7. Discuss Moon Valley Rifle Range i , 7
, . CITYOF -�---
a , 4.
, CHANHASSEN
. . ...i.,, ,
..
1 • :..,. , : . !" .
. ... . .: ,_ .... . _
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 \ (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 Action by City Administrator
MEMORANDUM Endorsed ✓ -
1 Modi'i d
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Rejoctcc
Dat��_.._
Date Submitted to Commission
1 FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director _
DATE: January 16 , 1990 Date F.u`,mitted to Coma'
1
1 .22/ ?c,
SUBJ: Moon Valley Gravel Quarry/Options for City Control
PROPOSAL/COMMENT
1 In November and December of last year, the City received a number
of contacts regarding a rumored expansion of the Moon Valley
I gravel mining operation. It culminated in a Visitor Presentation
by Terry Beauchane at the December 18 , 1989 , City Council
meeting. At the meeting Mr. Beauchane indicated that he was con-
cerned with the size of the operation in general, the lack of
1 apparent city control over it and with rumors he had heard
regarding the potential for additional acquisitions of land by
the owners . Staff indicated that we were in the process of
I researching the matter and would come back to the City Council
in January with more information and a discussion of action alter-
natives. This report is being prepared to outline the City' s
Ioptions for handling this issue.
We believe that there are a number of issues that need to be
explored relative td +this matter. These include the current and
I recent ownership pattern of the gravel quarry and surrounding
properties, background regarding the non-conformity that
currently exists, potential regulatory c33'ti6ns including a new
I ordinance that could regulate mining and excavation, .the poten-
tial of taking action under existing ordinances relative to the
separate clay mining operation near Pioneer Trail, and the
question of environmental assessment worksheets.. I have also
Ibriefly discussed a related matter relative to the ways in which
the City currently processes grading permits and proposed regula-
tory changes that would respond to this. , ,4
IProperty Ownership
I The property in question is located between Hwy. 212 and Pioneer
Trail. The subject sites contains a gravel mining operation
( adjacent to Hwy. 212) and a separate clay mining site (adjacent
to Pioneer Trail. Staff has researched the ownership of the Moon
1
I
I I/
Mr. Don Ashworth I
January 16, 1990
Page 2
1
Valley operation and researched further the land acquisitions
that may have occurred in the area. It is our conclusion that
there have been no recent acquisitions that we can find record
of.
The Moon Valley property, as shown on Attachments A and B, was
originally under the ownership of Walter Griepentrog and utilized
as the Moon Valley Extraction company and shooting range prior to
the adoption of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance in 1972. The
property owned by Walter Griepentrog was transferred in whole to
Thomas and Beatrice Zwiers in 1986 . No additional land beyond
what Walter Griepentrog owned was purchased by Thomas Zwiers.
There is property owned by Vernon Teich which is located between
the Thomas Zwiers property and existing residents (Beauchane) on
Hwy. 212.
Background/Non-conforming Use
Moon Valley operation predates any city ordinances that would
regulate it$is therefore established as a non-conforming use.
Mineral extraction is established as a permitted conditional use
in the A-2 district, however, no permits have ever been approved.
A permit was applied for in 1973 but the request was dropped
without action being taken. As such, the Moon Valley operation
is established as a legal non-conformity. The City Attorney, in
an attached documentation, indicates that there is no effective
way to put a legal non-conformity out of business, however, he
does believe that they can be regulated. The City Attorney' s
memorandum provides citations for cases which support this point
of view. It should be noted, however, that in our opinion, the
legal non-confomity pertains to the gravel mining excavation as
it has been expande&-to its current size. We do not believe the
clay mining site which is physically removed from the gravel area
and which is designed to mine a different material is protected
by the grandfathering. This is a new operation that was initated
after the date of adoption of the ordinance which requires mining
activities to obtain conditional use permits.
Potential New Zoning Ordinance Requirements to Regulate Mining
Activities
The City Attorney' s memorandum cites cases and offers that the
City would have the authority to require the Moon -Vd'lley gravel
operation to seek and obtain a permit to allow its use in order
to protect public safety. In so doing, the City could establish
reasonable conditions for approval; however, it should be noted
that we do not believe the City would be in a position to deny
the permit. At the present time the ordinance establishes
mineral excavation as a conditional use in the A-2 District;
however, there are no particular standards that are applied. It
I
1
Mr. Don Ashworth
January 16 , 1990
Page 3
' is our opinion that mining activities should be regulated to
accomplish the following:
' 1. Ensure that the site is returned to reasonable and usable
condition for planned land uses upon completion of the
excavation.
' 2 . On-site and off-site drainage are appropriately handled
to minimize impact.
' 3 . Slopes are stablized and that adequate buffers are pro-
vided to protect adjacent land parcels.
4 . Natural amenities on the site, such as wetlands and mature
tree cover, are protected.
5. Hours of operation are regulated to reduce the nuisance
' activity.
6 . Dust is controlled to reduce the nuisance activity.
' 7 . Traffic is controlled to reduce potential safety hazards.
1 8. Ultimate dates of removal of the use are established.
9 . Minimum setbacks from the operation are established from
property lines.
10. The property is fenced and maintained in a manner that
ensures the safety of the public.
' 11. Noise generated from the site is held to a reasonable
minimum.
' The City Attorney has submitted an ordinance that he has drafted
for the City of Lakeville to deal with this type of matter. If
the City Council directs staff to proceed`, we wo'uld incorporate
' elements of this and other ordinances as deemed appropriate.
The City Council should be aware that there are risks in pursuing
' the strategy of requiring Moon Valley to obtain a permit,
Litigation is likely to result and the City Attorney' s opinion
should be sought regarding the City' s exposure.
.
' Potential Action on Clay Excavation Site on' Pioneer Trail
As indicated above, staff and the City Attorney have concluded
that we view the clay mining operation differently from the gra-
vel excavation site for two reasons. The first reason is that it
is relatively recent and was started long after the date of the
ordinance which required permits for mineral excavation. The
I
Mr. Don Ashworth
January 16, 1990
Page 4
second reason is that it is physically removed from the main gra-
vel mining quarry and is in fact mining a different mineral or
material. Since it was started after the adoption of the ordi-
nance
and no permit was obtained. It is therefore, our opinion,
that it is in violation of the zoning ordinance. Therefore, we
believe the City may be in a position to require that the owner
permanently cease all related clay mining activity and pursue
actions to have the site restored back to its original condition.
Once again, the City Council should seek the advice of the City
Attorney as to the City' s legal exposure with this alternative. I
Potential Environmental Assessment Worksheet
As we had indicated at the City Council meeting, staff does not '
believe that the EAW by itself represents a valid option for
dealing with the Moon Valley issue. At this point, the owner is
taking no action, that specifically would require an EAW or which
would allow the City to electively require one. Consideration
could be given, however, to require that an EAW be prepared as a
requirement of any conditional use permit application for mineral
extraction.
Procedures to Deal with Grading and Filling
Prior to the raising of the issues regarding Moon Valley, the
Planning and Engineering Department staff held a number of
discussions regarding the manner in which the city regulates the
issuance of grading permits. At the present time, all such
grading permits must be approved by the City Council which, while
probably appropriate in some cases, may not be in others. Our
specific concern deals with requests to move relatively small
amounts of earth, generally under a 1,000 cubic yards where there
are no significant issues such as wetland encroachment or tree
loss. Staff discussed the possibility of recommending modifica-
tions to the ordinance which would allow the City engineer to
administratively issue permits for moving small amounts of earth
subject to specific criteria with all larger earth work requiring
approval by the City Council. We believe this will result in
more effective control over the great majority small earth work
projects while facilitating development in the City. We further
believe this can be accomplished without compromising the ability
of the City Council and public in general to review proposals
that would result in significant amounts of earth work. I had
scheduled the submittal of a draft ordinance to the 'Planning
Commission in January, however, we delayed action on this ordi-
nance due to the Moon Valley situation. We believe that a
comprehensive ordinance that deals with both mining and mineral
excavation and grading is probably the best approach and would
propose that any ordinances we are directed to bring to the City
Council should resolve both issues.
I
Mr. Don Ashworth
1 January 16, 1990
Page 5
Summary
This report outlines several alternatives dealing with the Moon
1 Valley situation. Staff and the City Attorney have concluded
that there are alternatives for actively pursuing this matter,
however, each involves some legal risk. Should the matter be
actively pursued, we believe that we can develop an ordinance
that will effectively regulate mineral extraction, with a ,goal
towards restoring the site and minimizing the impact on the
environment and area residents. Staff asks for City Council
direction on this matter.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo from City Attorney dated January 15, 1990.
2 . Memo from City Attorney dated January 5, 1990.
' 3 . Lakeville Mining Ordinance.
4 . Map illustrating property ownership pattern.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A.
Attorneys at Law I
Thomas J. Campbell
Roger N. Knutson (612)456-9539
Thomas M. Scott Facsimile(612) 456-9542
Gary G. Fuchs
James R. Walston
Elliott B. Knetsch
Dennis J. Unger
January 15, 1990
•
11
Mr. Paul Krauss '
Chanhassen City Hall
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 1
RE: Moon Valley Clay Mining
Dear Paul: 1
In the fall of 1988, Moon Valley mined clay near the north
side of Pioneer Trail. The site has not been restored. You asked
me what the City could do. We can make a reasonably good argument
that the clay mine is a separate and distinct use from the gravel
operation and that any right the operator has to extract gravel
does not include the right to extract clay. If the operator does
not restore the site we could prosecute or commence a civil
action for violation of Article XXVII of the City Code. If this 111 is to be pursued, the first step would be a letter from the
building official.
Very trul yours, I
AMPpELL, KNUT:ON, SCOTT
& PUCHS,
BY:
Ro ge.r-N-`Knut son
RNK:srn
•
JAN 16 1999
CI1 OF CHANHASSEN I
Yankee Square Office III • Suite 202 • 3460 Washington Drive • Eagan, MN 55122
I
CAMPBELL KNUTSON SCOTT & FUCHS P.A.
Attorneys at Law
Thomas J. Campbell
' Roger N. Knutson (612)456-9539
Thomas M. Scott Facsimile (612) 456-9542
Gary G. Fuchs
James R. Walston
Elliott B. Knetsch
Dennis J. Unger
January 5, 1990
1 F v
' Mr. Paul Krauss
Chanhassen City Hall
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Moon Valley
' Dear Paul:
Enclosed is a legal research memo on the Moon Valley
' problem. Other than doing nothing, the best solution would be to
enact an ordinance requiring permits for existing uses such as
Moon Valley. Although we can't put legal nonconforming uses out
of business, we can regulate them. I suggest a meeting to discuss
' how we proceed from here. Also enclosed is a copy of Lakeville ' s
ordinance.
' V- • yours,
CAM'BELL, UTSON, SCOTT
, P.A.
BY 1 v —�
Ro--r N. Knutson
RNK:srn
Enclosures
1
1
JAN g 1990
' CITY of CHANHAssEN
Yankee Square Office III • Suite 202 • 3460 Washington Drive • Eagan, MN 55122
1
I/
MEMORANDUM I/
TO: PAUL '
KRAUS S
FROM: ROGER KNUTSON/DENNIS UNGER 1
DATE: JANUARY 4, 1990
FILE: CITY OF CHANHASSEN/MOON VALLEY GRAVEL MINING , 1
RE: REGULATING NONCONFORMING USES
You asked me to do some research on the issue of whether the
city of Chanhassen can require Moon Valley to obtain a permit for
their nonconforming use, or more particularly, what regulations
can the city impose on Moon Valley's nonconforming use. '
Scope of Nonconforming Gravel Mining Uses.
Your recall of the special rule regarding nonconforming ,
quarrying uses was correct. The majority rule as adopted by
Minnesota in Hawkins v. Talbot, 80 N.W.2d 863 (Minn. 1957)
provides that a landowner is entitled to continue his
nonconforming use in the case of a diminishing asset "over all
that part of the owner's land which contains the particular asset
and not merely that area in which the operations were actually
being conducted at the time of the adoption of the ordinance. "
Id. at 866. This unique exception to the established rule is
premised on the theory that the very nature of the excavating
business contemplates the use of land as a whole and implies the
gradual extension into surrounding areas.
Limitations on Nonconforming Quarrying Uses.
Notwithstanding the ,
g above,a ove, the special rule of nonconforming
use and diminishing assets in no way affords landowners carte
blanche to engage in excavating activities. Regulating
nonconforming quarrying use, like any municipal regulation, may be
valid so long as it promotes the community's interests in health,
safety, morals or welfare, i.e. so long as the municipality is
validly exercising its police power. Goldblatt v. Town of
Hempstead, New York, 369 U.S. 590, 82 S. Ct. 987, 8 L. Ed. 2d 130
(1962) ; Teuschler v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 154 Conn. 650, 228
A. 2d 518 (1967) .
In the Goldblatt case, the landowner had been mining sand and
gravel continuously since 1927. In 1958, a town ordinance was '
amended to require a mining permit, prohibit excavating below the
water table and imposing an affirmative duty to refill any
excavations presently below that level. Id. at 988, 989. 1
IIAlthough the regulations effectively prohibited all further
excavation on the premises, the regulations were upheld. Evidence
' produced clearly showed that the regulations were reasonable
efforts to protect the safety concerns of the community. Id. at
990.
11 In Teuschler, a nonconforming sand and gravel mining operator
refused to apply for a permit to mine and claimed that the
Planning and Zoning Commission may not impose a time limit on his
' right to mine and sell gravel and that any attempt to do so would
be a violation of the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and
Article V of the Connecticut Constitution. He did not dispute the
Commission's authority to adopt the gravel regulations, rather,
' his claim was that the regulations were invalid and unconstitu-
tional as to him.
' Despite the fact that the landowner had been removing gravel
for nearly 30 years, the court upheld the municipalities
regulations as a reasonable exercise of its police powers. The
ordinance was enacted for the purpose of regulating the removal of
' earth, loam, topsoil, sand, gravel, clay, stone or soil and to
prevent and control the unsightly and dangerous conditions which
are common in such operations and which are detrimental to the
safety, health and welfare of the community and protection of
property. The landowner simply failed to sustain his burden of
proof that the ordinance was discriminatory and therefore
' unconstitutional. Id.
In short, uses of all land, conforming or nonconforming, must
observe reasonable police regulations and avoid the creation of a
nuisance. American Law of Zoning Sec. 17.56. Quarries, in
particular, involve a sufficient potential danger to the community
to warrant regulation. Id.
Quarrying operations are industrial uses which are
incompatible with residential, commercial and some
industrial uses. They involve blasting, produce
' dust, and generate heavy truck traffic. In
addition, they commonly involve some safety hazards
when they are active, and leave the land and its
surroundings blighted and useless when operations
are terminated. The aspects of this use which are
related to the safety of the community, and the
extremes of dust and noise which imperil public
health, are clearly amenable to regulations enacted
pursuant to the police powers.
Id. , Sec. 17.54.
Allowable Regulations.
' The available vehicles of regulation are as limitless as the
lawmaker's creativity. The circumstances of each individual case
will dictate the allowable extent of regulation. A general
-2-
I/
observation from reviewing the litigation in this area indicates I/
that the use of permits is one of the more popular vehicles of
regulation.
The other popular means of limiting and regulating
nonconforming uses is the adoption and enforcement of zoning and
nonconforming use ordinances. What constitutes an impermissible
extension or enlargement of an underlying use, however, is often
the subject of litigation. In Minnesota, for example, it has been
held that not only may a landowner extend his quarrying operations
to the boundary of his property, but the addition of a
stonecrusher to the quarry operation is a permissible extension of
a nonconforming use. Hawkins v. Talbot, 80 N.W.2d 863. On the
other hand, the addition of an asphalt plant to a gravel quarry
operation was held to be an impermissible expansion of the
nonconforming use in Prior Lake AagrAaates, Inc_ v. Cite, of
Savage, 349 N.W.2d 575 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984) . ,
In conclusion, the enactment of ordinances reasonably related
to the good and welfare of the immediate community will be upheld.
The question of reasonableness is fact specific and so long as the
city of Chanhassen exercises its police powers in a manner
necessary to protect and preserve the interests and welfare of the
community, its regulations should be upheld. ,
There is an extensive number of cases which have found
specific regulations to be reasonable exercises of a state or
municipality's police power. Likewise, there is an extensive
number of cases which have found certain regulations to be
unreasonable exercises of police power.
RNK/DJU:srn
11
1
I
-3-
r
ORDINANCE NO.
' CITY OF LAKEVILLE
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
' AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 7, CHAPTER 4 OF THE
LAKEVILLE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO EXCAVATIONS AND MINING
The City Council of the City of Lakeville ordains as'
follows:
SECTION 1. Title 7, Chapter 4 of the Lakeville City Code is
hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
7-4-1: PURPOSES AND INTENT.
The purpose of this Ordinance is to promote the
' health, safety and welfare of the community and to establish
reasonable uniform limitations, standards, safeguards and
controls for excavation and mining within the City.
' 7-4-2: DEFINITIONS.
The following words, terms and phrases shall have the
' following meanings respectively ascribed to them:
Mine or Excavation:
(a) Mine or excavation shall mean any excavation
made by the removal of the natural surface of the earth, whether
' sod, dirt, soil, sand, gravel, stone, or other matter, creating a
depression or depressions.
(b) Mite or excavation shall also mean any area
where the topsoil or overburden has been removed for the purpose
of mining earthly deposits or minerals, yet the area has remained
idle since the topsoil removal.
(c) Mine or excavation shall also mean any area that
is being used for stockpiling, storage, and processing of sand,
gravel, black dirt, clay, and other minerals.
Overburden: Those materials which lie between the
surface of the earth and material, deposit to be extracted.
Rehabilitation: To renew land to self-sustaining
long-term use which is compatible with continguous land uses,
present and future, in accordance with the standards set forth in
1 this chapter.
' r04/27/89
II
Topsoil: That portion of the overburden which lies
closest to the earth's surface and supports the growth of
vegetation. i
7-4-3: PERMIT REQUIRED.
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it ,
shall be unlawful for anyone to operate a mine or excavate
without having first obtained a written permit from the City
authorizing the same in accordance with this chapter. Mining and ,
excavation operations that predate this chapter that do not have
a permit shall obtain a permit within six (6) months after the
adoption of this chapter. Current permit holders shall come into
compliance with the terms of this chapter no later than the time
their annual permit is renewed.
7-4-4: EXEMPTIONS FROM PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. ,
The following activities do not require a permit
under this chapter: ,
A. Excavation for a foundation, cellar, or basement of a
building if a building permit has been issued. '
B. Grading a lot in conjunction with building if a building
permit has been issued.
C. Excavation by the federal, state, county, or city government
in connection with construction or maintenance of roads,
highways, or utilities. I
D. Curb cuts, utility hookups, or street openings for which
another permit has been issued by the City.
E. Excavation of less than one thousand (1,000) cubic yards in a
calendar year. '
F. Excavation of less than one hundred (100) square feet of
surface area in a calendar year. _
G. Excavation or grading for agricultural purposes. 1
H. Excavation or grading in accordance with a development
contract approved under the City's Subdivision Ordinance. If
the development contract requires that a letter of credit or
other security be posted, the letter of credit or other
security must be posted before any excavation takes place. I
r
-2- 1
II7-4-5: APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS; PROCEDURES, CONTENTS OF
APPLICATIONS.
' A. An application for a mine or excavation permit shall be
processed in accordance with the same procedures and
' requirements specified in the City Code relating to
conditional use permits.
B. An application for a mine or excavation permit shall contain:
1. The name and address of the operator and owner •of`the
land;
' 2 . The correct legal description of the property where the
activity is proposed to occur;
3. A certified abstract listing the names of all landowners
owning property within 350 feet of the boundary of the
property described above;
4 . Specifications of the following, using appropriate maps,
photographs and surveys:
a. The physical relationship of the proposed designated
site to the community and existing development.
b. Site topography and natural features including
location of watercourses and water bodies;
' c. The description and quantity of material to be
excavated;
d. The depth of water tables throughout the area; and
5. The purpose ,of the operation;
' 6. The estimated time required to complete the operation;
7. The plan of operation, including processing, nature of
' the processing and equipment, location of the plant,
source of water, disposal of water and reuse of water;
' 8. Travel routes to and from the site;
9. The plans for drainage, water erosion control,
sedimentation and dust control.
10. A rehabilitation plan provided for the orderly and
continuing rehabilitation of all disturbed land. Such
' plan shall illustrate, using photographs, maps and
surveys where appropriate, the following:
11 -3-
. 1
a. The contour of land prior to excavation, if
available, after completion of excavation and after
completion of rehabilitation;
b. Those areas of the site to be used for storage of
topsoil and overburden; '
c. A schedule setting forth the timetable for excavation
of land lying within the extraction facility; II
d. A timetable for the rehabilitation of land -lying
within the excavation facility shall be submitted to
the City well in advance of the completion of
excavation activities.
e. The slope of all slopes after rehabilitation, based
upon proposed land uses, and description of the type
and quantity of plantings where revegetation is to be
conducted; and
f. The criteria and standards to be used to achieve
final rehabilitation as well as intermittent
stabilization. ,
12. A statement identifying the applicant's program to insure
compliance with the permit conditions, method of response
to complaints and resolving conflicts that may arise as a
result of complaints.
7-4-6: COUNCIL REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF OVERALL PLAN; FUNCTION ,
OF RENEWABLE ANNUAL PERMITS.
A. The City Council shall review the permit application and
shall approve the permit if it is in compliance with this
chapter, the City's Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable
laws, ordinances, and regulations. The Council may attach
conditions to the permit approval to promote safety and
prevent nuisance conditions. The rehabilitation plan shall
only be approved if it is consistent with the uses allowed in
the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance. ,
B. Implementation of the overall plan shall be by means of
renewable annual permit. The purpose of the renewable permit
is to assure compliance with the longer-range overall plan
and to retain the ability to modify existing or to attach new
conditions in accord with changing characteristics of the
site or its surroundings. The City Administrator, after 11.
consultation with appropriate City staff, may issue renewal
licenses upon satisfactory proof of compliance with this
chapter. If the City Administrator denies a renewal license,
the applicant may appeal the decision to the City Council by
filing a notice of appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10)
days after the City Administrator denies the permit. ,
-4-
•
7-4-7: TERMINATION OF PERMIT.
' A. The material extraction permit may be terminated for
violation of this chapter or any conditions of the permit.
No permit may be terminated until the City Council has held a
' public hearing to determine whether the permit shall be
terminated, at which time the operator shall be afforded an
opportunity to contest the termination. The City Council may
establish certain conditions, which if not complied with,
will result in immediate suspension of operations until the
public hearing to consider termination of the permit Can be
held.
' B. It shall be unlawful to conduct mineral extraction or
excavation after a permit has been terminated.
' 7-4-8: ANNUAL PERMITS; RENEWAL; CONDITIONS.
A. Request for renewal of an annual permit shall be made sixty
(60) days prior to the expiration date. If application or
renewal is not made within the required time, all operations
shall be terminated, and reinstatement of the permit may be
' granted only upon compliance with the procedures set forth in
this chapter for an original application.
B. A permit may be approved or renewed subject to compliance
with conditions in addition to those set forth in this
chapter when such conditions are reasonable and necessary to
ensure compliance with the requirements and purpose of this
' chapter. When such conditions are established, they shall be
set forth specifically in the permit. Conditions may, among
other matters, limit the size, kind or character of the
' proposed operation, require the construction of structures,
require the staging of extraction over a time period, require
the alteration of the site design to ensure compliance with
the standards, require the provision of a performance bond by
' the operator to ensure compliance with these regulations in
this article or other similar requirements.
7-4-9: ISSUANCE OF PERMIT IMPOSES NO LIABILITY ON CITY AND
RELIEVES THE PERMITTEE OF NO RESPONSIBILITIES, ETC.
' Neither the issuance of a permit under this section,
nor compliance with the conditions thereof or with the provisions
of this section shall relieve any person from any responsibility
otherwise imposed by law for damage to persons or property; nor
' shall the issuance of any permit under this' section serve to
impose any liability on the City, its officers or employees for
any injury or damage to persons or property. A permit issued
' pursuant to this section does not relieve the permittee of the
responsibility of securing and complying with any other permit
which may be required by any other law, ordinance or regulation.
I
11 -5-
7-4-10: FEES.
A schedule of fees for the examination and approval
of applications for permits under this section and the inspection
of operations for compliance with the conditions of this section
and the permit shall be determined by resolution of the City
Council, which may, from time to time, change such schedule.
Prior to the approval and issuance or renewal of any permit under
this section, such fees shall be paid to the City and deposited
to the credit of the general fund. I
7-4-11: PERFORMANCE BOND OR IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT.
Prior to the approval and issuance of a permit, there '
shall be executed by the operator and submitted to the City
Administrator an agreement to construct such required
improvements, to dedicate such property or easements, if any, to
the City and to comply with such conditions as may have been
established by the City Council. Such agreement shall be
accompanied by bond with surety or condition acceptable to the
City Administrator in the amount of the established costs of
complying with the agreement. The aforesaid agreement bond or
letter of credit shall be provided for guaranteeing completion
and compliance with the conditions set forth in the permit within
the time to be approved by the City Council. The adequacy,
conditions and acceptability or any bond or letter of credit
hereunder shall be determined by the City Administrator. The
adequacy of the bond or letter of credit shall be reviewed
annually by the City. The City may direct the amount of the bond
or letter of credit be increased to reflect inflation or changed
conditions.
7-4-12: STANDARDS - EXTRACTION SITE LOCATION. 1
Operations permitted under this section shall not be
conducted within: "�
A. Fifty (50) feet of an existing street or highway;
B. Thirty (30) feet of the right-of-way of an existing public
utility;
C. Fifty (50) feet of the boundary of any zone where such
operations are not permitted; or
D. Thirty (30) feet of the boundary of an adjoining, property not
in mining use; or as directed by the City ,Council. 1
7-4-13: FENCING.
During operations permitted under this chapter, any
area where collections of water are one and one-half (1-1/2) feet
in depth or more, or where excavation slopes are steeper than one
foot verticle to one and one-half (1-1/2) feet horizontal, and
-6- 1
any other areas where obvious danger to the public exists, shall
be fenced when such a situation has existed or will exist for a
' period of five (5) working days or longer. The City Engineer
shall review such fencing to assure its adequacy. He may waive
this requirement or require additional measures based on his
judgment and the characteristics of the particular instances. As
' an alternative, the City Engineer may require perimeter fencing
of the entire extraction site.
' 7-4-14: APPEARANCE AND SCREENING AT THE EXTRACTION ,SITE.
The following standards are required at the
' extraction site of any operation permitted under this article:
1. Machinery shall be kept in good repair.
' 2. Abandoned machinery, inoperable equipment and rubbish
shall be removed from the site regularly;
3 . All buildings and equipment that have not been used for a
period of one year shall be removed from the site;
' 4 . All equipment and temporary structures shall be removed
and dismantled not later than ninety (90) days after
termination of the extraction operation and expiration of
the permit.
' 5. Where practical, stockpiles of overburden and materials
shall be used to screen the extraction;
6. The perimeter of the site shall be planted or otherwise
screened when such is determined by the City Council to
' be necessary;
7. Existing tree and ground cover shall be preserved to the
extent feasible, maintained and supplemented by selective
' cutting, transplanting of trees, shrubs, and other ground
cover along all setback areas.
' 7-4-15: OPERATIONS; NOISE; HOURS; EXPLOSIVES; DUST; WATER
POLLUTION; TOPSOIL PRESERVATION.
' The following operating standards shall be observed
at the extraction site of any operation permitted under this
section:
1. The maximum noise level at the perimeter of the site
shall be within the limits set by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency and the Federal Environmental Protection
Agency.
-7
2 . Extraction and hauling operations shall be performed
during only those times established by the City Council
as part of this permit.
3 . Operators shall utilize all practical means to eliminate
vibration on adjacent property from equipment operation.
4. Operators shall comply with all applicable city, county,
state and federal regulations for the protection of water
quality, including the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
and Federal Environmental Protection Agency regulations
for the protection of water quality. No waste products
or process residue shall be deposited in any lake stream
or natural drainage system. All waste water shall pass
through a sediment basin before drainage into a stream.
5. All topsoil shall be retained at the site until complete
rehabilitation of the site has taken place according to
the rehabilitation plan. ,
6. Operators shall use all practical means to reduce the
amount of dust, smoke, and fumes caused by the
operations.
7-4-16: REHABILITATION STANDARDS.
The following rehabilitation standards shall apply to
the site of any operation permitted under this chapter:
1. Rehabilitation shall be a continuing operation occurring
as quickly as possible after the extraction operation has
moved sufficiently into another part of the extraction
site.
2 . All banks and slopes shall be left in accordance with the
rehabilitation plan submitted with the permit
application.
3. Slopes, graded areas and backfill areas shall be surfaced
with adequate topsoil to secure and hold ground cover.
Such ground cover shall be tended as necessary until— it
is self-sustained. I
4. All water areas resulting from excavation shall be
eliminated upon rehabilitation of the site. In unique
instances where the City Council has reviewed proposals
for water bodies at the time of approval of the overall
• plan and has determined that such would be appropriate as
an open space or recreational amenity in subsequent reuse
of the site, water bodies may be permitted.
I
-8- 1
I
II ' .
5. No part of the rehabilitation area which is planned for
uses other than open space or agriculture shall be at an
1 elevation lower than the minimum required for connection
to a sanitary or storm sewer.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective immediately
1 upon its passage and publication.
1 ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Lakeville, this
day of , 1989.
1 CITY OF LAKEVILLE
i
By:
Duane R. Zaun, Mayor
1 ATTEST:
By:
City Clerk
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 -9-
E ....*". ..."' •
; -
1 .
le\ ( .
•• 10.4 1.•NI •
WOSYS a MOW Silf I'Sr YS
1311i3,41 ID S3:74.6 (3.1.it•in .
III 1 41:11 \
) .-
.. . r
. s I,. . s •
I
'024 '
..••••■•
I .. ,..-•''.."1 ' . •f•-- •
..., '-69% 1... - •- .‘
1 ; ........
•
. .. ... ... --:. •••••••-,
I i 4
s s
I 1,
s
2 .- ...•.- -- '. .
3 I
I / •
•
. ....,---4 . ....- ..
i,-
.00 _________ri.-- -----..*'--.
--., . ....s--,..
9 4
4°..0111:4:;:'
- r 14ir* 9,1••'LS YS
tCI31. M Pk.V.:V311
•.•-
.0. .n• r
• • . .
-- ...- .... . ..-
I ....-
..---" ..---5:. " -
- ..:-..i Id S 3.L N
3.I. V a ti.i.f.c.,-i
- ...- ... ■ J.,,„_.1.,V 9.
v.4".
. ..---- ...-- ....J..,
-,., ....- --- . 3NVH011V3E1 .'.. 4::•-sr--1. . -
-.---..."'",„ ------
. ..--
.. .-..".„..--•';
I
.. . U.
de ' •
.... _ .
A 3 11 V A
...--- *
4"-‘ •Y, *.0\*
I . -
NOOPI 8N1.1.81X3 aLif...,,i/
NIHEIN3S3IN 'b '1 " ./i. #.":-
, •.
i .
- 4.•• . :,
.... i r..•.-•4 •
11 9 "". "' - . .•••
/ 9991.91 so..- •
... .01 ....
I -
00V.:N3d39:10 C
rr •
./
i . i
r f
'''.../ .
I H 0 I 3.L
_ ./ . 9
.
.
.
A ' 1
1 '.1
/4-.——---- --.7.....440..rg:.::17s.
,
. il a I M i
/ ? .:•..
..• .. •, I
111 . -
• !
/ 1....Y
, , r.. - ---••-• . .....
i • , AAA/AM
- / - .
- .
- t
_
I _ 83IMZ
. -. .
. , 1
..1( .../
I
4, •I
, •
• , . - . ..
. . . '
.I1 ; / .
- ...---t 14:.° • ,
117 .14 ' . . .
I .
i /
1/ ,
.8 • ,
r , •
. -
-- ..
-.fr,•
, . .
• . , , ..
, . .„ • •. . i.1.
I ••• ALM NO
0001,121d3V5 0&UM .16 // I . : •
■ • .
- , '
4- • ‘ .
: . ..*.s' /• „ •
• ,S N. •
r A -7 .
I .
- .41: i
. . , ,
1 .-:,..
- --- t• ,.
' , ,
t 3"
.-
/li ii.....: . •
/ • '
I .r
rn
z
z-I Z
..... rr/ • • 4
iv/
- ? . -
. r
. .,r1 ,'
•
r.- ,/: -
-- -0 i" . .
r r r
:7' 2 , , . -' ,' I [
I A
ro (."..•
c.:. • ,
. .,
! i.' ' —:-7.-? . •- - - ....,.. - • 1
-. •. - -----. .- -. .
.-4-
.e-.--• '
..if ,••. .4
• - . r -
..0 n • tS ../,'' : ,'
ie
! - -
t ' -
.3 'abNINIIN AV, ..- -
.°-4..11 , - ...
- i i et .." 44 ,,, ■
I, •
I ' - _
WI•NOM AI'MS
.0. ,• ; „..• - • • ITMAOMIll?11.61011111011 .
il I I i i
l
'
//
.0 .4. ,,,....
,,
,•"- .1" '''''. ••
„...., •
i '
!
-
00
1 • '
.. ,....... -
• mosma 7tior
..A.ISADO
.
4/ '-- •
,, I .44
. ..,... / • .‘‘ •1 - — .- i •
,-
i - -- ,) 6t.
I . . . . lo ! •-... V. ittt ,... ::
I....." ....•
- .
1
,
,/,/.•
I
-...... '''''.... MALI" 'WI* • •-: .
,
JP I v .i . ■ \
. . ' /
i • ;:svorf.:..e.:•--.—„............44w . •
a' i .