Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/11/1993PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES On The Final Environmental Impact Statement Revisions for Gravel Mil... . Z1 Consolidated End Use Concept City of Apple Valley January 11, 1993 - Apple Valley Community Center 1. CALL TO ORDER The public information meeting was called to order at 7.00 p.m. by Hearing Officer Dennis Welsch. 2. WELCOME Mayor Willis Branning welcomed participants to the public information meeting. He encouraged participants to comment constructively on the environmental impacts of these proposals. Mayor Branning provided some of the history related to the gravel mining request. Mayor Branning identified elected officials from the City of Lakeville and the City of Apple Valley and thanked them for their presence at the meeting. 3. PURPOSE AND PROCEDURE OF THE MEETING Hearing Officer Welsch noted that this public information meeting was an optional part of the environmental impact statement process, established by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. Apple Valley is considered the responsible local government unit for such an environmental impact statement. That means that Apple Valley must ultimately determine whether the Environmental Impact Statement is adequate. Welsch noted that the City of Apple Valley will make no decision on this Environmental Impact Statement this evening. He explained the purpose of the meeting is to gather input on the revisions to the Environmental Impact Statement originally issued in the Spring of 1990. The Environmental Impact Statement identifies impacts that a proposed mining operation may have on the surrounding environment of land located south of County Road 42 and north of 160th Street. Welsch explained the process for the public information meeting and asked members of the audience to first clarify technical questions and then provide comment on the information contained within the Impact Statement. He noted that participants may either comment verbally or in writing at the meeting or send in written comments through January 18, 1993. The City Council will review comments on the Environmental Impact Statement revisions at January 28 meeting. At that time they will determine whether the revisions to the Environmental Impact Statement are adequate and notify the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board of its decision. 4. City Planner Richard Kelley provided background information on the time and place of meetings and the remainder of the Environmental Impact Statement public information process as well as the potential zoning and other permits that may be reviewed in the future. He noted that after January 28th, the City Council has 5 working days or until February 3 to provide mailed notice of the adequacy determination to the various agencies that comment on the Environmental Impact Statement. February 15, 1993, the issue of Environmental Quality Board Publication called "The Monitor" would publish the results of the Environmental Impact Statement adequacy decision. If the EIS is found to be adequate, the Environmental Impact Statement process is complete. 4qp Public Information Meeting Minutes On The Final Environmental Impact Statement Revision For Gravel Mining January 11, 1993 Page 2 5. City Planner Kelley explained the original April 1990 request by the City Council for additional information on the Environmental Impact Statement. This request included: 1. More information on the potential impact on ground water. 2. More information on the potential surface water impact. 3. More information on potential soil erosion impact. 4. More information on potential noise pollution impact. 5. More information on potential visual impact. 6. More information on potential air pollution impact including fugitive dust and odors. 7. More information on potential traffic impacts. Three other items were listed in the resolution by the City Council including potential economic impacts, potential employment impacts, and potential sociological impacts. 6. QUESTIONS FROM AUDIENCE CLARIFYING PROPOSALS OR IMPACT TOPICS Public Hearing Officer Welsch opened the public information meeting and requested that members of the audience who have technical clarification questions to please bring them forward. Gene Hokinson, 6782 162nd Street West, Rosemount, asked for clarification regarding the level of ground water in the Valley Park area for shallow point wells that have not been identified in the study. He also asked for clarification regarding the location of the crusher in the revised Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Hokinson asked for clarification regarding noise from the location of the crusher. Lakeville Councilmember Betty Sindt, asked for further information in the revised Environmental Impact Statement which would describe the drainage swale and potential bypasses of the Valley Park area for water coming from the northwest through Apple Valley. Dennis Kohner, 16050 Excel Way, Lakeville, presented a petition in which he described potential significant nuisances and hazards to the petitioners from spring and summer heavy runoff from Apple Valley. He noted that the water at times flows through this area for weeks causing a clear danger for the residents' young children. The residents of this area request that the City of Apple Valley install and maintain a proper water drainage system. A copy of the petition is attached to the meeting notes. Joyce Wittman, 16185 Franchise, Co-Chair of the Valley Park Homeowner's Association, stated that the extension of the study area to Foliage Avenue added dust and noise to the residential area. She expressed concern about wells that were within two blocks of the study area but have not been identified on the well sheet within the revisions to the EIS. Ms. Wittman asked for clarification regarding gravel truck traffic on County Road 46 versus County Road 42. The final EIS does not clearly address this. She also asked for clarification regarding the section on property values. In this section, she noted that the average home value is established by the County Assessor and does not necessarily relate to a site specific case. She noted that the current property taxes on the entire sand and gravel study area are approximately $70,000. Ms. Wittman also noted that if the land were open for development, $ would require substantial new schools and other public improvements thereby requiring a higher tax base. Dennis Kohner, 16050 Excel Way, stated that the noise revisions to the EIS were not adequate and asked that the study include a section on moving the crusher farther to the north. He asked for clarification regarding the mining of gravel within the area adjacent to residential development. Nancy Prasin asked for clarification regarding the height of berms near residential areas and along County Road 42. She expressed concern that the revised EIS did not address the issue of visual impact from the third story of townhouse and condominium buildings on the north side of County Road 42, east of Pilot Knob Road. Earling Hoo, 6290161st Street West, Rosemount, stated that he felt the EIS did not adequately identify the number of pipelines and the age of the pipelines. He expressed concern that the final EIS does not address the plans for a petroleum spill or leak. He also asked for clarification about the maximum number of acres that would be involved in gravel mining at any one time. Frank Curry, 14747 Endicott Way, Apple Valley, stated that the EIS does not clearly address compatibility of gravel mining with housing. He expressed concern regarding the blowing dust in the area and the traffic congestion created by gravel mining operations. He also expressed concern regarding the third floor units adjacent to County Road 42 and the line of sight that such units would have. Jeff Gorman, 6219161st Street West, Rosemount, stated that he was concerned that the revised EIS did not adequately address the dust problems as they relate to the Valley Park area. Rachel Simmons, 6129121st Street, stated that the dust issues have not been adequately addressed. She stated that there is little comment regarding the health of inhabitants. Ms. Simmons also expressed concern regarding a crushing plant within four blocks of her home, especially as it relates to vibrations. She said the trucks and traffic safety at the 160th Street intersection with Cedar Avenue and at the County Road 42 intersection with Cedar Avenue already overburden the system. Pete Autry, an Apple Ponds resident, asked for clarification regarding the EIS description of zoning and land use versus the gravel operators contention that a vein of gravel can be mined wherever it lies. He also expressed concern with the safety issues for children in the area. Ann Gergen,15810 Gallery Avenue, Apple Ponds, Apple Valley, stated that the EIS does not adequately measure impact on the community versus proximity to the site. She stated that as uses are developed further away from the site, they still have major impacts from the gravel mining. She also noted that the Apple Ponds Additions are not shown on many of the revised EIS plans. David Gram, XXXX 161st Street, Valley Park, Lakeville, asked for clarification regarding the 1987 agreement to close the Fischer pit. He also expressed concern with the ability of the City of Apple Valley to disclose the final EIS and its study purposes to potential residents in the area. Francine Katz, 7124 158th Street, Apple Ponds, Apple Valley, expressed concern with the notification process to new residents in the area. She stated she lived in the Apple Ponds area less than one year and was unaware of the gravel study or possible expansion of the gravel mining area. Kris Mestad, 6170 Lower 161st Street, stated that the EIS does not address the previous zoning for Apple Valley which showed small business zoning in the southern part of the city and single family residential area adjacent to it in the City of Lakeville. He stated that the gravel pit impacts the quality of life further away than the EIS states. He asked for clarification in the revised EIS as to where the final and fixed location of the central rock crusher would be. He asked if the rock crusher could be moved from that location. Kathy Arbour, 14839 Endicott Way, Valley Way Village, Apple Valley, stated that she was concerned about the EIS issues of hours of operation. She asked for clarification regarding whether operators currently comply with the city's ordinance stating maximum hours of operation. She also asked for clarification regarding operators who are working under a federal contract. It is not clear in the final EIS whether hours of operation regulations by the City of Apple Valley can be exempted for federal projects. Greg Walbridge, 15735 Garrett Drive, Apple Valley, expressed concern that the final EIS does not adequately address vibrations. He noted that traffic on County Road 46 already adds vibrations to his house at 15735 Garrett Drive. He also expressed concern regarding the amount of dust from the existing agricultural fields and potential gravel areas. Lynn Minius, Valley Park, Lakeville, asked for clarification regarding pipeline safety and the assumptions about reliability. Ms. Minius also asked for clarification regarding statistics in the EIS that state that dust reduction would be 100% if a sprinkler and water system were used. Lester Schalm, 16108 Fairgreen Avenue, Lakeville, stated that he did not recognize in the final EIS documents the change that has occurred in Apple Valley over the past five years, especially as it relates to the growth in commercial and industrial buildings. He asked what impact gravel mining for fifty years would have on the growth of the commercial and industrial sector. He also asked if the City may change boundaries in order to accommodate the growth or the gravel mining. Richard Jansen, 13540 Guild Avenue, stated that the concept of the final EIS into illustrate how negative impacts on the environment can be minimized. He stated this assumes that the City and its citizens agree that further environmental degradation is necessary in the first place. Mary Quebell, asked for further clarification regarding pipelines and the methods of lowering the pipelines with Williams Brothers' consent. Lynette Mulvihill, 7384 Upper 164th Street West, Rosemount, addressed a number of general issues. Sandi Turner, 16298 Florida Way, Rosemount, stated that she felt the final EIS was a negative impact on the community and that business development will not flourish because of this negative impact. Gary Outlaw, stated it made no sense to expand the gravel mining within a city where development has surrounded the site. He asked for clarification regarding the economic value of gravel mining versus development. City Administrator, Bob Erickson, City of Lakeville, asked that the developers consultants provide a detailed real plan for a reduced scope project so that agencies and citizens could comment on the final action. Mr. Erickson stated that the final EIS does not include information from the newly completed draft Dakota County Ground and from the Dakota County Capital Improvements Program of 1993 through 1997 in which Pilot Knob Road is to be reconstructed and County Road 46 is also to be reconstructed at a different timeline. He Public Information Meeting Minutes 44p, On The Final Environmental Impact Statement Revisions For Gravel Mining January 11, 1993 Page 5 stated that the City of Lakeville would not agree to participate in the upgrading of either road without modification to the proposed gravel plans. Mr. Erickson noted that the Metropolitan Council comments have not been adequately addressed. He noted that in a letter that was sent, December 1, 1992, the Rechtzigel property has not been included in the mining proposal. Mr. Erickson also remarked that the City of Lakeville does not believe that Apple Valley has conformed to the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act and is not in compliance with other water management regulations regarding the quality of water discharge. He noted that in the final EIS the consultants state that most surface water infiltrates into the aquifer. He notes that this has not been the case in the past two years and cited the petition submitted earlier in the evening from citizens of Lakeville asking that the drainage through the preexisting drainage swale be managed properly to reduce flooding in Lakeville. Mr. Erickson stated that the City of Lakeville will work with Apple Valley to solve the surface water management problems. Mr. Erickson remarked that the safety hazards related to pipelines have not been fully addressed. He noted that there are five pipelines of which four are active and a fifth is currently being used for fiber optics. He asked that the final EIS provide a letter of assurance from Williams Pipeline that changes to the pipeline will be completed and the manner in which they would be completed during the mining process. Mr. Erickson also noted that the final EIS does not clearly identify all of the shallow point wells in Valley Park. He stated that the water table is currently high, but that as drought conditions occur, the addition of mining in the area may have a substantial impact on shallow point wells in the area and asked that they be properly identified. Mr. Erickson summarized that the City of Lakeville would like to create a partnership with the City of Apple Valley and to create a plan for the future based upon trust. He asked that quality developers be involved who will offer to mitigate and mediate environmental impacts. He stated that Lakeville has reviewed the track record of the current developers and will litigate with the developers and or the City depending upon the outcome of the study and the final permits. Joyce Wittman, 16185 Franchise, Valley Park, Lakeville, stated that the final EIS Comprehensive Plan Review Section is inadequate in that it states that the Metropolitan Council will no longer need to review sand and gravel issues since sand and gravel is a temporary use. She cites the schedule of 50 years worth of mining as proof that the use is more than temporary. David Fischer, 17622 Dodd Boulevard, Lakeville, addressed the final EIS in writing and by phone call. He stated he was concerned that the final EIS illustrates that mining operations would surround and isolate his property from normal development patterns in the area. He asked that the City consider his property in the final EIS before the City's Mayor and Councilmembers finalize a decision. He noted that he is not a participant in the consortium and wishes to review his options at the end of the study period. He stated that the final EIS does not address the issue of compatibility between the county mining activity and the county reconstruction of County Road 46, adjacent to his property. Mr. Fischer also stated that the final EIS did not discuss in detail an enclosed crusher operation rather than primary and secondary crushing activities. He stated that the environmental impact of the continued crushing outside the hours of 7:00 am. to 5:00 p.m. does impact the social setting of the community. He asked that the City consider defining the hours of operations from 7 :00 a.m. to 5 :00 p.m. as the Barton pit now does. c: \wp51 \minutes \01- 11- 93.eis