Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout90-015 • CITY OF LAKEVILLE DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION Date February 20, 1990 Resolution No. 90-15 Motion By Sindt Seconded By .Mulvihill RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/CONSOLIDATED END USE CONCEPT FOR THE PROPOSED SAND AND GRAVEL MINING OPERATIONS IN APPLE VALLEY WHEREAS, the City of Apple Valley has requested comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement/Consolidated End Use Concept for the proposed sand and gravel mining operation to be relocated from various existing,. locations in Apple Valley to a location on the Apple Valley/Lakeville border; and WHEREAS, the cities of Apple Valley and Lakeville are contiguous municipalities and are rapidly developing urban areas; and WHEREAS, the proposed sand and gravel mining project abuts the northern boundary of the City of Lakeville; and WHEREAS, the City of Lakeville has adopted a comprehensive plan, reviewed and commented on by the City of Apple Valley; and WHEREAS, the comprehensive plan for the City of Apple Valley has been reviewed and relied on by the City of Lakeville in its planning process; and WHEREAS, the comprehensive plan for the City of Lakeville calls for the property adjacent to the proposed mining area in Lakeville to be residential in character; and • r02/20/90 • WHEREAS, the City of Lakeville appreciates the cooperation and attention given in the past to concerns common to both municipalities; and WHEREAS, the comprehensive plan for the City of Apple Valley calls for the property constituting the proposed mining project to be mixed residential; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is inappropriate in that it is adjacent to an established residential area in Lakeville; and WHEREAS, a significant portion of the proposed project (approximately 85%) would not be located in a zoning classification of a sand and gravel district; and WHEREAS, the draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") cannot adequately anticipate situations and circumstances not under control • of governmental units such as the potential negative impact on property values; and WHEREAS, the City of Lakeville is strongly opposed to any proposed land use of property adjacent to the City which would adversely affect the safety, health and well-being of the City's residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Lakeville is strongly opposed to any proposed use of the property adjacent to the City which would upset the environment so vital to the City and surrounding areas. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Lakeville City Council that the following specific comments concerning the DEIS for the proposed relocation of the mining operations in Apple Valley be made: 1. The DEIS is incomplete and inaccurate in that it: • a. fails to adequately analyze the impact the proposed mining area would have on the Praire du Chien acquifer; -2- • b. fails to adequately analyze the impact the proposed mining operation would have on the location of four petroleum gas lines and one natural gas line located in close proximity to the proposed project area. Moreover, the DEIS completely fails to address or analyze the issue of pipeline safety; c. fails to analyze the impact the proposed mining operation would have on existing petroleum clean up in close proximity to the proposed mining area; d. fails to analyze the impact the proposed mining operation would have on existing wells located in the area of the proposed mining operation. e. fails to accurately set forth the status of properties controlled by the sand and gravel operators who desire to mine sand and gravel in the proposed project area. 2. The proposed mining project is not in accordance with the Development and Framework Guide issued by the Metropolitan Council in 1988 which states: "The Metropolitan Council supports the maintenance of environmental quality throughout the region and will support programs or strategies to maintain or improve the natural environment." 3. The DEIS fails to adequately respond to the statement by the Metropolitan Council Chairperson in 1988 commenting on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet/Scoping Document (EAW) pertaining to the proposed project. The Metropolitan Council's statement, which was adopted by the City of Apple Valley states: "The City of Apple Valley, however, should give special consideration to potential groundwater appropriation and surface water management issues on and off the site in preparation of the draft EIS." 4. The proposed project is located within the Vermillion River Watershed area. The Watershed Commission requested James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers., Inc. to review the DEIS. The review i was completed with respect to the surface and groundwater impact of -3- the proposed project. The City adopts the James M. Montgomery report, dated February 6, 1990, and particularly notes the following concerns set forth in the Montgomery report: a. That the authors of the DEIS may have inappropriately assumed the status and condition of the subsurface rock structure at the proposed project area, in that if such assumptions are incorrect, the proposed mining operation could seriously impact the quality of ground water for the City of Lakeville and other areas relying on the Vermillion River Watershed; b. That the DEIS model with respect to groundwater elevation is inaccurate and inconsistent and omits consideration of fluctuating groundwater elevations. c. The .potential negative impact of lowering the groundwater table on the Williams Brothers Pipeline Co. clean up adjacent to the proposed mining area. d. The concerns raised with respect to surface water quality. 5. Officials from Dakota County have reviewed and commented on • the DEIS. The City adopts and incorporates herein the following provisions of the resolution of the Dakota County Board of Commissioners, dated February 6, 1990: a. No work shall be done on County roads until a satisfactory alignment and design is approved by the County. b. Consideration should be given to setting five and ten year quotas for the minimum amounts and maximum amounts of gravel mined in order to help assure project compliance. c. Where appropriate, commercial development and forested areas should be considered as alternatives to earthen berms. d. Rock crushers should be stationed in the center of the mining area. Consideration should be given to not mining within 300 feet of a residential area. e. Mining activity near CSAH 46 should not impair the long term plan of maintaining an efficient east-west corridor for traffic. Provisions for reducing leaking gravel loads should be implemented. Roads in and out of mining area should have bituminous surfaces. f. Pipeline leaks should be reviewed as to environmental impacts on local water quality. -4- • 6. The level of environmental impact is dependent upon how much material is mined each year. The DEIS states that the peak rate of sand and gravel extraction will be 2.8 million cubic yards per year. No commitment has been made that the rate will not be exceeded. If the rate is two, three or four times the suggested rate, the number of trucks, amount of dust, noise and other impacts will multiply. The final EIS should be revised to consider the impact of various extraction rates. 7. The DEIS incorrectly assumes County Road 46 east of Cedar Avenue will be improved to handle the increased traffic volume which would be caused by the proposed project. Under current policies the County Road will only be upgraded if the City of Lakeville pays for a substantial part of the cost. Lakeville will not pay to improve a haul • road for gravel trucks. 8. The DEIS assumes the proposed mining operations would comply with suggested mitigative measures. Apple Valley has been working for some time to update its mining ordinance. Unless a revised ordinance is adopted requiring mitigative measures, the assumption should be made that the mining operators will disregard such measures. Even with a more restrictive ordinance in place, it should be assumed that the mining operators would ignore such an ordinance. For example, the gravel mining operations are normally conducted from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 5:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Saturday. However, the effective Apple Valley ordinance only allowed sand and gravel operations to be conducted from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. • -5- 9. The DEIS does not adequately address the issue that the mining operation is inconsistent with Apple Valley's zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plans of Apple Valley and the City of Lakeville. 10. The DEIS states that in the next 36 to 55 years sand and gravel mining would move south into Lakeville. The assumption of the expansion of the proposed mining project to the Lakeville Nordic Square site lacks legal and factual foundation. 11. In discussing visibility and attention to the proposed project the DEIS concluded the proposed project is not a problem because "a majority of the properties adjacent to the proposed project area are currently used for agricultural or some other nonsensitive land use." This statement ignores the present use of the property, the anticipated growth in this area, and Lakeville's comprehensive plan • and zoning ordinance. The property in Lakeville adjacent to the proposed project area is primarily used for residential housing. The comprehensive plan and the current zoning classification calls for primarily residential development for the remaining undeveloped area in Lakeville adjacent to the proposed project. The final EIS should be amended to accurately reflect the current use and proposed future development of adjacent area. 12. Height restrictions must be imposed on material stockpiles and equipment. 13. Because the silty soils in the project area have a "moderately high erosion potential", any proposed berms could create a serious dust problem. Prevailing wind patterns would deposit the dust in Lakeville. A very detailed vegetative management plan (extensive • -6- • forestation) that includes irrigation should be established and implemented to mitigate dust problems. 14. The DEIS assumes that all mining activity north of County Road 42 will be relocated. Since a commitment to a time table is not made, the final EIS should recalculate impacts assuming the mining entities will remain in operation at their present locations. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that it is the conclusion of the City of Lakeville, based on the aforementioned statements, that large scale mining for 50 to 60 years into the future is not appropriate in a rapidly developing urban area. No matter how voluminous the document, no matter how rosy the picture that is painted, using common sense no one can seriously believe that introducing a 1,400 acre mine in an urban area will be anything but a disaster. • ADOPTED this 20th day of February ~ 1990, by the City Council of the City of Lakeville. CITY OF KEVILLE BY• • D ane R. Zaun ayor TEST: Charlene Friedges, ity Clerk • -7-