11. Zoning CUP dealing with excavations CITY O
1
,' 1 0- CHANHASSEN
1 _ , ,
„, .
„. .. ,, ,
, ,. .„ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
Action by C A,'•*,:n;s+.rator
MEMORAND
fndo;c°' . 4
I TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager PeJcct;;;._.______'��--°-
Rejecta,� _. --
FROM: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ( Date Subma., c - :ion
I DATE: April 20, 1990 .
Date SL,-,. t^ Caupcii
I SUBJ: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment Dealing with -----Y--:a3--:-22---
Excavations, Mining and Grading
IPROPOSAL/SUMMARY
In November and December of last year, the City Council became
aware of concerns regarding the Moon Valley Gravel Mining site.
I The gravel mining operation had expanded significantly over the
past few years and area residents were becoming concerned with
rumors of additional pending expansions. Individuals contacted
I the City Council asking that the city investigate methods by
which it would exercise control over this sort of operation. The
Council asked staff to report back to them regarding potential
Ialternatives for dealing with this matter.
In January, staff working with the City Attorney prepared a
memorandum for Council review. This memorandum (copy attached)
I provides a background regarding this matter and outlines several
strategies for resolving the situation. One of the strategies
involved redrafting city ordinances pertaining to conditional use
I permits ( since converted to interim use permits) for gravel and
mining operations. City ordinances currently have established a
conditional use permit requirement with conditions and review
standards provided in Article XXVII. However, the standards are
I
not considered to be "state-of-the-art" and are not applicable to
operations such as Moon Valley that existed prior to the date of
adoption of the ordinance. It was the City Attorney' s position
I that an ordinance could be developed in such a manner that
existing operations such as Moon Valley could be required to
obtain a permit to satisfy the new ordinance. It is not believed
I that this could be used as a mechanism for shutting down or
removing the operation but rather one by which the city is able
to exercise control to insure that operations are conducted in a
manner that is sensitive to surrounding residences and the
I environment and one which will leave the site in a condition to
facilitate appropriate reuse. The new ordinance would be relo-
cated out of the zoning chapter into Chapter 7 which establishes
I standards for building regulations and public safety. The City
Attorney believes that this will enhance its effectiveness.
II
' //.
CITY' O
1
v .4 0- CHANHASSEN
1 , {
_ .„ , .,_
. , if.
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
IOw (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 Action by ;.-a q+,:iitrator
MEMORAND Endo.° ,.
I TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
Reject,'1_.._,_.,_ _
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director atc_ DEEM Subm,.. tc f -s.on
1 DATE: April 20, 1990
Date S "r, ..,i t^ Cauncii
I SUBJ: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment Dealing with
Excavations, Mining and Grading
IPROPOSAL/SUMMARY
In November and December of last year, the City Council became
aware of concerns regarding the Moon Valley Gravel Mining site.
I The gravel mining operation had expanded significantly over the
past few years and area residents were becoming concerned with
rumors of additional pending expansions. Individuals contacted
I the City Council asking that the city investigate methods by
which it would exercise control over this sort of operation. The
Council asked staff to report back to them regarding potential
Ialternatives for dealing with this matter.
In January, staff working with the City Attorney prepared a
memorandum for Council review. This memorandum ( copy attached)
I provides a background regarding this matter and outlines several
strategies for resolving the situation. One of the strategies
involved redrafting city ordinances pertaining to conditional use
1 permits ( since converted to interim use permits) for gravel and
mining operations. City ordinances currently have established a
conditional use permit requirement with conditions and review
I standards provided in Article XXVII. However, the standards are
not considered to be "state-of-the-art” and are not applicable to
operations such as Moon Valley that existed prior to the date of
adoption of the ordinance. It was the City Attorney' s position
I that an ordinance could be developed in such a manner that
existing operations such as Moon Valley could be required to
obtain a permit to satisfy the new ordinance. It is not believed
I that this could be used as a mechanism for shutting down or
removing the operation but rather one by which the city is able
to exercise control to insure that operations are conducted in a
manner that is sensitive to surrounding residences and the
I environment and one which will leave the site in a condition to
facilitate appropriate reuse. The new ordinance would be relo-
cated out of the zoning chapter into Chapter 7 which establishes
I standards for building regulations and public safety. The City
Attorney believes that this will enhance its effectiveness.
I
I '
Don Ashworth
April 20, 1990
I Page 2
II The draft ordinance essentially establishes mining and excavation
as an Interim Use ( i .e. one that is temporary in nature) . It
outlines standards and procedures for the handling of applica-
I tions and submittal requirements, as well as standards for
reviewing each application. The permits are to be reviewed
annually after initial approval by the City Council. In each
successive year, the City Engineer would be responsible for
I reviewing the permit to insure that it is being conducted in
compliance with conditions of approval, if not it would be
referred to the City Council for action. Irrevocable letters of
I credit would be required to insure that such conditions as
applied by the city are complied with. Most importantly, this
letter of credit would be used to guarantee that the site is
restored in the approved manner after the grading activity is
Ifinished. A summary of ordinance standards follows :
Setbacks Are Required From the Mine Pit
IAdjoining Properties
Existing Streets Public Utility Lines Not in Mining Use
I100 feet 30 feet 300 feet
Where aggregate processing
I ( such as crushing) is done
on site the setback would
be increased to 1,500 feet
I due to noise and dust
impacts .
I Fencing is required where safety hazards are deemed to exist.
Machinery on the site must be kept in good repair and clean con-
dition with debris removed. Standards are established for noise
emissions. Rehabilitation is required to be a continuing process
I and a rehabilitation plan must be provided. Screening of the
site by landscaping plus preservation of natural amenities on the
site must be considered in the plan.
IIn our opinion, the approach of this ordinance is not punitive
but rather is to provide a reasonable set of minimum standards
for these operations to adhere to so that impacts on the city and
I on adjoining properties can be mitigated. We have reviewed simi-
lar ordinances prepared for other Twin City communities. Most
notably, Apple Valley (a copy of their ordinance is attached) has
I developed an extraordinarily comprehensive set of ordinances per-
taining to this type of use. However, in our opinion, the ordi-
nance was designed to cope with a much more serious problem then
I Chanhassen is now currently faced with and is as a result much
more involved and restrictive then the one we are currently pro-
posing.
I There is a related matter that is also being addressed in this
ordinance. At the present time, there is no administrative
r r
Don Ashworth ,
April 20, 1990
Page 3
mechanism for city staff to approve grading permits for removing or
moving relatively small amounts of material. Technically, the
grading of someone's back yard requires City Council approval.
Staff is proposing that an administrative review procedure be
established for proposals that would move less than 1000 cubic
yards. Requests to locate less than 100 cubic yards would not
require a permit but the owner would still be subject to wetland
preservation and related ordinances. An application form has been
developed whereby applications for grading would be subject to the
same sorts of review criteria as the interim use process which
would be done by staff in-house. Staff could require financial
guarantees and place conditions on the permit to the extent these
are believed to be necessary. If staff is uncomfortable with a
proposal for some reason or if an applicant objects to staff's
determinations on the permit, it would be appealable to the City
Council. Staff has organized and managed a similar program in the
past and believes it is the most effective and expeditious way of
dealing with these types of requests. We are proposing that a
permit application fee of $50 be required to partially cover staff
expenses in processing and reviewing these applications. '
The Planning Commission first reviewed the proposed ordinance on
March 7th. Representatives of the Moon Valley operation and
several neighbors spoke at the Planning Commission meeting, and
additional guidance was provided by the Commissioners. Staff was
directed to make a number of changes in the draft and to continue
discussions with Moon Valley representatives regarding the
ordinance. The draft was revised to provide refined definitions of
grading activity, modify the purpose statement raising the cut-off
for administrative approvals from 50 yards to 100 yards, modify the
requirement for perimeter fencing so that it would only be required
where a safety hazard exists, require tree planting as screening
only in areas where the city determines it is necessary to screen
off-site views, modify the requirement for paving the site entrance
which was done to minimize tracking of dirt, mud and rock into
public rights-of-way so that a mechanism to clean trucks before
entering the street could be substituted for the pavement and also
a large number of detailed revisions were incorporated. Staff also
used the time to send copies of the revised draft to the attorney
representing the Moon Valley operator for comment. In addition,
staff had an opportunity to tour the Moon Valley operation with the
owner. We indicated to the Planning Commission that while there
will undoubtedly be issues that need to be resolved, Mr. Zwiers
does seem to be taking reasonable care to maintain a safe and well
planned operation and we were impressed with his professionalism.
The Planning Commission reviewed the revised draft at the April 4th
meeting. Representatives of Moon Valley were present along with an
increasing number of area residents concerned with the proposal and
with the operation of the gravel pit. The attorney for Moon Valley I
! Don Ashworth
April 20, 1990
Page 4
indicated a willingness to undertake safety related improvements
outlined in the new ordinance but continued to object to the
imposition of other elements of the proposal. Staff continues to
believe that this ordinance is not specifically a Moon Valley
ordinance, that it is a comprehensive ordinance dealing with all
aspects of grading and mining and should be viewed in that context.
We also believe that it is inappropriate to attempt to review Moon
Valley against the draft ordinance since Moon Valley has not
prepared a plan or applied for a permit. At the same time staff
continues to believe that members of the Planning Commission and
City Council have expressed a willingness to work with Moon Valley
when they do apply for such a permit recognizing the fact that it
is an older operation and it is often difficult to adapt these
types of uses to new ordinances.
' The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the
ordinance. They indicated a list of additional modifications that
were to be incorporated into the draft prior to taking it to the
' City Council. The Planning Director and the City Attorney have
worked to incorporate these changes and believe that it accurately
represents the intent of the Planning Commission.
' The City Council should be aware that staff is continuing to
research the issue of the grandfathering of the clay mining
operation near Pioneer Trail. Initially, it was our opinion that
' this area could be considered as a separate operation begun after
the date of the adoption of the ordinance due primarily to the fact
that they were mining clay in this area while it was our
understanding that they were mining gravel elsewhere. We have
' since learned that this information is erroneous in that clay has
been removed from both the upper and lower locations. Based upon
this information, the City Attorney questions the validity of using
' this factor to differentiate between the two operations. However,
the City Attorney's Office is continuing to research the date of
acquisition of the northern parcel. Initial information we
received indicated that this parcel was obtained by the original
owner of the gravel pit at a date that predated the ordinance and
thus would be eligible for grandfathering. We have since had
additional information that may cast some doubt on this but this is
' being researched further. In any event, the draft ordinance would
be applied equally to both the northern and southern parcels if it
is to be adopted.
' Based upon the direction we received from the City Council and
Planning Commission, the data that we have collected, and
' ordinances that we have reviewed, we continue to believe that the
draft ordinance is both comprehensive and reasonable. It is
comprehensive to the extent that it deals with all grading, mining,
filling, and excavating activities anywhere in the city and is not
' selective and is approached in dealing with operations such as Moon
I
Don Ashworth II
April 20, 1990
Page 5
II
Valley. We are also confident that it is not a punitive ordinance
and is reasonable to the extent that it is the minimum needed to
Iassure that the public and city's interest are protected. We want
to reconfirm that we believe the ordinance could be used to
regulate but not eliminate. Examples of much more restrictive and
punitive ordinance have been attached in the back up materials for
II
your review. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that
the City Council approved the first reading of the draft ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION I
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the first reading of II the draft of the Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 and Chapter 20 of the
Chanhassen City Code pertaining to Excavating, Mining, Filling and
Grading.
ATTACHMENTS I
1. Ordinance amendment. II 2. Grading application forms.
3. Letter from Moon Valley Attorney.
4. Letter from City Attorney.
5. Staff report to Planning Commission dated March 29, 1990.
II
6. List of property owners notified.
7. Planning Commission minutes dated April 4, 1990.
II
I
II
1
I
II
I
1 '
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
' CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7 AND CHAPTER 20
OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE PERTAINING TO
' EXCAVATING, MINING, FILLING, AND GRADING
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains as
follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 7 of the Chanhassen City Code is hereby
amended by adding Article III to read as follows:
7-30: PURPOSES AND INTENT.
' The purpose of this Ordinance is to promote the
health, safety and welfare of the community and to establish
' reasonable uniform limitations, standards, safeguards and
controls for excavating, mining, filling, and grading within the
City. Excavating, mining, filling, and grading permits for more
than one hundred (100) cubic yards, but less than one thousand
' (1, 000) cubic yards of material may be processed administra-
tively. Excavating, mining, filling, and grading of one thousand
(1, 000) cubic yards of material or more shall be processed in the
' same manner as an interim use permit.
7-31: DEFINITIONS.
' The following words, terms and phrases shall have the
following meanings respectively ascribed to them:
Earth Work or Work the Earth: Excavating, mining,
filling or grading.
' Excavating or Wining:
(a) The removal of the natural surface of the earth,
whether sod, dirt, soil, sand, gravel, stone, or other matter,
' creating a depression or depressions.
(b) Any area where the topsoil or overburden has
been removed for the purpose of removing earthly deposits or
minerals.
' (c) Any area that is being used for stockpiling,
storage, and processing of sand, gravel, black dirt, clay, and
other minerals.
IFilling or Grading: To change the contour of the
r04/13/90
Overburden: Those materials which lie between the ,
surface of the earth and material deposit to be extracted.
Rehabilitation: To renew land to self-sustaining
long-term use which is compatible with continguous land uses,
present and future, in accordance with the standards set forth in
this chapter.
Topsoil: That portion of the overburden which lies
closest to the earth's surface and supports the growth of
vegetation. '
7-32: PERMIT REQUIRED.
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, 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 obtain an Earth Work permit within six (6) months after the
adoption of this chapter. 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.
7-33: EXEMPTIONS FROM PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. ,
The following activities do not require an Earth Work
permit: ,
A. Excavation for a foundation, cellar, or basement of a
building if a building permit has been issued. ,
B. Grading a lot in conjunction with building if a building
permit has been issued.
C. Excavation by the federal, state, county, or city government
in connection with construction or maintenance of roads,
highways, or utilities. '
D. Curb cuts, utility hookups, or street openings for which
another permit has been issued by the City.
E. Excavation or filling of less than one hundred (100) cubic
yards in a calendar year.
F. Plowing and tilling for agricultural purposes.
G. Earth work in accordance with a development contract approved
under the City's Subdivision Ordinance. If the development
contract requires that a letter of credit or other security
be posted, the letter of credit or other security must be
posted before any excavation takes place.
-2-
II '
' 7-34: EXEMPT EARTH WORK.
Earth work that is exempt from obtaining a permit
pursuant to Section 7-33 shall:
A. Comply with the City's erosion control standards.
' B. Maintain natural or existing drainage patterns.
C. Comply with the City's other ordinance requirements including
' tree preservation and wetland protection.
7-35: APPLICATIONS FOR EARTH WORK PERMITS.
A. An application for an Earth Work permit shall be processed in
accordance with the same procedures specified in the City
Code relating to interim use permits except that earth work
' of more than one hundred (100) cubic yards of material but
less than one thousand (1,000) cubic yards of material in a
twelve (12) month period may be approved administratively.
' B. An application for a permit shall contain:
1. The 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.
' 2. The correct legal description of the property where the
activity is proposed to occur.
' 3. A certified abstract listing the names of all landowners
owning property within 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. The physical relationship of the proposed designated
site to the community and existing development.
' c. Site topography and natural features including
location of watercourses and water bodies.
' d. The description and quantity of material to be
excavated.
e. The depth of water tables throughout the area.
f. The location and depth of wells and buried garbage,
' water, and fill.
-3-
, 1
5. The purpose of the operation. 1
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.
k `w 11. Travel routes to and from the site.
12. The plans for drainage, water erosion control,
sedimentation and dust control.
13. A rehabilitation plan provided for the orderly and
continuing rehabilitation of all disturbed land. Such
plan shall illustrate, using photographs, maps and
surveys where appropriate, the following:
a. The contour of the land prior to excavation and
proposed contours after completion of excavation and
after completion of rehabilitation. 1
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 slope of all slopes after rehabilitation, based
upon proposed land uses, and description of the type
and quantity of plantings where revegetation is to be
conducted.
e. The criteria and standards to be used to achieve
final rehabilitation as well as intermittent
stabilization.
12. A statement identifying the applicant's program to insure
compliance with the permit conditions, method of response
to complaints and resolving conflicts that may arise as a
result of complaints. 1
13. Unless exempt under Minnesota Rules, an environmental
assessment worksheet, if required by the City.
-4-
' 14. A wetland alteration permit, if required by the City
Code, which shall be processed concurrently with the
excavation permit application.
15. Other information required by the City.
1 C. Applicants for Earth Work permits involving less than 1,000
cubic yards of material must only furnish the information
specified in Section 7-35B(1) , (2) , (4a) , (5) , (6) , (7) , (12) , and
I (15) .
7-36: PROCESSING OF EARTH •ORA 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 compliance with
' 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, require the
' alteration of the site design to ensure compliance with the
standards, require the provision of a performance bond by the
operator to ensure compliance with these regulations in this
' article or other similar requirements.
C. Earth work of more than one hundred (100) but less than one
' thousand (1,000) cubic yards of material in a twelve (12)
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 application, 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.
7-37: TERMINATION OF PERMIT.
' A. An Earth Work permit may be terminated for violation of this
chapter 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 operator shall be afforded an
-5-
i
opportunity to contest the termination. The City Council may
PP Y Y Y
establish certain conditions, which if not complied with,
will result in immediate suspension of operations until the
public hearing to consider termination of the permit can be
held.
B. It shall be unlawful to conduct earth work after a permit has
been terminated.
7-38: ANNUAL PERMITS. I
A. Earth Work permits shall be renewed at one year intervals
from the initial date of issuance. The purpose of the annual
permit is to assure 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 this chapter. 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 chapter 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.
7-39: ISSUANCE OF PERMIT IMPOSES NO LIABILITY ON CITY AND 1
RELIEVES TEE PERMITTEE OF NO RESPONSIBILITIES.
Neither the issuance of a permit under this section,
nor compliance with the conditions thereof or with the provisions
of this section shall relieve any person from any responsibility
otherwise imposed by law for damage to persons or property; nor
shall the issuance of any permit under this section serve to
impose any liability on the City, its officers or employees for
any injury or damage to persons or property. A permit issued
pursuant to this section does not relieve the permittee of the
responsibility of securing and complying with any other permit
which may be required by any other law, ordinance or regulation.
7-40: FEES.
A schedule of fees for the examination and approval
of applications for permits under this section and the inspection
of operations for compliance with the conditions of this section
and the permit shall be determined by resolution of the City
Council, which may, from time to time, change such schedule. I
-6- t
Prior to the approval and issuance or renewal of any permit under
this section, such fees shall be paid to the City and deposited
to the credit of the general fund.
7-41: AGREEMENT; IRREVOCABLE LITTER OF CREDIT.
' Prior to the issuance of an Earth Work permit, there
shall be executed by the operator and landowner and submitted to
the City an agreement to construct such required improvements and
' to comply with such conditions for approval as may have been
established by the City 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 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 use the proceeds to cure any default.
7-42: SETBACKS.
' Mining for the purpose of selling sand, gravel, black
dirt, clay, and other minerals shall not be conducted within:
' A. One hundred (100) feet of an existing street or highway.
B. Thirty (30) feet of an easement for an existing public
Iutility.
C. 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 from the boundary of adjoining property
' not in mining use.
7-43: FENCING.
During operations permitted under this chapter, any
area where excavation slopes are steeper than one foot vertical
to one and one-half (1-1/2) 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 (6)
foot high chain link fence meeting Minnesota Department of
Transportation standards for right-of-way fencing. An initial
fencing plan must be approved by the City Council. The City
Engineer may subsequently authorize changes in the plan to
accommodate changing conditions.
r
7-44: APPEARANCE AND SCREENING.
The following standards are required at the site of
any operation permitted under this Article III:
A. Machinery shall be kept in good repair. Abandoned machinery,
inoperable equipment and rubbish shall be removed from the '
site.
B. All buildings and equipment that have not been used for a
period of one year shall be removed from the site.
C. All equipment and temporary structures shall be removed and
dismantled not later than ninety (90) days after termination
of the extraction operation and expiration of the permit.
D. Where practical, stockpiles of overburden and materials shall
be used as part of the screening for the site.
E. Where the City determines it is appropriate to screen off-
site views, the perimeter of 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.
F. Existing tree and ground cover shall be preserved to the
extent feasible, maintained and supplemented by selective
cutting, transplanting of trees, shrubs, and other ground
cover along all setback areas.
G. Weeds shall be eradicated.
7-45: OPERATIONS; NOISE; HOURS; EXPLOSIVES; DUST; WATER
POLLUTION; TOPSOIL PRESERVATION.
The following operating standards shall be observed
at the site of any operation permitted under this section:
A. 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.
B. Earth work shall be performed during only those times
established by the City Council as part of the permit.
C. Operators shall use all practical means to eliminate
vibration on adjacent property from equipment operation.
D. 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
I
-8- 1
I ,
' 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.
E. Operators shall comply with all City, County, State and
Federal regulations for the protection of wetlands.
F. Operators shall comply with all requirements of the watershed
where the property is located.
G. All topsoil shall be retained at the site until complete
rehabilitation of the site has taken place according to the
rehabilitation plan.
' H. 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 impossible to prevent
dust from migrating off site, operations shall cease.
' I. 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.
J. 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.
7-46: REHABILITATION STANDARDS.
' The following rehabilitation standards shall apply to
the site of any operation permitted under this chapter:
' A. The plan must be consistent with the City's comprehensive
plan and zoning ordinance.
' B. Rehabilitation shall be a continuing operation occurring as
quickly as possible after the extraction operation has moved
sufficiently into another part of the extraction site.
' C. All banks and slopes shall be left in accordance with the
rehabilitation plan submitted with the permit application.
' D. 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.
1
-9-
II
E. All water areas resulting from excavation shall be eliminated I
upon rehabilitation of the site. In unique instances where
the City Council has reviewed proposals for water bodies at II the time of approval of the overall plan and has determined
that such would be appropriate as an open space or
recreational amenity in subsequent reuse of the site, water
bodies may be permitted. I
F. No part of the rehabilitation area which is planned for uses
other than open space or agriculture shall be at an elevation I
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. Finished grades shall
I
also be consistent with the established plan for the property
rehabilitation.
G. Provide a landscaping plan illustrating reforestation, ground I
cover, wetland restoration, and other features.
7-47: WAIVER.
I
The City Council may allow deviation from the
standards set forth herein:
I
A. For operations that existed prior to the enactment of this
ordinance when it is not feasible to comply because of pre- I
existing conditions.
B. When because of topographic or other conditions it is not
possible to comply.
I
C. When alternates that accomplish the purpose and intent of the
standard set forth in Article III are agreed upon by the City
II
and the operator.
SECTION 2. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by
Iamending Article XXVII in its entirety to read:
20-1331: XINING.
Mining is only allowed in the zoning district where
such use is delineated as an allowed use. In addition to
complying with the requirements of the zoning ordinance, all such I
uses shall comply with the Chanhassen excavation and mining
ordinance, Chapter 7, Article III, of the Chanhassen City Code.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately
I
upon its passage and publication.
II
1
-10-
II
IADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen,
this day of , 1990.
I
ATTEST:
I
Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990) .
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-11-
I
I
I
APPLICATION FOR GRADING, FILLING, EXCAVATION AND/OR MINING I
FEE: $100 MAJOR GRADING
Grading Permit No. Interim Use No. I
Site Plan No.
PLEASE PROVIDE ALL INFORMATION AS REQUESTED BELOW:
I
Property Address
P.I.N. I
Contractor/Applicant:
I
Name Phone (day)
Address Zip Code
Construction Site Phone No.
I
Owner of Property:
Name Phone (day) I
Address Zip Code
Zoning Classification Size of Site acre(s )
I
Estimated Volume of Material to be moved cu. yds.
Estimated Date for Work to Begin Completion Date '
PLEASE SUPPLY THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF THIS ,
APPLICATION ( see attached description "Grading, Filling,
Excavation and/or Mining Permit Requirements" )
1. Completed Application
I
2. Acknowledgement of Responsibility form completed
3. Affirmation of Sufficient Interest form completed
4. A interim use permit must be filed concurrently if I
action will move more than 1,000 cubic yards per acre
5. Written narrative describing the proposed activity
1
I
irGrading Permit Application
Page 2
6. Copies of all permit applications and/or approvals of
' all agencies having jurisdiction over the request;
Watershed District, Drainage Districts, DNR, MnDOT,
and/or Carver County/Hennepin County Dept. of
Transportation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, etc.
' 7. A soil engineer report may be submitted with this appli-
cation or at the time a building permit is requested
' 8. A bond may be required with this application
' 9. The City may require two (2) sets of the following:
a. Map of existing conditions, topography (2 '
contours) , utilities and roads
b. Proposed finished grades, using 2 ' contours
' c. Landscaping/revegetation plan
d. Tree survey showing all material six (6) inches
or more in diameter
e. Tree preservation plan
f. Drainage and erosion control plan
g. Traffic analysis indicating how excavating will
' impact area traffic and what mitigative steps
will be undertaken
h. Construction management plan
' i . Demolition permit(s)
' I AM AWARE THAT IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO INSURE THAT THE
STIPULATIONS OF APPROVAL ARE COMPLIED WITH AND THAT THE ACTIVITY
' WILL BE EXECUTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH SECTION
OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. IN ADDITION, EROSION CONTROLS AND
STREETS LEADING TO THE SITE WILL BE SWEPT, AS OFTEN AS DEEMED
NECESSARY BY THE CITY,??, TO REMOVE DEBRIS AND MEASURES WILL BE
' TAKEN TO CONTROL DUST IF REQUIRED.
THE BURIAL OF ORGANIC MATERIALS AND MATERIALS THAT COULD
OTHERWISE DECOMPOSE, IS PROHIBITED. THIS INCLUDES TREES, LUMBER,
YARD WASTE, ETC. NO ROCK OR IRREDUCIBLE MATERIAL WITH A
DIMENSION GREATER THAN 12" SHALL BE BURIED. MATERIALS WITH A
' DIAMETER GREATER THAN 12" ARE TO BE CRUSHED UNTIL THEY CONFORM TO
THIS CRITERIA. ENGINEERED FILL AND SOIL TESTS WILL BE REQUIRED
WHEN FILL IS PLACED UNDER BUILDING PADS. EROSION CONTROL WILL BE
UTILIZED AS REQUIRED. ALL DISTURBED AREAS ARE TO BE RESTORED
' WITH SEED OR SOD IMMEDIATELY UPON COMPLETION OF THE WORK.
r
Grading Permit Application
Page 3 ,
I fully understand that the City has ten (10) working days from
the date of this submittal to review and act upon this application.
I further understand that if an Interim Use Permit is required, the
completed application must be submitted at least 30 days prior to a
Planning Commission meeting to insure review by the Planning
Commission on that date and subsequent City Council review.
Required Signatures: '
Property Owner Date
Contractor/Applicant Date '
ISH
GRADING, FILLING, EXCAVATION AND/OR MINING
' PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS
PROCESS
Ordinance No. pertaining to grading, filling, excavation and/or
' mining activities became effective on , 1990. The
ordinance finds that these activities are considered to be legiti-
mate aspects of the community development process. However, since
they may have a high potential for causing short and long term
' disruptions to both the natural and man-made environments, they are
deserving of special regulatory controls. The ordinance further
provides that no grading, filling, excavation and/or mining of more
' than 50 cubic yards of material shall occur without first obtaining
an appropriate permit.
A two stage process has been established. Requests to move between
' 50 and 1, 000 cubic yards of material per acre of site area shall be
reviewed by City Staff. Upon reviewing the submitted materials, the
Director of Planning and City Engineer may impose such conditions
' and modifications as deemed necessary to protect the public
interest. Determinations by the Director of Planning and City
Engineer may be appealed upon the written request of the applicant.
' The appeal is processed as an Interim Use Permit.
Requests to move in excess of 1,000 cubic yards of material per acre
of site area require the concurrent submittal of an Interim Use
' Permit. These requests are reviewed by both the Planning Commission
and City Council . Public hearings are held at the Planning
Commission meeting and public notification requirements shall be
complied with.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
The Director of Planning and City Engineer may request the following
information and plans as is necessary to review the grading permit
application:
' 1. Existing and proposed final grading utilizing
2 foot contour intervals.
2. Survey showing location and elevation of all roads,
utilities and structure that may be impacted by the
proposal.
3 . Tree survey showing all material 6 inches or more in
diameter and a tree preservation plan.
4 . Landscaping/site restoration plan.
5. Development concept plan indicating how the recontoured
parcel may be developed in a manner consistent with the
zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan.
I
6 . Drainage plan including any engineering for stormwater
retention that may be necessary. An erosion control II plan indicating the type and location of erosion
control measures shall also be provided.
7. Traffic analysis showing how the material will be
II
removed from or delivered to the site.
SUBMISSION DEADLINES I
The Director of Planning shall act on requests to move between 50 II and 1,000 cubic yards of material per acre of site area within ten
( 10) working days from the date that a completed application is sub-
mitted. If it is determined that additional information and/or
research is required to process the permit, this time period may be
II
extended by the Director of Planning.
Requests to move more than 1,000 cubic yards per acre of site area II shall be processed as follows:
- All applications will be processed in accordance with the
schedule of meeting dates attached on the last page of the I
application documents.
- Completed applications submitted 30 days or more prior to the
II
referenced meeting date will be reviewed by the Planning
Commission by or on that date.
- Surrounding property owners are notified of the hearing date. I
- A report is prepared by the Planning Department for the Planning
Commission and City Council reviewing the request and recom- ,
mending approval with stipulations or denial.
- The Planning Commission holds the public hearing and recommends I
to the City Council either approval with stipulations or denial.
- The City Council hears the request approximately three weeks
II
after Planning Commission action and either approves for a speci-
fic time period or denies the application.
- The applicant is advised to be in attendance or is represented at I
all meetings of the Planning Commission and City Council.
DECISION NOTIFICATION AND APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS
II
The applicant will be notified in writing of the decision of the
Director of Planning and City Engineer or the City Council.
II
II
II
II
II ' '
IIACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY
1 This is to certify that I am making application for the described
action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all
City requirements with regard to this request. This application
should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City
Ishould contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application.
I have read and understood the instructions supplied by the City of
IChanhassen for processing this application.
The documents and/or information I have submitted are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge.
III will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of
material and of the progress of this application.
III further understand that additional fees may be charged for a traf-
fic analysis of the proposal. This analysis would be processed
' through the City' s consultant, with an estimate of time/expense pro-
vided prior to any authorization to proceed with the study.
ISignature of Applicant Date
I Name of Applicant
(Please print or type)
Address of Applicant
II
I
Business Phone Number
IType of Application
(Check type(s) applicable)
IGrading
IFilling
Excavation/mining
I
I
I
II
1 I
AFFIRMATION OF SUFFICIENT INTEREST
I
I hereby affirm that I am the fee title owner of the below described
property or that I have written authorization from the owner to pur- 1
sue the described action.
Legal Description
I
I
Street Address of Legal Description
I
Name of Owner
I
Address
Name of Authorized Person I
Address
I
(Signature of Owner) Date 1
(Signature of Authorized Person) Date II
If a corporation is fee title holder, attach copy of the resolution I
of the Board of Directors authorizing this action.
If a joint venture or partnership is the fee owner, attach a copy of
I
agreement authorizing this action on behalf of the joint venture or
partnership.
II
THIS AFFIRMATION IS NOT SUBMITTED IN LIEU OF SUFFICIENT TITLE II EVIDENCE. YOU WILL BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A TITLE OPINION,
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE OR TITLE INSURANCE POLICY SHOWING YOUR INTEREST
IN THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO FINAL ACTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
II
II
II
II . ' , '
I :
I
I
I
•
I
I
1
I rSUPPORT NET
FILTER FABRIC
rrSUPPORT NET BACKFILL
IPOLE �- FILTER -`.• .
1 FABRIC .1•::-...+ '-
I I
1 BACK Fn. 1
pT
POLE NSOkLE
1 _ . - . .
I . . •
i
INATIVE SOIL
I
I SILT FENCE
• _��
• 1
1
BALE PLACED ON EDGE, BUTTED TIGHT 1
STAKE IN EACH BALE
111111NOMUNIII/Mle
SNOWFENCE
1
TOP VIEW
1
SNOWFENCE
1
1
1
FLOW
STAKE
SECTION 1
EROSION PROTECTION
NO SCALE 1
•
1
_ 1
R-8
•
APPLICATION FOR MINOR GRADING, FILLING OR EXCAVATION
I
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
FEE: $ 50
I
PLEASE PROVIDE ALL INFORMATION AS REQUESTED BELOW
IProperty Address
P.I.N. No.
U
Contractor/Applicant:
I Name
Address Phone (day)
Zip Code
IProperty Owner:
Name Phone (day)
Address Zip Code
1 Size of Site acre(s)
IEstimated Volume of Material to be moved cu. yds.
Estimated Date for Work to Begin Completion Date
I PLEASE SUPPLY THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF THIS
APPLICATION ( see attached description "Grading, Filling,
Excavation and/or Mining Permit Requirements" )
I1 . Completed Application
I2 . Cash fee
3 . Acknowledgement of Responsibility form completed
I4. Affirmation of Sufficient Interest form completed
5. Written narrative describing the proposed activity
I6. Map of existing conditions, topography by 2 foot contours
' 7. A soil engineer report may be submitted with this appli-
cation or at the time a building permit is requested
8. Other:
II am aware that it is my responsibility to insure that the
stipulations of approval are complied with and that the activity
I will be executed in a manner consistent with Section of
the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, erosion controls and streets
leading to the site will be swept, as often as deemed necessary
I by the city to remove debris and measures will be taken to
control dust if required.
II
I
Minor Grading Permit I
Page 2
The burial of organic materials and materials that could
I
otherwise decompose, is prohibited. This includes trees, lumber,
yard waste, etc. No rock or irreducible material with a
dimension greater than 12" shall be buried. Materials with a
II
diameter greater than 12" are to be crushed until they conform to
this criteria. Engineered fill and soil tests will be required
when fill is placed under building pads. Erosion control will be
II
utilized as required. All disturbed areas are to be restored
with seed or sod immediately upon completion of the work.
I fully understand that the City has ten (10) working days 1
from the date of submittal to review and act upon this applica-
tion. I further understand that if a Interim Use Permit is
required, the completed application must be submitted at least 30
II
days prior to a Planning Commissiom meeting to insure review by
the Planning Commission on that date and subsequent City Council
review.
I
Required Signatures :
Property Owner Date 1
Contractor/Applicant Date
1
1
I
I
1
1-
1
I
I
1
II
FREDERICK L.THOR SON
M A C KA L L, C R O U N S E & M O O R E MICHAEL S.FROST
WINSTON E MUNSON DAVID J.DUDDLESTON
CLAY R.MOORE LAW OFFICES THOMAS J.LALLIER
I CONNOR F SCHMID JOHN R.GREEN
LORENS O.BRYNESTAD SUSAN M.SWIFT
SIDNEY KAPLAN 1600 T C F TOWER SHEILA A.ENGELMEIER
WOODBVRY H.ANDREWS NED J.CARROLL
GEORGE R.A.JOHNSON 121 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET DUANE G.JOHNSON
ANDREW R CLARK DEAN L.SUSSEY
J.MICHAEL COLLOTON MICHAEL C.GLOVER
I FRANK A.DVORAK MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 JEFFREY I.SH IDS BERG
ROBERT O.GISVOLD ANTHONY C.BRANCH
MARTIN C.INGBER KOR
M.RICHARD KORSH AMY J.JOHNSON
TELEPHONE 612•333-1341 SHERYL L.GOETZINGER
TIMOTHY D.MORATZ KA •RADLEY J.SCHMIDT
MARTIN V.AYDELOTT FACSIMILE 333-6173 D.CLAY TAYLOR
S HANE H.ANDERSON DAVID R.STRAND
I
GLENN R.DRURY
S TEVEN S.SCHMIDT
ROBERT S.LEE
JAMES T SWENSON �.- , OF COUNSEL
ERIC O.MADSON -
JAMES E.NELSON
JOHN C.UTLEY AMES S.HANNAH
ARLIN U.WAELTI MICHAEL J. DWYER - VAL M.HIGGINS
STEPHEN F GRINNELL DIRECT DIAL • 375-6244
STEPHEN P KELLEY A R p 9199 HENRY C.MACKALL (ISSS-1979)
MICHAEL J.DWYER Q��
ARL K TIMOTHY M.BARNETT .LQ��Y R MOOREN 094-196Da174)
KARL K.HEIN2ERLINGJr-_
April 6, 1 990 C%art OF PSI"
1 Mr. Roger Knutson
Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs
Yankee Square Office III
I Suite 202
3460 Washington Drive
Eagan, Minnesota 55122
IRe: Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc.
IDear Mr. Knutson:
Please forward copies of the Planning Commission's meeting
minutes for March 7 and April 4, 1990, the staff reports provided
I to the commissioners for the April 4, 1990 meeting, and the draft
ordinance which will be presented to the City Council on April
23, 1990.
IOn April 4, 1990, Mr. Krauss reported to the Planning
Commission that the City now acknowledges that the clay
I excavation off of Pioneer Trail on Moon Valley's property is a
legal nonconforming use and that Moon Valley is entitled to
resume its clay operation, if it finds a willing buyer. Please
confirm.
IThank you.
ISincerely,
I Michael . Dwyer
MJD/mj va
I cc: Mr. Paul Krauss
Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc.
I
CAMPBELL, KNUTS ON, Sc & Ft )c :11S, PA.
\f(,fll lk'), .0 I .,‘1
I; F,,:,,•.., APR 181993
I t,. .
CITY.OF CHANHASSEN
111 t, t•,n,-.I
t
April 17, 1990
Mr. Michael Dwyer
Attorney at Law
1600 TCF Tower
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
RE: Moon Valley
Dear Mr. Dwyer:
Pursuant to your letter dated April 6, 1990, enclosed are
the following:
1 . April 13, 1990, draft ordinance.
2. March 29, 1990, planning report which includes minutes
of the March 7th Planning Commission meeting.
3. April 4, 1990, Planning Commission minutes. '
Your summation of Paul Krauss ' comments is not accurate. The
meeting transcript accurately reflect what was said.
Very truly yours,
C ' PBELL, KNU .ON, SCOTT
& FUCHS, P.
BY: —
R. . • 1
RNK:srn
Enclosures
cc: Paul Krauss '
I
I
Yankee Square Office III • Suit lip! • 34.n) Washington Drive • Eagan, NIN , ,; "
I • .
i
CITY OF
1 . A.
,_ ' _ CHANHASSEN
A .
Ar 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I .=,.� .
v, 10- (612) 937-19000 FAX (612) 937-5739
1 MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
IFROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director 0
IDATE: March 29, 1990
SUBJ: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment Dealing with
Excavation, Mining and Grading - Revised Draft
IPROPOSAL/SUMMARY
I On March 7, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed the first draft
of an ordinance dealing with all forms of mining, grading and other
earthwork activity in the City. The City Council requested the
I drafting of a ordinance out of concern with the City's inability to
adequately control these operations, most particularly, the Moon
Valley gravel mine.
I Staff prepared an ordinance that dealt with these activities in a
comprehensive manner. As such it would replace Article XXVII of
the current code that deals with mineral extraction with a much
I more complete set of guidelines and standards for all earthwork
activity. The proposal would relocate these standards from the
Zoning Ordinance into Chapter 7 of the City Code which deals with
building regulations and public safety. The City Attorney believes
1 that this section gives the city greater latitude to respond to
this issue. The draft also provides for administrative approval of
smaller size grading permits and in so doing resolved a significant
I loophole in the current code in an efficient and effective manner.
The draft ordinance contains a _provision that would require
existing, grandfathered operations to obtain a permit. This
I provision is designed to bring existing uses, such as Moon Valley,
into compliance. Consideration for the potenial dfficulty of
applying the ordinance to existing operations is provided by the
inclusion of a waiver section that cannot be applied due to pre-
1 existing conditions. We have stressed that this ordinance should
not be viewed as one that could be used to eliminate on-going
mining but rather its purpose is to establish regulatory controls
Iand safeguards.
Representatives of the Moon Valley operation and several neighbors
1 spoke at the Planning Commission meeting and additional guidance
was provided by the Commissioners. Staff was directed to make a
I
1
Mining Ordinance
March 29, 1990
Page 2
number of changes in the draft and to continue discussions with the
Moon Valley representatives regarding the ordinance. We are now
returning to the Planning Commission with a revised draft.
The current ordinance contains a number of revisions including:
1. Refined definitions.
2. Modified purpose statement. The minimum cut off for grading
requiring administrative approvals has been raised from 50
cubic yards to 100 cubic yards. Moving less than 100 yards
would require no permits unless a wetland was involved.
3. Perimeter fencing is still required and has also been required
around water storage basins but now the City will only require
fencing where it believes that there is a safety hazard. This
extensive perimeter fencing is not likely to be necessary.
4. Mining operation setbacks have not been changed. A 300 foot
setback is still being required. We acknowledge that Moon
Valley, with a current 50 foot setback, would not be in
compliance with this standard and a waiver would need to be
considered.
5. Tree planting and screening is now required only in areas
where the City determines it is necessary to screen off-site
views.
6. The requirement has been revised for paving 300 feet of
driveway. Its purpose is to reduce dust and potential for
tracking mud and rock into the public right-of-way. There are
purpose built rock or steel mat traps that are designed to
clean debris off of truck tires. The ordinance has been
modified to allow for the incorporation of these mechanisms in
lieu of the pavement requirement.
7. A large number of detail revisions are also incorporated. The
ordinance was reconstructed to provide more concise standards
and differentiate between mining and smaller scale grading
activities.
A copy of the ordinance was sent to the attorney for Moon Valley.
He was contacted by staff and invited to prepare a response. He
also indicated a concern about what sort of allowances could be
made for his client in the interests of achieving a compromise.
Staff indicated that we did not feel that we were in a position to
outline an agreeable plan since there is as yet no Moon Valley plan
to review and no ordinance has yet been adopted. We also pointed
out that the proposed ordinance is an inclusive one and not solely
a response to Moon Valley. At the same time we indicated that the
Mining Ordinance
March 29, 1990
Page 3
Planning Commission and some members of the City Council have
' indicated support of a compromise at such time as the ordinance is
in place and a permit requested.
' Lastly, staff had an opportunity to tour Moon Valley with the
owner. While there will undoubtedly be issues that need to be
resolved, Mr. Zweir does seem to be taking reasonable care to
maintain a safe and well planned operation an we were impressed
with this professionalism.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
' Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the draft
ordinance dealing with mining, excavation, filling and grading.
1
1
1
MAR-29-1990 14:57 FROM CAMPBELL. SCOTT & FUCHS TO 9s r5739 P.02,
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. '
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7 AND CHAPTER 20
OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE PERTAINING TO
EXCAVATING, MINING, FILLING, AND GRADING '
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains as
follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 7 of the Chanhassen City Code is hereby
amended by adding Article III to read as follows: '
7-30: PURPOSES AND INTENT.
The purpose of this Ordinance is to promote the
health, safety and welfare of the community and to establish
reasonable uniform limitations, standards, safeguards and
controls for excavating, mining, filling, and grading within the
City. Excavating, mining, filling, and grading permits for more
than one hundred (100) cubic yards, but less than one thousand
(1,000) cubic yards of material may be processed administra-
tively. Excavating, mining, filling, and grading of one thousand
(1,000) cubic yards of material or more shall be processed in the
same manner as an interim use permit.
7-31: DEFINITIONS.
The following words, terms and phrases shall have the
following meanings respectively ascribed to them:
Earth Work or Work the Earth: Excavating, mining,
filling or grading.
Excavating or Mining:
(a) The removal of the natural surface of the earth,
whether sod, dirt, soil, sand, gravel, stone, or other matter,
creating a depression or depressions.
(b) Any area where the topsoil or overburden '
been removed for the purpose sits ors
p rposa of removing earthly deposits or
minerals
yet the area has remained idle since the topsoil
removal.
(c) Any area that is being used for stockpiling,
storage, and processing of sand, gravel, black dirt, clay, and
other minerals.
i
r03/29/90
1
' land. Filling or Grading: To change the contour of the
' Overburden: Those materials which lie between the
surface of the earth and material deposit to be extracted.
Rehabilitation: To renew land to self-sustaining
' long-term use which is compatible with continguous land uses,
present and future, in accordance with the standards set forth in
this chapter.
' Topsoil: That portion of the overburden which lies
closest to the earth's surface and supports the growth of
' vegetation.
7-32: PERMIT REQUIRED.
' Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, 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 chapter. Active earth work
operations that predate this chapter that do not have a permit
shall obtain a permit ::it.hin six (6) months after the adoption of
this chapter. Current permit holders shall come into compliance
' with the terms of this chapter no later than the time their
annual permit is renewed.
' 7-33: EXEMPTIONS PROM PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.
The following activities do not require a permit
' under this chapter:
A. Excavation for a foundation, cellar, or basement of a
building if a building permit has been issued.
E. Grading a lot in conjunction with building if a building
permit has been issued.
C. Excavation by the federal, state, county, or city government
in connection with construction or maintenance of roads,
highways, or utilities.
' D. Curb cuts, utility hookups, or street s for w hich
openings
another permit has been issued by the City.
' E. Excavation or filling of more than one hundred (100) cubic
yards in a calendar year.
I
-2-
F. Plowing and tilling for agricultural purposes.
G. Earth work in accordance with a development contract approved
under the City's Subdivision Ordinance. If the development
contract requires that a letter of credit or other security
be posted, the letter of credit or other security must be
posted before any excavation takes place.
7-34: EXEMPT EARTB WORE. '
Earth work that is exempt from obtaining a permit
shall:
A. Comply with the City's erosion control standards.
B. Maintain natural or existing drainage patterns. '
C. Comply with the City's other ordinance requirements including
tree preservation and wetland protection.
7-35: APPLICATIONS TOR PERMITS.
A. An application for an earth work permit shall be processed in '
accordance with the same procedures specified in the City
Code relating to interim use permits except that earth work '
of more than one hundred (100) cubic yards of material but
less than one thousand (1,000) cubic yards of material may be
approved administratively.
B. An application for a permit shall contain:
1. The name and address of the operator and owner of the
land, together with proof of ownership.
2. The correct legal description of the property where the
activity is proposed to occur.
3. A certified abstract listing the names of all landowners
owning property within 500 feet of the boundary of the ,
property described above.
4. Specifications of the following, using appropriate maps,
photographs and surveys:
a. The physical relationship of the proposed designated
site to the community and existing development.
b. Site topography and natural features including
location of watercourses and water bodies. '
-3-
•
I
1"�"IfC—c 7-1.2 VW 1J•tXJ I JUU I I ON r A.f IJ I U 7J f J f J7 I—•KID
Ic. The description and quantity of material to be
excavated.
Id. The depth of water tables throughout the area.
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. A landscape plan.
10. The plan of operation, including processing, nature of
I 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.
• 12. The plans for drainage, water erosion control,
sedimentation and dust control.
' 13. A rehabilitation plan provided for the orderly and
continuing rehabilitation of all disturbed land. Such
plan shall illustrate, using photographs, maps and
surveys where appropriate, the following:
a. The contour of the land prior to excavation and
' proposed contours after completion of excavation and
after completion of rehabilitation.
' b. Those areas of the site to be used for storage of
topsoil and overburden.
c. A schedule setting forth the timetable for excavation
Iof land lying within the extraction facility.
d. The slope of all slopes after rehabilitation, based
I . upon proposed land uses, and 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 rehabilitation as well as intermittent
stabilization.
I !f.
fie
-4-
1
•
y
°- MAR-29-1990 15:01 FROM CAMPBELL, SCOTT & FUCHS TO 9375739 P.06
4
II1
12. A statement identifying the applicant's program to insure
compliance with the permit conditions, method of response
to complaints and resolving conflicts that may arise as a
II
result of complaints.
f 13. Unless exempt under Minnesota Rules, an environmental
{- assessment worksheet, if required by the City. II
14. A wetland alteration permit, if required by the City
Code, which shall be processed concurrently with the
II
lexcavation permit application.
15. Other information required by the City. I
7-36: PROCESSING OP PERMIT APPLICATIONS.
A. Except as otherwise provided herein, the City Council shall II. review the permit application and shall approve the permit if
i
1 it is in compliance with this chapter, the City's Zoning
Ordinance, and other applicable laws, ordinances, and
II
regulations.
B. A permit may be approved subject to compliance with
conditions necessary to ensure compliance with the II
requirements and purpose of this chapter. When such
conditions are established, they shall be set forth
specifically in the permit. Conditions may, among other
II
matters, limit the size, kind or character of the proposed
operation, require the construction of structures, require
I the staging of extraction over a time period, require the
he
alteration of the site design to ensure compliance with the II
standards, require the provision of a performance bond by the
operator to ensure compliance with these regulations in this II
article or other similar requirements.
C. Earth work of more than one hundred (100) but less than one
thousand (1,000) cubic yards of material in a twelve (12)
II
month period may be approved by the City Staff. The applicant
shall submit the fee required by Section 7-39 of the City
Code. The City Staff may also require the submission of any
of the items specified in subdivision 7-348. Upon receipt of
a completed application, 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 I
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
II
applicant aggrieved by a decision may appeal the
determination to the City Council.
1
1
-5-
t
MAR-29-1990 15:02 FROM CAMPBELL, SCOTT & FUCHS TO 9.5(ve,i9 P.07
I
II7-37: TERMINATION OF PERMIT.
II A. An earth work permit may be terminated for violation of this
chapter or any condition of the permit. No permit may be
terminated until the City Council has held a public hearing
II to determine whether the permit shall be terminated, at which
time the operator shall be afforded an opportunity to contest
the termination. The City Council may establish certain
conditions, which if not complied with, will result in
I immediate suspension of operations until the public hearing
to consider termination of the permit can be held.
I B. It shall be unlawful to conduct earth work after a permit has
been terminated.
I7-38: ANNUAL PERMITS; RENEWAL; CONDITIONS.
A. A renewable annual permit is required. The purpose of the
renewable permit is to assure compliance with the conditions
I of approval. The City Engineer, after consultation with
appropriate City staff, may issue renewal permits upon
satisfactory proof of compliance with this chapter. If the
I 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.
IB. Request for renewal of an annual permit shall be made sixt y
(60) days prior to the expiration date. If application or
I 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
IIthis chapter for an original permit.
7-39: ISSUANCE OP PERMIT IMPOSES MO LIABILITY ON
CITY AND
RELIEVES THE PERMITTEE OP NO RESPONSIBILITIES.
I • Neither the issuance of a permit under this section,
nor compliance with the conditions thereof or with the provisions
of this section shall relieve any person from any responsibility
otherwise imposed by law for damage to persons or property; nor
shall the issuance of any permit under this section serve to
I impose any liability on the City, its officers or employees for
any injury or damage to persons or property. A permit issued
pursuant to this section does not relieve the permittee of the
responsibility of securing and complying with any other permit
which may be required by any other law, ordinance or regulation.
7-40: FEES.
•
A schedule of fees for the examination and approval
of applications for permits under this section and the inspection
Il of operations for compliance with the conditions of this section
and the permit shall be determined by resolution of the City
I, -6-
1
MAR-29-1990 15:03 FROM CAMPBELL, SCOTT & FUCHS TO y,3'r5'r,S9 P.08
Council, which may, from time to time, change such schedule.
Prior to the approval and issuance or renewal of any permit under
this section, such fees shall be paid to the City and deposited
to the credit of the general fund.
7-41: AGREEMENT; IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT. '
Prior to the issuance of a permit, there shall be
executed by the operator and landowner and submitted to the City
an agreement to construct such required improvements and to
comply with such conditions for approval as may have been
established by the City 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. The adequacy of the letter of credit shall be
reviewed annually by the City. The City 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 use the proceeds to
cure the default.
7-42: 8ETBACZ8. '
Mining for the purpose of selling sand, gravel, black
dirt, clay, and other minerals shall not be conducted within:
A. One hundred (100) feet of an existing street or highway.
B. Thirty (30) feet of an easement for an existing public
utility.
C. 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 from the boundary of adjoining property
not in mining use.
7-43: FENCING.
During operations permitted under this chapter, any
area where excavation slopes are steeper than one foot vertical
to one and one-half (1-1/2) 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 (6)
foot high chain link fence meeting Minnesota Department of
Transportation standards for right-of-way fencing. '
-7-
- MAR-29-1990 15:05 FROM CAMPBELL, SCOTT & FUCHS TO 9srr.S9 P.09
ii .
II7-44: APPEARANCE AND SCREENING.
II The following standards are required at the site of
any operation permitted under this article:
1. Machinery shall be kept in good repair. Abandoned
I machinery, inoperable equipment and rubbish shall be
removed from the site.
I 2. All buildings and equipment that have not been used for a
period of one year shall be removed from the site.
I 3. All equipment and temporary structures shall be removed
and dismantled not later than ninety (90) days after
termination of the extraction operation and expiration of
the permit.
Iis 4. Where practical, stockpiles of overburden and materials
`l. shall be used as part of the screening for the site.
0
I :. 5. Where the City determines it is appropriate to screen
off-site views, the perimeter of the site shall be
I k_• planted with coniferous trees, bermed, or otherwise
;ry screened. Trees shall be at least six (6) feet in height
at the time of planting.
I ; 6. Existing tree and ground cover shall be preserved to the
extent feasible, maintained and supplemented by selective
cutting, transplanting of trees, shrubs, and other ground
I cover along all setback areas.
7. Weeds shall be eradicated.
7-45: OPERATIONS/ NOISE; SOURS; EXPLOSIVES; DUST; WATER
POLLUTION: TOPSOIL PRESERVATION.
I The following operating standards shall be observed
at the site of any operation permitted under this section:
1. The maximum noise level at the perimeter of the site
I shall be within the limits set by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency and the Federal Environmental Protection
Agency.
I2. Earth work shall be performed during only those times
established by the City Council as part of the permit.
I3. Operators shall use all practical means to eliminate
vibration on adjacent property from equipment operation.
I 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
Iand Federal Environmental Protection Agency regulations
-8-
1
MAR-29-1990 15:06 FROM CAMPBELL, SCOTT & FUCHS TO 9375739 P.10
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
rehabilitation of the site has taken place according to
the rehabilitation plan.
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
impossible 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. I
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.
7-46: REHABILITATION STANDARDS.
The following rehabilitation standards shall apply to
the site of any operation permitted under this chapter:
1. The plan must be consistent with the City's comprehensive '
plan and zoning ordinance.
2. Rehabilitation shall be a continuing operation occurring I
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
rehabilitation plan submitted with the permit
application.
1
MAR-29-1990 15:07 FROM CAMPBELL, SCOTT & FUCHS TO 9,5'rDl39 P.11
4. Slopes, graded pe , gr d a teas and backfill areas shall be surfaced
with adequate topsoil to secure and hold ground cover.
U Such ground cover shall be tended as necessary until it
is self-sustained.
' 5. All water areas resulting from excavation shall be
eliminated upon rehabilitation of the site. In unique
instances where the City Council has reviewed proposals
' for water bodies at the time of approval of the overall
plan and has determined that such would be appropriate as
an open space or recreational amenity in subsequent reuse
of the site, water bodies may be permitted.
6. No part of the rehabilitation 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.
Finished grades shall also be consistent with the
established plan for the property rehabilitation.
7. Provide a landscaping plan illustrating reforestation,
ground cover, wetland restoration, and other features.
' 7-47: WAIVER.
The City Council may allow deviation from the
standards set forth herein:
1 1. For operations that existed prior to the enactment of
this ordinance 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 u se and in tent of
the standard are agreed upon by the purpose
and the
operator.
SECTION 2. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by
amending Article XXVII in its entirety to read:
20-1351: MIMING.
' Mining is only allowed in the zoning district where
such use is delineated as an allowed use. In addition to
complying with the requirements of the zoning ordinance, all such
' uses shall comply with the Chanhassen excavation and mining
ordinance, Chapter 7, Article III, of the Chanhassen City Code.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and publication.
-10-
MAR-29-1990 15:08 FROM CAMPBELL, SCOTT & FUCHS 70 9.5( (49 P.12
i
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen,1
this ____ day of ,, 1990.
ATTEST:
i
i
Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990) .
1
•
•
1
1
1
i
i
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
-11- 1
Planning Commission Meeting
II March 7, 1990 - Page 6
II PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE IV, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, AND
ARTICLE XXVII, MINERAL EXTRACTION PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF GRADING
IAND MINERAL EXTRACTION ACTIVITIES.
Public Present:
1 Name Address
Mike Dwyer 1600 TCF Tower, Minneapolis
I Tom Zwiers 9390 267 St. West, Lakeville
Jerry Rypkema 18601 Panama, Prior Lake
Leon & Delores Mesenbrink 250 Flying Cloud Drive
I Diane Beauchane
Jason & Tara Beck 240 Flying Cloud Drive
240 Flying Cloud Drive
IPaul Krauss presented the staff report.
IIConrad: How would we know how this ordinance impacts Moon Valley?
Krauss: I would defer that to the Moon Valley operators. We've asked them
consider that?
Ito
Conrad: It's hard, there are separate issues Planning Commission but yet
• we do know that there is a definite impact apparently with the ordinance
I on Moon Valley operation but tonight we literally are looking at an
ordinance that governs all of these activities in Chanhassen. We are
looking at an ordinance. We're not looking specifically at Moon Valley.
I As Moon Valley gives us some items to consider, we may want to modify the
ordinance or take a look at those considerations a little bit closer. It's
a public hearing, we'll open it up for public comments at this time.
IMichael Dwyer: Mr. Chairman, my name is Michael Dwyer. I'm an attorney
representing Moon Valley Aggregate and it's president, Tom Zwiers. I
practice at the law firm of Mackall, Crounse & Moore in Minneapolis. Our
I firm has represented Mr. Zwiers and Moon Valley in a number of actions. As
to why I'm on this particular file, I think it's also due to the fact that
I'm on the Planning Commission for the City of Mendota Heights. Presumably
II I know a little bit about land use laws. Mr. Zwiers is here this evening
along with his assistant Jerry Rypkema and Mr. Zwiers and Mr. Rypkema can
fill you in on some of the details in how Moon Valley gravel pit is
operated. I understand that several of you folks have taken advantage of
I Mr. Zwiers' offer to tour you through the site. I think 4 or 5 or 6 of you
may have done that. We are here this evening in opposition to the
ordinance and we have a number of reasons why. The first one is, I think
1 if we cut through all the semantics, there is no question but that this
ordinance targeted to Moon Valley. If you read the City Council Minutes,
if you read the staff report, this thing is being generated just for Moon
11 Valley alone. Moon Valley is the only mining operation in the City of
Chanhassen. I understand sir your attempt to make a distinction between
reviewing separate ordinances apart from Moon Valley but I think that's an
II
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 1990 - Page 7 I
impossible task for you folks.
P You have to look at this ordinance in light,
of the Moon Valley operation. So we oppose it on the grounds that it's
targeting a pre-existing, legally existing, non-conformity. Mr . Krauss
indicated that it was a non-conformity to a certain degree. Well there
aren't any degrees about it. It's a legal non-conformity recognized by
Chanhassen's ordinances. It was in existence long before the City of
Chanhassen, laid over the City it's zoning ordinances and it has the force
of law behind it. It's a legitimate operation. This proposal , the ,
proposed ordinance seeks to take away from Moon Valley the legal right of
being a non-conforming entity. Take it away and not give anything in
return. That's inappropriate. Beyond not giving anything in return, it 11
demands compliance by going through a permit process that Moon Valley
estimates may cost as much as $35,000.00. Now as Mr. Krauss said, we have
met with representatives of the City. The City told us they had absolutel.
no concept as to how much it would cost to comply with this permit and wherll
we threw out the figure of 35 we were told, well get a different estimate.
Go talk to someone else to see how much it would comply with. The permit
process is expensive and I think it's darn uncertain whether a permit woulc',
ever be granted to Moon Valley. That is inappropriate. It's just unfair.
We further oppose this ordinance because the City has not presented any
evidence, and I 'm not sure it can, that this ordinance is required. It's
not necessary. It is couched in terms of an exercise of the City's police '.
power but the City hasn't demonstrated the necessity to exercise and
interfere with an existing land use. As Mr. Krauss indicated, there had
been rumors and I'm using his word of an expansion on the part of Moon
( Valley. That has been since proved to be absolutely wrong. Moon Valley
has absolutely no plans to expand it's mining operations and never did hav
any plans to expand it's mining operations by purchasing additional land.
There have been no automobile truck accidents involving Moon Valley trucks
We are unaware of any incidents of citizens or visitors or anyone being
endangered by the operations of Moon Valley. As I understand the law, II there's got to be a need before the City can flex it's muscles and try to
take away from someone or an entity something that the City has already
recognized. To the contrary, in terms of the way this operation is run, I
think those of you who have viewed it would agree that it's being run in a
very responsible and far sighted manner. Mr. Zwiers has operated the mine
in such a manner that he is terracing or stepping the mining operation so
that when the deposits are exhausted, there will be terraced area availabl�
for future homes. Particularly on the bluff area, I think those of you wh
were up there would agree that it's a magnificant site up there and the
only reason and all the reasons Mr. Zwiers and Moon Valley need not to
destroy that property. He has a vested interest in making sure that that
beautiful property remains so. His long range plan is to have it submit it
to the City for subdivision for residential lots. To that end he has
purchased land on the top side off of Pioneer Trail so that access can be II
gained to the top side of the area for those residential lots. The top
soil is being preserved. There's a huge mound of black dirt there. The
dust and erosion is under control. Moon Valley has worked with MnDot in II
terms of putting up truck signs. Has requested to expand the shoulder at II
the entrance without much success. It's a responsible operation contrary
(' to I think the assumption that got this whole ball rolling that it was an
irresponsible operation. We further oppose this ordinance because the Cit�
already has an ordinance dealing with mining operations contrary to what is
I
1 ' Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 1990 - Page 8
I , .,.
t represented in the staff report. The existing zoning ordinance dealing
with mineral extraction, and I'm reading from Section 20-1351 to Section
20-1384. There is an extensive mineral extraction ordinance on the books
and it deals with everything. It talks about fencing and noise.
' Appearance and screening. Hours of operation. Explosives. Fugitive dust.
Slopes during excavation. Top soil preservation. Water pollution.
Equipment. Processing. The application process is all set out there. The
' permit process is set out. That there would be a public hearing for the
permit. There is a section here on the surety bond. You've already got a
darn extensive ordinance that deals with mineral extraction. Now the big
difference and the principle difference between what is on the books as the
City has indicated to us, and what is now being proposed, is the new
ordinance takes away from the grandfathered status of Moon Valley and
that's the essential difference. The language is a little bit cleaner in
' your new ordinance. I think that's probably because Mr. Knutson drafted it
and I don' t know who drafted this first one. But clearly the intent of
that new ordinance is to deprive Mr. Zwiers and Moon Valley of the
' grandfathered status . That's not right. This is still America folks and
you can't take away from him something that is a vest property right. You
can't without a real strong showing that he and Moon Valley are operating
in a dangerous manner. Finally, Moon Valley opposes this ordinance because
if adopted , under the proposed ordinance it would be put out of business.
As Mr. Krauss eluded to, there are setback requirements and Moon Valley has
operated in such a manner that it's in violation of those proposed setback
requirements. So for all those reasons in addition to the fact that it's
going to cost, it would cost Moon Valley an awful lot of money to go
through the permit process, we would request that you folks recommend to
the City Council upon findings that there is no demonstrated need for a new
' ordinance. That the new ordinance is unduly burdensome to Moon Valley.
That the measures sought are not reasonably necessary. That you recommend
to the City not to adopt this ordinance. If you folks accept the
recommendation of the Planning Director, to have the City adopt an
ordinance that you already have, we would ask that you continue the
grandfather and exempt Moon Valley from the provisions of the new
' ordinance. Turn over this section to Mr. Zwiers if you folks have any
particular questions as to how Moon Valley has been operated and the future
scope of Moon Valley's operations and what Mr. Zwiers' plans are in terms
of using that land in the future. I'd just like to reiterate that the best
' security that the City has in terms of how that operation is going to be
used is the land itself. There's absolutely no need for a bond or a letter
of credit to be posted because he's not going anywhere. He wants to live
' out that land.
Conrad: Michael there are 4 things you said. The cost was extensive. You
didn't like the setback requirement. It basically constituted a taking or
' a taking of rights. What else? Is that it? Are those the key factors?
We're really interested in specifics in the ordinance that we see in front
of us. The impact on you and I've only seen, the cost is one thing
' obviously. The setbacks is another. I'm curious what else?
Mike Dwyer: Okay, I can address some other ones. Under the proposed
ordinance the City Engineer would have the sole discretion to require that
this entire 85 acres be fenced. I don't know what the cost of that would
I
•
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 1990 - Page 9
- be but it would have to be enormous. The ordinance requires that any
slope, existing slope that has a degree of greater than 1:1.5 be fenced. II
Your existing ordinance has that and also has an additional requirement
that this new ordinance doesn't pick up and that is that you'd have to
fence any pool of water that's deeper than 1 1/2 feet. There is a
requirement that Moon Valley give to the City for it's consideration the
routes that the trucks hauling this product would take. Presumably just
the roads in the city. There's a requirement that all the haul roads be II
paved with asphalt or concrete. That is an additional expense. Well , I
have not gone through the entire ordinance to direct it toward the
particular operations but we could do that at a later time if you'd like II
to. I can pinpoint. . .
Conrad: I guess I 'm not as concerned and maybe other people are, how the
operation is running today and maybe we'•11 hear some neighbors comment
about that. I am very interested in the specifics with the ordinance. We
have to decide how it impacts you based on how you tell us it's impacting
you and obviously the 300 feet versus 50, that's a problem. But you know, II
I think we need to hear and obviously some of these things cost money and
we have to figure out if it's worth it on our part but until we hear the
problems, we really don't know. The general things, it costs a lot. II Everything, businesses cost a lot. That's just an absolute. There is a
cost associated with running a business. We need to know what those costs
are. We need to know if they're excessive and we have to make some kind of
decision. 1
Mike Dwyer : Another one that comes to mind in terms of putting Moon Valley
out of business would be the requirement that the processing equipment
which consistent in Moon Valley primarily of a screening operation, cannot II
be within 500 yards of adjacent land that is not dedicated to mining.
Well, we'd be in violation under that provision of this proposed ordinance.'
The hours of operation. I can't remember under the old ordinance or the
new ordinance how that is dictated. I think those hours of operation would
be negotiable. Moon Valley hauls a great deal for the State and local
governments. They have their own requirements as to when, they prefer that
these trucks be on the road during the evening as opposed to heavy private
passenger use. The principle point though sir is this ordinance, if
passed, would put costs, unreasonable costs on an operation that has
existed before the ordinance did. That's our concern. It's a
non-conforming use. Your ordinances recognize it as a non-conforming use
and now you're taking that away. There's no difference between a non-
conforming use that is regulated and, it disappears. A non-conforming use I
becomes regulated. It's not a non-conforming use. If you do have any
questions of Mr. Zwiers, I'd invite you to ask them. Perhaps while he does
that, I'll flyspect the ordinance again and point out further. Perhaps
it'd be best if I submit to you in writing a detail of how this• • .
Conrad: That'd be appropriate. Let's see where the hearing goes. I
Mike Dwyer: Thank you.
{ Conrad: Thank you. Other comments?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
,March 7, 1990 - Page 14
•
Erhart: The question I had, is that even, should that even be a
requirement? What happens if it was required that it had to have gravity
' flow even before they started to hook into a sewer? You might be imparting
a constraint that they didn't start with.
'
Krauss: That's true. I guess the thing you're avoiding is a situation
where you have a crater with homes at the bottom of the crater and
everything has to get pumped up the hill.
' Erhart: I 'm just asking you to look at the sentence there.
Krauss: We can take a further look at that.
' Erhart: It may be a little bit too constraining. Anyway, I know Steve's
got a whole list of things so, regarding the ordinance so I'll just pass it
to him and if I 've got some more.
Emmings: I guess I'm comfortable that the City can enact an ordinance to
regulate a deal with this subject generally for the City but I 've got some
' real serious concerns as to exactly how this ordinance winds up being
applied to Moon Valley. Although it's been said several times here that
all businesses have costs and obviously that's true. It's one thing to
have a business, to plan your business and plan those costs in and decide
' if you're going to go forward as opposed to having your business up and
running on some kind of profit margin and then having regulations imposed
on you that may threaten your existence so I think there's a difference
' there. While the staff report says it's not punitive. I can sure see that
if I were the operator and it were true that these new regulations would in
fact cost me more than my profit margin. I 'd sure view them as punitive.
' But like I say, I think we can and should regulate this activity. We ought
to have a good ordinance in place for these kinds of activities. I 've got
a solution in mind maybe so we can maybe accommodate everybody I would
hope. I'm curious as to whether or not the operation of this gravel pit
' has generated complaints to the City?
Krauss: Commissioner, I 'd have to say yes it has. But the applicant or
' Mr. Zwiers, the future applicant possibly, has asked us repeatedly to tell
him how many complaints we've gotten and that's tough because you know
there were individuals there who were making a lot of phone calls and we
got a lot of phone calls from other agencies.
Emmings: I don't care so much about the numbers as the type. What have
people complained about?
' Olsen: About the expansion recently. How far it's going to be going. . .
' Emmings: Now if we move back in time to when all of this activity started,
the complaints about the expansion. What kind of complaints were we
getting prior to that time?
Olsen: I don't recall any.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 1990 - Page 15
•
Emmings: So we weren't getting complaints about anything? Okay. I have
specific things on language in the ordinance. Do you want me to go throug
that?
Conrad: Yeah, I think so.
Emmings: Okay. I think in Section 7-30 where it says, it would be the I
sixth line down, it says cubic yards of material. It says shall be
processed adminstratively. In Section 7-35(a) it says they may be. Here
it says they shall be and I think it should be one way or the other in bot
places and I think it should be may because I think the staff may elect no
to process it adminstratively.
Krauss: I would agree with that, yes. '
Emmings: So I think that shall should be changed to may. And then
following up on that point, in 7-34 (a) . Instead of saying it may be
approved, I think the approved should be changed to processed
adminstratively again just for, you don't want anybody thinking you only
have the power to approve. You have the power to deny as well but I think II
if you say you have the power to process them, that keeps all your options
as open as possible. Under the definition section, 7-31. It defines the
word grade and you already have a definition in the Code of the word grade'
as a noun and here it' s being used as verb and I think that's real
confusing. Or here it's being used as a verb or a noun but anyway, the
definition we already have in the Code is different than the one that' s
here and I think that word should be changed to grading. '
Batzli: Is the definition in the Chapter 20, Zoning section?
Emmings: Yeah.
Batzli : So it's in a different section.
Emmings: Yeah, it's in 20-1, Definitions.
Batzli : And this is going to be Chapter 7. So it's going to be in a
different chapter.
Emmings: But I think nevertheless, I think it should say grading because
the ordinance is called excavations, mining and grading so what we're
defining as grading, not the word grade and the same with mine. The next
one down. It should be mining. '
Batzli: Excavating?
Emmings: No, because look at the title. Just to keep it consistent with
what the name of the ordinance is. Now grading, would this ordinance cove
a situation where someone is hauling in dirt or some other material into
their property and just laying it on top of the ground? Because that'd be/
( changing the contour so that would be grading? Do you think people think
of that as grading?
Planning Commission Meeting
II March 7, 1990 - Page 16
II (
Krauss: We could add filling. Should we add filling?
' Emmings: I don't know. It's just something that occurred to me when I
read, grading to me means kind of shoving around dirt on the same site and
I don't know. I .don't know if that includes hauling in dirt from off site
' and then shoving it around and whether you'd want to expand that definition
to make it perfectly clear that we're talking about or removing soil from
the site or adding soil to the site or pushing dirt around on the same site
might make it clearer what we're talking about there. I don't know. Under
' 7-33, Exemptions from Permit Requirements. I was wondering why we're
exempting (a) and (b) . I'm wondering, are we doing that because that
really is looked at as part of the building permit process?
Krauss: That's correct.
Emmings: Okay. Under application for permit under 7-34 (b) . Under number
' 9 it says that there has to be a landscape plan and I 'm wondering what, I
guess I was thinking it didn't make much sense to me but I guess I was only
thinking about it in terms of like an operation like Moon Valley. A mining
' operation as opposed to, this might cover a lot of other circumstances
where you would want a landscape plan so that would be right?
Krauss: Arguably you'd also want one with the Moon Valley type of
operation. We get into buffering and screening later in the ordinance.
That's where that information will be provided.
' Emmings: Alright. That section I would add a 15. Under 13 there's an
(f) that says other information required by the City. I think that ought
to be just moved out to number 15, the whole list. So if there's any kind
' of site specific or other information that was needed that could be
required under this Section then. On page 5 at the top under the paragraph
that starts with a (b) there, the third line down. It says, again may be
' approved and I would change approved to processed administratively again.
Then in that same paragraph, sixth line down it eludes to a subdivision
10-154 and I think that's a stranger to our ordinance. I think you mean
7-34 (b) but I don't know. Then in (c) there, I'm not sure, it says
Iimplementation of the overall plan.
Batzli: Did you try to rewrite that?
Emmings: Well , first I tried to understand it and I don't know. It says
implementation of the overall plan. I think what we're talking about there
is the operator's overall plan. Is that right? I wasn't sure what overall
plan meant there.
Krauss: I think that's a reasonable modification.
Emmings: I thought maybe it ought to say compliance with permit approval
or something like that, shall be by means of a renewal annual permit. That
doesn't make me entirely happy but something. I thought maybe that got
more at what you were trying to say.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 1990 - Page 17
Batzli: Can I give him my shot while he's on there. Any approved permit II
shall be valid for a period of 1 calendar year and may be renewed for an
additional 1 year period upon renewal in accordance with this section. '
Emmings: Sure. I think that's better. Then I thought the last half of
that paragraph where it talked about the City Engineer being able to
process this. Either ought to be under Section 7-37 where it talks about I
renewals or at least there ought to be a reference in 7-37 (a) at the end
back to that paragraph where it talks about how the City Engineer does it.
One way or the other . Otherwise you look under the heading for renewal an
you don't find the procedure there. Under termination of permit 7-36, in II
(a) it talks about material extraction permit. What we're talking about
here is mining, extraction and grading so this one seems to be written too
narrow to me. We should change that. It should be as broad as the
ordinance itself is. In 7-42, vertical was misspelled. Then when I got
over to 7-43 (6) it says the perimeter of the site shall be planted
coniferous trees or otherwise screened. Again, it was hard to stop I
thinking about Moon Valley through a lot of these things. That would be
nuts up there to me. To require a site that size to be planted in
coniferous trees around it when it sits up in a place where you can't see
it kind of anyway. I hope we're going to be reasonable when we apply this II
stuff. Then I thought maybe, I've got two things I 'd like to throw out as
possible additions to the ordinance. One, it seemed to me that if a perso
didn' t do the rehab in conformance with their rehabilitation plan. I'll
read the paragraph I wrote here. If rehab is not completed in conformance
{ with the rehab plan, rehab standards or permit conditions within 30 days of
written notice of violations by the City to the permit holder, then the I
City may enter the property and complete rehabilitation. I thought there
ought to be some provision so that if they walked away from the site, you
can have the City give a notice for them of the specific violations that
there have been and then let the City go in and do that so that it does ge
done. And then I thought the written notice of violation shall contain a
list of specific violations and the City may enter only to remedy those
violations specifically included in writing. If the City must complete '
rehabilitation, it may recoup it's cost by one, resort to any financial
security posted by the permit holder. Two, collection proceedings against
the permit holder . And three, assessment of cost against the property I
described in the permit. I thought that would give us a real potent tool
for making sure that these properties get rehabilitated because to me
that's the most important part. Or one of the most important aspects of ,
the whole thing. I also thought that, or throw out for consideration a
provision that if the landowner is a person other than the permit holder,
that we get landowners to join in the permit application and also sign a
statement that the landowner and his successors in interest be bound by the
permit conditions and grant the City the right to enter the property at an_
time to check for permit compliance or to complete rehabilitation. That
way avoiding any problems later on of the City trespassing. You can give
the permit holder, I was thinking then after I did that that maybe we also
ought to give, if there's a notice of violations under that other section,
it ought to go to both the land owner and the permit holder if they're
different people. What happens to our present Section 20 that deals with I
mineral extraction if we pass this ordinance?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 1990 - Page 18
I ( - Krauss: We would have to drop it. There should be a concurrent.
' Emmings: Shouldn't that be part of this that that would be revoked or
repealled or whatever it's called technically? Now as far as, if we assume
that this operation is grandfathered in or becomes a non-conforming use,
which I guess is the same thing, is that the same thing Roger? To say
something is grandfathered in, is that the same thing as simply calling it
a non-conforming use under the ordinance?
' Roger Knutson: Yes. To just point out, taking care of the existing
Chapter 20, we do that. If you look on page 9 of the draft ordinance,
Section 7-46 (2) there. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended
by amending Article XXVII in it's entirety to read: , so we've taken care of
that.
Emmings: In it's entirety to read: and then what?
' Roger Knutson: Turn to the next page.
' Emmings: Oh, alright.
Roger Knutson: So everything in that chapter right now will be eliminated
and replaced with that.
Emmings: Okay. So that's already taken care of. You know you're not
�._ supposed to be able to expand a non-conforming use. Is that right?
Roger Knutson: Yes but. The Supreme Court recognized that certain types
of uses such as a gravel mine cannot continue to exist unless the hole gets
' bigger so they have said that even though non-conforming uses cannot
expand, call it an exception or this is not expanding. This is
continuation of the business so they have the right to continue to make the
hole bigger.
' Emmings: Okay. And what limits that right?
Roger Knutson: Of making the hole bigger?
Emmings: Yeah. Now they're up to within 50 feet of the property line at
least in one point that we've heard discussed here tonight and I guess,
' they can' t go so close to that property line that the next fellow's land
collapses or something like that. They've got to leave support there for
his property but is that all that really restricts there?
' Roger Knutson: Currently in Chanhassen?
Emmings: Yeah.
Roger Knutson: Yes. We have no regulation of the non-conforming use other
than nuisance which is kind of not a very great instrument for handling
these sorts of things but they can create public nuisances. Depending on
what they were doing, that could come into play.
Planning Commission Meeting ,'
March 7, 1990 - Page 19
Emmings: I went out to the site and was shown around and Mr. Zwiers told
me what his plans are for the property and so forth. As we were standing
up by the office area, I asked him what was underneath my feet and he said
more clay and more sand. I asked him why he didn't plan to remove
everything right down to the road level and he said that he just felt the
property had more value if he didn't do that. He showed me that he had thil
top soil segregated and set aside on one part of the property and he
described to me what his ultimate plan was, at least at this point in time
for completely the mining of the property and hopefully maybe building
houses up there someday. I guess I feel pretty strongly that, while I
think the ordinance is fine and reasonable, I wouldn't be happy if this
ordinance operated on his property to put him out of business which I 've
heard stated is not our intention. There seems to be a lot of latitude
under the ordinance in the way the provision and so forth for taking into
account what he's got. The fact that he was there before we had an
ordinance but if someone wanted to get real literal with the ordinance, it '
could do him I suspect a lot of harm in terms of the way it affects his
operation. I think that having, I'm all for some of these things such as
him having fences up where there's very steep slopes that could cave in if '
children got up there or something like that. Those kinds of stories you
read in the paper on an all too frequent basis. I think there' s some real
dangers there that need to be addressed but when I see things like having
the entire site screened or trees put around it, that's I think a good
example of one if people got too literal with the ordinance, would be
devastating to his business and kind of silly besides. My proposal , and I
don't know if it would be, I just don't know if it can be done but it woul
seem to me that there are provisions in here such as, Mr. Zwiers when he
talked to me told me he had very specific notions about how the property
was going to look when he was done. He stood there and said, this level 's !'
going to stay where it is. I'm going to take out these areas. I'm goin
to have another level up here. I'm going to do this with these slopes and
he told me, he seems to have a very specific plan and I guess if that plan
maybe the way to handle this, or one way of handling this probably of this il
existing entity under our ordinance would be to reduce that to writing.
Get him to put down what it is that he's got in mind for the property right
now and considering our ordinance, making sure that he has a rehabilitatio
plan. He told me he does and he described what it was and put that down ail
this point in time and just make an agreement with Mr. Zwiers that he's
going to ultimately have the site in such and such a condition. Then as '
the. . .maybe relieve him from some of the obligations under here that if
enforced literally would cause him problems. There may be some things in
the middle like putting up fences on steep slopes that he might not want to
do that we might want him to do that maybe could be compromised. Or maybe '
there are things that we'll just plain want him to do. But it seems to me
those aren' t the big things if the big things are to everybody like they
are to me, making sure that the site is safe. That it's not causing a
nuisance to neighbors and that there's a rehabilitation plan. An ultimate "
plan for the property. That's all I've got to say.
Conrad: That's the longest you've ever talked. '
Emmings: Sorry.
Planning Commission Meeting
II. *•March 7, 1990 - Page 20
II ( Batzli: I agree with Steve.
g I was out there with Jim. and I ' ll admit I got
the same tour, or close facsimile and he explained to me what he was going
' to do. I don' t have a problem with what he's going to do. I'd like to see
him be able to reach an agreement with the City that allows him to do that
provided that fits in with the planning staff and our view of things when
it's kind of reduced to writing but I think he's got a good plan for what
he wants to do out there. I think some safety things do have to be
addressed. If it was a rainy season and there was actually water in some
of his sumps, maybe fencing around that. Around some of the steep slopes.
' I agree that the safety considerations and nuisance things need to be
handled and should be regulated but I don't have a problem with being
flexible in regards to a lot of the things that I see in this particular
' ordinance given the fact that obviously for instance on the setbacks and
things, he's already exceeded those and prior to his expansion if you will ,
it doesn't appear that there were any complaints. So I like Steve's idea
if there's some way to do that. I also liked his additions to the
' ordinance and I had some things throughout the ordinance too that I ' ll talk
about but I 'm in general agreement.
Conrad: Do you want to talk about the changes?
Batzli: I don't know. Do you want me to talk about them now? The one
thing I would like to see added is the fencing around the water. I 'd like
I to see that back in there. The other thing is, the one thing that bothered
{ me throughout and some of the other things are less important is the
definition of the word earth. To change the contour of the earth. I don't
' understand if it's being used as a planet or, the legal definition of earth
is soil, alone is distinguished from soil rock. I mean that's the legal
definition of earth. So I don' t know quite how it's being used and if it' s
' a proper noun, let's capitalize it or what are we doing here. That
bothered me. I'm not an English professor so can we get help on that one?
The only other minor one is in 7-30. It should be 1,000 cubic yards of
material or more or else you're stuck at 1,000 cubic yards. You don't know
' what to do. Take out the word more than right before the second use of
1,000 cubic yards. My proposal for Moon Valley actually before hearing
Steve's was going to be that they would be allowed to phase in some of
' these things over a period of time so they could take them into
consideration when bidding on future jobs and so you don't nail them all at
once with the cost that is a burden to them. At least they know it's going
to hit over some period of time rather than boom, it's passed. 6 months
from now you have to have all this implemented or at least be the permit in
process because actually it says I guess, shall obtain a permit and that' s
questionable whether they could actually do that in 6 months given that
' it's kind at our option how quickly we proceed. One last thing. That is
on the 50 cubic yards, how did we arrive at that number? I mean that's
basically 5 dump trucks of black dirt on somebody's lawn if they're going
to correate, put some black dirt on there.
Wildermuth: Probably a little low.
' Krauss: A little low like we're regulating too much? It could be raised.
It came from experience in working with similar ordinances elsewhere. 5
truckloads of dirt is probably enough for somebody to get black dirt down
Planning Commission Meeting 1
March 7, 1990 - Page 21
to sod a lawn which is fine. Nobody cares about that. When you go over
that, you tend to have the ability to impact drainage and wetlands and
you're starting to get into the area that we'd like to look at. If you
wanted it raised to 100 yards or some other number, we wouldn't have a
problem with that necessarily but that's basically where it's derived from.
Batzli: Wasn't one of the exclusions in the previous ordinance residential'
lots though?
Krauss: Relative to building permits. With the building permit. '
Batzli: With the building permit? Okay.
Krauss: And that's still an exemption. I had a couple of other minor
things that I' ll just show to Paul later.
Wildermuth: As far as Moon Valley is concerned, I'd like to see some kind II
of a development plan arrived at between the City and city staff and the
mine owner so that he could obtain a permit and probably would not have to
meet requirements on the new proposed ordinance. I think the ordinance is
a tight one. I think to some degree we're sending the message out that we
don't want mining operations in Chanhassen. Which brings up another point.
Roger, one of the things that does bother me a little bit is that there ,
seems to be kind of a mingling of the idea of excavation, filling and
grading of minerals. I guess I'd like to see a little clearer distinction
between the two. I think they can be combined in one ordinance but we tal
about, first we talk about landscape plans and then we talk about labeling
trees and under the same heading we also talk about rehabilitation plans
and distances for processing equipment from, somewhere it said 1,500 feet.
1,500 feet from the boundary of the adjoining property and that brings up
another point. I think we've got to look at specific kinds of processing
operations. A washing operation, 500 yards would be quite a distance for
washing operation. For example, in the Moon Valley operation you couldn' t
go 500 yards almost in any direction except maybe the west.
Roger Knutson: Just to point out. You're looking at the second draft and ,
quite frankly the first draft which was produced 3 days before this draft
is dated, didn' t address filling at all and Paul and I talked and we agreed
that filling should be addressed and we did, kind of quick and got
something in here on filling. I agree with you it can use. 1
Wildermuth: A separate distinction between mining the grading, filling and
excavation. The other interesting thing that I'd like to point out is thall
wherever mineral extraction is used, I think we should replace that
terminology with mining. Extraction means separating metals from their
ores and we're not talking about that here. We're talking about mining
clay, gravel, sand. We're not really talking about mineral extraction in a'
mining sense of the term.
Conrad: Should we be? '
Wildermuth: I don't think so unless somebody knows something that the
experts don't. Unless we're sitting on a lot of iron ore or copper or
Planning Commission Meeting
A , ', March 7, 1990 - Page 22
I ,,
�
something like that. Silver. Gold. I think that the ordinance in general
is appropriate for future operations. I think it gives us a good handle
' and good control of future operations in Chanhassen and I think that's what
we want and that' s what we need. I agree with what has been said about
Moon Valley. I was very impressed by the mine site. I 've been in a few
mine sites. This is very orderly. Very neat. The man does have a plan
and his ultimate goal is to develop the property. The equipment that I saw
was pretty impressive. The office was first rate. I don't think there' s
anything shabby about this operation. I'm sure that we can come to some
' understanding recognizing that the grandfather status and so on, we can
come to some agreement, some understanding, some basis on which a permit
can be granted for the Moon Valley operation but I do like the strength of
' the ordinance for any new operations. Any fresh operations.
Ahrens: Well I may have a slightly different opinion because I didn't get
to go in the office Jim. I got a different tour. I had to go outside.
' Wildermuth: How many mines have you been in?
' Ahrens: A lot. All the Eden Prairie ones. I agree with some of my fellow
commissioners here and I have a couple comments to make on some of their
comments. First of all, I agree with Roger in that I think there are a lot
' of ordinances adopted by cities and states that affect existing businesses
and that lots of times require those businesses to comply with various
health and safety and environmental laws and ordinances that cities may
think are necessary for the public safety and interest of the communities.
' I think we have to, I think that' s just something we live with in a modern
age and we never know when there may be something new that's required to
protect the public. I think that this ordinance does address several
' public health and safety issues. When I went on a tour of this site I
noticed that there were, Mr. Zwiers' pointed out a deer, I don' t hunt deer
so I don't know the technical term for it but. . .
' Batzli : A tree stand?
Ahrens: A tree stand, yeah. There are people who are not working there
who are walking around on the property. I don't know if they're kids or
adults or whoever they are but they are walking around on the property. I
think that it may be infeasible to fence the entire property but I think
' that some fencing has to be done. I'm a little confused about, we've been
talking about the expansion of Moon Valley that's when the complaints
started and I'm not sure if that means the expansion of the mining
' operation or the excavation of the clay over by Pioneer Trail.
Krauss: Commissioners Ahrens, that's a good question and there are
actually two separate issues. There were rumors in the neighborhood and
we've never substantiated them and spoke to Mr. Zwiers about it, that an
additional parcel was going to be acquired. One that would have brought
the Moon Valley operation closer to residential homes in the area. We
found no indication that that was accurate but that was the rumor that was
going around. Now it may affect, Mr. Zwiers indicated that it was a
consideration, I'll let him explain that but there was some consideration
to that but it's not actively being considered now. As to the one up on
Planning Commission Meeting '
March 7, 1990 - Page 23
Pioneer Trail , we've considered that as an expansion in the past because
it's a separate, it's physically removed from the original pit. However,
we've also found some information out about what's being mined up there and
we were under the impression originally that it was a different, that the
material they were excavating up there was clay, which it is but we were '
under the impression that there was no clay in the pit itself, the main pit
and it turns out that there is so the distinction's getting a little more
blurry than it had originally been. But we were looking at it being an
expansion because it was physically removed. It was up in a different
area. It was up near Pioneer Trail and not 169.
Emmings: Is it on a different parcel of land? '
Mike Dwyer: No.
Olsen: It's all under single ownership but it was on a piece that was
purchased that at one time was separate but everything was purchased and
under single ownership before the ordinance it's subject to.
Mike Dwyer: That top side has been mined as well. . .
Ahrens: The top side? What are you talking about? '
Mike Dwyer: The level top, Pioneer Trail side has been mined at different
times. Other than, the Moon Valley operation has mined in phases. It has
mined the top side.
Ahrens: The area where the farming area was?
Tom Zwiers: On the bottom side. We mined on that, like they're talking II
about that same parcel and we shaved down the front. . .
Ahrens: I wasn't talking about that area. I was talking about where the '
clay is being removed right now. That hasn' t been mined up there?
Mike Dwyer: Other than the excavation you've seen. '
Ahrens: Is the excavation of clay, is that all part of the same use as the
gravel mining? '
Tom Zwiers: We mine with blades all types of materials out of it other
than gold.
Wildermuth: Would any future activity on the top portion Pioneer
require a separate p P off Pionee Trail
q p permit or would the whole parcel be under one permit?
Krauss: I guess ideally the whole parcel would be under one permit that
would all be controlled in some sort of comprehensive manner.
Ahrens: Now if this ordinance is adopted and Mr. Zwiers' operation is '
grandfathered in, does that mean if he ever changes his mind about his
intentions for the property or if he sells his property, that that property'
could, that anybody could do anything they wanted with that property?
II , Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 1990 - Page 24
I ( •
Continue to mine it to within 25 feet of all the adjoining property owners?
' Roger Knutson: No. The idea is, he gets a permit. The permit runs with
the land and the permit lays out conditions which he will now have to
comply with. The owner of the property will have to comply with.
Ahrens: But if he keeps the property and just changes his mind and he
doesn't want to develop it into housing. He wants to continue to mine it.
' Roger Knutson: It's part of the permit process. Once you issue a permit,
you have a land use plan with that. He can change it but he'll have to
' come back and see the City to get it changed.
Wildermuth: One of the reasons for an annual update right?
' Roger Knutson: Right. He can change his mind. I mean if he goes on
mining for 100 years and who knows what's going to be appropriate 100 years
from now, he can come back and say, you know people aren' t building
' apartments now. We want something else and come to see you and has to have
it changed.
Batzli: This actually extinguishes then the grandfathered non-conforming
' use?
Roger Knutson: No. He still has. . .
II (
Batzli: If for instance he was to come in and get a permit and then cease
operations for 2 years. Sell the property. The new person would not be
able to continue?
' Roger Knutson: That's correct.
' Batzli: That's extinguishing the use then on the land?
Roger Knutson: That's correct. If he stops doing it for a period of time,
that's right.
Wildermuth: Is that in here too?
' Batzli: No, that's not in here. The abandonment.
Roger Knutson: That's in the zoning ordinance.
Krauss: That's today. That's under the non-conforming section of the
zoning ordinance.
Ahrens: In general I think this is a well written ordinance. I have some
changes too that I don't think we need to go into right now. Some of them
have already been covered and I can talk to Paul about it afterwards.
I don't think it's the intent of anyone to put Moon Valley out of business.
I don't think even this ordinance, if applied to Moon Valley would probably
put Moon Valley out of business. At least I haven't seen any evidence of
that. There is in 7-46 a waiver that the City Council may allow deviation
11
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 1990 - Page 25
1
t from the standards set forth herein for mining and excavation operations
that existed prior to the enactment of this ordinance which seems to give II
the City Council power to exempt Moon Valley from whatever they want in
here, if I'm not mistaken.
Roger Knutson: That's correct. The idea is, we can't anticipate in
writing an ordinance what all the different variations are and existing
uses so we just left that open.
Ahrens: Right. I think that if some kind of statement is made by Mr.
Zwiers like Steve said, I don't know what the legal affect of that would be
but if some statement were made and it was clear with the City Council
exactly what his intent was and I don't think that he can be as rigid as it'
appears. It doesn' t sound like Mr. Zwiers wants to fence anything in and
wants to comply with a lot of the safety issues that are addressed by this
ordinance. I think that he has to give on some of those. I think that the
City, I mean I hope the City will cooperate with him and allow him to
comply with the Statute as reasonably as possible but I think it's a pretty.
good ordinance. I guess that's all I have. 1
Conrad: Okay, thanks Joan. I' ll be real quick and brief. There' s a
couple things that are real clear to me. One, we need the ordinance.
Absolutely. No doubt in my mind. Two, we have the right to do it. No
doubt. Specifically, in terms of the ordinance itself, I've got two
concerns. One is the cost and what we are imposing. I have no idea Paul.
I don't know if we're talking $15.00 or $35,000.00. I guess I need
somebody to tell me what we just did. It certainly would be site specific
but again I just kind of, I need to know what the cost implications of this
area. The second thing, in terms of there' s a section in there talking
about paving for 300 feet. I'm not sure what that does. Maybe it makes
sense but it doesn' t do a great deal for me as I look at different
applications, specifically in this particular case, it doesn't make much II
sense to me. The paving requirement and I think I'd have to be persuaded
that it does. The 50 yards looks kind of small. It looks like, but Paul
you're saying you're willing to, or that's enforceable or that you can get
control on 50 yards of earth or whatever. It seems like a low number but
if you think that's enforceable and we can get a handle on those people
moving 50 yards of earth, I guess I can go along with that. Specifically
for Moon Valley. So those were my comments on the ordinance. I generally
like it. I like the comments that I've heard and the changes. Specifically'
on Moon Valley. I'm real interested in the restoration plan. Not in terms
of pointing and we may do this and we may do that. I think we need as a
city a plan. We simply have to have that with that site. In my mind
that's an absolute. There are safety requirements there. As people move
into that area, and we've all said it so I won' t belabor the point. There
are safety requirements, absolutely that have to be implemented there. I II
think the owner has a lot of good intent and my comments are not intended
to slander his intent because I think they're all good but I also believe
that we have some reasons to maintain the bluff and the vistas and I think '
that's the reason we need an ordinance like this. I don't want to see the
( bluffs harmed. I don't think the applicant does either but I 'm real
curious as to how bluffs get restored and so those are my specific concerns'
with this particular site. They're not as much in terms of operational
I
Planning Commission Meeting
II - March 7, 1990 - Page 26
II {
although somebody may bring those to light. I think we have restrictions
on contractor's yards and I think those same restrictions should be
applicable here. As somebody else said on the Planning Commission, I think
there's got to be a way to deal with, to put this ordinance in, number one.
But then as we relate to Moon Valley, I think there's a way to require us
to have specific standards for them immediately. Obviously that ones I 'd
' be concerned with are some safety issues and some planning issues. I think
as somebody else said, there are some other things that could be phased in
over a 5 to 10 year plan and then there are some other things I don' t think
' apply at all. I'd like to see, I think we have some things to do tonight.
We can either table this commissioners and bring it back or we can send it
through but I guess my direction is to table it for at least a couple of
' things that I was talking about. One, the cost review I'm intrigued with.
I really, I think we need to know as a commission what we're asking a
business to do. Therefore, we will be sensitized a little bit to a later
' on process when Moon Valley may have to come in for, apply for a permit or
whatever. I'm also interested in getting a response from Moon Valley in
terms of what the ordinance would do. Some of the specifics. That they
believe are totally detrimental or harmful to your operation. I really
' don't want to hear, I don't want to make this a thesis but I want to know
the real things. The things that we can't see. You've heard us talk about
safety. We're concerned with safety. We're concerned with some of these
t things. Some of these things you just have to do. You just have to do it
and I 'd really rather not have you rebuff us on some of the things that
we've got concurrence here unless you say, that's a $20,000.00 task. I
want to hear about those things. So again, it's not a long exercise but I
' want to be a little bit brighter than I am right now on some of those cost
impacts on your operation. And there will be, if this goes through, there
obviously are cost impacts but I think they're worthwhile for the
' community. Our job and I think as you've heard everybody up here feels
really strongly that you're running a pretty good operation in most
respects and feels that we're not trying to put you out of business and
we're not. And then I'd like to see the ordinance rewritten with our
' recommendations and staff respond to some of the comments. Is 50 yards the
right one and what have you. That's where I'd go. To table it commission
members and to have it brought back. There's another way to do it. There
' are other ways to do it but that would be my direction. Any comments? Any
motions?
Wildermuth moved, Batzli seconded to table the Zoning Ordinance Amendment
dealing with excavation, mining and grading for further review. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
Conrad: Let's specifically talk about when this would come back. What
type of time do you need to respond?
Mike Dwyer : We'd like to be responding to your staff's next draft.
Conrad: Okay, that's fair. Paul, what do you think?
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 1990 - Page 27
f ,
Krauss: This is an ordinance that's composed by a committee of two, Roger
and myself. I would suspect we could go through your comments and get some
changes out at least in a revised draft format probably by the middle of
next week. End of next week.
Roger Knutson: For the simple ones where you just said change this word
and that, Paul and I can be on the phone tomorrow and compare notes and
I'll have it out tomorrow. For the more substantative ones like you were
talking about, is paved roads for 300 feet appropriate? I ' ll let Paul
handle that.
Krauss: I still think we could have it by next week.
Mike Dwyer: We could respond to that probably. . .
Conrad: A week? Okay.
Tor.. Zwiers: I have a question. On the safety, on the fencing. Something
to think about, if we change it, what do you think about changing the
slopes to a 2:1 slope? We have to, when we bring black dirt in for our
restoration on the south side, some of you were there, you see. . .that bank
already, we could bring in the black dirt and slope those banks and get a 2
1/2:1 slope. I don't know if these people, a little kid would have an
awful time to crawl up the bank on the other side because he's got to be a II
strong little kid. Believe me, I 've got grandsons and I 'm very concerned
myself but the bank is as steep going up one side and it's full of trees
and brush right now as it is coming down the other side.
Conrad: Well yeah. Talk to staff about those rational type of things. I
don't like fences. People can climb over fences and I don't know. •
Wildermuth: That's another thing. I think we've got to say something
about what kind of fence. What are we talking about? Are we talking about'
chainlink or?
Conrad: But specifically as I look at the bluff, and I'm looking at the '
very top, there's nothing you can do at that one point. There's
absolutely, you're not talking about making the grade change unless you
take down the bluff and we don't want that. We like how that looks but
that is not a safe site and something has to be done. That's specifically II
what I 'm looking at. I think there's some other areas where again, I 'm not
a proponent of fences just for fence sake but there are some hazards there
that we just have to resolve but that's really specific to your particular
location. Those of you who came in today, thank you for your comments and II
this will be back to us probably 2 sessions, 4 weeks from now. Thank you
much.
1 '
I
I
C I TY OF
-, Ji .L,
1 .
4
:, if 41,p'" CHANHASSEN
1 s „,,
r 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
1 vio
MEMORANDUM
ITO: Planning Commission
IFROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Directora -
DATE: February 27, 1990
1 SUBJ: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment Dealing with
Excavations, Mining and Grading
IPROPOSAL/SUMMARY
I In November and December of last year, the City Council became
aware of concerns regarding the Moon Valley Gravel Mining site.
The gravel mining operation had expanded significantly over the
I past few years and area residents were becoming concerned with
rumors of additional pending expansions. Individuals contacted
the City Council asking that the city investigate methods by
which it would exercise control over this sort of operation. The
I Council asked staff to report back to them regarding potential
alternatives for dealing with this matter.
I In January, staff working with the City Attorney prepared a
memorandum for Council review. This memorandum (copy attached)
provides a background regarding this matter and outlines several
strategies for resolving the situation. One of the strategies
Iinvolved redrafting city ordinances pertaining to conditional use
permits (since converted to interim use permits) for gravel and
mining operations. City ordinances currently have established a
I conditional use permit requirement for these types of uses but is
not specific as to conditions or standards. In addition, the
Moon Valley operation predates the conditional use permit process
I and is therefore, a grandfathered non-conformity. It was the
City Attorney' s position that an ordinance could be developed in
such a manner that existing operations such as Moon Valley could
be required to obtain a permit to satisfy the new ordinance. It
I is not believed that this could be used as a mechanism for
shutting down or removing the operation but rather one by which
the city is able to exercise control to insure that operations
I are conducted in a manner that is sensitive to surrounding resi-
dences and the environment and one which will leave the site in a
condition to facilitate appropriate reuse.
I
I
. ' I .
Planning Commission
February 27, 1990 - I
Page 2
The draft ordinance essentially establishes mining and excavation I
as an interim use. It outlines standards and procedures for the
handling of applications and submittal requirements , as well as
I
standards for reviewing each application. The permits are con-
sidered to be annually renewable after initial approval by the
City Council. In each successive year, the City Engineer would
be responsible for reviewing the permit to insure that it is III being conducted in compliance with conditions of approval, if not
it would be referred to the City Council for action. Irrevocable
letters of credit would be required to insure that such con-
ditions as applied by the city are complied with. Most impor-
tantly, this letter of credit would be used to guarantee that the
site is restored in the approved manner after the grading acti-
vity is finished. A summary of ordinance standards follows:
I
Setbacks Are Required From the Mine Pit
Adjoining Properties I
Existing Streets Public Utility Lines Not in Mining Use
100 feet 30 feet 300 feet
I
Where aggregate processing
( such as crushing) is done I
on site the setback would
be increased to 1,500 feet
due to noise and dust I
impacts.
Fencing is required around steep parts of the excavation.
I
Machinery on the site must be kept in good repair and clean con-
dition with debris removed. Standards are established for noise
emissions. Rehabilitation is required to be a continuing process
and a rehabilitation plan must be provided. Screening of the
I
site by landscaping plus preservation of natural amenities on the
site must be considered in the plan.
In our opinion, the approach of this ordinance is not punitive I
but rather is to provide a reasonable set of minimum standards
for these operations to adhere to so that impacts on the city and
on adjoining properties can be mitigated. We have reviewed simi- '
lar ordinances prepared for other Twin City communities. Most
notably, Apple Valley (a copy of their ordinance is attached) has
developed an extraordinarily comprehensive set of ordinances per-
taining I
to this type of use. However, in our opinion, the ordi-
nance was designed to cope with a much more serious problem then
Chanhassen is now currently faced with and is as a result much
Imore involved and restrictive then the one we are currently pro-
posing.
There is a related matter that is also being addressed in this
II
ordinance. At the present time, there is no administrative
II
• ' Plannin g Commission
February 27, 1990
I Page 3
mechanism for city staff to approve grading permits for removing
I or moving relatively small amounts of material. Technically, the
grading of someone' s back yard requires City Council approval.
Staff is proposing that an administrative review procedure be
I established for proposals that would move less than 1000 cubic
yards. An application form would be developed whereby applica-
tions for grading would be subject to the same sorts of review
criteria as the interim use process which would be done by staff
I in-house. Staff could require financial guarantees and place
conditions on the permit to the extent these are believed to be
necessary. If staff is uncomfortable with a proposal for some
I reason or if an applicant objects to staff' s determinations on
the permit, it would be appealable to the City Council. Staff
has organized and managed a similar program in the past and
believes it is the most effective and expeditious way of dealing
I with these types of requests. A draft copy of an application
form that we would propose to use for administrative grading per-
mits will be provided for Planning Commission review. We are
I proposing that a permit application fee of $50 be required to
partially cover staff expenses in processing and reviewing these
applications.
ISTAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and adopt
Ithe draft excavation, mining and grading ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
I1. Draft ordinance.
2. Apple Valley ordinance.
I 3 . Background memorandum to the City Council on the Moon Valley
situation.
4 . Draft grading permit application form.
I
I
I
I
I
I
• ry v �•� 1 •VJ
CITY OF CHANHASSEN '
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7 AND CHAPTER 20
OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE PERTAINING TO
EXCAVATIONS, MINING, AND GRADING
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains as
follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 7 of the Chanhassen City Code is hereby
amended by adding Article III to read as follows:
7-30: PURPOSES AND INTENT. I
The purpose of this Ordinance is to promote the
health, safety and welfare of the community and to establish 1
reasonable uniform limitations, standards, safeguards and
controls for excavation, mining, and grading within the City.
Grading, excavation, and mining permits for more than fifty (50)
but less than one thousand (1,000) cubic yards of material shall
be processed administratively by the City Staff. Grading,
excavation, and mining of more than one thousand (1, 000) cubic
yards of material shall be processed in the same manner as an
interim use permit.
7-31: DEFINITIONS. '
The following words, terms and phrases shall have the
following meanings respectively ascribed to them:
Grade: To change the contour of the earth.
Mine or Excavation: - I
(a) Any excavation made by the removal of the
natural surface of the earth, whether sod, dirt, Soil, sand, /
gravel, stone, or other matter, creating a depression or
depressions.
(b) Any area where the topsoil _or overburden has '
been removed for the purpose' of mining earthly deposits or
minerals, yet the area has remained idle since the topsoil
removal. • •
(c) Any area that is being used for stockpiling,
storage, and processing of sand, gravel, black dirt, clay, and
other minerals.
r02/28/90
' Overburden: Those materials which lie between the
surface of the earth and material deposit to be extracted.
' Rehabilitation: To renew land to self-sustaining
long-term use which is compatible with continguous land uses,
present and future, in accordance with the standards set forth in
this chapter.
' Topsoil: That portion of the overburden which lies
closest to the earth's surface and supports the growth of
' vegetation.
7-32: PERMIT REQUIRED.
' Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it
shall be unlawful for anyone to operate a mine, excavate, or
grade the earth without having first obtained a written permit
' from the City authorizing the same in accordance with this
chapter. Mining and excavation operations that predate this
chapter that do not have a permit shall obtain a permit within
six (6) months after the adoption of this chapter. Current permit
holders shall come into compliance with the terms of this chapter
no later than the time their annual permit is renewed.
' 7-33: EXEMPTIONS FROM PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.
The following activities do not require a permit
' under this chapter:
A. Excavation for a foundation, cellar, or basement of a
' building if a building permit has been issued.
B. Grading a lot in conjunction with building if a building
permit has been issued.
' C. Excavation by the federal, state, county, or city government
in connection with construction or maintenance of roads,
' highways, or utilities.
D. Curb cuts, utility hookups, or street openings for which
' another permit has been issued by the City.
E. Excavation of less than fifty (50) cubic yards in a calendar
year.
F. Plowing and tilling for agricultural purposes.
' G. Excavation or grading in accordance with a development
contract approved under the City's Subdivision Ordinance. If
the development contract requires that a letter of credit or
other security be posted, the letter of credit or other
' security must be posted before any excavation takes place.
-2-
. 1
7-34: APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS; PROCEDURES, CONTENTS OF
APPLICATIONS.
A. An application for a permit to sine, excavate, or grade shall
be processed in accordance with the same procedures specified
in the City Code relating to interim use permits except that
grading, excavation, or mining of more than fifty (50) cubic
yards of material but less than one thousand (1,000) cubic
yards of material may be approved by City Staff.
B. An application for a permit shall contain:
1. The name and address of the operator and owner of the
land, together with proof of ownership.
2. The correct legal description of the property where the
activity is proposed to occur.
3. A certified abstract listing the names of all landowners '
owning property within 500 feet of the boundary of the
property described above.
4. Specifications of the following, using appropriate maps,
photographs and surveys:
a. The physical relationship of the proposed designated
site to the community and existing development.
b. Site topography and natural features including '
location of watercourses and water bodies.
c. The description and quantity of material to be ,
excavated.
d. The depth of water tables throughout the area. '
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.
9. A landscape plan. 1
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.
1
1
.3-
11. Travel routes to and from the site.
' 12. The plans for drainage, water erosion control,
sedimentation and dust control.
' 23. A rehabilitation plan provided for the orderly and
continuing rehabilitation of all disturbed land. Such
plan shall illustrate, using photographs, maps and
surveys where appropriate, the following:
a. The contour of the land prior to excavation and
' proposed contours after completion of excavation and
after completion of rehabilitation.
b. Those areas of the site to be used for storage of
topsoil and overburden.
c. A schedule setting forth the timetable for excavation
of land lying within the extraction facility.
d. The slope of all slopes after rehabilitation, based
upon proposed land uses, and description of the type
and quantity of plantings where revegetation is to be
conducted.
e. The criteria and standards to be used to achieve
final rehabilitation as well as intermittent
stabilization.
' f. Other information required by the City.
' 12. A statement identifying the applicant's program to insure
compliance with the permit conditions, method of response
to complaints and resolving conflicts that may arise as a
result of complaints.
13. Unless exempt under Minnesota Rules, an environmental
assessment worksheet, if required by the City.
' 14. A wetland alteration permit, if required by the City
Code, which shall be processed concurrently with the
' excavation permit application.
7-3S: COUNCIL REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF OVERALL PLAN; FUNCTION
OF RENEWABLE ANNUAL PERMITS.
A. Except as otherwise provided herein, the City Council shall
review the permit application and shall approve the permit if
' it is in compliance with this .chapter, the City's Zoning
Ordinance, ind other applicable laws, ordinances, and
regulations. The Council may attach conditions to the permit
approval to promote safety and prevent nuisance conditions.
-4-
1
The rehabilitation plan shall only be approved if it is
consistent with the uses allowed in the City's Comprehensive '
Plan and zoning ordinance.
B. Grading, excavation, and mining of more than fifty (50) but
less than one thousand (1,000) cubic yards of material in a
twelve (12) month period may be approved by the City Staff.
The applicant shall submit the fee required by Section 7-39
of the City Code. The City Staff may also require the
submission of any of the items specified in subdivision 10-
154. Upon receipt of a completed application, 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 modifications and 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.
C. Implementation of the overall plan shall be by means of
renewable annual permit. The purpose of the renewable permit
is to assure compliance with the longer-range overall plan
and to retain the ability to modify existing or to attach new
conditions in accord with changing characteristics of the
site or its surroundings. The City Engineer, after
consultation with appropriate City staff, may issue renewal
licenses upon satisfactory proof of compliance with this
chapter. If the City Engineer denies a renewal license, the
applicant may appeal the decision to the City Council by
filing a notice of appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10)
days after the City Engineer denies the permit.
7-36: TERMINATION OF PERMIT. •
A. The material extraction permit may be terminated for
violation of this chapter or any conditions of the permit.
No permit may be terminated until the City Council has held a
public hearing to determine whether the permit shall be
terminated, at which time the operator shall be afforded an
opportunity to contest the termination. The City Council may
establish certain conditions, which if not complied with,
will result in immediate suspension of operations until the
public hearing to consider termination of the permit can be
held.
B. It shall be unlawful to conduct mineral extraction or '
excavation after a permit has been terminated.
7-37: ANNUAL PERMITS; RENEWAL; CONDITIONS. ,
A. Request for renewal of an annual permit shall be made sixty
(60) days prior to the expiration date. If application or
renewal is not made within the required time, all operations
-5-
I .
shall be terminated, and reinstatement of the permit may be
I granted only upon compliance with the procedures set forth in
this chapter for an original application.
B. A permit may be approved or renewed subject to compliance
II with conditions in addition to those set forth in this
chapter when such conditions are reasonable and necessary to
ensure compliance with the requirements and purpose of this
I chapter. When such conditions are established, they shall be
set forth specifically in the permit. Conditions may, among
other matters, limit the size, kind or character of the
I proposed operation, require the construction of structures,
require the staging of extraction over a time period, require
the alteration of the site design to ensure compliance with
the standards, require the provision of a performance bond by
I the operator to ensure compliance with these regulations in
this article or other similar requirements.
I 7-38: ISSUANCE OF PERMIT IMPOSES NO LIABILITY ON CITY AND
RELIEVES THE PERMITTEE OF NO RESPONSIBILITIES, ETC.
Neither the issuance of a permit under this section,
Inor compliance with the conditions thereof or with the provisions
of this section shall relieve any person from any responsibility
otherwise imposed by law for damage to persons or property; nor
II shall the issuance of any permit under this section serve to
impose any liability on the City, its officers or employees for
any injury or damage to persons or property. A permit issued
I pursuant to this section does not relieve the permittee of the
responsibility of securing and complying with any other permit
which may be required by any other law, ordinance or regulation.
I7-39: FEES.
A schedule of fees for the examination and approval
I of applications for permits under this section and the inspection
of operations for compliance with the conditions of this section
and the permit shall be determined by resolution of the City,
I Council, which may, from time to time, change such schedule.
Prior to the approval and issuance or renewal of ,any permit under
this section, such fees shall -be paid to the City and deposited
to the credit of the general—fund. ,
II7-40: IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT. '
Prior to the issuance of. a permit, there shall be
executed by the operator and submitted to the City an agreement
to construct such required improvements, to dedicate such
II property or easements, if any, to the City and to comply with
such conditions as may have been established by the City Council.
Such agreement shall be accompanied by a letter of credit
acceptable to the City in the amount of the costs of complying
I with the agreement. The aforesaid letter of credit shall be
provided for guaranteeing completion and compliance with the
11 -6-
II
conditions set forth in the permit within the time to be approved I
by the City Council. The adequacy of the letter of credit shall
be reviewed annually by the City. The City may direct the amount
of the letter of credit be increased to reflect inflation or
changed conditions.
7-41: BETBACICB.
Mining operations shall not be conducted within:
A. One hundred (100) feet of an existing street or highway. '
B. Thirty (30) feet of an easement for an existing public
utility. '
C. Three hundred (300) feet of the boundary of an adjoining
property not in mining use except that aggregate processing,
including but not limited to crushing and washing, must be
set back one thousand five hundred (1, 500) feet from the
boundary of adjoining property not in mining use.
7-42: FENCING.
During operations permitted under this chapter, any
area where excavation slopes are steeper than one foot verticle
to one and one-half (1-1/2) feet horizontal, and any other areas
where obvious danger to the public exists, shall be fenced when
such a situation has existed or will exist for a period of five
(5) working days or longer. The City Engineer shall review such
fencing to assure its adequacy. As an alternative, the City
Engineer may require perimeter fencing of the entire extraction
site.
7-43: APPEARANCE AND SCREENING AT THE EXTRACTION BITE.
The following standards are required at the
extraction site of any operation permitted under this article:
1. Machinery shall be kept in good repair.
2. Abandoned machinery, inoperable equipment and rubbish
shall be removed from the site regularly.
3. All buildings and equipment that have not been used for a
period of one year shall be removed from the site.
4. All equipment and temporary structures shall be removed
and dismantled not later than ninety (90) days after
termination of the extraction operation and expiration of
the permit.
5. Where practical, stockpiles of overburden and materials '
shall be used to screen the extraction.
-7-
II
6. The perimeter of the site shall be planted coniferous
trees or otherwise screened.
' 7. Existing tree and ground cover shall be preserved to the
extent feasible, maintained and supplemented by selective
cutting, transplanting of trees, shrubs, and other ground
cover along all setback areas.
8. Weeds shall be eradicated.
' 7-44: OPERATIONS; NOISE; HOURS; EXPLOSIVES; DUST; WATER
POLLUTION; TOPSOIL PRESERVATION.
' The following operating standards shall be observed
at the extraction site of any operation permitted under this
section:
' i. 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. Extraction and hauling operations shall be performed
during only those times established by the City Council
as part of this permit.
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
rehabilitation of the site has taken place according to
the rehabilitation plan.
' 8. Operators shall use all practical means to reduce the
amount of dust, smoke, and fumes caused by the
operations.
I
-8-
II
9. 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.
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.
7-45: REHABILITATION STANDARDS. '
The following rehabilitation standards shall apply to
the site of any operation permitted under this chapter:
1. Rehabilitation shall be a continuing operation occurring
as quickly as possible after the extraction operation has
moved sufficiently into another part of the extraction
site.
2. All banks and slopes shall be left in accordance with the 1
rehabilitation plan submitted with the permit
application.
3. Slopes, graded areas and backfill areas shall be surfaced
with adequate topsoil to secure and hold ground cover.
Such ground cover shall be tended as necessary until it
is self-sustained.
4. All water areas resulting from excavation shall be
eliminated upon rehabilitation of the site. In unique
instances where the City Council has reviewed proposals
for water bodies at the time of approval of the overall
plan and has determined that such would be appropriate as
an open space or recreational amenity in subsequent reuse
of the site, water bodies may be permitted.
5. No part of the rehabilitation 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. Finished grades shall also
be consistent with the established plan for the property
rehabilitation.
7-46: WAIVER. •
The City Council may allow deviation from the
standards set forth herein for mining and excavation operations
that existed prior to the enactment of this ordinance when it is
not feasible to comply because of pre-existing conditions.
SECTION 2. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by
amending Article XXVII in its entirety to read:
-9-
i
20-1351: MINERAL EXTRACTION.
' Mineral extraction is only allowed in the zoning
district where such use is delineated as an allowed use. In
addition to complying with the requirements of the zoning
' ordinance, all such uses shall comply with the Chanhassen
excavation and mining ordinance, Chapter 7, Article III, of the
Chanhassen City Code.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen,
this day of , 1990.
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990) .
I
1
1
I
1
-10=
TfITAI P_17
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, City Council/Mayor, City Administrator '
FROM: Dennis P. Welsch, Community Development Direct ) " "•
RE: PROPOSED REVISION TO SAND AND GRAVEL MINING ORDINANCE
DATE: December 28, 1989 I
A public hearing will be held at the January 3, 1990 City of Apple Valley
Planning Commission Meeting to consider revisions to the City Sand and
Gravel Mining Ordinance.
Attached is the most recent revision 00.5) to the City of Apple Valley
Sand and Gravel Mining Ordinance. This proposed ordinance has been updated
to coincide with the standards utilized in the "Mining South of County
Road 42" Draft Environmental Impact Statement which is currently within a
review and comment stage. ,
The Planning Commission originally opened the public hearing on revisions
to the Sand and Gravel Mining Ordinance on June 15, 1988. A hearing on the
amendment to the comprehensive plan issues related to sand and gravel
mining was also held (April, 1988).
The Planning Commission has already solicited public input on revisions to
this section of the code. In effect, this hearing is a continuation of the
same process. The Commission may act on the ordinance on January 3rd,
recommending action by the City Council later in January.
As an alternative, the Commission may wish to adopt this revised
ordinance as an "Interim Sand and Gravel Mining Ordinance" pending the
final review and adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement. Another
hearing and review of the ordinance would then be held after the Council
determines the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement in late
February or early March, 1990.
attachments: Revised Sand and Gravel Mining Ordinance 7.5
Comprehensive Plan Updates Proposed in April, 1988
Minutes from planning commission public hearings
f2 '
Car
frar.J
4 CoPV Foa YpU
io QS
D"
1
JAN 2 51999
cia OF CHANNASSFJ4
II
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
I PROPOSED SAND AND GRAVEL MINING ORDINANCE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
II Topic Page Number
Purpose 1
IDefinitions 2
Criteria For Zoning Approval 5
II Consistency with City Plans and Policies 6 �1b6�Size
Access 7 A IF 7
Environmental Impacts 7
IPermitted Uses 7
Permitted Uses 7
II Conditional Uses 7
Accessory Uses 9
Previously Permitted Existing Uses 9
INotification Process 9
Performance Standards 10
II Permit Required 10
Fencing 10
Hours of Operation 10
I Soil and Water Conservation Review 12
Setbacks and Height Limitations 13
Slopes to Water Bodies 15
II Setbacks and Slopes Along Streets 16
Setbacks of Access Roads 17
Visual Screening 17
Weed Control 17
II Location of Driveway Access 18
Paving Access Roads 18
Dust Control 18
I Noise 19
Water Pollution 19
Wastewater 20
II Removal of Buildings 20
Topsoil 21
Landscaping 21
Reclamation, Restoration, Rehabilitation 22
IINonconforming Uses 24
IViolations 26
Adoption 26
II
I
r
I
DRAFT 7.5
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY 1
ORDINANCE NO.
DRAFT: 12/18/89
it [63 M
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA AMENDING
SECTION A1-48, "SG" SAND AND GRAVEL DISTRICT, PROVIDING FOR 1
THE OPERATION AND REGULATION OF SAND AND GRAVEL EXTRACTION
AND PROCESSING THEREOF.
1
The City Council of Apple Valley ordains:
Section 1. Section Al-48 of the City Code is hereby deleted and rewritten I
as follows in Section 2:
I
Section 2. Section AI-48. "SG" Sand and Gravel District.
(a) Purpose. The purposcs of this section are: '
(1) to provide for the economical availability and removal of
sand, gravel, rock and soil vital to the growth of the City and 1
the region;
(2) to establish regulations, safeguards and controls in the '
City regarding noise, dust, traffic, drainage, groundwater cri ty
^1_0% and other factors which will minimize the I
environmental and aesthetic impacts on mined or adjacent '
property. -
1
1
r
t`t''ctl t
(3) to control and minimize pollution caused by wind and soil
erosion and sedimentation;
r• " r,C4)*Lo establish the locations, orderly approval process, and
thei operating conditions under which sand and gravel extraction
and processing will be allowed in the city; and to establish
' conditions which insure the restoration of mined areas
C cou�jsistent with existing and planned land use patterns.
D
(5) to establish this sand and gravel zoning district as the
only zoning district where new sand and gravel operations will
' be allowed, pursuant to the City Council approval of a
conditional use permit and annual Council approval of excavation
permits.
(b) Definitions. Whenever the following terms appear in this ordinance,
' they shall have the meanings assigned to them in this section:
Abandonment: .The actual vacancy of any portion of the zoned
' premises for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months.
Such vacancy shall be conclusively presumed as intent to abandon
It/\-6 or vacate the site by the operator; or the minerals have been
\)v. �,t
r removed to within 10% (high or low) of the proposed final or
` lowest elevation beyond the point which makes the site
Y1`.
economically competitive to continue the extraction or
associated processing.
2
i - e
Completion of Operations, Notice thereof: A written notice filed
with the City Clerk eighteen (18) c e t e\ months prior to
the completion of excavation operations. After the 18 month
period, active and substantial excavation shall not occur on
property which has been previously excavated and so noticed and I
described. Completion of operations may occur on any definable
portion of the (properly zone ) property at least twenty (20)
acres in size. -
[!1 � � i
. l.,i1G�
Dust: Airborne, inorganic, particulate matter other than smoke I
or steam.
Excavation Permit: The annual permit required of all excavation
sites/owners by the City of Apple Valley Code Section 6-20.
Fiscal Impact Analysis: A comparative analysis provided by the
petitioner (or prepared by the city or its consultant and paid ,
for by the petitioner) which itemizes the fiscal impact of
property taxes, land uses and public improvement costs of the
proposed mining operation and the proposed "end uses" on the ,
city, county, and school district in comparison to the fiscal
impact property taxes and land uses and public improvement costs 1
of development on the site if no mining would occur. All 111 projections should be at present dollar value, excluding
inflation. '
3
•
r r
I.
Minerals: Nonmetallic material found in the earth including but not
' limited to sand, gravel, rocks, and soil, which may be covered by
overburden.
•
1 Operator: Any person or persons, partnerships or corporation, or
assignees or any associations, or persons either natural or
' artificial, including every public or governmental agency
i •.engaged in sand and gravel operations.•1 i
D
Overburden: Those materials which lie between the surface of the
earth and the mineral deposit to be mined.
1
Processing: Any activity which may include the crushing,
washing, stockpiling, compounding, mixing, or treatment of sand,
gravels, rocks, or similar mineral products into consumable
products such as construction grade sand, gravel, concrete,
asphalt, and other similar products.
Reclamation, Restoration, Rehabilitation: To renew . land to a
self-sustaining, long term use which is compatible with
contiguous land uses and which process shall include the re-
1 establishment of vegetation, soil stability and establishment of
safe conditions appropriate to the intended use of the land in
accordance with the city's comprehensive guide plan and the
' conditional use permit conditions allowing for excavation and/or
processing on the site.
4
1
1
Sand and Gravel Operations: The removal, extraction, truck
hauling, crushing, processing, excavation and/or production of 1
sands, gravels, rocks and similar mineral products.
II)
�J
Stockpiling: Stockpiling or storage of processed or raw materials on
-the site of the sand and gravel operation. Such operations may
continue or be sold from the site for up to eighteen months after 1
official written notice of Completion of Operations has been
submitted to the City Clerk. G�f ÷, Qat&4s. cage_ S'• 1�
i
LcL o S J i ' r 41.1 taw{ V•+e.. Qi4af- ) eta,. )1t4 c , coj
d
kt.Aa e:TL
ct 'et -tgres ocev ..a 10 trLt 4et::.a- �'o civic e.,��N. 10 (x c:sf4(/,s (
Topsoil: That portion of the overburden which lies with the "A" 1
horizon of soil closest to the surface and which supports the
growth of vegetation. 1
(c) Criteria for Zoning District Approval. In establishing a Sand and
Gravel Zoning District, the City Council shall find that: I
(1) Consistency with City Plans and Policies. The proposed district
is consistent with the text and maps of the comprehensive guide plan 1
and the location is suitable in that the excavation, mining, 1
processing, stockpiling, or hauling of sand and gravel deposits will
not create a nuisance or adversely affect the adjacent properties. 1
The petitioner for a "SG" district, at his sole cost, shall provide
information to help determine said suitability, including, but not 1
limited to a completed zoning amendment application; exhibits
illustrating adjacent and on-site buildings and land uses; existing
s 1
I
1
ele v ations and percent of slop e within and three hundred (300) feet
beyond the perimeter of the site; environment assessment worksheet or
impact statements; and fiscal impact analysis.
Said fiscal impact analysis shall include two types projections:
i. a land use development scenario based on existing
' comprehensive guide plan and zoning designations.
\111 ii. an alternative scenario based upon the assumption that a new
1 "SG" district with a planned unit development end use is
approved.
' Each fiscal projection shall include estimates of all known
public improvement costs; timing of development; new development
valuations; total annual property taxes per type of use; short
term construction jobs, mining jobs, and estimates of permanent
1 jobs to be created based upon the end uses proposed; and the
number of households, occupants and school aged children that
could occupy the site after completion of each phase of end use
development.
(2) Size. The proposed "SG" district shall cover an area of at
least twenty (20) acres. (This limitation shall not apply when
the tract
ioperation, provof ided land is that both contiguous tracts to are an being active sand operated and by gravel the
- same producer.)
6
i
(3) Access. The sand and gravel district shall have direct
access to non-residential, collector streets or county roads of 1
sufficient load carrying capacity to serve traffic generated by
the sand and gravel operation.
I /I)
I�
ti
(4) Environmental Impacts. An environmental impact statement (as
defined by Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Rules) shall be I
completed for each gravel mining project proposed. The proposed
project shall meet the recommended standards provided by the
mandatory environmental impact statement. The responses and
recommendations of the environmental impact statement shall b e
considered by the City Council prior to any final action on a
rezoning request. The application for rezoning shall not be
considered complete until such time as final comment has been I
received on the adequacy of the environmental impact statement. I
(d) Permitted Uses. Within any "SG" district, no structure or land shall
be used except for one or more of the following uses: I
(I) Permitted Uses.
i. All types of agricultural pursuits, limited to the
raising of crops and other plant materials.
ii. Commercial greenhouses and nurseries.
(2) Conditional Uses. Within any "SG" district the excavation, L
hauling, mining, stockpiling or processing of sand and gravel
deposits and such buildings and equipment as are customarily I
incidental thereto, including concrete and asphalt plants, may I
be approved by the City Council through the issuance of a sand
7
I
i
and gravel conditional use permit. Conditions regarding
operations and reclamation/rehabilitation may be attached to the
conditional use permit for the sand and gravel operation in
' order to assure compatibility with present and future land uses.
For purposes of enforcement, conditions attached to said permit shall
be considered a portion of the City Code.
' (i) Within a sand and gravel district, any centralized
. processing washing or crushing plant for materials such as
o �
' sand and gravel, concrete, asphalt or others shall be
allowed only as a portion of a conditional use permit. Said
plant shall be located in a permanent centralized location
' within the excavation site. Except where the applicant can
demonstrate that the plant can meet state and federal air
' and noise standards at the project property lines, said
' processing plant shall be completely enclosed within a
closed building with walls from floor to ceiling (except
for materials entries/exits and doorways) and a sealed roof
(except for steam and heat exchangers) in order to reduce
air particulate and noise pollution.
(ii) Portable, pit face crushing equipment may be approved as a
( ) P 8 ui p Y
portion a conditional use permit provided:
a. The location of the portable crushing equipment meets
all mining and/or excavation setbacks for the area in which
it is to be located.
b. The top of the portable crushing equipment and all
' 8
I
I
conveyor systems are placed a minimum of 15 feet below the
existing grade of the nonexcavated pit edge or constructed
berm protected within the permanent setback from the I
property lines.
" f
I : r .
(3) Accessory uses as permitted under subsection A1-34(d). I , /,'
• L.
(4) Previously permitted, existing uses not incompatible with sand
gravel o
and g operations.
p
1
(e) Notification Process. In addition to the zoning and conditional use
permit notification process required elsewhere in this code, notifications I,
of the proposed sand and gravel district rezoning and/or conditional use
permit ermit hearin shall be published once in the official newspaper of the '
city and mailed by the city clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing to
� all city property owners within 3600 feet of the proposed central plant
processing site or within 350 feet from the property lines of the
proposed district and sand and gravel conditional use permit, whichever is
greater. In addition, the City Clerk of each city within 3600 feet of the I
property lines shall be notified. The applicant shall supply to the city
clerk a certified list of all city property owners within 3600 feet of the
property lines of the proposal within the city limits and the adjacent 1
City Clerk's business address, at least 30 days prior to the hearing date.
At least 10 days prior to the hearing, the City Planner shall post public I
hearing notice sign boards on all sides of the property which are
adjacent to a public right-of-way.
•
I
t
9
i
I
(f) Performance Standards. In any "SG" district, the following
performance standards shall be observed:
(1) Permit Required. No sand and gravel operations shall occur except
under the terms of an approved sand and gravel conditional use permit
1 with a Planned Unit Development Agreement for phased reclamation and
proposed end uses of the land. After issuance of said permits, the
applicant shall be subject to an annual excavation permit issued by
the City Council.
ki.j F:\
chain link h t
(2) Fencing. A minimum six-foot (6) high type fence
meeting Minnesota Department of Transportation standards for right-
of-way fencing shall be constructed at the property lines at required
fence setback lines along all property lines by the operator to
control access to any excavation from adjacent developed residential
property.
1 (3) Hours of operations for excavation, processing and truck
hauling.
i. Areas Less than 3600 feet to Residential Areas. The
' maximum hours of operations for excavation, processing
(except concrete and asphalt processing), and truck
hauling equipment in a sand and gravel district where
these activities are located closer than three
thousand six hundred (3,600) feet to the city's,or an
adjacent city's, developed or zoned residential
10
•
property which existed prior to the effective date of
this ordinance or zoning map amendment, shall be 6:30
a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday unless ,
otherwise stipulated in the approved conditional use
permit based upon noise and air pollution control I
mitigation measures. , ,
± � 1 .< <;
t.
ii. Areas more than 3600 feet from Residential Areas.
The maximum hours of operation for excavation,
processing (except concrete and asphalt processing) I
and truck hauling equipment in a sand and gravel
district where these activities are located farther I
than three thousand six hundred (3,600) feet to the . .
city's, or an adjacent city's, developed or zoned
residential property which existed prior to the date I
of this ordinance or map amendment, shall be 6:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, unless
otherwise stipulated in the approved conditional use
permit based upon noise and air pollution control
mitigation measures. 1
iii. Processing and Mixing Extended Hours. The maximum
hours of operation for concrete and asphalt processing and
associated truck hauling equipment (not excavation or
crushing) in a sand and gravel district wherein the I
processing equipment is located in a centralized location
I
11
1
and within an enclosed processing building shall be 5:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, unless
' otherwise stipulated in the approved conditional use permit
based upon noise and air pollution control mitigation
1 measures.
' Soil and Water Conservation and Watershed Review and
I \!.\\ R tommendatLons. As a part of the original application for a
conditional use permit, and annually with the application for an
excavation permit, the applicant shall submit grading plans and
phased rehabilitation plans to the Dakota County Soil and Water
Conservation Service and to the Vermillion River Watershed Management
' Organization for review and recommendations. Said recommendations on
the phased rehabilitation grading, soil and water retention plans
shall be reviewed annually by the City Council and may be included as
a condition of the conditional use permit or the annual excavation
' permit.
I
I
1
1
12
1
I
(5) Setback and Slopes to Adjacent Uses or Zones.
BERM HEIGHTS.SETBACKS FROM PROPERTY OR ZONING DISTRICT I
BQUNDARIES. AND EXISTING BUILDINGS DAYTIME AND NIGHTTIME.
SETBACKS FROM PROPERTY OR ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND EXISTING BUILDINGS 1
OPERATION NOUSE.SCHOOL.PARK COMM. OR IS INDUSTRIAL ROAD
.. O.W
I
Crushing Plant 1000 fret ?�/ j� ',); ;
a) Permanent 2600 feet 1000 feet 300 feet I
b) Pit Face-Temporary 1000 feet 300 feet
, '' ! !
Concrete Plant 300 feet
a) In Enclosed Bldg. 1000 feet 300 feet 1000 feet
b) Exterior 2600 feet 1000 feet
Asphalt Plant feet
a) In Enclosed Bldg. 1000 feet 600 feet 1600.feet
b) Exterior 2600 feet 1000 feet
c) Scrubber Ponds 600 feet 600 feet 600 feet
Excavation and feet 100 feet
Mining at Pit Face 300 feet
Stockpiles 1000 feet 300 feet 300 fest
Truck Parking 300 feet
and Maintenance 1000 feet 300 feet
1
NEIGHT LIMITATIONS FOR BERMS, TOWERS AND PLANTS
- Minimum Primary Varies
Beres Height 16 feet a feet
Maximum Secondary or 40 feet 40 feet
Stockpile Berm Height 40 feet
Maximum Tower or III
Plant Height
Above Base Elevation 95 feet 9S feet 9S feet
1
Adjacent to residential developed or zoned areas, excavation, mining,
and stockpiling shall not be conducted closer than three hundred 1
(300) feet to any city or adjacent city's residential or multiple
I
dwelling structure, residential zoning boundary, or proposed
residential structure `pad`, existing on the approval date of the
I
sand and gravel conditional use permit.
I
13 1
I
I
Adjacent to non-residentially developed or zoned areas, excavation,
temporary crushing, interior concrete and asphalt production,
sedimentation ponds and stockpiling without berming and vegetative
buffering shall not be conducted closer than three hundred (300) feet
to the boundary of an adjoining property line except to reduce the
elevation thereof in conforming to the adjoining property, as
stipulated in the conditional use permit. Exceptions:
i. In the last eighteen (18) months of operation, after filing
written notice of intent to complete operations, the operator
Tp 11 Its', ( 1 may complete excavation and reclamation operations to within one
hundred (100) feet from any non-residential property line.
ii. In the annual excavation permit, the operator may request
approval to complete temporary excavation and temporary crushing
to within one hundred (100) feet from any property line for a
period of one year, provided the maximum height of any
excavation, temporary crushing equipment or temporary stock
piles located less than thirteen hundre• (1000) feet from the
property line is at least eight (8) feet below the average
height of the adjacent berms within the 100 foot mandatory
setback.
i
During excavation operations, the slope to the bottom of the pit from
the required setback line shall be no greater than two (2) feet
horizontal to one foot vertical. All non-protected or untreated soil
banks or pit bottoms of excavation areas not excavated to a ground
1 14
I
I
water producing depth shall be left ►.:ih a slope no steeper than tcn
(10) percent except as specifically stipulated in the conditional I
use permit or annual permit to match existing elevations on adjacent
property. Greater slope may be permitted if it is in substantial
conformity to the immediately surrounding area. When excavation is I
completed on a section of the pit, all excavated areas shall be
finish graded and seeded in conformity to the surrounding natural ,J ' :; '
t [i
topography and in accordance with the city's comprehensive guide
plan. g
lan The grades shall provide for sufficient drainage so that both
natural and storm water leaves the property at the original or ,
natural drainage points shown on the plan, except where otherwise
designated by the city engineer. ,
(6) Slopes to Water Bodies. All ground water or storm water storage
areas resulting from excavation shall be rehabilitated as follows: I
i. Any storm water oond constructed for interim or final end
uses shall have a minimum 100 foot natural plant material shore 1
land buffer zone setback constructed by the applicant as part of
the reclamation of the site.
I
ii. Storm water ponds shall have shallow water slopes of 10:1 to
cterEt. act a o• kew '
20:1 in areas up-[ feet in--water depth.
iii. In man-made around water lakes. the bottom contour shall be
gradually sloping from the shoreline to the deepest portion of
the water body at a maximum slope of six (6) feet horizontal to
15
I
I
I . :•
one foot vertical (6:1) for at least one hundred (100) feet from
the proposed shoreline toward the center of the water body.
Beyond 100 feet in horizontal distance, the slope of the bottom
contours may be steeper than 3:1 or as. stipulated in the sand
•
and gravel mining conditional use permit.
iv. Shoreline slopes ascending from any water body shall
' not exceed one foot vertical to six (6) feet horizontal
except as stipulated in the conditional use permit or
excavation permit.
. 1
i - k; 1,\, ,�
(7) Setback and Slopes Along Streets. Sand and gravel excavation,
shall not be conducted closer than one hundred (100) feet to the
right-of-way line of any existing or platted street, road or highway.
Exception 1: Excavation may be conducted within such limits in
order to reduce the elevation thereof in conforming to a street
grade established by the city engineer, as stipulated in the
1 conditional use permit for the operation.
Exception 2: In the last eighteen (18) months of operation,
after filing written notice of intent to complete operations,
the operator may complete reclamation grading operations within
the 100 foot required setback to any right-of-way property line.
The final slope to the bottom of the pit from the road right-of-
way line shall be no greater than three (3) feet horizontal to
one foot vertical.
16
I
I
. 1
(8) Setbacks of Access Roads. The mining setback area required may,
in part, be used for a central, paved access road as stipulated in
the conditional use permit.
(9) Visual Screening. The minimum required setback area (see section 1
5) along all exterior property lines shall be bermed, landscaped and
planted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the sand and
gravel conditional use permit. Within the required setback area, the I
100 feet adjacent to the property line shall be bermed (the 'primary
berm") to a height of 16 feet, with a 2:1 slope and landscaped with
a seeded fiber mulched turf and coniferous tree seedlings to a
density of 800 seedlings per acre. All areas within the required 1
setback shall be landscaped with a seeded turf within 15 days of 1
excavation.
I
Processing plants and towers from crushing, concrete, and asphalt
plants shall be located at the lowest or base elevation on the site I
The height of the plant and towers, and the base elevation shall be
stipulated in the conditional use permit. Plant and towers shall be
screened with secondary stockpile berms not to exceed 40 feet in
height.
I
(10) Weed Control. Weeds and other unsightly or noxious vegetation
shall be controlled as necessary to preserve the appearance of the
landscaped area. Existing trees and topsoil along existing public ,
rights-of-way shall be preserved, maintained and supplemented for the
I
17
1
depth of the setback or as stipulated in the conditional use permit
' or excavation permit.
(11) Location of Driveway Access. All means of driveway access to a
1 sand and gravel operation. from any street shall be so located and
designed as to avoid the routing of vehicles from the property over
streets that primarily serve abutting residential development.
(12 Paving Access Roads. All access roads from a sand and gravel
t 1g'era ion to any public roadway shall be paved with asphalt or
\?) \a„ concrete for a distance of at least six hundred (600) feet to the
c intersection with a public roadway to minimize • dust conditions.
a■
O ` Access roads beyond six hundred (600) feet shall be treated with a
dust retardant on a regular basis as stipulated in the annual
excavation permit.
1 Soil tracking from truck hauling onto public roads from the access
road may also reduced through improvements required as part of the
annual excavation permit. These improvements may include, but are not
limited to:
1 a. Extension of the pavement length on the access road.
b. Installation of a wash facility and wash rack.
(13) Dust Control Standards. All internal roads and access roads
within the sand and gravel operations shall be treated to minimize
dust conditions as stipulated in the conditional use permit or
18
1
• t
• Jq
excavation permit. All processing equipment shall be contained within 6,11 X � r
Aut
a fully enclosed building. All stockpiles higher in elevation than x+ \� jg �,i
_ % �i;,•
0
the permanent berms along property lines shall have permanent ttr y.1`'
tL
sprinkler _g/wetting quipment to reduce wind erosion from the stock �a
� g--�.g
pile. I
'! , ;AI
. ' 1'1'i . 1 i;, I,
(14) Noise. The maximum noise level at the perimeter of the site
shall be within the limit set by the Minnesota Pollution Control
I
Agency and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In no case shall
4
a the noise level exceed 50 decibels measured at 3600 feet from the
noise making equipment or activity. All processing equipment shall, be
0 t )\(\ located in enclosed buildings or surrounded by berms at least 30 feet I
in height. All screens, hoppers, and conveyors belts shall be non-
\ '� metallic.
i v, NOISE LEVELS AT SPECIFIC SETBACKS SHALL NOT EXCEED THE FOLLOWING: I
V
Equipment 100 feet 1000 feet 2000 feet
i. Centralized Crushers; 88 dBa 50 dBa I
ii. Pit Face Crushers; 83 dBa 50 dBa U
iii. Front End Loaders; 81 dBa 50 dBa
iv. All other Machinery; 80 dBa 50 dBa I
(15) Water Pollution. Operators shall comply with all applicable
Minnesota DNR and Pollution Control Agency regulations and U.S. Corp
I
of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency regulations for the
protection of water quality. No waste products or process residue,
I
including untreated waste wash water, shall be deposited in any lake,
1
19
I
I
stream or natural drainage system except that lakes and ponds wholly
contained within the excavation site may be utilized. All human
waste materials shall utilize city central sewer disposal or sealed
;septic tanks with monthly septic tank pumpings.
�k-
0'1\ 1'
\:3:1\ ,
` ; 11
(16) Wastewater. Operators shall dispose of all wastewater used on
' the site in a manner which will not adversely affect adjoining
property and shall use silting ponds or other means of disposing of
' the suspended solids in the waste water as stipulated in the
conditional use permit or excavation permit and approved by the city
engineer.
(17) Removal of Buildings. Within a period of eighteen (18) months
after filing letter of intent to "Complete Operations" or within six
(6) months after determination by the Council that the site has been
abandon by the sand and gravel operation, all buildings, structures
' and plants incidental to such operation shall be dismantled and
removed by and at the expense of the sand and gravel producer last
'
I .
operating such building, structure or plant, or the owner of the
property, unless the structure or use is compatible with the
anticipated ultimate use of the property. All buildings, structures
or plants not removed as required by this section may be removed by
the city with the costs for said removal charged to the producer last
' operating on the property or the owner the property.
1
20
I
(18) Topsoil. Stripping of topsoil from either "A" or "B" soil �,
horizons shall be done only from November 1 to May 1 of each year. ,
Graded or backfilled areas (or banks in the case of excavations made
to a water producing depth) shall be covered. with topsoil to a
minimum depth of four (4) inches as part. of the reclamation process. I
Such topsoil shall be capable of supporting the growth of vegetation:
The operator shall guarantee that either 1) all "A" horizon topsoil 1
scraped from the site shall be retained at the site and used as
surface soil in permanent berms or used for the complete restoration
of the site , or 2) a performance bond guaranteeing that the operator ,
will replace of all topsoil (to a depth of 4 inches) needed .for
reclamation of the site is filed with the original conditional use
permit. Other soil retention methods may be stipulated in the
conditional use permit or excavation permit. ,
(19) Landscaping. Upon replacement of the topsoil, trees, shrubs,
legumes, grasses or other ground cover similar to Minnesota i
Department of Transportation Mix a 800 shall be planted upon such
areas in order to avoid erosion. Such restoration shall be on a ,
continuing basis as excavation is completed. Berm, stockpiles, I
drainage channels and setback areas shall be seeded within 15 days
after the completion of final grading. All culvert inverts and
outlets shall be sodded within 15 days after completion of final
grading. 1
The applicant shall be responsible for final grading and reseeding of
21 1
I
all reclaimed land, including public park land. Seeding shall occur
' between April 15th and August 15th. On slopes greater than 6%, seeded
soils shall mulched with a fiber or straw hyrdo-mulch and tacking
' agent. On slopes less than 6%, a disk anchored straw mulch may be
used. Soil erosion fences, bales, dikes or combinations thereof shall
be used at the base of slopes greater than 12%. Staked fiber blanket
or staked sod shall be installed on all slopes greater than 2:1.
1
11, ' , (g) Reclamation, Restoration, Rehabilitation. The applicant shall comply
with the following time limits and standards during partial and complete
reclamation of the sand and gravel site.
(I) At the time of initial application, and as an annual update is
' necessary during the review of the excavation permit, the applicant
shall meet the requirements and procedures for •a Planned Unit
Development (Section A1-46 and A1-47) illustrating all present and
1 V �
future staged uses proposed for a sand and gravel site undergoing
reclamation. The city may combine public hearings for the conditional
' use permit and planned unit development end use plan, Each annual
excavation permit shall be attached to the original conditional use
permit as an amendment thereto.
Each annual excavation permit shall contain an end use reclamation/
' restoration/ rehabilitation plan for the area in which mining has
been completed for that year.
22
.1
(2) All collector streets right-of-ways and utility corridors
approved as part of a Planned Unit Development shall be fixed in - I
v
vertical and horizontal location and recorded with the County
\V"-k.°
Recorder as per the requirements of the Official Mapping Statutes el ip '
462.359 prior to the issuance of the first excavation permit for the \C" k. (.4
PP
site. The approved and recorded official map may be amended from time � �k
to time and re-recorded after approval by the city counci11., ' �e 1
40,,,, S -,
(3) Water Bodies and Drainage Plans. All proposed end use (Jr I
drainage, storage, surface run-off and man-made ground water
I
lakes or wetland plans are subject to review by the Vermillion
River Water Management Organization. All ground water lakes and
I
ground water wetlands created as part of the end use plan for a
mined area shall be subject to the city's shoreland management 1
ordinance. Such lakes and wetlands and developable lands within
I
500 feet of the shoreline shall be classified as 'recreational
development" areas and shall adhere to all dimensional criteria I
listed in Section Al-49 (in effect on the date of the original
conditional use permit approval) unless otherwise stipulated in I
the conditional use permit. 5
o.`
Atia
All drainageways from impervious surfaces of?end land uses shall be I
graded and drained in such a manner to direct such runoff to surface •
water sedimentation and filtration ponds or wetlands prior to release I
into any groundwater lake or wetland.
23 I
I
•
Ground water lakes and wetlands which are greater than 10 acres in
water surface created as a part of the mining excavations shall be
graded to allow for end use public pedestrian access systems within
' shorelines designated for public ownership.
y
\� %) Grading. As a portion of the Planned Unit Development, the
�� ,> applicant shall submit grading plans, including 2 foot contour
intervals, illustrating the proposed final grades within the portion
of the site rehabilitated each year with the application for an
annual excavation permit. All rehabilitation areas which are planned
for land and building uses (other than permanent open space or •
agriculture) shall have a final elevation at least fifteen (15) above
the normal ordinary groundwater level; and, such areas shall be
planned for gravity connection to the city's municipal sanitary sewer
' or storm sewer system or as approved by the city engineer. If a final
elevation plan for the site has not been submitted to the City
Council for approval within six (6) months after abandonment or
completion of operations, the city may contract to complete the
grading plans and the on-site earth movement and rehabilitation work
and charge these engineering and construction costs to the applicant
or current operator's performance bond and assess the owner of the
property for any costs not covered by the performance bond.
(h) Nonconforming Uses:
(I) Any sand and gravel operation existing and not in compliance
24
. 1
with previous city ordinances on thc date of thc adoption of this
ordinance shall be considered a nonconforming use until such time as 1
the property is zoned "SG" sand and gravel district. 1
(2) Any sand and gravel operation existing and in compliance with
I
previous city ordinances on the date of the adoption of this
ordinance shall be permitted to continue subject to the following: 1
i. Such uses shall not be permitted to expand its I
operation beyond the limits of the permit under which it is 1
presently operating.
I
ii. Such uses shall be immediately subject to the final 1
grading, landscaping, slopes, utility and roadway
performance standards of this ordinance and shall comply 1
- with all provisions within eighteen (18) months or after
completion of excavation, the city shall complete the 1
restoration and utilize performance bond proceeds and
old
I
assessment of additional costs to pay for such work.
Le ad
� �J`CtO-
aK.t,I tot �c�jit.. orijit.
e G3 r 4 e-i
I
41 :5 iz�
- D 46 1
al"°� Std.
'it7 1
- fl 25
I
I
111 .
Section 3. Section A1-48 as revised is hereby added to the City Code. Any
' person violating the provisions of Section A1-48 or any permit issued
therefrom, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to the
penalties listed in Section 1-8 and/or shall be subject to revocation of
all pertinent permits. Violations of conditions stipulated in a sand and
gravel mining conditional use permit shall be considered as violations of
' the City Code and are subject to the penalties listed in Section 1-8 of
this Cocle�
\7,\ I `,l ‘,
Section 4. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its
passage and publication.
I
Passed by the City Council this th day of
, 1990.
I
W. E. Branning, Mayor
ATTEST:
Mary E. Mueller, City Clerk
i
1
26
I
I
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
:. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612)937-1900• FAX(612)937-5739
Action by City Administrator
MEMORANDUM
Endorsed
Modified
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Reject eo
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director gt- D -�
Otte Submitted to CoifTiiSS1011
DATE: February 8, 1990
Date 5:.!t^tttsd to Co:n:c11
SUBJ: Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc. , Threatened Litigation "-l�'� o
_
Staff has received a letter from Michael Dwyer, the attorney for
Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc. In the letter Mr. Dwyer threatens
the City with an $800,000 law suit due to the action that was
taken to direct the City Attorney to take action to prohibit
further removal of clay from the site. The letter further states
that by way of offering a compromise, that the law suit would not
be filed if the City allows the clay to be removed and does not
institute any further ordinances regulating Moon Valley's
operation.
When staff and the City Attorney reported to the City Council I
regarding Moon Valley, we indicated that any of the alternatives
that were available for pursuing this issue would likely result
in threats of litigation. A copy of this letter has been for-
warded to the City Attorney. It should:-:be noted that Mr. Dwyer
has contacted neither myself nor Roger Knutson directly regarding
this matter. Since "litigation against the City has been
threatened, we believe it would be advisable for the City
Attorney to speak with ,the CityCouncil,privately regarding this
matter.
Staff is continuing to work with the City Attorney to prepare an
ordianance regulating mining and excavation as •er`'"ibe direction
of the City Council.
I
1
I
IFREDERICK L.TMONSON M A C K A L L, CROUNSE 6L MOORE MICHAEL S.PROST
WINSTON L.MUNSON DAVID J.OUODLESTON
CLAY R.MOORE LAW OFFICES THOMAS J.LALLIER
I
COMMON F.SCHM10 JOHN R.GREEN
LORENf KAO. AD SUSAN M.SWIFT
SIDNEY PLAN 1500 T C F TOWER SHEILA A.ENGELMEIER
WOODBURY H.ANDREWS NED J.CARROLL
GEORGE R.A.JOHNSON 121 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET DUANE G.JOHNSON
ANDREW R CLARK
DEAN I..SUNSET
A. COLLOTOM MICHAEL C.GLOVER
J•MIC. IC A.DVORAK MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 L.SHLOSSERG
I ROSCRT D.GISVOLD ANTHONY C.{RANCH
MARTIN C. NOSES AMY J.JOHNSON
H.RICHARD KORSH TELEPHONE 613•333-1341 SHERYL L.GOETZINGER
TIMOTHY D.MORATZI4 •RADLEY J.SCHMIDT
MARTIN V.AYDE LOT FACSIMILE 333-6173 D.CLAY TAYLOR
SHANE H.ANDERSON DAVID R.STRAND
I GLENN R.DRURY
STEVEN S.SCHMIDT
ROOM S.LEE
JAMES T.f W ENSON Sr
ERIC 0.MADSON FLOYD E.NELSON
J JAMES {.HANNAH
JOHN C.UTLEY
NAL M.HIGGINS
ARLIN S.WAELTI February 6, 1990
II STEPHEN P.GRINNELL
STEPHEN P.KELLEY
MICHAEL J.DWYER HENRY C.MACRALL um-two)
TIMOTHY M.{ARNCTT ROSERT M.CROUNSE 11{S3-1574)
IIA11L K.MEINZERNMG PERRY N.MOORE(15114-1111551
1
Mr. Paul Krauss KLC`.I VI4j
II City Planning Director
City of Chanhassen FEB 0 71990
P. 0. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 CITY OFCHANHASSEN
IRe: Moon Valley Aggregate Inc.
IDear Mr. Krauss:
This law firm represents the interests of Moon Valley. We
I have been asked to notify the City of Chanhassen of Moon Valley's
intent to commence an action against the City for its arbitary
and confiscatory conduct relating to Moon Valley's operations.
However, we wish to explore a compromise resolution prior to
II engaging in the extensive litigation which would be necessary to
protect Moon Valley's rights and recover its money damages.
The City of Chanhassen has taken steps, by way of its
resolution at the hearing before the City Council on January 22,
1990, to prohibit the clay extraction from the Moon Valley
II operation. The City is also apparently considering passing
ordinances directly to the detriment of the Moon Valley
operation.
Moon Valley has operated continuously as a sand, gravel and
clay extraction facility for several years. Its operation was
legal and in existence at the time Chanhassen first passed its
I zoning ordinances in 1972. Moon Valley was purchased from Walter
Griepentrag in 1986 by Thomas and Beatrice Zwiers. Its operation
has been continuous since that time. Both the Zwiers and
II Griepentrags have removed clay deposits from Moon Valley since
its investment. Therefore, the clay extraction at issue is a
continuation of the nonconforming use; Moon Valley has excavated
clay for years. This is not an expansion or enlargement
Iprohibited by City Code, Division 4, Section 20-71 .
II
II
MACKALL, CROUNSE ei MOORE
Mr. Paul Krauss
February 6, 1990
Page 2
The removal of clay deposits will permit the affected area
to be used for agricultural purposes. The existing topography is
hilly and poses significant erosion planning problems to tenant
farmers. The clay removal will level the affected area--there is
no intention to excavate below the level grade. The area will be
leased for farming purposes indefinitely, once it is leveled.
The immediately adjacent property owned by Teich has been
under consideration solely for erosion control purposes and to
create an additional buffer to adjacent land owners. It is not
the intention of Moon Valley to expand its operation into the
property presently owned by Teich.
Moon Valley had negotiated with the Eden Prairie Landfill '
the sale of 160,000 cubic yards of high quality clay for
$800,000. As you know, the Landfill seeks to use this material
as a sealant for its operations. The City of Chanhassen has now '
prohibited the clay removal. Moon Valley has experienced a loss
of $800,000 and it is unclear whether it will be sued by Eden
Prairie Landfill for breach of contract. I
Before Moon Valley starts its lawsuit against the City, we
wish to propose the following compromise: I
1 . Moon Valley will agree not to seek recovery against the
City for its arbitrary and confiscatory conduct, in
exchange for the City's agreement that the clay
extraction may continue until such time as the clay is
removed to grade.
2. Moon Valley will further agree that it will not remove '
any additional clay deposits from the affected area.
3. Further, the City shall not seek to impose any '
additional constraints by way of existing ordinances or
future ordinances on Moon Valley's operation.
Please provide us the City's written response to this
settlment offer within the next two weeks. If we do not hear
1
1
I
11
1
MACKALL, CROUNSE 8, MOORE
Mr. Paul Krauss
February 6, 1990
Page 3
from the City, we will have no alternative but to proceed with
litigation, seeking damages of at least $800,000 plus injunctive
relief.
Thank you.
Since ely,
Michael J. Dwyer
' MJD/mjva
cc: Moon Valley Aggregate Inc.
1 I
I
I
CITYOF
:EN
iikiN°); 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612)937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 '
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director ,
DATE: January 16, 1990
SUBJ: Moon Valley Gravel Quarry/Options for City Control 1
PROPOSAL/COMMENT
In November and December of last year, the City received a number
of contacts regarding a rumored expansion of the Moon Valley
gravel mining operation. It culminated in a Visitor Presentation
by Terry Beauchane at the December 18, 1989, City Council
meeting. At the meeting Mr. Beauchane indicated that he was con-
cerned with the size of the operation in general, the lack of
apparent city control over it and with rumors he had heard
regarding the potential for additional acquisitions of land by
the owners. Staff indicated that we :were in the process of
researching the matter and would come back to the City Council
in January with more information and a discussion of action alter-
natives. This report is being prepared to outline the City's
options for handling this issue.
We believe that there are a number of issues that need to be
explored relative to this matter. These include the current and
recent ownership pattern of the gravel quarry and surrounding ,
properties, background regarding the non-conformity that
currently exists, potential regulatory options including a new
ordinance that could regulate aining and excavation, the poten-
tial of taking action under existing ordinances=-relative to the
separate clay mining operation near Pioneer Trail,.-and the
question of environmental assessment worksheets:'" 3 have also
briefly discussed a related matter relative to the ways in which
the City currently processes grading permits and proposed regula-
tory changes that would respond to this.
Property Ownership
The property in question is located between Hwy. 212 and Pioneer
Trail. The subject sites contains a gravel mining operation
(adjacent to Hwy. 212) and a separate clay mining site (adjacent
to Pioneer Trail. Staff has researched the ownership of the Moon
I
' Mr. Don Ashworth
January 16, 1990
Page 2
Valley operation and researched further the land acquisitions
that may have occurred in the area. It is our conclusion that
there have been no recent acquisitions that we can find record
of.
' The Moon Valley property, as shown on Attachments A and B, was
originally under the ownership of Walter Griepentrog and utilized
as the Moon Valley Extraction company and shooting range prior to
' the adoption of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance in 1972. The
property owned by Walter Griepentrog was transferred in whole to
Thomas and Beatrice Zwiers in 1986. No additional land beyond
what Walter Griepentrog owned was purchased by Thomas Zwiers.
' There is property owned by Vernon Teich which is located between
the Thomas Zwiers property and existing residents (Beauchane) on
Hwy. 212.
' Background/Non-conforming Use
' Moon Valley operation predates any city ordinances that would
regulate it is therefore established as a non-conforming use.
Mineral extraction is established as a permitted conditional use
in the A-2 district, however, no permits have ever been approved.
' A permit was applied for in 1973 but the request was dropped
without action being taken. As such, the Moon Valley operation
is established as a legal non-conformity. The City Attorney, in
' an attached documentation, indicates that there is no effective
way to put a legal non-conformity out of business, however, he
does believe that they can be regulated. The City Attorney's
memorandum provides citations for cases which support this point
' of view. It should be noted, however, that in our opinion, the
legal non-confomity pertains to the gravel mining excavation as
it has been expanded to its current size. We do not believe the
clay mining site which is physically removed from the gravel area
and which is designed to mine a different material is protected
by the grandfathering. This is a new operation that was initated
' after the date of adoption of the ordinance which requires mining
activities to obtain conditional use permits.
Potential New Zoning Ordinance Requirements to Regulate Mining
' Activities
The City Attorney's memorandum cites cases and offers that the
City would have the authority to require the Moon Valley gravel
operation to seek and obtain a permit to allow its use in order
to protect public safety. In so doing, the City could establish
reasonable conditions for approval; however, it should be noted
that we do not believe the City would be in a position to deny
the permit. At the present time the ordinance establishes
mineral excavation as a conditional use in the A-2 District;
however, there are no particular standards that are applied. It
I
Mr. Don Ashworth '
January 16, 1990
Page 3
is our opinion that mining activities should be regulated to
accomplish the following:
1. Ensure that the site is returned to reasonable and usable I
condition for planned land uses upon completion of the
excavation.
2. On-site and off-site drainage are appropriately handled
to minimize impact.
3. Slopes are stablized and that adequate buffers are pro-
vided to protect adjacent land parcels.
4. Natural amenities on the site, such as wetlands and mature 1
tree cover, are protected.
5. Hours of operation are regulated to reduce the nuisance '
activity.
6. Dust is controlled to reduce the nuisance activity. ,
7. Traffic is controlled to reduce potential safety hazards.
8. Ultimate dates of removal of the use are established. 1
9. Minimum setbacks from the operation are established from
property lines.
10. The property is fenced and maintained in a manner that
ensures the safety of the public. '
11. Noise generated from the site is held to a reasonable
minimum.
The City Attorney has submitted an ordinance that he has drafted
for the City of Lakeville to deal with this type of matter. • If
the City Council directs staff to proceed, we would incorporate
elements of this and other ordinances as deemed appropriate.
The City Council should be aware that there are risks in pursuing
the strategy of requiring Moon Valley to obtain a permit.
Litigation is likely to result and the City Attorney's opinion
should be sought regarding the City's exposure.
Potential Action on Clay Excavation Site on Pioneer Trail
As indicated above, staff and the City Attorney have concluded
that we view the clay mining operation differently from the gra-
vel excavation site for two reasons. The first reason is that it
is relatively recent and was started long after the date of the
ordinance which required permits for mineral excavation. The
I
I
II _ Mr. Don Ashworth
January 16, 1990
Page 4
second reason is that it is physically removed from the main gra-
vel mining quarry and is in fact mining a different mineral or
material. Since it was started after the adoption of the ordi-
nance and no permit was obtained. It is therefore, our opinion,
' that it is in violation of the zoning ordinance. Therefore, we
believe the City may be in a position to require that the owner
permanently cease all related clay mining activity and pursue
actions to have the site restored back to its original condition.
' Once again, the City Council should seek the advice of the City
Attorney as to the City's legal exposure with this alternative.
' Potential Environmental Assessment Worksheet
As we had indicated at the City Council meeting, staff does not
believe that the EAW by itself represents a valid option for
dealing with the Moon Valley issue. At this point, the owner is
taking no action, that specifically would require an EAW or which
would allow the City to electively require one. Consideration
could be given, however, to require that an EAW be prepared as a
requirement of any conditional use permit application for mineral
extraction.
Procedures to Deal with Grading and Filling
Prior to the raising of the issues regarding Moon Valley, the
' Planning and Engineering Department staff held a number of
discussions regarding the manner in which the city regulates the
issuance of grading permits. At the present time, all such
' grading permits must be approved by the City Council which, while
probably appropriate in some cases, may not be in others. Our
specific concern deals with requests to move relatively small
amounts of earth, generally under a 1,000 cubic yards where there
are no significant issues such as wetland encroachment or tree
loss. Staff discussed the possibility of recommending modifica-
tions to the ordinance which would allow the City Engineer to
' administratively issue permits for moving small amounts of earth
subject to specific criteria with all larger earth work requiring
approval by the City Council. We believe this will result in
' more effective control over the great majority small earth work
projects while facilitating development in the City. We further
believe this can be accomplished without compromising the ability
of the City Council and public in general to review proposals
' that would result in significant amounts of earth work. I had
scheduled the submittal of a draft ordinance to the Planning
Commission in January, however, we delayed action on this ordi-
nance due to the Moon Valley situation. We believe that a
comprehensive ordinance that deals with both mining and mineral
excavation and grading is probably the best approach and would
' propose that any ordinances we are directed to bring to the City
Council should resolve both issues.
I
___ -. _ _ _ _... _. _.,...__ .... ... .w.oi.a.. a was a► na ,...a iic vGl V 1t.0
230 Flying Cloud Dr. c% Statewide Auto Salvage Federal Building
Chaska, MN 55318 285 Flying Cloud Drive Fort Snelling
Chaska, MN 55379 St. Paul, MN 55111
Alvin R. Lebens Leon C. Mesenbrink Terrence Beauchane " I
460 Flying Cloud Drive 250 Flying Cloud Dr. Box 23
Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 Chanhassen, MN 55317
II
John & J. Paul Daniel Lebens t Bert & B. Notermann II 17541 Manchester 450 Flying Cloud Dr. 1520 W. 10
Irvine, CA 92714 Chaska, MN 55318 Shakopee, MN 55379
II
Willard Halver Darrill Peterson et al David R. Teich
470 Flying Cloud . 18700 Flying Cloud Drive i 10151 Great Plains Blvd. II
Chaska, MN 55318 k Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Chaska, MN 55318
II
Russell & Y. Barto Dept. of Transportation Maynard & M. Happe
400 Lakota Lane Metro Square Building 495 Lakota Lane
Chaska, MN 55318 St. Paul, MN 55101 Chaska, MN 55318 1
Verne & S. Severson Robert E. Drury Jack Brambilla II
675 Lakota Lane 575 Flying Cloud Dr. 114 N. Holmes
Chaska, MN 55318 Box 193 Shakopee, MN 55379
Shakopee, MN 55379 II
•
Patrick Blood & Nancy Lee Vernon H. Teich Tracy & Holie Olene I
8275 Tamarack Trail 220 Flying Cloud Drive 450 Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
Jerome Koenke Thomas & B. Zwiers Tracy Oil Company
II
Gemeral Delivery 11111 Deuce Road P.O. Box 4425
Christiansted Elko, MN 55020 St. Paul, MN 55104
St. Croix, USVI 00820 .
. 't
Walter & J. Griepentrog 1 Rodney & D. Bauch Robert & E. Bask
100 Flying Cloud Drive - 1180 Pioneer Trail 770 Pioneer Trail II Chaska, MN 55318 I Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
- ---- ------ -
Roger & R. Lee Paul & D. Graffunder Jeffrey & K. Dypwick
600 W. 96th Street 10001 Great Plains Blvd. 10300 Great Plains Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
II
Robert & P. Buresh Donald E. Balla David Balla II
5817 Hansen Road 6601 Mohawk Trail 10095 Great Plains Blvd.
Edina, MN 55436 Edina, MN 55435 Chaska, MN 55318
II
701 W. 96th Street 721 W. 96th Street 601.-V4-96th street
IChanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
" James C. Sandell James Church Richard & B. Derhaag
731 W. 96th Street 611 W. 96th Street 711 W. 96th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Daniel Ackerman William Gratz Donald & P. Burchett
t9441 Great Plains Blvd. 275 Pioneer Trail 4 225 Pioneer Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317 f Chanhassen, MN 55317 f Chanhassen, MN 55317
E �
.
Robert & E. Tischleder Carver County Boyd S. Peterson
11185 Pioneer Trail ' Attn: Planning Dept. 325 Pioneer Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317 600 East 4th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317
" Christopher & K. Brandvold Richard & J. Taylor Marcy Waritz
305 Pioneer Trail 415 Lakota Lane 1271 Bluff Creek Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
" Mr. Michael J. Dwyer
Mackall, Crounse & Moore
1600 TCF Tower
I121 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
I
I
1 -
Planning Commission Meeting 11
April 4, 1990 - Page 25
March 19, 1990' without variances subject to the following conditions: I
1 . Provide the easements outlined in the staff report and described on
the attached illustration.
2. Dedicate illustrated right-of-way to the City.
3. Enter into a development contract with the City and provide necessaril
financial guarantees prior to having the City sign off on the final II
plat.
4. The applicant shall comply with all the conditions of the Site Plan 1
#90-4 and Wetland Alteration Permit, if required.
All voted in favor except Ahrens who abstained and the motion carried. I
PUBLIC HEARING: I
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE IV, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND
ARTICLE XXVII, EXCAVATING, MINING, FILLING AND GRADING ACTIVITIES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Tom Zweirs 9390 267 Street West , Lakeville '
Jerry Rypkema 18601 Panama , Prior Lake
Mike Dwyer 1600 TCF Tower , Minneapolis
Terry Beauchane 240 Flying Cloud Drive
Leon & Delores Messenbrink 250 Flying Cloud Drive
Richard Vogel 105 Pioneer Trail
Willard Halver 470 Flying Cloud Drive '
Paul Krauss presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the
continuation of the public hearing to order .
Terry Beauchane: Maybe before you start , this proposed ordinance that
you're talking about , all you people have up there have a copy of it but
we don't. We have no idea what you're talking about.
Krauss: We would have been happy to have supplied it to anybody that wa1
interested . We have developed a special mailing list for the area aroun
Moon Valley and we've notified them of each meeting.
Terry Beauchane: Well we were notified of the meeting but we didn't knot"
that there was a draft proposal already drawn up. Could we possibly see
it so we know what we're talking about?
Conrad: Are there any comments?
Willard Halver: I live in the very close vicinity. I 've been absent foll
3 months. I 've been getting mail in regard to these meetings. Now why
1 ,
-
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4, 1990 - Page 26
hasn't a copy of that ordinance been sent to us along with the meetings?
We know nothing .
Conrad: Normally. . .
Willard Halver : The blind leading the blind, is that what it is or what?
Conrad: Normally what we do is we sent notice to those properties within
x number of feet .
' Willard Halver : Well I 'm in that .
Conrad: In this particular case , this is an ordinance and Paul , who did
' we send notification to?
Krauss: We not only sent notice to properties within 500 feet . Because
of the nature of this , we greatly expanded the mailing list and we 've sent
numerous notices out to a variety of people and the notices that we 've
sent out basically say an ordinance will be discussed . If you want to get
information , contact us .
' Conrad: Typically that 's the way we handle it . We inform people that
something 's occurring . If they 're interested in knowing more , they can
' contact City Hall for an ordinance . For Minutes . For whatever . That 's
standard procedure .
Willard Halver : That 's what I 'm here doing .
' Conrad: Are there any other comments?
Richard Vogel : Is this a public hearing?
Conrad: Sure is .
Richard Vogel : I 'm Richard Vogel and I live at 105 Pioneer Trail . I have
two interests in this . I 've lived in that same house all my life and the
original Moon Valley that was grandfathered in before the ordinance took
' effect is one thing and the clay mining that was started on the old Fred
Zimmerman property is another thing. I think they are two separate sets
of property . I don 't think you should buy another piece of property and
have your original , what do you want to call it, grandfathering non-
conforming use move to the other piece of property. The other thing on
Moon Valley, the way it is, the old Moon Valley. When you've lived in
that bluff area all your life, it's sad to see where it's going now. Now
' I 'm no attorney and I don't know what non-conforming uses have or don't
have but when you come from Shakopee, you can see very well where Moon
Valley is . They 're up to the tree line now. It's sad to see that happen.
' At the last public hearing on March 7th or the 4th, whatever it was, there
was some talk of I 'll say terracing . After the mining was done, terracing
it . I would judge that all the homes you see from Chaska through
' Chanhassen to Eden Prairie are up there because of the natural setting
there is and I don't think they would be there if there was a terrace
there. I 'm just saying that as a broad statement . But anyway, I 'm just
1
r
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 27 1
saying , I think it 's too bad that they have to take those hills down . Y11
that 's all , I 'm saying that from a personal standpoint . On the clay
mining on the old Zimmerman property, that I 'm just saying, I think this
is a separate piece of property and I don't see why it should be '
grandfathered in. Thank you .
Terry Beauchane: My name is Terry Beauchane. I live just across the hill
from the Moon Valley operation . I have a number of comments I 've
addressed to you people before along with the City Council . The statement
was made earlier by the City Planner that this is supposed to be an all
encompassing ordinance that you folks are considering here . I guess my II
first question that comes up, if this is an all encompassing ordinance ,
why do we need prior approval of this ordinance from the attorney from
Moon Valley . Why did it have to be sent to him in the first place? Is I
this a city matter or is this a Moon Valley matter?
Conrad: I don 't think that that 's bad policy . It 's not that we 're
looking for that attorney to write our ordinance but it is going to
represent Moon Valley and there could always be litigation at some point
in time so having him aware of what we 're writing is probably pretty
smart . I guess I think that 's good but it 's not that he 's writing our I
ordinance by any means .
Terry Beauchane: Well then I guess I would have to ask how much input well
there from Moon Valley 's Attorney?
Krauss: I think the premise is wrong here . The point of fact , we give
copies out of an ordinance to anybody who requests it . They were here at,
a meeting . They requested a copy of it . It does have a direct bearing d�
them . We gave them one . Mr . Beauchane , if you had requested one , we
would have sent you one. They're property owners. They have an equal J1
right to see what we 're doing affecting their property . In point of fac
they have a lot of concerns about this ordinance that they feel it 's
restrictive or punitive or whatever . The ordinance was not modified
specifically to allow them to continue what they're doing. The whole
premise of this ordinance is to get some requirements placed on them so
the City has some control over what they're doing. I don't know. We wi
give copies of this to anybody that asks.
Terry Beauchane: Okay, in terms of control . There obviously has not been
any control down in our neck of the woods probably since the incorporatioll
of Chanhassen or maybe even long before that. There doesn't appear to bell
any control going on down there now. What kind of enforcement methods are
there going to be in this ordinance if any? I don't see any in here, at '
least in the, I only had a few minutes to read this but the first few
pages at least I see nothing that is going to be punitive in any way if
somebody does not live up to the ordinance standards and rules and so on .
Conrad: Paul , what would be the normal?
Krauss: The ordinance does have a paragraph that requires that not only
new operations be subject to the ordinance but also that existing
operations come in and get a permit to operate under it . We would then
•
Planning Commission Meeting
' April 4 , 1990 - Page 28
give them a time period in which to develop an ordinance . Bring it
through the Planning Commission , City Council for approval . If they
failed to do that or if they failed to live up to the requirements of the
permit when it is granted , the City always has legal recourse as we do
with any other property owner in the City.
Terry Beauchane: Well that brings up the issue then of the portion of the
' pit operation that 's taking place north of the original Moon Valley
operation . The big hole in the ground that I 'm sure everybody is aware of
at this point that was started without city approval . Without permits .
In fact without anybody 's knowledge . They just went up there and started
digging a hole in the ground. That's been going on for what , 2 years?
Nobody 's done anything about that . So you pass an ordinance and they
thumb their nose at it .
Emmings: Well we don 't have an ordinance yet . We 're here to pass an
ordinance .
Terry Beauchane: That 's what I 'm saying. You pass an ordinance but I see
nothing in this proposed ordinance that says if they don 't meet the
' stipulations of the ordinance and the permits and so on, what recourse is
there?
Batzli : There is a section that they have to go before the City Council
and get a permit with certain conditions on it . They need to meet certain
criteria which may be relaxed given existing conditions . In other words ,
there 's a setback requirement . Moon Valley 's already exceeded that
' setback requirement .
Terry Beauchane: Okay , but wasn't there already existing ordinances and
' so on that governed the second hole in the ground up there?
Krauss: That 's open to some serious question.
Emmings: We 're trying to fix that . Those ordinances were very inadequate
and our effort to pass an ordinance now is to get an improved ordinance so
we can get a handle on these things when they happen .
' Terry Beauchane: Okay, then very specifically then let me ask. When they
are done mining the pit and they close down the operation, what is to
become of the land? Either at Moon Valley or anyplace else if someone was
to do this? What is to become of the land?
Conrad: I think there is a section in the ordinance that speaks to
' restoration and I think there are some things that can't be restored . You
just don't fill in the whole pit and fill it up but I think there's a
section in here that hopefully governs a little bit of that. Puts some
' kind of a direction. Sets a direction for what the operator has to do.
Terry Beauchane: And then what if the operator or the owner of the land
does not comply with that and he's gone. The business is done .
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4, 1990 - Page 29 i
Batzli : Here 's a bonding section in the ordinance for restoration. A J1
letter of credit specifically which the City could draw down on to resto
it themselves and enter upon the land to do so if the owner did not
restore according to his plan which he submitted during the permit
process. Additionally there's a section that the City Engineer would
annually review the permit to determine if they were in compliance and i
it should be extended. If there was a serious question, it would go in
front of the City Council to decide if they should revoke the permit and ll
there's another specific section indicating that if a permit is revoked,
no further excavating can be done or it's in contravention of the law . I
mean you can't do anything more than that. You have to hold a public
hearing and allow the person to speak his peace .
Terry Beauchane: Okay, along that line . Can I make a suggestion for an
insertion into this ordinance then that might help this particular matte
t�
of what happens to the whole mess over there when all is said and done .
Included in the ordinance you might want to consider what is commonly
known as a mineral extraction fee or tax so that you 're collecting the II
money as the stuff is being taken out . That to be used for the
restoration of the land for whatever other purpose if they do not hold up
to their end of the bargain . I
Batzli : Would that be in lieu of the letter of credit that we require?
Terry Beauchane: Could be in lieu of or in addition to. Mineral
extraction, taxes and fees are quite common in the mineral industry .
Everybody is calling this whole operation over there mineral extraction .
Wildermuth: But it isn't mineral extraction. It 's mining in a pure '
sense .
Terry Beauchane: All depends on definition. The times that I 've been
talking to you people and the City Council , everybody seems to have a
different definition, including the City Planner , the City Attorney .
Wildermuth: Mineral extraction is separating metals from their ores .
They aren't doing that .
Terry Beauchane: Well , as I say. It's a matter of interpretation but III
think the concept might still apply. They do it in coal mining . They do
it in gold mining.
Wildermuth: It's a mineral depletion tax just like an oil depletion tax .
Terry Beauchane: That's right . Just like an oil depletion tax . ,
Wildermuth: Very common.
Terry Beauchane: That way you might insure that at least if they run out'
on the deal , that you've got something to go back in there and make it
right . Right now from what you've said and what I 've read in here, if a
operator moves out of this particular type of business and vanishes, the
City of Chanhassen's going to be stuck with it.
I
II -
Planning Commission Meeting
iApril 4 , 1990 - Page 30
11 Conrad: Oh no . That 's not right . Not with the bond .
Terry Beauchane: Could be .
IIConrad: Not with the bond. The bond is there .
II Batzli: As long as you get an adequate bond and the City Engineer has the
authority to review that from year to year to adjust it for inflation and
changing conditions and so the City Engineer would be able to increase or
decrease it at that time .
ITerry Beauchane: What would the amount of bond be on an operation such
as?
.
II Batzli : I don't know .
Krauss: It 's established specifically related to whatever . . .
1 Wildermuth: For that permit right?
IIConrad: It seems like a better route to go in my mind .
Batzli : You 'd be getting it up front rather than as the extraction took
II place because if you took it as the extraction initially took place , it
wouldn 't be properly funded to restore it . I think it would be better to
get a bulk of it up front if it 's possible . I think your idea has some
merit but I don 't think it 's something we 've really considered.
ITerry Beauchane: I 've got some other questions . Again, not having a
whole lot of time to go through this . Your number 3 on page 2 where it
I says perimeter fencing, deals with that issue . It says , will only require
fencing where it believes that there is a safety hazard. I guess that
sounds a little nebulous to me. It 's not very definite as to who
II considers a safety hazard or what is considered a safety hazard and so on .
Now I understand a number of you people may have seen the Moon Valley
operation over there . Granted there aren 't a lot of little kids that live
over there but if you 've seen the drop offs that have been created with
I the excavation that has been going on over there, again what do you
consider or who considers or who determines what the hazard is?
II Conrad: I 'd rather have a person do that than a general policy or
whatever . I think again, this is trying to be sensitive to a situation
and I like being able to look at a site and saying this is a dangerous
situation and this is not. I don't think you can create an ordinance that
I can be specific and say we're always going to fence everything. You can 't
do that. This seems to be more rational .
I Emmings: Not only that but there's a standard in there . It says that
they have to be fenced if they're steeper than 1 foot vertical to 1 1/2
feet horizontal unless the City determines that they don't pose a hazard
Iso there 's a standard right in it. It's right there.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4, 1990 - Page 31 . II
Terry Beauchane: Okay . Concerning number 4 with the 300 foot setback di
they 're saying the Moon Valley is a 50 foot setback . Is that a setback
from what? The property line or what?
II
Krauss: Yes . It's from the property line and 50 foot is Teich, has the
lot between where your home is and Moon Valley and that 50 foot is up
against the Teich's property . I
Terry Beauchane: Who has determined that it is 50 feet?
Krauss: That's the information we got from Mr . Zwier . I 'll take his woll
for it.
Terry Beauchane: Oh you will . Okay . Again , I have to ask the question "
who 's drafting this ordinance?
Ellson: Well 50 feet has nothing to do with the ordinance . When Moon II
Valley comes through , that 's when they 'll have the official measurement
and everything like that . We're saying 250.
Terry Beauchane: You 're saying you're going to set a waiver for Moon II
Valley in particular for the 50 foot setback rather than the 300 foot
setback based on what he 's telling you .
Krauss: What we said is we would consider one and if he 's 50 feet , that
where he is right now.
Terry Beauchane: What if it 's zero? II
Krauss: If he 's zero right now, we have to deal with it. What are we II
going to make him do? Put back a mountain? You know, wherever it is at
the point at which the ordinance is put . . .
Terry Beauchane: I guess that 's why we 're here and the homeowners and I
stuff are getting a little upset with this whole thing because you keep
saying we 're going to deal with it . Hell , this crap has been going on for
years over there and nobody's been dealing with it . They went out and 1
a big hole and you didn't deal with that. How are we dealing with
anything other than going to them and saying what do you want? I 'll give
it to you . .
Leon Messenbrink: It 's not 50 feet , I 'll guarantee you that because I wal
just up there the other day.
Conrad: Right now we're looking at an ordinance that really talks about I
300 feet or whatever the standard is . I think when Moon Valley gets
measured by our standard, we have to look at that particular situation soil
right now the 50 feet is inmaterial . I don't care if it's 4 feet or 12
feet . We 're setting a standard of 300 feet in our ordinance. That 's our
standard . When Moon Valley, if this ordinance passes and if Moon Valley
comes in to apply for the permit, we'll have to look at that particular II
standard and how they fail in that area and we're going to have to figure
out how to solve that problem. But right now we're not writing an
II
! -
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 32
11 ordinance for Moon Valley . This is not a Moon Valley ordinance tonight .
Period. This is a general ordinance for Chanhassen .
' Terry Beauchane: You wouldn't even be looking at this ordinance if it
wasn't for Moon Valley.
1 Conrad: Obviously stimulated the interest .
Leon Messenbrink made a comment .
Conrad: No, we've all walked it .
Leon Messenbrink: You don 't even know we exist down in that corner .
' Conrad: I will debate that .
Leon Messenbrink: I 've lived there 35 years .
Conrad: You 're wrong sir .
Batzli : I don 't understand your point . Just one more thing. Do you want
us to not do to anything? I mean what 's your point? We 're trying to pass
an ordinance . We 're not talking about Moon Valley 's compliance or not .
Would you like to see certain things in here that aren 't in here? Would
you not like us to do anything?
Terry Beauchane: I guess my point is is how much latitude is this
' ordinance or you people going to give Moon Valley or any other operation
like them , but in particular Moon Valley because they are a unique
situation because they were in business before this whole ordinance
' business came up . So my concern is , when all is said and done and you
pass an ordinance , however it turns out , what is Moon Valley going to be
able to do or not do?
Conrad: And we don't know.
Ellson: We won 't know until that time comes and then you should follow it
at that meeting because that will be when the decision is made .
Terry Beauchane: Okay, the bottom line is, are you telling me then that
if an ordinance is passed and it's passed in the form that it is here ,
that Moon Valley is going to have to come back in for a permit?
Ellson: Exactly.
Terry Beauchane: Now, what happens between the time the spring operations
start up and the time the ordinance actually is passed and becomes law?
iConrad: They 're not governed by any ordinance. .
' Terry Beauchane: So they're free to do whatever they want?
Conrad: Whatever has been permitted in the past .
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4, 1990 - Page 33 . 1
II
Terry Beauchane: Does that also include the hole in the ground to the
north? II '
Emmings: They're not working there now are they?
Krauss: The hole in the ground to the north has been the subject of a 111
of discussion. The City Attorney originally believed that since they we
digging clay out of the top and clay was a different material , and the
gravel that we presumed had been coming off from the bottom and it was I
physically separated , that we had some ability to say no you could not
work up there. We've since found out that they're mining clay from down
below as well which makes that argument a little more tenuous than it wa
Mr . Vogel has talked about the fact that we've said all along and still
would say that Moon Valley has no right to acquire new properties and th
mine on them . That the grandfathering would not cover that situation . We
originally researched the matter and concluded that the property up to tit
north along Pioneer had been acquired by Mr . Griepentrog was the
predecessor to Mr . Zwier at a date prior to the adoption of the ordinance ,
i .e . then it was grandfathered in. Mr . Vogel and I have been talking on"
the phone that he says that he 's been down to the County and has some
information indicating that that acquisition took place in 1986. We
checked again the tax records that we have and as near as we can tell , t
computerized records started in 1980, Mr . Griepentrog owned it in 1980.
I want to see Mr . Vogel 's information . If it's better than what we have
there possibly is an avenue to follow up. At this point in time though it
doesn't appear to us that we can treat that hole any differently than thll
main pit .
Ahrens: Is that the opinion of the City Attorney?
IIKrauss: Yes.
Wildermuth: I think the interesting thing though is that Mr . Zweirs . �
doesn't have any intention of doing anymore mining up on top . What he
wants to do is recontour the top so that it solves an erosion problem that
he's got in preparation for development at some point. Is that true Mil
Zweirs? I think you 're concerned about the continued clay mining up on
the top side. It 's a valid real concern but. . .
Terry Beauchane: Mr . Wildermuth, are you personally going to guarantee I
what he's telling you?
Wildermuth: How could I possibly do that? I
Terry Beauchane: Okay, my point .
Wildermuth: But the point is that he has stopped. 1
Terry Beauchane: Well sure , it's wintertime. It's wintertime but wait
until the roads open up.
I
II
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 34
I Ellson: The sooner this gets to Council , the sooner it passes , the sooner
all that will have to be dealt with I guess .
Terry Beauchane: Another point that I do not see addressed in here and
again I have not read through the whole thing, is traffic considerations
out there on TH 169. I guess I don't know how that can be addressed but
it is definitely a hazard the way it exists right now . I don't know if or
how you would go about improving upon the ordinance or whatever to take
those types of things into consideration . Such as the large trucks that
have to pull out and pull in to that operation from a very busy highway
which we 've talked about in the past . The no turn lanes on that highway
to make it easier and less hazardous and when we have had rain storms , the
mud that flows out of that pit right onto the highway . Now I don 't see . . .
' Ellson: There is something in here about controlling and minimizing
tracking of dust and dirt by having a paved road and also it says that all
hauled routes to and from the mine have to be approved by the City and
' shall only use streets that can safely accommodate the traffic . So if we
felt that it wasn 't safely accommodating traffic , we would have reason to
tell them no or make them change their routes or whatever so there is a
1 little area in here that does address that .
Terry Beauchane: Will this ordinance then give you authority over the
traffic problems on Th 169/212?
Ellson: Sometimes we limit like hours and things like that . If it 's
something that we can address . . .
Krauss: We can address the turning movements out of this site . We
haven 't dealt with it directly yet but TH 169 is a State Highway and is
' carrying a lot of thru traffic and I don 't have specific numbers for you
but I 've got to believe that the amount of turning movements by anybody on
that stretch of highway in Chanhassen are a very small percentage of the
traffic that we see on that road. Yeah, we want to make that as safe as
possible but we 're not talking about putting the bulk of the traffic on
that . What 's going to alter that is opening up the new TH 212 which is
going to off load it significantly.
ITerry Beauchane: So again it would be up to the determination of the City
then as to whether or not it's a hazard and so on?
Conrad: In this ordinance we've looked at internal traffic concerns and
dust . We haven't , the ordinance doesn't really, correct me if I 'm wrong ,
doesn't really talk about external . That would be a site specific
concern.
Batzli: There is a requirement that trucks haul , or you present the
plan. . .where you haul .
Krauss: That's right . We want to know what streets they'll be using and
where they 'll be turning . If turn lanes are necessary into a site like
that that's fixed. You can require that .
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting II April 4 , 1990 - Page 35
Terry Beauchane: And the City then under this ordinance could make those!'
determinations for TH 169 also? Is that correct?
Krauss: Well , TH 169 is not our street so we have to work cooperatively 1
with MnDot on that but we would certainly try to get the safest street
possible.
J1Terry Beauchane: So that could be circumvented by saying that the City
Chanhassen has no control over TH 169?
Conrad: That 's possible. Basically it means that we would have to work "
with MnDot and if they didn 't want to deal or they didn't perceive the
issue to be significant , then we would have no control over that .
Terry Beauchane: Well I appreciate your time . You didn't answer hardly
any of my questions and I can sense that this ordinance is going to be
drafted to accommodate Moon Valley . It 's unfortunate . I guess we'll hail
to deal with it with the City Council . At least we know they 're elected
officials . Thank you .
Conrad: I beg to differ with you . I think we answered most of your I
comments and I 'm sorry you don 't see how we've tried to reflect on the
issues at hand. Maybe we 're not communicating clearly and I know you 're
neighbor down there . In our mind , this ordinance appears to be dealing
with the issues as best possible . You will have to stick with this
through City Council and obviously they are your elected officials and
that 's why I prefaced our meeting tonight saying stay with the issue . B
our job is to draft an ordinance that works city wide and this ordinance
is not site specific . It will work and it will control some of the things
that I think you 're concerned about . I 'm sorry you didn't feel that we I
were looking out in your best interest at this. Other comments .
Leon Messenbrink: I am Leon Messenbrink . I live down there too . I goes
my only question is , how far down the line are we looking for this
ordinance? Are we looking like 3 months? 6 months? A year?
Elison: 2 weeks until the City Council . I
Conrad: No , it will be longer .
Leon Messenbrink: Let's be realistic. Are we looking at 3 months? I
That's what I 'd like .
Conrad: A couple months I would guess wouldn't you Paul? I
Krauss: Well if we assume that the City Council approves it , which is 2
to 3 weeks from now, we have to then publish it in the newspaper so your
looking at about a 2 month span. At that point we have to set a deadline`
for Moon Valley to develop their plan and come in to us. An equitable
period has to be established. I 'll ask the City Council to set a deadlin
and I don't know what date they'll pick.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 36
I Leon Messenbrink: That 's only one thing that you bring up again now. Did
I understand you that you 'll have to wait until Moon Valley responds to
this?
IKrauss: They will be given a deadline to respond.
Leon Messenbrink: No , I 'm not talking what they 're going to do . I want
IIto know the ordinance.
Batzli : Within 6 months of the passage of the ordinance .
iLeon Messenbrink: No, I 'm not asking that . I 'm asking when will this
ordinance be passed . Not what they think about the ordinance . I 'm just
talking about the ordinance .
IIConrad: About 2 months . If they . . .
II Leon Messenbrink: That 's all the question I asked. How long .
Irregardless of what we say or they say , the ordinance we 're looking at
about 2 months right? Fine . Thank you .
IMike Dwyer : Mr . Chairman . I 'm Mike Dwyer . I represent Moon Valley .
We 've had some discussions with Mr . Krauss since we met here last March
7th I think . One of the commission members pointed out that Moon Valley
II was taking kind of a rigid stance and we 've assessed that and we 're here
tonight to suggest to you folks that Moon Valley is more than willing to
sit down with the City and discuss legitimate safety problems in terms of
I fencing and the dust and noise problems and whether that needs to be a
trap or 300 feet of asphalt . Those are things that we think we can work
out among staff and Moon Valley 's personnel . But in terms of this
II ordinance , we still have to oppose passage of the ordinance. It is too
broad in terms of it 's effort to lay upon a non-conforming use some land
use regulations . I 'm trying to make the distinction between your
legitimate safety concerns and then your land use concerns . We 'll be
1 happy to talk to you about the safety concerns. It's burdensome in terms
of the cost . We've obtained estimates that if we were to comply with the
permit application process, on the outside that would cost $35,000.00. If
I we were to do 300 feet of paved surface , and again with the caveat that
that may be negotiated down, that would cost $43,000.00. Fencing is, it
depends upon what the City indicates is hazardous but we're estimating
that at $15,000.00 and as a side issue, I should point out that the City
I is suggesting that we use MnDot fencing. This 6 foot tall cyclone fencing
that you see along the freeways. In order for that to be installed, the
cyclone fence people have to come in with some pretty heavy equipment .
I There would be an additional cost in preparing a trail for that equipment
to come into the bluff area and I believe it would necessitate taking down
a lot of your trees, or a lot of the trees on Moon Valley and I don't
II think anybody wants that . So there's a definite cost to the actual
fencing materials but there's a collateral cost that is significant as
well . But as I said earlier , we're willing to talk to you about the
fencing. From the comments tonight, you folks appear to be pretty intent
I upon having a letter of credit. We believe that that's inappropriate and
will be costly. I don't know what an operation the size of Moon Valley
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting I April 4 , 1990 - Page 37
would command in terms of a bond or letter of credit . No one has been II
' able to tell us that but that would cost a lot of money. Mr . Batzli says
it's important to get that money up front . That would cost a good deal .
We also have to continue to oppose this ordinance because it 's
discriminatory in terms of mining operations in general and Moon Valley in
particular in that you are dictating certain safety standards to this la
use and not other land uses that are identical to it . For instance , as
drove through Chanhassen today and a couple times 3 weeks ago, I noticed
lots of lakes without fences around it and I 've noticed lots of bluffs
that have a greater degree of slope than indicated in here that have no
fences on it and they have to pose the same hypothetical safety problems "
that have attracted your attention in Moon Valley . Yet I don't understand
and believe that there's any ordinances that deal with that . So we woul
request and renew our request that you recommend to your City Council th
you not adopt this ordinance and that you send Mr . Knutson back to the
drawing board , the blackboard , and that he draft an ordinance that would
address legitimately your safety concerns but at the same time would
protect the vested property interests of the citizens of the City . Thanll
you .
Conrad: Could you go back to the permit costs. $35,000.00 . Can you . . . II
Mike Dwyer : If I might , I have some copies . This was prepared Mr .
Chairman for us some time ago and $35,000.00 total is responding to the
initial draft and since that time , Mr . Krauss may have touched on it , th
tree survey has been sought and is now requested . . .various wooded areas .
Here 's a fencing estimate and asphalt estimate . I
Conrad: Paul , have you seen any of these numbers?
Krauss: No . I 've heard them mentioned from time to time and one of the "
things you had asked us to look into was getting some cost estimates on
compliance and as I thought about that , I guess I really felt it was
inappropriate . First of all we don't know what the plan is so we don't II know exactly what they 're complying to . But I 'd also have to point out
that when I was out at the site with Mr . Zweirs, he gave me an estimated
value and I don't remember how many millions of dollars it was of the
material that 's out there. There's no question that this ordinance is II
going to cost somebody something . But the real question is, is that a
legitimate cost of business and that's what you need to decide.
Mike Dwyer : Mr . Zweirs asked me to point out one thing here on the lette
of credit issue. The City has indicated a willingness to accept the
functional equivalent in terms of, at least this 300 feet of paved road,
trap. The functional equivalent of the letter of credit in our opinion
the 80 some acres of land here in Chanhassen that I think is selling at
*12,500.00 an acre. We think that that 's a million dollars of land there"
and Mr . Zweirs isn 't about to walk away from a million dollars of land.
So I think the land, as I said earlier, is security enough to backstop Mr .
Zwiers ' intentions to develop that land . Mr . Wildermuth , you made a
comment earlier , I just want to clear up the record. It is Mr . Zwiers'
intention , present intention anyway not to mine on that northern property
beyond leveling those knolls. Those 3 knolls of clay to grade. It is his
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 38
' intention to continue to remove that high quality grade clay from there
but at that point , keep it level and develop those lots . So again , we
reconize your safety concerns and we'll work with you on those but in
terms of this ordinance , we think it 's a poor one for Moon Valley ,
although it 's not directed at Moon Valley, and for any other mining
operation that were to come into the City .
Conrad: Other comments .
Terry Beauchane: I 'd like to respond to those comments that were just
made . Number one , now I don 't know these gentlemen from Adam but if
you 're going to allow any kind of operation such as this without any kind
of bonding , what 's to prevent them from just walking away when it 's all
' over? Then who 's going to get stuck with it? The taxpayers. Now you may
have the land and they may think it 's worth $1 ,200 .00 an acre , or
$12 ,000.00, whatever the number was , but I can guarantee you by the time
' they 're done with it , it 's not going to be worth diddily beans . Now if
you pass an ordinance without any kind of a bonding to go with it , that
would be the most foolish ordinance I 've ever seen . The comments about ,
well let 's see . I lost my train of thought . The comments about the hole
in the north not going to do any more mining on it . I guess I would take
that with a grain of salt also . If they were concerned at all , why didn't
they come to the City for approval the first time around when there was no
assured or guarantee that what they were doing was not in violation of any
existing ordinances . So we again seem to be drafting and modeling this
proposal to suit Moon Valley . I 'm getting the impression from the
attorney 's comments that they 're opposing this ordinance and as my
neighbor brought up , and the point he was trying to make is how long are
they going to be able to operate Moon Valley unrestricted . If no
ordinance is passed, they're going to be going full guns down there with
1 no restrictions . No supervision from the City . Nothing . They'll be able
to do whatever they damn well please just as they have been doing . So
this ordinance does not need to be delayed any longer . As we're all
' aware, any ordinance can be modified later on if need be. Right now we
need to get something in place and we need to have it done before the
spring thaw and those big trucks are allowed back on the road because you
know the day that they're allowed, they 're going to be operating . They 're
' going to be operating out of the main Moon Valley pit and they could very
well be operating out of the hole in the north . The hole in the north and
I don't know, this is what I 've heard from certain people around City
Hall , the clay operation was predicated upon the Eden Prairie landfill and
that is still up in the air but it could still go from my understanding if
the EPA were to give their approval . If these people have a contract with
' that Eden Prairie landfill operation up there for the clay, that hole in
the north is going to go back into operation this year no matter what they
say . So we need an ordinance and we need it now before the spring thaw
comes . And we need it with a bond. Thank you .
Conrad: Other comments? Anything.
Richard Vogel : Yeah, a little earlier I believe Mr . Wildermuth said it
was his understanding that no more clay was going to be taken off of the,
let 's say the north or the up field. I think the attorney said they were
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4, 1990 - Page 39
going to take 3 knolls off to grade . Is that right? That 's what I
I
understood?
Bob Zweirs: That's our intention. I
Richard Vogel : What does that mean? No clay off or taking it off the
grade and how much is that? I guess I 'd like a little idea of that . If
we're supposed to decide that at this thing tonight . If we 're going out ,
of here saying there 's no more clay being taken off of the, whatever you
want to call it , the upland or it 's going to be level to grade. What do
that mean? That's my question . And also, is there an ordinance? I
thought there was an ordinance put in 1972 . Is that right or not?
Conrad: No. I
Richard Vogel : That 's what you were telling me Jo Ann . That before
the . . .
II
Olsen: There is a mineral extraction ordinance but nothing of this
detail .
Krauss: And it doesn 't have a mechanism for getting at uses that starte
before 1972 .
Richard Vogel : Okay , fine . I
Conrad: Other comments?
Richard Vogel : Could I just add, is their attorney willing to add to thJI
and what is it going to be the way Mr . Wildermuth said no clay is taken
off of the north or the upland part or is it going to be . . . I
Conrad: Why don 't we wait for a second on that and we 'll close the public
hearing . We'll still see if they want to answer that . I don't think
that 's relevant to what we 're talking about tonight but they may want toll
respond.
Emmings: All he can do is repeat himself. I
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 1
Conrad: Is there any response?
Mike Dwyer: I think I already tried to clear it. Sir , that is the
II
intention of Moon Valley to take the 3 knolls of clay and bring them down
to the surrounding grade. . .
Conrad: Okay, which end did I start at last time? II
Ellson: You started at my end so you can start at the other end this II time.
Planning Commission Meeting
II April 4 , 1990 - Page 40
II Ahrens: Well I was going to address the ordinance. . .before us. I think
that it seems that the new ordinance seems to incorporate all the issues
that we raised in our last meeting when we reviewed this . I don't have my
II marked up version of the old ordinance that we were looking at , the first
ordinance we were looking at so I can't tell if the revisions that you
note on page 2 Paul are inclusive or are they just some of the revisions
that were made?
IIKrauss: They 're the more significant ones. As I stated, we made a number
of detailed revisions and I had a marked up copy and I believe I had
I Commissioner Emmings ' and Commissioner Batzli 's as well and tried to bring
all those considerations into account .
I Ahrens: I have just a couple of comments . Number 5 on page 2. It says
tree planting and screening is now required only in areas where the City
determines it is necessary to screen off-site views .
I Emmings: I don 't have a 5 on page 2 . Are my numbers different than other
people 's?
IIBatzli : I don 't have that either .
Krauss: It 's not in the ordinance . It 's in the staff report .
IIAhrens: No , no . It 's in the staff report .
Emmings: Oh , okay . Page 2 of the staff report . Okay . Sorry .
IAhrens: My point is that . . .determine that planting and screening is
necessary?
1 Krauss: You would make that determination along with the City Council
when you review the plan .
II Batzli : We wouldn 't see that would we? Doesn't that go right to City
Council?
IIKrauss: It 's a conditional use permit. It would come through you .
Batzli : Okay.
IAhrens: And that 's screen the views of the mining or excavation? Is that
the purpose?
II Krauss: Where there are some critical off-site views, for example from
the homes to the west of the mine, you 'd certainly want to provide them
with buffering. You may also want to provide buffering from the State
Ihighway .
Ahrens: But if it 's provide buffering for the actual work at the mine. . .
I more planting and screening be required as the work is progressing on the
site? Is there any kind of . . .
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
II
April 4, 1990 - Page 41
Krauss: Well I would assume that yes , you 'd make that determination whe
you see how that plan's being staged certainly . When this operator or any
other operator comes before you , we are going to ask for a grading plan II
that indicates the completed state . You 'll be able to determine where t
activity is going to occur .
Ahrens: 7-33(E ). Page 2 of the ordinance. Is that excavation or fillir�
of more than 100 or less than 100?
Batzli : It should be less than. ,
Krauss: It should be less than .
Ahrens: I don't know if that appears anywhere else in the ordinance . YI
might want to check that . I don 't have any more questions .
Wildermuth: I think the redraft of the ordinance is very appropriate . II
think Roger did a very good job redrafting . I think the new language in
many areas makes the ordinance more workable. I continue to favor of the
letter of credit . I think that 's essential to insure the public interes11
is protected. I support the ordinance .
Conrad: Tim. Go ahead.
Erhart: You woke me up. Just one thing to start out with . Did anybody
in this room get a notice? You did get a notice in the mail?
Resident: Of the meeting? We got an agenda .
Erhart: Yeah . Okay . Help me understand Jo Ann or Paul . You 're saying
that the existing ordinance passed in 1972, would it or would it not all
them to remove the clay in the upper area?
Krauss: The current reading , I discussed this with Roger yesterday . Thi
current reading we have , and it 's based on information that we've been
able to procure to date so this could be revised in the future , but based
on the information we have , it's our opinion that that operation up on 11
is probably grandfathered in as well .
Erhart: That's not the question. That 's the second question. The first
question is, assuming it isn't, do they comply with the 1972 ordinance?
In other words, the current ordinance.
Krauss: They don't comply because they never had a permit. There's no II
plan that we're regulating under .
Erhart: So they don't comply by the fact that they don't have a permit. II
Krauss: Right.
Erhart: Then just for comment is that I cannot understand first place, II
when Wally Griepentrog and his wife bought this property from Zimmerman in
1986.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
IIApril 4 , 1990 - Page 42
Krauss: Now the information that we have . . .
Erhart: You just stated that or somebody stated that earlier .
Olsen: He 's been acclaimed .
Erhart: Whether or not anybody, it really doesn't make any difference .
What I thought I heard you say is the fact when that was purchased as a
separate parcel , it was automatically made a part of the grandfathered
parcel .
' Krauss: Because that occurred as near as we can tell before the operative
date of the ordinance , that 's correct .
' Erhart: You 're saying that purchase was made before the 1972 ordinance
was made?
Krauss: Yes . That 's the information we 've got .
Ellson: One person is saying 1986 and they're saying earlier .
Erhart: Griepentrog purchased this property before 1972?
1 Krauss: Right . Now Mr . Vogel 's contacted us and said that he also went
to Carver County and has different information which we'd like to see
because we haven 't been able to confirm that .
11 Erhart: Well I 've got a copy of this from Dick that says that Wally
Griepentrog purchased this property from Fred Zimmerman January 8 , 1986 .
' Emmings: That 's a warranty deed. There may have been an underlying
contract . I don 't know .
Krauss: Tim , I don't know the answer to that . We've researched it twice
and we've got the best information we have . We 've asked Dick to give us
the information that he has .
' Erhart: Well I 'm sure he will but it Just seemed to me that if it was
purchased after that , then it should comply with our current ordinance.
Krauss: If it was purchased after the operative date of the ordinance, we
don't believe the grandfathering applies.
' Erhart: So we all agree with that then. Okay. Great . So then it 's just
a question of finding out when this thing was really purchased or not.
Okay, so we're going to do that.
' Krauss: Well we 've already done it twice. We want to take Dick's
information .
' Emmings: Did you go down to the County Recorder 's office and get copies
of any deeds or contract for deeds in the relevant time periods? That's
what you have to do. If you didn't do that , you didn't do it . The deed
. i
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 43
that Tim has, there's a warranty deed here and it 's dated 1986 and it II
clearly the fee was transferred from Zimmerman to Griepentrog on January
8, 1986. It doesn't say anything about an underlying contract or that tit
deed was given to fulfill the terms of a contract but they don't have toll
Ellson: But for their specific situation, they're going to be looking
into that so.
Erhart: Okay. I think we all agree on that then. I guess one comment
directed at Moon Valley 's attorney regarding all these costs . I guess mil
feeling regarding that and the bonding and everything like that is that
don't have a lot of empathy for whatever costs in that it's a cost of
doing business and quite frankly, there's no question in my mind that
you 're adversely , your operation adversely affects surrounding property
values and that the City, if they aren 't compensated, certainly the City
should take every means to protect itself from the continued operation.
Conrad: Tim, just a point of clarification. I asked them to bring in II
some costs the last time through . I was real interested in what we
impose. ,
Erhart: Yeah, I think it 's important though what costs are when we impose
ordinances and ordinance changes . What it costs our citizens and so I
think that 's great . It 's just that in reviewing that , then my position
I guess that 's just part of the program here . Let me go to the ordinanc
here . I 've got a couple questions here . One of the big ones in my mind
Paul is , right now we 're stating that anything from 100 to 1 ,000 cubic II
yards can be worked on or can be dealt with by staff but you have all
these requirements in paragraph 7-35(B ) . There 's a list of 13 and then it
jumps back to 12 . On page 4 there . What is that? Is that a mistype? If
that next one 14 or what?
Krauss: Oh yeah. II Erhart: Okay. The question that I have , it 's not clear to me that the
guy under 1 ,000 yards , is he required to do all this too?
Krauss: He 's required to fill out a permit. In fact we had a proposed II
permit application attached to this. You're right, it's not particularly
clear as to which information we would request of a smaller operation.
Clearly we don't need some of these things for the smaller operator . We
could clarify that point.
Erhart: Well my concern is that a 1 ,000 cubic yards is a very small
amount and that could be somebody's Landscaping. If somebody built on all
acre lot , he could easily landscape 1 ,000 yards. If he was trying to move
a hill or something and I 'm not saying that the permit process is bad. II
It's just that to come in here and require all this for a guy doing
landscaping.
Batzli: Wouldn't that come under grading under a building permit which
excluded?
11
II - Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 44
1
' Erhart: Well that 's what I 'm asking .
Krauss: Not necessarily.
' Batzli : No , it wouldn 't?
Krauss: 1 ,000 cubic yards is a 100 large size dump trucks. There 's a
significant impact attached to that . Particularly , if that 's taking place
out in your neighborhood Tim , you know where you have 20 acre homesites ,
that 's going to be a drop in the bucket for earth moving on those sites
1 but when we 've got somebody on a 15,000 square foot lot telling us that
they want . . .
Erhart: I understand. I understand. If you 're bulldozing, I mean you
can move 1 ,000 yards .
Krauss: That 's why it 's done adminstratively . We can make those
1 determinations as to what 's important and what 's not and just pass it on
through. And it 's further provided that if the applicant takes exception
to the standards that we 've applied , they can appeal to the City Council .
Erhart: Well I 'm just trying to make it easier for everybody . I 'm asking
that you look at this and make it , the way I read it , it appeared to me
that the guy who wanted to move 101 cubic yards had to go in and provide a
' tree survey indicating locations and types of all 6 inch caliper trees .
Estimated time , well that 's you know . Processing nature. Processing and
equipment and travel route to and from the site . I guess in my mind I
think we 're in danger here of trying to mix two things up on this
ordinance . We 're combining mining , landscaping or whatever with grading
with mining and I just wonder if we really ought to be doing that . I 'm
afraid what it 's going to do is going to put a real burden on somebody
1 that 's doing grading in that we've just made it complicated by combining
it in the same ordinance .
' Krauss: We can clarify that section of the ordinance . I 've drafted these
things before and I 've worked with them a number of times and you make it
fairly easy for most homeowners or small property owners to do what they
' need to do . Typically you go through a check list like that and say this
is not necessary. That's not necessary. It's just not warranted for what
you're proposing . We can clarify that a little further . We've done that
elsewhere in this ordinance with this 2 track approach.
1 Erhart: That might be you but the next guy that comes along, I mean he
might say well this is, so no one ever questions. If my boss ever
1 questions that I 'm not doing my job, I 'm going to have you do every one of
these. At a minimum yes. I like to see it spelled out that either
another list for people under 1 ,000 yards or whatever .
' Batzli : You could include that an administrative review. Well , be
selective basically.
Erhart: It sounds like you have some ideas.
11
II
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 45
II
Krauss: Yeah , we can do something . 1
Erhart: I know you and Jo Ann are very reasonable but you never know wh
or what situation might be where that differs so . On page 5 there I thi
that on paragraph C , line 6, I think where it says subdivision 7-34B . I
think that was suppose to be 7-358 . I think where it says City staff may
also require the submission of any of the items specified in Subdivision
I think that 's suppose to be 35B . Again, I think you 're eluding to what
we 're talking about here but it 's not clear .
Krauss: Well actually that does give us the authority to say we don 't 1
need items in that checklist .
Erhart: Yeah, I think it gives you the authority to request them but foil
someplace previously it should have said that we may not need them or
something . Anyway , look at that again Paul . I have a question here
and I think I 've probably asked this the last time but what happens if
Moon Valley , when we go through all this work . What happens if they just'
say we 're not going to come in and submit a permit application?
Krauss: They would be in violation of the ordinance and the City Council
would probably direct the City Attorney to file legal action .
Erhart: Okay. That 's all my questions . ,
Conrad: Steve .
Emmings: My reaction was that the neighbors didn't seem to like this II
ordinance , at least in their early comments and Moon Valley didn 't seem to
like it so it must be pretty good. So I think I 'm for it. The neighbor
I think , I didn't like the comments of the neighbors that this seemed to
be drafted to suit Moon Valley. It sure as hell wasn't . It was drafted
by the City Attorney . Moon Valley has , I am certain in my own mind , no
interest in seeing any kind of ordinance passed and I think this is a
giant step in the right direction of getting a handle on Moon Valley and
operations like Moon Valley. I think it's a good, we're finally taking a
step to try and do something . I think that the changes that were made 1
the ordinance between the last draft and this one improved it
tremendously. I think it's a much better ordinance now then it was
before. I want to say that I don't think, I think as a separate issue we
should take up, there's no question in my mind that those bluffs should II
not be mined period and we should have, it's too late. It 's too late in
the case of Moon Valley and we all recognize that and just to take back
that clapping, I think he's got every right to keep going where he is.
You didn't like to hear that. But I don't think we should ever have
another mine in those bluffs and we have got to have, we've got to look at
putting something in place that will protect the rest of the bluffs so
that no operation of this kind ever comes in here again and that should
a high priority item on our worklist . Some kind of, Tim suggested befor
that Eden Prairie has an overlay district along the bluffs that protects
them or imposes extra things. While we've got an ordinance to control nag
assuming this passes, we've got an ordinance to control mining operation
it should never come up that somebody would want to mine in those bluffs .
11
II
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 46
i
As far as the costs to Moon Valley go or anything else with Moon Valley ,
I 'm assuming that is all totally irrelevant to what we 're doing here
tonight so I 'm not interested in those numbers tonight . The neighbors
' should also know that this , any application of Moon Valley or anybody
else , because it 's a conditional use permit , there would always be a
public hearing associated with that so then when we're specifically
looking at an application by Moon Valley or anybody else, there'd be
' notice given to all surrounding property owners and then you 'd have a
chance to come in and then all we'd be talking about is Moon Valley or
whoever applied so you really get your shot at that point in the process .
' I 'm going to vote for this ordinance. I think it 's good and I 'm voting
for it on the premise that this is a general ordinance meant directed to
getting a handle on any mining operations in the City of Chanhassen ,
' present or future . That is not directed at Moon Valley and upon the
intent that I 've heard of the City , the City expressed that they intend to
work with Moon Valley and come up with some kind of reasonable solution to
the problems that are going to exist for Moon Valley once this thing is
' passed .
Conrad: Annette?
Ellson: I like the ordinance . I think the biggest problem with the whole
thing is it 's like our contractor yards . We hated them all along so we
decided to finally write something to prevent them and control them and
' then made everybody come in after the fact when it really should have been
something that has been followed all along but hind sight is 20/20 so I 'm
glad we 're doing something . Better late than never but I guess I 'm just
disappointed that it should have been done long ago but I like it . I
think it addresses all the concerns that a lot of the neighbors would like
to see enforced. I 'm not sure it 's going to be able to be enforced as
well as we 'd like the ordinance to on people that are already existing but
I feel much better about prevention in the future . I just don 't know how
many there will be but I plan to vote for it .
Conrad: Thanks . Brian?
Batzli : I guess I thought there were going to be more changes to the
ordinance than there were and I went through it . I took a good period of
time to do so and I have a lot of comments. A lot of them are cleaning
things up and some of them are substantive. I 'll just give Paul the ones
that I think are just cleaning things up and comment on the substantive
ones. The first one is in the definition section 7-31 , paragraph (b ).
The phrase, yet the area has remained idle since the topsoil removal .
What does this add to this particular definition? I don't understand this
' one.
Krauss: I 'm sorry commissioner . Where are you?
Batzli : In the definition section, 7-31 . Under Excavating or mining .
Paragraph (b ). Why is there a requirement that the area has remained
idle?
Krauss: I don't know.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4, 1990 - Page 47
II
Wildermuth: Where are you reading?
Batzli: (b ). Any area where the topsoil or overburden has been removed
for the purpose of removing earthly deposits or minerals, yet the area h
remained idle since the topsoil removal .
Emmings: They've stripped off the topsoil but haven't yet gotten to the,
business of . . .
Wildermuth: Haven't mined anything. Just taken the overburden. '
Ellson: So they 're calling that part of the definition also . Just in
case it doesn 't look like it 's gone that far yet . It looks like it begs 1
Wildermuth: It 's a legitimate part of the definition .
Batzli : The area has remained idle. What 's the area? The minerals that
you're going to remove?
Wildermuth: That means that the overburden has been taken off but no
mining has ensued .
Batzli: Why don't we just say, what does the yet the area has remained
idle since the topsoil removal add to that that isn 't already stated?
Emmings: I supposed somebody could say, oh probably nothing but I suppo
maybe it 's there so the person just doesn't say we 're not mining yet .
Batzli : But in the definition it would say any area where the topsoil or
overburden has been removed .
Krauss: I don't know. I 'll have to ask Roger for clarification.
Batzli: I think it 's confusing . Unless you 're a mining or excavating
expert and this has definite meaning that adds something, I read it and
sounded like they had stripped off the overburden and then they go away
and they let weeds grow and we're going to call that mining. I don't
know . Jim?
Wildermuth: Mining or excavating.
Batzli: Well I agree . I just didn't think that added anything and I was
confused.
Wildermuth: Probably excavating.
Batzli: I think in the permit required section, 7-32 on the next page , 11
should include a statement that the permit shall be referred to as an
earth work permit and then refer to it as such throughout this article .
Clarify and develop a name for this type of an application similar to
calling a wetland alteration permit a wetland alteration permit . Give i
a name. Then at the end of this section it reads, current permit holders
I
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 48
1 .
' shall come into compliance with the terms of this chapter no later than
the time their annual permit is renewed . Currently under the terms of the
old chapter , I haven't studied that one that closely . Is it an annual
renewal process in there?
Wildermuth: Every year .
I Batzli : Every year? So there 's a renewal date. I guess then I would
merely change it to read that no later than the renewal date of such
permit holder 's permit unless we specifically call it an annual permit .
' The next section , 7-33 , paragraph E, you've already caught the less than
100 cubic yards . I would recommend that we say that that is cumlatively
in a 12 month period rather than in a calendar year . Not that you 're
going to catch too many people on that but it does at least catch those
people who would claim a calendar year started and stopped on the first of
the year and dumped a 100 yards in November and 100 yards in February .
Whatever .
Emmings: They could do the same thing. . .
Batzli : Well yeah but the cumlatively in a 12 month period I think you 're
' going to catch those kind of things . The interim use permit under 7-35 ,
should that be conditional use permits?
' Krauss: No .
Batzli : Do we call it interim use permits?
Krauss: Yes . Right .
Batzli : Where is that?
Krauss: It 's the new ordinance that you approved about 2 months ago .
Batzli : Interim use . It 's not a temporary use . It 's interim use .
Krauss: Well effectively that's what it is.
Emmings: Was I right when I said that that would require a public hearing
then?
Krauss: Yes. It's the same. It 's handled the same as a CUP.
Emmings: I wanted to make sure I didn't mistake that.
Batzli : Okay. I would add, at least suggest adding the last sentence of
7-35, paragraph A . Again, the less than 1 ,000 cubic yards of material
cumlatively in a 12 month period. And under paragraph B( 4 )( d) on page 4 .
The small (d ) there. Something just struck me as I was reading this that
something at least that we required for the Eckankar property was a
determination of existing wells, abandoned, active , all that kind of
stuff . Would that be something that should be required or would otherwise
be required under this ordinance since they're going to be disturbing the
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 49 1
topsoil and doing all that kind of thing? I
Krauss: It 's a good idea as you mention it . It strikes me to include i
specifically .
Batzli: Okay. I had written at least , and I don't think I said this ver
artfully . A description and location of wells , abandoned or active , and
any deposits of man made chemicals and/or wastes. I don't know, I 'm sur
that can be said better . My next question concerned landscape plan .
Would this deal with, when would this be required as far as before ,
during , after the excavation? At what time period does the landscape pl
implemented? During the restoration or during. . .
Krauss: Both . You would require a landscape element for screening at
such point as the operation was begun . The restoration plan also would
probably have a landscaping component . Certainly it would .
Batzli : So there would be several plans? Okay . Maybe we should clarif1
that . I was assuming that was a landscape plan just during the operation
and that the restoration plan would cover the subsequent and maybe we 're ,
already covered under that type of a situation .
Emmings: There is a landscaping plan required under the rehab section
so I would assume that this one must be just for during the mining . '
Batzli : I don't know. I don't know if you want to clarify that or not .
Under 7-35 I also would suggest adding a paragraph C which states that 1
applicant and the owner of the land on which the earthwork will occur
shall be considered joint applicants on all earthwork applications . I
think we discussed doing something like that and I think we required the
names and the question is whether we're going to try and tie them both
together . We kind of discussed this and I really didn't see it handled
fully as I would have liked to have seen it from our last discussion . Is
it possible to make them joint applicants on the applications?
Krauss: We do that effectively now for every application anyway so
putting it in there doesn't hurt .
Emmings: I suggested that last time and Roger didn't put it in there .
Now he did add, he did say that the landowner has to sign the applicatio
That did get changed.
Batzli : I would specifically state that they are joint applicants .
Emmings: I assumed he threw that out because he didn't like it. I didn',
bring up anything I brought up last time.
Batzli : I guess since we weren't privy to why some things were in and I
were out , some of this is kind of rehashing things .
Emmings: I think it's a good thing to do. I
11
1 -
Planning Commission Meeting
IIApril 4 , 1990 - Page 50
Batzli : Termination of the permit , the next section 7-37 . I guess I
skipped one . I 'm sorry , it 's in 7-38. The annual permit renewal
conditions section. I read in paragraph A and I don't know if anybody had
' a problem with the way it read but my problem with it was an initial
question was , we may limit some of these things to a specific time
duration and it wasn 't clear to me whether the City Engineer could extend
it . So I added a paragraph C and I don't really know if we need this but
the paragraph C would read , an earthwork permit which is limited in time
duration , may not be extended under this paragraph 7-38 beyond the time
duration limitation except in accordance with paragraph 7-36(c ) which is I
' believe the , let me see why I did that . That 's less than 1 ,000 cubic
yards, or by the City Council upon consideration of a new application in
accordance with this article . Now I don't know if we need that and I
' don 't know if that was ever comtemplated in the event that you were going
to limit someone to excavate for a certain period of time .
' Emmings: You have to do that if it's an interim use .
Batzli : Okay . And so then the question is whether can the City Engineer
then couldn 't extend that anyway under the ordinance or could he?
' Krauss: I would expect that there 's a condition of approval that gives a
specific termination date which can only then be changed by the City
' Council .
Batzli : Well then I don 't think that the work renewal is correct in this
section . If I think about it then , if it 's an interim use, it has a
' specific expiration date . Well , it either has to expire upon a given
event or be limited in time duration under that other ordinance we passed .
Krauss: That 's true but take Moon Valley for example . That given event
may be reaching the point at which the material that they said they were
going to excavate out has been done . That could be the year 2050.
tErhart: Then why not define that event up front?
Krauss: Well you 're doing that when you 're approving their plan.
Batzli : But then you 're giving the City Engineer the power to renew
something under an interim use yearly. It 's really not being renewed is
' my point of contention. He's examining it for compliance . I think we
need to change the section then to reflect that that's what he's doing.
He's not renewing the permit so they're not renewable.
Olsen: Annual review.
Batzli : Yes. So then my first sentence would read, which I haven't
' stated but earthwork permits shall be reviewed at one year intervals from
the date of original issuance subject to the City Engineer 's review and
t approval . Okay. Under 7-41 . We're stating that the City, letter of
credit acceptable to the City in the amount of costs complying with the
agreement which is right in the middle of that block, 7-41 . I think we
should clarify who's setting the costs, etc. in this particular paragraph
•
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 51 , II
and I would recommend that the City Council do that initially . Obvious"
some of my comments , now that we 're talking about rather than a renewal
but a review , might not apply here but it would read, the agreement shal
be accompanied by a letter of credit acceptable to the City in the amoun
of the costs of complying with the agreement as determined by the City
Council . A portion which would be added would read , as determined by the
City Council . Then the letter of credit shall be reviewed annually by t
City and then I think that should read , you should add engineer as part 41
the review set forth in paragraph 7-38 so it's clear that the engineer ,
that would be part of his function in the review process . His or her .
that it 's not going to go back to the City Council unless that's where i
should be going . Should the City Engineer have the power to increase th
letter of credit at an annual review. I suppose if the applicant feels
that they 're being slighted they can then protest that to the City Council
in any event . I would also add at the end of that paragraph that the Ci
can only draw against the letter of credit subsequent to a public hearing
conducted by the City Council in accordance with paragraph 7-37 . Under II
fencing , 7-43 . I 've added at the end that all determinations under this
paragraph shall originally be made by the City Council and subsequently by
the City Engineer as changing conditions warrant , but not less than
annually as part of the review set forth in paragraph 7-38 . Again, just
talking about who 's making these determinations and mandating that they
reviewed at least annually during the review. Last but not least , well
it 's probably least . 7-45 , paragraph H , well it 's 8. Paragraph 8 on pall
9 . When atmospheric or other conditions make it impossible to prevent
dust from mitgrating off site , operations shall cease. This one troubled
me a little bit in that why are choosing to only limit that to dust . No
that I don 't want to but why are we , you know when atmospheric condition
like for instance the night that Prince 's party got out of hand and peop e
8 miles away were complaining about the noise . Or however many miles it
was . Why don 't we say noise? Why don't we say mud? I mean we're talki
about dust , smoke and fumes . We 've talked about noise in a differe
obviously but why not smoke and fumes here? Just out of
curiousity . Or is this just one of those sections that that 's . . . 1
Krauss: Well I know from personal experience, first of all we're taking
care of the mud by the paving or the trap that we're going to use so
presumably that won't be a problem. Dust is the thing that causes 99% o
the complaints from these types of things because it blows so far . Fume
and smoke , well you know if you're 1 ,000 feet away from something and the
wind's gusting to 45-50 mph, it's going to be tough . What's a fume?
What 's a smoke? You catch a whiff of deisel . I don't know. It's kind
transient . Noise we regulate elsewhere.
Batzli: Yep. I agree. But I guess here we say operations shall cease
and in the noise section we're just giving a standard that they have to
comply with so it was just curious that there was kind of a different I
standard to which those things were being held. Those are my comments .
Otherwise I agree with Steve.
Conrad: I have nothing to add. The change in the ordinance I think mall
it more flexible. I think the changes this time that have been
incorporated are to my liking.
I
11 Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 52
1 .
Mike Dwyer : Mr . Chairman may I ask a question? I 'm unclear now as to
' what the ordinance will look like when it 's presented to the City Council .
Mr . Batzli has made some excellent points and the public hearing has been
closed . Mr . Krauss . . .some good points too . I think it would be unfair to
put this body here as well as the folks who came this evening.
Conrad: Yeah , we have a decision to make which is where I was going .
' I think Brian brought up some, a lot of technical things in the ordinance
and the question is should, what do we want to do? Do we want to bring it
back? Do we want to forward it on and let staff take a crack at the
wording changes? I think philosophically Brian you didn't have too many
' problems with the direction that the ordinance is going. You had a lot of
technical problems with it .
Batzli : That 's right . Most of them are. I mean the major thrust of the
ordinance I don't have a problem with . I think it 's a good framework and
the question is let 's make it the best ordinance we can and as clean as it
' can be when it comes out of the chute .
Erhart: Since you 've offered most the changes , are you comfortable voting
on this tonight or would you rather see it come back? The reason I ask is
' I made one change that I 've had too. If we do vote on it tonight , I 'm
expecting it 's going to reflected in it .
' Batzli : Well that 's right . I mean I guess I would expect that to the
extent practical and to the extent that the other commissioners like those
changes , I 'd like to see them in there . If they can't go in there , I 'm
for the most part comfortable with them if there's something that we
' haven't considered or we 're citing a wrong section or something like that .
I 'm still fairly comfortable passing it along . Like I said, a lot of
these things are just clarifications and I don't think they change the
' tenor of the ordinance other than perhaps making the owner of the land and
the person who 's actually going to work it joint applicants and things
like that but I think those things can be handled fairly cleanly .
Conrad: Let me go through a couple of them that you mentioned Brian that
may be a little bit up in the air . Specifically when you went from a
calendar year to a 12 month period. Does everybody favor that or does
' anybody care? Brian is , the application permits, he really wanted to make
that.
' Batzli : Cumlatively in a 12 month period. yeah.
Wildermuth: I don't have a problem with that.
' Emmings: If you 're trying to limit it to something that can be done
during one year , that 's the only way to do it. If you say the calendar
year . If you say I can only do 100 in a calendar year , I 'll end my
calendar year today . I 'll dump 100 today and 100 tomorrow and I 'm in two
different calendar years, if I choose to be.
Conrad: So you agree with Brian's?
1
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4, 1990 - Page 53
Emmings: Oh yeah . '
Conrad: Okay. And Paul , you were going to do something on wells and
chemicals for the permit okay . There was a landscape , this landscape III
plan. I am at a loss on number 9. I really don't understand what that Al
so that 's either out or we define what the landscape plan is . I still
don't know what the difference is between that and the rehabilitation
plan. Maybe I do a little bit but.
Emmings: Could you just say a landscape plan during the period of active
earthwork? I think that 's what Brian was getting at . I think that woulli
Or during the period of the permit . During the period of the permit .
Conrad: Landscape plan . 1
Emmings: Because there 's things in here to screen.
Krauss: That 's basically what it is is a screening plan . '
Emmings: But if you say, since the permit has a termination date , we
could just say for the period of the permit . '
Wildermuth: Why don 't we just say that then? Screening plan during the
term of the permit .
Conrad: I think we're all in agreement with Brian, your point on 7-38 .
The annual permits and the renewal . Changing it . We 're to review by the
City Engineer . I think that made a lot of sense to me . I don't think I
anything else seemed controversial or seemed like we may debate it . A
lot of it I didn't understand Brian. You 'll have to explain it to me.
Mike Dwyer : There was a due process consideration brought up in 7-41 wit"
respect to the letter of credit .
Conrad: Yeah, right . That made a lot of sense and I didn 't think anyboi
was going to challenge that so I didn't bring it up. Okay. So I don't
think I see any controversy on the issues that Brian brought up.
Therefore, I 'm guessing that we don't want to see this back here. 1
Ellson: That's right .
Mike Dwyer: So what goes to the Council? '
Ellson: The modified.
•
Emmings: We 'll have to wait and hear the motion.
Conrad: Is there a motion? 1
Emmings: I 'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 and Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code
pertaining to excavating, mining, filling and grading as modified by the
comments that will be reflected in the verbatim Minutes.
1