HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.g. Mining Upddate CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR DISCUSSION
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
DATE: October 13, 1999
AGENDA ITEM: Mining Update AGENDA NO.
PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner ,�r� � �
t�� ��� �;
ATTACHMENTS: Zoning Ordinance 12.4 Mineral Extraction
John Shardlow will be prepared to discuss the events of the Aggregate Resources Task Force on
Sand& Gravel at the Legislature.
On a more local perspective,this is the time of year that begins the process of annual review and
renewal of the mineral extraction permits. Therefore, changes to the way Rosemount regulates
mineral extraction should be reflected in amendments to the zoning section that defines the
standards and procedures for mineral extraction.
Given the discussions which have occurred to date,there are several possible changes that could
be made including:
1. Modify the permitted location of mineral extraction. There are several possibilities,but
the obvious one is to limit mineral extraction in the Agriculture district to land that is
guided for Industrial or mixed use industrial future land use in the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Allow the integration of adj acent mining activity by eliminating applicable setbacks.
This would result in a"blended" end-use elevation that may enhance redevelopment.
3. Changes to the expectations regarding end use plans should be defined in the ordinance.
4. Remove the condition referring to the County Gravel Tax. This is the County's
responsibility.
Staff needs relevant direction as soon as possible in order to initiate applicable zoning ordinance
amendments if the Council is considering significant changes affecting the regulation of mineral
extraction.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Provide staff with Council direction concerning the regulation of mineral extraction.
COUNCIL ACTION:
2. Exceptions:
a. Where information is on file in the C' Hall (i.e.,
' formation submitted and appr ed in formal
pla 'ng)some of the requireme may be waived at
the cretion of the Co unity Development
Departm t.
b. Additions to exi ' tructures,centers or complexes,
approved by the i may be exempt from some of
the require nts, d ending on the level of
informatio on file an he relationship of the
propos addition.
. c. A other exceptions must be ap ved by the
ommission according to procedure contained
herein.
12.4: 1VIIl�IERAL EXTRACTION:
A. Permit Required: It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or
corporation to remove, store or excavate rock, sand, gravel, clay,
silt or other like material in the City, or to fill or raise the existing
surface grades, without receiving a pernut for mineral extraction.
Such permits may only be issued in the zoning district when mineral
extraction is listed as a permitted use with special restrictions.
Furthermore, mineral ext�action shall not be allowed in that portion
of Rosemount located west of Akron Avenue, so as not to interfere
with the orderly growth and expansion of public utilities.
B. Exceptions: An extraction permit shall not be required for any of
the following:
1. Excavation for a foundation, cellar or basement of a
building if a building permit has been issued.
2. Excavation by State, County or City authorities in
connection with construction or maintenance of roads,
highways or utilities.
City of Rosemount
� Page 193
3. Curb cuts, utility hook-ups or street openings for which �
. another permit has been issued by the City. . �
4. Excavation less than one hundred (100} square feet in area
or one (1) foot in depth.
� . 5. Excavation or grading for agricultural purposes.
C. Application, Public Hearing, Notice and Procedure: The
application, public hearing, public notice and procedure
requirements for mineral extraction permits shall be the same as
those for amendments as provided in Section 11.14 of this
Ordinance, except that the permit shall be issued on the affirmative
vote of a majority of the entire Council. Application for the
extraction permit shall be made in writing in the form specified by
the City. The application shall contain the following information:
1. The correct legal description of the land upon which
excavation is proposed.
2. The name and address of the applicant, the owner of the
land and the person or corporation conducting the actual
_ removal operation.
3. The names and addresses of all adjacent land owners within
three hundred fifry (350) feet or, if the subject properry is
located in Agricultural (AG), Agricultural Preserve (AP) or
Rural Residential (RR) District, within one-fourth (1/4)
. mile.
4. The purpose of the proposed excavation.
5. The estimated time required to complete the proposed
excavation and rehabilitation.
6. The names of the highways, streets or other public roadways
� within the City upon which the material shall be tra.nsported.
City of Rosemotcnt
Page 194 �
D. Standards: The following standards shall apply to all extraction
operations:
1. Boundary: Extraction operations shall be conducted within
the confines of the excavation site described in the
� application.
2. Access: Extraction operations shall only be allowed on sites
which have direct access to either a principal arterial, minor
arterial, a collector street, or to a local street if app roved by
the Public Works Department, as designated in the City of
Rosemount Comprehensive Guide Plan.
3. Prohibited Areas: Extraction operations shall not be
conducted within the following:
a. Five (5) feet of the right of way or easement of an
existing public utility.
b. Thirty (30) feet of the boundary of an adjoining
property which is not being used for extraction
operations.
c. Fifty (50) feet of the right of way of a public street
or highway.
4. Phasing of Operations: Extraction operations to be
conducted on a site larger than fifteen (15) acres shall be
subject to the following requirements:
a. A phasing plan must be prepared which limits
operations to a maximum area of fifteen (15) acres
per phase of operations.
b. A mineral extraction permit for the first phase of an
extraction operation shall be lunited to a maximum
area of fifteen (15) acres. An extraction permit for
phase two (2) or subsequent phases of a mineral
extraction operation shall not be issued until at least
seventy (70) percent of the previous phase of
� operations has been rehabilitated according to an
approved comprehensive rehabilitation plan.
City of Rosemount
Page195
►
� � c. No mineral extraction permit shall authorize
extraction operations to be conducted in more than �
two (2) phases of an extraction operation
concurrently.
� d. No mineral extraction permit shall authorize
� extraction to be conducted on more than nineteen
and one-half(191h) acres at one time.
5. Fencing: During excavation operations, access to any area
where collections of water are one and one-half(11/s) feet in
depth or more or where excavation slopes are steeper than
� one (1) foot vertical to one and one-half(1'/z) feet horizontal
and any other areas where obvious danaer to the public exists
shall be controlled by a fence erected and maintained around
the entire site or portions thereof and shall be a type specified
. by the Council.
6. Appearance and Screening:
� a. All machinery shall be kept operational.
� b. Abandoned machinery and rubbish shall be promptly
removed from the excavation site.
c. Within three (3) months after the termination of
excavation operations or within three(3)months after
the expiration of the extraction permit provided by
this Ordinance,the applicant or owner shall dismantle
. buildings and structures incident to excavation
operations and shall grade the excavation site as well
as complete all rehabilitation on the site as provided
by the rehabilitadon plan.
d. When required, the perimeter of the excavation site
shall be planted or otherwise screened.
e. Existing tree and ground cover shall be preserved to
the maximum extent feasible, maintained or
supplemented by selective cutting,transplantin;and
replanting of trees, shrubs and other ground cover
along all setback areas.
City of Rosemount
Page 196 -
7. Excavation Operating Standards:
a. Noise: Maximum noise level at the perimeter of the
excavation site shall comply with the limits or
standards established by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
b. Hours: All excavation operations shall be conducted
between seven o'clock(7:00)A.M. and seven o'clock
(7:00) P.M., Monday through Saturday only. The
Council may restrict excavation,processing or related
operations on legal holidays if such activities cause
noise or other disturbances offensive to adjacent
. property owners.
c. Explosives:The use and handling of explosives at the
excavation site shall be coordinated with the Police
Department. Blasting shall occur only at hours
specified in the extraction permit.
d. Fugitive Dust: Excavation operators shall use all
� pracrical means to reduce the amount of fugitive dust
generated by excavation operations. In any event, the
amount of dust or other particulate matter generated
by the excavation shall not exceed air pollution
standards established by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency.
� e. Water Pollution: Excavation operators shall comply
with all applicable Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency and Department of Natural Resources
regulations and all applicable United States
Environmental Protection Agency regulations for the
protection of water quality. No waste products or
processed residue, including untreated wash water,
. shall be deposited in any public waters of the State of
Minnesota.
f. Topsoil Preservation: All topsoil shall be retained at
the excavation site until the completion of
City of Rosemount
Page 197
rehabilitation work in accordance with the
, rehabilitation plan. . ,�
_ . , g. Slopes During Excavation Operations: During the
entire period of operations,all excavations other than
the working face, shall be sloped on all sides to a
maximum ratio of one (1) foot horizontal to one (1) �
foot vertical,unless a steeper slope is approved by the
City. Where excavations are adjacent to a public
roadway or other ri�ht of way, the excavation shall
have a maximum slope of four(4) feet horizontal to
one (1) foot vertical. Slopes adjacent to waterways
shall not exceed six(�feet horizontal to one(1) foot
vertical.
h. Equipment: All equipment and machinery shall be
� operated and maintained in such a manner as to
minimize dust, noise and vibration.Power drives or
power-producing machines shall not be housed or
operated less than one thousand (1,000) feet from a
residential use. Access roads shall be maintained in
dust-free condition by surfacin�or other treatment as
. may be specified by the City Engineer.
i, Processing: Crushing,washin�and refining,or other
similar processing may be authorized by the Council
� as an accessory use, provided, however, that such
accessory processing shall not be in conflict with the
use regulations of the district in which the operation
is located.
� j. Council Waiver:The Council,at the time of issuance
of the extraction permit,may waive or modify any of �
• the provisions in this Section or impose additional
requirements if it finds that the plan of operation or
other materials submitted with the application or other
factors make appropriate more suitable measures for
standards consistent with the public health,safety and
welfare.
City of Rosemount
� Page 198
E. Special Requirements:The Council,as a prerequisite to the issuance
of an extraction permit,or after an extraction pernut has been granted,
may require the applicant or owner of the premises to:
1. Reimburse the City for the cost of periodic inspections for the
� � purpose of determining that the provisions of the extraction
permit and this Ordinance are being followed.
2. Submit to council a detailed map of the streets on which the
material removed shall be transported(haul roads). The City
shall inspect the haul roads proposed to be used by the
applicant or owner and shall recommend to the Council
necessary upgrading or repairing of the haul roads prior to
their use by the applicant or owner. The Council shall .
designate the haul roads and shall incorporate the
recommendations of the responsible City officials in the
extraction permit issued to the applicant. It shall be the
responsibility of the applicant or owner to maintain the haul
roads in accordance with the provisions set forth in the
permit. City shall periodically inspect haul roads to insure
compliance with the permit. During the period of or upon
completion of the excavation operations, the applicant or
owner shall make any necessary repairs to the haul roads as
recommended by the City. All costs of inspection provided
for in this para�aph shall be bome by the applicant or owner.
The use of the haul roads shall be further subject to any road
and weight restrictions imposed by the City.
3. Submit annually in writing to the Council the estimated
quantity of minerals to be excavated. If the quantity of
minerals to be excavated is for any reason likely to exceed the
original estimate herein required,the applicant or owner shall
notify the Council of the change in estimated quantity.
4. Comply with such other requirements as the Council shall
from time to time deem proper and necessary for the
protection of its citizens and the general welfare. '
F. Inspections: The City may inspect all excavation sites where an
extraction permit has been issued. The operator or owner of any
excavation operation found in violation of the requirements of this
City of Rosemount
- Page 199
� prdinance or its extraction permit shall remedy such violations within
the time specified by written notice from the City.
G. Duration of Extraction Permit: The excavation license shall run
from January 1 through December 31 of the same year or for a lesser
period of time as the Council may specify at the time of issuance of
the extraction permit.If the extraction permit is to run for less than a
full year,the fee shall be prorated as detemuned by the Council.
H. Extraction Permit Fee: The applicant or owner of the premises on
which the excavation operation is located shall annually submit to the
Council written estimates of:
1, The total area of the mineral extraction operation(expressed
in acres) to be actively mined during the forthcoming year;
. and
2. The total area for .which an extraction permit permitting
� mineral extraction operations has been granted(expressed in
acres) which will not be actively mined in the forthcoming
� year.
� 3, The Council shall,by resolution, establish an annual per acre
pemut fee.
I. Surety Bond:The Council shall require the applicant or owner of the
premises on which the excavation operation is located to post a surety
bond with a surety acceptable to the City, cash escrow or letter of
credit("security") in an amount determined by the Council,running
. to the City, conditioned to pay the City the extraordinary costs and
expense of repairing any streets where such repair work is made
necessary by the special burden resulting from hauling and travel,and
removing material from any pit or excavation, and conducting
required rehabilitation and conditioned further to comply with all the
requirements of this Ordinance and the particular extraction permit,
and to pay any expense the City may incur by reason of doing
anything required to be done by any applicarit to whom a permit is
� issued. The security shall remain in full force and effect for a
minimum period of one year after expiration of the extraction permit
to guarantee the required rehabilitation as well as the other
requirements herein provided.
City of Rosemount
Page 200
, ,
m .
EDWARD
KRAFMER
&SONS,
. INC.
AGGREGATE RESOURCES TASK FORCE
PUBLIC COMMENT SUBMISSION
PART II— WRITTEN SUBMISSION
Pursuant to Laws, 1998, Chapter 401 Section 50
Prepared by David G. Edmunds
Vice President and General Manager
� U�� Materials Division
�f�, ' .
�'�p Edward Kraemer& Sons, Inc.
1020 West Cliff Road
J/ry� Bumsville, N1N 55337
�� � (612) 890-3611 (Phone)
� (612) 894-0808 (Fax)
` www.edkraemer.com/quarryproposals
Septemb�r 1999
MATERlALS DIVISION
1020 WEST CLIFF ROAD BURNSVILLE�MINNE�SOnTA 55337 612-890-3611 FAX: 612-894-0808
�,v.�..
Aggregate Resot�rces Task Force Public Comment Submission, Part II, Written Szrbmission
September 29, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Overview ........................................................ 3
..............................................................................
Aggregate Issues Are Real-Time Concerns ................................................................................. 6
Myths Often Overshadow Key Questions ................................................................................... 8
Local Govemments Are Caught in a Conundrum ..................................................................... 11
It's Time to Remove the Conflict Bet�veen Public Policy and Public Need ............................. 12
Conclusions ........................................................................ 14
........................................................
1. Public policy needs to be modified to protect the accessibility and availability of
a�gregate resources.
� 2. A long-term regional or statewide process-driven policy is needed.
3. Current policy may unintentionally encouraae the proliferation of small quarry
operations.
4. Aggregate resources may need to be desi?nated as an essential economic activity in
the next few years.
5. Prompt policy modification will prevent significant future cost impacts.
c-
6. Our need is really quite urgent.
In Summary
2
Aggregate Resotrrces Task Force Public Comment Sacbmission, Part II, yYritten Sarbmission
September 29, 1999
Overview
Edward Kraemer& Sons,Inc. is one of Minnesota's larger aggregate producers. With
several operations in Minnesota,its largest is the Burnsville quarry located at the Minnesota
River and Interstate 3�W in Bumsville. This facility produces t�vo and one-half million tons per
year of various high-grade limestone products.
For example,
• Sub-base materials for raads and runways.
• Agjregate for use in concrete and asphalt.
In our judgment and based in large part on the information we provide in this testimony,
there is an urgent and special need for a comprehensive statewide policy on aggreDate resource
management.
A;gregate Isscces Are Rea!-Time�`oncerns
� Supplies are d�vindlin�as producing facilities started 2� —40 years ago begin to close. The
` metropolitan area consumes an estimated 25 million tons of aDgregate a year. At the end of
1999, a facility in Shakopee�vill go off-line. This will subtract an estimated 500,000 tons
annually from metropolitan area aagregate supplies. The present process is complex,time-
consumin�, and ignores the gro�ving need for new sources of supply.
• The present process for siting new reserves is complex,time-consuming, and ignores
the growing need for new sources of supply.
• Access to available aggregate is declining as development rapidly occurs on top of
these resources. ��
�• The metropolitan area today has an estimated a�gregate reserve representing
approximately a 15-year supply.
• This means that the greater metropolitan area is operating with virtually no reserves.
�,• That's because it takes three to eight years to complete a siting process, assuming no
litigation that slows or stops the process.
• And, it takes up to 20 years to develop the full production potential of a quarry.
• These are some of the facts that support our opinion that aggregate has become a
crucial regional commodity that requires protection from development and �
preservation of access for use by future generations.
• The process for siting needs review and modernization to reflect regional needs.
3
Aggregate Resoarrces Task Force Pirblic Comment Sirbmission, Part II, yVritten Submission
September 29, 1999
• Something needs to be done about the length of time it takes to obtain or be refused a
siting request.
Myths Often Overshadow Key Qcrestions
The aggregate issue is not a key concem to the general public. When it does surface,
usually in a local community, facts, myths, and emotions all come together. There is little
understanding of the importance of the basic materials for everyday life. The public simply
assumes, as it should,that these materials will always be available whenever and wherever
needed.
Fundamental questions go unanswered.
• "How accessible is the resource?"
• "What is an adequate supply of readily available a��regate?"
• "Are there alternative materials, or not?"
• "Are there compatibilities among aggregate minin�, open space uses, rural living, and
a?riculture?"
• "What is the level of protection aggregate resources require as currznt reserves are
depleted?"
Local Governments Are Cacight in a Conun�lrum
' Local governments have the power to make decisions�vith re;ional and statewide impact.
Regional constituencies —that don't directly elect local officials—have no real access to the
process. Current policy and law make local officials victims of a process that makes their
decisions locally explosive with impact well beyond their borders simply because the resource,
uncovered by glaciers thousands of years ago, lies within their city or township.
It's Time to Remove tl:e Conflict Between Pccb[ic Policy and P�rblic Need
The compatibility of farmland preservatiori with new ag;regate resource identification and
recovery needs to be clarified. The Metropolitan Council has elaborately described its intent to
limit development by preserving farmland uses. The unintended consequence of encouraging
local comprehensive plans to preserve fannland to the exclusion of other si;nificant needs makes
discovery and utilization of new aggregate reserves unnecessarily complicated.
In short, while there may seem to be a clear policy on a�ricultural land preservation,there
is virtually no clear policy with regard to how to deal with aagregate resources in the ex-urban
areas. Development is occuning in any event. Aggregate resources that 15 years ago were
thought to be able to last a century or more have now largely been covered by growth of one
kind or another. Policy resolution through clarification, quantification, and a collaborative
4
Aggregate Resoi�rces Tc�sk Force Pzrblic Comment Sarbmission, Part II, �ritten Sarbmission
September 29, 1999
development process will demonstrate that aggregate extraction is actually quite compatible with
other agricultural land uses.
In the pages that follow we will amplify these topics.
4
5
Aggregate Resozrrces Task Force Public Comment Submission, Part 11, y�ritten Submission
September 29, 1999
Aggregate Issues Are Real-Time Concerns
As a major producer of aggregate materials, predominately in the Twin City Metropolitan
Area but with other facilities in the northern part of the state,Edward Kraemer& Sons, Inc. is
literally on the leadina edge of this issue. We have begun navi;ating the existing process to site
limestone quarries in Douglas and Waterford Townships in Dakota County. The process has the
potential to become politically overwhelmina to local government officials. At least initially,
residents are frightened and emotionally surprised. It�vill take some time for them to be able to
step back and analyze what we are proposing.
Under cunent township procedures there is literally no�vay to know that we will be
successful or unsuccessful at any stage of the process.
Meanwhile, our Burnsville quarry has entered the last 2� years of its productive life. This
facility was begun 41 years ago as a rejional source of a?grejate for the T�vin Cities and
surroundin� region. The Burnsville quarry was sited in what was then a remote, sparsely
populated township where it was generally compatible with the development of properties in the
vicinity. Over the years, increased density development has surrounded the quarry creating land
. use conflicts and pressures to cease operations. These pressures,combined with the recent
� increased demand for product, limit the life of the quarry. At the same time, �ve kno�v that
several other major aggregate sources will be goin'off-line over the next several years. This
will further shorten the life of the Burnsville quarry as it replaces the capacity of closing
facilities.
This places the company in the position of having to begin plans for developing a
replacement source of material. Combining the time it takes to develop a quany to full
production(20 years) with the time it takes to obtain a permit(three to eiaht years) is what's
driving the company to begin the replacement of the Bumsville quarry now.
4'
In Doualas Township where our application was submitted in June of 1999, opposition
immediately pressed the Township to cease consideration of the application on its merits. We
have conducted a very aggressive communications program to listen to the community,talk
about ourselves as a company, talk about ourselves as an organization, share our business goals;
explain the benefits for the township, describe the extensive nature of the environmental
assessment process, and emphasize how much opportunity for public input there is.
The result of these efforts is that the Township has passed a zoning moratorium. This �
action suspends consideration of our application under the existin;minina ordinance. We are
6
Aggregate Resources Task Force Parblic Comment Saibmission, Part 11, l�ritten Submission
September 29, 1999
now in the midst of a six-month study process to determine just ho�v Douglas Township might
manage a resource like ours in their community.
While this study is going on,the public's focus of attention is almost exclusively on
environmental questions and issues. These questions can really only be answered by the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. The moratorium, as currently imposed, freezes
everythin? and delays the start of the EIS. This tends to increase public frustration and suspicion
while making it difficult to answer with credibility and definitiveness the questions that are truly
uppermost in the public's mind.
Under present law, local governmental units (cities and to��nships)have extraordinary
zoning power. This concept may be generally appropriate in the case of a"portable" land use
but does not work well for development of geologic resources. As the depletion of a current
major source of ajgregate materials becomes a reality, new sources need to be developed. The
need is becomin� increasingly urgent.
Local governments lack the means to consider infrastructurz maintenance and
rehabilitation activities for 2.4 million people in the Twin Cities metropolitan area as part of their
land use management activities. County and regional government�have varied approaches to
this issue. Dakota County, for instance, has decided not to become involved in regulatinD the
aggregate industry. The County has left it to the townships to decide whether and how to
balance the public's interest with the nei?hborhood's desire to protect local interests—and any
other issues the local culture is willing to consider. This is in contrast to the situation in
Washin�ton County where the County takes the lead role in this issue.
� If new sources of aggreaate are not developed, the regional impact on the aggregate supply
will be substantial. There are only a handful of areas of similar rock deposits that can be
economically developed. The cunent trend in permittin� is to make the decisions tou;her and
more complex. Thus, action is needed now, in real time,to avoid a disruptive shortaae of a very
essential commodity.
�- .
7
Aggregate Resoa�rces Task Force Public Comment Submission, Part II, Written Submission
September 29, 1999
Myths Often Overshadow Key Questions
The public's and public officials' perception of the industry and its issues is very limited.
This includes current technologies and marketplace chan?es. As a consequence, a number of
myths have developed and persist almost rvith the po�r-er of fact. A myth is really unintentional
misinformation. Left unchallenged,these myths can become barriers to development of
available aggregate resources. They need to be cleared away to allo�v consideration of the truly
crucial questions that�vill lead to better public policy. Questions such as:
• "How accessible is the resource?"
• "What is an adequate supply of readily available a;?re�ate?"
• "Are there alternative materials, or not?"
• "Are there compatibilities among aggregate mining, open space uses, rural livin�, and
a?riculture?"
. `�What is the level of protection a?grejate resources require as current reserves are
depleted?"
Myrl:s
� • 1�Iyth #1: "There is a hundred years' supply,not to worry."
Realit : Available a�gregate resources are d���indling. Increased demand, existin�
production ending, and increased siting difficulties contribute to this situation.
• Myth #2: "Prime farmland should be preserved no matter�vhat happens to be beneath
it, and no matter what the need happens to be."
Reali : Like agriculture, aggregate r�sources aze a necessary part of the organized
society in which we live. An aggregate quarry can only be sited where appropriate
rock reserves aze located. Sometimes these reserves lie beneath prime farmland. A
choice has to be made. Quarry uses are generally compatible with agriculture,
incompatible with uses that are incompatible with agriculture, and, like preserved
farmland, can act to buffer nearby properties from development.
• Myth #3: "There are lots of alternatives to siting new quarry operations;they simply
aren't being explored thoroughly." �
8
Aggregate Resoirrces Task Force Public Comment Submission, Part II, lYritten Szrbmission
September 29, 1999
Reali : Quarry operations are sited where they are for three reasons:
l. Reserves are located in large enou�h deposits to make mining economically
viable.
2. The reserves are accessible from the ground surface.
3. The resultant aggregate can be delivered to the marketplace at prices customers
are willina to pay.
Unintended Realitv: Absent a more effective way of sitin? large-scale quarries, there
�vill be a proliferation of small quarry operations in counties and towns near the
deposits. Either way,the same people w-ill be affected by the same activities
conducted by a greater number of smaller operators. It would take many of these
small facilities to begin to replace current aggregate production.
• Myth #4: "The host community doesn't receive any benefit from having the quarry
operation in its jurisdiction."
Realitv: First, a�gregate operations of scale pay eatraction taxes designed to cover
the cost of maintaining county and local infrastructure impacted by mining
operations. Second, virtually every community that hosts an operation of this nature
should benefit directly and easily. Under current law, such benefits are neither
authorized nor required. In seekin� approvals, Ed«•ard Kraemer & Sons, Inc., has
offered set-asides to cover the cost of reclamation or to fund publicly useful activities.
� • Niyth #S: "A�gregate operations are dusty, noisy industrial operations and therefore
' are incompatible with traditional rural open space land uses."
Realit : Imposition of modern environmental and operatin� standards on quarries
results in mitigation of dust and noise pollution and the variety of issues opponents
typically cite. The result is that the quanies are often more thoroughly regulated that
the surrounding existing land uses.
• Myth #6: "Farmland preservation is incompatible ��-ith quarry development."
Realities: Quarry activity is especiall��compatible wzth aaricultural uses:
— The land use of quarrying is very similar to that of agriculture, with the
exception of the excavation azea(and any resultin�lake).
— Establishing a quarry within a to�vnship w�ll chan�e only the primary land use
in the quarry pit.
— Mining is incompatible with residential uses.
— Extraction activity can aid in protecting a�icultural land from premature .
conversion to urban land uses.
— Agricultural activities can continue on all portions of land that are not actively
being excavated.
9
Aggregate Resources Task Force Public Comment Submission, Part II, Written Szrbmission
September 29, 1999
— The establishment of a quarry does not create demand for additional
development or public services such as sewer and water.
— Quarrying activities reduce the potential for non point-source pollutants.
• Myth �7: "The viewshed cannot be protected by mitigation."
Realit : Protection of aesthetic values is easily accomplished through a variety of
techniques. Some of these techniques include ve;etative plantings,the creation of
berms, and other screenina techniques that both help the viewshed and control noise.
Often these steps are carried out in conjunction with advisory committees consisting
of local residents whose views are taken into consideration as mitigation strategies are
developed.
• �Myth #8: "Land values surrounding quarry sites will be depressed."
Realit : If our Burnsville quarry is any indicator, property values can increase even
within sight of a large quarry operation. Some of the most expensive homes in the
Minnesota River Valley overlook directly the Bumsville quarry from the river bluffs
above.
We also believe that residents' concerns about property values need to be addressed.
To do this, we have developed a Property Value Guazantee Program to offer to
owners of residential or agricultural parcels�vithin approximately a mile of the
proposed quarry site boundaries.
c-
10
Aggregate Resources Task Force Public Comment Szrbmission, Part 11,•tiYritten Szrbmission
September 29, 1999
Local Governments Are Caught in a Conundrum
The existing regulatory framework for sitin�regional ajgregate extraction facilities places
local governments in a Catch 22. On the one hand, local elected leaders recognize the
importance of aagregate because they are involved in local road construction and/or maintenance
on a daily basis. This need is for readily available road and building materials at a reasonable
cost. There is a need for a mechanism to enable them to develop, preserve, and protect valuable
aggregate resources.
On the other hand, the constituents �vho elect town leaders will be neighbors to the
regional facility. It is much easier for neighbors simply to oppose a proposed quarry project
rather than analyze and evaluate a proposed project's effects. It is also easier to oppose a project
that does not appear to directly benefit neighbors or their to�vn.
Local government officials are subjected to pressures to oppose quarry projects from their
electorate and might only receive support for the project from outsiders. As a consequence of
this conundrum, local governments are faced with the following issues and questions:
� • How can regional public policy decisions be effectively or appropriately made by
� govemmental units that don't represent regional interests?
• Manajing the politics of these issues at the local level is very difficult. How can
advocacy for regional needs be better integrated into locally based decision making?
• Communities have difficulty making decisions of this magnitude in the time frames
modem industry requires.
Local governments can be put in the position of arbitrarily denying one of the property
o��ner's beneficial use of land when the balance of the competing interests supports an equitable
solution.
r
11
Aggregate Resources Task Force Pa�blic Comment Sirbmission, Part II, Written Submission
September 29, 1999
It's Time to Remove the Conflict Beriveen Public Policy and Public Need
A conflict in policy exists because the focus on preservin�fannland is having the
unintended consequence of complicating the sitin; of new aagregate sources, particularly in the
Twin Cities metropolitan area.
A well-managed aggregate quarry is a compatible use in a rural, open space location. By
developin�the appropriate screenin� as an initial phase of quarry development, a quarry can be
virtually transparent on a rural landscape. The proper use of noise mitigation berms and
landscapin;can construct horizons that will screen the activity so as to mitigate any potential
incompatibility. Noise, dust, and other concems can be mitigated by proper regulation. Water
quality protection regulations and air quality requirements apply equally to a quany as to an
industrial use. Land use controls applicable to quarries are an effective means of local
government re�ulation in addition to state pollution control a�ency and federal environmental
protection ajency requirements. In this way conflict is minimized.
In our view, aggregate quarries are very compatible�vith agriculture. For example:
� • A modern quany development requires a substantial proportion of buffer land in order
' to be compatible �vith the existin� land use. This buffer land remains available for
farming throughout the life of the quarry.
• After completion of a quarry, additional portions of the excavated area can be
reclaimed for agriculture.
• A quarry will help resist development pressure because durino its useful life it is
incompatible with high-density development. One of the principal problems that
a?riculture faces as development approaches is the inflation of property values,
making farming uneconomical.
• Quarries present impediments to publi�.improvement projects, such as se�ver utilities,
because of the significant land area.
• Any perceived conflict between a;rriculture preservation and aggregate development
can be resolved in plarming the sta�in�and redevelopment of the quarry.
Currently, comprehensive plannin;practices include planning for protection of natural
resources such as rivers, streams,hi�h quality fertile land, old woods, and other unique land
features. As with those features, aggregate resources near the surface that can be economically
developed should also be preserved. Public policies requiring that comprehensive planning �
consider aggregate reserves outside ihe metropolitan region aze certainly a good start.
12
Aggregate Resotrrces Task Force Public Comment Submission, Part II, tiYritten St�bmission
September 29, 1999
Minnesota Statute § 84.94 requires local govemments to consider agb egate resources in
their comprehensive plans. This statute does not apply in the metropolitan region. This statute
should, however,be expanded in two ways:
1. To require the active preservation of available resources so that those resources can be
developed for use by society.
2. This requirement should be imposed�vithin the metropolitan region.
Applying this requirement to the metropolitan region is important for three reasons:
1. Most aa�reaate consumption occurs within the metropolitan region.
2. The hi;hest concentration of population is also found in this region.
3. Accessible metropolitan area aggreoate reserves are dwindling due to growth and
development.
It is necessary to have increased aggreaate reserves within the metropolitan area.
Aggregate reserves could be developed in the metropolitan area outside both the Metropolitan
Urban Services Area(MUSA) and the Planned Future Grow�th Area in order to ensure that
development of these reserves occur where the market is without addin� incompatible land uses.
Other policy initiatives can also be explored:
• The certificate of need process could be implemented in appropriate circumstances.
• Protection of major a?�regate reserves can be done in a manner that differentiates
. them from smaller, less unique deposits.
A statewide or regional permitting authority could be imposed in order to ensure that the
public's interests in developin�the resource are properly protected.
r
13
Aggregate Resoacrces Task Force Pzrblic Comment Szrbmission, Part II, tiYritten St�bmission
September 29, 1999
Conclusions
1. Public p,olicv needs to be modified to protect the accessibilitv and availabilitv of
aQ�re ate resources: Today's quarries are different from those of old in two
significant ways. First, consumption and production have far outstripped all
forecasts. Second, today's quarries operate in a comprehensive regulatory
environment. As consumption continues to increase and reserves decrease,public
policy needs modification to reflect the demand for sitin�new aggre?ate facilities.
2. A long term re�ional or statewide process-driven policv is needed: Today,permitting
can take three to eight years. It can take up to 20 years to develop a hi;h-grade
limestone aogregate operation able to deliver two million tons per year. It now looks
as though, in the next decade, far more a;?regate production facilities�vill come off-
line than can be replaced at the cunent rate of discovery,permittina, and
development. Faced with decisions of this magnitude at the township level, local
residents may oppose permitting because they ar.e not routinely involved in the larger
issues impacting the state and region and have no particular incentive to support a
larger statewide or regional policy. A ne�v statewide or re?ional policy is needed that
� provides the incentive for local acceptance of sijnificant regional facilities.
3. Current policv mav unintentionallv encouraQe the proliferation of small quarrv
�erations: Absent a more effective way of siting decision makmg, a proliferation of
small quany operations in counties and towns near key limestone deposits is likely.
Either way, the same people will be affected by the same activities conducted by a
greater number of smaller operators. Cities and townships would have a much areater
oversight and regulatory burden.
It would take many of these small facilities to begin to replace current a�gregate
production. Current policy inhibits the orderly development of appropriately sized
production facilities.
4. AQ�re�ate resources mav need to be desi�nated as an essential economic activi in
the next few vears: In land use planning we protect certain vital, significant resources
such as prime fannland,water, old growth forests, and wetlands. Aggregate
resources should be similarly protected in order to preserve the availability of and
access to these materials near the metropolitan area. .
5. Prompt policv modification will prevent sienificant future cost impacts: The
transportation cost of a typical load of aggregate increases by 100 percent every 25
14
Aggregate Resoarrces Task Force Public Comment Submission, Part 11, yYritten Strbmission
September 29, 1999
miles. By definition, if we are to have affordable, manageable growth, the resources
to support that growth must be nearby. If the cunent situation remains unchanged,
fundamental infrastructure construction activities such as roads, bridges, airport
runways, and reconstruction will needlessly grow in cost.
6. Our need is reallY quite ur�ent: We are typical of our industry. The Burnsville
quarry has an estimated remainina usefiil life of 20—25 years. Should the economy
remain strong,requiring faster consumption of this resource, the quarry's useful life
could be as low as 15 years.
In summarv our testimonv focuses on four kev ideas:
1. Acknowledge that aggregate materials have become a significant resource requirin;
protection.
2. Revise and modernize the siting process.
3. Build consideration of regional implications into local decision making.
4. Establish reasonable timelines for the entire process.
r
15