HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.j. Mineral Extraction Interim Use Permit in AG District forStonex 04-08-ME4
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
City Council Meeting Date February 15, 2005
AGENDA ITEM: Mineral Extraction Interim Use Permit in AG
AGENDA SECTION:
District for Stonex 04 -80 ME
Consent
PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner
AGENDA N4.
ATTACHMENTS: Draft IUP Resolution, Draft Conditions of
Operation for 2005, Draft 01/25/05 PC Minutes,
12/28/04 PC Minutes, Location map, Operations
(phasing) plan, Haul routes, Conceptual end use
APPROVED BY:
plan, Environmental Assessment Worksheet
excerpt, Standards for Mineral Extraction and
Interim Uses
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Interim Use Permit for the Stonex Mineral
Extraction Permit for 2005 subject to conditions
ACTION:
ISSUE
Jonathan Wilmshurst representing Stonex, LLC has applied for a mineral extraction permit for
a new sand gravel mining operation located' /4 mile south of 135 Street East (County
Road 38), and 4 mile west of Blaine Avenue (County Road 71) The new permit area
encompasses 80 acres formerly owned and farmed by the Kraft family, immediately south of
the Vesterra mineral extraction permit area
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on December 28, 2004, and January
25, 2005 The public hearing was continued for plan revisions concerning proposed grades
and locations for a future street connecting County Road 38 with the future Connemara Trail
Several persons owning adjacent land or representing surrounding property owners were
present No specific objections regarding the proposed permit were identified Instead, they
seemed to be more curious about future land use and the potential impact of the projected
Connemara Trail alignment A revised plan showing both the Stonex and Vestarra properties
(to the north) was provided, based upon additional discussions with staff The plan revisions
provide the conceptual street linkages, and also assume mining within the street corridors to
blend the finished grades with surrounding property
The Commissioners had several questions, including reference to a well on the property in
the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), the location of a water main near the
Connemara Trail alignment and the relationship between the Stonex and Vesterra properties
Staff explained that the house would continue to be occupied, and thus continue the use the
well Also, that the watermain installed last year was approximately 20 feet south of the
property line Lastly, Mr Wilmshurst explained that the two companies are separate but
under that same ownership Staff further mentioned that the common property line between
the two pits allows the combined grading for facilitating future development
Others were present at the public hearing, but did not choose to provide comments
Subsequently, the Commissioners adopted a motion recommending approval with an
additional reference to County Road 38 included in paragraph F of the draft 2005 operating
conditions
BACKGROUND
Applicant Property Owner(s)
Location
Area in Acres
Comp Plan Designation
Current Zoning
Nature of request
Related Actions
Jonathan Wilmshust of Stonex, LLC
0 25 miles south of County Road 38, 0 25 miles west of
County Road 71
80
Agriculture
Agriculture
Mineral Extraction in an area of the Agriculture District that
permits the use in conformance with standards
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) approved by
Resolution 2004 -112 adopted September 21, 2004 issuing
negative declaration of need (for an Environmental Impact
Statement)
Estimates
Amount of material to be removed 4 5 million cubic yards
Projected maximum rate of removal 500,000 tones annually
Traffic generation 200 loads a day (peak)
Number of years of operation 14
Date of completion of site rehabilitation 2018
Planning Commission Action Recommendation of Approval (4 -0)
SUMMARY
The attached materials show the Stonex mining area immediately south and adjacent to the
Vesterra sand gravel mining location The Mineral Extraction standards allow for the
combination of the pit areas, so that a uniform finish grade can be established to maximize
future development potential Therefore, the conceptual end use plan combines the two pit
areas into one larger site available for "future light industrial of business sites
The Mineral Extraction Permit will be structured as an Interim Use The IUP will terminate
upon any of the following events
1 The date stated on the permit
The expiration date will be December 31, 2018, based upon the application
2 Upon violation of the condition under which the permit was issued
Draft conditions of Mineral Extraction for 2005 are attached
3 Upon change in the City's zoning regulations, rendering the use nonconforming
2
Mineral Extraction Process
The request includes a crushing, washing and screening plant for the pit area to provide
various materials for construction aggregates It is estimated that approximately 4 5 million
cubic yards of material will be extracted over the life span of the pit
The site is organized into a series of phases, each consisting of about five acres
corresponding to each year of operation Starting in the northeast portion of the site, west of
the existing farmstead, the activity will proceed south, until the eastern third of the site is
mined Then, the mining will progresses to the west The last phase is the farmstead area
in the northeast corner of the property
The first phase is the location of the processing plant and stockpiles, shown in a schematic
detail on the operations (phasing) plan
Traffic Generation and Haul Routes
A traffic study prepared as an appendix item to the EAW indicates the peak traffic generation
to be 200 trips per day The assumption is that 150 trips would occur during the first five
hours of daily operation, given typical construction practices The haul route would start in
the northeast corner of the site where the scale will be located The trucks would then exit
the site utilizing the existing private driveway across an 80 -acre parcel owned by Flint Hills
Resources, to County Road 71 (Blaine Avenue)
The haul route is likely to shift north to 135 Street (County Road 38), because the applicant
has not been able to provide documentation of easement or right of access to County Road
71 This may be acceptable, as the applicant for Stonex is the same as Vesterra Staff will
require that cross access rights via an easement across either property be documented
Furthermore, Any improvements to County Road 38 necessary to accommodate the traffic
generated from either property will be the responsibility of the property owner operator
Traffic entering onto County Road 71 will be evenly distributed north and south to the 117"
Street intersection and County Road 42 respectively Traffic connecting to County Road 42
will be required to go west -bound only, thus avoiding making left -hand turns across the
highway Again, any improvements needed to bear the weight of the trucks, or improve the
level of service at an intersection will be the responsibility of the applicant
End Use Plan
The conceptual end use plan that includes the Vesterra property to the north is essentially a
final grading plan that shows the future floor of the pit area sloping towards the northeast at a
slope of 1 to 1 2% The northeast corner would transition to existing grades on adjacent
properties with a cross -slope berm to capture run -off and provide rate control of the run -off
The berm would be constructed with stripped topsoil and haul -back material, as high as
twenty feet tall, and provide for a city traversing trail from the north to the southeast The trail
is proposed to follow the geological southern edge of the rich valley land feature It responds
to City goals of east -west connecting trails and is also recommended by the Highway 52 and
42 land use study group
3
The plan has been modified, particularly on the north and south edges to transition to both
135 Street East and the future Connemara Trail alignment The 135 Street corridor is at a
higher elevation in many cases, than either side of the road The mining process may include
the roadway, to lower it and better blend with existing adjacent grades Otherwise, the
grading starts at the required 30 ft minimum setbacks for adjacent property Exceptions to
the 30 ft setback are
1 The northwest corner that has a 100 -foot setback, which was negotiated with the
previous owners of the Vesterra property
2 50 feet to the right -of -way for public streets or highways
The future alignment of Connemara Trail is expected to form the southern edge of the site
The conceptual grading has been revised to provide two connection points on the west and
east corners of the site The elevations assume that mining will occur within the adjacent
Connemara Trail corridor to create a transition across the sites As a collector street, direct
driveway access would not be expected, but one or more intersections with future local
streets would occur, typically at mile intervals The property is YZ mile wide from west to
east
The plan revisions respond to staff direction concerning projected transportation
improvements The plans do suggest mining of the property into existing or future street
corridors It is not guaranteed that this off -site mining will be permitted If it is, other agencies
as well as the City will have approval authority over plans and the construction process
Findings for Interim Use Permits
1 The extent, location and intensity of the use will be in substantial compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan
The site restoration plan shall ensure that the land shall be restored in such a
manner as to support future Agricultural uses, or uses consistent with
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
2 The use will provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize traffic congestion in
the public streets
Stonex LLC will be required to furnish easement documentation guaranteeing
the haul route across the Flint Hills Resources property to County Road 71
Furthermore, the conditions of operation require Dakota County !-Highway
Department approval for the haul route, and Stonex will be responsible for the
cost of any road improvements necessary to accommodate the traffic generated
by the use
3 The use will not be detrimental to the existing character of the development in the
immediate neighborhood or endanger the public health, safety, and general
welfare
The Mineral Extraction related activity will be confined to the pit area, and shall
conform to the conditions of operation and the mineral extraction standards in
Section 12 4 of the zoning ordinance
4 The use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of
the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district
Recommended revision to the conceptual site restoration plan and
El
conformance with the Mineral Extraction standards of Section 12 4 will protect
the normal and orderly development of surrounding property
5. The use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the
district in which it is located
RECOMMENDATION
Motion to recommend approval of the Stonex Mineral extraction permit for 2005 subject to
conditions
Excerpt from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 25, 2005
Public Hearing:
513. Case 04 -80 -ME Stonex, LLC Mineral Extraction Interim Use Permit in the
Agriculture District.
City Planner Pearson reviewed the staff report Stonex, LLC applied for a mineral
extraction permit for a new sand and gravel mining operation located a 4 mile south of
135"' Street East (County Road 38) and' /4 mile west of Blaine Avenue (County Road 71)
Mr Pearson indicated that in the 2005 Conditions in the last sentence of Paragraph F that
a reference to County Road 38 should be added as a requirement of the haul routes and
easement acquisition
Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr Pearson
Chairperson Messner requested that Mr Pearson repeat the modification for Paragraph F
Mr Pearson stated that he wanted to expand on Paragraph F to include County Road 38
in case the haul route would go through the Vesterra Property
Commissioner Powell questioned the EAW comments referring to an additional well on
the site and wondered if it had been addressed on site or through the conditions Mr
Pearson stated there is a farmstead on the site and it may be connected with the house
Mr Pearson stated he believed that someone would be occupying the house
Commissioner Powell also questioned the conditions for the roadways to accommodate
the traffic Mr Pearson stated that as part of the EAW process the County looked at the
capacity of the road for the weight of the trucks and discussed the turning bays and the
condition was added in case the county would object Mr Powell also questioned the
hours of operation Mr Pearson stated the City Council has adjusted the hours under
specific conditions in the past in the Zoning Ordinance.
Chairperson Messner questioned the future alignment of Connemara along the southern
edge of the property and if that is the area where the water main goes through Project
Engineer Aderhold stated that the water main that went in last year as part of the east side
water main extension is approximately 20 feet south of the property line.
Chairperson Messner asked if there was anything in the conditions regarding the Vesterra
pit to the north stating if the two operations operate as the same entity or is there a
concern about two different entities Mr. Pearson stated they are two separate entities and
treated as two separate permits.
Chairperson Messner asked if the applicant would like to come forward
Jonathan Wilmshurst, 12741 Shannon Parkway, stated the ownership is the same
structure in both entities Mr Wilsmhurst explained his reasoning for an end use plan
Mr Messner asked about the setback requirement with the slopes along the property
lines Mr Wilmshurst stated the individual permits to do have a setback requirement and
the end use plan would dictate what the slopes would be Mr Wilmshurst also explained
the haul routes
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing
MOTION by Zurn to close the Public Hearing Second by Humphrey Ayes:
Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes None Motion carried
Chairperson Messner asked for any follow -up questions or discussion
MOTION by Messner to recommend that the City Council approve the Stonex
Mineral extraction permit for 2005 subject to
I Conformance with the attached conditions for 2005
2 Approval of the reclamation plan is predicated on the developer meeting final
road grades for Connemara Trail and County Road 38 which may differ than
the submitted plan dated January 13, 2005.
3. Conformance with all of the Mineral Extraction permit standards in Section
12.4 of the zoning ordinance
4. The Mining Interim Use will expire on December 31, 2018
5. The applicant submit a large size plan of the conceptual end use plan
Second by Powell Ayes Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell Nayes None
Motion approved
Excerpt from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of December 28, 2004
Public Hearing:
5D. Case 04 -80 -ME Stonex, LLC Mineral Extraction Permit.
City Planner Pearson stated that staff is recommending that the item be continued to the
January 25, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting allowing the applicant time to make
some revisions to the plan Mr Pearson stated that he was prepared to give a presentation
if someone in the audience would request it Mr Messner asked if anyone in the
audience wished to hear about the item this evening An audience member indicated he
would like to hear the presentation.
Mr Pearson then reviewed the staff report Jonathan Wilmshurst representing Stonex has
applied for a mineral extraction permit for a new sand gravel mining operation located
/4 mile south of 135 Street East (County Road 38), and' /4 mile west of Blaine Avenue
(County Road 71). The new permit area encompasses 80 acres formerly owned and
farmed by the Kraft family, immediately south of the Vesterra mineral extraction permit
area
Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr Pearson.
Mr. Messner asked if staff has looked at the future potential grade on Connemara. Mr
Pearson stated that the general location of Connemara Avenue is premature to determine
grade but there are performance standards for the classification of a street
Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing
Howard Doelmg, representing his mother, Laverna Doelmg, stated his mother has
adjoining property on the south side Mr Doelmg stated he has nothing against the
proposal but is concerned about what is going to happen to the property given his
mother's property is going to be for sale
Mr Messner asked Mr Doelmg if similar aggregate deposits are on the Doelmg property
Mr Doelmg indicated there is on the nor portion
Ted Thompson, South St Paul, representing Lavema Doeling, was concerned with whose
property Connemara Trail would be located on
Mr Pearson stated it will come across the land that is in the current MUSA for sewer and
water and extend the next phase to Akron Avenue, although the exact location is not set,
it is expected to be in the 140 street area Since it will be meant to carry a lot of traffic,
it is going to be a higher volume street that generally is a mile north of County Road
42
Mr Thompson questioned how they can set the grade of the property if they do not know
where the road is going to go Community Development Director Lindquist responded
that the road is going to be primarily south of the mining pit and right now the proposed
grades are 30 feet below the existing grade and even if the road is lowered somewhat, the
road cannot be lowered 30 feet due to some existing power lines
Mr Thompson asked how far they have to stay off the power line Mr Pearson indicated
the setback for mining is 30 feet Mr Thompson then questioned if that was the case, the
road is going to be built on his mother -in -law's property Ms Lindquist stated the road
will be constructed with development and that at the time of subdivision the dedications
will be required Mr Thompson was concerned with selling the property and misleading
a bu} er.
Mr Thompson asked if the MUSA only comes to Akron Avenue Mr Pearson indicated
it stops Yz mile west of Akron Avenue but it is expected to change Mr Thompson asked
about the moratorium Mr Pearson explained that the moratorium is limited to the
MUSA area in the vicinity of the Highway 52 intersection and extending up to Highway
55 Ms Lindquist stated there is a study group looking at land uses from Akron Avenue
across the whole east side Ms Lindquist further stated there will be public information
hearings held in January and February and property owners or the tax payers would be
invited Ms Lindquist informed ever) one that the meetings will be held either January
24` or February 10th to discuss the proposed land uses on very specific parcels and will
have some concept circulation Ms Lindquist informed Mr Thompson that the property
owner for his mother's property would get a notice
MOTION by Messner to continue the Public Hearing until January 25, 2005.
Second by Powell Ayes Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey, and Powell
Nays None Motion carried.
Mr. Pearson indicated the item will come before the Planning Commission again on
January 25, 2005.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2005
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INTERIM USE PERMIT
FOR THE STONEX MINERAL EXTRACTION PERMIT
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an
application from Stonex, LLC requesting an Interim Use Permit for the Stonex Mineral
Extractipn Permit, a new sand and gravel mining operation located'/ mile south of 135 Street
East (County Road 38), and 4 mile west of Blaine Avenue (County Road 71), legally described
as
The Southeast' /4 of the Southwest' /4 and the Southwest' /4 of the Southeast' /4 of Section
23, Township 115 N, Range 19 West, Dakota County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2004 the applicant submitted the Mineral Extraction Permit
Application, and
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2005 the Planning Commission reviewed the Mineral Extraction
Permit Application and draft conditions for 2005, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council
approve the Mineral Extraction Permit for 2005, subject to conditions, and
WHEREAS, February 15, 2005, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the
Planning Commission's recommendation for the Mineral Extraction Permit
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Mineral Extraction Permit for 2005, subject to
1 Conformance with the attached conditions for 2005
2 Approval of the reclamation plan is predicated on the developer meeting final road
grades for Connemara Trail and County Road 38 which may differ than the submitted
plan dated January 13, 2005
3. Conformance with all of the Mineral Extraction permit standards in Section 12 4 of the
zoning ordinance
4 The Musing Interim Use will expire on December 31, 2018
5 The applicant submit a large size plan of the conceptual end use plan.
ADOPTED this 15` day of February, 2005 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda Jentink, City Clerk
RESOLUTION 2005- -
Motion by: Second by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Member absent:
2. _
Mineral Extraction Permit
2005 Conditions of Operation for Mineral Extraction Permit
STONEX, LLC
A Stonex, LLC (hereinafter "the Property Owner shall sign a written consent to
these conditions binding itself and its successors, heirs or assigns to the conditions
of said permit Mineral Extraction is an Interim Use in the Agriculture district of
which the permit area is a part of according to Ordinance B, the City of Rosemount
Zoning Regulations
B. This permit is granted for the area designated as Phase 1 on Exhibit 2 which is
attached hereto as one of the exhibits
C The completion date of the overall mineral extraction process including site
reclamation shall be no later than December 31, 2018 The term of the permit shall
extend from January 18, 2005 until December 31, 2005 unless reNoked prior to that
for failure to comply with the permit requirements A mining permit fee of $370.00
shall be paid to the City of Rosemount
D. All required permits from the State of Minnesota, County of Dakota and City of
Rosemount (hereinafter "City or any of their agencies shall be obtained and
submitted to the City prior to the issuance of the permit Failure by the Property
Owner to comply with the terms and conditions of any of the permits required under
this paragraph shall be grounds for the City to terminate said mining permit
E. The final grading for the permit area shall be completed in accordance with the
grading plan labeled Exhibit 3 which is attached hereto, or as approved by the City
Engineer, and any other conditions as may be imposed by the City from time to
time
F. All gravel trucks and other mining related traffic shall enter and exit the mining area
from 135 Street (County Road 38), unless the applicant can secure access to Blaine
Avenue (County Road 71) across the easterly privately owned property It shall be
the Property Owner's responsibility to obtain any access permits or easements
necessary for ingress and egress The location of the accesses and/or easements for
ingress and egress shall be subject to approval by the City, as well as the Dakota
County Highway Department or the Minnesota Department of Transportation if
applicable or if any changes occur relative to the mining process The current
location of the access driveway is indicated on the Phasing Plan, Exhibit A
Warning signs including "Trucks Hauling" shall be installed at the Property Owner's
expense as needed in accordance with Dakota County requirements Any street
improvements to County Road 3 8, County Road 71 or CSAH 42 necessary to
2005 Mining Permit
Ston", LLC
2 of 5
accommodate the generated traffic shall be the sole responsibility of the Property
Owner
G. A plan for dust control shall be submitted to and subject to approval by the City
The Property Owner shall clean dirt and debris from extraction or hauling operations
related to the Mineral Extraction Permit from streets After the
Property Owner has received 24 -hour verbal notice, the City may complete or
contract to complete the clean-up at the Property Owner's expense In the event of
a traffic hazard as determined by the City Administrator (or his designee) or
Rosemount Police Department, the City may proceed immediately to complete or
contract cleanup at Property Owner's expense without prior notification
H. The surface water drainage of the mining area shall not be altered so as to interfere,
contaminate or otherwise impact the natural drainage of adjacent property.
I, No topsoil shall be removed from the site and the Property Owner shall take
necessary measures to prevent erosion of the stockpiled topsoil The location of the
stockpiled topsoil shall be indicated on Exhibit A, the Phasing Plan
J. Any costs incurred now or in the future in changing the location of existing public or
private utilities including but not limited to pipelines, transmission structures and
sewer infrastructure located within the permit area shall be the sole obligation and
expense of the Property Owner
K. All costs of processing the permit, including but not limited to planning fees,
engineering fees and legal fees, shall be paid by the Property Owner prior to the
issuance of the permit The Property Owner shall reimburse the City for the cost of
periodic inspections by the City Administrator or any other City employee for the
purpose of insuring that conditions of the permit are being satisfied The Property
Owner agrees to reimburse the City for any other costs incurred as a result of the
granting or enforcing of the permit.
L The daily hours of operation for the mining area shall be limited to 7 00 a in to 7 00
p in subject, however, to being changed by the City Council
M. The Property Owner shall deposit with the Planning Department a surety bond or
cash escrow in the amount of Seven Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars per acre
($7,500 00 /acre) for any active phase in favor of the City for the cost of restoration,
regrading and /or revegetating land disturbed by mining activities and to ensure
performance of all requirements of this agreement and City ordinances by Property
Owner The required surety bonds most 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 only upon at least thirty (30) days written notice to the
permit holder and the City
2005 Mmmg Permit
Stonex, LLC
3 of 5
(2) Satisfactory to the City Attorney in form and substance
(3) Conditioned that the Property Owner 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 City Administrator (or his designee) or any
other City officials
(4) Conditioned that the Property Owner will secure the City and its officers
harmless against any and all claims, 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 the Property Owner
(5) The existing surety bond shall remain in force until July 31, 2006
Subsequently, said surety bond or cash escrow shall be renewed in
conformance to the terms and conditions of this permit for the period of
February 15, 2005 until July 31, 2007
Upon thirty (30) days notice to the permit holder and surety company, the City may
reduce or increase the amount of the bond or cash escrow during the term of this
permit in order to insure that the City is adequately protected
N The Property Owner shall furnish 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 and property
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 an additional insured and shall remain in effect from February
15, 2005 until August 1, 2006
O. No processing or mixing of materials shall occur on the site, except as indicated in
the operations plan or as may be approved by the Dakota County Environmental
Health Department as incidental to a sand and gravel mining operation Any such
activities will be enclosed with snow, or cyclone fencing or as approved by City
staff Construction of pondmg areas as indicated on the operations plan, wash plants
or other processing or equipment brought to the site shall require additional site and
grading plan information subject to review and approval of the City Engineer
P The Property Owner shall hold the City harmless from all claims or causes of action
that may result from the granting of the permit. The Property Owner shall
indemnify the City for all costs, damages or expenses, including but not limited to
attorney's fees which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims.
2005 Mining Permit
Stonex, LLC
4of5
Q The Property Owner shall 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
R Complete mining and reclamation is required in all phases before any additional
mining is authorized Modifications or expansion of the mining areas must be
approved in writing to the City Property Owner shall submit to the City semi-
annually a written report indicating the amount of material extracted from the site
for the prior six -month period
S The Property Owner shall incorporate best management practices for controlling
erosion and storm water runoff as specified by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency and the United States Environmental Protection Agency
T. The Property Owner must have a copy of the Dakota County Soil and Water
Conservation District mining application completed and on file with the City of
Rosemount Planning Department prior to the approval of the Mineral Extraction
Permit
U Reclamation shall include the replacement of the entire stockpile of topsoil to the
mined area, reseeding and mulching necessary to re- establish vegetative cover for
permanent slope stabilization and erosion control The minimum depth of topsoil
shall not be less than two inches after reclamation Topsoil for reclamation shall
conform to specifications on file with the City No restored slopes mad exceed a
gradient of 25% or four to 1 (4 1).
V The Property Owner must show how materials stockpiled for recycling will be
processed and inform the City of all stockpiled materials
W. The Property Owner may not assign this permit without written approval of the City.
The Property Owner will be responsible for all requirements of this permit and all
City ordinances on the licensed premises for the permit period unless the Property
Owner gives sixty (60) days prior written notice to the City of termination and
surrenders the permit to the City The Property Owner shall identify all Operators
prior to their commencement of mineral extraction related activities in the pit area
The City shall have the authority to cause all mineral extraction activities to cease at
any time there is an apparent breach of the terms of this Permit
X The Property Owner shall install and maintain a "stock" gate (or equivalent) at the
entrance to the property where the mining operation is located The gate must be
secured at 7 00 p in and at any time the pit is not in use
Y. There shall be no "haul- back" of materials from any other property or job site that
would be imported to the property for fill or other purposes other than incidental
concrete recycling as referred to in paragraphs O, V and W, and topsoil imported for
the purpose of re- establishing turf as accepted by the City
2005 Mining Permit
Stonex, LLC
5 of 5
Z Truck operators within the pit area shall not engage in practices involving slamming
tailgates, vibrating boxes, using of "Jake" or engine brakes (except in emergency
situations) or other such activities that result in excessive noise
AA The Property Owner shall comply with comments from the City Engineer
BB Off -site mining connected with the construction of Connemara Trail shall be with
separate project approval by the City Council The site reclamation plan with
proposed grades and future street alignments is subject to approval by the City
Engineer
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stonex, LLC, the Property Owner, hereby
consents and agrees to the foregoing conditions of said mining permit this day
of 2005.
STONEX, LLC
By:
Jonathan J Wilmshurst, Owner
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2005, by Jonathan J Wdmshurst, Stonex, LLC, the Property Owner, on
behalf of the partnership
Notary Public
XJ
r .rs C
,C1 i r' \f''`it! f�,,. ��t }SNr t��t� �-'l I `w��"••
,f 6 �l J'r 1t \u 1 i 1 t t 1
V �(�:e 0,.,� \C�y 9 5d `4 �y11 ��ia 1y)r ��t. 9 V A�� 'a
o ff r �j Ir 1 ����_"`ti r i li t r t �'V V 3 f �,r�� �_��I "�Y'��r fl, �,f
�L A' r v c' �v r U t �'l ,R• eft �a Ly t�
IV
r
I t� F� i l 1�.' �.,��/k it rff`"tS. -r t.. `r E iz< t A t \K„� f \l.r �sn•` I l�� ��f ,l
l •I i S a� gfit .9 k_� Ica 2. r z, J�1�` A4
-p t l Y,`.�i`_ /7 r l 1 '�9ak�=`�.;\ �]J pi .r'�• -ss `�,�slb��- �•��.1��--��•'`J. 1 Z -I: �31 r\ ,l"-
a
�'P s rti i f' tA_:. ,C`a, __cam__' C'^'
94t -.r v (�T �4 I 1 J 1 V O)` %1 BM
!i� E4$
Kite
�I r� Ate. A I4oTM� �W
kkkk
p .,.,.i 94B i, /r. °bTl l �i:� "�'q'�yV- �...a "`t,✓
.'•G�., r ssp_ .��6 r �J r_C r „^ti. �,!�(1, \i' "h l4 r t t:.4 1 �1 i lf�r
1 l ✓t e, f -',I 11.r�.�/'1 flr c'\.
�L -r i 't't f 1 ��h.,� .V I fv( @a1dgA`
/`'J.�� -IY- tJ j f y am ."S R- I yyor�+ s_ i i s” "-4..
IY f'^,.. ]1 Y I y J 1�>f> •a J yT /Mi iY ^4.�'-- if9p�S7.��._�?1 n��',�C�ti r�.- "1�� �'k� Cr I
9TR
C t �P'f�'. �L,ri t ��a' r_ ��I\ �1���, i t n�� J V et`'
'x C' id i \..w�l A ti� 1�1• vL� r �1 J l
t' h-x.� Ar`� r i 1 ;1 L.- y 5,
waw.:r? pt,
16
x �1, 1 r 'T ...r, l 9 \y�(�1��t \V ,l �,<7 1�� ✓1
s I a 1� �'uSv o red by
�,,G t S -ice �i uc d waaIN�
1,) PraPamd for atonex. rpcuruent, or rePa ,�aareed
499 r 1 A that fits P that l am a duly I
11 1, d, ereOY �d Y dVOA¢ayervlabna d o MMnasoa
Ai I _�,r' ?fi 1"'"f,•"e'foWrtr� I ;f {y t nder mY Yvers of the Ae
ufd9r ute
v+ t proffisa,00el Gaolo9
A� Q�
5 HIC M Qaa GAOher 23.2004
USGao'T91ce1unaY V ii TOp OGRA d0 Lonr
hie maP Imm eat of Nalwal Rawurces i7 1 yo 3pp8
,adMIaP 6m,0 paydra��
end MI V, QeV^a C pfopeftY
Invar Grova Neigh \s and -Kates 7 LL
St of Ro semount. Dakota County, MN
000 2,000
4 00o peat city o1 Rosemount,
0
Schematic Processing
Plant and StockPlfe Setup
seining Fine
on
Pds Sand
0 200 Feet
�,euew�5 %a
aWueena 805i r 550
5% 318"
95%
Coarse
5%
G'mm' O 3t4" Sand
wla
aa%
e
P sc
Phaae 1
e
��4
Phase 14 Phase 11
Phase 8
e 2005
1
l -Phase 15
2012 e ProcesS t
1
2018 2015
I
and Stockpiles
201-P
2
Phase 4
Phase 12 Phase 9
Phase 6 Phase
i
2013
2010 2006
2008
2016
Phase 10 Phase 7 Phase 3
Phase 13
2014 2011 21
2017
3p-faat property line setback
parcels iron GaYcW "nty OPERATIONS PLAN
Stonex, LLC Property
0 200 sag goo Feet City of Rosemount, Dakota County, MN
t i l i t i
phase 5
2009
Prepared la Stona U LLC
I hereby cenity that Ihis plan dcevmeat er report was pfepared by
me or under my tr.d saPWI -KM e Npa Ism adWy Licensed
pmfesawnal Geol"gst under the laws M the -We ai M"es.0
t
30 Lehr D pPbber 231004
Reg N 30083
11Tth5tE
'I 1�' I ,fir,•.. t Sys 1�;. y "�N� ar
YY °ri" ,P t Rail rr?
��+%+L�.htr�a =.i I, a I ;tip "�t a. 7org y
r Vm'uaa4:e P
an r
P
39i
1 �IrYkI
County Hwy 42 I
Roads tram Minnesota Department of Transportation Prepared fer Stanex LLC
parcels ham Dakota County I hereby ceNfy that this plan document, at report was prepared by
HAUL ROUTE =S me or under my direct supeneon add that l am a duly Licensed
Pumossronal Geomt at antler the taws of the state of Mmnemta
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet Stonex, LLC Property A—
I I I I I t I I
City of Rosemount, Dakota County, MN J Lahr Date October za zo9a
R No 30093
, ,. . . . � . . i . . . � � . . .
. . ` �_ . ' ` . . � � . . .. . . .. � .. .
• _ I �' ' L--11 Tth St E �'''� 't
_' �A ��.���+�,�+ ��� � �` _..1 , �' - - �
...�___. _.� "a ,:r ,��� ��.` 1 ♦ . � '� 52
.k+:sc, a�`r�a ''�?,r I r �J ��'� � 55
� � z �
p ,. . ..
�.. S �' ,�
� �_ � . . , .�i . � � . � . .
, .�-
..�. %h �fd�['"SS . . ..�'���• - �..•
J 5 .
���/��I�.a�.0 *� �.y F �
_{.. ` y� ,� �� i � t, � � '�P�' . �
�-f ;--_ �- �`� � =�.rk ,°�a;.
.
�` y %�`� � '� � --- ' T�„ �,
� � ..
_7,� � r,. � '.° 5"' .
r i �t..
�- / x :�' < --��--�-�--��::
—.�.�._f.� aw ��°��� y � . . } 'a � .���.;� t � � .
5, z
�' � � � 10. ' �
�r r-;
� ��� ���' y,� G� �. . . .. _ .
�c
�� }��F(�. � E . �'�� ' � � '
1 � 7 � .
� � °Wia ` .. : � . . �
�..�, 6 ��..,
. � 4 ` ���}� �4d " 1 '� 5' k�'� t'���{'��•�" � • . . . �
C �3� '� � K� .. . r_ .
� di. !
� � � �Tt � .Y� �i � ��� _'7
�3�+�r� t} �� , 2, °��� � ,�` # ��\\\�': 55
......_,... _._.__.._._ ��'�, �''�� �:� ��'{��,� y,� �x _ 4� +�s��1-i� � � � �\���� `�
.. a t�.t R� �; ��� : � \ r�. / � � .
f 7 . �� ��fi�,'" � il�� r .x ,Y , . . . . . .
� 7a�,.k a �S",r���5 s�' Li�'� t'� �i�� +-�aa s" - y � � �__.___�
. �, �. � w.s� �� � �,fT�+`k � r�3 �`rF �`� ¢ ��X� �; ' . . ,\ � � t\ . . . .
v YR ��'�`�U��` �r���r' N}`���''�t��, z�s�.���:�� �f : r f , 52 '" �
. A ��A ih���� 'P�..Y.y o�F�o� y�t ��f�%"�1a�4"'��� n jd',�,�z ..:r o Mk t f :, t . . �4y ' ���� � �.,. .\�� . .
" v i i�Ft '��t��4aF�'��a"s� 1���'G�' ��.��5� � :�r ss .n y , �.� ..� a. i �' �1 . . . �
.j�
. � ��*F"�nf�r y.,a,`e�a���t{���§+iEg EG f,,x�a �,� ��F;�a� �;,�r � s�{4 . ._._ � . — _ _"' . , .
p Af�
C) ",a�i�;�r-1 1'��.::. t'�'y,,J..�{ ',ir{�''i �Z,s�e4�^�-�}t,3,ftr�.�;��- i � a�aN�,y �� . ..
§1�'7" `x : # f'u!y4� �� ���A sh���'li tx � � � . � � � . .
� �6i�'ws.w4 "�j,�C.��'�� � .��F r€.X�?''�" ��.+°"9� ..���}�'�c��'�rh��c �� � ��� f � .T.� � . .
_::-._ � �,,,,� �� f i"i� ,. �S�. a,��, ,;,��''�`��Y'k..�.'�aQy� ��C�38��'���� °Q1. + �.; � ,
, : , ' .'.
.
. _.._...
'�
, � �," 4 � , k�',/ "
`i�, / � —� _
-'!-'i � �9q���1}� �� _ � r � [ /� . `�� .
���y� � -.� ��y'�t �vY ' ;�/�./ � � . .. .
/: ' _.h�%���� I.� ,�'� 1 . /`f \�� . .
�rjj� � . 4 £ � � i� . � . . . . .. .
. � � � � �.�:�z . g � . � �� . .
!" Y .
. . . �,� 4 .�e.�� �'k 1 �... �,d�.. E' fl' �'_" Fwk,c,�1'��}} � . . .
:� �� y . �. I ' :
__. _
� ' I � ��Q�q� � � � � � .
f
n
� �
. ,
.
_.______"_"_"'_ �'E'I 5t I '� Y . �, , ' ��
.� _.��.'_— �'+� 1 k �
�y� � � � `
� . 1 � AEh�'. R �y __ — . � . __`" . � '. . .
Cr����-�� ,. 5 � y i ,�`" v ,
— � �.�'��S..J..' �� ;, . . � v c�
it�. @ � _._ _ . A, �
��-- �� � � , _ \ � r r .�
'�,
--� � � .
_J -- ��, �,.� ��� � � �
—_..___ .___..___. _�.---�------ 1Ct�_ .t-- .t � � ,�
- --- - ----�---1----- �a-_ � _�_� � .� �'.
County Hwy 42 " -- - - r - —.._._� _ � �
J �
:�::
Roads from Minnesota Department of Transportation Prepared for Stonex,LLC
Parcels from Dakota County I hereby certity thet this plan,ducument,or report was prepa�ed by
1�1/�+�u� RO�T L�S me or under my dired supervision and tAat I am a tluly Licensed �
Professio�sl Geologist under the laws of the slate of Minneaota.
Stonex, LLC Property ��
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet �'
� i � i � � � � � City of Rosemount, Dakota County, MN �.o.�enr oa,e:o�ober za,zooa
Reg.No.30063
eta P R
69p Cunrr Er4.nce k EnW. r5. Pnee y d .A
uWn EM.r9ep NCNUeallnpuMel S'ie p
d
uEgS gg
FU ORE
PrWC.M CMYM y
O nas.mwnn.e E b v a y g
/NDU: TRIAL
m� 51 E
Mrn q.nuawwr e... J
a...m mm.na+orrnmee�x
melriN
F 7U E L GIF w LD
i a d
"r Pop�aa F.wuncu Z O
O S ICI_ W a a
J
FvLWOTnu PU.m.d
r j
B IN S SITU° w m
U cq
tl
FrMEnlnmv LMbCwxwm.n FmY EMrw..IW roCOrvvmen
FUTUflEGONNEMIM
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2004 -112
A RESOLUTION ISSUING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED
WHEREAS, the preparation of the Stonex Sand and Gravel Mine EAW and comments received on the
EAW have generated information adequate to determine whether the proposed mine site has the
potential for significant environmental impacts, and
WHEREAS, the EAW has identified areas where the potential for significant environmental effects
exist, but appropriate measures have or will be incorporated into the project plan and/or permits to
reasonably mitigate these impacts, and
WHEREAS, the Stonex Sand and Gravel Mine is expected to comply with all the City of Rosemount
and review agency standards, and
WHEREA9,based on the cntena established in MrnnesotaR 4410 1700, the protect does not-have the
potential for significant environmental effects, and
WHEREAS, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not have the potential for
significant environmental impacts
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Rosemount has determined that an
Environmental Impact Statement is not required
ADOPTED this 21st day of September, 2004
William H Droste, Mayor
ATTEST
4&
Linda 7entink, Cit Jerk
Motionby Riley Second by Strayton
VotedlnFavor Shoe Corrigan Droste Riley, Strayton, DeBettignies
Voted Against Non
,A,
YY S B
&Associares Inc
Memorandum
To: Eric Kilberg, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Wayne Barstad, Department of Natural Resources
Juanita Voigt, Mn/DOT- Waters Edge
Lynn Moratzka, Dakota County
Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council
From: Andi Moffatt, WSB Associates, Inc.
Copy: Rick Pearson, City of Rosemount
Andy Brotzler, City of Rosemount
Kim Lindquist, City of Rosemount
Dave Hutton, WSB Associates, Inc.
Jonathan Wdmshurst
N
v
Date: September 22, 2004
.4 Re: Responses to Comments
Stoner Gravel Mine EAW
WSB Project No. 1191 -24
The public comment period for the Stonex Sand and Gravel Mine Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW ended September 1, 2004 Comments were received from
the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Mmnesota Department of Natural Resources,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Dakota County, and the Metropolitan Council.
Follow up with the Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District and the State Historic
Preservation Office was conducted since comments were not received from these a gencies.
g
The SWCD indicated they reviewed the EAW, but did not have any comments The SHPO
indicated that due to budget cuts they are no longer able to review most EAW's.
Outlined below, please find the comments from each agency followed by responses to these
comments The comment letters are also attached for your information
Comments from MPCA
t i tv Sq
Comment #1: The MPCA has received copies of the EAW prepared for the above prcjecY
prepared by the City of Rosemount, Responsible Government Unit (RGU) The MPCA has
not reviewed the EAW for this project Therefore, the MPCA has no specific comments to
provide the RGU. This decision not to review the EAW does not constitute waiver by the
4156' MPCA of any pending permits required by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of
Memorial Highway the project proposer to secure any required permits and to comply with any requisite permit
Suite 300- conditions The enclosed checklist identifies permits that the project may require, together
Mmneapolls4
with the most recent contacts at the AZPCA
Mmneiota°
�Y�_-
-.a'
763 541'480 0
763 541 -1700 FAX Minneapolis St Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer
September 22, 2004
Page 2 of 5
Response: The permits listed in the MPCA letter are indicated in Item 8 of the
EAW. The project proposer will be required to obtain all necessary permits
Comments from DAIR
Comment 41: The EAW acknowledges the needs for a DNR Water Appropriation permit
for washing The estimate of 4 -5 million gallons appears to be slightly on the low side As
part of the permit application, the DNR will require an analysis to predict the impacts of
pumping on neighboring domestic wells Considering the project's location, pumping is
unlikely to affect contaminant plumes emanating from the Flint Hills Refinery The DNR
will require the project proposer to venfy this as well
Response: The project proposer will work with the DNR to provide the necessary
information and obtain the required permits
Comments from Mn1DOT-
Comment 41: Mn/DOT has reviewed the above referenced EAW and has no comments, as
the proposed project should have little to no impact on Mn/DOT's highway system.
As a reminder, please address all future correspondence for development activity such as
plats and site plans to Development Reviews Coordinator
MYLOOT Metro Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B -2
Roseville, MN 55113
Response: No response is necessary.
Comments from Dakota County
Comment #1: Item 13- Water Use The Kraft Farm well was constructed in 1980, but the
farm was in existence before 1945 County staff believe there is at least one more well on
this property that needs to be properly sealed A state licensed well contractor will need to
apply to Dakota County for well sealing permits in order to seal all unused wells on the
property
Response: This information vnll be provided to the project proposer The project
proposer is responsible for obtaining all necessary permits and sealing wells in
conformance with state regulations and will make additional investigations to
determine whether in fact there are any unsealed wells on site, and will seal them
properly if any are located
Comment #2: Item 20- Solid and Hazardous Wastes Depending on the amount of solvent
or other hazardous wastes that my have been generated, a hazardous waste license from or
registration with Dakota County may be required After the volume and types of wastes are
F IWPFk A' 1191- 24ME1�40- agency- CR092204 doc
September 22, 2004
Page 3 of S
determined, the property owner should contact the Dakota County Environmental
Management Department of licensure requirements and assistance
Response: As indicated in the EAW, the only waste anticipated to be generated
from the facility is a solvent based parts cleaner The project proposer will be
responsible for obtaining any permits or approvals and this information will be
provided to the project proposer
Comment 43: Item 21- Traffic. Cumulative impacts. The Stonex Sand and Gravel mine
consists of an 80 -acre parcel location 0 25 miles south of CR38 and 0.25 miles west of
CSAH 71 The proposal involves accessing CSAH 71 at the 138"' Street intersection The
Vesterra Sand and Gra ,el mine is a 75 -acre area located immediately south of CR38 and
0 25 miles west of CSAH 71 in Rosemount The proposed access is at a driveway along
CR38 to allow trucks to turn onto CR71 to access TH52 and CSAH 42 The two mining
proposals are directly adjacent to each other _The EAW for the Stonexmimng project is a_
separate study covering impacts to one specific business Both developments will each
generate 200 loads (400 trips) per day and 60 total trips in the peak hour The impacts to the
County road system from these two adjacent sites should be evaluated as one site
In addition, several locations in Empire are planned for sand and gravel mining, and an EIS
is being prepared The cumulative impact from mining in that part of Rosemount between
TH3 and US52 would be better understood m the three studies were coordinated
Response: Combining the peak hauling operations from the two mining sites in a
worst case scenario would double the number of trips to 60 in the peak hour (It
should be noted that while this worst case scenario is certainly possible, it is
somewhat improbable that the peak demand for each of the sites would consistently
coincide given the variability of the types of projects and the variability in the
demand for gravel that their mdivrdual schedules of operations would entail
Doubling the hauling activity would add a total of 120 turning movements to the
138"` Street access to the sites (assuming that both sites are served by that access).
This would increase the turning movements from 20% of the traffic at the
intersection to 34% in the AM peak hour
At the 117' street intersection, the increase in the added turning movements would
be from 6% with one of the sites to 11 with both sites (These numbers are
considerably smaller for the CSAH 42 intersection) Considering only one site adds
about one truck every ten minutes to each leg of the intersection Combining both
sites would bring one truck to each leg about every five minutes
It can be assumed that doubling the number of trucks could not double the average
delay for all of the vehicles at the intersections But, even if it did, it would only
reduce the level of service to Level B for three of the four intersections covered in
the study. The fourth CSAH 42 would be reduced to Level C (Note that Level D is
considered to be acceptable Again, it should be understood that with the low
F IWPRQR91191- 24LkfEMO- agency- CR092204 doe
September 22, 2004
Page 4 of 5
probability of the two sites peaking at the same time along with the fact that average
delays would not double with the doubling of the hauling trips is an indication that
anticipated levels of service would be impacted to a quite limited degree It should
also be noted that trips from the Vesterra site are already accounted for in the
background traffic that was counted in the Stonex study
In response to the comment regarding coordinating the gravel mining studies in the
Empire Township area, the City is not undertaking the EIS /AUAR in Empire and
therefore does not have control over that study The City would be willing to pro) ide
information about the Stonex and Vesterra site, but has no authority or responsibility
to complete that environmental review
Comment #4: County Road System CR 38 is a gravel road with a daily tnp volume of 97
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) CSAH 38 is a gravel road and is not constructed for
heavy loads of 20 tons per truck This section of roadway is a poor road that is one of the
first to fail in the spring Dakota County may need to permanently post this road a 5 ton
limit, if the road cannot handle heavier loads
Response: The County will need to evaluate the load bearing capacity of the road
The Stonex and Vesterra sites will also be able to use the access onto CSAH 71, thus
limiting the CR 38 access if needed Either CR 38 or 71 can be used for access The
project proposer will abide by load postings. This will be addressed through the
mining permit process to be issued by the City.
Comment #5: CSAH 71 is a two -lane undivided roadway with narrow shoulders with 1500
AADT (2002 data) The two TMmung proposals wroiuld collectively nicrease the current traffic
on CSAH 71 by 50% The increase in trips to and from these two gravel mines is primarily
from truck traffic, and is an overwhelmingly high percentage of truck traffic for this road.
Typically, truck traffic on County highways accounts for 3 -5% of all trips
CSAH 71 cannot handle a 50% increase in truck traffic (20% increase from today's traffic of
full loads from the Stonex property alone) without upgrades to both the ingress /egress
roadway (CSAH 38) and CSAH 71 itself CSAH 71 previously was posted to a 5 -ton axle
load limit all yearlong The 5 -ton restriction was recently lifted, because structural testing
showed an 8 -ton road limit capacity Currently. CSAH 71 is at a 9 -ton posting except for
spring restrictions. This roadway has shown increased structural distress over the past 3 ear,
since the load limit restriction was lifted If the roadway structure continues to show
distress, CSAH 71 will need to have a permanent load restriction posting to avoid further
distress CSAH 71 may need to be strengthened to allow higher axle loading The trucks
coming onto CSAH 71 and traveling with heavy loads will have a significant impact on the
County road system.
Response: See response to Comment 94
F XPWIMI191- 241hfEMO- agency- CR092204 doc
September 22, 2004
Page 5 of 5
Comment #6: The study notes "The addition of truck traffic on local county roads will be
reviewed by the County Engineer The applicant will cooperate with any mitigation
measures brought forward by the County Engineer" Modifications to CSAH 71 at the
Stonex driveway to address turning and /or by -pass traffic need to be implemented to provide
the best ingress, /egress for the business and muumize impacts to through highway users as
mush as possible. If the roads can be made to handle the loads, the turn lanes will be needed
before truck trips from the muung sites begin. The needs for right turn lanes on CR38 at
CSAH 71, CSAH 71 at 117` Street, and CSAH 71 at CSAH 42 should be monitored as
hauling operations begin
Considerable work may be necessary on both CSAH 38 and CSAH 71 before additional
truck traffic can be accommodated However, these roadways are not identified in the
County's 5 -year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) The Vesterra mine and Stonex nune
owners should contribute towards the cost of structural improvements to both roadways, if
they want to ensure the ability to haul 9 -ton axle loads (except during the spring road
restrictions). If the aggregate operations contribute significantly to the need for right turn
lanes. Vesterra and Stones also should be responsible for contributing towards the cost of
constructing the turn lanes.
Response: The need for turn lanes is not born out by the anticipated levels of service
at the key intersections Although turn lanes could be considered as a safety measure,
since the three northerly intersections are all "Ts," intersection safety may not be an
issue However, the County should monitor operation during peak periods to
determine if turn lanes are warranted as indicated in their comment Turn lanes
would ease an) annoyance that might be experienced by through -trip drivers
Comments from Metropolitan Council
Comment #1: The staff review finds the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to
regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. An
Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for regional purposes. Staff provides the
following comments for your consideration
Item #25 The City's long term plan for this site is indicated as agriculture with a caveat
that the area may develop as a park or recreation area The City is encouraged to work with
Stonex Inc on a reclamation plant that would encompass potential vaned topograplues for
parkland
Response: The City will work with Stonex to develop an end -use plan that meets
the needs of the surrounding land uses and the community and will take this
comment into consideration
This concludes our responses to comments on behalf of the City If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me at (763)287 -7196
F IWPA7N11191- 14MEMO- agenry-CR091204 doc