Meeting Information
Amended Agenda
-Convene
-Consider the approval of the minutes of August 17, August 19, August 24, and September 2, 2009.
CONSENT AGENDA
(1)(a) Consider approval of Commission Orders;
REGULAR AGENDA
(2) Consider and adopt Resolution relating to the County's issuance of General Obligation Refunding and Improvement Bonds, Series 2009-A. (Evan Ice)
(3) Consider adopting special rules for special music event at Lone Star Lake (Keith Browning)
(4) The following Agenda Items deal with Mid-States Materials' Big Springs Quarry, generally located at 2 N 1700 Road:
a. Consider request of Mid-States Materials to amend the Consent Decree it entered into with the Board of County Commissioners to permit a rock wall along the north edge of the water feature in Phase 1A of the Quarry.
b. Consider detailed reclamation plans of Mid-States Material for reclamation of Phase 1A, 2, 3 and 4 of the Quarry.
The requested amendment to the Consent Decree and the detailed reclamation plans are intertwined and, as a result, Items a. and b. will be considered together.
(5) Other Business
(a) Consider approval of Accounts Payable (if necessary)
(b) Appointments
(c) Miscellaneous
(d) Public Comment
(6) Adjourn
Thellman called the regular session meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 with all members present.
BONDS 09-16-09
Thereupon, there was presented a Resolution entitled:
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF $2,445,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING AND IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2009-A, OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, KANSAS; PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF AN ANNUAL TAX FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING THE PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON SAID BONDS AS THEY BECOME DUE; MAKING CERTAIN COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS TO PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT AND SECURITY THEREOF; AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OTHER DOCUMENTS AND ACTIONS CONNECTED THEREWITH.
Thereupon, Commissioner Flory moved that said Resolution be adopted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Thellman. Said Resolution was duly read and considered, and upon being put, the motion for the adoption of said Resolution was carried by the vote of the governing body, the vote being as follows:
Yea: 3 .
Nay: 0 .
Thereupon, the Chairman declared said Resolution duly adopted and the Resolution was then duly numbered Resolution No. 09-33 and was signed by the County Commissions and attested by the Clerk.
PUBLIC WORKS 09-16-09
Keith Browning, Director of Public Works, discussed with the Board the possibility of holding a special music event at the Lone Star Lake campground in 2010. Doug Dubois, Chairman of the event, asked if the Board would be willing to consider adopting special rules which would include altering the following rules and regulations:
- Quiet hours from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
- A maximum of two tents per campsite
- Allowing campers to reserve campsites for the event
Browning suggested if this item is brought back for consideration, the Board should require a $500 deposit to cover possible department head costs for post-event cleanup. It was discussed that a temporary Business Permit would be required through the Zoning Department.
It was the consensus of the Board that they are in favor of pursuing the event.
PLANNING 09-16-09
The Board considered the following items dealing with Mid-States Materials' Big Springs Quarry, generally located at 2 N 1700 Road: a) A request of Mid-States Materials to amend the Consent Decree it entered into with the Board of County Commissioners to permit a rock wall along the north edge of the water feature in Phase 1A of the quarry; and b) detailed reclamation plans of Mid-States Materials for reclamation of Phases 1A, 2, 3 and 4 of the quarry. The requested amendment to the Consent Decree and the detailed reclamation plans are intertwined and, as a result, items "a and b" will be considered together. Mary Miller, Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Staff, presented the items.
Miller gave a presentation on the history of the pre-submittal meetings, the reclamation requirements for phases 1A, 2, 3 and 4, and discussed the neighbors concerns and goals. The applicant wishes to retain a rock wall along the north edge of the water feature in Phase 1A of the quarry to increase the stability of the bank. Staff has no objections to retaining this wall. The Consent Decree, however, states that all slopes will be graded to a gradient of 3:1 or less. Section 15 of the Consent Decree outlines modifications to the agreement that would permit the request. If the Board approves the amendment to the Consent Decree, the applicant may retain the rock wall. If not approved, the reclamation plans will be revised to remove the rock wall and add a 3:1 slope. The other item up for consideration is the reclamation plan. One of the requirements of the reclamation under the Consent Decree is the removal of an overburden pile in Phase 1A to an established elevation of 1070. The reclamation plan shows the pile removed to a 1070 elevation. It also requires that the elevation and grade of the water feature be shown with the grade reduced to 3:1 or less. The north wall d s not show a reduced grade of 3:1 or less. The County Engineer indicated the rock wall may be more stable than a graded shore and had no objections to the retention of the rock wall. The Consent Decree also required that a Sequencing Plan be published for reclamation which is provided under Sheet 7. Reclamation at Big Springs is concurrent, so they are reclaiming one area just after it has been mined. Variations are acknowledged but not reflected in the reclamation plan. That is why it is difficult to know the exact size of the ultimate water features. Due to the concurrent nature of the quarrying, and uncertainty of the amounts and location of the limestone deposits, it is reasonable there will be some variations in the final elevations and water feature sizes on the site. Staff proposed the anticipated elevation and size and location of water features be shown on the plans along with an acceptable range of variation noted. Staff recommends an administrative review of changes to the final elevation, size and location of the water features if they vary beyond the acceptable range established on the reclamation plan. Staff suggested on the final analysis a plus 5 feet or minus 5 feet range. The operator d s not have a problem with the higher end of the range not exceeding 5 feet, but they are concerned if excavation includes more limestone than initially anticipated, the lower end of the range could exceed 5 feet. The applicant d s not want to be required to bring in material from elsewhere to bring the depth up to the lower range of 5' minus the shown elevation. The Conditional Use Permit for this project did not originally require water features to be a certain size. However, the principle concern is that water features added in the reclamation phase not impact the flow or capacity of nearby streams. Keith Browning, Director of Public Works, has been evaluating the size of the overall watershed compared to the contributions of the quarry to the watershed - what impacts the water features within the quarry will have on the stream and the overall watershed.
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the detailed reclamations plans for Phases 1A, 2, 3, and 4 subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a detail sheet for the County Engineer's approval, showing the erosion control method which will be used for the removal of the overburden pile in Phase1A. The detail should show the erosion control method to be used, the location, and which phase of the reclamation they will be installed in.
2. A modification from the Consent Decree has been requested by the operator to permit the natural strata along the north edge of the water feature in Phase 1A to remain. If the modification is not approved, the north slope of the water feature in Phase 1A shall be revised on the reclamation plan to a 3:1 slope or less.
3. The applicant shall make the following revisions to the reclamation plans:
a. General Note 3 on the Title Page should be revised to clarify that reclamation in these phases will be conducted per requirements of the Consent Decree and will not be concurrent with mining activity in those phases.
b. General Note 4 on the Title Page shall be revised to reflect the appropriate range of variations as determined by the County Engineer. The water features shall be shown to reflect the anticipated size on the plan and the anticipated surface area of the water features shall be noted on the plan. The Note shall also indicate that any variation beyond the approved range would require administrative review by the Planning Staff and approval by the County Engineer.
c. Note 3 on the General Sequencing Plan shall be revised to indicate that the utilization of natural strata rather than the 3:1 or less slope above the established water surface elevation shall require notification to the Planning Office and approval by the County Engineer.
d. Sequencing Note 1 on Plan Sheet 7 shall also state that the erosion control measures will be 'maintained' as required in the Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan.
e. The sentence in the first paragraph under the heading 'Sequencing Plan' on Plan Sheet 7 shall be revised: "Reclamation of each quarried area within a phase is planned to occur concurrently with mining operations and will be completed as soon as practical after quarrying is complete; however Phase 1-A is an exception as quarrying is complete but reclamation is occurring to resolve a pre-existing condition and portions of Phase 1-A and Phase 2 will be disturbed to facilitate this reclamation."
f. Revise the reclamation plan shown on Plan Sheet 5 to remove the grading change over the Mid-American Pipeline.
g. Sheet 5 shall be revised to show accurately the 160 ft setback along the western property line.
h. The plan should note that each pond will have an 'outflow' and indicate the approximate location.
It was determined by the Board the items "1" and "2" will be discussed separately.
Thellman open the item for public comment.
The first item discussed was the request of Mid-States Materials to amend the consent Decree to permit a rock wall along the north edge of the water feature in Phase 1A of the Quarry.
David Henry, neighboring resident, stated he has safety concerns that animals or children might fall in the water features.
Bart Christian, 1719 E 150 Road, stated ideas he had related to planning staff were not addressed well in this plan. He suggested the wall be made on the south side of the water feature sloping 3:1 the other way. He is concerned there will be a 20-foot drop to the water from the rock wall.
John Hutton, presenting Mid States Material, stated it was the engineering firm who suggested leaving the rock wall. There is no 20-foot cliff or drop created by the wall. He referenced photos of the site and stated the drop from the edge of the wall was only 3-4 foot.
Gaughan asked Keith Browning if he had looked at the wall. Browning stated he had only looked at photos but it appears the obvious answer would be not to move the wall. There is no reason to slope back 3:1 when you already have a stable slope.
Henry stated the General Note indicates the applicant is requesting that high walls be left at other locations. Miller confirmed that under General Note 3 on the title page, that rock wall status could be retained on several of the water features. If the Board approves the requested Consent Decree modification the plan note will be revised to indicate only the water feature in Phase 1A will be allowed to retain the existing rock wall. If the Board denies the Consent Decree modification it is staff's recommendation that all reference to the rock wall on the existing and future water features be removed and replaced with 3:1 slope requirements.
Christian stated that sloping to the south would change the drainage study and would take water away from his creek.
Hutton stated the water feature in Phase 1A is being pumped west to a feature on Phase 1. The operator d s not want water to overflow to the east because Lone Oak had a lawsuit against Martin Marietta over too much water flowing toward Lone Oak in Phase 1A.
Eric Bettis, owner of Mid-States Materials, stated he is pumping Phase 2 into 1A and then moving water from Phase 1A over to Phase 1. There would have been too much water coming out of the Phase 1A pond back in March if they had not pumped out the water. In terms of a drop off in Phase 1A, there is not a 20-foot drop off at the rock wall.
The second item discussed was the detailed reclamation plans submitted by Mid-States Materials for reclamation of Phases 1A, 2, 3, and 4 of the Quarry.
Hutton stated his client agrees with staff's recommendations. A drainage study has already been approved by Keith Browning. Nothing other than the size of water features and elevation of these features needs to be decided. He considers the plan in its present state a good one.
Flory asked if it is possible for the Commission to set parameters for the maximum upper limit of the size of the water features in the reclamation plan. Then, if the operator thought he would exceed that limit, it would need to come back to the Commission. Hutton stated he d sn't disagree with setting a maximum size. They are proposing 45% of the disturbed area as the maximum upper limit for water features per phase. The neighbors want Mid-States to be as specific down to the acreage as possible. They cannot be that specific, because they are doing the reclamation concurrently with the mining.
Thellman commented that quarrying and mining concurrently is a more environmentally friendly way to do mining.
Gaughan asked if the excessive height or elevation below the 1070, or agreed upon elevation, impacts the floodplain to the east of the site with runoff.
Mike Berry, Engineer with Professional Engineering Consultants, stated it was his opinion the runoff will not vary significantly for agricultural or pasture type land for this location.
Dave Buffo, Attorney for Lone Oak, stated the history of the issue is that any time there has been a complaint against the quarry; the Quarry operators have argued that the condition is ambiguous. He stated the Commission asked staff to come back with a detailed grading plan in a final form. The plan here tonight is not. He is not even sure what we are voting on tonight.
Christian stated he wants a drainage study done. He also stated mining should not be done within 300 feet of other property. He feels this is a complex issue and engineers need to resolve it.
Rick Henry, neighboring property owner, stated he has a problem with not knowing the exact location of the water features. What is expected (acceptable) is a small variation from what is shown on the drawings. He voiced concerns that the drawing shown for Phase 4 water features has the potential of being too large an area.
Hutton stated the total body of water can not reach more that 45% of the disturbed area. If that is not pleasing, Browning can make a proposal.
Henry pointed out that the wording on the plan was for each water feature not the total number of water features per phase.
Hutton acknowledged this was not the operator's intention and that could be corrected on the plan.
Martha Silks, Groundwater Consultant representing Lone Oak, suggested that a water budget be performed on the drainage to include the contributing area of surface water flow, the groundwater contribution to the lakes, the loss to evaporation and the net impact to the downstream users.
Thellman asked if this study is typical for reclamation plans. Silks stated when she participates in underground water studies done for residential areas in western Kansas; she has to account for the evaporation loss of water in the pond. This is a loss to a surface water stream so that needs to be accounted for.
Christian also stated he is concerned about the size of the water features in the quarried areas reducing the outflow of his water impoundment facility.
Dennis Baker, staff for the Kansas State Conservation Commission, stated there are a lot of other quarries in Douglas County and none of them face this type of scrutiny. He indicated this reclamation plan was more detailed than many he had seen required or approved.
Flory asked if the reclamation plan, with respect to the water issues, is in conformance with Kansas Law.
Baker confirmed "yes" it is. He also stated high walls can be approved by the Kansas State Conservation Commission. Four people in his office reviewed the reclamation plan submittal. Their review covered all requirements in state review were present or had been met. Actually, the plan was more detailed than the State required.
Dave Henry stated the County has established both through the CUP process and the Consent Decree, reclamation requirements that exceed those of the State. He said what he and the neighboring property owners are trying to accomplish is not to have their property devalued any further.
At 8:50 p.m., Thellman moved to recess the meeting until 9:05 p.m. Motion was seconded by Gaughan and carried unanimously.
The Board returned to session at 9:05 p.m.
Hutton suggested the Commission speak with Mr. Baker regarding any questions about the specificity of the plan or in relation to other plans in the State of Kansas, then Baker could enlighten the Board on how detailed the applicants plan really is.
Thellman moved to close the public comment period; Gaughan seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Thellman stated a good deal of progress has been made from the start of their involvement in the quarry's compliance. The outstanding issue of concern is the General Note 4 and what reasonable variation limits to place on water features; whether that is creating unfair burden on the operator; whether neighbors are satisfied; and, somewhere in the middle, a good result can be made. The Board's goal is to try to reach a reasonable agreement between the parties. The comments from Dr. Baker were helpful in establishing that the plan before the Commission is more detailed than what the State requires. Thellman suggested tabling the item to review the information presented.
Gaughan stated he is not interested in revisiting this item again and again, but he is not confident he can make a decision tonight.
Flory stated he has one point or issue and that is staff recommendation in respect to General Note 4, on acceptable range of variation. Anything else as operation g s forward, if it is clear the operator is going to exceed the acceptable range of variation, he would have the item come back to Board instead of to the County Engineer, to request an amendment to the plan. He suggested that the applicant and staff determine some definition of what is an acceptable range of variation before a vote on the plan is taken.
Gaughan moved to approve a modification from the Consent Decree as requested by the operator to permit the natural strata along the north edge of the water feature in Phase 1A to remain. Motion was seconded by Thellman and carried unanimously.
It was also the consensus of the Board that the plans of Mid-States Materials for reclamation of the quarry were generally acceptable, except that revisions to general note 4 were needed. The Commission wants Note 4 to be revised to provide: 1) a more specific delineation of the acceptable range in size that each water feature could be, and 2) to set a maximum limit as to how much variation of the water features could be approved by the County Engineer, after which it would be brought before the County Commission for review and action.
It was also the consensus of the Board that the approval of the reclamation plans should be placed on the County Commission agenda for September 30. At that time, public discussion would be limited to the proposed revisions to General Note 4.
The County Commission also committed to make the staff recommendations available for public review before it is discussed by the County Commission.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 09-16-09
Thellman moved to approve accounts payable in the amount of $228,469.06 paid on 09/14/09 and a wire transfer in the amount of $600,000.00 paid on 09/11/09. Motion was seconded by Gaughan and carried unanimously.
Thellman moved to adjourn the meeting; Gaughan seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
____________________________ ____________________________
Nancy Thellman, Chair Jim Flory, Vice-Chair
ATTEST:
_____________________________ _____________________________
Jamie Shew, County Clerk Mike Gaughan, Member
Time and Date