Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWK May 17, 1990 9\\ CITY of ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION May 17, 1990 7:00 P.M. Call to Order 1. Consent Decree/WDE Site 2 . 3. Adjournment - .~- - -- ..- -- {CA CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304· (612) 755-5100 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MAY 17. 1990 MINUTES A Special Meeti ng of the Andover City CounciJ was called to order by Mayor Jim EI Jlng on May 17. 1990: 7:04 p.m.. at the Andover City HaJl. 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW. Andover. Minnesota. to discuss the Consent Decree for the Waste Disposal Engineering site. Councilmembers present: Jacobson (left at 7:54 p.m.), Kn i gh t , OrtteJ (arrived at 7:21 p.m.) Councilmember absent: Perry Also present: City Attorney, Wi I Jiam G. Hawkins: City AdmInistrator'. Jim Schrantz: and others Mayor EJllng Introduced the foJlowlng: Bob Boyum, Coon Creek Watershed Representative: Tim Kelly. Administrator of the Coon Creek Watershed: Kenny Haberman, MPCA; and Rich KooJ I. Attorney General/s Office of the State of Minnesota. Mayor E1Jing noted one of the prob1ems with the Consent Decree Is wi th the facilities description. In looking at a map showing the boundaries of the facility, he pointed out it takes in parts of Crosstown Boulevard. Andover BouJevard and Hanson Boulevard. The county has a problem with some of the restrictions being put on those roads. because the Decree doesn't even alJow the InstaJlatlon of signs without MPCA and EPA approval. Mr. Haberman stated the facilities description on the Decree before the Counc II is not their position. Their position held since last fal J Is the description would include the property that Is tax forfeit and those areas that have waste on them. and that there would be restrictions around that property. The cap would have to be far enough to cover all the waste and a sufficient area designated so a maintenance road cou1d be built around It. The description In this draft does not correctly reflect their position held last December. Mayor Elling restated the position that the PCA had wanted the description to be from the toe of the existing slope of the landfi II plus adequate room for a maintenance road. Five hundred additional feet was for the special construction. the backfill material around foundations. to prevent problems with methane gas in homes. This document reflects the area from the property ] ines, not from the toe of the slope. Mr. Haberman stated the City Is party to only two sections of the Consent Decree. Section 5. Pages 14-21, General Provisions: They have asked the City to get involved primarily for access reasons. The CIty owns some property adjacent to the tax torfelt Jand on the southwest corner of the facility pJus easement between Hanson ---- .- -- --- --- Special CI ty Counci J Meeting Minutes - May 17, 1990 Page 2 Boulevard and the ]andflll. Part of the remedy. the cap. wi IJ impact those pieces of land. and access wi II be needed. All parti es dl recti y adjacent to the facility have been asked to become a part of this Decree. Mayor EJling asked for an expJanation of the City's I iabi I i ty it it enters into this agreement. Mr. Haberman exp]ained on Pages 74-78. XVIII speaks to a covenant not to sue. The purpose of this section is that al I parties agree not to sue the other parties of the Decree. They believe this removes any liabiJity on the part of the City: the Ci ty wi II be protected. Councilmember Jacobson questioned the provision on Page 14, and asked the City Attorney whether this ImpJles a taking on the part of the City, as property rights appear to be taken away in some cases. Attorney Hawkins advised that for the City's mandatory obligations In the Consent Decree. only the property that the City owns or controls wi th fee ownership. lease. or easement interest Is affected. Councilmember Jacobson understood that they are wanting the City to pass ordinances regarding safeguards for methane gas. That would involve other properties. Mayor EI ling noted the method talked about was Class I or II rock backflJI with a tarred foundation to stop any methane gas from entering the house. Attorney Hawkins said based on the origlna] area of the facility. there was no possibility of construction of houses within 500 feet property owned by the settJing parties. Councilmember Jacobson polnted out on Page 8. affecting anything that is contiguous to the landfi II within 500 feet cou]d theoreticaJly encompass property down to Crooked Lake. Mayor EJllng felt it shou]d read wi thin 500 feet of the existing toe of the slope. Mr. Haberman again noted the definition of the facility Is not the position of the PCA. Hopefully some modifications will be made to that description. Councilmember Jacobson asked about the removal of al J wastes in the right of way along Hanson BouJevard. Page 15. Does that mean it wi II be dug out and a deep hole left? Mr. Haberman stated it would be dug out as it Is very important that the wastes within the easement be capped or removed. Their preference would be to remove it from the right of way, place I t back on the site, and fi]] the right of way with clean f 11 I . Counci]member Jacobson noted the major utility line going through there. questioning whether they wouJd have to get EPA permission to repair It. Mayor EIJing also noted there is buried cable of AEC west of Hanson Bou]evard p]us the transmission lines from NSP. but the Consent Decree talks about no buried cables or pipes or any structures within the area. This puts a real burden on a number of utlltles, the county. and the City. Special City Council Meetl ng Minutes - May 17. 1990 Page 3 Mr. Haberman felt that from the standpoint of an emergency, the utility companies wll] have to do what has to be done. Removing the material from the right of way wi I] be an advantage rather than Jeaving the waste there. The issue of whether that easement will be able to be used afterwards by the utility companies stil I has to be resolved. (Councilmember Orttel arrived at this time. 7:21 p.m. ) Mr. Haberman also noted if the City decides not to participate in the Consent Decree. some kind of access agreement would need to be reached wi th all parties Involved. From the MPCA standpoint, It is a neater package if the City participates. The MPCA previously made recommendations to the City to consider developing ordinances for methane gas control 300 to 500 feet from the I andf ill. They are not dropping that Issue whether the City is part of the Consent Decree or not, thinking that Is a very important part of this remedy. Councilmember Jacobson asked about any building restrictions in the Hil Is of Bunker Lake because of Its proximity to the I andfll I . Attorney Hawkins stated they are not a part of the Consent Decree. and there is no restriction on any of that property. Mr. Kooll interpreted the section on Page 19 that there wi] I be no buildings wi thin 500 feet to mean except where such construction protects from Infiltration of gas. He too stated they are trying to work with the Department of Justice on an adjustment of the facilities description. The restriction on buildings Is 200 feet from the toe of the waste deposit. For the other additional 300-foot restriction, they are looking for gas protection. not prohibition of building. Attorney Hawkins then noted the language on Page 15. El and E2 has been changed and now does not specifically apply to the City's property. Mr. Haberman stated the key there is for property Jocated north of Coon Creek. where it is thought that any gas would stop at the creek. The purpose of this is to prevent the migration of methane gas. Councilmember Jacobson noted the wording of that section refers to the property and not the structure. so it could be interpreted to read that a house couldn't even be built within 800 feet of the slope if the property itself is within 200 feet. Mr. Haberman stated that is not the purpose. He stated that the intent is not that a 160-acre parcel could not be built upon It it is within 200 feet of the slope. It only applies to 200 feet from the slope. All the property, excluding that north of Coon Creek. within 200 feet of the toe of the where the existing waste is now is owned by the City, county or a particular person who is, at this point in time. Intended to be part of the Consent Decree. Counc i 1 again noted that some property In the HIlls of Bunker Lake Is wi thin that 200 feet. -. - . ..- .. Special Ci ty Counci I Meeting Minutes - May 17. 1990 Page 4 Attorney Hawkins stated it appears the first row of houses within the HiJls of Bunker Lake may be within the 500-foot radius. and those houses may have to be constructed with the protection. He didn't think the regulation of methane gas is so stringent as to amount to a taking of the land. He feJt it could be argued there is a demonstrated hazard and there's a reasonable need for the regulation. CounciJmember Orttel asked If it has been proven that methane gas Is a problem outside of the landfi II. Mr. Haberman stated they believe It hasn't been an issue, but not because i t isn't there. They feel once the cap is put on the landfill. the gas wi II move latera]Jy and then couJd be a problem. Mayor EI1ing c]arified the deed restrictions noted In the Consent Decree are onJy for that property that the CI ty has ]egal Interest In. which is on]y the Red Oaks park area. If the waste is going to be removed from the right of way. he felt there should be no deed restrictions on that. There should be normal use of the right of way once the waste is removed. Mayor EI ling also noted representatives of the Coon Creek Watershed have not been aware of the proposa I . Apparent]y the Potentially Responsible Parties would have a problem with the maintenance on Coon Creek. He felt the Watershed has public interest that has to be protected, but that wasn't addressed In the Consent Decree. He a]so noted the 509 Plan of the Watershed. and not being able to do the Improvements on Coon Creek will cause problems and revisions In that plan. Mr. Haberman stated the PCA would not have a problem with typical maintenance of removing branches or whatever Is blocking the creek. But if a major dredging program is needed. that Is a major concern. They wouId be concerned with the result if any soils between the creek and the Jandflll are contaminated. They will be setting up a fairJy sophisticated monitoring program from Hanson Bou]evard to Crosstown with stations in between: and it would be Important to keep as much controJ as possible with regard to the water quality of Coon Creek. Mr. Haberman stated if there Isn't any activity planned immediately, that Is before the remedy is completed, It may be important to have three to five years of data colJecting before it is done to keep the creek bed undisturbed for as long as possible. There may be some advantage of doing that type of activity right away. A concern would be If the dredging produces some situations where contaminates are reJeased. It i s d I tf i cu I t to determine the proper background of water qua]ity for Coon Creek and what is the water quality coming from WDE. It was agreed this is an issue between the Coon Creek Watershed and those Involved in the Consent Decree. -- - - ,.- ... Special Ci ty Counci I Meeting Minutes - May 17, 1990 Page 5 Councllmember Jacobson referred to Page 34, the technicaJ impractability waiver. He asked what happens if the remedy does not work. Wi II the Jandfi II just sit there? Mr. Haberman stated the item refers to the particular remedy of series of pumpout wells. treatment and discharge. It that isn't technically meeting the cleanup criteria, then there will be some other activity that will be tried. The EPA has an obJigation to do a five-year review of the remedy to see if It Is working. It it is not. something else has to be done. Counc I I expressed concern about what will happen to the two 40-acre parcels adjacent to the Jandflll on the south side. They did not want to have that property used for the cleanup of the landfi II and then left in an unusable state. The Consent Decree circumvents the City's permit process. so the City would have no control over mining and restoration of those parcels. Another concern was also the removal of trees. etc.. on the City-owned property on Crosstown Boulevard, which would eliminate the visual buffer between the landfill and Crosstown Boulevard. Mayor Elling noted there is a site plan proposal for the Crosstown BouJevard property, which will be a part of this agreement. Mr. Kooll stated there is only one 40-acre parcel south of the landfill that is included In the facilities description at this time because It was permitted as Jandf ill by the county. He also agrees with the City's concern over the use of the term "adjoining property". and they are talking to the Department of Justice about that. Counc i I argued that that area was permitted not for the dumping of wastes but for fill for the cap of the landfi II. (Councilmember Jacobson left the meeting at this time. 7:54 p.m.) Mr. Haberman realized that mining the land south to the south is a concern to the City, noting the representatives here this evening who have prepared the plans for that area. He also added the MPCA did not approve the design for the northwest area with the sedimentation design. but they will be looking at a significantly different design for the sedimentation at a future date. They too feel It Is Important to keep visual and noise buffers around all of the property. CounciJmember Orttel felt that should be a part of the Consent Decree. He was st i I I concerned about including that parcel as part of the facility description since no waste was ever put on it. Margaret Coughlin, Co-Chair of the SW28 Group. representing Ford Motor Company - expJalned she asked their consultant to bring them a plan which would show how they can use some of the land and leave the property in a condition that it could be used for future development. They would be happy to give this to Staff. but felt it would be helpful for the Counci I to see it now. Mayor EJ ling preferred not to have that presentation at this time because none of that information was gathered from or reviewed by Staff . None of the Information on sanitary sewers. water. storm drainage. has been asked for from the City. ~ - --- - .~ Special Ci ty Counci I Meeting Minutes - May 17, 1990 Page 6 After a short discussion on the issue, it was agreed to hear a short overview of the ultimate plans for the property to the south of the landfi II. recognizing those plans still need to come into the City for formal review. Tom DaiJy, speaking for Mr. Roth, stated they do not want to leave that property unusable after it is all over either. The property now is pretty valueless: and to have any va]ue at all, th i s I andf i II remedy must be established. Mr. Roth would like to develop this property ultimately. He showed a drawing prepared to grade to try to keep a Jot of the natural function and drainage, maintain elevation. and preserve the trees. They want to take enough fill of the quality needed to construct the top layer and drainage layer of the cap on the Jandt 111. They don't know If all the f I II will come from this property because It must meet quality criteria for the cap construction, though they have done soil borings and are trying to make that determination. The land wi II be a Ii tt Ie less rolling than i t is now, but he felt that would facilitate actuaJ use of the property In the long range. Mayor Elling argued no one wi11 finance development on property that is incJuded In the faciJlties description. Ms. Coughlin stated aside from the description of the faci I i ties, the intent of the group is not to leave the land undevelopable. They have asked their consultants to develop a plan to maintain drainage. that would be suitab]e for future development. and a plan which would uti I ize the f II] . They have done soil borings. They are being told that the future drainage plans for the cap is to have even less drainage because of the vegetative cover. Mayor Elling asked that those items be brought to the Staff for their review and comment. his concern being increased runoff into the Red Oaks pond which was not sized for it. Councilmember Orttel asked about the possibility of the City being named as one of the parties to the $15 mil]ion security that is to be posted by the Settling Defendants to insure that the property will be Jeft developable. Wi thout that. the City would have no assurances that the propert y will be left In a usable state because i t is giving up the right of control through the permitting process. Ms. Cough I In stated Ford Motor Company thinks that security Is an unnecessary expense. and that Is one of the issues they wi II be addressing this week. Hal Summit. Leash and Associates - stated the map is not a proposal but their attempt to show the amount of fill that would be needed for the cap that might be available on site which could be excavated without destroying the usefulness for development of the area. The intent was to maintain a 300-foot buffer. 150 feet on the south. not change any of the drainage patterns, and not put any more area into the wetland. The maximum depth is to four feet above the high water mark. Me. Davis stated they will work with the City Staff on this matter. . --' ~ -. -_.- .-- Special Ci ty Counci I Meeting Minutes - May 17, 1990 Page 7 John Christofferson. Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, Inc. - apologized I f there has been any misunderstanding with the City. stating he has been in a number of times and talked with Mr. Haas, obtained drawings and Information on the sewer, as-bui Its, etc. He stated he was specificaJJy brought on board to Jook at the sewer issue and is aware of the sensitivity of going into the sewer system. Mr. Christofferson had two drawings of the treatment bui1dlng and routings that could potentially be used to route the treatment facility affluent to the sanitary sewer. That route hasn't been nailed down. understanding the City's concerns on which lines to use. Based on the resu I ts of the tests of the one purged weJJ. the affluent would be 60 gallons per minute. or an equivalent fJow of about 300 residents. Mr. Christofferson a]so observed the State has changed the regulations and the standards for creek affluent. He felt it wi II be difficult to treat the water down to the affluent necessary to go to the creek, but they won't know that for sure unt i I the weJls are in and have been pumped for awhile. He felt a contingency Is needed in the event that the affluent cannot go to the creek. Counci]member OrtteJ stated it would be a big issue if it wou]d become a permanent use of the City's sanitary sewer system. Mr. Christofferson explained the State has recognized the need to use the system on a temporary basis. six months to a year: so there wi JI be a time period where the sanitary sewer system will be used. Whether It goes beyond that time period or not will be determined by the Information gathered during that time. and he felt the preparation for the possibility of not being abJe to go to the creek should start now. Counc i J noted a permanent use of the system would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment, again emphasizing it is a big Issue that will have to be addressed. Mr. Christofferson stated they have not approached anyone about the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan specifically. He went on to state that initially the affluent going into the sanitary sewer system will be untreated: and after testing. they may have to install a temporary filter to meet the standards of the sanitary sewer commission. Mayor E]1ing noted the issues of fire and police protection have not been addressed. suggesting there be some discussion on who is responsible for what if there is an emergency. He has a problem with the City being responsible to secure the property. yet the fire and police departments are not allowed on the site. Also. the fire department does not know what is in there. nor are they trained or equipped. The property is tax forfeit and has not paid any taxes to the City. CounciJmember OrtteJ asked about the provision not al]owing removaJ of ground water wIthIn 200 feet of the landfl11. He was concerned that that would preclude any resident from installing a 1awn sprinkl ing system. understanding why the water couldn't be used for consumption. , - . -- --. . -- ,- Special Ci ty Counci I Meeting Minutes - May 17, 1990 Page 8 Mr. Kooll explained the Agencies are concerned with a major ground water source in the area, and they wi II be talking to the City about that further. Mr. Haberman stated the Consent Decree is primarily concerned with private supplies for drinking water purposes: but depending on how large the lawn sprinkling system Is and depending on how c10se to the landt! II it is. it may draw contaminates into it. Spraying those contaminates would be a concern, even though the water would not be consumed. Mr. Haberman also clarified that "premeter of the landfi I I" and " landfill cap" , to the MPCA. mean "toe of the landfill" where the waste is. He stated the language in this draft of the Consent Decree needs to be change to reflect that. Mr. Haberman also explained the pJan now has a methane gas cont~ol system that vents It to the top of the landfi II where it is treated. But in any type of system. not all of the gas is necessarily collected: and theY do not believe i t Is prudent to allow development to come within 200 feet of the landfill. Councilmember Orttel was concerned that they assume there will be enough methane gas within 500 feet where additionaJ protection wi I I be needed. Mr. Haberman stated it Is their feeling that there shouJd be some additional control. It adds no costs to the typical construction fill around the base of the foundation to minimize methane gas penetration. Councilmember Orttel stated if the gas has the potential of trave ling to 500 feet and can be intercepted by a course rock fill. would there be a problem with intercepting it wIth the same type of continuous barrier at the 200-foot mark and not having to impair the deeds of the other properties with deed restrictions. Mr. Haberman stated they did talk about that but noted the problems of the addi tlonal costs, designing it. and maintaining It. They feel it makes more sense for the precaution to be done on an individual basis where needed. He stated if a barrier were proposed. they would look at the proposal as an additional control: but they would stili want to see the individual protection around the homes, their concern being for the protection of health and the environment. Attorney Hawkins summarized the Issues in the Consent Decree raised by the City such as the excavation on the south side, the Inclusion of some of the south-side area. the sanitary sewer issue. etc. He's not as concerned about the 200- and 500-foot restrictions. thinking there are no structures within 200 feet and only a few within 500 feet. The City would have to either amend the building code or the zoning ordinance to require the precautionary construction within 500 feet. Mr. Haberman noted those properties not included in the Consent Decree wi I ] not have deed restrictions. however, because only those properties that have waste on them are to be a part of this Decree. ..- .. Special Ci ty Counci I Meet! ng Minutes - May 17, 1990 Page 9 CounciJmember OrtteJ questioned the meaning on Page 45 that says the contractors shal] have access to the faciJity and any other property owned and controlled by, or available, to the Settling Defendants. It doesn't state It is Ilmlted to the adjoining properties. Attorney Hawkins understood this was relating to a driveway around the cap. Mr. Haberman stated it Is intended to be some area for the cap and a road, and in some cases a distance for drainage and for monitors. Mr. Kooll stated the last part indicates it has to be necessary to effectuate the remedial action, which basically I iml ts It to the adjacent properties. Councilmember Orttel felt it is unnecessarily broad and that I imi t I ng It to the adjacent property would settle that Issue. Discussion was on the procedure from this point. Attorney Hawkins though t the City's concerns will be noted. but they haven't always been Included In the Decree. TheCltywiJl have to make a decision on whether or not to Join in the Consent Decree when it is final ized. Mr. Haberman stated they are trying to facilitate the concerns of the City and the county with the Sett1ing Defendants. Everyone is interested in cooperating. He said they have already begun raising these Issues with the EPA and the Department of Justice. No further action was taken. MOTION by Knight to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, \~=CL~~ Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary - --, -, . -- -- ..' .-