Loading...
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 .