Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-1999 PC Apps Without Addresses (2)' CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION Application No. 90003 Please Print Clearly or Type Street Location of Property 66th Avenue North and Highway �� 252 Legal Description of Property See attached legal description Owner E & H Properties Address 3213 Lawrence Road, Brooklyn Center Phone No. 566-8960 Applicant E & H Properties Address Phone No. Type of Request: x Rezoning Subdivision Approval Variance Site & Bldg. Plan Approval Special Use Permit Other: Description of Request: Straighten out C2 zoning ine at the subject property in order to � i r � v make development of the site more efficient; rezone R5 parcel of land to C1 The applicant requests processing of this application and agrees to pay to the City of Brooklyn Center, within fifteen (15) days after mailing or delivery of the billing state- ment, the actual costs incurred by the City for Engineering, Planning and Legal expenses reasonably and necessarily required by the City for the processing of the application. Such costs shall be in addition t to the application fee described herein. Withdrawal of the application shall not relieve the applicant of the obligation to pay costs incurred prior to withdrawal . Fee $ 350.00 Applicants Signature;9 Receipt No. 82778 Date: March 7, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Dates of P.C. Consideration: 3 . aq-9 d PC Res. #90-1 (eff. 3-29-90) Approved Denied this ;OL4d ay of 19 subject to the following conditions: Chairman CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway 55430 PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING APPLICATION FOR SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL Prior to submission of an application for plan review and approval , prospective applicants should arrange an informational meeting with the Planning Staff to discuss preliminary plans and to become familiarized with applicable ordinance and policy provisions. Four (4) copies of the following documents and information shall be submitted, at least 14 days prior to the date of the regular Commission meeting, concurrent with filing— the application (required documents must be consistent with ordinance and policy provisions before an application may be accepted): 1 . A certified site survey drawing by a registered engineer or land surveyor showing pertinent existing condition, accurately dimensioned. 2. *An accurately scaled and dimensioned- site plan indicating: a) parking layouts and access provisions, including calculation of ordinance parking requirements; b) designations and locations of all proposed buildings and required setback lines; c) fences, walls or other screening, including heights and type of material ; d) outside lighting provisions, type and location (foot candle strength at property line must be calculated) ; e) curbing (B612 curb and gutter is required) . Indicate radius measurements f) building information, including: gross floor area, type of construction and occupancy classification. 3. *A landscape plan showing areas to be sodded or seeded, quantity, location, size and species of trees and shrubbery. (Note: underground irrigation is required in all landscaped areas in commercial and industrial districts. Plans must be so noted) .. 4. *Building floor plans, elevations, sections and specifications, including materials proposed. 5. *Existing and proposed land elevations, drainage provisions, and utility provisions, including the diameters of utility lines. 6. Additional drawings, plans or information deemed necessary by the Secretary. *Must be prepared by a registered architect or person registered with the State Board of Registration for Architects , Engineers, Landscape Architects and Land Surveyors, and said drawings/plans shall be so certified. NOTE: Upon approval of plans by the Council and prior to issuance of permits, a Performance Agreement as to approved site improvements and a supporting financial guarantee, in an amount to be determined by tFie City, are required. Acceptable financial instruments include cash escrow; certificate of deposit; and performance bond. r - i Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90003 Applicant: Howard Atkins Location: 66th Avenue North and Willow Lane Request: Rezoning The applicant requests approval of a two-part rezoning application for land lying south of 66th Avenue North and west of Willow Lane. The land in question is presently zoned R5 and is bounded by 66th Avenue North on the north, by Willow Lane on the east, by an 18 unit apartment complex on the south, and presently by vacant C2 zoned land and the Atkins Mechanical site on the west. The two parts of the proposed rezoning are: 1) to rezone from R5 to C2 a sliver of land lying immediately east of the present C2 district (similar to what was requested approximately a year ago under Application No. 89006) ; and 2) to rezone the balance of the vacant R5 property over to Willow Lane to C1 (service/office) . The purpose of the rezoning, as it was a year ago, is to square out the C2 district for development as a Fina service station/convenience store/car wash and to provide an access to 66th Avenue North across commercial property. (The access proposed by Fina will either become part of a public street or will ultimately serve an office development on the proposed C1 parcel. ) Another possible outcome of the proposed rezoning would be the eventual creation of an acceptable buffer development, in the form of an office, between the proposed service station and the residential neighborhood across Willow Lane. An alternate buffer would be a roadway and high berm as recommended in the Short-Elliott-Hendrickson Land Use Study of this area. The City is still investigating that option, but, in the event it does not come about, the property owner is proposing the rezoning of the easterly parcel to C1 in order to provide a buffer development that is more acceptable to the neighborhood than an apartment development. Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings All rezoning applications are to be evaluated in light of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208 (attached) . The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which he briefly addresses these guidelines. A recitation of the applicant's arguments and staff comments are provided: (a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Atkins: "Present zoning line between C2 and proposed C1 is irregular. Straightening out the C2 zone line will make development of the site more efficient and allow the proposed building to screen on-site activities. " 3-29-90 -1- � 1 Application No. 90003 continued Staff: Efficient site design is generally a public benefit. However, there is always more than one way to design a site and, as will be pointed out in review of the proposed Fina site plan, staff feel there is the possibility of moving the station to another location on the site with the possible vacation of the frontage road adjacent to Highway 252 and the installation of a roadway south of 66th Avenue North and tying in to Willow Lane as recommended in the SEH Land Use Study. Nevertheless, even with such a roadway, there would be some zoning of land from R5 to C2 since any land between the Fina site and the potential roadway to the east would be unbuildable by itself. As to screening on-site activities, the proposed site plan places the gas pumps west of the building and thus uses the building to screen the pumps and associated activity from the residential neighborhood to the east. To accomplish this reorientation requires that the station and the C2 district boundary move slightly eastward. We believe this is a positive change to the plan. However, in the event that there is no roadway east of the station, the moving of the zoning line will leave less land for an office development on the proposed C1 parcel to the east. This is a concern relating to the proposed C1 property that should be addressed by the property owner in a concept plan for that parcel before action is taken on the rezoning. (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? Atkins: "Cl zoning of parcel closest to residential neighbors will provide a buffer to C2 use. " Staff: We agree. However, it is likely that the C1 development of the easterly parcel will be some years in coming. The SEH study recommended a roadway and a high berm to buffer the residential neighborhood from the service station. Absent such a buffer and absent an imminent office development, it is recommended that a condition of the rezoning and development plans be a high quality screening treatment along the east side of the service station site, providing screening comparable to the high berm recommended by the SEH study. 3-29-90 -2- e 1 Application No. 90003 continued (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Atkins: "Yes. Proposed use is a service station which is permitted in a C2 zone. " Staff: With the proposed C1 district serving as a buffer, most any commercial use would be permitted on the C2 parcel. Also, the C1 zoning on the easterly parcel will allow for a joint access that will line up with the median opening in 66th Avenue North. Commercial access would not be allowed across the easterly parcel if it were zoned R5. The rezoning of the easterly parcel to C1, or alternately the development of a roadway and berm, is, therefore, a necessary aspect of the service station development proposal. (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Atkins: "There have been no zoning classification changes since the subject property was originally zoned. The Comprehensive Plan has recommended that the entire site should be Commercial-Retail. The upgrading of Highway 252 has made this an even more viable commercial site. " Staff: We agree. However, the existing residential neighborhood to the east remains and the challenge for development in this area is to be compatible with both the heavy traffic on Highway 252 and with the nearby residential area. The proposed Cl zoning for the easterly parcel, or a roadway and buffer, are probably the most reasonable compromises that can be achieved in this difficult situation. (e) In the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? Atkins: "The City has indicated a desire to rezone the R5 parcel to C1. " Staff: This is correct. We do not believe it would be in the best interests of the neighborhood or the community for the R5 zoning to remain or for the C2 district to extend eastward to Willow Lane. The C1 zoning acts as an appropriate buffer between the C2 and R1 districts. As 3-29-90 -3- e 1 Application No. 90003 continued to the minor expansion of the C2 zone, we see no significant problems with it so long as the remaining land to the east is viable for a separate development which can eventually serve to act as a buffer between two conflicting land uses (service station and single-family residential) . (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? Atkins: "The subject property will comply fully with development restrictions for the C2 zoning district. " Staff: This is possible only if the access to 66th Avenue North is across commercial land or a public roadway as recommended in the SEH study. Commercial access across R5 zoned land is prohibited. If lot width is calculated along 66th Avenue North rather than along Willow Lane, the width of the proposed C1 lot is substandard at approximately 1001 . The minimum lot width for a Cl lot is 1501 . The width of the proposed C1 lot along Willow Lane exceeds the 150' minimum. While the 150' width requirement can probably be applied to either frontage, the narrowness or shallowness of the easterly parcel is a concern. For there to be a buffer use east of the service station, the parcel must be of sufficient size to support a viable development. The applicant should submit a concept plan demonstrating that the C1 parcel can in fact support such a development before favorable action on this rezoning application. (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? Atkins: "The subject property is suited for uses permitted in the present zoning district; however, straightening out the zoning line will promote better development of both sites." Staff: The applicant addresses chiefly the change from R5 to C2 of a relatively small area of land. However, the zoning change for the majority of the area is from R5 to C1. It is our perception that there is more than enough multi- family housing not only in this local neighborhood, but in the larger Northeast Neighborhood of the City as well. 3-29-90 -4- Application No. 90003 continued Also, since any commercial development on the westerly parcel will likely require a cross-access arrangement with the easterly parcel in order to properly access onto 66th Avenue North at the median opening, it is inappropriate to maintain a residential zoning of the easterly parcel since such a zoning would preclude a rational access for the commercial site to the west. (h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? Atkins: "The rezoning will result in a slight increase in the C2 zoning district. We are merely attempting to straighten out the present zoning line. The Comprehensive Plan recommends the entire site to be Commercial-Retail." Staff: This is correct. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the recommendation of the Land Use Revision Map (Figure 15, Table 14) of the City's Comprehensive Plan. More recently, the City commissioned a land use study by Short-Elliott-Hendrickson which recommended, as the preferred alternative, the installation of a roadway and buffer between the service station site and Willow Lane. It also recommended the vacation of the frontage road immediately east of Highway 252 and the shifting of the service station somewhat west. In any case, the installation of the roadway and berm would be located such that the easterly boundary of the service station site and thus of the C2 district would be east of its present location and some rezoning would, therefore, be necessary. As to lack of developable land in the C1 and C2 zoning districts, there is getting to be a lack of developable land in almost all zoning districts in the City. There are only a few vacant C1 parcels in the City. The same could be said of R5 zoned parcels. In terms of land supply, therefore, this application is basically a wash. As to the best interests of the community, we feel that the proposed rezoning scheme is perhaps a second best solution in this area. Again, the area was studied extensively by Short-Elliott-Hendrickson and the preferred alternative recommended by that study was a land trade that would involve vacating the existing frontage road adjacent to Highway 252 and installing a new roadway south of the median opening in 66th Avenue 3-29-90 -5- Application No. 90003 continued North and a construction of a berm between that roadway and Willow Lane. It would also involve eliminating the direct connection between 66th Avenue North and Willow Lane. We still believe that such a scenario is in the best interests of the community. However, it will take time for the City to obtain marketable title to the frontage road right-of-way land and to negotiate acquisition of the land needed for the buffer/landscape and roadway area in order to be in a position to carry out such a land trade. The applicant and Fina Oil, meanwhile, are pessimistic that the City can obtain title to the land from MN/DOT in a short period of time. Having waited a year, they are impatient to develop the property and have put forward a development plan which does not assume a land trade and a new roadway. Rather, it assumes there will be continued private ownership of the land east of the service station. The rezoning to C1 is a compromise proposal which would eventually place an acceptable buffer use between the service station and the residential neighborhood. We agree that the C1 zoning is a preferable zoning designation for the easterly parcel. However, the office use may not take place for some years. In the meantime, we believe that the service station must provide a screening treatment that is as effective as the berm and plantings recommended in the SEH study. The proposed screening treatment will be reviewed in more detail in the information sheet on the site and building plan application for the service station. In conclusion, we feel that the roadway and berm recommended in the SEH study are really in the best interests of the community, but the applicant and Fina are not willing to wait for that recommendation to be effectuated and certainly have the right to pursue the rezoning and plan they propose. In the interim, the property owner requests a rezoning which will allow the station to function and will leave open the option of an acceptable buffer use in the future and also leaves open the option of a roadway and buffer area. We believe that with adequate screening of the service station, the proposed zoning scheme is acceptable, though not preferable. (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Atkins: "Straightening out the zone line as proposed will promote better development of both sites. " 3-29-90 -6- Application No. 90003 continued Staff: The primary merit of the proposal beyond the interests of the owner is the C1 designation of the easterly parcel. This is clearly preferable to the current R5 designation, as witnessed by comments from the neighborhood at previous public meetings. The other aspect which must be reviewed in detail is the proposed screening treatment of the gas station. Such a screening treatment is required as a benefit to the public in exchange for the benefit to the private property owner of a rezoning of land. Process The matter of land use in the area of 66th Avenue North and Highway 252 has been considered at some length over the past year by the Planning Commission and the City Council in consultation with staff, with the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group, and with the assistance of the consulting firm of Short-Elliott-Hendrickson. We do not believe anything would be served by again referring this matter to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group. We do recommend, however, that the Commission be fully satisfied with the proposed development plan and the proposed screening treatment before it acts favorably on the rezoning application. The Commission has 60 days to act on the rezoning application. If the Commission wishes to act on all applications at this meeting, we will try to have a draft resolution ready for the Commission's consideration. Otherwise, the Commission can table the matter and direct staff to prepare a resolution specifying findings either pro or con. We recommend that the rezoning, site and building plan and special use permit, and preliminary plat applications be acted on together. 3-29-90 -7- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION Application No. 90022 Please Print Clearly or Type Street Location of Property North of Summit Drive, east of Shingle Creek Parkway Legal Description of Property Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Brookdale Corporate Center Addition; Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 , Brooklyn Farm Addition and Tracts D and E, R.L.S. No. 1380. Owner Ryan Construction Company Address Phone No. Applicant City of Brooklyn Center Address 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Phone No. 569-3300 Type of Request: X Rezoning Subdivision Approval Variance Site & Bldg. Plan Approval Special Use Permit Other: Description of Request: Rezone from I-1 to C1A parcels in the area described above. The applicant requests processing of this application and agrees to pay to the City of Brooklyn Center, within fifteen (15) days after mailing or delivery of the billing state- ment, the actual costs incurred by the City for Engineering, Planning and Legal expenses reasonably and necessarily required by the City for the processing of the application. Such costs shall be in addition to the application fee described herein. Withdrawal of the application shall not relieve the applicant of the obligation to pay costs incurred prior to withdrawal . Fee $ waived Applicant's Signature— Receipt No. Date: July 24, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Dates of P.C. Consideration: /G-9'D F �o-a Approved Denied this le;' day of �� 19 subject to the following conditions: C airman CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway 55430 PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING APPLICATION FOR SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL Prior to submission of an application for plan review and approval , prospective applicants should arrange an informational meeting with the Planning Staff to discuss preliminary plans and to become familiarized with applicable ordinance and policy provisions. Four (4) copies of the following documents and information shall be submitted, at least 14 days prior to the date of the regular Commission meeting, concurrent with fi in'� g the apply ation (required documents must be consistent with ordinance and policy provisions before an application may be accepted): 1 . A certified site survey drawing by a registered engineer or land surveyor showing pertinent existing condition, accurately dimensioned. 2. *An accurately scaled and dimensioned site plan indicating: a) parking layouts and access provisions, including calculation of ordinance parking requirements; b) designations and locations of all proposed buildings and required setback lines; c) fences, walls or other screening, including heights and type of material ; d) outside lighting provisions, type and location (foot candle strength at property line must be calculated) ; e) curbing (B612 curb and gutter is required) . Indicate radius measurements; f) building information, including: gross floor area, type of construction and occupancy classification. 3. *A landscape plan showing areas to be sodded or seeded, quantity, location, size and species of trees and shrubbery. (Note: underground irrigation is required in all landscaped areas in commercial and industrial districts . Plans must be so noted) . 4. *Building floor plans, elevations, sections and specifications, including materials proposed. 5. *Existing and proposed land elevations, drainage provisions, and utility provisions, including the diameters of utility lines. 6. Additional drawings, plans or information deemed necessary by the Secretary. *Must be prepared by a registered architect or person registered with the State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, Landscape Architects and Land Surveyors, and said drawings/plans shall be so certified. NOTE: Upon approval of plans by the Council and prior to issuance of permits, a Performance Agreement as to approved site improvements and a supporting financial guarantee, in an amount to be determined by tie City, are required. Acceptable financial instruments include cash escrow; certificate of deposit; and performance bond. Plannin g Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90022 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center Location: North of Summit Drive, east of Shingle Creek Request: Rezoning This application is a City-initiated rezoning application to rezone six parcels of land north of Summit Drive and east of Shingle Creek Parkway from I-1 to CIA. The I-1 zone is the Industrial Park zone and the CIA zone is a service/office zoning district with no height limitation. There are four existing high-rise office buildings (6200 and 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway, 6160 Summit Drive and 6120 Earle Brown Drive) on the area to be rezoned and two of the parcels are vacant. The area in question includes most of the land north and east of Summit Drive with the following exceptions: the Earle Brown Commons (R7) , the Earle Brown Farm (C2) , the 6040 Earle Brown Drive office building, the Learning Tree Day Care Center, City- County Credit Union, and Park Nicollet Medical Center (all C2) . In 1989, the City initiated and ultimately adopted a rezoning of land near the freeway from I-1 to C2. The proposal included a number of parcels between Summit Drive on the south and Freeway Boulevard on the north, plus the Holiday Inn site. When the City Council acted to approve the rezoning, they chose to eliminate from the action all the parcels south of the freeway, except the Earle Brown Farm site. It was felt that it was preferable for the vacant parcels south of the freeway to be developed with office buildings and that the zoning should limit development possibilities on those parcels to service/office uses rather than allow for other possible commercial uses allowable in the C2 zone. Since the developed land within the area in question has high-rise service/uses on it already, the proposed CIA zoning will be consistent with existing conditions as well as long-term objectives. Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines All rezonings are subject to the evaluation policy and review guidelines contained in Section 35-208 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) . Following is a review of the proposed rezoning in light of each of the guidelines contained in Section 35-208. (a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? The proposed CIA zoning for the parcels in question is consistent with existing development and with what has been the City's preference for development in this area even while it has been zoned I-1. The area south of the freeway between ' Shingle Creek Parkway and Highway 100 has not been appropriate for industrial development for many years. The proposed CIA zoning will "lock in" (unless changed) service/office development in this area and will prevent other types of commercial or industrial development which r Application No. 90022 continued would be inappropriate and out of character for this area. While the present office market is depressed, we feel the long-term best use of this area is service/office use. b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? The proposed C1A zoning is consistent and compatible with the commercial retail zoning district to the south and east. It is also compatible with the public and high density residential uses in the area. Finally, it is very compatible with the abutting freeways. (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Yes. All service/office uses can be contemplated. In fact, concept plans for office developments on the remaining vacant parcels have been submitted in the past, though neither are being actively pursued at this time. (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Yes. Since the I-1 zoning of this property in the 1960's, the Shingle Creek Parkway bridge and freeway interchange have been constructed which has made this area more accessible and more conducive to high-density development. Much of that development has already occurred. The proposed C1A zoning will simply ratify that trend. (e) In the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? The purpose of this rezoning proposal is to ensure that the character of the area between Summit Drive and the freeway remains predominantly a high-rise office area. We believe this will have long-term aesthetic and tax-base benefits to the community. It will also bring with it considerable rush hour traffic. The traffic concerns have been addressed in the 1985 Short-Elliott- Hendrickson traffic study of the central business area of the city and will continue to be addressed as development proposals are evaluated. (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? 8-16-90 2 I Application No. 90022 continued Yes. The two vacant parcels that remain in the proposed zoning district are fairly large parcels and are capable of supporting high-rise office developments. (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? The parcels that are the subject of this rezoning are no longer in a good location for industrial development. The land is too valuable and too visible to put industrial buildings with loading docks and the attendant truck traffic in this area immediately adjacent to the freeway. Property owners have not sought industrial development adjacent to the north side of the freeway and we doubt that there would be any inclination to develop the south side in that fashion either. (h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? The City's Comprehensive Plan originally recommended service/office use in this area and was amended in 1986 to comprehend high-rise residential and retail commerce as well. The proposed C1A zoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation for this area. There is also a minimum of vacant land in the C1A district. There is a partially developed parcel at the Brooklyn Crossing office park development at County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard and there are no other vacant parcels of C1A land in the city. Finally, we believe high-rise office development, while it may not occur soon, will be beneficial to the community both in terms of aesthetics and in terms of tax revenue. (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Staff believe there are public benefits to the proposed rezoning. It will, to some extent, limit the development options of property owners in this area. While these limitations may result in the available land remaining vacant for some time, we believe the long term best interests of the community and of this area warrant these limitations. Again, the existing zoning of the property is I-1 (Industrial Park) and it is unlikely that the land would be developed industrially anyway. We believe the best long-term use is high-rise office. 8-16-90 3 Application No. 90022 continued Conclusion/Recommendation Most rezonings are tabled and referred to a neighborhood advisory group. In this case, the Planning Commission itself serves as the advisory group for the central commercial and industrial area of the community. If the Commission desires more information on this matter, the application can be tabled. However, we recommend that the application be approved. A draft resolution of approval will be available for the Commission's consideration. Submitted Gary Shfal1cross Planner 7 ved by, .�C onald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 8-16-90 4 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION Application No. 90029 Please Print Clearly or Type Street Location of Property 51st Avenue and France Avenue North Legal Description of Property See attached. Owner Tri State Land Company Address P.O. Box 530, Minneapolis, MN 55440 Phone No. Applicant Twin View Development, Inc./Attention-Rick Hartmann _ Address 7038 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Phone No. ' 560-4122 Type of Request: Rezoning X Subdivision Approval Variance Site & Bldg. Plan Approval Special Use Permit Other: Description of Request: 30 single family lots. See the attached narrative for details. The applicant requests processing of this application and agrees to pay to the City of Brooklyn Center, within fifteen (15) days after mailing or delivery of the billing state- ment, the actual costs incurred by the City for Engineering, Planning and Legal expenses reasonably and necessarily required by the City for the processing of the application. Such costs shall be in addition to the application fee described herein. Withdrawal of the application shall not relieve the applicant of the obligation to pay costs incurred prior to withdrawal . Fee $ 100.00 Applicant s Signature Receipt No. 85237 Date: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Dates of P.C. Consideration: /.I— -� —y'o Z_ -3/- -P/ Approved .Y Denied this day of . 19 , subject to the following conditions: Chairman LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY All that part of the North Half of Government Lot 2, Section 10, Township 118 North, Range 21 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northeasterly of the Soo Line Railroad (formerly known as the Minneapolis, St. Paul & Saulte Ste. Marie Railroad Company) right-of-way; EXCEPT; all that part thereof lying South of a line drawn from a point where the southeasterly line of Lake Drive, extended Southwest, intersects the north line of said Government Lot 2; thence continuing along said extended line distant 11.95 feet; thence westerly 423.58 feet to a point 20 feet South of the north line of said Government Lot 2; thence northwesterly 100 feet to a point on said north line distant 527.98 feet West of the point of beginning; thence west along said north line distant 300 feet; thence South at right angles 50 feet; thence West at right angles 100 feet; thence North at right angles 50 feet and there terminating; and EXCEPT; A parcel of land comprising all that part of the North Half of Government Lot 2, Section 10, Township 118, Range 21 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, bounded and described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Government Lot 2 ; thence South along the east line of said Government Lot 2 a distance of 668.83 feet to the southeast corner of said North Half of Government Lot 2 and to the point of beginning of the parcel of land to be described; thence North 88 degrees 13 minutes West along the south line of said North Half of Government Lot 2 a distance of 1, 007 feet; thence North along a line running parallel with the east line of said Government Lot 2 a distance of 308.15 feet; thence easterly along a line running parallel with said south line of the North Half of Government Lot 2 to a point of intersection with said east line of said Government Lot 2 which point is 308. 15 feet North of said point of beginning as measured along said east line; thence South along said east line of Government Lot 2 to the point of beginning, EXCEPT therefrom the East 33 feet thereof, as measured at right angles to the east line of said Government Lot 2. For the purposes of this description, the east line of Government Lot 2 is assumed to run in a due North and South direction. Subject to easements, reservations and restrictions of record, if any. Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90029 Applicant: Twin View Development, Inc. Location: France Avenue North and 51st Avenue North Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to subdivide the Soo Line property at France and 51st Avenues North into 29 single- family lots and two outlots to be dedicated for public open space. The land in question is the subject of the Planned Unit Developmentrezoning Application No. 90028 and is bounded on the north by 51st Avenue North (both improved private street and unimproved right-of-way) , on the east by France Avenue North, on the south by the Murphy Warehouse property and the Soo Line tracks, and on the extreme west by the channel between Upper and Middle Twin Lakes. The rezoning application is for PUD/R1 and Open Space designations. Therefore, the applicant is seeking a modification of some of the normal subdivision and zoning standards. The name of the plat is to be Twin View Meadows. The total area of the plat is approximately 17.5 acres. Seven (7) acres would be dedicated for public open space in two outlets. Outlot A, north of the spur track leading to the Murphy Warehouse property, would be approximately 5.2 acres. Outlot B, south of the spur track and west of the Murphy property, would be approximately 1.8 acres. The 29 single-family lots would be divided into two blocks north and south of a newly proposed 51st Avenue North which would run between France Avenue North and the south end of East Twin Lake Boulevard. Thirteen (13) lots are proposed north of 51st, varying in size from 8,050 sq. ft. for Lot 6 to 12,325 sq. ft. for Lot 13. Lot widths in Block 1 (the north side of 51st) are generally 701 , with an 85' width for Lot 1 at the corner of France and 51st and 95' for Lot 13 next to East Twin Lake Boulevard. Lot depths vary from 115' where the road curves north to 145' on each end of the block. The lots in Block 2 on the south side of 51st tend to be narrower and deeper and larger. Average width is 68 ' width with lots on the ends (Lot 1 is 85' wide at the corner and Lot 16 is 100' wide at the street line on the west end of the street) . Lot depth varies from 140' on the west end to 185' where the road curves north. Lot size ranges from 10,540 sq. ft. for Lots 12 and 13 to 16,800 sq. ft. for Lot 16. The PUD rezoning proposal would make the south 40 ' of Lots 1 through 14 of Block 2 a private open space (0-2) district. The land would still be included in these lots, but the zoning of the lots would be split. No buildings could be built in this area. It would have to be maintained as an open space district, buffering the residential district from the I-2 zoned warehouse property to the south. 12-6-90 1 The proposed street right-of-way for this subdivision, a new 51st Avenue North, would be 60' in width as is standard for residential streets in the City. However, the 30' wide street would not be centered in the right-of-way, but would be offset 5 ' to the north so that the boulevard on the north side of the street would be only 10' whereas, on the south side of the street, it would be 201 . This is to allow for the possible construction of a 10' wide pedestrian and bike trail within the right-of-way on the south side of the street. As noted in the information sheet for Application No. 90028, there would be different setbacks applied to the north and south sides of the street to allow each side to accommodate tandem parking of two cars without blocking the sidewalk. It should be noted that there is presently, to the north of this proposed subdivision, a 30' wide unimproved right-of-way for 51st Avenue North. This half-street right-of-way was dedicated with the subdivision of the lots to the north which abut Oak Street. If this right-of-way were improved, the residents along the south side of Oak Street would have street frontage both to the front and to the rear. We are not sure why this right-of-way was dedicated, but staff recommend that, if this development is approved and goes forth, that the old 51st Avenue North right between France and East Twin Lake Boulevard be vacated, leaving in place only a utility easement. We believe at this time that the land contained in the old 51st Avenue North right-of-way would revert to the original subdivision and, thus, to the landowners to the north. (This will have to be verified by the City Attorney. ) It is, therefore, not available to the proposed development. There is an existing 33 ' wide sanitary sewer easement along the southwest side of the outlots, adjacent to the Soo Line tracks. There is also a 30' wide street and utility easement roughly along the north side of Outlot A, except for an approximate 430' length west of East Twin Lake Boulevard and a 100' long area that is excluded from the property (see plans) . There is also an 8" water line which runs from the south end of East Twin Lake Boulevard southward through the property just west of the Murphy Warehouse property. The City holds a 15' wide easement over this line, but the preliminary plat does not show it. It should be revised to show this easement. That revision should be completed by Thursday's meeting. Procedure Normally, preliminary plats must be acted on within 30 days. However, inasmuchas this plat is tied so closely with the rezoning and development plans which will not be before the Commission again until at least late January, we have asked the applicant to consent to an extension of consideration until action is taken on the PUD proposal. If we have not received this consent in writing by Thursday's meeting, we would recommend that the Commission ask the applicant for the record whether he consents to the extension. If he does not, there is little choice but to recommend denial of the 12-6-90 2 preliminary plat and forward it on to the City Council for final action to live within the ordinance-prescribed time limit. Submitted by, Gary Sh llcross Planner A proved by, �• Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 12-6-90 3 j Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155-3898 Telephone (612) 296-6300 September 27, 1991 . Mr. -Frances J. O'Neill Deputy Director . Housing Development U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Minneapolis-St. Paul Office, Region V 220 Second Street South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-2195 Dear Mr. O'Neill: RE:. Twin View Meadows Development, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota This letter has been prepared at the request of Mr. James Merila of Merila & Associates, Inc. The Twin View Meadows subdivision is to be located approximately 380 feet north of the Joslyn Manufacturing Hazardous Waste Site (Joslyn Site) . Mr. Merila has informed Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff that the Joslyn Site is one of the reasons the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (USDHUD) will not insure mortgages for the Twin View Meadows subdivision. The following is being provided to you so that USDHUD staff will have complete information on the Joslyn Site. This information may warrant a re-evaluation of USDHUD staff's previous decision to not insure the mortgages for the Twin View Meadows subdivision. BACKGROUND - Woodtreating operations at the Joslyn Site were initiated in the 19201s and terminated in the early 1980's. Contaminants of concern at the Joslyn Site are Pentachlotophenol (PCP) and a class of ccnVounds known as Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) . These contaminants are found in surface and subsurface soil and in shallow groundwater beneath the Site. The potential impact of the Joslyn Site on the Twin View Meadows subdivision is that contaminants from the Joslyn Site may be present in the ground water under the subdivision. Attachment 1 to this letter provides more detailed information on the Site History, as well as additional information on contaminant concentrations and movement at the Site. I. To limit site access, the Joslyn Site has a chain-link fence around it, with a double role of barbed wire at the top. Mr. Frances J. O'Neill Page 2 . A number of water monitoring wells have been installed on 2 ground g Josl 's property, and adjacent to it, to monitor shallow and deep yn J ground water elevations and chemistry. Data from these wells indicate that shallow ground water flows in a west-to-east direction under the Joslyn Site, from Twin Lakes east to the Mississippi River. 3. Due to the contaminant migration off-site, and the presence of high levels of contaminants in the ground water on-site, a pump out system was installed at the Site. The pump out system became operational in January 1989, ,and is designed to prevent further migration of contaminants off-site. The shallow and water out ten consists of seven wells placed � PAP system the out ro Sint at strategic locations on the Joslyn property. p� system became operational in January 1989, contaminant concentrations in off-site monitoring wells have declined. Figure 8 (1990 Annual Report) shows isopleths of maximum contaminant concentrations in 1988 prior to start-up of the pump out system. Figure 6 (1990 Annual Report) shows isopleths of maximum contaminant concentrations in 1990. Comparison of the data in Figures 6 and 8 indicates that contaminant concentrations in off-site wells have decreased since the pump out first of ten became operational. Based on this data from the f year � P� operation, the pump out system appears to be effectively reducing/eliminating the movement of contaminants off-site. Long-term monitoring of the ground water is planned for the Joslyn Site. Data to be collected will be used to assess the effectiveness of cleanup actions on Joslyn's property. in reducing ground water contamination. The data will also be used to monitor the effectiveness of the pump out system in preventing contaminant movement off-site. 4. Data from the off-site wells indicates that contaminants frcm the Joslyn Site have moved eastward frcart the Site toward the Mississippi River in the shallow ground water. Monitoring wells #130 and #121, located to the north of the Joslyn property between the Joslyn Site and the subdivision, show that PAHs are present at barely detectable levels (0.0056 and 0.0078 parts per billion, respectively), and PCP is ri.ot detectable at all (Figure 6, 1990 Annual Report) . For comparison, the. Minnesota Department of Health has determined that the Recommended Allowable Limit. (RAL) for PAHs in drinking water is 0.028 parts per billion. Based on these guidelines, ground water to the north of the Joslyn Site would meet drinking water standards. Mr. Frances J. O'Neill Page 3 5. All homes in the Twin View Meadows subdivision are to be connected to municipal water. Unless a homeowner installed a private well, the connection to municipal water would eliminate any possibility for any homeowners to come in contact with any contaminated ground water that may be present in the area. As stated previously, contaminants have moved in an easterly direction fiat the Joslyn Site. Available data from monitoring wells #130 and #121 indicates that PAHs are present in ground water to the north of the Site, 'but at barely detectable levels. Based on the data from wells #130 and #121, ground water to the north of the Joslyn Site meets drinking water guidelines. Additional safeguards are provided by the fact that as one moves farther north from the Site, the very low concentrations of PAHs in the ground water are expected to be reduced even I further. Even if homeowners in the subdivision cone in contact with the shallow ground water, PAHs in the ground water are expected to be at lower concentrations than presently found in monitoring wells #130 and #121. 6. Data from soil borings indicates that in the former woodtreating ted soil extended from the s site contaminated processing areas of the Joslyn P g yn soil surface to the shallow ground water. Remedial action plans require that Joslyn excavate all contaminated soil and use biore mediation to reduce contaminant concentrations to meet dermal contact standards for carcinogenic PAHs and PCP. Appro ximately 20,000 cubic yards of heavily contaminated soil was excavated from a settling pond in September 1988. This material was shipped to an approved disposal site in Oklahoma. An additional 70,000 cubic yards of soil is estimated to be excavated by November 1991. Bioremediation is to take place on the Joslyn Site in a Land Treatment Unit (LTU) . The LTU is approximately 10 acres in size and is constructed with berms around the edge to contain any water that falls on it. Due to the large volume of soil to be treated and the limited space at the Joslyn Site, the contaminated soil is to be treated in 4 "lifts".. Each "lift" contains approximately 17,000-20,000 cubic yards of soil. Joslyn and its subcontractors are taking all necessary precautions to minimize the amount of dust created during excavation activities. During dry periods, roads are watered constantly. Any soil stockpiled at the Site is watered as needed to prevent wind erosion. If soil stockpiles are to remain in place for an extended period of time, these stockpiles are completely covered with tarps to prevent wind and water erosion.. Monitoring data from the Site indicates that Joslyn has not exceeded any air emission standards during excavation activities or operation of the LTU. Mr. Frances J. O'Neill Page 4 Excavation of the contaminated soil was initiated in August 1989. The final excavation of soil is anticipated to be completed in 1991. Treatment of all excavated soil is estimated to be completed by 1993 at the latest. After all soil in the LTU is determined to meet MPCA treatment standards, the LTU will be capped with 2-3 feet of clean soil and vegetated with grasses. At that time, the remaining contamination at the Site will be in the ground water itself. MPCA staff is not able to give a definitive time frame for ground water cleanup due to the relatively slow movement of ground water and other hydrogeological factors. However, the removal of contaminated soil is expected to enhance the cleanup of ground water at the Joslyn Site, as well as downgradient frcan the Site. Until long-term monitoring data are available to assess the effects of the soil removal on reducing contaminant concentrations in ground water, the . pump out system will remain in operation to prevent the movenent of contaminants off-site. This information should give you a better understanding of the contamination at the Joslyn Site and its potential impacts on the Twin view Meadows subdivision. If you require further information regarding the Joslyn Site, please contact Cliff Twaroski (MPCA Project Manager) of my staff at (612) 296-7827. Sincerely, James L. Warner, P.E. Division Manager Ground Water and Solid Waste Division JLW:dl Attachments cc: Carl Grabi.nski, Joslyn Corporation Tarry Dalen, Barr Engineering Canpany Gerry Splinter, City of Brooklyn Center ATTTAC MENT 1 FIGURES 6 AND 8, 1990 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT JOSLYN MANUFACTURING SITE, BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY GROUND WATER AND SOLID WASTE DIVISION SITE RESPONSE SECTION JOSLYN MANUFACTURING SITE, BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA SITE HISTORY Wood treating operations at this Site were initiated in the early 1920's by the Naugle Pole and Tie Company. By the 1940's, the Site was operated by the Consolidated Pole Treating Company, of which Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply Company was a part owner. Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply Company operated the facility from the early 1960's until closure in 1980. Figure 1 shows the location of the site in the city of Brooklyn Center. A thermal wood treating process was used from the beginning of operations until approximately 1965. The thermal process generally consisted of treating poles, ties and other products in tanks of heated creosote. Several ponds were used on the site to dispose of boiler blowdown and wastes from the cleaning of the storage and thermal treatment tanks. These ponds are labeled as Ponds B and C in Figure 2. In 1965, the thermal treating process was converted to a pressure treating process. This process used pentachlorophenol (PCP) rather than creosote as the oil soluble treating fluid. The pressure treating process also used various water soluble wood preserving fluids such as chromated copper arsenic. The layout of the wood treating facility during the later years of facility operation (1970's) is shown in Figure 2. To accomodate the larger quantities of wastewater generated by the pressure treating process, a new pond was constructed in the northwestern portion of the site and is labeled as Pond A. From 1965 until operations were- terminated in 1980, wastewater from the pressure cylinders drained to a sump in the reclaim system. From this sump, the wastewater was pumped through a series of baffles and skimmers. and discharged to Pond A. Oil that was removed from the wastewater was reclaimed for the wood treating process. The average inflow to *Pond A was estimated to be on the order of 600 gallons per day or approximately 219,000 gallons per year. Sludge from the cleaning of process tanks, storage tanks, thermal treating tanks, and treating cylinders was disposed of at several locations on the site. Spills of wood treating solutions reportedly occurred at the site in the. late 1950's or early 1960's and again in 1968. From 1976 until the facility closed i.n 1980, sludge generated by tank and cylinder cleaning was shipped to out-of-state hazardous waste disposal facilities. In December 1981, approximately 30,000 gallons of wood treating solution were removed from the facility and shipped out-of-state for use at another wood treating facility. Approximately 6,500 gallons of sludge was shipped to a hazardous waste disposal facilty in Texas in May 1982. Sand fill was apparently placed over much of the site during construction and/or operation of the wood treating facility. The western limits of the fill are shown in Figure 2. - 2 - JOSLYN MANUFACTURING SITE, BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING Two ground water aquifers have been identified below the site. The upper aquifer is.a shallow sand located at the ground surface and the lower aquifer consists of the St. Peter Sandstone, dolomitic formations of the Prai.rie du Chien Group .and a buried sand and gravel unit that fills a buried bedrock valley located below the western one-third of the site. The surface of the saturated zone in the upper aquifer is approximtely 10 feet below the ground surface over most of the site. The saturated thickness of the upper aquifer is from 38-45 feet below the site. Ground water moves from west to east through the upper aquifer, from Twin Lakes to the Mississippi River. The Mississippi River acts as the regional discharge point for ground water flow in the upper sand aquifer. The rate of lateral movement in the upper aquifer is esti`mted to be 400-700 feet per year. The lower aquifer beneath the eastern two-thirds of the site consists of the St. Peter Sandstone and dolomitic formations in the Prairie du Chien Group, along with an overlying thin stratum of gravel . The St. Peter Sandstone is a fine to medium grained, well-sorted sandstone with some shale and siltstone beds near its base. The Prairie du Chien group is composed of the Shakopee and Oneota formations. The Shakopee formation has a basal quartz sandstone, well-sorted and fine to medium grained, overlain by a sandy, oolitic, cherty dolomite. The Oneota formation is a finely crystalline.dolomite. The Jordan Sandstone underlies the Prairie du Chien Group and is composed of medium to coarse grained quartz sandstone. Together, the Prairie du Chien Group and the Jordan Sandstone form an important drinking water aquifer in the Twin Cities Area. A vertical gradient of ;approximately 2-1/2 feet exists from the upper aquifer to the lower aquifer in the eastern two-thirds of the site. Below this portion of the site, the upper and lower aquifers are separated by a middle confining unit, which consists of several units of silt, sandy clay till , silty clay and silty sand. The middle confining unit varies from 20 to 60 feet thick beneath the eastern two-thirds of the site. The vertical movement of water through the middle confining unit is very slow (estimated at 0.4 to 0.004 feet per year) due to a small pressure difference that exists across the unit and the low permeability of the unit. i The middle confining unit and the St. Peter Sandstone are not present below the western one-third of the site. It is probable that these units have been eroded away creating a north/south, trending buried bedrock valley below the western one-third of the site. The buried bedrock valley cuts through the St. Peter and into the Prair du Chien bedrock unit. The middle confining unit and .the St. Peter have been replaced with a valley fill unit consisting of sand and gravel . The vertical rate of movement through this valley fill .is likely greater than the rate of movement through the middle confining unit. - 3 - JOSLYN MANUFACTURING SITE, BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN Pentachlorophenol (PCP) . A synthetic organic compound which is a solid at normal temperatures unless dissolved in a solvent. It has a relatively How vapor pressure at ambient temperatures and significant quantities of PCP will not volatilize under normal conditions. It is a weak acid and its water solubility is strongly pH dependent. Under normal pH conditions (pH 6 to 8) , the solubility of PCP in water is in the range of 10 to 1,000- milligrams per liter- (mg/L) . The solubility of PCP increases with increasing pH. Pentachlorophenol must be dissolved in a liquid carrier solvent to be used in wood preserving. The liquid carrier solvent is usually a petroleum based solvent, such as No. 2 fuel oil . Fuel oil is less dense than water and PCP has a density greater than water. In most cases, a PCP/fuel oil mixture will be lighter than water, but it will depend on the concentration of the PCP in the oil . Commercially manufactured PCP used for wood preserving contains hexa, hepta, and octachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxins. The concentrations of these dioxin compounds in the PCP treating solution depend on the manufacturer of the PCXP and the time that the PCP was manufactured. MPCA staff will be sampling for dioxins and furans during the 1991 field season to determine the concentrations of these two contaminants in the treated soil . Creosote. Creosote is a product of coal tar distillation and is a complex mixture of organic compounds. Most of the 200 or more compounds in creosote are polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) . These compounds are separated into carcinogenic (cPAHs) and non-carcinogenic (nPAHs) . Only a limited number of PAH compounds (less than 20) are typically present in creosote at concentrations greater than 1 (one) percent. Creosote is heavier than water and spilled creosote reaching the ground water in high concentrations will .sink. This material is often referred' to as "Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid" (DNAPL): - 4 - JOSLYN MANUFACTURING SITE, BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES AT THE SITE 1 Preliminary Assessment of Site (1978 - Jan. 1983) - monitoring wells established 1978-79 - soil borings established May-July 1981 - Report: Groundwater Investigation Oct. 1981 - Report: Hazardous Waste Investigation Dec. 1981 - wood treating solution. removed from site Dec. 1981 - sludge removed from site May 1982 - exploratory soil excavations Sept. 1982 2. MPCA Administrative Steps (Jan. 1983 - May 1985) - Request For Response Action Process Jan.-Sept. 1983 - Consent Order Feb.-May 1985 3. Remedial . Investigation (Aug. 1984- Jan. 1986) - exploratory soil excavations Dec. 1984 RI Work Plan: RI work initiated Jan. 1985 - Report: RI/Alternatives Jan. 1986 4. Feasibility Study (Jan. 1986 - Jan. 1988) - Report: Supplemental Alternatives Oct. 1986 - Response Action Plan Work Plan Jan. 1987 Detailed Analysis ,Report Part 1: RAP Investigation July 1987 Part 2: Shallow groundwater and middle sand ground water operable unit response actions Nov. 1987 Part 3: DNAPL and contaminated soil Jan. 1988 4. Response Action Design (Feb. 1988 - Dec. 1988) - Report: Plan for- interim response actions May-Aug. 1988 - Sludge and contaminated soil from Pond A shipped to hazardous waste facility in Oklahoma. Sept. 1988 - Report: Supplemental detailed analysis report (contaminated soil) Nov. 1988 5. Response Action Implementation (Jan. 1989 - .present) shallow ground water pump out, 8 wells operational Jan. 1989 - middle sand ground water pump out, 2 wells operating Jan. 1989 - DNAPL wells installed Jan. 1989 - soils excavated (-18,000 cubic yards) Aug.-Sept. 1989 - bioremediation of Lift 1 soil initiated Sept. 1989 - Lift 1 soil determined to meet MPCA treatment goals July 1990 - soils excavated (-18,000 cubic yards) July-Aug. 1990 bioremediation of Lift 2 soil initiated August 1990 - 5 - JOSLYN MANUFACTURING SITE, BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS NOTE: Concentrations are in parts per million, unless otherwise stated. All analyses are by GC/MS, unless otherwise stated. 1. Soil A. Pentach`lorophenol (PCP) and PAH Concentrations In Representative Soil Samples Prior To Excavation (1986 data) . Sample ------ PAHs ------ Depth Description/Comments Sum List 1 Sum List 2 PCP 2 ft. Discolored oily sand ND 2400 2300 2 ft. Gray slightly oily sand 96 560 ND 4 ft. Tan oily sand 5 860 680 6 ft. Discolored oily sand 68 2000 310 6 ft. Brown oily sand 430 1000 2800 6 ft. Discolored oily silty sand 17 230 330 8 ft. Discolored oily sand 570 4800 ND 10 ft. Discolored oily silty sand ND 1600 3200 15 ft. Gray oily sand 850 7400 <100 15 ft. Gray-brown slightly oily sand ND 0.4 8.6 ND = Non detect. B. Pentachlorophenol' and PAH Concentrations In Representative Soil Samples After Excavation, Screening, and Placement in the Land Treatment Unit (LTU) , Prior to the Initiation of Bioremediation. Lift #1 (1989 data) Lift #2 (1990 data) . LTU ------------------------- -------------------------- Sample cPAHs nPAHs PCP cPAHs nPAHs PCP ------ ------ ------ ---- #1 78 641 310 130 580 270 2 114 1795 390 130 580 350 3 183 2762 210 130 540 240 4 98 2164 180 140 850 150 5 96 554 670 86 490 180 6* 39 180 41 47 200 120 7 121 966 450 63 640 490d 8 70 259 200 77 640 . 270d 9 36 458 470 45 360 260d d = diluted sample * = soil contaminated with hydraulic oil 2. Surface Water. Pentachlorophenol was non-detect in Twin Lakes. PAHs present in the water column due to a large volume of motorboat traffic, but this low-level PAH contamination is not associated with the Site. 6 - JOSLYN MANUFACTURING SITE, BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 3. Ground Water A. Surf icial Aquifer Isopleth map of Pentachlorophenol and PAHs provided in Figure 3 and 4, respectively. The highest concentrations of PCP and PAHs are present in the shallow aquifer near, and immediately downgradient of the former thermal treating, reclaim and storage tanks and .Pond A. Contaminant concentations in 1989-1990 are similar to the concentrations found in 1984-1985. B. Lower Aquifer Average concentrations of PAHs and Pentachlorophenol in Ground Water - 1984 and 1985 (Concentrations in micrograms per Liter (ug/L) . Deep PAHs Well ------------------------ # Description/Comments Sum List 1 Sum List 2 PCP -- ------------------- -- ----- 301 0 .015 0.11 ND 307 0.0024 0.91 ND 300 Supply well for the facility ND 0.064 ND Supply well , St. Peter Sandstone ND 0.11 ND Supply well , Prairie du Chien ND 0.084 ND 203571 ND 0.094 ND 203574 0.006 0.084 ND SPECIAL .NOTES ` 1. Land Treatment Unit (LTU) . Contaminated soil is excavated and passed through a mechanical screen which has 1-inch wide_ slats. Soil which passes through the screen is then placed in the LTU. - -A 'typical "Lift" of soil is approximately 18,000 cubic yards (18_ inches thick X._10 acres) ECOVA .Corporation is the bioremediation contractor and applies nutrients and water as needed. The contaminated soil is mechanically tilled on a daily basis during the treatment season which runs from early May through September. Microbes are also added as needed. Most of the 'information on the operation of the LTU is proprietary and ECOVA's Redmond, Washington office should be contacted -for specifics. MPCA Treatment goals: 150 ppm for pentachlorophenol ; 100 ppm cPAHs. 2. Contact persons for the Joslyn Site: Cliff Twaroski , Project Manager Carl Grabinski Ground Water and Solid Waste Division Joslyn Corporation Site Response Section 30 South Wacker Drive 520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul , Minnesota 55155 Chicago, Illinois 60606 612/296-7827 312/454-2865