The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-10-21 PACKET 08.C.F2EQUEST OF CITY COURICIL AC710N CClUNCEL. AGENDA MEE76NG lTEIV( # DAl"E 9 0/21 /98 8 • �- ° PREPARED BY Community Development iCim Lindquist ORIGINATlNG DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR ffi4�.»�.�.tsa..«�..�«.ae..s.�d�..�m��¢:k.«»«��.�. COUNClL ACTION REQUEST: Adopt a resolufiion approving CAMAS Minnesota, Inc.'§ 1998 Mining Permit to excavate and process aggregate material at 11250 Grey Cloud'frail South. � � , �. :s r � • � . � �- �, � ,- • �. ►� . .. _ :. ■-- � ■- .- ■ •�= � • • . • ■ • - ■ •• • . .- ■ REVIEWED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ � a. � i � �jt .�� . � �.• ��•�� :• � •• •.��• � � �i �i �. .� ��. � ��. � i'# , Pd/A ACTUALAMOUNT APPROVED � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ DENIED 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ �N�INEERIPJ RE N ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: � OTHER: 1. Excerpt from the unapproved minutes of the September 28, 1998, Pfanning Commission meeting 2. 5taff Report and exhibits �r i^ i Gity Administrator �' ��@<m��.��aa��««�m�m.a�.��.a��..� ��11t4GiL �C7'60P! �'AE4�N: ❑ APPR(7VE� [� �E�i�� 0 o�r��a F:ICsRG6JPSiP L4NIV I IV G\7 998\C IYYCOUN iNiP9&35cover-ecYll.dcrc MEMORANDUM T0: Honorable Mayor and Council Members Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator FROM: John McCool, Senior Planner DATE: October 13, 1998 RE: CAMAS Minnesota, inc. —1998 Mining Permit INTRODUCTION CAMAS Minnesota, Inc. has applied for their 1998 Mining Permit for the Nelson Mine at 11250 Grey Cloud Trail. The applicant has been mining this year and estimates that approximately 1.4 miliion tons of aggregate material will be mined and processed. Active mining operations will occupy approximately 15 acres of land and the dredge wili operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week :7tT� 3:( e 3: Z� 1 � 1� I� 7 J. L. Shiely Company has been mining sand and gravel on Lower Grey Cioud island since 1953. In 1966, the sand and gravel deposit was calculated to provide 37 years of sand and gravel operations. This supply was based on an aggregate production rate of 1.5 million tons per year, beginning in 1966. CAMAS estimates that mining will continue in the area zoned for mining until 2030 or 2040. This is only an app�oximation since mining is subject to market trends, geologic variations, and natural resource reserves. Even though mining sand and gravel from beneath the Mississippi River is not part of CAMAS's 1998 Mining Permit application, CAMAS has been working on a variety of environmental studies relative to this future proposal. These studies wi�l be used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Environmentat Impact Statement (EIS) for the river mining project. The City has not made any commitments to approve dredging operations within the river. In fact, previous approvals expressly prohibit mining in the river. DlSCUSSION The applicant has provided a written narrative describing the 1998 mining operations. Highlighted in the NeBson Mine Plan is the operation of the dredge for 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Approximately 95 percent of the aggregate material mined and processed at this site is Mayor, Council Members & Schroeder CAMAS Mining October 13, 1998 Page 2 transported by barge up the Mississippi River to distribution yards in St. Paul and Minneapolis. The other five-percent is transported by truck. This year's mining activity included the stripping of approximately 50,000 cubic yards of topsoil and overburden. This material was used along the east slope of the rnined area for purposes of reclamation. The applicanYs 1998 Reciamation Plan does not propose the planting of any tree seediings. Their proposal not to plant more trees this year is based on the premise that they planted 1,823 tree seedlings in 1997, which exceeded the 1,250 tree seedlings requirement approved in the 1997 Mining Permit. Planning staff does not agree that the number of seedlings planted in 1997 should compensate for hvo years' worth of plantings. The Planning Commission concuRed with staff's recommendation that 500 new seedlings should be installed as a condition of approvai for the 1998 permit. Due to the lateness in the year, planting of these trees may not occur until next year. The Pla�ning Commission was also receptive to the idea of requiring a fewer tree seedlings (less than two-feet in height) as long as the nursery stock is larger in size and planting fewer coniferous varieties in order to reintroduce native trees and shrubs. At the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant objected to the recommended condition that they pay a proportionate share in the cost of maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of roads, highways, streets, or bridges along aii designated haul routes. It was their opinion that they already pay a gravei tax to Washington County whereby this money is suppose to be used for road improvements. CAMAS suggested that the form�la (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 298.75) dispersing this money to communities be re�valuated so that the City wnuld get more money. The Planning Commission acknowledged that the aforementioned condition may not be necessary since a public improvement process involving the publication of a public hearing, preparation of a feasibility report, and notices mailed to affected property owners wiil have to foliowed anyway. The Commission decided to leave this issue as a condition of approval because it simply puts the applicant on notice that this may possibly happen. RECOMMENDATON The Ciry Council is requested to adopt a resolution approving the 1998 Mining Permit for CAMAS Minnesota, Inc. The attached draft resolution was prepared in accordance to the recommendations made by the Pianning Commission. G:W IANNING\19981CITYCOUNC\V93360CT21 MEM RESOLUTION NO. 98-XXX RESOLUTION APPROVlNG THE 1998 MlNING PERMIT FOR CAMAS MINNESOTA, INC. WHEREAS, CAMAS Minnesota, Inc. has made application for their annual mining permit to excavate and process aggregate materiai on the property legaily described as: NE'h, SE %a, Section 31, Township 27, Range 21, South along Grey Cioud Trail W%h, SE Y,, Section 31, Tow�ship 27, Range 21 E'r4, NE'/., NW %., Section 31, Township 27, Range 21, South along Grey Cloud Trail W'r4, NE'/., NW'/,, Section 31, Township 27, Range 21, South along Grey Cloud Trail NW'/., NW'/., Section 31, Township 27, Range 21 S fh, NW'/., Section 31, Township 27, Range 21 E%z, SW'/., Section 31, Township 27, Range 21 Lot 1, Section 31, Township 27, Range 21 N%:, NE'/., Section 36, Township 27, Range 22 S'/�, NE'/., Section 36, Township 27, Range 22 N f,, SE'/., Section 36, Township 27, Range 22 �ot 2, Section 36, Township 27, Range 22 Lot 3, Section 36, Township 27, Range 22 SE'/+, SW'/., Section 25, Township 27, Range 22 NE'/., NW Y., Section 36, Township 27, Range 22 S%z, NW'/+, Section 36, Township 27, Range 22 NW'/<, SW'/., Section 36, Township 27, Range 22 N'/z, SW'/a, SW'/., Section 25, Township 27, Range 22 S'/s, SW'/+, SW Y+, Section 25, Township 27, Range 22 NW'/<, NW'/<, Section 36, Township 27, Range 22 NW'/., SW'/+, Section 36, Township 27, Range 22 N'/s, NE'/., Section 35, Township 27, Range 22 S h, NE'/., Section 35, Township 27, Range 22 SE'/., SE'/., Section 26, Township 27, Range 22 Lot 5, Section 35, Township 27, Range 22 Lot 3, Section 6, Township 26, Range 21 lot 2, Section 6, Township 26, Range 21 Lot 1, Section 6, Township 26, Range 21 N'/:, NW'/., Section 5, Township 26, Range 21 Lot 4, Section 5, Township 26, Range 21 Lot 3, Section 5, Township 26, Range 21 N h, NE'/+, Section 5, Township 26, Range 21 Resolution No. 98-XXX October2l, 1998 Page 2 �ot 2, Section 5, Township 26, Range 21 Lot 1, Section 5, Township 26, Range 21 Lot 1, Section 4, Township 26, Range 21 NE'/., SW'/,, Section 36, Township 27, Range 22 Lot 5, Section 35, Township 27, Range 22 WHEREAS, the appiicant proposes to continue mining activities and operation at property Iocated at 11250 Grey Cloud Trail South; and WHEREAS, the applicant intends to mine and process approximately 1.4 million tons of aggregate material in 1998; and WHEREAS, a notice of application was mailed to neighboring property owners informing them of the date and time the Planning Commission was scheduled to review said appiication; and WHEREAS, the application requests a variance to the standards of the sand and gravel ordinance to allow 24-hour operation seven days a week; and WHEREAS, blasting, dewatering, stripping of overburdenitopsoil, screening, and crushing operations are not proposed; and WHEREAS, legai counsei representing the Schilling estate stated that they want the processing piant and conveyor system retocated from the west half of the island because they have a residential developer interested in developing a portion of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council for the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, approves the request by CAMAS Minnesota, Inc. for a mining permit ending January 31, 1999, and grants a variance to the standards of the sand and gravel ordinance that 4he extended hours of operation are not in conflict with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Reclamation Plan and shail nof cause any adverse impact to pubiic health, safety, or general welfare, subject to the following conditions: 1. The provisions as stipulated in Chapter 20, Sand and Gravei Ordinance, except as modified, below shail be complied with. 2. The appiicant is responsibie for removing any spilled materials that may have spiiled onto any public roadway. This material shaii be cieaned up immediately. 3. The outer edge of mining limits abutting public right-of-way or private property shall not be Goser than 100 feet to any right-of-way or property line. 4. Approval of the 1998 Mining Permit does not imply approval to mine outside of the required 200-foot setback from the Mississippi River or within the river itself. 5. No bituminous/asphalt material shall be buried on the premises. Bituminous/asphalt, concrete, and street sweepings originating within the geographical boundaries of Cottage Grove may be temporarily stockpiled on the site for processing (e.g, crushing, screening, etc.) andlor reuse. Resolution No. 9&XXX October21, 1998 Page 3 6. The appiicant may operate the mining operation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Upan notification by neighboring residents that the night-time operations (i.e. between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.) are disturbing, the applicant agrees to voluntarily cease operation during night-time hours untiF such time the noise sourc,e is identified and appropriate corrections are made. 7. All trees along the east boundary line (Phase 3 as shown on the Neison Mine -1998 Mine Plan) of the mine site shali remain undisturbed. 8. CAMAS will pay its proportionate share in the cost of maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of roads, highways, street, or bridges along all designated haul routes. 9. A minimum of 500 tree seedlings having a minimum height of 24 inches shail be planted throughout the reGaimed areas of the mine. Passed the 21st day of October, 1998. John D. Denzer, Mayor Attest: Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk . � � � � . ■ • • . . ,, PUBLIC MEETING DATE: 9/28/98 TENTATIVE COUNCIL REVIEW DATE: 10f21/98 APPLICATION APPLICANT: CAMAS Minnesota, Inc. (formeriy Shiely Company) REQUEST: 1998 Mining Permit SITE DATA LOCATION: ZONING: CONTIGUOUS LAND USE: SIZE: � 11250 Grey Cioud Trail South I-4, Commercial Excavation District NORTH: Mooers Lake EAST: Rural Residential SOUTH: Mississippi River WEST: Mississippi River Land area = approximately 1,300 acres Mining area = approximately 15 acres � • � t � Approvai subject to the conditions stipulated in this staff report. � � .� . � � � F:\GROUPS�PLANNING\19981PCREPORIIFAP9&36 cover.doc PLANNING STAFF REPORT CASE NO. MP98-36 SEPTEMBER 21, 1998 .•. CAMAS Minnesota, Ina (formally known as J. L. Shiely Company) has submitted an application for their 1998 Mining Permit for the Nelson Mine at 11250 Grey Cloud Trail. The applicant has been mining this year and estimates that approximately 1.4 miilion tons of aggregate material will be mined and processed. The dredge operates in an area approwmately 'I5 acres in size at its cuRent location and at a depth of about 70 feet The appiicant proposes to operate the dredge 24 hours Monday through Friday. Attached is a copy of the 1998 Neison Mine Plan (F�chibit A) and Reclamation Pian (Exhibit B) as prepared by the appticant. BACKGROUND The earliest subsurface explorations were done in 1944. Test holes and exploratory 'YesY' pits were dug between the years 1944 and 1952. In January 1950, the Shillings (property owner) entered into a lease agreement with the J. L. Shiely Company. Supplementa� Iease agreements were signed in the years 1950, 1953, 1960 and 1971. The supplemental leases add land or adjust the royaity, but do not adjust the tertn of the iease. J. l. Shiely Company has been mining sand and gravel on Lower Grey Cloud island since 1953. In 1966, the sand and gravei deposit was caiculated to provide 37 years of sand and gravel operations. This supply was based on an aggregate production rate of 1.5 million tons per year, beginning in 1966. CAMAS estimates that mining wiil continue in the area zoned for mining until 2030 or 2040. This is only an approwmation since mining is subjed to market trends, geologic variations, and mineabie reserves. F�chibit C is a chart showing a historic perspective of mining operations at the Neison Piant. Even though the idea of mining sand and grave� from beneath the Mississippi River is not part of CAMAS's 1998 Mining Permit application, CAMAS has been working on a variety of environmental studies relative to this future proposal. These studies will be used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EAW} and Environmenta! ImpacE Statement (EIS) for the river mining project. The EAW and EIS process couid take 1-%= to 2 years to compiete. According to the Environmental Quality Board rules, the City of Cottage Grove is designated as the Responsibie Govemmental Unit (RGU) and is responsible for the preparation and review of the environmentai documents. The City has not made commitments to approve the dredging operation within the River. in fact, previous approvals expressiy prohibit mining in the river. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1998 Mining Plan The applicant has provided a written narrative describing the 1998 mining operations. Highlighted in the Nelson Mine Plan is the operation of the dredge that operates 24 hours per day, five days per week The dredge was equipped with sound absorbing equipment in 1996. Approximatety 95 percent of the aggregate material mined and processed at this site are transported by barge up the Mississippi River to the distribution yards in St Paul and Minneapolis. The other 5 percent are transported by truck on Grey Cioud Trail to 103'� Street to Hadiey Avenue to 100"' Street to Jamaica Avenue and then to T.H. 10/61. Planning Staff Report Case No. MP98-36 September 28, 1998 Page 2 Clear-cutting of trees and shnrbs is not proposed during the 1998 season. Stripping of topsoil material and overburden consists of approwmately 50,000 cubic yards. Loaders and scrapers will be used to remove this material. The average depth of topsoil is about 2 feet and oveeburden is about 3 feet. This materiai will be placed at the reGamation area located along the easteriy slope of the pit area. The 1998 Mining Plan does not propose any removal of trees w shrubs nor propose any mining beneath the Mississippi River. Clamshell Dredge The twin-Gamsheli dredge at the Nelson Mining Plant is one of the largest machines of its type. The dredge is a 100' X 100' X 60' high floating dredge that weighs approximately 550 tons. Assembly of the dredge was completed i� 1995 and is used to reach sand reserves below the water table near the Mississippi River. its four primary functions are (1) desanding; (2} high production; (3) on-board crushing; and (4) sand recovery. its desanding capability allows the operator to reclaim up to 400 tons of sand per hour without unnecessary rehandling. The Nelson dredge can mine 1,200 tons of aggregate material per hour at 60 feet below the water tabie. Conveyor System The conveyor system (both land and floating) was installed the same time 4he floating dredge was assembled in 1995. The conveyor system is about 10,000 feet long and carries mined aggregate material from the floating dredge to the processing plant. Trucks and similar heavy equipment are no longer needed to transport the raw aggregate material to the processing plant. CAMAS still proposes to use the conveyor system for transparting sand and gravel. Processing Plant The plant office, barge loading facility, processing plant, and processed aggregate stockpiles are located along the west bank of Lower Grey Cioud Island. These facilities have existed at this location since mining operations started on the island. The property owner has requested that CAMAS relocate the processing planUbarge loading faciiity to some other location on the island so they could develop the westem portion of the isiand. CAMAS presently objects to the request imposed by the property owner and has no plans to relocate these facilities any Ume in the near future. Reclamafion Plan The appiicanYs 1998 Mine Plan references the planting of '1,823 tree seediings in 1997. Due to the number of seediings planted, they do not propose pianting tree seedlings this year, but wili resume tree planting in 1999. A brief history of the tree-planting requirement shows that the number of seediings required as part of the reclamation has been between 900 to 1,100. The planting of 1,823 seedlings in 1997, while exceeding the average requirement, in staff's opinion, does no! compensate for two years worth of plantings. Therefore, staff is recommending 4hat 500 new seediings be instailed as a condition of approvai of the 1998 permit. It is recognized that the piantings may not occur untii 1999 due to the lateness in the year. Staff would like direction from the Commission regarding the idea of reciamation and foresting of some reclamation areas. Currently, CAMAS plants a large amount of small seedlings to begin forestation of the island. These pla�tings are grouped although are not necessarily located consistent with the "future use° of the island. Therefore many of the plantings may be lost to the future isiand use whether that be for park purposes or for residential development. Staff would Iike to explore with Planning Staff Report Case No. MP98-36 September 28, 1998 Page 3 CAMAS the idea of developing an overail landscaping concept for the island, which would include areas for forestation and also areas reclaimed as prairie. This wouid aliow CAMAS to more accurately target tree plantings. If the Commission and Council felt this approach had merit, staff wouid advocate planting Iess trees each year but increasing the size of the plantings. Additionally, native trees and shrubs would be reintroduced into the reGamation areas and there wouid be less coniferous plantings. ReGamation during 1998 pertained to a 6-acre area located along the east bank of the pit area (along the west side of Grey Cloud Traii). The slope of this embankment was covered with topsoil and fertilized. A MNDOT grass seed mixture was then applied to this area. A detailed map showing this area is attached as Exhibit D. Informafion Meeting Notice A public meeting notice conceming CAMAS's mining permit application was mailed to property owners neighboring the Nelson mine. A location map and the 1998 Mine Plan were aiso inciuded. They were advised that this application wouid be on the agenda for the Pianning Commission's September meeting. If they were unable to attend this meeUng, they were weicome to submit a written statement. Gravei Tax By State law, CAMAS is required to file a qua�teriy report and pay an "aggregate material tax° to Washington County on the amount of aggregate materiai removed and transported from the site. When ali the money has been collected for the aggregate gravel tax within Washington County, the County auditor prepares a report to the County Board. The Board then authorizes a percentage of f�nds to be retumed to those communities having mining operations. The County retains the largest percentage of the gravel tax for county roads and bridges. The amount retumed to local jurisdictions can be placed in the general fund or other designated fund of those cities determined by the county board to be expended for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of roads, highway and bridges. A small percentage of this money is piaced in a special reserve fund by the county for the restoration of abandoned pits, quarries, or deposits located upon pubiic or tax forteited lands within the county. For 1996, the City of Cottage Grove received approximately $11,240.00 from the County in gravei tax money. Due to the amount of truck traffic using Iocal streets and the smali amount of money aliocated to City street maintenance through the gravel tax, CAMAS should be aware the City wili be expecting financial participation in street improvements along the haul routes. RECOMMENQATION The Planning Staff recommends approval of the 1998 Mining Pertnit for CAMAS Minnesota, inc., subject to the following conditions: 1) The provisions as stipulated in Chapter 20, Sand and Gravel Ordinance, except as modified, below shall be compiied with. 2) The applicant is responsible for removing any spilied materials that may have spilled onto any public roadway, This material shaii be cleaned up immediately. Planning Staff Report Case No. MP98-36 September 28, 1998 Page 4 3} The outer edge of mining limits abutting public right-of-way or private property shall not be Goser than 100 feet to any right-of-way or property Iine. 4) Approval of the 1998 Mining Permk does not imply approval to mine outside of the required 206�foot setback from the Mississippi River or within the river itself. 5) No bituminous/asphalt material shali be buried on the premises. Bituminouslasphalt, concrete, and street sweepings originating within the geographical boundaries of Cottage Grove may be temporarity stockpiled on the site for processing (e.g. crushing, screening, etc.) and/or reuse. 6) The applicant may operate the mining operation 24 hours a day, 5 days a week. Upon notification by neighboring residents that the night-time operations (i.e. between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.} are disturbing, the appiicant agrees to voluntarily cease operation during night-time hours until such time the noise source is identified and appropriate corrections are made. 7) AII trees along the east boundary line (Phase 3 as shown on the Nelson Mine -1998 Mine Plan) of the mine site shali remain �ndisturbed. 8) CAMAS will pay its proportionate share in the cost of maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of roads, highways, street, or bridges along ali designated haul routes. Prepared by: John McCool, AICP Senior Planner Attachments: Location Map Exhibit A —1998 Mine Plan Exhibit B —1998 Reciamation Plan Exhibit C — Historic Perspectives Exhibit D-1998 Siope Restoration Plan Exhibit E— Letter to Bob Bieraugel � s � � � City of �ottage Grove Annual Mining Permit Application 2. 3 Case No.: � Fee: Rcvd by: Rcpt. #: Mining Operator: CAMAS Minnesota. Inc. (formerlv known as J.L Shielv Companv) Phone:683-0600 Address: 2915 Water Road Suite 105, EaQan. M?� 5� 121 Mine Owner: PAS Associates. LTD. C/O Pau] K. Schilline Phone: 4�9-b71 Address: 12085 South Grev Cloud Island Drive. Cottaee Grove. MN 5�016 Legal Description of Property: Please see attached Nairative 4. Attach all information as required by Chapter 30-5 of the City Code (See Exhibits A, attached). l� Copies are required. For renewal applications, supply all proposed chan�es to approved reclamation plans as applicable. �. Check amount of material to be removed durin� permit year and attached. ❑ 100,000 tons or less fee: $250.00 ❑ More than 100,000 tons fee: $�00.00 6. Attach Certificate of Insurance. Minimum amounts of insurance shall be as proyided by Chapter 20-10 (see E�hibit,B, Attached) 7. Acknowledgment and signature; The undersigned hereb}' represents upon all of the penalCies of the law, Por the purpose of inducing the Ciry of Cottage Grove to grant an Annual Mining Permit, thaC all statements are true and that all �vork �vill be done in accordance with the ordinance of the Ciry of Cotta�e Grove and the laws of the State of Minnesota. CA�SP By �� Date � City of Cottage Grove Annual Mining Permit Application — Page 2 8. Acknowledgment and signature: Paul K. Schilling on behalf of PAS Associates Limited, the property owner, hereby consents to the mine plan of operation for the year 1998 as represented by CAMAS Minnesota, Inc. with the exception of the failure by the mine operator to, on or before the year 2000, relocate the existing mine processing plant in the northwesterly portion of Lower Grey Cloud Island and with the additional requirements that the mine plant and conveyor area be stored in conformity with the reclamation contour plan required by the Cottage Grove City Code; the submission of a plant and conveyor area reclamation pIan witn tl�e. 1998 permit appiication; and that on or before December 1, 1998, the � mine operator shall submit the applications for permits to r�lqcate the m.ne � processing piant to the island azea where 1998 operations are shoyvn on the mine plan exhibit prepared by CANIAS Minnesota, Inc. dated June 7, 1998. PAS ASSOCIATES LIMITED By ��'_'I g �\��GB Date Addendum 9. CAMAS Minnesota, Ine. ("CAMAS"), as the lessee/operator of the mining plan2, objects to the property owner's exceptions set for�h in the third line of para�raph 8 above beginning with the language "with the excepCion of�. CAMAS reserves al1 rights with respect to all of such esceptions, includine without limitation its position that plant reiocation by the year 2000 is not a tegal obligation of CAMAS under the goveming Lease or otherwise. CAMf B�: � /7��' Datz osilaisa ii:l8 Fag siz ��a eaea . � �^; � •` City o� Cottage Crrove ,Annual Mining Permit Application - page 2 at:v�nnn — 0 � ) 8. Acknowl�dgement and signature: Paul K Schilling on behalf of PAS Associa[es Limited, the property owner, hereby coasents to the mine plan of operadon for the yeaz 1998 as represeated by Camas Minnesota, Inc. with the excepcion of the failure by the mine operator to, on or before the yeaz 2000, relocate the existing mine processing pIant in the nor[hwesterly portion of I,owez Grey Cloud Island and with che addiaonai requirements that the mine plant and conveyor azea be zestored in conforrniry witfi the recIamation contour pian requized by [he Cottage Grove City Code; the submission of a plant and conveyor area reclamacion plan with the 1998 permit application; and that on or before December 1, 1998, the mine operator Shall submit the applications for permits, to relocate the miae processing pianc to the island azea where'�9�8 mining openuons aze shown on tt,e mine plant exhibit prepazed by Camas Minnesoca, Inc. dated June 7, 1998. PAS ASSOCIATES LIMITED ay: (�v.�--�� —XX�--� � / I Z � ` C� Paui K Schilling � Da� � lIa143258 6ltON8 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1998 Nelson Mine Plan — Ordinance and Response 1998 Mine Plan ........................................................................... NelsonAerial Photo .................................................................... Bond-Ciry of Cottage Grove ........................................................ Certificate of Insurance ................................................................ 1998 Reclamation Contour Plan ...................................... E�ibit A E�chibit B E�thibit C E�ibit D E�ibit E 1998 MII�IE PLAN ORDINANCE AND RESPONSE (a) Ordinance: The name and address of the applicant and of the owner of the land. Response: �perator- CAMAS Minnesota, Inc. 2915 Waters Road, Suite 105 Eagan, MN 55121 Landowner- PAS % Paul K. Schilling 12085 South Grey Cloud Trail Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (b) Ordinance: A legal description of the lands from which it is proposed to mine. Response: NE '/a, SE 1/4, Secrion 31, Township 27, Range 21, South along Grey Cloud Trail W'/Z, SE '/<, Section 31, Township 27, Range 21 E'/z, NE '/e, NW '/<, Section 31, Township 27, Range 21, South along Grey Cloud Trail W1/2, NEI/4, NW '/<, Section 31, Township 27, Range 21, South along Grey Cloud Trail NW '/,, NW '/<, Section 31, Township 27, Range 21 S%z, NW '/a, Section 31, Township 27, Range 21 E%z, SW'/<, Section 31, Township 27, Range 21 Lot 1, Section 31, Township 27, Range 21 N%z, NE '/<, Section 36, Township 27, Range 22 S%Z, NE Y,, Section 36, Township 27, Range 22 N%z, SE'/<, Section 36, Township 27, Range 22 Lot 2, Section 36, Township 27, Range 22 Lot 3, Section 36, Township 2�, Range 22 SE Y<, SW '/<, Section 25, Township 27, Range 22 NE'/<, NW '/,, Section 36, Township 27, Range 22 S'/z, NW Y<, Section 36, Township 27, Range 22 NW '/<, SW %<, Section 36, Township 27, Range 22 N%2, SW'/<, SW'/<, Section 25, Township 27, Range 22 S'/�, SW'/<, SW,'/., Section 25, Township 27, Range 22 NW '/<, NW '/., Section 36, Township 27, Range 22 NW '/<, SW %<, Section 36, Township 27, Range 22 N'/�, NE'/<, Section 35, Township 27, Range 22 S'/z, NE '/<, Section 35, Township 27, Range 22 Se'/<, SE'/<, Section 26, Township 27, Range 22 Lot 5, Section 35, Township 27, Range 22 Lot 3, Section 6, Township 26, Range 21 Lot 2, Section 6, Township 26, Range 21 Lot l, Section 6, Township 26, Range 21 N%z, NW '/<, Section 5, Township 26, Range 21 Lot 4, Section 5, Township 26, Range 21 Lot 3, Section 5, Township 26, Range 21 N%z, NE'/,, Section 5, Township 26, Range 21 Lot 2, Section 5, Township 26, Range 21 Lot 1, Section 5, Township 26, Range 21 Lot 1, Section 4, Township 26, Range 21 NE '/< S W%< Section 36, Township 27, Range 22 Lot 5 Section 35, Township 27, Range 22 (e) Ordinance: Names of all adjacent landowners within one-half mile radius. Response: • ' Nelson Plant Neighbors Rod & Mary Betty Jean Nanette Richazd & Sharon Paul & Mary Gene & Margazet Dave & Kathy Amie & Ilene Ruth John Camp Galilee (Same as Brown} Bil] (d) Ordinance Hale Kartarik Kulvich LaChapelie Sawyer Schilling Wald Brov✓n Cazlson Schilling Appert 11701 Grey Cloud Trail South 10870 Grey Cioud Trail South 11523 Crrey Cloud Trail South 11973 Grey Cloud Trail South 10971 Grey Cloud Trail South 12085 Grey Cloud Traii South 11500 Grey Cloud Trail South 11975 Grey Cloud Trail South 12075 Grey Cloud Trail South 12075 Grey Cloud Trail 11395 Grey Cloud Trail 11975 Cney Cloud Trail South Cottage Grove St. Paul Cottage Grove Cottage Grove Cottage Grove Cottage Grove Cottage Grove Cottage Grove Cottage Grove Cottage Grove Cottage Grove Cottage Grove Christopherson 11971 Grey Cloud Trail South Cottage Grove Copies of any portions of agreements indicating the duration of any lease, if applicable. Response: On January 19, 1950, Paul A. Schilling and Ruth M. Schilling, Paul K. Schilling and Mary Schilling et al entered into a lease agreement with the J.L. Shiely Company, now known as CAMAS Minnesota, Inc., to mine sand and gravel on Lower Grey Cloud Isiand. Supplemental leases were signed in May 1950, April 1953, February 1960, and December 1971. Paragraph 12 of the original lease agreement of January 19, 1950, states: _l l .� 1 "Lessee wiil commence and thereafter prosecute, upon completion of the facilities referred to in pazagraph 9(a)(b) and (c) above, but not later than April 1, 1955, (unless such time is extended because of strikes, as provided in said paragraph 9) its operations for the production and removal of sand and gravel from the tract designated by the LESSOR and hereinafter provided, as contemplated by this LEASE, vigorously and efficiently, and with adequate plant, machinery and equipment, will continue said operations until all merchantabte sand and gravel located upon said demise premises has been fully exhausted or until this lease shall terminate as hereinaftez provided and untii all merchantable sand and gravel has been removed from the premises of lessors, covered by the terms of the lease...." The suppiemental leases add land or adjust the royalty but do not adjust the term of the lease. `) Response: CAMAS Minnesota, Inc (formerly J.L. Shiely Company) operates � the Nelson Plant to process raw material into commercial aggregates. These aggregates are then incorporated into various -� products in the Twin Cities metropolitan area; such has highways, buildin�s, ready mis concrete, asphalt etc. (e) Ordinance: The purpose of the removal. (� Ordinance: The estimated time required ro complete fhe removal. _ Response: GAMAS estimates that mining wi11 continue in the area zoned for , mining until 2030 or 2040. This is only an approximation since ' mining is subject to market trends, geologic variations, and mineable reserves. (g) Ordinance: The highways, streets or other public ways within the city upon and alon� which the materials removed shall be transported. " Response: 90% to 9�% of all products produced at the Nelson Mine are _ transported by barge up the Nlississippi River to the distribution yards in St. Paul and Minneapolis. The other 5% are transported by truck on Grey Cloud Trail to 103` east to Hadley Avenue, _ north to 100` Street then to Highway 61. (h) Ordinance: The plan of operation, includino soil processin� (any operation other than direct mining and removal), nature of ihe processing equipment, the area, depth and grade of such processing, the estimated quantity of earth deposits to be added to or removed (h-I) Ordinance: Response: (h-2) Ordinance from the premises, location of the plant, source of water, disposal of water and reuse of water. In the event that the water used in the operation of the pit, approval from the Department of Natural resources and appropriate state and federal agencies shall be obtained as to the type, location and depth of such weli and contained with such application. A sepazate map at a scale of one- inch equals two hundred feet or other scale as determined adequate by the zoning administrator, prepazed by a landscape azchitect or engineer, shall be submitted showing the following proposed activities for the permit year. Clearing operations, including a written statement describing removal and processing techniques and timing. There will be no clearing during the 1998 season. Strippin� operations, including a written statement describing depth of,soil and overburden, removal techniques and timing. Response: Stripping, will be conducted in the azea identified as Mining in 1997 — i998 on the 1998 Mine plan. The quantiry of topsoil and overburden that will be removed wiil consist of approximately 50,000 cubic yazds. Loaders and scrapers wili remove this material. The depth of topsoil averages about 2 feet and the depth of overburden averages 3 feet. The removal will be performed from the spring 1998 to late fall. (h-3) drdinance: Stockpiling operations, including topsoil and overburden stockpiles, and a written statement describing timing and simultaneous extraction and reclamation program, if any. Response: The approxunate 50,000 cubic yazds of overburden and topsoil removed in the spring and late fall of 1998 will be placed at the reclamation azea once it is removed. Once this placing of the topsoil and overburden is completed, the azea will be sloped and seeded. The seeding will take place in the late spring or fall. As depicted on the 1948 Mine Plan, a berm will be constructed as a visual barrier southeast of the existing dredging operation. (h-4) Ordinance: Extraction operations, including location of proposed drilling, blasting, loading, dewatering, proposed pit depths and cross section typical of pit azea and slope bank. (h-5) Ordinance: Transportation facilities, including proposed on-site roads, proposed bazge loading and fleeting areas, and estimated barge capacity of each azea. Response: With the underwater mining equipment, the pit dewaters between 500,000,000 and 1,OOQ000,000 gallons under Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Water Appropriation Permit #670201and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's NPDES Permit MN0001309. The monitoring reports aze submitted on a montlily basis to the MPCA and yearly to the DNR. Mining is scheduled to proceed as depicted on the 1998 Mine Plan. The dredge will continue to cazry out the mining in 1998 and into the foreseeable future. The dredge will operate in an area approximately 15-acres in size at its current location and at a depth of about 70 feet. Material will be conveyed to the processing plant where it wi(I be washed, sorted by size, and loaded onto barges. The plant is expected to produce approximately 1.4 miilion tons of aggregate this year. Response: 'I'he haul roads aze unchanged at the site. About 90% to 95% is transported by bazges. The facility can store approximately 18 bazges. The total azea of a single barge is 7,000 square feet (200' long by 3S wide) and can cazry between 1,200 to 1,300 tons. (h-6) Ordinance: Response: (h-7} Ordinance: Response: (i) Proposed sequence of extraction and reclamation by at least a ten- year interval for the projected lifetime of the proposed mining site. Refer to Exhibit A An estsmate af the total number of tons of materiai to be removed or stored on site for the permit yeaz. The plant will produce approximatelyl.4 million tons of aggregate. Ordinance: To provide for an orderly, sequential rehabilitation of ail land permitted to be excavated, and to prepare the mined land for its ultimate reuse in accordance with city plans, policies and regulations, a rectamation plan shall accompany each annual mining permit application. The reclamation plan shalt be submitted in three parts: (1) a general plan for reclamation; (2) a reclamation contour plan; and (3) a description of reclamation and materials proposed for renewal of topsoil and planting. (i-1) Qrdinance: General Plan for Reclamation. A general pian for reclamation, prepazed by a landscape architect, engineer or surveyor, drawn to a scale of 1" =200' or the scale as deternuned adequate by the zoning administrator, shall be submitted showing: a. Area and acreage of completely reclaimed land as of the date of the annual muung permit application. Response: The 1998 Mine Plan Mao depicts the reclaimed areas (141 acres) and the section being reclaimed in 1998 (6 acres). Exhibit A at i"=I200. b. Area and acreage of reclamation under way as of the date of the mining permit application. Response: The 1998 Mine Pian 1'✓Isa depicU the azea uf reclamation in 1998. c. Area and acreage proposed for reclamation during the proposed permit year. Response: The 1948 Mine Plan Maa depicts the azea of reclamation in 1998. d. Proposed finai land use and supporting facilities prepazed in the same manner as described above. Response: PAS plans on developing the property as residential estates. The original end use plans, which show three interior lakes sepazated by residential development are still applicable. The County and the State are also interested in developing a pazk on the island. (i-2) Ordinance: Reclamation Contour Plan. A reclamation contour plan of the azea to be reclaimed during the permit yeaz shall be prepazed by a landscape architect, engineer or surveyor, and drawn to a scale of I"=200' or other scale determined adequate by the zoning administrator, indicating grading and sloping of mined areas, including: a. Landform topography at 2' contour intervals. b. Specific slope banks and cross-sections of representative slopes. c. Average depth of topsoil and overburden of reclaimed landforms. �� d. Water impoundment areas, including surface acreage and elevations, public or private access and typical cross- sections. Response: Refer to Exhibit E for an illustration of the azea recently reclaimed. (i-3) Ordinance: Topsoil and replantin�plan. A general plan for replacement of topsoil and replanring during the permit year, prepazed by a landscape azchitect, or engineer, and drawn to a scale of 1"=200' or other scale determined adequate by the zoning administrator, and accompanied by a written report, shall be submitted describing the following: a. Seedbed and seed mix. b: Species, size, quantity and location of trees, shrubs and grasses. a Planting Season d. Visual Screening e. Wildlife species to be introduced, if any. f. Required topsoil fertility. Response: The number of seedlings planted in 1997 was 1,823. The species planted included 100 Colorado Spruce, 115 Red Splendor Crabapple, 220 Red Oak, 40 Norway Maple, 190 Hackberry, 170 Green Ash, 40 Scotch Siberian Pine, 400 Scotch East Anglia Pine, 153 Black Cherry, 150 White Pine, 100 Amur Maple, 45 Sugaz Maple, and 20 Black Hiils Spruce. Due to the abundance of trees planted in 1997, none will be planted this yeaz. Tree planting will resume in 1999. The 6-acre azea mentioned in section (i-2) has been sloped with topsoil and fertilized with Cenex Nitrogen/phosphorus fertilizer and then seeded with a MNDOT seed mixture. . � n .. . . � � � � �, � O �� 6 �� Z w� :� o cv ch �'� o c� o !o Z U ai ai v ai s y co ui T �ri :� � � � � ','] � � � �Q 1 `'<I � ' � .-. w ._ .p � . � � � � � � N c V- �- .� � .� � m ; a� � � o � o Z ��. 3 � � � �� C � � � � �. . N � � � ��. E- ��. t � C�:�.7 �� tl7 � Q�j �� p� . � N if�/J tU �� *- IU fn [q � S � L : Q � � � � N � � O S=f � � N � -�� L d :. q) V� � ..; � � �. i a � O � O � i t1) A >: (n <' e "' I N '_ p" � � :- �: � '� � � ��. �-,� Z L ��. �C? t(') tn O O O L? O � ? O W � N N S'') � C9 � � � <fl H N � Z ^ a a ir, °. o o co 0 0 0 a L d ": r ui co c�v � o ci o �� .. C3 Z � � � °s °� �o �r? `n o ,�� o 0 W cs <- r .- J a U r LL Q '�� . i!'J tf') tl7 (O N ..� N N e7' :`7 J Z F :��r .- .- .- r .- r � i- = o � �.��. �-:� {�� CV . M *�' .�� t0 � h W �' q� . � C3�'F I � � : O�i �' � ��. � � --. •� ��. e'� r 't"^ r Y't � V '" a — ...T' . . : � �� CAn/IAS Minnesota Nelson Mine - Area Reclaimed During 1998 - Approximately 6 Acres . . . � �, . _ . . �.,�..�� n�.�.� NoxTx �� A Cross Section one tnch equals 20� feet 7 .. . 6 300 0 300 600 Feet 0.5 0 0. 1 Miles �� City of � � ,� , Cofta e Grove � � Minnesot � � ! -- ------ _ _ _ - -- --... ..____.__ . _ __ 'S16 80th Sireet Soorh / Couage Gro�e, Minnesmo 55016 612 • 45&2800 August 28, 199$ Mr. Bob Bieraugei CAMAS Minnesota, Inc. 2915 Waters Road, Suite 105 Eagan, MN 55121 Dear Mr. Bieraugel: This letter is to discuss the status of the 1998 mining permit for CAMAS within the City of Cottage Grove. On August 17, 1998, the City received a mining permit application with the appropriate signatures — the property owner and a representative from CAMAS. However, the signature block for the owner listed several stipulations which must be met as a condifion of signing the application. Likewise, CAMAS inciuded an addendum which objected to the stipulated conditions of PAS Associates Limited. As you are aware, the city's sand and gravel ordinance requires the signatures of both the property owner and mining operator to accompany the mining application. Because both signaYures are inciuded on the appiication, the City wil� begin processing the permit request consistenf with the procedure outlined in the ordinance. Likewise, the City wili review the permit based upon the ordinance criteria and wili not necessarily recognize the additional stipulations of signing as part of the City approval process 'rf beyond the scope of the City ordinance criteria. From the planning staff perspective, resolution of the dispute alluded to in the appiication signatures is considered a separate item between CAMAS and PAS. if you have any questions,�please contact me at 458-2824. Sincerely, /// / �/ - / � / -----_ / �%' �'X% "�i`� . Kim Lindquist, AICP Community Development Director Cc Cottage Grove City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator Fob �ong, City Atiorney Paui Schiliing • Ray Haik � � �. , - : . EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER EXCERPT FROM UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 28, 1998, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 6.4 CASE MP98-36 CAMAS Minnesota, I�c. (formerly known as J.L. Shiely Company) has appiied for their annual mining permi� McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Auge opened the public hearing. Bob Bieraugel, Environmental Affairs Manager for CAMAS, stated that he takes exception to the condition of helping to pay for the roads. He stated that the staff report is very thoro�gh, but it reports that the mine operates 24 hours a day, 5 days a week. He ciarified that they operate 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, which goes back to the 1996 mining permit. The permit said 24 hours a day operation provided that the operator consult with the neighbors and if there is a problem with any part of the operation, it would be worked out or shut down. They have been operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for the past two years. He stated that their request is to change condition #6 to read 24 hours a day, 7 days a week if conditions and demand permit. Bieraugel stated that they are wiliing to work with the City on pianting the right type of trees in the right places. In 1997, they planted most of their trees on the westerly end of the westerly lake, Most of the trees were of a native species variety and the survival rate is significant. He stated that they are open to any suggestions the Commission may have about how they could better carry out the reclamation and tree planting. Bieraugel expressed their opposition to condition #8, which recommends that they pay maintenance costs for roads and bridges that customer vehicles travel on. The staff report states that in 1996, the City received $11,240 from the County, which was the City's share of the aggregate taac that the company paid to Washington County. In 1997, the company paid a total of $250,000 in aggregate taxes to Washington County for the Nelson, Larson, and the �akeland mines, and of that amount, $89,000 was directly from the Nelson operation. Out of that $89,000, the City got approximately $12,000. The aggregate tax is placed on everything they produce and seii from the mining operation. Bieraugel added that if the formula doesn't ailow enough funds to maintain the roads, then the formula should be recalculated. He reported that less than 5 percent of the totai volume of material that comes out of the Larson and Nelson piants is transported out on the road systems in the local communities. In 1997, CAMAS paid $140,000 in taxes from the Nelson mine alone to the County, the City, and the School District for municipal senrices of which they use very little. He stated that to his knowiedge no other communities impose such a tax as required in condition #8 and would impose an unfair competitive disadvantage on their company. Sawyer asked if they thought about starting a nursery where they concentrate it with mulch and water to get the t�ees developed and then move them after land uses for the area are determined. Bieraugel stated that they would give this some tnought. He further stated that unless an irrigation system is put in, nothing should be planted on the south slope. Ray Haik, Piper Jaffray Tower in Minneapolis, stated that he is representing the Schiilings. Haik stated thaYthey will defer and deal with the CAMAS organization on what was the understanding of the testimony and requirements that were imposed upon the Schillings when they came into the community, which was to lay out a comprehensive development plan and set forth a schedule for reclamation, so that the land use, whether it ended up as a park or a combination of park and residential development, wouid be in a land form suitable for development. Those requirements were imposed by the city p(anner at that time, when it was contempiated that this area would be a residential development at this time, and the deed that conveyed the property to the Shiely's, now CAMAS, clearly contemplated the relocation of that mine plant as the opportunity for development arose. He recognizes that the City does not want to get involved with a controversy but developers are interested in the properties. At this point, what is being discussed would be a residentiai piat, which could go in with or without required utilities. Haik stated that they would like to change Phase 111 to Phase I. They think that the area in that corner should be mined and reclaimed as quickly as possibie. He stated that as he reads the map, the mining in 1997 and 1998 is adjacent to Phase III but then they show it going off the other way. As long as they are in there, they ought to complete Phase iil and get it done so that the road couid be straightened out in a way that would be amenabie for the best development layout. CAMAS clearly acknowledged the obiigation to move the plant and the only thing is the Schillings have to provide an alternative site. He stated that they signed off on the agreement, they have received the letter from the city, they are not interested in fighting but they want the City to know what is going on because they are going to continue to work with the developers who have expressed an interest in coming down to the Island. Auge clarified that the Schiilings had signed off on the permit, that they have a preference to see the phases completed in a different order, and that the Schillings have no objections to the issuance of the mining permit. Haik responded that they want the mining operation to proceed and at the same time aliow phased development to occur in the event that nothing goes further with acquisition as a park. Auge c%sed the public hearing. Auge recommended changing condition #6 to read that the mining operation would operate 7 days a week, 24 hours a day rather than 5 days a week, if there are no objections. McCool stated that it has been the practice in the past few years. Japs asked if CAMAS was paying its appropriate share in relation to condition #8 and if there was something specific in mind when the recommendation was made. Lindquist responded that CAMAS uses a fair number of roads as a part of their mining operation and many will need repairs, but she doesn't know what the cost of the road reconstruction will be. She stated that this request was similar to the negotiations that staff is having with the Metropolitan Council regarding truck traffic for the wastewater treatment plant. Lindquist stated that the condition is listed to notify CAMAS that the City will be looking for their contribution to these fairly significant road reconstruction projects. She further stated that the City wouid need to show benefit and that the number and weight of the trucks are contributing to the degradation of the road system in that area. Japs asked if it would be possible to have more specific numbers figured out before this appiication goes to the City Council. Lindquist stated that the road projects aren't programmed in the Citys CIP yet. Auge clarified that condition #8 is just a notice of intent that when improvements are planned, CAMAS will be assessed. Japs then inquired if staff anticipates that the 1999 mining permit, which is coming forward in February, would precede any type of billing. �indquist responded that she's assuming not but that there will be discussions occurring regarding some of the road projects in that area and that those negotiations will be going on prior to the 1999 permit. Japs stated that his concern is that the company knows what could be expected of them. He stated that he recognizes that trucks do cause heavy wear and tear on roads. Boyden asked if Washington County was using the tax revenue from CAMAS for road repair or are the funds being diverted elsewhere in the County. Lindquist stated that the funds are regulated by a state formula. Brown asked where the City's portion of the tax revenue goes. l.indquist stated that it goes to defray the cost associated with the mine services. Brown stated that years ago Sniely blacktopped tne road from the railroad bridge to Hadley Avenue at their own expense. Sawyer asked if the issue brought up in condition #8 was required on past permits. Lindquist answered it was not. He inquired how the City would figure out the snare that CAMAS would pay and asked about the trucks from Bailey Nurseries and other businesses in the area. lindquist stated that as part of the assessment process, the City would have to show benefit. She gave as an example what happened with the improvements to East Point Douglas Road. Auge asked if there would be a public hearing by the City Council to institute the assessment if condition #8 was put into effect. l.indquist stated that there has to be a public hearing when there are assessments. Sawyer stated that there should be a formula for this type of assessment. Lindquist stated that the City is hiring an appraiser to determine assessments for commercial businesses on East Point Douglas Road and 80th Street. Kleven stated that condition #8 is just notification and that when the roads need to be repaired, those along the road will be assessed and that taking the condition out would not relieve the obligation in the future. Podoll stated that if the Council does not agree with it, they wiil strike out condition #8. He agrees that it is just notification to the mining company that this couid occur. Japs moved to approve the application su6ject to the condifions listed be/ow and changing condition #6 to read "7 days a week." Podofl seconded. 1. The provisions as sfipu/afed en Chapfer 20, Sand and Gravel Ordlnance, excepf as mod�ed, be%w shall be comptied with. 2. The applicant is responsible for removing any spilled materials that may have spilled onto any public roadway. This material shall be c%aned up immediafely. 3. The outer edge of mining limits abutting public righf-of-way or private property shall not be c/oser than 100 feet to any right-of-way or property line. 4. Approva! of the 1998 Mlning Permif does not imply approval to mine oufside of fhe reqaired 200-foof sefback from the Mississippi River or within fhe river itseH. 5. No bifuminoas/aspha/i material sha// be buried on the premises. Bituminous/asphalf, concrefe, and sfreet sweepings originating within the geographical boundaries of Coftage Grove may be temporarily stockpiled on the site for processing (e.g. crushing, screening, efc.) and/or reuse. 6. The applicant may operate the mining operation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Upon nof�cafion by neighboring residenfs fhat fhe nighf-6me operdtions (i.e. between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.) are disturbing, fhe applicant agrees to voluntarily cease operation during nighf-time hours until such time fhe noise source is ident�ed and appropriate correcfions are made. 7. All trees along the east boUndary line (Phase 3 as shown on the Nelson Mine - 1998 Mine Pian) of the mine site shall remain undisturbed. 8. CAMAS will pay ifs proporfionate share in fhe cost of mainfenance, construction, and reconstnrction of roads, highways, street, or bridges along all designated haul routes. Boyden asked if condition #8 was inciuded in the motion. Japs stated that it was. Sawyer asked Haik if housing development wou{d be on the east or west side of the Island. Haik answered that the properties included Paul Schilling's, his mother's, and the park lease land where the boat launch is located. The site is in the east. Sawyer asked if the land they are taiking about was the property that was discussed at the workshop in A�gust. It was clarified that the land that was discussed that evening was in the northwestern portion by the mine plant and conveyor area. The motion passed unanimously.