The URL can be used to link to this page

5. Interim Use Permit for Earth Work/Mining of a Gravel Pit, Moon Valley Aggregate CITY OF .101‘' CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Acton by City Administrator End3rsed —IL MA MEMORANDUM Moeii Rejecter! TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Date 9 22 - - �- Date Submitted to Cornmissiott FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Date Submitted to Council DATE: September 22, 1992 SUBJ: Second Update Memorandum, Moon Valley Request to Mine Clay Under Interim Use Permit #92 -5 OVERVIEW At the August 24, 1992, City Council meeting, the Moon Valley request to mine clay on a parcel adjoining their existing gravel pit was heard for the second time by the City Council. A series ' of additional questions were raised and the item was ultimately continued to allow staff and the applicant to respond to them. This memo constitutes staff's response to these questions. ' There are several noteworthy changes to the request that have occurred since the last meeting. The first and most important is that the magnitude of the request has been changed due, in large part, to soil boring information which has recently been obtained. At the last City Council ' meeting, it was made known that soil borings of the site have been taken, although they were not directly in the possession of the Moon Valley operator. The borings were commissioned by the contractor who will be hauling the clay to Eden Prairie, and who was not initially forthcoming ' with the information. On the positive side, the borings confirm the presence of the sand layer at elevations that are compatible with the construction of the sedimentation basins. Thus, the sand layer is close enough to the surface so that the bottom of the basins will be excavated into ' this material, thus allowing rain water to infiltrate into the ground as intended by this design. A related matter of equal importance is that the sand layer is generally closer to the surface than was originally believed by the Moon Valley operator. Thus, the grading plan has been ' substantially revised in a manner that recognizes this fact. As a result, the amount of clay to be excavated from this site has decreased from an estimated 250,000 cubic yards to 200,000 cubic ' yards. The depth of the excavation across the site has also been decreased significantly and is generally in the 6 to 8 foot range. As before, no trees will be lost and all grading will occur in the open field area. Staff has also revised our recommendations on this request somewhat. As you recall, much of the concern regarding this proposal has been focused on the proposal to construct a third Is t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 .' Don Ashworth September 22, 1992 ' Page 2 infiltration basin in the southwest comer of the site, an area that straddles the property line ' between the north and south parcels. Staff continues to believe that this request has some merit, particularly in light of the reforestation that would occur. However, significant questions have been raised about this operation relative to its short and long term impacts and with the inability ' of the Moon Valley operator to agree to comply with time limitations that are proposed for the mining operation on the north parcel. We also note that this operation is not directly tied to the clay removal request. It is in a physically remote part of the site and is accessed only through the Moon Valley gravel pit. Its deletion from interim use permit #92 -5 will not appreciably impact the clay mining operation. Therefore, staff is recommending that this ponding area and attendant mining activities be eliminated from the proposed plan. 1 Proiect Assumptions /Aerial Photographs ' There appears to be considerable confusion over this request and its linkage, if any, to the ongoing Moon Valley gravel mining operation. Staff will try to explain this as simply as possible. We have also included a composite aerial photograph in the City Council packet for 1 your use. Moon Valley owns two contiguous parcels. The south parcel is largely occupied by the existing ' gravel mine and the Moon Valley rifle range. The north parcel was formerly farmed, experienced a small amount of clay mining in 1987, and is largely vacant. The main Minnesota River bluff line lies approximately along the property line between the north and south parcels. 1 From a legal standpoint, there is no connection between the two requests. In his ruling, Judge Kanning has stated that grandfathering rights to mine only exist for the southern parcel and not for parcels which were bought at a later date by the Moon Valley operator. Thus, the full 1 standards and requirements contained in city ordinances pertaining to mining are applicable to the current request. 1 Proiect Timing ' Staff is as concerned as the area residents that approvals should not be granted that would allow the owner to mine the site at his leisure. The owner has the legal right to mine the gravel pit without time constraints, but city ordinances allow the Council the ability to regulate the north ' parcel. Staff agrees that there needs to be a date certain by which all excavation and site restoration work must be achieved. Staff had already provided a condition that established a completion date of July 15, 1993. The conditions also go on to require that a letter of credit be provided to ensure compliance as is normal practice with city approvals. There has been no question that the applicant has agreed to a not to exceed date of July 15, 1993, for the clay mining in the past. However, there are two important cautions here. The applicant's agreement ' was contingent upon gaining approval of this request over a month and a half ago, and time is rapidly running out on Minnesota's notoriously short construction season. Therefore, we are 1 1 Don Ashworth September 22, 1992 Page 3 recommending a revised completion date of September 1, 1993, be imposed. We fully agree that the applicant must be held to the agreed upon date. The only question we are aware of relative to timing is with the mining and construction of the south pond area. The south pond is not directly related to the request to remove clay. The south pond is a gravel excavation operation that is more related to the older Moon Valley gravel pit in terms of operational characteristics. It is simply located on the north parcel. In the instance of this south pond, the applicant has indicated that he would be unable to adhere to the timing limitations that he has agreed to meet on the balance of the north parcel. The operator has always maintained that mining in the gravel pit is subject to market conditions. Therefore, he has been unwilling to adhere to timing constraints on a gravel pit operation. Again, given the issue surrounding this operation, we are recommending that this portion of the request be deleted. 1 Environmental Assessment Worksheet The question of the advisability of requiring an EAW was again raised at the last Council meeting. To reiterate information that we presented previously, the proposed request is not large enough to trip a mandatory EAW. The City Council can always act as the local governmental unit or LGU and require the submittal of an EAW. The City Council can do this of its own volition or because they have received a petition requesting one and, in this case, we have received such a petition. However, the decision as to whether or not one should be required is up to the determination of the City Council. Staff generally supports the EAW process, however, in light of our ordinance requirements and 1 information required to back up a request to mine, we are not certain it would be particularly fruitful in this instance or provide you with substantial additional information. Virtually any information that would be supplied under an EAW is within the City Council's power to demand now. If the applicant is unable or unwilling to provide reasonable amounts of information, it is grounds for continuance or denial of the request. Staff has been contacted by Greg Downing from the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. He has indicated that since the EQB has officially received the request to undertake the EAW, the City Council must take official action to either require one or determine that one is not to be required. The final decision is the City Council's. Is Erosion a Problem? 1 At several meetings, at least one of the residents has made representations that erosion in the area is not a problem. He is correct in stating that erosion in the area is partially a natural function 1 and that the eroded slopes along the rail line have, to a large extent, been in their current state for many years. However, staff could not disagree more with this position. Erosion of the Minnesota River bluff line is a major problem as can be confirmed by our experience on a number of sites around the community. We are dealing with highly erodible soils that can easily 1 1 1 1 Don Ashworth September 22, 1992 Page 4 be disturbed by nearby construction or changes in drainage patterns. Once this disturbance occurs, erosion is fairly rapid and often results in extreme damage to the bluff, in addition to ' creating the threat of damage to structures located nearby. There is a growing body of evidence that demonstrates that eroded materials entering area ' watersheds in the Minnesota River Valley are one of the primary sources of organic and inorganic pollutants. Staff can testify that there are two significant erosion problems on the proposed clay mining site. We can also verify that the erosion has progressively gotten worse ' over the few years that we have been able to witness it. We can also verify that very large amounts of storm water is channeled down along the railway tracks and over the bluff, through the Moon Valley gravel pit. Once the water enters the Moon Valley site in an uncontrolled manner at high velocities, it is inevitable that significant amounts of erosion will occur due to the highly exposed nature of the gravel pit. ' The requested mining activity will resolve this matter in two ways. First, it will create two sedimentation/infiltration basins that are designed to intercept storm water, safely percolating it into the ground water, thus, reducing over land flow over sensitive soils and the Moon Valley gravel pit. The second means by which the proposed request will help to resolve the problem is that efforts to remediate the two significant points of erosion on the clay mining site are being required as a condition of approval. It is not feasible to totally eliminate the eroded gullies; 1 however, vegetation can be established and water can be directed away from them so that the situation is stabilized. 1 Depth of Sand Significant questions have been raised regarding the infiltration basins not only as to their design but also questions as to whether or not they will function as intended. These questions were based on the fact that the only information that had been supplied concerning the depth of the ' sand layer was informally given by the Moon Valley operator. Staff had prepared conditions indicating that soil borings must be taken before grading operations were initiated to confirm that the drainage plans would work as proposed. However, as noted earlier in this report, the Moon ' Valley operator has been able to secure copies of the soil boring report and has supplied these to city staff. The sand layer, which is necessary to permit water infiltration, is generally much closer to the surface than originally represented. In the area of the main infiltration basin, there ' are two borings. The bottom of the pond is illustrated at the 880' elevation. The soil boring log indicates that the sand is found at or above this level between the 880' and 883' elevation. Therefore, we have been able to conclude that the pond should function as intended. Copies of the soil boring information are attached to this report. 1 1 1 1 Don Ashworth 1 September 22, 1992 Page 5 Pond Sizing and Areas of Trees to be Lost At the last Council meeting, engineer requested the applicant's licants en was ' ineer r uested to provide information I regarding adequacy of pond sizing. Staff has been assured that this information has been available for some time but simply was not presented at the City Council meeting. We have I requested that this information be provided for review. A normal condition attached to city development requests has been incorporated into the Moon Valley proposal which requires that I drainage plans be evaluated by the City Engineer and/or consultant prior to the start of work. This is normally undertaken in the course of events and would be done in this case as well. Pond sizing information has been forwarded to the city engineering department for review. I Revised pond calculations, based upon the new grading plan, will be given to the City Engineer for review prior to the City Council meeting. Questions were also raised regarding the potential loss of trees and how large an area this would I involve. It must be stressed that no trees will be lost due to the clay mining operation. Mining will only occur in an open field area on top of the bluff line. The only trees that would be lost I are associated with the south pond area, if this action is approved by the City Council. The applicant's engineer has indicated that 5.2 acres of trees would be removed from this area. These would have been offset by the reforestation of the mined out bluff face located on the gravel pit I site. Since the current recommendation is to delete the mining in this area, tree loss will be reduced to zero. Visual Impacts /Site Visits Staff is not certain that additional information is required to respond to the question of visual I impacts. There will be no long term visual impacts from the clay mining activity. The activity will only occur in an open field area and this area would be lowered by an average depth of 10 feet. Upon site restoration, it should not be possible to tell from off -site locations that any I mining activity ever occurred in this area. The proposed southern ponding area appears to have some potential to impact views. We believe 1 the direct impact of this operation is not likely to alter the direct views of any nearby homes with the possible exception of the southern most ones in the Deerbrook Subdivision. As staff has stressed on numerous previous occasions, there is the offsetting benefit of providing linkage to I get the Minnesota River Valley bluff face reforested. Staff acknowledges that this would likely entail reforestation with small trees but that is all that can reasonably be undertaken on a slope of this nature. It would be appropriate to have this reforestation plan refined for city approval. I Staff acknowledged this need and in our June 23, 1992, staff report, outline condition #12 which reads, financial staff with an acceptable reforestation for the mine bluff face on the Moon Valley I gravel mine site prior to the start of operations. Adequate ancial guarantees to ensure that the plan is implemented upon the completion of mining shall be provided." Additional refinements 1 1 1 Don Ashworth September 22, 1992 1 Page 6 could be in the area of defining the type of trees that are to be placed in the area, and staff would I suggest reviewing plans with the DNR Forester for adequacy. However, since the south ponding area is going to be deleted from the request, the city is losing its leverage to require reforestation. I At the last meeting, there was some indication that a tour of the area should be organized. Upon the advice of the City Attorney, staff concluded that it is not possible to undertake a tour involving the City Council since the presence of two or more City Council members would I constitute a violation of the State's open meeting law. Therefore, staff has offered to take individual City Council members on tours of the area and is in the process of doing so at the time of writing. I Proposed End Use /Adequacy of Letter of Credit I • A lot has been made regarding the applicant's "true intent" regarding this parcel. Staff is not in a position to divine the true intent of this applicant anymore than we are of any other. We also do not want to have the city appear as though the applicant's intent is a significant factor. The 1 concept of trust has relatively little bearing on recommendations we bring forward to the City Council. While we would prefer to do business with ethical and responsible individuals, we recommend the city operate in a business -like manner using contractual requirements that are the I accepted norm in the business world. The applicant's request should be handled in a professional manner in accordance with legally, verifiable and defensible conditions and requirements. The I applicant has stated that it is his long term intent to have the property developed for residential use. We have no reason to disagree and note that the end use grading plan on this request is consistent with future residential use of the area. It will be the responsibility of the city planning I and engineering staff and City Attorney to ensure that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with approvals if these are granted. Finally, there is also a condition proposed by the Planning Comnussion that reads, "The property owner shall file a notice in the chain of title I permanently relinquishing all future rights to mine the property." This should provide further assurances that no additional mining will be required in the future. l A lot of effort has been put into determining the adequacy of the letter of credit. We believe the city engineering department has done a reasonable job. At the last meeting, there was considerable confusion as to where the dollars were allocated. This was broken out in great I detail by the city engineering department early in August. Of the $121,290 letter of credit that is being requested, only $3,214, based upon DNR standards, is being allocated to tree reforestation on the old bluff face. The balance of the letter of credit is to be furnished to I provide guarantees for the activities that are proposed on the north parcel, including the clay mining, and the proposed southern ponding area. 1 City Council Options Staff continues to believe the City Council has four options with this request. These include; 1 1 Don Ashworth 1 September 22, 1992 Page 7 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 concerns that may arise. 2. Denial of the application. Should the City Council determine that approval of this request is not warranted, the request should be continued to the following meeting so that staff and the City Attorney can prepare findings of fact to support the denial. 3. Modification of the request. The request can be divided into two distinct areas. 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's past support for the mining in this area has been predicated upon the trade -off of gravel for reforestation of the old bluff face, creating a solution for some of the erosion problems and exposure of mature trees to views from the river valley. However, the City Council is in a position to approve only that portion of the request related to the clay mining area in the open field and eliminate the southwest 1 ponding area from consideration. Of course if this is done, the ability to require reforestation of the bluff in the existing gravel pit would be lost. 4. Require that an EAW be prepared. It is still the City Council's option to request an EAW �l P P tY P � if it is felt that this would supply needed information. It would probably take 30 to 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recognizes that this is a highly sensitive request due to the nature of the operation, location 1 of nearby homes, past actions of the applicant, and environmental sensitivity of the area. If the clock could be turned back, we would certainly have recommended that grading activity never occur on the bluff face as has occurred with the original Moon Valley gravel pit. The proposed clay mining activity is of less concern to us since it will occur well beyond the bluff line and out of any forested area. The only exception is the southem ponding area. Staff has attempted to approach this request in a reasonable manner. We are given an ordinance to work with and then asked to use our professional skills to ensure that an application conforms to the standards that you have given us to work with. We have attempted to do so in this case. We cannot attest to the credibility or quality of character of the applicant, nor do we wish to put ourselves in a position of having to do so. We fully acknowledge that this individual has been difficult to work with in the past. We find ourselves wishing this request had not been made in the first place. 1 Staff has a lot more fulfilling and pressing activities to undertake than to watch dog the requested 1 1 Don Ashworth September 22, 1992 I Page 8 mining operation. However, this is a part of our job and we will undertake it to the best of our I responsibilities if directed to do so. Staff finds that we are in a position of needing to continue to carry forward the recommendation I that this request be approved. We believe the conditions are such that the concerns of not only the residents, but also of the city, can be adequately addressed. At this point, given the inability of the applicant to more clearly define what would occur in the southern ponding area and since I it is extremely difficult to get a complete understanding of exactly what the implications and impacts of this particular request are, the Council may wish to consider deleting this ponding area and any mining in this area from this request. We believe this would be advisable given the I much more limited scope and duration of the clay mining than has been requested. The proposed conditions have been revised accordingly. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the request subject to the following conditions: I Staff recommends that Interim Use Permit #92 -5 for earth work be approved with a waiver of setback standards subject to the following conditions: I 1. Plans be revised to eliminate mining activity in the area referred to as the south ponding area in the planning report. I 2. 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 1 city receives complaints regarding Saturday operations, the City Engineer may require that these be halted. 1 3. 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 4. The applicant is required to phase site restoration in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. He will provide staff with a written phasing plan for approval prior to the start I of operations. 5. The applicant shall pay an inspection fee of $900 and provide the city with an acceptable I financial security (letter of credit or cash) in the amount of $118,075.00 to cover the costs of site restoration and repairs to Pioneer Trail. 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 1 receipt. 6. Drainage plans to be reviewed by Bonestroo Engineering prior to City Council review. I Fees for this shall be paid by the applicant. Fees for Bonestroo's services will be billed to the applicant. The current bill is for $117.00. The applicant must demonstrate that the underlying sand layer is located at the elevation described on submittal plans prior to the 1 1 1 Don Ashworth September 22, 1992 Page 9 start of mining. If the sandy layer is deeper than expected, alternative drainage plans 1 must be developed for city approval. 7. Provide permanent drainage easements in favor of the city over the retention basins. 1 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. 1 8. Provide and maintain an erosion control plan acceptable to the City Engineer. Designate black dirt stockpile areas for approval by the City Engineer. 1 9. Comply with conditions of project approval by the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District. 1 10. 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. 11. All mining operations and site restoration shall be completed no later than September 1, 1993. 12. 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. 13. The property owner shall file a notice in the chain -of -title permanently relinquishing all future rights to mine the property. Staff further recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution stating that the preparation of an EAW is not required. 1 1 1 1 • • aotherthe we thiliiiideos ••■•• \-, • \ 'lli ''' a , "' / - 31 t \ ' N , "- N ' , ,.- • ..',..,„<„,....„....„.. , •••., ' 1 1 ),) \ •,.,. ...‘"" - "N . \ s s 01 '• '-- •---- i / i • '',., ' i ,\' \ ' ' --'-'7 111111‘.■ ..,)) , L., i ....,, I/ - ta,. ... ‘,......„.„........\\,1 .... 41111•••••• j / VI ai i r rit i rr i o. , m ir, _,, __ „; ..., k ,s. , ,........■ s 4 /- i 40■Ammo, •••"" , /• ■ \' 4 ' • '' '''. • • li -.'"I, _ ^:"..>"-. ...,',. _-0 „ ■ '''-..„:' '...„ , ,- 4 1 ' a I ig - ./ • .. ,,... , l', • ..: . :: ..., , ,... < ,- • tiA , • . , Dit.00. 5! .---,_._-- ---- •-, i ; i, , ; , c ,__„,,,...__ ,, • , . ,,,,,... ...-. ,;( ••• . .e..,.. >.../..,,,,, / - - ./.--..4'. '----- ,..-::. ,•,..._.- s._. ‘ , -stley - I t, ./'''' - '" :., , / , / : .1% ',, '- - '' .....„'„' ' .,,,-' p ... .•-.4„,„ ...A -,,,,_,.—z '.. --..,, , I h1■1 JP . • ' • s '•, „ -,' ,,i) ,' ',' / 4'; i i L., ..--.•-:5,',' -' ';'' ,'''' 1 ' ''''s.,, \ " i; ; 1 w 4*... . • s '.\:, - •,‘, t (' /% i / / ! ' r . - ,i k'''' '3';.' ,- ' - - - '--,, --:-'; - ss' - •-• • V - . . 're. .5: . . : .:: i i i ,:- ' , 0:0,7*•:•:. - . , , i . , .„ '71/ — i .‘ \ :e---- .. ' / / - - ' - -.- - - , - -- '-' :"--- -'-'. - re_ .) .::z 1 II -.:"4.:, ‘; 1 y , , I , ,,, , 4,-„ ---...... ' / /...•Z:......1:-. I ... I '! 1 \ 1 il ii / ''''.— /ki f /( ■ ‘ .-7-... ''' '.'.,..• . '''-: 114 ' \_.- ''''", - / 16 -.T..:'f..Ti • ii ,, l',', /,`, 1 I ,/ / i , i ... s • ' - S ' '' ' .',. s .r fr „.,_, , \ \ / _IL:' ,• , _ .,- - . '-- . - . 1, t 1.4„ ,„ , ,- _ ,, ,, -. _„ .. - ,...,-- /,/ 1 \\ ,. ‘ X • : / ' /-::•) 6 ,', • ) ' .. '` 4*( ' \,\ . ,--" '.' / i li l e) ‘;:\ '. - _ -A ___.„----.--',' ' ),,\ 1 .,; \\\ 1, ', / L 4." )))/ 1 1144 0, : t ::: :/0'; : •_ \'‘'''' ' ......"--- c..- . ilicis I ) Ith / ' 1 .,, — ,-0".'""*" ,,,, .. : -;3 I ., i i ( c ;,,k , -.-----,------- , 1 \ , Qw' I, \,''t ‘, \ -..'''s'\., .'... - -- "Q• : •)'■ 1 0" ‘k'I II7,,r,„,,_,,,,,,, ,......., „.„ .N.......,,,,.• L.....„...„'Ze-. t' -' ') 1 1 k 1 \ .^‘■ r t.. , . , ,, N r \-.4, •, .,,, ,,,,,;.-::3:.z.-:.:...-,-..-.‘., . . ; ,, • , v , k... ,:\-• ) A:0\ .-->\ ) ) 1. - 2,,,,,,„.,,,,-,,,,.-:,,,,, . • m( • A. , -- • , \ \ 91, ,.\,, , ,.,. , ,,, \ t '... • \\ `...., ' / Vp1;:,„tz.---... ,--,„ --,,...,....,.... '\ \\ \ ' it ritc': '- ,% , , ‘ \ ■ : / / ,' : , • \ \ ‘, \ ' ( ( 2 r 1") 7/ ' )0C 1 ( ' ‘- • ' / i , i i I . ,, 1 i ,I:IIII'lf—• — ' \. I ! // / „ 1 I ti .. i , - '....• .,' ' / ' I ' ) g fik ' \\' %‘‘' ' .. ''''''"'„,0 "" ',/, 1 5' / ' -, ' - I V -''''''V''''''`'. . . ' '. ''''' ' ' -' , / i , , ,f ,- ---. - 47 " - ' ' . / C' ' ''' ' '' - - ' . ,) ) 11 /,', 0 4' i ■ \‘` ■ ■ -::•-- s 1 7--- ' , • .-. ...„.1 , /..._ c", ,...., ... . \ i T ( t...,T,,,`4,, " ,'\ • _,r - / /' ,/ ' .- i' i / - ,- - - - -: ::':- 7" •' - ''' ' I ' /1 ) k ,..,,,,, -i, ,,--,,9- ....„_„....,„. \ ( -,.,_, .s. ,. , . ‘,,, ,,,‘,._,„ ,.... • 1 1 ' '/ / / ' .///-///---- ' -7 -:-`"-- - '' - -,: '' .\\ ■`, i ■ 1,1 I ( \', I ! t ,'-:.' /Wal ` -, \ , ,k, - .'„,7 6 , 4,‘1 . ‘2 , ........... / /eir-- -- •";-- -- ',- ,,- -r-'7" . ' - \ --:..,.\\ . s'It(), ,, f ,. ".*,..--•:„. ,---.,-..' .... f '' - s,‘:, \ '' '''. r/ ' / .' t• ' .•-•,' ••• t' ' ' ' '•)/ ■` Kt '• ' -I- - -4 frilr's7--• i ,,,.? -, ..k ---,,-, ■• , .. -- ....-' ,f', ,,, ,,/,,, ,.., , .., __„, .,, , , ■ \ \ +„ ( / i /8 1 ) 1V)ill \ 1 \ r_ " ( 4 1 , :i)))*".0.; . ) ).. ir. , ,,‘ , C t 2 : :-, „t. ,•-' . , " . ., 5.1 ) I .,,, ,,', 1 ,;.''-'' ) st ,j,,....... \ , -, / / / ,' ,, o . , „. \ 1 \ 1 \ ■, 1 \ \ ( ‘" ) i 71 I ( /' 1110 1. s, , \ - 1:- -.12 yi? 0 ; , > ,' i • ( , ' • 1 1 ,-, ' "-I'M 1.' UMW, LORRIPTIOD ND TM IINSTvu, emu. at cos. All that thrt of the Soutbeeth Quarter of Smtim 25, Dthahlp MC Maths 23. lying easterly of the ethterly right of ., Of the Mal/PIM TIMM MIMI DECAY/2101 LOUTS. Ali. DIDIUDIED ARRAS SHALL OR ROSTORMI • S Clams, ...■ llortlematern neither IfotherlY O. Rthothilolth wIR St. MAS SROWANT IMMO, CM COWLST• 1•70•11011 /ARM AS Sial Aida M 61111 A HINDUS Of' 4" RS IP' CW labs 11.0100 contthmind 41 acres, nora or lass, 102524113,6 55 the 61011111D. 10141011., OREM * 31) 11,4111. RWS Oethomont ilsrees thereof, Career County, 33325.25*.. IICAVAIS 101111thLT 100 AIM PUR AND mum RISICOT Mt "KM 47012 Alliti: 10 17. HOD NIX SHALL NE NOW* 111111112 ND. 5 FORIS *344.1,6) AT 100 L00/. IT 011H•M IDTAVATS SOUDIIRLY SOD AT DUTIAL suco or sansiomz MS AT ••• AA %thaw M. 2,.55r. end Beatrice I. Mere, Contract Purohesen, 5225? RAW TO IT. ME MIN SHAM IN APPLIED AT A oneth1-1 Walter D. Orlepentrog and Joann IL 102t, See Oneths. oath oath MINDEN 3361,6 (W 2 7018/A0112 AND DISE. =ATM'S TO SCUMMY RSV 111111•111• 045 OVII•-•1•1 TO 'MI 11411114TDIO IMPS ...... 1.110.10.17.111 V 0.1 I MIS 1.4. AMOR SK.C.II.It, 11.1 WAS YiltrA1.1) (MA OP UNI...1 1.10024 VAT.I.RY Aczaraucaw•r ars W0.0 SlifIlIVISiON MO T.I1.1.01Ylif 03570111.51.01510.1. 11111 0ettac,,th Road. UNIArily 1: 1.1.1130. Milk., Mithrthomthts 66020 Deli 446//44"4. RIG 30 3•,07 e• • ■ • ....".• - - MN NM - NM - 1M OM =II 1111111 - NM 1111111 MI 111111 OM IIIII - 6/20090720 brie CON5ULTRNT5 INC T - 3T4 P -002 RUG 27 '92 14:5' • • LOG Qt lit:MINVG et- i II PROJECT SITE Volk's Pit _ Evaluation of Clay Borrow Chas a, Minnesota CLIENT ARCHITECT- ENGINEER 1 Carl Bolander and Sons w -. Qp (tgf) r ' 2 --0--- 6 DE SCR IPTION OF MATERIAL I ' a, -' z WATER -� W > > = N CONTENT % U. Z a -J V FW- m - -•�... I a ► Q 3 s1ANOAl10 PENETRATION OBLOWS/FOOT) L 0 3 rc SURFACE ELEVATION a w > - '' e• -• • V) Cr 2 10 20 30 40 50 1 ss 1.5 Dark brown CLAYEY SILT, trace sand organics, roots - loose - damp - (ML) 8 ---- (Topsoil) J 2SS S 5 `Brown SILTY CLAY - firm - (CL) = 1 3SS Brown and gray CLAYEY SAND, trace 8 It 8.0 silt - loose - (SC) 4SS Brown and gray SILTY SANDY CLAY, B (t trace gravel - firm - (CL) 11J 5S5 10.0 f3 6SS Brown SILTY SANDY CLAY, trace grave 1 12.0 - firm - (CL) 6 7SS Brown and gray SILTY SANDY CLAY trace gravel - stiff - (CL) 10 BSS 12 a. 16,0 9S5 Dark gray SANDY CLAY, trace gravel, 22 ` 1 silt - very stiff - (CL) 10SS cif 20.0 22 -. 21.0 Brown SILTY CLAY WITH SAND, trace - - 1 ,11 SS 22.0 , \gravel - (CL) r4 " - . Light brown fine to medium SAND WITH I SILT, trace gravel - very dense - damp - (SP -SM) End of boring at 22 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth 1 Borehole backfilled with cuttings 1 1 1 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 8/14/92 c W.L. Groundwater not encountered � GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMPLET 8/14/92 W.L. white drilling or after o•oteeMrelt• Mewiek.EnvNm,mu�d g .�! 1! Ztet Awnw No. RIG CME -550 DRILLER DTS W.L. dnllinc� E[ Mm MN 5 54A 1 (012) swine DRAWN JLH APPROVEOWCK JOB • 3669 SHEET 1 of 1 Boring caved at 17 feet after auger The suatification Tines represent approximate boundaries 1 removal between soil types; insitu the transiton may be gradual. 6123390720 Cir 1E CprV6ULTgNTS 1 NC ` T P - 003 RUG 27 '92 14:32 LOU OF BOFurg d- 1 PROJECT Evaluation of Clay Borrow sill Volk's Pit CLIENT haska, Minnesota I Carl Bolander and Sons ARCHITECT- ENGINEER W w .T Qp (tsf) ~ ¢ W N I 2 3 4 5 el z DCSCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w j z p WATER U. Z a w u w in CONTENT % - , >- cr d .� .�. T [. w E- ~ 0 w I-. gg p F- LI J STANDARD PENETRATION (DLOWS/FOOTI Itl su N Q 3 SURFACE ELEVATION a 0 1.0 k bon , trace 10 20 40 s° I 1 SS ,gravelDar r , roots wSILTY - (CL) (T SANDY opsoil) CLAY 7 (: 2SSI Brown SILTY SANDY CLAY, trace gravel I - firm to hard - (CL) e 3SS %_ 6.0 11 (� 4S5 Brown SANDY CLAY, trace silt, gravel - cD I 5SS medium dense - damp - (SC -CL) 10 Brown SILTY SANDY CLAY, trace gravel ■ in - firm to hard - (CL) 11 (' � I 6 SS `"� 17 7SS � II S ��' BS5 1 9 • 9SS 18 10SS �� /u 10 I 11SS 20 12SS 10 0 r`' , 3SS 10 14S$ 28 `�` • I5SS 29.5 45 `.` ' wcu 30.0 . Brown fine to coarse CLAYEY SAND WITH SILT, trace gravel - damp - VSC -SM) I / End of boring at 30 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings 1 I WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS `-- �- -�--• BORING STARTED _ 8/14/92 W.L. Groundwater not encountered GeME CONSULTANTS. INC. BORING COMPLETED W.L. while drilling or after "" � p "it t +•µ•�•�•a•t�r;,e,�,.,, 8/14!92 I t4o 21stAwnw No. RI e CME -554 DRILLER DTS W.L. drilling Elm Minneapolis. MN 66447 (6121669•1669 DRAWN JLH APPnoverAVCK J013 If 3669 Boring caved at 22.5 feet after auger The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries SHEET 1 of 1 I removal between soil types; insitu the transiton may be gradual. b1E3351 7MI 611E CONSULTANT5 INC �" T -374 P-004 RUG 27 'S2 14:52 I 1-Cris vi' tbOltiivv D- . 1 PROJECT SITE � I lk• pit _ Evaluation of Clay (sorrow Chaska, Minnesota CLIENT ARCHITECT- ENGINEER "' Carl Bolander and Sons 1 _ OP I1•f) to .. 1 2 3 4 W 0 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL I 1 1 co -' z WATER w m w 4 -J CONTENT % w u. Z w > U w - - wa ■J I '' w Q Li J STANDARD Q PENETRATION (BLOWS /FOOT) o a Q I— N SURFACE ELEVATION w t j -- 0 — N tr Z 10 20 30 40 50 !SS 1 5 Dark brown SILTY CLAY WITH S AND, -- — trace gravel, roots - firm - (CL) 2SS Brown SANDY SILTY CLAY, trace gravel / ` - stiff to hard - (CL) 1 ° rt 3SS III 12 - 4SS 30 ` 1 �_ 10 r 5SS - 6SS 31 ` ID f ...-. 7SS 17 Y' I t3 SS ( 1 13 9SS 17.5 34 I 1 0.0 Light brown fine SAND, trace gravel, silt , damp - (SP) ' End of boring at 18 feet ' Hollow Stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings 1 1 1 r WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 8/14/92 1 W.L. Groundwater not encountered OME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMPLETED 8/14/92 W.L. while drilling or after G�oteohnio , I.M�teti�b•Environm,Md ' •— •-- - 14000 21st Avenue Nc. RIG CME -551' DRILLER DTS W.L. drilling MI Mmrn.pole, MN 5'3447 , Q (512) 559.1855 DRAWN JLH APPriovEdWCK JOB R 3669 SHEET 1 of 1 Boring caved at 12.5 feet after auger The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries removal between soil types; insitu the transiton may be gradual. ■ 1 • 6123390720 WE CONSULTANTS INC T P -000 RUG 27 '32 14: 1 �Jc.i (:i ssG:iAry :i- PROJECT SITE v Ik's Pit Evaluation of Clay Borrow Chaska, Minnesota I CLIENT ARCHITECT ENGINEER Carl Bolander and Sons !- w np (ISf) I - -0 w 1 1 4 w _, z DDESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL 3 ! 2 5 ! ! I w j w Q H O WATER I U. Z i i W u w m CONTENT 96 J N n STANDARD PENETRATION = - ' W . d u to n TION IBLOWSIFOOT) o N Q S N SURFACE ELEVATION w co I a _ Z 10 20 30 40 E0 1.0 Dark brown CLAYEY SILT WITH SAND, SS trace gravel, organics, roots - damp - 4 ($ 2SS (ML) (Topsoil) i 4 1 Light brown fine to medium SAND WITH 4 3SS SILT, trace gravel - loose to very loose - t damp - (SP -SM) 5 q) 1 ass a f _ 5SS 10.0 5 0 End of boring at 10 feet ----- •--- -- Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 8/14/92 COMPLETED 8/14/92 I W.L. Groundwater not encountered BORING W.L. While drillin or after �� CME CONSULTANTS, INC. gORlN 04ot• � ni0e! • M •terieb•Environmente , g 14000 21,1 Avenue No. RIG CME -5 DRILLER DTS W.L. drilling Mi 1 121 ssa -1561 DRAWN .ILH APPROVEW�tCK I JOB • 3669 SHEET 1 of 1 Boring caved at 5 feet after auger The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries removal between soil types: Insitu the transiton may be gradual. 6125090720 5r9E CONSULTANTS INC T -374 P - 006 RU5 27 '92 14:53 • • LOU Of- DOi zivG b- 0 1 PROJECT SITE �/Olk'S Pi Evaluation of Clay Borrow Chaska, i nnesota CLIENT ARCHITECT- ENGINEER Carl Bolander and Sons 1 Op Itaf) u. W 1 1 m DES C RIPTION OF MATERIAL `l 1 I A 1 I w j -+ 3 WATER j t D , CONTENT % � Z aw 0 w m �.�. - . Y a ti w l d I:, D STANDARD PENETRATION MOWS/Fool) 1 Qw N Q SURFACE ELEVATION w N j -- 0 -. tr z 10 20 ao 40 50 t SS 1.5 Dark brown CLAYEY SILT WITH SAND, 3 ' _ trace gravel, organics, roots - very loose 3.0 - damp - (ML) (Topsoil) 2SS 4.0 Dark brown fine to medium SILTY 3 a = 35S SAND, trace gravel - very loose - damp - s ' _l,Q„ (SM) 4SS Dark brown SILTY CLAY WITH SAND, race gravel - firm - (CL) 6 I 9.0 Brown SILTY CLAY, trace sand - firm - 1 0 5SS (CH -CL) a y . BSS Brown SILTY SANDY CLAY, trace a ® 1 12 4/ • gravel, 1" sand layer at 7.5 feet - firm - `(CL) Light brown fine to medium SAND WITH I SILT, trace gravel - loose - clamp - l(SP -SM) End of boring at 12 feet 1 Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings 1 1 1 1 1 1 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 8/14/92 1 W.L. Groundwater not encountered um GME CONSULTANTS, INC. P COMPLETED _ 8/14/92 O.otstthniod • MObrittis • lnvtternm"Mal W.L. while drilling or after 14000 218t Ammo No. RIO CME -550 DRILLER DTS 1 W.L. drillin g EMI Mint44rodo, MN 55447 la I 2 554 -1669 DRAWN JLH AFPAOYEd1MCK JOB s 3669 SHEET 1 Of 1 Boring caved at 7.5 feet after auger The stratification Tines represent approximate boundaries 1 removal 1 between Soil types; insitu the transiton may be gradual. 612x370720 CM CON5ULTRNT5 INC T •374 P RUG 27 '92 14:34 LVIi OF Isi ING is- b PROJECT SITE Volk'S Pit Evaluation of Clay Borrow Chaska, Mi nnesota CLIENT ARCHITECT- ENGINEER Carl Bolender and Sons IL ill OA) � ... 1 ft w 1 2 3 4 E Lit 0- CO w d DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL , WATER W w W V CONTENT % IA " tu o. Q in W - -•� - -- I = a. F Q d STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOW5/FOOTI L N Q N SURFACE ELEVATION W a w > - - - - co Q Z 1 0 20 30 40 50 I 1 SS 1_0 Brown and dark brown SILTY CLAY, trace sand, organics, roots - (CL) 7 2SS (Topsoil) — Brown SILTY SANDY CLAY, trace gravel t t Q 3SS - firm to very stiff - (CL) _L 16 I 4S5 9.0 silt, and ■ gray CLAYEY SAND, trace '. silt, gravel, sand lenses - dense - (SC) 30 .� -1-0- 5SS Light brown fine to medium SAND, trace 18 , 1 ess silt (SP) - medium dense to dense - damp - 17.Q 30 End of boring at 12 feet v,' I Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 8/14/92 W.L. Groundwater not encountered GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COM 8/14/92 W.L. while drilling or after Geotee hroal•Ma1rrials• 1 g 00 140 2lst A»n DRILL w No. RIO CME -550 ; ER DTS W.L. drillin E AlinnsspoAs, MN 55447 -- 10121 Ii59-185$ DRAWN JLH AI PIIOVEDWCK JOB • 3669 sHEET 1 of 1 1 Boring caved at 7.5 feet after auger The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries removal - between soil types; insitu the transiton may be gradual. 1512 =70720 Or= CONZULTRNT3 I NC T - 374 1" RUQ 27 '72 14: LUI CO bORifvG 6- / PROJECT SITE vows Pit Evaluation of Clay Borrow Chaska, M CLIENT ARCHITECT- ENGINEER Car! Bolander and Sons f- w , OP (tof) 1- cc w t I 3 q 5 m 0 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL WATER w j = w p CONTENT % U. z w - u 1- m IL/ y Q CL Q I Q = a I- Q ti J STANDARD PENETRATION IBLOWs/FOOTI a a SURFACE ELEVATION a w > in to cc Z 10 20 90 40 50 1.0 Dark brown fine to coarse SILTY SAND, 1 iss trace gravel, roots - damp - (SM) ( A ($) 2SS (Topsoil) 1 `�,' Light brown fine to coarse SAND WITH s 3SS SILT, trace gravel • loose to mediu ` 1 dense - damp - (SP -SM) a 0 4SS 16 1 ■ _Di 10.0 22 ® End of boring at 10 feet 1 Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 8/14/92 1 W.L. Groundwater not encountered ME CONSULTANTS, INC. B Ort 'NG COMPLETED 8/14/92 W.L. while drilling or after � � Geoul:M s!.M4t&n I..Environmente /y 14000 Y1n Avenue No. RIG CME -550 DRILLER DTS 1 W.L. drilling E M MN 66447 bbl -1 (0 JLH AppROW WCK 121 061 DRAWN JOB • 3669 SHEET 1 of 1 Boring caved at 3 feet after auger The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries 1 removal between soil types; insitu the transiton may be gradual. _ _ - 01 -2=71 1720 WIC CDN7ULTFINT7 I NC T r -pp7 PILO 27 '7Z 1q:7:: I t wu ur ciaitiNG a- 0 , PROJECT SITE Evaluation of Clay Borrow Vfolk'ss pit _ CLIENT -- _ Chaska, Minnesota II Carl Bolander and Sons ARCHITECT - ENGINEER •. OP (to - F ----- / 2 -0• - - I w 4 5 m > z DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL 3 WATER 1 - 2 w Q r+ w z w O. ta u W m CONTENT 96 •-• Q J tO J STANDARD PENEATIGN (BLOWS/FOOT/ Q I— TR a a Q N SURFACE ELEVATION a W > v, oc 2 - — 0 — . 10 20 20 40 50 1.0 Brown SILTY SAND, trace roots - damp - ' 1 SS ,(SM) (Topsoil) / 5 1 25S 1 Brown fine to coarse SILTY SAND, trace ! J loose to medium dense - damp - _ t 4 3SS \ravel. (SM) / , ' Brown SILTY SANDY CLAY, trace gravel 10 t ace g avel 4SS - stiff to very stiff - (CL) 22 .� 1 5SS 12 1 6 S 21 JD 7SS 1 12 II �} -h ~"l BSS 1 6.0 1 955 Brown SANDY CLAY to CLAYEY SAND, `. I trace gravel, silt - hard - (CL to SC) 33 10SS� 20 0 Light brown fine SAND WITH SILT, trace 20 ,A4 I \gravel - medium dense - damp - (SP - SM) , End of boring at 20 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings 1 1 1 1 1 I WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED W.L. Groundwater not encountered / � GME CONSULTANTS, INC. 8/14/92 W.L. while drilling or after L] GeeteohniaN .MeeeriaN.Enviro.vnente1 • NOr1ING COMPLETED 8/14/92 woo 21st Avenue No. RIG CME -550 DRILLER DTS W.L. drilling C Minneepelq, MN 55447 15121 559.155! DRAWN JLH APPRovEDWCK JOB l 3669 SHEET 1 of 1 Borin • caved at 16.5 feet after auger The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries 1 removal between soil types; inshu the transiton may be gradual. 022DO,0T20 MG GOfV3ULTR(VT0 INC T - 3T4 r - 010 FILM 2T • 72 14 :'d • B.{_JC3 ui 100Ri iu d- PROJECT SITE yolk's Pit - Evaluation of Clay Borrow Chaska, Minnesota CLIENT ARCHITECT- ENGINEER Carl Bolender and Sons w ltaf) w I- Q W :an. 1 2 3 4 5 W w D DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL 3 WATER al z ww w u w CONTENT % J} w a t N w - - -� - -- 4 0 Q Q J STANDARD PENETRATION mows/Foot) o a SURFACE ELEVATION a w > rn tC Z 10 20 30 40 50 — 1.0 Brown SILTY CLAY WITH SAND, trace I 1 1SS \gravel, roots - (CL) (Topsoil) 1 ■,i 2SS Brown fine to medium CLAYEY SAND, s CI 4.0 `race gravel - loose - damp - (SC) n 3SS Brown SANDY CLAY to CLAYEY SAND, 1 trace gravel - stiff to very stiff • (CL to 1 s ass SC) 25 2 1 Brown SILTY CLAYEY SAND, trace j I/ 55s 1 0 gravel - medium dense - damp - (SC -SM) 12 g' 6SS Brown SILTY SANDY CLAY, trace gravel 19 ` I - stiff to very stiff - (CL) ��I 7SS 15 � 15.0 t?' 1 8SS 16.0 Brown fine to medium SILTY SAND, 12 P4 4. 9SS trace gravel - medium dense - damp - (SM) 13 CI 11 V 19.0 Brown fine to medium SAND, trace me 1 OSS 20,0 \gravel, silt - medium dense - damp - (SP) / 11 Ix 11SS Brown fine SILTY SAND, trace gravel - a ��l ' medium dense - damp - (SM) 125S Brown fine to medium SAND WITH SILT, 10 0 trace gravel - loose to medium dense - l `' 13SS 26 0 damp - (SP -SM) s t�I End of boring at 26 feet 1 Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings 1 1 1 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 8/17/92 I W.L. ©19 feet while drilling �� GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMPLETED 8/17/92 W. L. Geoteehnioal • Meteriab • Environmental 14000 21.1 Avenue No. RIG CME -550 DRILLER DTS 1 WL• (812) 551.1868 56447 DRAWN JLH APPROVEDWCK JOB N 3669 SHEET 1 of 1 Boring caved at 19 feet after auger The stratification Tines represent approximate boundaries ( between soil types; insitu the transiton may be gradual. 1 orc..1Jvi'1 r ME CO►`15ULTRNT3 INC T - 374 P - 011 F11.1G 27 '52 14 : Z6 I LUU Of. BORING B -1O PROJECT SITE 1/Plk' � Evaluation of Clay Borrow Chaska, Pit CLIENT ARCHITECT - ENGINEER I Carl Bolander and Sons W .�` _ 4 - op (tsf) C- to LL • - -o -_. 1 2 I m -J DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL - 1 i ►- w a 1.- o WATER LL Q. 0 w m CONTENT 96 I = 1614 O✓ J t!) W ._... _. L o F- Q Q D STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWSlFOOT) U w < Q z SURFACE ELEVATION a w > to CC Z 1 20 30 40 50 I 1.0 Dark brown SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, � SS — trace gravel, roots • (CL) (Topsoil) / E 2SS Brown SILTY CLAY WITH SAND, trace 4., L gravel - firm - (CH -CL) • I = 3SS 6 0 Brown SILTY CLAY, trace sand • firm - 6 4SS Brown SILTY SANDY CLAY, trace 1 gravel, rock fragments • stiff to hard - 12 �, 1u 5SS 10.0 (CL) 34 Brown SILTY CLAY WITH SAND, trace , 1 6SS gravel - very stiff to stiff - (CL) 23 ' 7SS 12 II - 8SS 14 — 9SS 18.0 23 ` loss Brown fine to medium SAND WITH SILT, h� trace gravel • medium dense - damp - t 1 1 11 SS (SP -SM) 13 (� Y 12SS 14 Q 1 1 i 13SS 26.0 17 End of boring at 26 feet I Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings 1 1 1 I WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 8/17/92 W. 2 18 feet while drilling OME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMPLETED 8/1 7/92 W.L. Cri urrM M k Geo(eel • �taei� • EfN1ItORRNrnh1 1 14000 21st Avenue No. R CME -550 DRILLER DTS W.L. ECM 0i iii MN 66447 DRAWN JLH APPRovroWCK JOB Boring caved at 17.4 feet after auger The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries 3669 sHEkT 1 of 1 1 ,removal between soil types: insitu the transiton may be gradual. _--. ...�_� CONSULTANTS ._ .�..... 03 .._ INC 7-324 P - 022 RUG 27 '92 13: Y . -r •. -. -... fi' S • ,� IIGIMI ONSULTANTS INC, Geoteahnicet Materials- Environmental E 14 Avenue Nh 140 Minntepoli 21st e Minnesota 55447 ort I [812] 559 -1859 MOISTURE - DENSITY RELATIONS OF SOILS AND SOIL - AGGREGATE MIXTURES ' 135 -- - --,--- IR DATE. 8/92 GME PROJECT NO. 3669 - - PROJECT: Evaluation of Clay B orro w - Volk's Pit 130 - LOCATION: Chaska, Minnesota GRAPH NO. B- 8 SAMPLE NO. B- 8 SOURCE OF MATERIAL•4 -1 8') 125 SOIL DESCRIPTION. SANDY CLAY, trace silt r o - UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION. CL u. 120 ' \ \ tii METHOD OF TEST; ASTM: D 698 Method A u CLAY PREPARATION: Yes rr w - 0 115 ATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT: 19,4 z . }� OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONT 14.5 L 110 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY: 113.2 pcf 0 CC 0 105 ` - , Z,ro ai void rve for s pecific previtla of ! - 2 .80 100 ,.n1 2.G0 ilk I. 95 III, Nom• Oh. 16. ' 10 85 . • O 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 1 MOISTURE CONTENT - PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT 1 - - 612=90720 • GME CON5ULTRNT5 INC T P - 021 RUG 27 '52 15:02 I GME CONSULTANTS, INC. Geotechnicel- Materials- Environm E 1 21st Avenue North tel Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447 140 I l■ i (612) 559 -1859 MOISTURE - DENSITY RELATIONS OF SOILS AND 1 13 - ---- - ---- - SOIL- AGGREGATE MIXTURES - 1 DATE: 8/92 GME PROJECT NO. 3669 PROJECT: Evaluation of Cla Borrow - Volk's Pit 1 130 . i L Ch Minnesota \ GRAPH NO: B 6 SAMPLE NO. B- 6 SOURCE OF MATERIAL• 1 125 �-- SOIL DESCRI • SANDY CLAY DESCRIPTION. ,trace silt 0 120 , ► UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION. CL � , 111 in _ - eth • ASTM: D 69�s M od A U li,k , METHOD OF TEST CLAY PREPARATION : yes W 0 115 at ATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT: 15.6 % 71 o ' a OPTIMUM MOISTURE .12. I y ISTURE CONTENT. 8 % v, 110 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY: 116.8 pcf o — ,------- ,--- , ---. -- —.— 111%, I 105 - - _ \ \ Zero air void curve for \ 2 specific grevitias of . l 22 ..60 0 7 100 , 1 • ilk 111. ' Ill , Valk 1 95 , • , . lb"— 1 111. _ _ IIIIE MI6. 90 ,,,,, MUM/ ill` in . I 85 - �► � 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 MOISTURE CONTENT . PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT 0123350720 A , tat`lE COtYSULTFtfYTS INC T - 374 P -020 RUG 27 '52 15:1L In � CONSULTANTS, INC. G ao t ethnical -Ma t erials- Environmental _. 14000 21st Avenue North 1 140 ■ ■1111/.,. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447 • 111111111111111111111111111 [6121559.1859 11/ ■ //11a'sin MOISTURE - DENSITY RELATIONS OF SOILS AND 11 ■1a SOIL- AGGREGATE MIXTURES 135 111111111111 1111111M11111111 ■1111■ ■ ■ / / /10111. DATE_ 8/92 �U�:::::��. 1 � GME PROJECT NO. 3669 /11/ /11r1111NI/�,� PROJECT: Evaluation of Oa Borrow - Volk's Pi 130 11■ ■111111 ■ ■INIUM LOCATION: Chaska. Minnesota ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■ ■ GRAPH NO* B 3 SAMPLE NO B- 3 ■ ■■■■■ ■ ■■ om SOURCE OF MATERIAL: B -3 (416' ■ 11 125 ■■■ ■/■ MMOH 1�, im/ /■r niumom m11n1 SOIL DESCRIPTION. SANDY SILT WITH CLAY 11 ■ ■■1111■r■■ mun • ■■■ nmum r lu u► i- ■■■■■11■■1111 120 111111111111111111 11111111111111111111M11111, UNIFIED CLASSIFICATIO • ML U ■ / / / / / / / / / / / / / //■ METHOD OF TEST STM: D 696 Me hod 1 ES ■ / ■ ■ / /■r■ ■r■ ■ ■�IIa A u 11/111111 ■ ■■ ■11,1//1 CLAY PREPARATION: es W ■■r■■■■■■■■■■■■.,, n 115 1111/11/111111 �� MINIMMUM MOIMUUMNIMPIVIMIlk 11■ ■ ■/ 11 ► ATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT: 15.1 % a ■■■11■11 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■11��11II OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT: 14.5 110 111111111111 ■1111■ ■� /■r■ 1111 z 11111111111111111111111111 /nkla MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY: 1 4.3 w 1111 41 ■ 11 ■s ■■ ■∎111111 -' .pcf 1111111111111111111111111 rr■■1111/1111121111IL 11111111/■■/1111 ■ 11 ■■11■■■■►�111111k 11/11■■r■■ ■■r■■ 11 ■1111r■■111`111 105 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111101112111. ■■■/1111 ■ ■ ■r ■ ■A ■■1111■ ■„■. Zero al 11■■/ ■■ �r ■ 1111 ■ ■�NN�1111 a fIZ: ■■ ■ ■ ■��IN� ■ ■ /11 ■�■■■ ■■ ■11 ■ l,� _`2.g,t= Yr+rNties of for ■11111111111111 C 11 11111111111111111111i i ii � �;. 2 oo .7 ■■■■■■i■ ■■■■■.�■■■■■■■, alk ri■■1111■ ■■■■■■/■11■■111111111■■rMI lli 11■■■■■■11■■■11 ■ 1111 r■11■■11■■■1■11011. INIMM11111111111111111111111111111111 r■■■r■111■■■■■ C■■■rr■■■r■■■■�1.a . 1 95 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■111■ ■1111111■ ■ ■111111/ \11/x► ■■■1111■ ■■■■r■11r■ ■1111■►1111111 ■ter ■ ■ ■ ■■r ■ ■ ■ ■■■r■ ■■■ ■11111111■■ ■ \► . ■r■■ ■111111/■■ ■■11/11■■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■■11■i� I. ■1111 ■■ ■11// ■ / ■ ■ ■■1111'N ■111111 ■ � 1 90 ■111111 ■�rr1111■1111■ ■11 ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■r 11//11 ■■■■■ ■■r■ ■■r■■■■■ ■r■■■■■r■■ ■ ■■■■■/11■■11■■■■■■r■■■■■11rr■■■■ murk 1 ■11■■r■■11■■r111111011111r■- 1111■■ ■■M /■■ ■11311101 11111111r11r/■■r11■■■11■■11111111/ 1111r■r■■■■►I 85 ■ ■■■■■ ■ ■■■MMUM i iii 0 M ■ ■111111■■r 20 25 , I ■ ■ 11 r ■ 35 MOISTURE CONTENT • PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT _ °°T "' rr1= COt'4 LJLTAr9T3 INC T F -017 R •• • ... • • ...6 :' - :V.tTl..<:M. y;•.•.......n. .v...... ,......... ... -r.u. .. f • . Z7 1M:01 • • GME CONSULTANTS, INC. , ■ III", _ _ � Gt;otechnicohMaterials- Environmental am 14000 21 at Avenue North 140 11111111111111 + Minneepolie, M 55447 (812) 559 -1859 MOISTURE - DENSITY RELATIONS OF SOILS AND SOIL- AGGREGATE MIXTURES ' 135 IN �INEk N �� N _�L 8!9 DATE. 2 II��II��, GME PROJECT NO. 3669 I ��::::: �►w PROJECT: Evaluation of Clay borrow - Volk's Pit 130 immumu mix LOCATION: Chaska, Minnesota ' 111111 i GRAPH NO• B- 2 SAMPLE NO. B- 2 SOURCE OF MATERIAL: 8-2 (4 -26') 125 SOIL DESCRIPTION: SANDY CLAY, trace silt II o IIIIIII!I UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION. CL � 120 I n �' METHOD OF TEST• IO ASTM: D 093 Method A cr CLAY PREPARAT Yes w I 0 115 ATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT: 17.1 g 6 z 1111111 0 ° 111111��11�� 111111111111111 OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT: 13.8 % I LMAXI rommi 110 MUM DRY DENSITY: 113.3 pa ' w 0 Y cc ca 1 105 2cm void curve for �,i fi ,:zi ii 9raVlir of ?.a0 1 2.70 100 a �� - 2.60 a 1 9 5 1 �� .......ii._ Nam �i i.. I . ■ 1 90 Ik . 111111 11 IN 85 1111111 111 I 0 5 10 1 5 2 11 1 MOISTURE CONTENT - PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT 30 35 01 Dri t_ CO N3ULT T3 RN INC T -374 r—D10 RUC% 27 ' 72 13: 00 • r ...... . _ . , ..... ...._ ..... .. ..... �.... ._ � en, .: CONSUL7AN .r..._.._..... , !i. TS, INC. '` Gsot echn Materials. Env esi 0 14000 21st Avenue North 140 I 55 -1 l ie, 859 M 55447 1 MOISTURE - DENSITY RELATIONS OF SOILS AND ilk SOIL- AGGREGATE MIXTURES , 135 1111111 II DATE: 8/92 GME PROJECT NO. 3669 EMOINI M w��iw i PROJECT: Evaluation of Clay Borrow - Volk's Pit 1 Miall_a�l�!►1 130 , LOCATION: Chaska, Minnesota GRAPH NO. 8�1 SAMPLE NO, B- 1 REM 111111111111611 I, .111111.111111111.1111111 MIMIL SOURCE OF MATERIAL• B-1 (14 -20') I 125,,,,,,1,1 11I S01L DESCRIPTION: SANDY CLAY, trace silt 111111111 I 1111$ o 120 UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION! CL Et M ETHOD OF TEST: ASTM: D 698 Method A I III U IiIIIIIIIHIIhii Y PREPARATION: vas X w 115 ATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT: 16.8 11° 1111111111 MOISTURE CONTENT: 13 I 1 in M AXIMUM DRY DENSITY: 114_0____pcf K MIN MMIMME M��E■NINNINIMOOM ► i7 111111111111111111/111 105 , Zero sir void eurvt for specific praviuse of 2.80 Z•�0 III% 100 Nam iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 95 11. 111 '1 .01 ILI 1 1 li 85 0 5 10 15 20 13: 25 30 35 MOISTURE CONTENT - PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT 012337OT20 oric CONOULTRNTO INC T r — olT ...._ .. .... �. _. ... ...... _.... ........... ..— ....... _Y HUO 27 X72 14:37 I . r IF &_:1 GME CONSULTANTS, INC. �' ` G uo tec i ca l- M ater i e l s .E nv ' vonmente l 14000 21st Avenue North I 140 \ NM Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447 1612) 559.1859 MOISTURE - DENSITY RELATIONS OF SOILS AND SOIL- AGGREGATE MIXTURES 135 a ,\% DATE:8 /92 , GME PROJECT NO. 3669 r PROJECT- Evaluation of Clay Borrow - Volk's Pit 130 \ LOCATION: Chaska, Minnesota 1 _ ` GRAPH NO: B- 1 SAMPLE NO. B- 1 I SOURCE OF MATERIAL: 6 -1 (2-14') 125 SOIL DESCRIPTION: SANDY CLAY, trace silt o 1, \ UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION. CL o 120 . _ Kt k METHOD OF TEST- ASTM: D 698 Min CLAY PREPARATION: Yes a. 1 n 115 1 ' ATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT: 21 .6 % a OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT: 3 % 1- 110 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY: 107.2 pcf 0 cr o IL 1161. 105 r III 1 !logic alr void curve for s ethic gravities of 1 X80 _ . 2 .70 ' Ili ' 2 .60 100 I t 1 , — 90 h611 i -_ M■� MMi .I.. . , . _ 8 ,. NIL 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 l MOISTURE CONTENT - PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT 1 5120050720 WE CON5ULTFINT3 I NC T • RUG 27 ' 52 14:39 4 PLASTICITY CHART 80 70 I 60 oe X CH ILI 50 Z y, CL I' 40 U H N OH 4 30 ..�. Or 20 ----- MH a1 in e O CL -ML, 1,0" ML 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 - 90 100 110 .0 130 LIQUID LIMIT (%) PLASTICITY DATA NATURAL PLASTIC LIOUID PLASTICITY PASS :NG UNIFIED KEY SAMPLE DEPTH MOISTURE LIMIT LIMIT INDEX NO. 200 SOIL SYMBOL NUMBER (11) CONTENT (96) (96) (%) SIEV)E zLA SYMBOL ION (46) • B- 8 14.0 -16.0 14.5 16 26 10 59.7 CL CO 8- 8 (B) 4.0 -18.0 19.4 18 36 18 61.8 CL • B- 9 8.0 -10.0 14.8 19 25 6 33.3 SC -SM * 8- 9 10.0-12.0 15.1 16 28 10 55.9 CL X B- 9 12.0 -14.0 17.9 19 26 8 60.4 CL O B -10 2.0 -4.0 14.0 20 50 30 61.4 CH-CL O 8-10 4.0 -6.0 24.7 20 33 14 79.2 CL L1 B -10 6.0 -8.0 15.8 18 27 9 53.4 CL o B -10 8.0 -10.0 13.7 17 27 11 62.9 CL i ® 8-10 10.0 -12.0 13.0 16 31 15 64.6 CL O B -10 12.0 -14.0 , 15.4 16 28 12 70.8 CL I PLASTICITY DATA GME CONSULTANTS, INC. Evaluation of Clay Borrow , ■ Geotechnicat Materials Environmental Chaska, Minnesota --- 14000 21st Avenue North ^ Volk's Pit . Minneapolis, MN 55447 KW GRR 8/92 #3669 I 5123350720 GM CON5ULTRNT5 INC T - 374 P RUG 27 '52 14: 1 PLASTICITY CHART ep 1 70i 411111 1 _ 00 1 W 60 CH ., o I z I CL I 40 F es - ppir I J 30 OH 0. Q 111 or 1 20 MH iiiri A El 1 10 � IsWr' ' ' � ML 1 0 0 10 0 .0 40 50 60 0 BO 90 100 110 120 130 LIQUID LIMIT ( %) 1 PLASTICITY S ICITY DATA I NATURAL PLASTIC LIQUID PLASTICITY PASSING UNIFIED KEY SAMPLE SYMBOL NUMBER DEPTH MOISTURE LIMIT LIMIT INDEX NO. 200 SOIL (h) CONTENT OW (96) (46) SIEVE �LA .. (%) - - (9G) _ SYMBOL 1 • B- 5 4.0 -6.0 21.9 23 45 22 58.3 CL m B- 5 6.0 -8.0 29.4 22 50 29 88.6 CH -CL B- 6 2.0 -4.0 13.8 15 24 9 60.9 CL * B- 6 4.0 -6.0 13.4 15 26 11 63.7 CL 1 X B- 6 6.0 -8.0 13.7 16 28 12 48.9 SC 0 B- 6 (B) 2.0 -8.0 15.6 16 29 13 61.3 CL 1 0 8- 8 4.0 -6.0 20.9 19 46 27 78.8 CL L B- 8 6.0 -8.0 15.8 19 33 14 63.7 CL 1 t s, B- 8 8.0 -10.0 15.7 17 25 9 50.4 CL e B- 8 10.0-12.0 16.5 16 28 12 63.0 CL 1 ❑ 8- 8 12.0 -14.0 : 16.6 17 29 12 - 65.8 CL PLASTICITY DATA 111" GME CONSULTANTS, INC. Evaluation of Clay Borrow III GME Materials Environmental Chaska, Minnesota 14000 21st Avenue North a Minneapolis, MN 55447 1 Volk's Pit IN KMB 1 GRR 1 8/92 1 #3669 d 6123390720 GM CON5ULTRNTS INC T -374 P - 014 RUG 27 '92 14:58 r PLASTICITY CHART 80 .................... ...._._ 70 - 60 OR X CH 0 so Z CL 40 V H 0 GH 5 a Of 20 MH • 10 - CL -ML ,' ML 0 0 0 10 20 30 4 % . • Y 100 Ito 120 130 LIQUID LIMIT (%) PLASTICITY DATA NATURAL PLASTIC LIQUID PLASTICITY PASSING UNIFIED KEY SAMPLE DEPTH MOISTURE LIMIT LIMIT INDEX NO. 200 SOIL SYMBOL NUMBER (tt) CONTENT (914 (9(%) (91) SIEVE ".LASSIFICATION 194) OW SYMBOL • 8- 2 8.0 -10.0 16.0 19 27 8 58.2 CL Ill B- 2 10.0 -12.0 16.4 19 28 9 58.7 CL 5- 2 12.0 -14.0 17.0 20 29 9 59.9 ' CL * B- 2 (B) 4.0 -26.0 17.1 20 32 12 58.3 CL X 8- 3 2.0 -4.0 15.4 16 27 12 62.7 CL Co B- 3 4.0 -6.0 19.1 25 41 16 61.9 CL O 8- 3 6.0 -8.0 14.2 18 31 12 59.1 CL A 8- 3 8.0 -10.0 18.4 16 27 11 59.5 CL e 8.3 10.0 -12.0 14.0 19 28 9 61.1 CL la) B- 3 12.0 -14.0 12.8 16 26 10 57.1 CL ❑ B- 3 (13) 4.0 -16.0 15.1 28 , 30 2 59.9 ML PLASTICITY DATA GME CONSULTANTS, INC. Evaluation of Clay Borrow III Geotechnical Materials Environmental 14000 21st Avenue North Chaska, Minnesota I ---+ Minneapolis, MN 55447 Volk's Pit 6-4 KMR 1 GRR 1 8/92 1 #3669 - 612559072© GME CONSULTANTS INC T - 374 P -013 RUG Z7 '92 14:57 1 PLASTICITY CHART 1 so 1 70 ' Aill 50 - 1 ii X CH W 50 0 1 z CL 40 U_ I OH J Q. A of • 1 20 MN 111 10 CL -ML ' ML I 0 o lo 0 40 50 00 70 80 90 100 110 1 ' .t0 LIQUID LIMIT ( %) 1 PLASTICITY DATA . 1 NATURAL PLASTIC LIOUID PLASTICITY PASSING KEY SAMPLE DEPTH MOISTURE LIMIT LIMIT INDEX NO. 200 UNIFIED SOIL SYMBOL NUMBER (ft) CONI%) ENT (96) 96) (96) SIEVE :LASSIFICATlON (96) SYMBOL 1 • B- 1 2.0 -4.0 20.2 22 45 24 91.3 CL 1 B- 1 4.0 -5.0 17.3 19 35 16 46.4 SC 1 A. B- 1 6.0 -8.0 28.3 22 49 27 76.5 CL * B- 1 8.0 -10.0 22.2 17 30 12 68.2 CL 1 X B- 1 10.0 -12.0 18.1 19 29 10 60.5 CL O B- 1 12.0 -14.0 16.0 19 28 9 55.9 CL 1 O 8- 1 (B) 2.0 -14.0 21.6 21 36 15 64.0 Cl. A 8- 1 (9) 14.0 -20.0 16.8 20 30 10 68.5 CL 1 0 B- 2 2.0 -4.0 19.5 24 40 16 83.8 CL ® 8- 2 4.0 -6.0 16.2 18 29 11 55.9 CL 1 0 8- 2 6.0 -8.0 14.5 17 26 9 49.6 SC-CL 1 PLASTICITY DATA GME CONSULTANTS, INC. Evaluation of Clay Borrow , Geotechnicai Materials Environmental Chaska, Minnesota 14000 21st Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55447 1 L Volk's Pit KMO I GRR L 8/92 1 03669 X123390720 GPiE GON5ULTRNTS 1 NG 7-374 P RUG 27 '92 14:37 GME sulriels t ants, Inc. 1 fl Geotechnicel Con Met •Envronmental 14000 21 st Av North Minneapolis, Minne 55447 I (612)559 -1859 GME Job Number: 3669 I Evaluation of Clay Borrow Volk's Pit Chaska, Minnesota II Preliminary Permeability Results I Boring Depth Hydraulic Conductivity I Number (ft) (cm /sec) 1 2 -14 7 x 10 1 1 14 -20 4 x 10 3 4 -16 4 x 10 II 8 4 -18 4 x 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITYOF 1 010 1 , CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 September 10, 1992 1 1 NOTICE OF HEARING CANCELLATION You may have recently received notice or are aware of the fact that at the last City Council 1 meeting, the Council continued the request by Moon Valley Aggregates to mine clay at a site south of Pioneer Trail to the September 14, 1992, meeting. I want to inform you that, as the Planning Director, I have taken action to temporarily withdraw this item from the City Council agenda. I have taken this action since we were presented with a copy of soil boring data taken for this site by the applicant's engineer on Wednesday, September 9th. This data was collected by the contractor for the clay operation during August and was not in the possession of the applicant until this time. The data indicates the presence of the sand layer at an elevation that is actually closer to the surface than had been anticipated. This information resolves the significant questions that have been raised regarding the potential functioning of the infiltration 1 basins. However, it also will result in the need to revise the excavation and drainage plans to account for subsurface conditions. A result of this revision is likely to be a decrease in the 1 amount of clay material that would be proposed for mining at this site. Staff expects to have revised plans from the applicant next week so that the item can be heard 1 at the September 28, 1992, City Council meeting. If you have any questions or desire additional information, please feel free to contact me at City 1 Hall. Sincerely, 0111 . 1 1111.P. 1 Paul Krauss, AICP Planning Director 1 1 Is t 01 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Otto G. BonesCOa PE. Howard A. Sanford. PE. Thomas R. Anderson. AJA Jeny D. Pertdch, PE. Kam L Wemen. PE. Robert W. Rosene. PE' Keith A. Gordon. P.E. Donald C. Btrgar L P.E. Kenneth P. Anderson. PE. F. Todd Foster. PE. B ones t too Joseph C. ArderM. P.E. Robert R. Waft PE. Thomas E. Angus PE. Mark R. Ro/s PE. Keith R PE. Mary Sonata. PE. Rk hard W. Foster. PE. Gary F. Rylarxkc PE. Mark A Sr ib. P.E. Gary Shawl D. Gustafson P� Rosene Richard E. Turner. PE. David O. losimb. PE. Ismael Karim PE. W. Modem PE. CeaTo Olivier. PE. DII Glen R Cook PE. Ibbet C. Russet AJA Michael P Rau, PE. Daniel J Edgerton. PE. Charles A. Eridnon Ad ers i k & Thomas E. Nors. P.E. Jerry A. Bourdon. PE. Agnes M. Ring MCP. Mb J. Caswet PE. Leo M. Paaelsky Robert G. Sehunicht. PE. Mark A. Hanson. PE. Thomas W. Peterson, PE. Mark D % s. PE. Harlan M. Oboe I Associates Susan MC x P" P PE. � C. P.E. We B. Jensen. 1 PE James F ErgeRsardt Engineers & Architects • a August 1992 I • City of Chanhassen - I 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: File No. 393.00 1 General invoke No. A - 21410 Engineering Se rvices Rendered I Far � � July 1, 1992 through July 31, 1992 1 Review storm water re rn Valley — D Reg.Engr. 2.0 Hrs. @ $58.50 $117.001 Prepare analysis for storm water drainage re: Oak Hills /Oak Hills Community Development Reg.Engr. 14.0 Hrs. @ $58.50 819.0011 V.Process 2.0 Hrs. @ $28.25 56.50 992. r; 1 1 . ' '• • lf. .a t ■ 1 I ;t • 9 ..3 1 19;2 4 . ,ta .g 'ti t I All bins due and payable within 30 days. Interest will be charged at the annual Cate d 1296 after 60 days. lionestroa Rosefe. A ndertik a Assodates, inc. ' I declare under the penalties of pe that I am the person malting the within claim; that 1 have examined said claim and that the same is just and true; that the services therein chaged were actually rendered and were of the value therein charged; that the fees therein charged are official and are such as are allowed by law; and that no part of said claim has been paid. The effect of this verification / . under shall be the same as if subscribed and sworn to der oath. by O(/vl of Claimant '- 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612 -6364600 1 [// September 10, 1992 • Paul Krauss, Director of Planning City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' RE: Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Moon Valley Gravel Mine Dear Mr. Krauss: The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has received a petition requesting that an EAW be prepared on the project described in the petition, and has determined that City of Chanhassen is the appropriate governmental unit to decide the need for an EAW. The requirements for environmental review, including the preparation of EAWs, can be found in the Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200 to 4410.7800. Please contact me if you do not have access to these rules. The procedures to be followed in making the EAW decision are set forth in part 4410.1100. Key points in the procedures include: 1. No final government approvals may be given to the project named in the petition, nor may construction on the project be started until the need for an EAW has been determined. Project construction includes any activities which directly affect the environment, including preparation of land. If the decision is to prepare an EAW, approval must be withheld until either a Negative Declaration is issued or ' an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is completed (see part 4410.3100). 2. A first step in making the decision regarding the need for an EAW would be to compare the project to the mandatory EAW, EIS and Exemption categories listed in parts 4410.4300, 4410.4400, and 4410.4600, respectively. If the project should fall under any of these categories, environmental review is automatically required or prohibited. If this should be the case, proceed accordingly. 3. If preparation of an EAW is neither, mandatory nor exempted, City of Chanhassen has the option to prepare an EAW. The standard to be used to decide if an EAW should be done is given in part 4410.1100, subp. 6. Note that this requires that a record of decision including specific findings of fact be maintained. RECEIVED SEP11 1992 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1' [IYIIDMMEM1AE ODAEITY BOARD 158 CEDAR SHEET, S1. FAII, 111 55155 112 211 -2113 WI 112 211 -3111 1111f PIIYIIEB II ® MUM 1 September 10, 1992 1 Page Two 1 4. You are allowed 30 working days (Saturdays, Sundays and holidays do not count) for your decision if it will be made by a council, board, or other body which meets only periodically, or 15 working days if it will be made by a single individual. You may request an extra 15 days from EQB if the decision will be made by an individual. 5. You must notify, in writing, the proposer, the petitioners' representative and the EQB of your decision within five working days. I would appreciate your sending a copy of your record of decision on the petition along with notification of your decision for our records. This is not required, however. 6. If for any reason you are unable to act on the petition at this time (e.g., no application has yet been filed or the application has been withdrawn), the petition will remain in effect for a period of one year, and must be acted upon prior to any final decisions concerning the project identified in the petition. Notice of the petition and its assignment to your unit of government will be published in the EOB Monitor on September 14, 1992. If you have any questions or need any assistance, please do not hesitate to call. The phone number is (612) 296 -8253 or you may call on our toll -free line by dialing 1- 800 - 652 -9747 and asking for the Environmental Quality Board, Environmental Review Program. Sincerely, Gregg Downing Environmental Review Coordinator cc: Richard Vogel 1 1 1 1 j iDP4/ ?' i C �1J (7�/ a tt-r C&4611-7 AV PAFit.1 aett 411-fr; u/iii ,ezi.. 7tki2 t ! 1 '" l eMti iu-ek 41-4i ,tbiiifrc- Irehtair--04-71 Aitfrid, /..,- h mc-1 '-4, 4,i)itt/t 4 I '44 , I . c'A ,/,.../v2),,iive,r .6z.47 Itf - ,,, , , dfz 4-61 1(4 i 1 I- ;; ././(k_v4-,(Aimil 44.1, , r A J j 4 0-r el: at-C- •'tom it /. ,, izt/iL 3 - _s attree .-A-7--"e116.-- / , �� A fc,z-t4 ; - 16T1J-2 '1')/(- ,ug - 1 _ 4,t-6 - 4/.- - // 7}- tii ,M '- : A / 4 1 - rt2ia g (I fe, afevy • 9 ' ri/ C1' 'l A4 fi c ir: c 4A,,,vat,47=ept ic ,i4A.,,,e..,Ay ryil,i-i • iy-ei-E fir' ,liv-icif / • er" 4-61‘111'" A4e1441. ii, Ac_m2z-c-, I t 4' I j , )41:ji , I i 1 n in 1 D 1 °1/1° Tfr �c�"- - 5 3� 7 c os, - e Oi 1 q , 1 a6C4771. ' )2 92CL1:11)N. Wde 612 .- ;c2 1 3 I /Oki t q 0 - - dir 1 1 1 V ,4 4-efat c /b ., ,,t.i.10-kw-glitai ailz-;,1041 WpiL4'i /v c-c ' • 0-6-n 0 /./ % Is.•,,,,„-_, ui,-, - f 975 0 e a I r I — , io /AA ', i 4 t‘ls" ':-, ° U ' ‘ /° _1.-.einerz"- - C.a..2___a:11,_______4_q,5_,,a4 . ii r far- !t i 1 c,',,,,A. cis-6, k • 0 A. , f 4 ' :,■ c Si S I ` 4n_ b I L t78 4 61141 " /1 (0 t - 1)_ i/LX%e,4k TD Le- C.4 C 9 - 5'i 5 7 p - s e) z. / es'P? Te - ('( 411 • '3Y '/ r � LZZ_� &-S 4 73 � Z E D G c� s- z - - - 4 f G ,O,c, `/ `/ 7 S 1 1 (42: 4 /144ae-, ,..? SO ki- JZ 11-4%; , 1 fr( - - - G - /a /1 Syc - 3' 3 73 1 %A-Le & // _ . _ ?- _ - o3 A ? ?e � g' /9 - 6 6.01 )2 1 1 - J L 2t # %70 /lteAcE'o,J (44.4 (A _ 4{96- -o c,61 IF - -- -- 7O , - ` C a - r, /N = 3 77 3 . ° , vt,A., - ..4_, ■-• L ._,, • 7 I.. , -, , e_kruild 4 1 itS - - 1 _ _.',b,e, ,, -1., /, , / 41,, ei z \k-- l / ' k6" L_)6 _ 1 4 2 4■4 ( Vt 015vd_p ,' _ i 4 __Wii WitilaiL;kxfAlf_-__ ti � w _ni a 5o 9A 4s 311 1 1 ,t tit L. • Szei -sr8 an a _ a - • P, -S745 Kim 61037 e-Gctiv (441 'a_nergtzcopt_ Orz- Lii-f 5- $SZ( 1 1 1 1 1 1 • Nry \r$, 1 E tkpJa0(..\ 1k2.,3a,esco 1 LAD/es/ 6 --f-iirz-E-stAe-"1.. Gioc/S1/141-//0 13-evi 1 U/JA /5#r PACT e __7 b eauPL)7 Ak..ex+el.e cLEt L i71 /lice d/ 7 E. c- c.- 7 ) ,,(/ -7 Am 4 ro/L_ . Art. k&ff,14,____/A/rE. _ tigE A2 4rE coft-A) - - 4r 1 A ,s- t sr,o - pr,r/e-L /"Li 1 PAPA/1: 04 A.e 471/p .0Aps 4A&711 /S tiAMeze ..Z . 7* l 7"Alt,r r:gk coA. 04-5 4 _ ./3-1/7 Af 4- P&72-s-.0AJ _t_01/1 ---- 4il t/St' PZfriV / - /6 X4erer/t/524 • • ..5,9E-cmcir, _ x/60 • 1 1 Pocid- j 49 121_/ Kr_ Afc.46. 44/5 7 a E A- A/A41 - 1.9z /4/5"or/ii ey_ftwocIr 04. 111 77 ( //i/S2,- -1 CA1Gt2i•e 6 (17 "t#7 PG,i /I 0 .S r Aektizei). As r ,64F F vr4 g.6 eeAtis __ ‘,o5 /1e ,5 ye° FIZOPe .e; __ _pr . fl P rOG /6 a 6 7'C/f _ tte Se tie2-e.i 4) A z11 JA-re to t juts 7 M ,Jj ii (C7 o A41 4 8 7414-7 Ar Cig7 4/0 ) --- / 5 pot/z-, • &-f e,e > 1— /7i 7' /7 / //t/P/771/ t ‘t eci -11771/1- _frb 4 Caoc/G Pl+WP 7rt/ 77.1tS Ofire470/2, . ../vor re-4r __•14-75 eo"ic TS 7 2 -1 TA/is_ Amy rzcit5e 4-&--r-t/L I _ d , ;*/ 0 - 1 `'\ /�� r p r / ,, ♦ 1 1 ` I/ I If 14:g E p C i G ++ ♦ \\ `\ -* i , ; I . � ` ♦ • `- \ , ri r i , 1 1 S \ 1 1 1 \ _ 7 f ; 1 I 1 1 1 o r• p � 9 \\ \ ` ♦ \♦\ \�,� - --� �I : - ^ ` ♦ \� • • - -_-_� , C 1 1 \ 1 k 1 � 1 1 "- ` -•` \ ♦ ' a 14 fr 4I-Ft / ' "*./: ' ' f' 75'7- - - - -' I r __ 1 l :� 1 +4 j OD . - rI J , \ \ i � ii�` J L/ \ ` �� / i 1 i 1 ...10.1°:: ` �. \ � \ `\ � , t S }' / ii / 0 ► ' R ! q 1 1 1 j I j / , ^.1 ) � / 4 1 + /. — •,.� -1 1 , ` \ • - • /1, 1 ` 0 d �Q � / /fir i a �,'1 � �- - ` • tj f ' r r j / 1 1 i ' �� _ _ -, � ) � � / / I i.- a M 11 11 (t f:" ( 1 i, - Y ( 1 1 ` / i'(� 0 0 ii`` i t 1 / . 1 ■■ l / r t 1� a . 1 1 tt / 1 1 1 ' . i ' / � /' // / / / , • , / lit • ! 1 , 1 \ \ / - \ \. ` + �' \ '\ �', � I % - C - " • / .. � 7 g,:f' !. . _ t•,. ir.r��_ �C �- \\ 1 + 1 ` /' , / .':•,! / / 1 `\ L ii 11,1 � c �, J 1 1 1 1 Hill / f ti i 1 i i V ', C '"c:"-----' -4.` fi ' 'Ilk . i ii ' 4? 4 i .--, '� -►;,1 ' \ i ,/ is I A , <} ' //ill _ s' 1 il it., pi 7- - i 1 _ ', ,::,-,..' /- ...: i ,..2. ,...e t \,...izi......, 7„ . _...\- ,,,. 1 „... i a 4 1 8. i 11! 1 0 1 'tZ.. N',.. s , , , , - : ', ' ,i;:.,:r _ „ � _ s ' I / /% J A / di mit VI Lt•-...0 j p•• „ / ;;;;,,, um , 74111,4 1 • .., (-",,;:,:, /, :L. ,o &A*. i i i ,,,_..,„. I 1 i ., g , I i A' . • :( \ .4 I ' ► ,' > '1 • ■ d / II _• -I, ' 'i ce.•_ 1 / /f : 1 4 GRADING, DAMAO(a drlo_l _ _0111__ .1 I HIMIll 1 10111111 s , 1ATMRE • I( QO illT, 401C. ! MOON VALLEY ABUEEAAATE -� el WAN 11108•110 • �*•••• •• •••, • •,•••• I I 111M1•11111111• 1111111111110Th 1 -JUN— 9-92 TUE 16!40 SATHRE—BERCQUIST• INC. 1 ' • . V . i . 4411 • •N) .4, ., „ ,• w- ;-'-' - - T „ .. 4) / . 1 ••• " • , • "" .." "- :...- al) /7 /... ; 6'; c\ l e 7 ..... jec : ,.." ••• -',.....• . • " I N. 'r 1 ‘. I.,' ‘ ( rr , ;‘,. I '1 (( -1 C ii(( /,,, , ::.___...._ .... i a i' ..1 $ 1 i.', . ..-,.. / /, / 1 1 .11 ‘, C `.-:—.... . ■-•::,// -.....4._..... ...._ '••• . • •.„.....,4,..0 , I ,, - \\. .. . ................ ,„0 /..;. • . i ‘ t 'Jr ,;,•.. /,' , /4' . ,„\:_.....ir:** `;•''''''-'/ \ ,,., . .,\,\........ , ...- k • % /,../,../ , \,\ ■ - \‘ i •-----.•-• - N \ , \ \ 1 ) i ji. ; ‘ ' \ \ • I \ ' `1•••••""' • • ii ...-. 1 ' ; 1 - I 1 "Si1/4 • 41 /.. . --- 1\ .... , •" 1 I ii ° k i ■ \ .... 1 \ t / / //: ' .• 1 \ 1 ‘1 \ %41/4 / ' ■"' ''''--..-• -•:.' ; .:-..." ..••• ------ - % \ i -, // / ,' li r i , \ ‘ 1 lir P"...-1-•-•'" • - • / 1 I P - ... . .--.... •••• • - '''' • ..' :•,.._ ) 1 ) ( / ■ I ... ,, ."<;, . . , ' • 1 / i i i ;a / \'-' s* . ) 0 ((\ ‘,- f ••`7 ) , I /1 / ///,' \\\*-• 9 ( r . ■ ‘....‘ k ‘, ‘ •• • - .4 "../' / -/ / v \ ) ■ e. -•• `..-'• ,fr.;"'" --' , , ; ........ , // /; 44.. , 0 4P/ • % ... .‘k..' ::\,. . ■ \ R ck. `..: 'No..... -. , r .........,-- ; i \ i , `... -.., -. \ ---- • , . / .7 1 1 \Vk % f' \ ' ‘ ' % • ! \ A ' `- ‘ ' ' \ • •,- . 1 ' '/ ///e/ ..., „ i ,, ,, ,,i ‘ .•,‘ 1 \ 1, ) COf At ) .; \ It ) 1 I I ' I , 1 .' \ 1 1 , .. '.; '. • • i ,-, .z,.,=,- ..it 1. , 1 1 /,, 12: -..- • .... :I ...-- .......... ,, / , .,,, .0.- — - zei\-:- - , .. , . • 0 . • • ' er i/ c"..") .. ' ........ l ' i 4 , ' '',' i • k 4 - - - -- i 1 ;, 4-1.1tu 1 . ,/ 1.- , • ' / / s ■ ' / \ , • r . . s I / } t .. ' ■ \ '"' s' •st•• 4 _ ... \ . ....., , / ' . • i , . , ,, , ,,, ... tz,..,.\.z. , ) \ ‘11P8: .r. . ; i . P :/* •■•••:: .. ": "' 4111/41zt.' I %. i . jr :-1:14:' 7. ) 1 ■ / 1 i 4 s i s " 1 ,..., ! • _ ,.., - ;.; \ . , "es ' s i I I li swig LOC ■ • - --- ----45- .• . .._ f •-• ; , , 1 , , -r ' ' ----,, , -• '-44.1 <DP 45 oia xi • ,.'..• ' ' it, 66. , , ' , I II 1 _ • • i i k- ---- -_-.. -.-:. , ... . .. „., .. , i ‘_I' • rActLeart... I 4 , I' .1 ' • •• ; • ; 40, , t I 1 I I IP ff• _ 1 " . " - • "43 - --• ''.. •••• 1 :'''' 7 . ; '- . . ' • " f . 7 4 1 1 1 . f. I A tit i, "-ad / • _ ... • .......... ....... itlf.c!! / 1 t 11: 'WtrIY r. iih . • - . • -' i \ ' '''''.. . " ' ' . N4 '7.4 • i t i t i{ : . i . , V l ik . . . 7 1 '..:: . - . * ' ' ••-T: " 0 .2 4 • . ., li t 1 , 'I A • 4.••■■• ......, •••, ; 1 1 %.:...... ........... .. 1 ••.. • \ ■ I , o _ 1 \ I, , - , I.\ o. ,,, ... ... , ... • • W . .. ..-- -,, eal uge • J te GOA141• v . / ' ---, ` , ,.. , . ....., • PAM I . . ■ t c../ I ■ 1 ) I % 1 1 . ■ e"" .0 e , ., 0' \ ..‘ ■ ' N • qi .... .....• I' ..„, 1 % o.. .... I , / . 4 t q kitAXY po6getigagit I . ...----...........--...„...... ........-- 170.1;00,SS COAC/OPS ,/9(p AVTIVe tefe(rsC*.Itcl INNC... 4,4 I I If I 'C. 1000 I 1 - - 1 CITYOF . cHANHAssEN 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. M Y July 8 Y g P� Y 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 111 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 Qty Council. On the Moon Valley operation itself, you should be aware that there are two separate 1 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 obligation to protect health and safety of community residents. Thus far, Judge Kanning 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. a PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER i • O f STE3 1 . 1 • _ 11- _ _ i 2 _ 1 4 5 ! 0 \\- MATCH V AT EDGE EXISTING BITUMINOUS 1 BOTH OPTIONS SHALL HAVE A I ` BITUMINOUS MAT FROM STATION \ I 0419TO0+75 i 1 1 . \ 1 • 1 1 I . i S 1 • i Ito Vs.1 1 ... ....... ..... .....�« ..........» U ._...: .«...k..........M......... ». »61..........0 LO OD 1 900 I : i i I _ i 1 i I S 1 T I • : 1 : I 1 880 : _ • w - I . i , = i i I I 1 r COCA/ PR" 1 . 1 lit I 1 1 finch = foofee 1 i 1 1 C (P1O b 34 44 "` �a IC Qr .ft.. ."7' • • �� . _ ) - i k..., r - 1*4 �� 0%% ° i� ■ Q y IS 1 d l . ti ISCP 1 'INC"' 1 c ,kil .. , , 1 " 11111 !3 1 ill r Carver Soil and Water Conservation District ' 219 East Frontage Road Waconia, MN. 55387 442 -5101 TO: Paul Krauss, Planning 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 1 JUN P 1992 4 L1� CHad.fh,L\■rF 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 July 1, 1992 - Page 50 Krauss: But the issues that we deal with are pretty complex. I don't 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. Whell 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. ' 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 gel 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? 1 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 I shorten and /or otherwise reduce our time before the mica, 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 . . . Q2 r 1 CITYOF ,.r • , I _ i 6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director 1 DATE: August 17, 1992 I SUBJ: Update - Moon Valley Request to Mine Clay Under Interim Use Permit #92 -5 I 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 I 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 1 visually improved since it will resolve concerns remaining from an earlier clay excavation that was stopped by the city in 1987. 1 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 and south parcels. As the Council will recall, this involves a rather major regrading that will ‘l PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 Don Ashworth August 17, 1992 Page 2 result in the removal of the remaining portion of the largely destroyed south facing primary 1 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 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. 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. 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 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 August 17, 1992 Page 3 would excavate 40 or more cres of land to a depth of 10 feet or more during its o dt mean eand pth 0 g is 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 I 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. 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 concerns that may arise. 2. Denial of the application. Should the City Council determine that approval of this 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 northem 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 iI 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 I Don Ashworth 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 I on the matter. ATTACHMENTS I 1. Letter from Thomas Scott, City Attorney dated August 20, 1992. tt, ty Y g 2. Staff report and City Council minutes dated August 10, 1992. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - • 1 1 1 1 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A Aug 20,92 11:01 No.004 P.02 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. Attorneys at Law Thrm:,s I N, F:nun,�ci {h12) 452-5000 1'h,,m .; M. Scott Fax (612) 452-5550 Oary ti. Fi, hs James R. Walston Elliott 13. Knetsclh Michael A. Rrubac.k August 20, 1992 Remit: D. Steiner VXA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION Attu REGULAR MAIL 1 Mr. Paul Krauss Director of Planning City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc. 1 vs. City of Chanhassen Court File No. 90 -27099 Our File No. 12668/201 ' Dear Paul: This letter will serve as an update on the status of the Moon II Valley litigation since my last such correspondence of May 7, 1992. On June 22, 1992, the City Council approved an Earth Work 1 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 II 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 M 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 • 1.380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121 1 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A Aug 20,92 11:01 No.004 P.03 Mr. Paul Krauss I August 20, 1992 ' 2 part of the north parcel interim use permit, Moon Valley is requesting permission to mine one area of the bluff which straddles 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. By : Thomas M. Scott TMS :rlt 1 City Council Meeting - Augu 10, 1992 ' 13. Parking spaces must meet the parking standards as required by the zoning ordinance. , 14. The landscaping plan shall be modified to include streetscape along Powers and Kerber Boulevards. In addition, conifers shall be placed south of the oak trees to provide additional buffering. 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. 16. Fencing shall be placed around the oak trees to minimize impact during ' construction. All voted in favor except Councilman Workman who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EARTH WORK /CLAY MINING OF A GRAVEL PIT, LOCATED SOUTH OF 11 PIONEER TRAIL AND NORTH OF THE GRAVEL PIT, TOM ZWIERS, MOON VALLEY AGGREGATE. Paul Krauss: The applicants are requesting approval to remove approximately 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 52 11 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 site. Here are a series of significant erosion r p oblems 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 1 City Council Meeting - Auc 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 11 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 I 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 I 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 to 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 1 City Council Meeting - Augu.. 10, 1992 1 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 supply them. As Mr. Krauss indicated, the Watershed District has reviewed and 1 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 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 1 1 pity 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 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. Env Assessment Worksheet. The County requires an EAW for anything over 16,000 tons. This is going to consist of a 57 11 City Council Meeting - Augu• 10, 1992 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 exactly but I looked it up when I was doing this. Mayor Chmiel: 25 signatures is all it needs. Paul Krauss: That's an elective EAW but a mandatory EAW that's required by the Environmental Quality Board is excavating over something like 40 acres of land 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 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 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. 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 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. Paul Krauss: You're hitting it right on the head. Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. Paul Krauss: It's an extraordinarily complex legal situation. We've had some court rulings on the south parcel that establishes grandfathered rights. That 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 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 11 interpretation that you have to make. Does it meet the standards that are 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 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 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 58 1 1 City Council Meeting - P"qust 10, 1992 makes some environmental sense and then leveraging it on the south ro r p pe ty 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. ' 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 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 likely? Paul Krauss: Oh yeah. i 59 City Council Meeting - Au'•st 10, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Anything more? 11 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. h 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 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. 1 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 60 1 City Council Meeting - Aug, 10, 1992 300 foot setback of activity. It also provides for a waiver of that setback if 11 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 II 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 II 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' I 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 1 City Council Meeting - Aug -t 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 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 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? i Dennie Bartholow: In another 20 minutes I'd say good morning. I'm Dennis Bartholow, 9841 Deerbrook 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 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 62 ' • City Council Meeting - Aug._ , 10, 1992 • yards. 10 cubic yards to a truck, that's 25,000 truckloads that's going to be 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 ' 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 1 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 1 mentioned. Rick Sathre: Well if this is denied, they'll have to fired another source. 1 Dennis Bartholow: Okay, and I think that's about all I have. 1 63 1 - City Council Meeting - Augus' 10, 1992 ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else? Linda Revere: My name is Linda Revere and I'm at 9881 Oeerbrook Drive and I don't have a lot to add after my neighbors. I agree with what they've said. 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 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 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 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 some looking into that. And that's all I had, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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? 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 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 don't think they have done that yet but I don't understand it. The way I ' 11 understand it, it's not entirely cleared up. I think they, I guess I'm just 64 -City Council Meeting - A"iust 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, ' i whatever is all gone up there was taken out in that time. I don't know how many cubic yards that was buc 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? 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 i 65 1 City Council Meeting - Augunt 10, 1992 ' a lot of folks who's credibility comes into question, which is why the City requires development agreements and contracts and things to be filed against , property title and everything else. 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? Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if we're here to judge his character or not. 1 Terry Beauchane: We are here because he is asking you people to do something 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 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 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 going to do it again? t Mayor Chmiel: Appreciate your comment but I think that's something that we're going to have to decide on and come up with a conclusion ourselves. Terry Beauchane: I hope you give it very serious consideration. 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 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. Councilman Wing: Don, if I may just quickly have one additional question of ' Paul up to this point. Terry Beauchane: I have no further questions. ' Councilman Wing: I don't own the property. Mr. Zwiers owns the property and I 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 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 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. 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 66 , • City Council Meeting - ' 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. Councilwoman Dimler: Well I guess one of the questions that was brought up that ' 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. 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 presentations until next meeting. 67 1 CITYOF 6 i , 4,,,,, , "N ...- 1 CHANHASSEN -� 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I T (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Aetbn by City Adynlailffen 1 Edorsed i .V A...'!9' MEMORANDUM Modified Rejected pep g — to - `I 'L- 1 TO: Planning Commission Date Subm;tted to commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director /e_ Oste submitted to Cout4 DATE: June 23, 1992 1 SUBJ: Moon Valley Aggregate North Site - Interim Use Permit #92 -5 SUMMARY I The applicant is requesting approval to remove approximately 250,000 cubic yards of clay PP �l g PP PP Y Y Y material from a 45 acre site of which approximately 22 acres will be disturbed. The site is I 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 1 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. II 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. I 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 I 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. I It is significant to note that the Moon Valley Gravel eration is significantly OP g Y different than the current request. The original Moon Valley operation has non - conforming status since it I is NE., PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 Moon Valley North Site 1 June 23, 1992 Page 2 1 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. 1 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 1 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 1 Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 1 Page 3 The purpose of this retention basin is to intercept a large volume of storm water that drains I 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 I located on any of the parcels owned by this applicant. Thus, it may be reasonable to consider constructing an impoundment that addresses this concern. I 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. I 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 1 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 1 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 I 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 I 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. I 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. I 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 requirement. Section 7-47 allows the City Council to deviate from the standards set forth in I the ordinance under three scenarios, as follows: 1. For operations that existed prior to the enactment of this article, when it is not feasible 1 to comply because of pre - existing conditions. 2. When because of topographic or other conditions, it is not possible to comply. I 3. When alternatives that accomplish the purpose and intent of the standards set forth in this article are agreed upon by the city and the operator. I It is staff's opinion that the requested Moon Valley operation meets conditions #2 and #3 for the granting of a waiver. Relative to condition #2, we note that the mining activity in the I 1 1 Moon Valley North Site 1 June 23, 1992 Page 4 southwest corner of the ro is specifically related to the underlying topographic and P Pe rtY P Y Y g Po Sra P drainage conditions found in this area. Very simply, there is no other reasonable location to 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. 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. 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 proposed grading plan. 1 BACKGROUND • Pre -1970 - The Moon Valley gravel pit existed as a small scale operation. The 1 property also accommodated a rifle range and ski hill equipped with a tow. The rifle range continues to be utilized. 1 Ownership of the mining operation changed hands. The scale of the operation was greatly expanded in the 1970s. 1 • 1987 - The city became aware of the mining of clay on a new parcel located above 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 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 1 Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 I Page 5 The ordinance established that uses such as Moon Valley that predated the ordinance, I 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 m have agreed w, they were fully familiar w its provisions. 1 5/14/90 -The ay not new ordinance was ith adopted the text as Article III, Excavating, Min ing, Filling, and Grading in Chapter 7 of the City Code. 1 • 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 I 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 1 shut down. • 4/25/91 - Judge Kanning found that the city had the right to require that a permit be I 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 • Sprin2/Summer/Fall, 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. I • 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 1 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, I although it was implied that the city could "earn" the better plan by being "reasonable" with Moon Valley. I • 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 I official map and the ordinance prohibits most activities from the area. • November, 1991 - The case went back to Judge Kanning. His findings were released 1 April 2, 1992. Essentially, he found that: 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 Pioneer Trail. The operator /applicant was allowed to continue mining the main pit but was given 30 days to submit the application. The judge felt that Plan "B ", the better of the two plans, was the basis of the J g P permit submittal. - The city may impose conditions on the permit but only to the extent that health tY Y P P Y 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. • 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. 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 1 Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 7 I • June 22, 1992 - The City Council reviewed the request. They approved the permit subject to conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Site Characteristics I The 45 acre site is located south of Pioneer Trail on the Eden Prairie /Chanhassen city line. It is located immediately north of the original Moon Valley gravel pit. Surrounding land uses 1 include: I 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 I 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 I are located further to the west. Site topography is extraordinarily rough. The northern half of the site is occupied by a gently I 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, I 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. 1 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 I 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. 1 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. 1 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 I never been restored. There are two access roads leading into the site. The first is an extremely steep and I 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 Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 8 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 process of being shut down. 1 The proposal calls for utilizing 20 -30 trucks with hours of operation requested from 7:00 a.m. 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 completed during this duration due to weather conditions or other delays, it will be completed in early 1993. 1 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 1 parcel requires no tree loss and will result in the construction of two storm water retention 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 1 and that ground water entering the ponds will be allowed to seep back into the ground water 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. 1 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 yet unspecified, point in the future. Impacts to off -site properties should be reasonably minimal. Staff has proposed conditions 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 since no radical changes in elevation will result and no tree loss will occur. 1 The request also includes a proposal to mine out an area that is located in an area that 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, 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 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 June 23, 1992 Page 9 1 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 1 a condition be imposed that would require the reforestation of the entire disturbed bluff line on the Moon Valley gravel pit site. 1 Access Considerations This site has two potential accesses. The first is a steep dirt road that climbs the gravel pit 1 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 1 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 1 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 1 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 1 Pioneer Trail to the east is the only one that is permitted. 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 1 travel right -of -way. The applicant should also demonstrate that he has been in contact with the City of Eden Prairie officials and is operating on roads in their community in a manner consistent with their engineer's recommendations. 1 Site Management 1 Staff has received several calls from concerned residents who envision a large scale mining 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 1 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 I 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. I 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 111 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 1 conditions have been provided. Noise and dust considerations are of course a concern. Noise is an unavoidable impact of 1 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 I 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 111 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. Periodic inspections by staff will be required throughout the life of this operation. If activity I 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 I 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, I 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 more, fees of $562.50 for the 100,000 cubic yards, plus $22.50 for each additional 10,000 I 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 I 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 I of credit acceptable to the city in the amount of $40,000 should be provided prior to the start of work. Drainage/Erosion Control I The area around the Minnesota River bluff line is extremely susceptible to erosion. In many 1 areas, the clay soil overlay of sandy soils underneath is quite thin. Natural erosion in this 1 1 Moon Valley North Site 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. ' 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- 1 of -way itself are generally significantly eroded. One of the primary advantages of granting the requested interim use permit would be that we 1 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 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. 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. 1 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. 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 1 slope extending down from the site down to the former railway tracks. We are proposing that 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 I south Moon Valley parcels near the railway right -of -way. This ponding area would serve a similar purpose and is able to intercept and slow storm water that runs down along the I 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 1 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 I the railway right -of -way. The applicant shall apply for and receive a watershed district permit and comply with all proposed conditions. A modest erosion control plan has been illustrated. The applicant's engineer should work I P PP g 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 I and maintained throughout the construction period. Issues Pertaining to the Proposed Southern Ponding Area 1 As mentioned periodically in this report, the applicant is proposing the construction of a third I 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 former railroad right -of -way. I Grading in this area poses some practical and philosophical problems for staff. The applicant's activities on the southern parcel have resulted in the wholesale destruction of the I Minnesota River bluff line. As a result of these activities, a small half mined forger of high ground extends west towards the railroad tracks in the vicinity of the proposed pond. The applicant is proposing to completely remove this fmger 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 I 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 1 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 1 to be considered. First of all, an erosion control and water quality problem would be 1 1 1 1 Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 13 ' 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 1 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 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. 1 Environmental Considerations In reviewing this site, we have concluded that there are no wetlands or protected water bodies 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 1 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. 1 Fencine. 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 1 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 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 the present time. Staff would also like to have the applicant's engineer develop a plan to 1 respond to repairing the two areas of erosion that exist at the present time on the north parcel. 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. The end -use plan developed by the applicant for this site illustrates a long cul -de -sac 1 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 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 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 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 1 residential use. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE 1 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 1 included potential impact of the proposed infiltration basins on local water supplies, potential 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 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 and the site be restored. 2. Inclusion of standard procedures to ensure that tree preservation areas are adequately marked and protected during the course of grading operations. 1 3. The applicant have the potential impact on water supplies in the area evaluated. 4. The access point and site distance questions be resolved. 5. The property owner, in writing, relinquish all future rights to mine this site. 1 1 1 1 1 Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 ' Page 15 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 1 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 unusual problems, however, both the Moon Valley owner and the operator of the excavation firm 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 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 1 over the off -site haul road to the city, is no longer necessary. 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 1 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. 1 2. A bituminous apron at least 3 inches deep be placed 75 feet from the centerline of • 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 Moon Valley North Site 1 June 23, 1992 Page 16 Staff has taken these requests into consideration and has revised all proposed conditions I accordingly. 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 I 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 I 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, I 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 I 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 I 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 1 • 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 1 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 1 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 1 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 department has also been in contact with Alan Olson, the DNR Forester, regarding the 1 1 Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 17 ' potential costs of reforestation required as a condition of approval. They are proposing that a letter of credit in the amount of $121,290.00 be required as outlined in the attached memo. ' STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1 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 1. The applicant and grading contractor shall co -sign the permit request and shall be 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 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 1 Engineer may require that these be halted. 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 operations. ' 5. The applicant is required to phase site restoration in a manner acceptable to the City 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 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 Bonestr o Engineering ri g p y o 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 i 1 Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 18 the start of mining. If the sandy layer is deeper than expected, alternative drainage 1 plans must be developed for city approval. 8. Provide permanent drainage easements in favor of the city over the retention basins. 1 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. 1 9. Provide and maintain an erosion control plan acceptable to the City Engineer. Designate black dirt stockpile areas for approval by the City Engineer. 1 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 1 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. 1 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 1 all future rights to mine the property. 1 1 1 Lower Minnesota River Watershed District I 151 WEST 126TH STREET B URNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337 July 15, 1992 I Cyril B. Ess President Jim A. Kephart Vice President To: Board of Managers 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 • Section 25 East of Railroad - Chanhassan. I I have reviewed the grading and drainage plan dated 6/5/92 for the above area. The reason for this grading is to acquire clay soils I 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 I will be ponded on the site and allowed to seep into the water table. There was some concern according to the Owner's Engineer that the quality of the water entering the groundwater zone would I 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 I 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 table and not be directed to gullies which are situated on the east I and west of the properties. I would suggest that the gully on the west side of the project just southeast of the "R" in the word RAILWAY should be corrected and the contours which now go around I the gully, continue straight through from northeast to southwest. this would mend a problem area and hopefully end the erosiveness of the gully. The plan should help keep surface waters from going past the borders of the property and eliminate erosion that is I caused by runoff from the property. I therefore recommend approval of this permit by the Managers of the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District. 7 tful l j 4 I ce E. Samstad, P.E. Engineer 1 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. 1 Date /� /f f t I Signed _, • eDay 1 � / Position �4e.„ 4,t CITYOF 1 opor J 0,0 CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician 1 P g g DATE: August 5, 1992 1 SUBJ: Breakdown of Security Deposit for Moon Valley Aggregate - North Parcels I Grading Permit No. 92 -5 As requested, attached is a cost analysis to restore the site and guarantee compliance with I 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. I jms Attachment: Security Calculation Sheets 1 c: Charles Folch, City Engineer 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 1 Breakdown of Security (Letter of Credit) for Moon Valley Aggregate (North Parcel) Grading Permit No. 92 -6 1 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 1 43,560 2. Erosion Control Fence (Type I) 1 2550 L.F. at $2.00 /L.F. = $5,100 1 3. Miscellaneous Site Grading /LS. - $10,000 -Pond Construction 1 - Leveling 4. Erosion Control Blanket I -South Pond 100 x 400 = 4,444 sq. d. at $1.25 = $5,556 I 9 5. Slope Stabilization (2.5 to 1 slopes) I 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 350,000 sq. ft = 38,888 sq. yd. 1 9 38,888 x $1.25 = $48,611 1 6. Reforestation on All Slopes (2.5 to 1) 1 350,000 sq. ft. = 8.03 Ac. x $400 /Ac* _ $3,214 43,560 1 *Per DNR: Includes site preparation, labor, 500 seedlings & chemical application I 1 1 II. Surveying /Engineering Fees For Monitoring Restoration Work /As -built Survey (Administration Fee) 3% of Total ($112,150) = $3,364 1 Summary 1 I. Site Restoration $112,150 II. Administration Fees $ 3364 Sub -Total $115 ,514 Plus 5% (Contingencies) $ 5,776 Grand Total For Security 121 For North Parcel 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -T r DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 320 Washington Avenue South HENNEPIN Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 -8468 PHONE: (612) 930 -2500 FAX (612) 930 -2513 TDD: (612) 930 -2696 1 July 10, 1992 Paul Krauss,Planning Director ' City of Chanhassen Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: PROPOSED HAUL OPERATION, CSAH 1, EDEN PRAIRIE Dear Paul: ' Thanks for theinquiry regarding the above activity. Hennepin County does have 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- ll tuminous apron ,(3" minimum depth) placed to approximately 75 feet from the cen- terline of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 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. ' 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- tivity as required. 1 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. 1 Again, thanks for the timely inquiry. Please feelfree to call with any further questions. 1 Sin rely, 1 David Zetterstrom Entrance Permit Coordinator Enc . cc: Al Gray, City of Eden Prairie RECEIVED Gene Illg, Hennepin County Joe Levernier, Hennepin County JUL 131992 r'r"v r C I- NHA SSC N - 1 HENNEPIN COUNTY 111 an equal opportunity employer - _._ --- --- • 4. . HEtvNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS Permit No. 3140 320 Washington Avenue South Location Code Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 RIVEWAY OR STREET ENTRANCE PERMIT AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS -- ----- ---- - --- SPECIAL PROVISIONS - ,,,,! - I.SQ, 7/7/88 „.,.,-.-.. ....-,. 1 'Dave Zetteritrom „._ 1 ---- ield inspected by . Date __...,..„ . -.-_,_" , Loca Speed tion '1 at West County Line - --; " '450 - - A:D.T -, -• : A. D.T. zone 3300 - 740+ - ..-...iiow 3 ,.. -1 / ;... I Sight distance: Actual - Left . f -'- --: ' - Right .. Minimum :Left " - :, ... 740 - - ' 14,-Nirr4.,..turca: Ri 111•-1•700 Curb to be removed to: 0 Construction Joint 0 Sawed Joint ,_-. F 1,, ! ,t . 3 .....__. - t.„,, alr.wi stertel _ -. • . 2. --.. Recommended drainage: M Surface 0 Culvert Culvert length -- - -. Culvert diameter - : . . . Type of sidewalk: 0 Concrete 0 Bituminous 0 Cutback required Z - 1 i . _ . - - ,:•• ..-- 1. CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS !Within Ri;ht-cf-Vt.say) . )(lowborn fo O oabriabirsmi .1 AiT %_— BASE SURFACE CURB - -17-. -. -----,--SHOULDER BLVD - DITCH I L a r... .....i ... Type 41 Type -- AS Type - - -- Type - -- - -- -- Type TO7)71;r Depth mrlwn Depth drawn Design -- Depth • ' - --" - Depth r • - '•:Depth 3" ._ . _ . or Sod 2: TRAFFIC CONTROL REQUIREMENTS Plate #2 . - *JAW 0-0r7 4C, 3.4.1 Barricades (100 Series) Advance Warning (200-300 Series) : Steady Burn (500) . - k 1 Cones (28" - Day$No) 8i- * SPECIAL PROVISIONS . - . One 40 wide commercial/street entrance approved is drawn. Shoulder paving to be • • - .. 1 removed/repaired as required by Hennepin County. Applicant to reestablish guardrail around west radius and provide/maintain STOP sign. Acces to remain as tisture city street access ; no other access to Site, wil,1„be ;Nititted . -- 11.olicis I a tault,"signaltr ,...., be in serv ice during haul operatiorsi. • - Ir--.!.,.=.i-egz::ii,-7if:-.,::-1.- ‘t ... N: I 7 ;_--...1.sNe ctxT2 .• , .4 :_4-. ----:-..,,,, \ . * - .-`: - •' - 4 :-", •••••'• - DO NOT PLACE CONCRETE ON COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CALI:1)RIVEVVAY PERMITS" 935.3381 EXT MC 3 1 0 .; -- - , Nks. ,*., . ou__,-._-- i , .:. . _,.., .. "- .i..:::•4: ,.".';*. .1 - ,-.. :"" . ,,..... 4. , , .;,. : --. ;--. -. N....----"* '"'' Diagram A J.‘,...1, \ Diagram B -" IMPORTANT: TYPE "a" CONSTRUCT ROUNDED BERM TO - IMPORTANT: CONSTRUCT SWALE TO DIVERT WATER FROM Am 1 .g4 f . NW PREVENT WATER FROM RUNNING DOWN Cl k ti:_ , 'SHOULDER riffl . DRIVE. • . , 7-..- ...6,. _ " 1 4 Berm I ' - - 5 ,. - • .- . - ' 1 II" Sesel• 1 1 , , -', .: 1 't ofi , e...imopp;oopopo „..-sni'f' -- H Orivev - .- -- - 4 ' v . t • , 'Ys a - • ,.• - ." • . -‘7.' . ' ':•;.:::',4• . :::.;s - • , . _ . ,.... _ . , NA Exng Roechrey f\.>'. • ., 4::*: . ;-. Shoulder Shoulder _.-... .., Place culvert in existing ditch -i-- -,- ... , ... . .- . REVIEWED BY . . . , DATE ._ :- i - - 1 . . _ Culvert furnished - DESIGN Date of delivery - , - - MAINT. -• Final inspection date A / lc; — V ' - - ' - , _ .. 1 Driveway was found to be satisfactory , -.., s . :: - -., •-,--_-- - " • ' t: _ _ -'.., . . - _...- -• . „ ,,.., -- .!‘ — ;,` ..,•.- 0LJ,satisfactory ' - - APPROVED/13014D: - " --- - -' ,. --..*- • • v... r .--, ... _... , • HENNEPIN couy.v PUBLIC WORKS TRhFF1C SECTION ,:•,.. -, ,.. I Inspected by - By , - - :ff .' 6 - r- '''"'' ' - 111 , . d 29 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS Permit No. ?l el { 320 Washington Avenue South ' Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 APPLICATION FOR DRIVEWAY OR STREET ENTRANCE PERMIT I - • - (Read "General Requirements" reverse side) Name of applicant Alex Dorenkemper Phone (612) 934 -0913 I Address 1$925 Pioneer Trail, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55347 (city) e) (zip code) ITM30A3RtUD t .J A1131431; • Name of Property Owner . 'Alex Dorenkemper Address Same - I aupsisp it zrof.eni tsq p r tytwelinb to aifttw",hb tsiinieen! bne :x,otemmao lot er►oi1s:>tiiggA ..t 1. Contractor performing work • -- , c"' _ i.,, ..a 1+.Pi,.n'rin -w +ri4 + >, ••, - a-.en,r .--- ,,,,,.-;•;.,. "4.n, Phone •.., znols:iti:Jsg2 fig 2-sa n7riatiti0n3 2rhor;afc►g 1 kne - f9tuR a rt! to enamel o;$t :wn ttui1 astmvaf 2. Application is hereby made for.permission to construct andthereafter maintain: ;. : .z PublicStteet(s) I D to be constructed: sloiwnrriM , ,rf,uta attnsirA no1pniriasW OSE noitiviO yswrlgiH y7rwo3 niqutrlef•I . _ 3. Building onstructed: M Yes ❑ No x Residence ❑ Commercial (Specify Tyne) - lt4tuairisv aVa. nart.t a si to aid g[:oFfsQ ea miCt ,aOBsbi281 etsvilq entree learx,sea iaf z it A • 4. Driveway or street will be:: 'DJernporary ; I Permanent 'elate proposed entrance will be needed: - n , . - -- -- et 9tEoibli .sons,, *fr.+ s+n Max)! yltsiyrisg 4&2 437 rtot2 .ssenz ?int !a !',oat Nit no bebiroto 5. Is the property: ❑ Platted Q Unplatted Number of present driveways or entrances to property: - :•...,.- ..,},Ole I Driveway is for currently proposed platted property 6. Building Permit acquired: ❑ Yes XCNo _ .City - -,, t+.•r „ .r• , • -- •- -.i---,_ ""ei” A 't1Permit.No.1 f 7. Type of proposed entrance surface. ❑ - Bituminous ❑ Concrete CC Rock ❑ Other - '-, w' =•-+r-i sot 41 s ' 1$92 Coun R oad Number One, Eden Prairie Minnesota � *Lu y t Prairie, " + � P (Address) . Road) (City) e ls16m wt. t�n.:.■elq Tor noqu benohbnoo i1 JNn aq 240 Saris be ;ria :soote{ebfN V it zi ti ,a3 ' 9. Location, if rural:~ IW0 k -a Miles West. -- -ofF ounty-Roads-No. 1- -and tereection N. S , E, or W) (Road or Street) ▪ C' "Stz,7b2 re Pt 1j t .r r10 at Li ossioj2w1 so FE}i 1u 91E ;rii f c::,, ,1 hlld:t nOq z'Jl Dated duly 9 • 19 $ Applicant's Signature ' -LJ 4 $- -..'- ern . Alex Dorenkemper , - . • - - - 711.1 r ,..1t.,l .•u•„ 111i•. 011OJtc1, .VI! , ..4:14i.'. , 4}iu414q •uJsJS}�(ir.o:J e 1 143U.4414 riti}U0 mV .? tali" sil To help the inspector, place a stake with a Both attached in the center of the.proposed entrance; - higher them any surrounding vegetation. - .;>_ppitiviO ya+a iH ytr:uo3 a igenniH twit td eon ids ' APPLICANT'S DIAGRAM - (If plot or construction plan is ndt:submitted) _.: : "-Srs ni L+hpitalsila to tserlsrlo o'% --..t - ,iaeni�'i3 y 3ntx>b - - - South East Center Of ._ " I Concrete._ ?,eraser :.s, #iropoaed .:at •venir13 '1irua3 sr't y rleE ton w :inner; lefts 'io I0.14iign' ' ";, ' - : ".' Qf Er..d3®;�ias Xl TD WjeW .y t�eq 1401 m4,rprn pm a1fbit9):,i at lr3n trzs`.ytts lt `; - ''' -::�- ;L • — 0 . s itsl 'z iiaoen tint ' _ ' : ... t uge x}'16 � iofi �r - ,1�ioit�laaitr �1i� tit' #tl.�is�sna flirt eai� W nth set • ;, •Y .� * •� • • 1Qi +.• .ie9O Pet.....-tb s try tftVitt Of Mstau egl.a v .. ....+Ount1Fnioad 1 0 billions, s<t vent Inoati i lemi yawsviab wia 1 ! ytiliast gninix5 #t to masts shill, art ni _19alleb - .. „• _ ' _..-,!. ' - • : 1. ... - . : . . . 4 ' 1- • ...::: -,.- . _ _ S .Y'.v s. l '0 • � _ ' :,t. - 4 i =t ". )mss' -� l�f a - a� . e .. ' . y :, x . , "i - nd s (Complete this form asnd all copies to: Hennepin County .r,�i. _ Highway Divkion, Maintenance Office, 320 Washington M Avenue South, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343. Phone: 935 -3381. _ 4 ' ' After approval, one copy will be returned to applicant,) • R. _ . 0! 30 I Zi ER's i ,—_ — 1.- I =7, I 2 s `c . v MATCH EXISTING BITUMINOUS 1 0 AT EDGE BOTH OPTIONS SHALL HAVE A 1 BITUMINOUS AT FROM STATION 04 19 TO 0+75 \ I • I \ I • \ 1 \ I 1 I . : I . : J . Tr tZ St I: Nt T.- It IV co g ID 66 co 0 co E Co co co NI co 35 co • I • ir 900 • • 1 ....BBC) r .%,,. ----41,N.,.., • I : ‘: • : \ ; 4 - ‘7,..0 0 ii• : • : : • . . . . ... . ...... ., 880 ... ; - :: . ..., • -........,..: : . _ . . : : I 1 • r 18925 f'io, COCA/ PRIM 1/ 1 1 1 1 1 f inch = too lee/ 1 1 _iA 1 i COU D ER (plO 1 a el a nti 1 1 P , e a8 - :' . I Oq , _ , Its 4 . -:- 41 5,, of / f ..... --, \\ \ 0 ../ " b ■ I I I \\ \ 1 g I II ' � ' ' /1;30 ..61‘ 1 ! b � 4 oiwi y 13 1 �� 1 0 1111 . ,1-. -1 / - IIr ! O E f a \\ ♦\ `♦ '� /' / / \` \` 1 , ; , ; 1 \\ • ;r•8 o. ii n \ \ \ i '• / , ♦♦ ` _ / / , 1 \ 1 ' \ r L_ \ D 0 \ H MO ' i " :�♦ \� . - r" ^ - - '_1 ' _ \ \ 1 X4 II 1-F s ‘ ‘ . • 1 , • --------, \ \ r ,' ., Ijj ti ii f \i \1/ f 7 ' Dow •1 � i >'. i ' ' 1 1 j \�� \ \ \ J 1 \ ; , pQ ♦ \ � \ 1 I .I i 4 : � ) 1 \ ` /%( / / 1 - .U \ \ • • �\ / / • a � \ I I / / r; /. 1 \ E 1 \ r ' \\ , P B41% .. , 11\1,/ ll ry l c_ �I „I 1 \ 1� J \ I ii g.; ' / ' 1 : I k \ , • A % \ \ I ' ' ' V - i i ; , "--.–.:::: <//,'' IV J 1 J , g l j / 1 4 �1k, f ' V if,', 1 ( \ \ 4 , ', \ I ii i , 1 , / , / et 4 ; i ) Jilt{ \ 1 ? 1 i 1 ♦ \• ;„1 i �� , %i4'/ //, ,, ra p , i r vry; \ , t \, / � ' _, , ,, ., ,,, , , ,,, •,„ .,,,,,/,,,,,„ ,, - '-'1- %.� .� 1 \ i t ' `-- `\ (,/ /.', i /// , I • 1 E 61 • ' 1 1 -7:- ": ji,‘'\‘ `' •-/f I ' ', 13 41110 7 --:-='''.-.- .' - N; t . ;;() , -'..------ f I : t : : f 14‘ , .' .i '''' I : 1 f ::- 8 GGC d b = -; •-, te r. "!\ \' 2....., '` , 4's / , N / 1 b : B I Ja >— ` • \ i ( \ 1 : ^� _ \. \' ' N • 1 1 c ,,, , iii/ �r /� , , l '' ,•, / . fl 1 1 1 ,'1 \ \t, ` %� //1 Vl4"� _� N. '' ` \ � \, \ �. ,` -YI. ,dr A L o ,n oa" 't - , 1 S 61 g g ii ,;!-,,,.-:' ,,•,, ... -• -7 ,7 / ,„ -;.: .--- z M 1 J i i7/ t /! , • . 14 • a w q �j mer . 1 6' ii'' / / ', fi g � _ c11 ,, i/i / ' �l� } k2t 4 1 e `, / i 11 i ., i..1,/ j I a t E r:" 1k 1 Si it r P?': ,— ' '; '1: / i 504.. '. • 1 Y•MO-•fi 11 �•OI•O I COI•••C. KAI - 1 11 I MOON VALLEY AtiliNESATE I iii Pill! r $ATMRE- /EROOYI .*T.'M!C• CHAIMMI1111111. w111soot • / . `• '4i 1 ' • I ! 4 !,. , ,, ,• i l 1) .. 1 ' \ /•' i t.. ..7 / / i f ' 7/7 ,,/. 1 ' ...7" ‘' • , 1 ' ,/ / , ./ ..„ • \ •■ ' .. ...„ .0 / .. /v = .. .. ,••• .- / ' " ...‘ 6 ' I X,../ / 4 # •' ; ,p,• ,/,' -- '. i ., L... / ., 1/( 1 c N , - )1/4 k : 1 : ."2 i / 1 . f /t; j 3 11 . 1\,...... .'"... .-..._ ''''':•••• 1 4 , 1 ,\--.- L11 4 N / . 7. / ' r Ft .,-...'<=s. '''•1\ \ \ /4 o , • 'i.' f ' ..-. . '-: /1 1 / /4 t i r —....• 1, ' \ ••.--...• ' 4,,, '', 7 , • - ' ,l ‘...,1 NN . ,N 1 ; , •-.i -'•: . / \\„„:"....4,:.■ :' '4* 1 \ k • r •-• --, / • .1' ,,.-. ,, , k , , ..----.., ........ •,, , • 1 . 7 16. .../ \ ' 7 / / 7 4, k t i \ \ Cs.. .4,......,....17 7.. •;\ .,. ,,.. ..—.... , 1,„," / „. , :/..,.., t ‘ \, . N..........L \ ' k. • .. ..........,/ ' • / \- ( ..::--: .././ Pd . \\ \ i k -.' \ :.; ''' .. 7 ' .._ -.---- ,1% I . .. - k I; .._ \ \ \ - \ , , .1 ) i/ \ % \ ...._-,,,,e , \ x ,-,-- ( • i -\'• ' e•) \ is\ ._>" , I ,z ' -,!' .fi .., , , , „ , • .‘ ■ \,......„,.. J. .-- . \ . .-- .• \ , 1 , _, / • .-.. ..._ ....... ,1 ,', ,/,/, , . , x • I 1 . . ,fr-,7- ....- • _ . _-- , , , , ., ' , r _...)1, \ 1 k I • • -; - - 2', ■,/,/ 1 4' *,, P \:\ I ‘ ■,, ■ / / ;••• ••• ''' C '."7-: ... -- - .....e- 1 ) / 1 , //i t , -. 1 ( 0 .•••••:--------. AT - i /, /,/ ,,,- a i , ' , „ •:::_-).. ; i 1 \ it . ,I / / / / • i. `\ 9 - ) i ( \ tf 1 k s I '''.7-- ) .-- 111 / ' i // / ' \_ • c." \ ., \ ‘ I l' k `,... . --- ._------,-,_: .../ ', ' — „/, / . .„, / , 1 t`.. ' ."••:` • \ kl ''' •-- ••-- s '' ..., PT , i ' / ' / ' / '. • -----‘ •• ''•\, • . • R ‘ \ 'Fs... • f - - _ 2,... , _ . _. -,7 ,I 1 1 - , • , -,..,...\\,:. \ , .• .‘ I , , ., • --.. '. ... -- -- r / /// / •/ t \ •-• ' . - I % . ..,‘ .,,P ■ k . k % ...., . / , ,--- - ,- //,/ : . , ix, \ - p•- ' ' e ( )i I 1 \ .. 4'44 ■ \\ 8 '\ , - - - , , / / ,, , , 1 11 1 . r i , \ .., \. , t i t / • / ,.. i i _,.. k. 1 ); \ % . / / ' i / i .:- / . 94 i ill - • ,.‘ I- 1 '‘ / t. , /4"/ . ri:,- .--7- ‘s•- --- vy : ) . 4 ‘. . i , . „ / i / - ' i ".‘,11%..' ^— ..._;:==. ' i • - , 1 , . 1 A . I - • . : , / 1 ,,,, „ ,,/ 1._-- - .... - ....-.1: — ... f .' ■ .. ■ i... . - -: • - - ' ittGrOge" • , . P.' 1 4 - / C.? c7 i - - i . .. ' __a i it'atr , 7 • ( , • If, - , .7 \ f i el ) 1 / % . i I . • . t . ..2: - - -, ----, ., „ l. !':. • - -6\s' /- ' . • • 1 : : :..:: , . __. . / i 1 / - ; • - ,ty . _. _ , / ,. ,f -. ) % E - --. . ii..,-..-:i. r, .5,-.• - , ! i ' • 11;/,' -., - , ; • , „ , ...,, . ,..: , , • ... .. - , , , ' - / ' . % IV ( UP / :-."---' -,.. ''' ■ t :' - ...!;,-,0, l - ' i \ f• i , . e \ 1 ,/. / /, '4 ,;, , % / '''. 1,.. -1 . 4 . _ -_:. l '' ' '....,.4. ■ 4 / / /,.// ' •II ! i - - - .1 . -- ., / ' . ' ' ,,.. / . .,,/-0- / . . , fi. (44. '.- : 1 ,./ ) 1;1 (::..-4:7% OF" 45 AriX , 7 . AI, ' 1 '-._ ' ' at ...a 1 \ 1 -., ..„......:„.... ...... ,,•,,e , • ./. / • '. •••• --..._ -- -it, . • I \ ........- - M. %. `.... . 4.'4- / / / • '14:erg, LIME _.: 1 ..., ...•• • a 1.• .....:,,,•o4< ,.. . .,- .... ,... / ,' / k ' - ' i ' ■ ; ; ...... ‘, ,,, MI1 if d .) ‘ i o" ............\ 1 s • • .... I ',/ OO , ■. .) / ...„...) \ ( / • ., 1 • 1 i } \ ) I I f ', ''' 1 1 / I i ••"" / .„,...- I „ / .• • • i • •.. ' - ' I ''.. ‘ % , / / ,• b • / 7./ / / • c ' ■ 1 e , • ..... -- .. • •••... 7 • / • • to cicia 4 AA / os6rasitertirs ■ , . 1 • ThOriklE C014 alter i,j, f 1 9s m _ , 1 5411-ietr - 15ee.6 I t4C-.. sal) 1 1 1 1 - , _ 1 4:• 2:• \ LAK ■7: d. 1 0 ...... •• ...el, s' • Inn ", . xl/ ; . . (4110 . • /• I • • • . ' • . . Irir I I , s 4 rej / A o• 4t 1 1 .‘.6.‘ . I 4111441411,40. o ® i s °e .ale. 1 r - - -- ; .7: _ -- _ � - - 4. i r 1 , , i I t3 r ! .. 1p: i „`•+ arc I ' 1,4600..„<„,.,....... • •r• ��,..— - -• -� '. • , • / • - t , xa • :„.;.. — ....---.-...- . 5.' ' 0 \ K,....' :S. 4 1 C ,,,r i , :i:' ca S p v `k " '.n '•if 0 i , ' lak S I Al ' 1 01 - # . 1 ti 411% h • 1 7 *_ O I • ,' . , %# * E57,TES • �'' r�� °° *.1 • -. il l ."-;1 , : s t / E DIT - 1 I ,,,� I.u. i ly • sr; I • • �' / % l • • 4. / ��(7 •• t J - 0----j O .► ��(? L -J ( - ��M -. -. ....7.:-/- _ .411.- A/111- _ _ I.- -••• -s /, i. --.-:.1.__ V \ ' � l pc„,__ ✓ ) r l ( : _ p s� 06,4 -, arsh L - 9 °° II r ° � � 4 V . ° � ' _ : R , . e ' goo ( \ � ; � goo : ,'d ; _. _ I J u II /--, ) f 4;4 : . --. •-• :-, 1 i � l 1. . I .(1/2. ` \ i, a • a , 0 � -c .= -yr- - 4-. �-�, —j01') II • 953 / a L .ii._� 0�,.� o ; k \ ! 4/1/(] \) ° mss= � O 0 0 © 0 O G / ... , y B : 'NM* ■ C ` f (( S y ° � j o I O { \ ' 1 7 O ° t = o- J 7 70),./ • / i )4 e ..-:-.: --, ` , _,...i. , ... goo � -•� - w . _ O , � _ t • � , \ , "` %� 1 I -.,, ... c \ „....„ 7 411,- .74. :( _,..., ::-. . ,,, .) \\ 4 , , I ) ,,... \ 4o- .-- r : 'II :';',. . : ix*PZ14 \ sv7:;•\ _ - , i 4 , , Q 4-._ -414 .41 - .4 1 , 1 , ,,...„,. at___, , ,.,:!,m..,.,; , \ . A, _.— l . ,3, /„...,\;‘,„„......„.. ..... ...,.... • s, y . .: . /Y ....r . 4. Z \ ea b ) .� O g ° ..,J � r � ` ;` f ,, . qff. �p ' , 4 / l e w - ° - _ � , v %.,... .4 , 1111, `►1� f�D . ,., � ��. - 5 /�` • u V— — 90 ter• - . Y -'a, - \ 3 ,.* 0 (,' --.7 / r Yr ' f . il ,, _ i _[-,:, i 1 �1\,�� ` � y ` 'O goo , � , .� \ 0 • BSS ° = �I - - d �; D _ _._-. . , jj,.'d. (ku i' ' -'--"�_ -= s. - - -� —= �1 a -- / // 1 -.J O ?\ 1,��1�� . a ° a 9/5 , .________,, ....,,_ • .,,... , L..„.„....„,..... 2 ,.., ', I a 0 ,, ' • ` g \� /�\ 0 0 1� at U `� t�P \• r /'✓Q q I ;i `7 .. .` :� x )27.. , A \ L., e_--____ fr7_-_-- -I VO // 0 C3 C>) --- ,,/-. ,K , iii....._ j r --- Q - 1-4 ''' - " --7---------:- ---/- ' - Th .\ \ --- I ' ''' .-- -.1111‘ , _.. , .7 .----- N,f'• ,,igic,,_-, ,,,...: A , - _ ,.._ f fr - 1. / I N \./ lTh 4 ,.\\i‘ ._., ._ ._, - -- - - Gafepur.. / .. \. .-- c--=---::::--j/t* - ° ( l2- ,-, '.;:: _ - _A , , . , „.., . \,, , ,_.? , , tr (,,,,,,,,i,t, ----- - \ ,,O_____ v _ ,.... A 1 ° 'ir "'",-\eit.j- _ .i...,:,.,,,,,,/- /'' „ t ' , - ---- --:".. -' - "4' . , % -- . ' - <-:- 6 ( -. ,---:'-: --, ' '- _ --:-. ‘,' -- 64 ' -` i ., * .;.k-- , dr _; ,.<--,, s\ ,-,. , . • - i - gtt - ‘,...,v - -- - -,i.?!.': , '4.1 - - -- okk, aeiti-ft._,-:, ._ 0, , • :, ,, , \ 900 6� ° �F ; I r � i ✓ g/9 (� l I �" ' 6 IJ�, -'�J 1} \ ' •,- -, - + ll ' .. P . c ./ ( � i . � .i +(.� !: o �1 �J / �dt � � % . IIN ' -- – �I" r r ``` �i ' \ ?f 'r ? V -• \ ego° \ �� %. ;� - 80 1 . - .` ,y >= =; ' ;.''•=. J/ � �^� S � ��.�` . J \ K ! �>'( //�.. - ->, .-'-� I /- o - .':'a ,';.. - °'.r mss= .�lf ' � � { � `\ ' iV`. � �,0 �- •�� , f � o C. � 1 i . `� ,' J' `_ F �_ " -. - ''4- � .•a i t •... '3 ry , C• 1 .. - _ 1 _ ';_ - 1 /. _ _ � W rr d ��' ( - - -*�E 1( • ( e — , z . o , ..T .- .. Rice i , ice \J — _.750 � ��' _-,, - .. -' '- ' • " r: '•► -w �� Assumption_ -.0.- -.1. °• 0,- ', Sr .4 • ' i > , _ - 750 ■ ∎ _ O = _'* :,..1. e ' I. $( ^ > r �► i- J / / r ' • - v.- - ..- -r. - .�- "�n t ;.,._ .W r,. e,. + �" 1W Pi II - •► _ ocirr > _ t . + CoTT CO Z / �� - `r" ). rte .. _ / Tr i° t ITT: \ , ` (r 1 I \- • ✓/ ^.. - Park =— j 101 s / � 08 - 5 Grave ��I► ' 7 �1�1� . -� G \� : / �� r - ^i,�'1�sir1•� ( • ( revel Pits � $ �� •1� . .� } �_ t� -�� ' �.� �Z To.- _I r 750 "� fap� �,�_ 11 I I ii c‹ 0 SATHRE - BERGQUIST, INC 400/.0 :111iN 141 CI) vol 150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN 55391 6,. co (612) 476 -6000 FAX 476 -0104 " ERS June 17, 1992 , 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 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. REUEIVEll 1 m► 1. q 1992 1 t 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 1 overflow into the ravine systems any longer. The secret to stabilizing the ravines, in our opinion, is to redirect 11 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. We discussed the possibility of trying to stabilize the ravines which have been recently denuded. We suggested that over time nature would 1 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 he 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 r 1 1 1 Lastly, we discussed the issue of the benefits of providing ponding , downstream or downhill just above the area that is presently being 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. 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 I/ 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. 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 1 continue to explore these opportunities and finalize our proposal. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Sincerely, SATHRE - :• w.GQUIST, INC. or / Richard W. Sathre, P.E. RWS /dm cc: Mr. Thomas Zwiers 1 Mr. Charles Folch 1 JUN- 9-92 T U E 1 G : 3 G S A T H R E- E E R G Q U I S T. INC. P. 0 2 I f �PS S J9` z t o SATHRE - BERGQUIST, INC 1 150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN 55391 F qr Q (612) 475 -6000 FAX 476 -0104 �LF Q`P 1 1 June 5, 1992 1 II Mr. Paul Krauss CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive II P.O. Box #147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 1 Subject: MOON VALLEY AGGREGATES II Dear Mr. Krauss: Accompanying this letter are a permit application for earth work 1 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 II Hennepin County. The materials also include a list of ground water 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 II undoubtably present and will seep out of the sidewall of the excavation as sand seams within the clay are encountered. II The purpose of this grading operation as depicted on our grading plan is two fold. 1 1. The property owners have been approached by the owners of the Eden Prairie Land Fill looking for tight clay soils to be used to cap the landfill as part of its closure. This II site is close by, the land is agricultural, in other words, open and not treed. The removal of the material would not be particularly damaging to long term use of the property. I 2. The grading of the property presents an opportunity to solve present and continuing erosion problems of existing runoff flowing from the plateau into the ravine system that has 1 developed over the years along the railroad corridor and also to the east. 1 JUN- 9-92 T U E 16 ' 3 5 S A T H R E- B E R C Q U I S T, INC. P. 0 3 1 1 1 The excavation of a permanent ponding system, within the site, with 2 ponds will change the current pattern of erosive ravine drainage and promote groundwater recharge. These ponds are located: 1 1. At the very northerly edge of the excavation area and; 2. Near the head of the major ravine at the eastern border. 1 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 11 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 commence again in May of 1993 and continue until completion. Restoration of the site would be done on a staged basis. As each area 1 is excavated, topsoil will be replaced to a depth of at least 4 inches and the exposed soils areas reseeded. All 3:1 slopes would be mulched. In »Mi tion 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 October 15, 1993 for the entire site. 1 1 JUN- 9-92 T U E 1 6' 3 9 S A T H R E- S E R G Q U I S T, INC. P. 0 4 1 1 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. SAME n'.t ST, INC. , Richard W. Sathre, '.E. ' RWS /dm cc: Mr. Thomas Zwiers enc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' TV ' .° ,%41 ...4-5160 1 # -744,116/9 jaa,tio, ecNtarcit 524 A llrlief I S ":::( ' o/ ' .... , % i % ( 1 . ' ...■ ... . % ‘ i i / i I t I I , / \/, j ,, ••) I \ ‘ ‘ . •• % % / // (iNicil i 1 t Y 4 0 .• ' . , , i ,,. ' S. ' "" . 7 ‘ ‘ 1 i .• / 0' N ••••• % ri - _ 0:7, 1 . , / .•, ■,.. ----- - _ _ — , , „/, r ;) k) k .‘ • - - .7: ,— --. itt:Zimirt... -.■ ir•\'' --- \..‘ a . I‘" " ' • '' --- -'''''•-•.- ... - -3 dati le Mt: \ ' I . 1/4---- % , • 111 137 - 444 .....f . 4 ', •, .2 , •,••• .-:.:..-...:?,;,...-- ::. - • . ---, . . 1 f l:±1 ' • FL-p7x1 yr -. , ' - - ' - - .- • - _ la 1 i , \\ )// 1 .r.. , -17, . i \ f, , ' -r. - , -.■ lirs 4 1 i ‘ ,:‘,..„:-.;...-../. , ,,, / 1 acrn Pura, - ) 1‘ ‘ i ,- .," ( -.. . ......-... I . l , . „, . a • / / 1 - -, / /' - -- -' Ili/ : • ' ., 1 • - -o„. V. It- . ■ ( , -J. f , '5 ,-. , •---• 4 1 . \ \I ,..,-. . VV elk \ ... 44 \ J.: I , t: . 1 : r • f , ' , . . . ' s '• wa* * • 1 \ W. %% , ' 1-...1 N . ,,,,, , „........ ,.... , 7,... , .. f /' . - . , , -Jaaat., , 1, ( ----, - --..v dok 1 , „../ , , 1, • : ( if ., / , . . I _ • '' , ,.. ,. • • ..arAiNs.vvii -,,,, " .' z _,,, • .. , , _ _ ....... ,• . • , , , ..... r .„ , : , _„,-,- .,. , 1 t . , ,.. il,,, — - " ..--- ::%W i; • t 7, . , 1 -- % • ' . ‘ i I I • "-----s .s. ...„_?.7.....,...i` / / i ,, ) 1 / I t . I \ t ;/ - 0.11 ) it \ \ i s ,\ 1 , ii, •,., v. 1 \ , . -„ \ N I , . k 1 . ' ( \ i ( .......- 4 /, • I , ,./ 16 / / , I, t I/ t / z i/ . f , / ,,,,• _,...... i k i \ ....1 N ,z ‘ ? '' • \ ----• ‘ % i 1 ‘ \ 4 1 , • . • \ . \\ \ 1 r / f r /. - t' * z .,:: 4 , 1 / i ' // 4 -: 1 I.,.. ......_It , . , ..,- cr / i / / •- i ,.....,.L...• ..,_ \ `.., .rn• -r. • --..• ." / // 1 •„•••••• ..,------, - .. . ,. / // \ 31' k '-', \ \ i ' \ • I / / , f • , , • ..,..f.• .4.4.: ...... \ ) $ \ 4 . / i / i ‘• I 1 41 / I i f r I I 4:-.•:,4 / Ps / r i , i 1 t 1 -..\ ‘•- •■••. 1 I t ‘ 1 il / 4 1 1 1 4 • 1 ' ‘." ....., -":_........,,,%....--",'". . ,. ,... i \ ••• 's \ / I 4 / \ 1 t , // / / / X. •'. . -.1- -. • •:......—........e • .0 „,.,of 4 , 1 N \ -- ---- --'. '--- -:•( i \ t ! 1 • .' '...-- ` % I % i • t, N , 1 t , .. , . •• • i i ( - ca \ ) • ./ ) 1 :I/ \ \‘'.- ■••"'" .,__...... .-:-T.....; 1, -.. \ , \ t \ pf .',// ' I ,... ,./* --'7 '•‘•••: _..... -I ' ' \‘ r/ / - -...:‘ ‘ . s'":"--/.------' ' ' \ '1 \\ • 1 ' / 0 ' . 7 . ; / • /ct.. -7,:: • \\„ ... , a " • \ 1 / / / • ,J, 1 1 1: • i • ' /„.; - ------ I PY.,----,--.: : '•,...,.: -, . , ,/ ;,,, ,,,-..::- , , 1 •,, •„ , . 1, - ,/ , 2 , ,,...,-_-- ..„ ,.••.... \ -..........;-_,- „-- k j •- y &f yl i r i: 1 'a I i 1 a i r . " -- tt / )) i tk.... --- ---- 7.7 • t ' ' I '° 'I L // I' 4 / - i / 8.4. ' '/ , ' 0" ; \\\•. I i "--• N - "i - * - • ---/ - -, /,' , N Y --- - .. ../- , I , / ,1 ) . - _.. . A, , • 1 /. y),. ; 1 , / ir •--- i ' • ' / ■ 1 \` ' i • . . .. "3N1 ' i_sinifinaa—aNt-I.Los et. •9T aril_ Z6— —Fin.r. - tit - t7 UUIILLll 111 - Mu , i INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EARTH WORK/MINING OF A GRAVEL PIT, NORTH OF HIGHWAY 212 AND EAST OF THE CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY, TOM ZWIERS, MOON VALLEY ' AGGREGATE. Mayor Chmiel: Before we get into this, there are several things that were concerns that we had had from the previous Council meeting and asked for some clarifications as to the questions that were asked by the citizenry and to have review of this by staff. To come up with some conclusions to explain to Council the position that they're going through. What I'd like to do at this time is to 11 re -open that meeting from the last time and I did want someone to at least address each of those respective issues that were asked now. And then I'll open it back up for any additional comments. I would like at this time to have you limit your comments from, if you had gotten up last time, that we have comment from you without reiteration from what was said the last time because we do have them contained in the Minutes and it's rather lengthy and we know exactly what has happened. If there is some additional information that you'd like to 11 supply, we'd be more than happy to listen to that. So with that, Kate are you going to present that portion of it? Kate Aanenson: Specifically there was a few areas that the City Council addressed the staff to further investigate. That being visual impacts, the linkage, and the EAW, Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Specifically...those questions as far as linkage. The Attorney advised us that going ahead with the northern area, even though it would cross over into some of the southern property, would not constitute expansion of that non - conforming status. The EAW we felt the fact that our ordinance is pretty sophisticated as far as what the Council would require, we really don't feel we'd be gaining much by doing an EAW. That does not meet the mandatory requirements so we certainly could ask for one but we felt that we've gone into quite a bit of detail as far as what we've asked for and as information. The other area was the visual impact. I think that's of most importance to the neighbors too. Again, there will be some additional grading being done that will cause trees to be removed but we feel that the exchange of the loss of the trees, we've also leveraged that by asking for reforestation so there's kind of a trade off there. Again, we've kind of recommended that there's four alternatives that the Council can do at this time and one is approve the application with all the conditions outlined previously 11 in the staff report. Deny the application and then come back with a Findings of Fact of the reasons for that denial. Modify the request, and approve only that portion relating to the clay and the open area. Eliminate the southwest corner. There is the concern that was raised at the Planning Commission meeting, previous to the Council meeting, regarding the sedimentation pond and the drainage and what that would do to some of the wells in the area. And the fourth option would then be the, require the EAW. And we did note in there that it would take, before this would come back, it's a lengthy time period. 30 -60 days to get it back and have it published before you would see it again. That's all I have. • Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Is there anyone at this time that would like to bring any additional facts before the Council? Yes, please state your name and your address and who you're representing. Rick Sathre: Your Honor, my name is Rick Sathre with Sathre - Berquist in Wayzata. I'm the consultant for Mr. Zwiers. The engineering consultant. I 1 4 1 City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992 think the biggest outstanding ssue last time, at least in my mind 1 9 y was the issue of view. The neighbors or anyone along the bluff buys a piece of property or a home with the idea that they're going to have a view. And their view is important. I guess what the people up there see largely is trees but in the wintertime they've got views across the valley. We have a videotape with us tonight that we'd wish to show if we may to the Council showing some of the view issues. (Rick Sathre then showed about a 15 minute video presentation to the City Council showing different views from the property and looking at the property from the adjacent neighborhood.) Rick Sathre: Well thanks for that indulgence...they have the trunks and the branches. The clay mining operation, if it's permitted, would happen during the construction season so when the leaves fall off, the work is going to come to an end shortly thereafter and then the ground gets covered with snow. The southwest pond that would straddle the property line of the north and south parcels, that work would go on, it probably wouldn't start until next year or after and that work would go on into the future. But again, if there's any questions we'd be happy to try to answer them. Thank you. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: I do have a question. In the Planning Commission Minutes I was reading that there was some concerns from the neighbors about the well water and the levels to which you were going. Would there be any danger to her well water. Since this could be a public safety hazard, public health hazard, I know at the time that you said you didn't have an answer for that. Do you have an answer for that now? Rick Sathre: Well let me explain what's happened then and since. The information that I presented that night was some impressions that I had as an engineer. One thing that I said was that the proximity of their septic systems to their wells would be more of a hazard than our drainage into the ground 1,000 feet away. The second thing I noted was that ground water movement is toward the river. That the aquafir is sloping downward as it gets toward the river and I guess an example of that fact is all the springs that you see along river valleys and along gorges. And another thing is that the bottom of these seepage ponds that we're proposing to excavate, there may be some perched water tables close below the surface but for the most part, the wells in the area are at or below the Minnesota River Valley level. Below the river itself and we're still way way higher than that. The bottom of these ponds would still be 100 feet or so above the river. So there's all that soil to filter the water and it's only rain water to begin with. Since the Planning Commission public hearing, this matter was reviewed by the Watershed District at their regular meeting in July and the Watershed engineer concurred that there should be no hazard. No danger and they approved of this request in July. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Are there any other questions? ' 1 Councilman Workman: By Ursula? Councilwoman Dimler: I'm through. i 1 5 1 11 City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992 II Councilman Workman: You showed an awful lot of videotape on the west side of the railroad track right -of -way. What does that have to do with it? I Rick Sathre: Well what I hoped to show was people o as whether or not the p ople could see the railroad corridor itself. The homes above. Whether the tree cover was II sufficient enough to block their view of even that corridor. Because the excavation in Moon Valley would be lower yet. Would be below the corridor and to the east of the corridor. So if you can see the railroad corridor, you can II see down into the pit. I think in the wintertime you may be able to. Just like you can see across the whole river valley. But right now you can't. II Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Rick Sathre: There was a secondary reason too, Councilman Workman. One of the neighbors had testified that there really wasn't any erosion problem in the II railroad corridor and there is, and that's typical in the area. It's not an unusual thing. II Councilman Workman: Well I was back there and that face that you showed was obviously there for as long as the railroad. I mean I threw granite rock from the roadbed at it and it was probably harder than rock. In fact it's so hard you'd expect to see bird holes in it. It's too hard for birds. So I mean it's been there for what's considered to be erosion, it didn't seem like there was a whole lot. Over as many years as it's not been taken care of. 30 years or whatever. I Rick Sathre: Or longer. A lot longer probably. II Mayor Chmiel: Many people don't even remember that being a railroad right -of -way. And we can't find anything on any of our maps within City Hall that showed it as such. Michael, do you have any specific questions? II Councilman Mason: No. Mayor Chmiel: Richard. II Councilman wing: Ursula asked the one I was interested in. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. You mentioned something about the washout area. That should be filled. What would be your suggestion to eliminate that and what should be used for that kind of fill within? II Rick Sathre: Well honestly my solution wouldn't be to fill it but just do what we're trying to do which is direct the water back away from it. But if there is going to be an action taken, if Council agrees with the Watershed and says, fill II that ravine up. Then I would think we'd be pushing clay and putting topsoil over the top of it to try to get it to match the ground on either side. Or it could be left as it is and over time if the water doesn't continue to run down II through there, it would develop some grass and tree cover on it's own. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. But removal of the 250,000 cubic yards of clay, what depth would that, or what would be the depth of the, what am I looking for? What II would be the depth of that hole that would be existing? II 6 . 11 City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992 1 Rick Sathre: In general we're talking about lowering the elevation of about 22 acres. 20 -22 acres. Within that area there would be two seepage ponds or ponding areas dug. The southerly one, actually we'd be excavating the deepest point would be about 25 feet. But in general, across the whole 20 acres or so, the mean depth or the average depth that we're digging to is about 10 feet. So it'd go from zero to 25 and average. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That's going to be contained as clay and stay. We're not going to see any seepage possibly going through that either. No percolation. 1 Rick Sathre: Through the remaining clay? Mayor Chmiel: Right. ' Rick Sathre: Well it's very, very tight clay and it would be very slow so the water would tend to run to the low points which are those two proposed ponding areas in the north part. And there we'd pierce through to the sand underneath and the water would seep into the ground in those depressions. Mayor Chmiel: What is the depth of the clay within that area? 1 Rick Sathre: Well the backhoe excavation that was done in the ponding site showed it to be 25 feet. The contractor has taken some soil borings as well and I'm not sure if, I haven't seen them but have you guys seen them? But one of the fellows that's here, the man that did the videotaping, he had dug through, down to the sand layer at 25 feet. And I'm sure it's different in different parts of the site. Mayor Chmiel: You'll be able to go to those soil borings or not right now. You don't have them? 1 Rick Sathre: No. They were done for the contractor that's working at the landfill and they haven't been released to us. I haven't thought to ask before the meeting. May:Dr Chmiel: Okay. Is there any other questions from the Council? Ccuncilman Wing: What about restoration? Would you cover that briefly? I mean whet guarantees do we have? Kate Aanenson: We would require that one of the conditions in our previous memo that there be a letter of credit and we also got some recommendations from Alan Olson from the DNR and what he felt would be the appropriate amount. Councilwoman Dimler: Are you still at the $50,000.00? Kate Aanenson: The original condition was $121,b00.00. Number 6 in the staff recommendation. Councilwoman Dimler: 121. 1 Councilman Wing: So the net effect of this is at least 22 acres is going to be lowered 10 feet...still with the clay base underneath it of 13 feet. Traffic's 7 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992 II all running out to the northwest right, northeast rather, right to County Road 1. So it really doesn't even effect Chanhassen per se. II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? 1 Rick Sathre: Your Honor, one thing I'd like to reiterate. last meeting I mentioned that, it hasn't been talked about tonight and that is that the clay removal operation is a separate thing from that southwest pond excavation. The clay operation is really that of the landfill contractor so if this is approved, II a letter of credit amount somehow should be split between what guarantees of the work in the clay mining area and that which would be applied to that southwest pond. And I had done a rough calculation of about half and half is how it's II split. About $60,000.00 in each area. But that could certainly be staff verified. Thank you. I Councilwoman Dimler: Just one point of clarification. You're not asking for any variances to the setback from neighboring properties are you? Is there any area where you'd be getting into the setback? II Rick Sathre: We're asking for a waiver of the 300 foot distance that we're supposed to sta >' away from the property line. The reason we're asking for that, it's not a variance. It's a waiver. The reason we're asking for that is II erosion's occurring out near the property lines on the east and the west and if we don't oo out there next to the erosion scars, we can't get the drainage reversed and brought into the middle. So no, we're not asking for any variances and really there's no. II Councilwoman Dimler: You're just asking for a waiver of them. II Rick Sathre: And there's no permanent use permit being asked for either. The excavation is a temporary permit. So there's no home building or anything proposed at this time. I , Councilwoman Dimler: Jo Ann, are you comfortable with that waiver? Jo Ann Olsen: Kate should probably be answering that. She's been involved in II this more than I have. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay Kate. II Kate Aanenson: Well I'd turn it over to Roger. The way I'm understanding it, he's asking a waiver to get in and work to control erosion, not to do mining. II Councilwoman Dimler: And then to leave. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. So I'm comfortable with that. I Roger Knutson: We've discussed it at length with Paul when he was here and he was very comfortable. II Councilwoman Dimler: You're comfortable? Okay. 11 8 II II City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone that wishes to come forward Y at this time and provide additional comments? Cathy Bartholow: I'm Cathy Bartholow and I live at...Deerbrook and I guess maybe what I would start off by saying. I really appreciated the video. That was very helpful for me to see...what impacts this would have on our area and the neighboring area. I not...but I do have some pictures. One individual cannot be here tonight. I was kind of surprised at. The individual building this lovely home at the end of the cul -de -sac. They have a direct view of Moon Valley right now and with trees. Without trees, this is a pretty direct view. You are able to and actually if you would have asked us, I would have asked you out to back of my deck and you could have taken some pictures from there... because it really is deceiving to look from the end of the driveway, which in 1 this neighborhood are quite long, to what we actually see in the back. • The view is just part of what I think we're all here to talk about but I guess what I wanted to just let you know is that there's a little bit more to it. This is the view of the north...from our house. This is the view of our house from... parcel. These pictures didn't turn out real well...another parcel of land which was mined and has not been restored. And I think the impact is that, that's our concern. We don't want to look at that. We want to make sure first of all that we don't have to see something like... I have a couple of questions. I appreciate the response as far as the water concern. We have to trust that that is the case. That the water does go downhill to the river and that during the next storm we're not going to have that problem. I guess my question is, if we did ha a problem and the water was contaminated in the well because of this, who is respcnsitle for that? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, if you'd like to address that, please do. Rico Sathre: I don't think there's any answer because it would be so hard to find what the source is. If there was danger, it should be cut off ahead of time. Not allow it to, our ground water is precious. We don't want to contaminate it. It's hard to find, unless it's a point source, it's hard to find the culprit. Here where we're just changing the surface of the ground, there's no industrial use or anything like that happening. I don't think it would be possible to determine where a pollutant came from. I don't have an answer. Cathy Partholow: And then I know you don't have pollutants that you're working with but as someone, and I don't know really what could be on the ground...but the concern I have is, okay I'll trust that you guys know what you're talking about and hopefully we have documentation that records that, but I want to make sure that if there's something wrong with that documentation, what is our fallback point ?...what the recourse would be. Rick Sathre: I don't think there's a reasonable r.ecourse. I think what should be done for all of us is watch upstream from us. You know look for you it would I/ be look to the north and see where is my ground water coming from. Not where is it going to. To the north of you, Lake Riley and beyond. Your ground water comes from a long way away and we're all drinking the same water and we have to watch our for industrial polluters I guess. 1 9 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Well too, and industrial polluters are normally overned by the 9 Y State with a NDPS program which is the National Discharge Permit that they are ' required to get with whatever they do. And it either disallows them to do with discharging out into the open and of course they're checked on a constant basis by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Rick Sathre: And we're all doing a better job these years. All the levels of government. The wells that used to lie open when somebody's house was torn down now are being closed properly. Most of the pollutants get directly into the ground water one way or another. Like down an old well shaft so if we do a good job of closing our wells, that will cut off a lot of it. Mayor Chmiel: About the only kind of problem you could have there is some kind of a tanker truck that could have an accident. Cathy Bartholow: I think my concern was more...and things that we were talking about earlier. The other question I have is, the length of time in the north parcel we'd be going through... Rick Sathre: Well that's true. Construction shuts down in the wintertime and so once the ground freezes up, then work would cease say December 15th or something like that and then it would lie dormant until the spring. Cathy Bartholow: Do you know how many months... Rick Sathre: I don't know the answer to that because the contractor's working on, he's got a deadline on the other end to get the landfill work done. Councilman Wing: I'd just got a couple more questions. I was thinking a short time period here. It was going to be done in one construction season but we're into August now so we're well into next summer? There really is no time limit on how lono this could take? Kate Aanenson: You mean the total excavation or the restoration? Councilman Wing: In other words, does it have to occur only this summer or only 11 through next summer? Kate Aanenson: Well we put a condition on there that July 15, 1993. Councilman Wing: '93. Okay that's, and how about the restoration. When does restoration have to be completed? Kate Aanenson: Same date. July 15, 1993. Councilman Wing: Is that right? 11 Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Workman: And they still agree to that because I thought they had a problemm with that last time. July 15th is the day? I had that underlined. Rick Sathre: That's fine for the north parcel. That southerly pond area, that 10 Lily - ucnctt neeting RugUSL L4, 1//i doesn't work for that. If you permit that, that will happen over the course of future years and not be done all at once like this clay removal. That may not be clear at all. The south ponding basin that straddles the south property line is partly in the pit and partly on this north farmland or north parcel. The mining operation is-taking some sand and it's being trucked around to build streets here and there and do whatever people do with sand on a market driven basis. And so we don't really know. Tom Zwiers can't tell you when all the material will be removed from the pit and when all of the restoration would be done in the pit. It happens just with the market and so that excavation of that northwest pond that straddles the property line would be done over the course of years, not over the course of one. And that's why I suggested that you separate the letter of credit amount because you'd be holding that one much longer. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Yes sir. Please just state your name and your _ address. Jon Lonstein: Thank you. Jon Lonstein, 9861 Deerbrook Drive. Just like to make one small point. The Council last time raised some concern about the applicant not complying with Court conditions and things that the Court had said. With the two separate, with the clay mining area, there's a definite time table to be finished by July next year with an amount in escrow which has been proposed at being $60,000.00 and that amount would be enough to restore that meadow area. But with regards to the southwest parcel, the ponding area, there's no definite time table. The escrow amount which would be $60,000.00, would be wholly inadequate to reforest that area because at today's cost, it costs somewhere between $15,000.00 and $20,000.00 to reforest an acre and we don't know when this is going to stop. When it's going to end and my concern is that that area will be left as the pictures you just saw. Thank you. Councilwoman Dimler: Could I have a point of clarification. I said earlier what was the letter and you said it was $121,000.00 and now he's saying. Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry, I'm not aware of the two separate letters of credit. It could certainly be put together that way. 1 Councilman Mason: It just popped up tonight. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that was a clarification that was done here. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Oh I see. You're dividing the 121. Mayor Chmiel: Right. And staff recommendations that we had, it was item number 6 that covered the $121,000.00. Councilman Wing: Also this was bought as a meadow and are we only requiring that the meadow be restored and the trees taken out in that one tree line be restored? We're not asking for a reforestation of the meadow are we? That's agricultural land. Maybe if somebody wants to put it back into corn, not trees. I/ I don't believe we're asking for reforestation of that meadow. It wasn't bought forested. They haven't cut anything down. We're only asking for restoration of any trees damaged, minimum caliper, etc, etc, etc, and then reclamation of the meadow area. However that's done. Are we talking just seeding? 1 11 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992 Kate Aanenson: Right. So we'd have erosion control measures and the like. ' Roger Knutson: You can spread the black dirt down, 4 to 6 inches or whatever it is and then you reseed it. Councilman Wing: Topsoil and I just wanted to clarify that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? Okay, is there anyone else? Richard Vogel: Richard Vogel from 105 Pioneer Trail. I think back at the Planning Commission there was a letter in here from a Carver Soil and Water Conservation District and I think it was brought up that time. It sort of said, they questioned the idea of excavating through the clay barrier to the sandy underlying areas for the holding ponds. This would allow for excessive rates to seep into ground water 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 the ground water. And also the elevation to show excavation depths on the plan map are incorrect. To my knowledge that has not been brought back, I don't think. I may be wrong 1 but I don't think. Also, the breakdown of the letter of credit. It says here for Moon Valley Aggregate, north parcel. And then the Roman Numeral I. Now everything seems to be on the north parcel to come up to 5121,290.00 and splitting that would be the *60,000.00. Does that include the reforesting of the, let's say the bluff that's there now on the south in Moon Valley? Is that included in the *60,000.00 to reseed or reforest that? Or is that just the area where the southwest part of the north parcel where some trees will be taken out? 11 And about how many acres of trees are going out on this southwest corner of the north parcel? Mayor Chmiel: Kate, do you have any idea? Kate Aanenson: I was going to say, it would probably be easier, we've got a complete breakdown that's included in the packet. But it includes the site reforestation for the north parcel, which would be topsoil, reseeding and mulch, erosion control fencing. I'm just giving you itemized the things that would be. Erosion control blankets, slope stabilization, reforestation of all slopes. Richard Vogel: Well this is reforestation. Now on some of them you're only going to see them. I guess I'm kind of, where do you do which? Kate Aanenson: This letter was put together by engineering so I guess I'd let Charles. Charles Folch: I'm sorry, what was the question? Kate Aanenson: The reforestation estimatation and letter of credit. Most of that is for the north parcel though. That's correct. Richard Vogel: But part of the condition of using that southwest corner of the north parcel was to reforest the big scar that's there now, isn't that right? On $60,000.00? 12 1 tri t j Lvurlt,.ii IICC l llltj P U U J L 44, 1774 Kate Aanenson: No. $121,000.00. I'm not sure where that $60,000.00 keeps coming in. I'm not sure. Mayor Chrniel: It's the total of $121,000.00. They want to divide those two ' onto the two different parcels. Kate Aanenson: We're recommending $121,000.00 for the north parcel. 1 Richard Vogel: So then that would not include the south parcel? Kate Aanenson: Right. r Richard Vogel: Then I think we should better get that straight where that's going to come from. Kate Aanenson: That's what Dave recommended. I think put together it says north parcel, recommending $121,000.00. If you look at Dave's letter. I'm not sure if Charles has clarification on that but that's what it looks like. Richard Vogel: And then this, what this Carver Soil and Water Conservation District was asking too and, do you want me to finish and then let Rick get up. The other thing was, if you do go to those homes that are on Deerbrook Lane, I think those are all 2 1/2 acre lots. If you just sit in your house and look at the tree ahead of you, you maybe can't see the southwest parcel or the mining operation but you've got 2 1/2 acres. You can walk over and it is very visible frcr when you're on there on your lot. And I think Cathy did say you know, takirc the pictures from Deerbrook Trail, which was back a ways, does not give a clear picture when you look down into the valley. My main concern is that there is something there you know to fix up what they're doing and I don't think you Cr, a what do you want to say? Reforest or reseed that scar that's on the south parcel now for $60,000.00 plus what they're going to take out the trees out of t!.= southwest corner of the north parcel. Also, there's no time limit. That will iuot go on. How much can they take out of that southwest corner of the port` parcel? I haven't heard anything definite on that and I guess that's where I'll leave. Mayor Chmiel: Do you have any comments? 1 Kate Aanenson: Paul Newman from the Soil Conservation District is here. He's here for Halla but ifyou had specific questions, he could probably address those. 1 Councilman Wing: Just while we're on the subject of money. Rick, one of the examples we have here is the breakdown of security letter, and it specifically says the north parcel and it specifically spells out the north parcel and I think the suggestion tonight that breaking that in half maybe isn't going to be adequate. This $121,000.00 is solely directed at that north parcel restoration. Kate Aanenson: Right. Rick Sathre: Your Honor, Councilmember Wing. It's my division that's confusing 1 everything. what, I've read this too and I haven't talked to Mr. Folch or to Mr. Hempel who I think put it together but my belief is that from number 1 thru 13 City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992 3, under (i). It starts out (i), site restoration on the north parcel or for north parcel and they have an item for topsoiling, reseeding and mulching. ' About $40,000.00. Erosion control fencing for around the perimeter, $5,100.00 and site grading 510,000.00. I think that beyond that, number 4, 5, 6 are actually having to do with that south pond. The reason I say that is the 1 erosion control blanket south pond, it says south pond. Then number 5, it says 2.5:1 slopes. Now in the north clay excavation we're not doing anything steeper than 3:1 but in the mine, 2.5:1 is the final slope of the pit. So I assume that ' that meant stabilizing the slopes in the pit. Councilman Wing: The 500 seedlings relates to the south also. Not the north. I don't believe there's 500 seedlings or trees required on the north half. ' Rick Sathre: Right. There's none. So that's why I broke it the way I did. I thought it was about half and half but that's my interpretation. Mayor Chmiel: But that is not really what was intended for that. Where we would disallow the 60/60 on that particular aspect as far as we're concerned. From what I'm understanding from what Council is saying. Rick Sathre: So you'd put the whole letter of credit amount on the clay mining excavation and there wouldn't be any on that south pond? Councilwoman Dimler: That would be separate as far as I'm concerned. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that would be separate in addition to what's existing for that 121. Right. Councilman Wing: That $121,000.00 as I'm reading it, is including more than the north parcel so that breakdown's not accurate. It's not even a number we can connect at. ' Rick Szth -e: I would suggest that the staff clarify the number and I guess if there was a big problem, we'd come back to you. Councliwomar Dimler: Last time I brought up the concern that we kept talking about the north parcel and the south parcel all together in one permit and it's contusing. 7s there a possibility that, are we considering one permit for both or are we considering two permits that we are trying to approve in one shot here? Kate Aanenson: ...I'll let Roger answer that. Roger Knutson: Tonight the application is for one permit. Councilwoman Dimler: For both operations. For the north and the south operation. Roger Knutson: You've already given a non - conforming use permit to the south 1 operation. For the mining operation on the south. Terry Eeaucane: The south part of the north operation... 1 1 14 1 City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992 • Roger Knutson: Just the bluff area. That little piece of , a 1 ttl p e the bluff area. Councilwoman Dimler: The south part of the north operation so we're just approving a permit for the north operation with the restoration of the south part of the north. Okay. Roger Knutson: We'rc requiring that restoration of the south as a condition. You're not allowing the mining on the south. All you're doing is requiring restoration. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but what I'm saying is that if I approved of the mining operation in the north, I'm also approving of the ponding in the south? Councilman Wing: As part of this one, yeah. But it would have nothing to do with the taking of the sand out of the south with 3:1 bluffs on it so. Roger Knutson: You've already approved that. We've already approved the permit 1 for the south operation. We've litigated it for several years. We've given a permit for it. Councilwoman Dimler: So that's separate? Councilman; Going: That's done. 1 Ric ► Sathre: Your Honor, we have only applied for one permit but it has two different distinct parts to it and that's how we view it. When I sat down, Mr. Vogel asked me if I would address the issue of how much tree loss there'd be to do he south ponds. If we could put an overhead up that shows that south ponding area, that would help. I think it'd be best if I went to the screen to deal with this. Right now this triangle, well this area which is the scu'Fwesterly facing slope, that's treed. Mature trees as is much of this area dow in thi part of the site. There's in the video you can see there was regrowth trees. There's a low spot in here and there's a ridge that's wooded. EDLI of this line the excavation and the mining permit and the grandfather miring operation, taking all trees south of this line. What would be taken to Luild this pond would be trees in this triangle here and how big is that? Let's SEE. Cn this map it would be trees right in here. In that little triangle. I EL,p7osed it's probably 2 to 3 acres. Something like that. This is 160 acres from here to here and down to that corner. So this would be 40. It might be as man,- as 5. 2, 3, 5. Somewhere in there. Councilman Workman: How about the ridge? The trees on the ridge? Rick Sathre: This ridge? There's trees on the north face of that slope. ' They're raising from the south, from this line south...mining operation. That's the issue. Mr. Krauss supports the idea anyway that it might be reasonable to take that intermediate ridge out. Just the south face of this whole pit area is void of trees. If this ridge line is removed, then everybody that's south gets a full view of this wooded slope that's never going to change. If you take the scar landscape away, you see what's beyond it. That's what we're asking to do. But it would sure, it results in tree loss to accomplish that. And that activity is really very separate from the clay mining. It has it's own merits. What we gain from doing that is expose that wooded slope to full view and also 15 11 City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992 create a place for ponding t o occur g u before the water goes farther south. And the loss is, what we lose is the trees that are in the slope. ' Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Terry Beauchane: I'd like to see if I can get this point. My name is Terry Beauchane. I live at 240 Flying Cloud Drive. I'd like to see if we can get this point clarified because contrary to what you people may be thinking right now, I think you're about to be duped. This is called divide and conquer. This is his door into the north property which Judge Kanning has not allowed at this point. As soon as you authorize this permit, it's a two part permit. One is to take clay out of the north portion up there but the other is to do this, what do you call it? Ponding which is also in the north part. To do the ponding, he's going to do mining. Excavating. He's already admitted, or at least his spokesman has, that it's an ongoing operation. No limit. No time. Forever. I hope that sinks home to you people. And if it doesn't, go down and stand on 169 and look at Moon Valley and that will tell you what it's going to look like. Ponding operation, my foot. That's his door to open so he can go back to Judge Kanning and say, see. The Council said we can go into the north part of my property now. Everything is grandfathered in. I don't care what you say. Legality or anything else. We all know the legalities. Only as good as the person's character who's putting his signature to the document. Right? He's 1 been to Court. He's kept you in Court. He's spent our money. This is his way of getting in to the north property and I hope you people see it. Because he's telling you right there in black and white. Mayor Chmiel: Okay thank you Terry. Yes sir. Councilwoman Dimler: In response to that, could you reiterate my concern about the linkage of and Roger how you feel about that? Roger Kniteon: Judge Kanning has ruled in our favor. That he has no ' non - conforming use rights in the north parcel. Terry Peauchane: But you're giving it to him. Once you give him this permit. 11 Roger Knutson: Nothing you do today, whatever you do, will change that. That's alread been legally decided. That he has no non - conforming use rights. Period. Councilman Wing: So taking the clay off the north has very little to do with what he's doing on the south. Two separate issues. 1 Roger Knutson: Right. We will not give him any non - conforming use rights. You give him a permit, then you're giving a permit to do it. But that's not based on any non conforming use rights. This will not muddy that water in our opinion. And believe me if I thought so, even as frustrated I think as anyone. We've been litigating this for years. Councilwoman Dimler: So by putting a limit on the north to clay only and a specific date, then that's it, up in the north parcel, that's it? Roger Knutson: Then he's done. 16 1 City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992 Mayor Chmiel: There's only two winners in this situation. It's both attorneys. Roger Knutson: It's been very frustrating. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes sir. Earl Peterson: Good evening. My name is Earl Peterson. We have 180 acres just east of Moon Valley and down on the farm I guess we like to shuck it down to the cow, so let's do that. You hear a lot of likes and dislikes here but likes and dislikes have absolutely to do with this. We have to all obey the law. And law of the land says that no private property shall be taken for public use without just compensation and that's the United States Constitution. The Constitution of the State of Minnesota says...13, private property shall not be taken, destroyed or damaged for public use without just compensation therefore, first paid and secured. Now it's nice that we all like on somebody's else property but unless you own it, you don't have any say about it. And you know, I've had an ongoing operation on my farm for 30 years. A lot of corn and soybeans come off of there. And everybody's got the right to do with their property to their best, what they like. You've got the right to drive your kind of car. I can't tell you to drive your kind of car or paint your house or whatever. These are rights and these are freedoms, and the Constitution does not give us these freedoms. The Constitution protects these freedoms. Now the last three Supreme Court decisions upheld all this. This last one in just June of '82. States must compensate landowners for regulations, and that was down in South Carolina. Here's one of June of '87. Where the High Court...landowners rights and it says, in a major property rights decision the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that landowners must be compensated when government regulations bar them even temporary from using their property. The Court by a 6 to 3 vote said regulations such as zoning ordinances that impose new limits on a loaners use of land may amount to the taking for which the Constitution requires just compensation. So it doesn't matter what we like and dislike. I don't like a lot of things in life either but I have to face reality and I think we all have to face reality. And if we don't stand up for something in this country, we're soon going to have nothing. And if they do it to my neighbor, then they can do it to me. They can do it to you. Mayor Chmiel: Earl, I'm sorry I missed, what was your address? Earl Peterson: I have a farm in Eden Prairie, 18700 Flying Cloud Drive. Let's see, developers deserve compensation if their land is restricted. Another Supreme Court regulation. So here we are. If we restrict this fellow from using his property to what he wants to use it for, then we have to give him just compensation. Now I'm a taxpayer and I don't like that. I don't want to pay him my just compensation and I don't think you should either. I'd let him get his own. Let him do with it as he wants and I think when it gets all said and done, that thing can be developed or landscaped to the best of everybody's, you know where you can see something where you want•to see. It isn't going to be an eyesore. It's already there. You've got to deal with reality. We've got to do what's right. Now zoning to be legal has to be a contract and it has to be a benefit to both. Otherwise it isn't legal. You can't just arbitrarily say Earl's got to drive a green car. I want to have to drive a green car. But anyhow, I get a little nervous up here. I'd rather be out in the cornfield. But anyhow you understand. I can give you copies of this if you want. 1 17 . 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Councilman Wing: As long as we're on that subject. This land was zoned agricultural. Bought agricultural. The City had rules. The City had zoning ' ordinances. He knew the game I'm assuming so there's no question what the game was when he bought this so these aren't rules in effect after he bought the land to penalize him. He's simply hot willing to live with the rules that existed when he bought it. Is that clear? I want to make sure that's where I'm standing. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Roger Knutson: When he bought the property, it required a, I think at that time a conditional use permit to mine and anyone has the right to apply for a conditional use permit. ' Councilman Wing: Okay. So we're not restricting his use? We're not just granting another use? Roger Knutson: One of my favorite subjects to talk at length about this but I won't do that because you want to go home tonight. I'll just leave it to saying, there is no taking issue here. If you want to go over all the Supreme Court cases, just give me a call, I'd love to talk to you about them. Councilman Workman: Are you saying that we can say to these people they can't take anything out of there? Roger Knutson: It wouldn't constitute a taking of property because you'd have other reasonable uses of it. From agricultural to single family homes. It would not envoke the taking clause. Councilman Workman: So you're saying, we can say to these people, you cannot remove anything. You cannot mine this property. Roger Knutson: I'm saying, that would constitute a taking of his property in my ' opinion. There's no question about that. You do have an ordinance. And your ordinance specifies conditions and if you comply with the conditions, you're not creating a mess out there, then you're entitled to a permit. It's not based upon the Constitution, at least not that provision of the Constitution. Based upon your own ordinance... Councilman Workman: So you're saying we can't not allow him? ' Roger Knutson: If he complies with the ordinance. 1 Councilman Workman: And he is doing that. Roger Knutson: That's your judgment. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's your judgment call. Councilman Workman: The ordinance is open to judgment, okay. 1 18 1 City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992 Earl Peterson: Maybe I can clarify for you. The law of the cl i y that y e t o e land, the misconception is that any statute passed by legislature bearing the apperance of law, constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any statute to be valid must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and the law violating it to be valid. One must - prevail. This is, whatever that word is, stated as follows. And it's in American Juris Prudence 177. The general rule is that an unconstitution statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose. It goes on a little farther but. , Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Emily Pischleder: Emily Pischleder, 185 Pioneer Trail. I guess my concern is that we all pay residential reat estate taxes and I just want to know how many years coming ahead as what's already happened behind do we have to put up with a commercial business operation being done behind us with whatever, the noise and everything entails? So that's my main concern is the time thing. Is this going to be done in a year and then 2 years later again and again? Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else? Richard. Richard Vogel: I guess I'll just say it from here. I'd still like a definition if there's one permit for the clay mining and then the ponding area in the southwest corner of the north property which will go into the old Moon Valley. That is under one permit and there's no time limit as to when he can mine in that southwest corner. How far can he go with that? Roger Knutson: The City Council will decide how long he can mine on the southwest corner. That hasn't been decided. I haven't heard anyone vote on the subject matter yet. There's one permit for the north parcel and one permit for the south parcel. They're separate permits. Richard Vogel: What about the part where they're connecting? What permit is that? Roger Knutson: You mean the reforest, what are you talking about specifically? The reforestation? Richard Vogel: The ponding area in the southwest corner of the north parcel.. Roger Knutson: That's part of the north parcel. Richard Vogel: But they're going into the south parcel to do that. They're taking some trees out of the south parcel and there's some of the ponding area that goes from one parcel to the other. That's it up on the map. Roger Knutson: The stuff from the north parcel is under the north parcel permit , and the stuff from the south parcel would be under the south parcel permit, if a north parcel permit is granted. Mayor Chmiel: It's getting to the point where I think we're having enough discussion on this and I'd like to. 19 1 City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Could I just ask one more question? ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, one more question. Councilwoman Dimler: In regards to the last concern that was brought up about the timing and how long is this going to go on. I'm wondering, has anybody ever discussed the end use plan and what are our, how can we get that going? Do we have anything there that we can work with? Roger. ' Roger Knutson: Certainly. ' Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead Roger. Roger Knutson: Have they supplied an end use plan? Kate Aanenson: A reclamation type plan? Not yet. That was one of the requirements that they do that. I just want to clarify too. We put in there that all operations cease within one year. I mean that's your perogative if you ' want to but that's what the staff recommendation. We have the one year requirement. People have been throwing out different options but that was the original staff recommendation. Was the one year. Jo Ann Olsen: Including the ponding area. Kate Aanenson: Right, everything. Councilwoman Dimler: It all has to be done within a year? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. That was our recommendation. Mayor Chmiel: We had it shown that all mining operations and site restoration would be completed by July 15th. Now that has slipped one month. And if you want to keep that at July 15th or August 15th, that's our perogative. Councilman Workman: Do we have a list or an idea of the dimensions of the pond listed here? What are the dimensions? Kate Aanenson: I'm not aware... Mayor Chmiel: Do you have that? Rick Sathre: Your Honor, I could estimate each of the pond sizes. Are you thinking about the one in the north parcel totally? Councilman Workman: Yes. Rick Sathre: May I come up here? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Rick Sathre: North is to this side. This is the east property line... This is the central pond. This is 1 inch to 100 feet. So across the very bottom it's about 100 foot wide area. The length is... This is about 250 feet from there t 20 1 City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992 to there. It's about 250. And this is, well this is about 150. So it would be like a football field or a little less. Councilman Workman: How about the bottom one? Rick Sathre: This one? Well that one, I have to get another drawing. It's smaller. This the pending area that straddles the south boundary and actually the excavation area would be the triangle, this shape on the north parcel. This is 1 inch per 200 feet. So this is about 600 feet across the base. The total area that would be excavated would be... And this third pond which is up on the north...area that was once mined. Councilman Workman: I think there's, I appreciate all the comments and Mr. Peterson's comments make a lot of sense. There's a lot of wisdom in that and the Constitution and rights and everything. I think we take that into account every Council meeting. We try to. And so we try to do the best we can with people's rights without infringing on the other. If I own an island next to Mike's island and Mike decides he's going to start manufacturing pig manure on his island and that ruins my opportunity to have a nice resort community, I guess my island isn't worth as much as I thought it would be unless I get into pigs. But the more and more we've talked about this, it's been sort of just a project that I've been kind of concerned about but suddenly I realize why these neighbors are so frighten. Because we don't really know the dimensions and we don't know the times and how long is this going to go on. It could be, I don't think that these neighbors want to infringe on anybody's rights anymore than their own properties but this is a huge, huge project that to me still has no, not enough definition to it. It's kind of a blob. We don't know, still don't know. I've got to believe that with an environmentalist like Paul Krauss saying this isn't a bad idea, I have less reservations because if you harm a tree, Paul has a problem you know. But Paul's not here to reassure us maybe on what he had in mind. I think we need a drop dead date on the whole thing so that these people know whether they should sell their homes or not. The dimensions of the pond and realistically how much time it will take to construct that pond I think need to be before us before we can make a decision. As we ask more and more questions, Mr. Beauchane's concerns sort of became a reality then. So I think we're still, I know we had a tour of the south part and I've walked the north part with Mr. Vogel and I still have his mosquito spray in fact. But I very much feel uncomfortable about it. I don't know if an EAW might not be a good idea to give us, or rest more of our concerns on that and maybe staff can give me an idea. There was a petition filed. Does that mean we have to do the EAW? I mean it's starting to seem like more and more that should probably be done. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that's fine. I think too that some of the things that we're looking at and showing on drawings that we've seen and everything that we have had, are a little sketchy. It's not really detailed and shown. Soil borings. I'd like to know what those are as well.. I have some concerns with that. And I think that would sort of substantiate some of the additional things that Tom has said really. I know we've gone through, we're the RGU within it but still deemed I think by Council. At least Tom's position until we have a motion. That an EAW be done and this is going to have to be published in the EOB Monitor as well for a 30 day period. And that means that after that period of time it would then come back to Council with the determinations of the RGU, which is still the City, to come up with those additional answers that we're 21 City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992 still looking for. And I don't, we don't have it and it's just too loose. I'd ' just like to see that tighten up a lot more than what we've done. I understand what we're looking for with the restoration of the other pit and I don't disagree with that. We do want that and that's still going to come. But I think we best know exactly where we're standing with what we're going to do this evening and get clarifications and a little more information. Well I should say clarity contained within so we know just exactly where we're going. Councilman Wing: Let's get an aerial photograph too. We can blow that up and then we could have an overhead with an aerial view to show us exactly what we're talking about geographically. And I'd like to see the Dimler linkage dealt with ' here. Tie both pieces together in the schmatic so we can see how they intermix. These costs need clarification too. I think you brought that up didn't you? Mayor Chmiel: Right. So with that, I would entertain a motion at this time. ' And that could almost be done as to per discussion that we've just previously had. ' Councilman Wing: The motion would be table pending an EAW for clarification of the questions brought up by Council. ' Councilman Mason: I think maybe we should have a little discussion about the EAW first or are we all in agreement that that needs to be done. I mean we've got staff saying they don't feel that's necessary. ' Mayor Chmiel: Well, there are still some things that are still loose and that's still not providing us all the information so that could be dictated by the EAW. ' Councilman Wing: But staff may have that. I'm agreeing with Mike, staff may have that information. Watershed District saying the water, there isn't a problem. Infiltration will be normal, etc, etc, etc.. Paul may have that ' information that would satisfy us. Councilman Mason: I guess I'm not, I'm on the fence on the EAW thing but I agree with you Don. That there are a whole lot of questions that need to be tighten up before we can act on this. I mean staff is saying on one of the recommendations that all mining operations and site restoration has to be completed by the 15th of July, 1993 but now I'm hearing that can't possibly be ' done. Well, these things need to be worked out. I don't think we're anywhere near approving this yet. Roger Knutson: I know it's difficult this evening because Paul's not here and he has the most expertise on this. But maybe if Paul brought back all the information, he met with the engineer and the applicant, maybe in 2 weeks you could have the answers sufficient so you could act on it and maybe an EAW would not be necessary. I don't know that to be the case but maybe you'd want to give the applicant that opportunity to meet with Paul and bring everything back and give it one more shot at your next meeting. In the meantime you won't lose any I ground. After meeting with Paul, if Paul decides an EAW is necessary in his own mind, then he can just tell the applicant that that's his recommendation and you're probably going to follow it and he can get going on his EAW. But if everything can be tied up without that, maybe he should be given that opportunity. There's a lot of loose ends like he said that maybe could be 1 22 City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992 resolved without the EAW. You can have an EAW but there has to be findings and potential for a significant adverse environmental effects and what not. Mayor Chmiel: Right. That could be so concluded with this as well. But I think probably with your recommendation to put it to the next Council meeting for that, to see if it's resolved and if it's not resolved with that, we can II mandate the EAW then after that. Roger Knutson: That's correct. Councilman Mason: So moved. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. ' Councilman Workman: Is that a tabling motion? If I can just add a couple things. I guess taking into account number 14, on how long or how long they need to complete the project. It seems July 15th is off. I guess I'd like that to be further looked at in relationship to number 3 which would, I would hope disinclude Saturdays and make it Monday thru Fridays. That would maybe have to extend it out. So that might just make a situation go longer and maybe the neighbors don't appreciate that. Kate Aanenson: Can I comment on number 14? This is kind of a philosophical argument or we just need to get some direction from the Council on because we said one year and we feel comfortable staying with that. They're saying they can't make that one year, for whatever reason. They want to continue extraction in that area. We need some direction from you as far as what you feel comfortable giving them that drop dead date because if you want to separate those two. Yeah I think the other issue, some of this information we know we don't have. If you want to give direction for the applicant to supply some of this, I mean I have notes of I think there's some information that definitely you need to make a better decision regardless of the EAW but as far as separating those two, I think we can complete the north parcel reforestation within that one year but as far as the ponding, if they say they can't meet that, what sort of information would you like them to provide to say why they can't meet that and how long they think. Is that what you're looking for? Councilman Workman: Well, you know I asked them about how many trees and well about 3 to 5 acres. Kate Aanenson: Right, we can get more detail on that, certainly. Councilman Workman: Yeah, and then how big is the ponds and we didn't know that and so. Kate Aanenson: I've created a list of things. Councilman Workman: If their engineer doesn't know how wide or big or deep that pond is, surely he wouldn't know when it would be done. And I guess I go back to this, our bluff preservation ordinance and somebody wants to build a deck within 1 foot of that line, we say forget it. And boy I tell you, if you want to build a deck on the bluff, you're open with me. 23 City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992 Kate Aanenson: I just want to make ake sure when we come back next time we've got enough information so you can make a decision. Councilman Wing: You know because of the time involved we've spent on this, I'm not so sur a tour down there wouldn't be in order to really clarify this ' visually. At least I'd like it. I've walked it but I still have trouble identifying the sites. ' Kate Aanenson: I think your suggestion on an aerial photography would be helpful too. Mayor Chmiel: I think the decision can be done rather quickly. Either aye or ' nay or whatever it may be, or the EAW. So with that we have a motion on the floor and a second. Go ahead. Councilman Mason: I just wanted to quick ask some of the families that are here, if it came down to Monday thru Saturday or Monday thru Friday and they're going a little longer, what's your preference? Audience: Monday thru Friday. Mayor Chmiel: And that throws off their timeframe too. 1 Councilman Mason: Yeah, and I understand that. I understand that but I certainly share, in fact I brought it up at the 24th meeting. If I lived there, ' I wouldn't want those trucks Saturday morning. Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Gisler seconded to table the Moon Valley request to mine clay under Interim Use Permit B92 -5 until the next City Council 1 meeting. All voted in favor and the lotion carried unanimously. Jon Lonstein: Mr. Mayor, could I ask that if you do have a tour...we'd like to accompany you. Also, I'd like to invite you to come and see the view from our point of view from our properties. Not from the street but from our decks and from our rooms, and I'd especially like all of you to arrange to...because his deck is the one that is most close to the southwest corner of the north property. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE A PORTABLE CHEMICAL TOILET ON MINNEWASHTA HEIGHTS BEACHLOT. 1 Kate P,anenson: Minnewashta Heights is asking for a conditional use for a portable toilet. This beachlot did receive a non- conforming permit allowing 14 boats just recently. It meets all the standards that we have in the conditional use as far as being anchored down and landscaped and screened. We had recommended that a trellis be put up around this area and in reviewing with the Planning Commission, they felt that it was screened, based on this redwood fence right here and the canoe racks, that additional screening may not be necessary. That really it is a pretty nice situation. Basically we recommend approval with the conditions in the staff report. 1 1 24 1 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 13. Parking spaces must meet the parking standards as required by the zoning ordinance. • 14. The landscaping plan shall be modified to include streetscape along Powers 1 and Kerber Boulevards. In addition, conifers shall be placed south of the oak trees to provide additional buffering. II 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. , 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. f ,1/2 jNTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EARTH WORK /CLAY MINING OF A GRAVEL PIT, LOCATED SOUTH OF u\ e - pPIONEER TRAIL AND NORTH OF THE GRAVEL PIT, TOM IWIERS. MOON VALLEY AGGREGATE. Paul Krauss: The applicants are requesting approval to remove approximately 250,000 cubic yards of clay. This site is a 45 acre piece of ground that's the north...iilustrated 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 52 City Council Meeting August 10, 1992 site. Here are a series of significant erosion problems occurring on this site II that this grading is designed to address. Those retention basins will result, t 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 II ; dumps into the Naticnal 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 development 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 City Council Meeting - Au :t 10, 1992 is a possibility that utilities could be rovided in the future P 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 b; 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 4nd 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 1 54 1 1 City Council Meeting - tgust 10, 1992 future street for this area as it develops. They did not have any Y Y concerns for the sight distance. They did have some concerns that truck hauling signs be I f 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 ' k 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 11 gravel 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 the but I think that, as I see it, the real disadvantages to 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 1 55 1 City Council Meeting - Au, ,t 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 of 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 as it pertains to the north work, yes. They should be jointly responsible but not as to the south. 5o 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 1 ' 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 I E 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 and then it gets seeded on top of it. The reason they go with the clay in this 1 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 1 City Council Meeting - Auc. t 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 I would do that. The mandatory threshhold for an EAW is, and I don't remember exactly but I looked it up when I was doing this. II Mayor Chmiel: 25 signatures is all it needs. Paul Krauss: That's an elective EAW but a mandatory EAW that's required by the 1 Environmental Quality Board is excavating over something like 40 acres of land 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 II 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 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 II anything that could be added to going through the EAW process. We've already 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 II discussion or else I would have suggested that we do it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I don't have any other questions. I may have II more. Ursula. 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 II the south site is grandfathered in and has a conditional use permit which we're 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 II site into here somehow to confuse the issue I think. Paul Krauss: You're hitting it right on the head. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. Paul Krauss: It's an extraordinarily complex legal situation. We've had some II court rulings on the south parcel that establishes grandfathered rights. That 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 II 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 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 II interpretation that you have to make. Does it meet the standards that are 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 1 corner and what that does is, it straddles the property line. You've basically 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 II 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 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 II 58 1 II City Council Meeting - lust 10, 1992 1 makes some environmental sense and then leveraging it on the south property so II ! 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 f 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 1 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 11 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. 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 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? 1 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 likely? Paul Krauss: Oh yeah. 1 59 1 City Council Meeting - Ai .st 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. 1 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 i authorize or I would never recommend that you authorize it because it is a 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 60 1 ' City Council Meeting - lust 10, 1992 300 foot setback of activity. It also provides for a waiver of that setback if II 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 E 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 1 61 r City Council Meeting - Au •t 10, 1992 restoration on the south is such that it's not a year, two years, it's as the 1 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 II 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 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 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 Deerbrook 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 II 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 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 62 1 • ' City Council Meeting - 0-gust 10, 1992 yards. 10 cubic yards to a truck, that's 25,000 truckloads that's o i n ggtobe driving over this pipe. If this pipe breaks, who's held responsible for it? II • 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 I + 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 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 I septjc 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 11 having 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 11 that they do have a second source for clay. Thatthe 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. 63 1 City Council Meeting - Augu' 10, 1992 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. 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 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 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 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 some looking into that. And that's all I had, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? ' 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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? 1 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 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. 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 64 1 City Council Meeting Augusf 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 II 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, II { 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? 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, I 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 11 a lot of folks who's .credibility comes into question, which is why the City requires development agreements and contracts and things to be filed against property title and everything else. 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? 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 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 cause everyone a lot of aggravation and time and money through this 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 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 going to do it again? Mayor Chmiel: Appreciate your comment but I think that's something that we're going to have to decide on and come up with a conclusion ourselves. Terry Beauchane: I hope you give it very serious consideration. 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 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. Councilman Wing: Don, if I may just quickly have one additional question of Paul up to this point. Terry Beauchane: I have no further questions. • ' Councilman Wing: I don't own the property. Mr. Zwiers owns the property and I 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 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 guy. What his rights 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. 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 66 1 1 .. .7 v.+u.rvaa rr.. •..arr7 ccy ut .mot iV, il7G 1 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 II find up what kind of rationale the County uses. But if there's some area specifically. Councilwoman Dimler: Well I guess one of the questions that was brought up that ' I thought was excellent was how are we going to police or tell when they've taken out that 250,030 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. 1 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. Mayor Chmiel: Well my concerns are, as I want to have all the information available to 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. 1 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. 1 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 irachine. I would like to also make a suggestion that we table item number 7. Councilman Workman: Second. 1 Mayor Chmiel: And hold off with Council presentations and Administrative presentations until next meeting. ' 7 6 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 9 July 1, 1992 - Page 16 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? ' 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 Barthoiow 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. Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 17 It is in this spirit that I express my concern es a resident but P P Y 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 financi 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 no up front! It is my concern that the operator's past conduct to residents and II 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 all I am concerned that this may be a pattern. Please be careful. David 5. Johnson ' Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. ' 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? i Farmakes: No. It says $40,000. in here. Krauss: I believe there's another condition that. 1 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 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 a 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 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 finish grade, reseed and maintain erosion control and it's a formula they've use pretty standard for a number of years on development projects. And that' 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. ' 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 1 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 11 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. • Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 19 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 als 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 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 bee 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 we so that has eroded. The blue arrows on this drawing show the direction o water flow now. So there's a bluff line here, the water that falls on th south and west and south and east sides of that line actually go toward t 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 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 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 ma 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 dra 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 I 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 ail 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 major stand of trees that exist there. The major bluff line that Mr. Krauss wa4I 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 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 sta recommendation items. The first item on the recommended conditions was t 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 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 hell 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 ge toward the end. In number 7, the staff has recommended that $40,000. letter of credit be posted to cover site restoration. What I've talked toll Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 20 Mr. Zwiers about is trying to work out some sort of a dual obligy bond. 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. 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 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. Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 21 Just general development of public facilities. Mr. Zwiers sells ravel t 9 to contractors or cities or entities that are building something somewhere. 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 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. An so, well it's a hardship and I'm not sure how to deal with that. I don't 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 therdl 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 onerous. Lastly the condition 14 relating to the damage, the ravines and how to repair them. T think what I would propose is probably what the engineers and the planners have in mind anyway and that's really to go ou 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 t 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 floll 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 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 we have to carefully deal with the issue and probably some sort of seedin operation of those barren clays and sands would be the most productive. We 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 b available for the neighbors too if they have something that they're worrie 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' 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 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 g 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 tha water right into the ground water. All of the homes in that area, Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 22 11 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. 1 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 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, 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 Planning Commission Meeting 1 July 1, 1992 - Page 23 ill that trail from TH 101 up to CR 4, and take a look at the entire operatio that you're discussing. You'll see it's really a very beautiful area and 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? I 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? II Jeff Michell: Yeah. Krauss: They're request to us outlines this being completed either this I 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. I Jeff Michell: Yeah, I'd like to make that request. And I'd also like to reiterate some of the concerns that staff and the city attorney have rail with regard to making sure that suitable performance guarantees or letter 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, sell 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. We don't have any lakes down there but we've got a really nice woods that's I 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. 11 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 did 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 I truck it out? Rick Sathre: Yes. II Emily Pischleder: Then I'm wondering if you're going to be taking more out 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 II removed from the area farther south from where it was mined before. II II Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 24 I Emily Pischleder: Okay, but you will be taking some more out of that area 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? Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 25 1 Rick Sathre: Because it's a downhill gradient. It just naturally flows downhill through the soil. 1 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 II 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 m property. It's maybe at the most 400, maybe 500 feet away from my well a 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 ji background, I've read studies of how far septic system, waste water had t 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 of 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 more polluted, if you want to call it that than the general surface runof from the farmland. Certainly the agricultural land or any land, grass has pollutants in it. But they're filtered out through movement through the II soil. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Jerry Bertsch: I'm Jerry Bertsch, 8556 Irwin Road in Bloomington. I'm t proud owner of Lot 8, Block 1, Deerbrook. I have the largest lot in 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 don 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 effe 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. 11 Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 26 The mature trees on that southeastern, or yes. Southwestern corner, as long 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, next year but eventually they are. They don't loosen all at once. You get heavy rains and a little bit slips. 11 Some more heavy rains and eventually something does go. But basically I 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 27 ' • would like, if anything is done here, there should be a timeframe. I thi 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? I 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 ' 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 accountabli 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 th it is reforested with, not seedlings this big but reforested when you're talking reforestation. What does all these things wean? 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 makingil sure that that does happen and we want to make sure somebody's accountabl 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 woulli ask. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Okay. Rick Sathre: I'm a small businessman too, just like Mr. Zwiers and maybe many of you. 1 see, well mining operators are kind of lumped with used cil salesmen and maybe attorneys and bad engineers. Batzli: Geez, that hurt. ' Rick Sathre: Wasn't that terrible? Batzli: I'm an engineer and an attorney. ' 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' he doesn't like being bureaucratically nickeled and dimed 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 mane 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 J1 thing and they put in a crop and take it'in the fall and use it to surviv 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, 1 ' 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 ' 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 ' 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 Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 29 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, there 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 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 do have a canned set of conditions that we apply to subdivisions. It would It wholly appropriate to insert those here. Frankly, you know we've put a 1 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 somethif in the conditions that illustrates exactly where they're going to remove 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. II It's comparable to plans that we receive for residential subdivisions and I'm comfortable in that regard. However, we normally do add conditions that would be appropriate here as to establishing snow fenced areas outsi the drop line of trees and if they do damage trees that are not supposed be taken, that there is compensation for that that makes it pretty onerou . 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 what the staff has proposed because I think there's obviously been a I 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 bit 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 he 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. Emmings: Is it this year? ' Tom Zwiers: I believe it's in the spring of next year. 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. 1 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 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 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 11 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 l 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 i Planning Commission Meeting ' July 1, 1992 - Page 31 definitely on the low end of value of the restoration. 5o I'd like II that number be evaluated. Two of the residents talked about the potential or a stream bed or creek bed. I hadn't heard anything or hadn't seen anything in the staff report �n that. Is that involved in the project at all or i that just? Rick Sathre: Let's use one of the overheads and we'll work it out on the" 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 leads 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 sure how that would effect the creek. I don't think it would effect it ii' any way. Ledvina: 5o the grading would not effect the appearance or the topographI of the creek? Rick Sathre: No, because the creek is several hundred feet away from the"' 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. ' 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, ou attorney suggested that the applicant... I'd like to make some connection 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 a 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 cos that's realistic. I think that's essential and maybe the S40,000.00 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 all not guesswork. And if it's less than that, the applicant benefits. But c� 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 of and I think staff's aimed in that direction and I know the applicant hll full intention of performing. I think the other concern that the applica had on 13, I believe it was and again, I guess the guarantees that Rick was 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 111 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 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 II Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 32 11 money sometime to repay and to make this property subdividable for ' 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, 1 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 11 to 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. 1 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. Conrad: ...how much might we charge an engineer's time on it? 1 Planning Commission Meeting I July 1, 1992 - Page 33 II s Krauss: Actually Ladd, my time is not charged g 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, charge you *90.00 an hour to retain him. Batzli: Paul, you've done a great job of avoiding the question. Where all you going with this? Conrad: I'm just trying to figure out if we did inspections, I don't knol what it takes because this is a big project. Batzli: Yeah, it's huge. So do you think it's low? Do you think it's high? 1 Conrad: What we have are basically 10 hours packed into inspection over the. 1 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 t be one of the technicians, which is considerably less expensive. And tha (b), the City is making a profit on inspections by paying the engineer's 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 II expenses. Batzli: Do you think it's low Ladd? I Conrad: I 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' 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, y talk about inspection. The 300 foot setback. We waived it. We waived i and I had a tough time. We waived it on all sides. Where did we waive t 300 foot setback? Krauss: Basically, this is very rough. You can't scale off of this II 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 tc' get through some future, through excavation or through grading? Krauss: For the reasons that I mentioned in that handout. Now the pointall of where this busts the 300 foot setback are along the railroad tracks hell 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, 1 11 don't like to go back to intent of the draftees of the ordinance but I II 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 Halle had similar requests. Conrad: The purpose of the setback, primarily because you drafted it, the 300 feet is to primarily protect neighbors right? Krauss: Well exactly. 5o 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 looking at a field. 5o 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. Planning Commission Meeting 1 July 1, 1992 - Page 35 Erhart: Well I think it looks like a good project. We're solving a numb of things here. We've got a hole there now. This is going to finish it off. It's going to help cap a landfill in Eden Prairie once and for all 1 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. 1 Erhart: And we had an accident up here and somebody got killed or whatevl it was. What was it? Krauss: I don't know. Erhart: Anyway, I drive TH 101 and those trucks came down TH 101 which iI curved, I'd just as soon leave them in Eden Prairie and get the job done. I agree, that's one of the points I had, we should set a time limit on II 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 il 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 ail 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 1 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. Krauss: Tim, if I can clarify a point. You came in part way through the 1 conversation. We reviewed this matter further, after the report went out with the City Attorney and realized that the approach with the variance w the wrong methodology here. That the ordinance does provide for a waiver of conditions. But your concern as to a prohibition against further mining requests, I guess I don't see any reason why that couldn't be part of a condition. 1 Erhart: That's what I would say. If it's a waiver, then tie the waiver to relinquish any future mining rights to this property. And if we're going II 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 3 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. 1 Batzli: I'd like to talk first. I need to say something. 1 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting 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 1 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. So 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 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 property owners or something like that. But it may well be that if there's Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 37 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 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 year on this piece of property, for him to default on this condition down the I road, what are you going to do? Krauss: Well and that's why we need to sit down. I need to sit down wit 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 credit in effect. Batzli: But that basically ties up money for, Tom Scott: That ties up a certain amount of assets that have to be behin that letter of credit. There may be some other ways. Maybe there's a 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 ha 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 d 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 th 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 I findings that you might be with, precedent setting issues that may be attended with a variance. I think that's what your concerned about. Ver clearly under the waiver provisions, it allows you and the City Council t 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 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" 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 y work within that area. Undoubtedly you'll be confronted by these sorts o 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 guess I'd like maybe a more clear statement of your 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. 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 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 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 July 1, 1992 - Page 39 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 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. 5o the answer to your question is no, they won't be wetlands. Batzli: 5o 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? 1 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 somethini 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 kinll 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 11 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 or to modify these and in that regard that's no different than most of the II 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' 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 the road saying why are we doing this if it doesn't make sense because you knoll that eventually this is going to be a very, you know once the mining on trig 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 Prairi Eden Prairie has stuff not too far away.:Then of course it will be substantially different. But the fact is, every development in Chanhasse 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 have to revise them so that they do. 1 1 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 1 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 e 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 ' 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 l 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. Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 41 Batzli: So, do you want to make your motion in accordance also with thosl plans 6/5/92? Ledvina: And also that the activities and conditions of the permit relatil to the plans dated June 5, 1992. Conrad: Point 7, 13 and 14 be reviewed. • 1 Ledvina: 6, 7 and 13. Conrad: 6, 7 and 13 be reviewed. 1 Ledvina: Be re- evaluated. Batzli: Is there a second? 1 Erhart: Yeah, I'll second it. 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. I don't know what that means. ' Erhart: But I think when you go back in the Minutes, I think it's clear what we're asking for. Clarify some things. To look at some numbers. Justify the numbers. Be able to justify the numbers in our recommendatio to Council. Additional recommendations. Farmakes: Are we expecting to see this again? 1 Batzli: No. We're asking that Paul's prepared when the Council asks him those questions I guess. Conrad: So 6, 7 and 13 Paul, talking about being more accurate where they 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? Krauss: Speaking for myself, I think clearly we'd want to resolve all III these issues prior to going to City Council. Those are of a magnitude thall they're not administrative. Conrad: Your point Matt on ground water. In his motion Paul, who's ' responsibility will that be? Krauss: Frankly we're going to ask the applicant to clarify that. We'll review the information. Conrad: It is his responsibility? 1 Krauss: Well, we're not in the position of preparing submittal materials for applicants. 11 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 I 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 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? Batzii: 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 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, Planning Commission Meeting II July 1, 1992 - Page 43 many, many depressions that have no outlets and all the drainage has beenll just seeping into the ground. So the concern is always, is this going to seal up over time? Is it going to fail to function just like a drainfiel might? But that's very common. Very common thing. We're very concerned about protecting wetlands so that we can promote ground water recharge. 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. Conrad: So do you prepare Rick, the engineering reports to pacify? How II does this happen? 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 II 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. 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 I 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. I Batzli: Assuming then that you need a certain size outlet for this pond and the outlet constricts over time, the original calculations for the poll were done by yourself? Okay. Rick Sathre: In a 100 year storm event right now, that big central pond would, there'd be about 6 feet of water in the bottom of it and that would' seep out. Were not sure of the seepage rate because we haven't tried to 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 i 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? I Rick Sathre: All I can do is take a wild guess. I would think that it'd be more than $1,000.00 and less than $5,000.00. It is significant. Very significant. 1 Conrad: We need our engineering department to tell us or tell the applicant what is expected in this regard. I think the fundamental thing II ' 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. J 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 1 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 092 -5 for earth work, as shown on the plans dated June 5, 1992, with the waiver of the 300 foot setback, that staff r 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 45 be directed to re- evaluate conditions 6, 7 and 13 with input from the he 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 II 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 operatj prior to start of operations to ensure that concerns they may raise can be adequately dealt with. 4. Use of explosives to support this prohibited. operation rohibited. Hours o P 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 1 persist which make dust control ineffective, the City Engineer may require temporary halting of operations. 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. 1 7. The applicant shall pay an inspection fee of *900.00 and provide the city with an acceptable financial security (letter 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. 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 I 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. JI The applicant shall provide the city with an es -built grading plan o the ponds to ensure that they comply with approved specifications. 10. Provide and maintain an erosion control plan acceptable to the City 1 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. 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'ssubject,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 I July 1, 1992 - Page 47 Erhart: Can we stop for a second here Brian? I want to clarify somethin g ' 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 think we're a recommending body. I think we're a body that's supposed to I 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 in and thro 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 correct me. I think we're all asking these questions. My goodness, it's II 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 II 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 I information. Erhart: Any bad plan we should reject it and put all kinds of hurdles. ' 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 our job and make those recommendations. For the most part I agree with 1 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 , 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. I Batzli: Oh yeah, and they'll talk about them as if we didn't cover them. II 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 11 needed to in this particular case. Yet on the other hand, if the City I Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 48 1 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 I 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 I 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 I let everybody ramble and talk tonight that wanted to talk. Erhart: Yeah, but up here or out there? 1 Batzli: Up here. • Erhart: Oh. 1 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 II 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 I no, you're going to say the same thing. Go away. I don't think we can cut that out. I 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. II 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. II 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 I 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. 1 Erhart: Yeah, I agree. I 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 I 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 II 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 II this motion issue because I always believed that, Jeff if you've got an II Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 49 1 issue about one thing and it's probably backed by one or two others, even if it doesn't get in the motion, staff takes a look at it. Particularly Al they agree that it's a reasonable concern whether it's in the motion or not I guess. Also that the Council will. I 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 the meetings and they say, well Brian. What did they think and I'll say, 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% i 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 int that motion is going to be acted on and they act on most of what we say. 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 1 against it. 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. 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. 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 nee to ask the Council what they think and you may have the chance. I think we're going to try to schedule them to come in here at your next meeting I 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. Krauss: I don't read the Minutes. I Batzli: Yeah I know. II Krauss: Whenever we get sued we read the Minutes. Erhart: You don't think they read the Minutes? 1 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. II II Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 50 1 Krauss: But the issues that we deal with are pretty complex. I don't 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. 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 Batzli: Your 5 minutes are up. But I agree. To the extent that we can shorten and /or otherwise reduce our time before the miss, we'll do that. PUBLIC HEARING: ONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AM ND CIT OD HAP - i• ONCERNI G ALLOWED USES IN THE BH.. HIGHWAY AND = USINESS 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 1 1 Carver Soil and Water Conservation District 219 East Frontage Road Waconia, MN. 55387 442 -5101 TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director g Di for FROM: Chip Hentges, District Technician DATE: June 16th, 1992 RE: Review of Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control 1 for Interim Use Permit, Tom Zwiers, Moon Valley Aggregate. 1 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 1 1 JUFi ± `' 1992 1 1 f CITY TF sl 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 Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician XIM DATE: June 23, 1992 SUBJ: Interim Use Permit for Earthwork Mining of Gravel Pit North of Moon Valley Grading Permit No. 92 -6 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. 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 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). 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. 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. 3. Both storm water ponding areas are proposed to act as detention basins to allow 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. t4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Paul Krauss I 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 I 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 I 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. 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 p p p st gent 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 I that date be to a minimum. ktm 1 c: Charles Folch, City Engineer 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 John & Ann Lonstein, • 9861 Deerbrook Drive, Chanhassen, MN. 56317. Paul Krauss, Planning Director, Chanhassen. ' Dear Mr. Krauss, I am replying to your notice of the hearing to ' consider the application of Tom 2wiers 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 an, unable to attend the meeting as I will be out of the ' Country, and thus am writing to you with my input. I am currently completing building in Deerbrook, 1 which overlooks 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 Boil 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, 1 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 points 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, roZ- 11 C7f■fil-L all 1 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED INTERIM USE PERMIT CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a 1 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 1 and cast of the Chicago and Northwestern Railway. A plan showing the proposed earthwork and location of the proposal is available for 1 public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions 1 with respect to this proposal. Paul Krauss, Planning Director I Phone: 937 -1900 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on June 18, 1992) ( 1 — 1 F4)1 13? , 5 ` 7 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 It Carver Soil and Water Conservation District 219 East Frontage Road ' Waconia, MN. 55387 442 -5101 • ' TO: Paul Krauss, Planning 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 1 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 1 RECEIVED 11 JUN 1 9 1,992 CITY OF Chi#thihASSEN CITY OF C A t 11 10 g - ti t, t 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 A it dl? MEMORANDUM✓ te i', TO: Planning Commission WW E-- Des to o J 7 - i :- FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director 6 4t... ette Svtainsild to Commission Otte Submitted to C3unc4 DATE: May 27, 1992 SUBJ: Moon Valley Proposal , PROPOSAL /SUMMARY 1 The applicant is requesting an earth work permit to continue a pre - existing sand and gravel mining operation located along the Minnesota River bluff line between Hwy. 1691212 and the former Chicago, Northwestern Railway right -of -way. This request has an extensive history. 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 Qty Attorney, and other materials. 1 a PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 1 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. 1 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. However, having said that, we acknowledge that the applicant does have the authority � g PP eau ty 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. 1 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 1 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 1. Drainage and erosion control measures designed to manage the site to result in the least possible impact downstream. 1 2. Access and traffic safety concerns due to the high traffic volumes on adjacent Hwy. 169/212. 1 . 1 Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 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. S. Protection of ground water resources. 1 6. Establishment of procedures for periodic review. 7. Establishment of an acceptable end -use plan to ensure that the site will be left in a reasonable and environmentally safe condition. 8. Provision of sufficient financial guarantees to ensure compliance with conditions 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 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 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 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 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. • BACKGROUND 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 range continues to be utilized. Ownership of the mining operation changed hands. The scale of the operation was greatly expanded in the 1970s. • 1987 - The city became aware of the mining of clay on a new parcel located above the bluff line with access to Pioneer Trail. The city took action to halt this activity 111 1 .1 1 I Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 ' Page 4 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 ' 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. ' 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 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, 1 and Grading in Chapter 7 of the City Code. • 1990 -1991 - Moon Valley operator was notified on several occasions by registered 1 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 1 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. • Sprine/Summer/Fall, 1991 - The city granted the operator several delays to prepare I 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 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, 1 1 Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 5 although it was implied that the city could "earn" the better plan by being "reasonable" 1 with Moon Valley. • 10/14/91 - The city adopted a Minnesota River Bluff Line Preservation ordinance. 1 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 I official map and the ordinance prohibits most activities from the area. • November, 1991 - The case went back to Judge Kanning. His findings were released 1 April 2, 1992. Essentially, he found that: - The operator /applicant had non - conforming rights on the south parcel (original 1 mine). The city never contested this point. - The judge found that the non - conformity did not include the north parcel along 1 Pioneer Trail. - The operator /applicant was allowed to continue mining the main pit but was I _ given 30 days to submit the application. - The judge felt that Plan "B ", the better of the two plans, was the basis of the 1 permit submittal. - The city may impose conditions on the permit but only to the extent that health 1 and safety are to be protected. • May, 1991 - The operator /applicant submitted additional information. Only minor 1 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 I indicated had been withheld by the applicant, was submitted. Staff and the City Attorney met with the applicant. They indicated a continuing desire I 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 1 1 1 Planning Commission 1 Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 6 ' Mav 20, 1992 - Rathei than respond as outlined by staff, the Moon Valley operator asked Judge Kanning to meet to clarify the court order. It was their continued 1 contention that the judge approved grading on the north parcel. Judge Kanning agreed with the city that this was not the case. Grading activity on the 1 north parcel must comply with all city ordinances and permit requirements. SITE CHARACTERISTICS ' The site is deviated into ed to two distinct areas that have been commonly described as the ' southern and northern parcels. 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 that are found in the same general area. 1 The entire southern parcel is part of the Minnesota bluff line system. Elevations range from 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, however, the remaining large stands of trees are found only along the upper reaches of the 1 bluff, where mining has yet to occur. 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 former farm field that are experiencing significant erosion. ' Surrounding uses include: 1 •North: Pioneer Trail and large lot residential development in Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. 1 •South: Hwy. 169/212. The Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge is located south of the highway. 1 •East: Eden Prairie, vacant bluff line and low density residential ' •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 on a private dr.;ve with access to Hwy. 169/212. It is separated from the mining operation by a creek and a 100' high ridge line. GENERAL COMMENTS _ 1 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 issues include the following: 1 1. Drainage and erosion control measures designed to: - prevent erosion and unstable slopes 1 - prevent pollution and sedimentation in the Minnesota River Valley and Wildlife Refuge - prevent tracking debris out onto area roads creating unsafe conditions 1 2. Access and traffic safety concerns. 3. Mitigation of noise and dust impacts. 4. Maintenance of safe and manageable slopes and/or use of protective signing and 1 fencing where appropriate. In a related concern, Exhibit B 1 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. 5. Establishment of procedures for periodic review, interim site stabilization and erosion 1 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. 1 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. 1 8. Establishment of an acceptable end -use plan that will ensure the site is left in a reasonable, environmentally safe condition. ' DRANAGE AND EROSION CONTROL ' r 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 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 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. Scopes 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 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 built to, if it is regularly maintained, or if it is effective. We note that there is evidence of 1 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 plugged on occasion with sediment from this area and a visual inspection indicates that there 1 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, 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 • • 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 ' 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 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 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 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 r • 1 1 Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 9 1 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. 1 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 1 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 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. ' ACCESS/TRAFFIC SAFETY CONCERNS Highway 169/212 provides the sole access into the site. Traffic volumes are high and the 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 1 deceleration/acceleration lane be provided on westbound Hwy. 169/212 to allow trucks I 1 1 Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 10 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 recommended by staff at this time. NOISE AND DUST IMPACTS 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. MAINTENANCE OF SAFE AND MANAGEABLE SLOPES ' The applicant has essentially given the city an end -state grading plan but there are no interim plans being proposed. In submitted materials, the applicant indicates that he reserves the right 1 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. 1 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 Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 11 1 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. I The plan request entitled, "Exhibit B 1 ", which has been submitted for this application, indicates substantial grading in the northeast comer of the site which is actually Located on I 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 I 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 I exists for the Moon Valley operation does not apply to the northern parcel. Thus, a revised "B 1" 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 1 One of staff's primary concerns with mining activity on this site is that unconstrained mining could actually daylight ground water supplies in the area. This could have potentially 1 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 1 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. 1 The applicant had some information on ground water supplies that was initially held from city 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. i ESTABLISHMENT OF PROCEDURES FOR PERIODIC REVIEW, INTERIM SITE STABILIZATION AND EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES I 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 I city, will be the result when mining activity is completed. This presents a number of 1 1 Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit i 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. 1 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 Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 13 1 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 I 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 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 I 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 111 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 1 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 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: 1 - Erosion control practices • Designs of temporary and final basins, inlet/outlet structures, etc. Final pond 1 design shall comply with NURP guidelines to maintain water quality. They shall be designed to maintain quality. They shall be designed to accommodate I 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 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. 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 distnce. 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 Qty 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 1 1 1 Planning Commission 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. ty P PP al. 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 concem of staffs. 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. 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. • CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the earth work permit for the Moon Valley operation be approved 1 subject to the following conditions: 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 1 1 1 I Planning Commission . Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 1 Page 16 • Designs of temporary and final basins, inlet/outlet structures, etc. Final pond I 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 • The plan shall describe management practices required to effectively operate drainage and erosion control practices. It shall be the operator's responsibility 1 to maintain these measures in an effective and operative condition. • Provide a phased plan for site restoration/establishment of ground cover and I vegetation. All disturbed areas to be restored with topsoil, seed mulch and/or wood fiber blanket and trees as required to prevent erosion. I 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 1 approval by the City Engineer. 2. Within 30 days of approval, provide an engineered construction access designed to 1 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. I During the course of mining operations any material or debris tracked onto g g P Y the highway shall be promptly removed by the operator to eliminate a potential traffic 1 hazard. I 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 I 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 I is required at the top of the grade to make individuals aware of hazardous conditions in the area. 1 1 1 Planning Commission I Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 17 1 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 I they are no longer in use. 6. The site will be subject to annual review by the City Engineer, and inspections to I 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 I 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 $51 ,000 to guarantee maintenance of erosion control and site restoration, 1 should he fail .to adhere to approve conditions for this permit. This is a major concern of staff s. The applicant's primary interest in the site at this time is to mine sand and gravel and it may or may not be in his best interests to comply with approved conditions of permit approval and/or with the end -use plan. Staff could not reasonably ask the City Council to place their assurances in the operator's stated intentions for the site and it is normal city practice to require this sort of financial guarantee. Financial guarantees shall only be released after an as built grading plan is submitted to ensure that the approved end -use plan has been satisfactorily completed. 1 ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Roger Knutson dated May 7, 1992. 1 2. Memo from Dave Hempel dated May 26, 1992. 3. Application submitted by applicant. 4. General location. 5. Original Plan A (transparency). 6. Original Plan B (transparency) 7. Letter from Paul Krauss dated May 5, 1992. 8. Letter from Paul Krauss dated October 1, 1991. 9. Findings of Fact. 10. Letter from Chris Enger, City of Eden Prairie, dated May 18, 1992. 11. Excerpt from City Code. 12. Grading fees. I 13. Mailing list of surrounding property owners. . 14. Planning Commission minutes dated June 3, 1992. 1 1 JUN -17 -92 WED 16:23 SBG l . LAW FIRM - MPLSI FAX NO. 612 '9 +6591 P. 02 1 7 LAW OrriCES S IEGEL, BRILL, GREUPNER & DUFFY, P.A. iORMERIV I • GROSSMAN, PAW -INS. cam. a TRILL RICt+ARD SIEG7<L 1700 wASHINGTON SOUARE ANSI+ONV J. GLEEKEL JOS C. 641LL, JR • BMERRI L. ROHL, J AMES R GRCUDNER 100 WASHINGTON AVENUE SOUTH JOEL M. JENSEN GERALD S. DUrrY BRIAN C. WEISBERG I WOOD POSTER,JR. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401 ROSCMAQY THOMAS H. GOODMAN ANNE R. WEINMARDT' K. CRAIG WILOFAtiG TtLEPHON[ (11111/ 930.7131 JORDAN M, LEWIS 401 +N 1. WATSON TELCCO►ICR Mt) 330•isll WM. CYIR:STOPHER PENWELL RETIRED I av$A.Al M. VOIGT M. L. GROSSMAN SHELDON D. KARI-INS June 17, 1992 . ALSO ADMITTED IN CALI'DRi.A • II 17,236 -D -001 1 VIA TELEFAX Chanhassen City Council 1 690 Coulter Drive P. 0. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 I Re: Noon Valley Aggregates Application for Earth Work Permit for Existing Sand and Gravel Mining Operation II (South Parcel) 1 I am the attorney for Moon Valley Aggregates, Inc., whose above application was heard by the Planning Commission on June 3, 1992. At that time, the Planning Commission 1 adopted certain Findings of Fact and Recommendation, which we understand will be on the City Council's agenda at its meeting this coming Monday night, June 22nd. 1 Unfortunately, neither Tom Zweirs nor myself are avail- able Monday night to appear before you, because of other 1 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 II meeting in Oak Park Heights with its City Council and MnDOT that night. This letter will outline our position on the Earth Work I Permit; however, we would very much like the opportunity to appear in person before you to explain the reasons for our position and to be able to answer any questions you may II , have. Our response to the Planning Commission Recommendations are as follows: 1 JUN -17 -92 WED 16 :23 SBG LAW FIRM - MPLS, FAX NO. 612 '9 +6591 P,03 1 June 17, 1992 Page 2 1. With respect to erosion control, M oon 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 Manning's Order of April 2, 1992. 1 2. See No. 1 above. 3. We do not believe Moon Valley operates a "waste i 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 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 JUN -17 -92 WED 16:24 SBG , LAW FIRM - MPLS. FAX NO, 612 9 +6591 P. 04 1 June 17, 1992 Page 3 ' mining operation specifically prohibited by Judge Kenning's Order of April 2, 1992, and is therefore not acceptable to Mr. Zweirs. 9. This is agreeable. 10. The Earth Work Permit should be consistent with Judge Kenning's Order and should contain all of the conditions for regulating the operation. 11. Payment of substantial additional fees in addition to the $400 already paid is considered to be an improper restriction on the Moon Valley mining operation. If the ' City insists on imposing this additional fee, we would submit the matter to Judge Kenning and he has agreed to hear the parties on this issue. ' 12. If the City does not permit the construction of the holding pond, which straddles the north and south parcels, at the time it approves a permit for the north parcel, Moon Valley will revise its End Use Plan accordingly. 13. This is agreeable. 14. Moon Valley believes that this requirement exceeds the City's authority to regulate the Moon Valley operations, as defined in Judge Kenning's Order of April 2, 1992. I will be out of town Thursday and Friday of this week 11 and back in my office on Monday. If possible, I would appreciate hearing from you during the day on Monday concerning our continuance request. ' Sincerely yours, J. E Brill, Jr. • JEB:cm ' cc: Paul Krauss Torn Scott Tom Zweirs Rick Sather 1 11 JUN -17 -92 WED 16:22 SBG , .. LAW FIRM - MPLS. FAX NO, 612 '9 +6591 P. 01 I.A. orrICE! 1 SIEGEL, DRILL, GREUPNER & OUFFY, P.A. IpRMeRLte C•OI.srA•. KARLIMS, sisGtL • *RILL ■tGNARO S I R OtL u0O W•EMIM�.TON , UARt ANT.OMT J. 4L.CEntL J4s(Ar. t. Walla., 411. s.+CRRI V 00.10r 1 JARt$ R. ORtL•Ne• po WAsN {MOTQN AVtNVt st71J7M 40C M..ler•S I OtRALO s, suer+ E. E. w(l$a(RO wool; R. rosItR, JR. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401 IroserARTTUO•.T TMQ,.A3 IN, t7000wAN *$$C K. •CINN.ROT R. CRAIG W /LOVANO TtLtrWOwt (ca) 1311•7•31 dowo*M M. Levels 401 1. w.T$ON TtVSeOR"[JI tilt) 91s•41e0 1 WM, CsRI1TOA! RCNwtLL ornate SUSAN w,. VQ,GT M 1. QROSirAN &NEL00N b. IAARLrps TELECOPIER COVER SHEET •A►sa ...mu .., GAt.I raw .... 1 • 1 DATE: 9gfi.e. / /99a FAX NO_ 93 _ 5 TO: '.r d .e. 1 FROM: . l�� k.../...440 I 'de FILE: /7R31 31 -1)- c"0/ '1 L�iE SENT 1 FOR YOUR: --. intomation Review ✓— FE�sponse i ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW BY MAIL: ✓ Yes No 1 Please find 1 7 copies, including this cover page. U you did not receive all copies, please contact tthi operator at (612) 339 -7131. 1 Operator: � -. • 1 The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the 1 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 notiEed that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication u strictly prohibited. If you have received - 1 this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the o message to us at the above address via the U.S. postal service. 1 • • 1 • 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ' PROPOSED INTERIM USE PERMIT CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN 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 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 g 1992) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! i COMMON /TY ; i' w ■ �_.�, --- - - 9300 PARK s :�. R /L I 9 EF ` 1- - -,- - 2 9400 1 r,*,, I • • '500 1 : .- 'o f R - E rt• .� , \ \Ur , r ; I . // T . � ' 17` - -I 9600 • • - - 1r -- �``- 1. 1 6 • ,. r- - - - - \ o r 9700 • / ii4IL ( 1- fiR -- 9es00 ,) 1 jinni ‘ ^ *4: L 4 . 1 ‘ • \ >23:- -, . . ,, .. . / ...s.., . - 4 ..,.-.. - .... ■•••• •••••••• ;I' 9 -_-,. : LoOe 1 411 ) ./C4C) ., . s - -7 ,.. A o p Peo g... 1 t \\ - -. ' . . I 1 ^ �► AA _ CREEKW QD ..- • -- -•• 02.. 1 j 1 ir 4 , . � F i ' sa f c �, 5 X69 6 � E i • ' t *1� p ; OR r — - - C400 ,,... NIG • • eo f \ \ .i . - - i � t:J I 1 Illk / / E / LAKE ... e j,,,1\(,c0,, LEVERNE M VASSAR ROBERT & E TISCHLEDER VERNON H TEICH C/O STATEWIDE AUTO 185 PIONEER TRAIL 220 FLYING CLOUD SALVAGE INC CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHASKA MN 55318 285 FLYING CLOUD DR • - SHAKOPEE MN 55379 HENN CO RR AUTHORITY I 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 MICAHEL & M WISTRAND MARK & S DANIELSON RICHARD P VOGEL 1 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 ERALD BERTSCH &.SB TSCH 633 SO CONCORD STREET #310 8556 IRWIN ROAD 1 SO ST PAUL MN 55075 10125 CROSSTOWN CIR BLOOMINGTON MN 55437 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 1 MICHAEL A BOYLAN PETER TAUNTON JOHN S PAULOS 17700 SOUTHRIDGE CT 316 19TH AVE SE #660 I 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 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55427 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1 PAUL & L K KILKER WENDELL & J salon WILLIAM & L STOKKE 1 788 LAKE POINT 7034 RED CEDAR COVE 241 EASTWOOD CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 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 PAUL KILKER GREGORY LAWLER FIRST AM BANK METRO 1 LINDA KERFELD 9900 DEERBROOK DR 633 SO CONCORD ST 788 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SO ST PAUL MN 55075 1 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 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 ' JEFFREY & BARB MICHELL MICHAEL BOYLAN PETER TAUNTON I 11887 WATERFORD RD 17700 SOUTHRIDGE CT 316 19TH AVE SE EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 MINNETONKA MN 55345 PO BOX 1351 WILLMAR MN 56204 1 JOHN S PUOLOS JOHN & LINDA REVIER JOHN & ANN LONSTEIN #660 P 0 BOX 358 1559 PENNSYLVANIA AVE I 6560 FRANCE AVE S CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MPLS MN 55427 MPLS MN 55435 • DENNIS & C S BARTHOLOW JOHN PAUL LOWELL & C CAMPBEL I 9841 DEERBROOK DR 410 LAKOTA LANE 415 LAKOTA LANE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 1 RUSSEL BARTO TIM WISE LAVERNE WHEELER 1 400 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 495 LAKOTA 535 LAKOTA LANE 565 LAKOTA LANE CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 1 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 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 1 JEFFREY DYPWICK ATTN CHRIS ENGER 10300 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE= • C III HASKA MN 55318 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 1 1 1 - - �.;AR�I�;�. COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE CO., INC Eis 1 I . CARVER COLNTY ( 6'2 +448 -Z57O 201 Chestnut Si. N. FAX (612)448-5155 ABSTRACT a TITLE PO. Box 106 Da;e S. KUtic! Chaska, MN 55318 David E. Moonen 1 II Pay 22, 1992 11 Moon Valley Agrigate 11111 Deuce Road Elko, MN 55022 1 — - 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, Minnesota, which lies within 500 feet of the following described property: 4 I PARCEL I: All that part of Government Lot 1, Section 36, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, which lies Northerly of Trunk Highway No. 212. PARCEL 1I: All that part of the Southeast Quarter (SE}) of Section 25, Township II 116, Range 23, lying Easterly of the easterly right of way of the Chicago and Northwestern Railway (formerly the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway), Carver County, Minnesota. I Together with an easement for road purposes over and across the following described tract: II 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 County Road No. 14. II _ 1. Robert J. & E. Tischleder 5. Parag R. & Gopi P. Desai _ II 185 Pioneer Trl. 9691 Portal Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 - Contract for Deed: • II 2. Vernon H. Teich _ Richard P. & Gayle_M. Vogel _ 220 Flying Cloud Dr. — Chaska, _N 55318 . _ - - fi. Steven J. Zumbusch & - - _ - - _ - - .- _ -Charlotte M. Zumbusch -- - I - 3. LeVerne M. Vassar 9794 Crestwood Ter. %Statewide Auto Salvage, Inc. Eden Prairie, MN 55347 - 285 Flying Cloud Dr. Contract for Deed: II Shakopee, MN 55379 _ ' Richard P. & Gayle M. Vogel 4. Hennepin Co. Reg. RR Authority 7. Michael D. & Monica S. Wistrand Hennepin Co. Govt. Center 9670 Meadowlark Ln. I 300 6th St. S. Chanhassen, MN 55317 SW Street Level . Minneapolis, MN 55487 - • . II _ • 11 i 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 553I7 - Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' 19. Paul Irvin Kilker & 10. - -First American Bank Metro Linda G. Kerfeld milker 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. #310 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 55 - -- - - Contract for Deed: 25. NOTE: THE CARVER 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 4le Carver County Abstract & Title Co., Inc. This company does not assume any liability for the accuracy of this report. '