To: Mayor and City Council (via email)

I am writing you today in the matter of the proposed L.G. Everist aggregate transfer station that awaits your votes on Tuesday, and ask that you take consideration of my concerns as a resident of the Kings Forrest neighborhood.

First, let me say that I support the concept of bringing aggregate to the Midwest Asphalt plant by train. Such an arrangement:

* Cuts truck traffic in and out of the area
* Provides a more efficient means of transporting the material than trucks saving fuel and reducing emissions
* Supports a local rail company

However my concern with the storage facility lies in three areas; the apparent conflict with the city codes; the lack of critical reasoning about the growth of the transfer facility; and the precedent this sets for encouraging more heavy industry to locate in this area. These I will address below. I hope that these raise questions in your minds about the facility too, and that you will not let these issues slide, but will require clarification of the developers and city staff before sanctioning this development.

1. The apparent conflict with the city code

I am not a lawyer and have little experience with city codes. But to my un-trained eye I do not see how this facility fits within the city code. The section dealing with the I-GEN zoning is on page 11-38 of the code. Under this section there is a part (Subd.2.) that specifies the permitted uses of this zone. Here is what the section says:

A. Manufacturing, warehousing, wholesale, distribution, processing, packaging, assembling, compounding, and accessory uses, conducted within a building.

B. Office Uses.

C. Public facilities and services.

Source: City Code

Effective Date: 9-17-82

D. Supporting minor commercial uses as contained within office/industrial buildings, providing a supplemental function to the major office and/or industrial use. The commercial use is not to exceed 15% of the gross Floor Area Ratio of the building it occupies.

Source: Ordinance No. 9-87

Effective Date: 5-7-87

E. Gymnasium.

Source: Ordinance No. 16-82

Effective Date: 1-14-83

F. Funeral Homes.

Source: Ordinance No. 17-94

Effective Date: 5-27-94

G. Antennas and Towers, in those locations and subject to the limitations contained in City Code Section 11.06.

Source: Ordinance No. 27-97

Effective Date: 6-13-97

Under this section uses B-G are obviously not applicable to the Everist facility. Only A might apply. Using my knowledge of English (not lawyer’s talk) “conducted within a building” would seem to apply to all of the previous uses of paragraph A. The Everist facility is certainly not contained within a building. By looking at the proposed bin plan and applying my old physics knowledge I can predict piles of aggregate as much as 40 feet high. These will not be hidden by berms much less contained within a building. While paragraph 11.30.B says outside storage is permitted, I would interpret the intent of this as storage associated with one of the permitted uses contained in a building.

I would suggest that the city council either amend the existing provision to permit this type of use, or deny the use of the land. I know that the city attorney does not agree with this reading, but I ask you to ask him to explain why. I would hope that the city codes are clearly written and understandable by all, not just by lawyers. I hope this is not a case of bending of the language to accommodate this use.

2. The lack of critical reasoning about the growth predicted for the facility

I have read the traffic study, combed the internet, and then come to the conclusion that the 300,000 tons of aggregate predicted by L.G Everist to flow through their facility in 2014 poses logistical problems that have not been discussed by the city council or planning department. In addition the predicted 150,000 tons of that that Everist says will go to Midwest Asphalt seems highly impractical.

300,000 tons would require 7,500 rail cars containing 40 tons each to bring it to the city. Using the Seasonal Variation quoted in the traffic study, August accounts for 17% of the material movement. That means that if the facility runs 6 days a week it will have to handle a bit more than 49 cars a day (a train almost 2000 feet long by my estimate). Where are these cars going to go? The current unloading zone used on the TC&W main line can only accommodate 11 cars. How will the facility reach this capacity? Will different rail cars be used? How many sidings will have to be constructed to handle the cars? Will different unloading mechanisms be used (bottom dump?) and how does this impact the noise/dust generated by the operation? [As an aside, I hope the council gets to see what this aggregate looks like. To the untrained eye it looks more like course sand than crushed rock. Go to the tracks and take a look. It is pink and has been spilled all over.]

Examining the traffic study further, it quotes that Midwest Asphalt will use 30,000 tons of the aggregate in 2005. It further quotes Everist as saying that in 2014 150,000 tons will be supplied to Midwest Asphalt. This represents a 5 times increase. Midwest Asphalt however predicts growth of 20% only in the period. How can Midwest Asphalt grow by 20% yet consume 500% more aggregate?

If we assume that Midwest Asphalt is using a reasonable amount of the aggregate in 2005, starting with August, then accounting for the Seasonal Variation the 30,000 tons of aggregate accounts for 53.6% of their annual aggregate consumption in 2005. Adjusting for an annual basis, production of 360,000 tons of asphalt would consume about 56,000 tons of aggregate. This represents the level of Everist aggregate consumption for the year 2005, if it had been supplied for the full year. Assuming a 20% growth this would scale to about 67,000 tons in the year 2014. Yet in 2014 Everist says that Midwest Asphalt will consume 150,000 tons of material. How can this difference be accounted for? I have a few theories:

* Midwest asphalt will up the blend of virgin aggregate in their mix by about 2.5 times. This seems unlikely as it will up the asphalt cost as virgin aggregate displaces recycled materials in their mix.
* Everist will be bringing in other material that is not used in asphalt production but is being sold to Midwest Asphalt (such as chip for resurfacing streets). If this is the case then the Traffic Study underestimates the truck traffic by a significant amount. An additional 83,000 tons will be coming in to Midwest Asphalt and an additional 83,000 tons will be leaving Everist’s facility. This would add up to approximately 3500 truck trips a year to the area.
* Everist will not reach the 300,000 ton level because it can only sell so much aggregate to Midwest Asphalt. (How was this 300,000 ton number developed anyway?) The traffic study will have to be corrected to account for the additional 83,000 tons not sold to Midwest Asphalt, and thus add about 1750 truck trips a year to the study total.

As you can see, I have limited knowledge of traffic studies, and asphalt production and could be entirely wrong. But the numbers just don’t seem to add up to me. Shouldn’t the city staff have noticed this and commented on it?

3. Encouraging more heavy industry to locate to the area

Once this area becomes a railhead for offloading bulk materials what other industry will wish to move to the area? By my logic a ready mix concrete plant would be a logical addition. Maybe a second asphalt plant would be built if Brooklyn Park closes their Midwest Asphalt facility. I would like to see the city council discuss what they foresee the future of the area to be? What can be done to prevent such uncontrolled industrial growth? If I understand what the city attorney is saying, the city council is powerless to prevent such a future under fear of lawsuit.

If we indeed have no power to control what kind of development goes in to this zone, then we will have surrendered our peace and quiet along with our property values to the whims of large industrial companies. This does not make Eden Prairie a desirable place to live and we will have down graded one of the oldest and most unique areas of the city.

Conclusion

I hope you have the time to read through all of my writings and hope that you work through the numbers yourselves. Thank you for your time, and efforts in this matter. As our elected representatives you are the only ones who can stand up for the citizen-property owners of this city. Clearly the money and power is on the side of the developers, and the city is in the business of development (making a city work). However we have zoning and codes to balance the interests of the property owners, and we trust you to develop and interpret these matters to the benefit of all.

Sincerely,

David Spoor
6629 Manchester Lane
Eden Prairie