HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/05/10 CCP-SMCL C12)'s A L �5 - ,-006 -7 -O
=am ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS
CLOSED SESSION
MAY 10,2000
This closed session of the Rosemount City Council follows a regularly scheduled special
meeting held on Wednesday, May 10, 2000, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall,
2875 145 Street West.
Present at the closed session were Mayor Busho, Councilmembers Cisewski, Caspar, and
Klassen. Also present were City Administrator Burt and City Planner Rick Pearson, along with
attorneys Bill Hefner and Sue Sanger.
The purpose of the closed session was to discuss settlement of the Shafer Contracting v. City of
Rosemount litigation.
Mr. Hefner summarized the issues affecting settlement. The first issues concerns Shafer's
purchase of the property from Lance Johnson. Shafer would assume all the rights and liabilities
associated with the mining pit. The change of ownership does not change the nonconforming
use. The second issue is whether to concede to Johnson's intent to mine the entire 93 acres. The
third issue involves opposing party's expanded language defining the Diminishing Asset
Doctrine.
Commissioners discussed issues related to abandonment, the absence of a signed Purchase
Agreement by Shafer, and Lance Johnson's involvement. The mining plan submitted to the city
expands the mining area to include the entire 93 acres, with incremental permits for each step of
the phasing plan. Shafer is looking for the city to acknowledge that it will recognize future
permit requests and that Shafer has the right to expand the mining operation in phases.
Additionally, Shafer is looking for acknowledgement of the boundary for the mining activity.
Mr. Hefner pointed out evidence that appears to support Johnson's intent to mine the entire 93
acres. He did not feel the city would prevail in pursuing the claim that Johnson did not initially
plan to mine his entire property, and recommended the city concede to Johnson's intent.
In summary, Mr. Hefner recommended agreement on the issue of Shafer's rights and Johnson's
intent. He recommended minimal acknowledgement of the Diminishing Asset Doctrine.
Council discussion on the settlement ended, and attorneys for the City and for Shafer met
privately to discuss settlement.
Respectfully submitted,
Dianne G. Quinnell
Recording Secretary
Clerk's File 2000 -20.
RULE 408 SETTLEMENT DOCUMENT
SHAFER'S SETTLEMENT OUTLINE 44$4
A. Diminishing Asset Doctrine
1. Legal Standards
a. The Diminishing Asset Doctrine has nothing to do with "guaranteeing"
future mining rights.
b. Instead, the doctrine defines the scone or extent of a nonconforming
mining use at the time it is created, —i.e., when the adverse zoning becomes
effective. Here, that is 1989 when Ordinance B was enacted.
Under the Diminishing Asset Doctrine, the scope of a nonconforming
mining use encompasses the area that is actually being mined and
unmined areas containing reserves of resource material.
d. Case law:
The scope of a nonconforming mining use "means all of that part
of the owner's land which contains the particular asset, and not
merely that area in which operations were actually being
conducted at the time of the adoption of the ordinance." Hawkins
v. Talbot 80 N.W.2d 863, 866 (1957).
• "In other words, since the gravel `occupied' a larger area than the
part being actually mined at the time of the adoption of the
ordinance, the entire area of the gravel bed could be used without
constituting an unlawful extension of a nonconfonming use."
Hawkins 80 N.W.2d at 866.
• Under the Diminishing Asset Doctrine, "the entire area of gravel
bed can be used without constituting an unlawful extension of a
nonconforming use." Blom v. St. Louis Planning Commission
1999 W.L. 10241 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 1999).
• "When a single owner has contiguous parcels on which an
excavation operation is in existence, all land which constitutes an
integral part of the operation is deemed `in use,' notwithstanding
the fact that a particular portion may not yet be under actual
excavation." Sturgis v. Winnebago County Board of Adjustment
413 N.W.2d 642, 644 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).
e. A change in ownership of the land does not change the effect of the
Diminishing Asset Doctrine. Hawkins 80 N.W.2d at 867. Once the sale
is completed, Shafer "stands in the place of [its] predecessor." Id.
RULE 408 SETTLEMENT DOCUMENT
2. Pre -1989 Objective Evidence That The Western Portion of the Property Would
Be Mined
a. 1975 - Markham Sand & Gravel Soil Analysis demonstrates that extensive
quantities of sand and gravel exist on the western portion of the property.
(Tab A.)
b. 1975 - Markham Sand & Gravel's Mining Plan. The plan involves mining
over the entire property and surrounding areas. (Tab B.)
C. City Council's directive to Markham to submit the mining plan to the
Environmental Quality Board. (Tab C.)
d. Resolution 1978 -24, authorizing Markham Sand & Gravel to conduct
mining operations on the property. (Tab D.) Mining was to be conducted
under Markham's broad mining plan.
e. Resolution 1979 -52, authorizing Rich Valley Development Company to
conduct mining on the property. (Tab E.) Again, mining was pursuant to
Markham's mining plan.
f. Lance Johnson's 1982 mining permit application. The "property
description" portion of the application describes the entirety of the
property. (Tab F.)
g. February 26, 1982 Planning Commission Minutes. The minutes reflect
that the Planning Commission was aware of the fact that Johnson's 1982
application contemplated mining activities on the entire 93 acres:
The City has received an application from Lance Johnson for a
mining permit on approximately 93 acres. The property is part of
the Markham Sand & Gravel area. (Tab G.)
h. August 27, 1982 memo from Dean Johnson to Planning Commission. The
memo discusses Johnson's 1982 mining plan, consisting of three phases.
The memo notes that the western slope of phase 3 is "temporary" because
" the permit area will be expanded to the west In this memo, the City
expressly recognizes that Johnson planned to expand the pit westward
from the existing permitted area. (Tab H.)
i. October 2, 1984 Planning Commission Minutes. The City contemplated
future mining, noting "that there are presentlX two separate areas where
minerals have been extracted." (Tab I.)
2
RULE 408 SETTLEMENT DOCUMENT
j. Lance Johnson's 1984 and 1988 permit applications. By referring to the
original application, these applications also describe the entire property.
(Tab J.)
B. Possible Settlement Agreement
1. Goals
In the Settlement Agreement, Shafer is seeking recognition of its rights under the
Diminishing Asset Doctrine, and approval of its mining plan.
2. Required Elements of the Settlement Agreement
a. A definition of the scone of the nonconforming mining use under the
principles of Hawkins v. Talbot The scope of the nonconforming use
encompasses the area being mined in 1989 and the area containing mineral
resources held in reserve for later mining. This encompasses the entirety
of the property.
b. An acknowledgement that under Hawkins v. Talbot Shafer, by acquiring
the property from Johnson, steps into Johnson's shoes for purposes of the
mining rights under the Diminishing Asset Doctrine.
C. Approval of the mining plan.
Future Changes in the Law
a. Future court decisions could alter the Diminishing Asset Doctrine. The
settlement would not prevent either party from arguing that changes in the
law are, or are not, applicable.
b. Future zoning changes. Because mining on the property became a lawful
nonconforming use in 1989 when Ordinance B was adopted, the status of
the property as a lawful nonconforming use likely will continue even if
new zoning classifications are enacted. The Settlement Agreement would
not prevent either party from arguing that, following a zoning change, the
mining use is, or is not, a lawful nonconforming use.
C. Future changes to the mining ordinances. Shafer's mining plan meets all
performance standards of the City's current mining ordinances. Shafer
would not challenge the existing ordinances. Future changes to the
ordinance would be subject to challenge in the same way that any new
ordinance is subject to challenge.
3
RULE 408 SETTLEMENT DOCUMENT
4. Language for Settlement Agreement
See Tab K.
:ODMA \PCDOCS \FBDOCS 1 \2381188\1
a
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. The Proposal (Type of Action)
The project calls for about 280 acres of land, part
of which is now assigned to agricultural pursuits, to be
used for the extraction of sand and gravel.
Soil tests, assuring the abundance of these materials
on the site, have been conducted. (Graphics 3, 4, and
Table 1) Preliminary estimates indicate that as much as
thirteen million cubic yards could be extracted from the
site.
Mining is to begin immediately following the issuance
of a permit by the City of Rosemount, and its operation
is expected to cover a period of ten to fifteen years. The
stages of mining for these 10 -15 years are shown in Graphic 3.
Also in Graphic 3, the routes that are to be used by the
trucks transporting the sand and gravel are shown. These
routes are eastward along 125th Street to CSAH #71 and
thence primarily north to the various areas of the metro-
politan area.
The Proposal calls for the End Uses "on the Site devoted
to mining to be a Junior High School, a Town and Neighborhood
Center (Primarily Commercial), a mixture of Industrial -Light
Industrial and Research & Development, and finally, a Mini
Park and Trails (Buffer zone). However, since the proposer
has the rights on adjacent land of approximately 145 acres,
M
2. Soil Surveys
Soils on the Site are basically of two types, with one
intrazonal type. First, are the grey -brown Podzolic soils.
These include (on the Site), the Burnsville, Kingsley, Scandi
and Hayden series. These series are all characterized by
low to very low organic matter content, good to excessive
drainage, and moderate to high permeability. Originally
they were formed under a forest environment, specifically
under Oaks, Maples and Basswood.
The second major soil series found on the Site is that
of the Brunizem Soils. These include the Waukegon, Dakota
and Estherville Series. All are particularly gravelly and
are less calcareous than the Podzols mentioned above. They
developed from prairie vegetation and conditions, and have
moderate drought resistance, organic matter content, and agai
moderate to high permeability. Drainage is good to excessive
The single intrazonal soil fcu nd here is the Judson
series - formed under prairie, with good drainage, moderate
permeability, and high organic matter content and drought
resistance. However, these original characteristics have
been modified by intensive modern agricultural practices,
especially chemical fertilization.
3. Bedrock Geology
Drift covers a large portion of bedrock in Dakota County
However, the underlying strata date primarily from the Cambri
10
\ 1
SOILS GRAPHIC ,
�.
1\ SbE Scandia- Burnsville loamy sands
�^ BgC Burnsville, Hayden, Kingsley & Scandia sandy loams
BgB2 „
( \ { B gC 2
BfB2 loams
BfC
BfC2
BgD2 „ " " " sandy loams
r(I 1 1 DbB2 Dakota and Waukegan loams �•, ;' '
t ( EaC2 Estherville loam and sandy loam
£aD2 Estherville c ., •,
•.I� !( \ \^ JaA Judson silt loam
I;
,�.. <
f /s // r.��lw a.� i ( l �i.� 1 �'\ � J , II �� ' J" �•� � / /�� � � l
Ix
Z
/ �� � � , ���` \ ��• � . � I I ( �• \\ •� 1',1 �/ �.,i r7 �/` •
AV, �, i i - - ---
tA
U.
"_Ig '/;� lF.) 1', \,�v'
markham
sand&gravel
Rosemount, Minnesota
I
1
This adjacent land is also part of this proposal so as
to assure a more comprehensive
planning for the entire
tract.
2. Location
The site is located in the northern most and central
part of the City of Rosemount. It consists of approximately
425 acres located in Sections 14 and 15. It is bounded to
the west by a 200' Right of Way of the Northern States
Power Company, to the north b the City's Y y s boundary line
with the City of Inver Grove Heights, to the east by the
Chicago -Rock Island & Pacific Railroad tracks and to the
south by the southern line of Section 14 (Graphics 2 and 5).
3. Land Use Components
a. Land Use Data
The primary and most likely use of the land for the
next ten to fifteen years is to be the extraction from it
of sand and gravel. Lack of utilities in the immediate
vicinity of the Site, weak or almost non- existant market
r
demand at the present time, as well as policies of the
Metropolitan Council and guidelines in its Development
Framework are the reasons that priority is being given to
mining, while urbanization of the Site at this time is
unfeasible.
However, at the end of the fifteen year period, which
coincides with the length of the period for which
5
I t
MINING GRAPHIC
3
Mining Area
p ,,,,eFuture Location Mining Order
Soil Tests Truck Routes
- 'JA
I
IIII V.;
� �• � I 1 i �i' IF � � �,I is �- � C. •�-- � �; ,- •o. � . ` , .�- -_-� c ,, \ - -�" _•• , _� _..
!!..
-
........:::.
T .
markh
a
MME e N sand &gravel
'��� Rosemount, Minnesota
p. In P TAT
'�• ..:.i ~ si� . r`M^Y � � � � � 'fir t' t ,�� ! :,, _
l� i) } • ` � �• � i fix. 1 Y
1. :� � �.•� � �_ � A ?X •,. �
.� � t ;H A'�. , (YL t o �•,� � � 1� �'�. �x 1 1 ,� i �< i
all J,
•�► _ � �v1' `{ f �;�111�lllll� s;.trr. �;. *�� F ;�`�Y
• 1 . ♦�,• -��' r=
stuns
..� •` •4 � � '���' � J ';� �[ •� � ♦'p ' �v' . * 4ehx 1 p�r :y, ':.r.,Y• 4�•.,,3� � ' � 1 ^'�,� "'
� •, arc . � r ' f �•.� f :^ � � . a, rRL�Y��- .'�1, � '`e
. ia, c:.. �, y -: = •'� • +,.� ' 1� l �` ""'f`i'r
}r •
I r
��I 11"1.- ,fir .� �• '�,, r
•1 • FA
re
wl
ro
' 1 LL. t, f , tyr, Ib.. YI . ,• i
.>., r '`•�"'�f� +� 4 V , Y�.. r } 4 ti. 11I 1 l '� �. - r.
w = w Im -3 m
Env I IN IN MR
VILLAGE OF
ROSEMO
MINNESOTA (_
SITE' S LOCATION IN ROSEMOUNT
BRAUER S ABBOC., INC.
PLANNERS C_ =:
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINN.
GRAPHIC 2
This Environmental Assessment has been
prepared for Markham Sand and Gravel under a directive
from the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount,
Minnesota.
SVR 001187
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
Resolution 1978 -24
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A. DEVELOPER'S CONTRACT BETWEEN MARKHAM SAND
AND GRAVEL, INC. COMPANY ANT THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
WHEREAS, Markham Sand and Gravel, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, herein
after sometimes referred to as "Markham ", has applied for a mining permit
from the City of Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota, hereinafter some-
times referred to as "City ", and
WHEREAS, Markham is the owner of certain property located within the
City, the legal description and map of which are attached hereto as
Exhibit "A ", and
WHEREAS, Markham intends to conduct its mining operation within the
confines of the property legally described and surveyed on Exhibit "B ",
a copy of which is attached hereto, and
WHEREAS, the City has referred said permit application to its Planning
Commission, Planning Consultant and City Attorney for comments, which
comments have been made and considered by the City Council.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount
as follows:
1. That the application of Markham for a mining permit be granted
subject to the following conditions:
A. That Markham sign a written consent to these conditions binding
itself and its successors or assigns to the conditions of
permit.
B. That the permit is only granted for the area within Phase I,
according to the Staging Schedule which is attached hereto as
Exhibit "C ", and only for those properties under the ownership/
control of Markham.
C. That the term of the permit extend for a period of two (2) years
from the date of its issuance, unless revoked prior to that for
failure to comply with requirements listed in this resolution.
Application for renewal of a permit granted pursuant to this
resolution shall be made at least sixty (60) days prior to the
expiration date of said permit.
D. That all required permits from the State of Minnesota, County of
Dakota and City of Rosemount, or any of their agencies, be
obtained and submitted to the City prior to the issuance of the
permit. That failure by Markham to comply with the terms and
conditions of any of the permits required under this subpara-
graph shall be grounds for the City to terminate said mining
permit.
E. That the buffer areas be constructed as detailed on Exhibit "D ",
a copy of which is attached hereto, and as outlined on Exhibit
"C ". All buffering shall be completed according to the time
schedule shown on Exhibit "D" with final plans (including grading
and planting) to be approved by the City. The Markham group
shall be responsible for the buffer area and plantings on it
property as indicated on the plans and Exhibit "D" including
those areas both south and north of 125th Street.
SVR 002756
Resolution 1978 -24 continued Page Two
F. That the Grading and Reclamation Plan attached hereto as exhibit
"E" be completed as mining operations allow and shall be inspected
and approved by the City. Markham shall be responsible for all
grading and reclamation for properties under their ownership/
control on Exhibit "E ".
G. That any ponding areas required for a wash plant or other
mining operations be constructed in accordance with specifications
approved by the CIty Engineer prior to utilization. Construction
of any ponding areas and a wash plant shall require City Council
approval.
H. That all gravel trucks exit the mining area via the 125th Street
alignment and travel north on County State Aid Highway No. 71
and that all gravel trucks enter the mining area by traveling
south on County State Aid Highway No. 71 to 125th Street. This
restriction may be waived by the City upon notification and
approval by the City Clerk.
I. The access road (125th Street) from County State Aid Highway
No. 71 to the Chicago, Rock Island Railroad crossing shall be
bituminous surface and be constructed according to plans and
specifications approved by the City Engineer. Permit will
not be issued prior to construction of said road and approval
of City acceptance by the Engineer and Council.
J. That the surface water drainage of the mining area not be altered
because of the mining operations and, in all events, surface
water shall be prevented from draining from the site so as to
interfere with the adjoining landowners.
K. Any costs incurred now or in the future in changing the location
of the Williams Bros. Pipeline located within the permit area
shall be the sole obligation and expense of Markham.
L. That all costs of processing the permit, including but not
limited to planning fees, engineering fees and legal fees, be
paid by Markham prior to issuance of the permit. That Markham
reimburse the City for the cost of periodic inspections by the
City Engineer or any other City employee for the purpose of
insuring that the conditions of the permit are being satisfied.
That Markham agrees to reimburse the City for any other costs
incurred as a result of the granting or enforcing of the permit.
M. That the daily hours of operation for the mining area shall be
limited to 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. daily, subject, however, to
being changed by the City Council.
N , That Markham deposit with the City Clerk a surety bond in the
amount of Twenty -five Thousand and no /100 ($25,000.00) Dollars
in favor of the City. The required surety bond must be:
(1) With good and sufficient surety by a surety company
authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota.
SVR 002757
Resolution 1978 -24 continued
Page Three
(2) Satisfactory to the City Attorney in form and substance.
(3) Conditioned that Markham will faithfully comply with all
the terms, conditions and requirements of the permit; all
rules, regulations and requirements pursuant to the permit
and as required by the City and all reasonable require-
ments of the Engineer or other City Officials.
(4) Conditioned that Markham will secure and hold the City
and its officers harmless against any and all claims,
judgments, or other costs arising from the mining permit
or for which the City, the Council or any City officer
may be made liable by reason of any accident or injury
to persons or property throught the fault of Markham.
The City may reduce or increase the amount of the bond during
the term of this permit in order to insure that the City is
adequately protected.
0. That Markham furnishes a certificate of comprehensive general
liability insurance issued by insurers duly licensed within the
State of Minnesota in an amount of at least Five Hundred Thousand
and no!100 ($500,000.00) Dollars for injury or death of any one
person in any one occurrence, bodily injury liability in an
amount of at least One Million and no /100 ($1,000.000.00) Dollars
for injuries or death arising out of one occurrence, and
property damage liability in an amount of at least Two Hundred
Fifty Thousand and noJ100 ($250,000.00) Dollars arising out of
any one occurrence. The policy of insurance shall name the
City as a co- insured.
P. A permit shall not be granted unless the conditions set forth
herein are completed within three hundred sixty (360) days
from date of this resolution.
Q. A list of the Board of Directors and officers of Markham Sand
and Gravel shall be submitted prior to issuance of permit. On
an annual basis such list shall be updated by Markham and
provided to the City Clerk.
R. That Markham comply with such other requirements of the City
Council as it shall from time to time deem proper and necessary
for the protection of the citizens and general welfare of the
community.
S. Markham shall maintain, including but not limited to snow
plowing, and keep in good repair 125th Street during such times
as it is being used in conjunction with the mining operations.
Adopted this 18th day of July, 1978.
Leland S. Knutson, Mayor
a
SVR 002758
NMI U_
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
Resolution 1979 -52
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A DEVELOPER'S CONTRACT BETWEEN RICH
VALLEY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNr.
WHEREAS, Rich Valley Development Company, a Minnesota Corporation,
herein after sometimes referred to as Rich Valley, has applied for
a mining permit from the City of Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota,
hereinafter sometimes referred to as "City ", and
WHEREAS, Rich Valley is the owner of certain property located within
the City, the legal description and map of which are attached hereto
as Exhibit "A ", and
WHEREAS, Rich Valley intends to conduct its mining operation within
the confines of the property legally described and surveyed on
Exhibit "B ", a copy of which is attached hereto, and
WHEREAS, the City has referred said permit application to its Planning
Commission, Planning Consultant and City Attorney for comments, which
comments have been made and considered by the City Council.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Rosemount as follows:
1. That the application of Rich Valley for a mining permit be granted
subject to the following conditions:
A. That Rich Valley sign a written consent to these conditions
binding itself and its successors or assigns to the conditions
of said permit.
B. That the permit is only granted for the area within Phase I,
according to the Staging Schedule which is attached hereto
as Exhibit "C ", and for those properties under the owner-
ship /control of Rich Valley.
C. That the term of the permit shall extend until August 1, 1980
unless revoked prior to that for failure to comply with the
requirements listed in this resolution. Thereafter, the
permit will be automatically renewed for an additional period
of eighteen (18) months if Rich Valley has complied with the
-provisions of paragraph I. Thereafter, any application for
renewal of a permit granted pursuant to this resolution shall
be made at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date
of said permit.
D. That all required permits from the State of Minnesota, County
of Dakota and City of Rosemount, or any of their agencies, be
obtained and submitted to the City prior to the issuance of
the permit. That failure by Rich Valley to comply with the
terms and conditions of any of the permits required under this
subparagraph shall be grounds for the City to terminate said
mining permit.
SVR 002739
• Resolution 1979 -52
Continued
E. That the buffer areas be constructed as detailed on Exhibit "D ", a
copy of which is attached hereto, and as outlined on Exhibit " C
All buffering shall be completed according to the time schedule
shown on Exhibit "D" with final plans (including grading and
planting) to be approved by the City. The Rich Valley group shall
be responsible for the buffer area and plantings on its property
as indicated on the plans and Exhibit "D" including those areas
both south and north of 125th Street.
F. That the Grading and Reclamation Plan attached hereto as Exhibit
"E" be completed as mining operations allow and shall be inspected
and approved by the City. Rich Valley shall be responsible for
all grading and reclamation for properties under their ownership/
control on Exhibit "E ".
G. That any ponding areas required for a wash plant or other mining
operations be constructed in accordance with specifications approved
by the City Engineer prior to utilitzation. Construction of any
ponding areas and a wash plant shall require City Council approval.
H. That on and after August 2, 1980, all gravel trucks shall exit
the mining area via 125th Street when the same is properly located
and constructed in accordance with paragraph I hereof and travel
north on County State Aid Highway No. 71 and that all gravel
trucks enter the mining area by traveling south on County State
Aid Highway No. 71 to said 125th Street. This restriction may
be waived by the City upon notification and approval by the
City Clerk. Before August 2, 1980 such trucks shall enter and
exit the mining area where the private road now located on the
property of the permit holder and which road intersects with
County State Aid Highway N 71.
I. By August 2, 1980, 125th Street from County State Aid Highway
No. 71 to the Chicago, Rock Island Railroad crossing shall be
bituminous surface and be constructed according to plans and
specifications approved by the City Engineer.
J. That the surface water drainage of the mining area not be altered
because of the mining operations and, in all events, surface water
shall be prevented from draining from the site so as to interfere
with the adjoining land owners.
K. Any costs incurred now or in the future in changing the location
of the Williams Bros. Pipeline located within the permit area shall
be the sole obligation and expense of Rich Valley.
L. That all costs of processing the permit, including but not limited
to planning fees, engineering fees and legal fees, be paid by
Rich Valley prior to the issuance of the permit. That Rich Valley
reimburse the City for the cost of periodic inspections by the
City Engineer or any other City employee for the purpose of
insuring that the conditions of the permit are being satisfied.
That Rich Valley agrees to reimburse the City for any other costs
incurred as a result of the granting or enforcing of the permit.
SVR 002740
Resolution 1979 -52
Continued
M. That the daily hours of operation for the mining area shall be
limited to 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. daily, subject, however, to
being changed by the City Council.
N. That Rich Valley deposit with the City Clerk a surety bond in the
amount of Twenty -five Thousand and no /100 ($25,000.00) Dollars in
favor of the City. The required surety bond must be:
(1) With good and sufficient surety by a surety company authorized
to do business in the State of Minnesota with the right of
the surety company to cancel the same upon thirty (30) days
written notice to the permit holder and the City.
(2) Satisfactory to the City Attorney in form and substance.
(3) Conditioned that Rich Valley will faithfully comply with all
the terms, conditions and requirements of the permit; all
rules, regulations and requirements pursuant to the permit
and as required by the City and all reasonable requirements
of the Engineer or other City Officials.
(4) Conditioned that Rich Valley will secure and hold the City
and its officers harmless against any and all claims,
judgements, or other costs arising from the mining permit
or for which the City, the Council or any City officer may
be made liable by reason of any accident or injury to
persons or property through the fault of Rich Valley.
Upon thirty (30) days notice to the permit holder and the surety
company, the City may reduce or increase the amount of the bond
during the term of this permit in order to insure that the City
is adequately protected.
0. That Rich Valley furnishes a certificate of comprehensive general
liability insurance issued by insurers duly licensed within the
State of Minnesota in an amount of at least Five Hundred Thousand
and no /100 ($500,000.00) Dollars for injury or death of any one
person in any one occurrence, bodily injury liability in an amount
of at least One Million and no /100 ($1,000,000.00) Dollars damage
liability in an amount of at least Two Hundred Fifty Thousand and
no /100 ($250,000.00) Dollars arising out of any one occurrence.
The policy of insurance shall name the City as co- insured.
P. A permit shall not be granted unless the conditions set forth
herein are completed on or before March 1, 1980.
Q. A list of the Board of Directors and officers of Rich Valley
Development Company shall be submitted prior to issuance of permit.
On an annual basis such list shall be updated by Rich Valley and
provided to the City Clerk.
R. That Rich Valley comply with such other requirements of the City
Council as it shall from time to time deem proper and necessary for
the protection of the citizens and general welfare of the community.
SVR 002741
Resolution 1979 -52
Continued
S. Rich Valley shall maintain, including but not iimited to snow
plowing, and keep in good repair 125th Street during such times
as it is being used in conjunction with the mining operations.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution repeals Resolution 1978 -24,
and all amendments to said Resolution 1978 -24.
Adopted this 4th day of December, 1979.
Leland S. Knutson, Mayor
ATTEST:
a a z �'
Don F. Darling, Clerk
SVR 002742
/ CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
APPLICATION FOR MINING PERMIT
Mining Permit #f
Date February 12, 1982
Applicant Lance J. Johnson
7405 B oy venue ast
Address Inver Grove Heights, MN 55075 Telephone 457 -8446
STATUS OF APPLICANT:
Owner X Buyer Lessee Other
Property Description South One -Half of the Northwest One - Quarter and a
part of the Northeast One - Quarter, all in Section Fourteen (14), Tow
ship Fifteen (15), Range Ninete (19), Dakota County, City of
Rosemount, Minnesota.
Type of Material to-be Extracted: Sand and Gravel
Cubic Yards of Material to Extracted: Substantial
Access Routes: 125th- Street -
Estimated Number of Years:.of Operation: 10
Thin pehmi t .c..6 good ion a, pe&i.od two yeand 6 from the date o6 app- 7ova.0 by the
City. The excavation Witt 6e .reviewed in t. ght o6 the o&ig.uiat ptan, and i6
con.d.us.ten.t .thenew.i th, a new pehmi t may be izzued. The appPicant hereby agneu
to cumpt y with the ptan..6ub by him and approved by the City.* The appt i.eant
undeAztand.6 that 4ai.eune.Zo - eomp�y. at th aa.i.d pean ahatt be zu6�i.ci.ent keuon
bon the C.0 y to deny 6ubsequent appZi.eati.ond and taunni e the ope4ati.on.
i� 2 -12 -82
eo 6 Vat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Application Received by
Fee Date
Plan Submitted
Date
Planning Commission Action
Date
Council Action
Conditions if approved
ate
Authorization
Clerk Date
Copy to
SH 000191
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
APPLICATION FOR MINING PERMIT
Applicant
Address
LANCE J. JOHNSON
Mining Permit # IqR7_ - I
Date AUGUST 14, 1982
55075
7405 BOYD. INVER GROVE HEIGHTS, MINN Telephone
457 8446
STATUS OF APPLICANT:
Owner X Buyer
Property Description
NOTE: MARLON DANNER, DANNER
TRUCKING CO., 7280 EAST DIC KMAN
Lessee Other TRAIL; INVER GROVE HEIGHTS, MIN
450 0830; KILL BE THE OPERATOR OF
TH IS MINING FACILITY.
SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHED.
Type of Material to be Extracted: PIT RUN SAND E GRAVEL
Cubic Yards of Material to be Extracted:
APPROXIMATELY 1,800,000 YARDS.
Access Routes: RICH VALLEY BL AT 1 25 th S TREET, NORTH TO 117th STREET, THEN EA
TO CSAH 52.
Estimated Number of Years of Operation:
7 pe mit .c.6 good 6orc a pe&iod two yeaAz 6nom the date 'o6 appnovat by the
City. The excavation w.itt be reviewed in tight o 6 the o&i.ginae. plan, and i-
eon intent .thehew th, a new pehm.i.t may be i.6aued. The appti.cant hereby agneez
to eompty with the plan 6ubm-i,t,ted by him and app&oved by the City. The appf i cant
undeutandz that 6a.i. iae to compty , k1 th dai.d ptan ahatt -be au66.icien.t nea.aon
bon the City to deny hub,& eque app.1,i cation -6 and te"AmR i_nate the openn t.<i.on.
AUG. 14, 1982
na tu4e ea
--------------- - - --
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Application Received by Date O 2
Fee
Plan Submitted 2--
Planning Commission Ac ion Y k ss .� /g Z
.. L Date
Council Action
Conditions if approved , /
Authorizbtion
Date
Copy to Appl i cant �pl.�.� s„�.� SH 000190
n�u�v
Regular Meeting Reviews Planner's File 1982 -4
February 26, 1982
Page Four
5a. L. JOHNSON - RICH VALLEY MINING PERMIT APPLICATION
The City has received an application from Lance Johnson for a mining permit on 1
approximately 93 acres. The property is part of the original Markham Sand and
Gravel area. I have not received any other information to date, however, the
applicant has requested an anpearance before the Planning Commission to discuss
the request.
5b. OAKWOOD ES TATES 2ND ADDITION - CONCEPT PLAN
Don Christenson has submitted a concept plan for developing his property, lo-
cated between Oakwood Estates and the "Genz Addition." The site contains approx-
imately 13.5 acres, which, according to the 5 acre density provision, would per-
mit 2.7 or perhaps three lots. Mr. Christenson previously submitted a 2.5 acre
lot concept, but it was not reviewed due to the subdivision moratorium.
The present concept proposes a four lot subdivision, to be served by two cul-
de -sacs. A provision is made for future street access via Outlot A. Aside
from our routine conditions for large lot platting, a variance would be re-
quired to permit the density proposed. This may be negotiable givEn the size
and shape of the parcel. My main concern regards the concept of cul -de -sac
access, when full street access is a practical alternative.
No formal action is required, however, guidance from the Commission on lot den-
sity and access would be beneficial prior to actual preparation of the prelimi-
nary plat.
5c. KEN ROSE CENTER - SIGN DISPLAY CONCEPT
We have recently received inquiries about additional wall signs on the front of
the shopping center. In the absence of clear ordinance standards regarding
signs in a multi -use building such as Ken Rose, we requested that the owner
submit a concept for the location of signs. Attached is such a concept, which
provides for continuity in size and location. I'm not convinced that we'll
ever see the sign band completely occupied, but authorization of this or some
other concept is necessary to permit sign placement for additional businesses.
The total sign area appears to represent the maximum 15% wall coverage permitted.
The Building Inspector has one application pending action on the signing concept.
SVR 001552
Plswif_:'s file 1982 -16
C
/ f` �� O''J
r, J - Vos emounl
�.�
PLANNING COMMISSION
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DEAN JOHNSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR
DATE: AUGUST 27, 1982
SUBJ: SEPTEMBER 2, 1982 REGULAR MEETING REVIEWS
4a. LANCE JOHNSON - MINING PERMIT REVISION /RENEWAL
Enclosed are two additional exhibits: a phasing plan for the east 30 acres of the
Johnson property and the 28 acre original permit site; and a mining plan for the
Johnson property.
Marley Danner, pit operator, has indicated that he intends to complete the mining
and reclamation in Phase I, which now contains a portion of the Johnson property.
Because of additional area to the north, he feels there is sufficient material
available to complete this mining phase rather than doing a temporary reclamation
as we previously discussed. I would suggest, however, that Phase I also include
the area immediately to the west which has already been mined. The western boun-
dary of Phase I could be adjusted to match the western boundary of the Koehnen
porperty. The remaining phases could remain as proposed. Ultimately, we would
require completion and reclamation of each phase in the order in which they are
proposed.
The mining plan shows final grades at the setback area to be approximately 3:1.
The only exception is the western boundary of Phase III, which is about 2:1. It
is proposed that this boundary is temporary; completed, the permit area will be
expanded to the west. This boundary line is also in the middle of the Lance John-
son property, as opposed to being a boundary with an adjacent property.
The mining plan is consistent with ordinance requirements and previously stated
concerns. I would recommend one change, however, at this time. There is a berm
along the railroad ROW on the east side of the original 10 acres. This berm should
be extended northward until it matches the existing 890' elevation. The 890' con-
tour should be left unaltered to the point where the final grade (890' shown in the
box) is indicated on the mining plan. The 880' grade would have to be adjusted
accordingly. I will highlight this at the meeting.
Two ponds for the wash plant are located on the exhibits. I have not received any
details for a wash plant operation, which also requires DNR review. It is my under-
standing that plans are forthcoming, as the set up of the plant is desired for this
season. Presently, my review is limited to the expansion of the pit area and re-
newal of the permit, which expires October 20, 1982.
I will prepare a new list of conditions for the permit, which will replace the
original resolution authorizing the mining activity. Representatives for the
permit revision will be present to review the plans at the meeting. I suggest
we withhold our recommendation until the September 16 Regular Meeting, which will
allow for discussion on the 2nd and for the subsequent preparation of conditions
for permit approval. This will still allow time for our recommendations to be
submitted to the City Council at the September 21st public hearing.
SVR 001579
REGULAR MEETING REVIEWS PLANNER'S FILE 1984 -14
October 2, 1984
Page Three
4b. LANCE JOHNSON MINING PERMIT RENEWAL
Enclosed are copies of the original exhibits and Conditions of Lance J.
Johnson Mining Permit. Mr. Johnson submitted a letter requesting the
renewal of the 2 -year contract, along with the application fee, within the
required 60 -day notification period. The original permit expires October
18, 1984. The gravel pit is located west of Rich Valley Boulevard (CR 71)
about a half mile south of the IGH border. The pit is operated by Marlon
Danner, Danner Trucking, Inver Grove Heights. This pit is adjacent to
another to the south, which is presently under permit to Hardrives, Inc.
Danner Trucking began operating in the pit in the summer of 1982. Later
that year the operator suffered substantial losses to equipment by vandals.
Because of this problem and the absence of any substantial contracts
requiring sand and gravel, Danner Trucking has not returned to the pit.
There is evidence that some reshaping of the pit took place in 1982. There
are few stockpiles remaining on the site. The City also learned that 20 -25
loads of topsoil were removed by Danner for a job. This was an
unauthorized activity and Danner agreed this week to return 30 loads of top
soil to the site as part of the conditions for renewing the permit.
My only dealings with the permit this year came about at the time the
renewals on the performance bond and insurance were due. To protect the
City we found it necessary to follow up on the expirations and ensure
proper renewals. Both bonding and insurance requirements are presently
met, but we found ourselves cauy!,t in the middle of it.
What we are truly faced with is the decision on what's best for the City at
this time. This area has been mined on and off since 1976. The original
operator, Markham Sand & Gravel, was required to pave 117th Street in IGH,
as a condition of the permit. This was undoubtedly one of the factors
leading to Markham's bankruptcy. Hardrives was required to pave 125th
Street as a condition of its permit activity. Danner was required to pave
CR 71, north of 125th Street, as a condition of its permit activity.
There has been considerable investment by the various operators to keep the
mining permits active. This evidences the fact that there is material
worth excavating. There are presently two separate areas where materials
have been extracted. Is it in the best interest of the City to deny permit
renewals because of the recent inactivity? Should we require reclamation
at this time or call the bonds and have the work done by a City contractor?
I don't believe this is in our best interest, but the Planning Commission
and the City Council will have to make this judgement.
My concerns regarding the permit renewal are limited to the adequacy of the 1
conditions of the permit. The area is well suited to a mining operation. J
The impacts on adjacent properties are limited. The potential for a higher
and better use of the site is questionable until the mining activity and
reclamation is completed.
My present inclination is to recommend approval of the mining permit
renewal for Phase No. 1 subject to receipt of bonding and insurance
requirements which extend at least one month beyond the expiration of the
permit period. I will attempt to determine whether the present $25,000
bond is adequate protection for the City. I intend to inspect the site
before our meeting and will report on the presence or absence of topsoil
and any other conditions which may need to be addressed.
SVR 001666
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
APPLICATION FOR MINING PERMIT
Appl icant Z A-lc -�
Address - 1
STATUS OF APPLICANT:
Owner ff , Buyer Lessee Other
Property Description
Mining Permit I
Da to / 2- — Z � O E
Telephone F —
Type of Materi
Cubic Yards of
Access Routes:
Estimated Number of Years of Operation
Thi.6 peAnz t it good bon a pe&i.od two yecvus 6aom the date o6 appaovat by the
City. The excavation wilt be aev.iewed in tight o6 the okiginaL plan, and i6
coji.6iz.tent thehewith, a new peam.it may be .i.66ued. The apptieant heheby ag.teu
to compty with the plan 6ubm,itted by him and approved by the City. The appti.ean.t
uoide,u tand6 that 6ai,eune to compt y with said plan 6ha - be 6u66.ie i.e tt aea6on
boa the City to deny 6ubzequent appf- i.catiorvs and .tmn.inate the op eJrat io
2 Z V
4 g e o pp ca► e
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Appl i;:ation Received by
Da to
Fee Date
Plan Submitted
Planning Commission Action A ,Oric alint ('u�a/ h'�.�r� �,LL2o
Date
Council Action ,���� Su� Pct w C�r���t 1412
' ., ate
Conditions if approved SF< �i-"h a/ Ca9g�iho►�s
Authorization
Clerk Da to
rnnv to nnnl inant SH 000100
. R
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
APPLICATION FOR MINING PERMIT
Da vt�.et -Tr i V%y Co. - op, ro o r
Applicant Le- _77 _ ' 1�) k � 5
Address z Z f>< 7S Telephone H
STATUS OF APPLICANT:
Owner , Buyer
Property Description
, Lessee , Other
iZelE wAA__,
Mining Permit # 15 5�2,-
Type of Material to be Extracted: r
Cubic Yards of Material to be Extracted:
Access Routes:
Estimated Number of Years of Operation:
Thin penmmit .c.6 good 6oh a puL i.od two yea&i 6nom the-date o � apprLovat by the
City: The 'excavation w.i.tt, be reviewed in .Eight o6 the otc i.ginaP. plan, and t�
conzi,6tent theAew.ith, a new pehmi t may be i.6aue.d.. The appti.cant hereby agneu
to comply with the plan aubm-c tted by him and app&oved by the City. The appti.ca;t
undeAztand,6 that �aitune to comply with aai,d plan aha t_ be au66ic i.ent •Lea.son
jon the_ City to deny zubz equent appt i.cati.on6. and tehmi.nate the openati.on.
SignataAe o6 Appf e
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Application Received by Dc.,f
Fee # 7,!S0 tc-)O Date
plaanSubmitted �� -2.8 I�
Planning Commission Actio
Council Action
Conditions if
Authorization
Date a A 1,6�
M_
Copy to Applicant 12. * 0 SH 000189
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
Shafer Contracting Co., Inc.,
v�I
City of Rosemount,
a municipal corporation,
Plaintiff
DISTRICT COURT
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Court File No. 19-C-99-009
[POSSIBLE]
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT
[Submitted as a Settlement Proposal
Governed by Rule 408 of the Minnesota
Defendant Rules of Evidence.]
This Settlement Agreement is made this day of , 2000, by and between
Shafer Contracting Co., Inc. ( "Shafer "), the City of Rosemount, Minnesota ( "the City "), and
Lance J. Johnson ( "Johnson ") (collectively the "Parties ") upon the following terms and
conditions:
1. Johnson is the owner of two parcels of land which comprise approximately 93
acres of property located in the City of Rosemount with PID numbers
34- 01400 - 010 -37 and 34- 01400 - 013 -09 (the "Property "). The Property is in an
"agricultural" zoning district and is guided as "agricultural" in the City's
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
2. The parties acknowledge and agree that sand and gravel reserves are located
throughout the Property and that mining activities have occurred on a portion of
the Property since the 1970s. In the 1970s Markham Sand & Gravel Co.
( "Markham ") developed a mining plan for the Property and surrounding
properties. Markham submitted an Environmental Assessment to the
Environmental Quality Board, and received approval to conduct mining activities
r
consistent with the mining plan without need for any further environmental
review. Johnson and his designated operators have conducted sand and gravel
mining activities on the eastern portion of the Property, approximately 33 acres,
since at least 1982, and intended to mine as much of the Property as was
permitted under then - existing ordinances. Pursuant to the requirements of the
City Ordinances, the City issued a mining permit to Johnson in 1982 and has
renewed Johnson's permit up through the present. The permits issued by the City,
as requested by Johnson, have pertained to mining activities occurring on the
eastern portion of the Property, approximately 33 acres. To date, Johnson's
mining activities have not extended to the western portion of the Property and
Johnson has not requested a mining permit for mining activities on the western
portion of the Property, although it has been his intent to ultimately mine that
portion.
3. In 1989, the City enacted Ordinance B -- City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance
( "Ordinance B ") thereby eliminating mining as a "permitted use" in certain
Agricultural districts including the subject Property. The parties acknowledge
and agree that the mining activities on the Johnson Property since 1989 have been
conducted as a lawful nonconforming use in the City of Rosemount.
4. Since the 1989 ordinance amendment, Johnson has continued to apply for, and the
City has continued to issue, renewal mining permits to Johnson pursuant to the
requirements and standards set forth in the City's Zoning Ordinances governing
mining permits. Most recently, on January 20, 2000, Johnson received a mining
permit issued by the City for the eastern 33 acres of the subject property.
2
5. In 1998, Shafer entered into an agreement with Johnson for the purchase of the
Property. The Parties acknowledge and agree that Shafer, as the proposed
purchaser of the Property, will acquire all of Johnson's rights to mine the Property
as a lawful nonconforming use once the purchase is completed. Shafer has
submitted a mining plan to the City under which it proposes to conduct phased
mining activities across the Property. The Parties acknowledge that Shafer's
mining plan is consistent with the current requirements and standards set forth in
the City's Zoning Ordinances governing mining permits.
6. Shafer, as the proposed purchaser of the Property, has requested that the City
acknowledge the "Diminishing Assets Doctrine," as that doctrine is defined in
Hawkins v. Talbot, 248 Minn. 549, 80 N.W.2d 863 (1957). The City of
Rosemount recognizes Hawkins v. Talbot to be the governing law in the State of
Minnesota at this time. The Parties acknowledge and agree that under the
Diminishing Asset Doctrine, as it currently exists, the scope of a lawful
nonconforming mining use includes mineral resources that are held as reserves for
later mining. The Parties agree that under the Diminishing Asset Doctrine, as it
currently exists, expansion of mining activities on the Property beyond the
currently permitted area would not constitute an improper expansion of a
nonconforming use under Section 13 of the City's Zoning Regulations. The
Parties acknowledge that their agreement is based upon the current status of the
law.
3
7. The Parties agree that any mining activities occurring on the Property are subject
to current requirements and licensing/permitting standards set forth in the City
Ordinances governing mining operations.
Its
Dated: , 2000 SHAFER CONTRACTING CO., INC.
Dated: , 2000 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
Dated: .2000
:ODMATCDOCSTBDOCS 1 \2375740\2
Its
LANCE J. JOHNSON
El
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
Shafer Contracting Co., Inc.,
VS.
City of Rosemount,
a municipal corporation,
Plaintiff
DISTRICT COURT
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Court File No. 19-C-99-009
[POSSIBLE]
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT
[Submitted as a Settlement Proposal
Governed by Rule 408 of the Minnesota
Defendant Rules of Evidence.]
This Settlement Agreement is made this day of 4ApFi4> , 2000, by and
between Shafer Contracting Co., Inc. ( "Shafer "), the City of Rosemount, Minnesota ( "the City "),
and Lance J. Johnson ( "Johnson ") (collectively the "Parties ") upon the following terms and
conditions:
1. Johnson is the owner of two parcels of land which comprise approximately 93
acres of property located in the City of Rosemount with PID numbers 34- 01400-
010 -37 and 34- 01400 - 013 -09 (the "Property "). The Property is in an
"agricultural" zoning district and is guided as "agricultural" in the City's
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
2. The parties acknowledge and agree that sand and gravel reserves are located
throughout the Properly and that mining activities have occurred on a portion
of the Property since the 1970s. In the 1970s Markham Sand & Gravel Co.
( "Markham ") developed a mining plan for the Property and surrounding
. 1
properties. Markham submitted an Environmental Assessment to the
Environmental Quality Board, and received approval to conduct mining
activities consistent with the mining plan without need for any further
environmental review. Johnson and his designated operators have conducted
sand and gravel mining activities on the eastern portion of the Property,
approximately 33 acres, 4 b eg ;.,. ing in 1982> since at least 1982, and intended
to mine as much of the Property as was permitted under then- existing
ordinances Pursuant to the requirements of the City Ordinances, the City issued
a mining permit to Johnson in 1982 and has renewed Johnson's permit up through
the present. The permits issued by the City, as requested by Johnson, have
pertained to mining activities occurring on the eastern portion of the Property,
approximately 33 acres. 4johnsen has never- fequested a To date, Johnson's
mining <pefmit te eanduet any mining activities -4en have not extended to the
western portion of the Propert ate15 5 "' aer
' c� and Johnson has not requested a mining permit for mining activities on the
western portion of the Property, although it has been his intent to ultimately
mine that portion.
3. In 1989, the City enacted Ordinance B -- City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance
( "Ordinance B ") thereby eliminating mining as a "permitted use" in 4tke certain
Agricultural districts including the subject `�pr-eper4y Property The parties
acknowledge and agree that the mining activities on the Johnson <pFepei4y
Property since 1989 have been conducted as a lawful nonconforming use in the
City of Rosemount.
2
4. Since the 1989 ordinance amendment, Johnson has continued to apply for, and the
City has continued to issue, renewal mining permits to Johnson pursuant to the
requirements and standards set forth in the City's Zoning Ordinances governing
mining permits. Most recently, on January 20, 2000, Johnson received a mining
permit issued by the City for the eastern 33 acres of the subject property.
5. In 1998, Shafer entered into an agreement with Johnson for the purchase of the
Property. The Parties acknowledge and agree that Shafer, as the proposed
purchaser of the Property,
pr-epeFty than has been mined in the past. will acquire all of Johnson's rigs
to mine the Property as a lawful nonconforming use once the purchase is
completed. Shafer has submitted a mining plan to the City under which it
proposes to conduct phased mining activities across the Property. The
Parties acknowledge that Shafer's mining plan is consistent with the current
requirements and standards set forth in the City's Zoning Ordinances
governing mining permits.
6. Shafer, as the proposed purchaser of the Property, has requested that the City
acknowledge the "Diminishing Assets Doctrine," as that doctrine is defined in
Hawkins v. Talbot, 248 Minn. 549, 80 N.W.2d 863 (1957). The City of
Rosemount recognizes Hawkins v. Talbot to be the governing law in the State of
Minnesota at this time. <
3
.,
' [� The Parties acknowledge and agree that 4 eha ges er fnedi eatiens --in the
. _
a-f-Pee-4 the legal status of the sand a-ad gfavel> under the Diminishing Asset
Doctrine, as it currently exists, the scope of a lawful nonconforming mining
use includes mineral resources that are held as reserves for later mining
The Parties agree that under the Diminishing Asset Doctrine, as it currentlX
exists, expansion of mining activities on the Property beyond the currently
permitted area would not constitute an improper expansion of a
nonconforming use under Section 13 of the City's Zoning Regulations The
Parties acknowledge that their agreement is based upon the current status of
the law.
7. 4 1 5097. The Parties 4aeknewledge and agree that any mining activities occurring
on the Property are subject to current requirements and
licensing /permitting standards set forth in the City Ordinances governing mining
operations.
Dated: 1 2000 SHAFER CONTRACTING CO., INC.
in
Its
El