Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.b. Asphalt Plants and Mineral Extractionw CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION VJS' City Council Meeting Date: September 15, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Asphalt Plants and Mineral Extraction. AGENDA SECTION: Discussion PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director. AGENDA NO. Rick Pearson, City Planner.' ATTACHMENTS: Mining Extraction Background, Mining APPROVED BY: Map, Apple Valley Information RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide staff direction. ACTION: ISSUE Marlon Danner has requested an amendment to the zoning ordinance that would permit him to locate an asphalt plant on his property. The Danner property is in the Agriculture District and is currently the site of a permitted mineral extraction operation. Mr. Danner was previously granted a conditional use permit for a concrete plant. The Planning Commission recommended consideration of the idea, however, did not specify text for an amendment. They forwarded the recommendation to the Council, to assess the level of support by the City Council. After the Planning Commission meeting, staff had a discussion with the City Attorney regardin the idea of allowing asphalt plants as a conditional use in agricultural districts where a mining permit was already issued. He raised several points which lead planning staff to be less supportive of allowing asphalt plants in conjunction with mining. After the presentation at the City Council meeting, the Council requested the item come before them at a work session. To assist in the discussion, background on the changes in the ordinance relating to mining and a map showing the mining sites was requested. ASPHALT PLANTS The ordinance currently permits asphalt, cement and concrete production as permitted uses in the IG zoning district. There are 2,754 acres within the city that are zoned General Industrial. The 1G district also has exterior materials standards for any building from 150 square feet to over 100,000 square feet. The ordinance requires up to 50% of the building fagade abutting a public right -of -way, residential uses, or public areas must contain higher quality masonry finishes such as brick, decorative block, or concrete panels. What prompted the Danner application was a desire for Pine Bend Asphalt to relocate their a operations from Flint Hills property. When discussed with the City staff they were told any building installed would need to meet the ordinance criteria for exterior materials. Because an asphalt plant is somewhat temporary, however, of a long duration, there was not a desire to install a substantial building associated with the use. The following are possible options to permit an asphalt plant within the community, without some of the restrictions of the existing performance standards currently in effect. Modify the existing IG minimum building performance standard There has been some discussion about modifying the minimum building standards recently adopted for the IG zoning district. The current ordinance requires a minimum building size of 10% of the subject property excluding protective wetlands. An asphalt plant does not require any building and therefore they would like to be exempt from this requirement. A variance from the standard would be one approach although it would be difficult to justify a hardship. Also other businesses that would not need a building, or would need less than the 10% minimum, would be asking for similar treatment. Modifying the ordinance language to exclude asphalt plants from the minimum building standard would also prompt requests from other industrial users who want equal treatment. Since the ordinance requirement is fairly new, and prompted by a user that had a small building generating little taxes, modification of the ordinance is inconsistent with the general intent. Further, an exception for one will prompt requests for equal treatment by other industrial users. Modify the existing IG zoning district permitted uses Asphalt, concrete and cement plants could become interim uses within the IG district. This would allow the city the ability to regulate its removal within a certain time. This solution provides better certainty and control to the City, while allowing the business to locate within the IG zoned area. The city can set up conditions that would not require the exterior materials standards given the temporary nature of the use. Further, the city can add other standards to the approval such as number of trucks, height of stockpiles, and limitations on noise and odor. The ordinance change could also recognize that two principal uses could occur on the same property given that the asphalt plant would be covered under the interim permit and would be temporary in nature. This solution is less permissive than the current condition as asphalt plants are currently a permitted use. However, the interim permit allows the city to justifiably waive certain performance standards, such as the exterior materials, which is more advantageous for the businesses than the current condition. This solution also allows the city to place standards on uses that in the present may not be seen as a nuisance but as development moves closer, it could be considered more of a nuisance. Modify the AG zoning district conditional uses While this was initially favored by the staff, this concept is the least favorable from the city perspective. A conditional use permit runs with the property upon approval and would not allow a sunset date for the asphalt business. 2 i Modify the AG zoning district creating an interim permit The discussion of this item is similar to the one above. Staff supports the interim permit as the appropriate vehicle for allowing asphalt plants in the community. The philosophical issue the Council must deal with is whether it is desirable to allow asphalt plants in other portions of the community aside from the IG district. As stated above there are 2,715 acres of industrially zoned property in the community. By also allowing asphalt plants in the agricultural district, 9,335 acres of additional land would be available for this use. If asphalt plants were permitted only with a mining use in an agricultural zone, there would be 397 acres available for siting of an asphalt plant. Comment The Council needs to evaluate the long and short term implications of permitting changing the ordinance to facilitate siting of asphalt plants. Often this type of use is considered undesirable near development due to the amount of truck traffic, noise, dust, and general unsightly nature of the business. While the areas currently under review for expansion of asphalt plants are not near development now, it is recognized that over time, development will be moving toward the east, potentially near mining and potential asphalt plant locations. While the current discussion relates to relocation of the Pine Bend Paving facility, modifications to the ordinance will allow any asphalt plant into the community, so long as they would meet appropriate performance standards. Therefore, the Council needs to consider that a larger plant may settle in the community also and not just a long -time local business. Other issues that were raised by the Planning Commission and in discussions with the City Attorney relate to the length of time for the operation, what type of regulations need to be in place to mitigate potential off -site impacts, and if the business should be accessory to the principal use (mining). One of the concerns with linking mining and asphalt plants was that there is no regulation defining what constitutes mining activity. If a mining permit was issued and two shovels full of dirt were removed, would that be mining? The concern was that the timeframe for mining out the site might be delayed to permit the operation of the asphalt plant. Both of these uses are seen as interim uses until such time as development occurs. Staff is concerned about the potential to artificially delay removal of the mining or asphalt operation because it is lucrative to stay in its existing location, even when development is occurring around it. If the Council was interested in developing an interim permit process for asphalt plants, additional research is needed regarding traffic generation, noise, dust, odors, and amount of stockpiling for the operation. Conditions of an approved permit would address these items, as would the regulations for granting of the permit. The City Attorney raised the issue of whether the mining operation should be tied to the asphalt plant operation. If so, then perhaps the asphalt plant is accessory to the mining operation, meaning that material from the mine is used for the asphalt plant. That would mean little to no recycled material would be imported to the site. This apparently would not be economically feasible for asphalt plants as processing recycled material is an important part of the business. Therefore, it begs the question if the two uses should be permitted on the same property. They both can independently operate as principal structures. On the surface, the advantage of combining 3 R - lopisip lejnllnoij6e pue }opIsip leialsnpui ay} gjoq ui Iiwaad wiaajui eqj 6uisn puawwooaa pinom gels slued llegdse pue 6uiuiw 6u Nuil iapisuoo of sluem Iiounoo eqj 11 - A:padoid pauoz Alleinllnoij6e olui 6uipuedxe Inogl!m A4iunwwoo eqj uigl!m jueld llegdse ue }o 6uilp jol Aliun:poddo juaiogns si aaagl jegj sanailaq de s `Apnuawoo aqj ui puel pauoz Alleiaisnpui ;o saaoe t 8L`Z WAA •am}eu ui Aaeaodwa} si asn eqj jegj uaA16 `sieua}ew aoijalxa panoidwi pue azis 6uwplinq wnwiuiw a aiinbaa jou of Alp aql molle osle pinom 96uego siyl •sasn eqj ql!m paleposse sloedwi 9nile6au leilualod ssaippe of Alilige ay} se pane se Apijoe aql jo uoileinp 941 aano joaluoo j9le9a6 Akio ay} I!wjed ll!m siq 1 •sasn pappied uegj jagjej sasn wiaajui (juawau pue alajouoo 4l!m 6uole) s}ueld llegdse 9� ew of paqipow aq jop}sip E)l aye jeyj puawwooaa p1nonn gels `jay:pn j - fi4!unwwoo eqj uigl!m shield llegdse 6ui:4iwaad Jo; 9131y9n 6uiuoz alepdoidde }sow ayj si Iiwaad wiaajui ue sanailaq jjejg uW ;epuawwooab •aayla6ol pa }is aq Apessaoau pinogs oml eqj legl ueew jou seop i! `A4io eqj aaolaq si Isenbai jegj aliyM •6uiww 6uissnosip jnopm sluawaiinbai jueld llegdse qj!m 6ulleep aq p1nom am jegj aq Aew Ji }uawpuawe �xaj 6uiuoz a palsenbai jou peq jauuea •jw 11 •A i0 aqj ajolaq Al}uanno uoileoildde eql Aq pa}dwad si `shield llegdse pue 6uiuiw `sasn oml eql jo 96e�uwj }red }eu} swags 11 'peNuil aq pinogs oml aqj Aqm jealoun si }i `Igaueq jegj Inoul!M *91is ay} o} peonpaj aq pinom 6uiNonaj ajojaaayj pue slepajew 6www asn slued llegdse ay} jegj seen sasn ON aql 1 Y ,. MINERAL EXTRACTION BACKGROUND Mineral extraction currently occurs by permit in six locations in Rosemount. Two zoning districts are affected. One site (Solberg on Flint Hills Resources property) is in the General Industrial (IG) District. Mining is a permitted use in IG as is asphalt production. The other five sites are in the Agriculture District. Three are east of US 52 near County Road 42 (within Y2 mile on the south side). These three sites include the Danner, Ped and Furlong properties and are on land in the Agriculture District that previously permitted mining in much the same way it-was allowed in the IG district. The other Agricultural properties are Shafer and Vesterra, both west of County Road 71. The Shafer property has been mined since the 1970's and is now a legal non - conforming use. Due to its location, the Shafer mine would not be eligible to obtain a mining permit and bring the property into compliance. A zoning amendment was adopted in 2002, which opened up about 600 acres of Ag land north of County Road 42 with an Interim Use Permit procedure. This allowed the permitting of the Vesterra site. At the same time, the amendment omitted the allowance for mining on Agricultural land east of US 52. All ongoing permitted mining activities in this area can continue according to the permit conditions. In 2002, the Council direction was to implement the Mixed -use Industrial zoning district along County Road 42 on either side of US 52. Among other things, the intent was to permit mining as a means of preparing the land for future industrial sites. The view was that mining would be short- term, and that the accelerating value of the land would encourage the timely extraction of the resource. Mining has been controversial in the past, especially with the visibility of it in Apple Valley, and some problems that occurred with previous operators in Rosemount. Another issue is a concern that the quality of material available is variable, and the areas that permitted mining in Rosemount did not align with high - quality deposits. Staff's perception is that the material available in the low areas along County Road 42 east of US 52 is mostly "sugar sand." Staff has also observed that many of the large companies have "leap- frogged" past Rosemount to the townships. It appears that this is not due to any regulatory action taken by the City but, rather it is because of the availability and quality of the materials. Apparently, the Glaciers deposited the highest quality of materials in a large arc that covers much of today's Apple Valley, and swings southeast into Empire Township. Recently, an Environmental Impact Scoping document was circulated concerning approximately 3,600 acres in Empire. 5 F. 1 � �� 4 c 4�� f Mineral Extraction in Apple Valley In the late 1980's the City of Apple Valley in concert with mining operators developed a comprehensive strategy for regulating mineral extraction and setting that stage for future land use. An Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by a consultant, Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban (DSU), which was sponsored by Fischer, Barton, McNamara and other mining entities. The immediate benefit was to provide continuity between the adjacent restored properties and set grades for streets and building pads. The area consisted of approximately 1,200 - 1,500 acres and contained very high quality aggregate materials. McNamara operated an asphalt plant in the vicinity, which generated some complaints. In response, they injected chemicals into the asphalt to relieve the odor. Primarily residential uses were the end -use of the post- mining restored land. As the land is being reclaimed for residential development, mining and related activities are being phased out. Most of the activity including McNamara Asphalt now occurs south of County Road 46 (in Lakeville). The mining activity in general was regulated by a conditional use permit. The asphalt plat was an accessory use with no specific mechanism for removal. MCNamara has a financial relationship with Tradition Ventures and Nordinc Square partnership, the current owners of land in the Cobblestone Lake area. Relocation of mining and related asphalt production was structured in the partnership as residential development got started. Cobblestone Lake A residential PUD with a storm water pond as a central feature was the end -use plan for the Cobblestone Lake area. Mining operations on this land east of Pilot Knob are winding down. According to Apple Valley City Planner Tom Lovelace, operations should be completed within the next two years. The land is now controlled by Cobblestone, L.L.C. Other significant owners include Fischer and Camas. Ongoing processing including screening is occurring in the northwest corner of the area, and conveyors underneath County Road 46 connect operations with the area south in Lakeville. Home sales in the area are strong, with many upscale houses being built by Cobblestone Lake Development, Tradition Ventures, Rottlund Homes and Charles Cudd LLC among others.