HomeMy WebLinkAbout15.D.1. Appeal of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals Determination for Shakopee Gravel, Inc.-Res. No. 6344
Is,o.J,
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
CASE NO.: 05-120
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I
RE: Appeal of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals Determination on a
Renewal ofa Conditional Use Permit/Land Rehabilitation Permit for
Shakopee Gravel, Inc. at 1650 Canterbury Road
DATE: December 20, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Beverly Koehnen has filed an appeal ofthe Board of Adjustment and Appeals (BOAA) renewal
of a Conditional Use Permit/Land Rehabilitation Permit for Shakopee Gravel, Inc., located at
1650 Canterbury Road. In her letter (Exhibit A), she notes the items that she believes were
incorrectly addressed by staff and the Board. Ms. Koehnen's core contention is that the BOAA
does not have the authority to take action on this CUP request, but that the City Council has
reserved that authority for itself. A second major concern raised in her letter that by removing
the term "renewal" from the approving resolution, the BOAA limited options open to the City.
On December 6,2005, the City Council voted 4-1 (Terry Joos) to table this item to the December
20, 2005 meeting, with staff directed to check the 2002 Council meeting minutes to determine
whether the intent was to "review or renew" this request; and to prepare a resolution for possible
action at the December 20th meeting. \
Staff have reviewed the May 7, 2002 and May 21, 2002 approved City Council meeting minutes,
with staff noting dialogue by the Council concerning ground water testing, which resulted in a
friendly amendment that incorporated into the adopted resolution that "water monitoring would
be done at least quarterly, not annually". Those minutes are attached for the Council's
information.
The Board of Adjustment and Appeals held a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit/Land
Rehabilitation Permit renewal request at its September 22, 2005 meeting, and at their November
3,2005 meeting, by a 6-0 vote, the Board approved the request with changes. The Board
determined that the request did meet all of the criteria required for granting the renewal,
contingent on complying with the conditions of the resolution.
Additionally, city staff recently met with representa~ives from Shakopee Public Utilities
Commission and Shakopee Gravel, Inc., including the Hydrogeologist from HDR Engineering,
Inc. (the company conducting the groundwater monitoring and sampling of the well located on
Shakopee Gravel, Inc. property). The purpose ofthis meeting was to discuss/analyze the diesel
range organic (DRO) levels that have been identified in the quarterly reports submitted by
Shakopee Gravel, with representatives from each group to conduct additional research/testing
and to report back to this group with their findings at a later date. City staff will provide a report
to the Council once additional information becomes available.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve Resolution No. 6344, a resolution upholding the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals determination on the Renewal of the Conditional Use PermitILand
Rehabilitation and Mining Permit for Shakopee Gravel, Inc..
2. Uphold the appeal of the applicant, thereby denying the requested renewal, and direct
staff to prepare a resolution for the Council's consent agenda that is consistent with that
decision.
3. Table the appeal for additional information.
ACTION REQUESTED
Offer a motion consistent with the Council's wishes, and move its adoption.
g: \cc\2005\12-20\appealshakopeegravelcup.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 6344
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, GRANTING THE
RENEWAL OF AMENDMENT NO.4 TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CC-376
(AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS NO.1, 2 & 3) AND THE MINERAL
EXTRACTION AND LAND REHABILITATION PERMIT TO OPERATE A MINE
WITHIN THE MINING OVERLAY (MIN) ZONE
WHEREAS, Shakopee Gravel, Inc., property owner and applicant, have filed an
application for renewal of Amendment No.4 to Conditional Use Permit No. CC-376 (and
subsequent amendments No.1, No.2 and No.3) under the provisions of Chapter 11, Land Use
Regulation (Zoning), of the Shakopee City Code, Section 11.85, Subd. 2, for a Conditional Use
Permit to operate a mine; and
WHEREAS, this parcel is presently zoned Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone with a
Mining Overlay (MIN) Zone; and
WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as
follows:
The Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16,
Township 115 North, Range 22 West, Scott County Minnesota.
Also: the West Halfofthe Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 115 North,
Range 22 West, Scott County, Minnesota, lying North and Easterly of the
Northeasterly right of way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railway.
Also: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 17,
Township 115 North, Range 22 West, Scott County, Minnesota, lying Northeasterly of the
Northeasterly right of way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railway;
and
WHEREAS, notice was provided and on September 22, 2005, the Shakopee Board of
Adjustment and Appeals conducted a public hearing regarding this application, at which it heard
from the Community Development Director or his designee and invited members of the public to
comment; and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 2005,~the Shakopee Board of Adjustment and Appeals
approved the renewal ofthis application, and
WHEREAS, Ms. Beverly Koehnen timely appealed the determination of the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the appeal of Ms. Koehnen at it's meeting of
December 6,2005 and December 20,2005; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reached the following findings with respect to the
requested renewal of the Conditional Use PermitlLand Rehabilitation Permit:
Finding #1: After reviewing the evidence in the record, the Council has concluded that with
the conditions stipulated, the use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment
of other property in the vicinity.
Finding #2: The Council fmds that the renewal to the conditional use, mineral extraction and
land rehabilitation permit, with the conditions stipulated, will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property.
Finding#3 : Adequate utilities, access, drainage and other necessary facilities exist to serve
the site.
Finding #4: The use, with the conditions stipulated, is consistent with the purposes of the
Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone and Mining Overlay (MIN) Zone.
Finding #5: The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan guiding for the subject site.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
That the decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals is hereby upheld, and the applicant's
request for the renewal of Amendment No.4 to Conditional Use Permit No. 376 and the Mineral
Extraction and Land Rehabilitation Permit is hereby granted, subject to the following revised
conditions:
1. The'Shakopee Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall review the Conditional Use
Permit and Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation Permit annually to ensure that
the owner/operatoris in full compliance with all provisions of the Conditional Use
Permit. Both permits shall be renewed every three years. The oGwner/operator shall
apply for review and/or rene',val prior to expiration of the period. no later than July
15th of each year. Applications for CUP and Mineral Extraction and Land
Rehabilitation Permit review or rene\val will include records of groundwater
monitoring information. With each application for review renewal, the applicant
shall submit a consolidated and updated operations plan. Notification of the meeting
shall occur through use of the local newspaper and through notification to designated
representatives ofthe neighborhood located within 350 feet ofthe Shakopee Gravel
property.
2. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit renewal or amendment is contingent upon
Board of Adjustment and Appeals approval of the Mineral Extraction and Land
Rehabilitation Permit.
3. Security fencing shall be used on the main access roads to control vehicular access to
the mining and equipment area, and along the v,'cst property line any adjacent te
existing residential development.
4. The applicant shall obtain a County Road Entrance permit from the Scott County
Highway Engineer.
5. County Road weight restrictions shall be adhered to. Truck traffic shall be limited to
the use of County Road 83 to Hwy. 169. Hwy. 101 and County Road 42. Absolutely
no truck traffic from the mining operation shall be routed through the urban portion of
the City of Shakopee.
6. Berms with a minimum height of eight (8) feet shall be built around the perimeter of
each phase, installed at no greater than a 3: 1 grade. Berms must be fully seeded to
prevent erosion.
7. The mining operation shall maintain the following minimum setbacks: 100 feet from
any residential or commercial property line; 500 feet from any residential or
commercial structure that was in existence prior to commencement of mining. unless
the written consent of all owners and residents or occupants of said structures is
obtained; 30 feet from any road right-of-way.
8. All portable buildings must be approved by the Building Official.
9. Tlw hours of operation of any aspect of the mining operation shall be limited to 8 :00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday th.-u Friday. Truck loading operations within the pit shall
be allowed from 7 a.m.-5 p.m.. Monday thru Friday. All other operations shall be
allowed from 8 a.m.- 5 p.m.. Mondav thru Friday.
10. Dust must be controlled by paving main' access roads, watering haul roads and
equipment and by any other means which will control adverse affects of dust on
neighboring properties.
11. Noise emissions shall not exceed the State's noise limits.. as noted in Section 10.60
(Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention) of the Shakopee City Code, nor the MPCA
Standards.
,12. Two propane tanks shall be permitted, one 325-gallon tank located next to the scale
building and one 100-pound tank located next to the maintenance/electrical building.
The propane shall be used to heat these two buildings only. The propane tanks must
be installed and maintained in accordance with State Fire Marshall Rules (Chapter
. 7510.3100 - 7510.3280). There shall be no other fuel tanks on-site unless said tanks
receive permit approval from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) or
other required agency. There shall be no use or storage of explosives except as
approved in advance as a part of this conditional use and mining permit.
13. No direct exterior lighting shall be visible from adjacent properties or the public
right-of;..way. Two 125-watt high-presswe sodium security lights can be installed,on
the site and they must be located on the site as shown on the submitted plan.
14. Stockpiles of gravel shall be allowed to exceed 25 feet in height, but not exceed the
height of the surrounding berms and shall be setback from the property lines so that
visual impact is minimal from the surrounding property.
15. The applicant shall be responsible for reimbursing the City for all costs incurred in
reviewing the permit through the life ofthe operation.
16. The revised Gravel Extraction Plan and the End Use Plan, as submitted by the
applicant, shall be adhered to, without modifications, unless approved in advance by
the Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
17. The applicant shall prepare in report form, a plan for operation, which if acceptable,
shall be adopted by resolution as the Mining Permit. The Plan for Operation shall be
comprised of 1) the submitted maps A, B, C; 2) the conditions ofthe approved
permits 3) background information as contained in the memo prepared by Merila and
Associates, Inc.; dated April 30, 1985.
18. The City's approval ofthe permits (CUP and Mining) is made in reliance upon the
. applicant's representations regarding the life of the operation (17 years). Any factors,
or future developments which significantly delay the completion ofthe mining
operation, may be viewed by the City as sufficient grounds to deny the three year
reno'lIal of the permit revoke both permits.
19. The Conditional Use and Mining Permits maybe reviewed prior to the scheduled
annual review, ifthe City receives complaints, supported by evidence indicating that
the conditions of this these permit~ are being viQlated. Upon receipt of such
complaints, or by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals' own initiation, the City shall
schedule a public hearing, in accordance with the proper procedures for notice and
publication.
20. If the Board of Adjustment and Appeals finds that the applicants have substantially,
or repeatedly violated the terms ofthis agreement, the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals may revoke said permit.
21. Expand the operation to include the 5 acre Rutt Farmstead.
22. Relocate the natural gas pipeline on the site.
23. Allow for the relocation of the central processing area.
24. Allow the final development grades to be between an elevation of764 at the bottom
of the proposed ponds and 832 feet.
25. The operation should be mined in five phases, except as modified by any subsequent
amendment to or renewal of the CUP and Mining permit.
26. The applicant shall establish a monitoring well on the subject site for ground water
quality monitoring, and shall regularly (at least quarterly) record measurements from
that well, which measurements shall be submitted with any application for review,
rene':.ral, or amendment.:. Mining extraction shall not exceed a depth greater than ten
(10) feet above the established ground water MSL elevation.
27. The mining operations shall operate for 17 years beginning on January 16. 1996. and
terminating on January 16. 2013. (new condition - previously attached to condition
no. 26).
28. Provided that the applicant is granted access to future 1 ih Avenue, consistent with
the end use development ofthe property~ the applicant agrees to dedicate the right of
way for future 1 ih A venue at no cost to the City and accept assessments based upon
the end use development of the proferty.
29. The sanitary sewer along future 1 i A venue is shown, but not approved. Future
extension of 17th A venue will determine the ultimate alignment and depth. The City
Engineer shall determine and propose a mutually agreeable location and depth for the
trunk sanitary sewer along future 17th Avenue.
30. Access spacing to future 17th A venue and CSAH 83 will be determined by Scott
County, City of Shakopee and the applicant upon approval of the preliminary plat for
the end use.
31. Material imported onto the site for reclamation and final site. grading shall be
monitored to ensure that it is environmentally clean. Records shall be kept of all
imported material and all ofthe necessary documentation shall be available. :fhe
applicant will certify that the property is environmentally clean at the completion of
each phase of the mining operation. The applicant will certify that the prolJerty meets
any and all standards set by the MPCA or government board that regulates mine
reclamation.
32. Material imported onto the site and used in the reclamation and final site grading shall
only include soil materials of a bearing capacity sufficient to support development, as
proposed in the End Use Plan. The depositing and compaction of materials shall be
done in accordance with specifications prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer.
33. The site shall be reclaimed in accordance with the End Use Plan and be available for
development within one construction season following the completion of mining
activities, if not before. ,
34. The storm sewer discharge ~long future 1 ih A v~nue shall not exceed the design
capacity in the CSAH 83 trunk storm sewer as determined by the City Engineer. The
development ofthe subject property will necessitate the lowering ofthe storm sewer
along future 1 ih A venue. The property owner shall pay the cost of lowering this
trunk line.
35. No Construction cutting or filling in the Minnegasco Easement #1997-7, recorded as
document #0393488, except as authorized by Minnegasco.
36. The applicant is to provide to the city an earthwork quantity calculation, to be
completed by a Registered Professional Engineer or Registered Landscape Architect,
and the applicant is to provide to the city on an annual basis the quantity of export
and import materials.
37. If the mining operation intends to bring solid waste material onto the site, a solid
waste license must first be approved by the Scott County Environmental Health
Department.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota, held the day of , 2005.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Prepared by:
THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE
129 Holmes Street South
Shakopee,~ 55379
CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 6344
I, Judith S. Cox, City Clerk for the City of Shakopee, do hereby certify that the attached is a true
and correct copy of Resolution No.6344, presented to and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Shakopee at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the _ day of , 2005,
as shown by minutes of the meeting in my possession.
Dated this _ day of ,20_.
Judith S. Cox
City Clerk
SEAL
~
,~
Mr. Leek reported on Beverly's Koehnen's appeal of the decision by the Board of Adjustment
and Appeals on the CUP Amendment and Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation Permit of
Shakopee Gravel, Inc. Mr. Leek noted that the review of the CUP and Land Rehabilitation
Official Proceedings of the May 7, 2002
Shakopee City Council Page -8-
Permit of Shakopee Gravel, Inc. took place over several months. Eventually, the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals granted Resolution No. PC02-012 approving the amendment and
renewal ofthe Land Rehabilitation Permit of Shakopee Gravel, Inc. with several conditions
carried forward from the previous renewal of 1995/96 resolution as well as several new
conditions. Mr. Leek noted to the Council that there was a memorandum on the table, dated May
7, 2002 and that memo contains the sequence of events from the time that this CUP Amendment
and the Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation Permit was brought before the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals until tonight. Mr. Leek commented on the alleged errors and omissions
in the appellant statement as well as commented on criteria issues identified in Ms. Koehnen's
March 21, 2002 statement of her testimony summary. Also included for the Council was a copy
of the Scott County Aggregate Report records and a letter received today from Dahlgren,
Shardlow and Uban making further comment on the stated grounds for the request for the
Council to overturn the Board of Adjustment and Appeals action. Other items were submitted to
the Council for their information.
Mr. Leek noted that Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban have completed the soil borings at this time.
The soil borings were not complete when the reports were written. Mr. Leek stated that it is the
belief of staff that Shakopee Gravel is meeting the conditions in their CUP. Mr. Leek said there
was one area of concern regarding the conditions. This concern is regarding two small tanks in
the central processing area. Mr. Leek stated that there were a number of conditions that were
added by the Board of Adjustment & Appeals on April 4, 2002 and because these conditions
were added so recently these conditions may not be in compliance yet.
Beverly Koehnen, 2036 Canterbury Road, approached the podium to discuss this issue with the
Council. She stated that in 1995 the City told her that they were going to enforce this permit.
Ms. Koehnen does not believe this pennit was enforced. She was the one who called the City to
get this permit reviewed/renewed.
Mayor Mars stated that Ms. Koehnen needed to tell the Council why she thinks the Board of \
Adjustment & Appeals was in error. Ms. Koehnen had many concerns but really two driving
concerns. These driving concerns were: I) was the water table going to be protected and 2) will
the City enforce the permit. Mayor Mars noted that the enforcement issue was on a complaint
basis and it was up to Shakopee Gravel, Inc. to see that this permit was reviewed on an annual
basis.
Ms. Koehnen stated there are components to a mining permit that are spelled out in the City !
Code. Mayor Mars pointed out to Ms. Koehnen that there are two parts to the operation of this
mining operation: 1] a mining permit {approved and given out} and 2] a conditional use permit
{dictating certain conditions regarding use and impact of a use}. Mayor Mars noted the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals was reviewing and updating the conditional use permit aspect. Ms.
Koehnen felt the mining permit pieces needed to be in place before the CUP could be reviewed.
Official Proceedings of the May 7, 2002
Shakopee City Council Page -9-
In Ms. Koehnen's estimation the mining permit pieces were: 1) three maps showing the present
condition, what the operation is going to be and the end use plan. 2) The conditional use permit
and 3) the Merila Report background information.
Ms. Koehnen stated that when the process to review the CUP late in 2001 began, no operation
plan was evident and even the operator was not aware of the end use plan. Ms. Koehnen stated
she has gone through the mining permit and has found many incorrect things. She said there are
many violations; some ofthese violations she commented on. Ms. Koehnen commented on the
phasing (she felt the phasing was in violation because the number of acres open far exceed the
allowable number). Ms. Koehnen commented on the stockpile height and berming requirements
(She felt the stockpile height was in violation because it was not completely screened from
County Road 83 by the berms now in place. ,Ms. Koehnen felt the berms were not the berms
called for in the operation plan and these berms were not being maintained). Ms. Koehnen
commented on the request to relocate the central processing area. The relocation of this central
process plant was in violation because she was told that this central processing area would never
need to be relocated (there is talk of moving to the west residential area). Ms. Koehnen
addressed the fences. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals did not add a condition to the
fencing condition; the fence condition was already there. Ms. Koehnen did not think that staff
added anything new to condition no. 1 as the City claimed. Condition no. 1 pertains to applying
for the review/renewal of the mining permit and the conditional use permit.
Ms. Koehnen addressed the water depth, the hours of operation and bringing in of new material.
Ms. Koehnen stated that the citizens in the area have given up on complaining. She said their
complaints are not heard. Ms. Koehnen stated that either something is done tonight that has
some meaning to it or she would use other avenues. Cncl. Link felt the hours of operation were
extremely fair to the residents for this type business. Ms. Koehnen stated originally it was stated
in the Merila Report that the operators ofthe gravel mine could work within these hours of
operation satisfactorily. She felt these hours of operation have repeatedly been violated. Ms.
Koehnen was of the opinion that no new material was to.be brought in and now new material is
being brought in. She thought this was a substantial violation. Mayor Mars noted that the plan
for the gravel mine has been amended so new material could be brought in. Ms. Koehnen stated
this material was brought in before the plan was amended.
Ms. Koehnen stated that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals (HOAA) had not been given a
copy of the Fischer Plan of Operation as she requested and the BOAA did not know the geology
and hydrology ofthe area. Ms. Koehnen thought the BOAA did not have all of the information
needed to make a decision. She felt the decision by the BOAA was made with many unanswered
questions. She wanted reassurance that staffwould look at this permit annually.
0
\
Mr. Leek addressed what he felt Ms. Koehnen was looking for i.e. soil borings and water
monitoring to be done by the City on a regular basis. Mr. Leek commented there were items in
the new resolution that were approved by the BOAA on April 4, 2002, that were not part of the
Official Proceedings of the May 7, 2002
Shakopee City Council Page -10-
previous renewal of the conditional use permit. Some ofthese items were evidenced in the
Fischer Mining Report but these were not conditions of the resolution that was approved
originally. City staff, to help identify CUP's that need to be reviewed, is working an electronic
tickler on, including this CUP.
Cncl. Sweeney noted that his tenure on the Council let him hear all this information at the
original time of this CUP. Cncl. Sweeney noted that at the original time it was the intent of the
Council that these reviews would take place. Cncl. Sweeney was concerned about the end
product; he was concerned about the commercial intent now. Cncl. Sweeney noted that after this
mining permit elapses there will be no more mining in Shakopee unless the zoning changes. The
current zoning will not allow mining. Cncl. Sweeney wanted the operators to provide the
funding for the monitoring of the water.
Ms. Koehnen asked what the M.R. classification stood for. Mr. Leek addressed this question as
far as the end use plan was concerned. Mr. Leek was having conversations with the officials of
the gravel mine to make sure the end land use elevations were compatible with the infrastructure
that was being brought to this mining area. According to Mr. Leek, there was a basis for the
consideration of the commercial area in the end land use plan now. There have been significant
changes to the area and all single-family residential may not be the way to go now.
John Shardlow, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, approached the podium and noted that Joel
Sphere, General Manager of Shakopee Gravel, and Jack Perry, of Briggs and Morgan Law Finn,
Legal Counsel for Shakopee Gravel were also in attendance at the meeting. Mr. Shardlow stated
that the only reason Shakopee Gravel was before the City Council for an amendment was
because of the changes in the transportation plan adjacent to this property. Mr. Shardlow
addressed the land use and setbacks.
Mr. Shardlow noted that a soil boring test done by Rudy Hoberg, hydrologist, had been done that
confirmed the fact that the ground water elevation is 33 feet below the base of the pond which is
the lowest point of excavation (764 feet) on the site. A copy of this report will be submitted to
the City. The water elevation is confirmed to be 729.5 feet and is below the bedrock. It was
stated that Shakopee Gravel would not get close to the water elevation mark. Shakopee Gravel
would like to sit down with staff and discuss what contaminants should be screened for with the
water monitoring condition.
Mr. Shardlow identified some of the issues that had been raised with a brief response. He stated
that because there were no complaints brought forward to staff there was no review. Shakopee
Gravel has agreed to the process of review and to provide the.information that the City needs on
an annual basis and if there is monitoring involved Shakopee Gravel has agreed to pay for the
\
monitoring. Mr. Shardlow addressed the issue ofthe fuel tanks. Mr. Shardlow stated that the
double walled fuel tanks are attached to the generating equipment. These tanks are not
freestanding. The fuel from these tanks goes from the tank directly into the generators.
Official Proceedings of the May 7, 2002
Shakopee City Council Page -11-
Mr. Shardlow stated that the operations plan that was approved thru the conditional use permit
process is the operations plan. The only aspects of that plan that were amended dealt with the
end use plan and those plans that were subsequently amended as a result of conditions of
approval that Shakopee Gravel agreed to. Mr. Shardlow was of the belief that it was the City
responsibility to initiate annual reviews;. Shakopee Gravel has subsequently agreed to a condition
that they would initiate these reviews. According to CncI. Lehman it was stated in the original
operations plan that Shakopee Gravel would seek City reviews annually.
Jack Perry, Briggs and Morgan Law Firm, approached the podium and stated there was confusion
previously as to who was to come forward and initiate the reviews. There was no intention to
avoid this review. The applicant takes the responsibility to initiate this review in the future. Mr.
Perry also addressed the open acres and the reclamation of these acres that had not but should
have taken place. Shakopee Gravel will attempt to do something about this reclamation.
Joel Sphere, General Manager of Shakopee Gravel noted that the hours of operation were 8 :00
a.m. to 5 :00 p.m. Monday through Friday during the spring, summer and fall; the hours of
operation during the winter were 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Mr. Perry stated he was concerned about the big picture. He wanted people to know that this
operation was a clean operation and was being run as a clean operation. The owners want to
satisfy legitimate concerns. Mr. Perry stated that was the direction he had been given to all
concerned with running this operation.
Beverly Koehnen approached the podium and stated that she would like to see the findings from
Mr. Rudy Hobergregarding the water levels. She also discussed the driveways off of CR. 83.
She did not feel traffic flowed smoothly to the south because of the trucks coming out of the pit
and she stated there was noise from the jake-braking. She wanted to know if there was a permit
for those fuel tanks on the generators.
Sweeney/Lehman moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution upholding the determination of the
Board of Adjustment And Appeals and incorporating the conditions that have already been
approved in addition to the other conditions that were suggested this evening.
Mayor Mars stated that this site has been an issue of contention for many years in this town and
has caused great concern to this community. The goal ofthe City is to have a better operation of
the gravel pit each time there is a new operator. It is hard to work with enforcement issues when
there are no complaints filed. There will be some new standards put into place regarding the
water table with permanent on site monitoring.
Official Proceedings ofthe May 21,2002
Shakopee City Council Page -8-
well as the City. Mayor Mars thanked Cncl. Link for all his work on the possible purchase of the
Lake O'Dowd property as well as the PRAB's work on the Lake O'Dowd property.
Motion carried 5~0.
Lehman/Joos moved to direct the PRAB to explore other options for acquiring additional
parkland in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Park Plan as well as exploring the option
of working with the County on the parkland in Spring Lake Township around Spring Lake.
Motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Leek reported on the interim Transit Services Agreement with Scott County. Mr. Leek noted
that the City's current contractor, Laidlaw Transit Services, Inc. has indicated that they wish to
discontinue the dial-a-ride service for the City of Shakopee, effective June 1,2002. Therefore,
Mr. Leek approached Scott County Transit to service the City of Shako pee with dial-a ride until a
long-term agreement can be negotiated with Scott County Transit Services. Mr. Leek noted that
Scott Beam, from Scott County Transit Services, suggested that the City of Shakopee enter into a
temporary agreement with Scott County Transit Services to allow an interim period from June 1,
2002 to August 31, 2002 to operate the dial-a-ride service. Mr. Beam and Mr. Leek hoped that
by the August 31 st date a long-term agreement for fuller transit services from Scott County
Transit Services would be agreed upon and a contract for these services would be before the City
Council and the County Board and be acted upon. Mr. Leek addressed one item not in the report.
This was that the City of Shakopee in the interim period conform their fares for dial-a-ride
services to Scott County Transit Services fee for dial-a-ride. Mr. Leek did not see the fare as a
problem but he wanted to follow-up with the public and specific users on the fare. Mr. Leek
noted when the contract between the City of Shakopee and Scott County Transit Services was
completed he hoped to have a uniform fare. Mr. Leek stated that the County Board has approved
their entering into the temporary agreement.
Joos/Sweeney moved to authorize the appropriate City official to enter into an interim agreement
with Scott County for transit services, said contract expiring on or about August 31, 2002 and
conforming the City of Shakopee fares to Scott County fares. Motion carried 5-0.
Lehman/Link offered Resolution No. 5708, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee Overturning
The Decision Of The Board Of Adjustment And Appeals And Granting A Conditional Use
Permit Amendment To Allow A Class II Restaurant With Hours From 5:00 A.M. to 1 :00 A.M.,
Where 5 :00 A.M. to 11 :00 P.M. Are Permitted, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under
the Consent Agenda).
Mr. Leek stated that before the City Council is a draft of the changes that he got from the last
City Council meeting regarding the CUP for Shakopee Gravel. He noted one change regarding
an outstanding issue on the fuel tanks that supply fuel to the equipment on the site. A proposed
change for condition no. 12 of Resolution No. 5727 waS noted in a memo on the table. Mr. Leek
Official Proceedings of the May 21,2002
Shakopee City Council Page -9-
removed the Shakopee Gravel CUP No. 376 from the Consent Agenda in case the applicant or
the appellant wanted to speak to some of the changes. Mr. Leek noted that the City Council was
also given a summary of Ms. Koehnen's verbal information for the May 7,2002 City Council
meeting.
Sweeney/Joos offered Resolution No. 5727, A Resolution Of The City Of Shako pee, Minnesota,
Granting Amendment No.4 To Conditional Use Permit No. CC-376 (And Subsequent
Amendments No.1, 2 & 3) And The Mineral Extraction And Land Rehabilitation Permit To
Operate A Mine Within The Mining Overlay (MIN) Zone and including the proposed
amendment to condition no. 12, and moved its adoption.
Ms. Koehnen approached the podium and stated that there were problems in the neighborhood
because ofthe Conditional Use Permit and the Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation
Permit to operate a mine for Shakopee Gravel, Inc. The main thing she cautioned the Council
about was the plan was not put together well and she was afraid ifthis plan was passed without
going into more detail that there would be a bad situation a few years down the road. She felt
this Council was circumventing some of the rules of the previous Councils. Ms. Koehnen stated
that she did call the pollution control agency (PCA) regarding the tanks and explained how the
tanks were mounted on the trucks. The Pollution Control Agency felt the tanks were large
enough that the operator was in violation and the Pollution Control Agency was turning this
complaint over to the enforcement people. These are large tanks and require extra precautions.
Ms. Koehnen also called the DNR regarding the well.
Mr. Shardlow approached the podium and called the Council's attention to condition no. 7 and
condition no. 9 in Resolution No. 5727. Mr. Shardlow stated that in the previous Resolutions the
word "existing" was in the condition relating to the setbacks in condition no. 7 and this was a
very significant word. He would like the word "existing" to be inserted before residential
properties and commercial properties in condition no. 7 in Resolution No. 5727. Regarding
condition no. 9 where the hours of operation are designated Mr. Shardlow thought the way this
condition was written was open to interpretation and he hoped that the gravel mining operation
would be able to continue the mining operation with the way they interpreted the hours
(equipment is turned on before 8:00 but no business is conducted). It was noted that there were a
few complaints regarding noise; it was felt that the noise complaints were generated at the
equipment starting before 8:00 a.m. between the years of 1991-1996. Mr. Shardlow stated that
he would provide information that the tanks do have the appropriate permits.
Cncl. Lehman stated that the mining operation was only to have 20 acres open at a time not the
eighty acres that are open now. Mr. Shardlow stated that it was a condition in Resolution No.
5727 that only 20 acres are to be open at a time and the gravel pit would move forward with
compliance with this condition. Cncl. Sweeney would like a specific date when Shakopee
Gravel Inc would achieve the compliance to the condition specifying only 20 acres are to open at
one time.
Official Proceedings ofthe May21,2002
Shakopee City Council Page -10-
Mr. Shardlow asked ifnoise study information could be brought forward to show that the
equipment is not violating any noise standards.
Ms. Koehnen approached the podium and stated what she thought condition no. 9 (regarding the
hours of operation) applied to. Ms. Koehnen stated that when she called thePCA, according to
the PCA there was no record of these fuel tanks. Ms. Koehnen also stated Cnc1. Sweeney had
asked this applicant to test the ground water and this testing has not been done sufficiently yet.
Sweeney/Joos moved to amend Resolution No. 5727 with a friendly amendment stating that the
water monitoring would be done at least "quarterly" not "annually".
Ms. Koehnen questioned condition no. 12. Mr. Leek stated that condition no. 12 needed to be
amended to insert the word "no" regarding explosives.
Sweeney/Joos moved to amend Resolution No. 5727 with a friendly amendment again stating
that the word "no" be inserted in condition No. 12 regarding explosives.
Main motion as amended carried 5-0.
A recess was taken at 9:05 p.m.
Mayor Mars re-convened the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
Mr. Leek noted that at a workshop the City Council directed staff to bring an amendment to the
City Code regarding Planned Unit Developments (PUD's). Mr. Leek noted that small changes
had been made to subdivision 6, section 11.50 of the City Code pertaining to PUD Districts.
These changes were regarding the criteria to PUD applications adopting findings relative to the
criteria listed in the ordinance. There was a change to the number of the ordinance summary and
Mr. Leek received an opinion from the DNR and has also asked the City Attorney's opinion
regarding the interaction of section 11.50 regarding the PUD district regulations with section
11.54 subd. 8 in Chapter 11, which are the PUD, provisions in the Shoreland Ordinance. Mr.
Patrick Lynch of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) submitted a letter dated May 14,
2002, which is on the table before the Council tonight. Mr. Leek noted that this was not a legal
opinion but it was Mr. Lynch's opinion of the interaction. It was Mr. Leek's view that under the
current ordinance or under the proposed text amendment the relationship between the PUD
overlay portion of the ordinance section 11.50 and the PUD provisions at subdivision 8 of the
Shoreland Ordinance, section 11.54 there is no change in their relationship. Both sections would
need to be reviewed by the planning staff.
Mayor Mars and Mr. Leek noted that the Shoreland Overlay Zone was not being changed in the
City Code book by amending section 11.50 of the PUD requirements. Mr. Leek went through the
process of an initial PUD application. Mr. Leek noted that under this proposed PUD amendment
Official Proceedings of the May 21, 2002