Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.s. Shafer Contracting Mineral Extraction Permit, 06-05-MEAGENDA ITEM: Case 06 -59 -ME Shafer Contracting Mineral Extraction Permit AGENDA SECTION: Consent PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber, AICP; Senior Planner AGENDA NO. 196 ATTACHMENTS: Location Map, 2007 Mineral Extraction Permit, Phasing Plan, Proposed Reclamation and End Use Plan- Revised 10- 31 -06, End Use Plan Rendering, Former Reclamation and End Use Plan, Shafer Performance Letter, Excerpts from the November 28, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve 2007 Mineral Extraction Permit for Shafer Contracting with conditions 4 ROSEMOUNT City Council Regular Meeting: December 19, 2006 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 Stteet East and 1/4 mile west of Rich Valley Blvd (County Road 71). BACKGROUND Apphcant and property owner: Location: Area in acres: Comp Plan Zoning: Extraction progress: Nature of request: 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). Annual renewal. Shafer Contracting has been the most active mining owner /operator m the City. Shafer has been working on the site since 1998 and owned the property since 2000. At its meeting on July 18, 2006, the City Council approved revised conditions of the mineral extraction permit to allow "haul- back" activities that include only earthen fill materials from Mn /DOT projects that further meet the requirements of testing in documents by Amencan Engineering Testing, Inc., and which is used to replace sand and gravel mined below approved finish grades. One condition of the revised haul back permit was that a revised reclamation plan should be developed and approved as a part of the 2007 Shafer Contracting, Inc. Mineral Extraction Permit. The revisions to the reclamation plan have three goals. First, Charles Koehnen, neighbor, was concerned about the function of his well and requested that the stormwater pond within the gravel mine be moved farther from his property. The proposed reclamation plan will move the pond into the phase 4 and phase 5 areas after those areas have been mined and haul -back activities have occurred. Second, staff recognizes that the properties surrounding the mine have rolling topology and the revised reclamation plan now more closely matches these neighboring properties. Third, staff was concerned that the original reclamation plan essentially created walls on the north, west, and south sides of the mine. These walls would make it difficult to provide roads or utihties to the reclaimed site The revised reclamation plan includes concept roadway corridors in which roads and utihties can be brought to and travel through the reclaimed site. The proposed revised reclamation plan meets these three goals. Shafer has provided a letter with information regarding the mining activities of the past year. Shafer is currently removing sand from the west half of phase 4 and is beginning the initial haul back in phase 2, 3, and 4. Through September 30, 2006, Shafer has removed approximately 348,065 cubic yards of sand m 2006 and has paid Dakota County the appropriate taxes. The City had received a complaint within the last year that Shafer has been mining outside the area approved within the Mineral Extraction Pernut. On August 17, 2006, staff preformed a site inspection and there was no evidence that Shafer was mining m access of that approved by the City of Rosemount. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION A number of residents testified during the pubhc hearing concerning truck traffic, hours of operation, noise, restoration, and dust control. Mr. Spisak stated that his company has a safety program that is aimed at minimizing traffic concerns. Mr. Spisak stated that this has been effective with Shafer owned trucks, but that it is harder to enforce on subcontract truckers. Subcontract truckers are hired through a brokerage and Shafer does not have control over which truck drivers are sent to the site. However, it is possible to disciphne or address traffic issues with subcontract truckers although Mr. Spisak indicated it is more difficult to track them down. In response to concerns about dust and the lack of vegetation out on the site, Shafer comntted to final restoration immediately after each phase is completed, but no phase is expected to be completed this year. Shafer will seed any area that is temporarily not being mined to try to reduce the dust. To address the concerns raised, the Planning Commission added a condition of semi annual inspections of the site by City staff and limiting mining operations to Monday through Saturday. Mr. Spisak stated that the site does not normally operate on Sundays and that Shafer would request permission from the City Council in the future if Sunday operations are needed. Staff has committed to review the dust control plan of the mine and has worked with Police Department to set up an account for the mine, to track any complaints phoned in by the neighbors. Many of the complaints raised at the pubhc hearing would not require a pohce report, but coding calls about the mine will allow City staff to address the complaints during the annual permit renewal or the semi- annual inspection. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the renewal of the Shafer Contracting, Inc. Mineral Extraction Permit for 2007 with the revised reclamation plan. 2 /35rn 575 Copyright 2006, Dakota County Map Date June 21, 2006 ,}Mineral Extraction Permit ,2007 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 ofThase 4 f 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 1; 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, 200until December 31, 2007 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 agegiixes shall be obtained and submitted to the City prior to the issuance of the perriri #-Failure by the Property Owner to comply with the terms and conditions of any olthe permits required under this paragraph shall be grounds for the City to terminate said mining permit. E. The final grading,mi She permit area shall be completed m accordance with the grading plan labeled Ex B (drawing 7 of 7 dated April 6, 1999), which is attached herein, as approved by the City Engineer, and any other conditions as may be imposed by The Citgigm time to time. F. All gravel tfu&' and other mining related traffic shall enter and exit the mining area from Rich Valley Boulevardf It shall be the Property Owner's responsibility to obtain, any access peripits or easements necessary for ingress and egress. The location of the accessesand/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,9 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, Ezbibit 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. Warnmg 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 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 determmed by the City Administrator (or the Administrator's Formatted: Bottom: 0 75" Deleted: q Deleted: 2006 Deleted: Phase 3 (6 5 acres) and Deleted: 13 Deleted: 5 Deleted: 6 1 2002,Mmmg Permit Shafer Contracting 2 of 5 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 dramage 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 no£hmited to planniiig engineering fees and legal fees, shall be paid by theiperty Owner prior to the issuance of the permit The Property Owner shall re the City for the cost of' periodic inspections by the City Administrator or an' other City employee for the purpose of insurmg that conditions of the permit are being satisfied. The Property Owner agrees to reimburse the City for other costs inepi`ied as a result of the granting or enforcing of the permit L. The daily hours otopefation for the mining area shall be limited to 7:00 a m to 7:00 p m Monday.tliough Saturday. subject; however, to being changed by the City Council M. The Property, Owner shall deposit iviih the Planning Department a surety bond or cash deposit lit 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, r regrading and/or revegetahngaand disturbed by mining activities and to ensure perfoiinance of all requirements of this agreement and City ordinances by Property Owner. The required surety bonds must be. (1) With good s 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 reasonable requirements of the City Administrator (or the Administrator's designee) or any other City officials. Deleted:6 1 200 Mmmp Shafer Contracting 3 of 5 (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 famish a certificate of comprehen's'ive general liability insurance issued by insurers duly licensed witlnndhe State of Minnesota in an amount of at least Five Hundred Thousand and no /100 ($500,000 Dollars for injury or death of any one person in any o occurrence, and at least One Million and no /100 ($1,000,000 00) Dollars for injury bc, 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 OO;Pollars arising out of any one occurrence. The policy of msuranne shall name the City, as an additional insured and shall remain in effect from December 20; 2005 unul July„31, 2007. O. No processing or mixing of materials sha)1 occur midge site, except as approved by the Dakota County Engirt; mental Health Department as incidental to a sand and gravel mining operation at y✓hich time such activities will be enclosed with snow, or cyclone fencing oras a y g pprpwed by City staff.• Construction of any ponding areas, wash lants or other o r `sip o e ui nient brought to the site shall require re P g 9 P q additional city, Council approval a of adjacent property owners. P. The Property Owher shall hold the City harmless from all claims or causes of action liatmay 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 attomey'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. Q. R. Complete mining and reclamation is required in all phases before any additional mming 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- annually a written report indicating the amount of matenal extracted from the site for the prior six -month penod After said written i eport is submitted. the City shall erform an ins.ection of the site to confinn com.liance with the conditions within this Mineral Extraction Permit Deleted: 6 Formatted: Not Highlight Deleted: the report findings 1 20017,Mmm&Permit Shafer Contracting 4 of 5 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 stoc4ile of topsoil to the mined area, reseeding and mulching necessary to re- establish vegetative cover for permanent slope stabilization and erosion control prgvided'als4Ahat the minimum depth of topsoil shall not be less than two inches=afteereclamation. Topsoil for reclamation shall conform to specifications pn file with the City.'Nd slopes may exceed a gradient of 25% or four to 1 <4r 1) V. The Property Owner must show how materials'stockpiledfor 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 subsequent phases X. The Property Owner 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 hceii'sed premiseifor the permit period unless the Property Owner gives sixty da$ s prior written notice to the City of termination and surrenders permit to theCity 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 tb.the property where the mining operation is located. The gate must be ��r secured at 7.00 p m. and at any time the pit is not in use. Z. There shall be nit "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. 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. Deleted: 6 1 1 2002,MmmgPermit Shafer Contracting 5 of 5 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 Truck operators within the pit area shall not engage in practices involving slamming al tailgates, vibrating boxes, using of "Jake" or engine brakes (except in emergency 1 situations) or other such activities that result in excessive noise. STATE OF MLNNESOTA COUNTY OF Notary Public Shafer Contracting Co., Inc. 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 ,7007. By: •r George Mattson, Its President Deleted: 6 The foregoing instillment was acknowledged before me this day of 1 ,n07, by George Mattson, President of Shafer Contracting Company, Deleted: 2006 Inc., the Property' Owner,on behalf of the Corporation. Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Bullets and Numbenng Deleted: 2006 bz 2 >A a +,il'r Cogn-Ilrg 4S9v991A19 1 I 9 6P ?I9ir n r l Ir o r r e r cA %Y:6 9 i:-A ,ti -99 Fla I- "2 in) 19 a :4 I1 /17r/': :714' ID Ms. Kim Lindquist Mr Eric Zweber City of Rosemount 2875 145''' Street West Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 -4997 October 31, 2006 Re: Mineral Extraction Permit 12500 Rich Valley Blvd. By Dear Ms. Lindquist Mr. Zweber: As required by condition "R." of our mineral extraction permit, we are writing to you about our activities at the site during the past 6 months. We are currently removing sand from the west half of phase 4 and the initial "haulback" area in the northem 500 feet of phases 2, 3 and 4. We have not "hauled back" any material to the property as of this date. Through September 30, 2006, we have removed approximately 348,065 cubic yards of sand and paid aggregate taxes to Dakota County. Should you have any additional questions please call me at 651- 257 -5019. SAS:jb Yours very truly, SHAFER CONTRACTING CO., INC. An Equal Opportunity Employer SHAFER, MINNESOTA 55074 '�f OCT 3 ZOOS l 1 Excerpts from the November 28, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5.b. 06 -59 -ME Shafer Contracting Co. Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal. Senior Planner Zweber presented this item. Scott Spisak of Shafer Contracting has apphed 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). Shafer Contracting has been the most active mining owner /operator in the City. Shafer has been working on the site since 1998 and owned the property since 2000. At its meeting on July 18, 2006, the City Council approved revised conditions of the mineral extraction permit to allow "haul- back" activities that mclude only earthen fill materials from Mn /DOT projects that further meet 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. One condition of the revised haul back permit was that a revised reclamation plan should be developed and approved as a part of the 2007 Shafer Contracting, Inc. Mineral Extraction Permit. The revisions to the reclamation plan have three goals. First, Charles Koehnen, neighbor, was concerned about the function of his well and requested that the stormwater pond within the gravel mine be moved farther from his property. The proposed reclamation plan will move the pond into the phase 4 and phase 5 areas after those areas have been mined and haul -back activities have occurred. Second, staff recognizes that the properties surrounding the mine have rolling topology and the revised reclamation plan now more closely matches these neighboring properties. Third, staff was concerned that the ongmal reclamation plan essentially created walls on the north, west, and south sides of the mine These walls would make it difficult to provide roads or utihties to the reclaimed site. The revised reclamation plan includes concept roadway corridors in which roads and utilities can be brought to and travel through the reclaimed site. The proposed revised reclamation plan meets these three goals. Shafer has provided a letter with information regarding the mining activities of the past year. Shafer is currently removing sand from the west half of phase 4 and is beginning the initial haul back in phase 2, 3, and 4. Through September 30, 2006, Shafer has removed approximately 348,065 cubic yards of sand m 2006 and has paid Dakota County the appropriate taxes. The City had received a complaint within the last year that Shafer has been mining outside the area approved within the Mineral Extraction Permit On August 17, 2006, staff preformed a site inspection and there was no evidence that Shafer was mining in access of that approved by the City of Rosemount Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the renewal of the Shafer Contracting, Inc. Mmeral Extraction Permit for 2007 with the revised reclamation plan Commissioner Palda asked when the proposed changes to the reclamation plan are going to take place. Mr. Zweber reported that the trees will most likely be added at a later date. As haulback materials are brought back in, the reclamation will progress along. The Applicant, Scott Spisak, Shafer Contracting Co., approached the Commission. He reported that Shafer has worked since July when the City Council approved modifications to the permit to come up with a revised reclamation plan. He thinks all of the issues have been addressed including removing the pond away from the neighbor's property, future access and rolling topography. To clarify some points, Mr. Spisak stated reclamation would occur in a similar fashion to the original phasing plan. They would begin grading those slopes to the new grades as haulback material is brought in and trees would be planted as those slopes are ready. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. Gary Ista, 12131 Rich Valley Blvd., lives three quarters mile off the road and stated that it's tough to hear the animals due to the gravel pit operation. He asked if dust particulate testing and testing on the water had been completed. Charlie Koehnen, 12255 Rich Valley Blvd., lives on the parcel adjoining the site. His main complaint was regarding the truck traffic. He reported several incidents of reckless driving and asked what could be done about it. Another issue is regarding his well. His well was tested up to standards. He also requested that mote watering be completed to keep the level of dust down. Marcia Mrozinski, 11771 Rich Valley Blvd., Inver Grove Heights, also has issues with truck traffic and dust. The roads need to be upgraded to support the level of truck traffic. The shoulder is being pushed into her front yard. Joan Schneider, 12255 Rich Valley Blvd., approached with several questions. First, she asked if the daily hours of operation could be included in the permit. She asked which Phases ate Shafer allowed to go through m the current permit. Mt. Zweber rephed that they are allowed to go through Phases 2, 3, and 4. After they reclamate Phases 2, 3, and 4, they will then move into Phase 5. Ms. Schneider asked what was included in reclamation and whether or not reclamation on Phase 1 should be completed before working on Phase 4. Mr. Zweber stated that no phase is completed as of yet as far as reclamation but reclamation does need to be completed on the beginning phases before they can move any further west. Ms. Schneider reported that trucks are driving carelessly, taking out stop signs and power poles. Mr. Zweber suggested reporting these individual incidents to the pohce so they are put on record. Ms. Lindquist stated the City will provide a specific name on the pohce department that can receive these reports. Ms. Schneider then inquired about regular mspections and if there could be a minimum number of inspections performed each year. Mr. Zweber stated that inspections required once or twice a year should be a reasonable request. Scott Spisak, Shafer Contracting Co. approached the Commission again to address the concerns of the residents. He reported that this has been the busiest year in about 9 years and the current project is a large contract on I -94 Since it has been a dry year with added business, this could explain the increase in dust. He responded to Mr. Ista's concerns about the noise stating that the equipment has been tested and it meets the decibel levels required. The pit is lower than all of the surrounding area and a large amount of noise comes from the refinery. He reported that all material being brought as part of the haulback materials will be tested. The storm pond is there to treat the water and it's required to be there. As part ASZ of the revised plan, Shafer will construct a new pond in stages. Mr. Spisak addressed Mr. Koehnen's concern regarding the reckless drivmg of the truck drivers. Ide reported that Shafer has a full time safety director and he has Investigated all of the instances Mt. Koehnen has reported. Shafer can submit these findings if requested. Mr. Spisak stated that the road depicted on the new plan is probably a long way out m the future and could change as the City develops. With respect to Marcia Mrozmski's concerns with the intersection of 117 and Rich Valley Blvd., Mr. Spisak rephed that trucks have a problem making that turn. The dust is coming from the trucks driving on the shoulder. Shafer is trying to maintain the shoulder even though it is a County road and they sweep it often, sometimes daily. The grass shoulder is a right -of -way, not part of Ms. Mrozinski's yard. Mr. Spisak stated he does not object to listing the days of operation in the permit and agrees that it should be Monday through Saturday. Mr. Spisak reported that m all of 2006, Shafer has been permitted to work in the western half of Phase 4. There are slopes that have been graded and interim seeding has been planted on part of the north side of Phase 2, at the east end of the property around the pond, and on the south side of Phases 2 and 3. He reported that Shafer will place sign at the pits so the drivers do not go into Ms. Schneider's driveway. Mr. Spisak stated he has no objection to required semi annual inspections by City staff. He also has no objection to people calling pohce when there are vehicular violations. Commissioner Palda asked whether or not Shafer waters with calcium chloride. Mr. Spisak rephed Shafer primarily uses water, but has used calcium chloride m the past. He stated Shafer needs to get a source of water closer to the pit so it requires less travel to haul the water in. Commissioner Schwartz asked who is responsible for the drivers. Mr. Spisak replied that due to the increase in workload, they use as many of Shafer trucks as they can and then rent trucks when it's not enough Shafer drivers report directly to the company. Shafer has a safety director, a drug screening program and disciplinary program. Outside drivers work through various brokers which are sometimes difficult to track down. Chairperson Messner asked if Shafer has finished mining Phases 2 and 3. Mr. Spisak responded that they have finished according to the current plan. If the revised plan is approved, then Phases 2 and 3 are not at the required finished grades. To finish those current grades requires excavating the floor in the pit and then filling it in. This may not be completed m 2007. Mr. Koehnen, 12255 Rich Valley Blvd., approached the Commission again to ask if the floor of the pit could be completed before moving any further west. It was confirmed by Mr. Spisak and Mr. Zweber that the reclamanon plan requires the current phases to be completed before being allowed to Phase 5. There were no further public comments. MOTION by Schultz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Palda. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 7:57p.m. Chairperson Messner stated Item L of the permit should be modified to include a provision to limit days of operation to Monday through Saturday. Also Item R. should be modified to add semi annual inspections. Commissioner Howell inquired about Item G. and whether or not a dust control plan was submitted with the City. Mr Spisak responded there is a plan submitted and Mr. Zweber stated he would verify this. Commissioner Palda asked if a provision could be included m dust control requirement requiring Shafer to put down calcium chloride where necessary. Mr. Zweber stated he could look into that as well MOTION by Chairperson Palda to recommend that the City Council approve the mineral extraction permit for Shafer Contracting subject to the attached conditions for 2007 with the revised reclamation plan dated October 31, 2006. Second by Howell Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Mr. Zweber stated this item will go to City Council on December 19, 2006. In the meantime, staff will make revisions to the permit as discussed.