[0:00] [Music] [0:10] [Music] [Music] [0:56] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: I call to order the Rosemount Planning Commission meeting for Monday, December 18. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Are there any additions to tonight's agenda? [1:33] **Erin Fasbender (City Clerk)**: There are no additions, Madam Chair. [1:35] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Thank you. If there's any input from the audience on items that are not on the agenda, they may come to the podium at this time, stating your name and address for the record. Seeing that, I will close the audience input section. Next on our agenda this evening is the consent agenda, which is the minutes from the November 28th, 2023, regular meeting and the resignation of Commissioner Powell. Are there any comments or questions on the consent agenda? [1:57] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: I will move to approve the consent agenda. [2:12] **Michael Reed (Commissioner)**: Second. [2:14] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: It has been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed? Motion carries. We have no old business this evening, so we will move on to our public hearing section. We have a busy public hearing section this evening. The first up is a renewal of the Vesta LLC and Stonex LLC small-scale mineral extraction permit for 2024, and I will turn it over to Anthony. [2:25] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner)**: Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me just get this pulled up quick. Okay, so this is for the renewal of the small-scale mineral extraction permit for Vesta and Stonex. This site is located on the south side of Bonaire Path, about a quarter mile west of Blaine Avenue. You can see here, for some perspective, County Road 42 is to the south, Akron Avenue would be west of this site, and then further east is Highway 52. So it's in this area of land here, which is owned by Flint Hills Resources—Flint Hills Resources to which the applicant has a lease. There are three operators at the site: Bolander, Solberg, and Frattalone. [3:18] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner)**: This past year, in 2023, there was just under 25,000 cubic yards of minerals removed from the site. 20,000 of that came from Bolander, under 5,000 was taken out by Solberg, and Frattalone had none removed from its section of the site. This is a significant reduction from the 120,000 to 140,000 cubic yards that were removed in 2022. So you can see the site layout here with the 2024 mine plan. The three operators: Solberg operating in the northwest corner of the site, Bolander just south of that, and then Frattalone has a standalone southern portion of the site here. A total of nine acres have been reclaimed or shown in the yellow hatched areas, and then I will have some aerials to show a little clearer what is going on on the site. [4:03] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner)**: So in September of 2022, this was the existing conditions. You can see the mine pit wall on the west, with the area here that was scraped in anticipation of mining. Trucks enter the site from Bonaire Path, and just a few years ago the haul route was updated, so they exit the site from a driveway to the east to Blaine Avenue. So you can see this northern portion where Solberg is mining, Bolander is in the central portion, and Frattalone was doing some work here down in the south. The grassy areas within here are the reclaimed portions that have been reclaimed with topsoil and seeded. [5:02] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner)**: This was September of 2022. You can see the main difference being some additional mineral extraction occurring in the southwest corner for the most part, a little bit occurring to the north. So 2022, 2023... as part of the annual review, staff does visit all of the mineral extraction operations and take some photographs. Here you can see coming into the mine area. Just before you in the foreground is some reclaimed land with the mine wall in the distance with some stockpiling there. Here is another view of the site just showing some truck activity in there, and then lastly as you're heading kind of through the site to the southeast. So with that, staff is recommending a motion to recommend approval of the mineral extraction permit for 2024, subject to the conditions contained in the attached permit. Staff is happy to answer any questions. The applicant is present to answer any questions staff is not able to. [6:20] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Thank you, Anthony. Are there any comments or questions for staff at this time? Seeing none, we will open up the public hearing for this item. If there's anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this item, they may do so at this time, coming to the podium, stating your name and address for the record. Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. [6:52] **Michael Reed (Commissioner)**: Second. [6:54] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: It has been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed, to close the public hearing. All those in favor please say aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed? Public hearing is now closed. Any last follow-up comments before we move into a motion for this renewal? [7:13] **Michael Reed (Commissioner)**: Just this comment: just because it's going by really quickly here, they've been in front of us a number of times over several years and continue to be a good partner for the city. No real changes to the operation and no issues coming up, so I'm in favor of this one. [7:31] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Thank you. Any other comments? Okay, seeing none, do you want to make a motion, sir? [7:34] **Michael Reed (Commissioner)**: Motion to recommend City Council approve renewal of the Vesta LLC and Stonex LLC small-scale mineral extraction permit for 2024, subject to the terms and conditions in the attached 2024 conditions for mineral extraction. [7:53] **Commissioner Habar**: Second. [7:55] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: It's been moved by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Habar. All those in favor please say aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed? Motion carries. The next item on our public hearing section this evening is a renewal of the Schaefer Contracting Company, Inc. small-scale mineral extraction permit for 2024. Anthony, I will turn it back over to you. [8:05] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner)**: Okay, so this mineral extraction operation is located in the more northern portion of the site. It is a quarter mile west of Rich Valley Boulevard and about a mile north of Blaine Avenue. For reference, down here is where the previous mining operation is located; Akron Avenue is kind of on the west side of it, and then 52 is further east. This is a piece of property that is kind of encircled by land owned by Flint Hills Resources. In 2023, the applicant reported 1,698 cubic yards of material removed from the site; that is a reduction from the 53,000 that was removed last year. The applicant also reported 15,000 cubic yards of haul-back material brought in; that is less than the 32,000 that was brought in last year, so just a reduction in activity overall. The applicant did submit their annual testing to ensure that the haul-back meets the 95% compaction as required by their permit. [9:06] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner)**: The current operations you can see here: the blue is where the active mining is occurring, it's on the western portion of the site generally, mostly all in Phase 5 with a little bit in Phase 4, and I'll show you in the aerials coming up here. Haul-back is brought into a central portion of the site; there's some existing stockpiles located within there and then areas where the land has been reclaimed. Going forward, the applicant is anticipating basically a similar year ahead to the one that just passed, with mineral extraction again occurring in that northwestern portion of the site for the most part. [9:51] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner)**: Here was the 2022 [aerial]. You can see the green areas here being the reclaimed portion of the site, those stockpiles I mentioned, and then most of the active mining. Haul-back is being placed in this central portion of the site. So from '22 to '23, you can see there hasn't been a whole lot of change. I'm just going to go back and forth once more. You see some activity up here, some of that haul-back brought in here, and then those reclaimed areas to the north. These are some pictures staff took while we were out there. On the right-hand side of this photo is where that haul-back is being located; the active mining is off in the distance there and then to the right is some of that reclaimed land. This is another view from closer to the entrance of the site—the reclaimed portion on the right-hand side, there's just a little bit of that mine stockpile shown there, and then on the left as well. And then just another visual showing that haul-back area and then some of that reclaimed land that is along the northern portion of the site there. [11:08] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner)**: I didn't mention this with the last report, but staff did ask the Police Department for any reports of complaints received in 2023. None were received by the Police Department for the prior mineral extraction operation, nor the Schaefer one before you right now. So, staff is again recommending approval of their renewal of their permit for 2024, subject to the conditions in their mineral extraction permit. Staff is happy to take any questions, otherwise, the applicant is here who can speak on that as well. [11:58] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Thank you, Anthony. Are there any comments or questions on this mineral extraction permit? Yes, Commissioner Whitman. [12:02] **Commissioner Whitman**: Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Anthony, can you just explain what the compaction requirement is? What... just kind of, pretend I'm an eighth grader learning about compaction thresholds—what does that mean? [12:15] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner)**: Yeah, it basically means it needs to be tamped down so that it can be used in the future and not be unstable. So they do their testing to make sure that it's been compacted so that it's not just kind of loose dirt, so that theoretically it could be redeveloped or built on or something in the future. But that's really the point there rather than just kind of dumping it on the site. [12:39] **Commissioner Whitman**: And so 95% would mean like, the material is brought in, it's at a 100, and then you could compact it... but you could only compact it down to like 95% of what it was? [12:50] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner)**: It's to ensure that it gets compacted up to at least 95%. [12:54] **Commissioner Whitman**: Okay. Where 100 would be like 100% compacted? [12:57] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner)**: 100% compacted. I don't think I'm ready to speak to the specifics on the compaction testing. Certainly, the testing was provided with the attachments. [13:06] **Commissioner Whitman**: Got it. No, I understand it's met the requirement. I'm more just trying to visualize and figure out what does that look like, what does that mean? But that's fine. [13:17] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Any other comments or questions? Okay, at this time we will open up the public hearing for this item. Anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this item may do so at this time, coming to the podium, stating your name and address for the record. Seeing none, I will make a motion to close the public hearing. [13:45] **Michael Reed (Commissioner)**: Second. [13:46] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for the Schaefer renewal. All those in favor please say aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed? Motion carries. The public hearing is now closed. Any other final comments before we move forward? Who was that seconded by? Oh, I'm sorry, it was seconded by Commissioner Reed. Thank you. [14:14] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Alicia—similar to the previous one, I will just kind of echo Commissioner Reed's comments. They have been mining with us for five, six years now... and this is consistent with previous years. Actually, longer than that. I think that we had no activity in the last five years; it's been longer, I think like 20 years that we've been having them. So with that, I will make a motion to recommend City Council renew the Schaefer Contracting Company small-scale mineral extraction permit for 2024, subject to the terms and conditions and the attached draft 2024 conditions for mineral extraction. [14:55] **Commissioner Taggar**: Second. [14:57] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: It has been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Taggar. All those in favor please say aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed? Motion carries. And this item, as well as the previous item and all items on tonight's agenda, will move forward to City Council on January 16th, 2024. The next item on our agenda this evening is a renewal of the Dakota Aggregates large-scale mineral extraction permit for 2024. Anthony, back to you. [15:13] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner)**: Thank you, Madam Chair. As you said, this is the request by Dakota Aggregates for renewal of their large-scale mineral extraction permit. They are currently operating on land leased from the University of Minnesota within its UMore Park boundaries. It's located in the western portion of UMore Park, bounded to the north by County Road 42, Biscayne Avenue on the west, and County Road 46 to the south. It contains the actual mineral extraction area. The lease contains some ancillary uses: a wall plant, formerly known as Harddrive; there is an asphalt factory in the southeast corner of the site. Those are all renewed separately from the actual mineral extraction permit for the site. [16:01] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner)**: The site itself is broken up into two portions of mining. The northern portion, which will eventually be bisected by the extension of Boulder Trail when that gets constructed, is leased through 2028, and the applicant is running generally ahead of schedule and hoping to get as far away from the development occurring there as possible, as quickly as possible. The southern mine area is a combination of dry and wet mining. The wet mining being... Dakota Aggregates operates a dredge barge that kind of floats out there in that man-made area and scoops up materials from the bottom and moves those into their stockpile for selling offsite. 87 acres of the site have now been turned back over to the university; they've been reclaimed with topsoil and turned back over to the university, which is using it generally for agricultural purposes there. [17:15] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner)**: Before you, you can see the totals of aggregate removed and stockpiles on site. The biggest thing to note is that the stockpiles are down and materials removed and sold are up from the previous year. You can see, just based on the volume, they're significantly higher than the other small-scale mineral extraction operations here in the city. The applicant has divided up the mining on the site into several different phases. The northern portion has 10 or 11 phases, each one broken up into sub-phases within it. The southern portion, with that kind of speckled color there, are the phases of the south mining area; they're a combination of dry and wet mining in there. [18:05] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner)**: The applicant had started with one and two and then moved down into this three and four area. They're moving to the east here and then will eventually start into 11 in order to just get this area done as quickly as possible since it is closest to Amber Fields development that's occurring there. But at this time, the applicant is not anticipating going into 11 in 2024. A side-by-side showing fall of 2022 on the left and fall of 2023 on the right—you can see this darker dirt area is basically what has been reclaimed this year and turned back over to the university. You can also see that the actual mine pit is moving to the east along this boundary which is shown here. There's a sand stockpile that is slowly getting decreased in size and shipped to the south here, and then this land here has been stripped and the applicant is anticipating finishing up mining here and then moving to the east to take care of that as well in the 2024 year. [19:38] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner)**: So, the mine plan provided by the applicant... I don't know if you can really see it super clear, maybe it's just my angle, but most of the mining will be occurring in Phase 4 and then moving to the east into sub-phase 3A and sub-phase 3B. Those areas are those that were stripped shown in that previous aerial. Sub-phase 2D is still an open area, but the active mining will be kind of moving to the east here. In the south portion of the site, you can see that the lake that's being created is slowly moving westward, which is in line with the plans provided by the applicant over the past couple years as far as how things will progress. There's also some dry mining occurring in this northern portion in Phase 10. You can see this wall of the pit kind of remains somewhat the same, but the biggest change being the westward movement of that lake. The dredge itself just floats out there and is connected to the conveyor and swings kind of east and west as needed. [20:56] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner)**: So again, this is the plan for 2024 that the applicant has provided. You can see the active mining occurring in this open water area up here and, as I said, the applicant is also mining sub-phase 10 up here in the north as well. Staff did reach out to the Police Department about any calls or complaints in this area. Four calls were received in May and June of 2023, all from kind of the County Road 42 and Biscayne Avenue area. Two of them, the police officers didn't provide any notes. The other two calls, a police officer said that they didn't really hear a lot of noise—certainly, it wasn't louder than traffic on 42, although at that time of night there wasn't a ton of traffic. But it's basically consistent to what we've been hearing in the past, and staff does encourage residents that do have concerns or complaints about the noise to call 911, which is also a non-emergency number here in Rosemount, so that we can at least have record of these calls to identify any issues as they arise. So, that being said, it's a pretty consistent request by the applicant and going forward it continues to move in the same direction that staff has anticipated it to go, and therefore is recommending approval of their renewal for 2024. [22:23] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Thank you, Anthony. I just wanted to clarify on your comment about having the residents call 911. It's not only to have it on record, but if there was a noise issue... I know we've worked with Dakota Aggregates in the past and they've been great partners at trying to figure out what's going on or how to reduce it if something was happening. Certainly, they want to know as well, so it does get reported back to them as well if there's a complaint. I just wanted to make sure that was... it is something that could be addressed by them if there is something that can be done. [22:58] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner)**: Yeah. [23:01] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Any other comments or questions from the Commission? [23:04] **Michael Reed (Commissioner)**: Yeah, just... it may be for the applicant, Anthony, but I think the same thing came up last year at this time. It's great to see the movement south and the noise issues have been reduced, and they've been a great partner. There's still, as you pointed out, some activity in Zone 3—some pile of sand or something that they're drawing from—and then they'll be moving into Phase 11. Do you know timing-wise and distance-wise how we see that interplaying with Amber Fields? [23:41] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner)**: So, I would defer to the applicant on how long or how quickly they see things progressing going forward. Obviously, it all depends on the type of jobs that are coming through and things like that. But certainly, the developer of Amber Fields and people moving into Amber Fields—it's an active mine, so there isn't a whole lot of resolutions to be had there except for getting the mining done as quickly as possible. But I would defer to the applicant on that one. [24:16] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Okay. Any other comments or questions from the Commission? Okay, seeing none, we will open up the public hearing at this time. Anyone wishing to speak may do so, coming to the podium, stating your name and address for the record. And we will invite if the applicant wants to come forward and address Commissioner Reed's question, that would be great as well. [24:51] **Ruth Simon**: My name is Ruth Simon. I live on Bloomfield Path. I have one question about noise. [25:04] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Ruth, I just need your address for the record. [25:06] **Ruth Simon**: 14642 Bloomfield Path. [25:09] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Thank you. [25:10] **Ruth Simon**: I have a question about noise, not from vehicles, but from machinery running all night. Are there any restrictions on that? [25:18] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Okay. So, what I've done is I've noted your question down, and then at the end of the public hearing, we will have staff and the applicant address all questions. Thank you. [25:29] **Ruth Simon**: Thank you. [25:31] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Is there anyone else in the audience would like to speak at this time? Is there someone from the applicant that can address Commissioner Reed's questions? [25:46] **Matt Musgjerd (Dakota Aggregates)**: My name is Matt Musgjerd, 423 Ramsey Court, Carver. Operations Manager for Dakota Aggregates. I can address either one first. You're talking about the eastern side there or northeastern side of our north mine there along the new development. We have about six or seven phases there on the north mine we have to get out of by the end of 2028. Phase 11B is not included in that. We do need to get over [to] north mine in those time frames. We are on schedule to get over there by the end of 2028. [26:24] **Michael Reed (Commissioner)**: That'd be through like zone three or phase three? You'd be out of there by 2028? [26:29] **Matt Musgjerd (Dakota Aggregates)**: Yes. [26:30] **Michael Reed (Commissioner)**: But then Phase 11, what is the timing for that? [26:31] **Matt Musgjerd (Dakota Aggregates)**: Currently right now we do not have an actual time frame to be out of Phase 11. That is on our entire 40-year permit there. [26:42] **Michael Reed (Commissioner)**: Do you know the distance from the eastern border of Phase 11 to the homes built there in Amber Fields? [26:50] **Matt Musgjerd (Dakota Aggregates)**: Basically, our edge of Phase 11 there... you can see it kind of cuts off there. We'll basically have a berm and then we'll have an access road and then it will be our mine face. So you're looking at about 60 feet or something like that. 50 feet. [27:10] **Michael Reed (Commissioner)**: Is there a 30-foot berm requirement in other areas? Is that the same requirement here? [27:16] **Matt Musgjerd (Dakota Aggregates)**: No, that'll be for a "super berm"—those large berms that are really tall. This would just be a normal mine berm. We have been working with the U of M, and the U of M is working with the developer there on trying to get that fence put in since day one. It sounds like they're getting a little more ground and the developer is going to put a fence in. [27:39] **Michael Reed (Commissioner)**: But the fence is more of a security issue than the noise abatement, right? [27:44] **Matt Musgjerd (Dakota Aggregates)**: Yes, that is security and a separation to keep the public out of the mine. [27:48] **Michael Reed (Commissioner)**: Okay. [27:50] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: I was just going to say, so what Commissioner Reed is kind of getting at is the noise. With the current mine to the houses, we've got I think 1,000 feet distance and we've got the big berm and all that. These people obviously are buying these houses knowing that it's here, but that's not necessarily going to matter two or three years after they're in their house. So we're just trying to gauge how long that is going to be as that development develops. [28:18] **Matt Musgjerd (Dakota Aggregates)**: Yeah, I mean we'll definitely work our way towards Phase 11. We've kind of redirected on where we're mining a few times around housing and everything for the city, so we'll definitely redirect when we get to that time frame to try to mine that area first. But we do have to mine it in a sequence that makes sense and makes it basically feasible for us as a mine too. We can't just jump straight into that mine phase because we have a plant that's set up a little further away—we've got to basically mine our way to it. [28:47] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Okay. [28:48] **Matt Musgjerd (Dakota Aggregates)**: Also related to the noise... I mean, we do not do any crushing in our north mine. We don't even do any screening there. All it is is a loader hitting a face of a stockpile or basically a face of the mine and it's all conveyed up. So there's not haul trucks running back and forth; it's just a conveyor running transporting material. [29:07] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: And does that run 24 hours? [29:08] **Matt Musgjerd (Dakota Aggregates)**: We are permitted 24 hours a day, seven days a week up there, yes. [29:13] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Okay. And is that common to... I mean, are you typically running it 24 hours right now? [29:18] **Matt Musgjerd (Dakota Aggregates)**: Currently our north mine averages running at 12 hours a day. It's mostly during the daylight hours. Last year we did run a handful of nights though, so it is more on the day right now, but we are permitted to the 24/7 there. [29:32] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Okay. And so it would only be the conveyor noise really? [29:35] **Matt Musgjerd (Dakota Aggregates)**: Yeah. Even our loaders, we take off the backup beepers that make that beep sound. By law, we have to have some kind of noise on them, but it's what we call a "squawker." It is a very low sound, basically for safety for any workers around the area. So you really don't hear it like you hear at an industrial park with a beeper. [29:56] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Okay, thank you. And when you were running 24 hours, was it with projects? Like, it ebbs and flows with projects or with the mining? [30:04] **Matt Musgjerd (Dakota Aggregates)**: Up until about two years ago we were running 24 hours a day up at the north mine, about five days a week on average. With the floating dredge, we have been able to focus more down towards the dredge, but we do still run the north mine at least 12 hours a day. [30:19] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Okay, thank you. Is there any other comments from the public on this item? Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. [30:28] **Michael Reed (Commissioner)**: Second. [30:30] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: It has been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed? Public hearing is now closed. Thank you, Matt. [30:43] **Matt Musgjerd (Dakota Aggregates)**: Thank you. [30:45] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Are there any follow-up questions or comments for staff? [30:52] **Michael Reed (Commissioner)**: Yeah, so Anthony, help me understand. The way the permits work... okay, I'm just trying to think ahead. It seems like there could be a problem, a noise problem down the road, especially if they're 24 hours. They're not going to get to that eastern section until probably the time that Amber Fields is building in that area, right? So what do you foresee the city doing at that point? Would we change the hours of operation so it'd be in that section because it's close to the area? If there were a noise problem, we'd cut it down to daylight hours? Or how would we...? [31:27] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner)**: Yeah, so there's a few different options for mitigation. The northern mining operation that's currently occurring—as we said earlier, they stopped hauling, they changed their haul route, they limited when they could haul up there. As the applicant said, they've changed the noise that occurs for the backups and things like that. Placing the equipment below grade so that the noise doesn't travel as far... it's a matter of kind of implementing some mitigation steps for those if problems do arise. There is an opportunity to impose some requirements depending on the nature of the problem. There's a lot of operational mitigation steps. As a city we could say limit the hours somewhat if it's just not 24-hour noise. [32:17] **Michael Reed (Commissioner)**: Yeah. [32:20] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner)**: It's more of a... if problems arise, having a meaningful conversation with the applicant on what best ways to mitigate those problems. [32:32] **Michael Reed (Commissioner)**: Okay. Have we considered a "super berm"? I guess the term you used. I mean, it sounds like there's different types of berms. Might that be another option, maybe a higher berm if we needed it there? [32:44] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner)**: Yeah, I mean I think it would be a conversation to be had, making sure that it's meaningful and worthwhile. A big berm like that is not nothing; it's pretty significant, and not just for the applicant, but it does take up a lot of land too. But certainly, there are options. And I don't know if you were on the Commission when we did noise monitoring and things like that as well. From a staff standpoint, it seems like things are moving in the right direction. And if they continue operating in the way that they're conveying the material to the south rather than trying to haul it out, it would help limit a lot of the impacts. [33:30] **Michael Reed (Commissioner)**: Got it. Yeah, they've been a great partner with the noise situation and I expect the same thing here, and it sounds like we've got some options, so I'm comfortable. Thank you. [33:43] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner)**: The reality is they have a lease through 2040 for the southern portion of the site, so they're going to be there for a while. But just getting rid of that northern mine, I think that will go a long way towards that. They're a quick mover, and if there's some big projects, just getting the mining to occur in those areas that would be most potentially impactful on the development—getting that done and out of the way would probably go a lot further than any of the other mitigation steps that could be imposed there. [34:14] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Any other comments or questions for staff? [34:18] **Commissioner Whitman**: Thank you, Madam Chair. And just to clarify, Anthony—so at currently, there are no noise concerns that rise to a level of staff recommending any kind of imposition of further noise restrictions in the permit, right? [34:44] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner)**: Right. They're already doing some of the things that we had asked them to do—making sure their stuff is below grade, like I said, and changed the backup chime and things like that. So the level of complaints that are being received are not nothing, but compared to what they were, they are significantly reduced. [35:05] **Commissioner Whitman**: Okay. [35:07] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Any other comments or questions? [35:10] **Michael Reed (Commissioner)**: I'll make a motion to recommend that the City Council renew the Dakota Aggregates large-scale mineral extraction permit for 2024, subject to the terms and conditions in the attached 2024 draft conditions for mineral extraction permit. [35:34] **Commissioner Habar**: Second. [35:36] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: It's been moved by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Habar. All those in favor please say aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed? Motion carries. We will move on to the next public hearing item of this evening. This is the renewal of the Carl Bolander and Sons LLC small-scale mineral extraction permit for 2024, and I will turn it over to Alicia. [35:55] **Alicia [Staff]**: Okay, I am presenting the application for a small-scale mineral extraction permit renewal for Carl Bolander and Sons for 2024. Just a summary: the Planning Commission is asked to consider their renewal application for the year 2024. Just some updates business-wise for 2023: the company has been mining below restoration grade in parts of Phase 3 and 4; Phase 1 and 2 is completely done being mined and is fully restored. [36:43] **Alicia [Staff]**: In 2023, 13,000 cubic yards of material were removed from the site and 23,450 cubic yards were brought into the site. Both are a significant decrease compared to the year 2022. As I was talking to the applicant, it's kind of cyclical depending on projects, and in spring of 2023 they had their lowest backlog in over five years. However, in 2024 they anticipate utilizing 75,000 to 150,000 cubic yards of sand. [37:25] **Alicia [Staff]**: Here is their site location. They're directly south of County Road 42 and about one and a half miles east of Highway 52. Adjacently west to them is Danner and Steineger locations. Here are some aerial imagery of the site: September 2022 and August 2023. As you can see, there's not a lot that changed. You can see Phase 1 and 2 over here on the west are starting to grow more vegetation; the restoration impacts are starting to be more visible and they're slowly moving eastward. Here is a close-up. In mid-November we visited the mineral extraction sites, so here are some photos. This is more as you get into the site down here where you can see vegetation has been planted, things are starting to grow in the restored part. Here is the site, and then here is their phasing plan. Phase 1 and 2 again are fully restored; parts of Phase 3 are restored. The parts in the red hatching are where they plan to expand and continue mining. So as you can see, it goes again more eastward. The recommended action is a motion to recommend the City Council approve the Bolander and Sons mineral extraction permit for 2024, subject to the terms and conditions in the attached 2024 draft conditions. [39:07] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Thank you, Alicia. Are there any comments or questions from the Commission? [39:13] **Commissioner Whitman**: So, this has a nice exhibit here on the compaction testing, and I'm still thinking about how that works. But do you have an understanding of how that compaction and the percent works? [39:27] **Alicia [Staff]**: I did a little bit of research, but I'll mostly defer to the applicant. They have a Terracon representative too, listed in their compaction testing. The testing they use was like an ASTM D6938, and basically what it records is like water density and then compaction. So water levels, how dense the soil is, and how compact it is for construction, as well as research and development. [39:56] **Commissioner Whitman**: And so... tell me if I'm wrong, I'm just going to make a fool of myself by asking it... but so the soil is brought in and has a certain amount of moisture. Soil that's compacted down, the moisture comes out and it's a dry density, and that difference computes to the percentage of compaction somehow? [40:24] **Alicia [Staff]**: Yeah, I guess recalling from my college soils class—thank you soil science—the more dry soil is, the more it's prone to sedimentation and erosion traveling via like wind. And so the more wet it is, the more compact it'll be able to stay in place. Higher water content meaning potentially more organic matter. [40:53] **Commissioner Whitman**: Your college professor would be proud. [40:55] **Alicia [Staff]**: I'm impressed, thank you. I think the applicant might be able to explain a little bit too. [41:10] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Any other comments or questions for Alicia before we open the public hearing? Thank you. At this time we open up the public hearing for this item. Anyone in the audience who would like to speak may do so at this time, coming to the podium, stating your name and address for the record. And I would invite the applicant to come forward if he would like to speak on compaction. No? Okay, he's going to talk to you after, does that work? That's fine. [41:35] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Seeing that, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. [41:40] **Commissioner Habar**: Second. [41:42] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: It's been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Habar. All those in favor please say aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed? Public hearing is now closed. Any final comments or questions for this item before us? Seeing none, I will make a motion to recommend the City Council approve renewal of the Carl Bolander and Sons LLC small-scale mineral extraction permit for 2024, subject to the conditions in the attached 2024 conditions for mineral extraction. [42:15] **Commissioner Habar**: Second. [42:17] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Habar. All those in favor please say aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed? Motion carries. We have one more mineral extraction permit this evening. We have a renewal of the Max Steineger Inc. small-scale mineral extraction permit for 2024, and I will turn this over to Julia. [42:43] **Julia Hogan (Planner)**: All right. So this is another small-scale mineral extraction permit renewal for Max Steineger. So, a little bit of a summary of the request: the Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request to renew the small-scale mineral extraction for 2024. A little bit of a mining update: about 51,000 tons of material was extracted in 2023; that is up from 2022. Total to date, about 185,900 tons of material have been removed since the mine's opening. About 50,000 tons is projected to be removed in 2024 as well. And then the applicant does anticipate an additional 1.25 acres to be mined within Phase 1 of 2024 and also an additional one acre to be stripped in 2024 as well. [43:32] **Julia Hogan (Planner)**: A little bit of an aerial view right here: the total acreage of the site is 78 acres. It is located about a mile east of US Highway 52 and south of County Road 42. It is located directly west of that Danner-Bolander area, as you can see in this aerial as well. And then here's a couple aerials from May 2022 to April 2023. You can see in this May 2022 one, they are continuing south in that Phase 1, which is where they've been mining for the last couple of years. And then you can see in April 2023 they are continuing south in that Phase 1 as well. [44:17] **Julia Hogan (Planner)**: Here are the current conditions shown. You can see on site that they do have that berm in place that was completed in 2020. And then also they're going to be continuing south into Phase 1. Phase 1 does consist of about 15 acres, and they are planning to continue south on that area as well. Then here's also the mining plan—kind of like what I said and as you saw in the aerial, they are continuing south in that Phase 1. They do approximately about 3.9 acres within that northern portion they are mining in as well in that area. [44:53] **Julia Hogan (Planner)**: And then like stated earlier, staff did go out to all the mine sites to look over the course of the year what has changed. Looking at this one, the left photo you're looking west onto the site. This top right one you're looking south on the site. This bottom one you're looking west as well on the site. And then this one on the left-hand side you are looking northeast on the site and then also southwest on the site as well. Recommended action: motion to recommend renewal of Max Steineger Inc. small-scale mineral extraction permit for 2024, subject to the terms and conditions attached in the draft 2024 conditions for mineral extraction. Then I will take questions if the Commission has any. [45:41] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Thank you, Julia. Are there any comments or questions for Julia at this time? Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing item, so at this time we will open up the public hearing for this item. Anyone in the audience who would like to speak may do so at this time, coming to the podium, stating your name and address for the record. Seeing none, I make a motion to close the public hearing. [45:53] **Michael Reed (Commissioner)**: Second. [46:00] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: It has been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed, to close the public hearing. All those in favor please say aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed? Public hearing is now closed. Any comments or questions on this item before we move forward? [46:12] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: I will make a motion to recommend renewal of the Max Steineger Inc. small-scale mineral extraction permit for 2024, subject to the terms and conditions in the attached draft 2024 conditions for mineral extraction permit. [46:31] **Michael Reed (Commissioner)**: Second. [46:33] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed? Motion carries. That concludes our mineral extractions for this evening. We have one more public hearing item on the agenda this evening, and that is a zoning ordinance text amendment request to section 11-5-2 regarding loop-shaped driveways within the RR Rural Residential zoning district. Julia, back to you. [47:11] **Julia Hogan (Planner)**: Yes. All right. So a little bit of a summary of the amendment request: the Planning Commission is being asked to consider an amendment to section 11-5-2 of the City Code to allow for horseshoe or loop-shaped driveways with no more than two curb cuts within the Rural Residential zoning district. Staff was approached by a property owner that currently does have a horseshoe-shaped driveway with two curb cuts to the roadway within that RR zoning district. That amendment request was made by that property owner to the City Code. [47:49] **Julia Hogan (Planner)**: A little bit of a background: Rural Residential zone properties do have more restrictive standards than low-density residential zone properties. These standards include larger minimum lot size requirements, which is 2.5 acres for platted and then 5 acres for non-platted, and then also larger setback requirements as well. So there are a number of properties within the Rural Residential area of the city that do have existing horseshoe or loop-shaped driveways with the two curb cuts. [48:20] **Julia Hogan (Planner)**: Here's a zoning map of the city. I just kind of wanted to overview where we see that Rural Residential zoning district within the city. It's in that northwestern portion—it's going to be that light yellow—and then also a little bit more east, but majority it's in that northwestern portion of the city. The Rural Residential district purpose and intent is to provide a large-lot rural residential lifestyle which is separate from and not in conflict with commercial agricultural activities. So kind of like what I stated: those larger lots we're seeing in Rural Residential and larger setback requirements as well. But so with the type of properties being larger and the setbacks being more restrictive, there's typically more driveway area established on those type of properties. [49:04] **Julia Hogan (Planner)**: A little bit of background as well: staff did review standards of driveways and as well as conditions associated with those standards in the codes of other communities around the Twin Cities metro area. Staff did find a majority of the cities that were reviewed did not specify on a maximum number of curb cuts allowed per property; they more just had the standards that you see normally with driveways, like max width a driveway can be to the curb and stuff like that. The cities that were identified to address that were Lakeville, Bloomington, and Edina. They did allow for more than one curb cut, but with those standards we did see minimum distance between the two driveways, minimum lot width, and also a number of curb cuts allowed on collector streets as well. [50:00] **Julia Hogan (Planner)**: So staff did review those city codes and as well as what was proposed by the applicant, and this is the proposed amendment that staff found would be the best to implement with that change in the city code. You can see in front of you it would have that condition: "A single-family lot of record in the Rural Residential zoning district may have a horseshoe or loop-shaped driveway with no more than two curb cuts, subject to the four criteria that's listed below." [50:33] **Julia Hogan (Planner)**: Recommendations: If the Planning Commission is comfortable with the proposed ordinance language, staff is recommending approval of the amendment with the motion that is listed below. If not, the Commission should provide staff direction and modifications can be made to the draft ordinance. But with that, I know a representative for the applicant is present as well and could answer some questions the Commission has, or I can also answer some questions from the Commission. [50:57] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Sounds good. Thank you, Julia. Are there any comments or questions for Julia at this time? [51:11] **Michael Reed (Commissioner)**: Yeah, just a couple things to make sure I understand. On the proposed update... which I'm thinking this is probably a good thing, but I want to understand why we have it set up the exact way we do. Point two says the property shall have a minimum width of 200 feet. Why is it 200 feet? [51:31] **Julia Hogan (Planner)**: 200 is the minimum for the Rural Residential district width-wise. So within the city code it has the lot standards; that's a minimum requirement. So the 200 feet is that minimum requirement for a lot within that zoning district. [51:48] **Michael Reed (Commissioner)**: Okay. So it's saying because this specific section is not in city codes directly under Rural Residential, this is tying it back to the Rural Residential standard. [51:57] **Julia Hogan (Planner)**: Correct. [51:58] **Michael Reed (Commissioner)**: Got it. Okay. And then point four: "No access shall be allowed to a non-City road where there is at least one other existing access to the property." I'm just not sure if I understand that. [52:10] **Julia Hogan (Planner)**: More so because the City does not have jurisdiction on state roads or county roads and such like that, so we wanted to more specify on City roads where the City does have jurisdiction. [52:21] **Michael Reed (Commissioner)**: Very good. Thank you. [52:23] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Just one question. Is there a specific distance between the two curb cuts that you're [recommending]? [52:28] **Julia Hogan (Planner)**: We do not have that currently within that standard. I did not see when I was reviewing other codes as well that as a standard. That is something that can be implemented, but currently with what we have presented, that is not at least a condition, but could be looked at. [52:45] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Okay, that's all I have. Yes, Commissioner Whitman. [52:48] **Commissioner Whitman**: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Tell me if I'm wrong here, but there's a lot of background on like potential code violations and stuff like that. But the way I see this and our duty up here is... there is an application for a zoning text amendment. And all of that stuff about code potential dispute or whatever—that's kind of just background info, but we're not here to resolve that. We're here to look at a zoning text amendment and that application and whether this text amendment would be something we approve or not, right? [53:23] **Julia Hogan (Planner)**: Correct. That was more just background information as to why that applicant did come forward to the City. Normally we see staff initiating text amendments; we don't normally see property owners coming forward for that. So that was more context as to why this came about with this text amendment. [53:40] **Commissioner Whitman**: Got it. Okay, thank you. [53:43] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Any other comments or questions? Thank you, Julia. At this time we'll open up the public hearing for this item. Anyone in the audience that would like to speak may do so at this time, coming to the podium, stating your name and address for the record. [53:57] **Megan Rogers (Larkin Hoffman)**: I'll start this evening. My name is Megan Rogers, I'm an attorney with the law firm of Larkin Hoffman, and our address is 8300 Normandale Boulevard in Bloomington, Minnesota. I'm here on behalf of the Gellers, the applicant in this situation. As the Commission has well noted, you know, this arises out of a code enforcement complaint. We're very thankful for the opportunity to work with City staff to come to a solution here that we believe is consistent with City policy, and then also remedying the site conditions that are existing on the property today. [54:33] **Megan Rogers (Larkin Hoffman)**: A couple of notes that I would have for you: I very much appreciated staff's thoroughness in reviewing the surrounding city codes and the policy behind those. We submitted that as well as part of our application, saying that both in cities where rural residential districts are often found, multiple curb cuts are typically permitted. But they're also found certainly within our suburban core cities so long as there's an opportunity for the city engineer to review the application and ensure that there are not traffic impacts that are created with it. To the Commissioner's question about the space between the two entry points, we consider that city engineer process really essential to ensuring that it's safe, that there's correct sight lines, that the culverts have been maintained, and all of those things. I am certainly happy to answer any other questions, and we thank you for your review and for your time this evening. [55:30] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. [55:40] **Michael Reed (Commissioner)**: Second. [55:42] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: It's been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed, to close the public hearing. All those in favor please say aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed? Public hearing is now closed. [55:54] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: As we get ready to move forward with this item tonight... Julia, as you have stated, we are deciding on the zoning text amendment. But for anyone out there that might be watching this, I do just want to say that I'm happy that it looks promising and has City staff support that it's going to work out for this homeowner in this fashion. I think that our recommended process would be to work with City staff ahead of time and encourage the homeowner to work with them before implementing, because not always does it work out so well, and we would hate for a homeowner to have to undo a costly improvement or a costly change that they've made, as well as it would be frustrating for them. So that old adage of "ask for forgiveness rather than permission" doesn't apply in certain areas. I would say that for anyone watching: if you have things you want to do, work with City staff because maybe there is a solution. And in this case there was—or it appears there will be—but I just want to make sure we don't have other people out there doing things and thinking they can come and get something changed for their need. Anyone else have any comments? [57:12] **Commissioner Whitman**: Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. No, I echo that. Those are my thoughts as well, so I really appreciate you putting that on the record. Was there actually... just for my understanding... was there actually a citation filed, like a code violation, like it was official? Or was there just a letter being sent out? Or is that the official thing? [57:42] **Julia Hogan (Planner)**: Yeah, so back in June of '22, our code enforcement officer did go out to the site to talk with the property owners. Letters were sent; the letter is being sent as part of the record too that is within our files. And then also in 2023, when staff was made aware of additional enforcement issues, another letter was sent and discussions with the property owner was done as well. [58:12] **Commissioner Whitman**: Is that just... for my understanding of the process of code enforcement here in the city, is that considered a code violation? Or does it need to escalate to like a court citation and a filing? [58:24] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director)**: Madam Chair, Commissioner Whitman—from a code enforcement perspective, our process first and foremost is typically to work with anybody who's found to have any type of infraction or alleged infraction, because our goal at the end of the day is compliance with the city code, not necessarily any type of punitive penalty or anything like that. The way that Rosemount's code is currently set up is that the process that Julia outlined is more of our standard practice. It's notice of something that's occurring out there, time to remedy the situation, and then working towards a solution. [59:04] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director)**: The ultimate "stick," if you would look at it, would be prosecution through the court system, which isn't anybody's desired outcome, or some sort of abatement that would be allowed in our city code. So from a City side, there isn't a citation or fine process in place at this point in time. Some cities have that—that's something that we're currently exploring. But so far... and it's a good question because that's something that we see. It's either work with them towards compliance or go all the way over to the other side through a legal action. Typically we would prefer to see something that can occur in the middle. Again, the end of the day is compliance. So in this case, before it got to any type of further legal action or legal remedy, this is the solution that was kind of agreed upon or at least brought to the Planning Commission for consideration. [59:58] **Commissioner Whitman**: Got it. Yeah, thank you. I really appreciate that. Thanks for that answer. And again, like I look at this... I'm not making a decision on a code violation, right? I'm looking at a zoning text amendment, so really it's the same as if I didn't know any of that background and this applicant just came up. That's the way I see it, but I definitely appreciate Madam Chair's comments and echo those. And then I also just want to state for the applicant: thank you very much for the letter application. I just think it's really well detailed, super helpful. I know from my perspective I think that's something that's helpful for an application and then staff looks at it and makes adjustments as needed, and so that really stood out to me as something that's a good practice. So thanks to Ms. Rogers and the Larkin Hoffman firm for that. [1:00:34] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Thank you, Commissioner Whitman. Any other comments? Okay, with that I will make a motion to recommend City Council approve the text amendment to the zoning ordinance modifying section 11-5-2 supplementary regulations to allow for horseshoe or looped driveways with no more than two curb cuts within the RR Rural Residential zoning district. [1:01:03] **Commissioner Whitman**: Second. [1:01:05] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: It's been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Whitman. All those in favor please say aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed? Motion carries. That concludes our public hearing section of tonight's meeting. New business... do we have any new business? [1:01:29] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director)**: We do not, Madam Chair. [1:01:31] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Okay. For discussion items, I will just quickly start out by reminding everyone that our next meetings... we have January 23rd, which is the regular fourth Tuesday of the month, and then we have February 26th, which is a Monday. So just a reminder that that meeting has had to have a date change. And then March 18th, which is also a different date than normal—it's a week earlier due to the school district spring break. If you have any conflicts, please let Alicia and City staff know right away so that they are aware of that. I believe we are not filling Commissioner Powell's seat until the springtime with normal appointments, correct? [1:02:12] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director)**: Madam Chair, I was just going to use that as a plug. With the other appointments coming up in the early spring, is when that's advertised—I believe it's in the February-March timeframe. Anybody who may be interested in serving on the Planning Commission, there will certainly be an opening for that, as well as for any of our members who are up for potential reappointment to the Planning Commission. [1:02:37] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair)**: Thank you. Anyone else have any discussion items? Okay, with that I will adjourn our last meeting of the year. Happy holidays everyone. Meeting adjourned. [1:02:51] [Music]