HomeMy WebLinkAbout8B - Ryan Cont.
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FEBRUARY 22, 2000
8B
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUESAN LEA PACE, CITY ATTORNEY
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION OO-XX
APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WORKSHEET (EA W) PETITION AND REQUIRING AN EA W
BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO A DECISION REGARDING 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 February 7,2000, the City Council reviewed the petition for EA W
and staff report relating to the request. The City Council determined
there is the potential for significant environmental impacts' based upon
the petition and determined an EA W is warranted. The City Council
directed staff to prepare a resolution reflecting the rationale for its
decision to require an EA W be completed prior to making a decision
on Ryan Contracting's application for a CUP to extract gravel and
sand from property located in the southeast quarter of Section 22, T
115, R 22.
Conclusion: Considering the Council determined an EA W is
necessary, staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution
prepared as directed. . Once adopted, staff will seek bids for the
preparation of an EA W. The City must prepare the EA W, with costs
reimbursed by Ryan contracting.
Budget Impact: The CUP will have no fiscal impact on the City as the
applicant will be responsible for bearing the costs of completion of the
EAW.
The City Council has one alternative:
1620CV~!Ilgf~~fJ>~~9P!J~~t?;~tfM>fLake, Minnesolaa~372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
1. Adopt Resolution #OO-XX, as proposed or as amended, approving
the petition for EA W and requiring that an EA W is completed prior
to a decision regarding the Conditional Use Permit for Ryan
Contracting.
Staff recommends Alternative #1. This requires a motion and second
to approve Resolutio OO-XX, as proposed or as amended, requiring an
EAW.
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\99-075c2.doc
Page 2
RESOLUTION OO-XX
APPROVING A PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WORKSHEET (EA W)AND REQUIRING AN EA W BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO A
DECISION ON THE CUP 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 EAW 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 approves the request by petition to require an EA W prior to making a decision
regarding 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:
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\eawresoOOxx.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
w
FINDINGS
1. The City Council and staff have considered all known evidence, compared that
evidence to the standard "there may be potential for significaut environmental effects".
2. Petitioners petition for an EA W contained material evidence and information that the
City Council finds raises serious concerns that the proposed sand and gravel mining
operation may create the potential for significant environmental impacts.
3. Said potential for significant environmental impacts warrant further review.
4. The City Council has reviewed the petition for EA Wand staff report relating to the
issues. The City Council has determined there is material evidence within the petition
indicating there may be potential significant environmental impacts from the proposed
mining and excavation proposal.
5. Potential environmental impacts, warranting the request for an EA W, as presented in
the petition received January 19, 2000 and as discussed by the City Council at it's
February 7, 2000 meeting are:
A. The proposed mining operation encompasses 12.91 acres over a combined lot area
exceeding this. Soil borings have not been submitted and reviewed by the City to
indicate the non-existence of suitable mining materials beyond the proposed 12.91
acre site.
B. Review of letter supporting an EA W, due to potential environmental impacts,
dated January 24,2000 from Scott County.
C. The City of Prior Lake must establish a well head protection plan. The effect of
the proposed mining operation on the future well head protection area is
unknown.
D. Review of internal memo, dated January 18, 2000, from the DNR supporting an
EA W, due to potential environmental impacts.
E. Contamination of SMSC's existing ground water well may exist. The probability,
extent, and cause have not been specifically addressed with factual information.
F. SMSC ground water well head protection area impact has not sufficiently been
addressed.
G. Dewatering may occur on the site. Sufficient information has not been provided
to indicate the possible extent and environmental effects of dewatering.
H. Impact on the Jordan aquifer has yet to be addressed. Factual information and
research indicating the potential to contaminate public water supplies has yet to
be provided.
1:\99files\99cup\99-075\eawresoOOxx.doc
Page 2
These specific items shall be investigated as a part of the EA W process.
1. Additional information and review of these specific items is necessary to verify if there
may be any environmental impact from the proposed mining.
2. In order to protect against the potential that the proposed excavation of sand and
gravel located in the Southeast quarter Section 22, T 115, R 22, may create significant
environmental impacts detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of
the community as a whole, additional information and review is warranted and
necessary.
3. Measures to mitigate potential environmental impacts may not be adequate as
currently proposed in the Conditional Use Permit.
4. The proposed excavation of sand and gravel may have undue adverse impacts on
governmental facilities, services, or improvements which are either existing or
proposed, additional information and review is warranted and necessary.
5. An EA W is warranted to identify, quantify, and mitigate against any undue adverse
impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties in close proximity to the conditional
use, additional information and review is necessary.
6. The time and money necessary to complete an EA W, to further identify and address,
potential significant environmental impacts, outweighs the benefit of the information
the City will have before it, to mitigate the potential environmental impacts with
conditions contained in the CUP.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby finds a petition of 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 approved and an EA W must be completed
prior to a decision relating to the CUP is made. 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.
Per City Code Section 1109.900, Ryan Contracting (CUP applicant) will be required to escrow
the estimated funds to complete the EA W with the City. Ryan Contracting is required to
reimburse the City for the cost of the EAW, of which the funds will be drawn from the escrow at
the appropriate time of payment. Such funds must be received by the City, prior to the City
hiring a consultant to prepare an EA W.
Staff is hereby directed to prepare notices of this decision and deliver within five (5) 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.
1:\99files\99cup\99-075\eawresoOOxx.doc
Page 3
I
r
Passed and adopted this 22nd day of February 2000.
YES NO
Mader Mader
Ericson Ericson
Gundlach Gundlach
Petersen Petersen
Schenck Schenck
{Seal}
City Manager,
City of Prior Lake
1:\99files\99cup\99-075\eawresoOOxx.doc
Page 4
~.. ~....'I..
..~' ~ 5---U
RESOLUTION OO-XX
~ '~f~12.1( r,---t"
APPROVING A PETI ON FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WORKSHEET (EA W) REQUIRING AN EA W BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO A
DECISION ON T 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:
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
SECOND BY:
1.tr,e~
On January 19, 2000 a petition for EA ~ w~s 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
Staff reviewed Minnesota Statutes, EQB guidelines and the petition dated
January 14,2000; and -Sf-€'O (.~, ~
Minnesota rules 4410.1100 set forth criteria for evaluating petitions to
require an EA W; and
Staff evaluated the petition based on criteria set forth in the rules; and
Staff prepared a detailed analysis in response to concerns raised in the
petition; and
The City Council has 30 days to make a de.ci~~n,.~the petition; and
-- 1~ M'
The rules require only that the~onsider 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
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 approves the request by petition to require an EA W prior to making a decision
regarding 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:
16200 aWI~p}?~~~J.'~f-~,al"ff&9<tb.~e, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612r~47-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
.-----r-
FINDINGS
1. The City Council and staff have considered all known evidence, compared that
evidence to the standard "there may be potential for significant environmental
effects" .
2. Petitioners petition for an EA W contained material evidence and information that the
City Council finds raises serious concerns that the proposed sand and gravel mining
operation may create the potential for significant environmental impacts.
3. Said potential for significant environmental impacts warrant further review.
4. The City Council has reviewed the petition for EA Wand staff report relating to the
issues. The City Council has determined there is material evidence within the petition
indicating there may be potential significant environmental impacts from the proposed
mining and excavation proposal.
5. Potential environmental impacts, warranting the request for an EA W, as presented in
the petition received January 19, 2000 and as discussed by the City Council at it's
February 7,2000 meeting are:
A. The proposed mining operation encompasses 12.91 acres over a combined lot area
exceeding this. Soil borings have not been submitted and reviewed by the City to
indicate the non-existence of suitable mining materials beyond the proposed 12.91
acre site.
B. Review of letter, dated January 24, 2000 from Scott County Environment Health
Department, supporting an EA W due to potential environmental impaCts on the
existing well, bedrock topography and bedrock hydrology.
C. The City of Prior Lake must establish a well head protection plan. The effect of
the proposed mining operation on the future well head protection area is
unknown.
D. Review of internal memo, dated January 18,2000 from the DNR, supporting an
EA W due to potential environmental impacts on lakes, wetlands, the Boiling
Springs and the Savage Fen.
E. Contamination of SMSC's existing ground water well may exist. Theprobability,
extent, and cause have not been specifically addressed with factual information.
F. SMSC ground water well head protection area impact has not sufficiently been
addressed.
G. Dewatering may occur on the site. Sufficient information has not been provided
to indicate the possible extent and environmental effects of dewatering.
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\eawresoO.doc
Page 2
H. Impact on the Jordan aquifer has yet to be addressed. Factual information and
research indicating the potential to contaminate public water supplies has yet to
be provided.
I. The specific items listed as A-H above shall be investigated as a part of the EA W
process.
6. Additional information and review of these specific items is necessary to verify if there
may be any environmental impact from the proposed mining.
7. In order to protect against the potential that the proposed excavation of sand and
gravel located in the Southeast Quarter Section 22, Township 115, Range 22 may
create significant environmental impacts detrimental to the health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community as a whole, additional information and review is
warranted and necessary.
8. Measures to mitigate potential environmental impacts may not be adequate as
currently proposed in the Conditional Use Permit.
9. The proposed excavation of sand and gravel may have undue adverse impacts on
governmental facilities, services, or improvements which are either existing or
proposed. Additional information and review is warranted and necessary.
10. An EA W is warranted to identify, quantify, and mitigate against any undue adverse
impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties in close proximity to the conditional
use. Additional information and review is necessary.
The time and money necessary to complete an EA W to further identify and address
pote . Significant environmental impacts are outweighed by the benefit of the
ditional information the City will have before it, which will identify the steps
necessary to mitigate the potential environmental impacts.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby finds a petition of 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 approved and an EA W must be completed
prior to a decision relating to the CUP is made. 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.
Per City Code Section 1109.900, Ryan Contracting (CUP applicant) will be required to escrow
the estimated funds to complete the EA W with the City. Ryan Contracting is required to
reimburse the City for the cost of the EA W, of which the funds will be drawn from the escrow at
the appropriate time of payment. Such funds must be received by the City, prior to the City
hiring a consultant to prepare an EA W.
1:\99files\99cup\99-075\eawresoO.doc
Page 3
~
Staff is hereby directed to prepare notices of this decision and deliver within five (5) 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 22nd day of February 2000.
YES NO
Mader Mader
Ericson Ericson
Gundlach Gundlach
Petersen Petersen
Schenck Schenck
'7
J
. ~~_.:-,
{Seal}
L
City Manager,
City of Prior Lake
V~' eN 'rf ,V~ ~
((J -4 '
1 ~'\ >::~~" ,( ("7'\
J,I \)
m,:LJI -,.J,H..L ~D c~l~ l'-
t-(~ -'F-~~ " ~~.~ '\ cr.~ .
Pr..J-:P l' '. t j 0" ~j"" ~-:t
sJ (, C~ c( :J 4-;;:.{L/ ~~
, \ .
vt::,
r'S;
D
~-=L '~~-7
( f
, 0
')-'~
-0
-,...--.-.----'--"----.-~,.-,--...._.L._.._
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\eawresoO.doc
Page 4
..
February 16, 2000
TO: Mayor Mader and Councilmembers
RE: February 7th City Council Meeting - Ryan Contracting Agenda Item
Council member Schenck asked me for a verbatim transcript of the discussions regarding the
Ryan Contracting EAW issue from Monday, February 7, 2000. They are attached for your
review. Please forgive the typos. I needed to prepare them quickly in order to meet the
Wednesday deadline.
cc: Frank Boyles
Suesan Lea Pace
--,r---..------...-
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item 8A
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1 BOYLES: Mayor, members of the Council, at your last Council meeting you were about to
2 consider whether or not to approve or act upon a request for a conditional use permit for
3 excavation by Ryan Contracting. The staff advised you prior to actually hearing that item that
4 we had been informed by the EQB that a petition for an EAW, that is an Environmental
5 Assessment Worksheet, had been received and that if, indeed, that petition was completed, as
6 defined by the State rules, no further action could be taken on the conditional use permit
7 request until a determination had been of whether or not an Environmental Assessment
8 Worksheet should be completed. The staff has had the opportunity now to review that petition
9 and Jenni Tovar, a member of our Planning Department, is going to review the City staff's
10 findings with respect to that petition. She will include the criteria that needs to be used under
11 State guidelines for evaluating such petitions, and then provide our evaluation of the petition
12 and our recommendation.
13
14 TOVAR: We have put together a Powerpoint presentation if we could pull that up at this time.
15 I'm going to begin with the petition itself and the requirements in the statute. The petition for
16 EAW must contain material evidence, that is factual documentation for potential significant
17 environmental affects. The petition must do more than express an opinion or raise concerns
18 about the proposed project. The definition of environment, as we are looking for potential
19 significant environmental effects, as defined by the EQB, would include land, air, water,
20 mineral, flora, fauna, noise, energy and manmade or natural historic geological or aesthetic
21 features. An example of an environmental concern would be water resources, noise, dust. An
22 example of a non-environmental issue would be traffic, safety and infrastructure. Both of those
23 items are addressed in the petition. Council review of the petition - The Council must
24 determine the - type, extent and reversibility of the environmental effects, the cumulative
25 potential effects, the extent the effects are mitigated, and the extent effects can be anticipated
26 and controlled as a result of other environmental studies. Upon reviewing this specific petition
27 for EAW, staff found that there is no factual information regarding the potential for
28 environmental effects as required by MN. rules presented in the petition. The environmental
29 concerns raised in the petition are water, natural features, air and noise. Staff recommends
30 denial of the petitioner's request for an EAW. The concerns raised that are non-environmental
31 include 40 acres EAW requirement, traffic, safety and infrastructure concerns. Those concerns
32 have been addressed with conditions in the conditional use permit, and we will review those
33 one-by-one as they are in the petition. The first concern in the petition is a 40-acre mandatory
34 EAW. An EAW is required by statutes for more than 40 acres of excavating and mining sand
35 and gravel. Ryan's proposal is to excavate 12.91 acres. Ryan did conduct soil boring beyond
36 their proposed grading area, and have determined that the materials present there are not
37 desired for mining. So, the materials that are on-site are limited to this 12.91 acres. They have
38 no intentions of phasing it beyond that due to the rock materials in the ground. We did add that
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.OOC
Page 1
-- 1
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item 8A
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1 as a specific condition to the conditional use permit limiting them specifically to that 12.91
2 acres. Concern #2 is traffic. As previously stated, traffic is not an environmental impact.
3 Furthermore, the petitioner did not provide any factual information to support their concerns
4 regarding traffic. Their first concern is congestion and disruption. The petition suggest a 17%
5 to 50% increase in traffic on McKenna Road. According to our Comprehensive Plan, in 1995,
6 the traffic counts on McKenna Road from the gravel pit to County Road 42 in that specific
7 area, was 400 trips per day in 1995. Ryan estimates 6 trucks per hour will be coming out of
8 the site. Also, according to our Comprehensive Plan, two-lane rural roads are designed to
9 handle 14,000 to 15,000 trips per day. The next item in the petition is safety. The petition
10 states, "safety of nearby residential neighborhood will be affected." Ryan proposed to limit
11 truck traffic on McKenna Road from the pit directly south to County Road 42. No trucks will be
12 routed northward towards the residential neighborhood and into Shakopee. This has been
13 added specifically as a condition of the conditional use permit. However, the City Council may
14 consider limiting hours of operation with non-peak hour traffic. The third item of' concern
15. related to traffic is infrastructure. The petitioner is concerned about McKenna Road specifically
16 north to Shakopee. As was just stated, trucks will not be routed north into Shakopee. Staff has
17 anticipated the degradation of McKenna Road due to truck traffic. Therefore, a letter of credit
18 is required for any necessary future repairs, and just for your information, McKenna Road is to
19 be abandoned and realigned as stated in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The third item
20 addressed in the petition is related to water resources. Once again, the petitioner has
21 presented no factual material evidence in the petition. However, the petitioner is concerned
22 with water quality of their existing water supply well serving a residential neighborhood. In this
23 proposal, no water supply well is proposed as part of this gravel pit. This has been made a
24 specific condition of the conditional use permit. Staff is recommending a monitoring well in
25 accordance with state well codes be put in the site to assure ground water is not adversely
26 affected by this project. This has been made a specific conditions of the resolution, and a
27 monitoring well as a source of contamination can be minimized with locking devices.
28 Continuing on with the water resources. The petitioner is also concerned with - on-site fuel
29 causing contamination to their ground water. The Department of Health and staff recommend
30 that no on-site fuel storage be permitted. That eliminates the potential for contaminating the
31 water, obviously, if there is no fuel on-site. This also has been made a condition of the
32 resolution. The fourth concern stated in the petition regards the Boiling Springs and Savage
33 Fen. Once again, no factual evidence has been presented in the petition. The DNR and City of
34 Shakopee were referred on this matter, and a DNR permit is required for certain dewatering.
35 No water supply well on the site results in no additional exposure from pumping on the Jordan
36 aquifer, Boiling Springs or the Savage Fen. The fifth concern raised in the petition is
37 neighborhood impacts. The petition does not contain any factual evidence as required by
38 Minnesota Rules to support its position that there is potential for significant environmental
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 2
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item 8A
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1 impacts. Conditions in the conditional use permit address the concerns raised in the petition,
2 and we'll go over these. The first concern brought up in the petition is dust. The petitioner
3 states that dust has not been addressed. Ryan proposed to use calcium chloride solution to
4 minimize dust on the roadways as needed. Water will be trucked in from off-site sources. A
5 conditions of the conditional use permit requires watering within 24-hours notice from the City,
6 and its located in a larger parcel and berming will be around the entire site when its complete.
7 Noise. The petitioner states noise will adversely affect the neighborhood and no mitigative
8 measures have been taken. The Planning Commission and staff recommend limiting the hours
9 from 6am to 8pm, and from 8am to noon on Saturdays. The noise standards on the site are
10 within the MPCA standards, and the closest house within the City limits is 325 feet off the site.
11 Obviously, the McKenna house is closer, its on their property, but nearest house off of this
12 property is 325 feet from the proposed operation. The operation will be for mining and
13 screening only. No lighting is allowed which limits work after sunset. The third concern on the
14 neighborhood is aesthetic impacts and restoration. The petitioner is concerned about future
15 development and site restoration. The property is zoned A-1 and is designated in the
16 Comprehensive Plan as residentiallow-to-medium density. The property owners intend to use
17 the property for future agricultural purposes when the mining operation is completed. The
18 proposed final grades do not exceed 3-to-1 which is permitted under our current subdivision
19 code. So, if it were to be subdivided, it would meet those current grades allowed under our
20 current subdivision. Staffs conclusion is then, that the petition lacks factual information as
21 required by Minnesota Rules 4410.1100 for potential significant environmental affects. The
22 petition raises non-environmental concerns regarding the project such as traffic. Staff
23 recommends denial of the petition for the EAW due to lack of material evidence. The purpose
24 of an EAW is to identify any potential significant environmental impacts. Staff has addressed
25 the EAW checklist in review of the conditional use permit, therefore addressing issues which
26 would be raised in an EAW. City Council has the discretion to mitigate the potential adverse
27 effects of a project with conditions within a conditional use permit. Staff has reviewed the
28 conditional use permit with respect to the petitioner's concerns, the EAW checklist, the DNR
29 handout, and the zoning ordinance. Any known potential impacts have been mitigated through
30 the conditional use permit conditions, and staff therefore recommends approval of the
31 conditional use permit with conditions. And you have before you the two resolutions with staffs
32 recommendations to deny the EAW and to approve the conditional use permit with conditions.
33 And I and Sue are here if you have any questions.
34
35 MADER: OK, thank you Jenni. You may want to stay at the podium. There may be some
36 questions. This is not a simple issue for the Council to deal with. There is a significant pile of
37 documentation. This is all related to the CUP and about have of this relates to it. There have
38 been numerous letters from various parties, petitions from residents who object to it. There
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RYANVERB.DOC
Page 3
t
------.-------------------,-------.----
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item 8A
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1 was the petition for the EAW, and there are numerous letters from Ryan Contracting also.
2 And, from my viewpoint, there is a lot of conflicting information which makes this somewhat
3 difficult. But, what I'd like to do -- your presentation pretty well followed the staff report. What
4 I'd like to do is walk through the staff report with some questions for clarification purposes and
5 try to bring this in focus with the idea of what we have be deal with here. My understanding of
6 the..looking at the excerpts that we had from the state statutes, my understanding is that we
7 cannot act on the, we could not accept or issue the CUP until a decision is made on the EAW.
8 As I read the documentation, the Council would have the prerogative to reject the CUP without
9 acting on the EAW. Is that a valid interpretation? Looking at the documentation that was
10 provided to us from the staff regarding the EQB's position, is said we can not act to approve a
11 CUP...?
12
13 PACE and RYE: The language says no final decision can be taken.
14
15 MADER: That isn't what I read.
16
17 PACE: That is the language.
18
19 MADER: It says no final government approvals may be given to the project named in the
20 petition, or may construction on the project be started until the need for an EAW has been
21 determined. That doesn't say, no final decision. It says no final approval. I would assume, that
22 if the Council were inclined to reject the CUP, it would be kind of pointless to go through the
23 process of an EAW and then reject the CUP, and this language would seem to indicate that.
24 Am I looking at the correct language or is this not correct? This is a document that came to
25 you Jenni from Minnesota Planning Environmental Quality Board.
26
27 TOVAR: Right, I believe that is a legal decision that I cannot answer for you, which comes
28 fi rst.
29
30 PACE: Well, the answer becomes...is a little difficult. Your interpretation is probably correct
31 that no decision approving the CUP could occur before you dealt with the EAW. But, since you
32 don't know what the decision on the CUP would be, your required to kind of not deal with the
33 EAW first in case, or if it was approved, you have failed to act on the EAW prior to that
34 approval.
35
36 MADER: Except that a motion to deny the CUP could be made and I assume that could be
37 acted on without a decision. I just want to be sure the Councilmember know what options are
38 before the Council. So, one option would appear to be that you could, first of all, you could
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 4
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item 8A
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1 approve the petition for the EAW, which would then lead to a process which at some later date
2 you would act on the CUP petition, or (2) you could act to deny the CUP petition without taking
3 any action on the EAW. Those, I think are basically the options that are before the Council.
4 OK, let me go then through the document. On November 8th the Planning Commission met
5 and dealt with this and they made the recommendations to the Council that, I think, they had a
6 public hearing at that time. Is my memory correct that the decision by the Planning
7 Commission was made with three members there, and that was a 2-to-1 decision to
8 recommend it? It was not a unanimous decision, was it?
9
10 TOVAR: We can look at the minutes which are attached. They are Exhibit 14 is the Planning
11 Commission minutes. The initial staff report to the City Council dated December 6th with our
12 initial review and attached to that are minutes from the November 8th Planning Commission
13 meeting. With motion by Vonhof, second by Stamson to approve the conditional use permit.
14 Two ayes, Vonhof and Stamson, a naye by Cramer.
15
16 MADER: OK, thank you. It doesn't change the recommendation, but what I'm wanting to point
17 out is this has not been an issue without differences of opinions from start to finish. Also, if I
18 recall at that Planning Commission, the property owners...the owners of the property
19 immediately to the south which is now planned for development, as I understand, they did not
20 appear at that hearing, and they indicated the reason was they feIL.well, they said they had
21 not been notified. So, I don't think we have heard from them publicly, is that correct?
22
23 TOVAR: Mr. Mayor, I don't know who the property owners are south of this. No one has come
24 forward to staff that I am aware of stating that they have not been....
25
26 MADER: The property owner was Mr. Berens, and the property was in the process of being
27 sold to Shepard of the Lake Church, who I think has now closed on it. And we did have a letter
28 from one party or the other saying that they had...! think it was from the Church saying that Mr.
29 Berens had indicated that he had not received notification and he was the property owner at
30 the time.
31
32 TOVAR: Yes, OK. We have since reviewed our mailing notice list since this came up before.
33 Mr. Berens was sent a notice of the public hearing.
34
35 MADER: I understand. Thank you. Also, the original date of the application was September
36 29th, and I think through the process we had originally 120 days to respond. Is that correct?
37
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 5
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item 8A
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1 TOVAR: Yes, by statute we are allowed 60 days to respond with one 60-day extension. The
2 60 days was extended so the final deadline was January 29th.
3
4 MADER: And then the clock stopped because of the petition for the EAW and its m.y
5 understanding then, at the present time, if we were, based on taking some sort of action on
6 the EAW tonight, then our final action date, I think it would be February 16th, which means
7 that in effect, we have to make some decisions tonight.
8
9 TOVAR: That's correct. Upon a decision being made on the EAW to accept the petition and
10. require an EAW, or to deny the petition and not require an EAW, the clock starts again and
11 there are ten days left on that clock for a decision to be made on the conditional use permit,
12 which is not enough time for the next Council meeting.
13
14 MADER: Now, going into the issue of what is required for the Environmental Assessment
15 Worksheet, for that requirement, I see us in our staff report saying frequently that the petitioner
16 for the EAW hasn't submitted any facts. I would disagreed with that. I think, for example, the
17 fact that they have a well located near this is a fact. What they haven't done is submit data to
18 prove that that would necessarily represent a risk to the water supply. But certainly it is a fact
19 to say there is a well head there, and it is fact to described the location of that relative to the
20 gravel operation. You should note in the data you have given us, the standard by the
21 Environmental Quality Board is not that they have to prove that there is an environmental
22 problem. It is that there may be a problem, and I think the level of facts required for it may be a
23 problem is certainly a different standard that there necessarily is a problem. So, I would have
24 some difficulty accepting the idea that they didn't submit any facts because certainly, in my
25 mind, they submitted some facts. They haven't proven that those facts lead to a definite
26 problem, for example, with water quality, but that, in my mind, would be what an EAW would
27 be all about. It would be to evaluate if that potential truly would create a water problem. Going
28 on, it was mentioned that soil borings were taken by the company out there indicating that they
29 would have no intention of plans to mine beyond the 12.9, I think its 12.9 acres. Have we
30 reviewed that data at all?
31
32 TOVAR: No, we have not received a copy of any soil borings.
33
34 MADER: So all we have is the statement that there is nothing there worth mining beyond the
35 12.9 acres? .
36
37 TOVAR: We have the verbal statement, and Exhibit A of the book from the applicant stating
38 that.
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 6
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7; 2000
Agenda Item 8A
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1
2 MADER: OK, but if later on it was determined that there was some more gravel worth mining
3 there, there is nothing that would stop another application ....a future application from
4 expanding the site, other than the process we're going through now... other than the kind o~
5 process we're going through now?
6
7 TOVAR: Our ordinance requires a conditional use permit for the excavation of more than 400
8 acres. It is a one-year temporary permit if that's what they would choose to pursue.
9
10 MADER: More than how many acres?
11
12 TOVAR: 400 cubic yards. Thank you. Then they would have to come before you for a
13 conditional use permit.
14
15 MADER: Yeah, I'm saying it would be the start of the same kind of process that we are dealing
16 with right now.
17
18 TOVAR: Yes, and this conditional use permit, if I can remind the Council, is a temporary permit
19 valid for one-year. So, they will be back here in 12 months period.
20
21 MADER: Under the section dealing with traffic, the statement in our report says that traffic is
22 not treated as an environmental issue. Would I be wrong to say that traffic does often get
23 treated in EAWs?
24
25 TOVAR: I'm just going to grab our EAW checklist and I will read to you verbatim what's in the
26 EQB's handout here.
27
28 RYE: Mayor, typically what is addressed is not the traffic per se, but generally air quality
29 issues relating to it.
30
31 MADER: Related to the traffic?
32
33 RYE: Right, carbon monoxide levels primarily.
34
35 TOVAR: I don't believe this was distributed to you. It is EAW worksheet "itself, and I'll just kind
36 of...it's a two or three page worksheet which lists all these items which we have gone over line
37 by line in our review in that December 8th report, but on number 9 under land use, and I will
38 just read this specifically to you. The form asks whether potential land use conflicts involve
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 7
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item SA
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1 environmental matters because not all land use conflicts do. Example, heavy truck traffic from
2 a gravel mine near a residential area may cause a land use conflict due to safety concerns,
3 but it is not an environmental matter. So, the EQB specifically points out in their handout that
4 truck traffic is not an environmental matter. Then it goes on to say, The EQB rules define
5 environment to include land, air, water.... That is where the definition came from in our
6 presentation.
7
8 MADER: So what it says is is that it may not be an environmental problem, but it may be a
9 safety problem or some other issue
10
11 TOVAR: That's correct.
12
13 MADER: Going on, there is reference to the fact, in talking about the traffic issue, there is
14 reference to the fact that the condition would limit the truck route from the pit directly south on
15 McKenna Road. But, aren't we also at the present time considering routing McKenna Road to
16 the west and then south, so that it would be routed toward that residential area? Isn't that
17 something that we have been considering?
18
19 TOVAR: I'll refer that to Don. I'm notfamiliar with ....
20
21 RYE: Actually, the realignment of McKenna, the portion that runs in front of the Dakota
22 Community would remain at that location. If you are familiar with it going north there are two
23 curves. The second curve of McKenna would be extended straight south to 42 at that point.
24 So, in terms of traffic exposure to that area, yes, some of the truck traffic would be moved
25 closer to that area.
26
27 MADER: That's the point I'm making. It appears that we are answering that concern in the
28 report by saying "no, all the traffic is going to go straight south", but in reality we are
29 considering changing the routing of the road that would move that traffic closer to that
30 residential area.
31
32 RYE: Of course, the Council always has the option of considering that at an annual review.
33
34 MADER: Yes, I understand. There is reference in here to the fact that McKenna is the main
35 access to County Road 42 and its designated as a collectorstreet. And then there is reference
36 to other collector streets in the City such as Wilds Parkway, Fish Point Road, Pike Lake Trail,
37 Carriage Hills Parkway and Franklin Trail. I don't think any of these have a gravel pit on them.
38 Would that be valid?
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 8
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item SA
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1
2 TOVAR: That's correct.
3
4 MADER: Would it be reasonable to assume that if we suddenly were debating putting a gravel
5 on those roads that those people living in that area would think that that was irresponsible for
6 the Council to consider doing that? What would be your opinion of that?
7
8 TOVAR: These are in developed residential neighborhoods within the MUSA.
9
10 MADER: That wasn't really my question. My question is, we are comparing....we're saying this
11 street is like that street, I'm saying, if we were talking about putting gravel pits on those streets.
12 affecting residential areas and that's one of the reasons the McKenna residents are objecting.
13 I think there are about 45 houses out there. I think any people living on these would feel it's a
14 little bit irresponsible for the Council to consider doing that. Am I wrong that that would
15 probably be the reaction?
16
17 TOVAR: You are putting me in a bad position here because you want me to predict what the
18 general public is going to say about something. What I can tell you is that the Comprehensive
19 Plan designates this road as a collector street. Collector streets are defined in the
20 Comprehensive Plan to gather traffic from neighborhoods and to divert them to larger arterials,
21 minor arterials and whatnot.
22
23 MADER: Yeah, I understand that. But, what I guess I'm suggesting here is that, and I'm not
24 wanting to put you on the spot, I'm suggesting to us as a Council, we need also to think about
25 that because there is a larger residential area out there that is going to be impacted by this. In
26 the report, there is reference to the fact that if we change the hours, shorten the working day,
27 this would mean that there are less trips per day. I have trouble with that concept. It says that
28 if we change the hours of operation from 8am to 5pm that would result in fewer trucks hauling
29 and less trips per day. I'm assuming if somebody's selling gravel out of there and they have
30 customers, they're going to move the gravel and wouldn't that just mean there would be more
31 trips per hour during the working hours?
32
33 TOVAR: This is based on Ryan estimate. They submitted a letter saying that their average
34 operation runs six trucks per hour. But by limiting the hours of operation... of course, if the they
35 intensify the use within that period, that would increase the trips per day.
36
37 MADER: Well, I'm assuming that's what would happen. If they had certain amount of gravel to
38 haul per day, it would increase the density of travel. But, I'm concerned here a little bit also
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 9
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item 8A
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1 because we are taking the information from the EAW petitioner and we're saying he doesn't
2 have any factual data. He's got opinions and we can't count that. But we're taking everything
3 that is in the Ryan words or petition as hard and firm. And, I don't think there is anything in the
4 CUP that says we are going to limit them to six trucks per hour or whatever. I mean, if the
5 conditional use permit is granted and they want to run a truck every three minutes, there are
6 going to be able to do it under the CUP.
7
8 TOVAR: Not unless you put the condition on there. You have the, as a regulatory government
9 unit, you have the authority to impose conditions which are reasonable.
10
11 MADER: I understand that, but I'm saying the application and resolution we are looking at
12 doesn't put any restriction on that, does it, in terms of how many trucks per hour?
13
14 TOVAR: At this time there is no restriction on number of trucks per hour.
15
16 MADER: Yeah, so I'm saying it can be any number under the present application we have.
17
18 TOVAR: That's correct.
19
20 MADER: OK. On the water resources, again, I look at the petition by the, the petition for the
21 EAW as telling us "we have a well in the area and we're concerned about the possibility that a
22 gravel pit could hurt that well" To me that is factual information. The question is will it, or won't
23 it, and I frankly don't know. I'm not a hydrologist. But, just saying "no, it won't" doesn't make
24 me very comfortable either. And keep in mind, that the EQB standard that we are supposed to
25 be looking at this with is not "will that impact the water", the word may is in there - that it may
26 have an environmental impact. I would have to look at that and say "yes, it may have an
27 environmental impact". I don't know whether it will, and certainly the conflicting data I have
28 here doesn't clearly give me any basis to say there isn't a problem. There is reference in here
29 to the Health Department has no specific regulations regarding separation between the bottom
30 of the pit and the aquifer. However, if I recall, when I read the application from Ryan, they said
31 that the Health Department has a 50 foot requirement and they meet that. Now, is there a
32 requirement or is there not?
33
34 TOVAR: There is not a requirement. After, I believe that was after the Workshop that that was
35 brought up, we...and the information for that separation came from Ryan's original application
36 that was in that book. When we research where did that come from, that's what one of our
37 directives was after that meeting to get more information on it, we contacted two people at the
38 Department of Health. They have no standard regulating separation of gravel pits to aquifers.
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 10
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item SA
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1 There is no standard. I believe that is a condition that Ryan had gotten from them as a
2 recommendation for a pit at another location. I believe that's where Ryan got that information.
3
4 MADER: OK, well I have some problem with the idea that the response to a possible water
5 problem is "well the Health Department has a 50 foot separation and we meet that" and then
6 we find out later that there is no Health Department criteria. It raises questions again. Do we
7 really know whether there is or is not a water hazard, or water problem, or environmental
8 problem to the water. We should all be reminded that we have been trying for.....how many
9 years, Frank, to get approval to put a well in?
10
11 BOYLES: Three to four.
12
13 MADER: We have been trying for three to four years to get approval for what we see as a
14 badly needed well to meet our requirements, and we haven't been able to persuade the DNR
15 yet that the circumstances under which we are asking for that, justify it. And yet here, we have
16 the risk, at least some risk, and I have no idea, maybe it's trivial, maybe it's measurable, but
17 we have the risk that we could hurt an existing well. We have even talked in the past...one of
18 the suggestions made to the Council, is that we should consider the possibility, if we can't get
19 a well of our own, we should consider the possibility of buying water from the Mdewakanton
20 tribe. Now, so if we want to think in parochial terms, we ought to think in terms of the possibility
21 that that may be a well that we may want to someday buy water from. There is a reference in
22 the report that says that in the petition, the EAW petition, there is reference that the gravel pit
23 would be close to the well that the tribal community has, and also reference to the fact that it is
24 close to a public water supply that we have. In the report, it says that this is an incorrect
25 statement, and then it says "this area is outside of the City's well head assessment area". Do
26 we have a well head assessment area?
27
28 RYE: No.
29
30 MADER: How can we say this is outside the well head assessment area, if we don't have
31 one?
32
33 OSMUNDSON: We do have a preliminary well head assessment area from the Department of
34 Health.
35
36 MADER: So we have a preliminary one?
37
38 OSMUNDSON: For City wells, and for the Mdewakanton Community well.
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 11
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item 8A
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1
2 MADER: OK, is the well on the Dakota property within what would be their well head
3 assessment area?
4
5 OSMUNDSON: Is the proposed gravel pit in that assessment area?
6
7 MADER: Yeah.
8
9 OSMUNDSON: Yes it is.
10
11 MADER: What we are dealing with is a gravel pit that's going to go into a well head
12 assessment area, and I really don't care whether that is the City's well or the Dakota's well. If
13 it's a well providing drinking water, we should be concerned about that. And I think it is also
14 true, is it not, that one of the reasons we have not been able to get a permit to drill a well is
15 because we haven't yet established a well head protection area?
16
17 OSMUNDSON: No, it is totally to do with the Jordan aquifer and the Savage Fen.
18
19 MADER: I'll have to ask Frank.
20
21 BOYLES: Well, that's one of the prerequisites we will have to fulfill prior to getting our permit
22 as I understand.
23
24 OSMUNDSON: Well, we have to do that regardless of whether we get another well or not.
25
26 MADER: So, for us to get another well, we have to establish a well head protection area and
27 go through a process, but hear we are saying that gravel pit is going to be on the well head
28 protection area for a Dakota government's well, but we're not worried about that. I have a
29 problem with that...of us waiving our hands and saying that's not a problem. If it's a regulatory
30 issue for us, it seems to me it ought to be a regulatory issue also there. There is also
31 reference to ..it talks about Scott County, the City of Shakopee, the DNR...all these agencies
32 have been sent notices, and there is reference, or as I read this report it says they have not
33 objected. However, when I go to, for example, attachment 6 which is from Scott County, let me
34 read what Scott County says. This is from their environmental health department. "The area
35 immediately north of the proposed site which lies at a lower elevation and thus lacks the
36 protective soil covering over the bedrock, has been identified as being highly susceptible to
37 groundwater contamination." Reading a little farther down in that paragraph, it says "Any
38 operation that removes this protection soil covering is likely to degrade the protective ability of
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 12
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item 8A
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1 these terrace soils allowing surface contamination from storm water runoff to more readily
2 enter and degrade the aquifer." Then beginning at the bottom of the page, it says "removal of
3 the protective clay cover, and exposure of the sand and gravel would allow for relatively rapid
4 infiltration of surface contaminates." And when I get to the very last paragraph of the letter, it
5 says "we recommend that Prior Lake order an EA W for this project and direct the proposer to
6 retain a qualified hydrologist to assess the potential impact to the area aquifers." I certainly
7 read that as a high level of concern by the County that there is a potential problem. With
8 regard to the DNR, there are various documents in here, and the DNR, like all other
9 organizations, has many different arms, but I'm reading from attachment #4, and the third
10 paragraph says "the gravel pit is apparently within the well head protection zone for the tribes
11 well and very likely for the Prior Lake well also." And then at the bottom, the very end of the-
12 letter says "therefore, the Division of Waters would support a request that an Environmental
13 Assessment Worksheet be prepared." I don't interpret that to mean that they have given their
14 carte blanc approval for us to go ahead. I read to at least say that there is risk, and it's risk that
15 the consequences could be fairly severe. When we get into the, and this all has to deal with
16 the EAW, but when we get into the question of the CUP, I mean, I would certainly look at all of
17 these same issues. We have a developing property immediately to the south of that property.
18 As I understand it, that property which is owned by Shepard of the Lake Lutheran Church,
19 intend to create a campus there. And as I understand their planning, it's to probably have a
20 Church, a retreat center, possibly senior housing, that type of thing. Based upon the present
21 plan, as it would proceed, we would be running gravel trucks right through the middle of that
22 development. Now, I cannot comprehend how that does not impact the rights of those property
23 owners to enjoy that property and utilize it. One of the general conditions to issue the
24 conditional use permit, and I don't have the words right in front of me, but that is that we do not
25 impact the right for people to have enjoyable use of their property and that sort of thing. And of
26 course, I feel the same way about the residential area up there as we move gravel trucks in
27 that direction. I have major concerns about this. I have major concerns about the fact that the
28 ordinance we have in place allows gravel pits to be put, or mining excavations to be put
29 anywhere in the City in all zoning districts. And this is not your fault, Jenni, please understand.
30 This is a decision the Council made, but what that means is that there is a two acre parcel
31 next to my home, and somebody wants to use that as a gravel pit for building things in the
32 area, there'd be a significant conflict and maybe only two or three of us live on the edge of
33 that, so maybe our voice would be very minimum, but is that really appropriate to allow that?
34 And I have some serious concerns about that. I am going stop here and I'd like to hear from
35 some other Councilmembers regarding your attitudes on it and where we should go. I'm not
36 persuaded that a...that a number 1, there isn't a potential environmental problem, nor 2, am I
37 persuaded that this can be carried out without impact on neighboring properties, significant
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 13
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item 8A
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1 impact on neighboring properties. I'll try to be quiet for a while. I apologize for taking so much
2 time. Mike, do you have any questions or comments?
3
4 GUNDLACH: A couple. On page 7, the Mayor made reference to a couple of things. The first
5 thing I want to touch on is that toward the top of the page it refers to staff consulted a
6 consulting engineer to determine what potential problems. Who and are they here?
7
8 RYE: No, they are not hear.
9
10 GUNDLACH: Who was it?
11
12 RYE: I contacted a gentleman at Barr Engineering.
13
14 GUNDLACH: What was their process?
15
16 RYE: In what regard? I simply asked him a question about observation wells. Was there
17 concern about having the observation well on the site? I knew that they had had a lot of
18 experience over the years with observation wells, installing them, monitoring, and so on. I
19 wanted to find out potentially what kind of problems might occur as a result of having an
20 observation well on the site.
21
22 GUNDLACH: And he said?
23
24 RYE: He said they have been doing it for 35 years and he was not aware of any problems that
25 had resulted from those observation wells.
26
27 GUNDLACH: That I~ads me to my next question. If they were going to put in an observation
28 well, who would monitor that?
29
30 RYE: Well, the construction of it would have to be subject to the state well code. It would have
31 to be a licensed driller. And as far as the ongoing monitoring, typically a contract would be
32 done with some environmental laboratory to do the sampling and testing.
33
34 GUNDLACH: And that would be ordered by the City?
35
36 RYE: Well, that's a condition of the conditional use permit.
37
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 14
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item 8A
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1 TOVAR: Councilman Gundlach, the condition also requires that they submit monthly reports
2 on that to the City from a certified laboratory so we can review it every month to see if there
3 are any problems.
4
5 GUNDLACH: OK. Going back to the traffic which was touched on and I saw in the report
6 listing six trucks per hour, 120 trips per 10 hours. Is this an average on a daily, hourly or is this
7 an annual average? Meaning, if we are not driving trucks through there in February, we'll have
8 12 per hour in July?
9
1 0 TOVAR: I would refer that to the applicant. I believe Tyler is here.
11
12 TYLER ENRIGHT: That would be annually.
13
14 GUNDLACH: That's annually? So, it has the potential of climbing much higher if your only
15 pulling out of there six months out of the year?
16
17 ENRIGHT: That's correct.
18
19 GUNDLACH: I had a couple comments going back to attachment 6 as well as #4 that the
20 Mayor didn't touch on yet. Frank, one of the problems you brought up with dealing with us
21 getting a well, was the Jordan aquifer?
22
23 BOYLES: We are having some difficulty, yes. Potential impacts with the Savage Fen or Boiling
24 Springs are of concern. That has to do more with the aquifer which we are, we which had
25 proposed to pump out of than anything else.
26
27 GUNDLACH: The second paragraph from attachment #6 from Scott Gounty says that this area
28 identified sits right directly above the Prairie Du Chien - Jordan aquifer, and I was concerned
29 about the fact that, again, going back to contaminating our own well water supplies that we
30 want to use.
31
32 BOYLES: That was the rationale for having a monitoring well installed to assure that there
33 wasn't such contamination, or to at least determine if it did occur, that is could be identified as
34 quickly as possible.
35
36 GUNDLACH: Going to the noise issue, we discussed at the last meeting, it was brought up to
37 shorten the window of driving trucks in and out of the site. Different windows were proposed.
38 One of the windows I saw originally was from 6am to 8pm. It was suggested to shorten that
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 15
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item 8A
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1 from 6am to 5pm, and then I saw another one from 8am to 5pm. Is Ryan willing to agree to
2 this to get the CUP?
3
4 TOVAR: They don't have to necessarily agree to it. The conditions that you impose have to be
5 reasonable. If they are dissatisfied with the conditions, or cannot operate within those
6 conditions, that's something that they can take up in another forum, perhaps but, if you feel as
7 a Council, that 8am to 5pm is reasonable, then that is what they are limited to. There is a letter
8 from Ryan Contracting regarding the proposed hours of operation. Council member Schenck
9 had brought up at the last Council meeting that the hours be limited 8am to 5pm. Just give me
10 a minute here.
11
12 GUNDLACH: My comment goes back to enforcement. That I'm told this is going to be very,
13 very difficult to enforce if we were to set this up as an 8am to 5pm. Therefore, I'm asking if
14 Ryan Contracting would be willing to sign off on that as an agreement ahead of time so that
15 we are comfortable with that?
16
17 MADER: Mike, I think that what Jenni is saying to us is that if we make that a condition of the
18 CUP, then by definition it's an agreement. I mean, it is probably just as strong as if we had a
19 signed agreement saying that they are going to do that because its an ordinance then from the
20 City basically.
21
22 GUNDLACH: As I said, my concern has been the enforcement. A $30 fine isn't going to be
23 a.....
24
25 PACE: You had expressed that concern at the last Council meeting, and we as a staff sat
26 down and talked about it a lot because I think your right and the case law holds you out that
27 enforcing zoning ordinances with misdemeanor violations is not productive. But yet, I had to
28 advise you at the same time that the appropriate way to do it would be through some kind of
29 injunctive relief which is time-consuming and very expensive for the City. So we came up with
30 an agreement that would be a conditional use permit condition assurance agreement that
31 would require...it would be a contract and we would have security, a letter of credit, to assure
32 compliance with those conditions, and if they didn't, we would have certain rights under the
33 agreement, and that we would hope that would be incentive for them to, in fact, comply.
34
35 GUNDLACH: That would work.
36
37 PACE: We took very seriously the concern you had expressed and tried to come up with
38 something to address that.
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 16
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item 8A
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1
2 TOVAR: Councilman Gundlach, that is attachment #7 from Ryan Contracting to the City of
3 Prior Lake, number 3 - hours of operation. This is after the last Council meeting where it was
4 suggested their hours be 8am to 5pm and no weekends. I'll just read this paragraph, "RyafJ
5 Contracting will need to have the flexibility to operate during normal construction business
6 hours. I would suggest the City look into the normal operating hours of gravel operations
7 throughout the metro area. I would like to discuss this matter further with you at your
8 convenience. Please contact me on this issue. This is extremely important."
9
10 GUNDLACH: What does that mean to you?
11
12 TOVAR: Well, when we look at normal operating hours of other gravel operations. I believe at
13 the last report, we had contacted some other cities regarding their hours of operation and it
14 was specifically dependent on the neighborhood. This was the cities of Rosemount, Lakeville,
15 Savage and Shakopee. It was specific to the neighborhood and the type of use that they were
16 doing and where they were located. If they were located, the pit right here..the operation on
17 185th right off 35W....and the City of Lakeville said they are not by a residential neighborhood,
18 they have no restrictions on what they can do, how long it can be for, and how loud they are
19 because there is nobody out there who is going to complain. So, it is very site specific to the
20 type of operation.
21
22 GUNDLACH: That along with the other letter that is threatening legal, I was concerned that
23 they were in fact willing to agree to that stipulation, but I'm comfortable with what the
24 counselor said. Finally, on page 11, it talked about tree replacement up there. Just one quick
25 questions, in that, is that referring to trees from this point forward, you know, currently they
26 have already taken out a whole hill of trees?
27
28 TOVAR: Yeah, this is based on a tree inventory which was submitted as part of this
29 application. I believe the trees you are talking about where probably taken out two years ago,
30 or three years ago. The tree preservation ordinance went into effect, I believe it was in 1996,
31 so, if they were taken out before then, but we only have the information which was before us
32 today, and what trees are out there today, and that is what this is based on.
33
34 GUNDLACH: Finally, I just want to make a point of clarification. I spoke with the Planning
35 Commission members, being the liaison, and they were equally split on this issue. One of the
36 members was not at that original meeting, but in discussions with them, there was not a
37 consensus in any way.
38
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 17
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item SA
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1 MADER: Anything else Mike?
2
3 GUNDLACH: That's it.
4
5 MADER: Jim?
6
7 PETERSEN: Well, I kind of come at this a little bit different. I grew up next to a gravel pit, and
8 watched them dig gravel for probably 15 of my early years, but the Mayor brought up a bunch
9 of concerns that in denying this environmental assessment worksheet which I though we were
10 going to do here, and I just hardly can't go along with that at this point. There are too many
11 concerns that got brought up on that and so I have to change my opinion on that a little bit. ~
12 think if we go anyplace on this we'll have to have that worksheet brought up. There are just too
13 many things. As far as people owning property and trying to do what they can do best with it...
14 if you can sell gravel off of it, I don't see a problem in that if we are not contaminating water
15 and bothering the neighborhood to such a great extreme. A certain amount of truck traffic is
16 not going to make it unlivable in an area, I don't think. I do agree that a gravel pit is probably
17 we could have here. So with that, I'll pass it on.
18
19 MADER: Pete?
20
21 SCHENCK: Jenni, I've got several questions. First of all, if the EAW is required by the Council
22 tonight, what timeframe...does the clock stop now once again?
23
24 TOVAR: Yeah, it's stopped if an EAW is required. We would wait to get the EAW and then a
25 decision on the conditional use permit would be made upon submittal and our review and your
26 review of the EAW.
27
28 SCHENCK: Typically, how long would an EAW for a project this size take?
29
30 RYE: 30 to 45 days probably.
31
32 SCHENCK: And, this EAW cost is borne by Ryan Construction?
33
34 TOVAR: That's correct.
35
36 SCHENCK: They typically run....what?...$10,000 to $15,000?
37
38 RYE: $10,000 is fairly common. It depends on the scope of it, of course.
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 18
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item 8A
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1
2 SCHENCK: OK. I wasn't prepared to talk CUP tonight, and of course, then you told us that if
3 we deny the EAW tonight, the CUP will obviously require a special meeting to be held
4 because this clock....
5
6 TOVAR: You have ten days once you make a decision as to the EAW.
7
8 SCHENCK: So we would have to have a special meeting to address this CUP?
9
10 MADER: No, the agenda does not show the issue of the CUP on the agenda, but the staff
11 report is basically asking for us to act on both tonight.
12
13 TOVAR: That's correct. The recommendation in the staff report is that you deny the petition for
14 EAW and approve the conditional use permit with the conditions as listed in the report.
15
16 MADER: I had the same problem, Pete, in that I was looking primarily at the EAW issue as
17 being the thing we were going to discuss, and I didn't discover until late today as I was going
18 through the data that the resolution was also in there for the CUP. And then I began checking
19 the time factor and realized that we have two choices. If the EAW were rejected tonight...the
20 petition for the EAW, then the Council would be obligated to act on the CUP not later than, I
21 think you said, ten days from now, so that would either mean tonight or a special meeting.
22
23 SCHENCK: OK. In response to one of Mike's concerns and my concerns about the hours of
24 operations that would be in the CUP, this is a year to year process. If they violate any portion
25 of it, next year when they come up for another CUP, these issues can be brought up at that
26 time. So, I'm not too concerned about them violating any issues mandated by the CUP at this
27 time because next year it could be very difficult. Let's see....is there any potential utilization of
28 the water that is going to be pumped from this pit? >
29
30 TOVAR: As far as dewatering? .
31
32 SCHENCK: Any use that the City may benefit from?
33
34 TOVAR: I guess I would refer that to our City Engineer.
35
36 OSMUNDSON: Yeah, I do not even know if they are going to need to do any dewatering at
37 this point. There may not be any dewatering coming out of it.
38
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 19
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item 8A
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1 SCHENCK: Would an EAW address that?
2
3 OSMUNDSON: I'm not 100% certain of that.
4
5 SCHENCK: I hate to put you on the spot.
6
7 MADER: I believe tnat the staff or Council could direct certain issues to be reviewed as part of
8 the EAW so that would be an option would be for the Council to say we want that reviewed to
9 see whether dewatering would be required and where the water would go.
10
11 OSMUNDSON: And dewatering could change over time. If we had continuous dry years, we
12 may not need any dewatering.
13
14 SCHENCK: OK, thank you. Jenni, one thing that's not addressed, and maybe is not a part of
15 the CUP....or of the EAW potential, is any gravel or dirt left on McKenna and42. Is the clean-
16 up process addressed in the CUP?
17
18 TOVAR: The conditional use permit talks of specific criteria for dust control, and then there's a
19 condition regarding clean-up. That is in a letter that was provided by the County. Let me find it
20 here.....
21
22 MADER: It's in a letter from the County, but what Pete is asking is does the CUP also
23 specifically include that? And I think you are telling us "yes".
24
25 TOVAR: Yes. Page 13, ongoing conditions for Scott County: The clean-up of gravel as a result
26 of spills or general transportation of gravel on County Road 42 shall be the responsibility of
27 Ryan Contracting.
28
29 SCHENCK: This is a year by year CUP request. What is the overall length of the anticipated
30 project? Is that ten years that I understand?
31
32 TOVAR: It's ten years and then there is four phases specified moving from west to east. You
33 know, phase one, two, three and four over an expected ten year period. Obviously, if they get
34 the material out sooner, then that...then they'll shorten that up. Or if it takes them a little bit
35 longer, there is no defined date on that because it is an annual temporary conditional use
36 permit.
37
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 20
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item 8A
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1 SCHENCK: The utilization of McKenna Road right now with the increased traffic and the
2 increased weight of the traffic...what procedures do we have in place that assures us that
3 Ryan will maintain McKenna in an acceptable condition, and then upon the conclusion, will
4 return McKenna to either its original conditions, or its improved condition?
5
6 TOVAR: Our Engineering Department has actually been out and taken a look at it. They didn't
7 specifically take pictures and document it. That's a condition that we will go out and document
8 the condition as it is today. The City is also requiring a letter of credit to assure the City if Ryan
9 does not fix it on an annual basis when we come to look at this a year from now and we see
10 that the road is damaged "X" amount as a condition of that, you need to fix that road. If they
11 refuse to do so, we have letter of credit and a right of entry so we can go and fix it ourselves.
12
13 SCHENCK: OK. I want to make sure that this wasn't just at the end of the project concern.
14
15 TOVAR: On-going and at the annual review.
16
17 SCHENCK: Upon the conclusion of the mining operation, what condition is the property going
18 to be left in?
19
20 TOVAR: There was a reclamation plan submitted in the book. Basically, it consists of slopes,
21 3-to-1 going from the outside edges of the pit, sloping at 3-to-1 down to the bottom. I believe
22 the elevation is 868 at the bottom and 890 towards the top. Sloping down will be a 30 fooL.not
23 necessarily a cavern, but because the grades will be 3-to-1, it won't be a big hole. It will be
24 sloped downward.
25
26 SCHENCK: So, potentially it will hold water at some point?
27
28 TOVAR: There is a sedimentation pond further down from that, so we are not going to have a
29 lake down there. It will run down and off of the site.
30
31 SCHENCK: Oh, we won't end up with a lake?
32
33 TOVAR: No. Did you want one?
34
35 SCHENCK: Yes. Thank you.
36
37 MADER: Pete? Is that everything?
38
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 21
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item SA
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1 SCHENCK: Yeah.
2
3 MADER: Jim Ericson?
4
5 ERICSON: Yeah, just real briefly. I think everyone has pretty much addressed all the concerns
6 that would have brought up. I am concerned about if we act on the EAW we only have ten
7 days to act on the conditional use permit, correct?
8
9 TOVAR: Correct.
10
11 MADER: If we deny the EAW, we only have ten days to act. If we approve the petition for the'
12 EAW, then the clock is still on hold.
13
14 ERICSON: Still stopped, OK. That being said, I think it would prudent for us to conduct an
15 EAW since there have been significant issues raised this evening, and that's alii have to say.
16
17 MADER: Let me again reiterate that I think there are some serious concerns have been raised
18 and I certainly am not comfortable, for example, that we've addressed the water issue
19 carefully when our own documentation and the documentation from the DNR and from the
20 Council are both suggesting we should have an EAW. Our own data, at least from what I
21 understand now, we also indicate that site is also within the well head protection area of the
22 well that the Dakota Community has, and I think it would be...it should be an obviously
23 conclusion that if State regulatory agencies are imposing well head protection for protection of
24 water, I can't understand how we could possible justify going ahead with an excavation
25 operation within a well head protection area just because it doesn't happen to be our well. I
26 think that would be inappropriate. But let me move...to me there is a lot of inconsistency and a
27 lot of concerns I have, but let me also move to one other document. I'm looking at attachment
28 three which is a letter to the City from Ryan Contracting, and I want to read the firsf paragraph
29 on the second page, which says "In the event Ryan Contracting is denied its CUP as allowed
30 by City ordinance, or an EA W is required, Ryan Contracting will revised its application to
31 include any or all of the above items". Those are the items, incidentally, that have been
32 previously determined to be objectionable, such as operating during nighttime hours, operating
33 a rock crushing machine, operating a washing plant, ect., ect., ect. The implication of that as I
34 read it is "if you don't give us what we want, we going to come back and add all those things
35 that are so objectionable", and I really have some problems with that. But more important, the
36 next sentence says, "Ryan Contracting may seek legal action to ensure proper handling and
37 compliance of this matter, as well as legal action to recover lost revenues and/or costs
38 incurred as a result of actions by the City of Prior Lake." Now, unless I don't understand what
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 22
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item SA
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1 that means, I think what that says is "hey City Council, if you don't approve this tonight, we're
2 going to sue you." Would you interpret that to mean that also? Probably? Or would you rather
3 not comment on that?
4
5 TOVAR: I would rather not comment, but the applicant is here and can tell you what their
6 intent is.
7
8 MADER: Well, I think...1 think the intent of the words are fairly clear, and while I wouldn't object
9 to having the applicant revisit that, I don't want to reopen the discussion to the public and
10 potentially reopen and contaminate the whole public hearing process. I know there are other
11 people here who would also like to address this issue, and I have already told them that they
12 will not be invited to the podium because I don't want to get back into the mode where then
13 that becomes a basis to say we have to start the process all over.
14
15 SCHENCK: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move adoption of Resolution DO-XX......
16
17 MADER: Excuse me, I haven't finished. What I am concerned about, having read this, I read
18 this as a clear indication of a threat of litigation, and I am going to suggest to the rest of the
19 Councilmembers, that it is not inappropriate for the Council to meet in executive session to
20 discuss any potential action that relates to potential litigation, and I'm not so sure that it
21 wouldn't be very appropriate for the Council to recess and go into executive session so that
22 we can discuss with counsel in an executive session just how we should view this threat of
23 litigation relative to the actions that are before the Council this evening. So, what I'm going to
24 do is suggest that I would entertain a motion for us to recess and go into executive session to
25 address this issue.
26
27 GUNDLACH: Mayor, I move that we recess for executive session.
28
29 ERICSON: Second.
30
31 MADER: OK, the motion has been made and seconded. Is there any discussion on that
32 motion?
33
34 SCHENCK: I guess I have to ask counsel, do we have enough here to legally retire into
35 executive session? I know what this letter is getting at and we've got the CUP behind us, we
36 require an EAW tonight, we move forward. There is no need for an executive session. Let
37 them sue us.
38
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 23
. I
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item 8A
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1 MADER: All I'm suggesting, Pete, is we do have the right to go into executive session when
2 there is a threat of litigation, and I think this is a pretty clear threat. I assume you would agreed
3 with that?
4
5 SCHENCK: No, I don't.
6
7 MADER: Oh, you don't agree that this is a threat of litigation.
8
9 SCHENCK: No, it's more negotiation tactics, scare tactics. Let's just require the EAW tonight
10 and move forward.
11
12 MADER: Excuse me, Counsel, do you have a com.........?
13
14 [The Mayor and Attorney Pace consult privately.]
15
16 MADER: OK, there is a motion and a second to go into executive session. Is there any further
17 discussion? [pause] OK, I'll call the question. Those in favor signify by saying aye, [pause]
18 opposed? [pause], the motion is carried. We will adjourn into executive session.
19
20 [Ayes by Councilmembers Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, Nay by Schenck]
21
22 MADER: I'm sorry, we've just adjourned into executive session.
23
24 [The Council retired to executive session.]
25
26 RETURNING FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION:
27
28 MADER: We are back in session, and as a reminder to all of us, we went into executive
29 session because of a specific letter from the petitioner indicating that a.....the threat of litigation
30 if we do not grant the petition, the CUP petition and we do not deny the EAW. To me, the
31 implication of the letter is very clear, and I think it's certainly appropriate that as a Council
32 deliberates and makes decisions, that it do so, hopefully without threat of litigation, but if there
33 is a threat of litigation, the Council at least have an opportunity to hear from our counsel
34 regarding what the implications of litigation would be and what the probability of litigation, that
35 sort of thing. I think it'd be very imprudent for the Council to sit and make decisions without
36 talking to its own counsel when there is implied litigation. That is the reason for the Council
37 going into recess, to have an opportunity to at least address that issue with our own counsel.
38 We are back to discussing the issue before us before and that has to do, the first issue has to
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item 8A
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
do with whether we require an EAW as petitioned for, and the second issue has to do with the
conditional use permit application. Mike, we'll start with you again.
GUNDLACH: Well first, I'm going to say that I moved for the open...for the closed session
simply because I felt very strongly with that threat of lawsuit that we needed some counsel
from our attorney and that, in fact, I did get that. We are forbidden to discuss this stuff prior to
the meeting, you know, among each other due to the open meeting laws, and therefore, can
only do it during a meeting either here in front of everyone, or in a closed session where we
feel we have confidential information we have to discuss with our attorney as to what our
liabilities are, and I felt very strongly about that. Therefore, I moved for the closed session and
I did get a chance to speak with our attorney regarding this.
PETERSEN: There are so many things that come up on something like this. Like I mentioned
earlier, the people that own the land want to sell gravel, you can side with that, and then with
the well that our neighbors, the Mdewakanton Sioux have over there, we have concerns over
that, the traffic. Everything is a concern, and then when somebody says "you don't do it our
way, we got litigation". Again, I feel we need a little bit of help from counsel on this, so that's
our reason for doing this. It's just a lot of things come before you on a big decision like a gravel
pit that's going to be here for 5, 10 however many years.
ERICSON: I concur with what everyone has said so far. There is a lot of issues as far as
litigation that we discussed in executive session, and I just wanted to make sure I had the
benefit of our legal counsel before making any decisions on this. Now that I have that, I'm
ready to continue on.
MADER: Any other comments?
.
SCHENCK: No, except just for record, I did not participate in the executive session.
MADER: The history on the project, the correspondence and that sort of thing, I certainly
interpret that if we do not respond the way the petition has asked, that the threat of litigation is
imminent. And again, I think it's prudent that the Council have a chance to hear from its own
counsel before it proceeds. We are at the point...1 think we are back to the question of how we
respond to the petition for the EAW. I personally have concern about going down that road in
terms of requiring the petitioner to incur additional costs. I'm concerned that if there are
additional costs incurred, and then the CUP is denied, obviously that is a disadvantage for the
petitioner. But, again, I'd like to, I think it is appropriate for the Councilmembers to express
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 25
----r-----.-.--<<--...---.. -.--.--.<------.
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item 8A
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1 their position on the EAW and for the Council to make a decision on that. Jim, do you want to
2 sta rt?
3
4 PETERSEN: For purposes of discussion, I would like to deny resolution DO-XX denying 9
5 petition to require an environmental assessment worksheet to be completed prior to approval
6 of a conditional use permit for Ryan Contracting to allow the excavation of sand and gravel on
7 property located on the southeast quarter of section 22, T115, R22 for Ryan Contracting.
8
9 MADER: Jim, can you clarify...
10
11 PETERSEN: It's a double negative. I denied the resolution denying, so that means will require
12 an EAW.
13
14 MADER: So your motion is to approve the petition.
15
16 PETERSEN: Yes, but because it says denying on it, it's a double negative there.
17
18 TOVAR: Mr. Mayor, as a matter of formality, alternative #2 in the staff report would be to
19 approve the petition for the EAW and require Ryan Contracting to prepare an EAW. In this
20 case, Council must direct staff to prepare the resolution with specific findings of fact requiring
21 the EAW. At this point, there is no need to deny the resolution before you, just make a motion
22 directing staff to prepare a specific resolution and for our sake, if you could articulate your
23 findings again as to why you are requiring the EAW, we would appreciate it so we can make
24 sure those are in the resolution.
25
26 MADER: Jim, do you want to modify your motion to comply with the guidance that Jenni has
27 just given us?
28
29 PETERSEN: Where did you have that Jenni?
30
31 RYE: Last page of your staff report. Page 14.
32
33 MADER: Item #2 under alternatives.
34
35 PETERSEN: So, we'll change this to approve the petition for an EAW and require Ryan
36 Contracting to prepare and EAW, and direct staff to prepare a resolution with specific findings
37 of fact for requiring an EAW.
38
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 26
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item 8A
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1 MADER: Jim, let me restate the way the motion probably should read. I think your motion
2 should be that City Council ....that the motion is that staff be directed to prepare a resolution
3 with specific finding of fact for requiring an EAW. Is that your intent?
4
5 PETERSEN: I thought that's what I just said.
6
7 ERICSON: Second.
8
9 MADER: The motion has been made and seconded, and the motion is to direct staff to
10 prepare a resolution with specific findings of fact for requiring an EAW. Is that clear? Any
11 discussion on that motion?
12
13 PETERSEN: Well, as I said earlier, because of some of the things that you brought up about
14 the Mdewakanton Sioux well being there, and a few of these other concerns, that's why I feel
15 we need this.
16
17 MADER: Mike, any comments?
18
19 GUNDLACH: I'm going to vote in favor of this simply because of the Mdewakanton Sioux
20 concerns, the first being their well. The other being the issues I brought up earlier dealing with
21 the aquifer that I stated concerns about, I also believe supports this EAW report. So, and the
22 environmental issues you mentioned earlier. So, I'm going to vote for the EAW.
23
24 MADER: Pete, any comments?
25
26 SCHENCK: No.
27
28 MADER: Jim Ericson?
29
30 ERICSON: Again, one of my concerns is environmental issues, specifically
31 groundwater...excuse me.....contamination to the well of the Mdewakanton Sioux. That's one
32 of my primary issues and I just think it would be prudent for us to address, not only that, but all
33 the other issues that the rest of the Council has brought up. So, I will be voting for an EAW.
34
35 MADER: I will also support the requirement for the EAW, and it is certainly my hope that that
36 process will clear up some of the, what I think of as conflicting data, in the information we have
37 received, and that also, as part of that process, that staff will fine tune and refine some of the
38 information we've seen so that downstream other decisions can be made that are based on
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 27
I
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
February 7, 2000
Agenda Item 8A
Consider Approval of Report Regarding the Petition for Preparation
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Ryan Contracting's
Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Gravel Excavation.
1 sound documentation, sound information, sound facts relative to the ultimate question of
2 approval also of the CUP. It would be very difficult tonight to move ahead on a CUP with what
3 I see as a lot of conflicting data. So, I will support the motion also. Is there any further
4 discussion? [pause] If not, those in favor signify by saying aye: [pause] opposed? [pause], that
5 motion is carried.
6
7 [Councilmembers Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Schenck and Ericson voted
8 in favor of the motion.]
9
10 GUNDLACH: Could we....Do we need a motion to have staff redo the report so that it would
11 reflect the information that was received from the County and from the DNR?
12
13 MADER: We don't need a motion. I think it is understood that staff will bring current
14 information to us as it develops.
15
16 PACE: And it is all part of the record.
1:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2000\RY ANVERB.DOC
Page 28