Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes TAC 02-13-03 Martin Marietta CARMEL/CLAY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE SINGLE TOPIC ITEM Date: February 13, 2003 Place: Carmel City Hall nd Caucus Rooms, 2 Floor Martin Marietta Materials 3:00 p.m. - Mueller Property South - Sand & Gravel Mineral Extraction (Special Use) Petitioner seeks approval to establish sand and gravel extraction operation on 96.921± acres. th The site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of East 106 Street and Hazel Dell Parkway. The site is zoned S-1/Residence - Low Density. Filed by John Tiberi of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Present for petitioner: John Tiberi of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.; Mark Williams, Mining Specialist and Executive Vice President of Scully & Loy; Max Williams, Engineer; and Dan Hoskins, general manager for northern operations for Martin Marietta. Overview of project by Max Williams. The proposal is for construction of a sand and gravel extraction on a site approximately 97 acres in total. Mineral extraction would take place on approximately 55.9 acres; the permit encompasses 61.9 acres. Also, as a part of that application, there is the re-location of Blue Woods Creek. COMMENTS FROM TAC MEMBERS: Scott Brewer, Urban Forester for Carmel, said he would submit a detailed comment letter as soon as he receives and has time to adequately review the plans. There are references to perimeter buffering requirements in Paragraph 26.4; Scott gave the petitioner a copy of the buffer requirements and a list of species of trees that are acceptable. Jenny Chapman, Hamilton County Surveyor’s Office, sent a comment letter and gave Mr. Tiberi a duplicate. Petitioner needs to send in estimate, bond, and maintenance agreement, easement description, non-enforcement agreement and 5 stage construction plan???????. John Duffy, City Utilities, sent comment letter. There are three wells in the area and intentions for th at least two additional wells south of 106 Street, east of Hazel Dell. This application is cause for concern for both existing wells and definitely future wells. The letter asks for complete hydraulic th analysis of Cool Creek to the north, 96 Street to the south, Lake Shore Drive to the west, and White River to the east. This is a clearly different operation than initially proposed on the north side th of 106 Street. There are concerns with potential draw-downs to the water. John Duffy said Spectra had similar comments, probably in more technical terminology. Generally, we want to know how you are currently moving ground water and how you plan on doing that in the future—in particular open discharges into Cool Creek, Blue Creek Woods, or the White River. Other 1 comments in the letter are more operational. There is an 18-inch Bradford sewer line running th east/west on 106 Street approximately 15 feet. It is not known whether this will be impacted or not. The line does have a significant amount of flow. Zeff Weiss, attorney, asked if there were existing studies of the areas that Martin Marietta is seeking for use that would be helpful to him and his engineer. John Duffy responded there are existing studies for existing wells and some existing studies for future wells. John Duffy recommended Zeff Weiss make a formal request for these studies from the City Attorney’s office. Bill Akers, Communicaations 9-1-1, No Comment at this time Jim Barlow, Police Dept., No Comment at this time Todd Snyder, Carmel Parks & Recreation, No Comment at this time. John South, County Soil & Water Conservation District—one thing that might help is to know the post land use plan for the property. Will this ground eventually be developed for single family homes, condos, etc.? The slopes need to be analyzed to see if this is logical. John South recommended a top soiling plan for the reclamation, particularly in those areas where there is sand and gravel spread around, etc., during the mining operation. These may not be the best soil conditions to put plantings back into place—there should be some requirement for top soiling—top soiling all vegetated areas. Another issue is that it looks as if the entire area will not be mined all at once but over a period of time. What is the intended land cover during the period of time waiting for it to be mined—will it be planted to grass? Final comment is regarding post land use—is the lake edge going to be left in a non-erosive condition? John South will send the detailed comment letter to petitioner and Department. Laurence Lillig for DOCS. More soils being taken out to expose sand and gravel and limestone than is accommodated for in the creation of the berms between the removal of the over-burden and the dredging for the re-routing of the creek—where is the remainder of this material going? Laurence Lillig also said it looked as if there were a great deal more soil coming out than will be going into the berms. John Tiberi: The over-burden material will be used to construct the berms around the property. The sand and gravel will be processed. Max Williams: We are proposing that we may process some of the over-burden material for sale. We have not yet done the calculations. John South said there should be a submittal for erosion control and the plans show that here and there—but it is not one package. A separate erosion control plan would be helpful outlining construction sequence and some of those issues just talked about. Rule 5 will apply. A full size set of plans would also be helpful. Mike McBride, City Engineering Dept., would like a set of full size construction drawings for the 2 re-location of Blue Woods Creek. After the drawings are received, a detailed comment letter will be provided. For now, we have concerns with “de-watering” and where those discharge points will be; those can be indicated on the drawings. There are some concerns with the route of some of the existing “de-watering” activities. Specifically, on Gray Road there is a culvert that is currently being used to transmit the “de-watering” pipes and there has been conversation between Engineering and Martin-Marietta in the past that something needs to happen here to improve the situation. We would like to see that corrected before we approve this process. John Tiberi of Martin Marietta responded that this is being taken care of. Martin Marietta has a permit from the County Highway Department and nothing additional is needed at this time. th Mike McBride asked if there is to be an access point onto 116 Street, more or less the same location where the River Road right-of-way is. John Tiberi, Martin Marietta responded in the affirmative—the crossing of the Creek would be 4, 36-inch RCP’s. Mike McBride said the Engineering Dept. would prefer to see one larger specialty structure rather than 4 pipes that could potentially be locked. Mike McBride was also curious to know how the access would be utilized for maintenance. John Tiberi commented the access is actually for street maintenance and doesn’t really access the street. If this were to be changed, there would be several agencies involved. John Tiberi responded th that access will be off 106 Street with access to the channel at that point, and access at the top of the bank. There will be a formal easement agreement between the County and Martin-Marietta regarding the access. Mike McBride had no further comments until detailed construction drawings are received. Greg Sovas, Spectra Environmental Group and Psalm Wyckoff, Hydro-geologist, also with Spectra. Small Points: Revise existing grade contours on the mine map without reclamation of the result, show reclamation on the mine map, show the haulage ways and direction of mining, remove conceptual from the title block both mine map and the reclamation mine map. Would also like to see some study of the noise impacts, particularly since there is talk of operation at 10:00 PM, and what that will mean to the neighborhood. Request a noise study be conducted. Biggest problem seen is that the reclamation plan does not appear to show any detail on the full pit for reclamation. The bigger issue is that it appears it will be under water and there is confusion as to the plan for this whole area. There are the same concerns as City Utilities regarding water supply, water impacts, water going into the mine, water discharges, leakage from the Creek, is it understood that the creek is not lined? As the area is excavated by Martin Marietta, would the creek not leak to the area being excavated? Further, it appears that the numbers given for North Mueller Lake are at 724—this means you would be underwater there. Psalm Wyckoff said all of the data suggests that the ground water table under the Mueller south property is at an elevation higher than 720. The anticipated lake level at Mueller north and the ground water contour shown on the existing conditions map from the ground water inter-face report by Schneider all indicate that there is going to be seepage in the floor of the pit on the Mueller 3 south property. The reclamation contours indicate that M-M will be “day-lighting” that floor to the property to the south; it is possible that ground water can seep in that direction to the open pit and it can be handled that way. The City is going to be more concerned with what happens when the property is reclaimed—will that pit be inundated, will it be swampy, when the pumps are turned off in the open pit years down the road, what will happen in the sand and gravel excavation? The Description of Operations implies that it will be a dry operation and perhaps this type of drainage is being relied upon. As Greg Sovas mentioned, this has implications for noise—it is not the same type of operation that Mueller North was with a dredge, using front-end loaders and trucks, and that has noise implications. Greg Sovas said the plans are not really known for the entire area and it is difficult to get a handle on the hydro-geologic assessment or the entire area, including the north, south, including the hard rock. It is very difficult to say yea or naye to an application that is in segments. In this particular case, it appears to be underwater, it appears there would be drainage, it appears there would be drainage from the lake above, North Mueller would drain down, there is a whole series of questions that need to be answered for us to sign off on the reclamation plan for the property. The strong recommendation is that there needs to be an overall hydro-geologic assessment of the entire area and what that is going to look like. It looks as if there will be implications for all of these parcels and how the whole water balance is going to work is highly variable, particularly in light of the City’s existing water supply and their future water needs. That may not all be bad---it just needs to be understood. Psalm Wyckoff commented the Reclamation Plan does not have any discussion of what will happen in the pit. The planting plan seems to concentrate only on the slopes and there is no discussion as to what will happen on the floor—perhaps that is because approval is anticipated for the open pit on the Mueller south property. In order to avoid some of the hydro-geological type questions, the Reclamation Plan could be revised now and the floor raised on the sand and gravel pit to avoid the water table with this application. Laurence Lillig addressed the artificial lake itself. The application is specifically for the Mueller parcels, obviously the lake itself, once it is established, will also include the parcels to the south. Whether or not the existing mining operation and its reclamation as a lake enjoys the same protection as the mining operation as a non-conforming use and therefore not requiring Special Use Approval is a matter for BZA/Plan Commission legal counsel. The fact is the entire pit will be a lake, eventually. Laurence requested an exhibit that would show exactly what the shoreline of the lake would be. Laurence referred to his comment letter—the plans should show a multi-use path th on the south side of 106 Street as specified in Thoroughfare Plan. The applicant has addressed the th fact that right-of-way for 106 Street will be dedicated; Laurence Lillig requested the vacation documents for River Road. Mike McBride will get the forms to John Tiberi. th Laurence Lillig referred to comments made by Mike McBride regarding the 106 Street access. th The application states in the text that there will be no access from 106 Street—is this somehow tied to the maintenance of the Creek and that is the purpose of the access drive? Is the maintenance access to be a part of the legal drain easement? Max Williams? There will be an easement associated with the Maintenance Agreement to provide 4 access. The easement is from the top-of-bank, out 30 feet. This has not really been addressed in the terms of paper work. Otherwise, we will have to gain access off Hazel Dell Road and at certain points, by permission from individual property owners. Laurence asked if there is anything that prevents maintenance access from coming off the Gray Road access drive. Is there some reason the north approach is preferred? Dan Hoskins & John Tiberi responded thusly: In the open pit, as you finish sand and gravel, there is not really a full road around the interior. This road is already there and very convenient more than anything. Kurt Wanninger: The tree plantings that were required creates some conflicts and obstacles to get around; there are sporadic maintenance points. In looking for viable maintenance points, the road th on 106 Street is already in being. Laurence Lillig requested a copy of the maintenance agreement when it is prepared. There are several residential and accessory structures on the Mueller property; when will demolition of these structures occur—immediately following approval? Dan Hoskins responded in the affirmative—this will be addressed. Laurence Lillig commented that the Code Enforcement Officer has had some on-going issues with a resident in this area whose property looks as if it is being used as a “dumping ground.” One of the most recent aerial photographs of the site still shows a good deal of material on this site. If the material is still there, it needs to be disposed of properly. The applicant may want to check with Adrienne Keeling, Code Enforcement Officer, to determine the status of that complaint. Max Williams asked if the City personnel are the only people they need to deal with or are there any County or State issues? Laurence Lillig responded that as far as a demolition permit is concerned, the applicant only needs to go through the Building and Code Enfocement Office to obtain the permit. John South said there should be an abandoned well on site and County and State regulations for abandonment would apply. Laurence Lillig inquired as to what Agency or who has responsibility for Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures Plan? John Tiberi said the Fire Marshal has asked for a copy of the Spill Prevention Control & Counter Measures Plan and has conditioned any approval and/or permits upon receipt of the plan. Laurence Lillig asked if there were existing dumpsters on site, either in the pit or at grade. Max Williams responded dumpsters are at the facility—at the shop and toward the buildings. Laurence Lillig said the dumpsters are not visible from the road and with a berm, will effectively be invisible. Laurence said he has never seen the dumpsters from the street and this is not a major concern at this 5 time. Regarding easements, there are several overhead wires and lines adjacent and into the site that may have easements. Other than the legal drain, are there other easements on this site that will have to be vacated or re-located as part of this project—electrical, etc. Dan Hoskins responded they are probably not captured in the areas that would be active, they might be in some of the setback areas. It is not known specifically, where the easements are. Laurence Lillig said he was especially interested in the vacation of River Road and if there are other easements that follow that same path. Laurence suggested the applicant check with the Mueller conservatorship to determine if there is anything in their title work—make sure these items are addressed as well. The Surveyor’s Office already touched on the relocation of the legal drain. Laurence noted that the plans for relocation of the Creek were not furnished to the City Engineer, the Building Commissioner, or the Department. Blue Woods Creek is in a floodway and all material should have been copied to the Building Commissioner. Copies have been requested for the Dept. of Engineering, Building and Code Enforcement; the attendant landscape plans need to go to Scott Brewer, Urban Forester. John South mentioned the erosion control plan—this should also be submitted to the Dept. Laurence Lillig said reference had been made to Signage for this site, but nothing is specified in the application. Laurence asked that copies of any proposed signage be sent to him for review. Any incidental signage is limited to three square feet before Special Approval and Permits are required. There are also references made to restrictions in the application, the assumption is that these are similar to the Mueller north site. If true, this would take the form of commitments and none can be seen in the documents. John Tiberi responded that what is listed in the text is operating hours, setbacks, etc., and nothing drafted in commitment form. Zeff Weiss commented that since this is a Special Use, why would it not just be a part of the Permit application and approval process? The assumption is that a Permit would be issued subject to the submittals, and if that is part of the submittal, it will incorporate everything that is in there, including the hours of operation. Laurence Lillig said that typically, from the Department’s perspective, it would be preferable to have recordable commitments. Zeff Weiss said he was not sure they were opposed, he was merely trying to understand the difference between those items in the recorded commitment and everything else given to the Department by the applicant. Laurence Lillig expressed concern with ease of reference of the commitments. It would be easier to see a list of commitments for discussion--digging through the text of the applications to find the commitments is tedious. Laurence suggested Zeff Weiss prepare a Memorandum that outlines those points, and they can talk about whether or not these should be commitment at another time. Laurence Lillig went on to say that the Surveyor’s Office mentioned the Drainage Board has agreed to reduce the easement from 75 feet to 30 feet. Zeff Weiss said they still had to go through the public hearing on their application and approval process. Zeff Weiss agreed to notify the 6 Department when final approval is granted. Laurence Lillig said reference had been made to the Blue Woods Creek relocation riparian planting scheme—assumed to be part of the landscape submittal. Copies are requested if it is not a part of the previously mentioned plans. Laurence Lillig requested that as “As Builts” become available, copies are to be furnished to the Department—probably electronic copies in the future. Laurence also asked that the Department be copied on the monitoring reports. The question was asked, “Do the previous comments pertain to both the sand and gravel mineral extraction?” The answer was “YES.” Martin Marietta Materials – Mueller Property South – Surface Limestone Mineral Extraction (Special Use) Petitioner seeks approval to establish surface limestone extraction operation on 96.921 + acres. th The site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of East 106 Street and Hazel Dell Parkway. The site is zoned S-1/Residence – Lo Density. Filed by John Tiberi of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Dan Hoskins gave the overview of the Surface Limestone Operation on the same parcel of property, mining area of approximately 56 acres. This would be an open pit mining operation—an aggression thth of the existing pit moving from the south to the north, 96 toward 106 Street. Comments: Scott Brewer, No additional Comments Jenny Chapman, No additional Comments John Duffy, would like a clear understanding of the schedule as to how this whole project will work. Sand and gravel operation with no lake—at some point there will be a lake there—there needs to be a better understanding of anticipated dates. Again, the water issues stand on all three proposals. Todd Snyder, No additional Comments John South: The typical detail is showing “head wall” as terminating the mining operations; the proposed scheme showed water just above that for 25 feet, and a berm shows within that 25-foot distance. Max Williams and John Tiberi: The ground slope is 3 to 1. John South: It all goes back to what the final use is going to be, but if you are going to have just shallow water for a 25 foot distance, then a sheer drop-off, it may not be the safest situation. If one could visually see the space, it would be safer. 7 Max Williams and John Tiberi said they would look at it. Greg Sovas said that he has NOT provided comments on the application for the surface lines. Zeff Weiss: Does that mean you are not going to, or you just haven’t done it yet? Greg Sovas responded that they did not realize that was an item for notice and discussion today. The only item Mr. Sovas was prepared to discuss was the sand and gravel operation. Zeff Weiss said that was his understanding as well, and in light of that, when did Mr. Lillig want Greg Sovas’ comments before they could effectively move forward with respect to the limestone. Laurence Lillig’s understanding was different than the others understood. We probably need to talk to the Director (Mike Hollibaugh.) Zeff Weiss said the confusion probably was that a letter sent to them in mid-January indicated that the TAC meeting would be addressing solely sand and gravel south. Laurence Lillig said he would get clarification and respond to Zeff Weiss. Greg Sovas said he had forgotten to ask if there were some specific reason why the hours of operation were requested. Dan Hoskins said the hours of operation are current 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM at the Carmel operation, the north location. Psalm Wyckoff said the north location is a dredging operation whereas the Mueller south location will not be, and it will be a noisier operation, since there will be loaders and trucks. The dredge is very quiet, pumping to the plant on the other side of the road, whereas a dry operation requires front end loaders loading into trucks that will then move the material off site. Mark Williams commented that setbacks in excess of 330 feet, 19 to 30-foot high berm, these will impact the sound that is generated from the site. Psalm Wyckoff responded that that is why a noise assessment is requested. Greg Sovas asked if there were a specific reason as to why they operate from 6 in the morning to 10 at night. From what was said, the only reason is that it is consistent with what was done before. We would like to see justification that the noise from the operation 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM will be no greater than the dredge operation, given the berms and other things, including back-up alarms (beepers). th Laurence Lillig had a question as to how the property is addressed. There are cuts off both 96 Street and River Road. How are the current operations being addressed or served? John Tiberi 8 th responded the Quarry operation is served off of 96 Street, Carmel Sand and Gravel is off Hazel Dell Parkway. Laurence asked how emergency responses were handled. If an emergency response were on site, how do they determine where to go? Dan Haskins & John Tiberi said an emergency management member would meet emergency thth personnel at the gate (96 Street) and take them to the point of incident that requires attention. 96 Street is the main entrance and point of business activity. th Laurence Lillig asked about the Carmel Concrete Operation separate from the mining, off of 106 Street; the response from the applicant indicates the Concrete Operation has a unique address. Bill Akers confirmed the separate address for Carmel Concrete Operation. Martin Marietta Materials - Mueller Property South - Artificial Lake (Special Use) Petitioner seeks approval to establish an artificial lake on 96.921± acres. th The site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of East 106 Street and Hazel Dell Parkway. The site is zoned S-1/Residence - Low Density. Filed by John Tiberi of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Dan Hoskins gave an overview of the Artificial Lake (Special Use) at the southwest corner of the th intersection of East 106 Street and Hazel Dell Parkwy. The artificial lake is the end result of the completion of mining of the south Mueller stone operation as well as currently. Laurence Lillig invited questions and comments that might be unique to the artificial lake aspect of this project. Greg Sovas had no comments specific to the lake. Laurence Lillig had questions as to what the anticipated, final disposition of the lake would be. The concern is not just with the Mueller property but with the property as a whole. Laurence wondered if there were any vision for the property in the long term, or is that something that is even contemplated by Martin-Marietta at this time. If understood correctly, a portion of the property is owned by Mueller at present, part is still owned by American Aggregates. John Tiberi said American Aggregates is a subsidiary/company within Martin-Marietta—it is just a matter of title. Laurence had several questions. At some point, does Martin-Marietta anticipate acquiring the Mueller property? John Tiberi responded that may happen at some future date, but currently it is not contemplated. Laurence Lillig asked if any thought had been given to the property when it is essentially “mined out?” The Board of Zoning Appeals will ask that question, and they will be very interested to know what the long-term vision for this property is. 9 John Tiberi responded that at this point, they are not sure. Laurence Lillig advised the applicant that a plan of action, even if only conceptual at this time, would be good to have when appearing before the Board. Zeff Weiss had a timing perspective. Additional information will be gathered and distributed and we have only effectively addressed the sand and gravel as a result of Spectra also not coming prepared. We probably should think in terms of scheduling so that we can do this in a logical format. Laurence Lillig said a TAC session would be scheduled to discuss the limestone extraction so that those issues can be discussed. John Tiberi asked when materials should be submitted. Laurence Lillig asked that Martin Marietta get plans to the Department and other agencies that have requested them. After review, comments can then be sent to Martin-Marietta—we’ll call that the “next step.” END MEETING 10