HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.a. Shafer Contracting Mineral Extraction Permit Change Request, 06-40-MEITEM: Case 06 -40 -ME Shafer Contracting
Mineral Extraction Permit Change
Request
AGENDA SECTION:
New Business
PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber, AICP; Senior Planner
AGENDA NO. 9a
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map, Revised Mineral
Extraction Permit, Phasing Plan, Haul
Back Cross Section, American
Engineering Testing, Inc. Letters,
December 20, 2005 City Council
Executive Summary for 2006 Permit,
Reclamation Plan, Excerpt from the
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED BY:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve Amended 2006 Mineral Extraction Permit
for Shafer Contracting with conditions.
4 ROSEMOUNT
BACKGROUND
Applicant and property owner:
Location.
Area m acres:
Comp Plan Zoning:
Extraction progress.
Nature of request:
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Regular Meeting: July 18, 2006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ISSUE
Scott Spisak of Shafer Contracting has applied for a change to the 2006 Mineral Extraction Permit for
their property located one mile north of 135 Street East and 1 /4 mile west of Rich Valley Blvd. (County
Road 71) The proposed change would allow for deeper mining and replacement of the extracted material
with clean "haul- back" material from Mn /DOT projects.
Shafer Contracting, Co. Inc.
1 /4 mile west of Rich Valley Blvd 1 rule north of 135' Street East
(County Road 38).
93 Site total area, 15 acres active in Phase 4
Agriculture
Phase 4 out of 7 (approximately 50% complete).
Change to the 2006 Mineral Extraction Permit
On December 20, 2005, the City Council had approved a Mineral Extraction Permit through December
31, 2006 With that approval the permit specifically prohibits "haul- back
There shall be no "haul- back" of materials from any other property or job site that would be
imported to the property for fill or other purposes other than incidental concrete recycling as
referred to in paragraphs 0, V and W; and topsoil imported for the purpose of re- estabhshmg turf
as accepted by the City.
Apparently when Shafer first took over the existing mining area, they had explored increasing the depth of
the mine and bunging m fill material. The Council had some concerns as they were a new operator and
specifically demed the ability to bring m "haul- back Shafer has operated the mine for several years and
the City has not received complaints or had specific issues.
SUMMARY
Shafer is not allowed to mine below the approved grading plan in part because they are not allowed "haul
back" material to fill in the aggregate they mine below the approved grade. Shafer beheves that they are
not maximizing the usefulness of the site for two reasons. First, they are not mining all the aggregate
available at the site. Second, then trucks are hauling material only one direction. Economically, Shafer
would be more productive if they could mine all the aggregate available at the site and be able to have full
trucks both to and from the site. Allowing Shafer to "haul- back" clean fill material would allow them to
expand the producuvity of the site, as well as leave the site in the manner that was approved by the final
grading plan
Shafer has indicated that the fill material will come from MnDot projects only and that a testing and
inspection process will be conducted to ensure that the "haul- back" material is clean, contains no organic
or contaminated soils, and is deposited on the site in a manner that would allow redevelopment after the
reclamation of the site is completed. American Engineering Testing, Inc., a professional geotechmcal firm,
has developed the testing and inspection process and their recommendations have been included in the
Revised 2006 Permit by reference.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
This item was brought before the Planning Commission at their June 27, 2006 meeting Commission
members discussed who should administer testing of the haul back material. There was some interest in
having the testing company contracted by the City with bills paid for by Shafer Ultimately the
Commission decided that since all the testing results would be given to the City that the current
arrangement proposed by the applicant was also satisfactory The permit condition relating to the testing
has not been modified.
During the pubhc hearing, Charles Koehnen, a property owner abutting the mine, requested that the
stormwater pond located within the site be moved farther west, into Phase 4, due to concerns about
interference with Mr. Koehnen's well. Staff has agreed to consider the movement of the stormwater pond
during the review of the revised reclamation plan. Under the terms of the proposed permit, a revised
reclamation plan will be required as part of the 2007 annual muting permit review.
DISCUSSION
If the City approves "haul- back" of material to the Shafer mining site, the one area of the original mining
permit that should be reexamined is the reclamation plan. Within a aggregate mine with no "haul- back"
activities, a reclamation plan is limited because of the amount of fill available on site to restore the
property. With "haul- back" activities, additional aggregate can be mined without compromising the long
term reclamation of the property. The additional haul -back allows regrading and contouring of the
property which may not have been possible without the additional fill. Staff anticipates a reclamation plan
that improves upon the existing approved plan given the ability to haul -back
The current reclamation plan maximizes the removal of aggregate without "haul back This results m a
2
plan that has 25% slopes on all sides of the mine except the extreme southeast corner. The southwest
corner of the mine is the natural drainage outlet and is the location of a stormwater management pond and
a gravity outlet for overflow from the pond. Once the 25% side slopes reach approximately the 990
elevation, the floor of the reclaimed mine is graded to a 1% slope from west to east to allow the reclaimed
mine to dram completely to the stormwater pond The result of this reclamation plan is a former rmne site
with steep slopes and a flat basin floor This plan would result in a site that would be difficult to develop
for any other use than agnculture without considerable re- grading, possibly including off -site grading.
With "haul- back" activities, material could be brought in that would result in a reclaimed site that would
more closely resemble the rolling topography of the surrounding properties, allow for the maximum
productivity of the aggregate resources located at this site, and result m a reclamation plan that could be
more easily developed into another use after mining activities cease Any City consideration of expanding
activities at the Shafer amine to include "haul- back" activities should include revisions to the reclamation
plan. Staff is not expecting a revised reclamation plan with the current application but will expect a revised
plan as part of the 2007 annual mining permit review The Plan should include not only reclamation of the
additional mining area but also improve upon the existing reclamation plan to provide a site that is more
consistent with the intended future use.
JULY 11, 2006 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
During the open forum portion of the Council meeting on July 11, 2006 a resident expressed concern that
the Shafer request would allow inappropriate material to be brought into the site. He expressed concern
that east Rosemount is becoming a "dumping site" for hazardous or other undesirable matenal from other
communities The following information should address the concerns expressed.
The haul -back matenal will be clean fill soil only; not concrete, asphalt, or any other form
of construction debris.
The haul -back matenal will come from only Mn /DOT projects that have conducted Phase
I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESA).
Mn /Dot construction projects require that the native soils at site be removed to form a
trench under the future roadway, sometimes four or more feet deep, to allow the placement of
approved and compacted sub -base material. This material removed to form this trench is the
material that would be hauled back to the Shafer site
Additional tesung, including laboratory analysis and field screening with a photoronization
detector (PID) will be conducted when the ESAs indicate any concerns.
Haul -back material shall not contam any contammanon or hazardous material.
Haul -back material shall not contain any debris, refuse, or other deleterious material.
Organic soil would only be used for berms or green areas.
Shafer will supply a quarterly report of all haul -back actives based on the testing conducted
as described m the approved protocol
Shafer will report to the City, within three days, any occurrence of testing that identifies
any contamination or prohibited matenals. The City will be able to ensure that the prohibited
haul -back material is removed from the site.
The American Engineering Testing, Inc. protocol and the conditions within the Revised Mineral
Extraction Pernut spell out clearly that only clean fill soil from Mn /DOT sites that have had
environmental testing will be allowed, as well as spell out how this will be monitored. The submitted
reports will be pubhc information and any resident can request to review them if they are concerned.
3
CONCLUSION
The apphcant currently is permitted to mine the site and has an approved reclamation plan The current
application is to amend the one condition relating to the haul -back provision. Staff believes there are
mechanisms in place to ensure that the material brought into the site is acceptable for fill and future
development on the site. The restriction that the fill come from MnDot projects and the testing proposed
by the apphcant addresses this concern For the most part, staff expects the fill to come from the area
excavated within the road base. For construction certain materials are required, primarily sand, and clay
materials would not be allowed. However, more clay soils would be acceptable for fill in a developing site.
Because the permit is annually reviewed, the City has the opportunity to reevaluate this issue every year. If
there is concern that the operation isn't working, or the testing information is unacceptable, or there are
other off -site impacts not initially foreseen, the haul -back provision could be deleted in the future.
Representatives from Shafer will be in attendance at the meeting to address concerns the Council or
members of the pubhc might have.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the revised mining permit with new conditions.
4
ShL_Jr Contracting Location ap
I b
(35 71.4 57
Copyright 2006, Dakota County Map Date June 21, 2006
Mineral Extraction Permit
2006 Conditions for Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal
SHAFER CONTRACTING COMPANY, INCORPORATED
A. Shafer Contracting Co., Inc. (hereinafter "the Property Owner signs a written
consent to these conditions binding itself and its successors, heirs or assigns to the
conditions of said permit.
B. This permit is granted for the area designated as the western half of Phase 3 (6.5
acres) and Phase 4 (13 acres), on Exhibit A (drawing 5 of 7 dated April 6, 1999),
which is attached hereto as one of the exhibits. Haul -back activities from Mn/DOT
projects are permitted only within the northern 500 feet of Phase 2, Phase 3, and
Phase 4 (13 acres), on Exhibit A (drawing 5 of 7 dated April 6, 1999).
C. The term of the permit shall extend from December 20, 2005 until December 31,
2006 unless revoked prior to that for failure to comply with the permit requirements.
D. All required permits from the State of Minnesota, County of Dakota and City of
Rosemount (hereinafter "City or any of their agencies shall be obtained and
submitted to the City prior to the issuance of the permit. Failure by the Property
Owner to comply with the terms and conditions of any of the permits required under
this paragraph shall be grounds for the City to terminate said mining permit.
E. The final grading for the permit area shall be completed in accordance with the
grading plan labeled Exhibit B (drawing 7 of 7 dated April 6, 1999), which is
attached hereto, or as approved by the City Engineer, and any other conditions as
may be imposed by the City from time to time.
F. All gravel trucks and other mining related traffic shall enter and exit the mining area
from Rich Valley Boulevard. It shall be the Property Owner's responsibility to
obtain any access permits or easements necessary for ingress and egress. The
location of the accesses and/or easements for ingress and egress shall be subject to
approval by the City, as well as the County Highway Department or the Minnesota
Department of Transportation if applicable or if any changes occur relative to the
mining process. The current location of the access driveway is indicated on the
Phasing Plan, Exhibit A. A stop sign shall be installed at the driveway entrance to
County Road 71, in accordance with standards on file with the City or County
Highway Department Warning signs including "Trucks Hauling" shall be installed
at the Property Owner's expense as needed in accordance with Dakota County
requirements.
G. A plan for dust control shall be submitted to and subject to approval by the City.
The Property Owner shall clean dirt and debris from streets that has resulted from
extraction or hauling operations related to the Mineral Extraction Permit. After the
2006 Mining Permit
Shafer Contracting
2 of 6
Property Owner has received 24 -hour verbal notice, the City will complete or
contract to complete the clean-up at the Property Owner's expense. In the event of
a traffic hazard as determined by the City Administrator (or the Administrator's
designee) or Rosemount Police Department, the City may proceed immediately to
complete or contract cleanup at Property Owner's expense without prior notification.
H. The surface water drainage of the mining area shall not be altered so as to interfere,
contaminate, or otherwise affect the natural drainage of adjacent property.
I. No topsoil shall be removed from the site and the Property Owner shall take
necessary measures to prevent erosion of the stockpiled topsoil. The location of the
stockpiled topsoil shall be indicated on Exhibit A, the Phasing Plan.
J. Any costs incurred now or in the future in changing the location of existing public or
private utilities including but not limited to pipelines, transmission structures and
sewer infrastructure located within the permit area shall be the sole obligation and
expense of the Property Owner.
K. All costs of processing the permit, including but not limited to planning fees,
engineering fees and legal fees, shall be paid by the Property Owner prior to the
issuance of the permit. The Property Owner shall reimburse the City for the cost of
periodic inspections by the City Administrator or any other City employee for the
purpose of insuring that conditions of the permit are being satisfied. The Property
Owner agrees to reimburse the City for any other costs incurred as a result of the
granting or enforcing of the permit.
L. The daily hours of operation for the mining area shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m., subject, however, to being changed by the City Council.
M. The Property Owner shall deposit with the Planning Department a surety bond or
cash deposit in the amount of Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars per acre
($7,500.00 /acre) for any active phase in favor of the City for the cost of restoration,
regrading and/or revegetating land disturbed by mining activities and to ensure
performance of all requirements of this agreement and City ordinances by Property
Owner. The required surety bonds must be:
(1) With good and sufficient surety by a surety company authorized to do
business in the State of Minnesota.
(2) Satisfactory to the City Attorney in form and substance.
(3) Conditioned that the Property Owner will faithfully comply with all the
terms, conditions and requirements of the permit, all rules, regulations and
requirements pursuant to the permit and as required by the City and all
2006 Mining Permit
Shafer Contracting
3 of 6
Q.
reasonable requirements of the City Administrator (or the Administrator's
designee) or any other City officials.
(4) Conditioned that the Property Owner will secure the City and its officers
harmless against any and all claims, for which the City, the Council or any
City officer may be made liable by reason of any accident or injury to
persons or property through the fault of the Property Owner.
(5)
The surety bond or cash escrow shall remain in effect from December 20,
2005 until July 31, 2007.
Upon thirty (30) days notice to the permit holder and surety company, the City may
reduce or increase the amount of the bond or cash deposit during the term of this
permit in order to insure that the City is adequately protected.
N. The Property Owner shall furnish a certificate of comprehensive general liability
insurance issued by insurers duly licensed within the State of Minnesota in an
amount of at least Five Hundred Thousand and no /100 ($500,000.00) Dollars for
injury or death of any one person in any one occurrence, and at least One Million
and no /100 ($1,000,000.00) Dollars for injury or death of more than one person
arising out of any one occurrence and damage liability in an amount of at least Two
Hundred Fifty Thousand and no /100 ($250,000.00) Dollars arising out of any one
occurrence. The policy of insurance shall name the City as an additional insured and
shall remain in effect from December 20, 2005 until July 31, 2007
O. No processing or mixing of materials shall occur on the site, except as approved by
the Dakota County Environmental Health Department as incidental to a sand and
gravel mining operation at which time such activities will be enclosed with snow, or
cyclone fencing or as approved by City staff. Construction of any ponding areas,
wash plants or other processing or equipment brought to the site shall require
additional City Council approval and notification of adjacent property owners.
P. The Property Owner shall hold the City harmless from all claims or causes of action
that may result from the granting of the permit. The Property Owner shall
indemnify the City for all costs, damages or expenses, including but not limited to
attorney's fees that the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims
The Property Owner shall comply with such other requirements of the City Council
as it shall from time to time deem proper and necessary for the protection of the
citizens and general welfare of the community.
R. Complete mining and reclamation is required in all phases before any additional
mining is authorized. Modifications or expansion of the mining areas must be
approved in writing to the City. Property Owner shall submit to the City semi-
2006 Mining Permit
Shafer Contracting
4of6
annually a written report indicating the amount of material extracted from the site
for the prior six -month period.
S. The Property Owner shall incorporate best management practices for controlling
erosion and storm water runoff as specified by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency and the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
T. The Property Owner must have a copy of the Dakota County Soil and Water
Conservation District mining application completed and on file with the City of
Rosemount Planning Department prior to the approval of the Mineral Extraction
Permit.
U. Reclamation requires the replacement of the entire stockpile of topsoil to the mined
area. reseeding and mulching necessary to re- establish vegetative cover for
permanent slope stabilization and erosion control, provided also that the minimum
depth of topsoil shall not be less than two inches after reclamation. Topsoil for
reclamation shall conform to specifications on file with the City. No restored slopes
may exceed a gradient of 25% or four to 1 (4:1).
V. The Property Owner must show how materials stockpiled for recycling will be
processed and inform the City of all stockpiled materials.
W. All recycling must be completed with the completion of the current phase. No
recycling processes shall be allowed to continue into subsequent phases.
X. The Property Owner may not assign this permit without written approval of the City.
The Property Owner will be responsible for all requirements of this permit and all
City ordinances on the licensed premises for the permit penod unless the Property
Owner gives sixty (60) days prior written notice to the City of termination and
surrenders permit to the City. The Property Owner shall identify all Operators prior
to their commencement of mineral extraction- related activities in the pit area. The
City shall have the authority to cause all mineral extraction activities to cease at any
time there is an apparent breach of the terms of this Permit.
Y. The Property Owner shall install and maintain a "stock" gate (or equivalent) at the
entrance to the property where the mining operation is located. The gate must be
secured at 7:00 p.m. and at any time the pit is not in use.
Z. There shall be no "haul- back" of materials from any other property or job site that
would be imported to the property for fill or other purposes other than incidental
concrete recycling as referred to in paragraphs 0, V and W; and topsoil imported for
the purpose of re- establishing turf as accepted by the City; and earthen fill materials
from Mn/DOT projects that further meets the requirements of testing in documents
by American Engineering Testing, Inc., and which is used to replace sand and gravel
mined below approved finish grades
2006 Mining Permit
Shafer Contracting
5 of 6
AA. No mining activity will occur below the elevation of 840 feet above mean sea level.
In no instance shall any mining activity occur within a groundwater aquifer.
BB. Shafer Contracting Co., Inc. shall submit quarterly to the City documentation of the
American Engineering Testing Inc. (or other City approved geotechnical testing
firm) environmental and geotechnical testing with documentation verifying the
source and quantity of Mn/DOT generated "haul- back" material. These reports shall
be provided within 14 days after the end of the quarter.
CC. Shafer Contracting Co., Inc shall submit an incidence report to the City within three
days of any testing that fails for contamination or hazardous materials, or will not
produce a normal moisture- density relationship for compaction.
DD Shafer Contracting Co., Inc shall compact the entire reclamation site to a minimum
compaction of 95% of maximum dry density.
EE. Shafer Contracting Co., Inc. shall provide a revised reclamation plan with the 2007
Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal application that provides a redevelopable
reclamation site and considers relocating the stormwater pond to the west of its
current location. The revised reclamation plan shall be submitted by September 1,
2006 to allow City staff to review and comment on the revisions.
FF. Truck operators within the pit area shall not engage in practices involving slamming
tailgates, vibrating boxes, using of "jake" or engine brakes (except in emergency
situations) or other such activities that result in excessive noise.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Shafer Contracting Company, Inc. the
Property Owner, hereby consents and agrees to the foregoing conditions of said mining
permit this day of 2006.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss
COUNTY OF
Notary Public
Shafer Contracting Co., Inc.
By:
George Mattson, Its President
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2006, by George Mattson, President of Shafer Contracting Company,
Inc., the Property Owner, on behalf of the Corporation.
A
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC,
October 28, 2005
Mr. Scott Spisak
Shafer Contracting Co., Inc
P 0. Box 128
Shafer, Minnesota 55074
Dear Mr. Spisak:
Shafer Contracting
RECEIVED
OCT 3 1 2005
Job Func Cost
RE. Environmental Testing of Haul -Back Soils to Shafer Pit in Rosemount, Minnesota
This document shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of American Engineering Testing, Inc
550 Cleveland Avenue North St. Paul, MN 55114 651- 659 -9001 Fax 651-659-1379
Duluth Manicato Marshall Rochester Vausau Rapid Qty P erre Sioux Falls
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTIOI AND EQUAI. OFPOP,TUN ITV E'v'PLCY ER
CONSULTANTS
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
ENVIRONMENTAL
Following is in response to your request for information pertaining to procedures to use to ensure
the placement of clean soils within the Shafer sand and gravel pit near the Flint Hills Resources
site in Rosemount, Minnesota.
Background Information
It is our understanding that only earthen materials from MnDOT projects would be used for haul
back soils into the pit. Additionally, it has been our experience that MnDOT generally conducts
a thorough environmental investigation to include Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site
Assessements (ESAs) prior to the start of a MnDOT project The Phase I ESA would identify
any recognized environmental conditions and the Phase Il ESA would perform subsurface testing
to determine if the identified recognized environmental conditions have any impact to the soil.
Suggested Procedures
The haul -back soils will originate from MnDOT projects only
AET will review available Phase I ESA, Phase II ESA or other environmental
documentation pertaining to the MnDOT project soils prior to designating the soils for
haul -back use. This review will include a determination of the existence of any
recognized environmental conditions and whether soils from the MnDOT project site
have been nnpacted.
Should this review provide inconclusive information pertaining to the environmental
condition of the soils planned for haul -back use, additional testing to include laboratory
analysis and field screening with a photoionization detector (PID) of soil samples
collected from the MnDOT project site will be performed to determine whether the soil
has been environmentally impacted This additional testing will be in accordance with
the attached General Environmental Sampling Methods
Shafer Contracting
October 27, 2005
Page 2 of 2
Closure
We appreciate the opportunity to have been of service to you on this project If you have any
questions regarding the information presented in this report, or if we can be of additional service,
please contact me at (651) 659 -1308 or Rich Lowe at (651) 659 -1316
Sincerely,
eric s Engineering Testing, Inc.
Robert A Kaiser
Vice President, Environmental Division
Attachments General Environmental Sampling Methods
A
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC.
November 1, 2005
Mr. Scott Spisak, Project Engineer
Schafer Contracting Co, Inc
PO Box 123
Schafer, MN 55074
Subj: Borrow Pit Reclamation Protocol
Rosemount, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Spisak:
In accordance with our telephone conversation of November 1, 2005, American Engineering
Testing, Inc (AET) is forwarding to you four originals of the quality assurance /control protocol
proposed for the on -going mining and reclamation of your Rich Valley Boulevard facility.
Under separate cover, AET has sent you correspondence detailing the approach our
enviromnental division will undertake to screen "haul- back" matenals, which will be derived
from Mn/DOT projects and will be used as controlled fill during the site reclamation process.
AET understands these documents will be provided to the City of Rosemount along with other
submittals pro \aded by you to complete the permitting process AET trusts these documents will
meet the needs of you and the City of Rosemount.
If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
American Engineering T;sting, Inc.
Terry E. Sfror,
Presiden
Phone: (651) 659 -1330
Fax: (651) 659-1379
tswor @amengtest.com
TES /ck
This document shah not be reproduced, except in full, without waken approval of American Engineering Testing, Inc
550 Cleveland Avenue North St. Paul, MN 55114 651 659 -9001 Fax 651 659 -1379
Duluth Mankato Marshall Roches'er VJausaJ Rapid City Pierre Sioux Falls
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPDRTUTrTV EMPLOYER
CONSULTANTS
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
ENVIRONMENTAL
AGENDA ITEM: Case 05 -54 -ME Shafer Contracting
Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent
PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner
AGENDA NO.
ATTACHMENTS: Draft operating conditions for 2006, Draft
11/22/2005 PC Minutes, Location map,
Phasing plan
APPROVED BY:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve the renewal of the mineral extraction permit for Shafer Contracting
subject to the attached conditions for 2006.
4ROSEMO
City Council Meeting• December 20, 2005
ISSUE
Scott Spisak of Shafer Contracting has applied for the annual renewal of the mineral extraction permit for
their property located one mile north of 135 Street East and 1/4 mile west of Rich Valley Blvd (County
Road 71). The pubhc hearing notice also anticipated a request to modify the permit; however, the permit
modification request was withdrawn
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
On November 22, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the permit renewal. The
neighboring property owner indicated no concerns about the permit renewal. The concern had to do with
a separate application for modification of the permit conditions that had been withdrawn After receiving
these comments, the Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending approval of the mineral
extraction permit renewal. Subsequently, comments were received from the City Attorney recommending
minor language changes to the 2006 conditions. Those changes are similar to those made for the Furlong
and Total Construction permit approved on December 6, 2005.
BACKGROUND
Apphcant and property owner.
Location:
Area in acres:
Comp Plan Zoning:
Extraction progress:
Planning Commission action.
CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Shafer Contracting, Co. Inc.
1/4 mile west of Rich Valley Blvd., 1 mile north of 135 Street East
(County Road 38).
93 Site total area, 15 acres active in Phase 4
Agriculture
Phase 4 out of 7 (approximately 50% complete).
Recommendation of approval of the renewal (5 -0)
Shafer Contracting has been the most active mining owner /operator in the City. As of the last quarter of
this year, they extracted 172,444 cubic yards of mostly sand from the pit. Shafer has been working on the
site since 1998 and owned the property since 2000 This requested renewal of the mineral extraction
permit is similar to previous renewals with no change m the operating conditions. Originally, a request
was made to allow haul -back of materials from MnDOT sites. That request has been withdrawn, although
it may be made again m the future. Shafer's primacy customers are MnDOT and the Metropohtan
Airports Commission.
The police have indicated no complaints or concerns regarding the permit area or related truck traffic
A
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC,
SHAFER CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC.
BORROW PIT RECLAMATION PROTOCOL
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
CONSULTANTS
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
ENVIRONMENTAL
Overview
Shafer Contracting Company, Inc. (Shafer) is currently minmg granular materials from the
property at 12500 Rich Valley Boulevard, and has submitted plans and details to the City of
Rosemount specifying final or bottom elevations for the completed pit. Shafer recognizes that the
City requires reclamation of the property, and sees ment in initiating this process such that the
mining equipment can also be used to place "haul- back" earth matenals in a controlled fashion
over time
The materials that will be used to refill the borrow area will be restricted to soils taken from
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) projects. Materials taken from these
projects have an excellent historical record of being free from "contamination or hazardous"
materials and therefore are ideally suited for the reclamation process Given these conditions,
Shafer desires to use "haul- back" materials from Mn/DOT projects as controlled fill to
accommodate future light commercial construction.
Protocol Guiding Principles
Shafer's protocol involves the ongoing reclamation of the borrow pit with the end goal of
creating prepared building pads for light commercial construction. To this end, the guiding
principles included in the protocol presented to the City include the following:
1. All offsite fill materials will be evaluated for the presence of "contamination or
hazardous materials which would be unacceptable to the City.
2. No offsite fill materials will include debris, refuse or other deleterious materials, which
would be unacceptable to the City.
3. Organic soil will only be acceptable for designated berms or green areas.
4. Earth materials used as controlled fill will be comprised of soil types that lend themselves
to the development of a normal moisture density relationship for compaction
5. Shafer recognizes that some conditioning of the haul -back soils may be required to
facilitate compaction.
A. The size of the borrow facility permits placing materials in thin lifts for aeration and
compaction purposes.
6, Shafer will coordinate American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) services to obtain
environmental screening and Standard Proctor samples prior to hauling any earthen
materials to the site.
This document shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of American Engineering Testing, Inc
550 Cleveland Avenue North St. Paul, MN 55114 651 659 9001 Fax 651 659 1379
Duluth tvlanrato Marshall Rochester Wausau Rapid City Flerre Sioux Fal's
AN AFF Fh ATE. E ACTION AND EQUAL OF''OFTL V LOYEE
Description
Method of
Test
Standard
Frequency
Action Required
(if failure)
Standard
Proctor
moisture density
test
ASTM:D698
Test required in
conjunction with
field density test for
determination of
compaction levels
1 per soil type
N/A
Particle size
ASTM D422
Test required to
1 per source or
If soil tests as
analysis
document if certain
change m soil
being moisture
soils are moisture
sensitive or will not
develop normal
moisture density
relationship
type
sensitive,
materials will be
restricted to non-
structural areas
A. Once approved for fill placement, Shafer will coordinate for site observations and
compaction tests at representative intervals during the reclamation operations.
7. Based on plans submitted to the City, fill thicknesses will approach 45 feet.
Page 2 of 4
A. The reclamation protocol will include additional site geotechnical evaluation of the
completed fill sequence through the placement of soil borings or electnc piezocone
soundings.
B. This additional parcel specific information will be utilized to develop foundation
plans /recommendations for commercial building purposes.
Quality Assurance
Fill Material Control
1. Shafer will retain AET to perform acceptance testing of haul -back material proposed for
use in the borrow area.
A. Representatives of AET will sample and perform screening tests on proposed fill
materials in accordance with their letter to Shafer dated October 28, 2005.
B. Shafer will provide AET with source of imported materials and contact name of their
representative at that location to coordinate the screening activities.
2. In addition to environmental tests, the following pre qualification testing will be
performed for each soil type.
3. AET will verbally advise owner of any material that fails screening for contamination or
hazardous materials, or will not produce a normal moisture density relationship for
compaction.
4 AET will provide soil test reports within three working days of testing for routine soil
types. Some environmental screening may require longer lead times.
Page 3 of 4
Quality Control
Filling Placement Requirements
1. Pnor to any filling operations, Shafer will coordinate with AET that matenals being
transferred to the site are free of contamination and/or hazardous materials, and these
materials have been tested for optimum moisture- density relationship and gradation.
A. Shafer will restrict earth materials to those free of debris, rubbish, frozen clumps, free
of cobbles and boulders over 10" in diameter, organic soils, vegetation, or other
materials.
i. Organic materials will be stockpiled for utilization on embankments and organic
slopes, as detailed in the plans submitted to the City.
2. Shafer will perform all fill, backfill, and compaction in accordance with the
recommendations of the reclamation protocol.
A. The bottom elevation of the borrow pit or the various fill layers should be graded
such that standing water does not occur
B. Fill surfaces should be maintained to keep areas free of water during placement and
compaction.
C. Shafer will not place backfill or fill materials on surfaces that are muddy, frozen, or
that contain frost or ice.
3. Shafer will only use fill materials with moisture contents near optimum (OMC) based on
the Standard Proctor moisture- density relationship test.
A. Fill materials shall be conditioned. either dried or water added, in order to obtain
moisture level near optimum
C. Shafer will correct any soft or unstable areas by scarifying, wetting or drying and then
subjecting to surface compaction procedures.
Compaction Requirements
1. Shafer will not allow loose fill layers to exceed 1 foot in thickness.
2. Shafer will utilize skilled work persons and proper equipment in good working condition
to perform the work to full completion in a satisfactory manner.
3. Fill compaction will meet the following requirements:
Item
Description
Method of Test
(Standard
Proctor)
Minimum of
Maximum Dry
Density
Minimum No. of Tests
per Unit Area per Lift
General
building
pad area
Structural areas
beneath the building
pad mcludmg a 1
oversize zone
extending beyond
the building
footprint
ASTM.D698
98%
1 per 2000 cubic yards
or every 54,000 sq ft
per lift
Non-
building
pad
areas
External non-
structural areas
above; outside the
1.1 zone
ASTM:D698
95%
1 per 2000 cubic yards
or every 54,000 sq. ft.
per lift
Lawn or
unpaved
areas
In embanlvnents or
green areas
ASTM.D698
90%
1 per 2000 cubic yards
or every 54,000 sq ft.
per lift
4. Fill materials that have been placed but found to be below specified density, shall be
subjected to additional compaction and testing until the fill meets or exceeds specified
density.
Field Quality Control Coordination
1. Shafer will notify AET prior to the initiation of any control fill placement so independent
testing laboratory can document that subgrade surface is acceptable for fill placement.
2. Shafer will arrange for AET to perform compaction testing as placement occurs.
A. Tests will be performed to the frequencies required per lift.
Page 4 of 4
3. Shafer will provide elevation and location control on site so independent testing
laboratory can properly locate its tests and retests, as required.
4. Shafer will perform surveys on an ongoing basis or as a minimum at the end of every
year's fill placement to develop as-built documents for subnussion to the City.
A. AET will receive a copy of this document for its files.
5. Filling operations will not be performed during the winter months.
B. Fill materials can be stockpiled, at designated areas on site, for fill placement when
weather conditions are appropriate.
EXCERPT FROM MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 27, 2006
5.d. 06 -40 -ME Shafer Contracting Mineral Extraction Permit Amendment. Senior Planner
Zweber reviewed the staff report. Scott Spisak of Shafer Contracting has applied for a change to
the 2006 Mineral Extraction Permit for their property located one mile north of 135t Street East
and 1/4 mile west of Rich Valley Blvd (County Road 71). The proposed change would allow for
deeper musing and replacement of the extracted material will clean "haul- back" material from
Mn /DOT projects. Mr. Zweber reviewed the proposed changes to the existing mining perrnit
relating to the haul -back provision
Chairperson Messner asked the Commissioners if they have any questions. Commissioner Palda
questioned the testing by Shafer Contracting and inquired why the City couldn't be in control of
the testing Mr. Zweber stated that testing would be paid by Shafer but would be done by
American Enguieermg Testing. Project Engineer Dawley further explained about the testing
that would be undertaken. Commissioner Palda further stated his concern that the City should
control the testing, not Shafer. The City should do the hiring of the company to do the testing
Chairperson Messner questioned Item E on the reclamation and final grading plan and whether
it would be revised at this time to show proposed grade changes. Mr. Zweber stated the permit
will be up for review in 2007 during the annual permit review process. A recommended
condition of the permit requires a revised reclamation plan for the 2007 annual permit review.
Commissioner Palda asked if the fill coming in would be strictly from MnDot only, and not
from the Metropolitan Airport Commission. Mr. Zweber stated it is more specifically pointed
out in the Amencan Testing Protocol that they've included, but it states in there that the fill
would only come from MnDot projects.
Chairperson Messner invited the applicant to come forward. Scott Spisak from Shafer
Contracting Co Inc., stated that if approved, what they would accomplish between now and the
renewal in December for next year would be basically a hole in the ground. They may haul
some material in, but it will take some tune just to dig a hole. Staffs recommendation to do
reclamation plan revisions at year end is timely because changes to any approved grades would
not happen before that. Mr Spisak addressed Commissioner Palda's concerns on testing. He
stated Shafer felt it wasn't the City's business to pay for something a private property owner
would be doing Commissioner Palda restated the City would hue their own consulting firm
with testing run through the City and billed back to Shafer as part of the permit process. Mr.
Spisak stated they would leave it up to the City whether the City would be m charge of the
testing process or Shafer.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
Charles Koehnen, 12255 Rich Valley Boulevard, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068. Mx. Koehnen
owns the property adjoining the pit He has had numerous discussions with Scott Sptsak. Mr.
Koehnen is concerned about tuning of the muting and would like the existing pond filled and
relocated so there would be less chance of contamination to their well due to it not being very
deep. Mr. Koehnen stated he has had no problems with Shafer musing, they've done a
tremendous job compared to other companies. Mr Koehnen would hke to see the pond
moved back into what would be Phase 4, as far away from his property as possible and any top
soil on the property now could be used to fill the current pond.
No other pubhc comment.
MOTION by Howell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Palda
Ayes: All. Nays. None. Motion approved.
Chairperson Messner expressed concern about possible relocation of the pond. He questioned
given the phasing of the project and initial intent and placement, would filling the pond and
moving it require an immediate regrading of the site for runoff. Mr. Zweber indicated Shafer
has moved into Phase 4. It would take a little time to move the pond, and in order to get the
City's input on where to relocate the pond, it would be best to be part of the reclamation plan
review in 2007. The City will work with Shafer when they revise the plan for next year's permit
and will discuss moving the pond at that time.
Chairperson Messner stated that on condition of approval, it is recommended to attach a
condition of a revised grading plan as part of the 2007 renewal. Chairperson Messner addressed
Comnussioner Palda's concern regarding testing and stated that it shouldn't matter who is doing
the hiring and paying of the testing Chairperson Messner's preference is rather than put the
City in the middle of it, let Shafer pay the bill. Commissioner Palda agreed that Shafer should
pay the bill, but restated his concern that the City should control the testing. Chairperson
Messner stated it was up to the City engineer. Project Engineer Dawley stated that copies of the
reports would be coming as the testing is performed and if something appeared amiss then they
would be able to address it at that tune.
MOTION by Messner to recommend approval of the Revised 2006 Shafer Contracting,
Inc. Mineral Extraction Permit to include "haul- back" activities with the condition that a
revised Reclamation Plan is developed and approved as a part of the 2007 Shafer
Contracting, Inc. Mineral Extraction Permit, subject to the above condition regarding
the review of the reclamation plan in 2007.
Second by Palda
Ayes All Nays• None. Motion approved.
Mr. Zweber stated the item is tentatively scheduled to go before the City Council on July 18,
2006. Staff will be working with Shafer to redefine the 13 acres and meet various conditions. A
review of the reclamation plan will be scheduled at the end of the year