HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.c. Apple Valley Gravel EAWr a
i
low
July 6, 1988
Mr. Richard Kelley CD
City Planner
City of Apple Valley
14200 Cedar Avenue
Apple Valley, MN 55124 rr
RE: Consolidated End Use Concent fAA c
Scoping EAW
Dear Mr. Kelley:
The following comments summarize the review and the discussion by
the City of Rosemount, regarding the EAW prepared for the proposed
sand and gravel operation in Apple Valley.
1. The EAW notes that the Consolidated End Use Concept
(CEUC) will modify three existing End Use Plans for
three existing sand and gravel operations in the
Project Area. One existing, permitted operation,
Nordic Square Ltd. Partnership (Model), is contiguous
with the city of Rosemount; yet, the "preliminary"
CEUC plan doesn't even include all of the Model site.
In the Summary of Issues, it is noted that "New and
existing permits in the Project Area would need to be
reviewed and modified to comply with the Consolidated
End Use Concept." The lack of detail on the CEUC
and the aforementioned omission of land within the
CEUC make it impossible to accomplish this or to even
make any judgments in this regard. The EAW is
inadequate with respect to this issue.
2. The EAW language tends to minimize or understate the
potential for impacts for erosion and sedimentation.
Several factors are listed which attempt to suggest
"appropriate" mitigation of these impacts. One has
only to witness frequent "dust storms" and the per-
petual presence of sand on roadways and walkways to
conclude that existing mitigative measures are
totally inadequate. It can only be presumed that
the EIS will address this issue in proper detail,
along with air pollution, noise and odors.
3. The EAW states that a traffic analysis will be
conducted as part of the EIS. In keeping with comment
No. 1 above, no assumptions can be made with respect
to "townline" or interconnecting roadways between the
cities of Apple Valley and Rosemount. There have
been numerous meetings over the years between the
two cities and Dakota County, regarding future
transportation improvements in this area. The EAW
inadequately addresses these relationships.
July 1, 1988
Page Two
The EAW does reference "major adjacent roadways including
Highway... 46 (160th Street)..." 160th Street, east of Pilot Knob Road,
is not a county highway. In particular, 160th Street, east of the
Apple Valley border is owned by the City of Rosemount and the Town
of Empire. This segment of 160th Street is maintained by the City of
Rosemount.
The EAW states, "Given the jurisdictional and functional classification
of the roadways serving the development and the fact current gravel
operations north of County Road 42 will be terminated, it is expected
that the traffic associated with the development will result in no
significant impacts." The EAW is totally inadequate to state such
preliminary conclusions. Impacts of trucks on the existing roadway
system and contiguous land uses can only be properly addressed in
the EIS. "
In summary, we hope these comments are constructive for the review
of this proposal undertaken by the city of Apple Valley. We
appreciate the efforts of the City of Apple Valley in involving the
City of Rosemount early in this process.
Sincerely,
Stephan Jilk
City Administrator
SJ/rw