4.3. SR 08-28-2000ITEM ~4.3.
City of
River
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Co~cil,
Michele McPherson, Director of Planning
August 28, 2000
Response to Citizens' Petition for an EAW Regarding the
Conditional Use Permit Request by Opus Northwest and ANCI
Softpac
The City received on August 21, 2000, a petition opposing the conditional use
permit and requesting an EAW regarding the proposed manufacturing facility
located on Lot 1, Block 1, Country Crossing Business Center Third Addition,
located adjacent to Business Center Drive.
Staff has prepared this response to the request for an EAW. While the response
time to the request appears quick, staff is well aware of the components of the
project as the applicant has been in discussions with the City since February
2000.
Attachments
· 1995 Land Use Plan
· 1990 Focus Area Study
· 1988 Growth Management Plan
· Resolution No. 00-
Statement 1.
The project does not meet the City of Elk River's Comprehensive Land Use
Plan.
The City's Comprehensive Plan, most recently updated in 1995, indicates this
area as light industrial (Attachment A). If we review the 1988 Growth
Management Plan, we can find this area identified as the first area for future
industrial development (Attachment C). In 1990, the City completed a focused
study of the area, which laid out streets, and areas of uses. The area today is
very similar to the 1990 study (Attachment B).
It should be noted that, with the exception of Sandpiper Estates, developed in
1986, the neighboring residential developments were approved in:
13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone (763) 441-7420 · Fax (763) 441-7425
Memo to Mayor and City Council Page 2
August 23, 2000
June 1994
November 1994
February 1995
March 1995
Country Crossing I
Country Crossing 2
Country Crossing Townhomes
Country Crossing Busines Center (plat)
The rezoning request, by the City of Elk River, to rezone this area to Business
Park was approved in October 1994. All of these requests have a concurrent
time line and the subject property was zoned for light manufacturing uses prior to
construction of the homes in the adjacent neighborhood. Prior to approval of the
plats and rezoning noted above, the City completed an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet that declared no need for an Environmental Impact
Statement.
The petition states, "The proposed project far exceeds the norm for building
height of surrounding homes". The maximum building height allowed within the
Business Park Zoning District is 45 feet. The proposed structure is 34 feet in
height with only the storage tanks being 37 feet in height; well below the
maximum height allowed within the Business Park Zoning District. Due to the
distance separating the homes from the proposed facility, many will not see the
structure, as it would be below the site lines from the homes. The petition states,
"The proposed design which includes tall silos and a stainless steel facade is not
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood." The fa~;ade of the building is not
stainless steel; the building is proposed to be constructed of concrete tip-up
panels painted a light gray color. The only portion of the building that will be
stainless steel will be the proposed storage tanks and architectural details such
as metal-wrapped columns on the office portion of the structure, both of which
are located on the north side of the building and away from the surrounding
residential neighborhood. There will also be a narrow strip of metal flashing at
the top of the panels.
Statement 2.
The project does not meet the City of Elk River's Zoning Ordinance.
The Business Park zoning allows as a permitted use light manufacturing when
the underlying land use is Light Industrial. Above-ground storage tanks are a
conditional use. The request by Opus Northwest and Softpac, Inc. (formerly
ANC) is for a conditional use permit for the exterior above-ground storage tanks
proposed to be constructed of stainless steel and intended to house ingredients
such as fruit concentrates and fruit juices that will be mixed with water and
packaged as part of the manufacturing process. The ordinance defines light
manufacturing as:
"a use engaged in the manufacture, fabrication, processing, packaging or
assembly predominantly from previously prepared materials of finished
products or parts, but excluding basic industrial processing. The above
S:~PLAN NING~VIICH MC\CCREPRTS\CU00-28A.DOC
Memo to Mayor and City Council Page 3
August 23, 2000
activity shall take place in a manner which will not produce offensive
conditions observable from neighboring properties.'
Softpac's manufacturing process utilizes roll stock of polyethylene material. This
is not a raw material. The vinyl is cut and "welded together" using a heated die
and then filled with the mixed juice product. This welding process is similar to
that of the home-based Daisy Seal-a-Meal® process. The entire process,
including pasteurization, takes place within a closed system by which steam and
heat are captured for re-use within the building. This closed system eliminates
the release of odors from the plant. If odors are detected from outside the plant,
measures will be required to eliminate them. None of the activities related to the
packaging process will be observable from adjacent properties, including the
neighboring residential district.
The petition states that there will be "24 hour a daj/' lighting. This is a fair and
accurate statement. However, the ordinance requires that at the property line,
the level of light be one-half foot-candle. The proposed lighting will be wall-
mounted light packs on the rear and sides of the building for security purposes
and 30 foot high parking lot standards in the front parking areas for parking lot
light lighting and security. These light standards will be shorter than the
proposed building. The applicants will be required to meet the one-half foot-
candle level established in the ordinance.
The petition states that "there will fifty or more trucks per daj/' entering and
leaving the plant per day for purposes of delivering materials and shipping
product. This is fair and accurate statement; however, all truck traffic will be
directed onto Business Center Drive, not through or within the neighboring
residential areas. Business Center Drive is a city street designed and built to
handle industrial-scale traffic (9-ton limit). Trucks will mix with residential traffic
when entering Joplin Street. Joplin Street, however, is a minor arterial and is
designed to handle a mix of commercial, industrial, and residential traffic.
Highway 10, the adjacent state highway, is designed to support all types of traffic
residential, commercial and industrial.
It was stated at the public hearing on August 21, 2000, that there would be safety
issues created by children on bicycles and pedestrians walking along the street
conflicting with the proposed levels of truck traffic. The city has established a
network of sidewalks along Business Center Drive and Joplin Street, which
provides safe conveyance for pedestrians and bicyclists. There is also a
sidewalk along the south side of 183rd Avenue, which also provides safe
conveyance. Truck drivers are expected to obey the laws of the road, as would
any other driver including passenger vehicles and smaller trucks.
Statement 3.
The project will negatively impact the surrounding residential
neighborhood due to increased noise pollution, increased traffic and
S:\PLANNING~v11CHMC\CCREPRTS\CU00-28A.DOC
Memo to Mayor and City Council Page 4
August 23, 2000
vehicle-related air emissions from truck traffic and from the juice storage
and packaging operation itself and the increased visual impact from bright
lights 24 hours a day.
The allowed decibel levels stated in the petition are measured at the property line
over a period of time. Nothing in the materials submitted by the applicant
indicate any potential for exceeding state noise standards. All manufacturing
activities will be conducted entirely within the building. Noise outside of the
building will be generated from heating, ventilating and air conditioning units
placed on top of the building; however, this type of equipment will not generate
noise in excess of state standards and can be expected whether the
development is industrial or commercial in nature. In regards to truck noise,
trucks using the site will all be licensed for use on public roads and have to
comply with state noise standards. Any Business Park use of this property will
generate truck traffic, whether the proposal was for a single user such as Softpac
or multiple users, which could occur should the property be subdivided into
several lots for various tenants.
With respect to traffic impacts, using the estimate of fifty trucks to the site per day
for this use would generate an average number of 2.08 trucks per hour. Most of
the shipping and receiving activities will occur during regular business hours of 6
a.m. - 8 p.m., thereby concentrating the truck traffic and increasing the average
trucks per hour to 4.16 trucks per hour, or one every fifteen minutes. This is well
within the design levels of the surrounding streets and will not have a significant
adverse impact on safety. The surrounding streets were improved after the 1994
EAW identified the need to improve the intersection of Highway 10 and Orono
Parkway. That lead to the design of the street layout as it currently is today.
Loading activities for the storage tanks will occur in front of the building away
from the residential areas. The building will serve as a noise barrier to the noise
generated by the loading activity. The City's normal hours of operation are 7:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. For deliveries and shipments outside of these hours, the use of
back up alarms would not be allowed. Acceptable alternatives include the use of
strobe lights, cameras or microwaves. No use of this property, including this
proposed use would be allowed to exceed the state noise standards established
by the MPCA. Noise levels will be monitored and measured for the first several
months of operation to ensure compliance with the regulations. Any violation of
the regulations would be required to be corrected.
The MPCA also establishes acceptable levels for odor emissions from production
facilities of all types. The design of the packaging process should eliminate
almost all odors from the plant. If exceeding those levels are detected, the
applicants will be required to implement measures to reduce the emissions.
S:~PLANNING~MICHMC\CCREPRTS\CU00-28A.DOC
Memo to Mayor and City Council Page 5
August 23, 2000
Statement 4.
The project will have an impact on the infrastructure of the neighborhood
due to excessive use of the local roads for larger than expected truck
traffic and the high amount of water usage required by the facility.
As stated earlier in this memo, Business Center Drive, Joplin Street and Highway
10 are all roads designed to handle truck traffic. The standards to which
Business Center Drive was designed are for up to 15,000 - 20,000 cars/trucks
per day. This proposal will only generate 50 trucks per day with initially 60 - 80
employees (225 - 275 average daily trips).
The concern regarding maintaining adequate water supply is true for any
community. The existing water system has adequate water to provide water for
the production activities proposed by Softpac.
Elk River continues to grow, particularly in the eastern area. Additional
residential subdivisions will be developed over the next 10 years on
approximately 1,000 acres of available vacant residential land. This increased
growth will necessitate the construction of additional water production facilities.
Elk River Municipal Utilities is currently in the process of siting water production
facility #7 along with a water tower.
The Minnesota DNR grants authorization to construct additional water production
facilities and regulates annual water use allocations. To obtain the necessary
permits from the DNR, water utilities must implement water conservation
measures along with other conditions. The purpose for implementing an odd-
even sprinkling restriction is to comply with MN DNR water conservation
practices.
The Elk River Utilities did offer, as part of the incentive package, a 20% reduction
in water rates for three years. The amount of water needed to qualify for this
reduction will not be consumed until the plant is expanded. It is not known at this
time when that may occur. This offer will not cause an increase in costs to other
water users beyond normal annual increases required due to maintenance and
operating costs.
Conclusion
Staff has investigated the potential environmental effects of the proposed Softpac
facility over the past six months, including potential noise, traffic, air quality,
surface water and ground water impacts. It was staff's conclusion that the
project does not have any potential for creating significant environmental effects.
Therefore, the staff recommendation on this proposal did not include a
recommendation that an EAW be prepared. Upon further review of the potential
environmental impacts of the project, staff continues to be confident in its
analysis and conclusion that this project does not have the potential for
significant environmental effects.
S:\PLANNING~llCHMC\CCREPRTS\CU00-28A.DOC
Memo to Mayor and City Council Page 6
August 23, 2000
Recommendation
Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution
denying the request for a discretionary EAW for this proposal and approve the
conditional use permit with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
S:\PLANNING~llCHMC\CCREPRTS\CU00-28A,DOC
STO0)
i~00)
~200)
3100)
~)
~700)
~oo)
~oo)
XERXES
WA~O
VICTORIA
UNIOI~
1ROY
SAJ.19J
L
'TI
0
0
LS__F_j Single-Family Residential
C~.M.M.M.~F3 Multifamily Residential
LC_) Commercial-Retail
C~.B~P~ Business Park
L_..J School
~__U-~ Public
)Park
MF
1{{gT
SF
BP
BP
BP
BP waler
Tower B P
F
SF
BP SF
SF
SF
Trail
' ~ SF SF
lk Rwer ..........
'ocus Area Studies
Flood Plain
Figure 3
Land Use and Circulation Plan, Area
Attachment C
'-"1988 Growth Mangement Plan
RESOLUTION O0 -
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ELK RIVER
RESOLUTION REGARDING PETITION REQUESTING THE PREPARATION
OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
FOR THE OPUS NORTHWEST AND ANC SOFTPAC FACILITY
A resolution of the City Council of the City of Elk River regarding the environmental
review process for the proposed OPUS Northwest and ANC Softpac facility: setting forth
findings of fact regarding the need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW);
and declaring that the preparation of an EAW is not necessary
Whereas, OPUS Northwest and ANC Softpac (the Developer) has been in contact
with city staff to familiarize themselves with the city's development standards since
February, 2000; and,
Whereas, the Developer submitted an application for a juice packaging facility on
Lot 1, Block 1, Country Crossing Business Center Third Addition (the Facility) that was
deemed complete by city staff on July 7, 2000; and,
Whereas, the Facility by itself does not fall within the categories in Minnesota
Rules, Part 4410.4300, Subpart 14 [Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Rules] that
require a mandatory EAW; and,
Whereas, the City of Elk River, pursuant to EQB Rules as the Responsible
Governmental Unit (RQU), ordered the preparation of an EAW for the mixed use
Country Crossing project; and,
Whereas, the proposed Facility is consistent with that EAW; and,
Whereas, on April 31, 1994, the City Council of the City of Elk River found that
EAW adequate and made a negative declaration regarding the need for and
Environmental Impact Statement for the Country Crossing mixed use project; and,
Whereas, after due notice, the Elk River Planning Commission held a public
hearing regarding the proposed Facility on July 25, 2000; and,
Whereas, after due notice, the City Council for the City of Elk River held a public
hearing regarding the proposed Facility on August 21, 2000; and,
Whereas, city staffs review of the Facility and proposed conditions on its
operation are identified in a memorandum to the City Council, dated August 21, 2000,
from Michele McPherson, Director of Planning; and,
Whereas, the Elk River City Council received a petition from community
residents pursuant to EQB Rules, Part 4410.1100, which was also filed with the
Environmental Quality Board, requesting the preparation of an EAW for the Facility at
the August 21, 2000 Elk River City Council meeting; and,
Whereas, the comments identified in the petition and all substantive comments
have been responded to by the City as RGU in the staff memorandum to the City
Council, dated August 28, 2000, from Michele McPherson, Director of Planning; and,
whereas, the environmental review process mandated by the Minnesota
Environmental Policy Act and implemented through the EQB Rules has been followed
and this resolution shall be the City's record of its compliance with the EQB Rules and
decision in this matter; and,
whereas, pursuant to EQB Rules, the City of Elk River, as the RGU, shall order
the preparation of an EAW if the evidence presented by the petitioners, proposers and
other persons or otherwise known to the RGU demonstrates that, because of the nature or
location of the proposed Facility, the Facility may have the potential for significant
environmental effects; and,
Whereas, pursuant to EQB Rules, the City of Elk River, as the RGU, shall deny
the petition if the evidence presented fails to demonstrate that the facility may have the
potential for significant environmental effects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN
THE DEVELOPER'S APPLICATION, THE COMMENTS RECEIVED, AND THE
RESPONSES THERETO FROM CITY STAFF IN THEIR MEMORANDUM TO THE
COUNCIL DATED AUGUST 28, 2000, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ELK
RIVER FINDS THE FACILITY DOES NOT HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND, THEREFORE, DOES NOT
REQUIRE THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WORKSHEET FOR, THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
A. All manufacturing activities at the Facility will be conducted indoors.
Therefore, the Facility will comply with State Noise Standards and
will have no significant environmental effects related to noise.
B. The manufacturing process used at the Facility is a closed loop system,
which will ensure there will be no significant environmental effects
related to air emissions or odor.
C. Traffic generated by the Facility, including truck traffic, will be well
within the design capacity of the surrounding road system, therefore,
there will be no significant environmental effects related to traffic.
D. Elk River Municipal Utilities has more than sufficient capacity to
provide water to the Facility and the site plan provides for appropriate
management of surface water runoff. Therefore, the Facility does not
have the potential for significant environmental effects related to
ground water, surface water, or the municipal water supply.
E. The record before the RGU does not indicate any other areas with
respect to which the Facility has the potential for significant
environmental effects and the RGU is not aware of any facts which
would indicate the Facility has the potential for significant
environmental effects.
F. The Facility will be subject to the ongoing regulatory authority of the
City of Elk River.
G. Future development in the area of the Facility will be regulated by the
EQB Rules and will be subject to the ongoing regulatory authority of
the City and other governmental agencies.
THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 4410.1100, SUBPART 6 OF THE EQB
RULES, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER FINDS THAT THE
EVIDENCE BEFORE IT FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE FACILITY HAS
THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND DENIES
THE PETITION FOR AN EAW.
The foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member
and duly seconded by Council Member
The following voted in favor of the resolution:
The following voted against the resolution:
The following were absent:
Whereupon the resolution is adopted.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Elk River this 28th day of August,
2000.
ATTEST:
Stephanie Klinzing, Mayor
Sanda Peine, Clerk
AUG-28-00 MON 04:19 PM MN PLANNING FAX'651 296 3698 PAGE
August 28, 2000
Steve Roh].f
City of Elk R. ivcr
13065 Orono Par'kway
P.O. Box 490
Elk Rivcr, Minnesota 55330
RE: Citizens petition Ibr an EAW for juice packaging facility, Country Crossing Business
Center
Dear Mr. Rohlf:
]'he Envkonmcntal Quality Board (EQB) has received a petition requesting that an EAW be
prepared on the project described in the petition, and has determined that Elk River is the
appropriate governmental unit to decide the need for an EAW.
Thc requirements for environmental review, including the preparation of an EAW, can be
found in 'the Minnesota Rules, chapter 4410.
Thc procedures to be followed in making the EAW decision arc set forth in part 4410.1100.
Key points in the procedures include:
No final government approvals may be given to the project named in the petition, nor
may construction on the project be started until the need for an EAW has been
determined. Project construction includes any activities which directly afl~zct the
environment, includiug preparation of land. If the decision is to prepare an EAW,
approv',d must be withheld until either a Negative Declaration is issued or an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is completed (see part 4410.3100, subpart 1,
page 35.)
A first step in making thc decision regarding the need for an EAW would be to
compare the project to the mandatory EAW, ElS and Exemption categories hsted ha
parts 4410.4300, 4410.4400, and 441.0.4600, respectively. If the project should fall
under any of these categories, environmental review is automatically required or
AUG-28-00 MON 04:19 PM MN PLANNING FAX'651 296 3698 PAGE
prohibited. If this should bc the case, proceed accordingly.
If preparation of an EAW is neither mandatory nor exempted, thc City hat the option
to prepare an EAW. The standard to be used to decide it' an EAW should be done is
given in part 4410.1100, subp. 6. Notc that this requires that a record of decision
including specific findings of fact be maintained,
You are allowed up to 30 working days (Saturdays, Sundays and holidays do not
coum) for your decision ff it will be made by a council, board, or other body which
meets only periodically, or 15 working days ff it will be made by a single individuil.
You may request an extra 15 days from EQB if thc decision will be made by an
individual.
You must notify, in writing, the proposer, the petitioners' representative and the EQB
of your decision within live working days. I would appreciate your sending a copy of
your record of decision on the petition along with notification of your decision lbr our
records. This is not required, however,
If for any reason you are unable to act on the petition at ibis time (e.g., no application
has yet been filed or thc application has been withdrawn), thc petition will remain in
effect for a period of one year, and must be acted upon prior to any final decision
concerning the project idcntilied in thc petition.
Notice of thc petition and its assignment to your unit of government will be pubEshed in thc
EOB Monito_ r on September 4, 2000.
If you have any questions or need any assistance, please do not hesitate to call. The phone
number is (651) 296-8253, or you may dial my direct number at (651 ) 296-3865.
Sincerely,
Jon Larscn
Principal Planner, Environmental Review
cc: Thomas Kumpala, petitioners' representative