Loading...
7. Interim use permit for earth work/mining of a gravel pit, 100 Flying Cloud Drive, Moon Valley Aggregate JUN -1 -92 WED 16 23 SBG & D LAW FIRM - MKS. FAX NO. 612 +339 +6591 P,02 17 ka 1 LAW OFFICES SIEGEL, BRILL, GREUPNER & DUFFY, P.A. I FORMERLY GROSSMAN, KARLIN9, $IRGEL 8 BRILL ANTHONY J GLEEKEL RICHARD 51EG 1"l. 130Q WASHINGTON 54UARE JOSIAH C. SPILL, JR. SHERRI L. ROHLF JAMES R GREUPNER 100 WASHINGTON AVENUE SOUTH JOEL H, JENSEN I GERALD S. D UFF"Y D RIAN WETS BERG E. WOOD R. FOSTER, JR. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401 RO IAN E. Y TUONV THOMAS H. GOODMAN ANNE K. WEINHARDT" K. CRAIG WILDFANG TELEPHONE (BIB) 339 - 7131 JORDAN M, LEWIS JO7.1N $, WATSON TELEOOPIER (6IE) 33P - 6591 I WM. CI•IR15TOPHER PENWELL RETIRED SUSAN M. VOIGT M L. GROSSMAN SHELDON D. KARLINS June 17, 1992 I " ALGO AbMITTED IN CALIFORNIA 17,236 -D -001 VIA TELEFAX Chanhassen City Council I 690 Coulter Drive P. 0. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Re: Moon Valley Aggregates Application for Earth Work Permit for Existing Sand and Gravel Mining Operation I (South Parcel) 1 I am the attorney for Moon Valley Aggregates, Inc., whose above application was heard by the Planning Commission I on June 3, 1992. At that time, the Planning Commission adopted certain Findings of Fact and Recommendation, which we understand will be on the City Council's agenda at its I meeting this coming Monday night, June 22nd. Unfortunately, neither Tom Zweirs nor myself are avail- able Monday night to appear before you, because of other 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 I meeting in Oak Park Heights with its City Council and MnDOT that night. I This letter will outline our position on the Earth Work Permit; however, we would very much like the opportunity to appear in person before you to explain the reasons for our position and to be able to answer any questions you may 1 have. Our response to the Planning Commission Recommendations I are as follows: . AN-17-92 WED 16:2T SBG & D EN-FIRM - MIS. FAX NO 612 +339 +6591 P. 03 1 I June 17, 1992 Page 2 I 1. With respect to erosion control, Moon Valley already has in place a sealed retention pond which captures I 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 I 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 I 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 I by Judge Kanning's Order of April 2, 1992. 2. See No. 1 above. 1 3. We do not believe Moon Valley operates a "waste water disposal system" requiring NPDES permit. We have asked the MPCA to provide an application form and are I currently reviewing this with Rick Sather, a planning consultant and professional engineer. 1 4. The best solution to the mud on the wheels of the trucks is 50 ft. to 100 ft. of 1 -1 crushed rock which will be installed. Blacktopping the entrance does not work. 1 5. This is agreeable. I 6. This is agreeable. 7. Mr. Zweirs is acutely interested in improving the I 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 I 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 I with MnDOT and City representatives to try to improve this situation. Since 9o% to 95% of the truck traffic leaving the property turns left and goes in an easterly direction, I an acceleration lane for westbound traffic is of no great help. 1 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 II JUN -17 -92 WED 16:24 SBG & D LAW FIRM - MPLS, FAX NO. 612 +339 +6591 P,04 4 June 17, 1992 Page 3 mining operation specifically prohibited by Judge Kanning'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 Kanning's Order and should contain all of the conditions for regulating the operation. 11. Payment of substantial additional fees in addition to the $400 already paid is considered to be an improper restriction on the Moon Valley mining operation. If the City insists on imposing this additional fee, we would submit the matter to Judge Kanning and he has agreed to hear the parties on this issue. 12. If the City does not the construction and i south the holding pond, which str addles the parcels, at the time it approves a permit for the north parcel, Moon Valley will revise its End Use Plan accordingly. 13. This is agreeable. 14. Moon Valley believes that this requirement exceeds the City's authority to regulate the Moon Valley operations, as defined in Judge Kanning's Order of April 2, 1992. I will be out of town Thursday and Friday of this week and back in my office on Monday. If possible, I would appreciate hearing from you during the day on Monday concerning our continuance request. Sincerely yours, .10 dor J. E Brill, J. JEB:cm cc: Paul Krauss Tom Scott Tom Zweirs Rick Sather 1 JUN -17 -92 WED 16:22 SBG & D LAW FIRM - MKS. FAX NO. 612 +339 +6591 P,01 LAW OrTFOE3 1 SIEGE, BRILL, GREUPNER 8 PUFFY, P.A. FpuNCRLY GRQSIMAM, KARLINS, S(LGSt. all aR1LL ANTINOMY J. CILEEXCL I RtCMr RO StCG>CL 1100 wAS>•IIMGTOM SQi.iARL� SNERRt 9... RQNLr JOSIAH C. SA ILL. J. JOCL M. 1CN3EN JAMES R, dRCUONCR IO4 WA$H(NOTQN AVENUE SQUYH eAIAM C. WG5 M wood A S. SVCR. MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55401 ROScHART 7VONY WQbD A. IOSYCR, JR AMMC K- '!7ElNMwlepT I T+aQMAS ►I . OOOOMAM TTLLPPC C t$2) 339 -7f31 . a Ado N. i. WIS K. CRAIG Wt I,O rANO JQ► 'a• wwTSON TCLCCO ft LR (4+2) 334 S QI Wm. CHRISTiO /$CR ltNwCLL RLYtRLO N, 4. GRQ ;STAN SUSAN >N. VOLGT 1 $i.IELQON S. I{ARLIMS ALSO Apr7TTLC 1M GALi!'DRMIw TELECOPIER COVER SHEET 1 1 (1 DATE: /2 /99a FAX NO._ L Y& 7 . 2.3 9 TO: d eltyr.c l 1 FROM: —. � -�- __________--------- : 1. ' id. /A. der A., FILE: ', .Q34 ; -4. - e0/ / TalE SENT - - I FOR YOUR: �-_ Information . Review t'" Response ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW BY tint.: ✓ Yes --No Please find `T copies, including this cover page. If you did not receive all 1 copies, please contac the o perator at (612) 339 -7131. 1 Operator: / ` ili1 . 1 The ---- information in this fat-sin message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible I to deliver it to the intended recipient,. you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telphone, and return the I original message to us at the above address via the U.S. postal service. 111' 1 • 1 r 7• C ITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 > n MEMORANDUM 1 podMeur - TO: Planning Commission IsPcte Sete ittod to Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director i Subm Dott 5ubmittd to Council DATE: May 27, 1992 - w ' SUBJ: Moon Valley Proposal 1 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY 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. 169/212 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 City Attorney, and other materials. 1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER I 1 Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit I May 27, 1992 Page 2 1 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 I 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 I extremely destructive to a rare natural resource that exists in the Minnesota River bluff line. The city has already gone on record indicating our concern with this resource in the adoption of our Bluff Line Preservation District. This site also has potential to impact the U. S. Fish I 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 1 ordinances. However, having said that, we acknowledge that the applicant does have the authority to I 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 I 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 I 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 i believe, significant. Processing this request is made even more difficult by the poorly developed and minimal I 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 I 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 I instances we are obligated to recommend conditions outlining additional information that must be provided to adhere to the health and safety issue guidelines established by the judge. Our concerns generally fall to several areas. These include: I 1. Drainage and erosion control measures designed to manage the site to result in the least possible impact downstream. I 2. Access and traffic safety concerns due to the Hwy. high traffic volumes on adjacent Hw Y g adjacent Y 169/212. 1 1 ,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. 5. Protection of ground water resources. 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 1 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 1 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 1 1 ' 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 1 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. 1 • 5/14/90 - The new ordinance was adopted as Article III, Excavating, Mining, 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 sought a Declaration Judgement Action on October 1, 1990, maintaining that Ordinance No. 128 was an illegal exercise of Chanhassen's police power. The city filed a counter claim that due to Moon Valley's failure to obtain a permit, it should be shut down. 4/25/91 - Judge Kanning found that the city had the right to require that a permit be ' obtained and gave the applicant 30 days to submit an application. The city's request to close the operation was essentially continued to give the operator time to respond. ' • Spring/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. 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 ' 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" 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 official map and the ordinance prohibits most activities from the area. • November, 1991 - The case went back to Judge Kanning. His findings were released April 2, 1992. Essentially, he found that: - The operator /applicant had non - conforming rights on the south parcel (original mine). The city never contested this point. The judge found that the non - conformity did not include the north parcel along Pioneer Trail. - 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 1 permit submittal. - The city may impose conditions on the permit but only to the extent that health and safety are to be protected. • May, 1991 - The operator /applicant submitted additional information. Only minor 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 indicated had been withheld by the applicant, was submitted. Staff and the City Attorney met with the applicant. They indicated a continuing desire to mine the north parcel along Pioneer Trail. Staff indicated that a separate application would be required for the north parcel and that all submittal requirements outlined by city ordinances must be met. We further indicated that based upon the court order which differentiates between the status of the northern and southern parcels, we wanted to process the requests separately. This was later confirmed in a letter from the Planning Director. 1 1 1' Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit 1 May 27, 1992 Page 6 1 May 20, 1992 - Rather than respond as outlined by staff, the Moon Valley operator asked Judge Kanning to meet to clarify the court order. It was their continued contention that the judge approved grading on the north parcel. 1 Judge Kanning agreed with the city that this was not the case. Grading activity on the north parcel must comply with all city ordinances and permit requirements. 1 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 1 The site is deviated into 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. ' 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 1 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 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 '/A of this parcel. There are several ravines leading down from the former farm field that are experiencing significant erosion. 1 Surrounding uses include: •North: Pioneer Trail and large lot residential development in Chanhassen and Eden 1 Prairie. •South: Hwy. 169/212. The Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge is located 1 south of the highway. •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 1 Page 7 on a private drive with access to Hwy. 169/212. It is separated from the mining 1 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 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. Drainage and erosion control measures designed to: - prevent erosion and unstable slopes - prevent pollution and sedimentation in the Minnesota River Valley and Wildlife Refuge - prevent tracking debris out onto area roads creating unsafe conditions 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 fencing where appropriate. In a related concern, Exhibit B1 indicates mining activity occurring off -site on the adjacent parcel to the north. The plan should be revised to eliminate this inconsistency. If grading is proposed off -site, separate applications are 1 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. 6. Provision of sufficient financial uarantees and permit fees to ensure that the site is g properly maintained and inspected, and can be restored if the applicant fails to acceptably comply with approved conditions. 7. Protection of ground water resources. 8. Establishment of an acceptable end -use plan that will ensure the site is left in a reasonable, environmentally safe condition. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL 1 1 I 1 Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit ' May 27, 1992 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. ' We note that it is difficult, if not impossible, to use traditional techniques of erosion control on an operation such as this. Slopes are steep and often unstable, and ground cover has not been established on any of the mined areas. Thus, it is imperative that all drainage from the mined area be directed into a sedimentation basin or basins which are properly designed and maintained so that water can be treated before being sent off -site. We note that the applicant 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 1 built to, if it is regularly maintained, or if it is effective. We note that there is evidence of significant erosion impacting the Rice Lake area located in the National Wildlife Refuge. A culvert leading from Moon Valley under the highway towards the lake has apparently been plugged on occasion with sediment from this area and a visual inspection indicates that there is a sediment delta and erosion extending from that pipe down into the lake. 1 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 1 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 • '1 Planning Commission 1 Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 1 Page 9 water. In addition, we note that overland outletting of the pond without a structured outlet 1 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 1 amounts of debris onto the adjacent highway. When this situation occurs, it contributes to degrading traffic safety on the roadway, and in addition, is an erosion problem since all of this material eventually washes into Rice Lake. Staff has been contacted by MNDOT who have expressed concern over these conditions. Staff is therefore recommending that the driveway entrance be paved with a bituminous surface or be designed to incorporate a gravel construction access. Either measure is designed to ensure that material is removed from the trucks tires before it exits out onto the adjacent highway. In addition, the applicant should be required to remove any material that does make it out onto the highway by contacting MNDOT and arranging to undertake cleaning or by reimbursing MNDOT for costs associated with cleaning. The proposed grading activity will expose extremely steep slopes to extensive erosion. The 1 erosion will not only be caused by steep slopes, but also due to the fact that all vegetative cover has been removed. The information submitted by the applicant provides virtually no information on how this site would be revegetated. On Page 17, it indicates that top soil will be stripped and stockpiled and re- spread with a MNDOT seed mixture. We believe that this plan needs to be expanded upon with specific information provided as to site stabilization prior to the completion of mining activity, as well as site landscaping at ultimate completion. Due to our interpretation of Judge Kanning's order, we are not likely to be in a position to require wholesale reforestation to achieve bluff line preservation. However, it is unreasonable to think that the city should accept 100 foot high, 2.5 to 1 slopes, with the only improvement being the spreading of a little top soil and grass seed. This simply will not hold. Staff is recommending that an erosion control plan, prepared by a registered engineer, be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. This plan should include stepping of grades where necessary 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 1 valuable function in establishing root systems to retain slopes on steep grades. ACCESS/TRAFFIC SAFETY CONCERNS 1 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 deceleration/acceleration lane be provided on westbound Hwy. 169/212 to allow trucks 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 resent time, staff is not aware of any ongoing issues pertaining to noise and dust P Y g g 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 to remove saleable material anytime and anywhere it is located on the property. They believe that they are simply obligated to return the site to acceptable grades once the activity is completed. While we understand the operator's desire to maximize utilization of the site, this does raise concerns that he should be obligated to respond to. We note that the applicant's ability to mine under this permit is limited to the site in question. There should be no instances where grading activity on this site undermines existing grades located on adjacent properties. Therefore,. we are recommending a condition that in no case should excavated slopes exceed 1.5 to 1 side slopes when grading occurs within 100 feet of a property line. Steep slopes on the site represent a potential safety hazard for unsuspecting people entering the area. The applicant has shown staff his attempts to post notice of hazards where steep slopes exist on the current operations. Staff is recommending that when excavation exceeds Planning Commission 1 Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 11 2.5 to 1 slopes, a temporary snow fence should be installed at the top of the slope equipped 1 with appropriate signage to promote safety. The plan request entitled, "Exhibit B 1 ", which has been submitted for this application, 1 indicates substantial grading in the northeast corner of the site which is actually located on the adjoining parcel to the north. It is the city's contention, consistent with Judge Kanning's ruling, that any grading activity on the north parcel will be treated as a separate request. We have informed the applicant on several occasions that this is in fact the case. Staff has held discussions with the Moon Valley operator related to potential modest mining activity on the adjacent parcel to the north. While we acknowledge that the grading activity that has been described verbally to staff, in conjunction with remedying existing erosion problems in this area seems to be reasonable, we are requiring that a separate permit application be filed for this area and be processed according to all of the standards and guidelines provided by the city ordinances. Judge Kanning was quite explicit to the effect that the non - conformity which exists for the Moon Valley operation does not apply to the northern parcel. Thus, a revised "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. 1 PROTECTION OF GROUND WATER RESOURCES 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 disastrous results for polluting ground water resources. For example, it is concern over 1 ground water resources that has resulted in communities actively participating in programs to cap off old drinking wells since these can provide a direct route for pollutants into the water table. In fact, there is a related issue on this site since there are operating wells located on the site. Steps should be taken to protect these wells and permanently cap them off when they are no longer in use. The applicant had some information on ground water supplies that was initially held from city staff. The judge ordered that this material be provided and staff has had an opportunity to review it. We believe that the proposed mining is acceptable relative to ground water resources so long as mining never daylights the water table. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROCEDURES FOR PERIODIC REVIEW, INTERIM SITE 1 STABILIZATION AND EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES The Moon Valley operator has indicated that they reserve the right to mine all resources 1 found on the property and would only guarantee that the end -use plan, as approved by the city, will be the result when mining activity is completed. This presents a number of 1 1 Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit ' May 27, 1992 Page 12 ' significant problems for the city if it is to ensure that conditions appropriate to protecting health and safety are maintained. Therefore, we are proposing the following: ' 1. The site will be subject to annual review by the City Engineer, and inspections to ensure compliance with conditions appropriate to ensuring health and safety. When problems arise, the matter shall be referred to the City Council for action. Fees are to 1 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. 1 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 1 how sedimentation and erosion control practices are going to be dealt with and then comply with plans approved by the City Engineer. 1 3. Provide the city with a revised end -use plan consistent with all conditions of approval. 1 4. The applicant should be required to maintain a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $51 ,000 to guarantee maintenance of erosion control and site restoration, ' should he fail to adhere to approve conditions for this permit. This is a major concern of staff's. The applicant's primary interest in the site at this time is to mine sand and gravel and it may or may not be in his best interests to comply with approved conditions of permit approval and /or with the end -use plan. Staff could not reasonably ask the City Council to place their assurances in the operator's stated intentions for the site and it is normal city practice to require this sort of financial guarantee. Financial guarantees shall only be released after an as built grading plan is submitted to ensure that the approved end -use plan has been satisfactorily completed. One of the primary goals of the city's management program for grading and mining is to ensure that the site is left in a condition that is consistent with project use under the ' Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In this instance, the Comprehensive Plan does not provide a significant amount of guidance since this area is well beyond the MUSA boundary. The use being proposed by the applicant is large lot residential which is probably 1 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. 1 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 Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 1 Page 13 also acknowledge that it is difficult to anticipate what may occur far into the future when this 1 area actually does develop. This proposed subdivision would be located in a huge bowl. It 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 1 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 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 B 1. The retention pond located on the property should be reviewed, sized, and designed by a registered engineer with plans submitted to the City Engineer for approval. The applicant will be required to indicate how he is progressing towards achieving the end -use plan. Mining activity that significantly comprises the end -use plan, in the opinion of the City Engineer, would not be permitted. 1 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the earth work permit for the Moon Valley operation be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Within 30 days of approval, the applicant shall submit drainage and erosion control 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 1 include: • Erosion control practices 1 • Designs of temporary and final basins, inlet/outlet structures, etc. Final pond design shall comply with NURP guidelines to maintain water quality. They shall be designed to maintain quality. They shall be designed to accommodate a 100 year storm event. 1 1 ' ' 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 r relocate the access point to the northeast to improve the westbound acceleration lane on the highway and provide a deceleration lane for truck movements. 1 During the course of mining operations any material or debris tracked onto the highway shall be promptly removed by the operator to eliminate a potential traffic ' hazard. Brush located around the access point shall be cut back to improve sight distance. 1 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 B 1. To avoid under - cutting of off -site slopes, in no case should excavated slopes exceed a 1.5 to 1 grade within 100 feet of a properly line at any time. When excavations exceed 2.5 to 1 slopes, temporary snow fencing and signage is required at the top of the grade to make individuals aware of hazardous conditions ' in the area. 5. No mining will be allowed to take place which daylights groundwater resources. The operator will protect existing on -site wells and will permanently cap them off when they are no longer in use. 6. The site will be subject to annual review by the City Engineer, and inspections to 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 Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 1 Page 15 be based upon the schedule provided in the Uniform Building Code. The initial $400 1 paid on this permit request shall be deducted from the first year's fees. 7. Provide the city with a revised end -use plan consistent with all conditions of approval. 8. The applicant should be required to maintain a letter of credit or cash escrow in the 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 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION At the June 3, 1992, Planning Commission meeting, the Moon Valley proposal was reviewed. After staff gave their comments, the applicant's attorney spoke. He continued to question the city's ability to regulate Moon Valley as outlined by staff and objected to most, if not all, of the conditions. The Planning Commission discussed the matter briefly. Given the background of the use and 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 1 Staff recommends that the earth work permit for the Moon Valley operation be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Within 30 days of approval, the applicant shall submit drainage and erosion control 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 1 1' 1 Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit ' May 27, 1992 Page 16 Designs of temporary and final basins, inlet/outlet structures, etc. Final pond design shall comply with NURP guidelines to maintain water quality. They shall be designed to maintain quality. They shall be designed to accommodate 1 a 100 year storm event. The plan shall describe management practices required to effectively operate ' drainage and erosion control practices. It shall be the operator's responsibility to maintain these measures in an effective and operative condition. 1 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 1 to erosion control measures, these shall not be undertaken without prior written approval by the City Engineer. 1 2. Within 30 days of approval, provide an engineered construction access designed to minimize tracking mud and debris out onto Hwy. 169/212. Work with MNDOT to 1 relocate the access point to the northeast to improve the westbound acceleration lane on the highway and provide a deceleration lane for truck movements. ' During the course of mining operations any material or debris tracked onto the highway shall be promptly removed by the operator to eliminate a potential traffic hazard. 1 Brush located around the access point shall be cut back to improve sight distance. 3. If noise or dust impacts materialize, the operator shall work with the city to positively respond to these issues. • 4. Modify the grading plan to eliminate off-site mining/grading that is presently illustrated on Plan 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 1 time. When excavations exceed 2.5 to 1 slopes, temporary snow fencing and signage is required at the top of the grade to make individuals aware of hazardous conditions in the area. 1 1 , Plannin g Commission Moon Valley Permit 1 May 27, 1992 Page 17 5. No mining will be allowed to take place which daylights groundwater resources. The operator will protect existing on -site wells and will permanently cap them off when they are no longer in use. 6. The site will be subject to annual review by the City Engineer, and inspections to 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. 7. Provide the city with a revised end -use plan consistent with all conditions of approval. 8. The applicant should be required to maintain a letter of credit or cash escrow in the 1 amount of $51 ,000 to guarantee maintenance of erosion control and site restoration, should he fail .to adhere to approve conditions for this permit. This is a major concern of staff's. The applicant's primary interest in the site at this time is to mine sand and gravel and it may or may not be in his best interests to comply with approved conditions of permit approval and /or with the end -use plan. Staff could not reasonably ask the City Council to place their assurances in the operator's stated intentions for the site and it is normal city practice to require this sort of financial guarantee. Financial guarantees shall only be released after an as built grading plan is submitted to ensure that the approved end -use plan has been satisfactorily completed. ATTACHMENTS 1 1. Letter from Roger Knutson dated May 7, 1992. 2. Memo from Dave Hempel dated May 26, 1992. 1 3. Application submitted by applicant. 4. General location. 5. Original Plan A (transparency). 1 6. Original Plan B (transparency) 7. Letter from Paul Krauss dated May 5, 1992. 8. Letter from Paul Krauss dated October 1, 1991. 9. Findings of Fact. 10. Letter from Chris Enger, City of Eden Prairie, dated May 18, 1992. 11. Excerpt from City Code. 12. Grading fees. 13. Mailing list of surrounding property owners. 14. Planning Commission minutes dated June 3, 1992. 1 i ' CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. ' Attorneys at La\\ . un, +.11 1612 452 -500 R, \ Knut"m Fax (0 121 452-',5i Th m.i \1 „rr t;ar% li Fuch Linn- R \ \'al•t,,n Ellnott B l n t• h May 7, 1992 Renae RECEIVED MAY 1 1 1992 . , r Ulr UhANHASSFN Mr. Paul Krauss Director of Planning City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc. vs. City of Chanhassen Court File No. 90-27099 Our File No. 12668/201 Dear Paul: 11 This letter will update the status of the above matter. Judge Philip Kanning in his most recent Order determined that Moon Valley does not have any non - conforming mining rights on the north section of its property above the bluff, directed Moon Valley to provide additional information relating to its Earth Work Permit Application for its existing operations and directed ' the City to process the permit application upon receipt of additional data. Moon Valley can continue mining during the application process. In processing the Earth Work Permit relating to the south parcel Judge Kanning in his April 2, 1992 Order stated that the City must clearly identify health or safety issues if it is going to impose any of the following types of restrictions upon Moon Valley's existing operations: (a) limit the quantity of material mined; (b) prohibit mining on any portion of the property, 1 such as slopes or wooded areas; (c) limit the depth to which the property may be mined, so long as Moon Valley has indicated its ' willingness to bring the property to the grades shown on its revised Plan B end use plan; Suite }1 • E1_<iniale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Cur\ e • Eagan, MN 55121 I Mr. Paul Krauss May 7, 1992 Page 2 (d) limit time within which the mining operation must 1 be completed; and (e) prevent Moon Valley from continuing and maintaining its ongoing mining operation to the extent and scope to which it presently exists. The court has continuing jurisdiction over this matter. If Moon Valley believes that the City does not have the legal authority to impose any of the conditions that may ultimately be attached to the Permit, the matter will be back in court for a final determination by Judge Kanning. Any mining activities proposed by Moon Valley on the north parcel would be by a separate application for an Interim Use Permit and Earth Work Permit. Briefly, here is how we got to this point. In May of 1990 the City adopted its revised mining ordinance requiring persons engaging in mining activities to obtain an Earth Work Permit. Ongoing operations such as Moon Valley had six months until November 24, 1990 to either obtain the permit or cease operations. 1 In late September of 1990, Moon Valley started this lawsuit claiming that the City did not have the legal authority to require it to obtain this permit. Moon Valley's basic contention was that its mining activities were not subject to this type of regulation because it was a non - conforming use in existence prior to the City's adoption of its 1972 Zoning Ordinance. On April 25, 1991, Judge Kanning entered an Order determining that the City could in fact require Moon Valley to obtain this ' permit and directing the company to make application for the permit by May 25, 1991 or face the prospect of having its operations shut down until it obtained a permit. Moon Valley then retained John Voss, a planning consultant, to prepare the permit application. It was agreed that the company could have until June 30, 1991 to file the application. June 30, 1991 passed without an application or explanation by Moon Valley. On July 16, 1991 the City gave Moon Valley notice of a hearing before Judge Kanning to request that the company be ordered to shut down its operations because no permit application was filed. After meeting with Moon Valley's consultant on July 31, 1991 this hearing was postponed until August 29, then to September 18 and finally to October 10, 1991. On September 17, 1991 Moon Valley finally filed the permit ' application. It contained two entirely different plans (Plans "A" 1 Mr. Paul Krauss May 7, 1992 Page 3 1 and "B ") and was substantially deficient in a number of areas. You ' subsequently advised Moon Valley of these deficiencies. Moon Valley never responded to your request for additional information and clarifications. 1 In November of 1991, a two -day hearing took place before Judge Kanning. It was the City's position that the application filed by Moon Valley was insufficient and that its operation should be shut down until it obtained its permit. An additional issue involved Moon Valley's right to expand its mining activities on to the north section of its property above the bluff line. This property was in separate ownership and had not been mined prior to the 1972 Zoning Ordinance. ' After submitting various written arguments to Judge Kanning in December of 1991, the Judge finally issued his Order on April 2, 1992. As summarized above, Judge Kanning determined that Moon Valley does not have any non - conforming use rights to mine on the 1 north parcel. He also determined that alternate Plan "B" was a reasonable response to the application requirements if certain information relating to groundwater, slopes, trees types and truck ' usage was provided to the City within 30 days. Upon supplying this information, which Moon Valley has done now, the City is then obligated to process the Earth Work Permit application relating to ' the south parcel upon which the existing mining operation is located. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. By Thomas Scott TMS:ses 1 1 1 1 C ITYOF CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMO ' • • UM TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician ff// 1 DATE: May 26, 1992 SUBJ: Review of Interim Use Permit for Earthwork /Mining, Moon Valley Aggregate Grading Permit #91 -13 Interim Use Permit #92 -4 Upon review of the grading plan prepared by Urban Planning Design (Exhibit B -1), I 1 have the following comments and recommendations: Site Access 1 Plans propose one access drive into the site from Highway 169/212. The anticipated truck traffic generated with this type of use, combined with the high traffic volumes already experienced along Highway 169/212 (21,580 ADT -1989 Traffic Volumes), most likely warrant safety improvements such as acceleration and deceleration lanes, as well as possibly a by -pass lane. Since Highway 169/212 is under MNDOT jurisdiction, any improvements would be subject to MNDOT's approval and construction standards. It is recommended that MNDOT perform a traffic study to determine what specific safety 1 improvements are warranted and require the applicant construct them accordingly. The access drive currently exists as a sand /gravel surface. To help reduce dust and 1 debris from tracking off site, staff recommends paving the first 50 feet of the entrance with bituminous surface or at least maintaining a gravel construction entrance (see Attachment No. 1) until the site is restored. Surface drainage from the driveway should be managed with a riprap, spillway or catch basins. Site Grading 1 The plans propose a majority of the parcel to be graded. There is currently an existing ' structure (office /residential use) with a well and septic system which may be affected. Provisions for an alternate site or protection of the existing systems should be addressed. 1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 J ' Paul Krauss May 26, 1992 ' Page 2 ' Based on water well records submitted with this application, neighboring wells should not be adversely affected by this grading proposal. 1 The plans propose finished grade with 2.5 to 1 side slopes. During grading activities, excavation should not exceed 1.5 to 1 side slopes adjacent to neighboring properties. Potential shifting or shear failure of the slope is possible. If excavation exceeds 2.5 to 1 slope, a fence should be installed at the top of the slope for safety concerns. Erosion Control According to the soil survey of Carver County, area consists of primary ha den loam g Y tY� P rY Y soils which consist of dominantly well and moderately well drained silty and loam soils, and some sandy soils (see Attachment No. 2). Erosion hazard is very severe with this type of soil. It is recommended that erosion control measures such as temporary 1 sediment basins and silt fence be employed in accordance with MPCA manual, "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" or Board of Water and Soil Resources, "Minnesota Construction Site, Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook." Other erosion ' control considerations would be to temporary seed and mulch areas as they are completed and grade the side slopes with a bench -like feature to slow runoff. ' Provisions for revegetating the site were not included in this proposal. A site restoration plan should be included for staff review and approval. Side slopes in excess of 3:1 may require erosion control blanket in order to stabilize the slopes and insure the seed a ' foothold. Tree plantings would also benefit in stabilizing the side slopes. The plans show a small holding pond in the southerly potion of the site and a larger one ' in the northwest corner; however, no storage calculations were provided. Final retention pond consideration should include design criteria according to the nation -wide runoff program, "NURP ", and retainage of a 100 -year storm event on -site with discharge at the predeveloped runoff rate in accordance with city requirements. This will mitigate downstream flooding and erosion potential. Temporary and final pond and storm sewer design details, prepared by a professional engineer, should be submitted to the City ' Engineer for review and approval. • Recommended Conditions 1. The applicant shall construct the necessary safety improvements along Highway pp ry ty p is a g 169/212 as a result of MNDOT's traffic evaluations. • 1 Paul Krauss May 26, 1992 Page 3 1 2. The first 50 feet of the driveway entrance into the site shall be paved with a 1 bituminous surface or maintained as a gravel construction access. Surface drainage should be managed with a riprap, spillway or catch basin. 3. Provisions for rotectin the existing well septic p g st g we and sept c system should be addressed. 4. Temporary erosion control measures such as sediment basins and silt fence should 1 be employed throughout the site. Temporary sediment basins should be constructed in accordance with the MPCA's manual, "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" or Board of Water and Soil Resources, "Minnesota Construction Site, Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook." Temporary /final pond and storm sewer design details, prepared by a professional engineer, shall be 111 submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 5. The applicant should apply for a watershed permit and comply with the conditions of approval. 6. All areas disturbed in conjunction with the grading /mining operations shall be restored with topsoil, seed, mulch and /or wood -fiber blanket. Site restoration should be completed on a phased basis. 7. Upon completion, the applicant shall supply the city with an as -built grading plan prepared by a professional engineer or registered surveyor indicating the finished grades to demonstrate compliance with approved plans and verify quantities. 8. The applicant shall pay a grading permit fee based on the amount excavated in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. 1 9. The applicant shall be responsible for clearing debris from Highway 169/212 as often as needed as a result of the truck hauling activities from the site. 1 10. The applicant shall provide the city with financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $56,100 to guarantee site restoration and maintenance of erosion control. The amount of security has been calculated as 110% of the following: Erosion Control 500 LF @ $2.00 /LF = $ 1,000.00 Seeding 25 Acres @ $2,000 /acre = $50,000.00 1 TOTAL $51,000.00 1 1' 1 Paul Krauss May 26, 1992 1 Page 4 I 11. Excavation shall be limited to 1.5 to 1 side slopes adjacent to abutting properties. Fences shall be installed and maintained at the top of slope until the side slopes have been restored to 2.5 to 1 side slopes. I 12. Each time a retention pond is constructed or relocated, either on a temporary of permanent basis, a registered surveyor of professional engineer shall confirm that 1 the pond has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. 13. The applicant shall provide staff with a revised plan showing grading limits to 1 within the south parcel. 1 14. The applicant shall provide staff with a site restoration plan. The plan shall include seeding, erosion control and phases of the excavation process. I ktm Attachments: 1. Gravel construction access. I 2. Carver County Soil Survey excerpts. pc: Charles Folch, City Engineer 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mr convenient and effective. The wash rack would consist of a heavy grating over a lowered area in the construction entrance. The grating may be a prefabricated rack such as a cattle guard, or it may be constructed on -site of structural steel. In any case, the wash rack must be strong enough to support the vehicles that will cross it. Figure 15.2 shows a typical wash rack installation. 1 MAINTENANCE The rock ad needs occasional 1 maintenance to prevent tracking of mud onto paved roads. This may require periodic top dressing with additional rock or removal and ■ reinstallation of the pad. 1 Hard surface public road .: c / "iii �i.�I�l ••��r% t �,� :.;_: t:.` 50' minimum td` 6" minimum '::!: = : %i , ��; .....- w w •.. s 2, /. Imo., ,III 1 -2 washed rock ..,�..:.�..�..� . . 1 FIGURE 15.1: Rock Construction Entrance. Source: MPCA's BMP Handbook 39304pt3 - 73 - ATTACHMENT NO.1 1 UMBER 36 Il ' • _ Ge I f ill tit* • ��t i k-k. LAKE RILEY .R s t.: < `sue 1 • jir Cs f -Z9. i% IAA HaB2 t• H 'w = = 2 ` ;� .—° HaB2 t r R_ L P / ( ' ! /P ( CC �j ff � 7 Ha r 1 El it ♦ HaB2 CZ—M a �� Te8 ��r / Ha8 I . I ViSti GS- FYI • . r � HaC2 f _;-- a13 i L S illeak 4 44 1 v !l Ha C2 e HaC2 • . I . HaB2 �1. r Cs / ` ®HaC HaB ' .4, . dee - 4 qtr. , . HaC2 .4• • • •••"' z eb ( ... f \ �, .a° 7, ,_ 's • ' . . 1 - i ' ' -,,, T '' - , IL . , , 's . • 1 tihr ''''' - - ' " i-' i ...2 . . art a HaB2 , J F ti, i. 4r 'If HaC2 c oll. - � / %/ .. 1++� 'R ? fit. :. ` .!r 7_. a 5 r : f % ..A ;T ,:- � RICE 1 8 A �"1 LAKE 1 x 9" " - i• { -. . : .:11.... - ". l — ,1,,1, -�`f�- - —.4.. — SC OTT COUNTY 1 1 1 3000 Feet ATTACHMENT NO.2 1 CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA 21 llat Was Hayden loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes, eroded (HaD2). These soils are easy to work. They warm up early in 1 'rganic- his soil has lost 3 to 6 inches of its original surface layer spring and dry out rapidly after a ram. Natural fertility unoff is , rough erosion. The present plow layer is a mixture of is moderate to low. '1 he organic- matter content is mod - wer of e original dark grayish - brown surface layer and erate. Runoff is medium, permeability is rapid, and the ti is 24 , ow fuser textured material from the subsoil. The moisture- storage capacity is low to very low. a few epth to limy material is generally 24 to 36 inches. The These soils are used for crops and pasture. They are ebster rganic- matter content is very low. Consequently, crusts suitable for small grain but 'are too droughty to be areas •rm and tilth is poor. Runoff is rapid, and the moisture able for corn. Wind erosion is a hazard. 1 apply is generally inadequate for crops during prolonged Typical profile of Hubbard loamy sand (alfalfa field; 'onio ; ry periods. Depressions occupied by Glencoe and Webster 2 percent slope; SW / sec. 11, T. 114 N., R. 24 W.) unit oils occur in areas where slopes are irregular. Small Ap—O to 10 inches, very dark gray (10TR 3/1) loamy sand; allies have formed in some areas. weak, fine, granular structure ; very friable ; slightly oil is This soil is fair for crops and moderately good for pas- acid; abrupt, smooth boundary. Pied are. The erosion hazard is severe. (Capability unit A3-10 to 14 inches, very dark grayish- brown (1O1 3,/2) the r "e-1; woodland group 2; building site group 6) loamy sand ; weak, fine, granular structure ; very friable ; sightly acid ; clear, smooth boundary. I 'p' Hayden loam, 18 to 25 percent slopes, eroded (HaE2).— B21 -14 to 18 inches, dark grayish-brown (lOTR 4/2) loamy In cultivated areas erosion has removed 3 to 6 inches of sand ; weak, fine, granular structure ; very friable ; 'ion the original surface layer from this soil. The plow layer slightly acid. tnd in these areas is a mixture of the original dark grayish- B22 -1 to 23 inches, dark -brown (10YR 4/3) sand; single brown surface layer and brownish, finer textured material C -23 to grain; loose; slightly acid; gradual, wavy boundary. from the subsoil. Pastured and wooded areas are only brown (10YR 4/3) sand ; single grain 5loose; slightly 'm slightly eroded. The depth to limy material is generally acid. on about 24 to 36 inches. Small depressions occupied by Glen- The A horizon is either loamy sand or sandy loam. Where T. coe and Webster soils occur in areas where slopes are the A horizon is loamy sand, the B horizon is loamy sand or 1 1- complex. sand. Where the A horizon is sandy loam, the B horizon is t- This soil is generally unsuitable for tilled crops bit if sandy loam that grades to loamy sand. These soils are slightly S rap acid or medium acid to a depth of more than 60 inches. well managed, is fairly good for hay or pasture. he Hubbard soils are more deeply leached of free lime carbon - r erosion hazard is very severe3(Capability unit \'Ie -1; ates than the somewhat excessively drained Estherville soils, which are underlain by gravel. They are also more deeply woodland group 3: building site group 7) Hayden loam, 25 to 40 percent slopes (HaF). unit leached than the well- drained Wadena sons and have a coarser consists of steep hills, ridges, and ravines. In cultivated textured profile. areas erosion has removed 3 to 6 inches of the original Hubbard loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes (HdA). ' surface. layer and exposed the brownish clay loam subsoil. This soil has lost 3 to 6 inches of its original surface layer The depth to limy material ranges from 24 to 36 inches. through wind erosion, The present plow layer is grayish Runoff is rapid. Bald spots of limy clay loam occur in a brown loamy sand. Generally, the organic matter content few areas. Small depressions occupied by Glencoe and is low. The depth to sand is about 10 to 14 inches. Webster soils occur in areas where slopes are complex. This soil is fair for small grain and pasture, but it is 1 This soil should never be tilled.EThe erosion hazard is too droughty to be suitable for corn. The very low very severeDPasture grasses burn during prolonged dry moisture- storage capacity is a severe limitation. Control - periods. Most of the acreage is wooded or pastured. ling wind erosion (fig. 10) is a serious problem. (Capabil- (Capability unit VIIe -1; woodland group 3; building ity unit Id's -1; woodland group 6; building site group 1) site group '7) Hubbard Series 1 The Hubbard series consists of nearly level to hilly, ' ' ' ' i so excessively drained and excessively drained soils � ;� ' _ _ that formed in deep, acid sand. These soils are inextensive _ � � ' ' J am_ - _- in this county. They occur mainly on outwash plains and ���� � • -� .._ *•- „ : . ' t 1 erraces along the Minnesota and Crow Rivers. The native t R °� 1! ` .•, ;• - �' _ V y vegetation was prairie grass. ....„4--, e K f ry a {. ,If[ A The surface layer is very dark gray, very friable loamy �.. - .r ' sand. It is about 10 inches thick, has weak granular strut- - ''` 1 ^,,-'' ' tore, and is slightly acid. The subsurface layer is very dark - >� grayish- brown, very friable loamy sand. This layer is f >E €� s 7. __ about 4 inches thick, has weak granular structure, and is xya -y .- - slightly acid. • �-- `r' 'R 1 The subsoil is about 9 inches thick. The upper P = s �. r s part is _ - dark grayish- brown, very friable, slightly acid loamy sand ' JA ?,� 'r ; � _ 44 that has weak g structure. The lower part is dark - -- � ;.,. ' , • brown, loose, slightly acid sand. t = . • -4„ ; - :7.71: t . • r, 1 The underlying material is yellowish -brown and dark- Figure 70. Severe wind erosion on Hubbard loamy sand, 0 to 2 brown, loose, slightly acid sand. percent slopes. 1 1 K 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MOON VALLEY AGGREGATES 1 Mining Application September 1991 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 MOON VALLEY ' AGGREGATES SEPTEMBE R 199 1 1 APPLICANT /OWNER Tom Zwiers G & T 1111 Deuce Road Elko, MN 55020 (612) 461 -2180 ATTORNEY 1 Gerald S. Duffy Seigel, Brill, Greupner and Duffy, P.A. 100 Washington Square, Suite 1350 Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 339 -7131 PLANNER John S. Voss Urban Planning & Design, Inc. 7300 W. 147th St., Suite 504 Apple Valley, MN 55124 (612) 431 -4401 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Eldon Hugelen (612) 431 -4334 OPERATIONS MANAGER 1 Jerry Rypkema 1 1 11 1 I 1 ' MEMO TO: Paul Krause, Director of Planning City of Chanhassen FROM: John S. Voss, Planning Consultant Urban Planning & Design, Inc. DATE: September 5, 1991 SUBJECT: Moon Valley (Tom Zwiers) Earth Work Application (Ord. No. 128) The following is information required by the Chanhassen Mining Ordinance No. 128. in addition to that required on the completed application form. ' 1. Grading Plan(s) A grading plan (Exhibit A) is submitted illustrating complete mining of the site. This plan would provide for gradual mining floor elevations from a 720 ft. existing elevation along U.S. Highway 169 to a 740 ft. elevation approximately 2,400 ft. to the north. Side slopes would be maintained at 2:1 as illustrated. 1 A second grading plan (Exhibit B) is also submitted illustrating the following: a. Extensive mining would continue at the lower eleva- tions along U.S. Highway 169. Mining would occur 1 1 1 1 . .i 1 I 1 1 111 R� 1 i s 23 LYMAN i ► 1 I BLVD. ANN ; 24 '• c to: - •19yOIQ -- - I 111 D EER FOOT a • • TR H ►SSEN 1 y £atp s. ' O 1 ... 1 G 9 6 HST. W. m `� / Il ° ul>.,IoR a -' 0 rl I 101 + J O pig` 1 F . o • 4h f $ J ? �' o° -- 26- CO J: el RD. NO. - - - - -- I/ It s 3 . f 500 1 ‘0t /..., `w • � `� 1 LD / - .0 1 luff Creek Golf Course Qt / z 1 r / . , 1 Run 1 ; zEDEN PRAIRIE - - - -'; -- alum -r . — > La ' 1 LAKOTA l+ - .- ,, ,„t"_ C L OUD . DR *1) _ 1 �Q` OEM FARM • 041 Oi` L• roc ' r . . .'1 RICE LAKE 1 1 � • — 3 I , I � --- - - -36- - -- 1rA�r - - -- 1 i 1 p DR•I 1 1 1 I i ;at ; I* 1 1 • 1 _ ' .. V l K .. . , • 1; se!'t - ..,_ • .Sh AKOPE 1 • • ' N r i- OO_ I. 1 I 'T r >- D 'T r 7,s • , > >l ,{ S a Z J r{ 1 / �L'ii�1Y�. o.almr M 1 �ll+E6AMII ID Vii615. 1 1 6J., 1[��`1{lc3::nfiliffGlNIW7�� RO 'ft f, I � iJi 111111 4 1©13111 .1 � ►' Ca 'F IIIII ' � r •t E ` U •r! 1 >• /mil. N u 'r, N. x f[M. ©����©VL'E c� ©� tt,, - 1nJ M• •rl * 1:�d, '� 'r' RI 1 • t twI� ��� r P TT 1 i .. .1 1 . w r"- e. G. •..1� �� / 1 , .. N, .re - .......4 Cr" . ii, , 4 w 1 i r;,/ : ; nA . - - 1 ---T. . ...: . - 1; > - ' 111-11° :...'1 , ., _..„ fr - A ,..: ..„,.„,,,. MOM AO . 0 ft • 4 I il 7. , 1/ //) .. 7 y , "r i l . 1 15,0"li t il - I / / I , ;,., / * I V - ""s... ' / ■- Oli 4 • ( ''''' .. / ' C >41• 4 1 4 1<_ 1 'A %, c, . ■,,IIIIIihi ' ,.. r' ( fr '*■••• . ' ,i , / A ki i 6° ' i ' .nri" Itil -" i o ' I / p 1" fr 1 / •-. .14 P. T 4 /, 1 . e , i„iig.,,,,../ : 7 r : . . .e 1 & , . . . e : . ; 1 , , 71/ /It - (TH.. 4 l ' i f . I . ,k .,,.. , ....,-.- ..,.. ), • r . ) ,...,„ , gt// • . '. er-.40) . , ...e, e' \ I Irrt ., . rad ,Ial r E d rer " -\*.‘, ,.,„- ... j' 4,6 1 .. : 74' ''. • ‘ ,, 1 . 4 1,.. , i t.,„/ 1 . „ ,,.. ei ' 1 ',..... . kp.v.sivet,..... ' -, li: • — ' :,I , ` � : ! �,. -- , _. . ( I)J f v. 4 J 4h • I •klp I / t 4.-41. ,fifi - ., ‘ :::-:--,---;== -- - \,ii P i 1/ St ,: � r . . R.�. 7 _ I .4 '..--\, ---- ' \ -v./ .7 i 1 - • I{ 414‘1 � 47 4" T hy, { ► 1 I .. `, � ,, , � i ^ , ' �� ; ( i y ; ,, v~,.. : A I � ; 1\k k 1 , 1 � ,) 1 , 11 1 , tp ' � x 1 1),.; ,. , , 1 t' / h Ala %) ,• • r . `► � •' 411 �. - . J • �}�� \ r . • .,, , . 7 cr. ' , ,,,,,, ,,.., ,, , ,-7 , 0:/i , 1 A fl. •J. ;� / J \ 1 � is 11. k!? � % 414 ��.\ 1 { E - i . \k' s, ‘ ‘: \ Ti' t ' L ' '' '; 4 //tf I�1 , I ( S l i r. . ;') 1 11,11�/ ' � � \,twe((( %` �- kl .11 ' I . i , 1 11 ,,, 0 , , (.. -c i, . t *.z, dit ho,, ,--... ,) 1 v i l l, id, 4 % ) ,--- )(if/ ,i, ,p 1 .1�r 1 `\ lq 1 (1� II ' • ,. "fr„, 9 y . .„4,• : ? ;:, ,,,..,/, ii ,,,,,, 1, k1/4.9 ..,,\\)))) )1)111 1 ,"' - " .1 ) .,... .,-;„„ -----..... III 1 lii '1?,;(0N 7 ........._-7„.... ‘,.. 01 41 0 Q1 , ;9) ,..f• y. ' . .1 , , ,: 0,01_ r='~ -- , io'.44 A , ,„„ , k \\ )/i/ ;./ z iii i ' 0 _,/, ' j 1/ 1 • � .i �' At dim,/ e ,- .. , ,. �`, , / % i t i . �'� � .•��t y ; - e, � � ♦ " r'• - r te ,,.,,• % �% ; / / I ( 4 '• , ‘' ' ` - - .•_. - -- . ..- .0 - 10 , -- ..I :_ • • ;_I / _ rt. 1 • % 1 —__ � Jlwr /��. , . � AOd� . _ GOREGATE ' , � - ter ( i, , ;: 1 CNA N H, MINNESOTk I. • - l iiri • • y � I , ' I ti; Nn :14515: N { ' 11'� to f! tl d l l l lr p :� 1 r a '1. r.��n •Ga.11.w �w.hV • _ 1 1 , ( •I to,::.,:4:1.,,;:,,i �:'. t IJ .��' : • • .1 : ' li 1 :1(., ;• 0,1- r ' 477 ,1, ""“"• . • : I _ • III ` \ ( I, I.! . li� 1 'I�w 1.1-1 ,., .1. { :( ! _ -- -.- Th :' \_ .*. I ' : . .:.. ' . ' • / ' : 5_, ) , _i_J., ,:ii 1 :: . . 1 , , '1 ... '. _ __- — . ' 11 11 both east and west of the existing site boundary in order to provide consistent grades, eliminate steep slopes and make the property more useable for end land uses. b. The grading plan maintains the existing steep slopes and wooded areas immediately adjacent to U.S. Highway 169 for purposes of screening c. The grading plan provides for preservation of the bluff line and existing trees at the top of the bluff. It also provides for a three (3) acre sealed pond with a controlled outlet. 1! d. The grading plan also provides for the potential of removing 8 to 10 feet of material from the north meadow area of the site. e. The applicant is currently negotiating a purchase of the 16 to 20 acres west of the existing property line. This grading plan anticipates either the acquisition or cooperation of this owner to accom- 11 plish the proposed grade. If this can not be done, a 2:1 slope will be maintained along the west property line. All of this is clearly illustrated on the grading plan(s) which illustrate both existing and proposed grades. 1 6 1 2. Stockpile Sites Existing stockpiles are shown on the "operation plan" (Exhibit D). Existing stockpiles are a lime storage area, a mined material stockpile and a topsoil (black dirt) stockpile. The lime would be used as a fill material in the proposed ' ponding area. As mining progresses, similar material stockpiles may be ' created in the main operation area similar to that which exists. 3. Physical Relationship to Community and Existing Development ' There is very little existing development in the immedi- ate area. Existing development generally consists of comer- !! cial and industrial uses fronting along U.S. Highway 169. West of the subject site and north of Highway 169 are four single family homes located on a private driveway and developed on metes and bounds lots. The general topography of the area is very irregular, ' with steep slopes. The objective of the grading plan(s) ' submitted herein is to mine material and leave the site in a much more suitable condition for ultimate development. ' 4. Site Topography and Natural Features The Moon Valley Aggregates site generally ranges in ' elevation from a lower elevation of 720 along U.S. Highway 169 to upper elevations to the north portions of the property exceeding 900 feet. A bluff exists at the mid -point of the 1 7 property at approximately a 900 - 920 elevation. The highest elevation of the property is 930.5. i There are two well defined gullies on the property. One is located in the northeastern portion of the site where the gully flows to the east toward the Eden Prairie boundary. In this area the higher elevation is at 890 down to a 810 elevation along the boundary of the property. Another gully ' exists in the west central portion of the property where the elevations range from 920 to a lower elevation along an old 1 railroad bed of 810. Distinguishing features of this site in addition to the extreme relief are an abandoned railroad bed which forms the west perimeter of the property running in ' northeast to southwesterly direction, an open meadow of approximately 12 acres at the upper elevations, and a heavily 1 wooded bluff at the 900 to 920 elevations. There also is a well defined drainage area which follows the lower elevation of the railroad bed to the existing west boundary of the property and then meanders south to a crossing under U.S. Highway 169. ' In the past, with this extreme relief, this site at one time was used as a downhill ski area. The project area is a ' part of the large terrace that exists along the north side of the Minnesota River Valley. The site area is approximately 85 acres with a proposed 1 addition of approximately 16 to 20 acres along the west boundary. ' 8 1 1 1 5. Description and Quantity of Excavated Material The excavated material from the subject site generally consists of a clay material, particularly at the higher 1 elevations, and sand and gravel material. The quantity of the available material has not been 1 calculated, however, a calculation could generally be made by comparing the existing and proposed grades as shown on the enclosed grading plans. However, in some instances mining may 1 occur below finished grades. 6. Depth of Water Tables in Area ' The applicant does not have any information other than information which the City could provide related to depths of water tables. Another source may be the Geologic Atlas which has been developed for Hennepin County which borders the subject site. 1 7. Location and Depth of Wells, Buried Garbage, Water and Fill The applicant is not aware of any buried garbage or similar material that has occurred or exists on the subject ' property except for auto bodies in the northeast area gully. These will have to be removed when this area is mined and /or ' restored. An artisan water well exists on the site but a well log is not available. It is believed that this well was drilled to a depth of 500 feet. 1 1 9 8. Purpose of the Operation The Moon Valley Aggregates mining operation is conducted primarily for the purpose of obtaining fill material and processed aggregate to be used for off site development. The material that is mined, as previously described, primarily consists of clay, sand and aggregate material. 9. Time to Complete The Operation ' The applicant does not have an established time frame for completing the mining of subject property. The time to complete the operation will depend upon several factors such as the demand for the material which is beyond the control and the ability to predict by the applicant. Another factor will ' be the market demand for an end use development on the subject property which also can not be predicted with any certainty. ' For example, the City of Chanhassen is unable to provide a specific time frame in which public utilities will be made , available to the subject property to support end use develop- ment. 10. Hours and Months of Operation ' The mining operation will be conducted during most of the months of the year. ' The hours of operation may occur any time during a normal 24 hour day. The operation which consists primarily of mining and hauling material from the site is effected by the peak traffic hours along U.S. Highway 169. Therefore, attempts are made to haul material during the off peak traffic hours. ' 10 11 ' \ \d 111 V r � Y � y ' '/ r ' ' f�f '(i' i, iii .. /' .,,. I ) 1 I' ` f 1 ( t I� , i 1 y4( '.! 1 / ,,..1, .` \ p () i 11.1 1 j^ ' . °'( :.. : � 1 ' ' ' . . .., , \ 1 ------ ) ;"1 ,t ii. . e i . & 1 ;'..:h' rl " —� if 4: 1 ` L.XNIIIT 1,,,. \ . ,( ,. i .., At. . , . . I .,,‘,1 1-.Q:,,, . ...,... , ,, / ,,t .„:,.. , -..:v-ioi.v.i i 1 _ ,\ .. �i �• �1 r) \' l r� � i � ' f , � Il t /( ell. ' ..� , ��' •• • - . . • t 5 rr , ',/). ( !, , w �, 1 "i n III - \ /!% l ' ' / : ii ; ! ... 1 , .� ` HIV :.\/ `' , !' ,ii ,. ;f - , • 4 1 11.., E ( ` ^I• ' .r. YYY+++ ° 1 t "`(co •\ .,rir. t ;5 if,. ; 1 1 ‘1?4 " .i 1 ' ..,'' 1 , 4 ((''' .1 R 1 c ? i ,_:- ;/ 1. ? c/- • - .-- ' Y ' 'y..(;,1) If 1' 4,„ r ti 1 t , ..` I ,.. i 1 ." ') 1 .: ` ,. -4 -,♦ e _ \• ... (ii'ro .. j;, '" . ', ..,,,,..:: 7 , 4 ,- % i ,,:., 1 ` -.,----<-A.. '1 \�1 \ ' ":/ j ' f ; , ,/ /.(� , • i ' ri'''',./, y � � • ' - ~ I ' - i g i P 1 \ ':: < . ( , 1 -- 1111 (Lit 1•' • I .1' ! _ .. ,i ,/ /, i ^� 0 1J1 ftl' i 6 l tir ; / ) ' \ ) ! /i, ' ' a ' r .I 1 ( P\PIP I' � - -`. N} l' Ir "'li, I ; W,i1, $ _ .�I � �1'.• ' I ' ,, ' { �' 1 \ `�i7q 1 � '1.•'. \ \\ C t 0rca i e l .. - 11', nwi lll ^Ir\ ; 1 ..:' S \.1 .r iii., i ,• i 1 ' ..'W 1\ 1 ju �:, ) M inning i / 4 , did 1 ' i .s ' 1 . - . )\\((' ,;.,,, ;!, of( Ail Alk , I . 'f,:', A .0 I ,� 'r�,, ' r ( .,' , 4 ::;1'11.1 ' 1 i L � �' ° :M°\‘.41 u� 1'; It 1 , ,/I `II ail ‘ Retention pond • • �. ' . a ^ •' , \1 � I ), � b 41 ( 4, '\.• \W� 1 7J ; ,,, . Of f ice 4► scale .;...... 1 ' M\II• ' '' -": f t ,-:':, i kl, I 11111P/it P. i • .. , 1 - -- . ' -- 4 fit• ';."%Pi lt\\)1)(1.11 . ,., 1 , , ,g ."1" 0)9/ I _ 40 ., 1.‘,-..N 1�� I • 0 %� , );.,, ► 1�i �✓— — House J�;y I. ` �i l w , ll I�' .� (,'( ., ; . ' Entrance . • !/�,, ,A s .',..1\%,..7 . : 1 M I ; ATION PLAN r,.s ', . f / ' f l ? M OO N VALLEY AGGREGATES. 1 - ,..y, = ; .,I . - ---- ...\* )/ r4 .; „,, - . ( i 1 • 00K....42,... II 11. Description of Wooded Areas Above the existing mining operation area there is a 1 mature upland hardwood forest. This area is about 20 acres in total size. The dominant canopy of trees are oak, hardwood 1 maples and basswood. Other secondary trees area elm, ash, aspen, birch, wild cherry and butternut. Very few openings in 1 the forest canopy exist to allow seedlings to develop. Consequently there is only sparse understory tree and shrub growth. Also, along the south west ridge of this forest are plantings of red pine. This existing wooded area is labeled and outlined on the grading plan exhibit B map. It also can be identified from an aerial photo of the site. 12. End Use Landscape Plan and Interim Screening Plan The grading plan exhibit B clearly shows the boundaries 1 of the area to be excavated along U.S. Highway 169. In this area the steep slopes and existing wooded area would be retained wherein this would provide a screen from public view. The only opening would be in the area of the existing drive- way. 1 An End Use Landscape Plan has not been developed since the end uses have not been determined at this time. However, 1 the grading plan exhibit B does provide for the protection and maintenance of the existing wooded area for a single family residential development at the top of the bluff. The steep 1 slopes will also be restored and maintained as described in the restoration plan. 1 12 1 1 II 13. Plan of Operation Equipment and Processing The plan of operation as previously described would be to ' mine clay, sand & aggregate material to stockpile and to haul 1 the material from the site. The equipment used in this operation would primarily be 1 that equipment which exists on the site, namely; trucks, frontend loader, crusher, screening /water wash plant, bulldoz- ers, periodic portable concrete ready mix plant, equipment storage trailers, scales and similar equipment. In the future there may be a need to bring additional ' equipment onto the site for allied processing operations. The City will be so informed at the time there is any substantial ' change in the operation. The only source of water on site is a private well. Two septic systems also exist on the site. 14. Travel Routes, Number and Type of Trucks The primary travel route to and from the site would be along U.S. Highway 169 which forms the south boundary of the ' site. The only other haul route which may be used in the future would be along the north boundary of the site across ' property owned by the applicant which exists in the adjacent community of Eden Prairie wherein a travel road would lead to ' Pioneer Trail. 1 13 15. Drainage, Erosion and Dust Control , a. Drainage During current operations most of the runoff percolates into the impervious sandy soil which exists on the site. , Also, a sealed retention pond has developed as shown on the operation plan. It has been developed at a lower elevation so that drainage which does not percolate from the mining area can be diverted to this retention pond. The remainder of the area naturally drains to a box culvert which exists under U.S. Highway 169 near the main entrance. Future operations are expected to be conducted in a similar manner where retention ' ponds will be used to retain most of the storm drainage on site. End Use Grading Plan (exhibit A) provides for a ponding , area in the central portion of the property which would be utilized to retain most of the drainage created along the side ' slopes. Drainage also would utilize the above described box culvert under U.S. Highway 169. , End Use Grading Exhibit B provides several storm drainage , alternatives. The north portion of the property would drain to the north to a small existing wetland which could be further developed as a small holding pond. Drainage would naturally outflow from this pond to the north into the Eden ' Prairie property which is owned by the applicant. In the central portion of the property as illustrated an approximate 3 acre holding pond would be created and sealed. ' 14 , 1 This pond would have a controlled outlet. Natural drainage ' from the area and along the bottom of the railroad bed from the north would drain into this holding pond. The outlet would direct drainage toward the natural drainage area that is illustrated and exists along the west edge of the subject property and eventually drains under U.S. Highway 169. Finally, drainage at the lower elevations would naturally ' drain to the above mentioned drainage ditch area and also to ' the box culvert located near the main entrance under U.S. Highway 169. 1 b. Erosion A certain amount of sand erosion created by water runoff will occur during operation. There will be an attempt to ' retain as much of this sediment as possible on site and most of it will flow to the retention pond and settle out. When mining is complete the mined areas will be stabilized and seeded as described below to deter any erosion. This is 11 described in the restoration paragraph. ' Potential air pollutant emissions related to the opera- tion are regulated by both the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the U.S. Department of Labor inspections under their "Mine Safety and Health Administration" (MSHA). ' The MPCA conducts an alternate year inventory of air pollutant ' emissions. This information is compiled and sent to the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The operator 15 is required to complete an emissions inventory questionnaire when required by the MPCA. 1 The U.S. Department of Labor conducts periodical inspec- tions of the Moon Valley Aggregate operation. Inspections ' relate primarily to employee safety, i.e. dust control, noise levels, equipment safety and general working conditions. 11 From the above it is evident that there is adequate inspection, regulation and control of such matters as dust control, working conditions and noise levels provided by state ' and federal agencies. 16. Restoration Plan , a. Existing Contours Existing contours of the Moon Valley Aggregates site are shown on Exhibit C. This is a topographic map that was ' obtained from the City. b. Proposed Contours ' The end use grading contours as illustrated on Exhibit A represent a total mining of the site providing a gradual grade leading from the entrance at U.S. Highway 169 from the south ' • to the north of the property providing a 2:1 side slope. Exhibit B illustrates an end use grading plan wherein the 111 bluff and the trees are retained. This plan would anticipate the subdivision and development of a 2 acre lot residential area to the north with a cul -de -sac leading to Pioneer Trail ' to the north. The end use grading plan also provides for a loop street with access to U.S. Highway 169 and a commer- ' 16 ' 1 II cial /industrial development at this lower elevation. The plan would retain the existing steep slopes and wooded area as a I screen along U.S. Highway 169. The plan shows the relation- 1 ship between the existing grades and the proposed grades. c. Timetable II As previously described no timetable for the mining of this area has been developed. This would depend upon factors beyond the control of the applicant such as the market for the II material and the ability to develop end uses on this site. d. Restoration Procedures II The general restoration procedure will be to strip and stockpile the topsoil from those areas which are to be mined. 1 After mining is complete the topsoil will be re- spread and the 1 area will be seeded and otherwise stabilized except for building pads and roads. A typical seed mixture will consist II of perennial rye grass, timothy, switch grass, white clover, smooth brome grass and park Kentucky bluegrass similar to that 1 used by MNDOT to stabilize slopes along interstate freeways. il At certain locations mining may occur below the finished elevation as shown on the end use grading plan(s). At these 1 locations, these areas will be backfilled, leveled and • stabilized according to the restoration schedule described 1 above. II 1 II 17 1 17. Compliance with Permit Conditions a. Complaints The applicant will respond to any reasonable complaints about the operation in a timely manner and will attempt to mitigate where feasible. b. Revisions i The applicant will submit any major revisions to the plans included herein as proposed revisions may become necessary. Minor revisions will be provided to the City as a part of the annual permitting process wherein it is expected that the City will perform an inspection and any minor , revisions will be detailed at that time. 18. Setbacks The applicant will observe the setbacks required by the Ordinance wherein mining operations shall not be conducted within one hundred feet of an existing highway or thirty feet ' of an easement for an existing public utility. The applicant will also observe the required three hundred foot boundary of an adjoining residential property not in mining use except , during those periods where it is necessary to mine such an area in order to bring it to a proposed end use grade. In , this instance the mining shall be limited to removing the material and restoring the area. The three hundred foot setback will not be utilized for other operations such as long ' term stockpiling of materials. 18 1 1 II ' 19. Fencing The ordinance requires that "where excavation slopes are 1 steeper are one foot vertical to one and one -half feet horizontal" the area shall be fenced unless the City deter- mines that they do not pose a safety hazard. The ordinance 1 further states that "water storage basins shall also be fenced if the City determines that the basins pose a potential safety 1 hazard ". The applicant feels that the operations are far enough removed from any existing development or public activity that fencing for safety reasons should not be 1 required. However, in those instances where there is a mutual agreement that a hazard may occur the applicant will place a small plastic safety fence which is normally accepted and is developed for that specific purpose. ' 20. Appearance and Screening Machinery will be kept in good repair and inoperable machinery will either be removed from the site or stored in a designated area. Inoperable equipment may be needed for replacement parts or use at a later date. 1 Storage trailers are located in a designated area for 1 storage of equipment, parts, oil, grease and similar mainte- nance materials. 1 1 1 1 19 1 f l k „„.••• �w � - -rte i - �' I ;� . . - I I 11 i OS, 1 11 1 4 , . .I I 1 l i I I � if / �.. _ 1 - 'P ft i . 4 : ). - 0 N I b 1,„. witcWM •. / # 6— Iii . : • _ / • - • - .'".. . i : ..7 1 MOW II 016 as am .0 � 1 • • ••••• ii/ . Mr • e - y . • • - • - ZWIERt . 1 _ --i _ ?WIER -' • mo t ` ' :i�,•. � TEICN . , /- • .. ? fof �: a e w �c!craos / , •e.••• • i / C. MESENSRINI1 EXISTING MOON _ � ': VALLE i i • TERR AE • •/ •� .----*".4... - )22... DAN TESTER ••• ...."..° I we= 577.7n � . N + air � - GI Pi I • ) • ` ` lie li I / . II* , ..P1 ,/ 1(" -j,, '', , i .— ' "-i `, '4, ;: _." :. ,,, 9 Irj4114 , . V- -. ir ' ' ,t,_ --i , L . ," \\('-'---) /,',/' / ... Vi` (.:'_■..;•'-' . --L2 ( - a 14111W . . ' - - ,' e i 71 a , . . "Z v - i I - - k i /'\-- 15' ` _ ,/, ,-,..;',..:-.-y 4 ' 1 ----- (9-• \ ,.. „...........----„ -•\ \ ,,,,. \\.. • -., ...„....,:-, ,:_ , ...,.:: ,„..-7 . ; . ...:;.- - ,5: - %_ • : . ..,-;::' i...: I. 7 4 e i :.'"‘ 1 4 k . 1 i . ,.//,/ ■ r; \ ---, . 1 : : %C . _ -,_.: ..: ' / 1 ) / , , :;‘,.., • ) , .,,:(- \ ,,,, . ,,,-,; , : ... x„., - 1 ; ...,, ., ✓ _ , i yam, 1. ULi7' ' °i {' , {" 1 � '��( •. ! . . J . _ _ k :'` r -' ; " \ "'-,,14 / / � � / i /r � / " riii � , 1 ` \ / ' 1t' `../ � 1 1 1 r ' ____T �' = '''�`i� ( �- .r %,' /'/ - Y� f ..{ �r i i , ,.' -.Y.- '"" ' (• - c • :-::--.,-,,, __. _ ., yqii,/...„ -.1), ' -- �� ' 11 L /� i � ice. i � ,, _ • . �� �•� �� t�.4 /% J .Y ( 1 � ' a-,,-.,,, . r ` }�r - - i1,,,:, 1. o` �) /7i r� ` , `' ' , 1 . . , • .......__, ,Ve- ,....fr / /(/ L.4 __....-4 t,, lb.., .— 'J 'L up -„ ./;,/,:-_,.;<?• --,,,-,-,,,. .-. - - :_._- _ r I''‘ � b�' , o �_� � ,� / r • 15,.......t-",.......) i 1141'1 ' , . . ` i t , i t • �i"��i s ` r .�`��,; ,t / 7, e s`_` , y�T �� 11!.r. 1,; \ '.i• _ J 1 ` `i ' '+ • •`,�- Ill �/ ... I. ` .. .i _�' q { r � t . t>;c � c � � fr *4 .'�; / 7 i -r . ', , , , k..,-......i...-....----.- •••• i ----,---,=. , /. /57 . ..- ., -T . : - ..-__A\ f ?,V...\-\i--±-.1F‘;`!1 a.1 � 1 `I=i s , ' '1. I i f r r- : Z <. /.; i "- . �5iolD'gii ',•�% �� / - -;,'lx` `to 1, I .� =� /• .` 'IL.: + 1 i t t r i �` -a- . Ylft <•. ) 1.111 11 1 - -',- ,jr:� (1'�•-- / . /// - ".t)!( :, 'J. // / %` '`,� ••� • .17 If ( �. %1�� �� d = L / „iii e /_:. �t 1 • vim ° " - ✓/ ` r t` 1 .n( \. •.” • I 1r ] 7 1 - ' � il .f. _ .. /l. /'! t .. -, � _ t 1I1 : i ` \' ' vii. , ( • / / / i1.444"— i , I fi y ° / '. ` ` e • _ °�•�. • V.. - i'R 1 \ ,,'lf' m ', 1.1 , / / -, ,' 11 '� - ' : ..�1, i It . � �\ ,;- :` .V, , i l ia 4 / ,': ; • I iu' t`.- � �'C`* ;i .";;I /7"));:‘ / - f ` ■ , - ' 1 .►.I , - C : t 1 _ �,� ` _ % /'� �- _� =�"' , V ,I tj- � ��-' • ':.i ; •- :" : % 1 a /ao -' ` " i ' � i - - ' �� �� MOON VALLEY AGGREGATE ice�- .� / "�" �/ - �� J � } CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 1 7i- — �% .; � � `• j :�1 . E n• d - U s e Grading -' f J & -f110A maul • - ----------- "'N \ , 1. •----" 1-:-; 2 r __ ,. __, , s , , ...., 1 ____ ....,..) \ s, ___, \ ,,, . ) , .... .......„.... .., , \. , ...._ ....\ , .., 2 „ / :., , / ...., ,-„,... N -■ A ,-. q\--c-,:-.7;- . "\---------- ' • ),/,,•', 1 i , - • .••• i • ..\-„i. s 'ZA ) , 1 - 1%, ' ;'.. , . ,:- ;. :r : ''''--:. , -...:''' (i-i prillk :- • ,. ; .--- -,-- ‘' C \ ') • ( '•■■-'" • " -* K ----- - , " j . ,;)! ."' ' e(--- - -.\ sk. 'C•j- 's ' ;-s---------)• t ../ . '.,, ,/ ?? 1 ' -, \ \ ." ('5 ' ' ---= ) ( 3 . I "3 ___ i Vm 1 ‘.' • i_i , 1,,,,,,Jrir, 1 .------;-:,"- s 'P ; \\:, •E p ....;- -,177 - .. c % ‘... Irk-A.' t, . •'-x ,-/ '. --. ' - ---4 ------=-.. 'ill ,---, .':i •• a 1, .'• ._,:) ',,- i‘? • 3• 741 .1...3A, , • •-•' ' •).. ,----t:A.4. t., ' S"',, - e,. " ./r/ / •=f;?.... 't 77 -• - --' . \ - •"- . :-j 1 \ .Y • .--■ -- -V- .' ' ' V \ '‘'. ., L ; s`C.: • • - [,••■--/_,--Z 74:,•';') •t• 4 ‘--- __ _,..,, 7 ._ ) % :., ,\ b ......,::), •-•-•. \ .---,- - ••••• ......• '..., • / .' . • f• I . - IP'''' .:7 'Th V • 1 ... c-) „,=----:----_- .._.0„.„----.- --. , . ,,,,,, ,,-, _ -j. ,--•,-.. . ', ._/;--,,, ',_ _•_.fi I ; -. ,,, ,,.. : ..:_77 ---/ 4,/ ,------■,•-;_\---) 'Th.. •` - • < f . -\,,,,, '-' . 4 .71,,,, - 8 !"..> --, ______. -- .\ < i • - . ,___._ , „.....• ,.. _„, - - -- ---_-- - - - _,-2/..„: , . , , -..,,,,- - ,.•1). -;- 1 ...)--.. i i• 7, .,--7„....„-----.---. __, .■.- - _.;-:, .7. , ;..;, .---- :.. .„.... ., 1 ,‘ tz. 7 ,-,..: I- ;7 --,..-::/ --- :...: , fi.= - - ._ ,- -:=:"' :. „.i • - .-JrC"..•• " - 4 ,' - ', 1. 4 ' .r:'s..„:\ s ' 1 ._ ._...--_,-.: ----, i ..,_ . ;:•-:1'.. ./- . '7. "7 ( _ 4.f....z a ,, \ r\-- 1: >7';;.'Th,, • ..*,/, -,-.; . - " . ' '-,••Y <i" 1 \ ' ,, r( •-ss J. , ,--- ; 4%. ....":,', 4- ‘ :.z. , ,,. I " , i `,Y . ,• ii \I ' ,7:__4.0 ... (61.■ , l'; / i • - - .., - , ..:_.,,, ./ , -- . .-......., ., 1. , --- • A v,./4 ,,,, • ,,ff ( e • ;;;--) -2 -\, ..s. \ ..,t-- - - - • .1. :-•••" . // '',./.-"i C' ---• ..!:--- -.: -- (1-=,... ! . / /1 1 ;ir i b-,_/ t) C -- -.-'• A. - ' .-..\___:Y ---;'... -':- ,+ - -i--n•\.)i _ -, ( ' „,._ , / .i . __\--,... ._,.-). It .....,..... . %.,•\:..:' idi . -L. ":-- / - ' ex,), / • -.I yi''.-= 1/ - - - r-2 - -,`:76.` 3 I j -.;.:. .-' -- /- - . --_,.... .-- )-:=-) ■._-...-; -- A / 1, :;- '.,.y kr- _ • f/ •",,\---. ----\ L.--- :4 II' / ./.• ck_ 4) N,. • - Z. --," / / (7 -'-'-'- " i .- i4 .--• .:..:- . _ ‘; . - - .tyr / f" ' A 4 .--.... • ..--,/ X . T• \i - ,,' \ •5 ".•:-...../- , - .; -:. -- 7// i j _I i i /4' ,, I \......•-■• • • -• ''''. ' -:- Y/ . . ..-...k....N.:\___„7.".....y." ...... 2 .,, \ V 1(517.■ -7i 1 I. 61 ,,,•4',...2. \ o • 4„,. ,/ I 4 • • ( i 1 1 1... / F 4 • ,.•-■... ( ( ,e) 77 .7't. -•_:_1 . i '• \ ' ,.)_,, ' : • ' .". ' I I ' .."'.. 'il:Ci , . 14:- /4- i; 4 ,: l . . 7( ( k ' ,, ‘-.: . "1- . -- .--■ . - ' - ' .-.:-7 ' : -,-7-7 i / ) . 1 -..-' ..,' '' l'i '.I ."- ' 4 V.r.' \_; • '' ,PN.. Z7--N----;'"=:- ----.-- ,, , ri - .7 / . ' V/ .• /70...:.c g-At. '‘''.. ‘,- '-. . \;;-.._.' __-'_ j ,_....,1 \ - - ---- --7_, - .", • .. -...---.. -1.‘, _•-'''' -. - '-"-'t'; /t O. ,-, "?..;,:t-::',„:t-, f:.= . 7 .1 ....,=,.. ------ ,,-. ..: _.: .,. • ....,, •_. --____, . 0- ..---,.--..... ,.. . ,.-_-..---: :, i :-..r .7',":A;.(,./' (4;,...... 4i „ ... k*,_ .-_- ----: , ,'',.:::- " r e' . . , ;; , (1/,''/.. ; / ,-,- . 4"/,,': ,-. /ii '.•• s, . '',,Ii.- r __ >, ------. •-:-; -- z -- - - -, -- _________;::: - ,: -- ; ,- .: , ' . :'',.;:',/,0- -m- • ..?'/•(/.;_,.,.v -__:_ • - -,/ ez..- 1 .,t, A .. ,„, \ -- .....:: "_. ; ,__ , - i --... •` ---. , ' -, ....,.:,f ___ • . i 7 - ,41,\,\,-- - . \ ''‘‘.: .......ii ,.. .. 7:-----e• 'CD ir - _-„, --_---..--,,....---,.. „,,,,,„-_,-„,,,,,,, :- -77- ,.,,„ „If tf t•„?.k\ • ,‘N ,,,. - ,-..: • (,.......,-....„. „,,., s I t ' ''''..-- I ::;'";') le :,.. 7 "`f " -.,t li . .)3 4: :: 7 7 , i t , b ' 41 ' .7--N ' ' ." ' '' / • • / -2 \ } r - ---P1-1.-elli ' N 't: _,... '- ' lis ' ' ---'-' ' 1 /;, \ iii11 ,I..\„1,- I : f y I. 5,1 . a. .1 . ••...„_, ,:. \ . r77 .-?---,=, \ ::,- /.'A k 1 ' '... ?":: f. 6f11*- c) ‘4 (- P - ... - C. "'w , i• it . • .1 f.' ' , •_. , ,,- - ,a'-' ,_k___-=_ * •. \ v.....7. _ , •) ,s• . /' . : -, Zc I L, , -,%•-':: ‘Pr4 N , , ?---/-A): \ ,i i ‘.... '..., . .:. ..-L- 1:2-.• . t-,..co A ...,‘,...„,..,i o ., .s.v( 4 .i ,...k _ ...„._.,-.--,../ . \ 1 . - __- 7 -- -- --- - 7-- - -------\'- •. - .N.„1:3 , . - -- -- : r . ci .. ti: .•' i ,,--: 14.. , t...ii,_• :c-- 2 - ---- *__-: - . • ..., ' review: _..____ ■-:: sy r . •.^ -L , ,,,.....7..:„-_-- N' -. i f. ' '" / .;?- ---L-- 34a . ■ 14- J- 3,- -St"- - 4'..,2-^ ,- -iy ,z -; - :, - - --- ----.._" - pf7 4171 ( , g; J1 ' . k.-A. .-.1.- A I ..\;. -- . - "------... -, . _74. • •• .../ ,...- - • ••■•,,„„ _ - A t i - ---___,......4. -- 7---......... ;i .- )1 , - ,- . -;. :•%":4 - 7)<,. ......:1 ' t:- -:. . - 4 F,,,,. • • - •:`' .4 ...4 z ' L...t7 - .„,..--...... . ----/-"? ...t . "A:7 p /7 4: . - , 1 7" \ \ / \./.._ i •_, .'"itN, %.*"....r-: " -:... ••••, "- t • .. „. 1., - P" , ...- 4 .--------- .1- ) ( , f.r)m i f , / ,,,--,- ' ,f...• '-.•1', . I- I ) ',.).:. 1 •r• , L.- ; -7-i.. - "-. 4. -- 7:-... :'''t.. -.7 -;."'• ' . ' • / •• . t• ,.-------• .., \--. j• -- I 2 Z .\: \ r ''' ' . - -,/.: " f ( • •;* ' 4,://? --,--.. -"--• -':-......--,s,..-y. ---,--. ., . ' V - , - kl . ' 1 M --- r-,- X..qffl I i' : ;2 - 1 __,.4. j",, .,4k _,/, s.' • \;.; // . ; z ., ,,.,>, 1 .; - - 4 . 1...p . ( --- i ! A t..,„ 4 (, ,;,,...,---. -„../ / ..;;,- Till\A-. .(:..‘:-", .,4,-, ./.- - .-:- ' -- ---' ' I' • --. , ,--,:--__,. 1: ,,.- • Iv. (-- -, . -:;-.1,- ..- r - ' -l`' ' --• -'''' -•,-* -=- L -c ''.'.(' "3% ) .'i,' ,-,--- ..//? , --/ - ,-. - L-4 ' !',M‘!\-' 1 ‘.tri- .::.)_$-' s s: ..:""---- '14. -•-i . '-:,--:• ,/ . , '1 / 1 • ''' . 1 •,... lk .... .., p„,, , - • „ . . • . .* -,•::..„ :•;-..,,:.:,;•-•:,• . _ • . . \ ''',.- /:" .../ : : i . ,?" . • i '.'."' '.: ' ( "1. ; )\\\ N-2 ' • NI . ':11 ).' '' t" f ir..,' ,., \.:- • - 1 , % ' --'.= Th- .: ' ' ‘, . 1 1 Il A F-.. ' .. :.5_2 _ . .F.".‘" ',. Vt; V ke_.A• f.' 1--- ,, ii. :-&-,: . , , 'II VT) .T ' ::. 1:- - - -! 7 - 61 .': ---------- ----: ii ; 1 . 1. -' 1 I •-.. ' ...._..- . / z- • \- .------- ....----_:..... -•- '. era/ . 11 i 1 ,,, 14. . 111. • - , - -"- ,.- - ,,:, .,-._ ,..=- 4 . . 1 ' -'. I PIP,'" : -, l''.. N,'; t ...'-' f --- -- --= ...,-. , N ,---.... it- - %.„,--, -!•■• : --- /I •;••--7,.. A„." ., .: I ' :lb .. . . t_i_ • \.1,! . ; 7 4. : _.,, A._;...-s__-__ -,:_:;,,...... e: Or -....\ ..- , .-- _• li) , ... •,7 ,. .; t/i '. 1 ,. •ii,./ 1:iiN. / . 7 1. . j a , - 24) :I! A :.':: " --- _ , 1_.'..,...Ft.:( ,,,,,..,.. ) \.. 2.4: _-_---__ :...,,,,. ..,,, e ...- - . 4 ;" V . ' " \ 'fill' ' iri - - li'&' I • ,-• • ,-: ‘•-• - - •:•-•-i1: - _.,-- • . ••• _ ,f...- \_,,•:,-•_,__••___: , - b,i) ., 1 i 1 i '. if -,,,,, , - ,' c N,.._ „ or / ... ",••••,-= . , ••••;';') ,:: .. ...- .........„' 9. . /,,...---•-- ,..--:- ., _ .. • i . ----.. ' - N I '•(,..-;; I i • - ' ' •. '' - ' ..' ,' - r ,..,- -- ,;;;.-- -- ;-- ------- . f ,' • ,•,\I i ..2 •• :::_---;-- . " ' ' 1 1 .......",. 1(1 „, L1Z- . :. .. 1-1 ....... . -■-• :- - • '. , - . ,.... • , . I ,.<. z•--,•-• ,••••,••• , , •••••• . ,,, ....A.: 1 , . it - . ". 1 1 .• . ... --: , ''''• :, ?'• r... • _,,--. -; / ) i ./. ...../': / //7 ---.) ' IR ' / ii.i./4 . . %.•4 " 't- '....• VC .'.'. .. - .. 71 f ',.■-•=------- ' '..-.. . t‘ '' '1 " e l . C1/ -1 .4 it 11-4 ..;;%,'-.- ;.,,... v '•--. ---;:.-- • ...... i_... ---- . - ..'' ' '\ '''' ''.i.„ ;/ -":-..:- „..■_;-.'" .,... , ,,,if".._j,■‘..= -0 ' -. .f . : • ../ 2 ---, ' .-- -----i • , . '.."-....,--•;-___, -..: a ---------..-----V.' 1 / . •' • 'I ,, v / t •ull :i.L.-. . k,,, , • t \•:,-. N "•••••••••---- - . :.: _„----.•:::.;.,--->" .., . • - - - • e... •••>, -- --.:-. .....,; ,,, , ,••• . --=•---------, ---. ".! ‘----- • , :,....,1 \ •••\ .4•.-- ...... - -- ,..= • • _____,,,,,..., -,-'•-------:/%-/ 1 MOON VALLEY AGGREGATE ....._ ,-- - ; .;. f- ,. ..:i:_ - -, ,, ':, ,,..;,:;..,), ... .7 ..t...„.. " 4_.'"..>_ ' ..-___.:- --!! ,--:-.' CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA .._- -• - -:.--%-:-=-- '. (Alternate) End-use Grading _ c PenesOrc CI* CC . na.in.T.6.71 . '''-:■-- - - - .f.:•., : - 1. : : ' ..- - :- ...-•-"'-' . ' ../"... / 1 / 1 ' C•1•••■1 -._•,...: • -_-'' lir . -" . • .1 ___..2 1--. - . , • , , \ ,-, __, _ . 2..... --- •• .---- I ' / ' / ' \ i . • / 2D ...,„.. =......... .....• ..-..._;.....----- , - ___--.-," \ , .._,----., ,..._, ,:,...), ''• \. -------\-,-\ --- \ J-1,- ..., ., .... ) c . c .....„:„ ) .. _) ._ .... . : ..., , 1 1 I APPLICANT HAS REFUSED TO PROVIDE i TRANSPARENCY FOR PLAN B1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITYOF 4 1 . 1 .. ..‘ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 .`; May 5, 1992 I Mr. Tom Zwiers 1111 Deuce Road 1 Elko, MN 55020 and 1 Mr. Jerry Brill Siegel, Brill, Greupner & Duffy 1 1300 Washington Square 100 Washington Avenue South F Minneapolis, MN 55401 I Gentlemen: 1 At our May 1, 1992, meeting, several questions were raised regarding the processing of the Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc. earthwork permit. The City Attorney has clarified the 1 point that the request for an earthwork permit is to be processed in a manner similar to an interim use permit. This is provided for under Section 7-35, applications for earthwork permits. Thus, review by the Planning Commission prior to City Council 1 action is required. The public bearing will be held at the Planning Commission meeting. We have tentatively scheduled this action for our June 3, 1992, meeting. Secondly, a question was raised regarding the placement of a retention pond on the 1 north parcel under this earthwork permit application. Based upon the advice of counsel, we have concluded that any activity on the north parcel must be reviewed under a 1 separate permit request, therefore, we will be unable to approve the request. We will, however, review the parcel to attempt to give you some idea as to your proposal's desirability. 1 Under your original application request, a check for $400.00 was submitted. This is the fee for the interim use permit request. However, the request is technically for an 1 earthwork permit, thus, this fee is incorrect. The City Council approved fee schedule provides that grading or earthwork permits moving over 1,000 cubic yards of materials, 1 use the Uniform Building Code fee schedule. I have attached a copy of this fee schedule for your review. As you can see, it is a sliding fee based upon the volume of material to be moved. We are accepting the $400 check as payment towards fees associated with 1 t411 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1' 1 Mr. Zwiers and Mr. Brill 1 May 5, 1992 Page 2 1 this request. You will be required to provide information relative to the amount of material that will be moved on an annual basis so that the fees can be set. The Moon I Valley operation will be liable for the difference in fees between the $400 and future fees placed against the operation. 1 Sincerely, 1 Paul Kr. ss, AICP Director of Planning 1 PK:v I pc: Roger Knutson, City Attorney City Engineering Department _ i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • C ITY b F W I. ClIANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA A 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 October 1, 1991 ' Mr. Anthony Gleekel Seigel, Brill, Greupner and Duffy Suite 1350 ' 100 Washington Square Minneapolis, MN 55401 I Dear Mr. Gleekel: This letter is being prepared in reference to your submittal for an earth work permit for Moon Valley Aggregates and their operations ' in the City of Chanhassen. As you are probably aware, we received your application in two parts during the first two weeks of September. Based upon my review of this submittal, I have ' concluded that it is incomplete and we are unable to process it further until you have provided additional documentation as requested. In this letter I have summarized the application requirements, what is missing, and what needs to be supplied to satisfy the ordinance. 1. Name and address of the operator and owner of the land, ' together with proof of ownership. If the operator and owner are different, both must sign the application. 11 Finding: We do not question Moon Valley Aggregates control over their site which is described in the legal description . submitted with the application. However, your application does show the potential of grading activity on sites which we do not believe are controlled directly by the applicant, or in any case, we have not been provided with evidence that this is true. This includes proposed grading activity in the City of Eden Prairie, which would be required to undertake your alternate land use grading plan. Similarly, parcels located west of your site which contain existing single family homes are also shown being graded under the alternate land use plan. Since you are showing the potential of grading in the City of Eden Prairie, we would like to have evidence that you have discussed this matter with the City and that you are 11 proceeding on track with a similar request in that community. We are also asking you to clarify the ownership issue. 1 I . ' , 11 1 il Mr. Anthony Gleekel 1 October 1, 1991 Page 2 2. Correct legal description of property where the.activity is proposed to occur. Finding: As noted above, we have the correct legal description for the main property owned by Moon Valley II Aggregates but no similar description has been provided for other parcels mentioned above wherein grading activity is II proposed. 3. Certified abstract listing of names of all owners within 500 feet of the property boundary described above. I Finding: We do have in our possession a list of property • owners prepared by Carver County Abstract and Title. However, we believe the 500 foot list was based upon the property now in control of Moon Valley and not the ultimate expansion of the Moon Valley gravel pit that is being proposed in your I alternate land use plan. 4. Specification of the following using appropriate maps, photographs and surveys. 1 a. Proposed grading. Finding: You have submitted two completely different grading 1 plans for our review. Nowhere do you indicate which grading plan you actually propose to undertake and since they are substantially different, we can only proceed based upon II conjecture on our part as to which one you actually intend to use. Thus, the question of which plan are we to review must be answered before we can proceed. 1 b. Proposed stockpile sites. Finding: You have indicated existing stockpile indicates that 1 operation plan map. Your submitted statement additional stockpiles may be created but you have neglected to provide information as to where these are to occur. 1 c. The physical relationship of the proposed designated site to the community and existing development. II Finding: In reviewing this information, it generally seems to be acceptable with the exception of the problems noted above. You indicated grading activity, on at least one of your plans, II extending into another community for which no information is provided and also grading activity that impacts existing single family homes located west. of your site, again, for II which no information has been provided. Under the alternate land use grading plan, we are unsure as to how you propose to 1 II • 1 Mr. Anthony Gleekel October 1, 1991 Page 3 ' maintain public access to existing homes, and. in fact, which existing homes would remain untouched by your activity. d. Site topography and natural features, including location of water courses and water bodies. Finding: The information provided is generally acceptable. 1 e. Description and quantity of material to be excavated. Finding: Your response to this question is an indication that you have not estimated the quantity of material that is to be excavated and you point out that a calculation could be made by comparing the existing and proposed grades. We agree that ' a calculation could be made and should be made by you to complete this application. f. Depth of water tables throughout the area. Finding: You indicated that you have no information on water tables except that which the city could provide. This city has no information on water tables in this area but we do have a significant concern. In other areas where excavation has occurred into this bluff line, there have been a series of underground water sources that have been breached and which make creating stable slopes a difficult task at best. To seriously pursue this matter, you might want to consult with ' the Carver County Soil Conservation Service and similar agencies. Your indication that you want the ability to mine below ground water levels raises additional issues regarding water quality protection and potential impact upon other ' properties in the area that rely on ground water supplies. More information is needed to clarify these points. g. Location and depth of wells, buried garbage, water, and fill. Finding: The information provided is acceptable. 5. Purpose of the operation. 1 Finding: The information provided is acceptable. 6. Estimated time required to complete the operation. Finding: The information you have provided does not provide , any information on a schedule of completion. Your correlating ' the ability of your providing a grading schedule with the city's ability to give a specific time in which public utilities would be made available to the site is inappropriate , - ' i . i s r Mr. Anthony Gleekel October 1, 1991 Page 4 and irrelevant. Furthermore, if utilities are truly desired, r! your request should be made in writing to the City Council to receive formal consideration. 7. Hours and months of operation. II Finding: The information you have provided is acceptable for review. However, you should note that your request to operate III 24 hours per day throughout the year is inconsistent with ordinance standards (Section 7 -45 [2]). 8. A tree surve y indicating the location and type of all trees II over 6 inches in of the trees must be indicated wooded on area the boundaries r Finding: The information you have provided is inadequate to develop an understanding of the impact this operation will have on tree cover. You have basically outlined the tree area II that will remain after grading is completed on each plan but provided little information on existing tree cover, nor what will be lost. II 9. An end use landscaping plan and interim screening plan for the operation. II Finding: You have indicated that an end use landscaping plan has not been developed since the end uses have not been determined at this time. This is unacceptable and the r ordinance assumes that the site will be restored and landscaped in an acceptable manner regardless of what uses may ultimately be on the property. This requirement is an II integral part of the site restoration process. 10. The plan of operation, including processing, nature of the processing, equipment, location of the plant, source of water, disposal of water, and reuse of water. Finding: The information which you have submitted is II inadequate to meet the criteria established by this requirement. You have provided no understanding of h process water, if any, will be handled. In addition, you indicated that in the future there may be needs to bring II additional equipment onto the site for allied processing operations. The permit that will be issued will be specific for individual operations and cannot be modified without II approval by the City Council. 11. Travel routes to and from the site and the number and type of II trucks that will be used. II I ' Mr. Anthony Gleekel October 1, 1991 Page 5 Finding: You have provided rudimentary information on travel routes but no information on the type and number of trucks that will be used. This figure could reasonably and easily be provided once you have calculated the material you are hauling. It is important to have this information so that the city and MnDOT can assess the need for regulatory hours of operation and possible safety improvements such as turn lanes on Hwy. 169/212. 12. Plans for drainage, erosion control, sedimentation and dust control. Finding: The information you have provided is sufficient to ' begin a review of your proposals, but additional information will certainly be required before final recommendation can be given due to the lack of detail contained in your submittal. 1 For example, there is no erosion control plan or information concerning drainage flows, on -site retention, etc. 13. A restoration plan providing for the orderly and continuing restoration of all disturbed land to a condition equal to or better than that which existed prior to the earth work. Such plans shall illustrate, using photographs, maps, and surveys, or appropriate, the following: a. The contour of the land prior to the excavation and proposed contours after completion of the excavation and after completion of restoration. Finding: As noted earlier, you have given us two plans with no indication as to which one you actually would be undertaking. Until you have made up your mind on this question, I cannot see how we can proceed with reviewing your ' proposal. b. Those areas of the site to be used for storage of top ' soil and overburden. Finding: See Comment #4b. c. Schedule setting forth timetable for excavation of land lying within the extraction facility. Finding: See Comment #6. 1 1 1 s 3 Mr. Anthony Gleekel October 1, 1991 - Page 6 1 d. The grade of all slopes after restoration based upon proposed land uses, description, and type of quantity of plantings where revegetation is to be conducted. 1 Finding: As indicated earlier, there is no revegetation plan except for your comment that you had put grass seed on disturbed areas. e. The criteria and standards to be used to achieve final restoration as well as intermittent stabilization. Finding: 1 cannot see that this question has been responded to in any way. 1 14. A statement identifying the applicant's program to ensure compliance with the permit conditions, a method of response to complaints and resolving conflicts that may arise as a result of complaints. Finding: Your statement of intent as to a willingness to respond to reasonable complaints is a good starting point. However, we would be seeking more specific information, for example, how you respond to complaints regarding materials ' being tracked out onto the state highway, conflicts with traffic on the state highway and surrounding roads, problems with dust control, and similar concerns. 1 15. Unless exempt under Minnesota Rules, an environmental assessment work sheet is required by the city. Finding: To date, staff has not requested that an EAW be prepared for this project; however, the city reserves the right to do so pending a review of the project and completed submittal. 16. A wetland alteration permit, if required by City Code, shall be processed concurrently with excavation permit application. Finding: There are no designated wetlands on the property that are apparent from maps available to us at this time. If such wetlands are found, city ordinance does provide protection for them. .However, until this occurs, no wetland alteration permit is required. 1 17. Other information required by the city. Finding: At this time, due to the lack of detail provided in your permit application, I am unable to make a finding in this area. ' 1 Mr. Anthony Gleekel October 1, 1991 Page 7 In reviewing your application g y request, we in no way have determined ' whether or not the information that you have provided represents a position that can be supported by city staff. The purpose of this letter is not to evaluate the issues, but rather to respond to the application proposal you have submitted. 1 I or my staff will be available at your convenience to discuss these matters in further detail. ' Sincerely, / J i Paul Krauss, AICP Director of Planning 1 PK:v pc: Roger Knutson, City Attorney Don Ashworth, City Manager Charles Folch, City Engineer City Council Planning Commission Tom Zwiers, G & T Trucking Co. John Voss, Urban Planning & Design, Inc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cf.',MPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A Apr 3,92 9:06 No.001 P.03 f.. .5... .. - r .:!•. ,� .0 • .r .'..: '.-'. , - f.`.. ...ti A,. r j .. .....•4% • Lr!..•Qw '.::,m Y:: ;:.. ti.:.:. ..`V4.,1.:,? . -. II APR 2 1 2 �1�TRICT COURT �, STAVE OF tgZt(ttGaOSA .. 1 COUNTY or CARTER Cr1W ER C13M Y CAS rIRST JUDICIAL LISTR :CT a.3 ND OD NJ II M0071 Valley bggre+ ate, Inc., A Minnesota corporation, C Plaintiff, FINDT GS CP PAC.' - II CONCLUSIONS OF ;IAN and vs. =GHENT ORDER FOR GHE T N City of Chanhassen, II Defendant. File No. 9C -27099 PO I The above - entitled :Ratter came on for hearing before the' c o II undersigned on November 25th and 26th, 1991, pursusnt to the O Court's Order .of October.' 10, 199'1. The ratter Wag sohe&:.1ed for earin following the defendant's original notion c I sn evidentiary h 4 v of July :.6. 199. which sought an 0. der directing that the II cease the operation of its reining business because of its failure to rake appropriate application for an Earth 'work II Permit. In addition, the Court was to determine the legal status o_ any mining activities on the North (Zimmerman) Parcel. P J. F. Still, Jr. and Anthony J. G].eckel, 100 W v. II ashington N Square, Suite 1358, Minneapolis, MN 85401 appeared for And on cc behalf of the plaintiff: Thomas M. Scott, 13B0 corporate center Curve 017, Eagan, MN 55121 appeared for and on behalf of the II defendant. II Based upon al of ....lie files, records and proceedings bereif, the Court now maw the following: • FINDINGS DC' FACT 1. plaintiff ( Moon valley) is a :Minnesota corporation which N 1 1 • 1 Ln II LLLL 1 J\INV I JOIN JI.0 I I a r ULrlJ 7 r. rl rlt= 1 ... 7• �1I IYU . V V 1 1 .t.) II operates a gravel mining business on an approximately 40 - acre a> II parcel c_ property located at 100 Flying Cloud Drive in t e City i Tv of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. ce II N p. Plaintiff, and s.:.$ predecessors in title, have owned and X continuously conducted a mining operation on the lo�►er or Cr II southerly portion of its property known as the Moon Valley parcel ;_, CO legal described as follows: II All that part of Gov't Lot 1, Section 36, Township 116, Mange 23, Carver County, Xinneso:a, which =ies Northerly of c) trunk highway No- 212. m I (t(ereinter "South Parcel ".) Pc C) 3. Nals4Ce Griepentrac purchased this 40-acre South Parcel, O I an which the Xoon valley Gravol it 15 located in 1959. This c South Parcel was used as a ski area until the laid and has II been used as a rifle ranee since 1961. The nining operation on a I the So':.th Parcel existed prior to the adoption of ordinances of the City of Village of Chanhassen which prohibit cr regulate II mining. 4. Criepentrog• purchased, on a contract for deed, a 45 - acre E5 II parcel on top of the bluffs from Feed and Elizabeth Zinnnernan on c> December : 1973. This parcel is legally described as follows: cn co II All that part of the southeast Quarter [S2 cf Section c 25, TowrShip 11 Range 23, lying Easterly of the Easter]." rn right of way of the Chicago and Northwestern Tta iIway (formerly the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway) Containing II 45 acres, rare or less, =carding to the GOVerf17C.Qlt survey thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. II (Nerei.nafter "North Parcel*.) 5. On February S, 1972, chanhatssen adopted Zoning Ordinance II No. 47 ;hereinafter "1972 boning Ordinance ") which was effective ;c C7 2 w 1 1 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.R Apr 3,92 9 :07 No.001 P.05 II upon publication on March 9, 1972. Xining was allowed under the c , II 1972 Zoning Ordinance only pursuant to a conditional use legit. r y 6. The oval nine on the Sau:.h Parcel is a i+alid co nonconforming use since it was in existence prior to the 19'2 II Zoning Ordinance. 7. There was no substantial or recognizable 7�i i� ng •.: , co activity on the Nortil Parcel prior to the late summer of. 1973. II . On Or about Fe1 ruary 23 , 3.973 , Griepe:,trcq applied for to operate his rifle M m> II canditiona:. use permits (hereinafter "CUP ") rn range and gravel mine on the south Parcel. • n • 9. ?►t a plenni*:g commission ssion hearing o on the coxbined lication on June 12, 1973, Fed Zi non indicated he 'wanted 8 II . m to sell h� s 4 5 sores (Borth Paxbe:) , but had bee II was not saleable because of Griepentrog'ss rifle range. 6 10. The Planning Commission subssequer.:.ly in July of 1973 II tab:,ed ' the CUP App1 icat;on at the request of Griepentrog rs attorney, while Griepentrog negotiated a purchase of Ziivmermaa'a x 1 property. 0 ll. That following the purchase of the Zimmerman property CIO N by Griepentrog, the CUP application was never pieced back on cc the p3anr. g in Commission agenda for further review or I rn consideration. II ' 12. That following bis purchase of the Korth Parcel in 1973, Griepentrog did remove clay from a portion of V. Zimmerman II property. hi-s mineral extraction was relatively insignificant and did not involve the removal of any gravel. ' II 0 3 .p. 1 1 UHTrtitLC IOU 1 S UIT, SL�J 1 1 6 r ULI . r . H Hpr J 9 y L ' Ut5 INU . UU1 r . Ub II :1. Between 1974 and 1935, there was a removal of an II insignificant amount Of thesn materials frx the North ?area:. Pc ld. iri 19 &6, the City Chanhassen adopted a new 2aa�.xeg OD II ordinance which required a mineral extraction permit and an •i x i.r�terixl use permit for. mining, but allowed pre- exist'_ng c II to nonconforming uses to continue. 15. In 1986, Grispentrog• sold both parcels to -Therms 2wi errs, the present owner of boon Valley. Until the fall of II n 1988, there continued to be no substantial mining or mineral c) on extraction from the North Parcel. on c) 1 • 15. In the fall of 1988, when Zviers started arL in3 clay cn o the North Farrel, the City cbjectecl to the activity and *'10Ori 0 • I val: ey stomped the mining. II 17. Plaintiff does not have any :soncenforrri rig mining use s on sights o the North Parcel because it w as nct a use of the land 1 existing at the tine of adoption, of the 1972 zoning ordnance. 18. The City is not estoppel iron enforcing its zoning m> I regulations relating to mining on tho ]`North parcel.. o II 19. On May 14, Lg90, Chanhassen adapted Ordinance 00. 128, CD 99Q regulating "earthwork" operations, which rn of fgctL Je Hay 24, 1 e CC 1 are defined as "excavating, mining, filling or grading" oo Activities. CD II 20. The ordinance, with certain exceptions, requires a I person to obtain a permit before engaging in earthwork act:.vities. Existing operations, such as plaintiff's business, II had six months until tioveaber 24, 1990, to either o*. iD a pexJttt o 4 CS 1 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT R FUCHS, P.A Apr x,92 9 :08 No.001 P.07 •�, i.. __ "... .. .+ ., - r• .w . ... :.' ..- ... " 23. >.. .. ... .:.:._....... "i �i :.. ... " `5 `aC'Q..e'•..5.1 " .'r. . � ic, •�'.: .''o =' .i i �,. .. e ' . il'f.. cr cease operations. 21. The express purpose or the ordinance is to promote the health, safety and welfare of the community by establishing reasoneb.e uniform standards and controls for excavating, mining, filling and grading activities within the City. The ordinance IF cn requires the applicant to submit various types of information If about its operation, including a site restoration plan. It also per � �' sets forth standards for setbacks, fencing, appearance and screening. methods and trues of operations and restoration of the property. T; a ordinance permits deviations from these standards for existing operatons, when it is not feasible to comply becaese o_ preexisting conditions, when because of topographic cr other --3 possible ;,c cox ply and when alternates that conditions it is not p p accomplish the purpose and intent of the standard are agreed upon ' 22. In its April 25, 1991 Order, this Court detereined that Chanhassen has the Legal authority to require piainti.lf _o obta:.n an Barth Work Permit under its ordinance No. 12S adopted Hay 24, 199c. The Court further ordered :. 1 M lied pion for armi Plaintiff Heen Valley s_.all wake an app p pursuant to ordinance 3128, as adopted by the City cf It Chanhassen, within 30 days of the date of this Order. Sn cn the event that Plaintiff fails to make such application for .A an Ordinance x¢128 permit within 30 days of the date of this Order, the City of Chanhassen shall have the option to seek 1r an order of this court requiring Plaintiff Moon Valley immediately cease its mining operations. $a; d permit shall be 'considered according to the City of Chanhassen's normal course of permit application. determinations. 23. On September 19, 1991, pursuant to this Court's earlier , Order, plaintiff files an application with the City of ,v 5 IP 1 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.R Apr 3,92 9 :09 No.001 P.08 II I . , %. r.. ...n. .... ;.ri _ .:• :., :„ -4•7.....`' ..s... ...•ice.,._ « .... .a . . .rc. . . Chanhassen, This application, prepared by Jahn Voss, a II professional planner, proposed two totally different mmina plans Po II for the property. The Court specifically finds that Plan . met o none of the express purposes of the ordinance nor did it provide II C the defendant with any reasonable information concerning 'he r cn ongoing and end use cf the parcels. Evidence sub .tted at the I time of trial indicated that the plaintiff intended to proceed with plan B as sem forth in the application and the plaintiff II offered no credible or reasonable basis for the inclusion of Plan A in the application. Giver. the apparent lack of diligence on II p the part of the plaintiff in st�3pnitting .,his application, 1 following the Court's Crder or April 25, 1991, it 'is not 8 azi unreasonable to conclude that Plan A was intended to cloud and I cro complicate the issues. 24. By letter da =ed October 2, 9.991, the defendant's I Director Of Planning, Paul Krauss, advised the plaintiff I regarding certain deficiencies in the application. While M> x representatives of both parties testified us to their willingness z II to address these purported deficiencies, each has been unwilling o3 to enter into aeaningfvl sett :.ement discussions leading to s co I resolution of these issues. tr 1 25. John Foss, who testified on behalf of the plaintiff, co stated the plaintiff's vi1lingnegs to supplement its application 1 with additional information relating to the following: (i) revising the grades of the slopes in its end USe pia, ;i.) 1 providing additional water tab :e information, (iii) identifying 0 II � 1 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A Apr 3,92 9 :09 No.001 P.09 .- •. " . ' ..'t'T r . • • -?i . • ..T .• ∎:••. . ..�'..t.i'y . - � J'u'w /..:• i, :-.- ,y '• : .. • ..�!. • , • ,;.....4, il ; . ... • 4.. � .' - '.r- = .`.•l :.. 2./ 5... i . •. -L cwY..t '� ... . .'.+I: .,. mss. •. — e •.. ...... ,, . r r... rA" 4 . ,.... 4..: ..1+ �2 ..(..3 • .t.- . Y ct I! 1a' :+.. II the location of certain tree types in wooded areas on the site and Div) designating the type of trucks to be used in its xa_ning 1 operations. t In addition the letter of October 1, 1991 by Paul Krause to the plaintiff's representative clearly indtaates that • application which are not -*' there are a number of issues within the applscm ,..... cn disputed. 1 26. That Certain of the appi icat.ion requirements are unreasonable and their application az interpreted by the defendant is unduly burdensome to the plaintiff considering the tri 1 operation on the South 31 duration and extent of the existing mining operate Parcel. 3 CONCLUSION6 OF LAw 1. That the plaintiff is entitled to the status of a lawful nonconforming use as a mining operation on its South Parcel under the Chanhassen zoning ordinances as amended. 1 laintiff's application for ar �. Based upon Plan �, p 31 earthwork permit represents a reasonable response to the 3 requirements Of Ordinance too. 126, provided the plaintiff . i supplements its application within the next thirty (30) days with co in information: the following Mil (a) a revision of the end tee Grading Plan to soften I the 2:1 slopes; (h) provide additional informations on the ercund water table, available from public and private sources, I and also from several test holes., if eusfieLent information is not otherwise available; (c) provide specific information as to the location of tree types within the wooded areas on the / 7 li 1 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A Apr 3,92 9 :10 No.001 P.10 1 plaintiff's property: . and m 1 (d) identify the types of trues to be used in plaintiff's mining operation. N 1 If t hole£ are required, plaintiff will have an N additional thirty (30) days to supply the information relating to c= 1 CP ground Water tables. 3. As a 1a',fful nonconforming use on the South Farce., 5 1 plaintiff le entitled to continue its alining operation under 1 Ha• i n r fi , Y. Talbot, 80 N .tt1.2d 863 (Minn. 1957) , to mine its property to the limits of its mineral bed. am am I 4. The city is entitled ice poem's to 0 y to erer�f se its pp impose regulations on plain t x.ining operation, provided the n regulations are based upon the health and safety of the Cbixpt:l':ity -4 I and provided th do not exceed other constl mutional 1 ftittatia ~e on the City's police powers. 1 e clearly ; S. UnS r 1 .. identified by the City, the City does not have the right to I demand additional onal data from plaintiff tc be usod for t) a purpose P 1 Off. 0) (a) limiting the quantity of material wined by -. Plaintiff: fa) on • I (b) prohibiting caning on any portion of plaintiff's cn property, such as the slope or the Brooded areas : 4> 1 (c) limitinc the depth to which the property may he nine3, based upon plaintiff's ades (a s revised.) shown willingness m its property to the 9 tea Plan n i n n I its proposed End Use Plan, designs its application: (d) limiting the time within which Hinting is =o be I completed; and :z c cc I 8 1 . CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A Apr 3,92 9 :10 No.001 P.11 continuing • • (e) preventing the plain= i= xg o oti the maintaining ir.s ongoing mi extent and scope to which it presently exists. 1r 6. ' r Ess elated to Ie eLY ins -u1^' e r clearly i identified by the City, the City does not have the r:.ght to issue an Barth Cork Pernit relating to the South Parcel of the plaintiff's property that has the purpose or effect of: (a) limit tie quantity of material mined from the plaintiff's property: 07 (b) prohibiting mining on any portion of the property, I such as slopes or wooded axeasi (c) limiting the depth to which t property may be IF mined, so ions_ as plaintiff has indicated. its . willingness to bring the property to the grades rri (as revised) shown on an end use plan desi gnated Plan B in its application: Ilk (d) limits tine within which the mining operation gust t7 be completed; and IIE (e) preventing the plaintiff from continuing and maintaining its ongoing mining operation to the extent and scope to which it presently ex_stg- 7. Because of trio nonconforming use status of plaintiff's I mining operation, the City may not require the piaintiff to apply -I; for and receive am permit as a prerequisite to the If! 0 issuance of an Earth work Permit. Based upon the foregoing ' F f+nd ings of Fact and 1 w en conclusions of Law, IE • YT l5 HEREBY ORDERED MEW: v: 1. Plaintiff shal supplement its original application I with the additional information listed in the Collusion of Law No. 2 above w:.thin the next thirty (3 o) days or sixty (60) days 1 if test holes are required. it 9 r II CAMPBELL, KNUISUN; SCOTT & FUCHS, P.R Apr :,92 9:11 No.001 P.12 1- .fie, ,f. _ '1.i .:� ,.C.;..r �1, °. :i,j2 II 2. Upon submission of the supplen.ental inforrraticm by plaintiff, the City shall process plaintiff's appl.fcat:.on f.,ri N ' accordance with tile foregoing Conclusions of Law. co LET JUDGMENT 333 3NTERED ?ACCORDINGLY. -3 1 = Dated: April 2, 1992 BY THE COURT: to F 1 T. nni -g, Judge. II I I - M O 1 I , 7°C O C) N W CO CT1 .p CT I 10 7 C KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.R Apr 3,92 9:06 No.001 P.02 J.S. Bri- -, Jr. 6 R thcny J. Gloekel Attorneys at, Law sh STA: E CIF M;,` NES.,OTA ' 100 Naington Squire• Suite 1350 Kinnear .' olit, MU 5S401 couN OF;C.?fcr -R Po' cb N OTICE OF: N 1 Thol:=s K. Scott ENTRY OF.:UxxMEN 1 AttD=ey at Law 1380 C4=Tc_ate Centex C•�rve 4317 Eegan, YY 55131 D COCKVlNv CF JUD' MFN =>i rn IN 1.3: _ - CCUF.T 71 E W. 90 -2709 Pm Moon ;L*alley Agg_egete, Inc., a !3a Corp. vs. City cf ChanEe see = ' 1 C7 0 You are $ereby notified that .n the gbcve entitled m_.ter that of 4•2^92 .:.; 1 :iadings and Cade= yes duly __lcd. 1 • Order isas duly filed_ • S Fi 'c„irgs c_ Feet, Coarlss_oas of Lev and C 'fox JudEme :t vas duly 1 filed. Judgment aatomati.cally stays 3r days. - _ .Fuagmont. :. 5 duly enee?Ea- P 1 Judgm.nt wen duly docketed in the amount of 4 ' ' ' rn Other ca D .Ca 0i^ 1 Cc - Dated: 4 - 2- E,fx,CRZ M. •9` 'G !SSS, ?1 C :urt 4do:Lnistrator CO;itE attached. By 41, 41, 3E1 ..12 _ 4cl8 -1201 - - Deputy 1 3 Cou.r Admirist:atiot Carver :Duty CoLrttou;•e I 6:0 Zest 4th Street Chaska, ! 5S3I8 .- . , iv - d C=ur. Aral cc rest nopv of :his iio :ice has Seen served by 2a:.1 u7on the parties herein at the lasc ka04 -: a4:::e!- 4E eaca, -pursuant cc Minnesota Rules r: Civia ? o:edLte. Rule 27.04 . 1 l ity of Eden Prairie � eci ity Offices .: `_ • 1600 Executive Drive • Eden Prairie, MN 55344 -3677 • Telephone (612) 937 -2262 1 prairie May 18, 1992 1 Paul Krauss Planning Director I City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 1 Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: Interim Use Permit For Moon Valley Aggregate I Dear Mr. Krauss: I Thank you for referring the application for Interim Use Permit for the Moon Valley Aggregate. I have completed a preliminary review of the plans submitted and offer comments in the following areas: Access, Erosion, Storm Water Quality, Minnesota Wildlife Refuge, 1 Environmental Impacts, and EAW. 1. Access I The lan shows an access road extending from the northeast corner of h p g o the I property through land in Eden Prairie owned by Alex Dorenkemper. Any development for residential subdivision in the future will require a land use application and development process administered through the City of Eden I Prairie. Alex Dorenkemper is currently in the process of subdividing 46 acres of land into 10 acre lots. It is our understanding that the western 10 acres would be sold to the owner of Moon Valley Aggregate. Since the enduse residential U plan relies on access through Eden Prairie, access must be by a public street. The dedication of a public road through Mr. Dorenkemper's property, which is zoned rural, would create 2 parcels less than 10 acres. This would require a I variance in the rural area. The subdivision of this property may not be possible until sewer and water is available in the year 2000. I The subdivision plan as proposed depicts what appears to be lots less than 10 acres in size within the rural service area of Chanhassen. Does this require a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment? 1 RECHVECk I iviC.Y `-- 10,9 „ : 1 Paul Krauss 1 May 18, 1992 Page 2 1 2. Erosion 1 The Bluffs in this area are composed of highly erodible sandy soils which are difficult to control, stabilize, and revegetate once disturbed. I am concerned about the ability to stabilize a 2 1/2 to 1, 400 foot long slope along the Bluff. How will the site be revegetated and ground cover established on the steep slope area? Will the construction period erosion control activities on site conform to those recommended in the MPCA best management practices or equivalent? 3. Storm Water Quality The Development of this site as proposed may contribute to nonpoint source water quality problems in the Minnesota River primarily to erosion and sedimentation within the immediate watershed. The plan as proposed does not indicate how storm water runoff is proposed to be presettled and pretreated before discharge into the 100 year flood plan of the Minnesota River. Will the storm water ponds as proposed be designed according to the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program {NURP} criteria? 4. Minnesota Wildlife Refuge This site has a potential to impact the lower Minnesota Wildlife Refuge area by decreasing natural diversity of plant and animal communities present, disrupting traditional routes or areas used for local migration or refuge during periods of flooding. A gravel mining operation may be inconsistent with the objectives of encouraging land uses compatible with the Minnesota River Bluff. Is this Bluff area within a Shoreland area and if so, what provisions of the new State Shoreland ordinance regarding Bluff setbacks and impact zones are applicable to this property? - 5. Environmental Impacts A gravel mining operation may have significant environmental impacts. Has an archeological or historic significance survey been prepared for the property which would indicate the location or presence of historic properties or burial mounds on the property? In addition, has a biological diversity survey been conducted of the property? It is possible that species which are protected under the DNR's natural heritage program exist on site. Removal of a significant amount of natural ' vegetation will contribute to increased erosion. 1 1 1 Paul Krauss May 18, 1992 1 Page 3 Part of the natural drainage patterns in the northern portion of the site drain directly onto property within Eden Prairie. Can an area of natural tree cover be ' retained along the eastern portion of the property to act as a visual barrier to mitigate impacts on future development of land area in Eden Prairie? 6. EAW Considering the potential for environmental impact as described above including ' ground water contamination, erosion, Bluff impact on the National Wildlife Refuge area, an environmental worksheet would be appropriate for a project of this scale and magnitude. ' Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. 1 Sincerely, Chris Enger Director of Planning KRAUSS.CE.'s J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 § 7 -21 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE 1 Sec. 7-21. Certificate of occupancy. No building or structure •of R3, R4, M E, I, B, or R, division 1 occupancy, shall be used or occupied, and no change in the existing occupancy classification of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be made until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy thereof. (Ord. No. 118, § 1, 1- 22 -90) Secs. 7-22-7-29. Reserved. ARTICLE III. EXCAVATING, MINING, FILLING AND GRADING* Sec. 7.30. Purposes and intent. ' The purpose of this article is to promote the health, safety and welfare of the community and to establish reasonable uniform limitations, standards, safeguards and controls for exca- vating, mining, filling, and grading within the City. Excavating, mining, filling, and grading permits for more than fifty (50) cubic yards, but less than one thousand (1,000) cubic yards of material in a twelve -month period may be processed administratively. Excavating, mining, filling, and grading of one thousand (1,000) cubic yards of material or more in a twelve -month period shall be processed in the same manner as an interim use permit. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) ' Sec. 7.31. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases shall have the following meanings respectively 1 ascribed to them: Earth work or work the earth: Excavating, mining, filling or grading. ' Excavating or mining: (1) The removal of the natural surface of the earth, whether sod, dirt, soil, sand, gravel, ' stone, or other matter, creating a depression. .(2) Any area where the topsoil or overburden has been removed for the purpose of re- moving earthly deposits or minerals.. ' (3) Any area that is being used for stockpiling, storage, and processing of sand, gravel, black dirt, clay, and other minerals. 1 Filling or grading: To change the contour of the•land. Overburden: Those materials which lie between.the-.surface of thse earth and material • deposit to be extracted. • 1 *Cross references — Zoning generally, Ch. 20; landscaping and tree removal, § 20 -1176 et seq.; mineral extraction, § 20 -1351 et seq. 1 Supp. No. 3 388 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS § 7 -34 Restoration: To renew land to self - sustaining long -term use which is compatible with continguous land uses, present and future, in accordance with the standards set forth in this article. Topsoil: That portion of the overburden which lies closest to the earth's surface and supports the growth of vegetation. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5- 14 -90) ' Sec. 7.32. Permit required. Except as otherwise provided in this article, it shall be unlawful for anyone to work the earth without having first obtained a written permit from the city authorizing the same in accordance with this article. Active earth work operations that predate this article that do not have a permit shall cease operations or obtain an earth work permit within six (6) months after ' the adoption of this article. Current permit holders shall come into compliance with the terms of this article no later than the renewal date of such permit holder's Earth Work permit. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5- 14 -90) Sec. 7.33. Exemptions from permit requirements. The following activities do not require an Earth Work permit: (1) Excavation for a foundation, cellar, or basement of a'building if a building permit has been issued. 1 (2) Grading a lot in conjunction with building if.a building permit has been issued. (3) Excavation by the federal, state, county, city, or other government agencies in con- ' nection with construction or maintenance of roads, highways, or utilities. ( 4) Curb cuts, utility hookups, or street openings for which another permit has been issued by the City. (5) Excavation or filling of less than fifty (50) cubic yards in a calendar year. (6) Plowing and tilling for agricultural purposes. 1 (7) Earth work in accordance with a development contract approved under the city's subdivision ordinance. 1f the development contract requires that a letter of credit or other security be posted, the letter of credit or other security must be posted before any excavation takes place. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5- 14 -90) ' Sec. 7 - 34. Exempt earth work. Earth work that is exempt from obtaining a permit, pursuant to section 7 -33 shall: (1) Comply with the city's erosion control standards. (2) Maintain natural or existing drainage patterns. (3) Comply with the city's other ordinance requirements including tree preservation and wetland protection. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5- 14.90) 1 Supp. No. 3 489 § 7 -35 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE 111 Sec. 7 -35. Applications for earth work permits. An application for an earth work permit shall be processed in accordance with the same 1 procedures specified in the city Code relating to interim use permits except that earth work of more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material but less than one thousand (1,000) cubic yards of material in a twelve -month period may be approved administratively. An application for a permit shall contain: (1) The name and address of the operator and owner of the land, together with proof of 111 ownership. If the operator and owner are different, both must sign the application. (2) The correct legal description of the property where the activity is proposed to occur. 1 (3) A certified abstract listing the names of all landowners owning property within five hundred (500) feet of the boundary of the property described above. (4) Specifications of the following, using appropriate maps, photographs and surveys: a. Proposed grading plan. b. Proposed stockpile sites. c. The physical relationship of the proposed designated site to the community and existing development. d. Site topography and natural features including location of watercourses and water bodies. e. The description and quantity of material to be excavated. f. The depth of water tables throughout the area. g. The location and depth of wells and buried garbage, water, and fill. (5) The purpose of the operation. , (6) The estimated time required to complete the operation. (7) Hours and months of operation. ' (8) A tree survey indicating the location and type of all trees over six (6) inches in caliper. In a heavily wooded area only the boundaries of the tree areas must be indicated on the survey. (9) An end use landscape plan and interim screening plan for the operation period. (10) The plan of operation, including processing, nature of the processing and equipment, location of the plant source of water, disposal of water and reuse of water. (11) Travel routes to and from the site and the number and type of trucks that will be used. , (12) Plans for drainage, erosion control, sedimentation and dust control. (13) A restoration plan providing for the orderly and continuing restoration of all dis- r turbed land to a condition equal to or better than that which existed prior to the earth work. Such plan shall illustrate, using photographs, maps and surveys where appro- priate, the following: Supp. No. 3 390 1 1 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS § 7 -36 1 a. The contour of the land prior to excavation and proposed contours after comple- tion of excavation and after completion of restoration. b. Those areas of the site to be used for storage of topsoil and overburden. 1 c. A schedule setting forth the timetable for excavation of land lying within the extraction facility. d. The grade of all slopes after restoration, based upon proposed land uses, and 1 description of the type and quantity of plantings where revegetation is to be conducted. e. The criteria and standards to be used to achieve final restoration as well as intermittent stabilization. (14) A statement identifying the applicant's program to insure compliance with the permit ' conditions, method of response to complaints and resolving conflicts that may arise as a result of complaints. (15) Unless exempt under Minnesota Rules, an environmental assessment worksheet, if required by the city. (16) A wetland alteration permit, if required by the city Code, which shall be processed concurrently with the excavation permit application. (17) Other information required by the city. 1 (c) Applicants for earth work permits involving less than one thousand (1,000) cubic yards of material must only furnish the information specified in subsections (b)(1), (2), (4a), (5), (6), (7), (8), (12), (13), (16) and (17). (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) 1 Sec. 7-36. Processing of earth work permit applications. (a) Except as otherwise provided herein, the city council shall review the earth work permit application and shall approve the permit if it is in compliance with this article, the city's zoning ordinance, and other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations. ' (b) A permit may be approved subject to conditions necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements and purpose of this article. When such conditions are established, they shall be set forth specifically in the permit. Conditions may, among other matters, limit the size, kind or character of the proposed operation, require the construction of structures, require the staging of extraction over a time period and require the alteration of the site design to ensure . compliance with the standards in this article. (c) Earth work of more than fifty (50) but less than one thousand (1,000) cubic yards of material in a twelve-month period may be approved by the city staff. The applicant shall submit the fee required by section 7 -39 of the city Code. Upon receipt of a completed applica- 1 tion, the city staff shall review the application within ten (10) working days and shall notify the applicant of the decision by mail. The city staff may impose such conditions as may be necessary to protect the public interest. Bonding may be required in an amount sufficient to ensure site restoration should the applicant default. Any applicant aggrieved by a decision may appeal the determination to the city council. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5 - 14 - 90) Supp. No. 3 391 1 § 7 -37 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE 1 Sec. 7.37. Termination of permit. (a) An earth work permit may be terminated for violation of this article or any condition of such permit. No earth work permit may be terminated until the city council has held a public hearing to determine whether such permit shall be terminated, at which time the 1 operator shall be afforded an opportunity to contest the termination. The city council may establish certain conditions, which if not complied with, will result in immediate suspension of operations until the public hearing to consider termination of the permit can be held. 1 (b) It shall be unlawful to conduct earth work after a permit has been terminated. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) 1 Sec. 7 -38. Annual permits. (a) Earth work permits shall be renewed annually. The purpose of the annual permit is to 1 monitor compliance with the conditions of approval. The city engineer, after consultation with appropriate city staff, may issue renewal permits upon satisfactory proof of compliance with the issued permit and this article. If the city engineer denies a renewal permit, the applicant may appeal the decision to the city council by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk within ten (10) days after the city engineer denies the permit. (b) Request for renewal of an earth work permit shall be made sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date. If application or renewal is not made within the required time, all operations shall be terminated, and reinstatement of the permit may be granted only upon compliance with the procedures set forth in this article for an original permit. (c) An earth work permit which is limited in duration cannot be extended by the city engineer. Extensions must be approved by the city council. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5- 14 -90) Sec. 7.39. Issuance of permit imposes no liability on city, relieves permittee of no responsibilities. Neither the issuance of a permit under this article, nor compliance with the conditions thereof with the provisions of this article shall relieve any person from any responsibility • otherwise imposed by law for damage to persons or property; nor shall the issuance of any permit under this article serve to impose any liability on the city, its officers or employees for any injury or damage to persons or property. A permit issued pursuant to this article does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility of securing and complying with any other permit which may be required by any other law, ordinance or regulation. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5- 14-90) Sec. 7.40. Fees. A schedule of fees shall be determined by resolution of the city council, which may, from time to time, change such schedule. Prior to the issuance or renewal of any permit, such fees shall be paid to the city and deposited in the general fund. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) 1 Supp. No. 3 392 1 1 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS § 7 -44 1 Sec. 7-41. Agreement; irrevocable letter of credit. Prior to the issuance of an earth work permit, there shall be executed by the operator and 1 landowner and submitted to the city an agreement to construct such required improvements and to comply with such conditions of approval as may have been established by the city 1 council. The agreement shall run with the land and be recorded against the title to the property. The agreement shall be accompanied by a letter of credit acceptable to the city in the amount of the costs of complying with the agreement as determined by the city council. The 1 adequacy of the letter of credit shall be reviewed annually by the city. The city engineer may direct the amount of the letter of credit be increased to reflect inflation or changed conditions. The city may draw against the letter of credit for noncompliance with the agreement and shall 1 use the proceeds to cure any default. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5 - 14 - 90) Sec. 7-42. Setbacks. ' Mining for the purpose of selling sand, gravel, black dirt, clay, and other minerals shall not be conducted within: (1) One hundred (100) feet of an existing street or highway. (2) Thirty (30) feet of an easement for an existing public utility. 1 (3) Three hundred (300) feet of the boundary of an adjoining property not in mining use except that aggregate processing that creates objectionable noise and dust, including, but not limited to, crushing, must be set back one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet 1 from the boundary of adjoining property not in mining use. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Sec. 7-43. Fencing. 1 During operations permitted under this article, any area where excavation slopes are steeper than one (1) foot vertical to one and one -half (1 feet horizontal shall be fenced, unless the city determines that they do not pose a safety hazard. Water storage basins shall also be fenced if the city determines the basins pose a potential safety hazard. Unless otherwise approved by the city, required fencing shall be a minimum six-foot -high chain link fence meeting Minnesota Department of Transportation standards for right -of -way fencing. An ini- 1 tial fencing plan must be approved by the city council. The city engineer may subsequently authorize changes in the plan to accommodate changing conditions. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5- 14 -90) 1 Sec. 7.44. Appearance and screening. The following standards are required at the site of any operation permitted under this 1 article: (1) Machinery shall be kept in good repair. Abandoned machinery, inoperable equipment and rubbish shall be removed from the site. (2) All buildings and equipment that have not been used for a period of one (1) year shall be removed from the site. Supp. No. 3 1 393 § 7 -44 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE 1 (3) All equipment and temporary structures shall be removed and dismantled not later 1 than ninety (90) days after termination of the extraction operation and expiration of the permit. (4) Where practical, stockpiles of overburden and materials shall be used as a part of the screening for the site. (5) Where the city determines it is appropriate to screen off -site views, the perimeter of 1 the site shall be planted with coniferous trees, bermed, or otherwise screened. Trees shall be at least six (6) feet in height at the time of planting. (6) Existing trees and ground cover shall be preserved to the extent feasible, maintained and supplemented by selective cutting, transplanting of trees, shrubs, and other ground cover along all setback areas. 1 (7) Noxious weeds shall be eradicated. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5- 14 -90) Sec. 7-45. Operations; noise; hours; explosives, dust, water pollution; topsoil preser- ' vation. The following operating standards shall be observed at the site of any operation permitted under this article: (1) The maximum noise level at the perimeter of the site shall be within the limits set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. (2) Earth work shall be performed during only those times established by the city council 1 as part of the permit unless otherwise provided in the permit. Such activity may only take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Such activity is also prohibited on the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Christmas Eve Day, and Christmas Day. (3) Operators shall use all practical means to eliminate vibration on adjacent property from equipment operation. (4) Operators shall comply with all applicable city, county, state and federal regulations for the protection of water quality, including the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ' and Federal Environmental Protection Agency regulations for the protection of water quality. No waste products or process residue shall be deposited in any lake stream or natural drainage system. All waste water shall pass through a sediment basin before drainage into a stream. (5) Operators shall comply with all city, county, state and federal regulations for the protection of wetlands. (6) Operators shall comply with all requirements of the watershed where the property is located. (7) All topsoil shall be retained at the site until complete restoration of the state has been taken place according to the restoration plan. Supp. No. 3 394 ' BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS § 7 -46 ' (8) Operators shall use all practical means to reduce the amount of dust, smoke, and fumes caused by the operations. When atmospheric or other conditions make it im- possible to prevent dust from migrating off-site, operations shall cease. ' (9) To control dust and minimize tracking sand, gravel, and dirt onto public streets, internal private roads from a mine to any public roadway shall be paved with asphalt ' or.concrete for a distance of at least three hundred (300) feet to the intersection with a public roadway. All internal roads shall be swept and treated to minimize dust according to a schedule established by the city. The city may approve alternatives to ' paved internal streets that accomplish the same purpose. (10) All haul routes to and from the mine shall be approved by the city and shall only use streets that can safely accommodate the traffic. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5- 14 -90) Sec. 7.46. Restoration standards. ' The following restoration standards shall apply to the site of any operation permitted under this article: ' (1) The plan must be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. (2) Restoration shall be a continuing operation occurring as quickly as possible after the ' extraction operation has moved sufficiently into another part of the extraction site. (3) All banks and slopes shall be left in accordance with the restoration plan submitted with the permit application. ' (4) Slopes, graded areas and backfill areas shall be surfaced with adequate topsoil to secure and hold ground cover. Such ground cover shall be tended as necessary until ' it is self - sustaining. (5) All water areas resulting from excavation shall be eliminated upon restoration of the site. In unique instances where the city council has reviewed proposals for water bodies at the time of approval of the overall plan and has determined that such would be appropriate as an open space or recreational amenity in subsequent reuse of the site, water bodies may be permitted. ' (6) No part of the restoration area which is planned for uses other than open space or agriculture shall be at an elevation lower than the minimum required for connection ' to a sanitary or storm sewer. The city may waive this requirement if the site could not reasonably be served by gravity sewer notwithstanding the proposed operation. Fin- ished grades shall also be consistent with the established plan for the property res- toration. (7) Provide a landscaping plan illustrating reforestation, ground cover, wetland restora- tion, and other features. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5- 14 -90) Supp. No. 3 395 1 § 7.47 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 7.47. Waiver. , The city council may allow deviation from the standards set forth herein: (1) For operations that existed prior to the enactment of this article when it is not feasible , to comply because of pre - existing conditions. (2) When because of topographic or other conditions it is not possible to comply. ' (3) When alternates that accomplish the purpose and intent of the standard set forth in this article are agreed upon by the city and the operator. (Ord. No. 128, § 1; 5.14 -90) 1 1 1 i • 1 1 (The next page . 4.4371 Supp. No. 3 1 396 1 t ti 1 1 1 1988 EDITION APPENDIX TABLE NO. 70-A--GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEESI 1 50 cubic yards or less No fee 51 to 100 cubic yards $15.00 101 to 1000 cubic yards 22.50 I 1001 to 10,000 cubic yards 30.00 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards— $30.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus $15.00 for each additional 10,000 yards or fraction thereof. I 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards — $165.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards, plus $9.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof 200,001 cubic yards or more — $255.00 for the first 200,000 cubic yards, plus $4 50 for each I additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof O ther Fees: Additional plan review required by changes, additions I or revisions to approved plans per hour* (minimum charge —one -half hour) *Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include I supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. 1 TABLE NO. 70-B—GRADING PERMIT FEES I 50 cubic yards or less .. .. $15 00 51 to 100 cubic yards . .. . 22.50 101 to 1000 cubic yards —$22 50 for the first 100 cubic yards plus $10 50 for each additional I :t;:,t1.v t, + 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof. tti,:.,; ;s ...: , , , 1001 to 10,000 cubic yards — $117.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards, plus $9 00 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof I 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards —$198 00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus $40.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof 100,001 cubic yards or more —$562 50 for the first 100,000 cubic yards, plus $22 50 for I each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof Other Inspections and Fees: 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours .. .. . .. . $30 00 per hour 1 (minimum charge —two hours) 2. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 305 (g) .................... .. .... ... .. . . $30.00 per hour I 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated . .. ...... $30 00 per hour (minimum charge —one -half hour) 'The fee for a grading permit authorizing additional work to that under a valid permit shall be the I difference between the fee paid for the original permit and the fee shown for the entire project. zOr the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. 1 875 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612)937 -1900 1 Date: May 6, 1992 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department B : Paul Krauss, Planning Director g P Y � g Subject: Interim Use Permit for earthwork /mining for gravel pit. Located at 100 Flying Cloud Drive,' Tom Zwiers, Moon Valley Aggregate. Planning Case: 92 -4 IUP 1 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the, Chanhassen Planning Department on May 5, 1992. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on, traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where' specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Connission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on June 3, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than May 18, 1992 . You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if, you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments �� MN Dept. of Natural Resources 1 City Engineer 8. Telephone Company ,b: City Attorney (NW Bell or United) ' L c. City Park Director 41. "Fire Marshal 9. Electric Company e. Building Official (NSP or MN Valley) 1 &aterslhed District Engineer 10. DOWDEN Cable System Soil Conservation Service 11. Roger Machmeier /Jim Anderson (11 Dept. of Transportation 4I U. S. Fish and Wildlife 1 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 13. Carver County Engineer 1 6. Minnegasco eg: : Other City of Eden Prairie %i�. Pollution Control Agency ' LEVERNE M VASSAR VERNON H TEICH STATE OF MINNESOTA C/O STATEWIDE AUTO 1 220 FLYING CLOUD DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION SALVAGE INC CHASKA MN 55318 METRO SQUARE BLDG 285 FLYING CLOUD DR ST PAUL MN 55101 SHAKOPEE MN 55379 I US FISH & WILDLIFE CHICAGO NW TRANSP CO RICHARD P VOGEL FEDERAL BLDG 1 NW CENTER 105 PIONEER TRAIL FORT SNELLING TAX DEPT 3RD FLOOR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ST PAUL MN 55111 CHICAGO IL 60606 I PAUL TAUNTON GERALD W & S F BERTSCH MICHAEL A BOYLAN 10125 CROSSTOWN CIR #310 8556 IRWIN RD 17700 SOUTHRIDGE CT EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 BLOOMINGTON MN 55437 MINNETONKA MN 55345 I PETER TAUNTON JOHN PAULOS JOHN L REVIER P 0 BOX 1351 #660 P 0 BOX 358 316 19TH AVE SE 6560 FRANCE AVE SO CHANHASSEN MN 55318 WILLMAR MN 56204 MPLS MN 55435 JOHN E & ANN LONSTEIN DENNIS & C BARTHOLOW PAUL & L KILKER I 1559 PENNSYLVANIA AVE N 18742 HARROGATE DR 788 LAKE POINT MPLS MN 55427 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1 ROBERT J & E TISCHLEDER 185 PIONEER TRAIL • CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CARVER COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE CO., INC. 4 CARVER CCU (612) 448-5570 201 Chestnut St. N. FAX (612) 448.5155 ABSTRACT & F. P.O. Box 106 Dale B. Kutter Chaska, MN 55318 David E. Moonen 1 September 4, 1991 i CS';T '1` �/ 1 Siegel, Brill, Greupner & Duffy, P.A. II 100 Washington Square Suite 1350% Minneapolis, MN 55401 II ATTN: April Smuck According to the 1991 Tax Books in the Carver County Treasurers Office the II following persons are listed as owners of the property within Carver County, Minnesota, which lies within 500 feet of the following described property: PARCEL 1: All that part of Government Lot 1, Section 36, Township 116, Range 23, II Carver County, Minnesota, which lies Northerly of trunk highway No. 212. PARCEL 2: All that part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 116, Range 23, lying Easterly of the Easterly right of way of the Chicago and II Northwestern Railway (formerly the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway), according to the Government Survey thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. , II II 1. Vernon H. Teich 6. Richard P. Vogel 220 Flying Cloud 105 Pioneer Tr. II Chaska, MN 55318 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - 2. State of Minnesota 7. Paul Taunton Dept. of Transportation 10125 Crosstown Cir. 11310 II Metro Square Building Eden Prairie, MN 55344 St. Paul, MN 55101 8. Gerald W. & Stella F. Bertsch ' 3. LeVerne M. Vassar 8556 Irwin Rd. % Statewide Auto Salvage, Inc. Bloomington, MN 55437 285 Flying Cloud Dr. -Box II Shakopee, MN 55379 9. Michael A. Boylan 17700 Southridge Ct. 4. United States of America Minnetonka, MN 55345 Fish & Wildlife Contract for Deed; National City I Federal Bldg. Fort Snelling Bank of Mpls. - St. Paul, MN 55111 10. Peter Taunton 5. Chicago NW Transp. Co. P.O. Box 1351 II 1 NW Center 316 19th Ave. SE Tax Dept. 3rd Floor Willmar, MN 56204 Chicago, IL. 60606 Contract for Deed: National City II Bank of Mpls. II 1 11. John Paulos 14. Dennis & Catherine Bartholow 6560 France Ave. So. 18742 Harrogate Dr. ' #660 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Minneapolis, MN 55435 15. Paul & L. Kilker 12. John L. Revier 788 Lake Point P.O. Box 358 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55318 16. Robert J. & E. Tischleder ' 13. John E. & Ann Lonstein 185 Pioneer Tr. 1559 Pennsylvania Ave. N. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Minneapolis, MN 55427 ' Contract for Deed; National City Bank of Mpls. 4.-A- ' Carver County Abstract & Title Co., Inc. This company does not assume any liability for the accuracy of this report. 1 Planning Commission lan i g C n Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 43 I 13. The applicant shall convey to the City a temporary street easement for the temporary cul -de -sac at the end of Road E. In addition, a sign I shall be installed on the barricades stating that the street will be extended in the future. All street right -of -way for all plat phases to be dedicated with Phase I platting. 1 14. The developer shall acquire the required utility construction permits from the PCA and Minnesota Department of Health. II 15. The applicant shall meet the conditions of the Rezoning #92 -3 and the Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -6. 16. The applicant should work out with city staff to provide whether or not' Lots 10 and 14 in Block 2 are in fact buildable between the Planning Commission and the City Council meeting. I 17. Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fence or other means acceptable to the City. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I PUBLIC HEARING: II INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EARTH WORK /MINING OF A GRAVEL PIT. LOCATED AT 100 FLYING CLOUD, TOM ZWIERS, MOON VALLEY AGGREGATE. I Public Present: Name Address 1 Richard and Gayle Vogel 105 Pioneer Trail J.E. Brill, Jr., Esq. 100 Washington Avenue So., Mpls, 55401 I Tom Zwiers 9390 26th Street, Lakeville Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item and went through the il City Attorney's Findings of Facts. Erhart: In this case, how do you know when you excavated below the water table? 1 Krauss: Well, we looked at the possibility of putting in a single elevation. A not to exceed elevation but in the City Engineer's opinion, i the ground water elevation was fairly variable across the property. Erhart: A lot of changes. I Hempel: Sample borings can be taken to determine what the water level is in a specific area there. It's kind of to document the water table. Water tables do fluctuate with seasons so it is a difficult to pin point a II certain elevation. You do receive modeled soils after just a couple feel underneath the surface in some areas in fact. So it is a difficult answer to give at this point but we feel by random borings to determine the water il table would give us a significant benchmark if you will. 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 44 ' Erhart: In your opinion it's not excavated below the water table now? Hempel: In some areas, we do have well waters of adjacent properties where the wells are 145 feet deep. Static water level is about 90 feet. As you come to the bluff lines and so forth, the water table does eventually get lower through a transition of the soils. In this case, some areas, it's possible. It could be on the surface ground water. The aqua firs, the city wells are and so forth are 300 and some feet deep. The wells though in adjacent neighboring properties may only be 90 feet. 100 feet deep. 1 Erhart: Do we have anything that limits the depth of this dig at all? I mean like below highway level or any arbitrary level? Krauss: Maybe this is something Mr. Scott can get at. I mean we had an earlier plan submitted to us in the original packet that we effectually called it Dig to China plan and there was a reason for that. The applicant has told us repeatedly that they reserve the right to dig the mineral out wherever and whenever it exists. Now what we're saying is, yes. You probably do but within limits of protecting public health and safety, we have the obligation to see that it's properly managed. Tom, do you want to clarify that? Tom Scott: That's essentially it. We can limit how far they'll dig if we have valid health and safety reasons for doing that. Ahrens: What would be one? What would be a valid? Tom Scott: Well ground water is the primary one that we have right now. Erhart: Yeah. A second one would be, well if you're requiring 2 1/2 to 1 slopes, eventually you get to a point I guess so there might be another one. I'm trying to visualize where do we stop it. Krauss: The important thing to note there though Commissioner Erhart is 2 1/2 to 1 slopes are finished grades. Mr. Zwiers' plan is to take out considerably more than that and then put stuff back. Erhart: Put what stuff back? Krauss: There's over burden. There's black dirt. Other material may be trucked into the site. • Erhart: I wonder if we just shouldn't set some kind of feel for, I guess ' my feeling is we should have maybe something in mind here as an agreement with the owner here that there is some point where we all agree you can't go below that or something. Does that seem reasonable? Or desireable I ' guess on your part. Krauss: It's desireable. Again, I go back to the fact that this is not a normal application and we're somewhat constrained. Tom Scott: Certainly that, if we can reach an agreement with the applicant on that issue, that'd be preferable. Krauss: He'd know our expectations then. Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 45 Tom Scott: Right. But to this point in time, that hasn't been the posture' that the matter's been put in. So what we're looking at right now is regulating based on health and safety issues. So we're not really in a position where we could set certain depth limit. Unless we can justify that by some safety reason. Erhart: Yeah, and you're using the water table and the problem is, we all agree that the water table is something that you can't pin down. It's very' difficult so it might be easier at some point to negotiate with the owner to say look it. Let's come to some agreement on a level at some point. Ledvina: The water table, you should be able to pin that down within 10 feet and the scale of this thing is huge so it doesn't make that much difference. ' Erhart: You think you can pin it down to 10 feet? Hempel: A soil's engineer maybe will be able to determine based on the types of soils and the fines and the sands and so forth. The glacial layers and so forth. Ledvina: Given my experience, I think you could pin down to 10 feet. Within 10 feet in a certain area. It will vary across the site but you can determine that as well. Erhart: But then you change the site and then it changes. Ledvina: Partly that's true. Due to the differences in recharge. If you I change the surface water, drainage around the site, that will tend to change the water table as well. Not from strictly removing material above the water table. ' Erhart: No, not above. Yeah, okay. Well my concern was that you couldn't, this wasn't something that you could really measure. Now if you can measure it, then that's fine. Paul Krauss continued with his staff presentation at this point. Ahrens: You can't include that specific language in here? Krauss: I guess I'd refer that again to Tom? ' Tom Scott: I believe it's covered by Paragraph 1. They're going to be submitting the Erosion Control Plan and 1(b), correct me if I'm wrong Paul,' as part of that. Or I'm sorry, 1(d), as part of the erosion control plan, a phased plan for site restoration, establishment of ground cover and vegetation would be part of the things addressed in the erosion control plan. That's basically what we're talking about. Krauss: That's quite true. The context is a little different but the upshot of it is the same. There's severe problems that occur when you leave that much open, bare land open for periods of years. In terms of erosion and. 11 I Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 46 1 Ahrens: Well should 13 be cross referenced to 1(d) then? 1 Krauss: The last condition, condition 14 is that there be an irrevocable letter of credit acceptable to the city in the amount of $51,000.00. Honestly $51,000.00 is far from sufficient to put the site back to it's I finished situation. Finished grade. But it is a number that we're comfortable with represents the cost of maintaining erosion control measures on the site and remediating some of the more significant problems. I The ultimate end cost to restoration is something that Mr. Zwiers should be absorbing as his operation goes through. I'm not certain that we have a real good way of getting a handle on that and consequently this was the I number that the engineer's office came up with. Ahrens: They should be but that's implying that it's not being done? I Krauss: Well we have a site that's been in continuous mining activity. It has not per se been restored yet in any way. Now we do have a single owner on the property. Mr. Zwiers has stated that it is his intent to put the I site back to rights when he's done with it but there's, I mean North America is full of mine pits that have been exhausted and then they move on. We'd rather that not happen to Chanhassen. 1 Erhart: There's also mine pits that have been restored too. I wonder how the government controls that. Do you have any idea? I Krauss: I could be wrong but many years ago, almost in another life, I was working for a firm in Wyoming where you have a lot of open pit coal mines. I believe they have to pay into a federal fund that insures reclamation. I Now you're talking about reclamation on a very big scale and there was always some questions as to whether or not it was effective. On a more local scale, I mean you could look at Byerly's in St. Louis Park. That was a gravel pit. Or the new Centennial Lakes development was the Hedberg 1 gravel pit. So I mean clearly there's examples of doing it successfully. Erhart: The idea of paying into a fund, that's not realistic? 1 Krauss: I guess I'd again refer to our attorney. I Tom Scott: The alternative of paying into a fund? There's no legal mechanism that I'm aware of to do that at this point in time. In a sense under this, they have the alternative of making a cash deposit or letter of credit. That's the best. 1 Erhart: Except that Paul readily admits that let's say they abandon the land and go bankrupt or whatever. There's not enough money there. Then I they should? Tom Scott: Then we have a basis for increasing the amount we... I Erhart: They're gone then though. Tom Scott: No, no. At this point in time. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 47 Ahrens: I didn't understand the answer. Tim said, he was asking what would happen if they went bankrupt or abandoned the site. Tom Scott: Right, and the ordinance, and as condition 14 is addressing, our ordinance requires them to post a letter of credit or a cash deposit to' ensure that they comply with the conditions in the permit. So if the $51,000.00 is not a sufficient sum to cover that worst case scenario, the city could, we could increase the $51,000.00 that we're requiring. There's' also an annual review of this permit. The ordinance sets up. They've got to come back every year and during that annual review process, depending on what course the operation has taken, we can review the amount of the letter' of credit and if we think it's appropriate to adjust the amount of the letter of credit, assuming we have a rational basis for doing that, we could increase the letter of credit. So they've got to come back every year for a permit review. This certainly is going to establish a basic framework but if there's changes a year or two or three years from now, we can in what's being contemplated now, we can certainly add additional conditions. Change the conditions and one of the things we can look at is I the amount of the letter of credit. Ahrens: But if we're so sure that this is an inadequate amount right now, why set it at $51,000.00? I mean between now and the next period of, the next time for renewal they could be, theoretically they could be gone. Tom Scott: I agree. Right. 1 Krauss: I guess when I tell you that it's not enough to restore the site to the condition that Mr. Zwiers is committing to, I'm telling you that I from a gut feeling. And Dave and I had some conversations about this and to see if there was a rational basis for establishing a fee in a different manner. We had some difficulty thinking of a way to do that. Ahrens: Someone must be able to figure out the costs of restoring the area. I mean it must be done all the time. Hempel: We've got a rule of thumb for restoring a site that is void of vegetation on a rate of $2,000.00 an acre. That's for replacing topsoil, reseeding and erosion control measures essentially. Granted on a site like this, if we're faced with sheer, straight up and down slopes, it's probably ' going to exceed that $2,000.00 an acre. It probably takes more engineering calculations or even to get an estimate from a couple of contractors to get a little closer ballpark figure of what it would take to restore that site 1 to 2 1/2 to 1 slopes. Ahrens: I think the city should do that. 1 Erhart: Yeah, that's assuming that they are left at 2 1/2 to 1 slopes and you could get out there and find out the slopes were higher than that and 1 then you'd even have additional expense... Ahrens: What we want to avoid is a city getting into big trouble on this and standing back and saying we should have done this and this after the fact. 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 June 3, 1992 - Page 48 Krauss: Yeah, I share the concern and if there's a rational basis for it. ' After spending 2 days on the witness stand explaining all that we've done to date, and don't get me wrong. I'm not reluctant to go back and do it again and it's probably inevitable that we will. But the Judge is looking ' for a rational basis for us to support these conditions and we very clearly made an attempt to do that. I think Dave's suggestion about asking for some estimates is possibly a good one and maybe that would help. Conrad: Well, what's the vision of restoration? You can have all sorts of restoration. When you get an estimate, what's the point of the letter of credit is to restore it to perfect or to restore it to acceptable? I think ' that has to be a good number and you two came up with something that we haven't seen the rationale behind but I think there should be good rationale. I think the applicant should ask for a good rationale for that. We should know what we want it restored to and then our contractor, we should get some estimates to restore it to that. I think that's real clear in my mind. I think it's clear from the city's standpoint and clear from the applicant's standpoint. ' Erhart: Yeah, and the point being, I think we can't figure that number our arbitrarily. I guess we'll just leave it as we emphasize that we agree you've got to have some rational. I guess maybe what the problem here is, the statement that you made Paul was that in your mind it clearly wasn't enough and maybe you need to go back and re- rationalize what... Krauss: Possibly there's also a resolution to it with something that Tom suggested. That you can vary this from year to year. If Mr. Zwiers complies with the guidelines we've established and restores the site on an incremental basis, then the risk of being left holding the bag is diminished every year. Erhart: You mean possibly lower? Krauss: Yes. 1 Ledvina: The cost estimates for the restoration should be based on the existing condition at that time and then the final end use plan. And as it gets closer to the end use plan, that cost would possibly decrease. I mean it's not the worst case scenario as to what exists now and what needs to occur for the end use plan. And I think you should do that on the basis of the engineering. The number of cubic yards that are required to restore ' the slope. The number of cubic yards of topsoil and seeding. Of erosion control. I think it can be fairly straight forward in terms of the estimation technique... Ahrens: Okay. I think you get the picture of where we are on this letter of credit. The $51,000.00. Krauss: Well, that sums up our recommendations and review on this. We are recommending that it be approved with these conditions. Frankly, I wish we had a better prepared package to give you. Frankly, I wish we had a little 11 more latitude on it as well. We've elected to go the route of saying, alright. This is what you've done. It's satisfied what the Judge said you had to give us and here's what we feel we need to responsibly make sure 11 Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 49 1 that the site is properly handled. Based on that, we're recommending that you approve it. Ahrens: Okay. Anything else. This is a public hearing. If the applicant or anyone else would like to address the commission. Please step up to the' podium. State your name and address for the record. Jerry Brill: My name is J.E. Brill, Jr. I'm the attorney for the applicant. Our address is Suite 1350, 100 Washington Square in Minneapolis. Our firm has represented the applicant throughout the proceedings and through the preliminary discussions that preceeded the litigation. Mr. Krauss has indicated to you that he wishes that he could have more latitude in presenting the package to you. He has. The comment I'm going to make to you are going, the bottom line is going to be that we think he has exceeded the latitude which the Judge has given the city in II the recommendations that he's giving you as they are standing before you tonight. I think a little perspective may at least, it may not change your mind but it will help you understand the position that we're in and the position we've been in as we proceed through these hearings. Mr. Krauss has indicated to you that the city has never really contested the fact that we were a non - conforming use and I think that's correct. There hasn't been a contest on that issue. We went before the court on really two issues. II One related to the upper portion of the property which Paul described briefly to you where we were going to look for a clay mining permit which is yet to come before you and will be presented in a separate application. And the Court clearly decided against us and for the city on that issue. That we were not a non - conforming use as it related to that portion of the property. There wasn't any doubt about that. I will tell you that the facts that were, to support that conclusion were developed as we proceeded II into trial this last time and at the trial. There weren't apparent to either your counsel or to us until we got further into the actual facts so that wasn't something that we were talking off the top of our heads about. II I mean we really thought we had a case there and it really depended upon the timing of when we bought that property or when that property was first purchased and used for mining as that related to when you adopted your ordinance. It happened to be 1972 which required a conditional use permit I for any mining. And it wasn't until late in the proceedings that the part of your ordinance that requires that conditional use permit was even discovered by either Tom Scott or myself. So we came at it honestly. We II really believed that we had the mining there before you adopted those conditions because we thought those conditions were the ones adopted in 1986 when that recent ordinance was adopted which required an excavation permit. It turns out there was an earlier ordinance in 1972 that required II a conditional use permit that preceeded any mining on that property which took place just after that. There was a conditional use permit asked for by our precedessor owner, Mr. Griffin 'frog. It was never pursued. It was kind of left hanging. Nothing was ever done about it and the Court decided and I think correctly, and I really don't disagree with that. That we don't have non - conforming use rights for the top portion of the property. II So that kind of disposed of that issue. The other issue relates to the non - conforming aspect. Non - conforming use of the southerly parcel. The perspective I want you to get, at least as far as we're concerned is that it's been described to you that the city never contested our non - conforming use status. They didn't but they did say, even though they couldn't stop 1 • Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 50 ' us from mining, they could regulate us in mining. Your City Attorney, Roger Knutson wrote an extensive memorandum which was given to the Planning Commission and Council which I think was where the disagreement really started. In the memorandum he said, I'll just quote from it. The available vehicles for regulation are as limitless as the lawmaker's creativity. That was a lot broader than we thought you had the right to do in terms of regulating. He went on to say in conclusion, the enactment of ' ordinances...related to the good and welfare of the immediate community will be upheld. We disagreed with that also and I think the Judge found that it isn't as broad as that. It's a nice phrase and it's something we all kind of thing that we're trying to protect the good and welfare of the ' community but there are certain things in the long where you're limited and interfering with private property rights and in this case the Judge found that you can impose regulations that are strictly related to safety and ' health. Now that is only a portion of the description of what your police powers are so there are aspects of your police powers which this Judge found you can't apply in this case because we're a non - conforming use. So the description of good and welfare was just too broad. That Mr. Knutson was giving you at that time and that's kind of how we got into the litigation. I think his description of where your regulation powers were, were reflected in Paul Krauss' response to the application that we made. He did a very studious critique of our application and it went on for a number of pages and it asked for a lot of information about things. About the mining operation that we resisted. We didn't think we had to do because they indicated you were trying to regulate us in a way which we thought was beyond what your powers were because we were a non- conforming use. And I think the Court found that you were limited the way we thought you were, to ' safety and health recommendations. As a matter of fact, Tom Scott's letter which is attached to Paul's presentation to you here. His letter of May 7th says that Judge Kanning in his Order stated that the city must clearly identify health and safety issues if it is going to impose any of the following types of regulations. That is limit the quantity of the material that we mine. Prohibit mining on any part of the property. Limit the depth to which we can mine. If you're going to do any of those things, you ' can only do them if they're related to the safety and health. That's I think what Judge Kanning found. And in looking at what's being recommended to you, we think that frankly your staff is exceeding that latitude, in it's latitude as to what it can do and what it's recommending to you. And I'll tell you where we think that that's the case so you at least have our point of view. Erhart: Can I ask a question? Do you think that we are within our rights to be concerned about effects on adjacent property owners? J.E. Brill, Jr: On adjacent property owners? Yeah but I don't really think we had any issues regarding that here. Erhart: You don't? ' J.E. Brill, Jr: No. Erhart: I think there is. Grading so close with slopes that it's going to erode their property and affect on wells. that doesn't have anything to do with neighboring properties? II Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 51 1 J.E. Brill, Jr: I don't think there is going to be any undergrading of their property. I think the undergrading that Paul's been talking about ill undergrading our own property on the bluff. We have been limited up to now to grading within 50 feet of the adjoining properties on either side. One of the property owners happens to be here tonight that you can ask him if there's an issue there. If you want to ask him directly but we have been limited to grading within 50 feet of the property on either side of us that we don't own and we would observe that and will continue to observe that. II As far as limiting how far we can undergrade our own property or mine on the face over there, that's a different issue and I think that as far as that's concerned, we feel we have the right to grade on our own property 1 the full extent of this southern portion of the property where we have a non - conforming use status. Krauss: Would you like me to clarify that? ' Erhart: You're asking, change it to 100. Krauss: Yeah. What Mr. Brill and Mr. Zwiers are theoretically retaining II the right to do, as I understand it is to, you know you have a hill with a property line at the top. They want to knock off their half of the hill 11 and then put it back. In the process of doing that, the top of the hill falls down. That top of the hill is owned by the adjoining property owner and it shifts and slumps onto the adjoining property. That was what our condition was trying to attempt. ' Erhart: Yeah. That's all in this report right? That's in there. Ahrens: Why don't we let Mr. Brill go on. J.E. Brill, Jr: We don't think we have the right to do that to an adjoining property owner and I don't think it's a matter of the city's regulation. I think we don't have the right to deprive any property owner of his lateral support. We can't do that. I don't think those are the issues here. I think what we're really addressing but let me go on. The ' first recommendation that Paul has made relates to erosion control. We don't think that there is an issue here related to health and safety. We don't think that's been strictly related to a health and safety issue and I we would resist that condition on a permit. Number 2 relates to the, I'm going by the recommendations now. It's not in your Findings. It's a little bit different but I'm looking at the recommendations in his Plannin staff report. Number 2 has to do with the engineered construction access designed to minimize tracking of mud and debris onto TH 169 and 212. We have worked with MnDot on this. The last we discussed this with MnDot. By the way, this is an area which we're very concerned with because it affects our own safety of our own trucks coming in and out of that site so we're very concerned about that. Mr. Zwiers has talked with MnDot and the last we talked with them, they were unwilling to put any deceleration or acceleration lanes on the highway. Now if that's changed because of recent, conversations that Paul and his staff has had, we'd just as soon get into those discussions and talk to MnDot about that and see if we can't work something out with them that will help that.situation. We think it's a problem over there. We attempt to keep the trucks off the highway during the peak hours on the highway and have them working at night. We've done 1 • Planning Commission Meeting II June 3, 1992 - Page 52 that for a number of years and we know that MnDot, in our last I conversations are unwilling to allow, to limit the speed there to something less than 50 mph and they've been unwilling to allow lanes in there that would allow deceleration or acceleration. That's the last of our 1 discussion with them. We'll meet with them and we'll try to accommodate that situation and do what we can but we don't think that they want to modify the highway out there and they haven't been willing to do that in I the past. As far as the debris on the highway is concerned, we have cleaned that up from time to time. They brought the highway patrol out there and blocked off the highway while we cleaned that up. We don't think there's been a serious problem out there. We don't think there's been any II complaints about it. We attempt to keep that as clean as we can. As far as the brush is concerned, we're willing to eliminate the brush so it makes a clearer, visibility out there. We're certainly willing to work on that. I As far as relocating the access point to the northeast, we think that that's a problem. I'll tell you why. One of the problems is for a traffic that's westbound, decelerating before it comes into the site. If you move I the access to the site further to the east, you're going to make it more difficult for trucks, or anybody entering the site to decelerate before it enters the site. It seems that the point is made here that the purpose of doing that is to improve the acceleration lane as westbound traffic leaves 1 the site. Give them a longer acceleration lane. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Zwiers says that probably 75% to 80%, maybe 85% of the traffic is going the other direction. They're not going to the east. They go out of 1 the site and go left and go east back towards Eden Prairie but there is a problem of trucks which come down the hill going on the westerly direction decelerating before they get into the site and if you move that access 1 point further east, it's going to aggravate that problem. So we want to work with whatever the highway department, the city, whatever we can do to make those conditions safer if possible. As far as dust and noise, which is point 3, the operator says the operator shall work with the city to I positively respond to these issues. Again, we're not sure what that really entails. We don't think there's been any complaints about that to date that we're aware of. But we're willing to discuss that further with the 1 city. Ahrens: Do I understand you to say that you're willing to work with the city? 1 J.E. Brill, Jr: Yeah. It's unclear what that really means the way it's expressed here. 1 Ahrens: Paul do you want to very shortly explain what that means so we can understand what, if that is something... 1 Krauss: Well for example, dust impacts. You know we have sort of a natural bow there that the few times I've been out there has been reasonably able to contain that but conditions can change. If you get, 1 when we have a project around town that's generating significant amounts of dust, we require that the operator wet the site to minimize dust control or modify their operations during those periods to minimize that. As to I whether or not there's been problems with these areas in the past, I honestly don't know. I have not heard of any but we have new homes being constructed closer and closer to this all the time and there sno clear end 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 53 II date as to when this operation will cease so there's going to be more home I've got to believe in the future. Ahrens: Okay. It seems clear enough. You would be willing to work with the city on this issue if it became a problem. 1 J .E. Brill, Jr: If it does, wetting down of dust control. Ahrens: As determined by the city. 1 J .E. Brill, Jr: Dust control is something that he would certainly consider. We are on a bowl as Paul says and I think we are kind of I screened naturally from the surrounding properties so I don't think there had been any complaints in the past. Ahrens: I don't think we're asking you to consider responding. We're II asking to respond if there are problems and would he respond. Yes? J.E. Brill, Jr: I don't see that as a problem. Do you Tom? II Tom Zwiers: Yeah, that's no problem. J .E. Brill, Jr: Okay. 4 creates a problem for us. This really has to do with the issue that you were raising before about the, coming close to the boundaries of the property and I think what's, first of all this 1 1/2 to 1 grade is steeper than the 2 1/2 to 1 that we're showing our present plan , out there. So that's the end use grade and what we're talking about is in the meantime mining closer to that boundary between the north and south parcel. We feel we have the right to do that. We feel that that 1 1/2 to I 1, we ought to be able to mine right up to the property line on that whether that, we mine up to that line or we mine 100 feet from it, we have the same slope remaining and the same safety issue, if there is one, exist. whether you're 100 feet from that point on the property or whether you're III not. As far as safety is concerned, this is private property. We are willing to put snow fences up there. We do know that trespassers do get on� the property. I think the snow fences area a reasonable request and I think that's something that Mr. Zwiers will do without any problem. But again, I kind of remind you it is private property and I don't think you require other people on this bluff to put snow fences up to protect them I from where there's steep slopes and there are many areas along here which have existing natural slopes that are that and worst. The railroad property over here in their abandoned area have some extremely steep slopes' and they have no requirement to put up snow fences but I'm saying to you that we will do that. I mean we're saying it's, we don't think it's an issue and it oughtn't to be but on the other hand we're willing to put them' up there so. Ahrens: Okay, so on 4 you're saying. You want to cut to the property line but you'll put fences up? 1 J .E. Brill, Jr: Yeah. It's the 1 1/2 to 1 grade within 100 feet that we're unwilling to do. We think that's limits us to what we can grade on our property and we think we have a right to grade that and mine that. But on the second,'the last sentence of that number 4, the temporary snow fence II Planning Commission Meeting . I June 3, 1992 - Page 54 is when we exceed the 2 1/2 to 1 slopes, we will put temporary snow fences up there. Erhart: Excuse me, but are you saying here that, you accept the 100 feet 1 on other property owners but not your own property to the north? J.E. Brill, Jr: Actually no. Actually it's 50 feet that we have been I maintaining and we think has been required of this property up until now and we would continue to maintain that up to the adjacent property owners. As far as our own property's concerned, well on the north end of this particular part of our property we don't, we object to that. Yes. I Erhart: To any setback? J.E. Brill, Jr: Yeah. Erhart: Paul, can you respond to that? Do you want to respond now or wait I until the end? Ahrens: No. I'd just as soon have him. I J.E. Brill, Jr: I'm almost finished. Number 5 is daylight and ground water resources. We don't believe, in fact I asked Tom about the ground water problem. He tells me he has never been below, he's never reached the I ground water. He's never exposed the ground water table. He doesn't ever expect to do that. It's quite a ways down below this site as we've mined it to date and we don't ever expect that to be a problem and that's a condition that we don't have a problem with. The protecting of existing on I site wells. There is only one well on the property. That's... I don't know quite what's meant about protecting it. We don't think there is any issue about polluting it. 1 Erhart: Are you using it? I J.E. Brill, Jr: I think it's utilizing a home where somebody lives. Tom Zwiers: Wally lives there. I J.E. Brill, Jr: The permanent capping I think is required by State law. Ahrens: Yes it is. II J.E. Brill, Jr: So that we have to do anyway. So the only issue here has to do with protecting on site wells. I guess I don't know what that means. II Erhart: Well you can't cap it if you're using it. J.E. Brill, Jr: The protection means they'll cap it when it's completed? I When we finish using it? Is that what? Okay. So that's not an issue. Krauss: When you grade the area. 1 J.E. Brill, Jr: Yeah. Number 6. The annual review, I kind of heard some comments that that really means we've got to apply annually for this permit 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 55 ' renewal. Ahrens: There is an annual permit renewal, as far as I understand it right Paul? That section is part of that? Krauss: The earth work permit, well maybe this is something that Tom need to clarify. The earth work permit does have a requirement for annual review. It's mandated in that. I'm not certain as to whether or not the Judge would deem that as applicable in this instance because of non- conformity. However, we're saying that from the standpoint of adequately managing the site and adherence to the conditions that are outlined, that that's necessary to insure that these issues are being taken care of. J .E. Brill, Jr: It kind of relates to the erosion control mostly doesn't it? Krauss: Well the ongoing operation. Tom Scott: The fact that they're a non - conforming use would not impact their obligation to come in and get an annual permit. There is an annual permit requirement. You look at it annually and you can modify or you can change the conditions but obviously the initial look and the initial plan I is going to set the basic framework. But then it is annually renewed and the fact they're non - conforming use doesn't change that. Ahrens: And the annual review by the City Engineer would be part of that 1 application process I assume? Tom Scott: That's right. ' Ahrens: Okay. J .E. Brill, Jr: I guess I would disagree that we think you have the right 1 to change the conditions annually. I don't think you do. I don't think you have a right to impose different conditions than those that you do here' that are within the Judge's limitations of relating to health and safety. • We do object to paying the fee. We think as a non - conforming use we're not subject to that fee. We did have a discussion with the Judge about that I and he left that question open so if it becomes an issue between us, he'll address it for us but when we were there the last time. Number 7 is the revision of the end use plan. I think that relates to the, it kind of relates back to number 4. In other words, changing the plan that's up there now which is B -1 I think so that it relates back to this 100 foot setback. I think, if I'm not mistaken, that's really what you're asking on that isn't it? ' Krauss: It also implies to the fact that we have an end use plan that kind of conceptually illustrates where ponding areas are going to be. We're in no way sure that those are appropriately sized or designed and we're asking' for details on that be included. J .E. Brill, Jr: Which one are you talking about? The one down below? 1 II Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 56 Krauss: Yes. Well actually you're showing two that kind of intrude onto ' the property but yeah, the one down below. We don't know if it's in the right place. We don't know if it's the right size. We don't know if it's effective. J.E. Brill, Jr: The other point you're talking about is the holding pond up on the northwest corner? Krauss: If that continues to be in the plan, yes. J.E. Brill,, Jr: Well the problem with that one is that that straddles the ' two properties and we're not permitted to do any mining on the upper property. I was always hopeful, we got into a little bit of a discussion about that the last time we were down before the Judge but I was hopeful ' that that would be on the agenda tonight so that we could really discuss that because that holding pond is something that really relates to both of these projects, the north and south parcel and it's kind of unfortunate that you have to discuss it in pieces because there was one holding area ' but that's the way it turns out and we would feel that we would have the right to mine the portion that's on the southerly parcel as it's shown on that plan and not the other until that's approved and if and when it's ' approved by the city under our second license. Second permit we'd be asking for. We do object to the letter of credit. We don't think that again is related to safety and health and that that is not required of us ' in this case because of our non - conforming use status. So those are the conditions I've indicated that we object to. We're unwilling to undertake. I think you should know our position. I guess I don't expect you tonight to do other than what your staff and your attorney has recommended to you but you needed to know where we stand on it. We feel that those conditions are not within the purview of what the Judge has allowed you to regulate here. If there's any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Ahrens: There may be some questions later. Thank you very much. J.E. Brill, Jr: Oh, one other thing. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has sent a letter. You may have it in your packet. It just came today. It's dated June 3rd. It was addressed to Tom Zwiers. He probably will get his in the main tomorrow. That's my guess and we looked at it ' tonight. It refers to the MPEDS permit. MPEDS permit. I think Paul has indicated that that's pretty much the purview of the MPCA and we agree with that if that's what he's saying and we will take that up with the MPCA and ' don't think that's going to be a problem. I'm not so sure that we are a point source that requires that. That, if I'm not mistaken Paul, that's a fairly new area of regulation that's being addressed nationally and it's ' going to require a lot of effort by a lot of people to regulate a lot of storm water discharge from just about every roof and parking lot in the United States. Ledvina: I had a question about that, if I can just touch on this. It says waste water disposal system. It says that you operate a waste water disposal system. Is that the case? Do you generate waste water by this ' process? • II Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 57 J .E. Brill, Jr: Okay, let me tell you what it is. This pond down below down there collects the runoff, natural runoff on the site into that pond. II It maintains a sedimentation pond and that has, that flows over to a culvert or it might have been an old cattle pass that goes underneath the highway and then out into the riverbed. That's not something that we're putting water into except for this natural water coming across. Ledvina: Okay, so that's surface water drainage. So there's no waste water? J .E. Brill, Jr: We're not washing on the site. • Ledvina: Okay. J .E. Brill, Jr: We don't do any gravel washing out there at all. ' Ahrens: Okay, do you have anything else Mr. Brill? J .E. Brill, Jr: I don't. , Ahrens: Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Thank you. Erhart moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in II favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Tom Scott: Madam Chair, could I make one comment? Ahrens: Sure. Tom Scott: Just to clarify. The Judge's Order, I guess the best way to I characterize it is he's going to look by more strict standard and look harder at regulations that are going to prevent them from mining some of the material on the site. That's the stricter standard. Regulations like ' some of the erosion control techniques or methods we were talking about, the pond and things like that. If they don't preclude them from mining some of the materials on the site, the stricter standard or this closer look that the Judge is going to take, doesn't apply. 5o we've been talking about a more stricter standard but it's only regulations that would prevent them from taking some of the material out of this site. I think that's been a bit unclear. Ahrens: Actually the materials were very clear that were sent to us. I mean I understand the legal issues and everything else... Erhart: Can we talk just maybe about what this process? Ahrens: I was just going to do that. You mean the process of what we're going to do here tonight? Erhart: Yeah. Ahrens: Yeah I know. I'm a little confused about this too. We're certainly not going to get into any of the legal arguments. Judge Kanning has told us, has told the city what we can do and what we can't do and II Planning Commission Meeting ' June 3, 1992 - Page 58 ' we're not going to get into the pros and cons of this decision. You want us to just recommend to the City Council whether or not we agree with the health and safety conditions that you set up for their permit right? Krauss: That's essentially the case. Ahrens: Do we have to adopt the Findings of Fact also? 1 Krauss: Yes, that would be our preference. We have come back to you from time to time of trying to update you on the Moon Valley and the City Council as well. We've tried to get guidance before. We didn't originally ' litigate this but before we'd taken action in response, we've consulted with the City Council on it. If you feel the course of action that we're taking is inappropriate, let us know. As I say, I mean clearly if we had our druthers we might be going about this a little differently but within the confines of the limitations that I think we're working under, I think this package is a reasonable one and that therefore we did support it's ' approval. Recommendation for approval by you tonight. Ahrens: In other words, you know I don't think we're here to say that or to set further limitations on the Moon Valley operation. I mean we have a very limited role here and that is to, I'm not sure. Agree with the city that their health and safety issues are adequately addressed and that's difficult for us to do as lay people here. Some of these are pretty complicated health and safety issues. Erhart: I would think that our role here, how to basically define out ' what's a good plan for this piece of property given that it's excavated for mining. I'm not sure the Planning Commission ought to be dealing with the legal aspects at all, quite frankly. Ahrens: Well no. I don't think that's what we will be doing. Erhart: If we can agree to that then I would say that what Paul's outlined ' here, whether or not it has anything to do with the Judge's ruling, I think the recommendations are planning points that are probably good but minimal so I would go along with the recommendation. Simple as that. Anything else from a planning standpoint would be more restrictive but to get into it would be a waste of time. So that's my comments. Conrad: I'm going to adopt what staff has drafted. It's obviously an adversarial relationship and comments I have would serve no purpose. Ledvina: No additional comments. 1 Emmings: I agree. Ahrens: I agree also. Can we have a motion? Erhart: I move that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Earth Work Permit subject to the 14 conditions. Emmings: Maybe we should move that we adopt the Findings of Fact and recommendations? Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 59 II Erhart: Okay, then I move that the Planning Commission recommend the City ' Council adopt the Findings of Fact document. Is there a date on this document or anything? Emmings: It's dated today. 1 Erhart: Dated today. Emmings: Second. II Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the Findings of Fact dated June 3, 1992 and the Earth I Work Permit for the Moon Valley operation subject to the following conditions: 1. Within 30 days of approval, the applicant shall submit drainage and I 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 should include: erosion control practices designs of temporary and final basins, inlet /outlet structures, etc. II Final pond design shall comply with NURP guidelines to maintain water quality. They shall be designed to maintain quality. They shall be I designed to accommodate a 100 year storm event. The plan shall describe management practices required to effectively ' operate drainage and erosion control practices. It shall be the operator's responsibility to maintain these measures in an effective and operative condition. Phased plan for site restoration /establishment of ground cover and 1 vegetation. All distrubed areas to be restored with topsoil, seed mulch and /or wood fiber blanket and trees as required to prevent II erosion. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to keep drainage and erosion control plans current. When mining operations require relocation of II 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 1 designed to minimize tracking mud and debris out onto Hwy. 169/212. Work with MnDot to relocate the access point to the northeast to I 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 II 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 1 sight distance. ' Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 60 ' 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 81. To avoid under - cutting of off -site slopes, in no case should excavated slopes exceed a 1.5 to 1 grade U within 100 feet of a property line at any time. When excavations exceed 2.5 to 1 slopes, temporary snow fencing and signage is required at the top of the grade to make individuals aware of hazardous conditions in the area. 1 5. No mining will be allowed to take place which daylights groundwater resources. The operator will protect existing on -site wells and will permanently cap them off when they are no longer in use. 6. The site will be subject to annual review by the City Engineer, and inspections to ensure compliance with conditions appropriate to 11 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 fee. 7. Provide the city with a revised end -use plan consistent with all ' conditions of approval. 8. The applicant should be required to maintain a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $51,000. to guarantee maintenance of erosion ' control and site restoration, should he fail to adhere to approved 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 interest 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 practive 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 1 satisfactorily completed. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE VIII OF THE CITY CODE ' CONCERNING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. Ahrens: This is what Brian asked us to table? Krauss: Yes. Ahrens: Does anyone have a problem with that? ' Conrad: No. None at all. I'm just curious about what people think. Emmings: It's time to move it on. That's what I think. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA ' IN RE: Application of THOMAS ZWIERS and FINDINGS OF FACT MOON VALLEY AGGREGATE, INC. AND DECISION for an Earthwork Permit ' On June 22, 1992, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of THOMAS ZWIERS and MOON VALLEY AGGREGATE, INC., a Minnesota corporation, (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Applicant ") for an Earthwork Permit. The Planning Commission previously conducted a 1 public hearing on the proposal preceded by published and mailed notice. The City Council heard testimony from all interested ' persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is located at 100 Flying Cloud Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota, consisting of an approximately 40 -acre parcel described as follows: All that part of Gov't Lot 1, Section 36, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, which lies Northerly of Trunk Highway No. 212. ( "Subject Property ") 2. Applicant operates a gravel mining business on the Subject Property. 1 3. The gravel mining operation is a non - conforming use in existence prior to the City's adoption of its 1972 Zoning Ordinance. 1 4. The continuation of the gravel mining operation requires an Earthwork Permit pursuant to Chanhassen City Code § 7 -30, et seq. 1 5. The City Council has reviewed the application in the context of the goals, purposes and standards in the ordinance, the 1 Applicant's status as a non - conforming use and applicable Court ' Orders. 6. The Planning Report and all attachments thereto, dated May 27, 1992 and prepared by Paul Krauss, is incorporated herein by reference. 7. The Planning Commission has made written Findings of Fact and Recommendation which have been considered by the City Council. ' DECISION ' The City Council approves an Earthwork Permit for the Subject Property in accordance with the Application on file with the City 1 Council and Plan B1 dated April of 1992, subject to the following conditions: 1 1. Within 30 days, Applicant shall submit drainage and 1 erosion control plans to the City Engineer for review and approval and within 60 days after approval install all improvements and ' implement the erosion control plan. Plans should be developed by a professional engineer in accordance with best management practices 1 and the Carver County Soil and Water Conservation District standards. The plans shall include the following: a. Erosion control practices; ' b. Designs of temporary and final basins, inlet /outlet structures, etc., with final pond design complying with NURP guidelines to maintain water quality and accommodate a 100 year storm event; 1 -2- II I c. A description of management practices required to effectively operate drainage and erosion control I practices; and d. A phased plan for site restoration /establishment of ground cover and vegetation. All disturbed areas to I be restored with topsoil, seed mulch and /or wood fiber blanket and trees as required to prevent erosion. 1 2. Applicant shall keep drainage and erosion systems current I and operational and obtain approval from the City Engineer prior to the relocation of the pond(s) and /or alterations to erosion control 1 measures. 3. Applicant shall comply with all Minnesota Pollution 1 Control Agency (MPCA) requirements relating to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) /State Disposal System (SDS) II permit and obtain such permit if required. 1 4. Within 30 days, Applicant shall provide to the City Engineer for review and approval an engineered construction access 1 designed to minimize tracking mud and debris onto Highway 169/212 and install the access within 90 days after approval. The access 1 may use one and one -half inch crushed rock. I 5. During the course of mining operations any material or debris tracked onto the highway shall be promptly removed by the 1 operator to eliminate a potential traffic hazard. 6. Brush located around the access point shall be cut back 1 to improve sight distance. I 7. Within 90 days, Applicant shall install an MNDOT approved deceleration /acceleration lane on eastbound Highway 169/212. II 8. Within 30 days, Applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval a modified grading plan 1 I -3- eliminating off -site mining /grading that is presently illustrated ' on Plan B1. In order to avoid under - cutting of off -site slopes, excavated slopes shall not exceed a 1.5 to 1 grade within 100 feet of a property line at any time. When excavations exceed 2.5 to 1 slopes, temporary snow fencing and signage acceptable to the City is required at the top of the grade to make individuals aware of ' hazardous conditions in the area. 9. No mining below the ground water table shall be allowed. Applicant shall protect existing on -site wells and permanently cap the wells in accordance with the Minnesota Department of Health regulation when they are no longer in use. 10. Applicant shall permit persons authorized by the City to 1 enter the property for periodic inspections to ensure compliance with permit conditions and take any remedial actions to correct permit violations. 11. The annual permit fee for 1992 is $400.00 12. Within 30 days, Applicant shall provide the City Planner 1 with a revised end -use plan consistent with all conditions of ' approval for City review and approval. 13. Upon completion of its mining operations on the site, ' Applicant shall restore the site in accordance with the End Use Plan approved by the City. 14. Prior to the issuance of the Earthwork Permit: The plans required by Paragraphs 1, 4 and 8 above must be approved by the City, the Applicant shall execute and deliver to the City an agreement to comply with the conditions of approval herein, accompanied by an irrevocable letter of credit acceptable to the -4- 1 City, or a cash deposit, in the amount of $51,000.00. The adequacy 1 of the amount of the letter of credit shall be reviewed annually at the time of permit renewal. 1 ADOPTED by the City Council this 22nd day of June, 1992. 1 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL 1 By: Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor 1 ATTEST: 1 Don Ashworth, City Manager er 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II -5-