HomeMy WebLinkAbout8A - Ryan Cont. Gravel Permit
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
-.-
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FEBRUARY 7, 2000
8A
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
SUE MCDERMOTT, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
BUD OSMUNDSON, CITY ENGINEER
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION OO-XX DENYING
A PETITION REQUESTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EA W) AND RESOLUTION 00-
XX APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
EXCAVATION OF SAND AND GRAVEL FOR RYAN
CONTRACTING ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SOUTH
EAST QUARTER SECTION OF SECTION 22, T 115, R22,
LOCATED ON MCKENNA ROAD
History:
On September 29, 1999, a complete CUP application was received for
the excavation of sand and gravel.
On November 8, 1999, the Planning Commission, after individual
mailed notice and published notice, held a public hearing on Ryan's
.:M application for a CUP. After considering the materials in the
~. h'" ~~~~~., I~ ',\1.pplication and hearing testimony, the Planning Commission
~ ~ &: .~. . ~ ~ t A. ~~ ~ t",fPA~lecommended the City Council approve the CUP with conditions.
~~. \.,\~b \\ ~ J'W'\~ On December 6,1999, the City Council considered Ryan's application
~ ~ \ \ ~~ ~' ~~\,. for a CUP and the Planning Commission's recommendation. The City
~ ) l(~ V"~..;.\\'" ~. ~ \ ,Council continued its consideration of the Ryan CUP application.
"~4O ~~~ ~. On January 3, 2000, the City Council held a workshop to discuss
W:.:~ ~w- h~~~. Ryan's proposed use of the property for the excavation of sand and
~'1>>~ li~~' gravel.
~,~ 11A~1 On January 18, 2000, the City Council continued the request due to
.. {l:"'(It"- ( ...h' .~. notice from the EQB that it had received a petition for an EA W. The
1"~ f)l-vPt'~ ~o.. EQB provided a copy of the petition, via facsimile, to the City. The
01,\ ~U ~ ~ N.t.- Council directed the staff to review the petition in light of the EQB
\ ~,,~\ ~~.,Y'''' rules to recommend whether an EA W should be completed.
" l.) ~ -t.'P ~ i.' - On January 19, 2000, the City received the original petition for
/40"'< ~fN" ~~ Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The 60-day (120 day)
~ e,o\,~~ \\: ~ statutory ti~ period a municipality has to act on an application
~~ ~~~ ~~\6'" ~.,~ol~W~":\.
l:\99.fil~\9~\~-~~I"C e ~ pa~!l
1620Uca '.;0 ,~rLake,~innesota~::>'172-1714 / Ph. (612)447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
~~ ~.' AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
.. - -rTI TIT
relating to zoning matters, stopped when the original EA W petition
was received.
Current Circumstances: The City Council must make a determination
whether or not the project has "significant environmental effects"
which requires that an EA W be prepared. Minnesota Statute lays out
the criteria that the City must use in deciding whether to require an
EA W. Those criteria are as follows:
-.-
A. type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects;
B. cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future
projects;
C. the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to
mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and
D. the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and
controlled as a result of other environmental studies undertaken by
public agencies or the project proposer or of EIS's previously
prepared on similar projects.
As set forth in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet handbook
prepared by the Environmental Quality Board (EQB), "the rules
require only that the RGU (Responsible Governmental Unit) [in this
case, Prior Lake] consider all known evidence, compare that evidence
to the standard 'there may be potential for significant environmental
effects' and document the findings and decision in writing". (Step 3,
page 8, Guide to Environmental Assessment Worksheets, previously
provided to the Council).
The Issues: The basis for the petition is set out in a letter
accompanying the petition for an EA W from Attorney Gregory A.
Fontaine, on behalf of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, to the EQB dated
January 14,2000. Minnesota rules require "petitioners must present a
case for why the project should have an EA W prepared even though it
does not exceed mandatory thresholds, by documenting unusual
features relating to its nature or location. Material evidence can take
many forms-maps, site plans, existing reports, letters from experts,
testimonial letters from citizens, photographs, etc.- but it must be a
factual documentation of potential for significant environmental
effects. To be successful. petitioners must do more than express
their 011 position or raise questions and concerns" (emphasis added).
(Step 1, Page 7 Guide to Environmental Assessment Worksheets
referencing Minnesota Statutes 4410.1100).
The petitioner's January 14,2000 letter and the petition does not
contain any factual documentation or information as required by
Minnesota Rule 4410.1100 which, in the staff's opinion, would sustain
their rationale that EA W must be prepared. For example, the
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\99-075c I.doc
Page 2
--'
, ~~
_J, ~~ t)~ ~?,
oJ' ~ \)~
~11 ~1f- "\
petitioner expresses concerns (not factual information) regarding
traffic congestion, safety, infrastructure impacts, quality of drinking
water, natural features, dust, noise, and aesthetic impacts and
restoration. The principal basis the petitioner relies on to indicate that
the City should require an EA Ware:
1. Ryan is attempting to avoid environmental review by improperly
segmenting the project to fall below the 40-acre threshold for
mandatory EA W.
2. Potential traffic .safety hazards and congestion on CSAH 42 and
McKenna Road.
3. Potential interference with the drinking water resources of the
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC).
4. Potential impacts to Boiling Springs and the Savage Fen.
5. Other possible environmental impacts on surrounding communities.
Each claimed basis for preparing an EA W is addressed below:
1. 40 Acre Mandatory EA W
The petitioner claims an EA W is mandatory because the site
exceeds 40 acres. According to Minnesota Rules, an EA W is
mandatory if more than 40 acres is being mined. Ryan is mining 12.91
acres of the 29.6 acres site. Based on soil borings taken by Ryan, the
soils surrounding the 12.91-acres are not suitable for mining. The
CUP limits the location ofthe mining to the 12.9l-acre site plan
submitted. Since the mining area is less than 40 acres, an EA W is not
mandatory. In response to the petitioners concern, a condition
specifically limiting Ryan to the proposed 12.91 acres has been added
to the resolution.
2. Traffic:
Page 12 of the EA W Guide, a guide to assist in completing an EA W,
states "The form asks whether potential land use conflicts involve
environmental matters because not all land use conflicts do- e.g. heavy
truck traffic from a gravel mine near a residential area may cause land
use conflict due to safety concerns but this is not an environmental
matter. The EQB rules define "environment" to include: land, air,
water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, energy resources, and
man-made objects or natural features of historic, geologic, or aesthetic
significance(4410.0200, subp. 23)." Therefore, the argument the
petitioner makes regarding traffic does not rise to the level of a
"significant environmental effect" or is not an environmental concern
as defined by the EQB. For information to the Council, staffis
providing a review of the petitioners concerns related to traffic as
follows:
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\99-075c 1.doc
Page 3
..- - no "T
T
-~-
A. Traffic-Congestion and Disruption:
The petitioner claims the project will increase traffic levels and
cause congestion and disruption on McKenna Road and CSAH 42.
The petitioner claims there will be 17 to 50% increase in traffic on
McKenna Road and disruption to traffic on CSAH 42. The
petition suggests traffic has not been reviewed by the City. The
petition does not contain any factual evidence, as required by
Minnesota rules 4410.1100, to support its conjecture that there will be
a 17-50% increase in traffic on McKenna Road. However, logic
supports an assumption that Ryan's operation will generate increased
use of McKenna Road. Ryan estimates an average of 6 trips per hour
of operation. The 2010 Comprehensive Plan indicates a 1995 average
of 400 trips per day on McKenna Road just north of CSAH 42. In
addition, the 2020 Comprehensive Plan states two-lane rural roads
have a maximum capacity of 14,000-15,000 vehicle trips per day, or
900 trips per lane per hour. Therefore, the estimate provided by Ryan
(or even ten times the estimate if it is considerably underestimated)
will not cause a significant increase or congestion in traffic as
determined by the maximum capacity ofthe roadway.
To reiterate, the petition must contain material evidence consisting of
factual documentation of potential for significant environmental
effects in lieu of expressing opinions or raising concerns alone. In
response to the petitioners concerns, a condition limiting the truck
route from the pit directly south on McKenna Road to CSAH 42, as
originally proposed by Ryan, has been added to the resolution.
B. Safety
The petitioner claims McKenna Road is the main access to a
residential development to the north that contains 45+ homes and
that the expected truck traffic from the Ryan site will interfere
with the safety of the residential development. While McKenna
Road is a main access to CSAH 42 from this neighborhood, it is
designated as a collector street. Other collector streets in the City
include Wilds Parkway, Fish Point Road, Pike Lake Trail, Carriage
Hills Parkway, and Franklin Trail. Ingress and egress to and from a
facility such as the one proposed for the Ryan site are appropriately
located on a collector street. Collector streets are intended to provide
entire neighborhoods with access to arterial roadways.
Based on the petitioner's numbers, the petitioner suggests the
operation on the Ryan site will generate from 68 to 200 additional trips
per day. The petition offers no factual basis to support its statement.
Ryan Contracting estimates an average of 6 trucks hauling per hour of
operation. Utilizing a round trip, this results in 120 trips per 10 hours
of operation per day.
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\99-07 5c 1.doc
Page 4
~~d
v-e.)~~
- ~,~-
'1~ ~~l/
(}~"'-...\~~~
~~.
~"
A typical residential neighborhood generates a majority of its trips
during certain peak hours, generally 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6
p.m.. Staff has no specific data on McKenna Road to verify this. It is
a general assumption based on typical work hours of residents in a
residential neighborhood.
At the January 18,2000 City Council meeting, Councilmembers
Schenck and Gundlach suggested limiting the hours of operation from
8 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays only. Should the Council choose to alter
the resolution as presented and recommended by the staff and Planning
Commission to limit the hours as most recently proposed, there is a
rational basis for doing so. The hours of operation (8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
weekdays) will result in fewer trucks hauling (96 trips per day)
generally during non-peak hours (72 trips) mitigating safety concerns
arising from increased traffic, since 24 trips would be expected to
occur during peak hours.
C. Infrastructure Impacts
1). The petitioner states no information has been provided
regarding the impact of the operation on the structural capacities
of McKenna Road and CSAH 42 and is concerned about the
condition of McKenna Road particularly that portion running
northerly into Shakopee and CSAH 42. The petition does not
contain any factual evidence, as required by Minnesota rules
4410.1100, to support its conjecture that Ryan's operation will cause
accelerated degradation of McKenna Road. However, this possibility
has been anticipated by the City and conditions have been placed in
the CUP to assure the financial responsibility for any impacts to
McKenna Road are borne by Ryan. One of the conditions of approval
in the CUP requires Ryan to provide the City with an irrevocable letter
of credit for the ongoing maintenance and repair of McKenna Road
should the applicant fail to make required improvements. The
applicant is responsible for maintaining the current condition of the
road. The City is aware of the current condition and has inspected its
condition. The condition will be documented by the City prior to
Ryan beginning work (photos, written inspection).
As far as truck traffic on McKenna Road into Shakopee, truck traffic
will not be traveling north into Shakopee. As a response to the
petitioners concerns, this truck route has been made a specific
condition of the CUP resolution.
Additionally, per the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, the southern portion
of McKenna Road is proposed to be realigned to the east and the
existing roadway abandoned.
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\99-07 5c I.doc
.unoT
Page 5
T
T
2). The petitioner further alleges the City of Shakopee may not
have been sent a notice. The City of Shakopee was sent a public
hearing notice and no written comments were received. However, the
City Engineer of Shakopee verbally expressed concern regarding truck
traffic on the Shakopee portion of McKenna Road. As previously
noted, a condition of the CUP prohibits truck traffic from the proposed
gravel pit north on McKenna Road into Shakopee. Regarding CSAH
42, the City sent the County Highway Department a notice. Their only
recommendation was that Ryan be responsible for clean up of gravel.
-.'
3. Water Resources
A. Drinking Water protection-The petitioner states the proposed
project could negatively affect the quality of drinking water. If
Ryan installs their own water supply well, the quality of water of
the SMSC water supply well could be affected. Ryan Contracting is
not installing a water supply well for use in the mining operation. The
petitioner is incorrect in making the assumption a water supply well
will be installed and utilized as a part of the operation. The petitioner
has not provided information as to support any negative effects ofthe
existing mining operation located directly to the north has on their
water supply to support any argument that Ryan's mining would have
a negative impact.
Staffhas contacted the Department of Health regarding groundwater
/ effects. The Department of Health has no specific regulations
, regarding separation between the bottom of the pit and the aquifer.
They make recommendations that no fuel be stored on site and that a
gate controlling the site be installed. There will be no on site fuel
storage and a gate or fence must be installed prior to beginning work
as stated in the conditions of approval.
The petitioner has provided a map showing that the proposed gravel pit
lies within the SMSC well head- Source Water Assessment Area (10-
year time oftravel zone). To date, the City has not had any
discussions with the SMSC regarding their well head protection plan
for this area and what action would be required by the City in the
execution of their protection plan. Staff feels the controls imposed on
Ryan, i.e. no water supply wells or fuel storage on the site, provide
significant control over a fuel spill which could have a significant
impact on the SMSC water supply well. Fuel spills or other
contaminant spills can happen anywhere, anytime, and could affect
many wells within the City. However, these City imposed controls are
a reasonable deterrent to a spill happening within Ryan's proposed pit.
To be sensitive and responsive to the petitioners concerns, staff is
recommending that a condition be added to the resolution regarding
Ryan's CUP that prohibits the installation ofa water supply well as a
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-07 5\99-075c 1.doc
Page 6
source for water on site and requires the installation of a monitoring
well with ongoing testing to assure a degradation in the quality of
water does not occur. Staff contacted a consulting engineer to
determine what potential problems might stem from the existence of
an observation well on the site. The consultant indicated they had
been involved with the placement and monitoring of such wells since
the 1960's and could not recall an instance when such wells had been
vandalized. He also could not recall an instance when ground water
contamination had occurred because of an observation well. He
further indicated there are heavy duty locking devices available for
such wells which provide more security than a padlock. Such a device
could be specified as a condition of the resolution for the conditional
use permit. Ryan will be using only water from off-site sources for
dust control. The resolution makes this point very clear.
-~'
B. Additionally, the petitioner states the CUP would allow a water
supply well with pumping of up to 10,000 gallons per day or 1
million gallons per year and lists specific concerns related to such
a well. This statement is incorrect. The CUP prohibits Ryan's project
from having a water supply well. Additionally, a DNR permit is
required for pumping of more than 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million
gallons per year. Dewatering could occur ifthe ground water levels at
the site are at a higher elevation than the excavation. The removal of
this water will require a DNR permit ifthe limits above are exceeded
as mentioned in the comments received from Pat Lynch, Area
Hydrologist for the DNR, dated October 18, 1999.
4. The petitioner is concerned about the Boiling Springs and
Savage Fen. These natural features are controlled by the DNR.
The petitioner has offered no factual evidence, as required by
Minnesota rules 4410.1100, to support its conjecture that Boiling
Springs or Savage Fen will be adversely affected by the proposed
excavation of sand and gravel at this location.
The City had referred the project for review by the DNR. The DNR
made no initial mention of either of these two features. After the
EA W petition was filed, the City received an internal memorandum
from the DNR dated January 18,2000. The memo states the pit is on
50 acres and there are wells proposed. The author suggests there may
be an impact and additional infonnation and time for review is
suggested. Considering the gravel operation itself is 12.91 acres and
no water supply well is proposed, the comments appear to be based on
misleading or inaccurate infonnation. The author of the memo also
states the pit is close to Prior Lake's PWS (public Water Supply).
This too is an incorrect statement. This area is outside of the City's
wellhead assessment area. The City has yet to adopt a well head
protection plan.
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\99-075c I.doc
Page 7
.-------rr-T ..
T
T
Furthermore, Scott County and the City of Shakopee were sent notice
ofthe project and offer no comments or concerns about these natural
features being adversely affected. As mentioned earlier, the DNR does
require permitting for pumping groundwater at or above certain levels.
This permitting process would warrant further review by the DNR that
could possibly include analysis ofthe Boiling Springs and Savage Fen.
Attached are maps indicating the surface watershed boundaries. In
both cases, the watershed boundaries are outside the City limits and
outside the proposed excavation area. Considering no water supply
well will be drilled to provide water for use for the operation or on the
site, there will be no additional exposure to the Jordan aquifer, the
Boiling Springs or the Savage Fen.
5. Impacts on Neighboring Communities- The petitioner lists
specific effects and suggests an EA W could identify options to
eliminate or substantially mitigate them. The petition does not
contain any factual evidence, as required by Minnesota rules
4410.1100, to support its conjecture that there are potential
environmental impacts on neighboring communities. Each of the
concerns identified by the petitioner were identified by staff in an
analysis of Ryan's application and Ryan's submittals and are stated in
the previous staffreports. Staff feels that the conditions imposed in
the CUP address the petitioners concerns.
A. Dust-The petitioner has failed to provide any factual
information regarding any potential environmental impact from
dust, but rather states a concern that the issue has not been fully
addressed. Ryan proposes to water the roadways with a calcium
chloride solution to minimize dust on an as needed basis. As a
condition ofthe CUP Ryan will be required to apply water for dust
control within 24 hours of notice from the City Engineer. The
watering will take place on the entire site in order to mitigate any dust
problem. The berm on the west side of the excavation area is a part of
Phase 1 and eventually a berm will surround the entire area under
excavation. Tab 21, of Exhibit A Ryan's Project Plan Book (CUP
application), details the proposal for containing dust.
B. Noise-The petitioner states that noise will adversely affect the
neighborhood and no mitigative measures have been taken.
The Planning Commission recommended hours of operation be limited
and members of the City Council have suggested further restricting the
hours of operation to 8 a.m.-5 p.m. With these limitations, the impacts
of noise have been mitigated and remain reasonable. The proposed
project is located on property owned by private residents. Ifthey
objected to the proposed noise, and they are the closest residents to the
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\99-075c 1.doc
Page 8
site, they would not have entered into an agreement with Ryan. The
nearest house (other than the property owners) is approximately 325
feet to the south. Furthermore, the proposed operation includes mining
and screening only. There will be no crushing operation. Ryan will
operate within noise requirements established by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency. The City cannot impose more stringent
standards than those established by the PCA. Tab 20, of Exhibit A
Ryan's Project Plan book (CUP application), contains a detailed
analysis of decibel levels predicted and allowable levels. The Ryan
proposal meets these requirements.
-.-
C. Aesthetic Impacts and Restoration- the petitioner is concerned
about the future development of this property and the proposed
reclamation plan. The property is currently zoned Agricultural. The
Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Low/Medium Density
Residential. The property owners have indicated their future use is
agricultural. When excavation is completed, the final grades will be
consistent with current standards of those allowed under the
Subdivision Ordinance for a residential subdivision (3: 1 slope
maximum).
Conclusion:
Minnesota rules require "petitioners must present a case for why the
project should have an EA W prepared even though it does not exceed
mandatory thresholds, by documenting unusual features relating to its
nature or location. Material evidence can take many forms-maps, site
plans, existing reports, letters from experts, testimonial letters from
citizens, photographs, etc.- but it must be a factual documentation of
potential for significant environmental effects. To be successful,
petitioners must do more than express their opposition or raise
questions and concerns". (Step 1, Page 7 Guide to Environmental
Assessment Worksheets referencing Minnesota Statutes 4410.1100).
The petition does not contain any factual information as required
by Minnesota Rules 4410.1100 relating to potential environmental
impacts. Rather, the petition expresses concern regarding traffic
congestion, safety, infrastructure impacts, quality of drinking water,
natural features, dust, noise, and aesthetic impacts and restoration.
Therefore, staff recommends denial of the petition to require an
EA W for the excavation of sand and gravel as proposed by Ryan
Contracting.
Should the City Council order an EA W, the result will be the
following: The EA W will determine ifthere are significant
environmental impacts. The EA W will result in recommendation of
conditions to impose on the project. The EA W will result in a
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\99-075c I.doc
Page 9
I I
T
recommendation whether to require an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) or not. Ultimately, the EA W or EIS will not prohibit
the project, but rather identify potential environmental impacts and
allow the opportunity to define and require mitigating measures.
Section 1108.201, the Zoning Ordinance identifies certain uses, which
because of their nature, operation and location in relation to other uses
require a CUP. The CUP process regulates the location, magnitude
and design of conditional uses consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, and the regulations, purposes and procedures ofthe Zoning
Ordinance.
-.-
CUP's contain conditions to minimize the impact ofthe use on
adjacent properties. To achieve this, the Zoning Ordinance sets out the
general provisions and criteria applicable to all uses authorized by a
CUP. The ordinance also describes the procedures governing the
application and review process. When considering whether to approve
or deny a CUP, the City Council has the discretion to impose site
specific conditions designed to mitigate the potential impacts on
adjacent properties.
Staff believes that the concerns raised by the petitioner and mitigating
measures to potential environmental impacts in the CUP are included
in the approving resolution. Staffs review of the project included
issues listed in the DNR Mining Handbook, the same items that would
be reviewed in an EA W. Staff also contacted a private consultant with
experience preparing an EA W for a mining operation, the Department
of Health, the DNR, and the MPCA to question potential
environmental impacts. The project was further referred to Scott
County, the City of Shako pee, the PLSL Watershed District, and
SMDC. To this end, a review of potential issues has been conducted
and mitigative measures to reduce/eliminate the impacts have been
incorporated into the CUP approving resolution.
As stated in the Zoning Ordinance (1108.202), the Planning
Commission and staff have concluded the proposed excavation of sand
and gravel is (1.) Consistent with the goals and policies on the
Comprehensive Plan; (2.) Not detrimental to the health, safety, morals,
and general welfare ofthe community as a whole; (3.) Consistent with
the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance; (4.) Will not cause
undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, service, or
improvement, existing or proposed; (5.) Will not have adverse
impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties in close proximity.
The review and approval is site specific and sensitive to the petitioners
concerns.
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\99-075cl.doc
Page 10
The Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the
CUP request subject to the following conditions:
A. These conditions must be met prior to the recording of the
resolution:
-.'
1. A one for one replacement of trees removed, (42 caliper inches) is
to be completed as part of the reclamation and staging plan.
Landscaping plan must be revised to indicate this additional
replacement. Plantings are to be installed upon completion of
each phase.
2. Landscaping of 1 tree per 10 lineal feet of berm is to be installed
as per item 7 on Recapitulation of cUP Application submitted by
Ryan Contracting. A complete landscape plan is to be submitted
including these trees and the additional 10 perimeter trees as
shown on the proposed landscape plan. Plantings are to be
installed upon completion of each phase.
3. Driveway from the public street to the parking lot is to be
hardsurfaced (paved) and shown as such on the plans.
4. Screen parking area with additional plantings. This is to be shown
on a revised landscaping plan.
5. Revise storm water calculations per Engineering Memo dated
11/19/99.
6. Revise all plans to eliminate fuel storage area. Submit utility plans
indicating electrical line locations.
7. A monitoring well is required to be placed at the northwest corner
of the site with monthly testing for submittal to the City of Prior
Lake Engineering Department. The exact location, depth, and
specification are to be based on recommendations from a certified
independent consultant approved by the City. An initial analysis,
prepared by an independent certified laboratory acceptable to the
City, is be submitted prior to beginning work
8. An initial water quality analysis of the wetland is to be submitted
to the City as prepared by an independent laboratory approved by
the City.
9. 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:
. McKenna Road maintenance; and
. Paved driveway and parking area; and
. Landscaping costs (estimates must be submitted per
Ordinance); and
. Dust control; and
. Reclamation (final site restoration, grading),. and
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\99-075c 1.doc
Page 11
."-TT'T
T
T
. Monitoring of the wet/and and ground water (monitoring
well); and
. Any other costs associated with this project including
attorney's fees per City Code Section 1109.902.
10. The applicant and property owners must enter into a developer's
agreement attached hereto. The Developers Agreement includes a
right of entry and indemnification. The required LOC is also
detailed within the agreement.
11. The applicant is responsible to pay the City for all related costs
per City Code Section 1109.902. These costs will include, but are
not limited to, fees incurred by the City for the preparation and
recording of the developer's agreement, inspection costs,
attorney's fees, and hiring of consultants.
12. An Assent Form, as required by ordinance, is to be signed by the
applicant and all property owners.
-~'
B. These conditions must be met prior to beginning work:
1. Proposed traffic signs require approval from the City Engineer
and must meet MN Uniform Traffic Control Devices standards.
Signs must be installed prior to beginning work. In addition to
those proposed, "Trucks Hauling" signs must be placed on
McKenna Road south to CSAH 42.
2. Prior to beginning work, the required PCA permits must be
obtained, and copies provided to the City.
3. The required Watershed permits must be obtained, and copies
provided to the City prior to beginning work.
4. A secured gate or fence is to be installed prior to beginning work.
5. Driveway from the public street to the parking lot is to be
hardsurfaced (paved) and installed prior to beginning work.
6. Parking area and parking lot screening is to be completed by July
1,2000.
7. The resolution approving the CUP is to be recorded on all affected
properties and proof of such recording presented to the Planning
Department.
C. These conditions are ongoing and must be met at all times:
1. No lighting permitted on site.
2. The project is limited to 12.91 acres as indicated in Exhibit A. 40
Cumulative acres of mining requires an EA W per statute.
3. The project approval is for the extraction and screening of sand
and gravel. There is to be no crushing or other mineral processing
conducted on site.
4. The installation of a water supply well on site is prohibited. Any
water needed on site is to be deliveredfrom off-site sources.
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-07S\99-075c1.doc Page 12
-c'
5. Monthly water testing from the required monitoring well is to be
submitted to the City of Prior Lake Engineering Department by the
last business day of each month. Any detrimental change in
groundwater quality will cease mining operations. The initial
water analysis will serve as the base line for monthly monitoring.
Ryan will be responsible for locating the source of any
contamination and corrective action.
6. Per Scott County, the clean-up of gravel as a result of spills or
general transportation of gravel on CSAH 42 shall be the
responsibility of Ryan Contracting.
7. 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 Shako pee.
8. Separate sign permits are required for commercial signage.
9. Project Plan Book (application with revisions dated November 19,
1999) submitted by Ryan Contracting is an Exhibit (A) to the CUP
for approval.
_ 10. Hours of operation are 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Friday
(weekdays) and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturdays. The
operation is not allowed to operate on Sundays.
11. Annual water quality testing of the wetland is to be submitted to
the City as part of the annual renewal of the CUP. An initial
analysis is to be submitted to the City as prepared by an
independent laboratory approved by the City. The current water
quality of the wet/and is to be maintained. A list of petroleum
products and detergents used on site is to be provided to the City.
12. Water usefor dust control of greater than 10,000 gallons per day
or 1 million gallons per year requires a DNR permit. The
operation of the pit cannot result in the drainage or other
degradation o/the DNR protected wetland.
13. Watering for dust control will be done within 24 hours written
notice from the City Engineer on an as needed basis. Such notice
shall be by facsimile to (612) 894-3207 Ryan Contracting. Dust
control includes the entire project area and is not limited to
roadways.
14. No on site fuel storage is permitted.
15. The CUP is valid for one year. At the expiration of its one (1) year
term, the property owner may make application to the City to
renew this CUP. The initial approval of this CUP does not create
any right, in law or equity, to the renewal thereof Any renewal of
the CUP is subject to City Council approval and is to include a
staging plan to date, reclamation to date, along with road quality,
wetland quality, air quality reports submitted by qualified
professionals and any other such information as requested by City
staff or the City Council that would aid the City Council in
determining whether the excavation activities conducted pursuant
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\99-075c 1.doc
Page 13
._.-~-T
T
. r .-_. .-.-
FISCAL IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
-.'
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
to this CUP created any adverse impacts to the health, safety or
welfare of the City or its residents.
Budget Impact: The CUP will have no fiscal impact on the City as a
security for any costs to the City will be held. The applicant will be
responsible for bearing the costs of complying with the conditions.
The City Council has two alternatives:
1. Adopt Resolution #oo-xx denying the petition for EA Wand adopt
Resolution #OO-XX approving the Conditional Use Permit for Ryan
Contracting subject to the listed conditions.
2. Approve the petition for EA Wand require Ryan Contracting to
prepare an EA W. In this case the City Council must direct staff to
prepare a resolution with specific findings of fact for requiring an
EAW.
Staff recommends alternative #1.
1. A motion and second to approve Resolution OO-XX denying the
petition for EA W
2. A motion and sec d to approve Resolution OO-XX approving the
onditi na se rmit, subject to the listed conditions.
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\99-075c 1.doc
Page 14
The Project Plan Book (CUP application) submitted by Ryan Contracting was previously
distributed to the City Council, and is now referenced as Exhibit A in the resolution. If another
copy is needed, please contact City staff.
The City Council also received several excerpts from the Guide to Environmental Assessment
Worksheets and the Minnesota Rules mentioned in this report with the Weekly Update dated
January 28,2000. If another copy is needed, please contact City staff.
The attachments included with this report are:.
1. 1/18/00- Letter from EQB with petition for EA W and supporting materials.
2. 1/18/00- Letter from Ryan Contracting to EQB rebutting EA W petition.
3. 1/18/00- Letter from Ryan Contracting to City regarding project and EA W.
4. 1/18/00- Internal memorandum from DNR regarding EA W petition.
5. 1/18/00- Letter from City of Shako pee regarding McKenna Road.
6. 1/24/0&: Letter from Scott County regarding EA W petition.
7. 1/27/00- Letter from Ryan Contracting regarding additional information requested.
8. 1/28/00- Memorandum from Engineering Dept. regarding Savage Fen and Watershed Map.
9. Boiling Springs Watershed Map.
10. 1/28/00- Letter to Ryan Contracting from SMSC regarding EA W correspondence.
11. Noise Levels Tab 20, as stated in Exhibit A, Ryan's Project Plan Book (CUP application).
12. Roadway capacities and Definition of Collector Streets as listed in the Comprehensive Plan
Appendix pages B-4 and B-5.
13. 1/18/00-City Council staff report-additional information requested from workshop.
14. 12/6/99- City Council staff report-completed CUP review, including minutes of 11/8/99
Planning Commission public hearing.
15. 10/12/99- Initial comments from the DNR.
16. 10/7/99- Initial comments from SMSC.
17. 10/6/99- Initial comments from Scott County.
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\99-075c 1.doc
Page 15
.....n.r
T
RESOLUTION OO-XX
DENYING A PETITION TO REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WORKSHEET BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR RYAN CONTRACTING TO ALLOW THE EXCAVATION OF SAND
AND GRAVEL ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 22, T 115, R22 FOR RYAN CONTRACTING
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
-.-
WHEREAS, On January 19, 2000 a petition for EA W was received by the City of Prior
Lake to require an EA W be completed prior to approval of a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) for Ryan Contracting; and
WHEREAS, Staff reviewed Minnesota Statutes, EQB guidelines and the petition dated
January 14,2000; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota rules 4410.1100 set forth criteria for evaluating petitions to
require an EA W; and
WHEREAS, Staff evaluated the petition based on criteria set forth in the rules; and
WHEREAS, Staff prepared a detailed analysis in response to concerns raised in the
petition; and
WHEREAS, The City Council has 30 days to make a decision on the petition; and
WHEREAS, The rules require only that the RGU consider all known evidence, compare
that evidence to the standard "there may be potential for significant
environmental effects, " and document the findings and decision in writing;
and
WHEREAS, On February 7, 2000, the City Council reviewed all pertinent information
including the petition, rebuttal from Ryan Contracting, and staff review
regarding the petition.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
that it hereby denies the request by petition to require an EA W prior to approving the
Conditional Use Permit for Ryan Contracting to allow the excavation of sand and gravel on
property located in the SE quarter of Section 22, T 115, R 22 with the following findings:
...J:\99files\9l)cUD\99-01~ea\W"esoo.dQc M' 53 . e~u 1
16200 t.agre CreeK i'\ve. ~.t:.., YnOn.:aKe, mnesota 5 72-1714 1 Ph. (612) 447-4230 1 Fax (61~rz!47-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
I I
-r---.------r.....-----.--.... ..-....
FINDINGS
1. A thorough review of the facts indicates all potential environmental impacts (as listed
in the EA W handbook) have been reviewed.
2. The City Council and staff have considered all known evidence, compared that
evidence to the standard "there may be potential for significant environmental effects".
3. The petition requesting an EA W be completed failed to present any factual
information, as required by Minnesota Statute 4400.1100, relating to potential
environmental impacts.
4. In addition to criteria in Minnesota rules for evaluating an EA W, the City evaluated
the proposed CUP against criteria in the Zoning Ordinance 1108.202.
5. The'- use is consistent with and supportive of the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
6. The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the
community as a whole.
7. Measures to mitigate potential environmental impacts have been incorporated into the
CUP approving the project.
8. The use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and the Use
District in which the Conditional Use is located.
9. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services, or
improvements which are either existing or proposed.
10. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties in
close proximity to the conditional use.
11. The use is compatible with the general welfare, public safety and neighborhood
character,
12. The CUP, if approved, contains sufficient measures and protectors to mitigate against
potential environmental impacts and further contains measures to assure compliance
with the proposed project.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby finds a request to require an
EA W be conducted in association with the approval of a CUP for Ryan Contracting to allow the
excavation of sand and gravel is hereby denied. The contents of Planning Case File #99-075 are
hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this
case. Staff is hereby directed to prepare notices of this decision and deliver within five (5)
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\eawresoO.doc
Page 2
working days to the petitioner's representative and the EQB. Any aggrieved party may appeal
the decision in district court within 30 days of the date the this resolution is adopted.
Passed and adopted this ih day of February 2000.
YES
NO
Mader
Ericson
Gundlach
Petersen
Schenck
Mader
Ericson
Gundlach
Petersen
Schenck
-.-
{Seal}
City Manager,
City of Prior Lake
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-07S\eawresoO.doc
Page 3
I I
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
RESOLUTION oo-xx
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW EXCAVATION OF SAND
AND GRAVEL ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 22, T 115, R22 FOR RYAN CONTRACTING
MOTION BY:
-.'
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
SECOND BY:
the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
November 8, 1999, to consider an application from Ryan Contracting for a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow excavation of sand and gravel and the
City Council heard the case on December 6, 1999; and
On December 6, 1999, the City Council continued the public hearing to
January 18, 2000 to allow time for a workshop on the request to be held and
said workshop was held on January 3, 2000; and
On January 18, 2000 , the City Council heard the request and continued final
action pending a petition for EAW; and
On February 7, 2000, the City Council determined an EA W is not necessary
and a decision on the CUP can be made; and
Notice of the public hearing on said CUP has been duly published In
accordance with the applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and
the Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this
issue and persons interested were afforded the opportunity to present their
views and objections related to the CUP for Ryan Contracting; and
the Planning Commission and City Council find the CUP for Excavation of
Sand and Gravel located in the SE Quarter of Section 22, T115, R22 for Ryan
Contracting in harmony with existing development in the area surrounding
the project; and
the Planning Commission and City. Council find the proposed CUP is
compatible with the stated purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as
they relate to conditionally permitted uses, and further, that the proposed
CUP meets the criteria for approval of CUP as contained in Section 1108 and
Section 1101.509 (2) Excavation of the Zoning Ordinance.
..J :\99files\99.cuD\99-OJ51reSoQODxx.doc . e.~g~J
16200 cagre creeR Ave. ~.1:.~, t'nor CaKe, Mmnesota 55372-1714 1 Ph. (612) 447-4230 1 Fax (61~) q 7-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
that it hereby adopts the following findings:
FINDINGS
1. The use is consistent with and supportive of the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the
community as a whole.
3. The use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and the Use
District in which the Conditional Use is located.
-.'
4. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services, or
improvements which are either existing or proposed.
5. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties in
close proximity to the conditional use.
6. The use is compatible with the general welfare, public safety and neighborhood
character.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
approves the CUP for Ryan Contracting on the property legally described as follows:
The Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 22, Township 115, Range 22, except
the West Half of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, Scott County, Minnesota; and
The West 990.00 feet (as measured at right angles) of the northeast quarter of the Southeast
Quarter of Section 22, Township 115, Range 22 EXCEPTING therefrom the following: The
south 622.29 feet of the West 700.00 feet (as measured at right angles to the south and west
lines) of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter. Containing 20 acres more or less.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, approval of the CUPis subject to the following:
A. These conditions must be met prior to the recording of the resolution:
1. A one for one replacement of trees removed, (42 caliper inches) is to be completed as
part of the reclamation and staging plan. Landscaping plan must be revised to indicate
this additional replacement. Plantings are to be installed upon completion of each
phase.
2. Landscaping of 1 tree per 10 lineal feet of berm is to be installed as per item 7 on
Recapitulation of cUP Application submitted by Ryan Contracting. A complete
landscape plan is to be submitted including these trees and the additional 10 perimeter
trees as shown on the proposed landscape plan. Plantings are to be installed upon
completion of each phase.
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\resoOOxx.doc Page 2
I I --,------."..-I---."---.~-------._------
3. Driveway from the public street to the parking lot is to be hardsurfaced (paved) and
shown as such on the plans.
4. Screen parking area with additional plantings. This is to be shown on a revised
landscaping plan.
5. Revise storm water calculations per Engineering Memo dated 11/19/99.
6. Revise all plans to eliminate fuel storage area. Submit utility plans indicating electrical
line locations.
7. A monitoring well is required to be placed at the northwest corner of the site with
monthly testing for submittal to the City of Prior Lake Engineering Department. The
exact location, depth. and specification are to be based on recommendations from a
certified independent consultant approved by the City. An initial analysis, prepared by
an independent certified laboratory acceptable to the City, is be submitted prior to
beginning work
8. An initial water quality analysis of the wetland is to be submitted to the City as prepared
by an independent laboratory approved by the City.
9. --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:
. McKenna Road maintenance; and
. Paved driveway and parking area; and
. Landscaping costs (estimates must be submitted per Ordinance); and
. Dust control; and
. Reclamation (final site restoration, grading); and
. Monitoring of the wetland and ground water (monitoring well); and
. Any other costs associated with this project including attorney's fees per City
Code Section 1109.902.
10. The applicant and property owners must enter into a developers agreement attached
hereto. The Developers Agreement includes a right of entry and indemnification. The
required LOC is also detailed within the agreement.
11. The applicant is responsible to pay the City for all related costs per City Code Section
1109.902. These costs will include, but are not limited to, fees incurred by the City for
the preparation and recording of the developer's agreement, inspection costs, attorney's
fees, and hiring of consultants.
12. An Assent Form. as required by ordinance, is to be signed by the applicant and all
property owners.
B. These conditions must be met prior to beginning work:
1. Proposed traffic signs require approval from the City Engineer and must meet MN
Uniform Traffic Control Devices standards. Signs must be installed prior to beginning
work. In addition to those proposed, "Trucks Hauling" signs must be placed on
McKenna Road south to CSAH 42.
2. Prior to beginning work, the required PCA permits must be obtained, and copies
provided to the City.
3. The required Watershed permits must be obtained, and copies provided to the City prior
to beginning work.
4. A secured gate or fence is to be installed prior to beginning work.
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\resoOOxx.doc
Page 3
~o.
5.
Driveway from the public street to the parking lot is to be hardsuifaced (paved) and
installed prior to beginning work.
Parking area and parking lot screening is to be completed by July 1, 2000.
The resolution approving the CUP is to be recorded on all affected properties and proof
of such recording presented to the Planning Department.
6.
7.
c.
These conditions are ongoing and must be met at all times:
1.
2.
No lighting permitted on site.
The project is limited to 12.91 acres as indicated in Exhibit A. 40 Cumulative acres of
mining requires an EA W per statute.
The project approval is for the extraction and screening of sand and gravel. There is to
be no crushing or other mineral processing conducted on site.
The installation of a water supply well on site is prohibited. Any water needed on site is
to be delivered from off-site sources.
-Monthly water testing from the required monitoring well is to be submitted to the City of
Prior Lake Engineering Department by the last business day of each month. Any
detrimental change in groundwater quality will cease mining operations. The initial
water analysis will serve as the base line for monthly monitoring. Ryan will be
responsible for locating the source of any contamination and corrective action.
Per Scott County, the clean-up of gravel as a result of spills or general transportation of
gravel on CSAH 42 shall be the responsibility of Ryan Contracting.
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 Shako pee.
Separate sign permits are required for commercial signage.
Project Plan Book (application with revisions dated November 19, 1999) submitted by
Ryan Contracting is an Exhibit (A) to the CUP for approval.
Hours of operation are 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Friday (weekdays) and 8:00
a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturdays. The operation is not allowed to operate on Sundays.
Annual water quality testing of the wetland is to be submitted to the City as part of the
annual renewal of the CUP. An initial analysis is to be submitted to the City as
prepared by an independent laboratory approved by the City. The current water quality
of the wetland is to be maintained. A list of petroleum products and detergents used on
site is to be provided to the City.
Water usefor dust control of greater than 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons
per year requires a DNR permit. The operation of the pit cannot result in the drainage
or other degradation of the DNR protected wetland.
Watering for dust control will be done within 24 hours written notice from the City
Engineer on an as needed basis. Such notice shall be by facsimile to (612) 894-3207
Ryan Contracting. Dust control includes the entire project area and is not limited to
roadways.
No on site fuel storage is permitted.
The CUP is valid for one year. At the expiration of its one (1) year term, the property
owner may make application to the City to renew this CUP. The initial approval of this
CUP does not create any right, in law or equity, to the renewal thereof Any renewal of
the CUP is subject to City Council approval and is to include a staging plan to date,
reclamation to date, along with road quality, wetland quality, air quality reports
submitted by qualified professionals and any other such information as requested by City
staff or the City Council that would aid the City Council in determining whether the
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\resoOOxx.doc
Page 4
II
excavation activities conducted pursuant to this CUP created any adverse impacts to the
health, safety or welfare of the City or its residents.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby grants a Conditional Use
Permit for Ryan Contracting. The contents of Planning Case File #99-075 are hereby entered into
and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case.
Passed and adopted this ih day of February 2000.
YES
NO
Mader
Ericson
Gundlach
Petersen
Schenck
Mader
Ericson
Gundlach
Petersen
Schenck
{Seal}
City Manager,
City of Prior Lake
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\resoOOxx.doc
Page 5
-.'
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
RYAN CONTRACTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
, by and between the CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, a Minnesota
AGREEMENT dated
municipal corporation ("City"), and Ryan Contracting, Richard McKenna, and Joseph Kinney (the
"Developer ").
1. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL. The Developer has
asked the City to approve a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") for excavation on property legally
described on attached Exhibit A which is incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
2. CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL. The City hereby approves the CUP on condition
that the Developer enter into this Contract, furnish the security required by it, and record the CUP with
the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 60 days after the City Council approves the final CUP.
3. RIGHT TO PROCEED. The Developer may not proceed until all the following
conditions have been satisfied: 1) this Contract has been fully executed by all parties, 2) the necessary
g: \projects\ 1999\43ryan\dvcntrct.doc
02/02/00
1
II
--r--
---'T-..----.--.-.--.--~-_..--..-.
security and insurance have been received by the City, and 3) the City Engineer or Designee has issued a
letter that all conditions have been satisfied and that the Developer may proceed.
4. DEVELOPMENT PLANS. The CUP shall be operated and developed in accordance
with the conditions set out in the Resolution approving the CUP and plans submitted to the City as part
of its application including the following documents:
Plan A --
Final Grading and Erosion Control Plan(s). The soil erosion plan must
also be approved by the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District. Dated
November 12, 1999 (prepared by Gorman Surveying, Inc.)
-~-
Plan B --
Tree Preservation and Replacement Plans and Landscaping Plan Dated
November 12, 1998 (prepared by Gorman Surveying, Inc.)
Plan C --
Phasing Plan Dated November 12, 1999 (prepared by Gorman Surveying,
Inc.)
5. DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS. The Developer shall install and pay for the
following:
A. Monitoring Well
B. Parking Lot/Driveway
C. Landscaping
D. Ponding
E. Erosion Control
The work shall be done in accordance with any applicable City ordinances, all of which are incorporated
herein by reference. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District, and other agencies before proceeding with
construction. The Developer, its contractors and subcontractors, shall follow all instructions received
from the City's authorized personnel.
g: \projects\ 1999\43 ryan\dvcntrct. doc
02/02/00
2
6. DEVELOPER SERVICES. The Developer shall be responsible for providing all
services including, but not limited to:
A monitoring well is required to be placed at the northwest corner of the site with monthly
testing for submittal to the City of Prior Lake Engineering Department. The exact location,
depth, and specification are to be based on recommendations from a certified independent
consultant approved by the City. An initial analysis, prepared by an independent certified
laboratory acceptable to the City, is to be submitted prior to beginning work.
-.-
An initial water quality analysis of the wetland is to be submitted to the City as prepared by an
independent laboratory approved by the City.
Project Testing: The Developer is responsible through an independent certified testing company
to be approved by the City, at the Developer's cost, to provide to the City Engineer monthly
testing reports of samples taken from the monitoring well. The City Engineer may require
additional testing if in his opinion adequate testing is not being performed. The cost of the
testing is to be paid by the Developer.
7. MCKENNA ROAD RESTORATION. The Developer shall make repairs to McKenna
Road as deemed necessary by the City Engineer after an onsite review of the roadway condition by the
Developer and City staff. The Developer shall make repairs within 14 days written notice from the City
Engineer. The cost of repairs are to be the sole responsibility of the Developer. If the Developer fails to
make the repairs as requested, the City shall draw on the Security to complete the work.
8. TIME OF PERFORMANCE. The Developer shall install all required improvements by
, 20_, The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the
g: \projects\ 1999\43 ryan\dvcntrct. doc
02/02/00
3
II
--r----.--.----.--.-..-....-..-----
City. If an extension is granted, it shall be in writing and conditioned upon updating the security posted
by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date.
9. LICENSE. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and
contractors a non-revocable license to enter the property to perform all work and inspections deemed
appropriate by the City in conjunction with the CUP development.
10. EROSION AND DUST CONTROL Prior to initiating site grading, the erosion control
plan, Plan A, shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the City. The City
-.'
may impose additional erosion control requirements if, in the City Engineer's opinion they are necessary
to meet erosion control objectives at no cost to the City. The parties recognize that time is of the essence
in controlling erosion. In addition, the Developer must apply water for dust control on the site on an as-
needed basis and within 24 hours notice from the City Engineer.If the Developer does not comply with
the erosion control or dust control plans or supplementary instructions received from the City, the City
may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion and/or dust. The City will endeavor to
notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect
the Developer's and City's rights or obligations hereunder. If the Developer does not reimburse the City
for any cost the City incurred for such work within ten (10) days, the City may draw down the letter of
credit to pay any costs.
11. CLEAN UP. The Developer shall daily clean dirt and debris from streets that have
resulted from work by the Developer or its agents. Prior to any work in the CUP development, the
Developer shall identify in writing a responsible party for erosion control, street cleaning, and street
sweeping.
g: \projects\ 1999\43ryan\dvcntrct.doc
02/02/00
4
12. GRADING PLAN. The CUP shall be graded in accordance with the approved grading,
development and erosion control planes), Plan A. All areas disturbed by the excavation shall be spread
with four inches (4") of topsoil and seeded forthwith after the completion of the work. All seeded areas
shall be mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. If the Developer does not comply
with the reclamation plan and schedule or supplementary instructions received from the City, the City
may take such action as it deems appropriate complete the work. The City will endeavor to notify tl.1e
Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the
-.'
Developer's and City's rights or obligations hereunder. Ifthe Developer does not reimburse the City for
any cost the City incurred for such work within ten (10) days, the City may draw down the letter of
credit to pay any costs.
Before the City releases the security, the Developer shall provide the City with an "as
built" grading plan and a certification by a registered land surveyor that the final site grading grading
conforms to Plan A. The "as built" plan shall include field verified elevations of the sedimentation pond.
13. LANDSCAPING. The Developer shall install landscaping in accordance with Plan B. If
this section is to be satisfied by existing trees, a tree protection security may also be required. Upon
satisfactory completion of the landscaping, the security shall be returned to the person who deposited the
funds with the City. If the required landscaping is not installed, the City is granted a license to enter
upon the property and install the landscaping using the security.
14. TREE PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT. Subject to approved Plan B, the
Developer shall provide a [mandai guarantee of $
based on an amount equal to 125 % of the
estimated cost to furnish and plant the replacement trees. The estimated cost shall be provided by the
Developer subject to approval by the City, and shall be at least as much as the reasonable amount
g: \projects\ 1999\43ryan\dvcntrct.doc
02/02/00
5
I I
-~
charged by nurseries for the furnishing and planting of replacement trees. The security shall be
maintained for a least one (1) year after the date the last replacement tree has been planted. At the end of
such year, the portion of the security equal to 125 % of the estimated cost of the replacement trees which
are alive and healthy may be released. Any portion of the security not entitled to be released shall be
maintained and shall secure the Developer's obligation to remove and replant replacement trees which
are not alive or are unhealthy, and to replant missing trees. Upon completion of the replanting of these
trees, the entire security may be released.
-,-
15. SECURITY. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Contract and construction of
all improvements, the Developer shall furnish the City with an Irrevocable Letter of Credit in an amount
equal to 125 % of the estimated Developer Improvement Costs. The Irrevocable Letter of Credit shall be
in the form attached hereto, from a bank ("Security") for $200,000.00. The security includes but is not
limited to the following items: McKenna Road restoration, monitoring well installation and testing,
parking lot and driveway construction, landscaping, dust control; erosion control, and site reclamation.
The bank shall be subject to the approval of the City Manager. The Security shall be for a term
ending December 31, 2001. Individual Security instruments may be for shorter terms provided they are
replaced at least sixty (60) days prior to their expiration. The City may draw down the Security, without
notice, for any violation of the terms of this Contract or if the Security is allowed to lapse prior to the
end of the required term. If the required work is not completed at least thirty (30) days prior to the
expiration of the Security, the City may also draw it down. If the Security is drawn down, the proceeds
shall be used to cure the default.
g: \projects\ 1999\43 ryan\dvcntrct. doc
02/02/00
6
16. WARRANTY. The warranty period for trees is one year. All trees shall be warranted to
be alive, of good quality, and disease free for twelve (12) months after planting. Any replacements shall
be warranted for twelve (12) months from the time of planting.
17. RELEASE OF SECURITY. The' Security shall not be released until the Developer
provides the City with evidence that all conditions of the cUP have been complied with and the
reclamation plan is complete.
18. CLAIMS.
-.-
A. City Authorized to Commence Interpleader Action. In the event that the City
receives claims from labor, materialmen, or others that work required by this Contract has been
performed, the sums due them have not been paid, and the laborers, materialmen, or others are seeking
payment from the City, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an Interpleader action
pursuant to Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the
Security in an amount up to 125 % of the claim(s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the Rule, and
upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any further
proceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that the Court
shall retain jurisdiction to determine attorneys I fees pursuant to this Contract.
B. Prompt Payment to Subcontractors Required. The Developer shall pay any
subcontractor within ten (10) days of the Developer's receipt of payment by the City for undisputed
services provided by the subcontractor. If the Developer fails within that time to pay the subcontractor
any undisputed amount for which the Developer has received payment by the City, the Developer shall
pay interest to the subcontractor on the unpaid amount at the rate of l1h percent (1.5%) per month or
any part of a month. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of $100 or
g: \projects\ 1999\43ryan\dvcntrct.doc
02/02/00
7
I I
more is $10. For an unpaid balance of less than $100, the Developer shall pay the actual interest penalty
due to the subcontractor. A subcontractor who prevails in a civil action to collect interest penalties from
the Developer shall be awarded its costs and disbursement, including attorney's fees. incurred in
bringing the action. (See Minn. Stat. ~471.425, Subd. 4a.)
19. SPECIAL PROVISIONS. The following special provisions shall apply to Plat
development:
A. Implementation of the conditions listed in the Resolution approving the CUP.
-~-
B. The provisions of Minn. Stat. ~462.358 are incorporated herein as if fully set
forth. If any of the provisions, criteria, performance standards or the like in this Development contract
or in any City Ordinance applicable to this Development Contract are more stringent than those set forth
in Minn. Stat. ~462.358, the more stringent provision, criteria, performance standard or the like shall
apply.
20. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COSTS.
A. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of
this Contract, including engineering and attorneys' fees.
B. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations
incurred under this Contract within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the
City may halt work under the CUP until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days
shall accrue interest at the rate of eighteen percent (18%) per year.
21. DEVELOPER'S BREACH OF CONDITIONS IN THE CUP. In the event the
Developer breaches any of the CUP conditions, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the
Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the
g: \projects\ 1999\43ryan\dvcntrct.doc
02/02/00
8
Developer, except in an emergency as determined by the City, is first given notice of the work in
default, not less than 48 hours in advance. This Contract is a license for the City to act, and it shall not
be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any
such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part against all
or any portion of the property subject to the CUP. The Developer hereby waives any and all procedural
or substantive objections to any special assessment levied to pay the cost to remedy a Developer default,
including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to
-.'
the Property.
22. INDEMNIFICATION. Developer shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its
Council, agents, employees, attorneys and representatives harmless against and in respect of any and all
claims, demands, actions, suits, proceedings, liens, losses, costs, expenses, obligations, liabilities,
damages, recoveries, and deficiencies, including interest, penalties, and attorneys' fees, that the City
incurs or suffers, which arise out of, result from or relate to this Development Contract or the City's
denial of a petition to the EQB requesting a discretionary EA W. The responsibility to indemnify and
hold the City harmless from claims arising out of or resulting from the actions or inactions of the City,
its Council, agents, employees, attorneys and representatives does not extend to any willful or intentional
misconduct on the part of any of these individuals.
23. MISCELLANEOUS.
A. The Developer represents to the City that the CUP complies with all county,
metropolitan, state, and federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: zoning ordinances,
and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the CUP does not comply, the City may, at its
g: \projects\ 1999\43ryan\dvcntrct.doc
02/02/00
9
I I
'-..'.-r...._._-~..._------_.._-_.,-_._---- T
option, refuse to allow construction or development work in the CUP until the Developer does comply.
Upon the City's demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance.
B. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Contract.
C. Breach of the terms of this Contract by the Developer shall be grounds for the
City to order all work on the CUP site to cease.
D. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of ~s
Contract is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
-.'
portion of this Contract.
E. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to
the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the
parties and approved by resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action
to enforce this Contract shall not be a waiver or release.
F. This Contract shall run with the land. The Developer, at his/her sole expense,
shall record this Contract against the title to the property within ten (10) days of the City Council's
approval of the Contract. The Developer shall provide the City with a recorded copy of the Contract.
G. Developer, at its sole cost and expense, shall take out and maintain or cause to be
taken out and maintained, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury,
including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of Developer's work or the work
of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury
and death shall be not less than $1,000,000 for one person and $2,000,000 for each occurrence; limits
for property damage shall be not less than $500,000 for each occurrence; or a combination single limit
policy of $1,000,000 or more. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the policy, and the
g: \projects\ 1999\43ryan\dvcntrct.doc
02/02/00
10
Developer shall file with the City a certificate evidencing said coverage has been obtained. The
certificate shall provide that the City must be given thirty (30) days advance written notice of the
cancellation of the insurance.
H. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in
addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to
City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy
herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as
--'
may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time
thereafter any other right, power or remedy.
I. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the prior written approval of
the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and effect even if the
Developer sells its interest in the property.
24. NOTICES. Required Notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either
hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified mail at
the following address: Ryan Contracting Company, 8700 13th Avenue East, Shakopee, MN 55379.
25. INTERPRETATION. This Development Contract shall be interpreted in accordance
with and governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. The words herein and hereof and words of
similar import, without reference to any particular section or subdivision, refer to this Contract as a
whole rather than to any particular section or subdivision hereof. Titles in this Contract are inserted for
convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in constructing or interpreting any of its
provisions.
26. JURISDICTION. This Contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota.
g: \projects\ 1999\43ryan\dvcntrct.doc
02/02/00
11
I I
r
-..- ------r ..-------...----.--- --.---- ----
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
(SEAL)
By:
Wesley M. Mader, Mayor
By:
Frank Boyles, City Manager
Reviewed for Form and Execution:
DEVELOPER:
By:
Suesan Lea.-Pace
City Attorney
By:
Its:
By:
Its:
By:
Its:
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF SCOTT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 20_,
by Wesley M. Mader, Mayor, and by Frank Boyles, City Manager, of the City of Prior Lake, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by
its City Council.
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF )
g:\projects\1999\43ryan\dvcntrct.doc 12
02/02/00
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
20_, by
day of
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
(612) 447-4230
-~-
g: \projects\ 1999\43ryan\dvcntrct.doc
02/02/00
13
I I
------r-.-.------
FEE OWNER CONSENT
TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
, fee owners of all or part of
the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Development Contract,
affIrm and consent to the provisions thereof and agree to be bound by the provisions as the same may
apply to that portion of the subject property owned by them.
Dated this _ day of
,19_
-~.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of
19_, by
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
Campbell, Knutson, P.A.
317 Eagandale OffIce Center
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
(612) 452-5000
SLP:kgm
g: \projects\ 1999\43ryan\dvcntrct.doc
02/02/00
14
MORTGAGEE CONSENT
TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
, which holds a mortgage on
the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Development Contract,
agrees that the Development Contract shall remain in full force and effect even if it forecloses on its
mortgage.
Dated this _ day of
,19_
-.-
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of
19_____, by
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
Campbell, Knutson, P.A.
317 Eagandale Office Center
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
(612) 452-5000
SLP:kgm
g: \projects\ 1999\43ryan\dvcntrct.doc
02/02/00
15
I I
CONTRACT PURCHASER CONSENT
TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
, which/who has a
contract purchaser's interest in all or part of the subject property, the development of which is governed
by the foregoing Development Contract, hereby affIrms and consents to the provisions thereof and
agrees to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the subject property in .
which there is a contract purchaser's interest.
Dated this _ day of
,19_
--'
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of
19_, by
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
Campbell, Knutson, P.A.
317 Eagandale Office Center
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
(612) 452-5000
SLP:kgm
g: \projects\ 1999\43ryan\dvcntrct.doc
02/02/00
16
EXHIBIT "A"
TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
Legal Description of Property Being Final Platted and Copy of Final Plat, Including Title Sheet:
-~.
g: \projects\ 1999\43ryan\dvcntrct.doc
02/02/00
17
II
-----y---..-..---..---r
EXHIBIT "B"
SAMPLE IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT
No.
Date:
TO: City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1715
Dear Sir or Madam:
We hereby issue, for the account of
Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $
sight on the undersigned bank.
(Name of Developer) and in your favor, our
, available to you by your draft drawn on
The draft must:
-c'
a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No.
19_, of (Name of Bank) "; .
, dated
b) Be signed by the Mayor or City Manager of the City of Prior Lake.
c) Be presented for payment at
November 30, 19_
(Address of Bank)
, on or before 4:00 p.m. on
This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless, at least
forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date (which shall be November 30 of each
year), the Bank delivers written notice to the Prior Lake City Manager that it intends to modify the
terms of, or cancel, this Letter of Credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage
prepaid, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal
date addressed as follows: Prior Lake City Manager, Prior Lake City Hall, 16200 Eagle Creek
Avenue, Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714, and is actually received by the City Manager at least
forty-five (45) days prior to the renewal date.
This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be
modified, amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement,
whether or not referred to herein.
This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one
draw may be made under this Letter of Credit.
This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs
and Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 400.
We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall
be duly honored upon presentation.
BY:
Its
g: \projects\ 1999\43ryan\dvcntrct. doc
02/02/00
18
EXHIBIT "c"
CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE
PROJECT:
CERTIFICATE HOLDER:
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714
INSURED:
ADDITIONAL INSURED:
City of Prior Lake
AGENT:
--'
WORKERS' COMPENSATION:
Policy No.
Effective Date:
Expiration Date:
Insurance Company:
COVERAGE - Workers' Compensation, Statutory.
GENERAL LIABILITY:
Policy No.
Effective Date:
Expiration Date:
Insurance Company:
( ) Claims Made
( ) Occurrence
LIMITS: [Minimum]
Bodily Injury and Death:
$500,000 for one person $1,000,000 for each occurrence
Property Damage:
$200,000 for each occurrence
-OR-
Combination Single Limit Policy $1,000,000 or more
COVERAGE PROVIDED:
g: \projects\ 1999\43ryan\dvcntrct.doc
02/02/00
19
II
--r-
-----r-.--.-.----...-- .--.--.-.-.-----.---
Operations of Contractor: YES
Operations of Sub-Contractor (Contingent): YES
Does Personal Injury Include Claims Related to Employment? YES
Completed Operations/Products: YES
Contractual Liability (Broad Form): YES
Governmental Immunity is Waived: YES
Property Damage Liability Includes:
Damage Due to Blasting YES
Damage Due to Collapse YES
Damage Due to Underground Facilities YES
Broad Form Property Damage YES
AUTOMOBilE LIABILITY:
Policy No.
-~'
Expiration Date:
Effective Date:
Insurance Company:
(X) Any Auto
LIMITS: [Minimum]
Bodily Injury:
$500,000 each person
$1,000,000 each occurrence
Property Damage:
$500,000 each occurrence
-OR-
Combined Single Limit Policy:
$1,000,000 each occurrence
ARE ANY DEDUCTIBlES APPLICABLE TO BODilY INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE ON ANY OF
THE ABOVE COVERAGES:
If so, list:
Amount: $
[Not to exceed $1,000.00]
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION
DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY Will MAil THIRTY (30) DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO
THE PARTIES TO WHOM THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED.
Dated at
On
BY:
Authorized Insurance Representative
g: \projects\ 1999\43ryan\dvcntrct.doc
02/02/00
20
A1TAC'.H~tNl ~ 1
MINNESOTA PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
Mil
JAN I 9 2000
January 18,2000
------< "
Jenni Tovar
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Southeast
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
RE: Ciih:ens petition for an EA W for Ryan Contracting Company gravel mine
Dear Ms Tovar:
The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has received a petition requesting that an EA W
be prepared on the project described in the petition, and has determined that the city of
Prior Lake is the appropriate governmental unit to decide the need for an EA W.
The requirements for environmental review, including the preparation of an EA W, can be
found in the Minnesota Rules, chapter 4410.
The procedures to be followed in making the EA W decision are set forth in part
4410.1100. Key points in the procedures include:
1. No final government approvals may be given to the project named in the petition,
nor may construction on the project be started until the need for an EA W has been
determined. Project construction includes any activities which directly affect the
environment, including preparation of land. If the decision is to prepare an EA W,
approval must be withheld until either a Negative Declaration is issued or an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is completed (see part 4410.3100, subpart 1, page
35.)
2. A first step in making the decision regarding the need for an EA W would be to
compare the project to the mandatory EA W, EIS and Exemption categories listed in parts
4410.4300,4410.4400, and 4410.4600, respectively. If the project should fall under any
of these categories, environmental review is automatically required or prohibited. If this
should be the case, proceed accordingly.
3. If preparation of an EA W is neither mandatory nor exempted, the City has the
option to prepare an EA W. The standard to be used to decide if an EA W should be done
is given in part 4410.1100, subp. 6. Note that this requires that a record of decision
including specific findings of fact be maintained.
I I
--r..
~
658 Cedar St.
St. Paul, MN 55155
Telephone:
612-296-3985
Facsimile:
612-296-3698
TTY:
800-627-3529
www.mnplan.
state.mn.us
4. You are allowed up to 30 working days (Saturdays, Sundays and holidays do not
count) for your decision if it will be made by a council, board, or other body which meets
only periodically, or 15 working days if it will be made by a single individual. You may
request an extra 15 days from EQB if the decision will be made by an individual.
5. You must notify, in writing, the proposer, the petitioners' representative and the
EQB of your decision within five working days. I would appreciate your sending a copy
of your record of decision on the petition along with notification of your decision for our
records. This is not required, however.
6. If for any reason you are unable to act on the petition at this time (e.g., no
application has yet been filed or the application has been withdrawn), the petition will
remain ig effect for a period of one year, and must be acted upon prior to any final
decision-concerning the project identified in the petition.
Notice of the petition and its assignment to your unit of government will be published in
the EQB Monitor on January 24,2000.
If you have any questions or need any assistance, please do not hesitate to call. The
phone number is (651) 296-8253, or you may dial my direct number at (651) 296-3865.
Sincerely,
~~
J on Larsen
Principal Plariner, Environmental Review
cc: Gregory Fontaine, petitioners' representative
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
MINNEhPOLIS
PILLSBURY CENTER SOUTH
BILLINGS
SEATTLE
220 SOUTH SIXTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-1498
TELEPHONE: (612) 340-2600
FAX: (612) 340-2868
GREGORY A. FONTAINE
(612) 340-8729
FAX (612) 340-2807
fontaine.greg@dorseylaw.com
GREAT FALLS
NEW YORK
MISSOULA
DENVER
BRUSSELS
WASHINGTON, D.C.
FARGO
DES MOINES
HONG KONG
ANCHORAGE
ROCHESTER
LONDON
SALT LAKE CITY
COSTA MESA
VANCOUVER
January 14, 2000
VIA MES'SENGER
Mr. Gregg Downing
Environmental Quality Board
Environmental Review
300 Centennial Office Building
658 Cedar Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155
RE: Petition for EAW
Dear Mr. Downing,
Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 4410.1100, the petitioners identified in the
attached materials request that an EA W be performed for the proposed Ryan Contracting
Company sand and gravel mining operation in Prior Lake. The City of Prior Lake is
scheduled to consider Ryan Contracting's conditional use permit application on Tuesday,
January 18, 2000. Accordingly, it would appear that Prior Lake is the RGU under
Minnesota Rules, chapter 4410.
Enclosed for filing on behalf of the petitioners, please find the following
documents:
1.
Petition for an EA W.
2.
Memorandum (and attachments) in support of the Petition.
I I
----.---r-----.-.---.~-----..----.--'--------...-------..- T
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
Petition for EA W
January 14, 2000
Page 2
Please contact me at 612-340-8729 if you have any questions regarding this
submittal. Thank you in advance for your prompt review and processing of the enclosed.
.~-
.~-
JSD
Enclosures
cc: Ryan Contracting Co. (w/enc.)
City of Prior Lake (w/enc.)
"
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
SEATTLE
PILLSBURY CENTER SOUTH
220 SOUTH SIXTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-1498
TELEPHONE: (612) 340-2600
FAX: (612) 340-2868
BILLINGS
MINNEAPOLIS
NEW YORK
GREAT FALLS
MISSOULA
DENVER
BRUSSELS
WASHINGTON, D.C.
FARGO
DES MOINES HONG KONG
ANCHORAGE ROCHESTER
LONDON SALT LAKE CITY
COSTA MESA VANCOUVER
TO: City of Prior Lake
--<..
FROM: Gregory A. Fontaine, Dorsey & Whitney LLP
DATE: January 14,2000
RE: Ryan Contracting Mine Proposal
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
This memorandum is submitted on behalf of the petitioners identified in Exhibit All in
support of (1) the attached petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet ("EA W"),
pursuant to Minn. Rule pt. 4410.1100, subpt. 2, in connection with the proposed sand and gravel
mining operation of Ryan Contracting Company ("Ryan Contracting") in the City of Prior Lake,
and (2) petitioners' request that the City require an EA Wand deny the pending application for a
conditional use permit ("CUP"). This petition should be granted because of the significant
potential adverse environmental effects associated with the proposed project, and because Ryan
Contracting may to be impermissibly attempting to avoid environmental review by improperly
segmenting its proposed project in order to fall below the 40-acre threshold for a mandatory
EAW.
The potential significant adverse effects from the project include, among others:
(i) impermissible impacts to Boiling Springs and the Savage Fen,
11 Exhibit A identifying the petitioners and this memorandum and its attachments
in support of the petitioners' requests are attached to and incorporated into the Petition
forEAW.
" r
1'-.'.'.---"----.'.--'...-.
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
January 14,2000
Page 2
(ii) interference with, and possible contamination of, the drinking water resources of
the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (the "Community"),
(iii) creation of unacceptable safety hazards and congestion on Scott County Road 42
and McKenna Road, and
-~:....
(iv) other environmental impacts on surrounding communities.
Under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act ("MEPA"), Minn. Stat. ch. 116D, and the
applicable rules of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board ("MEQB"), when, as here, there
is material evidence indicating that a proposed project "may" create the "potential for significant
environmental effects," the EAW petition must be granted. Minn. Rules pt. 4410.1100, subpts.
2, 6. This material evidence requiring completion of an EA W is outlined in more detail below.
Not only is there sufficient material evidence to require granting of the petition, it appears
that an EA W in fact is mandatory in this case even if this petition were not before the City
Council. Under the MEQB rules, an EA W is mandatory for all gravel mining operations that
will excavate 40 or more acres of land. Minn. Rule pt. 4410.4300, subpt. 12(B). Although Ryan
Contracting claims that its mining operation will encompass only approximately 13 acres, the
parcel in question in fact covers 50 acres and Ryan Contracting has provided no evidence
establishing that the area available to mine is limited to 13 acres or that Ryan Contracting intends
to restrict its operations to this single 13-acre phase. If it is reasonably likely that Ryan
Contracting may expand its operations at any time in the foreseeable future beyond the 13-acre
first phase in order to conduct excavation on, in total, 40 acres or more of the 50-acre site, then
the entire site is subject to EAW review. Absent some binding commitment by Ryan Contracting
not to expand its operations, it would appear likely-given the size and conditions of the site, and
the nature of Ryan's operations-that the 40-acre threshold for a mandatory EA W will be
exceeded.
The Project
Ryan Contracting's application for a CUP for the operation of a mine to be located on
property owned by Richard McKenna and Joseph and Carolyn Kinney is presently pending
-2-
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
January 14,2000
Page 3
before the City of Prior Lake.Y As described in the revised CUP application, the purpose of Ryan
Contracting's project is to operate a sand and gravel strip mining operation within a 12.91 acre
pit within a larger 50-acre parcel located within the City of Prior Lake.
The proposed project site is located approximately 0.6 miles north of the uncontrolled
intersection of Scott County Road 42, an (A) minor arterial route, and McKenna Road, the
principal ac~ess road to the Community's north residential housing development which lies less
than a mile from the proposed project site. The project, as proposed, would include removing,
processing, stockpiling, and selling of the gravel and sand removed from the 50-acre site. The
proposed CUP developed by staff from the City of Prior Lake would allow Ryan Contracting to
extract annually from the site up to 1,000,000 gallons of groundwater without further review or
oversight by any governmental authority. Ryan Contracting anticipates that the mine would
operate for a minimum of ten years. According to the CUP application, topsoil would be
stripped from an excavation area encompassing approximately 12.91 acres and approximately
500,000 cubic yards of material would be mined.
The application for the CUP was submitted to the City of Prior Lake Planning
Commission (the "Planning Commission"), and it is set for review by the City Council later this
month. Prior Lake staff apparently has recommended issuance of the CUP without preparation
and review of an EA W.
Brief Description of the Potential Environmental Effects
The potential negative environmental effects of the proposed gravel mining operation are
extensive. However, there has been absolutely no investigation, inquiry, or study conducted to
determine the likelihood or extent of these effects. Hundreds of individuals will be directly
affected by the immediate consequences of such a mining operation located in a residential area,
and thousands could be indirectly affected by the wide-reaching impact of factors such as
significantly increased traffic congestion, heightened safety concerns, excessive noise, air, and
water pollution, and deleterious impacts on infrastructure in the surrounding areas. Moreover,
both drinking water sources and sensitive and unique environmental resources may be harmed by
the proposed mine.
Y
The legal description of the proposed location of the operation is the SE 1/4,
Section 22, Township 115, Range 22.
-3-
I I
T. ._.._._--.
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
January 14,2000
Page 4
Under MEP A, these potential significant impacts must be evaluated before the proposed
project may be allowed to proceed further. Minnesota courts have made it clear that MEP A
requires timely and adequate review of potential impacts before they occur and before permits
are issued. It is not enough for a governmental body to rely on ongoing monitoring and
administrative oversight as a substitute for an EA W or EIS, as applicable, when considering the
potential im'p,act of a proposed project on the environment. See Trout Unlimited, Inc. v.
Minnesota Dept. of Agriculture, 528 N.W. 2d 903,909 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995) (Commissioner of
Agriculture, in deciding that environmental impact statement was not required for a proposed
irrigation project, improperly relied on future permitting or monitoring efforts to control or
redress potential problems. The purpose of the environmental review process "is to determine
the potential for significant environmental effects before they occur [; by] deferring the issue to
later permitting and monitoring decisions, the Commissioner abandoned his duty to require an
EIS where there exists a 'potential for significant environmental effects.'" (original emphasis)).
Further, it is the governmental body's duty to require sufficient information to evaluate all
potential significant impacts; the responsible governmental unit may not ignore material issues
that have been raised and then contend that there is insufficient evidence of actual harm to
decline to conduct the environmental review required by the MEP A. Id. The burden lies with
the project proposer, and ultimately with the responsible governmental unit, to provide sufficient
information so that meaningful analysis of potential impacts can be completed before any permit
is issued. Only when this process is completed may the governmental body determine that no
further environmental review is necessary, that all required mitigation measures have been put in
place, and that a permit for a project may be issued.
In this matter, the issues outlined below have not been studied as required, and therefore
an EA W must be completed. Under Minn. Rule pt. 4410.1100, subpt.6, the City may not
proceed with considering the CUP application until the issues raised below have been evaluated
and the EA W petition has been acted upon in accordance with all of the applicable rules of the
MEQB. See MEQB, "Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules," at 7-8 (1998).
(responsible governmental unit may not issue final decision to grant approval of proposed project
while an EA W petition is pending).
1. Traffic
The proposed mining operation likely will have a severe negative effect on traffic patterns
and road infrastructure, as well as the safety and well-being of residents who reside in the
-4-
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
January 14, 2000
Page 5
immediate vicinity of the project site. The principal adverse impacts related to traffic are
outlined below.
Congestion and Disruption
Without doubt, the proposed mining operation will increase traffic levels and cause
congestion and disruption on both McKenna Road and County Road 42. This is a particular
concern given the lack of any signalization at the intersection of these two roads and the planned
improvements along County Road 42 which are scheduled to commence in 2001. Ryan
Contracting has provided no meaningful data to assist Prior Lake or other interested communities
and citizens in assessing the implications of these inevitable traffic impacts.
Given the complete absence of traffic information from Ryan Contracting, the
Community has.undertaken a preliminary traffic review that is outlined in the enclosed report
prepared by the Community's Land and Natural Resources Department. The report analyzes
anticipated traffic impacts under two likely roadway-utilization scenarios in connection with the
proposed mining operation. Both scenarios show that the truck trips associated with the mining
operation not only would have significant adverse effects on McKenna Road ~, traffic volume
increases ranging from approximately 17 to 50 percent), but also would cause material increases
in traffic ~, up to nearly 10 percent increase in passenger-car equivalents) and other
disruptions on County Road 42, especially taking into account the effect of large, heavily loaded
gravel trucks starting from standing stops and entering high-speed traffic at the uncontrolled
McKenna/42 intersection. Given the existing high volumes of traffic on County Road 42, and
its importance to business and residential users in Scott County, as well as the importance of
McKenna Road to local residents, these potential impacts at a minimum deserve careful
evaluation.
Neither Scott County, Prior Lake nor anyone else has studied these traffic impacts in a
systematic, scientific manner based on a thorough review of appropriate data. Alternative
possible scenarios besides those outlined in the Community's enclosed report may show even
more disruption from the proposed project. It would be highly imprudent to authorize the project
to proceed without requiring further review of these very basic traffic-impact considerations.
Safety
-5-
I I
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
January 14,2000
Page 6
Not only has Ryan Contracting failed to provide basic information on traffic volume and
congestion concerns, it has completely ignored issues related to highway safety. In the first
instance, McKenna Road, which would provide access to the gravel trucks entering and exiting
the project site, is the main access road for residents of the nearby Community's northern
housing development. Over 45 Community residents currently live in this development, and
more homes..are under construction. In addition, there are other, non-Community members
resident in tHe immediate vicinity of the proposed mine that have objected to the project.
Further, McKenna Road is the only route for local residents seeking access to County Roads 42
and 83. The combination of heavy local residential traffic and large, loaded gravel trucks on a
narrow, two-lane local road presents grave concerns from a safety standpoint.
In particular, as discussed in the enclosed report, sight lines along McKenna Road are
severely restricted due to the two sharp "S" curves and hills located in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed project. These sight restrictions are a particular major concern from a safety
standpoint because McKenna Road is the route that school buses use to transport children to and
from the residential areas immediately to the west of the proposed mine.
Furthermore, the movement of slow-moving, fully-loaded gravel trucks onto and off of
County Road 42 presents another safety issue. Traffic volume on County 42 is generally very
significant, and vehicles frequently travel at high speeds (the posted limit is 55-miles per hour) in
the vicinity of the McKenna Road intersection. This intersection is not signalized. The dangers
presented by this situation are obvious.
Despite these circumstances, there apparently has been no analysis of traffic-related safety
issues in connection with the Ryan Contracting project. This oversight should not be allowed to
continue. The necessary review should be completed, and appropriate safety and mitigation
measures should be adopted, before incidents occur, not after.
Infrastructure Impacts
Similarly, no information has been provided by Ryan Contracting with respect to the
likely impacts of its operations on the structural capacities of McKenna Road and County 42.
Ryan Contracting should be required to provide information adequate to analyze infrastructure
impacts and to the development of necessary mitigation and maintenance measures.
-6-
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
January 14,2000
Page 7
It has been conceded that gravel trucks traveling regularly along McKenna Road would
accelerate the deterioration of its surface, and create the need for continuous repairs and
resurfacing. Ryan Contracting in the CUP application claims that it will be responsible for
maintaining the condition of McKenna Road in "as good as it is now or better" while the gravel
pit is in operation. There is, however, no apparent analysis or data with respect to the actual
extent and timing of the anticipated damage that the mining operation will create; the
implications:'of such damage for users not associated with the project in terms of delay, safety
and other relevant considerations; 'J! the type, frequency and reliability of repairs that will be
necessitated; or Ryan Contracting's ability to carry out or fund such repairs. In addition,
McKenna Road continues from the City of Prior Lake into the City of Shakopee to the north of
the proposed mining site. There is nothing in the record to show that Ryan Contracting has made
any comparable arrangements with Shakopee to protect that northern segment of McKenna Road
and to repair any damage caused by the truck volume. It appears that the City of Shakopee may
not even have been notified ofthis project and its effect on that city's roads.
Moreover, Ryan Contracting has made no comparable commitment to repair damages
caused to County Road 42. Scott County, which will be responsible for all repairs and
resurfacing caused by gravel trucks, also apparently has received either no, or at best limited,
information regarding these infrastructure impacts. Indeed, it is possible that the County has not
seen the revised CUP application given that its review of the project apparently preceded this
latest version of the project proposal.
County 42 Improvements
County Road 42 is scheduled to be upgraded beginning later this year from the signaled
intersection at County Road 21 (east of McKenna Road) west to the intersection with County
Road 83. This section of the roadway, of course, includes the intersection at McKenna Road.
The increase in heavy truck traffic associated with the proposed mining project may interfere
with the County 42 upgrade as described in the enclosed report. In particular, when certain
portions of County 42 are closed during the construction of improvements, McKenna Road likely
will provide an alternative route to some destinations. This will substantially increase traffic on
"J!
Continuous repairs to McKenna Road no doubt will further complicate and
impede traffic to and from surrounding communities, as lanes of traffic are closed and
additional equipment brought in to make necessary repairs.
-7-
rn
. .-..---r-.-.--.....--..-.--r...----..--..--........--......--.-
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
January 14, 2000
Page 8
McKenna, and the existence of this increased traffic, combined with the heavy trucks from the
mining operation, will exacerbate all of the traffic and safety concerns outlined above. Once
again, however, there is nothing in the CUP application, staff report or draft CUP addressing
these concerns.
2. W a~sr Resources
-.'
The proposed mining project also has serious potential negative effects on water-related
resources near the project site. As with traffic, there is essentially no reliable information, study
or analysis provided by Ryan Contracting addressing these important environmental issues. An
EA W is needed to provide the data needed for Prior Lake to develop appropriate protections to
prevent these negative effects.
Drinking-Water Protection
The Community has a public water supply well located in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed mining operation. See site map attached hereto. The entire north water service area of
the Community depends on the quality of this water for its drinking-water supply. As explained
in the enclosed report, the proposed mining project falls directly within the drinking-water
protection area of the well upon which the Community depends, and there has been absolutely no
inquiry into the possible effects on drinking water of the mine, either in terms of possible
interference with the Community's well or potential contamination of the aquifer supplying the
Community's well.
The Community's initial comments on the proposed project, dated October 7, 1999,
explain the concerns about surface activities on the mine site which could result in migration of
contaminants to the groundwater resources on which the Community relies. As discussed below,
these concerns have not been addressed adequately either by Ryan Contracting or by the draft
CUP. Moreover, Ryan Contracting's CUP application explains that the proposed project will use
substantial quantities of water for dust control, processing and other purposes. Although the
CUP application suggests that Ryan Contracting intends to use water from sedimentation ponds
rather than a water-supply well, no commitment is made not to install such a well. ~
~ Further, the CUP application does not address possible de-watering associated
with the proposed operation. There simply is not enough information in the CUP
-8-
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
January 14,2000
Page 9
Rather, the draft CUP prepared by City staff would allow a well with a use capacity of up
to 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year without any further governmental
oversight of any kind. (The only proposed CUP restriction is that for any groundwater use over
those thresholds, a DNR permit would have to be obtained.) Groundwater usage at the levels
contemplated by the draft CUP has at very serious adverse environmental implications for the
Community's residential water supply that should be addressed by an EA W.
-.:.,..
More specifically, the public well upon which the Community depends for its domestic
water supply draws its water from the Jordan aquifer. The well is cased through the overlying
glacial material and grouted into the Prairie du Chien formation. It is open for the entire
thickness of the Jordan formation. The groundwater flow within these formations is from
southeast to northwest, or, in other words, from the proposed project site towards the
Community's supply well. If a well is installed by Ryan Contracting on or near the site of the
proposed mine, it will pose a distinct threat to the Community's water supply.
First, usage at this level could interfere with the ability of the Community's domestic
supply well to draw adequate water. As explained in the enclosed report, the Community has
legally-protected rights and priority preferences to this water under federal law . Ryan
Contracting may not interfere with the Community's rights, and Prior Lake may not authorize
such potential interference without evaluating this possibility. No study of this potential
interference has been provided.
Second, as discussed in the enclosed report and the Community's earlier comments to
Prior Lake, the proposed gravel mining operation presents a variety of risks of releases of
pollutants and contaminants associated with the operation to the environment. 21 Not only do
application to decipher whether or not de-watering is a potential concern.
21 For example, although Ryan Contracting states that there will be no fuel storage
on the project site, the CUP as drafted does not contain any such restriction. Equipment
and machinery containing large quantities of fuel will be parked and stored on location.
Any leakage from this machinery could have devastating effects on the groundwater.
Potential oil and gasoline leaks could negatively impact the underlying aquifer; even if
not directly introduced into the groundwater on-site, runoff from the site and seepage
could infiltrate south of the project, and seep into the aquifer. Additionally, "dust
control" may include capturing particulates in the air by spraying water and perhaps a
-9-
II
--r
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
January 14,2000
Page 10
these risks c~me from the equipment, trucks and fuels utilized on the site, the proposed
sedimentation ponds themselves are possible sources of such releases. The construction of any
wells for the potential mining uses outlined in the CUP application or the commencement of any
dewatering activities would present additional risks. Because there are no effective barriers to
migration of contaminants from the site to the Jordan aquifer in which the Community's water
supply well.is located, should there be any contamination from the proposed project site, the
quality of tne Community's drinking water supply will be imperiled. It is imperative that all
potential sources of pollution associated with proposed project be analyzed in depth so that
adequate mitigation and control measures may be developed and incorporated into any CUP
issued by Prior Lake.
Boiling Springs and the Savage Fen
The water usage contemplated by the draft CUP also may impermissibly iIIlpact either the
Boiling Springs, the unique water feature in Eagle Creek in Shakopee, and the Savage Fen, the
calcareous fen complex located in Scott County. As has been well documented by extensive
study in recent years led by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Savage
Fen and Boiling Springs are extremely important natural resources created by groundwater from
the Jordan and Prairie du Chien formations, and these resources are very sensitive to disturbance
from development activities. Because of the fragile nature of these resources, DNR has utilized
its statutory authority to establish a policy providing that no-net decrease of water levels at
Boiling Springs or the Savage Fen may be caused by proposed developments. ~ DNR enforces
this policy through use of a multiple layer analytical element model (generally known as
"MLAEM" or "Strock's model") to evaluate the potential impact of proposed development on
water levels at Boiling Springs and the Fen.
liquid dust control agent on roads and in the air surrounding the site. There has been no
study conducted to determine whether or not such activities related to the mining
operation may have a negative effect on groundwater, either through direct
contamination of the aquifer, or through indirect contamination due to runoff from the
site onto the property of the Community.
~I
Calcareous fens are protected by Minn. Stat. ~ 1030.223, which provides:
"Calcareous fens, as identified by the [DNR] commissioner, may not be filled, drained,
or otherwise degraded, wholly or partially, by any activity, unless the commissioner,
under an approved management plan, decides some alteration is necessary."
-10-
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
January 14, 2000
Page 11
The petitioners have been advised that DNR staff responsible for oversight of Boiling
Springs and the Fen have not been made aware of the proposed Ryan Contracting project. DNR
staff have expressed concern that a project at this location, if it were to utilize significant
amounts of groundwater, could cause impermissible water reductions at the Savage Fen, and,
even more likely because of its closer proximity to the proposed mine, Boiling Springs. The
water-use l~yels allowed by the draft CUP without further governmental review (up to 10,000
gallons per (fay and 1 million gallons per year) would almost certainly constitute such a
significant use as to violate DNR's no-net decrease standard under the Strock's model.
Unfortunately, neither the CUP application nor the City staff report provides the meaningful data
and analysis necessary to evaluate what actual impacts are likely to occur.lI
Although Ryan Contracting claims that it does not intend to drill any well on site, there is
nothing in the draft CUP language to prevent it from doing so. To the contrary, the draft CUP
allows the very substantial water use described above that could adversely affect the Fen and
Boiling Springs. Likewise, there is no reliable information in the CUP application addressing
possible dewatering or other water-consumption activities common in gravel mining operations.
These issues must be addressed before the City takes final action on the CUP application, so that
impermissible impacts to these invaluable environmental resources do not occur.
Wetlands
In addition to the Savage Fen, the CUP application makes reference to DNR wetland #70-
247W located on the proposed project site. The boundaries of this wetland are not identified in
the materials submitted by Ryan Contracting. Under Minn. Stat. ch. 103G, no filling, draining or
other action impacting this protected wetland may occur without prior governmental approval.
Because the precise boundaries of this wetland have not been delineated by Ryan Contracting,
there can be no assurances that the mining operation will not unlawfully damage this resource.
11 Minnesota courts also have recognized the Savage Fen as a unique wetland
requiring protection under the authority of federal law. See City of Savage v. Formanek,
459 N.W.2d 173, 174 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). The record is unclear as to whether or not
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service have been apprised
of the proposed mining operation.
-11-
I I
--,-_._--
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
January 14,2000
Page 12
Ryan Contracting's proposal to engage in annual testing is insufficient under existing law
because the full scope of the wetland must be located definitively before a permit is issued. The
usefulness of the future water quality testing proposed in the CUP is dependent upon having
baseline data on the wetland. This baseline data does not exist, and neither the CUP application
nor the draft permit address the need to gather data prior to mining. Once again, this absence of
relevant information must be remedied before the pending application moves forward, and the
EA W proce~s provides the requisite legal forum for the required review.
3. Impacts on Neighboring Communities
In addition to the above environmental issues on which there is no meaningful
information in the record, this project, if allowed to proceed, will have other significant negative
effects on neighboring residential communities. An EA W should be ordered to determine the
extent of these effects, and potentially identify options to eliminate or at least substantially
mitigate them.
Dust
There has been no assessment of the amount of dust a project such as this will generate.
Obviously, a substantial amount of airborne pollutants will be generated as evidenced by the
volume of water consumption that the City's draft CUP contemplates allowing Ryan Contracting.
The exact amount of water and the effectiveness of various dust-control options have not been
evaluated. Likewise, there has been no determination of the scope of the areas that will suffer
from this pollution. All phases of this operation will generate dust and other airborne
particulates, including the stripping of the land, mining of the materials, screening, and hauling.
There appears, nonetheless, to be no plan in place adequate to contain the dust and particulate
matter generated. The application for the CUP submitted by Ryan Contracting only covers
watering roads used to haul the material mined from the land. This is insufficient. In the
absence of more information, there simply is no way for Prior Lake to determine whether or not
the measures contemplated by the CUP application are sufficient to control airborne pollution.
Lh!hting
The mining project anticipates operating from 6 A.M. to 8 P.M. Monday through Friday,
and 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. on Saturdays on a seasonal basis. Depending on the time of year, artificial
lighting will be required to properly illuminate the site itself, surrounding areas, and hauling
-12-
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
January 14,2000
Page 13
roads to and from the project given these operating hours. Located only several hundred feet
from many homes, any such lighting will have a significant negative impact on the residents.
Once again, however, neither the CUP application nor the City staff report evaluate the extent of
lighting that will be used, the potential disturbance that may result, and any effective measures to
control this problem.
NoISe
Excessive noise also will adversely affect the area near the proposed operation. Noise
will be generated by mining equipment, screening processes, and hauling. Under the current
plan, the site will be operating up to 14 hours each day, six days per week. Further inquiry
should be made into the extent of the noise, and the steps that can be implemented to reduce the
noise as much as possible. Without such restrictions, the project noise will adversely affect the
value of adjacent properties and restrict the use and enjoyment of the properties by their owners,
all without the benefit of any meaningful study to determine whether effective and reasonable
mitigation measures are available.
Aesthetic Impacts and Restoration
The mining operation not only creates potentially significant adverse environmental
effects, it will be unsightly, both now and in the future, and will impair future development
compatible with surrounding properties. Under Ryan Contracting's current plan, the regular flow
of heavy machinery and truck traffic apparently will not be shielded by any effective berm or
vegetative barrier. Similarly, the absence of a detailed and comprehensive restoration plan for the
period after the mine closes virtually guarantees that the site will continue to present problems in
the future, particularly in the light of the significant potential environmental impacts outlined
above. The CUP application suggests that future restoration will be consistent with a return of
the land to agricultural uses. Given the rapidly expanding urban development along and near
County Road 42, this claim lacks any credibility. The apparent willingness of staff to accept this
claim at face value demonstrates the failure to take the required hard look at how this property
will be used in the future, and at what must be done while the mine is operating and at the time it
is closed to ensure that it is restored to a safe and usable condition that is not adversely impacting
other properties.
4. Summary
-13-
I I
-.-.----r--
..-----y--.---.-.--------------------------.
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
January 14,2000
Page 14
The discussion above clearly establishes that there is substantial and material evidence of
potential significant environmental impacts associated with this proposed project that have not
been evaluated. Under the EQB rules, the existence of this evidence requires that the petition for
an EA W be granted. Minn. Rules pt. 4410.1100, subpts. 2, 6 (EA W required upon showing that
the project "may have the potential for significant environmental effects") (emphasis added). It
is not sufficient to suggest that these matters can be explored later or addressed in some future
new permit or other form of governmental oversight when the potential impacts become clearer
when the mine begins operation. Minnesota courts have recognized that such a course of action
is untimely and violates the letter and spirit of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act.~ An
EA W will allow Prior Lake to conduct the type of thorough review that the MEP A requires
before a permit can be issued, and will allow the City to effectuate its responsibilities to those
persons who would be adversely affected by the proposed project if it were not properly reviewed
and regulated.
The Proposed Project May Require A Mandatory EA W As A Phased Action
Under the MEQB rules, an EA W is mandatory for all gravel mining operations that will
excavate 40 or more acres of land. Minn. Rules pt. 4410.4300, subpt. 12(B). These rules also
require that, in determining whether an EA W is necessary, all phases of a development must be
considered. Id. at pt. 4410.1000, subpt. 4. Phased actions are defined as: "two or more projects
by the same proposer that a [responsible governmental unit] determines will have [A]
environmental effects on the same geographic area; and [B] are substantially certain to be
undertaken sequentially over a limited period of time." Id. at pt. 4410.0200, subpt. 60.
In this instance, Ryan Contracting claims that its mining operation will encompass only
approximately 13 acres, but the parcel in question in fact covers 50 acres, and Ryan Contracting
has provided no evidence establishing that the area which can be mined is in fact limited to 13
acres or that Ryan Contracting intends to restrict its operation to a single 13-acre phase. In fact,
~ See Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. Minnesota Dept. of Agriculture, 528 NW 2d 903
(Minn. Ct. App. 1995) (Commissioner of Agriculture, in deciding that environmental
impact statement was not required for a proposed irrigation project, improperly relied on
future permitting or monitoring efforts to control or redress potential problems; the
purpose of environmental review under MEP A is to determine the potential for
significant environmental effects before they occur).
-14-
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
January 14,2000
Page 15
given the lO-year operating period that Ryan Contracting projects for the mine, the apparent
availability of usable material that could be removed from most or all of the 50-acre site, the
demand for sand and gravel, and Ryan's past operating history, it is reasonably likely that the
proposed 13-acre site is only the beginning of a larger operation.
Unless Ryan Contracting is able to provide persuasive and binding evidence that it will
not expand Irs operations to exceed the 40-acre threshold, a mandatory EA W for the entire site
should be ordered to ensure that all potential impacts of the possible phases throughout the 50-
acre site are examined. Absent such evidence, there is a likelihood that in the foreseeable future
there will be attempts to expand the scope of the mining operation, and it is reasonable to believe
the 40-acre threshold for a mandatory EA W will be exceeded. This provides further reason that
the City should require an EA W in connection with this operation to ensure a timely review of all
potentially affected property associated with the proposed project.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the petitioners respectfully request that the City of Prior
Lake grant their petition and require preparation of an EA W in accordance with Minn. Rule pt.
4410.1100. Petitioners further request that the City of Prior Lake deny the pending CUP
application.
k~~ - Q:
'A. Fontaine
-15-
I I
., j,~'
0,\ -..
. ~
PETITION FOR EA W
The undersigned hereby petition the City of Prior Lake, pursuant to Minnesota Rule,
part 4410.1100, to request that the City order the completion of an environmental
assessment worksheet ("EA W") for Ryan Contracting Co.'s proposed sand and gravel
mining operation ("Project") located within' the southeast quarter section of Section 22, T
115, R 22, located on McKenna Road. We request that the EA W be performed before the
City acts upon Ryan Contracting's conditional use permit ("CUP") application because the
Project poses the potential for significant adverse environmental effects, including, but not
limited to, (i) impermissible impacts to Boiling Springs and the Savage Fen, (ii)
interference with, and possible contamination of, the drinking water resources of the
Shakopee ~dewakanton Sioux Community (the" Community"), (iii) the creation of
unacceptable safety hazards and congestion on Scott County Road 42 and McKenna Road,
and (iv) other impacts as more fully set forth in the attached memorandum. Petitioners
further request that Ryan Contracting's CUP application, as currently pending before the
City of Prior Lake, be rejected.
PETITIONERS:
LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT PROPOSER:
PROJECT LOCATION:
The signatures of the individuals supporting this
petition are attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Gregory A. Fontaine
Dorsey & Whitney LLP
220 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Tel: (612)340-8729
Fax: (612)340-2807
Sand and gravel mining operation
Ryan Contracting Co.
8700 13th Avenue East
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
SE 1/4, Township 115, Range 22
(located on McKenna Road)
By copy of this document and the attachments hereto, Ryan Contracting Co. is
served notice of this petition.
, .
EXHIBIT A
Signatures in Support of a Petition for an EA W
Company Company
S~reet ~ ~72.6 M",S,'nL LIt.... CJIt. . JSt.reet i 0 b . fI!lu~ Wo-c>z:Q
CIty, State, ZlP?~(DR.. U~,vIJJ 5":7372.. CIty, State, ZIp Q"b~AAr{) P1N 5535
Name ::=>'"-rAN Le"{ -:R c ~S Name ..::Jo.s PH ~. ~ ~ AN .
L
Company
Street V-ft.t (Y\t..lk\-O~'" d...
City, State, Zip ~ke...lC..~p-((.. ,Ml'l 5"~31q
NameL-Lb'" ,.-ko~V51t.-
~ "-^- Y'>I\.--
Company
Street -~oJ PO(tl41\~ M-tw,,::::>
City, State, Zip fu(r\SJ\\\c J LAAJ 55337
Name An~r!.C{ Tr/:lt.ij
,...---
Company
Street t ~0{ sr vLA\ ~~
City, State, Zip ~ toAUL; t-1 N S3-P8
Name 5lJtANi\6 ~Ct
Company
Street .3 .11l.. ~::l ~ A lie S
City, State, Zip M"ls J'f1tJ S- .>-L/o 7
NameLtJ"S' s<!j;,"",'dr
~~ ..c
Company
Street fSb'5~\ F(e~^+ AUc. /").UJ.
City, State, Zip ~Aor lsLb! U'" StO '31'1..
Name K~ ~
Company
Street ~o '}.o WI~NG1""A 1\\1.1'1.
City, State, Zip B I P. J'f\N. 5.5 't). ~
Name Jos<.p"- wA(.,tatJ
l.Jatk-_
Company
Street a..l/l~ H-yaUrn-It Ave
City, State, Zip~ll'c.J tv\N zn04L{
Name~.Ivi~
I I
Company
Street lolf'ty M-Crl'\-to&h cd- _
City, State, ZipS~eeJI\AJ\J.
Name LCUU"j€/l(!;l> Mf'S'lJf)
Q.,~ ~ -q-n./
Company
Street/b.;tc/ - )11..A...: AI ,st. .5..
City, State, Zip ShltKopLt..-, fhN Sr~1c;
N e &.u:> / yn GZ-c..h €"N.
~
Company .
Street '31 ~ Pr I ~rc:s~ LJJ .
City, State, Zip~~. W'f\JJ S'5~nlJ
Name \fl~ e.ortu..lu-\.!..
DLCh, ~
Company
Street l?b\ ~~-,
City, St te, Zip ~~nSL ~ <DCSM<;.
Name Le.. C!.ro[,J~~
Compan
Street , (q 1 ~o w~Soll.. c...~
City, State, Zip Prh(" L.h, MN 5"511?-
Name Sc.o"'t-'r 0-\\ .... 'f
\\
Company
Street' )q9 t\A~ C -\- G;3tfS .
City, State, Ziprv'\.'i\r'\t~~) M..J
Name L,~~\"l~ \1 I" fJ
~ .\ ~Dc...
Company
Street ~Z.i Yl1I\.}\l;.(...o\.4~l gp
City, State, Zip <;#CJHofle:l-. l'v\~ s."""5b7cl
Name L/(J';)... J:kwch- (
~
I
I
----".----.-"---..--.".-- ,
. .
.,
EXHIBIT A
Signatures in Support of a Petition for an EA W
Company S If,4 jLof~E vA t<oTh c.t>/W,fIJ.
Street L/755 Uc IL.e w -." T:tr
City, State, Zip 5Ho(t~{)o'D IAN 5 S 3~'
Nam} _ M lC.ffA EL 'f t!JV
; lit' L?t~ vJ f\AM
Company Company G-LYhrr~ A. CROOKS
Street 4-841 e /Io'&--I ~v.c. S. S~eet <' !U'j""'. MYSTIC LAKE DI:rll'\!~
City, State, Zip 1'-' " ~~~ ll.lJv\ 0) II r-J srtrJ:J CIty, srafirft1.lbR LAKE, i\'1N 553'13
Name s-l ~'''-I ~II'S~ Nam~ ~ . Cc- / _
Company Company 'itA I..}
Street -";"/ /~~/ 2./oIJ ST IVtU Street J-A)S S' ,'tvv
City, State, Zip t!.coN tAP'{J5 M/II '5SL/J3 City, State, Zip sAokp.V. ~~ 55's '11
Name .::rJQ-~es G. w~v Name Nt,....... 1.1
~ ,~ rrLifi'
Company A
Street ~bq~O f:r.z.y)-(>V'lt lIU~ N.W
City, State, Zip fflor uJc.J VV\I\J ~37J
Name jl---{, ih I I
/N'~~ vv.
Company
Street Cl370 5,OL/k Iii? ,(JJ..u
City, State, Zip P L/o,e{,4-I!e:; III N5537
Nam{1j$r6~-6c/7l!~/
Company
Street /1(fl J.I()~ldN ~l(.. Sod ..-
City, State, Zip ft'dt- l.A-Jf!..J )A;J ":>5'172-
Name J~~ vJ l,WiJ
Company Company
Street "'ILL ?L>~ ~-t € Street I/J-.- Ut.i~~ tv.
City, State, Zip l:.-\l(O, t\'\N 55DX) City, State, Zip tJt.Lv ()ro.qu.,t MN. ~1,011
Name LOci, ~~ ~ \ Name ~ G-oeJZ..i
Company Company
Street.3 ~c{3 (Oc-'cc't'\ \\e.~jn"'\s -\r. s. \N. Street ~l/d)~ tJcuJz.. jUL UW #-IPCj
City, State, Zip?y" :0(" La.. vel f(\l\.5S 3'~ City, State, Zip Fao b<r-U/f, J-l,U .)S'"H
Nameq,to.NVi\ ~. Q~ Name ~ /1nChtWl
Company Company W: \..- . "'\.- Co ~,--
Street 4/t.1 (ouNTtJ10lew 0 (tl",t: Street SO\S A'o'\o\.\ A\I~. So. ..
City, State, Zip EAbAN / M tJ S:S I 2.3 City, State, Zit f'\~\S 1 MrJ :5"~ 4' D
Name \N lLU 1l.VV\ <'1. Ruot-1 \ cJ(:.\ Name \ .' l)' -{ _ ,~
W~""".~. vv. ~ -~
Company Company
Street;<S690 ev,~'t/ ~/'J Street ~9.~~~CJ..UeS
City, State, Zip ~c.V P~J/.(;.-I{E ~~I G"to? I City, State, Zip ,)'1\.A\... SSL)~
Name /t'c4el",efJ "a.~e/,,<s Name \.Jr\€ 1~V\.sov)
~ ~
-rr
L
EXHIBIT A
Signatures in Supoort of a Petition for an EA W
Company
Street;Z 501 w(;fM>~e~ i>R-
City, State, Zip ~~f44..-1 mJ -G"~~,g
Name J WH-t. L--c-
Company . . ~ /.
StreeV.o/'/7.J/O 7?1t1.rJ;, ,,(;IA~C d'ln 1V IV.
City, s~ate, . /}.?/;;J.. ~:!:i nN S 312
Name ~.7
~ A'7YcJ: C/(O/J r..r
Company ../L Company
Street L( 3 L/g' C ~ /}1Al J -tr~l Street /sd- c> ~ ..rl?~ ,uU)L!>.~ ~I_
City, State, Zip /11/&) PJ "7 S s 71:> 7 City, State, Zip <' ~ f',~.'J ; R.:~ t\ Ji
Name...J "'ltu. 13~tI\t1.C)U4..1'~ Name tJ,&}L"'~~ :~.J.~
'2Ye~ teJ~~ -
Company Company
Street -t;zt.fs SIt'l-~tf)~.fIw..& ~ ~:LI Street3,L/L\ wt'5+l"Ooc::>o!-llL..J 1..-1."
City, State, Zip 5htLIu )I,tI 5!J] 79 City, State, Zip She;,.\Ctlle-e' I ~ '3~-3t ~
Name 7)..e!o(JYa,. l. e-1-t!-rSol! Name 't;-e't'~ ~
CompanY"(Ofl.f -W-~ hLIJ rr 1~~ Company {
St.reet JLt 7.00 ~~~4:::..'yL.4, Street J..(,.~q fA€.~ t. In.-L
City, State, ZIp / City, State, Zip 'P...... \" r'" Iltl<e- ,,^-,'I>o.>>.. !"~""'j 7
N e _k< Name S-~ f~e.t.- (. )6 ve V
Company Company
Street \l{l-OD ~~Sd\G \Q\lc' S~reet ~?~ ~ ~~/JfL tJ k)
City, State, Zip ~V\"V UMlt... r-tw 5"'0 CIty, State, ZIp 1iuat2-(/4h.-c- ,_ ~N S. 5' 2-
NameCJA.AShj -~( .~. ame ~ ~0
Company Company JCI+"r roo Ie r
Street >2Jt!$Weq-(;r.4P'(,.icl.ll. Street ;)PI'lrJ ~k -I--r-S
City,State,ZipShakdpu/;/lltlJ5)17f City,State,Zip P,...,vY" I~CL. flI1AJ
Name . Nam ~ 1.d-
~J.. p.JC/~ ~.
Company Company
Street 3/'7"1 W. W{)t!>dlctt'.1 ~. Street ~:sqo Sic~~ _
City, State, Zip oS h A--t'"of-€e. /f1,..,. SS:sf City, St tl(, Zip\=, .....t-o.... Lt\lG'f ~v ~ of) 'l
Name JJ~~i S t:.-€....~ te..A-'-l rr Namel' ~C ~k:<:) . .
~~ i?~
Company
Street
City, State, Zip
Name
Company
Street
City, State, Zip
Name
]
I I
r .----...T......--......-......--.....-.-.......-...
.~
~
SHAKO PEE MDEW AKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
MEMORANDUM
LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
TO: Business Council
FROM: Stanley Ellison, Land and Natural Resources Manager
RE: Impacts Related to Proposed Gravel Mine
DATE: 4 January 2000
1. SUBJECT. A review of some of the impacts that may result from the gravel mine
proposed by Ryan Contracting near the North Residential and Brewer Subdivisions.
2. ATTACHMENTS. Map showing well location and proposed pit location.
3. EXPLANATION. The following information is a summary of some ofthe
potential impacts and other issues related to the proposed mining operation. Where
assumptions were made they are listed before the analysis.
TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
General Assumptions on Gravel Hauline.
. Total production reserve of 500,000 cubic yards
. A mine life often years
. Use of the pit on a project basis
. Two major projects a year requiring 25,000 cubic yards of material
. A project period of five days for each project
. A truck size of20 cubic yards
. A 14 hours working day (maximum from the CUP)
. Hauling five days a week
General Assumptions on Traffic.
. Total traffic volume is equal to or greater than in 1996
. Daily trip counts will increase over the next ten years
. Roadway quality will remain constant or improve
Hauline Scenarios.
SCENARIO 1, five day project life.
. A total of 5,000 yards per day mined, screened and hauled.
. A total of250 round trips a day (250 loaded trucks out, 250 empty trucks in for a
total of 500 trucks per day)
1
. Eighteen loaded trucks per hour
. A loaded truck every three minutes for 14 hours a day.
. A total of 36 trucks, loaded and unloaded per hour
· A truck, either loaded or unloaded, every one and one half minutes for 14 hours
each day.
SCENARIO 2, fifteen day project life.
. A total of 1667 yards per day mined, screened and hauled.
. A total of 83 round trips a day (83 loaded trucks out, 83 empty trucks in for a total
of 166 trucks per day)
. Six loaded trucks per hour
. A loaded truck every ten minutes for 14 hours a day.
. A total of 36 trucks, loaded and unloaded per hour
. -:A truck, either loaded or unloaded, every five minutes for 14 hours each day.
Roadway Data.
McKenna Road. A narrow, two lane five ton road with two 90 degree curves and a hill in
the vicinity of the truck entrance point. To the north the road is a 9 ton road two lane road
that was recently re-constructed. Sight lines are restricted due to the two curves and hills
located in the immediate areas ofthe planned entrance onto this roadway.
County 42. County 42 is a four lane rural section east of McKenna Road that was recently
reconstructed.. To the west it is a two lane rural section with degraded pavement. The
section of County 42 west of McKenna Road to County 83 is scheduled to be re-constructed
and upgraded to four lanes over the next two years. This scheduled upgrade will require
closing portions of County 42 during construction. This will have a material impact on
traffic patterns and may require gravel trucks to travel north on McKenna Road. This will
bring the heavy truck traffic directly past residential areas on a narrow city street.
Intersection. The intersection of County 42 and McKenna Road is controlled by a stop sign
on McKenna Road southbound. There is no semaphore or other automated signal device at
the intersection.
Historical Traffic Use Data.
Traffic counts for this area are included in the City of Shakopee Transportation Plan, April,
1998 completed by WSB & Associates, Inc. The traffic data is from 1995-96. The data is
reported in existing daily traffic trips.
. McKenna Road. A total of 500 daily trips on McKenna Road.
. CO 42 West of McKenna. A total of 10,500 daily trips.
. CO 42 east of McKenna and CO 21. A total ofl3,500 trips.
Traffic Analysis.
Two general aspects of traffic are analyzed: 1) impacts from additional traffic; and 2)
impacts for traffic type. Each of these general aspects will create safety, infrastructure and
nuisance impacts.
2
I I
.1----------"--.--------
Additional Traffic.
· McKenna Road. Under Scenario I, above, the impact will be a 50% increase in traffic
during the five operational days of the project. This is a very significant increase and
will certainly create congestion and delay. At that point the road will be well beyond its
designed capacity. Under scenario 2, the increase is 16.67%. This is also a significant
increase and it is likely to cause some congestion. The higher traffic flow could
increase the number of safety related incidents during the congested period. This level
of use by heavy truck traffic will have negative impacts on the condition of McKenna
Road. The dust, congestion and delays in traffic flow will impact the persons currently
using McKenna Road for access to their residence or as a commuting route. Restricted
sight lines pose a significant potential for accidents during high truck traffic periods.
See Traffic Type, below, for further analysis.
· County 42. The increased in traffic volume under scenarios one and two, respectively,
are 2.38% and .79%. While these increases are not likely to cause traffic congestion by
them'selves, the traffic type exacerbates any issues. Impacts related to truck traffic can
be converted to automobile equivalents. For rolling terrain such as that in the impacted
area, a loaded truck equals approximately 4 automobiles. This increases the impact
under Scenario. 1 to approximately 9.5% passenger car equivalents and Scenario 2 to
3.16% passenger car equivalents.
Traffic Type.
The type oftraffic introduced by the mining operation is distinctly different from the current
traffic type. Present use is primarily by single automobiles or light trucks for local traffic
and short distance commuting. The mining operation will introduce heavy truck traffic.
When loaded, these trucks accelerate slowly, have long stopping distances and are much
less maneuverable. When introduced into the existing traffic type they have an impact on
safety and traffic flow far beyond the simple addition of numbers. The fact that there is a
required turning movement at the McKenna Road/County 42 intersection exacerbates this
problem. Large, heavily loaded gravel trucks will be required to make a left or right turn
onto an arterial street with a speed limit of 55 Miles Per hour (MPH). This turning
movement will occur at an intersection with no traffic controls on County 42. There is an
non-quantified potential for increased traffic accidents related to this activity.
There will be significant traffic delays related to the mining operation. Loaded gravel
trucks will have to turn left onto County 42. These trucks accelerate slowly. They will
create congestion at the intersection requiring other traffic to wait for extended periods of
time. After they turn onto County 42, they will be introduced into fast flowing traffic on a
major arterial roadway. This will force traffic on that roadway to adjust to the truck traffic.
WATER ANALYSIS
Backeround Data.
The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) maintains its own Public Water
Supply System (PWSS) to produce domestic use water for tribal members. This water
supply system is regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act by the United States
environmental Protection Agency (US-EP A). The PWSS draws on local bedrock aquifers
3
for its primary supply. Groundwater within the external boundaries ofthe SMSC lands is
tribal water and is under the jurisdiction ofthe federal government.
The SMSC is in the process of establishing well head protection areas for its PWSS wells.
This process is part of a joint program with the Minnesota Department ofHeaIth (MN-
DOH), the US-EP A and the SMSC. Ten year time oftravel zones have been defined for
SMSC wells by the MN-DOH. This is part ()f a sub-regional groundwater modeling effort
being completed by the MN-DOH. This ten "year time of travel in shown on the enclosed
map along with the well location and the approximate location of the proposed mining
project. The proposed mining project falls within the ten year time of travel delineation.
The proposed Conditional Use Pennit (CUP) allows use of up to 1,000,000 gallons of water
per year for dust control. The CUP does not prohibit drilling a well on the project. The
CUP does not prohibit washing operations on site.
-.-
-.'
SMSC Well.
The proposed project lies within the ten-year time of travel delineation for the SMSC
PWSS well. The SMSC well is used as a domestic water supply. This situation causes two
potential problems: 1) If a well is placed in this area and used to produce water for dust
control and washing operations there is a potential for interference with the SMSC well; and
2) if any contaminates enter a well placed on the mining site they will be introduced directly
into the aquifer supplying the PWSS well.
The Jordan Aquifer in this area has a high transmissivity and the likelihood of interference
between a well on the mine site and the Community PWSS well is very high. An aquifer
test was performed on the McKenna Road PWSS well in 1997.1 The PWSS well was
pumped at 50 gallons per minute. One observation well, OBS-A, was located across
gradient approximately as far away as the mine would be located from the PWSS well.
This observation well, OBS-A, showed drawdown within two minutes of beginning
pumping the PWSS well? It is a fairly certain assumption that pumping a well located near
the proposed mine would have some level of interference with the SMSC PWSS well. This
higher the pumping rate, the greater the interference.
The primary threat of contamination comes if a well is placed on the proposed pit site.
There is a minor potential for impact from infiltration of surface spills or releases.
Although the threat from infiltration of contaminates is not zero, there would be a
significant delay from the time of any such spill or release to entrance into the bedrock
aquifer. If a well is located on the mine site, there is a direct link from the surface to the
bedrock aquifer and this threat becomes a very real consideration.
Savaee Fen.
If a well is installed on the mining site there is a potential for impacts on the Savage Fen,
and other wetlands in the area, if the well is pumped to any significant degree. Tribal
wetlands would probably not be affected by the pumping, but they may be impacted by any
I See United States Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigation Report 99-4183.
USGS at 8.
4
II
-.- ..'.--T ...---.----..-.----..... ..... .' .......-.-.-... .--...--..,.--
surface contamination. A well drawing on the Jordan Aquifer may impact the fen if
sufficient water were to be withdrawn. The CUP analysis performed by the City of Prior
Lake does not address this issue.
The proposed mining operation is located on the edge of a buried valley. The regional
water flows in this area has been modeled by both the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) and the MN-DOH. These models should be used to evaluate potential impacts of
a well located at this site. ..
Surface Water.
Surface water flows from the proposed pit area directly onto SMSC tribal lands. There is a
potential for surface contaminates to enter tribal lands. Tribal waters are under the
environmental jurisdiction of the US-EP A. Surface flow of contaminates onto tribal lands
or into tribal waters would create jurisdictional issues involving the State of Minnesota, the
US-EPA.-and the SMSC.
The CUP proposes water quality testing to address this issue. Although water quality
testing is a valuable tool, it does not prevent contamination. The testing will only indicate
contamination after the fact. The CUP does not require a spill or release contingency plan.
Without such a plan and adequate safeguards, there is a potential for contamination of
surface waters by fuel or other chemicals used in the gravel mining and processing
operation.
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
End Use Plan.
This area is not within the MUSA at the current time. If there is a planned residential end
use it will require individual wastewater treatment (septic systems). In this case, the end
use plan must be approved by the Scott County Environmental Office. The City of Prior
Lake repealed its individual wastewater treatment ordinance several years ago. The control
of those systems defaulted to Scott County. Scott County will most likely not allow septic
systems to be installed in areas where the soil has been disturbed by mining. The Scott
County Environmental Office has not allowed this in the past and is not likely to consider
any change in policy.
MPCA.
. The MPCA requires an EA W for all gravel mining operations of 40 acres or more. This
site contains approximately 50 acres. The CUP application calls for an approximate 12
acre mining area. The likelihood is that the entire area, or a significant portion thereof,
will eventually be mined. This would become a phased project with the initial phase
artificially restricted to fall under the required EA W limits. An EA W should be
required assuming the entire are will be mined or Ryan should demonstrate that the
remaining area does not contain gravel suitable for mining.
. The MPCA requires permits for storm water runoff from mine and quarry stockpiles.
The site is required to file a pollution prevention plan and follow best management
practices. Any washing will also require a permit.
5
;
]
-Q
u
~ :"
'-- ,r LL
~ i ---\>< <
x. /II
-0 ;:0
a ~
<<;2<<0( "0 ::s
0
+z en G>
-icn"ll&>cr-cn (1) ii1
::Joj:::L cn~~ a.
io~5;;!;l:o r- <
~i i~l ~ 0 (1)
0 s::
g.90!'< ~ Q)
~OJ :So - S'
!It c5"
~ cncn g (1)
~~ OJ ::s
CD &!
en
J I
-1-
... 'G Minnesota Pollution Control Agency March 1999
Environmental Management at Aggregate Operations
Aggregate production is an important Minnesota
industry, producing sand and gravel and crushed stone
for construction projects and other uses throughout the
state. The Minnesota aggregate industry has recognized
the economic and public relations benefits of
progressive environmental management. This fact
sheet summarizes pollution prevention opportunities
and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
permitting requirements for aggregate operations.
Some general information about permit programs
administered by other agencies also is provided.
If a new pit is started, or an existing one is expanded,
by 40 acres or more, and the pit will have a mean
depth of at least 10 feet during its existence, the
project needs to have an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet prepared. If the new pit or expansion will
cover at least 160 acres, mined to a mean depth of 10
feet or more, an Environmental Impact Statement is
needed. Contact the Environmental Quality Board at
(651)296-8253 for more information on this process.
For information on pollution prevention, permitting
and/or compliance status, please contact the telephone
numbers for the programs mentioned below.
Fuel and Hazardous Materials Management
When equipment is refueled, maintained or repaired
outside the shops, special care must be taken to prevent
spills, and to quickly contain and collect accidental
spills. ?rh7eIripfoyee~are~chl1te'shourd]ie ]i:iiijedr.
WiCle"fa"~i1l-contfol""lan Used oil lubricants
___ . __..._sp..__.~.__~_...p.._.."", ' ,
antifreeze, paint, solvents, vehicle cleaning wastes,
recovered freon, asbestos, PCBs and shop wastes should
be properly contained, stored, and recycled or disposed
of in compliance with MPCA requirements. For more
information on hazardous waste management, contact
the MPCA at (800) 657-3724 or (651)297-8363.
Liquid (including fuel) storage tanks, whether
aboveground or underground, need to have effective
containment and may need to be approved by the
MPCA. Contact the MPCA at (651) 297-8367 for more
information on tanks management.
Air Quality Management
Facilities must meet minimum standards for dust and
noise control. ~iffi:es~Wi1b~p-~1iing1)perilii6lf~l}f
ha,~~Q.m~t1ecfeiijj@iqar.ds::rpr&1IiissionSQfl.
..._'t~ _ ....._.,..-....er:-:.,..~~'"":::....,,......-......-:~~..~,~.-.":"-~,......._----.-
_partiCUlatesfroniprocessirigequipmeril It is important
to control dust throughout the facility, including at
crushers, screens, conveyors and hoppers. Depending
~~.pr~~.:~~?~ ;;e~i~,,~d ~~gpg equipment,~
~ipJ&.&.!9Jl~ernut:may.beyeqU1re& Due to potentIal
air quality problems, materials containing asbestos
(which is generally found in old buildings, and has been'
used in older roads and concrete materials) must not be
crushed. For more information, contact the MPCA at
(800) 657-3938 or (800) MINN-AIR. .
Solid Waste Management
Some aggregate operations store used asphalt and/or
concrete, captured particulate emissions, or other
demolition debris. The MPCA encourages recycling of
these materials, and of scrap and trash materials, when
possible. If this is not practical, used pavement must be
disposed ofin an approved sanitary or demolition debris
landfill. For more information, contact the MPCA Solid
Waste program at (651) 296-7271.
Water Quality Management
The aggregate industry deals with water throughout
the construction season. To excavate gravel or rock,
the water table may need to be lowered. Washing of
sand, gravel or crushed stone may be needed to ensure
it meets product specifications. The following
~ctiVitic;:s]lcaggre-g~tKop'eratiQfis.:i~jj'ijjr]]LW.~.t~(I
'ualiR1:-'eIffiifnoniilie''l.XDGAl:
.9.-_..!'J-P--_.. . - __~~.c_~
~ Sand and gravel washing discharges that leave the
mine or quarry pit. whether by gravity flow or
pumping. Often operators can recycle their wash
water and/or allow it to infiltrate the pit floor,
avoiding the need for washwater overflows (and
the need for an MPCA discharge permit).
~ 2Piffiibm2tor siphoningourami.ileOfqu~J~~~tol
1C~~~te-lrtle~~e~_~~_c.h~~j Good sump' . ,.,
management to prevent accumulation of dirty
water, particularly in quarry pits, is important.
Sometimes pit water can be reused in the plant, or
for road dust control.
~ lS(onm.wit~~crlFlromm1fie1iffil'qu:aiTY~J
sfObKPilesitiffa,plt~VJiillS?las~enarnomJ
eqmomenHiklrffiCk~sher~J hot mix asohalt. and
This sheet can be made available in other formats, such as Braille or large type upon request. Printed on recycled paper with at least 10% fibers from
paper recycled by consumers. Visit the MPCA website at http://www.pca.state.mn.uslnetscape.shtm1 .
~ Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
March 1999
=> The generation of wastewater by air emission
control systems, particularly from the wet
scrubbers used at some hot mix asphalt plants.
The "Construction Sand & Gravel, Rock Quarrying and
Hot Mix Asphalt Production Facilities" application
form can be used to apply for MPCA water quality
permit coverage for aggregate operations. Contact the
MPCA at (651) 296-7238 for more information on
water quality and aggregate operations, including site
selection, a critical factor in reducing environmental
management costs.
For each of the programs mentioned above, the MPCA
has guidance documents that can aid compliance with
environmental protection requirements. In storm water
management, for example, we recommend:
1. A handbook for reclaiming sand and gravel pits in
Minnesota. Minn. Dept. of Natural Resources, 1992.
Available from the DNR by calling (651) 296-4807.
2. Protecting water quality in urban areas. MPCA, 1989.
This reference is valuable for both urban and non-urban
area activities, and may be available from the MPCA by
calling (651) 296-3890.
3. Storm water management for industrial activities.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1992. Available
from the National Technical Information Service, order
# PB92-235969, by calling (800) 553-6847.
DNR and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Requirements
Water withdrawals
~c.fj)1igllmntf~wrtim~W~s:tsuch as for
dewatering, washing, makeup water for scrubbers,
roadbed preparation, dust control, irrigation)I9fffiiOil
~.. ~ -1. 'P
~ ',' . :
fP.:e.S Re-u~e of de~atering and wash water is
encouraged and may help eliminate the need for a
pennit or reduce DNR water use fees. A DNR water
appropriation permit is not required if the water is
taken from a municipal or other source of water for
which there is a valid appropriation permit. For more
information, contact the DNR at (651) 296-4800.
Riprap and Discharge Outlets
It{iP-fiPiiiSJill~nQ.illl19..~~publi~r~d06~
. no~jfi"~ffillflil7.~tiJl~g.:a~Qfd.r.Dg[o:1li(f:21'.
JIQ11liWin:gi:~qUifeme1ifl:'
a. The riprap consists of natural rock only.
b. The rip rap is sized according to the guidelines in
Practice 6.18, "Protecting water quality in urban
areas," MPCA (see reference above).
c. The riprap conforms to the natural alignment of the
shore or streambank.
d.lNolej~mti6n1j~ti~~~fowmi&tQP~;pIJ9f.
@Jr~iimJi11ilt~rJPS121'f!.!n~D!J1!gQ]~~!~tl~~1~B,fJJ
misiifOF:weUana:t;
-..-.-. .....--.- ~.---_._.
e. The materials are placed less than 5 feet waterward
of the ordinary high water mark.
f. The minimum finished slope is no steeper than 3 7
feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical (3: 1).
g. No bank shaping or backsloping is required to
achieve the 3:1 slope.
h. The materials do not obstruct receiving water flow.
i. The discharge is not directly to Lake Superior,
DNR-designated trout waters, or a posted fish-
spawning area. (Trout waters are designated in
Minn. R. 6264.0050, subp. 2 and 4; this list may be
obtained from the DNR by calling (651) 296-3325.)
Information on DNR protected waters permits is
available from the DNR at (651) 296-4800.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Activities that involve the discharge of dredged or fill
material or excavation within waters and wetlands
may require approval of the Corps of Engineers.
Such activities could include the construction of
access roads or the creation of storage areas and
building sites. Also, activities related to the
construction of pit dewatering outfall structures and
the excavation of water detention/retention ponds
within waters and wetlands may require Corps
approval. The Corps 81. Paul District Office may be
contacted at (651) 290-5375.
I I
page 2
-r-----l....
Prepared in cooperation with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Hydraulic Properties of the Prairie du
Chien-Jordan Aquifer, Shakopee
Mdewakanton Sioux Community,
Southeastern Minnesota, 1997
Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4183
u.s. Department of the Interior
u.S. Geological Survey
. U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
Hydraulic Properties of the Prairie du
Chien-Jordan Aquifer, Shakopee
Mdewakanton Sioux Community,
Southeastern Minnesota, 1997
James F. Ruhl
Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4183
Prepared in cooperation with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
II
---r
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bruce Babbitt, Secretary
U.S. Geological Survey
Charles G. Groat, Director
-~.
-~.
Use of trade, product, industry, or firm names in this report is for descriptive or
location purposes only and does not constitute endorsement of products by the
U.S. Government.
Mounds View, Minnesota, 1999
For additional information write to:
District Chief
U.S. Geological Survey, WRD
2280 Woodale Drive
Mounds View MN 55112
Copies of this report can be purchased from:
U.S. Geological Survey
Branch of Information Services
Box 25286
Federal Center
Denver CO 80225
For more information on the USGS in Minnesota, you may connect to the Minnesota District home page at
http://wwwmn.cr.usgs.gov
For more information on all USGS reports and products (including maps,
images, and computerized data), call1-888-ASK-USGS
Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4183
Contents
Abstract....................................... .......................................... ..... ............... ................. ... ....... ................. ... ....... ...... .... ............... ............... ..... 1
Introduction............ .................. '" ..... .,. ......... ............. .................. ..... ........ .......................... ...... .... ............... ............... ...... ......... ............ ...... 1
Hydrogeologic setting ................................................................................. ................................... ... ..........................................................2
Aquifer-test design .. ........... ...... .... ....... .................. .................... .......... ...... .......................... ............ ... .......... ....... .... ...................... ..... '" ......5
Aquifer-test results........................... ........................................ ......................................... .............. ........... ................................................. 8
Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................................................9.
References... ...................... ..... ..... ..... ... ............ ...... ............... .... ....':......... ... ........... ....... .......... .... ....... ... .......... .........:........ ......................... 10
Illustrations
Figure I. Generalized hydrogeologic column of regional aquifers and confining units in the study area.................................:;.....2.
2-3. Maps showing:
2. J..ocations of Shako pee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, lakes, bedrock subcrops, and previously tested well. in
llie northern part of Scott County, southeastern Minnesota .................................................................................... 3
3. Locations of the aquifer-test wells in the study area and bedrock geology, southeastern Minnesota .....................4
4. Graph showing:
4. Relation of the Neuman (1975) type curve to the time vs. drawdown curve for OBS-A .......................................9
Tables
I. Geologic logs of the pumped public works well and the three observation wells used in the aquifer test conducted in the
Mdewakanton Sioux Community, southeastern Minnesota, 1997 ............................................................................................... 6
Conversion factors, vertical datum, and abbreviations
Multiply inch-pound unit fu To obtain metric unit
inch (in.) 2.54 millimeter
foot (ft) .3048 meters
foot per day (ftld) .3048 meter per day
square mile (rni2) 2.590 square kilometer
cubic foot per second (fP/s) .02832 cubic meter per second
square feet per day (rt2/d) .0929 square meter per day
gallons per minute (gaVmim) 6.309 x 10-5 cubic meter per second
degrees Fahrenheit ("F) (temperature OF - 32)/1.8 degrees Celsius
Sea level: In this report, sea level refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929-a geodetic datum derived from a general
adjustment of the first-order level nets of the United States and Canada, formerly called Sea Level Datum of 1929.
iii
II
.o-o---...-..---~----.-T----.._._... ....T ... ....-.. ..._...0-...__..._._.
.OO".--r
Hydraulic Properties of the Prairie du Chien-Jordan
Aquifer, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community,
Southeastern Minnesota, 1997
By James F. Ruhl
ABSTRACT
(3) a confined, glacial-drift sand aquifer. Test results indi-
cate that the Jordan Sandstone had a transmissivity of
6,267 tt2/d, a storativity of 1.193 x 10-4, a horizontal
hydraulic conductivity of31 ftld based on a saturated thick-
ness of204 ft, and a ratio of vertical to horizontal hydraulic.
conductivity of 5.29 x 10-4. The pumped well was hy&auli- .
cally connected to the Prairie du Chien Group observation
well. No drawdown was observed in the observation well
completed in the confined, glacial-drift sand aquifer; thus, a
hydraulic connection ofthis observation well to the pumped
well was not indicated.
An aquifer test of the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer
was conducted in the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Com-
munity located southwest ofthe Twin Cities metropolitan
area. A well open to the Jordan Sandstone was pumped at
600 gallons per minute for 57 hours. Drawdown was moni-
tored in three obseFV~tion wells located near the pumped
well. These wells were open to: (1) the Jordan Sandstone,
the principal unit of the aquifer; (2) the Prairie du Chien
Group, a secondary, carbonate-rock unit of the aquifer; and
INTRODUCTION
The Prairie du Chien-Jordan
aquifer (fig. 1) is a major source of
water for many communities of south-
eastem Minnesota. The Jordan Sand-
stone is the principal unit of the
aquifer; the Prairie du Chien Group is
a secondary, carbonate-rock unit of the
aquifer. The Shakopee Mdewakanton
Sioux Community (hereinafter,
referred to as the Community) (fig. 2),
located in the northern part of Scott
County, Minnesota, has public-supply
wells open to the Jordan Sandstone
part of the aquifer.
Hydraulic properties of the Jor-
dan Sandstone were previously esti-
mated from an aquifer test conducted
in the southern part of the Community
(fig. 2) (Strobel and Delin, 1996).
Transmissivities of 4,710 to 7,660 tt2/
d and storativities of 8.24 x 10-5 to
1.60 X 10-4 were reported from this
previous study. The purpose of this
report is to present additional informa-
tion from an aquifer test conducted in
the northern part of the Community
(figs. 2 and 3). The test was conducted
to better define the hydraulic proper-
ties of the Jordan Sandstone and to
evaluate the hydraulic connection of
the Jordan Sandstone to the Prairie du
Chien Group and to a nearby confined,
glacial-drift sand aquifer. Information
from the test will be useful to tribal
officials for development of Commu-
nity water-management plans, to non-
tribal government officials for devel-
opment of regional water-manage-
ment plans, and to water-resource
investigators for subsequent studies
on the hydraulic properties of the aqui-
fer.
The aquifer test was conducted
by pumping water from a public works
well open tothe Jordan Sandstone dur-
ing a 57-hour period and measuring
the drawdown in three observation
wells. (After pumping was stopped,
recovery in the observation wells
could only be measured for about 4
hours, after which time operation of
the pumped well had to be resumed
because of the need to replenish com-
munity water supplies. Thus, the
recovery phase of the test was judged
1
to be of too short duration for reliable
aquifer-test analyses.)
The three observation wells were
open to the following units: (l) the
Jordan Sandstone; (2) the Prairie du
Chien Group; and (3) a confined, gla-
cial-drift sand aquifer in a bedrock
valley located about one mile east of
the public works well. Hydraulic prop-
erties of the Jordan Sandstone were
estimated from analyses of theoretical
type curves developed by Neuman
(1972, 1974, 1975) fitted to the draw-
down data plotted for the observation
well completed in the Jordan Sand-
stone.
Analyses of multiple aquifers and
of multiple aquifer units were beyond
the scope of the study; thus, the
hydraulic properties of the Prairie du
Chien Group and of the confined, gla-
cial-drift sand aquifer were not esti-
mated from test results. Test results
were used to evaluate hydraulic con-
nections of the pumped well to the
Prairie Du Chien Group observation
well and to the confined, glacial-drift
sand aquifer observation well.
a:
:E OU)
~ ~~
~ ~ffi
a: ~U)
w VI
>-
t) a:
6 <C
N Z
o ffi
~ td:
() ::>
o
() >
o
o Cl
N a:
o 0
w
-' Z
<C <C
-
a.. a:
co
~
<C
()
FORMATION
OR
GROUP
UNDIFFER-
ENTIATED
GLACIAL
DRIFT
Z
<C ~
() ~
Q..
:::I:;:,
00
w~
c::
<(
c::
Q..
SHAKOPEE
FORMATION
ONEOTA
DOLOMITE
-.'
JORDAN
SANDSTONE
ST.
LAWRENCE
FORMATION
~~
Ww
ZW
~LL
~z
:1:-
1--
GENERAL
LITHOLOGY
HYDROGEOLOGIC UNIT AND
WATER-BEARING CHARACTERISTICS
UNDIFFERENTIATED GLACIAL DRIFT AQUIFER
OR CONFINING UNIT--Glacial drift serves as a
confining unit to underlying formations in some areas. and
as an aquifer in others. Aquifers are used primarily for
domestic and farm purposes throughoUlthe area. Drift
consists of till and alluvial. buried. and surficial outwash.
and valley train. lake. terrace. and ice-contacl deposits that
150-200
. ,
...'.'A
. :L:::j
PRAIRIE DU CHIEN-JORDAN AQUIFER--Most
extensively used aquifer in southeastern Minnesota.
Yields range from 500 to 1.000 gallmin. Hydraulic
conductivity is due to joints, fractures. and solution
cavities in the Prairie du Chien and coarse-grained
.' sandstone in the Jordan. Horizontal hydraulic
conductivity generally ranges from I to 40 feet per day.
.' and can be greater than 1,000 feet per day locally.
Chien Group, Jordan Sandstone, and
St. Lawrence Formation. The Prairie
du Chien Group consists of the Oneota
Dolomite and overlying Shakopee
Formation, which is a highly eroded
limestone deposited as reefs and tidal-
flat deposits (Balaban and
McSwiggen, 1982). The thickness of
the Prairie du Chien Group, which
generally ranges from about 100 to
150 feet, is 153 feet at the test site. The
Jordan Sandstone is a fine- to coarse-
grained, poorly cemented, quartzose
sandstone deposited as beach and
near-shore sands (Balaban and
McSwiggen, 1982). The thickness of
the Jordan Sandstone, which generally
2
45-60 '
-
ST. LAWRENCE CONANING UNIT--Vertical hydraulic
conductivity is decreased by presence of silty or shaley
beds, and ranges from 10-5 to 0.1 feet per day.
Modified from Delln, 1991;
Balaban and McSwlggen, 1982.
Figure 1. Generalized hydrogeologic column of regional aquifers
and confining units in the study area.
/ .
///Z/
100-150
.... ":'>S:.'" ;>::::-:..":.
:':. .':. ..::'.:..::'.:..:~.:..::'.:..::'.:.':
85-100 ~1\.~~<ii:.~
/
/
;,-....
HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING
The Community is located in
hummocky glacial terrain where local
elevations range from 900 to 1,100
feet above sea level. Numerous lakes
and wetlands are present in depres-
sions and lowlands. The unconsoli-
dated, surficial sediments consist of
gray, calcareous, shale-rich, clayey till
with small inclusions of reddish-
brown drift that range in thickness
from about 150 to 200 feet (Balaban
and McSwiggen, 1982).
Bedrock units that underlie the
surficial sediments in the study area
are, in descending order, the Prairie du
EXPLANATION OF GENERAL LITHOLOGY
'.>>:..:"-.1 t / / / //1
Till, sand, Dolomite
and gravel
I. . '. . I ~----3
. ::":"::"0::":"::"0: . ~~~~~
Sandstone Calcareous
ranges in thickness from about 85 to
100 feet, is at least 107 feet at the test
site. The St. Lawrence Formation is a
silty dolomite interbedded with silt-
stone, soft shale, and very-fine-
grained quartzose sandstone (Balaban
and McSwiggen, 1982). The St.
Lawrence Formation generally ranges
in thickness from about 45 to 60 feet.
The Community is located in the
eastern part of a continuous sub crop of
the Prairie du Chien Group (fig. 2).
This sub crop extends over about a 40
mi2 area, and the underlying Jordan
Sandstone extends over about a 50 mi2
area. Bedrock valleys formed by flu-
vial erosion bound the southern and
-.'
;,Ii
R24W R23W
Geology from Balaban and
McSwiggen, 1982
T
115
;N
T
114
N
o
I
o
R22W R21W
1 2 3 4 5 Mile
I I I I I I
.2 3 4 5 Kilometer
EXPLANATION
-,,; Shako pee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Bedrock Geology:
_ S1. Peter Sandstone
I I Prairie du Chien Group
1/ / i Jordan Sandstone
~;~lti~,~ S1. Lawrence Formation
1b..~~G-~~ ~;;
_ Franconia Formation
_ Ironton and Galesville Sandstones
_ Eau Claire Formation
. Previously tested well (Strobel and Oelin, 1996)
Figure 2. Locations of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, lakes, bedrock subcrops,
and previously tested well, in the northern part of Scott County, southeastern Minnesota.
3
44046'
Base from State of Minnesota Basemap 97
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Scale 1 :24,000
Projection UTM 15 NAD83
-~4'''
44045'
I I
93028'
I
I
00_"_.1
I
I
r
93026'
T
115
N
'gl
o
II:
L"_H
H-"l
~
::l
D
lii
c:
III
U
I
l.._...-J
i
i
OBS-A.
. Pumped well
OBS-B
""\ r..J
\'"
'-..-:
R22E
o
I
o
1 KILOMETER
I
I
EXPLANATION
r"-H' Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
0._.._.'
1= :::-:1 Lake
Bedrock Geology
I Prairie du Chien Group
1/ / I Jordan Sandstone
t7~f/~;i11 St. Lawrence Formation
_ Franconia Formation
. Well site
Figure 3. Locations of the aquifer-test wells in the study area and
bedrock geology, southeastern Minnesota.
4
--,-_._---~------_.._-_.......-----
eastern sides of this subcrop. These
valleys create discontinuities in the
Prairie du Chien Group and Jordan
Sandstone. The bedrock valley east of
the test site extends downward into the
St. Lawrence Fonnation (Balaban and
McSwiggen, 1982). The Minnesota
River flows through a bedrock valley
to the north and west of the Commu-
nity where bedrock units are exposed
in some places.
The bedrock valleys are filled
with Late Wisconsin drift that consists
of sparse and discontinuous lenses of
sand and gravel embedded within till.
These surficial sediments, which have
a relatively low hydraulic conductiv-
ity, overlie and cOIiUne the bedrock
fonnations in some places. The water
table typically is perched above the
potentiometric surfaces of the under-
lying bedrock aquifers because of the
low hydraulic conductivity of the sur-
ficial sediments. Ground water in the
bedrock aquifers generally flows in a
northwesterly direction through the
study area and discharges into the
Minnesota River.
The Prairie du Chien Group and
Jordan Sandstone, which are hydrauli-
cally connected units, constitute a sin-
gle aquifer. Hydraulic heads in the two
units are similar (Delin, 1991). In
some areas the potentiometric surface
of the aquifer is below the top of the
Prairie du Chien Grou;, thus, the aqui-
fer is unconfined in these areas.
Ground-water flow in the Jordan
Sandstone is through intergranular
pores (primary penneability). Ground-
water flow in the Prairie du Chien
Group is through dissolution channels
and fractures (secondary penneabil-
ity). The Jordan Sandstone is more
important for ground-water supply
than the Prairie du Chien Group
because it typically has greater penne-
ability than the Prairie du Chien
Group.
AOUlFER-TEST DESIGN
A public works well completed in
the Jordan Sandstone and located in
the northern part of the Community
was pumped at 600 gal/min for 57
hours. The pumping began on October
21, 1997 at I :00 PM, a time when day-
time water use in the Community nor-
mally declines. Thus, potential effects
on early-time drawdown data from
pumping privately owned domestic
wells located near observation wells
were minimized.
The pumping rate was monitored
with a 4-inch Badger Recordall II Tur-
bometer that had an operating range of
from 8 to 1,250 gal/min. The water-
level drawdown in this well and in
three observation wells were mea-
sured during the pumping period. Dur-
ing a 4-hour period prior to the start of
pumping, static water levels were
measured in the pumped well and in
the three observation wells to define
pre-test conditions.
The three observation wells were:
(1) the Brewer domestic well, herein-
after referred to as OBS-A, which is
completed in the Jordan Sandstone
and located 100 feet north and 750 feet
west of the pumped public works well;
(2) a public works well (now aban-
doned), hereinafter referred to as
OBS-B, which is completed in the
Prairie du Chien Group and located
1,200 feet south and 100 feet west of
the pumped public works well; and (3)
the YMCA Camp Kici Yapi well,
hereinafter referred to as OBS-C,
which is completed in a confined, gla-
cial-drift sand aquifer and located 700
feet north and 4,300 feet east of the
pumped public works well (fig. 3).
OBS-A was cased to a depth of
257 feet and was open to 83 feet of the
Jordan Sandstone (table 1). Although
the portion of the Jordan Sandstone
open to the well could not be precisely
determined, the well probably is open
to nearly the full thickness of the for-
mation. The well definitely is not
5
open, however. to the full thickness of
the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer.
which extends from III to 340 feet
below land surface. The static water
level in this well was 136 feet belov,'
land surface. which was about 754 ft
above sea level.
OBS-B was cased to a depth of
151 feet and was open to 51 feet of the
Prairie du Chien Group (table 1).
Although the portion of the Prairie du
Chien Group open to the well could.
not be precisely detennined, the weli
probably is open to about one-third to
one-half the full thickness of the for-
mation. The well is not open, however,
to the full thickness of the Prairie du
Chien-Jordan aquifer. If the thickness
of the Jordan Sandstone is assumed to
be 100 feet, the full thickness of the
aquifer would extend from 150 to 302
feet below land surface. The static
water level was 154 feet below land
surface, which was about751 ft above
sea level.
OBS-C was cased to a depth of
140 feet and screened to a depth of 150
feet (table 1). The screened interval
was open to a confined, ghicial-drift
sand aquifer. The static water level
was 61.8 feet below land surface,
which was about 788.2 ft above sea
level.
The pumped well was cased to a
depth of 264 feet and was open to 106
feet of the Jordan Sandstone below the
casing (table 1). The diameter ofthe
open-hole portion of the well is 14
inches. Although complete, open-hole
penetration of the Jordan Sandstone
could not be verified, the well proba-
bly is open to nearly the full thickness
of the fonnation. The well is not open,
however, to the full thickness of the
Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer, which
extends from 110 to 370 feet below
land surface. The static water level
was 137 feet below land surface (static
water-level altitude about 755 ft above
sea level).
Water levels in the pumped well
and in OBS-C were measured manu-
Table 1. Geologic logs of the pumped public works well and the three observation wells used in the aquifer test conducted in the
Mdewakanton Sioux Community, southeastern Minnesota, 1997.
[BLS. below land surface]
Pumped Public Works Well
Minnesota Unique Well Number: 554090
Land surface elevation: 892ft
Open hole interval: 264 - 370 ft BLS
Geologic log Depth BLS Thickness. Color Hardness Bedrock aquifer
(ft) (ft) unit
Sand and gravel 0-23 23
Fine sand 23-100 77
Fine sand and 100-11 0 10
gravel
Limestone 11 0-196 86
LimeslOne with
thin sandstone 1ay- 196-216 20
ers
Prairie du Chien
Limestone with 216-220 4 Group
broken sandstone
Broken limestone 220-225 5
Limestone 225-263 38 Medium
Sandstone 263-290 27 Yellow
Sandstone 290-315 25. Tan
Jordan Sandstone
Sandstone 315-325 10 White
Sandstone 325-370 45 Tan
OBS-A (Brewer domestic well)
Minnesota Unique Well Number: Not Available
Land surface elevation: 890 ft
Open hole interval: 257 - 340 ft BLS
Geologic log Depth BLS Thickness
(ft) (ft)
Top soil 0-1
Course sand 1-8 7
Clay 8-18 10
Clay 18-48 30
Cobbles 48-50 2
Course sand 50-101 51
Gravel 101-111 10
Limestone 111-250 140
Sandstone 250-315 66
Sandstone with 315-325 10
green shale
Sandstone 325-340 15
Color
Hardness
Bedrock aquifer
unit
Black
Low
Brown
Gray
Brown
Prairie du Chien
Group
White
Jordan Sandstone
White
6
II
---r
---r---...--.-----------.-----
I 1 G I 'c logs of the pumped public works well and the three observation wells used in the aquifer test conducted in the
Tab e. eo ogl . h M' 1997 IC . d)
Mdewakanton Sioux Community, sout eastern mnesota, . ontmue
[BLS, below land surface)
OBS-B (Abandoned public works well)
Minnesota Unique Well Number: Not Available
Land surface elevation: 905 ft
Open hole interval: 151 - 202 ft BLS
Depth BLS Thickness Color Hardness Bedrock aquifer
Geologic log (ft) (ft) unit
Top soil 0-2 2 Black
Clay 2-10 8 Brown Medium
Sand and fJave1 10-68 58 Brown High
with bou ders
Sand with shale 68-145 77 Brown Medium
Shale 145-150 5 Brown High
Lime'stone 150-202 52 Brown High Prairie du Chien
Group
OBS-C (Camp Kici Yapi well)
Minnesota Unique Well Number: 112217
Land surface elevation: 850 ft
Screen interval depth: 140 - 150 ft BLS
Geologic log Depth BLS Thickness
(ft) (ft)
Top soil 0-2 2
Clay with pebbles 2-32 30
Clay with sand 32-37 5
Fine sand 37-47 10
Clay with cobbles 47-97 50
Sand 97-102 5
Clay with sand 102-114 12
Sand 114-150 36
Color
Black
Yellow
Hardness
Bedrock aquifer
unit
Top soil
Clay with pebbles
Clay with sand
Fine sand
Clay with cobbles
Sand
Clay with sand
Sand
ally with electronic tapes. Water levels
in OBS-A and in OBS-B were mea-
sured by a pressure transducer con-
. nected to a TROLL (SP4000) data
logger manufactured by In-Situ Inc.
Time increments between measure-
ments, which initially were at a scale
of seconds, were increased logarithmi-
cally to one-hour intervals. The oper-
ating range of the pressure transducers
was from 0 to 30 pounds per square
inch (0 to 69 feet of water) with an
accuracy of +/-0.05% throughout the
range. Water levels in OBS-A were
measured manually with an electronic
tape (at intervals of one hour) to verify
the accuracy of the data logger; water
levels in OBS-B were not measured
manually because of condensation on
the well casing that prevented accurate
readings.
Discharge from the public works
well during the aquifer test was
directed down a local hillside. The
hydraulic conductivity of the surficial
sediments was assumed to be suffi-
ciently small to disregard potential
recharge to the Prairie du Chien-Jor-
7
dan aquifer from this surface dis-
charge.
Atmospheric effects on water lev~
els during the test were not considered
in the analyses. The ambient baromet-
ric pressure measured at Minneapolis-
St. Paul International Airport, located
about 20 miles northeast of the aquifer
test site, did not change during critical
phases of the test. During the first four
hours of the test, when most of the
drawdown occurred, the barometric
pressure was constant at 1,026 milli-
bars. During the fifth hour of the test
the barometric pressure increased to
1,027 millibars and then gradually
decreased to 1,011 millibars by the end
of the drawdown phase of the test.
AQUIFER-TEST RESULTS
Pre-test water levels did not show
visible effects from changes in baro-
metric pressure. Water-level changes
that were within a range of one foot
during the pre-test period were proba-
bly related to pumping of local domes-
tic wells. Although the potential
effects of pumping local wells on
water levels in the observation wells
during the test were not determined,
these effects are assumed to have been
insignificant. --~;,
The drawdown curve for OBS-A
were automatically matched by
AQTESOLV, a computer software
package developed by Geraghty &
Miller, Inc., to various type curves
derived by Neuman (1972,1974,
1975). The Neuman (1974) type
curves are valid for unsteady flow to a
well in an unconfined aquifer with
delayed gravity response and are
based on the following assumptions:
(1) the aquifer is homogeneous,
unconfined, infinite in areal extent,
and uniformly thick; (2) the water
table in the aquifer is horizontal prior
to pumping; (3) ground-water with-
drawal from the pumped well is at a
constant rate; (4) the specific yield is
at least 10 times larger than the storat-
ivity; and (5) storage of water in the
I I
pumped well is negligible (small
diameter well) (Neuman. 1975).
AQTESOLV corrected for partial pen-
etration of the aquifer by both the
pumped and observation wells.
The drawdown equation given by
Neuman (1974) is:
s = 4~T W(uA, us' (3) (1)
where W(u~, uB, (3) is the well
function for the aquifer, and
2
r SA
UA = 4Tt (2)
2
r Sy
Us = 4Tt (3)
2
~ = :2~v (4)
h
where s = drawdown,
Q = pumping rate (ft3/d),
T = transmissivity (ft2/d),
r = radial distance from the
pumping well to the observation well
(ft),
SA = the volume of water instan-
taneously released from storage per
unit surface area per unit decline in
head (elastic early-time storativity)
( ft31ft3),
Sy = the volume of water
released from storage per unit surface
area per unit decline of the water table
(specific yield) (ft3/ft\
t = time (in days),
Ky = vertical hydraulic conduc-
tivity (in ftld),
8
Kh = horizontal hydraulic con-
ductivity (in ft/d). and
b = initial saturated thickness of
the aquifer (in ft).
Drawdown in OBS-A was
detected about 2 minutes after the start
of pumping. The total drawdown was
slightly greater than 9 feet. The type
curve for J3 = 0.013 best fit the early-
time drawdown data for OBS-A (fig.
4). Transmissivity and storativity were
calculated to be 6,267 tt2/d and 1.195
x 10-4, respectively. These calcula-
tions describe the hydraulic properties.
ofthe Jordan Sandstone part oftl)e
aquifer. Determination of specific
yield, which requires late-time draw-
down data. was not done because of
the short duration of the pumping
period. The ratio of the vertical
hydraulic conductivity to the horizon-
tal hydraulic conductivity of the Jor-
dan Sandstone was 5.29 x 10-4. The
horizontal hydraulic conductivity of
the Jordan Sandstone was 31 ftld,
based on a saturated thickness of 204
ft.
Drawdown was detected in OBS-
B about 40 minutes after the start of
pumping. The total drawdown was
about 0.32 feet. These results indicate
a hydraulic connection between the
pumped well and OBS-B. The rate and
duration of pumping were insufficient
to cause drawdown in OBS-C. There-
fore, the hydraulic connection of the
pumped well to OBS-C could not be
evaluated from the test results.
.----.-r.-.-......-.----...I....-..--.--------....-............---...-------.
10
7
5
4
3
2 I
j
I
!
j Match point
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
-.'
-.'
tu 0.2
w
LL
~
$
z 0.1 0
~
0 0.07
~ , 0
0 0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
Type curve 0 Data point
Q w(u)
T = 4ns = 6,300 square feet per day Match point values:
W(u) = 0.68 s = 1.0 feet
s = UA:Tt = 1.2x 10-4
r
U 1 fA. = 367 t = 1.0 days
0.007
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
~ = 5.3 X 10-4
p= 0.013
0.001
0.0001
0.001
0.D1 0.1
TIME (t), IN DAYS
10
Figure 4. Relation of the Neuman (1975) type curve to the time YS. drawdown curve for OBS-A.
9
SUMMARY
An aquifer test of the Prairie duChien-Jordan aquifer
was conducted in the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Com-
munity located southwest of the Twin Cities metropolitan
area. A public works well completed in the Jordan Sand-
stone part ofthe Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer was
pumped at 600 gallons per minute for 57 hours. Drawdown
was monitored in three observation wells located near the
pumped well. These wells were open to: (1) the Jordan
Sandstone, the principal unit of the aquifer; (2) the Prairie
du Chien Group, a secondary, carbonate-rock unit of the
aquifer; and (3) a confined, glacial-drift sand aquifer located
in a local bedrock valley about one mile east of the pumped
well.
Type curves developed by Neuman (1974) were used
to analyze drawdown data for the observation well com-
REFERENCES
-~'
-~.
Balaban, N.H., and McSwiggen, P.L.,
eds., 1982, Geologic atlas, Scott
County, Minnesota, County Atlas
Series, Minnesota Geological
Survey, Map C-I, 6 plates.
Delin, G.N., 1991, Hydrogeology and
simulation of ground-water flow
in ~he Rochester area, southeast-
ern Minnesota, 1987-88: U.S.
Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Report
90-4081, 102 p.
I I
pleted in the Jordan Sandstone. (Recoverv data could onl\'
- .
be collected for 4 hours--a period of time not sufficiently
long to allow reliable analyses of the data.) Analyses of
results from the drawdown phase of the test indicate that the
Jordan Sandstone had a transmissivity of6.267 tt2/d. a stor-
ativity of 1.193 X 10-4, a horizontal hydraulic conductivity
on 1 ft/d based on a saturated thickness of204 ft. and a ratio
of vertical to horizontal hydraulic conductivity of
5.29 x 104. Analyses of the test results furthermore indicate
that the pumped well is hydraulically connected to the Prai-
rie du Chien Group observation well, which had a total .
drawdown of about 0.32 ft. The duration and rate of pump-'
ing were insufficient to cause drawdown in the observation
well completed in the confined, glacial-drift sand aquifer:
thus, a hydraulic connection of this well to the pumped well
was not indicated.
Neuman, S.P., 1972, Theory offlow in
unconfined aquifers considering
delayed response of the water
table: Water Resources Research,
~ 8,p. 1031-1045.
_1974, Effect of partial penetra-
tion on flow in unconfined aqui-
fers considering delayed gravity
response: Water Resources
Research, v.lO, p. 303-312.
_1975, Analysis of pumping test
data from anisotropic unconfined
aquifers considering delayed
gravity response: Water
10
Resources Research, v. 11, p. 329-
342.
Strobel, M.L., and Delin, G.N., 1996,
Analysis of hydrogeologic prop-
erties in the Prairie du Chien-Jor-
dan aquifer, Shakopee
Mdewakanton Sioux Community,
southeastern Minnesota: U.S.
Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Report
96-182, 14 p;
ATIAc.HM~NT I! 2.
CONTRACTING CD.
I
DEVELOPING YOUR WORLD I
D~l
J1It\ \ II '(OOj . ~
..
R~
January 18, 2000
Mr. John Larson
Environmental Quality Board
300 Centennial Office Building
658 Cedar Street
St Paul, Minnesota 55155
RE: Conditional Use Permit
-,,$}ravel Mining Operation, Prior Lake, MN
Ryan Contracting Company
Dear Mr. Larson:
I am writing in response to the Petition for EA WI received Monday, January 17, 2000. I have found the
information is based largely on speculation and misrepresentations of the facts in this matter concluding
this petition is lacking any credibility.
In response to the Memorandum from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) Land &
Natural Resources Department produced by Stanley Ellison, I have the following to offer.
Transportation Analysis
_The information contained within this sec_tion has been_prQd\!ced based solely o~. assumption without
supporting data veflfying or substantiating their claims. I find the scenarios to be exaggerated, incorrect and
without merit. The SMSC has produced this information without any formal experience or professional
background to support their claims. The City of Prior Lake has conducted its own review of the
transportation to and from this site and found the existing roadways will adequately handle traffic generated
from our operation.
Water Analysis
Contrary to comments made in this section by Mr. Stanley Ellison, Ryan Contracting has clearly stated
within our application that a well will not be installed nor used for our operations. Furthermore, Ryan
Contracting has elected to amend. its CUP application stating, " All water used for dust control on our
project will come from an off site source." Again, contrary to statements made by Mr. Ellison, Ryan
Contracting has included within its application a spiWrelease contingency plan produced by the MPCA.
Contrary to what Mr. Ellison has eluded to, Ryan Contracting will not be dewatering on this project in any
form. The City of Prior Lake has conducted its own review of this issue and found the information
contained within our application to be acceptable
Additional Issues
The end use of this property will be returned to agricultural use. At this time, the property is outside of the
MUSA boundaries. A plan to develop this land to a residential development would be premature without
knowing exactly when, where and how the trunk utilities and roadways would be provided for this
property. The current property owners have expressed they would like their property returned to
agricultural use.
8700 13th Avenue East Shakopee. Minnesota 55379 612-894-3200 Fax: 612-894-3207
I I
.-.--1.-.-.--..-.---..-...-.---.-..--.-..---.-.----.---
Scott County has had the opportunity to review our CUP application and had no objections to our proposed
use of this property.
As you are aware, the MPCA requires a mandatory EA W to be performed for all gravel operations of 40
acres or more. Mr. Ellison has stated, " This site contains approximately 50 acres ". This statement is
simply false and misleading. The proposed site is comprised oftwo separate parcels for a combined acreage
of 29.604 of which we have clearly shown 13.12 acres will be affected by our operations. Contrary to what
Mr. Ellison has eluded to, Ryan Contracting is strictly limited to the plans we have submitted to the City.
Furthermore, Ryan Contracting has performed soil borings on this property and found we are limited only
to the area we have proposed because the sand materials do not extend beyond the proposed plans we have
submitted.
Ryan Contracting has contacted the MPCA regarding any permits that may be required, the MPCA has
informed us that a general NPDES general storm water permit will be required as with all proj ect over 10
acres in size. Ryan Contracting will secure this permit prior to commencing any operations. Ryan
Contracrmg has also stated within its application, a washing plant will not be used.
Response to Memorandum in support of Petition in support of EA W
Mr. Fontaine has stated" and because Ryan Contracting may to be impermissibly attempting to avoid an
environmental review by improperly segmenting its proposed project in order to fall below the 40 acre
threshold for a mandatory EA W. " lbis statement along with numerous other statements throughout this
document are simply false, and misleading. As stated previously, the proposed site is comprised of two
separate parcels for a combined acreage of29.604 of which we have clearly shown only 13 .12 acres will be
affected by our operations. Contrary to what Mr. Ellison and Mr. Fontaine have eluded to, Ryan
Contracting is strictly limited to the plans we have submitted to the City. Ryan Contracting has no intent of
con1:iIiuing our operations beyond what has been proposed within our CUP application. Ryan Contracting is
strictly limited to the plans, boundaries and conditions we have submitted to the City in our application.
_._Contrary to what Mr.]' ontaine has stated, RYlql Contracting will not be dewatering on this site in any form.
Ryan Contracting has elected to amend its CUP application stating, " All water used for dust control on our
project will come from an off site source." Water from the sediment basins will not be extracted in any
form for dust control. A washing plant is not part of our operation as stated in our CUP application.
The City of Prior Lake has conducted a thorough, fair and unbiased review of our proposed project and
found there will be no adverse affects caused as a result of our operations.
Traffic Control
Again, Mr. Fontaine has provided false and misleading information on the affects of our operations on
public roads. The information contained within this section has been produced based solely on assumptions
and speculations without supporting data verifying or substantiating their claims. I find these scenarios to
be exaggerated, incorrect and lacking credibility. The SMSC has produced this information without any
formal experience or professional background to support their claims. The City of Prior Lake has
conducted its own review of the transportation to and from this site and found the existing roadways will
adequately handle traffic generated form our operations. .
Scott County has also had the opportunity to review our CUP application and found no objections to our
proposed use of this property. Scott County has also stated that County Road 42 will adequately handle
traffic from our operations.
Water Resources & Wetlands
The property in question does not contain any wetlands. However, there is an adjacent wetland over 200
feet in distance from our operations. Furthermore, this adjacent property has a substantial wooded buffer
separating the wetland from our operations. The wooded area also has a natural upland ridge preventing
water runoff from entering or discharging from this. wetland. The City of Prior Lake haS reviewed this issue
and found no adverse impacts will be caused by our operations.
Drinking Water Protection
Again, contrary to what Mr. Ellison and Mr. Fontaine have eluded to, Ryan Contracting has stated within
our CUP application that a well will not be installed or used as part of our project. . Furthermore, Ryan
Contracting has elected to amend its CUP application stating, " All water used for dust control on our
project will come from an off site source."
-.'
-.'
Again, contrary to statements in this section, Ryan Contracting has also included within its application a
spilVrelease contingency plan produced and approved by the MPCA.
Boiling Springs and the Savage Fen
The Boiling Springs and the Savage Fen are over 3 miles from our proposed project. The sheer mention
that these resources will be affected by our operations is ridiculous and lacking credibility.
Dust
Ryan Contracting has adequately addressed this issue in our CUP application. Ryan Contracting has
implemented known standards in controlling fugitive dust particles and agreed to make every effort
possible to control dust on this project.
Lighting
As agreed upon with the City of Prior Lake, no artificial lighting will be used on this site.
Noise
Ryan Contracting will operate at acceptable levels as stated in our CUP application and as approved by the
.MPCA.
Aesthetic Impacts and Restoration
Again, Mr. Fontaine has clearly failed to provide accurate information; instead he has made false and
nrisleading statements regarding this issue. Ryan Contracting has clearly provided undisputed information
detailing benning, vegetation, shielding and restoration of this property within our CUP application.
Mandatory EA W
Mr. Fontaine has stated" and because Ryan Contracting may to be impermissibly attempting to avoid an
environmental review by improperly segmenting its proposed project in order to fall below the 40 acre
threshold for a mandatoryEA W. " This statement along with numerous other statements throughout this
document are simply false, and misleading. As stated previously, the proposed site is comprised of two
sep~te parcels for a combined acreage of29.604 of which we have clearly shown only 13.12 acres will be
affected by our operations. Contrary to what Mr. Ellison and Mr. Fontaine have eluded to, Ryan
Contracting is strictly limited to the plans we have submitted to the City. Ryan Contracting has no intent of
I I r
--T
continuing our operations beyond what has been proposed within our CUP application. Ryan Contracting is
strictly limited to the plans, boundaries and conditions we have submitted to the City in our application.
Summary
Ryan Contracting has made every attempt to comply with and address all sensitive issues regarding our
CUP application. However, Ryan Contracting will not tolerate an exacerbated Petition for an EA W based
on Mr. Ellison and Mr. Fontaine's false representations of the facts in this matter. It is clear, the Shakopee
Mdewakanton Sioux Community holds the general public to a much higher standard than they hold
themselves. The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community has owned and operated their own gravel pit
directly adjacent to our proposed project for over ten years now without the proper governing permits. (See
attached exhibits A) Ryan Contracting has proposed a small gravel operation excluding dewatering,
washing, crushing and recycling of materials.
If our CUP application is approved, Ryan Contracting is committed to abiding by the conditions, plans and
boundaries. we have submitted. However, if in the event Ryan Contracting is forced to perform an EA Won
this project, Ryan Contracting reserves its right to revise its application to recover lost revenues and costs
incurred.
The City of Prior Lake has based their recommendation of approval based on the facts in this matter.
Ryan Contracting fully expects approval of this project without prejudice.
Please feel free to contact me anytime should you wish to discuss any further at 612-894-3200.
Respectfully submitted,
-;:J:::;~/ U
Vice President
Cc: Frank Boyles
Jenni Tovar
./
ATIAC.HMf.NT H. 3
...:.
.,
CDI\ITRAcrll\l1i 1:0.
I
DE VEL O'P' 1\1 6 YOU R W 0 R L 0 I
~ @ rn D~ ~~..\;~\
\\ l5 !\. Ii!
lJ JIIN \ B '/rol\M
January 18, 2000
Mr. Frank Boyles
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. So.
Prior Lake, MN. 55372
Re: Ryan Contracting Co., CUP Application
Dear Mr:.Boyles
In response to a number of issues that have come to light in the last week, I have the following information
to add to our Conditional Use Permit application.
1) Ryan Contracting proposes to operate a private gravel pit not oPen to the public.
2) Ryan Contracting will provide the city staffwith revised information prior to issuance of the CUP.
The revised information will include but not limited to the following information as discussed at
thewm~h~. .
A) Revised pond calculations
B) City right of entry
C) Revised landscape plan
D) Issue the Letter of Credit.
3) Ryan contracting will not be operating during nighttime hours.
4) Ryan Contracting will not be operating a rock crushing machine.
5) Ryan Contracting will not be operating a washing plant.
6) Ryan Contracting will not be installing a well.
7) Ryan Contracting will not be using any type of artificial lighting.
8) Ryan Contracting will not dewater in any form on this project.
9) All water used for dust control will be imported from an offsite source.
10) Ryan Contracting will not be recycling material.
11) Under our Cup application, the City will review this permit on an annual basis to evaluate
compliance with the conditions of the CUP.
12) In 1997-98 Ryan Contracting had secured an approved grading permit allowing the removal of
~ material from this property. The City of Prior Lake revoked Ryan Contracting's approved grading
permit while allowing an adjacent property owner and contractor to mine sand material from their
property for the County road 21 project located within the City of Prior Lake. Ryan Contracting
suffered severe financial harm as a result of the revocation of our approved grading permit. At this
present time Ryan Contracting has voluntarily decided to comply with the City of Prior Lake's
8700 13th Avenue East Shakopee. Minnesota 55379 612-8~3200 Fax: 612-894-3207
11
.--.--...'.T.'..........--... .... ...-...-. ......
./
,-,:.
request to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. In the event Ryan Contracting is denied its CUP as
allowed by City ordinance or an EA W is required, Ryan Contracting will revise its application to
include any or all of the above items. Furthermore Ryan Contracting may seek legal action to
ensure proper handling and compliance of this matter as well as legal action to recover lost
revenues and/or costs incurred as a result of actions by the City of Prior Lake.
13) During the Workshop meeting, the proposed Church development had been discussed and the
impact of the CUP on the Church property. Ryan Contracting has meet with Church
representatives and believes both parties can benefit from our CUP. At this time the Church
representatives have only a conceptual design. After reviewing the conceptual design, it is our
opinion the proposed development may take as long as five years to construct. Ryan Contracting
will work closely with the church on its needs for aggregate materials and or site development.
14) In response to the Petition for an EA W. Ryan Contracting has responded to Mr. John Larson with
the Environmental Quality Board on this issue. We have supplied you with a copy of this letter
dated January 18,2000. It is the Position of Ryan Contracting that the Petition produced under the
:llirection of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community is misleading, incorrect, prejudice and
lacking any credibility. It is apparent, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community holds the
general public to a much higher standard than they hold themselves. The Shakopee Mdewakanton
Sioux Community has owned and operated their own gravel pit directly adjacent to our proposed
project for over ten years now without the proper governing permits.( see attached exhibit A )
In summary Ryan Contracting believes it's CUP application falls within the parameters of the City
Ordinance allowing extraction of aggregates. Ryan Contracting is willing to commit and leave our
application unchanged if our CUP is approved within the next 30 calendar days.
Please feel free tocoIitact me anytime should you have any further concerns.
CC: Jenni Tovar / City of Prior Lake
Bill Rudnicki / SMSC
SENT" BY: DNR..METRO.j
ATTAC.HME:NT ~Lf
'-"\::." ....l"':"'r."::'.n'::"o\.....~":'l":':-'.-.'#'Y.....~,.;t'II::,~.~:t~t:.:-OI~~.... ..~...._..~ .. :Ct~ . --..-,._.... ___....
Peter Leete. Prior lake 'Gravel Pit" .,........_..~....._.... .....~"... .~_..... ...~......="..,...... .... ,..............".,..'""-... ..... "_"."".,.,.",""._.'.....e... .._~=.,.,~"',.."."..-...,.,."Pa...'e..-~.
......_.:....-'^4~-.....-:........:.....--A,._~,,'U.\06..0~:,..,........~-....a........ ..... .., :.....'f,A~.:..-...:.c..~.w.."\IoooI..".~..,..:..I.c:..~~,.:I..:.I:... ,M" ., ......\."-It..:,.........~J. . '" . -_.........""....:..c.~a._...1
From:
To:
Date;
Subject:
.\?--
Jeanette Leete 'Vf'J
fJeter Leete
1/16/00 2:27PM
Prior Lake Gravel Pit
..
The attorney for the Sioux Tribe informs me that the City of Prior Lake
will apparently consider approval of a Conditional .
Use Permit for a new Gravel Pit on 50 acres tonighi. The tribe had
been worried about this I$sue and had thought that there were to be Some
more meetings on the subject before final action. They were surprised that
It came up for final action so quickly.
The potential water use for this operation is referred to as being under
the amount which would require a DNR permit. Looking' at this' localiorl' on
a map, I'm sceptical that this could end up being true. Most gravel pits
use quite a bit of water - both dewatering and washing.
-s~...
The City has a PWS well very close to this proposed operation and the
Sioux PWS wells are also not far away. The gravel pit Is apparently within
the wellhead protection zone for the Tribe's well (and very likely for the
Prior lake well also).
Not to mention that any large use of water in that area may be detrimental
to lakes, wetlands and possibly even Boiling Springs and Savage Fen.
There is not enough time for us to evaluate these possible Issues before
tomlght, so is there a.nyway we could get a comment over to the City'?
I will fax down the attorney's writeup that requests the city to do 8n
EAW because it explains the tribes viewpoint on this Issue. Apparently
the City can decide, even after receiving the petition requesting an
EAW, that none is needed and proceed directly to consideration of
and approval of the CUP - at least that's what the attorney is worried
about.
So, here's a possible comment:
The Division of Waters is concerned that operation of a gravel pit
as proposed may required the appr'opriation of water for dewatering
or gravel washing. Because of the location of the proposed gravel
pit, any additional uses of water In the area should be studied prior
to Implementation, lest there be detrimental impacts on nearby water
supply wells, lakes, wetlands, or other valued resources such as
springs or calcareous fens. Therefore the Division of Waters would
SUpport a request that an envirol1mental assessment worksheet be .
. prepared.
cc:
Pat lynch
I I
SEN1( BY: DNR METRO;
1-18- 04:26PM; 6127727573 .,>
#1/2
facsimile
TRANSMITTAL
COVERSHEET
Metro Region
Depar1m~nt of Natural Resources
DiVision ofWalers .. "
1200 Warner Roa<:i
St. Paul;JVtN 55109'
I 600
I
~
DATE:
6124474245;.
",
FAJ(; 651-772-7977
Phone: 651-772~7910
TO:
rr '
~"1 L...
INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET.
1~J'CV-
PAGES:
FAX#: (/2
FROM:
~. 4-- 7-
Qief'
7-72-
'-r 2- zr- t:)
I- c?e f~
-;ZCt/ b
MESSAGE: 0 Original attachment will be mailed to you also
o For your Information 0 Urgent "
o ,:r.a.ke.sppttr"ri"ate.ra.c:tion '. 9 Review & Return
Olhe.commenl~C!...... ....." .._-~
o As we discussed
o Other (See below)
IN CASE OF DWFlCUL TY WITH FAX TRANSMISSION. CALL: 651-772-7910
ArrAc..H~wr -fl. 5
SHAKOPEE
January 18,2000
~
Don Rye
City Planner
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek St. S.B.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Ryan Contracting CUP for Mining
Dear Don:
This leTter is intended to inform the City of Prior Lake of information in the City of
Shakopee nearby the proposed Ryan Contracting CUP for mining. I did receive a packet
of information from Dorsey & Whitney representing the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux
Community (SMSC) in regard to an EA W petition.
From this information, it should be stated that McKenna Road in the City of Shakopee
was recently upgraded and was only built to a "7 ton" design standard. Any hauling of
material on this road would be restricted to a 7 ton loading.
If you have any questions in regard to this letter, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
~eW
Public Works Director
BL/pmp
RYE
CC: Michael Leek, Community Development Director
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Stan Ellison, SMSC
.~ ~, - ..
COMMUNTIY PRIDE SINCE 1857
129 Holmes Street South. Shakopee, Minnesota. 55379-1351 . 612-445-3650 . FAX 612-445-6718
II
rr
--.--.'r.---
ATiAOfME.Nr ~~
,
. ,.........- ,
,,) '1 ,<
,.,;. ...../
SCOTT COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS AND LANDS DIVISI
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTME
GOVERNMENT CENTER AI02
200 FOURTH AVENUE WEST
SHAKOPEE, MN 55379-1220
(612) 496-8177 Fax: (612) 496-8496
January 24, 2000
Ms. Jenny Tovar
City Planner
Prior Lake eity Hall
1620 Eagle Creek Ave.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear Ms. Tovar:
This letter is in regard to a petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) for a
non-metallic mineral mining proposal in the SE Y4 of Section 22 of T l1SN. .,. R22W. in Prior
Lake. We have received a copy of the materials submitted by Dorsey & Whitney LLPon behi'l1f
of the SMSC petitioning for an EA W for this proposed mining operation. We support the
petition for an EA W for the following reasons.
This area is identified in the Minnesota Geologic Atlas of Scott County as lying above the Prairie
du Chien-Jordan aquifer. The Prairie du Chien aquifer is within the Shakopee Oneota dolomite
formation. Scott County well testing records show wells within this formation north of the
proposed site to already be impacted by nitrates. The area immediately north of the proposed
site, which lies at a lower elevation and thus lacks the protective soil covering over the bedrock,
has been identified as being highly susceptible to ground water contamination. The soil covering
is what protects the underlying Prairie du Chien - Jordan aquifer from surface contaminants.
The upper terrace soils demonstrate this protective ability. The upper terrace areas will be
looked at for location of future Jordan aquifer wells for Shakopee. An existing large community
well lies immediately north and downgradient on the water table from the proposed site. Any
operation that removes this protective soil covering is likely to degrade the protective ability of
these terrace soils allowing surface contamination from storm water runoff etc. to more readily
enter and degrade the aquifer.
Scott County well records show a well on the proposed site that demonstrates a layer of
protective clay soils within the top thirty feet and subsequently 110 feet of sand and gravel to the
top ofthe Shakopee Oneota dolomite. Removal of the protective clay cover and exposure ofthe
sand and gravel would allow for relatively rapid infiltration of surface contaminants.
An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer
I I
T--
Ms. Jenny Tovar
January 24, 2000
Page 2
Scott County well records also show several sand and gravel wells in this area though the
McKenna well demonstrated no water was hit until the Jordan formation. This suggests a
complex geology in the area with some perched gravel aquifers providing water supply. A major
buried bedrock valley that extends from Prior Lake north toward the Minnesota River lies very
near the proposed site. There are likely unmapped sub-valleys entering the major valley that
suggest an even more complex hydrogeology in this area. A gravel mine in this area could have
lasting negative impacts on the hydrology ofthe area and impacts on private, community and
municipal wells.
Scott County recently became responsible for enforcing the State Individual Sewage Treatment
System (ISTS) rules within the City of Prior Lake. Any development, which requires
manageme~. of domestic wastewater within the unsewered area of the City, must;iherefore, be
'submitted for our review. This would include projects like this one that propose to accommodate
domestic wastewater by holding tanks or portable toilets. The State ISTS rules which Scott
County has adopted identify holding tanks and portable privies as alternative methods of
managing domestic wastewater. Scott County has only allowed such alternatives to be used for
seasonal uses or as a last resort for existing failing sewage systems. We would also like to note
that disturbance of existing soils would preclude the use ofISTSs in the disturbed areas in the
future.
The proposal suggests that mining would be limited to an extent below the threshold requirement
for an EA W. We prepare all of the EA Ws on projects for the Township areas of the County and
have found it prudent to pay close attention to the possibility of Phased actions. Mining
operations where there is adjacent land that has similar resources, especially if it is under the
same ownership should be considered as very likely to result in subsequent requests for
expansions, which in total may exceed the threshold for an EA W. The EQB's "Guide to
Minnesota Environmental Review Rules" is very helpful in this regard. It is available in booklet
form from the EQB and is also available on their Website.
We recommend that Prior Lake order an EA W for this project and direct the proposer to retain a
qualified hydrologist to assess the potential impact to the area aquifers. Such an analysis should
include the establishment of a better understanding of the bedrock topography in the surrounding
area as well as the nature of the hydrology of the glacial deposits above the bedrock.
Res.~pet t;~IlY ~ .. _
{)fJ~ 't7J:JJ:-
Allen Frechette
Environmental Health Manager
Cc: Lou VanHout, Shakopee Public Utilities
Stan Ellison, SMSC
A"rr A~ME.Nf ti1
CDNTRACTINIi co.
I DEVELOPING YOUR WORLD
January 27,2000
i~ ~:~~:~~l
Mrs. Jenni Tovar
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. So.
Prior Lake, MN. 55372
Re: Ryan Contracting Co., CUP Application
Dear ~1 Tovar,
In response to your questions on our CUP application, I offer the following information for your review.
1) Trafjic Volumes; I have estimated the average number of trips hauling material would be 6 trips
per hour.
2) Area of Operations; I have personally performed soil borings on the property in question and
found the limits of sand material available do not extend beyond the limits we have proposed.
Ryan Contracting has submitted an application specifically identifying the boundaries and
proposed use of this property. The speculation that our current application is just the beginning of
a much larger operation is simply not true.
3) Hours of Operation; Ryan Contracting will need to have the flexibility to operate during normal
construction business hours. I would suggest the City look into the normal operating hours of
gravel operations throughout the metro area. I would like to discuss this matter further with you at
your convenience. Please contact me on this issue, this is extremely important.
Please review the above information and feel free to contact me anytime should you have any questions or
concerns.
~.
8700 13th Avenue East Shakopee. Minnesota 55379 612-894-3200 Fax: 612-894-3207
Ii T
--r-
... T
.--..-......-.-..-. ,
ATIAGH M~tJT!:! cg
Memo
DATE:
January 28, 2000
TO:
-s:"
Jenni Tovar, Planning
FROM: Lani Leichty, Water Resources Coordinator
RE: . Savage Fen Watershed Boundary Map
Attached is a map showing the watershed boundary of the Savage Fen.
Surface water in this drawing would flow from the south to north toward the
Minnesota River. The heavy dark line indicates the.limits of the drainage
area within this watershed. Any surface water south of the Savage Fen
within this boundary would have the potential to flow into the Fen. If you
have any questions, please let me know.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
I I ,
---r-
.I-----.--..--..---..~. ..
"1,
SAVAGE FEN WATERSHED BOUNDARY
+
s
o
I
. \,0.25
0.5
0.75
1 Miles
APPENDIX A3
This map shows a USGS
topographic map overlaid
with the Savage Fen wetland
complex and watershed.
boundary
r',.
J
A-rrACHMENf ~~
SHAKOPEE
7990 POP. 11,739
Q;
c,
~. ~8
:;j
~I
_ ~ (li')_-
------- - r--'--l-==~------ 01+
,.. '\
<:>'~ 18)
Q: V.r.
~~ ~1.llhf
~t cr~'
...':.:' +.' ..
......... ~o
.......-s.-
'\ '\ i
\"",-,___ ~ ( ! D~
_....~.
<:i i '.......
""'l t-.: ....
'. <:> \
'" '" ...S
~ ~ l~
"'
..,
~
::.
:t:
'~
.. tOGQ
----;:;:
,....
!,;lI.I.Ji
W.a:r_rCfln. "
. AnodAhl. IDO
...,1""'1". "'0..1\.... . rI....u. . krh,.,.
_,.....""I6......,.~'.J"h'.."I"..,..
.:.......,.. MIt ......::... ..'1...1:..
EAGLE CAlE!(
'I4TER5HED stUDY
ALTERNATIVE!
11
9 06
,.,{CI)~L Dil.
SUB.ATtR~~D ~,,~y
, 2 S~W&TiR5HlD IDE"TIFlCATIDN
. p~
% ~ CCIlPa:l,UE. IQJPID.tJtr
_ DIRtCTlO't at 'LOW
Pili!)
~
2
3
4
.
.
7
.
1\
lit
".
15
1.
to
21
REQUI~ED STa'uc~
I !lfm
3.3
I).d
7.7
'.2
43,'
It.?
6.'
d.Z
n.'
1..'
'1.0
la.'
2..
2.0
PEM DIS~AllE tilt\.
L$tlJlAb .'IK ;t 6 ~ nf.g
[QUAL1Its WITH I 1:5 ')1.0
. 737.0
4 7H.3
';QWoLIU;S WITH 4 1"4.3
4 'uo.o
10 1'H,'
4 7".'
4 '5~. ='
15 Tn. T
"7 7:&1,1)
U 7U.B
35 7U.5
56 nl,o
14 711. I
~----
FI auf'E. (
:n='..~- ......
_.....", ~ "f'Il
J1C~.,...... ......
,..
.-..-.--------.-.-------r----.-......-....--....-r...
:" .uc..,'!!!::: Tl"~t.~::=.:'!:'!
..,......::.
..:."::>,::
",::: : : :
", ,
'~i"
ATTACHMEN, J:l/0
Shakopee Mdewakanton
Sioux Community
r
OFFICERS
Slanley R. Crooks
Ch(lirrn.,n
Glynn A. Crooks
\lie., ClMirnJiln
2330 SIOUX TRAIL NW' PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 '=.. Susan rolenhagen
,'RIBAL OFFICE: 612'445-8900 · FAX: 612'445-8906.,~;:'''"ji~}-'''~_,,> SccrerllryrrrsaSUf13f
.'.~, -.."..: "'..1 ~.
-. /-.../
. 'N"
January 28, 2000
Mr. Tyler E. Enright, Vice President
Ryan Contracting Co.
8700 13th Ave. East
Shakopee,~esota 55379
~
RE: Ryan C~ntracling Co. Conditio'nal Use Permit (CUP) Appiication
Dear Mr. Enright:
This letter is in response to your letter dated January 18, 2000, and addressed to Frank
Boyles, City Manager for the City of Prior Lake.
Your letter lists a. number of Bcth'i:ties that you state Ryan Contracting will not d~, while
conducting aggregate extraction operations. Where a CUP does not include specific
restrictions there is nothing stopping Ryan Contracting fcom proceeding with such
activities. Without the restrictions in the CUP, Ryan Contracting could undertake
unrestricted activities in its sole discretion and without requesting permission or
providing notice to any other party.
With regard to your regrettable comments in paragraph 14, the Community reminds you
that it.is a sovereigngovemment '\Vith governmental responsibilities to its constituents.
From the original date of submission the Community attempted to learn more about the
CUP application. The Community also tried to state to the Prior Lake City Council the
Community's and its residents' concerns regarding the proposed mining operation.
Through no fault of the Community, Ryan Contracting's CUP application quickly moved
through the city review process..
There was no broad public input in the CUP process. Comments on the CUP application
were not sought from the City of Shakopee, Scott COWlty or the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources, even though there are potential impacts in their jurisdictions. The
draft CUP ignored comments submitted by the Community and nearby residents.
Whether you like it or not, the Community maintains a real interest in Ryan Contracting's
proposal. Tribal members residing near the proposed mine, as individuals, expressed
their strong opposition to Ryan Contracting's proposal. The tribal government stated its
very real concerns over potential impacts related to the mining, There is nothing
I I
.f' '110;
Jan. 28. 2000 3:20PM
No. 2495 P. 3/3
Mr. Tyler Enright
Ryan Contracting Co.
January 28, 2000
Page 2
misleading in their concerns over the drinking water supply, the safety of children using
McKenna Road or the quiet enjoyment of residential property.
Your comments regarding the existence of a gravel ph 'on the Community's land are
nothing more than an attempt to divert attention from the issues at hand. The Community
does not commercially exploit its aggregate resources. The Community regulates use of
the aggregate resOurce. The resource is used for tribal governmental activities and very
limited use in residential projects on tribal lands. No credible comparison exists between
the Community's activities and those proposed by Ryan Contracting.
Even assuming the City of Prior Lake has the legal authority to allow mining near a
residential area, we are aU left with a simple question. Does it make sense to allow this
type of activity ina growing residential area? The Community believes tbat all
reasona'"'ble people would answer "~o" to that. question. .The City of Prior Lake must
consider the effects of the project on the public. In this case, that consideration must
include input from the surrounding jurisdictions. After considering certain and potential
impacts, it is clear that the public costs of this project greatly outweigb any benefit to
Ryan Contracting or the City of Prior Lake.
Sincerely,
~;ZIlMAN;:SC~
Stanley R. Crooks
Tribal Chairman
cc: Frank Boyles, City Manager
G:\1cglll\law\council\O 12700RN.DOC
-r;~ 'To..b d. O.J 5>..11-
ATrAC.HMtN1 M I ,
NOISE LEVELS
All equipment will be operated within the noise emission standards established. by
. the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Processing and loading
activities are performed in the lower elevations of the pit where the side slopes,
vegetation and trees will act as no.ise barriers. Ryan Contracting will operate in
accordance with the noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency for residential areas.
In addition, Ryan Contracting will be constructing a "buffer" berm on the west
edge to reduce sound levels. Mining operations will begin at an elevation of
884.00 and continue down to a final elevation of 870.00. The west berm will be
.constructed to an elevation of 910.00, initially allowing for a 26 foot high berm
-to reduce noise. This berm will also be landscaped. Ryan Contracting will install
2 inch trees staggered an even ten feet apart on the berm. These trees will be
maintained and guaranteed for as long as our CUP is active. The berm will have
topsoil placed' on it. The topsoil will be seeded, mulched, fertilized, and disc
anchored to provide positive turf establishment.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources report, Industrial Minerals in
Minnesota dated September 1979 states, " Typical mining equipment generates
noise levels as high as 88 decibels (dB A) measured at 50 feet away from the
source. Screeners can generate up to 78 dBA measured from 50 feet from the
source. Table 1 describes decibels (dBA) by comparison to familiar
environments. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has established noise
standards which include noise from mining activities. The MPCA states that,
"acceptable sound levels for the receiver are a function of the. intended activity in
that land area" Further, these standards descn"bed the limiting levels of sound
established on the basis ofpresent knowledge for the preservation of public health
and welfare. These standards are consistent with speech, sleep, annoyance, and
hearing. The allowable noise level standards range from SO dBA to 80 dBA.
TABLE 1 NOISE LEVEL COMPARISON
Decibels (dBA)
Common Sounds
160
140
120
100
80
60
50
40
20
o
Medium jet engine
Large propeller aircraft, air raid siren
Disco
Canning plant, heavy city traffic, subway
Busy office
Normal speech
Private office
Quite residential neighborhood
Whisper
Threshold of hearing
. .
It"
I"'---'-'~--.-------_"_--._,-
Exhibit 8 shows the location of the screening plant, stockpiles, and haul roads
which will eliminate the need for trucks to back up sounding their back - up
alarms. If requested, Ryan Contracting will be willing to disconnect our backup
alarms if necessary. The screening plant will be placed at various locations
throughout the pit to minimize noise to the surrounding area. Material will be
stockpiled from the screening plant ~y conveyors.
:.~..
(
\.
ATTAtHMeNI #12.
TABLE B-1
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
ROADWAY CAPACITY BY CROSS-SECTION
Hourly Daily
Cross-Section Lane Gapacity V olume Range
ry Two-lane rural 900llane 14,000 - 15,000
Two-lane urban 550llane 8,000 - 9,000
Thee-lane urban 1,0001lane 14,000 - 17,000
Four-lane urban 600/lane 18,000 - 20,000
..s~..
Four-lane undivided (1) 800/lane 26,000 - 28,000
Four-lane divided 1;0501lane 38,000 - 41,000
Six-lane divided 1,0501lane 56,000 - 61,000
Four-lane freeway 1,7501lane 70,000 - 75,000
Six-lane freeway 1,7501lane 105,000 -110,000
Four-lane metered freeway 1,950/lane 85,000 -90,000
Six-lane metered freeway 1,9501lane 125,000 - 130,000
(1) Assumes limited driveway access and quarter-mile signal spacing.
~~A db Corr-r fIrM, dOdO
I I I [
B-4
-T--.---.--.-..-.----.-
Minor Collector Streets
The following are principles for laying out subdivision streets, including minor collectors. In this case,
the primary function of such streets will be to provide access. A secondary function may include through
movement of intra-community travel.
1. The minor collectors must provide adequate access to abutting parcels.
2. Minor collectors should be designed to minimize through traffic. That is the layout of minor
collectors should not promote diversion of traffic from arterials and major collector.
3. The intersections of minor collectors with arterials should not detract from the efficiency of those
arterials. In order to prevent inefficiencies, it is recommended that the spacing between
collectors be at least one-quarter mile and in multiples of one quarter mile. This will permit a
minimum 30 mph operation on the arterial should signalization ever be required.
4. The=design of minor collectors should reflect the function of providing access.
5. The design of minor collectors should discourage excessive speeds.
6. Minor collectors should permit the efficient use ofland for laying out plats.
7. Minor collectors should be laid out in order to be compatible with the topography and
environmental constraints of the area.
8. The design of the minor collector system should be compatible with the municipal utility plans
. for the area. .
9. Minor collector streets should not be used for on-site circulation purposes.
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL GUIDELINES
The Metropolitan Council has issued its own guidelines in the determination of functional classification.
These are published in Appendix. F of the 1996 Metropolitan Council Transportation Development
GuidelPolicy Plan and are reproduced in Figures B-1 through Figure B-6. The guidelines adopted by the
City of Prior Lake and used to develop the City's functional classification system are based upon the
Metropolitan Council guidelines.
.4f~ X uf Co-w.-r flc.-w. dO ex;
B-5
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
-~.
-~.
DISCUSSION:
ATf'AC-H MeNf .fA 13
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
JANUARY 18, 2000
c&A
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION OO-XX
APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
EXCAVATION OF SAND AND GRAVEL FOR RYAN
CONTRACTING ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SOUTH
EAST QUARTER SECTION OF SECTION 22, T 115, R22,
LOCATED ON MCKENNA ROAD
History: On September 29, 1999, a completed application was
received for the excavation of sand and gravel from property located in
the SE ~, Section 22, Township 115, Range 22. This property is
owned by Richard McKenna and Joseph and Carolyn Kinney. On
November 8, 1999 the Planning Commission recommended the City
Council approve the CUP with conditions. On December 6, 1999, the
City Council continued this request to January 18, 2000 to allow for a
workshop to be held regarding the request.
Current Circumstances: On January 3, 2000, the Planning
Department discussed the request with the City Council at a scheduled
workshop. Additional information requested by the Council included
researching other cities for combustion engine hours of operation,
adding a stipulation regarding right of entry for completing
improvements if necessary, and providing information regarding the
source of the Department of Health's 50 foot gravel pit and aquifer
separation. .
Attached is a copy of the December 6, 1999 staff report, which the
Council received as part of its workshop materials, detailing the
request and staff review. Councilmembers have previously received a
complete copy of the petitioners application. Let staff know if
additional copies are needed.
The Issues:
Hours of operation for combustion engines:
f:\dept\planning\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\99-075cc2.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
II
-.1-.-...--------..--.-..
City of Shakopee- Mining District Overlay. Construction and related
equipment limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. weekdays and 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.
on weekends and Holidays. Mining Operations required CUP with
noise control plan including location of all occupied structure within
1000 feet and a decibel plan indicating noise levels at 5 decibel
increments.
City of Savage- Mining Permit required (similar to CUP). Hours of
operation specific to mining activities and location of operations. Prior
Lake Aggregates is limited to hauling between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.,
crushing is limited from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and washing is limited from
7 a.m. to 12 midnight. If the specific activity does not generate noise,
then the hours are expanded. If there are few occupied structures, then
hours of operation would be more liberal. Considered on a case by
case basis.
~'!-:.~
City of Lakeville- Mining Permit is required (similar to CUP). Hours
of operation are considered on a case by case basis depending on
surrounding uses. If there are no occupied structures in the vicinity,
then there are no restrictions on operations. If there are residents close
by, then hours of operation limited to reasonable times to satisfy any
complaints from the neighborhood as determined by Council.
City of Rosemount- Mining operations not permitted in residential
zoned or guided districts; Mining Operations require Mining Permit.
Hours generally restricted from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Mondays through
Saturdays with no operations on Sundays. The Council can limit
holidays and further limit hours depending on proposed operations and
adjacent uses, considered on a case by case basis.
Staff feels the hours of operation (6 a.m. to 8 p.m. weekdays and 8
a.m. to 12 noon) are consistent with the ordinance and reasonable as
recommended by the Planning Commission. The ordinance allows
combustion engines to operate from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. weekdays,
between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. on Saturdays, and from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.
on Sundays. The hours of operation as stated in the resolution should
not cause detriment to adjacent properties. Should problems arise,
they can be considered upon review of the CUP on an annual basis.
The right-of-entry requirement has been added to the resolution
(italics).
Staff has contacted the Department of Health (Bruce Olson) regarding
the apparent 50-foot gravel pit and aquifer separation. There is no
separation requirement from the bottom of a gravel pit to the aquifer.
The Department of Health would like to performance standards
f:\dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-075\99-075cc2.doc Page 2
(conditions) such as no large amounts of fuel stored on site and
measures taken to prevent public from dumping on site (secured gate
or fence).
The City Engineer concurs with this recommendation. It would be in
the best interest to removal the on site fuel storage. Fueling could take
place from portable fuel trucks or off site. This would eliminate any
possible contamination and not significantly alter the operation of the
gravel pit. This condition has been added to the resolution (italics). A
condition regarding securing the site from the public with a gate/fence
has also been added to the resolution.
.~.
.~.
Conclusion: Planning Commission and staff have concluded the
proposed excavation of sand and gravel is reasonable and not
detrimental to the community. The Planning Commission and staff
recommend approval of this request subject to the following
conditions:
These conditions must be met prior to the recording of the
resolution:
1. A one for one replacement of trees removed, (42 caliper inches) is
to be completed as part of the reclamation and staging plan.
Landscaping plan to indicate this additional replacement.
Plantings are to be installed upon completion of phases.
2. Landscaping of 1 tree per 10 lineal feet of berm is to be installed as
per item 7 on Recapitulation of CUP Application submitted by
Ryan Contracting. A complete landscape plan is to be submitted
including these trees and the additional 10 perimeter trees as
shown on the proposed landscape plan. Plantings are to be
installed upon completed of phases.
3. Driveway from the public street to the parking lot is to be
hardsurfaced (paved) and shown on the plans.
4. Screen parking area with additional plantings. This is to be shown
on a revised landscaping plan.
5. Revise storm water calculations per Engineering Memo dated
11/19/99.
6. . A right of entry agreement, as approved by the City Attorney, is to
be signed by the property owners and applicant to allow for City
access to the site and inspecting, should the applicant not complete
the work as intended and allow the City to complete the work with
funds from the LOC.
7. Letter of Credit, to be approved by the City Attorney, is to be
submitted prior to the recording of the resolution. The amount of
the LOC is to include $125,000 for McKenna Road maintenance
and 125% of the (yet to be) submitted estimates for the paved
driveway and parking area, and landscaping costs.
f:\dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-075\99-075cc2.doc Page 3
I I
.----r-
"'1"- ..-....-.---..........--..---..-..-..-.---.
8. An Assent Form, as required by ordinance, is to be signed by the
applicant and all property owners.
These conditions must be met prior to beginning work:
2.
3.
4.
5.
-.':." 6.
1. Proposed traffic signs require approval from the City Engineer and
must meet MN Unifonn Traffic Control Devices standards. Sings
must be installed prior to beginning work.
The required PCA pennits must be obtained, and copies provided
to the City, prior to beginning work.
Driveway from the public street to the parking lot is to be
hardsurfaced (paved) and installed prior to beginning work.
A secured gate or fence, to be approved by the City Engineer, is to
installed prior to beginning work.
Parking area and parking lot screening is to be completed by July
1,2000.
The resolution approving the CUP is to be recorded on all affected
properties and proof of such recording presented to the Planning
Department.
These conditions are ongoing and must be met at all times:
1. No lighting pennitted on site.
2. Separate sign pennits required for commercial signage.
3. Project Plan Book submitted by Ryan Contracting is an Exhibit to
the CUP for approval.
4. Hours of operation are 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. weekdays and 8 a.m. to 12
noon on Saturdays.
5. Annual water quality testing is to be submitted to the city as part of
the annual renewal of the CUP. The current water quality of the
wetland is to be maintained. A list of petroleum and detergents
used on site is to be provided to the City.
6. Water use for dust control of greater than 10,000 gallons per day or
1 million gallons per year requires a DNR pennit. The operation
of the pit cannot result in the drainage or other degradation of the
DNR protected wetland.
7. Watering for dust control will be done within 24 hours written
notice from the City Engineer on an as needed basis.
8. No on site fuel storage is permitted.
9. The CUP is valid for one year. Renewal of the CUP is subject to
City Council approval and is to include a staging plan to date,
reclamation to date, along with road quality, wetland quality, and
air quality reports submitted by qualified professionals.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Budget Impact: The CUP will have no fiscal impact on the City as a
security for any costs to the City will be held.
f:\dept\planning\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\99-075cc2.doc Page 4
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
-~.
-~.
REVIEWED BY:
The City Council has two alternatives:
1. Adopt Resolution #OO-XX approving the Conditional Use Permit
for Ryan Contracting subject to the listed conditions.
2. Deny the Conditional Use Permit on the basis they are inconsistent
with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and/or the
Comprehensive Plan. In this case, the Council should direct the
staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact for the denial of
these requests. .
Staff recommends alternative #1.
1. A motion and se ond to approve Resolution oo-xx approving the
Conditional Us Permit, subject to the listed conditions.
f:\dept\planning\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\99-075cc2.doc Page 5
I I
---y-------.----.-...,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
RESOLUTION oo-xx
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW EXCAVATION OF SAND
AND GRAVEL ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 22, T 115, R22 FOR RYAN CONTRACTING
MOTION BY:
-.'
-.-
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
. WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
SECOND BY:
the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
November 8, 1999, to consider an application from Ryan Contracting for a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow excavation of sand and gravel and the
City Council heard the case on December 6, 1999; and
On December 6, 1999, the City Council continued the public hearing to
January 18, 2000 to allow time for a workshop on the request to be held and
said workshop was held on January 3, 2000; and
Notice of the public hearing on said CUP has been duly published In
accordance with the applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and
the Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this
issue and persons interested were afforded the opportunity to present their
views and objections related to the CUP for Ryan Contracting; and
the Planning Commission and City Council find the CUP for Excavation of
Sand and Gravel located in the SE Quarter of Section 22, T115, R22 for Ryan
Contracting in harmony with existing development in the area surrounding
the project; and
the Planning Commission and City Council find the proposed CUP is
compatible with the stated purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as
they relate to conditionally permitted uses, and further, that the proposed
CUP meets the criteria for approval of CUP as contained in Section 1108 and
Section 1101.509 (2) Excavation of the Zoning Ordinance.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
that it hereby adopts the following findings:
FINDINGS
J:\99files\99j::UI)\99-01Th"esp,Opxx..doc . !!age 1
16200 cagle CreeK fWe. ::>.c., Ynor LaKe, Mmnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61z) '1-47-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
1. The use is consistent with and supportive of the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals 'and general welfare of the
community as a whole.
3. The use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and the Use
District in which the Conditional Use is located.
4. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services, or
improvements which are either existing or proposed.
5. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties in
close proximity to the conditional use.
-.'
6. ThE;' use is compatible with the general welfare, public safety and neighborhood
character.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
approves the CUP for Ryan Contracting on the property legally described as follows:
The Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 22, Township 115, Range 22, except the West
Half of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, Scott County, Minnesota; and
The West 990.00 feet (as measured at right angles) of the northeast quarter of the Southeast Quarter of
Section 22, Township 115, Range 22 EXCEPTING therefrom the following: The south 622.29 feet of the
West 700.00 feet (as measured at right angles to the south and west lines) of said Northeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter. Containing 20 acres more or less.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, approval of the CUP is subject to the following:
These conditions must be met prior to the recording of the resolution:
1. A one for one replacement of trees removed, (42 caliper inches) is to be
completed as part of the reclamation and staging plan. Landscaping plan to
indicate this additional replacement. Plantings are to be installed upon
completion of phases.
2. Landscaping of 1 tree per 10 lineal feet of berm is to be installed as per
item 7 on Recapitulation of CUP Application submitted by Ryan
Contracting. A complete landscape plan is to be submitted including these
trees and the additional 10 perimeter trees as shown on the proposed
landscape plan, Plantings are to be installed upon completed of phases.
3. Driveway from the public street to the parking lot is to be hardsurfaced
(paved) and shown on the plans.
4. Screen parking area with additional plantings. This is to be shown on a
revised landscaping plan.
5. Revise storm water calculations per Engineering Memo dated 11/19/99.
1:\99files\99cup\99-075\resoOOxx.doc
Page 2
I I
1-
6. A right of entry agreement, as approved by the City Attorney, is to be
signed by the property owners and applicant to allow for City access to the
site and inspecting, should the applicant not complete the work as intended
and allow the City to complete the work with funds from the LOC.
7. Letter of Credit, on a form provided 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. to include $125,000 for McKenna Road
maintenance and 125% of the (yet to be) submitted estimates for the paved
driveway and parking area, and landscaping costs.
8. An Assent Form, as required by ordinance, is to be signed by the applicant
and all property owners.
These conditions must be met prior to beginning work:
-s:...
1. Proposed traffic signs require approval from the City Engineer and must
meet MN Uniform Traffic Control Devices standards. Sings must be
installed prior to beginning work.
2. The required PCA permits must be obtained, and copies provided to the
City, prior to beginning work.
3. Driveway from the public street to the parking lot is to be hardsurfaced
(paved) and installed prior to beginning work.
4. A secured gate or fence, to be approved by the City Engineer, is to be
installed prior to beginning work.
5. Parking area and parking lot screening is to be completed by July 1,2000.
6. The resolution approving the CUP is to be recorded on all affected
properties and proof of such recording presented to the Planning
Department.
These conditions are ongoing and must be met at all times:
1. No lighting permitted on site.
2. Separate sign permits required for commercial signage.
3. Project Plan Book submitted by Ryan Contracting is an Exhibit to the
. CUP for approval.
4. Hours of operation are 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. weekdays and 8 a.m. to 12 noon on
Saturdays.
5. Annual water quality testing is to be submitted to the city as part of the
annual renewal of the CUP. The current water quality of the wetland is to
be maintained. A list of petroleum and detergents used on site is to be
provided to the City.
6. Water use for dust control of greater than 10,000 gallons per day or 1
million gallons per year requires a DNR permit. The operation of the pit
cannot result in the drainage or other degradation of the DNR protected
wetland.
1:\99files\99cup\99-075\resoOOxx.doc
Page 3
7. Watering for dust control will be done within 24 hours written notice from
the City Engineer on an as needed basis.
8. No on site fuel storage is permitted.
9. The CUP is valid for one year. At the expiration of its one (1) year term,
the property owner may make application to the City to renew this CUP.
The initial approval ofthis CUP does not create any right, in law or equity,
to the renewal thereof. Any renewal of the CUP is subject to City Council
approval and is to include a staging plan to date, reclamation to date, along
with road quality, wetland quality, air quality reports submitted by
qualified professionals and any other such information as requested by
City staff or the City Council that would aid the City Council in
determining whether the excavation activities conducted pursuant to this
CUP created any adverse impacts to the health, safety or welfare of the
:..:. City or its residents.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby grants a Conditional Use
Permit for Ryan Contracting. The contents of Planning Case File #99-075 are hereby entered into
and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case.
Passed and adopted this 18th day ofJanuary 2000.
YES
NO
Mader
Ericson
Gundlach
Petersen
Schenck
Mader
Ericson
Gundlach
Petersen
Schenck
{Seal}
City Manager,
City of Prior Lake
1:\99files\99cup\99-075\resoOOxx.doc
Page 4
I I
'-'----1"'-- .-.--..-
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
~~<
DISCUSSION:
ArrAc.HM&Jr ~ 1'-/
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DECEMBER 6, 1999
9A
JENNITOVAR,PLANNER
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 99-XX
APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
EXCAVATION OF SAND AND GRAVEL FOR RYAN .
CONTRACTING ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SOUTH
EAST QUARTER SECTION OF SECTION 22, T 115, R22,
LOCATED ON MCKENNA ROAD
History: On September 29, 1999, a completed application was
received for the excavation of sand and gravel from property located in
the SE ~, Section 22, Township 115, Range 22. This property is
owned by Richard McKenna and Joseph and Carolyn Kinney. Due to
an error in the legal description provided and upon recommendation of
staff, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on October
25, 1999 and continued it to November 8, 1999. On November 8,
1999 the Planning Commission recommended the City Council
approve the CUP with conditions.
Ryan Contracting is proposing to operate a sand ~d gravel mining
operation. The operation will consist of mining and processing
including descreening, stockpiling, and sale of product. Aggregate
washing or operation of an asphalt plant is not a part of this operation.
Ryan intends to operate at the site for approximately 10 years and
remove 500,000 cubic yards of materials. The materials mined will be
used for road construction and general' fill. The operation will run
from 6 a.m. -8 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8 a.m.-5p.m. on
Saturdays. Attached is a 5-page submittal from Ryan Contracting
specifying the details of the proposed operation.
Current Circumstances: The subject site consists of approximately
30 acres with 13 acres included in the mining plan. Section 1101.509
Grading, Filling, Land Reclamation, Excavation requires a Conditional
Use Permit for excavation of more than 400 cubic yards. An
Environmental Assessment Worksheet is not required by statute. The
City may, however, require one be completed. After meeting with
\\fsl\sys\dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-075\99-075cc.docPage 1 .
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
I 1
11'
r--'---'''''--
Ryan Contracting, and evaluating the materials submitted before and
after the November 8th Planning Commission public hearing, staff feels
the issues that would be raised with an EA W can be addressed with
our reVIew.
The Issues: The proposed Conditional Use Permit should be reviewed
in accordance with the criteria found in Section 1108 of the City Code
and Section 1101.509. Section 1101.509 is the provision on Grading,
Filling, Land Reclamation, and Excavation. The criteria are shown
below:
City Code 1101.509 (2) Excavation.
-~.
-~.
Excavation of material exceeding 400 cubic yards of sand, gravel 1 or
other material from the land shall be permitted only by CUP. The
permit application shall include, but is not limited to, a site plan which
shows the finished grade of the land after the excavation has been
completed, the effect of the proposed excavation upon the community
and the adjacent land, the type of material to be extracted from the
land, the type of equipment to be used, the period of time' the
excavation operation will be conducted, plans for implementation of
measures to guarantee safety of the site and the excavation operation,
plans for rodent and other animal control, fire control, general
maintenance of the site and adjacent area, providing for control of
material hauled to or from the site, and controls to be employed to
limit the effect of wind or other elements on the site and the material
extracted from the site.
The permit application shall include a plan which shows the routes of
trucks moving to and from the site to remove material from the site, an
inventory of significant trees on the site, and other pertinent
information necessary to the decision whether to approve the CUP.
No permit shall be granted for a period longer than 12 months.
The CUP shall impose conditions upon the owner of the land to be
excavated and the person performing the excavation operation which
will prevent damage to the community and adjacent landowners
during the course of the excavation operation. Those conditions may
impose restrictions in all areas affecting the excavation operation and
the City may require a Letter of Credit to insure the conditions
imposed and the completion of the work will be performed in the
manner described in the plan and CUP.
The issues listed below are responses to the ordinance criteria and to
the information discussed at the November 8th Planning Commission
public hearing. The notebook dates November 19, 1999 provides the
complete Ryan application with all amendments made.
\ \fs 1 \sys\dept\planning\99fiIes\99cup\99-075\99-075cc.docPage 2
1. Submit a landscape plan prepared by a registered landscape
architect, with one planting per 40 feet of site perimeter, as
required' by City Ordinance.
City Ordinance requires 1 tree per 40 feet of site perimeter. 90 Trees
are required to be planted on the site. Credit is given for existing
materials. There are 94 existing trees on site meeting the size and
species of the Ordinance. Only one of these trees is to be removed as
part of the excavation operations. Since the remaining 93 trees will be
preserved, no additional plantings are required as a part of the
Landscape Ordinance.
2. Submit a tree inventory and a tree preservation plan indicating
the specific trees to be removed and replacement as required per
City Ordinance.
-~.
-~.
There are 1,540 total significant caliper inches on the site. 25% or 345
caliper inches can be removed without replacement. The applicant is
proposing to remove one 42-inch tree or 3% of the total caliper inches.
The Tree Preservation Plan meets the ordinance.
3. Submit expanded reclamation plan indicating how the area
will be graded and reclaimed so as to be suitable for future
residential use. A staging plan for reclaiming the site as it is
completed must be a part of this. The site should be restored with
top soil, seed and additional landscaping to control dust as soon as
possible after staging areas have been mined.
The applicants have provided letters from the property owners stating
their future intended use is agricultural. The property owners are
satisfied with the future reclamation as it relates to their future
proposed use. At this time, until utilities are available the proposed
future use of agricultural is reasonable. The Comprehensive Land Use
Plan designates this property as RLIMD (Low to medium density
residential). A future residential development will be possible on the
site as slopes will not exceed 3:1.
4. Submit a site plan indicating proposed structures (including
temporary restroom facilities), and fixed equipment with setbacks
and proposed fueling areas. Any fueling areas and tanks should
be located on an impervious surface and meet structure setbacks.
Specifications for the parking area should be submitted and
compliant with City Code requirements (paved with curb) and
setbacks indicated. Parking area and equipment storage areas
should be screened. Fixed equipment and parking will not be
permitted over a lot line and must meet all required setbacks. A
\ \fs 1 \sys\dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-075\99-075cc.docPage 3
II
--r" ..~---~....._- --_._.~ ...................-..--..
contingency plan must be submitted and approved by the City
Engineer for properly handling all fuel spills related to fixed tanks
or equipment.
The screen plant is 150 feet from the nearest property line and the
parking area is 100 feet from the nearest property lines. This exceeds
the minimum required setbacks per ordinance. Specifications on the
fuel storage container have been provided. It is an enclosure which
prohibits leaking into the ground by design. The applicant will pave
and provide curbing of the parking area. All fixed equipment will
meet setbacks. The parking area needs to be screened. This is an
outstanding condition made a part of the resolution.
-~.
5. Submit a plan for continual monitoring of water quality. A
report shall be submitted prior to beginning mining, with' reports
submitted to the city on a regular basis. A plan for maintaining
the current quality of water in the area must be submitted prior to
beginning work.
-~.
A letter from Ryan states annual testing of the wetland will be
submitted to the City. An attached letter from Braun Engineering lists
the chemicals to be monitored. This is acceptable and is made a
condition ofthe resolution.
6. The storm water calculations were prepared by an engineer .
and the drainage plan was prepared by a land surveyor. The
grading plan should clearly indicate property lines and proposed
grades and berming. The grading plan should be revised as
follows: Additional silt fence is needed on the SW corner of the
site. Hydrologic/hydraulic calculations needed for 2,10 & 100 year
event storms showing existing and proposed run-off rates from the
site in cubic feet per second (CFS), pond slopes below normal
water level are to be 6:1 slope, 4:1 slopes required above the
normal water level of the sediment ponds, all other grades cannot
exceed 3:1.
A revised grading plan was submitted and is acceptable. However,
hydrologiclhydraulic calculations submitted are inadequate (Memo
11/19/99 from Sue McDermott). The proper information (direction
and rate of run-off) must be submitted prior to the recording of the
resolution and is a condition of approval.
7. DNR issues include protection of DNR wetland #70-247W.
Water use for dust control of greater than 10,000 gallons per day
or 1 million gallons per year requires a DNR permit. Provide a
schedule with quantities and specific water sources for dewatering.
\ \fs 1 \sys\dept\planning\99fi1es\99cup\99-07 5\99-075cc.docPage 4
The operation of the pit cannot result in the drainage or other
degradation of the DNR protected wetland.
This is a condition of the resolution.
8. A letter of credit must be submitted. The LOC will be for
125% of landscaping costs, road maintenance/reconstruction, and
environmental testing/inspections to ensure compliance with the
CUP. Estimates or bids must be submitted for the required
landscaping. Estimates for road maintenance and environmental
testing must also be submitted and approved by the City Engineer.
An estimate has been submitted and is acceptable. A LOC acceptable
to the City Attorney must be submitted prior to recording the
resolution. This is a condition listed on the resolution.
-,;...
9. Submit plan for dust control. Water what, where, when?
The applicant has submitted a letter identifying dust control methods.
They will water the site within 24 hours of city notification if needed.
This is a condition in the resolution.
10. Submit plans for maintenance, upgrading, clean up, and safety
of McKenna Road/CSAH 42.
The applicant met with the engineering staff regarding this concern.
The applicant intends to maintain the current condition of McKenna
Road throughout the excavation. A LOC will be posted with the city
for maintenance and/or repair. The condition of McKenna road will be
reviewed on an annual basis as a part of renewal of the CUP. The
applicant is responsible for maintain the current condition of McKenna
Road.
11. The CUP is valid for one year. Renewal of the CUP is to
include a staging plan to date, reclamation to date, along with
water quality, road quality, wetland quality, and air quality
reports submitted by qualified professionals.
This is a condition listed in the resolution.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) ANALYSIS:
Section 1108.200 of the City Code sets forth the criteria for approval
of a CUP:
\\fs 1 \sys\dept\planning\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\99-075cc.docPage 5
I I
[
--,--.---.---.---.... ... ....
(1) The use is consistent with and supportive of the goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Objective 5, under the goal of Security, is to Provide for conservation
and protection of the natural environment. The policies include
providing adequate regulation to prevent the development of endeavors
which will create a hazard to the environment and to require
developers to retain the natural environment as much as possible. The
conditions set forth in this CUP address environmental hazards and
require land reclarriation and site restoration.
-~.
-~.
Another policy of the Comprehensive Plan is to require developers to
retain the natural environment as much as possible. Considering the
proposed mining operation, it is difficult to restore the site to a natural
condition. The Landscape ordinance allows for credit for existing
materials preserved and the project complies with the Tree
Preservation Plan with removal of less than 25% of the total caliper
inches. A condition of the CUP should require exact replacement of
trees removed (42 caliper inches) to restore the natural environment as
much as possible.
The Comprehensive Land Use guide plan, designates the future land
use as single family residential. The reclamation plan is acceptable to
the property owners for their current and future agricultural use.
(2) The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety,
morals and general welfare of the community as a whole.
Based on staff and Planning Commission review, the proposed use
will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare
of the community. Annual review of the CUP will ensure ongoing
protection ofthe community.
(3) The use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the
Zoning Ordinance and the Use District in which the Conditional
Use is located.
Section 1101.509 ofthe Zoning Ordinance allows Grading, Filling and
Land Reclamation as a Conditional Use within any zoning district.
The conditions set forth in the Zoning Ordinance will be met with the
issuance of the Conditional Use permit.
(4) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on
governmental facilities, services, or improvements which are either
existing or proposed.
\\fs 1 \sys\dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-075\99-07 5cc.docPage 6
The use will not have adverse impacts on governmental facilities,
services or improvements as the applicant will be responsible for
maintaining the condition of McKenna Road and CR 42 as is exists
prior to the issuance of the CUP. In order to ensure this, it is necessary
to require a Letter Of Credit (LOC) for the maintenance of McKenna
Road. Costs related to the proposed use, such as expenses for
inspections and testing, will be borne by the applicant.
(5) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the use
and enjoyment of properties in close proximity to the conditional
use.
-.'
The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment
of properties in close proximity as the proposed mining operation is
located approximately 30 acres of which only 13 acres will be mined.
The property owners have signed the application, giving their consent
for the proposed use. The property to the north is agricultural in use
and the nearest residence is approximately 185 feet from the proposed
area to be disturbed (McKenna residence). The next closest dwelling
is approximately 325 feet from the area to be disturbed.
-.'
Staff does not anticipate development in the area to occur until utilities
are extended. Under the Comprehensive Plan, this could and will
occur at some point in the future. (Staff expects this to be at least 10
years.) However, development will be driven by property owners
desire to develop the area and would not necessarily be prohibited to
do so under the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant will be responsible for inspections and testing to assure
maintained quality of roads, trees, and wetlands. Costs related to the
proposed use, such as expenses for inspections and testing, will be
borne by the applicant.
(6) The use is subject to the design and other requirements of
site and landscape plans prepared by or under the direction of a
professional landscape architect, or civil engineer registered in the
State of Minnesota, approved by the City Council and
incorporated as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the
City Council.
One tree per 40 feet of site perimeter is required. Credit is given for
existing materials. The existing 94 trees are sufficient to meet the 90
trees required on site. A complete tree preservation plan has been
submitted. 25% Ofthe total caliper inches can be removed without
replacement and the applicant is proposing to remove one tree (3% of
total inches). Compliance with these provisions exists.
\ \fs 1 \sys\dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-075\99-075cc.docPage 7
I I
'--r-
----r-------------------..
(7) The use is subject to drainage and utility plans prepared
by a professional civil engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota which illustrate locations of city water, city sewer, fire
hydrants, manholes, power, telephone and cable lines, natural gas
mains, and other service facilities. The plans shall be included as
part of the conditions set forth in the CUP approved by the City
Council.
The storm water calculations and drainage plan were prepared by a
professional engine-er. No utilities are planned such as water, sewer,
electricity, gas, or telephone. Additional storm water information is
needed and has been made a condition of the resolution.
-......;..
(8) The use is subject to such other additional conditions
which the City Council may find necessary to protect the general
welfare, public safety and neighborhood character. Such
additional conditions may be imposed in those situations where the
other dimensional standards, performance standards, conditions
or requirements in this Ordinance are insufficient to achieve the
objectives contained in subsection 1108.202. In these
circumstances, the City Council may impose restrictions and
conditions on the CUP which are more stringent than those set
forth in the Ordinance and which are consistent with the general
conditions above. The additional conditions shall be set forth in
the CUP approved by the City Council.
Additional conditions are being recommended based on the issues
addressed with specific review of City Code 1101.509 Grading,
Filling, Land Reclamation and Excavation, the DNR Handbook for
Reclaiming Mining Sites, staff review, and public comments received.
Conclusion: Planning Commission and staffhave concluded the
proposed excavation of sand and gravel is reasonable and not
detrimental to the community. The Planning Commission and staff
recommend approval of this request subject to the following
conditions:
These conditions must be met prior to the recording of the
resolution:
1. A one for one replacement of trees removed, (42 caliper inches) is
to be completed as part of the reclamation and staging plan.
Landscaping plan to indicate this additional replacement.
Plantings are to be installed upon completion of phases.
2. Landscaping of 1 tree per 10 lineal feet of berm is to be installed as
per item 7 on Recapitulation of CUP Application submitted by
Ryan Contracting. A complete landscape plan is to be submitted
\ \fs 1 \sys\dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-075\99-075cc.docPage 8
-.'
-.'
FISCAL IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
including these trees and the additional 10 perimeter trees as
shown on the proposed landscape plan. Plantings are to be
installed upon completed of phases.
3. Driveway from the public street to the parking lot is to be
hardsurfaced (paved) prior to beginning work.
4. Screen parking area with additional plantings. This is to be shown
on a revised landscaping plan.
5. Revise storm water calculations per Engineering Memo dated
11119/99.
6. Letter of Credit, to be approved by the City Attorney, is to be
submitted prior to the recording ofthe resolution.
These conditions are ongoing and must be met at all times:
1. No lighting permitted on site.
2. Separate sign permits required for commercial signage.
3. Proposed traffic signs require approval from the City Engineer and
must meet MN Uniform Traffic Control Devices standards.
4. The required PCA permits must be obtained, and copies provided
to the City, prior to beginning work.
5. Project Plan Book submitted by Ryan Contracting is an Exhibit to
the CUP for approval.
6. Hours of operation on Saturdays are limited to 8:00 a.m. to 12:00
noon.
7. Parking area is to be completed by July 1, 1999.
8. Annual water quality testing is to be submitted to the city as part of
the annual renewal of the CUP. The current water quality of the
wetland is to be maintained. A list of petroleum and detergents
used on site is to be provided to the City.
9. Water use for dust control of greater than 10,000 gallons per day or
1 million gallons per year requires a DNR permit. The operation
of the pit cannot result in the drainage or other degradation of the
DNR protected wetland.
10. Watering for dust control will be done within 24 hours written
notice from the City Engineer on an as needed basis.
11. The CUP is valid for one year. Renewal of the CUP is to include a
staging plan to date, reclamation to date, along with road quality,
wetland quality, and air quality reports submitted by qualified
professionals.
Budl!et Imoact: The CUP will have no fiscal impact on the City as a
security for any costs to the City will be held.
The City Council has three alternatives:
\\fs 1 \sys\dept\planning\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\99-075cc.docPage 9
I I
----1----------------.-------.----
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
'c'
-c'
1. Adopt Resolution #99-XX approving the Conditional Use Permit
for Ryan Contracting subject to the listed conditions.
2. Deny the Conditional Use Permit on the basis they are inconsistent
with the purpose and intent of the Zon,ing Ordinance and/or the
Comprehensive Plan. In this case, the Council should direct the
staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact for the denial of
these requests.
3. Defer consideration of this item for specific reasons.
Staff recommends alternative # 1.
1. A motion and second to approve Resolution 99-XX approving the
Conditional Use Pe it, subject to the listed conditions.
\\fs 1 \sys\dept\planning\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\99-075cc.docPage 10
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
RESOLUTION 99-XX
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW EXCAVATION OF SAND
AND GRAVEL ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 22, T 115, R22 FOR RYAN CONTRACTING
MOTION BY:
-~.
-~.
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
SECOND BY:
the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
November 8, 1999, to consider an application from Ryan Contracting for a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow excavation of sand and gravel and the
City Council heard the case on December 6, 1999; and
notice of the public hearing on said CUP has been duly published In
accordance with the applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and
the Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this
issue and persons interested were afforded the opportunity to present their
views and objections related to the CUP for Ryan Contracting; and
the Planning Commission and City Council find the CUP for Excavation of
Sand and Gravel located in the SE Quarter of Section 22, Tlt5, R22 for Ryan
Contracting in harmony with existing development in the area surrounding
the project; and
the Planning Commission and City Council find the proposed CUP is
compatible with the stated purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as
they relate to conditionally permitted uses, and further, that the proposed
CUP meets the criteria for approval of CUP as contained in Section 1108 and
Section 1101.509 (2) Excavation of the Zoning Ordinance.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
that it hereby adopts the following findings:
FINDINGS
1. The use is consistent with and supportive of the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
\\fs 1 \sys\dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-075\reso99xx.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
, 1
----.-.---.......-.r
1_______....__..____._. ..,..---.---.. -'T
2. The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the
community as a whole.
3. The use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and the Use
District in which the Conditional Use is located.
4. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services, or
improvements which are either existing or proposed.
5. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties in
close proximity to the conditional use.
6. The use is compatible with the general welfare, public safety and neighborhood
character.
.~.
-.'
BE IT FURTHER RESOL YED, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
approves the CUP for Ryan Contracting on the property legally described as follows:
The Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 22, Township 115, Range 22, except
the West Half of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, Scott County, Minnesota; and
The West 990.00 feet (as measured at right angles) of the northeast quarter of the Southeast
Quarter of Section 22, Township 115, Range 22 EXCEPTING therefrom the following: The south
622.29 feet of the West 700.00 feet (as measured at right angles to the south and west lines) of
said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter. Containing 20 acres more or less.
BE IT FURTHER RESOL YED, approval of the CUP These
condition must be met prior to the recording of the
resolution:
I. A one for one replacement of trees removed, (42 caliper
inches) is to be completed as part of the reclamation and
staging plan. Landscaping plan to indicate this additional
replacement.
'2. Landscaping of I tree per 10 feet of berm is to be install as
per item 7 on Recapitulation of CUP Application submitted
by Ryan Contracting. A complete landscape plan is to be
submitted including these trees and the additional 10
perimeter trees as shown on the proposed landscape plan.
3. Driveway from the public street to the parking lot is to be
hardsurfaced (paved) prior to beginning work:
4. Screen parking area with additional plantings. This is to be
shown on a revised landscaping plan.
5. Revise storm water calculations per Engineering Memo
dated 11/19/99.
\ \fs 1 \sys\dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-07 5\reso99xx.doc
Page 2
6. Letter of Credit, to be approved by the City Attorney, is to
be submitted prior to the recording of the resolution.
7. The resolution must be recorded and proof of recording
submitted to the Planning Department prior to beginning
work. An Assent Form must be signed and, pursuant to
Section 1108.400 of the City Code, the CUP will be null
and void if .the necessary permits are not obtained for the
proposed structures within one year after adoption of this
resolution.
These conditions are ongoing and must be met at all times:
-.~..
1. No lighting permitted on site.
2. Separate sign permits required for commercial signage.
3. Proposed traffic signs require approval from the City
Engineer and must meet MN Uniform Traffic Control
Devices standards.
4. The required PCA permits must be obtained, and copies
provided to the City, prior to beginning work.
5. Project Plan Book submitted by Ryan Contracting is an
Exhibit to the CUP for approval.
6. Hours of operation on Saturdays are limited to 8:00 a.m. to
12:00 noon.
7. Parking area is to be completed by July 1, 1999.
8. Annual water quality testing is to be submitted to the city
as part of the annual renewal of the CUP. The current
water quality is to be maintained. A list of petroleum and
detergents used on the site is to be provided to the City.
9. Water use for dust control of greater than 10,000 gallons
per day or 1 million gallons per year requires a DNR
permit. The operation of the pit cannot result in the
drainage or other degradation of the DNR protected
wetland.
10. Watering for dust control will be done within 24 hours
written notice from the City Engineer on an as needed
basis.
11. The CUP is valid for one year. Renewal of the CUP is to
include a staging plan to date, reclamation to date, along
with road quality, wetland quality, and air quality reports
submitted by qualified professionals.
CONCLUSION
\\fs 1 \sys\dept\planning\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\reso99xx.doc
Page 3
I I
II' -
-I-----.~-_.
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby grants a Conditional Use
Permit for Ryan Contracting. The contents of Planning Case File #99-075 are hereby entered into
and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case.
Passed and adopted this 6th day of December, 1999.
YES
NO
Mader
Kedrowski
Petersen
Schenck
Wuellner
Mader
Kedrowski
Petersen
Schenck
Wuellner
-.'
-.'
{Seal} City Manager,
City of Prior Lake
\ \fs 1 \sys\dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-075\reso99xx.doc Page 4
Planning Commission Minutes
November 8. 1999
COUNTY ROAD 21 AND FISH POINT ROAD. ALSO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF
PRIVATE TRAILS AND ROADWAYS IN THE DEVELOPMENTS AS INDICATED
IN THE STAFF REPORT. INCLUDE AN EXPLANATION OF OUTLOT A - THE
OWNERSHIP AND USE OF THE LOT. ADDRESS THE DESIGN OF MAPLE
CURVE - RECOMMEND INCREASING THE 24 FOOT WIDTH TO 32 FEET. ALL
PRIVATE STREETS IN THE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE BUILT TO PUBLIC
STREET STANDARDS.
CRAMER AMENDED THE MOTION TO UPDATE THE TRAFFIC STUDY TO THE
NORTH INCLUDING THE EXTENSION. SECOND BY STAMSON.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
A recess was called at 8:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m.
-.'
~-9
B. Case File 99-075 Ryan Contracting is requesting a Conditional Use Permit
for grading, filling, land reclamation and excavation. The applicant is intending to
operate a sand and gravel mining operation.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated November 8, 1999, on file in
the office of the City Planner.
On September 29, 1999, a: completed application was received for the excavation of sand
and gravel from property located in the SE ~, Section 22, Township 115, Range 22. This
property is owned by Richard McKenna and Joseph and Carolyn Kinney. Due to an error
in the legal description, upon recommendation staff, the Planning Commission opened
the public hearing on October 25, 1999 and continued it to November 8, 1999.
Ryan Contracting is proposing to operate a sand and gravel mining operation. The
operation will consist of mining and processing including descreening, stockpiling, and
sale of product. Aggregate washing or operation of an asphalt plant is not a part of this
operation. Ryan intends to operate at the site for approximately 10 years and remove
500,000 cubic yards of materials. The materials mined will be used for road construction
and general fill. The operation will run from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Friday and
8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays.
Staff received necessary information on Wednesday but were unable to review before the
packets went out. The staffhas since reviewed the information and felt the outstanding
conditions and concerns were met. Staff recommended approval with the 5 conditions
listed in the Planning Report.
Tom Ryan, President of Ryan Contracting, explained the Conditional Use Permit request
was to use the natural aggregate resources in the property and through the process address
all environmental issues and concerns by staff.
f:\dept\planning\99fi1es\99plcomm\pcmin\mn II 0899.doc 6
, I
If
. -..r-...--........-----.---.-..--.--
Planning Commission Minutes
November 8. 1999
Comments from the public:
Craig Ahlman, 13799 McKenna Road, said he did not want this project next to his
property. His other concerns are the truck traffic and times of operation. It is a long and
big operation for the area.
Rick Palla, 13755 McKenna Road, said he and his neighbors fought a gravel pit 10 years
ago when the same family was trying put In an adjoining pit. Many residents fought the
proposal and won. In the end, the Dakota Community bought the land. Palla felt his
weekends offwill be spent next to a mining pit. Tovar explained the surrounding
properties. Palla felt there was a lot of traffic in the area right now and was concerned for
truck traffic. He felt the hours proposed are unreasonable and stated no one wants to live
next to a gravel pit.
-~'
Tovar explained the City sent notices to residents within 350 feet ofthe project. The City
also sent out a review request to the Dakota Community prior to the report. There is a
letter in the Commissioner's packets from the Community with their concerns.
Tom Ryan, the applicant, commented they had a grading permit two years ago and
voluntarily stopped mining until the City could change their conditional use permit
process. Ryan said they want to be a positive force in the community. He went on to say
they might be done in 3 years, hopefully they would not be mining in the area for 10
years, but it is unknown. They felt 10 years was suitable. The renewal is on an annual
basis and ifthere are problems they can be brought up yearly. Concerning the hours of
operation, Ryan said it is very unlikely they would be working during non-construction
season. One of the conditions is no lighting. They cannot work in the dark and do not
like to work on Saturdays. They are just trying to leave some leeway to work
sufficiently.
Evonne Anderson, 13222 Pike Lake Trail, representing the Southdale YMCA questioned
the County Road 21 expansion and how it fits in the Watershed District. They are
concerned with the high water at Pike Lake. Anderson also questioned the truck traffic
on County Roads 16 and 42. They want to make sure there are safety precautions.
Rye responded the County Road 21 alignnient will be 300 to 400 feet from the property.
McDermott pointed out a letter from the Watershed District indicating they would not
look at the permit until the City approves the project.
Tyler Enright of Ryan Contracting explained the proposed traffic flow stating County
Road 16 will not be used.
The public hearing was closed at 9:12 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
f:\dept\planning\99fi1es\99plcomm\pcmin\mn 11 0899.doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
November 8. 1999
Cramer:
. Did not agree with staffs recommendation to approve.
. Shepherd of the Lake Church is proposing a campus at the comer of County Road 42
and Pike Lake Trail.
. That portion of County 42 and McKenna is cut down to 2 lanes and is notorious for
being a danger area. _
. The Dakota Community indicated they had concerns with a nearby well.
. McDermott responded the issue is addressed in Ryan's proposal and is within the
guidelines issued by the Department of Health.
. Does not feel this development is appropriate for the location given the other types of
developments in the area. Will not support.
V onhoI:
. Dis-~~eed with Cramer. Felt this Conditional Use Permit is an interim use and is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It comes back for renewal every year.
. The 11 issues in the Planning Report have been addressed. Any approval would have
to address the concerns as part of the plan.
. Regarding the off-site traffic and impact, Ryan agreed to maintain the road. It is also
part of the condition.
. Another concern is regarding noise on the site. The decibel level has been addressed
and is adequate. .
. This is not a permanent long term use. It is appropriate and the conditions are met.
Stamson:
. Agreed with Vonhof, it is a temporary use and expires within the time frame of the
2010 Plan. It is appropriate within the Comprehensive Plan.
. His concerns have been addressed by staff.
. One concern is the hours of operation. What are Savage's time for operation? Never
had a problem with neighboring Savage's pit. Tovar responded the hours of operation
are consistent with the City's combustion engine ordinance which allows
lawnmowers and other types of machinery allowed within the hours.
. Six p.m. deadline is more appropriate.
. Tom Ryan said the reason for the hours requested is because it is consistent with the
City's hours of operation. He also addressed Vonhofs concern of decibels. Their
loudest decibel is in the 70 to 80 range.
. Ryan said it is not their intent to occupy the pit full-time.
V onhof:
. Be consistent with the time and noise ordinances.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW EXCAVATION OF SAND AND
GRAVEL AT THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 114,
f:\dept\planning\99fi1es\99plcomm\pcmin\mn 110899.doc 8
I I
----.-----r..--.---.---...T------.----.... ----.---.--,.----.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 8. 1999
RANGE 22, LOCATED ON MCKENNA ROAD, INCLUDING THE CONDITIONS IN
THE STAFF REPORT. INCLUDE THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY RYAN
EXCAVATING TO AMEND HOURS OF OPERATION FROM 8:00 A.M. TO 12:00
P.M. ON SATURDAY.
Vote taken indicated ayes by V onhof and Stamson. Nay by Cramer. MOTION
CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on December 6, 1999.
Dick Krier, Midwest Planning and Design requested a date change for continuing the
Preliminary Plat and PUD for Deerfield to November 22, 1999 rather than December 13.
Krier said he would like to address some of the Commissioner's concerns. The
COIIlIl1!ssioners felt it was not appropriate to reconsider this issue because of staff s
concerns about review time and the fact that persons appearing for the public hearing
were not present.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. Case File 99-083 Chris Anderson is requesting a vacation of a portion of
frontage road located adjacent to 16020 Eagle Creek Avenue.
Planner J enni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated November 3, 1999, on file in
the office ofthe City Planner.
The Planning Department received an application from Chris Anderson requesting the
vacation ofthe portion of public roadway located in front of his property. The purpose
ofthe vacation is to give Mr. Anderson more property in the front yard, resulting in a
private area for a future garage. While variances would be needed for a future garage, the
variance request would be minimized with greater lot area. Mr. Anderson is proposing to
vacate 26.50 feet of right-of-way with 13 feet being retained in a utility easement for the
City. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan will be met, however, there is a public
interest in retaining the entire right-of-way as platted. Planning staff recommended
denial ofthe request as submitted.
Comments from the public:
Chris Anderson, 16020 Eagle Creek Avenue, felt there was adequate distance to the road
for utilities. He would like to build a garage stating his neighbors would like to see him
complete it as soon as possible. Anderson would like to expedite the process. Neighbors
signed a petition in support.
Comments from the Commissioners:
f:\dept\planning\99fi1es\99plcomm\pcmin\nmII0899.doc 9
1m ...
....-...............-..........
.................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.................
.................
.................
.................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.................
.................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.................
.................
..................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.................
..................
. .. -,.,...._-"
::::;:::;:;:::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::;:::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::;:;:;:;:;:;:::..................................................:;:::::::::::::::::::;:;::.::::::;:;:::::::::;:;:::;:::::::;.................:.:.::;:::::::::;:;:;:;:;:;:.:;::::::::::::::;.:;:::;:;:;:::;:.;.;.;........... :;:;:::::::::;:::::::;:::::;:;:::::;:;:;:;:;:
...........:',.,.:':!";'~~~~~~I1J~:~'..........~~.......~
:1
.........
DATE:
November 19, 1999
TO:
FROM:
Jenni Tovar, Planner .
Sue McDermott, Assistant City Enginee~
Conditional Use Permit - Ryan Contracting
City Project # 99-43
RE:
-.,;.....
The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject permit and has the following
comment:
Per City Code 1004.313, a drainage plan of the developed site is required
delineating in which direction and at what rate storm water will be conveyed from /
the site and setting forth the areas of the site where storm water will be allowed to
collect. No rate calculations have been submitted yet.
g:\rnemos\sue99\permit2.doc
I I
-r..-.---.....-----....--...... .-..------....---. 1
91f
RYAN CONTRACTING COMPANY
RECAPITULATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICATION
SAND AND GRAVEL MINE OPERATION
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA
I. INTRODUCTION
- Ryan Contracting Company proposes to operate a sand and gravel mining operation within the City of Prior
Lake. Ryan Contracting Co. is seeking a Conditional Use Permit from the City of Prior Lake to begin
mining and processing including descreening, stockpiling, and sale of product. Aggregate washing or
operatioo~of an asphalt or _concrete plant is not .a part of this operation. These activities, if required, will be
performed off-site. The site is located on a combined 29.604 acres of land, of which onlv 12.91 acres are
included in the proposed mining plan. The following information briefly describes our proposed use, more
specific information can be obtained in our booklet submitted containing the Conditional Use Application.
ll. Narrative, Table of contents
1 Name and address of Applicant
2 Legal Description of Site
3 Name of Adjacent Property Owners within a 350' radius of Proposed Use
4 Specifications ofthe Following; Appropriate Maps, Photographs and Surveys
5 The Purpose of the Operation .
6 TheEstimated Time to ComPlete the Operation
7 The plan of operation
8 Traffic and Travel Routes
9 Drainage, Erosion Control, Sedimentation and Dust Control
IO Tree Preservation
11 Rehabilitation Plan
12 Permits
13 Maintenance of McKenna Road
14 Compliance
15 Site Appearance
16 Wetland # 70.247W
17 Groundwater
1.) Name and Address of Applicant:
Ryan Contracting Company
8700 13th Avenue East
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
2.) Le2al description of site:
Richard McKenna
Home address: 13787 McKenna Road
Prior Lake, MN. 55372
Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 22, Township 115, Range 22, except the
West Half of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, Scott County, Minnesota.
1
Joseph Kinney
Home address 4270 1401h Street Northwest
Prior Lake, MN. 55372
The West 990.00 feet ( as measured at right angles) of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter of Section 22, Township 115, R,ange 22 EXCEPTING there from the following: The
South 62229 feet of the West 700.00 feet (as measured at right angles to the south and west lines)
of said :Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter. Containing 20 acres more or less.
3.) Names of adiacent proPerty landowners including all those within a 350 ft. radius of the property.
A property owner list was generated by Old Republic Title. This list is included as Exhibit 6.
4.)
Specifications of the following. using: appropriate maps, photographs and surveys:
..,~..
a. The physical relationship of the proposed site to the commWlity and existing
development.
The proposed site is located in the northeast portion of Prior Lake, just north of County
Road 42 on McKenna Road (See Exhibit 5).
Residential areas are located to the west and east of the site. The land to the north of the
site is open fields with some groves of trees. The land to the south is Mr. Richard
McKenna's house along with McKenna Road and field.
b. Site topography and natural .features including location of water courses and water
bodies.
Exhibit 15 is a U.S.G.S. quadrant range map which illustrates the relationship of the site
to surrounding natural features. The site topography is shown in 2 foot contour intervals.
The plan also shows drainage ways and direction of surface water flow under current
conditions. The plan also shows the location and description of the trees in the area of
the proposed building site.
c. Description and quantity of material to be excavated.
Material to be mined from the site will consist of sand and gravel. The soils within the
mining limits are predominately Estherville and Kingsley soils, both sandy loams
forming in loamy glacial outwash over sand and gravel deposits. The Scott COWlty
Geological Atlas maps the site as a primary sand and gravel resource with over 35%
gravel.
Approximately 500,000 C.Y. of material will be mined from this site. The type of
material to be mined will be sand and gravel. Initially a phase will be opened up by
stripping topsoil over a designated area. lbis topsoil will be stockpiled on site and later
used in restoration. No topsoil will be sold or removed from the site. Any overburden,
fine clays, and silty soils which cannot be sold or utilized by the operator will also be
stripped exposing the underlying aggregate. Mining will create an active mine face with
a slope liot exceeding 1:1. Perimeter slopes may be mined to 1:1 and then backfilled. to
the grades shown on the mining plan. Final grades- over the base of the pit are at a
minimum elevation of 870.00. Mining may occur below the depth of the grades shown
on the plan in areas where good material is encountered. All material replaced below
elevation of 870.00 will be structural suitable for building and will include certification
of any filling. These areas would then be backfilled. as part of restoration for that
2
I I
I -..--.---....
particular phase. The maximum depth of mining will not exceed elevation 850.00. The
average restoration grade will be arOlmd elevation 870.00.
5.) The purpose of the operation:
The purpose of the mining operation is to obtain natural aggregate for use in the construction
industry. The operator will use material obtained from site to produce aggregates for road
construction and general fill.
6.) The estimated time reQuired to complete the operation:
The site will be active for an estimated 10-year period. The life of the site will be dependent on
market demand. The site will be operated in phases. Mining will begin in the western portion of
the site and progress to the east. Each year an annual report will be submitted, which will outline
areas to be stripped, mined, and reclaimed during the next mining season. This will keep the City
up to date on the mining progress, and rate of mining activity at the site.
-.,.;",
7.) The plan of operation:
Duration of MininJ! Activity: Mining activity typically occurs from March-December. The life
of the mine is estimated to be 10 years.
Hours of Ooeration: The site will be operated from 6:30 AM - 7:30 P.M. Monday - Friday and
8 A.M. - 5 P.M. Saturdays on a seasonal basis.
Operations: Operations will be initiated by stripping an area corresponding to the first years
excavation activities. The stripping will be shaped into berms along the designated setback areas.
These berms will be seeded to provide screening, noise and dust abatement Material will be
excavated from .the working face, desanded, and stockpiled according to the various grades of
material. The initial location of the screening plant is shown on Exhibit 8. Mining will progress
in a west to east direction. Conveyors may be used to feed material to the screening plant
throughout the mining season. Each year, additional area will be stripped as the working face
moves easterly.
The screening plant is a portable plant and may be moved off of the site depending on the amotmt
and location' of future contracts. Exhibit 8 shows the location of the screening plant.
Noise: All equipment will be operated within the noise emission standards established by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Processing and loading activities are performed in
the lower elevations of the pit where the side slopes, vegetation and trees will act as noise barriers.
Ryan Contracting will op~tein accordance with the noise standards established by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for reSidential areas.
In addition, Ryan Contracting will be constructing a "buffer" berm on the west edge to reduce
sound levels. Mining operations will begin at an elevation of 884.00 and continue down to a final
elevation of 870.00. The west berm will be constructed to an elevation of 910.00, initially
allowing for a 26 foot high berm to reduce noise. lbis berm. will also be landscaped. Ryan
Contracting will install 2 inch trees staggered at an even ten feet apart on the berm. These trees
will be maintained and guaranteed. The berm will have topsoil placed On it. The topsoil will be
seeded, mulched, fertilized, and disc anchored to provide positive turf establishment.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources report, Industrial Minerals in Minnesota dated.
September 1979 states. "Typical mining equipment gen~ates noise levels as high as 88 decibels
(dBA) measured at 50 feet away from the source. Screeners can generate tip to 78 dBA measured.
- 3
I I
from 50 feet from the source. Table 1 describes decibels (dBA) by comparison to familiar
environments. The Minnesota Pollution. Control Agency has established noise standards which
include noise from mining activities. The MPCA states that, "acceptable sound levels for the
receiver are a function of the intended activity in that land area." Further, these standards
described the limiting levels of sound established on the basis of present knowledge for the
preservation of public health and welfare. These standards are consistent with speech, sleep,
annoyance, and hearing. The allowable noise level standards range from 50 dBA to 80 dBA.
TABLE 1 NOISE LEVEL COMPARISON
Decibels (dBA)
Common Sounds
-~.
-~.
160
140
120
100
80
60
50
40
20
o
Medium jet engine
Large propeller aircraft, air raid siren
Disco
Canning plant, heavy city traffic, subway
Busy office
Normal speech
Private office
Quite residential neighborhood
Whisper
Threshold of hearing
Exhibit 8 shows. the initial location of the screening plant, stockpiles, and haul roads which will
eliminate the need for trucks to back up sounding their back - up alarms. If requested, Ryan
Contracting will be willing to disconnect our backup alarms, if absolutely necessary. The
screening plant will be placed at various locations throughout the pit to minimize noise to the
surrounding area. Material will be stockpiled fromthe screening plant by conveyors.
EQuimnent: Machinery will be kept. in good repair. Abandoned machinery, inoperable
equipment and rubbish shall be removed from the site regularly. All buildings or equipment not
used for a period of one year shall be removed from the site. All equipment and structures shall be
dismantled and removed within 90 days after termination of the permit
Natural Screenin$!: The perimeter of the site shall be screened as shown on the. aerial photo
(Exhibit 18). The aerial is from Scott County Surveyors and dated 1990. The severe
thunderstorms :from 1998 destroyed the trees on the east side of the pit in phases n and Ill, those
are shown in the aerial. The site will be screened :from the residences to the north and west by the
groves of trees. This buffer area will provide both visual screening, and noise and dust abatement.
There are no residents to the east of the si~e.
Water: No well will be drilled on the site or washing of aggregates; however Ryan Contracting
will use the water :from the ponds on site for dust control. .
Fuel Storaf!e: Ryan Contracting will be storing fuel on the site in an above ground 1000
gallon steel tank placed in a concrete enclosme. The fuel will be diesel fuel for the operating of
the screening plant and the construction equipment only. The concrete enclosure will contain
spills ifleakage did occur. The concrete enclosure is made by Crest and is a MPCA approved
design for this exact situation. Please see the Exhibit 24 containing specifications on
the enclosUre. The enclosure' will have a roof over it along with a metal chain link fence. The fuel
tank will be locked when not in use. Due to the concerns from the Shakopee Mdewakaotoo Sioux
CommllDity (SMSC) regarding fuel spillage, this is the best solution. The enclosme will trap fuel
that is spilled or leaked from the tank and will prevent fuel from contaminating the grOlmdwater.
Wrth the tank on site, this will reduce the number of refueling trips to the site thus decreasing the
possibility of a: fuel spill. In the unlikely event a fuel spill would occur, Ryan Contracting would
4
--.---.--T--------.-----..----------. -- I
respond by following state guidelines as outlined by the MPCA. These guidelines are included
under Exhibit 24.
The MPCA does not require a permit for an above ground fuel tank less than 1,100 gallons.
Site Security: The gates to the site will locked when not in use. The rest of the site will be
protected by the current homeowner. Currently, there is a barbwire fence and snowfence securing
the site.
Parkin)!: . The parking area as shown on the Exhibit 8 is for employee parking only. The surface
of the parking lot will be of a gravel material like class 5. . The gravel surface will be maintained
by Ryan Contracting on as need basis. The size of the parking lot will be large enough to handle
five full size vehicles. The parking of the construction equipment will be next to the screen plant
or nearthe center of the gravel pit.
8) Traffic & Travel routes
~~;..
The site is 10catedroughlyV-Imilenorth of County Road 42. To access the site from County Road
42, trucks will exit off County Road 42, onto McKenna Avenue, and turn onto Richard
McKenna's property which is where the pit is located. Traffic from the site is reversed to County
Road 42. Dust control methods will be implemented as indicated in Exhibit # 21. Ryan
Contracting proposes to limit the number of trucks visible to the public on this property to 6 at any
one time. Other trucks may be waiting within the pit, recessed and out of view of the public. At no
time will trucks be allowed to use McKenna Road to the north for an access to this property.
Please refer to Exhibit 14 for an example of signage.
9.) Drainage. Water Erosion Control. Sedimentation and Dust Control
Currently the site drains to the northwest over land and off site. Min.ing will move from the west
to the east with the pit floor sloping to the west maintaining this overall drainage pattern
-throughout the life of the site.
Erosion will be controlled be placing heavy-duty silt fence in the drain swale where the
sedimentation ponds will be constructed adjacent to the mining operation and by on-going
restoration of disturbed areas including topsoil placement and establishment of vegetation.
Sedimentation ponds will be constructed in the northwest portion of the site to treat runoff prior to
leavingthe site. These ponds will be constructed at the beginning of operation. They are designed
to aCC<llIl1Dodate a 10 year; 24 hour ston:il runoff over the maximum disturbed area at any given
time. Exhibit 10 contains sizing computations done by Cal Hedlund with Gorman Land
Surveying, Inc. The location of the sedimentation ponds is shown on the proposed grading plan
(Exhibit 1 O)~
Dust genemted from vehicle traffic will be minimized by utilizing the existing access to the site.
A water truck will be used as needed to water used roads. On site processing equipment will be
recessed thereby minimi7.ing the amooot of dust leaving the site. The vegetated buffer area will
also reduce fugitive dust.
_ Stripping operations will be conducted in as short of a time fr~e as possible. The overburden
will be removed and stockpiled. The stockpiles will be seeded to reduce the source of dust. The
. site entrance roads will be watered as needed. Restoration of the . site will be on going to rninimi7.e
the amount of area without vegetation at any given time. Fugitive dust, dust not associated with
specific processing activities, is also addressed in the sites Air Quality Permit which will be
obtained from the MPCA.
-5
Calcium chloride is used statewide by the State of Minnesota, counties, cities, tOwnShipS, and
recommended by consultIDg engineering firms throughout the state. The use of calcium chloride
on the gravel traffic routes will minimize the amount of dirt blown in the air. The screening plant
will be on the floor of the proposed pit. The vegetated berms, walls and trees will act as shields
minimir.ing fugitive dust. The existing trees on the west and south sides will act as a natural
buffer. On the north and east of the proposed pit, the existing fields will also act as natural shields.
The pr<posed berms, trees, and fields will reduce the presence of pit operations from the view of
the public and residents. -
Ryan Contracting Company will protect the site and adjoining surrounding properties from
erosion and sedimentation. If erosion occurs off site as a result of our operation, Ryan Contracting
will immediately clean up the debris at our expense and restore all damage to the surrounding
properties.
10)
~~..,
Tree Preservation:
A tree Dventory has been performed on this site. There will be a total of three trees removed on
this site as a result of our proposed use. This equates to 3.03% of the total trees to be removed.
There vill be a total of70" of trees removed out ofa total of23IO" of trees surveyed by Gorman
Land Surveying. The tree removal does not exceed the 25% tree removal limit, however Ryan
Contracting will be planting over fifteen trees on the west berm ih addition to the ten proposed
plantings shown in the attached plan. The tree plantings on the west berm will be done once the
berm is fully constructed. The remaining trees shown in Exhibit # 13 will be planted at the
completion of our project. The trees on the west berm will be planted within 45 days of April 15,
2000, p"oviding our CUP has been received by this date. Ryan Contracting will be planting the
trees in good faith to the City of Prior Lake and the adjacent residents. The proposed trees will be
maintained and guaranteed. The existing trees will be protected by means of snowfence with metal
posts and will be erected past the drip line of significant trees along the mining limits. Snowfence
will be maintained in place until restoration along the perimeter of the mining limits has been
completed.
11.) Rehabilitation Plan:
Rehabilitation of the mining area will be performed to restore the site to a stable condition,
minimizing the potential for erosion, and also allowing for future development of the land.
Rehabilitation will involve final grading, slope stabilization, application of topsoil and seeding and
mulching. Existing grades prior to mining are shown. on the Existing Conditions Plan (Exhibit 7).
Exh1bit 8 indicates the sequence and timetable of mining and the location of topsoil and
overburden storage areas. Restoration grades are shown on the proposed grading plan (Exhibit 9).
Existing perimeter side slopes will be mined to a maximum of 1: 1 and backfilled to a minimum of
2.5:1. The slope of the floor of the pit will be 1.00010. A minim:wn of 4" of topsoil will be placed
over the graded slopes and floor of the mining area. Vegetatioo will be established. V ~getation
will consist of MnDot Seed mix number 50A, a mixture of predominately Bluegrass, Bluestem,
and Bromegrass.
Sufficient topsoil is available on site for use in reclamation. Approximately 5 acres of the' site will
be left with 2.5:1 slopes. This.area will require an average 4" depth oftopsoil. Approximately 8
acres of the pit floor area will require an average of 4"-oftopsoil.
Restoration will be ongoing. Each year mined areas not utilized for processing or stockpiling will
be graded to the proposed plan. Topsoil will be applied and vegetation established to minimize
the amount of open area at any ~ven time. An annual operating plan will be submitted each y~.
6
II
------r-
.---r------
This plan will include a map which shows areas which have been reclaimed during the past
mining season. Areas to be reclaimed the following mining season will be noted as well.
Reclamation of the site: The site was originally and still zoned agricultural. The site is currently
outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Mr. Richard McKenna and Mr. Joseph
Kinney are currently the two property owners of this site. Ryan Contracting has a contract with
these owners for the removal of this material as shown in Exhibit 10. When the pit use has been
completed, Ryan Contracting will restore the land back to agricultural use. The site will have 4"
of topsoil and seeding over all disturbed areas. The site will not create a pond as other pits have
become. The only water in the pit will be in the sedimentation ponds that will be cleaned out as
part of the restoration of the site. After completion and restoration of the gravel pit, the use will be
at the discretion of the landowners. The landowners have indicated they wish to retmn the
property to agricultural use. Ryan Contracting will furnish the City with a $ 50,000.00 restoration
bond to guarantee restoration of this property.
12.)
...Permits:
-."
In addition to the Conditional Use Permit and the annual permit renewal required by the City of.
Prior Lake, Ryan Contracting may also be required to obtain the following permits:
. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency:
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Stormwater Perron.
Ryan Contracting will be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits as required by the
MPeA. Copies of required permits will be submitted to the City prior to beginning mining
operations.
. DNR:
Department of Natural Resources will be informed, Ryan Contracting will be responsible for
obtaining all necessary permits as required by the DNR Copies of required permits will be
given to the city prior to beginning mining operations.
13) Maintenance of McKenna Road
Ryan Contracting Company will repair and maintain McKenna Road from County Road 42 to the
entrance of the gravel pit as needed at the discretion of Ryan Contracting and the City of Prior
Lake. A biannual review will be set up with the City of Prior Lake to observe the conditions of
McKenna Road and determine the need for repair. The condition of McKenna Road will be kept
in as good as condition or better while the gravel pit is in operation. Ryan Contracting Company .
will post a $ 50,000.00 maintenance bond with the City of Prior Lake to guarantee maintenance
and repair of McKenna Road while our Conditional Use Permit is active. It is our understanding
McKenna Road may be realigned within the next five years. The extent of repairs to this road will
be negotiated with the City of Prior Lake to an acceptable level as agreed on.
14). Compliance:
The site will be operated as indicated in this permit application. Any additional conditions as set
forth in the permit will be adhered to. Once the operation has been established, any questions,
complaints, or requests by the city or residents should be directed to either Tom Ryan or Tyler
Enright of Ryan Contracting Company at {612) 894-3200. Action will be taken immediately
where appropriate. Ryan Contracting Company will work in good faith to resolve any-complaints
or issues related to the .operation of the mine. _
An annual report will be submitted to the city in conjunction with the annual permit renewal. The
report will show limits of current mining and processing areas, stockpile areas, the next phase of
stripping/mining, previous years restoration areas, the next years planned restoration a~vities, and
the quantity of material removed from the site during the previous mining season -
7
15) Site Appearance
Ryan Contracting Company will be operating this pit in a professional manner. The pit will siart
on the west side and work to the east. TJ:le pit will be have a full exposed face from the existing
ground to the proposed pit floor. The ber:ins and slopes on the proposed pit will be constructed as
the pit takes shape. along with the restoration. (See Exhibit 9) The pit will be constructed in three
phases over a life span of roughly ten years. Each phase will not be constructed in three and a half
years, but will be constructed on need and/or supply and demand on the material available in the
pit The phasing plan is outlined on how the pit will be constructed. (Exhibit 19 )
All equipment will be in operating use on the site. There will be no abandoned equipment on the
site that is the property of Ryan Contracting Company. This pit is to operate in a clean and neat
fashion, not to offend any of the residents in the area, property owners. or government officials.
-.'
Ryan Contracting will be the sole operator of this pit. There will be no other operators using this
pit if granted th.e conditional use permit. Once the CUP has been received Ryan Contracting will
be responsible for all activities in the pit and maintenance or repair of haul routes.
16) WETLAND # 70-247W
Please refer to Exhibit 22 showing the approximate location of the wetland in relation to the.pit
location. This wetland will not be disturbed in anyway by our activities. The drainage on this
property nms from the southeast to the northwest The location of this wetland is directly
southeast from our proposed gravel pit. There will be no drainage into the wetland, nor will the
wetland be drained of water. Currently. there is a natural buffer between this wetland and our pit
location. Ryan Contracting. will review this area witb the DNR, and if requested, Ryan Contracting
will install heavy duty silt fence as a precaution. Currently. there is a natural land and wooded
buffer between our property and the wetland. This area will not be disturbed , nor traversed in
anyway.
17) Groundwater
Well Head:
Sanitation:
, 1
The concern by the SMSC in the elevation of the floor of the proposed pit to
their Public 'Water Supply (PWS) well is being taken with great concern. The
elevation of the floor in the proposed pit will start at an elevation of 884.00 and
may be excavated to an elevation of 850.00 with a restored elevation of 870.00.
The ground water is at an elevation of 743.00 according to the Mean Sea Level
(MSL.) with bedrock at 750.00 according to SC-Geo Atlas. Excavation of
mined material will leave over 100 feet between the proposed pit floor and th.e
Jordan Aquifer. The Minnesota Department of Health recommends at least 50
feet or more in separation. The distance between the aquifer and the pit floor is
double the recommended separation distance. This distance should satisfy
concerns the SMSC had with the proximity and operation of the proposed pit.
Ryan Contracting is proposing to use satellite toilet facilities on the site. A
maximum of five employees will be working on the site, not including
independent trucking COIl)panies. The satellite toilet facilities wi!! b~ maintained
by an independent company and maintained weekly during the operating months
of the year. This facility will be located adjacent to our parking area as shown in
Exhibit. 8. This facility will be removed When our operation is not in use.
8
t
--.i---"-'_C_"
Fuel Storof!e:
Ryan Contracting will be storing fuel on the site in an above ground 1000 gallon
steel tank placed in a concrete enclosure. The fuel will be diesel fuel for the
operating of the screening plant and the constniction equipment only. The
concrete enclosure will contain spills if leakage from the tank did occur. The
enclosure is made by Crest and is a MPCA approved design for this exact
situation. Please see Exhibit 24 containing specifications on the enclosure. The
enclosure will have a roof over it along with a metal chain link fence. The fuel
tank will be locked when not in use.
-.'
-."
Due to the concerns from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
(SMSC) regarding fuel spillage, this is the best solution. The enclosure will trap
. any fuel that is spilled or leaked out of the tank and will prevent fuel from
contaminating the gromdwater. With the tank on site, this will reduce the
number of refueling trips to the site and decreasing the possibility of a fuel spill..
In the unlikely event a fuel spill would occur, Ryan Contracting would respond
by following state guidelines as outlined by the MPCA.' These guidelines are
included in our application under Exhibit 24.
Equipment Fuel: The SMSC has expressed concerns regarding possible fuel spills from the
intregal fuel tanks on out equipment These concerns are unwarranted. The
intregal tanks constructed on heavy equipment are built for heavy operations to
withstand hard and severe use. The possibility of a fuel spill caused by a
ruptured fuel tank from our equipment is far less likely than a fuel spill from
your own car.
Ryan Contracting Company will not be drilling or installing any wells on this property.
Ryan Contracting Company will be taking water from the sedimentation pond for use on
site to water roads.
9
WATER TESTING OF WETLAND 70-247W
Ryan contracting will conduct annual water testing ofthe Wetland 70-247W as described
in the attached letter from Braun Intertec. :
:~~
II
NOV 19 '99 11:37AM ERAUN INTERTEC ELDG2
P.1/2
BRAUNSIA
I NTERTEC
Braun Intertec Cvrporotion
6875 Washington Avenue South
Minncapoli:, Minne-..ola SS.439-01 08
612.941.5600 Fax; 9,42-4844
November 19, 1999-
Engineers and Sci~nr.$r: S!rving
rhs Bull, and No/lJrat Envlranment~
Mr. Craig Svoboda
Ryan Contracting Co.
8700 13111 Avenue East
Shakopee,~ 55379
Dear Craig:
Re: Field Collection and Laboratory Analysis of Pit Water Samples
Thank you for your request for a price quotation for our analytical laboratory services. .Braun
Interte'-,= appreciates the opportunity to present this information for your review.
Scope of Project
We understand the scope of this project to involve the field collection and laboratory analysis
of water samples from a wetland area in the city of Prior Lake. These samples would be
collected annually by our staff and analyzed at our laboratory. There would be one sample
collected annually for your requested parameter list.
Cost of Services
The proposed laboratory rates for your project are listed belo~:
Sainple Collection: Estimate 30 miles round trip plus one hour on site.
Total for collection = $ 75.00
Laboratory Analysis:
, Parameter
Cost per Sample
Volatile Organic Compounds
PCBs
Ammonia Nitrogen
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen
Phosphorus, Total
Total Suspended Solids
Diesel Range Organics
Gasoline Range Organics
$ 150.00
$ 135.00
S 15.00
$ 22.00
$ 15.00
$ 22.00
$ 15.00
$ 40.00
$ 40.00
Total cost per sample == $ 454.00
Sample collection == $ 75.00
Laboratory Analysis == $ 454.00
Annual total = $ 529.00
Estimated annual cost:
NOV 19 '99 11:37AM BRAUN INTERTEC BLDG2
P.2/2
Ryan Contracting Co.
November 19, 1999
Page 2
Braun Intertec appreciates the opportunity to present this infonnation for your review. If you
have any questions, need additional info~tion, or would like to schedule our services please
feel free to contact me at your convenience'at 942-4936.
6::
.Dean Almquist.
LabODltory Project Manager
I I
;>l
~
." \ \,\, \"
,;0."-
("'t
("'t
~
1.0
-,,~
~
("'t
("'t
z
o
...-c
~
.u
.~
U)
~
o
~
1""'1
~
U)
~
~
o
~
1""'1
Z
. ...... .
~
I~
i II
(J
:?J
~
~
d
o
c5
zuJf!
- lZ
I- uJltI
o>z
c2: <::;;
o:i=l:f
I- CO) 11.
Z;;;o
00:>::
t--<
Oco:c
Ul
Z
c2:
>-
c:
,
!
~
I
i
i
\
\
~-
I
,...
.'
/
../
.I
I
!
f
!
~
1
f
t
I
t
i
I
i
-
~- ~,
-~--------_._._--_..,~-
~
. .
. ;.
I:. \ .. \" "
/1; \ " \, ~ \ i r '.) \', --;--.--...-..
J " "\ / /. / !M:
,t /-----...,.., \ '\ '\ \ i I '\ "'/ /,/ .J,.' II / ,.// ~ g 5 ~ ~ I H
jI \ \ ., -->---=. .:1/ / ,,/ /'i!il ~
kr~.>..) L) ~; ,'F",,.: ~- ~~~m /~(</ // .!~i1Jl
'Ii)' ~, . . . ~ ~,. . ;1' ,/ / /' -- - ~ ~ S ~ i.;U
W& . ~. ~. // {.~ // ._w:5 ~ ~ ....
j 'liifJ '.' fI~" . j !.~/-~~~~~:,.~~'__'-o I - /i> "~; ,..__'-'" ~JiIP;
I.. .., I' I'" "- _...... .oJ '..', " '. I' - .ur. Bu' i
i "~,,..: Il/ ./o.;;j'~'_""'" '-.. I \ \1\' (/" ~~. ~.
r /..1' " '..,'. /././.<~~ '-'-"":.:~.'.e'.~~ .:.~~<> I \, \. \ \ '. ,.'
I' ,. .., 1\ \. . ,
/':/'-" j \ \ I \ \ II >- //
'- '. \ \ \ i' ,,~..
I ,............,.....' ~ i .
tl'l i/. . '.. ~,. ~.::...' .:::<.,,\: '. < / .' --/
II / I I f ~ ......' ""\" \" "'," ...... ""'" (,/
I '.. . ". \ .." .... .... '
,. I' I" . \ "\ '\ ' "" '. '. , ,
I~'I'I/ I '1\\\ '\..:'<<'I'i '\ \\\
1',/ I:....,j.. f' I\\}.\\" \\ \ i \ \ I
I'!i . 'r~,i,\'~HHh
;: I. I . ;),~i \ \. \ \)\ \ \ \ \ \
.ll.. :.1 ~:///,.<, )) \ \ i
,I / .', ' I / 'I' >
<.A'o" /'".. ,~ ~,/ //~/,/ . L._.~
.'/v"'/"/L~!../ .
t /1/>" />//._..._~
1 (7"'-' r" L - .::::..-._..--;.:-~'
./ /~7 ~;-. _.:~r.. ~. --'----__
/\..'1~""'I" _-.- '"
... -. - . -
- -~?7/ .'} /0F7~"'''''':'::':''--~< .,""". .,' .
-' -.- ,. / / I. / 1.1 "~oj.",, "" "".
----:. .:l. fif-;:'-i'" if ...:::J'< ~n(' ~,~
- ._~ /ol'{~';';';j.",~~,":G..~./ .' _' -""Y \ I .~~~
,o,;'Z;,:~o!~:'::::.;_"'c / '. c~ ."
. ':~ .t//1r!-- -----J - !
'" ~ ,J ifl'll/{ (;) (ir :-"''':[:~''-'1 ti~ I
t,. "\.,.;;~,/:::-#l/l .' 0"" .",....l..{ I Ii! .~ J
"/~~A~.i.?{i1f}~< \ ~., " /- S I~ I'li: I
I 'f.~"'''''Yha~ (i'a' .;....;.. ...",/.rI I ..
.b r tlff 'flf/ ~'..; .....'~~'-6.~,>"., J.;'- I "
I Ii)' . ...... '. '. , m' if!;, ''.;'1 }%::t:;I:~~'~:K;>:-;-;" !fI ~~ !
i "' . . I " \...1S' \:). ,'./ .IJ
.,1'/ '. ~~. ,:-d; i Z , '<'i' _ -.-........ .-/ ,- j _I 4
,./. r ;7.:{ i"tY .'.. ,~t'{ (' . \. '.. ".' >-:: ~r
, .' J ...-./ k...'" I fd. .,.df!. I BP ........ ./ tj.l
f ,/ .-.- /-''' J,..: / iF)JV I :~. .,./ /'. fl"~
. ,..r'- ./ "//0' II/", '. it"'/. ,; /r;:;l="'~Y ...;" 0 _ fj
L... . " " /' ._"'-: .' ~. '.." '/./;' \ ._~/ / (.) eM
'"_ / . ,I:.~ ., r';. 'I'~. 0" . -'"' ,.
) "_ _" / ,'''\W/"", fJ(J" / ,~ / ,r->\ ---....... -..... ...
I. i z g .. ,// / cr" ,>!; ~:"':/:" <- - \"'./ -':'~: CJ
] "~"...:.- ~!i_...<~<.' "'I!{!t . I:'{ ., . .... ~ -~:.6:'-:-::"'=':-:':\><:: I-~ uJ m
~ ".- J .':", '!/'~/ . . . z .-:.t. ..-'0 . './ uJ on
l-",,,,~ 0 ~/0:::-;:%" ~ . '~. 2\ I -' . - ,:;""~::.:>:::.' - -'\./ g ?< ~
I _.__~...,..%......:...:......'" ~ _'. /.. . ...-~..._-:::. ---)t......... ..... ::c
[........_._-.-.-:::.-:.. ~./<./ I ~...:b::,IlI ~,.f.. r .~.. ' :,... -~/ -. - .-\ IX: t:; llf
::-'':::'::-:::'''_':':--':~'l.::'' ,.<'-"~..< y/ ,.,.-;.,'" . ~}I;II,.- ~--..,.----..-..-./ ~ .. t'>
r ~.. _ . ..._.. . ." ..._.... _ ...-. ..'" ,. _,!(l'~!."",_/-", - / -: :~.>!!" -....- . 0 g ~
I-.__..e-~_..". -....... _'d.!"I')'~l...,/ ". (,,{) '.' ','..1,,' ----- -"'.--~-... (j;<
l--'::"::::I~":':-'~: -<--'~ . ,/i1)j/(j/(!;/il'~--1f7 0 /~.. / ,. ,.~/.:,,;. - Q ,', "'''' ...... (.) ffi
~..-:-':'.:' :.. .....:.--, i: \ \\ \~_~ ~l{~, "b "-l - 0 IL' I /',//' /,'.:""""'.!;) - --"':~-_..:' ~
_.......__ --.....-.. __ \:..,\ \..l.~:,!:...&c'"q.:, '. .x ,~... /' / ' <.) ~ .. .......
_.~--_.._... '. .. ,,:f,"...'<..<. " ~'"..r:-o ___r.'......, I'" .. >
t . . -". ,. ~", .... ". ,'& /
'.._--'~'~'_':~' t. ",;,,"',\'-~"""'1:9 ....;1 f to "". ...-----.<>- IX:
':~'s~;/;;=;:c~=~::~i;t!J;F;:;29 [' < :,~~~-~- :~/ _ _ _ _ __
..-....... ..... .,-.......-.... ...,-\~.......-..;:;:,.~, .---- ..'.' ; .... ------
...--" ..... ..... '~......~...:::---..:.., ............ /. - . ....
. - . ''.:;'_:-....,~ '_. _.- .,,~' .J/.'
_.:r ......v~\ \ ......-::....... .~-_....../ ......'>-<4i.
........, "'I "...... ~- - .,-.;..-:'"
~:~/<..,
J .
I. .
j
J
-
. --
,
. .
---r-
r..--..-..--.------..--...--..--
i'-,.
,.,.\
,
''-,
'''-'l-..
\~~;~~?y=~:;;>/ /' !!~:
/' //1' I / .{.../ '"
/' / J / / / ,/" ~ ~ i
.--..( / / /I! // . ~!l ~ I I ~
~ / I -' / ,.' " h; i
~-==- -I '>1!/<' -_//- Iii! i~!:i
I; / /. - ~ '" C'lli
", ,of I - -- ", ~ cil VII
, ,'" - So ./ I ~,.' ~:I ..._ __ ." ~ ~ .! ~
, , J- ~ ' ~ I
, . /1 /( 8 ~
( / / ..--,- ~~
\ .! _Ur< 9
\ \. I:, ~- e~
"\J" I ,it- ~
. \ ". \ \ <'
\ - ~/
i --'"
..........
'...... ./'
.~.......
i
. ":'
'\ ..... .............. .--~~I#;.-~----i ..,-"...,..
- ;[ \. \ '~I I' ,.,r-'
",,- J" \ '_ ~ '_1. ,_ _ -1 /_ ~ .-
-....--., V' \ -~i / / /"/
'- '- . I I
-"'" -;7 I.
-..... "'L' 00 / //
~ -- ----~
,.
I
~
.' If
~
':i
.,....\
......
. .
I I
---- ....- r
'--'--'--1-"--'
,
\
\
I
I
~
,.
i
I f""~ "~"
I' .......,
Ii"
.!:
I.
i
',\ ~ ...... _.r_~_...,~~-~---'-1
\ \ __ ......,. I ./
\ '-.. __ --t. - .' ~7 / /:o1'f~'
\~ .............}_., I ,I ,,-""
.~- !''/ /,'
;> ../. / /,1 ft........
.-- .....---- "00/' /// 1'/ ./ / /",/'
~ 'I / / //
,," ..' I /' ,,~,i ,.,-
" l' // /,/
~\/: / / . ..,-
/ ,/ / /".
1. / '
,/"l .( /'
/ .... /
~..l I I"~ .~:/
.J ).' I~"
/1,/ ."
\.; I
'\ \ JI\ I,.
\ \ \
. \ l\.\ "', /
r . \ \ '\ \ \ "" //
I \ \ I \ \ ~ ), ~/
. . 'l'~'>' '... \. I. / .f ,
. . t .;....~.......:\: ' 1/ ..'
~ l ,1. <~"'::':\\"~"'>~""(' /'
-' ...... '\ \ . :\:-..~' "'.,, "
..J J.'~~~~~'~\~\\\\\\
"j ~'!~~~\\\\\\)'I\\\Y\
'J ' I"t(")) \ . \ '\ \
. /(/<./ / '// 'J )
, "',.t / .,/'//% .I...
, "1/,..'//"// ,t.l"--:
. .:''\ ~I~,:</.l~:::;>~ __
. { " '. _.' / /.7 \..0-::'(-;:-.- -~ .--~f))f-~
l
..
.,
T~
7t:
:.
U
<!
~ ~ g .
~iiid.~;
".i LeI
.// ~i~ ~I r
./ S ..... ~ '":I ~!
~ = ~ ~ ~. eil
~ - ~ e-!!
:l co ..
.' . ,I ~1.lf!
51 ~f' .
e' "Ii ~
0\ ..
o i."
~Ei
.-..--'
.,...../1
i/
.....
...,
\
OCS
--on
i-- 0"
~"/
.-"'. "--
....~
.,'f.f'f'"
~
I
ll~
t~
ih
hl.
.till
bjl
flf~
-l.!
~
. ';'
'\ i r'.--......."-../;'
'"] I /",..,.
I J ,
P. I I r-'",
"
....,
-.....,
"
,.,
\
/'...~...
/
/
/'
/
/
- ----<<(
~~
I'
:.
i
B L IS
~ Ii ~ .
// >.ti1~1 .
,/ i5 ~ ~ E
./ 6 ~ i i ~ glt
i:~~ c: IS '
-~ ~ .th'
~ !fl .
g -ii
o !1
t:l ~.
..-
/~
,l~!"
,/.... Ii
i-- 08;
r'-
,..
....
,
1?
---_._.~..
I
!
..........,..
~
~l
.-
,
<'
".
,
.../
.'
:~,!f'
,// .i/"
'/; I
iI-
II i;'.
Iri./il .
! I/.
. !/I/.
-q//
t-; i
" .
,I
~;"
\.
I
f
+
1
t' y'
i
~
.' ;
",
~ .
I" 1
. .----.----.-.........-".-
------..'1'.. .__..__._.......~-....
. . .. .... -..... ~--~--_.. T
, i , \.
j /-" .... '" .j "
I .... ... \.
I 1 '. '. \
I I '"'" ',--.
I I '. '. //
'. '\
I __.._.f1{
t-----.;:
"1..
" I
---"'-<l"'/ /'
.~ /1 j i
///JI....' / /
,// . / /
." I ~.// /
.I'",J" ,I", //
, .. I
/. ..//
/-J" I/~
/ I .
//,,/1' :!M e
, l; ~~I;:
..// ,~I ~ : I ~ i
// ~i~~--~
..~./ j, ~ ~ :~
. = i I ~ Iii
.....- .,h '" I J,d~
" ~ Ill) ti I .
~ ;.Ii ~
..,... 8 I...
..-..,- ~ I~I~
-co.
]ffil
" ' ,
'. -1
/
.,../'
"./..l
:.
r
I
I
.'."
<.
I
I "
I. , /
I I:
t
.1
,,\
i 1
'1
'[
"
,
/
/."
"
~...!>
,"
j
.';'"
I'
I,'
V" .
/! .
\~ Ii, .
'/II{
flli.
i/if:
-:"/1 .
JI .
II
i' .
,I
,.
/
I
~
.
.
.
. ;.
..,11
'-.- .......
.....
LETTER OF CREDIT
Ryan Contracting will provide the City of prior Lake with a Letter of Credit in the
following amounts as agreed upon with the City Engineering Department and Planning
Department.
Maintenance of McKenna Road $ 100,000.00
Lands~ping Costs $ 11,687.50
Subtotal Amount $ 111.687.50
City LOC requirement 125 % $ 139,609.38
..
j I 1
-----r--------r--~...-
All A~-iM-eNr # /5
I have reviewed the attached proposed request (McKenna Gravel Pit CUP) for the
following:
)( Water City Code GradinQ
Sewer ~ Storm Water SiQns
ZoninQ V, Flood Plain County Road Access
Parks Natural Features LeQallssues
Assessment Electric Roads/Access
Policy
Septic System Gas BuildinQ Code
Erosion Control Other
Recommendation: ~ Approval
Denial
_ Conditional Approval
Commerlts: ~ , , .
, S;~ ~ ~~q.tl.~ ~. \)~~ ~~' We\-\'\.~ 1l: 7()- Z.~7 w.
.
....~J.,..n-Pf ()Pf2..e~rs -ID t;, ditA.lAkd inr/n ~ SJorrvUd::. ~ fbNt
:Jiltt i ..,10 ~ LVecl-b.~_
,. ftyt~ tlLwet-b}'(l.j ~.sSod~ w,-M.. +k proj-J. ~
~iLAit'"'~ c::..bAJI2.. ~Y"ml'+' . f1/o.tJ:r-- (,{~./:rr- da.rl- ~ > /c:,()OO~e;J~~s .1
.par d"joy, ~ S}til\t~~:~ .~oi~ e.. ~~ peP"1l'
· ~l-k I~. l'1b~ 1n ..,ll:L _ _____ _'
.
l~*
v. October 7.1999, to
Date: I D/I v/19
. Signed:
J:.--
PtJtl- ~
Please return any comments by Thurs
Jane Kansier, DRC Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16000 Eagle Creek AVf:lnue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (612) 447-9812
Fax: (612) 447-4245
1~.. ~. rn @rn O~ [g ~~
:! \\ OCT 18"
.J\j' 'l
l.___
1:\99files\99cup\99-075\referral.doc
Page 2
I I
AT1^('~M6tJ" tit &;
~. t
,
. ,f
Shakopee Mdewakanton
Sioux Community
Jane Kansier, DRC Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
2330 SIOUX TRAIL NW - PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
TRIBAL OFFICE: 612-445-8900 - FAX: 61r~'F @O\Y7 @ F.\~
October 7, 1999 OCJ:"f 2_
v..)
OFFICERS
Stanley R. Crooks
Chairman
Glynn A. Crooks
Vice Chairman
Susan Totenhagen
SecretaryfTreasurer
.~-
RE: Coimnents on Conditional Use Permit Application of Ryan Contracting
Dear Ms. Kansier:
The following are the comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
(SMSC) on the conditional Use Permit (CUP) application submitted by Ryan Contracting
for a gravel mining operation located in the South 1/3 of Section 22, Township 115 North,
Range 22 WesL These comments address the following issues: 1) proximity ofthe gravel
mining operation to an existing Public Water Supply (PWS) well head; 2) potential .
contamination of the surface and surficial aquifers; 3) noise; 4) dust; 5) visual impacts; 6)
erosion control; 7) traffic concerns; and 8) cultur.aluse conflicts. '.
WELL HEAD
Background.
The SMSC has a PWS well located approximately 1/4 mile northwest of the proposed
location. This well draws water from the Jordan Aquifer. It is cased through the overlying
glacial material and grouted into the Prairie Du Chien Formation. It is open for the entire
thickness of Jordan Formation. The well provides the sole drinking water supply for the
entire north water service area ofthe'Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community. The
groundwater flow is from the southeast to the northwest.
The mining operation is likely to fall within the drinking water protection area of the well
head protection area for this well. The SMSC is deeply concerned that adequate measures
are taken to protect the drinking water supply.
The CUP application states that there will be no fuel storage on the site. Stationary
machinery located on the site (screening plant) will, however, have fuel tanks as part of the
installation. Another potential source of contamination includes fuel releases from trucks
hauling on the site and "on site" refueling operations.
Celebrating 30 Years as a Tribal Government
I I
, .
'.
Comments on Conditional Use permit Application of Ryan Contracting
2
Comments.
. Locate all fixed machinery on the site on an impermeable surface with adequate
measures to control spills that may occur during refueling and a catastrophic release
from a fuel tame
. Limit the number of trucks to five on the site at anyone time.
. Requiring immediate clean up of any release.
. Provide a contingency plan for response to any release of petroleum products, or any
other material. (This contingency plan shall be reviewed and accepted by City staff
prior to issuance of any CUP.)
. Require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet be completed for this and other
erimonmental concerns.
SURFACE CONTAMINATION
Background.
These concerns are somewhat similar to those stated above. There is an additional risk of
impact from any release reaching surface water bodies or contaminating soil downstream
from the release site and the facility. Surface water draining this area flows across tribal
lands and eventually reaches the Minnesota River via Deans Lake.
Comtnents.
. Locate machinery installations on an impermeable surface.
. Restrict the number of trucks on site.
. Place an oil skimmer and a trash skimmer on the ponding area outlet to prevent any
release from traveling off site.
. Provide a contingency plan for dealing with releases and make compliance mandatory.
. Require a dedicated area for stockpiling soil contaminated in any release as part of the
contingency plan.
. The contaminated soil stockpile area should have an impermeable surface and access for
rapid removal of material located there. .
. Require the contingency plan to have stated term of remediation for any release and
make remediation within this time frame a condition of continuing the use permit.
. Require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet be completed for this and other
environmental concerns.
Comments on Conditional Use permit Application of Ryan Contracting
3
NOISE
Background.
This is an almost unavoidable issue with a screening plant. The plans submitted call for
berming and a vegetative barrier. These will mitigate the noise to some extent if the berm
and barrier are high enough and thickly vegetated. There will be unavoidable noise impacts
related to operation of the plant. The hour:~ of operation conflict with the nearby residential
uses.
Comments.
. Berm and vegetative barrier design should be reviewed and strengthened to effectively
minimize the noise pollution. The current plan does not adequately address this issue.
. Hours of operation should be shortened to reduce noise impacts on residential use areas.
. RetJ.uire an Environmental Assessment Worksheet be completed for this and other
environmental concerns.
DUST
Background.
Dust will be generated during stripping, mining, screening and hauling. This dust will be
difficult to contain on site. The application calls for watering of haul roads for dust control.
This will address one third of the potential dust generating operations.
Comments.
. Require roads to be regularly coated with a dust control solution in addition to water.
. Locate all machinery such that it minimizes off site migration of dust.
. Immediately stockpile and cover or re-vegetate stripped soil to prevent wind erosion.
. Require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet be completed for this and other
environmental concerns.
VISUAL IMPACTS
Background.
The site is visible from McKenna Road and the residences located along that road.
Removal of trees and mining will create a highly visible industrial operation in an area that
is currently primarily agricultural or forested.
Comments.
. Retain the maximum number of large trees.
. Re-vegetate with trees as soon as possible and before mining on the west end of the
project to enhance the visual barriers provided by berms and the pit walls.
. Plant sufficient trees and shrubs to create and effective visual barrier. (Maximum
spacing of trees 10 feet.)
I I --r----.---.---------.-.
Comments on Conditional Use permit Application of Ryan Contracting
4
. Require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet be completed for this and other
environmental concerns.
EROSION CONTROL
Background.
Erosion and off site transport of soil is a serious issue. The stripped topsoil and exposed
mining faces will be extremely susceptible to erosion. The eroded soil will be transported
downstream and could seriously impact all receiving water bodies.
Comments.
. Immediately stockpile and cover or re-vegetate stripped soil to prevent water erosion.
. Re-vegetate all mined areas as soon as possible to prevent soil erosion with stated
tinfetables for such planting or seeding and limits on the time soil may remain exposed.
. Topsoil stockpiles on site should be protected with silt fence until any seed germinates
and anchors the soil.
. Provide a planned time table for dredging on site ponds.
. Require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet be completed for this and other
environmental concerns.
TRAFFIC CONCERNS
Background.
The total amount of material planned for removal is 500,000 cubic yards. Given the
planned use as indicated by Ryan Construction to the SMSC staff, this will result in
200,000 cubic yards extracted in the fIrst year of operation. The mine is expected to operate
with a minimum of 5,000 cubic yards being hauled each day. Assuming 20 yard trucks, this
will result in 500 total trips per day and a signifIcant change in the existing traffIc type.
The application proposes all traffic being directed south on McKenna Road to County 42.
The intersection of County 42 and McKenna Road is not signaled. The operation is likely
to result in signifIcant traffic delays for person residing north of the site on McKenna Road
attempting to reach County 42.
There is no detail on the ultimate use planned for the area.' This ultimate use will have
signifIcant impacts on the areas.
Comments.
. Require specifIc actions by the permitee to ensure that traffic does actually use the
preferred routes.
. Provide roadway signage in accordance to the Minnesota Manual on Uniform TraffIc
Control Devices.
. Penalties for truck operators or the permitee if the operators do not use the established
routes.
. , .
Comments on Conditional Use permit Application of Ryan Contracting
5
. Examine all sight lines and traffic controls in light of the changed character of the
traffic.
. Require detail information on the ultimate use plan for the land.
. Require a performance bond for Mckenna road damage.
. The haul road is located in the middle of a sharp curve just north of CSAH 42. Sight
distance between this driveway and the west on Mckenna Road is very restricted by a
vertical curve on McKenna Road. Thus serious safety conflicts are likely to arise
between the southbound/eastbound motorists on McKenna Road and trucks exiting
from the driveway due to the insufficient sight distance of the haul access driveway.
CULTURAL CONCERNS
Background.
The larict immediately to the north of the proposed facility is a forested area owned by the
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux community. This land is planned to remain forested for the
next 30 to 40 years. The area is used by tribal members for cultural purposes. The presence
of a mining operation is in direct conflict with spiritual activities, plant gathering and other
cultural activities. If this situation is considered in a mainstream European derived cultural
framework the project would be analogous to siting the mining across the street from a
church and next to a public park and recreational facility.
Comments.
. Do not issue the permit.
Failing that:
. Restrict hours of operation and eliminate weekend operation.
. Require a significant buffer strip between the wooded areas and the actual mining
operation.
. Require fencing and a physical sound barrier between the forested area and the mining
operation.
. Require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet be completed for this and other
environmental concerns.
Sincerely,
Stanley R. Crooks
Tribal Chairman
cc:MayorWesMader
I I
r
'----,-'-'--
ATT Atf.\HE-Ni 4f.[ 1-
SCOTT COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS AND LANDS DIVISION
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST
JORDAN, MN 55352-9339
(612) 496-8346
BRADLEY J. LARSON
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR
Fax: (612) 496-8365
October 6, 1999
'.
-' .
L:/
Ms. Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
16000 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
-,,;.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Subject: Conditional Use permit~a~~h0:r~ GIYllwatel
North of CSAH 42 & West of McKenna Road, Prior lake
Dear Ms. Kansier:
We have reviewed the Conditional Use Permit request as it relates to Highway Department
issues and offer the following comments or concerns: .
Conditions of Approval
. Any accumulation of gravel as a result of spills or general transportation of gravel on
CSAH 42 shall be the responsibility of the Ryan Contracting to clean up such gravel. .
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact us if you have any questions or
need additional information.
~
Ig Jen n
Transportation Planner
cc: Brian Sorenson, County Transportation Engineer
An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer
I I
--~~-_......_-_.__.__._~------_...._._-- I
02/07/00
I I
Petition for EA W
· Material Evidence.
· Factual documentation for
potential significant
environmental effects.
· More than express
opinion or raise concerns.
Environment
· Defined by EQB as: Land, air, water
minerals, flora, fauna, Iioise, energy,
and man-made or natural historic,
geologic, or aesthetic features.
· Example- Traffic, safety,
infrastructure are not environmental
issues.
· Example- Water resources, noise,
dust are environmental issues.
Council Review
· Type, extent and reversibility of
environmental effects.
· Cumulative potential effect.
· The extent effects are
mitigated.
· Extent effects can be
anticipated and controlled as a
result of other environmental
studies.
----r
1
02/07/00
Petition Review
· No factual information regarding
potential for environmental
effects as required by MN rules
presented.
· Environmental concerns raised
in petition are water, natural
features, air and noise.
· Staff recommends denial of the
petitioner's request for an EAW.
Petition Review
· Concerns raised include 40 acres
EAW requirement, traffic, safety,
infrastructure.
· Concerns addressed with
conditions in CUP
1. 40 Acre Mandatory EAW
· EAW required for more than 40
acres.
· Proposal is to excavate 12.91
acres.
· Ryan has conducted soil borings,
materials beyond this are not
desired to be excavated.
· Added as specific condition to
CUP resolution.
2
I I
..,...----.--------------..
02/07/00
2. Traffic
· Not an environmental impact.
- No factual information to
support.
A. CongestionjDisruption
- Petition suggests 17-50% increase
in traffic on McKenna.
-1995 Traffic counts on McKenna
were 400 trips per day.
- Ryan estimates 6 trucks per hour.
- 2 Lane rural roads are designed to
handle 14,000-15,000 trips per day.
B. Safety
Petition states safety of nearby residential
neighborhood will be affected.
Ryan proposes to limit truck traffic on
McKenna, from the pit, directly south to
CSAH 42.
No trucks will be routed, north towards
the residential neighborhood and into
Shakopee.
This has been added as a CUP condition
Council may consider limiting hours of
operation with non-peak hour traffic.
II
r
3
'---'-r- ..-.--"-"-.-.-....---......-.---.----....-.--.--. -...,.-.--.-..------...
02/07/00
I I
C. Infrastructure
Petitioner concerned about McKenna
Road, specifically north to Shakopee.
Trucks not routed north into
Shakopee.
Staff anticipated the degradation of
McKenna due to truck traffic.
LOC is required for repairs.
McKenna to be abandoned and
realigned, per 2020 Comp Plan.
3. Water Resources
· No factual material evidence
provided in EAW petition.
· Petitioner concerned with water
quality of existing water supply
well.
· No water supply well is
proposed.
· Made a specific condition of
CUP.
3. Water Resources Continued
· Monitoring well (state well
codes) recommended to assure
ground water is not adversely
affected by this project.
· Made a specific condition of the
CUP resolution.
· Monitoring well as a source of
contamination can be minimized
with locking devices.
,
4
02/07/00
. Water Resources Continued
· Petitioner concerned with fuel on
site.
· Department of Health and staff
recommend no on-site fuel
storage.
· This eliminates a potential for
contaminating the water.
· This has been made a condition
of the CUP resolution.
. Boiling Springs/Savage Fen
· No factual evidence presented in
petition.
· DNR and City of Shakopee referred.
· DNR permit required for certain
dewatering.
· No water supply well results in no
additional exposure from pumping on
Jordan aquifer, Boiling Springs or
Savage Fen.
5. Neighborhood Impacts
. Petition does not contain any factual
evidence as required by MN rules to
support it's position there is
potential for significant
environmental impacts.
· Conditions in the CUP address the
concerns raised in petition.
5
Ii
.,--'----"'-_.~--"----'-"'--_._--"'._._-
02/07/00
I I
A. Dust
. Petitioner states dust has not been
addressed.
. Ryan proposed to use calcium chloride
solution to minimize dust on the
roadways as needed.
. Water from off-site sources.
. Condition of CUP requires watering
within 24 hours notice from City.
. Located within larger parcel, and
berming around entire site when done.
B. Noise
· Petitioner states noise will adversely
affect neighborhood and no
mitigative measures taken.
o P .C. and staff recommend limiting
hours 6 a.m. to 8 p.m., 8 -noon Sat.
o Within MPCA standards.
o 325 feet from nearest house off-site.
o Mining and screening only.
o No lighting allowed (limits work after
sunset).
C. Aesthetic ImpactsjRestoration
. Petitioner concerned about future
development and site restoration.
o Zoned A-1. Designated as R-UM.
o Property owners intend to use property
for future Agricultural purposes.
. Proposed final grades do not exceed
3:1, permitted under Subdivision Code.
6
---r
02/07/00
Conclusion
· Petition lacks factual information as
required by Minnesota Rules
4410.1100 for potential significant
environmental effects.
. Petition raises non-environmental
concerns regarding the project (traffic).
. Staff recommends denial of petition for
EAW due to lack of material evidence.
Conclusion Continued
. Purpose of EAW is to identify any
potential significant environmental
impacts.
. Staff has addressed EAW checklist in
review of the CUP.
. City Council has discretion to mitigate
potential adverse effects of a project
with conditions within a CUP.
Conclusion Continued
. Staff has reviewed the CUP with
respect to petitioner concerns, EAW
checklist, DNR handbook, and Zoning
Ordinance .
· Any known potential impacts have been
mitigated through CUP conditions.
. Staff recommends approval of the CUP
with conditions.
I I
If
7
-r
SENT BY: DNR METRO;
2- 7- 04:51PM; 6127727573 =>
6124474263;
#1 /1
Minnesota Department or Natural Resources
Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793
Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977
February 7,2000
Bud Osmundson
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior J..ake, Minnesota 55372
RE; llyan Contmc.ting Mi.aing Proposal
Dear Mr. Osmund.m:
T quickly rtViewed the la1cst Planning ColllDli&sion and staff .m::ommendation for the Ryan Contracti ng mining CUP bc:ing
considered by the city, and have the following c:omD'IC1Its to offer al Lhis evening's hearing 0.11 same.
Item A.S. n:quires an initial water quality analysis of a wethnd. The parameters to be anal~ should be .spcc;ifil;d.
Item B.4. prohibiu installation of a water supply well On the site. 1 cf1(:Ourage the city to keep this condition in any final
approval.
ItemB.5. requires 1DO.l1thly groundwatertestin.g and reporting. The constituenta to be te.tt.c:d should be made known up front.
The Scou County Environmcntallkalth omc:e may provide some assistance with this. They may also have record of any
existing groundw8lCr contamination in the area wbich may innucnce lhe findings of water quality monitoring.
Item B.II. addresses water quality testing of a wctJ.aod, and maintenam:e of e..usting W3ter quality. If opponunity exists to
improve the quality oCthe wetland, either by improvements in water chemistry or habitat, the proposer should. be: encouraged
to do so.
Item B.12. requires a DNR pcnnil for water appropriation in excess of 10,000 gallons per day Ot one miJlion gallons per year.
Plcuc reword it to indicate the any water use ill excess of thole thresholds requires a DNR pennit. This includes
appropriation at ground or surface water for any use. including but not limited 10 dUSl: supp~ion. dewatering, wash water,
Cle. Thank you for including language that specifically prohibits operation that results in 1.hc drainage or other degradation
of the DNR-protect.ed wetland.
In the interest of groundwater quality protection, 1 concur \With item B.14., which prohibils fuel storage on the site.
Tfyou have any questions, please c;all me at 6.51-772-7917.
Sincerely,
'?~i2L:-. .
Patrick J. Lynch If(
Area Hydrologist
DNR Infurm;llillu: 6.'i1 ::!91i hl.'i7 . 1-IH~~-6:16-6J67 . TTY: l.i51-,'%-).IX.! · 1.~O() fl.'i7 :N29
A" 1':'1"'" OI'I'.,rIUllIl:- Iill1pl()y~r
\\'11... V"I".,. ni"..r~"y
()
Prll\lutJ ')11 RucYGh;u Paper C"n1aini'1[1 a
Millilllllm 0/ 1 U':'" /-,o:;t.c.:;onSlJm,H W.1e.li:
I I
II[
'-----r------
Fe b, 7. 2000 3: 37PM
No, 2702 P. 2/3
"
, ,
.....
Shakopee Mdewakanton
Sioux Community
OFFICERS
Stanley R. Crooks
CJll,irrnarJ
Glynn A. Crooks
Viae CluJirmSrJ
2330 SIOUX TRAIL NW - PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 55372
TRIBAL OFFICE: 612-445.8900 - FAX: 612"445.8906
Lori K. Crowchild
Ssr;rstsryrrrl1s$urer
February 7, 2000
Frank Boyles, Manager
City of Prior Lake
13200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear Mr. Boyles:
On behalf of the Shakopee Mdewakanton. Sioux (Dakota) Community (SMSC), I am
writing this letter with regard to the Prior Lake City Council's consideration of the Ryan
Contracting application for a CUP to conduct gravel mining on land adjacent to the
SMSC.
I hereby reiterate the SMSC's strong opposition to the granting of the CUP. We believe
we have provided the City of Prior Lake with sufficient information for the City Council
to deny the CUP outright. We also believe that such a decision is easily defensible.
However, in the event the City Council grants Ryan Contacting, Inc. a conditional use
permit to mine gravel the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community requests the
following conditions be placed on the permit, in addition to those recommended by the
City staff.
Hours of Operation. The hours of operation shall begin no earlier than 8 :00 a.m. and
end no later than 6:00 p.m.
Recvcling of Material. No recycling of any material shall be allowed at the site
regardless of the source or type of material.
Reporting. The SMSC shall be copied on all environmental reports submitted to the
City of Prior Lake and on all communications from the City to Ryan regarding
environmental aspects of the mining operation. This shall include any notice of
requited dust control watering. All reports shall include the full analytical report from
any laboratory and all additional information generated or reported by Ryan or its
employees or contractors.
I I
1---.----------
.Fe b. '1. 2000 3: 37PM
No. 2702 P. 3/3
Frank Boyles, Manage,
Februal')J 7,2000
Page 2
Monitorin2 Methods. All laboratory analyses shall be performed by a laboratory
certified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and shall include a
full chain of custody for sampling, tranSportation and intemallaboratory operations.
All site monitoring shall be in accordance with a monitoring plan approved by the City
of Prior Lake. That plan shall Clearly state sample collection protocols, the sampling
periods, analytical methods and limits and shall detine quality assurance steps.
Again, the SMSC does not support granting the conditional use permit. Adding the
above stated conditions to those already proposed will partially address the Community's
concerns. This will not eliminate potential adverse impacts on the enjoyment and use of
the SMSC's property and potential risks to the environment but it may help recognize
impacts and will focus the attention of the pennitee on the potential risks.
Sincerely,
~4. ~ ~
VU! CHAIRMAN S,M.S.C.
Stanley R. Crooks
Tribal Chairman
cc: Jenni Tovar
I I
1---'---