Laserfiche WebLink
Byron Wolf, Hurtig Road—questioned monitoring wells. <br /> Gary Peterson—negative environmental impact. <br /> Wesley Norwood, West Twin Lake—More tax base from a residential development. Tax <br /> base could go down. <br /> By a show of hands, a great deal of the audience have shallow wells. <br /> Public comments closed. <br /> The Planning Commission stated that the restored land could be used for a City Park or a <br /> ball field. The neighbors against the extractive use would also be against a 200 home <br /> development. A major transportation project is going through,possibly shorten work <br /> hours? Noise is a problem. <br /> Mr. Curtis stated that the Swenson pit will be mined out during the next 15 years. He <br /> also stated that there is more aggregate to the north of the proposed project within the 174 <br /> acres. He also stated that with the wash plant,well,pond and recycle pond, the well will <br /> pump 2 million gallons of water per year, equivalent to 10 to 12 homes. <br /> When asked about turn lanes, Mr. Curtis stated they would meet safety standards of <br /> MnDOT. Safety is an issue with Olson Road. <br /> Spillage is also a major concern. Anderson Brothers does have an Emergency Response <br /> Plan. They will apply for their NPDES permit after approval. They also plan to <br /> commence with the EAW after approval. The EAW would guide the conditions of CUP <br /> if they completed it prior to approval. <br /> Some negative impacts to consider: Least Darter,watershed, groundwater,negative <br /> impacts to health, safety and welfare, and Phase 3 wash pond drains to wetland. <br /> A motion was made by Dean Williams, seconded by John Derksen,to deny the <br /> Conditional Use Permit for an Extractive Use. <br /> Ms. Barajas recommended tabling to work with Staff to develop findings of fact. Mr. <br /> Marohn recommended the motion be withdrawn until the City Attorney can develop <br /> findings of fact. <br /> Mr. Williams added the following Findings of Fact, seconded by Mr. Derksen,to support <br /> the motion to deny: <br /> 1. The use or development does not conform to the comprehensive land use plan. <br /> 2. The use is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. <br /> 3. The use with conditions would be injurious to the public health, safety,welfare, <br /> decency, order,comfort,convenience, appearance or prosperity of the City. <br /> Planning Commission 5 <br /> November 17, 2005 <br />