Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0220 RegularREGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 20, 2001 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Mader called the meeting to order. Present were Mayor Mader, Councilmembers Petersen, Gundlach and Zieska, City Manager Boyles, City Attorney Pace, Planning Director Rye, Public Works Director Osmundson, Assistant City Manager Walsh, Planning Coordinator Kansier, Park Maintenance Supervisor Friedges, Public Works Maintenance Supervisor Hartman and Zoning Code Enforcement Officer Steve Horsman, Councilmember Ericson was absent from the meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: GUNDLACH: Requested moving the presentation to Lieutenant Schmidt right after approval of the agenda. ZIESKA: Requested removing Item (F) from the Consent Agenda. BOYLES: Advised that due to the length of the current agenda, it would be possible to defer action on Items 9(C) and 9(D), but that the other items involved certain deadlines. MADER: Suggested moving Items 9(C) and 9(D) to the end. Also requested adding an Item to Other Business regarding a bill from Rep. Eric Lipman regarding removing the veto power of the Met Council with respect to Comprehensive Planning. MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Petersen, Gundlach and Zieska, the motion carried. PRESENTATIONS: Presentation to Lieutenant Steve Schmidt in Recognition of His Retirement after 29 Years of Service with the Prior Lake Police Department. BOYLES: Reviewed the career of Lieutenant Steve Schmidt and his contributions to the community over the past 29 years. MADER: Presented Lieutenant Schmidt with a plaque of appreciation. SCHMIDT: Thanked the present and past Councils and the community for the honor and privilege to be able to serve the people of Prior Lake. Very much appreciated his time with the City. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 5, 2001 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES: MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 5, 2001 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AS PROPOSED. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach and Zieska, the motion carried. Councilmember Petersen abstained due to his absence from the February 5th meeting. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER City Council Meeting Minutes February 20, 2001 CONSENT AGENDA: (A) Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid. (B) Consider Approval of Treasurer's Report. (C) Consider Approval of Building Permit Report. (D) Consider Approval of Fire Call Report. (E) Consider Approval of Resolution 01-14 Authorizing the Purchase of Replacement Computer Equipment. (F) Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing Expenditures for the Purchase of Park Appurtenant Equipment. [Removed as part of the approval of the agenda] MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) THROUGH (E). BOYLES: Briefly reviewed the remaining Consent Agenda items. MADER: Noted that the action for Item (E) is a follow-up to a previous decision by the Council. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Zieska, the motion carried. ITEMS REMOVED FROMTHE CONSENT AGENDA: Consider Approval of Resolution 01-15 Authorizing Expenditures for the Purchase of Park Appurtenant Equipment. ZIESKA: Asked Al Friedges if the grills are really necessary for the neighborhood parks. FRIEDGES: Advised that the grills have been a standard when furnishing parks. Obviously, the grills get used in some parks more than others. It is difficult to anticipate what amenities will be used when building a park. The costs for the grills seem small for the potential benefit and so they are included. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-15 AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES FOR THE PURCHASE OF PARK APPURTENANT EQUIPMENT. GUNDLACH: Asked if, when the funds are included in the CIP, that means that that dollar amount is automatically spent. MADER: Advised that no funds are approved until the Council takes action authorizing the purchase. The ClP is a planning document. BOYLES: Also noted that, as in this case, just because there are $40,000 allocated, doesn't mean the staff doesn't still conserve where we can and purchase only what we need. MADER: Further commented that this item had been discussed before within the framework that spending money on things that never get used seems like a waste. Suggested that staff abandon the idea that the grills are a standard, and possibly wait to put in amenities such as grills until the neighborhood makes a request. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Zieska, the motion carried. 2 City Council Meeting Minutes February 20, 2001 PUBLIC HEARINGS: Public Hearing to Consider Approval of a Resolution Upholding the Decision of the Planning Commission to Deny a 12-Foot Variance to Allow a 13-Foot Structure Setback from a Rear Property Line Rather than the Required 25 Feet. MADER: Declared the Public Hearing open. HORSMAN: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, discussing the request and the process to date. GUNDLACH: Asked what the problem was with adding the deck, and if including the deck in the original plan would have meant 12-feet less of the house. HORSMAN: Advised that the deck meets the required setback from the Ordinary High Water mark, but the deck does not meet the required 25-foot setback from the rear lot line. At the time of the original application and building plans, the project met the rear yard setback of 25 feet and did not include a deck or other addition other than a ground level or basement platform which is not considered structure. ZIESKA: Asked if there was a condition of approval for the variances that were granted that there be no other variances for the property. HORSMAN: Confirmed that was the intent of the Planning Commission at the time. MADER: Asked if there were any others who wished to address the Council. JANE CROSSON (Applicant): Believes it is not unreasonable to ask to use the home as she wishes, including being able to entertain from all levels. Noted that a deck would not obstruct any views of her neighbors. Suggested that the common area be used in considering the variance request as it is in the calculations for the OHW mark and impervious surface. MARTY GORZE (4358 Priorwood St.) (husband of realtor): Commented that he is not directly involved in the issue, but has read the files and that this circumstance seems to give the Council the opportunity to say "yes" rather than "no" to an issue that really hurts no one. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Zieska, the motion carried. GUNDLACH: Commented that it seems that the deck was an afterthought and that had the deck been included in the original plan, the house could have been built 12-foot shorter, so in a sense this is a decision that was made early on with little or no room for maneuvering. Asked if the builder understood that? HORSMAN: Believed the builder would have known at the time the original plans were submitted, but also noted that the Planning Commission had raised the issue at its public hearing. ZIESKA: Commented that when dealing with variance requests, there are nine hardship criteria by which all requests are evaluated per the Ordinance. There were variances granted in order to be able to even build a nice house on this lot and does not believe the hardship criteria have been met in this case. 3 City Council Meeting Minutes February 20, 2001 MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-16 TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN DENYING THE VARIANCE. PETERSEN: Commented that the applicant requesting the variance bought the house long after the house was built and did not have the opportunity to request a deck at that time. It seems punitive to the homeowner, given that the deck has little impact on the neighbors. MADER: Stated that he did not necessarily disagreed with the applicant, but advised that the ordinance and its criteria is the most fair and uniform precess with which to weigh variance applications. To grent a variance outside of the criteria, would set a precedent for future requests. Supported the resolution as preposed. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach and Zieska, Nay by Petersen, the motion carried. OLD BUSINESS Consider Approval of a Resolution of Negative Declaration for an Environmental Impact Statement for Ryan Contracting. KANSlER: Discussed the item in connection with the staff report, reviewing the backgreund, status to date, and recommendation of staff. Advised that the issues the Council referred back to staff for clarification included the number of wetlands on the site, the number of wells needed for the project, affects on groundwater, and traffic on McKenna Road. Advised that there are no wetlands within the excavation area. The wetlands within the vicinity necessitate a wetland delineation condition. The issue of the number of wells was clarified with Scott County and the DNR to one monitoring well, and no supply wells. The DNR advised that because of the location and depth of the mining related activity, they did not expect any effect on surface or greundwater features. The traffic study completed as part of the EAW indicated there would be minimal impact on the existing road. Staff has proposed two conditions. The first being that trucks leaving the facility be required to go south to County Road 42. The second condition was that a letter of credit be posted for any necessary repairs to the roadway as determined by staff. The issues of noise and lights on the site are mitigated by limiting the hours of operation. MADER: Reviewed the issues before the Council and reminded everyone that this is not a public hearing, but that the Council may ask questions of any person. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-16 MAKING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR RYAN CONTRACTING. MADER: Making reference to the materials in the agenda report, asked staff for clarification of the position of the Watershed District, noting that the Watershed was specific in their statement that the EAW was not complete. KANSlER: Stated that the Watershed did not take a position supporting or denying the application, but rather commented on the information necessary for a Watershed District permit, including storm water calculations and erosion control planning. MADER: Further noted that the City of Shakopee had suggested that no trucks travel northerly on McKenna Road because the road was a 7-ton designed road. Asked what the roadway south was designed. 4 City Council Meeting Minutes February 20, 2001 OSMUNDSON: Stated that McKenna Road within the City is a 5 to 7-ton design. Advised that in the spring, there would be read restrictions to 5-ton trucks. MADER.' Commented that the DNR's position seems to be that the excavation operation is not a problem with the necessary safeguards. Further noted correspondence from Scott County discussing the number of wells for the property. It seems the decision is left to the Council. Advised there was also extensive information in the packet from Dorsey & Whitney and the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community and Peterson Environmental. WILDA WAPEHPA (counsel for Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community): Asked if the Council had received courtesy copies of the information submitted to staff that day and advised she had additional copies available. BOYLES: Advised that the Council had received two separate letters from Dorsey & Whitney, one of which was received on February 20th, and the other that was received by fax on Feb. 19th. WAPEHPA: Made a formal objection that a public hearing had not been held on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and the revised Conditional Use Permit due to the number of comments that were submitted and the substantive issues raised in those comments. Further discussed that there are potential significant environmental effects and impacts on the neighboring residential development that have not been properly addressed. Supported requiring an Environmental Impact Statement and cited supporting case law as submitted in the written comments. ZlESKA: Referred to the fax letters and noted that there is a discrepancy where on one there was support for three monitoring wells, and on the other it was stated that any wells increased risk. WAPEHPA: Advised that the letters summarized the comments, and that in one instance, the DNR has said that only one monitoring well should be made, and Scott County has said that a number of wells are necessary to be effective. The bottom line is that more study would be required on that issue. ZIESKA: Asked the Community's position. WAPEHPA: Stated that the Community would like to see three wells provided they do not harm the drinking water supply. MADER: Noted that there was a conflict between the DNR and County. The staff has advised that there are still two opposing opinions. Referred to the Peterson Environmental memo and asked for clarification in layman's terms. PETERSON (Peterson Environmental): Advised that he is a wetland scientist and a regulatory specialist, and noted that the person that did the bulk of the study was not present. Discussed the wetland about 250 feet south of the proposed mine pit, the potential ways to drain a wetland all of which could happen in this case, and the failure to address the issues further. MADER: Clarified that there are underground channels that allow water flow, and digging the pit, if there is a channel there, could allow the water to flow out of the wetland into the pit, or vice versa. PETERSON: Confirmed. GUNDLACH: Asked what further information would need to be provided, either in the EAW or an ElS, in order for the Council to be sure. Asked if an analysis had been done as to the drinking water aquifer. 5 City Council Meeting Minutes February 20, 2001 PETERSON: Advised that he would undertake some additional analysis as to what the area between the wetland and the pit actually looks like underground, and then to also develop some type of a water balance for the wetland. Noted that no analysis had been made as to the drinking water aquifer. It does appear that there may be other areas of wetland on the site. In his opinion the EAW does not meet all of the content requirements in the EQB rules and guidelines. GUNDLACH: Asked if this EAW failed to even provide enough information to determine if an ElS is required. PETERSON: Believed there were two options for the Council. The first would be to recognize the potential for a significant impact and complete and ElS, or you extend the time period for supplementing the EAW further and supply that additional information. OSMUNDSON: Noted that the wetland to the south had a flood elevation of 884 feet and there was a reference to a soil boring taken in the excavation area in the mining elevation at 808 feet, which is a 76 foot difference between the water elevation in the wetland to the south and the water currently in the proposed excavation area. Asked if there were stringers or channels running underground, wouldn't they be naturally draining the wetland as it exists right now. PETERSON: Advised that it is not uncommon that the stringer would not be continuous and have sediment acting as an aqua target preventing it from continuing. Disruption of the sediment would allow the water to go into the pit. OSMUNDSON: Asked if it wouldn't require hundreds of soil borings to determine where these lenses exist, or the completion of a complex model? PETERSEN: Advised that at least six soil borings would need to be completed to make any determination. MADER: Asked what the size is of the wetland to the south. PETERSEN: Advised that the wetland has be to at least 2.5 acres to be a DNR wetland. MADER: Asked if Ryan Contracting had any comments with respect to the potential environmental impacts. TYLER ENRIGHT (Ryan Contracting): Advised that Ryan Contracting had performed soil borings in the location of the proposed gravel pit. Those borings contained no silt or clays. If clay had been found, there may have been water or stringers and Mr. Peterson had indicated. The borings showed coarse gravel material to 30 feet deep. MADER: Asked the depth of the gravel below the surface. ENRIGHT: Advised that below the bottom of the pit, gravel is currently 70 feet deep. The gravel is at the surface. GUNDLACH: Asked who completed the soil borings, and if they were hired and contracted by the applicant. ENRIGHT: Allied Test Drilling Company completed the borings at the request of Ryan Contracting. 6 City Council Meeting Minutes February 20, 2001 (~UNDLACH: Commented that there is some confusion on his part because the experts have conflicting opinions and the test samples were paid for by the applicant. PAGE: Asked staff to clarify the process of obtaining the EAW when it was requested by the Council. KANSIER: Explained that Liesch & Associates was hired through an RFP process based upon their credentials and proposal outline for the project. Liesch & Associates had all of the information staff had, and also hired a consultant to do the traffic study. Liesch & Associates independently analyzed the boring samples obtained by Allied Test Drilling Company. Ryan paid for the borings. Liesch prepared the EAW and also received and reviewed all of the comments and provided advice and direction in interpreting the information. GUNDLACH: Commented that the EAW and soil borings were requested by the Council early in 2000 and yet, the staff did not receive the soil borings until August. It seems a lot of borings could have been done in that timeframe. PETERSON: Reviewed the results of the borings, indicating that the borings do show silt and clay at different consistencies in the top 10 feet. Advised these samples are taken closest to the wetland. ZIESKA: Asked what the consistency was for the next 60 feet. PETERSON: Sand and gravel. Advised that most likely, if stringers existed, they would be within those first 10 feet. ENRIGHT: Advised that the sand is at an elevation of 912 feet, while the wetland is at 884 feet. WAPEHPA: Believed that the bottom line is that there are issues that have not been addressed at this time. MADER: Asked if there was any other input from those parties with a vested interest in the project. Commented that the City Attorney has advised that the City Council has acted appropriately in allowing public comment and the appropriate timeframe. PACE: Noted that the EQB rules can be used offensively or defensively. The Council used discretion in extending the period of time for making a decision in order to clarify and look at whether there was conflicting data that left the staff and consultant uncomfortable in providing a recommendation. MADER: Noted that in a work session on the matter, the consultant's opinion was that an ElS was not required. GUNDLACH: Commented that given the conflicting opinion of the experts, it is difficult to make a decision one way or another. Because of the nature of the information or misinformation, believed there was not enough for him to make a negative declaration for the ElS. MADER: Stated that it would have been ideal to have clear information that supported one side or the other, but keep in mind there is only the opportunity within the Conditional Use Permit to mitigate the risks involved. There is no question that we don't have 100% assurance that there is no problem and will never be any problem. Reviewed the criteria that apply under Minnesota Statutes Rules 4400.1700 sub. 2. It doesn't say that if there is any risk at all, there must be an ElS. 7 City Council Meeting Minutes February 20, 2001 (~UNDLACH: Asked if the Mayor and City Attorney are disagreeing with the attorney for the Community. MADER: I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything that has been said. The fact that there is some risk does not mean to me that there automatically has to be an ElS. It is a question of whether that risk can be mitigated to an appropriate level. ZIESKA: Agreed with the Mayor's comments. Believes that the information provided on the borings and the elevations of the property gives sufficient information to determine the risk. MADER: Noted that one other factor to consider is that even though the first priority is to protect the environment, there still needs to be an adequate basis for requiring an ElS to avoid litigation. Suspected that no matter what data was obtained, there would still be conflicting opinions as to the environmental issues. PETERSEN: Agreed that a decision has to be made to mitigate the risks as much as the Council can, but that the Council and the City can't control all of the circumstances. MADER: Noted that since all the parties have been heard from, he would call the question. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Petersen and Zieska, Nay by Gundlach, the motion carried. The Council took a brief recess. Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for Excavation of Sand and Gravel for Ryan Contracting on Property Located at the Southeast Quarter Section of Section 22, Township 115, Range 22 Located at McKenna Road. BOYLES: Reviewed the action requested of the Council in connection with the proposed conditional use permit and noted two documents received and to be entered into the record. One document was from Ryan Contracting dated Feb. 19, and one letter dated Feb. 20 from Dorsey & Whitney. Staff will review each of the letters and how the proposed resolution addresses each of their concerns. MADER: Reviewed the history of this item. KANSlER: Discussed the letter received from Dorsey & Whitney noting that they requested that the CUP be valid for one year and revocable for violation of any of the conditions of the CUP. Commented that the City's ordinance does require that permits issued for excavations are limited to 12 months and that non-compliance with a condition of the permit could result in revocation of the permit. The Dorsey & Whitney letter also requests that the a supply well be prohibited, which is included in the proposed resolution. Thirdly, no water can be drawn from existing wells on-site other than residential use. Staff would not object to adding that condition, but believes it is part of the applicant's well permit. The fourth request is to limit hours of operation from 8am-5pm Monday-Friday and 9am-noon on Saturday. The proposed resolution limits hours of operation from 6am to 8pm Monday-Friday and 8am-noon on Saturdays with no operation on Sundays or legal holidays. Those hours are similar to what is allowed under the City's noise ordinance. The fifth requested condition deals with testing the equipment for noise levels. The City does not have the equipment to do that work, but could be accomplished through a consultant if the Council desires. The sixth condition is to construct a sound barrier wall along the western, northern and southern perimeter of the site. Staff has included provisions for landscaping and berming in addition to limiting hours of operation in order to mitigate noise impacts. 8 City Council Meeting Minutes February 20, 2001 Requiring sound barrier walls seems excessive. The seventh condition states that road repairs will be made prior to the operation of the mine. The City cannot require the applicant to remedy a pre-existing condition. MADER: Asked staff if there could be a condition that the applicant upgrade the existing roadway if the roadway currently is not adequate for the intended use, similar to the requirements developers enter into. Believes there may be a roadway maintenance issue. PACE: Was not prepared to offer an across-the-board opinion on that issue without further research, but offered that the CUP is only valid for one year and that that may offer an acceptable evaluation period in order to determine if any further conditions should be imposed. OSMUNDSON: Advised that since McKenna is a state aid roadway, the City cannot stop trucks from traveling on it. KANSIER: Continued that conditions eight and nine deal with the contractor posting a road construction bond and paying the costs of repairing McKenna Road, including a portion that runs through the City of Shakopee. Advised that the proposed CUP does require a letter of credit for road maintenance, but cannot address the repair' of roads within Shakopee other than to direct truck traffic south. Request ten deals with using native species in the tree replacement plan. Noted that City ordinance has a tree replacement plan that is very specific as to acceptable trees. Condition 11 requests that the condition of the storm water rip-rap drainage to monitored and maintained monthly. Noted that that action is required by the storm water permit. The twelfth request deals with the three monitoring wells being utilized. Staff, in consultation with the DNR, feels that one monitoring well provides less impact to the property. The thirteenth requested conditions is that no fuel storage be allowed on-site, which is included in the proposed resolution. The 14th and 15th requested conditions appear to be the same and state that all equipment must be parked on an impervious curbed surface when not in use. Staff did not require this as a condition. The 16th request is that washing operations are prohibited, which is included. The 17th is that a phase I archeological survey of the area be conducted. That request is basically for an ElS, which has already been determined. The 18th request has to do with installing a monitoring well near the wetland which is off-site. The City cannot require that installation. KANSlER: Further discussed the conditions Ryan Contracting felt should be modified, including the requirement of a 24-foot wide driveway. Ryan felt the requirement was excessive. Staff's intent was to insure safe passage of two-way traffic. A 20-foot roadway would allow firetruck access. Ryan also objected to the requirement for plantings along the parking area. Staff felt that based upon the site plan, landscaping is necessary. Ryan further stated that the $200,000 increase in the Letter of Credit for road maintenance is excessive. Staff noted that the amount included $100,000 for road maintenance, as well as landscaping and was increased from the original proposed amount to include the plant, driveway and parking area, dust control, final site restoration and reclamation, and the cost of monitoring the wetland and groundwater. Ryan also felt that a 6-foot high perimeter fences was excessive. They have a 5-foot high swing gate and the property is secured with barbed wired and snow fence. Staff's requirement of the 6-foot fence was for safety. Ryan felt that requiring an impervious pad with the capacity to contain a fuel spill of 500 gallons was unacceptable. Staff believes that given the fuel tank capacity of the mining equipment and tanker truck, it is reasonable for groundwater protection. MADER: Asked what it meant that they would "unit fill" each piece of equipment. ENRIGHT: Explained what was meant by "unit fill". [Mr. Enright did not approach the microphone therefore the comments are not on the audio record.] City Council Meeting Minutes February 20, 2001 KANSIER: Continued reviewing the objections by Ryan to the proposed CUP including specifying in the CUP a prohibition of any rock-crushing activity. Ryan advised that they fully intend not doing any rock- crushing, and staff felt prohibiting that activity mitigated the impact of noise on the adjacent property. MADER: Thought that Ryan had previously agreed that no rock-crushing would occur on-site. Asked for clarification. BOYLES: Stated that Ryan had advised the City that if certain action was taken by the City that rock- crushing activity would be reconsidered. ENRIGHT: [Commented but off the audio recorc~ KANSIER: Further noted that the last objection by Ryan was the limiting of work on all legal holidays. Staff felt the requirement was necessary in order to limit the noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. There were also several language changes to the proposed resolution that Ryan requested. PACE: Asked if the zoning ordinance requires an applicant for a CUP to consent to the conditions. KANSIER: Advised that there is an assent form which Ryan must sign as a pre-requisite to recording the Conditional Use Permit and is listed in the CUP. Further discussed the specific changes to the previous proposed CUP. MADER: Asked for clarification of a reference in the staff report to maintaining McKenna Road and County Road 42. Also asked for clarification of a referenced in the staff report regarding tree replacement requirements. KANSlER: Advised that the basic impact on County Road 42 would be things like dust and mud or spill. There is a condition that deals with clean-up. Explained that there are replacement trees required as well as adding some trees to the berm and landscaping. MADER: Also asked for clarification regarding the developer agreement. KANSIER: Advised that the developer agreement was not included in the packet but would be similar to the standard agreement. The agreement would come back to the Council. The proposed resolution reflects the requirement at condition 9. MADER: On page 6, in reference to the Letter of Credit items, asked if the costs of restoration also included seeding. KANSlER: Explained that the restoration would include not only grading, but erosion control and seeding. Advised that the condition could specify the items if the Council found it necessary. PACE: Advised that the restoration conditions would be specified in the developer's agreement. MADER: Noted that there are inconsistencies between the project plan book and the conditional use permit. Assumed that the CUP prevailed. KANSlER: Confirmed. 10 City Council Meeting Minutes February 20, 2001 PACE: Believed it important to state in the CUP that if there is a discrepancy between the plan book and the CUP, that the CUP resolution prevails. MADER: Asked for clarification as to whether the resolution is clear when it states that there is no fuel storage on-site that means no storage tank and no fuel tanker. KANSlER: Advised that the resolution states no fuel storage and that refueling must take place on an impervious pad. PACE: Discussed item 14 in the proposed conditions regarding the storage of equipment on-site in connection with the comments from the Dorsey & Whitney letter and their concerns with fuel contamination. KANSlER: Suggested that the condition include language that all equipment needs to be stored on the impervious surface, the intent being to prevent any fuel leaking from any equipment in the pit from absorbing directly into the soil. MADER: Asked staff and Council if they wanted to attempt to incorporate revised language at this time, or to provide the staff input and hold a special meeting within seven days due to the time deadline. There was some discussion between the Councilmembers as to the course of action. PACE: Believed that reviewing the conditions, providing staff input, and directing preparation of a final resolution for consideration at a special meeting would be the simplest course of action from an administrative standpoint. Cautioned the Council that staff worked very carefully to make sure that there was a basis in the record to formulate the conditions that they had set out. In order to go through and add or supplement these conditions, you will need to review the basis in fact in the record. Councilmembers agreed to review each of the conditions and then allow staff to bring back a revised resolution at a special meeting. MADER: Started with III on page 2 of the resolution and began reviewing each of the conditions, asking that Councilmembers feel free to comment. [The minutes identify only those conditions where specific concerns were identified, even though each condition was mentioned and given the opportunity for comment.] III(d) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services, or improvements, which are either existing or proposed. MADER: Commented that he has some concerns regarding the use of read in a capacity that it wasn't design for. Would like to see the CUP address that issue. Proceeded through the proposed conditions. IV(a) The resolution approving the CUP is not valid prior to being recorded. PACE: Suggested revising the language to say the CUP is not valid prior to being recorded. 11 City Council Meeting Minutes February 20, 2001 IV(b)3 The plans must be revised to identify a 24-foot wide paved driveway from the public street to the parking lot and a paved parking lot. MADER: Asked staff why a 24-foot driveway was specified when 20-foot City streets are permitted in Prior Lake. OSMUNDSON: Advised that commercial areas required 20-foot wide driveways. In this case, staff specified a 24-foot driveway for safety reasons so that the large vehicles and equipment could pass each other. PACE: Asked if staff or the Council is concerned about the standards used to build the parking pad or the driveway to be in compliance with the Public Works Design Manual. OSMUNDSON: With driveways going into commercial areas, the City does not regulate the area. MADER: Noted that basically this condition will be revised to note that the plans must reflect the fuel refilling pad. Proceeded through the remaining conditions. IV(b)4 The parking area must be buffered by screening with additional plantings. This is to be shown on a revised landscaping plan. MADER: Believed there was some discrepancy in the location of the parking pad. Asked staff for clarification. KANSIER: Referred to a map which showed the proposed location of the parking pad, the driveway and McKenna Road. Did not believe the parking area was buffered by the edge of the pit as maintained by Ryan and advised that a combination of berming and trees is required. MADER: Asked if the total perimeter of the pit is being buffered with trees. KANSlER: Stated that there are some existing trees on the site, and that most of the required landscape concentrates on the westerly side of the property. MADER: Continued to review each of the conditions. IV(b)7 Utility plans indicating electrical line locations must be submitted. KANSIER: Advised that this condition was required because the applicant had originally indicated that a generator would be used on-site. If that is no longer the case, the condition could be moot. MADER: Suggested adding language that said the plan was only required if there was to be electrical equipment on-site. PACE: Suggested that on the items where the plans need to be revised language should be added that states the items need to be revised to the approval of City staff. MADER: Noted that that standard should apply to any case where new documents are provided. IV(b)8 The plans must be revised to identify a monitoring well at the northwest corner of the site. The exact location, depth, and specification 12 City Council Meeting Minutes February 20, 2001 are to be based on recommendations from a certified independent consultant approved by the City. MADER: Suggested that staff meet with representatives of the Watershed, the DNR and the County to see if they could come to some consensus on the number and location of monitoring wells. IV(b)9 The applicant and property owners must enter into a Developer's Agreement attached hereto. The Developers Agreement includes provisions dealing with right of entry and indemnification. The required Irrevocable Letter of Credit is also detailed within the Agreement. KANSIER: As discussed earlier, the Developers Agreement has not been prepared, but will come back to the Council for final approval. Suggested removing the language that stated the Developers Agreement was attached to the resolution. IV(b)10An Irrevocable Letter of Credit, on a form prepared by the City and approved by the City Attorney, is to be submitted prior to the recording of the resolution. The amount of the LOC is for $200,000 and ensures the following [items (a)-(g)]. KANSIER: Reviewed the estimates for each of the items (a) through (g) and advised that the $200,000 Letter of Credit is about 125% of the total estimated costs and seems appropriate. MADER: Commented that the intention is to not put the City in a position of creating a gravel mining pit without proper reclamation for the site once it is abandoned. Believed that to restore the site to something useable once the project is complete should be the goal. Asked if there is something in the Letter of Credit or the CUP that would require that the costs for adequate reclamation of the site and the wetland are covered. PACE: Questioned whether the Mayor believed that a larger bond is required for these purposes. MADER: Commented that given the fact that the City cannot identify the nature of a catastrophic event, a larger guaranty seems appropriate. MADER: Proceeded reviewing the proposed conditions. IV(c)3 A secured gate and 6-foot high perimeter fence is to be instal/ed prior to beginning work. The property must be signed as pdvate property. MADER: Noted the applicant's objection to the 6-foot high fence. Asked for Councilmember input. ZIESKA: Believes due to the slope ratio, it is necessary from a safety perspective to have a perimeter fence. 13 City Council Meeting Minutes February 20, 2001 PACE: Asked if fence opacity was an issue. KANSlER: Advised that there was not a concern with opacity since this was primarily an agricultural area. IV(c)4 The driveway from the public street to the parking lot and the parking lot must be hard surfaced (paved) and installed prior to beginning work. MADER: Noted that this provision was also covered in another section of the resolution. Noted that the fueling pad should be added to this condition. Continued reviewing the remaining conditions. IV(d)1 No fuel storage is allowed on the site. All vehicles and equipment refueling mUst take place on an impervious pad that has the capacity to contain a fuel spill of 500 gallons. MADER: Noted that, as previously discussed, this item is to include that tank trucks and equipment be moved to the impervious pad. IV(d)2 No lighting is permitted on site. MADER: Commented that this condition was intended to mitigate the impact on the adjacent neighborhood. PACE: Asked about truck lighting after dark in the winter time, and suggested that if the applicant specified in their documents that they would not be operating in the winter time, it should be included in the CUP. KANSIER: Noted that operating a mining operation is seasonal work similar to grading. MADER: Suggested bring the issue of hours back when we come to that item. IV(d)3 The project is limited to 12.91 acres as indicated in Exhibit A. Any excavation beyond the area identified in Exhibit A will require the preparation of a new EA W. MADER: Suggested that excavation beyond the 12.91 acres should not only include a new EAW, but also a new application. KANSlER: Clarified that every year, the applicant will be required to submit a new application. The intent behind the condition was that the EAW was discretionary rather than required. MADER: Asked if the condition were limited to the 12.91 acres, what happens if they excavate outside that area, and at that point what is the City's remedy. KANSlER: Advised that the City would then go in and stop the operation since it would not be in compliance with the approved CUP. PACE: Advised that if the applicant didn't stop operation voluntarily upon receiving the City's citation, then the City would need to go to court and seek an injunction. She could not make a determination to 14 City Council Meeting Minutes February 20, 2001 what the judge's decision would be. Advised that there is case law that discusses expanding a gravel pit. ZIESKA: Noted that in the EAW the soil borings detected the water table at 808 feet, and the document provided by Ryan talked about the water table at 743 feet. Ryan is proposing to mine down to 850 feet. If the water table is really at 808, then there is only 42 feet separation rather than 50 feet. OSMUNDSON: Believed the 808 feet referred to the elevation of the water in the aquifer, which is different than the water table. ZIESKA: Commented that one of the main concerns is contamination of groundwater, and therefore suggested the Council consider putting a condition of the elevation of the bottom of the pit. PACE: Explained that the conditions are intended to mitigate against any adverse impact and so a condition of that sort would be appropriate. ZIESKA: Requested adding a condition that the bottom of the pit should be a minimum of 50 feet above any known water on the site. OSMUNDSON: Believed that the bottom of the pit is currently proposed at 850 feet. MADER: Noted that in a significant number of gravel pits, the water level is above the floor of the gravel pit. There was some discussion regarding the 50 foot separation standard imposed by the Minnesota Department of Health and whether that was a guideline. Suggested deferring that item back to staff for the number. PACE: Advised that there has also been a provision added which states if there is a discrepancy between the plans and the CUP, that the CUP controls. So creating a limit in the CUP is probably a valid point. IV(d)4 The project approval is only for the extraction and screening of sand and gravel. There is to be no crushing, washing or other mineral processing conducted on site. MADER: Believed that the original intent of the application was to not include any rock-crushing activities and that there was an indication by the applicant that they may add those types of operations, so the condition is appropriate. PETERSEN: Advised that the noise from rock-crushing activities is the largest complaint by Lakeville resident near that pit. IV(d)5 The installation of a water supply well on site is prohibited. Any water needed on site is to be delivered from off-site sources. BOYLES: Noted that item 3 in the list submitted by Dorsey & Whitney suggests that no water be drawn from wells on the site except to serve the homestead on the property. Asked if the Council wanted that provision to be added. MADER: Requested adding the provision. Then continued reviewing the remaining conditions. 15 City Council Meeting Minutes February 20, 2001 IV(d)8 All traffic as a result of this project is to be routed from the site south to CSAH 42. No traffic is permitted to the north on McKenna Road into the City of Shakopee. A sign stating "Trucks-No Right Turn" must be posted at the entrance to McKenna Road. PACE: Asked the Council to clarify its rationale for imposing the condition. GUNDLACH: Commented that the residential neighborhood is to the north. ZIESKA: Noted that the EAW addressed that the truck traffic would go south on McKenna to County Road 42. It did not look at the impacts of truck traffic northbound on McKenna. MADER: Asked if the City has the authority to restrict trucks from going north on McKenna, and noted that if there became an issue with truck traffic to the north, it could be addressed at the annual renewal of the CUP. OSMUNDSON: Explained that it would be difficult to restrict the northbound traffic, but would rather be a cooperative effort. PACE: Suggested adding a provision to the CUP that stated that any condition deemed to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction does not invalidate the CUP or any of the other provisions. IV(d)lOHours of operation are 6am to 8pm Monday through Friday (weekdays) and 8am to 12noon on Saturdays. The operation is not allowed to operate on Sunday or legal holidays. ZIESKA: Asked if the hours are normal construction hours per the City's ordinance. KANSlER: Advised that the hours imposed are somewhat more strict than typical construction hours. PACE: Advised that the applicant's plans indicated they would only operate until 7:30pm. GUNDLACH: Stated that he would have liked to ask a representative of Ryan of their intent but they had already left the meeting. ZIESKA: Suggested modifying the hours during the weekday to 6:30am to 7:30pm. MADER.' Suggested accommodating Ryan's request to operate on the four legal holidays specified. Further noted that representatives of the Shepherd of the Lake Church had approached him about imposing a Wednesday evening restriction due to their Church services. However, they do not expect to be in operation at that location until 2002. V. The CUP is valid for one year. At the expiration ........of the City or its residents. PACE: Asked if the Council wanted to include an explicit statement that the renewal may be subject to another EAW based upon the results of any monitoring or additional information. MADER: Agreed. 16 City Council Meeting Minutes February 20, 2001 VI. Project Plan Book (application with revisions dated November 19, 1999) submitted by Ryan Contracting is attached hereto as Exhibit (A) and incorporated as part of this resolution. MADER: Made note that at this point the Council has decided to incorporate the language that states if there is a discrepancy between the Plan Book and the Conditional Use Permit, the CUP resolution prevails. PACE: Also recommended incorporating a severability clause. BOYLES: Discussed the other conditions requested by Dorsey & Whitney including the issue of equipment testing before operations begin and thereafter each month to evaluate noise levels and effectiveness of muffling, the issue of the sound wall barrier, PACE: Asked if this type of equipment has OSHA requirements in terms of noise and mufflers. BOYLES: Confirmed. PACE: Noted that the testing would then be a reasonable requirement. Suggested that if the Council wished to impose the condition, the applicant have the testing done at whatever interval the City deems appropriate and then provide copies of the test results to the City. GUNDLACH: Noted that with regard to regulating noise, the City cannot be more restrictive than State statutes. PACE: Asked what the Council would determine as a reasonable interval for this time of testing. BOYLES: Suggested that the testing take place prior to beginning work and then semi-annually. GUNDLACH: Recommended that the provision all include that the City can require testing upon receiving complaints. BOYLES: Further discussed the requests by Dorsey & Whitney for a sound wall, use of native tree species and the issue of monitoring wells. The Council consensus was that requiring a sound wall would be excessive given the other conditions imposed in an attempt to mitigate noise. Also, the Council reached a consensus that the current tree replacement ordinance in place was adequate in addressing the types of trees to be used. MADER: Asked staff if they feel they have enough specific information. Commented that it is important that even though the list of conditions is extensive, that this is a gravel excavation project located inside the City limits of a small city with a public well nearby, developed residential areas that may be impacted, and other developable areas. ZIESKA: Invited any additional comments by Dorsey & Whitney at this time. WAPEHPA: Discussed two specific points. On the hours of operation, suggested a bit more streamlining with the typical day-to-day lives of the nearby residential residents. Commented that a start time of 7am weekdays would not be unreasonable, and on Saturday a start date of 9am would 17 City Council Meeting Minutes February 20, 2001 be more kind to the neighbors. The second issue involved the wetlands monitoring. Asked Mr. Peterson to further comment. PETERSON: Discussed the intent of having several monitoring wells was to see if any part of the operation was having an adverse impact on the wetland. Annual monitoring of the wetland is not acceptable. Suggested monitoring more frequently to determine any impacts on the wetland. MADER.' Suggested that staff consider those comments and come back to the Council with a recommendation. Commented that the hours of operation could be further modified at the annual review of the conditional use permit if the issue became contentious. Noted that it was important not to be so restrictive as to appear arbitrary. PACE: Asked Mr. Peterson to explain what a pesometer is. PETERSON: Explained that a pesometer is a type of well that has a very specifically set screen interval so that hydraulic heads can be deducted. It is usually set up in a nest of three wells with different intervals in order to detect which direction ground water is moving. ZIESKA: Added that he would have also provided a representative from Ryan Contracting to make additional comments, but they were no longer present. There was some discussion among the Council and staff as to the time and place of the special meeting. MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO DEFER THE ISSUE OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO A SPECIAL MEETING SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 27, 2001 AT 6PM AT THE FIRE STATION. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Zieska, the motion carried. The Council took a brief recess. The Council discussed which items should be dealt with and which items could be deferred to the special meeting. Consider Approval of a Resolution Awarding Bid Through the State Cooperative Purchasing Program for (1) One 5-ton Single Axle Cab and Chassis Truck; and (2) One CAT Front. End Loader. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-17 AWARDING BID FOR ONE 5-TON SINGLE AXLE CAB AND CHASSIS TRUCK TO BOYER STERLING TRUCKS AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $42,868.38. HARTMAN: Discussed the base prices and the prices for the options, noting all the options were standard to make the cab and chassis an acceptable truck. Further noted that the other costs were for the snow plow equipment. 18 City Council Meeting Minutes February 20, 2001 MADER: Commented on the mileage on the 13-year vehicle and the warranty and asked if there will be a point where the City puts more miles on these vehicles and gets better utilization. Asked how many of the personnel and trucks go out at one time after a typical snowfall. HARTMAN; Discussed the mileage on both the 1992 and 1994 vehicles in the fleet. Believes the vehicles are getting better utilization. Advised that all of the trucks and public works maintenance and parks maintenance staff are used for snowplowing. MADER: Commented that he believed the staff was aware of the issues of getting the most out of the equipment given the price, but advised that this would be an issue he would continue to bring up. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Zieska, the motion carried. MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-18 AWARDING THE PURCHASE OF ONE CAT 938G FRONT END LOADER FROM ZIEGLER, INCORPORATED IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $128,840.51. OSMUNDSON: Discussed the rationale for the staff recommendation in connection with the staff report. PETERSEN: Asked where the John Deere loader rated in the staff's opinion. OSMUNDSON: Advised that in price the John Deere was bid higher than the Case, but lower than the Cat. Staff felt that the Case and Cat loaders were better products. MADER: Discussed including the cost of money in future life cycle analysis. Asked staff that if the approximate 6% cost of the money was factored in over 10 or 15 years, did staff still feel the additional costs for the Cat was justified. OSMUNDSON: Discussed the considerations for the future trade-in value for the machine, fuel cost savings and comparisons researched by staff. Even given the cost of money, felt the purchase of the Cat was the right decision in the long-term. (}UNDLACH: Concerned about productivity issues. Asked staff to comment on how the horsepower of the vehicles compare. Commented that providing productive equipment is important because otherwise the City would presumably incur additional employee wages for lost time. OSMUNDSON: Noted that the City's current machine has 115 horsepower. The Cat loader is 150-160 horsepower, and the weight is 5000 lbs. more. Staff is looking to purchase a machine that will do more and meet the City's long-term needs. The machine should be faster and more productive. ZIESKA: Believes the estimates for operating hours are very conservative based on the use and hours of the current loader. Commented that this loader would probably acquire 5500 hours in its lifetime which would double the fuel savings and drive down the annual cost difference. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Zieska, the motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Consider Approval of a Resolution Modifying the City's Municipal State Aid Street System. [This item was deferred to the February 27, 2001 Special Meeting] 19 City Council Meeting Minutes February 20, 2001 Consider Approval of an Ordinance Approving a Zone Change to the R-2 District and Removing the Shoreland District Designation on the Property Located in Section 28, Township 115 North, Range 22 West. MADER: Noted that the Council had previously heard from the applicant on this issue, and noted that a 4/5th decision is required to approve the resolution. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 01-XX APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE TO THE R-2 DISTRICT AND REMOVING THE SHORELAND DISTRICT DESIGNATION ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 115 NORTH, I::~ANGE 22 WEST. MADER.' Asked the deadline for action on this item. KANSIER: May 8, 2001. MADER: Suggested to the applicant that the item be deferred to a meeting where five members are present. Apologized that the applicant has stayed so long. Believed it may be in the applicant's best interest for the full Council to consider the issue. Asked for the applicant's opinion. PACE: Advised that the courtesy is extended to all applicants where a 4/5th vote is required, but that it did not preclude the Council from discussing the matter. STEVE AUCH (Centex Homes): Advised that he would appreciate any feedback the Council would like to offer, but did not have a problem with deferring the item to the next meeting. MADER: Advised that it would be inappropriate for the Council to discuss the matter, reach a consensus, and then act to defer it based upon which Councilmember were present. AUCH: Advised that this was an important decision in their planning timeline and that the issue could be deferred to the February 27, 2001 special meeting, but that they would need a decision at that time whether there were 4 or 5 Councilmembers present. [This item was deferred to the February 27, 2001 special meeting.] Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving the Purchase of Equipment through State Cooperative Purchasing for (1) One new 16-foot Rotary Lawn Mower; and (2) a Replacement Skid Steer Loader. [This item was deferred to a subsequent meeting.] Consider Approval of a Resolution (1) Amending the 2001-2002 Capital Improvement Program Relating to Knob Hill Park Basketball Court and Fish Point Park Trail; and (2) Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Trails and a Basketball Court as Identified in the 2001 Capital Improvement Program. [This item was deferred to a subsequent meeting.] 20 City Council Meeting Minutes February 20, 2001 Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving in Concept the Use of Tax Increment Financing to Fund a Senior Housing Project as Part of the Downtown Redevelopment Effort. [This item was deferred to a subsequent meeting.] OTHER BUSINESS I COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: MADER; Discussed a meeting of the Minnesota State House tomorrow to hear testimony on a Bill proposed by Representative Lipman that would curtail or rescind the Metropolitan Council's authority for veto power over Comprehensive Plans of municipalities. He argues that the veto power takes the responsibility for local planning away from local elected officials. Advised that Representative Lipman had asked him to offer comments. Asked Councilmembers if they wished him to offer testimony and if the Bill held a position supported by the Council. GUNDLACH: Commented that the Council has been consistent on the issue. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO OFFER TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF HOUSE BILL 4B. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Zieska, the motion carried. A motion to adjourn Frank Boyles,~ .,~~ and seconded. The meeting a~/~ ,_ -.. ~elly I~eyer,~cording Secretary 21