Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility (USPCI) Rezoning Petition - ContinuationCITY OF ROSEMOUNT ti EXECUTIVE. SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 7, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Minnesota Industrial Containment AGENDA SECTION: Facility Rezoning Petition PUBLIC HEARING PREPARED BY: AGENDA Pff � J� , j�, Lisa Freese, Director of Planning !�(!j' v� 7 ATTACHMENTS: Mailing Ordinance, Petition; Location List; Comp. Plan Amendment.- APP�VEPXBY:, Map; The public hearing for this rezoning petition was continued at P g � g the applicant's request from the December 3, 1991 Council meeting due to the reasons stated in the attached letter of request. It is staff's understanding that USPCI is comfortable with proceeding at this time. For your background on this request in March, `1991, USPCI submitted a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment,and'Rezoning Petition for the proposed 236 -acre Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility (MICF) in the Pine Bend Industrial area. In August, the City Council approved the Comprehensive Guide Plan request. This guide plan amendment created a Waste Management Land Use Plan Element; redesignated the land use of this site from General Industrial (156 acres) and Agricultural (80 acres) to Waste Management; and created a freestanding Urban Service Area for the MICF. In November, 1991 USPCI requested that the City proceed on the Rezoning Petition. This petition requests the 'rezoning of the southeastern 80 acres of the 236 -acre site. This portion of the site is currently zoned Agricultural(AG)and they are requesting Waste Management (WM) zoning. This would be a logical extension of the existing Waste Management zoning to the west and it is consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan as amended. The other 156 acres was rezoned to Waste Management at the time that the new Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1989. By approving this rezoning, USPCI will be able to proceed with its Interim Use Permit Application Review on the entire site. The Planning Commission reviewed the rezoning petition at the November 19 Regular Meeting and recommended approval of the rezoning from Agriculture to Waste Management for the subject property. n ffSrU%t%j k ton= Union ° d Corporation December 2, 1991 Mr. Stephan Jilk City of Rosemount 2875 145th Street West P. 0. Box 510 Rosemount, MN 55068 Dear Steve, USPCI, Inc. is requesting that the public hearing and City Council action scheduled for December 3, 1991 on our rezoning petition be rescheduled or if the public hearing is opened, that it be continued. USPCI corporate staff and legal counsel is currently reviewing the Potential impact on the operation of Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility due to the proposed permit conditions being unposed by Dakota County and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. We would also like the additional time to become informed on the provisions in the City's interim use permit. It is anticipated that this assessment will require two to three weeks to complete. When our corporate review is completed, we will be contacting you to either reschedule or reconvene the hearing. USPCI would like to thank the Council in advance for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. Sincerely yours, Z , INC. Ken J kson Senior Nice President Business Development KJ: jr Rosemt.l0 515 West Greens Road, Sufte 500 • Houston Texas 77067 • 7131775-7800 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ORDINANCE NO. B-16 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Ordinance No. B, adopted September 19, 1989, entitled "City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance," is hereby amended to rezone from Agriculture to WM Waste Management the following described property located within the City of Rosemount, Minnesota to -wit: All of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter (Ek of SW34,) and the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SEk of NW-',) south of State Trunk Highway SS, of Section 20, Township 115, Range 18; and, also part of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter (Ek of NW -1-4) of Section 29, Township 115, Range 18, lying northerly of County Road 38. SECTION 2. The Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount referred to and described in said Ordinance No. B as that certain map entitled, "Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount," shall not be republished to show the aforesaid rezoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the said zoning map on file in the Clerk's office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this Ordinance and all of the notation references and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Ordinance. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. Enacted and ordained into an Ordinance this 7th day of January, 1992. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT E. B. McMenomy, Mayor ATTEST: Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk Published in the Farmington Inde endent this day of )1992. City of Rosemount N°: REZON I NG PETITION Date: March 15, 1991 One Commerce Green, Suite 500 77067 Applicant: USPCI, INC. 515 West Greens Road, Houston, TX Phone: 831-2480 4801 West 81st Street, Suite 119 Address: Environmental Engineering & Management Ltd. Minneapolis, MN 55437 STATUS OF APPLICANT: X Owner Buyer Lessee OTHER: LOCATION: Lot , Block , Addition Street Address: Metes & Bounds Description Attached: X Submitted under separate cover. Survey or Plot Plan Attached: Presently Zoned: Agricultural Proposed Zoning: Waste Management REASON FOR REQUEST: 1. See Petition Submitted Under Separate Cover 2. 3. Application received by: Date: -31 ll. l Fee: $ 0�?5Q °° How Paid: Date: Pl nning Commission Action: Date: a m to 0 N Figure 1 ....... . ....... ..6r d .................... . . . ........... ........... ......... ... . . . ......... na. M C zq ............ ..... ...... i9 C C: M 0 m 62 t P ............ ... ....................... CJ N cn .......... ............. ...... Eo........... X: .. ............... .... .. .......... .............. ................. a m to 0 N Figure 1 ....... . ....... ..6r d .................... . . . ........... ........... ......... ... . . . ......... na. M zq ........... ......... ... . . . ......... na. M ........... ......... ... . . . ......... ............ ..... ...... C: M cr) ............ ... ....................... .......... ............. ...... Eo........... X: .. ............... .... .. .......... .............. ................. cu ELL 0 HVS3 O NC) 0 :3 yv cz 0 0 0 iiy o Rosemount PHONE (612) 423-4411 2675 - 145th Street West, Rosemount. Minnesota FAX (612) 423-5203 Mailing Aooress: P. O. Box 510, Rosemount. Minnesota 55066-0510 Public Notice Rezoning Petition Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility (South Side of Courthouse Blvd.) TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: MAYOR Vernon Napper COUNCILMEMBERS Sheila Klassen John Oxborough Harry Willcox Dennis Wippermann ADMINISTRATOR Stephan Jdk NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, the City Council of the City of Rosemount will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, December 3, 1991 in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 2875 145th Street West, beginning at 8:00 p.m., or soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the hearing is to consider a rezoning of property from AG Agriculture to WM Waste Management. The property being considered for rezoning is legally described as follows: All of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter (Ek of SW;) and the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SEk of NW,) south of State Trunk Highway 55, of Section 20, Township 115, Range 18; and, also part of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter (Ek of NW;) of Section 29, Township 115, Range 18, lying northerly of County Road 38. Persons wishing to speak on this issue are invited to attend this meeting on Tuesday. December 3, 1991 at 8:00 p.m. By Order of City Council. Dated this 19th day of November, 1991. 1: C�) SustLn M. Wal'gh, City Clerk ' City of Rosemount Dakota County, Minnesota `J�osemount1( Minnesota industrial Containment Facility (USPCI) REZONING PETITION MAILING LIST 1. Koch Refining Company P.O. Box 2256 Wichita, KS 67201 2. Chicago & NW Trans Co 1 N WSTN CTR Chicago, IL 60606 3. Paul J. Nieiand 13250 Clayton Avenue E Rosemount, MN 55068 4. Metro Waste Control Commission Capitol Square Building 230 E Fifth Street St Paul, MN 55101 5. Orrin Kirschbaum 13220 Doyle Path Rosemount, MN 55068 6. Joseph M. & Julie A. Simones 13273 Pine Bend Trail Rosemount, Mn 55068 7. Pine Bend Development Co. % Melvir. G. Astieford 1200 Highway 13 West Burnsville, MN 55337 _ 8. USPCI, Inc. Suite 500 515 West Greens Road Houston, TX 77067-4524 9. Beverly K. Aspenson 150 10th Avenue North South St. Paul, MN 55075 10. Ninth Street Prop., Inc. One Commerce Green 515 W Greens - Suite 500 Houston, TX 77067 11. D. W. Severson 3389 140th Street East Rosemount, Mn 55068 12. James H. 'Kromschroeder 13625 Courthouse Blvd RR 2 Rosemnunt Mn ;:;nrq 34-01900-010-02 34-01900-010-06 34-01900-010-10 34-01900-010-62 34-01900-010-80 34-01900-010-50 34-01900-010-82 34-02000-010-27 34-02000-010-75 34-01900-010-52 34-01900-010-86 34-02000-010-01 34-02000-010-11 34-02000-010-08 34-02000-010-13 34-02000-010-25 34-02000-010-28 34-02000-010-39 34-02000-010-82 34-02900-010-01 34-02900-010-20 34-02900-010-25 34-02900-010-35 34-03000-010-01 34-03000-010-19 34-02000-010-33 34-02000-010-50 34-02000-010-35 34-02000-010-38 34-02000-010-37 34-02000-010-77 34-02000-010-86 13. Masahiro & Brenda Sugii 13701 Courthouse Blvd Rosemount, Mn 55068 14. Rich T. Burger M. G. Astleford 1200 Highway 13 West Burnsville, MN 55337 15. Calvin V. & Eleanor C. Twining 5480 142nd Street East Rosemount, Mn 55068 16. Dale B. & Betty L Agre 14175 Eilers Path Rosemount, MN 55068 17. Raymond A. & Rosella Rahn 3855 145th Street East Rosemount, MN 55068 18. Marlin W. & Joann Rechtzigel 14727 Gayton Avenue East Rosemount, MN 55068 19. Solberg Construction Co. 13245 Clayton Avenue Rosemount, MN 55068 20. Spectro Alloys Corp. 13220 Doyle Path - Box 10 Rosemount, MN 55068 21. Holienback & Nelson, Inc. 7700 Wentworth Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55423 22. Eagle Sanitation, Inc. Box 228 Newport, MN 55055 23. Cary Perket USPCI Suite 210 14450 South Robert Trail Rosemount, MN 55068 34-02000-010-88 34-02900.010-10 34-02900-010-11 34-02900-010-15 34-03000-010-09 34-03000-010-25 34-03000-010-30 34-03000-011-35 34-03000-012-35 34-03000-010-40 34-33400-010-01 34-33400-020-01 34-33400-030-01 34-33400-040-01 34-340004040-02 34-34000-050-02 34-33400-050-01 34-33400-060-01 34-33400-070-01 34-33400-080-01 34-33400-010-02 34-33400-020-02 34-33400-030-02 APPLICANT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 3, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Minnesota Industrial Containment AGENDA SECTION: Facility Site Compreh. Plan Guide Amendment Old Business PREPARED BY: AGENDA NJTE j� Lit # 5 C Lisa Freese, Director of Planning ATTACM[ENTS: Resolution, Met Council Approval APPdiY: letter and Staff Report; On July 2, 1991 the City Council held a public hearing regarding USPCI's request to amend the Comprehensive Guide Plan for the 236 acre Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility (MICF) in the Pine Bend area of Eastern Rosemount. The Council forwarded the Guide Plan amendment to the Metropolitan Council without taking action on it. The amendment establishes a Waste Management Land Use Plan Element, redesignates the 236 acre MICF site from General Industrial and Agricultural to Waste Management, and establishes a Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) for the MICF site. The Metropolitan Council has reviewed the amendment and at their August 8th meeting it was approved. The Metropolitan Council did not identify any significant regional issues with regard to this request. The Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission requested that the City also amend the Comprehensive Sewer Plan to reflect_ the additional sewage flows and revise the Map to show the MUSA Boundary. Since the City is in the process of revising the Comprehensive GuidePlan it was determined that a letter acknowledging the change in sewage flows resulting from MICF and a map with the revised boundaries would be sufficient at this time. Exhibit B is the revised MUSA map. The average daily sewage flows projected from the facility are 0.02 mgd. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment at the August 25 Regular Meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION: A motion to adopt A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 1991- A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount did receive a request to amend the Comprehensive Guide Plan for the 236 -acre site legally described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled according to law and.held on the 2nd of July, 1991 to consider the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the City requested that the Metropolitan Council review the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment and on August 8, 1991 the Metropolitan Council approved the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed the amendment and recommended approval to the City Council. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount approves the following as an amendment to the Rosemount Comprehensive Guide Plan: I. the establishment of a Waste Management Land Use element; 2. the redesignation of the site described in Exhibit A from General Industrial and Agricultural to Waste Management; 3. the establishment of a Metropolitan Service Area for the site described in Exhibit A; and 4. a revision of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan as shown on Exhibit B. ADOPTED this 3rd day of September, 1991. ATTEST: Vernon J. Napper, Mayor Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk Motion by: Seconded by: Voted in favor: t Voted against• Exhibit A A tract of land lying in Sections 19, 20 and 29, Township 115N, Range 18W, all in the City of Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota, commencing at the SW corner of the East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 19; thence east and southeasterly along the centerline of County Road 38 to its intersection with the North and South Quarter Section Line of Section 29; thence north along said North and South Quarter Section Line of Section '29 and the North and South Quarter Section Line of Section 20 to the southwesterly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway 55; thence northwesterly along the southwesterly right-of-way line of said Highway 55 to its intersection With the centerline of the Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company right-of-way; thence southwesterly along the centerline of said right-of-way to its intersection with the west line of the East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 19; thence south along said west line to the point of commencement. K1 I- 1-4 CQ t-1 x X W r G.AN M 001 f pos ros - — +--- y -i r-� .-•I. r AG! I A6•��'.� A . t i ,{ `t1Y. _F � •�: os ' IM •• �r�-, S I r -••.— —toff ro,T rel ii AG ;o i, � ` 1 Imo.%•' ` AG -AOAG — tl _ ♦� q.... P/I AG • t n �l rrrrr• RR .: SERVICE. •G' - - --l� AG f ii AO Vit 'S :moi , it AREA _GO ill .; ; •; � � � ',�� ) ('- FIG. 12 LEGEND . 1990 URBAN SERV. AREA RN HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1990 LAND USE PLAN P/1 PUBLIC & INSTITUTIONAL RR RURAL RESIDENTIAL I POS PRESERVATION OPEN AG AGRICULTURAL I C I1 SPACE MISSISSIPPI RIVER CRITICAL MICF Guide Plan Amendment R O S E M O U N T No STRIAL PARK Land AREA :Land .Use Redesignation CC COMMUNITY (CBD) MAJOR STREETS MINNESOTA I COMMERCIAL General Industria( and Agriculture NC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL UNDESIGNATED: MEDIUM to Waste Management GC GENERAL COMMERCIAL DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CNG CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL ■ Current MUSA MICF MUS, A,"lio., 1 04 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mean Park Centre, 130 Last Fifth Street, Sr. Paul, MA' 55101-1634 612 391-6359 FAX 612 391-6550 TTY 613 391-0904 August 9, 1991 Lisa J. Freese, Director of Planning City of Rosemount 2875 145th St. W. Rosemount, MAT 55068 RE: City of Rosemount Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 15468-1 Dear Ms. Freese: At its meeting on August 8, 1991, the Metropolitan Council considered the city of Rosemount's comprehensive plan amendment. This consideration was based on a report of the Metropolitan and Community Development Committee, Referral Report No. 9143. A copy of this report is attached. The Council approved the following recommendations contained in the above report: 1. That the Council adopt the above findings and the staff report as part of these recommendations. 2. Inform the city of Rosemount that it may place the amendment into effect and no plan modification is required. Attached is a coPy of a letter from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission commenting on the plan amendment. ` Sinceyely, AL/4V7�Mary E. derson Chair MEA:ly Attachment cc: Stephan Jill;, Administrator, City of Rosemount R.A. Odde, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Robert Pulford, Environmental Engineering and Management, Ltd. Barbara Senness, Metropolitan Council Staff (Pity of �osemouni PHONE (612) 423-4411 2675 - 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota MAYOR FAX (612) 423-5203 Mailing Address: Vernon Napper P. O. Box 510, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068-0510 COUNCIIMEMBERS Sheila Ktassen John Oxborough JulyJul 3 1991 Marry Willcox , Dennis Wippermann ADMINISTRATOR Stephen Jilk Ms. Lynda Voge Referrals Coordinator Metropolitan Council 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 a RE:. City of Rosemount Guide Plan Amendment Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility Dear Ms. Voge: Enclosed please find five (5) copies of the proposed OMinnesota Industrial Containment Facility (MICF)n Guide Plan Amendment, submitted for formal review. The proposed amendment includes the following changes to the guide plan: 1. Creation of a Waste Management land use plan element; 2. Land use redesignations from General Industrial (156 acres) and Agricultural (80 acres) to Waste Management; and 3. Creation of a free-standing MUSA for MICF. City staff, consultants and the proposer have met with Metropolitan Council staff on numerous occasions to discuss these issues over the past year. Whatever efforts the Metropolitan Council can make to expedite the review of this amendment will be appreciated. Si cer 1y, , l St phan Jilk City Admi�Istrator enclosures cc: City of Coates City of Inver Grove Heights Empire Township Nininger Township ISD 196 ISD 199 Vermillion River WMO 6-DverylLings eominq (Up (Rosemounlll " IW'A •n �iNJ WyM INFORMATION SUBNIISSION FOR MAJOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS This summary worksheet must be filled out and submitted to the Metropolitan Council with a copy of each proposed major comprehensive plan amendment. A major comprehensive plan amendment is defined as: 1. A complete revision, update or rewrite of an existing comprehensive plan in its entirety. 2 A major plan revision, update, rewrite or addition to a chapter or element of an existing comprehensive plan. 3. An amendment triggered by a proposed development that requires an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as defined in Minnesota Rules 1989, Parts 4410.4300-.4400, and is inconsistent with the existing comprehensive plan; or 4. A change (land trade or addition) in the urban service area involving 40 acres or more. Please be as specific as possible; attach additional explanatory materials if necessary. If a staff report was prepared for the Planning Commission or City Council, please attach it as well. Send plan amendments to: John Rutford, Referrals Coordinator Metropolitan Council, Mears Park Centre 230 E. Fifth St., St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Sponsoring governmental unit CJ ry of Rosemount Name of local contact person Lisa J. Freese, Director of Planning Address _2875 145t -h St. W.. Rosemount, MN Telephone 612/423-4411 Name of Preparer (if different from contact person) Dean Johnson Date of Preparation July 3, 1991 B. Name of Amendment Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility Description/Summary Creation of a Waste Management land use pl�r element; land use redesignation rrom ueneral n u .Li aural to Waste Management; creation of a freestanding KJSA - in consideration or a proposed non -hazardous inaausrria.l was eecconi-a=ienL. raLll . C. Please attach the following: 1. Five copies of the proposed amendment. 2. A city-wide map showing the location of the proposed change. 3. The current plan map(s) indicating the area(s) affected, if the amendment triggers a map change. Vi 4. The proposed plan map(s) indicating area(s) affected, if the amendment triggers a map change. D. What is the official local status of the plan amendment? (Check one or more as appropriate.) X Acted upon by planning commission (if applicable) on June 25, 1991 Approved by governing body, contingent upon Metropolitan Council review, X Considered, but not approved, by governing body on July 2, 1991 Other E. Indicate what adjacent local governmental units affected by the change have been sent copies of the plan amendment and the date(s) copies were sent to them. Notification of affected adjacent governmental units is re � d for m ' lan amendments. _Inver Grove Heights; Nininger, Verdi lion any�ire Tm,m hi DS• Inver Grove Heikhts and Pbsemount School Districts .Tilly 3_ J9QJ Because of the comprehensive nature of most major plan amendments, a summary checklist is attached to help ensure that the amendment is complete for Council review and to determine whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the metropolitan systems plans or other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide. Please indicate whether the amendment affects the following factors. Where it does, the materials submitted must fully address the issue(s). II. IMPACT ON REGIONAL SYSTEMS A. Wastewater Treatment 1. Change in city's year 2000/2010 flow projections. No/Not Applicable. X Yes. What will be the net change? How were these calculated? =2 mad average daily increase; ICC 2. Community discharges to more than one metropolitan interceptor. No,'Not Applicable. v Yes. Indicate which interceptor will be affected by the amendment and what will be the net changes in flows? _0.02 mad averaGO ge daily increase in Rosemount interceptor 3. Consistency with guidelines for land use compatibility with aircraft noise. No/Not Applicable. Yes. 4. Consistency with the long-term comprehensive plan for an airport in the vicinity of the community or proposed development. X No/Not Applicable. Yes. D. Recreation Open Space v. 1. Impact on existing or future federal, state or regional recreational facilities. X No/Not Applicable. Yes. III. IMPACT ON METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK A Land Use 1. Describe the following, as appropriate: a. Size of affected area in acres 236 acres b. Existing land use(s) 156 acres, General Industrial ; 80 acnes , �ricultur c. Proposed Waste Alanagement d. Nuumber of residential dwelling units and types involved e. Proposed density NA L Proposed square footage of co m a cal n ustrial or. ui lic buildings 3200 sf office/laboratory; r0� s processing B. Change in the city's population, household or employment forecasts for 2000, or any additional local staging contained in the original plan. X No/Not Applicable. Yes. C. Change in the urban service area boundary of the community. No/Not Applicable. X Yes. D. Change in the timing and staging of development within the urban service area. X No/Not Applicable. Yes. NI. IMPLEMENTATION PROGIUM A Change in zoning, subdivision, on-site sewer ordinances or other official controls. No/Not Applicable. _Y__ yes. consideration for rezoning; Agricultural to Waste Manager kjp00371 43.18.90 PROPOSED AMENDMENT CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN DRAFT 6/21/91 WASTE MANAGEMENT LAND USE PLAN Objectives 1. To promote effective regulation of waste management activities. 2. To supplement and enhance environmental protection policies. 3. To establish appropriate, compatible locations for waste management activities. Plan Elements Public attitudes and technology involving waste management continue to evolve. Singular approaches to waste management have given way to integrated systems including waste reduction, reuse, recycling, resource recovery and disposal. Environmental awareness creates increasing demands for responsible waste management. A waste management land use element serves several functions. It allows for the proper identification of a special use district. It allows the City to proactively determine where waste related activities may be compatible with other uses and should be located. It allows the City to protect waste management activities from infringement by incompatible uses. It also allows the City the vehicle to establish proper regulations and responsible management for waste related activities. Policy review and analysis is an on-going requirement in any growth management plan. The need for continual policy analysis in waste management planning is particularly vital due to the rapid changes in waste management technology, regulatory direction and public sentiment. Waste Management Policies It shall be the policy of the City to: 1. Permit waste related activities only when the public health, safety and welfare is ensured. PROPOSED AMENDMENT DRAFT 6/21/91 PAGE 2 2. Require that waste related activities occur in locations that minimize or eliminate conflicts with other uses. 3. Locate waste related activities in areas in which long term land use compatibility and protection from other conflicting uses may be maximized. 4. Permit waste related activities only when any potential or known conflicts or impacts are eliminated or properly mitigated. 5. Require that any waste related facility employ the best available technology in any aspect of the facility regarding environmental protection controls. 6. Ensure that the design, construction and operation of waste related facilities minimize any negative environmental impacts and mitigate them to fullest extent possible. 7. Allow waste disposal to occur only when efforts to reuse and recycle wastes have been exhausted. 8. Consider waste related facilities only when the economic benefits, incentives and other advantages to the City and community clearly outweigh any known or potential negative aspects of a facility. 9. Permit waste related facilities only when the proper infrastructure exists to serve facilities or when proper improvements can be made without expense or burden on the city. Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility Exhibit A Comprehensive Guide Pian Amendment (From Draft EIS) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Proiect Descriation USPCI, Inc. proposes to develop a nonhazardous industrial waste containment facility in the City of Rosemount which is located in the southeastern portion of the Twin Cities metropolitan area of Minnesota. USPCI, Inc. operates waste treatment and disposal operations in various locations throughout the United States and is a subsidiary of the Union Pacific Corporation. The proposed project, referred to as the Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility (MICF), plans to accept only industrial wastes classified as nonhazardous by federal, state and local regulatory definitions. The proposed Facility will consist of a series of 10 six -acre containment cells, each with an overall capacity of approximately 252,000 cubic yards including waste and cover material. The initial waste receiving rate is expected to be between 40,000 to 50,000 cubic yards of waste per year and is expected to increase to a maximum of 80,000 cubic yards per year within 3-5 years after Facility opening. The active life of the Facility is projected to be about 30 years. The proposed site is approximately 236 acres in size of which about 120 acres would be occupied by the 10 containment cells, administrative and laboratory facilities, leachate storage tanks, truck scales and unloading area; the remaining 116 acres would serve as a buffer area and be generally left in its natural condition. The site is currently used as pastureland and is located in a predominantly agricultural and industrial area with scattered rural residential. The project proposer plans to accept only a specific portion of the nonhazardous industrial waste stream generated in the state for disposal. Only those wastes certified as nonhazardous and consistent with the state (MPCA) and local permits will be accepted. These wastes must be demonstrated to be nonhazardous by an independent testing laboratory before arrival at the Facility where waste characterization tests will be conducted to confirm previous test. results. Waste acceptance procedures to be used at the MICF are intended to ensure that all wastes accepted are nonhazardous and compatible with the Facility permits (which excludes municipal solid waste, sewage sludge, incinerator ash and others). Some typical types of wastes that could be accepted for disposal at the MICF are: variety of wastes from foundries; metal -bearing wastes from recycling operations such as auto shredding; aluminum and other metal recycling; solidified paints and inks; plastic and rubber scraps; empty containers; magnetic tapes and circuit boards; asbestos; contaminated soil. Facilitv Desi?n Each of the 10 containment cells will occupy about six acres and is primarily an above -ground geotechnical structure underlain by a composite liner system composed of a clay layer and two synthetic liners and two leachate collection systems. The collected leachate will be sampled and discharged to nearby waste water treatment plant. The leachate collection systems will continue to function even after the cell is closed. The closed cells will be capped with low permeability soils and a synthetic liner to minimize leachate formation. The closure and post -closure care requirements by state and local authorities specify a minimum of 20 years continued care, maintenance and monitoring -of the Facility after final closure. The Dakota County Ordinance No. 110 requires monitoring systems designed for 30 years. Post -closure care A-1 includes periodic inspection and maintenance of the Facility grounds, leachate collection system, and sampling of ground water monitoring wells. The project proposer must demonstrate financial capability of meeting all expenses associated with these activities including any environmental contingency actions. The state and local agencies also require designation of an appropriate end use of the Facility site. The. Facility has been designed to accommodate various future uses by preserving areas within and around the containment cells layout which could accommodate structural development. Alternatives The alternatives to the proposed project that were considered include the "no build" alternative and currently available alternative management methods to land disposal of nonhazardous industrial wastes such as recycling, reuse and waste reduction. The regulatory data and other sources indicate that the majority of these wastes are currently being landfilled at public or privately -owned solid waste disposal facilities and monofills. Several specific nonhazardous industrial waste types were reviewed to determine the viability and availability of alternative management methods for handling those wastes. Although management methods other than disposal exist for certain types of nonhazardous industrial waste, the amount and types of waste that are managed by waste reduction efforts, recycling or reuse of waste materials depends on a variety of economic and regulatory factors. The role of alternative management techniques will largely be determined by waste generators and will be used if they are technically and economically feasible and offer some advantage over land disposal in terms of cost savings, convenience or reduced liability for potential environmental contamination problems. The no build alternative assumes the use of existing or planned facilities in the management of nonhazardous industrial waste. Under this scenario, it is assumed that the majority of waste generators would continue to dispose of wastes at the Twin Cites metropolitan area solid waste disposal facilities which are currently accepting these wastes. The current permitted capacity of these landfills is projected to be exhausted by the end of 1994. Although processes for siting and developing additional landfilling facilities is underway, it is unlikely these facilities would be operational before the mid-1990s. Based on these projections, it is evident that the present system is incapable of accommodating the region's needs and that additional disposal facilities will be necessary to meet those needs. Potential Impacts and Mitigations Air Quality Impacts Air quality impacts of Facility construction and operation were analyzed in terms of fugitive dust emissions (particulates) and were compared to alternative development of the site as agriculturally tilled land. The amount of fugitive dust generated annually by agricultural activities was estimated to be about four times greater than construction and operation activities associated with the bUCF each year; therefore air quality impacts created by the proposed project are not considered to be significant and can be mitigated through use of watering techniques, street cleaning and wind breaks to control dust. u A-2 Noise Impacts The noise levels created by Facility construction activities were estimated in order to determine impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. This analysis indicated that during peak construction phases the project may cause short-term violations of the state noise standards at two residential locations. It is expected that typical daily operations would generate much lower noise levels that are well below noise standards for this area. Mitigative measures include use of properly operated and muffled construction equipment and use of landscaped earthen berms that would provide some noise abatement Surface Water and Stormwater Management A stormwater management plan has been developed for the Facility site which proposed the alteration of existing conditions to accommodate Facility development and major precipitation events. This alteration includes the construction of several retention basins on-site to provide adequate storage capacity for major storm and snowmelt events. No surface water will be allowed to enter the cell containment area. The increased on-site storage capacity reduces the downstream flows from the site over present pre -development conditions. Leachate and Liner System Analysis Preliminary cell design, waste acceptance criteria and procedures, and information from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission were reviewed in order to estimate impacts to liner integrity and to the local wastewater treatment plant from the generation of leachate. It is technically feasible and practical to design, construct and operate a landfill operation, of the type proposed, such that environmental impacts are minimal. The ability to predict environmental impacts from the proposed Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility was limited by the lack of definite information on: quality assurance procedures for cell construction, on-site waste screening procedures for individual shipments of waste, and design information on the leachate collection system and storage tanks. The details of these elements will be reviewed as part of the Facility permit. As long as adequate design, quality assurance established and followed, and adequate storage problem appears to be political acceptability wastewater treatment planta Hydrogeology Impacts procedures and waste screening procedures are capacity for leachate is provided, the remaining. )f discharge of the leachate at the Rosemount The geologic materials beneath the site consist predominantly of sand and gravel glacial outwash deposits with relatively high permeabilities. The uppermost aquifer beneath the site includes the glacial outwash deposits, the Prairie du Chien Formation, and the Jordan Sandstone. In the event that leachate were released from the containment cells, the leachate would migrate vertically downward through the unsaturated zone and would be likely to impact the upper aquifer. Potential receptors of contamination released to the upper aquifer from the site include downgradient water wells utilizing the upper aquifer, and the Mississippi River which is the regional discharge point for the upper aquifer. ill A-3 Currently, low concentrations of particular volatile organic chemicals exist in the upper aquifer beneath the site. The proposed network of ground water monitoring wells at the MICF site will be sufficient to monitor background contaminant concentrations in the upper aquifer, and will therefore allow differentiation between existing contamination and any additional contamination originating from the waste storage cells. Preliminary ground water contaminant transport modeling indicates that pumping wells proposed for the MICF will have only local effects on contaminant migration in the upper. aquifer. The modeling suggests that additional pumping wells may be necessary downgradient from the site to provide adequate capture of any contamination resulting from activities at the proposed MICF. The proposed Phase H investigation may indicate through ground water modeling whether additional pumping wells are in fact necessary. Economic Impacts Economic impacts of the proposed project include costs of Facility development, operation and closure, employment, revenues, property values and service demands. Total construction cost for the MICF is estimated to be about $28.4 million (1989 dollars); the actual cost will be appreciably higher if inflation and other factors are considered. The proposer anticipates the need for 10 full-time staff positions resulting in total annual labor cost of approximately $462,000 (1989 dollars). Property taxes have been estimated to be about $230,000 if the Facility had been operational during 1989. The project proposer has expressed the commitment to provide payments to local governments through a variety of funds. The source of these funds are service charges, and surcharges on waste disposal and will total approximately $11,840,000 over the life of the Facility (1989 dollars). A Community Trust Fund will be established fora broad range of community development programs and will total approximately $9.5 million (including interest earned) over the Facility life. The project proposer has also committed to contributing approximately $20,000 annually during the Facility life to community organizations. During the first five years of Facility operation, the proposer Y411 also make contributions of $17,000 annually to Rosemount's Park Dedication Fund. In addition to the funds listed above, a separate and permanent Environmental Trust Fund will provide for financial assurance to ensure proper Facility closure and post -closure care and environmental contingencies. A separate letter of credit will be established to ensure closure of each cell. Preliminary estimates for these funds are $500,000 for closure of each cell, $600,000 for post - closure care and $160,000 as contingency reserve for each cell. Past studies of the impacts of waste management facilities on property values indicate that no categorical findings can be made as to absolute negative or positive effects of these facilities and that each project is unique, representing a very complex set of variables. Possible positive effects on property values that could be attributed to MICF development include the documentation of groundwater conditions that will result from the groundwater monitoring network that would be part of the Facility operations and post -closure care responsibilities, and development of the area consistent with the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. Iv A-4 Negative impacts to property values may be in response to real or perceived nuisances from noise, dust, traffic and the potential for environmental contamination during the Facility's operating life. Since the Facility has fairly minimal needs for public services and is entirely privately financed, no appreciable indirect costs for public services are expected, Land Use Impacts The proposed site is located within a predominantly industrially and agriculturally developed area which is reflected in the current zoning classifications. The majority of the site is zoned as a Waste Management District which allows for the development of a Facility such as the MICF; however the eastern most part of the site is within an Agricultural zone and as such is not compatible with project development. The Rosemount Comprehensive Plan and zoning classification for this portion of the site would need to be amended to allow for development of the entire Facility as currently proposed. Transportation Impacts The expected daily traffic volumes during normal Facility operations are 20-25 waste transport vehicles and 36 vehicle trips per day by Facility employees, and periodic services and materials deliveries. Traffic to the Facility is assumed to be via U.S. Highway 52 and T.H. 55 which currently operates at about a 69% capacity level during afternoon peak traffic conditions. The additional traffic generated by MICF operations will result in an increase to about 71% capacity level for T.H. 55 in the project area and as such, will not significantly impact traffic conditions for this roadway. Aesthetic Impacts The final contours of the containment cell portion of the site after complete closure of the Facility is projected to be at a maximum elevation of 896 feet (MSL). The existing topography of this area is moderately rolling with maximum elevations of 890-900 feet. Therefore, development of the containment cells will not intrude on the horizon above the existing higher elevation levels. The "viewshed" for the Facility is generally the areas located northwest and southeast of the site and the higher elevations located nearly a mile southwest of the Facility. Mitigative measures to minimize visual impacts of the MICF include development of landscaped berms and plantings of trees and other vegetation that will help to screen views and enhance the natural character of the area. In addition, the containment cells will be operating one at a time, for the most part, and will be planted with grasses after final capping of each cell. V A-5 MetropolitanCouncilMeeting of August 9, 1991 Business Item: B"2. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre,ll Z30 East Fifth St, St. Paul, Minnesota SSI01 62ZI291-63S9 Referral Report 9143 DATE August 2, 1991 TO: Metropolitan Council SUBJECT: Rosemount Compref�nsive Plan. Amendment Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility ' Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 1548-1 Metropolitan Council District No. 16 BACKGROUND At its meeting on August 1, 1991, discussed a staff report and recomm Minnesota Industrial Containment] ISSUES AND CONCERNS Barbara Senness, Council staff (ext. Committee. The Committee askec development in the short term, if ar could be made. )&. Senness resp Commission could require the opera plant until additional capacity was a USPCI, who is proposing to constr brought to the facility will be places sealed. Metropolitan and Community Development Committee tions dealing with the review of a plan amendment for the ty in Rosemount 419) presented the report and answered questions from the if the city was comfortable with the possibility of limiting Rosemount plant ran out of capacity before improvements nded that if capacity became an issue, the Waste Control >r of the containment facility to truck leachate to the Metro ailable at the Rosemount plant Bob Pulford, representing :t and operate the facility, explained that industrial wastes in cells for long term storage. Once filled, the cells will be Council member Schreiner noted that the containment facility project is a very important one to the region. It represents the first waste rttanagement facility that has been successfully sited. Schreiner cited the cooperative working relationship between the city and USPCI as a major factor in the success of the project FINDINGS 1 The proposed amendment or surface water issues. 2. In order for the containment MUSH. not raise any significant transportation, recreation open space to receive regional sewer service, it must be part of the 3. It is ' technically feasible to discharge leachate from the containment facility to treatment plant. the Rosemount 4. The city of Rosemount will need to update its comprehensive sewerlan to refl amount of wastewater to be generated by the containment facility. P ect the S. If residential growth exceeds Council forecasts, it is possible that the Rosemount plant could run out of capacity before an expansion is on line. If this occurs, the Waste Control Commission could require USPCI to truck leachate to the Metro plant. 6• The Proposed containment facility is consistent with the Council's Solid Waste Man Development Guide/Policy Plan. agement 7. The proposed containment facility is consistent with MDIF directives for urban-gen uses and for expanding an urban'service area, - .. _ .... erated RECOMMENDATIONS That the Metropolitan Council: 1. Adopt the above findings and the staff report as part of these recommendations. 2 Inform that city of Rosemount that it may place the amendment into effect and no lan modification is required. P Respectfully submitted, Susan Anderson, Chair DATE: July 22, 1991 TO: Metropolitan FROM: Research and SUBJECT: Rosemount( Minnesota Ix Metropolitan Metropolitan INTRODUCTION -olitan Council of the Twin Cities Area Seam Park Centre, 230 E 5th St St Paul, Minnesota 55101 612.291-6359/MD 291-0904 Community Development Committee g Range Planning (Barbara Senness) ensive Plan Amendment Containment Facility Referral File No. 15458-1 District No. 16 The city of Rosemount has prep ar this plan amendment in response to USPCrs proposal to develop a nonhazardous industrial aste containment facility in the Pine Bend industrial area in eastern Rosemount (see Attachment 2). The proposed project, referred to as the Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility, plans to accept only industrial wastes classified as nonhazardous by federal, state and local regulatory I definitions. The Metropolitan Council prepared the Environmental Impact Statement required for the project. The project site was previously reviewed by the Council as part of Dakota: County's landfill site inventory and was found to be consistent with Council policy. AUTHORI'T'Y TO REVIEW The Metropolitan Land Use Planni comprehensive plans be pr -p2, -ed, s in the same manner as the original pursuant to Minn. Stat. 473.864 for period for amendments potentially day review period for amendments Act of 1976 requires that amendments to local pitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and adopted as (Minn. Stat. 473.964, subd. 2, 1978). Guidelines adopted dewing proposed amendments provide a 90 -day review :cling one or more of the metropolitan systems, and a 60- t do not have a potential impact on metropolitan systems. The city of Rosemount submitted its proposed comprehensive plan amendment on July 5, 1991. On July 11, 1991, the Chair determined that it was a major amendment under the Council's Guidelines for Reviewing Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Therefore, the 90 -day review period applies and will conclude on October 5, 1991. DESCREMON OF AFFECTED AREA The area in which the containment facility will be located is known as the Pine Bend industrial area. The land uses in this area are predominately heavy industrial, served by private sewage treatment systems. Fisting land uses include: Koch Refinery, DPC Industries (production, storage and shipping of ammonia products), Walbon Trucking, CF Industries (distribution and storage of agricultural fertilizer), Continental Nitrogen (chemicals production), Spectro Alloys (metal foundry), A-1 Concrete, Material Recovery, Ltd. (demolition waste recycling) and the Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant. The western 156 acres of the containment facility site are currently planned for industrial use. Portions of the industrial containment facility site have been used intermittently for pasturage in recent years. The eastern 80 acres of the containment facility site are currently planned for agricultural use. Rnwever, the rolling topography and soils are not attrac&e for more intensive agricultural development. DESCRIPTION OF PLAN AMENDMENT The proposed plan amendment includes the following changes to Rosemount's Comprehensive Plan: 1) creation of a "Waste Management" land use element in the plan, 2) redesignation of the land uses within the Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility site from General Industrial and Agricultural to Waste Management and 3) creation of a non-contiguous, freestanding Metropolitan urban Service Area (MUSA) to provide wastewater treatment capacity to the containment facility. The city's objectives in creating a waste management element are 1) to promote effective regulation of waste management activities, activities. .- 2) to supplement and enhance environmental protection policies and ;) to establish appropriate, compatible locations for waste management Thi site of tLe proposed containment facility is 22L6 acres in size, of which about 120 acres would be occupied by ten six -acre containment cells, administrative and laboratory facilities, leachate storage tanks, truck scales and unloading area. The remaining 116 acres would serve as a buffer area and generally would be left in its natural condition. Typical types of waste that could be accepted for disposal at this facility include: a variety of wastes from foundries, metal -bearing wastes from recycling operations such as auto shredding, aluminum and other metal recycling; solidified paints and inks, plastic and rubber scraps, empty containers, magnetic tapes and circuit boards, asbestos and contaminated soil. ].Iaking the site a part of the MUSA would allow the facility to connect to the Rosemount 'A'astewater Treatment Plant for the required disposal of leachate collected in the containment cells. The options for leachate disposal include 1) discharging to the Rosemount plant or 2) Airports The containment facility site is airport. Since the area is outsi this time. However, in the eve changes in land use or zoning i under the state Airport Develc Solid Waste zmediately adjacent to the Dakota search area for a new major the search area, there are no, additional review requirements at that a new major airport site is located in this general area, any y eventually (by 1996) be subject to additional requirements nent Act The Council's Solid Waste Management Development Guide/Policy Plan contains review criteria for solid waste management facilities which include locational objectives and criteria These criteria indicate that the location' of solid waste management facilities will be influenced by several faciors, including: 1) the avanability'of suitable land, 2) proximity to major highways znd sources of waste and 3) the availability of adequate public utilities such as electric power, water supply and wastewater treatment services. The location of the containment 'facility was clearly influenced by these criteria. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has previously found the containment facility site to be intrinsically suitable for a solid waste facility. In addition, it has excellent access to US 52, which is an element of the metropolitan highway system. Finally, it is located adjacent to a wastewater treatment plant. In addition to locational objectives, the policy plan encourages the separation of special wastes, including nonhazardous industrial wastes, and control of the type of waste accepted at a waste facility. The plan also encourages the development of private waste management facilities. The proposed facility meets all these additional objectives. Metropolitan Development and investment Framework (INMM The area affected by the . Droposed amendment is located in the Council's general rural use area. In this area, the Council supports long-term preservation of agricultural land, plus it will also support residential development at densities of no more than one unit per 10 acres computed on a 40 -acre basis. However, the MDIF also recoenizes that the general rural use area is an appropriate location for facilities l such as waste di posal installations, that require isolated and spacious locations but serve primarily the urban public. The framework states that the Council's key interest is that these types of facilities are adequately served, consistent with local and regional plans, and that interference with agricultural activities is minimized There is some overlap between tiese criteria and the criteria the Council has established for expansion of an urban service ar Before agreeing to expand an urban service area, the Council must determine that there is a regional need and that adequate regional sewer and highway capacity is available. Consistent i with the Council's rural area density policy is also a prerequisite. There is clearly a need for environmentally sound waste management facilities in the metropolitan area. As stated earlier, regional highway and sev,,er capacity is available to serve the containment facility site. However, if the facility is connected to the Rosemount plant, to maintain consistency trucking to the Metropolitan Plant in St. Paul. Rosemount plant ANALYSIS The site is located immediately adjacent to the The following analysis addresses sewer, airport, solid waste and Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework policy concerns, The proposed amendment does not raise any significant transportation, recreation open space or surface water issues. Sewers The plan amendment proposes adding the containment facility site to the MUSA to allow connection to the Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant for leachate disposal In its comments on the plan amendment (see Attachment 3), the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission noted that the city will also need to revise its comprehensive sewer plan to reflect the flows generated by the containment facility. The Water Resources Management Policy Plan states that metropolitan services will not be extended to the rural service area. Since the containment facility site is currently in the rural service area, the Council must add the site to the MUSA if it agrees to allow the connection to the treatment plant The Rosemount plant has a design capacity of 0.72 mgd. The average daily flow in 1990 was 0.56 mgd. Currently, the Commission estimates that it will need to expand the plant by the mid-1990s to accommodate the anticipated residential growth in Rosemount Based on plant capacity considerations, in 1989 the Council directed Rosemount to establish a land banking system to deli¢nate urban service additions (Referral File No. 14$15-1). The Council recommended land banking as an interim measure, to be used until the Council revises its regional forecasts and schedules additional treatment plant capacity. The city established a land bank in Fall, 1989 (Referral File No. 14815-2). Under the land bank, the city is limited to expanding its urban area to serve 600 additional acres or the equivalent of about 1,000 additional housing units, until the Rosemount plant is expanded. As the city receives requests for development outside, but contiguous to the current MUSA,, it submits a minor plan amendment for Council review, adding the affected area to the MUSA and reducing the available land bank acreage by the size of the affected area. Council and Waste Control Commission staff have been working with the city and representatives Of USPCI for the last year regarding the proposed connection to the Rosemount plant and its impacta would be plant capacity discharge te . Commission officials have indicated that acceptance of leachate chnically feasible in both the short and long term. For planning purposes, based on the Commission's anticipated annual average daily flow equivalent of 20,000 gallons per day, (0.02 mgd), with a peak flow of 30,000 gallons per day, connecting the containment facility to the Rosemount plant would accelerate the schedule for plant expansion by eight months. (The projected flow amounts to about 73 residential equivalent connections.) However, if capacity problems develop before an expansion is on line, the Commission could require USPCI to truck leachate to the Metro plant in the interim. with regional plans, the Council wt located in a basically heavy industr The Council previously found Rosi policy (Referral File No. 14$15-1). FINDINGS tld need to add the site to the MUSA Since the site is J area, interference with agricultural activities is not an issue. nount's rural density policies largely consistent with Council 1. The proposed amendment dl not raise an significant trans space or surface water issues y P°OII, recreation open 2 In order for the containment facility to receive regional sewer service, it must be art of the MUSA. p 3. It is technically feasible to discharge leachate from the containment facility Rosemount treatment plant. to the .. 4. The city of Rosemount will need to update its comprehensive sewerto reflect the P lan amount of wastewater to be generated by the containment facility. 5• If residential growth exceeds Council forecasts, it is possible that the Rosemount plant could run out of capacity before an expansion is on line. If this occurs, the Waste Control Commission could require UfiPCI to truck leachate to the Metro plant. 6. The proposed containment f�cility is consistent with the Council's Solid Waste Management Development C�uide/Policy Pian. 7• The proposed containment f4cihty is consistent with MDIF directives for urban -generated uses and for expanding an urban service area. RECOM MNDATIONTS That the Metropolitan Council: 1• Adopt the above findings anc Inform that city of Rosemoul modification is required. the staff report as part of these recommendations. that it may place the amendment into .effect and no plan 5 1 I 1 1 Regional Location City of Rosemount — t,.trAKK rURrS i OAR DROVE I I RANS[Y =lS+N � I DAVTOR C LAST rRMtl ANOKA CO. ANDOW91 I MAN LAK[ COON RAPIDS CONCOlANI MAPLC GtOrt 0200KLTBI BANK MENNEP", LO• IDa�ooRCENEfy Tt IDLoamo I .INDEPENDENCE %L VI[otNA METROPOLITAN COUNCIL I I O�/r AT(RTORr I 1 SIT.ItifTA "OLLTWOCD i - w:TERMwh I �• I _ �fOrltACtYS tP�y L- l I 1vICTOR t•rUCh I OR /+KETOwn I •AC Orta 1 � CARVER CO. PLAIN CHANHASSEN ---i Attach. 1 LIN WOOD 1 COLVAnuS I 111{[11 LAIL I IREw"ANO•, FOREST LANE ' LORD LAKE$ rulrE C[MTC*VILLE MYGO I EINGTOr CIRCLE Pines rOYNCS 0M049rI90 'Vitr Lr" ROt`w 7'7 n 12 oAKt rwltt. E•RI I I IDt3 L ►LTrOYTM RL -L IO lA 351 UTTL[ R•Oa R N lOSEYILL( J it . - I GOLDEN IL- LT RL R16►L -OOO M }� VALLEY I If,,syII ' RAMSEY CO. �rIRR[TORKI $T. LOUIS 14 4,861011T ►AUL RAlR a,IOrrLA►OLn ►w;Y[N IIO►RINIS., / Z� 1 B 9 ■L T _ 1 [OUA I3 qYl J _ It ipVTM L-E� IGNTAUN€iSM R'AY12' HEIGNTt E 1 7 R, [OLr IRNRI[ CNASK_ {LOOYIYGT11A -. II t c•c•R SMINGTON. (I STaltr»` 4RAMT I [i t4 LAK[ DAYteN►a LIrO, wSs... L+tLi'AL+s� ft.?#Yk r WOODBURY �r711 IT YL COTTAGE GROVE I CE"ANP /TOurG I C..AS,. NOtrOO...... ..... / D I I . ,��.. Grrn SaC'eSOw ,9 1 cotOLr[ D•«LGREh I welfauE 1 YOUNG •r ER,C, 1 BEN. 1 i SAVAGE `— A►Pu BILL Rosemount NINGEa cioP- rnot wa-&UUPC I I LDUIS VILLk �l;K[ I 4 Ni[TlRti1r I ��.�; V {:NC•CREEI I f;REVILES ,I�...�I P I r•a 5r.µq. S►R�NG I.KE d'fOIT I "i >•.• 1 I aITCi I Y[R1r ILl1OA t E. t;a Y1RGTOR I Sr L•wRENCE I JOrD•R rIbLARELET SCOTT CO. BELIE ►L•INE I ^ELENA CCD•R LAKE I I R I wlrr Or ( I Eu Ewa CASTLE ROCK YEV Nuktt I I I I a L. aoucLAb � I N[■ �R•LY[I I �11R0 I { I ■ I e•YoovR r LEsi I I 5 IC IS 2C 25 I Ga EENVALE f—TERF0.0 �•SCIOTa-; TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA Political Boundaries, 1988 1 S•RIRG PARK 9 ROUND 3J FALCON WEIGHTS 25 G[r LAR[ 2 oroRo 10 rOlRIRSDAl[ 16 r[RDOTA 26 VIt CNYOOD A NOK A 3 ■IrrETORKA VE;Cr 11 SPklkr LAKE PARK 19 LILTDALE i7 ,...ITE BE.a County Boundary ' I CEL 1DW 12 Y S LOUT. 20 GRET CLOUD 23 BAYPORT [k C[ltiDt 13NILLTC• 21 llRDf• DtORC f Gt....00D 14 COiVr+u MEIGNTS LL 2s rILLeRNiC Municipal Boundary . DE:LRoof i,^ r. . " u r+�• r July 16, 1991 ATTACHIS T 3 Metropolitan Waste Control Commission; Mears Park Centre. 230 East Fifth Street. St. Paul. Minnesota 5510 612222-842. Ms. Lynda Voge, Referrals Metropolitan Council, 230 East Fifth Street Mears Park Centre St. Paul, MN 55101 RE: Metropolitan Dear Ms. Voge: The Metropolitan W comprehensive plan az the Minnesota Indus proposes a 236 acre f provide for the sery containment facility cit Referral File Number 15468-1 to Control Commission has reviewed the idment submitted by the City of Rosemount _for ial Containment Facility. The amendment estanding Metropolitan Urban Service Area to e needs of anon -hazardous industrial waste The amendment indicates the waste containment facility will generate an estimated average daily wastewater flow of 20,000 gallons per day. iThe wastewater flow will be conveyed for treatment through the Rosemount Interceptor to the Rosemount Wastewater Treatment', Plant (WWTP). The Commission staff''have met with representatives of the City of Rosemount and the Minnesota Industrial Containment (MIC) Facility to discuss the gruality and quantity of the wastewater flows to be generated by the MIClfacility. Based on the information provided at these meetings and the data shown in the comprehensive plan amendmentcr , adeuatei, capacity is available in the Rosemount Interceptor and at the Rosemount Wk'TP to accommodate the needs of the MIC `aci'_ity. The City of Rosemoun Plan ( CSP) to show t3 MIC facility. Prio: System, an Industria Pe..,, it for Connectio: to be obtained from Very truly yours, . ' 4� R. A. Odde Municipal Services RAO:EJB:jle will need to update its Comprehensive Sewer amount of wastewater to be generated by the to connecting to the Metropolitan Disposal Discharge - Special Discharges Permit and a To or Use of Commission Facilities will need to Commission. Road 38 Source: Rosemount City Zoning N a Was an agement District.. 0 CSAH 42 --�/-� LEGEND General Industria Public/institution. Agricultural Site Boundary Wastewater Trea Plant 1 SS Jan. 7, 1992 Subject: USPCI In view of the fact th tonight is required fo enough land in the 156 to start and prove the safe for the environme generations to follow council deny their pet A the re -zoning being requested here' USPCI to begin operation. They have Acres already zoned Waste Management ,r operation is economically feasible it, the citizens of Rosemount and the is. Therefor I am requesting that the Ltion for the following reasons. 1. After the Sept';. 1989 meeting I received the agreement and trust contract between USPCI and the city. I read and returned it with comments. I also requested the corrected version',when it was done and as of this date- have not received',it. 2. In Nov. 1989 II,met with Cary Perket for about 2 hrs. and came away with a number of unanswered questions. Such as, the short time the techn-ology has been used, the type of waste' going into the cells, ENRECO's response to this ',technology, and the lack of data pertaining to liner used in this climate when exposed to the temperature extremes, moisture and Koch refinery fallout. 3. In the summer 'of 1990 there was to be a meeting set up between myself! and another council member, due to the fact I could not ',make a trip to their Oklahoma plant. That never happened. 4. After our meeting in July 1991 they were to send me some data on the 'water travel underground, air and wind data both maps and written report to look over. I have not received any,of that data to date. Jan 2. I received just a Mpls. annual wind Rose with no supporting data. 5. Sometime prio: received a call stood on the re USPCI did not ha get their re-zon that time Mary s between myself, When that meetin Jan. 2, 1992 if declined, due to in our first mee the past 2 years would not be a p to the Dec. 3, 1991 council meeting I rom Mary Schoessler asking where I oning. When it became evident that e the votes from the sitting council to ng they asked for a continuance. At .id she would try to get a meeting .nother council member and Ken Jackson. did not come about Mary asked me on wanted to meet again with Cary I the number of questions I asked of him .ing and subsequent conversations over that remained unchanged. I felt it -oductive meeting. In conclusion, after checking with the State on the differences between a Eric to verify. It is limited control over reports from the comp because non complianc to detect unless the perform un -announced hand gives us the con and if technology cha goals. This emerging technol( is changing very rapio to 5 year life span. f non -hazardous land fi in 1992 it appears fr( will be classified as list after they open. grand -children's futui that will be worth a know because they nevi or a council member tc Respectfully Yours, Harry R. Willcox Citizen and Council permit and zoning, which I will call on apparent that a permit gives us heir operation because it relies on ny, which are difficult to verify. in this technical area is difficult ity would have trained inspectors and n site inspections. Zoning on the other rol of the land, inexpensive monitoring ges the chance to re-evaluate our gy as is the case with all technologies ly, in some cases it will have only a 3 ne item they were going to put in their 1 in 1989, electronic circuit boards, m the latest information that I have hazardous. How many more will be on the Lets not mortgage our children's and e for a few 1989 trust fund dollars of less in 2010. How much less I do not r complied with my request as a citizen see the document. mber JAN 07 '92 11:35 P.2f3 NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE 1801 OPVC00 C*nftf Dove �f1y6 Raw,. eta S61S1 ' 6iZ�46?!- 67� Serving ID Eagan Chamber of Commerce Mendota Heights Chamber 4 Cptnttt*rce 0 Rosemount Chamber of Coet4m*rce West 'St. Paul Chamber Of C0111merc43 and the !Citi*$ of L"4N M+bttdttla Wo Sunfish Lake Inc- WHEREAS.- United 6tates.Pollution Control, Inc. i"USPCY") is a member of the -,Rosemount Chamber of Commerce:t ility WHHREA$, tJspa proposes 't© band �► `co ntainmen�niaMstate of non-hazardous industrial waste in Rosemount utilizing g the art" technology to protect out: environment; WHEREAS, the containment fcil.ity will improved storagemoftal quality in our community by improving handling certain classes of sold waste already being dispsed;in our area under less stringent environmental standard$« WHEREAS, the containment facility will generatein xcel Of $104 million in economic benefits to our community of and the surrounding area during its Oparatians' 'life; WHEREAS, USPC1 will establish a community trust to benefit the City Of Rosemount' and its residents in perpetuity providing funding for community improvements, public recreational facilities and economic development WHEREAS, the: containment facility will generate inxcess of $18 million to furtherand support environmental programs Rosemount and Dakota County during its operational life; WHEREAS, the containment facility will not have adverse economic consequences to °the surrounding land, visueroyriate, environmentally, or otherwise., and; represents an appropriate, practical and acceptable land use of the proposed site; and WHEREAS, USPCI's Minnesota industrial Containment 1Facility serves the bent interests of our co unity by providing "a long-germ economic and environmental partnership with the City of Rosemount, NQw, THERSPORE, be it resolved by the Ropemount Chambers of ComrTmerce, as follows% t. rhe Chamber hereby endorses and apPVOves the containment facility project proposed by USPCIs AAA