The URL can be used to link to this page

2. Moon Valley Interim Use permit for earth work/mining , C ITYOF Iv CIIANBASSEN 1 ,, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 0 1 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director I DATE: August 17, 1992 I SUBJ: Update - Moon Valley Request to Mine Clay Under Interim Use Permit #92 -5 1 At the August 10, 1992, City Council meeting, the Council reviewed the request to mine 250,000 cubic yards of clay from this site which is located south of Pioneer Trail and I adjacent to the former Chicago Northwestern Railroad Tracks. The Council continued the item. Staff was directed to attempt to respond to questions that were raised and bring consideration back up at the following meeting. The questions that were raised were virtually I identical to those which were heard at the Planning Commission meeting. Questions such as safety of access, ground water supplies, how the city would guarantee compliance with approved conditions, and related matters are answered to the extent that they reasonably can I in the original staff report. However, there were several points which warranted additional investigation. These include the visual impact of the mining on homes located to the west, questions regarding the city's position on environmental assessment worksheets, and I Councilwoman Dimler's question regarding the potential legal implications of perceived linkage between the north and south properties. 1 Visual Impacts Any discussion of visual impacts must be divided into two specific areas. The clay mining 1 located in the open field area, which is the primary request, will have no long term visual impact. No trees will be lost and the final grading of the site with its 10 foot change in elevation will be imperceptible from off -site views. The area will be reseeded and arguably I visually improved since it will resolve concerns remaining from an earlier clay excavation that was stopped by the city in 1987. I . The other part of the visual impact equation is the request to locate a third seepage pond in the southwest corner of the site on land that straddles the property lines between the north I and south parcels. As the Council will recall, this involves a rather major regrading that will 1 t 4.1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 ' Don Ashworth August 17, 1992 1 Page 2 result in the removal of the remaining portion of the largely destroyed south facing primary ' bluff face, to expose the secondary bluff from the Minnesota River corridor. The secondary bluff line is heavily forested and will not be impacted by grading. Also, activity in this area will be used to leverage reforestation of the entire primary bluff face that has been significantly destroyed on the Moon Valley Gravel Mining site. Questions have been raised by several of the property owners regarding potential visual impacts that would result from removing the last remaining portion of the primary bluff line. The residents correctly point out that the portion of this bluff line which is oriented toward their homes continues to be heavily forested. They also correctly noted that a portion of these trees would be removed to accomplish the excavation for the sedimentation basin. This area would be mined by the Moon Valley operator. It is in exchange with the loss of these trees that city staff had proposed leveraging reforestation of the destroyed primary bluff face 1 on the south parcel. Residents expressed a fear that the removal of the remaining portion of the primary bluff face would expose them to views of the gravel mining operation further to the south. I have met with the applicant's engineer to research this question. He is preparing some view corridor studies at the time of writing which should be available for the City Council. I have not had an opportunity to review these at the time of writing; however, I share some of the residents' concerns in this area. Exposure of views of the southern mine area may be increased for a few of the southern most home sites by this action. However, I should also point out that under court order, the applicant has the right to mine up to the property line of the south parcel. In all likelihood, residents will be exposed to some distant and obscured views of the mine by excavation in this area. As you are aware, the city does not appear to be in a position to significantly alter the course of events on the old mine area. 1 The question of linkage was raised by Councilwoman Dimler. The question is an excellent one since the city has expended a considerable amount of effort to get the Carver County ' Court to agree that the north and south parcels are to be treated completely different under city ordinances. As you may recall, the north parcel was acquired by the applicant in the 1970s and is not covered by any of the grandfathering that applies to the southern parcel. l Councilwoman Dimler's concern was that allowing grading as requested, which straddles the property lines, would tend to cloud the distinction between the two sites. We have been assured by the City Attorney that this is not the case and he is in a position to respond to this 1 further at the meeting and has provided commentary in an accompanying memorandum. Environmental Assessment Worksheet At the meeting, the residents delivered a petition to ask the City Council to require that an environmental assessment worksheet be performed. Under state law, non - metallic mining that 1 1 Don Ashworth 1 August 17, 1992 Page 3 would excavate 40 or more acres of land to a mean depth of 10 feet or more during its existence constitutes an action for which a mandatory environmental assessment worksheet must be prepared. Under the current request, less than half of the required amount of area will be disturbed by the clay mining. This does not mean that the Council could not require an EAW in any event because it certainly can, with or without receiving a petition. The preparation of an EAW is often a valid tool to allow exploration of a proposed request in greater detail. However, the EAW format does not necessarily provide for a substantially more information than the Council has already received on this request. One of the residents indicated that Carver County regularly requires EAWs anytime when more than 16,000 cubic yards of material is being excavated which is compared to the 250,000 cubic yards that is currently being requested. Staff contacted Virginia Harris, the Carver County Planner, to gain her insights on this question. She indicated that unlike Chanhassen's ordinance, the Carver County Code provides little guidance or regulatory control for reviewing grading and/or mining requests. County staff regularly requires EAWs at the 16,000 cubic yard threshold to provide the County Board with sufficient information to review the application. Chanhassen operates under a sophisticated and recent code dealing with all aspects of grading mining and excavation. The code provides for specific guidelines and standards for making and reviewing applications and gives the City Council great latitude in imposing conditions to ensure that public health, safety and welfare is protected. City Council Options It appears to staff that the City Council has four options with this request. These include: 1 1. Approval of the application as requested. Conditions of approval recommended by staff and the Planning Commission can of course be modified to resolve any additional 1 concerns that may arise. 2. Denial of the application. Should the City Council determine that approval of this 1 request is not warranted, we would ask that you continue action on the request for another meeting and direct staff and the City Attorney to prepare a Findings of Fact to support the denial. 3. Modification of the request. The request can be divided into two distinct areas as noted above. The clay mining on the northern parcel is least likely to result in any on or off site impacts due to careful design and the limited duration of the request. Mining associated with the creation of the third sedimentation basin at the southwest corner of the property appears to raise many more questions. Staff continues to support the general validity of the concept pending final information regarding sight line studies. However, you are in a position to approve only that portion of the request relating to the clay mining in the open field area and eliminate the southwest 1 1 Don Ashworth August 17, 1992 Page 4 corner from consideration. Reforestation of the south facing bluff of the southern mine pit would be lost in this exchange. However, you may feel that this 4. Require that an EAW be prepared. It is the City Council's prerogative to mandate that ' an EAW be prepared. It would probably take at least 30 -60 days to prepare an EAW and additional time to review it at the Planning Commission publish in the EQB Monitor and get it back to the City Council for a declaration statement. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Don Ashworth 1 August 17, 1992 Page 5 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1 Staff believes the recommendation stated in the original report to the City Council remains valid. However, we have provided you with four options for action and await your direction 1 on the matter. ATTACHMENTS 1 1. Letter from Thomas Scott, City Attorney dated August 20, 1992. 2. Staff report and City Council minutes dated August 10, 1992. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A Rug 20,92 11:01 No.004 P.02 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. Attorneys at Law Mottos s J (fill) 452-5000 N, Knutson 612) ((i1?) 452.5550 7'h,una M. Senn ' airy a Fuchs Jams R. W ►Isu n Elliott R. Knetsclt Miel,:ici A Rrt back August 20, 1992 Rcriao lA Steiner ' VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION AND REGULAR MAIL ' Mr. Paul Krauss Director of Planning City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Re: Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc. vs. City of Chanhassen Court File No 90 -27099 ' Our File No. 12668/201 Dear Paul: t This letter will serve as an update on the status of the Moon Valley litigation since my last such correspondence of May 7, 1992. On June 22, 1992, the City Council approved an Earth Work Permit for Moon Valley's existing mining operation on the South portion of its property along Highway 212. Moon Valley has not complied with conditions of the Permit which required it to provide a drainage and erosion plan and other information within thirty days of issuance. Moon Valley's attorney has requested that there ' be an extension of time to provide this information until after the Council acts on the earth work permit for the clay operation on the north parcel. When Moon Valley originally initiated litigation against the City challenging our right to regulate their existing operation, the court permitted them to continue operating during the ' application process. we have now completed that process and they have not complied with the conditions imposed. We have scheduled a court hearing for September 17 to request the judge to shut down their operations if they have not taken steps to comply with the ' permit conditions by that time. As set forth in my May 7 letter, the court previously ' determined that Moon Valley does not have any nonconforming use rights on the north parcel where it is proposing to mine clay. As Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A Aug 20,92 11:01 No.004 P.03 Mr. Paul Krauss 1 August 20, 1992 ■ Page 2 part of the north parcel interim use permit, Moon Valley is requesting permission to mine one area of the bluff which straddles II two parcels. Also, as part of the north parcel clay mining application, City staff is recommending reforestation of the bluff area on the south parcel as a condition to the permit. This overlap, if you will, between the two parcels does not create a situation where Moon Valley would subsequently be able to claim any nonconforming use rights to the north parcel. ' Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT ' & FU S, P.A. Thomas M. Scott TMS : ]rlt ' 1 II City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 13. Parking spaces must meet the parking standards as required by the zoning 11 ordinance. 14. The landscaping plan shall be modified to include streetscape along Powers I and Kerber Boulevards. In addition, conifers shall be placed south of the oak trees to provide additional buffering. I 15. The 16 unit rental building, which is oriented to the most northerly portion of the site, should be moved and an 8 unit building put in its place, to minimize the impact to the single family homes to the north. II 16. Fencing shall be placed around the oak trees to minimize impact during construction. 1 All voted in favor except Councilman Workman who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. II INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EARTH WORK /CLAY MINING OF A GRAVEL PIT, LOCATED SOUTH OF PIONEER TRAIL AND NORTH OF THE GRAVEL PIT, TOM ZWIERS, MOON VALLEY AGGREGATE. Paul Krauss: The applicants are requesting approval to remove approximately II 250,000 cubic yards of clay. This site is a 45 acre piece of ground that's the north...illustrated there. It goes up to, almost up to Pioneer Trail up the old railway tracks. The applicant also owns and operates the Moon Valley gravel pit 1 which is...to this part to the south. These are two contiguous but separate requests. The requested mining of the clay is to be used for the capping off of the Eden Prairie landfill which is being closed. Upon completion of the II excavation, black dirt which would be saved on this site, would be respread and the area reseeded. The proposal calls for the construction of actually three sedimentation basins. Two of them are illustrated on this diagram here, one being located up in the north end of the property. A small portion of this I draining that way. A large central basin and there's a request as well in the packet for a basin at the south end which is basically in this area down here. It's got a separate design detail but for the time being, we'll just refer to II this one here. The grading activity itself, the mining activity would only occur in an open field area. This is an area that was formerly farmed until recently. Is all open field and would not result in the loss of any tree cover. II The treed area is illustrated in green. The mining activity takes place entirely outside of that. Basically they're going to take that open field, lower it approximately 10 feet, recover it and have done with it. Mining activity is allowed as an interim use in this agricultural district. There's an II extensive history with the Moon Valley operation and I think you're all up to speed on that. There's been litigation. A series of requests being made. Hopefully that's on the final route to being resolved. Again, while this is I contiguous to that operation, and is being proposed by the same applicant, it is a completely separate request. It is subject to the new, well the 3 year old now, grading and mining ordinance and is under the full control of the City Council. As you probably recall, that old gravel pit predated the ordinance and I had a lot of grandfathering rights and is under some court orders. So you do have a lot of leverage and authority to get this done in a manner that's consistent with City standards. Staff believes that the proposal to mine here II is fairly sensitive for this type of an operation. Again, we are not losing any trees. The land mass, major land contouring will not change visibly from off II 52 II City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 1 site. Here are a series of significant erosion problems occurring on this site that this grading is designed to address. Those retention basins will result, we have a significant erosion problem going down in this ravine over here and smaller one here. And the other one that occured was the water accelerates down the track and takes off into the Moon Valley gravel pit where it eventually dumps into the National Wildlife Refuge and had some problems. This is designed to accommodate those concerns. These basins are a little bit different than what we're used to. They're infiltration basins. They don't have structured outlets. They're designed to permeate through the sand level in that water will back up in there and slowly return into the ground water. The request itself is also short term. The applicants indicated that they would be in and out as quickly as possible, hopefully finishing this year. Their contracts and requirements would encourage them to do so. The Planning Commission reviewed this and recommended it's approval with a series of conditions that I'll get into in a moment. I wanted to take a second to describe what's being requested on the southern property here. This one's a little bit different though to get a handle on. Basically you have the Moon Valley gravel pit adjacent to the north parcel. They have a very wooded hillside back here. This face of the bluff has already been significantly mined in the Moon Valley operation. It's a sheer bluff. There's no trees on it. There's not much there. If you look across the river from Shakopee side, you can see it. It's really kind of unfortunate in a lot of ways. But what you have here is a peninsula of land that juts out. Here's the mine face and this juts out to the west. What the proposal is to do in here is to excavate out a pond area that would intercept the water running down the tracks before it's infiltrated in or slowly ' discharged down into the gravel pit. That would be a significant benefit. A lot of this water comes across that exposed mine face and it's going to be exposed until the mine's shut down and erodes onto 169/212 and then across into Rice Lake. But what this does is, it's kind of land reforming on a big scale. Here you have that area that has no trees left and it's mined. What the proposal would do is remove this peninsula, which is to the benefit of Mr. Zwiers because he does get to mine the gravel out of that, but which would expose this back slope, kind of a second bluff. The first bluff is essentially gone and this would allow the secondary bluff to be visible from the river. Now we don't usually encourage manipulation of land on this kind of a scale but in this case, it's to rectify the damage that's there already. It's something we would look at favorably. We think it's got some merit. We're also looking at this in that there are some trees in the back little area that would be taken down to support this mining and what we're looking to do here is to leverage that into getting reforestation on that bluff on the Moon Valley parcel on the south side which we otherwise could not accomplish. So we're trying to get a bigger bang for the buck. Get a bigger benefit out of that, which is the benefit of the Minnesota River valley and those who have an interest in that. As I said, the Planning Commission heard this about a month ago and there was considerable neighborhood input. They did recommend it's approval but they had a series of questions to be resolved. Those included, they wanted the establishment of a timeframe. A drop dead date if you will, where all the activity on this parcel needs to stop. The applicant indicated that that was their intent. To mine the clay and restore the site and get out. I should also point out before we go on too much further that the applicant's stated intent for this property is residential developmnt., Right now it could, well because of the way the ordinances are structured now, the development that we see across the valley could not occur here unless there's utilities provided, which there 53 ' 11 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 is a possibility that utilities could be provided in the future through Eden Prairie. It's not an immediate situation but in leaving the tree cover in here, you basically have the ability to put homes back from the bluff line but in an attractive area, kind of overlooking it similar to what other developments have done in the area. Anyway, the Planning Commission wanted a date by which all activity should cease and there's a condition that's been added that all activity should cease by July 15th of next year in the off chance that they can't complete it this year. They probably couldn't complete the restoration this year. During the meeting, I stepped outside and I talked to Mr. Zwiers and Rick Sathre, his engineer, and they did raise a concern that didn't occur to ' either of them or me when we came up with this condition. And that doesn't apply at all to this mining up in here. Everybody's in agreement that the July 15th day makes sense. The question comes about in this lower area. The lower area is mined according to market demand and there would be, it's not an ability ' to commit to doing this until they get to that area from the mine. So this lower area would be, at some point in the future. Now that needs to be clarified. But when we came up with this condition we wanted to make sure that the mining activity in this area, which is in the closest proximity to any adjoining homes which are located across the railway tracks and up the hill. It's some very rough terrain in there. That that be minimized. That that be ' the shortest possible time. And that drop dead date does apply to that area. We were asked to include standard procedures to include the tree preservation areas are adequately marked and protected during the course of grading operations. We were asked to do it. I agreed to do it and then I read the ' conditions tonight and realized that I neglected to do it. So we'd ask you to modify condition number 12 to put in language to the effect that tree preservation areas be marked with snow fence or other means prior to the start ' of work and we have language that goes on to say that any trees designated for preservation that are lost inadvertently due to grading activities, be replaced on a caliper inch basis. That usually makes it fairly punitive to lose any trees. We also plan on being out there with the inspection staff as often as necessary to make sure the operation is going as it's supposed to. The third concern was that the applicant have potential impact on water supplies in the area evaluated. Some of the residents raised a concern that by allowing these ' infiltration basins, that you had a potential for adversely impacting the water supply. Mr. Sathre pointed out at the meeting a couple points that I agreed with him on, that the ground water flow in this area tends to be towards the ' river which is away from those homes and that if, secondly if ground water infiltration was a problem, it'd be a lot more significant problem from their drainfields from their septic tanks which are a whole lot closer to the homes than this is. But we asked that this matter be further researched and there is a letter in the packet from Larry Samstad who's the Watershed District engineer. He does confirm that the ground water flow is away from that area and in his opinion, allowing these infiltration basins is no different than allowing the ' rain to fall on the ground. Basically that's the only water that will come into the site. It will be a grassy field at that point and you're only allowing rain water to infiltrate. There was a question raised about the access point up on ' Pioneer Trail. A gentleman was concerned about sight distances. It is actually a Hennepin County road at that point. The truck traffic will not be on any roads in Chanhassen because it runs to the east over Hennepin County roads. I did contact Hennepin County Highway Department. They had a recent file on the ' permit for the application for the driveway out to Pioneer. They felt it was a very safe intersection. They were looking at it with an eye to this being a ' -54 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 future street for this area as it develops. They did not have any concerns for the sight distance. They did have some concerns that truck hauling signs be posted and that there be a construction entrance and a couple of other points, some of which we already had in our recommendations. We've added the rest. So I think we're in full compliance with the Hennepin County engineers are '-;'' recommending. The fifth one was that the property owners relinquish in writing all future rights to mine this site. There was a concern that, okay you get the 10 feet of clay now and you come back in a little while to get some more. The applicant didn't appear to object to that we added a condition that basically said that. That it be written into the chain of title. The last item was, staff was asked to reassess the requested letter of credit. There was, the engineering department used a standard rule of thumb to come up with an original letter of credit amount to insure site restoration and it was something on the order of $40,000.00. What they did is they went back in and did a much more detailed analysis plus added the cost for the letter of credit for the tree , reforestation that's going to be required on that south parcel, and came up with a revised letter of credit amount for $121,900.00. And there's a report in here from the engineering department that describes how they arrived at those numbers. With those conditions as modified, we're continuing to recommend that the City Council approve the interim use permit. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Paul. Does the applicant wish to say something? Rick Sathre: Your honor. My name is Rick Sathre. I'm with the firm Sathre- Berquist Incorporated in Wayzata and I am an engineering consultant to Mr. Tom Zwiers, the owner of Moon Valley Aggregate and also of this parcel. Staff has done a good job in reviewing and presenting the project. I'm going to first talk a little about why I think the City should issue a permit and then talk a little about some concerns we have with the recommendations. First, why is it that the community should, and the public should want to do this? First the purpose of this mining, this temporary mining is to obtain the clay to cap the landfill. And certainly the existence of the landfill has been something that the Eden Prairie residents have fought and wished to see end for some time. The clay on this site is very tight. Water doesn't run through it very fast and it's an excellent clay to cap the landfill and it's been hard to find for the contractor that's going to do the work. He hasn't found anything better than this clay. The second reason why it would be good to allow this is because of the erosion problems that are out there now. The erosion scars that lead into Eden Prairie and down to the railroad corridor will continue to increase in size unless the water can be, that's running off of the ag fields can be diverted away from those faces that are eroding. And this grading that we're presenting here would do that. Would bring the water back internally into the site and we would let the water seep into the ground instead of running over the edge of the cliffs into those erosion scars. And the third reason that it would be good I think for the City to allow this is that, as Mr. Krauss indicates, it's an opportunity to accomplish some very positive things down in the north end of the gravel pit where the mature wooded slope is still there would be fully exposed to view and you'd also get, have a way to get some additional tree planting on the graded slopes down there. So what are the disadvantages and what's scares the neighbors? I don't want to speak for them but I think that, as I see it, the real disadvantages t them and to the city are the temporary noise potential. During this grading operation there would be equipment running and trucks running and that could be disruptive short term. Certainly there'd be 55 , City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 more traffic out on Hennepin County Road 1. And thirdly, there's the temporary disruption of the land. Maybe the disruption to the land maybe isn't that dissimilar to just the farming operation. But there's opportunity for the City ' and for Mr. Zwiers. Certainly Mr. Zwiers' benefit is he gets a chance to sell that clay and gain economically. The neighbors in the city gain the lessening `gf the erosion problem and less runoff water going downstream. And in general, again the landfill gets closed. So I think it can be a win /win. I think it is ' a win /win. We just have to deal with the short term disruption of the area. The staff and the Planning Commission have presented 16 conditions that are attached to a potential approval and most of them we have, absolutely no problem with. I'd like to go through them and tell you what our thoughts are where there is some concern. The first condition has to do with the applicant and the grading contractor co- signing the application, the permit and being responsible ' together for the promises that would be asked of them. I think as it pertains to this north, the clay mining operation, they should be jointly obligated to do the things that you'd want. As to that southerly pond that straddles the border of the mine below and the north parcel, that's only Mr. Zwiers' operation. So II as it pertains to the north work, yes. They should be jointly responsible but not as to the south. So somehow that would have to be cleared up and the letter of credit amount that would bind or would guarantee to the city that the I northerly work would get completed, we'd like to see that dollar amount separated from what will happen to the south so that only Mr. Zwiers is obligated for that work and not the contractor that's doing the landfill ' capping. There's absolutely nothing wrong with number 2. We agree it was, that's a Hennepin County initiated suggestion. In number 3, we proposed hours of operation from 7:00 in the morning until 6:00 at night. Probably from every day of the week except for Sundays and holidays. And the staff has indicated I that they may wish to shut down Saturday operations if there are complaints. I think if they're significant, substantial and substantiated complaints, that the city should have the right to shut it down. The operation down but I'd hate to I see a petty complaint that was just lodged to, for not very good reason be the cause of shutting the operation down. But I would hope that the, if the city chooses to restrict that or leave that to the engineer's discretion, that he be I directed to verify that the complaint is real. The next issue, or item that we question is again down in number 6 where the letter of credit amount is established. I think the staff fairly figured out what a suitable letter of credit amount should be but we would ask again that the amount be separated I between what's dedicated to guaranteeing the north work from the south pond work. I think my quick calculations would indicate that about half of the money would guarantee, is allocated to guaranteeing the north work and half the south I work within a few thousand dollars on each. In number 7, the staff has asked for verification of where the sand layer occurs in the ground. We'll be submitted soil borings that were done by GME consultants on behalf of the grading contractor. They have been done but I have not seen them but we will I supply them. As Mr. Krauss indicated, the Watershed District has reviewed and approved of this work. They met in July and approved of this. Again, in number 12, we need to separate the financial guarantees if this is to go forth. Or II we'd like to. And in 14, the July 15th date as Paul indicated would be very adequate for the north clay operation but we really have no way to set a date for the work down in the mine and gravel pit. So those are our thoughts. We'd be happy to answer questions and again, I think this is a chance for a win /win but I understand the fear of the neighbors. Change is always difficult. Thank you. '56 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: I have just a quick question that really don't pertain to this but, Eden Prairie landfill using clay so it's not permeable. Seeping into the ground water per se. Have they taken into consideration or have they looked at potentially putting a liner on that and putting regular earth so it supports vegetative growth rather than going with strictly clay because that's not going • to really produce the kind of ground cover that you really want. Rick Sathre: I think the clay, the contractor's here. I think we should ask him to tell you a little more about it but as I understand it, they're capping. They're putting a clay layer on first to keep water from infiltrating. Trying to make it run off. Mayor Chmiel: Like an umbrella basically. Rick Sathre: Right. Right, which is the problem we've got here with those erosion scars. The ravines. Water's all running off but that's what they want at the landfill. I imagine the contract calls for spreading topsoil over the clay? Contractor: It gets a foot and a half of cover material and 6 inches of topsoil 11 and then it gets seeded on top of it. The reason they go with the clay in this particular case. Sometimes they use membranes...cost effectiveness of clay... If they had a 50 mile haul, they would have gone with a membrane type system. Rick Sathre: Which is a plastic or some other. Contractor: This particular job was speced out for clay. Rick Sathre: So it would end up with a grassy cover. Mayor Chmiel: I know on many of the sites that I've put in things that we've done, we have put a plastic membrane over that with a 6 inch of dirt to support that. The clay will absorb, how many feel of clay are you planning to put on? Contractor: There's 2 feet of clay that's got to meet a permeability... Mayor Chmiel: Right. Contractor: And one thing they do...grass on top and not trees is because the trees, the root structures will break the clay cap. The main idea for putting the cap on top is to keep the ground water from going into the existing landfill ..,methane gases are generated...something they patrol. ' Mayor Chmiel: Well the methane they're not going to control but this will go whatever way it can get out. Rick Sathre: I suppose our grandchildren will probably be back in there mining those dumps out and recyling them I hope someday. Mayor Chmiel: I don't think you'll ever see it. We've looked at it. Paul, another thing comes to mind as I looked at this. I didn't see anything that was being done with an EAW. Environmental Assessment Worksheet. The County , requires an EAW for anything over 16,000 tons. This is going to consist of a 57 II City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 II lot more. Why did we not have an EAW? Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, we're not aware of what the County does or why they would do that. The mandatory threshhold for an EAW is, and I don't remember II exactly but I looked it up when I was doing this. Mayor Chmiel: 25 signatures is all it needs. II Paul Krauss: That's an elective EAW but a mandatory EAW that's required by the Environmental Duality Board is excavating over something like 40 acres of land II and this is considerably smaller that than. Now, we've talked to some residents that were looking at petitioning you to do an elective EAW and I'm not sure it's not that hard to get the signatures. They'll probably do that tonight. But I also looked at more meaninfully to my way of looking at it is what do we get out 1 of doing an EAW that I haven't already made them do in terms of supplying information that would help to make a decision, and I'm not sure that there is anything that could be added to going through the EAW process. We've already l contacted all the agencies basically that would be contacted under an EAW. We've gotten the input. I'm just not sure that it would add a lot to the discussion or else I would have suggested that we do it. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I don't have any other questions. I may have more. Ursula. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I'm a little bit confused and even as I was reading the report and then when Mr. Sathre was speaking. It was my understanding that the south site is grandfathered in and has a conditional use permit which we're 1 not at all considering right now. And we're only considering the north site which is not grandfathered in and yet in all of the talks, we're tying the south site into here somehow to confuse the issue I think. 1 Paul Krauss: You're hitting it right on the head. Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. II Paul Krauss: It's an extraordinarily complex legal situation. We've had some court rulings on the south parcel that establishes grandfathered rights. That I according to Judge Canning limit us to regulating only those aspects on the south property that effect public health and safety. And as you're aware, the Council has taken recommendations on the south property and approved those with an eye towards that. And this is the north parcel. It's a park property that 1 was acquired after the effective date of the ordinance so everything brings to bear. You can apply every standard in the new ordinance and there's clearly an interpretation that you have to make. Does it meet the standards that are I established for the ordinance? Does it meet the standards for a waiver of the setback standards on the north property? Then we come to this area in the corner and what that does is, it straddles the property line. You've basically II got that peninsula of land that I was describing, that juts out is right here and it straddles the property line. The only way to work that corner is to involve both properties. Now we worked long and hard with the Judge to make sure that these parcels were treated as different parcels and the Judge agreed 1 with us. They are and grandfathering applies to one and not the other. However, to be frank, what we're doing here is allowing something that we think . 1 58 1 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 MI makes some environmental sense and then leveraging it on the south property so that we're going to get some improvements there that we couldn't otherwise demand with the reforestation. If this is approved, this slope, maybe it will show up a little better here. This USGS map shows a lot of contours that are no longer here and you basically have a bit pit here. This is a sheer face of a mine. Now we could make them, and we have made them establish grass on there to prevent erosion but we don't have the authority to require trees. What we're doing is we're leveraging the ponding in this area to require reforestation on that south slope and kind of jumping over. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, now my question is, if you establish that linkage, can they then come and claim hey the south parcel is grandfathered. There is a linkage and therefore now the north parcel is grandfathered. Paul Krauss: We discussed this at length with our legal staff because it was a concern that we had as well. We're very confident that it doesn't and the reason is, it's because of grading activities that they're doing on the north. I mean there's some tree loss that they've got to compensate for. The only place to compensate in this case is on the adjacent property that they happen to own. That didn't provide them the window to jump through to say, these are all one parcel and should be treated as such and by the Court and that we have grandfathering rights all over. That was pretty clear to us. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Elliott, do you want to comment on this? Elliott Knetsch: Yeah. I would agree with what Paul's telling you and I think 1 we're satisfied that this would not somehow tie the two together and give them greater rights in the north site such as they have on the south site. Councilwoman Dimler: Because if it did, I don't think the payback to us is substantial in order to allow that to happen. Those were my two concerns. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard. Councilman Wing: Well I'd just like to piggy back on Ursula's question on that south piece because it's confusing to me also. What's the future of the south piece? That's the Moon Valley I grew up with. With the big pit and the gravel mining. Is that just going to keep going on? Paul Krauss: No. You know Mr. Zwiers has given us some idea of the, we have a plan. The ultimate removal of material with the final grades that he's got to re- establish there. Now what you're left with is a big bowl when all's said and done. You know arguably, what is this big bowl good for? The only thing from a comprehensive plan standpoint theoretically that you can put in there right now is agriculture or presumably some low density residential. We don't know how many years it's going to take to finish it and we don't know what kind of opportunities are going to be there at that time. Councilman Wing: There's more gravel mining will occur on the south most 1 likely? Paul Krauss: Oh yeah. 1 59 1 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Anything more? Councilman Wing: Oh no. ' Councilman Workman: I guess I don't have a whole lot. I guess I'm kind of waiting for maybe some of the neighbors to make comments. Councilwoman Dimler: I have one more question of Paul, if I may. You talked about them allowing this to occur so that we could have a second bluff line. Right? Now what's the guarantee that that bluff line's going to stay in place? ' Paul Krauss: Well a couple things Councilwoman Dimler. First of all their approved grading plan shows no grading in that area. Nor would we ever authorize or I would never recommend that you authorize it because it is a 1 primary bluff line. It's protected by our bluff line district and there's a lot in there. Add to the fact that one of the conditions of approval is that the property owners record against the title that there be no further mining on that parcel period. I think it pretty well protects it. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, you're confident that that will protect it? Okay. ' Mayor Chmiel: Once they take 250,000 cubic yards of clay out, we can stop that right there after that? Paul Krauss: You mean once they. Mayor Chmiel: Can they come back in and say, well we need another 50,000? Paul Krauss: Theoretically they could make a request of you. You would be empowered to deny it but under the conditions of approval, I don't know if they're constrained Elliott but if the condition gets recorded against the property that Council's certainly under no obligation to release them from that condition. Elliott Knetsch: Yeah that's right, plus we have the July 15th cutoff date. I guess your question might be is if they get the 250,000 off this year and then come back next year for addition. Well, they could certainly file for a permit like they're doing now and we'd put them through this review process and have the opportunity to approve or deny, just as we do now. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright. Councilman Workman: I guess that maybe leads into a question I have for Elliott. Under what grounds do we have to deny this? Elliott Knetsch: Well this is similar to, the interim use ordinance that you have is similar to your conditional use permit process. You look at the overall proposed use compared to whatever detrimental effects it may have and I think ' there's some specific guidelines laid down in the ordinance for you to judge the use by. Paul Krauss: There's a series of findings that you would have to make one way or the other. And frankly there's also, the grading ordinance provides for a 1 60 1 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 300 foot setback of activity. It also provides for a waiver of that setback if 1 they meet some criteria. But still that's a determination that you have to make whether or not it warrants that waiver. Elliott Knetsch: That is a specific variance that you have to give that here. Paul Krauss: Well, no. It's not. Roger and I went through that. It wasn't written as a variance. It was written as a waiver so that there's findings that you have, you make the finding. You don't have to give it a variance. You just waive the requirement. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this issue or have concerns? Come forward and please state your name and your address. Jon Lonstein: Mayor and Council members. I'm Jon Lonstein. I live at 9861 Deerbrook Drive. I actually have lived there for exactly 3 weeks and the reason I'm becoming involved in these, I'm Lot 14 in Deerbrook which is just over the railway tracks from the meadow. A little bit of background is that I've been working with the planning department obviously in building my house and was very appreciative and went along with all their concerns with erosion and maintaining the bluffs and putting in retaining walls so that we wouldn't destroy the bluffs • and that's what some of the concerns I'm raising tonight. Obviously only being here for 3 weeks and missing the original meeting because I was out of the country, I read through the report of the Planning meeting and the Minutes of the meeting and Mr. Krauss' report and it seems to, there are three separate things here. One is the mining of the clay. The quarter million cubic yards of clay from the meadow. The second thing is the establishment of three infiltration basins or seepage basins. And the third thing is the extension of mining into the south end of this north parcel for the portion abutting onto the original mining. With the clay meadow mining, my concerns are firstly, obviously noise. They are going to mine a tremendous amount of clay in a short period of time. There's going to be noise from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.. We had just in the vicinity this past weekend they replaced a leaking gas main and it was just one single truck plus a single grader that was working and it was very disturbing, all through Saturday. The second thing is, even though the access is on Pioneer Trail and the County and the State say it's a safe access, the access will be such that the volume of traffic to move this amount of clay in the period of time is approximately 25 to 30 trucks per hour each way on Pioneer Trail. Because otherwise it's not possible to move this volume of clay in that 11 hour span, 6 days a week. One of the infiltration basins. Nobody knows infiltration basins. We're talking about infiltration or seepage basins when we've got no reports of what the soil is down. Is there sand down there or is it clay going through a deep dip? We don't know. Yes, it is like the rain but what happens, we're trying to prevent erosion but we're going to be creating something in clay. Clay doesn't hold water if there's no sand and therefore in a large storm, you're just creating another source of erosion. What's the effect of that water sitting there on our current water table and the aquafir? We don't know. Yes it's like water just falling but you're creating a place for the water to stand. The other thing is, I know it's the Minnesota State bird but what about the mosquitoes, obviously are going to love these basins. the other concern is on the lower mining operation. Reading through Mr. Krauss' report, it's very obvious and the Council knows the long history that goes back with the mining on the south parcel but reading through the report, the 61 11 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 restoration on the south is such that it's not a year, two years, it's as the clay and as the soil and gravel is needed for Mr. Zwiers' business. Is the permission you're giving him just extending the mining operation into the north parcel because there's no time limit? What about the amount to reforest? Are ' we reforesting with little seedlings or reforesting with real trees? If you reforest with trees, and I spoke to a couple of landscape people. If you forest with trees, and say you're really conservative putting 2 to 3 foot trees, 400 ' trees to an acre, and a quarter of those trees being deciduous trees and the other 3/4 being something inexpensive like dogwood trees which are $25.00 each, is going to cost you somewhere between $15,000.00 and $20,000.00 to reforest an acre. Have we got guarantees that when this is (a) that it's going to be done, ' and (b) that the money will be available for that? The other question is, on the north meadow, on the meadow that's going to be, clay is going to be taken out. This is going to be residential development in the future. You cannot, it 1 has to be residential development where utilities are brought in because obviously once the soil is disturbed, you cannot put in any sewer, any mound systems. The other question is, we've no reason to waive the 300 foot 1 setback...reading and inquiring, this 300 foot setback is such that you want to protect the neighbors and protect the environment and protect the land from going right up to the border with no setback, even though you're going to be regrassing that area, creating problems in the future for future erosion. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, anyone else? 1 Dennie Bartholow: In another 20 minutes I'd say good morning. I'm Dennis Bartholow, 9841 Oeerbrook Drive. I'm on Lot 14, directly across from the seepage pond. There's a few things I'd like to bring up. One of them in ' regards to traffic. I realize that this is Hennepin County that the trucks will be driving but in my calculations on the amount of traffic, I've got 35 trucks per hour each direction on that highway. Pioneer Trail is a 55 mph highway and just prior to the exit from the landfill area is a strong dip in the highway, a ' curve and you come up over a hill and immediately to your left is the exit. Now this is where the trucks are going to be returning from the landfill. They'll be coming up over the hill and stopping, waiting to take a left hand turn. In essence waiting for traffic to clear and making their turn. If you have one truck that stops there and you come up behind it at 55 mph, it's a very scarey situation. But if you had two of them, it's a very, very dangerous situation and the likelihood of that happening I think is very strong. Rush hour at that area, which is around 5:00 to 5 :30, backs up almost to the top of this hill. It can back up past the bridge into Hennepin County. Just give you an idea of what kind of traffic we're dealing with. Also, in the morning, the inbound traffic ' coming from Carver, Jonathon, all of that area, it's difficult to get onto Pioneer Trail and they're going to be operating at 7:00 in the morning. So again we have a traffic problem. In that case, the trucks will be leaving the ' pit, going up over the hill and disappearing and then the traffic will come up behind them doing 50 mph and they're just waking up at that time. So I have a real strong concern about the safety issue and legal ramifications as to if something happens to my family, would I come back to Chanhassen and try to 1 collect on it. We also have a problem right now that we're dealing with Williams Pipeline goes across that property. And they discovered a leak just recently and they're tearing it all apart and replacing it. If we have all of ' this tonage driving back and forth over Williams Pipeline, in essence I've got 25,000 truckloads is what it's going to take. A quarter of a million cubic 1 b2 1 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 yards. 10 cubic yards to a truck, that's 25,000 truckloads that's going to be 1 driving over this pipe. If this pipe breaks, who's held responsible for it? And is there a possibility of contamination to my ground water because of it? I'm concerned of that right now. This is, as I recall, this pipe I think is refined fuel. I do not believe it's crude so it would have a better chance to leach. When we get to the ground water concern, if we look here we'll see that they're going to strip away the clay to an elevation of 800 feet. Again, I'm directly across the railroad tracks on 14. And the elevation of my home is 910 feet. When we put in the well, we hit water at 160 feet deep. Okay, so that puts it at 750 feet. Is this is at 800 feet, my ground water was at 750 feet, that's 50 feet of filtration, which does not seem to me like a whole lot. Also 'j mentioned at the Planning Commission was that if we had a super storm, we would fill up these basins but that they would recede at a rate of 1 inch per hour for in 72 hours, I would have the entire super storm in my ground water and to say that all of that flows towards the Minnesota River, I find that very difficult to believe. My background is engineering and I don't think it's that cut and dry. We don't know what the ground is like underneath there. Again, if my ground water is contaminated, who would I go after legally for it? Would it be the contractor? Would it be Moon Valley? Or if just simply dissolve his corporation and then I'm stuck out in the middle of nowhere? I don't know and that's something I'm very concerned about. As far as future development in that area, if they want to put in residential areas, again is that going to mean that I'm going to have to handle the city coming out with sewer when I've got $10,000.00 into my mound operation right now? There was a comment made about there shouldn't be a concern about the ground water because look at where your septic system is relative to where this system is. Yes, my septic system has a lot of clay between it and the sand does the filtration. They want to go directly into the ground water with it and that's very scarey. As far as erosion concerns, I don't know if any of you have been down in that area but at the turn of the century the railroad came through and dug a big ditch right between my property and the proposed mining operation. They have sheer cliffs there. It's been there for 80 years. Erosion's never been a problem. Back of my property is probably 50 foot cliffs and nobody's ever made a mention out of the erosion problem so I don't understand why that's a major concern now. It just doesn't make any sense. And also when we bought the property, we were under the assumption that the bluffs were protected and that we wouldn't end up having bluffs torn down. On the southern operation over here, this is where the mining operation is now. This is a very large bluff peninsula right here that blocks our view of the mining operation. If we tear this out, we get the opportunity to watch a mining operation and for how many years, nobody knows. So yes, you're exposing a second bluff but you're destroying the first one to do it. Sure, half of the first bluff has been destroyed but the back side of the bluff is in perfect position. Why tear it out? And then, now I'm stuck looking at a mining operation both directly across the railroad tracks from my home and also when I view Shakopee, I'll be looking at an ongoing mining operation. As far as the Eden Prairie facility. The landfill. I believe it was mentioned that they do have a second source for clay. That the landfill has a second source for clay? No? I thought at the last Planning Commission that had been mentioned. Rick Sathre: Well if this is denied, they'll have to find another source. ' Dennis Bartholow: Okay, and I think that's about all I have. 1 63 II City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else? Linda Revere: My name is Linda Revere and I'm at 9881 Deerbrook Drive and I don't have a lot to add after my neighbors. I agree with what they've said. I Just a couple of questions I'd like to raise. And this kind of goes back to what Councilwoman Dimler had mentioned. You had a date of July 15th of next year as the deadline for both projects and yet they're saying that they can have I the top clay removal by the end of the year. I would suggest having two deadlines. If they say they can have it done by the end of the year, have a December 31st date for the clay removal and then the lower, the southern end, July 15th or whatever but have them be separate dates I think would be II perferable. One concern that we do have is the noise. Growing up I lived across probably 2 miles from a quarry. Very, very noisey and if this is approved, I would suggest that Saturday be eliminated from the days of 1 operation. One concern with that south end, if that little peninsula is removed and then exposing the secondary bluff line. What's going to prevent that secondary bluff line from eroding? I think there should be some study done or 1 some looking into that. And that's all I had, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? 1 Richard Vogel: I'm Richard Vogel and I live at 105 Pioneer Trail. I guess using the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, it had been mentioned in either the Planning Commission or Paul's comment as to why Chanhassen didn't ask for 1 one. Last Wednesday evening I was talking with, I believe she's a planner for Carver County and that's when she mentioned when they have over so many, I think it's 16,000 cubic yards, it's just done. And here we're moving an awful lot 1 more than that. I don't know really what is all done in an environmental assessment worksheet. Chanhassen did not have one on file that we could look at. I guess if you had your druthers of what part of this project could be completed and what you maybe wouldn't like to see, I guess taking the clay out 1 is one thing. I don't know digging it as deep as they're going, how that's going to look but I guess I could put up with that. I'd be very wary of connecting the southern parcel with the northern parcel because I guess the way 1 that line is there, the green tree line, that whole southwest corner of the northern parcel is going to be mined and then a sediment basin put in there. Is that the plan? I was talking to Paul one day over the phone and I think from 1 the railroad right -of -way where if you're walking on the old railroad right -of -way now. I think he said you'd be taking trees out approximately 70 to 100 feet up from where the river right -of -way would go over to that hill. I don't know, I think that's an awful lot of trees that are going out of there. 1 If you get to some point there where all of a sudden Moon Valley feels, determines well this isn't working. We have to do something else. What do you do at that point? Do you, I mean what can you do then but let them go further? I As far as having the trade off of letting them mine that southwest corner to getting the, I want to say the south slope of the southern parcel reforested. I think as Mr. Lonstein pointed out with trees, it's going to be a very expensive project and if you put little pines in there, it's not going to hold. I also II don't know if from the, what permit was given to the southern parcel earlier this year. At one time I heard they were asking to mine right up to the line of the northern parcel. Because they owned both properties, they could do that. I 1 don't think they have done that yet but I don't understand it. The way I understand it, it's not entirely cleared up. I think they, I guess I'm just 1 64 -1 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 thinking. They possibly could do that or choose to do that. If this other things are granted when they do that, where do you go from there? In all my observing of Moon Valley's operations, I have not seen anything reforested or resodded or reseeded or anything. On the mining that was done on the north parcel in 1988, from about the first of September to the middle of November, whatever is all gone up there was taken out in that time. I don't know how many cubic yards that was but nothing has been done to restore it and how do we know when 250,000 cubic yards are taken out? Is there a way that you can really tell? Those are just some of my objections and I just think the people too that bought lots at Deerbrook, you know there was no mention any time of having a mining operation across the lane from them and I think, I don't know how you would ever have made someone aware of that. That it was possible that it could be done. But again my big thing I hope the two parcels are not linked. That there is no chance that that can ever come back to haunt Chanhassen. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else? ' Richard Vogel: I guess one quick thing. We do have enough signatures for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and I'll give them to Paul or whoever. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Terry Beauchane: My name is Terry Beauchane. I live at 240 Flying Cloud Drive. I'm one of the people that live across from the south site. The original Moon Valley. I think everything that could be said has been said about the entire Moon Valley operation up to this point. Most of you people were here several years ago when this whole fiasco started so I'm not going to try to elaborate on the concerns and all of the rest of it about the entire Moon Valley operation. I think that's been presented pretty fairly. You people are going to have to come to your own conclusions about whether or not this is really a necessary endeavor. What it's going to do to the environment and all of the other real concerns that everybody else has expressed tonight. I have a more direct question though I guess to Paul, more than anybody else. Ever since this whole thing with Moon Valley has started, what have we gotten? The City. The Council. The taxpayers and everybody else. What have we gotten from Mr. Zwiers? I'd like an honest answer. What have we gotten? Paul Krauss: What have we gotten. We've been in litigation for the best part of the last 3 years. You could flip the question over and say, what do we expect to get. Terry Beauchane: No. No, no. Let's not flip the question over. Let's put the question where it is because we've been through this for over 2 years. What have we gotten from Mr. Zwiers? Paul Krauss: Well Terry, are you asking for me a character reference? 1 Terry Beauchane: If that's what it takes because he's the one who's giving us all of this, I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I'm gonna. My promise, my promise and my promise. What have we gotten from his so far? Paul Krauss: Well, 1 think what we've gotten on the south side we've gotten through some Court rulings that we regard as being favorable. I often deal with 65 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 a lot of folks who's credibility comes into question, which is why the City I requires development agreements and contracts and things to be filed against property title and everything else. II Terry Beauchane: Let me put the question more direct, and I guess I'll put the question to everybody including you. Is there anybody in here that trusts this guy? II Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if we're here to judge his character or not. Terry Beauchane: We are here because he is asking you people to do something I that you have to make an approval on and the only thing that you've got to go by is his word and so far, since this whole Moon Valley thing has started, all he's done is everyone a lot of aggravation and time and money through this I whole process because he does not want to comply with anything that this city sets forth. So what makes you people think he's going to comply now? Even if you give him the permit and he puts up the money, and all the rest of it. You I people know how a corporate entity works in this country. As soon as he's done, he can snub his nose at you people and all the rest of us, again and walk away from it and say, it's all yours baby. Do what you want with it. And who's going to get stuck with it? And he's done that so far. What's to say he's not II going to do it again? Mayor Chmiel: Appreciate your comment but I think that's something that we're I going to have to decide on and come up with a conclusion ourselves. Terry Beauchane: I hope you give it very serious consideration. II Mayor Chmiel: We will. What I'd like to make a suggestion this evening is that there's been a lot of good points brought up Paul by the people and those would be contained within the Minutes that we've had with the recording. I'd like us II probably at this particular time to review all the questions that have been addressed and all those questions answered. I would like to table this until our next meeting and come up with those respective answers. Richard. II Councilman Wing: Don, if I may just quickly have one additional question of Paul up to this point. II Terry Beauchane: I have no further questions. Councilman Wing: I don't own the property. Mr. Zwiers owns the property and I 1 understand there's a large history of litigation here. His rights and grandfathering. He was there before the rules and then after the rules and it's kind of like this beachlot thing. Who can do what? I'd really like a more I clear cut picture from the attorney what his rights are as a landowner and his use of that property. What can he and can't he do? I mean there may be some areas here that's like Eckankar. You simply can't say no to. You can't vote against. So this is no whether he's a good guy or a bad guy. What his rights 1 are and as a landowner what he maybe can and can't do and how this litigation and all the history fits into the package overall. II Paul Krauss: Well sure we can get the City Attorney's office to draft something up along those lines. As far as responding to the questions that are raised to II 66 II City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 us, I'd be happy to. I mean I'm not sure what else we can provide. I mean if there's something specific to do. I can certainly call Virginia Harris up and find up what kind of rationale the County uses. But if there's some area specifically. I Councilwoman Dimler: Well I guess one of the questions that was brought up that 9 P I thought was excellent was how are we going to police or tell when they've taken out that 250,000 cubic yards and then that's it. How do we police that? Paul Krauss: We monitor it. We have an end state grading plan and they also owe us an end state survey demonstrating that the grades are what they were supposed to be. Mayor Chmiel: I have a motion on the floor to table. Councilman Wing: I'll second. Mayor Chmiel: I would like to have us respond to all those questions that were brought up. There were a lot of good questions prior to, and I think that's the only way we can really address this. Yes, you have your hand up. Contractor: Can I make a comment? I'm with Carl...and Sons. We are the contractor... My concern would be the north parcel...to complete my project. It's been passed from Council meeting to...couple of weeks ago. I've got work to do yet this fall. As far as the work being done on the north parcel, I'm going to be doing it... If somebody in here has got a problem with Mr. Zwiers and Moon Valley, that's not my problem and as far as I'm concerned, it should not be tied to the north parcel. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Well my concerns are, as I want to have all the information available to me with the questions that are to be answered and that's my suggestion for tabling. If it takes 2 more weeks, it's going to take 2 more weeks. So with that I have an entertainment on the floor with a second. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table the Interim Use Permit for Earth Work /Clay Mining for Moon Valley Aggregate until the next City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to have all that data and informaiton next time before ' us. Councilman Wing: I appreciate that comment on delays but this is such a large impact on the city, I think it's really our responsibility to. Mayor Chmiel: Right, and I don't want to come up with a conclusion right yet. So with that, thanks for coming. As you're well aware, you know what our timeframe is. Normally 11:00 we shut down the machine. I would like to also make a suggestion that we table item number 7. Councilman Workman: Second. Mayor _Chmiel: And hold off with Council presentations and Administrative 1 presentations until next meeting. 67 ' C ITYOF 775 ✓ 69 0 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 P . .4e 1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 N, Action by City AdtriAMIt31 Endorser! ✓�1,u19' MEMORANDUM Moditied Rejecter Detp g — to — 2•- 1 TO: Planning Commission Date Submitted to Commissbtt FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director 6C„, ode Submitted to Cottic i 1 $- /0 -c-1— DATE: June 23, 1992 1 SUBJ: Moon Valley Aggregate North Site - Interim Use Permit #92 -5 I SUMMARY The applicant is requesting approval to remove approximately 250,000 cubic yards of clay U material from a 45 acre site of which approximately 22 acres will be disturbed. The site is located on the Chanhassen/Eden Prairie city line, south of Pioneer Trail, and immediately north of the existing Moon Valley Gravel Operation. The clay would be trucked via Pioneer I Trail to the Flying Cloud Landfill where it will be used to permanently cap off the landfill which is now in the process of closing. I Upon completion of the excavation, black dirt, which will be saved on -site, will be respread and reseeded. The proposal calls for the creation of two sedimentation/retention basins which are designed to resolve long - standing erosion control problems in this area. The proposed I excavation is designed to avoid loss of mature trees and will occur only in an open field area, which until recently, was regularly farmed. The site is zoned A2 and such mining activity is allowed as an interim use in this district. Upon completion of the grading, the area will I remain suitable for residential development at some point in the future, consistent with the applicant's long range plans. No residential development is being proposed at this time. 1 There is an extensive history concerning this and the related Moon Valley Gravel Operation. The most recent staff report on the Moon Valley Gravel Operation is attached for in -depth review. The city is currently involved in an attempt to regulate this operation in an effort to 1 protect the health and safety of Chanhassen residents. This action has already resulted in significant litigation between the applicant and the city, which is not yet resolved at the time of writing. It is significant to note that the Moon Valley Gravel Operation is significantly different than I I the current request. The original Moon Valley operation has non - conforming status since it Is 1 Le PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 2 was initiated well prior to the establishment of city zoning regulations. The city has maintained, and the Carver County Court has found, that this non - conforming status does not apply to excavation/mining operations on the north parcel, which is the subject of the current request. Therefore, all regulatory standards required by the city in Article III, Excavating, Mining, Filling, and Grading, of Chapter 7 of the City Code, can and should be applied. ' The site is in reasonably good condition from an environmental standpoint. There is a significant forested area located along the prominent and important Minnesota River bluff line at the south end of the property which has not been disturbed. The balance of the site where the excavation is to occur is an open field area. This area contains remnants of an earlier clay removal operation by this applicant in 1987. Upon finding that this removal was in process, the city notified him that a permit was required and since none had been obtained, all activity must stop. The applicant has never restored this area and consequently there is evidence remains of this earlier activity. There are also two significant areas of erosion on the east and west sides of the site. These do not appear to be attributable to any of the activities by this applicant but rather are a result of natural processes exacerbated by farming activities. In spite of its complex background and the city's difficulties in resolving our concerns with the applicant over the Moon Valley gravel operation, we fmd that we are generally in ' support of the current request. We fmd that it appears to be reasonable from an environmental protection standpoint since mature trees remain untouched and an on -going erosion control problem will be resolved. Secondly, we believe that the operation as proposed can be made to comply with the standards in the ordinance, as well as acceptable site management practices. Lastly, we note that the end -use plan for the site is consistent with staff's expectations of how this area is to be developed with single family lots. However, no housing development is being proposed at this time. We also note that the city has the latitude to require sufficient financial guarantees to ensure that the site is managed in a manner consistent with any approvals that are given and we will are proposing that this. ' latitude be reasonably exercised. Staff continues to have some reservations with this proposal, but for the most part, these are adequately resolved with proposed conditions contained in this report. One major concern is the applicant's proposal to grade a retention basin on the common property line between this site and the original Moon Valley Gravel Operation. The applicant and his attorneys have often promoted the idea of linkage between these two sites from a functional and legal standpoint. We emphatically reject the notion that there is any legal basis for tying the two ' actions together. Our position has been affirmed by Judge Kanning. However, the applicant believes there may be some reasonable basis for linkage based on operational characteristics in the area of this pond and staff does not totally disagree. 1 1 1 1 Moon Valley North Site 1 June 23, 1992 Page 3 The purpose of this retention basin is to intercept a large volume of storm water that drains down along side the former railroad right -of -way towards the Moon Valley area causing significant erosion and downstream water quality problems which ultimately impact the Minnesota River Valley. Much of this water is coming from upstream locations that are not located on any of the parcels owned by this applicant. Thus, it may be reasonable to consider constructing an impoundment that addresses this concern. However, the impact of the applicant's activities on the sensitive Minnesota River bluff line cannot be underestimated. Through his activities, he has destroyed significant parts of the bluff line to the extent that this activity is now visible from across the river in Shakopee. Without active intervention on the part of the applicant, this is a scar that would never heal. The applicant's proposal to mine in this area may provide mutual benefit for both the Moon Valley operation and the community as a whole. Mr. Zwiers would be able to obtain additional gravel which benefits him financially. In the process, he would remove a narrow peninsula of the former bluff line and in so doing expose a forested secondary bluff line located a slight distance to the north. This is difficult to describe but essentially he would be removing a nearly destroyed remnant of the original bluff line and exposing a secondary bluff line to view, in the area. In addition to resolving erosion control problems in this area, staff believes that opening up this back valley to view may be of benefit. We are very reluctant to recommend approval of such large scale earthwork on the Minnesota River bluff line, but in this case, we believe there may be enough benefit that results. However, in exchange for approval of this additional mining and associated variance, staff is recommending that the applicant be required to prepare and implement, a reforestation plan, for the balance of the exposed and deforested Minnesota River bluff line on the original Moon Valley Gravel site. This plan should be prepared in conjunction with the Minnesota DNR Forester for approval by the city. By so doing, we believe that a fair exchange would result. City Code requires a 300 foot setback for mining operations. The requested activity does not conform to the standard. However, we note that the code allows the city to waive this 1 requirement. Section 7-47 allows the City Council to deviate from the standards set forth in the ordinance under three scenarios, as follows: 1. For operations that existed prior to the enactment of this article, when it is not feasible p p eas to comply because of pre - existing conditions. 2. When because of topographic or other conditions, it is not possible to comply. 3. When alternatives that accomplish the purpose and intent of the standards set forth in 1 this article are agreed upon by the city and the operator. It is staff's opinion that the requested Moon Valley operation meets conditions #2 and #3 for 1 the granting of a waiver. Relative to condition #2, we note that the mining activity in the 1 1 1 1 Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 4 southwest corner of the property is specifically related to the underlying topographic and drainage conditions found in this area. Very simply, there is no other reasonable location to 1 place the retention basin. We also note that relative to the grading on the north part of the property, it is infeasible to comply since the requested operation is in the open field area. Shifting this operation to the south in the area that meets the setback requirements would ' result in the destruction of very significant stands of trees on the Minnesota River bluff line and is unacceptable to staff. 1 Perhaps even more important to this discussion is the waiver conditions provided under the third standard. Staff is of the opinion that due to the remote location of this request, coupled ' with the relatively sensitive nature of the applicant's proposal, and conditions recommended for imposition by staff, assure that the purpose and intent of the standards developed in this ordinance are complied with. By this we mean that off -site impacts are mitigated or held to a ' minimum, existing erosion problems and other problems related to past mining practices would be resolved, and the site will be left in a reasonable condition suitable for future residential development, should this be proposed. 1 Staff is recommending that the interim use permit for Tom Zwiers, Moon Valley Aggregate be approved with a waiver to allow mining up to the property line as illustrated on the 1 proposed grading plan. BACKGROUND • Pre -1970 - The Moon Valley gravel pit existed as a small scale operation. The property also accommodated a rifle range and ski hill equipped with a tow. The rifle 1 range continues to be utilized. Ownership of the mining operation changed hands. The scale of the operation was 1 greatly expanded in the 1970s. • • 1987 - The city became aware of the mining of clay on a new parcel located above 1 the bluff line with access to Pioneer Trail. The city took action to halt this activity since it was undertaken without a permit. No further activity has occurred in this area. The site of the excavation has not been restored. • Late 1989 -early 1990 - The city received several complaints regarding grading P g g �' g activities at the Moon Valley site from area residents. A review of city ordinances revealed that the city had little or no review authority over Moon Valley. A further review indicated that the ordinance inadequately dealt with not only mining but all ' aspects of grading activity. At the City Council's request, staff and the City Attorney developed a comprehensive ordinance dealing with all related activities. 1 1 Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 5 The ordinance established that uses such as Moon Valley that predated the ordinance, 1 had six months to obtain a permit. The Moon Valley operation and legal counsel were involved with discussions pertaining to the drafting of the ordinance and while they may or may not have agreed with the text, they were fully familiar with its provisions. • 5/14/90 - The new ordinance was adopted as Article III, Excavating, Mining, Filling, and Grading in Chapter 7 of the City Code. • 1990 -1991 - Moon Valley operator was notified on several occasions by registered mail of the need to obtain a permit. Rather than comply, the Moon Valley operator sought a Declaration Judgement Action on October 1, 1990, maintaining that Ordinance No. 128 was an illegal exercise of Chanhassen's police power. The city filed a counter claim that due to Moon Valley's failure to obtain a permit, it should be shut down. • 4/25/91 - Judge Kanning found that the city had the right to require that a permit be obtained and gave the applicant 30 days to submit an application. The city's request to close the operation was essentially continued to give the operator time to respond. 1 SpringLSummerIFall, 1991 - The city granted the operator several delays to prepare the application. A number of meetings were held during which staff was led to believe that a good faith effort was being made. • 10/1/91 - Staff reviewed the permit application and found it to be significantly lacking 1 in content and substance. The Planning Director rejected the application. One fundamental flaw was that two completely different plans were submitted. One plan indicated a "dig to China" scenario which totally eliminated the bluff line and expanded the operation onto adjoining parcels and into Eden Prairie. Staff confirmed that the City of Eden Prairie was never approached by the Moon Valley operator. The other plan was marginally better. It was unclear as to which plan was being proposed, although it was implied that the city could "earn" the better plan by being "reasonable" with Moon Valley. 1 • 10/14/91 - The city adopted a Minnesota River Bluff Line Preservation ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance was to recognize the environmental sensitivity and importance of the Minnesota River bluff line. The protection area is defined by an official map and the ordinance prohibits most activities from the area. • November, 1991 - The case went back to Judge Kanning. His findings were released April 2, 1992. Essentially, he found that: 1 1 1 1 Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 6 - The operator /applicant had non - conforming rights on the south parcel (original mine). The city never contested this point. - The judge found that the non-conformity did not include the north parcel along tY g Pioneer Trail. - The operator/applicant was allowed to continue mining the main pit but was g P given 30 days to submit the application. The judge felt that Plan "B ", the better of the two plans, was the basis of the ' permit submittal. The city may impose conditions on the permit but only to the extent that health ' and safety are to be protected. • May, 1991 - The operator /applicant submitted additional information. Only minor ' changes were made to comply with the most limited interpretation of Judge Kanning's order. In addition, information on ground water elevations, which trial evidence indicated had been withheld by the applicant, was submitted. Staff and the City Attorney met with the applicant. They indicated a continuing desire to mine the north parcel along Pioneer Trail. Staff indicated that a separate application would be required for the north parcel and that all submittal requirements outlined by city ordinances must be met. We further indicated that based upon the court order which differentiates between the status of the northern and southern parcels, we wanted to process the requests separately. This was later confirmed in a letter from the Planning Director. • 1 May 20, 1992 - Rather than respond as outlined by staff, the Moon Valley operator asked Judge Kanning to meet to clarify the court order. It was their continued contention that the judge approved grading on the north parcel. • June 3, 1992 - At the June 3, 1992, Planning Commission meeting, the Moon Valley proposal was reviewed. After staff gave their comments, the applicant's attorney spoke. He continued to question the city's ability to regulate Moon Valley as outlined by staff and objected to most, if not all, of the conditions. 1 The Planning Commission discussed the matter briefly. Given the background of the use and the applicant's position as related by his attorney, the commission saw no need to explore the matter further. They unanimously recommended approval of the earth work permit subject to conditions in the staff report. 1 1 1 Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 7 • June 22, 1992 - The City Council reviewed the request. They approved the permit 1 subject to conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. 1 Site Characteristics The 45 acre site is located south of Pioneer Trail on the Eden Prairie /Chanhassen city line. It 1 is located immediately north of the original Moon Valley gravel pit. Surrounding land uses include: 1 North - Pioneer Trail and large lot/ag residential located in Eden Prairie South - Moon Valley Gravel Operation East - Large lot/ag residential located in Eden Prairie West - The site is immediately adjacent to the abandoned Chicago and Northwestern Railway right -of -way. The right -of -way is approximately 100 feet wide. Homes located in Chanhassen in the Deerbrook/large lot residential subdivision are located further to the west. Site topography is extraordinarily rough. The northern half of the site is occupied by a gently rolling open field area that was farmed until recently. The southern two- thirds of the site contain steeply wooded ridges, ravines, and bluffs associated with the Minnesota River bluff line. The existing Moon Valley gravel pit, with its sheer mine face cut into in the bluff line, is located immediately south of this site. The site drops off steeply to the west down into a narrow valley containing the former railroad right -of -way which is currently owned by the Hennepin County Railroad Authority for use as a potential light rail corridor in the future. The land further to the west rises up steeply again to a heavily wooded hillside which contains the homes located in the Deerbrook subdivision. There is significant evidence of erosion in the vicinity of this site including areas located along the railroad tracks. Other significant areas of erosion on this site occur in two ravines; one leading down to the railroad tracks, and the other down into the City of Eden Prairie. Erosion activity in this area is caused by significant amounts of storm water flowing overland to these localized points. Problems such as these are often caused by activities by man, but are common as a natural occurrence as well throughout the Minnesota River bluff line area. At the northern end of the site is the remnants of an excavation undertaken by this applicant in 1987. City staff found this operation to be illegal and it was shut down but the site has never been restored. There are two access roads leading into the site. The first is an extremely steep and 111 somewhat precarious road leading up the mine face from the south into the site. The second is a significantly better road exiting north through Eden Prairie up to Pioneer Trail. 1 1 1 1 1 Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 8 I Proposed Action 1 The proposed action calls for the removal and sale of 250,000 cubic yards of clay material. The clay will be trucked on Pioneer Trail exiting Chanhassen and ultimately brought to the Eden Prairie landfill. The clay is necessary to cap off the landfill which is now in the 1 process of being shut down. The proposal calls for utilizing 20 -30 trucks with hours of operation requested from 7:00 a.m. I to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. It is expected that if the work begins during July, 1992, it may be completed this construction season depending upon weather. If it is not I completed during this duration due to weather conditions or other delays, it will be completed in early 1993. I Black dirt found on the site will be stripped and stockpiled. After the clay is removed, the dirt will be respread and reseeded. The work proposed on the upper plateau of the north parcel requires no tree loss and will result in the construction of two storm water retention I basins. These basins are somewhat unusual in that rather than being constructed with piped outlets, they are designed so that a sand layer located underneath the clay will be penetrated and that ground water entering the ponds will be allowed to seep back into the ground water I table. These ponds are designed to intercept all drainage on the north parcel and should significant reduce or eliminate existing erosion problems on this property. I This site will remain vacant with its ultimate use being for residential purposes. Since disturbed soils impose limitations on construction of on -site sanitary disposal facilities, it is likely that this parcel will not be developed until sewer and water is available at some, as of 1 yet unspecified, point in the future. Impacts to off -site properties should be reasonably minimal. Staff has proposed conditions 1 that will deal with these potential impacts directly. However, the nearest residences are • located several hundred yards from the property and there is significant terrain between the operation and these home sites. Long term views will not be disturbed by this operation 1 since no radical changes in elevation will result and no tree loss will occur. The request also includes a proposal to mine out an area that is located in an area that 1 straddles the north and south parcels owned by this operator. This area is not visible from any nearby residences but does involve the Minnesota River bluff line which is highly visible from locations to the south. Unlike the clay removal operation proposed for the high plateau, I which is essentially a regrading operation, the proposal on the southwestern comer of the site is a full scale mining operation. As such, a variance is needed from the 300 foot setback I required by city code since mining activities will occur up to the former railroad right -of -way which forms the property line of this site. Staff believes that there may be some benefit, not only to the operator, but also to the community at large in allowing this operation to take 1 1 Moon Valley North Site 1 June 23, 1992 Page 9 place. The proposed retention/seepage pond in this area would serve to improve water quality and erosion. Potentially, it could also expose a back or rear bluff line to view from the river which would replace the primary bluff line in this area which has largely been destroyed by this operator's excavation on the south parcel. However, as one condition of this proposal, and in light of the variance that is required to operate in this area, staff is recommending that a condition be imposed that would require the reforestation of the entire disturbed bluff line on the Moon Valley gravel pit site. Access Considerations 1 This site has two potential accesses. The first is a steep dirt road that climbs the gravel pit face over the old bluff line reaching the southern end of this parcel. This is not proposed for utilization during clay removal activities. The route that is being proposed for use is a dirt road leading north out of the site over a parcel located in Eden Prairie exiting out onto Pioneer Trail. At Pioneer Trail, trucks would turn right and proceed through Eden Prairie to the landfill. The applicant has told staff that he has an easement over this driveway, thus, no further action is required. As a condition of approval, staff would like to have a copy of the easement on file so that we can ensure that substitute access provisions will not be required. The number of truck movements required for an operation of this magnitude is significant. The narrative states that 20 -30 belly dump trucks would be utilized. If a belly dump can normally accommodate 10 cubic yards, we are looking at 2,500 truck movements during the course of the operation. We note that direct impacts on residences should be minimized through distances that are from the road to the homes that are involved. We also note that no city roads will be utilized. A condition of approval should mandate that the haul route using Pioneer Trail to the east is the only one that is permitted. 1 Signs indicating "Trucks Hauling" should be posted during operations. A construction entrance at Pioneer Trail, acceptable to the City Engineer, should be provided to minimize the tracking of mud and debris out onto the county road. The applicant will be responsible for cleaning the county road on an as needed basis if dirt and debris find its way out into the travel right -of -way. The applicant should also demonstrate that he has been in contact with 111 the City of Eden Prairie officials and is operating on roads in their community in a manner consistent with their engineer's recommendations. Site Management Staff has received several calls from concerned residents who envision a large scale mining 1 operation occurring on the north parcel. We have assured them that this is not the case but their fears often gravitate to the potential use of explosives on this site. This has not been proposed by the applicant, nor do we expect that it would ever be warranted. However, as a 1 1 1 Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 10 protective measure, it would probably be appropriate to have a specific prohibition against the use of explosives as a condition of approval. ' Requested hours of operation run from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. P Y . Y Staff does not have any objections to this proposal initially. However, we would recommend that weekend operations on holiday weekends and weekdays on national holidays be prohibited since many of the residents will be spending time at home and should not be ' unduly disturbed. Additionally, if complaints are received from residents relative to Saturday operations, we would like to reserve the right to require that these be terminated. Appropriate conditions have been provided. 1 Noise and dust considerations are of course a concern. Noise is an unavoidable impact of these types of operations. We believe that it is sufficiently addressed by the location of the activity and by the conditions being imposed relative to the hours of operation. Relative to dust concerns, staff has proposed a condition that the operator be responsible for dust control on site. Dust control measures may include site watering, and similar measures, or could ultimately result in temporary shut down of the operation if conditions require this based upon the determination of staff. We would envision this happening only if there is a protracted dry period and high winds. Appropriate conditions have been provided. 1 Periodic inspections by staff will be required throughout the life of this operation. If activity is not to be completed and the site restored by freeze up in 1992, the applicant should work ' out an acceptable plan through the City Engineer's Office to allow the safe shut down of the site until thaw in 1993. A phased site restoration plan is proposed and will be required by the city. The applicant should provide staff with a written plan of how this phasing and site restoration is to occur. In addition to the Interim Use Permit fee required for this application, city ordinances provide for fees outlined in the Uniform Building Code to cover cost of site inspection by city staff. The fee structure specifies that for mining 100,001 cubic yards or 1 more, fees of $562.50 for the 100,000 cubic yards, plus $22.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof, is required. Thus, a total permit fee of $900.00 is required and should be paid prior to the start of work. Secondly, our ordinances allow the city to require financial guarantees that the work will be Y tY � g completed and the site maintained in an appropriate manner. The City Engineer's Office has calculated that based upon the request to remove 250,000 cubic yards of material that a letter of credit acceptable to the city in the amount of $40,000 should be provided prior to the start of work. Drainage/Erosion Control 1 The area around the Minnesota River bluff line is extremely susceptible to erosion. In many areas, the clay soil overlay of sandy soils underneath is quite thin. Natural erosion in this 1 1 1 Moon Valley North Site 1 June 23, 1992 Page 11 1 area, with its steep bluffs, is an ongoing concern. Introduction of human activity has significantly accelerated this problem. The site contains two ongoing erosion problems. The first is located along the eastern property line at approximately the midpoint of the parcel. It is the entrance to one of the many steep ravines that is typical in this area. Water draining over the farm fields pouring down this ravine has created significant erosion in this area. 111 There is also some debris that was dumped in this area at some point in the past. As the ravine erodes, it is extending west across the parcel. There is another but smaller similar type of erosion problem occurring on the west property line in the area that drains down to the former Chicago Northwestern Railroad right -of -way. The railroad right -of -way itself is one of the more significant erosion problems in the area. It serves as the conduit for a large volume of water draining south towards the Minnesota River. Embankments along the railway right- of-way itself are generally significantly eroded. One of the primary advantages of granting the requested interim use permit would be that we would have a means and place to address the erosion control problems on the site. In so doing, we would not only resolve these problems but would also serve to improve water quality of storm water that ultimately drains into the Minnesota River. The proposal calls for 1 the construction of two storm water ponding areas. The larger one is located at approximately the middle of the property and the second is located at the northern tip of the triangular parcel. These ponding areas are somewhat different than what we find elsewhere. 1 The proposal calls for excavating the ponding areas deep enough so that they penetrate into the sand layer which is located below the clay. Thus, instead of having water fill the ponds to a point where upon it would drain by pipe into another area, these ponds are constructed to let the storm water seep back into the ground water table. Given the circumstances of this property, we think this is probably the best approach; however, we would like to take an opportunity to have the city's engineering consultant, Bonestroo Engineering, review the plans to make any suggestions for improvements prior to City Council review. The applicant will be billed for the cost of these services. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to give staff an as -built grading plan of these ponds upon completion to ensure that they penetrate the sand layer, that they are constructed in accordance with approved plans, and they have not been allowed to sediment in through the operator's grading activity. Over time these ponds will also have to be maintained and occasionally sediment and material will have to be removed from the bottom to allow percolation to continue. Drainage easements should be provided over these areas and a notice should be placed in the chain of title of these lots requiring current and future property owners to maintain them to the satisfaction of the city. 1 The northern most pond is located close to the railroad embankment. Staff is concerned that allowing water to seep into the ground in this area has some potential for undermining the slope extending down from the site down to the former railway tracks. We are proposing that 1 1 1 1 Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 12 a clay liner be placed on the western side of this pond to ensure that storm water seepage is directed away from this area. ' A third storm water basin is being proposed that straddles the line between the north and south Moon Valley parcels near the railway right -of -way. This ponding area would serve a 1 similar purpose and is able to intercept and slow storm water that runs down along the railway tracks. If grading in this area is to be approved, staff would like the applicant's engineer to ensure that interception of drainage in this area does not unduly impact stream flow on a water course that is located slightly to the west. We would also like the plans modified so that tree loss on the northern side of the pond is minimized. At the present time, grading plans indicate what appears to be more tree removal than is warranted in this area. No tree removal should be allowed in the area north of the flowage that enters the pond from the railway right -of -way. The applicant shall apply for and receive a watershed distract ' permit and comply with all proposed conditions. A modest erosion control plan has been illustrated. The applicant's engineer should work ' with the City Engineer's Office to develop a more precise and acceptable erosion control plan for this site. Erosion control measures should be established before any material is removed and maintained throughout the construction period. ' Issues Pertaining to the Proposed Southern Ponding Area ' As mentioned periodically in this report, the applicant is proposing the construction of a third ponding area. This pond is to be located on a site that straddles the north and south property lines of the two parcels owned by the applicant. It is located immediately adjacent to the 1 former railroad right -of -way. Grading in this area poses some practical and philosophical problems for staff. The 1 applicant's activities on the southern parcel have resulted in the wholesale destruction of the Minnesota River bluff line. As a result of these activities, a small half mined finger of high ground extends west towards the railroad tracks in the vicinity of the proposed pond. The 1 applicant is proposing to completely remove this finger of high ground and excavate out the area of the pond. Thus, he is benefiting by having authorization to remove and profit from the sale of material from this area. There is a drainage and erosion control problem in this area and the proposed pond's location g P P P P appears to be the most likely one if measures are to be developed to address this concern. Therefore, it is essentially the topography of the area that is dictating the placement of the pond in this location. In reviewing a variance, we considered potential off -site impacts. We do not believe that this area will be visible from any 'of the surrounding homes due to its remote location and elevation. In terms of public benefit, we believe there are several things to be considered. First of all, an erosion control and water quality problem would be 1 1 1 Moon Valley North Site 1 June 23, 1992 Page 13 1 addressed by placement of a pond in this area. Secondly, removal of the mined out finger of property, which is a remnant of the original primary bluff face, would expose a secondary bluff line located on the other side of the pond. This area is still densely forested and when viewed from a distance is probably going to be difficult to tell that you are looking at a secondary bluff face and not the original primary one in this area. However, staff has visited the site on several occasions and found trees to be located in around this portion of the property. These trees will be lost due to mining operations. City Code typically requires reforestation where tree loss occurs. This reforestation should more appropriately occur in the mined out southern Moon Valley site since this portion of the bluff is visible across a large area. Therefore, we are proposing that the applicant be required to develop a reforestation plan for the remaining areas of the primary bluff face located on the south parcel which the applicant is in the process of mining out under the previously approved earth work permit. This plan should be developed for approval by staff and financial guarantees be posted to ensure that it is complied with. Placement of trees in this area will address visual impacts of 1 the applicant's operation and help to make significant progress in stabilizing a highly disturbed and steep slope that remains after the gravel has been removed. Environmental Considerations In reviewing this site, we have concluded that there are no wetlands or protected water bodies 1 that are being impacted. We also reviewed state environmental regulations to ascertain if an environmental assessment work sheet is warranted. We found that the mandatory threshold for an EAW for this type of use is the excavation of 40 or more acres of land to a mean depth of 10 feet or more during existence of the operation. The proposal as outlined by the applicant will disturb and area that is considerably smaller than the mandatory threshold. At this point, staff does not believe that requiring an EAW will add significantly to the understanding of this request nor of measures required to deal adequately with it. Fencing 1 City ordinances allow the requirement of fencing when appropriate to protect public safety due to operations of this nature. In reviewing this proposal, we do not believe that resulting slopes will be steep enough to require the placement of safety fences. Therefore, no such requirement is being recommended by staff. Site Restoration and End -Use Plan City ordinances require operators to give the city a site restoration and end -use plan. The applicant has attempted to comply with both standards. The narrative document describes that no trees will be cut on the north parcel outside of the area of the proposed lower 1 southern pond. Additionally, black dirt will be stockpiled and respread and reseeded immediately upon completion. This is acceptable to staff since this area is open field grass at 1 1 1 Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 14 I the present time. Staff would also like to have the applicant's engineer develop a plan to respond to repairing the two areas of erosion that exist at the present time on the north parcel. 1 We realize that in repairing this erosion, care must be taken to avoid further disturbance to the area, but we believe some restoration, cleaning, and revegetation of these areas are warranted. 1 The end -use lan developed by the applicant for this site illustrates a long cul -de -sac P P Y PP g I extending south from Pioneer Trail along which large lot residential sites are clustered. These homes would be nestled along the top of the bluff line and would be highly attractive home sites. The end -use plan was prepared for the original Moon Valley request and is not l consistent with the current grading plan proposal. However, it does illustrate the type of residential development that can be accommodated. Given the disturbance to this area, the Building Official questions the ability to satisfactorily provide on -site sewer in this area. If I the use of on -site systems are proposed it is likely that mound systems would be required and these must be engineered to the satisfaction of the city. It is equally likely that development may not occur until sewer and water is available and at this time there are no specific plans I for programs that would extend utilities into this area. The grades that will result from this proposed excavation are consistent with leaving the site in a condition that can support residential use. I PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE I The Planning Commission heard this item at their July 1, 1992, meeting. A large number of residents attended and questions regarding the proposal were raised in several areas. These included potential impact of the proposed infiltration basins on local water supplies, potential I visual impacts, and concerns over potential traffic safety hazards at the Pioneer Trail entrance to this property. The Planning Commission reviewed the materials and ultimately recommended approval of the earth work permit and associated waiver. They did revise the 1 conditions by adding five to the 14 already proposed by staff. These include the following: 1. The establishment of a time frame by which all activity on the property must cease 1 and the site be restored. 1 2. Inclusion of standard procedures to ensure that tree preservation areas are adequately marked and protected during the course of grading operations. I 3. The applicant have the potential impact on water supplies in the area evaluated. 4. The access point and site distance questions be resolved. 1 5. The property owner, in writing, relinquish all future rights to mine this site. 1 1 Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 15 1 6. Staff reassess the requested letter of credit requirement with an eye towards increasing them to be consistent with what the Planning Commission perceived to be the actual cost of site restoration. Since the Planning Commission meeting, staff has obtained additional information responding to these and several other requests. First we note that at the meeting it was disclosed that the property owner will not be undertaking the mining operation but this would rather be undertaken by a second company. The City Attorney indicated that this would cause no 1 unusual problems, however, both the Moon Valley owner and the operator of the excavation firrn should be listed as co- applicants on this request and should jointly be responsible for upholding its conditions. At the meeting, the applicant also indicated that he is in possession 1 of the fee title of the access road to Pioneer Trail. A copy of the title was given to staff at the meeting. Therefore, condition #1, requiring provision of a copy of the access easement over the off -site haul road to the city, is no longer necessary. 1 Staff met with Allen Gray, the Eden Prairie City Engineer, on this proposal and provided him with a copy of the mining plan for review. He indicated that he did not foresee having any significant concerns with the request, but would contact staff if any arose. He also indicated that access considerations on Pioneer Trail should be brought to the attention of Hennepin County since this is a county road, not a city road. Staff contacted Dave Zetterstrom, who is the Entrance Coordinator for Hennepin County. Mr. Zetterstrom was quite familiar with this access since it was approved in 1988 by him. He has included a copy of permit with a letter outlining the county's position. He indicated that visibility at this point is quite good. Hennepin County's concerns are not from a sight distance standpoint but rather operational characteristics. They are requesting the following: 1. A stop sign be permanently installed at the entrance to Pioneer Trail. 2. A bituminous apron at least 3 inches deep be placed 75 feet from the centerline of 1 Pioneer Trail. 3. Truck hauling signs be installed on temporary stands and be utilized only when operations are in progress. 4. The contractor maintain a clean roadway that must be swept a minimum of twice daily and more often during intense activity as required. 5. The access apron must be shaped to preclude runoff across Pioneer Trail with all drainage directed towards the site. The contractor should also be responsible for repairing any damage to bituminous roadway gravel shoulder. 1 1 1 Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 16 1 Staff has taken these requests into consideration and has revised all proposed conditions accordingly. 1 Staff has had an opportunity to briefly review the request with Ismael Martinez of Bonestroo Engineering. Bonestroo is the city's water quality consultant. Staff specifically asked questions regarding the use of infiltration basins rather than the more typically retention and water quality basins with structured outlets that we see in Chanhassen. Mr. Martinez indicated that the infiltration basins are reasonable under the proposed scenario. He would be concerned if there was a significant potential of high volumes of pollutants the site; however, this is not the case with this proposal. The site will be restored and reseeded with the grasses acting to filter much of the surface water. In any event, the surface water drainage would for the time being be rural and would ultimately be residential in nature. Staff fully expects to have to reconstruct the ponds to some extent when actual residential development is proposed. At that point, it is likely that structured outlets would be required and that these basins revert ' to a more normal function. However, in reviewing the drainage plans, we realize that it is necessary to excavate into the sand layer for these ponds to work and only sketchy information has been supplied as to where exactly the sand is located. We therefore believe 1 it would be prudent to have the applicant demonstrate through borings or limited excavation that the sand is where it needs to be for the excavation to function. This should be demonstrated prior to starting large scale mining. If the sand is unexpectedly deeper, 1 alternative drainage plans must be developed and approved prior to starting work. The applicant was required by the Planning Commission to respond to concerns raised over -water quality. At the meeting, Rick Sathre, the applicant's engineer, indicated that he strongly doubted that such concerns had validity. He noted that there is a substantial distance between the ponding areas and any of the homes located on nearby lots. There is also substantial terrain difference in these areas. He pointed that the direction of ground water flow was south towards the Minnesota River and lastly, that if infiltration posed a water quality problem, then these home sites would be much more significantly impacted by their own septic systems which are located in very close proximity to their well sites. However, staff continued to press the applicant to respond to this concern in a positive manner. Larry ' Samsted, the Watershed District Engineer for the Lower Minnesota Valley Watershed, has reviewed this issue. In an attached letter, Mr. Samsted agrees with the applicant's engineer. He indicated that the flow of ground water is towards the south and that the water infiltrating through the ponds is no different than normal absorbtion of rain water. Watershed District approval of the mining request was given on July 16, 1992. The last concern requiring action by staff has to do with the letter of credit. Staff has asked the City Engineering department to recalculate the numbers, as well as checking with other sources to see if their assumptions regarding cost of restoration are correct. The engineering 1 department has also been in contact with Alan Olson, the DNR Forester, regarding the 1 1 Moon Valley North Site 1 June 23, 1992 Page 17 potential costs of reforestation required as a condition of approval. They are proposing P �1 PP Y P P g that a letter of credit in the amount of $121,290.00 be required as outlined in the attached memo. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Interim Use Permit #92 -5 for earth work be approved with a waiver of setback standards subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant and grading contractor shall co -sign the permit request and shall be 1 jointly held responsible for compliance with conditions of approval. 2. Prior to the start of hauling, a 75 foot long bituminous construction entrance, paved to 1 a minimum depth of 3 inches, must be constructed. It shall be equipped with a stop sign. "Trucks Hauling" signs must be posted when operations are in progress and removed at all other times. Pioneer Trail, in the vicinity of the site, is to be swept at least twice each day and more often as conditions dictate. The applicant is responsible fore repairing damage to pavement and shoulders upon completion of operations an inspection must be arranged by the Hennepin County Department of Public Works. 3. Use of explosives to support this operation are prohibited. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, excluding national holidays. If the city receives complaints regarding Saturday operations, the City Engineer may require that these be halted. 1 4. Dust control shall be the operator's responsibility. If conditions persist which make dust control ineffective, the City Engineer may require temporary halting of 1 operations. 5. The applicant is required to phase site restoration in a manner acceptable to the City 1 Engineer. He will provide staff with a written phasing plan for approval prior to the start of operations. 6. The applicant shall pay an inspection fee of $900 and provide the city with an PP P Y P P tY acceptable financial security (letter of credit or cash) in the amount of $121,290.00 to cover the costs of site restoration, repairs to Pioneer Trail, and reforestation. Inspection costs in excess of the $900 fee shall be billed to the applicant at a rate of $30.00 per hour to be paid within 30 days of receipt. 7. Drainage plans to be reviewed by Bonestroo Engineering prior to City Council review. Fees for this shall be paid by the applicant. The applicant must demonstrate that the underlying sand layer is located at the elevation described on submittal plans prior to 1 1 Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 18 the start of mining. If the sandy layer is deeper than expected, alternative drainage plans must be developed for city approval. ' 8. Provide permanent drainage easements in favor of the city over the retention basins. Drainage calculations are to be provided to demonstrate that the ponds are properly sized. Place notice in chain -of -title that current and future owners are responsible for keeping the basins functional. When development occurs, the city would normally accept responsibility for the ponds. The applicant must demonstrate that all ponds have bottoms located in the sand layer or structured outlets will be required. A clay liner is required on the west edge of the north pond to protect the adjacent side slope. The applicant shall provide the city with an as -built grading plan of the ponds to ensure that they comply with approved specifications upon completion of operations. 9. Provide and maintain an erosion control plan acceptable to the City Engineer. Designate black dirt stockpile areas for approval by the City Engineer. 10. Project approval by the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District is required. 11. Modify plans prior to the start of operations for the southern pond to minimize tree loss on the north side of the pond. The applicant's engineer shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that this ponding area does not disturb local drainage patterns. 12. Provide staff with an acceptable reforestation plan for the mined bluff face on the Moon Valley gravel mine site prior to the start of operations. Adequate financial guarantees to ensure that the plan is implemented upon the completion of mining shall be provided. 13. The applicant's engineer shall prepare a plan to repair erosion damage found at the two locations on the north site described in the report. The plan is to be submitted to city staff for approval prior to the start of operations. This plan is to be undertaken as a condition of approval. 14. All mining operations and site restoration shall be completed no later than July 15, 1993. 15. Tree preservation areas shall be clearly marked prior to the start of operations by snow fence. Trees and forested areas designated for protection that are damaged by mining must be replaced on a caliper inch basis. 16. The property owner shall file a notice in the chain -of -title permanently relinquishing all future rights to mine the property. 1 d 11'411.11 Lower Minnesota River Watershed Distrif 151 WEST 126TH STRE BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55 July 15, 1992 Cyril B. Ess President Jim A. Kephart Vice President To: Board of Managers II Merrill M. Madsen Treasurer . Edward A. Schlampp Asst. Treasurer William J. Jaeger, Jr. Secretary From: Lawrence E. Samstad, Engineer Lawrence E. Samstad Engineer Bruce D. Malkerson Attorney Re: Grading and Drainage Plan - SE 1/4 I/ Section 25 East of Railroad - Chanhassan. I have reviewed the grading and drainage plan dated 6/5/92 for the r • above area. The reason for this grading is to acquire clay soils which are found near the surface of this property. As a secondary benefit of this work, the regrading of the property will eliminate the drainage from the property and eliminate erosions that presently occurs on the east and west side of the field. The water will be ponded on the site and allowed to seep into the water II table. There was some concern according-to the Owner's Engineer that the quality of the water entering the groundwater zone would be contaminated. I do not believe that this is any more of a problem than the constant absorption of rainwater by normal soils. The groundwater flow is south toward the Minnesota River Bluffs and should not affect adjacent properties to the north, east and west. There is sufficient capacity in the ponding /sump areas to capture any rainfall and allow for its infiltrating into the ground water II table and not be directed to gullies which are situated on the east and west of the properties. I would suggest that the gully on the II west side of the project just southeast of the "R" in the word RAILWAY should be corrected and the contours which now go around the gully, continue straight through from northeast to southwest. this would mend a problem area and hopefully end the erosiveness of II the gully. The plan should help keep surface waters from going past the borders of the property and eliminate erosion that is caused by runoff from the property. I therefore recommend approval II of this permit by the Managers of the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District. Resp tfully1 j II awrence E. Samstad, P.E. Engineer II The plan for regrading the above property, with the correction of the above mentioned gully, is hereby approved by the Managers of the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District. . II Date lb'� /ff L Signed 7 ) r A— II J Position f 1 CITY OF CHANIIASSEN \ _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician te; DATE: August 5, 1992 SUBJ: Breakdown of Security Deposit for Moon Valley Aggregate - North Parcels Grading Permit No. 92 -5 As requested, attached is a cost analysis to restore the site and guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval for the Moon Valley north parcel based on the grading plan dated 6/5/92, including the north slope of the southerly parcel. jms ' Attachment: Security Calculation Sheets c: Charles Folch, City Engineer 1 1 1 1 4. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 Breakdown of Security (Letter of Credit) for Moon Valley Aggregate (North Parcel) 1 Grading Permit No. 92 -6 Interim Use Permit No. 92 -5 8/5/92 1 I. Site Restoration For North Parcel 1 1. Topsoil, Reseed and Mulch 1600 x 600 = 22 Ac. x $1,800 /Ac. = $39,669 . 43,560 1 2. Erosion Control Fence (Type I) 2550 L.F. at $2.00 /L.F. = $5,100 1 3. Miscellaneous Site Grading /L.S. - $10,000 1 -Pond Construction - Leveling 1 4. Erosion Control Blanket -South Pond 100 x 400 = 4,444 sq. yd. at $1.25 = $5,556 I 9 5. Slope Stabilization (2.5 to 1 slopes) 1 Furnish & Install Erosion Control Blanket at $1.25 /sq. yd. A. West Slope - 1000' x 100' = 100,000 I B. North Slope - 1000' x 250' = 250,000 • Total = ota 350.000 sq. ft — 38,888 sq. yd. 9 38,888 x $1.25 = $48,611 1 6. Reforestation on All Slopes (2.5 to 1) 350.000 sq. ft. = 8.03 Ac. x $400 /Ac* = $3,214 1 43,560 *Per DNR: Includes site preparation, labor, 500 seedlings & chemical 1 application 1 1 1 II. Surveying /Engineering Fees For Monitoring Restoration Work /As -built Survey (Administration Fee) 1 3% of Total ($112,150) = $3,364 1 Summary 1 I. Site Restoration $112150 II. Administration Fees $ 3.364 I Sub -Total $115 ,514 Plus 5% (Contingencies) $ 5,776 Grand Total For Security $12190 1 For North Parcel 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 7) --- DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 320 Washington Avenue South 1 HENNEPIN Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 -8468 PHONE: (612) 930 -2500 FAX (612) 930 -2513 TDD: (612) 930 -2696 July 10, 1992 Paul Krauss,Planning Director City of Chanhassen Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: PROPOSED HAUL OPERATION, CSAH 1, EDEN PRAIRIE- 1 Dear Paul: Thanks for theinquiry regarding the above activity. Hennepin County does have 1 some concerns about the use of the access constructed in 1988 via permit num- ber 3140 (copy enclosed). As noted on the permit, a "STOP" sign should be permanently installed and a bi- II tuminous apron ,(3" minimum depth) placed to approximately 75 feet from the cen- terline of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 1. 1 We also required "Truck Hauling" signs which apparently didn't happen since the operation was not begun. These signs must be covered during no activity; if temporary on stands, they must be turned out of service except during operations. II The contractors must also maintain a clean roadway. It should be swept a minimum of twice daily (noon and after working hours), and more often during intense ac- II tivity as required. Finally, the apron must be shaped to preclude runoff across CSAH 1; all drainage should be toward the site. The contractor will also be responsible for repairing any damage to the bituminous mat and /or gravel shoulder. Again, thanks for the timely inquiry. Please feelfree to call with any further II questions. Sin rely, 1 David Zetterstrom Entrance Permit Coordinator Enc. cc: Al Gray, City of Eden Prairie RECEIVED II Gene Illg, Hennepin County Joe Levernier, Hennepin County JUL 1 3 1992 (`rry nP CuANHASSCN HENNEPIN COUNTY 1 an equal opportunity employer _....... _...... _ it- I . - HEtvNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS 320 Washington Avenue South Permit No. 3140 Location Code Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 I ...-------'".- RIVEWAY OR STREET ENTRANCE PERMIT AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS ------ — , ---"-----: --------- ' ---- SPECIAL PROVISIONS -.':-.. ; -----'- -- 7.. 4.../... - ,.. 1 ,,. • --- " - Field inspected by 'Dave Utters i . 11.2 • 2,1,‘".., :Date 7/7/88 • .,- = - -.---- --, r - -r.. -- -.74;- - • ,-, ' :, ' - - :• 7": • , i1 at West County Line - - — ,.. .,_... .. Location est ne -7 . Speed ione - . - S° " ' . :A:D.T. - 3300 -:,:f •:-..";'-_-:-.• _ _ . _ _ ,_ - , . -• .• ...... 1 ......i - .t. / t---...---L„ ------:-• .-4.. I . • .7.A. r -..'1";::::- -:, .:- t 740+ - :.-''''' 11411W -3 —1 I Right ' 2 '700+ ; _: Sight distance: Actual - Left - -- Minimum -Left ", i-- :, ..: 740 - - - Ati•Nra ....-or 9 Ri ht Curb to be removed to: 0 Construction Joint 0 Sawed Joint . .2 - k • 1...., A abai inerttei . t:: • -:=.- Recommended draina Surface . 13 Culvert Culvert length . ''''...-- -' - ' ' Culvert diameter ol....,, ., _ , -- - - -- __ _ ,.. - -:- - , • Type of sidewalk: 0 Concrete 0 Bituminous 0 Cutback required ' - - - . .- -...__., - •, - - 1.--• - -- • 1, CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS (Witt:in Right-ofJPiay) .74 - T : C _ xeswborii lb tiobe linsoval 14 Jul la; - '4/ 4K*434., .71-x - - i.: it - -.. -• -, . .. *i I BASE - SURFACE CURB , - ; - - —_--SIDEWALK ------SHOULDER i BLVD-DITCH . Type ' : 1 - ;1:7 - 73 Type -- - — - Type " - ------ --- Type T:1;i7ir Depth "rlwn Depth Irawn Design -- Depth ' '. - ''- '" ' - Depth '-' -Depth 3" -__ , , +Seed_ or Sod - I 2; TRAFFIC CONTROL REQUIREMENTS Plate 1 --: -11 ' /8r731 Z .,., - ' -- — • Barricades (100 Series) Advance Warning (200-300 Series) Steady Bum (500) ' -• le-k: 111 . - . _ -,, - . - - _ . Cones Day.-allo) SPECIAL PROVISIONS _ - . I One 40' wide commercial/street entrance approved as drawn. Shoulder paving to be - . removed/repaired as required by Hennepin County. - Applicant to reestablish guardrail around west radius and provide/maintain STOP sign._ Access to remain as future city I street access; no other access to site wilLbe•pfraiitted. Haullne_signsit be in sery ice during haul operations..;, - --,-: , :,r , . , -A .- ?'",; ; " .. 4!'' , - - ;' - , 1. vig — - — -__ -\ - - * 4 I. -: ----!,,,,--;:-;,- . , _ .--,::-.:.,,,:.:::. , !.._-_,-*--,e wore .2_, 1 _:,;: - ,----; r - _ • _ - „ *. — N _ ._-:,_ •,,,„ r.:. ,,•_.; '..-- • ---,:, ft '4 -, e- v ...., -•._ I .__. DO NOT PLACE CONCRETE ON COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. „ ....—: - I F YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CALL "DRIVEWAY PERMITS" 935-3381 EXT tityx 3 1. 0 ..7'' fr '.:-- ITT Diagram A B ',.. .. _-• ...,:..,,,,,.) - - .., I . _ ' ki, " * P.',N-4tij ' * -1;---- \ Diagram -, ...,4.-...::- !-? 3 -* -- f , "-:°- '' 1 '.' • 'A I IMPORTANT: TYPE "a" CONSTRUCT ROUNDED BERM TO ,,,,. IMPORTANT: CONSTRUCT SWALE TO DIVERT WATER FROM My - RIW PREVENT WATER FROM RUNNING DOWN .... Pe: - 'SHOULDER. .., DRIVE. . ' . .. - --:'. •,',- ''z'. . - , . .. _ .,, 1 4" Berm 1 I .. , _ .. ... • - = _ _ -... -, _ :.: . 1 .. , „ , . - 6- &Ade - I I - •, _ - _ 1 voive vori . • .. DrivrAW . eg ic:: ...;,. . - --•••--,, . - - : ix , -. „ . „ nt.; R _ , „..., way • Shoulder Shoulder ..... , . . _.,....„ _ ... _,---.: - _ ,, _...., . . . . ace a P hrert in exisdng diteh , lu • - _ 1 _ , . . . , --- . f .' REVIEWED BY _ ., : - DATE ___ . .. Culvert furnished _ DESIGN _ . . - -- I Date of delivery - : - - MAINT. . - - - - Final inspection date A , D riveway was found to be 0- !.., ,'- - - --. _- ---- ' - ' -2. .: - . ' . , - _- - _ -4., • - -- ,- -- - Unsatisfactory . •,„..- - , 0 satisfactory , - , APPROVED /DSNI.SD: _ ... _ _ . . .. I _. • HENNEPIN COUN- PUBLIC WORKS TRhFFIC SECTION -::. - Inspected by , ,,_. ' By ..- /' ......- l'''''"•'.4 4 ./r ,* - -.1--.1e .... ,..0.1.0 -- ) .-..oi tte - - .I.... -,;),,, / / - •,- III . ..r.% --- _.. . - .4- - ' - .. _ _ ' 3 , - ‘. .. ,. ' _ _ _ • __ A .. -- ... 7 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS Permit No. -- i 1 '/0 . - 320 Washington Avenue South , ..,, ..- - Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 , , -, - , •, , fr .. ,,.- - .. - - : = APPLICATION FOR DRIVEWAY OR STREET ENTRANCE PERMIT - - -. (Read "General Requirements" reverse side) . Name of applicant Alex Dorenkemper .• .,-. i Phone (612) 934-0913 1 Address 18925 Pioneer Trail, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55347 1 (City) _ (zip code) 1T*13M3RIUO V ) AR3i431..' • Name of Property Owner '... 'Alex Dorenkemper Address Same . zooGiso 'it: nol ors6iv at ritwavlib '10 riewevisb Ishun I bns leiolernrnoz 'of moissuriqoA ......1 1. Contractor performing work - -- ''''. -1 --4 i '''+ .-.11 """n'ir * 4 ' 1 ''''' '""•r" 7-- - v" - ^;. - !al• - .-^m fhone _ 2n6fTs 2 ngi2ea Qnifft.:14s1t3.trpofralotsA kins-islun arts to tirisins e:ti Item tel•nri elUOVS .. 2. Application is hereby made for.permission to construct and thereafter maintain: .4,-privewayfr,),6 PubncStrbetis) - 1 - - -.. .tn2a aide.y1"1-tim ; 2644M ,riftio2 sunseA rio./goirttsW OSC mit:tot:I yfivingil4 ylnipo3 rtictaimel4 _ ..111 3. Building to be constructed: 2 Yes 0 No 2 Residence 0 Commercial (Specify Tyne) - 14;1311 OP/ tii a nsnt its) to ego) rohtaz so ?mg s etwiebital ataq grntritst ISDnallp..9 10 1 2ntsiiitiqA . -,'S . '-` 4. Driveway or striei will be' :LiTaninorary : 47C Permanent 4 .6ate proposed entrance will be needed: - -- Zov 1988-- _11 • ei 451soii ,enns-t.trni sfft mix! yiret ltwit ,b-Tela rint2 4sortz .iirlt In !not odi no bebivolo 5. Is the property: 0 Platted CC Unplatted Number of present driveways Or entrances to property: -- - Driveway is for currently proposed platted property . 6. Building Permit acquired: 0 Yes OCNo .. City --, --, '-,-,, t ; ' "‘""I "' "1-Pertnit.No.1 . r _.. _,.... 7. Type of proposed entrance surface. 0-Bituminous P Concrete 2 Rock 0 Other. - 1 -- ^••;4. .01 * * - . -: .1ts4q ni ed num zsbsonled iscolo bns vigil ,r33 il I 8. Umation 18925 County Road Number One, Eden Prairie Minnesota -, -: ---_,•-i;- - (Address) • . (Co. Road) (City) atshelzfri wt. pa Tor 1100‘) bencnibnco tt .11g119q tin/ 1st beemt. :arts tkool■iebrt) vterr:qx_ ti if -,,,,it -, 9. L if rural: Iwo - --i- Miles West -..,f - No. i• and 4 .Intersection 111 A.: IN. 5., E., or W.) (Road or Street) -..., 1 - :( /62 6 Ert I el cil ut !OUT( ea IturrAediuinale •. i .f_r_ 1,...:,,.,:pwiT to wilidltnootel , i _ Dated July 9, 1 4g Li 0 Applicant's Signature t, < ..-4 »I? vviz:I.A_ - .90.4-4,A, - --- . . - . - '- - Alex Dorenkemper . -,-, -• . - - • ,.__ - t • ii II - .., ,,...,....., ,I14/ , I it.4 is 41.11.1i t 11 VI 1 . 41,10.MaJtel .s.g11 *tut: i stn.) si ,44Li,.... 1:e.; EU:0 , fi•Vvi3V a li 141:/-% . . I To help the inspector, estake with a cloth attached in the center of the.proposed entrarice, any surrounding . _ . vegetation. . -•: - -: , yewrieiti yfnuo3 nit:pp:1M arts vd sontftpoos - -. APPLICANT'S DIAGRAM - (If plot or construction plan is notsubmitted).:;:•-witna ni mail lo taensrio OH -.,T - • . • ..ieenign?. y/nuob' -:r.. .-- e „-- .- . : - ... . South East - _ Center Of __ • .., ,..- Concrete_ cearneri,...91 Proposed .11 leSniv•t3 - Of lir.i.41.v.uw.x/e 1 1$h41$ )/lci zjciornr.ro e/4*, i a t l ions v nik s wis se w?: 43;16 1 - A T I sO i■e soap :erfi no4iJ .64 - tid iioifitatift kr/e ft) 6onSilna bist et& ot trfqh;11 It '717 _- • .1 sz, . -;.;:-.... ' _ , ini :Feet.:. sirs irtW. 9 In vriatnTh2klenneDin ;County,Rciact lin. 1 , -• .., - yd baliups1 ed yarn inoiffitilocii yekusvilb weh gnhaixe s1t3 to mesisq Ditto/ aril !Li .91111.10 - - - T ■, - '-- - -... . . • - ,1' . 1 60 / . t : . ft -4' ' .5- -4 ,7 - J - - " : ',.. . - . . - - -.--..' ‘,- -.., .a- ';. :f •*-1 ''. `',...:::'.. ","1 F .. ..- - ,.:' ,- '-';-. - . .--.' -,!'-,, -••• - _- - . , -_ - • , .:- :`-,:. : ..- .• 4 - - --:-. - -:- , - • = -- - •._ '_ -- •: -.i.__._ " - - , ' '1, ' . .. f . _ - - ,,,, _, 4... , -...J,.- = ri-,.: -.•:- _ - - •-_.- , -,:- - ., - :•-i !_- :---., . -_-- ., .-- ....,..,.:._„,..-.,_ • . , : - .. ' • 7- • t-- ..-z-,....•;, -..:- - - - .*-= -- . ., ,_ _ ,.__ , ,. _ _ _ .. .. :..._ . . : . _, .„„ ,.. _ - • , ...-..- .3;;;;;.! - ;it - - - ! ....- - -..,: - : `.--- " •.. - '' ' :, --, : r .-- - .. ' ''' . --*-. ,j,_' ' '" J4 - r:: ; .•i•t ":•- t . 1 ■-•:: . ,_ '' .- ' .• '... -,: -' ; . ' ' .",* . " - -7 ....-- , '" :1 - .. , ... t - -Z.. - ,2...... '',., .,',.( -", r- _:. ,', '_ .,, ..- . 1 ... ..774.:- '' ' --•-• -,,-.. • -, • , - s '. t ,"'", _ :, -:- ,,;'.. V- ' I • . .... ' '•'_ - . - . ' : 4: ..5.... -:..„..!;•=;- i,,, , ,,./ - 4 -- : - ' " • ,-, ., . . s-, __" ^ • .: .. -...v - ' - - (Complete this form and send al copies to: Hennepin County _ ;Highway Division, Maintenance Office, 320 Washington Avenue South, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343. Phone: 935-3381. . . ,• After approval, one copy will be returned to applicant.) . . -. • . _ - .'',..i,:.....; ---:;:_ 7.- • ••■•.? _ ,..' 'r ‘ - '.', - - . _ . . _ ,.,, _ _•,,_ ;,;-,-....,;_,, ,,,._:44..;-.. " - i,. .-. --- .- ; = -- -.4..1 .:.:- -,_ -_-4....... , Z . . . i. ._ , : ' d 30'R 11 ' 1.:‘,., 1 Zi r S C I ) l - ZS 1 I 4; I I . 2 ___ W d MATCH EXISTING BITUMINOUS _ _ 1 \ AT EDGE I \ \ , BOTH OPTIONS SHALL HAVE A BITUMINOUS MAT FROM STATION 0+19 TO 04-75 1 \ 1 • 1 - 1 I 1 I I I 1 . I ; i I sr to • In ..4. ?- ID 6,1 V•-• Vt IV co P on ct 413 17 ) N ccr 1 1 &I g i fs 2 co txy co co CO CO CO I • co a5 cv c o . 1 900 I . . . : . B9.0 1 • % **** .P..4.0. I--- '``N. : . -43 .' . • . i . . St • •• • ........ : . 4' 880 . \. . . • : . . .... ...e 1 • ..` •Se: •Trr• • •°' : • • : • • •••••• 1 •••• : ... : :' : • . •• 1 . . : : • A : i I 1 (8925 A og . r Gb A/ Pol 44 ■ 1 1 1 1 1 f inch = too fee la:1 i v� 1 1 Co E� (9110 eti (14 P iii � � � q, /04, ' //los t - cP A- O i41I N i V �- 1 o � 1 1111 III 6- i . � 11 0 1 13 �C / 12 1,II , .,k i 1 I il If lifI ‘ \ \- 1 C m ° °a e \ \\ ''• � •- i i 'ii \�\ \ \�_ / / / \ \ 1 l i �// L — ♦ 1 / • N R' 6 y ° N ' \ \ �. i / / / - � ♦ • .." ••••• " •--......- 1/ / \ t N. / _ • 1 1 • � k l �_ `` \ \ R =dr ♦ • i. ` ♦� -• /// � . -- ,> \ � -, - —�� \\ \ l 1 j ( 1 \ \ ` ) , ' , ice / • t•1 11 \ - 'i • ,L. -� / 1 + / 1 it- rte` 1 � / ' / - i 1 + i ■ 1 ' o r o - , \\',.,•,--„ \ 1 c d i j , / , t , - --..,.... , ,,,, , ,• ■„ 2 ‘ t k %, ,, ,, kJ /?..,, ax i 'ti \ \ \ 1 A Or 0 > .. ` i 1 \ i % /`. � •____. 1 a � J 1 1 1 ,� \, ♦ � , '_ -1 1 ` \ 1 /'1 (- ' / / 1 1 ' 1 1 r ' 1 r : ` � ` � _ 1 \ : /J / / ' 1 1 '• _ / 111 0 01 D ■ i 1.. ' . 9 ( i \ ` \\ \ ` i Il 1 \ 1 i, ' i -/ , � / / • 0 ! G • J 1 1 1 I l I l � ] l \ 1 l ` 1' i 1 i /_ \♦ � ' 1 • r 1 //),„), 1 `��` \ \ `•: l 0 ` i i . 1 0 t 1 1 t 1 1 i` i '` % j i I f Q _-- - rte � ♦ l ' i ; f' , r';`',//////// / In ‘ 1 r",,_ .....- - • • . ,...„. , 1 ,I1 I: ..1 ' i> ! \ % % S. s...,\,, s • ' , ‘ ‘ f , . 3 \ i' ,/// _ \ J r - ` rte^ \ \ ♦ 1.. / S /4 g r. R gi • p - ` ...;>___,.....,--7111.---....„...__ \ .1., / / \ l \ \ \ \ / 1 r. w 7a 1 .� - `S#�_i � _ � -?1 {\ ` `r' ' ay±` 1 �%r' ° , � J ; \ d N i 1 '' ..''' ;. , : 4 ( " 1 . b � _ _ / _ \ ' ! • \,/;%-'- ' /. .,,4 l 'sk - L-• r / ' I • ti : �" , �� < ' . iat \ i . j ,r / F.1 . a�`Q� C / 1 ill L __ : o v t - ,-*<-. .. - --...N.......‘ :. 1,,, ,',..".".. - N. . I /' 'e,-,:,.,j, � ),, /„ 1, �, . 7 ' i , ::;;; / i f / i f / i %I II al a$ // c // / J •ii'�l L / 4 -/• :i 5 a j •i 1 1 li i '1 d / L 1 /i I • - I, / I • �.. , 1 - GRADING, DRAEMGE • MOWN 00117111011. PUNS � �Vr _ ill ! :I � r{ + , � 't •ATMAE - EEROCUI•T, INC. ! t { = s S IRON VALLEY A66NEGATE Win' I "O •°••,• • • aA "�...„ ..>...» !!! X k, 23" j f ) Jo s ' , . -',"---,^-•-:____.,.---/•---------"'-`------.,---',, , ....."--: '''' .. i )2 O 7: '', -- /...../''' 1 L ),/,' 4, . 1111111111 1) ,..., " F / S ,-.. i„.., , 't .\ i( t ..' ' Alb- .. _.:10 - . .._ . .. . 3I . ,.._ ...,./ ••• ( ' Ft!" ■ ••••.= li i j r 2 .0...a . 0___ ,_;. _. ,? 0 [c .f,....4,,,%,, , 1. .,.:;.„ii_.; , , . 014., , \- 1 -4.- ..- ..,..,..;,-, -. - ' - arsh ' .-_,. 4 0 .....c.-:::-:_,0 - iy.,..__„5, :4, - ' '" / \ .. I'l .,:- -.4. ' _ .1-,7 . 0 e .,.: i , , _ 424 -,..„---,„_----_)---, , 1 , 1 _ r — c ,.. ( \ .- :-- - — _ 4- ._ _4 -e-I , (.2 II 900 , il 'A...- . 0 ( ) \ , ) \ ' - - - - -, _ _ _ _ : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ ,_ _ , „ ) : , A gf-- . . .7;* / 0 ,,, \:._ ..; , Lif ' / 7 5o O / a o 0 ' © O ll 24 a1 " �0� Q r-- j c 0 111 � h 1 1 /r°� . Q 'fir- - .► i II 0 .10101 . ' ,i r ' j -41 c::3 "' . I i / r / \ '- - p l +I II I 0 p� l � �c= -' u 9 00 0 \ — „w � _ .r. - r,\ _ I _ __ � \ ' _ _ _ y _ , .(� j !1 4 0 ) c o / 4II ... ...._! ...,.. . 4 \ \ .._..._/ \. )0411. --4- - '''''' ' W ..k '1 '.;,'i; ' :Ar Zi: -- -.7 - ' .-'., ' \\\ fi - ° I go 0 )rb 4 10 •� ,_, .f=" ..,;-- '''''T' -:- '6 7: N. , /,...._c a- " 44, 900 - a ele • �S� kC7 0 i , , : t cs--, z. t - i' .4- - _ - .--2.? - - , ,:.-A-_: -- --i.' "f-42:..7,- -;-: - . a „ , 00 -9 l �" O Ja O .,w. I - ` a mo `Iu, �( /p0 y / Y II — N O E ' 1 uri/ Oj� 0 . n : 6� 900 �� 1 1I ✓ 08; <� " � � �� 90_'. ---...j � r�' I b • . /� ( 'bo � t4 f ' - ' o • F \\ _�, rC,� �i -� - l _ f s_ I v y 904 O \ � J O - O \ " '11 � , = 1 ate 915 •' ff V.' \ -•"•'"' ' V7 :. L-, ,_, ---, ---, -3 ,____ff :L'-' 41-A101 CD 13 ' " 4 f ) r100L o f c6mcur 1 ° i D O y 11 ' \ ` �j �� )---,,j 2; � , , ,� -` -_ v _. _ ,, nos. - - "r\\ \ U � � SO\ - - _ \ BOO - - y; -1 9B p o "� 1 9 /3j✓ / r 9 . . ' f. �7T7 ,_\_-7..--(\ \ 1 1 J go " � ,., " , I I I � � ' �"' '� J %' /As c. - _ V - (� ,; / fi r,: '�� \ c� ' @ = - -_ - ` J „- - \_. _. 1 - - __ ; _ ._ _ ,i \ —mi -r`” i� ., f �� b ..E�., � �a - '1 - Y - _ j lF �:J \ j � s -- �y � , a` . I ' ' l '' '. may' °�\ �' _` (�' ? Y ' .. ' ' '...14 "' • E Rice , 750_/ �•I � � \ , .. J � � - k r, ,. - ' !. \_ ! ~ • Fi Q . • ^: 59 •�. +_ • -+.- �p ..... .IIII- .... 0:::It. ■ „.,;V- ",-'... • • - .11.- --- . 3 1 46 ' 'N 4 A umption - --- • I� � -+. .4..1 . 750 � •a. - - ' �i/ - .► ,,, - .,,...- t+ :..`• ¢ - r ,_ _ . p.- -nr- - \ ,, ..Yo- •'r`' -- .,� _ ^ - - 4 � l i -�•- / P, ' �` ;. - _. �'' - _ 4.• �I W 707/ r- � ' — = = �/ - --\ — — `' ,t .I. - '� +` •�� i ARVER CO I z u _ - - ,- =CITY orsryp . — �.- COTT CO ` Ail J +:' ` . .=�', ews- I7 / i .3. ,... o ` _ - �e ,` ' Trailer ;Y plib � o `� 1.1 i I , Jf ' Park'- ' �' ' r l (/ r . \ � _ .,l ® X51.11` \•. v7 , 10 /r E. �.i°` p i - -__ 1--t �Ii 1�t1 1 VA --- f :t74.''. \ _ R ' � 7 Gravers - j (.1- � S" I i ► ` t� ... / � \ � • rev it �� f7 I . C - Fl 1 _ - • f+ i S (J SATHRE - BERGQUIST, INC. 0 a 150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN 55391 � � (612) 476 -6000 FAX 476 -0104 t C � F RS P�- June 17, 1992 I Mr. Paul Krauss CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55337 Subject: MOON VALLEY AGGREGATES Dear Paul: Our letter is in response to our phone conversation of yesterday concerning the application for the permit necessary for excavation of clay soils from the northerly 45 acres that Moon Valley Aggregates owns. We discussed several issues, one of which was the quantity of materials that are proposed to be excavated and exported from the site. Moon Valley Aggregates proposes to mine, load and truck away 250,000 II cubic yards of clay soil material with the destination being the Eden Prairie Land Fill site. The second discussion item was our rationale behind the ponding system. In the 45 acre parcel we show the excavation of two seepage ponds. Our intent is to redirect the runoff of site surface waters as a part of this grading operation and direct the water to these two ponding sites. Presently water which runs off the field areas does so in a haphazard, uncontrolled manner and over time ravines have developed where the water concentrates and creates great forces on the soil and erodes it. Major erosion scars at present are a large ravine system which leads easterly into Eden Prairie from the east central portion of this site and secondly a smaller ravine which is developing along the western border of the property at the interface with the old railroad corridor now owned by the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority. I 11 RECEIVED JUN q 1992 f T Y LP i..t':A:i' <`F ASSEht 1 1 1 1 In our efforts to stabilize this erosive situation we have come up with a concept of excavating ponding sites which are deep enough to pierce through the tight clay soils at the surface into the underlying sands. Moon Valley Aggregates proposes to excavate into this sand layer a small amount to create an atmosphere or situation where the surface waters running off to the ponds will seep into these sand soils and not overflow into the ravine systems any longer. The secret to stabilizing the ravines, in our opinion, is to redirect water away from them and over time allow them to stabilize again under conditions where the vegetation that's attempting to take hold isn't constantly overwhelmed by the force of the water that is coming from the upland. 1 We discussed the possibility of trying to stabilize the ravines which have been recently denuded. We suggested that over time nature would very likely revegetate itself. You asked that we investigate other potential ways that vegetation could be established and we will continue on that request. At this point, I would like to reiterate one fear; which is that if we attempted to spread topsoil and revegetate the ravines by actually taking mechanical equipment into the ravines we would probably make matters worse not better. If work is to be done, it would likely be done by hand or from a distance by applying some sort of a water born slurry adhesive material to the slopes. At this point, I am not sure how successful those attempts would be nor how logistically difficult getting to those areas might be. We will provide further recommendations as we develop them. The next item of discussion was over the issue of how we knew that we could break through into the sand layer under the clays in the bottom of the ponds. I indicated to you that Moon Valley Aggregates had investigated the depth of the clay soils by an exploratory excavation with a backhoe. Their best information at this point is that the sand interface in the major pond location occurs at about elevation 965. You will note that on our grading plan we have shown excavation to elevation 964 +/- with the goal of reaching into the clean sands with the pond bottom. In reality it is very likely that the sand interface elevation varies a bit and that field adjustments would likely be made in the pond bottom so that we could consistently reach to the sand layer. 1 11 1 1 11 t Lastly, we discussed the issue of the benefits of providing ponding downstream or downhill just above the area that is presently being 11 mined. I had sent you a copy of a proposed ponding area which would be constructed to straddle the south end of the 45 acre parcel and the north edge of the area that is being mined. This excavation would remove the lower bluff ridge and create a ponding basin. One result of this excavation would be a further generation of sands which Moon Valley Aggregates could sell to their customers. The second result of this work would be that the major or more northerly bluff line and slope which is heavily wooded would be fully exposed to view from the river valley. The rational for the public's allowing this excavation would seem to be two fold. 11 1. We believe that it would be in the long term more attractive for the heavily wooded slope to be the back drop for this area, fully exposed to view. The first reason to allow it would be to create a more aesthetically pleasing permanent condition. ' 2. The second reason to allow this work is that it would allow the construction of a storm water ponding basin which would intercept the water from the bluff and water which drains southwesterly through the old railroad corridor and provide a large enough seepage pond area that water will not overflow out of this basin and therefore will not migrate downstream causing erosion or flooding problems. 1 We will prepare a calculation of the estimated runoff volume to this "boundary straddling pond" so that you can better understand the magnitude of drainage into this area. Please give me a call if you need any information immediately. We will continue to explore these opportunities and finalize our proposal. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Sincerely, i SATHRE - 1 - m'GQUIST, INC. f Richard W. Sathre, P.E. RWS /dm cc: Mr. Thomas Zwiers Mr. Charles Folch 1 .JUN- 9-92 T U E 16 :3 6 S A T H R E- B E R G Q U I ST .. I N C. P. 0 2 II OAS Su9`t<' II 2 ,., 9 SATHRE - BERGt UIST, INC. 150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN 55391 oh s V Qy (612) 476 -6000 FAX 476 -0104 c,1,F 1)\-. II II June 5, 1992 11 Mr. Paul Krauss 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box #147 II Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Subject: MOON VALLEY AGGREGATES II Dear Mr. Krauss: 1 Accompanying this letter are a permit application for earth work operations and data including a proposed grading plan. The application materials include lists of property owners within 500 feet of the legally described premises both in Carver County and neighboring Hennepin County. The materials also include a list of ground water II elevations in the area and a map depicting ground water contours. Ground water in the proposed excavation area is well below the proposed base of excavation although perched water within the clay overburden is undoubtably present and will seep out of the sidewall of the excavation II as sand seams within the clay are encountered. The purpose of this grading operation as depicted on our grading plan is 1 two fold. 1. The property owners have been approached by the owners of II the Eden Prairie Land Fill looking for tight clay soils to. be used to cap the landfill as part of its closure. This site is close by, the land is agricultural, in other words, open and not treed. The removal of the material would not II be particularly damaging to long term use of the property. 2. The grading of the property presents an opportunity to solve II present and continuing erosion problems of existing runoff flowing from the plateau into the ravine system that has developed over the years along the railroad corridor and II also to the east. II JUN- 9-92 T U E 1 S 3 8 S A T H R E- E E R G Q U I S T INC. P.;21 1 1 1 The excavation of a permanent ponding system, within the site, with 2 11 ponds will change the current pattern of erosive ravine drainage and promote groundwater recharge. These ponds are located: 1. At the very northerly edge of the excavation area and; 2. Near the head of the major ravine at the eastern border. �. These ponds provide a pair of locations where site runoff may be directed and the water will seep into the underlying sand soils without running over the top edge of the ravines and continuing to erode the sensitive soils. The quantity and type of material to be excavated as part of this operation is well defined. The landfill operator needs a tight low permeability clay soil such as that found on the surface of this property. They have estimated the need for 250,000 cubic yards of this material. The grading plan as presented depicts the generation of this ' quantity of clay soil material. The land owners intent is that following the approval of a permit to do this work hauling operations would commence. This starting time is hoped to be during the month of July 1992. Soil material would be excavated by backhoe on the site and loaded into belly dump trucks and hauled via County Road #1 in Eden Prairie and U.S. Highway #169 to the landfill site. Access to County Road #1 would be via the road out of the north end of this property which exits immediately east of the railroad overpass bridge on County Road #1 just east of the Chanhassen/Eden Prairie boundary. Twenty to Thirty trucks would be utilized in the hauling operation with proposed hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday thru Saturday. Obviously weather conditions would control the operations to some degree so we would suggest that the hauling work begin in July 1992 and continue until all the material is hauled or until the end of reasonable weather this construction season. Any clay soil not transported before the weather shutdown would be hauled in 1993. Work would continence again in May of 1993 and continue until completion. Restoration of the site would be done on a staged basis. As each area is excavated, topsoil will be replaced to a depth of at least 4 inches 11 and the exposed soils areas reseeded. All 3:1 slopes would be mulched. In addition to the seeding, erosion protection around the ponding areas would be installed as the excavation was completed. All earth work operations, topsoil restoration and reseeding would be completed by t October 15, 1993 for the entire site. 1 JUN- 9-92 T U E 16!S9 S A T H R E- S E R G Q U I S T, INC. P. 0 4 1 1 II 1 We hope this letter gives you the information necessary for the processing of this application, if additional information is required please contact us so we may provide it. • Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely. SATHRE -:eta ST, INC. 1 44 , 4 ,.., • .41 11 • Richard W. Sathre, •.E. RWS /dm 1 cc: Mr. Thomas Zwiers ' enc. 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Orly lr. is 1 00 - ..-E-510:V3Zi44 I 1 -7 -09 1 1449 .saaDvia) eicgcoei. . , ..._, 1 5:tuftleft ,4-a-n-to IN roc P. i 4 . , • . 1 , ,, , 1 ..... e „ , , I 1 1 i t I .....••• -• • • ' • I. o f or arp ..... .... ‘ • ‘....... • / ... ,.. .. N \ IN / / ‘ ) , I' (_, . - 1?)V ::3 / . 1 /• .0; „......".‘ •••■ . .. 7 , et) ..... ..... •••• ain fil0 ' •,. ,- . - - -- • --1 ,,,,_,--,.-...,-- fie" - , t \ ii . .,,,, /-....,) ' .• "it-r.., ..... ...•31,.' r — sin -, ,c_. 1 l's"s" ---• .. ... / • , I Z !, t4t, / "/" - • '- .`:: .- a . p . fr --- --)e-rzsai4 • *I* ) • :, i. ..*,•., •-•\ • ; /2 • ''''''''' .-' ' Cr -N z. ' if , :t..,. .1 - I • V!, ::: " ' ' . . • . ....e • / • } K ./ , ".. ..". `..:,. .) fr 1 t . –;,.. - f.•• .-- ,,,i,y, , 40 A. . .404...r. . - 1 ,.,......... 1 Ulf St' ,3 ,3 { , r + ■ ' \ ! , I , .1 :,.. 7 _..:.,,, ,,.::. ‘' ... - _..........?. 4,ezenfo k , k , 7 ,... i. - i i / uo_ . r --, . . ....'..\ V V\ •,.• i , , , 11 2cvn tu- - )11 i , ir i t I. 7 v s \ , --.,,„*.....i , \ , 1 , / - ,, N ...,..• . 1 ,..,'. 1 / '. f • • ..7 .:*-- Is x c ,... ':. , ii: / 11 ,'••.•,,,,, . 1: 1 , ' - i/ • : .. , 140 "--... .....- •••! \ N * / . ■ ." . . 1 • i r, i f .. r '' ... E e ' **. i , • 1 ,, / • I. *.t, \ \ ■ I ,. . ! ., ..........." ........,.., ... ' ... .,r,, je s i . 1 . •• • • a. ' 1 ‘,.,.. ! 1 / ....". _ — .;:•.' .........;:„., / 1 I 1/ . ' ' . „ . •. ! 7, -,. 1 --- 11"1\ tt, ., 1 t , 1 \ 1 c f 11 0 !A 1 itpi /,' , , ---" ' (1 / / ii / , ' if( 1 , I J . ", ■ " / ) t : \\ L` \i IJ 1 -:' 1 X 1 ‘ ( \ ‘ 4 6. 1 •L_ • % -\ ‘ N- ,‘ i 1/ i i / /// / — -- / - '. % \ \ \ l " ` s t\ \ \ \ /Iv/ , _... ,‘ , , • ‘ ‘ ,. \ .• .... \ V • \ \ ..4,7 i i ff e.... 1 ... , J , \. . ... .7/1/ / 1 / , ‘....‘ ...,......../..../ \ ., Ns" T. • \ i i • , 4,,....—.....„ „.., \ , 3 . _ s ' 1 i ..,' ,../ • 1 / ‘ \ . \ ..) f \ / 1 i '' \ ( N ..., t '' ' • \ / i ... ... \ • --;fti,,,, s V i ( I 17 1/ ss.--- . — I N. ‘ ".• .... ..."-- ---..',__... , . e ' ••••••''•• ..;1 0 i \ \ \ , 1 A' - ",' c•:" -- — - : .-• \ t I \ i,.• . ,Iiii I \ 1 ,... - .. - s , ■ .#;, \ 'N I \ / i , ,,,,./ / I \ ..... (.2 :...i' ei- N N .\, 1--- -0 .47 ) /--- 7 ---. 2'■ \ ‘1 ,\ I \ t .'' '' ; '16 % . ‘ 12: / /1 t — 1 , ..,.‘; \ \ - 'so ‘ \ ) - , '.•'; ( ) •,....:1•y" s '••••-:;•--- •••_--- -4....; \-...., \ \- V it i /,'. / , 7 .* -...,:... s ,, , `k,;. . .. 4,..... i : • ■ , . \ / ,, ,,/ . .....■. ' -..\ ‘, . ) , „:7,,/4.1 . / \ '),.- JO '*-%"' 1 N I jr \1/4 /, ti61. i'l / 4 1 fa 4 / ./^ ‘\.. i V _____" l ' V/ ,ii• c,' ' ! a 5 •ii/ , \ \ ‘\. -----. ----\_____ pkkg /,',/ , : ) I , -, Qj /: ) •-4t> ----_:-- r - •'.."V .: .•\ I / ,.• _ 1 ..1 - / f ••••• / / . - " • ; • - I' • - / . Nit ''--. .,-. • -...:-.7.•%-' i ., ! , ,./ t•Z. ) • / ,,,-,..--_,/, , ; • . , _,,,,,, / ,-- ' \ - , •(e • ...-.! -,6 / ." . 1 P t• . 1 , SO "•=1 ' OFII '..i_sIncinaer—aZtit-I-Liz:IS 01v z 9T ani. ZG—S —Nnr CITYOF . cHANIIAssEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 • July 7, 1992 1 • Mr. Tim Wise 1 425 Lakota Lane Chaska, MN 55318 1 Dear Tim: I received our letter of Jul 2, 1992, concerning the Moon Valley mining operation. y July o g e o y g operaho . My purpose in writing is to update you on the status of the proposal as well as providing you with information to respond to your questions. As to the first point, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request at their July 1, 1992, meeting. This item is scheduled to go to the City Council on July 27, 1992, although it is possible there may be a delay to respond to the need to provide additional information in some areas. Several of the residents that spoke raised valid questions that will require further work on the part of the applicant. It is possible that this would cause a delay, thus, I will take the step of mailing new notices to the residents prior to the City Council hearing. Your letter will be included among the materials forwarded to the City Council. On the Moon Valley operation itself, you should be aware that there are two separate operations occurring under two separate reviews by the city. The first is the old mine pit located off of Highway 212 that you appear to be referring to. The city has been in litigation with the operator for well over the past 12 months to resolve issues regarding this mine.. It is a grandfathered use that predates city ordinances and therefore, has the right to exist. The city never disputed this point but took the operator to court since we believed we had an 1 obligation to protect health and safety of community residents. Thus far, Judge !Canning has found in the city's favor, and the City Council has recently approved a permit with conditions for this operation. You should be aware that the city is not in a position to close or to limit ' this operation unless it is related to public safety and welfare issues. Thus, while we may have preferred that this operation not be there at all or cease to exist, at this point, we can only address issues such as provision of safe and stable slopes, reduction in erosion problems from the site, and traffic safety. We fully agree with your assertion that Hwy. 212 is a dangerous, overcrowded road and this is likely to remain so until new Hwy. 212 is built over the next 2 to 5 years. Under conditions of approval, the applicant is required to work with the city and MNDOT to address highway safety issues. 1 T O PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 Mr. Tim Wise July 7, 1992 Page 2 1 However, the notice that you were sent was not for the Moon Valley gravel operation. Rather, the Moon Valley operator owns an additional parcel of land located between the old gravel pit and Pioneer Trail. One of the points that the city won in litigation relative to this site, is that the Moon Valley operator does not have the right to expand his non - conforming mining operation onto this property without approval by the city. This parcel was acquired ' by the operator after the date which the city ordinances requiring permits for mining operations became effective. We also must stress that the applicant's request for this property is completely different than the mine that you wrote about. In this area, the applicant is requesting approval to remove 250,000 yards of clay, which would be used for sealing the Eden Prairie landfill. The clay would be removed from an area that is an open field and was formerly farmed. No trees would be lost and the site would not be significantly different ' than it is today. Black dirt found on the site would be stored, respread, and reseeded as soon as the operation is completed, which should occur by late fall or early spring of 1993. It is the operator's intent that this land be made available at that point for residential development I which would be nestled in the trees along the top of the bluff line. Existing erosion problems found on this site would be repaired through this grading activity. Staff has found this to be a reasonable proposal that is consistent with the need to protect the environment and allow ' reasonable use of the property. We also believe that sufficient conditions have been built into the request to protect surrounding property owners. Long term views will not be altered by this request. I have included a copy of the staff report for your review. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Si - Paul Krauss, AICP 1 Planning Director I PK:v Enclosure 1 1 1 1 1 RECEIVED 1 JUL 0 61992 ■ C11 t yr t,rrtiiNHASSEM ■ July 2, 1992 425 Lakota Lane Chanhassen, MN Paul Krauss, Plannin g Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Earth work /Gravel Pit Off Hwy 212 1 Dear Paul, 1 I received notification from the city of Chanhassen for the above proposed earth work but was not able to attend the meeting July 1, 1992. I am against the expansion of the current gravel pit for the following reason; 1. It would increase truck traffic onto Hwy 212 which is already conjested and dangerous now. 2. Their are many residential homes on the bluff area overlooking this proposed area and it could drastically effect the market values of the property for the homeowner and thus lower the tax base for the city. 3. There has to be an environmental impact on the area. I've lived in the city of Chanhassen for over nine years and with heavy rain, there is constant washing of gravel out of the current pit onto Hwy 212 and over into the Rice lake area. There can be other reasons listed for not expanding the current pit but the above highlight my major concerns. Sincerely, I/ C � 1 Tim Wise 1 1 1 1 I 1 ir ytt, Pt 44-Pess rfo (-k-pJ a 0 r.) G IL& M (-5-144-1)e-t_ -CAPIeSI _ _DV t 1 ff" Gost/,57701-(A/7 :17 4,4.-1 u t 771 6 0 Eft- 77-rc Fe)217-/Efe- Af/A I A.A 0. 4 cf, 41 c,c_. tJ 124-77 o A/ -7 4--/kt _ je /Air" 67.4 ,M(E _4(L_C-T e4-(177.4"/ /• / ,e171/ 1LJ 4 ti,i/4 /A 7fr - ,/4-jr" 2 Ps /311 4, 4 7. _ _77,-.45€4 )7-z cpr jo -1 _ . . 1 1 bx.J&E 47,3 ,144/5 7 eE- 4 Ar/s elyjaleA &O' f4g /7 / 4t24 (Z er. -- / - 1( 1 5 PGiel-A/ / S r ,6 11 ft. G 7 5 r croitisc77DA/ 1 AWP ot/P /4 & ‘,Q5 ofP nc 1 co r / 6- ( 1-- 7 J,4 ArE 7-6 4/ E t • /1/ft) 7 4- o A 4i t/& - AC - * I rt,SX -7 t t 1 5 7"- AJO ----- P Air / / 5 7 c of.t//f/ 1 P.4C dc7 Ai__Vp /7a e,t/Gra f-r t eti 7w Goof/ 1 Pri4f7( g 90_ 77141 "17-1-1 5 0 PPJ- /c. 11 AA( oft/ • 1124 7- / 7 *Pi e ^lc 672--/r/ 11- "r1-1/17 - 1/ 4 &-• ) rz-cif5e Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 16 1 if marker buoys will enhance the safety of the swimming raft. All voted in favor except Ladd Conrad who didn't vote and the motion carried. Batzli: And when will it go to the City Council? 1 Krauss: The 27th. Batzli: July 27th this issue will go before the City Council and I encourage you to follow the issue up. As I indicated, we recommend. They make the final decision. Thank you all for coming in. PUBLIC HEARING: INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EARTHWORK /MINING OF A GRAVEL PIT, LOCATED NORTH OF HWY. 212 AND EAST OF THE CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY, MOON VALLEY . AGGREGATE. (Tim Ehart arrived to the meeting during discussion of this item and Steve Emmings left the meeting during discussion of this item.) Public Present: Name Address Dave Johnson 821 Creekwood (Left written comment) ' Richard Vogel 105 Pioneer Trail Dennis & Catherine Bartholow 9841 Deerbrook Lane Emily Pischleder 185 Pioneer Trail ' Tom Dalyonrod 8280 West Lake Court Jeffrey Michell 9961 Deerbrook Drive Gerald Bertsch 8556 Irwin Road, Bloomington Rick Sathre Sathre- Berquist, Consultant Engineers Tom Zwiers Moon Valley Aggregate ' David Johnson had to leave the meeting early and left this written statement to be included into the record. ' TO: Chanhassen City Council FROM: David Johnson 821 Creekwood Re: Moon Valley Gravel Site. Ladies /Gentlemen: ' Due to time constraints I am unable to be present to present concerns over the further mining of the Moon Valley site. As an occupation I am a realtor. I am keenly interested in how one area of a development can affect other areas of development. Unless extreme caution is used in upfront agreements, the end result can be and most often is unacceptable. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 17 i It is in this spirit that I express my concern as a resident but also as a person employed in the real estate industry, that an end use plan be ' proposed that is acceptable to the city, specifically the adjacent homeowners. Once an acceptable plan is accepted, there must be a financial instrument in place (i.e. payment bond, letter of credit, etc.) to insure that the plan accepted is carried out. A cost of restoration of $50,000. was proposed at a previous meeting. I believe this to be severely inadequate to accomplish even the most minimal restoration and believe that realistic costs must be addressed now up front! It is my concern that the operator's past conduct to residents and 1 city concerns may be indicative of how future agreements or concerns are handled by this operator. Frankly, I do not see that this operator has earned anyone's trust an I am concerned that this may be a pattern. Please be careful. David S. Johnson Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. 1 Batzli: Does anyone on the Commission have a question they want to ask Paul before I open it up to further public comment? Farmakes: I have a couple of questions. Is that bond listed in here? Krauss: The letter of credit? 1 Farmakes: No. It says $40,000. in here. Krauss: I believe there's another condition that. Farmakes: Yeah but it doesn't have a financial amount. , Krauss: No. What we intend to do, and I was speaking for the City Attorney. By the way, we have Tom Scott from the City Attorney's office II here tonight. One of the things that we would like to do is we have a working relationship with the DNR forester. We'd like to get his input as to what he thinks the cash value or what it would actually take to do that" job and we would insert that, if it gets through the Planning Commission tonight, we would insert that into the conditions for the City Council approval. Farmakes: I'm curious where the $40,000. or where that amount came from? II Do you feel real comfortable with that? Krauss: Frankly, whether I feel comfortable with it or not isn't the 1 question. The City Engineer's office does. They have a rule of thumb that they use for, an acre of disturbed area costs x number of dollars to finis grade, reseed and maintain erosion control and it's a formula they've used pretty standard for a number of years on development projects. And that's 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 18 where that number was generated from. So they're comfortable with it and ' I'm. Farmakes: Is that formula the same on a piece of farmland as it is on a bluff area? Krauss: I honestly don't know the answer to that. I suspect it probably ' is. There's a little room for fudging in it I suppose to recognize difficulty but this area, the area that they're mining up on top is in fact farmland. It is relatively flat. The grades that will result from this are relatively flat. That's not the work on the bluff line. The only work ' that they would have to be doing on the bluff line is the reforestation on that lower ponding area. 1 Batzli: Anything else Jeff? Farmakes: No. ' Batzli: I see the applicant's here. Would you like to respond to the conditions and otherwise, address us. Rick Sathre: Mr. Chairman, I'm Rick Sathre from Sathre - Berquist. I'm the engineer for Mr. Zwiers on this portion of his operation. Tom Zwiers is here with me tonight. Well staff's done a very thorough job as usual and ' you've got a lot of information before you I think what I'd like to do is share a little bit of information and then I'd make myself available for questions. I made a few transparencies as well and I'll try to help to educate a little bit you, and perhaps the neighbors. I think there's some people here that are very interested and maybe I can help them too. This is a blown up map that's on the grading plan drawing that shows the north 45 acre parcel that Mr. Zwiers owns with the relationships to the railroad corridor on the west side, the large lot single family neighborhood the opposite side of the railroad corridor and the large tracts to the right side of the site are in Eden Paririe and directly below the word site, the ' next parcel south of that is the Moon Valley gravel pit area. Down running along the bottom side of the drawing you can see 169 and then the lake. Rice Lake across the highway. So I guess the urbanized neighbors are to the northwest, across the railroad corridor. This might be clear as mud ' from this distance but this is what's called a USGS or United States Geological Survey map which shows 10 foot contours since 1958. It was updated in 1972. The site was, the contours shown on here weren't altered in 1972 by USGS when they updated their mapping. South of this line on the bottom side here, this the pit area. What you see there is the bluff before it was mined. When it was a ski area. I remember driving by there many times as a kid with my parents in the 50's and seeing those big grassy slopes when it was, when they had the ski rope or the rope tow going up the hill. The north triangle is what we're talking about really tonight. The 45 acre area that's not been mined. I moved that same map up a little bit. In that '58 mapping, this 10 foot contour mapping, the trees on the site at that time were, it's real hard to read here. I brought the original of this map if anybody wants to look at it. There was a significant treed area to the west and on the very southwest corner of the 45 acres we're talking about tonight. This is still forested. This is then. Then the easterly portion of the 45 acre tract was and is still forested as well. 1 • Planning Commission Meeting II g July 1, 1992 - Page 19 II But even in 1958 the mined area down low was basically a hole in a ground. I think you can see the structure now. It's a house or something down there at the base of the slope. This is the 45 acre piece. Again, down all the bottom. Down at the south end is the, beyond that horizontal line is the mined area. The area that's still being mined. North of that line is this 45 acre tract. Again, the southwest part down here has mature trees. II This is south facing, southwest facing bluff. The area, most of the area north of this red line is open land. As Mr. Krauss indicated, there's been agriculturally used and so it's only treed around the edges in the steeper sloped areas. The ravine system, there's a deep erosion scar that leads u into Eden Prairie to the east and another scar that leads down into the railroad cut. When that railroad was built, ever so long ago, that was a major earth moving operation. There were deep cuts made to the north and big fills to the south. Well, that slope probably wasn't handled very wel so that has eroded. The blue arrows on this drawing show the direction of water flow now. So there's a bluff line here, the water that falls on the south and west and south and east sides of that line actually go toward th river directly. Whereas the water that's north of this line towards the top side of the drawing actually drain down through the ravine. It's one II or the other of the ravines. The big goal of this clay mining operation, as Mr. Krauss indicated, there are several. One is to generate the clay to cap the landfill. The second by product or goal that we have is to stabilize the erosion situation. This map shows the red lines on this map" are the, would be the drainage boundaries after the grading is done. Here's that ravine system on the east side. The way the contours are drawn here on this grading plan, there would be a ridge line created along here.' The water that falls, the rainfall that falls westerly of that line would now drain into this upland pond. Again up in the north point of the land, there's another what we're creating is a seepage pond or a sump. Where we would direct the water to the well. This is about 5 acres up here. This is about 15. The water would all be directed inward. So I don't know if this helps anything or not. Basically what we can do is we can capture much of the water that's now, runs over the edge and down the ravine. Capture it and take it inward and allow the water to seep into the soil an work through the ground instead of work over the edge of the bluff. This is a map that shows that southwest corner of the north 45 acres. The majo stand of trees that exist there. The major bluff line that Mr. Krauss was talking about. The intent is to save all these trees on the major slopes. Save this major bluff line but to remove the secondary bluff that's right II along the property boundary. So the end result would be to create that pond basically down at the bottom of that big slope and expose that tree area to the full view. I'll take a minute and go through some of the staff recommendation items. The first item on the recommended conditions was thll staff would like a copy of the easement or the rights that Mr. Zwiers has over the property in Eden Prairie that he'd used for access out to Pioneer Trail. He actually purchased the land in Eden Prairie that he needs for II that access several years ago. We've brought copies of the documents tonight and we'd introduce them into the record for future review. So he not only has easement rights, but he actually owns the land that the road goes out over. I think that the conditions relative to protecting the ' roadways, cleaning up mud and such are logical and prudent and practical. I really don't have any problem with any of the conditions except as we get toward the end. In number 7, the staff has recommended that 840,000. letter of credit be posted to cover site restoration. What I've talked toll II 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 20 Mr. Zwiers about is trying to work out some sort of a dual obligy bond. 1 He's providing the site and providing the material but he isn't actually picking it up and moving it. It's a contractor. It's the contractor for the landfill that's actually doing the work. Well what we would propose to ' try to work out is to have that contractor post a bond that names Mr. Zwiers and protects him. Makes them liable or responsible for restoration but also it protects the City of Chanhassen. So if we can work that out, it would be to his benefit and to the City's to have both protected by one instrument. Batzli: I know that in our ordinance we talked about this situation. ' Where the applicant would normally be the person removing and we required that the owner be co- listed on the permit. I guess we never envisioned that the owner would be on there, not the person doing the work. Krauss: Well, I guess we'd want to make them co- liable I guess. I don't have that much difficulty with that but I have a question about the bonding arrangement that Rick is suggesting. First of all we've always been counseled by the City Attorney's office to deal with letters of credit. They're much more effective instruments for the city to use if need be. But maybe I could refer this to Tom Scott and answer as to whether or not that bond would be acceptable. Tom Scott: My initial reaction would be that it wouldn't work. That we'd ' want a letter of credit from the applicant, Mr. Zwiers as the owner of the property. Whatever arrangements he might make with his contractor to protect himself would really be between him and his contractor. Would be my initial reaction. And that we would have a letter of credit from Mr. ' Zwiers and Mr. Zwiers is the applicant and the owner of the property would be securing the restoration of the property. 1 Rick Sathre: I don't think we want to reivent the wheel or try to invent something new. So I guess I throw it out as an opportunity to explore a potential more than anything. I feel an obligation to protect my client from that contractor just like I feel an obligation to provide, try to figure out how to protect the City too. We want this to be done right and the property is worth a lot of money now and it will be worth a lot of money in the future. The last thing that we want to do is end up with it being damaged somehow. So I guess we want to work to try to make that the simplest and most straight forward for everybody that we can. Down on condition number 13 on page 15. Mr. Zwiers and I have talked about the reforestation plan for mine bluff phase. A lot of the land, faces of the slopes in there have been left alone for a long time. Maybe have never been mined. At this point I don't think that we have any problem coming up with some sort of a plan that shows how those newly mined areas. The areas that aren't vegetated now would get replanted. I think that's appropriate. I think that's a good trade off to...financial guarantee that the City wishes to obtain to guarantee the implementation of the plan is a bit of a ' hardship because of the time table. Normally when the City requires a bond or letter of credit or some sort of financial guarantee, it runs for a period of 1 to 2 to 3 years while an activity is started and finished and 11 it goes through the guarantee period perhaps of a building of a street or something. Here where this is a mining operation, a lot of the pace of the mining is a function of building in the area. Road building in the area. 11 Planning Commission Meeting 1 July 1, 1992 - Page 21 Just general development of public facilities. Mr. Zwiers sells gravel to contractors or cities or entities that are building something somewhere. Ill things don't happen fast, then he doesn't sell much. If they do happen fast, then he sells more. What I'm really saying is he really can't even predict what the life of that mining operation is. Whether it's 2 or 3 II years or 22 or 23 years. So to post a financial guarantee, a letter of credit now for so much per tree or so much per acre for the revegetating that pit area, can be a real burden after whatever, 4 or 5, 10 years. And so, well it's a hardship and I'm not sure how to deal with that. I don't II think that the City has any interest in punishing him in any way. We understand the goal is to protect or to insure compliance. I. would hope that there would be some other way to, like conditions withholding further!' approvals or building permits or some other way to limit his future use other than posting a $20,000.00 letter of credit that would be still there after 10 years or something. We'd like to explore that and I would hope that we could find some way to guarantee something that wouldn't be too II onerous. Lastly the condition 14 relating to the damage, the ravines and how to repair them. I think what I would propose is probably what the engineers and the planners have in mind anyway and that's really to go out!' onto the site and the ravines and look and see which slopes are still barren and try to figure out what would be best to try to get something to grow on those faces. The grading operation that we're proposing would direct water back away from the ravines so there wouldn't be all this flooll of water coming down there. So there wouldn't be as much erosive force anymore. Trying to get something to grow again on almost a vertical face is hard. Nature does it over the period of many years and man isn't so II good at, mankind isn't so good at tampering in a productive way. What I wouldn't want to see happen is for us to go into the ravines with a dozer or Caterpiller or something and make a bigger mess than we solve a problem And I know the staff doesn't want to create a problem either. So somehow r we have to carefully deal with the issue and probably some sort of seeding operation of those barren clays and sands would be the most productive. W would propose to work on that in the next couple weeks. Try to come up with a solution. We'd like to answer questions that you have and would be available for the neighbors too if they have something that they're worried about or wish answered. Thank you. ' Batzli: Thank you. This is a public hearing so if you'd like to address the Commission at this time, please step forward and give your name and address for the record. Dennis Bartholow: I'm Dennis Bartholow, 9841 Deerbrook Drive. I've got a couple of concerns regarding this whole operation. First of all the, this'll operation here, they're going to dig down to an elevation of 800 feet to get to the sand so that they can send the water down to the ground water level. The elevation of my property which is located, well over here in II this direction. The elevation is 920 feet. When we put our well in, we went down 160 feet and found water. Put the well at 230 feet. If they go down to 800 feet here, that would mean they would have 40 feet before they" hit the ground water which I don't think is adequate for filtration. And then to get to my level would be another 100 feet about. So I'm real concerned about polluting the ground water in that area. The idea of a seepage pond rather than a holding pond is.that they're going to flush thall water right into the ground water. All of the homes in that area, 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 22 Deerbrook as well as Lake Riley Woods and any future, all use well water. We do not have city water out there. All of that water potentially could become contaminated. So I have a real strong concern about having these seepage ponds that close to the ground water elevation. Also, there was a ' traffic concern. If you drive down Pioneer Trail from CR 4, you'll find that it's a 50 mph road. There's a dip that prior to the exit from this area of the 40 acres or so that they want to strip the top off of. Prior to that exit there's a dip that drops down and comes back up over the hill ' and immediately on your left is the exit. Now I've had the experience of having a car stop there and come up over that hill and have to hit the brakes real hard to avoid hitting it. If we have 20 to 30 trucks in this operation running 6 days a week, from 7:00 in the morning to 6:00 in the afternoon, I think there's a serious potential for an accident there. Because those trucks have to come to a stop before they can turn to cross the road into that entrance. You might want to take a look at that because when you come up over that hill at 50 mph, you don't have, you have very little time to stop prior to hitting those trucks. So it's a safety issue as well. As far as the views are concerned, if we were to strip away this 1 peninsula, all the homes are located up here. Up high. The reason that we bought the property was because of the view of the valley. If we strip away this peninsula located here as indicated, then we're going to be ' looking at a mining operation and that's a real scarey idea for us. Our property values are going to drop dramatically if when you look out your back window you see a mining operation, and that's what's going to happen ' there. Maybe it's going to help the people over at Shakopee a little bit who are up on 5th Avenue or whatever so they don't have to look at this stripped portion of land but for everybody along this area up here, we're going to be looking at a mining operation and that's not really the reason that we bought into that property in the first place. Also if we go back to this location here. My lot is located right there. Directly across from here. I do see that area most of the year, especially in winter. I'm ' going to have to listen to all of that activity as well as my neighbors who are just starting to move in now. I'll have to listen to all that activity and deal with the dust while the whole operation is going on. And again, that's 6 days a week from 7:00 to 6:00 at night. That's not a real pleasant idea. Also, around the turn of the century, this was a large hill right here. The railroad came through and dug their way straight through here. There are very sheer bluffs on both sides that are not vegetated and they haven't been since the turn of the century. Erosion has not been a problem for 90 some odd years. I don't know why there's a problem now. I would strongly suggest that you take a hike down this railroad tracks, 1 which is supposedly going to become a bike trail. Walk down the railroad tracks and take a look at the views for yourself. It's very beautiful and you'll also see the sheer cliffs here that are not vegetated and the erosion is not a problem. This cliff over here is not nearly as sheer as the cliffs over in this area here. So it was basically just dug out. • Nothing was done to handle the erosion problem and it hasn't been a problem up until apparently now. Also, if you continue walking down this trail, ' you'll look down in this valley and it's a very beautiful valley. You'll probably see a lot of deer and that type of thing. There is a creek that comes through here. There's two creeks on the other side over here. If they come in here and start tearing all this out, now you get to view a mining operation rather than the natural beauty that is there and I would strongly suggest before you make a decision, that you do actually hike down 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 23 1 that trail from TH 101 up to CR 4, and take a look at the entire operation that you're discussing. You'll see it's really a very beautiful area and II it would be I think a very poor...and I am again very concerned about the ground water. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to address the ' Commission? Jeff Michell: I'm Jeff Michell from 9961 Deerbrook Drive. I have a question to the city staff first. Is there a timeframe or limit attached to your recommendation for this project? Krauss: For the activity to be completed? 1 Jeff Michell: Yeah. , Krauss: They're request to us outlines this being completed either this summer or early next spring. We have not set a deadline...accepted what they've told us. But it may be appropriate to put a condition in. It certainly could be added. Jeff Michell: Yeah, I'd like to make that request. And I'd also like to II reiterate some of the concerns that staff and the city attorney have raisell with regard to making sure that suitable performance guarantees or letters of credit or whatever they are, are in place to make sure that the development comes off as predicted. My neighbor has illustrated I think pretty nicely that there's trade -offs in this. It's not, it may be a, see like a win situation in some aspects of this property but there's some things that are being given up in a really beautiful and natural place. Wil don't have any lakes down there but we've got a really nice woods that's going to be different when this is all over. And if it's going to be different, it'd better be nice and different. If it's half completed and not very nice, I think that would be a tragedy. That's all. Batzli: Thank you. Emily Pischleder: Emily Pischleder, 185 Pioneer Trail. I was just wondering if you're going to be mining out in the area that was mined out in '87? Are you going to be taking any more dirt out of there that you dill then and you will be trucking it out on the road that you used at that time? Would it run through Dornkempers? Is that the way you're going to truck it out? 1 Rick Sathre: Yes. Emily Pischleder: Then I'm wondering if you're going to be taking more oull of the area that was mined out in '87. Which is directly behind my house. Right by the radio tower. Rick Sathre: The proposal is to mine or remove clay from that area and , just to the north of it but also the majority of the material would be removed from the area farther south from where it was mined before. Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 24 Emily Pischleder: Okay, but you will be taking some more out of that area Y, Y 9 rea again? Rick Sathre: Yes. Emily Pischleder: Okay. Rick Sathre: The northerly seepage pond that we show is just northwest of that old mined area. As long as I'm up here, could I speak to the ground water issue? Batzli: Sure. Emily Pischleder: Well that area hasn't had anything done to it...radio tower that they approved at that time also. And we did the same thing when ' we bought our house. When we built our house it was because of the view so we don't have anything to look at now. Dennis Bartholow: Yeah that area has been stripped and nothing was done to take care of it. Batzli: The northern part? Dennis Bartholow: The norther part. The confidence level that after this project that it will be repaired is really quite minimal based on past ' history of what we've seen happened there. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Do you want to address the ground water issue? ' Rick Sathre: Yes, thank you. Ground water movement is, as you might expect, toward the river. The ground water levels are higher as you move away from the valley or move into the bluffs. The river, the Minnesota ' River is at about 700. Elevation 700 and I think the testimony you heard was that the ground water where their well is, the water that they're drawing must be at about 750 or 740. Something like that. You well's 160 ' feet deep? Dennis Bartholow: No. We hit water at 160 and the well is around 200 feet. Rick Sathre: Okay. So they're down, they're probably down at about 700. The same elevation that the river is. As was mentioned, the bottom of that seepage pond that's on the board there now is at about elevation 800 which would be oh about 50 feet above the top of the ground water table and about 100 feet above where their drawing their water from. Now movement of the ' ground water that, movement of water that seeps into the ground at this location would, the water would follow that general gradient the same as all the rest of the water that's moving through the soil there which is towards the river. Water that seeps into the ground here should not move toward those neighbors on the other side to the north. It actually should be moving towards the river. I don't have anything with me tonight to prove that but. Dennis Bartholow: Why would the water move towards the river? 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 25 Rick Sathre: Because it's a downhill gradient. It just naturally flows downhill through the soil. , Dennis Bartholow: Right, so if it flows downhill in this direction...wants to flow into the river. The river isn't...ground water. Rick Sathre: Partially it is. Dennis Bartholow: Partially but not a whole lot. That water can still flow in both directions. Furthermore we have a seepage pond to the northern portion as well as the southerly portion. Actually we've got 3 seepage ponds. One of them is directly across the railroad tracks from my property. It's maybe at the most 400, maybe 500 feet away from my well as , the crow flies. Batzli: Do you have any evidence or understanding of what would be required for filtration of water to make it safe down to an existing well? Rick Sathre: I'm not prepared to speak to it now. From my engineering background, I've read studies of how far septic system, waste water had toll move through soil to cleanse itself. When we're designing sewage, septic tank systems. Grainfield systems. We're always careful to site the well 75 or 100 feet away from the drainfields so there's adequate horizontal separation. It would be certainly the water that you're discharging out o your, into your drainfield would be more polluted or have more, well it's waste water. It's your household waste water. That water would be much II more polluted, if you want to call it that than the general surface runoff from the farmland. Certainly the agricultural land or any land, grass has pollutants in it. But they're filtered out through movement through the soil. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? 1 Jerry Bertsch: I'm Jerry Bertsch, 8556 Irwin Road in Bloomington. I'm the proud owner of Lot 8, Block 1, Deerbrook. I have the largest lot in II Deerbrook. I just got in from out of town. I don't know much about the project. I was quite impressed with your presentation and I'm not here to strifle entrepreneurism. If you have clay, you should be entitled to take" it off the property. However, I do have concerns about my property which all of it borders the railroad track on the other side that you're intending to do. I don't have a problem with this as long as this commission understands that this thing can't go on for a period of years. I agree with their concerns. If it's a short term project, let it be done but I expect the commission, representing me and the rest of the property owners to make sure that there is a plan for restoration of the property. That the topsoil is replaced as they had discussed. That there's no effec on my side of the railroad tracks, especially the creek and that was something I hadn't thought about earlier because that seeping pond could effect that creek and that's one of the reasons I bought that property is the creek down there. It's absolutely gorgeous. And if that disappears, it's really going to be a problem. There is, as long as there is guarantees. Bonds or letters or credit, I'm sure you folks can work everything out in terms of making sure there is guaranteed restoration. Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 26 The mature trees on that southeastern, or es. Southwestern corner, as long g as they will stay there, that's important. And of course no effect on the ' ground water. So you have quite a job ahead of you to make sure that these things are going to be kept for the rest of us and I wish you the best of luck. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would someone else like to address the Commission at this time? ' Richard Vogel: I'm Richard Vogel and I live at 105 Pioneer Trail. One concern that just came up tonight, when the new mining ordinance was put into effect a year ago or whenever it was, there as a lot of effort I was ' told made into that ordinance regarding setbacks from adjoining property owners. Now I'm hearing tonight that, in this case, to my knowledge this is one of the first times that will be tested. All of a sudden that doesn't apply. And I don't think a 300 foot setback from an adjoining property owner is unreasonable. At that time that was what was arrived at. The other thing is, I guess for my own selfish reasons I have some property in Hennepin County that borders this project. For 4 years now there's been nothing done to that hole that's up there and from what I've heard at other meetings on the south property, I don't know if we're getting any closer to getting any resolutions on that either. I think it's in court right now. One of the things Mr. Sathre said about the bond, and I hope I'm using these terms right. One of his objections to it was, they didn't know when the mining operation, whether it was going to be a 1 year, 2 year, a 10 year or 20 year operation and that's what really worries me up here. The mining operations I've seen, they all keep going. Maybe there will be termination next spring or whenever this is done and maybe a year later they'll be in for another permit to do something else. ' Batzli: On that particular issue, I think that the applicant said that the tree reforestation on the north /south boundary is the one that they couldn't, they wouldn't want to implement because of that timing problem. The restoration of the main area which would be mined, the problem wasn't the timing. It was a question of they weren't actually going to perform the work so they wanted the contractor on the hook. Richard Vogel: Okay. But all I'm saying is what I heard was he didn't know when the operation was going to be for 1, 2 or 20 years or whatever. ' I guess I'm disappointed in, you say the planner for promoting this I guess mostly because the setbacks from adjoining property owners on the new ordinance that was put into effect that was supposed to be okay, are going to be dropped. And I think the bond, letter of credit or whatever it is, I'm not sure. I did not get the report here what they're asking for but I think if $40,000.00 is the figure, you can't do very much for $40,000.00. And if this property is left set, who is going to reforest it or who is going to take care of it then if it's dropped? Also I'm told on the south, the old Moon Valley, that they are saying that they can mine directly up to the property line of the north property because they own the property on both sides. I would hate to see that happen. Now I don't know if this is so or not but that's what I have heard. Eventually those steep slopes are going to give way. Maybe not this year, net year but eventually they are. They don't loosen all at once. You get heavy rains and a little bit slips. Some more heavy rains and eventually something does go. But basically I 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 27 1 would like, if anything is done here, there should be a timeframe. I thin it could be more detailed what is really going to go on there and I think the setbacks for the new ordinance should be strictly adhered to. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Cathy Bartholow: I'm Cathy Bartholow. My husband, Dennis already spoke. We're at 9841 Deerbrook and I guess the only thing I would add is that personally I'm not, I wish you well in business. This has, you know it's kind of hard. We watched the one before this. We're measuring back and forth what, personally we bought our property and built our dream home on II that land and you who are in business. I think it comes down to accountability and what I learned from reading your planning report, as to the history and the track record and not knowing you all, I have that report really to base my concerns on, is that somebody will be accountable" for this and that everything that everybody has said so far, there are trade offs and somebody will make sure that it is a safe operation and tha it is reforested with, not seedlings this big but reforested when you're talking reforestation. What does all these things mean? When you're saying reseeding it, well I know from seeding my own lawn, you can't just throw grass on there and have it grow. It takes work and it takes making sure that that does happen and we want to make sure somebody's accountable to making sure that does happen and we're not seeing anything documented for us to protect us from that standpoint. And that's all I guess I would" ask. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Okay. 1 Rick Sathre: I'm a small businessman too, just like Mr. Zwiers and maybe many of you. I see, well mining operators are kind of lumped with used call salesmen and maybe attorneys and bad engineers. Batzli: Geez, that hurt. 1 • Rick Sathre: Wasn't that terrible? Batzli: I'm an engineer and an attorney. 1 Rick Sathre: Dog gone it. Well, I put myself in there too. I know Tom Zwiers to be a hard working, honest man. He wants to do what's right and II he doesn't like being bureaucratically nickeled and limed to death just like everybody else doesn't want that. He wants to do what needs to be done and he's approaching this new permit in a very straight forward manner" and I know he'll live up to the terms of the permit if it's issued. The old mining operation is a second, you know it's a different thing. It reminds me a little of a farm. The farmers came in ever so long ago and stripped the land of all it's vegetation and every year they do the same II thing and they put in a crop and take it in the fall and use it to survive. That's a little like what he's doing and I hope he, when he's done with it puts it back so everybody can enjoy it. I guess that's your goal. Mr. Vogel mentioned the fact that it would be prudent to have a 300 foot setback for the edge of the grading or the edge of the mined area. On that Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 28 north 45 acres, I guess technically we probably are proposing to mine it but it's more like a grading operation for a subdivision. We're grading 1 slopes that are no steeper than 3:1 and most of them are more like 7% and 10% which are fairly flat slopes. So imposing the 300 foot standard here where technically it is mining but it doesn't look like mining. I don't know if it passes the smell test or not. But we think we're, by going within 300 feet of the property boundary, it allows us to better cut off the water that's going over the edge of the ravines. We're getting out near the property boundaries so we can slope the ground back into the center of the property and get the water to run to those seepage ponds. If we don't go out, if we stay more than 300 feet away from the boundaries, that just means we can't do that job the way we're proposing to. And again 1 Mr. Vogel was concerned about restoration and the when of it. Staff report says restore the land in phases, and that's what our proposal is. As each area is excavated, topsoil would be respread in the street areas as it's done. The mining operation on this north 45 acres, the clay, the intent is to try to get it out, all of it out this year. If that doesn't happen, then it would be next spring. With some luck and if the approvals don't drag on too long, if they are forthcoming, then we try to beat the weather. ' The contractor at the landfill definitely wants to get the clay over there this year and if it doesn't come from this site, for whatever reason, there's another site that already has a permit issued so he could get it from another place too. But the material on this site is very tight. It's ' a very tight clay. It's better for the closure of the landfill than most clays that you find and so that's why they've sought to take it from this site. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Conrad moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Jeff, do you want to lead us off? ' Farmakes: I'm not an expert in water issues. I'm assuming the city has people there. I think it's an understandable concern for property owners. ' I'm looking back, we've heard words like accountability and responsibility and so on. I'm disturbed by the packets that I've read in the past and my involvement here on the issue of good faith will we enter into these things. Particularly with this operation. I think that there's some accountability or the attitude in dealing with the city in the past and I would certainly recommend that the Council would, the city be very careful in how they bond, this performance bond goes through or letter of credit or however the city takes it. I question how they're arriving at *40,000.00. If that's a rule of thumb that they use or general thing they pull out of a hat or is that involved in litigation that's involved afterwards? And then the issue of the trees, there's no dollar figure on that. And the issue of timing, as to when that would take place and when they would have to, is that also a performance type bonding situation? Or would they have to ask for another permit in stages and so on? The issue that was brought up on the safety, I think that's a legitimate issue as well. Those roads back in there are not very safe. In fact I couldn't think of probably some more dangerous roads than you can find in the State than back in there along that bluff. I'm really not a water engineer as I said before I started out 1 Planning Commission Meeting II July 1, 1992 - Page 29 II so I really can't address the issue of the water quality but I certainly think you're entitled to find out how that would effect your, and what cos" if it did, effect it. That you'd be looking at or the city would be looking at. What headaches that would provide. Batzli: I have a question before we move on here Paul. And that is, therl isn't much in the conditions as far as conditions to insure that the existing wooded areas are saved, if you will. There's nothing about staying a certain distance away or erecting snow fences or illustrated on II the plans that these are, do not disturb areas. How are we intending to look at those issues? Krauss: Chairman Batzli, I think you're raising a real good point. We doll have a canned set of conditions that we apply to subdivisions. It would be wholly appropriate to insert those here. Frankly, you know we've put a lo of work into these reports and conditions but we simply are unable to conceive of all the situations that may occur which is one of the reasons for bringing it in front of people like you. I think that's a good condition to add. We certainly have required that on another development." Batzli: But are you comfortable that there's a plan somewhere or something in the conditions that illustrates exactly where they're going to remove II this clay and which areas are do not disturb areas on the site? Krauss: Yeah. The plan that we have is quite explicit on that account. It's comparable to plans that we receive for residential subdivisions and II I'm comfortable in that regard. However, we normally do add conditions that would be appropriate here as to establishing snow fenced areas outside the drop line of trees and if they do damage trees that are not supposed t be taken, that there is compensation for that that makes it pretty onerous, That is again a condition that we placed on other subdivisions. Emmings: Just a couple of things. Basically I'm going to go along with II what the staff has proposed because I think there's obviously been a tremendous amount of thought and care given to this, all the issues in here. I thought there should be, I thought whenever we had an interim use' permit that we always had a termination. Either an event or a date. I assume that the event here is the mining of 250,000 cubic yards of clay but I think maybe what we should do is add a condition that says, the termination will be when 250,000 cubic yards of clay have been mined or by ' July 1, 1993, whichever comes first. Tom Zwiers: ...has a time limit on that when he has to beat it and then II has a penalty clause. If he hasn't got it completed, and I can find out when that date is Steve but it isn't very long I know and then he gets penalized. II Emmings: Is it this year? Tom Zwiers: I believe it's in the spring of next year. 1 Emmings: Okay, so if we made it July though, that wouldn't. That's a year. That's a whole year from now. That shouldn't get. II II Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 30 Tom Zwiers: We'd better have it hauled by then or we'll be... Emmings: I just think there ought to be a date in addition to the event that we can look to. And I would imagine if they're not done, they can come back and say we need more time_ But I think that date needs to be in there. The only other condition. I guess, I think that the potential ' effect on ground water for people with wells is serious enough so that the city engineer ought to look at that before it gets to the City Council and we ought to be well satisfied that this is not going to have an effect on ' ground water. I agree with Jeff on the road thing as potentially a very serious traffic or safety problem. I don't know what can be done there but again the city engineer should know. What can be done to make that as safe t as possible for people who use that road. Otherwise I'd go along with what's in the staff report. Krauss: If I may, as to the road. We've asked, technically where the road exists out onto Pioneer is not in Chanhassen which is why we put a condition in here that the Eden Prairie City Engineer be brought into this. Because we want to make sure that whatever needs to be done to protect ' safety is done. Pioneer Trail is a road designed for very heavy use. It was rebuilt in the not too distant past. It is fully able to handle that kind of traffic. Now, you may not want it to do it constantly and we could 11 certainly understand that but it is designed for that kind of use. Emmings: I don't know the road right at that spot but what I heard somebody here say is that you've got a situation with a dip and you come ' over a hill and there could be a truck stopped waiting to turn. You're just asking for it. ' Krauss: And there is a condition regarding posting of trucks hauling signs but that is why we did ask that this be coordinated through the city of Eden Prairie. Emmings: That's it for me. Batzli: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: I think Paul did an excellent job of putting this together. There's a lot of issues that are involved in this type of project. I think the waiver of the 300 foot setback is a very reasonable proposal. It allows the applicant to work within the open area and allows also the trees to be saved on the property and to fix the wrongs that have been created in the past. If we actually did use that 300 foot setback, then the area that was disturbed previously in the northern corner wouldn't be fixed. So I think that's very important that we have the opportunity to regrade that and fix that. I have some concerns about the dollar value for the letter ' of credit. I can see that when you disturb 22 acres, you can burn up $40,000.00 very quickly and I can envision that that number for restoration actually doubling so I would like to see some hard numbers discussed in terms of what it would take there. I think you can have a rule of thumb but if you would have to go out and hire contractors to do the work, the dollars per acre that the city might be looking at may be something that they can do internally and don't have overheads added to it or something but I think that, given the scope of the project, the $40,000.00 would be Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 31 11 definitely on the low end of value of the restoration. So I'd like that number be evaluated. Two of the residents talked about the potential or all stream bed or creek bed. I hadn't heard anything or hadn't seen anything in the staff report on that. Is that involved in the project at all or is that just? Rick Sathre: Let's use one of the overheads and we'll work it out on that. Maybe the neighbors can help here too because I'm not sure where, exactly where it runs but I see a major ravine over here on the west side and it II to this point. I know that it goes down through here and it drains out into the river valley there. It must cross under the, I think I see the path right here. The ponding site that we're talking about for the southwesterly seepage pond would actually be right over in here. I'm not II sure how that would effect the creek. I don't think it would effect it in any way. ' Ledvina: So the grading would not effect the appearance or the topography of the creek? Rick Sathre: No, because the creek is several hundred feet away from these" properties. Ledvina: Okay, thank you. I also support identifying a duration for the project and think July 1st would be a good time line. I think that's all have at this point. Batzli: Okay, Ladd. 1 Conrad: I think the applicant...concerned with point number 7 on the guarantee of $40,000.00 and who should do it and I guess I would like, our" attorney suggested that the applicant... I'd like to make some connections between 6 and 7. I don't know where the $40,000.00 came from and I'd sure like to make sure that we tie things together. A plan versus the money anal again I don't know if $40,000.00 is right. It may not be and I think the key to what we're doing here is that we tie a plan that's approved to cost that's realistic. I think that's essential and maybe the $40,000.00 was , right but I would not, I'd really rather not see this go to Council until there's a connection between a plan and the cost. It's sort of make believe in my mind at this point in time and that's okay as it passes through us but I think somebody's got to react to something that's real andl not guesswork. And if it's less than that, the applicant benefits. But on the other hand, if it's more, I think we've got to guarantee that this site is taken care of. I know we have to guarantee that the site's taken care I of and I think staff's aimed in that direction and I know the applicant ha full intention of performing. I think the other concern that the applicant had on 13, I believe it was and again, I guess the guarantees that Rick wall talking about. How we would restore something on the bluff and whatever and you're talking about something we don't know anything about. So here we are. We're talking about something the applicant doesn't know anything about and we're using general words and again I guess there's got to be a II plan and I think staff is asking for that. There just has to be something in front of us. I don't know how much money the applicant stands to make on this but I think there's some downstream benefits obviously in terms of"' property available for development. There's certainly going to be some 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 32 money sometime to repay and to make this property subdividable for 11 residential development. But I think on point number 13, I think there needs to be some financial guarantees and I too agree, until somebody shows me how this works, I don't have a clue but that's for staff and the applicant to work out. The seepage versus the holding and the ground water, absolutely essentially. Somebody's got to guarantee it. It doesn't take place until there's a guarantee. And I guess in the real world there are no guarantees but I just wouldn't feel comfortable at all if we had any possible, any possibility of contaminating the ground water that people are using for their well. Not at all. And I don't know the difference between seepage and holding. I think I have a clue about what it is but I just need some experts tacking to us about this and informing the City Council. They should not do a thing until that expert advice is given. Shouldn't. The time of excavation, absolutely. There has to be an end. Batzli: Do you like July 1? Conrad: July l's okay. I think that's generous but it's there and it's probably going to be done before that but there has to be a time. I'd like to see our engineer review traffic safety. Maybe that's not our road to be doing it but whoever is right, that they be looking at that for safety ' considerations. That has to happen. Paul, there's an inspection fee of $900.00. How are inspection fees handled? That's $900.00 for a one time shot or do we do this over? Krauss: No. It's taken out of the Uniform Building Code and it applies in this case and it's actually, I honestly don't know how they come up with it but it's to cover our cost of going out and monitoring the site. Conrad: Throughout the one year of excavation? Krauss: Yeah, so we would have an engineering technician going out there periodically and making sure that the grades that are being set are those which are on the plan and that there's erosion controls being maintained and generally that the site's being operated in an acceptable manner. Conrad: And how often would you, what makes you think that would be done? Krauss: It really depends on, you know after the first few visits, if things are going well. You can probably go it on 5 or 6 visits over the course of the operation and then responding to complaints, if we receive any, on an as needed basis. Additionally, one of the things that's required in here is that the applicant has to give us an as built survey of finished grades. So we're not trying to prove that he did what he was supposed to do. He's got to prove it to us through a survey. Conrad: What would you charge a City Engineer out at on an hourly basis? What do you charge the swamp committee for your time? No, I don't really mean that but, what's an engineer charged out at? Krauss: We do not have a rate schedule that's set up. I mean I can tell you what the City Engineer. 11 Conrad: ...how much might we charge an engineer's time on it? Planning Commission Meeting 1 July 1, 1992 - Page 33 Krauss: Actually Ladd, my time is not charged to any. I mean my salary's" drawn off of projects but we don't charge the project. If you hire a consulting firm, if the consulting engineer makes $30.00 an hour, they may ll charge you $90.00 an hour to retain him. Batzli: Paul, you've done a great job of avoiding the question. Where ar you going with this? Conrad: I'm just trying to figure out if we did inspections, I don't know what it takes because this is a big project. 1 Batzli: Yeah, it's huge. So do you think it's low? Do you think it's high? II Conrad: What we have are basically 10 hours packed into inspection over the. Krauss: You're assuming that (a), the city engineer's going to go out there all the time which is probably not the case. It's probably going to be one of the technicians, which is considerably less expensive. And that (b), the City is making a profit on inspections by paying the engineer's o technician's salary and then we have a billable that we charge as well. We don't operate that way. We are still a public entity and we cover our expenses. Batzli: Do you think it's low Ladd? II Conrad: 1 guess the issue is not the money. The issue is making sure we have the inspections. I don't have a standard to put forth but I'm a little bit nervous about, you know when I see $900.00 for inspecting, and II hear what Paul's saying. We don't relate hours to money for fees yet on the other hand I do. It's like, I just think we should be there and I think that relates a little bit to the history we've had with this project" I'm just not convinced yet. We've had'too many things that have been in court. Too many problems. Just flat out. Until I'm comfortable, I would, we've just got to be real careful. Not holding things up. The safety, yo talk about inspection. The 300 foot setback. We waived it. We waived it and I had a tough time. We waived it on all sides. Where did we waive th 300 foot setback? Krauss: Basically, this is very rough. You can't scale off of this 1 drawing but if you wanted to look at the 300 foot line, it's someplace back like that. The lines overlap as you get up towards the north end. Maybe , in fact, it's probably even a little more significant than that. It probably comes to a point like in here.. Conrad: So we waive it on all sides because of the benefit we're going toll get through some future, through excavation or through grading? Krauss: For the reasons that I mentioned in that handout. Now the points of where this busts the 300 foot setback are along the railroad tracks her and along this part of the Eden Prairie line and down in this corner. This part of the operation is consistent with that. And you know honestly, I don't like to go back to intent of the draftees of the ordinance but I 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 34 wrote the ordinance. I wrote it with the City Engineer and we were quite explicitedly trying to deal with, that provision dealt with major mining operations and we only have one of those in town. But the ordinance was designed to deal in other respects with all types of grading in the city. If you want to move, as a homeowner, if you want to move 50 yards of dirt, ' you need a permit under that ordinance and there is no setback requirement or when you grade for a subdivision, there is no setback requirement. We've also approved, I think at least 4 major excavation operations where ' that setback was frankly waived. One of them was on the McGlynn site. Now they've been approved but they haven't been operated on. They haven't been conducted. One was on the McGlynn site, which would have frankly lowered the site and prepared it for development as well as getting material for TH 5. We had one on, the fellow's name escapes me but Jeurissen. Bruce Jeurissen. Further down Pioneer Trail. And Halla had similar requests. 11 Conrad: The purpose of the setback, primarily because you drafted it, the 300 feet is to primarily protect neighbors right? Krauss: Well exactly. So when we think that, the important point is we think that largely that goal has been attained through the existing topography. Through the preservation of the trees. Through the limitations on the hours of operation. Through the ability to shut them down if dust becomes a problem. The ability to shut them down Saturdays if that's a problem. You also have very significant terrain that separates this site. I mean the homes located west of this property have some remarkable views of the Minnesota River Valley and they're in a lot of different directions, depending on the way the houses are placed. This line appearing here though is a little bit misleading. The houses are quite a ways back from there. This railway corridor is 100 -150 feet wide and the homes, I don't have the exact information but the home is someplace back up in here. There's a very deep valley there before it goes back up again. So there's significant topographic buffering, I suppose inbetween there. And this, again this is a limited duration request. It is a use that's a permitted use in this district under the interim use guidelines. We hope we take great care with the fact. We understand that this is an ' area that's in transition and we certainly don't want to, I mean there's a balancing act here and we don't want to step on the toes of our residents. At the same time we want to be reasonable if we can with the request as long as it's consistent with our ordinances and goals. Batzli: Let me just ask for one clarification. You said there's a buffer there. What you really mean, it's a linear distance buffer but it's not a line of sight buffer, correct? Krauss: Well, i think it's actually both but for me to, I can't stand here Commissioner and tell you that from every bedroom window of every home, that you'll never see this because we haven't made that attempt to figure that out. But I know that when you're on this site and looking back towards those homes, the few homes that you can see are fairly obscure angles and the fact is, is those homes that can see this site, or at least the upper portion of the site, are looking at a field with a remnant mining operation in it now. When this is all said and done, they're going to be 11 looking at a field. So it's not really, you know it's going to be 10 feet lower but when you're 300 feet away, it's not going to be perceptible. i Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 35 11 Erhart: Well I think it looks like a good project. We're solving a number of things here. We've got a hole there now. This is going to finish it I off. It's going to help cap a landfill in Eden Prairie once and for all with some clay that's not too far away. If we don't allow this one, they're probably going to be hauling it through the city like we had what, a year ago? ' Krauss: There were hauling out of Chaska along Pioneer Trail. Erhart: And we had an accident up here and somebody got killed or whatever' it was. What was it? Krauss: I don't know. , Erhart: Anyway, I drive TH 101 and those trucks came down TH 101 which is curved, I'd just as soon leave them in Eden Prairie and get the job done. II I agree, that's one of the points I had, we should set a time limit on here. I was going to suggest one year from approval. July is certainly okay. In either case it solves a problem and if it's acceptable to the applicant. I think we do need to check that ground water issue. Some expert who can give us a qualified answer on that. Paul, you're going to have to justify to the Council this 40 grand, otherwise you're going to spend another hour at the Council meeting discussing that and I know nobody, you or the Council doesn't want to do that. One big thing here an that is, I think what I'm being sold, Rick sold, is selling us on that we're going in and what we're doing is landscaping this piece of property , and that's why we need the variance. And that's fine. I heard everybody say we want, not only set a time table but.we want to make this final. I understand, the way I'm being sold on this variance, this is the final. This is final, final, final. Therefore it is simple in my mind that we ought to tie with this variance that the owner and future owner gives up the right to further mine this property and make it final. Tie the variance to that. 1 Krauss: Tim, if I can clarify a point. You came in part way through the conversation. We reviewed this matter further, after the report went out with the City Attorney and realized that the approach with the variance wall the wrong methodology here. That the ordinance does provide for a waiver of conditions. But your concern as to a prohibition against further mininil requests, I guess I don't see any reason why that couldn't be part of a condition. Erhart: That's what I would say. If it's a waiver, then tie the waiver I relinquish any future mining rights to this property. And if we're going to finish it off, let's finish it off. This really is adjacent to a residential development at this time and it's inappropriate to continue to mine. It's probably not big enough. So we really restricted it to the 30C, foot setback. So I'm sensing that the developer, or the applicant is... impossible so, that's the only thing I've got. Ledvina: I'd like to make a motion. Batzli: I'd like to talk first. I need to say something. 1 Planning Commission ME .,cing July 1, 1992 - Page 36 Ledvina: I'm sorry. Erhart: I move we let Brian talk. Batzli: Okay. But I appreciate you jumping in there. We need to catch up. I like the timeframe. I think we need something in there, before you make the motion. I hope you have something in there about the trees. As far as setting something up. I think the applicant raised at least 3 concerns. One was the access easement. I assume that we'll look at that ' and amend that condition after we've had a chance to look at that. The other one was this $40,000.00. I think we've kind of beat that. I also thought $900.00 was low but if staff is comfortable with that. I don't think it matters what the money is. I would rather see, I just want to make sure that we're going to be out there checking to make sure that everything's going according to how we think it should go. And what that means is, we need some good plans from the applicant regarding erosion ' control. The staging. The restoration and things like that and then we follow up on those items because I think that if we don't follow up, then who do we have to blame later on if it doesn't go. And these people who actually oversee it, I'd appreciate it if you'd call our staff if you see something that doesn't look quite right. The timing problem of the reforesting the mine bluff face, I'd like to ask our attorney if this somehow provides an improper linkage between this property and the southern piece. That we shouldn't be doing this. Tom Scott: No. Batzli: Okay. ' Tom Scott: We've reviewed that and we didn't think there was any problem. Batzli: Okay. If the applicant doesn't have a problem with doing this, and it's merely a question of timing regarding providing the financial guarantee, I guess I'd like to see something worked out. Interestingly enough, if we get financial guarantees today for a certain dollar amount, by the time they're done in 20 years, that's not going to buy one tree unless you require it to be increased over time. So actually the applicant, he's putting away money today and he's not going to be able to do it for that amount of money in the future. So I don't know exactly what you're really looking for here. I don't know what could be enforceable. I don't think you really want a situation where he has to add to the guarantee over a period of years because the cost of trees keeps going up. 5o I don't know what you really have in mind here and I don't know that we can cover it. Krauss: Well, if I could for just a sec. Mr. Zwiers is a businessman and 11 he understands contractual obligations and we try to operate in as professional and businesslike manner as possible. I think you're aware that for many years we've required developers to enter into development contracts and post financial guarantees. Now it would still be my recommendation that we get some sort of a financial guarantee but how we can structure that is open to some discussion. If possible I suppose that something could be written to the chain of title to obligate all future 11 property owners or something like that. But it may well be that if there's 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 37 i a dollar amount figure set for this, that there be an annual contribution made to an account. An interest bearing account that would just be set II aside to accrue for this operation so that at some point in the future, whenever Mr. Zwiers is ready to do it, he just withdraws the funds from that to do it. We need to talk about that but we're willing, I guess to plant something. Batzli: See my point is, if he's going to be done by July 1st of next yea on this piece of property, for him to default on this condition down the road, what are you going to do? Krauss: Well and that's why we need to sit down. I need to sit down with Mr. Scott and Mr. Zwiers and figure out the appropriate way to approach that but I think if we're creative enough. Tom Scott: The simplest way would be to require them to keep the letter oI credit in effect. Batzli: But that basically ties up money for. 1 Tom Scott: That ties up a certain amount of assets that have to be behind that letter of credit. There may be some other ways. Maybe there's a II bonding mechanism or some other way we can do that. I guess that's what Paul's saying. I mean we could just point blank say, letter of credit has to remain in effect. Maybe that's what we'll have to do but there's hopefully some other mechanism we could use too. Batzli: I think the waiver of the setback is appropriate here in that, given what they're trying to do here. However, if we get into another situation where someone's going to go fairly close to their lot line to doll something similar, how are we going to distinguish that over this type of an operation? Is it the creation of some sort of a steep slope? Is it till fact that there wouldn't necessarily be a buffer with a railroad track running through there? What is it that we point to and say, this is different? Krauss: First of all there's a waiver. You're not subject to the same 11 findings that you might be with, precedent setting issues that may be attended with a variance. I think that's what your concerned about. Very ll clearly under the waiver provisions, it allows you and the City Council to evaluate conditions on a site specific basis and make your determinations as such and not be bound I guess, I would say by the precedent and the hardship and the other things that come with a variance. What makes this II property or this request reasonable under the waiver I think is very site specific. There's really no way to work this site in an effective manner and achieve what we want to achieve and achieve what the owner would like I to achieve without that. To fix the problems that are out there, you've got to work in that area. I think Commissioner Ledvina pointed out quite aptly that you can't put the ponding in where you need to put it unless yo work within that area. Undoubtedly you'll be confronted by these sorts of � things in the future. We've already processed 3 or 4 of them. We'll probably get some more but I think you've got to take them on a case by case basis. Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 38 Batzli: I uess I'd like maybe a clear statement of your g d yb more s a o y reasons for why we should waive them. I didn't have much time to look at this and I know we actually spoke earlier on that issue but I just think you should at least set it out very clearly to the Council why you think this justifies a waiver and I don't know in my own mind whether it's because it's how we want it to turn out is a good reason. That could justify anything. Krauss: Yeah. The addendum that I handed out tonight tries to get at the rationale behind the waiver. We can certainly write that into a set of findings much the same as we would for a variance and lay that out explicitedly. 11 Batzli: Well I don't know. It just kind of caught me as far as being set out clearly as to what makes this site at least unique enough to waive it and I get away from the discussion of the variance kind of language but, because we'll see more of these and the question is, should we be recommending to waive it? Shouldn't we? Is there something in the conditions that talks about the waiver? Adopting a finding of facts to go with it or rationale? Krauss: No there is not and what needs to be looked at is in the conditions where the recommendation takes place. You substitute the waiver language for where the variance language was. There are findings that are contained in this addendum. Batzli: So you'd like it with a 300 foot setback waived in accordance with your discussion in this addendum? Krauss: Yeah, and then we can certainly clarify those points. Batzli: Okay. And I think the water's critical. Safety's critical. Trees, we had talked about. The creek. Make sure that that's not being adversely effected or if it is being effected, we at least know how and why and what the effect is And last but perhaps least, these ponds that we're creating. Just for the record here. Will these ponds eventually if they start growing kind of Class B wetlands kind of things around them'or in them or if they even somehow hold water, when cattails start growing and purple loosestrife and everything else, do these become wetlands and will they then become untouchable and become part of our mapped wetlands in the ' city? Krauss: Let me give you a two part answer to that. Under local ordinances, we're in the process of developing an updated wetlands protection program. Under the draft'as it now exists, we've got 4 categories of wetlands ranging from pristine to utilized. Utilizied are functionally not defined as wetlands any longer or won't be I supposed if this ordinance gets adopted the way it's drafted. What utilized means is that it was specifically designed for a water quality protection or storm water protection function and not as a wetland or wetland remediation. The second part of that answer comes in because there's not only, for the last 8 years Chanhassen has been operating in a vaccum. You know we've been protecting wetlands but the rest of the State hasn't. There is a new State 11 law that does protect wetlands and most of you are aware that I sit on the committee that's drafting the rules for the new State law. And I had 11 Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 39 1 explicit language written into that, to the rules so that ponding areas that are created for non - wetland function purposes are not going to be II defined as wetlands under the State law. Again that's contingent on the rules being approved as they currently are drafted but I think that that's the case. So the answer to your question is no, they won't be wetlands. Batzli: So these grades that we're talking about that Tim wants to say, II this is it. No more mining at least, these ponds when this land is developed, will more than likely be wiped out and the water will be redirected once more. Krauss: That's not clear. Erhart: Excuse me. What was that? Batzli: Well eventually this property will be developed and they'll look at this seepage pond in the middle that's kind of mucky, kind of something and the issue is, they're going to try and do something else to this property in order to develop it. Now they don't have to save it as a wetland, Paul just told us. It doesn't hold water. It's going to be kind i of mucky parts of the year. Who's going to want that in their backyard? Krauss: Well a couple of points though. We are recommending that an easement be provided over these water bodies so that the City would be involved in any decisions to alter it. It may well be that when the land is developed, it may be more appropriate to put the water someplace else oll to modify these and in that regard that's no different than most of the development proposals we see that have some kind of an alteration. Batzli: My point is this. We're doing it now you know. Granted we don't" have a site plan in front of us or that we know where the house pads are going to go but it wouldn't take a whole lot to sit there and say, this is kind of where you're going to put it. Does it make sense to be directing all the water to the center of this? Is there any access in to the road t access this piece? You have to go right through the middle of the muck you're creating. I don't know. I'm looking at it kind of looking down till road saying why are we doing this if it doesn't make sense because you kno that eventually this is going to be a very, you know once the mining on the south stops, this will be a very attractive parcel to build homes on. Krauss: The honest answer is we don't know how the development's going to take place up there. There has been, well under the original Moon Valley request, the end use plan was developed before the ponding area was developed for that site and clearly the road's not in the right place on II this one for that pond area to be where it's going to be. There's plenty of room to move it up there. This assumes that these are large lot residential, developed without sewer and water. If sewer and water is available at some point in the future, well it may be through Eden Prairie. Eden Prairie has stuff not too far away.: Then of course it will be substantially different. But the fact is, every development in Chanhassen" has an obligation to manage storm water and maintain water quality. Whoever develops it, whenever they do it is going to have to meet those goals. If those ponds serve the purpose, great. If they don't, they'll II have to revise them so that they do. Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 40 Batzli: I'll leave it up to your professional judgment. My point is that if this makes sense that we have to do it this way, if there's no ' development right there, let's do it this way. But if there's a way that fits into the grand scheme of things so that we don't end up regrading everything 2 or 3 times to develop this in 5 years, I don't know why we're ' doing this to create an area which will develop wildlife and do certain things and then suddenly we're going to grade it up again in 5 years because the south part has either been mined or else the property generally becomes too valuable to mine so they sell it and develop it. Something 11 that I don't think really was looked at, and if in fact they're submitting plans like this for the southern piece for the eventual completion or what have you, for purposes of a lawsuit or for whatever purpose, and it doesn't make any sense at all to what they're doing on the north side, I don't get it. Krauss: I gave some thought and it you may think it's reasonable to do it, to asking them to modify this based upon the ponding plan so we had a plan of record and it may not hurt to do that. My reason for not asking them was, what happens on that site, how residential development occurs is open to so much conjecture at this point that, am I asking them to spin their wheels by generating another map? It never hurts to have on in the file but you know, a lot of things can happen up there to change it. I am confident though that the grades that will result from this petition are consistent with residential development. They're not touching the homesites in the trees which is where the homes want to be. They're not leaving grades that can't support homes and roads and driveways out in the field area and I was comfortable that this can support that use. Batzli: You're comfortable, I'm comfortable. Okay. Matt, I'd love a motion. Ledvina: Okay. I'm going to try. I would like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend that Interim Use Permit *92 -5 for Earth Work be approved with the waiver of the 300 foot setback subject to the staff conditions and following modifications and additions. I would like that conditions number 6, 7 and 13 be re- evaluated by staff with input.from the 11 applicant. I would like to add several conditions starting with number 15. That all soil removal according to the grading plan be completed by July 1, 1993. Condition 16. A plan is developed to protect trees as indicated on the plan and to maintain erosion control during construction. Condition 17. Ground water contamination issues be evaluated to insure protection of water wells in the vicinity of the site. Condition 18. Develop considerations for traffic safety on access points to the roadways involved. And condition 19. That the applicant relinquishes future rights to future gravel mining activities or potential mining activities at the site. Is there anything else? Batzli: Do we have plans that you want to include into the motion? Krauss: The dated plans? Batzli: Yes. Krauss: It's 6/5/92. 1 Planning Commission Meeting i July 1, 1992 - Page 41 r Batzli: So, do you want to make your motion in accordance also with those plans 6/5/92? i Ledvina: And also that the activities and conditions of the permit relate to the plans dated June 5, 1992. Conrad: Point 7, 13 and 14 be reviewed. 11 Ledvina: 6, 7 and 13. i Conrad: 6, 7 and 13 be reviewed. Ledvina: Be re- evaluated. 1 Batzli: Is there a second? Erhart: Yeah, I'll second it. 11 Batzli: Okay. Discussion Ladd. Ledvina: We had some concerns about the. Conrad: I don't...staff. That's my biggest concern. To be re-evaluated. II I don't know what that means. Erhart: But I think when you go back in the Minutes, I think it's clear II what we're asking for. Clarify some things. To look at some numbers. Justify the numbers. Be able to justify the numbers in our recommendation to Council. Additional recommendations. i Farmakes: Are we expecting to see this again? Batzli: No. We're asking that Paul's prepared when the Council asks him 1 those questions I guess. Conrad: So 6, 7 and 13 Paul, talking about being more accurate where they ll tie in money to plans. Does that mean that the plans will be submitted? What's the timeframe for these plans? Are they expected to be there for City Council review or are those things that happen after? i Krauss: Speaking for myself, I think clearly we'd want to resolve all these issues prior to going to City Council. Those are of a magnitude tha they're not administrative. Conrad: Your point Matt on ground water. In his motion Paul, who's responsibility will that be? i Krauss: Frankly we're going to ask the applicant to clarify that. We'll review the information. Conrad: It is his responsibility? Krauss: Well, we're not in the position of preparing submittal materials II for applicants. i Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 42 Conrad: And that's your intent? Ledvina: Right. Just so the issue gets resolved and evaluated. Krauss: Of course we'll concurrently, I mean we'v sent a copy of this to the Soil Conservation Service and Carver County Soil Survey and we will get information as we can get it but I think specifically the applicant's probably going to have to contract with somebody with some expertise to prepare an evaluation of that. Conrad: So let's go back to point number 9 Paul, in terms of the clay liner. Who's job is it to presuade us, it's the applicant I assume, to persuade us that the pond is designed properly. Krauss: Oh, that's something. This came from my city engineering department. The applicant hasn't indicated that they have any problem with that condition. That's a pretty simple design detail that we'll take care of in- house. I mean they'll give us the revised design and the engineering staff will say if it needs to be modified. Conrad: There was a comment from one of the agencies that was concerned with that particular aspect of the pond. Krauss: I think it came from our engineering office. Conrad: The District, Carver Soil and Water Conservation District. The clayed area. They were concerned of the clayed area. So who's job? Erhart: Who would review stuff like that Paul? Krauss: We do in- house. That's normal. Conrad: So the applicant designs it. I don't know. It just seems like a 11 real big issue. The whole issue of what we're doing to ground water and we got one concern from a recommending body or review body and we've got an issue here that's really big in my mind and I don't know. I guess I'm a little uncomfortable with how it's solved. Who's got the responsibility? Batzli: How would you like to see it resolved? ' Conrad: I don't know. I just want to make sure somebody's got responsibility and we're making changes to the motion here, I want to make sure that we're guiding staff to make sure somebody's got the onous to prove it. And ground water is such a key deal. We can't take any chances on this one. It's not just a passing deal. It's really quite significant. Erhart: Rick, where'd you come up with idea? Have you done something like this before? We've never seen anything like this before. Rick Sathre: I think you haven't seen it much in Chanhassen because you I have so many clay soils. In the sandier communities of Minnesota, I'm thinking about Anoka County, North. Andover, Anoka, Coon Rapids. Most of the pond sites are seepage ponds. You also see them a lot in Eden Prairie in the sand soils over in southeastern Eden Prairie mostly. There's many, 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 43 ' many, many depressions that have no outlets and all the drainage has been just seeping into the ground. So the concern is always, is this going to II seal up over time? Is it going to fail to function just like a drainfield might? But that's very common. Very common thing. We're very concerned about protecting wetlands so that we can promote ground water recharge. II Just a question of are we doing it appropriately here. The soil people, they raisee that issue too, like you noticed Ladd. Is the water going in too fast? Should we slow it down so that it's better filtered? That's a valid issue. 1 Conrad: 5o do you prepare Rick, the engineering reports to pacify? How does this happen? 1 Rick Sathre: Well, I think that we would seek another consultant as well who specializes in ground water issues. Batzli: Does this then require borings out there to get the right filtration? Rick Sathre: I would think it would be by checking the rate of seepage through that sand. I think...measuring the rate. It would be an engineering process. Probably involve a testing lab. 1 Conrad: And does this change over time? Does it get better? Or does it get worst? Seepage. As long as we prepare it and this thing is filtered better later on after the original? Rick Sathre: I think that over time seepage tends to slow down. The filtration would be better. We don't want to allow the seepage pond to stop seeping because then you don't solve your basic problem which is trying to discharge the water back to the ground water. It's a cycle. Batzli: Assuming then that you need a certain size outlet for this pond and the outlet constricts over time, the original calculations for the pon were done by yourself? Okay. Rick Sathre: In a 100 year storm event right now, that big central pond II would, there'd be about 6 feet of water in the bottom of it and that would seep out. We're not sure of the seepage rate because we haven't tried to II measure it. I would expect in those sands that water would drain away at at least 1 inch per hour. So there would be 6 feet of water depth in that pond, bang. Right after the storm. Batzli: Is it an expensive process to go to a hydrologist or whoever it is to take the boring and do that calculation and do it? What are we asking for to present that kind of evidence to our engineering department for review? Do you know? Rick Sathre: All I can do is take a wild guess. I would think that it'd II be more than $1,000.00 and less than $5,000.00. It is significant. Very significant. Conrad: We need our engineering department to tell us or tell the 1 applicant what is expected in this regard. I think the fundamental thing Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 44 is we have to protect it. Not even close to taking a chance. Paul and staff can figure that out. Batzli: Well, do you want to propose a friendly amendment to that condition? I don't even remember what. Conrad: I don't have a clue how I'd word it to tell you the truth. Paul's heard it. Batzli: But I think when we've done things like this in the past where we basically said that, applicant shall provide information to city engineering for their approval regarding seepage. Whatever we're going to say but we've done this in the past. I mean it's up to them to provide information for us. Satisfactory to us that this isn't going to be a problem. Conrad: Matt, do you want to change something? Ledvina: Not necessarily but. I've suggested in, condition 17 I stated that the ground water contamination issue be evaluated to insure protection of the water wells in the vicinity of the site. If we can also add that this issue shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the staff prior to the City Council hearing this application. I don't know, does that help? Conrad: Sure. Erhart: I seconded the motion. Batzli: Do you accept that amendment? Erhart: Fine. If you're happy, I'm happy Ladd. ' Batzli: You had another one Ladd. Ground water was one. What was your other one? Conrad: I think we've taken care of it...went back a couple time. I couldn't find it. Batzli: The 6, 7 and 13 issue. Re- evaluating. ' Conrad: Well Matt has, and I think staff has heard the issue. I don't think we need to belabor the point but it is really tying the plan to the cost and the applicant needs that but we need the plan first so we can see the cost and that's in restoration. We've got to be convinced we know what we're going to get and the applicant's got to know before this gets to City Council what's expected of them and not after. It can't wait...staff to work with the applicant. Batzli: Okay. Is there any other discussion? Ledvina moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Interim Use Permit #92 -5 for earth work, as shown on the plans dated June 5, 1992, with the waiver of the 300 foot setback, that staff 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 45 be directed to re- evaluate conditions 6, 7 and 13 with input from the applicant prior to City Council, and subject to the following conditions: ' 1. Provide staff with a copy of the access easement over the off -site haul road. 2. Prior to the start of operations, a truck entrance designed to minimize tracking of mud and debris into the right -of -way shall be constructed. Plans should be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. The operator is responsible for cleaning the public right -of -way as often as requested by the City Engineer.. "Trucks Hauling" signs shall be posted. 3. The City of Eden Prairie's Engineer shall be contacted by the operato prior to start of operations to ensure that concerns they may raise can be adequately dealt with. 1 4. Use of explosives to support this operation are prohibited. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday thru Saturday" excluding national holidays. If the city receives complaints regarding Saturday operations, the City Engineer may require that these be halted. 5. Dust control shall be the operator's responsibility. If conditions persist which make dust control ineffective, the City Engineer may require temporary halting of operations. 1 6. The applicant is required to phase site restoration in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. He should provide staff with a written phasing plan for approval. 7. The applicant shall pay an inspection fee of $900.00 and provide the city with an acceptable financial security (setter of credit or cash), in the amount of $40,000. to cover the costs of site restoration. 8. Drainage plans to be reviewed by 8onestroo Engineering prior to City II Council review. Fees for this shall be paid by the applicant. 9. Provide permanent drainage easements in favor of the city over the retention basins. Drainage calculations are to be provided to demonstrate that the ponds are properly sized. Place notice in chain -of -title that current and future owners are responsible for keeping the basins functional. When development occurs, the city would normally accept responsibility for the ponds. The applicant must demonstrate that all ponds have bottoms located in the sand layer or structured outlets will be required. A clay liner is required on the west edge of the north pond to protect the adjacent side slope. The applicant shall provide the city with an as -built grading plan of the ponds to ensure that they comply with approved specifications. 10. Provide and maintain an erosion control plan acceptable to the City Engineer. Designate black dirt stockpile areas for approval by the City Engineer. 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 46 11. Project approval by the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District is required. 12. Modify plans for the southern pond to minimize tree loss on the north side of the pond. The applicant's engineer shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that this ponding area does not disturb local drainage patterns. 13. Provide staff with an acceptable reforestation plan for the mined bluff face on the Moon Valley gravel mine site. Adequate financial guarantees to ensure that the plan is implemented upon the completion of mining shall be provided. 14. The applicant's engineer shall prepare a plan to repair erosion damage found at the two locations on the north site described in the report. This plan is to be undertaken as a condition of approval. 15. That all soil removal according to the grading plan be completed by July 1, 1993. ' 16. A plan is developed to protect trees as indicated on the plan and to maintain erosion control during construction. 17. Ground water contamination issues be evaluated to insure protection of water wells in the vicinity of the site and that this issue be resolved to the satisfaction of city staff prior to going to City ' Council. 18. Develop considerations for traffic safety on access points to the roadways involved. 19. That the applicant relinquishes future rights to future gravel mining activities or potential mining activities at the site. All voted in favor except Commissioner Farmakes who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Batzli: Your reasons. Farmakes: I just think it's premature. There's too many major unanswered questions here that if I voted for this, I guess I would be saying that it didn't make any difference what the answers to those questions would be and I think that's true. ' Batzli: Okay. Fair enough. The motion carries. When will this be at the City Council? Do we know? Krauss: It's scheduled for July 27th. That's subject, to all the ducks being in order before it goes there and I think what we'll do is we'll assure everybody that got a notice that we'll re- notify them of the meeting date. So if it's on the 27th, we'll notify you. If it's at a later date... Batzli: Okay. Thank you all for coming in. Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 47 Erhart: Can we stop for a second here Brian? I want to clarify something. For the purpose of shortening these meetings, I really question. This may be an opportune time to spend 5 minutes discussing what the function of the Planning Commission is regarding these kinds of things. Somehow I fee that maybe some of us think that we are actually writing the actual development contracts here. I don't think that's what we're doing. I I think we're a recommending body. I think we're a body that's supposed to kind of kick these things around before they get to Council. Kind of help them get some of the issues out on the table. Paul, could you be involved with this? I'm looking for, tell me if I'm wrong or right. But kick thes things around. Give staff kind of a trial balloon to get inhere and throw these things at and see what sticks. What doesn't. What the concerns are so that when it goes to Council, it's something that's...rough edges and , filed off and so forth. I question whether we're trying to get, trying to be too perfect by the time it leaves here because in fact we're just simply making recommendations and raising issues. If I'm wrong, then please II correct me. I think we're all asking these questions. My goodness, it's quarter to 11:00 and we've only gone through 2 things. Well you started before I got here but we're spending an enormous amount of time on this thing and so I don't know. What is the purpose of us? Are we trying to get everything nailed down here when it leaves? Don't our Minutes count for something? I always assumed they did. I throw the question out. Conrad: I would really debate whether the Council thoroughly digests the II Minutes that we have. The motion, the stuff that Paul, the motion that we make and the revisions to it in my mind count far more than any dialogue that we've had. We flush out the issues. Our control is to reject. We don't have much in control but we can reject. We can delay. We can turn down. We can postpone. That's our control. If we don't think that people"' have done their job prior to getting here, then our job is to get more information. Erhart: Any bad plan we should reject it and put all kinds of hurdles. 1 Farmakes: I think in that particular case with that particular applicant, all the more reason that those questions should be answered so we can do II our job and make those recommendations. For the most part I agree with what you're saying. Batzli: But see I didn't think with this particular applicant, even if well had the answers to those questions, our decision, you know what the money costs. What the dollar figure was. What these other issues were. That wouldn't have mattered. The only thing that truly would have mattered to I us probably would have been the water quality issue but the City Council can look at those findings as easily as we can. I don't know what more we could have added to that particular one you know. ' Conrad: The same dog gone things that we do. The same ones. Batzli: Oh yeah, and they'll talk about them as if we didn't cover them. 1 Conrad: Absolutely and so, if we can get staff working on some of these issues, we might as well spare the applicant a little bit. Not that we needed to in this particular case. Yet on the other hand, if the City Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 48 Council's going to cover it, we don't need to do it a second time. If we're real uncomfortable that we're giving the City Council unclear information, then we should table. We should keep it down here. If we don't think staff can get the information that they need. ' Batzli: But I don't know. I sensed Tim was kind of asking a more global question than just this last one. I think in instances of the two things we've had tonight, typically you know we don't have a lot of people here. ' When we do end up having people here, I am very loathe to cut them off. So I let everybody ramble and talk tonight that wanted to talk. Erhart: Yeah, but up here or out there? Batzli: Up here. • ' Erhart: Oh. Batzli: And that's really what made the meeting long. The beachlots have always been, we've always gotten a lot of people and they all get up and say the same thing but I don't want to be the one to shut them off because they all came here. They think what they have to say is important and I don't necessarily disagree. But if I came to this meeting and the Planning Commissioners sat up here and said, does anybody have anything new. Well no, you're going to say the same thing. Go away. I don't think we can cut that out. 1 Erhart: I wasn't getting at that. I was trying to understand, and maybe just to review, the balance between how specific this motion has to be versus what our comments are in the Minutes as it relates to what staff does when we leave this meeting and how Council reacts to what we do. That's the point I, that was the question that I had. I want to clarify in my mind and maybe for all of us. Farmakes: Well that's assuming too that the Council members don't inquire and ask us about particular things even when we're not here. If you're going to have an informed answer when you respond to them, if you have questions about something, I think you should bring those up if they're not there. On these types of situations, like the restoration plan on this particular one, it's an open ended question. What it will be. There is no plan at the end. Erhart: Yeah, I agree. Farmakes: ...based, at least I was on this particular applicant because it seems litigation follows this person like a fly on whatever. And what I'm ' saying is, the attitude that I had, at least looking at this is one of mistrust. Erhart: No, I understand. What I guess I'm trying to get at is, I think ' it's great that we each get out what we consider the issues. It gets in the Minutes. The question is, how much time should we spend on trying to structure a motion that deals with every one of the issues that each one of ' us has. I'm not too sure that that's necessary to really struggle with this motion issue because I always believed that, Jeff if you've got an Planning Commission Meeting II July 1, 1992 - Page 49 issue about one thing and it's probably backed by one or two others, even II if it doesn't get in the motion, staff takes a look at it. Particularly if they agree that it's a reasonable concern whether it's in the motion or noll I guess. Also that the Council will. Batzli: I would disagree. I would say staff ignores it. No offense. Staff ignores it and maybe one Council member catches it and they raise it ' They say, well what about this? And staff says, well only one person thought of it and they didn't even put it in the motion. Then I've been at the meetings and they say, well Brian. What did they think and I'll say, I well 3 of us raised it but it didn't get in the motion. They say, well fine then, forget it. If I get something into the motion, I have a 90% chance it's going to be approved by the City Council. If you don't get it ' into the motion, you have a 10: chance that it's going to be up to City Council. It's that clear. You change that motion. Whatever you get into that motion is going to be acted on and they act on most of what we say. S if it's not there, you don't have any chance. Batzli: And even if it's half crazed, at least then staff has to argue against it. I Conrad: You've got to fix it because he's not going to move something up that doesn't make sense. He just won't. I Erhart: How much would you expect the Council to discuss this particular one? Krauss: Well it's really going to be contingent upon how many of the I neighbors show up at the Council meeting. Erhart: Say nobody shows up. 1 Krauss: If nobody shows up and we're able to, I think we do a good job of responding to what's raised, particularly in motions. Provide the answers ' should they be raised, I think it stands every chance of getting fairly rapidly approved. In speaking for staff I think, you know you really need to ask the Council what they think and you may have the chance. I think II we're going to try to schedule them to come in here at your next meeting just to talk. They want to talk for 30 minutes or something. Batzli: They don't want to admit that they don't read the Minutes. I Krauss: I don't read the Minutes. I Batzli: Yeah I know. Krauss: Whenever we get sued we read the Minutes. 1 Erhart: You don't think they read the Minutes? Batzli: I can't, I mean you see the stack. It's this deep and they can't' be reading it all for content and digesting it. 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 50 Krauss: But the issues that we deal with are pretty complex. I don't r know, sometimes I get accused of making things more complex than they need ■ to be but I find that if I'm not, it comes back to haunt us later on. When you do that, you risk not seeing the forest through the trees or however that analogy is supposed to go, and it's useful for me to hear, you know you missed this. You've got to beef this up. Citizens raise these concerns. Some are legitimate. Some have to be responded to whether ' they're legitimate or not. And these are the answers that you've got to bring forward to tie up all the loose ends. Then we know exactly what we need to do. 1 Batzli: And here's a test. City Council members, if you're reading these Minutes, give me a phone call. Erhart: You've got $100.00 for every one that calls you. Batzli: Okay, so we'll see. Now don't you tip them off. ' Conrad: Plus, have you ever tried to read Minutes and get a consensus? Batzli: It's very difficult to read through these verbatim Minutes. ' Conrad: You can't get an idea what. You know you say some off the wall things about Communism. They don't... ' Batzli: I yearn for those days. Conrad: I know. Those were the good days. It's just hard for them to get a feel. I've always wanted to condense. Erhart: Maybe we shouldn't have verbatim Minutes anymore. When I started we didn't have them. If nobody reads them. If nobody reads them, why do we do verbatim Minutes? Batzli: Because we use them for the record later on. Erhart: If nobody reads them, who needs them? Batzli: Well we do read them later on. I mean later on, when this project blows up. We pull out the Minutes. We say, well what did this guy. Farmakes: 10 years from now they know who to blame for the problem. Batzli: Your 5 minutes are up. But I agree. To the extent that we can shorten and /or otherwise reduce our time before the mics, we'll do that. ' PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE. CHAPTER 20, CONCERNING ALLOWED USES IN THE BH., HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS DISTRICT. Paul Krauss 'presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli wanted the record to show there was no one present for this public hearing. 1 1 Carver Soil and Water Conservation District 219 East Frontage Road Waconia, MN. 55387 442 -5101 1 TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director FROM: Chip Hentges, District Technician DATE: June 16th, 1992 1 RE: Review of Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control for Interim Use Permit, Tom Zwiers, Moon Valley Aggregate. Staff from the Carver SWCD has reviewed the above referenced pro3ect. The following comment and recommendations to control erosion and water quality are offered for your considerations. 1. Question the idea of excavating thru the clay barrier to the sandy underline areas for the holding ponds. This would allow for excessive rates to seep to groundwater, which before excavation was not the case. Does the city have a provision for slowing down the rate of surface water to ground water? It would be highly recommended to slow the rate of seepage to groundwater. Also the elevation to show excavation depths on the plan map are incorrect. 2. Fertilizer should be required at the recommended rate 1 for the grass mix. 3. Mulch should be added at the rate of 3,000 to 4,000 pounds /acre - or 80 to 90% ground cover. I also recommend that clean straw be used, because cheap grassy hay will 5ust cut in two with a mulching disk. When it is mulched and disked properly, it should look like a field of oats stubble. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 442 -5101 JUN 1 9 1992 7 1 CITYOF 1 1' 1 � CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director ' FROM:: Dave Hemel Sr. Engineering Technician FROM:: Hempel, S g g 0 DATE: June 23, 1992 SUBJ: Interim Use Permit for Earthwork Mining of Gravel Pit North of Moon Valley Grading Permit No. 92 -6 1 Upon review of the grading, drainage and erosion control plan prepared by Sathre - Bergquist dated June 5, 1992, I offer the following comments and recommendations: 1 1. The parcel appears to be landlocked. It is assumed that a private driveway easement or similar form of access is be provided by the adjacent property owners. Removal 1 of the excavated material may cause concerns for noise abatement as well as dust control. The applicant should address these specific concerns as well as traffic circulation onto Pioneer Trail (County Road 14). 1 2. The site is located outside the MUSA line and will be dependent upon well and septic systems until sanitary sewer and water service is available from Eden Prairie. 1 There is a concern for acceptable septic sites on the parcel. According to the City's Building Department, those areas disturbed by earthwork activities will be unacceptable for septic sites. - 1 3. Both storm water ondin areas are proposed to act as detention basins to allow P g P ro P water to seep back into the ground versus overland flow through the ravines which have been severely eroded over the past years. Although staff appears comfortable with this idea, routine maintenance of the ponds will be necessary to insure proper seepage as sediments build up on the bottom. The side slopes around the pond appear to be acceptable. They range from 5:1 to 3.5:1 side slopes. 4. The plans propose no tree removal; however, staff recommends that construction limits be staked in the field to protect the trees. 1 t4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 Paul Krauss 1 June 23, 1992 Page 2 1 5. Although it does not appear that hauling activities will affect the City of I Chanhassen's streets, the applicant should supply a defined haul route and traffic control provisions. 6. Erosion control is proposed around the perimeter of the detention ponds. Staff 1 recommends Type I erosion control fence with a detail provided on the grading plan. 7. It appears the site will be developed in phases over a period of time. The plans 1 should incorporate a phasing approach along with the anticipated schedule of events. The applicant's engineer should determine estimated quantities to be excavated in I order to compute a permit fee based on the UBC fee schedule. 8. The northerly storm water detention pond is fairly close to the abandoned rail line. I The northerly pond slope should be constructed with clay liner to prevent seepage on the northerly slope which may weaken the structural capabilities of the berm between the pond and the abandoned railroad tracks. 1 9. The applicant shall apply for, receive and comply with the Watershed District permit. 10. If earthwork continues past the freeze -up period of November 15, more stringent I erosion control measures may be required. It is recommended that all disturbed areas be seeded and mulched by September 15 each year and that excavation beyond 1 that date be to a minimum. ktm 1 c: Charles Folch, City Engineer 1 1 1 1 1 1 JUN 24 '92 02 :25PM SPINr CENTER P.1 1 1 John & Ann Lonstein, 9861 Deerbrook Drive, Chanhassen, MN. 55317. Paul Krauss, Planning Director, Chanhassen. Dear Mr. Krauss, I am replying to your notice of the hearing to consider the application of Tom Zwiers for an interim use permit for earth work /mining of a gravel pit, located north of Hwy.212 and east of the Chicago and Northwestern Railway. I am unable to attend the meeting as I will be out of the Country, and thus am writing to you with my input. I 1 am currently completing builing in Deerbrook, looks the proposed mining site. During the construction, we, together with your inspectors have been ' concerned with the bluff in the area, and have done everything possible to maintain this natural topography. We are very concerned with soil erosion, and thus will plant on the land to prevent this. Your strict rules point to your concern in this area. It is thus with surprise that I see that you are considering this application which will denude and deforest the land, and set the area up for a major erosion problem. My second and obvious objection is to the work which will be adjacent to my property. This will increase ' the noise, and clear the land of all the growth. In addition to the erosion as discussed above, the cleared land will spoil my view, which today is of a valley of growth. In addition the changed view, and the erosion will lead to a loss in the value of my property. I am sorry that I will not be at the meeting to bring up these paints personally, so I ask you to read this this letter into the minutes and for discussion. You may reach me during the day at 332 -3843, and evenings at 546 - 1047 if you would like to discuss this with me. Thank you, 1 )c.,1 fIC45:&::b*4 1 1 JUN 24 '92 82 :23PM SPINr CENTER P.1 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED INTERIM USE PERMIT CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 NOTICE IS HEREBY OWEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, July 1, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen 1 City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the application of Tom Zwiers for an interim use permit for earth work/mining of a gravel pit, located north of Hwy. 212 and east of the Chicago and Northwestern Railway. 1 A plan showing the proposed earthwork and location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. 1 All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Paul Krauss, Planning Director 1 Phone: 937 -1900 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on June 18, 1992) 1 1 137 c 7 37 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Carver Soil and Water Conservation District 219 East Frontage Road Waconia, MN. 5538? 442 -5101 • TO: Paul Krauss, Plannin g Director FROM: Chip Hentges, District Technician DATE: June 16th, 1992 RE: Review of Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control for Interim Use Permit, Tom Zwiers, Moon Valley Aggregate. Staff from the Carver SWCD has reviewed the above referenced ' project. The following comment and recommendations to control erosion and water quality are offered for your considerations. 1. Question the idea of excavating thru the clay barrier to the sandy underline areas for the holding ponds. This would allow for excessive rates to seep to groundwater, which before excavation was not the case. Does the city have a provision for slowing down the rate of surface water to ground water? It would be highly recommended to slow the rate of seepage to groundwater. Also the elevation to show excavation depths on the plan map are incorrect. 2. Fertilizer should be required at the recommended rate for the grass mix. ' 3. Mulch should be added at the rate of 3,000 to 4,000 pounds /acre - or 80 to 90% ground cover. I also ' recommend that clean straw be used, because cheap grassy hay will just cut in two with a mulching disk. When it is mulched and disked properly, it should look like a field of oats stubble. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 442 -5101 RECEIVED JUN 1 9 1992 ' CITY OF CNkiNhA SEN: C ITYOF 7 s 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEMORANDUM t,0 P, 1 NodllRed TO: Planning Commission ftpvted a , ' VIM FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director at., suemn>aa to Comrnissiott Ik Submitted to Council 1 DATE: May 27, 1992 SUBJ: Moon Valley Proposal 1 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY The applicant is requesting an earth work permit to continue a pre - existing sand and gravel 1 mining operation located along the Minnesota River bluff line between Hwy. 169 /212 and the former Chicago, Northwestern Railway right -of -way. This request has an extensive history. 1 While the grading operation has been in existence for some time, the city has become involved only recently. In 1987, the city responded to a related mining operation located off - site along Pioneer Trail. The city believed that mining in this area was illegal since no permit had been obtained. The City Attorney sent a letter asking that work be stopped and the site has been inactive since then. In 1990, responding to several complaints about the primary Moon Valley operation, but more importantly to the fact that city ordinances pertaining to grading and mining were extremely inadequate and were presenting administrative problems for staff, a new grading and mining ordinance was developed and adopted for the city. The Moon Valley operator was represented in these hearings and has subsequently been extensively involved with city staff. The Moon Valley operator has litigated a series of aspects of the city ordinance which required the operator to obtain a permit. This matter was ultimately resolved by a judge's order, which indicated that the city has the right to require a permit and that the non- conformity applicable to the Moon Valley operation only applies to the original property and not other properties since acquired by the operator. The court order further stipulates that the applicant is entitled to continue mining on this site and the city may only impose such conditions as related to public health and safety. Extensive back up information on the history of this request and related litigation is attached to this report, as well as related materials such as Judge Kanning's order, information from the City Attorney, and other 1 materials. 1 t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 2 ' Staff has found this to be an unusually difficult and complex request to review. The litigation brought by the operator contributes to a portion of this difficulty. However, it is made even more complex by several factors. If this request were brought to us today as a new ' application, there is little doubt in my mind that staff would recommend its denial and that the Planning Commission and City Council would likely agree. Mining on this site is extremely destructive to a rare natural resource that exists in the Minnesota River bluff line. ' The city has already gone on record indicating our concern with this resource in the adoption of our Bluff Line Preservation District. This site also has potential to impact the U. S. Fish and Wildlife's River Valley National Wildlife Refuge, which is located across the highway ' from the site. Additionally, a review of any such proposal would likely require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and would follow guidelines established by city ordinances. 111 However, having said that, we acknowledge that the applicant does have the authority to continue operating on this site. We further note that in spite of the belligerent attitudes that have often been expressed by the operator and his legal counsel, I have had numerous opportunities to visit with the Moon Valley operator and found him to generally be a responsible businessman. Mr. Zwiers, who is the operator /applicant for Moon Valley, has ' attempted to responsibly manage aspects of his operation. For example, he has installed a sedimentation basin on the site to respond to erosion control problems that exist in the area. We are not certain that the pond is effective or appropriately designed, but the fact that he has taken steps to install one without being forced to do so by the city or other agencies is, I believe, significant. ' Processing this request is made even more difficult by the poorly developed and minimal plans and information that have been submitted for the city's review. The initial submittal was so poor that it took a court order to sort out which plan was actually being presented'for review. Last September, the city actually received two completely different plans for grading on this site, with no indication as to which one was actually being proposed. Additional ' information has been provided since then, however, it was only done to the most modest extent possible to meet the guidelines established by the judge's order. Therefore, in many instances we are obligated to recommend conditions outlining additional information that must be provided to adhere to the health and safety issue guidelines established by the judge. Our concerns generally fall to several areas. These include: 1. Drainage and erosion control measures designed to manage the site to result in the least possible impact downstream. 2. Access and traffic safety concerns due to the high traffic volumes on adjacent Hwy. 169/212. 1 Planning Commission I Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 1 Page 3 3. Mitigation of noise and dust impacts. 1 4. Maintenance of safe and manageable slopes and elimination of grading on off -site properties and potential for undermining grades on off -site properties. 1 5. Protection of ground water resources. 6. Establishment of procedures for periodic review. I 7. Establishment of an acceptable end -use plan to ensure that the site will be left in a I reasonable and environmentally safe condition. 8. Provision of sufficient financial guarantees to ensure compliance with conditions 1 should the operator fail to do so or be in a position where he is unable to do so. As we indicated above, had we had a clean sheet of paper to start with, we would have 1 approached this request in a completely different manner. However, we are now in this position and we believe must make the best of the cards we are dealt. Therefore, we are I recommending that the earth work permit be approved subject to the conditions outlined in this report. Staff has developed conditions which we believe will address the concerns outlined above. We also note that we expect to have a related mining application for the I north parcel at an upcoming meeting, as negotiations are currently in process with the operator. Some elements of the two sites should be coordinated when this review occurs. Planning and engineering staff have toured the site with the operator and find we are in I general agreement over how the parcel should best be managed. The operator is retaining the services of a new consultant to develop the plan for this area and, at this time, we hope that the review of the expected proposal will occur without the rancor that has been associated ' with this current request. BA CKGROUND 1 • Pre -1970 - The Moon Valley gravel pit existed as a small scale operation. The property also accommodated a rifle range and ski hill equipped with a tow. The rifle I range continues to be utilized. Ownership of the mining operation changed hands. The scale of the operation was I greatly expanded in the 1970s. • 1987 - The city became aware of the mining of clay on a new parcel located above 1 the bluff line with access to Pioneer Trail. The city took action to halt this activity 1 1 1 Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 1 Page 4 since it was undertaken without a permit. No further activity has occurred in this area. 1 The site of the excavation has not been restored. Late 1989 -early 1990 - The city received several complaints regarding grading 1 activities at the Moon Valley site from area residents. A review of city ordinances revealed that the city had little or no review authority over Moon Valley. A further review indicated that the ordinance inadequately dealt with not only mining but all I aspects of grading activity. At the City Council's request, staff and the City Attorney developed a comprehensive ordinance dealing with all related activities. 1 The ordinance established that uses such as Moon Valley that predated the ordinance, had six months to obtain a permit. The Moon Valley operation and legal counsel were I involved with discussions pertaining to the drafting of the ordinance and while they may or may not have agreed with the text, they were fully familiar with its provisions. I • 5/14/90 - The new ordinance was adopted as Article III, Excavating, Mining, Filling, and Grading in Chapter 7 of the City Code. I • 1990 -1991 - Moon Valley operator was notified on several occasions by registered mail of the need to obtain a permit. Rather than comply, the Moon Valley operator sought a Declaration Judgement Action on October 1, 1990, maintaining that I Ordinance No. 128 was an illegal exercise of Chanhassen's police power. The city filed a counter claim that due to Moon Valley's failure to obtain a permit, it should be shut down. I • 4/25/91 - Judge Kanning found that the city had the right to require that a permit be obtained and gave the applicant 30 days to submit an application. The city's request 1 to close the operation was essentially continued to give the operator time to respond. • Spring/Summer/Fall, 1991 - The city granted the operator several delays to prepare 111 the application. A number of meetings were held during which staff was led to believe that a good faith effort was being made. 1 • 10/1/91 - Staff reviewed the permit application and found it to be significantly lacking in content and substance. The Planning Director rejected the application. One I fundamental flaw was that two completely different plans were submitted. One plan indicated a "dig to China" scenario which totally eliminated the bluff line and expanded the operation onto adjoining parcels and into Eden Prairie. Staff confirmed I that the City of Eden Prairie was never approached by the Moon Valley operator. The other plan was marginally better. It was unclear as to which plan was being proposed, 1 1 1 Planning Commission 1 Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 1 Page 5 although it was implied that the city could "earn" the better plan by being "reasonable" with Moon Valley. 1 • 10/14/91 - The city adopted a Minnesota River Bluff Line Preservation ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance was to recognize the environmental sensitivity and importance of the Minnesota River bluff line. The protection area is defined by an official map and the ordinance prohibits most activities from the area. • November, 1991 - The case went back to Judge Kanning. His findings were released April 2, 1992. Essentially, he found that: The operator /applicant had non - conforming rights on the south parcel (original mine). The city never contested this point. - The judge found that the non - conformity did not include the north parcel along Pioneer Trail. 1 The operator /applicant was allowed to continue mining the main pit but was given 30 days to submit the application. 1 The judge felt that Plan "B ", the better of the two plans, was the basis of the permit submittal. 1 - The city may impose conditions on the permit but only to the extent that health and safety are to be protected. • May, 1991 - The operator /applicant submitted additional information. Only minor changes were made to comply with the most limited interpretation of Judge Kanning's 1 order. In addition, information on ground water elevations, which trial evidence indicated had been withheld by the applicant, was submitted. Staff and the City Attorney met with the applicant. They indicated ty y pp ey Gated a continuing desire to mine the north parcel along Pioneer Trail. Staff indicated that a separate application would be required for the north parcel and that all submittal requirements outlined by city ordinances must be met. We further indicated that based upon the court order which differentiates between the status of the northern and southern 111 parcels, we wanted to process the requests separately. This was later confirmed in a letter from the Planning Director. 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 1 Page 6 • May 20, 1992 - Rather than respond as outlined by staff, the Moon Valley operator 1 asked Judge Kanning to meet to clarify the court order. It was their continued contention that the judge approved grading on the north parcel. 1 Judge Kanning agreed with the city that this was not the case. Grading activity on the north parcel must comply with all city ordinances and permit requirements. 1 SITE CHARACTERISTICS The site is deviated into two distinct areas that have been commonly described as the 1 southern and northern parcels. I The southern 39 acre parcel is the site of the original mining activity and continues to be the primary focus of this activity. It also contains the Moon Valley Rifle Range which is located in the southeast corner of the site along with several out - buildings associated with the mining I that are found in the same general area. The entire southern parcel is part of the Minnesota bluff line system. Elevations range from I 915' at the top of the bluff to 718' near Hwy. 169 /212. The terrain is very rugged as is common along the bluff line and there area a series of ridges and draws. Mining activity is significant and much of the site has been extensively altered. The area was heavily forested, I however, the remaining large stands of trees are found only along the upper reaches of the bluff, where mining has yet to occur. I The northern parcel, which is not the subject of the current request, covers 45 acres. It contains a large area, reasonably flat, that was formerly farmed. The heavily wooded bluff line starts on the southern Vs of this parcel. There are several ravines leading down from the 1 former farm field that are experiencing significant erosion. Surrounding uses include: I •North: Pioneer Trail and large lot residential development in Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. I •South: Hwy. 169/212. The Minnesota Valle National Wildlife Refuge is located �'Y Y g I south of the highway. •East: Eden Prairie, vacant bluff line and low density residential. 1 •West: Vacant bluff line and low density residential along the bluff line. There is a second residential pocket located adjacent to the west line of Moon Valley with four homes 1 1 Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 7 1 on a private drive with access to Hwy. 169/212. It is separated from the mining operation by a creek and a 100' high ridge line. 1 GENERAL COMMENTS It has been our normal practice to review mining requests in accordance with the standards 1 outlined by the ordinance. In this case, due to the non - conforming status and court order, we are restricting the review of items related solely to health and safety issues. We believe these 111 issues include the following: 1. Drainage and erosion control measures designed to: 1 - prevent erosion and unstable slopes - prevent pollution and sedimentation in the Minnesota River Valley and Wildlife Refuge - prevent tracking debris out onto area roads creating unsafe conditions 2. Access and traffic safety concerns. 1 3. Mitigation of noise and dust impacts. 4. Maintenance of safe and manageable slopes and/or use of protective signing and fencing where appropriate. In a related concern, Exhibit B1 indicates mining activity occurring off -site on the adjacent parcel to the north. The plan should be revised to eliminate this inconsistency. If grading is proposed off -site, separate applications are required. As we indicated earlier, a follow up application is expected. 1 5. Establishment of procedures for periodic review, interim site stabilization and erosion control practices. Since the mining activity varies from year to year, and is contingent upon market demand, periodic review and management plan updating is mandatory. 6. Provision of sufficient financial guarantees and permit fees to ensure that the site is properly maintained and inspected, and can be restored if the applicant fails to acceptably comply with approved conditions. 7. Protection of ground water resources. 8. Establishment of an acceptable end -use plan that will ensure the site is left in a 1 reasonable, environmentally safe condition. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL 1 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 1 Page 8 Submitted plans provide little information on how issues pertaining to drainage and erosion I control will be managed. The City Engineer's report concludes that the soils found on this property represent a severe erosion hazard. The only information on erosion control provided I by the applicant is located on Page 15 of the original mining application from September, 1991. The booklet states that a certain amount of sand erosion is inevitable and attempts will be made to retain as much of this sediment on -site as possible. 1 We note that it is difficult, if not impossible, to use traditional techniques of erosion control on an operation such as this. Slopes are steep and often unstable, and ground cover has not ' been established on any of the mined areas. Thus, it is imperative that all drainage from the mined area be directed into a sedimentation basin or basins which are properly designed and maintained so that water can be treated before being sent off -site. We note that the applicant I has made some attempts to respond to this concern and there is a centrally located sedimentation basin on the site. Due to the mining and remaining natural grades, most water drains to a central location. Staff is unclear as to what design specifications this pond was I built to, if it is regularly maintained, or if it is effective. We note that there is evidence of significant erosion impacting the Rice Lake area located in the National Wildlife Refuge. A culvert leading from Moon Valley under the highway towards the lake has apparently been I plugged on occasion with sediment from this area and a visual inspection indicates that there is a sediment delta and erosion extending from that pipe down into the lake. There is a lot of excellent information available on managing sedimentation. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency manual entitled, "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" and the Board of Water and Soil Resources manual entitled, "Minnesota Construction Site, Erosion, 1 and Sediment Control Handbook" are excellent sources that the city has been using with good results on other sites over the past year. In addition, we note that the City of Chanhassen is obligated by the Metropolitan Council to utilize "Best Management Practices" for surface 1 • water runoff under our recently approved Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, we are recommending that the applicant submit plans designed to specifications outlined in these manuals within 30 days of approval to city staff for approval as a condition of granting this I permit. The plans should be prepared by a registered engineer. On -site retention should be sufficient to retain a 100 year storm event and designed to maximize sedimentation I efficiencies. Secondly, there must be a management plan accompanying this data since it may be necessary to incorporate the use of various techniques to ensure that storm water is directed into this pond, it will be necessary to periodically dredge the sediment and material I from the bottom of the pond and properly dispose of it to ensure its continued operating efficiency. We also recognize that from time to time the applicant may wish to relocate the sedimentation basin to facilitate his on -site operations. Staff is willing to work with him in I this regard so long as we have a revised drainage and erosion control plan that is kept current and complied with in the field. In all likelihood, the pond will require a structured outlet to ensure that sediment material remains in the pond and is not flushed through with storm 1 • 1 Planning Commission ' Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 9 , water. In addition, we note that overland outletting of the pond without a structured outlet seems to result in additional erosion downstream which should be resolved. , A second erosion control problem concerns trucks hauling from the site tracking out large amounts of debris onto the adjacent highway. When this situation occurs, it contributes to degrading traffic safety on the roadway, and in addition, is an erosion problem since all of this material eventually washes into Rice Lake. Staff has been contacted by MNDOT who have expressed concern over these conditions. Staff is therefore recommending that the driveway entrance be paved with a bituminous surface or be designed to incorporate a gravel construction access. Either measure is designed to ensure that material is removed from the trucks tires before it exits out onto the adjacent highway. In addition, the applicant should be required to remove any material that does make it out onto the highway by contacting MNDOT and arranging to undertake cleaning or by reimbursing MNDOT for costs associated with cleaning. The proposed grading activity will expose extremely steep slopes to extensive erosion. The erosion will not only be caused by steep slopes, but also due to the fact that all vegetative cover has been removed. The information submitted by the applicant provides virtually no information on how this site would be revegetated. On Page 17, it indicates that top soil will be stripped and stockpiled and re- spread with a MNDOT seed mixture. We believe that this plan needs to be expanded upon with specific information provided as to site stabilization prior to the completion of mining activity, as well as site landscaping at ultimate completion. Due to our interpretation of Judge Kanning's order, we are not likely to be in a position to require wholesale reforestation to achieve bluff line preservation. However, it is unreasonable to think that the city should accept 100 foot high, 2.5 to 1 slopes, with the only improvement being the spreading of a little top soil and grass seed. This simply will not hold. Staff is recommending that an erosion control plan, prepared by a registered engineer, be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. This plan should include stepping of grades where necessary 1 to retard overland storm water flows, utilization of fiber mats, mulches, or other techniques, to facilitate the growth of ground cover, as well as utilization of trees which perform a valuable function in establishing root systems to retain slopes on steep grades. 1 ACCESS/TRAFFIC SAFETY CONCERNS Highway 169/212 provides the sole access into the site. Traffic volumes are high and the g Y P g design standard of the roadway is relatively poor. Ultimately, some of this traffic will be displaced to new Hwy. 212 around the end of the decade, but until that time occurs, local traffic conditions will continue to be poor. We have discussed this matter with MNDOT and are recommending that a deceleration/acceleration lane be provided on westbound Hwy. 169/212 to allow trucks 1 1 1 Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit 1 May 27, 1992 Page 10 1 entering and leaving the site to do so without causing undue disruptions to traffic flow. MNDOT has proposed that this be accomplished by shifting the access point to the northeast and constructing a new deceleration lane. Shifting the access improves upon an existing westbound acceleration lane. They have also requested that brush located around the access be cut back to improve sight distance. An appropriate design should be prepared by a registered engineer and submitted to MNDOT for approval. Staff would also prefer to be in a position of requiring the construction of a eastbound by -pass lane on the highway to service a ' single purpose as outlined above. However, construction of a by -pass lane would appear to impact lands located within the National Wildlife Refuge, therefore, this is not being 1 recommended by staff at this time. NOISE AND DUST IMPACTS 1 At the present time, staff is not aware of any ongoing issues pertaining to noise and dust impacts. This operation is one that obviously generates large amounts of noise and dust; however, this site is generally shielded from most off -site impacts by surrounding terrain. If noise complaints materialize, this city should reserve the right to bring this matter up during the annual review and renewal of the mining permit. Should this situation occur, we would ' expect the applicant to respond in a positive manner to help resolve apparent problems. Likewise, staff is not aware of serious problems with off -site problems due to lack of dust control. However, if during the course of operation blowing dust does become a problem off- site, a condition is being proposed that would allow the city to require the applicant to undertake measures such as watering to minimize impacts. 1 MAINTENANCE OF SAFE AND MANAGEABLE SLOPES The applicant has essentially given the city an end -state grading plan but there are no interim 1 plans being proposed. In submitted materials, the applicant indicates that he reserves the right to remove saleable material anytime and anywhere it is located on the property. They believe that they are simply obligated to return the site to acceptable grades once the activity is completed. While we understand the operator's desire to maximize utilization of the site, this does raise concerns that he should be obligated to respond to. We note that the applicant's ability to mine under this permit is limited to the site in question. There should be no instances where grading activity on this site undermines existing grades located on adjacent properties. Therefore,. we are recommending a condition that in no case should excavated ' slopes exceed 1.5 to 1 side slopes when grading occurs within 100 feet of a property line. Steep slopes on the site represent a potential safety hazard for unsuspecting people entering the area. The applicant has shown staff his attempts to post notice of hazards where steep slopes exist on the current operations. Staff is recommending that when excavation exceeds 1 1 Planning Commission 1 Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 11 2.5 to 1 slopes, a temporary snow fence should be installed at the top of the slope equipped with appropriate signage to promote safety. The plan request entitled, "Exhibit B l ", which has been submitted for this application, indicates substantial grading in the northeast corner of the site which is actually located on the adjoining parcel to the north. It is the city's contention, consistent with Judge Kanning's ruling, that any grading activity on the north parcel will be treated as a separate request. We have informed the applicant on several occasions that this is in fact the case. Staff has held discussions with the Moon Valley operator related to potential modest mining activity on the adjacent parcel to the north. While we acknowledge that the grading activity that has been described verbally to staff, in conjunction with remedying existing erosion problems in this area seems to be reasonable, we are requiring that a separate permit application be filed for this area and be processed according to all of the standards and guidelines provided by the city ordinances. Judge Kanning was quite explicit to the effect that the non - conformity which exists for the Moon Valley operation does not apply to the northern parcel. Thus, a revised "B1" plan submittal showing maintenance of surrounding grades with mining activity occurring solely on the existing Moon Valley parcel should be provided as a condition of permit approval. PROTECTION OF GROUND WATER RESOURCES One of staff's primary concerns with mining activity on this site is that unconstrained mining 1 could actually daylight ground water supplies in the area. This could have potentially disastrous results for polluting ground water resources. For example, it is concern over ground water resources that has resulted in communities actively participating in programs to cap off old drinking wells since these can provide a direct route for pollutants into the water table. In fact, there is a related issue on this site since there are operating wells located on the site. Steps should be taken to protect these wells and permanently cap them off when they are no longer in use. The applicant had some information on ground water supplies that was initially held from city 1 staff. The judge ordered that this material be provided and staff has had an opportunity to review it. We believe that the proposed mining is acceptable relative to ground water resources so long as mining never daylights the water table. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROCEDURES FOR PERIODIC REVIEW, INTERIM SITE STABILIZATION AND EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES The Moon Valley operator has indicated that they reserve the right to mine all resources found on the property and would only guarantee that the end -use plan, as approved by the city, will be the result when mining activity is completed. This presents a number of 1 Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 ' Page 12 significant problems for the city if it is to ensure that conditions appropriate to protecting health and safety are maintained. Therefore, we are proposing the following: 1. The site will be subject to annual review by the City Engineer, and inspections to ensure compliance with conditions appropriate to ensuring health and safety. When problems arise, the matter shall be referred to the City Council for action. Fees are to be based upon the schedule provided in the Uniform Building Code. The initial $400 paid on this permit request shall be deducted from the first year's fees. 2. As indicated earlier, the operator should be required to maintain erosion control ' facilities on -site. When it is necessary to relocate these facilities due to mining operations, the applicant shall present the city with an engineered plan demonstrating how sedimentation and erosion control practices are going to be dealt with and then comply with plans approved by the City Engineer. 3. Provide the city with a revised end -use plan consistent with all conditions of approval. 4. The applicant should be required to maintain a letter of credit or cash escrow in the ' amount of $51 ,000 to guarantee maintenance of erosion control and site restoration, should he fail to adhere to approve conditions for this permit. This is a major concern of staff's. The applicant's primary interest in the site at this time is to mine sand and gravel and it may or may not be in his best interests to comply with approved conditions of permit approval and/or with the end -use plan. Staff could not reasonably ask the City Council to place their assurances in the operator's stated intentions for the site and it is normal city practice to require this sort of financial guarantee. Financial guarantees shall only be released after an as built grading plan is submitted to ensure that the approved end -use plan has been satisfactorily completed. ' One of the primary goals of the city's management program for grading and mining is to ensure that the site is left in a condition that is consistent with project use under the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In this instance, the Comprehensive Plan does not provide a significant amount of guidance since this area is well beyond the MUSA boundary. The use being proposed by the applicant is large lot residential which is probably the most reasonable guess at this time. Over the years, as the area further develops, the city ' may find it reasonable to look at other proposals for this site. Exhibit B1 is the proposed end -use plan for the Moon Valley site. The plan shows a total of 12 large lot residential sites. We should note that this density exceeds adopted Metropolitan Council guidelines, which dictate a maximum density of 1 unit per 10 acres, however, we 1 1 1 Planning Commission 1 Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 1 Page 13 also acknowledge that it is difficult to anticipate what may occur far into the future when this area actually does develop. This proposed subdivision would be located in a huge bowl. It 1 would be surrounded on virtually all sides by steep 2 to 1 slopes which are impossible to mow or otherwise manage. These slopes would tower 100 feet above the home sites and would be completely devoid of any significant vegetation. In staff's opinion, this subdivision, should it ever occur, would be a dreadful place in which to live. However, under the limitations imposed on us by the non - conforming status of the Moon Valley operation, constraining mining activity based upon future use is probably beyond what the city is in a position to uphold. At the same time, we acknowledge that while this end -use plan does not represent an 1 acceptable residential environment, it is a significant improvement over the lunar landscape that has been left by mining operators for example, in the city of Maple Grove. Staff finds that we are in the uncomfortable position of not particularly- caring for the end -use plan, but having relatively little that we feel we can do about it. We believe that the best we can manage at this point is to ensure that adequate financial guarantees are provided to ensure that the site is left in an acceptable manner in accordance with Exhibit B1. The retention pond located on the property should be reviewed, sized, and designed by a registered engineer with plans submitted to the City Engineer for approval. The applicant will be required to indicate how he is progressing towards achieving the end -use plan. Mining activity that significantly comprises the end -use plan, in the opinion of the City Engineer, would not be permitted. RECOMMENDATION 1 Staff recommends that the earth work permit for the Moon Valley operation be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Within 30 days of approval, the applicant shall submit drainage and erosion control 1 plans to the City Engineer for review and approval. Plans should be developed by a professional engineer in accordance with MICA and BWSR manuals. Plans shall include: 1 • Erosion control practices • Designs of 'temporary and final basins, inlet/outlet structures, etc. Final pond design shall comply with NURP guidelines to maintain water quality. They shall be designed to maintain quality. They shall be designed to accommodate a 100 year storm event. 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 14 • The plan shall describe management practices required to effectively operate 1 • drainage and erosion control practices. It shall be the operator's responsibility to maintain these measures in an effective and operative condition. • Provide a phased plan for site restoration/establishment of ground cover and vegetation. All disturbed areas to be restored with topsoil, seed mulch and/or wood fiber blanket and trees as required to prevent erosion. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to keep drainage and erosion control plans current. When mining operations require relocation of the pond(s) and/or alterations to erosion control measures, these shall not be undertaken without prior written approval by the City Engineer. 1 2. Within 30 days of approval, provide an engineered construction access designed to minimize tracking mud and debris out onto Hwy. 169/212. Work with MNDOT to relocate the access point to the northeast to improve the westbound acceleration lane on the highway and provide a deceleration lane for truck movements. During the course of mining operations any material or debris tracked onto the ' highway shall be promptly removed by the operator to eliminate a potential traffic hazard. 1 Brush located around the access point shall be cut back to improve sight distance. 3. If noise or dust impacts materialize, the operator shall work with the city to positively respond to these issues. 4. Modify the grading plan to eliminate off -site mining/grading that is presently : illustrated on Plan B1. To avoid under - cutting of off -site slopes, in no case should excavated slopes exceed a 1.5 to 1 grade within 100 feet of a properly line at any time. When excavations exceed 2.5 to 1 slopes, temporary snow fencing and signage is required at the top of the grade to make individuals aware of hazardous conditions in the area. 5. No mining will be allowed to take place which daylights groundwater resources. The operator will protect existing on -site wells and will permanently cap them off when ' they are no longer in use. 6. The site will be subject to annual review by the City Engineer, and inspections to t ensure compliance with conditions appropriate to ensuring health and safety. When problems arise, the matter shall be referred to the City Council for action. Fees are to 1 Planning Commission 1 Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 15 be based upon the schedule provided in the Uniform Building Code. The initial $400 paid on this permit request shall be deducted from the first year's fees. 7. Provide the city with a revised end -use plan consistent with all conditions of approval. 1 8. The applicant should be required to maintain a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $51 ,000 to guarantee maintenance of erosion control and site restoration, I should he fail to adhere to approve conditions for this permit. This is a major concern of staff's. The applicant's primary interest in the site at this time is to mine sand and gravel and it may or may not be in his best interests to comply with approved conditions of permit approval and/or with the end -use plan. Staff could not reasonably ask the City Council to place their assurances in the operator's stated intentions for the site and it is normal city practice to require this sort of financial guarantee. Financial guarantees shall only be released after an as built grading plan is submitted to ensure that the approved end -use plan has been satisfactorily completed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION At the June 3, 1992, Planning Commission meeting, the Moon Valley proposal was reviewed. After staff gave their comments, the applicant's attorney spoke. He continued to question the city's ability to regulate Moon Valley as outlined by staff and objected to most, if not all, of the conditions. The Planning Commission discussed the matter briefly. Given the background of the use and 1 the applicant's position as related by his attorney, the commission saw no need to explore the matter further. They unanimously recommended approval of the earth work permit subject to I conditions in the staff report. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the earth work permit for the Moon Valley operation be approved subject to the following conditions: 1 1. Within 30 days of approval, the applicant shall submit drainage and erosion control plans to the City Engineer for review and approval. Plans should be developed by a professional engineer in accordance with MICA and BWSR manuals. Plans shall include: _ • Erosion control practices I 1 Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 1 Page 16 • Designs of temporary and final basins, inlet/outlet structures, etc. Final pond design shall comply with NURP guidelines to maintain water quality. They shall be designed to maintain quality. They shall be designed to accommodate a 100 year storm event. ■ • The plan shall describe management practices required to effectively operate drainage and erosion control practices. It shall be the operator's responsibility ' to maintain these measures in an effective and operative condition. • Provide a phased plan for site restoration/establishment of ground cover and vegetation. All disturbed areas to be restored with topsoil, seed mulch and/or wood fiber blanket and trees as required to prevent erosion. 1 It shall be the applicant's responsibility to keep drainage and erosion control plans current. When mining operations require relocation of the pond(s) and/or alterations to erosion control measures, these shall not be undertaken without prior written t approval by the City Engineer. 2. Within 30 days of approval, provide an engineered construction access designed to minimize tracking mud and debris out onto Hwy. 169/212. Work with MNDOT to relocate the access point to the northeast to improve the westbound acceleration lane on the highway and provide a deceleration lane for truck movements. During the course of mining operations any material or debris tracked onto the highway shall be promptly removed by the operator to eliminate a potential traffic hazard. Brush located around the access point shall be cut back to improve sight distance. 3. If noise or dust impacts materialize, the operator shall work with the city to positively respond to these issues. 4. Modify the grading plan to eliminate off -site mining/grading that is presently I illustrated on Plan B 1. To avoid under- cutting of off -site slopes, in no case should excavated slopes exceed a 1.5 to 1 grade within 100 feet of a properly line at any time. When excavations exceed 2.5 to 1 slopes, temporary snow fencing and signage ' is required at the top of the grade to make individuals aware of hazardous conditions in the area. 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission I Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 1 Page 17 5. No mining will be allowed to take place which daylights groundwater resources. The 1 operator will protect existing on -site wells and will permanently cap them off when they are no longer in use. 6. The site will be subject to annual review by the City Engineer, and inspections to t3' g P� ensure compliance with conditions appropriate to ensuring health and safety. When problems arise, the matter shall be referred to the City Council for action. Fees are to I be based upon the schedule provided in the Uniform Building Code. The initial $400 paid on this permit request shall be deducted from the first year's fees. 7. Provide the city with a revised end -use plan consistent with all conditions of approval. 8. The applicant should be required to maintain a letter of credit or cash escrow in the 1 amount of $51 ,000 to guarantee maintenance of erosion control and site restoration, should he fail.to adhere to approve conditions for this permit. This is a major I concern of staff's. The applicant's primary interest in the site at this time is to mine sand and gravel and it may or may not be in his best interests to comply with approved conditions of permit approval and/or with the end -use plan. Staff could not reasonably ask the City Council to place their assurances in the operator's stated intentions for the site and it is normal city practice to require this sort of financial guarantee. Financial guarantees shall only be released after an as built grading plan is submitted to ensure that the approved end -use plan has been satisfactorily completed. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Roger Knutson dated May 7, 1992. 2. Memo from Dave Hempel dated May 26, 1992. 3. Application submitted by applicant. 4. General location. 5. Original Plan A (transparency). 1 6. Original Plan B (transparency) 7. Letter from Paul Krauss dated May 5, 1992. 8. Letter from Paul Krauss dated October 1, 1991. 9. Findings of Fact. 10. Letter from Chris Enger, City of Eden Prairie, dated May 18, 1992. 11. Excerpt from City Code. I 12. Grading fees. 13. Mailing list of surrounding property owners. ,. 14. Planning Commission minutes dated June 3, 1992. 1 1 JUN -17 -92 WED 16:23 SBG L LAW FIRM - MPLS. FAX NO. 612" , 9 +6591 P. 02 7 1 LAW OFFICES SIEGEL, BRILL, GREUPNER & PUFFY, P.A. 1 FORMERLY GROSSMAN, KARLINS, $IRG£L 6 BRILL RICHARD 51EG L"4 1300 WASHINGTON sOUARE ANtM0NY J. GLEEKEL JOS■AH E. bRILL, JR SHERRI L. ROHLF JAMES R GREUPNER 100 WASHINGTON AVENUE SOUTH JOEL H, JENSEN 1 GERALD S. DUrrY E. WETS BERG WOOD R F JR, M BRIAN E INNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401 BRIAN RV TUOHY THOMAS H. . GOODMAN ANNE K. WEINHARDT' K. CRAIG WILDFANG TELEPHONE (6I2) 336.7 JORDAN Al, LEWIS JO74N 5, WATSON TELECOPIER (612) 33D•658I WM CHRISTOPHER PENWELL M./SAN /$AN M. VOIGT M. L. GROSSMAN 6H@LQQN D. KARLINS June 17, 1992 - 1 •AL50 ADMITTED IN CALIeQRN,A 17,236 -D -001 1 VIA TELEFAX Chanhassen City Council I 690 Coulter Drive P. 0. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Re: Moon Valley Aggregates Application for Earth Work Permit for Existing 1 Sand and Gravel Mining Operation (South Parcel) II I an the attorney for Moon Valley Aggregates, Inc., whose above application was heard by the Planning Commission I on June 3, 1992. At that time, the Planning Commission adopted certain Findings of Fact and Recommendation, which we understand will be on the City Council's agenda at its II meeting this coming Monday night, June 22nd. Unfortunately, neither Tom Zweirs nor myself are avail- able Monday night to appear before you, because of other II commitments. Mr. Zweirs left this morning for a long - planned Canadian fishing trip and will not be back for six or seven days and I will be attending a previously- scheduled I meeting in Oak Park Heights with its City Council and MnDOT that night. II This letter will outline our position on the Earth Work Permit; however, we would very much like the opportunity to appear in person before you to explain the reasons for our II position and to be able to answer any questions you may have. Our response to the Planning Commission Recommendations 1 are as follows: JUN -17 -92 WED 16:23 SBG , LAW FIRM - MPLS. FAX Na 612 '9 +6591 P.03 1 June 17, 1992 Page 2 1. With respect to erosion control, Moon Valley already has in place a sealed retention pond which captures most of the natural drainage on the property and allows for sediment to settle out. This pond has been deepened and berms have been built by the operator to direct drainage into it. The pond overflowed during a 10 -inch rain, a highly unusual event, however, under normal conditions, it will accommodate drainage from the site. We feel that the Planning Commission recommendation is not only unnecessary but would be extremely costly for the operator and if the pond were designed as the recommendation requires, it would limit mining operations in a manner specifically prohibited by Judge 'Canning's Order of April 2, 1992. 2. See No. 1 above. 3. We do not believe Moon Valley operates a "waste 1 water disposal system" requiring NPDES permit. We have asked the MPCA to provide an application form and are currently reviewing this with Rick Sather, a planning consultant and professional engineer. 4. The best solution to the mud on the wheels of the 1 trucks is 50 ft. to 100 ft. of 1-1/2" crushed rock which will be installed. Blacktopping the entrance does not work. 5. This is agreeable. , 6. This is agreeable. 7. Mr. Zweirs is acutely interested in improving the safety of his access to and from the highway. In addition, waiting time while his trucks are looking for an opportunity to exit his property is very costly to his business. Mr. Zweirs has worked with MnDOT in the past and has been told that they will not install turn lanes or acceleration/ - deceleration lanes. Moving the driveway to the east would make it even more dangerous because it would then be more obscured by the bluff. Mr. Zweirs is very willing to meet with MnDOT and City representatives to try to improve this situation. Since 90% to 95% of the truck traffic leaving the property turns left and goes in an easterly direction, an acceleration lane for westbound traffic is of no great help. 8. Temporary snow fencing and signage at the top of the grade is agreeable. Prohibiting mining within 100 ft. of the north line of the south parcel is a limitation of the 1 1 JUN -17 -92 WED 16 :24 SBG LAW FIRM - MPLS, FAX N0. 612 , 9 +6591 P,04 II June 17, 1992 Page 3 II mining operation specifically prohibited by Judge Kenning's Order of April 2, 1992, and is therefore not acceptable to II Mr. Zweirs. 9. This is agreeable. 11 10. The Earth Work Permit should be consistent with Judge Kenning's Order and should contain all of the II conditions for regulating the operation. 11. Payment of substantial additional fees in addition to the $400 already paid is considered to be an improper II restriction on the Moon Valley mining operation. If the City insists on imposing this additional fee, we would submit the matter to Judge Kenning and he has agreed to hear II the parties on this issue. 12. If the City does not permit the construction of II the holding pond, which straddles the north and south parcels, at the time it approves a permit for the north parcel, Moon Valley will revise its End Use Plan accordingly. 13. This is agreeable. 14. Moon Valley believes that this requirement exceeds I the City's authority to regulate the Moon Valley operations, as defined in Judge Kenning's Order of April 2, 1992. 1 I will be out of town Thursday and Friday of this week and back in my office on Monday. If possible, I would appreciate hearing from you during the day on Monday 1 concerning our continuance request. Sincerely yours, � C I J. E Brill, jr. AIF . • JEB:cm I cc: Paul Krauss Torn Scott 1 Tom Zweirs Rick Sather 1 -- 1 JUN -17 -92 WED 16:22 SBG . , LAW FIRM - MPLSI FAX NO. 612 '9 +6591 P. 01 LAW orrIcES SIEGEL, BRILL. GREUPNER ea PUFFY, P.A. 1 rokMYALT 00053MwM. KAALIMS, %ICOC. ♦ •AILL AMTrONT J. OLCLxYL RfGNARO SIRG[L 6700 WASMIMGTON SQUAAL SMCAAI L RONLI JQ5IAM Y. $IR +LL, JR. JOCL M. JYN3 ;M JA>•+YS A. t3FlYUONYA top WA3 P 6TQN AvGN1/t SOU7M OMAN Z. wuir.CAG 1 GLAAL0 S. !Puffin woad A, ►OSYYR, JR. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401 AosewAAT'vow? ANMC K. WE1M41w/+QT TMQ++AS M. L,OrAN AN T[LLPMOMY 4012)130. jOAOAN M. 1,0.'4 It. CRAIG wlLOrANG ,pQI.N 5, WAT50M TYLRCIINV/I (p+i) 239-0301 WM, ONAI$TOANCA PeNWCLL Aif+wt• SUSAN M, VO+GY M, /., GP0*1WAM • $I[LOON D. ICARLIM9 1 LfO wpM+'Rtp IM GALf�ORM.w TELECOPIER COVER SHEET 'w 1 • DATE: rz.2 /7 199( . FAX NO. 937 —.. 73 9 TO: ex p ... _ _ _ _ ..... _____ 1 _ _ ... _ _., _ _ _ _ ....._ FROM: C s� . i 1 RE: / ) // .it4 , / TILE: - 1 ) - Tfi SENT 1 FOR YOUR: It ormation - Review _ 0/ • Response 1 ORIGINALTO FOLLOW BY MAIL: V Yes __,___ No . 1 Please find 1 7 copies, including this cover page. If you did not receive all copies, please contac thee o perator at (612) 339 -7131. 1 • Operator: / ' /,/7. '• • The information in this farsimfle message is attorney privileged and confidential 1 information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient,. you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication m error, please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. postal service. 1 .t • 1 • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED INTERIM USE PERMIT CITY OF CHANHASSEN ' NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Plannin g Commission will hold a ' public hearing on Wednesday, July 1, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the application of Tom Zwiers for an interim use permit for earth work/mining of a gravel pit, located north of Hwy. 212 and east of the Chicago and Northwestern Railway. A plan showing the proposed earthwork and location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Paul Krauss, Planning Director Phone: 937 -1900 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on June 18, 1992) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 j COMMON /TY . /`- �i' _� . \\\1 ... _ 9300 PARK R /LEY 1 -c9 S j ki t - !..- - J. ..--- - - - r — - - - Z - 9400 • • • S00 N. . �- - /,7// _.1 .1 T ` E R ^ ` ! \` T o 1 i — - - .. • — 9600 _ 0 ,,,....____ . / . „..„ y f- . ---» -; s \ Q ' – _ / 9700 I L f C ik 14 1 -f" .- -RR - - - / � 9 es00 - .,.,... :13 - : , - , .L-------":„. .>;--""' I 4I . . , „ , f-_,-‘- -• --,* 4 - a CI ". , : . 1 , A. or -- — - , 1 _ - 1 i . N # i ♦. . 0 ' 0 0 1 t7 /�_�i-4 4 -- I �.REEKW00D - --- - - - 0200 III - - -- - ' r -- 2' 1 1 L a kt..6i ' � ,' 1 \ 2\ �- / eo f \, \ l', i — 9 , / \ 1S C \ . i , � cf �s aE ' c � � 1 � 5 ` iO I .:,, „op, lii 6 R\JE r /, ::400 i \--1 \ 1 -, 1 14 I / SCE \ /LAKE c I LEVERNE M VASSAR ROBERT & E TISCHLEDER VERNON H TEICH C/O STATEWIDE AUTO 185 PIONEER TRAIL 220 FLYING CLOUD SALVAGE INC I CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHASKA MN 55318 285 FLYING CLOUD DR SHAKOPEE MN 55379 HENN CO RR AUTHORITY 1 HENN CO GOVT CENTER PARAG & G DESAI STEVEN & C ZUMBUSCH SW STREET LEVEL 9691 PORTAL DRIVE 9794 CRESTWOOD TERR 300 6TH STREET SO EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 1 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55487 1 MICAHEL & M WISTRAND MARK & S DANIELSON RICHARD P VOGEL 9670 MEADOWLARK LANE 11150 SUMPTER CIR 105 PIONEER TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BLOOMINGTON MN 55438 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1 1ST AMERICAN BANK METRO PAUL TAUNTON GERALD & S BERTSCH I 633 SO CONCORD STREET #310 8556 IRWIN ROAD SO ST PAUL MN 55075 10125 CROSSTOWN CIR BLOOMINGTON MN 55437 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 I MICHAEL A BOYLAN PETER TAUNTON JOHN S PAULOS 17700 SOUTHRIDGE CT 316 19TH AVE SE #660 1 MINNETONKA MN 55345 PO BOX 1351 6560 FRANCE AVE SO WILLMAR MN 56204 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55435 1 JOHN & L REVIER JOHN & A LONSTEIN DENNIS & C BARTHOLOW PO BOX 358 1559 PENNSYLVANIA AVE N 9841 DEERBROOK DRIVE 1 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55427 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 I PAUL & L K KILKER WENDELL & J SCHOTT WILLIAM & L STOKKE 788 LAKE POINT 7034 RED CEDAR COVE 241 EASTWOOD CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1 ARLIS & M OLSON STEPHEN WHITEHILL DAVID 0 HANSEN 1 9370 FOXFORD RD 7001 DAKOTA AVE . 108 PIONEER TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1 1 1 1 1 1 PAUL KILKER GREGORY LAWLER FIRST AM BANK METRO LINDA KERFELD 9900 DEERBROOK DR 633 SO CONCORD ST I 788 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SO ST PAUL MN 55075 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KEVIN BUESGENS PAUL TAUNTON GERALD & S BERTSCH 1 9940 DEERBROOK DR #310 8556 IRWIN RD CHANHASSEN 10125 CROSSTOWN CIR BLOOMINGTON MN 55437 1 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 JEFFREY & BARB MICHELL MICHAEL BOYLAN PETER TAUNTON 1 11887 WATERFORD RD 17700 SOUTHRIDGE CT 316 19TH AVE SE EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 MINNETONKA MN 55345 PO BOX 1351 I WILLMAR MN 56204 JOHN S PUOLOS JOHN & LINDA REVIER JOHN & ANN LONSTEIN #660 P 0 BOX 358 1559 PENNSYLVANIA AVE N' 6560 FRANCE AVE S CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MPLS MN 55427 MPLS MN 55435 1 DENNIS & C S BARTHOLOW JOHN PAUL LOWELL & C CAMPBEL 9841 DEERBROOK DR 410 LAKOTA LANE 415 LAKOTA LANE I CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 RUSSEL BARTO TIM WISE LAVERNE WHEELER I 400 LAKOTA LANE 425 LAKOTA LANE 445 LAKOTA LANE CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 1 M C HAPPE DEVAL MEDH N A MONROE 1 495 LAKOTA 535 LAKOTA LANE 565 LAKOTA LANE CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 MAYNARD HAPPE VERNE SEVERSON DAVID TEICH 615 LAKOTA LANE 675 LAKOTA LANE 10151 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 1 JEFFREY DYPWICK CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 10300 GREAT PLAINS BLVD A T T N CHRIS E N G E R 1 CHASKA MN 55318 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 1 1 1 E. - CARVER COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE CO., INC. 6 + 1 " CARVER COUNTY 1 (6'2 +448 - 2570 201 Chestnut St. N. FAX (612)448-5155 ABSTRACT & TITLE P 0 Box 106 Once B. i'.U; s• Chaska, MN 55318 David E. Moonen II May 22, 1992 II • Moon Valley Agrigate II 11111 Deuce Road Elko, MN 55022 II According to the 1992 Tax Books in the Carver County Treasurers Office the following persons are listed as owners of the property within Carver County, - -- II Minnesota, which lies within 500 feet of the following described property: 6 PARCEL I: All that part of Government Lot 1, Section 36, Township 116, Range 23, II Carver County, Minnesota, which lies Northerly of Trunk Highway No. 212. PARCEL II: All that part of the Southeast Quarter (SEi) of Section 25, Township 116, Range 23, lying Easterly of the easterly right of way of the Chicago and II Northwestern Railway (formerly the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway), Carver County, Minnesota. Together with an easement for road purposes over and across the following I described tract: That part of the South fifty (50) feet of the North one -half (Ni) of Section 25, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, lying Easterly of Carver II County Road No. 14. 1. Robert J. & E. Tischleder 5. Parag R. & Gopi P. Desai 185 Pioneer Trl. 9691 Portal Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 II - Contract for Deed: - 2. Vernon H. Teich _ Richard P. & Gayle_M. Vogel 220 Flying Cloud Dr. _ -- _ Chaska, _MN 55318 _ - 6. Steven J. Zumbusch & Charlotte M. Zumbusch - 3. LeVerne M. Vassar 9794 Crestwood Ter. - %Statewide Auto Salvage, Inc. Eden Prairie, MN 55347 285 Flying Cloud Dr. Contract for Deed: Shakopee, MN 55379 - Richard P. & Gayle M. Vogel I 4. Hennepin Co. Reg. RR Authority 7. Michael D. & Monica S. Wistrand Hennepin Co. Govt. Center 9670 Meadowlark Ln. 300 6th St. S. Chanhassen, MN 55317 11 SW Street Level Minneapolis, MN 55487 1 1 8. Mark J. & Starla J. Danielson 17. John E. & Ann Lonstein 11150 Sumpter Cir. 1559 Pennsylvania Ave. No. Bloomington, MN 55438 Minneapolis, MN 55427 Contract for Deed: Richard P. Vogel 18. Dennis J. Bartholow & Catherine S. Bartholow 9. Richard P. Vogel 9841 Deerbrook Dr. 105 Pioneer Trl. Chanhassen, MN 55317 - Chanhassen, MN 55317 19. Paul Irvin Kilker & 10. - -First American Bank Metro Linda G. Kerfeld.Kilker 633 So. Concord St. 788 Lake Pt. So. St. Paul, MN 55075 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Contract for Deed: 11. Paul Taunton First American Bank Metro 10125 Crosstown Cir. 41310 20. Wendell & Jacqueline Schott Eden Prairie, MN 55344 7034 Red Cedar Cv. Excelsior, MN 55331 12. Gerald W. & Stella F. Bertsch 8556 Irwin Rd. 21. William L. & Lynn H. Stokke Bloomington, MN 55437 241 Eastwood Ct. , Chanhassen, MN 55317 13. Michael A. Boylan 17700 Southridge Ct. 22. Arlis L. & Margaret Olson Minnetonka, MN 55345 9370 Foxford Rd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 14. Peter Taunton 316 19th Ave. SE 23. Stephen L. Whitehill PO Box 1351 - 7001 Dakota Ave. Willmar, MN 56204 Chanhassen, MN 55317 15. John S. Paulos 24. David 0. Hansen 6560 France Ave. So. 108 Pioneer Trl. - #660 - - Chanhassen, MN 55317 - Minneapolis, MN 55435_ - - Contract for Deed: _ 25. NOTE: THE COUNTY TREASURERS First American Bank Metro OFFICE DOES NOT SHOW NAMES OR ADDRESSES FOR_TAX EXEMPT PARCELS. II 16. John M. & Linda J. Revier PO Box 358 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' /_, Carver County Abstrac,. & Title Co., Inc. - This company does not assume any liability for the accuracy of this report. - - - -