HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 621-07 �,�...,-... ` ..._-...ems
..-y ,
RESOLUTION
•
WHEREAS, the Rochester Sand and Gravel Division of Mathy Construction applied for
an amendment to and renewal of its Type III, Phase II, Restricted Development Conditional Use
Permit#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 is being processed as an amendment to a Restricted
Development Final Plan following the Type III, Phase III procedure with a hearing before the
Planning Commission and a hearing before the Council; 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 is
available.
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.
d) Residential Traffic Impact: Access to this property will be
primarily from the north TH 63 quarry access. This access utilizes
• 1
• 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: At this time, no 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.
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 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 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
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
•
2
• evergreen trees exists along a portion of the west property
boundary, between the north TH 63 entrance (across from the 60'r,
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 160 feet above
the quarry floor. Approximately the upper 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 was
increased in height in order increase dispersion of emissions and thereby
to reduce the effects of the HMA to surrounding neighbors. Approximately
the upper 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 and emissions from the HMA plant, however.
2) Final Development Plan Criteria:
a) Public Facility Design: 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.
•
3
b Geologic Hazards: There are no known geologic hazards on the
g 9 9
property.
c) Access Effect: 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 Street S.W., 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.
d) Pedestrian Circulation: Pedestrian facilities and pedestrian
circulation should not be impacted by this proposal.
e) Foundation and Site Plantings: This plant is not a permanent
structure and the HMA site sits on the floor of the quarry below grade
and out of view from most of the surrounding area (except for silos
and stack). Foundation plantings would not be needed nor
reasonable considering the use and visibility of plantings that would
. be located near the equipment site.
fl Site Status: This criterion is not applicable to this project.
g) Screening and Bufferyards: This site offers 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 Street 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
approximately 160 feet above the quarry floor. Approximately, the
upper 60 feet would be visible from the west.
h) Final Building Design: The final/proposed design would include
increasing the height of the existing stack from 130 feet above the
quarry floor to 160 feet above the quarry floor.
•
4
i) Internal Circulation Areas: Internal loading and circulation
patterns and site access are not proposed to change from the
previous approvals.
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.); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department also reviewed the application using the provisions
of R.C.O. §61.146. Section 61.146 states that a development permit authorizing a conditional
use must be approved unless one or more of the eight stated findings can be made with respect
to the proposed development. The Planning Department concluded none of the eight findings
could be made as to this proposed development;and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department recommended approval of the proposed
amendment to the Final Plan subject to the satisfaction of the following conditions:
1. Import of materials for processing shall 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 (Section
63.600, et. Seq.) including the standard applying to odor in the M-1 and M-
2 districts.
3. No temporary use permit may be issued without Council's approval.
4. This permit shall expire one year after the Council's approval. The
applicant must go through a Type III, Phase II process in order to renew
the permit.
5. Monitoring will be required 24 hours a day, seven days a week, during one
month prior to startup of plant operation and during any month the plant is
in operation. The monitoring device for fumes must be placed according
to MPCA recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2007, 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 staffs
recommended findings of fact, and recommended approval of the application subject to the
above five conditions; and,
i
5
• WHEREAS, the Common Council held a public hearing on the restricted development
preliminary plan request on December 19, 2007, and permitted all interested persons to be
heard; and,
WHEREAS, at the December 19th 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, at the December 19th public hearing, the Council amended condition #4 so
as to read as follows:
4. This permit shall expire on January 31, 2009. The applicant must go
through a Type III, Phase II process in order to renew the permit.
WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance of the evidence submitted at the December
19th public hearing, the Common Council adopts as its own the Planning Commission's
recommended findings of fact and conditions of approval, except as amended above; and,
WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance and substantial weight of the evidence
submitted at the December 19th public hearing, the Common Council determines that the
Applicant satisfied the criteria of Sections 61.146 and 62.708 subject to the five conditions
r commended by the Planning Commission as amended above.
0
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of
Rochester that the amendment to Type III, Phase II, Restricted Development Conditional Use
Permit #05-06, requested by Rochester Sand & Gravel Division of Mathy Construction is in all
things approved subject to the above five conditions as amended above.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Common Council waives the final plan review for
this project.
6
0
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS lq-CH DAY OF `DF—C-,EMt�', , 2007.
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST:
ITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS ZOVA DAY OF 'D�C�11' �(Z , 2007.
xv
?.--
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Sbal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Zone05\RestDevPermitAmd08.0506
•
7
Page 2
RCA
December 12, 2007
• r�
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Attorney: Legal Description Attached
3. Planning Department File
4. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 pm in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government
I Center on Wednesday December 19, 2007. We are aware that there will not be a quorum of the Council at the
meeting on the December 17th; therefore this meeting will be adjourned to December 19th.
Excerpt from the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual:
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.
•
Page 6
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 28,.2007
• EXCEPTIONAL-CIRCITMSTANCES There are no extraordinary or exceptional conditions
that affect his property fior use as a parking lot The applicant can provide,a one way
drive aisle and one tier of parkmgb spaces at a;45 degree angle and meet the minimum
bufferyard width requirement of 315 feet ,The applicant has met the required off sfreet
parking s ndard #or the bank bUi Idin and is merel su 1 �n excess ark►n s aces
P
g Y PP Y 9 g P
REASONABL SE The variance �s not necessary to permit the reasonabl se.of the
property The a licant�s able to prov�tle a one way drive aisle and nine rkmg spaces
on this lot"
�o r _ _. _._,. . . _. ...--
ABSENCE OF.DETRIM T The variance ma be tletnmental to a residential umt south
y
of the proposed parking 1 The resitlentral unit is 5 feet fro rth lot'line which
provides no buffer to the pa ng lot impacts including no e, visual impacts, car fights'
:.
and: i ht:and,.a�r .-.
Mr IUIcGume moved approve Type'1 Phase 1 Co ht�onal Use Permit R2007 034CUP by
Premier Bank/Donaltl Regartw�th the s `ff reco ended fintl�ngs and conditions Ms
h
Moe seconded the mofion The motion c n 9 Ot
i
i
CONDITIONS
1 Grading and'Drainage Plan ap oval is regwr and payment of a Storm Water
Management Area Charge i ppl!cable fior any tease �n impervious surface
a r
2 The applicant's plan m meet the requirements of 457 GeneraI Design,,
Regwrements FE
at the e a zoning certificate is s -13' d
w - aR,
3 Ifi the uarrance pis y _;,,, he applicant must redesign fhe par ng lot"to meet th'e p ,
Bufferyard G tandard E z a x
r 3
4 The parkin of located on Lot 9 must be redesigned to meet them mum;,-parkin
space st dards' g
{
y t (y 4 9 K T'- I
r Y.. Emi p 5 }P -G - r
a 5 ,The edition of ex�st�ng curb and gutter, and sidewalk along the frontage of the } ,
pr osed parking lots will be reviewed by Public Works staff, and"any neede ane
placementand/or repairworkshalt be completed concurrent with construcf�on of,
,
Type III, Phase II Conditional Use Permit#05-06 by Rochester Sand and Gravel a Division
of Mathy Construction. The applicant is requesting renewal for a minimum of five near of
the conditional use permit#05-06 to operate a hot mix asphalt plant on property located
east of TH 63 and south of 60th St. within the former Quarve quarry pit.
Mr. John Harford presented the staff report, dated November 20, 2007, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department.
The applicant's representative, Pat Peterson who manages the day to day operations (4105
• East River Rd NE, Rochester MN 55904), addressed the Commission. He stated that the
following individuals were present to answer questions:
• Dr. Laura Green, Ph.D, Board Certified Toxicologist - Cambridge Environmental and MIT
Paae 7
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 28,2007
• Gerald Reinke, Chemist, Vice President of Technology— Mathy Construction •
• Tara Wetzel, Professional Engineer, Environmental Engineer- Mathy Construction
• Keith Mathison, Permit Specialist, Sounds Studies — Mathy Construction
Mr. Peterson reviewed the environmental improvements to the Hot Mix Asphalt facility. He gave
a PowerPoint slide presentation to the Commission and audience. This presentation is on-file at
the Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Peterson asked Phil Wheeler how many other companies have to go through this process
and there are none.
Ms. Rivas explained that the applicant is required to go through this process due to the zoning
district it is in.
Ms. Rivas asked if his office had received complaints since January 2007.
Mr. Peterson responded no.
Mr. Pestka asked if the plant could be there 50 years from now.
Mr. Peterson stated that there is 30 years of reserves on site. At present, they bring in 40
percent of their product to the quarry to make the asphalt.
Ms. Rivas stated that the measures taken to combat the problem are incredible. She asked if
there are other similar plants.
Mr. Peterson responded that a plant by the Washington Reagan Airport applied quite a few their
plant controls to their plant and were approved to continue operation. They produce 6 times
more product than the plant here in Rochester.
Mr. Pestka asked Mr. Peterson to comment on the MnDOT referral.
Mr. Peterson summarized that the letter just meant that they are concerned with the amount of
traffic in the area. He stated that the plant is insignificant with regard to traffic in the area. The
average operating time is approximately 5 hours a day in the last 3 years. There are
approximately 70—73 loads per day. He stated that half of the loads are going out the back
gate.
Mr. Wallace stated that the trucks are slow moving which affects traffic.
Mr. Peterson responded that they use the shoulder as an acceleration lane.
Ms. Mary Lou Soukup (residing at 2217 Baihly Ct SW, Rochester MN 55902) addressed the
Commission. She stated that she lived near the plant previously at 5905 Hwy 63 South. She
stated that she moved due to the odor and traffic. She stated that everything the plant has done
to improve the facility did not take away the smell from early morning to the end of the day.
Mr. Bill Mestad (residing at 105 16'h Street SW, Rochester MN 55902) addressed the •
Commission. He stated that he moved to his home 40 years ago due to his wife's health
problems and went to an "all electric home". He explained that his wife has asthma and has .
Page 8
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 28,2007
been having a lot of health problems since the plant was placed there five years ago. He stated
that the plant has done a great job trying to work with the odor issues, but it does not belong
next to a residential area. He stated that he gets headaches from being outside due to the
smell from the plant. He stated that he cannot leave the windows in his home down due to the
smell. He stated that he has not called Mr. Peterson or Randy Klement at the Planning
Department because no one does anything about it. He stated that all the sand and rock is
hauled into the quarry.
Ms. Rivas asked if his quality of life has diminished since the plant was located there and if it is
worse one day than another.
Mr. Mestad responded yes. He explained that it is very windy in their neighborhood and that the
sound from the plant is very loud. He reiterated that his wife has respiratory problems and that
they cannot enjoy sitting outside in the summer.
Ms. Rivas asked if he would agree to one more year.
Mr. Mestad reasoned one year at the most.
Ms. Rivas stated that he said that last year.
Mr. Mestad stated that the plan should be moved to a non-residential area.
• Mr. Navitsky asked if he is asking to allow it for one more year(at most) in hope that the City's
growth would force the plant to move.
Mr. Mestad stated that he hoped it would move this year.
Ms. Margo Mestad (residing at 105 16t' Street SW, Rochester MN 55902) addressed the
Commission. She stated that her health has really declined in the last five years. She stated
that the combination of slow real estate and living by a plant makes it difficult to move.
Ms. Mestad stated that there was rumor that the applicant offered her thousands of dollars for
her home. She stated that this was untrue. She stated that they have never offered her
anything except odor emissions that trigger asthma, lung problems, headaches, and also very
often they can smell very strong fuel odor". She stated that there are many trucks that come in
and out of the plant.
Ms. Mestad asked for a copy of the MnDOT letter that was submitted to the'Planning
Department (a copy was given to her at that time).
Ms. Mestad stated that Tom Hexum had a news article in the November 26, 2007 Rochester
Post Bulletin. She stated that the article discussed hotels targeting Highway 63 South. The
article stated that "the hotels are lining up on US 63 South because it has some of the highest
traffic counts".
Ms. Mestad stated that the applicant requested a five year permit last year from the City
Council. At that time, Terry Adkins informed the City Council that they applied for a temporary
conditional use permit which is for one year. Therefore, if the applicant violated the conditions
Page 9
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 28,2007
of approval, the City Council could not do anything about it. Therefore, she encouraged the z
Commission to recommend denial of the five year permit.
Ms. Rivas asked Ms. Mestad if she had any direct medical conditions in the last year that are a
contributing factor from the plant.
Ms. Mestad yes.
Ms. Rivas asked if the medications she is on has increased over the last five years.
I Ms. Mestad stated that she moved to her"all electric home" due to having asthma. She stated
that she cannot have central air due to having an "all electric home". After she moved to her
new home, her medication was reduced. After the plant was placed on site, her medical
condition has been worse. She explained that she has to take several medications to prevent
an asthma attack. She stated that she had been on "as many as 10 different medications and
now she is down to 4 and has another 4 in reserve in case it should get really bad".
Ms. Mestad questioned why she shouldn't have the ability to be outside her home in the
summer. She asked that the permit be denied.
Ms. Rivas stated that she thought last year the applicant was required to have a monitoring
system along the perimeter of the plant. She asked what the findings were.
Mr. Peterson responded that a.5tn condition was placed on the Conditional Use Permit to add
the monitoring system. He referred to the letter from the MPCA that stated that they agree with •
where the monitoring system was located.
Ms. Rivas asked if the intention of the monitoring system was to capture the odor.
Mr. Peterson stated that the monitoring system measures the hydrogen sulfides. It detects the
smell from the source. He stated that Phil Wheeler, from the Planning Department, has all the
data. He explained that the system samples the air every 15 minutes. He stated that it also
collects data on relative wind direction, speed, and temperature. He stated that he believed that
the applicant has to continue to meet the requirements and ordinances or their permits can be
revoked. He clarified that they bring in 40-45 percent of product from other areas.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Rivas closed the public hearing.
Mr. Navitsky stated that he visited the plant that afternoon and the neighboring residential area.
He stated that there is a lot of new construction occurring in the area. He stated that he spoke
with two elderly individuals taking a walk whose home was right in site of the plant. He told
them who he was and asked what they thought of the plant. The individuals stated that the
plant goes above and beyond to make it reasonable for the neighborhood. Therefore, it was his
opinion that the applicant is doing a good job. However, he suggested that the permit not be
approved for five years due to the growth occurring in the area.
Mr. McGuine stated that he believed the applicant would move the plant once there is enough
population surrounding them. He stated that the applicant hasn't changed anything about their •
plant and continue to do a good job. He questioned what the difference would be if they grant a
permit for a maximum of 5 years with a minimum of 3 years or whether they just grant 5 years.
Page 10
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 28,2007
Ms. Rivas expressed concern with enforcing any violations of the permit. s
Mr. McGuine stated that the City Council has the authority to enforce the permit.
Mr. McGuine stated that he was at the plant last summer and did not smell anything on top of
the pit. He stated that the plant only operates approximately 5 hours per day.
Mr. Barry stated that he did visit the area around the plant and did not smell any odor.
Ms. Rivas stated that she wouldn't want to live there either. She expressed concern that there
is a resident nearby that has a physical medical condition that the plant emissions impact.
Mr HAd'ussmger moved to recommend approva( of Type III, Phase II Condif�onal Use
Permit#05 06 b Rochest raveler'Sand and G a DIvis�on of Mathy Construction4w�th the
y
staff recommended findm-gs and cond►tions for one year and that they waive the final
plan Mr Barry`secantled the motion The motion carrred 8 1;with Ms Rivas voting nay
CONDITIONS r
1� �`linport of materials for processing be,h in"ited only to ithat necessa forhe
aspha'It facihty rY -
r
2 This use will be s ct ubje to meeting the Industrial Performance Standards of the
RochesterZonmg Ordinance and Land Development Manual (Sec 63 600zet seq ) ;k
�racludmg the tandard applying to odor m fhe M 1'and M 2 districts
tp
3 Flo tem or p ary us`e permit maybe issued without Council approva!
f y
tY 711is
4 $ This permit hall expire one{1� year after the Council's approval ` Theyapphcant must
go through a Type 111,Phase !I process �n order to renew the permit
Y P g
' 5 f'Mon�tormg w�l1 bke required 24 Hours a da , seven days week during one month Y
µ prior to startup of plant operation`and`dur-ing anys month the plantf�s m operation
The monitoring device for fumes must be placed according to MPCA
recommendations - '`
OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Presentation bv John Harford n T, xt Amendment#2006-03
Mr. John Harford presented the staff r ort for Text Amendment 306-03, dated November 19,
2007, to the Commission. The staff r rt is on file at the Rochester-Olmsted Planning
Department.
2. As ma be brou ht u with embe
No discussion items were brought forward.
•
800 ft. Notification Area of quarry pit
located in the NW 1/4 NE 1/4
Sec 2 High Forest TWP
VVAY
f \
35 36
� F \
I I 1 2.
4
4 1
,sgA
e '.w y:
1 3 �k
NIR
M
TIMIII
tl�— 1
6
z,
i F.t .
i
l
m
t
�s +
�
o Amendment to
sE Conditional Use Permit#05-06
` 1 by Rochester Sand & Gravel
PI Ns: 54.02.12.045289
_ Ward: 1 (Ed Hruska)
_..... Neighborhood Assoc: None _
11/13/07
f
Olmsted County is not rasp onslbla for ommissfons or anon contained herein.9 di—epanaes are round within this map,please natty t
the GIS Division,Rocheaner-Olmsled County planning Department,2122 Campus Ddw SE.ROUestor,MN 55904.(507)028-71M )
■
� I Conway's Subdivision
,
I
�1 J
1
1, O r•,
Y I 0 C
O O
Mathy ��4�Mathy u
Construct) n Construction ti rn
37.5 Ac
S nao ;t
1 Mathy
Construction!(
4-t200 t 160 Ac `1
• i �� I
Pi
.a •1I r^ O� n a
I - efRe b-. Section 35
T—r 7— Section
Co
i
1 �O 11
I
1 4/ Gerald n
f a Twoheyit
' r Mat y 153.86 A�'c
Math
'I a Consttuction u Co traction 't
8 159. Ac Ji60 \'i
s FiMA Prant .. o i
w,
it ",�` ,•- C' ofAochrner"•S+ ... � VJ II
• t „�. •,,,, Center ec.2, t
1
chinery
I', .I ��_+, �' "tie •-. -�.'. �I
Mathy ;I
t - .•.-- �.:.�- -uia - ::;,. .;,,;,y: __ ..... _ Construction
t.rceNo Mathy Construction is j
Topgraphic data obulined from USGS 75 Min Committed to Protecting Our
Quad Maps. Environment and Natural Resources
( t-w— 0 n
Contour Intervals 10 Feet
iC=7 sw► �r� *.a ma
Smion2TI0514-11I4W
metro--� r+ac*avnaat ® �, High forest Township
it �� utoe,oxs mrrm,% ® Olms,ead County,Minnesata
It
Quarry
Milestone Materials 19t,0.I0.0bECT1'1
O
—'
— -
r iw aw Fr :w fuo N��+ %rib I0.10.07
Existing Condition'Map sn ,N.l !
� 1
i b f i
W 4 �� mnama cwlunl j{,
4-4
1 Quarry Face o o
I
i
� lu<a En<id„mcsio i � m¢ma>t ,
n„a IA.ee,a mK aq,,..snlm, 1 i r
1 1
.I EncMum _ 1� ® ll,uaaYl mrllllt,uK �
Quarry Pace Elevation d ® � ,,,a .17J
..-.i"; Silos _
�C' r
1230.25 Control House Drum Demister O i waaa,aa�
Quarry Floor Elevation
=`
1148.41 Bins aglouse Erosion Control
i� Sand Q Tanks Bennis 1C
Screen� RAP C,
1t [/ Bill Topgmphie data ohioined Iro,,USGS 7.5 Min
Quarry tl' Quad M.,p>
Stack i
Scale coomlu rm—N,0 ear.
r Extension O
(160'Total) saaio�a,nnsN-Rr:v.
HMA Plant i og=,aa'�o�„ry,Mmll w,
1
City of Rochester
0 50 100 150 zoo
Town of High Forest ° ' `y' Feet
nter.Sbc.
.;• - I Con MAY
to Construction
O is
ur _
T10 —I 14 W Environment and Natural Resources
Retention Pond
sT
South 63 Quarry
J ROCRESTE6R�SAND A GRAVEL
j
—�=_- IIMA Site Layout -
-�--r-_.._.................... ................... ......_...................................
I
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT o�.�ocxESTEx.MINNF
2122 Campus Drive SE,Suite 100•Rochester, MN 55904-4744 so
I Uj 1?
www.co.olmsted.mn.us/departments/planning
®?G CeO NTY�Yf�OO F ('1O•,•.• •••,••�y�•
�pGR9TED•AUGUST•5•�9
TO: City Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner
DATE: November 20, 2007
RE: Type III, Phase II Conditional Use Permit #05-06 by Rochester Sand and Gravel, a
Division of Mathy Construction. The applicant is requesting renewal for a
minimum of five year of the conditional use permit #05-06 to operate a hot mix
asphalt plant on property located east of TH 63 and south of 60" St. within the
former Quarve quarry pit.
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
Narrative Report
BACKGROUND:
April 2003:The City Council approved a Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit (#03-04) 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.
February 2005: The applicant filed a request for a new Restricted Development Permit for the Hot Mix Asphalt
Plant, to replace the 2003-04 permit which had expired. In April 2005, the City Council approved the new permit
for one year. This permit is #05-06.
November 2005: Mathy applied to renew#05-06 with amendments to the HMA Plant and equipment and
requested approval for one additional year. On January 9, 2006 the Council approved the request with four
conditions;with the permit expiring one year from the new approval date.
October 2006: Mathy filed an application to amend the existing Restricted Development Permit#05-06 and
requested renewal for five years. On January 17, 2007 the Council approved the request with five conditions;
with the permit expiring one year from the new approval date. •
BUILDING CODE 507/328-7111 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/328-7100 • HOUSING/HRA 507/328-7150
,�dwp • PLANNING/ZONING 507/328-7100 • WELUSEPTIC 5071328-7111
0 FAX 507/328-7958
ydip1t AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
11/20/07
2
October 2007: Mathy filed an application to renew Restricted Development Permit#05-06 for a minimum of
five (5)years. Included with the application is a letter from Pat Peterson dated October 30, 2007 detailing
• environmental improvements made to the HMA processing plant since the original application was approved.
OVERVIEW OF USE/PROPOSAL:
The hot mix asphalt (HMA) plant is located and proposed 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 HMA plant site is in the City of Rochester
and therefore subject to the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual.
Access to this property is 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 is 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
I
at this location, the applicant paved both accesses.
A layout of the HMA plant is included in the attached materials. Detailed explanation of the plan, equipment,
regulatory controls and monitoring were previously provided and are available upon request. The plant is
currently set-up and operational at this site.
The HMA plant operation includes the following:
• Addition of traffic from this site could be approximately 10+trucks/hour (number will vary depending
on the daily production demands);
• 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-
flow" 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.
• An extended baghouse stack to 130 feet above the quarry floor(completed in 2005)
• Installation of a charcoal filter system ("Demister")to capture the hot vapors escaping from the
asphalt cement and burner fuel tanks. This demister system operates 24 hours per day to capture
tank vapors exiting the tanks as they breathe. Captured vapors are processed in a charcoal filter
system (completed in 2005).
The November 2005 application included the following additional improvements:
• Extend the 130-foot stack another 30 feet to a total of 160 feet from the quarry floor. The applicant
anticipates this would reduce emissions by an additional 39 percent.
• Provide top of silo containment and ductwork with a separate baghouse system to capture the
fugitive air from the slat conveyor and top of silos as it is carried from the mixing drum to the storage
silo.
• Provide load-out containment and ductwork with a separate baghouse system to capture the fugitive
air from the truck load-out area, as provided in the Eau Claire HMA facility, to capture the air as the
truck is being loaded.
Improvements done during 2006:
• Prior to the start-up in the spring of 2006, a truck load out containment system was added around the
silo load-out area.
• An additional vapor capturing component was added to the demister system to capture working
losses from the tanker truck as asphalt cement is unloaded into the storage tanks on site.
• A top of silo capture system was added to the storage silos on site.
•
11/20/07
3
• An additional baghouse was added for the silo emissions, a vapor extraction device was added to the
slat conveyor to capture the vapors emitted by the hot mix asphalt as it travels to the top of the •
storage silo from the mixing drum.
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:
The January 2005 City Council approval of this Conditional Use Permit specified that the applicant must go
through a complete review process (public hearings) in order to renew the permit. The amendment approved at
that time had been processed as an amendment to an approved Restricted Development Permit, which was _
subject to the Type III, Phase III hearing process which required only a review with the Planning Commission and
a public hearing with the City Council. There were objections raised to that process, since it did not include a
public hearing at the Planning Commission;thus not allowing for public testimony at the Commission meeting.
The Council responded by requiring any further amendments to the permit to follow the Type III, Phase II hearing
process which requires a public hearing with both the Planning Commission and City Council.
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.
Below are the findings previously made by the City Council in approving the HMA facility, with minor
modifications to reflect modifications made to the plant:
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 is available.
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.
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 6e 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.
11/20/07
4
e) Traffic Generation Impact: At this time, no 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.
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 6e 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 is the extended bag-house stack, which is 160 feet
above the quarry floor. Approximately the upper 60'would be visible from the west.
g) Setbacks: The 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 60`h 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 60'h 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 is the extended bag-house stack, which
i is 160 feet above the quarry floor. Approximately the upper 60'would be visible from the west.
�I D 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
was increased in height in order increase dispersion of emissions and thereby to reduce the effects of the
HMA to surrounding neighbors. Approximately the upper 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
the previous CUP, there were complaints from neighbors to the west about odors and emissions from the
HMA plant, however.
1) Final Development Plan Criteria:
a) Public Facility Design: 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.
b) Geologic Hazard: There are no known geologic hazards on the property.
c) Access Effect: Access to this property will be primarily from the north TH 63 quarry access. This
isaccess utilizes the existing frontage road access which is across from the 60"'St. SW access on TH 63.
The frontage road also has a south access. Secondary access to the property would be from the east
11/20/07
5
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.
d) Pedestrian Circulation: Pedestrian facilities and pedestrian circulation should not be impacted by this
proposal.
e) Foundation and Site Plantings: This plant is not a permanent structure and the HMA site sits on the
floor of the quarry below grade and out of view from most of the surrounding area (except for silos and
stack). Foundation plantings would not be needed nor reasonable considering the use and visibility of
plantings that would be located near the equipment site.
f) Site Status: This criterion is not applicable to this project.
g) Screening and Bufferyards: This site offers 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 6e 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 is the extended bag-house stack, which is
approximately 160 feet above the quarry floor. Approximately the upper 60'would be visible from the
west.
h) Final Building Design: The final/proposed design approved in 2005 increased the height of the existing _
stack from 130 feet above the quarry floor, to 160 feet above the quarry floor.
i) Internal Circulation Areas: Internal loading and circulation patterns and site access are not proposed
to change from the previous approvals.
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.).
is subject to the criteria for all conditional use permits, as identified in Section 61.146.
In addition, this application �
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.
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.
11/20/07
6
• 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 I 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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This permit was approved by the City Council in April 2005 subject to the conditions one through four listed
below. The fifth condition was added to the approval in January 2007. If the Commission and Council support
renewing the permit, then the permit should be approved, subject to these conditions. The applicant has
requested renewal for a minimum of five (5) years. The Council should discuss the length of the renewal.
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.
3. No temporary use permit may be issued without Council approval.
4. This permit shall expire one(1)year after the Council's approval. The applicant must go through a
Type Ill, Phase 11 process in order to renew the permit.
5. Monitoring will be required 24 hours a day, seven days a week during one month prior to startup
of plant operation and during any month the plant is in operation. The monitoring device for
fumes must be placed according to MPCA recommendations.
Staff has reviewed this request in accordance with the applicable standards and provisions, as included in this
report. If the Commission and City Council wishes to approve this application, staff would recommend approval
be subject to the conditions listed above. If the Council decides to renew the permit for a period longer than one
year, then condition number four would need to be changed accordingly.
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
I following findings with respect to the proposed development is made:
9) 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.
10) 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.
11) The provision for on-site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate -
protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development.
12) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be •
created by the development.
13) 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.
14) 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.
15) 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 I site plan, such that the revised plans will
not meet the standards provided by this paragraph.
16) 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.
11/20/07
• 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:
2) 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;
11/20/07
9
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 buff eryards 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.
3) 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.
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
11/2.'O/o7
10
• activities wi;h;, L;ie r;eighborhood 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.
I
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.
•
IQ
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT •
COUNTY o f 2122 CAMPUS DR SE- SUITE 200
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
www.olmste..dpublicworks.com
507.328.7070
November 2, 2007
Stephanie Foster
Planning Department
Dear Stephanie:
The Public Works Department has reviewed Type III Phase II Amendment to
Conditional Use Permit#05-06 by Rochester Sand and Gravel and has the following
comments:
• Olmsted County Public Works Department recommends renewal of this •
conditional use permit. This plant location provides relief to the loads and
number of trucks on CSAH 22 (37tt' St NlAq between T.H. 52 and T.H. 63.
Sincerely,
Michael Sheehan
County Engineer
MTS/bw
c: Rochester Sand & Gravel,
a Division of Mathy Construction
II
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
n�.w.
Administration Building Maintenance Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks&Agriculture Solid Waste
1170v ea duu•/ IU: 19RM HP LRSERJET FRX
P. 1
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Minnesota Department of Transportation-District b
• � �i° �° 2900 48`'Street N.W.
Rochester,MN 55901-5848 Office.Tel: 507-286-7594
Fax: 507-286-7658
E-mail: chris.moates@dot.state.mn.us
November 28, 2007
Brent Svenby, Senior Planner
Rochester Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE— Suite 100
Rochester,MN 55904
Re; Conditional Use Permit(CUP)#05-06 by Rochester Sand and Gravel,a division of Mathy
Construction.The applicant is requesting renewal for a minimum of five year of the conditional
use permit 405-06 to operate a hot mix asphalt plant on.property located east of US 63 and south
of 60 Street within the former.Quarve Quarry Pit.
US 63,CS 5509
Dear Mr. Svenby:
Minnesota Department of Transportation(Mn/DOT)District 6 staff has reviewed the
CUP##05-06 by Rochester Sand.and Gravel, a division of Mathy Construction. Due to _
new and ongoing developments along US 63,traffic continues to increase in the
vicinity'of 60 'Street. Traffic volumes on US 63 are currently over 20,000 vehicles
per day at this location. NIn/DOT has ongoing concerns regarding the safety and
• operations of the existing at-gradeintersections. The potential for crash and capacity
issues at any one of these at-grade access points is high•Based on this,Mn/DOT
:continues to recommend only one year extension for this Conditional Use Permit.
Thank you for providing Mn/DOT the opportunity to comment., If there are any
questions,you may contact Peter Waskiw, Principal Planner, at (50.7) 286-7680 or ''Y
Debbie Persoon-Bement, Transportation Specialist at(507) 286-7598. 3"
r
Sincerely,
4
Chris Moates
District 6 Planning Director
cc: Greg Paulson
Mike Schweyen
Tom Streiff
Peter Waskiw
Debbie Persoon-Bement, File
ochester � --
D �.
rn`7 and ,cox unaw
pi
i
trT ravel 4105 East River Road NE Phone 507-288-744
Rochester, MN 55906-3424 Fax507-252-34
October 30,2007
R�.CEIVED
Rochester—Olmsted Planning Department
Attn: Mr. Brent Svenby, Senior Planner 0TCT 3 0 �uu7
2122 Campus Drive, SE, Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PL ANNiNG DEPARTMENT
Re: Renewal Application to CUP 05-06
5850 Highway 63 South, Rochester
Dear Mr. Svenby,
Rochester Sand& Gravel, a Division of Mathy Construction Company, is applying for a
renewal of our CUP #05-06 currently in place to operate a hot mix asphalt plant in the
City of Rochester, High Forest Township, in Olmsted County.
The Criteria for Type III Development, are outlined in our attachment dated October 30, -
2007.
In this renewal request,we will not change the basic traffic flow, site layout and drainage, .
plant layout, or plant capacity. If,however, it is determinedby Rochester Planning and
Zoning, in conjunction with Mn/DOT and Olmsted County,that businesses such as ours
need to change or modify their Highway 63 access,then we will cooperate with these
entities in expediting any proposed changes. Please reference the.application manual for
an overview of the facility and any additional information in regards to the HMA plant
with our MPCA permits and Spill Prevention Plan, which are not changing due to this
extension Proposal.
Since we have started operating under the current 2005 CUP# 05-06,we have
voluntarily made the following environmental improvements to the Hot Mix Asphalt
(HMA)processing plant:
• As proposed in the Amendment of our CUP405-06, the baghouse stack was
extended to 160 feet above the quarry floor prior to our spring of 2006 start-
up. (see Figure 46 in the application manual for an illustration of the 160 foot
stack.)
• In June of 2005, a charcoal filter system was installed(a"Demister",
manufactured by Ceco Corporation)to capture the hot vapors escaping from
the asphalt cement and burner fuel tanks. (See Figure#7 in the application
manual for an illustration of the installed charcoal filter system.) This
demister system operates 24 hours per day capturing tank vapors exiting the
tanks as they breathe. Captured vapors are processed in a charcoal filter •
system.
2
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Mr. Brent Svenby
October 30, 2007
Page 2
•
• In July of 2006, a tanker vapor capture device, which is connected to the
above referenced charcoal filter system,was installed. This device captures
and controls the vapors from the truck tankers as they unload into the on-site
AC storage tanks, thus eliminating the immediate release of these vapors into
the air during the unloading process. (See Figure#8 in the application manual
for an illustration of the installed charcoal filter system).
• Also prior to our start-up in the spring of 2006,the truck load-out containment
system and the top-of-silo emissions capture system were installed, as
proposed in an Amendment to CUP#05-06. The truck load-out system, as
illustrated in Figure#9 of the application manual,is enclosed along the sides
and a system of multiple vents draws the vapors as the truck is loaded and
exits the silo "tunnel". These vapors are drawn into an independent baghouse
where the air is filtered prior to release. The top-of-silo emissions capture
system, as illustrated in Figures#10 , draws the vapors from the upper
side of the silos and the transfer conveyors. These vapors are pulled into the
aforementioned baghouse system as well as back to the mixing drum process _
where, ultimately,the air is recycled through the HMA production facility.
The addition of these controls has met our expectations in controlling the vapors exiting
• the HMA production and load-out facilities.
We continue to meet the original 4 Conditions of CUP#05-06, as approved by the City of
Rochester. Additionally, in January of 2007, a 5ffi Condition was added to this CUP
requiring air monitoring on this site for one month prior to our construction season
startup continuing through the construction season. The location of this meter has been
deemed appropriate by MPCA, as requested, as shown in our application packet. We
have voluntarily monitored this site each of the past 3 seasons and openly shared the
results with Planning and Zoning.
As we move forward,we continue to work with the neighbors, addressing their concerns.
We have focused on improvements of the baghouse stack dispersal, as well as capturing
fugitive emissions from our Silo Truck Load-out and at the top of Silos, where mix is-
transferred from the HMA drum to the storage and distribution silos. We propose that
the current CUP 405-06 be renewed for a minimum of five (5)years.
By adding the controls listed above, our plant has engineering controls on all possible
aspects of this facility,providing control standards far exceeding HMA plants operating
ill the Midwest.
We are respectfully submitting a request that the Rochester City Council waive the final
plan review.
•
RECEIVED
OCT 3 0 2007
3
ROCHESTER-C `++STE_
PLANNING D=FA__
Please find a check for the filing fee in the amount of$1,400.00, made payable to .
Olmsted County,ten(10) copies of the application documents,ten(10) full size copies of
the site plans, and ten(10) sets of reduced size copies of the site plans.
If you have any questions,you may contact me at(507) 288-7447 or via e-mail at
ppeterson(@mathy.com.
Res c
Pat Peterson
Vice President
Rochester Sand &Gravel
ATTACHMENTS
RECEIVED
OCT 3 0 2G07
ROCHESTER-0,.MSTED •
PLANNING DEPART` ='�-_
4
stet
D:�n7aad '
wvz ucxuna
" Pa 4105 East River Road NE Phone 507-288-7447
Rochester, MN 55906-3424 Fax507-252-3477
ATTACMMNT #1
October 30, 2007
Rochester—Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100
Rochester,MN 55904 RECEIVED
RE: Type III,Phase H Development Application OCT 3 0 2007
Criteria for Type III Development ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1A) 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.
1B) Geologic Hazards: No geological hazards exist on the site, using stable quarry floor as
foundation for HMA plant.
1 C) 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: Our traffic generated by the HMA operations has been constant
- for each of the 4 seasons at this location and is still estimated to be about 10 +/-trucks per
hour of operation, on average. We average about 75 loads of hot mix asphalt per day of
operation and our estimate is that about 40%of these loads use the Secondary Access Drive
to St. Bridget's Road. The traffic entering on US 63 existed prior to May of 2003,having
been shifted from the St.Bridgets Road operation prior to 2003 to this location.This volume
• of trucks from this location should have no adverse impact on the capacity of State Highway
63.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
e'er
.:_.
Mn/DOT has expressed concerns with the growth along the US 63 corridor. We suggest that
Planning&Zoning coordinate an annual review with MnMOT to determine if intersection or
access drive changes to businesses and residential neighborhoods along Highway 63 need to
be addressed and implemented.
1 F) 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 of the 160 foot extended baghouse
stack.
1 G Setbacks: No setbacks are required at this site.
1H) Internal Site Design: HMA plant layout is explained in more detail in Section 2 of submitted
application booklet. _
11) Screening and Buffering: Locating a 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 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.
1 J) Ordinance Requirements: All employee parking is located on site. We will not exceed the
maximum noise levels provided for in the Ordinance.
1K) General Compatibility: Surrounding businesses are industrial in nature. There is an active
limestone quarry at the HMA site.
S e ly
- gECE1VED
OCT 3 0 2007
Pat Peterson.
Vice President,Rochester Sand&Gravel RocNESTER-NNiN MED •
p:AG DEPARTMENT