The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9D - Mineral Extraction AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: STAFF AGENDA REPORT 9}1j1 JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE #98-XX REPEALING ORDINANCE 92-09 WHICH DELETED MINERAL EXTRACTION AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE A-1 AND C-1 DISTRICTS MAY 4,1998 The purpose of this item is to consider repealing Ordinance #92-09 which deleted mineral extraction from the list of conditional uses in the A-1 (Agricultural) and C-1 (Conservation) Districts. Repealing this ordinance will re- establish mineral extraction as a conditional use in these districts. The Council discussed this issue at the April 20, 1998, meeting and deferred this item until the May 4, 1998, Council meeting. In 1992, the City Council adopted Ordinance #92-09, which deleted mineral extraction from the list of conditional uses in the A-1 and C-1 districts. This action was the culmination of a process dating back to early 1991 when the City was party to a Metropolitan Significance review of a proposed mining operation on the McKenna property in Shakopee. A Metropolitan Significance review is a procedure which allows an individual to request the Metropolitan Council to review a project to determine if it is of metropolitan significance. The City Council enacted a moratorium on mineral extraction while the issue was studied. The end result was the adoption of Ordinance #92-09. The reasons for the enactment of this ordinance included: · The activity was not taking place in Prior Lake · Effective, fair, efficient regulations were not in place · Qualified evaluators were not on City staff . Mining and residential development were not considered compatible uses Rather than developing an ordinance to address this issue, the Council at that time elected to delete mineral extraction as a permitted use. When the Council adopted this ordinance, they did not amend Title 9, Chapter 6 of the City Code which allows Excavating and Filling with a permit issued by the City Engineer. The end result are inconsistent code provisions which conflict with one another. 1:\98files\98Qrdamd\z,Qning\98-032\98032cc.doc p~ged 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. ::'.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61L:) q. 7-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The conflict between the Zoning Ordinance and Section 9-6 of the City Code needs to be resolved. The proposed zoning ordinance allows mining and extraction as a conditional use, with several very specific standards and conditions designed to mitigate against the concerns about incompatible uses. However, that provision will most likely not become effective until sometime this summer. The staff has discussed this issue with the City Attorney, and she concurs with the staff's opinion that, if challenged, the record of decision for deleting mineral extraction from the Code (Ordinance #92-09) is weak and may not support the decision to remove mineral extraction from the list of conditional uses permitted in the district. Plannina Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at a public hearing on March 23, 1998. The attached draft of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting summarize the discussion of this matter. There was no testimony from the public on this matter. The Commission recommended approval of this amendment. Staff Recommendation: The staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation. ISSUES: The conditional use permit process is the appropriate mechanism to review applications for mineral extraction in that it allows for public input in the decision making process. The current ordinance also includes a set of standards for the approval of conditional uses. Any applicant who wishes to establish this use could apply for a conditional use permit under the current ordinance. Each application for a conditional use will be reviewed based on these standards. As a provision of any conditional use permit, the City can also include a requirement that any more stringent requirements imposed by adoption of the new zoning ordinance can automatically be attached to the new conditional use permit. The conditional use permit may also be reviewed every year. We have received complaints from residents in the McKenna Road area regarding a mineral extraction operation in this area. At the April 6, 1998, meeting, the Council received a letter from the Mdewakanton Dakota Community (attached) regarding the proposed amendment. Their primary concern was that the notification area of 500 feet is not large enough. While an alternative was not proposed, the Council could 1:\98files\98ordamd\zoning\98-032\98032cc.doc Page 2 amend the notification area to 1,000 feet or 1,500 feet. This provision may be accomplished in one of two ways: 1. As part of this ordinance amendment, the Council may include a provision amending Section 5-6-5 (A) of the City Code and 7.5 (A) of the Zoning Ordinance requiring the applicant submit the names and addresses of all owners of property within 1,000 feet of the site for a proposed conditional use permit for mining extraction operations only or for all conditional use permit applications. 2. The Council may initiate a separate amendment to Section 5-6-5 (A) of the City Code and 7.5 (A) of the Zoning Ordinance requiring the applicant submit the names and addresses of all owners of property within 1,000 feet of the site for a proposed conditional use permit for mining extraction operations only or for all conditional use permit applications. 3. This provision could be incorporated into the proposed Zoning Ordinance. The Council discussed this issue at the April 20, 1998, meeting. There was a suggestion that mineral extraction should be prohibited on the City. This is a policy issue, but the Council should be aware that the rationale for such prohibition must be based on protecting the public health and safety and not merely because of aesthetics. The Council should also be aware that an outright prohibition could cost taxpayers more since existing mining operations are providing granular fill for road and housing projects. Costs for these services will are directly related to the number of miles the material must be hauled. As an alternative, the Council should consider whether the conditional use mechanism provides sufficient public health and safety safeguards and will protect against the proliferation of such operations. AL TERNA TIVES: 1. Adopt Ordinance 98-XX as proposed or with specific changes directed by the Council. 2. Further discuss this issue and direct the staff to provide additional information to the City Council. 3. Deny the proposed amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Alternative #1. The proposed amendment provides a mechanism to deal with requests for mineral extraction, and eliminates the conflict between the Zoning Ordinance and the City Code. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion and second to approve Ordinance 98-XX. If the Council chooses to adopt this ordinance, this action requires a 1:\98files\980rdamd\zoning\98-032\98032cc.doc Page 3 4/5 vote of the Council. REPORT ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance 2. Draft Minutes of March 23, 1998, Planning Commission Meeting 3. Planning Report dat March 23, 1998 Boyles, City Manager 1:\98files\980rdamd\zoning\98-032\98032cc.doc Page 4 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 98- XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5-3-2 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 3.2 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6. The City Council ofthe City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that: 1. Ordinance No. 92-09 is hereby repealed. 2. Section 5-3-2 of the Prior Lake City Code and Section 3.2 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83-6 are hereby amended to add "Mineral Extraction" to the list of Conditional Uses in the A-I (Agricultural) and C-1 (Conservation) Districts. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 4th day of May, 1998. ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the 9th day of May, 1998. Drafted By: City of Prior Lake Planning Department 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 16200 a~IW16~d~<8iu\~~l@\dfufi~,dMinnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (6l>'APt47-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER MARCH 23,1998 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Kuykendall: · Concurred. · Tovar explained the ordinance requirements. Stamson: · Concurred with Commissioners. ..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.... ..::::1()::::.:.:...........:.::::;::::? MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO CONr.B.Niiu:;'~ THE HEARING AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE THE APPRqf:1IAfE~::::::~::t:::::.. RESOLUTION.'y:::::::m: ":::::::::m:mt:::::.. "::::!:~::::::';'" '\ft ..;::;!!tt?t:::.. ..::::(~~[?f!~~t~1~)t~~~i?:::: "::::{j~fft::::.. ":::', Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED:::::::::::::::::):::::" ":::\:::i~:::~:~::::~::::::/::" C. Case File #98-032 Consider repealing O~JU"~9.ce #92:~QR:~hich deleted:}:::::" mineral extraction as a conditional use in the A~t" ali:4,::!'i:~:::::f'intiQ::Districts. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presen.!,:d the staffreporf:dlne..March 23, 1998 on file in the office of the City Planner.:::~::~:::::i:~~:~~::~~::::::::::\\::::::.:... ":::::::::::::~:::~::::::::::::::,?:' The purpose ofthis public hearing is to cO~';:~:::;!!_'!$.::Qr4wA~: #92-09, which deleted mineral extraction as a conditional u'g~}JJ::t.ffe A~r:::Olifftultural) and C-1 (Conservation) Zoning Disn.i9~:~m:~::&!?:pealing tiim:::brdinancdWlll re-establish mineral extraction as a conditi::~:j~:Jis(riii':th,i,.r diStrictS):::i.l:i!~~:::::::::t:). In 1992, the City C9w.ii~1.adopteq:::9fdinance #9i:tW9, which deleted mineral extraction from the list of conaitiCHii:kH~e.~:::m::t.I~::lr:k:_:::(!~ 1 districts. This action was the culmination of a process dlij,II))ack to'.'e'afIy:::Y991 when the City was party to a Metropolita.n:::$,~~B2.~nce re'V[iW:::pf a proposed mining operation on the McKenna propertyAteSfiKk6pe;i::::rrpe CoUHq~lJl!~ enacted a moratorium on mineral extraction whil~:::W(rissue was siUl~9.' The ilif'fesult was the adoption of Ordinance #92-09. The r~:flf:1~i:::~::~ the enactmeh111lf this dfdinance included: · The:::~inYity is not clfgently taking place in Prior Lake · EffectiV~~:::!:,,!r, efq~~iht regulations are not in place · Qualifie(f::el~Rit~jfs are not on City staff · Mining and:::ifSi'dential development are not compatible uses When the Council adopted this ordinance, they did not amend Title 9, Chapter 6 ofthe City Code which allows Excavating and Filling with a permit issued by the City Engineer. The end result is these two provisions conflict with one another. The conflict between the Zoning Ordinance and Section 9-6 of the City Code needs to be resolved. The proposed zoning ordinance allows mining and extraction as a conditional use, with several specific standards and conditions. However, that provision will most likely not become effective until sometime this summer. I :\98fi1es\98plcomrn\pcmin\nm032398.doc 5 .11'''' The staffhas discussed this issue with the City Attorney, and she concurs with the staff's opinion that the record of decision for Ordinance #92-09 does not support the decision to remove mineral extraction from the list of conditional uses. The conditional use permit process is the appropriate mechanism for this use in that it allows for public input in the decision making process. The current ordinance also includes a set of standards for the approval of conditional uses. ................. .................. .................... .................... ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ..... ....... ... ...... "' To resolve this issue, the City Attorney and the staffhave suggested Qtlwance #92-09 be repealed, thereby reestablishing mineral extraction as a conditionfl:1J~se'.th:::~h~.. A-I and C- 1 districts. Any applicant who wishes to establish this use could"ijpply fot::::;'y,Qditional use permit under the current ordinance. As a provision of an.X:P9ritl!ional us~9pigpit, the City can include a requirement that any more stringent reqy'etHent~Hmposed b)l~9.l?:Ji9n ofthe new zoning ordinance can automatically be attacp~irto th.,C;. new conditional um:::::o:'" permit. nnnn.... . .():::' ................. .................. .......... ...................... .... .......... ... .......... .. .......... . "........ ................. ....... ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ...... Staff recommends repealing Ordinance 92-09, thereby rej~~~Hshin~rMineral Extraction as a conditional use in the A-I and C-1 Districts. '. ..nn. n. . .. ........ . ....... .... .......... ...... ............ .................. There were no comments from the publi~:'~'~'::ti~::'~~~:. was cl6!'?:':" .................. ................. . ................. Comments from the Commissioners: ... ........... ... .................- ..... ......................... ..............,........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................... ..... . What is the definition of rrnpeats~::::::iansier explltined the difference between extraction and grading. Normal~:~y.~lopment"~~Hvity woulgd!.9l be included. Rye explained how:thi'M~~!H~ C~!:::M:::}Y!!h,J>>~RJhCidents off County Road 42. The current zoning ordinance.:a~~~:::pofspet'~r};::::08haltions in districts, the new ordinance will. ..... . .... .......... Essentiany::jhirilW.ti::I~f~~tion Wq~l~::~,a conditional use. ... ... ........... :?as;:ke on the 1t areaWand designations. . It appeil:::~~s Sho~94)e repealed to the original ordinance. · SupportlvijlI:'\,::oo ..::,(:/,:}'.. V onhof: · Uncomfortable repealing ordinances when the record shows strong opposition. There was a reason for doing this in 1992. We have large mineral extraction pits near our city borders. There is a great deal of citizen concern. The uses are permanent. · This is proper zoning policy, to have some type of restricted use for legal activities. . Balance the land use and zoning issues. · Supports. But look carefully on conditional use standards. These are permanent uses. I :\98fi1es\98plcomm\pcmin\rnn032398.doc 6 Kuykendall: · Is not in favor. It is not desirable in the community. · There is plenty of land and minerals outside the city limits that would not keep us from making improvements, public or private. They can be trucked in. · Will vote against it. Criego: ":::{}}}}:~::::::':'" ; ~~~;;G~}~~[~s~~E~;o:~:: :~li:~^tlriS m · Agreed with V onhof. The conditional use process is 109.i::~ihq~:ijdious witli'::;~:fgHl fro.p1 a lot of people. ..:::::(:::::)::::::.... ..::::~t:::::::::::::::::::t}:. · The process should not be held up. ..:.:.:.:::.' .:::Jf}:" :ta::::rt staffs recommendation to repeal. ~~~ · Have been back and forth on this isSU~J~,l.lt does support. ..::::\::t::::\::::.. .'::: :u:::::~g from voting. Has a relati~~nVOlVed' Kuykendall: ":::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::':.'::~:~:~::::-' · Go back and revisit...y{jf~~~::::::~'fl~osed. E~'}Q:~ is a conditional use - he would be : E~j1~:3~ities. :o:h7~~o~, · ..:,j[I:~re are uses we liliyi\deterrrtiiled will have an impact on the land uses. ..t)::::.~}leeds to be a p~;~ess for this and with conditions it is not imperative it has to be dpP'f:gyed if it is n.9~i:lhe appropriate site or does not meet the performance requiiaq.:~ of c<>,:~~Uional uses. · The origiH.::prsi.Pfutce's intent was not to have it here. It is not consistent with our zoning policy~~~::::::::::" ,:::~::::.. Criego: · The last thing the City wants is large pits in our small community. Everyone would agree to it. · What we are trying to deal with are some of the minor issues under the conditional use permits. · Rye read some ofthe submittal requirements and conditions for mineral extraction under the new proposal. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\rrm032398.doc 7 . ~ Kuykendall: · Why would the City want a pit? · Could we restrict this to certain parts of the City? V onhof: Are there possibilities of someone coming into a site and doing minimal extraction each year? ......... . .::....;.:.::.:.::..:...:. ::... Rye said a conditional use permit would be subject to review every..:x'n[.......::::::. Would they be on-going from year to year? ..::<:::{:::::~::::::t::::::.. · Rye responded one would need to know some analysis of grCl:y!~::aepB~m:ip. the ;~u~~~r ~~~e~~e is pretty limited. Most gravel dep~::~~~:~::~~~:=!:!~:~ong thetq~~~0::~~cin~ Could it be zoned specifically for this use? ....:t;::)):::::'" ". .':::::::"':::::.::::::::::::'::":: . Rye said "Yes". .. ... :'.:.:::::' . . . . ':':':':':';';';':', Cramer: · Concerned for the long term affects. · Questioned renewal after 12 months. .......... .. .................... ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '.::::::::::::::::::.:.;.:;::::::;:.' '.:.:.:.:.:.:.;,' Criego: \\:. ".: ...... · This does not have to be allowed in the G}~y. .:,{ ....:.;.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.... .. V onhof: ..:::::)?):~::::::::::::{~~:::~:::::::\. ::~:~::t · Water and mineral tjghts are dlf[#tent since.'ij!YY..J:lm with the land as opposed to a use on top of the l~~f::::'!:~~;::~~ differe.H~~?1ike timber.:'~~~;::. ..... ...................... .. .................................... ..................................... Kuykendall: .... :...:.. .....:.:.:...:::::::::::::::::::..:::,..::::::::::.:........... · Feels very.:HIWe~.y with tH9:~gHrditions. · Neec!.Jpi:~hffif;'::l9,ftm~pecifidll~::~b:%,onditions. · ..:::&:~~9wable but vei)::::~:I:~~ctive.;;;II"':::::::):::' M€ii:ilti BY CRIEGO, ::~ICOND BY CRAMER, RECOMMENDING CITY cOuNdIttREPEAL ORmINANCE #92-09 THEREBY REESTABLISHING ~I~~~ AS A CONDITiONAL USE IN THE AI AND CI Vote taken signined 4 ayes. Stamson abstained. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Old Business: A. Continue Capital Improvement Program discussions. No further discussion. 6. New Business: 1:\98fi1es\98plcomm\pcmin\mn032398.doc 8 PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: 4C PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REPEALING ORDINANCE #92-09 WHICH DELETED MINERAL EXTRACTION AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE A-1 AND C-1 DISTRICT (Case File #98-032) JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR X YES NO MARCH 23, 1998 PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this public hearing is to consider repealing Ordinance #92-09, which deleted mineral extraction as a conditional use in the A-1 (Agricultural) and C-1 (Conservation) Zoning Districts. Repealing this ordinance will reestablish mineral extraction as a conditional use in these districts. DISCUSSION: In 1992, the City Council adopted Ordinance #92-09, which deleted mineral extraction from the list of conditional uses in the A-1 and C-1 districts. This action was the culmination of a process dating back to early 1991 when the City was party to a Metropolitan Significance review of a proposed mining operation on the McKenna property in Shakopee. The Council first enacted a moratorium on mineral extraction while the issue was studied. The end result was the adoption of Ordinance #92-09. The reasons for the enactment of this ordinance included: · The activity is not currently taking place in Prior Lake · Effective, fair, efficient regulations are not in place · Qualified evaluators are not on City staff · Mining and residential development are not compatible uses When the Council adopted this ordinance, they did not amend Title 9, Chapter 6 of the City Code which allows Excavating and Filling with a permit issued by the City Engineer. The end result is these two provisions conflict with one another. 1:\98files\98ordamd\zoning\98-032\98032pc.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The conflict between the Zoning Ordinance and Section 9-6 of the City Code needs to be resolved. The proposed zoning ordinance allows mining and extraction as a conditional use, with several specific standards and conditions. However, that provision will most likely not become effective until sometime this summer. The staff has discussed this issue with the City Attorney, and she concurs with the staffs opinion that the record of decision for Ordinance #92-09 does not support the decision to remove mineral extraction from the list of conditional uses. The conditional use permit process is the appropriate mechanism for this use in that it allows for public input in the decision making process. The current ordinance also includes a set of standards for the approval of conditional uses. To resolve this issue, the City Attorney and the staff have suggested Ordinance #92-09 be repealed, thereby reestablishing mineral extraction as a conditional use in the A-1 and C-1 districts. Any applicant who wishes to establish this use could apply for a conditional use permit under the current ordinance. As a provision of any conditional use permit, the City can include a requirement that any more stringent requirements imposed by adoption of the new zoning ordinance can automatically be attached to the new conditional use permit. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend the Council repeal Ordinance #92-09, thereby reestablishing Mineral Extraction as a conditional use in the A-1 and C-1 Districts. 2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendment. 3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendments. REPORT ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance #92-09 2. Memorandum from Don Rye, Planning Director, dated February 26, 1998 3. 1992 Planning Report and Staff Agenda Report 4. Hearing Notice I :\98files\98ordamd\zoning\98-032\98032pc.doc Page 2 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 92-09 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND PRIon LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 83-6. The Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain: ZONING Prior Lake City Code Section 5-3-3: is hereby amended to delete "Mineral Extractions It as a Condi tional Use wi thin the C-1, Conservation District and the A-1, Agricultural Zoning District within Prior Lake. Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance No. 83-6, Section 3.2, is hereby amended to delete "Mineral. Extraction" as a Conditional use within the C-1, Conservation District and the A-1, Agricultural Zoning District within Prior Lake. This ordinance shall beco~e effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the city of Prior Lake this 17 the day of August, 1992. ATTEST: I( cut \' J, ~"^-IA-dLu.J-- City M~a-ger V ~~~~ . 4//..d--~ - ~or /' Published in the Prior Lake American on the 24th. day of August, 1992. Drafted By: Deborah Ann Garross Assistant City Planner City of Prior Lake 4629 Dakota Street Prior Lake, MN 55372 '3..... i -.,,,=-- ;;if;'"'" ....."..., ~-: .'J,u.' :t~:. ,:t~ -~~. ::~ c...1-'.f,t... '~l.'.. ' . .'. .:.0' p. ;...;.;: .: ..'~' .{.~: .~~ '\-. -"'. ";';::C' "p...... ~;,. .'\;<.. :;'~~-' 4:~ ~ '~ :;. ..... ~ ....i.: ~; '" --~- i!~- ("'.,:.. MEMORANDUM February 26, 1998 To: City Council From: Don Rye, Planning Director Subject: Gravel Excavation In 1992, the Council adopted Ordinance 92-09. This ordinance amended the zoning ordinance by deleting Mineral Extraction from the list of conditional uses in the Agricultural and Conservation zoning districts. This action was the culmination of a process dating back to early 1991 when the City was party to a Metropolitan Significance review of a proposed gravel mining operation on the McKenna property in Shakopee. As a result, the City adopted a moratorium on mineral extraction while it studied the issue. Ordinance 92-09 was the result. In the last few months, several things have happened which bear on this issue. 1. Last fall, a grading and excavation permit was issued to Ryan Contracting to remove material from the McKenna property, based on the provisions of Section 9-6 of the City Code. 2. When it was determined that this use constituted mineral extraction, the permit was revoked. 3. A similar permit was issued to RKl Construction under the provisions of Section 9-6 about the same time to remove material from the Vierling property north of County Road 42. 4. Ryan Construction has maintained that they are not being treated equally and the RKl permit should also be revoked. 5. Staff has informed Ryan that the proposed zoning ordinance will allow mining and gravel extraction by Conditional Use Permit when it is adopted. 6. The conflict between the zoning ordinance and 9-6 needs to be resolved. Adoption of the new zoning ordinance will reestablish mining as a conditional use but that will not happen until later this summer. 7. Currently, Ordinance 92-09 has precedence. I have discussed this with the City Attorney and she agrees with my opinion that the record of decision for Ordinance 92-09 does not support the decision to remove mineral extraction from the ordinance. My suggestion would be to repeal Ordinance 92-09 , 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER which would reinstate mineral extraction as a conditional use in the Agricultural District. Both Ryan and RKI could then apply for conditional use permits and have them in place in time for the construction season. It would also be my suggestion that any conditional use permits so issued would contain a provision that any additional or more stringent requirements imposed by adoption of the new zoning ordinance would automatically be incorporated into the Conditional Use permits. I would appreciate Councils input on this matter. 'p j, '1)' '.... ......, ~. ... ..~ ~ ,~ ,f: .~ -';',: .;4~ ],- "ZOOlPC" ..,.~ f~r SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEA.RING: DATE: PLANNING REPORT MINERAL EXTRACTION (MINING) ZONING ORDINANCE AND CITY CODE AMENDMENT SAM LUCA~T, ASSOCIATE PLANNER X YES NO ::n:rr;y 16;1992 .'. .~~. ~~:' 'f~. ;,~. .,..~.:;- .;ro.' :;--:.; ;1r SITE ANALYSIS .~~. .,~. . ~l': ~~~-' -~:-. , ....':' ,2-i:~:. ,.~ 6f.: " HISTORY/BACKGROUND: In 1991 McKenna Sand and Gravel applied tor a Conditional Use Permit to begin a sand and gravel mining operation in the area of the Prior Lake and Shakopee municipal boundary, and the Shakopea Mdewakanton sioux COTr..nunlty (SMSC) reservation. The operation was planned to eventually occupy land in both Shakopee and Prior Laks. The SMSC voiced disapproval based on the effects of n~ving a mining operation adjacent to them and requested assistance trom the two cities to prevent the operation. The res~lt of their request was ordinance 91-08 which instituted a one year moratorium on sand and gravel mining operations in Prior Lake to enable staff time to research the subject and provide information for a decision. The procedure is to hold a PUblic Hearing .t the Planning Commission ievel and to make a recommendation based on the information contained in this report and also from pUblic input. The city council acts on the recommendation from the Planning Commission. This hearing is a result of the process. PREVIOUS PROPOSALS: Staff submltted an informal report and presentation to the council which precipitated their action in this matter. With that exception, there have been no previous proposals. PHYSIOGRAPHY: The surface and SUbsurface soils in Prior Lake are suitable for supporting sand and/or gravel mining operations in virtually any part of the city. The soils were deposited by glaciers in a random fashion, but are able to be mined to one extent or another, over most of northern Scott County. Basically that means it is possible to locate a mine in Prior Lake. The limiting factors are access roads and enough suitable open space, which translates into economic factors. ...~" -' ~~:. '.-.:; '-':~" :r'%:. '~",," -.-..... .~ ....~- .-s. ~"\ :t.: :~;". :~... ~. ;~,-' .~~ ..,~. '-~ ~[I ,l~!' :1~: 1 . ....,F~-:.. .,.~~.~.i ;.,.:~~:_; "':-~ifj ':,1'~,,!-". : ..,J~L . ,J ._~ ;. ~~ '.. ""-"-'-::'-~----.~17~-=---'" . --.~~..~~- -. '.'-:.-' ,'. :":-'. .,. f", J,; 4629 Dakota 51. 5.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372 I Ph. (612) 4474230 I Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPlOYEH ~, ,.. ADJACENT USES: currentiy tnere are no active mines within city limits so there are no adjacent uses. Howev~r, in other cities adjacent uses are setback or separated from the operation by tall berms and plantings to hide the mining and muffle what can be very noisy operations. Most often the mines were in existence prior to surrounding development, so they have large tracts of land and urbanization is not encroaching. Regardless, mines can be unpleasant neighbors no matter how conscientious the operator is. Adjacent uses can be subject to noise, dust, traffic, and other unpleasant effects associated with mining. Neither the residents nor the operators want conflict between uses, and operatoro in other cities work very hard to address neighborhood concerns. EXISTING CONDITIONS: There are no m~neswith a permit currentl~ operating in Prior Lake. However, there is evidence of prev~ous mineral extraction in neighboring communities and also in areas of Prior Lake which indicate the necessity of a planned operation. The areas east and west of Highway 13 just north of County Road 42, and the area adjacent to Markley Lake, are examples of sites which have not been reclaimed. The evidence is scarred landscape with hillsides which are partially cut, containing unstable slopes with high possibi1~ties of erosion, large holes in the ground which may retain water and refuse, creating unsi9htly conditions. These scenes must be avoided. Contrast those ~mages with Lac LaVon in Burnsville, a reclaimed operation which is a residential development with a lake and park facilities as a focal point. Reclamation plans backed up with performance bonds, proper permits and restrictions help eliminate the possibility of unsightly abandoned ~perations. Conditional Use Permits can define operating hours, noise levels, but other pertinent details not defined in the Zoning Ordinance are difficult to regulate without specific benchmark criteria. NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES/IMPACT/CONCERNS: The Conditional Use Permit process do~s not adequately protect the city, the operator, or general public. No standards are in - place.to delineate who is respons~ble for what issues. A reclamation plan is essential to the long range planning of a mining operat~on. In other words, what will happen to the site when the product is removed? Who is responsible for doing what? What happens in the event of bankruptcy or a catastrophe? What if the City changes the surrounding land use classification? Mining is very technical in some aspects of the operation. The level of expertise needed to effectively assess such an infrequently encountered, yet potentially high impact item is not currently found on Staff at city Hall. The depos~ts, results of glacial activity, are randomly distributed and their location may be estimated from sample soil borings. The amount and location of the deposits may be extrapolated from the results of borings to give an estimate of the acreage necessary for a site. However, it is only an estimate and there is no way to know the size or location of the deposit until mining begins. Therein lies the problem. ,~ ,ii' :~1:.. . t' :'L"; .~. ~. '~l: .:~. ~.~ " ~~ - .~: .:;':c . ,:.i:(~ "'~~~:.: ; . -j~:. ,4", -., ./ '.. ,,"; ',~. ~, ;.... P~OBLEMS/OPPORTUNITIES: The problem assoc~ated with mining operat3ons is they are long term uses and undesirable in urban residential areas. They generally require large tracts o! land which are in demand for less controversial uses. Also the vacant areas o! prior Lake contain wetlands and scenic bluffs which must be preserved per DNR regulations and the prior Lake comprehensive Plan. Thora have not been any applications for mining operations for at least the last year regardless of the moratorium. There does not seem to be a need for mining in Prior Lalce. Surrounding operations can supply the needs of the area without new facilities in Prior Lake. The opportunity exists to delete a controversial use which is really not necessary in Prior Lake. The open space available is limited by access from adequate roads and land owners uninterested in selling land. standards for evaluating and regulating the use do not exist or are inadequate. Trying to ragulate something unknown without proper guidelines does not make good planning sense. RECOMMENDATION: statt re~ommends approval of attached Ordinance 92-09. The recommendation of the planning Commission will be forwarded to the city council for review a~d final decision. staff recommends deletion of Mineral Extraction as a Conditional Use in the Prior Lake city Code and Zoning Ordinance. The activity is not currently taking place in Prior Lake, effective, fair, efficient regulations are not i~ place, qualified evalu~tors are not on city staff, mining and residential develo~ment are not compatiblo neighboring uses and Prior Lake is predom1nantly residentIal in development. -:v$ ~ I l \ \ \ , I I I , I I .:0 ::~~ .<.t. -.ft. ~:t' -+. _. b " .....- ~. ........... .:-. ~?} .~.~ t~ .5 t .:3' ":.~~ "1>- j" ~~. ..- 'j.: ::;.~ .,.;,. -' ~ .* .:,::~ ,.. '.::#, ....:.. r" ..../ J. -~ " /' .../ 5-6-13: ~j. INT":RIM OIU)lNANC": M~h{^'f()RtllM: '" ~. (A) Purposu: Prior Lake ciiv Codo'Soctions 5-3-2. 5--J~, A-I Agricultural and C-I Conservation: 5--6-5, Conditional Uses; and 5--6-6, Varianc05. tlstablish proce.duros loran applicant to oblain a conditional use permit lor mineral \.!xlraction in A-t ,\gricultural and C.I Conservation Districts. The Cily CounCil, aller discussion, belioves Ihat such a us\.! in A-I Agricultural and C.t Conservation Districts may have substantial long term detrimental oHects on the environment, may impact negatively on 1M character 01 tho surrounding rusidential and larming communilY. may greatly reduce land use options lor developmunt within the District and within Ihe community. may have substantial eHuct on roads. trallic and storm water m<lnagerllont and. theroloro. Iho health. safoly and wellare 01 tho citiwns 01 Pric;r Lako The Cily Council deems it necessary to prohibit tho grantillg of ;:ny conditional use pel'Ilit lor minoral Ql(tractions in A.I Agricultural and C-I Conservation Districts until the City 01 Prior Lake h,\s had suflicient timo lor studying this mallor to detorlll.1'f! whother or not Tille 5. Chapler 6. 01 the Prior Lake City Cod,) nQods 10 hu amendod. This intellm ordinance is therelor .ldoptod. o IIo.:live upon Its date of publication, in accordanc~ wilh Minnesola Statules section 452.355. subdivision 4. lor a period 01 one yuar IrOIll its ellcctlve dato. Tho City Ccuncil may. by I.~~olution. exlend its cftect lor suetl additional periods as it r:leell1~ !11~ce~:>ary lor ,\ pellod not exceul.hng a tolal additional period 01 oilJhte.]n (18) monlhs. (0) All Extraclion GomJitional Use Permits Prohibited: No condilional uso permit for rnineral exlraction in A.I Agricullur:11 and C-I Consnrvalion Dislricls shall be grantl]d by Iho Zoning Administral'lI, P!anning Commission or tho City Council 01 lho City 01 Prior Lake lor a period 01 one year Ir.JI.l tho dato this Section is ellective or lor an additional period 01 eighleen (10) monlhs, if cl(tended 0" resolution b,/ till! Cily Council, or lnc dale upon which Ihe Cily h...s concluded ils planning process 10 determine whether or nol iht] City Zoning Codu should be amtlnded 10 address issues presented with regard to condlllonal use permit applicalions lor mineral \,!l(lraction in A.I :~:Jricultural and C-I Conservation Dislricls and I",kcn action 011 lho lindings. whichover is earlior. (C) Enlorccmtmt: In \lIC event any individual, p...rlnorship. corporation or olher legal entily shall commenco mineral extraction in A-1. Agricultural amI/or C.I Conservation Districts alter tho c"ecti~tJ dato 0' tllis Section without a valid previously issued conditional 292 ... ..... "'_~" _. 4','" . ';". . i,..,r' :J-O-I.J C) use pOllllll. it or Irl/:y shall bo QUllly 01 a misdemeanor and UP(}R r;ollviclion thUlool, 00 purw;hed bi' i.I lino nol 10 oxcood savell hundrod dollars (5700.00) or by impl'lsonmont IOf a term nol Lo excoed ninety (90) days. or bOlh, tor oach ollon50. Each day .a VIolation is ptlrm,::'Jd 10 exisl shall con5tiluto a separato ollonso Tho Cily Ma:laq'1t. Assistant C.ly Managor, City Planner. Assislant Cily Planner. BUildIng InS~WClor and City Engineer shall havo th<: powot to lSSU!j Clt.1!IOJlS lot VIOliiliOJl ul this Secllon in lieu of arrest or continued dotcn!ion. In aodition, any violation 01 this Tilla may he enjoinod uy 1!1~ City CoolI<:.1 Il1rough proper legal channels. (Ord. 91.08. U.lg.'ll! 292 ..~.~:-. J.. ,. . i'~:I~;:'/::'~~:-.;"';"'\ .....~. :!:;'~'i'\'~'>k'" 'c:' ~ ..,..:_......,"..,'..........1......\... .:..... .' ".'" .:.-{-:" ',,t, t" . \\'2.5'X:I.,O:~ ',. t... .".;o..;...t!;.....'"...... . J.. . ..~_.... ,. .' .-'--"~ . .', l "\",,,'-.4ij' ;? ~ i \ "'." l: " r ....~ I ~'l, 'J;::~-:,' ~ .,~:.. ;-;fr.. AGENDA NUMBER: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION: 8 SAM LUCAST, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FIR~T CONSIDERATION OF MINERAL ORDINANCE 92-09 AUGUST 17, 1992 The purpose of Ordinance 92-09 is to eliminate Mineral Extraction as a Conditional Use in the 10.-1 and C-1 zoning districts in prior Lake. The Planning commission voted to recommend approval of Ordinance 92-09. Please see attached Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. EXTRl\CrION +. :'_r ~2~. i 'ft ~ .....:.. :t .~~.:_J ~Z':iii ~;~: i .:.~...;.,. .;.. ; .:'~r":. ~ -':It\ :'~t',. .'!'--30~,""~ ..,-' "Z092MEIt :..: -t~ .", . -F'", ~i";'.: BACKGROUND: Staff conducted detailed research and visited existing sites to discuss the issues with Mine operators. All previous re~earch is attached to this report for your convenience. At the city Council's request, the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on the deletion of Mineral Extraction as a conditional Usa in the 10.-1 Agricultural and C-1 conservation zoning Classifications. The Public. Hearing Notice was published in the Prior Lake American, however no member of the public attended the hearing. The Planning commission recommended adoption of Ordinance 92-09 to delete Mineral Extraction as a Conditional Use in 10.-1 and C-l zone~. -,.. : \ DISCUSSION: The process started with McKenna Sand and Gravel requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a sand and gravel operation in the City of Shakopee adlacent to the Shakopee Mdewakanton sioux Commun ty (SMSC). The sioux community objected to the operation and petitioned the cities of Shakopee and prior Lake to deny...the application. Ordinance 91-08 declared a one year moratorium to allow staff time to research the issue. "~~' , .~. ....., 11 ",- '. :..,. 11 "~'..1: t;r ^ .~ :,.....::- Staff researched the issue, presented findings, and now submits Ordinance 92-09 to complete the cycle and remove Mineral Extraction as a Conditional Use in A-I and C-l zoning Districts. . . L ~~<l '~"1 '- .:::~,. . '.:'.=1;. -'~ ::';:1"'; .'......=-t:.. I :..,t~. .~~ i. ".~',::. " , ::._;~!:? ..... ::~: 4629 Dakota 51. S.c., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 I Ph. (612) 447-4230 I Fax (612) 4474245 ~ EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYE!{ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPACT: ALTERFATIVES: RECOMMENDATION: , ACTION REQUIRED: (". y. t 1 :,~ ~ ''*L ".--, Vast open space is necessary for a mine to function properlY and buffer neighbors. Such open space is currently in high demand for residential, golf course development and other uses incompatible with a mining operation. Originally it was the council's consensus to remove the use from the zoning Ordinance. The process has now come full circle and is near fruition. The Comprehensive Plan does not currently include provisions for Mineral Extraction. The new proposed Planning Districts, titled the Wilds and Mystic Lake, will not contain provisions for Mineral Extraction either. Therefore, the impact should be negligible. The city Council has the following alternatives: 1) Accept the Planning commission's recommendation to adopt Ordinance 92-09. Planning Commission's adopt Ordinance 92-09 and the Consent Agenda for the City council Meeting. information. 2) Accept the recommendation to placp- the item on september 8, 1992 3) Request more 4) Tablp- the information. S) Reject the Planning commission's recommendation to adopt the Ordinance and make a new recommendation. item request more to Staff recommends accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation to adopt Ordinance 92-09, alternative number 1. Generally, the city Council does not adopt an Ordinance after the fi:t'st reading. However, due to the numercus discussions this issue has had before the Council (with little public interest), alternative 1 is a reasonable alternative in this situation. Motion to accept or reject Ordinance 92-09. ;'=J~ . . ! ~~. , -'>Ii Mil'lutes of the Prior Lake city council August 17, 1992 ...,,~\ .' ! :~i.. ...~~:.-: "' Upon a vote taken, ayes by ~ndre~, Fitzgerald, Kedrowski and Scot~, the motion passed unanimously. The next order of business was: conduct Findings on variance ~pplication of Bill and Yathleen Henning. Planning Director Horst Graser reviewed the directions given to staff by council at the Auqust 3, 1992 Council Me~ting which was to prepare findings of fact on the variance application of Bill and Kathleen Henning. Graser then presented nine findings of fact relative to the application. Discussion occurred on the nine findings of fact and Council concurred that this variance was a unlquo situation and would not create a precedent. MOTION MADE BY FITZGERALD, SECONDED BY SCOTT, TO APPROVE BILL AND KATHLEEN HE~NING'S VARIANCE ~PPLICATION BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF F~CT AS ST~TED IN THE ST~FF REPORT. Upon a vote taken, ayes by Andren, Fitzgerald, Kedrowski and Scott , the motion passed unanimously. The'next 'order of business was: Second Considp.ration of outdoor Concert Ordinance Amendments 92-08. Assistant City Manager Kay Schmudlach distributed copies of the proposed ordinance amendments and noted that the time had been changed to reflect the 12:30 A.M. closing on sunday morning ns opposed to the original closing time which had been 11:30 P.M. on saturday night. A short discussion occurred on whether the issue of closing streets for a concert should be addressed. council concur~ed that since there had been no problems in the pa~t that this issue would be addressed on a case by case basis. Council directed staff to have the ordinance prepared in final form and placed on the Consent ~genda for action at the September e council meeting. The next order of business was: First Consideration of Mineral Extraction Ordinance 92-09. ~ssociate planner Sam Lucast stated that the purpose of this Ordinance was to eliminate Mineral Extraction as a Conditional Use in the A-l and C-l ~oning districts in Prior Lake, and reviewed the results of research conducted by staff. MOTION MADE BY KEDROWSKI, SECONDED BY FITZGERALD, TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO ~DOPT ORDINANCE 92-09, AMENDING PRIOR LAKE CIT~ CODE AND PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 83-06. Upon a vote taken, ayes by Andren, FitzgGrald, Kedrowski and Scott , the motion passed unanimously. Topics discussed under Other Business are as follows: Name for Business Office Park. Assistant city Manager Kay schmudlach distribut&d a memorandum listing the names submitted for the new Business/Office Park, and requested that council review the selection of names and contact staff bI August 21 with any suggestions. Ms. Schmudlach also d scussed signs for the Business/Office Park. ...::;o!.. ~. ';t< "'.. .;;;~ 1 .,~~. .Jl-. . ..t:'.; 11 .j;;l ';.~:.' :,' ':"--.' .; .,0_...... i ~;~~_:. ~ i ..;.ft~.;. ; :tej ..i:s...."'-.'~ i~~.~ ..~L;;,:.l :;:~:- . .u,: 'l ".,.. .;"",- ;,..... , I I \ \ '..... . '{, : .1:-' ~;..'. ..~~:. -, ~. -.;,,;, .":,, I :~~~'- . ..-;;;:.'" .:::'~,,! ~i . <....,i': .-.,. :~.~ ....~~:. .~~ . ". .../ ~ . ' ". 3 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REPEALING ORDINANCE #92-09 WHICH DELETED MINERAL EXTRACTION AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE A-I AND C-l ZONING DISTRICTS You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE, on Monday, March 23, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider the repeal of Ordinance #92-09, which deleted mineral extraction from the list of conditional uses in the A-I (Agricultural) and C-1 (Conservation) Zoning Districts. Repealing this ordinance would reestablish mineral extraction as a conditional use in the A-I and C-1 districts. If you wish to be heard in reference to this item, you should attend the public hearing. Oral and written comments will be considered by the Planning Commission. If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Prepared this 4th day of March, 1998 by: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator City of Prior Lake TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN ON MARCH 7, 1998 1: \9!lfi1~\98ordamd\zoJl il}i\98.:.032\9803 :Zpn .dOJ; 16200 Eagle creek Ave. ~.t.., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ~... ~cl 4/~/'l8 _ - GQ~ vPYoJio<.tcL -tv M-t 6Ji..u,.~ rru..YRWS Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community OFFICERS Stanley R. Crooks Chairman Glynn A. Crooks Vice Chairman 2330 SIOUX TRAIL NW - PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TRIBAL OFFICE: 612-445-8900 - FAX: 612-445-8906 Susan Totenhagen SecretaryfTreasurer April 6, 1998 City of Prior Lake c/o Mayor Wes Mader 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5-3-2 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 3-2 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6. Dear Honorable Mayor Mader: The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community has had the opportunity to review the proposed ordinance to be presented at the April 6, 1998 City Council meeting. While the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community expressed their concern on the mining operation that occurred in the fall of 1997, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community would not object to properly authorized operations. However, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community is concerned on the notification process involved with issuing a permit. As it stands, the Conditional Use Permits (CUP) are regulated by section 5-6-5 of the codified Prior Lake Ordinances. Notice is given to all land owners within 500 feet of the proposed use. A CUP may be approved if it is allowed in the district, is not inherently dangerous, is visually harmonious with the neighborhood and does not create traffic problems. In the C-l District there are additional requirements including limitations on wetland filling, tree canopy removal and water quality impacts. Given the potential for groundwater contamination that exists in an aggregate mining operation, it would seem that there should be some stronger limits. At a minimum, there should be a broader notice area to allow increased comment. I believe that five hundred feet is insignificant if there is a major groundwater contamination incident. The Community appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed ordinance. Sincerely, ~ Stanle R. Crooks Tribal Chairman SRC/jbm . ~II