Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07/09/1985
TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ.REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JULY 9 , 1985 Mayor Reinke presiding 11 Roll call at 7: 00 p.m. at the Minnesota Federal Building Z ] Approval of the Minutes of June 18, 1985 3J Accept the resignation of the City Engineer - memo on table 4 ] 7: 00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING - Appeal by Scott County Lumber Co. and Bert Notermann of the Planning Commission denial of a conditional use permit to remove sand and gravel aggregate in the Southwest corner of the intersection of CR-16 and CR-83 51 Other Business: a ] b] 61 Adjourn to Tuesday, July 16 , 1985 at 7: 00 p.m. John K. Anderson City Administrator OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 18, 1985 Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Cncl. Wampach, Vierling, Lebens; Leroux and Colligan present. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Admr. ; Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney; Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director; H. R. Spurrier, City Engineer and Robert Schmitt, of the Scott County Assessor's Office. Colligan/Vierling moved to convene as the Board of Equalization. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Schmitt said he still hasn't received a reply from Clare Nickolay relative to her property valuation. Colligan/Lebens moved to remove from the table consideration of the Claire Nickolay property. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Lebens moved to concur with the County Assessor's 1985 valuation of the Claire Nickolay property, Parcel No. 27 001 350 0, at $58,300.00. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Schmitt said he looked over the State sales ratio figures given to him and has somewhat adjusted it for flaws such as contracts for deeds and extras included in sales that weren't real estate. After these ad- justments, he thinks the more correct sales ratio for Shakopee commercial properties based on this January, 1983 to September, 1984 period would be 70.48%. That percentage would then be applied to the market value of $1,038,000 for the Shakopee Professional Group. However, it was indicated the building might be less complete than he thought it was, so that value might be decreased after inspection of the building. Jake Manahan, representing the Shakopee Professional Group, said he would like some time to check the Assessor's figures as he thinks the land was assessed at the sales ratio figures that were provided to the State. He said that sales ratio, whether correct or not, has been the one used in determining the assessed valuation for tax purposes. He would like time to discuss with the County Assessor what factors were taken into considera- tion when he adjusted the sales ratio. Mayor Reinke replied this was the last meeting of the City's Board of Equalization, and if he needed more time it could be appealed to the County. Mr. Schmitt added the County's format is the same and they would hear all the arguments. Mr. Manahan thought it would be more appropriate to have the City's board act on-this issue Mr. Schmitt further explained that the information from the State lists 12 commercial and industrial sales, 6 of which should have been adjusted for terms. The State was supposed to have made adjustments for contract Shakopee City Council June 18, 1985 Page 2 sales to turn them into cash equivalency adjustments. Some of the sales prices are high because of the terms received. He said his office will be meeting with the State to go over these sales ratio figures next week. He doesn' t think they are over-assessed at 75%. He said he did the adjust- ments quickly, and if anything the values should maybe be higher. Leroux/Lebens moved to remove from the table valuation of the Shakopee Professional Group. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to concur with the County Assessor's 1985 valuation of $731,600 or 70.48% sales ratio for the Shakopee Professional Group, Parcel No. 27 068 004 0. Mr. Manahan asked for an open motion to the County indicating the value should be open to reflect the adjustment to be made on the degree of com- pletion. Discussion continued. Motion failed with Cncl. Colligan, Vierling, Wampach and Mayor Reinke opposed. Colligan/Wampach moved to indicate to the County Board of Review that a determination of value for Shakopee Professional Group, Parcel No. 27 068 004 0 and Valley Health Properties, Parcel No. 27 068 003 0, was left open because of lack of time to consider the pertinent information. Motion carried with Cncl. Leroux and Lebens opposed. Mr. Schmitt said that after checking further into the value of a vinyl pool, he is recommending a reduction in value for Steve Strehlow. They are conservative in their estimates of pool values, because the home owners doesn't usually get that much more in a sale. Leroux/Vierling moved to remove from the table the Stephen Strehlow property. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to concur with the County Assessor's 1985 valuation of $123,700 for the Stephen Strehlow property, Parcel No. 27 908 055 0. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Schmitt went over the background information on the Douglas Waldvogel property. He said an arbitrary assessment was done because there was no response to the tag left. He also sent him a letter, and has received no reply. Wampach/Leroux moved to concur with the County Assessor's 1985 valuation of $75,200 for the Douglas Waldvogel property, Parcel No. 27 913 053 0. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Schmitt went over the background information on the All-American Glove Company. He said he is hoping to m ceive an operating statement from Mr. Appelbaum, which will be considered before the County Board of Review. He said the offices aren't being used, and the whole building is being used for manufacturing and storage. Discussion followed. Shakopee City Council June 18, 1985 Page 3 Vierling/Wampach moved to concur with the County Assessor's 1985 valua- tion of $193,800 for the All-American Glove Company, Parcel No. 27 902 027 0. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Vierling moved -to close the Board of Equalization as of June 24, 1985. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved that the findings of the Board of Equalization be approved and sent to the County Auditor for certification, as of June 24, 1985. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Lebens moved to re-convene as City Council. Motion carried unanimously. Liaison reports were given by Councilmembers. Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to ad- dress the Council on any item not on the agenda. Lynda Valencour asked City Council to do something about the problem people are having trying to cross First Avenue. She said last week a lady was hit on First Ave. , and last summer a man was hit. She spoke of the many times she has to stop at a green light because someone runs the red light. She said the traffic pulls off Holmes Street and doesn't pay any attention to the pedestrians. She said the same problem exists at First Avenue and Marschall Road. She said with more traffic expected, it will just get worse for pedestrians. She would suggest more police patrolling. She said one afternoon she drove along First Ave. and found the average speed to be 46 m.p.h. , with the highs up to 55 m.p.h. She complained that the traffic lights don't stay green long enough for a person to cross the street, and the walk buttons don't seem to help. Another lady from the audience commented that last week she walked to the Post Office and the light changed to yellow before she was half way across, and it was the same coming back. She said many people are afraid to cross the street; it is like taking your life in your hands. The City Admr. made a note to check with the appropriate people to get a response to the following concerns on First Avenue: 1. Cars running the lights; 2. Speeding traffic; 3. More time on "Walk" to allow pedestrians to cross; 4. Clearer pedestrian crossing signage. Leroux/Wampach moved to direct the City Admr. to respond to the citizens' concerns on First Avenue and to bring the item back on the agenda with the Police Chief and City Engineer present, along with comments from the State Highway Dept. Ms. Valencour said they have sent a letter to the State because of their grievance regarding the crossing that was promised them. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee City Council June 18, 1985 Page 4 Leroux/Wampach moved to approve the minutes of May 28, 1985 and June 4, 1985 as kept. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Bill Shore, representing the VFW, said he would like a feeling from the Council about the possibility of the VFW using revenue bonds for their new building. He said they didn't want to get real involved in the pro- cess, if the City Council wouldn't issue them. They are interested in about $800,000. Mayor Reinke replied that was about the balance of the City's allotment of IRBs. He mentioned the applicant having to have 15% equity. He said the IRBs couldn't be used to purchase the land, as that is already pur- chased. The City Admr. said he checked and found that the VFW, being a non-profit organization, still is included in the entitlement pool. As far as the City knows, there is only one other relatively active developer thinking about using IDBs at this time. He said there might possibly be some ad- ditional money available after July 31. Cncl. Leroux commented that it is hard to give an indication as far as the success rate they might have with an IDB application. They will just have to apply like anyone else according to the guidelines, and meet the re- quired criteria. Mayor Reinke added that the process is time-consuming, and therefore recommended haste if they are seriously considering using IDBs. The City Admr. informed the Councilmembers of the letter from the City of Mound requesting some of Shakopee's IDB entitlement. Because the City has used up three-fourths of its entitlement and there are active developers interested in IDBs, he would recommend a negative reply to the letter. Wampach/Lebens moved to respond negatively to the request by the City of Mound for some of Shakopee's IDB entitlement. Motion carried unanimously. The Community Develop. Dir. went over the background for the proposal sub- mitted by Westwood Planning and Engineering for a demonstration project for the downtown area. The Downtown Committee is requesting approval of this project now, so construction can be undertaken this year. Dennis Marhula, partner in Westwood Planning and Engineering and Co-Director of the engineering studio, said he will be acting as project manager and assuming the responsibilities for the civil engineering work. Tim Erkkila, head of landscape and urban design studio, said this decision is the one intended to bring a contractor on site and do the physical improvement which will be the fruition of the planning efforts made to date. He went over the proposal in more detail, breaking it into Phase I: Planning Context and Phase II: Construction Planning and Design. He stressed that the timing of the project is crucial. They are trying to have the project well under-way by fall, with the bulk of the improvements in this construction season. Shakopee City Council June 18, 1985 Page 5 Discussion ensued regarding compensation. Mr. Marhula confirmed that they have accepted the City Engineer's standard contract arrangement. The Comm. Develop. Dir, pointed out at this time the recommendation is only for approval of Phase I and Phase II, 1 and 2. Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize appropriate City officials to execute an agreement for services with Westwood Planning and Engineering Co. to undertake a major project including activities as listed in its June 7, 1985 proposal; Phase 1 and Phase II, steps 1 and 2, at a cost not to exceed $11,000, with approval for additional work to be provided at the end of the preliminary design stage. Roll Call: Ayes; Leroux, Vierling, Colligan, Reinke, Wampach Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Cncl. Lebens said she understood the Downtown Project District was in a deficit situation, and she questioned where the funding would come from. The City Admr, explained that the bonds have not been sold because no projects have been undertaken. However, now the bonds will be sold to finance these projects and bring the fund balance up to the appropriate level. Dwight Tange, President of D. A. Tange Company, reported on his study of insurance coverages for the City. He gave some corrected numbers for his report which reviews coverages and policies for the quotation process. Mr. Tange explained that rodeos are specifically excluded, and he would recommend that a rodeo would have to have separate coverage naming the City as an additional insured. The two problems are not knowing how good their policy is and not knowing if the limits they carry are adequate. In effect, it would make it so difficult for them to operate, it might drive them away so the City would limit its exposure. Mr. Tange confirmed that the League of Minnesota Cities covers the water slide. Mr. Tange attempted to clarify the City's liability for firefighter';s liability in the operation of a motor vehicle. He read. the State Statute which doesn't indicate if the vehicle is City-owned or personal. He re- commended legal opinion on that clause. Cncl. Leroux requested legal opinion on the firefighter's liability and rodeo liability. Mr. Tange said a City is required to have Sudden and Accidental Pollution Liability, but there is no market that will sell it. The City Admr. will check through the League to see if that has been brought to the attention of the Insurance Commissioner. Mr. Tange suggested it might be worth searching themarketfor an indivi- dual policy that would cover the City for failure to supply utilities. Cncl. Leroux requested legal opinion on the loss of coverage the City had in the past. Shakopee City Council June 18, 1985 Page 6 Mr. Tange went over this renewal recommendations in more detail. Leroux/Wampach moved to award the insurance policies as recommended by Mr. Tange as follows: Accept General Liability quote from League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) , with Police excluded under personal injury; annual premium $47,901. Accept Automobile quote from LMCIT; annual premium $29,555. Accept International Surplus Lines renewal offer for Public Official Liability; annual premium $5,533.16 for $1,000,000 limit. Accept Western World for Police Professional, conditional upon City Admr. approval of policy form; annual premium $6,025 for $1,000,000 limit. He recommends the City seek a $2,000,000 limit. Accept LMCIT Umbrella at $1,000,000 limit; annual premium $20,000. Accept LMCIT Property Insurance Quote; annual premium $22,230. Accept Hartford's Steam Boiler and Inspection quote; annual premium $3,414. Accept LMCIT Moveable Property - Scheduled Quotation; annual premium $4,130. Remain in LMC Workers' Compensation Trust under current policy, expiring January 1, 1986. He recommends against Retrospective Rat- ing Plan. Discontinue .Scheduled Glass Coverage. Accept Money & Securities .coverage through LMCIT for Crime Coverage; annual premium $270.00. Remain with Transamerica for Employee Bond and Depositor's Forgery; annual premium $435. Contingency charge from LMCIT is required. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Mr. Tange went over some of his long range objectives and recommended the City embark on a process of scrutinizing every policy it needs. Discussion followed. Mr. Tange said he would prepare a proposal listing services, fees and estimated number of hours to be expressed as a monthly fee speci- fically addressing these long term items. Wampach/Leroux moved for a five minute recess at 9:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Lebens/Vierling moved to re-convene at 9:26 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Snaxopee City Council June 18, 1985 Page 7 George Muenchow, Community Services Director, gave a presentation regard- ing his department's desire to "go on computer". He is requesting 50/50 contribution from the City and the School Board. At this point he is just looking for direction as far as if this is a viable alternative .for them to look at. Cncl. Lebens asked how this program would be affected if the City leaves LOGIS. The City Admr. responded there would be an additional annual cost of $2,500 for them. Mayor Reinke asked about the possibility of more than 50% funding from the school with the Community Services fund that is in place. Cncl. Leroux discussed with Mr. Muenchow more detailed questions about the computer. He would like to see more detailed supportive data regard- ing pricing and components before actually supporting the purchase. Vierling/Wampach moved to indicate City Council is interested in Community Services' exploration of the adoption of a computer system, but will not be able to provide any funds to assist with this project at this time. Cncl. Leroux suggested Community Services making its request to the City through the computer selection committee. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Wampach moved to refund $345.66 to Deloris Schmitt, 120 East First Avenue, for garbage service. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Wamapch moved that the 1985 Compensation Plan for Non-Union Employees be clarified that all employees are to receive the additional $10/month Health & Life increase by City. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Lebens/Vierling moved to remove from the table On Sale, Sunday, Off Sale and Club liquor license applications. - Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to approve the applications and grant a 1985-86 On Sale and Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor license to Pullman Club, Inc. , 124 West 1st Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Leroux moved to approve the applications and grant a 1985-86 On Sale, Sunday and Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor license to XX Corp. & Wittles, Inc. , 1561 East 1st Avenue. . Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Vierling moved to approve the applications and grant a 1985-86 On Sale and Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor license to Clair's Bar, Inc., 124 South Holmes. Motion carried unanimously. Lebens/Wampach moved to approve the application and grant a 1985-86 Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor license to Valley Liquor Inc. , 1104 Minnesota Valley Mall. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee City Council June 18, 1985 Page 8 Vierling/Wampach moved to table the application for Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor License from The Weiss Company, Inc. , 8522 East Highway 101. Motion carried unanimously. Lebens/Vierling moved to deny the application for 1985-86 On Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor license from R. Hanover, Inc. , 911 East 1st Avenue. Cncl. Leroux stated he can agree with a suspension of this license, but he has a hard time taking away a man's right to do business. He under- stands it is a privilege and not a right, but it is still his livelihood. He could see it if there were liquor-involved violations such as serving minors or after hours, which there are not in this case. His conviction was for over-crowding. He could agree with tabling action on this until the next meeting in July, because that would be a form of suspension, but he can't agree with totally denying it. Cncl. Lebens responded that when he was suspended for two weeks he went right to Court and opened up again. If he can't do what the Council asks him, he doesn't deserve to have a liquor license. She believes that over- crowding is a serious offense, which could have very serious consequences if someone yelled "Fire!". Cncl. Leroux pointed out that if the application is tabled this time, it isn't appealable in Court--if he doesn't have the license, there is nothing to reinstate. This suspension would be based on the same offense as the first--over-crowding. Cncl. Vierling stated she thinks the operation is just an accident waiting to happen, and she is opposed to giving him a liquor license. Mayor Reinke asked if there were any comments from the audience, and there were none. Roll Call: Ayes; Lebens, Vierling, Colligan, Reinke Noes; Leroux, Wampach Motion carried to deny. Leroux/Colligan moved to approve the applications and grant a 1985-86 On Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor license to Capone's Food Shops, Inc. , 1145 Minn. Valley Mall. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Leroux moved to approve the applications and grant a 1985-85 On Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License to S.E.L.F. Inc. , 1135 East 1st Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Leroux moved to approve the applications and grant a 1985-86 Sunday and Club Intoxicating Liqour License to VFW Post 4046, 132 East 1st Ave. Motion carried unanimously. Lebens/Vierling moved to approve the applications and grant a 1985-86 Sunday and Club Intoxicating Liquor license to American Legion Club, Post No. 2, 1256 East lst Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. JiiaKopee U-it�, �,OunCli June 18, 1985 Page 9 s� / Wampach/Lebens moved to approve the applications and grant a 1985-86 Club Intoxicating Liquor license to Knights of Columbus Home Assoc. Inc. , 1760 E. 4th Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. The Comm. Develop. Dir. said .she has an applicant from the Urban Corp Program who is very qualified and willing to work on the work-study program. She said there is money in the HRA budget up to $800.00. Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize proper City officials to enter into an agreement for participation in Urban Corps Program between the City of Shakopee and City of Minneapolis for the period of July 1, 1985 and June 30, 1986, in which the City's participation would be 40% of $5.75 per hour. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. The Capital Equipmentlistwas reviewed in light of the loss of Revenue Sharing monies. The City Admr. suggested using Certificates of Indebtedness when the funding is depleted. Mayor Reinke directed the City Admr. to check on Legislation enabling cities to raise their mill levies to make up for what they lose in revenue sharing funds. Discussion -followed on the advantages of a Computer Graphics system, as the Capital Equipment Committee agreed to keep that on the list of Capital Equipment. Colligan/Leroux moved to table adoption of the Capital Equipment list, pending further information based on the discussion tonight. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to close City Hall at 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 26, 1985 and direct that notification be placed in the local newspaper and be posted at City Hall, with the employees to be given the choice of working or taking the time off at reduced pay, or using vacation or comp time. Discussion ensued regarding the advisability of closing City Hall during regular hours. Motion failed with Cncl. Lebens, Wampach, Colligan and Vierling opposed. Leroux/Colligan moved that the bills in the amount of $1,184,671.76 be allowed and ordered paid. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Consensus was that because the Behringer development is not before the City Council, it would not be appropriate to attend a site presentation. Lebens/Vierling moved to direct the City Engineer to do what is necessary to continue the pedestrian bridge in Memorial Park project. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize proper City officials to execute Change Order No. 4 for the 5th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Reconstruction Project, in- creasing the contract amount by $826. to $139,481.17; and authorizing payment of Partial Estimate No. 4 for the 5th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Recon- struction Project in the amount of $2,245.50 to S. M. Hentges & Sons. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Snahopee City Council June 18, 1985 Page 10 Cncl. Lebens asked that the projects be looked at more closely to avoid all the change orders. She asked why a project can't be done without all the changes and increases. The City Admr, made a note to check. Leroux/Wampach moved to authorize proper City officials to execute Change Order No. 3 for CR83 Widening, Project No. 1984-9, furnish and place two (2) No. 4 reinforcing rods in depressed curb through driveways at 50G L.F. , estimated 600 L.F. = $300.00; and authorize payment of Partial Estimate No. 2 for CR83 Widening, Project No. 1984-9, in the amount of $126,291.99 to C.S. McCrossan,Construction, Inc. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Wampach moved to authorize proper City officials to execute Change Order No. 6 for 12th Avenue and Valley Park Drive, Project No. 1984-5, increasing the contract amount by $3,000.00 to $775,974.45; and authorize payment of Partial Estimate No. 6 for 12th Ave. and Valley Park Drive, Project No. 1984-5, in the amount of $10,717.45 to Richard Knutson, Inc. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Wampach moved to approve payment of Partial Estimate No. 4, in- cluding Changer Order No. 4 for a decrease in amount of $952.00, in the amount of $73,604.00 to C. S. McCrossan Construction, Inc. , P.O. Box 247, Osseo, MN 55369 for Project 1984-8. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. The City Attorney said that every fall there are complaints of unauthorized beer parties on private property. He requests the enactment of an ordinance to aid the Police Dept. and effectively deal with violators. Vierling/Lebens moved to direct the City Attorney to draw up an ordinance prohibiting from trespassing for purposes of consuming alcohol. The City Admr, suggested checking with the League to see if they have an ordinance that can be used. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to purchase four Motorola MT-500 Portable Radios for the Fire Dept. for $1,500 each, this also includes a battery charger, carrying- case and remote speaker-microphone for hazardous or wet locations. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize the Police Department to purchase four- teen replacement portable radios from Seven County Joint Fire Dept. Bid #A 5085-M from Motorola Communications at a cost of $14,436.00 Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. The City Admr. showed a sample of the City of Shakopee signs to be erected at the corporate limits on all roads entering Shakopee. He said they an- ticipated leaving the State signs on Hwy. 101 and Hwy. 169. However, he will look into replacing them at a future time with the new signs. Staff recommends erecting the signs now, with room for a logo in the future. Vierling/Leroux moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to install City of Shakopee signs at the nine locations indicated on the map attached to the June 14, 1985 memo, with each sign contaning the City's new logo, (to be developed later) and the phrase "City of Shakopee". Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Snaxopee City Council June 18, 1985 Page 11 Leroux/Colligan offered Resolution No. 2409, A Resolution Amending the City of Shakopee Personnel Policy Adopted by Resolution No. 1571, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2410, A Resolution Amending Reso- lution No. 2117, A Resolution Establishing a Policy for Emergency Closing of City Facilities, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2408, A Resolution Amending the City of Shakopee Personnel Policy Adopted by Resolution No. 1571 on Procedures for Hiring City Employees, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to reconsider Ordinance No. 170. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to amend Ordinance No. 170 to replace it with the new Ordinance No. 170 presented tonight, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 7 Entitled "Streets and Sidewalks Generally" by repealing paragraph B, Subd. 3 of Section 7.07 and Enacting a New Paragraph B, Subd. 3, Section 7.07 In- creasing Insurance Coverage as Herein Setout and by Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 7.99, Which Among Other Things Contain Penalty Provisions, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Lebens/Vierling offered Ordinance No. 173, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 6 Entitled "Business Licenses" by Extending a Moratorium Provision to Section 6 entitled "Gambling Device and Bingo Licenses" as Adopted in March, 1985, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Colligan offered Ordinance No. 174, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 9 Entitled "Parking Regulations" by Striking from Section 9.44 the Words "For a Period Longer than Fifteen (15) Minutes" and by Placing Period After the Word Event in line 3 thereof and by Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 9.99, Which Among Other Things Contain Penalty Provisions, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2411, A Resolution Authorizing the City Administrator to Contact the Office of Revenue Sharing to Formally Request a Three Year Extension of the Handicapped Structural Compliance Deadline for the Shakopee City Hall, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. The City Admr. explained SPUC's objection to the use of the wooden poles for intersection street lighting for the racetrack. Discussion followed. Leroux/Lebens moved to authorize the installation of wood light poles at the intersection of Hwy. 101 and Valley Park Drive, and to discuss fur- ther with SPUC their continued use. Motion carried with Cncl. Wampach opposed. June 18, 1985 Page 12 Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the City wants to sponsor something special for the racetrack opening or during the racing season. Consensus was to explore the possibility of having a Minnesota Mayor's Day and/or sponsoring a special Shakopee race. Lebens/Vierling offered Ordinance No. 175, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 10 entitled "Public Protection, Crime and Offenses" by adding a new Section 10.261 thereto entitled "Disorderly Conduct at Events" as herein setout and by Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 10.99, which among other things contain penalty provisions, and moved its adop- tion. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to contribute from the Contingency Fund $135 to move pianos for the senior citizens. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. The City Admr. informed Councilmembers that because of a mix-up at Mn/DOT, the traffic lights at Valley Park Drive and Highway 101 for the Racetrack will be turned on, but there is no signed contract at this point outlining responsibility for the lights. Lebens/Leroux moved to adjourn. Motion carried with Cncl. Wampach opposed. Meeting adjourned at 11:06 p.m. Judith S. Cox City Clerk Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary CST Y CDF- S H A K CDP H H INCORPORATED 1870 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, Minnesota 55375-1376 (612) 445-3650 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: H. R. Spurrier SUBJECT: Resignation DATE: July 3, 1985 With deep regret I hereby tender my resignation effective July 17, 1985, in order to take a similar position with another metropolitan Community. It is a very difficult decision because I have to leave a de— partment I appreciate and respect. The experience has been valuable, but I can better achieve my long range career goals in this new position. Thank you for over six and one half years of employment. SitcrylH: rier City Eng neer MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judi Simac , City Planner RE: Application for a Conditional Use Permit and a Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation Permit to remove sand and gravel aggregate in the Southwest corner of the intersection of County Roads 16 and 83 , by Scott County Lumber Co . and Bert Notermann DATE: July 3 , 1985 Introduction: At their June 20 , 1985 meeting, the Shakopee Planning Commission approved a motion to deny Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 376 and to also recommend to the City Council that the applica- tion for a Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation Permit (Mining Permit ) be denied. The applicant has appealed the decision on the Conditional Use Permit to the City Council , therefore a public hearing is scheduled for July 9 , 1985 at 7 :00 P.M. At that time it is requested that the City Council also make a final decision on the Mining Permit. Attached are the various documents which comprise the application, along with the staff report. The attachments are as follows : 1 . Application in memo form prepared by Merila and Assoc. , Inc. dated 4-30-85 . 2 . Environmental Assessment Worksheet prepared, as directed by Council , by Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban,. Inc. dated 4-18-85 . 3 . Response to Questions Memo prepared by Merila and Assoc. ., Inc. dated 6-14-85 . 4. Alternative End Use Plan memo prepared by Merila and Assoc. , Inc. dated 6-14-85 . 5 . Noise Level Report prepared by Merila and Assoc . , Inc. dated 6-28-85 . 6 . Appraisal Report prepared by Hagemeister and Assoc. 7 ., Staff Report- to Planning Commission; 6-14-85 . 8 . Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings on May 16th and June 20th, 1985. 9 . Required Map Submittals A, B, C, and alternative end use plan C-1 . Background: The findings for the Planning Commission denial of both the Conditional Use and ,Mining Permit are as follows : 1 . The use will definitely deny property owners in the vicinity of the use and enjoyment of their property, for which they are entitled. 2 . The use will adversely affect property values in the area immediately surrounding the mining site. Scott Cty. Lbr. Co. July 3 , 1985 Page -2- 3 , The proposal will impede the normal and orderlydevelop- ment of the surrounding property for the uses redomina in the area. 4• There has been no showingnt related to the over all eeds, nor benefitse use is theand existing land uses . City 5 . 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. 6 . The use is in direct ve conflict with the Comprehensive of the City. Plan When the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) the proposed life of the operation was nine years ,wto occur ed three phases . The actual proposed life of operation is years , conducted in three bases. ur in October, 'During P Council will recall that last , 1984 the directed that an EAW be application. During the process of preparingrtherEAW, Dahlgren, Shardlow, Uban, Inc. found that the applicant addressed many major issues involved ihad inott. Tequately observation led to the applicant ' s permit. This Assoc. , Inc. to .prepare apdetailed action of hiring Merila and submittal requirements of the Ordinance. Staff believes application which met the differentiation in years that exists in the EAW description and actual submitted project description i the minor importance for the reason that one of the conprotect P s of approval is a Negative that of the EnvironmentaloReview by the State of Minnesota. Review will not only be the EAWmittals for the Environmental information. but all other application . At the June 20th meetinga Signatures was submitteinpobjectionetition totproposed operation. The containing approximately 300 able for your revieWtprior stonorlthe le aniCht of mining City Hall and is avail- . Staff would like to amend a few of the the meeting. - approval as follows : recommended conditions of # 4 The applicant shall obtain a Count Permit from the Scott CountHighway Road Entrance applicant will also provideyapivateEsgoneer. The the access drive, placed prior to entrance ongCoun Road 83 , but not within R-O_W.. County #11 Noise emissions shall not exceed the noted in Section 10. 60 (Noise andlimits Noise i e Prevention) of the City Code, nor the MPCA Standards . The applicant shall -provide anon site noise control kit at all times . 01 #13 No exterior lighting shall be used at the site, except for security lighting to bedirectedoon buildings and equipment on site. Scott Cty. Lbr. Co. July 3 , 1985 Page -3- Action Requested: Offer Conditional Use Permit Resolution of the City Council No. CC-376 , to approve or deny the application for mineral extraction and land rehabilitation in the Agricultural zone. Offer a motion to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of approval or denial for the Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation Permit. JS : cah Attachments cc: Scott County Lumber Co. Bert Notermann E. Johnston, C. S. .McCrossan, Inca Jim Merila, Merila & Asso. , Inc. Tim Thornton, - Rider, Bennett, Egan & Arundel Rod Krass Shakopee Environmental Assoc. MERILA & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, SITE PLANNERS 7216 Boone Avenue North • Brooklyn Park,MN 55428 Telephone: (612) 533-7595 s TO: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA FROM: WALTER J. GREGORY MERILA & ASSOCIATES, INC. i DATE: APRIL 30, 1985 ' RE: APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GRAVEL MINE IN AN AGRICULTURAL ZONE AND A'MI.NERAL EXTRACTION AND LAND REHABILITATION PERMIT. Project No. 85-005 Our firm has been retained by C. S. McCrossan Construction, Inc. , of Maple Grove, Minnesota to prepare plans for a proposed gravel mine on the Burt Notermann property. The property is located on the west side of Scott County Highway No. 83 approximately one quarter mile south of its intersection with Scott County Highway No. 16. Our client is proposing to mine gravel at this site for use in the Shakopee area. The crushed gravel from this site will cost about 30 percent less than the cost of crushed limestone because it will require very little crushing. The operation will be divided into three phases to reduce the amount of exposed soil area at any one time. Phase One would include stripping the topsoil and building the topsoil berms along the north and east sides of the site. Next, the berms would be seeded. Then, the three and one-half year mining operation would begin at the east side of Phase One and move in a westerly direction until mining is completed. When Phase Two begins , the topsoil would be stripped and used to reclaim Phase One and build the topsoil berms along the west side of Phase Two. Phase One and the new berms would be seeded. Theithe six year mining operation of Phase Two would begin. When completed, the Phase Two would be reclaimed with topsoil in the berms along the north and east sides of Phase One and along the west side of Phase Two and seeded. Phase Three will be similar and operate over a period of seven and one-half years before it is reclaimed and seeded. The total operation will span an estimated 17 years. The equipment used in the mining operation will be.a front end loader, a crusher, a stacker, and trucks. The front end loader will be used to excavate the existing native gravel material and carry it to the crusher of loading truck. Trucks may be used to haul the native gravel material from the point of excavation to the crusher. The crusher is about 12 feet high and will be used in the processing to crush stones and cobbles into gravel . The stacker is a conveyor belt assembly about 27 feet high, used to move the crushed gravel from the crusher to the stockpile. Trucks will be used to remove the crushed gravel from the site. During the construction of the topsoil berms, scrapers and dozers will be used. There is no intent to mix asphalt or concrete at this site. Normal hours of operation will be from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday. The site consists of 130.73 acres of land. Its present zoning and use is agricultural and according to the Rural 1990 Land Use Plan, it will remain in agriculture into the foreseeable future. (exhibits 1 , 2 & 3). It is bounded by other lands which are also zoned agricultural , except for an undeveloped portion of Killarney Hills, which is zoned Rural Residential . A. Permit Review. Our client is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a gravel mine in an Agricultural Zone under the provisions of Section 11 .24, Subdivision 3 H of the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance, and a Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation permit under Section 11 .05, Subdivision 7 of the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance. These permits would be valid for a period of three years, after which the permits would have to be renewed for the operation to continue. B. Information Required. 1 . The person requesting this permit is: Earl R. Johnston of C.S. McCrossan Construction, Inc. , Box 247, 7865 County Road 18 North, Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369. The property is owned by Burt Notermann and the Scott County Lumber Co. 2. The exact legal description is shown on the Vicinity Map and Map A, and a brief form would be as follows: All of the NE4 of the NW4, part of the NWQ of the NW4, and part of the SE4 of the NWQ of Section 16, T 115, R 22, Scott County, Minnesota and, part of the SE4 of the NEQ of Section 17, T 115, R 22, Scott County, Minnesota. The Vicinity Map, sheet 1 , shows the boundaries of the proposed site and the ownership of all parcels within 500 feet of the site and the exact legal description of the property. 3. Maps of the Site A. Map A - Existing Conditions, Sheet 2. 1) Existing contours are at two (2) foot intervals. 2) The existing vegetation is row crop corn. 3) The existing surface drainage pattern of the site is indicated on the map by arrows pointing in the direction of the flow. Approximately 69 acres of the site drains into small depressions and is absorbed into the soil after a short period of ponding. Approximately 26 acres of adjoining land drains onto the site and is trapped there without crossing the site. The remaining of the 62 acres presently drains northwesterly, northerly, and northeasterly off of the site. 4) The site does not have any existing structures or existing wells. 5) Three existing wells are located within 500 feet of the site at the existing residences. B. Map B - Proposed Gravel Extraction Plan, Sheet 3 1 ) The only building to be erected is a scale house. It will be located along the main access road on the east side of Phase One. A portable field office will be used for storage of materials and tools needed to support the crushing operation. -2- 2) The average depth of the proposed excavation is 12.5 feet for Phase One, 18.0 feet for Phase Two, and 17.5 feet for Phase Three. The spot elevations of the bottom of the pit are shown on the map. 3) The tailing or spoil will consist of soil and boulders unsuitable for the topsoil berm or gravel . They will be piled up to 10 feet high along the toe of the side slopes, as shown on the map, and used for sediment control and later to reduce the side slopes when the site is reclaimed. 4) The crusher will be located as shown on the plan. It is located beyond the 500 foot processing setback required from residential and commercial structures. It is also beyond the 100 foot property line setback. A front end loader will be used for loading gravel onto the crusher and trucks. 5) Stockpiles of gravel will be located as shown on the map and will be approximately 25 feet high. 6) Employee and visitor parking will be provided in the area as shown on the map. 7) No explosives will be used or stored on the site. 8) Erosion and sedimentation will be confined to the site. Within two working weeks after the topsoil berms have been deposited, they will be smoothed and seeded with Minnesota Department of Transportation Seed Mixtures 2 and 13, consisting of Rye, Perennial Reygrass, Alfalfa and Field Bromegrass, and mulched. The remainder of the site will be exposed sand and gravel with a permeability rate of between 5 to 10 inches of water per hour. The U.S. Weather Bureau in Minneapolis and St. Paul has determined the rainfall intensity in inches/hour for a 100 year storm to be 2.89 inches/hour. According to this data most of the rainfall will soak into the sand and gravel pit bottom. During the mining operation, all surface drainage will be retained on the site by the topsoil berms and shallow surface depressions on the site. The topsoil berms will prevent surface drainage from leaving the site and all water must soak into the pit bottom. 9) The main access road will be paved with bituminous pavement. Dust will be controlled by the use of water and calcium chloride on the haul road within the pit area during dry weather. The normal moisture content of the excavated material and the stockpiled gravel will keep the dust to a minimal amount. In addition, County Highway No.. 83 is being upgraded to a blacktop surface. Because of the predominantly westerly, southerly, southwesterly winds during the dryest periods of the year, any dust that is generated will be blown away from nearby residences. The wind will have no significant effect on the stockpile of granular material . The mined material will not be washed. 10) Noise will be controlled by surrounding the site with a topsoil berm 8 to 10 feet in height. It will be covered with legumes and perennial grasses and it will absorb or deflect most of the sound produced by trucks, the end loader, and the crusher. The crusher will operate only about 50 days per year to generate the required stockpile. The noise level measurements (exhibit 4) indicates a noise level range of 47 to 49 dBA at distances of one eighth of a mile and one quarter of a mile. -3- Compared with the other noise levels (exhibit 5) , I found that it is equivalent to light auto traffic at a distance of 100 feet or a normal conversation at a distance of twelve feet. This noise level is less than an air conditioning unit at 20 feet. It is well below the 70 dBA level which could contribute to hearing impairment. In each phase, the crusher will be located at least one eighth of a mile from the nearest residence. Truck traffic will be more than 500 feet from the nearest residence. Based upon the national standard for the noise level of trucks allowed to operate at less than 35 mph on the highway, the loudest truck permitted cannot exceed 92 dBA at 25 feet. By the formula for point source noise level dBA at any distance = dBA at known distance - 10 x Log RI)2 R2 where: R1 = known distance, in feet. R2 = new distance, in feet. At 500 feet dBA = 92 dBA - 10 x log (25 Ft. ) 500 Ft )- = 92 dBA - 26 dBA = 66 dBA Assuming the topsoil berm will reduce the sound level by only 8 dBA, the noise level would be 58 dBA and less than the L 50 sound level permitted for residential land use, during operating hours. 11 ) The estimated truck distribution is 15% south to Prior Lake area on Scott County Highway No. 83, and 85% north on Scott County Highway No. 83 to _State Highway No. 101 . From Scott County Highway No. 83 on State Highway No. 101 , about half will go west to the Shakopee area and half east to the Savage area. The annual season is about 28 weeks. During the season beginning around May 15th, the average number of trips per day would be about 50. The maximum peak daily volume would be less than 100 trips per day. The peak annual volume would be less than 6500 trips. C. Map C - End Use Plan, Sheet 4. 1 ) The final grade of the site with spot elevations and two foot contour intervals are shown. The spot elevations are intended to act as a guide for final grading. The final grade will be nearly flat, which results in numerous shallow depressions which will retain surface drainage. 2) All areas will be fertilized and seeded to legumes and perennial grasses. The MnDOT seed mixtures No. 2 and 13 will consist of Rye for quick ground cover and Perennial Ryegrass, Alfalfa, and Field Bromegrass for permanent ground cover. 3) When the gravel mining operation is completed, all structures will be removed. -4- 4) The soil erosion will be controlled by permanent seeding of legumes and perennial grasses on all slopes greater than 10 percent. Other areas may be farmed with row crops in rotation with legumes and perennial grasses. The reclaimed pit bottoms will be very flat with slight depressions to retain surface drainage. At the Northeast corner of Phase One, a berm about 2 feet high will be built to retain surface drainage and control sediment. Phases Two and Three will retain all rainfall and surface drainage into these areas until it absorbed into the soil . 5) Dust from the proposed end use of agricultural will be similar or less than the existing land use. Noise will be about the same or slightly less. Normal agricultural cover will control the dust and absorb the sound of farm machinery. C. Performance Standards 1 . General Provisions. Berms will seeded within two working weeks to provide vegetative cover and the appearance will be similar to a roadside embankment in a cut area. All weed or unsightly vegetation will be cut or trimmed to maintain a neat appearance. All equipment will be maintained to minimize noise, dust and vibration. Each phase will contain more than twenty acres. The berms will provide a visual screen and a noise barrier, as well as a nesting site for birds. 2. Water Resources. The mining operation will not interfere with surface drainage beyond the site boundaries. All surface water entering the site will be absorbed into the soil . No water treatment will be necessary. 3. Safety Fencing. Fences are not required because we do not anticipate water ponding to a depth of more than one and one-half feet in depth and slopes will be maintained at one foot of vertical drop in four feet of horizontal distance, except for the immediate mining area, which will be reduced following that period of operation. An existing board fence is separating this property from the John Paron residence. The main access roads will- have a security fence and gate to control vehicular access to the pits. 4. Mining Access. The main access road will be about 900 feet south of the northeast corner of the property. It will be paved to reduce dust and noise. This access road will enter onto County Highway No. 83, which is being upgraded to a design speed of 50 MPH based on stopping sight distance. Therefore, I believe that turns onto the road can be completed with a reasonable margin of safety. -5- 5. Screening Barriers. The topsoil berms will act as screening barriers to reduce noise and dust. Since this is an intermittent temporary mining site, trees will not experience enough growth to become effective as a sound barrier during the mining operation. 6. Setback. All processing of gravel will be conducted more than 100 feet from the boundary of the property and more than 500 feet from adjoining residential and commercial structures. The topsoil berms will be set back 30 feet from adjoining property and the highway right-of-way line. 7. Appearance. The scale house and portable field office will be maintained according to acceptable safety and industry practices. 8. Hours of Operation. The normal hours of crusher operation will be from 8:00 o'clock A.M. to 5:00 o'clock P.M. , Monday through Friday. 9. Dust and Dirt. The main access road will be surfaced with bituminous pavement. The haul road within the site will be watered down periodically to control dust. Calcium chloride and water will be applied to control dust on haul roads within the pit area. D. Land Rehabilitation 1 . At the conclusion of mining, the scale house and scale and portable field office will be removed from the site. 2. The site will be graded to a nearly flat topography with numerous shallow depressions and will blend into the surrounding land. The side slopes will vary between two percent and 17 percent. The spoil piles will be used to reduce the side slopes as much as possible. 3. All of the topsoil stockpiles in the berms will be returned and spread over- the site to a depth of about two feet. Legumes and perennial grasses will be planted on the site. There will not be any permanent ponding of water, shallow temporary ponding may occur from time to time or during the spring melt. In conclusion, I believe the applicant has met all of the applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and has thoroughly explained the proposed operation. Since this is a permitted conditional use and he has complied with all the requirements , I ask you to carefully consider the facts outlined above and grant a Conditional Use Permit for a gravel mine in an agricultural zone and a Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation Permit for this plan. This will serve as a test of his intentions and after three years you will have the opportunity to review his actual performance before he is allowed to proceed with the next phase. If there is some area that is unclear to you, I would be glad to explain it. Respectfully submitted, ' — v ...�w.�e•.non.nen.•wur+io�..u�u..or. VIOS3NN I W ''03 1103S "dMl A3380 31OV3 I � 'SNI S31tY'�OSEat! T t` �=� =�• A3Aunr 111138 33dOA HS li311t'1W 10titltl� � H�131t_i I s 1 a{ j , f17 I f iii � i�t �Ijt aS1 t t i 3 fi • I�� Z W Y Y W J > W i•t SI > o alln�it lYltO• / NOICfINNO] 10Y1N0] 71trA Nr1110dOY 17N 7M1 LQ i ' G t'I Y • o h Y _ I T •\ ♦\ ¢ N – 10 _ \ \, X90\ ��r Ag`�i ' y Y7017NN]t OlO11rN - 3 � m _ a � t = 7 i .r0 _ / S 3 � i •... Y7nr 7M1tf17 I I iN Wl v3nvm 3N30 o � N o r I / �� \I ■acvnna� iorawa5 uc.. w.:nosoY�:n =w>. `�r OY•111! lY 3d Otl 9'I I I ,. / .3 _fit•= _ ;I i tt� i � �I ;�J � B"; I f---I - • 1 ,:i i:SEr� S. f �_- j \ .1 I' l •5�( ~ o si S iS Sao:.i cn s: = 1 uo3 z lz 1 `�t �n / SY'�, X r °_ j ::F 'Y'a:: F: i il• `I � ..• : W zoz z- �l� I�'1/ al • 7 r t_. t!;zz% `i // ». i• is?4-.:a 2:1 - jt:l M t __ ------' - I I - fit IL Lr 1 � i. ,! � Y751)nr7C'OIOY•M :t� 1, � r 3,� I � -�-- � � ,,,1,� �• .�" _ ------ ! �--�� =�';;�=j -i =� ? ; ( ... .i it� .:1 ----------- 1•�- c� '� �� � '`• �a .� � - - it r �1 � O1 G - .�. SMS I l i /- �( • (I t r �.-: � to -\ \ `\ \` t \ � I I I / I /� ''' "s^ "a'o s IIt b A7� ■S I 1 `` \ \ \e tea` - f� e' / i ,W ,•' i - I t. Wj .-..ai i o. Wn•a v�ya i�; �� e ¢ 3�I - I I o40� ,A -�.___��_-__-�.,.a iI';\aid.v� ��m 1. 1 3 /`� _" la• 8 uj - t i �" �I!I f i /o ���`I + `' / `• F s a l W Z i tit a. za CL Iii 4 I lel + d. It, IIi o= lu ( I � � rl �` ' l � - _J�I moi, °� • r ,. to ,� L ■ _ � � / / 1 \l 6:1 Y�Oq NM]S.OIOe.. YIi ; t.i O� ♦l _ _ ,orvu•tl.rtl _ ..o.H i aao• III I l,i��: 1 9 I ^,1 - o ��� N r• ` . ¢ "1 � N`. ■„tl a„otl■:I 1 ( _ t ” ! •1 / =p/ / , .i-n /��: ! � ¢ II�t �II I�J '/ / / 6�y I I I III�I.II, / I n11 Ic I l I j •r / a Q'tm �y� + - �II� ' �`, a S' \ n --:i I 111 It, J,11 �, I . .o I z , /• , / e 3, \� ! I roti. G� Y i It♦II I./ I I I i �p�• p"'r - .I I I o;•' iI 1 r/ // �3;! r(--- >. _.�„_ I I' II�--- —� 7 r�-� I 1.1 II :j,. II,Ll,I ` I , ' 'i r II � � �'� • 1 1'•���I�I —�'�: r�jlll i tV. / - _ ; �j� ;II I i' r // •` I If � 'rl�C i I 1 I ! i ��,' y i � II I �Ui'o/1{ j ii�&I`_ 11 e.; / / A•.NI-NI �a�� �7 •O�'��� :y• 4i.p�1�!, i�\+i i o � I 'i �o. _ 'll l”, .a.t{ 1I II : , p - I ,�• I ', II e I I o I I a .IliYll•11 'I �, 1` /� r I ;iii .I I { IIJ-r l q I' II•I! /� 33✓•li,U-I r ( I m� �'� , j .i o „! mI���I i '1 / � ' I _'a II II�o I � -/ s l r sl a✓_ it}�!II I �1II - el ��- I�� / -- --- -- J I I � .b __\(�•'� 11 F :II+ III~jl 1 0 = i / •--- -- _ +) 1 �.,�1 n III � - •ol'9t3s tooa °c a uoe,•+o � ___ --_ � / •' �-.�..�. ,I_¢i7 I ,�� �-'/,--__�\, I :+i/'� / JI --i i - I• 1 +1, I 1 \ .fe-+roc � Ii�_�,_=—i��}—_t—.�_ // V • - • . i�1 ` Is \I it •^�rll �- ! ���/ /. - • _ _ ail+ ii�-�—�J��11 11,:_. !Q•' / / fo�//- 0 t° //�' r to- - � ���- � 5 � � of+I��I�h$i� , I•� �' /////' / .�sY�+�d : D;_ tlo0j"i j},1 141°,' �� / _l'' Tde • I . ♦ � : _ - OIy - >yNj1lm I-e d' ///OgPv+� .''•' , iI!! -,i r 3.( to - ° ;i: _ �11`a 111`'. . // •b, ltl I I� LU J + I '%-_ 0 ;i:-_ . ,•- / - t 'ice F �I--^ a ■ Z • }i � iv ! st:v Qpl t'I a�s - ! tti il,l�l(,t(t•, T _ •3'- I - . .':i • N4 _i�._` ,.a.e Y. �; Ncss�.woc �.a:Noc F s ..iiia o.:3■ 3N:- - ..I. LZ Tim • - \ (� - _ - ;:;_.;: :� : acs ui PQ ! '•'i 'I _ --`�•� ` \ ~ (� / 7 '.d i_saa ic' is _ i gy• _ �-V 'a 1 i3 S / fes' � Z i ii ?'�'_-� .. i . 1( 0 1 4 ( I �• 1." I t�- �—_ ■ Q �� t lii _js tiit i] � � - 1 3; t s f j•! •..—r�3g } 7 � -'� I =iI i;9g ;- i? � he f f \ Lr 0 W •It i�-L:f: :� - I • / J I I r W Q� - 'li t1' T, 1 ��•1 , • ..quare /dini aa.- � IL,�i• , Y _-----� 1 � 3 F• iii 1{flP i Iff SOU Oxl lc�`•'�'�. --�•.-�f •/ 111 --J , . r:./ / , / Q• I• I ■ is ` { • , � t 11 � 3� ♦ � i � I I '..iY J ' Fj ■ _ r .. i (j r i Z Q EXHIBIT 1 r el iL 1 � n rr/ v a 0 EXHIBIT 2 r G I i • �� ;� ■ ■ a, � F— ! � U D � EXHIBIT 3 twin city tesstinw �•""- 662 CROMWELL AVENUE r 6T. PAUL. MN 55114 f I I � • PHONE 6121645.1601 REPORT OFt NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS PROJECTt 35W SOUTH PIT FREEWAY LANDFILL DATE. December 17, 1984 C S Mc Crossen Inc REPORTED TOt Attn: Rodney Evans FURNISHED BY1 Box A.D. COPIES TOt Osseo, MN 55369 LABORATORY No. 7-0399 INTRODUCTION: At the request of Rodney Evans of C S McCrossen, we have conducted noise level measure- ments at the 35W South pit of C S Mc Crossen located at the freeway landfill in Burnsville, MN. The measurements were made on December 14, 1984 to determine the noise level at 1/8 mile and 1/4 mile from the pit. RESULTS: Location Noise Level , dBA 1/8 mile from pit 47 to 49 1/4 mile from pit 47 to 49 The noise level measurements were taken 1/8 mile and 1/4 mile southeast of the pit. We understand that the crusher, secondary crusher and one loader were in operation during the noise level measurements. TEST EQUIPMENT: The noise level measurements were made using a Bruel & Kjaer Type 2209 Impulse Precision Sound Level Meter. The in-field calibration of the sound level meter was performed using a Bruel & Kjaer Type 4220 Piston phone. All the above equipment was calibrated July 6, 1983 by .factory representatives using instruments traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. The measurements were made with the meter set to the "A" weighting scale (dBA) and "fast" meter response. REMARKS: If you have any questions or comments, please contact us. TWIN CITY TESTING AND ENGINEERING LABORATORY, INCORPORATED Cwt Timothy ANe son, M.E. Product Te ng Department TAN/mpc Aa A rarru,�L w.w.oTwro To mm.-em 1 TM laAtJO A�o..w..+�v«Ail a..owTs A/�.r..rr�...T1.�oo.+rwNTUL..,o...1Tv w ou..rT,a. ���•"*"�"" &AT,oN/o..1,...a,oAT.0"ow eTAT�T>ti oO.+OL.v.P•A owl<lfT....GT..,•C.M ow A.�.++o.r�o1w.....•ow'f.w�MwviO l+.w++.ouw«T/T'T�M'•""'CV'J" SOUND LEVELS AND HUMAN RESPONSE Sound Levels and Human Response Noise Level Hearing Conversational (dBA) Response Effects Relationships 150 in Carrier deck 7- Jet Jet operation 140 C7 Painfully loud A 130 Limit amplified f. Speech Z Jet takeoff(200 ft) 120 Ouj Discotheque Maximum vocal E'er Auto horn(3 ft) effort ZC Riveting machine 110 Cc Jet take-off(2,000 ft) F Shout(0.5 ft) 100 cU Shouting in ear N.Y.subway station Very annoying Heavy truck(50 ft) 90 Hearing damage }—N Shouting at 2 ft (8 hr) Z Pneumatic drill Uu Very loud (50 ft) 80 Annoying �- conversation,2 ft Freight train(50 ft) Freeway traffic 70 Telephone use j Loud conversation,2 ft (50 ft) Difficult Intrusive Air conditioning 60 Loud conversation,4 ft unit(20 ft) Light auto traffic Normal (100 ft) 50 Quiet conversation. 12 ft Living room Bedroom 40 Library Soft whisper(15 ft) 30 Very quiet Broadcasting studio 20 10 Just audible 0 Threshold of hearing Source: "Noise Pollution," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,August, 1972),p.6. EXHIBIT 5 a 0 AP i � J S 1 am - r - 1 = W s I I� W t i Cf) U D EXHIBIT tl6 TRANSMITTAL .2l DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN, INC. One Groveland Terrace, Suite 102 �: Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403-1184 Phone: 377-3536 TO: Judy Simac DATE: 18 April 1985 CITY OF SHAKOPEE JOB NO: 1901 129 East First Avenue RE: McCrossan EAW Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 WE ARE SENDING YOU THE FOLLOWING ITEMS : 1 copy Original EAW for C.S. McCrossan Construction THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: XX FOR APPROVAL FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT FOR YOUR USE AS REQUESTED REMARKS : Enclosed find the original EAW for McCrossan. John Shardlow has signed it and it is ready for distribution. COPY TO: SIGNED: Jo Kure/John Shardlow E.R. '(filled in by_`Q B) B-3 Environmental Assessment_Worksheet (EAW) MARK APPROPRIATE BOX: ❑ REGULAR EAW ❑ SCOPING EAW NOTE TO REVIEWERS:For regular EAWs,written comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the EAW information,potential impacts that may warrant investigation and/or the need for an EIS. For scoping EAWs,written com- ments should address the accuracy and completeness of the information and suggest issues for investigation in the EIS.Such comments must be submitted to the Responsible Government Unit(RGU) during the 30-day period following notice of the EAW's availability in the EQB Monitor. Contact the EQB(metro: 612/296-8253. non-metro: 1-800-652-9747,ask for envi- ronmental review program)or the RGU to find out when the 30-day comment period ends. 1. Project Name Noterman Property 2. Proposer C.S. McCrossan Construction In3. RGU City of Shakopee Contact Person Earl R. Johnston, Contract Maneontact Person Judith Simae Address Box 247; 7865 County Road 18 and Title City Planner Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369 Address 129 East First Avenue Phone 425-4167 Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 Phone' 445-3650 4. Project Location: '/a NW '/.Section 16 Township 115N Range 22W a. County Name - Scott City/ffwgt=%hkp Name Shakopee b. Attach copies of each of the following to the EAW: 1. a county map showing the general area of the project. (see Figure 1) 2. a copy(ies)of USGS 71/2 minute, 1:24.000 scale map. (see Figure 2) 3. a site plan showing the location of significant features such as proposed structures,roads,extent of flood plain, wetlands,wells,etc. (see Figure 3) 4. an existing land use map and a zoning map of the immediate area,if available. (see Figures 4 , 5 , 6) 5. Describe the proposed project completely(attach additional sheets as necessary). The mining operation will occur in three phases (see Figure 7) . Each phase will begin with the .removal and stockpiling in berms around the periphery of the area effected .by that phase. The operation will begin with the placement of a temporary scale house, and an immediately availavle stockpile of gravel will be processed. As the stockpile is depleted, additional material will be excavated and processed for use. The activities in every phase will not be continuous, but rather, will be intermittent and dependent on construction activities in and around the area. Phase One consists of an area approximately 40 acres in size. It is anticipated that this phase will yeild approximately 340,000 cubic yards of gravel, and will take about two (2) years to complete its excavation. Phase Two consists of an area approximately 39 acres in size. It is anticipated that this phase will yeild about 500,000 cubic yards of gravel. At the projected demand levels, this phase will take three years to complete. Phase Three consists of an area approximately 52 acres in size. _ This phase is expected to yield approximately 720,000 cubic yards of gravel. At the rates of excavation projected by the Applicant, this operation will take four (4) years to complete. (continuing from No. 5) The total yield of gravel is thus anticipated to be 1 ,640,000 cubic yards and will take approximately nine (9) years to complete the excavation. Once the extraction operation has been completed the spoil and topsoil stockpile will be redistributed over the entire site (Figure 8). The end land use for the land will once again be agricultural. 6. Reason for EAW preparation: 6MCAR S 3.040 Discretionary EAW List all mandatory category rule #Is which apply: N/A 7. Estimated construction cost: No permanent construction is proposed 8. Total project area (acres) 130.73 acres or length (miles) N/A 9. Number of residential units N/A or commercial, industrial, or institutional square footage N/A 10. Number of proposed parking spaces: N/A 11 . List all known local, state, and federal permits/approvals/funding required: Level of Government Type of Application Status Federal: State: Local: Permit: Subd. 7, Mineral Extraction & Land Rehabilitation Conditional Use Permit; Section 11 .24 Subd. 3h. 12. Is the proposed project inconsistent with the local adopted comprehensive land use plan or any other adopted plans? X NO YES If yes, explain: If the extraction operation meets all the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit it will not be in conflict with any locally adopted plans. 13. Describe current and recent past land use and development on and near the site. The site is currently in an agricultural use and will be returned to this same use upon completion of Phase Three of the extraction plan. Current land use to the west, south, and east is agricultural. There is a single home located within 170 feet of the western boundary of the proposed 2 operation. There are also two homes located due south of the site, 150 feet and 500 feet respectively from the subject site. The land use to the north is residential with the nearest home located approximately 900 feet from the mining site's northerly property line (Figure 8). 14. Approximately how many acres of the site are in each of the following categories? (Acreages should add up to total project area before and after construction. ) BEFORE AFTER BEFORE AFTER Forest/Wooded Wetland (types 3-8) Cropland 131 120 Impervious Surface Brush/Grassland 11 Other (specify) 15. Describe the soils on the site, giving the SCS soil classification types, if known. Site soils consist of Dakota, Estherville, and Hubbard classifications which range from loam to sandy loam in nature. These soils are generally noted as being a good course for sand and gravel by the Scott County Soils Survey. Small areas of Peaty Muck and Terril Soils are also found on the site, but consist of only approximately one percent (1%) to two percent (2%) of the total area (Figure 9). 16. Does the site contain peat soils, highly erodible soils, steep slopes, sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, abandoned wells, or any geologic hazards? If yes, show on the site map and explain: NO X YES Approximately one to two percent (1-2%) of the site consists of Peaty Muck soils. These soils are currently being cultivated and are not of significance for peat extraction (Figure 9). 17. What is the approximate depth (in feet) to: a. groundwater: 60 feet min. 90 feet avg. b. bedrock: 50 feet min. 70 feet avg. 18. Does any part of the project area involve: a. shoreland zoning district? X NO YES b. delineated 100 year flood plain? X NO YES c. state or federally designated river land use district? X NO YES If yes, identify water body and applicable state classification(s), and describe measures to protect water and related land resources: 3 19. Describe any physical alteration (e.g. dikes, excavation, fill, stream diversion) of any drainage system., lake, stream, and/or wetland. } Describe measures to minimize impairment of the water-related resources. Estimate quantity of material to be dredged and indicate where spoils will be deposited. N/A 20. a. Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water? If yes, explain (indicate quantity and source): X NO YES b. Will the project affect groundwater levels in any wells (on or off the site)? If yes, explain: X NO YES 21 . Describe the erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after construction of the project: Topsoil from the areas to be excavated will be removed and stockpiled in berms around the perimeter of the site. The berms will then be planted with grasses to prevent erosion. The End Use Plan indicates that the topsoil will be redistributed over the entire site (Figure 8). Drainage will be into the site from all directions and it is anticipated that the texture of the subsoil will allow easy percolation of water into the soil to eliminate on-site ponding in low areas. 22. a. Will the project generate: 1 . surface and stormwater runoff? X NO YES 2. sanitary wastewater? X NO YES 3. industrial wastewater? X NO YES 4. cooling water (contact and noncontact)? X NO YES If yes, identify sources, volumes, quality (if other than normal domestic sewage) , and treatment methods. Give the basis or methodology of estimates. b. Identify receiving waters, including groundwater, and evaluate the impacts of the discharges listed above. If discharges to groundwater are anticipated, provide percolation/permeability and other hydrogeological test date, if available. The End Use Plan indicates the northern u of the site will surface drain off-site to Dean Lake which is located one-half mile to the east. This condition is similar to that existing prior to the gravel extraction operation. 4 2 . Will the project generate either during or after construction): 3 P J g ( g ) a. air pollution? X NO YES b. dust? NO X YES c. noise? NO X YES d. odors? X NO YES If yes, explain, including as appropriate: distances to sensitive land uses; expected levels and duration of noise; types and quantities of air pollutants from stacks, mobile sources, and fugitive emissions (dust); odor sources; and mitigative measures for any impacts. Give the basis or methodology of estimates. The amount of dust raised by the proposed gravel extraction operation is typically less than that raised by vehicular traffic on gravel roads. The natural 2 to 6 percent water content of the gravel as it is extracted from the ground significantly reduces the production of dust during the crushing operation. The water content of the stockpile also reduces the production of dust during loading from the stockpile. In addition, County Road 83 will be upgraded and paved, eliminating the potential of dust being generated by trucks entering and exiting the site. Equipment similar to that which will be used on this site, was tested by Twin City Testing in December of 19814 (Figure 10). The nearest residence to the property line is approximately 150 feet south along County Road 83. The hours of operation will be restricted by the Conditional Use Permit issued by the City of Shakopee. by the local controlling agency. 214. Describe the type and amount of solid and/or hazardous waste including sludges and ashes that will be generated and the method and location of disposal: N/A 25. Will the project affect: a. fish or wildlife habitat, or movement of animals? NO X YES b. any native species that are officially listed as state endangered, threatened or of special concern (plants and/or animals)? NO YES If yes, explain (identify species and describe impact): Wildlife habitat will be affected only during the short term. The end land use will return the land to an agricultural use. Species of wildlife affected would be those typically associated with upland agricultural lands (small birds, pheasant, fox, hawks, and perhaps deer). 26. Do any historical, archaeological or architectural resources exist on or near the project site? If yes, explain (show resources on a site map and describe impact: X NO YES 5 r' 27. Will the project cause the impairment or destruction of: I a. designated park or recreation areas? X NO YES b. prime or unique farmlands? X NO YES c. ecologically sensitive areas? X NO YES d. scenic views and vistas? X NO YES e. other unique resources (specify)? X NO YES If yes, explain? 28. For each affected road indicate the current average daily traffic (ADT) , increase in ADT contributed by the project and the directional distributions of traffic. The anticipated direction of traffic entering and leaving the pit will be from the east on County Road 16 and from the south on County Road 83. The estimated average traffic volume per day will be 50 trips. These trips will be roughly split between east and south road operations (Figure 11 ). 29. Are adequate utilities and public services now available to service the project? If not, what additional utilities and/or services will be required? NO X YES No services will be required beyond electrical and telephone hookups which are currently available. SUMMARY OF ISSUES For regular EAWs, list the issues as identified by "yes" answers above. Discuss alternatives and mitigative measures for these issues. For scoping EAWs, list known issues, alternatives, and mitigative measures to be addressed in EIS. 16. Only a small portion of the site (1 to 2 percent) consists of Peaty Muck soils which are currently under cultivation and will be in cultivation under the End Use Plan. 23 b & c. Dust pollution is expected to be minimal due to the natural water content of the excavated material which will restrict the production of dust. County Road 83 will also be upgraded and paved by the county thus eliminated road dust. Noise pollution for the equipment proposed to be used will be between 47 and 49 dBA at one-eighth and one-quarter mile from the excavation operation. The nearest residence is located 150 feet south of the site on County Road 83. Hours of operation will be governed by the terms of the Conditional Use Permit issued by the City of Shakopee. 25 a. Disturbance of wildlife habitat will occur during the excavation operation. The site will be restored to an agricultural use in approximately nine (9) years time. 6 29. No services will be required for the proposed excavation operation beyond electrical and telephone hookups which are available. CERTIFICATION BY RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT I hereby certify that the information contained in this document is true and complete to the best of my knowledge and that copies of the completed EAW have been made available to all points on the official EQB distribution list. Signature �. Date S . - Title C��sv/71�n T :T. � lam---�• •- st __ ..i `` � r •,,VVVI--- f �,.- JL it �� � � Edi ;I�_. f �� �. � �� ►... ._�— f' FJ •. R i- z C ilk` ?''' j WLfJl { R + .I ^'1 IPJ.b1u '} 1}�• ("f T ff171' 1 �- ,� + f � . �1 � �, I f• :�v is i ---------- Hill i!1 ! tiq Iit tI f IOl it Iii! li4ii!ri hiiiliii f ailltillf WIiIi1I! wilill t Irl 1!f I li� ! IIltl! II 1 i j liyill!llillilifill,[liillil�lliiill,linilii{!ii(lIlliIll iII! iIhlli! l !lfillI ll0ii I + 16,I il' IilI; 1f1 411111 j! !!!11i3 !I� 11, !ii;ili, 010111111 ILH ! illlI. infill iiiIi!l!!11!1!flii I t - rFL F . ROO fia. 1 T. 1'16 N.ISHAKOPEE,\ Q T A _ T.1 15 N - - - ♦ /-- --"-- 4961 Memarial Pari _ '� �• _ _ Z' { � W - :Water Tanks W I -. J741 WT z y Valleyi''r"--ti•��. ••�� - - 736 II -4 // o u L Ce-- m r ED - ;I i! 47/30° 750 ; • 767 - 764 8) 4959 • �; 757 qc� -- --------------- 798 ` �'S D a`�8aft 758 �- 7 10 - soon 800 a `L _ ._ - - J --^-- - - G -4958 04 812 850 117 ---- 16 --- -�---- - -�� 4957' 33 I� - 0850 i; U 852 127 azo 4951'] 1`�/'i\\ �i(�ti• ^ii - -ii - ° ` \. _—_ 820__ \ u.__ 3a r_ —850 � '11111` u321 IN 640 000 �� 1 �)c9,�� '�l �..,•%�--.r�/ ��> / �.J _ r FEET _ \ �- 6E EDEN PRAIRIE, MINN. ya/ 0 1��) ����( ;V �� �, is ���� �� �) s N4445—W9322.5/7.5 1 •�,oi 1967 44°45/- �� ` - '�� ' � '� �J �_ 'I,6 PHOTOREVISED 1972 AND 1980 D 93° 0, MA 7373 IV SW-SERIES V872''461 462 463 2140000 FEET _ a.,IMi lY)tlotl YOli it lt.OJ lOY1MOJ )1St• Yc 11lOY OY1). )Ml 5.• 00^ a - '- .- f,t,_oo.00- - _-._ __ p.�'• '...__--___--. V/II^^ i.00•oo.00.--- _._ __ --_-_� i•= l -I_� �. I� I ' III hl - / ` .i`i;?; -' i - Ni I^ ' av�^• � / �./ ~ '! ,� / rIR_a"� t) BCA �- t ,' � ,// � e �• ~ Fzi Iz�-ici : ' .x o 0 Lj I a r r t �� r / i!-I � si � '•� �f'R:i a= 11 z W VIK LLJ � \ lam- }r_�', �. X SI?' a a 18 ,zqr- i. - ` • � -li s al7l � a -I.i: i_i _•�xi�=� i:5 i � °i Z I I I it - : Q .•le_ d :7: It 3 M ^ % �•f , `• ` I r •, �i7YNOV•101nM / :ii - r • ` ] I • / ,` �i • ;� � ••I J ci'i I � 1 IS � �•_. , 3�I \j C IIIA +1 •w° -------- -' � f - - \ ••.�olv�axji��.� - � � bo oc.c-�,I, 4o--` /; • � ,i � i- �} •`. - xr � �,�--_•_•.1� fit i"11"I 1 ." ' sr.._r.�,t:'. `�• i y i 1 - � _� r - it ! •�r' I .� .'� '=�y'���// f ', { /� ~ e 1 •t is i•,..,. 91 y�h� o• i�. j 9 •i•i1?iil�•y��! .Il n puzz' zdvn n � 9' i•,w 4�ISl/ %I r_� i 1 _��- !•..}�'i�!i) r ) d: i:x•tii i•,iii:i r I.: � � Datta __ ___ i."' • __ irJ=z__ -`� `� I i } .. / � d I -51 LLJ s s LLJ O i � w f O a O Q u 65 G ■ W U l W I� FT W e co ■ � � I, LU W � o _ � L _ r n q o � I iILI It ` I I j — i I m -�` f, I�f - � � I 1 ' � I ' I a Irl •� CD r-11 tp- f•• •I. ""roil 11 m - _�' /ice.JLl cr •/�) - 1 - \ ` — Q �_.. I I --� ,. .ovei3c aoo, or - _•_. I -�l �I~ G :�'o C 1 2 v i •I" 1 a J� , r / r ' /l r�. I3 0 .flel"88 Z �' �1 ,log 6 W zF i '•ll d r / 1 •� ! /• / I I -1' i I '—' i°r j (n O - CC th ',I 'IL I < [ ° � • / / !0 ° rr' = i <�. / mWNq \ [ �� ,� I � Q.ILI � LU 12 • I I QJt � r: � a ' / / / i tial ` �z QNp °. {;},il�`�' r I la 1 ' � .:.Qui \�; \j / ' ' ) • --�/ r o I �` M $- illil i 19 ; iW ; /� \ --- ------- I a I ; . m ••"• ! ` / / , \ j ��\ � �' Y3017XN�■i Cl°Y/ - I V 1 • �) • < � /-r :.Llar. c � -unite-„aee ?r• a . I I � 2 / / ,2 • / � - I d �► ' ` J .oarxMrsr .1 I j , u /i - f Mrx•1 ir•r0• I /alga dors-"I I I °I,� I � , w •r� / -ii�:�-,.+- _ . I I fl! I Ir-------/ '/. / :.Z f ` � [ I I I '� � 1 I 1 2.° , / 11l u. • - �� -1 'lIi •- � � Y ~ �• I I I I� ° � I I J ' f � � I` �ej'O.• � •�= `" �, I I',I 1..1`..0 �, r : .�I ' " a -1 � - I I I 1 t' JI .li I = I ' 1 / e � ♦°�n _ /� li i !I,'�1 ��°° -u�a� r. ' ' {� ► I / _ / 2 _Z` •kC to j O 1 d, 1 I Z ;�: / ... I I d 41 al °II, ,�1 ° ; I / // � -- �' -�(,-=�__-_-•.. `„-_ �I ,F' i�--_ -�.� � .i� i/ /'�'.I i I II -� 11 l �� U' I I li ; Z III I�, .__ ___ ---_� � ' �-= • -�I\ -ti f;_ 'I I, IJ Yi 1.. I 1 i I I � � r 1-: 'I �� ••II�� � - � - t l I• I I ; I i I �� / / ,!" I I f I —,NOIN_-----J I�,I,' L 1 I I �i •� Y I i I I I• � Ijjj� _ .I' ml II I � _1' I-� i. I 'I'I'• � r -I �/ + / -4'iw.i'� ,C al { ^�T M7'/Y135 --�i� ��i �I •-i s•� • I IImI1 I - i I •I r a l/ ` � t � g r J / / �o •i I "2 I: _ ' - �'\\ ^�' I. j� 11;4 ,�i//� �� �°e�- c o•. As � `o''a \\ I I r`'I u I I 1 I �/" // / �'-''/f��•-r`O'O"° i I� ;=iii LLI doj •i j. fir. 7 -Z - r' — •: I / 9 114--r Zin j F ii ?rri_i LJ _ _ •� _ /• r / / ; 3 Ill. i 5 �' ( ;, ; a :a = e�':{' ._ h t W f. =•? 17,•=r 3 a w: " =aiiir 1 } Zr. A Z / / !/ r I I zw < <J iii s i•.`si t3? _r �. � / / /' I 1 e-- .°n �x .. ifi�lSfa.c? x_� x- •i. i t& t.i Zid 2. E:r , / /. ``, 'w^u«� - •- ill rr •r l j I I ------- o<02 ��: •1 r I `� � / I I f / I aaotaMwae aiowM r r I = I4, \f J. ol ddl;M4 39 mo Ir on LU to am .98 r � /. •tee Y,! ■ j8o_•: ■ I � r �r� � e+•d o°� r X n8pg '� •� r � r�E� �f� is ,' /�/Y,� � - ZO :9 :;Y: Z � ItI111 �SF °.. •� r I ,f�'�j" ` ✓ (Inset Sheet 1) �. _ (Sheet 1) MINN `:; a 'r: ^yP.68. _ —•• r ."a'.'i .moi . ..a:.ir r- A.A '�. • O�Ar� _ n 'Yx "1j ,K; r ,'�A, _ sc �• �,5.. CdA F. ... ��� e v • • A = e �. riil._iEP • ' \ PbA.• P.Ab A 41. Fa- !a S a Y.. J �. HdA ' ..y �. • 'PbA f } Ebc 5 HdA II 4y 1'1, v b VALLEY EbB HdC2 <�� ` ' HdA EMETERY -.4 HdA HdA Da_A ` HdC2 HdB* �$IdA' Zas2 IbB ZaA HeA rl 48 _ Y•DbA r; bbd _ DaA c NA. '� HeA HeA A Ta tlC DbA HeB2�. HeAE*Alo� Sc .C• - 'L' - .. i _ a •MA.. Ts h� ►7 w,,,p L I.--1 ' `'a. .w•-,. .,.' �1^��' ,5c + ,ya''J ,'cT^r •.�bwoiRrt+'` 'Zr�el•B ...a..re+nare EaA i DC -DaADbB2 62 w„O HeA -461 Za r 1A DaA► � ;Ea is ,�. WaA �� �. x .•L•: .�� " DA DbA - HeA HeA IDbB " I W a A HeB . bB I DDA - rN 'a+gM.• DbB DDB i` DbA �R• •� 7 ` He DD82 a a: D •n..;q. f8 1. HeB2 ` •A e 2 HeB E.A Was _ s aw ... •�!:'I� s ' HeB2 � - � .�bB,. - B �2 ITS aA �TDB� eC? GOA '� . � . `�" 1....• DbB DbB • , HeB ';7��a1v 6 EaA "' EaA EaA}.�..... 7a Wae NeC? tte9 k' ..VA. •:r a. 71ia ,ay.. WdA HdC2 H 2 N I Ta HeB .. H WaA .. Ea8? .yy�,�:.A N HEBy*'!C'' _ E.A r+ a8 _ dB' HeB 4 ..:...,�.. `• E.A ��_. - WsAx. .' HeA E.B �'. A < \ II WSA WaB - .. lit- • B I• ..W.A . il• N _ - :. -HeB .♦ r I pslt-•� .-... .. Hd .. �.W.A'11 Ha82 'C 111 WaA h E�bR� I� Waq .. IID e, H -t b II waAiDbA Easy _:D e.il DDA (Sheet 7) (Sheet 8) SOIL SURVEY OF SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA fia. q tumn cnty testinc3 10CMDracor"WV_ 662 CROMWELL AVENUE Y /I\ • ST. PAUL, MN 55114 II.1il\ PHONE 612/645-3601 REPORT OF: NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS PROJECT: 35W SOUTH PIT FREEWAY LANDFILL DATE: December 17, 1984 C S Mc Crossen Inc REPORTED TO: Attn: Rodney Evans FURNISHED BY: BOX A.D. COPIES TO: Osseo, MN 55369 LABORATORY No. 7-0399 INTRODUCTION: At the request of Rodney Evans of C S McCrossen, we have conducted noise level measure- ments at the 35W South pit of C S Mc Crossen located at the freeway landfill in Burnsville, MN. The measurements were made on December 14, 1984 to determine the noise level at 1/8 mile and 1/4 mile from the pit. RESULTS: Location Noise Level , dBA 1/8 mile from pit 47 to 49 1/4 mile from pit 47 to 49 The noise level measurements were taken 1/8 mile and 1/4 mile southeast of the pit. We. understand that the crusher, secondary crusher and one loader were in operation during the noise level measurements . TEST EQUIPMENT: The noise level measurements were made using a Bruel & Kjaer Type 2209 Impulse Precision Sound Level Meter. The in-field calibration of the sound level meter was performed using a Bruel & Kjaer Type 4220 Piston phone. All the above equipment was calibrated July 6, 1983 by factory representatives using instruments traceable to the National Bureau of Standards . The measurements were made with the meter set to the "A" weighting scale (dBA) and "fast" meter response. REMARKS: If you have any questions or comments, please contact us . TWIN CITY TESTING AND ENGINEERING LABORATORY, INCORPORATED Timothy A Ne son, M.E. Product Te ng Department TAN/mpc AM A MUTUAL Pft T cTION TO CIJSNTs,TMs•USLIC ANO OURaaLVEa,ALL RaPORT7 ARa aUSM1T'Ta0 Aa TME CONf1OENTIAL MOPSRTY Of CLIENTS, ANO AlR14OR1- ZATION mm hUSLICATION OF STATEMaNTa,CONCLUSIONS 044 EXTRACTS PROM OR REOARCINO OLM RETORTS Is RaS 04VE0 RaNO1N0 OLM WRITTEIJ AWMPIOVAf n 4 n n J r � ■ a i 3 Zi. o IG { �[ J L n , O _ MINNESOTA HIS i ORICAL S00tTY F0UNDED IN 1849 690 Cedar>tre>et, S:'. Paul, ;11mnexota »101 (61 21 96-612b _ _ 22 April 1985 Mr. Edward J. Hasek Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban Inc. One Groveland Terrace Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 Dear Mr. Hasek: RE: 130 acre site as per your letter dated 3/22/85 Scott County, MN MHS Referral File Number: X-52 (PLEASE REFER TO THIS NUMBER IN ALL FUTURE CORRESPONDENCE) Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above pro- ject. It has been reviewed pursuant to responsibilities given the State Historic Preservation Officer by the National Historic Preservation Act -of 1966 and the Procedures of the National Advisory Council of Historic Preservation (36CFR800) . This review reveals the location of no known sites of historic, archi- tectural, cultural, archaeological, or engineering significance within the area of the proposed project. There are no sites in the project area which are on the National Register or eligible for inclusion on the National Register, and, therefore, none which may be affected by your proposal. Again, thank you for your participation in this important effort to preserve Minnesota's heritage. Sincerely, NRussell W. Fridley State Historic Preservation Officer MERILA & ASSOCIATES, INC. _ ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS,SITE PLANNERS _ 7216 Boone Avenue North • Brooklyn Park,MN 55428 Telephone: (612) 533-7595 J lJ.'j, 1985 Cj P F.- TO: TO: Mayor, City Council , Planning Commission and Concerned Citizens FROM: Merila & Associates, Inca DATE: June 14, 1985 RE: QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY: SHAKOPEE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ASSOCIATION BEVERLY J. KOEHNEN JANE VAN MADENGHEM At the planning commission meeting on May 16, 1985, it was decided that all questions regarding the proposed mining site on County Road 83 be submitted for a written response to supplement the report dated April 30, 1985. The above listed group and individuals submitted questions. Enclosed is a response for each question submitted. For your convenience, the reports are color coded. Respectfully yours, Walter J. Gregory WJG:ml Registered Land Surveyor RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS OF THE SHAKOPEE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ASSOCIATION Question 1 : What provisions are proposed to protect adjoining property owners of damage to their property by applicants or their agents? Response: A minimum 30 foot setback from the property line will be maintained around the entire site. In addition, no processing will take place within 100 feet of the boundaries or within 500 feet of any residence, as provided by the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance Sec. 11 .05, Subd. 7.C.6. Question 2: What will the effect of the proposed installation have on normal and orderly development of surrounding property? Response: The current predominant use in the area is agricultural . Therefore, it is the applicant's contention that the proposed conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding vacant property since the reclamation plan for the project comprehends returning the land back to an agricultural use. At the present time no significant development is occurring in the area. Killarney Hills, a plat of 28 residential lots and 7 outlots, was recorded in the early 1970's. So far only about 6 or 7 lots have houses on them. It is our opinion that there will not be any significant development in this area until the 1990's, when the "Shakopee By-Pass" is constructed. No significant effect is expected. Question 3: What provisions are proposed to handle the surface drainage problems which would be caused by the proposed installation? Response: The project will follow the drainage criteria established by the City of Shakopee.- Surface drainage problems will be minimized by establishing grades between the adjacent properties and the berms, such that the drainage will continue in the same general direction. In areas where this is not possible, the operator will provide ponding areas so that.the 100 year storm level will not exceed the present 100 year storm pond elevation. The ponding will be controlled by overflow pipes directed to the pit area. All phases of development and construction are subject to the review and inspection of the city engineer or his authorized representative. Question 4: What professional assurance is there that removal of sand and gravel will not endanger the underground water supply? Response: As suggested in the attached letter from the Minnesota Geological Survey, precautions have been taken in preparation of the extraction plan to prevent surface drainage from entering the site during the extraction phase. There will be no onsite fuel storage. These are reasonable measures to prevent contamination to the ground water. When the topsoil is replaced, it will provide an effective filter for possible contaminants similar to the present conditions. When development occurs under the Alternative End Use Plan, the area of infiltration will decrease by buildings and street areas, and the surface drainage will be directed to streets , storm sewers, and ponds. The ponds will be lined in such a way to prevent infiltration. Question 5: What protection will the city have for compliance in the following areas: (a) hours of operation; (b) weed control at the site; (c) dust control -year around - not only during seasonal operation; (d) measures to insure no dumping on premises; (e) no storage or spills of contaminants on site. Response: The Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee has authority under Section 11 .04, Subd. 6.B.1 to impose conditions of approval and require a performance bond to insure compliance. (a) The hours of operation are controlled by the zoning ordinance from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. , however, the operator intends to operate normally between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (b) The City has the right to periodic inspections of the premises. All weeds or unsightly vegetation will be cut or trimmed by the operator to maintain a neat appearance. (c) Dust will be controlled by paving the main access roads into the pit areas. In the pit area dust will be controlled with water applied by the operator during periods of mining or hauling activity. During the off-seasons, dust is not expected to be a problem because the percent of fine material (soil material passing through a No. 200 sieve) varies from 3 percent to 10 percent for class 5 gravel compared with 11 percent to 45 percent for topsoils commonly found in this area. Also, when the stockpiles are left undisturbed, the piles will crust over to further reduce dust. -2- (d) A security gate will be placed on the access road to the pit area to prevent unauthorized entrances to the pit. The operator will not be dumping on premises. (e) The operator will not store fuel or other contaminants at the site, as stated in the application. Question 6: How is dust to be controlled on site: Where will the water come from? Response: Dust will be controlled by paving the access roads into the pit area. Water will be used in the pit area. The operator will obtain a hydrant meter and purchase water from the City. Question 7: What are the overall city needs and on what is this need based? Response: Gravel is one of the basic materials for construction of houses, offices, shopping centers, highways, streets, parking lots and public buildings. It is essential for economic development of the area. The Metro Council has estimated the Scott County aggregate demands for the 25 year period from 1982 to 2006 as 9.8 million cubic yards. The public sector will use about half of this material . If this material is imported from other areas, the cost of the material would increase due to transportation cost. Also, it will subject more miles of road to gravel haul trucks and ultimately use more of the public sector's resources for road repair. , Question 8: How is the proposal consistent with the zoning code and the zoning district? Response: This proposal is consistent with the purposes stated in Section 11 .24, subd. 1 , of preserving, promoting, maintaining, and enhancing the use of land for commercial agricultural purposes, since the reclaimation plan provides for future agricultural utilization. This proposal is consistent with the zoning district because Sec. 11 .24, subd. 3.H. lists mining, sand and gravel extraction, as a conditional use in the agriculture zoning district. Question 9: Where in the Comprehensive Plan is the establishment of a gravel mining operation considered? Response: The Comprehensive Plan (Rural 1990 Land Use Plan) considers this land agricultural . Mining is listed as a conditional use in agricultural , rural residential , light industry and heavy industrial zoning districts. -3- Question 10: What is the projected anticipated traffic flow on County 83 both north to Highway 101 and south to County 42? Response: The traffic flow will vary. The average distribution is 59 round trips/day north to Highway 101 and 11 round trips/day south to County 42. Question 11 : Can the city legally forbid gravel trucks from operating on County 16 - either east or west? Resonpse: No, this is a county road. Question 12: What is definitely planned for reclaimation of the site? Response: Return to agricultural uses, but the end use plan is designed with the capabilities of being used for other purposes. Question 13: How many trucks will be entering and leaving the site per day? Response: The annual season is about 28 weeks. During the season beginning around May 15th, the average number of trucks entering and leaving the site per day would be approximately 70. Question 14: What is the noise level of: a) crusher b) elevator and equipment used to stockpile c) loader and other self-propelled equipment d) trucks used in transporting gravel . Response: The actual dBA values at 100 feet are as follows: a) crusher to dBA b) stacker to dBA c) end loader 70 to 78 dBA d) trucks 70 to 76 dBA The calculated dBA values at 500 feet are as follows: a) crusher to dBA b). stacker to dBA c) end loader 63 to 71 dBA d) trucks 63 to 69 dBA Question 15: If fuel is not to be stored on site, how many trucks will come each day for service and at what times? Response: The fueling truck will come to the site once each day between 7:00 a.m. , and 7:00 p.m. The trucks hauling gravel will be fueled off-site. -4- Question 16: How many years after gravel extraction is reclaimation expected to take? Response: The operation will be divided into three phases to reduce the amount of exposed soil area at any one time. Phase One would include stripping the topsoil and building the topsoil berms along the north and east sides of the site. Next, the berms would be seeded. Then, the three and one-half year mining operation would begin at the east side of Phase One and move in a westerly direction until mining is completed. When Phase Two begins , the topsoil would be stripped and used to reclaim Phase One and build the topsoil .berms along the west side of Phase Two. Phase One and the new berms would be seeded. Then the six year mining operation of Phase Two would begin. When completed, then Phase Two would be reclaimed with topsoil in the berms along the north and east sides of Phase One and along the west side of Phase Two and seeded. Phase Three will be similar and operate over a period of seven and one-half years before it is reclaimed and seeded. The total operation will span an estimated 17 years. Question 17: How will the reclaimation be assured? Response: The operator will be required to post a bond to insure reclaimation The amount may be adjusted when the three year mining permits are renewed. Question 18: Who will be responsible for the final phase of this project? Response: The operator will be responsible to reclaim and seed the site. After the site has been reclaimed and seeded, it will revert to the use of the present owner. -5- UNIVERSITY Or 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, pa=ticularily 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 Shakoaee 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 az disposal siting, waste transfer facilities, or road salt storage which have the potential for introducing pollutants to the site, should be discouraaed or supplemented with mitigating engineering practices. If you have any _.fur- her questions, please feel free to contact us . Sincerely,, Roman: Kanivetsky Bruce Olsen hydrogeoiogist Geologist BO/RK/rah RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS OF BEVERLY J. KOEHNEN Question 1 : Why have you ignored my property completely in your considerations? (i .e. , p. 3, item 9, "Dust will be blown to the S.W. where no one lives. " i .e. , berming i .e. , drainage: How it has historically crossed your property and entered mine. How do you plan to alter this drainage?) Response: The Koehnen property is beyond the 500 foot distance we were required to consider as part of the plan and therefore, was not specifically addressed. It is true that some dust may be blown southwesterly, but only for a short period of time just prior to a storm. The Koehnen property is southeasterly of the site and no one lives within one-half mile south- westerly of the site. Phase 3 includes a drainage area of approximately 50 acres. It includes shallow depressions which drain to the south under periodic flooding conditions. A total of 45 acres drains on to the site from abutting properties in approximately equal parts from the east, the west, and the northwest. The existing drainage of approximately 95 acres ponds in low areas on and overflows southeasterly toward the Koehnen property. During the extraction phase for phase three, the areas along the east and west sides will drain south along the outside of the berms and eventually continue southeasterly. The drainage entering on the northwest side near the Rutt property will be ponded behind the berm up to the normal 100 year storm elevation before it overflows into the pit area. When the end use plan for phase three is implemented, the drainage swales on the east and west sides will be maintained so that surface drainage entering the property will continue south and southeasterly along the former pit area. The surface drainage entering from the northwest will be ponded up to the normal 100 year storm elevation before it overflows into the pit area during agricultural use. When development occurs, it will overflow into a storm sewer. The net effect on the Koehnen property is to reduce the area draining toward the Koehnen property from approximately 95 acres to approximately 30 acres. Question 2: How did you calculate to insure there is enough topsoil on the site to build the berms you propose? If there is not enough, what kind of material will -you bring in to make up the difference? ( need to see your numbers. ) Response: The soil in this area is classified by the .USDA Soil Survey of Scott County, Minnesota, as Dakota loam, Dakota sandy loan and Hubbard loamy fine sand. The composite depth of the surface soil , subsurface layer and subsoil is 24 inches and 38 inches , respectively. Actual borings were taken to confirm this information. We used an average depth of two feet multiplied by the existing ground surface area at the top of the excavation. Top of Cut Area in Square Feet x 2 Feet = cubic yards of salvaged soil 27 cubic feet/cubic yard Salvaged Soil Phase I 1 ,160,000 x 2 = 86,000 c.y. 27 c.f./c.y. The volume of soil in the berms is calculated by: Volume in cubic yards = Length in feet x end area in square feet x 1 .3 compaction factor 27 cubic feet/cubic yard Soil Required to Build Berms 3,800 ft. x 450 s.f. = 1 .3 = 82,000 c. y. 27 c.f./c/y. The typical section of the side slopes topsoil berms on Map B shows an end area of 520 square feet. However, the end area could be reduced to 450 square feet by reducing the top width to 10 feet and increasing the inside slope to 3:1 . Phase II Salva d oil T7, 85,000 s.f. x 2 ft. = 88,000 C.Y. 27 c.f./c.y. Soil Required for West Berms 1 ,450 ft. x 450 s.f. x 1 .3 = 31 ,000 c.y. 27 c.f./c.y. Soil for the Reclamation of Phase I 88,000 c.y. salvaged soil - 31 ,000 c.y. for west berm = 57,000 c.y. return to Phase I as topsoil Phase III Salvaged Soil 1 ,553,700 s.f. x 2 ft. = 115,000 c.y. salvaged soil 27 c.f./c.y. Soil Required for Berms around Phase 3 2,800 ft. x 450 s.f. x 1 .3 = 61 ,000 c.y. 27 c.f./c.y. 2,400 ft. x 304 s.f. x 1 .3 = 35,000 c.y. 27 c.f./c.y. 96,000 c.y. Soil for Reclamation of Phase 2 Excess. from Phase -3 - 19,000 C.Y. Berm on the west side of Phase 2 31 ,000 c.y. Berm on the north side of Phase 1 2,460 ft. x 450 s.f. 41 ,000 c.y. 27 c.f./c.y. Total 91 ,000 C.Y. Soil for the Reclamation of Phase 3 Berms around Phase 3 96,000 c.y. Berm S.E. of the access road 12,000 c.y. Total 108,000 C.Y. Additional soil for the reclamation of Phase I at end of Phase 3. Berm on the east side of Phase I 13,500 c.y. Summary: The top width of the berms can be decreased to 10 feet and the inside slope of the berms can be increased to 3:1 to make the quantities of soil available match the quantity required. The berm serves two functions: 1 . Primarily, they act as a screening barrier to shield the mining operation from public view and adjacent residential properties. Otherwise, they are not required. 2. Topsoil storage is secondary and the top width and the inside slope of the berm will vary to match the quantities available. The outside appearance will be most important. The following table compares the soil returned with the soil removed. Phase Total Removed Total Replaced 1 86,000 c.y. 70,500 c.y. 2 88,000 c.y. 91 ,000 c.y. 3 115,000 c.y. 108,000 c.y. Question 3: After moving the topsoil , stacking it for a long period, exposing it to wind erosion, etc. , will you have enough left to re-cover the disturbed area? Response: Yes, there will be enough soil to re-cover the area as shown above. The operator will establish and maintain adequately a permanent ground cover on the berms to prevent losses due to wind and water erosion. According to the area soil scientist with the A.S.C.S. , wind and water erosion are the primary factors in depletion of soil nutrients. When managed to prevent erosion and the soils are carefully stripped, the land -has a good potential for supporting a crop and being classified as agricultural land. The management of the land after reclamation should encourage crops that will increase the organic content of the soil and provide ground cover. Question 4: What was the outside temperature when the noise level measurements were taken? Can you replicate these numbers at the Shakopee site on a hot day? What is the dBA value for the end loader, stacker, and all vehicles to be used? Response: The tests were taken when the temperature was in the mid 20° F. Further testing is being conducted by Twin City Testing at this time to verify sound levels at summer temperatures. The actual dBA values at 100 feet are as follows: End loader 70 to 78 dBA Stacker 68 dBA Crusher 84 dBA Trucks 70 to 76 dBA -3- The calculated dBA values at 500 feet are as follows: End loader 63 to 71 dBA Stacker 55 dBA Crusher 71 dBA Trucks 63 to 69 dBA. Sound travels faster on a hot day, but it i-s not any louder. Question 5: I question the wording of point 8 on page 6. "Normal hours of operation" - do you also plan to have abnormal hours? Response: Sec. 11 .05, Subd. 7. C. 8, provides for mining operations between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. The intent was to define their working hours within the permitted hours of operation. Question 6: How do you plan to deep dust away from my property and house safely? Response: Sec. 11 .05, Subd. 7.C.9, recognizes the fact that dust dissipates quite rapidly. The operator must control dust conditions which are injurious and substantially annoying to persons living within 600 feet of the proposed mining operations. Since the operator must control within the 600 foot limit, it will be controlled for your property. If the operator cannot or does not control the dust, the City has the right to discontinue the conditional use permit. -4- RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS OF JANE VAN MALDEGHEN Question 1 : Consequence of mining dust on human and animal respiratory systems. Assurance from a veterinarian or allergist. Long-term effects. Response: See attached letters of Drs. Kelso, Klimmek and Hartley. Question 2: Road easement of Rudd (Butt) property. Response: See attached letter from Attorney Larry Neilsen and copy of the Rutt deed. Question 3: The End Use Plan as denoted in other areas where excavation had taken place -- was the area already fully developedrp for to commencement of excavation? Response: No, in both the Edina and St. Louis Park cases, the area were undeveloped and existed in close proximity to developing areas. Question 4: Local appraiser's opinion on property values. Especially take into consideration Killarney Hills outlots should that ever be finalized for development. Response: See attached letter of Ken Lewis. Question 5: Request meets criteria of 1990 Land Use Plan. However, when that plan was established, the potential magnitude of growth was not realized (race track, etc. ). How can the City be held to that Plan with the knowledge we now possess? Response: City ordinances, comprehensive plans, and policies are established to protect the rights of the property owners for reasonable use of their land, as well as the rights of neighboring property owners Therefore, in the absence of a .revised comprehensive plan, the 1990 Land Use Plan for the City of Shakopee is the official source of guidance to the property owners and public at this -time. Question 6: If there is a proven need for mining excavation, why not locate them in less developed/commercial areas? Response: According to the report on aggregate resources in the Twin City metropolitan area, prepared by the Metropolitan Council , the availability of aggregate resources suitable for commercial extraction is limited to specific areas due to geological conditions. The proposed site is one of those potential specific areas. Based upon a recent aerial photograph of the immediate area, the proposed site can be considered a "less developed/commercial area" , since there seems to be an interest by the city to consider the property for future commercial use even though the current comprehensive plan provides for agricultural uses. Question 7: Does this project prove to be a tax advantage for the Scott County tax payer? Or will the disadvantages outweigh (i .e. additional county road repair used by tax payer monies due to heavy/large equipment use). Response: Yes, there is a tax advantage for Scott County taxpayers. Based on the current tax rate and the quantity of gravel available at this site, the County would receive approximately $164,000.00 in gravel extraction taxes. Abount $49,000 would be returned to the City of Shakopee for street and road maintenance. To put the road repair issue into perspective, as Shakopee grows, it will need a certain amount of gravel . At the present time, it appears that during the life of this proposed mine, major public and private developments will take place within a four mile radius of the site. The present major sources of gravel are the River Warren pit on Highway 41 and the Pearson pit southeast of Highway 13. Both of these pits are at least eight miles from the Shakopee potential development area. See attached area map. Assuming 1 ,640,000 cubic yards of gravel are used in the Shakopee development area. The gravel is hauled in 20 yard trucks. This Site - 4 Mile Haul 1 ,640,00.0 yds x 2 trips/load x 4 mi ./haul load = 656,000 miles 20 yd./loads Existing Pearson Pit or River Warren Pit - 8 Mile Haul 1 ,640,000 yd x 2 trips/load x 8 Mi/ haul/load = 1 ,312,000 miles 20 yr./loads In summary, the potential savings to Shakopee and Scott County tax payers are as follows: 1 . The pit will reduce the amount of truck traffic and road repair on public roads by reducing the total haul distance for aggregate material needed in the immediate area. 2. The reduced haul distance of aggregate to public and private improvement projects in the Shakopee area, reduces the cost of constructing public streets, highways, parking lots and driveways. The expected savings is at the rate of $0.50 per ton. Question 8: Chances of disrupting the gas main? Response: We contacted the gas company engineers concerning their requirements. We have met or exceeded their standards. Before grading begins, the gas company representatives will be contacted to locate the main and confirm its depth. -2- Question 9: How can applicant be held to conditions placed on paper? What avenues are available for strict monitoring by professional personnel . Response: The Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 11 .04, subd. 2.B, provides for a representative of the City to "conduct inspections of buildings and use of land to determine compliance with the terms of Chapter 11 ," and subd. 2.E, "Institute in the name of the City any appropriate actions or proceedings against a violator as provided by law. " Also, Sec. 11 .05, subd. 7.A. , provides that a permit for mineral extraction is valid for a three year period after which it must be reviewed and renewed by the planning commission. The City ordinance designates that the noise control officer is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the noise control ordinance. Question 10: Since so many are opposed, why not develop this. parcel more condusive to the surrounding areaa' needs and desires? This isn't the only thing this parcel is good for. Response: The highest and best use of this parcel at this time is for the extraction of aggregate and for agricultural uses. The proposed plan provides for a feasible and reasonable means of utilizing a valuable natural resource on an interim basis and reclaiming the site for continued use as agricultural or for future use as a commercial/industrial development. Question 11 : City Engineer's opinion please (just opinion?! !) of current drainage situation, drainage potential during operation and potential drainage outlook after a phase has been completed.- Response: The City Engineer will respond to this question. -3- Small and Large Animals To/.445-4765 Shakopee Veterinary Clinic Rte� 1. �L I� 1 CJ i;;i.; 12675 Marystown Rd. SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 / Dr.Richard P. Klimmek, D.V.M. Dr.Michael W. Kelso,D.V.M. June 6, 1985 To whom it may concerns It was recently brought to our attention that on May 15, 1985 Dr. Susan Hartley wrote a letter opposing the proposed gravel pit at the intersection of County Roads 83 and 16. She expresaed concerns that dusty conditions caused by a gravel pit could possibly cause health problems to nearby horses. Dr. Hartley was employed as an associate in our practice at that date and had written this letter on her w n accord. Our position is that we do not envision any serious health problems resulting from such a gravel pit, provided there is no excessive amount of dust created from the operation. The roads lead— ing to and from the gravel pit should be tarred to keep dust to a minimum. To the best of our knowledge we have never been called to treat a horse for respiratory problems because of its proximity to a gravel pit. Sincerely, Fichard P. K i1"k, D.V.14. - - l V ael w:. eo D.V j• r� MINNESOTA EQUINE ASSOCIATES LTD. P. O. BOX 56 MAPLE PLAIN. MINN. 55359 TELEPHONE 479-2555 June 5, 1985 Bert Notermann 1520 West 10th Ave. Shakopee, MN 55379 To Whom It May Concern: I personally have no experience with illness or death caused by proximity to a gravel pit. Sincerely, Susan Hartley, D. V. -M. Minnesota Equine Associates, LTD. nLC'b MA, 2 1 1935 Roo.E1' & NEILSON. LTD. AT'I'ORNEYS AT I.AW (NI(1 NORTIIM:RN FE )-A.'Al.Itl'ILI11 N(: ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 53103 46121 224-8861 THOMAS J.ROONF.Y LARRY NEI1 till\ May 20, 1985 City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, ? innesotr 55379 A I t n: Ju_'i Zi-7mc, City Planner P.e: Application for Conditional Use Pernit for Gravel Y.ine Project No: F5-005 Dear `a. SiLac: t the _)uC:lic hearli.Z for tFie PlanninS Com—nlssion on .':ay lb, 19?5, question was raised re arc.inr- .`T. rlltt's eas2me^.t. 1 ':ave ot)tained a cop_ of the easement an, have attachae it to :ny letter. Upon review of t':is docunent, 1 mae.e the follouinr, observations: 1. Contrary to ?(.r. i'tutt's assertion, there is no mention that t;e casc-ent is for "aCricultural purpose:. Even if the ease:uent cid indicate that it was for a ricultural purposes, that li,:itation. 'would only apply to .I:tt`s use of t`:e easez;ent area- a'_':u not tr-,e iec. owner's use of ft-- property. L--property. 2. The easement granted is not an e=lusive case--rt. Accort'_in : , pursuant to well establis?:cd Minnesota law, t'ie owner nay Permit ot'liers in addition to Mr. autt to use the ease.. ^E':1 L area. I believe this letter should answer any question.- you or :?:::';er; of t,-,e ?i3l:lin,, oWl:Iis-I ', have re,_,arding the terms and m-tont of ',r. tt's ai easement. If you have any further questions, I would be ^aTppy to ans;--,er thea. Yours truly, 'POON!"Y b 14EILSON, 'ALT-). Larry :Neilson La/kt cc: Eat Johncton Jawes herila w-n,DN Ma4r•D•r:.G..lerwy-1k .- IPs•lewl on Ise T-- Form No.S-M w,.sr.,x,t•..,.P.t u..rr•Prw s,w.Ia•.wsa n'�, �fji5 �11DCI1tQrt, .Nade this %3�. day a/_...........JAM............................. hetrrrea illlan J. Notermann.(formerly Lilllan.J. Jeurissan)aad........._.._.......__.._....._.....____.___ Benedict C. Notermann. husband and wife ../lite Cour+tyof Scott and stale of . Minceso:a............._........._..., of thr/first part,.,n,I J. Kenneth Rutt and Shirley M.-Rutt,husband..............—...................--_.— and wife _..... .. ................._..... ... ,of the County of Scott and St"t'„/ Minnesota _.. ._. ,parties of the--d part Montesrtb. 7h.a itrr.a:d Iwrt fes of the flet part,in consideration of the own of ......._ ._. One and No/100 ($1.00) ------- -- --..-.. - -...-.-...- .-..�.__..DOLLdRS, h. them in bund po;d hot Ihr-•+id 1—lir—lithe rrond part,the receipt whereof is hereby aekousel- - .,l_rd,do hrrrhy tisane,/bu•_:ai n,Srll,and Conivy unto the said parties of the second part as joint I,"".1.an.l n.n.r+1.,e.en,.to,+a,nn„n.Ih.ir tensions, the surairwr of said parties, and the heirs and - assipu.of th, rdwo,lrarevr,tell thr ef-9 or pa Pxel of land lying and betno in the County of Scott on.l .W,el.•o/Minnesota.rbsrribrl as folloros,to-wlt: - - - All that part-of the North one-half 3f the Northwest quarter (N 1/2 of the NW 1/4)and all that part of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter (SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4) of Section 16. Township ll5, Range 22, Scutt County. Minn. described as follows: �- Beginning at a point in the West line of said Section 16, distant 955.00 feet South of the Northwest corner thereof; thence South along said West line a distance of 545.0 feet; thence East at right angles a distance of 400.00 feet; thence North at right angles i a distance of 545.00 feet; thence West at right angles a distance of 400.00 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 5.0 acres together with an easement for egress and ingress to above described property over a strip of land 33 feet in width the Southerly i boundary of said 33 foot strip being described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said N 1/2 of the NW 114: thence Westerly along the Southerly line of said i N 112 of the NW 1/4 of the Easterly boundary of the afore described 5 acre parcel and there terminating. aZo#Dabs ante to 11bolb The*'Quit, T„grth,r with all the hervditarnents and uppartenaaws then- _ n, "Per"",eal,iwrlainini,Iu the said parties of the seewad part,their tsssigas,the euro rrr •..i'..!rid Pl«u•te.r,.u,.l to.,hrirs and cessions of the surulowj toremr,the raid parlies of the&we"part r,L;P•:.,.ions hruu,e..,,.,(S..d ns Irna,de in rourmoa. .trod Ner•.del Liman J. Notermann. formerly..L111tan.J_.Jettrleaen..and............. __.........�_.... Benedict C. Notermann. husband and wife.. .........._......-.........................._...... ..........._........_....... .:.._ ._ l:.,rt10S •,f thr 71r.r 1-1.f„r their. .. ._-.heirs,esrrutori and administrators do._._._ lin.+.r:d Ir.+rlir•s of thr srcond part,their assions,the sunivor of sail parties,and the heirs - - .,,,.!•,+•i "f Ile.- Cervi—..that they are v 11 seized in fee of One lands and preneirs aforesaid and - 1, Ve '._l ri+*:J t.,..-Il.red r,nruu thr saner in scorner and form afonanid,.ased tont the same are, None th. ..IP,rr I«,r•¢•riu•.!,end r.uefrd lands and pre ue isrs, in Ihr quiet and prn—lhle lPresession of the _ ..,;.1 i.•ntii+nj th. ,.r..1/."I,ll";,.asxions,the surrimr of said parties,and thr heirs and assigns of the - ^irb.•, ,,I,' l'r.,ae.+ herfr,lly rlaAuine or to claim the urhole or any part thereof,subject to uJ.r.en•+•.ij.+n,r,h•vr•int„•forr„e.nlioned,the said parties of the first part trill Warrant and - ll,•rP,l. - 31n 1£rsUwonp iflbrrtof. 77r.,,id px,H les „f the Jrnt p,rt have....hereuaM set their.......... •I g ni .............. +Lilan J. Notermann.(formerlXr Lillian J. Jeurissen) Benedict C. Notermaren 1 IState of Xuntgou. c«rW y Stott__ Th,ern/air j lM./IM•w•r/rte.rrr•r.rr�.d�..1 4'/.ar.r•r i dry r/ _... Jig— ,fi 79 - i i�. Anthony L. Notermann �J _\AhIMM L NOTOWOMANN a M N M�auv r•Mw11a.A 11� - A��f'�MO7M1/VKIC-YMrOOTh � I _ _ SCOL COUNTY � • E.s+aw EE.am IW:M�iivi ui'w�..an fu•M:M WwlaarAu ra: - - Attorney at Law i THIS OWNYMENT WAS DRAFTED NY oma•....n.: ._ Anthmy L_ Notern. Hre�•trw 95 Haat 1PSret AYeawn w� i i I i 1 Q J `.ice •`` \aOFPENDENT•REA4f sr (•'�; � j ' II aaD�1'°o ro Ken Lewis &Associates Lr 0 4600 WEST 77TH STREET • EDINA,MINNESOTA 55435 • (612)893-0700 June 12, 1985 Mr. Walter J. Gregory Merila & Associates, Inc. 7216 Boone Avenue North Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55428 Dear Mr. Gregory: I have reviewed the letter dated October 2, 1981 to Mr. Howard Rosenwinkel and upon reviewing this report, it is my opinion that the data completed at that time is accurate and proved that no damages from noise, or dust, or truck traffic affected the abutting and adjacent properties to the gravel pits analyzed in this report. I.have reviewed the site plans of the new pit and the depth mineral to be excavated. These proposals consist of four pages, such as a vicinity map, Map A Existing Conditions, Map B Proposed-Gravel Extraction Map, and Map C End Use Plan. Upon- reviewing all of the previously mentioned information, it. is my opinion that without a further study at the current time the information would most likely prove the same conditions reflecting no damage to the gravel pit operation. Sincerely, Kenneth P. Lewis, S.R.P.A. KPL/cjb LC 61 ^� 9 Ken Lems ■ 0 6600 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH • ates EDINA.MINNESOTA 55435 • (612)920-4650 October 2, 1981 Mr. Howard Rosenwinke1 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 , comparablesales 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. Mr. Froward P,osenwinkel Page 3 October 2, 1981 A gravel pit operation that is owned by Hedberg .;s 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 oravel 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 Mr. Howard Rosenwinkel Page 2 October 2, 1981 I have also contacted people, for example on Findlay Avenue, whose properties abut the retaining wail. 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 Sevage. 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. 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) Exeerience 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, 1975 , 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 ani 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 Y= v r,lir / W + �E'rf_ u►�/ 1_''c-:t ` _i. -- I �' til 0 CO III,. \��}�+�.':•�_ ;s ' \ II�IIJI!I''I�r,I , ..�\r. .:• f .L1 �. .i I� o, 1 v r' I . IF –J1"e( it E j�iljljl�l: .It rtILL CIO Co 'Jil flit i�� _ - –`•'1�' W �1- — / v�AA`:�VA\:��`�\ _ •n /. ,I JI "lil II ��• - �, _ r rt'1 '1 y /X/iii: /i/�S /'sir ;, _� I1^II���j��l+l�'� • � I •`4�i�_ LU Lr DOD .=fir.� �cP''.•.�_._,._-�.N.,-- ->;----�J"` � � � —t.�".•,---•,.:�%'-� �._; . ="a�-�- ,I�y ' ui irl c 1 i • / 1 uj -I-T�l - � '�. .' ,�• s. 1. 0 I � �1 W _ • pCO M-I NX - Jam'' �i�. ___–/�_1.__—___ ..__.. __�_ _ '-": � •� �� �-� � �1 i RW4 rn�I� MERILA & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS,SURVEYORS, SITE PLANNERS 7216 Boone Avenue North • Brooklyn Park,MN 55428 Telephone: (612) 533-7595 MEMO TO: Mr. Henry Spurrier, City Engineer City of Shakopee FROM: Merila & Associates, Inc. RE: ALTERNATE END USE PLAN FOR RECLAIMATION OF AGGREGATE EXTRACTION AREA AND FEASIBILITY STUDY. DATE: June 14, 1985 In response to your request, we have prepared an alternate reclaimation plan for the proposed gravel extraction site area comprehending a future commercial/industrial development within the site and determined the feasibility of such a plan. Parameters The proposed reclaimation plan and feasibility study was prepared utilizing the following parameters and assumptions: 1 . All utilities will be available at the northeast corner of the property at County Road 83 in accordance with our discussion; 2. Public improvement facilities will be designed on the basis of a mixed commercial/industrial type of use for the property; 3. A five year design has been utilized for the lateral storm sewer lines and the- ponding areas have been designed on the basis of a 100 year design storm. 4. Development costs are based on 1985 costs. Proposed Improvements A brief explanation for each of the improvements is as follows: 1 . Sanitary Sewer - The sanitary sewer consists of a 10-inch line ranging from 14 to 20 feet in depth, proposed to be installed for Phases I and II, and an 8-inch line ranging in depth from 7 to 12 feet in depth is proposed to be installed for Phase III of the development. The estimated cost for sanitary sewer installation is actually less than the sanitary sewer cost would be if development occurred prior to aggregate extraction because of sanitary sewer depths. 2. Watermain - The watermain system is designed utilizing a trunk 10-inch main through the project and 8-inch looping mains within the project area. In the event that the street is not extended southerly in Phase III, a second 8-inch line parallel with the 10-inch line is utilized in Phase III to provide a looping watermain system with the source from the northeast corner of the project. The estimated cost for the watermain for the proposed development is consistent with what the watermain costs would be if development occurred prior to aggregate extraction. 1 3. Storm Sewers - The storm sewer and drainage system has been designed based on a five year design for the lateral lines and a 100 year design for the ponding areas and discharge lines for the ponding areas. The proposed drainage system handles all of the water from the proposed development site. The storm sewer system is expected to be extended into the site areas during future development of the site. The projected costs are based on only the storm sewer construction needed within the public street areas and discharge lines from the ponding areas. A review of the storm sewer design and construction costs indicate the cost of developing the property in the reclaimation project from an aggregate extraction pit area is comparable in cost to the drainage facility cost for development of the property prior to the mineral extraction project. 4. Street Construction -Approximately 9,300 linear feet of street is proposed for the entire reclaimation project. The streets are designed and costs prepared on the basis of 42 foot side streets and based on a 9 ton design. Feasibility Study Based on our discussions, we are evaluating the feasibility of the Alternate End Use Plan based on projected development costs versus a land value of $25,000 per acre on the net acreage (grass area - streets and ponding areas). The projected development cost of $1 ,804,166.04 for the development by phases and major elements is as follows: PHASES I & II* PHASE III TOTAL .Sanitary Sewer $ 102,250.00 $ 54,550.00 $ 156,800.00 Storm Sewer 158,722.50 118,140.00 276,862.50 Watermain 106,050.00 81 ,400.00 187,450.00 Streets 253,448.75 187,559.50 441 ,008.25 Grading 100,000.00 150,000.00 250,000.00 Construction Subtotal $ 720,471 .25 $ 591 ,649.50 $ 1 ,312,120.75 10% Contingency 72,047.13 59,164.95 131 ,212.08 Subtotal $ 792,518.38 $ 650,453.61 $ 1 ,443,332.83 25% Engineering & Finance 198,129.60 162,703.61 360,833.21 TOTAL $ 990,647.98 $ 813,518.06 $ 1 ,804,166.04 *Phases I and II have been combined in one phase because utilities are not expected to be available for this area for a number of years. Therefore, Phase I and II would very likely be developed concurrently. The net acreage of the future development is 106.9 acres. Total Area 130.0 acres Less Streets & Ponds 23.1 acres Net Acreage 106.9 acres Based on the $25,000 per acre land value and 106.9 acre net area, the projected developed land value is $2,672,500.00. -2- f� Therefore, the difference between the projected land value and projected development costs provide a projected raw land value of $868,334 or $6,679 per acre. A summary of the land value calculation is as follows : Developed Land Value (106.9 acres x $25,000/acre) $2,672,500 Projected Development Cost 1 ,304,166 Projected Raw Land Value 868,334 Raw Land Area 130 acres Raw Land Area Value/Acre $ 6,679.00 Conclusion Therefore, based upon our feasibility study on the proposed reclaimation project, based upon commercial/industrial use for the property, it is our opinion that the project can be feasibly built and marketed with the proposed reclaimation plan. In addition, our analysis indicated that the aggregate extraction plan for the site area does not appreciably affect the public improvement costs for the future development of the project into a viable commercial/industrial or residential site development. Attachment: Summary of Costs by Element -3- -1 nJ m [T W N lD T m ►- m -+ N N m LJi F A CC,,../l w w N N N -• ym m m •-' ^ { DD tom' _ r-• _ O (x� x ~ .nr a \ f�77 � 9� a n � f] "� d d_ 0_ �'I � �] C7 � � � � C7 0_ 0, Os 61 111 UI lA Um1 [] (—Ti uul � 3 O d tD (��1 N n.ra n 2 a� a�. O� V D y' 7 7 7 7 7 7 ti A 0 Z < N N ? m '3 3 3 3 rN�pp N. Nrpp u1 N 1A n U C W OLn r13 rib z u. < p 0 C a m W �- c� ? Z Z i rD m M D ctj oo�� a1 _ Y .+ to m ►. CII ul r .0-- -+ O -f Z Z M X 07 0 w `D oy M a nu v 1 FLpo ro m m n �D 1m am o, ri> tG Cp C.f) C f'." Ulrl) a f< f"' O D N N N 1'"' N m O N N ^ N Y a i Q. D ro x x �o Dn C LL Lz a m m m Lz _ 0 9 II D L3 LZ 0 r1 mo i G7 rip O �_ D a. 3 v v a D a D v r v ul C1S UlD � Z x f US c11 dS cnr m R1mrr' a m mm mm �nrrr � rrrrr mD r- r- r- r- r r 1 m T 1 T 1 T l 1 �O "•*1 :S T :n T .Tl •-• _ �1 �J -1 w Z m a F �. m V V A CR nm - A N W N "` ••• m 9 LA LA -m 9 U1 LA LLA rU Q1 a . [.� W�,l Ga9rr-n C.11 CA [W11 m N ••• •.•• r U1 r%) m a 4. n rr99 F A F 9 m m 0 LA W N N N a to N W F p -I D D OD [n m N V CJ1 LJI m s Z a 9 6677 :CJ91 r r Nc CID O -1 N M M N N N V CJI N N V V LII m W m N M NN M ro N N M f9 N N N N M N 9 Ut � � �' CJI [11 a (9 t9 IS. N W O' A > N N N g 9 CA W m 9 9 r Byq - LLA a 9 m a m 9 m a 9 110 !aa a a N m m m m m a a a a a a ® m m 9 m � C'1 m ('t) y► N N N N M N N 4^ 40 N y � M x C11 r9 N M N N N N N CJI N N L� T� "~ C'• ' W =c. gN emm T - T w T - rrtga Ln m L'i `�Wri W L n N �l F C�Jit Q� [U�1 _Lmyy v9 a a (NU Ln m a m 9 m m 9 ,5a O m v m V1 m 9 'm m 9 m m 10717 LVA a a a a a a a 9 a 9 a a a a a a a a a a a a m O a a a a a a a a m ^ W m W 0 LJi m ..., a e9 9 m w W W m m • V Cb LA CA LA m N w tV m N •+ W W N O F O _ s 19 m m N F • ISD m m m W 111 Im r "" 9 Ui - W a N 011 C.A a Ll a LA F LD LJI W W m r r N r r r 2 M N N N V LJl y V �l CJ1 a W a r► N N f Mf�,,�l M N M N M 9 Y N N 'i .N. W VI a m a CJf W m m a m a m N p m W m QN1 Na W .N+ ems� �1 L. W g W m T m 91M C9 LmJI m a a m a a a m m m a a a a m m m a m L9 6i o a a I a a a C7 ww ((Nyy M N N vw 40 ww N e,m 6i 2N �O A m �O N W ft1 W m N N N M M N F N �V ... �.g. pp�� q (UJ1 ,r�i •-�Ji m w Ln m P. m m Ayp .yp 9 9 a �yO �Yp -co m A m m m m 9 my m 9 m m da da m d - � 6i� m m m 9 m eq m m m 1'. / N 4.0 40 VW N �/► .N• r N N r .N+ (J1 N Qr J O CJl r i0 m N N M � CA �! � m tm0 rC.J9I u] CT (Jf rt} �W Lamf../� 9 CCR 0. B b d .L.ggA CM CJ1 Q� LV11 9 A a m a a v CmON N 9 m .O M LV m 9 Ui N m m m m 1, _ 1CD w m 0.11 C9 9 q m 9 r m9 9 "D Po N m 9 r mgg m a m m m m 9 Cfi V m L.JI 6i m •m �9 Cn a m a m m a m 9 9 m m 9 m 9 a 9 a c9 meaa m a 0 L9 m Ln ma 9 a m a a a m a 103COdd NOIi3VKX3 31V93d99V WSSOdO OW 'S'O Ndld 3sn ON3 31VU31lb 133HS avwwnS 1SOO MERILA & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS,SITE PLANNERS 7216 Boone Avenue North • Brooklyn Park,MN 55428 Telephone: (612) 533-7595 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council City of Shakopee FROM: Merila & Associates, Inc. DATE: June 28, 1985 SUBJECT: Noise Level Report for Proposed Gravel Mining Site on County Road No. 83. In general , noise created by the proposed gravel mine would be related to the crushing operation and the trucks transporting the. gravel from the site. The site in question is zoned Agricultural . All of the adjoining land except Killarney Hills is zoned Agricultural . Killarney Hills is zoned Rural Residential . The noise levels from the proposed operation are controlled by Sec. 10.60 of the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance. The maximum noise levels are determined by the receiving land use district at or within the property line of the receiving land use. TABLE OF SOUND LEVELS BY RECEIVING LAND USE DISTRICTS DAY NIGHT MOO A.M. - 10:00 P.M. ) (10:00 P.M. - 7:00 A.M. ) Land Use Districts L10 L50 L10 L50 Residential 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 50 dBA Commerical 70 dBA . 65 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA Industrial - Agricultural 80 dBA 75 dBA 80 dBA 75 dBA The limits of the most restrictive district shall apply at the boundaries between different land use categories. The determination of land use shall be by it zoned designation. The crushing operation involves -the crusher, generator, stacker and end loader. The crusher, generator and stacker are stationary in location as indicated on map B - proposed extraction plan and operated during the day. It is expected that the noise level from the crushing operation at the receiving property line will be as follows: Land Use L10 L50 Residential 60 dBA 55 dBA Agricultural 77 dBA 72 dBA Page 2 City of Shakopee Re: Noise Level Report June 28, 1985 The end loader will be used to excavate material in the pit area and load gravel- into the trucks. It is estimated that the noise level from the end loader at the receiving property line will be as follows: Land Use Operation L10 L50 Residential - excavating 65 dBA 57 dBA Residential - loading 58 dBA 52 dBA Agricultural - excavating 78 dBA 70 dBA Agricultural - loading 62 dBA 54 dBA (1 ) The end loader will be excavating within 150 feet of the residential property line on an intermittent basis. Total time near the property line will be limited to six minutes per hour. At the present the existing homes in Killarney Hills are over 800 feet from the property line. Expected noise levels in Killarney Hills at existing homes: Operation L10 L50 Crushing 57 dBA 54 dBA (1 ) End Loader - excavating 56 dBA (1 ) 54 dBA (1 ) Truck traffic will enter the site at .the main entrance to the pit. The entrance was placed more than 500 feet from the Fitch (Paron) residence and a berm was placed as a sound barrier. The expected sound levels from gravel hauling trucks is as follows: Phase L10 L50 1 60 dBA -55 dBA 2 60 dBA 55 dBA 3 68 dBA 63 dBA Agricultural Zoning 80 dBA 75 dBA Phase 3 sound levels may be further reduced by building the access road in the location of Streets "C", ".D", and "E", as shown on Map C-1 . In summary it is expected that levels produced by this proposed mine are at or below the noise levels allowed for the respective land use districts. The noise created by construction of the topsoil berm for a two to three week period at the beginning of each phase would be similar normal construction activity associated with land development or the farming of this land. It will vary considerably depending on the number of machines operating simultaneously. Attachment: Applicable parts of Sec. 10.60, Shakopee Zoning Ordinance Sound level readings by Twin City Testing. Footnote: (1 ) Approximate existing daytime noise levels based on the final Environmental Impact Statement for the Shakopee Racetrack. SEC. 10.60. NOISE ELIMINATION AND NOISE PREVENTION. Subd. 1. Definitions. Words and phrases defined in this Section have, when used in this Section, the meanings given below. Any other word or phrase used in this Section, and defined in regu- lations of the Minnesota Pollution Control Section, NPC-1 and NPC-4 , has the meaning given in those regulations. A. "Air Circulation Device" - A mechanism designed and used for the controlled flow of air used in ventilation, cool- ing , or conditioning, including , but not limited to, central and window air conditioning units. B. "L10" - The sound level, expressed in decibels (dBA) which is exceeded 10 percent of the time for a one-hour period, as measured by sound level meter having characteristics as specified in the latest standards, S1.4_, of the American National Standards Institute and using test procedures approved by the (noise control officer) . C. "L50" - The sound level similarly expressed and measured which is exceeded 50 percent of the time for a one-hour period . D. "Person" - An individual, firm, partnership, cor- poration, trustee, association, the State and its agencies and sub- divisions, or any body of persons whether incorporated or not. With respect to acts prohibited or required herein, "person" shall include employees and licensees. Subd. 4. Receiving Land Use Standards. A. Maximum Noise -Levels by Receiving Land - Use Dis- tricts. It is unlawful for any person to operate or cause or permit to be operated any source of noise in -such a manner as to create a noise level exceeding the limit set in Table d for the receiving land use category specified when measured at or within the property line of the receiving land use. TABLE 1. SOUND LEVELS BY RECEIVING LAND USE DISTRICTS . DAY NIGHT (7 : 00 A.M. -10 :00 P.M. ) (10: 00 P.M. -7 : 00 A.M. ) Land Use Districts L10 L50 L10 L50 Residential 65 60 55 50 Commercial 70 '65- 70 65 Industrial- 80 75 80 75 The limits of the most restrictive district shall apply at the boundaries between different land use categories. The determination of land use shall be by its zoned designation. B. Exemptions. The levels prescribed in Subpara- graph A do not apply_ to noise originat_ing .on public streets and_ _alleys but such noise shall be subject to other applicable Subdivi- sions of this Section. twin city testmq awic .,q mon,,ww- a,.`. y 662 CROMWELL AVENUE f i.. ST PAUL MN 55114 d � PHONE 612/645-3601 o -. r REPORT OF: SOUND LEVEL READING C S McCROSSAN INC PROJECT: GRAVEL PIT-BURNSVILLE, MN DATE: June 18, 1985 REPORTED TO: Meri 1 a & Associates FURNISHED BY: Attn: Walter Gregory COPIES TO: 1-Scott Count Lumber Company 7216 Boone Ave N Suite 63 Y p y Brooklyn Park, MSV 55428 Attn: Mr Ed Hennen LABORATORY No. 4140 86-228 DATES OF TESTING: June 13 & 14, 1985 SCOPE OF PROJECT: Per request from Mr Walter Gregory of Merila & Associates, sound level measurements were conducted at the C S McCrossan Inc gravel pit near Burnsville, Minnesota. Several conditions were monitored at various distances: Condition 1 . Generator and conveyor only Condition 2. Crusher, generator and conveyor Condition 3. Front end loader only Condition 4. Five axle dump belly trucks EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION AND OPERATING CONDITIONS: The following machinery was in operation for the various conditions described . above: - Primary Crusher - PE 120 - Pioneer 45 Secondary Crusher - No. PE 155 - Generator - M350 - Nordberg Conveyor - PE 144 - Load King & Trial King dump trucks The crusher was set for 1 1/4" diameter crushing with limestone material being processed. Temperature on June 13, was 72° with clear skies and no consequential wind. Temperature on June 14, was 63° with cloudy condition and a slight wind out of the Southeast. MONITORING EQUIPMENT: A Bruel and Kjaer Precision- sound level meter type 2209 with a 1" condenser microphone type 4145 and wind screen was used for the measurements. Calibration was accomplished before and after testing with a B and K calibrator type 4230. - ANA 230. -A■A MUTUAL PROTECTION TO CLIENTS,THE PUBLIC AND OURSELVES,ALL REPORTS ARE■USMITTEO AN TME CONFIOENTIAL PROPERTY OF CLIENTS, AND AUTMDRI- ZATIDN FOR PUBLICATION OF STATEMENTS,CONCLUSIONS OR EXTRACTS FROM OR REGARDING OUR REPORTS IS RESERVED PENOINo OUR WRITTEN APPROVAL. © twin cats testing ano enaineerena taooratoru,inc. �( 6E2 CAOM• %I FL'AVENUE 111 cT PAUL MN 5511. PHONE 612 645-360' d'`cFif�i11�: '- REPORT OF: SOUND LEVEL READINGS DATE: June 18, 1985 LABORATORY No. 4140 86-228 PAGE: 2 TEST RESULTS: All Values in dBA - Slow Response Distance, (ft) Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3 Condition 4 12.5 ' 85 101 - - 25' 80 96 - - 50' 73 90 - 76 100' 68 84 70 - 78 72 In addition to the above data a sound level reading was taken 4.5' from the open end of the generator trailer. This was the noisiest location relative to the generator opera- tion. The sound level at 4.5' was 96 dBA. Further distances were unacceptable for monitoring due to the close proximity of a gravel pile which caused reflections. TWIN CITY TESTING AND ENGINEERING LABORATORY, INC Richard 0 Thomalla Acoustical Analyst Product Testing Department RDT/dw AS A MUTUAL PROTECTION TO CLIENTS. THE PUBLIC AND OURSELVES, ALL REPORTS ARE SUBMITTED AS THE CONFIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF CLIENTS, AND AUTHOR. IZATION FOR PUBLICATION OF STATEMENTS, CONCLUSIONS OR EXTRACTS FROM OF REGARDING OUR REPORTS IS RESERVED PENDING OUR WRITTEN APPROVAL. MEMO TO : Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Judi Simac , City Planner DATE : June 14 , 1985 APPLICANT : A. Land Owner : Scott County Lumber Co . , Inc . and Bert Notermann B. Proposed Operator : C . S . McCrossan Construction, Inc . LOCATION : SE 1 /4 of NE 1 /4 of Section 17 and NE 1 /4 of NW 1 / 4 of Section 16 and W 1 / 2 of NW 1/4 of Section 16 , TWP 115 , R 22 West . ( 130 .73 acres ) ZONING : Agriculture LAND USE: Undeveloped Crop Land APPLICABLE REGULATIONS.: Section 11 .04, Subd . 6 ; Section 11 .24, Subd. 311; Section 11 .05 , Subd. 7 FINDINGS REQUIRED : Section 11 . 04 , Subd . 6A ; Section 11 . 05 , Subd. 7 PROPOSAL : The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation Permit to remove sand and gravel aggregate at the above location. SURROUNDING LAND USES : North : Killarney Hills Addn . , agricultural land and vacant property . South: Agricultural land and scattered farmsteads East : Thrift Shop and agricultural land West : Agricultural land and scattered farmsteads PUBLIC UTILITIES : Sanitary Sewer , Storm Sewer and Water not available . Background : The applicant submitted the application in September 1984, without adequate submittals as required by ordinance . On October 29 , 1984 the City Council required that 1 ) an EAW be prepared by a consultant hired by the City , with all costs born by the applicant , 2 ) the EAW be prepared prior to issuance of a permit and 3 ) the applicant would sign an agreement to pay all costs related to review of the application. In May 1985 the application was determined complete, as well as the EAW. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 16 , 1985 during which the applicant made a formal presentation and testimony regarding the application was received. The public and Planning Commission members were requested to submit their questions regarding the proposal , which they wished to be addressed at the public hearing continuation on June 20 , 1985 . 1 Considerations : 1 . The details of the proposal are presented in the attached application memo prepared by Merila and Associates , Inc. and the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW ) as prepared by Dahlgren, Shardlow and UBAE , Inc. , consulting planners . 2 . The Comprehensive Plan designates the area of the proposed mining operation as agricultural . To the north of the project site is a proposed interchange of the by-pass and County Road 83 . The immediate land surrounding the interchange is designated as commercial land in the plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not indicate significant changes in land use in the vicinity of the proposed mine , however the Canterbury Downs Racetrack , which is northwest of the interchange , was not a consideration when the plan was prepared. The two types of land uses (mining and regional commercial recreation ) may not be as compatible as one would expect industrial and agricultural to be . 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 project site, in addition to several residences in Killarney Hills Addition. The potential impact of the proposed mining operation on these residences would consist of noise , dust , traffic , safety , and aesthetics . These impacts are addressed in the two attached documents . 4. A report published in May 1983 by the Metropolitan Council , entitled Aggregate Resources in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, indicates that the proposed project site lies within a potentially significant deposit of sand and gravel . The report , which advocates the protection of the aggregate resources , concludes that the opportunities for planning for the aggregate resources and for preserving the resources for orderly development would be greatly enhanced if the public and local government officials had an understanding of . the aggregate resources of the metropolitan region . It is stated that education would help support mining as a legitimate land use , thereby limiting land use conflicts . The report also recommends that in order to increase the acceptability of aggregate mining the public needs to be asssured that the mining operations and reclamation controls will minimize of the effects on land use , local roads , the environment and other community development objectives . 5 . Aggregate Production Tax - Mn . Statute 298 . 75 requires payment of aggregate material removal in the form of a production tax which is administered by Scott County . 2 Operators pay ten cents per cublic yard or seven cents per ton of aggregate material removed . Money collected by the County Board is distributed as follows : a ) 601' to the county road and bridge fund for the maintenance , construction and reconstruction of roads , highways and bridges . b ) 301' to the City in which the facility is located and transporting done within. c ) 101' to a special reserve fund for the restoration of abandoned pits , quarries , or deposits located upon public and tax forfeited lands within the county . If there are none , the funds are deposited in the county road and bridge fund. Because this law exists , the City has no legal right to require an additional escrow account for restoration. 6 . The mining operation shall be divided into three phases : Phase I — consist of stripping topsoil and building topsoil berms along north and east sides, seeding berms , and 3 1 / 2 year mining beginning at the east and moving in a westerly direction. Phase II— Topsoil stripped and used to reclaim Phase I and build topsoil berms along west side of Phase II, Phase I and new berms seeded and 6 year mining period . Phase III— Reclamation of Phase II with topsoil in berms along north and east sides of Phase I, and west side of Phase II , all to be seeded. Phase III to be conducted similarily to other phases and operate 7 1/2 years before reclaimed and seeded . Total mining operation 17 years . 7 . Presently approximately 62 acres of the site has surface water draining off site to the northwest , north and northeast. During the mining operation all surface drainage will be retained on site through the use of topsoil berms and surface depressions on site. The average depth of the proposed excavation is 12 . 5 feet for Phase I, 18 .0 feet for Phase II and 17 .5 feet for Phase III . The minimum approximate depth of groundwater on the site is 60 feet . Therefore groundwater level will not be affected by the excavation. 8 . The applicant does not anticipate water ponding to a depth of more than 1 1 / 2 feet nor slopes steeper than 1 foot 3 vertical to 3 feet horizontal , therefore code requried safety fencing is not applicable . However , proposed is security fencing for access roads , which should be provided. 9 . The main access road varies in length from 200 feet in Phase I to 1600 feet in Phase III. The paved road shall enter on to County Road 83 which is being upgraded to a design speed of 50 MPH based upon stopping site distance . A County Road entrance permit will be required . The County can not legally restrict the types of trucks on any County Road , however weight restrictions will apply . Truck: distribution should be limited to the use of County Road 83 north to Hwy 101 and south to County Road 42. 10 . Screening of the mining operation will be handled through the use of topsoil berms 8 to 10 feet in height , which shall be seeded with MnDOT Seed Mixtures 2 and 13 . If preferred by residents Rudd, Fitch and those in Killarney Hills, natural screening consisting of 6 to 8 foot Chinese Lilacs spaced four feet apart and Green Ash trees , which start at 6 foot heights , and spaced 20 feet apart could be substituted where the operation abuts their properties . The green ash would be approximately 12 feet high at the end of Phase I and 18-25 ft . high at the end of Phase II; they can grow to approx. 60 feet in height . 11 . The applicant must meet the specific setbacks for the actual mining operation which include 100 feet from any residential or commercial structure and 30 feet from any road right-of-way . 12 . Structures to be located on the site include a scale house and portable field office which should be determined acceptable by the Building Official . 13 . The ordinance limits hours of operation from 7 : 00 A.M. to 7 : 00 P . M. It is recommended that the hours of operation be limited to 8 : 00 A.M. to 5 : 00 P .M. , Monday thru Friday . 14 . Dust control must be maintained through the use of paved access roads and watering of haul roads and equipment , if necessary . 15 . The attached EAW indicates noise levels to be in a range of 47 to 49 dBA at distances cf one eighth to one quarter of a mile . The noise level equivalents , when compared , indicate that the noise created by the trucks and crusher should not have an adverse impact on nearby residences . Noise levels can be monitored by the City of Shakopee and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) . 4 t f r 16 . There should be no on-site storage or usage of explosives . The existing Northern Natural Gas Company pipeline is proposed to remain in place . 17 . The most significant component to the mining operation is land reclamation . The applicant proposes an end use plan which leaves the site suitable for agricultural use or future commercial/ industrial use requiring some regrading . As discussed in above item #6 , the mining will be conducted in three phases , which allows for reclamation in stages and to be performed prior to initiation of the next phase . The submitted Map C - End Use Plan indicates the final grade of the site. All areas will be fertilized and seeded for legumes and perennial grasses , to create a permanent ground cover . A two foot berm will be built to retain surface drainage and control sediment at the northeast corner of Phase I. Rainfall and surface drainage in the areas of Phase II and III will be retained until absorbed into the soil . The applicant is in the process of preparing an end use plan which shows how the site can be developed for commercial or industrial use , assuming that trunk sanitary sewer and storm sewer is located at the northeast corner of the site . The plan should indicate that the cost of locating utilities , road etc . should not exceed the land value (acre per acre ) . Staff Recommendation : It is recommended.that the Planning Commission offer Conditional Use Permit Resolution No . 376 ; which would approve the application for mineral extraction and land rehabilitation in the Agriculture zone , subject to the following listed conditions numbered 1 through 20 . Additionally , the Planning Commission recommend, to the City Council , approval of the Mineral Extraction and Rehabilitation Permit (Mining Permit ) , subject to the following same conditions numbered 1 through 20 : 1 . The Conditional Use Permit and Mining Permit be reviewed annually . Both permits to be renewed every three years . 2 . Conditional Use Permit approval be contingent upon City Council approval of the Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabil- itation Permit . 5 .I 3 . Security fencing shall be used on the main access roads to control vehicular access to the mining and equipment area. 4. The applicant shall obtain a County Road Entrance Permit from the Scott County Highway Engineer . 5 . County Road weight restrictions shall be adhered to . Truck traffic shall be limited to the use of County Road 83 to Hwy 101 and CR 42 . Absolutely no truck traffic from the mining operation shall be routed through the urban portion of the City of Shakopee. 6 . Eight to ten foot berms shall be built around the perimeter of each phase. Berms must be fully seeded to prevent erosion. 7 . The mining operation shall maintain the following minimum setbacks : 100 feet from any residential or commercial property line ; 500 feet from any residential or commercial structure ; 30 feet from any road right—of—way . 8 . All portable buildings must be approved by the Building Official . 9 . The hours of operation shall be limited to 8 : 00 A.M. to 5 : 00 P .M. , Monday thru Friday . 10 . Dust must be controlled by paving main access roads , watering haul roads and equipment and by any other means which will control adverse affects of dust on neighboring properties . 11 . Noise emissions shall not exceed the noise limits as noted in Section 10 . 60 ( Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention) of the Shakopee City Code, nor the MPCA Standards . 12 . There shall be no on—site storage of fuel and no use or storage of explosives . 13 . No exterior lighting shall be used at the operation site. 14 . Stockpiles of gravel shall not exceed 25 feet in height. 15 . The applicant shall be responsible for reimbursing the City for all costs incurred in reviewing the permit through the life of the operation. 16 . The Gravel Extraction Plan (Map B ) and the End Use Plan ( Map C ) as submitted by the applicant , shall be adhered to, without modifications , unless approved by City Council . 6 1 17 . The applicant shall prepare in report form , a plan for operation, which if acceptable , shall be adopted by resolution as the Mining Permit . The Plan for Operation shall be comprised of 1 ) the submitted maps A, b , C ; 2) the conditions of the approved permits 3 ) background information as contained in the memo prepared by Merila and Associates , Inc. ; dated April 30 , 1985 . 18 . An Environmental Assessment Worksheet shall be prepared and processed in accordance with the State of Minnesota ' s adopted Environmental Review Program . No action shall commence on the subject property until a Negative Declaration has been filed and the required 30 day review and comment period has elapsed . If the EAW substantiates the need for an Environmental Impact Statement , no action shall commence on the subject property until said document has been prepared and any and all modifications have been made in the proposed operation, to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts . 19 . The City ' s approval of the permits ( C . U. P . and Mining ) is made in reliance upon the applicant ' s representations regarding the life of the operation ( 17 years ) . Any factors , or future developments which significantly delay the completion of the mining operation, may be viewed by the City as sufficient grounds to deny the three year renewal of the permit . 20 . The Conditional Use - and Mining Permits may be reviewed .prior to the scheduled annual review, if the City receives complaints , supported by evidence indicating that the conditions _ of this permit are being violated . Upon receipt of such complaints , or at the City Council ' s own initiation, the City shall schedule a public hearing , in accordance with the proper procedures for notice and publication. If the City Council finds that the applicants have substan— tially , or repeatedly violated the terms of this agreement , the Council may revoke said permit . tw 7 C-i TY C)F- X1-1C, INCOEFOBA7ED 1670 ENGIN-77-PING DEPARTMENT 129 E. lst Avenue - 5nakopee, Mines= 55374-1376 (612) 445-3550 MEMO TO: Judi Simac, City Planner FROM: H. R. Spurrier, City Engineer SUBJECT: Gravel Extraction Permit DATE: June 149 19E5 INTRODUCTION: I have reviewed the above referenced permit to determine whether the permit conformed with City Design Criteria. Further, I reviewed the proposed permit to determine whether the proposed development destroyed the development potential of the property, or whether any potential development was possible after aggre- gate was removed from the site. I have reviewed a development plan prepared by the applicant' s consultant. The development plan proposes a reasonable lay-out. Reasonable does not necessarily mean feasible and, as I told the applicant, my guide for feasible would be the following : If the value of the improvements required for the develop- ment of the site, with complete urban facilities, divided by the net buildable lot area was less than SE5s 000. 0o Den acre, then I would be convinced that the reclamation effort was adequate. In other words I am saying that the property owner would have to donate the land to a developer at no cost and the developer would have to invest S25, 000. 00 per acre, at a maximum, in order two utilize the site. In my view, the net developable acreage should be 65 percent of the site area. If the applicant cannot demonstrate that the reclamation costs required for urban development can conform to these guidelines, then in my view, the project creates another site similar to the site of the former Roberts Gravel flit and should not be approved. HRSlpmp EXTPE RM PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 20, 1985 Chrm. Czaja called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. with Comm. Lane, VanMaldeghem and Rockne present. Comm. Pomerenke and Stoltzman arrived later, and Comm Schmitt was absent. Also present were Judi Simac, City Planner and Cncl. Lebens. VanMaldeghem/Lane moved to approve the minutes of May 16, 1985 as kept. Chrm. Czaja questioned page 6, last paragraph, second to last sentence, which states the need for houses. The City Planner clarified that the speaker was talking about a need for residential areas for housing. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - SCOTT COUNTY LUMBER & BERT NOTERMAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Rockne/VanMaldeghem moved to continue the public hearing regarding the request by Scott County Lumber and Bert Noterman for a conditional use permit to remove sand and gravel aggregate. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner pointed out that the background for this request is con- . tained in a memo which is available for the public. She pointed .out that there are two permits involved in this process. The Planning Commission makes the final decision regarding the conditional use permit, but if that action is appealed, there will be a public hearing before the City Council. The mining permit is also heard by the Planning Commission, who makes a recommendation to City Council, and the City Council makes the decision- on ecisionon that permit. The City Planner stated staff recommends approval of both permits, subject to 20 conditions, which she read and clarified further as she went through them. Chrm. Czaja asked the applicants to answer the questions submitted and present any new information necessary. Jim Merila, of 'Merila & Associates, Inc. , went over his memo dated June 14, 1985 to the City Council, Planning Commission and Concerned Citizens, in which he addressed the questions of the Shakopee Environmental Protec- tion Association, Beverly Koehnen and Jane VanMaldeghem, with appropriate attachments supporting responses;, a copy of said memo attached hereto and made a part hereof. Mr. Merila displayed various maps and drawings to illustrate his responses at the appropriate times Comm. Pomerenke arrived and took his seat at 8:38 p.m. Chrm. Czaja asked for questions of Mr. Merila. Shakopee Planning Commission June 20, 1985 Page 2 Ken Rutt, 1750 CR83, stated he is not satisfied with the response given regarding drainage as it affects his property. He definitely believes he will experience devaluation of his property. He believes he will be flooded out by the creation of the berm. He doesn't understand how the ponding on his property will hold the water. Mr. Merila responded that they would be happy to work with Mr. Rutt to come up with some alternate plan for screening, if he isn't satisfied with the berms. The system they are proposing would not put any greater ponding on his property than exists now. They have reviewed the system with the City Engineer, who agrees it can be technically worked out that no greater ponding would occur. They are providing outlets for the area. They are allowed to -have the water overflow into the pit area as long as they provide ponding prior to run-off to allow the impurities to be ponded out. It is their contention it would not be detrimental to the Rutt property. Dennis Moriarity, attorney with offices at 206 Scott Street, asked if the ponding is done prior to running out of the field or out of the pond. Mr. Merila further explained that there is ponding in existence on the Rutt property now and the gravel pit property. They propose to create a deeper ponding area on their property, which would reduce the amount of drainage that goes into the current ponding area by about 50%. By putting the berm in, they are limiting the drainage to only that drainage that comes from the Rutt property and the back side of the berm. The overflow would go from the pond area to the pit area, which is permitted and considered a good way to handle the drainage problem by the U.S. Geological Survey people. Harold Schneider, 3300 Valley View Road, disputed Mr. Merila's earlier statement that prior to the abandonment of the railroad tracks the water from the westerly area stayed on the west side of the tracks. He said there were culverts under the tracks to carry the water. Mr. Merila acknowledged that might be true, but the point is the same the water had to build up and flow to the south. With the proposed plan, the drainage can continue in the same direction it currently goes. Chrm. Czaja asked if there was anyone for the project who would like to speak with any additional information, and there was no response. Dennis Moriarty, attorney retained by the Rutts and Schneiders to represent their interests, stated he has reviewed all the pertinent information. He said that merely because a gravel pit is a permitted use doesn't mean that by fulfilling the criteria it must be granted. A permitted use means it can be permitted under certain conditions. The first condition is that it must fit the Comp Plan. It is his position that staff is incorrect when it represents this application meets the Comp Plan. One of the plan- ning objectives is to preserve agricultural ares in the City. He believes this proposed use is diametrically opposed to the transportation plan to maintain the rural character and prevent uncontrolled development. He maintains this is not agricultrual use. He doesn' t believe in our lifetime we will see corn growing on this property if this conditional use permit is granted. Shakopee Planning Commission June 20, 1985 Page 3 In Mr. Moriarty's opinion 8 out of the 12 criteria for granting a condi- tional use permit are violated by the proposed conditional use permit. He doesn't agree that the supporting letter by Geologist Bruce Olson is an endorsement of this project. The remedies for his concerns are- ade- quate, but not sufficient. He doesn't believe the ground water is safe. Mr. Moriarty stated there are several things in the Environmental Assess- ment Worksheet (EAW) that are inaccurate and stated incorrectly. He states this is an impairment of prime farm land, as it takes it out of farm production. He said this is a significant project and we probably will not see full reclamation in our lifetimes. There is also an inconsistency with the stated length of the project as 9 and 17 years. Because of this proposal there will be a hindrance to development. Now the area is farm land and is going to be developed in the near future according to the Comp Plan. The Comp Plan views agricultural land as a valuable natural resource which is earmarked to preserve future production. The Comp Plan is the official source and guide for the Planning Commission, and people have an absolute right to rely on it. The Comp Plan is in jeopardy with this pro- posed development, according to Mr. Moriarty. Mr. Moriarty cannot understand how anyone can say this proposal is not detrimental to Mr. Rutt. He thinks Mr. Rutt's property will be made nearly valueless, with properties in the surounding area adversely affected. That the Rutt property will not be detrimentally affected is a violation of common sense. Mr. Moriarty presented a petition containing nearly 300 signatures in Opposition to this proposed use. He would like it entered into the record with the right to withdraw it at the end of the evening to make copies. after which it will be returned. VanMaldeghem/Rockne moved to enter into the record the petition in opposi- tion to the proposed conditional use permit. Motion carried unanimously. Jim Pietrzak, 5411 Eagle Creek Blvd. , said he has been talking to a lot of new people coming to visit Shakopee from all over the U.S. They were telling him that a lot of poople are intending to find places to live in this area because of the future of the track and opportunity for growth. He said people are desperate for land for residential and agricultural uses, and they are talking about staying permanently. Comm. Stoltzman arrived and took- his seat at 9:15 p.m. Mr. Pietrzak commented on the success of the Little 6 Bingo Palace, which has shuttle buses running on CR83. He said their operation is changing to 5:00-9:00 p.m. 7 days a week. In addition, the-Eagle Creek Thrift Shop is very successful. There is already heavy traffic on CR16, and Certain- teed is expanding. He says the growth in the area will be very substan- tial, and he asks the Planning Commission to consider the traffic in the area with other people looking at Shakopee as a growing community. Ray Fitch, who prefers to be called Bill Fitch, 1776 CR83, said he lives on the property where all the wind blows from the proposed gravel pit. He spoke about the strong winds experienced this week.. He said- there will be sand blowing everyplace off this gravel pit. He said his 10 acres has been horse land for over 100 years. Two years ago they got into the horse business, and their daughter advised them the right mixture of dirt Shakopee Planning Comr..ission June 20, 1985 Page 4 was in Shakopee. They came to Shakopee because it is good horse country and beautiful. The name of their property is Seranna, named for "serene", and his wife and daughter Ann. They bought some property that was in dis- repair and have put a lot of work into it. Mr. Fitch disputes the opinion that there will not be much development in the area until 1990. He said the Planning Commission has heard that there is a big demand for housing in the area. He thinks the best use for that property would be a horse ranch. He would like to address this issue on the basis of aesthetics. He is concerned about the market value of his land, which he believes will take a solid dive if they dig into the land. He thinks the only way the 20 recommended criteria for the conditional use permit -will work is if there is a cop on the site 24 hours a day. The berms are basically just piles of dirt with grass seed on them. It will take a lot of water to make the grass grow. He doesn't know how they can put that much dirt on the property and not expect it to blow over on his property. Mr. Fitch went up to Osseo and looked over the plant and talked to the farmer who lives on the north side, who was adamant the gravel pit is not a good neighbor. He prepared a video which he showed, pointing out the dump on the property. He showed the dust produced by the trucks when it had rained 4 hours earlier. He commented that the noise was not horrible, but it is mental anguish to hear that "beeping" all the time. He said he was not too impressed with the track record of this operation. Mr. Fitch then showed various areas around the proposed site, and demon- strated how the view would change with a 25 foot pile of gravel. He said he would like to show the 10% of the racetrack people going by their place something pretty to look at, not a hole in the ground. He cannot under- stand nderstand putting a gravel pit in plain site of the racetrack grandstand. He thinks he will be hurt a lot if the gravel pit goes in, and he thinks the City will be hurt a lot. For 17 years he thinks Seranna farm ought -to remain serene. Pomerenke/VanMaldeghem moved for a 5 minute recess at 9:45 p..m. Motion carried unanimously. Chrm. Czaja called the meeting back to order at 9:53 p.m. Harold Schneider said that during all the years he farmed his land, he needed only minimal services from Shakopee, and paid a lot of taxes. He upgraded the land and the buildings. He believes if this special use is permitted, it will be denying him and -others full use and enjoyment of their property. He is sure he would have to take substantially less for his property if he had to sell it. Given a choice, people don't buy next to a gravel pit. Shirley Rutt said that people all over the State feel that Shakopee is fortunate to have the racetrack, along with the other amenities. They are appalled to hear of the consideration of a gravel pit near it. To take this land out of production for 17 _years at this point is dumb. If this mining permit is. granted, the foot is in the door and there is nothing to stop others around them from doing the same. They are an exception, being surrounded by the gravel pit, and their property is valueless. June 20, 1985 Page 5 John O'Loughlin said he has a 100 year farm. He asked why they have to submit to developers coming in and devaluing their property. He said many people in the area worked hard to get the racetrack, so why screw it up now. Roberta Schneider, spokesperson for the Shakopee Environmental Protec- tion Association, passed around a book of pictures of the properties in the area. She said she was really surprised when all the questions they submitted were merely duplicated and submitted to Merila & Assoc. for response. They .felt that some of them should have had a response from the City staff, or at leaet made some assurance that they have gone over the information. They expected some further factual information rather than just reiteration of previous responses. Ms. Schneider commented on the responses made by Merila & Assoc. to their questions. She pointed out that 1990 is only 5 years away. She would still like some facts about how much water will be in the ponding areas.. They have heard nothing on the dewatering of the farm lands adjacent to the gravel pit, when that water moves into the hole from the shelf of ground water. She said when you take off one layer of topsoil, you take off one layer of filtration for the water. She said with the road building project in front of their place there is now water sitting in the ditch where there never was water before. She stated that once that soil is disturbed, it will never be agriculturally productive again. Ms. Schneider quoted from the Aggregate Resource book, which states the resources in Carver and Scott Counties appear adequate to meet their needs. She would like -more specific information on the need, how much is in the area and its availability. She said the Met Council study indicated they don't have the necessary inventory and was not as .conclusive as the appli- cant indicated. She would think a conditional use permit would be for something temporary., not 17 years. Ms. Schneider said the applicant speaks about the money the City and County would be saving and making on the operation. She asked how far $25,000 would go to restoring a pit like Roberts Pit. Using their figures, she pointed out that this sand and. gravel -is meant for areas outside of Shako- pee and the only people who will get the savings will be the operators of the pit. She asked about the valuation of the operation for tax purposes. Ms. Schneider thinks the buffer around the area proposed is totally inade- quate. She wouldn't think a mile buffer around the pit would be too much. They aren't more than z mile from services, so they aren't that rural of an area. Ms. Schneider addressed the end use/reclamation proposal. She asked who . would be responsibile for reclamation if the application is denied at any time during the 17 years. She said the proposal for commercial/industrial: is totally out of conformance with the Comp Plan. She said- that just because the construction of the racetrack is almost done, that doesn't mean there will be a decrease in traffic--there will still be a lot of racetrack traffic with the horses and suppliers, besides the industrial traffic on CR83. Snariopee Planning (,oir;,isslon June 20, 1985 Page 6 Bev Koehnen, 2036 CR83, stated she did not feel she had adequate time to respond to the responses of the applicant. She believes this matter will end up in Court, so she is reluctant to speak without full informa- tion. She said common sense tells you this is not going to be a farm, but a gravel pit, which will be in the way of development. She believes the Planning Commission's job is to uphold the Comp Plan, not to look at the cost or who will gain what. The question of scarcity of gravel in the area should not be a consideration. Up to the year 2002 the gravel pit will be in the way of development. She went through the con- ditions for granting a conditional use permit, and she agrees with Mr. Moriarty relative to the violations of the conditions. The most impor- tant finding is that it will be injurious to others, and the Planning Commission can make its findings based on one case. Jim Hauer said he and his brother purchased their land 35 years ago, and they are finally going to be able to realize a profit by developing some lots. This proposal will hurt their development--they are only a quarter mile across the field away. Chrm. Czaja asked if there was anyone else in opposition who wished to speak, and there was no answer. Chrm. Czaja asked the applicants if they wanted to respond. Jim Merila stated the video of the C. S. McCrossan gravel pit was of the old pit area and bituminous area, and he agrees there is a lot of debris accumulated over 35 years. He said the City has criteria to prevent that from happening here. The proposed operation would have only the crusher, loader, stacker and scale operation. The video was also of the bituminous plant, for which they are not applying in Shakopee. Mr. Merila said as far as the Comp Plan, they still maintain that the conditional use permit for the mining extraction is a permitted condi- tional use within the agricultural preservation zoned area. If it was not comprehended as a use within the City, it would not be in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Merila again used his graphics to point out the elevations to put the profile in perspective. He said Shakopee is shown as a relatively small area within this general area in the Aggregate Resources Report; it doesn't encompass the entire area. It is their position it does satisfy the criteria for granting a conditional use permit, and they ask for favorable consideration. Earl Johnson, of C.S. McCrossan, said they are talking about a 31-2 year program for the first phase. If that is granted,.and the operation is not in order they can't go any further. This trial phase would not put any berms around Mr. Rutt's property, and they would like to show good faith. He said they have a good track record with Shakopee, as they asked for a temporary mixed asphalt plant at the track and have lived by the conditions. Discussion ensued with Mr. O'Loughlin regarding the computations arriving at how much gravel will be removed in the center of the hill. Various elevations and amounts were pointed out. Mr. Johnson pointed out they will still be 40 feet above the limestone shelf, so there will be plenty of filter. SnaKopee P�annin& Com...ission June 20, 1985 Page 7 Igen Rutt said he went up by the C. S. McCrossan pit and talked to Mr. and Mrs. Bye and asked them what they thought of the pit. They said the crusher is running until 11:00-12:00 p.m. , there is a lot of noise and the beauty is gone. They don't think their property is worth anything. They think the only way to get rid of their property would be to sell it to McCrossan for whatever amount they would pay. He has never seen any- thing grow after a gravel pit is mined, and it is not zoned commercial. Mr. Fitch complained about the responsibility falling to the neighbors to complain if the operation is not run right. He thinks the City should do that. Mr. Moriarty urged the Commissioners not to base their decision on a 3 year plan. If the permit is granted, it has to be because all the criteria are met for the entire project. Mr.. Johnson reiterated his offer to show anyone their operation. Chrm. Czaja asked about responsibility for site maintenance. Mr. Johnson said the operation is so small there will be few people and little opera- tion on the site at any time. Chrm. Czaja asked what happens to the permit if the site is sold. The City Planner said the permit runs with the property. Essentially, it assumed the new owner will abide by the conditions, but the code doesn't address a new owner making an application for the permit. Mr. Johnson added that if a new owner didn't want the operation, he could make the royalty (that amount paid by the operator to the owner) so high it wouldn't be mined. Comm. Pomerenke said he lives about 150 feet from Valley View Road and he has dust everywhere. He wouldn't think this would make as much dust as was present before CR83 was paved. Kathleen Phillips, 969 Holmes, asked if the group is selling the land or just the gravel. The City Planner explained there is a group that owns the property, and C.S. McCrossan will be doing the mining operation. VanMaldeghem/Rockne moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Comm. VanMaldeghem said she has been around enough to know that problems happen, and she thinks the risks are much too great to accept this proposal. She views the letter from Bruce Olson as being in opposition to the appli- cation. She also has a hard time believing a letter written in 1981 is relevant to 1985 property values. She added the 17 years -scares her, con- sidering the amount of change and development the City- has gone through in 17 months. She feels the mining operation is very untimely and not compat- ible with the surrounding land uses. VanMaldeghem/Stoltzman offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 376 and movedits denial based on the following: 1. It will definitely deny property owners in the vicinity of the use and enjoyment of their property., for which they are entitled; -an-_n, Lomr.:ission June 20, 1985 Page 8 2. It will adversely affect property values in the area imme- diately surrounding the mining site; 3. The proposal will impede the normal and orderly development of the surrounding property for the uses predominant in the area. 4. There has been no showing that the use is reasonably related to the over-all needs and benefits of the City and the exist- ing land uses. 5. 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; 6. The use is in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Motion to deny carried with Comm. Rockne and Pomerenke opposed. Chrm. Czaja informed the applicant of the 7 day appeal period. VanMaldeghem/Lane moved to recommend to �the City Council denial of the Mining Permit. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner said the Mining Permit will go before the City Council on July 2. However, if there is an appeal of the conditional use permit, it will have to be advertised for public hearing and will be on the City Council agenda July 16. In .that case, the Mining Permit will be heard at that same time. VanMaldeghem/Rockne moved to adjourn to July 11, 1985. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Judi Simac City Planner Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING C01,21ISSION SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MAY 16, 1985 Chrm. Czaja called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. with Comm. Rockne, Pomerenke, Stoltzman and VanMaldeghem present. Comm. Lane arrived later and Comm. Schmitt was absent. Also present were Judi Simac, City Planner; Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director and Cncl. Lebens. DISCUSSION - FINAL PLAT OF CENTURY PLAZA 3RD ADDITION The City Planner said the drainage plans have been submitted and approved and everything is in order for the final plat of Century Plaza 3rd Add'n. She showed the plans to the Commissioners. The engineer who designed the drainage plan further clarified the drainage issues, and explained they have reduced the drainage going to the east by almost 2 acres. Chrm. Czaja asked if there were any comments from the audience, and there was no response. Rockne/Pomerenke moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Final Plat of Century Plaza 3rd Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1) Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney 2 ) The dedication cf an additional ten feet on the east side of the centerline where the plat abuts CSA_u 17 to trovide for a total of 100 feet of richt ght of way.. 3 ) Execution of a recordable Developer ' s Agreement w'nich provides for the improvements listed below, .and upon execution and recording thereof , the Developers Agreement dated October 16 , 1984 fcr OL1t1Gt b , Century ..plaza Square 2nd Additdon, sh, be released by the City Clerk: a) Park Dedication to be made in cash at the time building permits are issued for lots l-4 , Block 1. b) Sidewalk - a five foot sidewalk to .be constructed along the west side cf the plat where it abuts CSAH i7 . c ) Aux.-L11_-Lary Turning lanes - No building permit s. — 1 be .issued to any of the lets until a Countv Entrance Permit has been issued. Should an auxilliary turning lane be a requirement of the County Entrance Permit, it shall be the responsibility of the developer to construct the aux-flliary turning lane prier to the -Issuance of a 'Certificate c Occupancv. Mai, 16,1985 �, Pale 2 d. Drainage and grading - the developer shall perform overlot grading and construct storm sewer laterals for all developable lots. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - (COZ . ) SCOTT COUICTT LUMBER & BERT NOTERMAN MINING PERMIT VanMaldeghem/Stoltzman moved to open the public hearing regarding the request by Scott County Lumber and Bert Noterman for a conditional use permit to remove sand and gravel aggregate upon property legally des- cribed on file.. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner stated this application was received last fall, but without adequate information. The City Council ordered the completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) by a consultant hired by the City Council and paid for from fees submitted by the applicant. Walt Gregory, of Merila & Associates, whose office prepared the engineer- ing plans for the proposed gravel mine, said he is familiar with the objections of the neighbors and community and this plan attempts to mini- mize the effects on the neighborhood. He said this pian does satisfy the conditions of the conditional use permit for mineral extraction He gave a slide presentation showing the site from various angles, delineat- ing drainage as it exists and how it will change. The site is a 130 acre parcel at CR16 and CR83, southerly of the racetrack. He said there will be 10 foot berms around the entire perimeter of the site, providing screening to adjacent properties and CR83. Phase I, 30 acres, would be an approximately 32 years operation; Phase II, 40 acres, a 62 year operation with the larger area remaining in Phase III to take about 7 years. The total amount of material to be extracted would be 1.6 million cubic yards of material, about 100,000 yards per year. That would average 75 trucks per day, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The water table is 60 to 65 feet below the surface, and their average depth of mining will be 16 feet, with a range of 10 feet to 25 feet. He then showed various site line drawings. Comm. Lane arrived and took his seat- at 8:20 p.m. Mr. Gregory continued by saying after the operation was completed, the berms would be removed and topsoil would be used to cover the bottom of the mined area. Mr. Gregory showed a hypothetical layout of a residential development with utilities, which is possible as an end use, besides commercial and Indus- trial use. This was prepared in response to the City Engineer's concern about whether it could be served vrith utilities, if desired. Mr. Gregory added the stockpile would be about 25 feet high. They would have employee and visitor parking within the site. No explosives would be used or stored on site, and no fuel storage on site. From their analysis, the noise level at a distance of 100 feet away would be similar May 16, 1985 - Page 3 to light auto traffic, and shouldn't be an impact on the neighbors. The crushing operation is at least 500 feet away from existing homes. They think 85% of the truck traffic will go north of CR83, and 15;o south on CR83. They plan a 21 week operation, beginning around May 15. Mr. Gregrory summarized that they do not believe the proposed plan would be detrimental to drainage. It would not create a pollution problem because the water has to drain through 40 feet of sand. None of the operation will be less than 100 feet from adjacent property lines and 500 feet from adjacent residential areas. C. B. McCrossan will be the Operator of the site. He added that the community is almost out of sand and gravel, so there is a great need for this commodity. They anticipate that from this site crushed limestone will be 30% cheaper and 50C per ton cost savings for the construction of projects. They would pave the access road and use water or calcium chloride as necessary for dust control. Chrm. Czaja asked if there was anvone in the audience who favored the proposal and wished to speak at this time. There was no response. Chrm. Czaja asked for comments from a representative of the Shakopee Environmental Protection Association. Ms. Roberta Schneider, 3300 Valley View Road, said her group doesn't consider this proposal much different from the original one. The biggest difference is they don' t plan to mine as deep; however, after they are on the site, they may change their minds and ask to go deeper. She said the end result would be to leave a big hole. She thinks it would be a good idea for Planning Commission to go out and view the site, which is a gently rolling agricultural area. Antoinette Fitch, 1776 CR83, said they purchase3their property in Sept. of 1983 for breeding and training Arabian horses and providing boarding X acilities. They run their farm as a. family business and have put in a substantial investment in making improvements. The proposed property sur- rounds them on the west and north, and she believes it would bring serious health problems to their horses. The dust and v._nd could cause severe al- lergies. She said they all have experienced the unpleasant conditions created by the construction taking place now. A gravel pit in the proposed location would aggravate the conditions and affect the water. The health requirements for horses are the same as for humans, and this could be a hazard for any babies. She would like the land to remain AG. She believes it would depress the market values for a considerable distance. She said this property is well within the city limits and seems totally incompatible with the plans for the City and development of the racetrack. From her .farm they have a clear view of the grandstand activities and those .in the grandstand would have a view of a gravel pit. Ms. Fitch read a letter from Dr. Susan Hartley, Shakopee Veterinary Clinic, in regard to her opposition to the establishment of a gravel pit because it would be unhealthy and increase the likelihood of dust related problems. Ken Rutt, 1750 CR83, disputed the claims of the existing water drainage and run-off. He said the creation of a berm would interfere with water flowage from his property. He said that if you stand on CR83, the property is so level you can see to CR17. He can see the racetrack grandstand, etc. *1a� 16, 1985 Page 4 If they put a 10 foot berm around him, he can' t see anything. He also said the developers cannot get to the site from his drive-way, as it is only for AG use. He recommends denial of the application for gravel pit. Harold Schneider, 3300 Valley View koad, said he owns property on three sides of the proposed site, and has two residences within 400 to 500 feet Of the proposed site. There is no question in his mind this will de-value his property for the next 20-25 years. They will change the water flow by putting a berm around the site, probably causing him problems with standing water. He is concerned about ponding of water in the area. He said it would definitely be a nuisance, with dust blowing across to the residences. He is vehemently opposed to the granting of the application for a mining operation. Shirley Rutt, 1750 CR83, said they would be devastated by the devaluation in their property, and she requests the denial of the application. Roberta Schneider stated that those on CR16 would also suffer problems from the proposed mining operation. There is a lot of talk about plans. She said there is dust blowing in the winter and summer. There won't be any dust control when they are not in operation. The winds swirl and blow, always from the southwest. She would think there would be devaluation in Kilarney Hills. She said most of the developers in the area have relied upon the Comp Plan of Eagle Creek since 1970, and she is sure there was no gravel pit on that. Nothing in the Shakopee plan led them to believe there would be any deviation of the plan as a beautiful community to live in. That area was set aside as reserve land for development. Ms. Schneider questioned the sanitary- facilities on the site and whether or not there would be a well. She said the plan doesn't address the aesthetics of a gravel pile 25 feet high and a 12 foot high crusher, with a 10 foot high berm. Also, she reminded them that the gravel won't be stockpiled on the floor of the lowest elevation v.-rhen they begin. She said the traffic to the racetrack can now see beautiful, rolling landscape of ordinary farm scenes, but this could mean deep indentations and gravel. She asserted that after the land has been disturbed, it won' t grow crops, just maybe grass. Ms. Schneider believes the traffic hazard and congestion will be very serious. She said they are talking about big trucks and trailers that haul 20 vards. This is added to the 70 million visitors to the racetrack, commuters and horses traveling those roads. The number of trucks should be doubled to get the trips in and out. She said this is not a quiet opera- tion, and these are big diesel trucks. She didn't understand the report which stated the noise level would be the same at one-quarter mile and one- eighth mile away. She said even if this crusher noise is a steady hum it still distrubs the peace and tranquility of the countryside. She said the water level flows with the contour of the land, and she wonders how the depths of 10-25 feet would affect that. Ms. Schneider questions the tentative development as a feasible end use. There would still be an indentation, and she wonders how the gas line would be dealt with. They are talking about resolving a problem area where there is no problem now. Page 5 Ms. Schneider questioned the need for gravel. She referred to maps obtained from the Highway Dept. showing active and inactive gravel pits and which indicate there is no shortage of gravel pits. Ms. Schneider expressed her belief that this proposal shows substantial economic burden on the city and its residents without any real deomonstrated benefit to the City or its citizens. She said the concern of their group is still very real with the disruption of the delicate balance of nature in the area. They think a very serious look needs to be taken at tampering with land over the Prairie DuChein Aquafer. They strongly urge the denial of this request for mineral extraction, as the application fails to meet the criteria for granting a permit, and it should be denied based on the following findings: 1.) That the proposed conditional use wi11 deny property ohne-^s in the Vicinity cf the use and en,j c7ment of . e ' � r+ � _lr opo_ �hp� y for purposes already permitted. 2) That the proposed use will adverselyA property values in the area immediately surrounding the fmining siteaswell as other property in the vicinity. 3) Thatthe proposed use will impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses predominert in the area. That the proposal has not included adequate information as to utilities, drainage and other necessary £aci lilies . 5) That adequate measures have not been taken to nrevert cr cont.-c! offensive odors , fumes , dust , noise and vi-ralions . E) That there has been n0 shOS-.1ing that this proposal is reasonably related to he overall needs of the City cr to the eXfstinL- land use . 7 ) That the proposed use is not consistent with the purposes - of the zoning district in which the app-icant intends to . locate the proposed miring operation. � ) That the proposed use is in conflict with the Comprehensi�Te Flan of the City Of Shakopee . 5) That the increased truck traffic will Cause traffic ha-zards and con;�*estion on County 83. 10) That the matter pf ground water contaminati-on has not been addressed. Bob Schaefer, 13700 Columbia Avenue, Shakopee, lives 12 miles south of the site. He thinks the site has three problems: location, location, location. He thinks the proposed location of the gravel pit is closing the possibility �:a•• 16.� y8� Page 6 of development in that area. He said it is hard to find an area to build a home in Shakopee. The City should be encouraging the development of land to its best use, and providing home sites should be a priority. This gravel pit is not consistent with the development in Shakopee. With the racetrack now opening, the City is on the threshhold of tremendous growth and potential. He would rather see a fence around the property with horses on it. he urges the rejection of the conditional use permit. Kermit Lindmeyer, 306 Past Shakopee Avenue, said he has lived in the City for 37 years and he is familiar with Roberts Pit which was abandoned and the City had to grow around it. it is just weeds and holes and rubbish. he said he is one of the owners of Kilarney Hills, which abuts the property to the north. This property has been platted for 15-20 years, while it was still in the County. He said he opposes this permit because they feel no one will want to buy a lot and build within sight of a gravel pit or berm or depression or be there for 17 years to have consistent noise and dust and truck traffic. Ann Fitch, daughter of Antoinette and Ray Fitch, said she has heard for years about the b-,,-pass and she wonders how this can be compatible with the increased traffic in the area. She thinks it would be so much nicer to have pretty thoroughbred horse farms and houses as scenery on the way to the racetrack. Robert Gillard, Bloomington, said he owns property on CR83 across the road from the proposed site. He disputes the statement that this operation would be removing a hill. He advises the Commissioners to go out and look at the area; it is very level. To ruin the potential development from the racetrack seems absurd. Bev Koehnen, 2036 CR83, had a concern about the formula for noise decibels. She conferred with the engineer who arrived at the formula. Lane/Pomerenke moved for a five minute recess at 9: 33 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. GanMaldeghem/Lane moved to re-convene at 9:43 p.m. Motion carried- unani- mously. Bev Koehnen said the engineer had left out some information from the for- mula, but with that missing information it does work out to the number shown.. However, she is not sure what the value would be for the crusher. She is also concerned about the contemplated use of calcium chloride on the site, which can get into the water supply as it moves rapidly into the water supply. She is also concerned with a lot of horses next to this site that has open water supply, as the horse excretions may move laterally underground. Ms. Koehnen said that as a former member of the Planning Commission, she remembers the history of the Comp Pian. She said the racetrack consumed more land than they could have imagined, and there is a need for houses. She is opposed to this. She doesn't want noise and dust at her home. Snakopee Planninb �.oru.ission May 16, 1985 Pa�,e 7 Jim Merila, of Merila & Assoc. , said he would have to check out the infor- mation requested on the horses. He pointed out in the report where the crusher noise was addressed. He said noise level management tests were taken at the C. S. McCrossan plant which showed that at one-quarter and one-eighth mile the noise level was 47-49 decibels. He said the reason they are the same is that is reflecting the normal environmental noise, and not picking up any noise from the crusher. He pointed out that these were not formula numbers, but actual readings taken by a noise decibel reader. Earl Johnson said he just suggested calcium chloride as a possibility for handling dust, but they would be glad to handle the dust any way the City requires. Kenneth Rutt said during the construction of the racetrack they could hear the noise and beeping of the machines all day long. Jim Pietrzak, 5411 Eagle Creek Blvd, said that every day during the week there is already heavy traffic on CR16, along with school buses. He said there is a blind spot at CR16 and CR83 and there is a lot more traffic now with CR83 being improved, and people getting lost trying to find the Bingo place. He said the Thrift Shop is also getting very well known. The racetrack will create a big enough problem to the residents, with just 1400 to 1700 horses moving in and out with big pieces of equipment. He feels this proposal will be an eyesore to tourists in the area. He also believes calcium chloride causes a problem with people and animals. He wants the rejection of this application. Chrm. Czaja asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak, and there was no answer. Chrm. Czaja asked the applicant if, he wished to rebut. Earl Johnson, of C.S. McCrossan, said he has worked at the racetrack since August of last year. The semi traffic there is already heavy from the industries in the area. He said they hauled 100 ton of base onto the site and created little problem. He thinks that on any given day the factory across from the racetrack will create more problem than any gravel site. He emphasized that they are operating in three phases, and as one is com- pleted the topsoil will be graded and put back so it can be farmed imme- diately. The. berm is being built out of the topsoil and will be replaced over the site. Mr. Johnson reiterated that the water is 65-70 feet down, and even if they go the full ?5 feet deep, there is still 45 feet of gravel for any -pollu- tants to sift through. The area around the gas line would be re-graded and put back. It will be changed and .improved, but not harmed. Discussion ensued with Mr. Schneider relative to topography of the land and the possibility of culverting the water so it doesn't create a problem. Mr. Schneider pointed out the erosion possibilities. Mr. Gregory added that the berm around Mr.Rutt's property was suggested for his protection, but if he doesn't want it, they won't put it in. *Ian' 1c.1985 Page 8 Mr Merila said they didn't find any restrictions on crossing the easement of Mr. kutt's, but they will look into that further. He added that the extent of lowering the gas main would be looked at further dependinc on the development. The 25 foot mining depth depends on where you are on the property. Mr. Johnson added that it won' t look disrupted for 17 years, as it will be reclaimed in sta;=es as it was mined in stages. John O'Loughlin, 2988 Valley View Road, said he used to farm that land, and he discussed further with Mr. Merila the elevations and drainage of the property and the possibility of piping. Bev Koehnen said her property is probably the lowest in the area, and said there would have to be something dramatic done to get the water to run up a hill. Mr. Johnson said the only water Ms. Koehnen should get is that on the south side of the berm. Comm. Stoltzman asked if there was a Webster Lohsinger present, as he had some concerns about drainage at the last hearing. Mr. Merila said he would look into it. Mr. Merila said they have proposed a storm sewer going to the west for an alternate development, so that water will end up in Dean's Lake as a natural drainage area. They are planning to utilize the ponds to provide storage on site to let the water out slowly to minimize the impact. Mr. Johnson said the prevailing winds in the summertime are southwest, so the dust will be more over the industrial area than anywhere else. However, he claims the dust is very minimal, and he would be glad to take anyone to their operation. Mr. Rutt responded that in the construction of CR83 the dust blew like a cyclone. Mr. Johnson replied that the traffic that goes on a road dries it out, which is why they are having a paved access road. But where the material sits on site, it retains the moisture. Mr. Merila stated there would be only 2 to 3 people on site, with sanitary services on site. Water Supply would be brought in with thermos. Regard- ing property values, he would refer back to the letter prepared by Ken Lewis Assoc. , who said everything they said in 1981 was still valid. That conclusion was that there was noreduction in value from the location of a gravel pit operation in general. He would have no problem with a site specific analysis. He said they anticipate 75-80 trucks a day, which would be 5-10 trucks per hour, and they wouldn't use CP.16. Mr. Merila therefore believes the conditional use permit application for mineral extraction should be approved for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will not be injurious to the use of other property in the immediate vicinity for purposes already permitted. 2 Property values will not be devalued. 3. The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the. de- velopment of surrounding area since the reclamation contemplates turning the property back to AG and could also be used for commer- cial, industrial or multiple housing. _ May 16, 1985 ._.._ ,,........_�.,_�.. Page 9 4. No additional utilities are required, drainage is provided inter- nally and Scott County is upgrading CR83. 5. Thee have provided parking for the limited amount necessary on site. 6. The plan addresses possible noise, dust, vibration, etc. by the location of the main operation at such a distance from neighboring properties to minimize the effects. An EAW has been prepared which received a negative declaration, although it hasn't gone to the State. 7. The proposal is reasonable, related to the over-all needs of the City and the existing land use. The need for sand and gravel and the source for such material at a price 50C per ton less than cur- rent suppliers is a benefit to the City and other private and pub- lic developers. Mr. Johnson added that when they came out to get a bid for the racetrack, only River Warren and Prior Lake Aggregate could supply them--the other pits are either mined out or they can't get the aggregate out of them. This will be a savings to taxpayers. 8. It is consistent with the proposed zoning district, Section 11.24, Subd. 3a where sand and gravel extraction is listed as a conditional use within- the AG zone. 9. The end use plan for the proposal provides for the reclamation as being consistent with the Comp Plan, by being flexible enough to be commercial, industrial or multiple. 10. The EAW has addressed the traffic and does not indicate it would cause a problem with congestion. He said the conflict .with the racetrack would be only for three afternoons during the week, for a relatively short period of time. Also, if improvements are needed, there .is a 10� per cubic yard tax on gravel material which can be used by the County and City for any necessary roadway maintenance. 11. The proposal utilizes berms for screening so adjacent property owners will not be affected. 12. There are three stages, for a total of 162 years. 13. They acknowledge the need for the showing of ownership. Chrm. Czaja asked if there was anyone present who wished to present new information. Mr. Merila said the potential for single family homesites would be 358 sites, which could generate 3700 car trips per day, compared to 75-80 truck trips. Ms. Schneider said the people in the area are very concerned with the traf- fic from the racetrack, which doesn't need to be aggravated by this truck traffic. They are talking about 16 years of operati-on in which they will be deprived of the enjoyment of that property. She maintains that car traffic from a housing development would go different ways and use other roads. She would think a conditional use would be for a shorter texm, and asked why not dealing with a re-zoning. She thinks there is significant information missing and they have not had sufficient time to engage pro- fessional help. Therefore they are requesting a delay of 30-60 days to present a professional opinion to support their contention that they are. being injured by this operation. Ms. Schneider added that it is common knowledge there is gravel in the area and maybe they should all open up gravel pits. Yz. Johnson responded that Minnesota is building on top of their aggregate and wasting it. Their operation in Osseo will be out in 5 _years. He said all of their operations will be reclaimed. He undertands the peoples' concern with abandoned pits, but most of them were left 25 years ago when there were no laws for reclamation. �Y 16, 1955 - Page 10 Mr. Merila said McCrossan has an extensive plan for reclamation of their Maple Grove operation. The City Planner explained that the State aggregate law is a fund for reclamation mainly for areas that have been abandoned. The conditional use permit does allow the City to set up a Performance Bond. The mining permit has to be renewed in 3 years, and the conditional use can put any conditions on in terms of renewal or reviewal. She added there is no zoning district that permits mining as a permitted use, but several list it as a conditional use. Gene Rosenwinkel, 1596 Millpond Court, Chaska, referred to a manual pub- lished in 1983, Aggregate Resources, wherein he quoted "92% of the sand and gravel in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties remains underground and un- available because of development. 72% of the metropolitan aggregate is made useless by urbanization. Of the 100 year potential supply, only 10% is under permit. The Legislature has introduced a bill to designate these areas to protect them." Chrm. Czaja asked if there were any further comments and there was no response. Van_Maldeghem/Stoltzman moved to continue the public hearing to June 20, 1985 in order to allow time for all concerned to seek further information on the issues raised tonight. Motion carried unanimously. Consensus was that anyone with questions should submit them in writing to the City Planner, who would relay them to the appropriate parties, by May 22, . 1985. VanMaldeghem/Stoltzman moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Judi Simac City Planner Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary