HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 06/18/1985CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1985
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING BOARDROOM
Mayor Gary D. Peterson, Richard Anderson,
George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock and Paul
Redpath
City Manager Carl J. Jullie; Assistant to
the City Manager Craig Dawson; City
Attorney Roger Pauly; Finance Director
John Frane; Planning Director Chris
Enger; Director of Community Services
Robert Lambert; Director of Public
Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording
Secretary Karen Michael
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
II. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Police Division Operations Manual
B. Clerk's License List
C. Agreement with HPB Limited Partnership regarding
special assessments for Technology Drive adjacent
to Hoyt Roberts Addition
0. Final plat, Ridgewood West Plat 5
(Resolution No. 85-141)
E. Final plat, Edenvale Executive Center Two
(Resolution No. 85-142)
F. Final plat, Mark Charles Third Addition
Tre'solution No. 85-143)
G. Petition to Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
for Smetana Lake Outlet
Page 1318
Page 1320
Page 1322
Page 1326
Page 1329
Page 1331
Page 1334
-2-
Page 1337 H. Approve Plans and Specifications for Tanager Creek
Improvements (Edenvale Boulevard) and set bid
opening for July 11, 1935, 1.C. 52-060
(Resolution No. 85-144)
I. AUTUMN WOODS 3RD ADDITION, by Trumpy Homes. 2nd
Reading of Ordinance No. 14-85, zoning district
change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 2.64 acres, RM-6.5
to R1-9.5 on 2.37 acres, approval of Developer's
Agreement for Autumn Woods 3rd Addition, and
adoption of Resolution No. 85-139, approving Summary
of Ordinance No. 14-85 and ordering publication of
said Summary. 5.01 acres into twelve single family
lots. Location: east of Highway #101, north
of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad.
(Ordinance No. 14-85 - rezoning and Resolution No.
85-139 - approving Summary and Publication)
J. RIDGEWOOD WEST PLAT V, by Centex Homes, Inc.
2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 16-85-PUD-2-85
for Planned Unit Development District Amendment
on 6.03 acres, with variances and zoning district
change from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5, approval of
Developer's Agreement for Ridgewood West Plat V,
and adoption of Reoslution No. 85-140, aprpoving
Summary of Ordinance No. 16-85-PUD-2-85 and
ordering publication of said Summary. 6.03
acres into 27 single family lots. Location:
Saratoga Lane and south of Wellington Drive.
(Ordinance No. 16-85-PUD-2-85 - rezoning and PUD
District Review and Resolution No. 85-140 -
approving Summary and Publication)
K. JUHL PACIFIC, by Opus Corporation. 2nd Reading
of Ordinance No. 18-85, zoning district change
from Rural to 1-2 Park on 4.5 acres; approval of
Developer's Agremement for Juhl Pacific, and
adoption of Resolution No. 85-145, approving
Summary of Ordinance No. 18-85 and ordering
publication of said Summary. 61,000 square foot
office/warehouse. Location: southeast corner of
Valley View Road and Equitable Drive. (Ordinance
No. 18-85 - rezoning and Resolution No. 85-145 -
approving Summary and Publication)
L. 1984 FINAL BUDGET (Resolution No. 85-154)
Page 1338
Page 1339
Page 1340
Page 1341
-3-
M. Set 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, July 16, 1985, as date
and time for stud session on Transit Alternatives
Tti-TE—cly0pt-Out
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. WOODLAKE SANITARY SERVICES, INC. Request for
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment for
approximately 313 acres; rezoning of approximately
14.44 acres in the Rural District to a district
created specifically to allow the establishment
of a temporary landfill or rezoning to a district
presently identified in the Zoning Code by amending
the permitted use section of such district to allow
the operation of a temporary landfill; Development
Stage Planned Unit Development approval for
approximately 313 acres; and authorize an expansion
of area to be used for sanitary landfill purposes
from approximately 107.1 acres to approximately
148.9 acres. Location: southeast of Flying Cloud
Drive-In Theater.
B. HERZOG ADDITION, by K.P. Properties. Request for
Zoning District Change from RI-22 to R1-13.5 on
5.35 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 5.35 acres
into ten single family lots. Location: south-
east quadrant of Duck Lake Road and South Shore
Lane. (Ordinance No. 20-85 - rezoning and Reso-
lution No. 85-151 - preliminary plat)
C. TECH IV, by Technology Park Associates. Request
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial/High
Density Residential to Office on 19.65 acres,
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 68.36
acres for Office, Office/Showroom uses, zoning dis-
trict change from Rural to 1-2 Park on 4.52 acres
and preliminary plat of 66.31 acres into one lot
for construction of a 58,600 square foot office/ware-
house, two outlots, and road right-of-way, and
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Review on
68.36 acres. Location: south and east of Valley
View Road, west of Washington Avenue, north of
Viking Drive. (Ordinance No. 19-85 - rezoning,
Resolution No. 85-147 - comprehensive Guide Plan
change, Resolution No. 85-148 - Planned Unit
Development Concept, Resolution No. 85-150 -
preliminary plat, and Resolution No. 85-149 -
Environmental Assessment Worksheet.)
Page 1342
Page 1401
Page 1402
-4-
D. PARKWAY APARTMENTS, by Bar-Ett Construction Company. Page 1403
Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to
RM-2.5 on 35.9 acres, Preliminary Plat of 35.9 acres
into five lots, and Environmental Assessment Work-
sheet (EAW) Review, for construction of five,
73-unit apartment buildings. Location: east of
Mitchell Road and east of Chestnut Drive. (Ordin-
ance No. 21-85 - rezoning, Resolution No. 85-152 -
preliminary plat, and Resolution No. 85-153 - En-
vironmental Assessment Worksheet)
IV. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 20796 - 21083 Page 1404
V. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
VI. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Lueck sewer/water connection fee. (Continued
from June 4, 1985)
REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
APPOINTMENTS
A. Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District - En-
dorsement for the reappointment of Howard Petersen
to the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District.
B. Appointment of representative to fill unexpired
term on the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources
Commission to expire 2-28-87.
IX. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS, AND COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
B. Report of City Manager
C. Report of City Attorney
D. Report of Director of Community Services
1. Round Lake Study Proposal
X. NEW BUSINESS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Page 1411
June 4, 1985
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CARL JULL1E
KEITH WALL t")
POLICE DIVISION OPERATIONS MANUAL
We've sent copies of our new Operations Manual to you, the city attorney and
city council members for review purposes. Our original manual was developed
in 1973 during our first year of operation to provide protection for both the
officers and city officials in at least the major areas of concern.
Since that time, our operation has grown considerably along with the number
of events we handle each year. It became evident in recent years that our
manual needed to be expanded considerably to meet the variety of complexities
in law enforcement today.
Approximately eighteen months ago, we set about the task of developing the new
one you now have. We used policies and regulations in use elsewhere which had
been reviewed by experts in the field and stood the test of time. These were,
of course, revised where necessary through considerable input by every
operational unit in our division. The protective language was not altered so
that its effectiveness is reduced.
We are proud of the product we've produced and all those who expended so
much effort in its development. Attached is General Provisions number 110 which
we believe highlights the real purpose of a police policy manual.
Fd p,
PC:)1_1CY" MANUAL_
( 110 GENERAL PROVISIONS
110 POLICY
Policy consists of prinicples and values which guide the performance
of a Division activity. Policy is not a statement of what must be done
in a particular situation, rather, it is a statement of guiding principles
which should be followed in activities which are directed toward the
attainment of Division objectives.
Policy is formulated by analyzing objectives and determining through
research those principles which will best guide the Division in
achieving its objectives. Policy is based upon police ethics and
experience, the desires of the community, and the mandate of the law.
Policy is articulated to inform the public and Division employees of
the principles which will be adhered to in the performance of the law
enforcement function.
An officer in the performance of histher duty is confronted with an
infinite variety of complex situations which require police action.
Since policy is objective rather than situation oriented, it is broad
enough in scope to encompass most situations. Policy, therefore,
must be stated in general terms.
ISO
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
June 18, 1985
CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.)
E & P Associates
Hans Hagen Homes
Niwinski Construction, Inc.
Northern States Power
Powers Company
CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY)
A & S Construction
Baer Builders -
Fred Cool Construction
Bernt Fosse -
Golden Eagle Builders
Hopkins Masonary
Luttennan Homes
Minnetonka Pool & Spa
Metro Custom Homes
Oslund Construction
Pacific Pool & Patio
Quality Contracting
Ruscon Homes, Inc.
Shay Construction
Sunshine Construction
Tamarack Builders of Mpls.
Wyman Builders, Inc.
PLUMBING
Aqua City Plumbing, Inc.
Burc kmuel ler Plumbing
Galaxy Mechanical Contractors
Spartan Mechanical, Inc.
Tri-Star Mechanical, Inc.
HEATING & VENTIALTING
Diversified Mechanical Services
Valley Aire, Inc.
GAS FITTER
Diversified Mechanical Services
Valley Aire
TEMPORARY BEER
Eden Prairie Lions (July 4th)
PRIVATE KENNEL
Charles Gould (see attached)
3.2 BEER OFF SALE
Superamerica
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for
the licensed activity.
Ltk
Pat Solie, Licensing
1
0
85-36
May 21, 1985
TO: Pat Solie
FROM: Les Bridger
SUBJECT: RENEWAL OF KENNEL LICENSE FOR CHARLES GOULD
I have spoken to our Animal Control Officer, Chuck Schaitberger,
concerning this license renewal application and have learned
that he has had two complaints from neighbors concerning the
noise problem caused by barking dogs owned by Mr. Gould. I
was also advised by Chuck Schaitberger that he was approached
by a party interested in the property located across from
the Gould Kennel and that the party inquired as to whether
the noise problem was going to be corrected.
I understand Mr. Gould has indicated to the City that he intends
to relocate his kennel to another jurisdiction.
On May 20, 1985, I met with Chuck Schaitberger and Mr. Gould
at the kennel where we examined the facility. Mr. Gould
advised that he is currently looking for a suitable site on
which to relocate but believes the process will take some time.
He understands that the area surrounding his kennel is under
heavy development for residential use and realizes the need
to relocate. Chuck Schaitberger will monitor all complaints
pertaining to the kennel and keep me informed.
I would suggest that a kennel license be granted for 1985 and
that we consider the matter again in 1986 if the kennel
continues to operate in this City.
LKB:sm
AGREEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
THIS IS AN AGREEMENT made this -AIS VI day of May, 1985,
between the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation (the
"City") and HPB Limited Partnership, a Minnesota Limited
Partnership (the "Owner").
A. The Owner holds legal and equitable 'title to certain real
property described on Exhibit "A" hereto (hereinafter the
"Property"). It is anticipated that the property described on
Exhibit "A" will be platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Hoyt Roberts
Addition.
B. The Owner desires to develop the Property in such a
manner that will require the construction of street and storm
sewer improvements (the "Improvements"). The construction of the
Improvements will benefit the Property.
C. In January of 1982 the City received a feasibility report
prepared by BRW which estimated that the cost of the Improvements
to be assessed against the Property would be $125,000.00. The
Owner intends to petition that the City construct the Improvements
and if so petitioned the City will order a new feasibility report.
D. The parties desire to enter into an agreement concerning
the financing of the construction of the Improvements all of which
will inure to the benefit of the Property.
AGREEMENTS
IT IS HEREBY agreed as follows:
1. The Owner consents to the levying of assessments against
the Property for the construction of the Improvements.
N44.even H. Hoyt
Managing Partruir
2. The cost to be assessed against the Property for the
construction of the Improvements will not exceed one-half of the
cost to construct a 36 foot wide (face to face of-curbs)
• industrial roadway with drainage improvements adjacent to the
Property. The actual cost shall be determined by a new feasibility
report which shall be ordered after Owner petitions for the
construction of the Improvements, subject to approval of such
feasibility report by the city council.
3. The Owner waives notice of any assessment hearing to be
held at which hearing or hearings the assessments are to be
considered by the city council and thereafter approved and levied.
4. The Owner concurs that the benefit to the Property by
virtue of the Improvements to be constructed will exceed the
amount of the assessments to be levied against the Property. The
Owner waives all rights it has by virtue of Minnesota Statute
Section 429.081 or otherwise to challenge the amount or validity
of the assessments or the procedure used by the City in apportioning
the assessments and hereby release the City, its officers, its
agents and employees from any and all liability related to or
arising out of the imposition or the levying of the assessments.
HPB LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
A Minnesota Limited Partnership
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
A Municipal Corporation
By:
Gary D. Peterson
Its Mayor
By: Carl J. JuII1F -
Its City Manager
JUDITH M. CONAT
1::nnnnnn44
My commit nn nnnn
...••n•••••n••
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1985, by Gary D. Peterson and Carl
J. Jullie, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie,
a municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Pu5iic
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
.0.40 day of 01(14,1
0'
, 1985 by Steven B. Hoyt, the
managing partner of HPB Limited Partnership, a Minnesota Limited
Partnership, on behalf of the partnership.
-V)1 bpink
Notary Public
THIS DOCUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY
Lang, Pauly & Gregerson, Ltd.
4108 IDS Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Exhibit A l
- Legal Description--Roberts Litho
That part of the Vest half of the Northeast Quarter of
Section 16, Township 116,
Range 22, described as follows:
Conaencing at the Northeast corner of said West half of the No
r
t
h
e
a
s
t
Quarter of Section 16; thence South along the East line of said West half of
the Northeast Quarter a distance of 1672.64 feet to
t
h
e
a
c
t
u
a
l
p
o
i
n
t
o
f
beginning of the tract of land to be described; thence
W
e
s
t
e
r
l
y
d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
n
g
to the right at an angle of SO degrees 23 minutes 12 se
c
o
n
d
s
,
a
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
231.31 feet; thence Southwesterly on a tangential curv
e
t
o
t
h
e
l
e
f
t
w
i
t
h
a
radius of 5829.58 feet a distance of 1097.89 feet, more
o
r
l
e
s
s
,
t
o
t
h
e
W
e
s
t
line of said West half of the Northeast Quarter; thence
S
o
u
t
h
a
l
o
n
g
s
a
i
d
West line of the West half of the Northeast .Quarter to a point therein
distant 469.05 feet North of the Southwest corner of s
a
i
d
W
e
s
t
h
a
l
f
o
f
t
h
e
Northeast Quarter; thence Easterly parallel with the Sout
h
l
i
n
e
o
f
s
a
i
d
W
e
s
t
half of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 1000.00 f
e
e
t
;
t
h
e
n
c
e
N
o
r
t
h
parallel with the West line of said West half of the No
r
t
h
e
a
s
t
Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
a
distance of 170.95 feet; thence Northeasterly to a point
i
n
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
l
i
n
e
o
f
said West Half of the Northeast Quarter; thence North alo
n
g
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
l
i
n
e
o
f
said West half of the Northeast Quarter to the actual p
o
i
n
t
o
f
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
,
except for the westerly 702.85 as measured along a line
p
a
r
a
l
l
,
p
1
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
South line of said West half of the Northeast Quarter.
4.62 Acres--Property to be Zoned 1-2 Park
Also known as: Lot 1, Block 1, Hoyt Roberts Addition.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-141
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF .
RIDGEWOOD WEST PLAT FIVE
WHEREAS, the plat of Ridgewood West Plat Five has been submitted in a manner
required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under
.Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had
thereunder, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the
regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and
ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. Plat approval request for Ridgewood West Plat Five is approved
upon compliance with the recommendation of the City -Engineer's
report on this plat dated June 10, 1985.
B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified
copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the
above named plat.
C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to
execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City
Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the City Council on June 18, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST
SEAL
John D. Franc, CleriC
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
FROM: David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician
DATE: June 10, 1985
SUBJECT: RIDGEWOOD WEST PLAT FIVE
PROPOSAL:
ocitC1-
The developer, Centex Homes Midwest, Inc., is requesting City
Council approval of the final plat of Ridgewood West Plat
Five, a medium density single family residential plat. The
proposed division contains 27 lots on 6.03 acres and is a
replat of part of Block 1 and Block 3, Ridgewood West, located
In the North 1/2 of Section 22. Outlets A through E will be
used for common access to the cluster units and will be owned
and maintained by the Homeowner Association. Outlot F will
also be owned and maintained by the Association and will
contain a walkway, providing access to the play area along
Cumbeland Road.
HISTORY:
The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on May
21, 1985, per Resolution 85-117.
Ordinance 16-85-PUD-2-85, zoning the property to RI-9.5, is
scheduled for second reading by the Council on June 18, 1985.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report is
scheduled for execution by the Council on June 18, 1985.
The final plat of Ridgewood West was approved by the Council
on March 20, 1979, per Resolution 79-58.
Underlying drainage and utility easements and right-of-way for
Saratoga Court were authorized for vacation by the City
Council on June 4, 1985, per Resolution 85-131.
VARIANCES:
Variances to be allowed are described in the Developer's
Agreement. All other variance requests must be processed
through the Board of Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS:
Municipal utilities and streets will be installed througout
the addition by the Developer in conformance with City
standards.
I'6
Page 2, Final Plat Ridgewood West Plat Five, 6/10/85
Ownership and maintenance responsibilities for walkways to be
installed are explained in the Developer's Agreement.
PARK DEDICATION:
The requirements for park dedication are covered in the
Developer's Agreement.
BONDING:
The requirements for bonding are covered in the Developer's
Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the final plat of Rdigewood West Plat
Five subject to the requirements of this report, the
Developer's Agreement and the following:
1. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of
$1,872.
2. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $1,080.
3. Satisfaction of bonding requirements.
4. Second reading of Ordinance 16-85-PUD-2-85.
5. Execution of the Developer's Agreement.
DLO:sg
cc: Tom Boyce
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-142
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
EDENVALE EXECUTIVE CENTER TWO
WHEREAS, the plat of Edenvale Executive Center Two has been submitted in a
manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and
.under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly
had thereunder, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the
regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and
ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. Plat approval request for Edenvale Exeative Center Two is
approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City
Engineer's report on this plat dated June 11, 1985.
B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified
copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the
above named plat.
C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to
execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City
Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the City Council on June 18, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST
SEAL
John D. Franc, Cleri.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works •
David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician .452
June 11, 1985
EDENVALE EXECUTIVE CENTER TWO
The developer, Opus Corporation, has requested City Council
approval of the final plat of Edenvale Executive Center Two
located south of Valley View Road and east of Equitable Drive
In the South 1/2 of Section 10. The proposal is a replat of
Outlot B, Edenvale Executive Center, containing 4.5 acres
intended for the construction of an office/warehouse building.
The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on June
4, 1985, per Resolution 85-128.
Ordinance 18-85, zoning the property to 1-2 Park, is scheduled
for second reading by the Council on June 18, 1985.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report is
scheduled for execution on June 18, 1985.
All variance requests not covered through the Developer's
Agreement must be processed through the Board of Appeals.
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PROPOSAL:
HISTORY:
VARIANCES:
UTILITIES AND STREETS:
All municipal utilities and streets necessary to serve the
site are being installed by the Developer.
PARK DEDICATION:
The requirements for park dedication are covered in the
Developer's Agreement.
BONDING:
No public utilities or streets will be installed within this
plat, therefore, bonding will not be required.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the final plat of Edenvale Executive
Center Two subject to the requirements of this report, the
Developer's Agreement and the following:
1. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $250.00.
DLO:sg
cc: Mr. John Lassen
Mr. Roy Hansen
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-143
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
MARK CHARLES THIRD ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of Mark Charles Third Addition has been submitted in a
-manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and
under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly
had thereunder, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the
regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and
ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW,' THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. Plat approval request for Mark Charles Third Addition is
approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City
Engineer's report on this plat dated June 10, 1985.
B. Variance is herein granted from City Code 12.20 Subd. 2.A.
waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the approval
date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat as
described in said engineer's report.
C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified
copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the
above named plat.
D. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to
execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City
Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the City Council on June 18, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST SEAL
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works .
David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician
DATE: June 10, 1985
.SUBJECT: MARK CHARLES THIRD ADDITION
PROPOSAL:
The developer, Urban Unit Corporation, has requested Cit
y
Council approval of the final plat of Mark Charles Thir
d
Addition. The plat is located east of Franlo Road and sou
t
h
of County Road 1 in the South 1/2 of Section 25. Th
i
s
addition constitutes phase 3 of the Mark Charles developme
n
t
and consists of 14 residential multiple units. Outlot A wi
l
l
contain a private roadway to be owned and maintained by
a
homeowner association.
HISTORY:
The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council
o
n
October 18, 1983, per Resolution 83-252.
Zoning to RM 6.5 and RI-9.5 was finally read and approved
b
y
the City Council on November 1, 1983, per Ordinance 51-83.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report
w
a
s
executed on November 1, 1983.
VARIANCES:
A variance from the requirement of City Code 12.20, Subd. 2
.
A
,
waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the appro
v
a
l
date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat w
i
l
l
be necessary.
All other variance requests riot covered in the Develope
r
'
s
Agreement must be processed through the Board of Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS:
The utilities, streets and walkways installed within Outlot
A
will be privately owned and maintained with construction to
b
e
in conformance with City Standards. An explanation o
f
maintenance responsibilities, in a format acceptable to
t
h
e
City Attorney, must be submitted to the Director of Publi
c
Works prior to release of the final plat. Provisions fo
r
street lights (private) should be included in this maintenanc
e
provision).
Page 2, Final Plat Mark Charles Third Addition
Since units receiving access from the private roadway will be
addressed from the private road, the developer must submit
proposed street names to the Engineering Department. The
proposed name must not conflict with any existing street names
and must be approved by the Director of Public Works prior to
release of the final plat.
• PARK DEDICATION:
The requirements for park dedication are covered in the
Developer's Agreement.
BONDING:
The requirements for bonding are covered in the Developer's
Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the final plat of Mark Charles Third
Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the
Developer's Agreement and the fallowing:
1. Receipt of fee for engineering in the amount of
$560.00.
2. Receipt of utility and roadway maintenance statement.
3. Receipt of satisfactory street name for private
roadway (Outlot A).
4. Satisfaction of bonding requirement.
DLO:sg
cc: Mr. Mark Peterka
Mr. Charlie Combs
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
RE: .
Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
June 11, 1985
Smetana Lake Outlet
In the past weeks, Staff has had occasion to meet with representatives of the
Nine Mile Creek Watershed District on a variety of matters. During
discussions regarding Smetana Lake, they have advised us that it would be wise
to petition the Watershed District for construction of an outlet structure for
Smetana Lake. We are told that Smetana Lake is the next logical improvement
project for the Watershed District, behind the work that has been ongoing in
Bloomington. However, this project would not be included in the budget
process unless a petition is submitted by the City of Eden Prairie.
This petition is essentially idenitical to the one that was submitted to the
Riley Purgatory Watershed District for study and eventual construction of the
chain of lakes outlet system for Round Lake, Mitchell Lake, Red Rock Lake and
McCoy Lake. The provision exists that we will be responsible for the cost of
the feasibility report if the project is not constructed. Based on the level
of construction activity in the Watershed District at present, we are told
that it will he approximately 4 years before any construction for the Smetana
Lake outlet could commence. However, this petition would secure our position
in the District's priority list.
The discussion at the June 4 Council Meeting during the Vantage presentation
indicates that the course of action is not clear for Smetana Lake. This
petition will first allow for the preparation of a feasibility report which
will study the impacts and needs of the lake and if we can concur on the
proper solution, the project can go forward.
In summary, we do need a permanent outlet for Smetana Lake, but the exact
elevation and resulting impacts need to be studied further before a decision
can be made. Therefore, Staff recommends that a petition be submitted to the
Nine Mile Creek Watershed District so that study can be made and if feasible,
the City can secure a budgetary priority for future work.
EAD:sg
PETITION OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE TO THE
NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE OUTLET FOR SMETANA LAKE
I. AUTHORITY
This petition, submitted pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes SS 112.48 and 112.61, Subdivision 3, requests the Managers
of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District undertake the Smetana Lake
Project within the City of Eden Prairie. The general concept and
objectives to be gained by said project are more fully specified on
page 26 of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Overall Plan, dated
1973, developed by the Watershed District pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes 1971, Chapter 112, the Watershed Act. The project is in
conformity with the overall plan for the Nine Mile Creek Watershed
District (hereinafter District) and is part of the basic water
management plan of the District.
II. PURPOSE AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK PROPOSED
Fluctuating lake levels are a problem with Smetana Lake. The
shoreline and banks surrounding the lake show the effects of
continuously fluctuating lake levels. The purpose of the plan is to
reduce the problems associated with fluctuating levels, by installing
an outlet for the lake, and with a stabilized lake level, a flood
level for the lake can be established and urbanization can continue
in an orderly fashion.
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE LANDS OVER WHICH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT IS
LOCATED
The lands upon which the project improvement will be located are
situated entirely in the City of Eden Prairie and are tributary to
Smetana Lake. The lands are located in Sections 12 and 13, T116N,
R22W.
IV. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PART OF THE DISTRICT AFFECTED
The area to he served by the proposed outlet includes District lands
in the southern portion of the Nine Mile Creek watershed that are
tributary to Smetana Lake.
V. NEED AND NECESSITY FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT
The Petitioner recognizes the need for the construction of outlets
for lakes in an urbanizing area. The lake outlet will stabilize lake
levels thereby allowing flood elevations to be established and
enabling development to proceed in an orderly fashion.
VI. THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT WILL BE CONDUCIVE TO THE
P
U
B
L
I
C
H
E
A
L
T
H
,
CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE
The City Council of Eden Prairie, on the bas
i
s
o
f
s
t
a
f
f
a
n
d
consultant reports, has determined that the pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
will be conducive to the public health, conve
n
i
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
w
e
l
f
a
r
e
.
Completion of the outlet system will provide a mea
n
s
o
f
r
e
d
u
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
problems associated with fluctuating lake levels.
T
h
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
i
l
l
also minimize impacts on the shorelines and ba
n
k
s
o
f
t
h
e
b
a
s
i
n
associated with the fluctuating lake levels.
VII. FINANCING OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT
This project is included in the Nine Mile Creek W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
Policy Statement regarding Project Financing as
a
F
i
r
s
t
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
Project. As such, it is eligible for 100% financin
g
b
y
t
h
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
The project proposed by this petition is of com
m
o
n
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
t
o
t
h
e
entire District and is a part of the basic water
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
o
f
the District. The petitioner requests that the c
o
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
be financed in the manner provided by Minnesot
a
S
t
a
t
u
t
e
S
1
1
2
.
6
1
,
Subdivision 3.
VIII. FINANCING OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY
The Petitioner hereby states that it will pay
a
l
l
t
h
e
costs and
expenses which may be incurred in case the procee
d
i
n
g
s
a
r
e
d
i
s
m
i
s
s
e
d
or for any reason no contract for the constructi
o
n
t
h
e
r
e
o
f
i
s
l
e
t
.
If the proceedings are not dismissed and a contra
c
t
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
of the project is let, the Petitioner requests t
h
a
t
t
h
e
c
o
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
feasibility study be financed as a cost of the pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
n
t
h
e
m
a
n
n
e
r
provided by Minnesota Statutes S112.61, Subd
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
3
a
n
d
t
h
a
t
Petitioner be reimbursed by the Nine Mile Creek
W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
for monies which it expends in connection with th
e
f
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
s
t
u
d
y
.
IX. PETITIONER RIGHT OF WITHDRAWAL
"Petitioner hereby reserves the right to withdraw
t
h
i
s
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
a
t
any time. If Petitioner does withdraw this petit
i
o
n
,
P
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
'
s
liability for costs and expenses shall be limited
t
o
t
h
o
s
e
i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d
up to the time of withdrawal unless such.costs a
n
d
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
a
r
i
s
e
under a separate contractural obligation."
Dated June 18, 1985
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
By
Mayor
By
City Manager
The foregoing petition and its execution by the
M
a
y
o
r
a
n
d
C
i
t
y
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
o
f
the City of Eden Prairie was authorized at a reg
u
l
a
r
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
E
d
e
n
Prairie City Council held on the 18th day of June,
1
9
8
5
.
ATTEST:
C1-&-.177tity of Eden P7iT7li
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 85-144
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS .
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the
following improvements to wit:
I.C. 52-060, Sanitary Sewer, Water Main, Storm Sewer and
Street Improvements for Tanager Creek
and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file for public
Inspection in the City Engineer's office, are hereby approved.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official
paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon
the making of such improvement under such approved plans and
specifications. The advertisement shall be published for 3 weeks,
shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids shall be
received until 10:00 A.M., Thursday, July 11, 1985, at City Hall
after which time they will be publically opened by The Deputy City
Clerk and Engineer, will then be tabulated, and will be considered by
the Council at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, July 16, 1985, at the Eden Prairie
School Administration Building, 8100 School Road, Eden Prairie. No
bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and
accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified
check payable to the City for 5% (percent) of the amount of such bid.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 18, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
SEAL
John D. Franc, Clerk
Autumn Woods 3rd Addition
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 14-85
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99'
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance
(hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be
removed from the Rural and RM-6.5 District and be placed in the R1-9.5 District.
Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be,
and hereby is removed from the Rural and RM-6.5 District and shall be included
hereafter in the R1-9.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land in each
District referred to in City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B,
shall be, and are amended accordingly.
• Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of
that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of June 18, 1985, entered into between
Trumpy Homes, and the City of Eden Prairie, which agreement is hereby made a part
hereof.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the 7th day of May, 1985, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 18th day of
June.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City -C-Terk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
/ _F.: b
Exhibit A
Legal Description
RM 6.5 TO Ri-9.5
That part of Outlet J, Autumn Woods 1st Addition according to the
plot thereof on file and of record in the office of the County
Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest Corner of said Outlet J, thence OA
an assumed bearing of North, alohg the west line of said Outlet
a distance of 387.94 feet; thence South 84 degrees 42
minutes 26 seconds East a distance of 47.00 feet; thence South
84 degrees 15 minutes 05 seconds East a distance of A7.00 feet;
thence South 84 degrees 28 minutes 26 seconds East a distance
of 132.74 feet, thence easterly a distance of 140.27 feet along
a tangential curve concave to the North having a radius of
423.74 feet and a central angle of 18 degrees 57 minutes 53
seconds; thence South 13 degrees 26 minutes 44 seconds East,
nontangent to said curve, a distance of 160.43 feet to the
southeasterly line of said Outlot J; thence South 61 degrees 21
minutes 19 seconds West, along said southeasterly line,
distance of 458.38 feet to the point of beginning.
RURAL TO R1-8,5
That part of outlet A, Autumn Woods let Addition, according to the
plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County
Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying easterly of the
following described line:
Commencing at the most westerly corner of said Outlet A, thence
on an assumed bearing of North 50 degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds
East, along the northwesterly line of said Outlet A, a distance
of 105.80 feet tq the point of beginning of the line to be
described; thence South 8 degrees 41 minutes 30 seconds West a
distance of 73.69 feet, more or less, to the southerly line of
said outlet A and there terminating.
Also, '
That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of
Section 7, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota
lying southerly of the southerly liee of Rymarland Camp, northerly
and northwesterly of the northerly and northwesterly line of
Autumn Woods 1st Addition, all according to the plats thereof on
file and of record in the office of the county Recorder, Hennepin
County, Minnesota and easterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the most westerly corner of Outlet A, said Autumn
Woods 1st Addition; thence on an assumed bearing of North 50
degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds East a distnce of 105.80 feet to
the poioi of beginning of the line to be described; thence
North 8 degrees Al minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 113.86
feet, more or less, to said southerly line of Rymarland Camp
and there terminating.
RURAL TO R1-8.5
Outlet C, Autumn Wood.. 11: Addltino, accord lug to the plat
thereof on file and of iecord in the office of the County
Recurdvr, Mein:vein County, Minnesota.
,1
Autumn Woods 3rd Addition
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of
1985, by and between TRUMPY HOMES, INC., a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter
referred to as "Developer," and the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City;"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for approval of a zoning district
change from Rural to R1-9.5 for 2.64 acres and from RM-6.5 to R1-9.5 for 2.37 acres,
totalling 5.01 acres, and preliminary plat of 5.01 acres into twelve single family
lots, located south of Rymarland Camp Additions, North of the Chicago, Milwaukee,
and St. Paul Railroad, and southwest of Paulsen's 2nd Addition, situated in Hennepin
County, State of Minnesota, and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and
made a part hereof, said entire 5.01 acres hereinafter referred to as the
"property;" and,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance No. 14-85,
Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development and maintenance of
the property as follows:
1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the
materials revised and dated June 13, 1985, reviewed and approved by
the Eden Prairie City Council on May 7, 1985, and attached hereto as
Exhibit 13, subject to such changes and modifications as provided
herein. Developers shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain
the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein.
2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by
Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of
all terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in
Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Prior to release of the final plat by the City, the Developer shall
enter into a special assessment agreement for the construction of
Dell Road adjacent to and through the property. The agreement will
specify that the City will be responsible for the grading and
oversizing costs beyond a 32-foot wide (back to back of curb) costs
and the Developer shall be responsible for a typical 32-foot wide
street, in accordance with City standards, to include sidewalk
and/or bike trail.
4. Prior to release of the final plat by the City, Developer shall
submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City Engineer's
approval of the following:
A. Detailed drainage and erosion control plans, sanitary sewer,
storm sewer, water, and street plans.
B. Plans indicating the necessary right-of-way for Dell Road
along Lots 24, 25, and 27.
C. Detailed storm water run-off plans, as a temporary solution,
to carry storm water run-off to the swale along the railroad
tracks.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developers agree to construct or
Implement, or cause to be constructed or implemented, those
improvements listed above, as 'approved by the City Engineer, in
accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached
hereto.
5. Developers agree to notify the City and Watershed District at least
48 hours prior to grading, or tree removal on the site.
6. Developer agrees to confine grading to that area of the property
within the construction limits. Developer shall place snow fencing
at the construction limits within the wooded areas prior to any
grading upon the property.
In the event that any trees located outside of the construction
limits are removed, damaged, or destroyed, the Developer agrees
that, prior to issuance of any building permit for the property,
Developer shall submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the
Director's approval of a replacement plan for all trees removed,
damaged, or destroyed outside of the construction area. Developer
further agrees that said trees shall be replaced by similar tree
species, diameter inch for diameter inch (i.e. a Red Oak 12 inches
in diameter may be replaced by three Red Oaks four inches in
diameter). The trees used for replacement shall be no less than
three inches in diameter.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer shall
implement, or cause to be implemented, those improvements listed
above in said plans, as approved by the Director of Planning.
7. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property,
Developer shall submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the
Director's approval of a housing development plan, keying specific
unit types to lots in accordance with City policy.
8 e.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer shall
implement, or cause to be implemented, those plans listed above, as
approved by the Director of Planning.
8. Concurrent with building construction, Developer agrees to construct
a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the Paulsen Drive extension
through the property as depicted on Exhibit B.
?i3 8
AutuTn Woods 3rd Addition
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-139
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 14-85 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 14-85 was adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 18th day of June,
1985;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 14-85, which is
attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said
text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said
ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a
body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in
, Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07.
C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for
inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office
of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance
shall be posted in the City Hall.
D. That Ordinance No. 14-85 shall be recorded in the ordinance book,
along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein,
within 20 days after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on June 18, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, ity Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 14-85
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99,
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located east of
Highway #1-0-4 -NTOrth of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad, known as
Autumn Woods 3rd Addition, from the Rural and RM-6.5 Districts to the R1-9.5
District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit
A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
/s/John D. Frane
City Clerk
/s/Gary D. Peterson
Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1985.
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.)
/
Ridgewood West Plat V
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 16-85-PUD-2-85
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 '
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance
(hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be
removed from the R1-13.5 District and be placed in the Planned Unit Development 2-
85-R1-9.5 District (hereinafter "PUD 2-85-R1-9.5").
Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of
that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of June 18, 1985, entered into between
Centex Homes, Inc., and the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter "Developer's
Agreement"). The Developer's Agreement and Supplement contains the terms and
conditions of PUD 2-85-R1-9.5, and are hereby made a part hereof.
Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings:
A. PUD 2-85-R1-9.5 is not in conflict with the goals of the Guide Plan
of the City.
B. PUD 2-85-R1-9.5 is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and
unified environment within its own boundaries.
C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of
the City Code, which are contained in PUD 2-85-R1-9.5, are justified
by the design of the development described therein.
D. PUD 2-85-R1-9.5 is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement
that its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a
complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit.
Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and
hereby is, removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the
Planned Unit Development 2-85-R1-9.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land in
each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03, subdivision 1, subparagraph B,
shall be and ate amended accordingly.
Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the 21st day of May, 1985, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 18th day of
June.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
/
Exhibit A
Legal Description
Zoning:
Lots 45-51, Block 1, and Lots 6-12, Block 3, Ridgewood West, Hennepin County
,
Minnesota
Platting:
Lots 45-51, Block 1, and Lots 6-12, Block 3, Ridgewood West, and Outlots D and E, Ridgewood West Plat 4, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Ridgewood West Plat V
PUD-2-85-DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENTS
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of
, 1985,
by and between Centex Hmes Midwest, Inc., a Nevada corporation, hereinafter referred
to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation,
hereinafter referred to as "City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer has applied for Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to
R1-9.5-PUD-2-85, with variances, Planned Unit Development District Review on 88
acres, and preliminary platting of 6.03 acres, situated Hennepin County, State of
Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof
and hereinafter referred to as "the property;" and,
WHEREAS, Developer desires to develop the property as 27 single family
cluster lots, based on revised plans dated April 11, 1985;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #16-85-PUD-
2-85, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and
maintenance of said property as follows:
1. Developer shall plat and develop the property in conformance with
the materials dated April 11, 1985, as revised, reviewed and
approved by the City Council on May 21, 1985, and attached hereto as
Exhibit 8, and made a part hereof, subject to such changes and
modifications as are provided herein. Developer shall not develop,
construct upon, or maintain the property in any other respect or
manner than provided herein.
2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by
Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of
all the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in
Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Prior to release by the City of the Final Plat, Developer shall
submit to the Director of Planning and receive the Director's
approval of plans for the overall site development, indicating the
proposed decking, consolidation of mail boxes, signage, lighting,
landscaping, and site fencing. Said plan shall also include a
three-foot high privacy fence located parallel to the driveway
entrances to screen parking areas on all cluster lots.
4. Concurrent with building construction, proponent shall construct, or
cause to be constructed, a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk on
private property along the south side of Wellington Drive, which
shall be maintained by the homeowners' association.
5. Developer agrees to development of the property shall take place in '
accordance with Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Ridgewood West Plat V
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-140
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 16-85 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 16-85 was adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 21st day of May,
1985;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 16-85, which is
attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said
text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said
ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a
body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in
Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07.
C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for
Inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office
of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance
shall be posted in the City Hall.
D. That Ordinance No. 14-85 shall be recorded in the ordinance book,
along with proof of Publication required by paragraph 8 herein,
within 20 days after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on June 18, 1985.
Gary O. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 16-85-PUD-2-85
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99,
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Sumary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located at Saratoga
Lane, south of Wellington Drive, known as Ridgewood West Plat V, from the R1-13.5
District to the PUD-R1-9.5 District, subject to the terms and conditions of a
developer's agreement; Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full
legal description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
/s/John D. Frane
/s/Gary D. Peterson '
City Clerk
Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the
day of , 1985.
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.)
Juhl Pacific
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 18-85
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance
(hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be
removed from the Rural District and be placed in the 1-2 Park District.
Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be,
and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the
1-2 Park District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to
in City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are
amended accordingly.
Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of
that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of June 18, 1985, entered into between
J. P. Partners, Limited, a Minnesota limited partnership, and the City of Eden
Prairie, and that certain Owner's Supplement to Developer's Agreement, between the
Equitable Life Assurance Society of the %United States, a New York corporation, and
the City of Eden Prairie, dated as of June 18, 1985, which Agreement and Owner's
Supplement are hereby made a part hereof.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall .become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the 4th day of June, 1985, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 18th day of
June, 1985.
ATTEST:
'an D. Franc, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
Exhibit A
Legal Description
Outlot 8, Block 1, Edenvale Executive Center Two, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Juhl Pacific
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of
, 1985, by
J. P. Partners Limited, a Minnesota limited partnership, hereinafter referred to as
"Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter
referred to as "City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Zoning District Change for 4.5
acres from the Rural District to the 1-2 Park District for construction of a 63,639
square foot building for office/warehouse purposes, situated in Hennepin County,
State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a
part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the property;"
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #18-85,
Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of
said property as follows:
1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the
materials revised and dated May 30, 1985, reviewed and approved by
the City Council on June 4, 1985, and attached hereto as Exhibit B,
subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein.
Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain the
property in any other respect or manner than provided herein.
2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by
Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of
all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in
Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property,
Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City
Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water,
storm sewer, and erosion control for the property.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or
cause to he constructed, those improvements listed above in said
plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit
C, attached hereto.
4. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property,
Developer shall submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the
Director's approval of:
A. Samples of the exterior materials for the structure,
including colors to be used. Said materials shall be
consistent with the overall development framework of the
Edenvale Executive Park.
B. Revised plans indicating the location of sidewalk
connection(s) from the entry areas of the building to the
trail system along Valley View Road.
C. Revised landscaping and screening plans which depict
screening of the parking and loading areas from the public
streets and surrounding lots.
D. An overall signage plan, in conformance with the overall
develoment framework of the Edenvale Executive Park.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to
construct, or cause to be constructed, all those improvements listed
above, as approved by the Director of Planning.
5. Concurrent with construction of the structure, Developer agrees to
construct the sidewalk connection to Valley View Road, as listed
above in 4. B.
6. Developer agrees to utilize no lighting which causes glare beyond
the boundaries of the site. Developer further agrees that all
lighting fixtures on the site shall be accomplished through the use
of cut-off luminars, which provide for downcast lighting.
7. Developer agrees that screening of the rooftop mechanical equipment
shall be accomplished by grouping mechanical units together and
screening the units with the same pre-finished metal approved for
the slanted roof of the office portion of the building. Developer
further agrees that the screening shall be constructed so as to be
at the same pitch as is utilized for the office roof portion of the
structure.
8. The south building elevation shall be revised to depict brick as an
exterior material extending around the southeast and southwest
corners of the building and terminating at the first loading bay in
from each corner, except that brick shall continue across the entire
top of the building from the top of the loading bays to the roof of
the structure. Rock-face block shall be utilized in lieu of brick
on the south elevation, in all areas not required to be brick.
OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT
TO
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
J. P. PARTNERS LIMITED
AND THE
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of
, 1985, by
and between Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, a New York
corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Owner," and the City of Eden Prairie,
hereinafter referred to as "City:"
For and in consideration of, and to induce, City to adopt Ordinance #18-85
changing the zoning of the property owned by Owner from Rural to 1-2 and Office as
more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of
, 1985, by and between J. P. Partners Limited and City, Owners
agree with the City as follows:
1. If J. P. Partners Limited, fails to proceed in accordance with the
Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owner
shall not oppose the rezoning of the property to Rural.
2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner,
its successors, heirs, and assigns of the property.
3. If the Owner transfers such property, Owner shall obtain an
agreement from the transferree requiring that such transferee agree
to the terms of the Developer':; Agreement.
EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY
OF THE UNITED STATES
By K. E. Schumacher, Eden Land Sales
Agent for Equitable Life Assurance
Society of the United States
/
Juhl Pacific
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-145
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 18-85 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY.
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 18-85 was adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 4th day of June,
1985;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. That the text of the •summary of Ordinance No. 18-85, which is
attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said
text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said
ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a
body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in
Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07.
C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for
Inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office
of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance
shall be posted in the City Hall.
D. That Ordinance No. 18-85 shall be recorded in the ordinance book,
along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein,
within 20 days after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on June 18, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John 0. Franc, CityThrk
V=3
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 18-85
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99,
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located at the
southeast corner of Valley View Road and Executive Drive, known as Juhl Pacific from
the Rural District to the 1-2 Park District, subject to the terms and conditions of
a developer's agreement.- Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full
legal description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
/s/John D. Frane
City Clerk
/s/Gary D. Peterson
Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1985.
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.)
/a.
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Carl Jullie
DATE: June 14, 1985
RE: 1984 Budget Resolution 85-154
The annual audit report for the 1984 budget year is nearing completion and will be
issued by July I. At this time it is requested that the Council formally authorize
certain amendments to the 1984 Budget in the following areas.
Corporation Council; +$27,300. During our 1985 Budget discussions we
identified the increased costs in this area due to development projects.
Computer Equipment; +$45,200. The Council authorized this increase in
September.
Inspections; +$61,000. The Council authorized additional help to handle
the volume in 1984.
Prosecution; +$46,100. An increase in the number of offenders coupled
with the ever increasing complexity of DWI laws. We also have respon-
sibility for gross misdemeanors. Our case load is equal to the City
of Edina's.
Planning; +$15,000. Council authorized additional help to handle 1984's
activity.
The total 1984 Budget would change from $5,692,000 to $5,907,600. Total
1984 Revenues were $5,920,005; 1984 actual expenditures were $5,888,394.
The addition to the General Fund Balance is $31,600; the balance now
stands at $947,600.
1 'L LI
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-154
Amending the 1984 Budget
BE IT RESOLVED that the 1984 Budget be amended from $5,692,000
to $5,907,600.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on *lime 18, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
SEAL
ATTEST;
John D. Frane, Clerk.
(4.
(A COPY OF THIS LETTER WAS SENT TO EVERY MEMBER OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL)
LANG. PAULY & GREGERSON, LTD.
A 11 OHNrYS AT LAW
IMM K11 LAN),
MY,A It A FAM1
KVIN
RR HAIM F M60%
MARK) /FINKON
Ill)) I'll A NILAN
JOHN LAM;
DIANA P MASSD
4111m IDS (TNILIt
SOla It 1.1011111 SI kEE1
MINNEAhrt mINNI -Sul A !sacr.,
1 ELLPHONE: (612) 338,075!..
June 11, 1985
Mr. Mike McLaughlin
Member, Metropolitan Council
275 Summit Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Mr. McLaughlin:
A request to expand the Flying Cloud Landfill by 5,644
acre feet will come before the Council on Thursday, June 13.
The Environmental Resources Committee has passed the matter
on to the Council without recommendation. On the first vote
before the Environmental Resources Committee, a motion to
recommend approval of the permit for the expansion failed
on a 2 to 3 vote. The Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory
Committee voted to recommend approval of the permit with
2 members voting in opposition to that recommendation. The
purpose of this letter is to set forth the position of the
City of Eden Prairie with reference to the proposed permit.
First, we wish to advise the Council of the action that
has been taken by City Commissions thus far in the process.
BFI has submitted an application to the City requesting
certain land use amendments and approvals. They have also
recently amended their request subsequent to determinations
by the City's Planning Commission and Parks, Recreation and
Natural Resource Commission. The City's Planning Commission
held public hearings on April 22 and May 28. On June 3,
the City's Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
considered the BFI proposal. Both Commissions voted unani-
mously to deny approval of the expansion.
The original application of BFI is scheduled for public
hearing before the Eden Prairie City Council on June 18.
The imended application will have a public hearing on July 2,
1985.
The second matter which the City wishes to bring to
the Council's attention concerns groundwater contamination.
Mr. Mike McLaughlin
Page Two
June 11, 1985
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) concludes that
leachate from the landfill as expanded could reach Grass
Lake and exceed MPCA's Surface Water Quality Standards for
some parameters. The EIS concludes that effects on the
Minnesota River should he negligible due to dilution but
that there could be long-term accumulation of pollutants,
such as metals, adding to those from other gources, which
might impact the biota.
Equally of concern are the conclusions of the expert
hired by Hennepin County to review the draft EIS, GME Con-
sultants, Inc. The concerns of GME are identified in their
letter of June 5, 1984, to Hennepin County, which is attached
as an exhibit to the EIS. In addition to the concern over
leachate reaching Grass Lake or the Minnesota River, GME
alerts that there is a legitimate concern for pollution of
the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer. GME states that the
hydrogeological data indicates that leachate may, in fact,
flow downward into the aquifer dolomite. Once the leachate
reaches the dolomite, there is insufficient data upon which
to predict where it will flow. Numerous times in its report
GME states that there is insufficient hydrogeological data
to either support the conclusions of the draft EIS or to
predict where the leachate will, in fact, flow. GME states
that:
Due to the lack of sufficient hydrogeo-
logic and groundwater flow data as discussed
above, and the lack of a complete analysis,
the conclusions reported in the [draft]
EIS on leachate movement have no scien-
tific or engineering basis.
Additional data and a thorough analysis
of the leachate and its interaction with
the groundwater is required.
GME's conclusion that there is insufficient data upon
which to predict leachate movement is supported by analysis
made by a staff member of the Metropolitan Council. In a
February 14, 1985, memorandum regarding the draft permit,
Pat Leonard-Mayer states that:
The major problem with respect to flow
is not the future impact on the system
hut the lack of information describing
the existing flow systems.
7.) 4
Mr. Mike McLaughlin
Page Three
June 11, 1985
Any time we deal with hydrologic informa-
tion, there is a concern about the amount
of data. How much is enough. The problem
at Flying Cloud and other landfills along
the Minnesota River is that they are
extremely close to a major discharge
area. As a result, the changes in the
direction and rate of flow are greater
than they would likely be at any greater.
distance further back away from the bluff.
The landfill is located right where all
the hydrologic action is happening, and
more data is needed to understand the
flow system in this situation.
The final EIS (which took into account GME's comments
on the draft EIS) concludes that, if there is no silt layer
under the existing landfill, "any leachate generated could
move quickly downward into the groundwater system."
The City concurs that more information is needed before
an expansion of this size is allowed to proceed. The City
can imagine no circumstance under which the Council would
allow a new facility to be developed without this information
being on hand prior to development. Fifty-six percent of
the expansion request (3,169 acre feet) consists of a vertical
expansion upon the existing landfill. The existing landfill
does not have a leachate liner below it. The EIS states
that there is insufficient data on which to conclude that
there is a silt layer beneath the existing landfill which
would serve to impede the flow of leachate down further to
the groundwater. A liner system is being required under
the horizontal expansion of 2,475 acre feet. The City doubts
that the Metropolitan Council would approve a new landfill
of 3,169 acre feet being developed without a leachate liner.
Yet, approval of the Flying Cloud expansion will do just
that.
The City's final point concerns the Metropolitan Council's
own Solid Waste Policy Plan. The Policy Plan states that
"Where must be a shift away in the current philosophy that
dilution of pollutants is an acceptable means of environmental
protection."
Even assuming discharge of leachate into the Minnesota
River or Grass Lake, and not elsewhere in the Prairie du
Chien-Jordan aquifer, dilution of pollutants is being relied
upon for this landfill and its expansion. This is not in
accord with the Policy Plan.
Mr. Mike McLaughlin
Page Four
June 11, 1985
Under the Policy Plan, land disposal is targeted as
a waste management practice of last resort. The idea is
to discourage early development of new capacity so that
resource recovery efforts are not hindered. Accordingly,
landfilling of mixed municipal solid waste is prohibited
after 1990. This provision is now incorporated into law.
However, allowing the expansion to take place will provide
2,412 acre feet of capacity not needed by Hennepin County
from 1985 to the year 2000. In addition, the permit is being
sought 6 years prior to the date at which new capacity for
Hennepin County is needed.
Without any change in waste management (no resource
recovery), 7 to 9 years of capacity remain available in
existing disposal systems. The Policy Plan states that that
period of time will be longer if major reduction in recovery
projects is implemented. While the total expansion is not
in excess of the region's needs for the years 1985 to 2000,
it is in conflict with the Plan by providing that capacity
at a much earlier point in time. The expansion in effect
would provide 65% of the entire 7-county area's need to the
year 2000. Eden Prairie believes that it is simply not
equitable for one city to bear that large of a proportion
of a 7-county burden, especially in light of the fact that
the landfill has already been in existence for 15 years.
The residents of the City were told in 1970 that the landfill
would close in 1982. Should the expansion be allowed to
take place, the facility will certainly be operating through
the year 2000, making it a 30-year "temporary" land use.
In the recent legislative session, BFI lobbied the
legislature to defeat a proposed amendment to the Waste
Management Act that would repeal the exemption this facility
has from the Council's certificate of need process. During
that lobbying BFI told the Senate Committee considering the
amendment that the Metropolitan Council would review need
in any event. Before the Environmental Resources Committee,
BFI's representative agreed that this was the time for the
Council to consider the need for this facility. The City
urges the Council to enforce the Policy Plan and conclude,
as the City has, that the permitting of this facility at
this point in time is not consistent with that Plan and will
be detrimental to the Council's resource recovery efforts.
Mr. Mike McLaughlin
Page Five
June 11, 1985
Representatives of the City will be present at the Council
meeting on *June 13 and will be prepared to answer your ques-
tions concerning this matter. Thank you for your attention
to this matter.
Very truly yours,
LANG, PAUL? & GREGERSON, LTD.
Attorneys for City of Eden Prairie
By: (
idhard F. Rosow /
RFR:cw
cc: Carl aullie, City Manager
s
l'CA REGULATIONS
7035.0900 SOLID WASTE RULES
5336
7035.0900 INTERMEDIATE AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE.
Subpart 1. Open hurtling. Open burning is prohibited at all intermediate
and final solid waste disposal sites, except as shall be allowed by any rules of the
agency now or hereafter adopted.
Subp. 2. Water pollution. Solid waste shall not he deposited at any
intermediate or final solid waste disposal site in such a manner that material or
Teachings therefrom may cause pollution of ground or surface waters.
Suhp. 3. Permitted sites or facilities. A person shall make an intermediate
or final disposal of any solid waste, only at a site or facility for which a permit
has been issued by the agency unless otherwise provided by these parts. Permits
shall not he required for sites used for the disposal of solid waste from only a
single family or household, a member of which is the owner, occupant, or lessee
of the property, under these parts, but these shall be operated and maintained in
a nuisance free, pollution free and aesthetic manner consistent with the intent of
these parts.
Statutory Authority: MS s 116.07 subd 4
5J000 PLAN APPROVAL AND PERMIT ISSUANCE, DENIAL, AND
REVOCATION.
Subpart 1. Requirement. It shall he unlawful for any person to establish,
mainlinn, conduct, or operate an intermediate or final solid waste disposal site or
facility except as provided in these parts without first obtaining a permit from
the agency.__.
Conformance with other -law. Although a permit shall be granted
the same shall become effective only if the location of the site or facility shall
conform to all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and
regulations.
Suhp. 3. Plans required. Each permit application shall be accompanied by
plans as described in these parts and a plan of operation indicating procedures
which will be followed to fulfill requirements of these parts.
Subp. 4. Approval of plans; issuance of permit. Plans and specifications
shall be approved and a permit issued when the director of the agency believes
that they are in accordance with the requirements as set forth in these parts.
Subp. 5. Denial of permit. When a permit is denied}ipplicant shall be
notified in writing of the reasons therefor. A denial shalrbe without prejudice
to the applicant's right to an appearance before the agency or for filing a further
application after revisions are made to meet objections specified as reasons for
the denial.
Subp. 6. Revocation of permit. Permits may be revoked for violation of
these parts.
Statutory Authority: MS $ 116.07 subd 4
SANITARY LANDFILLS
7035.1500 SANITARY LANDFILL; REQUIRED METDOD.
The sanitary landfill method shall be used for all final disposal of solid
waste.
Statutory Authority: MS $ 116.07 stibd 4
7035.1600 PROIIIBITED AREAS FOR LANDFILL SITES.
The fill and trench areas of sanitary landfill sites are prohibited within' the
following areas, as existing at the time of receipt of the permit application by the
agency:
A. 1,000 feet from the normal high water mark of a lake, pond, or
flowage.
7,••••
'at -
yva • ctr--.
My name is Kathy Palmer. I live at 10294 Winter Place - located
in Bluffs West II. I have been a resident at that location since
October 2, 1981 and have been involved with the landfill issue
since February 1982. At the time we were notified of the proposed
expansion, the landfill supposedly had only a few months capacity
remaining - or so we were led to believe. Now, over three (3)
years later, we are still listening to rhetoric about the expansion
and we are tired, frustrated and want answers now.
For the last three (37 years our property taxes neve increased
substantially each year. We, the homeowners, request that our
property taxes be reduced to reflect the devaluation of our property.
BFI conveniently purchased the remaining undeveloped lots from
Hustad and Orrin Thompson. We demand guarantees that this land can
never be used for any expansionery purposes. We also%request that
BFI be prohibited from purchasing any additional surrounding
property for expansion or otherwise.
The homeowners wishing to leave the area should be bought out by
BFI at the full and actual cash value of their homes and BFI should
pay the escrow fees involved. Those homeowners who wish to remain
Sin the area should receive compensation for their devalued property.
These processes should become effective immediately and should be
expedited as swiftly as the original lot purchase by BFI.
Everyone in.our neighborhood was either unaware (as we were) of the
landfill, or had been assured of its clostire in 1982, when they
purchased their homes. None of us anticipated this long, three
year struggle and we want action.
WE WANT: BFI to set an exact closure date for the landfill-
BFI to remain leagally responsible and financially
responsible for all facets for at least 20 years
beyond closure-
taxes to be lowered immediately-
compensation or buy oa by BFI for all homeowners-
IN FINALITY: WE WANT ACTION AND ANSWERS NOW:
I ti
LA RHIN. HOFFMAN, DALY LINDGREN, 1...rn•
2000 PH,. JAFFNA,. TOWED
2E2 SOUTH NINTH STREET
"MINNEAPOLtS, MINNESOTA 5,102
TELEPHONE lE,121 3311 -60 1 0
1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER
7900 HEROES AVENUE 500111
BLOOMINGTON, PUNNE5OTA 55431
TELEPHONE 10121 835-3000
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
FEDERAL PRACTICE PARTNERSHIP
LANA$22. NOEL 6. 'ALA
SUITE 1110
130, PENNSTLVANIA,N.W.
WASHINGTON. D.0 20004
TELEPHONE 12021737-1000
J Am s LAIRK IN
ROIJENt L HO/ ',AN
JA.e, r (LAI,
TENNETN LtNEEREN
MENOLL P ANL.I.L9LIN
OE fi•Lo to FR .< OELL
ALLAN
R J HENN, ...SET
RONALD N TEN,.
JAMES C EON: A Pun
COWAR, J. LAN SCOLL
J AmE9 M ANL Eft
J OHN • PoctoUGH
SERE FVELLot
J OE, w ANTNoNV
DAvto c r...10C14
JONN 'CELT, n
TaCtfor. NT r. foOvor
•n •n •n •k MAPVEY
HICOIA.H0 A F On scHLER
nic.NAND • NOR otiT E
nOn< PT T MON vA0LIE. JR.
CHATTELS 9 MoLLELE
CNINITTutottrn J tNET7EN
NIC.HAffo CHANT:tun
J ONN ft. °CAME
JAmE9 fn. ST POINER
LtN0A N. rtStIER
TNOMAS STOLTEtAto
STEVEN S LEVIN
FORREST O. NOWLMO
MiCHAEL C JAC Am••n
footcHAEL -mAupt.tEtEs
ST ERNEN SOLOmON
J ONN C OtEml
May 28, 1985
OrRALD L sucit
TH0mAs IN.H.TpHREs
PETER • NEE.
JON S SVMERZEwsott
THOMAS J FLONN
nODERTEA MACKE.. It
JAMES OTNNTO
POI•ENT O. NENNER. JR.
DANIEL QUINLAN
JEROME tt FANNAl
FOIJO I. rHEINArd
*NUN', J MITCNELL
DAVI, O. MOELLER
JOHN A. COI I L lot
KATHLEEN to. VAIL,
TNCHJAS 0 ENLETORALO•
BRAOLEv LLNALAAN
EILATHIcE ,140710., iLER
SNERLItEL OnAN OHJNETICH
RAUL n 01,141,71.
SUSAN OunNIONT
AMY 0.414P GRAOT
ALAN L. KIEDOW
OARTN C [CILLER
MARK E. DENIAL
KATNLEEN RICO", NEWMAN
LAPIN, A. AOC..
•ETER J. COVES
CATHEENNE BARTLETT WILSON•
Or COUNSEL
JOSEPH OTTIS
INOmAS CAPCY
•ALSO AnottilE0 lot
WIS.CoNsIN
Chairperson Ed Schuck and Members of
the Eden Prairie Planning Commission
City of Eden Prairie
9950 Eden Prairie Road
den Prairie, MN 55344
Re: Woodlake Sanitary Service Planned Unit
Development Concept Plan and Zoning Amendment
Dear Chairperson Schuck and Commissioners:
Woodlake Sanitary Service representatives received the extensive City
Staff Report regarding the above application late on May 24th. Because
of this late receipt and the Memorial Day weekend, we have been unable
to assemble responsive materials called for by the Report and request the
opportunity to transmit additional information subsequent to your
meeting of May 28th.
The Report states that WSS has not applied for the necessary Zoning
Code amendment to enable the expansion of the landfill. This is con-
trary to our understanding of the situation and obviously needs to
be corrected.
Subsequent to the City's approval of the Flying Cloud Landfill in
1970 and WSS's acquisition, WSS has been using essentially all of the
land it owmi west of the dividing line between Sections 26 and 27, other
than that devoted to office and garage activities, for the Flying Cloud
Landfill. (see Air Photo, Exhibit 0, PUB Auelication). This land has
been used for waste disposal, truck and container storage, boundary
road, litter control fence, storm water drainage and holding pond, and
other associated activities, etc.
LA Ifli IN. 11()FFNIAN, DALY & LINI)mmx, I:Irn.
( haii-person Ed Schuck and Members of
' the Eden Prairie Planning Commission
May 28, 1985
Page Two
Because of this use and our understanding of the authorization granted
in 1970 as well as the position that the current application simply
requests authorization for the continuation of the nonconforming (since
1982) landfill use, WSS did not expressly request zoning amendment
authorization for the land into which the waste deposit would be expanded
lying west of the section line between Sections 26 and 27.
By letter of March 29, City Attorney Roger Pauly stated the position
that the entire expansion area must be rezoned in order to authorize
the use of that area for sanitary landfill purposes. WSS, by letter of
April 2nd from Fred Hoisington to Carl Jullie, stated that rezoning for
the entire expansion area would be acceptable. This position was also
communicated in subsequent conversations and in our presentation to the
Planning Commission on April 22nd.
Based on the statements in the Report, our communications have not
apparently been found to be satisfactory to initiate rezoning for the
entire expansion area. We apologize and desire to correct this
situation.
WSS hereby formally requests that the City of Eden Prairie consider
the creation by zoning amendment of a new temporary sanitary landfill
district which would apply to and govern the approximately 14.44 acres
lying east of the section line between Sections 26 and 27 which are
described in our PUT) Concept Plan Amendment Application and, in addition,
the lands located west of the section line which are described in
Exhibit A attached hereto which include those lands west of the section
line which are east of the current boundary of the waste deposit and
which would be included in the expansion area for the Landfill. If this
request does not activate consideration of the appropriate zoning
ordinance amendment desired by the City, please advise immediately.
The Report also states that the WSS application is not consistent with
the City's current Comprehensive Guide Plan. While WSS disagrees with
both the analysis and conclusion in the Report, it desires to cooperate
with the City to secure whatever Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment
is deemed necessary by the City to allow use of the property consistent
with its current application. An application to amend the Comprehensive
Guide Plan was not submitted with the current application because it was
assumed that the staged mix of uses proposed by the Concept Plan amendment,
including park/open space, landfill, industrial and residential, were
generally consistent with the three general classifications for lands
with PUB 70-1 in the current Guide Plan. The Report now characterizes
landfill use as industrial, not quasi-public as it was treated under
previous zoning, and apparently finds the application for temporary
LAIOCIN, HOFFMAN, 1)ALY & LINDOUEN, hrD.
-hairperson Ed Schuck and Members of
he Eden Prairie Planning Commission
May 28, 1985
Paqe_Three
landfill use coupled with subsequent public recreational use to be
inconsistent with the Public Open Space and Undesignated classifications
in the Guide Plan.
WSS desires advice from the Planning Commission and City staff of the
Comprehensive Guide Plan category(ies) desired for the areas involved
in the application, particularly the landfill expansion area, and advice
on the land area which the City recommends be included in that category
so as to make the proposed use consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
WSS would be happy to formally transmit an application for a Comprehensive
Guide Plan amendment while continuing to maintain that the application is
consistent with the 1982 Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Thanks very much for your consideration of the above.
( ',arrest D. "Dick" Nimlin, for
_ARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
sjg
Enclosure
EXHIBIT A
Those parts of Government Lot 2 and the Northeast Quarter of the North-
east Quarter of Section 34, Township 116, Range 22, and the Southeast
Quarter of Section 27, Township 116, Range 22, all in Hennepin County,
Minnesota, described as beginning at the southeast corner of said South-
east Quarter of Section 27; thence South 40 degrees 53 minutes 47 seconds
West, assuming the east line of said Southeast Quarter of Section 27
bears North 0 degrees 23 minutes 00 seconds West, a distance of 919.65
feet; thence North 83 degrees 20 minutes 30 seconds West a distance
of 321.50 feet; thence North 68 degrees 28 minutes 29 seconds West a
distance of 800.35 feet; thence North 88 degrees 35 minutes 56 seconds
East a distance of 628.08 feet; thence North 46 degrees 06 minutes 24
seconds East a distance of 1295.22 feet; thence North 0 degrees 23 minutes
00 seconds West a distance of 670.00 feet; thence North 55 degrees 02
minutes 08 seconds West a distance of 1616.65 feet to the south line
of the north 495.00 feet of said Southeast Quarter of Section 27; thence
North 89 degrees 37 minutes 50 seconds East along said south line of
the north 495.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section 27 a distance
of 430.00 feet to the west line of the east three-quarters of the North-
east Quarter of said Southeast Quarter of said Section 27; thence South
0 degrees 10 minutes 46 seconds East along said west line of the East
three-quarters of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of
Section 27 a distance of 167.73 feet to the south line of the North
Half of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section
27; thence North 89 degrees 36 minutes 49 seconds East along said south
line of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter
of Section 27 a distance of 990.24 feet to the east line of said Southeast
Quarter of Section 27; thence South 0 degrees 23 minutes 00 seconds
East along said east line of the Southeast Quarter of Section 27 a dis-
tance of 1987.33 feet to the point of beginning.
C. 'LI..
-.)"1 •
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612-291-6359
DATE: May 15, 1985
TO: Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee
FROM: Parks and Environmemtal Planning Department (John Rafferty 291-6459)
SUBJECT: Flying Cloud Landfill Expansion Permit Application
Metropolitan Council District No. 13
Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 10377-1
INTRODUCTION
Woodlake Sanitary Services, Inc. has filed an application with the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for a permit to expand the capacity of the
existing Flying Cloud Landfill in Eden Prai:-ie. The planned landfill expansion
includes both vertical and horizontal components. The landfill is at the top
of the bluff adjacent to the Minnesota River.
AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW
The Metropolitan Council is requireci by Minn. Stat. 473.823, Subd. 3, to
approve proposed solid waste facilittes in the Metropolitan Area before the
MPCA can issue permits for such facilities. Council approval must be based on
consistency with the Solid Waste Management chapter of the Metropolitan Develop-
ment Guide. Council approval may contain conditions to assure caTiiM-Eliky
with the guide chapter.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY
The proposed facility is a sanitary landfill located within an area of approxi-
mately 240 acres, of which, about 148 acres are planned for the disposal of
solid waste. The proposed facility will place an additional 5,644 acre-feet of
solid waste or solid waste residuals and cover material on and adjacent to
5,261 acre-feet of waste and cover currently on the site. A revised expansion
area boundary diagram is provided in Figure 1.
The proposed facillity will consist of the following:
1. Vertical Expansion Area—This area consists of an area of approximately
105 acres where previous filling has occured. The capacity of this area is
expected to he 3,169 acre-feet of waste material and cover.
2. Horizontal Expansion Area--This area consists of 42.4 acres of land east
of the existing landfill. The capacity of the horizontal expansion is
approximately 2,475 acre-feet of waste material and cover.
The following alterations have been made to the original permit application
during and subsequent to envirumental review:
v.,
2
Figure i.
REVISED EXPANSION AREA BOUNDARY
AND LOCATIONS OF MONITORING WELLS
0
800
1200
Foot
0 Monitoring well
@ Won Installed (replaced) since
completion of FEIS
3L1
3
1. A liner and leachate collection system have been proposed to be constructed
beneath the horizontal expansion area. The overall efficiency of the
horizontal expansion for leachate mitigation has been upgraded to 98.5
percent.
2. A methane barrier has been proposed along the south and east side of the
horizontal expansion area. Gas monitoring probes have been proposed to be
installed at 100-foot intervals along the southeastern perimeter of the
horizontal expansion area parallel to the boundary.
3. A noise berm has been proposed along the east-southeast side of the
landfill 15 feet above the adjacent land.
4. The design of the runoff detention pond has been mddified to increase
particle settling efficiency.
5. Final slopes for the the proposed facility have been increased from two-
three percent to five-six percent.
6. The minimum proposed separation distance has been increased to 1,000 feet
from the nearest occupied residence and at least 800 feet from the nearest
developable lot not owned by Woodlake Sanitary Services. The nearest
residential lot owned by Woodlake Sanitary Services is 550 feet from the
proposed horizontal expansion.
7. The development of the expansion is projected to begin in the southeast
corner and proceed counterclockwise. This would fill the horizontal expan-
sion and as much of the vertical expansion as is necessary to maintain
slopes first then the vertical expansion would be completed.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS REFERRALS AND EXPECTATION FOR RELATED SUBMISSIONS
The permit review included herein is one step in the process involving the
Council with this project. Related planning and review activities are listed
below:
o June 1982, Metropolitian Council designated RGU for the EIS.
o March 1984, EAW prepared for the landfill expansion.
o August 1984, draft EIS for the landfill expansion.
o October 1984, Final EIS for the landfill expansion.
o December 1984, adequacy determination for EIS.
NOTIFICATION AND RESPONSE
The following agencies and officials were notified that the Council has
received this permit application for review:
City of Eden Prairie
Stan Johannes, Eden Prairie Citizens Coalition
Department of Health
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Transportation -- Region 5
Enyironriontal Quality Board
Hennepin County
Lower Minnesota Watershed District
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
Minnesota Historical Society
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District
Upgrala Management Company
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
The Metropolitan Waste Control Comnission (MCC) and the Fish and Wil
d
l
i
f
e
Service have commented on the proposed project. The concerns express
e
d
a
r
e
addressed later in the review.
PROJECT REVIEW
The Record of Decision, attached as a separate document, for this pe
r
m
i
t
r
e
v
i
e
w
discusses the elements of the draft permit in relationship to the fin
a
l
E
I
S
.
The pertinent environmental issues are highlighted in the Record of
D
e
s
c
i
s
i
o
n
The project review that follows addresses those concerns from the pe
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
of the review criteria contained within the Council's Solid Waste Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
guide. The following specific review criteria are applicable for wa
s
t
e
f
a
c
i
l
-
ity permits: Waste Management Service Impacts, Capacity, Location,
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
-
mental Impacts, Operations, and Competitive Operation.
Waste Mangagement Service Impacts (Criteria 1)
The proposed expansion would provide a facility capable of supporti
n
g
t
h
e
c
u
r
-
rent landfilling practices for the southern portion of Hennepin Cou
n
t
y
a
t
t
h
e
present fill rate of mixed municipal solid waste through the year
1
9
9
4
.
T
h
e
permit currently being reviewed would expire in mid-1990. MPCA has
s
t
a
t
e
d
that they will not renew the permit to allow for the disposal of mi
x
e
d
m
u
n
i
c
i
-
pal waste after Dec. 31, 1990. This provision is consistent with t
h
e
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
'
s
Solid Waste Policy 2 which states: "Processible mixed municipal so
l
i
d
w
a
s
t
e
shall be prohibited form land disposal in the Metropolitan Area af
t
e
r
1
9
9
0
.
"
Permitting of the facility may enhance the county's ability to impl
e
m
e
n
t
t
h
e
designation of mixed municipal waste to resource recovery faciliti
e
s
.
H
a
u
l
e
r
s
currently disposing of mixed municipal waste from Hennepin County
w
i
l
l
b
e
allowed to continue that practice untill designation is implement
e
d
.
T
h
e
p
o
s
t
-
ing of sions at the landfill will help to provide an orderly transiti
o
n
f
r
o
m
land disposal to the processing of mixed municipal wastes. This metho
d
o
f
e
d
u
-
e
-
-
'
m
cation and monitoring would be lost to the county if the haulers were
d
e
p
o
s
i
t
-
ing material in Dakota or Scott County facilities.
Capacity (Criteria 2)
i ef ,
The Council has adopted the policy of reducing the dependance of the
r
e
g
i
o
n
o
n
land disposal. The Council's concern is that: "excess land disposal
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
may perpetuate comnitment to a less preferred management practice."
T
h
i
s
c
o
n
-
cern is vx11 founded on the Council's part. The statutory requireme
n
t
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
Council adopt its landfill development schedule was devised in respo
n
s
e
t
o
t
h
i
s
concern. The emphasis of the landfill development schedule is that
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
space be available for the disposal of mixed municipal waste until
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
facilities could he developed and sufficient capacity would remain u
n
t
i
l
t
h
e
year 2000 to dispose of the residual materials from waste processin
g
.
T
h
e
proposed expansion is generally compatible with the intent of the la
n
d
f
i
l
l
development schedule. The proposed expansion allocates 9,644 acre -feet to the
5
facility which is 3,400 acre-feet in excess of the development schedule for
Hennepin County. The permitting of the Flying Cloud expansion will not exceed
the 7,245 acre-feet of new fill space required in the Hetropolitan Area prior
to the year 2000. The proposed expansion is to be implemented in 1985 rather
than 1991 as scheduled in the plan for Hennepin County to develop additional
landfill space. These differences may necessitate modification of the devel-
opment schedule prior to the end of the decade. Clearly there will be a need
for the proposed capacity prior to the year 2000. The allocation of capacity
in this instance could help to stem the proliferation of land disposal
facilities in the region.
Location (Criteria 4)
The proposed facility is an expansion of an existing land disposal facility.
The facility is located near a residental area. The proposed landfill develop-
ment will move the facility closer to the residential area. The current plan
calls for the horizontal expansion to be no closer than 1,000 feet to the clos-
est occupied residential structure. The city of Eden Prairie is concerned that
the property values of the Bluffs West Addition will be adversely impacted by
the proximity of the landfill. The compensation/mitigation study done in 1983
by the Council on the effect of a landfill on adjacent property value did not
show property values decreased for homes located more than 1,000 feet from a
landfill. There are residental lots as close as 800 feet from the proposed
landfill expansion. These lots are owned by Woodlake Sanitary Services and
will be withheld from development until completion of the southeast portion of
the landfill. Measures to mitigate the impact of the landfill on the residen-
tial area are discussed in the Environmental Impacts section.
The proposed facility is located adjacent to a state highway that has been able
to support existing landfill traffic. Other local features are a drive-in
theater and Flying Cloud airport. The northern portion of the landfill lies
within the restricted land use zone of the airport. The maximum landfill ele-
vation is 23 feet below the maximum height allowed for the airport approach
surface. The Metropolitan Airports Commision stated that they did not believe
that the proposed expansion would present a hazard to the airport's operation.
A portion of the proposed facility is located in General Rural Use Area. The
landfill operator will need to obtain the necessary permits and variances from
the city to construct the proposed facility.
The city of Eden Prairie is quite concerned about the proposed end use of the
facility. The end use plan developed by the operator must address the concerns
of the city and be acceptable to the MPCA. It is expected that the city will
withhold the necessary permits for facility construction pending satisfactory
resolution of their concerns over end use.
The proposed facility will be collecting leachate from the horizontal portion
of the fill. The mcc will require a monitoring plan for the leachate col-
lected prior to permitting the leachate to be deposited in the metropolitan
sewage system. The landfill operator will need to obtain the necessary permits
from the MCC prior to the operation of the horizontal expansion.
Environmental Impacts (Criteria 5)
The miron:rontal issues of concern to the permit review are: groundwater qual-
ity, impact of leachate on Grass Lake, run-off and erosion control, and land-
fill gas migration.
6
The proposed facility will consist of an unlined portion tha
t
a
l
r
e
a
d
y
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
s
waste in place and a lined horizontal portion. The lined po
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
e
x
p
a
n
-
sion will have a leachate collection system and a three-foot
l
i
n
e
r
.
T
h
e
u
s
e
o
f
a three-foot liner is not consistent with best practicable e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
w
h
i
c
h
suggests a four-foot liner. The MPCA will propagate new rules
t
h
i
s
s
u
m
m
e
r
that, in a current version, suggest a four-foot liner. The MPC
A
h
a
s
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
that the total site efficiency must be 98.5 percent. This con
d
i
t
i
o
n
i
s
t
o
b
e
met by the installation of a three-foot cap to prevent infiltr
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
r
e
c
i
p
i
-
,
tation into the landfill. The efficiency of the liner will be
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
4
7
'
l
')/
percent. There is some concern that S?ep&rcent of the leachat
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d
w
i
l
l
'
be allowed to penetrate the bottom of the fill. The total vo
l
u
m
e
o
f
l
e
a
c
h
a
t
e
will be reduced but the concentration of the contaminants of
t
h
e
l
e
a
c
h
a
t
e
m
a
y
be greater. Collection of less than half of the leachate oene
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
landfill may not be considered adequate for groundwater protec
t
i
o
n
.
- The proposed horizontal expansion would be filled prior to
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
vertical expansion. Due to the receiving rates of Flying Clo
u
d
S
a
n
i
t
a
r
y
L
a
n
d
-
fill and the capacity of the horizontal expansion, the horizo
n
t
a
l
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
will be filled primarily with mixed municipal solid waste. T
o
w
a
r
d
t
h
e
e
n
d
o
f
the life of the horizontal expansion, only processing residua
l
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
allowed for fill.
The unlined portion of the proposed fill will have no liner a
n
d
l
e
a
c
h
a
t
e
collec-
tion'system nor is the installation of a liner technically feasible. Th
e
existing fill area will generate leachate that may adversel
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
g
r
o
u
n
d
-
water. Currently the three active monitoring wells on the d
o
w
n
g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
s
i
d
e
of
the landfill are located on the south side of the landfill wi
t
h
i
n
2
0
0
f
e
e
t
o
f
the edge of the fill area. The MPCA has stated that the thr
e
e
w
e
l
l
s
c
l
o
s
e
s
t
t
o
the southern end of the fill will or have been moved to a lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
c
l
o
s
e
r
t
o
the fill and that they will be finished in the first surface
-
w
a
t
e
r
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
.
Council staff believe that the monitoring of the first surfa
c
e
-
w
a
t
e
r
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
may not adequately assess the movement of contamination orig
i
n
a
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
landfill. The generalized groundwater flow pattern diagram
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
EIS
shows that contamination may first be detected at either the
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
groundwater, in the Prairie du Chien aquifer, and(or) the drift
b
e
n
e
a
t
h
t
h
e
groundwater table. There is some uncertainty about the hydrog
e
o
l
o
g
y
o
f
t
h
e
site. In this instance staff feels that it would be highly ad
v
i
s
a
b
l
e
t
o
c
o
n
-
struct and monitor three sets of nested wells along the southe
r
n
e
d
g
e
o
f
t
h
e
landfill.
The permit provision to study the effects of the landfill on Grass Lake will
help to insure that the leachate from the landfill will not ad
v
e
r
s
e
l
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
the lake. The staff is concerned that the Fish and Wildlife S
e
r
v
i
c
e
h
a
s
n
o
t
been included in the list of reviewers for the project. It is
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
MPCA provide an active role for the Fish and Wildlife Service
i
n
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
The landfill will remain open for a number of years. The fil
l
i
n
g
o
f
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
on the existing landfill will create the potential for additi
o
n
a
l
p
r
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
to enter the fill prior to the installation of the final cov
e
r
.
T
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
proposal for the landfill development calls for the southeast
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
fill to be completed first and the filling to proceed counter
c
l
o
c
k
w
i
s
e
a
l
o
n
g
the horizontal expansion. This would mean that much of the existing landfill
would remain with only temporary cover for a period of up to
s
e
v
e
n
y
e
a
r
s
.
Currently the draft permit requires that cover over a fill ar
e
a
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
exposed for lonoer than120 days be at least one-foot thick.
T
h
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
does not specify the permeability of the cover material. Th
i
s
m
a
y
allow for an
7
excessive amount of precipitation to enter the existing fill area while develop-
ment proceeds on other portions of the landfill. Portions of the vertical fill
that will be exposed for greater than one year should have intermediate cover
that meets the following conditions: (1) one foot of material that has ten to
the minus six cm/second permeability, (2) one foot of soil that will support
growth, (3) vegetation to minimize erosion and (4) a system that would divert
run-off away from the fill.
Migration of landfill gas away from the fill is another environmental concern
that must be addressed. the NPCA has requested that weekly monitoring be con-
ducted of gas probes. The gas probes will be nested sets of three probes
located every 100 feet along the horizontal expansion. The expansion area will
be served by a passive gas collection system. Based on concern that the pas-
sive system would not be adequate to protect the houses that are closest to the
fill, staff contacted the Gas Research Institute (GRI) in Illinois to request
their opinion concerning the adequacy of the gas protection system proposed for
the landfill expansion. GRI stated that the nesting of three probes in a
landfill as deep as the proposed expansion is on the lower end of acceptabil-
ity. Further, the atmospheric conditions during sampling 011 greatly influ-
ence the sampling results. In order to establish proof of the existence of gas
migrating away from the landfill the probes should be sampled during conditions
of low pressure. GRI also stated that weekly sampling should not be waved
during the active filling or after closure of the landfill. Monitoring proce-
dureS'and verification of excessive landfill gas migration may preclude the
landfill acting promptly to install an active gas collection system should one
be required. GRI stated that the minimum distance to the landfill advisable is
500 feet. With a buffer of 800 feet during the active life of the landfill
there should be sufficient time to install an active collection system prior to
impacting the nearby residences. The land to the south and east and within 500
feet from the landfill should not be allowed to develop after the closure of
the landfill to ensure a safety margin for landfill gas migration.
Noise and visual impacts will be mitigated by the construction of a 15-foot
berm along the south and east side of the landfill near the residentialarea.
This should serve adequately to reduce the predictable visual and noise impacts
from operations. hc if -1-cr
Odor and bird control can be achieved by the proper operation of the facility.
The maintenance of proper cover on the fill will reduce the possibility of odor
generation. The reduced availability of food in the covered fill will help to
discourage . birds from feeding or living in the vicinity of the fill.
Litter control can be achieved by placing a fence around the facility to catch
wind-borne material. The proposed facility will include a 15-foot high fence
to catch any material that may be entrained on the wind. The permits require
routine site maintenance, including the litter collection around the perimeter
of the landfill. The staff feels that this measure should adequately mitigate
litter problems. The Department of Transportation has written confirming that
Woodlahe Sanitary Services has been quite good about collecting litter that has
occasionally occurred.
Operations (Criteria 6)
The city of Eden Prairie and the MPCA have noted that Woodlake Sanitary Ser-
vices experienced only minor violations and taken reasonable corrective
measures. The operator has promptly removed illegally deposited material from
the gate area in compliance with plan criteria.
8
Competitive Operation (Criteria 7)
The allocation of the landfill space will tend to keep the tipping fees in the
region at a lower level than if the additional space were not aailable. The
proposed expansion can he completed for rouqhly one-half of a new facility.
The reduced cost of construction will help to keep tipping fees at the proposed
expansion siOlar to the other area landfills. The tipping fee stability may
create an atmosphere where the limited nature of the landfill resource may not
be fully appreciated with respect to the development of alternative methods of
handling mixed municipal waste.
CONCLUSIONS
I. The proposed landfill expansion will provide landfill space that is needed
in the region prior to the year 2000. The timing of the expansion is not
consistent with the development plan. However, early development of the
additional landfill space could help to assure that projected landfill
space needed toward the middle of the next decade will be available.
2. The proposed facility has included many safeguards for the protection of
groundwater. The facility will have little impact on either public or
private water supply systems. The only drinking water supply well that may
be impacted by the facility or the proposed expansion is the Cooley
residential well. Woodlake Sanitary Services has agreed to monitor the
Cooley residential well and two other water supply wells in the vicinity of
the landfill. The staff believes that additional monitoring should be
conducted along the bluff face at various depths.
3. The proposed landfill gas control system appears adequate for the
protection of the residential area to the southeast of the landfill. The
response time necessary to mitigate gas migration is such that the gas
probes should be monitored weekly during the landfill operation and after
closure. It is important that this sampling frequency not be reduced
during operation or after closure of the landfill. The lots closest to the
landfill owned by Woodlake Sanitary Services are approximately 550 feet to
the fill area. The need to have a buffer zone for gas migration is such
that no lots closer than SOO feet should be developed prior to closure of
the landfill nor should lots closer 500 feet be approved for development
after closure of the facility.
4. The vertical expansion of the landfill will be open for a considerable
length of time. The material covering the inactive portion of the fill
will allow excess precipitation to enter the landfill. The portions of the
landfill that will rrmain exposed for longer than one year should be
covered with one foot of Ion permeability material (ten to the minus six
centimeters per second) and one foot of top soil capable of supporting vege-
tation. The temporary cap should be seeded and graded to prevent excess
soil erosion. Run-off from the intermedate cover should be diverted from
the fill.
5. A plan for an ongoing program to monitor discharge into the sewage system
should be submitted to the MPCA and the MCC for their review and approval
prior to the submission of an industrial discharge permit.
9
RECOMMENDATION
That the Metropolitan Council approve the permit ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
W
o
o
d
l
a
k
e
S
a
n
i
-
tary Services to construct and operate the expanded
F
l
y
i
n
g
C
l
o
u
d
S
a
n
i
t
a
r
y
L
a
n
d
-
fill subject to the following conditions: "V"
1. The operator of the facility will develop a mon
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
w
e
l
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
1 1
plan that will incorporate three sets of nested well
s
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
b
l
u
f
f
f
a
c
e
in the area south of the landfill. The nested well
s
a
r
e
a
s
e
t
o
f
t
h
r
e
e
/
individual wells each sampling at a different depth
.
E
a
c
h
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
w
e
l
l
of a set should be constructed in accordance with t
h
e
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
W
e
l
l
C
o
d
e
(MN 4725) so that the first monitoring well will be
a
t
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
g
r
o
u
n
d
-
water contact (the existing and proposed wells12, 3
f
1
;
a
n
d
4
A
s
a
t
i
s
f
y
t
h
i
s
condition). The lowest well should be finished in t
h
e
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
d
u
C
h
i
e
n
aquifer. The middle well should be developed in th
e
d
r
i
f
t
.
T
h
e
p
l
a
n
f
o
r
placement of the additional monitoring wells shall
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
M
P
C
A
within 180 days after the effective date of the p
e
r
m
i
t
.
0
0.U, Lee4(076 WI 47
‘1e4t6t44 -'1Ntflillo=t 11
2: The landfill operator shall cover any portion of
t
h
e
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
that will be exposed and inactive for greater than
o
n
e
y
e
a
r
w
i
t
h
c
o
v
e
r
t
h
a
t
•
•
meets the following conditions: (1) one foot of mat
e
r
i
a
l
t
h
a
t
h
a
s
t
e
n
t
o
texIA4i.
the minus six cm/second permeability, (2) one foot
o
f
s
o
i
l
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
°flint!
support growth, (3) vegetation to minimize erosion
a
n
d
(4) a system that
would divert run-off away from the fill. This condit
i
o
n
c
a
n
b
e
m
e
t
b
y
t
h
e
operator by mitigating measurers that will have the e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
e
f
f
e
c
t
f
o
r
the reduction of precipitation penetration in the ver
t
i
c
a
l
f
i
l
l
a
r
e
a
.
3. The operator shall submit within 270 days of the effe
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
t
h
e
permit a plan for the monitoring of Grass Lake in ac
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
II.F.11.b of the draft permit. The plan shall be rev
i
e
w
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
F
i
s
h
a
n
d
Wildlife Service and approved by the Minnesota Pollut
i
o
n
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
.
4. The operator shall submit a plan for an ongoing prog
r
a
m
t
o
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
d
i
s
charge into the sewage system for the leachate colle
c
t
e
d
.
T
h
e
p
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
be submitted to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commi
s
s
i
o
n
f
o
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
i
n
consultation with the Minnesota Pollution Control Ag
e
n
c
y
b
e
f
o
r
e
a
n
industrial discharge permit is issued.
5. Lots adjacent to the proposed landfill expansion cur
r
e
n
t
l
y
o
w
n
e
d
b
y
W
o
o
d
-
lake Sanitary Services shall not be developed until
o
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
conditions are met: (1) three years have passed from
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
southeast corner of the landfill, and (2) the instal
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
a
c
t
i
v
e
g
a
s
control or recovery system.
JR005A-P4ENV3
05.15.85
NIP
I
10
DRAFT RECORD OF DECISION
pertaining to the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Permit for the Construction and Operation of a
Waste Disposal Facility for the Flying Cloud
Landfill Expansion, Eden Prairie, Minnesota
INTRODUCTION
On Dec. 27, 1984, the Metropolitan Council determined that the environmental
impact statement (EIS) prepared by its staff on the Flying Cloud Landfill
expansion project in Eden Prairie, Minn. was adequate. This determination
means that environmental review on the project pursuant to the LRules of the
Environmental Oualitv Board (6 MCAR 3.021-3.054) has been completed and that
the various agencies with permit authority may proceed to grant or deny
permits.
The EIS included a listing of permits for which a record of decision (ROD)
would be required. The Minnesota Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
Permit for Construction and Operation of a Waste Disposal Facility was so
listed. This document constitutes a record of decision for Metropolitan
Council review of that permit, and is intended to indicate how the EIS was
utilized in the process of permit action.
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, PERMIT APPLICATION OF FEB. 10, 1982
The proposed facility as described in the permit application dated Feb. 10,
1982, consisted of a vertical expansion of 105 acres above the existing
permitted landfill and a horizontal expansion of 42.4 acres adjacent to the
existing facility. A network of groundwater monitoring wells and provisions
for methane detection were included as elements of the proposal. The permit
application did not include provisions for a liner or for a leachate collection
system.
ALTERATIONS TO THE PROPOSAL ARISING DURING AND SUBSEDUENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW
During discussions with the MPCA staff since December 1934, the applicant has
suggested several changes in the project which incorporate or respond to mitiga-
tive strategies listed in the EIS. These changes are reflected in the permit,
and are summarized below for the proposed facility:
1. A liner and leachate collection system would be constructed beneath the
horizontal expansion area.
2. A methane barrier of compacted clay would he constructed beneath the hori-
zontal expansion area.
3. Additional methane monitoring probes would be installed to monitor the ade-
quacy of the methane barrier. Significant methane migration as determined
by the director, Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste Division, MPCA, will
result in the required construction of an active methane collection system.
4. A noise berm 15 feet in height would be constructed along the east-
southeast side of the landfill.
11
5. The design of the runoff detention pond would be modified to increase
particle settling efficiency and surface contaminant removal.
6. A 15-foot high fence would be installed on the east-southeast side of the
expansion area for purposes of litter control.
7. Final slopes would be redesigned at five to six percent in combination with
two percent slopes to divert surface water drainage away from the facility
while still minimizing erosion. Proper vegetative cover will be estab-
lished which minimizes erosion and promotes evapotranspiration.
8. Separation distances of approximately 1,000 feet between the landfill bound-
ary and the nearest houses in Bluffs West second addition and approximately
800 feet to the undeveloped lots owned by Browning Ferris, Inc. will be
maintained. Filling will be modified to ensure the completion of the south-
east area sooner than completion of other parts of the expansion area.
In addition to the above changes in project design, the applicant has agreed to
the following operational considerations.
1. Three water supply wells in the immediate area of the facility will be
included in the monitoring network.
2. A plan for monitoring the potential effects of the landfill upon Grass
Lake, located in the Minnesota River valley south of the facility, will be
submitted to the MPCA for approval.
. The Flying Cloud theatre building will be monitored weekly for combustible
gas levels.
EIS ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND RESPONSE
The following discussion provides an evaluation of how the final environmental
impact statement (EIS) has been used to review the permit application for the
Flying Cloud landfill. The record of decision is based on the Minnesota Pollu-
tion Control Agency's (MPCA) publicly noticed draft permit. The environmental
concerns addressed below are those for which MPCA's responses do not coincide
with the findings of the Metropolitan Council. (The page number in the EIS
where the strategy is presented appears in parenthesis.)
1. STRATEGY
Monitor Cooley residential well, Flying Cloud theatre well, and 8FI office
well (p.79). Establish frequent monitoring and/or comprehensive ground-
water quality monitoring In ensure thorough, early detection of leachate in
the groundwater and the mitigation of leachate impacted groundwater.
RESPONSE
The first strategy has, appropriately, been incorporated into the permit.
However, no new monitoring wells have been incorporated into the expansion
draft permit for detection of leachate on the south side of the landfill.
The final EIS states that the expected groundwater movement of leachate
12
will he in the Prai
r
i
e
d
u
C
h
i
e
n
a
q
u
i
f
e
r
;
y
e
t
o
n
l
y
o
n
e
d
o
w
n
q
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
w
e
l
l
i
s
located in that aqu
i
f
e
r
(
t
h
e
C
o
o
l
e
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
w
e
l
l
)
a
n
d
t
h
a
t
w
e
l
l
i
s
o
u
t
-
side the core zone
a
n
d
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
l
i
k
e
l
y
d
i
s
p
e
r
s
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
l
e
a
c
h
a
t
e
plume. The Council
f
i
n
d
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
o
r
o
u
g
h
a
n
d
e
a
r
l
y
d
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
l
e
a
c
h
a
t
e
i
s
not likely with the
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
2. STRATEGY
Forego verticle exp
a
n
s
i
o
n
(
p
.
8
0
)
.
RESPONSE
The MPCA's draft r
e
c
o
r
d
o
f
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
t
a
t
e
s
T
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
f
i
l
l
,
a
l
r
e
a
d
y
i
n
place, is expected
t
o
b
e
a
s
o
u
r
c
e
o
f
l
e
a
c
h
a
t
e
a
n
d
m
a
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
-
water beneath the l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
i
t
i
s
d
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
t
o
q
u
a
n
t
i
f
y
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
impacts of the incr
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
.
"
It is only logical to
a
s
s
u
m
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
t
h
e
v
o
l
u
m
e
o
f
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
o
r
the vertical expans
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
o
f
5
,
2
6
1
a
c
r
e
-
feet to 3,430 acre-
f
e
e
t
w
o
u
l
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
6
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
o
n
t
h
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
available to leach.
T
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
l
e
a
c
h
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
-
water system will i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
.
I
t
'
s
t
h
e
r
a
t
e
o
f
l
e
a
c
h
a
t
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
c
o
n
c
e
n
-
tration, volume an
d
a
t
t
e
n
u
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y
p
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
.
T
h
e
Council agrees with
t
h
e
V
I
T
A
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
r
e
m
e
d
i
a
l
a
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
v
i
-
sions of the permit
a
r
e
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
a
n
d
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
y
w
i
l
l
b
e
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
f
u
r
t
h
e
planned vertical ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
.
3. STRATEGY
Limit vertical expa
n
s
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
f
i
l
l
i
n
g
o
f
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
d
or residual waste (p.
83).
RESPONSE
The nature of resid
u
a
l
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
f
r
o
m
w
a
s
t
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
w
o
u
l
d
a
i
d
i
n
t
h
e
elimination of toxi
c
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
w
a
s
t
e
s
t
r
e
a
m
.
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
from resource recov
e
r
y
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
m
o
s
t
l
y
o
f
o
x
i
d
e
s
.
O
x
i
d
e
s
tend to raise the p
H
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
a
n
d
h
e
l
p
t
o
restrict the trans
p
o
r
t
o
f
m
e
t
a
l
s
.
T
h
e
v
i
r
t
u
a
l
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
o
x
i
c
o
r
g
a
n
-
ics from the fill m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
w
o
u
l
d
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
t
h
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
i
n
t
h
e
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
expansion as a sour
c
e
o
f
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
.
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
d
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
w
i
l
l
be
the only materials
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
i
n
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
s
a
f
t
e
r
1
9
9
0
.
T
h
i
s
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Metrenolitan Counc
i
l
'
s
_
S
o
l
i
d
_
W
g
s
t
e
_
P
l
a
n
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
b
a
s
i
s
f
o
r
a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
this material will
b
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
f
i
l
l
.
T
h
e
M
P
C
A
s
t
a
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
:
"
R
a
p
i
d
completion of the v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
e
a
r
l
y
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
o
f
f
i
n
a
l
c
o
n
-
tinuous and vegetat
i
v
e
c
o
v
e
r
i
s
e
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
t
o
t
h
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
r
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
-
tion entering into
t
h
e
f
i
l
l
.
"
T
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
b
y
B
F
I
s
t
a
t
e
s
that the landfill w
i
l
l
he developed beginning
o
n
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
c
o
r
n
e
r
o
f
the horizontal exp
a
n
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
i
n
g
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
-
c
l
o
c
k
w
i
s
e
t
o
f
i
l
l
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
clff,est to the res
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
r
e
a
f
i
r
s
t
.
T
h
e
t
i
f
f
, of the horizontal
f
i
l
l
i
s
expected to be on
t
h
e
o
r
d
e
r
o
f
f
i
v
e
y
e
a
r
s
.
U
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
plan, the vertical
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
w
i
l
l
b
e
o
p
e
n
,
a
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
l
e
n
g
t
h
o
f
t
i
m
e
r
e
g
a
r
d
-
lesti Of fill mate
r
i
a
l
.
T
h
e
i
s
s
u
e
o
f
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
n
g
p
r
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
of the existing fil
l
w
i
l
l
n
e
e
d
t
o
b
e
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
n
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
.
The requirement, fo
r
i
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
s
o
i
l
c
o
v
e
r
f
o
r
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
f
i
l
l
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
open, and inactive
f
o
r
o
v
e
r
1
2
0
d
a
y
s
(
1
1
.
c
)
w
o
u
l
d
a
p
p
l
y
t
o
t
h
e
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
13
expansion. The soil type used may do little to mitigate the migration of
rainwater into the refuse. Specifying a specific soil permeability and
slope requirement may be necessary to reduce infiltration cc rainwater
while filling of the horizontal expansion proceeds.
4. STRATEGY
End use should be jointly evaluated by the city of Eden Prairie and the
applicant to determine best use.for the interim and long-term (p. 86).
RESPONSE
MPCA's response identified Part II.i. of the draft permit as compatible
with this requirement. The draft permit states: "The portions of the
facility filled with waste shall be left as open space with no
construction or artificial application of water occurring on-site unless
approved by the Director." This provision makes no mention of the city of
Eden Prairie's involvement in the decision. To mitigate the socio-economic
impacts of the proposed expansion, Eden Prairie should be allowed to review
any end use plan submitted to MPCA concerning end use. The MPCA's position
protecting the integrity of final cover and reducing watering must be
considered to prevent excess leachate generation.
a_1998-PHENV2
05.13.85
'
C.8)10
;11Y CENCI S / S50 L at N PRAIRIE ROAR / EDEN PRAIRIE. IAN 55344 2400 / TELE
P
H
O
N
E
1
0
1
2
)
0
3
1
-
2
2
0
2
May 14, 1985
Mr. John Rutford
Referral Coordinator
Metropolitan Council
300 Metro Square Building
7th and Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Re: Proposed Expansion of Flying Cloud Sanitary Land
f
i
l
l
Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 10377-1
Dear Mr. Rutford:
The City of Eden Prairie wishes to take this opportu
n
i
t
y
t
o
c
o
n
v
e
y
its
reservations regarding the expansion of the Flying Cl
o
u
d
S
a
n
i
t
a
r
y
L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
.
The
City has been diligent to alert the various agencies o
f
i
t
s
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
the EIS and permitting processes. While several issues
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
have been addressed satisfactorily during these proces
s
e
s
,
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
i
t
e
m
s
d
e
s
e
r
v
e
further attention before a permit to operate a landfill may be issued.
The proposed landfill permit which would be issued by
t
h
e
M
P
C
A
a
p
p
e
a
r
s
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
in nature and can not fully address the wide range of
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
the landfill. As provided in the Minnesota Code of Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
R
u
l
e
s
,
t
h
e
City has petitioned for a public hearing to be held b
y
t
h
e
M
P
C
A
.
A
c
o
p
y
o
f
t
h
e
letter petitioning the MPCA and identifying specific
i
s
s
u
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
i
s
attached. Briefly, these issues are the horizontal ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
;
how far into the future it may operate, and the end-us
e
a
n
d
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
b
y
the MPCA.
The City would like the Metropolitan Council to consi
d
e
r
o
t
h
e
r
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
regard to the permit:
Compensation to Owners of Nearby Pruerties: Mile va
l
u
e
s
o
f
r
e
a
l
e
s
t
a
t
e
m
a
y
fluctuate due to Inc influence of a variety of factor
s
,
o
n
e
r
e
a
d
i
l
y
a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
influence on the value of a property is the perceived
d
e
s
i
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
i
t
s
neighbors. Although empirical studies are lacking ab
o
u
t
t
h
e
i
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
o
f
F
l
y
i
n
g
Cloud Landfill on values of properties in its vicinit
y
,
o
w
n
e
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
properties are concerned that their property values
m
a
y
h
e
i
m
p
a
i
r
e
d
d
u
e
t
o
proximity of the proposed landfill expansion. From t
i
m
e
t
o
t
i
m
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
have been made to create a fund to compensate owners
o
f
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
n
e
a
r
w
a
s
t
e
sites for loss of value due to their proximity to th
o
s
e
s
i
t
e
s
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
i
s
aware that a proposed bill (Reviser's No. U5-22F1) wo
u
l
d
a
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
t
h
i
s
g
o
a
l
.
We support such measures conceptually. Browning-Ferr
i
s
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
e
s
/
W
o
o
d
l
a
k
e
Sanitary Services (BFI/WSS) should be required 1.0 esta
b
l
i
s
h
s
u
c
h
a
f
u
n
d
i
f
t
h
e
proposvd expansion is approved prior to such legislat
i
o
n
.
Cot ij.i .r_oles of Need The City believes that, throughout the EIS review
process, the raetropolitan need for a landfill expansion at Flying Cloud
w
a
s
n
o
t
conclusively determined. At most, the expansion would in
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
-
landfill capacity about two years. This projection di
d
n
o
t
t
a
k
e
i
n
t
o
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
n
Mr. John Rut ford
Metropolitan Council
Page Two
May 14, 1985
the expected reduction in volumes of solid waste destined for la
n
d
f
i
l
l
s
resulting from waste processing and waste abatement activities.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
capacity should accommodate the region's landfill needs well into
t
h
e
1
9
9
0
s
a
s
these facilities and activities come on line.
A permit for the expansion should not be granted until a certific
a
t
e
o
f
n
e
e
d
is
issued. Pending legislation would make the Flying Cloud landfil
l
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
this certification. If a certificate is granted, it should furt
h
e
r
l
i
m
i
t
expansion by requiring the need for each phase of the fill to be
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
e
d
a
n
d
permitted before tilling commences.
Left-Turn Lane on U.S. 169: While the proposed permit does not
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
a
sheltered left-turn lane on south-bound U.S. 169 because it is n
o
t
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
environmental safety, such a lane is needed for public safety.
B
F
I
/
W
S
S
estimates landfill-related traffic on U.S. 169 will represent 14
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
vehicles on the segment of highway in front of the landfill en
t
r
a
n
c
e
.
M
o
s
t
o
f
this traffic will come from the north and east. With this high
o
f
a
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
of the traffic turning left, the opportunity for rear-end collis
i
o
n
s
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
.
13F1/WSS should be required to enter into agreement with the Min
n
e
s
o
t
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
of Transportation to construct a shelted left-turn lane at the
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
entrance.
Permit Issuance after City Approvals: The proposed permit stat
e
s
t
h
a
t
p
e
r
m
i
t
will not be effective until 8F1/WSS also complies with other st
a
t
u
t
e
s
,
regulations, and ordinances which affect the landfill. Inasmuc
h
a
s
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
Council must adopt ordinances amending zoning and the Comprehen
s
i
v
e
G
u
i
d
e
P
l
a
n
to effect the landfill expansion, other agencies actions granti
n
g
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
s
o
r
issung permits or licenses would be premature; they should awa
i
t
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
s
f
r
o
m
the City.
The issues stated above are not all-inclusive. In fact the City
h
a
s
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
an
extensive list of provisions (also not all-inclusive) which shoul
d
b
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
in a permit or in agreements stating conditions of approval. Thi
s
l
i
s
t
i
s
a
l
s
o
attached for your consideration. If the permit process is to rem
a
i
n
a
n
o
p
e
n
o
n
e
which addresses the legitimate concerns of all parties, the issue
s
w
e
h
a
v
e
outlined must be analyzed and incorporated into the permit to th
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
possible under the law.
Carl J. Jul,:
City Manager
CJJ:jp
Attachments
cc: Roger Pauly, City Attorney
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
Craig Dawson, Assistant to the Manager
Representative Sidney Pauly
Senator Don Storm
MAY 1
To: Eden Prairie Planning Commision
City Offices
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 56344-2499
Date: 05-09-1985
From: Raymond H Rau
11973 Chesholm Lane
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Subject: DPI AMENDED PUD.
Position: I oppose the expansion of the existing Flying Cloud
Landfill for the reasons listed below:
1. Sufficient time was not allotted at the scheduled Planning
Commmision meeting of 22 April 1985 to allow all parties
interested to provide adequate input on the expansion request
and end used plans submitted by BFI and WSS.
2. The liability (issue) for damages to the residents living
adjacent to the landfill has not been clearly defined by BFI
or WSS. Mr. Dick Nolan has twice referenced the "Superfund" as
source of revenue to cover any catastrophy concerning the
future hazardous and derimental effects of the landfill.
Included is a recent article in the Minneapolis Star and
Tribune which clearly indicates that the Superfund is a very
poor source of funds for compensation and corrective actions.
3. The final cover cap for the landfill is totally inadequate to
serve the end use plan as proposed by BPI. With only two feet
of clay cap, the cap would be full of holes by rodents before
the first year was ended.
4. Mr. Fred Hoisington stated that a hard surface road could not
be established across the cover cap of the landfill clearly
reflects the fragile instablility of the cover. Yet almost
within the same breath, he proposes a parking lot for 600
vehicles. The two foot thick cover cap is insufficient to
support the weight of 600 vehicles when a hard surface road
would not support one. There appears to be a great deal Of
disparity between information.
5. It is my feeling that all the alternatives to the expansion to
the existing landfill have not been offered. DPI and WSS have
made an of of providing an end use plan with the terms of
42 act en of additional landfill. This does not restrict the
Eden Prairie Planning Commision of providing its offer. If DPI
were given a reasonable offer which would include some
resource recovery business, that offer would certainly receive
serious consideration by BEI. Resource recovery is the wave of
Page 1
1
the future, and from an economical standpoint, BFI realizes
that future income from that landfill could become very
limited after 1990. The time has come to put heads together
and come up with an offer that all parties can live with and
close the landfill while it's still a manageable problem.
-71* 4/-2--
Page 2
on., AprII 20, 1986 ittinnonpolis :are and Tribune
fi •
1Z
•
. %." i tr".n ••‘r,"74 7lrm".1"1
b
i Washington Post • •
I - 1
I Less than one dollar of five hi the
• I $1.6 billion "super-fund" hes been
• used to clean up the notion's worst
toxic-waste dump sites, and more
• than half of the fund has been spent
I on "ndmInistration and nonpriority
1,nites,'! Kcording to a cit:zens' group
that studied Environmeatal Protee-
: Hon Agency records for several
; Months.
. The National Campaign Af•ahrd 'Fox.
Havird_s, an umbrella or n .aniration
' established Mo years ogo to fight for
larger supernind, found that 16
f percent of the fund bus been ;pent
I on physical cleanups. .
I I .
At that rote, more than 60 iercent of
the 512 !:itas on the government's
priority list will not receive long-
term cleanup funds by the time the
law is hi years old, the study
sugamting that "millions of Amen'
cane will wait decades for EPA to
clean up their poisoned communi-
ties." ,
EPA officials dented the group's
findings, calling the report an unfair
representation tent do.:%s not take
into account millions of dollars spent
for environmental end engineering
studItz before bulldozers move In.
"We would argue that that's part of
the Cleanup," 'said Ittuz Dawson, a
spokesman for EPA Administrator
Lee Thomas.
Michael Pedhomer, who headed the
orr.anization's research team, said a
computer analysts showed that 2_,
percent of the superfund has bees
*spent on such studies.
The study is likely to fuel a battle '
Over the superfund, which is up for
renewal this year. The administra-
tion agrees that more money Is need-
ed, but the erA contends that at
cannot spend more than 5.3 billion
over Me next five years. The Senate .
Is considering a $7.5 billion bill. Cool
the House version is expected to be
larger. •
IIY f "'CIS / 8550 IIIEN 1.11A11111 110k0 / 113111 PliA11111,
7
,
1
7
1
5
5
3
4
4
•
2
4
9
9
/
T
I
L
L
P
I
I
I
M
E
1
6
1
2
)
9
3
7
-
2
2
6
2
May 7, 1985
Mr. Dale Wikre, Director
Solid & Hazardous Waste Division
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935 W. County Road 8-2
Roseville, MN 55113-2785
Re: Proposed Permit for Flying Cloud
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
,
S
W
-
1
4
Dear Mr. Wikre:
The City of Eden Prairie requests that
t
h
e
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
P
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
hold a public hearing on the permit req
u
e
s
t
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Flying Cloud Sanitary Landfill. As the
m
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
y
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
exists, Eden Prairie is vitally concern
e
d
a
b
o
u
t
a
l
l
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
o
f
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
u
s
e
s
a
n
d
operations.
With respect to the draft of the propo
s
e
d
p
e
r
m
i
t
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
w
i
s
h
e
s
t
h
e
M
P
C
A
t
o
clarify its position on the following i
s
s
u
e
s
:
1. Horizontal Expansion: The draft permi
t
w
o
u
l
d
a
l
l
o
w
additional capacity based on vertical
a
n
d
h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
expansion of the existing landfill. P
a
r
t
I
.
B
.
C
.
o
f
t
h
e
draft permit states that approval of th
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
release the applicant from compliance w
i
t
h
o
t
h
e
r
s
t
a
t
u
t
e
s
,
regulations, or ordinances. Inasmuch as the Eden Prairie
City Council must adopt ordinances for
p
r
o
p
e
r
r
e
z
o
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
amendments to the City's Comprehensive
G
u
i
d
e
P
l
a
n
,
t
h
e
hori7ontal expansion capacity should be
s
t
a
t
e
d
a
s
a
maximum allowable subject to the adopti
o
n
o
f
C
i
t
y
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
ordinances which may, in fact, further
l
i
m
i
t
t
h
e
h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
expansion of the active fill area.
The City also requests that the fill a
r
e
a
i
n
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
e
a
s
t
portion of the proposed expansion be l
i
m
i
t
e
d
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
protect a natural ravine which now ex
i
s
t
s
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
expansion would have the ravine covere
d
w
i
t
h
a
s
m
u
c
h
a
s
3
0
feet of fill material. This ravine provides natural drainage
with a scenic amenity.
2. Time-Limited fxpansion: The City wishes
t
o
h
a
v
e
a
d
a
t
e
s
t
a
t
e
d
by which operation of the landfill wil
l
c
e
a
s
e
.
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
landfill operations were schoduled to
e
n
d
i
n
1
9
9
2
.
L
a
n
d
u
s
e
decisions were made based on that dAp
w
h
i
c
h
,
i
n
l
i
g
h
t
o
f
t
h
e
the continued operation of the landfill
,
m
a
y
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
l
e
s
s
than desirable. Closure by a certain d
a
t
e
w
i
l
l
a
l
l
o
w
t
h
e
City to plan public facilities and ser
v
i
c
e
s
w
i
t
h
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
economy. It will also provide surroundi
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
s
t
o
plan their interests in their properti
e
s
w
i
t
h
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
Mr. Dale Witre, Director
Solid AHazardous Wastr 'i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Minnesota Pollution Cool A
g
e
n
c
y
Page Two
May 7, 1985
A seven-year life expectanc
y
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
i
s
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
in the draft permit. The C
i
t
y
d
e
s
i
r
e
s
t
h
a
t
1
0
y
e
a
r
s
b
e
t
h
e
maximum during which the l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
m
a
y
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
.
3. End-Use: The major ite
m
o
f
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
i
s
t
h
e
regulation end-use. The M
P
C
A
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
c
o
v
e
r
be at least two feet thick a
n
d
g
r
a
d
e
d
t
o
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
s
i
x
p
e
r
cent slope (Part 11.C., p
.
5
)
.
P
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
filled with waste "shall he
l
e
f
t
a
s
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
w
i
t
h
n
o
construction or artificial a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
w
a
s
t
e
o
c
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
on-site unless approved by
t
h
e
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
,
"
(
P
a
r
t
11.1., p. 11).
In its discussion in the Draft R
e
c
o
r
d
o
f
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
M
P
C
A
notes that an end use shou
l
d
b
e
j
o
i
n
t
l
y
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
and BF1/WSS to determine
t
h
e
b
e
s
t
i
n
t
e
r
i
m
a
n
d
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
u
s
e
s
.
However, "any end use must b
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
M
P
C
A
,
"
a
n
d
"
A
n
y
end use which will increas
e
t
h
e
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
g
the leachate cannot be acc
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
.... End use should not
include sprinkling," (p. 4
)
.
The City is concerned that the MPCA g
i
v
e
s
o
m
e
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
that recreation uses with p
r
o
p
e
r
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
considered. Language in th
e
d
r
a
f
t
p
e
r
m
i
t
g
i
v
e
s
t
h
e
M
P
C
A
much discretion in approvin
g
a
n
y
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
o
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
o
p
e
n
space. If such recreationa
l
u
s
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
e
r
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
in the draft permit, then
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
a
s
i
x
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
slope would need be condi
t
i
o
n
e
d
t
o
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
t
h
e
e
n
d
u
s
e
approved by the MPCA Director.
Specifically, the City and
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
h
a
v
e
h
a
d
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
s
with a baseball/softball ath
l
e
t
i
c
c
o
m
p
l
e
x
a
s
a
n
e
n
d
u
s
e
f
o
r
•
the site. Knowledge about
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
s
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
MPCA would consider desi
r
a
b
l
e
i
f
p
r
o
p
e
r
l
y
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
i
s
needed for the decision pro
c
e
s
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
r
e
z
o
n
i
n
g
and Comprehensive Guide Pla
n
a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
o
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
.
The
MPCA requirement of a min
i
m
u
m
s
i
x
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
f
i
n
a
l
g
r
a
d
e
s
l
o
p
e
makes most altternatives to
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
i
n
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
.
The City has several item
s
r
e
l
a
t
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
w
h
i
c
h
e
v
i
d
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
are not
within the purview of the M
P
C
A
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
p
e
r
m
i
t
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
W
e
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
a
n
d
w
o
u
l
d
appreciate your timely att
e
n
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
i
s
s
u
e
s
w
e
h
a
v
e
r
a
i
s
e
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
for a public hearing on th
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
W
e
w
o
u
l
d
a
l
s
o
a
s
k
i
f
Mf1CA intends to issue an expansion permit, that suc
h
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
b
e
w
i
t
h
h
e
l
d
u
n
t
i
l
the City has resolved all
i
t
s
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
.
Sincerely,
-
\ ( ( r
Carl J. JOlie
City ManaOr
CJJ:jp
cc: Roger Pauly, City Atto
r
n
e
y
Chris Lneer, Director of Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Doh Lasbert, Director of Con
n
i
u
n
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Craig Dawson, Assistant to t
h
e
C
i
t
y
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
' Public Notice No.
54-SW-162
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Solid and Hazardous Waste Division
1935 west County Road 02
Roseville, Minnesota 55113-2785
7 May 1985
Raymond H. Rau
11973 Chosholm Lane
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
KNY 13 1985
As a resident of Orin Thompson's, second edition housing
development which lies to the East and Southeast of and
immediately adjacent to the Flying Cloud Landfill. The expansion
permit being considered by the MPCA should not be granted for the
following reasons.
1. The future liability to the residencial areas by BEI and WSS is
inadequate, should potential harmful events occur. .The EIS only
states that BEI and WSS have the responsibility to monitor such
events for 20 years. Should such an event occur, in what year
dollars will the residents of the area be compensated in. This has
not been clarified by the EIS or in any of the conducted public
meetings. Until it is resolved as to who shall be liable for the
amount and the term of liability, no permit should be granted.
The "Superfund" is totally inadequate to handle such potentially
dangerous problem on an immediate basis, besides the fact that the
fund is in deep financial trouble because of mismanagement.
2. The End Use Plan is inconsistant with the final capping of the
landfill. The final capping will be approximately two feet of clay
soil, a drainage network, topped by a porous material, and finally
with top soil which will be graded to permit better drainage of
surface water to a holding pond in the southeast corner of the
landfill. The recreational area proposed will hold approximately.
600 vehicles. The capping of two feet of clay is totally
inadequate to hold the concentrated weight of 600 vehicles. The
weight of the vehicles will eventually damage the drainage system
and fracture the final capping.
3. The final capping of the landfill is also inadequate for
protection against perforation by rodents, such as gophers,
woodchucks, badgers, etc. Once perforated, the surface water will
have access to the dumped waste material which will perculate to
the level of the drainage system and then be deposited in the
holding pond. The holding pond drains into the Minnesota River
Valley, contaminating not only the Minnesota River but also the
Federal wildlife Area associated with the river in that area.
4. There no longer exists the need to expand the landfill. The
plans are to initiate a recycling of materials during the next
year, plus the waste materials are being asked for by private
industries to make burn pellets, and the metropolitan burn sites
are schuduled to come on line by 1990 which requires all the
Page 1
!'"--
Public Notice No.
54-SW-162
combustible material presently being generate
d
.
T
h
e
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
the landfill, in view of the resource recover
y
m
e
c
h
a
n
s
i
s
m
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
on being implemented during the next four yea
r
s
,
o
n
l
y
a
t
t
e
m
p
t
s
t
o
impede implementation of such plans.
5. The permit should not be granted since all the
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
s
t
o
expanding the landfill have not been exploite
d
.
I
t
i
s
a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
that resource recovery will be the wave of th
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
.
I
t
w
o
u
l
d
appear to me that the landfill could be close
d
b
y
1
9
9
0
a
t
t
h
e
latested, if acceptable terms were offered to
B
P
I
a
n
d
W
S
S
.
T
h
e
r
e
is no doubt that one of the terms to BFI and
W
S
S
w
o
u
l
d
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
some ,form of resource recovery action, perhaps in
t
h
e
w
a
y
o
f
a
transfer station or a waste separation facili
t
y
.
A
t
a
l
m
o
s
t
e
v
e
r
y
meeting held on that landfill, BPI and WSS ha
v
e
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
t
h
e
desired to get into the resource recovery bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
.
I
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
l
y
can understand their position, with extensive
c
a
p
i
t
o
l
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
the form of trucks. It only makes sense to co
n
t
i
n
u
e
f
u
l
l
u
s
e
o
f
the trucks, not to continue dumping into the
e
x
p
a
n
d
e
d
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
;
but rather, to feed a transfer station or a
w
a
s
t
e
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
facility. I don't believe the right offers h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
m
a
d
e
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
acceptable to all the parties concerned.
6. The expansion permit should not be granted si
n
c
e
t
h
e
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
control system which now exists along the West
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
landfill is ineffective and has resulted in li
g
a
t
i
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
Drive-In Theater and BFI along Highway 169. A
s
i
m
i
l
i
a
r
s
y
s
t
e
m
i
s
being proposed along the South and East portio
n
o
f
t
h
e
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
.
In addition, the East and North sides of the
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
a
r
e
f
u
l
l
y
exposed with no methane control system. The ha
z
a
r
d
f
r
o
m
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
dangers in the future to people has not been
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
E
I
S
,
nor have the liabilities resulting from such
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
h
a
z
a
r
d
s
been addressed.
7. The permit should not be granted since the dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
which is being proposed is totally inadequate
.
T
h
e
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
a
s
proposed will drain the entire landfill area
i
n
t
o
a
h
o
l
d
i
n
g
p
o
n
d
to be located in the Southeast corner of the
e
x
p
a
n
d
e
d
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
.
This holding pond in totally inadequate to ha
n
d
l
e
t
h
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
water on a heavy rain or spring melt of a hea
v
y
s
n
o
w
c
o
v
e
r
.
T
h
i
s
doesn't even consider that water which will c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
l
y
d
r
a
i
n
i
n
t
o
the holding pond. The question was asked of B
P
I
a
n
d
W
S
S
i
f
t
h
e
pond's capacity becomes insufficient to hold
t
h
e
r
u
n
o
f
f
,
w
h
a
t
becomes of the excess? The reply was that the
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
i
s
already in place to drain this excess water d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
Minnesota River. The exact area where the pre
s
e
n
t
a
n
d
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
drainage is and will take place is also the
a
r
e
a
o
f
t
h
e
B
u
f
f
s
which has been the most subjected to-erosion,
d
u
m
p
i
n
g
s
i
l
t
a
n
d
pollutants directly into the river. With the f
o
r
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
h
o
l
d
i
n
g
pond, and large excess of discharge of water that entire hillside
could collapse and create a potentially haza
r
d
o
u
s
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
t
o
humans and wildlife in the Minnesota River and
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
Area. Those items have net been adequately add
r
e
s
s
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
E
I
S
t
o
allow a permit for the expansion of the existi
n
g
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
.
B. The permit should not he granted on the ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
existing landfill because of inadequate litte
r
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
.
T
h
e
Page 2
g3lie Public Notice No.
54-SW-162
existing landfill has very inadequate litter control.
E
a
c
h
t
i
m
e
the wind exeeds 25 miles per hour three to four square
m
i
l
e
s
d
o
w
n
wind are completely littered. Even though an effort is
m
a
d
e
b
y
t
h
e
landfill to retrieve such litter, its a totally imposs
i
b
l
e
t
a
s
k
.
It's not just the litter, but all the potentially harm
f
u
l
pollutants that are carried by this litter to which ch
i
l
d
r
e
n
a
n
d
adults are exposed to. As an example this past weekend
,
0
5
-
0
4
-
8
5
,
with the wind at 45 miles per hour out of the South, the
e
n
t
i
r
e
North fence of the landfill looked like wash hung out to
d
r
y
.
T
h
e
small corn field, on the North side of County Rd. 1 alon
g
s
i
d
e
o
f
Prairie Dairy, contained thousands upon thousands of lit
t
e
r
pieces. This litter dispursion extended half way to Eden
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
Center. A distance of approximately two to three miles.
O
f
a
l
l
t
h
e
methods presented for litter control, none will adequate
l
y
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
the litter any better than it is presently being contro
l
l
e
d
,
w
h
i
c
h
is terrible. The EIS did not adequately address this is
s
u
e
t
o
allow the permit for an expanded landfill. Better metho
d
s
a
r
e
required.
9. The permit should not be granted to expand the existing
landfill since the existing landfill contains hazardous
w
a
s
t
e
s
from household containers which potentially contain her
b
i
c
i
d
e
s
,
pesticides, used automotive oils, and other chemicals.
F
o
r
B
F
I
a
n
d
WES to flatly state no hazardous wastes Were dumped int
o
t
h
e
landfill is an irresponsible and misleading statement.
T
h
e
expansion would provide additional opportunities for s
u
c
h
potentially dangerous waste to leach from the landfill
t
o
c
a
u
s
e
repairable damage to the surrouding enviroment, jeopar
d
i
z
i
n
g
h
u
m
a
n
and wildlife in that area for decades in the future.
Page 3
j Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
April 16, 1985
Mr. John D. Frane
City Clerk
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
Dear Mr. Frane:
This is an official request from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
that you post in a public building the enclosed public information item. The
MPCA has issued this notice to make the information available to interested
parties. Thank you for your consideration.
If there are questions regarding this notice or the MPCA policy for issuance,
please contact Kenneth H. Podpeskar at 612/297-1786.
Sincerely,
z ",
Rodney 174/ Massey, PLC.
Chief, Regulatory Compliance Section
Solid and Hazardous Waste Division
REM/KHP:cj
Enclosure
PhOn0 ,..612/29771136
1935 WC:A County Ituffil ft', tiounva:,:, Minnuffi41:, 55113.2785
tietion,d otneur. • Duiffin DIA,ultio,ttut LaketAAffiututt.1311C110tiillf
r4WION ,,,atuttyl.mploym
“<:Uq*
CJI 11'14.(;q_ We the undersigned mitt.. of Eden Prairie have lived through approximately twO years of :he Clo,d Lanorill approval process. We hove had to live with the and rear for c.r health and safety. In addition, se have lived through and 1,t:. at the future to possibly provide many cccv yesrs of the ecor,nic usterts:n1; of devaluation of our totes, to,/ of our neigh:lard have chosen or Lave i'msn ftrced to ntve at a sutsttntlal loss of their ftc equity whet this sane loss of cq,ity IV.LS not F.:*p:ned in the market as a whole. is that to hts:eh :a us? Over this derica we thee tresught up the same issues over and over (dust, litter, odor. etc.) fhe EL ad.:re:oda those :oases with the verhlge reduce, minimise and irrtot oad)tionally. Wo Co not detect the pcsittve statehents we've beon for soon as nova?. UrSC.IUIVIC17:47, attaLately not! Cot-tree L'—rs or the CO-n? stand tehind all the previous concerns that we t.u, at tn-r hu-,-ans no,t1-7, w. r:ve ',tended. We no longer root ' -r000ss it --e a.: up to air cur onetnai Is set Lo or en; suition down. l"herefare, Ce at,,cfantly do,and that the lllan Co.:hell deny the praNded exsannion or Flying Cloud Landfill and COfr ore th:s tier hart, that will cost vs, the neigh:ars, rdch Chhoo,s,try suffering or cc: up A just and mus“l..,u1 cC,:ansotlon for all th::e drftite:! Date CT?, , C-04, 11,4 • we the undersigned citizens of Fden Prairie have lived thro,gh apprCs:sately tud years Of the Flying Cici.d Landfill asprovtl prc-Pn^ Ce 'rave t.af. with the worry and fear for our h.hlth and safety. In ad:itioa. we 7,ve fl-rot thra,gt and Ion:: at the future to possiLly provide rams' rare years of t7, ctsn:ric uncertainty or devaluaticn of our hsnes. Many of cur reiora !as, chu-,, or bade t.en rarced to move at a suh:tsntlal Ica.: of their tote auto bus Cr equity has not ra:,:icer. In the rirWat a: a 14.o1C. Is tnat to tapper: to ue? Coo? this rerlod we have bresught up the tent iss-,- uvur and c.ur odor, eta.) :he r:,s hdfrenass thnoo honor, with ono vsntorc.ev and ir;r:ct accauldnally. We do no: delest the ... : . ta:17,:r.ts Isastrf ftr uuLh as novor, unnouividelly. alsolutdly hat: • • we the rmirhtors or the duhp stand tehini all the ;sre)in.a canc.rns thht sh have essm,uuod at the nunsr,:n putlie r,etihrs uc•h,.ve . rs :o•-, feel tee s..tlic ;recess is the net up to at- c:r -•-: up w :sr cur cofasitten coun. 'Innrefcre, , al,:drsohl! du - t-at ,...„71 Xotropclishh Cosh:all och; the props.,:d ex:chains of dirfate :,,otantial tine dont, trots CCV: us, I, .th ennocess,y serforing or set up a lust and meaningful ct,w,ha,ich for all those addraus 7"- I / ) 7; (./ • . i • ' " ! . . -
5-- / /' • . 4.;1,• , --;1' I 1 (., • 77-7- • ;1 I., • • „ „ L'2.c.i'; ., ,, , „- • ,,!...-e- ,,," ,--!, I ..1-- /,":... t•'''.. i::',/',/ 7,!:',:-.7. ,-1,,,, , , 4."-. • - •• n '.' --.. i -,, - . •‘.' .• 4 '•• ?) i S 4 ': 1 i / / 0-1 ••• • 4 • ,.. ,.. „....• I ._,.... J -• •••• .41-74- , ..... .- /7/ I \ 4...:-.,.. .47 1.-‘....... i iC•. i '1-'7, •-: - -. / •- 7> I ..-- ' • , ' . • „ .r., I- '7 -•- . . . > . n --- ... .• /. e.--/ •4- - i'4 1 '1''.1'- (l'i,', -. • • • . 1 . 4 I . • ' • •1:1- , IC. • ' / 71 / . • . - .4 . •• • , . ••• ' ,....,..,•'-••••• "•••• . / /... • •• , .,4" ...' • • • I'' / / ;... 14 i , -.. , '• C! -, .•-• 'F'l •,-.4 .' 7.7,, ' ' i f • i -'. ••••n n-•4.- • 1 . , • .. • ...'4... ...___ ,.__. •••••.' ' •• _. •• • .' •-•;',..'" -. •••• 4' ' e• /..7 ....• 4 n_....—•-•••,.. 4C-4•-••• .,--•• ••n•, ••••• ••n••• '-'. ' ' ' ---'-'--. I ' ... :- 7-2- '7 72--. ' .- ''' . ,..., I , ••-•-, C.,.. i T-,, ,, i "..-- -'"-.. ---- ... - 7.------- -- _,,,...... i • ---.-------••-• 7 • •.. •--) • ' '• ' • , — . , ,7.......,:, I ;" ::.__ 4 er / -'- ',/ ,'' ''.Z....cz..___ '----)..",,, ' - . . I _ .... 1 '.,... 72'" . I .,,, . , -. 4-• n . n -......,_ 1 .‘-.)-- .).'- / 1--L-... .......,._ -•...,---,-;.,..... -'•[. 2- /" i, 'IV! - C.' .r.,,,-7 ' ,. :. 4.-- 1 ....- ! t-''' I -':.:. :..- ' ' ..- - ; '•.,.',, ..i'''-'-':,--,'I _—} /1:1' i— ", I -., - r r• i !..-!!„ , — --, 414,J-fi':nil 7_1_, , ij,,,,,r , i •!.',1,--,1 I 1 _, I i r ,-; / / ; l ' i :..... - ., 1 )ii„,12.!,L..,(,,;t/....,//,: - 1 I I -
) (1-1 --/-t-=/"( i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council, and Metropolitan Airports Commission
FROM: Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission
DATE: June 12, 1985
REGARDING: June 5, 1985 Memorandum •
In reviewing their action of June 5, 1985, the Flying Cloud Airport
Advisory Commission made the following additional findings:
1. Landfill operations attract a great number of sea pulls.
These gulls, in addition to representing a hazard when flying
through the Flying Cloud Airport airspace, will roost on the
airport runways in cold weather.
2. The proposed change in landfill operation will (1) increase the size
of the landfill and in all lilclihood result in an increase in sea
gull numbers at the landfill, and (2) move the operation of the
landfill closer to the approach pattern of the runway.
Both of these changes will significantly increase the likelihood of
damaging, possible calamitous bird strikes by aircraft using
Flying Cloud Airport.
Paul K. Bohr, of the FAA, wrote a strong letter against the proposed
Minnesota Valley National Wildfife Refuge, because of the hazard to
aircraft from the birds, from a refuge 2 miles away from the airport.
Also, he notes, FM Guidance Order5200.5 states, that landfills
should not be located closer than 10,000 feet from Flying Cloud Airport.
The present operation of the landfill attracts great numbers of sea gulls
that pose a safety hazard to aircraft using Flying Cloud Airport.
FAA Order 5200.5 FAA Guidance Concerning Sanitary Landfills,on or near
airports provides advice in the matter. It recommends atleast 10,000
feet separation between landfills and airports such as Flying Cloud
Airport used by turbo-jet aircraft.
Although there is no systematic recording of bird aircraft collisions,
there are numerous records of sea gull/plane collisions. We are
fortunate that none of the collisions have resulted in loss of life
or aircraft. however, it is only a otter of time until one occurs.
In November of 1983 a jet from Flying Cloud Airport had to make an
emergency landing at Mold Chamberlin.
The prdrosed expan:jon of the landfill greatly increases the changes of
catastrophic collision as:
1. The increawd size will in all lifelihood increase the number of gulls.
2. lit new area of the landfill is much closer to the flight path of
runbuys aR & 27L.
3. Tho length of operational time of the landfill is extended.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor, City Council, and Metropolitan Airports Commission
FROM:
Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission
DATE:
June5, 1985 Meeting of the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory
Commission
REGARDING: Final Environmental Impact Statement-Flying Cloud Sanitary
Landfill Expansion, and Concept and Development Stage Proposal
for End Use of Landfill
The Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission (FCAAC) has reviewed
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
submitted on the landfill expansion and the landfill's end use p
l
a
n
,
a
s
t
h
e
y
relate to the operation of Flying Cloud Airport.
At its June 5, 1985 meeting, the FCAAC made the following finding
s
:
1. Landfill operations attract birds.
2. Proposed berm and plantings will attract birds and allow them
to stay near airport longer.
3. No berm or plantings should be permitted in Safety Zone A.
4. Expansion of landfill will produce high risk conditions for
bird/plane strikes.
5. Bird/plane strikes have not been systematically recorded and
therefore the problem was not adequately addressed in the EIS.
6. Measures todate,to control birds at the airport, have been marginal
l
y
effective.
7. Landfill expansion is inconsistent with FAA 5200.5. The safety
distance between landfills and airports is 10,000 feet, placement
of this landfill expansion within 1,000 feet is too great a varian
c
e
from the FAA Rule.
8. Blowing dust, sand, and debris, arc not compatible with aircraft
operations. Todate,measures to contain dust, sand , and paper ,
within the landfill, have not been successful.
9. Until an end use plan is reviewed by PCA and City , and found feasible,
FCAAC reserves comment on its compatibility with airport operatio
n
s
.
10. No crash-fire-rescue facility exists at the airport to handle bir
d
/
plane strikes.
c6),CL
Memorandum-June 5, 1935 page 2
Further Discission:
In order to better analyze the bird/plane stri
k
e
o
c
c
u
r
a
n
c
e
s
,
t
h
e
F
C
A
A
C
requested Greg Fries, MAC, to telephone conta
c
t
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
u
s
e
r
s
a
n
d
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
information.
Compensation and liability for bird/plane stri
k
e
s
w
e
r
e
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
.
A
l
s
o
discussed was a reserve compensation for probl
e
m
s
a
r
i
s
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
landfill operations unknown todate.
Motion:
Frank Shafer moved, Clyde Lake seconded, to re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
that the Flying Cloud Landfill not be expanded
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
'
s
Findings, listed 1-9, are incompatible with ai
r
p
o
r
t
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Motion passed unanimously.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
May 30, 1935
BFI Amended PUD Request
Each Commission member has been provided a staff report prepared by Chris
Enger, Director of Planning; Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services and
Rick Rosow, from the City Attorneys Office. Also, included in the packet is a
request for an amended PUB Concept Development Stage Proposal; End Use Concept
Plan, submitted by Woodlake Sanitary Service, Inc. prepared by the Hoisington
Group; a list of questions provided by the Planning Commission in April and
the answers prepared by BFI, and a copy of the EIS.
Fred Hoisington, Hoisington Group, Inc, will present the proposal for an
amended PUB Concept and Development Stage Proposal. Rick Rosow, from the City
Attorneys Office, will give a brief presentation regarding the legal aspects
of the request and the Director of Community Services will summarize the staff
review and recommendation.
Chris Enger, City Planner, has been the main City staff person reviewing this
proposal, the EIS, etc. and will be in attendance to answer any questions
Commission members may have regarding the request.
On May 28, 1985, the Planning Commission completed the review of the request
and voted unanimous denial of all phases of the request.
13L:md
Planninq Comnission Minutes 3 April 22, 1985
B. nrr AMFNDM Nip, by Wood take Sanitary Service, Inc. Request for
Planned Una Uevolopmoot Concept Amondment for approximately 313
acres; rezoning of aporoxiLiately 14.44 acres in the Rural District
to a district created specifically to allow the estahlishmmt of a
temporary landfill no rezoninl to A district presently identified in
the Zc,nind Code by amondiaq the permitted uo section of such
district to allo4 the o.o.n .at kin et a temporary landfill; Development
Stage Vlinnod Pnit flevolotssent approval for approximately 313 acres;
and authorize an OTan!.i00 ol oroa to be used or sanitary landfill
purpof,es irum wroximately 10).1 acres to approximately 148.9
Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 22, 1985
acres. Location: Southeast of Flying Cloud Driv
e
-
I
n
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
.
A
public hearing.
Mr. Fred Hoisington, representing proponents, sta
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
a
l
m
o
s
t
e
x
a
c
t
l
y
three years ago, the review of the Browning-Ferris
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
e
s
(
D
P
I
)
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
had been at this exact same point in the City's rev
i
e
w
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
a
t
that time was a golf course as an end use for the s
i
t
e
.
H
e
n
o
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
j
u
s
t
prior to appearing before the Planning Commission,
a
n
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
Statement (EIS) had been required. That process fo
r
t
h
e
E
I
S
h
a
d
t
a
k
e
n
t
h
e
past three years. The EIS had now been accepted
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
Council was now in the process of reviewing the
p
e
r
m
i
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
continued operation of the landfill in Eden Prairi
e
.
I
t
w
a
s
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
,
by the end of May, a resnonse would be ready on th
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
M
e
a
n
w
h
i
l
e
,
t
h
e
Pollution Control Agency permit request was also i
n
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
M
r
.
H
o
i
s
i
n
g
t
o
n
pointed out that all of these things were being don
e
s
i
m
u
l
t
a
n
e
o
u
s
l
y
.
Mr. Dick Nowlin, attorney for proponents, stated
t
h
a
t
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
l
a
w
i
n
relation to municipal authority was confusing.
H
e
s
t
a
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
h
e
w
a
s
unaware of any municipal landfill cases in the court
s
;
h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
e
r
e
w
e
r
e
many State Statutes controlling landfills. He s
t
a
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
i
t
w
a
s
t
h
e
position of BFI to take a defensive legal posture
o
n
t
h
e
s
e
i
s
s
u
e
s
.
M
r
.
Nowlin stated that, often, litigation is necessary i
n
t
h
e
s
e
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
H
e
added that, so far, DPI had not found it neces
s
a
r
y
t
o
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
w
i
t
h
litigation.
Mr. Nowlin stated that their view of the legal stat
u
s
o
f
t
h
e
B
F
I
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
was different from that of the City Attorney's. He s
t
a
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
i
t
w
a
s
t
h
e
i
r
desire to compromise and cooperate all the way throug
h
t
h
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
Mr. Nowlin stated that in 1982, BPI had proposed a
n
a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
P
l
a
n
n
e
d
Unit Development 070-1. That amondment requested th
e
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
b
y
7
0
a
c
r
e
s
of the current landfill in Eden Prairie. Since tha
t
t
i
m
e
,
M
r
.
N
o
w
l
i
n
s
a
i
d
that City Staff had stated that rezoning of the pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
w
a
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
.
A
revised application was then prepared by proponents
.
M
r
.
N
o
w
l
i
n
s
t
a
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
this revised application asked for amendment of the
P
l
a
n
n
e
d
U
n
i
t
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Concept and a zoning amendment for 14 acres. He ad
d
e
d
t
h
a
t
,
a
l
s
o
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
was development stage authorization for the entire P
l
a
n
n
e
d
U
n
i
t
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
Mr. Nowlin said that proponents wanted- to preserve
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
,
maintaining there defensive posture.
Mr. Nowlin stated the City Attorney had suggest
e
d
r
e
z
o
n
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
existing end the area proposed for expansion of
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
.
H
e
s
t
a
t
e
d
that the City Attorney had suggested that a Co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
G
u
i
d
e
P
l
a
n
Amendment was also necessary. Mr. Nowlin stated th
a
t
i
t
w
a
s
t
h
e
i
r
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
that the City should initiate these actions for the
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
Mr. Nowlin stated that the area west of the section
l
i
n
e
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
to he need for landfill, had been used as part of th
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
u
s
e
s
o
f
t
h
i
s
site. In other words, he said, that area west of th
e
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
l
i
n
o
h
a
d
b
e
e
n
used for storage of vehicles, and other such land
f
i
l
l
u
s
e
s
.
U
p
t
o
t
h
i
s
point in time, Mr. Nowlin stated that filling
o
f
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
h
a
d
b
e
e
n
restricted to the "kettle area" but, their opinion w
a
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
a
r
e
a
hod received opproval as a landfill. The current application, in their
opinion, Was for expansion of the landfilling. Mr. Nowlin staled that he
Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 22, 1935
did not feel this was technically a rezoning. He stated that, like gravel
mining, expansion is necessary for a continuation of such a use.
Mr. Nowlin stated that lin would be happy to comply with the zoning required
for the 14 acres and the rest of the area, adding that_ they did not agree
with the requirement but that they would comply with it. Mr. Nowlin stated
that, with respect to the status of the landfill expansion proposal, the EIS
had been accepted in December, 1981. He added that it was his understanding
that all necessary revie4s of the proposal were . required to be concurrent
and that the City was to process its review at the same time the Pollution
Control Agency was reviewing the permit request. He stated that the public
hearing process for the Pollution Control Agency review of the permit had
begun April 17, 1985. Mr. Nowlin stated that within the request for the
permit through the Pollution Control Agency, all operational and design
requirements had been verbalized. He stated that it noted the mitigative
measures within the EIS and included essentially all of those measures as
part of the restrictions on that permit which were found to provide an
optimum condition for expansion of the landfill. Mr. Nowlin said that the
Metropolitan Council would also be required to review and comment on the
permit that was before the Pollution Control Agency prior to the final
action by the Pollution Control Agency on the permit.
Mr. Nowlin stated that there was pending legislation before the Minnesota
State Legislature, which would make BEI subject to a review for a
certificate of need. In addition, he stated that they were reviewing
legislation for compensatory payment to property owners for potential
devaluation of their property.
Mr. Nowlin continued his presentation with a review of the executive summary
of the Environmental Impact Statement. He stated that this expansion, if
approved for the requested amount, would be the last expansion for this
site. There would he no further application for expansion. Mr. Nowlin
stated that there has been a question as to whether the total 5,600 acre
feet of expansion would be necessary, considering advances being made in
solid waste recovery at this time.
Mr. Nowlin said that the Metropolitan Conncil had surmised that 8,500 acre
feet would be all that was necessary until the year 2000 for the
Metropolitan Area. He stated that even with resource recovery, there will
be need for landfilling in the future. For example, he noted that
pelletizing resulted in 30C residuals compared to landfilling the raw
materials. As another example he stated that mass burning facilities would
also result in residuals requiring landfilling, as well.
Mn'. Nowlin stated that the landfill is projected to exist for another seven
years beyond today. He noted that this projection was based on current
volume as of It-01, increased at the rate of eight to ten per cent per year,
whidi represents the period el dun' inn which H.?nnepin County predicts
that it will have folly IL:voloi ,ed re ,r.ource recovery pines in operation. Mr.
111 i.ilii :1:11. :rem 111:15 to 1 ...;91 the landfill will be in operation
likely at ils colreut levels, if not ioc•oased. Ho stated that proponents
bit 11,n i have 011 lki1 01 dIrt impact reource recovery would have on the date
of cloure lor till:, or any of the other eidh1 landfills in the Metropolitan
Area. Mr. Nowlin noted that. the Anoka landlill would be closing in less
Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 22, 1985
than one year, with the possible closure of one other landfill in Dakota
County also within a year. He stated that it is difficult to precisely
predict the date of closure for any landfill because of such factors.
Mr. Fred Hoisington, planner for proponents, reviewed the plan documents
submitted to the City. The first exhibit represented the "kettle area,"
which was in the process of being filled at this time. Mr. Hoisington
pointed out the area east of the section line which was proposed for
expansion. He also explained ownership for the surrounding properties. To
the north was property owned by the Metropolitan Airports Commission within
their Zone A; to the northeast there were scattered single family homes
along Pioneer Trail and within the Hillsborough Addition; to the east was a
16-acre parcel which had been dedicated to the City by BF1 for Homeward
Hills Park; to the east/southeast approximately 100 homes within the Bluffs
West 2nd Addition were shown adjacent to the site, along with a tier of lots
which had been purchased by BFI as a buffer area between the existing homes
and the landfill itself; and to the south, with severe drop shown, was the
Minnesota River Bluffs area.
Mr. Hoisington pointed out that utilities existed up to the southeast
boundary of the BF1 property within the Bluffs West 2nd Addition. He then
presented the second exhibit, indicating that eventually, old Riverview Road
would be developed as a trail for part of the parks system of the City. Mr.
Hoisington stated that, with respect to traffic, County Road #1 had recently
been realigned and was now a safer road. He added that improvements to
Highway #169 both east and west of its intersection with County Road #1 had
been made as well. Mr. Hoisington stated that Highway #169 currently
carries between 16,000 and 17,000 vehicles per day, with a capacity of
24,000 vehicles per day. He added that, when improved up to the Eden Prairie
Center area in 1990, Highway 1/169 would have a capacity of up to 40,000
vehicles per day with projected volumes by 1990 at 20,000 vehicles per day.
Mr. Hoisington stated that the landfill vehicles represented approximately
five per cent of the current trips along Highway #169. He stated that,
given the expansion proposed, the vehicles per day represented by the
landfill would not exceed fourteen per cent of the total traffic volumes for
Highway #169. With respect to County Road #1 traffic volumes, Mr.
Hoisington stated that currently, County. Pond #1 carries approximately 3,800
vehicles east of Highway #169 and approximately 4,950 vehicles west of
Highway 169, with a capacity of 5,600 vehicles per day. He added that
County Road #1 provided for approximately two per cent of the access to the
landfill.
Mr. Hoisington presented Exhibit A, representing the zoning district
boundaries or the 1 -2 Park operations for BFI and the area within Planned
Unit Develor.1.11t #70-1, approved in 1970. He said that uses approved within
the Planned Unit It.,volo ,.11wmt included tiw 1-2 Park and Park Open Space
areas. Mr. Hokinit,,o pointed out that liii Comprehensive Guide Plan of the
City showed ':,uhstantial area along fligli ,..!ay ;jilt-A designated for industrial
use and that the relinder of th2 area ear classificd as Undesignated by the
Cexiy:hiinc viz hi lie Plan. He stated thit proponents were proposing to
reduce Inc size of the area guided as Industrial with their revised plans.
Mr. Hoisington presented Exhibit E, showing the area approved in 1970 to be
1.7,_
Planning Commission Minutes 7 April 22, 1985
filled to an elevation of 915'over a total of 107 acres. He then presented
Exhibit G representing drainage for the entire property. Mr. Hoisington
pointed out that this was not drainage from the landfill itself, rather it
was showing surface drainage for areas on the periphery of the area used for
fill on the site. HQ pointed out that the drainage system picked up water
from the surface of the landfill's property and brought it to the point of
the pond at which point it would filter through the soils and eventually end
Up in the Minnesota River. Mr. Hoisington reiterated that this was for
surface drainage only.
Exhibit F, the proposed end land use plan, consisted of four components
which Mr. Hoisinoton explained to be 1) Industrial use on the west; 2) Park
Open Space athletic fields in the center; 3) residential components to the
east/southeast; and 4) the Bluff area. These were proposed as the end uses
of the property. Mr. Hoisinoton stated that in 1982, 25 to 26 acres of the
BFI property was shown for industrial uses. He stated that this area was
currently occupied and that 33 additional acres of industrial development on
the BFI parcel, plus an additional 19 acres on the Flying Cloud Drive-In
site were proposed. This would be a total of 52 acres of additional use for
industrial along the west side of the BEI property, which was less than the
amount which was approved by a Planned Unit Development 70-1 in 1970. Mr.
Hoisington stated that, to the east, low Density Residential, or cluster
type housing, would be the end use. He stated that the proponents would
continue to work with Staff on this. He added that the Bluff area would be
preserved.
Regarding the athletic complex, Mr. Hoisington stated that proponents would
continue to work with Staff to determine the needs of the City for athletics
in this area after 1990. He stated that this could potentially be the third
and last major athletic complex in Eden Prairie. Mr. Hoisington said that
the northeast area of the proposed open space/athletic field area was still
under consideration and the proponents would continue to work with the City
for this final use. Regarding the center of the athletic complex, Mr.
Hoisington stated that eight softball fields were proposed, with supporting
parking area to hold from 350 to 500 cars. In addition, three to four
soccer/football fields and a hardball/baseball field were proposed. He
stated that it would be necessary to have grades of one and one-half per
cent on the fields and steeper slopes in between the feelds to bring the
site to a minimum six per cent aggregate grade. Mr. Hoisington said that
the ballfields would have a top layer of granular material, which would be
located on top of the cap of the landfill. Ibis type of soil on top of the
landfill would allow for irrigation. Mr. floisington stated that an overlook
park would be located in the southeast portion of the athletic complex.
Mr. Hoisington stated that Exhibit H represented the phasing plan of the
landfall, which was slightly complicated as three events would be taking
place al one time. These events included excavation to make way for area to
be filled, actual waste fit lint, and manipulation of the cover material.
Mr. Hoisington stated that Phase I would include the construction of a berm
15 feet in hoioht within four ,.noritk, of the extension of the permit for the
landfill. This h-ria would bo landscaped. Also included would be extension
of Silverwood Price. Mr. Haisinaten stated that completion of Phase I of
the landfill would take place at the earliest possible date. He noted that
femo e7;
Planning Commission Minutes 8 April 22, 1935
this area was within 20 feet of the proposed completed grade at this time.
He stated that closure would take place from the southeast towards the
northwest. Mr. Hoisington stated that Phase II would include construction
of the athletic coisplex in approximately 1992, and that Phase III would be
completion of the remainder of the proposed end uses in 1995, or thereafter.
Mr. Hoisington then presented Exhibit J. It showed areas most susceptible
to views of the landfill, which included areas in the Hillsborough
neighborhood and the Bluffs West 2nd Addition neighborhood. He pointed out
that it was not necessarily a large difference in elevations between the
neighborhoods and the landfill, but the long views from the subdivisions to
the landfill. He stated that the northeast and southeast portions of the
berm would be landscaped in critical areas to screen the view of the
subdivisions from the landfill area itself.
Mr. Hoisington returned to Exhibit F, dealing with the roadway through the
property. He pointed out that the proposed current means of access at
Silverwood Drive around the landfill would be located on the perimeter of
the athletic field complex. An alternative alignment was also shown.
Mr. Hoisington said that, as a result of the suggestion of the EIS, the 15-
foot high berm and planting materials would be constructed prior to the
final closing of the landfill operations at the facility. Proponents were
proposing a litter control fence of 15 feet in height and, if necessary, two
fences, depending on whichever would be more effective. They had purchased
40 lots in the Bluffs West 2nd Addition in an effort to create a 1,000-foot
deep separation between the expansion area and the nearest home. Mr.
Hoisington said that proponents had addressed, and were in the process of
considering, free, or protected, left-turn lanes into the landfill site,
which would reduce accidents. He added that noise mitigation measures would
be taken, hdiich included the construction of the berm and that Pollution
Control Agency standards would be met for noise.
Planner Unger stated that, in contrast to the land use designation
represented by the proponent's plans, the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan
depicted the area in the east section of the landfill expansion area as
Public, Open Space, Flood Plain, or Park.. In addition, the Comprehensive
Guide Plan of the City depicted the specific uses in the category proponents'
described as "Dodesignated" to include Low Density Residential. Planner
Unger stated that no abbreviations were shown on the Comprehensive Guide
Plan map for Low Density Residential because this single land use
represented the largest land use category within the City of Eden Prairie.
He stated that it should he clear that the Comprehensive Guide Plan does not
-indicate that there is no plan for those areas covered by the category
entitled "endesignated, ow Density Residential.° The Comprehensive Guide
Plan delineated these areas as future (development for Low Density
Residential. Planner Faiger stated that the "Undesignated" category was
intended taw areas shown between ditferent, but adjacent land uses, such as
roadways, Cr topographic tweaks, and in no way was intended to to mean that
the City had no plans for the final land uses of those areas of the
Cowrehensive Guide Plan.
Marbola asked if Staff would he preparing a report evaluating this proposal.
Planner tiger stated that none had been prepared at this time. However, the
/
. Planning Commission Minutes 9 April 22,, 1985
Planning Commission could expect one in the future.
Marhula stated that, when this project was presented to the City
approximately three years ago, the City had employed the assistance of a
consultant, who was expert in landfill operations. He asked if the City
still used this consultant. Planner Enger responded that Donohue and
Associates was still available to the City, if so desired. Marhula asked if
they had had any input into the EIS. Planner Enger responded that had.
Marhola noted that the Executive Summary from the EIS indicated that there
were five existing landfills in, or near, the Flying Cloud service area. He
asked what area the Flying Cloud service area encompassed. Mr. Nowlin
responded t.iiat the other landfills included two landfills in Dakota County,
. one in lever Grove Heights, one in Medina, and one in the Anoka-Ramsey area.
There was one located also in the Louisville area in the southwest portion
of the Metropolitan Area.
Marhula stated that in reading the Executive Summary of the EIS, several
questions were raised. He stated that decisions on the end land use were
based on the expanded landfill. He stated that he felt that the expansion
had potential for impact on the future land uses and that this was one of
the reasons he understood the EIS had been required. Marhula stated that he
'felt some of these potential problems as raised in the EIS may still require
explanation. He listed areas of concern to include leachate, escape of
methane gas from the landfill, potential impact upon Grass Lake, and
mitigative measures for all of these items. Marhula questioned whether the
mitigative measures proposed would, or would not, be adequate for protection
of the City in the future. Marhula stated that he felt these would be some
of the questions he would like to have answers to prior to acting on
proponent's request.
Marhula stated that he was surprised that there was a difference of opinion
as to what was allowed within the 1970 Planned Unit Development. He stated
that he was curious about the difference between landfilling versus landfill
operations. Marhola continued stating that the 1970 plan had a grading plan
which would have identified areas to be disturbed, filled, etc., therefore,
there should he no discrepency on this matter of how much land was approved
for what uses.
Regarding end land use, Marhula stated that he questioned whether the City
would want to provide for access to a major athletic facility through a
residential neichhorhood, which would be the case based on the plans shown
by the proponents.
Hallett asktAl why the proponents were suggesting a change from the
orioinally proposed golf course to an athletic field. Mr. Hoisington
respoml:,d test. he telt the City had expressed a lack of interest in a golf
course in this area. Direction ;rem the 0..olunity Services Dopartront and
Parks, Roc! ana ititisial Resources Cm -lission was for a greater need
for athletic fields tlfai u golf course in this area.
Hallett stsuteh that ho had nntod the parking for the proposed athletic
fields indic.lted tor cuss was shntm al the ond of a cul -de -sac to ono
side of the athletic field complex. He stated that this would result in 500
-)
Planning Comission Minutes 10 April 22,.1995
cars going in (Joe way and 500 cars going out the same way all at one time.
Mr. Hoisington responded that not all the vehicles would be moving at one
time. Hallett sneeested that alternatives should be developed to eliminate
this possible traffic problem.
Hallett asked when this project was to have been completed. Mr. Nowlin
responded that the application submitted in 1970 authorized fill in this
"kettle area" and that it was anticipated at that time that the landfilling
would be done within approximately ten to twelve. years. He stated that
there was a period of time consisting of approximately three years during
which the landfill was not used at all for lack of business. In addition,
Mr. Nowlin stated that burning of garbage was still allowed for a period of
that time that the landfill was open; therefore, the landfill was not used
. as much as it is now. Mr. Nowlin continued, stating that in 1973 a
statement was made again that the landfill would be closed in two to five
years, based upon estimates made at that time. He stated that the capacity
authorized for landfilling previously is now at its -peak and that the
proponents were now requesting expansion.
Hallett asked how much longer it would be before ball diamonds would show up
on the property. He noted that it would be difficult, based on the
uncertain estimates of proponents to determine when this would take place.
Mr. Hoisington responded that the closure of the landfill could take place
as early as 1092, within five to seven years. Mr. Hoisington added that
closure of the southwest portion of the landfill was soon to be at final
grade. There would be surcharging and final grading taking place in this
area soon. Mr. Nowlin stated that the proponents would be willing to commit
to those dates of completion for the first phase. However, he stated that
the proponents would not be able to commit to an end date for the entire
site's closure.
Hallett stated that page seven of the Executive Summary pointed out that
mitigative measures would be taken to alleviate many of the matters of
concern over the landfill. He stated that he would be interested in the
Staff's opinion of these proposed measures.
Chairman Schuck stated that he, too, felt Staff should have an opportunity
to provide the Planning Cominisison with recommendations regarding the
proposed mitigative measures. He added that he felt it was proponent's
responsibility to cut down some of the options for these mitigative
measures. Chairman Schuck added that ho felt it was not mainly incumbent
upon Staff to sort out the altarnatives and mAe these decisions, but that
the Preeonents needed to provide more definitive information regarding the
mitigttivo measures.
Cat-the' stated that she was interested in the liability question for the
landfill. She asked if a bond currently posted for the closure of the
landfill was. adeeitate. She ashed propooents directly what would happen when
they moved out of tho landfill and whether they would be required to
continee to carry insurance tor any potential problems. Mr. Nowlin
resfeeded that. thee teitih; be required to aohtinet insueance. He stated that
Bri well esiotinot to oen the 1.:11,1 t e l be exposed to liability and that they
would colltint to iusuro tho molimirty. Y,r. Nowlin stated that the City
would also be covered trimbir tho Minnesota State Supor fund laws, adding that
Planning Commission Minutes 11 April 22, 1985
the Minnesota Legislature was currently dealing with such landfill laws. He
stated that the Legislature was doing everything it could to make sure there
was a "deep pocket" for liability protection.
Marhula stated that he felt the question of a time frame based upon the time
when the permit was first issued was of great importance. He asked if a
certain volume of acre-feet of disposal on this site had been approved
initially. Mr. Nowlin responded that this was not the case and, in fact,
this was the area of discrepancy—quantity of landfill. Mr. Nowlin stated
that, when the Pollution Control Agency in issued permits, nothing
had ever been stated about capacity in acre-feet. He stated that it was
typical to have landfillinq authorized according to a certain location only.
Mr. Nowlin continued stating that Hanson and Greely, the engineers employed
by BFI in 1970, had made a calculation as to what it would take to fill the
"kettle area." He stated that no square footage, or number of acre feet had
been established. Mr. Nowlin stated that this was the best concept of "good
engineering" at that time to submit plans and cross-sections, only.
Marhula asked what specifically had precipitated application to the
Pollution Control Agency three years ago for expansion and continuation of
the operation of the landfill. Mr. Nowlin responded that it was
specifically the question of what was the "permitted capacity" at that time.
He stated that in discussions with the Pollution Control Agency, it had been
determined that there was uncertainty as to the capacity and the potential
impact on the future operation of the landfill. The Pollution Control
Agency determined that the landfill had a capacity of 5,200-acre feet based
upon the 1970 Hanson-Greely report, in addition to use of the rim area for
fill.
Marhula stated that it was his impression that in fact the amount of
material that was placed in the landfill was placed in excess of what was
permitted and that BEI was operating in violation for some period of time.
Mr. Nowlin responded that the Pollution Control Agency did not allow
operation without a permit, and that the Pollution Control Agency did not
have finite numbers for capacity from 1972 to 1982.
Johannes stated that he took exception to Mr. Nowlin's comments in terms of
closing dates. He stated that up until less than one year before the 1982
application for Planned Unit Development amendment, the closing date had
been proposed for 1932. Johannes stated that he felt that the "kettle area"
had been expanded by Bfl beyond its original size.
Johannes questioned why the City, other than for legal reasons, was being
required to review this plan at this tiele. He pointed out that
the
fletTopolitan Ccuncil was set to rule on whether the plan was acceptable, or
not, in the manner proposed. Johannes added that, in terms of overall end
use, questions regarding this should he addressed to the Parks, Reereation,
and Uteral Resources Commission and its deal with that Commission's
rocesndations rogarding the needs of the City in the future. Planner
stated t'llat the end land use plan with a primary component athletic
fifld v.,as one ot those proposals iii rim ;iimuld he roviowed at the same time
by flu arts, ccroAion, and Natural Resources Coiamission, or with dialogue
hack and forth hetwen time Parks. RecrQation, and Natural Resources
Comlission and the Planning Cad:.tission. it stated that it. may be valuable
to ohtdin their reeonafendutions in tundem with those of the Planning
Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes 12 April 22, 1985
Mr. Rick Rosow from the City Attorney's office, in response to why the City
was looking at this now, responded that State law required that any agency
identified within the CIS as one needing to make a decision on the project
must make final those daeisions for all permits and actions required by a
certain time. He stated that the City had been identified as an agency
needing to make a decision on this matter.
Johannes stated that he felt it was possible that the Metropolitan Council
could turn down the proposal of BFI and that there were likely higher and
better uses for this site. Planner Enger stated that the Pollution Control
Agency, in the draft permit, maintained that it has final authority over the
end uses because of its concern about the "cap" of the landfill. The
Pollution Control Agency did not want to have an increase in the filtration
of water through this cap. A golf course was no longer proposed because a
golf course requires watering and watering causes infiltration and potential
leachate problems.
Mr. Nowlin stated that the Metropolitan Council would have its decision by
May 30, 1985. He stated that one of the reasons the proponents were before
the Commission was to begin the long process of review required by the EIS.
Johannes noted that the surcharging was proposed at a final elevation of
923. He asked what elevation the property would be after the surcharge had
settled. Mr. Nowlin responded that it would be necessary to have an
engineer determine this. He stated that it would depend upon what was being
surcharged and Oat materials were used for surcharging. Johannes stated
that he felt this information would be important to the Planning
Commission's review of this project. He added that he felt more of this
type of information was necessary before the Planning Commission could make
a recommendation. Johannes added that he felt it would be hard to predict
the Parks and Recreation needs of the City for 1992, if the closure date of
the landfill would he postponed. He stated that he agreed with the concern
regerdieg liability and wanted more information on the compensation issue
and laws covering this issue.
Johannes stated that he felt there needed to be a greater "comfort level" on
the part of the City from the standpoint of when BFI would leave the
landfill and the City would be left with the problems. He noted that it
appeared that the road was located through more stable soils. He questioned
whether the parking area should also be located on stable soils and asked
for more information about maintenance of the athletic field area. Mr.
Hoisington responded that there would be a gravel road through the parking
lots for sow time. If the road were to be relocated to the alternative
alignment, Mr. Hoisington stated that it would need to be gravel as well.
He added that sooner or later, the entire area would be able to be surfaced.
Hallett asked about the indemnity payment referred to for homeowners whose
value had decreased because of the landfill. Mr. Nowlin stated that the
Minnesola legislature wee dealing with this issue at this time. He added
that BfI was nit proposing to do this at this time.
Mr. Dan Malone, 12139 Chesholm, Blaine, stated thet he appreciated the
concerns of the Commissioo and lied several others including: land uso!, which
were in contrast to City plans; noise generated from the landi ill, which, in
Planning Commission Minutes 13 April 22, 1985
his opinion, would likely be worse as the landfill operations came closer
and closer to the residential areas; the closing date of the entire
landfill, which, according to current patterns, may end up being after the
turn of the century.
Mr. William Henak, 1?235 Oxboro Drive, stated that he felt the fill proposal
should be more caanplete, given the time element. He asked what was
happening with the water that would be draining through the landfill itself
and water which fell on the landfill areas during open periods prior to
daily coverage of the garbage. Mr. Hanek stated that just because the
mitigative measures had been proposed, there were no guarantees that all
potential health problems had been solved. He asked if there would be a •
problem from such things as lighting standards puncturing the cap of the
landfill and allowing the water to drain through to the landfilled area
given the fact that the watering of golf courses had been considered
inappropriate landfill use based on water filtration. Mr. Hanek also
questioned how the City could determine the amount of the bond would be
adequate to support any problems from the landfill in the future. He asked
what would happen if BEI filed bankruptcy, for example.
Mr. John Klein, 1495 Lone Oak Road, Eagan, stated that the Flying Cloud
Drive-In was in the process of litigation with OFT at this time. He stated
that he had recently read that athletic fields as an end use for landfill
property were being abandoned because of health problems. He stated that he
felt the City should look into this matter and should have a back-up plan
available for any health related problems resulting from the landfilling of
this area. He added that he felt just because the EIS had been completed,
it should not be assumed that the problems for this type of project were
over.
Mr. Hoisington stated that proponents would be willing to hold special
meetings if that would help.
Chairman Schuck stated that he felt strongly that there was need for more
detailed information on the project.
Johannes asked if it would be possible for a scale model of the landfill to
be prepared. He stated that often, when such models were presented,
projects were more easily understood.
Chairman Schuck stated that he felt it was necessary for not only the City,
hut especially the proponents to work toward making sense out of this
request. He told proponents that they should take a leadership position in
providing adequate information to Commission for review.
Hallett stated that he felt a tighter guarantee of the ending or closure
date of the landfill would be beneficial.
MOTI .ON;
Motion waa !aide. by jahannes, seconded by Gartner, to continue this item to
the in ?H, ldwb, !ipecial Heating of the Planning Commission.
Motion carried--6-0-0
B. BFI Amended Plan
Refer to memo dated May 30, 1985 from Bob Lambert, Director of
Community Services and memo dated May 23, 1985 from City staff.
Lambert introduced Mr. Fred Hoisington representing Woodlake
Sanitary Service. They are requesting a POD amendment to increase
the size of the PUD from 225 to 312 acres which includes an
expansion of the area used for sanitary landfill from 107 acres to
149 acres and modifying the location and amount of land designated
for industrial end use, reducing the amount of land designated for
residential use; a zoning amendment for a portion of the landfill
expansion area east of the POD and Development Stage PUB approval
for the entire landfill.
Mr. Hoisington reported that the EIS was done in 1982. The subject
property is located west of Highway 169, north of County Road 1,
east of Homeward Hills and south of the Minnesota River. The
airport is located vest of Flying Cloud Drive and two zones are
located to the north. Zone A cannot be used for much other than
agriculture and Zone 11 is not entirely owned by MAC. The nearest
homes are located within 1,500 to 2,000 feet of the site. There
are 100 homes located in the Bluffs West 2nd Addition.
Boisington said there is some disagreement over whether their plan
'agrees with the City's guide plan. They are in the process of
consitiering which end use plan to construct in 1990-1995. Lambert
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
June 3, 1985
-6 -
said staff is concerned with the traffic in the area and feels and
there should be two accesses for Bluffs West 2nd Addition and the
athletic complex. Staff also requested more athletic fields than
shown on the plan (as many as eight softball fields, one baseball
field, three or four soccer fields).
Hoisington said that grading is very important to keep water off.
The slopes for drainage are from 5-6%. However, there will be some
problems in lighting the fields or using irrigation.
Baker asked if there are trails located in the bluff area.
Hoisington said no. There will be construction of a 15' berm on
the cast side within four months of approval.
Hoisington reviewed the landscape plans for the site.
Hoisington mentioned that several recreation facilities have been
built on landfill sites including a golf course in Englewood,
Colorado. He added that there is about a 10% settlement usually
occurring within the first ten years.
Kingrey asked what type of vegetation would be used on the berms
and whether it would be maintained. Hoisington replied that
plantings up to 17 feet high would be added on the northern edge of
the site and from four feet to 12 feet high plantings added at the
center. The plantings would consist of blackhill spruce, several
types of pine, pea shrub, etc. Kingrey asked if they would
contract for an ongoing maintenance program. Hoisington said yes.
Cook asked why the 150 foot scenic drive proposed in 1970 has not
been mentioned. floisington roplicd that this was a Brauer concept
and when the planned location of Highway 169 was moved, the plan
changed. Enger said the City is asking for a substitute of a
scenic overlook along the bluffs.
Rossow said that City staff met with the PCA and BFI's attorney on
Monday morning. The site will be left as open space unless
otherwise decided by the director. The City does not have any
assurance that the proposal offered by BFI can be done. Rossow
added that even though the proposal is not within the Metro
Council's plan, they will approve it.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
June 3, 1985
-7 -
Hoisington said BFI would like to cooperate with the City and
stated that instead of the proposed plan, prairie grass only could
be planted, as the City did not go along with the original plan to
place a golf course on this site.
Cook commented that he supports the complex shown on the site plan
if it can be accomplished.
Lambert reported that he has visited several landfill sites that
have been developed. In Omaha, a ballfield has been placed on a
shallow landfill site, including lights and irrigation. The
outfields are playable. There have also been highrise buildings
built on landfills in the Chicago area. Lambert asked if BEI is
proposing to develop this site and turn it over to the City.
Hoisington said he did not know about plans to turn it over to the
City, but that there will be a shared responsibility between the
developer and the City to do something regarding roadway
connections and development of the site.
Lambert asked if this proposal is approved by the City and the PCA
will not approve it, can the City go back to the golf course idea
instead of just planting prairie grass on the site. Hoisington
said it is not likely that a golf course would be one of the
options, but there are several other possibilities.
Gonyea asked how long it will be until the landfill is at maximum
capacity approved to date. Hoisington said that it could be at
capacity this summer leaving a ravine on the site.
Gonyea asked what would happen if the proposal does not get
approved. Enger said that the permit was extended in 1982. If the
landfill were closed, the ravine would be on the east side of the
site which he feels could have some advantages.
Lambert asked if there are any plans to mine the methane that is
emitted or if a collection system was proposed. Hoisington said he
was not aware of any plans to capture the methane.
Canyon commented that he knows of some sewage plants which use this
method.
Kingrey said he does not understand about the collection of
methane. Hoisity,ton said methane is active on the west end of the
site with a flame.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
June 3, 1985
-8-
Cook referred to the statement in the staff report about the
problem piston type aircraft would have when a landfill is located
within 5000 feet of a runway. Hoisington said there will be two
different time frames and there should not be a problem.
Kingrey said he has a concern with not knowing what PCA's feelings
are concerning this proposal and did eot know how the Commission
could take action without having more information available.
Lambert said the staff recommendation is to deny the request for
the following reasons: the request is not in compliance with the
comprehensive guide plan, the request is not in compliance with
current zoeing, no request has been received for zoning district
amendment covering the proper area, no request for comprehensive
guide plan amendment has been made, the request is an incompatible
and use with adjacent residential areas, the request is not in
compliance with the Metropolitan Council Solid Uaste Management
Development Guide/Policy Plan since no new capacity is needed in
Hennepin County for mixed municipal waste and no capacity is needed
for landfilling of residuals in Hennepin County until 1991, the
proposal cteates the potential for environmental impacts on air,
water, vegetation, wildlife and surrounding land use, the proposed
final cover plan is not in conformance vith suggestions made in the
EIS or PCA Draft Permit and no final grading plan has been
submitted which will make the proposed second use feasible.
Lambert said he strongly supports the end use plan, but will not
recommend approval it until we know it will work and be approved by
PCA.
. Kingrey said before making a decision on the proposal, members of
the Commission should be reminded about their responsibility,
particulary in dealing with numbers 9 and 10.
Enger added that even after approval of the concept plan, BEI would
have to apply for a comprehensive guide plan and zoning request.
Baker said that other than approving the hallfield complex, he
feels this subject goes beyond the responsibility of the Parks and
Recreation Cow7ission. Lambert disagreed and pointed out the
natural resources responsibilities the Commission has in regard to
water quality, air quality, etc.
MOTPD: Kingrey moved to recommend denial of the BFI request until
if.me as numbers 1-10 are in compliance and are concluded to he
vi thin the best interests of the City of Eden Prairie. Cook
seconded the motion and it pdesed 6-0.
Agenda item III. A.
Re-Zoning Agreement - City of Eden Prairie and
International Disposal Corporation of Minnesota,
Inc. (a subsidiary of Browning Ferris Industries,
Inc.)
Dated: April 23, 1974
5 pages
Agenda item III. A.
Potential Bird-Strike Hazards at Flying Cloud Airport
Wildlife Resource Assistant -
U.S. Fish& Wildlife Service
St. Paul, Minnesota
August 1979
11 pages
Agenda item III. A.
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
Subj: FAA Guidance Concerning Sanitary Landfills
On or Near Airports
Dated: 10-16-74
3 pages
A 1
/
Agenda item III. A.
Public Notice of the Application for a Permit Transfer
of a Solid Waste Disposal Facility
Dated April 18, 1985
17 pages + 7 pages of Draft Record of Decision
Agenda item III. A.
Comments on Permit for Construction of the Expansion of
Flying Cloud Landfill in Eden Prairie, Minnesota
by GME Consultants, Inc.
Dated: March 29, 1985
(from Hennepin County's file on the landfill)
14 pages
Agenda item III. A.
Flying Cloud Sanitary Landfill - Review Notes
(from Hennepin County's file on the landfill)
11 pages
Agenda item III. A.
Inter-office memorandum of the Staff of the Metropolitan
Council (to: Bly from: Leonard-Mayer)
Dated: February 14, 1985
8 pages
Agenda item III. A.
Final Version of the Solid Waste Policy Plan
May 9, 1985
Metropolitan Council
118 pages
Agenda item III. A.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Flying Cloud Sanitary Landfill Expansion
Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area
October 1984
Publication No. 12-84-118
416 pages
JV'
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #85-151
•
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF HERZOG ADDITION
FOR K.P. PROPERTIES
RE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Herzog Addition, for K.P. Properties, dated May 7,
1985, consisting of 5.35 acres into ten single family lots, a copy of which is on
file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden
Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein
approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 18th day of June, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John O. rrane, City Clerk
I I I
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
YIWBOH:
DATE:
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
FEE OWNER:
REQUEST:
Planning Comnission
Scott A. Kipp, Assistant Planner
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
May 24, 1985
Herzog Addition
East of Duck Lake Road, South of South Shore Lane
K.P. Properties
Alphonse Herzog
Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 5.35 acres and
Preliminary Plat of 5.35 acres into ten single family lots.
Background
The Comprehensive (;uide Plan depicts
a Low Density Residential use for
this site, for up to 2.5 units per
acre. The current zoning is R1-22.
The site is bordered on the north
and east by Prairie Shores sub-
division (R1-22), on the south by
the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul &
Pacific Railroad, and on the west by
undeveloped land and the Prairie
View Elementary School.
Duck Lake lies 400 feet to the north
of the property, with a portion of
the Prairie Shores sudivision
separating the two. Since there are
no abutting lots to the lake,
minivmm size lots required by
shoreland ordinance do not apply.
The site is characterized by a
gently sloping topography from the
- 0
north to south, with slopes - 1!
vnerally under 6%. Vegetation is
limited to a stand of mature
evergreen trees along the property's
east hothalry. There is an existing
house on the site, which the
proponent indicates will remain in
the subdivision.
idt4
PROPOSED SITE ----- -e
."----e ' • — ---','," \ • xiii
1
I ..P-PE.-- A La r' "7 "n1 MAP ' L..... ,n: . i , ' . 3J1 -1, ,..?* II %.. t ' -
Herzog Addition 2 May 24, 1985
Preliminary Plat
The proposed development is situated within Tract A, R.L.S. #714, and
O
u
t
l
e
t
1
,
Prairie Shores. Before Prairie Shores was developed, Tract B, of R
.
L
.
S
.
#
7
1
4
,
a
farm occupied the site, used Outlet 1 as the access. When Prairie
S
h
o
r
e
s
w
a
s
platted, Outlet 1 was left undisturbed. According to County propert
y
t
a
x
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
,
this outlet is listed as City property. Mr. Herzog has indicated that
h
e
h
o
l
d
s
a
Certificate of Title, which includes Tract A, R.L.S. .#714 and Outlet
1
,
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
Shores. If it is determined that the City owns the property, the prop
o
n
e
n
t
c
o
u
l
d
either purchase the property from the City or revise the preliminary plat
t
o
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
this outlet. This issue should be resolved prior to Council review.
Ten, R1-13.5 lots, are proposed on 5.35 acres, which includes road ri
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
,
with a gross density of 1.87 units per acre, and a net density of 2.0
8
u
n
i
t
s
p
e
r
acre based on 4.79 acres of developable land. The Prairie Shores subdi
v
i
s
i
o
n
i
s
a
t
a density of approximately 1.6 units per acre.
Lots within the proposed subdivision vary in size from 14,200 square f
e
e
t
t
o
2
6
,
4
0
0
square feet, with an average lot size of 19,250 square feet. All lo
t
f
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
s
exceed the new established minimum of 85 feet for the R1-13.5 Distric
t
.
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
s
for Lots 1-3 coincide in width to the adjacent lot frontages of the Pr
a
i
r
i
e
S
h
o
r
e
s
subdivision to the north. Lots 1, 6, and 7, abut the Prairie Shores su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
t
o
the east. A mature stand of evergreens acts as a natural buffer bet
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
t
w
o
subdivisions.
City Code requires any lot abutting a railroad track to have a minimum
l
o
t
d
e
p
t
h
o
f
150 feet. Lot 10 does not meet this requirement. The basis behind th
i
s
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
is to provide additional space between a house and a railroad track. B
a
s
e
d
o
n
a
3
0
-
foot house depth and typical setbacks for the R1-13.5 Distric
t
,
i
t
c
a
n
b
e
demonstrated that 90 feet to the living quarters is maintained in bot
h
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
the current Lot 10 situations. (See Attachment A) Therefore,
S
t
a
f
f
f
e
e
l
s
comfortable with this lot configuration.
Lots 1, 4, and 9, contain corner lot setback requirements of 30 feet. Code requ
i
r
e
s
corner lots to be platted 15 feet wider than the minimum, or 100 feet.
S
i
n
c
e
t
h
e
s
e
lots are already particularly narrow in nature, Staff feels that the p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
plat should be revised to reflect slightly wider lot widths to accom
m
o
d
a
t
e
t
h
e
additional side yard setback requirements. (See Attachment B)
Duck Lake Road right-of-way should be dedicated to the City as part o
f
t
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
platting.
Grading and Drainage
All proposed site grading is to he limited to the road cut for the
c
u
l
-
d
e
-
s
a
c
.
Since this site is relatively gentle in topography, no additional
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
i
s
expected other than for house pad locations. The existing stand of ever
g
r
e
e
n
s
a
l
o
n
g
the east property is to be preserved.
Drainage of the proposed subdivision will be directed overland from t
h
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
o
f
the site towards the neighboring property to the east and Duck Lake
R
o
a
d
t
o
t
h
e
west. No storm sewer, or catch basins, are proposed. The City En
g
i
n
e
e
r
•
h
a
s
reviewed the proposed drainage plan and has indicated that the nearest
s
t
o
r
m
s
e
w
e
r
Herzog Addition 3 May 24, 1985
is approximately 950 feet southwest of the street intersection with Duck Lake Road
and that some extension of the storm sewer will be necessary. The City Engineer
recommends that the developer provide some alternatives for consideration by the
Engineering Department.
Utilities
Sanitary sewer and water services are available to the site with connection to the
existing utilities along Duck Lake Road and Prairie Lane. An extension of the
sanitary sewer is proposed between Lots 8 and 9. The preliminary plat should be
revised to indicate a 20-foot easement between these lots for maintenance purposes.
Street and Pedestrian Systems
The City Engineer indicates that the curb and gutter for Duck Lake Road terminates
near the southwest corner of the site and recommends that the east portion of this
curb and gutter be extended to the north property line. The west side will be
completed during future development.
The Community Services Director has reviewed the proposed development and indicates
that a current sidewalk exists on the west side of Duck Lake Road, and that no
additional sidewalk is necessary.
Access
Staff has reviewed possible access points for the proposed subdivision and
recommends that Lots 1-3 have access only to South Shore Lane and Lots 4-9 access to
Mallard Court. Lot 10 will be the only lot with access to Duck Lake Road and should
be built with the driveway on the south side of the lot to provide adequate sight
vision distance to Duck Lake Road.
STAFF RFCMMFNDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request from R1-22 to 81-13.5 on 5.35
acres and preliminary plat of 5.35 acres into ten single family lots subject to the
following:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Determine ownership status of Odtlot 1, Prairie Shores.
B. Revise preliminary plat to reflect additional lot width for Lots 1,
4, and 9, to accommodate for 'additional side yard setback
requirements; also, revise preliminary plat to reflect a 20-foot
utility easement between Lots 8 and 9 for maintenance purposes.
C. Meet with the City Engineer to provide alternatives for the
extension of the storm sewer system.
D. Modify plan to show the curb and gutter along the east side of Duck
Lake Road to the north property line.
2. Prior to Final Plat, proponent shall:
Herzog Addition 4 May 24, 1985
A. Provide detailed drainage and erosion control plans for review by
the Watershed District and City Engineer, and provide detailed
sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water, and street plans for Engineering
Department review.
B. Dedicate Duck Lake Road right-of-way to the City, clear of any
mortgages, liens, assessments, or encumbrances.
3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay appropriate Cash Park Fee.
B. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours prior to
grading.
C. For Lot 10, provide building plans, indicating the garage portion of
the house on the south side to provide adequate sight vision
distance to Duck Lake Trail.
ROAD
LOTS ABLATING A RAILROAD
,/'/J1
ROAD
30'
Garl LIV.
150'
90'
'RP:CAL
RAILROAD
ii 111
•0CL111 -1
-
90 ----i--y :. 1 I
-.:-.7_‘!...2-1.":71-1 55'' 1 ‘..14'\.1:11t17:111:1 1.11.. Ill/ i----,,,,—...,-1. 1
1 1
.1;1.7,—, l'• .,•.,...1, 1
- - .•,••• , • 1 .
\•E 1 ,;(--,:::..±1 \1 -."'
I
{LI .(.i ,..
': \ k i \
5
......_;,,
--1 -: .:.-C:--;0::.:.:1`. , ' --..--. ' ----< .-
. IP ,,, ---93:--:-.-- -_:-_-_— -„;----
• • .
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-147
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has prepared and adopted the Comprehensive
Municipal Plan ("Plan"); and,
WHEREAS, the Plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review
and comment; and,
WHEREAS, the proposal of Technology Park Associates for development of
Technology Park for Office use requires the amendment of the Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, hereby proposes the amendment of the Plan as follows: approximately
19.65 acres located south and east of Valley View Road, west of Washington Avenue,
and north of Viking Drive be modified from Industrial/High Density Residential to
Office.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 18th day of June, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Miyor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
,
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #85-148
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGY PARK FOR TECHNOLOGY PARK ASSOCIATES
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for
the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas located within the City; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on
Technology Park PUD Development by Technology Park Associates and considered their
request for approval for development (and variances) and recommended approval of the
requests to the City Council; and,
. WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on June 18, 1985;
NOW, THEREFORE, BY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota,
as follows:
.1. Technology -Park by Technology Park Associates, being in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, is legally described as outlined in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. That the City Council does grant PUD Development approval as
Outlined in the plans, as revised, dated May 23, 1985.
3. That the PUD Development meet the recommendations of the Planning
Commission dated May 28, 1985.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 18th day of
June, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Franc, City Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-149
A RESOLUTION FINDING THE AMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSME
N
T
WORKSHEET FOR TECHNOLOGY PARK, A PRIVATE ACTION, DOES
NOT REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of Eden Prairie did hold a
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
o
n
J
u
n
e
1
8
,
1985, to consider Technology Park proposal of Technology
P
a
r
k
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
;
a
n
d
,
WHEREAS, said development is located on approximately
6
8
.
3
6
a
c
r
e
s
o
f
l
a
n
d
located south and east of Valley View Road, west of Was
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
,
a
n
d
n
o
r
t
h
o
f
Viking Drive in Eden Prairie; and,
WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Planning Commission did hold
a
p
u
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
o
n
the Technology Park proposal of Technology Park Asso
c
i
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
d
i
d
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
approval of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet f
i
n
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
o
f
n
o
significant impact;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council
o
f
E
d
e
n
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
,
Minnesota, that an Environmental Impact Statement
i
s
n
o
t
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
Technology Park proposal of Technology Park Associates, b
e
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
s
n
o
t
a
major action, does not have significant environmental e
f
f
e
c
t
s
,
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
o
f
m
o
r
e
than local significance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a Negative Declaration
N
o
t
i
c
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
officially filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
.
ADOPTED this 18th day of June, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clea------
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #85-150
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF TECHNOLOGY PARK 4TH ADDITION
FOR HOYT CONSTRUCTION
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Technology Park 4th Addition for Hoyt Construction,
dated May 17, 1985, consisting of 4.52 acres into one lot for construction of a
58,600 square foot office/warehouse, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is
found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and
Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 18th day of June, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, CliTnerk
'MEMORANDUM
TO: Eden Prairie Planning Commission
FROM: Mr. and Mrs. Frank J. Smetana
DATE: May 22, 1985
Re: Technology Park, Phase III
In the course of the development of Technology Park we a
s
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
o
f
the adjoinging area have some concerns about our propert
i
e
s
.
W
e
u
r
g
e
y
o
u
t
o
require that an 875' elevation be maintained between prop
o
s
e
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
a
d
s
a
t
864' in the mined areas and the sight line from Smetana
L
a
n
e
.
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
,
the land between 875' and Smetana Lane and Nine Mile Cre
e
k
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
as residential or low density office-condos with appropr
i
a
t
e
s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
h
e
residences on Smetana Lane. It is in our opinion and, co
n
s
i
d
e
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
violations the owner of this property has subjected us t
o
,
t
h
e
v
e
r
y
l
e
a
s
t
y
o
u
can do.
The following questions have been asked of me or raised
a
t
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
meetings regarding the Technology Park proposal. Along
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
answers which will explain our position.
I. Why 875'?
Some would have you believe that 875' was an arbitrary num
b
e
r
a
s
i
f
drawn from a hat. In fact, 875' was a carefully reason
e
d
,
m
u
c
h
s
t
u
d
i
e
d
and negotiated elevation which would allow mining and dev
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
w
h
i
l
e
effectively stopping the advancement south of the industr
i
a
l
p
a
r
k
t
o
t
h
e
north. It was felt that the land adjacent to Smetana Lak
e
a
n
d
N
i
n
e
M
i
l
e
Creek deserved a higher use. At 875', buidings would hav
e
b
e
e
n
s
o
m
e
distance from Smetana Lane, we would not have seen the top
s
o
f
t
h
e
buildings and we would only have seen one building. Also
,
t
h
e
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
of the buildings would have been better than that now pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
.
8
7
5
'
a
s
a building pad is now not practical but 875' as a natura
l
l
a
n
d
f
o
r
m
c
a
n
and should be maintained as a division between building
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
uses.
2. Are we standing in the way of progress? •
No, absolutely not. I am willing to sell my home to any
o
n
e
w
h
o
w
a
n
t
s
i
t
out of the way. I would simply want enough to buy a comp
a
r
a
b
l
e
homestead somewhere else. No one has offered to facilit
a
t
e
m
y
e
x
i
t
.
3. Am I speculating?
No, again. My property, roughly four acres, is low and
d
i
f
f
e
r
s
f
r
o
m
those where this has succeeded. I am not willing to bet
t
h
a
t
s
o
m
e
o
n
e
will buy mostly floodplain land for a building pad.
Memo - EP Planning Commission
May 22, 1985
Page Two
4. Why do you ask for restrictions on the use of someone else's property?
Mr. Pearson and/or Mr. Hoyt are asking for something they never had. I
ask you now to keep what my family has had through five generations and,
that is, the right to enjoy my homestead without intolerable
intrusions. I consider the sight of a large flat top building with
average screening an intolerable intrusion.
5. How will you be hurt?
The value of my homestead will decrease $20,000 to $35,000. I know I
will be significantly damaged by the opening of that cut. The only
acceptable screen between me and what Mr. Hoyt proposes is earth high
enough to keep the buildings out of sight.
6. Do you simply dislike Mr. Pearson?
No, but I don't trust him. Mr. Pearson has made his contempt for the
process of city government known to me. The excavations in his pit were
made in full contempt and blatant arrogance of that process. I don't
believe he ever intended to honor what he agreed to in 1975. I hope you
will not accommodate that contempt by harming 3rd, 4th and 5th
generation Eden Prairie residents.
I have met with Mr. Mike Gair to discuss sight lines from my home. He
informed me that earth now at 875' is needed to correct situations elsewhere
on the site. He also stated that he didn't expect me to be sympathetic to
that need and he is right. The bank will not forive my mortgage simply
because someone else now owns my house. Why should the encumbrances on this
property be forgiven by a transfer of title?
If assurances given in 1975 are taken away now without relief we'll be
screaming bloody murder for a long time.
Please help us.
Mr. and Mrs. Frank J. Sme't-Tr.
\n
I
rsitj
1‘1 ,
—
•NS L.• • •
/L1 17.-7n1 CCATCN MAP
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
YWUCH:
DATE:
PROJECT:
Planning Commission
Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
June 7, 1985
Technology Park, Phase III
APPLICANT/
FEFffliffffT Hoyt Construction
REFER TO:
South and East of Valley View Road, West of Washington Avenue, North
of Viking Drive, and West of Smetana Road
Preliminary Plat of approximately 68 acres into one lot, two
outlots, and a road right-of-way for West 76th Street and Golden
Triangle Drive extension.
May 28, 1985, Planning Commission Staff Report
LOCATION:
MUEST:
Background
At the May 28, 1985, Planning
Commission meeting, the Commission
recommended approval of proposed Lot
1 from Rural to 1-2 Park, and a
Planned Unit Development Concept
plan for approximately 21 acres east
of Golden Triangle Drive.
This request was originally
scheduled for consideration at the
May 28, 1985, meeting; however, due
to a technical error in the public
hearing notice, it was recommended
that the Camiission postpone action
on the preliminary plat request
until a correct public hearing
notice could be prepared.
STAfF PECMI.Ft1DATIONS
Staff would recolimend approval of
the request for proliminary plat of
approximately 0 acres into one lot
and two outlots and road right -of-
way.
STAFF REPORT
Planning Commission
Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
May 24, 1985
Technology Park, Phase III
South and East of Valley View Road,
W
e
s
t
o
f
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
,
N
o
r
t
h
of Viking Drive, and West of Smetana
R
o
a
d
Technology Park Associates
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change
f
r
o
m
Industrial/Nigh Density
Residential to Office on 19.65 ac
r
e
s
,
a
P
l
a
n
n
e
d
U
n
i
t
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Concept Review on 68.36 acres, a
n
d
a
n
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
Worksheet on 68.36 acres.
TO:
FROM:
TN-DUCH:
DATE:
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT/
TITC -MUT:-
RUpFST:
lam ......__A
Background j-k
This is a continued item from the
.14
March 22, 1935, and April 5, 1985,
, 7 /11 4 ..
meetings. Issues previously raised
,
(
4
,
e
m
./..
included Land Use/Comprehensive !:4-...4..... .
Guide Plan Change, mass grading,
S'.
alignment of Golden Triangle Drive,
PROPOSED SITE
traffic, road improvements, and
visibility of this area from Valley
View Road and the Smetan
a
L
a
n
e
k
/
.
(
-
-
T
-
households.
Modified Development Rilguest
The development request has been
modified to include concept approva
l
for land uses to the east of
proposed Colden Triangle Drive only.
The project area has been reduced
from approximately 66 to 21 acres,
of which 16.41 acres will be
developed for office/showroom an
d
office uses, with 4.42 acres set
asido as preservation areas. The
preservation areas are 1.62 acre
s
adjacent to Nne. Mile Creek and 2.3
acres carroundir19 the high, oak
wooded knoll. The proponent als
o
C
r I,P!..-7L 7C )N, f:7 '
• -t
Technology Park, Phase III 2 May 24, 1985
wishes to grade a majority of the 68 acres (a previous
g
r
a
v
e
l
p
i
t
)
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
to
balance the site. A revised grading plan has been submit
t
e
d
.
Total building square footage being requested at this
t
i
m
e
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
f
r
o
m
499,500 square feet to 222,500 square feet. Of this new total, 134,500
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
is proposed for three office/showroom buildings and 38,000
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
i
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
for an office building. Floor Area Ratios for the fo
u
r
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
a
r
e
within ordinance requirements for industrial and office z
o
n
i
n
g
.
A rezoning from Rural to 1-2 Park and a preliminary pla
t
o
f
4
.
5
a
c
r
e
s
i
n
t
o
o
n
e
l
o
t
is requested for Building 4. These requests are addres
s
e
d
u
n
d
e
r
a
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
S
t
a
f
f
Report.
The Comprehensive Guide Plan Change request from High De
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
to Office has been reduced in total area from 19.65 acr
e
s
t
o
2
.
2
8
a
c
r
e
s
.
T
h
e
o
f
f
i
c
e
designation is requested for Building 5 adjacent to Ni
n
e
M
i
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
,
j
u
s
t
e
a
s
t
o
f
the high, oak wooded knoll. The land uses to the west o
f
G
o
l
d
e
n
T
r
i
a
n
g
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
w
i
l
l
remain High Density Residential/Industrial until future
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
s
.
Land Uses
The Planned Unit Development Concept Plan proposes land
u
s
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
m
o
s
t
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
areas of the site. The office use for Building 5 along
N
i
n
e
M
i
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
,
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
the wooded area, makes sense to take advantage of
t
h
e
v
i
e
w
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
amenities, and multi-story buildings would allow more o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
a
n
d
t
r
e
e
s
t
o
b
e
preserved. The areas proposed for office/showroom have
b
e
e
n
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
g
r
a
d
e
d
as
part of the mining operations, and are relatively level, with
n
o
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
v
e
r
.
These areas would be suitable for the office/showroom bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
require a
large level building pad area.
Mass Grading
At the March 22, 1985, meeting, no mass grading plan had
b
e
e
n
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
f
o
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
.
From what was known about the existing natural con
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
assumptions wore made that the ridge line along the nort
h
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
w
o
u
l
d
h
a
v
e
to be cut in order to accommodate the extension of Gold
e
n
T
r
i
a
n
g
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
t
h
a
t
the alignment of Golden Triangle Drive around the oak wo
o
d
e
d
k
n
o
l
l
i
n
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
corner of the project, would result in the loss of a
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
o
a
k
trees. The mass grading plan included with this submitt
a
l
s
h
o
e
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
f
i
n
i
s
h
o
d
grades for all sites on the property. The alignment of
G
o
l
d
e
n
T
r
i
a
n
g
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
2/1 slopes adjacent to the oak wooded knoll will allow f
o
r
m
o
r
e
o
f
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
a
k
trees to be saved.
Grading along the north property line will cut down the
r
i
d
g
e
l
i
n
e
,
b
u
t
w
i
l
l
l
e
a
v
e
a
good portion of the area undisturbed, with a tree line
o
f
l
o
w
l
a
n
d
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
o
n
g
the Nine Mile Creek f1ondp1in, and an area of upland oak vertation, which buffers
this area whon viewed from Valley View Road. Grading along the west property lines
is at 3/1 clones. A ridge line at about elevation 8 1 0 will be retained along the
south and wet Portions of the site, west of Golden Triangle Road, to limit views
into the site from the djn inhlig residential land uses
t
o
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
.
Some filling will occur within tho propo';ed preservation area south of proposed
office site. To minimitJ. encroachment adjacent to Nine Mile Creek,
i
t
m
a
y
h
e
b
e
t
t
e
r
to tightcn the slopes up to less than 3/1 and restore with creek associated
Technology Park, Phase III 3 May 24, 1985
vegetation to provide a better transition from the office building to the creek.
The fill required for the office building adjacent to the creek is not ideal, but it
helps allow the preservation of the more significant wooded hill feature. This hill
should be protected perpetually either by an easement, or dedication to the City.
Alignment of Golden Triangle Drive
The alignment of Golden Triangle Drive has been shifted approximately 60 feet futher
west, which preserves more of the hill. To limit grading and tree loss to the
shaded areas as shown on the grading plan, will require a. retaining wall. Prior to
Council review, the proponent should provide a more detailed grading plan, showing
the location and heinht of the retaining wall. (See Attachment A) If a retaining
wall is not used, a 2/1 slope would require more grading and tree loss.
The alignment of Golden Triangle Drive, as it crosses the creek, should be
coordinated with the extension of Golden Triangle Drive from the Vantage property to
the south. The developer will be responsible for 1/2 of the cost of construction of
the creek crossing.
Traffic
A previous Staff Report talked about a need for a 19% reduction in traffic, based
upon the findings and facts of the traffic study conducted by BRW, commissioned by
the City. Since the Planned Unit Development Concept request has been revised from
499,500 square feet to 222,500 square feet, the impacts of traffic upon the road
systems will be minimal at this time. This issue will remain for the land area west
of Golden Triangle Drive and will need to be resolved in the future through land use
or square footage reduction. Low intensity office uses, or high density residential
uses represent two land use ways of reducing traffic volumes. Development to a
higher percentage of office in the project west of Golden Triangle Drive may be
possible in the future, if actual traffic counts would indicate less traffic
generated than estimated at this time.
Smetana Road Connection
Previous Staff Reports talked about a need for the extension of Smetana Lane, since
the traffic study anticipated an actual volnme expected of approximately 7,000 to
8,000 trips per day. Based upon ultimate development of the area, Staff expects
that Smetana Lane will he needed; hmever, since land uses to the west of Golden
Triangle Drive are not being requested for approval at this time, the decision to
extend Smetana Lane to Golden Triangle Drive could be postponed until land uses are
more definitive to the west of Golden Triangle Drive.
Visibility of Project. from Valley View Road and Adjacent Residential Uses
At previous P1 entice Commission meetings, concerns wore raised about the visibility
of this area from adjoining land uses. With the mass grading envisioned at that
time, there was cooeern about windows into the site. The proposed mass grading plan
Will maintain a ride,' line at about elevation 870 across the southwest corner of the
site, which would bleed: views into the project area from the Smetana households
until development west of Golden Triangle Drive occurs in the future.
This area will also No screened from Valley View Road, since the grading plan will,
at this time, prdserve a tree line of oaks along the slopes and lowland vegetation
along Nine Milo Creek.
'elLe
Technology Park, Phase III 4 May 24, 1985
Shoreland Ordinance
Provisions of the Shoreland Ordinance are applicable to this site, si
n
c
e
i
t
a
b
u
t
s
portions of Nine-Mile Creek. Nine-Mile Creek is designated as a general
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
water and for office and industrial uses, the following regulations would a
p
p
l
y
:
1. Minimum lot size is two acres.
2. Minimum width at the building line is 150 feet.
3. Minimum width at the Ordinary High Water Mark is 150 feet.
4. Minimum setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark is 150 feet.
5. Maximum building height is 30 feet.
6. Maximum impervious surface is 30 per cent.
The Nine Mile Creek Floodplain is on the south portion of the property
,
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts as an Open Space corridor. The Pla
n
n
e
d
U
n
i
t
Development Concept Plan indicates a preservation areas with a minimum w
i
d
t
h
o
f
1
0
0
feet on the north and west sides of Nine-Mile Creek. Since the preserv
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
a
s
would be dedicated as open space consistent with the City's Comprehen
s
i
v
e
G
u
i
d
e
Plan, and if platted as an outlet, none of the property within this projec
t
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
an abutting lot, and provisions one through four of the Shoreland Ordina
n
c
e
w
o
u
l
d
not apply.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Staff would recommend approval of Comprehensive Guide Plan
C
h
a
n
g
e
f
r
o
m
High Density Residential/Industrial to Office on 2.83 acres, a Plann
e
d
U
n
i
t
Develovnt Concept on approximately 21 acres, east of Golden Triangle D
r
i
v
e
,
b
a
s
e
d
upon revised plans, dated May 17, 1985, and May 23, 1935, subje
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
recomendations of the Staff Reports, dated March 22, 1985, April 5, 19
8
5
,
a
n
d
M
a
y
24, 1985, and subject to the following conditions:
1. Development on sites for Buildings 5, 6, and 7, will require rezoning a
n
d
platting to be reviewed by the Planning COMiSSi011 and City Council.
2. Construction of Viking Drive and West 76th extension. Coordinate the cr
e
e
k
crossing with the Vantage project to the south. The developer will
b
e
responsible for one-half the cost of the construction of the creek crossi
n
g
.
3. Construction of a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the east side o
f
Golden Triangle Road and both sides of West 76th Street extension includin
g
C sidewalk along the southern property line of the Tech I, II, and II
I
Buildings. Construction of an eight-foot wide hituminus trail along th
e
west side of Golden Triangle Drive.
4. Future development of property to the west of Golden Triangle Drive wi
l
l
require the sehmittal of a detailed tree inventory. Any signific
a
n
t
veeetotion lost due to construction will be replaced on a caliper inch per
caliper inch basis.
„:„
•
Technology Park, Phase III 5 May 24, 1985
5. Grading limits will be staked with a snow fence. A tree inventory within 25
feet of the grading limits must be submitted for review prior to grading.
Any trees removed within the 25-foot area will be replaced caliper inch per
caliper inch.
6. Receive Watershed District and City Engineering Department approval of the
grading plan.
7. Prior to Council review, submit a more detailed grading plan around the high
oak knoll, with retaining wall details showing height and location.
EL.„
1.360
ADDITIONAL GRADING
REQUIRED WITHOUT
RETAINING WALL
RETAINING
i3/go
r rtf1 ,7 ,-;1
I 'n`..4 9”"
F(.-"A C't
rtti 1 .: rs,--,‘ (.;'N (1)**1' • 4 • rt
_
n
• -.6 •• U
.jc
• • L._
: • „
• ?) .N.
.1,1\ Lot rr,•• •
.t 1 Ott
•SON.• •
838
irc..Nnt attac
(.:CIRADVNG
•
STAFF REPORT
TO:
Planning Comnission
FROM:
Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: May 24, 1985
PROJECT: Technology Park 4th Addition
APPLICANT/
FEE OWNER:Hoyt Construction
LOCATION: Northeast corner of future Golden Triangle Road and West 76th
extension.
REQUEST: Rezoning from Rural to 1-2 Park on 4.52 acres, and Preliminary Plat
of 4.52 acres into one lot.
Background
The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts
this site and surrounding uses as
High Density Residential and In-
dustrial. This project is the 4th
Phase of Technology Park and is part
of the Planned Unit Development
Concept request reviewed in another
Staff Report.
14-A*44 14,41.1 .
12-1
-t-REG 1-2 Pk
,
PROPOSED SITE
The site is relatively level, about
elevation 860 across the southern
2/3 of the site. The northern 1/3
of the site is a ridge line with a
high point about elevation 910
centered on the north property line.
There is no existing significant
natural vegetation.
Site Plan
The site plan involves the con-
struction of a one-story, 18-foot
high, 58,644 square foot,
,office/warehouse building on 4.52
acres of land at a Floor Area Ratio -
of 0.3. A Floor Area Ratio of 0.3
is the maximum allowed Floor Area
Ratio in an 1-2 Park zoning 317
district. Building and parking .1 ,EG
AREA LCCATONI MAP
3
Technology Park 4th Addition 2 May 24, 1985
areas meet minimum setback requirements. Total parking required,
i
f
f
i
g
u
r
e
d
a
t
1
/
3
office, 1/3 warehouse, and 1/3 manufacturing, would be 166 spac
e
s
.
I
f
f
i
g
u
r
e
d
a
t
. 50% office, and 50% warehouse, total parking required would be 162 spaces. A total
of 162 spaces are provided on-site. Staff feels that parking is
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
.
Grading_
The 50-foot high ridge line along the north property line will
b
e
c
u
t
4
8
f
e
e
t
t
o
provide. a level pad for building and parking at elevation 862
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
c
u
t
will require grading on the Helle piece to the north. The prop
o
n
e
n
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
o
b
t
a
i
n
permission from the adjoining property owner for grading outsi
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
limits. The overall grading is consistent with the mass grading
p
l
a
n
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
the Planned Unit Development concept plan.
Architecture
The building will be constructed of three primary building
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
stucco with a sandcoat finish, gray metal panel, and gray tint
e
d
g
l
a
s
s
,
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
t
o
materials used for Tech Buildings I, II, and III. The building
w
i
l
l
h
a
v
e
a
n
o
f
f
i
c
e
appearance on the western and southern elevations facing Golde
n
T
r
i
a
n
g
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
West 76th Street. The building will have a warehouse app
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
f
r
o
m
o
t
h
e
r
elevations.
Rooftop mechanical units are proposed to be screened with a met
a
l
p
a
n
e
l
t
o
m
a
t
c
h
t
h
e
material used around the windows. To assure compliance with
r
o
o
f
t
o
p
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
-screening, the Code requires that proponents bond for the cost o
f
s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
.
Landscapina
For a building of this size, the landscape ordinance would requir
e
t
h
e
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
183 caliper inches. A total of 234 caliper inches is provided on
-
s
i
t
e
.
T
h
e
s
i
z
e
o
f
proposed plantings is also consistent with the landscape ordinance
.
Berming along West 76th Street does not screen parking areas
.
T
h
e
b
e
r
m
h
e
i
g
h
t
should be raised a minimum of one foot. Berming along propose
d
G
o
l
d
e
n
T
r
i
a
n
g
l
e
Drive also does not screen parking and should be raised a mini
m
u
m
o
f
1
.
5
f
e
e
t
t
o
screen parking. Since the setback to parking is at 25 feet, in
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
b
e
r
m
height by feet will require slopes in excess of 3/1. (The
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
h
e
m
m
i
n
g
within the 25-foot setback is already proposed at a 2.5/1 slope
.
)
T
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
berm by a minimum of rei feet, or to an elevation of 863.5, the
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
a
r
e
a
m
u
s
t
b
e
a minimum of 33 feet. Since the site plan indicates an excess a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
g
r
e
e
n
a
r
e
a
adjacent to the building, the site plan could be revised to re
m
o
v
e
e
i
g
h
t
f
e
e
t
o
f
green area in front of the building and add to the parking se
t
b
a
c
k
a
l
o
n
g
G
o
l
d
e
n
Triangle Drive.
The building footprint will screen loading areas from Golden Tri
a
n
g
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
W
e
s
t
• 76th Street; however, loading areas will be visible from f
u
t
u
r
e
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
Hello piece to the north. To avoid precluding office, or office
s
h
o
w
r
o
o
m
u
s
e
s
f
r
o
m
occering on the Hello piece, it vamild be beneficial to
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
b
e
r
m
,
supplemented with plantings, in a manner similar to Attachment A. Since the Tech IV
site will be approximately three feet higher, a 1.5-foot high b
e
r
m
,
w
i
t
h
a
p
e
a
k
f
i
v
e
feet from the property lino, creates a 4.5 high berm when viewed from the north.
The combined setback of 20 feet with berm and plantings should provide
an effective
screen.
Technology Park 4th Addition 3 May 24, 1985
Sidewalks and Trails
. Improvements to Golden Triangle Drive and West 76th Street e
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
w
i
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
five-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the cast side of Golde
n
T
r
i
a
n
g
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
both sides of West 76th Street. An eight-foot wide bitu
m
i
n
u
s
t
r
a
i
l
w
i
l
l
b
e
constructed on the west side of Golden lriangle Drive. The pr
o
p
o
n
e
n
t
i
s
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
bound by the City Council to construct a sidewalk along the no
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
W
e
s
t
7
6
t
h
Street past, Technology Park Phases I, II, and III.
Utilities
Though no detailed utility plans for the extension of sewer
a
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
f
o
r
this project have been provided at this time, we do know
t
h
a
t
s
e
w
e
r
a
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
service is available with the construction of Golden Triangl
e
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
W
e
s
t
7
6
t
h
Street extension. It will he necessary to loop the water-main from Golden Triang
l
e
Drive along West 76th Street to Washington Avenue for adeq
u
a
t
e
f
i
r
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
Prior to Council review, the proponent should submit utility
d
e
t
a
i
l
s
f
o
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
b
y
the City Engineering Department.
A storm water run-off plan has been provided for this site; h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
i
t
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
show how the proposed drainage would connect into proposed s
t
o
r
m
s
e
w
e
r
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
i
n
Golden Triangle Drive and the West 76th Street extension
.
W
e
d
o
k
n
o
w
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
direction of the storm water run-off of this project will b
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
a
s
e
r
i
e
s
o
f
sedimentation ponds before ultimate discharge into Nine
M
i
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
.
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
Council review, proponent should provide an overall storm
w
a
t
e
r
r
u
n
-
o
f
f
p
l
a
n
f
o
r
review by the City Engineering Department.
Roadways
Golden Triangle Drive and the West 76th Street extension
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
concurrent with development of this site.
Signage and Lighting
Though no signage details have been provided for review, th
e
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
w
i
l
l
be similar to monument signs constructed in Phases I, II,
a
n
d
I
I
I
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
n
e
n
t
should submit details of the proposed monument signs for rev
i
e
w
.
The proposed lighting plan indicates 20-foot high, downcast
l
u
m
i
n
a
r
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
i
s
site. This type of lighting is consistent with lighting pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
i
n
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
Park, Phases I, II, and III.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the request fo
r
r
e
z
o
n
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
R
u
r
a
l
to 1-2 Park on 4.5? acres and a Preliminary Plat of 4.52 acres
i
n
t
o
o
n
e
l
o
t
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
plans dated May 17, 1985, subject to the recomlendations of the Staff Repor
t
,
d
a
t
e
d
May 74, 1985, and subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Modify the landscape plan to increase berm height alon
g
G
o
l
d
e
n
Triangle Drive and West /6th Street extension to adequately s
c
r
e
e
n
parking areas. Provide a berm similar to that shown on Atta
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
along the north property line.
Technology Park 4th Addition 4 May 24, 1985
B. Submit detailed utility and storm water run-off plans for review by
the City Engineering Department.
2. Prior to Final Plat, proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water run-off plans for review by the
Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed utilities, storm water run-off, erosion control
plans, and road construction plans, for Golden Triangle Drive, and
West 76th Street extension by the City Engineering Department.
C. Obtain permission from the adjacent property owner for grading
necessary off-site.
3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
B. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance
of grading.
C. Provide signage details for review.
4. Concurrent with building construction, proponent shall:
A. Construct a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk along both sides o
f
West 76th Street extension. This should also 'include a five-foo
t
wide concrete sidewalk along the southern -property line of
Technology Park, Phases I, II, and III.
B. Construct an eight-foot wide hituminus trail along the west side of
Golden Triangle Drive, and a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk along
the east side of Golden Triangle Drive.
C. Construct road to Golden Triangle Drive and the West 76th Street
extension.
attachment a
859 5-1.rAIATION
SCREENING OF LOADING
890.—.. brier-AMA I.ANt. t .6t-rox-rc Wcutivez,cvw.,e1J.srfre..# Fo.). or rAgl<tta aoo 850 Occu.ittJtm, t7gAue.1,- agt)krloto. _ _ _ . aeo ficofoED ita4 f-t-EVAllOki • E3450 ; ;(Thzd rtuAt 01.27 66AL4 1.*20 LZAW-At., f't CDs IACRIZCWW, 5111r, 5r_z,-1-folu
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Comnission
FROM:
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE:
April 5, 1985
SUBJECT:
Technology Park
Technology Park was continued by the Planning Commission in order to allow the
proponent time to revise plans to conform with concerns raised in the March 22,
1985, Staff Report. Planning Staff met with Mr. Brad Hoyt and his planner, Mr. Mike
Gair, and discussed ways in which Golden Triangle Drive could be realigned to
preserve more of the character of the oak-wooded hill. The proponent has revised
the location of Golden Triangle Drive to be 62 ft. further west, which preserves
more of the hill. Although there are a number of oak trees that will be removed,
the height of the man-made slope necessary to cut the road in has been reduced from
100 ft. to approximately 50 ft. and will be restored with a 2/1 grade.
The proponent has been able to gain approximately 20,000 sq. ft. of office/showroom
on the site immediately north of the wooded hill by cutting further into the back
side of it.
The proponent has also discovered that elevations on the overall site will need to
be lower than originally proposed because of the lack of usable fill currently
available on the site. The revised plan indicates lower road grades and building
elevations.
City Staff has discussed the possibility of removing a connection to Smetana Lane
from this proposal and finds that Smetana Lane is projected to carry up to 7,000
trips per dey at full developmmt. Since there is a dependence of this magnitude on
the road, Staff recomnends that it not be deleted from consideration at this time.
The proponent is aware that they will he needing a considerable amount of fill from
the area west of Golden Triangle Drive, but proponent does not have a mass grading
plan prepared in order to request such approval at this time.
The Planning Staff would recommend that the Commission limit further consideration
on this project to the area including, and east of proposed Golden Triangle Drive
because of a lack of information on grading and traffic generation from the area
west of Golden Triangle Drive at this time.
The Planoing Commission could deal with the Planned Unit Development Concept, which
would include the specific road alignment of Golden Triangle Drive, its general
grains, laud uses east of Golden Triangle Drive, and individual building pad
elevations. Action for Planned Unit Development Concept approval west of Golden
Triangle ['mien. should be deferred pending further information.
Planning Staff would recommend approval of the revised Planned Unit Development
Concept. Plan for the area including, and east of, Golden Triangle Drive. The public
hint alt he closed on the ca ttire property, and the plan for Technology Park
west of Coldon Triangle Dr iv:? should he returned to the dvolopor pending further
information to be provided by proponent on grading, land use, and traffic.
STAFF REPORT
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
IlffauGH:
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
SUBJECT:
Technology Park, Phase III
LOCATION: South and east of Valley View Road, west of Washington Avenue, north
of Viking Drive, west of Smetana Road.
DA1E:
March 22, 1985
APPLICANT/
FETTWEXT
REQUEST:
Background
Technology Park Associates
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial/High Density
Residential to Office on 19.65 acres, a Planned Unit Development
Concept Review on 68.36 acres, and an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet Review on 68.36 acres.
The Comprehensive Guide Plan des-
ignates this site for a combination
of Open Space and Industrial/High
Density Residential land uses. The
Open Space is designated along Nine-
Mile Creek and Smetana Lake,
bordering the western and southern
sides of the project. The Com-
prehensive Guide Plan also depicts a
north/south collector street which
is referred to in this submittal as
future Golden Triangle Drive.
The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts
surrounding future land uses as
InduArial to the north and east of
this project, Open Space and Low
Density Residential to the west of
the site, and Open Space and Office
to the south of the site.
The site is currently zoned Rural.
No specific ro7onino or platting
requouts are submitted at this time.
A Pl‘mmod Unit 1 1,.,vlopm ,n1 Concept
is reqqested on 6.36 acres for the
cowAructien of 1d9,950 square feet
11tA:
Technology Park, Phase III 2 March 22, 1985
of office, office/warehouse, and office showroom use.
The existing site character can be described as a mixture of lowland areas adjacent
to Nine-Mile Creek, upland wooded areas with steep slopes in the northwest and
southeast corner of the site, and a disturbed area in the central portion of the
site which is presently a gravel pit and mining area.
The existing topography ranges from a low point at elevation 834 at Nine-Mile Creek
to a high point at elevation 935 on the wooded knoll in the southeast quadrant.
Slopes; range from 0 to 0.6 per cent in the mined areas in the center of the project,
with moderate slopes between six to twelve per cent adjacent to Nine-Mile Creek, and
slopes between 12 to 13 per cent and 18 per cent or greater on the two high knolls
of the project. The second knoll in the northwest corner of the site is at a high
point of elevation 910.
There is a variety of vegetative cover on this site, ranging from totally disturbed
and no vegetative cover on the previously mined areas on the project to lowland
meadows in the northwest and south areas of the property adjacent to Nine-Mile
Creek. The lowland meadow areas are covered with lowland shrubs including aspen and
dogwood, as well as a variety of other softwood trees. Adjacent to these lowland
areas, are upland meadow areas covered with grasses and pockets of mature hardwoods,
predominantly oak. The wooded knoll in the southeast corner of the project has
approximately 100 oak trees of ten-inch diameter or greater in size. The slopes
from the center of the knoll to the western side of the knoll have the highest
concentration of oak trees.
A tree inventory in the mature upland oak areas in the northwest corner of the site
would be beneficial to the analysis of the location of future building and parking
areas.
Provisions of the Shoreland Ordinance are applicable to this 'site, since it abuts
portions of Nine-Mile Creek. Nine-Mile Creek is designated as a general development
water and for office and industrial uses, the following regulations would apply:
1. Minimum lot size is two acres.
2. Minimum width at the building line is 150 feet.
3. Minimum width at the Ordinary High Water Mark is 150 feet.
4. Minimum setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark is 150 feet.
5. Maximum building height is 30 feet.
6. Maximum impervious surface is 30 per cent.
The Nine Mile Creek Floodplain is on the south portion of the property, which the
Comprehensive nuide Plan depicts as an Open Space corridor. The Planned Unit
fievelpvent Concept plan indicates a preservation area with a minimum width of 100
feet on the narth and most sides of Nine-Mile Creek. Since the preservation areas
would he itnlicated as open space consistent with the City's Comprehensive Guide
Plan, amid if platted as an outlet, none of the property within this project would he
an abetting lot, and provisions one through for of the Shoreland Ordinance would
• not apply.
(
Technology Park, Phase III 3 March 22, 1985
An fnvironmental Assessment Worksheet has been prepared for this proj
e
c
t
s
i
n
c
e
i
t
involves in excess of 200,000 square feet of office and industrial
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
.
Mandatory Environmental Impact Statement category for office and industr
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
i
s
500,000 square feet of building.
Planned Unit Development Concept Plan
The Planned Unit Development Concept Plan proposes 499,500 square fee
t
o
f
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
area on 68.36 acres of gross land area at a Floor Area Ratio of 0.1
7
.
T
h
e
F
l
o
o
r
Area Ratio based upon 42.03 net acres of developable land is 0.27.
F
l
o
o
r
A
r
e
a
Ratios proposed for the office/showroom sites are 0.30. Floor Area Ra
t
i
o
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
office sites are proposed at 0.50. The proposed Floor Area Ratios i
n
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
e
d
Unit Development Concept plan are consistent with Floor Area Ratios
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
f
o
r
Industrial and Office guided areas for single and multiple story buildi
n
g
s
.
The Planned Unit Development Concept is 29 per cent office, 33 per cent
Office/Showroom, and 34 per cent Preservation area or Open Space. Bas
e
d
u
p
o
n
4
2
.
0
8
net developable acres, the concept plan proposes 47 per cent Office, a
n
d
5
3
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
Office/Showroom.
The Planned Unit Development Concept shows land uses in the most appropr
i
a
t
e
a
r
e
a
s
of the site. Office uses are proposed along Nine-Mile Creek and woode
d
a
r
e
a
s
t
o
take advantage of the views and the natural amenities. Office uses are a
l
s
o
s
u
i
t
e
d
in these areas because of the varying topography and because mult
i
p
l
e
s
t
o
r
y
buildings would allow more open space and trees to be preserved. The cent
r
a
l
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
of the site, since it has been disturbed considerably by mining operation
s
a
n
d
s
i
n
c
e
the land is level with little or no tree cover, would be suitable for th
e
o
n
e
-
s
t
o
r
y
office/showroom buildings.
The Planned Unit Development Concept Plan shows building footprints on
t
h
r
e
e
s
i
t
e
s
which are part of the first phase of Technology Park III addition. A
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
building footprints aro conceptual at this time, some general assumptions can be
made as to the appropriateness of site development on these lots. S
i
n
c
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
Golden Triangle Drive will be a major north/south collector street, buil
d
i
n
g
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
be orientated with office Uses facing this roadway. This would me
a
n
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
office/showroom Building XI and XII should have a different building c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
such that the throat of the loading area would not he visible from future Golden
Triangle Drive.
Access
Access to this site will be possible with the completion of Golden Tr
i
a
n
g
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
from Valley View Road to Viking Drive, south of Nine-Mile Creek and the extension of
West 761.h Street. The proposed alignment of proposed Golden Triangle Drive will
result in the loss of 6"?. oak trees between 10 to 12-inch caliper in size and a major
alteration of the hill. A better alignment for Golden Triangle Drive would be to
shift the roadway to the west in a manner similar to shot is suggested on Attachment
A. Tho degree to which Golden Triangle Drive can be shifted to the west will dopond
upon the locotion of the creek crossing and th2 alion ,nent of Golden Triangle Drive
throo.;h the Vansge cite to the south. Realignet of Golden Triangle Drive wil
l
innocence tho Si or of tine preservation area and at the Sannw time reduce the size of
the OffiC,' .1r0a tin 1hr! V;0St of the road. It may be appropriate to com b ine these
office sites into one largo office parcel.
I
Technology Park, Phase III 4 March 22, 1985
Golden Triangle Drive will have 70 feet of right-of-way with a two-lane, 37-foot
wide road surface. Smetana Lane currently terminates on the western border of this
site. Since traffic volumes in the future are expected to be as high as 7,000 trips
per day, provisions should he made to connect Smetana Lane from its present
terminous over to proposed Golden Triangle Drive. A possible location for Smetana
Lane connection would be north of the proposed office sites and south of the
proposed showroom sites as indicated on Attachment A. The construction of Golden
Triangle Drive and West 76th Street extension should occur concurrent with Phase One
of the phasing plan with this construction.
Site Grading
No mass grading plan has been provided for review at this time. The current
alignment proposed for Golden Triangle Drive will result in 2/1 slopes that would
remove 62 oak trees. Although no proposed finished road grades have been
established for Golden Triangle Drive, it will be necessary to cut the ridge line
along the northern edge of this site, since the property to the north is at a lower
elevation. Careful planning must occur on the edges of the site not previously
gravelled in order to retain as much of the hilly-wooded character as possible. A
mass grading plan should be submitted for review, which identifies the areas of cut
and fill on-site, as well as location for building •pads, with elevations on all
proposed sites.
Architecture
Information on architecture is limited to a general discussion in the proponent's
narrative about the type of building materials proposed that would be similar to
Technology Park Phase I and II of which the primary building materials were stucco,
metal panel, and glass. Use of these materials may be acceptable within a typical
industrial area; however, since these sites will be highly visible from Golden
Triangle Drive, a major north/south collector street, and since many of the office
sites will visually impact the creek and office areas proposed on the Vantage
property to the south of Nine:Aile Creek, Staff would recommend that at least along
the perimeter of the site the primary building materials be brick, stone, glass (or
equal), or any combination thereof. Use of other materials as an accent not to
exceed 25 per cent of the face of any one wall, may be acceptable subject to a
performance review of detailed architectural plans.
Utilities
The mining operations may influence sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems within
the site. Further extension of the sanitary sewer served by the Washington Avenue
lift station should not occur. The site can be served by the extension of gravity
sewer serving the area. There is a 36-inch sanitary interceptor along Nine-Mile
Creek.
Watermain improvements will require looping of the watermain to Washington Avenue.
Storm water run-off will flow into Nine-Mile Creek and will require sedimentation
ponds. Two rIimutation ponds are proposed at this time in the northwest and
southeast corners of the site
Information provided on sewer, water, and storm water plans is general at this time.
Staff does know that this site can be served by gravity sewer, water, and storm
Technology Park, Phase III 5 March 22, 1985
sewer. The proponent must provide detailed plans to show how each site can be
served by utilities.
Pedestrian Systems
Golden Triangle Drive improvements will include an eight-foot wide hituminus pathway
on the west side which will connect to the Vantage site and to an eight-foot
bituminus pathway proposed along reconstructed Valley View Road to the north. In
addition, there will be a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the east side of
Golden Triangle Drive that will also connect the Vantage site and Valley View Road.
A five-foot wide concrete sidewalk will be constructed along West 76th Street. The
proponent is previously bound by the City Council to construct a sidewalk along West
76th Street, past Technology Park Phase I, II, and III. There should be an overall
pedestrian circulation plan, which indicates provisions for sidewalks that would not
only link sites together, but tie into the proposed sidewalk system along the
roadways.
Traffic
A traffic study, commissioned by the City, has recently been completed that analyzes
the impacts of full development expected in this general area and describes road
improvements required. The traffic study was originally envisioned to analyze the
specific impacts of the Hoyt Development and Vantage Development since this issue
was -the focus of discussion when Southwest Crossing Phase I and Technology Park I
and II were reviewed by the Planning Commission last year.
The traffic study indicates that, based upon ultimate development of the area,
traffic generated would exceed capacities of roadways and intersections even with
the following recommended improvements:
1. Geometric improvements at 15 intersections.
2. A wider bridge on County Road #18 over 1-494.
3. A wider bridge on Prairie Center Drive/Valley View Road over Trunk Highway
#5.
4. A new Washington Avenue bridge over 1-494.
5. Peak hour trip generation of all land uses reduced by 20 per cent.
The Technoloey Park III development falls into traffic assignment zones 15 and 16 of
the traffic study. Areas 15 and 16 were expected to develop at 1.45 million square
feet of be area for office and industrial usage.
Traffic forecasts for Areas 15 and 16 in the traffic study were based upon 628,000
square feet of office, 497,000 square feet of warehouse, and 316,000 square feet of
general industrial.
Areas 15 emiml 16 do include oxiThnn developed areas and undeveloped areas outside of
the Technology Park III devolopwnt which v:ould account for 950,000 square feet of
building. Ihu ,; traffic projections for Technology III were based upon 500,000
square feet of building area.
Technology Park, Phase III 6 March 22, 1985
If the showroom buildings are envisioned to be 33 per cent office, then of the total
499,500 square feet of building area, 294,750 square feet, or 59 per cent would be
office, and 204,750 square feet, or 41 per cent, would be warehouse/showroom. If 33
per cent office is assumed for 950,000 square feet of building outside this site in
zones 15 and 16 (313,500 square feet), and 628,000 square feet of office total was
projected, means that 314,500 square feet of office was projected for Technology
Park III.
Total trips in zones 15 and 16 are 11,915 trips based on 628,000 square feet of
office at 12.3 trips per 1,000 square feet, 497,000 square feet of warehouse, at
five trips per 1,000 square feet, and 316,000 square feet of general industrial at
5.4 trips per 1,000 square feet. Technology Park III is 19,750 square feet less
office than projected, so net traffic generation would be approximately 150 trips
less or a one per cent reduction.
Since a reduction of total traffic by 20 per cent will be necessary to allow the
traffic system to function even with substantial improvements, land uses in
Technology Park III should be modified to reduce traffic by 19 per cent. Since
Technology Park III will generate 4,680 trips per day, a 19 per cent reduction
represents 889 trips. Converting 125,000 square feet of office to
warehouse/showroom, would reduce traffic by 887 trips per day, or 19 per cent. This
would mean a Planned Unit Development Concept with 169,750 square feet (34 per cent)
office, and 329,750 square feet (60 per cent) warehouse/showroom. The siting of
office uses along the creek is the highest and hest use. These sites could be
designated corporate headeuarter sites to allow large scale research and development
companies like Lee Data, which could orient office uses towards the creek and be
office-like in appearance. The percentage of office would be less, even though the
total square footage would remain the same. Total traffic would be less and site
proposed for office along the creek could remain guided Industrial.
Summary
The extent to which approvals can be granted at a Planned Unit Development Concept
and Guide Plan Change level are dependent upon the level of information provided.
Although detailed information relative to mass grading, landscaping, architecture,
storm water run-off, and utilities, are lacking at this time, it is important to
remember that a Planned Unit Development Concept is being requested and that
additional iniormation could accompany a Planned Unit Development District Review,
rezoning, or subdivision request.
The project can be evaluated in terms of land use, intensity of land use,
arrangement of land uses on-site, and required infra-structure necessary to support
the development which would include roads, and utilities. The Comprehensive Guide
Plan depicts this site as either Industrial, or Residential, uses. Since the
majority of the surrounding area is developed as industrial, or proposed as office
and industrial, it seems unlikely that residential uses would be appropriate. The
use of this site for industrial uses would he consistent with the Comprehensive
Guide Plan. Office uses would be appropriate in this location, since office uses
are planned to the south of this project on the Vantage piece and the variant
topoelwhv, voodod areas and views ocr(Y,s open space makes sense for multiple story
office buildings oil ii small building footprints which can retain as much as the
existing natural charactristics as possible. Although a Co:aprehensive Guide Plan
chanqe has been puhlihod from High Density Resid2ntial/Industrial to Office,
Commission may choose not to act on the Comprehensive Guide Plan Chan9e since the
,/(7/:L
Technology Park, Phase III 7 March 22, 1985
overall Planned Unit Development Concept proposed based upon the net acreage is 47
per cent office, and 53 per cent office/showroom, or industrial. The Planned Unit
Development revisions suggested by Staff would propose 34 per cent office, and 66
per cent warehouse/showroom. This area, as envisioned under the Comprehensive Guide
Plan for Industrial uses, would allow up to 50 per cent office.
The intensity of land development on this site is low. The gross Floor Area Ratio
Is 0.17, while the net Floor Area Ratio is 0.27 both of which are low for office
usage, but at the same time are comparable with Floor Area Ratio's in Industrial
areas. Floor Area Ratios for each site proposed are at, or below, ordinance
requirements for single and multiple story buildings in office or industrial areas.
Land uses seem to be located in the most appropriate areas on-site. The large
central portion of this site, which has previously been mined and has relatively
level slopes, would be suited for office/showroom buildings which require a large,
level building pad area. Areas of the site along the creek and adjacent to steeply
wooded areas, or steep sloped areas, are best suited for office uses since multi-
story buildings, with smaller building footprints, can retain more of the existing
site character.
The development of this site will require the completion of three major roadways
including Golden Triangle Drive, West 76th Street, and Smetana Lane. The alignment
of Golden Triangle Drive should be shifted to the west to allow for more of the
wooded knoll to be retained in its natural character. Since the realignment of
Golden Triangle Drive to the west will reduce the size of the adjacent office area,
these two proposed office sites could be combined into one parcel.
Information on grading, architecture, site planning, landscaping, screening, signage
and lighting, are difficult to comment on at this time since information is general.
These site planning details are equally as important as the Planned Unit Development
Concept itself. The details of any project typically become the-measure by which we
judge the project as successful or not. Submittal of a grading plan with building
pad locations and floor elevations is necessary to evaluate the appropriateness of
physical alteration of the land forms. A design framework manual is necessary to
provide guidelines by which this project can be unified in terms of architecture,
access, building materials, landscaping, screening, pedestrian systems, lighting,
and signage. This design framework manual was a condition of approval of Technology
Park I and II in that prior to any development for the remainder of the property,
such a manual would be submitted concurrent with a Planned Unit Development
proposal.
If the Commission feels comfortable with the Planned Unit Development Concept
request as submitted, then Staff would recommend that approval be based upon the
following:
1. Continue action on the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change until more detailed
information on mass grading, architecture, and site planning is submitted
for all proposed uses.
?. Concurrent with any subsequent re7oning/proliminary plat request, proponent
shall ubait a macs gradin9 plan, with building pad locations, a mass
landscaping plan, prelisainary architectural drayjnoc, detailed sower, water,
and slorifi water run-off plans, and a dos ion framework manual, which includes
provisions tor c(vslon architrrture, site planning, landscaping, access,
screoning, lighting, railways, and signage.
//f/',
Technology Park, Phase III 8 March 22, 1985
3. Modification of the Planned Unit Development Concept for a realignment of
Golden Triangle Drive, west of its present location to save more of the
existing land form in the southeast corner of the site, and provide for the
extension of Smetana lane from its present terminous to Golden Triangle
Drive.
4. Primary building materials shall be of face brick, stone, and glass (or
equal), or any combination thereof, with other accent materials subject to a
detailed review on a performance basis with the submittal of detailed
architectural plans concurrent with rezoning and platting requests.
5. Revision of the land use plan to reflect a 19 per cent reduction in traffic
at full development. Development to a higher percentage of office later in
the project may be possible if actual traffic counts indicate less traffic
is being generated than estimated.
17.‘,s
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMM
I
S
S
I
O
N
June 3, 1985
-9-
C. Technology Park
Refer to staff reports dated May 24, 1985.
Lambert introduced Mr. Mike Gaare of Hoyt Development. M
r
.
G
a
a
r
e
showed an aerial photo of the site which -was taken in April of
1984. The site is located on 66 acres with Nine Mile Cre
e
k
t
o
t
h
e
north. The developer has completed two buildings and the
t
h
i
r
d
building is under construction. The request is for the f
o
u
r
t
h
building in the development.
Caere pointed out existing zoning and said the site is we
s
t
o
f
Golden Triangle Drive with open space to the south. The
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
is requesting concept approval for 23 acres east of Gold
e
n
T
r
i
a
n
g
l
e
Drive.
Kingrey asked what color the exterior of the building wi
l
l
be.
Caere said it will be in gray tones.
Lambert said there are actually two requests being submi
t
t
e
d
f
o
r
Approval. They are the comprehensive guide plan change
f
r
o
m
industrial/high density residential to office on 19.65 a
c
r
e
s
,
a
planned unit development concept review on 68.36 acres
a
n
d
a
n
environmental assessment worksheet on 68.36 acres. He r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
s
approval per the staff report.
MOTION: Cook moved to recommend approval of Technology
P
a
r
k
,
P
h
a
s
e
hi per staff report, but adding a retaining wall to be cons
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
north of the creek to save more of the trees. Kingrey
s
e
c
o
n
d
e
d
t
h
e
motion and it passed 6-0.
-= 6
B. TECHNOLOGY_ PARK, by Technology Park Associates. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Industrial/High Density
Residential to Office on 19.65 acres; Planned Unit Development
Concept Review on 68.36 acres for Office, Office/Showroom uses; and
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 68.36 acres. Location:
South and East of Valley View Road, West of Washington Avenue, North
of Viking Drive. A continued public hearing.
Planner Enger reviewed the progress on the item since the previous meeting,
responsive to Commission concerns involving Smetana Lane extension, traffic
volumes, and final alignment for Golden Triangle Drive.
Mr. Brad Hoyt, proponent, stated that, after review of the items of concern
to the Commission, and discussions with Staff, proponents would prefer to
defer the issue of the Smetana Lane extension at this time, until further
information on the necessity of connecting this road was available.
Regarding the alignment of Golden Triangle Drive, Mr. Hoyt stated that he
had worked with his consultants to move the road further to the west, as
suggested by the Commission. The revised plans showed the road 62 ft.
further west than the original submission. He added that this alignment
would save the top 50 ft. of the hill and would not require any retaining
walls adjacent to the proposed parking lots within the 'development.
Mr. Hoyt stated that he was in the process of negotiating with the property
owner to the north for fill to correct the elevations of the property caused
by the mining operation over the past several years. Mr. Hoyt pointed out
that, in order to grade the building pads for the property east of proposed
Golden Triangle Drive, and to grade Golden Triangle Drive, itself, it would
be necessary also to grade a portion of the property on the west side of
proposed Golden Triangle Drive to achi•eve a balance of the materials on the
site. Mr. Hoyt expressed concern, in particular, for the northwest portion
of the site, which was a wooded site, the elevations of which would be
difficult to deal with in relation to the existing elevations on surrounding
properties. He suggest ,..td that the best alternative for this northwest
portion of the property would be to grade it to the elevations of the
surrounding preperties. Also, Mr. Hoyt stated that the area adjacent to the
Cher no site, aleng the west property ii no and from which there was a 12 ft.
elevation difference to the subject property, would be restored for a more
suitable transition of the grades between the two properties.
Chairnan Schuck stated that it would be difficult to make a decision
relotive to the oralinn of the northwest lrea of the site without a tree
inventory of this pert ice of the property. lie sul9ested that the inventory
be propdrod or l'italf and Comnission review. Mr. Hoyt concurred that it
would ho holptul tor evaluation of site napacts.
Planner Enger reviewed a brief history of the mining operation on the
Planning Comnission Minutes 3 April 8, 1985
property. He explained that the current average
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
was below that approved by the mining permit and
t
h
a
t
i
t
d
i
d
n
o
t
a
p
p
e
a
r
t
h
a
t
the property had yet been restored to the approve
d
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
a
t
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
Also, the plan proposed by proponents did not sh
o
w
t
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
be at the elevation approved by that permit. He
s
t
a
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
S
t
a
f
f
w
o
u
l
d
require additional time to evaluate the differ
e
n
c
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
p
l
a
n
s
.
Staff would also require the tree survey for the
a
r
e
a
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
N
i
n
e
M
i
l
e
Creek to determine whether trees in that area co
u
l
d
b
e
,
o
r
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
,
s
a
v
e
d
.
Regarding the relocation of Golden Triangle Driv
e
,
P
l
a
n
n
e
r
E
n
g
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
the revised location represented a better plan
i
n
t
h
a
t
i
t
d
i
d
n
o
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
a
"sheer cut" of the hill. Regarding the extension
o
f
S
m
e
t
a
n
a
L
a
n
e
,
h
e
s
t
a
t
e
d
that it would be Staff's recommendation that it n
o
t
b
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
u
n
t
i
l
s
u
c
h
time as the character of Smetana Lane changed, we
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
The existing character of Smetana Lane was sing
l
e
f
a
m
i
l
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
.
H
e
added that it would be important to maintain the
o
p
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
road in the future.
Gartner asked whether, as part of the gravel mi
n
i
n
g
l
i
c
e
n
s
e
i
s
s
u
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
City, a bond had been posted for guarantee o
f
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
property. Staff responded that a bond had been
p
o
s
t
e
d
;
h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
e
m
i
n
i
n
g
operation had not yet been completed and opport
u
n
i
t
y
f
o
r
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
i
l
l
existed.
Gartner asked when City Staff had become aware of
t
h
e
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
m
i
n
i
n
g
w
h
i
c
h
had taken place on the property. Planner Enger r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
d
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
,
a
s
recently as three years ago, had become aware th
a
t
t
h
e
r
e
m
a
y
n
o
t
b
e
e
n
o
u
g
h
material on the site, itself, for restoration
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
A
t
t
h
a
t
time, City Staff inspected the site and determin
e
d
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
r
e
w
a
s
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
material available for restoration purposes.
Mr. Hoyt added that, based upon their earlier pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
i
t
would require approxiately 1,000,000 cubic yard
s
t
o
b
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
up
to the approved elevation per the mining permit issu
e
d
by the City.
Planner Roger stated that since 1975, the Engi
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
h
a
d
b
e
e
n
responsible for monitoring of the mining oper
a
t
i
o
n
.
H
e
s
t
a
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
,
i
n
discussions with the Engineering Department,
i
t
w
a
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
mining, for the most part, had taken place wit
h
i
n
t
h
e
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
permit issued.
Chairman Schuck stated that he felt it would be i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
f
o
r
S
t
a
f
f
t
o
h
a
v
e
additional time to review a tree inventory and th
e
m
a
s
s
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
to compare proposed and existing elevations of t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
H
e
a
d
d
e
d
t
h
a
t
he felt the proponent had done a good job in tryi
n
g
t
o
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
t
h
e
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
of the Comnission and Staff with the revised plan
.
Mr. Frank Smotana, Sr., 7630 Smetana Lane, stat
e
d
t
h
a
t
h
e
w
a
s
i
n
f
a
v
o
r
o
f
maintaining Smetana Lane in its current resident
i
a
l
s
t
a
t
u
s
.
Mr. Frank STetsina, Jr., "IT?? Smtana tone, state
d
that, at the time of
review of tbo mining permit in 1975, it was felt that the final
p
l
a
n
s
w
e
r
e
a
co:two:Ike betwen what as proposed by the deve
l
o
p
e
r
s
f
o
r
f
i
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
property and tinal elevations, and that he d
i
d
n
o
t
f
e
e
l
any further
Planning Comnission Minutes 4 April 8, 1985
compromises should be made by the residents in this area. He added that he
felt the Smetana Lane area had been protected by the 1975 plan with a
specified final elevation for the property. He stated that he did not feel
the property should be allowed to develop until it could be filled to the
elevations approved by the 1975 plan. Also, the 1975 plan showed a High
Density Residential use along the west border of the property, while the
proposed plan did not.
Planner Enger explained that the designation of land use for this area was
for either High Density Residential, or -Industrial, or both on the
Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Ms. Marilyn Heath, 7665 Smetana Lane, stated that she was concerned with the
northwest area of the property with respect to tree loss. She also
expressed concern regarding the widening of the creek, which she had
observed over the recent past and regarding the drop in elevation from the
Cherne property to the subject property.
Staff explained that the widening of the creek had been done by design of
the storm water drainage system in the area and was according to plans
reviewed and approved by the Watershed District for sedimentation control.
Ms. Heath stated that she would be more comfortable with a definite final
grade established for the property.
Gartner stated that she was concerned about the enforcement of Code in with
respect to the situation involving the mining operation on the site, adding
that the Code had been adopted to prevent such things from taking place.
Gartner stated that she did not feel the Commission could act on the east
half of the proposal without knowing how the west half of the property will
Ire invaded. She added that she had no problems with the the east half of
the proposal as presunted at this meeting.
Mr. Don Bundlic, 700 S. Meadow Lane, Golden Valley, attorney for Mr. William
Pearson, owner of the subject property, stated that he was uncertain that a
final elevation had been established by the mining permit.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to continue the public
hearing pending additional information including a tree inventory for the
northwest portion of the property and a mass grading plan, all to be
reviewed by the City Staff prior to Commission review.
Motion carried-4-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 4 March 25, 1985
ALIA
C. FDFN PRAIRIE TFCPTY OrY DARK III by Technology Park Associates.
Requost tor Comprehensive Guide Plan Ailend:uent from Industrial/High
Density Residential to Office on 19.65 acres, Planned Unit
DevolopTnt Concept for 63.36 acres for Office and Office/Showroom
uses, and Envirer2ental Assossuenit Worksheet Review on 63.36 acres.
Location: Sonth and East of Valley Viow Road, West of Washington
Avenue, North of Vikinu Drive. A public hearing.
Planning Comnission Minutes 5 March 25, 1985
Mr. Mike Gair, representing proponent, reviewed the site cha
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
a
n
d
proposed development of the property. He explained where va
r
i
o
u
s
u
s
e
s
w
e
r
e
proposed on the site and where natural features and majo
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
and facilities would be located.
Mr. Gale stated that the project was proposed for less . than a 0.30 floor
area ratio overall.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendati
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
S
t
a
f
f
Report regarding the project. Of major concern were tra
f
f
i
c
v
o
l
u
m
e
s
,
traffic patterns, and the location of Golden Triangle Dr
i
v
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
property.
Planner Eiger stated that the Staff Report recommendation for
a
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
the amount of traffic generated from the site did not necess
a
r
i
l
y
m
e
a
n
t
h
a
t
the amount of square footage needed to be reduced. He po
i
n
t
e
d
o
u
t
t
h
a
t
t
h
i
s
could be accomplished in several different ways, including, a
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
m
i
x
of land uses, ride-sharing programs or transportation managem
e
n
t
,
v
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
in the hours of operation of the uses, or by controlling th
e
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
o
f
the structures. All of these methods would have a positive
i
m
p
a
c
t
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
traffic reduction.
Planner Criger stated that the proposed uses were consi
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
Comprehensive Guide Plan, adding that the final land use des
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
c
o
u
l
d
remain open at this time. For example, a final user wit
h
a
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
,
headquarters structure, or a research and development us
e
,
c
o
u
l
d
a
f
f
e
c
t
traffic volumes.
Marhula asked if traffic had been evaluated for the major
o
f
f
i
c
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
south of this site. Staff responded that it would be at the
t
i
m
e
o
f
r
e
v
i
e
w
of their proposal. Submittal of that proposal was expected s
o
o
n
.
Mr. Brad Hoyt, proponent stated that he felt it would be
d
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
t
o
relocate Golden Triangle Drive through the property in a mann
e
r
w
h
i
c
h
w
o
u
l
d
save the hill in the south-central portion of the site
a
n
d
a
l
l
o
w
f
o
r
adequate lot depths for office sites along the southwest
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
property. He stated that he had discussed this with his eng
i
n
e
e
r
s
a
n
d
t
h
a
t
an alternative plan relocating the road 50 ft. to the west ha
d
b
e
e
n
o
f
f
e
r
e
d
.
Mr. Hoyt stated that, in his opinion, this was the greates
t
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
relocation possthie to moot both the needs of the City for saving the hill
and the needs of proponents for adequate lot sizes to the w
e
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
r
o
a
d
.
Mr. Hoyt stated that he felt the proposed development to the
s
o
u
t
h
,
w
h
i
c
h
was lamely office, would be the lamest generator of traffic for this area.
He pointed out that the volume of development allowed on this site and the
mix of uses whirl) would he proposed, were not under his c
o
n
t
r
o
l
f
o
r
t
h
e
property to the south. However, they would he using the roads through his
property.
Regarding extension of Saptena Lane as proposed by the dr
a
f
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
t
u
d
y
for the acea, Hoyt !-,Lat,..d that he did not reel extension of the road was
necessary ior this dovoloplont.
Staff stated that they would be interested in reviewing t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
9(c.),%
Planning Conmission Minutes 6 March 25, 1985
realignment of Golden Triangle Drive 50 ft. to the
w
e
s
t
a
n
d
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
y
w
o
u
l
d
be willing to review the possibilities of elimina
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
Smetana Lane. However, it would be incumbent upon
p
r
o
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
t
o
r
e
f
u
t
e
t
h
e
information provided by the traffic engineers in
t
h
e
d
r
a
f
t
o
f
t
h
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
study done for the City.
Chairman Schuck asked for comments and questi
o
n
s
f
r
o
m
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
audience. There were none.
Marhula stated that he felt there were several iss
u
e
s
y
e
t
t
o
b
e
r
e
s
o
l
v
e
d
f
o
r
this major project including the alignment of G
o
l
d
e
n
T
r
i
a
n
g
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
extension of Smetana Lane, and a possible 20% reduc
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
v
o
l
u
m
e
,
and that perhaps the item should be postponed to
a
l
l
o
w
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
issues.
Chairman Schuck stated that he felt that Golden T
r
i
a
n
g
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
moved as far west as possible for purposes of mai
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
t
h
e
h
i
l
l
i
n
t
h
e
south-central portion of the site. Gartner concurr
e
d
.
Marhula stated that he felt the land uses proposed
w
e
r
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
property, if the traffic issues could be resolved.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to co
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
to the meeting of April 8, 1985, to allow Staff and p
r
o
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
time to resolve issues raised at this meeting.
Motion carried--5-0-0
CITY or EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #85-152
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PARKWAY APARTMENTS
FOR BAR-ETT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Parkway Apartments, for Bar-Ett Construct
i
o
n
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
,
dated May 6, 1985, consisting of 35.9 acres into five lots with road r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
,
for construction of five, 73-unit apartment buildings, a copy of which i
s
o
n
f
i
l
e
a
t
the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the
E
d
e
n
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
:Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 18th day of June, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John O. Franc, City Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-153
A RESOLUTION FINDING THE AMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WORKSHEET FOR PARKWAY APARTMENTS, A PRIVATE ACTION, DOES
NOT REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of Eden Prairie did hold a hearing on June 18,
1985, to consider the Parkway Apartments proposal of Bar-Ett Construction Company;
and,
WHEREAS, said development is located on approximately 35.9 acres of land
located east of Mitchell Road and east of Chestnut Drive in Eden Prairie; and,
WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on
the Parkway Apartment proposal of Bar-Ett Construction Company and did recommend
approval of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet finding the project of no
significant impact;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, that an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for the Parkway
Apartment proposal of Bar-Ett Construction Company, because the project is not a
major action, does not have significant environmental effects, and is not of more
than local significance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a Negative Declaration Notice shall be
officially filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council.
ADOPTED this 18th day of June, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City ik
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
nifTurN-
DATE:
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
FEE OWNER:
REQUEST:
The Planning Commission
Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
May 24, 1985
Parkway Apartments
Intersection of Chestnut Drive and future Anderson Lakes Parkway.
Bar-Ett Construction Company
Galaxy Developers
1. Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5.
2. Preliminary Plat of 35.9 acres into five lots with road
right-of-way.
3. Review of Environmental
Background
The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts
this site for a Medium Density
Residential land use for up to ten
units per acre. This request is for
10.17 units per acre, which is 1.7%
in excess of the general Com-
prehensive Guide Plan Density range.
This is five units out of 365 total.
On this size of site, the difference
is insignificant and should not
necessitate a Comprehensive Guide
Plan Change. The Comprehensive
Guide Plan depicts surrounding land
uses as Medium Density Residential.
Chestnut Apartments (12 d/u per
acre) and Burning Tree West
Apartments (10.5 d/u per acre) abut
the western borders of this site.
Deer Crick Addition to the southwest
of the site is guided Medium Density
Residntial (theueh zoned RI -9.5) at
a density of 3.5 d/u per acre.
The existino site character can
generally he described as relatively
Parkway Apartments 2 May 24, 1985
level to gently rolling with slopes varying between 3% to 14%. Th
e
r
e
a
r
e
t
w
o
k
n
o
l
l
s
In the central portion of the site at elevation 054 and 8
4
8
.
T
h
e
1
0
0
-
y
e
a
r
floodplain at elevation 824 is located on the north central bo
r
d
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
.
T
h
e
natural drainage of the site flows from the southwest towards the
m
a
r
s
h
a
r
e
a
.
T
h
e
r
e
is some existing vegetation in the form of scattered clusters
o
f
b
o
x
e
l
d
e
r
,
e
l
m
,
willow, pine, and linden.
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet is required for this
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
s
i
n
c
e
i
t
involves more than 150 attached multiple units in a third, or fou
r
t
h
,
c
l
a
s
s
c
i
t
y
.
Site Plan
The site plan involves the construction of five, 73-unit apar
t
m
e
n
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
,
o
n
35.9 acres of land, at a gross density of 10.17 units per acre,
a
n
d
a
n
e
t
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
o
f
11.09 units per acre excluding road right-of-way.
Each building will be three stories high, with a gross squar
e
f
o
o
t
a
g
e
o
f
8
5
,
0
5
0
square feet. For five buildings the total would be 425,250 squa
r
e
f
e
e
t
,
a
t
a
F
l
o
o
r
Area Ratio of 0.27. The RM-2.5 zoning district would allow a Fl
o
o
r
A
r
e
a
R
a
t
i
o
u
p
t
o
0.5 for multi-story buildings.
Building and parking areas meet minimum setbacks to proper
t
y
l
i
n
e
s
.
S
h
o
r
e
l
a
n
d
setbacks will not apply, since the site is in excess of 300 f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
line of Purgatory Creek.
For 365 units, the Code would require parking for 730 veh
i
c
l
e
s
,
b
a
s
e
d
u
p
o
n
a
requirement of two parking spaces (including one garage) for e
a
c
h
u
n
i
t
.
A
t
o
t
a
l
o
f
730 parking spaces are provided, half of which are enclosed und
e
r
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
Access to this site will be from Anderson Lakes Parkway and a pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
a
r
k
a
c
c
e
s
s
road. The proposed park access road is the western entrance to the Purgatory Creek
recreational area.
Grading.
Mass grading is proposed for the entire site. Buildings A, 8, C,
a
n
d
0
,
w
i
l
l
e
i
t
h
e
r
be cut into knolls or the side of a hill. Although the basemen
t
f
l
o
o
r
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
would suggest that a substantial amount of cut is required, it should be poin
t
e
d
o
u
t
that the first floor elevations will be approximately eight to t
e
n
f
e
e
t
h
i
g
h
e
r
,
a
n
d
match fairly closely to the existing grades on the site. Buildin
g
E
w
i
l
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
u
p
to 9 feet of fill to meet the basement floor elevation.
Portions of the underground parking area will be visible on
e
a
c
h
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
.
T
h
e
degree to which the parking is visible depends upon the proposed gradi
n
g
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
base of the building. Building E has a constant elevation at 813
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
b
a
s
e
o
f
the building, meaning that four feet will be visible around th
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
.
. The amount of parking area visible on Buildings A, B. C, and 0, will vary between
zero to four feet, since the buildings are being tucked into the knolls or slopes on
the site. All regradot areas on -site will have shallow slopes between 2% to 15%.
lhe steepest slope en -site is at 4/1 and is located on the northeast side of
Buildine I. and the south side of Building A.
Overall, the beat ion of buildings on -site works well with the existing grade.
Proposed regrading of the site will result in first floor b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
a
t
Parkway Apartments 3 May 24, 1985
are five to ten feet above Anderson Lakes Parkway,
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
a
c
c
e
s
s
r
o
a
d
.
Since buildings 011 be higher than adjacent roadw
a
y
s
,
b
e
r
m
i
n
g
w
i
l
l
b
e
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
throughout the site to help reduce the overall massi
v
e
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
The landscape plan indicates areas for some berming;
h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
o
t
h
e
r
a
r
e
a
s
on-site, noted on Attachment A, where berming or mass
p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
h
e
l
p
f
u
l
.
There are four retaining walls proposed. Two small
r
e
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
'
w
a
l
l
s
i
n
f
r
o
n
t
o
f
Building E are three feet in height. Two retaining wal
l
s
a
r
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
f
o
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
A. The retaining wall along the south side of the acce
s
s
d
r
i
v
e
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
u
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
parking area is approximately five feet in height
a
n
d
1
1
0
f
e
e
t
i
n
l
e
n
g
t
h
.
T
h
e
retaining wall in front of the building, adjacent
-
t
o
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
,
i
s
approximately five feet high and 160 feet in lengt
h
.
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
r
e
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
w
a
l
l
s
should be constructed of materials architecturally i
n
t
e
g
r
a
l
t
o
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
.
T
h
e
proponent should submit details of the proposed
r
e
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
w
a
l
l
s
f
o
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
indicating structural soundness and type of proposed ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
.
Architecture
Five, three-story, 73-unit apartment buildings, are pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
t
o
b
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
.
T
h
e
height of the buildings will vary between 40 to 44
f
e
e
t
a
b
o
v
e
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
l
e
v
e
l
,
depending on how much of the lower level garage
i
s
e
x
p
o
s
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
g
r
a
d
e
.
T
h
e
buildings are proposed to be constructed primarily
o
f
f
a
c
e
b
r
i
c
k
,
w
i
t
h
s
o
m
e
w
o
o
d
siding as an accent on the private exterior balconie
s
.
F
o
r
e
x
p
o
s
e
d
g
a
r
a
g
e
- areas,
the building material should be facebrick. The buil
d
i
n
g
w
i
l
l
h
a
v
e
a
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
character because of the gable roofs and eight-f
o
o
t
j
o
g
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
building.
Although the building size (73 units/building) is sma
l
l
i
n
t
e
r
m
s
o
f
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
u
n
i
t
s
,
the buildings together will still appear massive fr
o
m
v
a
r
y
i
n
g
v
i
e
w
p
o
i
n
t
s
.
S
i
n
c
e
the buildings are constructed in a letter "Y" configu
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
w
i
d
e
a
n
g
l
e
d
v
i
e
w
o
f
the building will vary between 200 feet at the shor
t
e
n
d
,
t
o
2
8
0
f
e
e
t
w
i
d
e
a
t
i
t
s
widest point. Edenvale Apartments is 330 feet at the
s
h
o
r
t
e
n
d
a
n
d
4
4
0
f
e
e
t
a
t
i
t
s
widest point. The gable roofs and building projecti
o
n
s
a
r
e
h
e
l
p
f
u
l
;
h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
e
site plan would benefit from additional berming and
m
a
s
s
p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
s
w
h
i
c
h
w
o
u
l
d
provide a more selective view of the mass of the buildin
g
.
The typical end elevation for the garage entrance
i
s
p
l
a
i
n
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
o
t
h
e
r
building elevations. This elevation would benefit
f
r
o
m
a
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
architectural style shown on the front and rear elev
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
g
a
b
l
e
r
o
o
f
s
and/or building projections to add more interest.
Utilities
Sewer and water service can be provided to this site.
S
e
w
e
r
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
c
a
n
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
by connecting to an existing 18-inch sanitary sewer li
n
e
,
w
h
i
c
h
r
u
n
s
i
n
a
n
e
a
s
t
-
w
e
s
t
direction across the central portion of the site. Wat
e
r
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
c
a
n
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
t
o
each of the units by connection to a proposed 16-inch
w
a
t
e
r
m
a
i
n
i
n
A
n
d
e
r
s
o
n
L
a
k
e
s
Parkway. An eioht-inch water line will be extended to
e
a
c
h
o
f
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
s
a
n
d
l
o
o
p
e
d
to provide adequate fire protection.
The majority of storm water run-off is proposed to d
r
a
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
m
a
r
s
h
a
r
e
a
i
n
t
h
e
north and central portion of the site. Storm water
r
u
n
-
o
f
f
w
i
l
l
f
l
o
w
a
c
r
o
s
s
t
h
e
park na into catch basins located within the pa
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
o
r
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
either Anderson takes Parkway or the proposed park acc
e
s
s
r
o
a
d
.
Parkway Apartments 4 May 24, 1985
In the northwest corner of the site, there is an existing 50-
f
o
o
t
s
t
o
r
m
s
e
w
e
r
easement over an open swale, which carries water from a 42-inch stor
m
s
e
w
e
r
p
i
p
e
o
n
the east side of Anderson Lakes Parkway over to the marsh area. Thi
s
4
2
-
i
n
c
h
s
t
o
r
m
sewer pipe should be extended to the marsh area. Some of the storm
w
a
t
e
r
r
u
n
-
o
f
f
will flow in an easterly direction along the proposed park access r
o
a
d
f
r
o
m
a
h
i
g
h
point at the eastern most entrance to Building B. Since develepine
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
area to the east of this site is indefinite at this time period, t
h
e
r
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
a
need to develop a temporary storm drainage solution to take the stor
m
w
a
t
e
r
r
u
n
-
o
f
f
from the end of the proposed roadway to the nearest outlet.
Traffic
A total of 2,190 average daily trips will be generated from a proje
c
t
o
f
t
h
i
s
s
i
z
e
based upon a trip generation rate of six trips per unit. Altho
u
g
h
n
o
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
traffic study has been completed, Staff would expect the majority of
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
t
o
e
x
i
t
this site and take Anderson Lakes Parkway to Mitchell Road, to
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
#
5
.
I
n
addition, future development of 30 acres, east of this site, guide
d
M
e
d
i
u
m
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Residential, would generate an additional 1,800 total daily trips
.
B
e
c
a
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
total anticipated traffic, it will be necessary to expand the rig
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
a
t
t
h
e
intersection of the proposed park access road and Anderson Lakes Pa
r
k
w
a
y
t
o
8
0
f
e
e
t
in order to accommodate three lanes of traffic, including one in-b
o
u
n
d
l
a
n
e
a
n
d
t
w
o
outbound lanes with one lane for left-turn to southbound Anderson L
a
k
e
s
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
,
a
n
d
one lane for through traffic to Chestnut Drive, and a right tu
r
n
t
o
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Anderson Lakes Parkway. (See Attachment B) The proponent should
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
d
e
s
i
g
n
of the intersection geometrics similar to Attachment B for review b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
Engineering Department.
Driveway entrances onto the proposed park access road from Building
s
B
,
C
,
0
,
a
n
d
E
,
should either align opposite from each other, or be offset a minimu
m
o
f
1
5
0
f
e
e
t
.
Landscafling
For a project of this size, the Code would require a minimum of 1,3
2
9
c
a
l
i
p
e
r
i
n
c
h
e
s
of trees based upon a ratio of one caliper inch for every 320 squar
e
f
e
e
t
o
f
g
r
o
s
s
building square footage. Since the buildings are proposed to be three
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
h
i
g
h
,
50% of the total caliper inch requirement must be a minimum of 2.
5
c
a
l
i
p
e
r
.
T
h
e
remaining 50% of the caliper inch requirement would be divided equal
l
y
i
n
t
o
c
a
l
i
p
e
r
inch categories outlined in the Code. The requieements are as follows: 265 (2.5
caliper inches), 44 (3 caliper inches), 35 (3.5 caliper inches),
3
3
(
4
c
a
l
i
p
e
r
inches), 30 (4.5 caliper inches), and 27 (5 caliper inches). Coniferous trees are
considered equivalent to shade trees by dividing the total hei
g
h
t
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
n
i
f
e
r
o
u
s
trees by 2.4. This means that a 2-inch caliper tree is equiva
l
e
n
t
t
o
a
s
i
x
-
f
o
o
t
coniferous tree, and a five-inch caliper shade tree would be equivalent to a twelve
foot conlferous tree.
The proposed landsu:ne plan indicates a range in caliper inches provided betw
e
e
n
1,014 to 2,104 based upon a range of caliper inch sizes of 2.5 to 4 inch caliper and
a coniferous tree height range of 6 to 14 feet high. A more detailed landscape plan
must be h:i it.tid (or review which indicates specific tree types, quantities,
s
i
z
e
s
,
and calculation of the caliper inches provided.
Portion; of the parking area ,. will be visible from public roads. (See Attachment A)
In these areas, increased berm height should be provided, com
b
i
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
m
a
s
s
Parkway Apartments 5 May 24, 1985
plantings. Previous sections identified a need for berming and mass plantings to
help reduce the overall building mass of the project. Attachment A also indicates
where additional berming and/or mass plantings are necessary.
To provide better transition to the existing and future single family homes in the
Deer Creek Addition, the landscape plan would benefit from substantial mass
plantings of large shade trees and coniferous trees along the southern border of the
site.
Open Spice/Pedestrian Systems
The Purgatory Creek recreation complex is proposed directly east of this site. (See
Attachment C) Road improvements to Anderson Lakes Parkway will include a five-foot
wide concrete sidewalk on the south and west sides, and an eight-foot wide bituminus
trail on the north and east sides. The proposed park access road should include a
five-foot wide concrete sidewalk on the north side and an eight-foot wide bituminos
trail on the south side. The site plan should also include sidewalk connections
from each building to the proposed sidewalk and trail system. (See Attachment 0)
A Cash Park Fee will be required for this project on a per unit basis. The marsh
area in the north central portion of the site, depicted as 100-year floodplain, if
dedicated to the City, should be dedicated as an outlet free and clear of all
encumbrances, liens, mortgages, and other restrictions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of the rezoning and preliminary plat request subject
to the recommendations of the Staff Report, dated May 24, 1985, based on plans,
dated May 6, 1985, and subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Modify the landscape plan to identify plantings by type, size,
.quantity, and caliper inches in conformance with the landscape
ordinance, and provide additional hemming and mass plantings to add
visual interest to the site and break up the overall building mass.
Also, provide additional mass plantings as a buffer between Building
A and adjacent homes in the Deer Creek Addition.
B. Modify the garage end elevation to be consistent with other building
elevations continuing the gable roof line and building projections
to add visual interest.
C. Modify the intersection geometries between Anderson Lakes Parkway
and the proposed park access road according to Attachment B.
D. Extend a 42-inch storm sewer pipe from Anderson Lakes Parkway to the
floodplain area.
E. Construct sidmmlks and trails where noted on Attachment E, and
provide connections from each building to the proposed sidewalk and
trail system.
F. Provide a temporary solution . for storm water drainage from the east
end of the proposed park access road to the nearest outlet.
Parkway Apartments 6 May 24, 1985
2. Prior to Final Plat, proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed storm water run-off, erosion control, and utility
plans to the City Engineering Department for review.
C. Dedicate the floodplain area in the north central portion of the
project free of all liens, mortgages, and other restrictions.
3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
B. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance
of grading.
C. Submit color samples of proposed exterior building materials for
review.
D. Submit lighting and signage details for review.
'716.
;
.....
• • • • , • . , 111.4mtivcd:
IN , C.11:10
1!1C
7 I ctir.sTtILIT I !ILL Al Al TS.1' • •
• • i .•
' I . I : : I I
I ' 1 I : I '
_ .
, ._ .- Sr:: ..--7'..-;--:',
,.', -...::-..-.
, ..;:"•:::::, '
\ •,.:.-' .:" ' -1, , ,
, -,--.7-,'''' - ''--- .f ir"...,',,"•\:‘' I ;, , \ • " ,, tA ' « -.. ."--x-r-,-;-n , i , i
• - -7,-,- \ ' ‘":.N !..!A '::--12- "- '''' "t*-71L . ' " ill / . ' -*"";.' ' (.:;.((""-,•'. "•":" 9( k r ,'... - ----..r.-7-, : . • .,---• ,
k' ,,/ .,., ',...7.":,,,-;7:-:-7:---7'==.1 , ..7 , ' ( ":"./'.% ../ - ...
X
1(//
( 'j' (' ''' \ \ ' (-tI- ) '
_ \\..--*..---- i
-7 ,,i,:i : :rr ._.",:..-'" ..„ .
, ' /}7, ;72/1\,Y7'''' 7 .r '
"0-.',
)1 //f . + /4. /
i ki:i ' - / /AT/ ' /., /,- . • ., „.„ l
/.... ...1 ;,-c
.._. .. ,,,...)
0
L.. --5.--_)c , .„,,...,.. ...._•,
,^-•---
-
nA•„"
. ,,,, -,,,.....i..7.-.:,74-- •-• . ,................-77:: /,.
CATIMODY •• :!' , "L'il,/,, rc ..",...,;
1 ,1_1) 5 ^,f•
3 c. t,tic
[3 Li 1 -.J711
i Burning Tree Add lion
rirrcmn
'
NONTlifillf, KING '
"
1,1/ItC.o
r ""." WAS -7'17 R PL A N
1, :••••••4;
,
i••\
's•-••\-L••----5 ‘' I \',3,11 i
‘<"
, •••\
\t••• ' '•••
• \ \ • \ \ ••• \ •
\\
t'.14 410•16 4:4 \ \
CHFS11•1•71. IlIl.L Al'AiZI%t 1 NTS
• • 1. • •,
.... •-•., , ,1
• :
•
t • • • - •
,INS(.11 n 1C.•
.0 •Ct ,fi •• VIC.
„ ; ••V.,"i I
'. • • • l' • • r• A ' , , \ ''------_,,.... t • ',i. 1.., li \ ' n i • ' \ / I 1 's \ • ' 1 • f 1 1 1 \ • ' 1— ••„\\ \ • • \ „. — -• --- ....... _ •••'• . .s .. ' Is la' „ . ; • •••.' ., .'• ', 1 ., . 1. \ 1 1 : ‘ 1 • , \ •,..... _
` . \ , \ t •,
1 - ' ' \ \ . ,.---• N''' i t ': — ' - I . \ \ 1 ' ;• II ' .
' ' • ''' , . i n ! d .
\'•‘•\ 1\. 4:: ' ‘. ....., c . . ,•
I n
, \ . \ • ' ' : ‘1.! i \ 1 I ' ' \ ,s ' ' .., atto chnien L , , I V
\:__
(..". \ • ; \ A• :', .. _ ... , • A• ___.--.. • - --
:?...--. i ‘-'..... 7.-----"*".'----- . \
- -. , . . • , / ,.• :/::
pt;,z i rv r ..V0.:,.S
. i — 1c: _S 1/ .. !
t,; .Ltt..,;11:1
(Ai 401Nt1 A 1 n 14 ;04 %C.!. AN
D. Parkway Apartments
Refer to staff report dated May 24, 1985.
•
Lambert introduced Mr. James Cooper, architect for Galaxy
Developers. Mr. Cooper reviewed the Parkway Apartments site plan
located on the east end of Chestnut Drive and future Anderson Lakes
Parkway, south of Mitchell Pond. The site is on uneven terrain
with few hills and a sparse amount of trees. There are five three
story apartment buildings plannpd on the site, each with 73 units
plus a recreation building. Each building will have its own pool,
'totlot and tennis court with a half basketball court. There will
also be an indoor pool.
Kingrey asked if these buildings will be visible from the Purgatory
Creek recreation 3fea. Lambert said they won't necessarily be
visible, particularly if more construction is done in the area.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION June 3, 1985
-10-
Lambert said the developer will dedicate the floodplain area on the
north end of the site to the City and pay cash park fees.
Kingrey asked how many three bedroom units there would be in these
buildings. Cooper said there is one three bedroom unit in each
building.
Kingrey expressed concern that there would not be playground areas
available near the apartments for older children. Lambert said
that in most cases, families living in apartments have pre-school
age children. Red Rock Park is the closest neighborhood park in
the area.
Cook asked what the blue areas are shown on the site plan. Cooper
said these are three swimming pools and two tennis courts.
MOTION: A motion was made by Gonyea to recommend approval of the
Parkway Apartments. Cook seconded the motion and it passed 6-0.
—
JUNE 18,1985
2( VOID OUT CHECK
2(4.II5 VOID OUT CHECK
20796 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-SUMMER PROGRAM FLYERS
20797 WENDY BURNS CARLSON SKATING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD
20798 LORI COLE SKATING INSTRUCTOR/FEES Pt)
• 20799 PEGGY LONG SKATING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD
20800 JOYCE PHELPS SKATING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD
20301 JACOB ROBERG REFUND - SWIMMING CLASSES
20802 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE
20803 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO WINE
20304 INTERCONTINENTAL PCKG CO WINE
20805 EAGLE WINE CO WINE
20806 TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE
20307 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR LIQUOR
20808 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CO WINE
20809 PRIOR WINE CO WINE
20310 QUALITY WINE CO LIQUOR
20311 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR
20312 DANA GIRDS PACKET DELIVERIES
20813 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE FEES-ASSESSING DEPT
20314 MINNESOTA NEC & PARK ASSN CONFERENCE-COMMUNITY SERVICES
20815 CITY-COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 5/31/85
20816 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 5/31/35
20817 COMMISSIONER Of REVENUE PAYROLL 5/31/85
20"1 8 DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS PAYROLL 5/31/85
4 AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO . PAYROLL 5/31/85
200.20 MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PAYROLL 5/31/35
20821 GREAT WEST LIFE INSURANCE CO PAYROLL 5/3/135
20822 UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS PAYROLL 5/31/85
20823 PERA PAYROLL 5/31/85
20824 LANE INSURANCE INC INSURANCE-LIQUOR STORE
20325 DALE CARLSON REFUND-MEMBERSHIP FEES
20826 MARTA BIEGLER REFUND-RACQUETBALL CLASSES
20827 STEVEN LEIPOLD REFUND-RACQUETBALL CLASSES
20828 JOHN WILLARD REFUND-RACQUETBALL CLASSES
20829 STUART ALEXANDER REFUND-RACQUETBALL CLASSES
20830 DONNA K DOLNY REFUND-RACQUETBALL CLASSES
20831 JOHN TOWNSEND REFUND - RACQUETBALL CLASSES
20332 TERRACE KROUTH REFUND-RACQUETBALL CLASSES
20833 SANDY HAAPALA REFUND-RACQUETBALL CLASSES
20334 MARY BUELL REFUND-RACQUETBALL CLASSES
20835 BETH ROWDY REFEIRD-RACQUETTALL CLASSES
20836 KAREN TURNER REFUND-RACQUETPALL CLASSES
20837 BILL KLAUS REFUND-RACQUE1RALL CLASSESS
20838 LISA RIEPE REFUND-MEMBERSHIP FEES
20339 PETTY CASH ROUND LAKE MARINA CHANGE FUND
20140 PETTY CASH BAIT FOR MARINA-ROUND LAKE
20841 WESTERN LIFE INSURANCE CO INSURANCE
20142 :hS 1H HEALTH PLAN INC INSURANCE
2' '3 GRER!R BEAM PLAN INC INSURANCE
PkYsIcIANS RAIM PLAN INSURANCE
1C15 STATE OF MIENES0TA BIKE REGISTRATIONS
20916 JOURSRN HRMLERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR E1Q003
70147 081091 COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR
20948 INIERCoNliRLNIAL PCKG CO WINE
420.00-
55.00-
133.63
240.00
90.00
90.00
10.00
3.25
392.29
3413.71
616.15
659.91
712.60
524.10
49.74
255.64
1151.18
2579.64
65.00
24.00
15.00
1330.00
19507.60
10457.49
14552.14
120.00
10.00
5313.00
350.43
17386.53
2062.00
67.00
26.00
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
27.00
20.00
10.00
825.74
5645.30
2014.30
12644.4?
65.00
3155.11
. 4823.5?
325.70
11133370
20849 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO •
20850 TWIN CITY WINE CO
20351 QUALITY WINE CO
20552 EAGLE WINE CO
2253 PRIOR WINE CO
203r PAUSTIS & SONS CO
2035., PETTY CASH
20355 GREAT AMERICAN MARINE
2257 MINNESOTA INSTITUTE OF LEGAL
20358 KATHY STELEFRG
2259 ERIN NELSON
26550 MICHAEL K EPPS
20351 PAMELA PERKINS
20362 PATRICK PERKINS
20553 SUPPLEE ENTERPRISES INC
20584 RALPH KRATOCHVIL
20355 ANGELA G WEGENER
20555 COLLEEN HOLLAND
20557 MATT RUDE
20868 KRISTEN FACKLER
20359 DAVID WRIGHT
20370 MATTHEW WRIGHT
20871 BRANDON BENZ
20272 LUKE LINDEMAN
20373 PAM BOSACKER
20374 LAURIE ACKER
20875 PREMIER RENT A CAR
20376 REX DISTRIBUTING CO INC
20877 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO
COCA COLA BOTTLING CO
( MARK VII SALES
Gu CITY CLUB DISTRIBUTING CO
20581 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO
20082 KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING CO
206:33 PEPSI/7-UP BOTTLING CO
20584 ROYAL CROWN BEVERAGE CO
20885 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO
20505 BEER KHDLESALERS INC
2C057 HOPKINS POSTMASTER
20888 NATIONAL REGISTRY EMT
20389 A COMMERCIAL DOOR COMPANY
20050 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER
20891 ACT ELECTRONICS INC
20032 AMERICAN FIRE JOURNAL
20093 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO
20094 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK
NPLS AREA CHAPTER
20095 01 0 .41 CAN SA:;BOLASTING INC.
20397 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC
PALI. ARNDT
20599 ARICOAT-1 PUSS INC
2000 'ASPEN CARPET CLEANING
20901 ASSOC1A1ED ASPHALT INC
LIQUOR
WINE
LIQUOR
WINE
WINE
WINE
EXPENSES
3 CANOES-COMMUNITY CENTER
EDUC CONFERENCE-ASSESSING DEPT
REFUND-SKATING CLASSES
REFUND-SKATING CLASSES
REFUND-SKATING CLASSES
REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES
REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES
RENT-LIQUOR STORE
INSTRUCTOR/EXERCISE CLASSES/FEES PD
REFUND-SAILING CLASSES
REFUND-PRE-NATAL CLASSES
REFUND - SWIMMING CLASSES
REFUND-SKATING CLASSES
REFUND•SWIMMING CLASSES
REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES
REFUND-SHINNING CLASSES
REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES
REFUND-POST NATAL CLASSES
REFUND-POST NATAL CLASSES
CAR RENTAL-SUMMER PROGRAM
BEER
BEER
MIX-LIQUOR STORE
BEER
BEER
BEER
BEER
MIX-LIQUOR STORE
MIX-LIQUOR STORE
BEER
BEER
POSTAGE-CITY HALL
FEE-POLICE DEPT
REPAIR DOOR-P/S BLDG
EQUIPMENT RENTAL-STREET DEPT
RENTAL OF TRAFFIC COUNTER-ENG DEPT
SUBSCRIPTION-FIRE DEPT
MOP SERVICE-LIQUOR STORE
BOND PAYMENT
CPR CLASSES/FEES PD
-SANDBLAST WALLS & FLOOR TO REMOVE PAINT-
FIRE DEPT
FLASHER/TRAFFIC CONES/BATTERIES
MAY CUSTODIAL SERVICE
BUSINESS CARDS-POLICE DEPT
CLEAN BUGS Al P/S BLDG
BLACKTOP
6426.86
407.10
2004.84
1263.25
840.05
419.37
57.67
952.87
115.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
1.75
10.00
3911.05
39.50
7.00
26.00
12.00
14.00
8.25
6.75
9.75
15.00
26.00
26.00
439.00
325.00
13922.59
889.95
4714.55
14823.30
6063.95
524.42
886.25
273.30
6443.65
7864.95
4000.00
15.00
187.52
294.68
75.00
14.95
9.05
49252.23
127.40
675.00
288.20
200.00
762.78
290.00
566.78
1:;.. 156
20902 ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN
20903 ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN
2( AT 11 INFORMATION SYSIEMS
AT & T INEUVATION SYSTEMS
20906 AUTO CENTRAL SUPPLY
2090) BATTERY A TIRE WAREHOUSE INC
20908 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
20909 BNB SERVICES
20910 LOIS BOETTCHER
20911 BRAUN [NC TESTING INC
20912 BROWN PHOTO
20913 BRUNSON INSTRUMENT CO
20914 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC
20915 BUTCHS BAR SUPPLY
20916 CHANHASSEN BUMPER TO BUMPER
20917 CHANHASSEN LAWN A SPORTS
20918 CHEMLAWN
20919 SCOTT COLE
20920 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS INC
7D 0 21 CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY INC
20922 COPY EQUIPMENT INC
20923 COUNTRY CLUB MARKET INC
20924 CURTIS INDUSTRIES
20925 CUTLER MAGNER CO
20926 PATRICK STANLEY DADY
20927 DALCO
20928 LYNDA DIEDE
20929 EUGENE DIETZ
20930 DENNIS P EARLEY
20931 JOY EASTMAN
20932 EAU CLAIRE COUNTY
20933 EDEN PRAIRIE TRASHTRONICS
20934 FIK RIVER CONCRETE PRODUCTS
20935 ELVIN SO!! TV SUPPLY INC
20936 ERERGENCY SERVICE SYSTEM INC
20937 ENS BROTHERS V. SONS INC
20933 JEFF ESS
20939 RON ESS
20940 FARMERS STEEL CO
20941 FEED RITE CONTROLS INC
20942 FLAMM EQUIVMLNI CORP
-13 HUI EFECHANICAL SERVICES
44 FLYING CLOUD SARI104V LANDFILL
-CONFERENCE-CITY COUNCIL MEMBERTS/CITY
MANAGER/ASSISTANT MANAGER
JUNE 85-MAY 31 1906 DUES
SERVICE
SERVICE
DURACLASS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
-BAITERY/HOSF CLAMP/ROTOR/OIL/FILTERS/
BRAKE FLUID/WIDER MAKES-EQUIPMENT MAINT
APRIL 80 IMPOUND SERVICE
REPAIR CASSETTE DECK-COPRTINITY CENTER
SERVICE-PARK V. REC CCRM MEETINGS
SERVICE-ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY
-DEVELOP FILM-POLICE DEPT/PLANNING DEPT/
CAMERA-WATER DEPT .
REPAIR MEIAL LOCATOR
ROCK
SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES
-SWITCH/GASKET/CONNECTORS/BRAKE SHOES/
-WHEEL CYLINDER/BRAKE PADS/SPARK PLUGS/
-FUSES/DISTRIBUTOR CAP/CRANKCASE/HORN/
-HOSES/SPLASH GUARDS/LAMP/PLUG WIRES/
WHEEL WEIGHTS EXHAUST
SPARK PLUGS/REPAIR CHAIN SAW-FORESTRY DEPT
LAWN SERVICE-P/S BLDG
EXPENSES-ROUND LAKE PARK
-MATERIAL USED TO REPAIR CRACKS IN ROAD-
STREET DEPT
-FACE PIECE BAG FOR BREATHING AIR S590.27/
-TEN AIR BOTTLES $2850.00/5 AIR MASK
AND CASE $4775.00
-PAINT/MARKING STICK/BLUELINE/XEROX BOND-
PARK PLANNING A STREET DEPT
SUPPLIES-CITY HALL
SCREWS/FITTING/GREASE/BRAKE CLEANER
QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT
FIREMAN CALLS
CLEANING SUPPLIES-POLICE & COMM CENTER
SCHOOL-CITY HALL EMPLOYEE
MAY 85 EXPENSES
MILEAGE-LIQUOR STORE
MILEAGE
WITHHOLDING FROM EMPLOYEE PER COURT ORDER
MAY 85 TRASH PICK UP
MANHOLE RINGS-DRAINAGE DEPT
SNORKELS-RATER DEPT
REPAIR EMERGENCY SYSTEM-POLICE DEPT
SEWER COVER-STREET DEPT
HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD
HOCKEY OETICIAL/FTES PD
STEEL FOR CANOE: RACK-PARK MAINTENANCE
CHLORINE - WATER DEPT
EMERGENCY CENERAIOR-CIVIL DEFENSE
REPAIR PMER STLFRING-EIRE DEPT
SERVICE
95.00
2706.0('
913.7c
105.01
59.5;
295.911;
570.00
101.90
42.00
47.60
282.70
125.00
788.7"
409.9(
2338.6(
188.00
4.50
626.1'0
8215.27
81.34
220.07
1485.1-
22.CP
236.1,
72.00
165.00
22.50
76.40
4.5o
325.0;
400.00
9.24
219.1s
216.0o
40.0:
MX.;
1377.F
96. IL
14.a!
2392705
;18;
20945 CAROL FOY
20946 JOHN FRANE
20947 G & K SERVICES
2, 8 GENERAL COmmORICATIONS INC
20949 GLIREEN PAINT
20950 GRAPHIc EXHIRITS
20951 GREATER MINNLAPOLIS AREA
20952 DALE GREEN CO
29953 HACH CO
20354 JACK HACKING
20955 HALE COP,PANY INC
20956 JIM HATCH SALES CO INC
20957 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
20959 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
20959 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
20960 HOLMSTEN ICE RINKS INC
20961 HONEYHELL INC
20962 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST 1/272
20963 INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY
20964 INTL CITY EXAGEHaT ASSOC
20965 INTL OFFICE SYSTEMS INC
20966 OAK OFFICE PRODUCTS CO
20967 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC
20963 RUSSELL L JOHNSON FILTER CORP
2o 1 G9 CARL JULLIE
"0 KARULF HARDWARE INC
20971 KELLY SERVICES INC
20972 HIKE KISSIN
20973 JANET KOCH
20974 KRAEMERS HOME CENTER
20975 RON KRUEGER F. ASSOC INC
20976 1 L HIDING F, TRUCKING INC
20977 ROF.LRT LAMRLRT
20978 LANCE
20979 GREG EAPsON SPORTS INC
20080 LIEF BROS INC
26931 LOCK JOINT
20982 LUNG LANE CORD TRACTOR
70983 LP-GAS COUIPNENT INC
20984 TRACY LIda
2e85 LY!,N\I; ft!1RLR CO
PNE,',RA mAIISOU
. 37 flL1E CRAFI
EXPENSES -COMMUNITY SERVICES 4.8L
MAY 85 EXPENSES 165.00
-TOWELS/JACKLTS/COVERALLS/-NATER DEPT/ 331.1E
PARK MAINTENANCE/LICUOR STORE
RADIO REPAIR & PAR -EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 192.4
PA1NT-PARK MAINTENANCE 217.50
SIGNS-COMMUNITY CENTER 452.96
SUBSCRIPTION-ASSESSING DEPT 36.00
SOD & BLACK DIRT-STREET DEPT 37.00
LAB SUPPLIES-LATER DEPT 232.49
EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 72.00
EQUIPMENT REPAIRS-P/W BLDG 168.00
20 TRAFFIC CONES-WATER DEPT 211.66
1985 TAX ROOK MICROFICHE-FORESTRY DEPT 186.00
EQUIPMENT RENTAL-FORESTRY DEPT 3062.5
TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE-STREET DEPT 383.7:,
PARTS FOR POLISHER-COMMUNITY CENTER 26.88
-MODIFICATION OF WATER PLANT EFFLUENT 1994.36
RATE RECORDER
-5 CHAIRS FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS 2941.50
$2875.00/EUS SERVICE/AUDITORIUM RENTAL
CONTROL CABLE 51.36
DUES-CITY MANAGER 363.00
COPIER INK CARTRIDGE-WATER DEPT 213.40
OFFICE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 21.60
OFFICE SUPPLIES 12.14
POLY-WATER DEPT 72.90
EXPENSES 115.16
-ROPE/KNIFE/PAPER PLATES/TWINE/CEMENT/ 1374.32
-WRENCHES/ELECTRIC WIRE/SPRAY PAINT/
-TAPE/BUG SPRAY/PAINT ROLLERS/HOOKS/
-SCREWS/SPONGES/RIVETS/GREASE/NAILS/
-GRASS SEED/EXTENSION CORDS/LOCK/STAPLES/
-SHOVEL/PAINT THINNER/KEYS/ICE CHISEL/
PULLEY
PART TIME HELP-POLICE DEPT 748.0;
GOLF INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 33,4'
CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 45.00
-FIRE EXTINGUISHER/GAS CAN/STRAPS/COFFEE 467.1:
-FITLERS/SCISSOR JACK/LADDER/WASHERS/
RIVETS/TRAPS/FAINT/CLAMPS/NAILS
SERVICE-UHERKA PROPERTY 2?62.11.
FIRE HYDRANT THARINB-WATER DEPT 510.0L
DUES-COMMUNITY SERVICES & MAY 85 EXPENSES 247.11
SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 129.1:
GOLF BALL PICKER-SUMNER PROGRAMS 22.72
RUGS-DUSTMOPS-CITY HALL 73.8 ,
CONCRETE CYLINOER PIPE REPAIR KITS 4855.W•
BACKHoE-sTREET DEPT 25977.CE
REPLACE RED FLASHING LIGHTS-POLICE DEPT
CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 61.00
LUMBER-PARK MAINTENANCE
INSTRUCTOR-AQUA ALROBICS/FEES PAID
INVENTORY PLATES-POLICE DEPT 195.9E
4393322
17
GAS CYLINDERS-POLICE DEPT
SERVICE
SERVICE
PIPE ASSEMBLY-PARK MAINTENANCE
MILEAGE
011-STREET DEPT
MILEAGE
EXPENSES
SLIDES-POLICE DEPT
EXPENSES
POSTAGE MACHINE RENTAL-CITY HALL
CHEMICALS-PARK MAINTENANCE
REPAIR EQUIMENT-CCMMUNITY CENTER
PLAQUES & TROPHIES-COmMUNITY CENTER
-MODIFY WATER PLANT INFLUENT & EFFLUENT
FLOW RATE DISPLAYS & GALLON TOTALIZER
FLEXIBLE ANTENNA-WATER DEPT
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
-TWO MEGAPHONES $209.82/RESCUE TUBE/
PORTABLE GUARD CHAIR
SCH0OL-BUILIDING DEPT
FIREMAN CALLS
SPEAKERS FOR FIRE SQUADS
S1AMP-FONES1RY DEPT
INSTALL PLAYGRouND EQUIP-EDENVALE PARK
INSTALL PLAYGNOHNO LQUIP-NONEWARD HILLS PK
OFFICE SUPPLIES
RENTAL OF ICE SHOW COSTUMES-COMmUNITY CTR
PORTABLE RESTRooMs-PARK DEPT
CAR WASH SUPPLIES-P/W BUILDING
20988 METRO FORE CORM INC JUNE 85 PAGER RENTAL
20989 MET NO pINNTiNG INC .FORMS-POLICE DEPT
EIREAND PRODUCTS CO CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CTR
ElEasT ASPHALI CORP BLACKT0P-STREET DEPT
MINNESOTA cOMmUNICATIONS CORP JUNE 85 PAGER SERVICE
EN COuNTy ATIoNNEYS ASSOC SEARCH WARRANTS-POLICE DEPT
EN ICE ARENA EANAGERS ASSOC DUES-COMNUNIIY CENTER
MINNESOTA NEC & PARK ASSN CONFERENCE-SUEmER PROGRAM
MINNEsoTA NEC pARK AsSN DUES-COMMUN1TY CENTER MANAGER
MINNESOTA SUBUNAN NEWSPAPERS INC EMPLOYMENT AD-COMMUNITY CENTER
MINNEsOTA SUbuRBAN NEWSPAPERS INC ADS-L1QUOR STORES
M-V CAS CO FUEL-SENIOR CENTER
moERN EQUIPMENT CO STEP LADDER-P/S BUILDING
RUDE RI: TIRE CO WHEEL ALIGNMENT/TIRES
MOTOROLA INC 6 POLICE pAGERS & 2 FIRE PAGERS
MT1 DisTRIOUTIRG CO WHEEL & TIRE ASSEMBLY-PARK MAINTENANCE
EM MUELLER 1 SONS INC SAND-STREET DEPT
MURPHY PLUG & HEATING CO VALVES-WATER DEPT
MY CHEESE SHOP MEETING EXPENSES
NATIONAL CITY BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS BOND PAYMENTS
NATIONAL. FIRE PROTECTICN ASSOC SUBSCRIPTION-FIRE DEPT
GREGG NELSON TRAVEL INC EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT
NONWEST BANK MINNEAPOLIS NA BOND PAYMENT
NATE RECREATION 1 PARK ASSOC DUES-COMMUNITY SERVICES
29
20992
20993
20994
20991
20990
20997
20998
20999
21000
21001
21002
21003
21004
21005
21006
21007
21008
21009
21010
21011
21012 NORTHwOoD GAS CO INC
21013 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO
21014 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO
P & H WAREHOUSE SALES
5 CHARLES J pAPPAs
21017 PENNSYLVANIA OIL CO
21013 CONNIE L PETERS
21019 PETTY CASH-PUBLIC SAFETY DEPT
21020 PHOTO QUICK
21021 PATRICIA PIDCOCK
21022 PITNEY BOWES
21023 PLUNKETTS INC
21024 PNEUMATIC CONTROLS INC
21025 PONMER MFG CO INC
21026 POWER PROCESS EQUIPMENT INC
21027 RADIO SHACK
21028 JERRY RASsmUSSON
21029 RECREONICS CORP
21030 AAsF. REFFSGAARD
21031 JOEL RIGGS
21032 MICHAEL ,I0NN RoGERS
21033 RYANS RuPBER Sir,mpS
21031 ST CRoIx RECNEAlION CO
21031, ST cR01X RECREATION CO
21033 sT pAoL NuoR & sTATIONERY CO
21031 Si FADE FlGmE SEATING CLuB
sATEITEM. WUTNIES INC
SAWN. SUPPLY c0 INC
54.12
447.0r
325.2:
908.3E
25.7s
31.41
50.0o
81.09
115.0o
22.7E
241.30
128.0.
144.09
3080.00
84.9c
60.69
47.9
58.4E,
23315.33
459.00
67.10
242267.86
130.00
86.00
2733.11
772.10
38.41
39.71
902.20
12.00
66.92
3.35
48.16
96.75
32.10
465.79
69.0c
3693.70
15.90
26.0
538.09
25.0:
38.00
37.0s
10.0T
1150.0'1 ,
1150.0,
20.Eo
245.0:
2162.!0'
409.0y
28797014
n t-10`i;
21040 SCHLETTY-MCCANN INC
2)041 SHAKOPEE FORD INC
21R". W F WEAL SLATE CO
21. W GORDON SMITH CO
21044 SNAP PRINT-WEST
21045 MONTY STUHLER
21046 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC
. 21047 SOUTHWEST SWARDAN PUBLISH INC
21048 SUPPLEE ENTERPRISES INC
21049 TAYLORS MFG
21050 TENNESSEE CHEMICAL CO
21051 TESSMAN SEED & CHEMICAL CO
21052 KEVIN TIMM
21053 BRANDON TOMASKO
21054 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS
21055 TV FANFARE
21056 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO
21057 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED
21058 UNITED LABORATORIES INC
21059 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PROPANE INC
21060 VIKING LABORATORIES INC
21061 WATER PRODUCTS CO
21062 WEN2EL PLBG
21063 SANDRA F WERTS
21064 WEST WELD
21065 WESTERN CHEMICAL CO
21066 XEROX CORP
7 -7 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
2,008 ZIEGLER TIRE SERVICE CO
21069 PITNEY BOWES
21070 S M HENTGES & SONS
21071 F F JEDLICKI
21072 RICHARD KNUTSON INC
21073 NORTHCALE CONSTRUCTION CO
21074 NORTEDALE CONSTRUCTION CO
21075 OPUS CU.PDRATION
21076 SHAFER CONTRACTING INC
21077 SHAFER CONTRACTING INC
21078 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
21079 SAILORS WORLD
21080 JORDON =ECK
21081 JASON M SPINHARNEY
21082 JENNIFER RISSER
21083 WARD STELBERG
38945842
REPAINT LIME SILO-WATER DEPT
SWITCH/HEADRESTS FOR SQUAD CARS
MARKER BOARD-P/S DEPT
OIL SEAL/SPARK PLUGS/COUPLER/OIL/FITTINGS
PRINTING-POLICE & COMMUNITY SERVICE
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
ADS-LIQUOR STORES
EMPLOYMENT AD-COMMUNITY CENTER
SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE
4 DUMPER PUSH BARS-POLICE DEPT
FERRI FLOC-WATER DEPT
VALVE-FORESTRY DEPT
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
ARTS & CRAFTS SUPPLIES-SUMMER PROGRAMS
ADS-LIQUOR STORES
OXYGEN-STREET DEPT
UNIFORMS-POLICE & FIRE DEPT
CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT
GAS CYLINDER-COMMUNITY CENTER
CHEMICALS-COMMUNITY CENTER
FLANGE/REMOTE/GENERATOR/GASKET/PIPE
REFUND-BUILDING PERMIT
MILEAGE & SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY SERVICES
CUTTING HOSES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
FREIGHT CHARGES-WATER DEPT
SERVICE
1ST AID SUPPLIES-PARK DEPT
REPAIR FLAT TIRES/4 TIRES
FOLDING MACHINE-CITY HALL
SERVICE-COUNTY ROAD ONE LIFTSTATION
SERVICE-PAULSENS 1ST -& 2ND ADDITIONS
SERVICE-ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY
SERVICE-NORSEMAN INDUSTRIAL PARK
SERVICE-EDEN ROAD & SINGLETREE LANE
SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD DRIVE
SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE
SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE
MAY 85 FUEL TAX
BOOM FOR SAILBOAT
REFUND-GOLF CLASSES
REFUND-GOLF CLASSES
REFUND-GOLF CLASSES
REFUND-GOLF CLASSES
4700.00
118.67
457.90
148.91
209.51
117.00
282.60
22.50
5.33
602.56
4495.35
18.70
77.00
13.00
835.83
65.00
13.02
1927.50
223.68
91.13
268.80
416.03
65.50
74.17
26.35
284.05
130.78
180.21
299.20
1989.00
13632.8R
30480.75-
46024.53
24350.96
122885.5:!
28375.8.-
45375.3,.
59919.9::
60.00
15.00
15.0R
15.0R
8.0u
$991805.0R
June 18, 1985
Cash Disbursements by Fund Number
147404.02
34192.27
57407.56
36389.16
2300.00
233779.46
26E1060.30
81056.02
25746.14
109.41
65.50
105295.25
10 GENERAL
11_. CERTIFICATE OF INDEOT
1( .10UOR STORE-P V M
17 L1DUOR STUFF-PRESERVE
SI PARK ACLUIST Z, DEVELOP
44 -011LITY DEFT FUND
51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD
52 IMPROVEMENT DEBT FUND
73 WATER FUND
77 SEWER FUND
01 TRUST S ESCROW FUND
90 TAX INCREMENT FUND
$991805.09
("f:MORANDOM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
Carl Jullie, City Manager
Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services -IN--
May 30, 1985
Round Lake Study Proposal
Dr. Joseph Shapiro, Limnologist from the University of Minnesota, has submitted a
Round Lake Study Proposal to the City of Eden Prairie. Dr. Shapiro also conducted
the 1980 study of Pound Lake. The goal of the 1980 study was to improve the fishing
potential of the lake by removing the bullheads and stunted population of bluegill
sunfish and crappies and to improve the water clarity.
In the fall of 1930, the lake was treated with Rotenone and a the lake was restocked
with large mouth bass, walleyes, sunfish and catfish. As Dr. Shapiro's proposal
indicates, the restoration initially was a great success. Water clarity improved
dramatically in 1981 and 1982, and the OUR netting surveys indicated rapidly growing
populations of bluegills, sunfish, large mouth bass and walleyes. The catfish
population apparently did not take.
.t 1983 and in 1984, the water quality of Round Lake reverted to pre-treatment
-conditions. OUR nettings in 1983 and 1984 indicate extremely high numbers of
stunted blucgill sunfish and water clarity readings indicate the trend toward higher
amounts of algae.
Dr. Shapiro has indicated that the lake is showing a distrubing trend and has
suggested the City approve a Rotenone treatment of the whole lake and restock as in
1980; however, this time special fishing restrictions will be implemented to protect
the young large mouth bass and a high number of large male bluegill sunfish would be
stocked to provide immediate fishery that would not increase the bluegill
reproduction.
Dr. Shapiro has also suggested that perhaps a partial treatment of the lake using a
fish toxicant at a low concentration directed at small sunfish might provide a long
term improvement, however, it would probably be four to five years before any
significant change in the lake would occur, if any change would occur.
The Community Services staff have indicated to Dr. Shapiro, as well as OUR staff,
that the City is very concerned with maintaining a fishing resource and is not
interested in getting into a program where this fishery is destroyed every few years
for the site of exprimenfs. The Community Services Stott does hove the same
concerns mentioned by Dr. Shapiro regarding the condition of Round Lake. Eden
Prairie has inveled thany thousands of dollars in the development of Round Lake Park
and encparagiuo pcople to use this resource for swimming and fishing. This lake is
at in IN. "natural condition" due to the amount of runoff that is directed to it,
od it is naive to believe that without some management the lake will take care of
-2-
The DNR is willing to do quite a bit of stocking and monitoring, but i
t
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
d
o
' unless they have some expertise suggesting a program and a benefic
i
a
l
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
.
- Jr. Shapiro is offering to provide the informdtin the DNR needs in ord
e
r
t
o
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
with this program at a cost significantly less than a typical cons
u
l
t
a
n
t
w
o
u
l
d
charge.
Dr. Shapiro has admitted that he and his staff would he much more inte
r
e
s
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
project if the City approved a complete Rotenone treatment as there
i
s
a
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
likelihood of a rapid water quality improvement, which makes the l
a
k
e
m
u
c
h
m
o
r
e
interesting to study. He also believes the chance of success of m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
t
h
e
water clarity and the improved fishery is greater with a compl
e
t
e
R
o
t
e
n
o
n
e
treatment.
Duane Shodeen, Minnesota 088 Fisheries Division, has indicated that
i
f
t
h
e
l
a
k
e
i
s
treated in the fall of 1985 approximately 900 fingerlings of wa
l
l
e
y
e
,
9
0
0
fingerlings of bass and 900 fingerlings of tluegill would be stocked in
t
h
e
f
a
l
l
o
f
1935. In the spring of 1036 approximately 2500 adult male bluegill sunfi
s
h
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
stocked that would provide very good sunfish fishing by mid-summer.
H
e
h
a
s
a
l
s
o
suggested that perhaps 1000 to 2000 eight to ten inch rainbow trout yea
r
l
i
n
g
c
o
u
l
d
be stocked in the spring of 1936 for fishing from May through mid-summ
e
r
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
sunfish would begin hitting. In 1987 hybrid muskies would be introduced
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
keep down, the sunfish numbers.
Dr. Shapiro has requested S4,500 for the first year study and has reques
t
e
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
to commit to a study for the following three to five years to monitor t
h
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
f
this treatment program.
The Community Services Staff recommend approval of the treatment prog
r
a
m
o
f
R
o
u
n
d
Lake under the following conditions:
1. That the DNR attempt to seine the lake prior to the treatment in
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
utilize as many adult fish from that lake as possible.
2. That the ONO would commit to stocking 1000 -2000 rainbow trout in the spring of
1936 and 2500 adult sunfish in the spring of 1986 to ensure that Round Lake
remains a good fishing lake throughout this treatment process (there w
o
u
l
d
b
e
n
o
catchable size fish in Round Lake from the fall treatment until the spr
i
n
g
o
f
1936).
3. The DNR commit to continued stocking of walleyes in the lake.
The Community Services Staff also recommend approving the request of D
r
.
S
h
a
p
i
r
o
f
o
r
$4,500 per year for monitoring this lake for a minimum of t
h
r
e
e
y
e
a
r
s
.
A
n
y
additional funding beyond that should he reconsidered at that time
d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
on the
condition of the lake and the trend it seems to he taking.
EL:md
Round Lake Study Proposal
Backyround
In the fall of 1980 restoration of Round Lake was undertaken. A fish toxicant,
rotenone, was used to eliminate the existing fish populations and then restocking
was done. The goal of this restoration was twofold -- to improve the fishing
potential of the lake by removing bullheads and stunted populations of bluegill
sunfish and black crappies, and to improve water clarity by making possible an
abundance of large Daphnia. The restoration initially was a great success. As
we had predicted, water clarity improved dramatically in 1981 and 1982, and MDNR
netting surveys indicated rapidly growing populations of bluegill sunfish, large-
mouth bass, and walleyes.
however, samples collected by the Limnological Research Center during the
summers of 1983 and 1984 indicate that Round Lake water quality has reverted
to pretreatment conditions. This trend is evident in the following average
summer Secchi disc transparencies:
1980 Treatment 1981 1982 .1983 1984
Secchi Disc Depth (m)
2.1
4.8 4.7 2.9 3.0
The results of the fish restocking are more encouraging but also show
disturbing trends. The three species stocked, sunfish, walleye and bass, did
well initially, and the populations of bluegill Sunfish and largemouth bass
expanded rapidly as shovm below:
1930 Treatment 1981 1982 1983 1984
Bluegill Sunfish (#/trapnet set) 118 14 50.6 211 139
Largemouth Bass (#/trapnet set) 0.4 7 8.8 43 1
Walleyes (t) /gillnet set)
0 12 4 2.5 2.0
Thus, Round Lake contains sizeable numbers of walleyes, hlmegill sunfish, and
larylemonth bass in the acceptable size range for angling. Whether this fish community
can be maintained, however, is another matter. B11.100-11 numbers are again high, even
:II
- 2 -
,4ceeding those measured in 1980. An overpopulation of bluegills will lead to
o he same stunting problem observed prior to treatment. The increase in blue-
- 011 numbers coincided with the decline in large Damhnia and decrease in
w
a
t
e
r
larity. The number of largemouth bass trapped in 1984 showed a disturbing
drop. This decline to some extent reflects lower trapping success for bass
bpawned in 1931 and 1982, as they have now grown out of the easily-trapped
oize range. However, it may also reflect declining recruitment of new bass
recent years due to increased predation by bluegills on bass eggs and fry.
irf recruitment falls, bass fishing in the lake will quickly fade as the 1981
and 1982 year classes are eliminated by angling or natural causes. Walleyes
,
which Will not reproduce in the lake, will have to be restocked to maintain
their fishery.
rossible remedial action:
It is our feeling that numbers of blnegill sunfish should be reduced again
to enhance water quality and to guard against their overpopulation. Based
o
n
discussions with Duane Shodeen of the DNR the following two treatment optio
n
s
ore feasible:
1) Rotenone treatment of the whole lake and restock as in 1980. However,
this time special fishing restrictions would be implemented to protect young
)argemouth bass (e.g. 12 inches would be the minimum legal size) so that the
oumber of adult bass would remain high. A sizeable number (e.g. 2500) of lar
g
e
male blnegill sunfish would be stocked to provide an immediate fishery that
would not increase blnegill reproduction.
2) A partial treatment of the lake using a fish toxicant, at low concentra-
liens, directed at small. sunfish.
The first option, above, providos the greater likelihood of rapidly enhanc
i
n
g
water quAlity in that it mimics the initial treatment, but with modification
t
o
-
fr -
- 3 -
t „v id0 long-term improvement. The stocked adult bluegill sunfish would provide
t h, fishing resource for the first few years. The success of the s
e
c
o
n
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
,
on the other hand, is dependent on the proportion of the young blu
e
g
i
l
l
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
killed. The outcome of this experimental approach could range f
r
o
m
n
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
in water quality to significant improvements in clarity, but lik
e
l
y
o
n
l
y
a
f
t
e
r
some time. This treatment would leave a larger proportion of the
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
f
i
s
h
i
n
g
resource intact since treatment-induced mortality of bass and w
a
l
l
e
y
e
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
low, but, as noted, this resource already is deteriorating.
From our point of view the first is far preferable. Based on ou
r
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
knowledge it has a much greater chance of meeting the dual goals of improved
water *clarity and fishing potential. In addition it fits in closely wi
t
h
o
u
r
need for a well-studied lake, that will be rotenoned in the fall
o
f
1
9
8
5
,
t
o
study intensively as part of a large National Science Foundation Study in which
we are now engaged.
Proposal
We propose therefore, that Round Lake be treated in fall 1985 as
i
n
1
9
8
0
,
with the addition of the size limit on the bass, and the stockin
g
o
f
a
d
u
l
t
m
a
l
e
sunfish. We also propose that Round Lake be studied during the
n
e
x
t
3
-
5
y
e
a
r
s
(beginning May 1985) to evaluate the impact of this action and t
h
e
h
o
p
e
d
-
f
o
r
increased longevity of the treatment. In general, the same appr
o
a
c
h
e
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
-
cedures used since 1980 would be followed.
During 1985 sampling would be monthly May-September inclusive, b
u
t
w
o
u
l
d
increase during 1986 to twice n month. Frequency during subsequent years would
range between the two.
I) Physi .al/Chomical Parameters
a. Tomp,rature - at 1-m intervals to bottom
Li-
- 4
b. Dissolved oxygen - at I-m intervals - to bottom
c. pli - at 2-m intervals to bottom
d. Secchi disc depth
e. Light intensity - at 1-m intervals through well-lit stratum
f. Total phosphorus - at 2-m intervals to bottom
g. Total nitrogren - at 2-m intervals to bottom
h. Lake surface elevation
2) Biological Parameters
a. Phytoplankton composition in surface waters
b. Chlorophyll concentration in surface waters
c. Primary productivity profiles - once monthly in June, July and
August
d. Zooplankton composition throughout the water column.
e. Macrophyte - determination of maximum depth of growth at several
locations in midsummer.
f. Fish composition - Minnesota DNR
This approach would provide a consistent measure of the biological and ch..mival
conditions in the lake since 1980 and allow assessment of treatment impacts.
Additional. parameters OU and primary productivity) have been added over prier years
to increase our understanding of why nutrient 16vels in the lake change (two en-
closed reprint) and to assess the potential detrimental impact of increased water
clarity (macrophyto growth). In additi.on, coupled,with local rainfall meAsurc-
meets and lake level fluctuations, these data would help assess the Impact 01 the
increased stormwater runoff reaching the lake from continuing urhaniation In the
vatershod.
- 5 -
Cos t
We propose that the 1985 program be done for $4500, including all costs and
preparation of a data report. Although work in subsequent years will likely
be considerably more frequent, we will limit costs to a 107. increase per year.
These materials are referenced in the
Council packet.
I
/391
'RE-ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this 22nd day of January, 1971,,
-
by and between INITRNATIONAL DISPOSAL CORPORATION OF MINKESOTA, INC., a
subsidiary of Browning Ferris Industries, Inc., hereinafter called "Owners",
and the CITY OF ECU PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, of the State of Minnesota,
hereinafter called "City".
WHEREAS, Owners have requested the City to change the zoning of
approximately twelve (12) acres of property of the Owners under P.U.D. 70-01
to 1-2 Park as more completely described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, Owners in addition to said twelve (12) acres are the Owners
of additional land as more hilly set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, Owners desire to use said property for sanitary land-fill
purposes at the present time; and
WHEREAS, Owners have agreed to develop the aforementioned prcperty as
shown on Exhibits "A" and "B" in accordance with the plan unit development on
file with the City and identified as P.U.D. 70-01.
NOW, THEREFORE, THIS AGREFIENT WITNESSETH, That for and in consideration
of the City of Eden Prairie passing an ordinance changing the zoning from
P.U.D. 70-01 to 1-2 Park for approximately twelve (12) acres of land and of the
mutual benefits to each of the parties hereto, the parties, their respective
successors and assigns, do hereby covenant and agree as follows:
• Owners agree that upon such re-zoning and pursuant to the plans
on file at the City that:
1. The area re-zoned as 1-2 Park shall be used for the
exclusive use of the land-fill operations office, truck
maintenance, truck storage and potential paper or other
material recycling center.
2. That it is a specific condition of said re-zoning that
said property shall not be useable for other industrial
purposes until such time as the entire industrial park
is platted and zoned in conformance with Ordinance No.
135 which, among other things, requires a minimum of
forty (40) acres to be zoned.
t .
3. That there shall be no furthe
r
r
e
-
z
o
n
i
n
g
o
f
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
within the area encompassed i
n
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
B
"
u
n
t
i
l
s
u
c
h
time as said property is serv
i
c
e
d
b
y
-
m
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
I,. That Owners shall dedicate to the
C
i
t
y
o
f
E
d
e
n
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
150 feet of right-of-way alon
g
t
h
e
t
o
p
o
f
t
h
e
bluff to allow
for the construction of a parkway as indicated in the
Owner's Exhibit "A" and "B" d
a
t
e
d
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
17, 1 973•
5. That Owners shall, in cooper
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
the City, locate the
alignment of the remainder o
f
t
h
e
r
i
v
e
r
p
a
r
k
w
a
y
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
with Homeward Hills Road wit
h
i
n
o
n
e
(
1
)
year of the date of
approval and re-zoning of th
i
s
p
a
r
c
e
l
.
6. That Owners shall install at
t
h
e
i
r
o
w
n
c
o
s
t
a
n
d
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
utility systems for said prop
e
r
t
y
,
i
.
e
.
r
o
a
d
,
s
a
n
i
t
a
r
y
s
e
w
e
r
,
storm sewer and water.
7. That Owners furnish to the City a topographical layout o
f
said property.
B. That all sanitary sewer water main and storm sewer facilitiesi
concrete curb and gutter and
b
i
t
u
m
i
n
o
u
s
s
u
r
f
a
c
i
n
g
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
t
o
be public or private shall b
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
C
i
t
y
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
b
y
a Registered Professional Civil Engineer and submitted
t
o
the City Engineer for approv
a
l
.
T
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
h
i
s
engineer shall provide for c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
t
d
a
i
l
y
inspection of all
street and utility construction both
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
n
d
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
.
As -built drawings with service and val
v
e
t
i
e
s
o
n
r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
i
b
l
e
mylar and certificates of completion and compliance w
i
t
h
specifications shall also be de
l
i
v
e
r
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
The developer also agrees to pay all fees for City Enginee
r
i
n
g
and Administrative services cons
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
C
i
t
y
requirements.
1
•
CITY AND PROPERTY OMRS AGREE:
1. That the property owners shall comply
w
i
t
h
all applicable rules,
regulations, ordinances and law
s
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
of Eden Prairie.
2. That the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and
enforceable against Owners, the
i
r
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
s
a
n
d
a
s
s
i
g
n
s
,
a
n
d
a
l
l
s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
owners, their respective heirs,
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
s
a
n
d
a
s
s
i
g
n
s
,
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
h
e
r
e
i
n
described.
3. That an executed copy of this
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
recorded with the
Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles for the County of Hennepin and
State of Minnesota.
h. That if Cullers fail to proceed in accordance with this Agreement
within twelve (12) months from the date hereof,
O
w
n
e
r
s
w
i
l
l
not oppose a re -zoning
of said property back to a District Ru
r
a
l
z
o
n
i
n
g
.
-2-
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ts City Manager
INTE.RNATIONAL DISPOSAL CORPORATION
OF MINNESOTA, INC.
(SEAL)
( NO SEAL )
trITNESS V.INtE01, The parties to this Ar^eereent have caused these
presents t, oe executed the day and year aforesaiu.
Its„Vice-pusident
And
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
BS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this 22nd day of January, 197h, before me, a Notary Public within and
for said County, personally appeared Dean L. DeCourcy and
, to me personally known, who, being each by me
duly sworn, did say that they are respectively the Vice-president and
of INTERNATIONAL DISPOSAL CORPORATION OF MINNESOTA,
INC., which corporation is mimed in the foregoing instrument, and that said
instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of
its Board of Directors, and said Dean L. DeCoarcy and
acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation.
•1,ths,/.614 .)
Rotary Public, Hennepin County, Minn.
My Commission Expires:)(a. I.. L1e.-,
.• ,
STATE OF MENIMSOTA )
as.
COUNTY OF IENNF.PIN )
THIS IS TO CERTIFY, That on this .7_5 day of , 197b,
before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, oars ly appeared
icnown to me to no the Mayor and City Mgr. of the City of Eden Prairie, executing
David W. Osterholt and Robert Heinrichs •
the above instrument and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and
Voluntary act and deed of said City for the uses and purposes therein mentioned,
and also stated that they were authorized to execute the same and that the seal
affixed is the corporate seal of said City. a
Notary -PUblic, Hennepin County, Minn.
My Commission Expires: -L7, t r - 11 '1 (-
• /
-3-
webol
2/11lih
• • • .....
„
tc/./R/
for2LIt ge
rt.n 01r..1.4.).41011
}, :lamal. vase concept
u , , SS. a UM.
, -e—
November 1, 1973
OMMO
*Al •Intr5latt
Description for portio
n
o
f
D
.
r
.
f
.
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
'Wept/ JI 1.111401$
That pert of the South
e
a
s
t
4
-
o
f
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
4
-
o
f
Section 27, Township 1
1
6
,
R
a
n
g
e
t
2
,
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
a
s
commencing at the Sout
h
w
e
s
t
c
o
r
n
e
r
t
h
e
r
e
o
f
:
t
h
e
n
c
e
North 1° 37 , 48" West (assumed bea
r
i
n
g
)
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
West line of said Southeast k of the southwest 4- a
distance of 289.03 fee
t
;
t
h
e
n
c
e
S
o
u
t
h
8
7
°
1
2
'
2
4
"
East, 354.45 feet; the
n
c
e
N
o
r
t
h
2
°
4
7
1 36" East,
140 feet to the actual
p
o
i
n
t
o
f
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
l
e
n
d
to be described; thence continuing Nort
h
2
° 47'. 36"
East, 100 feet; thence North 18° 251 12" West
,
4
4
2
.
4
9
feet to the Southerly
r
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
l
i
n
e
o
f
U
.
S
.
T
r
u
n
k
Highway No. 169; thenc
e
n North 59° 44' 54" East along
said right of way line
,
a
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
3
9
5
feet; thence
South 56° 401 East, 13
0
f
e
e
t
;
thence Southeasterly
along a tangential cur
v
e
t
o
t
h
e
l
e
f
t
h
a
v
i
n
g
a
-
a
d
i
o
s
of 955 feet a distance
o
f
4
4
1
.
7
0
f
e
e
t
;
t
h
e
n
c
e
S
o
u
t
h
470 feet; thence South
3
6
0
0
0
, West, 370 feet; then
c
e
North 68° 13 1 45" West, 452.16 feet
t
o
t
h
e
a
c
t
u
a
l
point of beginning.
Si'
1 lc
. .
L- r.:". :IS! • --'`, 1.,..." '1( 44. 1; - ,
Z----\ . ' • .- ' *a izi -,,,,
-s. ... .. N, ---.... . •......„..-- _.• . - - ! . -,.: ......-74, •.
_....._-.. - ...:.__ - i 7-- •
--C..'" -----77:.----n_.7 _
li'L-..- - "---_/..\._._ • --
sou, Ilyttof of IWO
flie41304...1:4 mow
lo.w.143% vale DiSrP‘a
••n • s.7111, •••n••
•••n•04,
s."
- 40 44,
4
I -- tA.
,
- rex \ NMI Dvall
Nk •-• 'mu
'
"-•••,_"•••••••• 1 ..- - :- — ..........; .- -...'......! j ‘""......"".--... . ....:•_-••.- .. . -- - - .
. .... _.
and use concept ehf.:ItAnt‘i>
fer,.-10-.-01110'm ,„coimmr,
Pm,,vry.-tAn-Niz •
ratt.11.t.,..11
4.4-tvir,o)reAtA,...10,
=1
'Cu COO
81-8011.
6:0.1
691%2
633
POTENTIAL BIRD—STRIKE HAZARDS AT
FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT
Eden Prairie, Minn.
66C. i
654
680.7 f
689.9 .
Submitted by:
Wildlife Resource Assists:-
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Servf
St. Paul, Minnesota
August 1979
1
INTRODUCTION
Flying Cloud Airport lies on a river terrace .formed in Valley-Train
sand and gravel in Eden Prairie, Minn. Just south of the airport is the
ginnesota River and its alluvial backwaters. To the imavediate north
o
f
Flyinc Cloud is the kettle hole, Lake Starring. The remaining perip
h
e
r
a
l
areas are farmland.
Single- and multi-engine piston airplanes and small jets make up th
e
airpmrt's traffic which amounted to 246,000 operations in 1978. Pri-
yam pilcts, flight schools and charter companies utilize Flying Cloud
Airport.
TIM PROBLEM
Note: For actual bird strikes at Flying Clcold Airport, refer to Ta
b
l
e
3
.
In a co;Amunique entitled "Bird Nazar-4 Reduction Recommendations to
• be Nada in 7I 80, Acting Regional Direator, Charles Eughlett, lists
Flying Claud as an airport requirim, surveying.
The following people and organizations based on the airport were
interviewed to determine existing or potential bird-strike hazards:
Ro!,erc PaLaby, Chief controlle -:
Rol.ert Skriwseth, FliSot Instructor
Michael Andersen, Chief Iustructar
Chi ;.!.lintenance
Affiliation
Control Tower-FAA
Flight Training Center-Cessna
Flizhc Training Center
=CC
2
Lame. title Affiliation
A!P Chief Machanic
Dispatcher and Flisht Instructor
Operations Manager
Flight Iustructors-3
other sources:
Tom Clarks
Dick 1:etzel, State Supervisor
Geologists-2
.Modern hero
Thunderbird Aviation
Elliot Beechcraft
Beech Aero Center
Pollution Control Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife-ADC
U.S. Geological Survey
. Sea gulls (Larus sp.)-Gulls present a seasonal problem for
Flying Cloud Airport. On cold days.the birds roost on the runways
seeking warmth from the pavement. Their main attractant to the
airport's vicinity is Flying Cloud Landfill immediately southeast of
tteArzuE.,_:111e gulls are known to feed at this site in great numbers
(refer to Map 1 and photos). The landfill is a heavily used site
but is considered better managed than most fatilities of similar_
size in the state. Nevertheless, the site continues to attract,gulls,.
When the birds begin to accumulate in sizable flocks, exploders and
pistol-injected firecrackers are used. Both the landfill and the air-
port employ these 'scare' methods. At times the gulls have become
immune to the noise-makers. Therefore, Avitrol has been used on two
separate occasions in the past two years with.measurable effects.
3
Blackbirds (Starlings, Crackles, Brown-headed Cowbirds, etL)-Black-
birds are seen in small flocks on neighboring farms and on leased-out
airport property where sweet corn is the major crop. These blackbird
species are not reported to be a significant problem because repellents
such as exploders and firecrackers are employed by the farmers and-the
Metropolitan Airports Commission to keep the numbers down. The potenti
a
l
for bird-strike problams is great since the cornfields are adjacent to
the airport. The locations of these cornfields require the blackbirds
to traverse the airport.
Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos)-Although Mallards, along with other
waterfowl, were considered a potential hazard during the migratory
seasons, eAphasis was placed on the ducks which winter over. These
mallards feed on the corn on the adjacent lands creating i bird-strike
hazard as they fly across the airport from field to field.
FLORA A.ND FAUNA
The airport proper is a disturbed short-grass meadow. The most
common plants occurring on Flying Cloud property are fescue, bluegrass,
dandelion and sweet clover (see Table 1).
To the immediate northwest of Flying Cloud, surrounding the southern
and eastern ends of Lake Starring is a woodland. This wooded area is
comptsed of American elm, red and white oak, bass, ash, box elder, red
CTIN
4
cedar and spruce. The understory in these woods is black locust, honey
locust and prickley ash. White-tail deer t fox, weasels and rabbits
seek refuge here.
The wetlands (Type 4 classification) lie to the south of the airport
below the bluffs (see Map 2). Typical marsh grasses and reeds exist here.
Some of the aquatic plants occurring here are wildrice, wild celery, pondweed,
smartweed and duckweed which are all preferred food sources for waterfowl.
Numerous migratory waterfowl species breed in these wetlands. A Great blue
heron rookery is .located on the northern edge of these backwaters. Muskrat,
mink and beaver are believed to occupy this area as well as various amphibians
and reptiles.
DISCUSSION
Flying Cloud Airport occurs in an environment ideal for bird life.
Cornfields are on and near the property, wetlands are located to the north
(Lake Starring) and south (Minnesota River and backwaters) and a landfill is
right across the highway southeast of the airport.
Except for the one small cornfield on leased airport property, the
airport, itself, does not seem to attract feeding birds. However, because
abundant food sources exist peripherally, birds do traverse the airport
and sea gulls do roost on the runways. A small gravel-sand pit exists
to the northwest of the airport which is used as a source of landfill.
According to the tower, it does not attract birds and the pit is a con-
siderable distance from the runways. There are no depressions on the
airport property which contain or night contain standing water.
AhN
tW4..1:1 Vtle
S
The severity of the bird-strike hazard is kept to a minimum through
the use of such repellents as exploders, firecrackers and Avitrol. It
should be mentioned that a significant number of pilots interviewed felt
that this repellent program was not vigorous enough-particularly, at the
sanitary landfill site.
The use of Avitrol was considered necessary in the past when gulls
were less detered by the noise-makers. The source of noise (exploders-
propene gas) was not moved at the sanitary landfill and the gulls appa-
rently became acclimated to the explosive sounds.
1171.CO!.Y.F.IMATIONS
Management techniques are currently implemented for the control of
gulls, blackbirds and ducks. The only suggesticn that can be made in
this area is that the use of these noise-makers be more vigorous at
the Plying Cloud Laadfill and that their positions at the site be
changed periodically.
The airport proper possesses few bird attractants and, therefore,
requires no alterations.
One last suggestion concerns the reporting of actual bird-strikes.
At St. Paul Downtown Airport, those interviewed believed that the paper-
work would be too incon -;enient to warrant reporting bird-strikes.
,However, those interviewed at klying Cloud Airport were unaware of
an.; rc?ortin.., procedure. Perhaps, a general education of 12 .0"3 _
cernin the procedure and ilaportan.:e o: bird-strike reporting mi-ht be
• 'bene:icidl.
et
TABLE 1
Flora-Airport ProvercY
Fescue (Festuca sp.)
Bluegrass (Pon sp.)
Dandelion Crara%acum officinale1
Yarrow (Achillea
Sweet clover (lelilotus alba)
Mullein (Verbascum thansus)
Plantain (PlantaAo sp.)
Raged (Ambrosia sp.)
Thistle (Cirsium vul ,are)
TABLE 2
Fauna-Airport and Viciniti
Birds:
Ring-necked pheasant (rhasinnus colchi::us)
Mourning dove (i;paidura macroura)
Horned lark (EremouhlIa alpcstris)
Meadowlark (Sturnella sp.)
Bobolink (Dolichonvx orvzivorcrls)
Killdeer (Chlradrins vociferns)
Brown-headed cowbird (kdothruz ater)
Gonmoa grackle (:!uiscalus oniscula)
Great blue heron (!rdes her2dia3)
1ed-win3ed hla,:kbird (A ,elsius ph.)eniceus)
Cvamon tern (Sterna hirundo)
Mallard (Anas platvrhvnchos)
others-sparrows, Ler,se, ducks, co ,:s, shorebirds, hawks, grebes, swans
Mmtnals:
Franklin's b round squirrel (Citells franklinI)
13-lined ground squirrel (Snermonhilus tridocmlineatuz)
Striped sl:unk (Mephitis mcphitLs)
E. chipmunk (Tamias striatns)
Red fox (Kulros •ulva)
Woodchuck (Marmots monnx)
White-tailed jackrabbit (lepus townsendii)
t r.
9 ViN
:•••
-C
C".n
LEGEND TO 1.1.1d' 1
A - cornfield on airport property which is leased to the farmer
B - cornfield on private property
M - shortgrass reodow
airport property line
REFERENCES
1. John Tester and Larry ThomCorde, "Taoloi,ical Reconnaissance Report",
unpublished report on the proposed Lower Minnesota River National
Wildlife Rue, Sumner 1973.
2. 'Draft Environmental impact Assessmen4 Report for Proposed Ex-
tension to Runway 9R-271,' prepared for Minneapolis-St. Paul
M.A.C. by Hoyle, Tanner and Associates, Inc., by L. G. Copley
Associates, Accoustical Consultant, Newton, Mass. April 1979.
TABLE 2 cont'd.
E. cottontail (Sylvilas floridaueS)
Neadow vole (Hicrotus pennsylvanicur.)
White-tailed deer (Odocoileus vir ,ianus)
others-mice, shrews, moles, etc.
TABLE 3
Bird-Strikes: (within the past 12 months)
Aircraft
Function
Damarx
Species
sin:le-engine (piston) private pilot none
gull
cull tr
ADF antenna cull It
trainin„:, none sparrow t t
duck It
unknown .•••
mourning dove
blackbird
dented win o gull multi-enzini (piston)
charter-passenLers none duck f t
cull
(NOTE: The strikes listed ebove were not re2orted but '.ere determined
through interviews - r:tier to list un FaL,e I nd 2)
G ,eat takes Re g stm 2300 East Devon Avenue
Des Flames. itinscas 60018
I
ob;...!. •
660.6 j
6E0.7
6WAS
i &MS 1 1
dIonsportabon
radtval Aviation
Aciminlat ratic:rn
JUN 2 9 82
Regional Director
Region 3, Refuge Planning
Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Interior
Eishop Henry Whipple Federal Building
Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111
Dear Sir:
eased on the Memorandum of Agreement between
t
h
e
F
i
s
h
a
n
d
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
n
d
the Federal Aviation Administration dated 1978, th
e
F
W
S
a
g
r
e
e
s
t
o
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
with the FAA to minimize property damage and pos
s
i
b
l
e
l
o
s
s
o
f
h
u
m
a
n
l
i
f
e
involving aircraft, personnel and passengers, re
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
v
e
r
t
i
b
r
a
t
e
p
e
s
t
s
.
The FAA received a copy of the final Environmen
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
development plan for the Minnesota Veley Nation
a
l
H
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
R
e
f
u
g
e
o
n
M
a
y
1
0
,
1982. Two weeks prior to receipt of the above-me
n
t
i
o
n
e
d
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
,
w
e
w
e
r
e
afforded the opportunity to review the draft Enviro
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
the plan; however, the formal review period for th
e
d
r
a
f
t
e
n
d
e
d
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
,
1931. Since we were not made aware of the plan
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
e
n
d
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
period, we were unable to comment earlier, and our c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
"
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
for incorporation into a revised final Environme
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
o
r
a
n
addendum.
s--
Our Order 5200.5, FAA Guidance Concerning Sanit
a
r
y
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
s
O
n
o
r
N
e
a
r
Airports, provides advice in the matter of estab
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
o
f
a
r
t
i
f
i
c
i
a
l
attractants for birds in the vicinity of airports.
V
a
r
i
o
u
s
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
a
n
d
observations have resulted in the conclusion t
h
a
t
a
r
t
i
f
i
c
i
a
l
a
t
t
r
a
c
t
a
n
t
s
f
o
r
birds in the vicinity of an airport may be incom
p
a
t
i
b
l
e
w
i
t
h
s
a
f
e
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
operations. It is FAA's policy to prevent, to the
e
x
t
e
n
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
b
l
e
,
t
h
o
s
e
Lconditions that are not compatible.
It is our position that the present wildlife refug
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
i
s
unacceptable
from a compatibility standpoint, since artificial attractants JP Urds—arf.
considered as incompatible land use by the EAA
,
_
i
l
_
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
-
a
r
e
a
s
-
-i-e;tatiri -S-h-Fd —fhliTitigh . _the application of the following cr;fteria: . _
;1.474 f -F;t: Losee ne Ilennee tn be esee
_ Jet iircraft.
2. Within 5,000 feet of any runway used only by pis
t
o
n
-
t
y
p
e
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
.
3. Any area located such that it_places_thejunways_a
n
d
i
o
r
_
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
.
.
.
a
n
d
--&-pliffilrfferns of an airport between bird feedi
n
g
,
w
a
t
e
r
,
o
r
roostihg areas.
2
Areas outside of the above perimeters, but within the conical surfaces describe
d
by FAR Part 77 and applied to an airport, will be reviewed on a case-by-case
basis.
Two public-use airports, Minneapolis-St. Paul International and Flvino
--Oth=4tIffilialy -turbbjet aircraft, will be affected by thejlropeled_develog-A.
ment7--Bdtli-alfpatTffie—a hiSte-ry of -brirFobl .eii. It appears that, the
propoged-developight of-fife-ToarreIon= area and the Opgrala area would
fall within the areas identified as incompatible by the criteria contained in
our Order.
The plan recognizes the effect that aircraft noise will have on the Minnesota
Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Recreation Area land, but makes no mention
or study of the effect that the improvement of the wildlife habitat would have
on aircraft operations at either airport.
The situation that has developed is not unique. We have had a number of cases
In the Great Lakes Region where development on the part of the FWS has not only
jeopardized the future developement plans of an existing airport but has
seriously derogated th e. safety of aircraft operations.
I suggest that we use this case to open new avenues of communication between ou
r
agencies and that you contact our Minneapolis-St. Paul Airports District Office
at 725-3346 regarding the current proposal.
Sincerely,
ro_
Paul K. Bohr
Director
t .
Distribution: WRAS/AT/FS-2; FFS-0, FAT-0,
FAS-1 (Normal)
Initiated AAS -680
ORDER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
dP 0
5200. 5
10/16/74
• SUBJ: FAA GUIDANCE CONCERNING SANITARY LANDFILLS ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS
I. PURPOSE. This order provides guidance concerning the elimination or
monitoring of open dumps, waste disposal sites, and sanitary landfills
on or in the vicinity of airports.
2. DISTRIBUTION. This order is distributed to Washington headquarters and
Regional Airports, Flight Standards and Air Traffic offices to division
level; all Airports District Offices; and Flight Standards and Air
Traffic field facilities.
3. BACKGROUND. Garbage dumps, sanitary landfills or whatever title is
used for this type of operation attract rodents and birds, erodes
the airport environment, and where the dump is ignited, creates smoke -
all which are undesirable and are potential hazards to aviation.
While the chance of an unforeseeable, random bird strike in flight will
always exist, it is nevertheless possible to define the high-risk
conditions within fairly narrow limits. Those high-risk conditions
exist in the take-off, climb-out, approach and landing areas on and in
the vicinity of airports. The increasing number of bird strikes reported
on aircraft has become a matter of concern to the FAA and to airport
management. Various studies and observations have resulted in the
conclusion that sanitary landfills are artificial attractants to birds.
Accordingly, landfills located in the vicinity of an airport may be
incompatible with safe flight operations. Those conditions that are not
P compatible must be eliminated, to the extent practicable. Airport
owners need guidance in making this decision, and the FAA must be in
a position to assist. Some airports are not under the jurisdiction
of the community or local governing body having control of land usage
in the vicinity of the airport. In these cases, the airport owner should
use its influence and best efforts to close or control landfill opera-
tions within the general vicinity of the airport.
4. ACTION.
a. Sanitary landfills located within the areas established for an
airport by these guidelines as set forth in paragraph 5 of this
order should be closed. If a sanitary landfill is determined as
5200. 5 10/16/74
incompatible land use under guidelines of paragraph 5 and cannot be
closed within a reasonable time, it should. be designed and operated
in accordance with the criteria and instructions issued by the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health, Education
and 'Welfare, and other such regulatory bodies that may have applica-
ble requirements. FAA should advise airport owners against locating,
1 / permitting or concurring in the location of a landfill on or in
• the vicinity of airports.
b. The operation of a sanitary landfill located beyond the areas
described in paragraph 5 and designed in accordance with the guide-
lines identified in the foregoing paragraph must be properly super-
vised to insure compatibility with the airport. If at any time the
Landfill, by virtue of its operation, presents a potential hazard
to aircraft operations, the owner shall take action to correct the
situation or terminate operation of the landfill. Failure to take
corrective action could place the airport owner in noncompliance
with the commitments under a grant agreement.
c. An inspection of current operations at existing landfill sites which
have a reported potential bird hazard problem will periodically be
made and evaluated. A Bird Hazard Croup formed under Order 5200.4
.rdatee 11/20/73 could appropriately be available for consultation
''' regarding this activity. Should it be found that birds attracted
to the, landfill site do in fact constitute a potential hazard to
aircraft, the condition will be reported to AAT-430, National Flight
Data Center (NFDC), for possible inclusion in the Airman's Informa-
tion Manual. The appropriate FAA office should immediately evaluate
/ the situation to determine compliance with the grant agreement and
V. take such action as may be warranted under the guidelines as
prescribed in Order 5190.6, Airports Compliance Requirements.
d. This order does not apply to landfills used exclusively for the dis-
posal of rock and earth.
ie. This order is not intended to resolve all related problems, but is
specifically directed toward eliminating sanitary landfills in the
proximity of airports, thus providing a safer environment for air-
craft operations.
f.\ The airport operations manual should require landfill site inspec-
'-'1 tOni-at-least-semimonthly -for-those -iamtf111-6perations that
cannot be clos-eT176-7161ruff -tlidt-BIrdaromviaticch—EF-115I-InZreasing.
Page 2
10/16/74 5200. 5
g. Additional information on solid waste disposal, bird hazard and
related problems may be obtained from the following agencies:
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
U.S. Department of the Interior
18th and C Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs (HM-562)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1835 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20406
U.S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare
330 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201
5. CRITERIA. Sanitary landfills will be considered as an incompatible
use if located within areas established for the airport through the
application of the following criteria:
a. Landfills located within 10,000 feet of any runway used or planned
to be used by turbojet aircraft.
b. Landfills located within 5,000 feet of any runway used only by
piston type aircraft.
c. Landfills outside of the above perimeters but within the conical
surfaces described by FAR Part 77 and applied to an airport will
be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
d. Any landfill located such that it places the runways and/or
approach and departure patterns of an airport between bird
feeding, water, or roosting areas.
WILLIAM V. VITALE, Acting Director
Airports Service, AAS-1
Page 3
i I
PUBLIC NOTICE
of the
Apit 18 igSS
APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TRANSFER
OF A SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Rules of Procedures, Chapter 7000.0100 -
• 7000.1700 require public notice to be prepared and issued by:
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Solid and Hazardous Waste Division
1935 West County Road 82
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Public Notice No:
54-SW-162
Names and Address of Applicant:
Woodlake Sanitary Services, Inc.
9813 Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
Public Notice Issued On:
April 16, 1985
Name and Location of Facility: -:t
Flying Cloud Sanitary Landfill
Sections 26, 27 and 34, T116N,
City of Eden Prairie
Hennepin County, Minnesota
NOTICE: The above named applicant has applied for reissuance of a 'permit to
expand, construct and operate a solid waste disposal facility in .
Minnesota. If the facility proposed in the application can be
approved, a permit may be issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency for a term of approximately five years. At least 180 calendar
days prior to expiration, the applicant must submit a new application
for reissuance of the expiring permit.
The applicant proposes to expand the existing 105 acre landfill (see attached
drawing). The landfill was first permitted by the MPCA in 1970; the permit was
amended in 1983 to clarify the extent and capacity of the landfill. The pro-
posed expansion consists of two components, I) filling 42.4 acres of land east of
the existing landfill; and 2) vertically expanding the existing landfill by an
average of five feet. There would be no significant increase in the elevations
at the northwestern, western, and southern perimeters of the site. The expansion
would add 5,644 acre-feet of capacity to the site, representing an additional
seven years of fill capacity based on the present rate of filling.
A clay methane barrier with the same design as the existing barrier will be
constructed along the entire south and east side of the horizontal expansion
area. The barrier will work in conjunction with the existing methane extraction
wells and collection system. Both systems are designed to not allow the lateral
migration of any gas in concentrations above the lower explosive limit beyond
the facility property boundary. In addition to the existing gas montioring pro-
bes, a series of new probes will be installed in 100-foot intervals along the
southeastern perimeter of the horizontal expansion area parallel to the
boundary.
-2-
A liner and leachate collection system will be installed beneath the horizontal
expansion area. The system will consist of a sloped natural clay liner overlain
by a sand drainage layer. A piping network will be installed within the
drainage layer to remove the leachate. The permit requires the submittal of
detailed plans and specifications for the actual construction of the system.
The liner and collection system will be constructed in stages in advance of
waste disposal activity. Construction will commence immediately on issuance of
the permit in the southeast section of the landfill and will proceed north and
In a counterclockwise direction as the waste capacity in these areas is utilized.
During the initial excavation in the southeast portion, waste will be disposed
In the southwest section of the landfill so that this area can be brought to
final elevation within a relatively short period of time. In addition, a 1,000
foot separation distance will be maintained between the landfill boundary and
the nearest houses in the Bluffs West Second Addition and approximately 800 feet
will be maintained to the nearest undeveloped lots not owned by Browning Ferris
Industries.
Ground water quality upgradient, downgradient and in adjoining areas will con-
tinue to be monitored. An impact assessment and routine monitoring will be con-
ducted on Grass Lake. Under the proposed closure plan two feet of final cover
consisting of clayey soils will be placed over each fill area. The final cover
will be capable of supporting vegetative growth. Final cover will be placed
within 30 days after closure or as soon as appropriate weather allows such place-
ment. Final cover will be graded, and short-term control measures will be used
to minimize erosion and limit settlement. Final vegetative cover will be
planted in the spring or fall planting seasons, consistent with the end use and
landscaping plan for the site.
-
The landfill will be inspected and monitored following closure for a period of
20 years. The leachate collection system, the gas monitoring system, the final
cover and the surface water diversion measures will be inspected and maintained.
In addition, water quality monitoring will be conducted for 20 years. The appli-
cant is required to submit financial assurance for the long-term monitoring and
maintenance of the site.
• The determination to issue a permit is tentative. Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments. The comments submitted must include the
following:
1. A statement of the person's interest in the permit transfer;
2. • A statement of the action the person wishes the MPCA to take;
3. The reasons supporting the person's position, stated with sufficient
specificity as to allow the Director to investigate the merits of the
person's positions.
-3-
Interested persons may also petition for a public hearing in accordance with
MPCA Rules of Procedure, Chapter 7000.1000 and 6 MCAR S 4.4011. If a person
requests a public informational meeting or contested case hearing, the comments
must include the items listed and a statement of the reasons the person desires
the MPCA to hold a public informational meeting or contested case hearing and
•the issues that the person would like the MPCA to address at the public infor-
mational meeting or contested case hearing. The MPCA's review and decision on
such a request shall be in accordance with Chapter 7000.1000 and 6 MCAR § 4.4013.
Comments or petitions for public hearings should be submitted in person or by
mail within thirty (30) days after the public notice issue date and no later
than May 16, 1985 . Deliver or mail all comments to:
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Solid and Hazardous Waste Division
1935. West County Road 82
Roseville, Minnesota 55113-2786
The public notice number should appear next to the above address on the envelope
and on each page of any submitted comments. All comments received within thirty
(30) days after the public notice is issued will be considered in the formulation
of final determination.
Public notice of the plans and specifications is discretionary with the Director,
but in all cases a letter notice will be sent to all persons who indicate an
Interest in the plans and specifications.
The proposed amended permit along with a Record of Decision is available for
Inspection and may be copied anytime between 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday. Copies of the public notice, existing information and proposed
amende conditions are available at the address shown above. If you have any
questions regarding the proposed amended permit, as drafted, please contact
Kenneth H. Podpeskar, P.E. at 612/297-1786.
Please bring the foregoing to the attention of other persons whom you know would
be interested in this matter.
1 0
Figure 4.
AREA TOPOGRAPHY
Bete Map Source: U.S.G.S, 2000
4000 feet
Eden Prairie 7.5 min. amid.
The location of the waste
permit .shall be in Sections
city of Eden Prairie, Hennepin
A. Facility Descrintion. The
permit shall be a sanitary I
approximately 240 acres of wh
- planned for disposal of solid r)
placement of an additional 5,64
. waste and cover material on and a
of waste and cover material alread
acuity authorized by this
within an area of
148 acres are
r.reeilit authorizes the
'et of compacted solid
t to the 5,261 acre-feet
lace.
tal Expansion Area. This area consists of the 42.4 acres
ast of the existing landfill as denoted on the plans
-uary 6, 1985, received February 7, 1985. The capacity
ea authorized for filling is 2,475 acre-feet of com-
id waste and cover material.
PERMIT
FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
OF A WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY
Pursuant to authorization by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapters 115 and 116, MPCA
Rules Parts 7035.0100 - 7035.2500, and MPCA Procedural Rules Par
7000.1700.
Voodlake Sanitary Service, Inc.
9613 Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
/1.)-
is authorized by the MPCA to construct and operate th lying Cloud Sanitary
Landfill under the conditions set forth herein. The de .nnindtion to issue this
permit is discretionary with the MPCA and was made .,ub quent to MPCA review of
the permit application.
PART 1. CONSTRUCTION
A. General Location.
. authorized by this
1116N, R22W in the
Minnesota.
The portion of t,b2_facility authorized for filling by this permit
consists of thy,
1. Vertica Ex ins on Area. This area consists of the 105 acres
as 'entes e ne pIaii ted February 6, 1985, received
Februa 7, 85 r vious filling has occurred. The
capacity thi area authorized for filling is 3,169 acre-feet
of compacte so1.4 waste and cover material. Filling shall be
• accomplished b exp ding the final vertical elevation of the
landfill to the'i elevations as denoted in the plans
dated February 6, 1985, received February 7, 1985.
Thisvnwifdoes not allow the disposal of solid waste in any other
area of-tfic facility unless approved by the Director.
-2-
C. Plans and Specifications. The permittee shall construct the
sanitary landfill project authorized by this permit in acc nce
with the plans dated February 6, 1985,. received February , 1.85,
. which are attached hereto and incorporated herein. The .pp..val,
by the MPCA, of the plans and specifications shall not .e co trued
to release the permittee from any present or subsequ t ylvirL -ents
of statute, rule, regulation, or ordinance.
• D. Special Construction. The permittee shall construct the followi ii
features:
1. Liner and Leachate Control System. The er ttee shall install
a liner and leachate control system be eat the horizontal
expansion area. Within three months ro th , -fective date of
the permit, the permittee shall subn t .(an an specifications
for the liner and leachate control sy tem. I luded in the
submittal shall be a discussion of the tent al for physical,
chemical or biological failure of the line ana he measures to
be implemented for the long-term maintenance ti system. A
quality control and assurance plan shall be inc ..ed in that
submittal. The plan shall discuss the field verification
procedures, the frequency/a4Lesting, the inspection schedule,
and any other measures t
of the liner and leachat
not be allowed to dispose
expansion area until after
design of the liner and leac
Director and until after rece
as outlined in Part I.E. of thN
oented during the construction
The permittee shall
te in the horizontal
I-Frtten approval for the
trol system from the
construction certification
rmit.
At a minimum
with the f'
designed
percent
100 mi
by the
design sh,
0 liner/leachate collection system in conjunction
r system required in Part II.C. shall be
n overall site efficiency of at least 98.5
at). Overall site efficiency is defined as
calculated leachate release divided
and multiplied by 100 percent. The
'as follows:
n liner shall be compatible with the waste
shall have an expected life for at least
20 years after closure. The base liner shall be graded to
minimum two percent and a maximum five percent slope and
1,1 be at least three feet thick if a natural liner is
led or at least 30 mils thick if a synthetic membrance
talled. Above the liner shall be a minimum 12 inch
layer of sand. The liner and sand layer shall be
in such a manner to ensure that the overall site
iency is being attained.
a. Liner. Thltnel
and leachate
3. Methane Extraction Wells an CoM
extraction wells spaced approVa
e constructed along the southw an
boundaries in accordance with tl
Methane Report," received August
on System. Fourteen gas
y 150 feet apart have been
west portions of the landfill
port entitled "Part V.A.
, 1983. Collected gas shall be
-3 -
b. Leachate Collection System. The design of the collection
system shall be based on the estimated quantity of leachate
produced by the facility during the operating life ).;.A4 after
closure. The system shall be capable of collecti
removing leachate for a period - of 20 years after/tic:lure.
The collection pipes shall be at least four in
. diameter and shall be of sufficient strength
loads experienced during construction and di
solid waste. The pipes shall be protected fr`or(cloggi
by the use of permeable filter fabric. The design shall
provide for the proper inspection and clean-out of the
collection system.
.2. Methane Barrier. A clay methane barri h been constructed
on the excavation slopes along the eayt ad s *beast landfill
boundaries between future wastes dep si a t', Bluffs West
Second Addition housing development. Its • me sions are 1,600
feet long, 80 feet in height, and at l 'è t 3 inches thick
placed at a slope of 2.5 to 1 (horizontal o v. tical) Corn-
patted at 95 percent standard Proctor maximu den ity to achieve
a maximum coefficient of permeability of 1 x l. -m/sec throughout
the depth of the barrier. A barrier with the same design as the
existing barrier shall be constructed along the entire south and
dated February 6, 1985, eceLyed r 7, 1985 prior to the
east side of the horizon al e sion area as denoted in the plans
deposition of any waste.
'seral piping to a combustion station for water
d by a motor/blower through a flame arrester,
e.
4. Methan Mon't-t/ri hes Twelve monitoring probes have been
installe ,roun' the facility. Seven of these are on the west
side of the ite nd the remaining five are located on the east
side of the si as enoted on the plans dated February 6, 1985,
received Februar) 1985. The probes monitor multiple depths
and are constructed in accordance with the report entitled
L,V.A. Methane Report." Within 60 days after completion of
methane barrier, the permittee shall install a series
level monitoring probes with similar construction to
ng probes to monitor the effectiveness of the barrier.
25 shall be installed in 100-foot intervals along the
rn perimeter of the horizontal expansion area parallel
'vised boundary. In the event that the probes identify
ificant methane migration to the east or southeast, an
-4—
active methane collection and extraction system shall be installed
On the east side of the landfill. Significant methane migration,
means that the concentration of any explosive gas may n exceed
25 percent of its lower explosive limit (LEL) at any ring
point. At all times the facility Shall not, allow th miration
of any explosive gas in concentrations above the L bey d the
facility property boundary.
5. Surface Water Runoff Ponds. A surface water runofT detenti
pond has been constructed to hold runoff water volume from a
100-year rainfall event. The pond is located in the southeast
corner of the landfill property and has a Itflow elevation of
855 feet MSL. Pond discharge water is nv fed via pipe to a
surge pond located south of Riverview ad Within 90 days
from the effective date of this permi , e p ittee shall
Install measures in the detention po d ic. wi increase the
efficiency of the particle settling c abi iti s of the pond
and which will remove potential contamiitacts rom the surface
. of the pond.
6. Noise Berm. The permittee shall construct a 15'.fd rot high berm
al ong the east-southeast side of landfill.
7. Fencing. The Permittee ill a 15 foot high fence
on the east-southeast si -'on area to minimize
potential impacts from li the facility.
Since the actual design and T Lue berm and fence are
dependent on the approved li.er/ ea .nate collection system, the
specifications for the berm a 4 fece will be submitted along
with the liner/leachate collect'oOlystem design required in
Part 1.0.
E. Construction C -tific,*ion. The permittee shall notify the MPCA when
the special c.nst “,tio is completed and shall provide a construction
certificati f a pro 1 by the Director. The certification, signed
by a profe sio al ngineer rt.istered in the State of Minnesota, shall
certify, wi an ex .4, sted, that the construction has been
completed in cord rice with the plans and MPCA permit. In addition,
It shall be cert ice 'hat an MPCA-approved water monitoring system
and the methane ex ctl n wells, methane monitoring probes, liner
and leachate collecti ystem are fully functional.
or Additions. The permittee shall not make any
r adaltion to the sanitary landfill facility thit -7611d•
!Ter the method or effect of disposal without first
epin County and the city of Eden Prairie and obtaining
isent of the Director.
not be less th
The final co,
six percen
compacted 1 -3
permeability
layer shall con
be sufficient to
at least two feet thick graded to a minimum
shall consist of at least 12 inches of
:hieve a maximum coefficient of
0 -13 cM7lec throughout. The remaining 12 inch
on-site soil mixed with top soil which will
a vegetative cover growth.
••n .5-
PART II. OPERATING CONDITIONS
A. Operator. The operator shall be certified in accordance wi ,p4\the
MPCA's Operator Certification Rules (Chapter 7048).
B. Waste Characteristics. This permit approves the disposill of.,5,644
acre-feet of compacted in place mixed-municipal solid
cover material. This permit does not authorize the
wastes determined to be hazardous in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hazardous waste regu-
lations and MPCA Rules, Chapter 7045. This permit does authorize
disposal of nonhazardous industrial solid wasA,,subject to the
conditions outlined below.
(tten request 1. The permittee shall submit to the Dir
for the disposal of industrial solid
2. The written request shall include an e
the quantity, the frequency, and the proci
disposal.
3. Industrial solid waste shall not be disposed in the landfill
without the Director's approval prior to disposal.
4. Those wastes listed in M
shall not be disposed in
obtaining the Director's a
disposal.
Rules, Part 7035.1700 V.
wiihout requesting and
ined above, prior to
C. Cover Requirements. Daily cover s 111 consist of six inches of soil
placed over compacted fill material. I ,termediate soil cover (cover
over fill exposed for an extended period of 120 days or longer) shall
The permittee shall establish and maintain an acceptable vegetative
Ler the facility which minimizes erosion and promotes
Iration. The seed mixture shall consist of a mixture
ing and long-term shallow rooted plant species.
is being covered, the following measures shall be
1. The permittee shall noti
at least three working d
cover is being applied an
gP.CA's central office inspector
advaTismlm,m.: each period when final
1"17Z-6 testi g is occurring.
D. Equipment. The permittee shall
equipment at all times during the
case of equipment failures, equiva
provided for the operation of the fa
5nd maintain adequate
tion of the facility. In
ackup equipment shall be
ty.
-6-
1. A minimum of five samples from the material source area shall
be tested for standard Proctor maximum densit
moisture content before construction starts..
.2. The moisture content of the low permeability cover m al
• must range from at least the optimum moisture cont
more than five percent over optimum moisture cont
the material is being emplaced.
3. The cover material shall be placed and compacted to at least
95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum density.
4. For the low permeability unit, a minimum,
. moisture-density test shall be taken p
Additional tests may be taken dependi
the material.
5. If the material is not performing prope 1 • a demonstration
shall be necessary to verify that the cove in specifica-
tions are being met. This may dictate the n d i some field
permeability testing on an as-needed basis. Ft,1 permeability
testing may also be used in lieu of moisture-density testing.
E. Sign. The per
landfill whic
refuse must
prevent th
ball maintain a sign at the entrance to the
aste haulers of the state requirement that
covered when transported to the landfill to
ing of the material.
F. Monitoring.
1. The following ist g monitoring points (W-1 through 14-11) and
future monitoring nt (14-12) shall be sampled in July and
October and analyzed for each of the parameters listed in
I.F.3.b. The following monitoring points (14-1 through
011 be sampled in April and analyzed for each of the
5 listed below in Part II.F.2. In addition, at least
, 14-3, 14-4, 14-5, 14-7, 14-10, 14-11, and 14-12 shall be
i analyzed in April and October for the parameters
Part II.F.3.a.
-7-
Monitoring Point Number Common Name
The locations of these monitoring po(nts<arq/as)shown on the
facility monitoring systems map, date4,FeMary (6, 1985,
received by the MPCA on July 8, 1982.
Within 30 days of the effective date of this ermt, wells W-1,
W-3, W-4, and W-8 shall be replaced with wells , W-3A, W-4A,
and 1?-8A. Within 30 days of the effective date of this permit,
a well, designated W-12, 51101 be installed adjacent to W-2A.
The locations and depths
the Director. Following
wells W-1A, W-3A, W-4A, a
W-4, and W-8 in the sampli
60199
65299
60399
60499
60531
60699
60764
60899
60999
61099
61199
61299
zlis shall be those approved by
411 Part II.F.5. and F.6.,
lace wells W-1, 14-3,
forth in Part II.F.1.
Within 60 days of the effecti
plan indicating the location o
water monitoring points shall b6
2. Samples sh
e of this permit, a revised
past and existing ground
mitted.
Alk
Am-oni
Ar
Cadmi
Calcium,
Chemical
Chloride
Chromium, Total Dissolved
ppper, Dissolved
solved Solids, Total
Dissolved
Dissolved
Magnesium, Dissolved
Manganese, Dissolved
Mercury, Dissolved
Nitrate + Nitrite, as N
pH (field and lab)
Potassium, Dissolved
Sodium, Dissolved
Specific Conductance
Sulfate
Suspended Solids, Total
Temperature (field)
Zinc, Dissolved
n, any odor, color, or sediment noted at the time of
shall be reported. The Director may require analysis for
al parameters or more frequent sampling.
1,2-Dichlorobenzen
1,4-Dichlorobenz
1,2-Dichloropro;
Methylene chl
Methyl chlor)
Methyl brom
TrichlorofluMmethan
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Tric.1-oToethylene
Vinyl aloride
(1) Two measurements: in field, immediately after
obtaining sample,azd in laboratory.
(2) Of the sample a
(3) As measured to at
in field before pum
-8-
3. a. Samples shall be analyzed for the following parameters:
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethyelene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Cis-1,3-Dichloro-l-Propene
1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene
b. Ammonia Nitrogen
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Iron, Dissolved
Nitrate + Nitrite, as N
4. All laboratory tests shall be c nd ted using previously-verified
analytical methods (i.e., Standa I ethods, EPA, ASTM, etc.). A
description he proposed sampling procedures, a listing of all
analytical .ethon with their corresponding detection limits, and
laborator qu y ,ssurance and quality control procedures shall
be subm te to he Director for review and approval within 60
days o th of ective (la, of this permit. This submittal shall
be pro • ed en P rrmittee intends to change laboratories.
wells established during the life of this •
oped until field measurements of the
yield stabilized readings from three
separate samples: pH, specific conductance, and temperature.
,Ich well, these readings shall be submitted to the Director
ew, together with one analysis for total suspended .solids
log containing the following information:
2ci soil or rock description and classification,
ed soil and rock properties, and elevations of
and lower contact. Classfication shall be done
qualified geologist or soils specialist. If the
5. All new moni
'permit shall b
following paramefl!
-9 -
methods of drilling and sampling do not permit the soil
characteristics and contact elevations to be described
accurately and in detail, geophysical logs shafl . be
provided.
b. Location referenced to known control points, da
completion, and name, address, and telephonb
person or company responsible for constructi
well.
c. Depth of well; construction materials utilized, including
well casing type and size, screen open' g size; size
. fraction of screen packing material ed for casing and
grout; methods used to drill the ho e, ace the sealed
intervals, and develop the well; ev ,ior of the land
surface, top of casing, and meas red wat 1 vels;
elevations of the top and bottom f scr en, casing,
and each type of backfill or seal; d ge physical logs,
if any.
Upon review and approval by the Director of taN&ormation
required in Part II.F.5., analysis of the first two samples
from each new installation shall include the parameters listed
In Part II.F.2. The perm 0. „ hall advise the Director at
least five working days efore the ' St sampling.
/St ater elevation of
re/
and recorded to at least
eA levations shall be measured
qrs quarterly for at least the
elevations from the mani-
e submitted to the MPCA with
7. Immediately prior to sampl
any monitoring well shall bd
the nearest 0.01 foot. Stat'
In the nonsampled K-series
first two years of the permit.
toring wells and piezometers shal
the sample rf•-sul-‘k required in Part II.F.
g, tne
mezN,4
wat
-me
8. All water
laborat
11 be collected and analyzed by an independent
table to the Director.
uth procedure of Part II.F.5. above or an
to determine how much water must be evacuated
znitoring well prior to sampling to ensure that
tive of ground water in the aquifer. The
ed sampling procedure shall be submitted
in 60 days of the effective date of this permit, to the
for review and approval.
piezometers, or lysimeters abandoned during the life
nit shall be abandoned in accordance with the
ater Well Construction Code, particularly Minnesota
ter 4725.2700.
9. The perM
alternate 0
from each exi
samples are repr
results and recommd
-1 0-
11. 'Special Monitoring Reauirements.
a. The following water supply wells shall be included iii.‘the
monitoring network:
Name
Cooley ResidenCe
Flying Cloud Drive-In Theatre
BF! Well 8-2
Addres
13881 River
9699 Flying Mud Dri
9813 Flying Cloud Drive
1) The location of
their selection;
be identified in t
2) A discussion of how b
and biotic contaminant
ons, the rationale for
by which they will
und, or ambient, water quality
ntrations will be addressed;
The Cooley and BFI wells shall be sam
' April and October for the parameters
The Flying Cloud Drive-In Theatre
analyzed in April for the paramet
c. Within 270 days of the effective
permittee shall submit for the Dird
of the report required in Part 11.2.,
monitoring the possible effects of the 1
At a minimum the proposed monitoring plan 1a..1/1 be capable of
monitoring the long term effects of the landfill on water
quality and biota in ,C1.r.a.ss Lake. The plan shall include:
0 and analyzed in
ed in Part 1I.F.3.a.
hall be sampled and
tin Part II.F.3.a,
is permit, the
approval, as part
sed plan for
1 on Grass Lake.
3) The
thpir seNtion;
a which will be monitored and the rationale for
1
la ti
and ch
rs which will be monitored and the rationale
n. This discussion should address the
parameters in leachate from sanitary
s, their persistence and potential for bioaccumu-
he Grass Lake environment, and their acute
toxicity to the Grass Lake biota; and
5) The sampling methodology, analytical procedures, and
frequency of sampling.
ttee shall monitor on a weekly basis the gas probes,
Cloud Drive-In Theatre building and surrounding
for levels of percent combustible gases and the
osive limit.
• •
H. -Phase Development. The operator shY1
. contour elevations within the ter
progress in accordance with the pla
herein. Filling shall proceed in a
velop
-
the site to final
this permit. Filling shall
ceived and incorporated
ed sequence to establish
final elevations
reached, final
with Part II.
scheduled s
struct ion
I. End Use. The
lift asopen sp
of water occurrin§
soon as practicable. As final elevations are
ball be placed over the fill in accordance
permit. Final cover placement shall be
mum areas are completed during the con-
s of thi facility filled with waste shall be
no construction or artificial application
e unless approved by the Director.
G. Reporting Renuirements. Quarterly reports on the operations of
the landfill shall be submitted ot the Director by the the 30th
• day of the first month following each quarter, i.e., January;
April, July, and October. The quarterly reports shall in uch ,
.'but not be limited to, the information specifically requ and
shown on report forms provided by the MPCA. Reports sVll llude
average volume of each of the waste types received; n
vehicles using the facility, other wastes accepted f spch
and location by grid coordinates of disposal within toe site.
Analytic results of water quality testing required in Part II.F.
and gas monitoring results shall be reported the Director in
May, August and November of each year. A ye rly summary of water
quality trends shall be provided annually •y J wary 31 of each
year. The summary shall include summary abl s a graphs showing
concentrations versus time for all param te fr in rach monitoring
point and static water levels versus tim for ach ground water
monitoring point. A narrative discussion s 11 included which
describes water quality variation in individu. we ' with time
and water quality variation between downgradient ,nd gradient,
or cross-gradient wells. The discussion shall inc 4 a descrip-
tion of water quality and biotic contaminant concentration variation
In Grass Lake. The discussio hall conclude which surface and
ground water quality effects are t,' nably attributable to the
landfill and describe any ch nger fflài ance needed in the
monitoring network.
• J. Special Operating Requirements. The permittee shall control odors,
;tors, birds and litter in accordance with Minn. Rule
d the Wind Erosion Control and Dust Emission Source
d Control Plan, Litter Control Plan and Noise Control
ed by the Director and incorporated herein.
anNlidi4oe ifications. The permittee shall operate the disposal
sy "in iYver d by this permit in accordance with the plans dated .
Febru 3 6 1935, received February 7, 1985 are attached hereto and
incorpo
•
ed herein.
-12-
L . Impact Assessment on Surface Water. Within 30 days of the effective
date'of this permit, the permittee shall submit to the Director the
name of a consultant, and his qualifications, who shall con.Jit an
evaluation of the landfill's current and potential effect
'Grass Lake, located south of the landfill in the Minneso
floodplain. Within 60 days of the effective date of t
the consultant shall submit a work plan for the study
the work plan shall propose methods to:
1. Inventory and characterize the biota in and adjacent to
Grass Lake;
2. Characterize the water quality of Grass
terization shall include a comparison
water quality, MPCA water quality st
criteria at the incremental risk lei,
and available aquatic toxicological
3. Evaluate if Grass Lake has been affected , th landfill.
If Grass Lake has been affected the effects all be
described and, where possibly quantified. The ential
for further effects shall be evaluated. If no effects are
evident, the sensitivity _DI...Grass Lake to effects from the
landfill shall be evalua
4. Evaluate the feasibility
effects from the landfill.
consider the effects of reme
concentrations in Grass Lake
its biota and hydrologic budge
5. Establish a
water qual
6. Estimat an al hy ologic budgets for Grass Lake over a
range f gh average low flow conditions that may be
antici tea. Th ance of ground water to the hydro-
logic bu flt st. 11 be Included in these estimations. The
influence o seas nal river flow conditions upon Grass Lake
water flushin nd ,lntaminant retention shall also be sum-
marized for high, , .rage and low flow conditions.
cpte morphometric information necessary to evaluate
itce and the contiguous wetlands utilizing standard •
ical practices.
hall review the work plan and require revisions
. Within 270 days of the effective date of this
pr it,`'the ,,ermittee shall submit to the Director the results
of th Gra s Lake study along with a proposed routine monitoring
plan required in Part II.F.11.
1. This charac-
4innesota River
an health
00,000,
n to mitigate
study shall
ion on contaminant
1 as the effects on
-term monitoring program of Grass Lake's
biota as required in Part Il.f.11.b.
A. Closure. The permittee shall close the site j"-)the following
manner:
1. Procedures shall be implemented to no
media and the public of the closing
2. Access to the site shall be restricted:
rector, the
tute site.
4. Within three months from
the permittee.shall subny,
revised final contours All
Is diverted around and aw
minimizing erosion. Final raoc;
to six percent slopes but
final contours shall not incAase
Part I.B.
t effective date of this permit,
final contours plans. The
surface water drainage
ity while still
predominately five
least two percent. The
volume permitted in
5. A detailed ds.c.ciption, including a plat, shall be recorded
with the C
Include
and 0th
oister of Deeds. The description shall
r s and locations of wastes, depth of fill,
of interest to potential landowners.
M7-FLits2jio. The permittee shall implement
-13-
H. Remedial Measures. If the results of the monitoring program on
air, surface water and ground water indicate that the landfill is •
causing a violation as determined by the Director of approp
standards or human health criteria, the permittee .shall s
the Director for approval a detailed Remedial Measures P
Remedial Measures Plan shall identify the specific mea<
to mitigate adverse impacts of leachate on ground tat
water and of the build-up of gas migrating from the
PART III. CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE
.3. Final cover shall be placed over all fill arN accordance
with Part II.C. of this permit.
1. Long-term care eas es shall be instituted to maintain all
slopes, swales, ement points, erosion damage, monitoring
points, and damage to vegetation. The site shall be inspected
p permittee on a quarterly basis for the first three
thereafter on a schedule to be determined by the Director.
nitoring and reporting as specified in Part II.F.
this permit shall continue for twenty years after
s closed. The monitoring program will be reeval-
the Director on a five year basis and recommendations
-14-
will be made to either increase or decrease monitoring
requirements. The Director reserves the right to reevaluate .
the monitoring program and require modifications if th/M)ni-
toring results indicate a need for such a review.
contamination is detected during this twenty year p
monitoring cease at the site. All wells shall/be abNoned
In accordanc with the Minnesota Water Well ConS;
Minnesota Rules Chapter 4725 when monitoring cea
C. Financial Assurance. Within three months of issuance of this pen
the permittee shall submit documentation for the Director's approval,
which demonstrates Including a guarantee by its parent corporati
the establishment of financial assurance fo
post-closure care and monitoring of the
shall include an inflation adjusted cost
long-term care and monitoring, and a de
Instruments which assure(s) the proper c
and monitoring of the facility in accordance
Director reserves the right to reevaluate the
Intervals to determine its adequacy and to deterni
can be refunded a partial amount of the investment.
may be based on the monitoring results required in 8.2. above.
proper closure, and
y. The documentation
r closure,
the financial
long-term care
this permit. The
five year
the permittee
his determination
D. Closure Certification. The
closure is completed and sha
approval by the Director. The
engineer, shall certify, with a
has been completed in accordance
and this permit. It shall be cer
water monitoring system is fully ful
toll notify the Director when
e certification for
atiz,isigned by the project
6n -S—listed, that the closure
e plans and specifications
that a Director-approved
nal.
E. If the permitteq
permit, closur
above requir
PART IV. GENERAL
ts to close the facility during the term of this
facility shall proceed in accordance with the
release the permittee from any liability,
by Minnesota or federal statutes, or
inances including, but not limited to,
dose promulgated pu?!,-.W.nt to Minnesota Statutes Chapters 115,
116 400, and 473. This permit shall be permissive only and shall
pstrued as estopping or limiting any claims against the
its agents, contractors, or assigns, nor as estopping
fly legal claims of the State against the permittee,
ontractors, or assigns for damages to State property,
alation of the terms of this permit.
A. This permit s
penalty, or duty
regulations, or toe
B. The MPCA's issuance of a permit does not prevent the future
adoption by the MPCA of pollution control rules, standards, or
orders more stringent than those now in existence and docs,Pocit
prevent the enforcement of these rules, standards, or or
.*against the permittec.
C. The permit does not convey a property rightor an ex
privilege.
D. The MPCA's issuance of a permit does not obligate the MPCA to
enforce local laws, rules, or plans beyond that authorized by
Minnesota statutes.
E. The permittee shall perform the actions or
authorized by the permit in accordance w
cations approved by the NPCA and in corn
" of the permit.
t the activity
ns and specifi-
the conditions
F. The permittee shall at all times properly op te d maintain
the facilities and systems of treatment and con 01 d the
. appurtenances related to them which are installed sed by the
permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit.
Proper operation and maintena
adequate funding, adequate
adequate laboratory and pro
quality assurance procedures)
maintain appropriate back-up
necessary to achieve compliance
and, for all permits other than
If these back-up or auxiliary fa
economically feasible.
G. The permittee
representati
document r
the permi
to the Di
or other doe
H. The permittee sha ,n requested by the Director, submit within
a reasonable time ti i formation and reports that are relevant to
the control of pollution regarding the construction, modification,
tion of the facility covered by the permit or regarding the
the activity covered by the permit.
perarag....
ass zont
ce includes effective performance,
staffing and training, and
Ocluding appropriate
shall install and
ilities if they are
6 conditions of the permit
bus waste facility permits,
s are technically and
aacv
wie.6
/Nazar
it
mittee
knowingly make a false or misleading statement,
ification in a record, report, plan, or other
submitted to the MPCA or to the Director by
all immediately upon discovery report
lission in these records, reports, plans,
ad by Minnesota Statutes, sections 115.04; 115B.17,
; and 116.091, and upon presentation of proper cre-
MPCA, or an authorized employee or agent of the
e allowed by the permittee to enter at reasonable
the property of the permittee to examine and copy books, time.
A. The permit is not N19erable to any person without the express
written approval of the MPCA after compliance with the require-
f •PCA Rule Part 7001.0190. A person to whom the permit
ransferred shall comply with the conditions of the permit.
Jthorizes the permittee to perform the activities
the permit under the conditions of the permit. In
ermit, the State and MPCA assume no responsibility
o persons, property, or the environment caused by .
-16-
papers, records, or memoranda pertaining to the construction, modi-
fication, or operation of the facility covered by the permit or '
pertaining to the activity covered by the permit; and to co uct
surveys and investigations, including sampling or monitor g per-
taining to the construction, modification, or operation
facility covered by the permit or pertaining to the ac'ivi covered
by the permit.
J. If the permittee discovers, through any means, inclOd-ifig notl
' by the MPCA, that noncompliance with a condition of the permit
occurred, the permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimii
the adverse impacts on human health, public d 'nking water supplies,
or the environment resulting from the noncor ii nce.
K. If the permittee discovers that noncompl nc wi • a condition of
the permit has occurred which could end ng hu an iealth, public
drinking water supplies, or the environ'ont, e .rmittee shall,
'within 24 hours of the discovery of the nb compLance, orally notify
the Director. Within five days of the disco ry the noncompliance,
the permittee shall submit to the Director a wi 'ttel description of
the noncompliance; the cause of the noncompliance, exact dates of
the period of the noncompliance; if the noncompliance has not been
corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps
taken or planned to reducealle, and prevent reoccurrence of
the noncompliance.
I., The permittee shall report no comvi
.reported under K. as a part of 'heNd
i permittee is required to subm nde
reports are required within 30 da
noncompliance, the permittee shall
listed in K. within 30 days of the dricovery of the
noncompliance
the permit not
report which the
this permit. If no
the discovery of the
lit the information
M. The permitVe s all gi;e advance notice to the Director as soon
as possib ral alterations or additions to the
permitted -tivi'y that may result in noncompliance
with a Minncota o federal pollution control statute or rule
or a condition - permit.
Amended Permit No.
Dated:
-17-
the'activities of the permittee in the conduct of its actions,
Including those activities authorized, directed, or undertaken
under the permit. To the extent the State and MPCA may be
liable for the activities of its employees, that.liabili
.: explicitly limited to that provided in the Tort Claims
Minnesota Statutes, section 3.736.
. P. The Director may commence proceedings to modify or
permit during its term if cause exists under MPCA R
- 7001.0170 and 7001.0180.
The provisions of this permit are severable, d if °any provision
J/49
of this permit, or the application of any p ovi ion of this permit
to any circumstance, is held invalid, the pp cation of such pro-
vision to other circumstances, and the r mai der,4 this permit
shall not be affected thereby.
R. The permittee may request an extension o 'he d -.6es set forth in
. this permit including the submittal and moni rio dates. The
. request shall include justification for noncom with the
date. Based on the justification, the Director m rant an
extension.
Q.
• S. This permit is valid for fi
terminated, revoked, or am
of this permit, or to apply
shall request that the MPCA
allow for adequate MPCA review
tion of the permit at the time
for reissuance of the permit must;
calendar days before the expiratio
from the date issued, or until
A. Prior to expiration
rmit the permittee
e the permit. To
to avoid possible termina-
mit expires, an application
ubmitted no later than 180
te of the permit.
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
Dale L. Wikre, Director
Solid and Hazardous Waste Division
DRAFT RECORD OF DECISION
pertaining to the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Permit for the Construction and Operation of a
Waste Disposal Facility for the Flying Cloud
Landfill Expansion, Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Introduction
On December 27, 1934, the Metropolitan Council determined that
Ampactment Statement (EIS) prepared by its staff on the Flyi
expansion project in Eden Prairie, Minnesota was adequate. l.it detef
means that environmental review on the project pursuant to the Rules of
Environmental Quality Board (6 MCAR 3.021-3.054) has been completed and thfl
various agencies with permit authority may proceed to grant or deny permits.
ronmental
ill
'on
of decision (ROD) would
PCA) Permit for Construction
is document
ended to indicate
The EIS included a listing of permits for which a
be required. The Minnesota Pollution Control Age
and Operation of a Waste Disposal Facility was s
constitutes a record of decision for that permit
how the EIS was utilized in the process of permit
Original Proposal, Permit Application of February, 1982
The proposed facility as described in the permit application—Zated February 10,
1982 consisted of a vertical expansion of 105 acres above the existing permitted
landfill and a horizontal expansion
facility. A network of gfound water
detection were included as elements 6
did not include provisions for a liner
Alterations to the Pro osal Arisin Durin and ubse uent to Environmental Review
During discussions with the MPCA staff sine De ember, 1984, the applicant has
suggested several changes in the project whic incorporate or respond to
mitigative strategies 1,4U 7-0.4n the EIS. These changes are reflected in the
permit, and are summa
A acres adjacent to the existing
olls and provisions for methane
The permit application
te collection system.
A. A liner a
the horiz
.....!_jon system will be constructed beneath
B. A methane bar
the south and ea
compacted clay will be constructed along
of the horizontal expansion area.
• C. Additional methane monitoring probes will be installed to monitor the
of the methane barrier. Significant methane migration as
by the Director, Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
CA, will result in the required construction of an •
?e collection system.
5 feet in height will be constructed along the east-
'de of the landfill.
A. A plan for monitoring the Ate 'al erre
');
Grass Lake, located in the M ne o ; . iver
• facility, will be submitted t n th
of the landfill upon
lley south of the
fipproval.
B. The Flying Cloud theatre buildin
combustible gas levels.
be monitored weekly for
-2-
E. The.design of the runoff detention pond will be modified to increase
particle settling efficiency and surface contaminant removal. -
'F. A 15 foot high fence will be installed on the east-south
of the expansion area for purposes of litter control.
G. Final slopes will •be redesigned at five to six perce
with two percent slopes to divert surface water dra
facility while still minimizing erosion. Proper vege'tTtive có
be established which minimizes erosion and promotes evapotranspi
i e
nation
m the
1
H. Separation distances of approximately 1,000
between the landfill boundary and the neare
second addition and approximately 800 fee
not owned by Browning Ferris, Inc. will
. be modified to ensure the completion of
than completion of other parts of the e
separation distance
uses in Bluffs West
he undeveloped lots
intp-i-Red. Filling will
t area sooner
In addition to the above changes in project design, t/h4,4>l,jcant has agreed
to the following operational considerations.
A. Three water supply wells in the immediate area of the facility will
be included in the monitorino_network.
EIS Mitioation Strateaie
In the following sect
are enumerated. If
has been anticipat
indicated. If the
an explanation is of
the EIS where the strat
applicable condition in UI
rious mitigative strategies listed in the EIS
/ is incorporated into permit condition or it
revisions to the project, this is so
7-11-1._15-fluded in the revised project or the permit,
r the reason for non-inclusion. The page number in
resented appears in parentheses as does the
t .
A. Ground Water Impact Mitigation
- Monitor Cooley residential well, Flying Cloud •
well, and 8FI office well (P79).
- Incorporated into permit (Part I.F.11. Special
Requirements).
1. Strategy - LiMit vertic
residual waste (P81-83).
F.ansion't e filling of processed or
Response - Strategy not inc
completion of the vertical eX
final contours and veoetative
into permit or proposal. Rapid
on and early establishment of
is essential to the minimization
pa -rat
Qanse
5. Strato
percent,
Response - rated into permit (Part III.A.4.).
-3-
2. Strategy - Construct a liner and leachate collection system
as part of the horizontal expansion (P81-83).
Response - Incorporated into proposal and permit (P
Liner and Leachate Collection System).
3. Strategy - Forego vertical expansiOn (P81-83).
Response - Strategy not incorporated into permit -or propoS.
Permitting the vertical expansion is likely to extend the le
of time during which the ground water may be impacted by
leachate generated in the fill. The exirrhpg fill, already in
place, is expected to be a source of 1
the ground water beneath the landfill
to quantify existing impacts or the
from the proposed expansion. Any i
facility and the proposed expansion
by increasing the slopes to promote rui
The vertical expansion provides rapid ver
increase in slopes without significantly in
of precipitation entry into the\Li41, which in turn limits the
production eachate. Availability of processed waste is
presently driknow and such a restriction on fill material could
prolong heiNve life of the vertical expansion.
e and may impact
‘ever it is difficult
increase in impacts
he existing
gnificantly reduced
d reduce infiltration.
ekevelopment and an
g existing
potential impacts. In addition, the permit prZyldes for monitoring
and remedial action (see Part II.F., Monitoring, and Part 11.M.,
Remedial Measures) shoul;!-4.etamination be detected.
contours to allow for greater (five to six
6. Strategy - Encou?s evapotranspiration through selective
establishment of plant species (P83).
- The permit requires the establishment and maintenance of
;e vegetative cover (see Part 11.C.). While vegetation with
s of water consumption is encouraged, the primary
tion is the rapid establishment of vegetation to protect
cover system from erosion. Similarly, use of plant
With deep tap roots may negatively impact the final cover
f.easing its permeability. Decisions as to vegetation type
wilT-therefore be made in light of the primary purpose of protecting
the integrity of the final cover system.
Response - A monitoring plan for Gi ak
will be required by Parts 11.1.11.
A Surface Water Impact Plan will be rey,
permit.
9 • Strategy - End use should be jointly evaluated•bf the city of
ram Prairie and the applicant to determine best use for interim and
long-term (P86).
Response - This will be
by MPCA (Part 11.1.). E
final cover system. Any 0
of water entering the leach,.te ca
use should both protect the l'nal
from the site. End use should no
plan developed by the applicant
approval loy,—•gi.e.,MPCA Director.
end use must be approved
Dsure use may impact the
h —ill increase the quantities
ot be acceptable. Ideally, end
cover system and maximize runoff
include sprinkling. Any end use
the city would be subject to
B. Surface WatV IroZ71;ts Vitigation
1. Strat
areas
(P101).
by staging development, revegatation of
ible, and stabilization of disturbed areas
-4-
7. -Strategy - Construct a monitoring well in the Prairie du Chien
formation, and monitor surface water (P83-84).
Response - Monitoring is addressed under Part II.F of Ole permit.
The Cooley well is a Prairie du Chien well and wi nitored.
Surface seeps will not be monitored. Their sour es uiSown
and they are not tributary to surface water bdcl Gr e,
the nearest surface water body, will be monitored. Monito
continue 20 years after closure (see Part 111.8.2. of the pe
Monitoring will be accomplished quarterly, except during the winter.
8. Strategy - Corrective measures should
contaminated ground water impact Gras
vided should leachate-
(P85).
er quality and biota
itoring Requirements.
y Part II.L, of the
Response - Dv op nt will be staged as per Part 71.H. of the
permit. Final and revegetation will be promptly accomplished
as per Parts 11I.A. and B. and II.C. of the permit.
y - Improve efficiency of the on-site storm water detention
periodic cleaning and installation of baffle weirs and
(P101).
- Incorporated into permit (Part I.0.5.).
3. Strs2Ienv - Establish a runoff water control system as part of the
post-closure plan (P101).
3. Strategy
Resoonie
incor
requit
the grod
EIS that e,
exceed State
left turn lane on Highway 169 (P122).
ygulit for the left turn lane will not be
nto the A solid waste permit, since such a
to the MPLA charge for protecting
r ality. Furthermore, it is indicated in the
regulated pollutants are not expected to
;ds (P.122).
flts
Requi
• Strategy - Move methane flare further from the Bluff's West
vision (P144).
- A passive methane system will be installed at the
nd a flare will not be required at this time.
- Increase number and monitoring frequency of gas
P144).
nse - Incorporated into permit (see Part I.0.4.).
.5-
Response - Runoff will be routed away from fill areas to the
Zetention pond. Long-term care measures included in the post-
closure plan require maintenance of swales and settle..:. points,
and require the repair of erosion, damage and vegeta on oss
(Part III.B.).
C. Vegetation and Wildlife Impacts Mitigation
1.. Strategy - Reduce attractiveness of the fill as a source
by application of daily cover (P112).
Response - Incorporated into permit, se r rt 11.8., C., Part
2. Strategy - Monitor for "background" nd .ions relative to water
quality and condition of the plant
ommunities (P112).
Response - Incorporated into permit PaiYII r.11. and II.L.).
D. Hazardous Waste - No specific mitigation str
were presented
In the EIS.
•
E. Air Quality Impacts Mitigation
1. Strategy - Revegetate
Response - Incorporated
• 2. Strategy - Provide short-te-m control where revegatation
Is not possible (P120).
Response - Incorporated into poNailt. (Part
teas to control dust (P120).
11.3., C., Part 11.3.).
Response - The facility
designed noise berm (see
expected to assure that Sti
exceeded. In addition, the ,-!rmi
provision requiring the permONtee
approved by the MPCA Director.
ed with an accoustically-
his provision is
Standards will not be
includes (Part II.J.) a general
to follow a Noise Control Plan,
pstrut
se control strategies discussed in the EIS are
in the scope of municipal ordinances and other
to the city of Eden Prairie. This is par-
ds which are stricter than the State
F. Vector Impacts
tion
the 71
tel . iti
ayilbli
rly try of si.:Em,
yegu 6io
Several
appropri
contra
ticul
Noise
-6 -
6. .Strategy - Increase monitoring frequency and provide methane .
gas protection to the drive-in building if migration is detected
(P144).
Response - Incorporated into permit (Part 1.0.4., P9,(t )4.F.12.
and Part II.M.).
7. Strategy - Increase buffer distance, delay deve
within 800 feet of the landfill (P144).
Response - Incorporated into permit (Part 1.C.).
8. Strategy - Provide additional monitorin an provision for
secondary control of methane in south st dortion of expansion
area (P144).
Response - Incorporated into permit see•06rt 1.0.4, I.0.2.).
9. Strategy - Monitor vegetation for effect of i ,thane (P144).
Response - Incorporated into permit (see Part J.12.).
10. Strategy - Reduce noise impacts through implementation of several
strategies which were 1/111-D-44i,the EIS (P159).
Strategy - Pray ally cover (P161).
onse - This is a routine requirement of waste facility permits.
ontrol is also addressed in Part II.J. of the permit.
s Mitigation
- Incorporate litter control plan into permit (P167).
nse - So incorporated, Part 11.3. of permit.
-7 -
Strategy - Widen buffer zone in southeast corner of site (P167).
Response - Incorporated in the permit (Part I.C.). .
Strategy - Increase fence height to 15 feet for optAurylitter
. capture (P167).
. Response - A 15 foot high fence will be construetld (Pare
1.0.7.).
(Note: Other specific operational sugge
by the Litter Control Plan referenced i
permit. These operational suggestion
the subject of municipal control mea
Visual Impacts Mitigation
Strategy - Plant trees to conceal operat 183).
Response - The combination of the 15-foot bern andscaping
based on revised end use and the intervening distance to
residents adequately minjllizes any visual impacts from the
proposed expansion.
ons are emcompassed
t HA. of the
also appropriately
nd property values did
Ti-Ition in the MPCA Solid
er has agreed to stage the
luff's West addition are
ortion of the facility.
The sections on traffic, land use, ai
not include mitigative measures appro*
and Hazardous Waste Division permit. T
project so that property value impacts on\
minimized by early completion of the south
icts
FLYI CrO7n LANZTIZ:
Comments cn Permit for C•nstruztion of the Expansion of Flyin?
Cloud Landfill in Eden Prairie, Minnestta ly GE Consultants, Zr.:.
(March 29, 1925)
Part I. Ccnstruotion
We have no comments on the size, loc'ation or facilf.ty
description. Our only recommendation is that the County reserve
approval of a permit until yo *u have reviewed the final plans
approved by the State.
Part I. r'onstrt:
D. Scecial Cons _ ion
1. Liner an! Lea:hate Control System
Pef ,.:rence: County Ordinance Fe:ti:n III, Su`.e -'4-n 4,
Subparagraph: P. and V
The quality :ontrol and assuran:e plan that the County presents
should inolude field verification of all construction by a
Registered. Frofecsicnal Engineer approved by the County. the
Permittee should pr -7-.. to the County the verification schedule
and details cf the program. The detail: are not described in Part
I, Sub.e-'4 on C, as f.clied.
Moving to the second paragraph, the liner in the leachate control
system should be designed to capture 100% (not '90%) of the
leachate generated fror the expansion; that is, 10% of the
leachate seeping into the soiligroundwater is not acceptable. The
controls should be set ur for a period of 30 years (not 20 years)
after closure. The main leachate collection lines should be
connected to a manhole at one end and have cleanout perts on the
surface at the other end, so that the lines can be jetted out with
water. The leachate collection systems should be cleaned annually
to remove biological and mineral aepoeits. Otherwise. th
collection lines may become clogged in a relatively short
of time.
The County should demand the right to review the specific design
of the collection system. Details such as the trenches for the
lines, the backfilling, the nanhole construction procedures, and
riser pipes should be reviewed.
A base of recompacted natural clay is more acceptable than an
artificial liner. If the base material is to be a natural clay, a
four foot thickness of properly compacted materials is acceptatie.
If the Pernittee proposes an artificial liner, the County should
insist on cc=plete review of the design prior to construction. An
artificial liner would require a clean, graded, granular material
both beneath an! above the liner. This granular material should
be at least cne foot thick. In addition, it is our experience
that constructing a leachate collection system above an artificial
liner, can be difficult, due to the granular layers alcove and
below the liner. The County should request a clear definition as
to why a 30 mil thick synthetic membrane would be acceptable, as
opposed to an 80 mil liner is acceptable. Also, the construction
of the synthetic liner on the side slopes should be clarified; and
It should be specified 'how the Permittee is going to construct
this without having slippage along the sid S walls.
The main points in Section 1 are:
1. The liner should be constructed to collect 100% of. the
leachate generated.
2. Complete construction supervision should be insisted
upon.
3. A synthetic liner is not recommended.
4. The leachate collection system should have a clean-out
port at the surface on one end, extending to a manhole
at the other, so that the lines can be cleaned cut
annually.
5. All construction materials for a natural clay liner
should be approved prior to its placen -ent; this includes
the clay and granular materials. The collection pipes
would be standard: only their design and installation
need to he approved.
Part I. Construction
D. Fr:ecial Construction
2. Methane Barrier
Reference: County Ordinance Section
Subparagraphs W and Q
Subsection 4,
All clay methane barriers must be constructed of approved
materials. If the barrier is in place for more than two weeks
'prior to placing refuse against it, it should be inspected to
insure that there has been no damage from exposure to the weather,
particularly erosion, cracking, or movement. The la.-rJe.v
should not be allowed to freeze.
On the south and east sides of the horizontal expansion area,. the
barrier should be constructed so that it is continuous with and
the base liner and no interruption exist in the protective
systems. The newly constructed barrier should be constructed of
materials inspected and tested under the direction of a registered
engineer, and the placement of materials should be approved by the
engineer.
At the top of the methane barrier, the previously proposed
landfill gas venting system must be installed. As the gas
migrates up the side of the slopes, It will concentrat ,:, at the
top, and if not vented, it can migrate from the site. This
venting system - should be placed as previously proposed by
'Erowning-Ferris industries in their February 20, 19E1, amended
engineering plans.
We reco --end that the County inquire as to why this venting system
should not be connected to the existing flare system, and the as
Incinerated as it Is on the western side of the site.
Fart I. Construction
D. Special Construction
3. Methane Extraction Wells and Collection Systems
Reference: County Ordinance Section III, Subsection 4,
Subparagraph Q and W
There appear to he no problems with this section. Two questions
are:
1. what will they do with the water vapor that Is removed by
the gas?
2. Does the flare cause any obnoxious odors or undue
nighttime light visible from areas adjacent to the site?
Part I. Construction
D. F.necial Construction
4. Methane Monitoring Probes
Reference: County Ordinance Section III. Subsection 4,
Subparagraphs Q and E
The monitoring probes should be spaoed closer together. This
section states that the probes shall be located • a minimum of 200
feet apart, but only five probes are proposed over several
thousa ," r'--b=s are relatively inexpensive to install and
should be placed on 200 to 300 foot centers. The specific strata
being monf'-vmd be determined for the individual probes,
with approval by the County. as probes should be installed in
the most permeable areas above the groundwater table. The only
reason to place a probe beneath the groundwater table is if a
porous, unsaturated layer underlies a clay layer. This type of
stratification would provide an ideal long distance transport
channel for gas.
The freency of monitoring shall be as reported elsewhere.
General Conments on Methane
Overall, the County should encourage the landfi
l
l
t
o
d
e
v
i
c
e
.
•
a
system of actively extracting and utilizing the
e
n
e
r
g
y
(
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
methane) developed from the landfill. . An activ
e
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
s
y
r
t
e
r
would result In less methane movement from the sit
e
.
There are three main reasons for extracting an
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
n
e
t
h
a
n
e
fro= the site. One ir the reduction of the late
r
a
l
r
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
potential for explosions of the gas in off-ci
t
o
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
r
;
a
second is the reduction of adverse effects that
t
h
e
g
a
r
w
i
l
l
h
a
v
e
on vegetation in the cover materials and adjacent
a
r
e
a
s
;
t
h
i
r
d
,
i
t
can provide a renewable energy resource. The
f
i
r
s
t
t
w
o
a
r
e
o
f
particular concern to the County with regard t
o
p
r
c
t
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
health and safety of local residents. The met
h
a
n
e
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
a
n
d
monitoring zystem should eliminate the adverse I
m
p
a
c
t
s
o
f
o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
migration.
Vertical gas migration presents another problem. Methane
migrating through the cover can Inhibit or kil
l
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
w
h
i
c
h
Is re .guired for esthetics and to protect the final cove
r
m
a
t
e
r
a
l
.
This vertical migration can be handled in tw
o
w
a
y
s
.
O
n
e
i
s
through an active recovery system, while the o
t
h
e
r
i
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
vents on top of the landfill. There is no discuss
i
o
n
o
f
e
i
t
h
e
r
o
f
these in the documents we reviewed.
The County should not grant a oerrit until
t
h
e
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
c
i
vertical migration is orcoerls discussed.
•
Initially, we recommend that you propose that EFI providc
collection- trenches and vents on 100 foot centers. This spacing
is quite conservative. The final ventilation system should be
approved by the County prior to acceptance. An alternative to
this is an active landfill gas collection system. .
Part I. Construction
D. Erecial Construction
5. Surface Hater Runoff Ponds
Reference: County Ordinance Section III, Subsection 4,
Subparagraph H
The section states that the, "Permittee shall install measures
which will increase the efficiency of the particle settling
capabilities cf the pond and which will remove potential
contaminants from the surface of the pond."
Two separate questions arise: first, is the surface water runoff
to be treated from areas adjacent to the site, or will the water
have come in contact with the refuse? If the latter is true, the
water oust then be treated in a system prior to discharge. If the
runoff is simply surface water from areas adjacent to the
landfill, the water should contain no potential contaminants and
only sediment. Secondly, what is meant by "potential contaminants
and removal"?
.Note that in Part I, Construction, of the State's permit, there
are two Sections C and two Sections D. The first Section C deals
with plans and specifications, while the second one deals with
construction certification. The first 'Section D Is Special
Construction, and the second one is Alterations and Additions.
In the second Part I, Section D, Alterations and Additions, the
County should state that the Permittee .must obtain written consent
from the County as well as the State.
Part II. Ocerating Conditions
C. Cover Recuirements
Reference: County Ordinance Section II, Subsection 4,
• Subparagraph G and Q
In the second paragraph it is stated that, The cover should have
at least 12 inches of material compacted to 1 X 10 -6 cm/second."
We recommend that 74 inches of 10 -6 cm/sec cover material to be
used. It is also stated that 12 inches of on-site material should
be placed over the 12 inches of cover. We agree that a 12 inch
topsoil layer is feasible, but it may have to be compacted in
order to be suitable to properly support vegetation. The topsoil
layer should not be heavily compacted.
The rate and application of the seed cover material should either
be specified at this point, or require County approval. The
techniques used should include mulching, and an increase of two to
three times the normal seed applications of a very fast growing
species such as rye, as well as permanent grass species.
With regard to the testing of the materials source, a minimum of
five tests should be taken, at locations selected by an
Independent registered engineer. The engineer should decide If
additional samples are required.
Part II. Omeratina Conditions
C. Ccver Reouirements
Paragraphs 2. and 4. appear to he acceptable.
Reference: County Ordinance Section III, Subsection 4,
Subparagraphs G and Q
Part II. 2peratina Conditions
C. Cover Re:muirerents
Paragraph 5.
Reference: County Ordinance Section III, Subsection 4,
Subparagraphs G and Q
The staterent, "If the material is not performing pr:perly
..."should be clarified, as well as what is meant by "field
testing." Under whose judgement will it be deened to be not
performing properly? This particular clause is ambiguous.
Part II. Oseratina Conditions
F. Monitorina
Parac!raph 1.
Reference: County Ordinance Section III, Subsection 4,
Subparagraph W
In our opinion, the proposed monitoring points are not acceptable
for the primary ground water points. There are two reasons for
this opinion.
1. The well screens are too deep (35 feet to 220 feet below
Part 11. Oneratinc Conditions
F. Mcnitorinc
Paragraph 12. Monitoring the
Basis
Gas Probes On A Weekl
the bottom of the landfill).
2. The well screens are below the low permeability silt
deposits; they should be above the silt.
The well screen elevation for each well is listed on Table 1,
along with the approximate distance between the bottom of the
landfill and the top of the well screen.
When new wells are installed, they should be located closer to the
.base of the landfill, placed with a thorough review of the
groundwater flow. Wells placed closer to the bast would provide
earlier warning of leachate migration.
Reference: County Ordinance Section II, Subnection
Subparagraph W
Monitoring the gas probes on a weekly basis is acceptable, and may
even be excessive during the summer and fall months. However, it
is acceptable in the winter. The section should have a
requirement that the landfill operator report the results on a
monthly basis to the County, and in the event that any of the as
probes have a 1% combustible gas level, the landfill operator must
notify the County on the same working day, or within 24 hours
after the tests are taken.
Part II. Oneratinq Conditions
I. End Use
Reference: County Ordinance Section III, Subsection 1,
Subparagraph D
In general, leaving the site open and unused for an extended
period of time (until vegetation stabilizes) may be better than
building a recreational facility on it, since any activity will
cause damage to vegetation and increase the potential for erosion
of cover materials. In the event that there is severe- drought
distress to vegetation, the site should be carefully watered in
order to enhance vegetation. The area should be fenced to keep
people and animals out.
Part II. Oaeratina Conditions
M. Reredial Action Plan
Reference: County Ordinance Section III, Subsection III,
Subparagraph B
A remedial action plan was not submitted.
With regard to the testing of the materials, the final cover
should be at least two feet thick and have a 10 -6 cm/sec
permeability. In our opinion, it would be difficult (if not
impo--^'e) to construct a one foot barrier on top of waste and
have continuity of this layer. A thicker cover would provide a
better surface cover. We are interested as to why the State wants
10 -7 cm/sec permeability for this layer, while most other states
specify 10 cm/sec for the permeability. The inspection, field
testing, and so on should .be done by an independent engineer. A
compacted density of 95% of Standard Proctor (AFT!: D
6
9
8
)
w
o
u
l
d
be acceptable, if it is correlated to compacted
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
permeability. In this way, the field testing could consist of
routine density testing. In our opinfon, it would be difficult
to perform valid field permeability tests on soil with 1
0
-15 or 10 -7
cm/sec soil, especially on a layer as thin as 12 inche
s
.
S
a
m
p
l
e
s
should be obtained and returned to a laboratory for testi
n
g
.
TABLE 1. FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL Vertical Distance From Landfill Bottom To Top Well Screens Monitoring Point Number 60199 65299 60399 60499 60531 60699 60764 60899 60999 61099 61199 61299 Common Name W-1 w-2A W-3 W-4 W-5 W-6 W-7 W-8 W-9 W-10 W-11 W-12 Approximate Elevation of Top of Well Screen 710 710 680 710 710 600t 680 650< 785 750 770 Approximate Elevation of Bottom of Well Screen 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 Approximate Distance Between Screen and Landfill Bottom, teat 110 110 140 110 110 220+ 140 170+ 35 70 so (Not yet installed) OME Project No. 134 March 29, 1985
TABLE 1. FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL Vertical Distance From Landfill Bottom To Top Well Screens Monitoring Point Number 60199 65299 60399 60499 60531 60699 60764 60899 60999 61099 61199 61299 Common Name W-1 W-2A W-3 W-4 W-5 W-6 W-7 W-8 W-9 w-lo W-11 W-I2 Approximate Elevation of Top of Well Screen 710 710 680 710 710 600< 680 650< 785 750 770 Approximate Elevation of Bottom of Well Screen 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 Approximate Distance Between Screen and Landfill Bottom. feet 110 110 140 110 110 220+ 140 170+ 35 70 820 50
/399
FLYING CLOUD CLOUD SANITARY LANDFILL
REVIEW NOTES
The purpose of these review comments is to identify areas where additional data
or analysis is necessary. The comments are presented in the order in which they
were encountered within the report. Reference is made with regard to the
specific section, pages, and paragraphs.
In general, the report is poorly organized and difficult to follow. Specific
references to sources material are not included with the materials made
available to GME Consultants. Some Figure and Table numbers in the text are
missing or do not match the actual Figures.
III.A.1. SITE HYDROGEOLOGY
EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
Soil
Page 6. The report introduces the concept of a "leaky confining layer" and
defines this as "uneven layer of inorganic silts and very fine sands, silty
and clayey find sands, silt with lenses of organic clays, and sandy clays
and silty clays." The report says, on Page 8, that "the reason these soils
(leaky confining aquifer) were not detected is that none of the exploratory
borings within the depression (landfill area) were drilled deep enough."
The report implies that the "leaking confining aquifer" will provide
protection for the bedrock aquifers beneath the site. As discussed later,
the groundwater data indicates, in fact, that the water flows towards the
center of the site and downward to the bedrock.
Geologic Cross-sections. The geologic cross-sections referred to in the
Soil section, and presented in the Appendix of that section, have a
horizontal to vertical exaggeration of 8 to 1. This exaggeration is
utilized to project the "leaky confining layer" across the site. There is
no evidence in the report to show that the "leaky confining layer" will act
as an impermeable or a retarding layer for groundwater flow. An •
examination of the figures and borings shows that there is little specific
data from beneath the site, and the projections of the "leaky confining
aquifer" beneath the site for all cross sections is questionable.
The report's speculation on Page 8 of the deposition and the rationale for
projecting the "leaky confining aquifer" beneath the site can be reversed
to indicate it's absence. That is, the ice may have existed while the
"leaky confining aquifer" was being deposited, and therefore this layer is
missing beneath the site.
Groundwater
Page 8. In the third paragraph, the report states that the flow of the
perched water above the "leaky confining aquifer" is towards the center of
the site as indicated by the arrows. The copy of the report reviewed did
not contain any arrows on Figure 6. However, if the groundwater divides
exist on both sides of the depression and the flow goes to the center of
the site as stated in the report, then the integrity or existence of the
"leaky confining layer" beneath the site is questionable.
POTENTIAL LANDFILL IMPACTS
Groundwater Levels and Flow Patterns
Page 13, first paragraph. The report states that the completion of the
landfill will tend to increase the gradient of the groundwater flow towards
the center of the site. Thus, any leachate from the landfill would tend to
flow towards the center of the site and to the bedrock.
Leachate Production
The water balance analysis described on Pages' 13 through 17 were not
checked for arithmetic accuracy. The approach seems correct and the
results are reasonable.
Leachate Movement
Page 18 - The vertical flow velocity calculated for the flow through the
bedrock aquifer as reported uses equation 4, yet the apparent formula
utilized differs from equation 4. This should be clarified. The notations
on Table 6 with regard to the bedrock aquifer and their significance should
be discussed.
With regard to Table 6, the report assumes a verticle permeability of 5.5 x
10 cm/sec beneath the landfill site. As previously discussed, there is
no soil boring data or laboratory testing to verify this permeability
value. The actual permeability may be three or four orders of magnitude
larger. Thus the flow times may be less than predicted in the report.
Groundwater Quality
In the discussion of the groundwater quality the report did not discuss the
potential for vertical flow of the leachate within the bedrock aquifer.
There should be a significant difference between the specfic gravities of
the groundwater and leachate. Thus, the leachate will not simply flow
into the groundwater, the vertical flow of the two fluids must be
considered.
On Page 28, fourth paragraph, the report implies that upon reaching the
groundwater, the leachate will move horizontally. The relative quantities
of flow, influences of specific gravities, and flow velocities on the flow
and dispersion of the leachate plume need to be examined. In the paragraph
following, the report assumes that the groundwater will discharge into the
Minnesota River. Although this may be likely, there is no evidence to
prove it.
On Page 28, paragraph three, the report discusses attenuation based upon
the projected of a "leaky confining aquifer." Attentuation cannot be
assumed for several reasons. They are:
1. The actual soils existing beneath the site are not known.
2. There is no chemical test data to indicate the ion exchange
or absorptive capacities of the materials beneath the site.
The analysis of the fate and mixing of the leachate and groundwater within
Grass Lake, presented on Pages 29, 30 and 31, makes a number of assumptions
and projections. The report does not consider the impact of the existing
landfill and the leachate generated from it. From Table 5 on Page 17, the
report estimates that approximately 50% more leachate will be generated
from the proposed site than from the existing site when the surface area of
the existing site is twice that of the proposed site. The report implies
that discharge of these leachates into both ground and surface waters are
acceptable as long as their concentration is dilluted to less than certain
state discharge criteria.
Impact on private and city wells
The discussion on Page 32 of the impact on local wells dis
m
i
s
s
e
s
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
of the existing landfill on the water quality. However, t
h
e
d
a
t
a
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
on Figure 12 indicates that either leachate or road sal
t
h
a
s
e
n
t
e
r
e
d
t
h
e
. groundwater and entered the wells. The informatiori c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
o
n
T
a
b
l
e
1
1
should be combined with that shown on Figure 12 to see
i
f
a
n
y
c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
exists between various parameters. The third paragraph
o
n
P
a
g
e
3
2
s
h
o
u
l
d
be expanded with regard to the conclusions and state
m
e
n
t
s
.
T
h
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
states that "the current monitoring system has detect
e
d
n
o
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
movements of leachate to date." However, the data sho
w
n
o
n
T
a
b
l
e
1
1
indicates substantial variations in the parameters tested.
The impact of the landfill on the City of Eden Prairie well
f
i
e
l
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
negligable. However, the report states that the private
"
w
e
l
l
s
a
r
e
s
m
a
l
l
residential and business wells that are pumped intermittently at low rates
and so will develop no significant cones of depression.
T
h
i
s
m
e
a
n
s
t
h
a
t
they will not significantly alter existing flow pattern
s
.
"
The report
presents no analysis for this conclusion and, without additional
information, should not categorically dismiss the potent
i
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
f
t
h
e
site on these wells. As discusssed earlier, there is ins
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
d
a
t
a
t
o
describe the hydrogeologic conditions beneath the site.
Detection of Oryanics
The report refers to a number of reported publicatio
n
s
w
h
i
c
h
a
r
e
n
o
t
identified, and states that the organics found in the we
l
l
s
n
e
a
r
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
are not likely to come from the landfill. The basis for th
i
s
s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
i
s
questioned, since seven of the nine compounds listed
o
n
T
a
b
l
e
1
3
a
r
e
chlorinated hydrocarbons. These are not naturally-occurrin
g
c
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
s
,
a
n
d
their source should be identified. These compounds are commonly found in
landfill gas. The report's statement concerning the other compounds which
may occur, or were not identified, cannot be evaluated, since the document
which is referred to is not identified.
• MITIGATION ACTIONS
Post-Closure Monitorinz
The monitoring program refers to several reports which were not available
or identified. The second paragraph on Page 48 refers to the required
monitoring period, and the statement is made that the deeper landfills
require longer periods to stabilize than shallower ones. The basis for
this statement, and the monitoring time, is not clear. In the fourth
paragraph, on Page 48, the statement is made that the leachate is expected
to move through in slugs of groundwater; again, the basis of this statement
is not clear.
SURFACE WATER
The figure numbers for this section were not identified.
The surface drainage patterns shown on the unnumbered figures are somewhat
confusing. The report states that trichlorofluor methane, or Freon 11, was
found in surface waters along with several other contaminates, in very low
levels at the base of the bluff. Writer states that additional compounds
would be expected to be present if it were landfill leachate. This is not
necessarily true since Freon 11 may be highly mobile, as well as the other
compounds found, and precedes the other leachate materials. The source of
these chemicals is certainly not natural.
POSSIBLE IMPACTS: LEACHATE MIGRATION
In the second paragraph in this section, the report stat
e
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
leachate will "flow in a reltively confined plume along th
e
t
o
p
o
f
t
h
e
water table." As staked previously, this is not necessarily tr
u
e
.
Effects on Off-site Drainage Basin
Neither the quantities or the figure numbers in this section a
r
e
f
i
l
l
e
d
i
n
.
The statement concerning leachate being directed towards
t
h
e
r
i
v
e
r
i
s
correct; however this statement implies that it will disch
a
r
g
e
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
river. This has not been proven. •
Effects on Grass lake
The section refers to a "staff". The person or group is not
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
.
The discussion of the leachate states that predictions of t
h
e
a
t
t
e
n
u
a
t
i
o
n
which occurs in the soils cannot be made. This is in fact inc
o
r
r
e
c
t
,
a
n
d
contradicts what was said in previous sections of the report
.
3.A.5.b. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
The section was incomplete, with table and figure numbers not filled in.
Major comment is that the overall section lacks clarity, and that over
50,000 gallons/day Of leachate will be produced, according to the report.
This discharge will likely occur in springs, if it does occur, and will be
somewhat of a nuisance.
PART V.A. METHANE REPORT
The "we" referred to in the introduction. Is this a consultant or
Browning-Farris?
The methods and equipment used to perform the analysis of the gas is not
clear. The text indicates that it possibly is some type of methanometer.
The techniques for taking the sample probes at the Flying Cloud Drive-In is
not clear. The information to date indicates that the methane control
system at the landfill boundaries are properly functioning. However, the
last (May 24 and June 3, 1983) probe readings at the Flying Cloud Drive-In
are high enough to be of concern. The gas concentrations should be further
tested, and the source of this gas, if it is not the landfill, should be
determined.
PART V.B.1. EROSION CONTROL PLAN
The section lacks specific information such as the seed mixtures, soil
classifications, etc. However, it does discuss their on-going maintenance
efforts which are critical to the successful revegetation of disturbed
area.
Soil Boring Logs
. The various soil borings submitted in conjunction with the report do not
contain a great deal of descriptive data or laboratory test data.
ARTICLE III.A.2. ASSESSMENT OF SOILS — GEOLOGY, AND HYDROGEOLOGY
This report appears to be a summary of the previously outlined report. In
general, it is a summary report of the sections previously discussed. The
critical comments with regard to these sections are applicable to this
report.
GiVIE CORISULTAIIITS,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
2083 East Center C n rde / Knneapot.s. MN 55441 / 612/559-1859
October 20, 1983
Mr. Ecaard Monteleone
Hennepin County Department of Environment and Energy
320 Washington Avenue South
Eapkins, Minnesota 55343
Re: Engineering Review of Flying Cloud
Sanitary Landfill Expansion Reports
and Plans
Dear Mr. Monteleone:
The purpose of this brief letter report is to provide you with the major
initial conclusions of our review of the above-referenced documents. As we dis-
cussed with you during our meeting of October 13, 1983 in your offices, a more
detailed review will be sent later.
A review of the documents which you forwarded to us has resulted in the
following initial conclusions:
1. The report as a whole is poorly organized and incomplete. Specific
references to other source materials are missing.
2. There is no dctual data in the report that verifies the soil condi-
tions projected to be beneath the site. In an area of extremely
variable surficial geology, the authors project soil conditions from
geotechnical data which is lacking in specific detail.
3. The report fails to adequately discuss the groundwater flow immediately
beneath the site and within the bedrock. Certain statements are made,
such as "The leachate will flow on top of the groundwater," with no
reference made to the difference in the density of the groundwater and
the leachate.
4. The report contradicts itself with regard to the flow of the ground-
waters in the unconsolidated materials beneath the site. Throughout
the report the authors discuss the "leaky confining layer" which is
projected to exist beneath the site, and imply thoughout the report
that this leaky confining layer will protect the bedrock aquifers
somewhat. The data presented indicate that there is a groundwater
sink beneath the site. That is, the report indicates that the ground-
water flows from around the site towards the center and downward to
the bedrock.
ft hAATCDIA1C CMVIDr1KINIFNITLI
Mr. Edward Monteleone October 20, 1983
Hennepin County Department of Environment and Energy Page 2
5. The report fails to integrate the impacts of the expansion of the
site with the existing site conditions. It is our understanding that
this project is to be an expansion of the existing landfill site. As
such the existing site, which contains a great deal of refuse, will
have impacts which must be taken into consideration. The authors
make no evaluation of the individual and combined effects of the site
with the existing operation and the expansion.
• 6. The general tone of the report suggests that, so long as there is suf-
ficient dilution, dumping leachate into both Grass Lake and the
Minnesota River is of no cons.equence. The report also suggests that
seepage which might occur from the landfill will be over a very wide
area, when in fact, normUly, this occurs in several point sources.
7. There is a need for clarification of the specific techniques and cer-
tain results for the methane report. The data presented in this
report appears to be quite favorable. However, several questions are
apparent concerning exact techniques for testing and sampling.
As stated above, a more detailed analysis of this report will be forwarded
to you in the near future. If you have any questions concerning the initial
conclusions, please do not hesitate to contact us immediately.
immerman, Ph.D., P.E.
onsultant
REZ:nlk
99
(THIS IS AN INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM OF THE STAFF OF
THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL. THE FIRST PAGE IDENTIFIES
MEMO THAT MORE INFORMATION IS NEEDED TQ UNDERSTAND GROUND
WATER FLOW.) Feb. 14, 1985
to: Lynn Bly
from: Pat Leonard-Mayer
In response to your request for comments on the preliminary draft permit
for the Flying Cloud Landfill, I put together the attached material. I felt
that it was important to provide more than just comments concerning the permit
because there is still a fair amount of confusion or at least disagreement •
about what is known and what is unknown about the site, what what assumptions
are reasonable, what analysis is needed and so on. Since I disagree with much
of the material currently found in the "record" the preliminary comments are
essential for you to understand the specific comments and concerns I have
about the permit.
ipprit elf Items •
4 Ground Water Levels and Flow Patterns (p. 54)
The description of the impact on the flow system considers the impact due
to the entire landfill, not the expansion area alone.
The three paragraphs in this section each contain a basic error with
regard to the impact on the flow system. Therefore the impact on the flow
system is not dealt with adequately in the EIS at all. some additional work
could be done to describe the impact, but it is not recommended. The major
(sA, problem with respect to flow is not the ure ,imoact on the system but the lack of
information describing the existing flow system., •
Anytime we deal with hydrologic information, there is a concern about
the amount of data 651 .how much is enough. The problem at Flying Cloud and
other landfills along the Minnesota River is that they are extremely close
to a major discharge area. As a result, the changes in the direction and
rate of flow are greater than they would likely be at Tirriestance further
back away from the bluff. The landfill is located right where all the hydro-
logic action is happening, and more data is needed to understand the flop
system in this situation.
The data limitations will make placement of monitoring wells difficult
41. re, if and planning remedial action very difficult. •a Limited data describing the flow
IMO CAA .11.11
system ir oa good argument for putting environmental protection measures
as close to the source of contamination as possible.%".
Again, the impact on the flow system is not described in the EIS. Rather
than expending effort on trying to quantify that impact, a general description
of the impact, and working the impact into the worst case analysis is sufficient.
Ground Water Quality
generally
The section describing the impact on ground water quality • ,,describes
the impact due to the entire landfill, not the impact due to the expansion area
alone.
One of the problems with this section of the EIS is that some of the terms
are not used precisely. Forexample, the section headed "Volume" actually
provides annual rates of leachate generation. I don't think this is sloppy
writing, but a basic misunderstanding concerning the fate of the mobile
constituents in the landfill. In order to clarify my understanding of what
that fate is, I've drawn a diagram explaining some basic terms.
4-12‘‘ I): • tio no's it, cm
Tv1) Itr)
4,
Lori AiSc411-46%, et.c tit 00144
C -C4—"P (3t (
1 12/
Ni•
CA•nnn••ni4J. fe.p7.4.
Leachate "Volumes"
The only way to reduce leachate generation rates is at the landfill is
to control the surface (by changing permeability, slopes, etc.). There are
a variety of modifications that might be proposed, but ultimately, it must pavticsiar
be shown that the;modification translates into lower infiltration.volumes per
year. This part of the EIS calculates two rates of leach 'ate production based
on two possible site conditions. One of the site conditions is "no runoff";
tita other is not explained. It would help to know the assumed site condition
so wkenen" gliTibig proposed in the permit falls within the range of values A
in the EIS.
Leachate Movement
In spite of the heading, the bulk of the material deals with calculation
of a travel time. The analysis is done for the entire landfill, not for the
expansion area only.
This section points out that leachate discharge could occur at the bluff
prirmai face, into the river, or at a point in between. -I suspect that seepage,:
at the bluff may be i nr spriaus_ innar.- than
;mu would need to go tnrough the flow impact analysis to demonstrate that
conclusively. The possibilitytif leachate seepage at the bluff is pointed •
out as an impact, and should be discussed as the permit is evaluated.
Als6"aft;r The main analysis of the section, however, involves travel times. I have
r
serious difficulty in accepting this analysis. Ws .a bit difficult to explain
why this analysis is so inappropriate, considering that the same or similar
assumptions are made in other sections of the EIS. The basic problem has to do
with the scale involved; the discussion of that can be deferred until later,
but I will point out 4 that I reject the entire section dealing with the travel
time calculations.
The sections on Shape of the Plume, Leachate Composition, Attenuation, Impact
on Wells, are fine.
Impact on the Minnesota River and Grass Lake
This is a valid analysis and I don't have any fundamental disagreement wit
h
the assumptions involved. A few points should be made clearly about this
analysis in future discussions. There are two major issues to consider- •
•1. ). • • ,
violation of water quality standards and effects of accumulation in sedime
n
t
s
• or biota. Keeping in mind the landfill diagram, it is clear that at least
theoretically that impact can be controlled by better management of the su
r
f
a
c
e
.
.Annual rates of leachate production can be controlled to some extent. Thi
s
is true whether you consider surface management of the existing site or
the proposed expansion areas. Accumulation is different. What you put in
to the landfill - the total amount of waste - is important if you know that
It will accumulate in the lake and river sediments. The worst case accumula
t
i
o
n
scenario is that there is little or no leachate attenuation in the subsurfac
e
flow field and major accumulation in sediments and biota in the discharge
area.
ientleagglait. Another point to be made is that even if there is attenuation
capacity in the subsurface, it may be insufficient to handle_LbP additional
increment of waste from the ezpanslon
The basic problem wit accumulation impacis. at leas: for me. is :na:
don't have any feeling for how it occursogimanent it is and so on ,
IIM'a 6A tor. tot Aga bv/r•
especially through biological mechanisms. Thity--nn•,—.229 a good argument
for requiring environmental protection mechanisms as close to the source of
the contamination as possible, rather than waiting for :he problem to be
'picked up in the discharge area.
To summarize - •
There are two areas wheredrilrional informL7 i
3is badly needed: more
information is needed to describe the existing flow system and more informati
o
n
is needed to predict possible accumulation of contaminants at the discharge
zone. Flow information is expensive to obtain, and we can assume it won't be
available in the amount needed; informatiorSbout accumulation of metals,orga
n
i
c
s
or other? constituents might be available in order to do a preliminary assess
m
e
n
t
but I am not familiar with the disciplines involved.
Lack of data should result in taking a conservative approach such as
putting environmental controls close to the source of the problem.
The majcer7ironmental imp:23)that we should discuss based on information
I. 2.
in the EIS include exceeding surface water standards, accumulation of crud in
the discharge zones, and
3 high concentration discharges of leachate at the bluff
face. An issue that was not addressed in the EIS is the increased_cancensration
of leachate under the vertical expansion area..
If any additional effort is going to go into data gathering or analysis
its not clear to me where the effort would best be spent; my guess is that
looking into accumulation of crud in sediments and biota would be most pro-
ductive, but it's hard to say.
Comments on permit
p.2 If the "control" system only diverts the leachate, the language should
. be changed to reflect that fact. The language in the permit refers to retaining
and transporting leachate, which implies a system tlit=11=g2tiggii
more like a conventional collection system will be installed.
The argument can be made that a leachate diversion system is even less
effective than a liner without a leachate collection system. a lt liner which
collects fluid and holds it .(as the old clay liners were designed to do)
the idea is that leachate will slowly percolate through the clay, metals would
be attenuated by cation exchange reactions, and so on. It was when liners
were found to leak, for a variety of reasons, that leachate collection systems
were devised to deal with the problem. The diversion liner doesn't
collect leachate and doesn't encourage reaction with the clay minerals.
The objective stated in the permit for using the liner is not to cause
a net reduction, but only to minimize the latellextent ". Existing technology
used at tne source :an jc far more than :his., ::'s :nterest:ng Co note that
in this part of the permit tnere is not reference to state of the 1.1.4. technology
(because they want to avoid paving state of the art costs), but in the latter
part of the permit, in dicussing the Grass Lake study, technology (and apparent-
ly money) is no object. The way I read the EIS, t environmental. imnaus
and the uncertain:- caused by lack of data:should result in putting control
technology near to the source. If there is money for the kind of study pro-
posed, it would be better spent on a liner and leachate collection system.
The 0._year time period isE_LUasheet. It is difficult for me to point
to a specific time frame especially since I can't support the analysis done in
the EIS. However, since I consider a diversion system basically ineffective
anyway, the time that it's operating is less important than it would be if
I expected the system to work.
An argument could be made that a diversion sYsteM without mor 0 mithr he
worst than hothine at plj. It's not a very persuasive argument, but if
you want to push it, point out that the silt layer is present under the
horizontal expansion area, but possibly absent under the area of the landfill
to which the leachate will be diverted. As a result, there is less attenuation
capacity, and a greater chance that the contaminants will discharge at the sur-
face. Like I said, it's not •real strong.
P. 5 Cover requirements. It's important to keep in mind that once the garbage
is in place, the total crud volume is fixed; the only point to changing slopes
and soils is to keep the leachate production on an annual basis as low as
possible so that standards for surface water at the discharge area are not •
exceeded. Whether you can really get the control you want has never been
.convincingly argued to me. I'm worried that the kind of empirical data that
you would need to design the landfill slopes is no4ravailable. Also, increased
slopes will be harder to maintain (if the pre-landfill slopes were less than
5 °, then all the forces of nature are working against you). Maybe a good
argument can be made for modifying slopes to decrease infiltration and thereby
reduce that whole chain of 1:;:10 have yet to see it and I'm not expecting
anyone to even try to make the convincing technical argument.
Again, recall that the EIS looked at two infiltration values to predict
leachate generation rates. We should go back and check that analysis so that
we can say whether the soil and slope conditions proposed in the permit are
within the 4 two 'values calculated.
P.6 Monitoring. I don't like to get into the old arguments about adequacy
of monitoring, bujr. :is stzdation. where :he landfill is rtgn: on :op of
the most complex par: of the flow system, the argument should be mace.
B!...s±2212LILLLigl_lata. 4,s2 almost impossible to know where to put the monitor-
ing wells. Ground water/lake interaction studies have shown that the relation-
ships in an area like this need extensive monitoring before you can under- .
stand the flow system. and if you don't have a handle on flow. you :an':
begin to look for environmental impacts. I can look up some of the recent
literature on this if it would be helpful, but the arguement can be made on
the basic and somewhat misleading information in the EIS. This is a tough'
area to monitor.
P. 9 and 11. I have real problems with the monitoring plan and surface water
'assessment parts of the permit. It's easier to protect the environment
including the ground water and Grass Lake and everything else by installing
currently aviilable technology close to the source of the problem. Inst -ead of
doing the obvious, instead of requiring state of the trt control technology at
00.4. the source, theyproposing to do a study that as written in the permit is beyond
our scientific knowledge. On p. 12. I have the some problem with the remedial
plan. They are willing to consider "synergistic effects" which the science
can hardly begin to describe at this point, theirefer to "technical feasibility"
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
/249k
Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612-291-6359
DATE: May 9, 1985 .
TO: Environmental Resources Committee
FROM: Parks and Environmental Planning Dept. (Paul Smith)
SUBJECT: Final Version of the Solid Waste Policy Plan
Attached is the final version of the Solid Waste Policy Plan. The corrections
should reflect the intent and purposes of the changes that were made by the
Council when adopting the plan. Additions are underlined and deletions are
crossed out.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact Lynne Bly (291-6412)
since I will be out of the office May 13 through 17. Lynne will review this
before the committee on May 15.
We would like to have a final version available for public distribution the
week of May 20.
JL1836-PHENV2
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
DEVELOPMENT GUIDE/POLICY PLAN
Metropolitan Council
300 Metro Square Building
7th and Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Telephone: (612) 291-6359
March 1985
Publication No. 12-84-160
1
PART 1: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
This document is a plan for managing the Metropolitan Area's solid waste well
past the year 2000. It is intended to carry out state and federal requirements
for proper waste management. It is also intended to serve as a basis for devel-
oping a regional system for dealing with solid waste that emphasizes recovery
of resources and minimizes the land disposal of solid waste.
Solid waste includes trash, garbage, and other discards, as well as nonhazard-
ous wastes of industrial and similar activities. In the Metropolitan Area,
solid waste is commonly disposed of in landfills. But the volume of solid
waste is increasing; landfill capacity is being rapidly used up; it is diffi-
cult to find new satisfactory sites for land disposal; and existing sites are
going to have serious long-term environmental consequences. At the same time,
rapid technological developments in resource recovery and renewed interest in
recycling are now making possible other waste management techniques.
In response to this situation, the 1980 Minnesota Legislature passed the state
Waste Management Act, significantly increasing the Metropolitan Council's
responsibility for solid waste management in the Metropolitan Area. This act
charged the Council with providing a long-range plan for managing solid waste
in the region that provides for the reduction of waste, recovery of materials
and energy and minimizes thE practice of land disposal. The act requires the
plan to set regional waste m,nagement policy and provide schedules for devel-
oping waste facilities and activities to manage solid waste through the year
2000. This guide responds to the 1980 directive. It replaces the solid waste
management chapter of the Council's Metropolitan Development Guide that the
Council adopted in 1979 and amended in 1981. The Solid Waste Manaofment
Development Guide/Policy Plan is one chapter of the Metropolitan Development
Guide.
While most chapters provide policy and development direction for a specific
functional system, such as solid waste management, the Metropolitan Development
Framework, adopted in 1975, presents broad integrating policies for coordina-
tion of regional development. Individual chapters of the development guide are
supportive of the development framework and incorporate its orientation on the
nature, timing and magnitude of regional growth.
The broad goals of the development framework provide a resource management
strategy that retains and enhances the livable qualities of the Metropolitan
Area, solving existing and future problems before crises occur and that pro-
motes orderly growth and economic development within the region. The frame-
work's primary objectives include protection and preservation of the natural
environment by basing physical and economic development decisions on sound
environmental practices, and establishment of resource management processes
that incorporate and interrelate all planning and programs under the Council's
jurisdiction.
1
2
Consistent with the development framework, the Council has developed this guide
for solid waste management to protect the public health, safety and welfare of
the people of the Metropolitan Area, to change existing reliance on land dis-
posal methods and to ensure that environmentally safe and efficient methods are
used to manage solid waste.
The guide proposes a regional system of coordinated waste management services
and makes recomnendations about specific facilities and service areas. The
guide also provides objectives, policies, review criteria and strategies for
evaluating and implementing solid waste proposals.
Part 2 of the guide briefly discusses the existing solid waste management sys-
tem. It describes potential consequences if current practices continue. Part
3 is the regional waste management strategy. It expresses the Council's over-
all approach to proper solid waste management and describes how the Council
will proceed with implementation of a new waste management system. Part 3
includes policies for waste reduction, source separation, waste processing and
land disposal. Part 4 is the regional system plan. The system plan consists
of three parts: 1) a development program for waste reduction and resource
recovery; 2) a development program for land disposal that identifies landfill
capacity needs to handle waste remaining after reduction and recovery; and
3) the costs and financing methods to implement the development programs. Plan
implementation is discussed in Part 5. Plan implementation responsibilities
are described for the Council, metropolitan counties, local jurisdictions and
the private sector. The appendix contains criteria for reviewing solid waste
permit applications, solid waste supply and processing contracts, county waste
district proposals and county waste designation proposals.
AUTHORITY
Federal Legislation
The 1976, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Public Law 94-580) imposes
federal requirements and provides authority for dealing with the problems of
managing solid and hazardous waste. Congress identified a number of problems,
relating to the increasing quantities of solid and hazardous waste, the protec-
tion of public health and environment, and the conservation of material and
energy resources. Any waste material that goes on the land, regardless of its
physical form, must be managed in a manner consistent with the 1976 law.
The act provides for technical and financial assistance to states for develop-
ing environmentally acceptable methods of managing solid and hazardous wastes.
It prohibits future open dumping. It requires that existing open dumps be
closed or upgraded to sanitary landfills. It regulates the treatment, storage,
transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes. It establishes guidelines for
the collection, transportation, separation, recovery and disposal of solid
wastes.
Subtitle D of the act is particularly important to the Council's solid waste
program. It provides guidelines for developing and implementing state and
regional solid waste management plans. Because the Council's directive under
state law conforms closely with the intent and requirements of the federal law,
in 1977 the governor designated the Council as the agency responsible for solid
waste management planning in the Metropolitan Area, pursuant to the provisions
of the federal act. This ouide serves as the Metropolitan Area portion of the
state solid waste plan, acording to the federal provisions.
2
3
The Council and state agencies are implementing other federally mandated pro-
grams that relate directly or indirectly to the Council's solid waste program.
Among these are the federal Water Pollution Control Act (Public Law 92-500L,
Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217) and Clean Air Act (Public Law 95-
95). Wherever possible, this guide reflects a coordinative approach to these
efforts to provide effective support and yet minimize duplication.
State Legislation
Planning and controlling solid waste generation, transportation and disposal in
Minnesota are the responsibilities of counties, municipalities, regional govern-
ments and state agencies. These public entities have various independent and
joint responsibilities and statutory authorities largely under the state Waste
Management Act.
In the Metropolitan Area, municipalities, townships and counties are responsi-
ble for regulating collection and transportation of solid waste and certain
aspects of facility location and operation. Counties are directed to prepare
master plans that describe and govern existing and proposed solid waste activi-
ties, functions and facilities of the county and municipalities within the
county's jurisdiction (Minn. Stat., sec. 473.803). These plans, in turn, are
governed by and required to be consistent with the Council's guide on solid
waste management. Municipalities and counties are authorized to own and oper-
ate solid waste disposal facilities, and have various powers with respect to
financing such facilities and executing contracts involving ownership and
operation.
The Council and counties have shared responsibilities in implementing a devel-
opment process for waste reduction and resource recovery and solid waste land-
fill siting in the Metropolitan Area (see Figure 1-1). The counties must amend
their master plans to implement waste reduction and resource recovery facili-
ties and activities. The siting and reduction/recovery process is governed by
and must be consistent with the Council's solid waste guide. The Council and
counties have authority_to.implement the process,, including cont7151 --&er—fhe
flow of waste and authority in some cases to override local community vetos of
siting decisions. In addition six counties have located eligible sites for the
land disposal of municipal solid waste. Sites approved by the Council are part
of a metropolitan inventory of eligible sites. The Council determines the num-
ber of sites counties must acquire based on the amount of recovery and recycl-
ing that can be achieved. The counties have the responsibility of acquiring
the landfills from the metropolitan inventory.
Concurrent with metropolitan solid waste siting efforts are other siting
efforts and responsibilities. The Council has the responsibility of finding
disposal sites for sewage sludge and incinerator ash (residual solids) produced
from the region's sewage treatment plants and for investigating alternatives to
land disposal of these materials. The treatment plants are operated by the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, which must acquire the selected disposal
sites in accordance with the Council's Water Resources Management Guide and
its solid waste guide.
At the state level, the Minnesota Waste Management Board has the responsibility
of developing acceptable management practices for the disposal of hazardous
waste, including responsibilities for hazardous waste planning, siting, permit-
ting and financing. The Board also has authority to finance and regulate cer-
tain aspects of solid waste facilities and activities outside the Metropolitan
3
Figure 1-1 DECISION STEPS IN DEVELOPING NEW REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM LANDFILL DECISIONS -I I C I - - 4.1 Csurdlas Co.n. 61.e, C•nen. n. 6. Sma. ...On. 4 Cann. PCO, C.0.6 .3 1n400. P'- -I •... ABATEMENT DECISIONS , Coo. Cmann. Ca- Sonln an. nnn•nn.1 nono• nedonon. of Can. am I.e....W*4 Co... Cots.• On 1960 nisi 1902 1093 1064 1985 1987-2000
Area. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is responsible for adopt-
ing a state solid waste plan and waste facility regulations.
Solid waste facilities in the Metropolitan Area are governed by an elaborate
permitting process. They must receive state permits that are reviewed and
approved by both the MPCA and the Council. In addition, counties are author-
ized to require permits or licenses for these facilities, and county and
municipal zoning requirements may govern and-control certain aspects of
facility operation and location. Solid waste facility decisions made by a
county, the Council and the MPCA are governed by and must be consistent with
Council and county solid waste plans and with MPCA regulations.
The 1976 Metropolitan Land Planning Act (Minn. Stat., sec. 473.851 and subse-
quent sections) requires that solid waste plans be included in county compre-
hensive plans submitted to the Council for review. The law provides for
intercounty and regional coordination of these plans by requiring compliance
with the Council's regional solid waste plan, and by giving the Council auth-
ority to review county plans and comment on their compatibility with plans of
other jurisdictions. Moreover, the Council is authorized to review all compre-
hensive plans, including county solid waste plans, to ensure consistency with
Council plans for parks, sewers, transportation and airport systems. County
master plans prepared in accordance with the Waste Management Act can fulfill
solid waste planning requirements for counties under the Land Planning Act.
IMPLEMENTATION AND USE OF THE GUIDE
Metropolitan Council
The Council will use several means to implement this guide. These include
reviewing county and local solid waste plans and reports, reviewing various
waste facility projects and proposals, conducting monitoring and oversight
activities and by providing technical and financial assistance. The Council
will also use the guide chapter to advise the MPCA, Waste Management Board and
Legislative Commission on Waste Management on issues affecting solid waste
management in the region and state.
In implementing this guide, the Council will give consideration to the follow-
ing: orderly and economic development of the region; preservation and the best
and most economical use of land and water; protection and enhancement of envi-
ronmental quality; conservation and reuse of resources and energy; preservation
and promotion of conditions that stimulate efficient, low-cost, competitive and
adaptable systems of solid waste management; and orderly resolution of ques-
tions concerning changes in systems of solid waste management.
Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee
A 30-member Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee assists the Coun-
cil in preparing and implementing this guide chapter, and advises the Council
on issues affecting solid waste management in the region. Committee membership
is one-third citizen representatives, one-third representatives from metropoli-
tan counties and municipalities and one-third representatives from private
waste management firms. An additional representative from the MPCA, one from
the Waste Management Board and one from the Minnesota Department of Health
serve as ex-officio members. Temporary members were added to the committee
representing cities and towns with eligible land disposal facility sites in the
5
Council's metropolitan inventory for the purpose of assisting in the prepara-
tion of the guide and a report to the state legislature on methods of mitigat-
ing and compensating for the local risks, cost and other adverse effects of
land disposal facilities.
Governmental Agencies and the Public
The Metropolitan Council will be working closely with governmental agencies and
the private sector in implementing this guide. Success in*meeting the objec-
tives will depend greatly on multijurisdictional cooperation and understanding,
and mutual commitments to implement sound solutions among many jurisdictions.
Specific implementation responsibilities of governmental units and the private
sector are detailed in Part 5.
Responsibility for implementing much of the guide rests with local jurisdic-
tions, counties and the private solid waste management industry. The Council
and appropriate state agencies should offer as much technical and program
assistance as possible. This includes assisting local jurisdictions and coun-
ties in developing solid waste plans and regulatory mechanisms, and in acquir-
ing adequate funding for specific projects or programs. The Council,
appropriate state agencies and the metropolitan counties should maintain data
that the public and private sectors can use for solid waste planning and devel-
opment activities.
Improvements in solid waste management will entail increased costs to most sec-
tors of the region. Public willingness to pay for improved waste management is
difficult to predict, especially without precise data on the nature and scope
of increased costs. Fdr these reasons, the Council will place heavy emphasis
on public education and awareness.
Use of the Guide
This guide provides a mechanism for decision-makers to approach solid waste man-
agement in the Metropolitan Area. It will be used primarily by the following
agencies and businesses:
Metropolitan Council: to review and approve solid waste disposal permit
applications submitted to the MPCA for proposed facilities in the Metro-
politan Area; to review and comment to the MPCA, Waste Management Board
and Legislative Committee on Waste Management on solid waste issues affect-
ing the Metropolitan Area and state; to review and approve county and
local solid waste plans, county annual reports, and proposals for county
waste districts and waste flow designations; to review and approve
requests for land disposal certificates of need; to review and approve
county and local restrictions on waste facilities and the transportation
of solid waste; and to review and approve all long-term (over five years)
public entity contracts for solid waste supply and processing, to guide
the development of regional programs for solid waste public education and
awareness and to develop markets for reusable or recyclable waste mate-
rials; and to administer a technical and financial assistance program.
- Metropolitan counties: to develop solid waste master plans and reports; to
site, acquire, construct, improve and operate solid waste management facil-
ities; to implement solid waste districts and waste flow designations; to
coordinate public education and information activities.
6
- Metropolitan municipalities and townships: to develop solid waste elements
to comprehensive plans; to implement local waste management activities and
facilities; to develop ordinances and local controls on the construction
and operation of waste facilities and on the collection and transportation
of solid waste. .
- Minnesota Waste Management Board: to coordinate technical and financial
assistance activities and public education and information activities;
coordinate implementation of county waste management districts and waste
flow designations.
- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: to develop and implement u 1 ifl the
Metropolitan Area portion of a state solid waste plan compatible with the
guide _and reoional_solid waste activities pursuant to the requirements of
thi-Resource Cservation arid recovery Act; to provide technical and
financial assistance to cities and townships in the region; to coordinate
public education and information activities.
- Private solid waste firms: to develop and operate waste facilities and
services.
SUMMARY
MAJOR CHANGES FROM THE 1981 GUIDE
This guide differs significantly from the Council's 1981 solid waste management
guide. One major change is that this guide provides more specific direction on
when waste facilities and services should be provided or what their capacities
should be. It establishes specific implementation objectives and time sched-
ules. Specific assignments to implement waste facilities and services are
given to counties, cities and towns. The Council can more closely track prog-
ress in meeting the objectives and time schedules, and contingency options can
be used if implementation is not working or proceeding slower than necessary.
A second change is the strengthened methods of implementing this guide.
Through plan approvals and review functions, the Council can implement many of
the guide's policies. The Council now also has a resource recovery grant and
loan and technical assistance program that will help implement policy. Addi-
tional review mechanisms have been included in the guide: county waste district
proposals and county waste-flow designation proposals.
Another significant change is that economic considerations alone will not deter-
mine the relative priority of waste management strategies. The .1981 chapter
stated that economic feasibility was a prerequisite for waste facilities and
services that would be implemented. This guide recognizes that the present
solid waste system does not fully incorporate its total cost. The benefits of
recycling, the avoided costs of taking less waste'to landfills, and the future
costs of controlling environmental problems are not passed on to the waste
generator. This guide states that economics may be a factor, but that alterna-
tives to land disposal do not have to be competitive with current costs.
Another change is in the scope and content of the system plan of this guide.
The 1981 guide had system plans for municipal solid waste, tree waste manage-
ment and sewage treatment residuals. This guide chapter, in an effort to
sharpen the focus, has a system plan only for municipal solid waste manage-
ment. Sewage treatment residuals, sludge and ash from the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission's treatment plants, are dealt with in the Council's Water
Resources Manaaement auide. Tree waste management is no longer a priority
problem for the region, and its regulation will be left to the MPCA and local
units of government. To the extent tree special wastes affect the
regional solid waste management system, the policies and criteria in this guide
can be used if necessary.
This guide does not deal with hazardous waste management, except for hazardous
substances generated by households. The 1981 guide provided very limited direc-
tion for managing hazardous wastes in the region. The Waste Management Act has
shifted hazardous waste planning, siting and regulating functions to the Waste
Management Board and the MPCA.
The guide retains the metropolitan counties as the primary implementation
authorities. However, cities and towns now are expected to implement parts of
the guide. The 1984 amendments to the Waste Management Act required the
Council's regional plan to set waste reduction and resource recovery objectives
for cities and townships in the region. With this change, the legislature
seems to have envisioned a more deliberate, responsible role for local
governments.
MAJOR POLICIES
The guide calls for establishing a regional system of coordinated processing
and recycling services. The system must be comprised of centralized processing
facilities, transfer stations and composting and recycling services. The
counties have the major responsibility to implement the system.
A major policy requires the termination of landfilling of mixed municipal solid
waste after 19907 -Only : the_nonrecoverable..residualS remaining from _waste_pro-
esingTT landfilled after that date. To dafe, theriThii -been little
effort to -Ebriffol —the types of wastes going to land disposal facilities. The
technology is available to impose this ban, and it is possible to have such ser-
vices region-wide after 1990. Processing would include recovering the recycl-
able, compostable and combustible wastes.
Another major policy requires Metropolitan Area generators of municipal solid
waste after July 1, 1988 1987 to separate recyclables and compostable
yard waste materials fromthe remaining waste if voluntary efforts on the part
of cities, towns or counties have not achieved the Council's objectives. Cur-
rently these materials include leaves, grass clippings and other organic waste
from lawn and garden maintenance and paper, glass and metals. Counties, cities
and towns will have to provide recycling services for these materials within
the next two to three years.
Establishing centrally coordinated programs for public education and participa-
tion and resource recovery market development are required by 1986. The
Council will assume the major responsibility for establishing these programs,
but other' groups, particularly the counties and state agencies, will be
involved as well. Both these programs are given immediate priority.
8
SYSTEM PLAN
The system plan in this guide is described in Par
t
4
.
T
h
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
p
l
a
n
i
d
e
n
t
i
-
fies projects and activities that are necessary t
o
m
e
e
t
w
a
s
t
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
n
e
e
d
s
until the year 2000. The system plan consists of
t
w
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
;
o
n
e
for waste reduction and resource recovery and one
f
o
r
l
a
n
d
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
.
T
h
e
c
o
s
t
s
and methods of financing the development prograks
a
r
e
a
l
s
o
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
.
The development program for waste reduction and r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
s
levels of reduction/recovery that must be attaine
d
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
t
h
e
t
i
m
i
n
g
a
n
d
likely location of projects and activities. The
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
w
a
s
t
e
reduction activities can reduce solid waste gener
a
t
e
d
b
y
a
b
o
u
t
f
o
u
r
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
n
1990. Source separation activities should reach
a
1
6
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
l
e
v
e
l
b
y
this date. Centralized processing facilities (tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
/
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
facilities, waste combustion and co-composting) c
a
n
m
a
n
a
g
e
a
b
o
u
t
8
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
the region's solid waste by 1990. The developmen
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
a
l
s
o
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
s
t
h
e
efforts that are necessary to implement region-wi
d
e
m
a
r
k
e
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
solid waste communications programs. .
The land disposal development program states tha
t
t
h
r
e
e
n
e
w
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
will need to be opened in the region. The progra
m
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
A
n
o
k
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
t
o
open a facility in 1987, Hennepin County in 1991
a
n
d
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
i
n
1995 1993. The program states that these facilit
i
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
d
i
s
p
o
s
e
o
f
only processed residuals or'special wastes. The
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
e
t
s
a
c
e
i
l
i
n
g
_
o
n
_
t
h
e
amount of new. capasity_that can_be implemented a
t
7
4
4
:
5
:
8
-72676fFe,
feet.
A unique feature of the land disposal developmen
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
s
t
h
a
t
i
t
i
s
b
a
s
e
d
on implementing feasible and prudent waste reduc
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
alternatives. The Council is required by the Wa
s
t
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
A
c
t
t
o
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
certificates of need for new land disposal capa
c
i
t
y
.
C
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
s
o
f
n
e
e
d
c
a
n
lag_approved only _if there are no. feasible..and...pru.dent_arternatives_to...-
Rosal_facility. The development program for was
t
e
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
recovery sets the levels of feasible and pruden
t
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
.
T
b
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
-
ment_of_certificate-of-need-was-an-added_protecti
o
n
.
.
i
n
.
t
h
e
A
c
t
.
t
o
.
e
n
s
i
i
F
F
T
W
a
t
land disposal would be used_only.as.a.last_r.esort.
Finally, the costs and methods of financing the de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
a
r
e
described. It is estimated that by 1990 costs to
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
o
f
s
o
l
i
d
waste would increase by S39-te458 $20 to $47 annu
a
l
l
y
.
This represents about a 30 te-50 23 to 45 percent
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
charges to households over current costs. The tot
a
l
c
o
s
t
s
o
f
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
development programs is about $345 355 million.
9
PART 2: BACKGROUND
INTRODUCTION
This section describes the waste management system now operating in the Twin
Cities and its history. It describes the evolution of change in federal, state
and regional waste management policy over the - past two decades and provides an
assessment of the consequences of continuing current waste management prac-
tices. These factors are the context within which the regional strategy (Part
3) and its policies were developed.
EXISTING WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
MIXED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
The Metropolitan Area generates nearly 5,500 tons of mixed municipal solid
waste daily--roughly 5.3 pounds per person. Mixed municipal solid waste con-
sists of paper, food waste, yard waste, glass, metals and miscellaneous other
materials collected from residential, commercial and industrial sources. About
two thirds is generated by households and businesses; industry generates the
remainder.
While most local governments regulate collection of solid waste--restricting
hours of collection, roadways travelled or requiring other actions fof public
health or nuisance control--few communities operate collection services and
only a handful contract for waste collection. Most of the region's mixed
municipal waste is collected under an "open" arrangement where each waste
generator purchases collection service directly from a waste hauling firm.
More than 150 private collection companies serve the region, ranging in size
from small family businesses to local offices of multinational waste management
corporations.
Ninety-five percent of the region's mixed municipal waste is landfilled. It is
estimated that eight percent goes to landfills in counties bordering the
region. About 87 percent or 1.7 million tons is disposed of annually in the
eight landfills currently operating within the Metropolitan Area.
Estimates of the amount of the region's mixed municipal waste recovered range
from three to seven percent, but little reliable data is available. Surveys
indicate that over 40 percent of the region's residents recycle some portion of
their household waste. The Council's 1984 Recycle It! directory lists 254
sites in the region that accept recycled materials. These facilities operate
either as drop-off repositories, taking in one or more types of recyclable
materials, or as redemption centers where cash is paid for the more valuable
materials such as aluminum or corrugated cardboard.
Table 2-1 shows communities with solid waste recovery activities. Twenty have
city-wide recycling pickup services. There are several examples of leaf com-
postino and office paper recycling programs currently in the region. Leaf
composting projects include drop-off locations and curb-side pickup. They are
generally operated as a free public service. Several commercial and govern-
mental offices recycle office paper.
There is only one municipal solid waste energy recovery plant in the region, at
the Richard's Asphalt Refining Company in Savage. The plant processes about 50
tons of municipal waste daily.
1 0
Table 2.1 EXISTING SOLID WASTE RECOVERY ACTIVITIES IN THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREal Yard Waste Composting Anoka County Coon Rapids Carver County Dakota County Chanhassen Hastings Chaska Inver Grove Heights U of M Arboretum Victoria Waconia Hennepin tounty Bloomington Brooklyn Park Champlin Eden Prairie Hopkins Maple Grove, Minneapolis' Robbinsdale St. Anthony ' St. Louis Park Ramsey County Scott County Washington County Arden Hills Forest Lake Maplewood Grant Twp. Mounds View Woodbury Roseville Shoreview St. Paul' White Bear Lake White Bear Twp. Curbside Recycling . Pickup Waconia Excelsior Hopkins' Minneapols Richfield St. Anthony St. Louis Park Falcon Heights Lauderdale Maplewood New Brighton North St. Paul Roseville St. Anthpny $t. Paul' Belle Plaine Jordan New Prague Savage , Shakopee Mixed MSW Savage Energy Recovery 'This table does not include recyclables drop-off sites which can be found listed in the Metropolitan Council Recycle It! directory or office paper recovery programs. 2Ramsey County operates five leaf composting sites in St. Paul. 43Hennepin County and Minneapolis cooperatively operate four leaf composting sites in Minneapolis. rPilot programs not yet city-wide. 'In addition to curbside recycling pickup service in St. Paul. Ramsey County is planning a County Recycling Center (processing facility) in the city with grant/loan funding awarded by the Waste Management Board.
SPECIAL WASTE
Tree wastes, ash, tires, demolition debris and a number of other materials
handled separately from the mixed municipal solid waste stream are Oa
ssedsclassified as special wastes. Some special wastes, such as
demolition debris, are.landfilled. A number of smaller land disposal
facilities in the region are permitted by state and local agencies to accept
special wastes. They are used by specific industrial and commercial waste
sources and generally are not open to the public. They are not permitted to
receive mixed municipal solid waste.
A number of businesses and institutions operate small-scale incinerators that
handle combustible special wastes. Examples include hospitals, laboratories
and manufacturing companies. Generally only a few of these facilities recover
energy or materials.
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
The current trend toward tailoring management practices and regulation to the
characteristics of the waste itself is fairly recent. Fifteen to 20 years ago,
most waste was taken to unregulated open burning dumps. Little, if any, segre-
gation of special wastes, hazardous wastes or solid wastes was practiced. In
1970 there were 60 dumps operating within the Metropolitan Area, most located
on floodplains, in swamps and in gravel pits.
The federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and state action in 1970
required closure or upgrading of dumps. The Council's 1971 solid waste manage-
ment plan urged the shift to landfilling within the Metropolitan Area. Subse-
quently, many of the dumps were closed. A handful of new landfills were devel-
oped, but most of the landfills which have operated in the region since the
early 1970s were upgraded from open burning dumps. Rules of the MPCA were
improved in 1973 to prohibit disposal of hazardous waste in sanitary
landfills.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act was also the watershed in a growing
federal, state and regional policy orientation toward development of alterna-
tives to land disposal. Since the mid-1970s, regional policy has incorporated
a preference for waste reduction, source separation and waste processing as
illustrated on Figure 2-1. Nonetheless, landfilling was perceived as a rou-
tinely acceptable, if less desirable, waste management option.
The Metropolitan Council completed a feasibility study for a regional system of
resource recovery facilities and transfer stations in 1974. In the following
years there were four significant resource recovery proposals, three in St.
Paul and one in Minneapolis. All failed to develop. Major impediments
included local opposition, high cost in comparison to landfilling, difficulty
in securing waste flow control and technical viability, among other factors.
By the late 1970s, no substantial progress had been made to expand recycling
activities. High-technology resource recovery had not materialized. Efforts
by several counties to site landfills had failed. A joint committee of the
Minnesota Legislature assessed the problem for more than two years. Their
recommendations resulted in enactment of the Waste Management Act in 1980.
12
'Resources conserved and pollution
abated by waits reduction
techniques
Materials and energy
returned for reuse
No Recover energy and/or
reusable by-products, return
to resource stockpile
Recover reusable by-products.
return to resource stockpile
RESIDUALS
MANAGEMENT
13
Figure 2-1.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DECISION MODEL •
proposed
process or activity
, generate solid
masts?
WASTE REDUCTION
SOURCE SEPARATION
WASTE PROCESSING
Evaluate process or activity
changes to decrease the
amount of solid waste generated
Employ on-site tecnniques to
separate, reuse, and/or market
solid waste components
Send to off-site processing for materials
recovery, energy recovery; volume reduction
The act incorporates the familiar policies of reduction in waste generation and
'separation and recovery of materials and energy. It mandates coordination of
solid waste management among political subdivisions and sets the objective of
orderly, deliberate development and financial security of waste facilities.
Subsequent amendments have further defined the legislative directive, explic-
itly specifying that planning for solid waste management must require the most
feasible and prudent reduction in both the need for and the practice of land
disposal of mixed municipal solid waste.
IF CURRENT PRACTICES CONTINUE
FUTURE LAND DISPOSAL NEEDS
Land disposal has been the primary method of managing the region's mixed munici-
pal solid waste for a number of years. Figure 2-2 shows the receiving rates
from 1972 through 1983, about a 39 percent increase over the 12-year period.
The reported receiving rates have not been constant over this period. Some
leveling and reduction occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s. These
changes are believed to reflect response to economic difficulties the region
experienced that resulted in less waste generation. Other factors that could
affect these receiving rates are inconsistent reporting methods and hauling
waste into or out of the Metropolitan Area.
If current practices continue through the year 2000 (reliance on landfills and
no increase in waste reduction and resource recovery, about 34 million tons of
waste will have to be landfilled (see Table 2-2). The region's operating
landfills have enough capacity to dispose of about 12 9.6 million tons of
waste material or 15088 11,909 acre-feet of landfill space (see
Table 2-3). The remaining 18 24.4 million tons would have to be disposed
of in new land disposal facilities. About 23 7 889 30,000 acre-feet
of new disposal capacity would be needed, possibly requiring development of
more than lg 10 new landfills. Some would have to be operating before the
end of the decade.
CONSEQUENCES
Land Use
During the process of identifying potential new landfill sites, citizens and
public officials repeatedly voiced their concerns over the impact landfills
could have on land use. Neighboring properties could be adversely affected,
property value lessened, tax base damaged. Difficulties in identifying pro-
ductive end uses for landfills would disrupt local development and land use
plans.
Most potential sites are located in outlying parts of the Metropolitan Area,
many on prime agricultural land. Taking such sites out of production poses a
serious conflict with longstanding regional policy fostering preservation of
agricultural lands.
Public Health and Environmental Hazards
The health and environmental consequences of land disposal of waste have been
increasingly documented in recent years. Damages can occur in the form of sur-
face and groundwater contamination, air pollutant emissions, fires, explosions,
food chain contamination, noise and odors.
14
50.000 Figure 2-2. REPORTED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE RECEIVING RATES IN THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA 82.000 80.000 52.000 Source: Landfill operators' reports on file at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1872 73 74 75 re 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 134 85 88 Year
Table 2-2 ESTIMATED SOLID WASTE GENERATION TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA, 1985-2000 (in thousands of tons) Cumulative County 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991-1995 1996-2000 1985-2000 Anoka 160 164 167 170 173 179 942 1,016 2,971 Carver 27 27 28 29 30 32 176 203 552 Dakota 177 183 189 194 199 205 1,135 1,296 3,578 Hennepin 1,025 1,032 1,038 1,044 1,050 1,059 5,394 5,574 17,216 Ramsey 480 481 481 482 483 486 2,429 2,445 7,767 Scott 37 38 39 40 40 42 224 242 702 Washington 85 87 90 93 95 99 536 587 . ,1,672 Metropolitan Area 1,991 2,011 2,032 2,052 2,072 2,101 10,836 11,361 34,456 Note: Totals may not equal sums of each line due to rounding. Estimates based on the following genera-tion rates: urban-residential =2.75 pounds per person per day; rural-residential =2.00 pounds per person per day; commercial = 3.21 pounds per employee per day; and industrial = 7.92 pounds per employee per day.
Burnsville Oak hue Freeway Pine Bend 80 50 50 • 440 8, 2 0 482 70 1,962 190 9,963 9,370 Mjd-1990s 1987 1986 Mid-1990s Hennepin Count.), Flying Cloud Woodlake Scott County Louisville Metropolitan 1985 • Mid-1990s 648 350 2,296 160 1 Mid-1990s 210 A a Totals 1991-1993 1,740 15,100 30,542 'Based information from MPCA, landfill operators, metropolitan counties and MetrOliolitan ,Co 4' cludes expansions approved since 1980 for Burnsville, Pine Bend, Woodlake and Louisvill Does not include any currently proposed expansions. Anoka County Anoka Municipal Dakota County 440 70 Table 2- 3 SOLID WASTE LAND DISPOSAL SYSTEM,TW1N CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA' Permitted Capacity , (acre-feet)' Remaining Capacity as of January 1984 (acre-feet) Estimated 1984 Use Rate' Approximate (acre-fester Closure Date Sanitaf andf ill 2,259 460 420 End 1986 '
Table 2-3
SOLID WASTE LAND DISPOSAL SYSTEM, TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA 1
Sanitary Landfill
Anoka County
Anoka Municipal
Dakota County
Permitted
Capacity ,
(acre-feet)
2,259
Remaining Capacity Estimated
as of Jan. 1985 3 1984 Use Rate Approximate
(acre-feet) (acre-feet) Closure Date
686 420 December 1986
Burnsville
8,121
2,553
80 Mid-1990s
Dakhue
482
199
50 1987
Freeway 1,962
140
50 1986
Pine Bend
9,963
6,724
440 Mid-1990s
Hennepin County
Flying Cloud 3,109
Woodlake 2,350
Scott County
Louisville 2 296
Metropolitan Area Totals 30,542
177 440 1985
862 70 Mid-1990s
568 160 Mid-1940s
11,909
1,710 1991-1993
1. Based on information from MPCA, landfill operators, metropolitan counties and Metropolitan
Council.
2. Includes expansions approved since 1980 for Burnsville, Pine Bend, Woodlake and Louisville.
3. Based on information from aerial photographs (taken Nov., 1984) resulting in revised
remaining capacity estimates for all landfills.
17
All of the landfills that have operated in the Metropolitan Area since.1970_
are con-rib-tit-Mg tb eqvirOnffirital -oifpOtentiii:Iiiilth .problems. Incidents
contamination of surface water, methane sal_migration,_and ouisaoces
such as ilIte,—Hdise and odor. Gr.r666-Gater_contamination-has.been,detected at
all .si.tes,.withyaqing -degrees of severity.
Groundwater contamination is of considerable concern. Two thirds of the
region's water consumption is dependent on groundwater supplies. Existing
landfills were designed in the early 1970s and do not use state-of-the-art
environmental control technologies or practices. Existing and closed landfills
. are believed to generate currently over 60 million gallons of leachate, water
that has been contaminated by flowing through the waste. Although new....1and...
fills would .incorporate_liners_and_leachate collection . systems, recent studies
indicate that even well designed systems al16W -at . least 1& percent of leachate
to escape:--GrOundwater contamination from leachate migration is difficult to
.detect, extremely difficult to control or correct and may continue for decades
after facility closure.
Public Costs
The costs of development of a system of new landfills could be staggering.
Average cost per landfill would be $20 to $30 million, with some facilities
costing as much as $50 million. Loss of tax base is a potential indirect cost.
Added costs can result if groundwater contamination requires cleanup. Costs of
several million dollars for cleanup of a facility and surrounding environment
are not unusual.
It is estimated that approximately 7.5 million tons of recyclable materials
will be generated over the next 16 years. Continuation of landfilling would
waste the value of these materials and potential revenues derived from them.
The energy value of mixed municipal waste would also be lost. As a corollary,
current practices dictate ongoing consumption of raw materials and fuels that
could be replaced through recycling and resource recovery, with savings in
production costs, processing and environmental impacts of raw material use.
18
PART 3: REGIONAL STRATEGY FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT
PURPOSE
The purpose of the regional strategy is to describe the region's future waste
management system. It defines what approaches the system will use to deal
effectively with solid waste, including the role of waste reduction, source
separation, processing tO recover energy and materials, ana land disposal.
Waste reduction involves methods to cut back the amount of waste generated in
the first place. Source separation involves sorting waste where it is gener-
ated so reusable materials can be marketed or processed more readily. Process-
ing for energy or materials recovery consists of methods that transform mate-
rials into a usable, marketable product or burn them for heat energy. Land
disposal is the practice of depositing waste in landfills. These approaches
will play different roles in the regional strategy, but all will be necessary
to a greater or lesser degree to manage the region's solid waste properly,
effectively and comprehensively.
Theregionai strategy is based on a number of important considerations. First, .
_s_b.ased on a goal of minimizing environmental health hazards, conserving
natural_resour -c-ES---and -ebe d minimizing total -costs:----- ' --
The regional strategy is also intended to reduce the region's reliance on land
disposal by Maximizing the recovery of energy and materials from solid -waste
and reducing wastes at the source as much as possible. Thus,._upder the
regional_strategyv-and disposal is considered a waste management practice of
last resort.
The region's wast_e_managemept_system should reflect all .the .known_costs of
proper .waste management and not pass on costs to future generations. The exist-
ing system, however, which is based almost entirely on land disposal, does not
incorporate potential future costs of controlling environmental problems. Nor
does it reflect the benefits from recycling reusable materials or the avoided
costs of taking less waste to landfills. In short, the land disposal system
operates at artificially low costs, giving it an unfair advantage over most
waste reduction and resource recovery programs. Consequently, the fact that
alternative approaches such as waste reduction and resource recovery now cost
more than land disposal should not by itself exclude these alternatives from
the regional strategy. Economics is one factor to consider, along with others,
in selecting waste management approaches.
Another iEportan t...__Consider_ation_is_that_the_waste_management system should pro-
vide recoveryin-d_disposal_capacity.to_meet,short:.... and long-term needs. It:-
should be consistent with public health and environmental protection stan-
dards. And it should provide for equitable and efficient allocation of costs
to those_who generate .waste, as.conservationof .materials and energy
wh e never possible.
ALTERNATIVES AND PRIORITIES
OVERVIEW
Waste reduction and source separation are often referred to as low-technology
approaches because they usually require only a small capital investment, have
the flexibility to respond to change and involve the participation of those who
generate waste.
19
The options available through use of centralized processing facilities include
materials recovery, waste combustion and co-composting (the composting of mixed
waste with a material that is high in nitrogen such as sewage sludge). Central-
ized processing is generally referred to as a high-technology approach, because
compared with other methods, it uses more expensive equipment and facilities;
its operating costs are typically higher; it requires long-term financing and
commitments for waste supply, and is less flexible to convert to other technol-
ogies. The major advantage of the approach, though, is the ability to reliably
process large quantities of waste in a short 'period of time.
The objectives of processing solid waste are to reduce the waste volume, con-
vert the waste to usable form or separate materials that can be reused. For
example, residential wastes may be processed to recover materials and energy
that can be sold. The residual, often grit or ash, requires only a fraction of
the disposal capacity that the original waste would have required. In some
cases, residuals also have potential for recycling or reuse, for example, as
structural fill materials.
There are certain risks in establishing facilities to process and recover secon-
dary materials and energy from solid wastes. Facilities requiring large invest-
ment carry a sizable economic risk, particularly if recoverable commodities
enter unpredictable markets. The risk is not so great for low-capital alterna-
tives. The foremost risks are associated with the following: 1) commitments
from markets for recovered materials or energy; 2) commitments of sufficient
solid waste supplies; 3) reliability of the processing equipment and tech-
niques; and 4) financial risks to investors.
WASTE REDUCTION
Alternatives
Reducing the amount of waste can reduce costs of making products, public spend-
ing for waste management, the rate of resource consumption and the potential
for adverse environmental impacts.
There are many ways of reducing waste. Economic incentives have prompted some
area manufacturers to initiate programs to minimize energy and material require-
ments and waste management problems. Consumer preferences for less packaging,
smaller and more economical automobiles, recycled or recyclable materials and
more durable goods are indicative of a more cost-conscious public.
Examples of other waste reduction actions include mulching and composting resi-
dential yard and garden wastes such as grass clippings and leaves where they
are generated. Yard wastes that can be composted include leaves, grass clip-
pings and other organic waste from lawn and garden maintenance. Composting
transforms these materials into a usable soil amendment product through con-
trolled biological degradation.
Waste reduction programs within government establishing policies for buying and
using products could reduce total solid waste by about one percent and finan-
cially benefit both government and industry. Policies requiring governments to
purchase products that contain recycled materials also help to reduce landfill-
ing and provide markets for secondary materials.
20
Generally, the cost of a product does not reflect what the public must pay for
collection, and disposal of solid waste generated by the product. One technique
is to institute a charge on the product to be paid by the user for the costs of
waste disposal.
Although use of product charges could reduce waste by an estimated two to three
percent it is doubtful whether a product charge could be applied on a state
level because of a potential conflict with interstate commgrce.
Bans on the production of certain products or materials may be used to control
products that present substantial environmental or public health risks. Gener-
ally they can be applied only if there are alternative materials and products.
Bans are somewhat limited, and require either legislative action or regulatory
agency resolution to be implemented properly.
Priorities
It is difficult to determine how much of the region's waste could be diverted
from landfilling through waste reduction methods, but they would probably
account for only a few percentage points. Several industries, public institu-
tions and other organizations are already carrying out waste reduction activi-
ties to reduce costs. However, many manufacturing processes cannot produce
completely recyclable or reusable products, and waste generators frequently do
not know about opportunities for reducing waste at the source.
Waste reduction also has major institutional barriers to overcome. A full-
scale effort requires new federal or state legislation aimed at reducing waste
produced by specific industries. Such legislation generally takes years to
pass, and only after the full economic consequences and benefits are known.
For these reasons, many waste reduction efforts are beyond the capabilities of
local governmental units to implement.
It is likely, however, that waste reduction efforts will expand somewhat with-
out legislation or major advances in technology. Waste reduction will occur if
1) the opportunities for conservation are recognized and 2) there are economic
incentives to do so.
To promote such efforts, the regional strategy emphasizes reduction methods
that are administratively simple to implement. Such programs include consumer
education and awareness, office paper reuse, yard-waste mulching and govern-
mental purchasing practices favoring reduction. Particular focus should be on
awareness and education programs that emphasize the benefits of waste
reduction.
The metropolitan counties are currently studying the composition and sources of
commercial and industrial solid waste. The studies may help identify further
opportunities for waste reduction. In addition, reduction measures requiring
new legislation should be evaluated as part of a long-range effort. For the
foreseeable future, however, waste reduction will play a limited role in
dealing with the region's wastes.
21
SOURCE SEPARATION
Alternatives
Source separation means that a generator sets aside waste materials that can be
recycled. Separation is followed by processirig and transporting the recyclable
materials to manufacturers for reuse. Source separation is feasible for both
municipal and industrial solid waste but to be successful, 4epends largely on
the income derived from sales of recovered resources. Markets for recovered
materials are subject to wide swings in prices that can affect decisions to
recover or dispose of materials. Source separation relies heavily on the
ongoing participation of the individual generators of waste.
Municipal solid waste is generated by households and commercial and business
establishments. This category does not include industrial-process wastes, agri-
cultural wastes, construction and demolition wastes, mining wastes and sludges
from pollution control and water treatment processes.
Municipal solid wastes that can be separated -a-r-e- include glass, metal, paper
and yard waste. There are secondary materials markets in the region -.Pere-
includino industries that use glass, metal and paper. Yard waste may be
separated and sent to composting sites where decomposed material may be used as
a soil amendment. The small quantities of hazardous materials normally found
in residential solid waste-, such as aerosols, paint cans and cleaning fluids
can be separated by the household. Federal and state efforts are being
directed toward developing programs to deal with household hazardous materials.
Most existing source separation programs for municipal solid waste are volun-
tary and require citizen support. Mandatory source separation programs, which
would require local communities to adopt separation ordinances, would receive
significantly higher participation and recovery rates. Though a mandatory pro-
gram would be difficult to enforce, many people would cooperate voluntarily
because it is the law.
A recent survey of public attitudes toward source separation in the region con-
cluded that many of the reoion's residents indicated they would participate in
source-separation programs if curb-side pickup were to be offered either for
free or at a small monthly charge.
Office waste is being effectively separated to some degree now. Programs have
been started at private companies and at state governmental agencies to recover
salvageable white paper.
Industrial waste is often more homogeneous and less susceptible to changes in
volume and composition than residential and commercial solid waste. Such waste
often has an excellent potential for serving raw material needs.
Many types of industrial wastes, however, are classified as hazardous wastes,
to be managed in accordance with state and federal requirements and not to be
mixed with solid waste.
The MPCA and the WMB are currently involved in efforts to manage household
hazardous wastes more effectively. The MPCA has requested state funding for a
Frot Rroaram for collection of such wastes: the WMB has developed
recommendations for_public education and additional assessment of proper
disposal practices. The Council suuRprts the household hazardous waste funding
request and the WMB's recommendations.
22
One technique to encourage source separation is to impose a deposit, a small
extra charge to the consumer to encourage product reuse. The deposit is
refunded when the reusable or recyclable portion of the product is returned.
State law would be required to implement mandatory deposit programs in
Minnesota.
Priorities
Historically, almost all recovery has taken place by hand-separating the wastes
where they are generated (such as households and offices), then transporting
and selling the recovered materials. Technologically, this process is rela-
tively simple and has a good potential for dealing with a substantial percent-
age of the region's waste.
The main obstacles to implementing source separation have been economic. Separ-
ation programs simply have not been able to compete with land disposal with its
artificially low costs. Moreover, source separation programs have always
depended on the voluntary participation of waste generators, and any cost sav-
ings have usually not been large enough to encourage most generators to partici-
pate. In addition, there has often been a lack of coordination among different
recycling efforts and sometimes unreliable service.
Three types of waste are particularly suited for aggressive source separation
region-wide. They are 1) yard wastes such as leaves generated mainly, by house-
holds and some businesses and institutions; 2) small quantities of hazardous
substances discarded by households and commercial and industrial firms exempted
under federal and state hazardous waste disposal regulations; and 3) recycl-
ables, such as paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, metals and aluminum, pro-
duced by households, and commercial and industrial firms. The benefits of
separating these waste materials at the source are many: providing a cleaner,
higher-quality reusable product, reducing the potential for damage to process-
ing equipment and reducing the cost of disposal at facilities receiving mixed
waste.
Immediate priority should go to separating yard waste that can be composted and
recyclable materials from mixed municipal waste. Indications are that source
separation programs could be available throughout most of the region within two
to three years. Within five years, enough households and businesses could be
participating in waste separation programs to achieve a very substantial reduc-
tion in wastes otherwise destined for landfills.
Some wastes may be recovered now or could be reused. However, they should not
have the same priority for developing source separation services as recycl-
ables. Examples include tires, plastics, and demolition and construction
debris. Other wastes can contaminate products, damage processing equipment or
present special public health and safety problems. As a result, they should be
handled and treated separately. These include such items as hazardous sub-
stances from households and small commercial or industrial firms. Region-wide
recovery services for these components will take longer to implement, perhaps
until 1990.
By 1990, as much as 20 percent of the total solid waste generated annually
could be separated and recovered under a full-scale region-wide effort. Reach-
ing this level, however, requires using several measures phased in at different
times. Source separation services for recyclables and yard waste for compost-
ing m.ist should be available region-wide by 1987, and 5 ,02—scalp p.lr+i4igation
23
by wast,:' gcicrat3rs rust Sc maid2tery by 19C3. Source separation should first
be attemoed on a voluntary basis usina extensive public education. However,
if necessary, mandatory ordinances may be needed to achieve adequate
participation. Source separation services for special wastes and hazardous
substances should be available region-wide by 1990, although services for
particular wastes may be provided earlier. All yard waste materials and
recyclables must be banned from land disposal after 1990.
CENTRALIZED MATERIALS RECOVERY
Alternatives
The technology of recovering materials at centralized processing facilities is
well established. Shredding, magnetic separation of metals, air classification
(using a blast of air to separate materials according to their weight) and
similar techniques have been successfully used for a number of years. This
technology can extract recyclable materials, process recyclables previously
separated at the source and reduce the total volume of waste. It can also be
adapted to produce refuse-derived fuel (ROE) for combustion or supplemental
material for co-composting.
Materials recovery has generally been considered only a process to be carried
out before waste combustion. Using it only to extract recyclables and/or
reduce the volume of waste has never received much attention, largely because
the savings were never comparable to its costs. Presently, very little is
being done to reduce waste volumes. Some waste compaction takes place at a few
of the region's transfer stations.
Priorities
Materials recovery at centralized facilities has good possibilities in the
Metropolitan Area, particularly if the technology is used with other processing
methods. As previously mentioned, similar equipment can be used to accomplish
a number of purposes. Centralized materials recovery can also serve as a
backup if source-separation approaches do not meet anticipated objectives.
The regional strategy must be able to respond to varying market needs for
recovered materials, while providing continuous processing services and trans-
porting waste efficiently throughout the region. The materials recovery
approach can be a final step in the recovery process, or serve as an important
intermediate step between source separation activities and final processing
destinations. Centrally located, intermediate facilities can improve overall
waste service flexibility and efficiency. Source-separated materials can be
processed at such facilities or waste can be simply transferred and/or pro-
cessed and sent to other locations.
WASTE COMBUSTION
Alternatives
Energy can be recovered from municipal solid waste. Waste can be either burned
in a furnace with heat recovery facilities or processed to make it a useful
fuel. Proven energy recovery technologies include waterwall incineration and
ROE. Pyrolysis systems, alcohol production systems and anaerobic digestion
systems are in the research and development stages.
24
The main energy products that can be recovered from municipal solid waste are
solid fuel, steam and electricity. Revenues from disposal fees and the sale of
fuel and energy can defray the costs of energy recovery facilities. Generally,
the price for solid waste energy products competes with the price of energy
products derived from fossil fuels. Whether the revenue and fees received have
to compete with alternative methods of waste disposal is a question that must
be decided in each instance.
Waste combustion technologies have been commercially available for some time
now. The mass-burn and RDF technologies, in particular, are increasingly being
used in this country. The mass-burn technology has over 30 years of advance-
ment, mainly in Europe. Although newer, the RDF technology is receiving
greater attention because of its flexibility and potentially lower costs.
Therefore, technological factors should not impede the development of combus-
tion facilities in the Metropolitan Area.
Economic and public risk considerations have been the major reasons for the
slow development of combustion facilities in the region. Only one small-scale
facility in Savage is currently in operation. Proposed large-scale projects
have never been able to compete with the region's low-cost land disposal sys-
tem. Such projects have always required large capital investments and long-
term public commitments of waste supplies. Finally, there were always linger-
ing questions whether better alternatives were available. However, alternative
proposals have never proven capable of handling the large quantities of waste
that combustion facilities can.
Priorities
Waste combustion must play a key role in the region's future waste management
system. It could recover as much as 50 percent of the total solid waste gener-
ated annually. Priority must go to developing a system of major combustion
facilities that will be operational by 1990. Large-scale facilities need to
be built each capable of handling as much as 500 or more tons per day of mixed
municipal waste. In general, large-scale facilities provide the potential for
greater control of air emissions because they have higher combustion efficien-
cies. These facilities will not be competitive in the short-term; therefore,
they will require assurances of an adequate waste supply. The ROF technology
is more adaptable to the regional strategy because of its flexibility.
CENTRALIZED COMPOSTING AND CO-COMPOSTING
Alternatives
Another form of centralized resource recovery is composting or co-composting of
mixed solid wastes with materials high in nitrogen. Similar to backyard com-
posting of yard waste, large composting facilities rely on the biological pro-
cesses of microorganisms to break down the organic fraction of processed
municipal solid wastes. Composting facilities process the waste, using shred-
ding and mechanical separation techniques similar to energy recovery facili-
ties. The viability of composting plants depends on the markets for the final
product. Centralized composting facility technologies include open "windrow"
systems (that is, piles of organic refuse that are turned using large road
machinery) and enclosed systems where the oxygen and temperature levels are
controlled. These types of resource recovery systems are more common in Europe
than in the United States. Centralized composting is, however, increasingly
being used in this country.
25
Until recently, the co-compost technology has received little attention in the
region. Recent research by the Council indicates that the technology offers a
number of opportunities, and that it should be a part of the regional strategy.
Co-composting technology is readily available and applicable to the region.
The technology includes use of windrows and enclosed vessels. Both methods
have been successfully used for years particularly in Europe.
One advantage of co-composting is that it can readily be used in conjunction
with other processing methods, such as combustion and materials recovery. Simi-
lar equipment can be used in these processing methods, and the systems can be
operated in a coordinated way to respond to seasonal fluctuations in market
demand and waste supply volumes. Moreover, the co-composting process can
respond fairly easily to market demand for different types and quantities of co-
compost product.
Priorities
Indications are that a number of markets exist in the region to use co-compost
products. Some question remains, however, regarding the competitiveness of the
product with similar products currently being used. The University of Minne-
sota, in cooperation with the Council, has begun a research and development pro-
ject to determine the marketability of co-compost in the Metropolitan Area.
The net effect of including co-composting in the regional strategy is to
increase flexibility and lessen even further the amount of residuals requiring
land disposal. The question about the marketability of compost should not by
itself discount co-composting as an important part of the region's future waste
management system. However, public subsidies may be required until a long-term
market demand is developed.
LAND DISPOSAL
Alternatives
As a method of waste management, land disposal is a .lastyesprt, Waste reduc-
117 -Ind-resource reEbvery are preferable methCids,—but -6(en with land disposal
there are factors to consider to minimize environmental and land use problems.
Land disposal has occurred in a range of environments, from uncontrolled, pol-
luting, unaesthetic open burning dumps, to landfills, that, when properly
designed and operated, have less chance of causing serious pollution and nui-
sance problems. The critical question regarding any land disposal facility is
to what extent the waste material's constituents can escape into the soil and
groundwater and adversely affect the surrounding environment and water sup-
plies. New land disposal facilities should be located and modern technology
incorporated into their design to reduce public health and environmental
risks. Another important consideration is controlling the type of waste going
into a land disposal facility. Compliance with increasingly rigorous and
detailed standards for environmental protection will increase the cost of land
disposal.
Once the land disposal facilities are_f_illed„ reurn_tig_a_productive land use
is flatted. Some completed land disposal facilities can be used foi--76Er'da:
tional purposes, or for light intensity commercial and industrial uses. In
some cases, methane gas can be recovered for use from solid waste land disposal
facilities during operation and after closure.
26
Priorities
Waste reduction and resource recovery are estimated to reduce significantly the
need for land disposal but will not eliminate it entirely. Landfills for
municipal solid waste will be necessary on a short-term basis while reduction
and recovery systems are developing. They will also be necessary for waste
that cannot be processed and for the residue fi-om recovery operations. How-
ever, their use should be kept to an absolute minimum.
Technology and Operations
Pollution control techniques installed as landfills, such as liners installed
under the site and systems to collect leachate and recover methane gas are
increasingly used at disposal facilities throughout the country. However,
because they have not been used extensively, or for a long period of time, it
is difficult to predict whether they will perform adequately in all instances.
It is best to assume that some failure will eventually occur. As a result,
other factors must be considered to keep risks to a minimum.
The location of disposal facilities is particularly important. Locations with
favorable geologic and physical features can greatly reduce the chances of
adverse impacts and allow more time to correct potential problems. Future
decisions about land disposal must give as much consideration to location of
landfills as pollution control systems and the landfill site. There mus.t_be__a_
shift away_from_the_current_philosophy that dilution of pollutants is an
dcdeOtable means of environmental protection.
.
— _ _
Another factor is the type of waste materials that landfills accept. To date,
there has been little effort to control the types of waste deposited in land-
fills except for state prohibitions on hazardous wastes in 1973 and discarded
tires effective in 1985. What the region requires, however, is a ban on the
land disposal of "unprocessed" municipal waste after 1990. Unprocessed munic-
ipal waste includes materials that could be recycled, but have not been
removed, and wastes that have not been stabilized by incineration or other
processing methods. The technology is available to achieve a total ban, and it
is economically possible to have such services region-wide after 1990. Such a
ban would allow only residuals from processing and recycling to go to landfills.
There are several benefits of banning "unprocessed" waste from landfills. The
residuals require significantly less land disposal space. Existing land dis-
posal capacity would be available for a longer time period, and the number of
new sites needed would be considerably less. In addition, the more homogene-
ous, stabilized character of the residuals can lower the potential for adverse
health and environmental impacts. The organic content of residuals is minimal,
virtually eliminating the potential for generating methane gas and narrowing
the range of potential contaminants that might seep off the site. Nuisance
impacts, such as odor, noise, dust, litter and traffic, would also be less.
Landfills comprised of residuals could mean the landfill site, once closed,
could be converted to many more uses. Finally, the ban, in itself, may stimu-
late the development of industry to process and utilize the waste materials.
27
Disastrous events, however, could create the need for short-term landfilling
of mixed waste after 1990 in order to provide for proper sanitation. Unex-
pected circumstances. sucn as bad weather conditions or severe eouipment mal-
functions, could temporarily shut down orocessina facilities and reauire a
lifting of the unprocessed waste ban. Provisions to deal with such justifiable
exemptions can be built in as state leaislation, certificate-of-need standards
and county master plans are developed to implement the reaional plan.
Effect on Developing Alternatives to Land Disposal
How much capacity is available in landfills can adversely affect the develop-
ment of reduction and recovery alternatives. Historically, reduction and
recovery alternatives have had difficulty competing against the region's low-
cost land disposal system. It is anticipated that this situation will even-
tually change with the implementation of better-designed landfills, which will
be more expensive to build and operate.
The major problem, however, is that it will take several years to phase in a
new land disposal system. Current_estiMates show_that without any changes in
waste management, about sevg -to nine _years of capacifY -feeaiii -a-vailable-ln -the
existing disposal system. The existing sy -Slem -could be available for a -1669er
period of time:If -major reduction and recovery projects are implemented accord-
ing to planned time schedules. This extended period of use will further delay
the time when better-designed, more expensive landfills are needed and the
waste management system as a whole operates more competitively. As a result,
landOsOosal-caPacitY bavQ.to be caref.111.1Y.coPtro)led_if_the regloniT
strategy is to_be successfully implemented.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE REGIONAL STRATEGY
Solid waste management requires responsive public decision-making. The state
Waste Management Act mandates a decision-making process for solid waste man-
agement in the Metropolitan Area that involves several levels of government.
The major planning and coordinating functions are given to the Council, and the
counties have primary implementation responsibilities. The state, cities and
towns have various regulatory and implementation authorities. However, new
institutional relationships may be necessary, along with additional legislative
authority, to successfully implement the regional strategy.
SUBREGIONAL SERVICE AREAS
The regional strategy lays out an approach that calls for a regional system of
processing and source separation activities to be phased in over the next five
years. Only the residuals from these activities could no to land disposal
facilities after 1990. A concept of centralized management and coordination of
the waste, its components and final destination is necessary to implement the
regional system (see Figure 3-1). The majority of the waste would most likely
go to centralized locations after source reduction and separation. Here the
waste would be processed and/or sent to other processing locations, and the
remaining residuals would go to land disposal facilities.
Cooperative arrangements among the counties, will be necessary if the region-
wide approach is to succeed. Present patterns of waste manaoement (collection,
transportation and disposal), and the potential locations for processing facili-
ties and final product markets, are not easily adaptable to service areas based
solely on the jurisdictional boundaries of individual counties. There are indi-
cations that some of the major processing projects currently being developed
28
Figure 3-1. REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SOURCE REDUCTION Residential Commercial Industrial WASTE SEGREGATION Yard and Hazardous Wastes. Recyclables. etc. CENTRALIZED PROCESSING/ TRANSFER STATIONS CO-COMPOSTING REFUSE-DERIVED MASS FUEL BURN RESIDUALS ABATEMENT LANDFILLING OF PROCESSED WASTE LOW. TECHNOLOGY Recycling
may not have sufficient waste supplies to expand in the future because of these
factors. If this is the case, solid waste recovery may not reach its fullest
potential. What is needed is a subregional approach that involves groups of
counties.
Ramsey and Washington Counties have joined toOther to develop and implement a
major centralized processing facility and ancillary services. The subregional
approach, in this instance, has worked well in project.development, financing
and waste supply assurance.
The following subregional service area are recommended based on waste supply
concentrations, geographical proximity of the counties to one another and the
potential locations for processing activities. Solid waste planning, facility
development, financing and operations could be facilitated by the two- or three-
county subregional approach.
1. Anoka and Hennepin Counties;
2. Dakota and Hennepin Counties;
3. Dakota, Ramsey and Washington Counties; and
4. Carver and Scott Counties.
Source separation's low-capital investment requirements and generator-based
approach make it particularly suited for local governments to implement.
Source separation is also very adaptable to subregional approach. Although
only a few Metropolitan Area communities are currently implementing comprehen-
sive programs, new financing mechanisms provided by the Waste Management Act
now make possible greater local involvement. Areas where cities and towns must
direct their efforts include 1) directly providing separation services or pro-
viding financial aid and other assistance to privately operated projects; 2)
increasing public education and awareness; and 3) monitoring performance of the
activities.
Reaching maximum source separation levels, however, cannot be accomplished by
local efforts alone. Both the Council and counties will not only have to pro-
vide local assistance, but also deal with the broader issues that transcend
local jurisdictions. Four areas deserve particular attention: 1) expanding mar-
kets to take recyclables; 2) organizing waste collection services that facili-
tate separation; 3) developing intermediate processing facilities to take sepa-
rated materials (see discussion under high-technology approaches); and 4) com-
plementing local public education and awareness programs. State agency assist-
ance will also be necessary.
WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES
The regional strategy depends on efficient solid waste collection services.
Most of the waste is collected in the Metropolitan Area under an "open arrange-
ment" where the collector contracts directly with those who generate the
waste. This arrangement, however, has resulted in waste collection services
that in many areas of the region are inefficient. Frequently, for example,
there are several waste collectors collecting from homes along the same
streets, perhaps even on the same day. As a result, waste collectors have to
travel greater distances between stops, which increases their fuel and labor
costs. For the community, it means more truck traffic, street maintenance,
noise and vehicle emissions and safety problems.
30
This open arrangement has also been a hindrance to recycling and resource
recovery. Under the existing system, the waste collector, not the recycler or
resident, benefits from recycling. For each ton of material removed from the
waste stream, the waste collector is rewarded by collecting, transporting and
disposing of one less ton of waste. If the benefit of recovery, in this case
avoided costs, is not distributed equitably throughout the system, there is no
significant financial motive to expand existing recycling programs.
Under an organized system, the alternative to the open arrangement, the local
government or residential association could negotiate with collectors for waste
hauling on behalf of households, businesses and other generators of waste. Con-
tracts with the collectors can establish efficient routing systems and provide
for local recycling and other recovery services. An example that works well is
the Minneapolis program. Working with a consortium of waste collectors, the
city has been able to provide efficient collection services and curb-side
recycling city-wide.
Organized collection services could play a major role in implementing the
regional strategy. Organized collection is particularly adaptable to using sub-
regional service areas, and offers savings to the local community and waste
collector. The Council is currently evaluating organized collection, and will
complete a report in mid-1985.
MARKET DEVELOPMENT
It is important that enough markets, or consumers, exist willing to take the
products from solid waste recovery programs, such as energy, compost, grass,
paper and residuals like ash. Without this demand, waste recovery has little
chance of succeeding. Although markets have always been a factor in past decis-
ions, there has never been a concerted effort to improve market conditions in
the region.
Markets can include industries, businesses, governmental units, groups of peo-
ple and individuals. Crucial to the success of the regional strategy is expand-
ing existing markets and developing new ones. Priority must be given to having
such a program in place in 1985. Markets will see this as a serious commitment
to changing waste management practices and an opportunity for investments.
Enacting an innovative program requires the cooperation of a number of govern-
mental agencies and the business community. Currently, some uncertainty exists
about specific roles in the region, and market development efforts are frag-
mented and frequently duplicative. A need for coordination is apparent, along
with setting up a carefully structured program.
The Council and the state Department of Energy and Economic Development appear
best suited to set up the market development program. Recent research by the
Council indicates that the following areas deserve particular attention 1) sta-
bilizing recyclable material supplies; 2) targeting specific markets for expan-
sion and development; 3) improving public education and technical assistance
capabilities; 4) reexamining the role of market subsidies; and 5) re-examining
the effect and role of state and local financial and regulatory devices.
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION
Accomplishing the regional strategy depends on a high level of public under-
standing and participation. The public's willingness to accept new solutions
31
and pay somewhat higher costs for improved waste management will depend, to a
large extent, on educational and related efforts. Activities like waste reduc-
tion and source separation are particularly dependent on methods to persuade
public attitudes.
Several governmental bodies and private group S in the Metropolitan Area already
provide public education and participation activities. These organizations
include the Council, metropolitan counties, many cities and townships, Minne-
sota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Waste Management Board and private
entities, such as recycling firms and public interest groups. However, efforts
by these organizations are often fragmented, duplicate one another and do not
provide the service the public needs.
A program is needed that coordinates public education and participation. The
purpose of such programs would be to 1) change behavior of those who generate
waste through actual participation in waste reduction and resource recovery
programs; 2) increase public awareness about waste management; and 3) increase
citizen participation in important decisions on solid waste plans and projects.
Immediate priority should go to establishing such a coordinating program. The
low-technology approaches in particular, depend on the public's early awareness
and involvement if they are to be implemented as scheduled within the next few
years. It would not be practical to expect local units of government or pri-
vate businesses to set up the program, but more appropriately, the Council and
metropolitan counties must assume the responsibility.
Improving public education and participation will also depend on strong "grass
roots" activities. Environmental activist groups, churches, clubs, and similar
organizations are already carrying out some of these activities, but they will
have to become even more involved to gain the broad support necessary to make
changes in the waste management system through "grass roots" coalitions and
community organizing tactics. Assistance from government may be necessary to
help out these efforts.
POLICIES FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
The following policies are intended to guide development of the region's
future solid waste management system.
1. Waste reduction and resource recovery are feasible, prudent alternatives
to land disposal of municipal solid waste. Economic considerations alone
shall not preclude implementation of the alternatives.
2. Processible mixed municipal solid waste shall be prohibited from land dis-
posal in the Metropolitan Area after 1990.
41-e-t-t.epe44-an—Prr-ea--j-enz.-:tors of 71 nicipel :x?id vestc arc recJired after
lee, , ,^ Ign,r1
met;rials.
3. Separation of identified recyclable materials and compostable_yard waste
is a responsibility of the waste oenerator. If by Jan. 1, 1988, voluntary
efforts on the part of cities towns or counties have not achieved the
objectives for waste reduction and source separation set forth in the
Council's waste reduction/resource recovery development schedule,
oenerators of mixed municipal solid waste still]. be required by July 1,
32
1988, to separate identified recyclables and comoostable yard waste mate-
rials from other mixed wastes. Counties retain primary responsibility for
ensuring attainment of the objectives, for ensurina that recycling ser-
vices and facilities are provide:1, and for coordination of the programs
with other local government units.
4. The public sector fs responsible for 4.e-v.e;eo-i-ria-ensurina development of a
regional system of waste processing and recycling services. The system
should be comprised of centralized processing facilities, transfer
stations and composting and recycling services. The system should provide
continuous, convenient and reliable services to all residential and
commercial waste generators in the Metropolitan Area and centralized
management and coordination of the waste, its components and final
destination.
5. The metropolitan counties are strongly encouraged to develop programs and
projects cooperatively within the following subregional service areas:
a. Dakota and Hennepin Counties;
b. Anoka and Hennepin Counties;
c. Dakota, Ramsey and Washington Counties; and
d. Carver and Scott Counties.
-6-7 Residential -and commer-e4-a4--aefte-ret--er-s—ef—sme-l4—ameuft4s—ef--h-a-Hi4eJs sut
St a nc es -shetu-14-4epar-ata--t-he 47P-at-er4-al-s '-r,om--the-r err a4-fii ng
for these m3ter-4-a4e by 19E8.
6. Proarams to provide and coordinate information and management services for
iiTl quantities of hazardous waste should be available to the region
household and commercial waste generators by 1990.
7. A region-wide centrally coordinated public education and participation
program shall be established by 1986. All Metropolitan Area residential
and commercial waste generators shall be provided information on opportuni-
ties to participate in waste reduction and resource recovery programs.
8. A region-wide, centrally, coordinated resource recovery market developmen
t
program should be established by 1986.
9. The organized collection of mixed municipal solid waste is strongly encou
r
-
aged in the Metropolitan Area.
10. Solid waste facilities should not be allowed_to_degrade ground- and
Slitfite -Water resources beyond_their_natural_Auality. TechnologY -alone
should not be deemed sufficient to protect ground- and surface waters.
The .inherent suitability of locations for land disposal facilities will be
equally considered with technological factors.
11. The regions total_openating capacity for land disposal should not exceed
giTe—imouni specified in the land disposal-development sc h e d u l e in _ _ _
guide.
33
PART 4: SYSTEM PLAN
This system plan for solid waste management in the Metropolitan Area identifies
projects and activities necessary to meet waste management needs until the year
2000. The plan consists of three sections.
1. A development program for waste reduction and resource recovery describes
the facilities and activities that need to be implemented to carry out the
regional strategy. A development program schedule specifies levels of
reduction and recovery attainable as well as the timing and likely location
of projects to achieve these levels. This section also describes the
responsibilities of state, regional and local governments for implementing
and coordinating the development program.
2. A development program for land disposal identifies the landfill capacity
needed to handle waste that remains after reduction and recovery. An imple-
mentation schedule specifies the number of landfill sites needed and the
timing of their development. Also described are methods of controlling
environmental risks and use of the land after closure.
3. A final section analyzes the costs of implementing the development programs
for waste reduction and recovery and for land disposal. Also described are
methods of financing specific projects and activities.
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR WASTE REDUCTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY
This development program describes how the regional strategy is to be carried
out. The development schedule identifies the expected levels of waste reduc-
tion and resource recovery to be attained by each of the metropolitan counties
from 1985 to 2000. The development program identifies a variety of facilities
and programs that can be used to reach the waste reduction and resource
recovery levels. The program also identifies the public sector responsibili-
ties for implementation of the plan. The counties and their cities and town-
ships are responsible for determining the methods that best fit their
individual needs to meet the objectives listed in Table 4-1.
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
The schedule sets objectives for the levels of waste reduction and resource
recovery that must be attained in the region and is shown in Table 4-1. The
table sets specific levels of waste reduction and resource recovery that must
be attained annually by each of the counties (including source separation and
centralized processing) from 1985 through 1990 and in five-year increments
thereafter through 2000. The objectives for waste reduction, source separation
and centralized processing must be achieved by the counties. Ranges are given
for some years for centralized processing because it is difficult to predict
when a processing facility will begin operation and reach its designated
capacity. However, the lower end of the range is expected to be achieved.
Centralized processing includes transfer stations, waste processing, combustion
and co-composting facilities.
The Council will monitor progress in meeting the objectives of the development
schedule through its various plan review and reporting mechanisms (see "Plan
Implementation," Part 5). The metropolitan counties have overall responsibil-
ity to design, develop and implement programs that reach waste reduction and
source separation objectives. Local communities are expected to work in
cooperation with the counties to attain the objectives.
34
ANOKA\CXTY
Waste ReduCidn
Source Separation
Centralized PrOessing
• County Total \
CARVER COUNTY
Table 4-1
WASTE REDUCTION/RESOURCE RECOVERY DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
(Percent of Total Solid Waste Generated by County)
1991- 1996n
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1995 200
2 3
4
' 5
6 9
12
15
2 4-19 19-57
80
-Tr IT:7I 35-73 100
Waste Reduction 1 2 2 3
Source Separation 2 4 6 8
Centralized Processing 0 0 0 0
County Total T --8-
DAKOTA COUNTY
5 5
13 13
82 82
100 100
Waste Reduction 1
Source Separation 2
Centralized Processing 2
County Total --5-
HENNEPIN COUNTY
Waste Reduction
Source Separation
Centralized Processing
County Total
1 2 / 2 \k 3
2 V 6
2 • 2 2-11 .11-57
13
5 Ai 75 - r3=-22- C2773-•
4 4 4
16 16 16
80 80 80
100 100 100
RAMSEY COUNTY
Waste Reduction A 2 2 2 3\ 4
Source Separation 6 9 11 15 \ 19
Centralized Processing1 1 5 5-57 67-72 .77
County Total --g- --g- -1-6-IS77b 85-90 -I0-
4
19
77
100
4
19
77
—rou
2 4 5 5 5
4 6 9 11 15 15 15
2 -14 14-57 80 80 80
ID /117:n. 29-72 -IN- -1-07 100
Waste Reduction 1 2
Source Separatio 2 4
Centralized Processing 18 18
County Total/ -21- 76-
2 2
6 8
18 18
-7g-
3
3
3
11
14
14
18-28
83
83
32-42
7015
SCOTT COUNTY
WASHINGTON COUNTY
Waste Redhion 1 2 2 3 4 5 5
e/1
Source S paration 2 4 6 8 12 16 16 6
Central/zed Processing 19 19 19-25 25-57 67-72 79 79 7
Couq y Total 22 25 27-33 36-68 83-88 -T-65- -TO- -111g
METROPOLITAN AREA (Percent of Regional Total)
Watte Reduction
burce Separation
/
entralized Processing
Regional Total
1 2 2 2 3 4
2 4 6 ' 9 13 16
2 2 4 25 57 80
--5- --g- -17- -3-6- --71- 100
4
4
16
16
80
80
100
100
Waste Reduction
Source Separation
Centralized Processing
County Total
1 2
2 4
18 18
—2T- 24
2
2 3
6
8 11
18
18 18-27
26 --Yg ST:Tr
3
14
83
3
14
83
3
14
83
-ruu
WASTE REDUCTION/RESOURCE RECOVERY DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
(The Percentage of Total Solid Waste Generated by County Managed by
Waste Reduction/Source Separation Programs and
Centralized Processing Facilities)
1991- 1996-
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1995 2000
ANOKA COUNTY
Waste Reduction
Source Separation
Centralized Processing
County Total
CARVER COUNTY
Waste Reduction
Source Separation
Centralized Processing
County Total
DAKOTA COUNTY
,
1 2 2 3 4 5 5 5
2 4 '6 .9 12 15 15 15
2 2 2 4-37 19-77 80 80 80
5 8 10 16-49 35-93 100 100 100 ...
1 2 2 3 ' 4 5
2 4 6 8 11 13
0 0 0 0 0-32 82
--I- 6 8 --rr 11=47 -100 -
5
5
13
13
82
82
100
71515
Waste Reduction
Source Separation
Centralized Processing
County Total
1 2
2 4
2 2
--)1-
2 2
6 9
2 4-30
-110- 15-41
4
11
14-70
29-85
5
15 15 15
80 80 80
100 100 100
HENNEPIN COUNTY
Waste Reduction
Source Separation
Centralized Processing
County Total
1 2
2 4
2 2
—5- —8-
3
13
11-65
27-81
4
16
80
100
4 4
16 16
80 80
100 -TUU
RAMSEY COUNTY
Waste Reduction
Source Separation
Centralized Processing
County Total
SCOTT COUNTY
1 2 2 2 3 4
3 6 9 11 15 19
1 1 5 5-62 67-77 77
5 9 16 18-75 85--95- 100
4 4
19 19
77 77
100 100
WASHINGTON COUNTY
Waste Reduction
Source Separation
Centralized Processing
County Total
1 2 2
2 4 6
19 19 19-25
22 -25 27-33
3
8
25-59
36-70
4
12
67-71
83-87
5
16
79
100
5 5
16 16
79 79
100 100
METROPOLITAN AREA (Percent of Regional Total)
Waste Reduction
Source Separation
Centralized Processing
Regional Total
1 2 2 2
2 4 6 9
2 2 4 25
—5- —8- -12-
3
4
4
4
13
16
16
16
57 •80
80
80
100
-TUU-
-TUU
35
WASTE REDUCTION AND SOURCE SEPARATION
Overview
Waste reduction and source separation are targeted towards specific types. of
waste generators (such as residential households and commercial establish-
ments) and specific materials. Waste reduction and source separation are
strictly dependent on the participation of the waste generator.
Table 4-2 summarizes the projected participation rates used to estimate the
impact of waste reduction and source separation activities. The objectives
established in terms of tons (see Table 4-3) are dependent on these assumed
participation rates, which, together with assumptions about the composition of
solid waste, are applied to the county-by-county, residential and commercial
waste generation rates.
Table 4-2
PROJECTED PARTICIPATION RATES USED TO CALCULATE OBJECTIVES
FOR WASTE REDUCTION AND SOURCE SEPARATION
1988 1990 1988 1990
WASTE REDUCTION
(Mulching/backyard Composting)
Residential
Commercial
SOURCE SEPARATION
Yard Waste
Residential
Commercial
Recyclables
Residential
Commercial
Office Paper Recycling
Residential
Commercial
30% 60%
30% 60%
Drop-off On-route
10% 15% 25% 30%
10% 15% 25% 30%
10% 15% 40% 70%
10% 15% 40% 70%.
40% 70%
The Council will revise the generation rates used for this plan after reviewing
the counties waste-stream analysis reports required by the Waste Management
Act. The counties have an important role in completing research on waste
composition and v6Tumes which can mean identifIcation of additionirogportu-
nities for waste reduction and source separation. Therefore, the objectives in
terms of participation rates established in this plan will be the most basic
factor and a more permanant planning guide than the objectives in terms of
tonnages. The volumes recovered, however, are more reliably quantified and
will become the primary means for the Council to measure county progress.
Participation rates, as a practical measurement tool, will be secondary.
36
Waste Reduction
Reduction Levels and Target Dates
It is especially difficult to quantify the effect of most waste reduction
efforts since the basic objective relies largely on changing waste generators'
behavior. Little data is available about existing efforts or trends because
participation and volumes of waste prevented are not readily measurable.
Nonetheless, there may be substantial impact and important long-term benefits
because of increased awareness of waste generators about their role as the
first link in the overall waste management system.
The greatest immediate potential for waste reduction is by mulching and back-
yard composting. The other waste reduction techniques have much less certain
potential because of lack of reliable data and the speculative nature of their
implementation. Therefore, the objectives established in this plan for waste
reduction are assumed to be solely due to mulching and backyard composting.
However, the metropolitan counties are responsible for determining the best
mix of waste reduction strategies for their individual circumstances in order
to achieve the objectives in Table 4 e l.
Yard Waste Mulching and Backyard Composting
Mulching and backyard composting can be considered as one waste reduction tech-
nique because both activities require intensive and well-designed public educa-
tion dealing with the same yard waste materials. Mulching, more appropriately
called improved turf management, means more frequent mowing, cutting at higher
levels and more conservative use of inorganic nitrogen fertilizers. Backyard
composting involves proper pile construction and management to ensure adequate
control of decomposing grass, leaves and garden trimmings. To be successful,
it is essential that proper information about yard waste reduction be provided
to waste generators and be coordinated as an intergral part of the region's
larger solid waste communication program.
Yard waste mulching and backyard composting is given priority by the Council
because of its potential to reduce costs of separate collection and processing
through centralized composting. Also, the waste generators will benefit by
direct use of the material. Therefore, only leaves, grass clippings and garden
trimmings that cannot be mulched or composted are identified for separate
collection as described under source separation.
A permanent, region-wide publicity effort aimed at voluntary yard waste reduc-
tion should begin in the spring of 1985. With well-designed and financed
publicity programs from 1985 through 1987, voluntary participation in the mulch-
ing and backyard composting strategy should reach 30 percent. That translates
to about 44,000 tons of yard waste reduced per year, a two percent total waste
stream impact for the region, as shown in Table 4-3. After If the mandatory
ordinances are adopted and publicized, participation in mulching and backyard
composting should increase to 60 percent because it will be easier to mulch by
more frequent lawn mowing than setting out bagged grass clippings for separate
collection. The resulting total waste stream impact for the region should then
be about 90,000 tons per year or-s4-+ four percent. The waste reduction objec-
tives established assume that eligible yard wastes make up.14 percent of the
residential waste stream and three percent of the commercial waste stream. The
calculation of waste stream impact is made as follows:
37
WASTE REDUCTION (Percent of Total Waste Stream) 85 86 10.174 21,950 (1) (2) 87 88 32,912 43•815 (2) (2) 89 90 91-95 96-00 66.160 89,867 464,785 . 944.128 (3) (4) (41 (4) Table 4-3 WASTE REDUCTION AND SOURCE SEPARATION OBJECTIVESI (TONS UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED) SOURCE SEPARATION Yard Waste Drop-off 530 1.062 Yard Waste On-route 8.694 17,388 Recyclables Drop-off 5,698 11,396 Recytlables On-route 29,011 61.109 Office Paper ) 1.329 2,267 SOURCE SEPARATION SUBTOTAL as".-2•62- 13,22 (Percent of Total Waste Stream) (2) (4) TOTAL 56,236 115,172 1,589 27,077 17,093 81,659 3,985 T1174F1 (6) 164,315 2,117 34,711 22,789 116,050 5.315 1-61;047 (9) 224.937 5.837 39,252 30.502 , 168,539 9,029 (15) 319,319 3.427 44.006 38,210 221.021 12.739 111:461 (16) 409,270 17,874 19.022 220,483 • 231,311 198.822 264,662 1,139,148 1.194.140 65.418 68,278 1-51174-6- I:7)7.4a (16) (16) 2,106,530 2,721,541 1The numbers in this table may change depending on 1) projected participation rates, 2) composition of the waste, and 3) the rate of waste generation.
• Tons reduced = (tons of residential waste x 0.414 x pcipation rate) +
Ttons of commercial waste x 0.03 x participation rate).
• Other Waste Reduction Techniques
The other waste reductions techniques can be classified under the categories of
1) improvements to industrial or manufacturing processes, 2) improvements to
procurement policies, 3) paper reduction, and 4) legislative or regulatory
actions. Certain industries, especially heavy manufacturing, may be able to
realize cost savings if processes and raw materials are changed in favor of
alternatives producing less waste. Direct financial subsidies or tax incen-
tives may be necessary, however, to accelerate their development. Procurement
policies give greater consideration to the total costs over a product's life,
or "life-cycle costing", before purchase. This should result in preferences
for more durable, reusable and recyclable goods and should also result in a
preference for "purchasing more product and less container," such as buying in
bulk or buying in refillable bottles. Paper reduction includes information
storage and retrieval techniques that shrink office paper consumption such as
use of microfiche, use of magnetic media (for example, computer discs and
tapes) and paper conservation policies and procedures (for example, use of car-
bonless forms, printing "back-to-back" on two sides rather than single-sided
copying). Legislative or regulatory actions include activities such as product
bans and packaging rules. Both of these have been attempted in Minnesota as
waste reduction and environmental protection measures with very little
success.
No reduction levels or target dates are assigned to these other strategies
because the waste stream impact is unknown or the implementation is too specu-
lative to make specific projections. Notwithstanding, the Council and the
metropolitan counties should continue to evaluate these opportunities and if
further research warrants, this plan should be amended to include reduction
levels.
Proposed Roles and Responsibilities
Programs should be established that focus on 1) enhancing the waste generator's
awareness of reduction opportunities, 2) facilitating the ability to take advan-
tage of the opportunities, and 3) developing implementation schemes that will
be economically advantageous to the recipients.
The cost savings of waste reduction activities will be the principal motivator
for change. A primary objective, therefore, should be to collect and dissemi-
nate this type of cost-benefit data. For instance, businesses and governments
that currently employ life-cycle costing in their procurement processes could
serve as models and resources for other waste generators of all types. Con-
sumer information should also be prepared to show how products sold in bulk and
in refillable containers are less costly and at the same time more environmen-
tally sound. To help consumers take advantage of the opportunities, technical
assistance programs should include model waste reduction management programs to
help residents, businesses and governments implement reduction strategies.
There are several levels of government that should be involved in waste reduc-
tion programs. The Metropolitan Council and metropolitan counties should take
the lead in deveTboina and implementing the proirams. The Courkil's roleF.Tid
be more of an oversiant, coordinating function: dome research on the
39
Table 4-4
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR IMPLEMENTING
A REGIONAL WASTE REDUCTION PROGRAM
Roles and Responsibilities
- Be responsive to waste reduction information and
suggestions.
- Implement recommended policies and activities
when feasible.
- Improve turf manaaement ("mulching" of grass and
leaves) whenever possible.
- Compost on-site (backyard).
- Implement in-house waste reduction programs.
- Refer businesses or other waste generators to
appropriate source of technical assistance.
- Implement in-house waste reduction programs.
- Assist in the development of curriculum packets.
- Implement in-house waste reduction programs.
- Distribute information provided by the Council
to municipalities, schools and other waste
generators.
- Assist the Metropolitan Council collect data and
prepare informational literature.
Implement in-house waste reduction program.
Facilitate centralized coordination of regional
communications, including waste reduction.
Research and develop waste reduction informa-
mational literature.
Evaluate metropolitan legislative options.
Implement in-house waste reduction program.
Assist the Metropolitan Council and counties
with research and literature development.
Evaluate state-wide legislative options.
- Implement in-house waste reduction programs.
- Review and act on proposed legislation.
- Implement in-house waste reduction programs.
- Review and act on proposed legislation.
Primary Implementor
Waste Generators
Cities or Townships
Schools
Counties
Metropolitan Council
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
State of Minnesota
Federal Government
40
opportunities for waste reduction, developino legislative recommendations,
reviewing local plans and policies for consistency with reaional objectives and
monitoring waste reouction prooress in the Metropolitan Area. The metropolitan
counties, working more closely with private waste Generators, cities and
townships and other local Groups, should provide direct assistance in setting
up waste reduction proarams. Because each agency or level of government is also
a waste generator, each of them should be required to implement in-house waste
reduction programs. Table 4-4 displays a list of potential roles and
responsibilities for the waste generator and various implementing agencies.
The central immediate activity defined for the Metropolitan Council and the
.metropolitan counties is to develop and disseminate practical information that
waste generators can use about the opportunities for and benefits of waste
reduction techniques. The Metropolitan Council should immediately take the
lead in waste reduction research and development, an effort that will need
close communication with the metropolitan counties as they develop their solid
waste master plans. The counties may decide to coordinate this responsibility
through the Metropolitan Inter County Association (MICA).
Source Separation
Service Methods, Recovery Levels and Target Dates
The source separation program consists of separate collection of yard wastes,
office paper recycling, drop-off centers and on-route (or "curbside")
collection. Projections for participation and recovery rates for these are
based on experiences of existing programs in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area
and also from similar peograms around the country. The projected participation
rates for each of the techniques are listed in Table 4-2 and the regional
objectives are listed in Table 4-3. The highest level of convenience for the
waste generator is provided by on-route collection. Therefore, higher levels
of recovery can be expected. The regional totals for source separation
programs are 181,000 tons per year (nine percent of the total waste) by 1988
and 319,000 tons (16 percent) by 1990.
One set of the critical assumptions is the list of materials identified for
recovery by source separation (see Table 4-5). This list will be reviewed by
the Council annually and revised as necessary to adjust to changing condi-
tions. The materials vary by type of program because of the technical con-
straints of markets and collection method. This list represents those mate-
rials that are commonly collected by existing programs. The list of materials
identified for recovery is not intended to be all inclusive of items that could
theoretically be recycled. Additional materials that should be considered for
recovery include: plastics, , • and
reusable or repairable housewares such as clothing, appliances, and furniture.
Some materials have been left out of the list of materials identified for
recovery because of market or legal constraints. Items contaminated in some
fashion or destroyed to the point that they are no longer marketable or reus-
able are not identified for recovery by source separation. Other types of mate-
rials have the potential to contaminate products, damage processing equipment
or present special public health and safety problems. These items include most
household hazardous wastes, which should be handled and treated separately.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency plans to conduct a pilot on route collec-
tion program for hazardous wastes. If adequate safety and environmental protec-
tion procedures can be assured, these materials could then be identified for
recovery and this type of collection should be expanded region-wide.
41
Table 4-5
MATERIALS IDENTIFIED FOR RECOVERY BY SOURCE SEPARATION 1
Materials
Compostable garden trimmings
Grass clippings
Leaves
Books
Cardboard files
Colored ledger
Computer printout paper
Computer tab cards
Corrugated
Newsprint
White ledger
Aluminum
Corrugated
Ferrous scrap
Glass containers
Mixed waste paper
Newspaper
Other non-ferrous
Automobile crankcase oil
Automobile batteries
Aluminum
Corrugated
Ferrous containers
Glass connainers
Newspapers
Other non-ferrous
Automobile crankcase oil
Automobile batteries
Type of Prooram
YARD WASTE 2
Separate collection of
Yard Wastes
RECYCLABLES
Office paper recycling
Drop-off centers
On-route collection
1 This list of materials identified for recovery will be
reviewed by the Council annually and revised as necessary
(see Definitions). 2 Yard waste materials identified for recovery by separate
collection do not include vegetable matter used in mulching
and backyard composting.
42
The list of materials identified for recovery, plus the list of additional mate-
rials that could be recovered, is very extensive. This is in line with Council
policy that encourages as much of the waste stream as possible be recycled.
When developing and revising the list of identified materials, the benefits of
a comprehensive source separation program to the region in terms of reduced
capital and operating expenditures and environmental impacts must be consid-
ered. The state recognized these benefits in the Waste Management Act specifi-
cally exempting from waste flow control designation all materials that are
separated from 4444e4 solid waste for use in njnufacturinq processes.
recyclins. Centralized processing faETTIties must be sized appropriately to
account for maximum recycling scenarios.
The Council is required to adopt measurable objectives and outline activities
for each metropolitan county and local unit of government in the region. To
determine the most appropriate source separation collection method for the wide
variety of cities and townships, the Council considered population, number of
residential and commercial generators, density, and development designation of
the community in the Council's Metropolitan Development Framework. Based on
this information, along with proximity of the city or township to other major
waste generation areas, recycling service methods were identified for each
local unit of government (see Figure 4-1).
Figure 4-1 shows three levels of recycling service. If curb-side, or "on-
route," collection is suggested, this implies that once-a-month curb-side
pickup of identified recyclables should be provided. Also, once-a-week curb-
side pickup of compostable yard waste should be provided, or an alternative
method of separate yard waste collection at least as convenient. Within the
curb-side areas, it is implied that existing drop-off programs should con-
tinue. If drop-off is suggested, this implies that that city or township,
under coordination of the respective county, should provide a convenient drop-
off location for recyclables and yard waste within its boundaries. If no desig-
nation is identified, then this city or township is assumed to be served by a
nearby drop-off site in an adjacent community. These objectives are to be
attained by 1988. These are minimum objectives to be used as guidelines by the
counties, cities and townships in developing more specific implementation
plans. More convenient service delivery is encouraged.
The region has a well-established recycling industry currently in place that
has evolved during a long history. It is essential that the Council and metro-
politan counties first understand the existing recycling system to be able to
build a more effective source separation program. Markets must be examined
carefully and negative impacts on existing facilities should be minimized to
the extent possible while still achieving the regional objectives. For
instance, the area of Figure 4-1 identified for curb-side collection has a well-
established network of drop-off centers, both charitable and for-profit, that
can benefit from increased government involvement. Therefore, the counties and
municipalities must first consider these operations before developing new pro-
grams. It is possible, that existing drop-off facilities, with appropriate
expansions, could serve the drop-off needs of waste generators within most of
the urban and suburban areas.
43
Figure 4-1.
PROPOSED RECYCLING SERVICE
IN THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA
Served by drop-off site(s) in adjacent community
Drop-off site(s) only within community
Curbside service and drop-off site(s)
44.
Separate Collection of Yard Wastes
The areas identified for curb-side service should have once-a-week, on-route
collection of yard wastes during the spring, summer and fall growing season
months by the end of 1987. Alternative service may be provided, such as drop-
off sites for yard waste, if it can be demonstrated to be at least as conveni-
ent. Drop-off sites could range from small, neighborhood composting operations
to large, heavily mechanized multi-county facilities. ,Voluntary participation
In this type of yard waste source separation should reach 25 percent in addi-
tion to those people complying with the mulching/backyard composting strategy.
Therefore, the total waste stream impact due to separate collection of yard
wastes should be about 37,000 tons or two percent of the total waste stream.
After thc If mandatory ordinances are adopted and publicized, the
participation in addition to those complying with mulching/backyard composting
should increase to 30 percent resulting in a total waste stream impact of about
47,000 tons, still only two percent, by 1990.
Office Paper Recycling .
A significant number of business and government offices in the region currently
recycle their white office paper, computer print out paper, computer tab cards
and other high grade paper. However, there is still a large percentage of
offices that do not recycle these kinds of valuable paper and should be doing
so. This material is identified by the Council for recovery. A region-wide
effort must begin in 1985 to enlist the participation of all commercial waste
generators. Assuming that office paper comprises four percent of the commer-
cial waste stream, a 30 percent recovery rate would accomplish less than one
percent impact on the total waste stream or 5,000 tons. This level should be
reached by Jan. 1, 1988. After this date, mandatory source separation ordi-
nances, should could help increase the level of recovery to 70 percent,
resulting in a one percent total waste stream impact or 13,000 tons by 1990.
Drop-Off Sites for Recyclables
Drop-off sites include any type of recycling center where residential, commer-
cial or industrial waste generators can bring their materials. It includes
small-scale facilities or temporary sites used for fund raising by charitable
organizations and also large-scale industrial scrap dealers or other types of
redemption operations that pay for materials. This self-haul concept relies
upon the waste generator to deliver items to be donated or sold and therefore
is much less convenient than on-route collection resulting in lower recovery
rates. Nonetheless, these facilities play an important role in providing com-
plete recycling services in the region and should not be overlooked. For
instance, drop-off sites can more easily collect a much larger variety of mate-
rials than can on-route collection programs. Drop-off sites are currently used
extensively for some of the more specialized items such as waste oil, solvents,
mixed paper, clothing, and some of the large bulky appliances and furniture.
A region-wide effort to increase the use of drop-off sites should result in a
recovery rate of 10 percent of identified recyclable materials (Table 4-5) by
the end of 1987 which would reduce the total waste stream by one percent, or
23,000 tons. Two yaors after If mandatory ordinances become effective, this
recovery rate should jump to 1S —percent which would impact the total waste
stream by two percent (38,000 tons).
45
Table 4-6
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR IMPLEMENTING
A REGIONAL SOURCE SEPARATION PROGRAM
Cities or Townships
Schools
Roles and Responsibilities
leaves) whenever poscible.
Compost on site (backyard).
- Separate remaining compostable yard wastes.
- Clean and separate recyclables.
- Be responsive to communications necessary for proper
compliance.
- Collect source separated yard wastes and recyclables
either directly or through private companies.
- Adopt mandatory source separation ordinances 2t lcast
as strict ac the saurtye if voluntary efforts fail to
achieve adequate participation.
- Assist counties with siting and/or development of
processing facilities for source separated materials.
- Assist with local publicity tools (for example,
flyers, neighborhood meetings, newsletters).
Develop in-house paper recovery programs.
Assist with the development and implementation of
curriculum packets.
Primary Implementor
Waste Generators
Counties - Plan, site, develop, and, if necessary, capitalize
intermediate processing facilities for source sepa-
rated materials.
- Investigate cooperative marketing with other counties.
- Adopt county-wide collection ordinances by July I,
1988, including requirements for 1) provision of
adequately convenient separate collection services and
2) municipal mandatory source separation ordinances
If voluntary programs fail to achieve sufficient
participation.
- Implement county-wide publicity tools (for example,
daily newspapers).
- Provide technical and financial assistance to munici-
palities and private service providers.
Metropolitan Council - Monitor progress toward regional goals and objectives;
clarify as necessary.
- Facilitate centralized coordination of regional commu-
nications.
- Provide technical and financial assistance to coun-
ties, municipalities, and private service providers.
- Research and develop markets and processing techniques.
Private Service - Collect, process and market source separated materials
Providers in cooperation with government efforts.
- Publicize services in coordination with regional commu-
nications program.
46
On-Route Collection
The voluntary program should be able to attain 40 percent par
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
1988, resulting in a waste stream impact of six percent (116,0
0
0
t
o
n
s
)
.
T
h
e
mandatory incentive should could increase this rate to 70 perce
n
t
p
a
r
t
i
c
p
a
t
i
o
n
and 11 percent total waste stream impact by 1990 (221,000 tons).
Proposed Roles and Responsibilities
Maximum effectiveness of source separation requires efforts by
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
l
e
v
e
l
s
of government, the waste generator and private businesses (Tabl
e
4
-
6
)
.
.
1
.44a-
texpiremant_thajcta _genz
va-ste-should-ba--e4.tab-1-4kvexl-as-4:41e.--mklasurki-of--m
shou.lrl_bz_mancia.tect-b-y--citizs-and--tawaslaip
information zed zollec-tion-car-u-ix.-6- is 4V4-aa044 Mandatory source separation
ordinances should be adopted by counties, cities or townships by Jul
y
1
,
rgga,
if voluntaryproarams have not achieved sufficient participation.
The service-providing role defined for the cities and township
s
i
s
f
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
.
Contracting with private collection companies is encouraged.
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
p
o
n
-
sibilities could also be assumed by the counties.
that Counties may adopt collection ordinances-19844-for mandatory
s
o
u
r
c
e
separation requiring participation of their residents. Munici
p
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
m
u
s
t
adopt their county's mandatory source separation collection or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
b
y
reference or more stringent ordinances. These ordinances shou
l
d
b
e
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
b
y
July 1, 1988, if voluntary efforts fail to achieve adeouate p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
J an. 1, 1988. The cities and townships should also help the coun
t
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
development of intermediate processing facilities by at least
a
s
s
i
s
t
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
analysis of-site alternatives. The larger, more central citie
s
c
o
u
l
d
e
v
e
n
t
a
k
e
over the role of project developer if coordinated with the re
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
o
u
n
t
y
.
If the private sector or constituent municipalities do not pr
o
v
i
d
e
t
h
e
s
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
separation services, the metropolitan counties must assure ade
q
u
a
t
e
development.
One of the most important roles of the counties is to assure
o
r
d
e
r
l
y
a
n
d
c
o
o
r
-
dinated development of multi-material, intermediate processin
g
o
r
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
facilities for identified recyclables. Centralized sites with a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
e
q
u
i
p
-
ment may be necessary for the regional source separation object
i
v
e
s
t
o
b
e
attained. These facilities could be planned in conjunction w
i
t
h
t
h
e
m
i
x
e
d
waste processing facilities, perhaps even at the same sites. F
u
r
t
h
e
r
m
o
r
e
,
intercounty coordination may enhance the economic feasibility o
f
t
h
e
s
e
r
e
c
y
c
l
-
ables processing plants and promote cooperative marketing of th
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
.
The role of the Metropolitan Council shall be overall coordinat
i
o
n
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
1) clarification and monitoring regional goals and objectives,
2
)
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
assistance to help establish programs, 3) financial assistance,
a
n
d
4
)
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
and development, especially in terms of markets and long-term
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
m
e
c
h
a
-
nisms. The role defined for private companies is to provide ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
c
o
l
l
e
c
-
tion, processing and publicity services in cooperation with th
e
c
o
u
n
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
municipalities that develop the various contracts.
47
Factors Influencing Participation
Mandatory Source-Separation Ordinances
Mandatory separation ordinances should not specify where the material must go.
They should simply state that the identified material shall not be placed with
the mixed municipal solid waste. Waste reduction (that is, mulching and back-
yard composting) should be emphasized within the ordinances to reduce the
volume of yard wastes requiring separate collection. The generators right to
decide what they wish to do with the material once separated should be pre-
served. For example, if some residents have decided to collect grass clippings
tather than mulch, they could bring that material to a neighborhood composting
bin rather than set it out for separate collection. Similarly, residents would
be al1c d and encouraged to sell their aluminum cans at a redemption center or
donate i. air newspapers to a charity group rather than set them out for sepa-
rate, on-route collection. The choice remains with the waste generator.
rcement actions, such as fines, may be an option made a 4
OC • ance. The municipality may ' ' cl e not to enforce
in this manner. However, m at-or/_upgr-a ould provide adequate publicity
about the ordinance andLltle-im -entiral -Tegai-sonse uences for non-compliance.
Also, noticLs.--eeed-5e left on garbage cans or at t residents deter-
..mid-CFbe violating the ordinance.
Mandatory: Enforcement
There is a range of options available to local governments in order to imple-
ment mandatory source separation ordinances. One option is to pass a mandatory
ordinance but not plan to enforce it or enforce it only if there is a complaint
received simiTiFto some nuisance ordinances. However since the intent of the
mandatory ordinance is to increase participation, it may be necessary to use
some form of enforcement to influence the se ment of the pooulation unaffected
ETa well designed and financed promotional campaign. The least restrictive
enforcement method is to simply send a notice to noncomplying residents inform-
ing them of the ordinance, its provisions and encouraging their participation.
More restrictive measures inCTude: tagging the offendor'F -fi-ash can with a vio-
IiTion notice and warning; fining the violator; not collecting the mixed waste
containing recyclables specified for source separation; or the most restrictive
method, requiring community service time of the violator. Each of these
enforcement options has advantages and disadvantages and all assume the cooper-
ation of the refuse collection company to monitor compliance. Each of the
methods, except tFpflast, have been used by_other communities around the
country. The Council should facilitate a research and development effort to
provide for efficient transfer of these experiences and information, especially
as they pertain to costs of enforcement. The implementation program for any
mandatory ordinance will depend on the specific circumstances of each community.
Convenience and Reliable Service
Four factors can determine the level of convenience to the waste generator for
separate collection of recyclables and yard waste: 1) frequency and time of
pickup, 2) degree of preparation that the material requires, 3) provision of
household containers, and 4) degree of reliability for pickup.
48
Once-a-month frequency of collection for recyclables is the minimum that must
be provided to achieve minimally adequate participation rates. Preference
should be given to programs that can provide more frequent service. For
Instance, twice-a-month service can be optimal for separate collection of recy-
clables, depending on the specifics of the community and its program design.
However, because of cost implications, once-a-month shall be the region-wide
standard for those identified urban and suburb-an portions of the Metropolitan
Area.
Frequency for yard waste collection should be once a week during the growing-
season months, especially spring and early summer. This material should not be
allowed to sit unattended for any longer because of potential odor problems
from grass clippings, which are defined as part of compostable yard waste.
Drop-off sites may be provided as an alternative to on-route collection of yard
wastes. However, these sites must be located conveniently enough to achieve
comparable participation rates. Roll-off boxes used to collect yard waste and
then haul it to centralized composting facilities could be provided as an alter-
native to permanently established bins or sites. Neighborhood composting bins,
possibly in conjunction with neighborhood gardens, could also be an acceptable
alternative.
The amount of material preparation required of the generator depends on market
specifications and what the intermediate processing is designed to do. The
region currently has only minimal mechanized processing capacity for recycl-
ables and yard wastes, and therefore the waste generator must prepare materials
to a high degree (for example, removing metal and plastic contaminants from
glass containers). The counties should place a priority on establishing inter-
mediate processing centers for recyclables and yard waste materials so that the
level of convenience to their residents can be improved. Intermediate process-
ing centers should be established on a multicounty basis to optimize haul dis-
tances, efficiencies of scale and cooperative marketing potentials. These
intermediate processing facilities should be operating by 1988 4.41--c.ar-r-ecaa41-446
the 7aneatar .7 cc -Jrc-: -10 ,-e.”ant In the meantime, residents must
continue to separate and clean their materials as needed to provide adequate
quality of supply.
Providing household containers for recyclables adds to the convenience and
personal satisfaction for residents. It can also serve as a publicity tool to
remind neighbors to set out their materials. Counties and municipalities
should give consideration to providing household containers.
Continuous Publicity
Participation cannot be developed, increased or maintained unless a permanent
and well-designed publicity campaign is established for each program. This
essential factor cannot be replaced by other means to achieve high participa-
tion. Content, format and method of delivery are not as important as the con-
tinuous nature of information about the particular program. For instance, it
is desirable to deliver or mail a program notice once every six months, and
preferably more often, for a year-round source separation program for
recyclables.
49
Financial Incentives
Financial incentives include 1) rebates to participants, 2) penalties for non-
compliance, 3) charges per bag or per can of mixed solid waste charges,
4) extra charges for prohibited yard waste materials or recyclables, and
5) deposits on beer and soft drink containers. These options can be developed
in various combinations but cannot replace continuous publicity or convenient
and reliable service. The Council and the counties should el -lc:age in a research
and development proaram to more ru-Tlv explore these types or financial
incentives.
Mandatory container deposit legislation could result in very high recovery
rates for the designated items. Deposits of this type would likely impact the
total waste stream by a minimum of three percent by weight. The increased
volume of material available for recycling can stimulate market development and
expanded or new processing capacity. The Council P^A -efropa'itaa counties
irlmao44-recommends that the Minnesota Legislature enact a state-wide container
deposit program.
Institutional Constraints and Other Issues
The savings of source separation due to avoided haul costs and landfill tipping
charges are most often not realized directly by the recovery program or the
residents. The savings are realized by the mixed-waste haulers not involved
with the source separation program who charge on a per stop basis. A source
separation program will reduce the amount of mixed waste to pick up but not
eliminate the need for pickup sou -;e 7 for such waste. Therefore, mixed waste
haulers would receive the same amount of revenue but have less waste to pick
up, haul and unload at the landfill. Two institutional barriers that can
easily be identified include 1) the lack of organized collection and 2) the
lack of separate accounting for disposal savings.
Most haulers are reluctant to get involved with source separation because it is
not financially attractive enough. Economics are poor if the source separation
program is aimed at potential participants among the haulers customers who are
spread out within a large area. Publicity effectiveness is diluted and collec-
tion efficiencies are lowered. Haulers cannot be expected to serve an entire
area for recyclables or yard waste collection if they do not serve the same
area for mixed waste collection because it would directly benefit their competi-
tion at their own expense. This situation exists because "open hauling" pre-
vails in about 80 percent of the region. Under open hauling arrangements, the
individual homeowner contracts for mixed municipal solid waste collection. One
alternative is to change to organized collection of mixed waste.
The Metropolitan Council is required by state law to study the feasibility of
and implementation mechanisms for organized collection. One of the key aspects
of the Council's study will be research on the following issues:
1. Can municipalities organize solid waste collection services? If not, what
type of legislation is needed?
2. Can counties organize solid waste collection services directly or through
their municipalities? If not, what type of legislation is needed?
3. Can municipalities or counties guarantee haulers that they will be able to
maintain their existing number of accounts if collection is organized?
50
County
Anoka
Carver
Dakota
Hennepin
Ramsey
Scott
Washington
Total
(tonnages
in 1,000s)
Metropolitan
Area (Per nt
of Re
To
18
19
48
1
1995
80
82
80
80
77
83
79
8,669
1996-
2000
80
82
80
80
77
83
79
9,089
2
4
80
There are three major cost sectors within the business of mixed waste removal:
collection involving the actual pickup, transfer or hauling to a landfill, and
landfilling. If the hauling company or the governmental unit that manages the
operations does not provide for separate accounting of these three cost sec-
tors, than it is difficult if not impossible to credit the savings of avoided
costs to source separation.
CENTRALIZED PROCESSING
Recovery Levels and Taroet Dates
A regional system of processing facilities will take four to five years to
establish. The Council estimates that 80 percent of the region's waste can be
managed by centralized processing facilities by 1990. Table 4-7 indicates the
recovery levels expected for each county and the dates by which these levels
can be achieved. In many instances ranges are given because it is difficult
to predict when a processing facility will begin operation and attain its
designated capacity.
Table 4-7
PERCENT RECOVERY BY COUNTY BY YEAR
FOR CENTRALIZED PROCESSING FACILITIES
Processing facilities will be down during maintehance periods or in emergen-
cies. However, most of the waste should still be processed rather than
diverted directly to landfills. Arrangements must be made among processing
plants to assure the continued processing of municipal solid waste. Co-compost-
ing facilities should be able to accommodate additional quantities of waste in
emergency situations.
There are three major cost sectors within the business of mixed waste removal:
'collection involving the actual pickup, transfer or hauling to a landfill, and
landfilling. If the hauling company or the governmental unit that manages the
operations does not provide for separate accounting of these three cost sec-
tors, than it is difficult if not impossible to credit the savings of avoided
costs to source separation.
CENTRALIZED PROCESSING
Recovery Levels and Taraet Dates
A regional system of processing facilities will take four to five years to
establish. The Council estimates that 80 percent of the region's waste can be
managed by centralized processing facilities by 1990. Table 4-7 indicates the
recovery levels expected for each county and the dates by which these levels
can be achieved. In many instances ranges are given because it is difficult
. to predict when a processing facility will begin operation and attain its
designated capacity.
Table 4-7
PERCENT RECOVERY BY COUNTY BY YEAR
FOR CENTRALIZED PROCESSING FACILITIES
1991 1996-
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1995 2000
Anoka 2 2 2 4-37 19-77 80 80 80
Carver 0 0 0 0 0-32 82 82 82
Dakota 2 2 2 4-30 14-70 80 80 80
Hennepin 2 2 2 2-11 11-65 80 80 80
Ramsey 1 1 1 5-62 67-77 77 77 77
Scott 18 18 18 18 18-27 83 83 83
Washington 19 19 19-25 25-59 67-71 79 79 79
Total (tonnages 48 48 81 608 1,445 1,681 8,669 9,089
in 1,000s)
Metropolitan Area 2 2 4 29 69 80 80 80
(Percent of
regional total)
Processing facilities will be down during maintenance periods or in emergen-
cies. However, most of the waste should still be processed rather than
diverted directly to landfills. Arrangements must be made among processing
plants to assure the continued processing of municipal solid waste. Co-Compost-
ing facilities should be able to accommodate additional quantities of waste in
emergencY situations.
County
51
Transfer/Processing
Transfer/processing facilities play a key role in collection of the waste from
a service area and transporting it to other processing facilities. Transfer
stations and their service areas would supply centralized processing, combus-
tion and composting facilities. Transfer stations are likely to be distributed
throughout the region, located in both the central cities and rural freestand-
ing growth centers. Transfer stations in outlying areas would especially be
important to reduce the cost of hauling mixed wastes to the more centrally
located processing facilities. Transfer stations in these areas should be
closely, if not physically, linked with recycling drop-off centers, to increase
efficiencies of service.
Transfer facilities can also be linked with recyclable processing facilities or
in conjunction with mixed-waste processing. This means that a transfer facil-
ity could accept mixed wastes and process it into fuel for transport to a com-
bustion or composting facility. It could also receive and process recyclables
for distribution to their respective markets. These types of facilities will
probably service a larger area and operate for a longer period of time during
the day to capitalize on the investment in equipment. These facilities will
likely be located within the urban service area.
Development of abatement programs and activities will stimulate the need for
more efficient transfer and processing of mixed municipal wastes and recycl-
ables. Existing transfer facilities could be incorporated into the proposed
processing system. Some improvements to the existing transfer stations may be
necessary to meet the needs of the developing system.
Transfer facilities must be compatible with the development of the other pro-
cessing facilities. These facilities must be in operation by 1990.
Waste Combustion
The maximum recovery possible from waste combustion is between 54 and 71 per-
cent of the total waste stream, depending on the technology used. Table 4-8
identifies the percentage of mixed waste that can be managed by combustion
facilities. This table should be used by the counties as a auide for determin-
ing the amount of waste to be manaoed by combustion. Consideration should be
given to implementing facilities that will burn a refuse-derived fuel in exist-
ing facilities. Solid waste composting facilities are an important adjunct to
ROE facilities. These facilities may offer additional recovery beyond the mass-
burn technology by composting the heavy organic fraction of the residuals. In
addition, there are substantial cost savings if existing boilers are modified
to burn ROE rather than constructing new boilers. Energy recovery facilities
that burn ROE may process mixed waste on-site or elect to only receive OF from
the regional transfer stations facilities.
Flexibility is an important consideration in the development of energy recovery
facilities. Combustion facilities that can generate both steam and electricity
are preferred over those that will generate only steam or electricity. In addi-
tion, preferences should be given to those facilities that can absorb addi-
tional volumes of fuel by operating around the clock and whose market for elec-
tricity or steam is large and varied. These elements reduce the public risk.
52
68
68
68
70
70
70
68
68
68
68
68
68
65
65
65
71
71
71
67
67
67
1991- 1996-
1988 1989 1990 1995 2000 County
Anoka
Carver
Dakota
Hennepin
Ramsey
Scott
Washington
Total
(Tonnages
in 1000's)
-N.1216 1987
0 0
0
0 0
2 2 2-
1 1 5-50
18 18 1
19-25 25-50 6
40 40 73 430 1,108
1985
0
0
0
PerceAt'of
2 4 21 54
7,368 7,725
68
68
68
Table 4-8
PERCENTAGE OF MIXED WASTE PROCESSED BY COMBUSTION FACILIT
BY COUNTY BY YEAR
Solid'Waste Composting
Solid waste composting facilities will play an important role in managing the
region's mixed municipal solid waste. Products and markets must be developed
prior to implementing large-scale co-compost facilities. At a minimum the
counties should implement a three-year, composting demonstration project. T
h
e
purpose of the demonstration project is to determine the process requirement
s
and costs necessary to produce a marketable compost product. The project
should evaluate the use of sewage sludge and septage as a feedstock materia
l
t
o
compost mixed municipal solid waste. The counties will need to coordinate
their efforts with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and/or septage
haulers to obtain adequate quantities of sewage sludge or septage for the
project if these are the selected sources of feedstock.
The counties should consider developing at least two demonstration faciliti
e
s
to provide additional flexibility and variety in experimentation. The faci
l
i
-
ties may employ a variety of methods to compost the sludge or septage and s
o
l
i
d
waste. The facility design should be able to accommodate changing demonstr
a
-
tion needs or product marketing requirements. Completely enclosed mechanic
a
l
composting facilities including in-vessel reactors should be considered at
t
h
i
s
time. These larger, more capital intensive facilitites require more secure
market commitments.
The facility should produce a variety of final rroducts for evaluation and
m
a
r
-
ket development. Potential users of the end product should be involved in ev
a
l
-
uating the final products produced by the facility. These users should compa
r
e
the performance of the co-compost with other soil amendments or additives nor-
mally used. Public agencies or private organizations should use the co-compo
s
t
product on a trial basis. The demonstration project should begin in 1985. T
h
e
existing composting facilities must be expanded in 1988, 1989 and 1990 to
accommodate the flow of organic residuals from processing facilities that wil
l
come on-line later in the decade. A schedule for implementing the co-compost
-
ing facilities is shown in Table 4-9.
Table 4-8
PERCENTAGE OF MIXED WASTE PROCESSED BY COMBUSTION FACILITIES
BY COUNTY BY YEAR
1991- 1996-
County 1985 1§86 1987 1988 1989 1990 1995 2000
Anoka 0 0 0 0-15 15-50 56 56 56
Carver 0 0 0 0 0-25 58 58 58
Dakota 0 0 0 0-10 10-50 56 56 56
Hennepin 2 2 2 2-10 10-50 56 56 56
Ramsey 1 1 1-5 5-50 55 55 55 55
Scott 18 18 18 18 18 72 . 72 72
Washington 19 19 19-25 25-50 60 68 68 68
Total (ton- 40 40 73 444 1,091 1,191 6,068 6,362
nages in 1000s)
Percent of
region
2 2 4 21 52 57 57 57
Solid Waste Composting
Solid waste composting facilities will play an important role in managing the
region's mixed municipal solid waste. Products and markets must be developed
prior to implementing large-scale co-compost facilities. At a minimum the
counties should implement a three-year, composting demonstration project. The
purpose of the demonstration project is to determine the process requirements
and costs necessary to produce a marketable compost product. The project
should evaluate the use of sewage sludge and septage as a feedstock material to
compost mixed municipal solid waste. The counties will need to coordinate
their efforts with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and/or septage
haulers to obtain adequate quantities of sewage sludge or septage for the
project if these are the selected sources of feedstock.
The counties should consider developing at least two demonstration facilities
to provide additional flexibility and variety in experimentation. The facili-
ties may employ a variety of methods to compost the sludge or septage and solid
waste. The facility design should be able to accommodate changing demonstra-
tion needs or product marketing requirements. Completely enclosed mechanical
composting facilities including in-vessel reactors should be considered at this
time. These larger, more capital intensive facilitites require more secure
market commitments.
The facility should produce a variety of final products for evaluation and mar-
ket development. Potential users of the end product should be involved in eval-
uating the final products produced by the facility. These users should compare
the performance of the co-compost with other soil amendments or additives nor-
mally used. Public agencies or private organizations should use the co-compost
product on a trial basis. The demonstration project should begin in 1985. The
existing composting facilities must be expanded in 1988, 1989 and 1990 to
accommodate the flow of organic residuals from processing facilities that will
come on-line later in the decade. A schedule -f.erent-i-ftg—t-iie that guides
implementation of co-composting facilities is shown in Table 4-9.
53
County
Anoka
Carver
Dakota
Hennepin
Ramsey
Scott
Washington
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
2 4 -7
0 0 0-4
4-7
0 0-1 1-7
7-12
0-4 o 2
0
1-7
19
Table 4-9
PERCENTAGE OF MIXED WASTE PROCESSED BY CO-COMPOSTING FACILITI
BY COUNTY BY YEAR
Proposed Roles and Responsibilities
Centralized Management and Coordination
Centralized management and coordination refers to the need to manage wastes
from its generation to final disposal. Centralized management and coordination
are necessary to construct and operate a new waste management system for the
region. The new system will use a broad spectrum of facilities that includes
transfer stations, facilities that are capable of processing mixed wastes into
RDF and/or recyclables for market, and waste combustion and co-composting
facilities.
These facilities operate together and are dependent upon each other. Transfer
stations supply processing facilities with mixed wastes. Processing facilities
supply combustion and co-composting facilities with processed waste. Changes
in the capability or operation of one facility could affect the operation of
other facilities. Therefore, it is important to establish a management system
to coordinate the operations of the facilities within the system. Centralized
management and coordination would ensure the facilites are operating
efficiently.
A centralized management system could also ensure flexibility in the use of
facilities. For example, the operation of one facility could be expanded to
manage wastes coming from another facility tfiat is down for maintenance or
repairs. Thus, waste services are still made available to the hauler and waste
generator with a minimum of inconvenience.
Waste service areas for all types of processing facilities will likely cross
county boundaries. Therefore, it is important for counties to work together in
developing processing facilities. There are several methods available to the
counties in working together to implement processing facilities. One option is
for those counties to establish a joint-powers agreement. The other option
Table 4-9
PERCENTAGE OF MIXED WASTE PROCESSED BY CO-COMPOSTING FACILITIES
BY COUNTY BY YEAR
County
Anoka
Carver
Dakota
Hennepin
Ramsey
Scott
Washington
1991- 1996-
1985 1986 1987 1988 ' 1989 1990 1995 2000
•
2 2 2 4-22 4-22 24 24 24
0 0 0 0 0-7 24 24 24
2 2 2 4-20 4-20 24 24 2 4
0 0 0 0-1 1-15 24 24 24
0 0 0 1-12 12-22 22 22 22
0 0 0 0 0-2 11 11 11
0 0 0 1-9 7-11 11 11 11
Total (ton- 7
7 7 164 355 490 2,601 2,727
nages in 1000s)
Percent of
region 0.4 0.4 0.4 8 17 23 23 23
Proposed Roles and Responsibilities
Centralized Management and Coordination
Centralized management and coordination refers to the need to manage wastes
from its generation to final disposal. Centralized management and coordination
are necessary to construct and operate a new waste management system for the
region. The new system will use a broad spectrum of facilities that includes
transfer stations, facilities that are capable of processing mixed wastes into
RDF and/or recyclables for market, and waste combustion and co-composting
facilities.
These facilities operate together and are dependent upon each other. Transfer
stations supply processing facilities with mixed wastes. Processing facilities
supply combustion and co-composting facilities with processed waste. Changes
in the capability or operation of one facility could affect the operation of
other facilities. Therefore, it is important to establish a management system
to coordinate the operations of the facilities within the system. Centralized
management and coordination would ensure the facilites are operating
efficiently.
A centralized management system could also ensure flexibility in the use of
facilities. For example, the operation of one facility could be expanded to
manage wastes coming from another facility that is down for maintenance or
repairs. Thus, waste services are still made available to the hauler and waste
generator with a minimum of inconvenience.
Waste service areas for all types of processing facilities will likely cross
county boundaries. Therefore, it is important for counties to work together in
developing processing facilities. There are several methods available to the
counties in working together to implement processing facilities. One option is
for those counties to establish a joint-powers agreement. The other option
54
available to the counties immediately or in the near future is to establish
solid waste management districts. Districts have the same duties and authori-
ties as counties that are needed to implement processing facilities. Districts
are more likely to be established once the basic waste management services and
facilities are implemented.
A third option is for counties to make contractural arrangements with each
other. One county could contract for waste processing services with a facility
owned by another county. A county could also contract directly with the owner
of a waste facility. The other option is for counties to coordinate their pro-
grams or facilities.
The centralized processing facilities can be owned by the counties, other pub-
lic entities or private companies. First preference is given to those facili-
ties that are privately owned, operated and maintained.
With guarantees by the county that mixed waste will be delivered to the mixed
waste processing facility, it will be more likely that these facilities will
obtain adequate long-term financing. There are several methods by which coun-
ties could provide guarantees that waste will be delivered to processing facili-
ties. These include contracts with haulers, municipalities or counties, or a
waste designation plan and ordinance. These mechanisms have advantages and
disadvantages and the mechanism used depends on the circumstances and condi-
tions under which the guarantee is needed.
Contracts with haulers have been used to supply waste to small processing
facilities such as modular combustion units. However, this method has severe
drawbacks for larger processing facilities where large amounts of waste are
needed. Because haulers only awn or control the waste when the consumer pur-
chases the waste haulers's service, there is nothing to prevent consumers from
switching haulers at any time.
Contracts with municipalities could offer additional certainty for the county
if municipalities could contract with the county for waste processing services
and with others for collection and transport of the waste to the transfer and/
or processing facilities. However, few municipalities in the Metropolitan Area
have municipal or organized collection services. This matter will be explored
in the organized collection study to be prepared by the Council in 1985.
The use of economic incentives eliminates or reduces the disparity in tipping
fees between the facility and the landfill. Another source of revenue is
needed to keep the tipping fee at the facility low enough to ensure that the
waste will be delivered to the facility. Determining how to subsidize the
tipping fee and convincing the financial community that waste will be delivered
to the facility are key disadvantages.
Another method to provide waste to a facility is through designation. A desig-
nation plan and ordinance established by the county provides a direct legal
requirement that waste be delivered to a resource recovery facility. Designa-
tion assures a waste supply to a facility and provides enough certainty to
finance the facility. Designation plans and ordinances must be approved by the
Council (see criteria for reviewing designation proposals in the appendix).
55
Subregional Service Areas
Overview
Counties should work together to capitalize on opportunities to develop waste
processing facilities. County cooperation could achieve significant economies
of scale and reduce duplicative facilities and services for natural service
areas. County cooperation ensures more efficient facility sizes, locations
and operation, and overall system flexibility.
Combinations of counties that should work together are:
I. Anoka and Hennepin;
2. Dakota and Hennepin;
3. Dakota, Ramsey and Washington; and
4. Carver and Scott.
Anoka and Hennepin Counties
There are several reasons why Anoka and Hennepin Counties should work together
to establish processing facilities. The available landfill capacity in the
northern region of the Metropolitan Area is in short supply. There is a need
to expedite the development of processing facilities to handle the waste gener-
ated in this area. A significant portion of the waste generated in Anoka
County is immediately east of the Mississippi River, which separates the coun-
ties and is close to the potential sites being explored by Hennepin County for
processing facilities. In addition, Anoka County itself may not generate
enough waste to capitalize on the economy of scale a large processing facility
affords.
The counties should consider establishing a transfer station with recyclables
and mixed waste processing to service the northwestern region of the Metropol-
itan Area. The counties may consider implementing a waste combustion facility
for RDF in conjunction with Northern States Power Company (NSP) and United
Power Association at its facility in Elk River.
Dakota and Hennepin Counties
Dakota County should cooperate with Hennepin County to establish waste process-
ing facilities. Dakota County may not generate enough waste alone to support a
large processing facility. A significant portion of the waste generated in
Dakota County is located in the northwestern reaches of the county, specifi-
cally Eagan, Apple Valley, Burnsville and Lakeville. Both Dakota and Hennepin
County areas that generate waste are closely linked by major transportation
routes and are serviced by two existing landfills.
Dakota County should work with Hennepin County to establish waste processing
facilities to service this area. A potential market for incineration of ROE is
NSP's Black Dog electrical generating facility. The area also contains poten-
tial sites for locating other waste facilities such as transfer stations,
recyclable processing and co-composting facilities. There are significant
opportunities to explore the potential of a co-compost facility in this area
because two Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) sewaage treatment
plants are located nearby. Both the MWCC and University of Minnesota have
large landholdings in the county that could be used for a co-compost demonstra-
tion project. The University of Minnesota has the expertise to evaluate com-
post as a soil amendment and its environmental impacts.
56
• Dakota, Ramsey and Washington Counties
Ramsey and Washington Counties have a joint-powers agreement to implement waste
processing facility to service both counties. The proposed locations of these
facilities are such that, they could easily service the waste generating area of
northeastern Dakota County. A significant portion of the waste generated in
the northern and eastern portions of Dakota County is within minutes of pro-
posed locations for a wate processing facility to serve Ramsey and Washington
Counties. Furthermore, there are indications from Ramsey and Washington Coun-
ties that the proposed processing facility will be oversized or be amenable to
modification for processing additional wastes. In addition, these counties
should capitalize on the opportunity to experiment with co-compost because of
the close proximity to MWCC wastewater treatment plants.
Carver and Scott Counties
'Carver and Scott Counties should cooperate together because most of the waste
generated within the two counties is serviced by one landfill. The major areas
generating waste, Shakopee, Chaska and Chanhassen, for both counties are
located within relatively close to each other and are connected by major
highways. In addition, neither county by itself generates sufficient
quantities of wastes to implement but the smallest of modular combustion
units. Cooperation in implementing a joint waste management system could
reduce overall transportation and processing costs.
Carver and Scott counties should consider establishing waste processing facili-
ties to serve the counties. It is important for each county to establish con-
venient locations for transfer of mixed waste and recyclables from drop-off
locations to processing facilities. The counties should evaluate potential
energy markets in the Shakopee and Chaska and Chanhassen area. The counties
should also evaluate the potential for composting their waste with sludge pro-
duced at the Blue Lake Treatment Plant. Sludge processing equipment has not
yet been installed at the plant, which means equipment modifications could be
made to accommodate composting activities.
A potential market for incineration of RDF is NSP's Black Dog electrical genera-
ting facility or its facility in Mankato. Other potential energy or RDF mar-
kets may exist in the industrial areas near Shakopee, Chnhassen and Chaska.
Barriers to Implementation
There are potential barriers that may have to be overcome to implement central-
ized processing in the Metropolitan Area. These barriers include siting, empha-
sis on private sector involvement and markets. Probably the most significant
barrier is siting.
The location of sites for waste processing facilities and transfer stations is
difficult. Like landfills, people who live near proposed facilites object to
the facility being located in their neighborhood. Public health and property
value impacts are often cited as major concerns.
The legislative emphasis on private sector involvement has slowed the process
down. The private sector will not make investments in resource recovery with-
out certainty that the waste will not continue to go to land disposal facili-
ties. A resource recovery system cannot compete on price with the existing low-
cost system emphasizing landfills.
57
Solid waste as a fuel must compete with other sources of energy such as coal,
natural gas and oil. Low fuel prices discourages the use of solid waste as a
fuel. The effort needed to produce OF and the inherent difficulty in assuring
a known waste supply, has also discouraged the use of RDF. Similarly, compost
has not been available for use and testing by potential users. The low cost of
peat, nitrogen fertilizer and other soil amendments have hindered the develop-
ment and use of composted solid wastes.
MARKET DEVELOPMENT
Overview
Market development is any activity undertaken by business or government that
will directly or indirectly result in expanded or new consumption by end users
of materials and energy derived from solid waste. Market development should be
comprised of many strategies aimed at increasing both supply and demand of mate-
rials and energy. It is very important that equal consideration is given to
the need for expansion and development of materials and energy markets along
with the collection and processing of solid waste.
There are a wide variety of existing market development efforts around the
country and in Minnesota. In addition, the recent amendments to the Minnesota
Waste Management Act authorize several market development incentives and
research activities. The amendments provide two tax incentives 1) an invest-.
ment credit of 10 percent of the cost of equipment used for solid or hazardous
waste processing at a resource recovery facility, and 2) an exemption from
sales tax on the same type of equipment. It will be very important to publi-
cize the investment opportunities made available by the tax credit and to
monitor the extent of its application.
The Council has initiated preliminary research on the constraints and opportu-
nities for market development in the region. Energy market conditions are con-
strained by certain technical, economic and institutional barriers. The
relatively low cost of competing conventional fuel supplies, especially coal,
is one of the more important economic constraints. There are a variety of
other complex factors which inhibit demand for secondary materials including
constraints on end users and suppliers.
Each specific industry must be examined as an individual case to adequately
understand the problems and opportunities for growth. Indications are that
specific materials markets should receive emphasis on the development of demand
(plastics, magazines, rubber, and compost) and other materials markets should
receive emphasis on collection and processing (glass, old corrugated contain-
ers, high grade papers). Other materials are more borderline suggesting a need
for both development of supply and demand (newspaper, mixed waste paper, fer-
rous, aluminum, other non-ferrous). Certain specialized materials have a more
uncertain status including: housewares, demolition debris, tree and brush
wastes, waste oil, and batteries.
Proposed 'Roles and Responsibilities
Table 4-10 displays some of the proposed roles and responsibilities for the
various government agencies, levels of government and solid waste markets. The
Council should provide overall coordination to assure that a market develop-
ment Program is fully in_place by 19867—The Council can bring together
pertinent governmental units and private sector representatives to set up a
58
Table 4-10
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR IMPLEMENTING A
REGIONAL MARKET DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Primary Implementor
Metropolitan
Council
Roles and Responsibilities
- Coordinate initiation of a regional market development
program with other affected agencies.
- Publish a newsletter on solid waste communications.
- Facilitate centralized coordination of regional
communications.
- Continue to publish Recycle It! directory.
- Publish directory of secondary materials markets.
- Study the need for and feasibility of an information
reporting system to collect data on supply and demand
estimates.
- Investigate other states' market development programs.
- Examine the need to remove 10 percent cap on market
development allocations from grant/loan program.
- Continue and expand purchase of recycled products
(especially paper).
- Assist University of Minnesota with compost research
program.
Minnesota Department - Assist Council with initiation of a regional market
of Energy and development program.
Economic Development - Maintain permanent state-wide market development
(DEED) program.
C.cmm:tctnt to coorination o state activ:tcs can
Cities or Townships
Secondary Material
or Energy Markets
Assist with the development and implementatfon of the
market development program.
- Continue and expand purchase of recycled products
(especially paper, recapped tires, compost, concrete,
wood products).
- Develop demonstration program for co-composting
process technology.
- Assist University of Minnesota with compost research
program.
- Develop technical assistance programs to promote small
energy recovery projects for in-house utilization.
- Continue and expand purchase of recycled products
(especially paper, recapped tires, compose, concrete,
wood products).
- Cooperate and assist with Council and DEED initiation
of regional and state-wide market development programs
- Develop independent recommendations for legislation
and other government action.
Minnesota Pollution
Control AoencTP"1PCA)
and Deoartment of
Administration
Counties
59
program do basic research and identify_ppportunities and needs, and monitor
.market development oroaress in the reaion. The market development activities
proposed for the Council, in some cases, are the same activities proposed for
the Council in the regional solid waste communications program.
The Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development (DEED) should take
on a the leadership role for market development among the state agencies.
DEED, because of its economic development assistance role in other areas, seems
appropriateTTsuited to tne responsibility. The agency, working_ clEsely with
local units of aovernment, should directly assist in the location of new
markets and the expansion of existina ones. Other State agencies that are or
should be involved with solid waste market development are:
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
Minnesota Waste Management Board (WMB)
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Department of Administration
Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
All levels of government and involved agencies should adopt a procurement
policy that favors purchase of recycled products where possible. One of the
metropolitan counties should take the lead on a co-composting demonstration to
provide the University of Minnesota with enough product to test. This demon-
stration should c7,..f.e be a temporary commitment. The cooperation and involve-
ment of industries that are or could be secondary materials and energy markets
is essential to the program's success.
COMMUNICATION OF SOLID WASTE INFORMATION
Overview
There are three basic sectors involved in the solid waste management system:
1) the individual generators (residences and businesses), 2) the solid waste
service providers (waste/recyclables collection and processing firms -and agen-
cies), and 3) planning and regulatory governmental agencies and units. Each of
the sectors must be informed and coordinated if the Council's goals and poli-
cies outlined in this plan are to be realized. Therefore, a cohesive, regional
communications network must be established.
Many ongoing communications efforts currently exist in the region (for example,
haulers billing notices, county and city recycling program publicity, plan and
project media coverage). These are most often operated independently without
regard to overlap of audience, duplication of effort, or efficiency with
respect to the other communications programs.
Proposed Roles and Responsibilities
The govcrn77.2rt s7:tor Metropolitan Council must take a the leadership role
in establishina a reaionwide communications prooram to provide the tools and
opportunities for effective and efficient communications. A number of other
governmental units, particularly the metropolitan counties, must also assume
malorroles, Neither private industry nor the individual generators can —Si
expected to consider enough of the entire solid waste management system to
coordinate a regional communications system effectively. However, all sectors
should contribute to be involved in planning, coordinating and implementing
the regional communications program, especially those providers that have
existing public awareness campaigns (see Table 4-11).
60
Table 4-11
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR IMPLEMENTING A
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM
Counties
Cities or Townships
Schools
Roles and Responsibilities
- Facilitate centralized coordination of regional
communications.
- Publish newsletter on solid waste.
- Continue to publish Recycle It! directory of regional
recycling services.
- Continue development of computer-phone network for
access to Recycle It! listings.
- Publish technical assistance literature for use by
counties and municipalities.
- Provide person-to-person technical assistance for
counties and municipalities.
- Implement region-wide publicity strategies including
broadcast or electronic media.
- Plan and supervise publicity campaigns for county-wide
reduction and recovery programs.
- Implement certain county-wide publicity tools (for
example, daily newspapers).
- Assist with regional coordination.
- Provide technical assistance to municipalities.
- Implement certain local publicity tools identified by
county (for example, flyers, neighborhood meetings,
newsletters, municipal utility bills).
- Assist with regional coordination.
- Assist with development and implementation of solid
waste curriculum.
Primary Implementor
Metropolitan
Council
Private Service - Implement publicity for individual programs.
Providers - Advise county about specific needs for assistance
- Assist with regional coordination.
Environmental and - Assist with the development and implementation of the
Other Citizen Groups public education program.
Minnesota Pollution - Implement state-wide publicity strategies.
Control Agency - Facilitate state-wide coordination.
- Provide technical assistance.
61
Metropolitan Council should build upon its already existing community involve-
ment framework (sometimes called "citizen participation program") to increase
the quality and cost-effectiveness of input to solid waste planning processes
throughout the region. Specific standards should be established for public
input for the development of the counties' solid waste master plans and
resource recovery projects.
The Council should form a technical advisory dommittee.for regional public edu-
cation and awareness to coordinate44-solid waste awareness and publicity
efforts in the Metropolitan Area. This committee could be formed on a volun-
tary basis and serve in an limited advisory capacity to the Council and coun-
ties. Members of this committee should include key staff representatives of
the following agencies and groups: Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Inter-
County Association (MICA), each of the seven counties, MPCA, Minnesota Waste
Management Board, Department of Energy and Economic Development, Minnesota
Environmental Education Board (MEEB), Minnesota Waste Management Association,
the Minnesota Chapter of the Governmental Refuse Collection and Dispposal
Association (GRCDA), recyclers, Business and Industry Recycling Program (BIRP),
and Minnesota Association of Commerce and Industry (MACI). This committee
should be an active coordinating and implementing body charged with several
tasks including:
Develop nonbinding recommendations for a long-term, action-oriented public
awareness and education implementation program for the region. This pro-
gram should address in more detail 1) the roles of each of the key agen-
cies and provider groups, 2) sources of funding, and 3) ongoing perform-
ance monitoring of various publicity efforts. This program could then be
adopted by each of the various key agencies and provider groups at their
discretion:
- Coordinate and promote cooperation between ongoing and future publicity
programs to optimize cost-effectiveness of individual and collective
efforts.
- Advise the Council and counties on communications policies, priorities and
implementation needs.
The public education and awareness technical advisory committee should not
attempt to implement communications activities directly but rather suggest
appropriate assignments of actual tasks to appropriate agencies or provider
groups. General categories of the public relations tools that should be con-
sidered are image/identity issues, print media, broadcast media, special
events, and networking. The preliminary work of the Council's Metropolitan
Waste Management Advisory Committee's Subcommittee on Communications and Market
Development could be used as an inigal guide for this committee. Each of the
seven metropolitan counties should delegate a key representative to the
regional communications advisory committee. This person should be a staff
member familiar with ongoing and planned solid waste publicity efforts in
his/her county. Eventually, it is expected that the counties will ultimately
become responsible for these communication efforts.
The counties should assume ultimate responsibility for implementing campaigns
for specific waste reduction/recovery projects and programs. This role could
include I) actual funding of publicity strategies, 2) contracting for services,
3) monitoring performance of municipal programs, or 4) staffing of certain pro-
jects. The counties may not need to provide the service directly, but should
62
ensure the service or information is available. Vehicles most appropriate for
county implementation may include daily newspapers. Individual county commis-
sioners should provide the necessary leadership by offering to assist in the
general public awareness campaign elements.
Municipalities should be encouraged to get directly involved in the publicity
campaigns of programs and projects providing service in their area. If a city
or township is not actually providing the service, it should consider using its
potential "cost recovery" funds from the Metropolitan Landfill Abatement Fund
to assist with the publicity of services of other providers. Municipalities
can also help greatly by identifying important community organizations that may
wish to assist with the publicity of specific projects. Also, municipal
utility bills (e.g., water, sewer) should be considered as appropriate vehicles
for literature about solid waste programs and/or problems.
The individual companies that provide solid waste and recyclables collection
services are in the best position to know the needs of their specific program.
Therefore, it should be the providers primary responsibility to publicize the
specifics about their project especially as it aimed at encouraging resident
participation in a specific manner. Governmental units and agencies that are
not directly providing the service can assist with these efforts but should
assume secondary responsibility.
LAND DISPOSAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
The land disposal development program allocates the needed land disposal capa-
city in the region between 1985 through the year 2000. The development program
will be used to make decisions, through permits and certificates of need, where
and when new land disposal capacity will developed. The program applies to
both the final siting of new facilities and the expansion of existing land dis-
posal facilities. The program contains a land disposal development schedule
that allocates capacity on a county basis. The Council will review the land-
fill development schedule every year and will revise the schedule based on the
progress made towards attainment of the waste reduction/recovery objectives.
Land disposal facilities will continue to play a significant albeit diminished
role in the region as an operating component of the future solid waste manage-
ment system. Residues such as ash from incineration facilities and nonbiode-
gradeable substances screened out of co-compost will probably be handled by
land disposal facilities. Future abatement efforts may show the potential to
recycle the residuals for productive purposes; however, additional research is
needed.
There is significant capacity remaining in the existing landfill system. This
capacity needs to be carefully managed to prevent the premature development of
new land disposal facilities. Implementation of the waste reduction and
resource recovery development program will significantly reduce the amount of
waste requiring land disposal, by about 50 percent. This reduction in volume
increases the operating period of the existing land disposal system and delays
the point in time at which new facilities are developed.
Land disposal capacity will be needed to handle special wastes, such as demoli-
tion debris. Some of these wastes are unique to certain industrial generators
and may require special handling procedures or landfill design requirements.
63
Oftentimes these wastes are not easily separated or must be kept separate f
r
o
m
'ash or mixed municipal solid wastes. Therefore, industrial generators ofte
n
have their own landfill for their special wastes. In other circumstances
special wastes can be safely disposed at a mixed waste landfill with the oth
e
r
wastes or in a separate area. The counties will determine the quantities of
special wastes that must be managed in their study of commercial and industr
i
a
l
waste generation that will be completed in 1985.
ALLOCATION OF LAND DISPOSAL CAPACITY
Capacity, location and operational factors must be considered in the develo
p
-
ment of new land disposal capacity. Adequate capacity is needed to ensure the
continued efficient operation of the solid waste management system. Locational
factors such as accessibility and convenience are also important. Operational
factors such as how many years a facility operates is important to the host
community.
Waste generation rates are not expected to change significantly in the future
so any increases in the total quantities of waste will occur due to population
and employment growth. County land 'disposal capacity can be dropped from fur-
ther consideration at any time, but the acquisition of capacity by the counti
e
s
can only occur once. After the counties select their proposed sites, sites
eliminated from the inventory cannot be reconsidered for county acquisition
with regional funds at a later date. Therefore, the Council must make sure
that its forecast of required landfill capacity is sufficient to meet land di
s
-
posal needs through the year 2000.
The landfill development schedule is be based upon the Council's waste genera
-
tion and solid waste abatement projections. The volume of disposal capacity
needed is based on the waste reduction/resource recovery development schedule
.
At the same time however, the region should avoid the implementation of new
capacity that is not needed in the immediate future. Excess capacity could
defer action on the implementation of alternative methods of waste management
.
Remaining capacity should be kept below a certain level to help ensure that
landfilling is the solid waste management option of last resort and encourag
e
the development of abatement programs.
Currently, the Metropolitan Area is served by eight landfills located in fou
r
of the seven counties. The southern portion of the region is saturated with
capacity whereas the northern portion has a paucity of capacity. Too few o
r
a
poor distribution of landfills in the region could result in excessive haul
distances and leave the region vulnerable to interruptions in service if pr
o
b
-
lems occurred at any of the sites. Sites must be distributed in such a way as
to best serve the region with a minimum number of sites.
The location of existing land disposal capacity and potential processing fa
c
i
l
i
-
ties were used to determine where new facilities must be located in the
region. The Council will review the development schedule annually to make
adjustments to the schedule or the allocation of disposal capacity required.
Capacity can be reduced if abatement facilities and programs exceed the objec-
tives of the waste reduction/resource recovery development schedule. In addi-
tion, an increase in landfill capacity of one county, due to an expansion of a
n
existing landfill or development of a new private landfill, will substitute fo
r
the regional capacity needs.
64
Finally, the limited number of operating landfills in the future could mean
that individual sites may play an even more prominent role in the solid waste
system.
Landfills should operate long enough to avoid frequent turnover in sites. Land-
fills should not be operational for such a length of time that they are per-
ceived as conflicting with Council policy that. landfilling be an interim land
use. However, landfills accepting only residuals from processing facilities
will have significantly less nuisance impacts on adjacent properties. A land-
fill of significant size that accepts only residuals could be in operation for
much longer than 10 years.
LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
Table 4-12 displays the the amount of solid waste that the Council estimates
each county will need to landfill assuming the waste reduction/recovery sched-
ule is implemented. Several assumptions provide the basis for calculating the
volumes estimated in Table 4-12. Residuals will be produced from any recovery
technology due to facility downtime, materials rejected because they are not
marketable, or ash from energy recovery combustion. For the period from 1985
through 1990, it is assumed that 40 percent of all waste handled by reduction/
recovery technologies will be returned as residuals still requiring landfill-
ing. For the period from 1991 through 2000, it is assumed that this rate is
lowered to 30 percent of the waste received will be returned as residuals due
to the development of complementing technologies such as co-composting and
energy recovery.
Total landfill capacity needed for the region from 1985 through the year 2000
is 20,605 acre-feet. Currently the capacity of the existing landfills is esti-
mated at 12,3E-0 11,909 acre-feet, not including any of the proposed expansions
that have approvirdecisions currently pending. Consequently,47174.=4- 8 726 acre-
feet of new capacity is needed to meet the region's needs. The assumptions are
that unprocessed waste and residuals will require one-acre foot of landfill
space for every 806.5 tons and existing landfill capacity remaining as of Jan.
1, 1985 is 13,2S-0 11,909 acre-feet.
Table 4-13 shows the landfill development schedule for each county in terms of
number and capacity of landfills. If the need for new landfill space is
reduced, the capacity allocations will be adjusted accordingly. Also, it is
assumed that new landfills will be permitted in phases of capacity increments
that will allow for implementation of any reductions made to this development
schedule. The total regional capacity limitation of -71444-8,726 acre-feet
cannot be exceeded. The capacity allocation to one county may be substituted
as long as there is a corresponding reduction of capacity required in another
county.
The opening dates in the development schedule should be considered as approxi-
mate guidelines for planning purposes. While the capacity allocations are
based on the region's needs through the year 2000, it is important to under-
stand that the life of the facilities could extend beyond that date. The
capacity allocated is for the disposal of residuals from waste processing and
recovery activities. To allow for the development of large-scale, centralized
processing facilities, however, short-term disposal of unprocessed waste on an
interim basis may be approvable in some circumstances. Alternatives for as
much of the capacity as possible must be pursued by the Council and the metro-
politan counties. While this capacity may be best suited for disposal of resi-
duals, recycling of the ash may further reduce the needed landfill capacity.
Also development of private sites may reduce needed capacity.
65
Cumulative 1985-2000 283 305 1,418 53 61 258 341 389 1,677 1991- 1996- 1995 2000 Table 4-12 ESTIMATED SOLID WASTE REMAINING AFTER REDUCTION/RECOVERY (in thousands of tons) Anoka Carver Dakota 172 174 178 177 164 82 a% cY. Hennepin 995 982 976 962 880 424 1,618 1,672 8,509 Ramsey 466 455 435 430 266 194 729 734 3,709 Scott 32 33 33 33 32 17 67 ' 73 320 Washington 73 74 76 73 54 40 161 176 727 Metropolitan Area 1,920 1,900 1,882 1,856 1,556 842 3,252 3,410. 16,618 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 155 156 157 154 136 72 27 26 27 27 24 13
Table 4-13
LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
County
Anoka
Carver
Dakota
Hennepin
Ramsey
Scott
Washington
Regional Total
Number of
Sites for
Development
• Capacity
of Site
(Acre-feell
Proposed
Opening
Date
One
None
None
One
None
None
One
3,000
3,232
2494
1987
1991
1993
. Three
8,726
The landfill capacity for Anoka County was allocated based on the acute need
for additional capacity in the northern part of the region. There is currently
only one mixed municipal solid waste landfill in the county that serves the
region and it is anticipated to reach its permitted capacity by the end of
1986.
The landfill capacity for Hennepin County was allocated because of the need to
provide adequate disposal for resdivals to help assure the success of any pro-
posed Hennepin County recovery project.
The new landfill capacity allocation for Washington County implies that the
Lake Elmo candidate site would be developed since it is the only site in the
inventory in that county. Development of this site is scheduled for 1905 1993
because existing capacity in the southern portion of the region will adequately
serve the disposal needs until then. The Lake Elmo site is located entirely
'within the LeKe Elmo Regional Park Reserve.
ACQUISITION PROCEDURES
Figure 4-2 is a map showing the candidate landfill sites in the regional inven-
tory. As described in Part 1 of this plan, these potential sites were selected
by the counties and/or the Council as required by the Waste Management Act.
The counties allocated capacity in the landfill development schedule must
select the final sites from the approved candidate site inventory or through
private site development. For counties that are not allocated capacity for
future development, the county inventory is terminated.
67
......
c•o.
I Try Oak Grove
(D)
ANOKA CO '11
n?
81.09.8 I
June 1984
I .E• SE.NO.
.0*(1,1.A.
Figure 4-2
METROPOLITAN COUNTIES' CANDIDATE SANITARY LANDFILL SITES
n—n — n n
..... lt L,
--------- I ; , ..... ,-,- •,...._____r-
1 ...... ..; . ..... „..,, ..c.,,,,S,,,,..,,„„.../...4, ,..;:...•,..,-,,..„,,.....,.... ; „ ...... 44.
'!"';‘,*---rrt'.--7,•-;,M I .N...0.. wil.f..• I ) . ....
i
Ha. ... q ...". 414) I, c.Chaska/Laketown 1 ... ri ,,,..
...: - ....•,‘,...7,..
1 c...... , .....,... ot.:2),---E1 ,-(C) 1 ,,,.,• .....
1 Laketown - C h a nhassen
c...„..f (0) (0)
; -7 ,
Greenfield 1 Co.
Corcoran ',bell..
- n LI (E); 1 ............
"' 1 HENNEPIN
ma., '. " k, .". A75:41""›
I 3.11.......•
•e• S ..,,,,,, Ge•s0 ".u.,-.7./
I 1 cTiliFi
--,--, , .. .01.101 ..'r'..5. . i S n rt7 ...
"1_71...a.
14.: ail, 11(;1..P.P e n c! e nc e
I, ..„ NJ)-..-• ; • t - ' ..... ''' ir ;i1,,-7,-.'. \ 7 - ..... '-::: .,r ..•1 i .t.4.n itr. ..... : --J 1_
MP. i ...--.....-. ac eis101. l—,,, , ,, ., Ler s ,...• ..... .
h‘.1r t
i
1 rums!, 1C—c-1.1 1 0 .
1 ica
,
Lake Elmo_
-, I I (a ) Iv . c.o., se : c 1,
...... :
C O.
1—
Of..filoil
1 , ,,
1 L._
c.., a,„, ,", Li niaren ! .L.: --, i -,-- ' "-- ' """'"' Rosemount
, (U) r--I Louisville .--' "" I i
L.::`,? ...1 I CD) -..
. •...ror• .
t-- --' , ,....•........-, I , I•ev.--u—i 1 Emoir e /Rosemount r-
...
11.114. n
l a.. we • ,'
1
i
i tr. ,1..{..•
11 ,
L. _____I , 0 ....,.....
V n ••••14r I ' I I
1
1 SCOTT CO Sprinc Lake!
New Market 1
L. _L
1
•
1
...0.. Clet.:.n ila i.-73 I
1 --- , r r.,„, %.,_ j • amf ; I ( a
-1-
I I lit • .I“. I
• '*". ' .. ! ....,pr I 911,. ',L... I .... r ,,,,•,••. • (8).
I 1 i ..,• ..... : ._,
Hampton LA
----.--- - t__ L _LLI. ___ _ _1_ _. 1 essOLOT 1 I i1.7..x.....
...... . A ,,.......1.2„....KT "If 1
_ _...1____
68
After the counties allocated capacity as shown in Table 4-13, determine ade-
quacy of their environmental impact statements (EISs) of the sites within their
inventory, each county must establish a site selection authority. The site .
selection authority is composed of the county board plus one member appointed
by the governing body of each city or town within the county containing a site
in the Council's disposal site inventory. The authority must select specific
sites to meet the number and capacity required by the Council's development
schedule within 90 days of the determination that the EISs are adequate. If
the site selection authority does not select the requisite number and capacity
of sites, by law the Council must make the final selection.
Counties are required to acquire property and rights in property at and around
each land disposal facility selected by the county. Sites scheduled for devel-
opment before 1990 must be acquired in fee. Development rights must be
acquired for all sites including fill and buffer areas scheduled for develop-
ment after 1990 through the year 2000. Owners of property for which the devel-
opment rights are to be acquired may elect to have the county acquire fee title
to the property if they notify the county in writing within 90 days following
the issuance of a permit by the MPCA.
The site selection for disposal facilities by the public is not intended to pre-
clude the potential for future development of landfill sites by the private
sector. However, potential private disposal facilities must be incorporated
into the schedule for development of disposal facilities within the region.
Private development of land disposal facilities could substitute for county
disposal facilities. The schedule for development of capacity at county sites
could be adjusted in response to private land disposal proposals.
State law also provides for mitioation and comnensation measures to communities
that host new and existina landfills. Counties and local units of covernment
may place a surcharoe on tippina fees at land disposal facilities. The
surcharae can be used to pay for mitigation measures to reduce impacts from
Tri7pn osal facilities or provide for compensafian where appropriate.
POSTCLOSURE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSITION
Once the capacity of a land disposal facility is exhausted, the facility must
be closed. The facility must be closed to ensure that the facility protects the
public health and environment. The proper closure of facilities and their main-
tenance after closure must be planned for well before the facility reaches its
capacity. The cost of closure and postclosure activities must be considered to
ensure an adequate sum of money for these activities long after the facility no
longer receives an income from tipping fees.
Proper closure and postclosure care is required to maintain the physical integ-
rity of the landfill. Because landfills can leak pollutants long after their
active life, the proper equipment must be installed nad maintained to ensure
accurate monitoring of the fill and environment around it. Adequate closure
and postclosure maintenance minimizes the potential for significant pollution
problems in the future. Advanced warning of a failure of a liner or other pol-
lution problem means that remedial actions can be taken before the problem
becomes widespread and more costly to control.
Rules for the proper care and maintenance of facilities are being prepared by
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Additional requirements on financial
responsibility and liability will be forthcoming. Nevertheless, counties
69
should take an active role in assuring that disposal facilities will not become
an excessive burden upon county budgets. County ordinances should specify the
conditions or requirements that land disposal facility owners and operators are
expected to meet to ensure proper closure and postclosure maintenance.
The end uses for landfills are limited, falling into three major categories:
agriculture, commercial or industrial uses, and recreational open space.
Design and construction constraints may prevent the construction of buildings
upon the fill area or within the buffer area a certain distance from the fill
area. All of the existing fills take mixed wastes resulting in the generation
of methane gas which coupled with settling may constrict the potential for
.development. In addition, there are uncertainties about the consequences,
liabilities and costs of remedial actions if the landowners of the end use
building or activity differ from the landfill owners and operators.
Despite these limitations, closed landfills could support end uses that require
large acreages with a use of low intensity. Examples of these end uses include
.4 1
mucic'pa' or county pa-''s, ski slopes, Department of Natural Resources manage-
ment areas for selected types of wildlife, state or regional parks, airport:1
drive-in theatres, scrap or salvage yards, low-intensity industrial uses,
antennae farms, feed lots, agricultural research areas or poultry farms. Dis-
posal facilities accepting residuals only may have more structural integrity
and could increase the number of potential end uses. The end use should be
considered in the context of limiting conflict with the surrounding land use
during the landfill's operation. In addition the end use must be compatible
with the closure and postclosure requirements.
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM COSTS
COSTS OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM
The existing solid waste management system consists primarily of collection,
transportation and land disposal. The annual cost to the household for this
system is approximately $95 in the Metropolitan Area. The collection, trans-
portation and land disposal components of this system represent approximately-
76 70 , 15 and-4 15 percent, respectively, of the household refuse
biliT
Costs of the system for the commercial and industrial sector are not readily
broken down. Rather, costs are functions of size and types of disposal con-
tainers, weight of the refuse and haul distance to the landfill. In most cases
the collection and disposal costs are about 40 percent and 60 percent, respec-
tively of the commercial or industrial generators refuse bill. -
Tipping fees at existing landfills range from SIO-M $12-14 per ton for
refuse. Fees for special wastes such as demolition debris may vary.
Surcharges-4.- have increased tipping fees in 1985.
Existing system costs for disposal of mixed municipal solid waste can be
estliTtrred15,DriultioTylno the waste cenerated annuaTTy in -57e region (2ill ion
JonST,by the cost to dispose of it at iandfills (Slrper ton) which equals $24
'010lion annually. The $12 tippino fee used above does not internalize all of
the 'costs associated with the existino diThosal system. ExterrliTcosts of the
exist inn landfill system include oroundwater contamination at 11 of 13 land-
fills; reduced, replaced or relocated capacity of municipal wells; possible
70
replacement of private water supplies with installation of public water supply
systems; property devaluation; untreated leachate discharges to rivers and
lakes; and clean up costs borne by the public sector. More than half of the
revenues received from the surcharae are desianated for remedial actions or
other mitigation and comoensation measures.
There are several recycling programs operating in the region. All of them are
paid for by the city or county as a service to theirresidents. Costs for
these programs range from .$12-$14 per ton of recyclables collected.
COSTS OF THE PROPOSED SYSTEM
Overview
The transition from the existing land disposal system to a system that empha-
sizes waste reduction and resource recovery will increase the costs of waste
management to the generator. These costs will come about as a consequence of
constructing and operating a variety of waste processing facilities and recycl-
ing programs. Given the regional goal that by 1990 land disposal must accept
only processed waste, many facilities and programs must be in place in the
region by 1990 to handle the volume of waste generated. The new element could
increase household disposal costs by about $30 to °.55 $20 to $47 from its cur-
rent S9S $105 annual cost. Costs for commercial and industrial waste
generators will differ from the estimated costs for households.
Table 4-14 identifies the capital and annual operating costs for typical capac-
ities of facilities and programs that could be expected for development in the
region (see the development programs for waste reduction and resource recov-
ery). The annual operating cost includes the debt service which has been amor-
tized over 20 years.
Costs For The Waste Reduction and Resource Recovery System, 1990
A waste management system that could meet that goal is presented in Table 4-15.
The proposed waste management system includes combustion facilities, composting
sites for yard waste, co-composting facilities, transfer stations, region-wide
source separation programs and three new landfills.
By far the most expensive waste facilities are the combustion units, either
mass burn or RDF. The primary costs for combustion units are for the boilers,
heat recovery systems and pollution control equipment. Some savings on capital
expenditures are realized if existing boilers are retrofitted to burn RDF. The
combustion and processing components of the waste reduction/resource recovery
development program will cost about $220 million.
The co-composting component of the waste reduction and resource recovery devel-
opment program calls for two co-composting facilities to manage the heavy
organic residue from RDF facilities. These facilities are less costly to con-
struct and operate than the combustion facilities. Total capital cost for two
co-composting facilities with a capacity of 300-600 tons per day are about $40
million.
71
Capital Costs
(in $1,000s)
Annual*
Operating Costs
(in $1,000s)
45,000-120,000 15,000-25,00 .0
20,000- 35,000 10,000-15,000
25,000- 75,000
55,000- 85,000
50,000- 75,000
3,000
450- 15,000
3,500-25,000
15,000-25,000
15,000-25,000
200- 350
10
400- 4,000
20,000- 40,000 5,000-10,000
3,000 . 750- 2,000
300- 700 200- 1,000 -
Table 4-14
ESTIMATED SOLID WASTE FACILITY AND PROGRAM COSTS
(All Figures In 19(14 Dollars)
Type of Facility
.RDF Facilities '
- Dedicated Boilers
- Existing Boilers
Mass Burn Facilities 2
- Steam
- Co-Generation
- Electricity
- Modular
Composting Facilities 3
- Leaf
- Sludge/Leaf
Co-Composting Facilities 3
- Sludge/mixed solid waste
Transfer Stations 4
•
Recyclables Processing 5
Landfills
- Existing
- Second Generation &
Capacity
600-2000 TPD
600-1000 TPD
250-1000 TPD
600-1000 TPD
600-1000 TPD
50- 150 TPD
900 TPY
100- 300 TPD
300- 600 TPD
400- 600 TPD
50- 150 TPD
40- 80 Acres
40- 160 Acres 6,000- 4,500 2,500-10,000
Sources:
'Ramsey/Washington Counties. 2 Ramsey/Washington, Dakota and Hennepin Counties. 3 Ramsey County, Resource Management Associates, CAL Recovery Systems, Inc. 4 Delaware Solid Waste Authority, BFI Waste Systems, Marcel Dekker Inc., Ramsey/
Washington Counties. 5 Recycling Unlimited, Ramsey County, Pope-Reid Associates Inc.
6 Donahue and Associates.
*20-year debt service included.
72
SvsiINComponentsi Capacities Capital2 Costs Yearly2 Operating Costs $ 75,000 ' $ 25,000 85,000 25,000 75,000 25,000 70,000 25,000 35,000(ea) 15,000(ea) 4,000 mass Burn: 1 Facility Steam or Co-generation or Electricity ROI: 3 Facilities Dedicated Boiler • and 2 Existing Boilers Composting Yard Waste 1,000 TPD 1,000 TPD 1,000 TPD 50,000 TPY 90-110 90-110 90-110 60-80 90-125 $115--1407 0 20 $207 45-60 45-60 45-60 40-55 60-80 Table 4-15 RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS: A SCENARIO FOR 1990 (All Costs in 1984 Dollars) Gross3 Cost Per Ton $75 80 '75 80 50 15 Transportation3 and Collection Cost Per Ton $45-60 45-60 45-60 45-60 45-60 45-607' Estimated3 Revenue Net Cost3 Per Ton Per Ton 9 0 y4 -110 105-120 80-95 0 . 60-75 NYfost4 P HousehOld $155-175 140-160 140-160 155-175 115-140 90-110 $15 30 . 25 Landfills: 3 Sites c Second Generation' Total System: 300 TPD 300 TPD 500 TPD (ea) 1,000 TPD 5,400 TPD 20,000 20,000 ,000 5,000 15 /,//' 45-60 15 45-60 3,000(ea) 1,500(ea) 5,000 (ea) 7,0 20,0:007r 2,500 (ea) $345 . S122,500 $507 O 60-75 • 60-75 60-75 sao-loo7 Co-composting: 2 Facilities Sludge/MSW Sludge/NSW Transfer Stations: 5 Stations Recycling: 30-60% Par. Processing Facility 15-20 $4 , Sources of cost information listed in TO4(4-14. 1 ' In $1,000s. 3 $ Amounts rounded to nearest $5. efjp4rof1ts or avoided costs included. Surcharges are included oNandfill costs. Estimated revenues are project specific and could ips y. 4 Assuming each household prodtçes 1.46 tons of solid waste per year. Minimal capital costs are m6rtized into operation costs. 6 Assuming a 5-foot clay Jkiler, a 40-80 acre site, 10-mile clay haul distance, no synthetic liners. 7 Weighted average of pdir respective columns based on throughput of each facility. St per ton is usehold is Note: Gross cost equal to gross equal to ne r ton is equal to yearly debt service plus operating costs divided by waste throughput per year. Net ost per ton plus transportation and collection cost per ton minus estimated revenues per ton. Net cost per cost per ton multiplied by 1.46 tons per household per year,
System Components1 Yearly2 Gross3 Operating Cost Costs Per Ton Capital2 Capacities Costs Net Cost3 Net Cost4 Per Ton Per Nouseho7 Transportation3 Estimated3 and Collection Revenue Cost Per Ton Per Ton S45-60 1,000 TPD $ 75,000 $ 25,000 $75 $20 $105-120 S155-175 Mass Burn: 1 Facility 900 TPO 900 TPD 70,000 25,000 80 35.000(ea) 15.000(ea) 50 50,000 TPY 5 4,000 15 5607 $127,000 45-60 45-60 45-60 20 20 0 105-120 80-95 60-75 155-175 115-140 90-110 545-607 $207 ' $85-1007 $120--145 (New) Table 4-15 RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS: A SCENARIO FOR 1990 (All Costs in 1985 Dollars) RDF: 3 Facilities Dedicated Boiler and 2 Existing Boilers Composting Yard Waste Co-composting: 2 Facilities Sludge/MSW Transfer Stations: 5 Stations Recycling: 30-60% Par. Processing Facility Landfills: 3 Sites 5 Second Generation Total System: 5,400 TPD $355,000 1 2 Sources of cost information listed in Table 4-14. In $1,000s. 3 Assuming each household produces 1.46 tons of solid waste per year. 5 Minimal capital costs are amortized into operation costs. 6 Assuming a 5-foot clay liner, a 40-80 acre site, 10-mile clay haul distance, no synthetic liners. 7 Weighted average of their respective columns based on throughput of each facility. Note: Gross cost per ton is equal to yearly debt service plus operating costs divided by waste throughput per year. Net cost per ton is equal to gross cost per ton plus transportation and collection cost per ton minus estimated revenues per ton. Net cost per household is equal to net cost per ton multiplied by 1.46 tons per household per year. $ Amounts rounded to nearest $5.. No profits or avoided costs included. Surcharges are included on landfill costs. Estimated revenues are project specific and could vary. 4 500 TPD 20,000 (ea) 5,000 (ea) 15 500 TPD (ea) 3,000(ea) 1,500(ea) 15 1,000 TPD 5,000 (ea) 7,000 15 20,000 (ea) 2,500 (ea) 15-20 90-110 90-110 60-80 90-125 0 60-75 0 60-75 20 40-55 60-80 45-60 45-60 . 45-60 A5-60
74
The region will also need many sites to compost yard and garden wastes. The
most significant cost of these facilities are the operating costs. There is
little capital cost involved based on a system that utilizes available public
land. County or local public works departments are likely operators of these
facilities.
Recycling programs and facilities, similar to yard and garden waste composting
facilities, have greater operating costs than capital costs. By far, the larg-
est cost of recycling programs are the collection costs. One or two recycl-
ables processing facilities are needed in the region to manage daily about
1,000 tons of recyclables. Capital costs for equipment and recyclable process-
ing facilities are about $7.5 million. Existing recyclable processing opera-
tions could be used, expanded or modified thereby reducing public costs.
Several transfer stations will likely be needed within the region to consoli-
date waste or recyclables for shipment to processing facilities. It is diffi-
cult to determine the number of facilities that will be needed until the other
centralized processing facilities are located. Occasionally, the transfer sta-
tions may be physically linked- with the RIF processing facilities. For
fling purposes the waste recove-y/rnource recovery doveleoment program esti..-
.EA:es-purposes of determinina capital costs in Table 4-15. it was estimated
that five transfer stations would be built that would handle about 500 tons per
day.
The total capital costs of the proposed system are about $345 million. Annual
operating costs are about $122 million. The annual household cost for refuse
disposal would increase by about S30 to 155 $20 to $47 from the current annual
cost of-595. $105 . The commercial and industrial sector would incur an overall
increase of about $34 million or $15-to $35 per ton for refuse disposal
. assuming one-half of the waste generated in the region is of commercial or
industrial origin. The costs for commercial and industrial waste aenerators
will differ from the estimated costs for households.
Costs for the Land Disposal System, 1990
The land disposal development program estimates that three new landfills are
needed in the region to meet disposal needs until the year 2000. Each landfill
is estimated to cost about $20 million. Each landfill is required to construct
a leachate collection system above a clay liner. The greatest cost of the new
landfills is the construction of the clay liner and leachate collection sys-
tem. Additional costs may be incurred if the tlay for the liner must be
imported to the site.
The land disposal costs include preparation of the EIS, pre-development, liner
and leachate collection systems, closure and postclosure monitoring and mainte-
nance for a 20-year period. Closure costs include a gas-collection system.
Post closure costs include a lump sum payment for environmental liability insur-
ance. The costs of remedial actions that may be necessary are not included.
The Council has $15 million bonding authority to purchase land for development
of the new landfills or development rights for the landfills to be developed
after 1990. The bonding authority can be used to finance the preparation of '
environmental assessments of the candidate landfill sites. The Council must
assess the counties to retire the bond debt, but assessment does not apply to
cities or towns in which a solid waste disposal facility is operating after
Jan. 1, 1980. In addition, cities or towns with waste reduction or resource
recovery facilities or programs established pursuant to a county land disposal
abatement plan are eligible for a reduced payment, proportional to the
abatement.
FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
A wide variety of financing tools are available to fund resource recovery facil-
ities and source separation programs. Types of financing include general obli-
gation bonds; revenue bonds; leverage leasing; municipal lease purchase; loans,
grants and loan guarantees; and surcharges. Table 4-16 identifies the types of
financing that could be used by counties and municipalities to finance proposed
waste facilities and programs.
General obligation financing by a municipality, county, authority, or state
government is usually the lowest cost debt instrument in terms of interest rate
available. The advantages of this financing method are its relatively low
interest rate, and hence, debt service and the relative simplicity of the
required institutional arrangements. Disadvantages include high-risk exposure
to the issuing entity and its taxpayers, the elimination of facility tax pay-
ments because of public ownership, and the unavailablity of federal tax bene-
fits available to private owners of resource recovery facilities.
There are a number of kinds of revenue bonds that can be used to finance a
resource recovery facility. They utilize project revenues (tipping fees, recov-
ered material and energy sales, etc.) as the primary source of bond repayment.
Revenue bonds can be issued for the purpose of creating industrial development
in a community (industrial development bonds, or !Ms) or for building pollu-
tion control equipment (pollution control revenue bonds or PCABs). Because the
private corporation assumes the risks, potential buyers will scrutinize the
corporation's credit worthiness. The advantages of this financing form include
a shift of the majority of project risks away from the municipality, the pay-
ment of property and income taxes by the operators, and certain federal tax
benefits to the corporation if it is a resource recovery facility.
75
Types of Financing General Obligation Revenue Bonds Non-profit public corporation .4 cn Taxable entity Leverage Leasing Municipal Lease Purchase Table 4.16 METHODS OF FINANCING Llg.Tan!..4.9." Low interest rates Simple institutional arrangements Private ownership Federal tax benefits Low interest rates Excise tax backing No referendum Private risk Tax income for the public Federal private ownership tax benefits Shared risk Tait income for public Reduced bond issue Federal private ownership tax benefits Private risk Tax income for public No bond issue Federal private ownership tax benefits Disadvantages Taxpayer risk No taxes from the public facility No federal tax benefits from private ownership High tech projects are of higher risk to private investors Facility not on tax rolls No federal private ownership tax benefits No excise tax backing Higher interest rates Higher interest rates The U.S. Congressional ceiling A complex legal structure' Tax status In question Description 'Full Faith and Credit' Public Financing Public financing Pledging project revenues Government backed nun-profit corp. . with excise tax Use Nigh & tow Tech Mostly High Tech Public issue on behalf of a private corpora-tion as a loan Private ownership of High 8. Low Tech large share with public or private operators Public or private operators Public ownership of the remaining share 100% private ownership High le Low Tech with public opera- . tors Industrial revenue Public issue without bonds excise tax backing Tax-exempt entity GrantS/LOanS/Loan Public gifts and loan backing Surcharges Taxes favoring resource recovery SE1657-PHENV2 12.07.84 Mostly low Tech Mostly Low Tech Possible long-term funding necessary necessary A public policy tool Possible public funding of the inefficient Risk placed mostly with private owners
The U.S. Congress has imposed a ceiling on IDB expenditures of $150 per resi-
dent from Jan. 1, 1985 and $100 after 1986. For Minnesota, the 1985 ceiling is
$619 million. Beginning in 1986, the ceiling is $412 million. This ceiling
seriously affects the financing of resource recovery facilities particularly
waste combustion facilities. Proposals to finance resource recovery facilities
with ID8s must now compete with other development proposals. Consequently,
other less desirable methods of financing resource recovery facilities may have
to be used.
Other financing mechanisms include leverage leasing, municipal lease purchases
and grants or loans. The Waste Management Board has the authority to provide
grants and loans for the development of resource recovery facilities. The
Council will receive monies from surcharges on disposal fees at metropolitan
landfills. These monies will be used to provide grants and loans to public and
private entities to develop facilities and source separation programs (see Part
5 of this guide). In addition, the counties have the authority to place a
surcharge on disposal fees at landfills within their jurisdiction and these
monies could be used for various facilities and programs.
Two underlying issues affect financing decisions: the risk inherent in the pro-
ject and the investment; and the amount of government participation desired in
the project's financing. The major risks of any given security arise from the
project's technology, the project's markets and end-product market price, assur-
ance of municipal solid waste input, accuracy of the projected cash flows, abil-
ity to meet principal and interest payments, and promised return on invest-
ment. Public participation may be necessary to ease perceived risk by
Investors.
The financial arrangements of existing resource recovery facilities throughout
the nation favor private investment, IDBs and government obligation (GO)
bonds. Nation-wide trends have been away from grants and GO bonds and towards
multiple-source financing, of which a blend of private investment and IDBs is
favored.
77
PART 5: PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES
OVERVIEW
The Council will use a number of approaches ta implement the guide (see Figure
5-1). They include:
1) Reviewing county and local solid waste plans and annual reports;
2) Reviewing various aspects of waste facility projects;
3) Monitoring and oversight activities; and
4) Technical and financial assistance programs.
The Waste Management Act requires the metropolitan counties to prepare solid
waste management master plans that implement the Council's solid waste guide.
The master plans must describe specific projects and activities, and certain
information on specific financial commitments and implementation schedules.
The master plans can be developed either as an element of county comprehensive
land use plans required under the 1976 Metropolitan Land Planning Act, or as
separate documents. The counties are also required to submit annual repots to
the Council on their solid waste management activities. The reports must
describe the progress being made with implementation activities and provide the
Council with information to update regional system data bases. The Council has
authority to a) establish content requirements for the master plans and annual
reports and b) review and decide whether the plans and reports are consistent
with the Council's guide policies and programs.
Although not required by the Waste Management Act, cities and townships in the
Metropolitan Area will be encouraged to prepared solid waste elements to their
comprehensive plans prepare under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Such
plan elements can help guide the development of local waste management projects
and services. The Council will assist local communities with such plan
amendments.
The Waste Management Act requires the Council to review various waste facility
projects and proposals. The reviews serve as important devices to implement
the guide chapter and resolve potential policy conflicts. The Council must
review:
1) Waste facility permit applications;
2) Waste supply and processing contracts;
3) Waste district proposals;
4) Waste flow designation proposals; and
5) Certificate of Need requests.
The appendix describes specific requirements and criteria that will be used for
the reviews. 78
Figure 5-1. REGIONAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION REGIONAL SOLID WASTE POLICY PLAN Land Disposal Waste Reduction and Resource Recovery Implementation Development Program Development Program Monitoring County Environmental Impact Statements County Master Plane County I Annual Reports Metropolitan Technical and Financial Atililatent° Program Repo is to Logi*latIve Commission on Waste Management Contingency I Procedures Final Site Selection Local Comprehensive Plans Review Mechanisms, Permits, Waste Flow Designations. Contracts, Waste Districts Review Mechanisms. Permits/ Certificates of Need
The Council will monitor and oversee, in particular, progress in implementing
the waste reduction/resource recovery and land disposal development programs in
Part 4 of the guide. The Council will track progress through its review func-
tions and by holding periodic meetings and public forums with local officials
and waste management industry representatives. The Council will undertake
contingency procedures if the development programs are not being implemented or
implementation is proceeding slowly.
To help implement the development programs, the Council will provide technical
assistance and financial resources through its solid waste assistance program.
The program will provide information and technical support as well as loans and
grants to help establish specific waste management facilities and programs.
Assistance will be available to eligible recipients in both the public and
private sectors.
REVIEW PROCEDURES
The Council will review plans or proposals submitted to it for consistency with
the policies and criteria in this guide. The following procedures will gener-
ally be used when plans or proposals are received for review:
1. All known affected and interested parties will be notified.
2. If necessary, a public hearing on the proposal or document will be held.
3. Not less than 30 days before a public hearing, the Council will publish a
notice in a newspaper(s) having general circulation in the Metropolitan
Area, stating the date, time and place of the hearing, and the place where
the project information or document may be examined by interested people.
4. The hearing will be conducted according to Council procedures. All inter-
ested people will be permitted to present their views on the proposal or
project.
5. The Council's Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee will review
the proposal and make recommendations to the Council.
6. The advisory committee will conclude its review in sufficient time to allow
the recommendations to be discussed and considered by the appropriate com-
missions and standing committees of the Council.
7. To the extent appropriate, the Council will conduct its review concurrent
with and complementary to reviews by other governmental jurisdictions.
In addition to these general procedures, other procedures and guidelines will
be followed by the Council as required by the WMA.
COUNTY AND LOCAL PLAN REVIEWS AND PLAN CONTENT REgIREMENTS
COUNTY MASTER PLANS
Each metropolitan county must prepare and submit to the Council a solid waste
master plan within nine months after the Council adopts its solid waste policy
plan. If the Council disapproves a master plan, the county must submit a
revised plan within 90 days for Council approval.
80
The Council will review county master plans in accordance with the requirements
of Minn. Stat., section 473.175 and 473.823. Master plans must: 1) conform to
and implement the Council's solid waste guide, including system plan policies
and development program requirements and time schedules; 2) be consistent with
other adopted chapters of the Council's Metropolitan Development Guide and
metropolitan system plans; and 3) be compatible with each other.
The Council recognizes that intercounty and local jurisdictional cooperation is
necessary to implement many of the waste management strategies. The Council
encourages the counties to work together in preparing the master plans and to
consult with cities and towns. The counties are encouraged to prepare the
master plans as the solid waste element of their comprehensive land use plans
to help ensure consistency with county and local land use policy and public
services.
Plan Content Reauirements
• County master plans must be comprehensive and clearly describe county policies,
plans and implementation strategies. The plans must describe specific projects
and activities the county, cities and townships within the county and the pri-
vate sector will implement and the financial and other resource commitments to
those projects and activities. At a minimum, the plans must provide following
information:
Plan Preparation
1. A description of the plan preparation process, including the role of county
advisory committees and the number of public meetings and hearings; and
2. Evidence that all municipalities and towns within the county were consulted
in the preparation of the plan; and
3. A schedule for plan revisions.
Description of Existing System
1. Solid waste generation characteristics, including the quantity and composi-
tion of waste by class of generator and patterns of waste generation
(seasonal, geographic area);
2. The solid waste collection system in the county, including the type of ser-
vices provided (mixed vs. separated waste) and hauling arrangements;
3. Existing private, local, and county programs, functions, facilities and
activities for solid waste reduction, source separation, processing and
land disposal in the county, including locations, use rates, operating char-
acteristics and user charges, and remaining capacity estimates for land
disposal facilities; and
4. County and municipal enforcement authorities, including licensing require-
ments, ordinances, and permit requirements.
Statement of Solid Waste Management Policies and Objectives
1. County policies for waste reduction, source separation, waste processing
. and land disposal for 1985 through 2000; and
81
2. Quantifiable county objectives (stated in tons annually through 1990 and in
five-year increments thereafter through 2000) for waste reduction, source
separation, waste processing and land disposal.
Description of Plans, Programs and Facilities for 1985 to 2000
1. Management alternatives (source separation, waste reduction, processing,
transfer stations, waste combustion and land disposal) from 1985 through
2000 including:
- The facility or program activity, including potential locations, volumes
and types of wastes involved, service areas, estimated capital costs,
rates and charges, annual operating and maintenance costs and annual
gross revenues;
- Implementation procedures, including planning, operating, ownership and
financing arrangements and marketing approach; for facilities that will
be acquired by the county, provide the estimated cost, methods, and time
of acquisition, procedures for operation and maintenance, and a capital
improvements program; for land disposal facilities, provide a descrip-
tion of how the county will evaluate and select sites to be implemented;
- The relationship of the facility or program activity to other management
alternatives;
- How existing facilities and services will or may be used to implement
the plan;
- The economic effects of the program activity or facility on residential,
commercial and industrial waste generators; and
- Contingency procedures for situations when the management alternative
cannot be implemented or are temporarily out of service, and when they
would be undertaken;
2. Public, private and intergovernmental coordination and support activities,
including:
- Program for data collection and analysis on waste generation and
characterization;
- Process for public comment and participation during planning and project
development;
Criteria and standards to protect comparable existing and planned pri-
vate and public facilities from unwarranted displacement;
Efforts to encourage private operation and/or ownership of facilities;
Rile of local governments in county programs, including a description of
City and town programs that would qualify for landfill abatement cost
recovery;
Intercounty project efforts; and
Use of Council and county technical and financial assistance programs.
82
3. Public education and information programs;
4. Role of waste flow designations; and
5. County and municipal enforcement activities, including monitoring programs,
and expected licensing and permitting requirements and ordinances. -
LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
The Council encourages cities and townships to include a solid waste management
planning element in their comprehensive plans prepared under the Metropolitan
Land Planning Act. The solid waste element should be prepared in consultation
with counties and serve as an implementation guide for local waste management
activities. Local solid waste plans must be consistent with county master
plans. The solid waste element should describe:
1. Waste reduction, source separation, waste processing and land disposal pro-
grams and activities in the city or town, including the types of services
provided, levels of recovery achieved by the programs, locations of facili-
ties, and user charges;
2. Proposed solid waste management programs, functions, and activities, how
they complement the county's master plan and achieve the objectives in the
waste reduction/resource recovery development program in Part 4 of this
guide.
3. How existing or proposed solid waste facilities can be operated or devel-
oped so as to be compatible land use and public services; and
4. Local ordinances and controls regulating the transportation and collection
of solid waste; and ordinances regulating waste facilities.
Some local governments may not have the financinal resources, staff or exper-
tise to develop a solid waste element of their comprehensive plans. Counties
should be willing to help develop the plan element if necessary. Financial and
technical support for local programs and waste facilities will be available
from the Council, particularly if the local community has a solid waste element
in its comprehensive plan.
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING
COUNTY ANNUAL REPORTS
The metropolitan counties are required to submit annually solid waste reports
to the Council for approval (Minn. Stat., sec. 473.803, subd. 3). The reports
must provide information on waste generation and management activities, as well
as progress in achieving the waste management policies and objectives in the
Council's guide chapter. The reports must be subMitted on Feb. 1 Mar. 31 and
cover the period of January through December of the previous year. Preliminary
reports must be submitted by Oct. 1 of each year on abatement performance. In
T985, the counties"- amended master p,17ii-Tvil -1 also constitute their annual
reports.
83
The annual reports must include information on t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
:
I. Progress on implementing the Council's solid
w
a
s
t
e
g
u
i
d
e
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
waste reduction and resource recovery and land
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
programs and schedules;
2. Current and proposed waste reduction, source s
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
w
a
s
t
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
and waste combustion programs in the county, inc
l
u
d
i
n
g
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
s
e
r
-
vices provided, reduction and recovery levels cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
d
o
r
p
r
o
-
posed for each program, the types and volumes of
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
h
a
n
d
l
e
d
a
n
d
t
h
e
implementing agencies or private companies invol
v
e
d
;
3. Rates and charges in effect or proposed for soli
d
w
a
s
t
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
collection services in the county, including a
s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
b
a
s
i
s
f
o
r
such charges for county-owned or -operated facil
i
t
i
e
s
;
4.Current receiving rates at all solid waste fac
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
u
n
t
y
(reported in tons);
5. General characteristics of solid'waste received
a
t
w
a
s
t
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
county;
6. Remaining capacity and estimated life of land d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
county, reported in acre-feet and based on annu
a
l
a
e
r
i
a
l
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
;
7. General condition, and proposed expansion, of l
a
n
d
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
the county;
8. Staff and budget committed to implementing the
c
o
u
n
t
y
'
s
s
o
l
i
d
w
a
s
t
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
;
9. Progress on preparation of required revisions
t
o
t
h
e
c
o
u
n
t
y
m
a
s
t
e
r
p
l
a
n
;
and
10. Involvement of cities, towns and school distri
c
t
s
i
n
w
a
s
t
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
activities, including local programs that qual
i
f
y
f
o
r
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
a
b
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
cost recovery under Minn. Stat., sec. 473.874,
s
u
b
d
.
5
.
LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ON WASTE MANAGEMENT
The state Legislative Commission on Waste Manage
m
e
n
t
o
v
e
r
s
e
e
s
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
the Waste Management Act, including the Metropo
l
i
t
a
n
A
r
e
a
s
o
l
i
d
w
a
s
t
e
w
a
s
t
e
planning process. The Council will report annua
l
l
y
t
o
t
h
e
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
-
sion on progress implementing the guide chapter
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
T
h
e
Council may recommend changes to the Waste Mana
g
e
m
e
n
t
A
c
t
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
the guide.
CONTINGENCY PROCEDURES •
The Waste Management Act places implementation
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
s
o
l
i
d
w
a
s
t
e
management in the Metropolitan Area primarily w
i
t
h
t
h
e
m
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
c
o
u
n
t
i
e
s
.
The 1984 amendments to the act, however, requir
e
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
'
s
s
o
l
i
d
w
a
s
t
e
guide to also set waste reduction and resource
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
f
o
r
c
i
t
i
e
s
and towns in the region. With the 1984 change,
t
h
e
a
c
t
s
e
e
m
s
t
o
e
n
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
more deliberate, responsible role for local go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
.
I
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
a
s
s
u
r
e
implementation occurs, the act has a number of
c
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
h
a
t
c
h
a
n
g
e
county or local responsibilities if certain fea
t
u
r
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
l
a
w
o
r
t
h
e
Council's guide are not implemented.
The counties are responsible for selecting and acquiring land disposal sites
for implementation within their boundaries. They must establish site selection
authorities to choose the sites. If the site selection authority does not pro-
ceed in selecting the required number and capacity of sites in accordance with
the Council's land disposal development schedule and within the time frame
allowed under the Waste Management Act, the Council is required to select the
sites. If the counties fail to acquire the selected site, the Council must
prepare legislation to transfer solid waste management authority and responsi-
bility in the Metropolitan Area from the counties to tile Metropolitan Waste Con-
trol Commission or a new metropolitan commission established for that purpose.
•The counties, cities and townships must achieve, at a minimum, the objectives
that have been set in the Council's waste reduction and resource recovery
development schedule. If the Council determines that a county or city has not
met the objectives, the Council will report to the state legislature and submit
legislation that reassigns the waste management responsibilities among cities,
towns, counties, and metropolitan agencies so as to assure implementation of
Council and county solid waste plans and objectives.
The Council will determine if adequate progress on waste reduction and resource
recovery is being made by periodically evaluating county and local waste manage-
ment activities. In determining whether substantial progress has been made,
the Council will evaluate:
o Levels of waste reduction and resource recovery achieved in the region as
a whole and in subregional areas and the development schedule in section 4
of the plan;
o Levels of waste reduction and resource recovery achieved in each county
and local unit of government for which specific objectives have been set
in section 4 of the plan;
o Adequacy of county and local authorities, financial resources, and
technical capabilities; and
o Whether county and local financial and technical resources have been
applied in a substantri) effort to meet Council objectives.
D-44d.dence of county and local commitment to waste reduction -r-e-s-etircsr -
recovery eTrort.s-;-•4-ncludino commitments_nf-filialrla and staff resourcs,
the status of ro_or=s--and -acfritTFies-and_ he development of local plans .
4-tiimrtrols.
METROPOLITAN SOLID WASTE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
RESOURCE RECOVERY GRANTS AND LOANS
Beginning in January 1985, all landfills in the Metropolitan Area will charge
waste collectors an amount on their existing disposal fee, as required by the
1984 amendments to the Waste Management Act (Minn. Stat., sec. 473.843). A
portion of the funds will go to a Metropolitan Landfill Abatement fund. The
abatement fund will be administered by the Council for grants and loans for
resource recovery projects and activities and related public education and to
develop markets for reusable or recyclable waste materials.
85
The Waste Management Act authorizes that resource recovery grants and loans may
be made to any person and may include the costs of planning, acquisition of
land and equipment, capital improvements and public education expenses. The
Council is required to determine the total estimated capital costs of the pro-
ject and that full financing is available. Grants and loans made to cities,
counties and solid waste management districts must be in conformance with the
Council's solid waste auide chapter and approved county master plans. The
Council will develop guidelines and priorities-for administering the Landfill
Abatement Fund program.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
The Council has established a technical assistance program to accelerate the
development of waste reduction and resource recovery projects and programs in
the Metropolitan Area. The assistance program is made up of staff from the
Council and will provide technical and planning help to counties, cities and
other groups.
The program initially will focus on efforts to divert recyclable materials and
yard wastes from landfills through recycling programs, mulching and compost-
ing. Assistance activities will include evaluating alternative reduction and
recycling methods and developing strategies to promote programs to policymakers
and the general public. The program will also provide information about waste
reuse and recovery techniques, serving as a clearinghouse for people who need
more information about these methods.
DATA MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH PROGRAM
This guide is based on a variety of sources of information and data used in the
development of the policies and system programs. While the best available
information is used, the Council recognizes the continuing need to improve the
quality of the data and subsequent assumptions. In certain instances, data spe-
cific to the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area was available and in other cases
national averages were necessary because of lack of local statistics. The
Council will develop a new data management program to address the need for
improved data. This program will be developed and implemented with the assis-
tance of the counties. The types of data that should be included in this pro-
gram are:
1. landfill receiving rates;
2. Remaining landfill capacity;
3. Recovery rates for recycling, composting and energy recovery programs and
facilities;
4. Participation rates in waste reduction and source separation programs;
5. Waste oeneration rates;
6. Waste composition by types of material; and
7. Cost and revenues of programs and facilities.
The actual responsibilities for data collection, analysis and reporting will be
specified within a separate technical publication to be published by July 1985,
which will serve as a background report to this guide.
86
In addition to data manaaement, there is an onaoing need for research in a
number of critical areas, includina monitoring progress of programs and pro-
jects elsewhere in the U.S. and around the world. The type, method and respon-
sibilities for this research will be included in the background technical
report.
87
'DEFINITIONS
"Acre-foot" is a volume equal to 1,613 cubic yards. Based on Metropolitan
Council staff estimates, there are approximately 806.5 tons of waste received
at a landfill per acre-foot of landfill space used.
"Aluminum" is a light, grey nonferrous metal, typically discarded as scrap
beverage cans, house siding, cookingware, and furniture.
"Cities" means statutory and home rule charter cities and towns authorized to
plan under Minn. Stat., secs. 462.351 to 462.364.
"Collection" when referring to solid and hazardous waste, means the aggregation
of solid or hazardous waste from the place where it is generated, and includes
all activities up to the time the waste is delivered to a waste facility
(Minn. Stat., sec. 473.121).
"Commercial Agriculture Region" means the area currently expected to continue
in agricultural use indefinitely, as generally mapped on the Metropolitan
Council's Development Framework. When the 1985 revisions to the Development
Framework Plan are complete, it is expected that this region will be redefined
as areas eligible for or in agricultural preserves.
"Commercial solid waste" includes solid waste generated by stores, offices,
businesses, restaurants, warehouses and other nonmanufacturing activities, and
nonprocess wastes such as office and packing wastes generated at industrial
facilities.
"Compostable yard waste" includes leaves, grass clippings and other organic
wastes from lawn and garden maintenance that can readily be transformed into a
useable soil amendment through controlled biological degradation.
"Composting" means the controlled biological decomposition of selected solid
waste in a manner resulting in a humus-like final product that can be used as a
soil amendment.
"Backyard composting" means small-scale composting of yard and garden
wastes by individual homeowners on their own property.
"Centralized composting" means composting of wastes on a larger scale, such
as at neighborhood or city-wide composting sites.
"Co-composting" is the composting of sewage sludge or septage with munici-
pal solid waste.
"Corrugated containers" consist of kraft linerboard cartons with corrugated
paper, typically used to ship materials. They do not include non-corrugated
containers such a chipboard or single-ply boxes (for example, a cereal
carton). Some cartons that are heavily coated or waxed and used to ship meats
and vegetables are not recycleable, and are classified as "other organics."
"Curb-side collection" means collection, at the point of generation, of recy-
clables or compostable materials.
88
"Construction and demolition wastes" include bricks, wood, paving, building
materials and rubble resulting from construction, remodeling, repair and
demolition.
"Dedicated boiler" means a boiler designed and built to burn a specific fuel
such as refuse-derived fuel or mixed municipal solid waste.
"Environmentally sensitive areas" includes areas that are important from an
ecological or natural resources management standpoint. ' They may include, but
are not limited to, protected wetlands, floodplains, and critical habitats of
endangered species. Areas specifically managed by a governmental agency or
private organization for their ecological values (for example, fish and wild-
life) constitute ecologically sensitive areas as well.
"Ferrous scrap" consists of scrap iron and steel items, including steel food
and beverage cans. Iron and steel scrap is any waste material to which a mag-
net adheres. Si-metal cans (ferrous cans with an aluminum top) are classified
as ferrous scrap, as is any item that is at least 75 percent ferrous by vol-
ume. Stainless steel scrap (a shiny metal product used for its non-corrosive
property and commonly found in appliances and kitchen counter tops) is con-
sidered ferrous.
"Ferrous containers" are steel and bimetal food or beverage cans and small,
clean metal pails.
"Glass bottles and jars" consist only of glass, food and beverage containers.
"Hazardous waste" means any refuse sludge, or other waste material or combina-
tions of refuse, sludge or other waste materials or discarded material, or a
combination of refuse or discarded materials, in solid, semisolid, liquid,
contained gaseous form, which because of the guantity, concentration, or
chemicil physical or infectious characteristics may -TaY cause or
significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious
irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; or that cannot be handled
by routine waste management techniques because it (ET-poses a substantial
present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly
treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed or ot',er
livin of
• .
Categories of hazardous waste materials include, but are not limited to
explosives, flammables, oxidizers, poisons, irritants and corrosives.
Hazardous waste does not include source, soecial nuclear, or by-product
material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. (-Minn.
sec. 116.06,_subd. 13)
"Identified recoverable materials" or "identified recyclables" Means materials
that can be separated from solid waste and recovered for reuse in their orig-
inal form or for use in manufacturing and which have been identified in the
Council's solid waste guide (ee Table 4-5).
"Industrial solid waste" is solid waste resulting from industrial processes and
manufacturing. It does not include hazardous wastes.
"Land disposal" means the depositing of waste materials in a sanitary landfill.
"Land disposal facility" means a waste facility permitted by MPCA that is
designed or operated for the purpose of disposing of waste on or in the land.
89
"Land disposal site capacity" means the volume of space that is permitted to be
filled at a land disposal site.
"Leachate" is water that has percolated through, or has been in contact with,
solid wastes and contains waste contaminants removed from the solid wastes.
"Local governmental unit" means any municipal corporation or governmental sub-
division other than a metropolitan county located in whole or part in the
Metropolitan Area, authorized by law to provide for the' processing of solid
waste (Minn. Stat., sec. 473.802).
"Market development" means the location and facilitation of economic markets
for materials, substances, energy or other products contained within or derived
from waste (Minn. Stat., sec. 473.842, subd. 2).
"Mass-burn incinerator" means a solid waste combustion facility that is
designed to burn unprocessed mixed municipal waste.
"Metropolitan Area" or "region" means the area over which the Metropolitan
Council has jurisdiction, including the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota,
Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington (Minn. Stat., sec. 473.121).
"Metropolitan counties" or "counties" refers to the seven counties of Anoka,
Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington.
"Metropolitan Council" or "Council" means the Metropolitan Council established
by Minn. Stat., sec. 473.121.
"Metropolitan Urban Service Area" is the portion of the Metropolitan Area in
which urban development or redevelopment exists or is planned.
"Mixed municipal solid waste" means garbage, refuse, and other solid waste from
residential, commercial, industrial and community activities that is generated
and collected in aggregate, but does not include auto hulks, street sweepings,
ash, construction debris, mining waste, sludges, tree and agricultural wastes,
tires, and other materials collected, processed and disposed of as separate
waste streams (Minn. Stat., sec. 115A.03, subd. 21).
"Mixed waste paper" Consists of all short- and long-fiber papers that can be
repulped. It includes printing, writing, and computing papers, magazines, food
cartons, envelopes, grocery sacks and other commercial and residential waste
fiber. It does not include items contaminated by other materials such as metal
(an orange juice can), plastics (a envelope window, wax (milk carton) or
othernonpaper materials, or waste paper contaminated by food wastes.
"Mulching" means the use or placement of grass clippings or other organic mate-
rials over a lawn or garden so as to improve conditions for vegetative growth.
"Municipality" means a city created by or pursuant to state law.
"Newspaper" consists of printed, groundwood newsprint, including glossy adver-
tising inserts and Sunday-edition magazines.
90
"Organized collection" means a solid waste collection system wherein overlap of
a) collection service areas and b) types of collection services is prevented or
controlled. The organizing body may be public or private, and may exert its con-
trol by directly providing the collection service or by contracting for
collection services.
"Other inorganics" consist of other noncombustible, nonmetallic material such
as rocks and ceramics.
"Other nonferrous" consists of metals such as copper, brass, zinc and lead.
"Other organics" consist of conbustible and compostable waste not otherwise
categorized. They include food waste, plastics, rubber, textiles, leather and
paper that is not repulpable, as well as small quantities of other materials so
mixed as to not be recyclable,
"Participation rate" is the percent of eligible waste generators who regularly
• participate in a given abatement program within a specified geographic area.
"Percolation" refers to the movement- of a liquid through a porous substance,
that is, rainwater moving through solid waste in a landfill.
"Processed waste" means mixed municipal solid waste that has a) yard wastes and
identified recoverable materials removed and b) been subject to a process that
oxidizes part or all of its organic component or any other process resulting in
an organically stabilized materials.
"Processible waste" means waste materials that can be source separated or other-
wise reclaimed for their material or fuel value. Waste materials that cannot
be source separated or reclaimed because of emeroency situations will not be
considered urocessible waste.
"Pyrolysis" is the physical and chemical decomposition of organic matter
brought about by the action of heat in the absence of oxygen.
"Reasonably available technologies" are state-of-the-art technologies that have
been applied at a commercial scale and could be implemented in a cost-effective
manner.
"Recovery rate" is the percent of material identified and available for waste
reduction or source separation that is actually recovered through a specific
abatement program.
"Recycleables" means materials that can be readily separated and used or reused
as a substitute for raw materials. They include, but are not limited to,
paper, glass, metals, automobile oil, and batteries.
"Refuse-derived fuel (ROF)" means the fraction of processedmunicipal waste
that is shredded and can be used as fuel in a boiler; it consists of lighter
weight materials such as paper products, with metals, glass, and other non-com-
bustible materials removed.
"Residential solid waste" means the garbage, rubbish, trash and other solid
waste resulting from normal household activities.
91
"Residuals" means waste materials left after recovery of recycleables and pro-
cessing of remaining wastes.
"Resource conservation" means reducing the amounts of solid waste that are gen-
erated, reducing overall resource consumption, and using recovered resources.
"Resource recovery" means the reclamation for sale or reuSe of materials, sub-
stances, energy, or other products contained within or derived from waste.
"Resource recovery facility" means a waste facility established and used pri-
marily for resource recovery.
"Sanitary landfilling" is a method of disposing of solid waste on land without
creating nuisances or hazards to public health or safety, by confining the
waste to the smallest practical areas, reducing it to the smallest practical
volume, and covering it with a layer of earth at the end of each day's opera-
tion or more frequently if necessary.
"Secondary materials" are the marketable or usable products derived from solid
or hazardous waste through processing or separation.
"Septaoe" means those solids and liouids which are removed during periodic
maintenance of a septic tank, as defined in MPCA rule WPG40 (61ICAR 4.8040).
"Sewage sludge" means the solid and associated liquids in municipal wastewater
that are encountered and concentrated by a municipal wastewater treatment plant
for disposal at a sewage sludge disposal facility. Sewage sludge does not
include sludge incinerator residues and grit, scum, screenings removed from
other solids during wastewater treatment.
"Solid waste" is garbage, refuse and other discarded solid materials. It
includes solid waste materials resulting from industrial, commercial and agri-
cultural operations, and from community activities. Solid waste does not
include animal waste used as fertilizer; earthen fill, boulders, rock and other
materials normally handled in construction operations; solids or dissolved mate-
rial in domestic sewage or other significant pollutants in water resources,
such as silt, dissolved or suspended solids in industrial wastewater effluents;
dissolved materials in irrigation return flows; or other common water pollu-
tants (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Solid Waste Regulation No. 1).
"Solid waste management" means the systematic administration of activities that
provide for the collection, source separation, storage, transportation, trans-
fer, processing, treatment and disposal of solid waste.
"Source separation" means separation of recyclable or compostable materials by
the waste generator prior to collection.
"Special wastes" are nonhazardous wastes that are not classified as mixed muni-
cipal solid waste. They include, but are not limited to construction debris,
ash, street sweepings, mining waste, sludges, tree and agricultural wastes and
tires.
"Storage" or "holding" means containment of solid or hazardous waste, in an
approved manner, after generation and before collection for ultimate recovery
or disposal.
92
"Transfer station" means an intermediate waste facility in which solid or haz-
ardous waste collected from any source is temporarily deposited to await trans-
portation to another waste facility (Minn. Stat., sec. 115A.03, subd. 3)
"Unprocessed mixed municipal solid waste", means mixed municipal solid waste
from which yard waste and identified recoverable materials have not been
excluded and which has not been subject to a process which oxidizes part or all
of its organic component or any other process resultingin an organically
stabilized residue.
"Unprocessible waste" means waste materials that cannot be source separated or
otherwise reclaimed for their material or fuel value.
"Waste flow designation" means a requirement by a waste management district or
county that all or any portion of the solid waste that is generated within its
boundaries or any service area thereof and is deposited within the state be
delivered to a resource recovery facility identified by the district or county
(Minn. Stat., sec.115A.81, subd. 2).
"Waste district" means a geographic area extending into two or more counties in
which the management of solid waste is vested in a special district established
pursuant to provisions of the Waste Management Act (Minn. Stat., sec. 115A.03,
subd. 32).
"Waste facility" means all property real or personal, including negative and
positive easements and water and air rights, that is or may be needed or useful
for the processing or disposal of waste, except property used primarily for the
manufacture of scrap metal or paper. Waste facilities include but are not
limited to transfer stations, processing facilities and disposal sites and
facilities.
"Waste management" means activities that are intended to affect or control the
collection, processing and disposal of wastes.
"Waste reduction" is the process of reducing the amount of solid waste gener-
ated. It includes product reuse, increased product life, reduced material use
in product design, and decreased consumption of products. It also includes
activities such as mulchina/backyard compostino of yard waste.
"Windrow" means a method of centralized composting whereby materials are placed
in long rows and periodically turned.
"Wooden waste" consists of waste generated from tree trimming or cutting of
trees, and discarded lumber. The following items are included: tree trimmings
and shavings (wood chips), discarded lumber from home or commercial construc-
tion sites, and other miscellaneous wooden wastes.
"Yard waste" means leaves, grass clippings or other organic material created as
result of lawn and garden maintenance.
93
APPENDIX: REVIEW CRITERIA
INTRODUCTION
The Waste Management Act (WMA) authorizes the Metropolitan Council to review
and approve the following:
o Waste Facility Permit Applications;
o Waste Supply and Processing Contracts;
o Waste District Proposals;
o Waste Flow Designation Proposals; and
o Certificates of Need
The Council will use the review mechanisms as one method to implement the gui
d
e
chapter. Criteria are provided in this section for conducting the reviews w
i
t
h
the exception of certificates of need (CON). Review criteria for CONs will
b
e
added to the guide chapter after the Council approves required revisions to
county solid waste master plans.
Prospective applicants are encouraged to contact the Council before preparin
g
and submitting review requests. The information and data necessary for the
review can be discussed.
WASTE FACILITY PERMIT APPLICATIONS
OVERVIEW
A waste management facility consists of all property and easements used to
store, process and dispose of solid waste. Waste facilities include transf
e
r
stations, storage facilities, land disposal sites and waste processing faci
l
i
-
ties such as resource recovery facilities (Minn. Stat., sec. 473.121, subd.
29). They do not include property used to collect waste or facilities use
d
t
o
process scrap metal, paper, glass or other materials separated from the mix
e
d
waste stream.
Council approval is required before a waste facility in the Metropolitan A
r
e
a
can be issued a permit to operate by the MPCA. The Council has 60 days to
reach its decision, unless a time extension is granted by the MPCA. In its
review the Council can specify conditions to be incorporated by the agency's
permit.
To obtain Council approval, permit applications for proposed waste facilities
must be consistent with the criteria in this section of the guide chapter. T
h
e
WMA rquires the Council's plan for solid waste management to include criteri
a
that address the following aspects of proposed waste facilities:
o Waste Management Service Impacts;
o Capacity;
94
o Processing Techniques;
o Location;
o Environmental Impacts;
o Operations;
o Competitive Operation; and
o Economic Effects.
Council approval may be subject to conditions necessary to sati
s
f
y
t
h
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
-
ia. Where appropriate, some criteria may be met in accordance
w
i
t
h
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
granted local units of government to place restrictions and con
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
w
a
s
t
e
facilities (Minn. Stat., sec. 473.811, subd. 4a). Ultimately,
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
approval will depend on whether the proposed facility meets app
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
,
state and local regulations.
WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE IMPACTS
In the Metropolitan Area, waste management services are largel
y
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
private sector. Solid waste is collected primarily by private
l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
h
a
u
l
e
r
s
who have contracts with individual, municipalities and indust
r
i
e
s
.
L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
s
are operated by large national waste manaoement companies and
b
y
s
m
a
l
l
l
o
c
a
l
businesses. The WA encourages provision of services by the pr
i
v
a
t
e
s
e
c
t
o
r
.
The orderly transition from land disposal to waste reduction a
n
d
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
r
e
c
o
v
-
ery requires that solid waste services continue to be provided
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
l
y
a
n
d
economically throughout the region. To assure consistency wit
h
t
h
e
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
System Plan in Part 4 of the guide chapter it may be necessar
y
t
o
s
t
a
g
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
-
ment of solid waste services. Waste materials, volumes and su
p
p
l
y
a
r
e
a
s
m
a
y
also have to be restricted. The WA provides the Council auth
o
r
i
t
y
t
o
p
l
a
c
e
:
(1) conditions or restrictions regarding the type, character and quantities of
waste to be processed at a waste facility that is used primar
i
l
y
f
o
r
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
recovery and (2) restrictions on the geographic territory fro
m
w
h
i
c
h
a
w
a
s
t
e
facility used primarily for resource recovery may draw its wa
s
t
e
(
M
i
n
n
.
S
t
a
t
.
,
sec. 473.823, subd. 3).
Objectives
Ia. Ensure the efficient and orderly transition from land dispo
s
a
l
t
o
w
a
s
t
e
reduction and resource recovery.
lb. Ensure that adequate solid waste supplies are available for de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
solid waste facilities.
Criteria
la. Proposed waste facility service areas shall be consistent with
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
disposal and waste reduction/resource recovery development sch
e
d
u
l
e
s
i
n
Part 4 of the guide chapter. Waste supply projections for fac
i
l
i
t
y
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
areas shall be based on estimates that reflect the potential
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
effects of other preferred waste management practices as dete
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
waste reduction/resource recovery development schedule. Facil
i
t
y
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
may be delayed and/or staged to reflect the development sched
u
l
e
.
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
-
tions may be placed on the type, character, quantities and ge
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
territory of waste supplies for resource recovery facilities.
95
lb. The quantity and composition of solid waste within the proposed waste
facility's service area shall be sufficient to enable economic feasibility
of the facility.
CAPACITY
Waste facility capacity impacts waste management service conditions in the
region. Service costs, site operations and alternative management methods are
affected by the amount and type of operating system capacity.
Facility capacities that exceed the requirements of the waste reduction/
resource recovery and land disposal development programs in Part 4 of the guide
chapter may prevent or constrain the development of other preferred waste man-
agement methods. For instance, excess land disposal capacity may perpetuate
commitment to a less preferred management practice. Limitations on maximum
capacity will, therefore, be necessary.
Waste facility capacity must ensure continuous, efficient service. Some degree
of redundancy is needed to ensure the facility can handle seasonal and other
variations in waste flow. In addition, waste processing facilities must have
sufficient capacity to meet the requirements of energy and/or materials market.
Objectives
2a. Ensure that waste facility capacities meet efficient, economical service
requirements.
2b. Ensure that waste facility capacities promote adaptable systems of waste
management and orderly transition to waste reduction and resource recovery.
Criteria
2a. Proposed waste facility capacities shall be consistent with the waste
reduction/resource recovery and land disposal development schedules in Part
4 of the guide chapter. Limits may be placed on facility capacities in
accordance with the timing and location requirements of the development
schedules. (For purpose of this criterion, capacities refers to facility
operating and design capacity.)
2b. Proposed waste facility capacities shall accommodate the projected market
demand for secondary materials and/or energy and/or the projected waste
supply from the areas they serve. Limits on capacities may be placed in
order to stage facility development with projected market demand and/or
supplies. (For purpose of this criterion, demand should be defined as "the
quantity of goods that buyers will take at a particular price.")
PROCESSING TECHNIQUES
Major waste facilities should provide routine manaciement of continually gener-
ated solid waste. These facilities must be reliable. They must operate with
minimum risk to energy and recovered materials markets and to solid waste gener-
ators and haulers. However, some waste processing technioues have had
recurring problems that have led to increased costs and inconsistent service.
96
These include:
o Damage to system components or unscheduled shutdowns resulting from
adaption of equipment designed for materials other than solid waste;
o Unpredicted wear resulting in frequent replacement and maintenance of
system components;
o Failure to attain the same efficiency and reliability at a commercial
scale that was achieved on a pilot scale.
Risk and reliability may be evaluated by considering the demonstrated and com-
mercial success of proposed solid waste processing techniques. Such projects
should be under conditions of similar facility scale, waste composition, waste
supply area generation rates and proximity, and product market needs. Over
time, experimental waste technologies may develop which could complement more
familiar technoloaies. Initial development should focus on small-scale or
demonstration-type projects.
Objectives
3a. Promote the use of technically reliable and efficient processing tech-
niques. Identify and resolve problems that may reduce processing
efficiency and reliability.
3b. Allow for the development of new and/or experimental waste processing tech-
niques to recover energy or materials.
Criteria
3a. Proposed processing facilities shall use materials handling and processing
techniques that are known to provide continuous, reliable and effective
service, while recovering energy and/or materials that consistently meet
market specifications.
3b. Facilities using new or experimental waste processing techniques shall be
tested on a small-scale basis only. (A processing facility will be consid-
ered experimental if its history of commercial effectiveness and workabil-
ity is undocumented.)
LOCATION
The location of solid waste management facilities will be influenced by several
factors, including availability of suitable land, proximity to markets for
energy or secondary materials, proximity to major highways and sources of
waste, and availability of adequate public utilities such as electric power,
water supply and wastewater treatment services. Proposed sites should not
create adverse social, economic or aesthetic impacts on nearby areas. Existing
technology and transportation costs will restrict some waste facilities to
locations near potential markets and waste generators.
Proposed waste facility locations will have certain land use limitations. One
measure of a location's acceptability is its degree of consistency with public
land use policy and values. Metropolitan Development GuiddipoliCy_and_local .
comprehensive plans represent a consensus of public attitudes and values, since
97
they_have been developed with citizen participation and adopted through the
public hearing process. -Ins-6rT;e cases, it may -be -desirable to -locatelWaste
facilities adjacent to or as a part of the operation of other metropolitan
facilities, such as wastewater treatment plants. Once closed, waste sites may
be appropriate locations for other planned metropolitan uses. For example,
regional park development may be possible at closed waste facilities. The WMA
gives counties the authority to override local vetoes to establish waste pro-
cessing and land disposal facilities (Minn. Stat., sec. 473.811, subd. 4a and
sec. 473.823, subd. 5). The Council must approve the override.
Integrating facility site development with locally planned land uses, however,
may be more difficult. Recent Metropolitan Area siting efforts have demon-
strated the difficulty in finding locally acceptable locations for waste facil-
ities. Waste facilities rarely meet local land use planning requirements.
Override of local vetoes may be necessary in some circumstances. The Waste
Management Act gives counties the authority to override local vetoes to estab-
lish waste processing and land disposal facilities (Minn. Stat., sec. 473.811,
subd. 4a and sec. 473.823, subd. 5). The Council must approve the override.
Objectives
4a. Assure that proposed waste facilities are located in areas compatible, to
the extent possible, with local land use plans, and existing and plann2d
metropolitan systems and utilities.
4b. Assure that local land use concerns are considered in reviewing facilities
proposals.
Criteria
4a. Solid waste facilities should be compatible, to the extent possible, with
Council land use policies. The Council will consider county and local
comprehensive land use plans. Lack of compatibility with land use policies
and plans shall not preclude Council approval of a waste facility, if waste
management policy considerations must take precedence.
4b, Waste facility sites should be compatible with existing and planned metro-
politan systems. Where appropriate, waste facilities may be operated in
conjunction with other existing metropolitan system facilities.
4c. Waste facilities shall maintain proper site appearance and reasonable times
of operation. To the extent possible, waste facility sites should be
visually compatible with adjacent property or development. Operational
areas of solid waste facilities should be screened for public view. Bar-
riers, buffer zones and operating time limitations may be required to
reduce nuisance problems. This criterion may be met in accordance with the
authority granted counties or local units of government to place
restrictions and conditions on waste facilities.
4d. Waste facility sites shall be accessible year-round by nine-ton or better
weight-bearing roadways that have adequate capacity to accommodate facility
generated traffic. Adequate capacity is defined as traffic moving continu-
ally and steadily at a moderate speed. Access to the site should not
depend on the use of local and collector streets through residential areas.
98
4e. A proposed waste facility site should be capable, to the extent possible,
of being returned to a use anticipated in the plan of a metropolitan
agency, county or local unit of government after closure of the facility.
Land-use restrictions and closure dates may be placed on the facility com-
patible with the development of future uses for the site. This criterion
may be met in accordance with the authority granted counties or local units
of government to place restrictions and conditions on waste facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Overview
Proposed solid waste facilities must be reviewed according to criteria that pro-
vide for protection of public health and environmental resources. This protec-
tion requires care in selecting a waste facility's location, design, types of
materials accepted, methods of operation and post-closure care.
Shifting to more waste reduction and resource recovery and less land disposal
will result in a net improvement to the region's environment as potentially
harmful wastes are captured for productive use. The volume reductions achieved
by recycling and waste processing can reduce the disposal capacity needed in
the region to a fraction of that required for landfilling of mixed municipal
waste. The more homogeneous, more stabilized character of processed waste
lowers the potential for adverse environmental impacts. The organic content in
the waste is minimized, virtually eliminating the potential for methane produc-
tion and dramatically narrowing the range of potential contaminants in leach-
ate. Nuisance impacts--odor, noise, dust, litter and traffic--will be less for
properties adjacent to disposal facilities. This benefit coupled with a lower
level of environmental risk may lessen the potential for decrease in the market
values of adjacent properties.
Environmental concerns and protection strategies will differ depending on the
type of facility and the waste material received. Land disposal facilities
will require greater levels of protection for ground water resources compared
to processing facilities. If waste combustion is involved, air quality will
likely be the primary concern. As the region's solid waste management system
evolves towards more complete reduction and recovery, the residual materials
ultimately requiring land disposal will be less in volume and more homogeneous
in composition, helping to assure fewer environmental impacts.
Land Disposal Facilities
Solid waste land disposal has often led to surface and/or groundwater contami-
nation from leachate. The degree of reported contamination has ranged from a
slight degradation to severe contamination with substances such as heavy
metals, or9anic compounds and disease-producing organisms. Groundwater is
usually very slow moving and it can be years or decades before contaminated
water reaches those who use water supplies. Moreover, after the source of con-
tamination has been removed it may take decades for groundwater to purge
itself. The costs of remedial action to actively improve the groundwater sup-
plies can be enormous. Surface water and groundwater can be protected by land-
filling residual materials only and then minimizing leachate formation and its
flow through proper site selection, design, operations and maintenance. There
is growing evidence to indicate that the groundwater systems in the region are
interconnected, implying a greater need for protection. Several of the hydro-
geologic units are dissected by bedrock valleys buried with glacial drift or
99
alluvial soil deposits characterised by high groundwater flow rates. These
bedrock valleys provide a hydraulic connection between deeper sedimentary bed-
rock formations and the major river systems. These and other geologic features
cause vertical movement between aquifers. All of the aquifers are used for
drinking water to some extent.
The Metropolitan Council recognized the importance of groundwater protection in
its Water Resources Policy Plan Guide Chapter adopted in 1973. Policy 29 of
this plan states that "solid waste disposal sites must be designed and con-
structed so as to preclude contamination of groundwater. Existing facilities
which are polluting the groundwater should be corrected or eliminated".
It is now widely recognized that engineering controls such as liners and leach-
ate collection systems must be used in new or expanded land disposal facilities
to more adequately protect groundwater. Liners are intended to retard leachate
seepage and provide containment for collection. Liners are usually made of
recompacted clay soils or synthetic fabrics. A leachate collection system is a
series of perforated pipes underlying the waste but overlying the liner to
allow removal of accumulated leachate. Once collected and removed, leachate
must be treated at the site or at a sewage treatment plant. Discharged leach-
ate must meet the same effluent quality standards as other sources of indus-
trial sewage waste. Compacted, low-permeable soils covering the top of the
disposal facility will limit infiltration of water into the waste material.
Installation of monitoring and a regular sampling program can determine the
extent of any leachate migration from the site.
Land disposal facilities containing unprocessed waste high in organic materials
can produce other environmental impacts including explosive, toxic and asphyxi-
ating gases. Methane, a principal component of landfill gas, has been known to
accumulate in explosive concentrations and result in damage to persons and
property. Landfill gas can be controlled by one or more of the following tech-
niques: 1) lining the site with materials that block the subsurface flow of gas
to adjacent land or into buildings off the site; 2) selectively placing mate-
rial to vent and/or collect gas; and 3) pumping wells to evacuate and vent,
burn or process the gas for sale.
However, for some wastes, engineering controls alone are not adequate protec-
tion. The first and primary means of protecting surface and groundwater
resources should be the selection of locations that have hydrogeologic char-
acteristics, soils, and other natural features that will contain any leachate
that escapes engineered control systems. Some soils are better suited for
attenuating leachate, or, in other words, reducing its potency. Favorable land
disposal locations include areas with thick deposits of low permeable soils and
few connections with usable water supplies.
Processing Facilities
Solid waste processing facilities include combustion units that recover energy,
facilities that prepare the solid waste into a fuel that can be shipped (RDF),
composting facilities and transfer stations. The potential environmental
impacts will vary depending on the type of facility, waste feedstock and output
products.
Combustion facilities emit a wide array of substances into the air. The type
and quantity of these emissions depends on the furnace type, fuel composition,
and operational factors. Federal and state air quality standards have been
100
developed for criteria pollutants (carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, particu-
lates, nitrogen oxides, ozone, hydrocarbons and lead), and federal emissions
standards exist for certain hazardous substances such as asbestos. Continuous
progress is being made to improve the methodology of health risk assessments
for pollutants that do not have either emission or ambient standards. These
health risk analyses are conducted on a case by case basis for all types of
combustion facilities including coal fired power plants and solid waste energy
recovery plants. Several strategies can be used to bring emissions within
acceptable levels including installation of pollution Control devices, adjust-
ing the charging rate and mixture of solid waste fuel supply, controlling air
supply, and regular facility maintenance.
Aesthetic and Nuisance Impacts
Aesthetic and other environmental impacts that can be associated with mixed
waste facilities are litter, dust, noise and odors. Facilities that handle
highly processed waste should have fewer nuisance problems. Litter can be
controlled by using fences, properly designing access routes and enclosing
tipping areas when possible. Paving or watering access roads minimizes blowing
dust from truck traffic. Noise from waste facilities can be reduced by bar-
riers, berms, vegetation and buffer space. Where building walls are of
lightweight construction, heavier or secondary walls can be used to reduce
noise. Odors can be minimized by regularly covering the waste with soil at
land disposal facilities receiving unprocessed or mixed waste. At mixed waste
processing facilities, odors can be avoided by controlling air flow and pre-
venting anaerobic conditions from developing in holding areas by minimizing
storage time. Facility design and operating practice should provide for
adequate protection of employee health and safety.
Objectives
5a. To locate, design, operate, and maintain solid waste facilities so as to
minimize risk to public health and environment.
5b. To reduce to the greatest extent possible environmental and nuisance
impacts at land disposal facilities.
Criteria
5a. Land disposal facilities shall be located, designed and operated to pre-
vent, to the greatest extent possible, discharge of leachate under or
beyond the site boundaries. Sites that present a high risk of ground or
surface water contamination will not be approved. The following factors
will be considered in determining consistency with this criterion:
o The characteristics of the wastes that will be accepted;
o Ability to prevent violations of state water quality standards;
o Ability to prevent exceedences of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
human health risk criteria;
o Ability to control unregulated substances adequately;
101
nes and o The nature of the water resources including their existing uses and
potential for use (potential for use exists if a withdrawal rate of
one gallon/minute can be sustained);
o The underlying soils and hydrogeologic conditions (including depth to
bedrock, soil texture, permeability of underlying materials and
groundwater flow patterns); and
o Whether the applicant's proposed engineering control and management
technologies provide the levels of protection afforded by other
reasonably available technologies.
5b. Sites that would adversely impact environmentally sensitive areas should
not be approved. The characteristics of the specific area under considera-
tion, as well as the characteristics of the wastes the proposed site would
accept, will be reviewed in assessing the potential for adverse impacts.
Sc. Solid waste facilities shall provide for appropriate handling and treatment
of surface water runoff, wastewater and collected leachate.
Sd. Suitable buffer areas, berms, barriers and vegetation shall be provided to
minimize noise, odors, landfill gas migration, public safety, nuisances and
other impacts on adjacent properties.
5e. Solid waste facility applicants shall develop environmental monitoring
programs and contingency plans. These plans shall, as determined by the
Council, address:
o Protection of surface and groundwater resources;
o Protection of air quality;
o Protection against odors, safety and nuisance impacts; and
o Conditions under which the contingency plans would be implemented.
5f. Proposed land disposal facilities or capacity shall accept only processed
. municipal waste residuals in accordance with the land disposal development
schedule or other special waste materials. The charkteristics of pro-
cessed and special wastes will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis before
they will be allowed to be land disposed.
5g. Municipal solid waste processing facilities shall be located, designed and
operated so as to minimize emissions to the atmosphere. The.following
factors will be considered in determining consistency with this criterion:
o Ability to prevent violations of state or federal air quality standards;
o Ability to control emissions for which neither ambient nor emissions
standards exist;
o The potential impact on environmentally sensitive ecosystems; and
o Whether the applicant's proposed engineering control and management
technologies provide the levels of protection afforded by other
reasonably available technologies.
102
OPERATIONS
Solid waste management facilities must operate safely and so that the needs of
the waste generator are met regularly. Resource recovery facilities must pro-
vide a consistent and dependable supply of secondary materials and/or energy.
Failure to ensure such operations results in inconvenience, additional costs
and public health and safety risks. Facility operators, waste haulers, waste
generators, surrounding properties and markets for recovered products can be
affected by poor operations. For example:
o Poor equipment and improper site maintenance and safety precautions can
result in injury to facility personnel, waste disposers and nearby
residents; and
o Poor operations can shut down facilities, often resulting in service
disruptions to waste haulers and generators and service burdens on other
waste facilities.
The adverse effects of such operating problems may be alleviated by:
o Providing facility personnel training in proper site and equipment
operation and maintenance;
o Providing backup systems or alternative facilities to assure continued
operations during scheduled and unscheduled periods; and
o Providing storage capacity and/or supplementary fuel to ensure a contin-
uous supply of energy or recovered materials during periods of no collec-
tions.
Objectives
6a. Ensure that facility operations result in safe, regular and efficient waste
management services.
6b. Ensure adequate and continued waste management services during nonoperating
periods.
Criteria
6a. Proposed waste facility applicants shall demonstrate ability to properly
operate and maintain the facility. The Council will take into account per-
sonnel training and previous operating experience in determining ability to
meet this criteria. Federal and state agencies and local governmental
units responsible for waste facility enforcement and public health and
safety will be consulted.
6b. Proposed waste facilities shall have controlled access to prevent unauthor-
ized entry and have provisions for handling wastes left at the facility
illegally.
6c. Proposed waste processing facilities shall ensure regular service to genera-
tors during nonoperating periods by demonstrating the availability of
backup processing or disposal services. Standby procedures should be estab-
lished for emergencies and periods when the facility is shut down.
103
COMPETITIVE OPERATION
Public concern about environmental protection has resulted in greater public
sector involvement in the waste management field. However, public sector
involvement should not unnecessarily intrude upon existing, economically viable
waste management activities unless necessary to achieve the objectives of waste
reduction and resource recovery. New publicly supported facilities should not
create an unfair advantage or restraint of trade in relktion to comparable
private or public facilities already in operation. Situations in which compa-
rable waste facilities may compete include: public land disposal vs. private
land disposal and public waste processing vs. private or public waste process-
ing. Lower disposal fees at new public facilities could lure waste collection
firms away from exsisting, viable facilities, already consistent with regional
solid waste system objectives.
The criteria in this section do not apply to waste flow designation proposals
(See Appendix: Waste Flow Designation Proposals.)
Objectives
7a. Ensure that publicly supported waste facilities do not jeopardize viable,
comparable waste facilities currently in operation.
Criteria
7a. Public waste facility proposals shall not create an unfair or unreasonable
advantage or restraint of trade in relation to viable, comparable waste
facilities currently in operation unless the displacement is necessary to
achieve the objectives of the waste reduction/resoure recovery and land
disposal development programs in Part 4 of the guide chapter. Restrictions
may be placed on facility design and operating capacities. For a resource
recovery facility or transfer station serving a resource recovery facility,
restrictions may be placed on facility design and operating capacities
and/or on the composition, quantity and geographic territory of the waste
supplies. For purposes of this criterion, "public supported" facilities
Includes proposed facilities that would be owned and/or operated by public
agencies and facilities that would be owned and operated by others and
supported primarily by public funds or obligations. The Council will
consider the following factors to determine whether waste facilities are
comparable and have the potential to compete:
o Consistency with the waste reduction/resource recovery and land
disposal development programs in Part 4 of the guide chapter;
o The design and operating capacities of the waste facilities;
o The "tipping fees" charged at the facilities;
o The geographic area from which the waste facilities draw their waste;
o The facilities sources of funding for capital and operating
expenditures;
104
o The facilities' waste supply and refuse-derived product market
contracts or commitments; and
o The economic requirements and viability of the facilities.
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
The economic effects of solid waste management, are far reaching. Jobs, collec-
tion and disposal fees, and local and regional land use. and public service
burdens can be affected by waste management decisions. Shifting from present
disposal practices to new methods will inevitably result in higher waste manage-
ment service costs. Large, centralized resource recovery plants and environ-
mentally improved land disposal facilities are expensive to build and operate.
Many new waste management methods will require public subsidies. Ultimately
these costs will be passed on to the waste generator.
The transition to better waste services, however, requires that management
costs do not greatly exceed the benefits of environmental protection and
resource conservation. The benefits include the avoided costs of land dispos-
ing less waste, less risk to the public health and environment, fewer adverse
social consequences and materials and energy resource savings. Determining the
net improvement to the regional solid waste system is difficult to make because
benefits can not easily be measured. To some extent these factors are unknown
and beyond quantifying. Since the guide chapter represents public consensus on
the risks and benefits of various waste manaoement methods and preferred alter-
natives, it can be used as one measure of a facility's benefit-cost to the
region.
Solid waste facilities secured by public funds or obligations may increase the
public economic risk. If the acquisition or betterment of a facility or site
is secured by public funds or obligations pledging the full faith and credit or
taxing powers of a government unit, the facility or site's costs should be
covered by reasonable rates and charges for use of the facility. If property
tax revenues are pledged, the public should be assured, to the extent possible,
that property taxes will not be spent for an inefficient operation. Since
methods of financing facilities can vary considerably, the Council will need to
examine carefully the financial circumstances of facility proposals to deter-
mine the extent of public debt obligation. When costs are paid, in part, from
sources other than property taxes, such as corporate earnings, private stock or
bond sales, and state or federal grants, property tax risks are not as great.
Solid waste facilities can influence local development conditions. Resource
recovery facilities may increase industrial and/or commercial development
around them. Energy intensive industries and/or waste related recycling or pro-
cessing facilities may be encouraged to locate close by. Such development
increases tax revenues to local units of government and provides employment
opportunities. There are, however, many factors involved with such development
and its potential around resource recovery facilities is speculative at this
time.
Land disposal facilities generally do not encourage surrounding development and
provide few jobs and relatively little tax revenues. Moreover, once closed
land disposal facilities have limited use for subsequent development. Land dis-
posal facilities may also depress surrounding property values. Few studies,
though, have been done to determine the impact of undesirable facilities upon
adjacent property values.
105
Solid waste facilities may require a number of public servi
c
e
s
.
S
u
c
h
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
include water and sewer hookups, additional fire and police
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
l
i
t
t
e
r
control, installing traffic signals, road upgrading and main
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
b
u
f
f
e
r
zone amenities, environmental protection, monitoring and ins
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
e
n
d
-
use planning and preparation. The costs of these services a
r
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
b
o
r
n
e
by state, county and local governments. DispoSal charges an
d
p
e
r
m
i
t
a
n
d
license fees can offset some costs. Counties and cities in
t
h
e
M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
Area that have operating land disposal facilities within the
i
r
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
may charge a fee on the waste received at these facilities
.
T
h
i
s
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
w
a
s
granted in the 1984 amendments to the WMA to help offset loc
a
l
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
costs. The Council has made recommendations to the state le
g
i
s
l
a
t
u
r
e
o
n
m
i
t
i
-
gating methods and compensation measures that should be use
d
t
o
o
f
f
s
e
t
w
a
s
t
e
facility impacts on local jurisdictions.
Objectives
8a. Minimize the costs of implementing waste reduction and resou
r
c
e
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
.
8b. Ensure that publicly owned, operated or funded waste facili
t
i
e
s
,
o
r
w
a
s
t
e
facilities having contractural obligations with governmental
u
n
i
t
s
,
minimize public economic risk.
8c. Minimize adverse economic effects on local communities aff
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
w
a
s
t
e
facilities.
Criteria
8a. A proposed waste facility's impact on regional solid
w
a
s
t
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
c
o
s
t
s
shall be reasonable. This criterion recognizes that there
m
a
y
b
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
cost differences to generators in sectors of the Metropoli
t
a
n
A
r
e
a
a
s
a
result of particular facilities. The Council will conside
r
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
factors in determining consistency with this criterion:
o The proposed facility's cost with the cost of similar faci
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
o Rates and charges for use of the facility, and their reaso
n
a
b
l
e
n
e
s
s
compared with other charges within the Metropolitan Area inc
l
u
d
i
n
g
,
b
u
t
not limited to, facilities for resource recovery, recycling,
l
a
n
d
disposal and transfer stations; and
o The reasonableness of any governmental charges to waste gen
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
through property taxes and other service charge mechanisms.
8b. Public waste facility proposals should,t to the extent possible, be finan-
cially self-sufficient and minimize local tax payment risk.
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
operating revenues, including those from the sale of recover
y
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
a
n
d
drop charges or user fees, should be adequate to pay capita
l
a
n
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
costs associated with a facility underwritten by a governmen
t
a
l
u
n
i
t
o
v
e
r
the life of the facility. The Council will consider, among
o
t
h
e
r
e
l
e
-
ments, the following in determining the extent of public ob
l
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
consistency with this criterion:
o Total capital costs and the projected annual operation, a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
-
tion, maintenance and debt service costs of the facility;
106
o Amount, level and nature of projected revenues available for the pay-
ment of facility cost over the life of the facility;
o Proposed methods of financing the facility; the amount, type and pro-
visions made for the security of any public indebtedness incurred to
finance the facility; the size of the tax base and other financial
resources backing any bonds to be issued to finance the facility; and
o Any facts about the facility that could affect its continued opera-
tion and realization of revenues necessary for financial self-
sufficiency, including supply contracts and by-product markets.
8c. A proposed waste facility should minimally impact surrounding land use
development and property values. Buffer zones, facility end use plans and
closure dates compatible with local comprehensive plans may be used to
mitigate such impacts.
8d. A proposed waste facility should not place burdens on the use of local
public services without compensation. Services available from other
governments and compensation may be used to meet facility service require-
ments as provided for under state law.
SOLID WASTE SUPPLY AND PROCESSING CONTRACTS
The Waste Management Act (WMA) authorizes cities, counties and towns in the
region to enter into long-term contracts for the delivery of solid waste to
waste facilities and the processing of solid waste (Minn. Stat., sec. 473.813,
sub. 1). The success of waste facility proposals often depends on long-term
commitments for waste supplies and processing. With such commitments, a pro-
posed facility could demonstrate economic viability, and thereby secure capital
financing. It is anticipated that long-term supply and processing contracts
will be entered into as facilities identified in approved county master plans
proceed toward development.
The WMA authorizes Council review and approval of local government supply and
processing contracts longer than five years duration (Minn. Stat. sec. 473.813,
sub. 2). Such reviews may be consolidated with Council waste facility permit
application reviews. Processing contracts will only be reviewed if there are
proposed long-term waste supply commitments. Local governmental supply and
processing contracts that are less than five years in duration may be reviewed
as a part of waste facility permit reviews. The criteria in this section will
be used for all contract reviews. Waste facility permit review criteria will
also be used if applicable. An approved contract will remain in effect unless
the contract is substantially amended or revised to the extent that additional
Council review is necessary.
The shift to a regional system based on waste reduction and resource recovery
will increase costs. Some sectors of the region initially may pay more for
waste management service than others. As more of the region implements waste
reduction and resource recovery, these cost inequities should decrease. For
this reason, review of supply and processing contracts should focus on the long-
term effects on waste management services. Maintaining waste management ser-
vice costs immediately competitive region-wide should not be a prerequisite for
contract approval.
107
Supply and processing contracts should incorporate flexible payment mechanisms
to respond to changing facility service conditions. If waste supply volumes or
recovered energy and materials market prices rise or fall, this can affect
contract terms. Contracts should contain appropriate performance guarantees,
equitable compensation formulas, specific clauses (for example, tonnage
guarantee provisions, source separation clauses) and risk-sharing provisions.
Objectives
9a. Ensure that waste supply and processing contracts facilitate implementation
of the waste reduction/resource recovery development program in Part 4 of
the guide chapter.
9b. Ensure that supply and processing contracts can respond to changing
facility service requirements and market conditions.
Criteria
9a. Waste supply and processing contracts shall be consistent with waste reduc-
tion/resource recovery development program in Part 4 of the guide chapter.
Waste supply and processing contracts should not prevent or adversely
affect the operation or development of other waste facilities and waste
management activities unless necessary to achieve the objectives of the
Waste Reduction/ Resource Recovery Development Program. The following
factors will be considered in determining ability to meet this criterion:
o Probable effect of the contract payment structure on waste facilities
and activities;
o Effect on service areas and collection rates and charges; and
o Effect on projects and activities required by the waste reduction/
resource recovery and development program.
9b. Increases in long-term waste management service costs as a result of waste
supply and processing contracts should be reasonable with respect to the
amount of processing and waste reduction/resource recovery achieved. The
Council will emphasize the post five-year effects on service costs. This
criterion recognizes there may be immediate increases in collection rates
and charges and service cost differences as a result of particular waste
facilities and activities.
9c. Waste supply and processing contracts should minimize public economic
risk. Contracts will be examined for the following factors:
o Quantity and duration of waste supplies and the required service area to
meet minimum facility operating requirements and debt service
amortization;
o Method of ensuring that the waste can be provided to the facility;
o Provisions to adjust drop charges and the price of energy and secondary
materials produced by the facility to reflect changes in the cost for
operations, maintenance, and value of materials or energy recovered; and
108
o The facility's performance guarantees and contract contingencies.
WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS
INTRODUCTION
Under the state WMA, metropolitan counties can form waste management dis-
tricts. This authority is granted to enable cdunties to implement waste
management practices that would be impossible to do without districts. The
Metropolitan Council has the authority to approve proposals for districts. Spe-
cific operating conditions can be a part of the Council's approval.
Solid waste management districts are public corporations and political subdivi-
sions of the state. Two or more counties can form waste districts. Districts
are officially established by the state Waste Management Board. The Board can-
not establish a district wholly within or extending into the Metropolitan Area
without the approval of the Council. The Council cannot approve a district
unless its articles of incorporation have the same procedural and substantive
responsibilities, duties and relationship to the metropolitan agencies as a
metropolitan county.
The Board cannot establish a district unless the counties demonstrate that they
are unable to fulfill the purposes of a district through joint action. The
counties must have completed a solid waste management plan before a district
can be formed. The governing body of a district is made up of persons
appointed by the counties. At least one person appointed by each county shall
be an elected official from a governmental unit within the district.
Districts have various powers including: the acquisition of property by pur-
chase, lease, condemnation and gift; the right of entry; the right to accept
gifts, grants and loans; the construction and operation of solid waste facili-
ties and services; the setting of rates and charges for waste facilities and
services of the district; the right to dispose of property; the employment of
persons; and review by the district of other waste facilities within a dis-
trict. Property owned, used or occupied by the district is exempt from taxa-
tion by the state or any political subdivision of the state. Districts have
the same rights as municipalities to issue revenue bonds.
Waste districts have the power to designate the flow of waste to specific
resource recovery facilities, if the designation authority is in its articles
of incorporation. The WMA sets up a specific process that must be followed by
the Board to establish, alter and terminate waste districts. The WMA specifies
petition contents, local review and comment procedures, hearing procedures and
final decision procedures to be used by the Board.
REASONS FOR CREATING A WASTE DISTRICT
Waste districts allow two or more counties to consolidate solid waste manage-
ment authority into a single, special purpose implementing agency. District
boundaries do not have to coincide with county boundaries, and thus allow
counties to consolidate authority for specific geographic areas. Only one-half
of the counties within a proposed district need to petition for the establish-
ment of a district. This authority allows counties to bring other counties or
portions of other counties into districts. With the exception of taxation,
waste districts have about the same authorities for waste management as indi-
vidual counties have.
109
The major reasons for creating a waste district are: 1) fiscal self-suffici-
ency, 2) emphasis on technical specialization and efficiency and 3) geographic
flexibility.
The WMA allows districts to obtain revenues from only non-tax sources. Reven-
ues can be generated directly from facility user fees or from revenue bonds
amortized by user fees. Revenues can also be obtained by grants and appropri-
ations from other aovernmental units. User fees, however, probably would
account for most of a district's revenues. '
Districts can pursue particular service responsibilities with a high degree of
technical efficiency, whereas a county frequently has to weigh competing func-
tional interests against one another. Providing only special service functions
gives .a district less organizational flexibility and integration than general
purpose government. Specific expertise and capabilities may be easier to build
in a district.
A district may allow for greater geographic flexibility than managing waste,
based on county jurisdictional boundaries. Certain natural, social or economic
characteristics of waste management services may require a close relationship
between service area and service functions. District boundaries can conform to
the service area of the particular waste management functions to be provided.
Since the district would only be concerned with providing waste services, it
would be regarded as a service mechanism rather than a governmental device.
Therefore, the general public may regard a district's service area as an
inherent component of the structure.
ISSUES CONCERNING . DISTRICT FORMATION
Waste districts present a number of policy issues that should be considered
when such proposals are evaluated. The major issues are I) consistency with
solid waste goals and objectives; 2) service efficiency and equity; 3) district
accountability; and 4) administrative effectiveness.
A waste district should further regional and county solid waste goals and objec-
tives. Although independently operating public bodies, districts will exist
within the jurisdictions of planned regional and county waste management sys-
tems. It is essential that district services are compatible with the services
of adjacent jurisdictions and meet overall regional service objectives.
Waste districts should be able to change their operations in response to chang-
ing needs and problems. They need to plan and carry out their operations in a
way that ensures a high-quality service, not merely a service that pays for
itself. In carrying out projects and activities for land disposal abatement,
districts need to keep in mind that economic considerations, though important,
should not be the only factor in making decisions.
Waste districts should coordinate their planning and operations with regional
and county plans. Counties should carefully consider what waste management
responsibilities should be delegated to waste districts to ensure an appropri-
ate division of authority.
A waste district should deliver efficient and effective waste services. When
counties propose to form a waste district, they should demonstrate that a
district would be more effective in meeting regional goals and objectives than
counties acting individually or through joint-powers agreements. An important
110
consideration is a district's financial capability, which can affect the effi-
ciency and effectiveness of its operations, as well as its overall success.
This will 6eed to be carefully examined when it comes time to review proposals
for establishing waste districts. Another consideration is equity in what rate
payers are charged for waste services and the type of service they receive.
All local jurisdictions and citizens in the district should receive services of
similar quality and cost.
Districts need to be sure they are responsive and accountab1e to public needs
and demands. Proposals to form waste districts will need to be carefully
examined to make sure that citizens, public officials and the private sector
are involved in district decision-making and operations. One possible way of
ensuring accountability is to provide for oversight of district activities by
general-purpose governments or by some other interaction with them.
Counties should be sure that a waste district they propose has adequate autho-
rity and resources to perform its functions. At the same time, responsibili-
ties given a waste district should not duplicate those of other goverhmental
units, or conflict with the plans or operations of other units. Provisions for
coordination between the district and other units may be necessary to avoid
duplication, to encourage the mutually beneficial exchange of information, and
to ensure the timing and development of projects takes place most efficiently
and effectively. Another important point is that a district's service area
should be drawn in a way that promotes the most effective performance of waste
services.
Objectives
10a. Ensure that the establishment of waste districts will facilitate implemen-
tation of the waste reduction/resource recovery development program in
Part 4 of the guide chapter.
10b. Ensure that waste districts are responsive to local citizens, public and
private interests.
10c. Ensure that waste districts have appropriate administrative structure and
capabilities to deliver services efficiently and equitably.
Criteria
10a. Proposed waste districts shall be consistent with the waste reduction/
resource recovery development program in Part 4 of the guide chapter.
The Council will consider the proposal's consistency with affected county
master plans and local plans. The Council will evaluate the:
o District's capability to meet regional objectives.
o Effect of the district on other projects or districts; and
o Need to consolidate solid waste planning and implementation activities
with affected counties and local units of government.
10b. Waste district proposals shall incorporate in its articles of incorpora-
tion, the same procedural and substantive responsibilities, duties and
relationship to the Metropolitan Council and metropolitan agencies as a
metropolitan county. Waste District Proposals shall also include a
mechanism to ensure public involvement and review of its activities.
111
10c. Waste district proposals shall demonstrate capability to provide waste
services more effectively than can be done by individual counties or by
counties acting through joint agreements. The Council will consider:
o Financing capabilities of the district; and
o Capability of the district to implement projects and activities.
10d. Proposals shall avoid duplication of effort and demonstrate adequate sepa-
ration of responsibilities. Proposals shall also provide for integration
of procedures, projects and programs with affected jurisdictions to
ensure mutually beneficial exchanges of information and data and coordi-
nation of projects and activities.
10e. Waste district service area boundaries shall promote effective service
delivery. The Council will examine social, economic, environmental and
geographic characteristics that promote reasonable service area bounda-
ries.
WASTE FLOW DESIGNATION PROPOSALS
OVERVIEW
The WMA establishes a process whereby a waste district or county can be author-
ized to require that solid waste generated within its boundaries, or a service
area thereof, be delivered to existing or planned resource recovery facilities
it designates. Using governmental controls to direct the movement of waste to
a particular destination is referred to as waste flow designation or flow con-
trol. Council approval of waste flow designations is required.
Waste assurance simply means to assure the movement of waste from its origin to
a particular destination. Waste flow designation is the most restrictive
method of waste assurance. Other less restrictive methods include economic
incentives to influence waste movement or contracting with waste collectors and
local communities having direct control over waste movement. The extent to
which waste movement must be controlled determines the waste assurance method
that will be used.
Waste assurance is generally used to meet the financial security requirements
on resource recovery projects. Large-scale recovery facilities usually require
significant capital investment. By assuring delivery of a definite quantity of
waste to a facility, revenues are guaranteed from disposal fees and from sales
of energy and/or materials products. The revenues provide a source of income
to amortize the project's debt service. Investment commitments are tied
closely to the strength of waste supply commitments.
Waste assurance can also be used to facilitate other planning objectives.
Waste assurance provides greater control over the various components of waste.
Recyclables, hazardous components and nonrecoverable residuals may be separated
and sent to appropriate facilities. The development and operation of ancillary
projects may be improved with dependable waste quantities and predictable
patterns of waste movement. Project type, size, location and financing can be
all better controlled under such circumstances.
112
WMA DESIGNATION REQUIREMENTS
The WMA sets forth a three-step process for wast
e
f
l
o
w
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
c
o
u
n
t
y
or waste district must: 1) have adopted a solid was
t
e
m
a
s
t
e
r
p
l
a
n
t
h
a
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
a designation plan; 2) hold a public hearing on the
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
,
i
f
p
o
s
-
sible, negotiate contracts with users of the reco
v
e
r
y
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
;
a
n
d
3
)
a
d
o
p
t
a
designation ordinance. Both the designation plan
a
n
d
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
approval.
The WMA exempts from designation: 1) waste that i
s
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
s
t
a
t
e
,
but deposited outside of the state; 2) materials
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
s
o
l
i
d
waste and recovered for reuse in their orignal f
o
r
m
o
r
f
o
r
u
s
e
i
n
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
processes; and 3) materials that are processed a
t
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
facility at the capacity in operation at the tim
e
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
i
s
approved. In addition, at the time the Council a
p
p
r
o
v
e
s
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
,
materials must be excluded from designation that
w
i
l
l
b
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
d
a
t
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
resource recovery facilities the Council is conv
i
n
c
e
d
w
i
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
c
o
m
-
pleted within 18 months. Operators or owners of
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
must file with the Council for the exclusion.
The WMA requires designation plans to evaluate:
1
)
t
h
e
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
-
tion and how it furthers local and regional wast
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
as well as state policies and purposes; and 2) the
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
c
o
s
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
-
nation and its long-term effects. Particular ar
e
a
s
t
h
e
W
M
A
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
-
tion plans to evaluate include:
o Whether the designation will result in the recove
r
y
o
f
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
r
e
n
e
r
g
y
from materials that would otherwise be wasted;
o Whether the designation will lessen the demand fo
r
a
n
d
u
s
e
o
f
l
a
n
d
disposal;
o Whether the designation is necessary for the fina
n
c
i
a
l
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
facility;
o Whether less restrictive methods for ensuring an
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
s
o
l
i
d
w
a
s
t
e
supply are available; and
o What other feasible and prudent waste processing
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
a
r
e
a
v
a
i
l
-
able for accomplishing the purposes of the desig
n
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
r
c
o
s
t
s
and effects on the cost to waste generators.
If these points are adequately addressed, the des
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
i
s
t
o
b
e
approved. The Council has 90 days to reach a dec
i
s
i
o
n
a
f
t
e
r
a
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
has been submitted. Once the plan has been approved,
t
h
e
c
o
u
n
t
y
o
r
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
must hold a public hearing on the designation an
d
n
e
g
o
t
i
a
t
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
s
,
i
f
possible, with solid waste collectors expected t
o
u
s
e
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
.
At the end of the negotiation period, the county
o
r
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
c
a
n
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
w
i
t
h
preparation of a designation ordinance. The ordi
n
a
n
c
e
m
u
s
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
y
t
h
e
e
x
a
c
t
nature, geographical area, requirements and gove
r
n
i
n
g
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
designation.
The county or district must submit the designati
o
n
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
a
n
y
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
negotiated contracts to the Council for approva
l
.
T
h
e
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
h
a
s
9
0
d
a
y
s
t
o
complete its review and reach a decision on the
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
o
r
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
s
.
I
f
t
h
e
Council determines that the ordinance is based o
n
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
113
and that the county or district has followed the required procedures regarding
the public hearing and negotiatina contracts, the Council must approve the
ordinance. The Council may attach conditions to its approval. The designation
authority may amend the designation ordinance with the approval of the Council.
The WMA requires the Council to monitor the effectiveness of any designations.
The designation authority must submit regularly to the Council reports on imple-
mentation of the designation. The Council is 'required to periodically evaluate
the effectiveness of the designation and whether state purposes and policies
are being met.
ISSUES CONCERNING WASTE FLOW DESIGNATION
The merits of waste flow designation have been publicly debated for a number of
years. Concern has focused largely on the effect designation would have on the
competitive nature of the region's waste services. Waste flow designation
imposes limitations on both waste movement and available waste facility
options. Waste collectors will have limited choice on where to take the waste
once it is collected. Such controls could substantially change the present
competitive service arrangement in parts of the region. Notwithstanding, since
present waste services do not fully internalize their costs, economic considera-
tions should not be the only basis for evaluating waste designation proposals
(see Part 3 of the guide chapter). Total service impacts must be analyzed,
including resource recovery objectives designation may further. Factors that
should be evaluated include:
o Whether the designation furthers the objectives of the Waste Reduction/
Resource Recovery Development Program in Part 4 of the guide chapter;
o Whether the designation is necessary for financial support and whether
less restrictive waste assurance methods are available;
o Maintaining incentives for designated resource recovery facilities to
operate efficiently;
o The effect changes in waste supplies and other waste reduction/recovery
activities will have on the designation; and
o Enforcement methods to ensure compliance with designation.
Waste flow designations should be carefully evaluated to assure furtherance of
state and regional waste management policy. Designation proposals must demon-
strate that the use of land disposal will be reduced, and that the development
of other waste reduction and recovery methods will not be jeapordized. The
costs and benefits of using alternative recovery measures in place of the pro-
posed designation activities must be evaluated. Designation proposals will
also have to scrutinized to determine to what extent ancillary activities may
benefit, such as improving the operation of source separation and composting
programs because of greater control over various waste components. Periodic
monitoririg will be necessary to assure designation continues advancement of
state and regional policy.
Waste designation will be necessary to support the financial feasibility of
some projects and activities. The financing instruments being considered will
have to be carefully examined to determine if designation is absolutely
required, or whether other methods of waste assurance could be used. Other
114
methods may include: economic incentives; entering into long-term waste supply
contracts; .placing restrictions on the use of other waste facilities; and main-
taining certain controls over waste collection services. It may be possible, to
use designation in conjunction with other methods, with designation providing a
backup mechanism if the other methods do not work as anticipated. Alternative
financing methods may also have to be evaluated if they result in the use of
other assurance methods.
By guaranteeing waste supplies, designation may remove economic incentives for
private operators of resource recovery facilities to contain expenses and pro-
vide responsible service. Facility operators would not have to be concerned
that high prices or poor services would result in waste collectors taking the
refuse elsewhere. Close public scrutiny of facility performance is, therefore,
necessary to ensure efficient operations. Contractural and financing/ownership
between governmental units and private facility owners can be used to ensure
accountability and efficient performance. The Council is authorized to approve
long-term waste supply and processing contracts between local governmental
units and private operators (see Appendix: Solid Waste Supply and Processing
Contracts).
It is important to take into account the effect changes in waste supplies and
other waste reduction/resource recovery activities will have on the designa-
tion. Solid waste supplies generated within the designation will be committed
to go to the designated facility or facilities, with the exception of the
exemptions authorized by the WMA and exclusions for other recovery facilities
authorized by the Council. The designation will commit the waste supplies for
a specified period of ttme, usually the capital debt service period for the
activities being financed. This period of time could be as long as 20 to 30
years for facilities requiring significant investment. Fluctuations in the
waste supplies, seasonal variations and changes due to the impact of other
recovery programs, must be anticipated during the period of the designation, as
well as, changes in the designated facility's operating capabilities, such as
future expansions and terminations. Designations will, therefore, have to be
carefully reviewed for compatability with long-range plans for solid waste
activities and the effect of authorized waste supply exemptions and recovery
facility exclusions. Over time it may be necessary to change certain features
of the designation, including its jurisdictional boundaries, to account for
changes in waste supplies and solid waste activities.
Finally, implementation of a designation requires enforcement to ensure com-
pliance. Because designation imposes higher costs initially, waste collectors
may simply refuse to comply and continue to use less expensive non-designated
disposal facilities. It may be particularly difficult to enforce a designation
if a large number of collection vehicles and firms are affected. The jurisdic-
tional boundaries of the designation will have to be examined to determine if
compliance can be reasonably enforced. Designation ordinances will also have
to be examined closely to assure that adequate enforcement mechanisms will be
used. Methods, such as levying fines, marking collection vehicles with distin-
guishable identifications and inspecting non-designated facilities, should be
considered. Cooperative enforcement arrangements with jurisdictions outside
the designation may be necessary.
Objectives
Ha. Ensure that waste flow designations facilitate implementation of the
Regional System Plan.
115
11b. Ensure that waste flow designations, to the extent possible, mininize
adverse impacts on waste collection patterns and services.
11c. Ensure that waste flow designations have appropriate administrative
capabilities to deliver services efficiently and equitably.
11d. Ensure that waste flow designation is needed and that less restrictive
methods are not available that would accomplish the same purposes and
results as the designation would.
Criteria
ha. Proposed waste flow designations shall be consistent with the regional
solid waste system plan and policies. Proposed designations shall demon-
strate that a significant reduction in demand (at least 40 percent is
recommended) for land disposal capacity will occur for the waste generated
in the designated area during the period of the designation. The Council
will evaluate:
o The designation's capability to further the objectives of waste
reduction and resource recovery development program in Part 4 of the
guide chapter.
o The extent to which the use of land disposal is reduced;
o The effect of the designation on existing and proposed solid waste
projects and activities;
o Consistency with county solid waste master plans; and
o Consistency with state policies and purposes.
11b. Proposed waste flow designations shall demonstrate that efficient facility
operations and performance will be maintained. The Council will evaluate:
o The extent to which public contractural and financing/ownership arrange-
ments with private operators will ensure accountability and less risk
of inefficient performance.
o The effect the designation will have on waste service delivery costs;
and
o The effect on performance without the designation.
11c. Proposed waste flow designations shall have adequate solid waste supplies
during the designation period. It may be necessary to amend the designa-
tion at a later time period to account for changes in waste supplies.
Factors that will be considered include:
o The seasonal variation and projected growth rates of solid waste
supplies;
o Proposed expansions or terminations of the designated facility that may
occur in the future;
116
o The impact on solid waste supplies by other existing and proposed solid
waste projects and activities; and
o The effect on solid waste supplies of exemptions authorized under the
WMA and recovery facility exclusions authorized by the Council.
lid The jurisdictional boundaries of the proposed waste flow designation shall
promote efficient service delivery. The Council will examine the
economic and geographic characteristics that promote reasonable service
area boundaries.
11e. Proposed waste flow designation ordinances and other controls that may be
necessary shall demonstrate that adequate enforcement mechanisms exist to
ensure compliance. Enforcement arrangements with local jursidictions and
jurisdictions outside of the designated area may be necessary to ensure
compliance.
llf. Proposed waste flow designations shall demonstrate that designation is
necessary for the financial support of the projects and activities. The
Council will evaluate:
o Alternative methods of financing the proposed activities;
o Whether other methods of waste assurance can be used or not;
o The costs and benefits of using alternative recovery measures in place
of the designation activities; and
o Whether resource recovery is feasible without the designation.
11g. Proposed resource recovery facility exclusions shall demonstrate that they
will be substantially completed within 18 months from the time the
designation is approved and capable of sustaining viable operations. The
Council will examine:
o The strength of waste supply and product market commitments;
o The ability to secure a location for the project or activity;
o Whether a commercially demonstrated technology will be used or not; and
o The ability to obtain all necessary permits and approvals and complete
construction.
CERTIFICATE OF NEED
The 1984 amendments to the Waste Management Act specify that no new land dis-
posal capacity for mixed municipal solid waste shall be permitted in the Metro-
politan Area without a certificate of need issued by the Council indicating
that the additional disposal capacity is needed. After the counties have sub-
mitted their solid waste master plans, the Council will amend the guide chapter
to include standards and procedures for certifying need. The standards and
procedures will be based on the Council's waste reduction/resource recovery and
land disposal development schedules. The WMA requires that the Council certify
need only to the extent that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to
land disposal. Alternatives that are speculative or conjectural cannot be
117
deemed to be feasible and prudent. Economic considerations alone cannot
justify the certification of need or the rejection of alternatives. Candidate
landfill sites eliminated from consideration in the Council's regional inven-
tory or by the county site selection authorities cannot be considered as
alternatives.
Table 4-7
PERCENT RECOVERY BY COUNTY BY YEAR
FOR CENTRALIZED PROCESSING FACILITIES
1991 1996-
County 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1995 2000
Anoka 2 2 2 4-19 19-57 80 80 80
Carver 0 0 0 0 0-29 82 82 82
Dakota 2 2 2 4-14 14-57 80 80 80
Hennepin 2 2 2 2-11 11-57 80 80 80
Ramsey 1 1 1 5-57 67-72 77 77 77
.Scott 18 18 18 18 18-29 83 83 83
Washington 19 19 19-25 25-57 67-72 79 79 79
Total 48 48 81 509 1,179 1,681 8,669 9,089
(tonnages
in 1,000s)
Metropolitan 2 2 4 25 57 80 80 80
Area (Percent
of Regional
Total)
SE1654-PHENV2
02.25.85
118