HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 152-05 MWI
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Rochester Sand and Gravel Division of Mathy Construction applied for a
Type III, Phase II, Restricted Development Preliminary Plan #05-06 to permit the establishment
of a hot mix asphalt facility on property located east of T.H. 63, south of 60th Street South and
northeasterly of Machinery Hill within the Quarve Quarry Pit; and,
WHEREAS, since a hot mix asphalt facility is not a permitted use in this zoning district,
the Applicant has proposed the development by way of the restricted development provisions;
and,
WHEREAS, R.C.O. §62.700 recognizes that certain land uses which are generally not
allowed within a given zoning district can, if regulated, "serve both the public interest and allow a
more equitable balancing of private interests than that achieved by strict adherence to standard
zoning regulations;" and,
WHEREAS, this application requires a two-step review process consisting of a
preliminary plan and a final plan. The preliminary plan phase follows the Type III, Phase II
procedure with a hearing before the Planning Commission.and a hearing before the Council.
The Applicant is requesting the waiver of the final plan review; and,
• WHEREAS, R.C.O. § 62.708 (Criteria for Type III Developments) provides the relevant
criteria for the review of this application; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department applied the criteria found at Section 62.708 to this
application and prepared the following findings of fact:
1) Preliminary Development Plan Criteria:
a) Capacity of Public Facilities: The proposed hot mix asphalt
(HMA) facility will not result in a need for sanitary sewer or water
facilities on-site. Electrical power, needed for the facility, exists.
Olmsted County Public Works will require the applicant to construct
a right-turn and by-pass lane on St. Bridget Road/CR 20.
b) Geologic.Hazards: There are no known geologic hazards on the
property.
c) Natural Features: The HMA site is proposed to be located on the
existing quarry floor. There are no unique natural features on the
property that have been identified.
•
1
d) Residential Traffic Impact: Access to this property will be
primarily from the north TH 63 quarry access. This access utilizes
the existing frontage road access which is across from the 60th St.
SW access on TH 63. The frontage road also has a south access.
Secondary access to the property would be from the east side of
the Quarry, at St. Bridget Road/CR 20. There should be no impact
to residential roadways as a result of this application. Following the
2003 approval of a conditional use permit for a HMA plant at this
location, the applicant paved both accesses.
e) Traffic Generation Impact: Olmsted County Public Works
will require the applicant to construct a right-turn and by-pass lane
on St. Bridget Road/CR 20. At this time, no other road authority
has indicated a concern that anticipated traffic would cause the
capacity of the adjacent streets to be exceeded. MnDOT's referral
finds the traffic impact acceptable.
f) Height Impacts: This site does offer some unique opportunities
for buffering and screening. The height of the quarry wall directly
west of the proposed site is approximately 100 feet. To the north
of the HMA site, the quarry wall drops to approximately 70 feet.
Additionally, an existing row of mature evergreen trees exists along
a portion of the west property boundary, between the north TH 63
entrance (across from the 60th St. intersection with TH 63) and
Machinery Hill. Due to topography and design of the quarry it
appears the HMA site would be most visible from the east (i.e. east
of St. Bridget Road/CR 20). From the west, the visible portion of the
HMA site would be the extended bag-house stack, which is
proposed to be approximately 130 feet above the quarry floor.
Approximately the upper 30-60 feet would be visible from the west.
g) Setbacks: The proposed HMA plant site is approximately 800 to
900 feet from the west property boundary. Setbacks from the north,
west and south property boundaries would be more than mile.
h) Internal Site Design: A layout of the proposed HMA plant is
included in the application materials. From the HMA site, access
will be available either to the east to St. Bridget Road/CR 20 or to
the TH 63 accesses to the Quarry. The primary access is planned
to be the north TH 63 access, which is located at the intersection of
TH 63 and the 60th St. SW and east Frontage Road.
i) Screening and Buffering: This site does offer some unique
•
2
opportunities for buffering and screening. The height of the quarry
wall directly west of the proposed site is approximately 100 feet.
To the north of the HMA site, the quarry wall drops to
approximately 70 feet. Additionally, an existing row of mature
evergreen trees exists along a portion of the west prope'I
boundary, between the north TH 63 entrance (across from the 60
St. intersection with TH 63) and Machinery Hill. Due to topography
and design of the quarry it appears the HMA site would be most
visible from the east (i.e. east of St. Bridget Road/CR 20). From
the west, the visible portion of the HMA site would be extended bag-
house stack, which is proposed to be approximately 130 feet above
the quarry floor. Approximately the upper 30-60 feet would be visible
from the west.
j) Ordinance Requirements: There should be adequate room
on-site for employee parking and internal circulation of truck traffic.
This use will be subject to meeting the Industrial Performance
Standards of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual (Sec. 63.600 et. seq.).
k) General Compatibility: The site is separated from adjacent
residential uses to the west by the quarry wall and the right of way
of TH 63, so that the nearest house is roughly 1,400 feet away.
The bag-house is proposed to be increased in height in order
increase dispersion of emissions and thereby to reduce the effects
of the HMA to surrounding neighbors. Approximately the upper 30-
60' would be visible from the west. This applicant is again
proposing to use an odor mask in the mix to neutralize and
minimize odor from the plant. Additionally, this use will be subject
to meeting the Industrial Performance Standards of the Rochester
Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (Sec. 63.600 et.
seq.). It has been the experience of the Rochester-Olmsted
Planning Department that existing hot mix asphalt facilities in the
County have not generated a history of complaints related to noise,
odor or dust. During the operation of their previous CUP, there
were complaints from neighbors to the west about odors from the
HMA plant, however; and,
WHEREAS, on March 23, 2005, the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission held a
public hearing on this restricted development preliminary plan, reviewed the application
according to the requirements of Section 62.708, adopted the Planning Department's
recommended findings of fact and recommended approval of the application subject to the
following conditions:
3
hot mix asphalt facility.
2. This use will be subject to meeting the Industrial Performance Standards of
the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (Section
63.600, et. Seq.,) including the standard applying to odor in the M-1 and M-
2 districts.
3. This permit shall expire one year after the Council's approval. The
applicant must go through a complete review process (public hearings) in
order to renew the permit; and,
4. No temporary use permit may be issued without Council approval.
WHEREAS, the Common Council held a public hearing on the restricted development
preliminary plan request on April 18, 2005, and permitted all interested persons to be heard;
and,
WHEREAS, at the April 18th public hearing, the Council considered the evidence and
testimony submitted, as well as the material contained in the meeting agenda (a copy of which is
attached and incorporated herein); and,
WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance of the evidence submitted at the April 18th
public hearing, the Common Council adopts as its own the Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommended findings of fact, but determines there is a need to amend condition #3 by deleting
the word "two" and inserting in lieu thereof the word "one," and to adopt the following additional
condition:
4. No temporary use permit may be issued without Council approval; and,
WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance and substantial weight of the evidence
submitted at the April 18th public hearing, the Common Council determines that the Applicant
satisfied the criteria of Section 62.708.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of
Rochester that the Type III, Phase II, Restricted Development Preliminary Plan #05-06,
requested by Rochester Sand & Gravel Division of Mathy Construction is in all things approved
subject to the above four conditions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council waives the final plan review.
4
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DM OF , 2005.
PRESIDENT OF'SAIb COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST:
pepu, CITY CL R
O ,
APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 2005.
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Zone051RestDevPre.0506
cJ
V/
Page 4
Figure#3 Zoning Map
p, yn p Y
J 4 i l i a s ii:
'ity of Rochester 'R_�5� u
�.. I � . . .• .'Ql1ARVEROAOSE.��I •.•••••••_••................• •'•'.'.'•'.'•'••
1
. . . . . . . . . . .
l ij .I.. . . . . . . . . . . . ...
. . . . . . . . . . . .,.•.•.
6 ST W I ✓ . ......... . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .
_ I . . . . . . . . . . . r--:
R=1. Olmsted County
`� 1 J ✓ . . . . . .
. . . MA pyN�
Al
. . . . I
.
NWW�ii d d! e
'
9ryrrdl"III; r �ti.
y x P R,1 <, 4
A13
The legal description of the property where the HMA site is proposed includes the
following:
All that part of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 2, Township 105
North, Range 14 West, Town of High Forest, lying Easterly of Highway 63
less that part platted as replat of Lot 2, Machinery Hill Subdivision.
The NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of said Section 2 less that part platted as
replat of Lot 2, Machinery Hills Subdivision. Also, the NE 1/4 of the NE
1/4 and the South One-half of the NE 1/4 of said Section 2 less that part
platted as replat of Lot 2, Machinery Hills Subdivision.
Located in section 2, Township 105 North, Range 17 West, Town of High Forest, Olmsted
County, Minnesota(see figure#4, plat map).
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT .o�.gocxssTER.MjN^
2122 Campus Drive SE,Suite 100•Rochester,MN 55904-4744 U���;••' :��Oa
COUNTY OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning ;h
k TED.AUG105T'S
TO: City Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
DATE: March 17, 2005
RE: Restricted Development Preliminary Plan #05-06 by Rochester Sand & Gravel, a
Division of Mathy Construction Company. The applicant is requesting approval
to operate a hot mix asphalt plant on property located east of TH 63, south of 60th
Street and northeasterly of "Machinery Hill", within the Quarve Quarry pit. The
applicant is requesting waiver of the Final Plan review.. For Rochester Sand &
Gravel, this permit would replace CUP#2003-04 which expired on January 31,
2005.
Planning Department Review
Applicant: Rochester Sand &Gravel, Div. Of Mathy Construction Co.
4105 E. River Road NE
Rochester, MN. 55906
Property Location: South of 60th St. S.and east of T.H. 63 S. The property address is
5850 Highway 63 South, Rochester, MN 55904.
Zoning: The'property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential).
Attachments: LDM Excerpts
Referral Comments
Narrative Report(abbreviated version)
EXPLANATION OF APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
In April 2003 the City Council approved a Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit for a hot mix asphalt
facility/bituminous plant on this property. The application was approved to operate for two seasons, and the
permit expired January 31, 2005. The applicant had the opportunity to seek an extension of the 2003 permit, but
did not take action to do so prior to its expiration. The Council's action to approve this use for only two seasons
was to provide the opportunity to gather facts as to how the hot mix asphalt facility operation impacts the
adjacent property owners.
The applicant is proposing to locate a hot mix asphalt (HMA) plant on property located east of TH 63 S,west of
St. Bridget Road/CR 20 and south of 601h St. SE. The Quarry property extends over several jurisdictions,
including the City of Rochester, High Forest Township and Rochester Township. The portion of the site
proposed for the HMA plant site is in the City of Rochester and therefore subject to the Rochester Zoning
. Ordinance and Land Development Manual.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
—/c*dPaW PLANNING20NING 507/285-8232 - WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345
7-a� FAX 507/287-2275
�. AIJ EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
2
Access to this property will be primarily from the north TH 63 quarry access. This access utilizes the existing
frontage road access which is across from the 601h St. SW access on TH 63. The frontage road also has a
south access. Secondary access to the property would be from the east side of the quarry, at St. Bridget
. Road/CR 20. There should be no impact to residential roadways as a result of this application. Following the
2003 approval for a HMA plant at this location,the applicant paved both accesses.
A layout of the proposed HMA plant is included in the attached materials provided by the applicant. Detailed
explanation of the plan, equipment, regulatory controls and monitoring is also included. The plant is currently
set-up and operational at this site.
The HMA plant site will include the following:
• Addition of traffic from this site could be approximately 10 trucks/hour;
• Proposed hours of operation are 5:30 a.m.to 9:00 p.m. Monday—Friday, and 5:30 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.
Saturday, as needed;
• Import of materials originating off-site, as needed for producing and processing the bituminous;
• Three full-time employees for the operation of the HMA plant;
• Main components of the plant are the drum-dryer,silo, baghouse,tanks (liquid asphalt cement,
burner fuel and diesel fuel) and control house. In 2004 the applicant replaced the original "Parallel-
f
low"asphalt plant with a"Double Drum"asphalt plant to make use of a different technology.
• Paved spill containment barrier to be installed beneath tanks to prevent contact between the product
and the ground.
Please note that the Planning Department is not aware of any Conditional Use Permits issued by the City or
County for operation of the current quarry. The quarry was established many years ago and is considered a
grandfathered use. The proposal to establish a HMA plant at the site is a separate use of the property, which is
being proposed through the Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit process.
.EXPLANATION OF APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURE:
The Restricted Development allows certain mixtures of land uses which are not allowed within a given zoning district on a permitted or conditional basis and which can, if regulated,serve both the public interest and allow a
more equitable balancing of private interests than that achieved by strict adherence to standard zoning
regulations. The regulations of this article.recognize and provide encouragement for innovation and
experimentation in the development of land that would otherwise not be possible under the zoning district
regulations established by this ordinance.
CRITERIA &ANALYSIS:
Sections 62.706 and 62.708 (1) of the Zoning Ordinance set forth the standards upon which a Restricted
Development Preliminary Plan is to be evaluated. The Council shall approve a preliminary plan if it finds that the
development has addressed and satisfied all of the applicable criteria, or that a practical solution consistent with
the public interest can be incorporated into the final plan. Please see the attached excerpt from the Rochester
Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual for the applicable criteria.
The staff suggests the following findings for each of the 11 criteria on which the Preliminary Development Plan is
to be evaluated:
a) Capacity of Public Facilities: The proposed hot mix asphalt(HMA)facility will not result in a need for
sanitary sewer or water facilities on-site. Electrical power needed for the facility is available. Olmsted
County Public Works will require the applicant to construct a right-turn and by-pass lane on St. Bridget
Road/CR 20.
b) Geologic Hazards: There are no known geologic hazards on the property.
03/18/05
3
- c) Natural Features: The HMA site is proposed to be located on the existing quarry floor. There are
no unique natural features on the property that have been identified.
d) Residential Traffic Report: Access to this property will be primarily from the north TH 63 quarry
access. This access utilizes the existing frontage road access which is across from the 60'4 St. SW
access on TH 63. The frontage road also has a south access. Secondary access to the property would
be from the east side of the Quarry, at St. Bridget Road/CR 20. There should be no impact to residential
roadways as a result of this application. Following the 2003 approval of a CUP for an HMA plant at this
location, the applicant paved both accesses.
e) Traffic Generation Impact: Olmsted County Public Works will require the applicant to construct a right-
turn and by-pass lane on St. Bridget Road/CR 20. At this time, no other road authority has indicated a
concern.that anticipated traffic would cause the capacity of the adjacent streets to be exceeded.
Mn/DOT's referral finds the traffic impact acceptable.
fl Height Impacts: This site does offer some unique opportunities for buffering and screening. The
height of the quarry wall directly west of the proposed site is approximately 100 feet. To the north of the
HMA site, the quarry wall drops to approximately 70 feet. Additionally, an existing row of mature
evergreen trees exists along a portion of the west property boundary, between the north TH 63 entrance
(across from the 6dh St. intersection with TH 63)and Machinery Hill. Due to topography and design of
the quarry it appears the HMA site would be most visible from the east(i.e. east of St. Bridget Road/CR
20). From the west, the visible portion of the HMA site would be the extended bag-house stack, which is
proposed to be approximately 130 feet above the quarry floor. Approximately the upper 30-60'would be
visible from the west.
g) Setbacks: The proposed HMA plant site is approximately 800 to 900 feet from the west property
boundary. Setbacks from the north, west and south property boundaries would be more than 'v mile.
h) Internal Site Design: A layout of the proposed HMA plant is included in the application materials.
From the HMA site, access will be available either to the east to St. Bridget Road/CR 20 or to the TH 63 "
accesses to the Quarry. The primary access is planned to be the north TH 63 access, which is located
at the intersection of TH 63 and the 60m St. SW and east Frontage Road.
i) Screening and Buffering: This site does offer some unique opportunities for buffering and
screening. The height of the quarry wall directly west of the proposed site is approximately 100 feet. To
the north of the HMA site, the quarry wall drops to approximately 70 feet. Additionally, an existing row
of mature evergreen trees exists along a portion of the west property boundary, between the north TH
63 entrance(across from the 60th St. intersection with TH 63)and Machinery Hill. Due to topography
and design of the quarry it appears the HMA site would be most visible from the east(i.e. east of St.
Bridget Road/CR 20). From the west, the visible portion of the HMA site would be the extended bag-
house stack, which is proposed to be approximately 130 feet above the quarry floor. Approximately the
upper 30-60'would be visible from the west.
j) Ordinance Requirements: There should be adequate room on-site for employee parking and
internal circulation of truck traffic. This use will be subject to meeting the Industrial Performance
Standards of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual(Sec. 63.600 et. seq.).
k) General Compatibility: The site is separated from adjacent residential uses to the west by the quarry
wall and the right of way of TH 63, so that the nearest house is roughly 1,400 feet away. The bag-house
is proposed to be increased in height in order increase dispersion of emissions and thereby to reduce
the effects of the HMA to surrounding neighbors. Approximately the upper 30-60'would be visible from
the west. This applicant is again proposing to use an odor mask in the mix to neutralize and minimize
odor from the plant. Additionally, this use will be subject to meeting the industrial Performance
Standards of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual(Sec. 63.600 et. seq.). It
has been the experience of the Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department that existing hot mix asphalt
facilities in the County have not generated a history of complaints related to noise, odor or dust. During
i
the operation of they previous CUP, there were complaints from neighbors to the west about
the HMA plant, however. ut odors from
• In addition,this application is subject to the criteria for all conditional use permits, as identified in Section 61.146.
As identified in 61.146,the zoning administrator, Commission, or Council shall approve a development permit
authorizing a conditional use unless one or more of the findings with respect to the proposed development is
made as identified in 61.146 (see attached).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Previously, it has been determined that there is a sensitive receptor in the area. The applicant should address
how this proposal addresses concerns for a sensitive receptor.
The Olmsted County Environmental Commission recommended by motion (see attached) that action by the City
on the CUP be deferred until there is an independent review of the results of the dispersion modeling conducted
by the applicant. On that basis, if we are not able to accomplish that review by the time of the meeting, we
recommend continuing this matter until the April 12 meeting.
If the results of the dispersion model show that concentrations at ground level in adjacent residential areas of
odor causing substances and air pollutants are at or below 2004 EPA.standards,then we recommend approval
for the following reasons:
1. noise monitoring efforts have not revealed discernible noises significantly above background levels;
2. traffic impact reports have not indicated that truck traffic impacts are of concern; and
3. the use is a reasonable extension of an existing quarry operation.
It should be noted that the proposal is for a restricted development,approval of which enables the Council to
waive ordinance standards normally applicable in the zoning district. In this case, among the relevant standards
to be waived is the requirement under LDM 63.631,which states in part that"in any district other than the M-1 or
M-2, no emission of an odor or odor causing substances shall be permitted."
Staff has reviewed this request in accordance with the applicable standards and provisions, as included in this
report. Based upon staff review and the analysis included above,staff recommended approval of this
application, if the dispersion model shows that concentrations at ground level in adjacent residential areas of
odor causing substances and air pollutants are at or below 2004 EPA standards. If the Commission and City
Council wishes to approve this application,staff would recommend approval be subject to the following
conditions or modifications:
1. Import of materials for processing be limited only to that necessary for the hot mix asphalt
facility.
2. This use will be subject to meeting the Industrial Performance Standards of the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual(Sec. 63.600 et. seq.)including the standard applying
to odor in the M-1 and M-2 districts.
Waiver of Final Plan Review. The applicant has requested that the City Council waive the Final Plan
Review phase for this application. Staff does recommend in favor of waiving the Final Plan Review for
this project.
Note: The applicant is responsible for securing permits or approvals required by any other regulatory
agency prior to operating the HMA plant as proposed.
STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL:
Multiple standards apply to evaluating this application. The following sections of the LDM apply to the
review of this application:
61.145 Matters Under Consideration: The review of a conditional use is necessary to insure that
it will not be of detriment to and is designed to be compatible with land uses and the area
surrounding its location; and that it is consistent with the objectives and purposes of this
- ordinance and the comprehensive plan.
61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator, Commission, or Council shall
approve a development permit authorizing a conditional use unless one or more of the
following findings with respect to the proposed development is made:
1) provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and pedestrian
circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will create hazards to
safety, or will impose a significant burden upon public facilities.
2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and structures will be
detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood or will impose undue
burdens on the sewers, sanitary and storm drains,water or similar public facilities.
3) The provision for on-site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate
protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development.
4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be
created by the development.
5) .The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists traveling on
adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site
or such provisions damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent properties.
6) The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not providing
adequate access to the site,or to the buildings on the site,for emergency vehicles.
7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved,there is a substantial change in the
Phase II site plan from the approved Phase t site plan, such that the revised plans will
not meet the standards provided by this paragraph.
8) The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the standards applying to
permitted uses within the underlying zoning district, or with standards specifically
applicable to the type of conditional use under consideration, or with specific ordinance
standards dealing with matters such as signs which are part of the proposed
development, and a variance to allow such deviation has not been secured by the
applicant.
61.147 Conditions on Approval: In considering an application for a development permit to allow
a Conditional Use,the designated hearing body shall consider and may impose
modifications or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are necessary
to insure compliance with the criteria of Paragraph 61.146.
I
03/18/O5
6 VX
RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT:
62.706 Standards for Approval, Preliminary Development Plan: The Council shall approve a
preliminary development plan if it finds that the development has addressed and satisfied
all the criteria listed in Paragraph 62.708(1), or that a practical solution consistent with the
public interest can be incorporated into the final development plan, or a modification for
unmet criteria has been granted as provided for in Paragraph 62.712.
62.707 Standards for Approval, Final Development Plan: The Council shall grant final approval
to a Type III Restricted Development if it finds that, in addition to satisfying the Preliminary
Development Plan Standards for Approval listed in the preceding paragraph,the
development has satisfied all the applicable criteria listed in Paragraph 62.708(2)or a
modification for.any unmet criteria has been granted as provided for in Paragraph 62.712.
62.708 Criteria for Type III Developments: In determining whether to approve, deny, or approve
with conditions an application,the Commission and Council shall be guided by the following
criteria:
1) Preliminary Development Plan Criteria:
a) Capacity of Public Facilities: The existing or future planned utilities in the area
are adequate to serve the proposed development.
b) Geologic Hazards: The existence of areas of natural or geologic hazard, such as
unstable slopes, sinkholes,floodplain, etc., have been identified and the
development of these areas has been taken into account or will be addressed in
the Phase II plans.
c) Natural Features: For developments involving new construction,the arrangement
of buildings, paved areas and open space has,to the extent practical, utilized the
existing topography and existing desirable vegetation of the site.
d) Residential Traffic Impact: When located in a residential area,the proposed
development:
1) Will not cause traffic volumes to exceed planned capacities on local residential
streets;
2) Will not generate frequent truck traffic on local residential streets;
3) Will not create additional traffic during evening and nighttime hours on local
residential streets;
e) Traffic Generation Impact: Anticipated traffic generated by the development will
not cause the capacity of adjacent streets to be exceeded, and conceptual
improvements to reduce the impact of access points on the traffic flow of adjacent
streets have been identified where needed.
f) Height Impacts: For developments involving new construction, the heights and
placement of proposed structures are compatible with the surrounding
development. Factors to consider include:
• 1) Will the structure block sunlight from reaching adjacent properties during a
majority of the day for over four(4) months out of the year;
03/18/05 '
a
2) Will siting of the structure substantially block vistas from the primary exposures
of adjacent residential dwellings created due to differences in elevation.
g) Setbacks: For developments involving new construction, proposed setbacks are
related to building height and bulk in a manner consistent with that required for
permitted uses in the underlying zoning district.
h) Internal Site Design: For developments involving new construction,the
preliminary site layout indicates adequate building separation and desirable
orientation of the buildings to open spaces, street frontages or other focal points.
i) Screening and Buffering:.The conceptual screening and bufferyards proposed
are adequate to protect the privacy of residents in the development or surrounding
residential areas from the impact of interior traffic circulation and parking areas,
utility areas such as refuse storage, noise or glare exceeding permissible
standards, potential safety hazards, unwanted pedestrian/bicycle access,or to
subdue differences in architecture and bulk between adjacent land uses.
j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development includes adequate
amounts of off-street parking and loading areas and, in the case of new
construction,there is adequate landscaped area to meet ordinance requirements.
k) General Compatibility: The relationship of the actual appearance, general
density and overall site design of the proposed development should be compared
to the established pattern of zoning,the character of the surrounding neighborhood
and the existing land forms of the area to determine the general compatibility of the
development with its surroundings. •
2) Final Development Plan Criteria:
a) Public Facility Design: The design of private and public utility facilities meet the
requirements and specifications which the applicable utility has adopted.
b) Geologic Hazard: Engineering means to deal with areas of geologic hazard have
been incorporated into the development plan or such areas have been set aside
from development.
c) Access Effect: Ingress and egress points have been designed and located so as
to:
1) Provide adequate separation from existing street intersections and adjacent
private driveways so that traffic circulation problems in public right-of-ways are
minimized;
2) Not adversely impact adjacent residential properties with factors such as noise
from accelerating or idling vehicles or the glare of headlights from vehicles
entering or leaving the site.
In addition, where the preliminary development plan identified potential problems in the
operation of access points, plans for private improvements or evidence of planned
public improvements which will alleviate the problems have been provided.
•
• 03/18/05
8
d) Pedestrian Circulation: The plan includes elements to assure that pedestrians
can move safely both within the site and across the site between properties and
activities within the neighborhood area, and,where appropriate, accommodations
for transit access are provided.
e) Foundation and Site Plantings: A landscape plan for the site has been prepared
which indicates the finished site will be consistent with the landscape character of
the surrounding area.
f) Site Status: Adequate measures have been taken to insure the future
maintenance and ownership pattern of the project, including common areas, the
completion of any platting activities, and the provision of adequate assurance to
! guarantee the installation of required public improvements, screening and
landscaping.
g) Screening and Bufferyards: The final screening and bufferyard design contains
earth forms, structures and plant materials which are adequate to satisfy the needs
identified in Phase I for the project.
h) Final Building Design: The final building design is consistent with the principles
identified in preliminary development plan relative to Height Impact, Setbacks, and
Internal Site Design.
i) Internal Circulation Areas: Plans for off-street parking and loading areas and
circulation aisles to serve these areas meet ordinance requirements in terms of
design.
j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development is consistent with the
requirements of the underlying zoning district for similar uses in regards to signage
and other appearance controls, and with general standards such as traffic visibility
and emergency access.
62.712 Modifications: The Council may waive the need to satisfy certain approval criteria during
the Type III review if it finds:
1) The applicant has demonstrated that the plan as submitted adequately compensates
for failing to address the criterion in question.
2) The strict application of any provision would result in exceptional practical difficulties to,
or exceptional and undue hardship upon,the owner of such property, provided the
modification may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and
without substantially impairing the purposes of this ordinance or the policies of the Land
Use Plan.
•
Garness Jennifer __._.._._'� " r.,_..._�_ y __.., Q
From: Peter Rich
•
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 12:21 PM
To: Garness Jennifer
Cc: Lee Terry; Dworak Artie; Paska,Thomas; Michael, Chuck; rick.strassman @ pca.state.mn.us;
Giesen Pete
Subject: Restricted Development Preliminary Plan#05-06 for operation of an Asphalt Plant by
Rochester Sand & Gravel, a Division of Mathy Construction Company
Jennifer-
Our office received one or more complaints in the past year from at least one party indicating that
emissions from the existing asphalt plant are causing nuisance and health impacts.The complainant(s)
were referred to MPCA and Rochester City authorities.
As part of this license renewal, I recommend that Mathy demonstrate that their asphalt plant is designed
and located in such way that emissions are not apt to ever reach the breathing level of residents (in a one
mile radius?),and if the emissions do dip or accumulate due to weather conditions, in the breathing zone,
they have plan in place to prevent nuisance conditions and negative impacts on the health of affected
parties.
As part of such commitment, I suggest that Mathy develop and present a set of clearly communicated
action plans guiding what will be done when the plant is in operation. For example:
1) list those weather conditions that are apt to allow direction and/or accumulation of emissions
apt to affect neighboring residences and specify that plant operations will be halted while those
conditions are in place;
2) monitor height and direction of plume while in operation,
3) monitor emissions as needed to demonstrate appropriate quality; •
4) record weather and emissions monitoring data throughout each day the plant is in operation;
5) present monitoring data for periodic review by appropriate public authorities on request;and
6) clearly post phone numbers where affected parties can immediately report adverse conditions
and obtain appropriate response from Mathy, MPCA, and Zoning authorities (Posted a) at the site
(visible from the public roadway) and b) provided annually in each home, located within the
potentially affected radius),
Thanks for the opportunity to make suggestions.
Rich Peter,Associate Director of Public Health
and Environmental Health Director
Olmsted County Public Health
2100 Campus Drive SE,Rochester,MN 55904
507-285-8335, FAX 287-1492
peter.rich@co.olmsted.mn.us
From: Garness Jennifer
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 9:24 AM
To: Lee Terry; Peter Rich
Subject: request for comments on Restricted Development Preliminary Plan #05-06 by Rochester Sand
&Gravel, a Division of Mathy Construction Company
<<File: del2.doc >>
Continents must be submi.tteel to our g ice by Alarch 11, 2005.
�f you have a..nyproblems Ul7e11177" this doculnent, /)leCl.tiE' let me k77011'. •
Minnesota Department of Transportation
>� Minnesota Department of Transportation-District 6
Qa� 2900 48ei Street N.W. Office Tel: 507-285-7369
�roFm► Rochester,MN 55901-5848 Fax: 507-285-7355
E-mail:fred.sandal@dot.state.am.us
March 15,2005
Jennifer Gamess,Planning Department
Rochester-Ohnsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive Southeast-Suite 100
Rochester,MN 55904
t Re: Restricted Development Preliminary Plan#05-06 by Rochester Sand and Gravel,a
division of Mathy Construction Company. The applicant is requesting approval to
operate a hot mix asphalt plant on property located east to US Highway 63,south of 60th
Street and north easterly of"Machinery Hill",within the Quave Quarry pit. The
applicant is requesting waiver of the Final Plan review. This permit would replace CUP
#2003-04 which expired on January 31,2004.
US Highway 63,CS 5509
Dear Ms. Garness:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Restricted Development Preliminary Plan
#05-06 by Rochester Sand and Gravel,a division of Mathy Construction Company.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation's WDOT's)review consists of
research on many observations of truck maneuvers and research on accident types in
this area. During construction season trucks have been operating well and are
blending with traffic on US63 appropriately and safely. All accident types reflect this
operation as well. This proposal is acceptable with MnMOT.
Mn/DOT will continue to monitor the traffic situation at this location and if for any
reason additional measures are necessary,Mn/DOT will inform the City of Rochester.,
You may contact Fred Sandal,Principal Planner,at(507)285-7.3 or Debbie
Persoon-Bement,Transportation Specialist, at(507)281-7777 with any questions you
may have.
Pe ,dal
Principal Planner
cc:
Rochester Sand&Gravel
Division of Mathy Construction Company
4105 East River Road NE
Rochester,Minnesota 55906
Michael Schweyen
• Debbie Persoon-Bement
File
FS:DPB;mc
WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Application Number: Restricted Development Preliminary Plan#05-06 by
Rochester Sand & Gravel, a Division of Mathy Construction Company
❑ No hydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey
❑ Hydric soils exist on the site according to the Soil Survey. The property owner is
responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and submitting the
information as part of this application.
❑ A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the
Planning Department.
❑ A wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department and a No-Loss,
Exemption, or Replacement Plan has been submitted to the Planning Department. .
❑ A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This plan
incorporates the approved wetland plan.
❑ No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. However, due to
the location in the landscape, the property owner should examine the site for
wetlands. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands.
® Other or Explanation:
Hydric soils exist along the creek on the easterly side of the site. Any work in.
that area will require an on site analysis to determine if wetlands exist.
From John Harford
Wetlands LGU Representative
� 1,
The hand to reach for...
DAVID A.KAPLER
Fire Chief
DATE: March 7, 2005
TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning
FROM: R. Vance Swisher, Fire Protection Specialist
SUBJ: Restricted Development preliminary Plan#05-06 by Rochester Sand & Gravel, a Division
of Mathy Construction Company. The applicant is requesting approval to operate a hot
mix asphalt plant on property located east of TH 63, south of 60th Street and
northeasterly of Machinery hill,within the Quarve Quarry pit.
With regard to the above noted project plan,the fire department has the following requirements:
1. Streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Emergency vehicle access roadways shall be
serviceable prior to and during building construction.
c: Donn Richardson—RPU Water(e-mail only)
Mark Baker—Rochester Public Works (e-mail only)
Rochester Sane&Gravel
i
•
. R�ochester
j. t D�i7and .QSPr.n,�t
• I nos:ucnw�
Gravel 4105 East River Road NE Phone 507-288-7447
• Rochester, MN 55906-3424 Fax 507-252-3477
February 22, 2005
Rochester—Olmsted Planning Department
Attn: Mrs.Mitzi Baker
2122 Campus Drive, SE, Suite 100
Rochester,MN 55904
Re: City of Rochester, Type III,Phase H Development Application
5850 Highway 63 South, Rochester
Dear Mrs.Baker,
Rochester Sand&Gravel, a Division of Mathy Construction Company, is applying for a
Type III,Phase II Development Conditional Use Permit to operate a hot mix asphalt plant
in the City of Rochester,High Forest Township, in Olmsted County. The primary haul
road will be TH 63 and a secondary haul road would be County Road 20. The legal
• description of the property is: NW1/4 of the NE K(Lot 2 Machinery I-Ell), Sec. 2,
T105N, RI W in the City of Rochester,High Forest Township, Olmsted County.
Per our discussions,we are submitting a request that the Rochester City Council waive
the final plan review.
For Rochester Sand& Gravel, this permit would replace CUP #03-04,which expired on
January 31, 2005. The HMA plant is currently located and has been operating at our
Highway 63 Quarry(Quarve Quarry Pit). The location is south of 6e Street and South
and northeasterly of Machinery Hill, as per the conditions outlined on March 26, 2003 at
the Planning and Zoning meeting and April 21, 2003, at the City Council Meeting.
Relative to our previous CUP#03-04,the original Preliminary Development Plan Criteria
(A-K), of Section 62.708, submitted and approved in 2003 have not changed and are still
being met. We have satisfied Conditions#1,Right turn Lane(constructed June 2003);
#2, Importing Materials (ongoing HMA plant records); and#3, Grading and Drainage
Plan(submitted May 2003)of the Resolution with the appropriate agencies and operating
conditions. We are, in a sense, now addressing Condition#4, Conditional Use Permit
extension, by making this application for a new review and Public Hearing. We continue
to meet the City's criteria as outlined in our original applications. The hot mix asphalt
facility meets or exceeds all of the Emissions Standards of Practice as outlined by the
MPCA and EPA and, is permitted accordingly.
E9 2 2 2005ffF
- �r= S
TE
An Equal Opportunity Employer - - _
• The normal months of operations are April through November, depending on the
weather. The normal hours of operation of the asphalt plant are typically 5:30 a.m. to, as
late as, 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 5:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, as
needed. Our reference name to this hot mix asphalt facility is"Rochester Sand & Gravel,
Plant#53".
Plant#53 has all of the required MPCA permits and is currently set-up and operational at
this site. We have enclosed the materials inventory, a plat map showing the Mathy
Construction property location, the emission test results for Plant#53,and examples of
our policies and programs we actively enforce. The local fire department and Minnesota
Emergency Response Commission will again be notified.
We have also enclosed a copy of the Mashy Construction Company Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure(SPCC)Plan. Each asphalt plant is required to have the
SPCC plan on site. The SPCC plan outlines the spill prevention measures implemented
at each site along with the proper response procedures in case of a spill. The plan
requires us to notify the Minnesota spill hot line with any spill occurrence. The spill
hotline then forwards the information to the MPCA headquarters, district MPCA .
(Rochester), and County Sheriff to ensure proper cleanup.
Also included is a Daily Environmental Tracking form. Each plant is required to
complete this form on a daily basis. Please notice that the form includes a section
specifically dedicated to spill prevention:
• Information documenting our environmental responsibility to asphalt plants is enclosed,
as well. Specifically, our outline summarizes the Environmental Programs Resource
Guide, which is kept at each asphalt plant.
This asphalt plant will be located in the same location that we are actively mining and,
consequently, is able to use the quarry wall and geologic landscape as a screen and
buffer. We have paved the main and secondary entrance roads in to the hot mix asphalt
facility and, we maintain a very proactive dust control program using liberally. sweeping and water
The adjacent property is either agriculture or commercial business land(Machinery Hilo.
The residences to the west side of TH 63 are predominantly screened by view of the
operation by the quarry high walls and vegetative berms,which also act as an effective
noise buffer.
In addition, Mathy Construction Company employs a full time Environmental Engineer
and an Environmental Technician to address environmental concerns and compliance
issues_ The environmental department at Mathy Construction is extremely proactive in
developing permit rules with the MPCA via asphalt and aggregate industry work groups.
Our record keeping system documents out compliance measures and will be provided for
review at any one of the asphalt plants,upon request. Our Plant operators are also
• monitored and audited regularly.
2
Duringthe course of the past two ears of operation at this site we have kept in regular
•
P Y P � P Su
contact with our neighbors of this facility either via E-mail, telephone, or personal visits,
and try to answer their questions and address their concerns as they arise. We have had
only two neighboring households express their concerns to us about the operation of this
HMA facility. The neighbors to our east have expressed gratitude for paving the facility
driveways,thus minimizing noise and dust that has disturbed them in the past, and,to
date,we not heard any issues from them.
In the following section,we have listed the Issues that have been presented to ns,
over the past two seasons,and,described our Resolutions of them:
Issue: Noise and dust from truck traffic-2003
Resolutions: We paved both the front and rear entrances to the HMA plant site, along
with the main turning lanes out to the connecting roadways. We sweep
and water the access roads regularly. Although the quarry operation is
separate from the BMA operation, we added a wheel washer at the quarry
aggregate scale to minimize fugitive dust generated from the quarry
trucks.The trucks are required to pass through the washer prior to their
entrance onto the access roads to exit the site.
Issue: Odors during non-operating hours-2003,2004 •
Resolutions: We add an odor neutralizer to the Hot Oil tanks. We have installed
precipitators on to the heated tank vents so that the condensation from the
tank vents drop back into the tanks. We minimize Asphalt Cement night
delivery and try to restrict this delivery to our normal operating hours.
Issue: Odors during operating hours-20031A 2004
Resolutions: Same as previous Resolution. Additionally, in 2004 we have replaced the
original"Parallel-flow" asphalt plant with a"Double Drum" asphalt plant
to make use of a different technology that doesn't allow the burner flame
to come in contact with any hot mix asphalt or recycled asphalt.
In a Parallel Flow plant,the moisture is removed from the aggregate as it
passes through the drum then mixed with liquid asphalt and recycled
asphalt in the same drum.
In a Double Drum Plant,the moisture is removed from the aggregate by
the burner in the main drum and then the hot aggregate, asphalt cement,
and recycled asphalt are mixed in an outer mixing drum separated from
the burner flame and then transferred to the storage silos.
II
i
. J
• In further response to this issue, we feel that extending our bag-house
stack height to a point of one hundred thirty feet (130') above the ground
will greatly reduce the effects to any surrounding neighbors. We
commissioned an Air Dispersion Model analysis, performed by Pinnacle
Engineering, Inc., and plan on implementing this change prior to any
further production at this location.
Issue: Hours of Operation-2003,2004
-Resolution: While our permitted hours of operation were 5:30 a.m to 9:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday and 5:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday, we have
respected our neighbors' request to not begin mixing Hot Mix Asphalt
until 6:30 a.m. and shipping by trucks until 7:00 a.m. The asphalt plant has
very rarely operated past 5:00 p.m. We do track the actual hours of
operation on a daily basis and keep these reports in our RS&G office.
We would like to emphasize that this is a portable hot mix asphalt plant operation. We
request that this CUP be renewable every two years,upon favorable review and approval
by the Rochester City Council, and that we always meet the requirements of the CUP and
continue to work to be good neighbors.
Please find a check for the filing fee in the amount of$1,420.00,made payable to
Olmsted County, two(2)copies of the application documents,ten(10)full size copies of
the site plans, and two(2)reduced copies of the site plans. We have also tried to address
the primary criteria in section 62.700 on a separate letter to aid in the process.
If you have any questions, you may contact me at(507)288-7447 or via e-mail at
p tersonanmathycom.
Respectfully,
Pat Peterson
Vice President
Rochester Sand& Gravel
ATTACHMENTS
•
4
ochester
Lip t
I nos uccwt
i` auel 4105 East River Road NE Phone 507-288-7
Rochester, MN 55906-3424 Fax 5077H2-3477
February 22,2005
Rochester—Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100
Rochester,MN 55904
RE: Type III,Phase H Development Application
Criteria for Type 1111 Development
IA) Capacity for Public Facilities: Existing line-power of capacity capable of handling energy
needs exists on site. No water or sewer utilities are required for the HMA operation.
113) Geologic Hazards: No.geological hazards exist on the site, using stable.quarry floor as
foundation for HMA plant.
1C) Natural Features: The HMA plant has been constructed in an existing quarry, which will
predominantly screen and shelter the operation from surrounding neighbors. Also a
vegetative berm extends along the northwest site of the quarry to aid as a visual and sound
barrier.
1D) Residential Traffic Impact: Traffic for the HMA plant operation will use State Highway 63
as the primary road. Access to State Highway 63 is by frontage road located on the east side
of State Highway 63. This frontage road is used by three other Businesses located on the
south end of the frontage road. There is a second access point to State Highway 63 at the
south end of the frontage road. The volume of traffic generated by the HMA operation will
have no effect of the business that shares access to the frontage road.
1E) Traffic Generation Impact: Traffic generated by the HMA operations is estimated to be about
10 +/- trucks per hour of operation, on average. This traffic already exists, having been
shifted from the St. Bridgets Road operation prior to 2003 to this location since May of 2003. .
This volume of trucks should have no adverse impact on the Capaci of S_to LITig-4Wajg3.
�F E2L
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Criteria for Tyne M Development(Wage 2)
IF) Height Impacts: Placement of HMA plant will be within an existing limestone quarry with
highwalls of 70 to 100 feet. The HMA plant will be predominantly screened from view by
these quarry highwalls from the West,with the exception ofthe proposed extended bag house
stack
1G) Setbacks: No setbacks are required at this site.
IH) Internal Site Design: HMA plant layout is explained in more detail in Section of submitted
application booklet.
Il) Screening and Buffering: Locating HMA plant inside the limestone quarry creates a natural
• screening and buffering environment. The quarry highwall and vegetative berms screen the
operation from view and also is an effective noise buffer for the HMA operation. The
majority of residences of the area are located on the west side of State Highway 63 and
screened from view by.these quarry highwalls and vegetative berms..
I J) Ordinance Requirements: All employee parking is located on site. We will not exceed the
maximum noise levels provided for in the Ordinance.
1I) General Compatibility: Surrounding business are industrial in nature. There is an active
limestone quarry at the HMA site.
Sincerel ,
Pat Peterson.
Vice President,Rochester Sand&Gravel
Page 2
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: March 23,2005
PUBLIC HEARINGS: •
1
Restricted Development Preliminary Plan #05-06 by Rochester Sand & Gravel, a Division
of Mathy Construction Company. The applicant is requesting approval to operate a hot .
mix asphalt plant on property located east of TH 63, south of 60th Street and
northeasterly of "Machinery Hill", within the Quarve Quarry pit. The applicant is
requesting waiver of the Final Plan review. This permit would replace CUP #2003-04
which expired on January 31, 2005.
.Ms. Mitzi A. Baker presented the staff report, dated March 17, 2005, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department.
Ms. Baker stated that she spoke with the individual who completed an independent review of
the study. 'The study shows a significant reduction in pollutants as they reach the ground level
.with an'increased stack height. The individual was comfortable with moving the request forward
since the sooner the stack height is increased, the sooner the pollutants can be dispersed.
The applicant's representative, Mr. Pat Peterson of Rochester Sand & Gravel (4105 East River
Road NE, Rochester MN 55906), addressed the Commission. He explained that he is the.
Manager of the day to day operations of the plant and Vice President of Rochester Sand and
Gravel. He stated that that the following individuals were available to speak:
• Dr. Laura Green, PHD, Board certified Toxicologist from MIT and Cambridge
Environmental Inc.
• Larry Sibik, Professional Engineer (Air Dispersion Model), Pinnacle Engineering •
• Gerald Reinke, Chemist and Vice President of Mathy Construction Company
• Tara Wetzel, Professional Engineer and Environmental Engineer; Mathy Construction
-Company
• Keith Mathison, Permits Specialist (Sounds Study), Mathy Construction Company
Mr. Peterson gave a PowerPoint presentation discussing the following:
• Site location—primary and secondary access roadways
• Closest neighbor is 1 mile away
• Zoning map
• Municipalities map—located in 3 jurisdictions
• View/screening of site from developments
• Traffic patterns map—primary access point is same as the quarry
• Described the roadways that are paved
• Explained how the plant works
• Paving operations are from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.- mixing begins at 6:30 a.m.
• The existing stack is 37 Feet in height
• The baghouse has 1,000 cleaning filter bags
• Explained different kinds of asphalt plants (original plant used in 2003 was the one
typically used by most companies) - new plant used after 2003 reduces the fumes
• They have paved many areas, added wheel washer to reduce dust, trucks must go
through washer before going to access roadways
0 They have added odor neutralizer to tanks and installed precipitators to tanks .
Page 3
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: March 23,2005
• The re �J Y have replaced d the original plant with a double drum to use different technology- by
extending the stack height from 37' to 130', it will reduce impacts to ambient air by 80
percent
• Their normal hours of operation are 6:30 to 5:00 p.m., even though their permitted hours
are from 5:30 to 9 Mon-Fri and 5:30 to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays
Mr. Tom Paska (2415 22Id Street NW,j Rochester Mn 55901) addressed the Commission. He
indicated that he is an engineer by education and training. He is on the Environmental
Commission, but is speaking as a concerned citizen. He expressed concern regarding the
chemicals being used. There are over 30 chemicals that are in the exhaust of a hot mix plant.
Most of them are toxic and carcinogenic. He stated that he does not believe that all the
chemicals would be reduced by 80 percent. Each chemical should be addressed individually.
He expressed direct concern with benzene and formaldehyde. The stack height would make
improvements in the area. He questioned how high the stack would actually be and how visible
it would be.
Mr. Larry Sibik, Professional Engineer(Air Dispersion Model) of Pinnacle Engineering,
addressed the Commission. He stated that he did the Dispersion Model for Mathy Construction.
In the tables presented as part of the Dispersion Model (which is on file at the Rochester-
Olmsted Planning Department), benzene and formaldehyde are listed as chronic and acute. He
explained the health risk value for each.
Mr. Sibik explained that Screening Model process. The UPA model takes into account other
buildings and other information for the area (i.e. quarry wall).
• Ms. Mary Lou Soukup (5905 Hwy 63,South, Rochester MN 55904) addressed the Commission.
She lives across from the facility. She questioned what types of land uses are allowed under
restricted development and what kind of innovation the facility is. She indicated that the quality
of the neighborhood has deteriorated from having the facility located there.
Ms. Soukup questioned how the extended baghouse stack would be anchored. If it is anchored
in concrete, would it still be considered a portable facility. She expressed concern with a final
waiver being requested by the applicant to make the process easier and faster for them.
Ms. Soukup questioned if any other equipment would be added. She also questioned if odor,
noise, and dust are considered in the Land Development Manual such as landscaping.
Ms. Soukup stated that the standards for the Conditional Use Permit states that a permit shall
be authorized unless one or more of the criteria is not met. She indicated that she did not feel
that all the criteria are being met by the applicant.
Ms. Soukup suggested that Mathy Construction submit a clearly communicated operational plan
as suggested by Rich Peter's February 23, 2005 email that is located in the staff report. She
asked that the six conditions listed in Mr. Peter's email be considered as part.of the conditions
of approval of the conditional use permit.
Ms. Soukup stated the HMA plant is across the highway from a housing development. She
questioned if that housing development is 1,400 feet from the facility.
• Ms. Soukup questioned the dates of the MPCA permits that the applicant has obtained.
Page 4
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: March 23,2005
Ms. Soukup stated that Mr. Mathy, Mr. Peterson, and their employees have been very helpful •
and have done all that can be expected to address the residents concerns. However, there are
still problems (ex. odors). She referred to calendars she kept up for 2003 and 2004 regarding
the operation of the plant. These calendars are on file at the Rochester-Olmsted Planning
Department.
Ms. Rivas asked how long Ms. Soukup has lived at her present address.
Ms. Soukup responded since 1969.
Ms. Rivas asked if it is the reason for the deterioration of the neighborhood.
Ms. Soukup stated that they cannot have dinner on their deck or have visitors due to the odor.
Her house is older and does not have central air. When they use their.window unit, the smell
gets into the house..
Mr. Burke asked if there was any improvement from 2003 and 2004.
Ms. Soukup responded yes, but it is not enough.
Mr. Burke stated that the presentation by the applicant indicates that, by increasing the stack
height, it would improve some of the concerns. ,
Ms. Soukup stated that 80 percent improvement is not enough. She asked if there is a •
cumulative affect of pollutants. She stated that her father developed a blood disorder from
Benzene.
M Ma
rgo ar o Mestad 105 Street
60 S eet SW Rochester 9 ( es er MN 55902) addressed the Commission.
She stated that she lives across from the quarry. She currently has respiratory problems. She
agreed with Ms. Soukup's concerns. She has problems going outside during the spring. She
stated that the plant should not be located near homes: She questioned the affects it could
have on-her grandson that she takes care of.
Mr. Bill Mestad (105 60'h Street SW, Rochester MN 55902) addressed the Commission. He
stated thafhe lives 1,200 feet from the plant. Mathy Construction told him three different times
that, if the plant didn't work out there, they would move it. The higher stack may help, but there
will still be problems downstream.
Mr. Tom Paska (2415 22"d Street NW, Rochester MN 55901) addressed the Commission. He
questioned the relative height to what the photographs showed. He stated that there are
options that the applicant has not reviewed. The homeowners of the area do not have any
options.
Mr. Pat Peterson explained that the stack would be higher than the homes.
Ms. Rivas asked how much higher the stack would be than the house's elevations.
Mr. Peterson responded approximately 30 feet higher.
Page 5
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: March 23,2005
Ms. Rivas stated that there is a concern of whether the stack height would help significantly.
She questioned if there were any other sites that they could visit to find out their results.
Mr. Peterson responded that he is not aware of another. He explained that the base of the
stack would be 9 feet in diameter and would be on'a concrete slab (16 x 16). They will anchor
the concrete into the rock.
Mr. Peterson stated that the asphalt plant would remain portable.
Mr. Peterson stated that importing sand was part of the original conditional use`permit. They
would not import concrete materials for the asphalt plant.
Mr. Petersson stated that they have all the required MPCA permits. All materials have been
submitted to the proper authorities and they have all the necessary, permits.
Mr. Burke asked if they are currently meeting the MPCA requirements.
Mr. Petersson responded yes. Their numbers are low for an asphalt plant. Now they are even
going to reduce it more. They meet with the neighborhood frequently and are trying to work with
them.
Questions arose regarding waiver of the final plan phase.
Ms.. Baker explained the process for the applicant to go through to_request a waiver of as final
plan from.the City Council.
• Discussion ensued regardingthe elevation of the
e homes, plant, and height of berm and trees.
Dr. Laura Green, Toxicologist, addressed the Commission. She stated that she lives in
Cambridge Massachusetts. She explained that the stack height would be a significant
improvement: The emissions of pollutants are sufficiently.small. She explained the difference
between odors versus health affects.
Ms. Rivas asked if there are any other alternatives if the stack height does not work.
Dr. Green responded that they should reevaluate the condensers and the precipitators on the
asphalt cement storage tank to make certain that those are working optimally to make certain
that there is nothing that can be done for additional capture of whatever odors may be coming
off the asphalt cement tank. She explained that Mathy Construction had indicated that they plan
on doing this anyway.
Dr. Green explained that chronic issues with dispersion should be reduced by the stack height.
Odor and health risk are two different items. The things that can hurt you are the ones.that you
cannot smell. Emissions from vehicles and other manufacturing places have more than the
plant (benzene and formaldehyde).
Dr. Green explained that masking agents that are perfumed do not work that well.
Discussion ensued regarding the plan already applying a neutralizing agent.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Haeussinger closed the public hearing.
g
Page 6
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: March 23,2005
Mr. Burke suggested approving the permit for 2 years. After the 2 year time is up, they should •
go through the public hearing.process again.
Ms Baker explained that the previous conditional use permit specified that it would only go.
before the City Council for a public hearing. However, the permit expired and that is why it is
before the Commission.
Mr. Wallace questioned a 1 year period versus 2.
Mr. Burke explained that 2 years would give them time to work out the issues.
Mr. Wallace responded that they have already had 2 years.
Mr. Burke stated tat Mathy Construction has been continuing to work with the neighborhood on
improvements and should be allowed to continue to do so.
Ms. Rivas stated that the calendars submitted showed that Mathy Construction has been trying
to be good-neighbors and have been making improvements to their site to help alleviate some
of the neighbor's concerns. : + .
Mr Burke moved to recommend:approv1 :'0 Retstncted Development}Qrelfrpinary,Plar�`,r,
4�#05-06.6y Rochester Sand & Gravel, a Division of JUlathy'Construction Company withythe #
staff-recommended findings and'cond�tionsYand;with the additional con ditior? t►iat, ail�ie�
end of the 2 year permit they go fhroughja complefe rewew p 6dd§i§ (public hearings a= ' •
before.the n b e extended
per or renewed, Ms, Rwas`seconded the mQtion? They t
y� a st h Jl y Li 7 3r''f
motion
A. •, t3 sk(' Ftr } +'fit i' a ,,?#R. xP t SJ{'vx3`. -"" ..c�`.:sarr y u.J [
: ay
4y r J 'M
CONDITIONS, ? l + t di � 7k�lYJA y y 4 Y Hd
i ti xtirs�.`f {Stw-M.i "S3
-•t, .r .F < S'•t$�+ Fes'.- rs'i t
1"=1in ort of materials;forb rocessin� f;"e�limited only to that;recessa `r.fortheylot " :
p p k x Y,..: ry m
`as haltfacilit r ; ti z r Nr jrt
S .•.
2. This use will be:siibfec#`to'meetmg the Industrial.P,erformance Sfaridards of the
Rochester Zoning•Ordin'ance and Land pevelopmentVanual-(sec�:`63 600°et.seq.) .
,. including.the atantlard'ap�ly�rag to odor In the M 1 and M 2 d�str�cts
Nf r.f'•._
3 This permit'sall expire,2 years after the'Courtcil'sJ approval 4The applicant mustrgo }
:_hrou h acpm lete review,; rocess ublic heacm s ,:.m;ortlerto,,-fenew;the, :ermit♦:j,_.
Type III, Phase II Restricted Development Preliminary Plan #05-09 by Tiburon
Construction, Inc. to construction mini-storage warehouses within the M-2 (Industrial)
zoning district. The property is located along the east side of Vallevhigh Drive NW, north
of Instrument Drive NW and west of IBM. The applicant Is requesting waiver of the Final
Plan review.
Ms. Mitzi A. Baker presented the staff report, dated March 17, 2005, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department.