, the SCUP application would be held in abeyance until completed. The staff report was revised to incorporate information about noise and traffic. Public hearings were scheduled for October and November, 1995, but were canceled because of the need far additional data and analysis in order to complete the EAW. During late 1995 through 1996, and into 1997, PED staff warked with Alter, Alter's consultant, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Minnesota Deparhnent of Health to complete the EAW. -3- ar-ss 2 4 5 On March 21, 1997, the City released a Record of Decision that an EIS was not needed for the proposed recycling center. However, PED could not act on Alter's SCUP because a moratorium on recycling centers had been adopted in 1996. 6 In June, 1996, before the EAW was completed, the City Council passed a 7 resolurion adopting a temporary moratorium (CF 96-625) on recycling processing 8 centers. The moratorium was temporary unril an ordinance could be adopted. 9 The council said questions had been raised as to whether the impacts of 10 automobile and steel shredders were fuliy understood and considered when the il 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 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 City considered the definifion of recycling centers adopted in an amendment in 1990. The Council questioned whether the conditions incorporated in the 1990 amendxnent were ineffective or obsolete in mitigating potenfial adverse effects of lazge metal shredders. The Council said it understood that three new automobile metal shredders were being considered in or neaz the West Side and Mississippi River flood Plain and questioned whether such a concentration of such uses would have a detrimentai impact on the area. In August 1996, the Council adopted an ordinance that directed the Department of Plamiing and Economic Development to undertake a study of the City's comprehensive plan and zoning regulations relating to recycling centers, automobile shredders and similar technologies (CF-96-624) and asked the Plamiing Commission to study and submit a report to the council with any needed planning or zoning amendments. The ordinance also enacted the moratorium on automobile shredders and similar technologies. The Plam�ing Commission designated the Meta1 Shredder Shxdy Committee to conduct the study. The City hired Dean Jolmson of Resource Strategies Corporation to assist it in completing the pianning and zoning studies. The studies were published in an Interim Report of April 1, 1997, and a Final Report of Apri129, 1997. The studies were considered by the Commission's committee in April and May, 1997. After considering its committee's recommendations and the public hearing testimony of August 22, 1997, the commission recommended zoning code and land use plan amendments to prohibit large metal shredders within the City. The reason for the prohibition, set forth in the Land Use Plan Amendment, were: "The nature of existing industrial areas in St. Paul make it in appropriate to locate lazge metal shredders in the City. There is no e�s6ng or potential industrial site in the city which has conditions sufficient to protect adjacent land uses from the negative impacts of inetal shredders. There aze no industrial azeas lazge enough to provide adequate separation of non-heavy industrial uses from lazge metal shredders, while providing sufficient highway access, buffering and visual screeniug." 2. "1995 state legislation requires the City of Saint Paul to update its comprehensive plan. The Ciry has received a grant through the U.S. Departrnent of the Interior to update the River Corridor Plan and evaluate -4- � °[� -s�� new zoning regulations within the river corridor. It is inappropriate and premature to consider new or expanded ea�tensive heauy industrial land 3 uses withiu the Mississippi River Corridor prior to completing the updates 4 to the Comprehensive Plan and Mississippi River Corridor Plan. Lazge 5 metal shredders shouid be prohibited from developing or expanding in the 6 river corridor at this time." 10 ll 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 43 A4 45 46 47 48 49 3. "Large metal shredders should be prolubited in the City of Saint Paul because there is no need to locate such facilities in central cities and there aze other areas, more appropriate than urban centers, in which to locate such facilities. Scrap metal is generated from a very large region, often encompassing more thau one state. The economic feasibility of operating a large metal shredder does not appeaz contingent upon any single location within a particular region from which scrap metal resources are drawn. There also does not appear to be any essential locational criteria which would require a large metal shredder to be located in a major urban center as opposed to a less urban or rural location." The City Council held a public hearing on the Commission's recomxnended amendments on December 3, 1997, and on December 10, 1997, voted to adopt the Commission's recommendations. In a letter of January 30, 1998, PED staff asked Alter that given that its proposed metai shredder is no longer a permitted use in the City did it still desire a public hearing on its SCUP application for a large metal shredder. Alter was also advised that it could choose to withdraw its application. (The letter states that the amendment was published January 17; its was published on January 10.) In a letter of February 10, 1998, Alter asked for review and action on its application. PED staff on February 26, 1998, e�ended the time limit to consider the applicarion by 60 days. The extension ends on May 8, 1998. (Letters of 7anuary 30 and Febivaiy ] 0 and 26, 1998, are a part of file.) 3. Alter Trading Corporation is proposing to expand its existing metal recycling operation by constructing a metal recycling plant on an existing industrial site. Tiie new plant will be 40,000 squaze feet in size. An `Bddy Current Separation Plant" used to recover the maximum percentage of non-ferrous metals from the shredder system wi11 be installed and take an additional i5,OQ0 square feet, to be located adjacent to the main plant. The function of the plant is to recycle scrap metal such as automobile bodies, industrial scrap and miscellaneous light gauge steel. The majority of scrap metal received by the plant will be from local scrap yazds. The plant will recycle approximately 750 to 900 net tons of scrap metal daily. Once the material is sl�redded, it will be transported by bazge, rail, or huck to various customers. The northem portion of the site currenfly used for storing coal and salt will be replaced with the recycling plant. Automobile bodies will be accepted from salvage operations which have dismantled and drained to remove major wastes, including used oil, antifreeze, solvents, batteries, oil filters, tires, CCS, and mercury. -5- R�-S�'6 2 Historically, the company has operated shears on the properiy to cut scrap metal. 3 The company is replacing the shears previously located at the site with a more 4 efficient model for recyciing the material. 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 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 � Site prepazation methods will be taken to m;nim;ze soil erosion problems by use of siit fences, earth diversion berms and bale diversions. 5urface water runoff from the facility will be directed to a designed detention pond. Since the facility will be constructed on fill so that it is elevated at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation, a pernut for construcfion in the river corridor is not necessary. The recycling plant will have about 35 employees. The planned hours of operation aze 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days per week. Most of the tr�c on site will occur during daylight hours. There aze 105 vehicles coming to the site each day currenfly (9 multi-�le trucks and 46 two-a�e vehicles). That number increased by 207 vehicles for a total of 312 (60 multi-asle trucks and 252 two- axle vehicles). Alter's proposed use as described in finding 3 above is a"lazge metal shredder" as defined by the Ciry's Zoning Code as follows: "Alter Trading Corporafion is proposing to expand its e�sting metal recycling operation by constructing a metal recycling plant on an existing industrial site. The new plant wiil be 40,000 square feet in size. An "Eddy Current Sepazation Plant" used to recover the maYimum percentage of non-ferrous metals from the slu�edder system will be installed and take an additional 15,000 square feet, to be located adjacent to the main plant. The function of the plant is to recycle scrap metal such as automobile bodies, industrial scrap and miscellaneous light gauge steel. The majority of scrap metal received by the plant wili be from local scrap yards. The plant will recycle approximately 750 to 900 net tons of scrap metal daily." "Automobile bodies will be accepted from salvage operations which have dismantled and drained to remove major wastes, including use oil, antifreeze, soivents, batteries, oil filters, tires, CCS, and mercury." 5. Section 60.623(3) of the zoning code prohibits large metal shredders in I-2 districts. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206, Alter duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determination made by the Commission requesting that a hearing be held before the Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the Commission; and WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64.206 - 64.208, and upon notice to afFected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the Saint Paul City Council on June 3, 1998, where ali interested parties were given and opportunity to be heazd; and �'L `ISr-S$� 2 WIIEREAS, the Council, having heazd the statements made, and having considered the 3 application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Committee and of the 4 Commission, does hereby; RESOLVE, that the decision of the Commission in this matter be affirmed based upon the following findings: 10 11 iz 13 14 15 16 17 18 1. The Council finds that there was no error in fact, finding or procedure by the Commission in this matter and, accordingly, the Council adopts the findings of the Commission as its own; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Alter is hereby denied; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shail mail a copy of this resolution to Alter Trading Corporarion, Suite 250, 2115 State Street, Bettendorf, Iowa, 52722; Mr. Lloyd Grooms, attorney for Alter, 3200 Minnesota World Trade Center, 30 East Seventh Street, Saint Paul, MN 55101; the Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator. ORIGINAL Requested by Department of: Adopted by Council: Date \�`Y�� \\ U ` By: Form Appr ed by City Attorney BY: ��W(�MA�!^ �uQ / Adoption Certified by Counci Sec et ry Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: 8�, Approved by Mayor te �` By: CiCy Council NJTACT PERSON & P110ME Chris Coleman, 266-8620 TQTAL � OF SIGNATURE PAGES 6J23(98 q�r- S� GREEN SHEET No fi�l6w' LJ oa.,Rirarto.ee.a� V arveonrx _ ❑�..� o�.�_ ❑.�,�� ❑.��.� ❑wroiewu�aan�u+n ❑ (CLIP AL1 LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Finalizing City Council action taken b-3-98 denying the applicaeion of Alter Trading Corporation for a Special Condition Use Permit tor a recyciing process center at 801 Barge Channel Road. PLANNMG CAMMISSION CIBCAMMI'TTE£ CNIL SERVICE CAMMISSION tfas this cew«Nirm aMerv.«kea waer a conaact ra thie aeaartmener YES NO Hes t�is P�� aver been a aYY �PbYe�� . YES NO Does this Pa�soNfi�m P� a SidN not nonnallYP�3esaed M' �Y curreirt cm' emPloYee� YES NO �6 Rh16 QE189N�1lif18181QC�fd V!lIdOR YES NO okin eq v0e anawe,s on ueerate Sheet 8nE etlach W nteen sheet L7:':��'�4. 1�,'��e���;>h ii�!�1'�Q, ��3� � � �T11 NAOUNT DF TRANBACTION S COETIREYENUE Bl H61NSi SOURCE ACTNITY tiUMBFJI wCV�L MFORW.TIOH (EXPiNN) �GRCLE ON� YEE NO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY PegSirls CiryAttorney �� - � � CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Maynr Ciuil Division 400 Ciry Hall I S West Kellogg Blvd Saint PauJ, Minnesata 53102 L__ Telephone: 6I2 266-8770 Facsimile: 672 298-5619 June 23, 1998 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Appeal of Alter Trading Corporation Zoning File No. 98-137 City Council Hearing Date: June 3, 1998 Dear Ms. Anderson: Attached please find a signed copy of a resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in the above-entitled matter. Would you please have this resolution placed on the Council's Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, ,� ,��//l�-. eter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney PWW/rmb Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor May 13, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Reseazch Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: Division of Pimuw�g 25 WestFouith SYreet Sa'vn Pmal, MN 55102 �;j��0� �--- Z� TeLephone: 612-266�6565 Facslmite: 612-228-3314 t� �� ��� �'�'�`�. V�''"""_` ��3�q� � I wouid like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday June 3, 1998, for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a special condition use permit to allow a lazge metal shredder: Appellant: ALTER TRADING CORPORATION File Number: Appeal of file #95-170 Purpose: Address: Appeal a Planning Commission decision to deny a special condition use permit to allow a large metal shredder. 801 Bazge Channel ltoad Legal Description of Properiy: See file Previous Action: Zoning Committee Recommendation: Denial; vote: 4-1; April 16, 1998 Planning Commission Decision: Denial; vote: 16-1; Apri124, 1998 My understanding is that this public heazing request will appeaz on the agenda for the May 20, 1998 City Council meefing and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul L,egal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6582 if you have any questions. Sincerel �� Kady Dadlez City Planner cc: File #95-170 Paul Dubruiel Pattie Kelly Wendy Lane, LIEP •F�srRrnv• iiOTICE OF.POSLIC HF.ARiNG The 3aint Paul City Council will conduct a public heazing on Wedriesday, June 3, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. in the Gity Council Chaznbers. Third Floor City Hall-Court House to consider -the appeal of Nter 1Yading Corporation to a decisIon of the Planning Commission denying a special condition use perm3t to altow a large metal shredder at 801 Barge,Channel Road. . .. Dated9 May 14, 1998 . NANCY ANDERSON � ' , . � Assistant �ty Counci7 Secretaly , � � - (May 16, 1998) � � DEPART�N1' OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELAPMENT Pamela Wheelack Directot CTI'Y OF SAINi' PAUL Norm Coleman. Mayor 15 West Fourth Stree[ Sa±ntPaul. MN55102 May 22, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Zoning File #98-137: ALTER TRADING CORPORA'ITON City Council Hearing; June 3, 1998, 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers �� �~� ��b ...-��� Tetephone: 612-166-6565 Facsim'rZe: 612-218-33]q PURPOSE: Appeal a planning commission to deny a special condition use permit to allow a large metal shredder on property located at 801 Bazge Channel Road. PLANNINGCOMMISSIONACTION: Denial; 16-1 ZONING COMMIT"TEE ACTION: Denial; 4-1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial SUPPORT: No one spoke in support of the special condition use permit. OPPOSITION: One person spoke in opposition to the special condition use permit Deaz Ms. Anderson: ALTER TRADING CORPORAT'ION has appealed the decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission to deny a special condition use permit to allow a large metal shredder at 801 Barge Channel Road. The zoning committee held a public hearing on the appeal on April 16, 199&. The applicant addressed the commirtee. At the close of the public hearing the committee voted 4-1 to deny the request. The Saint Paul Planning Commission upheld the committee's recommendation on a vote of 16-1 on April 24, 1998. This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on June 3, 1998. Please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, "�� C - '1 Kenneth Ford Plannsng Administrator Attachments cc: City Council members � � � � See Attached. r Attach additiona! sh t if ApplicanYs signatur SAINi TAUL � 1111A APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Department oJPlanning and Economic Development Zoning Section II00 City Hall Anner 25 West Fourth Sireet Sainr Paul, MN 55102 266-6389 APPELLANT PROPERTY LOCATION Name Alter Trading Corporation Address 2115 State StreetJSuite 25� City Bettendorf St.IA Zip 52722 Daytime phone(319) 344-52 � Zoning File Name Aiter Tradinz Cornoration AddresslLocation 801 Baree Channel Road/St. Paul. MN TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: ❑ Board of Zoning Appeals � City Councii under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 206 , Paragraph a of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the Plannin� Commission on April 24 , 199$ . File number: 95-170/Res. No. 98-29 (dafe of decision) ! GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Expiain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusai made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission, Date 5/13/98 City -� � t3 Aiter Trading Corporation ("Aiter") appeals from the City of Saint Paul ("Ciry") Plamung � Commission's ("Commission") April 24, I998 decision to deny Alter's appiication for a Speciai Condition Use Pernut ("SCUP") for its proposed metal shredder. Both the Zoning Committee ("Committee") and Commission voted to deny Alter's SCUP application based on the recent amendment to the Zoning Code prohibiting large metal shredders. Because Alter believes the Committee and Commission should have applied the City Zoning Code as it e�sted at the time Alter applied for the SCUP in 1495, which ea�pressly pernutted the proposed use, Alter respectfully requests that the Commission's decision be overturned and its SCUP application be granted. The SCUP should have been considered under the Zoning Code as iY existed at the tnne of the SCUP application for the following reasons: i. The use praposed in the SCUP is permitted under State law and the City may not enact an ordinance that forbids what State law etcpressiy pernuts; and to the e�ent that it does regulate the use, it should enforce land use controls, regulations, and ordinances existing at the time of the pernut application. Z. Alter made e�enditures unique to the proposed project including, but not limited to an e�ctensive environmenta] assessment, relying in good faith on City representations that the SCUP compIied with the CiYy's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code and wouId be considered upon the City's issuance of a Record of Decision fuiding that an Environmental � Impact Statement ("EIS") for the project was not needed. 3. The validity of the moratorium on whick the City relies as a justification of its failnre to act on Alter's SCUP is cunentty being litigated. For the above reasons, the City Council must reverse the Commission's denial of the Alter's SCUP. STPl: 452743•1 i -.. � � � �`" ��� � S � 5 r �0 _ � ' �. r tl 'S � � A �2� � - -� .. _ s _� a� �� _ :ti__�__ 7 r S e P 2 � ���, '.:���,� ���a7\_ \ 71 , �\ i \ \` ��v,-�—� ���i.��i' 51 Z� ' �I -'t�:...� �I..� x � ` ���s�w_ i� �l - - - ,_, ,�, CPT'IZ.EivT PAI2TTCIPATIOi`I PLANNING DISTRICTS � \� ; 7. SUNFtAY•BATTLECREEK 2. RI; HADEN•PP.OSPERI�l HILLCREST , 3 ��'ES SIDE 4. DAXTOti'S BLUFF 5. PAYh°�-PHALEN 6. N012TH END 7, THO�LAS-DALE S. SUMMIT-UNIVERSITX 9, tiVEST SEVENTH 10. COMO 11. HAMLIi�TE-MTDWAY 12. ST. f�NT�IO� TX PARK 13. MERKIt1M PARK-LEKL�GTON HAMLih'E•S� HAMLIT'F 14. MACALESTER GROVELAN7� 15. HIGHIAND , 16. SL3tvSMTT T�ILI- 17. DOWN"t'OWN ___ � � ZOi�fNG �ILE `��=-�-- � 3 ! ..._ ---=- - -- . _ E��� : : .,� .-. � ��-_—�--'_ �.�: '? r ";�:` �',.<,. •l :. .'.✓. �. .. ' ; . • , �-.,. �. - ; _ < �:-'- -..: .•. ",;o _ - -- ...:- _._` ,�.° _ �,.,; _: _>+.:�� -, . i , -- _;_�.. .�: _ -- ;.. i-.— ` �.,'�''�-.:'' ��.: :._° __ti'� t_` -..��- %;_� .:-t. �.�,.. .: . • �- .. ...... .-.. L' '`Sj-`. ' "•� � ..,.... . .'. :, . _... , i:�1 �,. ' ".,. '3.. �..� . _ _ _— . "__ . ._' _ ` _. - . . :;.`� . . . .. . �_ . +y ' �.' � rvi\ �. _-_-�,_ _ _ �_, ,...s._�2__:.:• •�...' ; —"_ — _ ' � . _. .. . ��.� ,.` ��-' ..� "• ' —'r' .•�� '_`'' l j �+ ` � '/ ` .� : - �. - f�jri C� /� _ _'-._. "__� _ ��,L�..::.'�. . .\ \` / _ -- ,-�'.. ._±._�'� . _ ; f ��• e .,. ' � . � _ +'.. . -- -� • - _ _ _ . �„ =ii :°=- -';% �5=;�: __^°� .____ ..I �.i�/ - -- • -- - =_ .�:" jr" -- � . y> _ _____-__-- - j ) /�_ �'. J `\ � /� '•� '� ''`��. �__ _ -____..:- ^ \l?.. '' /�/'/ V .% '� ~� ' l - ' ....{'. `�' � �L� _ � � � F ' �� - `-=�-��'�/� �;......... . ,�� , __ � �.... � ;. � �/i� %`,,- i ' . "�� . I _�i� � •. : ' `.:?::: .i.%%�- . � './` '.,-„-:r- ;.,�r , ::� �� ; � ...:__ : .,:"-\L.. �,---. ,...� --__ - .i , _;,,_. ,,, '•;.' . . �<_ - _� s y ?,� 4_..--; — r '4� :' . � �, � �.,� \ ;" � l 'C .� a:.� _ ` �\ - - "=�t% `. � ' �'-` l` l , ` �_ ` � L. '1... � :^��\.`� ^� '`.. _ ,_ \� .'' :. \ . _ • �-' _ ` _�_- _;_ __ _�..:, :,`\ WEST SIOE DFSTP,ICT 3 Pi ,.,, '_ ,,, � ����tNG FlLE ��-� ._ � ! i 0 �� Q r �V �86'� � � APPLICANT_ '`f � `�r T�GtC�(�n( � p« n LEGEND PURPOSE_ � /IIWnX �..�.�... zoning district boundary FILE #i ~ y �' ��� DATE 'S� f�� 0 �� subject property n.� orth�.. PWG.DIST.—� MAP#—_ �n o onefamily •� � commerciai r�- ' �! f.y � two family � .,..,, industrial __ __ ...��� � y � muftiple familY V vacanf 5' -- - - -----�— --- -------- , city of saint paul pianning commission resolution file number 98-29 �te April 24, 1998 WHEREAS, ALTER TRADING CORPORATION, file #95-170, has applied for a Special Condition Use Permit under the provisions of Sections 60.623(3) and 64300(d} of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, to allow a Iarge metai shredder on property located at 801 BARGE CHANNEL ROAD, legally described in the file; and WHEREAS, the Zonin� Committee of the Planning Commission held public hearings on August 31, 1995, and April 16, 1998, at �vhich all persons present tivere given an opportunity to be heazd pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and �VHEREAS, the Saint Paul Plannin� Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public kearin�s, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: Sections 60.213.M. of the zoning code defines large metal shredders as fotlows: "Metal shredder, Zarge. A facility that accepts, stores, and shreds large used recyclable metal products, including motor vehicles, appliances, sheet iron, industrial clips, whether or not maintained in connection with another business. Shreddin� is the reduction in size of the metal products by means of a rotor equipped with haminers, including in and out conveyors, scrubbers, separation and dust collection equipment, and other connected machines." Section 60.623 (3) required conditions of the I-2 Zoning District prohibits large metal shredders as follows: "(3) The reftning of petroleum or gasoline, stock yazds, meat packing plants, lazge metal shredders, the incineraYion of infectious wastes and the crushing of rock, asphalt, or concrete for recyctin� are prohibited in this district," moved by Vaught seconded by in favor a�IC1S� z6 1 (Chavez} � � i � a• � Zoning File #95-170 Page Two 2. In 1989 a site plan review for a buiiding expansion was approved. ���G� On July 31, 194�, Alter Trading Corporation formally applied for a special condition use permit (SCUP) for a recyclin� processing center. The application proposed to install ne�v technology known as a"Texas Shredder" and an "Eddy Current Separation PIanP'. PED staff authored a report findin� that Alter's proQosed use met the general standards for a SCUP and specific standards for a recycling processin� center. The report anticipated that additional conditions would be su�gested based on the outcome of a noise assessment and traffic assessment that were presently pending. The report aiso noted that a Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was being prepared. At the August 31, 1995, public hearing, the Zoning Committee was advised by the City Attorney's Office to delay discussion of the SCUP agplication until after the EAW analysis showed �vhether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project was needed. If an EIS �vas needed, the SCUP application �vould be held in abeyance until completed. � The staff report was revised to incorporate information about noise and traffic. Public hearings were scheduled for October and November 1995 but were canceled because of the need for additional data and analysis in order to complete the EA�W. During late 1995, through 1996, and into 1997 FED staff worked with Alter, Alter's consultant, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Minnesota Department of Health to complete the EAW. On March 21, 1997, the City released a Record of Decision that an EIS �vas not needed for the proposed recycling center. However, PED could not act on Alter's SCUP because a moratorium on recycling centers had been adopted in 1996. In June 1996, before the EAW was completed, the City Councii passed a resolution adopting a temporary moratorium (CF 96-625) on recycling processing centers. The moratorium was temporary until an ordinance could be adopted. The council said questions had been raised as to whether the impacts of automobile and steel shredders were fully understood and considered when the city considered the definition of recyclin� centers adopted in an amendment in 199Q. The Council questioned whether the conditions incorporated in the 1940 amendment �vere ineffective or obsolete in mitigating potential adverse effects of large metal shredders. The council said it understood that three new automobile metal shredders were being considered in or near the West Side and Mississippi River Flood Plain and questioned whether such a concentration of such uses �vould have a detrimental impact on the area. / In August 1996, the council adopted an ordinance that duected the Department of � Zoning Fi1e #95-170 Page Three Plannin� and Economic Development to undertake a study of the City's comprehensive plan and zoning reguIations relating to recycling centers, automobile shredders and similar technologies (CF-96-624) and asked the PIannin� Commission to study and submit a report to the council with any needed planning or zoning amendments. The ordinance also enacted the moratorium on automobile shredders and similar technologies. The planning commission desianated tiie Mefai Shredder Study Committee to conduct the study. The City hired Dean Johnson of Resource Strategies Corporation to assist it in completing the plannin� and zonin� studies. The studies were published in an Interim Report af April i, 1997, and a Final Report of Apri129, 1997. The studies were considered by the commission's committee in April and May 1997. After considering its committee's recommendation and the public hearing testimony of August 22, 1997, the commission recommended zoning code and land use plan amendments to prohibit large metal shredders �vithin the City. The reasons for the prohibition, set forth in the Land Use Plan Amendment, �i�ere: � "The nature of existin� industrial areas in St. Paul makes it inappropriate to locate large metal shredders in the City. There is no existing or potential industrial site � in the city which has conditions sufficient to protect adjacent land uses from Yhe negative impacts of inetal shredders. There are no industrial areas large enough to provide adequate separation of non-heavy industrial uses from large metai shredders, while providin� sufficient highway access, buffering and visual screening." 2. `'1995 state legislation requizes the City of Saint Paul to update its comprehensive plan. The City has received a grant through the U.S. Depar[ment of the Interior to update the River Corridor Plan and evatuate ne�v zoning regulations �i�ithin the river conidor. It is inappropriate and premature to consider new or expanded extensive heavy industrial Iand uses within the Mississippi River corridor prior to completing the updates to the Comprehensive Plan and Mississippi River Conidor Plan. Large metal shredders should be prohibited from developin� or expanding in the river corridor at this time." 3. "Large metal shredders should be prohibited in the City of St. Paul because there is no need to locate such facilities in centzal cities and there are other areas, more appropriate than urban centers, in which to locate such faciliTies. Scrap metaI is aenerated from a very large region, often encompassin� more than one state. The economic feasibility of operating a large metal shredder does not appear contingent upon any single location within a particular region from which scrap metal resources aze drawn. There also does not appear to be any essential _ 'w � � Zoning File �9�-170 Page Pour � � 'J � locational criteria cvhich would require a large metal shredder to be located in a niajor urban center as opposed to a less urban or rural location." The City Council held a public hearing on the commission's recommended amendments on December 3, 1997, and on December 1Q, 1997 voted to adopt the commission's recommendations. In a letter of January 30, 1998, PED staff asked Alter that given that its proposed metal shredder is no longer a permitted use in the City did it still desire a public hearing on its SCUP application for a large metal shredder. Alter �vas also advised that it could choose to withdraw its application. (The letter states that the amendment was published on January 17; it was published on January 10.) In a letter of February 10, 1998, Alter asked for review and action on its application. PED staff on February 26, 1998, extended the time limit to consider the application by 60 Days. The extension ends on May 8, 1998. (Letters of January 30 and February 10 and 26, 1998, are a part of file.) � 3. Alter Trading Corporation is proposing to expand its existing metal recyclin� operatlon by constructing a metal recyclin� plant on an existing industrial site. The new plant will be 40,000 square feet in size. An "Eddy Cunent Separation Plant" used to recover the maximum percentage of non-fenous metals from the shredder system will be installed and take an additional 15,OQ0 square feet, to be located adjacent to the main plant. The function of the plant is to recycle scrap metal such as automobile bodies, industrial scrap and miscellaneous light gauge steel. The majority of scrap metal received by the plant will be from local scrap yards. The plant will recycle approximately 750 to 900 net tons of scrap metal daily. Once the material is shredded, it will be transported by barge, rai1, or truck to various customers. The northern portion of the site currently used for storing coat and salt wi11 be replaced with the recycling plant. Automobile bodies �vill be accepted from salvage operations which have dismantled and drained to remove major wastes, including used oil, antifreeze, solvents, batteries, oil filters, tires, CCS, and mercury. Historically, the company has operated shears on the property to cut scrap metal. The company is replacing the shears previously located at the site with a more efficient model for iecycling the mateiial. Site preparation methods wi(I be taken to minimize soil erosion problems by use of silt � fences, earth diversion berms and bale diversions. Surface water runoff from the facility will be directed to a designed detention pond. Since the facility �vill be constructed on fill I Zoning File #95-170 Page Five so that it is etevated at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation, a permit for construction in the river corridar is not necessary. The recycling plant will have about 35 employees. The planned hours of operation are 7:00 a..m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days per week. Most of the traffic on site wili occur during daylight hours. There are 105 vehicles coming to the site each day currentiy (9 multi-axle trucks and 96 two-axle vehicles). That number will increase by 207 vehicles for a total of 312 (6Q multi-axte trucks aad 252 t�vo-axle vehicles). 4. Alter's proposed use as described in finding 3 above is a"large metal shredder" as defined by the City's Zonin� Code as follows: �� "Aiter Trading Corporation is proposing to expand its existing metal recycling operation by constructing a metal recycling plant on an existing industrial site. The new planY wili be 40,000 square feet in size. An "Eddy Cunent Sepazation Plant" used to recover the ma�cimum percentage of non-ferrous metals from the shredder system will be instalied and take an additional 15,000 square feet, to be located adjacent to the main plant. The function of the plant is to recycle scrap metal such as automobile � bodies, industrial scrap and miscellaneous light gauge steel. The majority of scrap metat received by the plant will be from local scrap yards. The plant will recycle approximately 750 to 900 net tons of scrap metal daily." "Automobile bodies wiil be accepted from salvage operations which have dismantled and drained to remove major wastes, including used oit, antifreeze, solvents, batteries, oil filters, tires, CCS, and mercury." 5. Section 60.623 (3) of the zoning code prohibits lazge metal shredders in I-2 districts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the authority of the City's I,egislative Code, the appiication for a Special Condition Use Pezmit to allow a large metal shredder at 801 BARGE CHANNEL ROAD is hereby denied. i l� • Saint Paul Planning Cammission City Aall Conference Center 15 Keliogg Boulevard FVest n �' � � p � , ..; � A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, Apri124, 1998, at 830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Mmes. Duarte, En�h, Faricy, Geisser, Maddox, Morton, Nordin, Treichel, and Present: Wencl and Messrs. Chavez,. Field Jr., Geroais, Gordon, Kong, Kramer, Mardell, McDonell, Nowlin, and Vaught. Commissioners Messrs. *Johnson and Sharpe Absent: *Excused � Commissioner Field asked that the minutes be amended to include the words "the applicant said thaf' before the words "they agreed to° in line two on page six. Staff agreed to add those words. The motion fo approve the anaennded ntinufes of.4pril IQ 1998 carried unttnimously on a vaice vote. Zoning Committee Commissioner Vaught provided the committee report. #95-170 Alter Tra�a ��rnoration - Conclude special condition use permit process for a large metal shredder at 801 Barge Channel Road. (TCady Dadlez, 266-6574) 1�T9'C1nN: Con:ritissioi:er Var�glrt moved derrial oflhe reqteested special ca:ditin�e iese ; pennit to allorv a Zarge metal shredder at 80I Barge Ckannel Road Commissioner Chavez noted that he would not support the motion. Commissioner Gordon stated that although he would have preferred fo accommodate that use, he will vote to deny because there is no choice since the Ciry Counci] voted to prohibit large � metal shredders in the City of Saint Paul. Commissioner Vaught stated that his position and his vote are the same as Commissioner Gordon's. Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Kady Dadlez, Donna Drummond, Nancy Homans, and Larry Soderholm, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff. T. Approval of Minutes of April 10, 1997 MnTiON: Cornmissioner McDonetl �uoved approvat oftke ntinutes ofApril 1 D, I998; Con:missioner Field seco�:ded ike motio�:. IV, � � � _ The n:otio�z on tlsefloor to derry tlte requested special condition use pemiit to a17ow a Carge "� mefal skredder at 80Y Barge Chamiel Rottd carried on a voice vote of I6 - I(ChaveZ). l� MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE Thursday, April 16, 1998 - 3:30 p.m. City Councii Chambers, 3rd Floor City Hail and Court House 15 West Ke(logg Boulevard PRESENT: ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chavez, Gordon, Kramer, Morton and Vaught Faricy, Field, and Wencl (excused) Peter Wamer, Assistant City Attorney; Beth Bartz, Kady Dadlez, Donna Drummond, Patt+e Keiley, and Roger Ryan of PED The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Vaught. ALTER TRADtNG CORPORATfON - Zoning File 95-170 - Conclude Speciat Condition Use process for a large metal shredder. Roger Ryan presented the slide presentation and staff report with a recommendation for deniai of the permit. He gave a brief history of this application which included obtaining an EAW analysis to determine whether an Environmental lmpact Statement (E!S) for the project was needed. Mr. Ryan stated that during 1995 and into 1997, PED staff worked with Alter Corporation, their consultant, the Minnesota Pollution Controt Agency, and fhe Sfafe Department of Health to complete the EAW, and on March 29, 1997, the City released their record of decision that an EIS was not needed for the proposed recycting cenfer. Mr. Ryan further explained that PED could not act on Alter Trading Corporations request for a SCUP because during this process a moratorium on recycling centers had been adopted. Mr. Ryan also noted that the West Side Citizens Organization recommends denial of the permit. John Gentzkow, Vice President of Operations for Alter Trading Corporation, appeared and spoke in opposition to fF�e recommendation for deniaf. He also gave a brief history of this process and stated they are disappointed it has faken this long to come fo a pubiic hearing before tfiis Commiftee. He said they believe the intent of the City in rushing for this pubiic hearing today is in order to influence the Court in its decision, which they believe to be misguided, inappropriate and desperate. Mr. Gentzkow stated the decision the Zoning Committee must make today should be based on the zoning code in existence at the time their appiication was originally submiited. He said the City has failed to act in a timely fashion as required by Minnesota law, and unlawfully enacted a moratorium when no environmentai or land use justifications could deny the project. Mr. Gentzkow referred to his letter which contains Yhe balance of his arguments, which he submitted to the Committee for their record. No one spoke in support of fhe appiication. Sherilyn Young, 71 W. Isabel Street, appeared on behalf of NO SHAMS!, a grassroots organization of citizens. She thanked the Committee for the work put into the issue of large metai shredders in our City, and she spoke in support to deny the SCUP to Alter Trading. She further asked the Committee to acknowledge thaE this company was denied a permit based upon the generai standards applicable to conditiona! use permits. Ms. Young also referred to findings in the code which must be made betore a condifional use permit can be granted, and she noted three of those standards are not met by the proposal. No one eise appeared, and the public fiearing was closed. u � � � �2 • • . Zoning Committee Minutes Meeting of April 16, 1998 Alter Trading Corporation (95-170) Page Two ^ � � C1 C3 � r — At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Warner explained that the Commiriee is to vote based upon the Zoning Code as it exists today and not as it existed at the time the application was made. Commissioner Morton moved denial of the Special Condition Use Permit based on Findings 1 through 3 of the staff report, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Kramer. Commissioner Chavez spoke in sirong opposition stating he will not support the motion for denial. Commissioner Gordon stated he believes environmentai concerns coutd have been accommodated and the Zoning Code structured in a way which would have permitted large shredders consistent with the environment and without adverse consequence. However, the Zoning Code as it is today prohibits a large shredder and Counsel has advised this Committee that we are obligated to vote on the current existing Zoning Code. Commissioner Vaught said he understands the advice Counsei has given this Committee, but he considers the decision to prohibit metal shredders to be among one least justified decisions made by the Planning Commission and the City Council. He stated he also believes there were ways to deal with environmentaf concerns, and although he would like to vote to deny the staff recommendation, he wiil support it because of the current existing Code. There was no further discussion, and roll call was taken to deny the Special Condition Use Permit. Adopted Yeas - 4 Drafted by: Nays -1 (Chavez) Submitted by: Approved by: ' �L�c� lLu./ t�-v ` " �% �'ti' `+ " ��'�.�'� �F, Pattie Kelley� (� Larry o erholm Mark Vaught Recording Secretary for Roger Ryan Acting Chair Southeast Team l3 MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE Thursday, April 2, 1998 - 3:30 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: City Council Chambers, 3rd Fioor City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Chavez, Faricy, Field, Gordon, Kramer, and Vaught Morton (excused), and Wencl (arrived at a point during the meeting) Peter Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Beth Bartz, Donna Drummond, Pattie Kelley, Roger Ryan, and Jim Zdon of PED. The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field. After Trading Corporafion, Zoning File 95-170 - Conclude special condition use process for a large metaf shredder. Roger Ryan stated there were approximately five property owners with 350 feet of the Alter property which we did not send out a public hearing notice to. He stated because proper notice was not given, he is requesfing a two to four week layover. Commissioner Vaught moved the layover, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Gordon. Roll call. Adopted Yeas - 7 Drafted by: Pattie Kelle Recording Secretary Nays - 0 Submitted by: � � Rog yan Litton Southeast Team Chair • � � �� � � u April 15, 1998 n J ��� , Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota SS I55-40 Phone: 299-2401; faz 296-5439 E-mail: sandy.fechtQdnr,state.mn.us Ciry of St. Paui Planning Commission c% Kady Dadlez - Zoning Section City of St. Paul Planning and Economic Development 1100 City Aall Annex 25 West Fourth St. St. Paul, MN 55102 RECEIVED APR 2 u i998 ZONIN� By frtt and mait RE: Special Condition Use Permit (SCI3P) hearing for Alter Trading Corporation proposal for lazge metal shredder Deaz Commission Members: Thank you for the notification of the SCUP heazing for the Alter Trading Corporation's proposal for a large metal shredder on their existing recycling site. This site is within the designated Urban Diversified District of the Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor District, as well as the Mississippi I3ational River and Recreation Area (MNRRA), ln 1995, both the Deparhnent of Natural Resources (DNR) and National Pazk Service submitted comments during the Bnvironmental Assessment Worksheet process that out]ined concems and issues. Since that time, responsibility for duties for management of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area has been transferred from the Environmental Quality Boazd to DNR. • We understand that during the intervening yeazs the City estabiished a moratodum, studied the land use zoning issues of lazge metal shredders, and amended the ordinance and plan to prohibit such use in the City. Because of our concerns, we would support a City decision to follow the new ordinance amendments on prohibited uses. However, lf the decision new or in the future is to issae a SCUP, we urge yeu to carefially eonsider alt of the relevant factors listed in Sec. 65.503 of your Code for approval of a SCiIP within the River Corridor, including: • the relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan, and floodplain management for the city • the importance of the services provided to the community • the compatibility of the proposed use with existing and potential development • the compatibility oF the proposed use with existing characteristics of biologic communities • the requiremenu of the facility for a river-dependent location • impacts from encroachments and flooding • the availabifity of altemarive locations or configurations. and other natural DNR Information:6J2-296-6157, ]-800-766-6000 • TTY:612-296-5484, t-800-65?-3929 An Equul OpporNmry Employe� �}• Pnnmd on RecydeA Pdper Conr.unuir a WhobeluetiDu�n�ity ��111mimumoCl(7lPosPConcumesR'a+ee l5 We question whether alt of these factors can be met satisfactorily. In addition to the previous concems outlined by the DNR and National Park Service in 1995, all River Corridor ordinance requirements from your Code shall be complied with, especially those for ranoff, protection of water quality, and floodplain. We have serious concems about ensuring that the river is not poliuted by runoff from the site. If the decision is to approve a SCUP, Critical Area requirements shoutd also be met, including: • minimization of direct runoff and improvement of quality of runoff • controi of noise in open space and recreational areas • minimization of adverse effects • standards to ensure that structure, construction placement, and storm water runoff aze wmpatible �vith the character and use of the conidor in the Urban Diversified District to protect natutal, scenic, and environmentaf resources, maintain diversity of uses, and expand public access to and enjoyment of the river • specific conditions with regazd to buffering, landscaping, and revegetation of the site . minimization of interference with views of and from the river, except for ases requiring river access. Shucmres and machinery mast be raised to the Regalatory Floadplain Protection Elevation, or floodproofed to the standards required in the City`s Floodplain Ordinance. During periods of flooding, the piles of inetal must be removed from the floodway in accordance with floodplain standazds. Piles of meta] in the flood fringe must be protected from erosion during periods of flooding. All other floodplain standards shall be followed. � Any work that needs to be done to the bazge siip or other activities below the ordinary high water levei � must be approved by DNR Waters through a Protected Waters Permit. DNR Waters is also responsible for any Appropriation Permit. Thank you for protecting and preserving the Mississippi Critical Area Corridor. If you have any further questions on Criticai Area concerns or conditions, piease don't hesitate to call me; for Floodplain, Protected Waters Permits, or Appropriation Permits, please contact Area Hydrologist Molly Shodeen at 772-7910. Sincerely, cc: Nationa] Pazk Service - Nancy Duncan Mehopolitan Councit - Sandra Pinel Area Hydrologist Molly ShodeenJJoe Richter Steve 7ohnson DNR Office of Budget and Management - Environmental Review r � ��J _� �-/�, i a �6, �998 ���° � a 6 Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission 15 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55101 RE: Special Condition Llse Permit Aear Zoning Committee Members: Thank you for the opportunity to address the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission ("Zoning Committee") regarding Alter Trading Corporation's ("Alter") Special Condition Use Permit ("SPUC") application for a metal shredder in the City of Saint Paul ("City"). My name is John Gentzkow and I address you in my capacity as Vice President of Operations for Alter. My purpose today is to request that the Zoning Committee approve Alter's application based on the Zoning Code in e�stence at the time of the original application. FACTUAL BACKGROUND � It is important to note that the Alter project has, over the last two plus years, provided detailed information regarding shredders; detailed information that, in fact, refutes many of the criticisms raised against shredders. This information appears to have been ignored or glossed over. The facts are as follows: 1 Alter is entitled, according to the City's Zoning Code, to develop its Property with a metal shredder. The applicable Zoning Code in place at the time Alter filed its application expressly provides that a"Recycling Processing Center" is a permitted use subject to special condition in a I-2 Industrial District. A Recycling Processing Center is defined as a facility that processes recyclable materials which includes the shreddina of ferrous metals. Z. The Department of Planning and Economic Development ("PED") staff recommended approval of the Permit on two occasions in 1995 (August and October, 1995) based on its fandings that Alter's proposed metal shredder project complies with the Comprehensive Pian and meets all of the requirements set forth in the Zoning Code for conditional uses ("StaffReports"). The Staff Reports recommended approval of the Recycling Processing Center proposed by Aiter, subject to the condition that the applicant shall obtain, and maintain, all required permits and licenses in compliance with State and locallaws. • �� Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission April 16, 1998 Page 2 The StaffReports made the specific finding that: The conditions of Section 64300(d) ofthe Zoning Code are met; that is: a. The extent, location and intensity of the use will be in substantial compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and any applicable subarea plans which were approved by the Council. b. The use will provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize traffic congestion in tke public streets. c. The use will not be detrimenTal to the e�sting character of the development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger the public health, safety and general welfaze. d. The use will not impede the normai and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses pemritted in the district. e. The use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. � The Property is anpropriate� zoned for the expanded use and the heavy industrial use is in keepine with the � the area has developed . and is bein� used. Nothing has changed since the time of the Staff Reports. 3. Alter is Iocated in a heavy industriai azea with many recycling operations. The shredder is consistent with these existing uses. As the StaffReports stated, "(t]he Property is surrounded by industriat uses in an I-2 zoning district including railroad right-of-way and the City unpound lot to the southwest and the barge channel, airport, and wastewater treatment plant to the northeast." The Staff Reports went on to find that, "the Property is appropriately zoned for the expanded use, and the heavy industrial use is in keeping with the way the area has developed and is being used. The eapanded use will not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties, and will not unpede normal and orderlq development and improvement of surrounding property for uses pemutted in the I- 2 zoning district." 4. The City issued a Negative Declaration on the Alter Environmental Assessment Worksheet ("EAW '} prepared for the metal sfiredder project. In March 1997, twenty-one (21) months after Alter had originally submztted a voluntary EAW to the City, fhe City finaliy issued a Negative Deciaration with the £oUowing conciusion: "The EAW and the supplementary reports and analyses prepared at the • request of the MPCA, MDH and the RGU, together with this Record of " t� • � Zoning Committee ofthe Saint Paul Planning Commission April 16, 1998 Page 3 5 � �' �U�J Findings, have identified and discussed all potential envuonmental impacts related to the Project. These documents, together with the input received from State agencies and the public, have generated information adequate to detemrine whether the Project has the potential for significant environmental effects. Areas where the potential for significant environmental effects may have er.isted have been identified and appropriate mitigation measures have been identified to ensure that there will be no potential for significant environmental effects. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, Subpart 7, the Proiect does not have the ot� ential for si�nificant environmental effects...." (Emphasis added.) The City has no plans for redevelopment of the Alter Property other than to allow the area to continue to be used for industrial purposes. The prohibition ignores that much of the river corridor, including AIYer's Property, is zoned by heavy industry, occupied for heauy industry, and that it will continue to be used for heavy industry into the far foreseeable future. In addition to previous City plans which recognize the area of the Alter Property as a river-oriented industrial area, in the recently released discussion paper, Saint Paul Land Use Opportunities, the Alter site is designated as industrial and not considered a location for "significant land use change through the year 2020." 6. The Mississippi National River and Recreational Area ("NII�IRRA") Comprehensive Management Flan ("MNRRA Plan") does not prohibit metal shredders. The MNRRA Plan recognizes the Mississippi River as a"working river" and includes policies to: preserve riverfront land for economic uses that rely on the river, continue existing land uses in the corridor, and allow redevelopment and expansion of corridor business. As stated in the Negative Declaration, the National Park Service determined, for purposes of determining conformance with MNRRA policies, Alter's proposed metal facility would be the continuation and expansion of an existing business (recycling of inetal) in the MI�TRRA corridor. In addition, we believe the St. Paul metal shredder complles with the MNRRA Plan's site development policies. While the Mississippi River Coordinating Commission raised questions regarding conformance with the resource protection policies described in the M�IRRA Plan, these were addressed in the Negative Declaration's findings ofno potential for significant environmental effects. 7. Other intensive uses are permitted in the I-2 zoning district; such as: • • Electric power and steam-generating plants. • Chemicals, derivation or refinement from materials in a raw or natural state. !1 Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission April 16, 1998 Page 4 • Explosives. • Forge plants or forge hammering. • Garbage, offal or dead animal incineration, reduction, transfer starion or bailing operation. • Hazardous waste processing facilities. • Metal or metal ores, processing, reduction, refining, smelting, alloying or recycling, excluding junk yards. • Metal or metal products, treatment or processing, including enameling, japanning lacquering, galvanizuig or similar processes. • Municipal incinerators. • Railroad yards, shops or similar facilities. 8. Prior objections are based on speculative, unsubstantiated fears rather Yhan facts. � Air, water, noise, vibration, and traffic have been raised as concerns. But, the City has made the following findings as to the Alter project: Noise - the metal shredder project meets or exceeds City and State standazds. • Water Pollution — the project meets or exceeds federal and State standuds. Significantiy, the Alter site did not flood this spring. Air Pollution — the project meets or exceeds federal and State standards. Traffic — as stated in the Staff Reports, "[t]he Department of Public Works has reviewed traffic data recently cotlected in the area and Alter's plans for the site. The Department has identified no problem with Alter's pian as far as traffic is concerned and believes the existing road system in this industrial area is capable of accommodating the type and amount of traffic expected by the proposed use." (emphasis added.) 9. The clearest evidence that the Alter project complied with all City zoning requirements and would not cause significant environmental effects is the City ban on shredders. Having neither a factual nor legal basis to disapprove the shredder and unwilling to impose reasonable conditions as pernutted by the Zoning Code, the City has instead imposed a ban. The change itself demonstrates the act is not simpty unreasonable, but arbitrary and capricious. • 4 2� Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission "^-. ��� April 16, 1998 � `� � Page 5 CONCLUSION A Saint Paul Pioneer Press editorial written Aecember 17, 1995, captured the essence of the argument. The editorial concluded as follows: `...Mark Vaught, a member of the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, says a person has to ask: "If you were going to put a metal shredder in St. Paul, where else would you put it?" Indeed, it is worth remembering that the Alter shredder is not a project the City is promoting or subsidizing. The issue is whether the City has defensible leDal grounds to block Alter's plans simply because it is changing its philosophy about land use along the river. Assuming science-based environmental concems can be resolved, it would represent an abrupt, startling and previously unannounced transformation of land use philosophy for the City to refuse Alter's proposal. Alter is planning a job- creating environmental industry in a district long reserved for exactly this kind of intensive industrial activity. • The City is not a city that can afford to be indifferent to business and employment growth. If industry has any future, whatever, on the City's riverfront, Alter's metal shredder has a right to be part of it, absent any inability to meet responsible, scientifically-sound environmental standards." Another St. Paul Pioneer Press editorial published on December 3, 1997 reiterated the principal issues and the reasons for approval. "Today the St. Paul City Council will conduct a public hearing on the future of metal shredders in the city. The council will doubtless hear much support for that idea from well-organized West Side residents who have for years been fighting a proposed shredder on the riverfront. Although shredders are undeniably heavy industry that must be meticulously regulated, their environmental effects are manageable, at least according to various state agencies that have examined them. St. Paul was unabie to justify ordering an e�chaustive environmental impact . statement for the proposed Alter Tradina shredder on the river. That lack of real environmental issues triggered the effort to block the shredder politically. � Zoning Committee ofthe Saint Paul Planning Commission April 16, 1998 Page 6 It hardly sounds like prudent and fle�cible economic development policy to declare that a type of industry accepted by potlution and health agencies can never be located anywhere in the city no matter what efforts are made to mitigate noise and other impacts on surrounding azeas." As Alter has stated for the last two years, and as has been bome out by facts and analyses, metal shredding facilities can e�st within I-2 Industrial Districts within the river corridor. The Special Condition Use Permit process offers a means to evaluate any individual project and provide the necessary restrictions to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Based on the foregoing, Alter respectfully requests that the Zoning Committee approve Alter's SCUP application. Thank you, ALTER T G CO ORATION J W. Gentzkow Vice President of Operations STPl; 447039-1 2Z � � r� L .� � � '-i-��-q� = J- ��6 � # Chairperson ��� and committeepersons: I thank you once again for the long and difficuit work that you put into the issue of large metal shredders in our city. f aiso support your deniai of a speciaf condition use permit to Alter Trading company for construction of a shredder which is now properly and appropriately banned in St.. Pau{. In addition, 1 ask you to acknowledge that, even without the change in the zoning code, this proposal is properly denied a permit based upon the general standards applicable to conditional use permits. Section 64.300 (d) of the code specifies five findings that must be made before a conditionai use permit can be granted. Sy referring to the extensive and thorough record made on these topics prior to and during the moratorium, your committee will cleariy see how at least three of these standards are not met by this proposai. First, the extent, {ocation and intensity of the use wilf not be in substantial compliance with the Comprehensive plan and applicable subarea plans. We noted in detail previously how the spirit of the river corridor overlay would be violated by this proposat and its inconsistency with the MNRRA corridor plan. Second, the use wiil not Qrovide adequate ingress and egress to minimize traffic • congestion in the pubiic streets. Prior testimony and submissions are replete with the congestion problems that would be caused by the addition of severaf hundred additional truck trips a day through the area. Barge channel road is frequentfy blocked by trains causing 4arge traffic backups on Concord Street and is the only access road ior acea residences and th�CAP school. Third, this use would be detrimenta! to the existing character of the development in the immediate neighborhood and would endanger the public health, safety and general welfare. This committee can refer to the extensive record on the human and animal heafth and safety caused by such a use that the noise generated would be at or near the ma�cimum alfowable fimit and that cumulative impacts were noi considered, that heavy metais and dangerous particulates wouid be spewed into the river and our homes, schools and churches, that expiosions wouid often occur, and that hazardous residue woufd be trucked through our streets. Any one of these findings on its own is enough to support denial of a conditionaf use permit. All ot them combined demand denial of the permit. Thank you. /l,� � S{f'fi� S r � t �7 W _ u4'n,`�u( S-� Snt }��F � /�s�l .��/07 2�r3-I�D�S 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 REVISSD ZONING COMMITTES STAPF RfiPORT BILE # 95-170 APPLICAN'P: ALTER TRADING CORPORATION DATE OF BEARING: 4/16/98 CLAS3IFICATION: Special Condition Use LOCATION: 801 BARGE CFIANNEL ROAD PLANNZNG DISTRICT: 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: see file PRESENT ZONING: I-2 ZONING CODS REFBR�NCS: §60.213. M. & 60.623(3) � 7. STAFF INVESTSGATION AND REPORT: DATfi: 4/9/98 BY: Roger Ryan 8. DATfi RECEIVED: 7/31/95 DfiADL2NE FOR ACTION: May 8, 1998 _____________________�___________________________________�__°_�°___��________ �____________________�_____°�____�_____________________=__°__��____________» A B PARPOSH: Special condition use permit to allow an large metal shredder. PARCEL SIZB: The Alter Trading Corporation site is located on the north side of Barge Channel Road and is about 20 acres in size; the portion of the site under consideration in this application is about 1.3 acres. � C. EXSSTING LAND IISS: The property is occupied by three office/warehouse structures, miscellaneous free-standing structures, and piles of scrap metal. About 20.4 acres are located in Ramsey County and 20 acres in Dakota County. D. SIIRROIINDING LAND II3E: The property is surrounded by heavy industrial uses in an I-2 zoning district including railroad right-of-way and the city impound lot to trie southwest and the barge channel, airport, and waste water treatment plant to the northeast. E. ZONING CODE CITATION: Sections 60.213.M. of the zoning code defines large metal shredders as follows: "Metal shredder, large. A facility that accepts, stores, and shreds large used recyclable metal producCs, including moCor vehi,cles, appliances, sheet iron, industrial clips, whether or not maintained in connection with another business. Shredding is the reduction, in size of the metal producLS by means of a rotor equipped with hammers, including in and out conveyors, scrubbers, separation and dust collection equipment, and other connected machines." - 1 4 2� ^ �`-��� � Section 60.623 (3) required conditions of the I-2 Zoning Distriat prohibits large metal shredders as follows: "(3) The re£ining o£ petroleum or gasoline, stock yards, meat packing plants, large metal shredders, the incineration of infectious wastes and the crushing of rock, asphalt, or concrete for recycling are prohibited in this district_" F. HISTORY/DISCIISSI�N: In 1989 a site plan review for a building expansion was approved. 6n 3uly 31, 1995, Alter Trading Corporation formally applied for a special condition use permit (SCUP1 for a recycling processing center. The application proposed to install new technology known as a"Texas Shredder" and an "Eddy Current Separation Plant". PED staff authored a report finding that Alter's proposed use met the general standards for a SCUP and specific standards for a recycling processing center. The report anticipated that additional conditions would be suggested based on the outcome of a noise assessment and traffic assessment that were presently pending. The report also noted that a Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was being prepared. At the August 31, 1995, public hearing, the Zoning Committee was advised by the City Attorney's Office to delay discussion of the &CUP application until after the EAW analysis showed whether an Environmental Impact • Statement (EIS) for the project was needed. If an EIS was needed, the SCUP application would be held in abeyance until completed. The staff report was revised to incorporate information about noise and trafYic. Public hearings were scheduled for October and November 1995 but were canceled because of the need Eor additional data and analysis in order to complete the EAW. During late 1995, through 1996, and into 1997 PED staff worked with Alter, Alter's consultant, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Minnesota Department of Health to complete the EAW. On March 21, 1997, the City released a Record of Decision that an EIS was not needed for the proposed recycling center. However, PED could not act on A1ter's SCUP because a moratorium on reaycling centers had been adopted in 1996. In Sune 1996, before the EAW was completed, the City Council passed a resolution adopting a temporary moratorium (CF 96-625) on recycling processing centers. The moratorium was temporary until an ordinance oould be adopted. The council said questions had been raised as to whether the impacts of automobile and steel shredders weze fully understood and considered when the city considered the definition of recycling centers adopted in an amendment in 1990. The Council questioned whether the conditions incorporated in the 1990 amendment were ineffective or obsolete in mitigating potential adverse effects of large metal , 2 � shredders. The council said it understood that three new automobile metal � shredders were being considered in or near the West Side and Mississippi River Flood Plain and questioned whether such a concentration o£ such uses would have a detrimental impact on the area. Sn August 1996, the council adopted an ordinance that directed the Department of Planning and Economic Development to vndertake a study of the City's comprehensive plan and zoning regulaCions relating to recycling centers, automobile shredders and similar technologies (CF-96- 624) and asked the Planning Commission to st�dy and submit a report to the council with any needed planning or zoning amendments. The ordinance a2so enacted the moratorium on automobile shredders and similar technologies. The planning commission designated the Metal Shredder Study Committee to conduct the study. The City hired Dean Johnson of Resource Strategies Corporation to assist it in completing the planning and zoning studies. The studies were published in an Interim Report of Apri1 1, 1997, and a Final Report of April 29, 1997. The studies were considered by the commission's Committee in April and May 1997. After considering its committee's recommendation and the public hearing testimony o£ August 22, 1997, the commission recommended zoning code and land use plan amendments to prohibit large metal shredders within the City. The reasons for the prohibition, set forth in the Land Use Plan Amendment, were: 1. "The nature of existing industrial areas in St. Paul makes it � inappropriate to locate large metal shredders in the City. There is no existing or potential industrial site in the city which has conditions sufficient to protect adjacent land uses from the negative impacts of inetal shredders. Tkere are no industrial areas large enough to provide adequate separation of non-heavy industrial uses from large metal sl2redders, while providing sufficient highway access, buffering and visual screening." 2. "1995 state legislation requires the City af Saint Paul to update its compreriensive plan. The City has received a grant through the U.S. Department of the Interior to update the River Corridor Plan and evaluate new zoning regulations within the river corridor. It is inappropriate and premature to consider new or expanded exLensive heavy industrial land uses within the Mississippi River corridor prior to completing the updates to the Comprehensive Plan and Mississippi River Corridor Plan. Large metal shredders should be prohibited £rom developing or ezcpanding in the river corridor at this time." 3. "Large metal shredders should be prohibited in the City of St. Paul because there is no need to locate such facilities in central cities and there are other areas, more appropriate than urban centers, in which to locate such facilities. Scrap metal is generated from a - � y 2� ��`��� • very large region, often encompassing more than one state. The economic £easibility of operating a large metal shredder does not appear contingent upon any single location within a particular region from which scrap metal resources are drawn. There also does not appear to be any essential locational criteria which would require a large metal shredder to be located in a major urban center as opposed to a less urban or rural location." The City Council held a public hearing on the commission's recommended amendments on December 3, 1997, and on December 10, 1997 voted to adopt the commission's recommendations. In a letter of January 30, 1998, PED staff asked Alter that given that its proposed metal shredder is no longer a permitted use in the City did it still desire a public hearing on its SCUP application for a large metal shredder. Alter was also advised that it could choose to withdraw its application. (The letter states that the amendment was published on January 17; it was published on January 10.) In a letter of February 10, 1998, Alter asked for review and aCtion on its application. PED staff on February 26, 1998, extended the time limit to consider the application by 60 Days. The extension ends on May S, 1998. (Letters o£ January 30 and February 10 and 26, 1998, are attached.) G. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: The West Side Citizen's Organization � recommends denial of the permit. (Recommendation of April 2, 1998, a part of the file.) H. FINDINGS• . 1. Alter Trading Corporation is proposing to expand its existing metal recycling operation by constructing a metal recycling plant on an existing industrial site. The new plant will be 40,000 square feet in size. An "Eddy Current Separation Plant" used to recover the maximum percentage of non-ferrous metals from the shredder system will be installed and take an additional 15,000 square feet, to be located adjacent to the main plant. The function of the plant is to recycle scrap metal such as automobile bodies, industrial scrap and misaellaneous light gauge steel. The majority of scrap metal received by the plant will be from local scrap yards. The plant will recycle approximately 750 to 900 net tons of scrap metal daily. Once the material is shredded, it will be transported by barge, rail, or truck to various customers. The northern portion of the site currently used £or storing coal and salt will be replaced with the recycling plant. Automobile bodies will be accepted from salvage operations which have dismantled and drained to remove major wastes, including used oi1, antifreeze, solvents, batteries, oil filters, tires, CCS, and mercury. Historically, the company has operated shears on the property to cut � 27 scrap metal. The company is replacing the shears previously located . at the site with a more efficient model £or recycling the material. Site preparation methods wilZ be taken to minimize soil erosion probZems by use of silt fences, earLh diversion berms and bale diversions. Surface water runoff from the facility will be directed to a designed detention pond. Since the faciSity will be constructed on fill so that it is elevated at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation, a permit for construction in the river corridor is not necessary. The recycling plant will have about 35 employees. The planned hours of operation are 7:00 a..m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days per week. Most of the traffic on site will occur during daylight hours. There are i05 vehicles coming to the site each day currently (9 multi-axle trucks and 96 two-axle vehicles}. That number will increase by 207 vehicles for a totaS of 312 (60 multi-axle trucks and 252 two-axle vehicles). 2. Alter's proposed use as described in finding 1 above is a"large metal shredder" as defined l�y the City's Zoning Code as £ollows: "Alter Trading Corporation is proposing to expand its existing metal recycling operation by constructing a metal recycling plant on an existing industrial site. The new plant will be 40,000 square feet in size. An "Eddy Current Separation Plant" used to recover the maximum � percentage of non-ferrous metals from the shredder system will be installed and take an additional 15,000 square feet, to be located adjacent to the main plant. The function of the plant is to recycle scrap metal such as automobile bodies, industrial scrap and miscellaneous light gauge steel. The majority of scrap metal received by the plant will be from local scrap yards. The plant will recycle approximately 75o to 90o net tons of scrap meta2 daily.•' "Automobile bodies will be accepted from salvage operations which have dismantled and drained to remove major wastes, including used oil, antifreeze, solvents, batteries, oil filters, tires, CCS, and mercury." 3. Section 60.623 {3) of the zoning code prohibits large metal shredders in I-2 districts. J. STAFF RECOP4fENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 3 staffs recommends denia2 of the special condition use permit. � $ F z$ • CJ orcCIAL C7NDITION US� T'ERMIT APPLICATION Departn:enf of Planning and .Ecor:omic Developmei7t Zoning Sec[i0n ll DD City Hall Anner 25 West Pourth Street Saint Paul, NSN 35IO2 266-6589 APPLICANT PROPERTY LOCATION � :; �.5 � 6 ng aFF,�a �ise anfy �o. �� _:`' , /t` IC� %: §�Y:�': :. Name �ter Tradino Corporation, John Gentzko:: Address �117 4rara 4rraor� g �Sn City Bettendorf St. IA Zip 52722 D2ytime phoneC 344-5287 tVame of owner (if different) �obert Goldstein Address/! ocation 801 Barge Channel P.oad, St. Paul, I�i 55107 Legal description: S�� 4, SE 4 Section 9, T28N, H22�d Current Zoning I�2 (attach additionaf sheef if ne cessary) TYPE OF PERMlT: Application is hereby made under the provisions of Chapter 60 Section 60.624_ paragraph �• of the Zoning Code for a: L7 Special Condition Use Permit ❑ Modification of River Corridor Sfandards ❑ River Corridor Conditionai Use Permit LJ SUPPOR7tNG INFORMATION: in the space belo�v supp{y information that is appiicable to your type of permit (attach additional sheets if n=cessary) • SPECIAI CONDITION USE Explain ho�v the us= will me=_t each cf the sp-�ia' condi.io;+s • RIVER COr�R1DOP, CONDiTION;;L USE. Describe how t�e use wilf ine=: tn= a�oliczble conditions. • MODIFICATION OF RIVER CORRIDOR STANDARDS: Explain why modifications are needed. site olan is attached [� ApplicanYs signature 2ti q s C1ty agent ��1 ��f_��" � t' Apr-03-98 01:17P Snell Ham Merriam Park Zonina Committee of the Saint J'aul Planning Commission Planning & Economic f�evelopment C)epartment 25 WesY 4th 5lreet Saint Pauf, MN 55102 Apri12, 1998 P.02 6'25 Strykor Avr,nue St. Puuf. MN 55107 . P11on� (b17.)'>.93�191)g Fax (Gi2) 293-U115 Dcax Zoning Committee mcmbers: Thank you for the op�nunity to comment on A(ter Tradin� Corporation's appltication for a Special Condition Use Permit fvr a metal shredder to be located on the West Side of Sz. PauL We are the West Side Citir.ens Organization, which rs one of the 17 designated planning districts in Saint Paul. Our mission is to be an action oriented, neighborhood-based argani�ation empowering residcnts tcs participate in and advocate li�r �]utions to West Side c�mmunity issues. We recommend denial ofthe Alter T'radin� app[icati<m because, among other reasons, the proposal does not satisfy the S general siandards reyuired to be mct bc:fore graating a specia! conditian use pennit. #t. The extent, Incation and intensity of the use rvill not be in substantial compliance with the � Saint Paul Comprehen9ive Pian or aoy app[icabte sui�-area pfans approved by the C:ity Council. #,5. 'Che use wiil not, in a�l other respects, eonform to the applicab►e re�ulations uf the District ia whic6 it is tocated, which arc listed as tollows: R. Wes�,yidc Riverfront Dev�lo�q�,r.nt Princinles (1�194) The proposed project does not meet the guidelines adopted by the Wcst Side Citizens Organization and community which reyuire that af! ziverfront deveiopments be designed [o make the river accessibie to ihe public, connect the neighborhood to the river, provzde.job and husiness opportuaities for West Side residents, and provide quality residentiai areas. $. St y�1 �licsic�ig;, River CorridorY.l�Si (198t/t947) T'he $yPaul Mississ1�2�1 iver ('ortidor Plan contains multiple policies intended to ensure wise management oCthe floodptain, sa�ls and storm �vater and protection oFthe shore and sutiacc waters, wetlands, vegeTaiion, wildlilc and visws. (pages 5-lU). nne vfthe "Uvcral} Pplicy and Ubjectives" f'or this plan clearly states that future planning and management efforts shali stress p�otection and enhancement of'che unique and timited cnvironmental resources found withi� the river corridor. (puge 5). T'he scvcn goals that frame the recommendations in the River Cc�rridor Plan ovenvhelmingly urge caution and carc in the development of the corridor; *'Co protect a�d preserve the Mississippi River Corridor as a unique and valuab)c resource for the benefit of the health, safety and weIfare of"the citizens of the state and regiun. *7'o prevent and mitigate danger to the life and properry of thc citi�ens vf the state artd region. "To prevent and mitigate �rreversible damagc to the Mississippi River Corridor as a state and regional � resource. WSCU comments page 1 � Apr-03-98 01:18P Snell Ham Merriam Park WEST SIDE � � ORGANI S ZATION � �J P_03 �,��Sb � f �25 Strykcr Avenun St. Pc�u� MN .`iS107 Fhone (612) 243-17pR E'ax C6I2) 29:i 0115 *To proteet and preserve the Mississippi Kivcr Corridvr as an cssential element in the fcderal state, regional and local recreation, transportation, sewer and water systems. •To maintain the River Conidor's value and utility for residential, commerc;ai, industriat und pubtic purposcs. *"i�o protect and preserve the St. Paul Mississippi River C;orridor's biolo�ical and ecological functions. "To ptcserve and enhance thc St. Paul Mississippi River Carridor's aesthctic, cultural, scicntific and historic functions (page 4). C�. $�iT1t Pauf on the Missietii�ni. River I;famewprk I)ev,Cl ome,� D.52L4LaUl� �� '.��(llcc.1997) Section GQ623.(3), (1-2 Uistrict), of lhe Saint Paul I.egislative Codc reacLs, ..,large metal shredders,,, are prohibited in this 1)istrict." Aaicie (V, Section 65 40( states that the objective ot'(zoning� ssandards and criroria is to maintain the aesthetic intcgrity and naturai environment of lhe river cc�rridor in conformance to the St. Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan by reducing the ct'fects ot' poorly ptanncd shoreline and hluffline devclopment; providing sufticient sethack for sanitary lacilities; preventing pollution of surfacc and groundwater; minimizin#; flood damage; preventing soi! eroswn; and implemcnting mctropo(itan plans, policics and stanciards. E. �LllS�.uLCDmnrehensive Yfan (DeC. 1997) Reccnt amendments to the Plan incorporate thc Pollowing as metal shrcdder policy, "Large metal shredders will not bc permiited in Saint !'aul." F. �conomie Deve(9 nlen S r� +( l99U). <)ne of five central principies of the Ciry's F.conomic (�cveferpmcnt Strategy is econcnn�c devefopment should bc c�rried oui in a manncr which respects the envimnmental quality of thc city. Gconomie and environmental objectives need nvt bc in cvnflict if approtached m a rcasonable manner, lt is in thc ov�vall long-ienn interest ol'the St_ Pau! business communiry to bc part of a clean and hca{thful city. By addressing prvblems such as air pollution, water eontamination and hazardous waste before they rea.ch crisis proportions, tfie community can avoid sevcre restricuons on development heing taced in other cn�es. (page 9). It also stated that SouthpoR (is) to be a river oriented industrial area Transferrin;; and storage ol'bulk commodities will continue to bc the primary operation. (pagc 4Q}. �. 1h� L�[tSSiS�p1�s1L4z�'stLKrver an Recr i n Ar�a's �'omp_ r, Manasem.�tint I�{sn cites guide(ines for the height c�f buildting within thc river corridor. Masimum buitding hcights ul'30 fcct within 200 fcet vf thc shorcline and 4S feet w�thin 3(?0 fect of thc shorelinc are r�commended. Wit a 55 foot maeimum hcight, this proposal wil! not conf'orm to those guidefines. #2. The use wilt not provide sdeyuate ingress and eQress to minimi�e traft'ic con�e.tion in the pubfic strcets. Arrivtn� at the facility wilt be scrap metal, including auto bodies, piled on semi-trailers. Leaving the facility will be a portion of the recydcd metal and "t1ufT" to bc transported to a landfill for disposal. 'l�hc u.ee woufd add at lcas� 174 extra trucks, each making o�e trip in and one trip out. io t�e a}rer�dy con5ested intersection of Barge Channel i2oad and Concord Street. No mitigation to this has been m�dc part of�the appiication. S'his unmi�ib ted increase will cause largcr traffic back-ups and prcvent fast W5C0 comments page ? 3� Apr-03-98 01:18P Snell Ham Merriam Park wEST . SIDE CITtZENS ORGANIZATIQN P.04 A�5 Stiyker 11v�>ttue Sr. Paul. NFN.`,.Si07 PlzOtlr; CG i 2) 293-t 7t78 1'ax (6i2)293 0115 emergency vehic(e access to the resideneas and businesses near the site. Ahhnugh tra(7ie en�ineers e�timate that this increase will fit within the capacity of'thc roadways, it witl stiii increase ihe ne�;ative imFract on the adjaeent uses, not minimize con{;estion. #3. The use wil[ be detrimental to the existing character of the develupment in the immediate neighborhood aud wiil endanger the public health, safety and geoeret welfare_ The Nationa] �ark Scrvice (U.S, i7ept. of" Interior) cites the adverse visual impact of the proposed shredder, especially on river recreationa[ users. (sec lettcr from Yark Superintendent JoAnh Kyrat, dated Oct. 6, 1995). "Ihe Minnesota Degt. oFNatural Resources staied thete is a bald eagle roost site on Pig's Eye lsland No. l, located across lhe river frnm the proposed automobile shredder This romt has had between 6-! U eagles each winter f'or the past few years. (see letter from Joan Galli, Nnn-game Wildlife Specialist, dated Oct. (1, I995). T'he operation of'a metai shredder will make the area's• habitat even more detrime�tal to eaglcs. One of the most well aitended churches in the neighborhood is locsted a cpuple of btvcks f'rom the proposed shredder and at the main enirancc to the site. Immediatety adjaccnt to that is an altemative schoo! and approximatety 20 single family homes and 2 apariment buildings. The sdded traffic, noise and poltution finm tE�e operation of a metal shrecider and its accompaaying trafTic wi31 endxnger the public health, safety and weifare thcough additional iraffic cortgestion, noise frcrm irucks and the shredder, and air poUution from the trucks and shredder opetatron. 7�he M}�CA advises that, "Pcitentiai for hum�n heaith and eco(ogicat risk at lwo pound per h�ur Eiarticulafe emission rate is a source of'cvncern among professional analysts. We based this ooncem on our experience with another scrap metal shredder project, on H�hich a risk ass�ssment was dorte, noting that review of that project had iJenYiGed !he potenYial for sia iticattt hwnan healeh and ecolc�gical risk, despite ihe fact that predkted emissions and discl�arges from the facility wqutd meet the standard regulatory timitations. White it is irue tfiat meeting regulatory limitations is usually sufficient tn justif'y issuing a permit, the above finc3ing is impossible for us to i�ore. We therefore c;oncladed our comments by noting our bclief that Alter shauld eithee show by means of convincing cvidence that no such potential r�sk exists in connection with the Alter proposal, or quantitativeiy assess that potential risk and propose mitigatian to reduce it to acceptable levels, if necessary." {MYCA letter, Uctober 5, 2945). T'he Rivcr Corridor area directly across Ihe river from the proposed autvmobife metal shredder is a non-atrainment area f'or the pollulant PM-10. Concentrations of PM-10 (minute po[(utsu�ts that are aitbome and environmental heaith hazsird} have exceeded Environmental Protection Agency Stane{arcLc az recentiy as May, I995. Thc Minnesota Pollucion Control Agency (MPCA} states in a]etter, dated Oc,-t. 5, 1995. that: "The statemant in the response that Alter's cmissivns would not "sibniftcantfy" affect the nearby non-attainment area is unsupported. '3`he definition of the tcrn� "signiYicantfy" is clearty important, but not given, nor could it be without a quantif�tive assessment. Further, our revie�v of thc :nodeling data in the permit application that accompatti�d this responsc indicates that data are insu�cient to suppott a judgment on this issua pne way or the other". . � 1� � WSCO comments page 3 3� Apr-D3-98 01-18P Snell Ham Merriam Park � wEST � � SIDE CITZZENS ORGANIZATION � � P_O5 625 SYryket Avnntie St. P¢ul, MN 551U7 Yhone C612) 7.93-1708 Fax (G12)�93-011.'� ln('vrmation from the weather service has shotivn the stoan water management system to be unab)e to handle the volume ot'rain thc arca receivcs. 'Iherc are concerns about the el7ectiveness of'a storm water detention basin in the flood plain in the event ol'hard rain, because record� Yrom January to Ju{y in 199? show ihat the capacity oFThe planned storm water hasin would havc been exceeded tive times. 1'he ATC automohi(e metal shredder wilt result in unaccept�ble noise polluuon, The incrcase of mulLi-asle truck tra(Tic into the site �vil1 increase thc noise associa(ed with air brakes and extended trailers. While it is true that the impact oFnoise is not cumulativc, the shreddcr witl be the source ofa constant Icvel ot'noise m an area where mulriple sourccs of noise a{rcady disturb ncighbors and communily lifc. fl4. The use will impede the normal and orderly devclopment and im�rovement ot'the surrounding property for uses permitted in the District. Limited access to the industria( area channel� ali trafTic through a smaN msiden[iai area whero ihe noise is disruptive to normat community lile. Railroad tracks impcde traffic into the industriul area on a regular basis, rotensilying noise, traffic congestions and automotive pcdlution, as trueks aw-aii aceess Any increase in traftie wiil impede furthcr Jevelopment of the adjacent uses. l�ttached is a staiemcnt fram a Reattnr {amiliar with the West Side neighborhood, who statcs in a protessional opinion, "that if the shredder is Constructed thc houses in the immcdiatc neighborhood would talf in value anywhere from 5 to2fl percent." This st�tement sup�rts the claim that the proposal will impcde the �mprvvement of residential prnperties permitted in thc sunoundin� area. Sincerely, ���°'� � ��s �Y��a�� Wcst Side C'itizens Organization contact; Sheri{yn young, 224-7308 or isabei Chanslor, 293-1708 WSCU commcnts pagc 4 33 Apr-03-98 01:19P Snell Ham Merriam Park Stevens � Reatty, inc.� Since 1911 October 9; Z997 To whom It May Concern: This letter is regarding praperty vaiues on the west Side oE St_ Paul in relation to the proposed Alter metal ,shredder. My name is Ron Stevens. I am the owner-broker of Stevens Realty at 7I1 Smith Ave_ So., St.Paul, MN. Started in 191I by my grand£ather, stevens Realty is a family business and has been Iocated in the Wese Side-west St, Paul area since then. I have been helping people buy and sell homes since T obtained my real estate license in 1977. At the renuest of Hortense Quesada, owner of the property at 696 Concord St., St. Paul, I have made an appraisal oP her home for the purpose of estimating its market value_ On the basis of an inspection of the property and a£ter careful consideration of.the factors infZuencing market value, it is my opinion the value as o£ October 9, 1997, is $62,500. Zf the metal shredder is built across the street from her house, witri its acconypanying air, noise and visual pollution, in m_v, opinion the value would decrease to the $52,000-554,000 range. 2 believe that if the shredder is c�nstructed the houses in the immediate neighborhood would fa11 in value anywhere from 5 to 20 percent_ I� the average house price in that neighborhood is about 565,000, which is reasonable, and there are about 20o houses close by, then that is a decline in propexty values of approximately 51,700,000_ Thzs analysis is for the immediate neighborhood. Z also believe that the proposed shredder would have a negative effect on the whole west Side neighborhood property values if constructed. Tf there are any questions on the above, please call me any time at 227-0012. � Sincerely, /,/ ��� ��y, � (/ Ronald J. Stevens Sroker - Stevens ReaZty 711 South Smith Avenue tJ Saint Paul, Minnesota 55147 L(612) 227-0012 r:a�� � . � .�!� ���nlea.nN e0y mt �n 1009: pocfKCnmxnp� Deper L,J � .s's. 3� � � LJ n � � rt �.� p � i / /4� C f�]LeL�..�,.' �-- � ��-„-� , 1 !//U //U .� � 1 S Sl i � � G (' C.i. r\ �� G ir 1 _Si� '� �.1 �1) �`� b�2� �3 ��� j�� z� f%2c� �I7G Cc` �G �C 2��C' �G CZI�C �G' G� / ,S C; � �-r)vG �G ��i� S G �»2;✓ CGLI�7/ z� 4! /- �l Ga !� ,�G � �,,1` c 2.� /e: b c �,��,zr �"' `�z� h� �d ��� s �'>��sG lLS� ��� �� � �� ��.� �» �»;�y 1 r� ��- ��- �i s� L��,� 1 j� v l 'Y}a11 e r Hc,y,,, ,J>✓ �67 ����" f G�ti��" o�/z� //'7 � h 1 �� 2r�� �2LC� ��IZlir�� �,°Z`r ulzJ G ' Lo �- � ) � � � a'7� 2G- � /j �c� / //pd � 1 a�l� U�' � ��? �i'� � J r / 5 �'!� z f d 1- �- � I� '. ��, � G Gi/ '1'7 2 C`G LC� Z l� "11 l LtJc� � L�(`JJ^C. r��G ' L �'�Ch � ic ��v� l� ' l-z>Du l j 6/ �`1 e1.0 � /7 °-1 c� ; U i �I/l z� �� z'-� J `�'' 1 �;," ,,� �' �� ��� GcJ� � ��/ -�-� ziu t � �t -ri����- ��o1J� � �,� 1����I� h� I n1� 1� 7�� � 1 ! C��z ��,� . 1�s � s Ch=�� z,�. ��>,,: ���� �,,��-� (� � �t/L ����; c,�� �zi, c J� ���c e ��o oil �t-zf/�� � ' a � � �1-�� G�� ; l-, Jf� ��- � r>>i��>� w�7� � G�> >/ !,� I� L,t �}�<<�� o�' 1 z��� , I.��'�E, G/ .��� ! � . 1 sz S L�� ., �c�'C �z1 n�cv�-� i � � � l�� ' u U f� 2�< <� � e. � c � � t,cJ c1 �- z LaJ 9�, c y"t, � � G�-� .�-, (3�i;. � S P) Z r-� p�% !�Vi G G� J� c i `l G `� G � S ) C L (3 I L� t� u1 v� G; „ G' Iz:.J /�'! (/G t� � ��j2o�1� �L(�i .l � '� G Ct-c� � ��/ I �7 � a l �rti � 35 04114/199fl 08:19 6124508703 PAGE 01 : �, . -. � ...� ,2' ...°°�� %i�kc'� _ Mn �� 1(/.THLEEN A- GAYLORD MAYOR • ClTY OF 4s�21 s5ae�oa 50dJTH �T. PAl3i Fax[a12�asa•s�as ';ZS THf'<i1 A4'R''':•.�� r..,;.� : SO'-:T!tS'LFAItt..FSfNN{.'�[t::. � u .. April 13, 1998 Mr David McDoneli, Chair St Vau] Planning Commiseic�xi c/u St. Paul PEA 2S West 4th Strett St. !'aul MN 55102 Ucar Mr. McDanell: 1'he City of South 5t Peul hi�ab�eh eans►stent[y concecned ahoat the proposed Alter Corporation h4etal Shredder since it waa fii�t��cspoe�l some t2�ree Yea� ago. It is our understaz►ding that the St. Paul Plannittg Commis§ion �t�-�told:e public hearing on this matter on April t6, 1998. Ptease accept this letter tls oua�!"ic t�tmony against the proposad facility. The City of South St. f'aut continues to work osi th6 fl�velippti?ent of a gol£ courae directly adjacent to the Aicer property and the proposed inte�sif cstlda.<+€� G�m"�i land use would be dehimental to our go(f course. In acidition, this proposal is bot�k��$�+'i�h the efforts of St. Paul and South Si. Paui to ciean up U�e Mississippi Rivar nnd enlYe�s t�►e s�}SOrelines. linciosed for your informatftii�as Yh¢ South St. Pau] City Council Resolution adopted iast Yea�' ce�ncerning the ptoposed shr�dtler• P'�ease keep us informed about the status of thia request. Sincere�y, ., � � ������.f Kathte A. Gaylord Mayor KAG/ja linclosure :id<ryna118Ja 767t Oaee�� post-�Y fax �te � p 'i � � � O �70C1 3�, 04/14/1998 08:19 6124508703 PAGE 02 � � C�� af South St. Pau1 � � � � � � �u1cQ{a County, Minnesota r R£S�3.LITION NO. 97-170 RESOLUTION REQ�E�`I`T1V'G THE ST. PAUL PLANNING COMMISSION TO PRO�fIBI'� ?�IRGE ME'I'AI- SHR�DDER5 IN ST. PAUL WI the City z.� Sou� St. Paul has consistently objected to this project since it was proposed; Wj.�E�',�S,Q{�r y�tr�'of s'tudy i# is c1ecQ that the nahu'e of existing industrial areas in St. Pezul mdkes it irKt�p�'opriate to locai metal shredders in the City; WHEREAS, the sp�ciflc �ite for a metal shredder proposed by the A1ter Corporation does no# havtt� �brld�tfons sufficient to protect the adjacent existing and proposed 1�d uses in Sc�t�th St• Paul or St. Paul; VVHEREAS,bcatl'i Scstith St: Paul cmd St• Paul have worked hard over the last . ten ye�'s to separate storr� and �tmitcay sewers in order to make the Mississippi River cz cleaner natural4��source; WHEREAS. South St• Pattl �d St. Paul have worked hcsd to develop trcdls and boating facilities alot'� �e.Mississippi River; Wi-IEREAS, in 19$8,.Cong'ress recogruzedthe importcmce of the Mississippi River as a recreation¢1 fccciiit`y when it establish the Missisaippi Nationcrl Recreation Area (MNRRA?� WHEREAS, ihe Ci{Si o# �South St. Paul is currendy in the prelimincay stages of developing an 18 hol� t�o3�'Cnurse directly south of the proposed Alter metal shredder; WHEREAS, tha City of �outh St. Paul has adopted Ordincmce 1063 which prohibits metal sktz�ddets.in th�e ca'ea immediately south of St. Paul because they are incompatible with th'e peiz�i3tted icmd uses in that atea; ❑ 37 04/14/1996 08:19 6124508703 Resolution I3o. 97-170 August 18, 1999 Page 2 PAGE 03 NOW THER�FDI�,° BE T�' R�SOLVEB that the South St. Paui oi n� l�d hereby requests that the S� � P�"�°��g CO�ssion adopt the app p use cmd zoning code carie�i�nisuts which will Prohibit lcsge metczl shredders in the City of Sf. Pau2. Adopted this 18th daX oE �k�'g��.. j997. Approved; � ��L'1-:------ Mayor � � � A � REAP i River Environmental Action Project � ��� P.O. Box 374, South St. Paul, MN 55075 tel. 451-1038 Apri17, 1998 Mr. Roger Ryan St. Paul Department of Planning & Economic Development 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 RE: Special Conditional Use Pernut Application - Alter Trading Company Dear Mr. Ryan; I am writing on behalf of the River Environmental Action Project (R.E.A.P.) of South St. Paul, Minnesota. As you know, R.E.A.P. and its members passed several resolutions over the past two years • opposing the construction and operation of inetal shredders in St. Paui. We submitted those resolutions and appeared before the City Council and Planning Commission to speak in opposition to shredders. As Alter Company pursues approval of it original Special Conditional Use Application with the City of St. Paul, we once again write to express our opposition to the application and urge the Planning Commission to deny any and all attempts by Alter to construct or operate a metal shredder on their property at the northern border of South St. Paul, or anywhere within the City of St. Paul, Minnesota. Thank you for forwarding our comments to the Planning Commission for the April 16, 1998 meeting. . Sinc° relv yours, U � 1<��r Lois Glewwe, Coordinator R.E.A.P. Council � B�I�� -i INTERTEC Bmun Interte< Gorpomtion 1345 Northland Drive Mendoto Heights, Hlinnesota 551 20-7 1 4 t 612-h83-8700 Faz:683-8888 Engineen ond Sclenhsh Serving Jhe Built ond No)u�al Envi�onmenls° July 26, 1995 Project No. CMXX-95-0048 Ms. Kady A. Dadlez City of Saint Paul Department of Plannin� and Economic Development 1100 C.H.A. 25WestFourthStreet �/��,1l�� �t�� � St. Paul MN 55102 �.d'Itli Deaz b4s. Dadiez: Re: Special Condi[ion Use Parmit Application for Alter Trading Corporation's (Alter) Proposed Recyclino Plant Braun Intertec Corporation (Braun Intertec) was retained by Atter to prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and related permitting for a proposed recycling plant located on Bar�e Channel Road in Saint Paul, Minnesota. This letter/permi[ application includes the foliocvin�: A. B. C. !7 E. Addrass and legal description of the propeRy A dzscription of the proposed use A description of how the conditions of the zoning code will be met. There are five ocher general conditions that aiso have to be met for all Special Condition Use Permits (Sec. 64300, Sub. d, Par. I-5} The name and daytime telephone number of a contact person (see application or lezter). A fil[n� fee of $610 is eaclosed. A. The proposed recycling facility will b9innzsota. Thz ]t�al dzs�ription is Township 28 Ivorih, and Range 22 be located at 801 Barge Channel Road, St. Paul, : snuthwest quartar, southeast quarter, Section 9, �Vest. B. Alter is proposing to expand its existing metal recycling operation by buildin� a metal recycling plant on a praviously disturbed industrial site {see attached Locational Map). The project area is approximately 20.4 acres in s�ze, of which about 1.3 acres will be used for the recycling plant. The proposed recyclin� plant will be 40,000 square feet in size. An "Eddy Current Separation Plant" wilf bz an additianal 15,000 square feet and ]ocated adjacent to the main plant. Historicaliy, the company has operated shears on the property to cut scrap metal. The company is replacing the shears previously located at the site with a more efticient model. Tiie recycting facility's function is to racycle scrap matal such as autoinobile bodies, industrial scrap and misce(Ianeous light gau�e steel. The majori[y of scrap metal received by the facility wiil be from local scrap yards. The faeility wil! recycle a�proximately 750 to 900 nei tons of scrap metal daily. Once the materiat is recycled, it wiit be transported by harge, rail or truck to various consumers. u � � - `l�/ -� � � �8b`1 �J City of Saint Paul Projzcc No. Ch1XX-95-0048 3ulq 26, 1995 Page 2 A 17,250-square-foot expansion of the buildin� that houses the non-ferrous material will be constructed within 36 months to accommodate the expanded operation. Construction is anticipated ro begin during the early fall of 1995 and should be completed 60 to 90 days later. Site preparation methods wil! be taken to minimize soil erosion problems by use of silt fences, earth diversion berms and bale diversions; and restoration will take place as soon as possible. Prior to construction, a Soil ,- Erosion and Sedimentation Control P1an witt be implemented and follo�v2d throughout the co�struction and restoration phases of the project. C. The following is a description of how the conditions of the zoning code (Section 60.624, kl) wifl be met: a. Outdoor processing, salva�in; and stora�e of materials and motor vehicles will be from the shortest distance, 408 feat to the R-4 Zone (30Q feet is the minimum requirement). The area used fot ihe outdoor processing, salvaging and storage will be behind a noise mitigation wall ranging from 20 fe2t to 28 faet in hei�ht and 27S feet in length. There is also an 8-foo[ high . chairnlink fence bordering the property on Barge Channet Road. b. There �vill be no outdoor open burnin� on the site. c. Material may be stacked at a maximum of 60 feet hi;hzr than the fence due to the sec back (of the material) which will be over 1,Q00 feec from the nearest zesidentiaV property line. The following information, listed below, addresses the conditions (as outlined in the Zonin� Code, Section 60.624, #18) relating to uses which service, proczss or manufacture outside of a completely enclosed building: a. The shurtest di;tance from the proposed recyclin� facility's ouuide property line to the R-4 Zone is 408 feet. b. All outdoor servicins, processing, manufacturing will be conducted, operated and maintained in accordance with any necessary permits of Mir,nesota Poifutic�n Control Agency, the county and the city. The status of these pennits are pendin�. c. An Application For 3ite Plan Review tiviil be submitted on, or shortly Y'ollowing this Special Condition Use Permit Application. A site pian showing the stated requirements, as outlined in the Zoning Code, is enclosed with this apglication. A narrative stating the measures the applicant will take to contain . on the property any dust, odor, noise or other potentially adversz affects fpIIOWS. � ��3�#�N� �iLE `����-�� 41 - City of Saint Paut Projact No. C�SkX-95-0048 7uly 26, 1995 � Page 3 The project wilt not generace any unusual amounts of dust, odors, or noise durinb construction. Likewise, no strong or potential[y offensivz odors are expacted durin� normal operation, start-up, and shutdown. Durin� operation, sevaral minor sources of fugitive dust may exist. Fugitive d�ist amounts from vehicle trave] have bean estimated usin� anticipated traftic volumes for trucks dalivering and hauling, u wetl as front-end loaders traveling on the premises. This fu�itive dus[ was quan[iYied as P,�I, Other sources of fugitive dust likely to be on the premises includz transfer points for Yluff, as weil as extremely minor wind erosion from a smaIl remporary fluff srora�a bin. These sources were inctuded in the ISCSTZ air quality modei Version 93109 with all other anticipated sources of PM,p emissions from the f�cility. Tha facility as a whole showed no impact on the P�4, nonattainment area whose border nearest the site is the center of the Mississippi River. Mitigative maasures for these sourees include maintaining either an asphalt or concrete surface, as �s•ell as usin� water or chemical dust suppressant when necessary. Applicable noise standards are contained in the Saint Paul I�oise Ordinance and the Minnesota Poi(u[ion Control Agency re�ulations. Of primary interest • for this projzct is the L50 daytime standard of 60 dBA for residential land uses since the continuous feed may generate noise for at Izast 50 percent or 30 minutes of the hour. The most sensitive land use adjacent m the site is the residential area west of Concord Avenue which is approximatzIy I,200 feet from the proposed plantlocation. Noise levets were predicted at the nearest home west of Concord Avenue usin� a computer niodel that takes into account attenuation with distance and atmosphere. The project will comply with the bIPCA aad Sain[ Paul noise standar�ti by mi�i�acion of a noise ��at(. Five other general conditions that also have to be met for al! Special Condition Use Permits (Section 64.300, Sub. d, Par. I-5} are iisted below: The extent, location and intensity of the proposed recyclinQ facility is in comptiance with tha Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan because i[ is located in an area zoned heavy industry. The use provides adequate in�rass and egress from Barge Channei Road. 3. The use or development of the recyclin� facility will be an improvzment to the existin� site and conforms to the industrial zone. A noisa watl witl miti�ate noise Iz��zis and visual impacts from thz surroundina industrial sites � and the nei�hborhood located west of the site. � Z��II�t� ���.E qS�c�D � �FZ • : ��� City of Saint Paul �` Project n`o. ChfXX-95-0048 Ju]y 26, 1995 Pa�e 4 4. The recyc]in� facility will not impede the industrial devzlopment and improvement of the surrounding property as stated above. 5. The recyc]in� facility will conform to the I-2 zone in which it is located. Thz followino supplemental information is provided to document that issues which may be of concern to the Minnesota Department of h'atural Resourees have been addressed, as well as issues pertaining to the national park system. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Natura] Heritaoe and Nongame �Vildlife Probram) was contacted and theit "Information System Data Reques[ Form" was completed requesting information on rare plant and animal species or other si�niticant natural Yeatures that are known to occur on die site or within a I-mile radius of the site (see the EA�V for correspondence letters). There is a historicat record of the mi4i: sn2ke (Lampropeltis trian�ulum) beina located in the general area, althou�h there is no recent documentations of this state-listed special concern sf�ecies in the vicinity of the project. The preferred habitat of the • milk snake is in old woodiots, rocky areas and associated Toresis. In the spring and fall, they are found in uplands, hills and bluffs. Therefore, due to the existing site development, the proposed project location is not suitable habitat for thz milk snake. The Minnesota Natural Heritaae dataUase addresses the potential impact of the project on the Balc{ Eagle (Haliaeatus leucocephalus), a species listed as both federally and state-threatened. A known bald eagle nest is located on the eastern side of the river downstream from the pcoposed project site, in Section 15. In addition to this nesting area, bald eaales are known tv forage alon; both the western and eastern shorelines of the Mississippi River, and the area just south of the railroxd hridge located southeast uf the sita. Eagles also utilizz tha Pigs Eye Island as a winter roostino arza. Tha Bald Ea�,la's prafzrrzd habitat is along lakes and rivers in furested areas where larae traas ara available fur nestin�. In Minnesota, red or whita pines wlth large canopies are often selecte�. Due to the past development of thz sita, pines or large treas are not prasent, ef iminating the proposed site as a putentiai Bald Eagle habitat. • The si[e is wiUiin the hlississippi National River and Recreation Area (�fNRRA), a unit of the nacional park system. The Comprehensive Management Plzn written for MNRRA states that the river corridor have a continuous public or private open space alon� the shoreline ro the maximum extent practical, and it would be connect2d to the downtowns and neighhorhuods by open space and traiis. Except in existing commercial amd industrial developments, downtown areas and histuric districts, the rivarfront and bluff area would appear mostly natural from thz river and its shoreline areas (as observed from tha opposite bank). The project will have no zffect on the existing shorelina. d. � � ! 1 �i � (- � � � --�-`� `_'-= � --�-�--.._.,... � City of Saint PauI Project No. CMXX-95-0048 July 26, 199� • Page 5 Your timely review is greatly appreciated. By submitting this application on July 31, 1995, Al[et anticipates being on the Zoning Committee agenda August 31, 1995 and the Planning Commission agenda September 8, I99�. This witi allow Alter to meet its construction schedule the last week of September 1995. D. Should yon have further questions regarding this Spacial Condition Use Permit Application or EAW, please contact Michelle Bissonnette of Braun Intertec at (612) 683-8810 or John Genakow of Alter at (319) 344-5287. Sincerely, `�'lu'���E� � ��r�r� Michelie F. Bissonnette Braun Intertec Corporation � \ L 3 �`�,;� 7ohn W. Ge�rrk� Alter Trading Corporation Enclosures c: Charles L. McGuire City of Saint Paul Lioyd W. Grooms Winthrop & Weinstine f:\wpfile s\cmxx\95\00.18\OOi8.L04 ZC3[�iii�#�'s ���.� ° ����?O � � C� ,. '� �-5�6 C7� I � V, i�L� i� ( � � 4 � V: { _�:: i f , �� y, s�;n �.,., T � _f"�� � i rr 1 �� � � �'t: //' T�� � r � 1� r � :� �, � • I ���` . � Cl f ���: { �Dell,\ o�_ I ��� 1 i . � �s �� " ih �reParlc_ �;�, RPll�:rn'v,. . A O . � �P�ine S ... // � . a� ' � � ;i �IQorth Saini�Paui�, �� ; f � �lacLstone " ' � ./� �� , 5 �_ SITE LOCATION �� �k'� ,-�-_� 1�� �. V � _ : J� , 'S �dvale - 69a :y:� '' 1 L �, � �I �J . � °. ... Oa7cdale_� � � '— � — :�_i_._.,,,.a � Sc Paul Down �������.P11r�d__`� LEGEND Scalz 1:125,000 (at cenrer) Pooulofron Cen;e� _ _ County ?oundary `�2 �fiies � O Stc;= Ro�'te — Mcjor S�e=[/P,occ ,� Siace Cooitoi o Sicte Ro:ce 2K.�i ' o Tow�. Srnat: Ccy o incerscc:e Hignwoy p Lar�e . o US niGrwCy � �n'*.°rstc;z. T�rnpiR2 �r i_anc Mcss � i15 HiGnv+cy ,-�;,��;; Ope� `Plc:zr P � A��field . y■ B RAY Nw PROJECT LOCATION RAMSEY COUNTY MAP PROPOSED ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA PLANT iNTE[2TEC ALTER TRADING CORPORAIION BENT7ENDORF,IOWA ���1 �:_���:��� '_' , ., ; ��_ � Rr4VfSEY COUNTY hfAP Ma� 12.00 Wed Feb 22 11:42:48 1995 INT RENSION SHEET ORAWN BY: LOL 02-24-95 APP'D BY: MB DZ-24—JS OF ,loe No. CMXX-95-0048 9WG. No. MXSOD48L FlGUftE sCa� NONE n TJ ".:-°"�"=-:' �31�31NI _ran�ga �1..[�ps ' :yP24ii�i3 ' _ ':�: .` ivs: , - .:.,'___.�4; �.;i , . ..�,_o-..-- - , E� c .�„�., .� ,�., �s ���:.,o.�� :. �,: ,�, , �.r. �.�>.�„ <��.�„ x�n �J1S+s 3 0rowvno aErv nrpghvs -- 1 � . n.tv — / � \ �\�` �i -� � �. . � � , �. ,�' . = T � �:`�:��,: �.,. ,�� '. - � ,� \�. � .. ' �� ,, %�E��� ��� •. \\'i.%'; �- � `�'� %� �l� � ` ,�` �', •' � \ a '/ � ^ �J' . � s / % i.��. o �l :�: � � � � t !1, �:1' . . -(� - P i� �� r \�� y � f _/. �ISl I �l �`1/ �/ ��_ �i'"���I� � � � 'a'� i • y r � . � �`. ' �_ L . i'�i,i ��� � l:'i �� . � `� � .i�\ � \ \� _.'��Y.��'/ • _'�"' /�' � s',i:�`�• � /� . Y \ V:/� _ � �'� \ ) � �� �.�` � �1 i,I�H��� O v •^ � ' l : ' f � P / �l" '�/.�� `. jo `�''`1'� d� � : l. (� �: - .�_J :7i�/'�- - ___:^l% �/ ' ��1 ' �.i< , _ , _� ( f � , ��� `�.n.%', �,�� � , i I�' � T - ;j / Y � ` �.'� ��� '�: i'„di;� :� , " s ' �`� �' '��,'���� ' � • . t - � -'.� -�,i :��� I � G "F'd!j' j ��' 13� r�.� ( �;: , I C. ; i � ''- r � , --,. ��:� . ,F.y - u'3"�,i ' ` i : � � :'7 , , e.. � 'G �'— ... .,� %1�`t1'.. � � Y ,.-: . � * �� � �i���C� f , � �U ; ` . r..� . I i= 1 � I� � ` v'. /; _./ .. ' �/ l r , ��iy�� , � / '1 ��d\�I', - �r'r .i. 9 � l ( / � � — — - :r �,. �...�.`. �..'�r; — �^ 1 � �T -7��; � � — . /" U• I .... �,, 3 \ I � :_��:.�� 'eN J � � / ,• , � � . ., - , F � _=� . G' �' �_. ;�<'\� /'' /,:��, r �.� ^ r /'� `� 'a\ \��\ �� �,` � � •i' = °Gf���"i/�� . � : • � , �,�: �/..,�. „ ; � ���` ,�• �\\ �CC� F � ��� � ' _,• - . � � '\ i �. �� ��='�ry�Ji ! /. \ '.. i � � :,� ��.' 4;�, � z% " . , -' /" / ':�i�' ��\`. .��. i � ' _ -�S�'� % � � j, /! � �- ,����.:: ����� : ,', �` � - �.� ' / �� r �C ,.�� � � 'C ��,-� � . . .: ,..� _ .,- , \ ����'� �-- N ^:., ,^��z'`''' � ` � / � � , � I..�;., �.�� �/�. �'"�, , �? } � _ " �° �� � . ' �1 �� � �' ��� ��/ '�' J � � �' . �. ./, . v��-.�-- - -� ���i � � � .� � .�\ ' :� � � `� � �-�: . -.� :�' / ��i�� ^ ` � .,\� ' /.' � � � » =' ir ��� .,�'-� � `� , � .'!� �' � , ,�- � _� i - . ,�/,- - - S, � � � � �/���:� ������ �1L�-'� � . -:,�-�% � � - - - = = �I ,. DLPAR7b7E13T OT PLA`ti1NG fi [CONO�fIC DGVELOP�iHNT Pamelo iYheelock, Dveclor �� ��� • CITY OF SA1NI' PAUL h'onn Coleman, dfayor 2� 3Yesl Foerr�h Slreel SaixtPou( M.V5510? 7elephone: 612-26G-65C: Fncsimife: -611-228-33 /: January 30, 1998 Mr. John Gentzlco�v Alter Trading Corporation 211� State Street, Suite 250 Bettendorf, Ia 52722 Dear Mr. Gent2kow: As you are a�vare, the Saint Paul Zoning Code was recently amended so that large metal shredders of the type proposed by Alter are no longer permitted uses within the City of Saint Paul. • Alter's Special Condition Use Permit application, which had been held in abeyance pending the City's determination on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement, as �vell as the expiration of the City's interim ordinance prohibiting construction of a facility like Alter's proposed metal shredder pending any amendment of the City's Zoning Code, will become "active" as of thirty days after the date of the pubiication of amendments to the Zoning Code. These amendments were published on January 17, 1998. Alter's permit application will become "active" as of February 16, 1998. Given that Alter's proposed metal sluedder is no longer a permitted use in the City of Saint Paul, does Alter still desire a public hearing on its Special Condition Use Permit application? If Alter desires a public heazing on the matter the public hearing wil] be set before the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission as soon as is practicable after February 16, 1998. Alter may also choose to withdraw its application in light of the changes in the Zoning Code. In either event, would you kindly advise me in �vriting at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, Roger Ryan City Planner � cc; Peter Wamer, City Attorney �7 Alter Trading Corporation John W. Genfzkow Vc�Presidenf, Operations 2177 State SVeet Bette�dort, Iw.a 52772 Phone 319�344-5287 Fax 379-3445317 February 10, 1998 Mr. Roger Ryan City Planner t7epartment of Pianning and Economic Developmenf City of Saint Paul 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, MN. 55102 Re: Alter Trading Corporation's Appiication for Specia! Condition Use Permit u I am in receipt of your letter dated January 30, 1998. Please be advised that, as has been • the case since the time Alter Trading Corporation {"Alter") filed its application for a Special Condition Use Permit ("SCUP") on or about July 31, 1995, Alter confinues to demand lawful review and action on its application. 7his year we wili observe the third anniversary of Alter's filing of the application at issue. If the City believes that a public hearing is necessary in order to finally act upon the application, Alter is prepared to appear and parficipafe in fhat pub(ic hearing. However, and in any event, Alter reiterates its demand that pursuant to the applicabie City ordinances as we!! as the requirements of Minnesota law, the City is obligated to issue Alter's application for a SCUP forthwith. Sincerely, u� n W. Gentzkow RECEIVED �E� I 3 i998 ZONING � 0 DEPARTMLNTOFPLANNING & GCONOMIC DIVGLOPb1LNT Pawe(a fVheelack, D+recfor • crrY oF sa�rr rat�, Norm Colemax, Mayor February 26, 1998 Mr. John Gentzkow Alter Trading Corporation 2117 State Street, Suite 25� Bettendorf, Ia 52722 Dear Mr. Gentzkow: 25 West Faurth Stree1 Sain! Paul. MN 55102 ^����� Telephone: 6/7-266-6565 Facsiinile: 611-228-3314 This is written in response to your February 10, 1998, letter regazding your desire for a public • heazing on your application for a special condition use permit for a large metai shredder on Barge Channel Road in the Southport Industrial area. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 15.99, Subd. 3(�, the Department of Planning and Economic Development is extending the time limit to consider your application by 60 days. The reasons for the 60 day extension is that additional time is needed to secure an up-to-date roll of property owners within 350 feet of your property, to mail notices of the public hearing to those property owners, to publish legal notices, and to prepare a new staff report. I will schedule the public heazing before the Zoning Committee for Apri12, 1498. The Planning Commission can act on the application on April 10, 1998. Sincerely, Rog r yan City er • cc: Peter Warner, City Attorney ..• _O O� O � U � � ' �\ � O � � ; 0 _ _ AIAPORT e � ' ( LlklTS -_ — . ----- ' � ��4'i G� c � � � L r{ �o �o POUCE \ IAiP0UN0�NC� ActEA v ' � ,. , � � \ � � I � . � � — � \ � / ` \ � , \ \ ` APPUCANT ��/� �Y�rDlN� G6{Z�'. LEGEND PURPOSE _ ���� ��� zoningdistrictboundary FILE � � � ' � � b , DATE � � �' � S � subject property n°� or�h-°-• PLfJG. DlST � MAP � 3 � o o�e tamily • � � co^merc:a: � � twofamily � ..� ind:;s:',a! SCALE T" = 400' �_^ �-¢-� multiple 3amily V v2car.' ,. � �� _. CITY COUNCIL TESTIlYIONY �' �- ��� Thank you for the opportunity to address the Saint Paul City Council ("City Council"). vIy name is John Gentzkow and I address you in my capacity as Vice President of Operations for Alter Trading Corporation ("Alter"). Alter appeals from the City of Saint Paul ("City") Planning Commission's ("Corrunission") Apri124, 1998 decision to deny Alter's appiication for a Special Condition Use Pernut ("SCUP") for its proposed metal shredder. Both the Zoning Committee ("Committee") and Commission voted to deny Alter's SCUP application base�t �� �'-- t to the Zoning Code ("Zoning Code"} prohibiting I� ;s the Committee and Commission should have apptic time Alter applied for the SCUP in 1995, wMch exp� 'Pectfully requests the Council overturn the Commissic �`, �� �cation. The grounds for Alter's appeal are set forth o �/� As you have heard many times, E of discussing the project with i Development ("PED"). While necessity of an Environmental A: project did not meet City land us stated over and over again, before twice, that the project complied w. � i � �fGi`� J � � � ����� � veral months d Economic :he practical sted that the as we have iot once, but In fact, Alter was given every ind __�... Y ,wiae sufficient evidence to justify a Negative Declazation; i.e., no neeti for an EIS for the project, the SCUP application would be reviewed in due course. Alter persistently pressed the City for a format and timely decision on the SCCTP. In response, Alter received numerous and repeated representations that the City wouid act "in the neaz term". Relying on those representations, Alter acted in "good faith" and spent considerable sums to show that its project is environmentally sound. However, after Alter performed, the City reneged on its prior commitment and instead enacted a moratorium which has since led ta a Zoning Code amendment prohibiting Iarge metal shredders in the City. These aze not my conclusions, these are the City's own statements. For instance, in an October 6, 1995 memorandum to the Committee, the PED staff stated that: "The city will make that detemunation [whether an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required) on Monday October 9, 1995....if an EIS is not needed, the planning commission wiii proceed with the special condition use permit application and hold a pubtic hearing on October 12, 1995." 1 ^ J y � � � A November 1, 1995 unsigned letter from the then Director of the PED, Larry Buegler, to John Gentzlcow stated that: "... Saint Paui... has deteanined that No Environmental Impact Statement is required for this project, provided that the project proposer Alter Trading Corporation: Arranges for a study to be conducted under the joint direction of the Minnesota Department of Health, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Saint Paul P.E.D., which addresses the potential for significant human heaith and ecologicai risk associated with emissions and discharges resulting from the long term operation of a metal shredder at this location, and provided that the assessment concludes that the potentiai risks aze or can be brought within acceptable standazds; 2. Works with City of Saint Faul to address the negative impacts of increased traffic through a residential neighborhood; and 3. Receives written confirmation from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that ali relevant licensing and permitting requirements are met. As communicated to your Attorney, this decision was reached Wednesday, October 25, 1995, and as of that date we have initaated processing of the Special Condition Use Pemut application for this facility." A December 11, 1995, Interdepartmental Memorandum from Charles McGuire to Janice Kelly- Dunkins stated: "We know that Alter would like to avoid further delay, and we want to conciude the process as quickly as we can." Then, in a December 14, 1995 letter, Mr. Buegler stated: "At our meeting November 30, 1495 we outlined a tentative schedule for completion of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and making a final declaration...we understand your preference for a declaration at the earliest possible date, we feel committed to the schedule we outlined and we believe the process will work more smoothly if we continue along this course." 2 ^ , j ` � V � Significantly, these representations were not only made to Alter, but to other public officials including the City Councii. A memorandum from Ken Ford to Lori Louder and Gzeg Drehmel of the Saint Paul Port Authority ("Port Authority") stated that: "The 60-day period for completion of the Special Condition Use Permit will be�in immediately upon publication of a negative declaration on the EIS question... and we want to conclude the process as quickly as we can." Furthermore, a December 29, 1995 Interdepartmental Memorandum from Ken Ford to Council Member Mike Harris, detailed the steps Alter had taken in preparing the EAW and reiterated that "[i]f no EIS is required, the process for review and approval of a Special Condition Use Permit wili begin immediately." The memorandum specifically stated: "Land use issues wi11 be addressed in a Special Condition Use Permit grocess. Under the Saint Paul Zoning Code, a recycling plant is allowed at Alter's site subject to speciai conditions." Between submission of its SCUP application and the moratorium, AIteT spent hundreds of thousands of dollars answering questions either raised by the City or which the City required to be answered based on the City's continuing representations that the SCUP application would be reviewed upon the timely completion of the environmeniai review. Not ance did the City ever raise the question that the project did not meet locai zoning and planning requirements. Indeed, the City consistently stated that the project met City requirements. The City staff was saying to the City Councii the same thing it was saying to Alter - Alter has performed and is continuing to perform various tasks for the City and when the evidence supports a finding that no EIS is required, the SCUP process wili begin. Significantly, on May 17, 1996, the City published its intent to issue a Negative Deciaration in a Community Meeting Draft of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Record of Decision. Rather than commencing the SGUP, three weeks later, the City announced the interim moratorium. The City had the power through the zoning process to institute and impiement special conditions and you chose to ignore that process. We aze truly disappointed with how this process has been hand(ed. This all began in July of 1995, some 32 months ago. This is the seventh time that Altec has appeared before either the Committee, Commission, Metal Shredders Study Committee, or the City Council and we have never wavered from our basic request — objectively review our SCUP application. When Alter came to the City in 1995, it knew the process and it followed it. Ia contrast, the City abandoned the process. The City did not find something wrong with the metal recycling process - - they just simply opposed it and they opposed it because of politics -- not planning. In the end, the treatment of Alter's SCUP appiication has been arbitrary and capricious. There were no environmental or land use justifications for denying the project. The only way to stop Alter was to change the rules. 3 �= :,` ��� On any objective basis, the City's actions in this matter have been simply wrong. Certain members of the Commission recognized the unfairness of the City's action, Their comments speak volumes, so let me shaze them with you. "I was astonished at how it was handled and finally voted on. I don't intend to support this motion. I didn't support it the last time because I didn't feel due process was made and I'll end with that " "I also think that the Planning Comrnission, and for that matter, the City Council missed the boat with respect to amending the Zoning Ordinance because I felt then and i feel now that we couid have accommodated the environmental concems and structured a Zoning Code that would have omitted large shredders consistent with the environment and without visiting any significantiy adverse consequence." "I wondered whether he [Mr. Gentzkow] knew that of the five of us sitting here, he had three of us who voted against what eventually happened with respect to amendment ofthe Code...- to prohibit metal shredders....In the 8'/z years that I've sat on the Commission, I consider...the decision to prohibit metai shredders to be among the most incomprehensible and least justified decisions that I have seen made either by the Commission or the City Council. I felt that then. T continue to feel that." The decision that you as a City Council have to make -- the one you must make -- is based on the Zoning Code that was in e�cistence at the time the application was originally submitted, not the Zoning Code that now has been rewritten in response to that application. Only you can grant Alter its pernut under the prior Zoning Code. It is what you can do; it is what you should do. STPl: 453747-I � „ DEPAR'[�*fT OF P(.a[�MMG � g ECONOMiC DEVELOP�?+T � ^ . �,- 5�b CI1Y OF SP.LvT PAL�I. .YOrM Co(nnae. .Naya� DATE: TO: FROM: RE: OCTOBER 6, 1995 ZONL*IG COMA4TIEE Dnuun of Pimm+ng :1 �err Favrh Svrer Sew Pau[ .NN;3102 Tr4ywo.r: 6I2.166-6J63 Faeznn,le: 6l1-I1d-331i K.wY DnntFZ �/,�,y - r--- t ALTER TR4DING CORPORATiON'S SPECIAL CONDtfION USE PERMrf APPLIG2TON As you recali the zoning commiuee delayed the puhiic hearing on this cau unril after the determination had beea made as to whether an mviroameatal impact stazemrnt (EIS) is required. 'Ihe ciry wili make that dctermination on Monday Qctober 9, 1995. If aa E1S is needed, the plaaniag ' commission's action on this special condition use pc:mit application wiil not be naded unul aRa the EIS has been campltted. Convecsely, if an EIS is not needed, the plaaning commission wiIl procxd with the special condition use permit application aad hoId the public heazing on Ocsober 12, 1995. Please note thaz this packes iacludss an updmed zaning commiuee staff teport aad auachmeau. Also amchcd for yoar infocmazion is a summary of commeau received on the rnvironmrnta3 a«�+*+eat worksheet and the appticaat's response to t�e comments. 'Ihis is beiag pro�ided to you as background information about eoncems raised by govemmental agrncia aad ciriuns' groups aboui the proposed use of the proQerty aad the applicaat's rsspoase to thae concems. " �- ��b � " zoxz:rc coaac.^.�ss s.arr stspoRS - �' iitiiitiiftflliyiiiiffi��iifs TZL3 M 95-170 S. .1PP:.�GiDi�: di.:=eZ '2.7:.ZYG C:.I2?OR.1�'�C:1 D7►'�S 07 41 jeT'iG: 10/12/95 2. C'..aSS�?�G1��OH: Spec:aS Cor.dit-ca IIse 3. LOU:�ON: H�1 3.�ZGE C�ANN'a:. .�O.L7 4. PLA2IISSSTG DISSRZC:: 3 5. L3GAL DESGRIPTIOH: aee :ile 6. PR858N: 202r2NG: T-2 G eZC-Z 20HZ27G CODS RI7ERII'IGS: 560.624(1) G 64.300(d) '7. ST7�PF 2DiVE3'fIWTZOH 7�D REPOR7: DATE: 8/24/95 8Z: Rady Dar2lez 8. DATS RBGSSVED: 10/9I35 D=7�DLIIiE TOR I�C'ZON: 12/7/95 ��aaa�aa�sasaa�aastaaas�s�as�aa�s�aass�saf�s�tta�a�����a�s���w�s��t�ar�s��a�� s � a aa a a:a:ssasa��a�.saa��aa��.ssara�s.s��....�s��ass�s.s.s�a���s�aaysa����s�a A, pvRPOSS: Special condition use permit to allov a reeycliag procesaing • center. g. PAftC3L S:ZB: The A1ter Trading CorporaLion site is loeaLed on the aarLh side of 3arge CSannel Road and is about 20 acres in �ize; Lhe portioa of the site uader eonsidezation ia thi9 applieation is about 1.3 acrea. C. EXIST.2�tG ZJ�ND IIsB: The pzoperty is oecupfed by three offiee/warehouse strscts es, miscellaaeous free-ecanding ntruetures, aad outdoor atorage of coal aad salt. Abouc 20.a aeres are located i.a Ramsey Couaty and 20 acres ia Dakoca Couaty. D, g4RROIIND2NG LAND IISB: The property is aurouaded by induetrial uses ia an 2-2 zca:.ag district including railroad right-of-vay aad the city impouad '_oc to the southwest and the barga c2uaael, airpazc, aad waste water treatmeat plaat to the aortheast. g. ZONTNG GOIIB CZTATZOli: SeCtioas 60.624 aad 64.304(d1 Of the zaai.ag eode allow recyelinq processing centers ia Z-2 zaaing districts subject to the f,au�ags decailed ia findiags #3 aad tt4 of Lhis rtpon. F. �TSTORY/DI3CJ3320N: Shere is oae previoua 2oaing cases coaee�aiag this propercy, it is a site plaa review from 1989 !or a buiidiag expan�iaa which was aFproved. Ia additioa there is i cusreat nite plaa zeviev ease :or tha aew recycliag facility. G. DZS2'RTC_' COONCSL 7tECODD�IDat20H: The West Side Citizea' a Orgaaizatiaa opposes r.Yse special conditioa use permit applicatioa. 8. l2:7DZ2tc8• 1. Alter Tzading Corporatiaa fs pzoposiag to ezpaad its exiatiag metal recycl3y operatioa hy constructiag a metal recycling plaat oa aa existiag industrial site. The aew plaat rri.Il be 40,000 aquare feet ia - size. Aa 'Eddy Clirrenc Separatioa Plaat' used to recover the �^�r+^^^* perc�ztage of noa-ferous metais from the shredder syscem will he installed and take aa additioaal 15,000 nquare Eeet, to be loeated adjaceat to the maia plaat. 'She fuaction of she p2aat ia to recycle scrap mecal such as autoa�bile bodiea, industrial acrap and Z��—:S -_,A ss_-�;a � � 586 Page .ac :�:scs_:aaecus _:cht gacye s:ee:. The ma;cr_t� o_ scrap metal received bv =:e �:aa� •+:ll be _=cn lacal sc:ap yar:'s. ':'::e rlant w_:� recfcle ac�rcx::nateiy 750 �0 900 aec tor.s of scra� meca2 da:ly. Cnce .he ma�e:=a: is sh:ed@ed, _ vi:l be transpc==ec �y bazge, rail, or tzuck cc •�a._ous cust�mers. The aorc.*.e� pozc�on o: the s3u a:rseatly used :cr st�r::g ccal aad salt viil be replaced v:th the recycl_.g piant. ;.L:tomc�:2e bodies vi1Z be accepted :zem salvace ooerat:oas vhi.ch h.ave d-sma^.�led, d:aized, and othezs+ise pzocessed '...i'e units co remove major vastes, iacluding used o31, anL:_'reeze, solve:ts, bat�e:ias, oil filters, cires, CFCS, and merctLry. H:sto=_cally, the ecncpany Las operated shears ca che praperty to cut sc:ap metal. The company is replacing the shears previous2y located at t:e site vith a more ef=icient model Eor recycling the material. Ccast_act:on is aatieipaced to begia this fall and be eompleted 60 to 90 days later. Site preparacioa methods will be cakea to minimize soil ezosioa problems by use of silt feaces, ea�h diversioa berms aad bale diversioas. SurPaee vater runoff from the facility vi11 be direc:ed co a desir,ned deceaciea poad. Siaee tse facility vill be ceastracted on till so that it is elevated at ar above the rcgulacory flood protec�_oa elevatioa, a per.nit for coasL�uctioa in the river cor__dor is not necessary. ' The recycling plaat will have about 35 employees. The plaaned houza of oneracion are �:00 a..m. to 10:00 p.m., nevea dnys per week. Moat of the trafEic on site will occuz during daylight hours. There ue 1o5 vekicles coming to the site each day currently (9 multi-axle tzucks and 96 two-axle vehicles). That aumber vill iaczease by 207 vetuc'_es for a tocal of 312 (60 mulci-axle trueks �52 tvo-axle vehicles). A discretionary E�v:ronmental Assessment worksheet was pzepazed for the expanded recycl�ng operatian on the site. The decisioa as to whetl^.e= an eavironmeatal impact scatemeat (EZS) is needed vill be made on oecober 9, 1995. Zf aa EZS is aeeded, the plaauing co�nisaioa'n ac_'_cn on thi.s spec-al eoaditioa use pexmit application will r.ot be necessary uacil aftez the ESS has been eocrtpleted. 3. Sectioa 60.624(1) of t:te zoaing code permits recycling proceaaiag cente=s subjec� to special eonditions. The required conditions aad the aFplicaas's ability to meet thoae coaditions are :a follovs: QaGdoar yrcc�++�ag, talvaging, sad itosage ot maLaria2� :ad motor sehicZst sha11 lu ae e1o+�r t�aa Chr�e hssadrrd f300J ts�t to s yroperLy oeccpied ritb a oae-, rio-, ehree-, tour•, or s¢c1tSple- fs:aily dr�Iltag or torahoui� drel2lag. Sh� aru wed for ta� outdoor yroeessSng, sa2vagiag. :ad stosag� �lsaZ2 b� �++*^a aa tight-toot-high ob+carSng raSZ, leaee, or Zaad+e:ped balfsr. Tbe plaaaiag eo�tutoa msy modlfy tLit rsqss�r�m�ae nkess a raS1, teae�, or bssffer may iaLerfere riLts ths oDeraLiaa o! the bwiaeir. Th:.s eeadizioa is met. The site is aa9 feet frem the aearest resideatially zaaed property. There is also aa eight foot high r}+� ia-link lence bordezi.ag the property on Barge Cbaaael Road. �� T'he area used for outdooz procesaing, aalvaging, and atorage rill be behind a noise mieigation waZl ranging fram 20 feec in height 28 feec ia height and a�0 feet ia length. The lengsh ot the vall vas inczeased from t'sat originally proposed ia response to additional infozmatioa leazned about noise levels. r<,��0� Zoniag F:'_e �55-_70 Page T.'Lee b. �.'e.e ahaSZ be no oue3ooz opea b�^�Sag oa u'e :ite. The uae of e;;t-:ag �o=�.:ea, f�,:.�aeea, aad oG'ier sr,�,ai�eat rh�c:t produe• a �:s.ae rh:SS ao� be coasc.ieced cc coastituze opea b*�^��g. "_::s cc��= =:o ::s mec. There vi:l be ao auc.a.oar open bu.-��:.g oa t :e s:ce. c_ ^ere :8a21 bs ao ataekiag of aeeerSaZ abovs the h�ighc of L�e r:1Z ar lesee, sxcept th:t materis2 set bacJC tbre: huadred l3001 teec :raa .:�e aear�rt ruideat�al prcparty Ita� msy b� stack�d one !Z) fooc hjg�er ov�r the rsZ1 or lsae� up Co a���{�*�- of �2sty (60J fsec tor t9Qr]/ IS7Q (S) feet LCe mater�al ti s�t back iro� tye aetreat rvidsatial ysapetCy ISae. ��s cond:t:on is met. The applicaat eLates that material may be s�acked a maximum of 60 feet higher than the fence due to the sec back of the macerial which vill be ovez 1,000 lest irom the r.eazesc reszdential prope�ty liae. 4. Sect:ca 64.300(d� of the zoniaq code zequizes t'sat before the pla�^inq coc�¢nission may graat appreval af a griacipal use subjecs to special cor.�t:ons, cht eonacuss-on shall fiad thac: Tke esteat, Zoe:tica tnd iatsaiity of Lha ss+� r1S2 be ia • rubicanttal eempliaaee r�th r.he SaSat P:ss2 Camyr�h�a+2w Plaa aad aay :pplSeabSe sub�re: pIaas rhjch wrs �pprowd by tCe elty eeuaei2. b. c . d. •. 2he use riSl yrovids adsquats Sngrus aad �press to miaisai:e traf�tc eoagestSon frs th� pssblie �ue�ti. 2�e we ri11 aot be deesimsataZ to t1s� ex3,�tlag clsuaetar o! t2s� developmeat 1a Li' e taedtaes ae�gttborlsaod os �adaager tht publlc IIealth, safsey tad geaeral reZfue. ?he use riSl aot Smyed� th• normal aad ordarZy d�v�Sopmeat aad �rovam�at of ih� iurroaading proyerty for wer pezmttt�d ia t�e dtttrict. ?he use sktZ1, ta a12 oChez rr+p�ctt, enaform ta the :ppZie:ble rsguZatSnas ot th: di�trict ia rhich tt is Socat�d. These condi,tions aze met. The pzoperty is appz�riately zoaed for c: e e�cpaaded u�e and the heavy induszrial we ia in keeping ++ith the vay the azea has developed and ia beiag used_ The site is .dentified in the Laad IIne Plaa as a"labor extensive heavy iaduscrial area•_ 2'he expaaded uae will noc have aa adver�e itapac� oa adjacent praperty aad will aot impede aesmal aad orderly develapmeac aad improvemeat of surzouadiag praperty for usea pezmisted izc u` e I-2 zoaiag distriei. A aoise asseesment was conducted foz the shreddiag operatioa. TThee most aers it�ve land use ad}acent to the eite is the resideatial area weat of Coacord Street vtich is approximately 1,20o feet from ttte proposed plaat locatioa. Withons the aoise wall the pzojeeted noiae levnl exceeds the day t:me ataadard. 'Sherefore, eonstruecioa of a aoise barrier to mitigate aoise ia needed to ensure that che eity aad 2�CA noise staadards area met. A1ser is gla^�*�^g to eanst�uct a self-staading souad wall vest of the shzedder to ensure thac aoise scaadards are met duriag shredder Zor.:nc -zle �95-=70 ^ '� _ � " � Page ?ccr c�crat_r.., vcise ievels are p:ojected to be vit�=a the day t:.r.e star:car'_s wce : :.._se :ra:i :s y. place. '"::e aYpi:ca.^.� sta=es that •+:_: :`:e �rcpcsed bar_ ar, aaise :evels ac t.*.e :lcsest :es:d�ces aloag Concor� St=eet are rred:cted to c�iy vith !"3U dayc_ae ac=se sta^.c'ar3s. Ac=ord_^g �o sta.�._ :=om the of=_ce af License. I:seect:oas, and :-;r:ranmeacal arotec=:cn :ae propcsed vall, des=yned :a screea che source eY :he noise, w:ll be aden�:ate to keep c'ay time aoise levels i7 a.m. co 10 p.m.) wi�h:a �iLy aad state esaadarP.s. The day time L10 scaa2ard :s 65 d�'ia; the esc:mated aoise Ievel ac the neareet zesideace :s 62 d3a. 3 d8a less than the nLaadar3. Peter ICishel, LI�P, is ia the pzxass of gather-.:g addi.icnal ia_ozaacica aad �.r:Il provide PID ataff vith a vriLten swmnary of his findiags and recortanendations zelaciag to aoise. That sunm�arf r+ill be available at the public hear�ag. 6. The Department of P�u'lic Aorks 2us revieved tra=:-c data ree�tly col:ecced i..z the azea and Alcer Corporatioa'a plaaa .or the site. The depar:aent has ider.t:f:ed no problem with Che campaay's glacs as faz as tra::ic is eoncer..ed and believes the existiag road ayntem ia this induscr:al area is capable of aceommodatiag the type aad amauat of t�af:ic expected by the propaaed use. A zeview of the data eolSeeted iadi�ates that betveea 25 and 55 gereeat of the traf:ic on Bar,re C�anael Road is truck trafEie, due to the industrial nature of the area (this pezceatage includes nemi-trailers aad st=aight trucks but aoc gick-ug trucks or vaas). Zn add:.tion, the moniag ar.d evening peaks oa Barge Chaanel Road de aot coiacide with the moring and evening peaks on Coacord Street. Rathez, truck tzaffic is spzead thzoughout the day. During the moraiag peak, 7:15 to 8:15, there are 172 t��*+�+++g mcvements ac the Coacord & Ba:^ge Channel intersectioa: 1J 2a right tssrns ia vhich is eompr±sed of 6 multi-ax:e vehicles and 18 two-a�c].e vehicies; 2) 49 r:ght t.�^as ouc whscs is comprised of 35 multi-axle vehicles nnd 14 two-axle vehicles; 3) eI leEt tusxs ia which is eoertprised o! 16 multi- axle vehicles aad 65 cwa-axle vehicles; and 4) IS left turas out whieh is comprised of e mulei-axle vehicles and ia to+o-azle vehi.cles, During the afteraooa peak, �:15 to 5:15, there are 2H6 t*•r^�^g movements at che Concord a Barge Chanael iater�ec:ioa: 1) I4 right turas ia whieh is coa�Qrised of 1 multi-axle vehicle aad 14 tw-ax:e veh:cles; 2) 156 righc turas out vtuch ie comgr:sed of 1� m�alei-axle vehi.cles and 156 tw-axle vehiclen; 37 79 left turna ia which i9 eempzised oP 21 multi-axle vehicle� aad 58 tvo-axle �ehicles; aad 4) 3? le.t tu_-as out which is comprised of 5 multi-axle oehicles aad 32 iw- axie vehicle�. AVEFJ�GY D7SS.Y TSWTZC I�VIItkGE DiII1��t 07 P�CLt3 Y�t 804R OT T� 82Cffi9T 3 80IIR.5 YSR II7►Y Robie StreeL 732 53 earge Channel -- south of Rnbie 3,627 350 Bazge Chan.'zel easc of Robie 1,427 132 Zca�.g ?_=e �5.-110 Bage ?ive � „ acz=_:or. �c t�.is spec:al cond-�icn uae pe^ait, rhe applicazc must orta.. _'_:e :o'_leviag ap_r_ovals, liceases, and pe�its; all o: the aFpi:ca�:or.s are cur=ent:y in pzocesaiag aad pendiag. �.,=>s ?.V_:.__�x �H:`7?S'•Z1"?CN Nec:ce e: Pseposed C�ascructioa ST_A"=' Cr M:�7N_50?A r Pollutlea Caatrol llg�acy StoracWater Managemeat ?laa fer Constxuctioa Site/NPDES Star.nva[er Discharge Associaeed with Zadwstrial Activity �:= 2ezmi.t - Zastallatioa aad Operatioa Pezmit D�partmaat ef Natvral R�ioure�� A�nropriatioa Pezmit D�par�at of S�alth Xa�ez We1Z Variaace, if necessasy RAF!5^f COUNT"I Ut:lity Permi.ts CI?Y Q° SAZNT PAIIL S�Le Plan Review Buildiag Permit Licease for the Reeyeling Procesaing Ceate: Z, STAP! RBCCSIDffi7DATZON: Saaed on fiadings 1 through 3 ataff recoc�eads approval of the special eoaditioa use pezmit, subje�t io the following coadition: The apglicant shall obtaia, and maiataia, all re�ired permitn and licers es ia compliaace with State aad loeal laws. Staf: may suggest additional conditione, based upon the outcome of furthez review of �ae noise assesamrst by the Otfiee of Lieense, Znsgections, aad Eavironme:.tal Proeectioa. ThaL ia£ozmatioa wiSl be pzeaeated u the public hear:ag on October 12, 1995. R�sDaR: I^se decision as to vhctSer aa eavizoameatal it�act statemeat (SSSl ia needed vill be made on October 9, 5995. Zf aad HZS is aseded, the pl�^^+^g eomni.ssion•s accian on this special eonditioa uae pezmit applicatiaa vill not be aeeded uncil aftez the E2S bas beea comglet�d. It an EIS is aot aeeded the pl�^*+=nq co:cmiissien will proceed vith the apeeial coadit�oa use gexmit applicatioa and hold the publie heariag oa Oetober 12. 1995. . .� . " i CIIY OF SAIlVT PAUL ti�o»n Colernan Meyo� NOVCTi1bCf 1, I�S Mr. John Grntzkow Vice Presidrnt of Operdtions Alter Trrding Corporazion 21 ] 7 State S�et BettendorF IA 52722 Dcaz Mr. Genakow: DEPAR7ME`? OF PLA?MI1yG t ECON0IAC DEVEIAPMEN7 La.*�' A Bs�r=k.. Ilnecrw IJ Wut Favrh Sarer Sont Per(. Mf� S3J02 ^ ��- 586 TrlepJrp�t 6l1-266-6"00 Fccznule 611-22d-326f 7his ietter is W�rittcn to inform you that on the basis of the Environmrntal Assessmrnt Workst�ee[, the commcnu recieved from reviewing agencia, projezt proposer responses to those commrnu, and additional infonnation recieved in connection with this project as refleesed in the Raord of Decisien, and consistrnt with the provisions of §10.05.(7) of the Saint Paul Adminiseative Code, the Ciry of Saint Paul u the Responsibte Govemmrnul Unit (RGU) fot the proposed Aiter Trading Company Metal Shrcdder projea at 801 Barge Channel Road in Saint Paul hss daermined that No Em•ironmentai Impact Sutement is required for this project, provided that the project proposer Alter Trading Corporetion: 2. 3. Arranges for a study to be condueted unda the joint diiscrion of the Minnesota Departrnrnt of Health, the Minnesota Pollution Conuoi Agrney and Saint Paut P.E.D., which addresses the potmtial for significant human hahh and eeoiogical risk associued with emissions md discharga muiting from the long tam opa�aDOn of a metal shrsdder at this Iocarion, and provided that the auessmmt concluda thst ti�e pouatial r'ssks are or cnn be braught witbin uceptable standards; Works with the City of Saint Paui to �ddtess the negadve impacu of incraud traflic t3uongh a raidrntia! ncighborhood; and Rxciva w�ium confmnttion from the Mianesota Polluaon Control Agrnry t3�at all rolevant liceasing and pesmitting roquiiemeats att mec. As communicated to your Anorney, this daision wss reachod on Wednaday October 25, 5995, aad ss 2 � lohn Grnti3cow November 1, 1995 Page two � � - 5 8 6'� of that daze we have iaitiaud processing of the Speeial Coaditioa Use Pamit applintion for this ficiliry. Please eontact Cbuia MeGuire u 266-6553 if you mquirs turtha iaformation eonetraing this matter. Sincercly. Latry Buegler, Director Saint Paul Pianning & Ecanomic Devdopment � DATE: TO: Interdepartmentai Memorandum CCTY OF SAII•T PALZ December 11, 1995 Janiee KcIly-D�mkins ^�—��� FROy1: Ctsatiss MeGuire RE: Update on statvs of mvironmrnnl rsluaIIOn of the Proposed Alter Meuf Raycling Faciliry at 801 Buge Chauncl Road, Saint Paul. The Putiealue Dispasion and Deposition Modeling :eport prcpusd bY Bnua Intrruc Corpoasion, daced November 3, I995, is presa�dy being rsvirwed by the Minnaota Poliution Contro� Agmry aad ths Minnesota Deputrnmt of Halth. We �ers iafnrmed by t6em ort Novaaba 17 thst thry �riil comp{ete their ir�ievr by Decemba IS st the tasest 2he impocnace of the environmrnta! imp�et of dcpositions fram plsnt emissions, m�lca it asential that we tsave their response m tAis nepert befo� we ciou the EAW Qrocas. ' Mo[her cancun thu effects our sehedule is neighborhood undazsaading. While tbas will not l�cely be genera! agreemrnt on conctvsians wt Rach eaaeaaing eitha t�e nad for �a Es�vironmmnl Impact Sruemrnt or permitting for wnsaveboo of t3�e faeiliry, it is impotsaat for the eonrinuing procas that interssced puria. ineludiag neig3sbofiood intesssts, fa�ow tt�ry have beea �{e tc review aad cama�eat on the basis for our decisions. Siace tbe Env'voammnl Assasmeat Wo�kshxt is 'eompleud' ia piecemea! fsshion, we believe it ensonabie w pcovide fec ceview of a complersd EAW before our deeision is final. For thae reasons, we have outlined tfie following zehedule for complerion of the F1iW procrss aad the exunsion of time that t3�is wiil requ'ue: Decaaber 22 Jsauasy 26 Publish Fiadings aad DaFarazion for commrnt paiod to e4ose Jmuvy I5. Es�e 6aat Fmdinp a�d Declaeation Eariier receipt of commast from the a�mcia wiIl asable us tn comptese and relese our susement arlia. We knav that Atra wcwld 4lct to svoid fietir dday, a�d we �et o0 ooeclode t!x pr0ass u quieiclY as we �,^ �th nrw iaformmon on aitini �view issua �ceived �nd t�e uapo:saace of m open process for the cacamuaity. we believe tlut tbis is f� minima! �edule. plase le� me know if yon nxd addioonal iafotm�on. K:�SESJ.AIDtMCC LN.TSGD t ECOHOMI[ JEVELOPME?.; ta. c e�. cd.��o. � OF SALtiT PALZ Honw Calewraw Xeyer Dersmba 14, I995 Mr. 3ohn Gmtziccw Vice Prssidmt of Operations AIter Tndiag Corporuion 21 i7 Stue Semt Betsendorf IA 52 .2 Deat Mz. Gastzkow: 11 K'etr fwvr.� Sce'+ Saw�m�L F/N:7/0: r `,"P`�' �6 ;.ry.d.: ctaus�s-oa f�v�.�ts.- i!I-ISE-316/ At our meeting Novembez 30, 1995 we artlined a trntuirve sehedufe for eamplttion of the Envirommcal Assessmrnt Wor9csheec �nd making a finaI deetaravon tt�aeon. Ttris x�sednie wu baxd on an undessta:sding that we wouid receive fuul cammenu from t�e Miaaeson Depu�eat of Hn}th {MnDH) and the Minneson PoiIution Coaco( Agrnry (I�CA) witf� respect w potart+al Iu�aa md eeologicai toziciry pmbtems by IJecetnber I5, 1995, provided thry rstieved �dditiona! informsaon they tsquaud within a short cime aRer ouz November 17, 1995 mceciag with the ageaeia. We andersrand from youz eansu}nat Bnua Intertec, thu the agmry �uamd iafo�itioa is te become available u them today, md will take a week or so for than to evaiwu. While we will IIy to hoid u elose u possibie to the time ftame out3iaed in the schedule we verbally discassed rt t�e Novem6er 30, 1495 mating, it wiI1 aot be pouble to mxt t6e origias! d:tn dixvsud, riaee we cta noc camptete the dnft Rececd of Decision uatiI we receive rhese commma. Although we uadastaad your prtfecsna far a dxlsr:tion a dx eaiiest pom�ble data de feet eammitted to the sthedule we oudined and belie�+e the proceu witl wor;c more saoothly if we continue along this cou:se. If you have aay quarions about our pasicon, Pleue coanc Krn Ford a(612) 266-6577, or myxl£ Thank you for yow cooperarien us this caatta. Sin Hu c. D'cator Pianning uid Econosaie eIogmenc CC: Lloyd Grooms Peser Beck z.�swaEev.sccui-unur.zzr To: � t,�a� � 5 � 6 Greg Dsehmol " FAX: 223-5198 FROM: Kea Ford � Tca drafted for a Ierrer thar probably xnn 7 bt scnt. br¢ this aalines thc schedulr for rht F� procuslor thr Alser proposal as wt see ir end tJie necso�s jor ir. 71u 60�day periad �or eamplaion oj t1u Speda! Condisioe Use Penais will begin i�nr�i�eh r�on P�blirarion of a reegame drrlaration orr rhe IIS qyestioa (alrerr+�ively na �msil a�s IIS is conrplded}. � . .. � .. ... .. - • - • • • • \ � • � y� � •• ���� � �'♦ � • • • • /1� • • • • •- � • • � • ��1� •1 � •�\�� � • � J/� • � • � • ���1 � � _ •• •�1� � 1. • •. H\ { N�\. �� ����� • • • • � • • • • • •• { • ���• • •• • • ��. pi0CLS5. Another concern that effecu our schedule is, of course commuairy understandin8. Wbile thete will not likely be grneral agreement on the conclacion we tucb concerning eitber tbe �ed for an Environmenta] Impaa Suttment or permitung for coamuctioa of tbe fsciliry, it is imporranc for che conanuing process tLac imerested puties. iac2udinQ �iYhDorhood ia�eruu, Imo�x they have betn able to review aad Comme� on the bisis for out detisioas. Since the Enviro�aensaI Assessment Worksheet is 'com�ler�d' ia pi� fishion, we believe that it is reasonable to provide for review of n completed FAa' befois o� daision is final. For these reasons, wc have ouflined the scbedule beloa for compietion of the EAW process and roquest yoiu concurrence with thc ezttnsion of dme thu thiz will aquire: � _ ... . t• � ...,. _ .. ��..... .� .... .�_ ... �_ ., ..., _ . . .�. .. � - • • • �� ��rA�l • � 1� ' ti1 .��� • • •��� '� •� �� • •�' •�•1 • � ♦ • ��� •. /• • � � • �� � • ��� • �1 • � • � 1� � � • ����� • • � • • 11 • �� �� �� �����1 �� � �1 ��1 • •�� • Interdepartmentai Memorandum C1TY OF � �T PALl �� 5�6 DAZE: Decaabrs 29, 1995 TO: Camcil Membet Mr7�e Hur'ss FROM: Xea Fad � Subjcet: Altcr Tndia; Cempany Ptcpoaal, Plaiu aad Sehcdnie. In cssponse to your rsquat, thc following dacribes the Alttt Ttading Company proposal to add a meul shredder to their oQeruion on Barge Channel Raad in S�iat Paul, u�d the City's �view process for their proposal. The Environmenta! Asussmcnt Worksheet process addrasa arvuoamenra! issuu associated with the proposa! and will conciude with a decision that an Environmcntal Impzct Statement iz oc is not aeeded. An Environmrnta! tmpact Statemrnt will be ulled for if, u the eonclusioa of tf�e usrssment, there is still a significant luk of information necasary to answer environmmul conea:ss. Lcrrd scse iuues will be addrused in a Special Condition Use Pamit process. Uada the Saint Pwl Zoning Code, a iscycling plant u allowed at AIuPs siu subjeet to speciaJ condiaons. Atur is a resycling 5ciliry, buc chey were "grandfichaed in" uada thi.s mniae code wishocc a special conditon use petmit, so a persait will be sequired for this expaasioa The wmpany 4�as submitssd �a applieaIIOn for a SCiTP which wiIl be decided try t�e pIanaiag eommissioa. P:ocessiaY af t�is sppli�oa will not begin uatiI m savironmeatal 'smpsct statcmeat is complued, or a decisioa is made that ta - eavironmental impact sntement wilf aot be required. 'I�c faciIiry wiU aiso stquirt an ait qustiry permit fiom the siate and a Nuiotul Poilaiion Disclaatge Elimination System permit At pmsnt, we ats aear wmpleCOn of the Eavironmucnl Assessmeat Wor�shea proeess. We will issue a stuemmt of tLe dxision snd a deeision iscard, ia dralt fo�, earty ia lm�ry (depeadia8 on receipt of information we ue pesseatly iwaiting fsflm stite a�eacies). We wiil alIow s paiod of time for rcview aad cocnmea� inctuding t pubtic haring, thm issue a fia�J daisioa aRer ceviewing ilt comment cseeived. The foilowing describa the rnvirortmmu! sssessment worksheet proerss to due. A iocuion map utd s site dnwing us aaactsed- • In June of this year. Atur Tradin� Com¢any and its coasultancs �proached the Pott A�ority _ u�d the Ciry indiating shat they wu�ud to ezgaad their saap metsi p:ocessing businar u their 801 Buge Clunnd Raad siu wirh she sddition of a meu�I shredda. To avoid tbe possibiliry of prolonged dekys, tlxy nlced thu a vofunta[y EAW (Eavimamasa! Assasmmt Woricshac) De P�P� desailusg the pojecs md possihle usociaud mvirenmmul �oescerns. T6e CitY ag�s�d Council Member Hasris December 22. 1995 p3g� z to act u the "Raponsb[e C»vanmenul Uaif (RGiJj for t�e process- � �_ ,�, ... � $ b , the proposed project would iavolve inssalIition of a maal shreddc sad miteriais handting equipment on the site m ocpaad the ezisting reeyeling business. c�P�� �e buzinas of other commoditia (coa1, sa1� fvtiIize ae.) shipPia� saussSaaeat 2he m�chiaay wrould be e�able of shredding becwem 700 tad 900 toas of saap meul a day. iaeluding shas scee� �usomobile bodia md othc scrip. 2he major eoccaas with thc projai eenta on air quality. w�ater qvalitY, noise, utd Baffic. • An EQB rula review iadicated dsu the proposed project did not filt within aay maadatory teview ntegory imdc ths Minnesoa Eavironmmnt Pmteetion Aa (MEPA). The Ciry a�sed to ut u the RGU unda the conditioo thu the Assessmrnt be prepared at t3�e developa's cost by a qualified environmmisl consulhnc Alter hsd alteady rzuined Braun Intatee, a local environmenta( consulting fum, knovm to staff from prior mvironmenul wodc. • At the rnd of June 1995, a dnft EAW wu delive:rd by Bnun Intatee for review by city suff. ARa some modifscuions resultiag from oar eeview and discussion witb Bnua, a draR w�s roleased for cirsuluion Jniy 15, 1995, and fiunithed to the standard EQB list of seview �.geneia for tocat pmjats- • Since a pras tsleue roquired by EQB Ruia conr.sraiag t�e avaiZsbi2iry of the draft for review wss`not celeued within the isquired time, the draft wu "tr�ttleued" u the end of July; md the "opcn wmment paiod," w�tich wzs to have cIosed on ar about Augusc IS, 1995, wu camde� w the ead of August , • Copia of the dnR re+rievr were made avaiIsb(e to siI iadividuals �adla ageacia avho roquated it u required ut�da the EQB rula. • ,hgency md otba seviewa eommeatt csaived prior ta tbe ead of Au�ust iadiared sigaifiesnt concttns whieh stsff beliered mi�ht be raalved with the pso'visioa of addiaooal iafarmaion by the projecs proposer. Ahc. A menociadum aotifyin� the EQB of the City's daision ta requat additionai infosmatien wu seat to the EQB on Septembe E, 1995. T6tt memoaadum otrtlined additional inforsnuion rueded �aording to the reviews 6y sevaal aeencies md agmiaaons inciuding tf�e Nuional Park Savicr, the Minnesota Depsnmrnt of Halth, Mituiaan Departmeat of Nuurat Resoa�t�s. th° M'n'es°u Poliurion Control A�enry, Frieads of t3se Mississippi River, and the Met:opolitan Councii. Raponse to a luge anmba of concerns wu requesced, focusing mostty on: - a. Conrrol of partieulue anissions; b. Likelihood of emissions coatrol faiIures and the impuu of same: Councii Member Har,is December 22, 1995 Page 3 `�� �� � 5 8 � �-�, c. Storm water muuganent for the 1.3 acre s�da pad, including the specifics aoud for the entize siu; d_ Aa aosion eontroi plan for before usd aPta consrtucaron; e. Equipment generued nciu snd 'caspped" aoise acenuatioa a+�a disunce; f. Impact of noise on the use and mjoysamt of the Mississippi River, tad g. Msuuru to ufeguazd soils snd alI pountial esuiving wucs � d e esel � I fuel rtonge consaminttion which may a:isa out of spills imm t�e proQosed �° tank. • During the earty part of Septanber. mpensa to a8ency �°cnmeat' wese devetoped hy the projeet proposcr, their consuttant and Ciry suff- This information was ft+misAed tc th° i8uu'a and commentaa in the laner part of September. Additional commrnu uid questiens were submitted by the rcviewas car(y in October, iniciazing an additional round of informuion deveSopment • In the last weeSc in Sepcember. Ciry suff a+�d she project proposer were invited to a mating with neighbofiood midcnu at the Gaadalupe Area Project buiiding. A teQrcsentaci�e of Alur Trading atso responded ta questions u thu meeting. Sercral meatings ha�e been hetd with atea gibups and agrncy persennel to eiuifY issua and • concems - most all of which centa on the environmaiul dem�a� m�tioned above. 'lhere is signifieant coneem about pouible deposition oP heavy me2als in tfse sail sad th° "muaB of inetal particulua to the aanosphas whieh is still beiag ncamined. � Ciry suff and suff from tf�e Miaaaoa Department of Hnith aad the M�a.nesora Pollurion � • Coatrot Agency ma to discuss outsonding questions aad timia� fa eompieaon ef the exa:ainition of sddiuocsal dsn ia Ne�aaba Csome ncighborhood reptssea �� �a � eir meetin�. A tmutive dm of December 15 wu givea fot the �stt a$eneY woric if alI the informsrioa th�Y �equ�s� arss milable wRt�in a'few wxks.' Th� �s4ua� ieformation w�s not mitabk uaal ariY in tbo w�ed� af Daeemba lE, 1995. Zhis w'iU delsY a�ency �ssponsc aad add to tfie dacisioa tmdiae fa the EIS D�clantion- . Whcn fuui agrnry commenu ue sseived, staff will compiae a'DeaR Record of Daisioa' for � �W �d ttleue the dnft for additiossa! pubic review �nd eomma�t A puDlic haring will be hetd in tfu neighbochood. s�d s final 'Record of Daision" wii{ be mxit sefleeting the dec�sion of the RGU concernin8 the nxd for an EIS. If no IIS is �quined, the ptoeas for m,�rvr and appcovai of a Special Condition Use Permit will begio immedjue�7• lf an EIS is � no {y�a worlc n,n bc done on the projea �ustil tf�e EIS is compleud. . gecause of time toss for sespenses and r�Pti�s. a+�d the need for time to set aP a pabiic hnriag. we cumntty atimate that the due for finsi 'EIS Decision' wiIl be ibout mid FebrtcarY• Councii Member Harris December Z2, I995 Page4 �� ��� We will sry to kecp you spprised of any chanQa irt xhedule. Pteue la me or Charics McGaiss (of my ssaf� fasov+ if you need aaY additiona! informscion conceming this pcajat McGuire aa be rsached by phone u 266-6553. Amefianeau: Lacuioa Map Siu Ptan cr. Couna'I Pissident Thunc Counci! Manbas Mryor Caleman Lacry Buegla Peser Wama _ _ cu�cowwu��.TX* �. lo I // I I�� / Gµ�+iie Bor.IIuch �i ���' / • , N DeUreed .� ( I ;:���\ . .�" `w � I' , ,• I � ' � ��.�`� ,� , $he�' "�_I _I ,�?"^�� •. �: � _ ." • y,1 V � �� � t.. ' ��� � I I y / /�Lake Shore��\ � htc �` 4 n<.�� �r-- ��` � , ��' �J . �r \, 7 .1 �s.�ia�r ' � `�'j ' ��a � =,�t�,.�.A���,.�, , � il 1 _ . .: ��,..= t� � �--�--- �J' � n,«;�.:ooa ����� � e�Q��Lh<o� �1� // '� � -. � " � .�� � r' � Vadnau Hu�hts � � ��'?tytt'�e. � � �'� � '' � � =t�'fiterai 1 �-��� �-=� I� :�___,- o� ,� .�r • " ' ` I�r�'� ��.�".�.. '�. // - .�.. � � �:.-�� � �.� ;��-J� -.:: � � - �,r' I f�• , .::': • :oPin . - 0 - } � •'. - �'� V��`�� s i � ', / ' _,}�a ) .'':.� I� f�" :�:-r ..� � '"�� -���i�c.�-: ... . _ -_ � _ : : � _ , - .j' .� '<r4 �,�.- L ' !; �L1tU 6anids �'jr, �1' _�:jY._�:. . � .:� - ` 4 y r - �� �'� �� _ _- � .� , ` `:� �..• . �,:� :. . � = ?,:: . �.,, 'i� Sa�nc Ancno� ''�� � � � ' � .'. ," � � ..� • � -� -t.i' � J : �' = ' y = , .''� . - tierth S�la! Pi.il;�� : "" .•, ..,; .. _ .�� - •_ _ ..:_--. ,�� ..: - ::�.:�';:_ '�..-,'- , . .. _ _,� - - •.-.-_ _,_. ,. � �� -. �,�� . , f a���' K'� �w� i r. t��� � �. l. 4 ; � t , �� . f fGLdstene � : t�,-':= ' - (;.suderdals :��' � `� . � .� S-: j: =�:� ,._ -� ��: :. •_.J � � . : � .:�?°- ` ,.:�. � .:�=. , .�, _ :.�.; ;. ., , F,<<a� s'<��� C � SiTE LOCATION .a P��,�- 1 � .�. , : ���r �. � :��� �j ..._,-.- :_,�� ���: ; :�_...��� �ti�,.� • � . .I � �� �r r:'_ • � •: �L' j ' i . a9 . . _- .�; .loj� •_i '3r�lr.; � ' � '�' .' . '. .,., ' " �• "�i.'1.-:-f-�' _.. �1 � �� `�:. � i• , �.M 3-��:.1! .� _ .'r ^� / ' `�'/: .-.. ;� i''r'.: St i ,:i'�`t• • � � '��.•'� :�r°wi � •�l.•' ��.� S f,w', _ , ll � . � .'� : .•' ` : .r�: � .�. .� .� ." • ' ... . ��� ^:, •i.`':�� ",`1�•.�r`�.}"'� y ai %' �� � 1"' �(--i��i S%py.`.�1' � ,.i.� I<�COd �•��� 1 : .. _ . a ':' - .. : ':�� .:.� `�'�� � �• _ M� _ . _ 6 �� i ��;;;�� •q: 7' cI� (^ t-� •1• I • :p, D 7`T'-•�':I { v` � � ' .` .' `1 .. -. �..3J�� 0 �' ' A <e� �wr.v v .. . S( ��' . J ` � ..� �M1L { � �':. �.,� : .. ....:y-•' "� ::r;.� ai ��t' aul �-= :: �2_.`� ":i L �� �_��r~� ro^-..c <.`. '• .. -i � "� �.�', ,:�, �tl ' _.: ...�'Fl A��-S�' - ° ` w v� : . � � •.i'.� .'.�. -�; �T:C-•.s':�'Li• 16' � t = "r'_ �' �d.: � 3t Piul De+'n , ° r:: , � � , ` � S �'^ c.��Y'�' �'��`� �• 4• . y '• lF. 3� �- J ��.9' 1 i ` �C�T'�• �' ` i '�'. .. . Z . �.. ,! si Z", ^" � ' . a � ` ��t-.� ' ��. � S!s'} iy • �f.I.. !T . . :.'.. � . .,�; � : ; �:,, �,, �,�} � ' :. : � ' f J3 ).i .. �_yIy dal� r e� nc •ul c r , ' .` •T 'y`'y: c � �:: -. 7.. r ..%�' ,�� - :ri"• I � • 't �' 7 � � �.� .' '�' - � .�' :Y: -;:r>. . `e,= (I' i\ 1 ,.'=1 'l :_ .F:':• , -; :� .;: • 1993 • �<to�^c �+, 0�_^9�' Scale l:1Z!.000 (it emeu) LEG c.*7D , .: PoPutoGOn Genler __ County 9oundcry 2Mu�� . O Slcte Ro�te �� uajor Street/Rocd 2t--��j : � f StN.e C�o�to� �� Stote Route � , TOwn. SnC!1 `�ity �-� Int[.'SIC:t Hic�hwCy o lorge C�ty ` �-e u5 r.�Sn•oY � � Inte�s:c;e. Turnpi�e ,r�' Lo�c �cis ° US H�Sne.ey �. �=:.1 OOer woter �v � � �.i•(ield I B R�U Ny P�CJ�CT LOCATtON RAMS�Y COU�"' �+A� PROPOSED St. PAUL. MINNESC'A °�Ati' � AITcR TitADfNG CORPOaAT1C�: 1NTERTEC BENTTENOORF, tOWA , �1� � ��eod���.i r � t'�' . i ��} ti �� � /., � l':i_.�"��j'� '// '� c'� • .: . RAM$£`.' C'JU'� iY MAP ?4as 1ZN we6Fen.. �I az.aa t99s � N T e��N9vN 9��' pR..V e.. LC_ C2-2a-9 • ,rr� e•: u9 � C2-��- � ,pa �, Cwxz-;S-OOSB DK �e iix°_:+o��F1GURE•� � r L y � � � � Communiry Meeang Drafc E�vironmental Assessment Worksheet Record of Decision Proposed Atter Trading Corporation Recycling P/anf Ramsey County Saint Paui, Minnesota �� � S 0��"�. QU�� FpR O�S�'� City of Saint Paul Norm Coleman, Mayor May 17, 1996 Questions shoufd be directed to: Chartes L McGuire Department of Pianning and Economic Development (612) 266-6553 ���586 The City of Saint Paul does not discriminate on the basis of disability, rece, sex, sexual or affedional orientation, age, color, creed, national origin or ancestry, marital status, religion, veteran status, or 5tatus with regard to pub(ic assistance in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs or activities. Table of Contents r ��- �8� Description of the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Process for Public Notice and Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comments, Responses and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Issues Related to the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 Particulate Dispersion and Deposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Particulate Emission Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Composition of Particulate Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Deposition of Particulates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3(a) Impact on PM10 Non-attainment Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 13(b) Effect on Air Qualiry in Closest Residential Area ..... 1.3(c) Effect on Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3(d) Potential Effea on Soil Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Potential Effect on Human Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Potential Effed on Wildlife and Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Potential for Failure of Pollution Control System . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 Particulates in Water Vapor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 Storm Water Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Stormwater Characteristics, Flows and Discharge Destinatio� .................................... 2.2 Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Sensitivity ot Floodplain Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0 Impact on the Flood Plain and Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Ftood P1ain Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Wetland Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 Soil and Groundwater Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Existing Contamination oi the Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Potentiaf Soil and Groundwater Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 Well ConstructionlGround Water Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Water Well Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Water Resource Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 Accidental Spilfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0 Disposition of Shredder Residue (Fluffl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Composition of Shredder Residue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Residue Handling and Disposal Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0 Noise .............................................. 8.1 Noise Levels by 7ime of Day at the Closest Residences ..... 8.2 Impacts on Recreational Users of the Mississippi River ...... 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 4 7 8 10 11 13 14 76 23 24 26 26 29 31 32 32 33 34 34 35 37 37 38 40 42 42 43 45 45 49 Community Mee[ing D2fr / `� J ��� Issues Related to Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0 Tra�c ..-• ......................................... 9.1 Projected Levels of Truck Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �9.2 Access to the Site and Neighboring Residentiat Community ... 10.0 AesthetidRetreational impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 General Impacu on Aesthetic and Recreational Resources .... 10.2 Pig's Eye Regional Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • - • - . . . . . . . 10.3 City of South Saint Paul Riverfront Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.0 MNRRA Plan Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.1 Appropriateness/Necessity of a Riverfront Site . . . . . _ . . . . . . 17.2 Consistency with Resource Protection Policies/No inaeased Nonconformity ..............:........••-•.....•- 11.3 Relationship to Minn. Siat. 116.G.151 iMinnesota River Critical Areas Ad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.0 RiverfronUNeighborhood Development Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Issues Related to the Review Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.0 Consideration of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0 Related or Anticipated Future Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.0 Other Comments Raised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.0 Public Notice .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.0 Adequacy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet . . . . . . . . . . 17.1 Description of Facility Under Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.2 GeneralConcems ................................ 18.0 Need for an Environmental Impact Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 51 57 52 54 54 56 57 58 59 67 63 66 69 69 70 72 73 76 76 77 80 Declaration .......................................................... 84 - APPen ices .......................................................... 8� Communiry Meeting Drah `_ �-�8b Description of the Project Alter Trading Corporation proposes to expand its existing metal recycling faciliry by instaliing metal recyCling equipment manutactured by Texas Shredder, Incorporated on an existing, already devetoped industrial site located at 751-78t Barge Channel Road in Saint Paul. The plant and associated eddy current separation system wouid cover 55,000 square feet. The planYs fundion would be to recycle approximately 750 to 900 tons per day of scrap metal such as industriai scrap, automobile bodies, and miscelianeous Iight gauge steel. Most oi the metal would be purchased and trensported from local industries and scrap yards. Once the material is processed, it would be transported by barge, rail or truck to various consumers. Installing this metal recycling plant on the site wouid resuit in the removal of stockpiles of coal and salt currently stored at the location of the proposed expansion and wo�id preclude the use of the site for the transfer of other commodities. Purpose of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Process The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA� is a standardized list of questions in a worksheet format designed to disciose the necessary iniormation to screen the project for signiiicant environmental effects. It is intended to ensure that decision makers at all levefs have the necessary information to make inrormed judgemenu on licensing, land use or funding decisions. While the informaCion included in the EAW will likely be used in the required review associated with project permits, approvaf or denial of any permit appfication is not part of tfie worksheet review process. A Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) is obligated by the rules of the Environmental Quality Board to review the information provided in an EAW and determine if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared. The rules state: An EIS shalt be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effecu. !n decrding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental eirects the RGU shal( compare the impacu that may reasonab(y be expected to occur from the project witn the criteria: A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effecu; 8. Cumulative potentra/ effects of re/ated or anticipated future projeccs; C. 7he extent to which environmenral effects are subjecc to mitigation by ongoing pu6lic regulatory authority; and D. The extent io whith environmenial effecu can be anticipated and coniro{led as a result of o[her environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, or of EISs previousfy prepared. This Record of Decision details the comments and information received by the City of Saint Paul and records its findings relative to the potential for significant environmental effect, and, theretore, the need ior an Environmentai impact Statement. Gommnniry Meen� Drak r �� ��� Process 4or Pubiic Notice and Comment July 16, 1995 Environmen[a! Assessment Worksheet prepared and submitted to the City of Saint Paul Department of Planning and Economic Development by Breun lntertec Corporation Juty 17, 1995 No2ice of avai4ability o4 EAW for seview published in the Environmental Review Board's EQB Monitor Volume 20, #2. July 27, 1995 Press release provided to three newspapers of general circulation in the area: West Side Voice, Saint Paul Pioneer Press, and Minneapolis Star Tribune. A copy of the press release is attached (Appendix A). July 31, 1995 EAW comment period extended until August 31, 1995 in a notice published in the EQB Monitor 4otume 20 #3. September 8, 7995 City of Saint Paul notified the Environmenta! Quatity Board that the "El5 Need Decision" was postponed under the provisions of Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp.2a.6 because reviewer comme�ts indicated the need for additional detailed information on: air quality impacts, stormwater management, erosion controt, noise abatement and the possibility of fuet tanks spiils. September 25, 1995 Responses to agency comments mailed. October 72, 1995 Technical ending date of "?ostponment Period" under Mi�nesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp.2a.6. A complete tisting of correspondence and technicat documentation used in the development of the following record is contained in Appendices B and C of this report. Communiry Meeting D2ft 2 Declaration NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8E1NG PREPARED BY PETER BECK , �_5$6 Community Meeting Draft $4 NEIGBBORS ORGAMIIEp. !O 570P , , �8- � $� fl1E 11AtARDS OF ALL MElAL SNREapERS: 127 W. Winifred St•Sai¢t Paul, MN 55107•(612) 293-1708 Saint Paul City Council . City Ha11, 3rd floor 15 West Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55107 June 3, 1998 Deaz President Bostrom and City Council members: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Alter Trading Corporation's appeal for a special condition use permit for a metal shredder to be located on the West Side of St. Paul. NO SIIAMS! recommends you uphold the denial of the Alter Trading special condition use permit for three reasons. First, because the use is prohibited by the Saint Paul zoning code. Second, because the proposal does not satisfy the 5 general standards required to be met before granting a special condition use permit. I ask you to refer to yow packet, wlvch includes ow testimony from the April 16 zoning committee meeting highlighring how these standards wili not be met by the shredder proposal. Third, becat�se 16 of the 19 District Planning Councils have gone on record recommending the City Council prohibit large matal shredders in Saint Paul. Thank you. SincereIy, ,���,�„ Sheril7n Young� Co-Chair cc: WSCO Board A Project of it�estSide Citizens Orgcmization • Funded by Grants from ii'ortbauestArec� Foiendation � The Hec�d:oaters Fund