HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992.06.10 PC MinutesJune 10, 1992
Chairman Peltier called the meeting to order at 7:02PM.
PRESENT: Mezzano, Agness, Davis, Rubenzer, Oswald, Olson, Peltier,
Attorney Johnson, Administrator Museus, Carole LaBelle
Motion made by Rubenzer, seconded by Mezzano to approve the Minutes of May
27, 1992 as amended.
All aye, motion passed.
AdministratorMuseus reviewed the summary with the findings, conclusion,
and recommendation for the mining permit request of River City Asphalt
with the Planning Commission.,
Commissioners Olson and Oswald felt the operation had continued for too
long, gotten too big, and they must consider the interest of surrounding
home owners, as well as the mining operation'
Motion made by Olson, seconded by Rubenzer to establish the 12 findings of
fact and conclusion as listed below in support of their recommendation to
deny the mining permit request of River City Asphalt on April 22, 1992,-,-
1.
992:1. An application for an amended Special Use Permit was made to the City
of Hugo by Richard A. Carron and Darrel B. Hansen on March 3. 1992 to
allow mining on the North West 1/4 of the South West 1/4 of section
23, Township 31 North, Range 21 West and the East 1/2 of the South
East 1/4 of Section 22, Township 31 North, Range 21 West.
2. According to a copy of a Warranty Deed provided by the applicants, the
owners of the property for which the Special Use Permit is applied are
Richard A. Carron and Karen L. Carron, husband and wife.
3. The Comprehensive Municipal Plan of the City of Hugo states: "The City
will allow mining subject to land management and reclamation
requirements."
4. According to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hugo, Chapter 320-4,
Subd. C., excavating businesses for sand, gravel, black dirt or rock
may be located in an agriculture district as a special use.
5. The property subject to the requested Special Use Permit is currently
zoned in the Agriculture District.
6. Chapter 320-5, Subd. P, of the City of Hugo's ordinance states:
"Mining operations require a special use permit and a valid mining
permit in accordance with existing City ordinances and regulations."
[o issue a special use permit the City Council must determine be
resolution that the proposed use will not be detrimental
to the
Health, Safety, morals or general welfare of
the
community,
will not
cause serious traffic congestion or hazards,
will
not seriously
depreciate surrounding property values: and
that
said use
is in
harmony with the general intent and purpose
of the city's
zoning
ordinance and comprehensive municipal plan
(Chapter
320-7,
Subd. B).
S. Through public comments received at the public
hearing conducted by
the
Planning Commission on this issue, the receipt
of a petition
signed
by over 180 residents of the City of
Hugo requesting the City
not
issue the amended special use permit, and
over 15 letters from
property
owners neighboring the property in
question, public concerns
on
the Special use permit have been identified
as follows:
a,
Current truck traffic on the haul roads
to the existing quarry
make these roads unsafe, expanding the
mining operations will
cause the problem to grow worse,
b.
Current truck traffic on the haul roads
to the existing quarry is
damaging the roads.
C.
The current mining operation decreases
local property values and
makes homes difficult to sell. By granting
an expansion of the
mining area, values will decrease even
more and the problem will
be present for a much greater period of
time.
d.
The expanded mining operations would be
detrimental to the
environment through its impact on air and
water quality, noise
pollution, and possible negative impact
on adjacent wet lands.
P.
Noise, smell and the visual impact of the
existing mining
operation disturbs the peace and appearance
of their
neighborhood.
f.
The long hours of operation of the mining
activities during the
summer months conflict with the normal
routine of nearby
residential areas.
The mine, stock piles of material, and related equipment are
dangerous attractions for children'
9. Many of the public's concerns with granting the Special Use Permit are
related to the asphalt plant, rock crusher and stock piles of material
hauled in from off site currently at the existing mine.
10. The area proposed for expansion of the mining operation is adjacent to
a developed residential area.
11. One or more sources of available aggregate within the City are
beneficial to the City and its residents.
12. There are currently two permits issued for mining aggregate within the
City.
CONCLUSIONS
It is clearly the intent of the Comprehensive Municipal Plan and the
City's Zoning Ordinance to allow mining operations within the city limits
of Hugo, given the compatibility of the mining operations with surrounding
land uses and the health, safety and welfare of the public.
A Special Use Permit is a land use and zoning issue, one which changes
the permitted use of an area from its current authorized use to one which
may be more beneficial to the property owner. This change in use may have
a detrimental impact on adjacent property owners and the general public
who relied on the properties zoning classification in making economic and
social decisions. The burden of proof for a Special Use permit rests with
the property owner seeking the permit.
The City of Hugo regulates both where mines may operate (through its
zoning ordinance) and how mines may operate (through its mine ordinance).
In considering the land use implications of where a mine may operate, the
nature of mining operations must be considered as they will impact on
public facilities and private property, as well as have an almost
irreversible effect on the actual mined property.
The asphalt plant and rock crusher are not necessarily an integral
part of mining operations and were not specifically addressed in the
application for a Special Use permit. For these reasons they should be
considered separately through the mine application process or other zoning
enforcement process.
Limited evidence was presented that the proposed mining operation will
have a negative impact on the public's health, through adverse affects of
noise, dust and odor.
There were two primary safety issues raised over the expanded mining
operation: road use and concern for children being attracted to the
equipment and excavations present on a mine site.
Undoubtedly, the truck traffic generated by the mining operation pose
a potential safety problem for the City's roads. When mining operations
begin on property adjacent to the site proposed for the special use permit
Hugo was largely a rural community with limited traffic on its roadways.
Over the last decade Hugo has grown rapidly and will continue to grow in
the future. County Road 8A is a primary east -west artery for Hugo, and a
residential development corridor, as well as the major service road for
the proposed mining site. Continuing, and possibly expanding, truck
traffic from the mine site on this road will cause increased safety
problems for the community.
A large mining operation in close proximity to largely developed
residential area is not consistent with the comprehensive municipal plan.
Granting of the proposed special use permit will bring excavations and
heavy equipment, such as bulldozers and dump trucks, to within a few
hundred feet of existing homes located on the west side of the proposed
mine site. This situation would last for years, creating an ongoing,
dangerous situation for neighborhood children.
Expansion of the gravel mining operation closer to adjacent
residential properties will cause noise, smell and visual blight making
them less attractive to potential buyers, and thus lower their value.
RECOMMENDATION
Given the potential for safety problems with
abutting
public roadways,
and the
negative impact of the proposed gravel
mine on adjacent property
owners,
the Planning Commission of the City of
Hugo recommends
that a
Special
Use Permit not be granted to Richard A.
Carron and
Darrel B.
Hansen
for the mining of the North West 1/4 of
the South West
1/4 of
Section
23, Township 31 North, Range 21 West and
the East
1/2 of the South
East Quarter
of Section 22, Township 31 North,
Range 21 West.
Members
Voting Aye: Davis, Oswald, Olson, Rubenzer
Members
Voting Nay: Mezzano, Peltier
Member
Abstaining: Agness
Motion
passed.
Motion
made by Rubenzer, seconded by Peltier to
adjourn at
8:00PM.
All aye,
motion passed.
Carole LaBelle, Secretary
Hugo Planning Commission