Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/10/1981 TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ. SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 10, 1981 Acting Mayor Reinke presiding 1 ] Roll Call at 7 : 30 P .M. 2] 7 : 30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Appeal from Planning Commission denial of a request for a Conditional Use and Mining and Mineral Land Extraction Permit on approximately 130 acres lying within P/O SES of the NE4 of Sec. 17-115-22W; also Ek of NWk of Sec . 16-115-22W and WZ of NW4 of Sec 16-115N-22W (PC 81-18C) Applicant : Scott County Lumber Co . , Inc . & Bert Noterman and/or nominees Howard Rosenwinkel , consultant, 105 Elm, Chaska 55318 Action: a] Cond' l . Use Permit No. CC-277 approve/deny request b] Approve/Deny issuance of a Mineral Extraction & Land Rehabilitation Permit Planning Comm. Recommendation: Denial 3] Resolution No. 1936 , Giving Preliminary Approval to A Proposed $650,000 Industrial Development Project by Equities Unlimited 4] Resolution No. 1939, Changing Hearing Date on the Proposed Assessments for the 1981 Diseased Tree Removal Program 5] Resolution No . 1930, Accepting Work on the 80-11 TH-101 Watermain Extension - memo coming Monday 6 ] County/Hospital Parking Lot Agreements - tbld 10/20/81 7 ] Five Year Capital Improvement Program - tbld 11/4/81 (bring 6d of 11/4) 8] Other Business : a] b] c ] 9] Adjourn to Tuesday, November 17th at 7 : 30 P.M. John K. Anderson City Administrator MEMO TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Appeal from Planning Commission Decision DATE: November 6, 1981 Mr. Reinke asked if Mr. Harbeck had shared any comments or concerns regarding the request for a conditional use permit and mining and mineral lend extraction permit with staff . Upon checking with the City Administrator and the City Planner , he had not . MEMO TO : John Anderson City Administrator FROM: Don Steger City Planner RE : Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on Proposed Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation DATE : November 4 , 1981 Introduction: Scott County Lumber Co . , Inc . (Bert Notermann, Ed Hennen, Lando Busch) requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation Permit (Mining Permit ) to operate a sand and gravel mine on 130 . 73 acres of land located southwest of County Roads 16 and 83 . The Planning Commission voted to deny the permit requests at their October 8 , 1981 meeting. The applicants are appealing the Planning Commission' s decision to the City Council. Background: The Planning Commission conducted a lengthy public hearing on this matter on July 9, 1981 and October 8 , 1981. After reviewing reports and data presented by Howard Rosenwinkel, the applicant ' s consulting engineer, and taking public testimony , the Planning Commission denied the permit request (4 to 0 with 1 abstention and 2 absent ) for the following reasons : 1. The conditional use will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted and substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity . 2 . The use is not reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use . 3 . The use is not consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use . Attached are copies of reports , technical data and other relevant material associated with this proposal. John Anderson November 4 , 1981 Appeal - Page -2- Alternatives : The City Council could: 1. Concur with the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the request subject to one or all of the Planning Commission' s reasons for denial (pursuant to City Code) . 2 . Approve the Conditional Use Permit request and the Mining Permit based on the reverse of the Planning Commission' s reasons for denial. 3 . Approve the Conditional Use Permit and Mining Permit request except attach mitigating conditions to the approval of the permits ; such as those conditions suggested in the staff' s report to the Planning Commission. • It must be pointed out that a denial of the permits may provoke a court challenge of the City Council ' s decision by the applicants . An approval of the Permits may provoke an appeal of the decision to the court by the citizens group opposed to the sand and gravel mine (the Shakopee Environmental Protection Association) . Recommended Action: Approve : 1. Council moves that the conditions of Shakopee City Code Section 11. 04, Subd. 6A and Section 11. 24 , Subd. 1 have been met and hereby offers Conditional Use Permit Resolu- tion No. CC-277, which grants approval to conduct Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation in an AG Zone subject to conditions as recommended by City staff numbered 1 - 17, and moves for its adoption; and 2 . Council moves to authorize the proper City official to issue a Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation Permit subject to staff recommended conditions Numbered 1 - 16 . OR Deny : 1. Council moves to concur with the decision of the Shakopee Planning Commission and offers Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. CC-277, which denies the request for Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation in an AG Zone based on Shakopee City Code Section 11. 04, Subd. 6A Items Numbered 1, 6 and 7 , as follows : - John Anderson November 4 , 1981 Appeal - Mineral Extraction Page -3- No . 1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity . No . 6 . The use , in the opinion of the Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use . No . 7 . The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use . and Shakopee City Code Section 11. 24 , Subd. 1, as follows : "Purpose . Agricultural Preservation areas are estab- lished for the purpose of preserving, promoting, main- taining and enhancing the use of land for commercial agricultural purposes , to prevent scattered and leap- frog non-farm growth, to protect expenditures for such public services as roads and road maintenance , and police and fire protection. " and moves for its adoption, and 2 . Council moves to deny the granting of a permit for Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation based on non-compliance with Shakopee City Code . DS/jiw Attachments : Plan for Mineral Extraction (Attachment "A" ) Supplement (Attachment "B" ) Environmental Assessment Worksheet (Attachment "C" ) Petitions (Attachment "D" ) Staff Reports (Attachment "E" ) Planning Commission Minutes (Attachment "F" ) Conditional Use Permit Resolution No . CC-277 (Attach. "G" ) 'STATE OF MINNESOTA* NOV 9 19'2,1 t1:� -41 •':;j` ‘01,4 r. t IT1r QF SH,AKOP 'FILE OF THE BOARD STH FLOOR, METRO SQUARE PHONE: 296-23118 7TH AND ROBERT STREETS SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE, ENGINEERING, LAND SURVEYING AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE November 5, 1981 Mr. Julius A. Coller, II City Attorney 211 West 1st Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 • Dear Mr. Coller, The Board has been advised that the Shakopee City Council is scheduled to act on an item during its November 10, 1981 meeting involving a Plan for Mineral Extraction for the Scott County Lumber Company, Inc. , and Mr. Bert Notermann. The plan was prepared by Mr. Howard K. Rosenwinkel of Chaska who holds himself out as a consulting engineer. We have searched our files and find no record that Mr. Rosenwinkel is licensed to practice as a Professional Engineer in this State. Mr. Rosenwinkel has been notified of the licensure requirement by letter of November 4, 1981. For your information, Minnesota Statutes, Section 326. 02, Subdivision 1, states, in part, that "Registration Mandatory. In order to safeguard life, health, and property, and to promote the public welfare, any person in either public or private capacity practicing, or offering to practice. . . professional engineering. . .in this state, either as an individual, a co-partner, or as agent of another shall be registered as here - inafter provided. It shall be unlawful for any person to practice, or to offer to practice, in this state, . . . professional engineering. . . or to solicit or to contract to furnish work within the terms of sections 326. 02 to 326. 15, or to use in connection with his name, or to otherwise assume, use or advertise any title or description tending to convey the impression that he is a. . .professional engineer. . . unless such person is qualified by registration under sections 326. 02 to 326. 15. " I AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER (:,I r`/ 0014 a Mr. Julius A. Coller, II -2- November 5, 1981 Further, Minnesota Statutes, Section 326. 03, Subdivision 1, states in part, that "No person, except an. . . engineer. . . licensed as provided for in sections 326. 02 to 326. 15 shall practice. . . professional engineering . . . respectively, in the preparation of plans, specifications, reports, plats or other. . . engineering. . . documents or in the observation of . . . engineering. . . projects. In preparation of such documents, reasonable care shall be given to compliance with applicable laws, ordinances, and building codes relating to design. " We request that you inform the City Council that the Plan for Mineral Extrat.ion was prepared by an unlicensed person and that they should require that such a plan be prepared by a licensed professional engineer as required by the above statutory citations. If you have any questions concerning our request, please call me at 296-2388. Thank you for your cooperation in this important matter. Sincerely, LET:ca Lowell E. Torseth Executive Secretary cc: M. W. Peterson zii- ±c2,i i \\\ 4- "-----1". _ \\\\\ .\\\ i in tb9 - 11‘ 7IPSI 4sAN Ai \I\ / k - . _ , .;, . • / ,40„ ,.,,t„ 4) o° • I: ap - --> S.�A E / i _ t iiiii V / i (:) _ PLAN FOR MINERAL EXTRACTION PLAN FOR MINERAL EXTRACTION FOR SCOTT COUNTY LUMBER COMPANY, INC. AND BERT NOTERMMANN AND/OR NOMINEES SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA JUNE 1981 PREPARED BY: HOWARD K. ROSENWINKEL CONSULTING ENGINEER 105 ELM STREET CHASM, MINNESOTA 55318 612/448-2838 EUGENE C. ROSENWINKEL PROPERTY CONSULTANT 1481 SCENIC VIEW DRIVE CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 612/448-2884 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ARE GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES AND CONSULTANTS FOR THEIR OPINIONS, COMMENTS, GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION AND DATA WHICH WAS MADE AVAILABLE FOR THIS REPORT AND PLAN FOR MINERAL EXTRACTION. ALLEN J. FRECHE1M SCOTT COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA E.W. PRENEVOST SCOTT COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JOHN MENTER, P.E. HENNINGSON, DURHAM AND RICHARDSON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA CONSULTANTS TO THE SCOTT COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE BRUCE BRODT ENGINEERING AND PLANNING MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA BRUCE OLSEN, GEOLOGIST ROMAN KANIVETSKY, HYDROGEOLOIST MINNESOTA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA JOHN FAX HYDROLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 PURPOSE OF PLAN FOR MINERAL EXTRACTION AND PROPERTY OWNERS 2 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 3 - 6 GOVERNING REGULATIONS AND APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS : MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) SUBMITTED SEPARATELY APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBMIT W SEPARATELY CITY OF SHAKOPEE ORDINANCE SECTION 11,05 , SUED, 7 7 - 10 ADDENDUM TO CITY ORDINANCE 11 MINERAL EXTRACTION PLAN : MAP A - TOPOGRAPHY AND SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE 12 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAP AND BORING LOCATION MAP 13 GEOLOGY 14 - 18 HYDROLOGY 19 - 20 TRAFFIC 21 - 26 MAP B - PROPOSED OPERATIONS 27 - 30 LAND REHABILITATION PLAN : ENS) LAND USE PLAN 31 MAP C - FINAL TOPOGRAPHY 32 DEMOLITION LANDFILL SITE SUITABILITY REPORT 33 INTRODUCTION THIS PLAN CONTAINS DATA AND INFORMATION PERTAINING TO MINERAL EXTRACTION ON LAND LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AND IS SUBMITTED BY SCOTT COUNTY LUMBER COMPANY, INC. AND BERT NOTERMANN AND/OR NOMINEES TO THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AND ITS AGENCIES AND ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL JURIS- DICTIONAL AGENCY. 1 - PURPOSE OF PLAN FOR MINERAL EXTRACTION PERMISSION IS REQUES't'r:U TO BE GRANTED A ' MINERAL EXTRACTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ' ON LAND LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ON SECTIONS 16 and 17 , TWP 115 , RANGE 22 WEST, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA COMPRISING OF 130.73 ACRES OF LAND AS FURTHER IDENTIFIED IN THE APPLICATION AND THE ' PLAN FOR MINERAL EXTRACTION ' THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN IS TO INCLUDE ALL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE SECTION 11.05, SUBD. 7 - ' MINERAL EXTRACTION AND LAND REHABILITATION ' AND THE AMENI7UENT DATED AUGUST 13, 1980 REQUIRING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON TRAFFIC, HYDROLOGY AND PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) RELATING TO THE PROPERTY AND MINING OPERATION, THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED IS FOR THE RIGHT TO MINE, EXCAVATE, DRY SCREEN, CRUSH AND REMOVE SAND, GRAVEL, ROCK OR ANY OTHER MATERIALS OR MINERALS FROM THE PROPERTY IN "AREA A, AREA B AND AREA C" WITH THE FIRST PHASE OF THE MINING OPERATION BEING CONFINED TO " AREA A " AS SHOWN AND DESCRIBED ON THE i PROPOSED OPERATIONS- MAP B ', WE AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE ORDINANCE. TSB APPLICATION AND THIS PLAN IS RESPECTFULLY SUEZII1'at) BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON RECORD : SCOTT COUNTY LUMBER COMPANY, INC, AND BERT NOTERNANN AND/OR NOMINEES PRINCIPALS ; ED HENNEN LANDO BUSCH BERT NOTERMANN SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA NEW PRAGUE, MINNESOTA, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA - 2 - _ PARTCITY OF SHAKOPEE 1S NPART l..CRTHWESTCITY OF PRIOR LAKE T1 I 5- 1 16 N- R.22 W -; u ;BLUE LA E HENNEP/N COUNTY ° PARK T. 1 - ' R£SERV //6 hN 5 4 R s s " R u r ' TSI 1 1 AK O P r:,Jn•CoG./n.,f.Sa.,/y - - < A1V /e.roeo.n ,BLUE L 'e.��re o /� � . ///,A\�,,� FLA' n FJf I?ea. Cc Lia/ky v!•_•_Inc Rest,k. � > Co i'k`�•• [ ��ne• an Cran PEf. T .sfrct� !FISHER ..r. ,c7essle L G. • moi • B9 7f7t �yoa y ..„,...4-- :cs:J) - `. L -,...i.,sve //5 r/6 ^«frj' ----,,,,,------ _-,-,--i--- s r[ s �£i arcs Memp h er:, f ` *es..., N �'. '� SO • 4.6.-ye N_tN.. 4 y1 S 3 Q 2 6 s' 14.1:4c • `/ d .tea.C + e,d/ ` son osePfi J \ es,a _iay. ... \ �r/ I- 1G�,n..er fl 40 ,,,; •,5,4,E• o RK 1>e '. J✓ n I A.') -• •C •1 -,. �. r; - �_ ,YC c.a to., Ac•.T.c.+ c a-- t a aZ ^ a • • / .. /IBeb ii ... Si..s lne m , Bj ss , J' SCe-y _ -' 3,74 4 Is,'Lt r,^A i▪ th y'I.,e..4_ ri 4/cc Sas P JL �® .,�c" ^4.. I� - �� �\ w7 J98 j -Sec//lad d,Inc. Sh.ey Cc sell EP am.;, tile. ., .. ng Sc Shaer- L\,A eh:pee . EC' Ma,S•ner l;No,-Morn es'inkr .:d.:m �G S . '.c'hor/ �.a1�.Gl �` a �7 4:BOS s/¢fes Bove, • 21 es erg a 7 .I' z a'.(VS �i1,:. ✓ t _• • Cc. GP /fes If .� mss) t✓as J errs .Seo///ond...Tne. ,e0 -4 /-/• ?um Land = h �• Sc f//and, N... � to S M Carp • .4 N - 40 F>..•oe'.t f s g:, •.sooan. pelel' I Ph/- c^'r" q ,amu 5-4"41: � LL • A� /Jarth L ils ,.... 'e �- R,,,,da• ./os�{ e'uK •rec ' ;�.re >> !,.:1,2„;..:.,a� £ - Sfai Ices `"B9 N 4r c7fB elaJl -1� ..4' o err, / P t *,71 raA.. . L. c Der ,:•u�L - y rE"� 39 l ►. _'o -.;` uc T42 700 _•crs Scc!//a 1 �C� r o ,,,,, S / \ 230/ I Leus.,o 4 C+� Sne /IP �$ •*�.�^ i II ..$ro/r,..,� 1:nc, �♦ ICc 2079 it (: .- -�-` j= :.n , _ t •J `�< �v/' _.. �9/ i ,...CD, /f.'�o 7' f =rte'�� • N• ,- tu - r r es c,san. h � rQ o g) " erua ( - h..- ` ^ ~ o., ^' -- i 0 ••!•• J773j r'ri• S. 1 {! • erp9 �^ W q G 0 _ e,31j 240 :735 n e I .^C e'4 o Geor a .- y V<. I _ k �r(-E ./ cr � 4 r 7 Zs 1 uy `"�` 4 -1 u� � � U �r�r.c/ r- ,,,- -•41R. L, v ,PSC Y 1 Ide//¢ °.T Le` •xce C�,,„,.„ _. Z efur 'ors//f a� 7 Q x 6,rs ., f0 WC `�IS hutra °� a '�.`'� 1� 77.8 1 _4f2.•1 're,de i y /s/f )ss l! •-/ ,,�,.. r..,,...1211‘: ^ S P � I�pi -▪cFl .r,�� /6, y S--4/1..T1-. ff.-Cn . -71" • Fr'c .J. • f� 1 i `.. r, `: !I T.:tI ,, t --o nc M SCI•n.AA' T . ,�'f /•;,'c ,C77a,7 y d d, i?.h�/ E -.2..D A.pc -� •...1 • . f0 4C O bess • 17 �•n-C-7har f I. -e Z`-D 1�„ _-,40 F /80 C t • ''1/ V •S i a''� ut? •..9.F.1 Iisr�AD/='. C'v t� . .2, MTT-7-77:� cz a�0 C .v� f: ( �_. 'y1; b.4". ` tj�• .. EC :975 :`luhh sa t b ,f,-,...,7 „CJ - •LG, v. �� • o ^.:•.i...x ,1` -- .Sy/ ..an ... i, tl v O UHCR,r ..\ _ (Tann • 2Jf I...o �_5.-- 6 i �3 /S4 h .ers/G OR LK F. �.P.l '7,1.rcnus :5`__ -y /1c`✓25 / C 7E/ , =7 v C A.f_._ 1i • 1 OiAN 34 &C iS i•^ �� tc D)I4 1' .� �� ! _ 7 ;RESERWA .. r^?. LL r vs =dS ,. ',`ear✓, eie.F �--' '>.Tncs e • i - T/O v.�t� y. _ 4a �'' r=:ore pee y .,. HcT -z----cc--y. Plk 1 'a } e,�, u - (Hcrorka N c -s USA \ Sri''y• - Q .• n °a \O. 1 ��791•••'.1;,?::".-//`;_•_ , +L >c H Loh <4.4, ::1_ ...Sr �7p EC •,Gern:v4Y •^lar e. `i- �` 4t •+-9 .4'4•• • SG:ff- k'er,n, a� , a Al of /. Leo V,t/'/1n ���``. `i.;.--d(. ' .0 : •'4•1'_..;`.42nd . ...r7'drew l ''''IC,,. .9 .� 14 F, q /. '\'' `2/d. i3'scho • 1 1989 t`� w1 Inc' '5,, -., Cress•e:ut ' Ia4 -> I �$• �� v f 1' w.: s0 'let 1 • C:v ! _ I =/+S3K of .+ 770 160 ��� a 0"00410....”(t ,'o 424,-,7C9-92: . r i J•4. . 7S '•SK Ic�' rO �•..a1 .j0 •+.,` x s..:5 e , 7: I r~ O \je•� , e:nanzt• vGurlssen 4e .Scc1:�/and. S_:.-,n ^ I`•`� 7. 2/� t-�r�e���l �..,.. �!/�rr. { y Q L CC J., /..a _Inc ,crr:yth (-h, Ri i. LLL000 i tt ei Vii- aa¢ri X i har,.K 1 •.$Cr,Mrd, jjjj,,,,rVlll,am • • 0 <�% ta. /iP!- ca .� ,� -/:�•e/a.,. J P R ! 0 RI Qcbert 'fN hrOalY ., � Y.'",' O • t i¢ °' ceti{ bels h ....\ Bo � / L Jeffers --,-,-g;,,,,,,,-- 9v er�.9 l+ om z 0 " 7 /. 2 _^ r _ 13.r 4p < _ _ ....r�• /JB•t 6. �Dr��REj' o 4Ci n `tifL i 7-& 3136 1 nese.0741 n ';c vl .4.-L't' - - • Frank x^.'''''',.:9•1' t •l 3 . • /1.0 .•[aq'' I OinL: \ el : .,• ;�" J.,44SS - „_, /e. v /74.5" - PRIOR LAKE s _t;. _1,7z ria-4 ;, t . _ d...,�rd8,- A K E l — ., _ tlCr:,errG � �Sch .,/3 v z... ,,a Gars1 I r ` ..2. / t �'� -, 'o- N i.. °gym ,gni ,( (/ t I �� ii } m i , , ev....., . r.i •° t n /- _I / __../ 1 -- . Ai 1 ., ff�I I '� 1I ,t52% 'I- - !!it i! .h.1'. i� lit 'y d i # 'si\ am ; fli cv IMNIiiiMM s-4, QQ ,/".`,- it = / kr I i j / I I_ ',. % , L , , .A • r' ' 1 igg rizi, ,,,4 1., 1- imi it ------ -1, c I Ilfa k Mili411116Walli_ ___a . ''' ,X.,i'.I 1A,1140 W 0 r�'i- I / of '--1-,7 ,i ,' .a., ,. C44 c" 1.�<l/a _� I t�`\_ moi• `- - ; e 4191016, ; /I I C.' • f � it r .e�3. .. , i i J I ;%� 1Htff'i ij% r ' �- ---'N; II ..- a: - - -t, i Li ti ',"\\41111,1111111111111113 -1--f- ' In - AN .,,.. 41 i i 1 , A1,41112101mini _____,.-- ----- -- . t. - :41W. NIM.1111.1"."' ,---"t 1 ,z 1%\)110 Nord „..s .a. .1 ,,,a6.4. , . ,_.... R . 1 1. . .. .„, _ --:_\......\, .7_ _t ,:..._1,;!-_,11-.fT-27_7_: __ 7,M.-..L.%.1". , ac----____� - \ PROPERTY LOCATION 1 1 MILES SOUTH OF HWY 101 ON COUNTY ROAD 83 . - • ....,•1 - - • • . 1 ......- li i 1 • I !! 1 2 ...li ii921 . 1.:: .1. 8 • li! 'it * Ihinc • ! ! 1 . 1 : . I . 4 . : / l : : , . I Iii el! ! ! ! ! ! ..• • , E if i ,i ..... s 1 --- [ 10:sii i I : ! ! : ,: ! sb .: . ; ;Ii r. 1;! 55 . t• i; I . , •• ; i : 1fii : . • i i i ! 5: 5 IS ' 5 ; ; • . till 1 . .. 4 : :. j !. i i . ".'" . il ; .1 I :11 : ti • : ' aii iii . -4 ! : Ei ; i ! 1 i ii•Ili . ! ii IiigAilf! i / . • il ... I 1 ! - • - _1 •. ..•I ! . • - li -- ,- --- -- -. ! . .. if .' ! i ' ' ''. !8 !_,.-• ;.i...:_LI--......-------. i8 - — • • - II; If ili Piihii ; ifil th ri 1 . : 1 I61 : 111;1 / 161 III . • 11 I Zi I t • ; i .7 • i • li I .. " 1 .. til •S 0 ! i ,:i e . • it . . i : , i - Tib ; • ;" • . .. I i• , il 1 , , ; ;1 !it 1 ' 1 ., . -....— .. 12t ," „ 10 ,r.. . f.. .. . ...•.... _j_......d ! ,!..?..1 V v.-4- ,- .' .1,--- ' ------„...-- i j 1 ! 1 ::. :if • .; • „"._1:.....Iii...„......)...... _.„. . f.. _ . . _ •••••••••• sii .: . . . . t• I . - . . • ...*. • ' . ' - 4' • -. :- • I -"- 4 - • . . In., .15.. ; 1 1 i.',,r . I • ..ro . • • 2 • • .. . ' ; ' • 4'0 i • .9,./..V 9. . • s? I • .. .P I •-••-•-.•••-•--•••••-- --. * i• ' I . 1 • O. I 1* 1••• i / . •. . . .., . • I ' . • . .. : C . .2 . ..:.7 ...-...--.-.1. .-..-...I----....-...--7/44..2 . I p•W. ..;-. 4 .4. . • .._ --.------- - 1 .- . • • 1....• . • . I • 1 .. 4 . • • . 1 ./ • . . ,.• 1 i ..- •-- • - . • • 1 I 1 4. • . -I/ . 1 i .=. •111%. ''./ • . • ! -SI, 4. .:., • . i ...b . . . • / le 1 • A • • ). • ...• 4/ • * • S i • . 4, • i . I. • ; ..... i ' _..."• • IA._ i .1 +e,:e• t • 1 .... • / '14.41 $ • 'U.../-- .. , ••••,,P t.; (• . • ., .;•-• •....\ Fe... .-- --.4. • - ti ••• t i••• .: ' st 1 •- ---N. - t el i. .1 ... . V . , . 9 • i• „. . 5 7 • . • . . I , • I ..1 i //4.' . --‹? • ••••""-----11 1 . 0 • • - . .-....cate-..mc i • • /••-i.)4, , , 1 .... i '......:2..."-71::• . i •ti:•; .... . — - - . - PROPERTY SURVEY MAP • "-II . . t ------------- _ 1 - — 5 •-• i, — - I. • _...........- UtL1{INIIU;V T. i NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 115 NORTH, RANGE 22 WEST, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA. ArSO: 1 I i • T _ WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 115 NORTH, RANGE 22 WEST, SCOTT i COUNTY, MINNESOTA, ;LYING NORTH AND EASTERLY OF THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE C :CAGO, MILWAUKEEr. ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILWAY EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TRACT OF LAND: 1 • COMMENCING -ATITHE NORTHM.::)i LORNER OF-SAID SEC1 TUN--10J-THENCE-SOUTHERLY ALONG tHE WESI+" LINE OF SAIDSECTION 16 FOR A DISTANCE OF 955.00 FEET TO THE ACTUAL POINT OF BEGINNING i { OF THE LAND TO BE DESCRIBED; THENCE EASTERLY, DEFLECTING TO THE LEFT 90 DEGREES 00 • MINUTES, FOR A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY, DEFLECTING TO THE RIGHT 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES, PARALLEL WITH THE SAID WEST. LINE OF SECTION 16 FOR A DISTANCE OF ... 545.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY, DEFLECTING TO THE RIGHT 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES, FOR A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET TO THE SAID WEST LINE OF SECTION 16; THENCE NORTHERLY, DEFLECTING TO THE RIGHT 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES, ALONG THE SAID WEST LINE OF SECTION 16 FOR A DISTANCE .► i OF 545.00 FEETI TO THE ACTUAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Li Ant): I f T iT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 115 NORTH, I RANGE 22 WEST, SCOTT" COUNTY, :HINNESOTA, LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY i L JE OF THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILWAY. . T? ISE 3 TRACTS CONTIAIN 130.-73 •ACRES OF LAND. l' '' 1' REVISED 12/8/72 �. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME 1, OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I 1- : 1' AM A DULY. REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR i UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. ,.-. 1 i G tf ,` SE COR. OF NEI/4i -� SEC. 16-I15-22" r._.� I- (I.P, INP.) DATE: 11/29/72 REGISTRATION NO. 5094 s I ............ i 1 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION I 1 - 6 - Subd . 7 . Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation . A . Permit Review. A permit shall be required for all commercial mining operations . Said permit shall be valid for a three (3) year period, after which a permit • renewal shall be re- quired . Persons requesting a mining permit shall submit said fee to the Planning Commission together with all information required in this Subdivision . The owner shall provide five (5) copies of the required information . All residents and landowners within 1 ,000 feet of the proposed mining operations shall be notified in writing of the permit request and the date of the Planning Com- mission review. Notification shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior, to the Planning Commission review. If the request is denied, no reapplication shall be made for a period of six (6) months . • B. Information Required . The following informa- tion shall be provided by the person requesting the permit: 1. Name and address of person requesting the mining permit. 2 . The exact legal property description and acreage of area to be mined . 3 . The following maps of the entire site and to include all areas within 500 feet of the site . All maps shall be drawn at a scale of one (1) inch to one hundred (100) feet un- less otherwise stated below: Map A - Existing conditions to include: T Contour lines at five ( 5) foot intervals . Existing vegetation . Existing drainage and permanent water areas. Existing structures . Existing wells . Map B - Proposed operations to include : Structures to be erected . Location of sites to be mined showing depth of pro- posed excavation . Location of tailings deposits showing maximum height of deposits . Location of machinery to be used in the mining opera- tion . Location of storage of mined materials , showing height of storage deposits . Location of vehicle parking . Location of storage of explosives. Erosion and sediment control structures . Map C - End use plan to include : Final grade of proposed site showing elevations and contour lines at five ( 5) foot intervals . Location and species of vegetation to be replanted . Location and nature of any structures to be erected in relation to the end use plan . • 7 4 . A soil erosion and sediment control plan. 5 . A plan for dust and noise control . 6 . A full and adequate description of all phases of the proposed operation to include an estimate of dura- tion of the mining operation . 7 . Any other information requested by the Planning Commission . C . Performance Standards . 1. General Provisions . Weeds and any other unsightly or noxious vegetation shall be cut or trimmed as may be necessary to preserve a reasonably neat appearance and to prevent seeding on adjoining property. No sand and gravel operation shall be conducted on parcels of less than twenty (20) acres in size. This limitation shall not apply when the tract of land is contiguous to an active mining operation , provided that both tracts are being operated by the same sand and gravel producer . All equipment used for mining operations shall be constructed, -, maintained and operated in such a manner as to minimize , as far as is practicable , noises and vibrations which are injurious or substantially annoying to persons living in the vicinity. 2 . Water Resources. The mining operation shall not be allowed to interfere with surface water drainage be- yond the boundaries of the mining operation . The mining operation shall not adversely affect the quality of surface or subsurface • water resources . Surface water originating outside and passing through the mining site shall , at its point of departure from. the mining site , be of equal quality to the water at the point where it enters the mining site . The mining operator shall perform any water treatment necessary to comply with this provision . 3 . Safety Fencing . Any mining operation adjacent to a residential zone or within 300 feet of two (2) or more residential structures shall be bound by the following stan- dards : -- (a) Where collections of water occur that are one and one-half ( 11/2-) feet or more in depth existing for any period of at least one (1) month , and occupy an area of 700 square feet or more , all access to such collections of water shall be barred by a fence or some similarly effective barrier such as a snow fence of at least four (4) feet in height. (b) In locations where slopes occur that are steeper than one (1) foot vertical to three (3) feet horizontal existing for a period of one (1) month or more , access to such slopes shall be barred by a fence or some similarly ef- fective barrier such as a snow fence at least four (4) feet in height. 4 . Mining Access Roads . The location of the intersection •of mining access roads with any public roads shall be selected such that traffic on the access roads will have a sufficient distance of the public road in view so that any turns onto the public road can be completed with a margin of safety. i • 5 . Screening Barrier . To minimize problems of dust and noise and to shield mining operations from public view, a screening barrier shall be maintained between the mining �j� - 8 site and adjacent residential and commercial properties . A screening barrier shall also be. maintained between the mining site and any public road within 500 feet of any mining or pro- - cessing operations . The screening barrier shall be planted with a species of fast growing trees such as green ash . Existing trees and ground cover along public road frontage shall be pre- - served , maintained (and supplemented) , for the depth of the road- side setback ' except where traffic safety requires cutting and trimming . 6 . Setback . Processing of minerals shall not be conducted closer than 100 feet to the property line or closer than 500 feet to any residential or commercial structures located prior to commencement of processing operations without the written consent of all owners and residents of said struc- tures . Mining operations shall not be conducted closer than 30 feet to the boundary of any zone where such operations are not permit•ted , nor shall such production or processing be conducted closer than 30 feet to the boundary of an adjoining property line , unless the written consent of the owner in fee of. such adjoining property is first secured in writing . Mining opera- tions shall not be conducted closer than 30 feet to the right-of- way line of any existing or platted street, road or highway, ex- -- cept that excavating may be conducted within such limits in order to reduce the elevation thereof in conformity to the existing or platted street , road or highway. 7 . Appearance . All buildings , structures • and plants used for the production of processing of sand and �.� gravel shall be maintained in such a manner as is practicable and according to acceptable industrial practice as to assure that such buildings , structures and plants will not become dangerously dilapidated . 8 . Hours of Operation . All mining opera- tions shall be conducted between the hours of 7 : 00 A .M. and 7 : 00 P.M. Any operations not conducted between the hours of 7 : 00 A.M. and 7 : 00 P .M. shall require a conditional use permit . Such per- - mits shall be granted for public or private emergency or whenever any reasonable or necessary repairs to equipment are required to be made . 9 . Dust and Dirt . All equipment used for mining operations shall be constructed , maintained and operated in such a manner as to minimize , as far as is practicable , dust conditions which are injurious or substantially annoying to per- sons living within 600 feet of the mining operations lot line . All access roads from mining operations to public highways , roads or streets or to adjoining property shall be paved or surfaced with gravel to minimize dust conditions . The above limitations shall not apply to any mining operation in any industrial zone , unless such operations are closer than 150 yards to another zone other than an industrial zone . • D . Land Rehabilitation . All mining sites shall be rehabilitated immediately after mining operations cease . Re- habilitation shall be complete within one ( 1) year . The follow- ing standards shall apply : - 9 - 1 . Within a period of three (3) months after � '� the termination of a mining operation , or within three (3) months --., after abandonment of such operation for a period of six (6) months , or within three ( 3) months after expiration of a mining permit, all buildings , structures and plants incidental to such operation shall be dismantled and removed by , and at the expense of, the mining operator last operating such buildings, structures and plants . A conditional use permit may be granted for those buildings , structures , machinery and plants required to process previously mined materials stored on the site . Such permit may apply for only one (1) year , after which said buildings, struc- tures , machinery and plants shall be removed . 2 . The peaks and depressions of the area shall be graded and backfilled to a surface which will result in gently rolling topography in substantial conformity to the land area immediately surrounding , and which will minimize erosion due -- to rainfall . No finished slope shall exceed eighteen percent (18%) in grade . 3 . Reclaimed areas shall be sodded or sur- .. faced with soil of a quality at least equal to the topsoil of land areas immediately surrounding , and to a depth of at least three (3) inches . Such required topsoil shall be planted with legumes and grasses . Trees and shrubs may also be planted, but not as a substitute for legumes and grasses . Such planting shall adequately retard soil erosion . Excavations completed to a water producing depth need not be backfilled if the water depth is at least ten (10) feet and if banks shall be sloped to the water t':*'41 line at a slope no greater than three (3) feet horizontal to one (1) foot vertical,. The finished grade shall be such that it will - not adversely affect the surrounding land or future development of the site upon which mining operations have been conducted . The finished plan shall restore the mining site to a condition - whereby it can be utilized for the type of land use proposed to ( occupy the site after mining operations cease . II Suba. 8 . Mobile Homes . Mobile homes shall be regula- t by Section 4 . 60 of the City Code , except that mobile home shal •e a conditional use in the "A-1" and "R-1" Districtc or agricul - ral purposes if they meet the following standa . s : A. Property must be being used a - :n agricultural use . B. 'bile home may not be e only occupied resi- dential structure on t property . C . The pe ons livi,• • in the mobile home must be related to the farm operator nd ust work on that farm. D. The mobil € e be placed on the property for no more than five (5) year . . E . The ' .nditional use nust he reviewed on an an- nual basis. Sub. . 9 . Moving of Structures . A ccn. ' tional_ use per- mit shall - required before a building permit is is., ed to move any dwe 'ing unit or other structure to a permanent loca on wit ' the City . The minimum requirements of a conditional - se - -.2.:,-7."-- - 10 - MEMO TO: Shakopee Planning Commission 4 FROM: Tim Keane, City Planner RE: Rosenwinkle Mineral Extraction Request for 130 Acres Southwest of County Road 16 and County Road 83 DY"E: August 13, 1980 • ADDENDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKET FOR AUGUST 14, 1980 ,.,. After consideration of the existing Mineral Extraction Permit Review Requirements (attached), staff has concluded that the substance of the ordinance provides assurances for adequate review of the Extraction Permit. The ordinance basically requires the information necessary for the Planning Commission to make a determination of whether the proposed land use is appropriate to the site. The ordinance also establishes performance standards relative to the ongoing operation of such a facility and the reclamation of the site. Staff would recommend that the permit application include all of the infor— mation required in Section 11.05, Subd. 7B, with additional information required to include: • Mer 1) Traffic impact analysis prepared by a traffic engineer addressing: -- a) Projected increase in traffic volumes b) Existing load capacity on principal routes c) Impact of additional loads on routes over the life of the mining operation. 2) Hydrological Analysis prepared by an acceptable expert addressing: a) Changes in surface drainage patterns and impact on water • quality. b) Impact on groundwater quality and surrounding wells The Planning Commission may also request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for review by the State Environmental Quality Board (note attached). The EAW review may be considered for review of regional impacts and other environmental concerns. If an EAW is requested by the local unit of government,' its review should be completed prior to City approval of necessary permits. TK/jiw Attachments .s. — 11 — - q- m CJ e / 1 7 /? / : \h -e11V 047u. ,cf,i.: i/ T. _/ -_I _r -e= 7 y's f os,aGit - _ a'dJ 0 0 .4 i„ .....: i . r 1 p o ------)\ I b� �� -0-/ 1 D- . . n, , or 0 _ syo N it) / y /�/ + Ip y 0b / 411 /4.1 \1 Z . lir ps-som H// - , } .4 l �i (u... yy • 0 iII y��r 1...(••• ,1, 010.. I.. Q/51- M x b i'---i' >i 1i y �s , .4....?* J r ":V::: '7470 d o At . Olr t. . 40 t ..4` / . —47.." N -=SURFACE• /% \.....„ . i F., _ �4. - WATER DRAINAGE �=•WEELS i� b • . / = �s 3` BORINGS - - -4MAP A - �- TOPOGRAPHY - EXISTING CONDITIONS - 1 :a= M;ROSENW!NKEL I � ,J 4730"1 p 1) III .j111111111111111 " /\ •/ r„ 767 I 764 •9 q .\ ../-\- 1.;--62 c ,.. .!S6. 5 \ • ; lam' - p � ) f"' a959/`�� � ,..,, 757 Aiii, • 150 r )(/(��` ) `t atilik --- 2 $ a= 7F8 O 10 =- 800 p \ - •l o _�• - --- L� __ kilk -4- . _ 800 j1payi • • 4 -_ _ - .C �G It, L� ."�-� 8/5 \\ ea 8 �^ gra `'__ . Com. �- � i�`i ° 8/2 .00 i t1 ��` I G L E C r.t....-- lar i830 �.85 • eSO • - C . -I 3. ---- V 16 CO 15 i ie?17in o C , Q Q f33 c - f es• o ik\r's--ft ! �� s'n :s2 \ -.1827 a\go_.... i II r/�� � p II p ° ° 0s?„) . 0 0 ji)" . 11,:-:. ,....._ ii"----- ---85' 9---P,. 9 I Cl- � - gyp° �,`��( -�--re., -,--,.-:-.:--- r � OR /T�; r../.1•47.7Y ,{J�> �, •+ 0 400 r:-1 • ` -';,...--,s-- �f .,r .� � /,nn\� FEET—7) _ -ACTh' -l _=zL _ �i� _ ,- -7::-......„3-,.i..,_ - - `�._ , ��'.`I ^` K^. �11 . :���- -- - . ® '�, j� E7:2 �� /'� y� -. 7.-----/S--- d7' 2- 1-‘:'`�=r1, :.� J � I \ zzo:� 1":-:.: mo' 95 0 `7ii n �r '''(-\/_.,1,_._,- o�/(�J � !'� J �O C 1 ..\.(.. 4 \� J{I•� '�/�'C --- __,J ..°'c' 7.___( -.....,'-- -\ ., ;;//),—• -'%'' 2°' o N\)\ ' ‘1-- - 44°45/ 1461 462a63 2 140000 FEET 27'30" 1a64 43° 0' — OPMapped,edited, and published by the Geological Survey 1 del 1, Control by USGS, USC&GS *MN ~~ 1000 0 10( 44 Topography by photogrammetric methods from aerial photographs G' 1 ~' 1....-1 1-f t • taken 1947. Field checked 1954. Revised from aerial photographs taken 1966. Field checked 1967 b1 0'18' 98 MILS Hydrography compiled from information furnished by 5 MILS Minnesota Department of Conservation I • Polyconic projection. 1927 North American datum 10,000-toot grid based on Minnesota coordinate system,south zone UTM GRID AND 1972 MAGNETIC NORTH 1000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid ticks, DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET THIS MAP CCf zone 15,shown in blue • FOR SALE BY U.S. GEOLOGICAL Fine red dashed lines indicate selected fence and field lines where A FOLDER DESCRIBING T generally visible on aerial photographs. This information is unchecked SOIL BORING LOCATIONS • - 13 - GEOLOGY SOILS AND BED:CCK THREE SOIL BORINGS WERE DRILLED AT THE LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PAGES 12 AND 13. THE BORINGS WERE MADE BY ASSOCIATED WELL DRITt.RRS COMPANY AND THE SUCCR DING FOUR PAGES GIVE DOCUMENTATION OF THE LOG REPORTS. AT BORINGS ONE AND TWO , FIVE FEET OF BLACK THEN BROWN SANDY CLAYLOAM TOPSOIL WAS FOUND, THEN 65 TO 70 FEET OF MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND AND GRAVEL. BEDROCK IN BORING # 1 WAS ENCOUNTERED AT AN ELEVATION OF 765 FEET ( GROUND EL 830* - 65* BORING DEPTH ) . NO GROUNDWATER WAS ENCOUNTERED AFTER 10 FEET MORE OF DRILLING INTO THE BEDROCK TO EL 755 FEET. BEDROCK IN BORING # 2 WAS ENCOUNTERED AT AN ELEVATION OF 752 FEET ( GROUND EL 830* - 78* BORING DEPTH ). NO GROUNDWATER WAS ENCOUNTERED AFTER 2 FEET MORE OF DRILLING INTO THE BEDROCK TO EL 750 FEET. AT BORING LOCATION # 3, ONE AND ONEHALF FEET OF BLACK LOAN AND THREE AND ONEHALF FEET OF BROWN CLAY WAS FOUND. THEN 40 to 45 FEET OF COARSE TO MEDIUM TO FINE SAND AND GRAVEL WAS ENCOUNTERED. AT THIS DEPTH, 10 FEET OF CLAY WAS FOUND AND THEN ANOTHER 10 FEET OF FINE SAND BEFORE STRIKING BEDROCK AT AN ELEVATION OF 745 FEET ( GROUND EL 820* - '73' BORING DEPTH ). DRILLING CONTINUED FOR FIVE MORE FEET INTO VERY HARD BEDROCK AND AT 3 FEET INTO THE BEDROCK, WATER WAS ENCOUNTERED MAKING THE GROUNDWATER AT THIS LOCATION AT AN APPROXIMATE ELEVATION OF 742 YEi-,T GROUND EL 820* - 78* BORING DEPTH ). TOPOGRAPHY THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LAND APPEARS VERY FLAT* BUT ACTUALLY HAS GRADUAL SLOPES TO THE SOUTH , NORTHWEST AND NORTHEAST FRCU THE CENTRAL AREA OF THE SITE AS CAN BE SEEN ON IilAP A . ELEVATIONS RANGE FROM ant TO 830* ABOVE SEA LEVEL THRUOUT THE PROPERTY AND IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER THE ELEVATION DROPS TO ABOUT 805** WHICH IS AT THE PROPOSED ENTRANCE TO THE SITES. THERE ARE NO TREES OR BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY AND ALL THE LAND IS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES WITH CROP FARMING ( CORN ) KEEPING ALL TIRE LAM UNDER VEGETATION. _T/._ , _-—.— -T - — -,.i.y :1_—�...ari 7.7,7?—.7..7.-.77,:..1.--7-17- :.f.-51-....// ,Y--_i_�_/a/�_—_-- -_- • _• - , ....”,:-•...• . . .a' s1::•.a. .'7a:,e i..i. ✓,.:1+4 -- ice. .f� -,..r./.• l . fIA''" 0'4 -•=" ° i.'- _ . t'aw? 1:•—..7.7.----:: r T or.1,..-.;;;;;,77—.•••=1.7177- . ..L.. .t.7 .:an?=ae,l: .1 ....tiec.^ •.ay?..• j_ t 1 r_..i - f• :;;•'' LI �• ,./......t../ s .-- / ,,p. e-{�1 -.`Ef ts,„•. 't iD-1'.x .`.7f 411{+ . • .- —i ' . '__ ! ;.li. �. :*-2 * racer.. 4Q"t'"G -5;..i�"'r 4"4• `4 -{• •. - . •./•_ j. > - ,, i f t.-. - s//// a..►'�y.. . b. WS .t. ....rte• I -; - _ •••i ... lam./ L..� 1J ;/. . /�' ' t24 " • YVbA/4.L1 j:tJMT— Il - • r '. - _ - _ i : Cril. ' ' . 7 • . .- ..D:rr2ne ,r .3Air:ee2Kmi.3 . fe...cee•rssat,; • s.,. - J„ �_ r-..:17!" -‘-.74,-F-,...„-.....r as reel V.V. . _ _ -----;— � i .i ,' , •7:....... .' F +I /' -IA_•i -,90 _ s=c:r:'_atar.:8.nc t. -1 _ r .Jf • �.I �h ya' 7stit.•r►ywt ! Yelei r :.a.!s.! + . .__ _ • . t> a.a:' t. s . ► _ "in„,� - - -- - - • ./?-.,"..f + .:td •4,s� }? •••nee/..,.,e. -am•,24. T r . . 4-et+i ✓ 'Sot bse:,ee cc.•-...4--.....—:.:—./t••:•,- 1 .,rw.f / ' ._r'— • +-. •• • •/, -34., �' - •is;.,•7 ".t.te. :t - t 4 • e _ { 3� 't. ::: : • •^ ' .1! /.• � _ i - .t_ rk.e-..ter:w:3 a�:acrs _ i. r -� - - _ ' _ r«lhxr 4,1 P-?Yt■w • • ...--....-X4'..**1, _! -•-..,#.3-7, •! J% - .�. DPIA i1..Marc*. _ n belgesRr:,e.'ti,e •.. .Alt lease k .46.,..... . 0 :.,.$e.,,: °... ..:0”' ! .,0-'1M�z1.:!'" lc. SD we tw.ts .AiS,t'ona.S +L - ••1 y + , • U. s.st.,t soerts sK Pvs.iLL. elatT.*Ss2a..� - r _ 1 J { 0'....WO('Zl/ S :'�� . •-:�o.. ai.sstee.sa upon as.pleticai Trs li to fl _• _ i - • • (' - '.. s M�as.tsaswsit•.Gees••••., u� , R • • c• s "' f - ^-'--. i[3:asr>.,s:ele )Q .a.s2+711,a �.• A,et�r-.c -.irA ,..r•. : 0 09t , 41:1Cas%,1123*:1 1t.. _ . _ iii! •♦ -, ✓a. ii St vr.J �Gl.�t C.'-:Cls u:1�'.A?:s7- r • . y yt tfS. •�••s+r arts: snout+v l.aiet:.cs �a uz-a;.arc is z..- V. • .....-/r-.... ....-.........• it • .t.,..b.,.ar sr uric•.y vi 4;1.t� ' Di . 1 ye .._,Df •jiel 4 law �--.�— 15 ..• ��.� +n:h: :�'•r-.-•;'-:...4-.1-r..................... _tet-• _.-.. - --- t 1 ; } I -74.7,--,,,•,---5.,-7,77,-,,.-7---z--.)..1).":.•::.-,./.. - -.�,• .. .-ham _ P. — =. --:,: _ � ' ---�•_i �., CG—iJ /:rte.. .�••J '� �. -,-r'►4•, r•{� -------- i Cf•-ice �. ���:-'w--:JI- j • • ----•- ' ,Pr ' .as •r.,:.--.7.77-•!---.77..7::t,=.n --w:,-. v:r\?�------'�-'L } vp;.i-::�. t t1 �/ r, , . •f il. . .•• - . L t i$..,t `i :/({"L.,. ".' . it:Able t•-,a1 4�r.••r,.. .4-7r. i .� { .i 4 G _ Mali.. not !ONO. 1eve4.t l'r-r - •`� .e4. { t'w _ a , • a • ,( • rt _ r - •Lrj Ue..,s:'e y.- .'•L.{sc:.f%e 5, L+/ - tt -.-.. n: _ i }CG_r:•-+•.+fa�."- �'j�,�rr t.tlNat - . • , Alt Ca:dt f..t:,a'• `pQC rIt•':2•1 1 : • A /T- •.•II as•-•n :!•ea— -7 -A<..r.•s rr= C:c. rota•�•..:e. L' . f L' • ..•�e: `. - r-._ 3-a. _•'a. S.:a•.:xf."7"7---"---"" .- -."--._ '..i-c a... . •sl.•l.L,9. X17, 7•-^7 :T. - - - — . , .•... • .. •)/ R ...,, to c„,L.....i` i0,Vre-ata+ :ri;ri _� —_..--1 •.I �I �j�dotty,'trim <C L� �l 4-4-. _ - IlKi i __�..' Sett-Lis:? 1 c• - yam! 10 1. t.. 1...r.i t ,.......-...._�.....-�.. _ c , -. 6. tit :--- ? _� } � 2."t.--....._.v - 1 " 40.00,-!.. _ M"'.=Y::7 wi - ) .Q- . 7-77,2:7• 'I ] 1w _r_ :�.LS tYri• ♦ .s _ . - :..Ei.‘.4:--i.;.�'1.- 1 f 11 �1t•.. 7=ee r,i r;S toil- ! �.?-. •. ;. . ''•I /".-s: • - - ' ' . • Le - _ 1 : . ,,,..,,, ,:: ... cal. :Tv A.... •4..,.:. = .. •z __.i - • Q ��,. P • _:.i. f.�.—.. �}r.../- • _- �'f�` .J �• a27c..?uri - :.,.=t f .41.3 II fI. - • ,r4.�C z^'� f SL tts•vae•. IVO -f!' ,-_- '. �.=e. a .v:-.� ,...///f._ } .a. .�„,..-err., -4 3�� • ./ 6- F tr • l - - rJi � t;.,,,.-.,..:',6..,...,14.._....:- ..:.'.lr:♦1G;1 .....2:4-..x.,...1, Lr�_ _ j �r�/ - 2 .. 1 �. L ^.ri'_tr� rw • -__...__i � j. ' -1ff4H bt..aaF - .�! as.-.. i.i...a... '' t.�..—...; - L... `]•/��� _—. .if Pre:esa .aa:. eve-s-7: a:faaa •' •• Limes fti (I if ft �� ) • • I L'C ..../.1.._ �3 t4OL. •.xsi s:ct7 • ....4 , 1 . . . .•• - ... I:-... : ::.- ItinC- 4-'Li-1--- j fTi,. - CG-t� , --� �y Y_,._. '7 al..]est•se waarve et lw,! aa�*t -1a ri . ,%t41 .t • .i ;LAi �-0# T_. ite' Ja3^fac:a6 avo2 wept t.itit 'Tea C as i • F h " / ) (ii • a .1.4--,1---...."7"--- ` , 7. j fig , ., • `4 �/"'�f!14e.dP19 "� t=.x ...oC ltvw�t{n_iRC_^ aT 'ji4rL) i 14 jt 1 yI„.r 1�,.:_.3____iii �_,...{fi,.a,G,b.3�. r.i[.CL. _ .1L :.'l :4,T•• s :14..n,s2a �t`7 t.r:runt.,. SO .eexfx._ ;. ii l” , ._ ---ir .1 :; t • :� a. usrr+C_.oen..ti a Orrtr::e•-:. ' - —.e 1 - .. 1 i r- . '.1L.et12 r *'L-Faa .a.h^ i .a.L•t S .t.- .- t- : --- ...._ • - .;--•--•--4 w beat a q•.irs+•-a.ad teJe'. - - r. a.x-r.w_r•e..•. -a -•'•,,-...3.:- . - -_ -- --- - - - 9,i. 7�i r 4� yf e r _ 612/935-1761 j-- 14 f _ /.1.-".z _--- -._/ - /�� /1 ,f�__DATE' ,�'!//'�� � t "ECT •J�- ;..- L'�'� . .;►iEET NO. vi- f fr - /' /EL-L? ' c-P ;-1-f,• JOB NO.�r�es77 C LL'-' • T- -.C ECKED B -D• //jJ- .. .,... _... .(4- iuJ/-:/40� res-r oLE ( f 2- 4 '3 C. .?-• ->---, . a► t 4 , S¢e- 44x6,3 A ,oma TF_s7— S#.�K>sc A''1.! - -- Ato �.o�?-T7"o 1VS' . t•,4cj L�C�,ee/eSJ�2 i - 7-Cs loLg %&s �g 3 Tt�T � � f - c / S /41:2-1.—..r 6/id -/:11/-.4 4-4 1 P----C#.- /6°— . e.7 7,4A 0-...e./ -, 5 • ,o . - . , -- - . .'6 i-f . fa ..���-s'. 1� l is' ,� 3 z.--_57,PI �a1;1 7 SG zo -. 4,--5 44 1 2.5—_____t, 1M ____----------..:_---=-----___ -2- .c-,-, 54 /44 3D M _ - chresron 9a 3 >S'1 f - 3,. . %/-4:8 2 Ze- :..14,14'1- �� f _ z _ 5 -f _37-3 8 3.�_s�Ji'c.—. 4:71S . _ — - 0 . y6. yr'Ses S�- Ff Z. - /�! Z :i� G _. co 3.1- -AFr_ EL - J GG -- _ -- - _ Z-k 5 G 66_0•--3.1 sc-�y-s•.cr . 7 bt-6) --/A . .... s4c3 -,t. #_76.51_g L., . - ....,- 2.e,,526 f-:-._- . ... . - ?bc . 7- r a� P - ` - . __ °' '7s --/hsC,c _s n •.arwc-4, • 7s.i -4 -PI . —"- - 11'/1101 L- `e': _ -Z. Q _ .r i - ��, • .6 (2 ..f7 ?2. - - - . �/ � . eie • y' ? JnfJrT . . :._ _ ,,e,-- 7 _ _.-:- -- - 151g/it/ -:5 i ' 110 e _211j4.g4f.e .$_..-- -; - .1.. ' , -..- ,/ ._ -- G jr , G G� _- . ._ _ A _ — _ may_ Q'G :- -- - - St i' 'Jf _ z. /2/gr�.- . i --_ _=rs-- _ _. _. ._ . • Sodfide-Avp - - _ _ -- _ e.-. - - , . ._/7__ _d.,Veq110,,,iestly vC _ _. ::_ . _. -G_',,:__ . _ . . _ l :0 � . ii , F .. 5x5 M . .� ROGERSFREELS & ASSOCIATE , = 18 - Engineers and Designer HYDROLOGY GROUNDWATER THE MINNESOTA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF WELL LOG RECORDS OF THE WELLS IN TUE IMMEDIATE AREA OF THE PROPERTY WERE MADE AVAILABLE BY THE SCOTT COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICE. THESE LOGS PROVIDE INFORMATION ON EXISTING GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS OF PROPERTIES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA ANT ARE SUEUITTED SEPARATELY WITH THIS REPORT TO THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE FOR REFERENCE, WELL LOGS SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY IN THIS REPORT INDICATE GROUND WATER ELEVATIONS OF APPROXIMATELY 740 FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL AND BEDROCK ELEVATIONS THAT ARE APPRON1MA'1LLY THE SAME AS THE PROPERTY BORINGS. THIS INFORMATION ON GROUNDWATER AND BEDROCK ELEVATIONS CORRESPONDS TO THE DATA. OF THE THREE BORINGS MADE BY ASSOCIATED WELL DRIT•T.PR S COMPANY ON THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THIS REPORT. SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE MAPA SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO LOW AREAS THAT POND WATER AND THE SOIL IS VERY POROUS AND ABSORBS THE SURFACE WATER VERY QUICKLY • THIS REDUCES AND NEARLY ELIMINATES ANY SURFACE WATER RUNOFF ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES. GROUNDWATER QUALITY IN THE EVENT OF AN MINING OPERATION, IT IS PLANNED TO DIVERT THE SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AROUND THE EXCAVATED AREA WITH A RAISED BERM OF TOPSOIL . THE SURFACE WATER WILL THEN NOT ENTER THE EXCAVATED AREA AND WILL CONTINUE ON ITS NORMAL DRAINAGE PATHS. SEE THE RAISED ELEVATIONS SPECIFIED AROUND THE EXCAVATED AREA PROPOSED ON THE MAP ON PAGE 30. REFER TO THE LET a. ON THE NEXT PAGE WHICH IMPACTS THE GROUNDWATER 9UANT'ITY, SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY. - 19 - - UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Minnesota Geological Survey TWIN CITIES 1633 Eustis Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 (612) 373-3372 June 1 , 1981 Mr. Howard Rosenwinckle c/o Rogers, Freels, and Associates 105 Elm Street Chaska, Minnesota 55318 Dear Mr. Rosenwinckle: We have reviewed the geologic logs for the three test boring sites in sec- tion 16 of Eagle Creek Township, Scott County, that Associated Well Drilling Company drilled for you. We greatly appreciate your forwarding this information to us because we are continually trying to acquire high quality subsurface geologic information. In our telephone conversation on May 27, you questioned whether extracting sand and gravel from the site where the test borings were placed would pose any threat to the ground water resources of the area. We feel that the actual re- moval of aggregate materials from the site would pose no threat to the quantity of ground water, particularily because the water table occurs in the bedrock and no dewatering operations appear likely. However, we do express concern over several impacts the development of any pit may have on ground-water quality. The test boring records indicate that porous materials overlie the Shakopee Formation, a dolomitic limestone. As we mentioned above, the water table occurs in the bedrock. These geologic conditions provide a direct pathway for poten- tial contaminants to enter local ground water supplies. We suggest that pre- cautions be taken to prevent the surface drainage from any nearby fields, roads, ditches, etc. from entering the extraction area and thus introducing agri- cultural chemicals, road salt, or other pollutants to the site. Also, on site storage of large amounts of fuel or other liquids should be discouraged because of the potential for spillage or leakage of storage containers. Finally, the eventual use of the property once mining operations cease should be viewed in light of its impact on ground water quality. Future land use activities such as disposal siting, waste transfer facilities, or road salt storage which have the potential for introducing pollutants to the site, should be discouraged or supplemented with mitigating engineering practices. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, • Roman Kanivetsky Bruce Olsen ,. Hydrogeologist Geologist BO/RK/rah — 20 — TRAFFIC THE FOLLOWING FIVE PAGES DEAL WITH THE PROPOSED VEHICLE ( TRUCK ) ROUTE PLAN, THE PROJECTED DAILY TRUCK TRAFFIC AND LOADS ANMD THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE FUTURE PROPOSED SHAKOPEE BY-PASS HIGHWAY, REFER TO THE LETTERS ON PAGES 24 and 25 FOR INFORMATION FROM THE SCOTT COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER IN REGARD TO THE IMPACT OF ADDITIONAL LOADS ON ROADS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED MINING OPERATIONS, COUNTY ROAD 83 LOCATED BETWEEN THE SITE AND JUNCTION CSAH 16 IS A DISTANCE OF ABOUT 800 FEET OF GRAVEL ROAD, DURING DRY WEATHER, TRUCKS TRAVELING ON THIS SEGMENT OF ROAD WILL CREATE A DUST CONDITION, THE OPERATING MINING COMPANY WILL PROVIDE MAINTENANCE OF THIS SHORT SEGMENT OF ROAD AND PROVIDE THE NECESSARY DUST CONTROL PROCEDURES TO PRODUCE NORMAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, - 21 - '7_ -r^i -n ..T...-.7... n7 .7_. `T _ ...7:-..-177-'--C7 '.,.. 7 r. I: \ \ ' 8 - � 11 i i -MIMI � E .1. __ ,7 , I / &se...W: 1' 4: !1P14.1' . 0 a. : • -,- '.: 17 " � .24:! 12 i I i S .--, ' . / ruk • , . . r ! 1111 gal:hi _ .1, rs-;tr:-: -: 106„. % .. A....q..4.s .r: , „ . ", ii ,. ,,i , I 4 --V. . - i 1 ta,..... 7.it _-..-_ .,-. - ...IMP' ir-: .7 / . '‘1146', .: ,/ C) ,'‘7••C. r A , :-._ 1 :::;,' .,„ .._,..,.. _ , .:__, • mili. . cr., tif, otos 0 - l f.:1! up .... ,, a _ ' c.) • • -7, i ,..„.7, _, _ i a •- � � *r n IA :—_, - \'''--1•Ef.'1-'''',/,42 ' riorA IIIIMMVIIIII _.„ j: s i 7.: I -p. -p. • • ..fro,, ,w4i, -- ,41 r v I p . -- C^ - MItinj p' i UllWir i 1 (aim r..14 ,-,____Ai'c mzu ad_ 25 rn •r-i • i 6 " r •. �i ��1:1 • ■ •RI ,r I ; .6) i vii S i _ Vs to1 .. L __ . \. tilopi sumo r'1, i , , ��, • fl 4- - WSJ ` .. r. N Ec ,atm H.( I` — ! ( . , „....,... i ...„3, , ,... .:( ...... ,..., , 4 NIB r . � Ir. �E..is I lir. _ I ii .-\811,421111.1.1111. , L-',2/1"-i. lir .,,,. 'm ali . „..„ :4 - 1.. . '"'""I I 1 i‘AilfilA7-1101-:MaiR 411. ....... 7.7, 0 2 r7 _ 11111Wilillplei • Q r....... e - 64 �t:� r t 1 ... ___. ;)___, . i _, 22 „” 7 a / I - tita 41 y —41—_, \ . ,1:._t,172. � 4 , a ( � °c w T t a W-■ -= 7 f.- _,...-., � �a : :.--F, �cin 8� ll: Q fi- MN t 4:4:"! If i 1-176 C7. 4 i ..`"5:-.14 /21 _ 4/4 s j .J :Jr! i t2 _. aO z....— f w-. — L ,, - - /fir, ti �, 1 § / pi is . . ..... . „. 11 iLi tOPt .--/ EV 4::".7.C*ItZTEL12 -2-Egiaf....1916111:1 III ;Qel a Mi • - ,a f - .101 I imille , . i .,,‘ O Q -1, : • -•-_,.ec-7..IC - 1 EI-- ri) 1•111------'--- 12 ' yfrfs s ii. is_____ a al 1.‘el; • -_-, -) ro i! W isk. iT i" Cl H , ! 2 _ I M-grows �� A ii 4 OISIIMMAIWI Q i, `G. wr. r.. 1 � a t §B ■ IIIIIII 1 i -- k ,, :,,, il .ate.,1 •i a a `�;I. ..== � ■ } 4. 27J15':_ C' 01)0J ]J 1iTut1r'::_ C,UT_`^.S — 23 — , ' SCOTT COUNTY 1 HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT COURT HOUSE A106 ...,j `- SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 (612)-445-7750, Ext.346 Highway Engineer: ..... E. W. PRENEVOST September 29 , 1980 Mr. Henry Spurrier City Engineer City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 at Re: Rosenwinkel Mineral Extraction City of Shakopee Dear Sir: Mr. Howard K. Rosenwinkel has provided me with a copy of "Plan and Report for Mineral Extraction" in the NWS Section 16-115-22 and has asked me to comment on the impact to county highways affected. As shown on the truck route map of the report, County Highways in the immediate vicinity of the proposed mining operations are presently all restricted . To provide for all season roads some would need strengthening while other roads would need complete regrading, base and surfacing. As road tests have clearly indicated that heavy wheel loads cause much more damage to roads than light ones , the proposed pit development would necessitate haul roads leaving the area '^ to be constructed to 9 ton design. The design would be based on number of heavy commercial loads anticipated. Yours truly, i E. W. Prenevost County Highway Engineer EWP/emo cc: Howard K. Rosenwinkel An Equal Opportunity Employer \ rj: SCOTT COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT COURT HOUSE A106 SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 (612)-445-7750, Ext.346 Highway Engineer- - E. W. PRENEVOST May 15 , 1981 Mr . Henry Spurrier City Engineer City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee , Minnesota 55379 Re : Rosenwinkel Mineral Extraction City of Shakopee Dear Sir : Reference is made to my letter of September 29 , 1980 regarding the above referenced subject . Mr . Howard K . Rosenwinkel has asked me to comment on County Road 83, specifically between the proposed access to the pit and TH 101 . It is my understanding that the North 2/3 of a mile of this segment will be upgraded to a 9 ton route in conjunction with the K-Mart Project . The remaining portion of County Road 83 between CSAH 16 and the K-Mart improvement is a bituminous surfaced road presently restricted to 7 ton during spring breakup . This segment could be upgraded to 9 ton level by construction of additional base and wearing courses . The segment of road between the pit outlet and CSAH 16 requires complete regrading , base and bituminous surfacing . It is presently restricted to 5 ton per axle loading during spring breakup . During other periods of the year , the road in its present condition will require additional maintenance including dust control on the entire segment . Mr . Rosenwinkel stated that occasional loads would be going south on County Road 83 . This would not be treated any different than - any other trucking operation and determination of maintenance obligation to the mining operation would be evaluated on individual projects . Yours truly , E/. W . Prenevost County Highway Engineer E W P/s a 1 An Equal Opportunity Employer cc : Howard K. Rosenwinkel ntz „ — ,,,...,____ _ e -�.._ ... . „--_ = _ , 1 _ _ ,,3 „„, AMMO VICOIVO NI 1411. , /151/1 • 1• /` fie -�-: � ._• �, frY Q -r� -9 E I --� 1 s 1 , ilk :I - � I • a , t.. 1, T� a d1 �.q �� y— Z 1 Y III ° �' e IrL A 'B i,, ,ionlii.. . ` PP �, 4: 1 U \1.r IA � ;,S . I F Pi, ( '1, mifydliivr. 444#1, ,, I •" rj , MI,,J.., alk 111,111. " '' ' 'OP A t) Ai'mai*ekk. s . NAM 1 i :-Irst a14, <I W ►s i#3t _ ° es��° a ell e MOE 0 ' e I 0 a --- ii..,ilt'' '' °--" 4 L' --,.44hi if N., V.-, r, C3 rAin . , mai- , IA - . "ISM , imilii, NOM".Olitiammi.. ? „;MEM. : - ' I .....1 , _. <. mmummor a.a FIAAMI ti' ''''- `"-101L=1.7.- ;fir,� � • �:::, � ci,-. . f / g. —_f s'` i \.., H ' Itt,..." . o :.A',._ - ;ti �, ° .1:41.- W Li MIMI ea I `' , PLr a. di I !I5 f 1 i I alik , 1 At e 5 & 2 :iiaT °a � � g a Q¢ J a z J Q N° W L ��.. 4SI 0 Z4V w 0 � � � � .�LL.yU - CB I-1 -- �S '� �? hyo ('. C 3 n m ¢ 'TWO �/ W V� 3 yl ? m Z3 I I YFCI O� =,P t N 4 ni , p 1� �QV,4 : Qj ++ W h p Q �'Uj PI R o Y p u W J v 4 2 °� a 19 4 0 - °mss' ii "Ill-r4 ' ,ziaroi I'�,,OW =-,N. ra :. a„ / I I!'-' w� . � -. I IItilS,:• I �1 ti w 2 I — III.F J 4.4g 4l� H ~ Ihi • W F� 0�Wj3 ¢a V� , W — c- %,t,' ..V > ,t-,R til 4-1- z hs='.'.-- III y 0" r'o �0 m ��Z :1• w, lii V1. W O. N Illi �r i°A I -� - 2 44Z W I W ti T. lR 0 < F •1 j11._ RQ �� I i _ a�`� a J I I .r: • a`/J � II ��N �L.Lid p 111 '' ti� \71Jj43 ISI i' 1 � ? �� I �. u_ l VC(1111 .► ? ��_� W uZW N .Z ‘4 , ` 1111 q` ' LI-(n ..m ,4` O Y'/1.1 V 4 • III Q`` ( Q ra ZW zz�O,4 ILII ¢Z r+Te I N �tg2Z41LOi 1111 + W{� J�W�Za to Illi ? /- 1!. :11,k,"4= .III' \ i 4./ 1 ,n 4, �F�>;�ti NO 20 11 pi' �,� 3I v4, 4i2 - •.a>�i<d �ozfatli �'� Qa.• "did �' i w Q Ai O<w�m<Uz I00'9N ,/ o ' . • 4 /--.., - 4-,k i'.. -_ ,..'..1 _----..Ari-_�_ ii I '''S -7 7 MAP B - PROPOSED OPERATIONS_ H.RDSENbY/NKEL 6-2-8/ s.:=:" PROPOSED OPERATIONS AND PROCEDURES AREA A IS THE PLANNED AREA FOR THE FIRST PHASE OF THE MINING OPERATION TO EXCAVATE AND REMOVE MATERIALS mom THE PROPERTY. THE INITIAL OPENING OF THE GRAVEL PIT WILL BE CONFINED WITHIN THE DASHED LINES SHOWN IN AREA A AND CONSISTS OF APPROXDIATELY 20 ACRES. BASED ON A YIELD OF APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CU YDS PER ACRE THE TOTAL YIELD FOR THE 20 ACRES WOULD BE 2,000,000 CU YDS. THE NUU ER OF YEARS REQUIRED TO REMOVE THIS AMOUNT OF MATERIAL DEPENDS UPON THE DEMAND. FOR EXAMPLE, A YEARLY AVERAGE OF 200,000 CU YDS OF MATERIAL REMOVED FROM THE SITE WOULD PLACE THE LIFE OF THE MINED AREA AT 10 YEARS. AT THIS TIME IN THE MINING OPERATION A DECISION WOULD THEN BE MADE AS TO THE COSTS AND FEASIBILITY OF MOVING THE MINNESOTA GAS COMPANY PIPELINE, WHICH ANGLES THRU THE PROPERTY. MINNESOTA GAS COMPANY HAS STATED,IN A LETTER ATTACHED TO THE APPLICATION FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THAT THEY WILL COOPERATE WITH THE RELOCATION OF THE PIPELINE WHEN THE NEED ARISES. IF THE PIPELINE IS MOVED, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF TIME TO DEPLETE AREA A WOULD PROBABLY EXTEND TO 15 OR 20 YEARS. THE MINING OF AREAS B AND C WOULD NOT BE ATTEMPMD UNTIL THE DEPLETION OF MATERIALS IN AREA A. AFTER DEPLETION OF AREA A, THE MINING OF AREA B WOULD BE STIARLED AND AN EVALUATION WOULD BE MADE ON THE FEASIBILITY TO MAKE APPLICATION FOR THE PROPOSED " DEMOLITION LANDFILL " AS SCHEDULED UNDER ' LAND RECLAMATION ' ON PAGE 31. NO PERMANENT BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES ARE PLANNED FOR THE PROPERTY AT THE PRESENT TIME. THE NEED FOR A PERMANENT GARAGE, OFFICE AND TRUCK WEIGH SCALE NEAR THE ENTRANCE COULD BE A FUTURE POSSIBILITY. THE ANTICIPATED NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES REQUIRED BY THE MINING OPERATION WILL PROBABLY RANGE FROM 2 TO 10 PEOPLE PLUS TRUCK DRIVERS ENTERING THE SITE FOR MATERIALS. DURING THE MINING OPERATIONS ON THE PROPERTY, ALL NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS WILL BE TAKEN BY THE MINING COMPANY TO PROTECT THE ENVIRON TENT AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORING LAND OWNERS, THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND ANYONE ENTERING THE MINING AREA. THE MINED AREA WILL BE KEPT IN NEAT APPEARANCE AND FREE FROM HAZARDS TO PROTECT THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF ALL PEOPLE. THE PLANNED DIKE BUFFER ALONG BOUNDRY OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE BUILT AS THE TOPSOIL IS STRIPPED FROM THE GRAVEL DEPOSIT AND WILL ACT AS A BUFFER ZONE FOR NOISE CONTROL OF — 28 — cent'd on page 29 THE MINING OPERATIONS. A SAFE AND ATTRACTIVE ENTRANCE ROAD TO THE SITE WILL BE LOCAr D AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON MAP B. A STOP SIGN WILL BE PLACED AT THE ENTRANCE FOR TRUCKS/VEHICLES EXITING FROM THE SITE ONTO COUNTY ROAD 83. VEHICLE PARKING IS LOCATED AS SHOWN ON NAP B ADJACENT TO THE DIKE BUFFER. STORAGE OR STOCIC?ILING OF MINED MATERIALS ON THE SITE IS NOT KNOWN AT THIS THE, BUT IF CRUSHED OR SCREENED SAND AND GRAVEL STOCKPILING IS NECESSARY IT WOULD BE DONE ADJACENT TO THE EXCAVATED AREA AND WOULD NOT EXCEED A HEIGHT OF 30 FEET. STOCKPILING OF MATERIALS WOULD BE A TEMPORARY SITUATION THAT IS NORMALLY NECESSARY ON LARGER PROJECT REQUIREMENTS., WHEN THE MINED AREA IS LARGE ENOUGH, THEN STOCKPILING WOULD LIKELY OCCUR ON THE BOTTOM OF THE EXCAVATED PIT FLOOR AND WOULD NOT PROJECT ABOVE THE GROUND LEVEL. SAFETY FENCING IS PLANNED AS SHOWN ON MAP B. THE FENCING WOULD ENCLOSE THE MINED AREA WITH ACCESS ONLY THRU THE ENTRANCE GATE WHICH WOULD BE LOCKED AND OPEN ONLY DURING HOURS OF OPERATION. TO START WITH, THE FENCING WOULD BE LIMITED TO A 5 OR 10 ACRE AREA OF LAND. AS THE MINING OPERATION GROWS IN AREA THE FENCING WOULD BE MOVED TO ACCOMODATE THE LARGER AREA. THE FENCING WILL BE OF DESIGN AND HEIGHT TO MEET OR EXCEED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY ORDI1NANCE. SITE SCREENING IS PLANNED ALONG THE DIKE BUFFER NEXT TO COUNTY ROAD 83 AND THE PROPERTY LINES AS SHOWN ON MAP B. A SPECIES OF FAST GROWING TREES WILL BE PLANTED ADJACENT TO COUNTY ROAD 83 AND THE OTHER PROPERTY BOUNDRIES AS SHOWN ON MAP B AND IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY ORDINANCE. THE PROPERTY WILL BE A SOURCE OF MATERIALS TO COMPANIES IN THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION AND HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND WILL BE GOVERNED AND MONITORED BY A PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY FORMED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS. A CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE COVERAGES WILL BE FURNISHED BY THE MINING COMPANY FOR ITS OPERATIONS AND ON FILE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND/OR MANAGING COMPANY. - 29 - 1 • . /( -. $ r/ l .itacti \} _ \a —�.S- _ I . -7p k. i t r 71 ai‘ ./I r1 --- // 'y O Ql t 1/_ . . - - 6ROUNL SURFACE ,' PIT . . - ,it-Gill n O I ` o in 4 b ra1 ri?../4„ , '') a -.. . 4 II/ y0 ': . I 4 _ -0. sr0 P o 4' I 73— / o--... + = 1 � a d3 I -_ 00,14k 17 t.aMl- ,taill{ / ' 6 - tel -_ ... i ']fir � e1 it!? l.a E .17C . - __ is . y0 /� /.7 s SITE TOPOGRAPHY (ExcAVATED)AREA• A —30— h 70s_Vw/N/L. END LAND USE PLAN LAND RECLAMATION IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT AFTER REMOVAL OF THE MATERIALS IN AREA A, MINING WOULD START IN AREA B AND/OR AREA C. WHEN AREA A IS OF A ACCEPTABLE SIZE TO ACCOMODATE A LANDFILL OPERATION A APPLICATION FOR A " DEMOLITION LANDFILL " OPERATION WILL BE MADE TO GOVERNING AGENCIES OF THE CITY, COUNTY, METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY. THIS PROPERTY WAS SMUTTED TO THE SCOTT COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY CO1MI'1TSE AS A POTENTIAL SITE IN SEPTEMBER 1980, THRU THE 6 MONTH PLUS PROCESS OF SCOTT COUNTY CONSULTANTS EVALUATING PROPERTIES TO MEET THE NECESSARY CRITERIA FOR CANDIDATE LANDFILL SITES, THE LETTER ON PAGE 33 IS SUBMILTED, AS THE COUNTY CONSULTANTS INDICATE, THIS PROPERTY COULD BE A POTENTIAL SITE IF THE MINING OPERATION WERE TO PROCEED AS PLANNED, FINAL LAND USE PROJECTING FINAL LAND USE WITH THE ADVENT aF A " DEMOLITION LANDFILL " ON THE PROPERTY, THE LAND COULD BE RESTORED TO THE ORIGINAL TOPOGRAPHY. THIS WOULD THEN PERMIT THE LAND TO REVERT BACK TO FARMLAND, GRASSLAND, PARK AND RECREATION LAND OR COULD BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL OR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, THE EXCAVATED LAND AREA COULD PRESENT VERY FAVORABLE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT POSSIBILITIES AND THIS COULD BE = f.IPORTANT TO CONSIDER AS A ALTERNATIVE TO A DEMOLITION LANDFILL LAND RESTORATION. IF A DEMOLITION LANDFILL BECOMES A REALITY, THEN THE APPLICATION FOR A DEMOLITION LANDFILL WOULD STIPULATE A FINAL LAND USE PLAN. IN THE EVENT A DEMOLITION LANDFILL DID NOT MATERIALIZE, THEN THE EXCAVATED AREA WOULD BE CONTOURED AT A ELEVATION OF ABOUT 5 FEET ABOVE THE BEDROCK TABLE, THE E1BAi'KUENTS WOULD BE GRADED TO A 3 TO 1 SLOPE MIND11.11 WITH VEGETATION PLANTED TO CONTROL EROSION. IT IS THE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO OBTAIN A RENEWAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EVERY 3 YEARS AND " LAND REHABILITATION " CAN BE ADDRESSED AT THE TIME OF EACH PERMIT RENEWAL REQUEST. - 3, - It! ) ��� / I.is-1A c, aBill V 71 N N t gp M ,,E9 t ..- t. QT N Q) to m 2 i / 121-I/ . • • 4,744,,,„.,/ ms • d/ y1 -:, li , --1/ ‘).0 I f d --------) \ . %S 1-- (sit- z..- .4 titt •:3 'NJ i•Ci f',11 ''. N '1 7N0 Q1 Jo ; 111 M m M ' 06 SIC ---. \ tt :.---- --i. -7e-g--=---' d,----------- „ x r dr-e'FS i'081D Ob S __ m �o _ FB 9`� A 47 2X Y ' , 7f 1•0 43 i �1 . 1y 'o D DO as __ _ / / 7_ _ ,...,.,.... . .7, ` :(.• .`"r... , s1,,Ver _ d d `' y0 .��(9 . _�[ .% ' i'/ d %S MAP C W= FINAL TOPOGRAPHY MAP (PROPOSED LANDFILL) -32- -‘,/.4',7EA,WiA/L--Z L_ -MDR May 29, 1981 Mr. Howard Rosenwinkel 105 Elm Street Chaska, Minnesota 55318 Dear Mr. Rosenwinkel : This letter is in regard to the proposed gravel mining operation at the Eagle Creek site southeast of Shakopee in sections 16 and 17, T115N, R22W. I is my understanding that the anticipated future Land Use Plan is to utilize the excavated site as a landfill to restore the area to its original topography. This property has been volunteered as a candidate site to the Scott County landfill inventory and could be a potential site if the gravel mining operation were to proceed as planned. The property would be better suited for a demolition landfill site than a sanitary landfill . The final land use could range from agricultural to industrial usage. The main environmental concern with this site is the protection of ground- waters underlying the site. The bottom of the proposed excavation is approximately five feet from the groundwater table. The sand and gravel which underlie the site may not provide adequate protection of the groundwater. If a sanitary landfill were considered, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency would likely require a liner and leachate collection system. If a demolition landfill were planned, a layer of clay may be necessary to provide protection of the groundwater. If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, HENNINGSP, , DURHAM & RICHARDSON . 74? r/ n M. Menter, PE Alexandria Atlanta Austin Consultants to the Scott County Solid Waste Advisory Committee 2harlotte —.=hicago JMM/mta Dallas Denver Selena -louston Knoxville Minneapolis Jorfolk Dmana — ensacola Phoenix Santa Barbara 3eattie — 33 — Vashington, D.C. 'c/.) allar-A-/22//7 OCTOBE3. 2, 1981 SUPPLEMr1NT TO " APPLICATION AND PLAN FOR MINERAL CTRACTION - JUNE 1981 " PREPARED BY HOWARD K. ROSENWINIaL, ENGINEERING CONSULTANT FOR THE APPLICANT - SCOTT COUNTY =Bat t CO PANY, INC. AND BERT NOT=AivN, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA - 1 - a. 4,- SUBJECT SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS TO THE JULY 9, 1981 PUBLIC HEARING. THESE QUESTIONS WERE DATED AUGUST 11, 1981 AND WERE SUBMITTED BY THE SHAKOPEE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, ROBERTA SCHNEIDER, PRESIDNT, TO THE SHAKOPEE PLANNING COI SSION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION AND RESPONSES TC BE MADE AT THE CONTI,NUED PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 8, 1981. - 2 - . CONTENTS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS 1 THRU 13 WHICH WERE SUBMITTED BY THE SHAKOPEE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ASSOCIATION. PAGE QUESTION 1 1� QUESTION 2 5 QUESTION 3 6 QUzZTION 7 QUESTION 5 8 QUESTION 6 9 QUESTION 7 10 QU E.S.T ION 8 11 QUESTION 9 12 QUESTION 10 13 QUESTION 11 1!m QUESTION 12 15 QUESTION 13 16 - 3 - QUESTION 1 1) It is felt that applicants should provide factual information that their proposal will not have an adverse effect on adjoining property owners cr other property in the immediate vicinity . This should include signed statements by professional appraisers that their proposal would not substantially diminish and impair property values . What would be the opinion of three professional appraisers of the property values if the permit were granted on the proposed site for the extraction of sand and gravel? If there is a difference in property values , what would that difference be? RESPONSE ON PAGE(S) La, Lb, lac, 1 d, he - 1, - 0 RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 1 BY: EUGENE ROSENWINKEL REALTOR KEN LEWIS AND ASSOCIATES APPRAISERS ( SEE PAGE 14 b ) ADDITIONAL OPINIONS OF THE DIFFERENCES AND EFFECTS ON PROPERTY VALUES WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 8, 1981. - lta - ,t1:0 OENT•R`44FSl t > 0'i'.: seismal ta&-, III— tt•n� ��a-.9 ■ •■ N Ken LewisAssociates m 8 6600 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH • EDINA, MINNESOTA 55435 • (612)920-4650 'gyp olo o .iv C ` n k �WIp11Pu 1 b z�imu-t. Y2 October 2, 1981 Mr. Howard Rosenwinkel Consulting Engineer 105 Elm Street Chaska, Minnesota 55318 Dear Mr. Rosenwinkel : The following information is data that has been analyzed in regard to property valuations adjacent to gravel pits. A large gravel pit operation located in Apple Valley has been totally analyzed on all residential sides. These include streets such as Fordham Avenue, Fordham Court, Florida Court, Flagstaff Avenue, Findlay Avenue, 137th Street, and 137th Court. These streets all abut the Fischer Sand and Gravel Pit that originally was known as the Shakopee Sand and Gravel Company. In December 1977, an employee transfer for one of the leading transfer companies was completed and, at that time, no reduction in value was indicated because of the close proximity of the gravel pit operation. It should be noted that this property has a wooded hill to the rear of the house and is part of the rear yard. On the back side of the hill from the house is the gravel operation, and there was minimal noise and no noticeable dust from the gravel pit. In the process of completing this appraisal , comparable sales were used that were further removed from the gravel pit, and no depreciation was deducted for its location. In March of 1978, the subject sold for $1 ,000 more than the appraisal completed in December of 1977. Again, the mortgage loan appraisal , which we completed for the buyer, reflected no location adjustments. Of three sales that have since taken place abutting the gravel pit, one is located on Franchise Avenue and has the gravel pit extending along its southern property line, one is located at 13714 Fordham Court, and a third is located at 13447 Florida Court. These three properties have all been analyzed and compared to properties situated further removed from the sand and gravel pit opera- tion, and none have reflected any differential due to the location adjacent to the gravel pit operation. It should be noted that the prime reason for no reduction in value is because the gravel pit has either left portions of a hill or has bermed up waste land or the soil not used for mining purposes adjacent to their property lines. These have also been planted with young trees to screen the operations and reduce noise levels. - 14 b - / d� Mr. Howard Rosenwinkel Page 2 October 2, 1981 I have also contacted people, for example on Findlay Avenue, whose properties abut the retaining wall . They have indicated that they prefer the privacy of not having abutting homes to the rear of their properties. One homeowner is located on the south end of Fordham Court. This homeowner has a very large lot that is typically not available in the remainder of the Green Leaf Subdivisions surrounding the gravel pit. She has indicated that the noise is a factor and can be heard when in the rear yard of her home. However, she feels that the large yard is the off-setting factor and would prefer the large yard in comparison to a smaller yard further removed from the operation. This property has a gradual slope on its southern property line and then gradually slopes to the south over the Fischer property. It appears that the Fischer property has not been totally mined out to the south of this property. Other gravel pits have been analyzed; minimal information is available since the operations are well screened with berms, trees, and their location away from residential properties. The second operation that was analyzed is located just east of the City of Prior Lake on the north side of County Road 44, also known as 158th Street, in the City of Savage. This mining operation is located behind a large berm ex- tending along County Road 44. However, the truck traffic is notable on County Road 44 and is primarily leading toward the west to Prior Lake and State Highway 13. A subdivision located on the south side of County Road 44 was analyzed and sales in this subdivision have not indicated a reduction of value due to the truck traffic from the gravel pit operation. The gravel pit operation in this Particular pit is an in-earth type operation or, to further explain, is mining into the ground level and not out of a hillside. However, there are hills that have been removed. A local realtor in Prior Lake lives in this subdivision and is close to County Road 44. He has indicated that he feels there is no depreciative value from the mining operation. The third mining operation is located in the City of Arden Hills , also known as the Twin Cities Arsenal . This is a mining operation out of hillsides and is further removed from residential properties. However, the truck traffic coming from the pit travels along County Road I to intersect with 35W or other main arterial streets. The truck traffic apparently has not affected property values since Duane Dietrich is developing this subdivision and Registry Homes is building the homes for Dietrich. There are also other builders developing in this sub- division. -- c — Mr. Howard Rosenwinkel Page 3 October 2, 1981 A gravel pit operation that is owned by Hedberg is situated between France Avenue and York Avenue South and has West 76th Street on its southern mining operation. This mining operation is nearing the end of its function and the remaining land that has been mined out is being deve- loped with a combination of townhouse, condominium, and high-rise for the elderly type housing. It is my opinion that, if the noise, dust, and unsightliness would be a really strong factor, the previously- mentioned developments would not be moving in at the pace in which they are building. These previously-mentioned gravel pit operations are currently the only operating gravel pits that I have knowledge of with residential type properties around their operations. At the present time, there is no indication of a reduction in value from a subdivision standpoint. It is also my opinion that the subject will have berms extending around the gravel pit operation and will have plantings on the berm for screen- ing purposes. It is also my opinion that the berm will block out existing mining operations and a large percentage of any noise from the operation. The subject is essentially level ground, and the mining operation will be in a pit-type which will contain most of the noise. The Kilarney Hills Subdivision is located to the north of the subject, and, in my opinion, is far enough removed so that the existing properties and vacant lots will not be affected by this operation. CONCLUSION It is the appraiser's opinion that, based on a study of other gravel pits with berms built around them screened from subdivisions, abutting properties have not indicated a reduction in value from a gravel pit operation and demolition fill operation to follow the gravel pit opera- tion. If I can be of further service to you, please contact me. Sincerley, Kenneth P. Lewis, SRPA KPL:mm - y a — QUALIFICATIONS OF KENNETH P. LEWIS, S.R.P.A. Professional Society of Real Estate Appraisers Membership Certified Review Appraiser Education Courses Completed Principles and Techniques - Society of Real Estate Appraisers Apartment House Course - Society of Real Estate Appraisers Obtained Senior Residential Appraiser designation in 1968 Obtained Senior Real Property Appraiser designation in 1975 Course I - American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers (Basic Principles, Methods & Techniques - Lincoln, Nebraska, in 1970) Course II - American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers (Urban Properties - St. Thomas College, St. Paul , Minnesota, in 1970) Course XI - American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers (Apartment Course - Minneapolis, Minnesota, in 1973) Experience Employment experience includes two years in the real estate business with a large builder and real estate company. This involved commercial , industrial , residential , and sub-division development. Experience in the appraisal field started in 1961 with the B.F. Tonskemper Company, the Shenehon-Goodlund Company, the Chase-Brackett Company, and since September 19, 1974, owner and operator of Ken Lewis & Associates, Independent Real Estate Appraiser. Clientele - A International Business Machines Corporation Partial List of Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company Institutional First National Bank of Minneapolis Clients Hennepin County Highway Department Minneapolis Hcusing an Redevelopment Authority Minneapolis Park and Recreational Board Westinghouse Electric Corporation Merrill Lynch Relocation Management, Inc. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company Residential Relocation Service Corporation Transamerica Relocation Service, Inc. P.P.G. Industries, Inc. Dow Chemical Company Home Equity Honeywell , Incorporated Owens Corning Fiberglass Illinois Glass Company Northland Mortgage Company Northwestern National Bank Marquette National Bank Veterans Administration City of Golden Valley The Eberhardt Company Executrans, Inc. Aetna Life Insurance Company The Coca-Cola Company Employee Transfer Corporation Equitable Relocation Service Johnson & Higgins Byron Reed Company, Inc. Sperry Univac Numerous appraisals for private parties for income properties In Addition Qualified for court testimony - h a- — QUTION 2 2 ) A reference has been made that the proposed site is located out of the urban area of the city . The proposed site is about in the middle of the city limits and a platted tract - Kilarney Hills - abuts the site immediately to the north. In addition to the homes in the Kilarney Hills Addition, there are six (6) residences on property adjacent to the proposed extraction site . The City Planner recommends that no truck traffic from the mining operation be routed through the urban portion of the City of Shakopee . What is considered the urban part of the city? Would this exclusion include traffic on Highway 101 or 1st Street? Who or how will this recommendation be enforced? How can an exclusion be made for truck traffic from mining operations and not other trucks? Rr PONSE ON PAGE(S) Sa - 5 - RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 2 BY: Don Steger City Planner The urban part of the City generally refers to the original townsite (extreme northwest portion of City) . See separate zoning map. Truck traffic would not exclude Highway 101, as this highway is designed to accommodate such traffic . This will be enforced like all rules and laws; i. e . spot checks and/or complaints . The truck traffic can be controlled through the Conditional Use Permit approval process; i.e. attaching conditions . - 5a - QUESTION 3 3) There is no indication that adequate access roads are in place or will be provided . In fact the letter from the County Highway Engineer, dated September 29, 1980 , included with the application, indicates that large expenditures could be necessary to facilitate the anticipated hauling from' the proposed extraction site . Who will build and bear the burden of costs of building and :maintenance of the needed roads? RESPONSE ON PAOE(S) 6a , 6b - 6 - � lY RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 3 BY: HOWARD ROSENWINKEL EtiTGINEER.ING CONSULTANT E.W. PRENEVOST COUNTY HIGENAY ENGINEER ( SEE PAGE 6 b ) THE ACCESS ROAD TO THE PROPERTY WILL BE AS SHOWN ON MAP B IN THE " PLAN FOR MINERAL EKTRACTION " . THE HAUL ROADS USED WILL BE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS, NAMELY CO RD 83 NORTH TO TH 101. NO USE OF CO RD 83 GOING SOUTH FROM THE SITE IS PLANNED OR KNOWN AND IF THEIR WOULD BE USE OF THE ROAD GOING SOUTH, IT WOULD VERY LIKELY BE THAT OF MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR COUNTY ROADS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA OF THE PIT SITE. THE 800 FEET SEGMENT OF ROAD BETWEEN THE PIT SITE AND CO RD 16 IS A GRAVEL ROAD AND ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS BEYOUND THAT PRESENTLY FURNISHED BY THE COUNTY WOULD BE FURNISHED BY THE SITE OPERATOR INCLUDING DUST CONTROL. THE COMPREHENSIVE ROAD PLAN FOR SCOTT COUNTY SPECIFIES THE REGRADING OF CO RD 83 BETWEEN CO RD 16 AND CO RD !42 FOR 1983. AND WILL BE BLACKTOPPED IN 1985. THE COSTS ARE A PLANNED COUNTY EXPENDITURE. ADDITIONAL INFOR- MATION FROM THE COUNTY ENGINEER IS ON PAGE 6 b . - 6 a. - SCOTT COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT COURT HOUSE A106 j SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 (612)-445-7750, Ext.346 Highway Engineer: E.W. PRENEVOST May 15 , 1981 Mr . Henry Spurrier City Engineer City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee , Minnesota 55379 Re : Rosenwinkel Mineral Extraction City of Shakopee Dear Sir : Reference is made to my letter of September 29 , 1980 regarding the above referenced subject . Mr . Howard K. Rosenwinkel has asked me to comment on County Road 83, specifically between the proposed access to the pit and TH 101 . It is my understanding that the North 2/3 of a mile of this segment will be upgraded to a 9 ton route in conjunction with the K-Mart Project . The remaining portion of County Road 83 between CSAH 16 and the K-Mart improvement is a bituminous surfaced road presently restricted to 7 ton during spring breakup . This segment could be upgraded to 9 ton level by construction of additional base and wearing courses . The segment of road between the pit outlet and CSAH 16 requires complete regrading , base and bituminous surfacing . It is presently restricted to 5 ton per axle loading during spring breakup . During other periods of the year , the road in its present condition will require additional maintenance including dust control on the entire segment . Mr . Rosenwinkel stated that occasional loads would be going south on County Road 83 . This would not be treated any different than any other trucking operation and determination of maintenance obligation to the mining operation would be evaluated on individual projects . Yours truly , E . W. Prenevost County Highway Engineer E W P/s a l An Equal Opportunity Employer cc : Howard K. Rosenwinkel v - 6 b QUraiTION 13 4) Drainage will be affected. No factual information has been presented ,on the watershed areas involved; amounts of water to be handled; drainage patterns ; change of flow by berming and other installations ; control structures - culverts , storm sewers, etc . What would be the effect of the surface water in the pit on the water quality of the aquifers? What effect would the establishment of a quarry have on water quality of the aquifers? There are problems foreseen in runoff, seepage ; and spillage (proposed 5,000 gallon fuel storage on site ) . What would happen if there were a spill? What protections are proposed to eliminate possible contamination of the underground water supply? What would be the effect of the quarry (berming, etc . ) on the natural drainage of surrounding property - effect of drainage , change of waterflow? RESPONSE, ON PAGE(S) 7a, 7b, 7c - 7 - RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 14 BY: HOWARD ROSENWINKEL ENGIN ;H.ING CONSULTA NT BRUCE OLSEN AND ROMAN KANIVETSKY MINNESOTA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ( SEE PAGE 7 b ) JOHN PASCAL USDA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE ( SEE PAGE 7 c ) THE PLAN IS BEING CHANGED TO MAINTAIN A. MINIMUM OF 5 FEET OF COVER MATERIAAL ABOVE THE BEDROCK FLOOR OF THE PIT AND PRECAUTIONS IN THE PLAN BY BERMING AROUND THE EXCAVATED AREA PREVENT SURFACE WATER RUNOFF FROM ENTERING THE PIT. THESE PRECAUTIONS TO PROTECT THE GROUND WATER QUALITY CONFORM TO THE STATEMENTS SET FORTH BY THE MINNESOTA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY IN THEIR UTTER ON PAGE 7 b. THE SURFACE WATER THEN OCCURING ON THE PIT FLOOR WOULD BE FROM RAINFALL AND IS ACCEPT- ABLE. THE rSTABLISHNENT OF A QUARRY IN THE BEDROCK IS NOT PLANNED. FUEL STORAGE ON SITE IS NOT PLANNED AT THE PRESENT TIME. IN THE EVENT OF SUCH STORAGE A SPECIAL PERMIT FROM THE CITY WOULD BE REQUIRED AND POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION OF THE UNDERGROUND WATER SUPPLY FROM A SPILL WOULD BE ADDRESSED AT THAT TIME. NO CHANGE OF THE NATURAL DRAINAGE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY WILL OCCUR. TO INSURE THE NATURAL DRINAGE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY, A RUEST FOR SITE INSPECTION AND EVALUATION HAS BEEN MADE TO THE USDA SOIL CONSER- VATION SERVICE. SEE REQUEST ON PAGE 7 c - 7a - 02_ fY tinUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Minnesota Geological Survey TWIN CITIES 1633 Eustis Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 (612) 373-3372 June 1 , 1981 Mr. Howard Rosenwinckle c/o Rogers, Freels, and Associates 105 Elm Street Chaska, Minnesota 55318 Dear Mr. Rosenwinckle: We have reviewed the geologic logs for the three test boring sites in sec- tion 16 of Eagle Creek Township, Scott County, that Associated Well Drilling Company drilled for you. We greatly appreciate your forwarding this information to us because we are continually trying to acquire high quality subsurface geologic information. In our telephone conversation on May 27, you questioned whether extracting sand and gravel from the site where the test borings were placed would pose any threat to the ground water resources of the area. We feel that the actual re- moval of aggregate materials from the site would pose no threat to the quantity of ground water, particularily because the water table occurs in the bedrock and no dewatering operations appear likely. However, we do express concern over several impacts the development of any pit may have on ground-water quality. The test boring records indicate that porous materials overlie the Shakopee Formation, a dolomitic limestone. As we mentioned above, the water table occurs in the bedrock. These geologic conditions provide a direct pathway for poten- tial contaminants to enter local ground water supplies. We suggest that pre- cautions be taken to prevent the surface drainage from any nearby fields, roads, ditches, etc. from entering the extraction area and thus introducing agri- cultural chemicals, road salt, or other pollutants to the site. Also, on site storage of large amounts of fuel or other liquids should be discouraged because of the potential for spillage or leakage of storage containers. Finally, the eventual use of the property once mining operations cease should be viewed in light of its impact on ground water quality. Future land use activities such as disposal siting, waste transfer facilities, or road salt storage which have the potential for introducing pollutants to the site, should be discouraged or supplemented with mitigating engineering practices. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us. „,--iSincerely,1t (J7 rll Roman Kanivetsky Bruce Olsen Hydrogeologist Geologist BO/RK/rah - 7b - REQUEST FOR SITE INSPECTION AND EVALUATION The undersigned landowner hereby requests an inspection and evaluation of the soil, water, and related natural resources and their conditions which may have a bearing on use of the described property for n/Ne£.4- L x T2 c r/a)(4. The property consists of /34P. 73? acres located in the C./Ty �A SAA/cO, edit' of section , ,/4; /7 Township / // S , R ZZ GvE�r-- Permission is hereby granted for the Scott Soil and Water Conservation District, its employees, or employees of its cooperating federal, state, or local agencies to enter onto the property for the purpose of fulfilling this request. 5-co Tefo's7 Lv�B� e /A/c -4" D ,gae`,e�7'Ala T�� / n , — Signedi� . , G�-G11�l�G.�=cf Title '',1 /sfcez'/ ly �a✓>la��` i Date .1'��� r (-)7 \'‘ 1 u _ . _ SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 107 Water St. U SOIL CONSERVATION SER1!CE Jordan,MN 55352 John Pascal District Conservationist 3 Jordan, Minn. 492-2636 July, 1980 Scott SWCD - 7 c - f. QUESTION 5 5) The PCA standards for noise levels are 60 decibles at any point it can be heard . However, the only statement of applicants is that they will comply with OSHA standards . OSHA protects employee not persons living or using property in the vicinity . Also, the City Planner indicates that PCA will moniter noise - PCA only moniters installations over 320 acres . What measures are proposed to keep noise levels , dust , etc . at an acceptable level? What lighting is being proposed for the area? Also, wind erosion is a special problem in the immediate vicinity of this site . What effect will removal of all the top soil for berming purposes have thereon? How are the berms to be constructed so as to not cause other hazards such as washing out, onto other property, etc . ? RESPONSE ON PAGE,(S) 8a - 8 - RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 5 BY: HOWARD ROSENWINKEL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT BRUCE BRODT ENGINEERING AND PLANNING MINN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ( ADVISOR TO QUESTION ) NO EQUIPIENT WILL BE USED WHICH WILL CREATE NOISE, DUST, ETC. BEYOND A: ACCEPTABLE LEVEL. NO LIGHTING OF THE SITE IS BEING PLANNED PRESENTLY, BUT A POSSIBILITY OF A. YARD YARD LITE AT THE ENTRANCE IS PROBABLE. WIND EROSION PROBLEMS OF THE SITE WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THE USDA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE INSPECTION AND COMPLIANCE TO THIS REPORT IS PLANNED. THE PROPERTY WILL CONTINUE AS. CROPLAND RIGHT UP TO THE BERM AREAS. ALL BERMS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO THE " PLAN FOR MINERAL EXTRACTION " AND WILL BE PLANTED WITH VEGETATION TO PREVENT WASHING OUT. - 8 aj - QLTESTION 6 6) There has not been a demonstrated need of the city to the existing land uses . As a matter of fact, there are a great number of gravel pits in the city, adjoining townships , counties , and surrounding areas . What is the demonstrated need for the sand and gravel in the present economic picture? Does the present need for gravel necessitate establishment of a new quarry? RESPONSE ON PAGE(S) 9a, 9b - 9 - RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO, 6 BY: HOWARD ROSENWINKEL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT E. W. PRENEVOST SCOTT COUNTY HIG'WAY ENGINEER. ( ADVISOR TO QUESTION ) EUGENE ROSE.Nr1INKEL REALTOR ( SEE PAGE 9 b ) BECAUSE OF THE SHORTAGES OF SAND, GRAVEL AND QUARRY ROCK IN THE 7 COUNTY METRO AREA, A. STUDY IS BEING MADE BY THE MIANESOTA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY STAFF TO IDENTIFY THE LOCATIONS OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES LOCATED WITHIN THE METRO 7 COUNTY AREA FOR THE MITE O COUNCIL.THE METRO COUNCIL WILL USE THIS REPORT IN THEIR COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND SPECIFY TO THE COUNTIES AND MJNICIPALITIES THAT THESE LANDS BE RESTRAINED FROM BUILDING DEVELOPIENTS AND BE SET ASIDE FOR NATURAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPERTY IN THIS APPLICATION IS IN A NATURAL RESOURCE AREA IN SCOTT COUNTY AND IS A PART OF A. GLACIAL UPPER OUTWASH TERRACE COMPRISING OF A. AVERAGE DEPTH OF AT LEAST 65 FEET OF SAND AND GRAVEL MENDING SOUTH SOUTH-EAST ONE - HALF MILE AND SOUTH SOUTH-WEST ONE AND ONE-HALF MILES FROM DEANS LAKE. THEIR ARE NO GRAVEL PITS IN THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND ESTABLISHING A. MATERIAL SOURCE IN THE NORTH-EAST PORTION OF SCOTT COUNTY WOULD SAVE A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF ENERGY (FU 1) AND A. SAVINGS TO THE COUNTY ON THEIR MATERIALS REQUIRED ON THE ROADS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY. THE SCOTT COUNTY AGGREGATE REQUIRENEJNTS FOR ROADS IN THE YEARS 1978, 1979 and 1980 AMOUNTED TO 525,000 CUBIC YARDS. To the Honorable Members of the Shakopee City Council Gentlemen: I was pleased to hear that the present owners of the former Andrew Jeurissen farm, which is located within the City limits of Shakopee, have decided to proceed with the procurement of a mining permit on this property. It was back in February of 1974, when we discovered there might be a rather sizeable aggregate deposit on this property. I contacted a Metropolitan aggregate producer, and after much consideration they went along with the premise that there could be a large gravel deposit on this location, and did agree to test bore the property. A total of three days were spent boring the property - each hole sixty-five foot deep, covering the entire acreage. I personally attended every hole being drilled. I was extremely impressed with the quality of material extracted. The material does, and can meet all laboratory requirements for BA-1, BA-2, Class-5, and Concrete aggregate according to Twin City Testing and Engineering Laboratory Inc. , and also in my conversation with the Engineer from the Highway Department of the State of Minnesota, the possible opening of an aggregate operation on this property generated a good deal of enthusiasm - especially in view of the fact that the seven County Metro area is rapidly being depleted of its natural resources for concrete and base materials. Apple Valley in Dakota County, has the last largest supply of aggregate left in the Metro area; after this is gone, the aggregate industry will definitely be moving to the Scott County area, etc. , or wherever new deposits may be discovered. As you well know, the entire Nation is becoming more and more energy conscious, and is stressing the fact that we must preserve, maintain, and make available every last bit of our natural resources. In my opinion, this definitely includes aggregate deposits. Six years ago, I attended the National Redi Mix Association convention held in Minneapolis. The speaker, who was the president of the association, emphasized very strongly the fact that at the present rate aggregate deposits are being depleted in the Metro area, twenty years from now, how are we going to be a_hle to produce concrete, unless new supplies of aggregate are discovered and made available. I never forgot this, and I feel those of us who know of a deposit such as the one herein mentioned should do everything possible to see that it be properly developed. This land lies such, that after the mining operation is completed to planning and zoning specifications, could and can still have a variety of uses. My father was in the aggregate business for fifty years - I worked in the same business for twenty-five years - then the concrete business for six years - following that, I have been in the Real Estate field for the last seven years, and consequently, I do feel that I am reasonably qualified to comment on the future highest and best use of this property. I have no interest present, or contemplated in this property, other than a real con- cern to see this aggregate deposit, "A Natural Resource", so vital to the future needs of the Construction Industry and the immediate area, be preserved and developed systematically according to its highest and best use. To all concerned,thank you for taking time to read my comments concerning this matter. Sincerely, Gene senwinkel 1 (._\\\\ - 9 b - QUESTION 7 7) The area in question was classified agriculture in the Eagle Creek plan, being held in reserve for future residential development . The City of Shakopee originally had this property classified for housing, but because of the Metropolitan Council' s criteria that all land zoned residential must be served by sewer, the; plan was changed to agriculture with the u.iderstanding that this would be reserved for future expansion of residential areas and growth of the city . What does the city envision for future development of this area? RESPONSE ON PAGE(S) 10a - 10 - RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO . 7 BY: Don Steger City Planner The Comprehensive Plan indicates the area as an agricultural area. The very long range use of the area is open to speculation; i.e . no very long range plans currently exist . - 10 a - QUESTION 8 8) Because of the angle of the first intersection to the north of the proposed site, it would seem that truck activity of the kind proposed would increase the probability of accidents . What would the effect of angled streets be on accident probability? What is the present accideni; rate at the intersections of Co. 83 and 16; Co . 83 and Hwy . 101 ; and Co . 83 and Co . 42? What would the projected accident rate be with the additional traffic being proposed? Whatu d the proposed traffic have on property values? What adverse effect would the proposed traffic have on persons living or using the present roads? RESPONSE ON PAGES) Ila, ilb, 11c, lld - 11 - RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 8 BY: HOWARD ROSENiNINKEL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT DANIEL M. JOBE SCOTT COUNTY ASSISTANT COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER SEE PAGE 11b, 11c, lid FOR REPORTED ACCIDENTS AND DAILY TRAFFIC STUDY. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OCT 8, 1981. THE EFFECT THAT THE PROPOSED TRAFFIC WOULD HAVE ON PROPERTY VALUES WOULD BE SPECULATION. THE ADVERSE EFFECT FOR PERSONS. LIVING ON OR USING THE PRESENT ROADS WOULD BE SPECULATION, - 11 a - oZ. COUNTY ROAD 83 ACCIDENT HISTORY Milepoint 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 Total CSAH 12 2.97 1 - - - - 1 CSAH 16 5018 - lb la lb lb Ind TH 101 * 6068 - - at - - 2 TOTAL 1 1 3 1 1 7d (6 mo) @ould be others at TH lel and CO RD 83 that would be listed by the Minnesota Department of Transportion. This information is being obtained. a = one vehicle accident 61. = two vehicle rt angle accident = these were one vehicle accidents and just before intersection d = total of one and two vehicle accidents DATA FURNISHED BY: SCOTT COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPART= - 11 b - i N1 �• O. HENNE PIN �,.M'"°Iiii® 011\ ^k .171 al atm�ucc -_ ••+•igi I TIES r 1', Fa..nun n NA.[Su v. I ': ---Aiititim-- -- ••yi.•— - _512 5 _ - 1 '.� l L - ;' �J 1 1111.110Mt ILMI 1 �- 3 t.0 y w : -1m1- .- 7�.t-,... • .`e , .i. II �..Q !TS w wFia o• , ','s F n w poslo • ; \ -4,..7-4-( to .Y,1 's�q•9F�. • i•z .,-„, 1p..., i 1 �4C`- ''�' / _- `". - 'i' - -- - L� \ \'` _►� - �� -H - -�' __•_IS1mow." Il .S +� e_�" 7 • Pf -( 9 '1; a1 t/; ! -, ' 'lin , --..t .-'-`--. ‘c.-•--1,-. �`$3.7 .-1-'--1,-.-.27-'5.--. '''.` ' ••Imp • w i /�/ • ••• 4(o YIL .• \ .: \ r �/:`` :1� �.. - 513 na E \� ,� .„:,:__.,._ ..._::::,_._._._:.\.,. O(►IN •a' • q •1- ���v ^Y ;pC �`' - l• I /Sf��C57�'- /t/ 74-1,1-1.:-.74;-.:1,-.=-,-, r---•• ••-•1 • ..1 • 741T) 3n1 17 , :;.(• 5i ' . -\ (70' �, m �,SD r0E1_4` ` s Z_. x59 / <I) i,7 \ ! ;' Ch, �5 6,3� " m`Z I`2t)• 1 x_ l�I's ( q1'.-`04/ I ! 1 �•0 -: - 1,, Ikes7 \ SHAK OPE' � _ \ `:`'>;� ,a�1 L�15� � ,11 d` 7 77. I '•• _. Z�; • r ' •\ / ;`7M p I I ', 1 -/7n��34(�;l \ 9Ib 111 _ 3fo-�Clo13 • ��\o \\\\\\\.\ \;\ \rc: [� SAVAGE(4i) ff =y wnwa a s• 2�i•,f_s+ I • OD(' r%ii/' 3i%`/r i iia . ->,=- �7� �_ 7 1 CSI: 9 =► %/l tir an,,' / • ---c �� -- ` C\�;N.. • \ � re,� p, �rrti= �(' � n \it /439�a ?.�41�4 �\ % �'-P -. i� • -2Z Y• , \'' J S 1 ."s. 3 'lel � �_ <\ r A -- 1.. :-- E —_ �= _-= = F'"�> � C�•°�\ /5/ (5!z-) Slu) • k4L� ` 1 = �� -V:7 a�7q -f1:_ 4.7 fy4i,u%. • "av / _=- l ir% cm. Z��� >♦'S Y 1 ,, \ II -.......t.-"•"(4'=,i ���� �� �� PRIORS 1LAKE_ 1 I. �•c. 1\1C a9 {�\} g r m'1 -lE \ •/ttb'� /`tet• \ �® =r.o, tom. +` :41.'fr::;7A-..,,,..):.15-- ' " C41z9� ^ r e9z i \?✓////'i g:9i��'1 1 — "�° per_ )t,� _J `\ .•m::::)�• •0 c =4� • '. Zal�l , - t 1l9/ Cw4° _• a"7sv.rh> ` - _ 1"L.)-� • '' ' \ 3TO�� .`a, / (v �I B. '1l� �; .t, h. �\�\���;��\a\ .0 \ Lim `—_ = ....... ....7::::: > ' _ ' ,u-•:, % . , �, 77(JLL) /c) art • r /I>\' 4 • ....pp., • /IV(•. :�.1._ -7. ••-,-...sr--. +� ••I .t - AI..Thr . "...v \.!— - -2.-_l+ u c ,.wif ,,\\�\. \\ \\\\\\-` ••.• � y, I • -:!a • 'rte•,+. _ a + -rr1....wvww., ` ' •AA 1• \\ ' q=.,•'••.�=Lr _� \.\. I ks f �•E ' , ;Mt..U1 nn. ■a..1.. .:;. '1 . ...:.4....... -kRe-4 -'-'-'s14. • "i$';MO' 4,/ - e-�� • . \'' , � f•• " • m .A..: L. t • .1 _ 2 _i •, f $- �� -swce •• - • i- C) ( ' I• t•—� ''\.• 1'.w'——\ , -, 1 . • i :1010... •••• r• • •\• I I /• X11 Q i'1 CD ' .1 •) I .1 �`\ E (// -CT E D '1 ? . +R. I V E i:R 1 '"",,- --41L". .��. 17 I -is I 1 _ 1 \ , - • ¶-• - -_`_• 1 3. EK 4.-,3 • 1(K ; - 'N..f 1 I, \� F 1: 4 _____ _2 ,.- 1`�- ��f /'� I --•� ' QQ 'tPj [ .{.� /' 1 AGZ�a 1 n4-S 1 A�e..� i n I {C 1 iJ y ✓ 1 I •n It 7 • ?viva v 6 r`I--,,�+ CAI �jk0 Wn afe_ aV....Ca9G -co C 48 '\o...P - A f`C C.o r��/4) J 7-11'5 43 -r-,,rni3k 174 4-1‘1. 5e.4 6 4.7 / X7 DZpd ifhc.n�/'` L7y( UBniel 'v\• �1 CbC_i/P . /¢55si- A-jv\f5 Co....nC7 T�gkway Stilai-r`meA+. - I1C - ( \J- • 1 • Flying Cloud z Airport EDEN PRAIRIE - JB a LI (M. A. C;) 1975 POP 9,109 ii N_,_, Z L J W IC m . go to T116N R22w 0 o 27126 't o 1I r,n ! RIVER VIEW RD. 34 35 W BuRR4 RIDG j o= <UffS C PEN 114- , n��� Crfrp '°4 c,oss ��� �1 '" Mir' 1 �,,,- fR z ;__ '-�1 �' Lake )11 I �� �/c L'fw r /�_�` \ \\\ e EN��p/IV �'R <�� ll I i CETT . ji il -/-\,,., Minnesota• -, .\"\\\\ \ -�_!!% T116NR22W \\�, James w mike fs / B/ue ' . Regional Pork \ River _ �j� sa 35 ///' Lake � _- f7iv 3/1152N 2 1 1 T115N ) V A � r �`�R22 j;) \\\ /._ ,� i /'✓ J ,��f�, �U' ' 1 Fist lol „— _ T E. S g4LLfY Nom , /l J` - Iv4L(fr o B�i.D, YC a , T115NR22W S. ¢ hp2I 1 4 Ry II 12 TI 15N R22W 41 3 \ 9 10 L J J Q 1 �i SHAKOPEE � ffh,5 '1970 POP 7, 3S �� da d 7✓Arn15k1 to 16) �. -I- -�- 4-7 gkwa �U�� 7c / \ -" ti, TI!SNR22w G .� .�-,. tip ii ,, 'oh, bd cl NI. IPS . — it b 11T EAGLE CRffk peon �/1.5:S`1-2/A unTy 4.{�wJr g.„4 i,tee '. L _� 83 Oke — j Seo An„a t Av`('agr'. -,.-,.. i---.........E u.o,TEC.TC (� J DR! = ©s ly , ra \(,c. ," I/ (Act,1-,4 I'-e1 Mrt CI\1 � — 11 d - s Y � - QUESTION 9 9) There is no showing that existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected because of curtailment of customer trade ; more exactly, the stable operations immediately to the north and south of the proposed site . What would the impact be on businesses or future bussinesses because of the traffic and other adverse effects? RESPONSE ON PAGE(S) 12a 12 RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 9 BY: EUGENE ROSENWINKEL REALTOR/PROPERTY CONSULTANT GENERALLY, INCREASED TRAFFIC CREATES MORE BUSI,NESS AND DOES NOT CURTAIL BUSINESS TRADE. OTHER ADVERSE EFFECTS SUCH AS DUST, NOISE, ETC WTTT, BE CONTROLLED BY ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS. QUESTION to 10) The Shiely Quarry, located in Savage , presently has a permit for pumping 2 .6 billion gallons of water annually from their mining operation . This resultsin a drop in the water table of the Jordan Aquifer. What is the effect of this lowered water table on the quarry site? How would this change the applicant 's proposed operation? RESPONSE ON PAGE(S) 13a, 13b, 13c, 13d, 13e, 13f - 13 - RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 10 BY: HOWARD ROSENWINKEL ENGI.NERING CONSULTANT SHEILY CASE STUDY BY: DETINIS R. BEISSEL AND DAVID R. FORD DIVISION OF WATERS, DNR ACCORDING TO THE CASE STUDY ON PAGES ]3b, I3c, 13d, 13e AND 13f AND THE WATER LEVEL HYDROGRAPH ON PAGE 13e, THE BEDROCK WELL IN THE PRAIRIE DU CHIEF-JORDAN AQUIFER (SHOWN AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE) KNOWN AS THE HAWORTH DOMESTIC WELL HAD A DRAWDOWN IN THE WATER TABLE FROM EL 7314.5 FEET TO a 72905 FEET (5 FEET). THIS. WELL IS. ABOUT A NILE FROM THE PROPOSED MINING SITE. WATER TABLES IN THE WELLS IN THE AREA. OF THE SITE ARE ABOUT EL 7110.0 FSP AND THIS LEVEL IS ABOUT 10 to 15 FEET BELOW THE BEDROCK LEVEL IN THE PLATTED MINING AREA. IF THE 5 Fes' DRAWDOWN IN THE WATER TABLE RISES VEEN SHIILY DOES NOT' PUMP, THEN THE PLANNED MINING AREA WOULD STILL HAVE ME WATER TABLE 5 to 10 FEET BELOW THE. BEDROCK. MIS STUDY INDICATES THAT THE APPLICANT WTT,T, NOT NEED TO CHANGE ITS PROPOSED OPERATION AND PLAN. - 13 - RECEi ED - 1 1931 1981 International Symposium on Urban Hydrology,Hydraulics,and Sediment Control (University of Kentucky,Lexington,Kentucky—July 27.30,1981) RFA/ MEC HYDROLOGIC EFFECTS OF QUARRY DEWATERING ON DEAN LAKE, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA - A CASE STUDY Dennis R. Beissel and David R. Ford Ground Water and Lake Hydrologists Division of Waters, Minnesota DNR St. Paul, MN 55101 Abstract. An investigation, pursuant to a public hearing, into allegations that the dewatering of a dolomite quarry has resulted in unnaturally low water levels in a shallow water table lake was conducted from November, 1979 through July, 1980. Comparisons of quarry, lake and well hydrographs yielded defi- nite relationships between lake and shallow sand water levels and definite relationships between quarry and bedrock water levels. No relationship was observed between changes in bed- rock and shallow sand water levels. At the public hearing held in August, 1980, it was concluded that no relationship could be observed between fluctuating quarry water levels and lake levels. Introduction Dean Lake Dean Lake is located within the corporate limits Dean Lake has a surface area of 80 acres (32 of the City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota, hectares) at elevation 745 feet NGVD and an at the southwestern fringe of the Twin Cities effective drainage area of 900 acres (360 hectares). Metropolitan area (T115N, R22W, Section 10, 14, The average annual precipitation at the lake is 26 15) (Figure 1). Because the area has seen signi- inches (660 mm) and the average annual evaporation ficant expansion of industry, commerce, and is 31 inches (787 mm). The predominant watershed housing since the 1960's the need for increased soils are fine sands. Land use within the watershed monitoring of the effects of continued develop- is primarily agricultural with some residential. ment on water resources, especially ground water, has been recognized. Residents in the area are The watershed to lake area ratio of 11:1 and the concerned about the possibility of detrimental watershed soil characteristics indicate surface effects on their domestic ground water supplies runoff volumes are only marginally adequate to and the decline of aesthetic and recreational maintain lake levels. The lake has overflowed values of area streams and lakes. In this con- into its outlet channel only during very wet text, local perception was that dewatering of a dolomite quarry near Dean Lake was the cause of declining water levels in the lake and lower ground water levels in area wells. The dolomite mined at the quarry is crushed into powder and used by roofing manufacturers as mineral filler to a replace oil in asphalt shingles. a �� Quarry , The quarry is located one mile (1.6 kilometers) north of Dean Lake, and is approximately half the distance between the lake and the Minnesota River (Figure 2). The quarry floor is maintained at an minnesoia _ approximate elevation of 680 feet National Geodetic DEAN ' Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD1 at a total depth of LAKE 50 feet (15.2 m). The quarry dewatering operation began in 1967 under the auspices of a Minnesota • Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) permit limit- Scott County ing the quarry's annual dewatering volume to 1.8 x 109 gallons (6.8 x 106 cubic meters). An amendment to the dewatering permit increasing the total annual dewatering volume to 2.5 x 109 gallons (9.4 x 106 cubic meters) was granted by MDNR in 1979. The issuance of the amendment, coupled with continued local complaints alleging that dropping Dean Lake levels were due to quarry dewatering, resulted in the City of Shakopee requesting a public hearing FIGURE 1. Location of Dean Lake, Scott County. be held on the amendment. Minnesota. —426-- 13 b - G,... ✓I`r sq-----!'l •'s-,. ,'"' ;,-.'4 bedrock observation well which they installed. In �� 3� 35 T, addition, the quarry dewatering was voluntarily G^ /i , -------.,- , suspended from December 1979 to March 1980 so water '^' '' \ .n .---,==-:_41: level recovery and subsequent drawdowns could be % ti�7. -�'+, measured. The MDNR installed six new observation �� FLOODPL,J = ` �• wells, -measured several other existing wells, and � coordinated the overall data collection activity —�'�� — 7777N _ zt� '^- in the area. 2 'a, In total, the observation well network consisted � __ ' of fifteen bedrock wells, seven shallow sand wells, r "�. and one each in the upper terrace and N-S bedrock '__, : .1:7-1:7711. kit� k "` �� channel. All of the wells were measured at least i �� °� ' weekly. Periodic meetings were held to exchange 71. (�Q ' :� °w. data and to report on progress of the investigation. f J on a I� v "A` Lai:24 y� V', WE' Y� IL� O" ,-,:.-,j:-,,,,., Geologic Setting 75R` r_ '�f) to J n !7,. ?. '� .t The site of this study is in the Minnesota River �• f '' D6 eo Valley which contains the channel and associated 6I ,< .:„-::7,--9--i.- k✓ o p deposits of the Glacial River Warren, a major ° 'aU �9.j' outlet for Glacial Lake Agassiz. An upper out- L'"" - C wash terrace corn osed rimaril of sand and gravel t "•,.)2Z , •):::. deposits at least sixty-five feet (20 meters thic f �� extends one-half (0.8 km) to one andone hlfm4 km southof the lake whre if¢ c)UPPER TRRACE o -••> `3 , 'te . . deposits composed of glacial�._ `/ 3"t`r ,- + ' Dean Lake itself is located within a former meander S1 � •A channel on a lower alluvial terrace composed of .21:)--7------ \; ' �— sand from 0 to 30 feet (0 to 9 meters) thick. The ' -� r'� •�` ���^ � s; quarry is also located on this lower terrace. The Fr $ ,.*:‘,1-.,• ..,-7,.-,,_-_,•; topography of this lower terrace is characterized ` ‹.---s-, ` -r u �'•• t'' '' Sby minor sand dunes interspersed with numerous FIGURE 2. General Location and Geology of Dean shallow depressions partially filled by more re- Lake Area. cent silt, clay and organic deposits. The glacial and alluvial deposits are underlain by periods and most surface runoff to the lake is Paleozoic dolomite and sandstone units of Cambro- overland flow. The lake outlets in a northerly Ordovician age (Figure 3). The Prairie du Chien direction through a marshy area in the southeast Group is the uppermost bedrock unit encountered corner of Section 10 (Figure 2). The outflow and consists of two formations; the Oneota Dolomite channel passes the west edge of the quarry pro- and the Shakopee Formation (Mossier, 1972). Both perty, where water from the quarry is discharged, formations are highly fractured and chiefly com- and eventually flows into Blue Lake on the Minnesota posed of finely crystalline dolomite interbedded River floodplain. with quartzitic sandstone. Data Collection Program Underlying the Prairie du Chien Group is the Jordan Sandstone, a fine to coarse grained quartz sandstone After initial field investigations were completed, of Cambrian age which has a thickness of 85 to 100 historical data were collected in an attempt to feet (26 to 30 meters) in the Twin City Area.1 define the pre-dewatering relationship between lake and ground water levels. Existing records of Hydrogeology lake levels, precipitation, ground water levels and flowing spring discharge were compiled and The Prairie du Chien Group and Jordan Sandstone analyzed. Where time of record overlapped, com- are considered one hydrogeologic unit or aquifer parisons were made between quarry pumping and the hydrologic data collected to determine what re- lationships may exist. Nine estimates of lake a a' levels from aerial photographs dating back to 1937 -N«=a Sw, were made to aid in the comparisons. After this ..- -+,. phase of the study, it was concluded that suffi- cient data were not available to establish what ,. _„P effects, if any, the dewatering had on lake levels. �`°'` �c" Dsan aaM ins LW Ow = Therefore, at a prehearing conference in November . I of 1979,the City of Shakopee, quarry owners, and -/A'�� MDNR staff agreed to initiate a cooperative data P.a.»aIIIII,. Grotto �8 collection and monitoring program. Each party was Sb »^• c assigned to collect certain data over a nine month W =a .> period. The City of Shakopee, through a citizen's ' k °s committee, established a rain gage near Dean Lake "° and read water levels of the lake and several pri- vate wells. The quarry operators recorded daily quarry discharge, water levels in the pit, and a FIGURE 3. General Cross-Section in Dean Lake Area. -42a. — 13 c — and are generally referred to as "Prairie du local flow system receiving recharge from the Chien-Jordan". Water in the Prairie du Chien- upper terrace area to the south. The local sys- Jordan generally occurs under water table condi- tem is very sensitive to climatic conditions. tions in the study area and moves from south to north towards the Minnesota River Valley. The Results and Conclusions river valley is a discharge area for the aquifer, Comparison of recorded and estimated lake levels as evidenced by springs and seeps in the valley floor and walls. Two major bedrock channels with precipitation for the period 1937 to 1980 gen- eroded through the Prairie du Chien-Jordan serve showed lake levels above elevation 745 feet as hydraulic as well as erally occurred during or after years of above y geologic boundaries. One average precipitation and that levels below 745 channel trends west-east beneath the present River floodplain and is filled with feet occurred during years of below normal pre- Minnesotaglaciofluvial and alluvial deposits. The other cipitation. The exception to this was the level channel runs SW-NE along a line east of Dean Lake of 743 feet estimated for 1978 as above average towards Fisher Lake where it merges with the west- precipitation was recorded in 1977 and 1978. Lake east channel (Figure 4). The second channel is levels recorded during the monitoring period res- also filled with glacial and alluvial deposits. ponded to precipitation as would be expected Ground water in the bedrock aquifer moves towards (Figure 5). An increase in level occurred due to the Minnesota River under a gradient of approxi- the snowmelt of February and March, 1980, followed mately thirteen feet per mile (0.0025). When the by a slight drop in levels through the third week quarry is being dewatered, the gradient increases in May due to less than normal precipitation. Pre- to 21 feet per mile (.0040) from south to north cipitation in late May and early June caused lake towards the quarry and flow is reversed, north to level increases which were followed by generally south, from the floodplain to the quarry. The decreasing levels through the remainder of the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer is part of the summer. The above normal precipitation of August regional aquifer system, and September was only sufficient to replenish the depleted soil moisture and did not result in Ground water occurs under water table conditions levels rising above the bottom of the lake gage in the shallow sands above the bedrock and moves (elegy•-tion 744). The precipitation-lake level toward the Minnesota River floodplain at a grad- relationship did not change as a result of the ient of approximately 17 feet per mile (0.0032). quarry dewatering operation. The gradient in the shallow water table did not change in response to quarry dewatering. Water Also shown on Figure 5 are hydrographs from four levels in wells finished in the sand are from wells. Due to its location, the quarry bedrock six to twenty-three feet (2 to 7 meters) higher observation well (115.22.11 bbc) hydrograph re- than those in adjacent bedrock wells. The fleets levels which are indicative of quarry water shallow water table in the sand represents a levels. Shown are the rise in levels resulting from cessation of dewatering in early November, 1979 and the drawdown, beginning in late March, c•••• I -,1_,__, _._,,, !,`.,a, .e•,,".r -.F, resulting from the resumption of the dewatering �.• ., �i �i^••.+.� ,L activities. This rise and drawdown and similar f��-� �- . ' short-term variations are also evident in the �'`/�1\ \1,... bedrock well (115.22.15 baa) located near Dean 1! Lake. Similar fluctuations are not evident in r ?�/�1{J \ !�^`� A either the shallow sand (115.22.11 bba) well near BEDRUGK GPAN�IE the quarry or the shallow sand well (115.22.15 aa) `C^ near Dean Lake. Thegeneral decline in the shallow *� T_ 1 ^�' �• sand wells beginning n late June was similar to i B : i, \• declines in shallow wells throughout much of the �,,� St to 2 + �-' '".1 .+,`' � The effect of the quarry dewatering was observed w d•s.ApR in all bedrock wells within a radius of 11 miles U .. -+ 71: y (2.4 kilometers) from the quarry. The dewatering �l •�J p ,* S# Q� was not evident in the shallow sand wells. Basedr Lha h on data from the relatively short-term monitoring ,o ' a t/ i�ie ',� '2 •. program it appears that the shallow sand aquifer ~ ,.___ oro l / Z•1§, �• 1 and bedrock (Dolomite) aquifer function as separate r „C) I ., 4-----7--4)-Q/�c . 0o p , systems. \Y • Although it is reasonable to assume that water .. �4 �a�Y .1 moves from the shallow sand aquifer to the bedrock � aquifer, the available data were insufficient to 10 G L 5 •- c Y �{- x provide direct evidence of this movement. However, i , ���` 0 ``,• '13 the data do support the following conclusion: For — �� _'_� the range of heads observed in the bedrock system, '' ")'" -r- 1- -r levels in the sand aquifer are not maintained or *Bedrock Well influenced by those of the bedrock aquifer. Re- - •Glacial Drift Well .R alining that a longer monitoring period would add � i--t-• ' a r ,)1,I /.: •Z additional insight into relationships between the 1 = rVrC• ; two aquifer systems, the monitoring program has u `' 1..' • been continued. FIGURE 4. Monitoring Wells & Location of Bedrock The public hearing was held in August, 1980. Channels. Testimony of experts from each of the three - 13 d - c' ti R1111061. OCT 79 NOV 79 DEC 79 JAN 80 FEB 80 MAR 80 APR 80 MAY 80 JUN 80 JUL 80 AUG 80 SEP 80 OCT 80 P .. lti HAWORTH DOMESTIC WELL h 115.22.15 baa PRAIRIE DU CHIEN-JORDAN a LSO=762.2'above MSL SOUTH EDGE of DEAN LAKE t735 735 74 111111R�iIiGIIill11�/ Will •�1 ,� s ;;� 11■111�11111 11 ■■11 IIs1�111i�i�11■�"�■��' ■"" 11111 �2 731 1I•iiUuIIIIIIuIIIl■■�i iiiIlIIull 11111111W 111�11:1S11II1II 130 ti 730 DNR OR WELL N0.1 115.22.15 aaa SHALLOW SAND LSD=749.6'above MSL NE EDGE of DEAN LAKE • 745 >. OO 744741II 1 IP!UIIIP■II7„ 742 742 741 1 741 PPP 740 740 s o o T • .. , .n f �.�, f.�.T�ilr�, . 0 a 11 _ 1 1 rF [ F' 2 MONTNLY� 2 2 C W pactwl t.2 29 5. 91 1M 0.90 226 3.55 3.92 5.45 51 121 j pp 3-�npn,. 1.37 ..17 •.62 1.67 2102 .411 i64 3.83-`' 1.5 2.73 189 y5y aZ I I I III I I I I PRECIPITATIONII I I I I I I a fTIIL ' 1 Y o OCT 79 NOV 79 DEC 79 JAN 80 FEB 80 MAR 80 APR 80 MAY 80 JUN 80 JUL80 AUG 80 SEP 80 OCT 80 DEALAKE . DEED Zi 745'•,,,,'t","�"„t" "' DEA LAKE WATER LEV L IIII■',"■1",■""■„1"7as 4 1■111111 LII 11111!111■IIII :1111.111111111ia1!11111111■1111 1111■11111 Z 7,511111111111111111111111m111 a9111 1AE1 'niiiii 1 i� 111 1 11 111i1O1111111 11 11111'°4 a;4 IIIIIIIIIIII�111�11IIMI boIv- IIIIIIPIliI1!un!. .. ■ . ■ ..I.MM... .IL.. ....1743 x ,TIN •cf:6/Wtii. sa.4:>,2 .i.:: •. • Mwsvm eawm 4WM164 iiiii wriffiNl..r%:n..S girm666W ikr iiSl:: i L., ,..:Ld ....:61 '',42 ( T DNR OB WELL N0.5s 115.22.11 bba SHALLOW SAND LSD=746.1'above MSL I NEAR SHIELY BEDROCK WELL :MI 111 111111111 1111111 10!!".11"11 L " 49.11I11111111i■11111 1t h ,111 1111111 1111 1 11 1111 1 �1 1111 11111jjfljjjjI*.u. . 1Ii .:!l n4 11 1111 11 111111 ii in 11"1111"1 11II11 7n11 . SHIELY OBSERVATION WELL . 72 115.22.11 bbc ■ PRAIRIE DU CHIEN 1 111111 III 1111 1111 1 1 1 i■11 1■11 1 1111/722 7221. LSD=751.15'a boveMSL111111111■III ■'III�1111�1111 1111■1111■11 1.11111 71111191PP"Iiiiiiii5110111 NEAR QUARRY III■11 1 1111 IIII i11■1111■IIIIIi2O 1111 11 1111�i1111111�11111:714'1i■1i 11i1i 11111 11 u11o11111111■i11i :71a , �!!1 �!! �1 ■111 III IIII■Illi■11 1■11111,0.1111111 1��1l1111l1! ii Boa ► 11ii1111i1 uii111u1111111 � 1 11111111111111111111 : 1 7oa1■11�i � �. . �p DEED 1111 111111 111111 1 i■111!■ 1 11 1111 .!.:1111■1 1 AA'ro2 700111111 I1111111I111111II III III 1I1 ■ 111■1111=1 11■1111.1111■11111T 0 ' OCT 79 NOV 79 DEC 79 JAN 80 FEB 80 MAR 80 APR 80 MAY 80 JUN 80 JUL 80 AUG 80 SEP 80 OCT 80 '. FIGURE 5. Water Level Hydrographs& Precipitation Data for the Dean Lake Area. • — 13 e - parties indicated that the quarry dewatering has no References effect on Dean Lake levels. It was recommended that the monitoring program be continued and data re- 1. Mossier, J., 1972. Paleozoic Structure and viewed periodically to see if a long-term relation- Stratigraphy of the Twin City Region. In: ship could be established. Geology of Minnesota: A Centennial Volume, 1972, P. K. Sims and G. B. Morey, editors. The cooperative monitoring and data exchange program Minnesota Geological Survey, P. 485-497. was a successful exercise of citizen participation. It served to keep the adversary hearing process 2. U.S. Geological Survey, 1980. Monthly Water orderly and efficient and it enabled all sides to Resources Review - July, 1980. U.S. Geological focus clearly on the issues of concern. Survey, St. Paul Distrct. -A2a- - 13 f - QU .ST ION 11 11) The Planner' s suggestion that "recreation or industrial land uses seem most logical" would certainly change land use even further from agriculture than is evident at this time . Certainly, a sufficient amount of city land is currently zoned industrial. How is the land to be reclaimed? What will guarantee that reclamation is 'carried out after applicants are finished with thiir extraction? A deep depression, merely seeded over with grass does not seem to be an acceptable solution . Water sitting therein would certainly be a health hazard and cause for possible contamination of underground waters . What specific plans are being made for reclamation? R1SPONISE ON PAGES) 11.ta, 1.14b • RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. Tl BY: HOWARD ROSENWINKEL ENGINEERLNG CONSULTANT BRUCE BRODT PLANNING AND ENGINEERING MPCA ( CONSULTANT TO QUESTION) JOHN M MENTER HENNINGSON, DURHAM & RICHARDSON ( SEE PAGE IIt b ) THE LAND IS PLANNED TO BE RECLAIMED BY A PHASED " DEMOLITION LANDFILL " PLAIT, WHICH WOULD RESTORE THE LAND TO ITS ORIGINAL TOPOGRAPHY. THE LAND WOULD THEN REVERT BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL USE AS CROPLAND A XD VSETATION. A BCS, WILL BE. REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE TO GUARANTEE RECLAMATION« A DEM) DEPRESSION RECLAMATION PLAN IS A ALTERNATE PLAN AS STATED IN THE " FINAL LAND USE " SECTION OF THE " PLAN FOR MINERAL EYTRACTION ". RECAUSE THE SITE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS A POTENTIAL SITE IN THE SCOTT COUNTY LANDFILL INVENTORY BY THE SCOTT COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, A. APPLICATION FOR A " DEMOLITION LANDFILL " PERMIT IS BEING PREPARED AND WITS, BE SUBMITTED CONTINGENT ON THE MINING PERMIT. - 114 a - May 29, 1981 Mr. Howard Rosenwinkel 105 Elm Street Chaska, Minnesota 55318 Dear Mr. Rosenwinkel : This letter is in regard to the proposed gravel mining operation at the Eagle Creek site southeast of Shakopee in sections 16 and 17, T115N, R22W. I is my understanding that the anticipated future Land Use Plan is to utilize the excavated site as a landfill to restore the area to its original topography. This property has been volunteered as a candidate site to the Scott County landfill inventory and could be a potential site if the gravel mining operation were to proceed as planned. The property would be better suited for a demolition landfill site than a sanitary landfill . The final land use could range from agricultural to industrial usage. The main environmental concern with this site is the protection of ground- waters underlying the site. The bottom of the proposed excavation is approximately five feet from the groundwater table. The sand and gravel which underlie the site may not provide adequate protection of the groundwater. If a sanitary landfill were considered, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency would likely require a liner and leachate collection system. If a demolition landfill were planned, a layer of clay may be necessary to provide protection of the groundwater. If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, HENNINGSP , DURHAM & RICHARDSON ;;7v7 / i 4 n M. Menter, PE Alexandria Atlanta Austin Consultants to the Scott County Solid Waste Advisory Committee Charlotte Chicago JMM/mta Dallas Denver Helena Houston Knoxville Minneapolis Norfolk Omaha Pensacola Phoenix Santa Barbara Seattle Washington, D.C. QUESTION is 12) Sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Metropolitan Council 's Development Guide, prepared under the authority of Chapter 896 of the 1967 Session Laws , are cited below: 19 . Major recharge areas , general Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer sub-crop areas , should be mapped and included in county and municipal comprehensive plans for protection and/or management . 20 . Counties and municipalities should not allow alterations of recharge areas which would negatively affect infiltration of water into or divert the flow of surface water from recharge areas . 21. Subdivision and zoning regulations should keep impervious covering over recharge areas to an acceptable minimum. 22 . When development is proposed within designated recharge areas, counties and municipalities shall estailish that there will not be a detrimental affect on the quality or quantity of groundwater. What are the plans for protection and management of the Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aquifer? Can the applicant state that there will not be an alteration of recharge areas which would negatively affect infiltration of water into or divert the flow of surface water from recharge areas? Has there been a determination that there will not be a detrimental affect on the quality or quantity of groundwater? REPONSE ON PAGE(S) 15a - 15 - 02- RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 12 BY: HOWARD ROSENWINKF..,L ENGINEERING CONSULTANT GARY OBERTS PLANNING DEPARTMENT METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ( CONSULTANT TO QUESTION ) SECTIONS 19, 20, 21, 22, CHAPTER 896 OF THE 1967 SESSION LAW IS NO LONGER EFFECTIVE. A NEW CHAPTER 1j73 HAS BEEN IMPLE:ENTED AND PLACES SIMILAR SECTIONS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY AND STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. THESE SECTIONS ARE ALSO ADDRESSED WHEN FILING A ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) THRU THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD. THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT RECEIVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS A RESULT OF FTT.TNG AN EAW ON THE PROPOSED PLAN IN MAY 1981. - 15al - 02 QUESTION 13 13) In the event a permit is granted, what assurances do the citizens of Shakopee have that conditions placed thereon will be monitered on a continual basis? What measures are to be taken for accountability? What does the city of Shakopee expect to realiza in the way of tangible or intangible benefits from the granting of this permit? What are the criteria to be applied in renewal or extending the permit? Respe,cfully submitted, • ROBER TA SCHNEIDER rs P.-PONSE ON PAGE(S) 16 a - 16 - RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 13 BY: Don Steger City Planner The site obviously cannot be monitored on a continual basis . Spot checks will be made. Spot checks will be made, as is done with all other land uses in the City. If violations occur, corrections will be required or the Conditional Use Permit may be revoked and the operation ceased. As in all developments , an increase in tax revenues will result . The operation will be reviewed as to compliance with the limiting conditions placed on the Conditional Use Permit when originally approved. Also, any changes in the operation will be considered. - 16 a - ATTACHMENT "C" Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) AND NOTICE OF FINDINGS DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE E.R. # NOTE: The purpose of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is to provide . information on a project so that one can assess rapidly whether or not the project requires an Environmental Impact Statement. Attach additional pages, charts, maps, etc, as needed to answer these questions. Your • answers should be as specific as possible. Indicate which answers are estimated. I. SUMMARY A. ACTIVITY FINDING BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY (PERSON) ( ,Negative Declaration (No EIS) u EIS Preparation Notice (EIS Required) B. ACTIVITY IDENTIFICATION 1. Project name or titieCa MERCIAL SAND & GRAVEL MINE 2. Project proposer (s) SCOTT COUNTY LUMBER CO. ,INC, & BERT NOTERMANN &/orNdMINEES Address SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA Telephone Number and Area Code ( 612) 445 - 4049 or 448 - 2838 3. Responsible Agency or Person CITY OF SHAKOPEE Address 129 East First Ave CITY HALL SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Person in Responsible Agency (Person) to contact for further information on this EAW: DON STEGER Telephone 445 . 3650 4. This EAW and other supporting documentation are available for public in- spection and/or copying at: Location CITY HALL SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Telephone 445 - 3650 Hours 8;00 to 4::30 5. Reason for EAW Preparation (--) Mandatory Category -cite [ }Petition X Other MEQB Rule number(s) ll 1J COUNCIL REQUEST C. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION SUMMARY 1. Project location • County SCOTT 4/OTownship name CITY OF SHAKOPEE • Township number 115 (North) , Range Number 22 East or ft (circle one) , Section number(s) 16 & 17 Street address (if in city) or legal description: SEE PROPERTY SURVEY MAP IN " PLAN AND REPORT FOR MINERAL EXTRACTION " WHICH COMPRISES OF 130,73 ACRES. • - 1 - 1 N RTLI I Y UI- S1 IAKOPEE G I ' P�Rr CITY OF PRIOR LAKE T 115- 116 N._ R2 W :BLUE'- ' LA E ' HENN£P/N COUNTY g7 PARK T. .v°rA RESERV �. //6 alt.' so - a -''��. Ply R i" �1L � ,�. e/J 9s '1----, S�sa • ►% m Nut s«'efy,4411:111k - i H A K O P r,n ff''/ - />e•vnef,n BLUE L. Yenncp,n ' 1 ft„h -.:./poop-- Pea.ef Co ga/ie •9rk lire R sty.._ 14146. i,-� Co P4 Nea �,7 �� -d W. R. ,• sssf 'y Dar ' _ s„ Cour Pk m ,6ess/e L.Co. ac`,, Ytyr_. e9 •,r>rrct FISHER T. E 1 �� r: f /so♦ SZ. ova -•'.. wa. �. tro sJ7/ +sJ _ • .IJ s ,c s.!'p c i.,... am.rtls Merropo/fan • Iel N. JaNH1 3 1 Sewu Z `• �s r / / '+ era/ �JoA tTcsevh J ( _.: w Board /� o .. • Kasbo r,c/i ‘1114 4 ,ems r 4p eu Rye.. f1° '1 C y y7 i °. . J' _ /eC we.. ` AC.iTrr`N 90 `I ca.o.1'.4'1, bt,g4tY`C� . n'. .7 • >/rsb sss Sh e/u 3� a��� c.14 i�'s r ,mom *ice �1 � L. 1 m. a9s r �J Cam JO 74 r \ `d ,:t , y, w Jf'�ros o JL m 30� _ J9t,! Sco»/ rd _Inc. f1 s�ShieyPCc /s9r7 EP '•"°4-.'... 'Xa '=�'ccpce 4�n„�/ P e ` 477 4YDS ,/Vcifhern Ilk `�1 is s mG a n 4 • D'-,'; Fig -- �S ., c$•/ares Powe. e1uY • ®1 k r, . { /43•> ��.. ons • ��• <y r •+.�n<u: ' __ 1i-/O - / '`3, 682-'-' ••, /�rq rJ s j I ScYc-/f/and._Znc. /e° ! Ma�r•7um Land .may Sc.///and, .:.. -•-..-., y s`'t� Corp J W • P noose _The26:161.., ES,41� ` <--r est t 9 ,6 • r3'be,t fr s • Gcr SoP FS•rrr 9 s``.w , % '�� W Rca/anaer ,os .1 s n, .,,,,,:r" FHB/- > S Nc- 44EA .S/ar Res �--s v) /Me/a/ • y 4O J9 ► '' •C;w;. IF To`4rT�r, ; L. _ c pee. Op Fm arc,_ r--- �6 J79� Ig. .. - ._ 7-4R /Go a IjScc-Y/and, /B b C c �=�} I,r,.ry/ • . I tio/ Ltcs,n c^ TSG Sne oa. da `:. I J`'Co/f/n.�t Inc, F� lc al .9' i• C .-. ..„T___,, r --b��r� • '� boy �Q�• ..�lr�i� �' yH�� (CD)_� �4 ' '_ Geos. fa rr_.• 4r o r�.aat/e son• 0 F?C Cv o Scbc der / `: °� < \ 1.. �Yc'%Ccie.. q -.: . R J77i era, t W �. Is) '. Q 0 frr fug ; � GeorO e rr ,"`4Sar//a.7Bs f 7 > (,�?2/ p P a''`r 4C� las csr ,_1 !1cna. s7.--:' R f -,:.;!'1' 7,an L 4 d x /7,fx�/ E -`g•s � waft I O W enc r,7r I-�Sc�-,,,1f Y'7 • I : 1 b C-. v : . w.vo uivc.',hai/,` N :f_ r� 4C \ G a O � �'4 y� Tc SSnn^.�. z ah,) I:L;/7drn s. _ •j'1�� /ea C b [� 7: l ... 7SfS 15(Ao7 sss. Ce.x r'�''•°tT' >r,.:c d�0%. c 1.� S/ ::. �.11 �u u�•C !//-'Cf7 M - 7 7S ■IM hhsrdt. V t+c :.c/ :7P3 .[e::6 .<.;J a�j .,� - •J` ? OR LK / -„vt,�,.,.- -TMaras ✓ efa/ es/ u 7d4 ero/cL i° r,, cls I � ,er ���_ ' �- .--t� / RES£RVA�� 60 1 776 .:. _24 1 ' '� ..: ca'1T er yy�rl�encs h C ''-‘z :AO T/Oh -I i </a7' Z_S/ P/ i• "a' ( -?,:.se/ _ ••' yov."ka ty ..C- .I I USf/ V Sc• ee.Fn Ce L .� k. `,11 .-;.•>.,L79 e.•/ _— a t c' ---� I Cr eG) :1 4a Cor, Po -ger/Jana.rlar,e. h>o o'Z W fs.•y R s'. COM- ,Vera:,” , e,y_i 111 - .. t -T f !ro V.er/.n� 3C-a y �• u t and. \. - . 1 c$cc%/a/id , -„n„y --79""w o e s I -4 k 1,7-....._ c• Snt. aseAof /9B9 ..c �..11IF. Snc' u Ys Cress.•e u�, y ,'-' ��G81 L"- 7 \� r ``s4. -e‘ 3'O /rn '� �J�1.._ w..fer -...... 7,1--45- (. .1a....1 :1,,, /40 /d0 SC v r' - fL,//an •c?e:nard Bo I-, ,775 1'I'j 1 - l4c tel P ,`g/ u� (-5 a. ?�'7 ..; ,,, 0.DOW(" five/rho/7a/einand/. cTeurssen 5co>t/and, 8 s.+_ �_ t 2/ r n e, w� 4 a L (CD °l.- Sanaf r s•r /40 _IncSnc ;m,c^, �*,h 7D .. _ //Bt - 0'v✓.e/ar 1. P R 1 O R '''aGert ,--'eq Leo Mh�eVf4I ~•op• I A ,..),.., u u ceti'f Thees Jeffers (lien/in v y 0 /sJ,t- �o cgxv w Um^mac )� icy/0r �� 3/ss I �eftr.T . f if /!Su -- --.. - j . Frank t. C9 w` SSIII: 8 _ • /40 Kopp -- - Pink (� y u r jack SS4. ve,riude _ I /e80/ /mss PRIOR LAKE_ C aer 2072 • rfary EVEN L L-d s and •- f/arr,e>-/r a- A K E • _�,/ S SoSm,/s -V S Lov,n¢ 0.i es r/''- 1 —�.�/q�=>:.- \71778.5- �..-c-w Z: Dolan B: /slag c'rrr�•so ,• �/1 yJ 2''.- REEDS .�- s - sue Seb s, �' V� 0?"' ✓�,.d y /: 6•'ucr —1"--'r s r I �7 en j •®:., u o lJS,r1. F,rmsn - .rs SP I .NAR "'�' IIS c`+sE Sc'is/>j Q�c •a o Qw �� St .. e>ur7' ``.� Yi'P_ ♦• _ ico.,w, •G .7_72. Sus T c-.:cr /se' ••,. -... - E-dsv,77 ,t,-.7;r ,no d•c{� S 2 t JJ \ s7 a tia r e C -� a Men1e7,e'uy taeo r4 F h� :x sura ri' i:, 4 9/ �•Y� .. r n , -7"--- !�r..):C 3�l P i3 4i, ‘,.. moi4 ei.E/IK f c .z\�2 ,s:.< 33 0�` -v-�,IT'I-.lJB9 L ,r s` S 36179J ._/a.,de P. ' /N - Pc bet TICSU. , 1 �y Fr,endsh✓/� c"' .vwn r4 uW �` f_.9 ace �.- rrr-'-'/`7s" e>u.. / <cv.)+-r �l�SaLum2 GG 3J 4: v�,uo .Z7�rr'��a,er ®su:s // „' ,l °-5®/� a`/,• A f u9 / 6.'"--.''',8_2..• „'''” NOWA••s ditli'Ver-ht, E "' �O •r *,ems.yN. aCJL. ft, r77d!e,✓i /7Js.. 3s /S2S • r,.a/-®r SD F. �� • 1 1(. /e•!cspr.n.IAA_ ' r ✓1'- D,, D' onon r7 ,k stetL! y ;,51_-_� C LC�i - '.., Yen BO _p,rG Is1 t ) :: Jr T.� �•s7/9 k •sv1C./71.7 Ro:,r4rd nm / W PR/OR L,.. /� ,' qq _-,--,•••••••.— ap.u5/s,.Zrn ,Rer'/9 7 SEE PAGE /6 S•cofr �unfy,/1,777 • • 47'30" /p T I L f�� V . , V7 I _ ' / / 750 I ( �����!! N. 76 1 76� q 9e$,,.. , Ur ,-L,--,--), � .•., . • . ,:y3 o ' . O I , c :o . /„...... µr' � c:,› , ./..,_ . 4959 _ `. • , .\\ 757 • ! /5° . 00, ,___k 749 B �_ - _..r- ~` Al;p ms.,.. I - --:11111r: :,...%) 117 -'- - - -- --_ c- _`( 800 \� , - 'v� i _ ` = = - © + C• ` o , ` i -'- `~ L - - 4958-7"..... -4958 ti... �bc- 815 '`. ... ea 22 :p B•' B `'' •� '• m � .....6.1 Oo ... •I i )--.'-'7*--) . B/1 0 oo. i e/ LJ H D A G �L E X ;=L7 • 850 17 s�� ..:0 -_(_ 0 16 - --—--c:2) Bao j 1 • -NN 4957 1 �j Q --—` .. BSO' I CI- o i� 1/)\:,n \ I 1\ 827 Q 1-81 Z=_ _��/ 7,zr 'y,�n , plFILIIIIIIk\ ,___if •• y�\ n •J 'IIL n n• o C`–'� II II • N • II • M Q.r_ , \\ 4956 1 S T `7� ,.IMS p -��BM ice... 640 000 1 t...____1(///),..1 LJ �4 )o ) ) J 1'c v1 � -� � \ y R ,,s5 11' J '(----.\"->'-‘r �,.t FEET-7) 1,^ ._-1 Il � � I �j:�J✓ire-� r � i _ / _, __,cb t"�- -T->•- --...7..-:-.... _ `_--_c,_ _ , .,y_1', "--- --_- -- TB •� �C.0�2.' �'``7(..7.---_-,.-•.•:-+,€.:21=.7c7,71--` ' _ �1`r_ � U��`' `J � %,... rlo;r 16,2/ �\\�� t_ O �� /�;��� a�• \ ' 9001 :, _ `t \, \ ' ,/ -'"•-. "-- 1\C--Ne , N/15-7"---N_)---j• ,_,,__55))3/ '-'''- '-'*' ';,5 -.„Th-\_,j\n\/_.2 7/ . -‘ -)\:/(7) 'Ic- ' \N- —',I 1:`-- 'a. � � 44 4593'30' 1461 (`62 463 12140000 FEET 27'30" 1464 `` �J° Mapped,edited, and published by the Geological Survey 1 � 1.1QQ-P Control by USGS, USC&GS * —" MN 1000 0 10C '41 5:71' Topography by photogrammetric methods from aerial photographs GN I `- F-5 F"" taken 1947. Field checked 1954. Revised from aerial 1 ,- F� H photographs taken 1966. Field checked 1967 51,5• 0.18' 98 MILS Hydrography compiled from information furnished by 5 MILS Minnesota Department of Conservation Polyconic projection. 1927 North American datum X tiro R V 10,000-foot grid based on Minnesota coordinate system,south zone UTM GRID AND 1972 MAGNETIC NORTH 1000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid ticks, DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET I.Z13 zone 15,shown in blue THIS MAP COM' Fine red dashed lines indicate selected fence and field lines where FOR SALE BY U.S. GEOLOGICAL generally visible on aerial photographs. This information is unchecked A FOLDER DESCRIBING TO « 1 ` I ULJ1,0\1r1 lUly IHE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 115 NORTH, RANGE 22 WEST, I SCOTT COUNTY, MINNSOTA. ALSO: HE WEST HALF OF TI)E NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 115 NORTH, RANGE 22 WEST, SCOTT BOUNTY, MINNESOTA, LYING NORTH AND EASTERLY OF THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE :HICAGO, MILWAUKEE,I ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILWAY EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TRACT OF LAND: • COMMENCING AT LINE NOR1Hh1:.) i LORNER OF SAID bEC1IUN 10; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 16 FOR A DISTANCE OF 955.00 FEET TO THE ACTUAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LAND Td BE DESCRIBED; THENCE EASTERLY, DEFLECTING TO THE LEFT 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES, FOR A DISTANCE (OF 400.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY, DEFLECTING TO THE RIGHT 90 i DEGREES 00 MINUTES, PARALLEL WITH THE SAID WEST. LINE OF SECTION 16 FOR A DISTANCE OF . 1 545.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY, DEFLECTING TO THE RIGHT 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES, FOR A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET 7O THE SAID WEST LINE OF SECTION 16, THENCE NORTHERLY, DEFLECTING TO THE RIGHT 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES, ALONG THE SAID WEST LINE OF SECTION 16 FOR A DISTANCE OF 545.00 FEETt TO THE ACTUAL POINT OF BEGINNING. \LSO: ; HAT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 115 NORTH, RANGE 22 WEST, SCOT11 COUNTY, {MINNESOTA, LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY INE OF THE CHICAGO. MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILWAY. •:HESE 3 TRACTS CONTAIN 13O.7: ACRES OF LAND. • I • • REVISED 12 /8/72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN. SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. •SE COR. OF NE 1/4 ' I ( I SEC. I6-II5-?2 (I.P. INP.) DATE: H/29/72 REGISTRATION NO. 5094 • • • 2. Type and scope ,of proposed project: • EXCAVATING, DhY SCREENING, CRUSHING, LOADING AND TRUCKING OF SAND ;2"-C1-- AND GRAVEL FROM PROPERTY, 3. Estimated starting date (month/year) JULY 1981 4. Estimated completion date (month/year) NOT KNOWN, LONG TERM ( 20 yrs plus ) 5. Estimated construction cost • 6. List any federal funding involved and known permits or approvals needed from each unit of government and status of each: Unit of Government Name or Type of Permit/Approval Status (federal, state, or Federal Funding re.ional, local) CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONDITIONAL USE MINING PERMIT PENDING 7. If federal permits, funding or approvals are involved, will a federal EIS be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act? XNO YES UNKNOWN II. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION A. Include the following maps or drawings: • 1. A map showing the regional location of the project. 2. An original 81/2 x 11 section of a U.S.G.S. 7, minute, 1:24,000 scale map with the activity or project area boundaries and site layout delineated. Indicate quadrangle sheet name. (Original U.S.G.S. sheet must be main- tained by Responsible Agency; legible copies may be supplied , to other EAW distribution points.) 3. A sketch map of the site showing location of structures and including. significant natural features (water bodies, roads, etc) . 4. Current photos of the site must be maintained by the Responsible Agency. Photos need not be sent to other distribution points. B. Present land use. 1. Briefly describe the present use of the site and lands adjacent to the site. AGRICULTURAL 2. Indicate the approximate acreages of the site that are: . a. Urban development 0 acres f. Wetlands (Type III, IV., V) 0 acres b. Urban vacant 0 acres g. Shoreland 0 acres c. Rural developed 0 acres h. Floodplain acres d. Rural vacant ALL acres i. Cropland/Pasture land 13o acres e. Designated Recre- 0 acres j . Forested 0 _ acres ation/Open Space - 2 - o2.C� • 3. List names and °sizes of lakes, rivers and streams on or near the site, particularly lakes within 1,000 feet and rivers and streams within 300 feet. • NONE C. Activity Description 1. Describe the proposed activity, including staging of development (if any) , operational characteristics, and major types of equipment and/or pro- cesses to be used. Include data that would indicate the. magnitude of the proposed activity (e.g. rate of production, number of customers, tons of raw materials, etc) . • SEE " PLAN AND REPORT FOR MINERAL EXTRACTION " • • 2. Fill in the following where applicable: a. Total project area 130.73 acres g. Size of marina and access --. sq. ft. or channel (water area) Length -- miles h. Vehicular traffic trips generated per day SEE page 8 ADT b. Number of housing or recreational units --- i. Number of employees Several ( seasonal) c. Height of structures ft. j. Water supply needed gal/da Source: d. Number of parking spaces '-- k. Solid waste requiring disposal tons/yr e. Amount of dredging `- cu. yd. 1. Commercial, retail or f. Liquid wastes requir- industrial floor space _ sq. ft. ing treatment -- gal/da III. ASSESSMENT OF PO'TTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT A. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY 1. Will the project be built in an area with slopes currently exceeding 12%? X No . Yes 2. Are there other geologically unstable areas involved in the project, such as fault zones, shrink-swell soils, peatlands, or sinkholes? X NO YES 3. If yes on 1 or 2, describe slope conditions or unstable area and any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impacts. - 3 - 4. Indicate suitability of site soils for foundations, individual septic 4 C— systems, and 'ditching, if these are included in the project. NOT APPLICABLE 5. Estimate the total amount of grading and filling which will be done: SEE MINING PLAN!. yd. grading cu. yd. filling What percent of the site will be so altered? SEE MINING PLAN 6. What will be the maximum finished slopes 3* Horz & 1' Vert when e&eavated and contoured to existing or original topography when restored(See Plan) 7. What steps•will be taken to minimize soil erosion during and after construction? GRADING, SLOPING AND PLANTING OF LEGUMES AND GRASSES ' B. VEGETATION 1. Approximately what percent of the site is in each of the following vegetative types: Woodland 0-. % Cropland/ 100 Pasture . Brush or shrubs 0 % Marsh 0 Grass or herbaceous 0 % Other 0 (specify) 2. How many acres of forest or woodland will be cleared, if any? NONEacres 3. Are there any rare or endangered plant species or areas of unique botanical or biological significance on or near the site? (See DNR publication The Uncommon Ones.) NO YES • If yes, list the species or area and indicate any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impact. • C. FISH AND WILDLIFE • 1. Are there any designated federal, state or local wildlife or fish manage- ment areas or sanctuaries near or adjacent to the site? X NO YES 2. Are there any known rare or endangered species of fish and wildlife on or near the site? (See DNR publication The X NO YES Uncommon Ones.) 3. Will the project alter or eliminate wildlife or fish X NO YES habitat? 4. If yes on any of questions 1-3, list the area, species or habitat, and indicate any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impact on them. • - 4 - D. HYDROLOGY 1. Will the project include any of the following? If yes, describe type of work and mitigative measures to ' reduce adverse impacts. a. Drainage or alteration of any lake, pond, NO YES marsh, lowland or groundwater supply b. Shore protection works, dams, or dikes ____X__ c. Dredging or filling operations ____X__ • d. Channel modifications or diversions X e. Appropriation of ground and/or surface water X f. Other changes in the course, current or cross- section of water bodies on or near the site X 2. What percent of the area will be converted to new impervious surface? 0 2 3. What measures will be taken to reduce the volume of surface water runoff and/or treat it to reduce pollutants (sediment, oil, gas, etc)? NO ADDITIONAL VOLUME OF SURFACE WATER RUNOFF WILL BE GENERATED BY THE MINED EXCAVATION AND THE PIAN TO RESTORE THE LANE) TO ITS. ORIGINAL FLAT AND GENTLY SLOPED TOPOGRAPHY. 4. Will there be encroachment into the regional (100 year) floodplain by new fill or structures? X NO YES If yes, does it conform to the local floodplain ordinance? NO YES 5. What is the approximate minimum depth to groundwater on the site? ' 70 feet E. WATER QUALITY 1. Will there be a discharge of process or cooling water, sanitary sewage or other waste waters to any water body or to groundwater? X NO YES If yes, specify the volume, the concentration of pollutants .and the water body receiving the effluent. 2. If discharge of waste water to the municipal treatment system is planned, identify any toxic, corrosive or unusual pollutants in the wastewater. 3. Will any sludges be generated by the proposed project? X NO YES If yes, specify the expected volume, chemical composition and method of disposal. - 5 - 4. What measures] will be used to minimize the volumes or impacts identi- Ci fied in questions 1-3? 5. If the project is or includes a landfill, attach information on soil profile, depth to water table, and proposed depth of disposal. LAND RECLAMATION PLAN PROPOSES A DEMOLITION LANDFILL TO RESTORE THE F. AIR riTAt ENE'RIGINAL TOPOGRAPHY AND A APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT cWILL BE AT LEAST 5 or 0 s INFUTURE, 1. Will the activity cause the emission o any gases andior pi �a ticulates into the atmosphere? NO X YES If yes, specify the type and origin of these emissions, indicate any emission control devices or measures to be used, and specify the approximate amounts for each emission (at the source) both with and without the emission control measures or devices. TYPE: DUST TRUCK TRAFFIC MAY CREATE SOME NEED FOR DUST CONTROL ON HAUL ROADS. THIS CAN BE CONTROLED AND MAY BE NEEDED ON THE SHORT SEGMENT OF GRAVEL ROAD CO RD 83 TO CO RD 16 BY APPLYING A CHLORIDE TREATMENT AND/OR WATER SPRAY AS NEEDED. 2. Will noise or vibration be generated by construction and/or operation of the project? NO x YES If yes, describe the noise source(s); specify decibel levels EdB(A)J, and duration (hrs/da) for each and any mitigative measures to reduce the noise/vibration. GRAVEL MINING EQUIPMENT WILL CREATE NOISE, BUT NOT BEYOND PERMISSIBLE LIMITS ALLOWED BY OSHA. 90 dB(A) Max LEVEL ESTIMATED THAT WILL BE GENERATED. Max 12 hrs ( 7AM to 7PM ) OPERATIONAL HOURS PER DAY ESTIMATED. 3. If yes on 1 or 2, specify whether any areas sensitive to noise or reduced air quality-(hospitals, elderly housing, wilderness, wildlife areas, residential developments, etc) are in the affected area and give distance from source. CLOSEST RESIDENCES ARE OVER 1000'?EET FROM THE PROPOSED MINING OPERATION. G. LAND RESOURCE CONSERVATION, ENERGY 1. Is any of the site suitable for agricultural or forestry production or currently in such use? NO x YES If yes, specify the acreage involved, type and volume of marketable crop or wood produced and the quality of the land for such use. 130 acres CORN ( APPROXIMATE YIELD IS 80 bu per acre ) THE LAND IS FAIR TO BELOW AVERAGE CROP LAND. 2. Are there any known mineral or peat deposits on the site? NO x YES If yes, specify the type of deposit and the acreage. SAND AND GRAVEL ( 100 ARCES PLUS ) • 3. Will the project result in an increased energy demand? _____NO X YES, �, Complete the following as applicable: p� a. Energy requirements (oil, electricity, gas, coal, solar, etc.) • TRUCK AND MINING EQUIPMENT USAGE 0 Estimated Peak Demand Annual (Hourly or Daily) Anticipated Firm Contract or Type Reiuirement Summer Winter Supplier Interruptible Basis? GASOLINE UNKNOWN • DIESEL FUEL UNKNOWN b. Estimate the capacity of all proposed on-site fuel storage. UNKNOWN ( ESTIMATED 5000 GALS MAX ) c. Estimate annual energy distribution for: space heating 0 lighting 0 air conditioning 0 $ 'processing 4111140WA 100% & TRUCKING ventilation 0 d. Specify any major energy conservation systems and/or equipment incorporated into this project. UNKNOWN ( TRUCKS AND MINING EQUIPMENT WILL BE USED ) e. What secondary energy use effects may result from this project (e.g. more or longer car trips, induced housing or businesses, etc)c? • BECAUSE THIS SAND AND GRAVEL DEPOSIT IS LOCATED CLOSE TO THE METROPOLITAN MARKET AREA, A REDUCED USAGE OF TRUCK FUELS WILL ' BE REALIZED. H. OPEN SPACE/RECREATION 1. Are there any designated federal, state, county or local recreation or open space areas near the site (including wild and scenic rivers, trails, lake accesses) ? X NO YES If yes, list areas by name and explain how each may be affected by the • project. Indicate any measures to be used to reduce adverse impacts. - 7 - ' rszr ` SCOTT COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT COURT HOUSE A106 .�_. SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 (612)-445-7750, Ext.346 Highway Engineer: E. W. PRENEVOST September 29., 1980 Mr. Henry Spurrier City Engineer City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Re: Rosenwinkel Mineral Extraction City of Shakopee Dear Sir: Mr. Howard K. Rosenwinkel has provided me with a copy of "Plan and Report for Mineral Extraction" in the NW4 Section 16-115-22 and has asked me to comment on the impact to county highways affected. As shown on the truck route map of the report, County Highways in the immediate vicinity of the proposed mining operations are presently all restricted . To provide for all season roads some would need strengthening while other roads would need complete regrading, base and surfacing. As road tests have clearly indicated that heavy wheel loads cause much more damage to roads than light ones, the proposed pit development would necessitate haul roads leaving the area to be constructed to 9 ton design. The design would be based on number of heavy commercial loads anticipated. Yours truly, 4111 E. W. Prenevost County Highway Engineer EWP/emo cc: Howard K. Rosenwinkel An Equal Opportunity Employer SCOTT COUNTY 01-c �~ HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT COURT HOUSE A106 SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 (612)-445-7750, Ext.346 Highway Engineer: E. W. PRENEVOST May 15 , 1981 Mr . Henry Spurrier City Engineer City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee , Minnesota 55379 Re : Rosenwinkel Mineral Extraction. City of Shakopee Dear Sir : Reference is made to my letter of September 29 , 1980 regarding the above referenced subject . Mr . Howard K. Rosenwinkel has asked me to comment on County Road 83, specifically between the proposed access to the pit and TH 101 . It is my understanding that the North 2/3 of a mile of this segment will be upgraded to a 9 ton route in conjunction with the K-Mart Project . The remaining portion of County Road 83 between CSAH 16 and the K-Mart improvement is a bituminous surfaced road presently restricted to 7 ton during spring breakup . This segment could be upgraded to 9 ton level by construction of additional base and wearing courses . The segment of road between the pit outlet and CSAH 16 requires complete regrading , base and bituminous surfacing . It is presently restricted to 5 ton per axle loading during spring breakup . During other periods of the year , the road in its present condition will require additional maintenance including dust control on the entire segment . Mr . Rosenwinkel stated that occasional loads would be going south on County Road 83 . This would not be treated any different than any other trucking operation and determination of maintenance obligation to the mining operation would be evaluated on individual projects . Yours truly , E . W. Prenevost County Highway Engineer E W P/s a l An Equal Opportunity Employer cc : Howard K. Rosenwinkel I/' I. TRANSPORTATION 1. Will the project affect any existing or proposed transportation systems (highway, railroad, water, airport, etc)? NO If yes, specify which part(s) of the system(s) will be affected.ES For these, specify existing use and capacities, average traffic speed and percentage of truck traffic (if highway) ; and indicate how they will be affected by the project (e.g. congestion, per- centage of truck traffic, safety, increased traffic (ADT), access requirements). CO RD 83 WHICH IS BETWEEN THE PROPOSED MINING SITE AND TEl 101 WILL BE AFFECTED. SEE ATTACHED LETTER FROM THE SCOTT COUNTY ENGI+IEER. 2. Is mass transit available to the site? X NO YES 3. What measures, including transit and paratransit services, are planned to reduce adverse impacts? • J. PLANNING, LAND USE, COMMUNITY SERVICES - 1. Is the project consistent with local and/or regional comprehensive plans? If not, explain: NO YES If a zoning change or special use permit is necessary, indicate existing zoning and change requested. AGRICULTURAL ZONING WILL REQUIRE NO CHANGE 2. Will the type or height of the project conflict with the character of the existing neighborhood? NO YES If yes, explain and describe any measures to be used to reduce conflicts. • - 8 - 3. How many employees will move into the area to be near the project? -c----,n . How much new dousing will be needed? d. ---NONE 4. Will the project induce development nearby--either support services or similar developments? X NO YES If yes, explain type of development and specify any other counties and municipalities affected. 0 5. Is there sufficient capacity in the following public services to handle the project and any associated growth? YES Amount required Public Service for project Sufficient Capacity? • water 0 jgal/da wastewater treatment 0 gal/da sewer 0 feet schools 0 pupils solid waste disposal 0 ton/mo 1000 FEET PLUS SOME ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE OR U streets tiprPAflTNc MAY RR NECRRRARY flN C`0 r E 0 • • other (police, fire, etc .) If current major public facilities are not adequate, do existing local plans call for expansion, or is expansion necessary strictly for this one project and its associated impacts? NO 6. Is the project within a proposed or designated Critical Area or part of a Related Actions EIS or other environmentally sensitive plan or program reviewed by the EQB? X NO YES If yes, specify which area or plan. • 7. Will the project involve the use, transportation, storage, release or disposal of potentially hazardous or toxic liquids, solids or gaseous substances such as pesticides, radioactive wastes, poisons, etc.? g NO YES If yes, please specify the substance and rate of usage and any measures to be taken to minimize adverse environmental impacts from accidents. - 9 - . o. IYL{C31 zne project has served its useful life, will retirement of the ? - facility require special measures or plans? NO X YES If yes, specify: SEE " PLAN AND REPORT FOR MINERAL EXTRACTION" FOR PROPOSED SITE RESTORATION PLAN. K. HISTORIC RESOURCES • 1. Are there any structures on the site older than 50 years or on federal or state historical registers? X NO YES 2. Have any arrowheads, pottery or other evidence of prehistoric or early settlement been found on the site? x NO YES Might any known archaeologic or paleontological sites be affected by the activity? X NO YES 3. List any site or structure identified in 1 and 2 and explain any impact on them. L. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Describe any other major environmental effects which may not have been identified in the previous sections. IV. OTHER MITIGATIVE MEASURES Briefly describe mitigative measures proposed to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts that have not been described before. • • - 10 - V. FINDINGS A. Thenproject is a private ( X ) government ( ) action. The Responsible Agency (Person) , after consideration of the information in this EAW, and the factors in Minn. Reg. MEQB 25, makes the following findings. 1. The project is ( ) is not ( ) a major action. State reasons: • 2. The project does ( ) does not ( ) have the potential for significant environmental effects. State reasons: 3. (For private actions only.) The project is ( ) is not ( ) of more than local significance. State reasons: VI . CONCLUSIONS AND CERTIFICATION NOTE: A Negative Declaration or EIS Preparation Notice is not officially filed until the date of publication of the notice in the EQB Monitor section. A. I, the undersigned, am either the authorized representative of the Responsible Agency or the Responsible Person identified below. Based on the above findings, the Responsible Agency (Person) makes the following conclusions. (Complete either 1 or 2.) 1. NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE • No EIS is needed on this project, because the project is not a major action and/or does not have the potential for significant environmental effects and/or, for private actions only, the project is not of more than local significance. - 11 - 2. EIS PREPARATION NOTICE Ci An EIS will be prepared on this project because the project is a major action and has the potential for significant environmental effects. For private actions, the project is also of more than local significance. a. The MEQB Rules provide that physical construction or operation of the project must stop when an EIS is required. In special circum- stances, the MEQB can specifically authorize limited construction to begin or continue. If you feel there are special circumstances in this project , specify the extent of progress recommended and the reasons. • b. Date Draft EIS will be submitted: (month) (day) (year) (MEQB Rules require that the Draft EIS be submitted within 120 days of publication of the EIS Preparation Notice in the EQB Monitor. If special circumstances pre'lent compliance with this time limit, a written request for extension explaining the reasons for the request must he submitted to the EQB Chairman.) c. The Draft EIS will be prepared by (list Resporusible Agency(s) or Person(s)) : • B. Attach an affidavit certifying the date that copies of this EAW were mailed to all points on the official EQB distribution list , to the city and county directly impacted, and to adjacent counties or municipalities likely to be directly impacted by the proposed action (refer to question III.J.4, on page 9 of the EAW) . The affidavit need be attached only to the copy of the EAW which is sent to the EQB Administrator. C. Billing procedures for EQB Monitor Publication. State agency Attach to the EAW sent to the EQB Administrator a completed ONLY: OSR 100 form (State Register Ceneral Order Form--available at Center Stores) . For instructions, please contact your Agency's Liaison Officer to the State Register or the Office of the State Register--(612) 296-8239. • I hereby certify that the information contained in - ' correct to the best of my knowledge. SCOTT COUNTY LUMBER CO. ,INC. AND BERT NOTER1iANN :N] PREPARED BY: HOW K. RO NWINKEL 'GINEER NG ONSt T T . HOWARD K. ROSENWINKEL MAY 18, 1981 ROGERS. FREELS & ASSOCIATES MINNESOTA ENGINEERING 5666 LINCOLN DRIVE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55436 7 12 - (612) 935-1761 t2/ ATTACHMENT "D" Petitions , , • , a 9 PETITION OPPOSING GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MINING AND MINERAL EXTRACTION WHEREAS , one HOWARD ROSENWINKEL has made application . for a conditional use permit to the City of Shakopee to commence and undertake a mining and mineral extraction operation located on approximately 130 acres within the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 16-115-22 and; WHEREAS , the granting of such permit will be detrimental - and injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property either ajoining or in the near vicinity and contrary to the general health and welfare of the city for the following reasons : 1. That dust, noise and air pollutants emanating from such operation threatens to despoil the use of enjoyment of lands in the vicinity, the uses for which are presently residential and agricultural; 2 . That the effect of said operation upon underground water supply and purity will have a detrimental effect upon wells presently in use within the area; 3 . That the impact upon public streets and roads caused by truck travel will cost taxpayers many thousands of dollars more ; 4. That the increase in traffic congestion will increase the possibility of injuries to both motorist and pedestrial traffic; 5. That noise from trucks, heavy equipment and machinery would damage the peace and tranquility of ajoining areas ; • 6 . That the scarring of the landscape will do irrepairable damage to the aesthetic beauty of the lands , permanently impairing values of ajoining property and violating " objectives of the land use regulations of the City of Shakopee. NOW THEREFORE, WE THE UNDERSIGNED, urge upon the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee that it deny said application in its entirety. NAME ADDRESS vg - 3 L •5-2,z `L- L) •'1 E 4S //YIP'S o � 'f ' f '- e- ..i/' - C (cc' Slat /l J�('�'1jyT` � / • - . • TL tom" t .�i ... ... _. ..........w :.. «..... .... ..�.__..__._ _. _..._ ..._ • • , X.... . t . NAME • ADDRESS 021d 7)/ /51‘ k Is; 30.5" a , 4110 ' 414 ... oe ' i ,,... . L Gr .&' A..., , , q f4 , _ I • c=?_ 461' - _/,J ;,z7 I , ' :Le* / - , ..,•,..4.e.., ->_ - )C-5--S-- Wa44.4,0 ...- 1 1,75-I A07 --41R'77/0g 6 0 t' 4'i s' • '41—el,7- , e, -71/kivi c/i112,,,,,7„,„.„-P--(Ar 9 A 4 jlailt./01/ 14. .4., ei4 c--,":.-.2-6-1----) 6-65-5- elle, /eee 6 .e Pilifet. /5/ 5 5Aev-u,, &Z(4.,, S / I 1 4 - • 01 Iii . . . --1 _., __ 4 -- .....,.-rrarrtr***1*/**44/....r. , Air4.4.441111460,41614""kfterrirarlifirtraoluatird41****4”*rr*, 4.,rrr*.arra r„_,_ . . • . .. • . • ••-- • ' ' :. . ••:-..i.i1:.-4:::•:::. ,.4,'7.4‘1.-** 1:1 ' . •:''' .• . . •I•:- --k.:,--••:''.. -.-..'.. ' - :' :' ' 'I _, ...-.....-' : - .-.. .- :. • .•.:44* .. , ';',.., , •• - .. -;,.....': .•.,.• . : .::::-.....:. ...t..,. '. ,:'-' ".* - '- - • - ).-: .-•;.-4-.:• .:•.• r.:•14141.1.- t. •---:. - ....t.....:4740t., 1.1 F •.- ---.--,...tLr=:,......wakiark ., 4,'-'"' lialiagillaaaillanaga ', '41.1' •A.. InaalgaINSIMMINIONNIMMOV=Midnill • • PETITION OPPOSING GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MINING AND MINERAL EXTRACTION WHEREAS , one HOWARD ROSENWINKEL has made application for a conditional use permit to the City of Shakopee to commence and undertake a mining and mineral extraction operation located on approximately 130 acres within the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 16-115-22 and; WHEREAS , the granting of such permit will be detrimental ' and injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property either ajoining or in the near vicinity and contrary to the general health and welfare of the city for the following reasons : 1. That dust, noise and air pollutants emanating from such operation threatens to despoil the use of enjoyment of lands in the vicinity, the uses for which are presently residential and agricultural; 2 . That the effect of said operation upon underground water supply and purity will have a detrimental effect upon wells presently in use within the area; 3 . That the impact upon public streets and roads caused by truck travel will cost taxpayers many • thousands of dollars more; 4. That the increase in traffic congestion will increase the possibility of injuries to both motorist and pedestrial traffic; 5 . That noise from trucks , heavy equipment and machinery would damage the peace and tranquility of ajoining areas ; • 6 . That the scarring of the landscape will do irrepairable damage to the aesthetic beauty of the lands , permanently ' , ' impairing values of ajoining property and violating objectives of the land use regulations of the City of Shakopee. NOW THEREFORE, WE THE UNDERSIGNED, urge upon the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee that it deny said application its its entirety NAME ADDRESS iAtt,p,„/ -411: /e-r-tA..0 m AMR,/ j '. , NAME ADDRESS . ,,i1.4(.7e,)<'--4! e:.,,,,ff . ^ it ri l'c)_ 1 {I 1 .)1 /i ..,j/i6i_ '1.9.4/2--e)%.) -.J, ,, 1 ,-, - / ,_„,,koi, //, a___./ ...1 .422L al) . fff% 3 e7/ ,i-k., ,....Y ir- 11irjr- de f .,...§01 ,r'' ,.,e,' trs... -e'le-'1‘dr' „ . ,.,- -- .-.7 - 0 ._.7— ,- c).7 , .1,../4rr 7--j/L-' ',e,,i/ ike-16-.-t..- 1 30 (40 [,( ;, nte,j) 74k) `3o Sl /ti' titer — 9kAlt kl,),),\,„_, 0,1%crw, _,.._ , .),_ , 3634.4tA. . .: ___ o A-k 4 ✓ ° I - 3d y/ Y-1 --LaZ _ 4t. ) .2) 4:. ./.-77- 7 44 __ r--- 3 o ffr 14tati:, Aie-e-il ----' CeLA...d 6- 7 30 r/ ,z/.,c«.- :2,6..0.1.<_, ee2.-A-4--L." 30 g 0 dG--�-,1 ----- _ 0CI0 -A«LA. C-r \ Vc. \\ _ X.0 Qa /G//\/ /%� �il/ - Att // 0 a2overi .____. . Rej,j__ c ,z_.0."...- /r3.:Z e74. ea, 6-4". ;_x,-frr..., s,7.....07.4.02..e.A47e-- / -f.07 eafie, c.f.-4, aut . : aa,„:„_,. iid /.6e.iii.e,ti‘..,„ /f5.2_ `644------ ---: i . .. . __ .. __ .. . ____. . ___ ______. ______„, ..........M.....-.,--Q.+« ;... - _ ........., . .-... ..- _ _. _...,.�,...+.-- yam^ .,pr 0. • NAME ADDRESS 0 ',{//'. -1/(VVA___, 3 a 5 7 ;e#,IA-I,,d,/,(/ i 3,ILL c. 0 (A,',,J (3 ‘.,3 41t1.4ezt_.... 71.44,:e- , ( 1)(2alileii t_i ' ' 1 /k1Z-di'''' tO 5 9 /237W41-611- ---- ,-------) 0 0 41A-L-(... /(4:-0—c) . 090 U. l,A. .� �cr 0-Q_ nk ce4.q . 3o 9 , ,.0,_,_,._._. T_ t_xvs_ _ _ _ _ _ 3e; 6 .-- 7 , yd-,v' a.4„,-- ----- „-- , e.,,,z:/,- ,,,,..,,z.,,-- 3L. 4 2- ez- --- ' , is,....)A-kc I\Nik...C1A..Q.A 30 to 0 .-4-AAAAA. \J\Cvj __ z t� 44 &-2W Yel/-ei---4/ 42"----( i • i ,,96g1n<lia-e4,- 7,,cex-ei-6. 2)_,-e-4-- /7te-- :71?--d..AAJA---*/ . ?e),/-4- C-jjA-'- � ce ;U �J t _ __ c • , ciao haw 1hw v?T . i ,/ ,- ,_90,// Ad Xi4 ea, -- / /ete--, iJ _i_..) , i .6 (-4 liK 9-- --/-'"1” plc 33 a,„, ,(-, R 1017 6 ?nag- e,„.$-Vt- L._, b/ 4 h, i_,, -. 1..--\A y-s•••=1---Yi ic "-------__ , 9_,J ,)2 , i , ,. 4 to I, ,Th c/ 7 (.7%c •i,, c., LR- 4 , ,, ' 4 Lc,t.cc_14_‘ 4 9,t-e..6,00 ,„ 0 Oa pArlAk c?....ettakik) ru idIt tiil_lr CJ � i , J ./Pe A ZLA.1I 7' PGA-k "" tb-/")-Q-- re, 0 1 0 6( Ar2 ,, 4, �t, a:.moi U /*/ /re Cife i°' („ f 1 • PETITION OPPOSING GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MINING AND MINERAL EXTRACTION WHEREAS , one HOWARD ROSENWINKEL has made application for a conditional use permit to the City of Shakopee to commence and undertake a mining and mineral extraction operation located on approximately 130 acres within the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 16-115-22 and; WHEREAS , the granting of such permit will be detrimental' • and injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property either ajoining or in the near vici3lity and contrary to the general :health and welfare of the city for the following reasons : 1. That dust, noise and air pollutants emanating from such operation threatens to despoil the use of enjoyment of lands in the vicinity, the uses for which are presently residential and agricultural; 2 . That the effect of said operation upon underground water supply and purity will have a detrimental effect upon wells presently in use within the area; 3 . That the impact upon public streets and roads caused by truck travel will cost taxpayers many thousands of doll..rs more ; 4. That the increase in traffic congestion will increase the possibility of injuries to both motorist and pedestrial traffic; 5 . That noise from trucks , heavy equipment and machinery would damage the peace and tranquility of ajoining areas ; 6 . That the scarring of the landscape will do irrepairable damage to the aesthetic beauty of the lands, permanently impairing values of ajoining property and violating objectives of the land use regulations of the City of Shakopee. NOW THEREFORE, WE THE UNDERSIGNED, urge upon the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee that it deny said application in its entirety. NAME ADDRESS Wti P 2,76 • 411:" --raiNNWIMS Ai_Cil•-/ o- - M A iNt 1 v /-Thi)lie ss i ... .. . . _,„,„ ,..32L.,.--.7„---i --)---1-- . .... . ' . . ? `7. f `i 1 ___________;_______________ 4, • y14 .__ 4f ' .0 . g.A. ••.4.5..— • Wh..'44 . _ ‹..., /x-e7/124-t /. pe...4,s. '1,1-7 ,,,:. • - • •• . . . ..., 0.1 - „ • . . „,...._,..A. . .. _ • .... . , ,..,„4 ,....., __..,.......r--I / ..e.::c..11:.• ':? ,_‘; . .___ ...... • : • 4. , ... .... ...__...... , .. ........ .... . • • II .....__........._.. , . ...... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .... ....... ._ ..... . . . . .. ____. ..... ____ .. ... .. ....._..... .... , ... ..,.......t••ioo••••i..o.........soiiliWili.1Oiliili t 11111111141101144•11141014440m010•11111.11111101111.11014111 . : . .. . . . : . . • - . • •• :•-•:-:::••••••=: ::::::::.; ' •. _ , ...;..!• •• ..:-: •-•-'•'..•..•1 . . . . . :•'.o.:.:... .'' . . .. • . . . . ,... . . . , . } or PETITION OPPOSING GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MINING AND MINERAL EXTRACTION WHEREAS , one HOWARD ROSENWINKEL has made application for a conditional use permit to the City of Shakopee to commence and undertake a mining and mineral extraction operation located on approximately 130 acres within the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 16-115-22 and; WHEREAS, the granting of such permit will be detrimental and injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property either ajoining or in the near vicinity and contrary to the general health and welfare of the city for the following reasons : 1. That dust, noise and air pollutants emanating from such operation threatens to despoil the use of enjoyment of lands in the vicinity, the uses for which are presently residential and agricultural; 2 . That the effect of said operation upon underground water supply and purity will have a detrimental effect upon wells presently in use within the area; 3 . That the impact upon public streets and roads caused by truck travel will cost taxpayers many thousands of dollars more ; 4. That the increase in traffic congestion will increase the possibility of injuries to both motorist and pedestrial traffic ; 5 . That noise from trucks , heavy equipment and machinery would damage the peace and tranquility of ajoining areas; 6 . That the scarring of the landscape will do irrepairable damage to the aesthetic beauty of the lands, permanently impairing values of ajoining property and violating objectives of the land use regulations of the City of Shakopee. NOW THEREFORE, WE THE UNDERSIGNED, urge upon the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee that it deny said application in its entirety. NAMEADDRESS 62qL., �� / L JO X 4/, ../.c -My cid 17/14/ezweA,44 ' ,.4- .. .l . • . . , . . •, • , . , . . , NAME ..----- , ADDRESS ,.. p r-t-i;.--.--21--1- "" ) --) - 71 -- -1-J -"2- L ---- - - - /1 /?) il /C.5-2 '//1/ 1-4,tit..)_ .him-kik, R Pi I CFP tr c )tzttlii. va,,,,kco--,,,,' , .e,•,_„Jec,z, / . /, 1 .._ ,..• 1/1/1 . _ ,_•__ 1.,-.L.:__A d JetA3 —..•_ __. file, .. , ____ ) 1 ( • R--i Ik , , i / //',6 i /3,1'/&• ' .2-{ • A-4:1 /___ ,,rie- ----1X. -:-----=-1-6.-L________-_-_- , t . aj. 4‘4 j ' i p plk... ) / , /', 4 19'it„,,,,u,,...,„ 3r..,,e L.....rsobi ) /qt--/ ., 4 .- --2".6.,_e_I-e....e.,......_ _,A,:e.:..4., ' %., , • _ * .41*'f ir'' f ... / . • c (2_,7 c /5/ , ) ve __________7,_,______,.,ve 1-_, IE.& -t-he • •_-, X./ ---0 .--, At; . l/ 1 / . 7 0- / -e•Lt-7----/7/44,4- / --— --- )Vitc, ) .e...&- _ a• it.....,L.,_......efle_,A.....- di#7 ..3 3 c-.)6e,. 4,,,,/ 7 ,L ,_ ...if Airwsor, ,. 76 . „.2 , ------.....i.,........ .......... ... • ,:. ,. • • . . -.• _ . . ., • f. ••: . - • . ..:-.::: - . ,.:.:-.„.......„. .. :,.- :..„1: ..-„,-..,::, ,.. . ..,. .... .. ,.. .„,•.. . •• . .,. . . ..„. .-.::. ....,„.....;:.. . . .: . ... . ‘. • ,...,•:..,,,,,,:, . .-,,,,,,, .., .,,•-....,. . .., ... • . ...:• ..,.::. • ....:,,..... .. . :: ....„. ...,... •• ... -.:.;,.:••- . • • : ..„.,,,...,,,,,i.. ••,.•.......,„:„....,:.::.;::.:,:•:-•-• -......-,4„ ....._ )-----. . . O NAME ADDRES S ./ te--1-- Jeits tk g ----abl....4112-e--- (...-71/42.ii,--71a • 4.!//2-77.-i ____,-. 4 IZ'' XI-W., t4._ ' ��-. cl--r7-12s-ve..... ,i5C,Ver-oe -Q-- (e T j.. c_pia.4:"......_ )40.4471.4.12.,1 t3cak-6,6 _ . "6, It 4 i 1Dc:y 13t-,9 L. \:7'..-CILA - — �e• f--->41 cLkL 7 .. j...„ Pr• .ii, / C -.moi iti / it et- !L. 1 --�c:. ) L',4 c. �„ c ce,1 LZ ; V/ -:) '';',...-ed ji r',21 :.� . C2-±/ ,8nkvo Q___ __L___. , ojyy,...u-,-- St aV v v-e___ fh e•, ga4A-11_ J1077 MEQR/F/&LQ Z 2- X071 mWw1 -`0 \-----j ___ '_:4-'- ,-- Z --7-2..--7•-..) -...(1-4-1---dp-te- # , -#63.ff •/ ' C.. .-- r •-900V. . ''' '''' . . ./ 'G i/Zs m •` t" 1/�C A ---- 4� 1 14 5 N.W.,./1.4.i r T C f. C (9...„1.-..... ,L.) • #1."--/-... 4,...: t iR, 1_. 1 • y �L t'ila., --->Q09,11 )1\ ($110'. (f-A _ __ de,te____, / / e //--rL - - 2 z-.---.4...Ki.ti__,- /z ,� C�`�/ / 1 / 11 c_._-- /,, , zi,}zi(iee4_---- __ _ __ _ ___ '7:"A\-------0-4— ybs . --A o / o7 p_l ---.2-7r _1 - s 4 -.!-;,-..zidtevzsakiiiinaft .. - • • . , . • NAME ADDRESS 84e •F P.4 g R / 4/1-1 /11077'-e-4 c ?—e-- , , ....„,.. ,„\ , ( , I. l (. I , ( ( 7 5- 7 b Y FS'tr,- ifir--10,r0/ (( e( ( r ( 1 /,3, ,,,,,,,._ s •- ., , 41? .s >). k..., (__ •,.‹.:ti,_;_,, ,_ 4 - \_)t,,,,,_,:_,,_11 .:. -, ,&, --. _,•-,Dv _.- „--) (13 ) 0-4-0-1_1- ,-2,..),_,L.)-0-0--.).\ , ...- C)-7112 ---' - - - 4&)-4 1. C) e r-7 . C-„ /fi..),cri,A ,--74.." • ‘ l''(- _ )illkazd 1-1-1\k/ki7t- ify\A) .C -aibetiy....L4Li P„.,4± 1- 353 b. (172 /Z57 WD--le.- jaV. iitor--461-•/ /7( 7/ et OP: /...7 a Atrc_:,--a_ I I\IV (-7 7 1 5-)71,951-,e _ 141 AL, (."- /14 ,1,4',,,e._--- . . , - 7,4 - -, ,„°''- 1 ., \\.\;- „ i'\\\_N_) :..),))-c, __ ...., '-f!.., ri.OA\ :2) o ..7..0 e, -7-3 I v . . i.....z,L ,-- :3( ._- C' (:(k 1_. CICK ‘17,)\\ ; I414.- MD, *04444444 Any latt 64. 0/VD , , ,,,-, ; ,r. ,' -,_.' (., ', ,. ,?-7-,, 20--( ,4,4., .., •,.›._ _,, . K_ , ,:„....,_, 1_ 7 , ,_ , , _. I-, . V ) 1 . . . . .. ... . .. : .. . . ' :.: : '''!•!%:•: ;:• ..i.v::,.•;-.',:•. . . . . . . : .. 2''' 1 :"•• • ,: :- :. .. : .' : : .'-_:,.. :. .;;, ':-.--'•'*. '::,.,,,,, •;:i.: :....::%?*01.101,*(figtfil:4 • . , . ., ,:, ., .._ . :1160MINNWP-r,labhilialeA.Ng ***IIMMOMMINEMillalliONISM' . Oce NAME ADDRESS ' 4 2:421'2 i/(.2 6 eZ;---, ti .,(-7-.44.,24ijoa/ --9 ..,...-ra . 4 r- ,,,_„. ...„.1,,,_, (2 .(._.(--...A -_,I# .9/, A-e--)-e,„„c,'e‘_i?:, .e.,‘,Qc.,,-/Q.,pd_a__,_,_____i C./' ({014 of Agat � � t . tc uC . c' c _ _ �`~ __i � _ _} f� '-1. , / - � > c _. . / " Iert. C ;- / e. ,,.f.___ 24.. 644 .4, / ../ I' • 4/... 4.,2- , i ..-t..1‘t) ,,I.1-.??A eii, Of 19141, 1 ..A1Z/Coop..,e,L,1 __ "V.,... ..., 7 A„:„. o � 45;:...e..?..., f./ Lar' L /1 / `i4tair....... - S e-, //' 7 :- tea, tizE �1 4EJ f-' ATTACHMENT "E.' Staff Reports • ; 'Vit • s 004a DATE: June 11, 1981 CASE: PC 81-18c ITEM: Conditional Use Permit and Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation Permit (Mining Permit) APPLICANT: Scott County Lumber Co. , Inc. (Bert Noterman, Ed Hennen, Lando Busch) LOCATION: Sections 16 and 17, Township 115, Range 22 West (130.73 acres) ZONING/LAND USE: Ag, Agriculture/Crop Farming APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 11.04, Subd. 6; Section 11.24, Subd. 3H; Section 11.05, Subd. 7 FINDINGS REQUIRED: Section 11.04, Subd. 6A; Section 11.05, Subd. 7 PUBLIC HEARING: July 9, 1981 CASE HEARD BY PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON C.U.P: APPEAL TO COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL ON MINING PERMIT Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation Permit (Mining Permit) to operate a sand and gravel mining operation at the above location. Surrounding Land Uses: North -- Killarney Hills Addition, agricultural land and vacant property South -- Agricultural land and scattered farmsteads East -- Thrift Shop and agricultural land West -- Agricultural land and scattered farmsteads History: Howard Rosenwinkle, the applicant's consulting engineer, discussed the proposed sand and gravel mining operation with the Planning Commission on July 24, 1980 and August 14, 1980. General concerns were expressed along with the concept of a sur-charge for land reclamation. The City Council also reviewed the proposal on September 2, 1980 at which time an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was requested to be prepared. The EAW was requested to include a traffic impact analysis and a hydrological analysis. 04 PC 81-18C ;"`' June 11, 1981 Rosenwinkle Cond. Use Permit Page -2- & Mining Permit 'IL-- Considerations: 1. So as not to be repetitive, the overall details of the proposal will not be presented in this staff report. The attached "Plan for Mineral Extraction" and "Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)" contain a full description of the proposed operation. 2. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area of the proposed mine as remaining in agricultural uses. To the north of the mine site is proposed an interchange of the bypass and County Road 83. The immediate land surrounding the interchange is designated as commercial land in the Plan. Because the Comprehensive Plan does not indicate significant changes in land use in the vicinity of the proposed mine, the compatibility of land uses is expected to be the same through 1990 as it is today. 3. Because the surrounding land is primarily used for agriculture, the impact of the proposed mine on adjoining land uses would be minimal. However, scattered farm residences do exist near the mine site, in addition to several residences in Killarney Hills Addition. The potential impact of the proposed mine on these residences would consist of noise, traffic, safety factor, water quality, etc. Each of these impacts are addressed in the two attached documents. 4. Although some fencing is proposed, the safety factor should be a main concern of the City. Enclosing the mining operation with a security- type fence seems reasonable. 5. The mine's proposed access road off of County Road 83 is sufficient in length to prevent the stacking of trucks onto the county road. The grade of the county road would not create a blind intersection with the mine's proposed access road, thereby adding a margin of safety. 6. As indicated within the attached "Plan For Mineral Extraction", weight restrictions apply to those county roads intended to be used by the mine operation. The letters from the County Engineer, which are included in the Plan, address these restrictions and required maintenance activities. 7. Screening of the mining site with berms are planned by the applicant. Dense plantings could also be utilized so as to provide additional screening, aesthetics and some noice control. 8. The Zoning Ordinance requires specific setbacks for the actual mining operation as follows: 100 feet from any residential or commercial structure; 30 feet from any road right-of-way. It appears as though these setbacks are intended to be met by the applicant. 9. Although no buildings or structures are initially planned to be built, they may be added in the future. If this occurs, complete enclosure within the mining site's fence is recommended. • PC 81-18C 410 June 11, 1981 Rosenwinkle Cond. Use Permit & Page -3- Mining Permit 11/ 10. Hours of operation must be limited to between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, according to the Zoning Ordinance. 11. Dust control must occur on County Road 83 south of County Road 16 so as to eliminate such a nuisance from nearby properties. 12. The attached EAW indicates noise levels to be a maximum of 90dB which is below permissable limits allowed by OSHA. Staff does not have the expertise to determine the level of noise by each nearby residence. Noise level standards have been set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and can be monitored by the agency. 13. The "Plan for Mineral Extraction" indicates that three soil borings were conducted. The water table in all borings was not reached, even after depths of up to 78 feet. Well logs from adjoining properties indicate ground water elevations of approximately 90 feet below the surface. The letter from the Minnesota Geological Survey, which is included in the "Plan", recommends that precautions be taken to prevent surface drainage from entering the extraction area, thereby eliminating agricultural chemicals, road chemicals, etc. , from reaching bedrock and filtering into the ground water. Also, it is recommended in the letter that on-site storage of large amounts of fuel or other liquids be discouraged to prevent spills from entering the ground water. Through precautions, it can be expected that no contamination of ground water, as a result of the mining operation, will occur. 14. The Vehicle (Truck) Route Plan map included in the "Plan For Mineral Extraction" report, indicates some truck use of County Road 16 as it extends into the urban portion of Shakopee. Because of future multiple family developments planned along County Road 16, the truck traffic may be somewhat disruptive. It is suggested that no truck traffic from the proposed mine be routed into the urban portion of Shakopee. 15. A Northern Natural Gas Company pipeline angles through the proposed mine site. Although not affecting the initial acreage proposed to be mined, relocation of the pipeline to the perimeter of the property would be necessary if additional acreage were mined. A letter from the gas company to the applicant's consulting engineer indicates the arrangement between the two parties which would be required prior to the commencement of the mining operation. A copy of the letter is attached to this report for your information. 16. A major component to the mining operation is land reclamation. The applicant is proposing to reclaim the exhausted pit with a demolition landfill. Such a landfill would raise the property to its original elevation by filling the pit with demolition material, (i.e. building rubble, concrete-used highway material, etc. ). Once completed, the land could be covered with soil and seeded, used for agriculture, converted to recreation land, etc. An application for a demolition landfill would be filed with the County in several years. PC 81-18C :j6 June 11, 1981 Rosenwinkle Cond. Use Permit Page -4- & Mining Permit Sze If the demolition landfill would not be approved, the applicant proposes to contour the floor of the exhausted pit. The embankment sides are proposed to be graded at a 3 to 1 slope. The final land use of this "reclaimed" depression has not been indicated in the report, although recreation or industrial land uses seem most logical. The possibility of applying a surcharge on each increment of mined material was suggested by the Planning Commission at their informal review of the mining operation last fall. The acculated funds were intended to be used to ensure land reclamation. The staff has not been able to locate any community which has used a surcharge in this respect. A surcharge fee would have to be negotiated between the City and applicant if desired to be used. Staff's experience with reclamation activities has involved a "phased" reclamation. That is, for each pre-determined number of acres exhausted, reclamation • would be required while a new area is mined. As the mining operation progresses, reclamation activities would occur simultaneously. B establishing a small mining cell (about 10 acres), only a very small acreage would be actively mined while the exhausted area could be reclaimed. Such an approach has proven successful in several states where used. Needless to say, a plan detailing reclamation activities would have to be determined and approved prior to commencement of the mining operation. Staff Recommendation: The City staff did not receive all necessary material from the applicant in sufficient time to permit a thorough review of the proposal. However, based on the information in-hand and the current level of review, the staff recommendation is as follows: The Planning Commission offer Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 277, which would grant the application for mineral extraction and land rehabilitation in an AG Zone, subject to the following listed conditions numbered 1 through 17. In addition, the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the Mineral Extraction and Land Reclamation Permit (Mining Permit) , subject to the following same conditions numbered 1 through 16: 1. Conditional Use Permit and Mining Permit be renewed on an annual basis; 2. The disturbed portion of the site be fully enclosed with a cyclone-type security fence of sufficient height to prevent intrusion; 3. The road restrictions and road maintenance measures as required by the County Engineer be implemented; 4. Berms be placed around the entire perimeter of the mining area. The berms be fully seeded to prevent erosion; 5. A dense vegetative screening along the outside of the berm be planted. This screening plan shall be approved by the City Planner; 6. The mining operation maintain the following minimum setbacks: 100 feet from any residential or commercial property line; 500 feet from any residential or commercial structure; 30 feet from any road right-of-way; • PC 81-18C o June 11, 1981 Rosenwinkle Cond. Use Permit Page -5- & Mining Permit 7. All buildings and structures placed on the property obtain a Building Permit prior to construction. The buildings and structures shall be fully enclosed with the property's security fencing; 8. The hours of operations shall not extend beyond 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM; 9. A dust control plan for County Road 83, south of County Road 16, shall be approved by the City Engineer; 10. Noise emissions shall not exceed the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) standards; 11. A plan preventing surface drainage and any on-site fuels, liquids, etc. ; from entering the extraction area be prepared and submitted to the City Engineer for approval; 12. No truck traffic from the mining operation be routed through the urban portion of the City of Shakopee; 13. Any lighting of the mining site be directed away from nearby residences; 14. The Northern Natural Gas Co pipeline be relocated to the perimeter of the mining site, according to the arrangement established in Minnegasco's letter to Mr. Howard Rosenwinkel dated May 27, 1981 (see attached letter); 15. A land reclamation plan be approved by the City of Shakopee. For simplification and ease of implementation for the City, a "phased" reclamation plan may be preferable; 16. The applicant reimburse the City Engineering Department for the department's review time of this proposal; 17. Conditional Use Permit approval be contingent upon City Council approval of the Mineral Extraction and Land Reclamation Permit (Mining Permit). Planning Commission Action on Conditional Use Permit: Planning Commission rescheduled public hearing for July 9, 1981 due to incorrect public hearing notice. Action of July 9, 1981: See attached. Action of October 8, 1981: Planning Commission denied unanimously subject to Section 11.0+, Subd 6A, Items #1, #6, and #7 and Section 11.24, Subd. 1 of the Shakopee City Code (see Resolution No. 277 for reasons of denial). Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council on Mining Permit:. None, as Conditional Use Permit was denied. City Council Action: DS/jiw Attachment Case No. PC 81-18C1110 Rosenwinkle Mining Cond. Use Permit & Mining Permit Planning Commission Action: (July 9, 1981) Planning Commission opened public hearing and after lengthy discussion and input from property owners elected to establish a four-man committee, made up of property owners in opposition of Mining Permit, to establish questions of concern regarding said permit applications and bring these concerns to the attention of the City Planner who then in turn will forward them to the applicant for answering. Members of the Planning Commission to come up with questions also and handle in like manner. The four members of this committee are: Robert Schneider Tim Keane Robert Schaefer 330 Valley View Drive Larkin, Hoffman, etal Route 1 Shakopee, MN 55379 Law Firm Shakopee, MN 55379 7900 Xerxes Avenue So. Bloomington, MN 55+36 • Dave Czaja 5262 Eagle Creek Blvd. Shakopee, MN 55379 Various petitions were submitted from residents of Shakopee opposing the requested permits. The original of these petitions have been given to the City Clerk for filing. Public hearing was continued to October 8th, 1981 4411 MEMO TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Don Steger, City Planner RE: Proposed Sand and Gravel Mine DATE: October 1, 1981 The public hearing on the proposed sand and gravel mine is scheduled to be continued at the October 8, 1981, Planning Commission meeting. Since the last hearing on this matter, questions from the citizens group opposed to the mine have been submitted for response. Thequestions and responses are attached for your review. The responses have primarily been provided by Howard Rosenwinkel , the applicant 's consultant , however, I have also provided some of the responses because of the nature of some of the questions. Please bring the material from the July meeting with you: 1) Staff report; 2) Plan for Mineral Extraction (light green covered report ) , 3) Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) . Because of some slight changes in the wording of some of the staff' s suggested conditions of approval, the staff recommendation is reiterated as follows : The Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 277, which would grant the application for mineral extraction and land rehabilitation in an Agriculture (AG) Zone, subject to the following listed conditions Numbered 1 through 17. In addition, the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the Mineral Extraction and Land Reclamation Permit (Mining Permit ) , subject to the following same conditions numbered 1 through 16: 1. Conditional Use Permit and Mining Permit be renewed on an annual basis; 2 . The disturbed portion of the site be fully enclosed with a cyclone-type security fence of sufficient height to prevent intrusion; 3. The road restrictions and road maintenance measures as required by the County Engineer be implemented; 4 . Berms be placed around the entire perimeter of the mining area. The berms be fully seeded to prevent erosion; 5 . A dense vegetative screening along the outside of the berm be planted. This screening plan shall be approved by the City Planner, Shakopee Planning Ommission 3 October 1, 1981 Proposed Sand and Gravel Mine Page -2- 6 . The mining operation maintain the following minimum setbacks : -100 feet from any existing residential or commercial property line ; -500 feet from any existing residential or commercial structure; -30 feet from any road right-of-way 7 . All buildings and structures placed on the property obtain a Building Permit prior to construction. The buildings and structures shall be fully enclosed with the property ' s security fencing and removed from the site within 90 days after the mining operation ceases , as determined by the City Planner; 8. The hours of operation shall not extend beyond 7 : 00 A.M. to 7 : 00 P.M. ; 9. A dust control plan for County Road 83, south of County Road 16, shall be approved by the City Engineer; 10 . Noise omissions shall not exceed the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) standards ; 11. A -plan preventing surface drainage and any on-site fuels , liquids , etc . , from entering the extraction area be prepared and submitted to the City Engineer for approval; 12 . No truck traffic from the mining operation be routed through the urban portion of the City of Shakopee , except on Highway 101 and 169; 13 . Any lighting of the mining site be directed away from nearby residences; 14 . The Northern Natural Gas Company pipeline be relocated to the perimeter of the mining site , according to the arrangement established in Minnegasco ' s letter to Mr. Howard Rosenwinkel dated May 27 , 1981 (see attached) ; 15 . A land reclamation plan be approved by the City of Shakopee . For simplification and ease of implementation for the City, a "phased" reclamation plan shall be used. A bond shall be required equal in amount to reclamation costs . 16 . The applicant reimburse the City Engineering Department for the department ' s review time of this proposal; 17 . Conditional Use Permit approval be contingent upon City Council approval of the Mineral Extraction and Land Reclamation Permit (Mining Permit ) . DS/jiw Attachment „1114414j.t ... gie CITY SHA PEE 0 w• : INCORPORATED 1870 BEINIMESSI, ,+)k; ‘t444,,ti 129 E. First Ave. - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 -411#1�� tr November 2, 1981 '� Howard Rosenwinkel Rogers Freels & Associates Minnesota Engineering 5666 Lincoln Drive Minneapolis, MN 55436 Dear Mr. Rosenwinkel : As per your request, I have researched the tax liability on parcel 27-916-010-0 my findings are as follows: 1980 ASSESSMENT TAXES PAYABLE 1981 Acres 1980 Market Value Class 1981 Taxes 115 Agricultural $102, 700.00 Ag. $1 , 542 . 28 POTENTIAL TAX LIABILITY AS MINING OPERATION Acres Potential 1980 Market Class 1981 Tax 10 Active Mine $50,000.00 Comm. $2,043.00 10 Potential Mine $25,000.00 Comm. $1 ,021 .00 95 Agriculture $85 ,000.00 Comm. $3,436.00 Total : $6, 500.00 The above estimate of potential tax liability is based upon a commercial tax classification. No adjustment for fiscal disparities has been made where approximately 30% of the $6, 500.00 will be taken from the local jurisdictions . Also please keep in mind that the potential tax liability is an estimate for payable 1981 , and because of the many variables that affect ad valorum taxation, the City Assessor assumes no responsibility for any deviation from the figures listed and their subsequent impact on future assessments. 1' Jl0 I10ari of Progross Va / lcu An Equal Opportunity Employer Rosenwinkel/Martin ' November 2, 1981 " Page -2- `12 .V If you have any questions regarding this matter please feel free to call . Sincerely, Larry D. Martin City Assessor LDM : cu cc : John Anderson Don Steger ATTACHMENT "F" Planning Commission MeetingMinutes of July 9, 1981 and October 8, 1981 1 July 9, 1981 Page 2 Chrm. Schmitt asked for comments from the audience. Eldon Reinke asked what was the reasoning of the Planning Commission when they re- zoned it to Industrial from Highway Business. Comm. Coller stated he thought that the narrow strip of business may have been overlooked in the larger industrial area. He checked back in his notes and couldn't find any notation regarding this rezoning. Vierling/Koehnen moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Coller/Perusich moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning of this 2.63 acre parcel from 1-2 to B-1, contingent upon rezoning next month the parcels of property identified as Lots 1-3, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3, Cretex Industrial Park 1st Addition - Lot 1, Block 1, Howe 1st Addition - Lot 1, Blk. 1, Case 1st Addn. - Tobco, Inc. , a 5.17 acre parcel in Sec. 2-115-22 - Landy's Camping Cent. , a 5.8 acre parcel in Sec. 3-115-22 and a 6.2 acre parcel in Sec. 3-115-22 fee Owner: Darwin Hentz under CD Rosemarie Gearman. Motion carried unanimously. The rezoning of the adjacent property is to be initiated by the Planning Commission. The developer was advised that he can start construction after Council approval of the rezoning, if aware that the approval is contingent upon the rezoning of the adjacent properties. Coller/Vierling moved that the properties previously identified be submitted for rezoning at the August 13, 1981 Planning Comrni;;sion meeting. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - Scott Co. Lumber Co. , Inc CUP an:- Mineral Extraction and Land Rehab- ilitation Permit (Mining Permit) (PC 81-18C) Ferusich/Vierling moved to open the public hearing on the conditional use and mining permit to operate a sand and gravel mining operation southwest of CR 83 and CR 16. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner stated that the applicant is Scott Co. Lumber Co. , Inc. , which is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a Mineral Extraction and Land Re- habilitation Permit (Mining Permit), to operate a sand and gravel mining operation off of CR83, just south of CR16. The applicant's consulting engineer, Howard :Rosenwinkel, submitted an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) which includes a traffic impact analysis and a hydrological analysis, The City Planner highlighted 17 concerns addressed in the case report and concluded that staff recommended issuance of a Conditional Use Permit and Mining Permit granting approval for mineral extraction and land rehabilitation in a AG Zone, ,wbjecl, to the following conditions: 1. Conditional Use Permit and Mining Permit be renewed on an annual basis. 2. The disturbed portion of the site be fully enclosed with a cyclone-type security fence of sufficient height to prevent intrusion. 3. The road restrictions and road maintenance measures as required by the County En- gineer be implemented. 4. Berms be placed around the entire perimeter of the mining area. The berms be fully seeded to prevent erosion, and be 10 feet in height. .' Shakopee Planning Co scion July 9, 1981 411 Page 3 5. A dense vegetative screening along the outside of the berm be planted. This screening plan shall be approved by the City Planner. 6. The mining operation maintain the following minimum setbacks: 100 feet from any residential or commercial property line; 500 feet from any residential or commer- cial structure; 30 feet from any road right-of-way. 7. All buildings and structures placed on the property obtain a Building Permit prior to construction. The buildings an'' structures shall be fully enclosed with the property's security fencing. 8. The hours of operations shall not extend beyond 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. 9. A dust control plan for CR83, south of CR16, shall be approved by the City Engineer. 10. Noise emissions shall not exceed the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards. 11. A plan preventing surface drainage and any on-site fuels, liquids, etc. from en- tering the extraction area be prepared and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. 12. No truck traffic from the mining operation be routed through the urban portion of the City of Shakopee. 13. Any lighting of the mining site be directed away from nearby residences. 14. The Northern Natural Gas Co. pipeline be relocated to the perimeter of the mining site, according to the arrangement established in Minnegasco's letter to Mr. Howard hoseno•riiikel dated May 27, 1981. 15. A land reclamation plan be approved by the City of Shakopee. For simplification and ease of implementation for the City, a "phased" reclamation plan may be pre- ferable. 16. The applicant reimburse the City Engineering iJ-partment for'the department's review time of this proposal. 17. Conditional Use Permit approval be contingent upon City Council approval of the Mineral Extraction and Land Reclamation Permit (Mining Permit). The• City Planner added that a surcharge was contemplated by the Planning Commission on each increment of mined material, but they have been informed by the City Attorney Lhat the City does n,A have the authority to require a surcharge, but it could requirr a bond for reclamation procedures. Chrm. Schmitt asked the applicant if he wished to make a presentation at this time, and he declined, stating he would answer concerns as voiced. At this time Chrm. Schmitt asked the audience for comments. Mr. Robert Simons stated that he is an attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Rutt and he was informed that at the June meeting of the Planning Commission, in which the public hearing on this Conditional Use Permit had been cancelled, Mr. lio:;enw:inkel • ' Shakopee Planning Co ,_Osion July 9, 1981 Page 4 was allowed to make a presentation of the requested operation, and he asked that same presentation be made now. At this time Mr. Hosenwinkel went through a pictoral presentation similar to what was done at the June meeting, showing lay-out of proposed operation, topography, water flow and easement for Rutt property. He stated at first it was thought the reclama- tion use might be for a sanitary landfill, but that has been changed to demolition landfill. It was also possible to put an industrial building in the hole. He stated that 99% of the traffic is anticipated to go to Hwy. 101, with very little using CR16. They are concerned with furnishing highway and construction industries with a source of material. They do not propose to process material, just dig and remove it. There would possibly be some periodic crushing, but no processing plants. Chrm. Schmitt opened the meeting to the audience questions. Roberta Schneider, 3300 Valley View Road, stated that she is President of the Shakopee Environmental Protection Assoc. , and she submitted petitions in opposition to the Con- ditional Use Permit and Mining Permit containing 175 signatures, signed by residents in the immediate area and other citizens of Shakopee. She compared 130 acres in a downtown area to demonstrate the size of the lane proposed for this operation. She stated they are concerned about the mining operation itself, and now again concerned with the remark about possibly putting an industrial building in the hole for recla- mation. John Paron, Route 1, Box 47, owns 10 acres to the south and east of the proposed site on CR83, the former Del Anderson farm. He stated he is vehemently opposed to the granting of the permits. He thinks it would devaluate the surrounding farms and. pro- perty. He quoted from "Real Estate Practice" relative to the damage done by a mining operation to the water level, pollution, noise, dust, smoke, etc. , concluding that the damages to the property would not be curable. Howard losenwinkel responded that for 25 years he has been involved with mining opera- tions, sand and gravel and quarry, and for 12 years he was an engineering consultant and did numerous studies regarding mining operations an c noises. He is familiar with decibel levels produced, and these would be below the decibel levels allowed by PCA. Mining properties near Carver have increased because of reclamation efforts. Zefere Lusignan, 3650 Eagle Creek Blvd. , expressed concern relative to water flow, pointing out flooding problems on CR83 now. Howard i�o:3enwinkel pointed out that the berming they will do will help the water prob- lem 'in places, otherwise the water will flow .gin , like it doers now. Mr. Lusignan explained that he had previously tried to get a shallow ditch put in to alleviate the flooding, but the current property owner at that time objected, so the problem still exists. He stated the mining operation cannot run water to his property. Mr. Rosenwinkel explained that the berm to the north side should help somewhat, but it won't change existing natural drainage. Mr. Lusifman stated that he has a poultry operation which can't tolerate such noise. Ho also n, ;ke,_1 t[' the anyone else a permit for sand n.n,i is i:_l milling. Shakopee Planning Co ssion July 9, 1981 Page 5 ;L-1 Chrm. Schmitt answered that the Planning Commission has received no other applica- tions, but that any other mining operation application would be heard in the same manner as this one. Mr. Lusignan asked about the 80 acres to the west, Killarney Hills and how a operat,ion would •L.rfes-t, the propetty values. Harold Schneider, 3300 Valley View Road, said his property abuts the site in 3 areas, east, south and southwest, and they have 2 dwellings on the property which would be affected. Mr. Schneider stated that some years ago Oscar Roberts made application to the town- ship board for a mining permit at the present site of the Junior High School and Scenic Heights Add'n. , and was denied. What if that was approved, look how it would affect Shakopee. At that time the area there was basically the same as this current land use around the proposed site. He feels this would devaluate his property for at least 25-30 years and feels the ap- plicant should reimburse him for this'devaluation of property. He asked why is it OK to have the traffic through the agricultural zoneand not urban. This is a drastic land use change. The City Planner responded that he agreed the land use would be changed drastically. The ordinance does provide as a conditional use a mining operation in an agricultural zone. There is an appropriate place for gravel mines and the Planning Commission in this ordinance has suggested that an agricultural location would be appropriate for a mining operation. Harold Schneider pointed out that this agricultural zone is very close to the city. He also thinks that CR16 would have a lot of increased traffic, as he doesn't believe 99% of the truck traffic from the proposed mine would go to Hwy. 101. There could be 200 trucks in and 200 trucks out in a day, and this is a lot of traffic and CR16 should be restricted. Myron Webster stated he lives just north of the site and he thinks the increased traffic would be just tragic. Chrm. Schmitt stated that CR83 is designated as a Collector Street, and at some time in the future it will be upgraded to handle additional traffic because of growth in the Industrial Park. This may or may not be a way to get the road improved with the County and State's assistance. This is just a possibility, but something to think about. Gene Hauer, stated he is the developer of Hauer Add'n, and he put up a map and pointed out the proximity of nearby landowners. He said there are about 500 acres in Hauer Add'n and they are building new houses and moving to the east and getting close to the area of the proposed site. They can sewer to within 4 mile of the northwest cor- ner of the site. If the permit is granted, they will have a hard time getting it developed further. He stated it would devaluate all their properties. He admitted the bypass is also a limiting factor for them for development,. Robert Schaefer, Route 1, Shakopee, stated he lives on CR83 actually across the City line into Prior Lake. He asked how much weight is actual]y given to the proposed by- pass. He said the applicant is suggesting 400 vehicle trips a day, which is a truck every 18 minutes in a 12 hr. day or a truck every 1.2 minutes in an 8 hr. day. Who Shakopee Planning Comission o/—// July 9, 1981 77 Page 6 will pay for the impact of traffic on CR83? We need to hear more specifics about who will pay and whether or not CR83 will be upgraded and what about surcharge and bonds. It will take 65 years to deplete the mine n.L the projected rate of removal, so there are very long-term effects. He stated the 90 decibels of noise emissions stated by the applicant are those allowable by OSHA to protect the crusher operator; 60 decibels is the limit allowed by PCA, that is just like normal speech. Sheila Mitchell, stated she formerly lived near the site and now lived in the "safe" part of the city. She asked about who will be monitoring performance to make sure the applicant is complying if there is a performance bond required. She asked how high the fence around the pit would be, how high is safe? If it takes 65 years to take the material out, how long will it take to fill it in. She disagrees that it is as easy to stop something once it is started. She said what we have is fear of the un- known. There are too many generalities, the answers are not concrete enough. She also questioned using the pit as a demolition landfill because of the perculation, as she thought the PCB's and other detrimental agents would filter down to the water table. Dave Czaja, 5262 Eagle Creek Blvd. , stated that he and Todd Becken have been involved with the City of Shakopee, with the Department of Natural Resources and the Hydrolo- gist for the City and the State, as well as the Hydrologist for the Shiely Corp. and had a lot of information as far as ground water involvement with the proposed mining operation. Mr. Caja showed a slide presentation with various charts and graphs relative to water flow and berms and topography. He stated the water flows to the northeast and there will be water flowing to the open pit. They also plan to store 5000 gallons of fuel on the site and he is concerned with leakage and contamination of groundwater. He said the applicants states the pit floor will be at 750 feet, and at one well they found water at 742 feet, so that is only a few feet above the water table. Mr. losenwinkel stated they propose to be 15-20 feet above the water table. Mr. Czaja presented information regarding a false water table which is created by the Shiely Corp. 's pumping activities. If Shiely stops pumping, he believes the water table will rise higher, and then the danger of contamination is much greater. Mr. Czaja stated the proposed site is a primary recharge area for the Jordan-Prairie DuChein Aquafer. The water from the pit would only be 8-15 feet above the aquafere. He stated the Metro conditions for a major recharge area should be met and included i County and Municipal plans. The guidelines provide that Counties and Municipalities should not allow alterations of the recharge area which would negatively affect the area. Counties and Municipalities should allow nothing that has an adverse affect on the quality or quantity of groundwater in a recharge area. Mr. Czaja stated that studies have shown that the Shiely pumping has had a downdraw affect on the water table, and the actual water table level is 764 feet, or 14 feet above the 750 foot level calculated to be dug. Mr. CL;L,ja, also stated there has been some contamination in wells along CR16. The source has not been identified, but AG land could be a factor, as there are high concentrates of nitrates. Groundwater flow from Metro maps indicate the general direction of water is to the north to the river. Residents with wells in this area would soon see the contamination, he believes. Mr. Czaja also stated the City had wells in this area. • Shakopee Planning Cossion July 9, 1981 7nroZ Page 7 The City Engineer stated there is a City well under contract for construction immediately to the north of the proposed site. Mr. Rosenwinkel stated he is concerned about the groundwater and flow, but when they contacted the County health officials and the State DNR hydrologist, he was told they didn't know enough about it to make any remarks. He would like to have some concrete information from the State Hydrologist's office and not just speculation. Mr. aja stated he is just trying to establish that we don't really know where the water table is. Chrm. Schmitt stated he recommends we cease testimony at 11:00 P.M. , which would give 2 hrs. of testimony. He asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to make any comments for the proposal. Mr. Roseiiwinkel stated that they were concerned about devaluation of properties and in May had an outside firm search for similar properties to study. Ken Lewis was present to present his study. iCenneth Lewis of Kenneth Lewis & Associates, 6600 France Avenue, Edina, stated he had made a preliminary survey of various gravel pits about what happened to property values. He made a study of 3 gravel pits which were the most similar to the proposed one. Pearson Pit, 160th and CR44: He talked with a number of real estate sales peoplewho live in the subdivision directly across from the gravel pit. This pit is 120 feet deep and they are now into the water table. They have bermed up around the entire pit. He analyzed one property located on White Drive which was experiencing truck traffic, but no noise. He had limited find_iri c on that, pi L , `that there was no devaluation. Fisher Sand and Gravel, Apple Valley: Looked at the Greenleaf Add'n. He had appraisals before and after the subdivision. The operation is bermed and cannot be seen. He talked with one property owner who had a house on a large lot. She indicated there was some dust, but noise was not a problem. She wouldn't change her lot for another. He looked at another property on Floridian Court where the buyer and seller indicated no adverse affect from the gravel pit. He analyzed this pit the most, as similar Arden Hills Arsenal Gravel Pit: , Spoke to Duane Diedrick, developer north of CRI. The gravel pit there is z mile off the road and heavy truck traffic is the only affect for surrounding area. From his sales transactions, Mr. Diedrick stated he is not experiencing any adverse affects from truck traffic. Ken Rutt, Route 2, Box 46, stated he was the exception, his property is within the proposed berm, and asked Mr. Lewis if he would buy a property like his. Chem. Schmitt asked if Mr. Lewis had anaylyzed the Hedburg operation in Edina. 'Mr. Lewis said he appraised all the land from Xerxes to Southdale. That sand and gravel operation is finishing up now and being developed with apartments and condo- miniums and housing for the elderly. Residential area abutting the operation is being built up with $300,000 housing. He stated it was difficult to analyze this area be- cause the pit was so old, but he dicn't find any devaluation. Someone in the audience asked for addresses of these $300,000 homes, and Mr. Lewis said he would have to look it up. Mr. Lusignan stated that the Hedburg operation was very different in that when that operation is through there will not be a hole in the ground, they are just taking away a hill. • Shakopee Planning Cossion July .9, 1981 ` '' Page 8 Vern Lang, 612 East 3rd Avenue, stated he is the Secretary-Treasurer for Prestige Park, which owns the Kilarney Hills development. They bought the property in 1967, 14 years ago. At-that time they did everything possible to check with Metro Council, Scott County and Eagle Creek Township and they got nothing. The bypass has possibly ended their development. He stated that at one time Karin O'Brien was first denied a permit to build a building because of the proposed bypass, but later he was given a permit because they felt if it went to Court they wouldn't be able to justify deny- ing it because of something so nebulous as the bypass. He stated he just wanted to get this in the record so they could negotiate with the City later. Tim Keane stated he is not a directly impacted resident, but is an individual concerned with Shakopee and its land use. He requested that this body take action tonight by denying the application for the Conditional Use Permit. His first reason is that the site is located on prime agricultural land. This would be a loss of substantial farm land, of which 3 million acres are lost each year. • He stated we can't continue to depend on technology, which is dependent upon cheap energy, to increase our food production. This is the type of land we should be protecting. This use is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This site is designated for preservation as AC land. A conditional use is only that, and shouldn't be given automatic approval because it is listed as a conditional use. Mr. Keane stated that the applicant has not complied with the conditions set forth to make application. He stated the consulting engineer is not registered with the State. The traffic study and hydrological report raised more questions than they answered. It did not answer the need to upgrade the roads who will pay for that. The applicant has not demonstrated a need for gravel on a regional scale. Mr. Keane stated he believed it would be premature to grant this permit to take prime AG land out of use when there is no demonstrated need for gravel in the area. Mr. Keane stated he did not believe the information presented met the criteria an ap- plicant must meet before this body can issue a permit by ordinance. The applicant has not shown that the proposed use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties nor substantially devaluate other properties; that it will not impede normal and orderly development and improvement; that adequate utilities, access road and drainage are provided; that adequate measures will be taken to prevent noise, dust, vibration or other nuisance or that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. He stated the potential problems are most serious. He stated a neigh- boring property could not obtain an FHA loan guarantee with a 90 decibel noise emission level. Mr. Keane stated that 400 truck trips a day does constitute a potential traffic hazard, with heavily loaded trucksentering Hwy. 101. Mr. Keane stated he felt the benefits to the City have not been demonstrated to make such a drastic land use change. He says the only benefit would be to the seller and users of gravel. The Cost is heavy and he requests this proposal not be tabled, but be denied on the basis of No. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9 as required by Section 11.04, Sub- section 6 of the City Code. Chrm. Schmitt asked Mr. Keane under what conditions would he anticipate having to use the conditional use permit for mining and how would you possibly cope for the growing need for resources. • Shakopee Planning Coy.:.; . sion July 9, 1981 '6= z• ;11 4 Page 9 • Mr. Keane stated that the ordinance was adopted two months before his tenure with the City as City Planner. He would have agreed to mining permits when that is the only reasonable use the' property owner has, as when the land is overburdened. If an owner could argue hardship and no other productive use of the land, then mining could be considered. He stated there is no question that the resource is there, he just questions when the property should be taken out of productive land use to tap the resource, as this is a irreplaceable change of use. Howard Roseriw_inkel told Mr. Keane to check the National Directory of Engineers, as he is registered there. The City Planner stated that he does not think this body has the authority to question the need for the resource. That is a private decision that the marketplace should determine. This is a private commercial venture. He then added that he want to ' make it clear that he is a very strong proponent of AG land preservation. A certain amount of AG land will inevitably be used for commercial & industrial development and the one who wants to develop residential areas also takes AG land. We live in an agricultural area where almost all land is AG land and, therefore, necessary to convert to provide for the orderly growth of cities. The City Planner clarified his point that he doesn't believe the applicant has the right to use AG land for mining because it is listed as a conditional use. He believes he has the option to request the use. The property is designated AG land in the Comprehensive Development Plan, and a mining operation is a conditional use in an AG Zone. If the intent of the Planning Commission was not to permit mines in AG Zones, it should not have listed it in that zoning. If the conditions are reasonable for the permit and willing to be met by the applicant, it is an appropriate use of the land. Comm. Coller asked if there was someone in the audience who had something to offer that has not been heard, a different perspective. Coller/Vierling moved to extend the hearing for another 10 minutes and allow anyone to present any new facts for 2 minutes each. Motion carried unanimously. Robert Simons stated that Mr. and Mrs. Butt's property is the exception. They have a parcel of land approximately 5 acres in size, together with 33 feet of right of way for ingress and egress to the property. The proposed pit will border the excepted area on 4 sides. With the berm, they are imprisoning 5 acres of land, and it is inconceivable to say that this doesn't violate the ordinance with respect to diminution of property value. Ken Giske, St. Louis Park, stated he is a horse owner and that he boards his horse on a ranch nearby and there are other horse boarding operations near the proposed site. He stated it will not be good to ride a horse down the road with 400 gravel trucks passing by. He stated he hopes the permit will be denied because it interferes with his recreational rights. Gene Iiosenwinkel stated that he was working as a property consultant. All testing of the site shows good road and concrete sand and gravel. The President of the National Ready Mix Assoc. said that unless we find new deposits of material like this, we will have a hard time building anything. • July 9, 19810011 410 gLt Page 10 Mr. Gillard, Edina, stated he owns 40 acres across CR83. He ran a real estate busi- ness for 40 years, and anyone who tells you an operation like this doesn't depreciate property is just whistling dixie. When Shakopee incorporated Eagle Creek Township, it wasn't for a gravel pit, it was for residential expansion. All of that area is potential residential. You are not just taking 130 acres out, but 500-600 acres be- cause the surrounding areas are bound to be affected. Comm. Koehnen stated she doesn't feel the Planning Commission has a right to put a time limit on a public hearing. She lives in the area and feels she has not been heard. She requested a poll of the audience to see if anyone wants to be heard yet. Chrm. Schmitt asked if it was the consensus of the Commission to ask for a show of hands if anyone has any further issues. The consensus was yes, and one hand was raised. Todd Becken stated he lives on CR16. He put up a map and stated he got his informa- tion from the U.S. Geological Survey Map which shows the sites of gravel pits in the area. He pointed out that there were quite a few gravel pits nearby and questions if there is a demand for gravel and rock that can't be met by these already operating gravel pits. Mr. Becken stated he doesn't think a rehabilitated gravel pit is possible, its a big joke. A developer is not that concerned about what will happen 65 years down the line. He looked at Roberts Pit which has been closed for years. It is just a big dump with a lot of erosion. Roberta Schneider stated her association just felt there were too many unanswered questions in the application itself. It wasn't as specific as it should have been when you are talking about as drastic a land change as this. It is her contention that there is sufficient supporting documentation to deny the permit. Comm, Koehnen stated that the nearest residence to the site is much closer than the 1000 feet indicated on the Environmental Worksheet. Also, there are two horse ranches nearby and before this proposal is voted upon she would like to get an answer to a question about where does the waste material from the horses go, does it go directly down or move laterally? She requested that the people that were sent the Environmental V.ork:beet should answer this. Howard Rosenwin.el stated they were referring to the residential development of Kilarney Hills as being about 1000 feet away, They had pointed out that the nearest residence was more like 350 feet away. Chrm. Schmitt stated the Commission should be careful about this issue so they are not denying a permit for the use of one property because of the unsatisfactory u'se of an adjoining property. Linda Schaefer, stated she lives on CR83. She asked about who would enforce the con- ditions attached to the permit if granted. The City Planner stated the City does. It is one of the functions of his position and also one of the functions of the annual review. On a periodic basis it would be checked, and if violations were detected at any point in time the situation would have to be corrected immediately or the permit revoked. Comm. Perusich stated that generally speaking the public polices the problems when they see any violations and report them. The City Planner added that they oaround City violations because of the time involved. When aviolationoccurs, wearegenerllyntfiedby the public. July 9, 1981 41, Page 11 • Mr. Czaja stated he takes objection to the public policing when it comes to something like groundwater contamination which cannot be seen. He also brought up the safety factor in the area, as he believes the intersection of CR16 and CR83 is a dangerous area. Chrm. Schmitt asked him to further clarify his statements about the well contaminations. Mr. Czaja stated they found a high concentration of nitrates in the wells. They don't know what caused the contamination, but his point is he feels if the pit goes in the loss of filtration would cause further contamination in this primary recharge area. Cncl. Leroux stated there has been a lot of talk of a landfill going in there and this should be given no consideration. The site has been denied by the Landfill Siting Task Force and the Landfill Advisory Committee. They have made their decision and for- warded it to the PCA. Unless the County over-rules its appointed Landfill Siting Committee, there will be no landfill at that site, either hazardous or demolition. Comm, Coller stated he has written down 17 questions and is not prepared to make a decision tonight until many items are clarified, Comm. Perusich stated he would like to see a list of specific questions the audience has on the issue. Then he would. suggest the Commission add to the list their specific questions and. present them to the consultant to answer specifically and then report back at a future meeting. Coller/Vierling moved that the public hearing on this matter be continued until the October 8, 1981 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Rocnwinlcel asked that City staff answer as many questions as possible before sending the list on to him. The City Planner informed him that the answers to the questions were his responsibility. Motion carried unanimously. Comm. Coller requested 3 volunteers from the audience to represent the audience and draw up a formal list of questions to be submitted to the City Planner within 30 days. Chrm. Schmitt asked Comm. Coller to act on behalf of the Planning Commission to list the questions of the Commission. Comm. Coller agreed. Audience volunteers are Mr. David Czaja, Robert, Schaefer, Roberta Schneider & Tim Keane. Perusich/Stoltzman moved to recess at 11:40 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Chrm. Schmitt called the meeting to order at 11:50 P.M. Coller/Perusich moved to enter the Petitions submit,l,ed in opposition of the requested Conditional Use Permit and Mining Permit, into the record. Motion carried with Comm. Koehnen abstaining. PUBLIC HEARING - Amending Shakopee City Code Coller/Vierling moved to open the public hearing on amending the City Zoning Ordinance to require a bond for the moving of structures. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee Planning Commission July 9, 1981 Page 13 Perusich/Vierling moved that when the Planning Commission adjourns, it adjourn to July 23, 1981. ,Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner informed the Commission about the problem John Radermacher is having in trying to move an existing garage from Block 57 (Courthouse parking lot) to his lot located at 140 E. 3rd Avenue. His problem involves the time frame he has to meet in order to remove the garage . He further stated that the time frame placed on Mr. Radermacher by the sellers would not allow for the normal Conditional Use Permit request process. He then suggested interpreting the ordinance to provide administrative authority over moving accessory structures. Coller/Vierling moved to waive the requirements for a Conditional Use Permit to move the garage from Block 57 to Lot 10, Block 48, Original Shakopee Plat, as has been requested by John Radermacher. Motion carried unanimously. . Coller/Vierling moved to have staff draft guidelines indicating when accessory buildings should be reviewed by City staff and when staff should be delegated responsibility to make decisions as to determination of whether conditional use permits should be required for accessory buildings. Motion carried unanimously. Comm. Coller suggested staff send a letter to the 4 individuals who volunteered from the audience regarding the Mining Permit and summarize that they are to draw up a list of specific concerns that are answerable by the applicant and to give them the date they should be submitted. Comm. Coller also asked the Commissioners to get their concerns to him so he can do the same. Coller/Perusich moved that staff be directed to send a letter to John Laudon of the Shakopee Sports Center noting that members of the Planning Commission have observed the improvement of the Shakopee Sports Center area and are commending him. Motion carried unanimously. Comm. Coller spoke about the safety factor of the basement door openings of the Opera House Saloon and was informed the Building Inspector has talked to the establishment about it and required the owner to make repairs. Chrmn. Schmitt asked staff to check on residential occupancy of store fronts on 1st Avenue. The City Plannerstated he would check on it and report back. Coller/Perusich moved to adjourn to July 23, 1981. Motion carried unaimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:20 AM. John Schmitt Chairman Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary • Shakopee Planning C fission October 8, 1981 410 Page 4 Stoltzman/Rockne moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Koehnen/Stoltzman moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat of Hauer's 3rd Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. The small triangular parcel of property abutting the northwest corner of Lot 1 should be dedicated as 11th Avenue. 2. Execution of a Developer's Agreement to include: a. Curb and gutter must be installed throughout Austin Court, in addition to Austin Street. b. If the two existing watermain services to the property do not match the proposed lot, they must be removed, according to State Health Dept. rule. 3. The easement along the west property line of Lot 5, be increased to 10 feet on the east side of the proposed sanitary sewer pipe and up to 10 feet on the west side of the pipe where possible. 4. The subdivision be retitled "Hauer's 2nd Addition". • 5. Lots 2 and 3 be redesigned in order to reduce the angle between the common lot line and Austin Court. 6. The railroad trestle be removed prior to recording the plat. 7. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney. 8. A cash payment be made to the City in lieu of park dedication. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner informed the applicant this matter will most likely be on the agenda for City Council on October 20, 1981. 'Scott County Lumber CUP Public Hearing (Cont. from 7-9-81) PC 81-18C Stoltzman/Vierling moved to continue the public hearing on the request for a CUP and Mining and Mineral Land Extraction Permit. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner explained that this public hearing was tabled 3 months ago with the express purpose of obtaining questions from the Shakopee Environmental Protec- tion Assoc. , which were answered by the applicant's consultant, Howard Rosenwinkel, the City Planner and other individuals with some State and Federal agencies. A booklet was put together by the applicant 's consultant which contained composit questions and answers, and was sent to the four individuals who formed the citizens' group and to the Planning Commission. The City Planner stated that staff's recommendations remain the same as initially presented 3 months ago, with only some slight wording changes in the 17 conditions. The City Planner then read the list of conditions recommended by staff for approval. Vice Chrm. Perusich stated that the purpose of this hearing is for the Planning Commission to gather information to help make a decision. He explained that the conditions for discussion are to have each individual limit his/her comments to 3-5 minutes and to make them as direct as possible and without repetition. Vice Chrm. Perusich asked if there were any comments from the audience. Roberta Schneider, 330 Valley View Road, stated she is the President of Shakopee Environmental Protection Assoc. , and asked if the questions from the Assoc. pertaining to the proposed permits had been received and entered into the record. Shakopee Planning C 'ssion October 8, 1981 Page -5- �J Rockne/Vierling moved to enter the questions and answers contained in the booklet entitled, "Supplement to 'Application and Plan for Mineral Extraction - June 1981' , dated October 2, 1981 as prepared by Howard K. Rosenwinkel, Engineering Consultant for the applicant - Scott Sounty Lumber Company, Inc. and Bert Noterman, Shakopee, Minnesota" and labeled as "Exhibit A", as part of the official record on file in the office of'the Shakopee City Clerk. Motion carried with Comm. Koehnen abstaining due to conflict of interest. Robert Schneider then read a letter dated October 8, 1981 to the Shakopee Planning Commission from the Shakopee Environmental Protection Association. The letter raised various objections to actions of the Planning Commission at their meeting of July 9, 1981 in regards to the notification procedure for the proposed permits. Rockne/Stoltzman moved to enter the letter dated October 8, 1981 from Roberta Schneider, President of the Shakopee Environmental Protection Association, as "Exhibit B" and hereto made a part of the official record on file in the office of the Shakopee City Clerk. Motion carried with Comm. Koehnen abstaining due t0 conflict of interest. The City Planner responded to the letter voicing objections to Planning Commission procedure, which he said is a part of the Shakopee City Code, on notification of public hearing time and place. He also added that there were no separate questions from the Planning Commission because Comm. Coller had been of the opinion all of the questions were contained in the questions put forth by the Citizens Group. Roberta Schneider stated the Citizen' s Group was under the impression they were to meet with Comm. Coller to draw up the questions. Vice Chrm. Perusich read the minutes of the last meeting to clarify this item. Vice Chrm. Perusich read through each question contained in the booklet entitled "Supplement to 'Application and Plan For Mineral Extraction - June 1981", and each question was answered to its fullest extent by Howard K. Rosenwinkel, consul- tant for the applicant and by the City Planner. Additional comments and discussion followed. There was some more specific discussion regarding the effect of the mining opera- tion on the property of Ken Rutt and its value and the actual areas of mining within the site, and location of the berms. Mr. Schneider stated the planting of trees on the boundary would devaluate the "Agriculture" land around them for 75 - 100 feet. Howard Rosenwinkel responded co his questions about the location of trees. He stated he has made application for site inspection and evaluation from the Scott County Soil Soncervation Dept. and they might make some changes in plantings because of its recommendations. Gene Rosenwinkel, 1481 Scenic View, stated he is working with his brother, Howard, concerning the development of this property. He stated he is in the real estate business. He was in the sand and gravel business for about 25 years in Carver County and never found any devaluation in properties because of mining operations. He stated there are a lot of holes around Shakopee, and he has sold lots near them and the land has increased in value. In Carver County he started taking a hill away, but then went 100 feet into the ground and eventually built aHlake and the property escalated in value. He personally thinks the property is going to in- crease tremendously in value. • Shakopee Planning Ceission October 8, 1981 400 Page -6- Ken Rutt asked how the applicant plans to get to Area C, (the north and south- western portion of the site) . The City Planner stated that this area is essentially a landlocked piece of property. Gene Rosenwinkel stated they cannot get to this area without the permission of Mr. Rutt. Vern Lang stated he is concerned about getting some type of bond from the applicants to protect the people. The City Planner answered that a bond for reclamation is one of the conditions recommended by staff, and the conditions go with the opera- tion, not the owners. gravel trucks to ve on There was adux stated lthat CR16 and CR17ussion about aarewtruck routes, and if noiconditions•are Cncl. Leroux stated put on the original permit, the City has no control over those County roads. Lengthy discussion took place on the adequacy of access roads (Question No. 3). The City Engineer commented that Scott County very soom plans to institute a tax on raw materials taken from the county and he would presume that tax would go for any cost the county has for road maintenance, etc. Gene Rosenwinkel stated that Scott County plans to upgrade CR83 in 1983 no matter what development happens on that road. The City Engineer stated that is true, but it is possible that if this mining operation begins, it would require an addi- tional strength of road for the amount of repetitions of a 9 ton axle. Gene Rosenwinkel stated that the Legislature is trying to pass a surcharge on mining operations in the 7 county metro area. The City Planner stated that last year this was passed, and the 7 county metro area is now working on how to imple- ment it. It can be applied to existing as well as new operations, but it is a county option only. Roberta Schneider stated that the creation of artificial berms has a definite effect on natural drainage, and she doesn't feel that has been addressed. Howard Rosen- winkel stated the Soil Conservation study should address that. Dave Czaja stated there is a problem with water flow in the area around CR83 dur- ing a frozen state, not counting normal perculation. The City Engineer replied that the project would not begin without a proper drainage plan which would ad- dress that. Howard Rosenwinkel stated the Soil Conservation study would also be covering the spring time conditions. Comm. Stoltzman asked who would actually be the people mining the gravel. Howard Rosenwinkel stated the applicants would form their own management company for the operation, and it would be only an intermittant operation, used only when there is a need for materials. Comm. Stoltzman asked further if the applicants had checked out the sound levels of the appropriate machinery that would be used to be sure it could be maintained at or under 60 decibels. Dave Czaja made considerable comments relative to the water table level and how it has been affected by the Shiely Operation. He stated they have information that Shiely will be operating for 25 years, and it takes considerable time after that is terminated for the water to seek its new level. So it is not really known what the water table level is, as ShieJy has been pumping since 1968, and they do not have well log records before that time. Shakopee Planning Cdirssion01, October 8, 1981 Page -7- Cncl. Leroux stated that the site is not an inventory site, as it was rejected by the Scott County Solid Waste Advisory Committee. Dave Czaja read a memorandum dated October 8, 1981, to the Planning Commission from Roberta Schneider, President of the Shakopee Environmental Protection Asso. , urging the Planning Commission to deny this request. Rockne/Stoltzman moved to place the memo dated October 8, 1981 from the Shakopee Environmental Protection Association on file in the office of the City Clerk, as part of the official City record of the Planning Commission and entitled, "Exhibit C". Motion carried with Comm. Koehnen abstaining due to conflict of interest. Rockne/Stoltzman moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Rockne/Stoltzman moved that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use Permit . ' Resolution No. 277, subject to the Shakopee City Code (which includes the criteria that has not been met) , Section 11.04, Subd. 6A: • Item No. 1. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity. Item No. 6 The use, in the opinion of the Council is reasonably related to. the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. Item No. 7 The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. • and Conditional' Use Permit Resolution No. 277, further denied because the use is not consistent with the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed .use, per Shakopee City Code Section 11.24, Subd. 1, ad follows: "the purpose of the Agricultural Preservation (AG) area are established for the purpose of preserving, promoting, maintaining, and enhancing use of land for a commercial agricultural purpose, to prevent scattered and leap-frog non-farm growth, to protect expenditures for such public services as roads and road maintenance and police and fire protection". Roll Call: Ayes: Rockne, Vierling, Stoltzman, Perusich Noes: None Abstain: Koehnen (due to conflict of interest) Motion carried (Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 277 denied) The City Planner stated that the Planning Commission's action was to deny this permit; that decision must undergo a 7-day appeal period. If the decision of the Planning Commission is appealed to the City Council, another public hearing will be held by the City Council and at that time those people who received original notification of this hearing will be so notified again. Exhibit "A" as referenced in the Planning Commission meeting minutes of October 8, 1981, is the Supplement to "Application And Plan For l'lineral Extraction - June 1981" (Council attach- ment "E") EXHIBIT "B" October 8, 1981 TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Roberta Schneider, President Shakopee Environmental Protection Association SUBJECT: Application for Mineral Extraction - June 1981. It is respectfully submitted that contrary to the announcement at the adjourned hearing on July 9, 1981, the meeting has been scheduled for a different location. Requesting the Environ- mental Protection Association to "contact as many of the members of the Shakopee Environmental Protection Association as you feel appropriate" , , does not adequately notify interest • - ed or affected propertyowners. However, I personally con- tacted the Shakopee Valley News and Radio Station K S M M and requested notice of the change of location for the above hear- ing be dispensed in their media. Our objections to action by the Planning Commission are the same as set forth at the July 9th, 1981 meeting i.e. , there simply is not sufficient information available to make a decision based on the application and further presentations of applicants for mineral extraction. Even the Planning Commis- sion has not had sufficient time to review and/or challenge the responses given in the October 2 , 1981 document presented by Mr. Howard K. Rosenwinke. It is to be noted that members of the Shakopee Environmental Protection Association have only had this information since October 7, 1981 and that adjoining • property owners have not been given any information on these further presentations, even though one such property owner was represented by legal counsel. Certainly, more than one day is necessary for review and comment by professional people. Also, we do not have the questions of the Planning Commission nor have we been provided with copies of responses thereto. With the above objections duly noted, we feel there is no way for a further response to be given in the matter at this time. Sincerely yours , c ROBERTA SCHNEIDER rs 1 EXHIBIT "C".= `; E 1`I 0 RAN D U M TO: Planning Commission FROM: Shakopee Environmental Protection Association • / RE: Gravel Mining Permit Request i DATE: October 8, 1981 We strongly urge the Shakopee Planning Commission to deny the present request for a mineral extraction permit and conditionaluse permit to operate a gravel mine. We believe that the request fails to meet the several criteria for • granting a conditional use permit as required in Section 11.04 Subd. 6(a) of the City Code. We request that the Planning Commission deny this application based on the following findings: 1. That the proposed use will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted. 2. That the establishment of the proposed use will impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area. 3. That adequate utilities, drainage, roads, and other necessary facilities have not been provided. The County Engineer has found (letter May 15, 1981) that the existing roads would require substantial and expensive upgrading to accomodate the additional traffic. There has been no provision in this proposal to demonstrate who will pay for these required improvements. 4. That adequate measures have not been taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise, and vibrations. These will constitute continuing nuisance to adjacent property owners. 5. The use has not been shown to be reasonably related to the overall needs of the city or to the existing land use. 6. The use is not consistent with the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. Section 11 .24 Subd.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the purpose of Cho (AC) Agricultural Preservation :irea are established for the purpose of preserving, promoting, maintaining, and enhancing use of land for a commercial agricultural purposes, to prevent scattered and leap frog non-farm growth, to protect expenditures for such public services as roads and road maintenance, and police and fire protection. L f .. • Planning Commission October 8, 1981 Lia Page 2 7. The use is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. • The proposed site of the gravel mine is identified in Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan as an agricultural preservation area proposed use is in conflict with the agricultural preservation designation and policy. 8. The use will cause traffic hazards and subject travelers in the area to unnecessary safety risks. The increased hazard of a substantia]- increase in traffic will aggravate an already dangerous intersection with an undesireable design angle. 9. There is a high potential for ground water contamination. The site is within the four mile area of influence and recharge area of the Jordan Aquifer. (Page 4, Dean's Lake Hitchcock Report, August 5, 1980) Further, the staff of the Minnesota Geological Survey expressed concern over the several impacts of the development on ground - water quality. (Letter, June 1, 1981) TJK • •• • ,•• 777.7WIFT=77.74MOMMilliniMOOMMOMINIIIIIMP 401'. +tom CITY O F S A K O P E � INCORPORATED S870. '- i29 E. First Ave. Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 I KG ,«; } November ? , 1981 Howard Rosenwinkel Rogers Freels & Associates Minnesota Engineering 5666 Lincoln Drive Minneapolis, MN 55436 Dear Mr. Rosenwinkel : As per your request, I have researched the tax liability on parcel 27-916-010-0 my findings are as follows : 1980 ASSESSMENT TAXES PAYABLE 1981 Acres 1980 Market Value Class 1981 Taxes 115 Agricultural $102,700.00 Ag. $1 , 542 . 28 POTENTIAL TAX LIABILITY AS MINING OPERATION Acres Potential 1980 Market Class 1981 Tax 10 Active Mine $50,000.00 Comm. $2 ,043.00 10 Potential Mine $25 ,000.00 Comm. $1 ,021 .00 95 Agriculture $85,000.00 Comm. $3,436.00 Total : $6 , 500.00 The above estimate of potential tax liability is based upon a commercial tax classification. No adjustment for fiscal disparities has been made where approximately 30% of the $6, 500.00 will be taken from the local jurisdictions. Also please keep in mind that the potential tax liability is an estimate for payable 1981 , and because of the many variables that affect ad valorum taxation, the City Assessor assumes no responsibility for any deviation from the figures listed and their subsequent impact on future assessments. The fl cart of Progress Valley An Equal Opportunity Employer Rosenwinkel/Martin 1 November 2, 1981 Page -2- _ / If you have any questions regarding this matter please feel free to call . Sincerely, Larry D. Martin City Assessor LDM:cu cc : John Anderson Don Steger 4,4 • 3 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk RE : Application for $650,000 I .R. Bonds for Equities Unlimited DATE: November 6, 1981 Introduction On November 4, 1981 Council held a public hearing on the above application and directed staff to present the resolution giving preliminary approval at the next meeting. Action Requested 1 . Offer Resolution No. 1936, A Resolution Giving Preliminary Approval To A Proposed Industrial Development Project By Equities Unlimited Under The Municipal Industrial Develop- ment Act And Authorizing Submission Of An Application To The Commissioner Of Securities For Approval Thereof, and move its adoption . 2 . Move that the following conditions be met prior to issuance of a building permit to Equities Unlimited: a. A revised landscaping plan be submitted and approved by the City Planner. b. The exterior lighting be directed away from the highway. c. The site plan should show the location of the existing watermain and sanitary sewer lines and indicate the computation necessary to demonstrate that the VIP Inter- ceptor, located in the 25 foot sanitary sewer easement , has the capacity to support a 9-ton axel load anywhere on the parking lot at whatever plan-grade is proposed. d. The finish floor elevation be 1 . 5 feet above the service road. e . The Engineering Department must receive a drainage report analyzing the site and downstream drainage facilities to verify that there is sufficient downstream capacity for the developed runoff. The analysis should verify that there is capacity for both minor and major storm. Any drainage facilities required as a result of that analysis must be included in the proposed construction. f . The westerly driveway entrance not be located on the curve of the service road. g. Twenty (20) foot drainage and utility easement around the perimeter of the lot be submitted to the City. h. Payment of special assessments be made. Application for $650,000 I .R. Bonds for Equities Unlimited 3 Page Two November 6, 1981 3 . Move that final approval is conditional upon the developer using mortgage revenue notes . JSC/jms 3 RESOLUTION NO. 1936 A RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BY EQUITIES UNLIMITED UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES FOR APPROVAL THEREOF BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA, as follows : 1 . There has been presented to this Council a proposal by Equities Unlimited , a Minnesota general partnership (the "Company") that the City undertake and finance a project pursuant to the Minne sota Municipal Industrial Development Act , Minnesota Statutes , Chap-' ter 474 (the "Act") generally consisting of the acquisition and construction of a commercial retail facility for lease to Family Dining, Inc . , dba 1 & 44 Liquor Center , and other tenants to be determined (the "Project") . Under the proposal , the Project facil- ities will be owned by the Company, and the Company will enter into a revenue agreement with the City upon such terms and conditions as are necessary to produce income and revenues sufficient to pay when due the principal of and the interest on up to approximately $650,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds of the City to be issued pur- suant to the Act , to provide monies for the acquisition , construction and installation of the Project ; and the City will pledge its inter- est in the revenue agreement to secure the bonds . 2 . As required by the Act , this Council conducted a public hearing on November 4, 1981 on the proposal to undertake and finance the Project after publication in the official newspaper and a news- paper of general circulation in the City of a notice setting forth the time and place of hearing; stating the general nature of the Project and an estimate of the principal amount of bonds or other obligations to be issued to finance the Project ; stating that a draft copy of the proposed Application to the Commissioner of Secur- ities , together with all attachments and exhibits thereto, is avail- able for public inspection at the office of the City Clerk, in the City Hall , at all times between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4: 30 P.M. each day except Saturdays , Sundays and holidays to and including the day of hearing; and stating that all parties who appear at the public hearing shall have an opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal . The draft application to the Commissioner of Securi- ties , together with all attachments and exhibits thereto, was on file and available for public inspection at the place and times set forth in the notice . 3 . It is hereby found, determined and declared that the Project furthers the purposes stated in Section 474.01 of the Act in that the purpose of the Project is and the effect thereof will be to promote the public welfare by the attraction , encouragement and development of economically sound industry and commerce so as to prevent, so far as possible , the emergence of blighted and marginal lands and areas of chronic unemployment ; the retention and development of industry to use the available resources of the community, in order to retain the benefit of its existing investment in educational and public service facilities ; by halting the movement of talented, educated personnel of mature age to other areas and thus preserving the economic and human resources needed as a base for providing govern- mental services and facilities ; and the more intensive development of land available in the area to provide a more adequate tax base to finance the cost of governmental services in the Municipality, county and school district where the Project is located. 4. The Company has entered into preliminary discussions with Rothschild Financial Corporation as financial consultant, and the financial consultant has reported that the Project and the sale of bonds therefor are feasible . h Resolution No. 1936 Page Two 5 . The Company has agreed to pay any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the Project whether or not the Project is approved by the Commissioner of Securities and whether or not the Project is carried to completion . 6 . The Project is hereby given preliminary approval by the City subject to approval of the Project by the Commissioner of Securities and subject to final approval by this Council and by the purchasers of any bonds to be issued as to the ultimate de- tails of the Project and as to the terms of the bonds . 7 . In accordance with Section 474.01 , Subd. 7 of the Act , the Mayor , the City Clerk, and such other officers and representa- tives of the City as may from time to time be designated are hereby authorized and directed to submit the proposal for the Project to the Commissioner of Securities and request her approval thereof , and the Mayor, the City Clerk, and other officers , employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to provide the Commissioner with such preliminary information as she may require . The Company, Faegre & Benson as bond counsel , the City Clerk, the City Attorney, and other City officials are also authorized to initiate the prepara- tion of a proposed loan agreement and such other documents as may be necessary or appropriate to the Project so that , when and if the proposed Project is approved by the Commissioner and this Council gives its final approval thereto, the Project may be carried forward expeditously. 8 . The Company is hereby authorized to enter into such con- tracts , in its own name and not as agent for the City, as may be necessary for the construction of the Project by any means available to it and in the manner it determines without advertisement for bids as may be required for the acquisition or construction of other municipal facilities , but the City shall not be liable on any such contracts . Adopted in Special Session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota, held this 4th day of November, 1981 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST : City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 1981 City Attorney 4/( MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Public Hearing Date for 1981 Diseased Tree Removal Program DATE : November 6, 1981 Introduction It is necessary to change the date for the 1981 Diseased Tree Removal Program. Background Council has set, by resolution, November 17th for the public hearing on the 1981 Diseased Tree Removal Program. Because the legal description of one of the properties involved was incor- rectly described in the legal notice, a corrected notice must be published and a new hearing date set . Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 1939, A Resolution Changing The Hearing Date On The Proposed Assessments For The 1981 Diseased Tree Removal Program, and move its adoption . JSC/jms RESOLUTION NO. 1939 A RESOLUTION CHANGING THE HEARING DATE ON THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 1981 DISEASED TREE REMOVAL PROGRAM BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the date set for the public hearing on the proposed assessments for the 1981 Diseased Tree Removal Program as stated in Resolution No. 1918, is hereby changed to the 22nd day of December, 1981 , at 7 : 30 p.m. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of , 1981 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST : City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 1981 . City Attorney e (EUBURBAN � 6875 Highwa 5 (� NQINEERINO INC _V��� R ��i—i 1 Minneapolis, I 1 .- LICivil, Municipal & Environmental Engineering 1101 Cliff Roao \......../ Land Surveying • Land Planning • Soil Testing Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 Oct . 6 ,1981 S78O85 Shakopee Public Utilities Comm. 1030 East 4th St . Shakopee, MN 55379 Attn: Mr. Lou VanHout Re : TH 101 Trunk Watermain Extension 80-11 Dear Lou: Enclosed herewith is the Certificate of Completion for the above referenced project and the tabulation of final quantities . The Contractor has been notified that lien waivers for sub-contractors are required. Upon receipt and reveiw of these lien waivers , we will forward them to you so final payment may proceed. S ' cerely, A--‘,- ()..c.."-6-1.4.. .4p-I-__-- Dan P. Johnson, P. E. SUBURBAN ENGINEERING , INC. DPJ/lh enc Action Recommended Offer Resolution No. 1930, A Resolution Accepting Work on the 80-11 Project TH 101 Watermain Extension, and move its adoption. Robert Minder,Reg.Eng. E.A.Rathbun,Reg.Suru. Wm.E.Price,Reg.Eng. Gary R.Harris,Reg.Surv. Peter J.Molinaro,Reg.Eng. Wm.E.Jensen,Reg.frig. William J.Brezinsky,Reg.Eng. H. William Rogers,Reg.Surv. Bruce A.Paterson,Reg.Eng. Daniel P.Johnson,Reg.Eng. Kim W. Waldof,Reg.Eng. Robert Sikich,Reg.Surv. Peter J.Knaeble,Reg.Eng. RESOLUTION NO. 1930 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK ON THE 80-11 PROJECT TH 101 WATERMAIN EXTENSION WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract signed with the City on May 28, 1981, Richard Knutson, Inc. , Burnsville, MN has satisfactorily completed the watermain with such contract. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the work completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk and Mayor are hereby directed to issue a proper order for the final payment on such contract in the amount of $8,589.29 taking the contractor's receipt in full, upon receipt of lien waivers from all sub-contractors. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1981. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 1981 City Attorney Law Offices of KRASS, MEYER & KANNING - .-- Chartered Phillip R.Krass Shakopee Professional Building Barry K. Meyer 1221 Fourth Avenue East Philip T. Kenning Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Trevor R. Walston (612)445-5080 MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council of the City of Shakopee FROM: Phillip R. Krass DATE: November 3, 1981 SUBJECT: City/County Parking Lot Agreement Dear Mayor and Members of the Council : Enclosed please find what I sincerely hope is the final draft of the Parking Lot Agreement with the County. We received the draft back from the County Attorney' s Office on October 30th, and after some discussion with that staff, we changed back a few of the changed provisions from the City's previous draft. The major change will be found in a new Section 3.4-where the County has requested an additional extension for the undertakings of up to one year if there is a delay caused by something other than the County. We have also added a provision in Section _3(.03-commiting the City to making storm water drainage available to that block by August 31st of 1983, so that the County and Hospital know they will not have to store storm water in holding ponds on site. The few other changes that were made are routine and of little consequence. I found it easier to switch than fight. Yours very truly, KRASS, MEYER'S KANNING CHARTERED Phillip R`. Krass PRK:ph File #1-1373-107 Enclosure t AGREEMENT TO CREATE PARKING LOT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of 1981 , by and between the City of Shakopee, Minnesota , a municipal corporation, and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota (the City) , and the County of Scott, Minnesota, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota (the County) . WITNESSETH THAT, in joint and mutual exercise of their powers, and in consideration of the mutual benefits hereindescribed, the parties hereto recite and agree as follows: Section 1 . RECITALS. 1 .01 . Previous City Action. The City has previously made known its intention to establish public parking on that certain property located in Block 57, Original Plat of Shakopee, presently under the ownership of or to be acquired by the County, and described on Appendix "A, " which is attached hereto and w.de a part hereof, The City's intent was to alleviate the severe parking and traffic problems related to the travel and parking of employees and visitors to the County Courthouse. The City has made known its intent to create a parking lot district which would include the property described on Appendix "A. " The County for its part has already acquired a substantial portion of the property described on Appendix "A" and has established a surfaced parking lot thereon. 1 .02. The County's Request to Establish a Parking Lot. The County, for its part, has acknowledged the need for such parking facilities and has moved to acquire and has acqu'red or will acquire all of the property described on Appendix "A. " The County has, however, made known its desire to handle 1 r. C the construction of such parking lot facility as a private venture of the County alone without public improvement by the City. 1 .03. St. Francis Hospital Involvement. The City and the County acknowledge and understand that St. Francis Hospital has been acquiring and is continuing its efforts to acquire all of that portion of Block 57 not described on Appendix "A, " for purposes of establishing parking facilities to alleviate the parking and traffic congestion problems related to the operation of St. Francis Hospital , and that cooperation and coordination between the City, the County, and St. Francis Hospital will be necessary to develope the entirety of Block 57 into parking facilities, 1 . 04. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions by which the County will acquire and develop the property described on Appendix "A" into parking facilities in coordination with the City and St. Francis Hospital . 1 .05. Each of the parties hereto has authority to enter into this Agreement and will take all actions required of it hereby, and has taken all actions necessary to authorize this Agreement, Section 2. CITY'S UNDERTAKINGS. 2.01 . In consideration of this Agreement, the City does agree that it will refrain from taking the actions contemplated by it and recited in Section 1 . 01 , provided that the County perform its undertakings as hereinafter set forth. 2.02. The County and St. Francis Hospital shall coordinate their efforts to place parking facilities on Block 57 and will further coordinate the engineering services necessary to handle storm drainage from said lot 57. The City of Shakopee agrees to make storm drainage utilities available to said `Vy.. Block 57 on or before August 31st, 1983. Section 3. COUNTY'S UNDERTAKINGS. 3.01 . The County has or shall obtain fee title to all property described in Appendix "A, " on or before the 31st day of December , 1982. 3.02. The County shall remove or raze all structures located on the property described in Appendix "A" on or before the 1st day of May, 1983. 3.03. The County shall construct upon the property described in Appendix "A" a parking lot in accordance with the plans and specifications which shall be approved by the City, including engineering plans for drainage, and shall complete the surfacing of said parking facility on or before August 31 , 1983. 3. 04 The above-described acquisition, structure, removal or razing, and construction shall be at the exclusive cost and expense of the County. 3.05. If there shall be any delay in the purchase, acquisition, condemnation or razing of said property or buildings for any reason including �fev,; but not limited to legal disputes , strike, contractual default, natural disaster or any other delay not solely caused or occasioned by the County, then the County shall be allowed a reasonable extension of said undertaking(s) not to exceed. one (1) year. Section 4. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS. 4. 01 . Notices. All notices, certificates or other communications required to be given to the City and the County hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall 'te deemed given when delivered , or when deposited in the United States Mail in registered form with postage fully prepaid and addressed as follows : If to the City: City of Shakopee City Hall 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 •If to ate County: County of Scott Scott County Administrator Courthouse 110 Scott County Courthouse Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Any party by notice given hereunder, may designate different addresses to which subsequent notices, certificates or other communications will be sent. 4. 02. Bindingjff ect. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall be `?inding upon the parties. • 4.03. Severability. In the event any provisions of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof. 4. 04. Amendments , Changes and Modifications. This Agreement may be amended or any of its terms modified only by written amendment authorized and executed by all of the parties . 4.05. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall he an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. 4.06. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota . 4.07. Captions. The captions and the headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of any provision or section of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, both of the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed and in its corporate name by its duly authorized officers and sealed with its corporate seal as of the date first above written. THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA By Its Mayor By Its City Administrator COUNTY OF SCOTT, MINNESOTA By Chairman, Board of Commissioners By County Auditor • (61 APPENDIX A (Property on Block 57 owned or to be acquired by the County of Scott, Minnesota) HOS ri 74 4 fi AGREEMENT TO CREATE PARKING LOT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of 1981, by and between the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, a municipal corporation, and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota (the City) , and St. Francis Hospital of Shakopee, Minnesota, a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the Hospital ) . WITNESSETH THAT, in joint and mutual exercise of their powers , and in consideration of the mutual benefits hereindescribed, the parties hereto recite and agree as follows: Section 1. RECITALS. 1.01 . Previous City Action. The City has previously made known its intention to establish public parking on that certain property located in Block 57, Original Plat of Shakopee, presently under the ownership of the Hospital , and described on Appendix "A" , which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The City's intent was to alleviate the severe parking and traffic problems related to the travel and parking of employees , patients, physicians and visitors of the Hospital . The City had made known its intent to create a parking lot district which would include the property descirbed on Appendix "A" . The Hospital has recognized the above-referenced parking and traffic problems and has purchased the property described on Appendix "A" for the purpose of having the same utilized for parking facilities. 1. 02. The Hospital 's Request to Establish a Parking Lot. The Hospital , for its part, has acknowledged the need for such parking facilities and has moved to acquire and has acquired all of the property described on Appendix "A. " The Hospital has, however, made known its desire to handle the construction of such parking lot facility as a private venture of the Hospital alone without public improvement by the-City. • 1 .03. County of Scott Involvement. The City and the Hospital acknowledge and understand that the County of Scott has been acquiring and is continuing its efforts to acquire all of that portion of Block 57 not described on Appendix "A, " for purposes of establishing parking facilities to alleviate the parking and traffic congestion problems related to the operation of the Scott County Courthouse, and that cooperation and coordination between the City, the Hospital and the County of Scott will be necessary to develop the entirety of Block 57 into parking facilities. 1 . 04. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions by which the Hospital will develop the property described on Appendix "A" into parking facilities in coordination with the City and the County of Scott. 1 .05. Each of the parties hereto has authority to enter into this Agreement and will take all actions required of it hereby, and has taken all actions necessary to authorize this Agreement. Section 2. CITY'S UNDERTAKINGS . 2. 01 . In consideration of this Agreement, the City does agree that it will refrain from taking the actions contemplated by it and recited in Section 1 . 01 , provided that ti.e Hospital faithfully perform its undertakings as hereinafter set forth. 2. 02. The City of Shakopee agrees to make storm sewer drainage utilities 1 available to said Block 57 on or before August 31st, 1983. Section 3. HOSPITAL'S UNDERTAKINGS. 3.01 . ( The Hospital has obtained fee title to all property described on Appendix "A. " 3.02. The Hospital shall remove or raze all structures located on the property described in Appendix "A" on or before November 1 , 1981 . . 3.03. Ifhe Hospital shall construct upon the property described in Appendix "A" a temporary parking lot in accordance with the conditional use permit obtained by the Hospital from the City, no later than December 1 , 1981 . It is understood and agreed that during construction activities presently planned at the hospital , it will be necessary for the Hospital to utilize a portion of said temporary parking facility for the storage of construction equipment and material . At the conclusion of said construction the Hospital will cause the property described on Appendix "A" to be permanently surfaced, which permanent surface shall be placed no later than August 31 , 1983. 3. 04. The above-described acquisition, structure removal or razing, and construction shall be at the exclusive cost and expense of the Hospital . The construction of said parking facility shall be in accordance with Shakopee City Code, Section 11 . 05, Subdivision 3, Paragraph D, and shall be subject to the usual review and permit approval by the City as would by any such parking facility. 3. 05. The County and the Hospital shall use reasonable efforts to coordinate the development of parking facilities on Block 57 and to coordinate the engineering services necessary to handle storm drainage from said Block 57. Section 4. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS. 4.01 . Notices. All notices, certificates or other communications required to be given to the City and the Hospital hereunder shall he sufficiently given and shall he deemed given when delivered, or when deposited in the United States Mail in registered form with postage fully prepaid and addressed as follows : If to the City: City of Shakopee City Hall 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 If to the Hospital : St. Francis Hospital , of Shakopee, Minneso 325 West Fifth Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Attention: Executive Director Any party by notice given hereunder, may designate different addresses to which subsequent notices, certificates or other communications will be sent. 4.02. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the parties and their respective successors and assigns. 4.03. Severability. In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction , such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof. 4.04. Amendments, Changes and Modifications. This Agreement may be amended or any of its terms modified only by written amendment authorized and executed by all of the parties. 4.05. Further Assurances and Corrective Instruments. The parties agree that they will , from time to time, execute, acknowledge and deliver, or cause to be executed, acknowledged and delivered, such supplements hereto and such further instruments as may reasonably be required for correcting any inadequate or incorrect description of real property described herein or the Project or any bonds issued with respect thereto, 4.06. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 4. 07. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. 4.08. City and Corporation Representatives. Whenever under the provisions of this Agreement the approval of a particular party is required to take some action at the request of another party, such approval of such action may be given for the party by a representative designated by it in writing, and any part hereto shall be authorized to rely upon any such approval or request. 4.09. Captions. The captions and the headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and in no way define, limit or describe the scope • or intent of any provision of section of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, both of the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed and in its corporate name by its duly authorized officers andsealed with its corporate seal as of the date first above written. THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA By Its Mayor By Its City Administrator ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL, OF SHAKOPEE, MINNES01 By By IC APPENDIX A (Property on Block 57 owned by St. Francis Hospital )