Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council sends sandpit conditional-use permit back to planning commission after haul-road dispute
Summary
Council delayed a conditional-use permit for a proposed sandpit at 61st Street North and Tyler Road after neighbors said the CUP’s legal description omitted a property and an associated haul road; council voted to return the case to planning for clarification of easements and notice requirements.
Planning staff presented conditional-use permit CUDash02Dash026 for a sandpit on a 59.4-acre site southeast of West 61st Street North and North Tyler Road, describing an approx. 27-acre extraction area, 17 acres of reclaimable land and post-operational reclamation requirements. Staff noted the CUP would allow operations for 10 years with an optional two-year extension and stood for questions.
A representative for LBHB Lakes raised objections, saying the CUP’s legal description did not include the property shown as part of the haul route and that “Ordinance 1109 requires that the whole routes be approved by the city.” The speaker said the mutual-access agreement shown in staff materials appeared to cover only two properties and may have expired; because the dash-marked parcel was not in the legal description, the representative said the property owner received no notice and therefore could not be heard at the planning stages.
Brian Lindaback, an MKEC Engineering consultant for the applicant, responded that the easement and agreements were recorded and “run with the land,” tracing back to filings from 2009 and later recording; he said the operator had long-used the route and offered to provide the recorded documents to concerned parties. Darren Dirks, the operator, described long-term operations and said the processing plant would remain in place; he said the community has had relatively few complaints about operations over the years.
Council members pressed staff and the applicant about which roads trucks would use and asked for a traffic-impact analysis and confirmation of the legal status of the mutual-access agreement. Planning staff said the planning commission believed the agreement and route were in place but the city had only recently learned that the new owner contested whether their parcel had been included in the legal description and given notice.
Given the unresolved questions about notice and the property-rights basis for the proposed haul route, council voted to send the case back to the planning commission for further review and clarification of right-of-way and easement documentation. The motion to return the CUP to planning carried by voice vote.
Next steps: the planning commission is expected to reconvene with the parties named in the legal descriptions so staff and the applicant can clarify whether recorded easements cover hauling across the disputed parcel and, if necessary, provide corrected notice before any final city approval.
