5.1 PCSR 08-23-1994 f1./ \ AGENDA ITEM 5.1
t
y of � MEMORANDUM
lkR�•
Ver TO: PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
FROM: STEPHEN ROHLF, BUILDING
AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: AUGUST 15, 1994 SK
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
REQUEST BY SHIELY COMPANY/
PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. CU 94-31
ISSUE
The Shiely Company is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for mineral
excavation and processing on approximately 200 acres of a 380 acre site.
Shiely's property is part of the proposed mineral excavation district.
Therefore, an issue associated with this request is the City initiated re-
zoning of the mining district to Mineral Excavation Overlay.
• LOCATION
The subject property is 1/4 mile west of Proctor Avenue, on the south side of
County Road 33. The legal description of the subject property and a site map
is contained in Shiely's attached application.
ATTACHMENTS
1. An application provided by Shiely Company, dated August 1994.
2. A recommendation on ground water monitoring from John Lichter of
B.A. Liesch and Associates (August 1994).
3. A letter from representatives of Ridgewood to Jonathan Wilmshurst of
the Shiely Company, dated June 14, 1994; outlining their concerns.
4. A letter from the Shiely Company to John Kuester, dated July 18,
1994; responding to the Ridgewood letter.
5. A letter from representatives of Greenhead Acres to the Planning
• Commission, dated August 15, 1994; outlining their concerns.
P.O. Box 490 • 13065 Orono Parkway • Elk River, MN 55330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425
C.U.P. 94-31 Page 2
Continued
• ANALYSIS
The narrative and maps contained in Shiely's application give a fair
description of their proposed operation. Based on the seven standards for
approving a conditional use permit, numerous issues and concerns regarding
this proposal arise. Staff feels that the attached recommended conditions
address these issues. The reasons for most of them are obvious, therefore,
with the following discussion we will only elaborate on the conditions, when
needed for clarification.
CONDITIONS
10. Reclamation
Shiely's proposal is consistent with the proposed contours in the City's
Environmental Impact Statement on mineral excavation.
The proposed bottom of the Shiely gravel pit is also within 10 feet of
elevation of the proposed bottom of Barton's pit to the east. However,
there is a conflict between these two pits. Barton's reclamation plan is
• in the shape of a bowl, going uphill from the center of their pit,
westward to the boundary of Shiely's property. A condition placed on
Barton Sand and Gravel was that they modify their reclamation plan
once the long range planning for the mineral excavation district was
completed. Therefore, the conflict will be resolved by Barton's
modifying of their plan.
Otherwise, Shiely's reclamation plan appears appropriate, at least in
general terms. The subject property is currently zoned R1A/Single
Family Residential. The proposed contours can accommodate houses
and are no steeper than a 4:1 slope. Further, the various options for a
future east/west road corridor through this area can be accommodated
by Shiely's proposed contours.
15. Traffic
Staff anticipates Shiely requesting permission to haul existing stock
piles of sand this fall, even if the by-pass lane and acceleration lane
are not completed. Staff does not recommend this because of safety
concerns. If this were to be allowed, it would be important to consider
how many trucks per hour would be hauling out of this area, what
time of day they would operate, and take appropriate safety
IIIprecautions such as a flagman.
geryl-BZ
C.U.P. 94-31 Page 3
Continued
• Since the access road to the site is a County road (County Road 33)
City staff has been working with the County Engineer. The County
Engineer will be developing specific plans and specs regarding the
access to the property and an acceleration and by-pass lane. The
County will also be considering signage related to this operation, the
speed limit on County Road 33, and whether or not the stop sign on
County Road 33 and Proctor will remain.
Staff feels that the City can rely on the County's expertise to
appropriately design the necessary amenities to accommodate this
operation. The one unresolved issue is whether or not the County
Engineers specifications for an acceleration lane can be accommodated
on land owned by the Shiely Company. The acceleration lane in
particular, may require acquiring land from Barton Sand and Gravel
on the south side of County Road 33. It is possible that the entire
right-of-way for County Road 33 could shift slightly to the north, where
Shiely's do own land, to accommodate the acceleration lane. This is an
issue that should be resolved prior to the City Council considering
Shiely's permit.
• 18. Noise
State noise levels established by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency are 65 decibels- day and 55 decibels- night at property line. To
put that into perspective, the "Medical and Health Encyclopedia-
Volume II", by Richard T. Wagman (copyright 1993), states that 50
decibels is the average household noise level. Sixty decibels is
equivalent to normal speech, and 65 decibels will interfere with normal
speech. Having to shout to be heard on your own property in a
residential setting is unacceptable. Therefore, staff feels justified
setting 55 decibels as the standard. Shiely's have indicated that this is
acceptable to them.
19. Hours of Operation
Staff anticipates Shiely's requesting longer hours of operation.
Specifically, they would like to keep their wash plant and sales
operation open from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
and 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., on Saturdays. The hours for mineral
excavation are currently limited to avoid noise intrusion to
neighborhoods during evening hours. The Shiely site is possibly the
most sensitive site in the mining district because of its location
IIIadjacent to developed areas. Staff feels Shiely should have a history of
geryl-BZ
C.U.P. 94-31 Page 4
Continued
• operation demonstrating that they can control noise to reasonable
levels, before extended hours are even considered.
The City has made only one exception to the hours of operation for
mineral excavation. That exception was the Baurerly pit, off of County
Road 21, where they crushed gravel for approximately 10 to 14 days
per year. The neighbors were in favor of extended hours to reduce the
number of days crushing would take place.
PARK DEDICATION
Typically, Park Dedication is not an issue with a Conditional Use Permit.
However, a portion of the Shiely site, located in the southwest corner, is an
old growth dry oak sub type forest, classified as threatened by the DNR.
Shiely is offering to dedicate 50 acres of this old growth forest now, in
consideration of forgiveness of part of their future park dedication.
Because the land in question is a logical extension of Woodland Trail Park
and is a significant natural setting, the Park and Recreation Commission
recommended the City accepts Shiely's offer and negotiate the purchase of
additional acres besides. City staff will be discussing these issues with the
Shiely Company. Staff encourages the Planning Commission to recommend
•
(in a motion separate from Shiely's Conditional Use Permit motion) that the
City Council accepts this offer.
RECOMMENDATION
Staffs recommended conditions are a product of numerous meetings and
telephone calls with City consultants, the County Engineer, the Shiely
Company, and representatives of the neighborhoods of Ridgewood and
Greenhead Acres. With these conditions placed on this operation, staff feels
that the seven standards for approving a Conditional Use Permit can be met.
We recommend approval of Shiely's permit under the following findings and
conditions:
Findings
1. That the conditions placed on the operation adequately protect
adjacent neighborhoods and the City form detrimental affects from the
operation due to excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odor,
dust, or vibrations.
III
geryl-BZ
C.U.P. 94-31 Page 5
Continued
• 2. That with the establishment of the proposed buffer area protecting the
major portion of the threatened oak forest, the operation will not result
in a loss of a natural, scenic, or historic features of major importance.
3. That the proposal is consistent with the City of Elk River's
Comprehensive Plan, Mineral Excavation Ordinance, Zoning
Ordinance, and Environmental Impact Statement on mineral
excavation.
4. That the conditions placed on the operation require it to comply with
all appropriate City, State, and Federal requirements.
CONDITIONS
1. All mineral excavation and processing operations on the property shall
comply with the City's mineral excavation, zoning and other applicable
ordinances; with the terms of this Conditional Use Permit agreement
and the license agreement to be executed by the City and operator;
with the City of Elk River's Environmental Impact Statement on
mineral excavation; and with the application materials and plans
submitted by the operator, which plans and materials are the basis for
• the City's approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
2. The operator shall orally notify the City of any violations of this permit
within 24 hours and follow this with notification in writing within 4
working days of the violation. The operator shall notify the City
annually in writing of the total area and amount of material mined
and projected estimates of area and amount of material to be mined in
the following year. This is to be done at time of license renewal.
3. The license must be renewed annually and shall run from January 1st
through December 31st. The annual license fee is that which is
specified by City Code at time of renewal. This license fee is not in lieu
of gravel tax collected by the County and a portion of which the City
receives.
4. Violations of this Conditional Use Permit may result in supervision or
revocation.
5. The City Building and Zoning Administrator and/or his/her agents
shall be permitted to inspect the operation for compliance with the
conditions of this permit during normal hours of operation.
III
geryl-BZ
C.U.P. 94-31 Page 6
Continued
• 6. The City's approval of this Conditional Use Permit is subject to the
approval of appropriate permits by other governmental agencies.
7. No explosives shall be allowed for this operation.
8. The entire active area of the site shall be fenced with a 4 foot high
fence and warning signs with notice of the inherent dangers of the
operation shall be erected every 100 feet.
9. All vegetation on the subject property, outside of the fenced active
area, shall remain in its natural state until mining operations are
concluded on the entire parcel, with the exception of disease control.
Vegetation in subsequent phases shall also remain undisturbed until
the preceding phase is concluded.
10. Reclamation
a. Reclamation shall be implemented on an annual basis pursuant
to the reclamation plans submitted by the operator.
b. Each year a plan for that years reclamation shall be approved by
III the Building and Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of the
annual Mineral Excavation License.
c. A $5,000 letter of credit, bond or other deposit approved by staff
shall be required prior to the issuance of the annual license to
cover the forth coming years reclamation.
d. The annual reclamation plan shall include planting an average
of 50 seedling trees per acre. Some areas may have no trees and
staff may require a greater than average number on other areas,
if conditions warrant.
e. Reclamation shall include topsoil from the site being preserved
and put back into place after mining.
f. The vegetation established for reclamation must be maintained
until it is self sufficient.
g. Contours, finished grades, details of erosion control methods,
and settling ponds, shall comply with the plans submitted and
the City Ordinance at the time of reclamation.
•
geryl-BZ
C.U.P. 94-31 Page 7
Continued
• 11. Ground water protection measures shall include:
a. Extraction and crushing operations shall be maintained at a
minimum of 40 feet above the water table. Approval to excavate
deeper shall require an amendment to this permit.
b. The operator shall file with the City an emergency spill response
plan. The operator shall adhere to this plan in the event there
is a spill.
c. The operator shall provide the Fire Department with a copy of
their hazardous materials list.
d. Fuel tanks shall be above ground, properly diked and permitted
by MPCA, the Fire Marshall, and the City.
e. All instances that have the potential to adversely affect ground
water, including, but not limited to spills, shall be verbally
reported to the City within 24 hours. This verbal notification
shall be followed up in writing within 4 working days.
• f. Appropriate Water Appropriation Permit(s) from the
Department of Natural Resources must be obtained.
g. Groundwater monitoring wells shall be installed in locations
and depths as recommended by B.A. Leisch and Associates.
Water level monitoring and water quality monitoring shall be
conducted as per Leisch's recommendations. A description of the
monitoring system shall be submitted to the City for approval 14
days prior to construction. the monitoring system shall be
complete prior to commencing mining activities.
h. Water usage by mining activities shall not adversely affect
adjacent residential wells. Mitigate measures may include but
are not limited to curtailing of pumping activities until water
levels return.
i. If it is proven by the City or the DNR, that the mining activities
have had a negative affect on adjacent wells that will require
remedial actions, it is the responsibility of the Shiely Company
to take the remedial action necessary to correct the situation
and pay for both the remedial action and the City's cost for
investigation.
•
geryl-BZ
C.U.P. 94-31 Page 8
Continued
• J. Routine vehicle maintenance shall be performed in a shop or on
a concrete slab. The shop shall be equipped with a flammable
waste trap. All floor drains in the shop will be required to drain
to holding tanks and treated at an appropriate facility, not a
septic system. A hazardous waste license through MPCA will be
required. All waste fluids will be contained, cleaned up, and
recycled or disposed of according to appropriate MPCA
regulations. Leaks from emergency repairs down in the field
will be considered a spill.
k. Shiely shall conduct background water quality testing prior to
the commencement of mining operations (as per John Lichter's
recommendation).
12. Wetlands
a. The wetland proposed to be eliminated by mining activities in
Phase II (or any wetland proposed to be impacted), must be
reviewed under the criteria of the Wetland Conservation Act,
• receive approvals from all appropriate governmental agencies,
and be mitigated at a ratio of at least 2:1, prior to the
commencement of mining activities in that phase. If all
approvals needed to eliminate this wetland cannot be obtained,
the wetland must be avoided.
b. All storm water associated with mining activities must receive
pre-treatment (where necessary) prior to release to natural
wetlands or off-site.
c. Best management practices will be used to protect natural
wetlands.
d. Mining activities shall be adjusted as necessary to avoid
negative affects on wetlands, including a decrease in water
levels.
13. Oakwilt Control
a. No trees will be cut from April 15th through July 15th.
b. All stumps must be removed prior to April 15th that are within
• 100 feet of trees not cut.
geryl-BZ
C.U.P. 94-31 Page 9
Continued
• c. Appropriate actions must be taken when cutting trees to avoid
mechanical damage to trees that are to remain.
d. No roots from trees that are to remain shall be left exposed.
e. Appropriate measures shall be taken to avoid bark beetles from
over wintering in wood from trees that are removed.
f. Shiely's will control Oakwilt on their entire site as required by
the City and County Forester.
14. Dust Control
a. A permit from MPCA regarding air emissions shall be obtained
and particulate emission standards shall be met by the
operation.
III
b. All equipment shall be located as to reduce dust to adjacent
residential properties.
c. Water, but no chemical agents shall be used to control dust as
necessary.
d. The City reserves the right to require additional measures be
taken if warranted by dust problems including, but not limited
to, reducing stock pile heights.
e. The first 100 feet of the access road prior to County Road 33
shall also be paved to minimize dust.
15. Traffic
a. All traffic associated with the operation shall only use County
Road 33 back and forth to U.S. Highway 169. Except for
localized jobs, no traffic from this operation shall use Proctor
Avenue or County Road 33 to the west of the site. A map shall
be prepared by City staff that defines localized jobs. Shiely shall
post notice of these requirements at the exit from their site.
Failure to control traffic from this operation shall constitute a
IIIviolation of this permit.
Beryl-BZ
C.U.P. 94-31 Page 10
Continued
• b. An acceleration and by-pass lane shall be constructed at Shiely's
expense and on right-of-way they dedicate to Sherburne County
as per the specifications of the Sherburne County Engineer,
prior to hauling activities commencing.
c. The location of the access to the site shall be determined by the
Sherburne County Engineer. An access permit from Sherburne
County may be required of the operator.
d. The operator shall reimburse Sherburne County for abnormal
wear on ( damage caused by other than traffic flow that the road
was designed to handle) haul roads that is caused by the
operation.
16. The berm along County Road 33 identified in the operator's plans,
shall be constructed to act as a visual screen of the operation. This
berm shall be built and landscaped within the first year of the mines
operation according to a landscaped plan approved by staff.
• 17. Wash water used in the operation shall be recycled in a two pond
system allowing for sedimentation.
18. Noise
a. Noise from screening and crushing associated with this
operation shall be controlled by location on the site, the
placement of stockpiles, type of equipment and ultimately by
placing them in soundproof buildings, if necessary as
determined by staff.
c. Microwave back-up alarms or equivalent alternative technology
shall be used as determined necessary by staff.
d. A turnaround will be provided within the pit so that trucks not
equipped with microwave backup alarms will not need to back
up.
e. Fifty-five (55) decibels at the site's property line is the noise
level standard that shall be adhered to at all times by the
operator.
•
geryl-BZ
C.U.P. 94-31 Page 11
Continued
• 19. Hours of Operation
All mineral excavation and processing activities shall be conducted
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through
Saturday. Increased hours shall require an amendment to this permit
and cannot be requested the first year of this permit.
20. Lighting
Lighting from the operation shall be directed away from public right-
of-way and nearby or adjacent residential property. Glare, whether
directed or reflected as different from general illumination, shall not be
visible from beyond the limits of the immediate site. All sources of
artificial lights shall be so fixed, directed, designed, or sized, that the
minimum subtotal of their illumination shall not increase the level of
the illumination on any nearby residential property for more than .1
foot candles in or within 25 feet of a dwelling or more than .5 foot
candles on any part of the property.
21. The piling, storing, or keeping of old machinery, junk, debris, or
• abandoned motor vehicles, shall be prohibited on the site.
22. Mining activities shall not cause excessive vibration off-site.
23. Mechanism for responding to complaints.
a. Representatives of the Shiely Company shall make themselves
available to address complaints. A plan to deal with the
complaint shall be developed and implemented. Shiely will also
follow-up with the complainant and all appropriate
documents copied to the City.
b. City Staff will facilitate meetings between representatives of the
Ridgewood and Greenhead neighborhoods and Shiely to discuss
issues on 6/1/95, 8/1/95 and 10/1/95. Shiely will facilitate future
meetings as necessary, but these meetings will be held a
minimum of twice a year on March 1st and August 1st. The
City will be involved in these future meetings only if requested
by either party.
24. Approval of this permit is subject to the site being rezoned to
ME/Mineral Excavation Overlay District.
•
geryl-BZ
AUG 1 6 1994
ATTACHMENT 2
LIEXH
• B.A.LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC. 13400 15TH AVE. N. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55441 612/559-1423 FAX:612/559-2202
GROUNDWATER MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR PROPOSED
SHIELY COMPANY GRAVEL PROCESSING WELL
(AUGUST 1994)
INTRODUCTION
Shiely Company (Shiely) proposes to expand their sand and gravel mining operation within
the Elk River Sand and Gravel Mining District. The proposed expansion will include
utilization of an existing Mt. Simon - Hinckley well to provide process water. The existing
well (unique well #217977) is currently not in-use, but is permitted by the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as a well for withdrawal of up to 50 million
gallons per year (DNR Permit #913086). It is understood that the well will provide a high
capacity water supply (more than 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year) for
the mining operation. Recommendations for monitoring the effect of the high capacity
well use on the groundwater resource are provided herein. The proposed monitoring is
intended to provide data that can be used to further characterize aquifer response to
pumping, provide baseline data and identify and minimize potential impact on residential
• water supply wells located outside of the mining District.
Development and implementation of a groundwater monitoring program was recommended
in the Elk River Sand and Gravel Mining District EIS and further recommended by the DNR
following their review of the EIS. The monitoring recommended in the following sections
includes installation of monitoring wells in the mining district buffer zone, water level
monitoring and background water quality monitoring.
RECOMMENDED MONITORING WELLS
Two monitoring wells are recommended for installation in the mining district buffer zone
south and west of the Shiely high capacity well. The recommended wells should be
targeted for completion at the approximate depth of the nearby residential wells and
thereby monitor the primary groundwater zone used by the residential wells for possible
impacts resulting from use of the Shiely well.
According to the EIS (Table 3.3-1) most of the residential wells west of the District are
completed in the first confined glacial unit which occurs at a general elevation of 860 feet
NGVD. The well depths range from approximately 65 to 130 feet. Therefore, a monitoring
well installed to approximately the same elevation as these residential wells is
recommended for installation west of the pumping well. The attached figure provides a
general location for the recommended well.
IIA monitoring well is also recommended south of the Shiely well. The EIS indicates (Table
3.3-1) that the majority of the residential wells south of the mining district are completed
in the Mt. Simon - Hinckley Aquifer at depths of 230 to 400 feet. As such a Mt. Simon -
Hinckley monitoring well is recommended for installation near the general location
indicated on the attached figure.
• Each of the monitoring wells should be installed on the innermost fringe of the buffer zone
nearest to the Shiely well as possible, and be constructed by a licensed well contractor per
Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) regulations. In addition each well should be
surveyed for the top of casing elevation so that all water levels can be converted to
elevation.
WATER LEVEL MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS
Water level data, along with accurate pumping rate data, should be collected for
documenting the effect of pumping on groundwater levels, and as an aid in identifying the
need for, or effectiveness of mitigative measures. Pumping rate information should be
collected from the Shiely well. At a minimum water level data should be collected from
the Shiely well, the monitoring wells and any other available observation points according
to the following schedule:
- immediately prior to initiation of seasonal pumping;
- at the pumping well 24 hours after pump start-up;
- at all wells 1 week after initiation of pumping;
- monthly at all wells throughout the duration of the pumping season;
- immediately prior to seasonal shut - down;
• - at the pumping well 24 hours after shut - down;
- at all wells 1 week after shut down, and
- at all wells 1 month after shut down.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 3.3 of the EIS indicates that potential groundwater quality impacts attributable to
the mining operations are primarily associated with use of above-ground fuel storage tanks.
Implementation of the required spill prevention plans and secondary containment minimizes
the potential for groundwater impacts. Should any groundwater impacts from the mining
operations, or other unrelated occurrence, occur in the vicinity of the well, it is likely that
the impacts would be drawn toward the pumping well. Operation of the Shiely well would,
therefore, reduce the potential that impacts would occur in residential wells. Therefore,
an extensive water quality monitoring program does not appear warranted. A limited
monitoring program, as recommended below, will provide background water quality.
Background Monitoring: Sample and analyze the monitoring wells and one or two
residential wells each along the western and southern boundaries. The recommended
monitoring parameters include MDH volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and diesel
range organics (DRO). The monitoring wells should also be tested for general
background chemistry parameters including nitrate + nitrite, alkalinity, chloride,
sulfate, sodium, potassium and dissolved metals.
•
•
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONTINGENCY ACTION
Implementation of the recommended monitoring plan will facilitate the establishment and
effectiveness of mitigative measures. To the extent possible the monitoring should be
coordinated with similar groundwater withdrawal and water level monitoring situations that
may be completed by other entities within the mining district. Coordination of such
monitoring would provide data to characterize the overall effect of high capacity well use
within the district.
Monitoring of water levels as recommended could be used to preempt adverse affects on
the adjacent residential wells. If significant water level changes are observed in the
monitoring wells, changes can be made to the pumping program to protect the residential
wells. If well interference occurs to the degree that water supply wells become dry the
immediate action would likely be to curtail pumping until water levels return and the wells
become usable again. In the interim all pumping rate and water elevation data should be
reviewed. Plans to continue the use of the pumping well at a reduced rate, or under
limited hours, should be initiated and the frequency of water level monitoring at the
monitoring wells should be increased to monitor the response to the reduced pumping rates.
Such changes in pumping rate and monitroring frequency would likely be reviewed by the
DNR under its review of the water appropriation permit. Additional monitoring of pumping
•
wells and monitoring wells may be required at that time.
/u/Prj/ENV/641 17/monitor.wp
III
'\ _
z /���: __��' wau marr o
,...,.„,.:_ _..; .... J1 iii. .I, \ :4._
't. 1. _ ^a ^o
0Z\ .i _j{tl :', � iy- 1 :
13--
i OVNtY 0.O
fc,c., ' I
_ .' uE.M_NV.L ROAD __L--- _ _>AIV.T[ aptEwr _ <JL�
- /-- ';'7-1-1 15 f • • ‘C---,•------• $ ----,,,,,._,,,,- '-'..-.!\..s.ra- —;//' -.------_,.-.11, -...• ..„
I.
_ a =�� PROPOSED �, j� t
if r
- > i-�l' ^i'::1'- _ ' MONITORING WELL ''-. �°'`
•
�� — -- LOCATIONS 1 g •
-'- N .A• `'oc,•• A w1pCwgi`9YyC4S`^>) d I t
bstelLU I.
.
_
--. !�snEtni- S�FE�
r:::-.1,1-..41.
0
ill .
�'hC>1j %a nxl- x • . `PRoc.ca,r SIR *`
-(--i, .,,./2. ....a.t.:
r eAl ;- ;°;4_, L:!F_ \Da-SII ;'_ i!a aa- - i
,77-1,=-,-,..-
J 3III I
� - z11 *
— i iz .3 -e J `v
f �• ^F.'
• ._,----,-, :--- kr.,-.?:.-...,-- I * ice:
er • v _ 7.2
..2\I ,/,'..'•:,...: ... ) * : :,F" 1 t‘
•
_
_3=aI'_ y �,Rw ' S ,
I r/ -1� �� CS='�pia �y�a �� • r
I.
!irisc ,:-•••Z'-•••:`1„,--7.:.0....--........,
-2* �� i . •, -AK - -Tar.v �''`W''. :• "�- .T .q k<-_.._ ..I L
7 ism awl - 3 V <. ;,I
r.
• �`=°--y :`s� j� ��:\
YVlI _
- —.,..Y.—
„ -
_.%: i
I= v 4
I' fi ? T
:r._...! " vs-vem —r �-;a . � .' ;_-- j
— —=—
-
▪ li
r_ _ . ,
- 1i A.'55,25. :TREE t,
, -
- i• _ I I•_
.. ._ ,_ __ -_4 _.i. - _
/
Ate.
MOD ,,4
--i--in
,� / 4
,
_ _,_ ,
/.
000 WOO
_._ r - --- .- �• 1 1!, 1
i� w .i2 WiI
I %/ •
I: COUNTY ROAD O. ' �'-
�� CDVNTY I_ -: �� .,.o
y , ROAO NO. f .-._._ 1
4: Ac _ b .,I �I ,
\'I.' ~ erf \
I- • I FIGURE 3.3-1
.Y .,\` i . I� _ -..4, SITE MAP AND
x !1.___-
'
I-- CROSS SECTION LOCATION MAP
:11 ,
a
I
C* NUMEROUS LANDFlU_
MONITORING WELLS
I N .. IN THIS AREA LEGEND
1-
2.
- �—' • --_j_- ,r s BOUNDARY UNE
< I PROPERTY UNE
i - - PARCEL UNE
nL+
J F- -4-- + --r---,- + A- ..- Ali
* WELL
*--..' * i '�. I THE LEIItK CORRESPONDS TO
111111111111i!!!!!""7-
- a `t�. ' ' `>:- t4.fai. WELL DESCRIPTIONS ON TABLE 2.)
Vall5,-; -----------;:::-..,-,7:--: :- ' - - -,-;-, -- •"----------
a A K 1
�* .- * I EXCERPTED FROM EIS
:�;F, MODIFIED AUGUST 1994
r _--- i
.4 1_
I
- -- __. 4 -)-37 -•-
FIGURE 3.3-1
�3'o ENEASi=4P.Y. CR!•,E I I DATE ! DES IIPTION DESI.NED
\1St
LT PAUL, uNNE=3TA :SALE 1 _CHECI�rE� CITY OF ELK RIVER
x.612) 64-t-4389 I DRAYM CLS
I ( ,. NIR SCA, PROPOSED GRAVEL MINING DISTRICT
98OO SHELAJ D PARKWAY r ? H_ttlz. 100° SITE MAP AND CROSS SECTION LOCATION MAP
I.NNNE.POUS. MINNESOTA 55441 I DATE , • 1994
1L%' (Rl i6-0432 i I `- T
FRO..CT NO 230-143-58
'
ATTACHMENT 3
June 14, 1994
• Mr. Jonathan Wilmshurst
Vice President and General Manager
Shiely Company
2915 Waters Rd, Suite 105
Eagan, Mn 55121
Dear Mr. Wilmshurst:
During its April 22nd Annual Meeting, the Ridgewood Association created a Task Force
which will represent the Ridgewood Neighborhood in any and all negotiations with the
Shiely Company. The purpose of the Task Force is facilitate a satisfactory resolution of a
number of issues related to the Shiely Company's intent to commence mining in the near
future on its property located immediately North of the Ridgewood neighborhood in Elk
River. The Task Force has been pleased so far with the expressed willingness of Shiely to
work with its neighbors toward a win/win resolution of potentially sticky issues. Your
personal appearance at our June 7th Task Force meeting provided both useful information
plus a positive affirmation of Shiely's desire "to be a good neighbor and a responsible
steward of our resources."
The Task Force has identified a number of concerns which need to be clarified and
• resolved. We recognize that other parties, including the City of Elk River and various
state agencies, are also important players in determining how these issues are both defined
and resolved. It is the intent of this letter to frame what we consider to be the important
issues, and then to participate in the negotiations which hopefully shall discuss these
concerns in sufficient detail so as to work out a satisfactory resolution to each. It is
important that the Shiely Company understand that the issues we raise are not
strictly "Ridgewood issues" but in effect are issues which directly impact the health,
safety, and quality of life of the larger community of Elk River.
ISSUE 1: PARKLAND DEDICATION. A recent Minnesota Biological survey
identified an area of approximately 130 acres within Shiely's proposed mining operation as
being a mature oak forest with great biological significance. It is the position of the Task
Force that this area must be protected so that future generations can enjoy the many
aesthetic, wildlife, recreational, and educational benefits of such a rare resource. Further,
its is the position of the Task Force that the acreage comprising this forest be permanently
designated as park and natural area, and dedicated as such for the permanent use by the
citizens of the larger community of Elk River.
The Task Force recognizes that there are a variety of approaches to do this, including the
tax advantages inherent should Shiley make an out-right donation of the land for public
purposes. The Task Force is willing to work with the Company to insure that Shiely,
within reason, will receive the maximum gain for permanently dedicating the property for
• public use. The Task Force is further aware that delineation of the exact area of the old
growth forest will undoubtedly require the services of an objective third party, such as the
• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Finally, it is the position of the Task Force
that dedication of the entire130 acres effectively creates a buffer between the Shiely's
mining operation and the Ridgewood neighborhood to the South, and the City Trail to the
West.
ISSUE 2: HOURS OF OPERATION. It is the position of the Task Force that hours of
operation be 7am through 7 pm weekdays with no weekend operation of the facility.
ISSUE 3: HAULING ROUTES. It is the position of the Task Force that any trucks
coming to and from the mine will use County 33 to 169. Under no circumstances does the
Task Force sanction the use of Procter Ave as a haul route.
ISSUE 4: DUST CONTROL. It is the position of the Task Force that dust control will
be accomplished by spraying down the affected area by water. The Task Force wants
assurances from Shiely that no chemicals will be used for dust abatement.
ISSUE 5: WATER TABLE AND WELL MONITORING. The ongoing protection of
community and personal drinking water sources is a major concern of the Task Force The
Task Forces stresses the absolute necessity of the Shiely Company avoiding all actions that
will any way be detrimental to adjacent private wells. Our research indicates that threats
to drinking water usually come from two sources:(a) decreasing the water supply and (b)
• contamination through chemical, fuel, oil and other such spills which eventually introduce
contaminants into the water table.
Based on information provided by you at our last meeting, we are reasonably comfortable
that there is limited danger that the proposed operation will result in the lowering of the
water table to the point of injury to nearby private wells. We do require further discussion
of this issue with you to insure that the Shiely Company will be drilling no new wells on
the property under discussion.
Concerning the matter of contamination prevention, we also require extensive information
from Shiely concerning :(a) how potential spills of contaminants will be advoided through
containment and other security measures, (b) Shiely's specific plans for dealing with spills,
including spills of contaminants of 5 gallons or less , and (c) Shiely's plans for notifying the
public, including its Ridgewood neighbors, in the event of contaminant spills. Further, The
Task Force expects Shiely to be responsive to its concerns should the actions specified in
a-c be not stringent enough.
The Task Force expects that Shiely will establish and maintain throughout the course of its
active mining of the property, a well monitoring program which shall on a regular basis
test no less than five active wells located in the Ridgewood neighborhood. In addition,
prior to the start-up of active mining, Shiely shall test no less than five wells for the
purpose of establishing a data baseline which accurately reflects the current contamination
• levels of the water each contains. Finally, Shiely shall establish and support a user-friendly
• well replacement program, which shall come in force at such time the well monitoring
reveals increased contamination of any private or public water source.
ISSUE 6: MINING DIRECTION. It is the position of the Task Force that mining
operations begin at the Northern portion of the property and proceed in increments in a
Southerly direction.
ISSUE 7: RECLAMATION AND SLOPES. It is the position of the Task Force that
reclamation will begin in areas where mining has been completed as soon as possible
Concerning slopes, the Task Force assumes that slopes will be graded to a 4-1 ratio. The
Task Force assumes that all top soil will be stockpiled during the active mining phase,
returned to the reclaimed areas to an average depth of no less than three inches, with
native grasses and trees planted to retain the soil. In summary, reclamation will be an
ongoing process.
ISSUE 8: NOISE CONTROL: it is the position of the Task Force that Shiely will
conform to state and local noise level restrictions at all times. Furthermore, it is our
understanding that no explosives will be used at any time in the Elk River operation.
ISSUE 9: BERMS AND FENCING. It is our understanding that Shiely will not make
extensive use of berms except along a segment of County 33. This is acceptable to the
Task Force. It is our further understanding that Shiely needs to control access to much of
• its property for security and safety reasons. At the same time, area residents would like to
continue their traditional access to the property as much as possible for recreation and
nature study. It is the position of the Task Force that Shiely separate its active mining
area from non-active areas with a mesh fencing similar to that used to control access along
highways. If mining operations proceed sourthward, this arrangement would allow area
residents continued access to existing trails for a number of years, while at the same time
securing areas where active mining operations are underway.
The Task Force finds any use of barb wire to be unacceptable. Furthermore, the fence
should be not more than 4' in height so as to minimize restrictions in wildlife mobility.
The Task Force is most interested in having a small delegation meet with the Shiely
Company in the near future for the purpose of clarifying and resolving the enclosed issues.
In addition, the Task Force wishes to discuss the creation of an ongoing Advisory Group.
Please contact John Kuester at 441/4327 or Sarah Sawyer at 441/5642 to schedule this
meeting. We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
Charles Blood Mike Niziolek Sarah Sawyer
Mary Blood Noel Paukert Scott Stevenson
John Kuester Bruce Pearson Vickie Stevenson
• Greg Larson Paul Peterson
ATTACHMENT 4
row Shiely Company
2915 Waters Rd.,Suite 105
•
• Eagan,MN 55121
(612)683.0600
Fax(612)683-8108
July 18, 1994
Mr. John Kuester
19834 York Street
Elk River, Minnesota 55330
Dear Mr. Kuester:
SUBJECT: Shiely Company Mine Proposal •
Thank you very much for yours and your committee's efforts and for your time in working with
the Shiely Company on our proposal to mine in Elk River. The following is our understanding of
the resolution of the issues which were brought to our attention by your June 14, 1994 letter.
ISSUE #1 - PARKLAND DEDICATION. I am enclosing, herewith, a copy of a map which
identifies the proposed mining boundary. The mining boundary which is identified on the map is a
compromise which is intended to strike a balance between the company's important economic
interests and the preservation of a unique natural feature. Your group has expressed an interest in
• finding a way to preserve a large part of this forested area for parks purposes. In that interest, to
the extent that we can help you meet that goal while preserving the investment of our owners, we
will cooperate in every way. At this time we are willing to propose to our Board of Directors that
we dedicate 50 acres in the southwest corner of our property for parks purposes. Please see the
map for the approximate boundary of that dedication.
ISSUE #2 - HOURS OF OPERATION. It is our understanding that the neighborhood task
force is agreeable to the proposed mining and processing hours. We are proposing to operate the
mining equipment between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays. In addition we are
proposing to operate the wash plant between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays
and between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays.
ISSUE #3 - HAULING ROUTES. The Shiely Company will make a concerted effort to direct
its contract haulers onto Highway 33 and onto State Highway 169. We have had very good
success with this kind of directive at other locations and anticipate good trucker cooperation in
Elk River. Therefore, we are anticipating that greater than 90% of our truck traffic will go east
on 33 to 169. The only truck traffic that would not follow that route would be for deliveries to
local construction jobs. Those deliveries will follow the best access routes to the particular
construction site.
ISSUE #4 - DUST CONTROL. Dust control will be accomplished primarily by the use of
• conveyor belts for transferring material, but also by the use of watering equipment. We are very
CELEBRATING
YEA ILS! Quality Construction Materials
I\lr. John Kuester
July 18, 19941
• Page 2
comfortable that the control methods used in the mine along with annual reclamation of exposed
surfaces and including the significant forested buffer between the mine and existing residential
properties will be very effective at controlling dust.
ISSUE #5 - WATER TABLE AND WELL MONITORING. It is very important to the
residential neighborhoods and the Shiely Company that we establish existing conditions and that
we monitor the impact of our mining on the ground water. We propose to employ the city's
consulting hydrogeologist for the purpose of developing a monitoring plan. This plan would be
subject to a review by the city and the neighborhood group and, of course, the Shiely Company.
This monitoring program will monitor water quality and water depth and will provide assurance
for the residential neighborhoods that their wells will be protected and will provide a data base for.
the Shiely Company in the event that there is any claim against the company for well damage.
With this monitoring program and with the implementation of the company's pollution prevention
plan at Elk River, I am confident that we can operate this mine in a way which does not damage
nearby residential wells.
ISSUE #6 - MINING DIRECTION. We agree that mining will proceed from the north and
work towards the south on this property.
i ISSUE #7 - RECLAMATION AND SLOPES. The Shiely Company will reclaim approximately
80% of the previous year's mining each year. The unreclaimed portion of the property is
necessary for internal roads, conveyor belt alignment, material storage, etc. The company's
reclamation will include grading slopes to a minimum of four to one and topsoiling and seeding.
All the topsoil that currently exists on this property will be saved. It will be spread to the
thickness that is currently existing. We are uncertain if there is currently three inches of topsoil on
portions of this property.
ISSUE #8 - NOISE CONTROL. The Shiely Company will conform to State and Local noise
control restrictions at all times. Furthermore, it is the company's track record at other locations,
and expressed goal, to perform at levels far better than the State requirements. We are very
confident that we can operate this facility in a manner which is very compatible in this regard.
ISSUE #9 - BERMS AND FENCING. The only berming that appears to be necessary is along
the north edge of our southerly property. We do propose to construct a landscape feature along
the south side of Highway 33 beneath the power lines. This berm will be constructed high enough
to obstruct view into the mine from traffic on Highway 33. Fencing is an important issue for
security and safety reasons. We have agreed that the company will construct a four foot fence
made up of woven wire on the bottom with a single strand of non-barbed wire along the top. This
fence would be constructed at the limits of the proposed excavation. Please refer to the enclosed
map for the line which designates the proposed mine face and fence line.
•
•
•
Mr. John Kuster
July 18, 199=}
•
Page 3
Thanks again for your efforts to date. We believe that our dialogue to this point has most
certainly been constructive and beneficial. We believe that the points of agreement listed above
are good exarnplesof the results of good communication which comes from active invol, ;.ment on
your part with our operations and on our part with your neighborhood. I lo..k forwar..
continuing this dialogue.
Since(ely;
Jonathan J. Vi ilmshurst -
Vice President, General Manager
/da
c: Mike Niziolek
B uce_Eear'.s
Sarah Sawyer
i
•
•
• -"; ,,,,,,- „ ._, ,,-; , ,„:-.-„,,,___..,-;-,..-__-,..,.,,,,.R ------77- '''',':.: c'''' ,;;.;,'
' .:at ' ' ` -Q ., " ,,_ , -:,-;., ;. .....: ,,,:e .;;_..._________:... ,
,,../;-,--4„ Rp . b -,:i 7.. ''-:• ',,N> ,r• ..:?:•.f. -'"--:-
'-% ' \ '' 'j 99 . ---, ,p,,,,,;,''.: / ,' , .:..\-,;,;:_. --;,:
•
r,
. , a,: C, ; i ‘ •---
.: ;„11: c„, q, ° I,
i ,...., ,,,-7:, ,:1'
;.? ifp , , : ...... /'/1 7 .....:'........ ;:.... ..rir,I. 11111111411H... ...-: ,/...„,,,,,o,...;H: '' `, , ,. , .
/
f_ --:.- ==1] -- ' , 200`0-2004 A '
� ,fie O� '
•. �
+ :L ;�.
11
• 5 �. ''e
'
—0
ii
;� - % " / `, ` 2PHASE,3;:.._
,
�,, ' ; , 005' 011 ,
- o ---- -'
Ili 1
I :. _,...
6i�ii Ii ` ■mini ainmi itri■n■uii ■i�itai���i��z■■KanrtriE[irz711,Yiisuiai■1
€5 A
•
SHIELY COMPANY - ELK RIVER PLANT , ,;;; ,;; R' =aK,: \ PREPARED FOP,
MINE PHASING Y�.,
1 T '6 f.'' SHIELY COMPANY
+ ��1A� ' ID16 YI4TL{!ROAD sum 105
EAGAN.1.5ESOTA
ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA ,.12)"34.0
ATTACHMENT 5
August 15, 1994
Elk River Planning Commission
Elk River City Hall
Elk River, MN 55330
Dear Commission;
SUBJECT: Shiely Company Mine Proposal
The following are the concerns we, the residents of Greenhead II and III, have with the
request by Shiely Company for a conditional use permit to mine gravel south of county
road 33 and east of Watson Street. We are hopeful that this request will not be granted
and life as we know it in this area of Elk River will remain the same tomorrow as it is
today.
ISSUE #1 - SAFETY ON COUNTY ROAD 33. The traffic count on this road compared
to the traffic count when Shiely Company purchased this land some years back has
increased greatly, from some 50 cars per day to an estimated 1600 cars per day. We
can only assume that this traffic load will only increase over the next 15 - 20 years.
The proposed entrance by slow moving gravel trucks to Co. 33 is and will remain a
• hazard to the amount of traffic and inherent nature of road this is. With the close
proximity to the intersection of Co. 77, Proctor Ave., we do not believe the safety issue
concerning this can be corrected without a complete change in this section of road. Elk
River School District has at least 5 school buses that travel this road on a daily basis,
and we would hope the safety of our children will be considered when making this
decision and no conditional use permit granted until this road has been improved to
accommodate the current and future traffic in addition to the slower and larger vehicles
which will result from the mining operation.
ISSUE #2 - HOURS OF OPERATION. Shiely Company is requesting, should a
conditional use permit be granted, that their hours of operation be between 7:00 a.m.
and 7:00 p.m. weekdays. In addition they are proposing to operate their wash plant
and the sale of product between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and between
6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. While these hours may be acceptable for a
commercial nonresidential area it is not acceptable for an area zoned for residential
lots. We are convinced that whatever business hours Shiely would propose, gravel
trucks will begin entering the mine area from 30 to 60 minutes before scheduled
opening. Before a conditional use permit is granted these hours must be scrutinized.
•
Elk River Planning Commission
August 15, 1994
• Page 2
ISSUE #3 - DUST AND NOISE POLLUTION. Another major concern is the decrease in
quality of life from noise and dust pollution resulting from a gravel mining operation,
should a conditional use permit be granted. There are approximately 30 families that
are from 1/10 of a mile to 1/4 of a mile from this proposed mining area. The problem of
pollution must be addressed and all conditions met so as not to sacrifice the quality of
life that we currently enjoy.
ISSUE #4 - WATER QUALITY AND WATER TABLE MONITORING. It is of the utmost
importance that the quality and quantity of the residential water supply not be sacrificed
by contaminants used in connection with the mining of gravel or the use of equipment
used in the mining. We request that all conditions be outlined and approved by the
EPA prior to any consideration of a conditional use permit.
ISSUE #5 - CURRENT NATURAL LANDSCAPE. It is important to the residents of this
area of Elk River that the natural beauty of the landscape not be disturbed. All that
need be done is for you to evaluate the conditions of the landscape of another gravel
company east of Proctor and adjacent to a residential area.
• ISSUE # 6 - PROPERTY VALUES. Over the last 5 years the city of Elk River has
experienced a great property value increase which has resulted in increased tax
revenue to the city. It is our belief that this proposed mining operation will result in
lower property values and, as a consequence, reduced property tax revenue. Can the
city of Elk River afford the devaluation of 100 plus homes during a period of growth and
expansion? We, as concerned taxpayers and voters, don't believe so.
As you evaluate the request for this conditional use permit we would hope that the
needs and concerns of Elk River residents would outweigh that of a negligible
economic impact to the Elk River area. That the safety, health, quality of life and
property investment not be sacrificed for the benefit of one company contributing little
or no economic benefit to the city of Elk River or its residents.
We acknowledge the investment the Shiely Company has made in this land. However
this investment was made approximately 20 years ago and the city of Elk River made a
decision to zone this area as residential. With this in mind, we concerned residents of
Greenhead II and III, request that the city maintain their posture and not grant the
conditional use permit.
• Prepared by Concerned Residents of Greanhead Acres II & III
08/23/94 15:56 FAX 612 441 2264 SHERBURNE CO HWY 2001
1111
S/ierfiurn1e county
omiNIX :
Sig/iwayDepartment
re al III.
P.O. BOX 338 • ELK RIVER,MN 55330 • PHONE(612)441-1722 • FAX(612)441-2264
August 23, 1994
Steve Rohlf
P.O. Box 490
13065 Orono Parkway
Elk River, MN 55330
RE: County Highway 33, Shiely Conditional Use Permit
Dear Mr.Rohlf: •
In response to restricting use of County Highway 33 from use by heavy commercial traffic. The
County System of Highways in general is to provide access to residential and commercial traffic.
Our road system must function to provide the safest and most economical movement of people,
• goods and services. Restricting this activity would be reason to restrict other legitimate
transportation in many other areas of the county. The best we can do is to minimize the impact
with proven safety design methods already discussed (ie. direct truck traffic directly to TH 169 via
County Highway 33, an improved access to County Highway 33, an acceleration lane, proper
signing and ongoing monitoring to implement additional safety improvements.
Sincerely,
David R. Schwarting, P.E.
County Engineer
•