Mineral Mining Review Board - 12 Mar 2018 MEETING CANCELED

MEETING CANCELLATION Mineral Mining Review Board Monday, March 12, 2018 9:30 AM City Commission Chambers— 4243 Remembrance Rd NW 1. Call the meeting to order 2. General Public Comment This provision is made to encourage the expression of questions and concerns regarding non-public hearing items and issues not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to identify themselves by name and address. A maximum time of 6 minutes per person is required. 3. Approval of Mineral Mining Minutes from February 13, 2018 Morning Session 4. Approval of Mineral Mining Minutes from February 13, 2018, Afternoon Session 5. 2301 and 2311 O'Brien Rd Sw Applicant/owner Dan Schimmel of the Mines Golf Club LLC is seeking renewal of the Mineral Mining License for the period from March 1, 2018 – February 28, 2019. This renewal application was tabled at the February 13, 2018 hearing. The subject property is located at 2301 and 2311 O'Brien Rd SW, also known on the tax rolls as 41-13-27-300- 002/025. Hearing requested by Dan Schimmel. 6. Mineral Mining Review Board Member/Staff Comments 7. Adjournment Page 1 of 30  DRAFT MINERAL MINING REVIEW BOARD MINUTES MORNING SESESSION Tuesday, February 13, 2018 9:30 p.m. Members present: Frank Wash, Chairman, Rachell Nagorsen, Vice Chairman, Scott Conners, Mark Koning, Sandra Howland and Dan Kent. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Frank Wash, Chairman called the Mineral Mining Meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT This provision is made to encourage the expression of questions and concerns regarding non-public hearing items and issues not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to identify themselves by name and address. A maximum time of 6 minutes per person is required. None. REVIEW MINERAL MINING MINUTES FROM 11-21-2017 Mark Koning moved and Rachelle Nagorsen supported a motion to approve the Mineral Mining Minutes from 11-21-2017 as written. Motion carried. INTRODUCTION OF STAFF AND BOARD MEMBERS F. Wash had the Mineral Mining Board and staff introduce themselves. 3263 BUTTERWORTH DRIVE S.W. – DISCUSSION TOPIC (NO FORMAL HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME). Paul, Michelle and Joe Sietsema will discuss plans to partially excavate and develop recently divided properties located at 3263 Butterworth Drive S.W (parcel numbers 41-13-32-426-018 and 41-13-32-426-019). Paul and Michelle Sietsema appeared on behalf of this request. Dan Power stated this is a parcel on Butterworth Dr SW that was recently divided on the end of a Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) decision on June of 2017. This piece was roughly 3 acres and they are now roughly 1 1/2 acre parcels both Page 1 of 15 Page 2 of 30 potentially slated for development. One of the comments brought up during the ZBA review and seeing the site there is a lot of fill material. Some of the fill came from past adjacent mineral mining activities and various sources. On one hand there is interest of having the site leveled out and bring it back to more of a pre- existing grade. On the other hand if there is a significant amount of excavation occurring here particularly if the sand is going off site. City staff wanted to make sure the Mineral Mining Board has a chance to look at this site and determine if this property will formally need to go through the Mineral Mining Review Process. D. Power explained that one of the key triggers if your are excavating under 10,000 cubic yards and are keeping the sand primarily for development of this site it is something that does not require formal Mineral Mining Review. D. Power explained since the development is pending soon you may have seen some grading on the property already. City staff wanted this to go before the Mineral Mining Board and have the board ask questions. There are some other development issues that city stall will look at separately in the Community Development Department (CDD) before any development begins on these sites. CDD will require grading plans to make sure the properties drain well. There will be well testing through the Kent County Health Department to see if there are any wells on this property. Paul Sietsema showed on the overhead a copy of a drawing showing the preliminary development of this property. P. Sietsema showed on the overhead a copy of where the existing well is located. P. Sietsema stated they are hoping to get this well tested and reused. The concrete along the west side of the property is very thick. The proposed home will have a back setback. The proposed drain field is in place. The elevations that are proposed here are in according to what he found on some of the "topo" or topography maps. He would like to work with the Cordes company at this time he doesn't see any issues. P. Sietsema stated the new driveway would come up and split the property line with a 20' wide front setback from the street. P. Sietsema stated he has questions on the culvert that would be under the driveway. P. Sietsema stated the drainfield would be on the proposed property on the east side. F. Wash asked is this a mineral mining operation or just a development of two home sites. D. Power replied that is the question he would ask the Mineral Mining Board to answer. D. Power stated that he has been to the site with R Nagorsen and they have determined if the total excavation is under the threshold of the 10,000 cubic yards and grading is primarily staying on site, staff would interpret that this is probably not a mineral mining site. He would like some direction from the MMRB as they see some excavation and some earth work. S. Conners asked if the shared driveway needs to go before the Planning Commission or Zoning Board of Appeals approval. D. Power replied this is the first time he has seen this site plan. The city requires one driveway per lot the shared driveway would be an issue of the applicant is looking at pursuing this. S. Conners stated if this site needs to go for Mineral Mining approval there is a list of requirements. S. Conners stated he would like to see this go through the CDD Department for building permits that way the MMRB doesn't have to limit the work on this site at the borders. Page 2 of 15 Page 3 of 30 S. Conners stated if the applicant came in stating there is going to be less lane 5,000 cubic yards extracted they should be able to move forward through the CDD Department for building permits. R. Nagorsen stated that the applicant thought there was more than 5,000 cubic yards onsite that is why the applicant is before the MMRB Board. S. Conners replied if they are going to make the applicant go through the mining process city staff would make the applicant follow the same mineral mining process as every other mining applicant which is pretty rigorous. S. Conners stated he would encourage the applicant to work through the CDD to make sure they don't break the 5,000 cubic yard threshold for mining extraction. R. Nagorsen replied the ordinance does state if the applicant is over that threshold the board can grant a waiver. R. Nagorsen replied that is why it was discussed to have the applicant come before the MMRB. D. Power stated there is some concrete and various sand that may be moved off site. There may be some discretion in terms of what is being moved around on the site and what material is actually being excavated and sold. S. Conners replied he would limit the amount of sand they are selling and move it to another site in the area they own and not consider this part of the mining volume. Otherwise he would want the applicant to get a full mineral mining plan. F. Wash stated he agrees with S. Conners the code is what it is there is either a threshold of 5,000 cubic yards and the and material is being sold the board has a right to grant a waiver. There has to be a waiver to limit the amount of extraction and sale of material on this site to meet the Mineral Mining Code. S. Conners stated there is an existing house on the left side of the property that is right on the property line that is who the board is looking out for. P. Sietsema replied there is a new home owner by Randy Feenstra. P. Sietsema stated the house proposed on the west side of the property can be raised up to elevate the amount of sand removed from the site. S. Conners stated if the applicant works with the former Sandco mining site owned by Cordes they may want to work with the applicant to help with make the future development. Dan Kent stated he hopes the applicant can work with D. Power and get some resolution on this site. S. Howland stated working with D. Power would be the applicants best solution. MOTION Scott Conners made a motion to direct the applicant to work with city staff to stay within the guidelines of Mineral Mining extraction without a Mineral Mining Permit. Sandra Howland supported this motion. D. Power stated that if there is more sand extracted than the 5,000 cubic yards it is his direction to take the applicant back before the MIneral Mining Review Board for a potential waiver. S. Conners stated part of his motion would be that the applicant doesn't go over the 5,000 cubic yards per ordinance. F. Wash stated that the board needs to be fair and consistent with the applicants of these codes. S. Conners stated there is a neighbor out in the audience the applicant could talk to this about for the re-distribution of the soil. Motion carried. 731 MAYNARD AVENUE SW-CORDES Page 3 of 15 Page 4 of 30 2017 CONDITIONS The board imposed no conditions. Engineer Brent DeRose of Nederveld Inc on behalf of applicant/owner James J Cordes is seeking renewal of the Mineral Mining License for the 2018 calendar year and a review of conditions imposed by the board from their February 14, 2017, hearing The subject property is located at 731 Maynard Ave SW, also known on the tax rolls as 41-13-33-101-029, 41-13-33-101-032, 41-13-33-301- 008 and 41-13-32-426-008, 41-13-33-101-016 and 41-13-33-101-017. Hearing requested by James J. Cordes. Steve Cordes and Brent DeRose of Nederveld appeared on behalf of this request. Frank Wash asked if there were no condition from 2017. Tammy Freedman replied that was correct. Tammy Freedman stated staff did received the Safety Fence Verification Letter and the bond is good until February 10. 2019. Brent DeRose stated the mining operation took place as stated on their 2017 plan. There was a little bit of material that remained in the northwest corner of the site. There was a little bit of material that had to be taken out of the north end. At the end of 2017 the mining was completed and topsoiled it still needs to be seeded. The plan is to continue to work to the west. They will be moving the bank to the west there continues to be a berm separating the Huizenga's property from the mining operation. In the northwest corner there is a collection area the soils are heavier they have always had separate drainage maintained you can see by the way the contours are they will continue to do that. B. DeRose stated he and S. Cordes meet annually to make sure the drainage is where it is supposed to be. B. DeRose showed the drone photo on the overhead that was flown in November of 2017. B. DeRose showed on the overhead a picture of the drone photo where there had been some growth on the site. The bank can be taken down at any moment near the Huizenga's property the grades are the same. The mining has been consistent with what they have been proposing for the last few years. F. Wash asked if Mr. Cordes if had anything to add. S. Cordes replied the site is progressing as it should and the water is draining just as it always has at the northwest corner. S. Cordes stated he is not sure how many jobs they will have this year and how much sand they will move but they plan on staying in the bank and continue to work to the south. S. Cordes stated that you are unable to see their mining operation from Butterworth Drive and not to much from Maynard Avenue when the leaves are on the trees. F Wash asked for comments from R Nagorsen, T Freedman and D Power. R. Nagorsen replied she had no comments for this project. D. Power stated that he had no comments on this case but for reference he has some slides that show Page 4 of 15 Page 5 of 30 aerial information from 2014 and a Google image from 2017. There is also a "GEO" referenced version of the plan that is in front of the board over the 2017 aerial photo and of course the 2017 drone photo. D. Power stated that from the CDD perspective looking at these plans it seems like the typical issues to look out for making sure the grades aren't too steep on any of the sites in terms of over excavation being 1 on 3. Restoration grade being a 1 on 5. Checking to make sure the reclamation shown has been done and making sure there is a reclamation plan in place. F. Wash stated the city had the drone photos flown this year. T. Freedman replied in 2017. D. Kent stated that if the soil erosion was ok then lets move forward. S. Conners stated he would like to see an end use plan for 2019. S. Conners there will be water installed on Maynard Avenue in the next year or two it is good to keep the proposed future development in mind. M. Koning asked if the berm that is along the Huizenga's property that is going to be the last bit of material that is removed from the site. B. DeRose replied it probably won't be the last of the material taken from the site but it will be at a point once the area to the west is further along. B. DeRose stated that the berm is a good buffer for wind erosion and debris through this area. OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT S. Conners moved and D. Kent supported to open the public hearing. Motion carried. No comment was offered. CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT S. Howland moved and M. Koning supported a motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried. MOTION S. Conners moved to approve the Mineral Mining License for 2018 for 731 Maynard with the following conditions: 1. 2019 bring back the end use plan for further discussion as part of the review of the plan of operations. D. Kent supported this motion. R. Nagorsen stated that she still needs the Soil Erosion Inspections fees that were send in a letter via e-mail. S. Conners stated he would amend this into his motion. Motion carried. 2471 BUTTERWORTH DR SW - MEEKHOFF Page 5 of 15 Page 6 of 30 Engineer Brent DeRose of Nederveld Inc. on behalf of owner/applicant Lakeside Aggregate LLC is seeking renewal of the Mineral Mining License for the 2018 calendar year and a review of conditions imposed by the board from their February 7, 2017 hearing. The subject property is located at 2471 Butterworth Dr SW, also known on the tax rolls as 41-13-33-400-003, 41-13-33-200-003, 41- 13-34-100-013/018. Brent DeRose of Nederveld Inc. and Doug Meekhoff appeared on behalf of this request. 2017 CONDITIONS Frank Wash read the 2017 conditions: 1. Letter of Credit needed to be updated. 2. Fix erosion areas in the reclaimed areas by this spring. 3. New location map submitted for next year with updated property lines. 4. Check gate for hours of operation and phone number. B. DeRose stated in 2017 there was some mining in the north region near the Oliver property at 2472 O'Brien Rd SW, near the south end of his property as well as on the north end of the Lakeside Aggregate property. The material needs to be screened. In 2018 the north region part of phase 2 will be reclaimed. The southeast corner was all reclaimed there was a little bit of mining that needed to be completed when they were in front of the board in 2017 this has been filled, top soiled and seeded. There is a nice established drive to the east there is a drainage feature all of the runoff water is contained and the whole front of the pit has been seeded by Butterworth Drive. In 2018 there is going to be additional fill added to the east in the disturbance area will be how this area is going to look at the top elevation now moving it to the north. B. DeRose stated that will be wrapping up and mining and continue to fill on the south end. On sheet 2 of the plan is a separate operation with mining and reclamation. They have been focusing in on the southeast corner of the site. There are a couple dashed lines where the toe of slope was. In 2017 they have moved to the north which is right at base elevations. They will continue to move to the north which is the common boundary line with the City of Grand Rapids and the City of Walker which is right behind the hill and you can see the peek near 2751 Butterworth Drive. There is not a lot of reclamation in this area some of the floor area will be reclaimed. B. DeRose addressed the 2017 conditions there was an erosion location up to the northwest it is his understanding there was a meeting onsite in the spring or summer of 2017 and it was established there was growth in the gully. New location map with updated property lines was submitted. Tammy Freedman stated there that we have received a Letter of Credit that expires on 3/3/2018 and the Safety Fence Verification Letter has been received. R. Nagorsen stated she had been out to the site multiple times in 2017 and observed erosion from the mining activity from years ago during wet and dry weather. The eroded area does have vegetation on it and it not eroding anymore. What appears to be a stream bed at the bottom of the erosion is still dry during wet weather. R Nagorsen explained after speaking with the "DEQ" Department of Environmental Quality because they oversee her Soil Erosion Page 6 of 15 Page 7 of 30 Program they stated if it is unsafe to operate equipment there and it has reached stabilization and if there is quite a bit of vegetation with trees and brush it is ok to leave it. This may be something that needs to be fixed in the future. Nagorsen explained as it stands of what she observed in the summer that condition is no longer a concern. D. Power replied that in addition to the requirements that are looked at by the board on this site and other sites as they reclaim there are fill materials some of the fill is pretty stark, they want to make sure there is a clear record of the materials being brought in for fill when these sites are reclaimed. The fill should be fill soil and inert materials. There shouldn't be any large debris or any junk type items in the fill. D. Power stated city staff was alerted that this berm was being filled up pretty fast. D. Power stated he and R Nagorsen went out to the site in the fall and keep an eye on the fill that is coming in and making sure it is an inert material. D. Power showed on the overhead this mine has access on Butterworth Drive and Maynard Avenue. R. Nagorsen stated that when she was at the site there was some plastic that was being used to fill along with some brush. She stated with the brush being buried its is biological and could be a compaction issue in the future. R. Nagorsen stated that as how fast this site was filled it does raise a question of what stuff is being buried is it waste soils and concrete. Does plastic and trees count as inert waste. B. DeRose some photos were sent by city staff to him there was some question on the material onsite. The east pit is offsite does recycle material such as the concrete and the organic material. At the particular instance when the picture was taken the material was brought in error to the mining site. Scott who is on the site on a regular basis monitors the material that is brought into the site. The material gets taken out of there and is sorted through and it is inert packable material that is being used as fill. D. Power showed on the overhead a picture of the fill that city staff had taken pictures of. B. DeRose replied that in the picture you can see the material is localized to a load or two. R. Nagorsen asked if the plastic, trees, concrete and wood were removed from the mining site. B. DeRose replied yes it was. F. Wash stated that per the Mineral Mining Ordinance it clearly states that these mining sites are not dump sites or landfill sites. The City is not regulating these sites as dump sites. F. Wash stated that what comes into these mining sites to backfill needs to be clean and not a dump site for waste. F. Wash stated relative to re- development sites this is one of the sites that is undermined by the gypsum mines. F. Wash explained some of these sites don't have an opportunity for redevelopment because the old gypsum mines cut through the site. F. Wash stated this site would be similar to the Millennium Park site there cannot be redevelopment unless there is some kind of technology change. S., Conners referred to sheet 2 phase 2 they are getting really close to the undercut threshold you can't go more than 5' below the reclamation contour. S. Conners the contour shouldn't go any lower than 685. B. DeRose replied they are going to work with the property owner to the east of phase 2 ideally all of that material would be removed. Page 7 of 15 Page 8 of 30  R. Nagorsen asked there has been some discussion on removing from the property to the north of the haul road is that still in the works. B. DeRose replied is that the Goodale Property. R. Nagorsen replied that was correct. B. DeRose replied that is still in negotiation between Doug Meekhoff and Pat Goodale. The haul road is still in the northwest corner that would connect to the road system on the site. M. Koning asked how does the haul road system work does everyone enter off the same location on Butterworth Drive. B. DeRose replied that was correct you go off from Butterworth Drive and then it goes to the east and eventually the road goes around because of the bank it climbs up like a little switchback almost and goes up to the top of the pit and comes back down. M. Koning asked if the other site in Grand Rapids does that come through this mining site as well. B. DeRose replied no that has its own entrance. D. Power asked if there is another entrance on O'Brien Road. B. DeRose replied there is no mining access onto O'Brien Road. B. DeRose replied there is a two track you may see on an aerial view but it is not connected to the mining operation. OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING S. Conners moved and R. Nagorsen supported a motion to open the public hearing. Motion carried. No comment was offered. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING M. Koning moved and D. Kent supported a motion to close the public hearing. S. Conners stated these are not conditions but they are warnings to watch for inert material and no undercut in phase 2. MOTION S. Conners moved to approve the 2018 Mineral Mining License with the following conditions: 1;. Letter of Credit to be renewed by March 3, 2018. 2. Soil Erosion Fees to be paid by March 3 , 2018. M. Koning supported this motion. Motion carried. 2851 BUTTERWORTH DR SW - GOODALE 2017 CONDITIONS Rachell Nagorsen moved to approve the 2017 Mineral Mining License for 2851 Butterworth Goodale with the following conditions: 1. Post a new sign with hours of operation by March 1, 2017. (sign was installed) Page 8 of 15 Page 9 of 30 2. Fully restore the southeast region by July 1, 2017. (see Rachell’s inspection notice dated 8/18/2017) 3. Soil Erosion Inspection Fees to be paid may March 1, 2017 ( fees have been paid) Engineer Brent DeRose of Nederveld Inc on behalf of applicant Goodale Sand Pit, LLC and owner JA Devland LLC. is seeking renewal of the Mineral Mining License for the 2018 calendar year and a review of conditions imposed by the board from their February 14, 2017, hearing. The subject property is located at 2851 Butterworth Dr SW, also known on the tax rolls as 41-13-33-200-014 and 41-13-33-326-010. Hearing requested by Goodale Sand Pit LLC. Brent DeRose of Nederveld Inc. appeared on behalf of this request. B. DeRose stated nothing different has happened on this site in the last year. The plan is to mine in the east side of the pit adjacent to the Meekhoff property. B. DeRose stated they are asking for a mineral mining permit to take sand out of the east side of the pit assuming it becomes active. This site was a former mining operation but has not been mined since 2008. They continue to chase erosion on the south side of the site. For background the erosion comes from a pit that pre- existed which was the VanDam Pit that got absorbed into this pit. Mr. Goodale graded this out in 2012 or 2013 and there has been some erosion they have been working through. B. DeRose referred to the 2017 drone photo on the overhead of this site. B. DeRose showed on the overhead where the erosion had occurred on this site. B. DeRose explained that everything on the right side of this pit is the former Flossie Henges Pit and the area of erosion is in the former Demolition Pit. The mid section has all been vegetated. The channels cross slope are what was done to stop the erosion looking at the aerial photo the area is still a little bit sparse as far as the vegetation but it looks better when you are at the site. R. Nagorsen stated the vegetation is struggling but it is coming in. D. Kent stated the first ridge you come across on the right of the pit. There are a couple of dark areas are those erosion areas. B. DeRose explained this is another pit that is closed. D. Kent stated this is not part of the Goodale pit. S. Conners replied this is part of the former Flossie Hendges Pit. There is a flat spot that slopes off to the former Flossie Hedges Pit where it is all vegetated. T. Freedman stated the Letter of Credit is good until the city were to cancel it. The Safety Fence Verification Letter has been received. R. Nagorsen stated the erosion from last year it is still a good idea to monitor it. It does look a lot better. It was repaired washed out and repaired, it appears the repair is holding. This is still a good thing to check in the Spring. R. Nagorsen stated there is a pretty large stockpile at the end of the haul road she seen in late summer early fall. B. DeRose asked if this on the primary entrance. R. Nagorsen replied yes on the primary entrance where did it come from and what is the purpose of it. B. DeRose replied there was another site that Pat Goodale was developing this site was being used as a holding area. R. Nagorsen stated surrounding neighbors may call asking about the stockpile is because this has been an inactive pit for so many years. B. DeRose replied because of the Page 9 of 15 Page 10 of 30 development activity from around the areas from time to time this site will be used to hold material. R. Nagorsen replied she didn't know if this would raise any concerns because the former pit on Walker Avenue became an industrial site for material storage. F. Wash asked if this site is being used as a processing site. B. DeRose replied no he thinks the owner had a couple loads of gravel or sand and needed a place to put them so he dropped the material off on this site. F. Wash stated if this is going to become a mineral processing site that is something that needs Planning Commission review. F. Wash stated material comes and goes because people need a spot to put it the city tries to be reasonable about this as long as there is no processing that is going on. S. Conners replied if there is polluted material and it is moving from one spot in the city to another spot in the city they don't that. B. DeRose replied Mr. Goodale told him there was some material dropped into the site but it could have been for future use on the site because this site will need topsoil at some point. S. Conners stated undermining from the gypsum mines ends somewhere one the east end of the site so the left part of the site is still potential for future development. B. DeRose replied they are looking at the whole site as being a future development. S. Conners stated their is going to be a water main coming up on the west side of this property. The layout is going to become more important to look at in future years so if they can bring the future layout of this site in 2019 for another review. S. Conners explained that when these sites come in for the first time they have to show the board 5 different plans. They include a plan of operation, reclamation plan, final end use so the city knows they are not going to destroy the landscaping and not have a future end use for it. B. DeRose replied this site has a lot of end uses it could really be a lot of different things. D. Kent stated that he realizes the erosion is from the adjacent property he hopes it is not on this property. He stated he knows in the past that soil erosion has been an issue. S. Conners stated there is a history on this property. F. Wash stated he would like it noted there needs to be a new reclamation plan for all new mining sites. D. Power stated S. Conners had mentioned an end use plan for 2019 is this something the board wants every year or is this something the board wants as these sites get closer to completion. S. Conners replied sometimes it is easier to come in with an end use plan, but the board may say every 5 years the applicant needs to come in with an end use plan. F. Wash stated that the afternoon session Stanley Orchards comes in with a plan that shows where they have been where they are going and what the end use is going to be. F. Wash stated that as we move forward we should have the other sites bring in plans showing the final grade and end use plan. MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING R. Nagorsen made a motion to open the public hearing and S. Conners supported a motion to open the public hearing. Motion carried. No comments were offered. Page 10 of 15 Page 11 of 30 MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING S Conners. moved and D. Kent supported a motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried. MOTION R. Nagorsen moved to approve the 2018 Mineral Mining License with the following conditions: 1. End use plan for 2019 2. Pay Soil Erosion Fees by March 1, 2018 3. Continue to monitor the eastern boundry. S. Howland supported this this motion. Motion carried. 2327 WILSON AVE SW - SHOEMAKER 2017 CONDITIONS Scott Conners moved and Cyndy Stek supported a motion to approve the 2017 Mineral Mining License for 2327 Wilson Ave SW with the following conditions: 1. The land division lot line shift to be received by March 1, 2017.(has been received) 2. The density correlation for the dynamic core penetrometer should be correlated to the standard proctor method and CDD be provided with a percent compaction for purposes of meeting the city's code.(received in the 2017 MMRB folder) 3. The end use plan for the site be provided and distributed to the MMRB Board by March 1, 2017(This was put in the 2017 MMRB folder) 4. A recorded copy of the agreement with Schwarz be submitted to the city.(copy of agreement in 2017 MMRB Folder) Engineer Brent DeRose of Nederveld Inc. on behalf of applicant/owner Shoemaker and Sons Hauling is seeking renewal of the 2018 Mineral Mining License for the calendar year and to review the conditions imposed by the board from their February 7, 2017, hearing. The main mining operation occurs at 4480 Burton Street S.W. (PPN 41-17-07-100-053). Additional impacted properties include 2496 Kenowa Avenue S.W. (PPN 41-17-07-300-001) and 2313 and 2327 Wilson Avenue S.W. (PPN 41-17-07-100-041 and -026). Hearing requested by Shoemaker and Sons Hauling. Brent DeRose of Nederveld Inc. and Bob Shoemaker appeared on behalf of this request. B. DeRose stated your are starting to be able to see how this site will close up. B. DeRose replied he envisions this site like a horseshoe. The middle has been mined out and the ends kind of follow up and are being reclaimed as they go. The west side of the site was reclaimed years ago. On the east side there was quite a bit of material that had to be brought in and was mined out. They had worked with a small encroachment area along Wilson Avenue which there was Page 11 of 15 Page 12 of 30 an agreement on reducing the slopes in that region. They have gone through year after year getting compaction tests as we were filling it. In April of 2017 they had another contractor called Schippers came in and they finished graded the site and topsoiled it. Looking at the drone photos it will show the reclaimed area is doing well with a lot of vegetation. They wished there was more material in the northeast corner. There is still material that needs to be hauled into the northeast corner and finalized this will be worked on in 2018. In 2017 they modified the back corner near the Schwarz property located at 4470 Burton St SW. There was a larger hill in this area that encroached into the mineral mining site. The hill got taken down they now have a nice even slope in the north end. There is a power line that comes through the site that is servicing a couple of wells. There is a safety fence at this location they have been working to. In 2017 the toe of slope they had really gotten close to that. The location shown on their map to be mined in 2018 the trees have been removed and the stumps will have to be taken out. The mining operation will continue to the north. There is a natural drainage divide all the water continues to the north and is contained on site. Once they have a little bit more room the floor can continue to be reclaimed as well. They currently have a 668 elevation eventually that will be a 664 elevation through the back side to a 662 elevation the hill will be removed. B. DeRose stated when you stand on top of the mining site you can see how the two sides will come together. B. DeRose showed on the overhead the 2017 drone image. R. Nagorsen asked to have D. Power switch to the power point image you can see the slope that was reclaimed on the east side. B. DeRose showed on the overhead the 2017 drone image of the location of the Schwarz property it does significantly higher. This is the area they have been working hard to kind of blend this area in so there wasn't a big knob in the middle of the pit. Some of the miscellaneous piles you see in the middle of the pit are gravel and building material as this continues to progress to the north. T, Freedman stated the Letter of Credit is good until February of 2019. The Safety Fence Verification Letter was received. A letter in support of this mining operation was received from George Schambach of 4606 Burton St SW. R. Nagorsen stated the Soil Erosion Fees have been submitted. The restoration on the slope looks good. The northeast area the final grade just needs to be seeded. D. Power stated that the property to the east near the Schwarz property be mindful of the boundary and keeping on eye on the buffer and the final grading. F. Wash stated this site is included in the Sub Area 2 that was a master plan update from 2006 and 2007. On the city's website you can see the Sub Area 2 plan this piece of property and what is called the Fenske Site located on Wilson Avenue SW. There is a road planned down the middle of this property and a conversion from industrial property to residential property. If water and sewer were available low density residential might be higher on this property rather than 1 unit per acre site. . B. DeRose showed on the overhead the end use plan from the 1990's. B. DeRose explained that the grades are spot on from 20 years later. Page 12 of 15 Page 13 of 30 S. Conners stated that the active phase off to the northeast they are getting a little deep to the 15' the slope they can only go to a 1 on 3 they can't go up to a 1 on 1. S. Conners stated it would be nice to get this filled in rather quickly so were not causing the silt failure on someone else' property. B. Shoemaker replied he's not sure if Brent has shown them or not but he believes they have achieved the 1 on 3 slope already. S. Conners showed on the overhead on the northeast side of the property there a 668 contour and your reclamation is going to be the 680 this is greater and can only be 5' below those elevations. You need to make sure the slope is not quite as steep in the active face. It has to be more gradual when it is reclaimed. B. Shoemaker replied they are not mining in this area. S. Conners stated they can't go that deep in this area and go all the way to the edge of the buffer and go straight up and reclaim it. You can only go to a 1 on 3. S. Conners stated it is not that big of a deal there is not that much material here. He will not ask for any density calculations because it is pretty minor. This area should be filled in rather quickly. B. Shoemaker replied since this property was surveyed in believes it has been filled in. B. Shoemaker stated his happy with this site. On the east there were some concerns they put in some special grasses in there it really it coming together. The corner of the site along the Schwarz' property they just stabilized the bank that was there goal and this year they will finish this corner. OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING D. Kent moved and S. Howland supported a motion to Open The Public Hearing. Motion carried. Bob Bergman of 2230 Kenowa Ave SW stated that Mr. Shoemaker is doing a good job as far as reclamation. There were a lot of issues earlier on. B. Bergman stated he had read the minutes online regarding compaction test what are they for the fill areas. Why do they have compaction tests. B. DeRose replied there are two different types of compaction tests the areas that are going to be developed have to be compacted to a certain level and areas that are on a slope have different compaction tests. B. DeRose explained it is basically so that the soil doesn't settle and the material is not just thrown in an area loose and give it a few years and the material is a foot lower than it was. There is a method to how the material is laid and how it is compacted and lift so the material keeps getting layered up. The compaction tests confirms that. B. Bergman replied is this something new then what they had done been before. I is unusual the rest of the site there was no such issues with it which he always questioned before when they filled it they would just throw the stumps and everything in there and cover them up. He thought this can never be built on because of what materials were put in there. B. DeRose replied he doesn't know about any stumps but the compaction tests have been done on this site for 10 years. S. Conners replied they are getting better and better at doing their job. B. Bergman asked if they knew how far it was from the base of this site down to the water. They are talking about putting houses on this site are there going to be basements. B. DeRose replied there could be every home that will be constructed they will have to look at to see how deep the basement goes and where the water table is. On the north end of the site they were down about 10' from the water. B. Bergman asked is that down to the clay layer. B. DeRose replied that's correct there must Page 13 of 15 Page 14 of 30 be a clay layer. B. Bergman asked when they get to the end of this is the water going to drain to the north. Is there going to be containment of the water on site. B. DeRose replied water is pretty much split the same way. The water that was on the site before is still going to go to the same drainage areas. There will not be increase of water flow. F. Wash stated this will be subject to future engineering review for future development. There is a Storm Water Ordinance they will have to meet that code. S. Conners replied they can put it back into a meadow or forest without having to take care of any storm water. As soon as they develop the site they will be accelerating water so they will have to do more. F. Wash asked if Mr. Bergma's is his water well that went dry years ago or was undercut and they busted out the lens. Someone lost water there years ago and Mr. Shoemaker fixed it. B. Bergman replied that was not his well. S. Conners replied that there is a note on the plan # 13 which reads " Proposed mining shall be completed above the seasonal water table elevation only. City of Walker shall be notified immediately if groundwater is encountered." S. Conners this was handled last time they stopped mining immediately brought the reclamation back up and stayed out of that area. B. Bergman stated that most of the wells in this area are deep. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. S. Conners moved and R Nagorsen supported a motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried. F. Wash asked what are the potential conditions of approval. M. Koning replied a few years ago he and Mr. Shoemaker walked up by the Schwarz property before he approached them. M. Koning stated he gives B. Shoemaker credit for being able to work with the neighbors to get this worked out and get the knob out of there. M. Koning stated he didnt think this area should be a condition because it sounds like it has already been completed. F. Wash asked S. Conners what he thought about this being a condition. S. Conners replied if is a condition it needs to be satisfied by June 1, 2018, if it is already done then great if not then it give him time to complete it. MOTION M. Koning moved and S. Howland supported a motion to approve the 2018 Mineral Mining license with the following condition: 1. To reclaim the area along the Schwarz property located at 4470 Burton St SW by June 1, 2018. Motion carried. MINERAL MINING REVIEW BOARD MEMBER/STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT Adjournment of morning session on at 11:00 a.m. until the afternoon session which will begin at 1:00 p.m.. Page 14 of 15 Page 15 of 30 Tammy Freedman, recording secretary Page 15 of 15 Page 16 of 30  DRAFT MINERAL MINING REVIEW BOARD MINUTES AFTERNOON SESSION Tuesday, February 13, 2018 1:00 p.m. Members present: Frank Wash, Chairman Travis Mabry, Mark Koning, Sandra Howland, Dan Kent and Rachell Nagorsen, Vice Chairman. Member absent: Scott Conners CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Frank Wash, Chairman called the Mineral Mining Review Board Meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT This provision is made to encourage the expression of questions and concerns regarding non-public hearing items and issues not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to identify themselves by name and address. A maximum time of 6 minutes per person is required. None 2301 AND 2311 O'BRIEN RD SW - THE MINES 2017 Conditions : 1.Reclamation plan to be updated and provided to city staff for staff review by May 1, 2017. 2.Phone number and hours of operation be added to the sign.(completed) Applicant/owner Dan Schimmel of the MInes Golf club LLS is seeking renewal of the MIneral Mining License for the 2018 calendar year and to review the conditions imposed by the board from their February 7, 2017, hearing. The subject property is located at 2301 and 2311 O'Brien Rd SW, also known on the tax rolls as 41-13-27-300-002/025. Hearing requested by Dan Schimmel. Dan Schimmel appeared on behalf of this request. F. Wash had the board and staff introduce themselves to the audience. Page 1 of 14 Page 17 of 30 D. Schimmel stated they did not do a lot of mining last year. They did do some reclamation. They hope to start doing some preliminary grading and to move forward on some holes roughed in and seeded. D. Schimmel stated they are mining in the area next to the par 2 hole and some of the pit floor. D. Schimmel stated they did have a project on Alpine Avenue a few weeks ago they have been moving sand to that area. They are working with some folks to market some sand in 2018. They still have a 100,000 to 150,000 yards of sand to be mined. The inspection fees have been turned in, the bond is good until 10/2018, the Safety Fence Verification Letter will be submitted once the snow is done and the animals are done knocking the fence down. T. Freedman stated the bond is good until 10/1/2018. She spoke to Todd Stuive with Excell Engineering he will send in the Safety Fence Verification Letter in Spring of 2018. T. Mabry asked if staff is ok with the bond expiring on 10/1/2018. T. Freedman replied no. She asked Mr. Schimmel if is working with Macatawa Bank. D. Schimmel replied the he is and the bond automatically renews. F. Wash asked if the letter of credit should be a condition T. Freedman replied that it should. R. Nagorsen stated that she mentioned some erosion near par 5 along the slope there is some erosion in this area and can we make this a condition this year. F Wash asked is this hole 5. R. Nagorsen replied on the plan near hold 5 it states "This area finish graded and seeded except finishing of greens" the gullies are not quite finished in this area. D. Schimmel stated that's where the two areas come together on the plan near par 5 is where the washout is. D. Schimmel stated that everything else is stabilized there but there is a 3' wide washout there. D. Schimmel replied he would take care of that. D. Power showed on the overhead the 2014 and 2017 imagery, and the drone photo taken last fall. F. Wash asked if the north safety fence is on the east property line. D. Schimmel replied that was correct. T. Mabry asked if D. Power could show on the overhead the 2014-2017 comparison of the property. T. Mabry stated the drone image was taken the fall of 2017 correct. T. Freedman replied that was correct. T. Mabry asked if D. Power knew when the Google earth 2017 image was taken. D. Power replied he does not know they just have a 2017 time stamp on the image. T. Mabry stated that when you look at the 2014 image to the 2017 image there has been a lot of expansion to the east. If you go back to the drone picture it appears the orange fence at the top of the drone picture kicks further east right where the steep slope is. In the 2017 Google earth picture looks like they are right on the buffer line he is wondering if the orange fence is starting to encroach on the buffer to the east. On the aerial photograph from 2014 it looks like the safety fence goes straight on the 2017 drone photo it looks like it kicks off. It could be a scale issue but obviously there is a really steep slope issue. D. Power replied that there should be no larger than a 1 on 3 slope for active mining areas. For over excavation no greater than a 1 on 5 restored portions of the site. D. Kent asked if the area on the top right of the pit is there going to be more mining or is this area going to start to be restored. D. Schimmel replied that area is going to be restored. Page 2 of 14 Page 18 of 30 T. Mabry stated his first comment is that a professional engineer needs to sign and seal the final plans. T. Mabry stated if you were to look at the plan up in the right corner the reclaimed and topo areas are from 2008. In the middle of the plan the topos were done in April of 2017. T. Mabry stated that the 2017 plans they were all 2008 topos. When you look at the plans that the board looked at last year they were all 2008 topos. As a condition of approval from 2017 Scott Conners asked for and updated reclamation plan which was received. He stated the updated topos on the plan if you look at the par 2 hole and go just west of there you can see there is an existing contour of 688 and a reclaimed contour of 730 so that is a 42' undercut. The ordinance allows a 5' undercut maximum. If you go west of hole 7 you'll see if there is an existing topo of 675 with a reclamation of 695 so that is a 20' undercut. M. Koning replied that Mr. Schimmel stated there is about 100,000 to 150,000 of sand to be removed. By looking at the plan it appears they are potentially going to have a working face that is going to be over 60' tall and then having to restore that you would have to bring in about 300,000 yards of dirt just to do the reclamation. When Mr. Schimmel first brought this before the board he stated he was going to build a par 3 golf course and remove only a little bit of sand. T. Mabry stated the existing topo lines were really close to the reclamation lines. The Mineral Mining Ordinance states you are supposed to mine down to your final grade and the city gives a 5' buffer. There are procedures in the Mineral Mining Ordinance that show how to fill in 5' but not 20' or 40'. M. Koning stated this should be concerning for the property owners to the east so that the soil doesn't start sloffing off and the trees start falling in. It looks like the safety fence is right on the buffer line. Staff needs to be worried about how much fill is coming out of this area. T. Mabry stated his second comment refers to the side slope that D. Power just put on the overhead. If you put a "scale: 1" = 30' 2' contour intervals" on the steep side slope to the east to the construction plans you get a 1 on 1 slope. Sands likes to hold on with a 1 on 2 slope. You can see at the bottom of the hill how the sand has sluffed off and sits on the bottom. This speaks to M Koning's comment about how city staff should be worried about the 1 on 1 slope it will naturally creep further to the east hence is why the orange fence kicks to the east because it is not stable at a 1 on 1 slope and wants to be at a 1 on 2 slope. That being said the ordinance requires restoration back to a 1 on 5 slope. T. Mabry stated his 3rd comment is the restoration slopes shown on the construction plans when you put the scale on it shows a 1 on 2 slope. F. Wash stated the city does have an ordinance that talks about a working slope and restoration. F. Wash asked Mr. Schimmel if he wants to give some feedback to T Mabry's concerns. D. Schimmel replied they are bringing in dirt to the site. He does realize they can't have a 1 on 2 slope and they will not have 1 on 2 slopes when they are done. They are not loosing trees. The face of the slope is approximately 80' off the property line and they do not intend to go any farther than that. He would like to have a couple lots on the hill. They do not have any problems doing a 1 on 5 or 1 on 6 when this is completed. He showed on the overhead how the slope will carry to the north. F. Wash asked T. Mabry to quantify what he would like to see on the plan. T. Mabry replied he thinks what he is getting at here is there somewhat updated topography, the existing topography on this plan is a year old. The reclamation lines are showing 1 on 2 slopes. They need to show a 1 on 5 slope for the restoration areas. We need to get a better feel for how much dirt is coming in Page 3 of 14 Page 19 of 30 and how far these slopes extend. The areas that need 20 to 40 feet of fill brought in there needs to be standards on compaction testing. If it is a non- developmental area it needs to be compacted at 90% . If the property is going to be developed it needs to be a 95% compaction area. The ordinance requires compaction testing for any fill being brought in with the caveat that they are only doing compaction on 5' of fill not 20' to 40' of fill. The reclamation contours need to be updated to a 1 on 5. D. Schimmel replied he is not sure if Travis understands there are gypsum mines underneath this site. They will not need compaction tests because they are not going to build in this area he thinks the compaction tests got waived for this site 1 or 2 years ago. T. Mabry replied he knows the ordinance says non developmental areas need to be compacted to 90%. F. Wash stated that Mr. Schimmel stated he would like to have a couple of lots on the hill someday. D. Schimmel replied that he would like to have 2 lots whether they do or not is another thing the area he would like to put the lots in they have not mined. T. Mabry stated that's good there is virgin soil there. F. Wash stated a mine that is undercut by gypsum mines the compaction test standards are relaxed. If there is gypsum mines undercutting on the site its not viewed as a future development because of sinkholes on the site. That is why the board has said they do not need compaction testing on this site. D. Schimmel replied that as far as the last topo comment was brought up by Scott Conners last year, he said it looks like you are going to bring in a million yards of dirt into this site. He did go back with Excell Engineering they did revise the topo and as far as the area on the slope was done after Excell Engineering redid the topo. As far as him getting another topo showing what they have done he can do that. T. Mabry stated the topo from 2017 looks fairly accurate since there wasn't any mining done in 2017. It appears there is a little hump on the plan that has been taken out but generally keeping the same type of slope through this area. His main concern is the reclamation contours. How does the reclamation line tie into relatively recent topo lines. He is not sure how the MMRB Board has handled compaction tests over gypsum mines historically. If the board is going to waive the compaction requirements for a golf course and not make them have compaction tests are we compacting this fill or we not compacting the fill. D. Schimmel replied they have to have the fill compacted somewhat. T Mabry replied compaction tests are pretty standard. F. Wash stated that somewhere in the ordinance the board has the ability to waive compaction tests for mines over gypsum mines. F. Wash stated reclamation contours are a big thing because there is a floor standard in the ordinance that allows a maximum 5% undercut. Looking at the northeast corner of the site this site has already been deeply undercut and heavily oversloped. F. Wash stated that what you see on the drone photo the safety fence jogs into the woods he is wondering if they have encroached into the "Do Not Disturb" area. Per the code there is a 35; "Do Not Disturb" buffer around the perimeter of the site. M. Koning asked why is it called as active mining where whole number 2 is proposed. M. Koning stated if they remove any material the bank will come down. F. Wash said where the hole is shown on the plan appears to be a restored area from the 2017 drone photo. D. Schimmel replied they are right on the edge of where they are restoring it. M. Koning stated it shows on the plan active mining maybe it should be changed to restoration. D. Schimmel replied instead of the active mining going toward par 2 they could rap the arrow around to the north and have it say grading restoration area. Page 4 of 14 Page 20 of 30 F. Wash asked Mr. Schimmel to indicate on the drone photo where is the active mining planned for 2018. D. Schimmel showed on the photo the areas that are reclaimed, the mining area and the staging area. T Mabry asked if the slope to the south is going to be used to fill in the area to the north. D. Schimmel showed the location on the aerial map where the extra fill is located. T. Mabry stated if the sloped is removed they are still grading down to 40' deeper in this area. F. Wash stated they do have a restoration plan in the file which was discussed this morning for final grade on this site. T. Mabry replied that's what he was suggesting is an updated restoration plan showing the updated contours so the board gets a better feel for how long the side slopes are and if there needs to be dirt brought in and is there enough dirt on site. If the applicant is working to existing grades in the area then they don't have to bring in as much fill. Are they planning to go back to their original contours. D. Schimmel replied if he had the proper slope of a 1 on 5 but is 30' different than they are proposing in a golf situation. Your either hitting the ball up or your hitting the ball down, he doesn't see that as something that can't be accomplished to accommodate restoration and also accommodate a golf operation. T. Mabry replied he is just looking for an updated plan showing 1 on 5 slopes and how much fill is being brought into the site. What the current and final elevations are. D. Schimmel stated that what Travis or someone is looking for is a revised restoration plan that shows 1 on 5 on the easterly slope or a better than safe situation on the east slope. T. Mabry stated that maybe the scale is off on the plans and maybe that is something you could check with Exxel Engineering. On the very bottom right hand corner of the plan you are at a 1 on 3 slope and it transitions up to a 1 on 2 slope as you go over to the north green area. Maybe his concerns are a mute point if something is wrong with the scale on the plan. D. Schimmel replied that some of the site is at a 1 on 2 but some of that dirt needs to go to the north side of the property. F. Wash stated what they see out there right now that is restored is not necessarily going to stay restored they are going to use it as a cut and balance. D. Schimmel replied that was correct. Traditionally they have been taking dirt in to use as their slope material. T Mabry referenced Scott Conners concerns with this site from last year. Is there enough material on site to get to the 1 on 5 slope. F. Wash asked what else besides the reclamation grades does T. Mabry need to quantify this. D. Schimmel asked Travis if he had been on site. T Mabry replied he was on site a few years ago. D. Schimmel showed on the over head the area on the drone photo where there is 100,000 yards of dirt. The " active mining area" is 15 to 20 feet deep this is where they will put their golf course. T. Mabry stated he is asking for an updated plan because this site came before the board many years ago the proposed reclamation plan is similar to what we see here today. The ordinance allows you to grade to your final contours. If the area is 15 to 20 feet deep this a change to the plan and the board needs to review the change to the plan. F. Wash asked how do they get to the floor is that just a 1 on 3 working slope. T. Mabry replied the design engineer sets the floor for what they want to finally end up with. They will allow the reclamation to be 5' deep and allow the side slopes to go up to a 1 on 3 but when you restore the extra 5' the 1 on 3 slopes needs to come back to a 1 on 5 this is where compaction kicks in. T. Mabry stated that for many years the board was looking at a 2008 plan. Over the years more and more sand was mined out. We got updated contours last year Page 5 of 14 Page 21 of 30 and it is deeper than what you thought it was. At some point we need to consider a new plan. Use the plan as it is and get it back to a 1 on 5 slope if the board is comfortable accepting a lower elevation here if it doesn't impact any drainage patterns. The big concern is the side slope and the trees to make sure they don't continue to sluff away. M. Koning replied that they know this has been overexcavated some other mines may have done that but not to this extent. With the wind erosion complaints the city received the city was hoping Mr. Schimmel would get in and remove the sand to make his par 3 golf course. T. Mabry stated that if this is going to be done correctly maybe they get the updated topos of the areas mined out. New restoration contours to meet the ordinance criteria and then we review that finally when the new plan comes in. D. Power stated the minutes from last year were echoing some of the concerns that were in front of the board then. Scott Conners had some statements on the record of how would they bring in the material adequately to meet the reclamation grades without having to bring in a whole lot of fill into the site. They did turn in the new plans with an updated topo that is where the discrepancy occurs which is what Travis is pointing out. This conversation is a continuation from last year. OPEN THE PUBIC HEARING S. Howland moved and R. Nagorsen supported a motion to open the public hearing. Motion carried. Robert Darrow of 15 Monticello Drive NW in the City of Grand Rapids he is probably about 200 yards from the lip of the sand hill. Mr. Darrow stated he appreciates this gentleman's desire to mine the sand, he looks forward to having a golf course as the neighbor. Mr. Darrow stated he would like to see some urgency to the end of the mining operation. He has been neighbors with this mining operation since 2006. R. Darrow stated that some of the sand does get airborne and has coated his house. In the summer the sand goes through the screens in his house. R. Darrow stated he is assuming there is silica in the air and he is not sure if he is absorbing that into his lungs. R. Darrow asked if he is a safe distance away from this operation he is not the only neighbor in this area. R. Darrow stated he is looking to see this operation come to some type of conclusion soon. R. Darrow stated he would also like to know where there are two buildable lots behind him. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING S. Howland moved and T Mabry supported a motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried. F. Wash stated it sounds like this project needs to be table for the following: - Get a PE seal on the plan - Update the plan to show the following: - Current topography in the working area - New restoration slopes that meet the 1 on 5 ordinance requirement. - Identification of the working floor and how that relates to the 1 on 3 working slopes. Page 6 of 14 Page 22 of 30 F. Wash stated if we put all these things together that will give the board an idea of how deep this site is whether they are meeting the code or not. T. Mabry replied is the final floor going to be the current floor or is it going to be brought up. T. Mabry stated pining to the public comment if we have this site that is been undercut, overmined and way more sand has been taken out of here then the board approved do we want to now work towards restoration or do we want to allow mining to continue to occur as long as they can continue to meet the 1 on 5 slope. The lower floor if they keep going deeper you wind up with the slope, but then your mining goes longer and longer. All of a sudden you have a new plan that wasn't the original plan that was brought in 10 years ago. F. Wash replied he does remember what Mark Koning was saying that when this plan was originally initiated Mr. Schimmel brought it in he was going to carve out a golf course and then restore. Then the recession hit and everyone stopped mining for years. We have certainly gotten out of the recession time. The philosophical question of how deep should we let this mine go he believes is regulated by the code. T. Mabry replied if they bring an updated plan with contours and a mass balance update is there even enough dirt onsite to fill in the low areas. How much sand do they need to bring in will answer the question is there remaining sand to be mined or not. F. Wash replied this is a mathematical thing and sometimes they need the calculations especially when there is uncertainty. F. Wash they don't really know some information. D. Kent asked what sand is going to be mined and when is it going to be mined. They all anticipated they were going to get the work done and get the sand out and it would be golf course by now. Obviously with conditions it is still not there. They need to see what is being removed and get the scales balanced. They need to have a plan so the board can see the progression of the mining as well as getting things restored. M. Mabry stated if they can get existing contours updated, and reclamation contours that are in line with the 1 on 5 side slope per the ordinance, then they can do a mass balance equation to show how much sand should have been taken out of the site with the 2008 contours verses how much sand has been taken out of the site. If there has been more sand taken out of the site than was originally approved then the mining operation should be done and reclaimed. M. Koning asked if there is a process because this sits over top of the gypsum mines Mr. Schimmel can ask for some relief for the 5 ' excavation that they can propose on their plan. It is hard for us as board members to approve this knowing that we have overexcavation that is sitting in front of them and they are still proposing to work on the active face. F. Wash replied that could be one of the tabling conditions where the board can look at that part of the code. F. Wash stated the code is available online. F. Wash stated there is another part of the code where there is a discretion by the board built into the code. D. Kent stated with Mr. Schimmel and the engineers need to go over this with the minutes and the plans and move forward. MOTION T. Mabry moved to table this application for the following: Page 7 of 14 Page 23 of 30 1. Updated existing contours. 2. Reclamation lines that state they meet the intent of the ordinance. 3. A mass balance equation ( how much volume of sand was originally approved in 2008 or in the first mineral mining meeting versus how much has been mined out of here. M. Koning asked if we need a time frame. M. Koning asked D. Schimmel what time would work for him. D. Schimmel replied he is still confused on what the board wants if we could write it down and he will get with Exxel Engineering. T Mabry stated some of this might have to wait until the snow melts to get the updated contour information. T. Mabry stated to go back to the original plan that the board looked at and have Exxel Engineering look at that plan and say at the time in 2017 there was this much sand on site and they are proposing going down to this far plus we are allowed to go 5' deeper what is that volume of sand that was approved. The have them update their contours and run that same calculation on how much sand was mined out from 2008 until now and then we could figure out the mass balance. After the tabling the board would possibly have to consider a new plan to come before them or are they going to say are they going to wrap up the original plan. D. Schimmel stated he understood this but if he can achieve my reclamation plan that will give me a par 3 course that is acceptable of what they would want or acceptable to the industry. D. Schimmel stated if there is a 150,000 yards of sand on the site to be mined is the board saying they are not going to approve the extraction of that sand. T. Mabry replied the original reclamation plan is what this board is looking at and the public comment came into play the board can't just allow continual mining to go on deeper and deeper per the ordinance this site has been overmined. Does the board want to accept a new plan or are they going to stick with the original plan. F. Wash replied right now they don't know if they are going off of speculation by looking at aerials has it been over excavated well it looks like it has. F. Wash why don't they get some math on this to see if the answer is yes or no. D. Schimmel replied lets just say this is overexcavated and he is going to re-design the golf course to that and knowing that the east side has to be reclaimed to a 1 on 5, he imagines there are areas were there are going to be less than a 1 on 5 just because of what will make the golf course look like. F. Wash stated they are not going predispose any decisions. D. Schimmel replied to tell him what the board wants and he will get with Exxel Engineering and try and accommodate what the board is looking for. T. Mabry replied the ordinance says we are in a renewal stage and that is different then providing a whole new reclamation plan. D. Schimmel replied he is not interested to come back in for a whole new plan. D. Schimmel stated he wants to be done with this. He wishes this was done, he can't do somethings, I can't help the recession that shut everything down for 5 years. On the other hand the sand sales and what they are doing here helps pay for this site. We are all trying to achieve the same thing. Mr. Schimmel stated that he appreciates the neighbors they have been very amendable to what they are doing here. He doesn't take offense to what anyone has said on the other hand we do need sand and we do need places to dump dirt. A Combination of all of that is what we are trying to achieve. He stated he was hoping they would be done with this project by now. I'm not trying to extend this for another 4 or 5 years, he wants to be done with this within the next 2 years. The plan for the golf Page 8 of 14 Page 24 of 30 course is start operating as a golf course in the year 2020. Mr. Schimmel stated he doesn't want his kids to finish this project he wants to finish this project. F. Wash replied he doesn't want Mr. Schimmel to feel like he is being treated unfairly the board just needs some numbers. Mr. Schimmel replied he doesn't feel like he is being unfairly he just said this is what we were going to do and this is what we are trying to do and they want to achieve that. F. Wash stated like the next group on the agenda they had to have multiple meetings and wait months as data came in, we scheduled meetings and kept things moving, we will commit the same thing to you. M. Koning asked if they want to add the erosion near par 5. R. Nagorsen replied she will add that as a condition to when this site has been approved for a mineral mining license. M. Koning replied then he will support Travis' motion. Motion carried. D. Schimmel stated that plans are what we go by, but he also goes by what is out in the field that he can achieve with the material that is there. Would it make sense to have a meeting with either Travis or Scott or whomever is going to be looking at this. Seeing what is out there and seeing what is on a plan, he would like to show them what is on site out in the field. F. Wash replied that when Mr. Schimmel gets his updated plan together the board can review them onsite. Motion carried. 2605 BRISTOL AVE NW AND 1784 3 MILE RD NW - STANLEY ORCHARDS 2-14-2017 CONDITIONS Hours of operation added to the sign by March 1, 2017. Restoration adjacent to Walker Woods Court by fall of 2017, close of construction season. Soil Erosion fees paid by March 1, 2017. 9-12-2017 CONDITIONS: Updated all 5 sheets that are in the Stanley Orchards packet with a note on the plan regarding the completion of the Mol Belting , Custom Profile work. Compaction testing to date. Regarding the specific area shown on the plan seen on the overhead some kind of note that 1 on 3 slopes be allowed for restoration but there will be no over excavation. The 30' buffer adjacent to residential will be maintained. 3 parties to sign the Mineral Mining Board Application that would be Stanley Orchards, Mol Belting and Custom Profile. 11-21-2017 CONDITIONS: R. Nagorsen moved to make a motion to approve the present request with three conditions: 1. Stake the grading limits along the 30’ buffer zone 2. Minimize bulldozer operations to minimize vibration 3. Provide a dated copy of the grading easement agreement prior to commencing work. Page 9 of 14 Page 25 of 30 D. Kent asked for verification that the dated agreement can be included in the February 2018 application. F. Wash agreed. This agreement and the updated plans can be rolled into the February 2018 application. He asked if this is consistent with what the group is looking for? The applicant group agreed. Engineer Brad Meyers with Meyers, Bueche & Nies Inc on behalf of applicant Cordes Trenching I Inc. and owner Stanley Orchards LLC is seeking renewal of the Mineral Mining License for the 2018 calendar and the conditions imposed by the board from their February 14, 2017, hearing. The subject property is located at 2605 Bristol and 1784 3 Mile, also known on the tax rolls ad 41-13-10-201- 003/009. Hearing requested by Stanley Orchards. Brad Meyers of Meyers, Bueche & Nies Inc., Robert Wisniewski and Ron Cordes appeared on behalf of this request. B. Meyers explained the main thing that happened in 2018 was the addition of some additional property adjacent to the overall project for sloping and for grading purposes. This would be the Mol Easement along the south property line. This easement allows them to get rid of this rather steep large hill that is in these businesses backyards. It will also give these businesses more area for their own use and it gets rid of their t-pee type slope. The properties of 2532 Waldorf and 2535 Waldorf Court were added to the overall operation and they will be part of this operation until the property is restored. This agreement will terminate at that point and then it will go back to the Stanley Orchards entity. B. Meyers stated they are trying to finish up the area adjacent to the residential subdivision. They have been trying to accomplish this for a few years now as far as getting out of that area. He believes now they have a fixed date which will be this summer to complete that area. B. Meyers stated that you will see some of the sloping in the drone photos that has already taken place. They do have a verified slope in this area from a 1 on 5 to a 1 on 3 slope that wraps around. This meets the existing contours of the adjacent properties. There is a small transition piece that goes from a 1 on 3 to a 1 on 5 slope, they are trying to accommodate the existing contours in that area. There is a 30' buffer along the Mol Belting property and they will be staking that so everyone knows what that location is. Overall for 2018 is to wrap up phase 1 and phase 2 depending on the economic conditions. Last year was a pretty good year as far as material coming out of the site. F. Wash stated in his opinion this mine has the best plan set that the board looks at on an annual basis. T. Freedman stated that it appears most of the conditions from 2017 have been met. We did received the Safety Fence Verification Letter and their bond is good until canceled. R. Nagorsen stated as far as soil erosion she just needs the soil erosion inspection fees paid by March 1, 2018. Keep the "Do Not Disturb" area staked when doing grading. Page 10 of 14 Page 26 of 30 D. Power stated the grading easement has been executed which the board seen at the November 21, 2017 meeting. The start date for this was at the end of the document which was found at the end of the meeting. Once they start the grading work the condition was set in place that they need to stake the "Do Not Disturb" buffer adjacent to the industrial sites to the south. D. Power showed on the overhead an aerial orientation. There has been a lot of work done in the last few years. They have moved farther south some of the work was right up to the edge of the "Do Not Disturb" buffer. As we saw last year there was some encroachment in the buffer adjacent to some industrial properties. D. Power showed on the overhead the different plans for this project area. D. Power showed the drone photo viewing south towards the Mol Belting and Custom Profile properties. B. Meyers replied the drone photo gives a good view of the slope on the side near the industrial sites. D. Kent asked if the concrete wall is going to be removed. B. Meyers replied that is one of the debates that is ongoing. B. Meyers stated the wall is a substantial structure so he doesn't know if it has been ironed out yet with the property owner. B. Meyers stated they want to finish the area up near the housing development. Then top soil and seed it and stay away from that area. B. Meyers stated you can see farther to the west the top soil has been striped off in that area hopefully they can take care of this area this year. The slope on the south side they will start on that side get half of the site taken care of right now and continue to the east. M. Koning stated that one of last years condition was to minimize bulldozer operations is that on the end of Walker Woods Court. B. Meyers replied that was correct. M. Koning stated the operators are very well aware of this condition. B. Meyers replied yes. They don't want any vibrations in the industrial or residential areas. B. Meyers replied most of this a loader type situation where they are pulling material out of the bank that is falling and loading it into a truck and it is removed. The vibration should be kept to a minimal in there. T. Mabry asked if they are using a front end loader. B. Meyers replied that is what they have been using in these areas. T. Mabry stated one of the conditions was to have noted on the plan when they are in the sensitive areas they are going to use a certain type of equipment. B. Meyers replied that is a good idea. T. Mabry stated there is a side comment to try and avoid over excavation in these sensitive areas. B. Meyers replied when they are removing material they want to get in these areas and move out. Some of the material there was a little bit of clay in it they don't want to have to move that material around more than they have to. M. Koning asked if Travis wanted the note added to next years plan or does he want a revised plan for this year. T. Mabry replied it shouldn't be hard to add a note to this years plan. B. Meyers replied if they don't have to submit 11 plans and can just submit one plan for the record. F. Wash asked if they are looking to get the "Mol Belting Easement" work done this season. B. Meyers replied that was correct. F. Wash stated the comment should be added to the plans for this year. T. Mabry stated one set of plans can be submitted with that change on it. D. Kent stated they are all aware by the drone photo to stay away from the sensitive areas as much as they can but they need to restore it and get compaction. The operators and the people out there know to stay away from these sensitive areas because of the problems Page 11 of 14 Page 27 of 30 they have had in the past. D. Kent asked if the city has received any additional complaints regarding from vibrations from residents in the Walker Woods Court development. R. Nagorsen replied they have not. T. Mabry asked if the slope shown in the drone picture is that a 1 on 3 slope right now that will be restored to a 1 on 5 slope. B. Meyers replied as you can see it has been graded they have not verified if this is a 1 on 3 slope. B. Meyers replied he knows it is not a 1 on 3 slope. R. Wisniewski replied the slope is closer to a 1 on 5 slope already. They had put a couple of stakes out there for the base and they use that to start and go up from there. T. Mabry stated he is looking at sheet 2 of the plan are the base contours a few years old. B. Meyers replied that those are existing from November of 2017. Every year they update the contours to show the actual mining operation. The light dash contours are existing as of the end of October first of November of 2017. T. Mabry asked if they graded that slope out to a 1 on 5 late last season possibly. B. Meyers replied they could have. T. Mabry stated the light contours area is a 1 on 3 and the restoration contours area is a 1 on 5. B. Meyers replied they may have had a little bit of overlapping in there for some grading. T. Mabry stated that on page 2 of the plan you see the phase 1 area and go to the west of that at station 20 and go south you'll see a 730, 740 kind of hill it looks by the drone picture that has been taken out. Is this a clay pocket or is this an area that has been mined since the contours were completed. B. Meyers replied he thinks that is what has happened. B. Meyers replied he believes they did some grading in this area later in the year. 726 restoration is what it seems on the drone photo. T. Mabry stated that the phase 3 on the plan it states "Schedule Commence October 2017 completed June 2019" . B. Meyers replied he doesn't see that happening unless a lot of dirt gets pulled this year. B. Meyers replied that section didn't get updated it should get updated. T. Mabry stated if they are updating the note on the other sheet maybe they can also update this section. B. Meyers replied it would be probably 2018 or 2019. T. Mabry stated he has two comments on the notes on the corner it states "allowed hours of operation 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday." T. Mabry stated the ordinance states "No holidays" should this be added to the plan. R. Nagorsen replied that they have signs out front that indicate the hours of operation which they had everyone add new signs last year and these signs do not indicate "No holidays." T. Mabry stated that note 4 on the plan states "20' paved haul road" is that the haul road going out to 3 Mile Road is that correct. B. Meyers replied that is correct. T. Mabry stated that road is a 200' 300' haul road. B. Meyers replied it is quite a bit longer. F. Wash replied the 20' may be the width which is required by the ordinance. R. Nagorsen stated this is not related to the mining project , but she would like to talk to Mr. Wisniewski after the meeting. There are federal grant dollars for agricultural land in the Indian Mill Creek Watershed. She would like to talk to him after the meeting. There could be some opportunities do to some work around the edges of the property. D. Power replied this is a very good comment this speaks to one of the comments the board has had in the past of what is the end use plan for this site. There has been discussion of a connection from Waldorf Court it looked tough because of the parking situation. Thinking long term and what is the end use of this property he thinks to Rachelle's point if they redevelop there might be some good opportunity for some innovative storm water Page 12 of 14 Page 28 of 30 management techniques that can help out the watershed. The end use plans they have seen so far for this site are low and medium density residential to date depending on what part of the property they are in. It is never to soon in thinking about how this site will come together from a planning standpoint what is the end use of this property. F. Wash stated there is a current master plan for this sub area. Hopefully as they get closer to the end of their mining we will have conceptual drawings of how they will redevelop the site. D. Kent stated as far as the city is concerned the mining went well which is good to see. OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING D. Kent moved and S. Howland supported a motion to open the public hearing. Motion carried. Tyler Korhage of Mol Belting he recused himself from the negotiation of the contract because of his position of on the Planning Commission he may have to work with the applicant in the future. T. Korhage stated that when the hill is removed he thinks the city is going to hear from the neighbors up on the hill. He didn't think they have been at any of the meetings where they know that this is going to happen. The neighbors have been out there taking pictures when a tree was removed. There goal is to get rid of that hill and get more building space and possibly buy some land from the applicant if the land can be rezoned industrial. T. Korhage stated the applicant's are good neighbors. R. Nagorsen stated there have been 2 additional meetings about the property for Mol Belting and Custom Profile. R. Nagorsen asked T. Freedman if all the neighbors get notified. T. Freedman replied that is correct. R. Nagorsen stated that is why she wants the 30' buffer staked to if the city does receive comments that the applicant will be staying away from the 30' buffer. T. Korhage stated opening this area up will make the neighbors feel like they are up on a hill. F. Wash replied that T. Korhage point is well taken he is the Planning Commission Chairman so he deals with these issues. F. Wash stated everyone needs to over communicate whether it is through social media or put the files on the website so when the commissioners get called they can respond with facts and tell people where they need to go and find the plans etc. T. Freedman added that there is an audio version of these minutes on the website that neighbors can listen to. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING R. Nagorsen moved and M. Koning supported a motion to close the public meeting. Motion carried. F. Wash stated the following are potential conditions of approval that he has heard so far: - Soil Erosion Inspection Fess to be paid by March 1, 2018. - Plan note added to minimize vibration in the sensitive zones next to the industrial and residential areas. - Note added to the plan to minimize excavation in the easement area. - Update the Phase 3 completion date. Page 13 of 14 Page 29 of 30 MOTION S. Howland moved and M. Koning supported a motion to approve the 2018 Mineral Mining License for 2605 Bristol with the following conditions: - Soil Erosion Inspection Fess to be paid by March 1, 2018. - Plan note added to minimize vibration in the sensitive zones next to the industrial and residential areas. - Note added to the plan to minimize excavation in the easement area. - Update the Phase 3 completion date. Motion carried. MINERAL MINING REVIEW BOARD MEMBER/STAFF COMMENTS F. Wash stated that when Mr. Schimmel gets the plan to the city there will be an onsite meeting scheduled and then another Mineral Mining Meeting. ADJOURNMENT D. Kent moved and R. Nagorsen supported a motion to adjourn the Mineral Mining Meeting at 2:40 p.m. Motion carried. Tammy Freedman, recording secretary Page 14 of 14 Page 30 of 30