Agenda - Council - 05/31/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I ! I I I ! this site. "Had we known that this ares ~o under consideration, we would not have located odr neW facility here." ~Ine Waste Management Board h~s cited similar obJectiorm by an existing ~ndustry (Burlington N~rthern I~%nd Develop- ment Corporation) in rejecting the proposed Oc~n ~apids site; concluding that, "Sclc of the develol~ent in the industrial park is incompatible." (Ex. N, 27, 133). 22. There was nO evidence or allegation in the record tt~t any of the businesses on the proposed site are currently industries usir~3 hazardous ma- terials. Planned I~dustrial Development 23. ~he entire proposed Sits is zoned g~nerally for ir~ustrial develop- ment. City officials~ however~ made it very clear both in their testi~ny and in formal resolutions that this zoning classification was never intended to include ~azardous waste processing facilitiesl particularly considerir~3 the soil and w~ter conditions in this proposed area, Availability of City Water and Sewer 24. None of the proposed site ts served by any sanitary sewer, storm sewer or public water system. 25. Except for a 295-acre section (Ex. WW, p. 70f)~ south of the airport and east of (k~mty ~ 56 (roughly 23% of the 1280 acre total proposed site a~cording to Ex. YY) Which is a propo.sed "urban service area"~ the city has never had any plans to extend sewer to any of the proposed area. (Ex. ~W, ~ 13A). 26. The city's 1980 comprehensive plan' included proposals for phased sewer service extensions in the southeasterly-most 23% of the site by 1986. F~everl these plans have been delayed pending resolution'of a dispute in- volving the F~tropolftan Waste G~ntrol O~mmission'sl Goon Rapids-Anoka-Bla~ne interceptor. (Ex. WW, p. 71). That proposed schedule has also subsequently been revised "due to present economic .status" to sewer only ]%alf of the area by 1990. (Ex. WWi p. 75). Moreouer, ~t presently appears that the proposal Go sewer part of this area will be dropped altogether~ as it is running into considerable opposition from local citizens. A recent attempt to develop an assessment policy which would protect non-petitioning properties, nonetheless drew one~ and one-~lf hours of protest from 100 "irrate city residents" op- posed to any sewer extensions. (EX. ~KK, Minneapolis Trtbune~ 3/24/83, sub- mltted with Final Staff ODments). The city council has currently shelved all proposals for sewer to this area indefinitely and is presently planning to extend sewer instead to e different part of the city. (Afternc~x~ Tr., p. 29). At the request of Board Staff, the city sut~itted a formal resolution confirming this revision .of .the comprehensive plan. (Ex. KEK, submitted with Final Staff (2kmm~_nts)~ 27. If a future city c~nncil were to reinstitute plans for sewer service to all or part of this southeasterly-~ost 23% of the proposed site, the exten- sions would have to be sized to prevent any further extension of sewer service to t~e remaining 77% of the proposed site (Ex. ~W, p. 71) to c~mply with I I