CASCADE TOWNSHIP OLMSTED COUNTY MINNESOTA AGENDA · 2014. 11. 11. · Deductions & Township FICA &...

CASCADE TOWNSHIP

OLMSTED COUNTY – MINNESOTA

AGENDA

November 3, 2014

1. Pledge Of Allegiance

2. Call for other agenda items.

3. Minutes from last month’s meeting(s)

CONTINUING BUSINESS

4. Review Joint Powers Bill

5. Review Cascade bills

6. Financial report

7. Notes from Deputy Sheriff Chad Miller, issues for past month

8. Review the past month’s mail

9. Reports from the supervisors on meetings attended during the month

NEW BUSINESS

10. Driveway culvert request: Mr. Huesman

11. Schoeppner CUP complaint.

12. Majestic Meadows final plat

13. Wilmar Investments rezone request

14. Audio/Video recording of town board meetings; Mr. Laures

15. Janitorial Services contract signature.

16. Majestic Meadows billing for engineer/attorney fees.

17. Town Hall rental requests

a. Boardman Valley neighborhood watch; fees waived?

DISCUSSION ITEMS:

18. All – Discussion by the supervisors on the road maintenance and repairs for the coming month

19. All - Fire Contract

20. Michael – CTAS Update

21. Arlen – Update on Planning Commission

22. Arlen – Town Hall Expansion/Contraction

23. Town Hall Rentals

a. 11/6 BV neighborhood watch

b. 11/7 Possabilities

c. 12/12 Wedding rehearsal dinner

24. All - upcoming meetings

a. OCTOA 11/25 (Tuesday)

25. Audience – Call for comments and questions

CALL FOR ADJOURNMENT

BOARD MINUTES

October 6, 2014

Call to order at 6:00 PM at the Cascade Town Hall Board Room.

Members present: Supervisors Heathman, Atkinson, and Laures, Clerk/Treasurer Michael Brown

Attendees present: Jim and Sandy Hoss, Judy and Jim Larsen, Don and Ardith Ottman, Char Brown (planning

Comm.), Albert (Jim) Evans, Val and Jeff Coe

Chairman Laures called for additional agenda items. None were requested.

Township Board Continuing Business.

A motion by Mr. Heathman to approve the minutes from the September 8, 2014 town board meeting as

published and distributed. Second by Mr. Atkinson.

AYE: Atkinson, Heathman, Laures

NAY: None

Motion Approved

A motion by Mr. Heathman to approve and pay the Joint Powers bill (claim # 1695) of $23,782.94.

Second by Mr. Atkinson

NAY: None

Motion Approved

A motion by Mr. Atkinson to approve and pay the remaining Cascade bills (claim #s 1679 – 1694) of

$8224.07 Second by Mr. Heathman.

NAY: None

Motion Approved

Clerk/Treasurer Brown reviewed the financial reports.

Total receipts in September 2014 were:

1. Checking interest of $166.36

2. Journeys with Jeff, Town Hall rental $150.00

3. Olmsted County, Town Hall rental $150.00

4. Connie Schultz, Town Hall rental $150.00

5. Troy Dickison, culvert, $809.00

6. Rochester Flower & Garden club, Town Hall rental, $150.00

CASCADE --- TOWNSHIP ---

2025 75TH ST. NE

Rochester, MN 55906

www.cascadetownship.us

The Premier Bank account balance as of July 31, 2014 was $271,074.40

The CTAS balance as of the start of this meeting is $271,074.40

The total outstanding checks are:

1. Checks written at this meeting - $33,701.48

2. CK #4274 - $135.00

Ending CTAS balance on October 6, 2014 is $237,237.92

A motion by Mr. Heathman to approve the financial report. Second by Mr. Atkinson.

NAY: None

Motion Approved

Sheriff Deputy’s Report:

Deputy Chad Miller provided an update on patrol activities. There were a total of 42 calls for service.

Mail Review

Meeting Review

Mr. Laures attended TCPA

Messrs. Brown, Heathman and Laures attended OCTOA.

Township Board New Business

10. Planning Commission membership

Mr. Schaap has moved out of the township and has signed for the sale of his home and is no longer eligible to

serve on the Planning Commission.

A motion by Mr. Heathman to appoint Mr. Albert (Jim) Evans to the Planning Commission to replace

Mr. Schaap. The appointment is effective immediately. Second by Mr. Atkinson.

NAY: None

Motion Approved

11. Medical Rental Policy

On behalf of the Planning Commission, Mr. Heathman requested direction from the board regarding the

development of a policy to permit renting of residences, while owner or tenant occupied, for use by visiting

medical patients. Messrs. Laures and Atkinson confirmed their position that this type of use should be allowed.

Mr. Laures confirmed his position that this type of use should have some form of control in place. Mr.

Heathman stated he would contact Olmsted County to determine where they are in the process of developing

such an ordinance. The desire is to not unnecessarily lead the county in developing such an ordinance.

12. Zoning Ordinance Update

Clerk Brown reviewed the updates to the township zoning ordinance prepared by the Planning Commission in

response to the previous direction set by the town board.

A motion by Mr. Heathman to move the updates through the adoption process. Second by Mr. Laures.

NAY: None

Motion Approved

13. Majestic Meadows Developer’s Agreement

A motion by Mr. Laures to make approval of the Developer’s Agreement contingent upon finding

funding for the road connection into the River Highlands development. Second by Mr. Heathman.

NAY: None

Motion Approved

Mr. Laures stated he will contact the township engineer to provide a cost for the connection.

The draft Developer’s Agreement contains a clause for the developer to make a $6000 contribution toward the

development of a trail to connect their out lot to the exiting public easement in the Salley Hill development.

After discussion, the board stated this clause should be removed and replaced by language requiring the

developer to build the trail, per the required specifications, necessary to connect their out lot to the existing

public easement.

The clerk was directed to send a letter to TCPA informing them of the foregoing decisions and also requesting

an adjustment to the required insurance level per state tort law for townships.

14. Janitorial Service Quotes

Clerk Brown reviewed with the board the two quotations received for janitorial service for the town hall.

A motion by Mr. Heathman to accept the janitorial quote from Possabilities. Second by Mr. Atkinson.

NAY: None

Motion Approved

15. Town Hall Rental Requests

Rochester Flower & Garden Club has requested to reserve the town hall for an organization pot luck dinner in

August 2015. The board approved the request but denied the request to waive the rental fee.

The board approved the request from an Oronoco township resident to reserve the hall for Thanksgiving and

Christmas eve for family celebrations.

The board directed that the damage deposit continue to be collected from all renters including other

governmental agencies.

Township Board Discussion Items

16. Road Maintenance

A. Trapper Lane

The previously identified driveways presenting homeowner maintenance issues as a result of the recent

overlay work have been adjusted to resolve the concerns.

B. Road Signs

The township road signs are in the process of being replaced. The street signs will be done next year.

17. Planning Commission Update

18. Town Hall Building Concerns

Mr. Heathman will contact KBS seeking resolution of the building panel expansion/contraction issue.

19. Board Overlap

The board suggested this item be revisited at the annual reorganization meeting.

Additional Notes

Mr. Laures requested the clerk to add an item to the November agenda to address his concerns with the

recording of town board meetings.

Motion by Supervisor Atkinson to adjourn. Second by Supervisor Heathman.

NAY: None

Motion Approved. Meeting adjourned at 8:36 PM

Submitted: Michael Brown, Clerk/Treasurer

Michael Brown, Clerk/Treasurer Leonard Laures, Chairman

Joint Powers Board November 2014 Claims Amount

Rochester and Cascade 3119 148.50$ Lenny's Mileage

Townships 3100 321.00$ Peoples Power

Century Link

3116 30.00$ RPU

Breakdown of Payments 3117 19.67$ Mn Energy

Total Rochester Cacade 3121 142.17$ Waste Mngt

Payroll: Township Township 3106 4,572.14$

NovemberPayroll 9,176.60$ 3107 104.85$

Deductions & Township FICA & Med Care 7,545.54$ 3108 1,432.45$

Employee Ded. FSA&Def Com -$ 3109 640.00$

FSA & HRA Cafeteria Payments 2,125.00$ 3110 39.38$

Total 18,847.14$ 9,423.57$ 9,423.57$ 3111 157.43$

3112 197.70$

3113 74.65$

Non- Payroll Disbursements: 3144 128.53$

Road Claims Paid 46.57% and 53.43% 13,234.34$ 6,163.01$ 7,071.33$ 3115 310.75$

Credit from Nuss (167.49)$ (78.00)$ (89.49)$ 3118 67.26$

3120 457.51$

Total Disbursements 18,679.65$ 15,508.58$ 16,405.41$ 3112 3,701.52$

-$ -$ 3123 612.94$

Current Month Interest (180.29)$ (90.15)$ (90.15)$ 3124 75.89$

Mowing - Oronoco Township (2,232.00)$ (1,116.00)$ (1,116.00)$

City of Oronoco (288.00)$ (144.00)$ (144.00)$

Township of Haverhill (1,656.00)$ (828.00)$ (828.00)$

HRA Cafeteria Payments 2,125.00$

Claims List 20,779.88$ Total 13,234.34$

#NAME? (167.49)$ Fringe Benefits

Net Pay Dist. 9,176.60$

Total 27,557.70$ 3101 859.71$ STATE

3102 1,899.61$ PERA + Admin Fee

27,557.70$ 3104 32.00$ NCPERS

Equipment 1/12 of Amt. Budgeted 6,666.67$ 3,333.34$ 3,333.34$ 3103 4,129.23$ FED

Sick Leave Escrow 175.75$ 87.88$ 87.88$ 3105 624.99$ The Security Co.

Amount owed by each township 34,400.12$ 16,751.64$ 17,648.48$ 7,545.54$

34,400.12$ Total 20,779.88$

Should be 00 -$ Cafeteria 2,125.00$

Payroll 9,176.60$

32,081.48$

Date range: 10/13/2014 to 11/01/2014

Date Vendor Description Claim # Total Account # Detail10/13/2014 Peoples Coop Power October 2014 electric bill 3100 $321.00

200-43112-379 $264.00200-43112-379 $57.00

11/01/2014 State of MN State Contributions for Noveber 2014 3101 $859.71200-43102-100 $709.71100-41102-100 $150.00

11/01/2014 PERA Withholdings for Noveber 2014 3102 $1,899.61200-43102-100 $1,849.61100-41102-100 $50.00

11/01/2014 Federal Taxes November 2014 Federal WH & FICA & Med Care

3103 $4,129.23

200-43102-100 $3,852.73100-41102-100 $276.50

11/01/2014 NCPERS Minnesota Employee Paid Insurance -December 2014

3104 $32.00

200-43102-100 $32.0011/01/2014 The Security Benefit Co. November 2014 contributions 3105 $624.99

360-43102-100 $208.33360-43102-100 $208.33370-43102-100 $208.33

11/01/2014 Cargil Inc. - Salt Divison Bulk Ice Control 3106 $4,572.14200-43136-250 $4,572.14

11/01/2014 Scharf Auto . Nitrile Glove , Filter, Floor Dry 3107 $104.85200-43116-220 $104.85

11/01/2014 Steve Yaggy Specialized Truck Ser. Hauling Sand & salt 3108 $1,432.45200-43136-254 $1,432.45

11/01/2014 Mueller Equipment Service Worked on leak of mower pump 3109 $640.00200-43116-224 $640.00

11/01/2014 Menards AA protectant Trigger & protectant wipes 3110 $39.38200-43115-210 $39.38

11/01/2014 Milestone Materials Class 2 rock - shouldering rock 3111 $157.43200-43106-264 $24.12200-43106-264 $133.31

11/01/2014 SOMA Construction Inc. Recycle asphalt 3112 $197.70200-43106-268 $197.70

11/01/2014 Rochester Fire Extinguisher Co. Annual Fire Ext inspection 3113 $74.65200-43138-301 $74.65

11/01/2014 Block White Sprayer Red 3.5 gals 3114 $128.53200-43100-409 $128.53

11/01/2014 Daniel DeCook Sand and Gravel Washed Sand 3115 $310.75200-43136-252 $310.75

11/01/2014 RPU Water Charges for November 2014 - Est 3116 $30.00200-43112-378 $30.00

11/01/2014 Minnesota Energy Resources Natural Gas for November 2014 3117 $19.67200-43112-380 $19.67

11/01/2014 Diamond Mowers, Inc. Single action cylinder 3118 $67.26200-43116-224 $67.26

11/01/2014 Lenny Laures Mileagel Reimb 3119 $148.50

Joint Powers Board Claims List for Approval 11/01/2014

Date Vendor Description Claim # Total Account # Detail200-41112-217 $148.50

11/01/2014 Mike Reiland Medical Insurance 3120 $457.51330-44000-605 $457.51

11/01/2014 Waste Management Refuse Service November 2014 - Est 3121 $142.17200-43112-381 $142.17

11/01/2014 OK Tire Store Snow Plow Truck Tires 3122 $3,701.52200-43116-238 $1,850.76200-43116-227 $1,850.76

11/01/2014 Bauer Built Tire Flat tire on JD6420 3123 $612.94200-43116-236 $612.94

11/01/2014 Nuss Trucks- Rochester Clamp and Pipe 3124 $75.89200-43116-227 $75.89

Total For Selected Claims $20,779.88 $20,779.88

________________________________________________ ___________________Approved Date

Joint Powers Board Claims List for Approval 11/01/2014

Date range: 10/07/2014 to 11/03/2014

Date Vendor Description Claim # Total Account # Detail11/03/2014 Harold Atkinson Mileage 1696 $12.32

100-41530-217 $12.3211/03/2014 Michael Brown Mileage software 1697 $100.64

100-41530-570 $64.56100-41530-217 $36.08

11/03/2014 Robert A. Heathman mileage 1698 $30.24100-41530-217 $30.24

11/03/2014 Murnane-Brandt Review of Majestic Meadows Dev Agreement and Plat issues

1699 $595.00

100-41502-305 $595.0011/03/2014 GGG Inc. Eng review of Majestic Meadow

documents1700 $12,383.25

100-41530-411 $12,383.2511/03/2014 Bank of Zumbrota Semi Annual Loan Pmt #127688 1701 $16,512.00

900-47000-600 $15,000.00900-47000-610 $1,512.00

11/03/2014 In Bloom Garden Center LLC weed and dead head town hall 1702 $105.00200-41520-435 $105.00

11/03/2014 Journeys with Jeff Damage deposit return for 10/18/2014 rental

1703 $100.00

100-41530-438 $100.0011/03/2014 United States Treasury November 2014 Payroll Taxes 1704 $266.00

100-41102-100 $178.58100-41101-100 $87.42

11/03/2014 PERA November 2014 Contribution 1705 $252.24100-41101-100 $154.82100-41102-100 $97.42

11/03/2014 Tarja Anderson Return of damage deposit for 11-1-2014 hall rental

1706 $100.00

100-41530-810 $100.0011/03/2014 Joint Powers Board, Cas & Roc Twps November 2014 Maint,equip budget 1707 $17,648.48

200-43117-550 $3,333.34300-43540-415 $14,315.14

Total For Selected Claims $48,105.17 $48,105.17

________________________________________________ ___________________Approved Date

CASCADE TOWNSHIP Claims List for Approval 11/02/2014

Date range: 10/07/2014 to 11/03/2014

Remitter Date Receipt # Total Description Deposit ID Void Account # DetailPossabilities 10/28/2014 315 $150.00 Nov 7 2014 hall rental

and damage deposit(10/29/2014) - No

100-36203 $150.00Minnesota Managment & Budget

10/29/2014 316 $515.15 MV Ag (10/30/2014) - No

100-33426 $515.15Premier Bank 10/31/2014 317 $150.36 Interest for October 2014 (11/02/2014) - No

100-36210 $150.36

Total For Selected Receipts $815.51 $815.51

CASCADE TOWNSHIP Receipts List 11/02/2014

Date range: 10/07/2014 to 11/03/2014

Vendor Date Check # Total Description Void Account # DetailUnited States Treasury 11/03/2014 11032014A $266.00 November 2014 Payroll Taxes No

100-41101-100 $87.42100-41102-100 $178.58

PERA 11/03/2014 11032014B $252.24 November 2014 Contribution No100-41101-100 $154.82100-41102-100 $97.42

Payroll Period Ending 11/03/2014 11/03/2014 4302 $169.22 No100-41101-100 $169.22

Harold Atkinson 11/03/2014 4306 $12.32 Mileage No100-41530-217 $12.32

Michael Brown 11/03/2014 4307 $100.64 Mileage software No100-41530-217 $36.08100-41530-570 $64.56

Robert A. Heathman 11/03/2014 4308 $30.24 mileage No100-41530-217 $30.24

Murnane-Brandt 11/03/2014 4309 $595.00 Review of Majestic Meadows Dev Agreement and Plat issues

100-41502-305 $595.00GGG Inc. 11/03/2014 4310 $12,383.25 Eng review of Majestic

Meadow documentsNo

100-41530-411 $12,383.25Bank of Zumbrota 11/03/2014 4311 $16,512.00 Semi Annual Loan Pmt

#127688No

900-47000-600 $15,000.00900-47000-610 $1,512.00

In Bloom Garden Center LLC 11/03/2014 4312 $105.00 weed and dead head town hall No200-41520-435 $105.00

Journeys with Jeff 11/03/2014 4313 $100.00 Damage deposit return for 10/18/2014 rental

100-41530-438 $100.00Tarja Anderson 11/03/2014 4314 $100.00 Return of damage deposit for

11-1-2014 hall rentalNo

100-41530-810 $100.00Joint Powers Board, Cas & Roc Twps 11/03/2014 4315 $17,648.48 November 2014 Maint,equip

budgetNo

200-43117-550 $3,333.34300-43540-415 $14,315.14

Total For Selected Checks $49,882.40 $49,882.40

CASCADE TOWNSHIP Disbursements List 11/02/2014

For the Period 01/01/2014 to 11/03/2014

Less Plus TotalBeginning Total Total Ending Deposits Outstanding Per Bank

Name of Fund Balance Receipts Disbursed Balance In Transit Checks StatementGeneral Fund $149,410.28 $23,135.09 $68,980.77 $103,564.60Road Repair Fund $81,164.37 $276,361.59 $409,279.49 ($51,753.53)Fire Protection Fund $10,935.44 $89,440.36 $94,671.14 $5,704.66Public Safety Fund $15,792.98 $12,983.33 $23,610.00 $5,166.31Capital Projects Fund $254.29 $0.00 $0.00 $254.29Reserve Fund $122,433.82 $0.00 $0.00 $122,433.82Debt Service Fund $16,197.27 $18,823.61 $32,220.00 $2,800.88

Total $396,188.45 $420,743.98 $628,761.40 $188,171.03 $0.00 $49,962.40 $238,133.43

CASCADE TOWNSHIP Cash Control Statement 11/02/2014

Date of Report: 11/02/2014

Outstanding Checks Date of Check Check Number To Whom Paid Check Amount11/03/2014 4302 Payroll Period Ending 11/03/2014 $169.2211/03/2014 4303 Payroll Period Ending 11/03/2014 $633.1011/03/2014 4304 Payroll Period Ending 11/03/2014 $487.0011/03/2014 4305 Payroll Period Ending 11/03/2014 $487.9111/03/2014 4306 Harold Atkinson $12.3211/03/2014 4307 Michael Brown $100.6411/03/2014 4308 Robert A. Heathman $30.2411/03/2014 4309 Murnane-Brandt $595.0011/03/2014 4310 GGG Inc. $12,383.2511/03/2014 4311 Bank of Zumbrota $16,512.0011/03/2014 4312 In Bloom Garden Center LLC $105.0011/03/2014 4313 Journeys with Jeff $100.0011/03/2014 11032014A United States Treasury $266.0011/03/2014 11032014B PERA $252.2411/03/2014 4314 Tarja Anderson $100.0011/03/2014 4315 Joint Powers Board, Cas & Roc Twps $17,648.4810/06/2014 4293 Daniel H. Frissora $80.00

Total $49,962.40

Deposits in Transit No records found

CASCADE TOWNSHIP Outstanding Checks and Deposits in Transit Report 11/02/2014

Michael Brown <townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.com>

Schoeppner2 messages

Familytreensy <familytreensy@aol.com> Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 2:59 PMTo: townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.com

Hello Michael Brown

Attached is a letter with our concerns about Schoeppner and not follow C.U.P. compliance.

Let me know if you need anything else.

Thank You

Margaret HinzFamily Tree Landscape Nursery2580 75th St NE Rochester, MN 55906507-289-0557www.familytreensy.comA Family You Can Trust!

CascadeTownship letter 10-27-14.docx11K

Michael Brown <townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.com>Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 9:33

PMTo: Arlen Heathman <raheathman@gmail.com>, Corky <corkyatk@q.com>, Lenny Laures<lenny.township@gmail.com>Cc: Roger TCPA <roger@tcpamn.org>, David Meir <david@tcpamn.org>

I have forwarded to you a complaint regarding the CUP for Schoeppner on 75th St. I will add this to theNovember meeting agenda for board direction. If you wish to review the terms of the CUP you will find thefile listed as CUP 13-02 on the Cascade Township website under Planning Commission, Agendas, P&ZCUP Files http://cascadetownship.wordpress.com/planning/agendas/pz-cup-files/[Quoted text hidden]

--Michael BrownClerk/TreasurerCascade Township, Olmsted County, MNwww.cascadetownship.us

CascadeTownship letter 10-27-14.docx11K

10/27/14 To: Town Clerk/Treasurer of Cascade Township Michael Brown This letter is in regards to the property at 1770 75 ST NE Rochester, MN 55906 that is not in C.U.P. with the township. No Buffer (on the west & south on the lot line), 2 boats parked outside (there is not to be any outside storage), silt fence (some silt fence has been put in place and need to be address to the area still under construction) and permanent fixtures have to be 130 Ft. from the center of the road (In Bloom office building is within the footage. Our other concern is where are they going to shovel or push the snow? PCA does not allow pushing the snow into a retention pond. Thank You Margaret & Russ Hinz 1536 75 ST NE Rochester MN 55906 507-289-0503

TOWNSHIP COOPERATIVE PLANNING ASSOCIATION

4111 11th Avenue SW Roger Ihrke, AdministratorRoom 10 David Meir, AdministratorRochester, MN 55902 Barbara Literski, Adm. Asst.

PH: (507) 529-0774 roger@tcpamn.orgFX: (507) 281-6821 david@tcpamn.org

-- TCPA --

Date: 10/28/14To: Cascade Town BoardRe: Planning Commission Recommendations and Further Staff Recommendations On:

1. Majestic Meadows Final Plat2. Wilmar Investments Rezone

Additionally staff will be prepared to discuss Schoeppner CUP

The Cascade Township Planning Commission discussed the Majestic Meadows Final Plat and recommended approval with the following conditions:

1. Water easement dimensions be added to the plat2. Drainage and utility easement definitions be added3. The trail easement on the east side of the river be resolved4. Development agreement including the trail development and roadway connection to River Highlands

Subdivision.5. Lot line problem be solved making no changes to the plat as presented.

The Wilmar Investments rezoning, after the public hearing and much discussion was recommended for approval with 3 yes votes and 2 no votes.

(Since the scribe had resigned from the Commission and since the schedule was heavy for the Commission the Township Clerk, Michael Brown, took the meeting minutes for the Commission and may have additional information for the Board.)

Since the meeting staff has discussed the Majestic Meadows plat with Joel Thorson, Olmsted County Surveyor and Peter Tiede, Township Attorney. Since the plat is clouded as presented Mr. Thorson recommends that the Board does not approve anything further until his office has reviewed and approved the plat. Ownership of the property is clouded so he states that he will not sign off on the plat until the issue has been resolved. Mr. Tiede reviewed the Platting Statues and finds that no extensions can be requested by the applicant nor can be granted by the Board. Since this is the last meeting the Township has prior to the sixty days required for approval, staff recommends that the plat be denied on this basis. Staff will be preparing a resolution for the board and have it ready in time for the meeting.

Wilmar Investment rezoning, no public hearing is required at the Board level, but the Board may want to take public comment after it hears from staff and the applicant. Staff has not received any further comments at this time other than the people from the neighborhood. The one comment we did receive was summarized by Dave in writing and put into the public record at the meeting.

I am aware of the Schoeppner complaint and will bring the file to help answer any questions the board may have.

C-rt''

6 nef aa - eatui Cq.g.q,J, < "t^l',if^ 6oar.

re rr, ' , rJ, nc, Z on inq 4a?ilp.f /q' ' i .

r \ ro t f , i o ' , ' '

, Zn' -f,,' 37/f , '-J J '

h 4 K o

=5 ailr,r]- tna -a'-r

Township Board Metting November 3,20142 messages

Joanne Sieck <jpsieck@gmail.com> Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 3:45 PMTo: lenny.township@gmail.com, raheathman@gmail.com, corkyatk@gmail.com,townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.com, roger@tcpamn.orgCc: brownmk@charter.net, Jim@softflannel.us, cmasog@msn.com, danfriz@gmail.com

Members of the Township Board:

Attached you will find a letter of my experience at the Township Planning Meeting on October 21st, and myhope for the up-coming meeting on November 3rd.

I respectfully request that this letter be recorded by the town clerk and be entered as part of the publicrecord.

Sincerely,

Joanne Sieck

Joanne Sieck <jpsieck@gmail.com> Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 3:54 PMTo: lenny.township@gmail.com, raheathman@gmail.com, corkyatk@gmail.com, Michael Brown<townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.com>, roger@tcpamn.orgCc: brownmk@charter.net, Jim@softflannel.us, cmasog@msn.com, danfriz@gmail.com

The letter is now attached.

From: Joanne Sieck >jpsieck@gmail.com<Date: Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 3:45 PMSubject: Township Board Metting November 3, 2014To: lenny.township@gmail.com, raheathman@gmail.com, corkyatk@g.com,townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.com, roger@tcpamn.orgCc: brownmk@charter.net, Jim@softflannel.us, cmasog@msn.com, danfriz@gmail.com[Quoted text hidden]

Twnshp.docx130K

October 29, 2014 Cascade Township Board Attention: Lenny Laures, Arlen Heathman, Harold Atkinson, Michael Brown, and Roger Ihrke Board members: I attended the October 21st “public hearing” on the rezoning request by Wilmar Investments and Mathy Construction. I was extremely disappointed to learn that most of the residents within very close proximity of the property in question, such as Buckridge where I reside, were not notified about the meeting. I understand that the notification process met the very minimum requirements for public hearings. However, the property in question is surrounded on three of its borders by many homes and suburban developments that will be negatively impacted by an aggregate mining operation. We all have a right to be fully informed about what a zoning change will mean for our property value, health, and general well-being. Because my neighbors and I were not properly informed about the meeting, we were unprepared to represent our interests. What was supposed to be a public hearing with participation from all invested parties, became a very one-sided presentation from Mathy Construction. The opposing side, the actual residents of Cascade Township, were left with only questions that we could not directly ask of Mathy Construction, and with time limits to speak and limits on repeating similar questions. There were no clear answers to ANY of the questions we asked that evening. Mr Ihrke read all of the reasons to move ahead with a recommendation for a zoning change made by two staff members in particular, and glossed over the problems and questions raised by staff that might slow the process down. The chair tried to table the issue until the next meeting so that the residents could educate themselves and come back with their own feedback. However, Mr. Heathman and Mr. Frissora seemed to have a pre-ordained agenda for this vote. Clearly the notification was inadequate due to the number of people affected and the serious nature of the proposed change. I respectfully request that when the Township Board meets on November 3rd, they vote to send the motion back to the Planning Committee. I would hope that the Planning Committee do the right thing for ALL the citizens of Cascade Township that they represent and hold a second public hearing, one that ALL the interested parties can participate in. Sincerely, Joanne Sieck 5877 River Ridge Ct. NE Rochester, MN 55906

Wilmar Investments Re-zoning Request1 message

Nita Wallace <nitawallace@yahoo.com> Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:30 AMReply-To: Nita Wallace <nitawallace@yahoo.com>To: "lenny.township@gmail.com" <lenny.township@gmail.com>, "raheathman@gmail.com"<raheathman@gmail.com>, "corkyatk@q.com" <corkyatk@q.com>, "townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.com"<townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.com>Cc: "brown@charter.net" <brown@charter.net>, "Jim@softflannel.us" <Jim@softflannel.us>,"cmasog@msn.com" <cmasog@msn.com>, "danfriz@gmail.com" <danfriz@gmail.com>

Gentlemen and Mrs. Brown:

Please see my attached letter.

Nita WallaceNitaWallace@yahoo.com

Cascade Township Letter.docx15K

October 28, 2014

Cascade Township Board 2025 – 75th Street NE Rochester, MN 55906 Attention: Lenny Laures, Arlen Heathman, Harold Atkinson and Michael Brown Re: Re-zoning Request by Wilmar Investments LLC Gentlemen: As elected representatives of some three thousand Cascade Township residents, I respectfully request that you reject the Zone Change Request of the Cascade Planning Commission regarding the Wilmar Investments Re-Zoning Request and/or refer it back to the Cascade Planning Commission for a more complete analysis. My reasoning for this is that although you may have met the letter of the law with regard to who was notified of the meeting held on Tuesday, October 21, many of the residents that the zoning decision will affect, and that you represent, were either not notified at all (individual residents in the two trailer courts and residents living more than ¼ mile radius from the proposed site) and/or once they did find out about the meeting, could not attend because of prior commitments If you approve this re-zoning request, your decision will affect the residents of Cascade Township for potentially the next 100 years! Surely we can slow things down and take more input from concerned citizens. In addition, I understand that at the meeting on October 21, Roger Ihrke read from the Staff Report submitted to the Planning Commission, but he failed to read points contained therein that were negative towards the zoning request. Many of the residents in attendance had not had the opportunity to read through the documentation prior to the meeting, and you, our representatives, did not bring these important facts to light. We elect you to represent us when we can’t represent ourselves. Is that what you are doing? Sincerely, Juanita L. Wallace 972 Buck Ridge Drive NE Rochester, MN 55906

On The Matter ofthe Zone Change Request byWilmar Investments LLC andMilestone Materials,etc.1 message

Chuck Wallace <crwalla@yahoo.com> Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:07PMReply-To: Chuck Wallace <crwalla@yahoo.com>To: "lenny.township@gmail.com" <lenny.township@gmail.com>, "raheathman@gmail.com"<raheathman@gmail.com>, "corkyatk@q.com" <corkyatk@q.com>, "townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.com"<townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.com>Cc: "brownmk@charter.net" <brownmk@charter.net>, "Jim@softflannel.us" <Jim@softflannel.us>,"cmasog@msn.com" <cmasog@msn.com>, "danfriz@gmail.com" <danfriz@gmail.com>

Dear Cascade Township Board,

Please find attached my input and concerns regarding the Zone Change Request byWilmar Investments LLC and Milestone Materials.

I am requesting that you seriously consider this input as you make your decision onMonday, November 3, 2014, and that this letter be entered into the public record.

Chuck Wallacecrwalla@yahoo.comCell 507951-8745Home 507289-8613

Final Chuck Letter to Board v2.doc655K

To the Cascade Township Board,

I am writing to you today as a 30+ year resident of Olmsted County and a 20+ year resident of Cascade Township. During that time I have been very active in our community, serving on the Board of Directors of Schaeffer Academy since 1996 and serving in various positions in my Church and neighborhood where I have been involved in many planning and zoning issues.

I am writing to you because I am very concerned about the current decision before the Township Board regarding the zone change request by Wilmar Investments LLC and Milestone Materials, acting as an agent for Wilmar Investments LLC.

I am concerned because as I have observed and studied the process and adherence to the rules, plans and statutes that apply to this decision, I see a number of serious errors and omissions that may lead the Board into making an incorrect and unfortunate decision that could affect our community for decades to come.

I have dedicated a great deal of time to understanding the zoning change request and the applicable statues and guidelines. I will focus on 4 areas;

1) The notification process, specifically who was notified of this process and the Planning Commission public meeting on October 21, 2014

2) The completeness of the Staff Review at the Planning Commission meeting on October 21, 2014.

3) The adherence of the Planning Commission to the Olmsted County General Land Use Plan in providing direction to the Township Board.

4) The decision by the DNR to not prepare an EIS.

1) The notification process did not contact all of the Cascade Township citizens affected by

this decision.

According to the Olmsted County General Land Use Plan, the key community values for

planning include these two characteristic:

Accessibility - We should make community decisions in an open, fair, and democratic way, so that all citizens have access to and can participate in decisions.

Equity - We should ensure that the benefits, costs, and impacts of land use decisions apply fairly to all citizens of the community. (Land Use Plan)

The notification to the public for the Cascade Township Planning Commission public meeting (the only opportunity for public comment on this decision) was properly delivered to all property owners within ¼ mile of the parcels identified in the Zoning Change Request.

The unfortunate fact is that many more citizens of Cascade Township are directly affected by this decision and should have been notified as a part of an Accessible and Equitable community value.

There are 240+ mobile homes with a significant percentage of Cascade Township citizens that are adjacent to the north quarry site, directly affected by this decision, whom should have been given an opportunity to participate in this decision process.

They were not notified.

According to the DNR, the water usage on this site, up to 4 Billion gallons per year, will potential affect public and private wells within 1 ½ miles of the proposed site.

“As part of the MDNR’s water appropriation permitting process, Milestone Materials will be required to collect domestic well information from a one-and-a-half mile radius from the perimeter of the North Quarry expansion.” (DNR EWS)

These well owners were individually identified in the DNR report and should have been notified.

They were not.

If it is the desire of the Township Board to be a representative, open, and deliberative body, it is very important that all the citizens who are impacted by a particular decisions of the Board are properly notified.

Conclusion: Since there was a significant portion of the affected population that were not notified of this process and decision, I urge the Board to return this decision to the Planning Commission for a complete and equitable public hearing, accessible to all the affected citizens of Cascade Township.

2) The Staff Review, as a part of the Planning Commission Report and public meeting on October 21, 2014, did not provide a complete and accurate view of the zone change request application and analysis.

It is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to completely and competently analyze requests for zoning changes. This analysis should take into consideration all of the relevant statues and guidance provided by Township, County and state laws and plans. It is also the responsibility of the Planning Commission to communicate those findings in an accurate and complete manner during any public hearing.

During the public meeting of the Planning Commission on October 21, 2014, the TPCA staff reviewed the basic facts surrounding the zone change request by Wilmar Investments LLC and Milestone Materials.

After a review of the posted, complete report, (unfortunately, not until after the meeting, as I was not notified) it became clear that the review of the staff report at the public meeting was incomplete.

There were 3 specific findings that were not disclosed or discussed as part of the staff review and public meeting:

Development has occurred on many of the parcels on all sides of this area, but to the north and west they are

separated by the Zumbro River. To the east is a mobile home park. Mitigation measures will be required.

Many of the homes on the parcels to the north and west of this property are higher in elevation than this property.

Site mitigation - including dust and noise - may be hard to mitigate.

Because this area is surrounded by development, this request is difficult. The applicant should be encouraged to

remove the resource as soon as possible and not haul material into the present asphalt plant from other locations

until this resource is depleted.

This omitted information is critical to the decision making process. It specifically relates to the appropriateness of this zoning request in this location. It also applies specifically to how the zoning change request adheres to the Olmsted County General Land Use Plan (outlined in point 3 below). The implications of these undisclosed facts are:

The proposed site is completely surrounded by long term, established, urban and suburban development. The Zumbro River does not serve as a “separation”, but as a conduit of noise

dust, odor and other environmental issues to adjacent properties up and down the river valley.

Because of the local topology, many of the surrounding properties are at a higher altitude than the quarry site. This fact makes the mitigation of dust, noise, odor and other environmental issues very difficult, if not impossible.

The Planning Commission Review was so cognizant of the negative environmental impact of this decision, that they (inappropriately) urge the applicant to hurry up and finish the quarry activity “as soon as possible.” (even though the DNR application indicated 50 -100 years

of quarry activity) Conclusion: Because the Planning Commission review did not disclose all of the relevant facts during the public meeting, I urge the Township Board to return the decision to the Planning Commission for full disclosure, further analysis and a true public discussion.

3) The Planning Commission indicated “We look to The Olmsted County General Land Use Plan for guidance in determining land use plan changes.”. After a though review of both the Planning Commission Review and the Olmsted County General Land Use Plan, it is clear that the analysis was incomplete and does not reflect the direction of the Land Use Plan. The Olmsted County General Land Use Plan starts with the two principles of Accessibility and Equity. The third relevant element of these principles is to “recognize and protect the natural beauty and diversity and the heritage of Olmsted County.” It is clear that an active quarry adjacent to our bucolic

river valley would be anything but beautiful. The Land Use Plan describes a defined approach to making zoning decisions. It indicates that

“no single criterion” should determine the use of an area (judgmental system of locational criteria).

The three main sections of the Land Use Plan used by the Planning Commission Staff Review

focus on only one aspect of the land use; the availability of sand, gravel and aggregate.

Suburban Development Area

Suburban development areas consist of large-lot residential development and very low density cluster-style residential development. New commercial and industrial uses are compatible with this designation only where suitable sites are mapped in the detailed Land Use Plan maps. The long-term predominant use of these areas is intended to be very low-density residential development (3.5 acres per lot average density) relying for the indefinite future on on-site sewage treatment and private water supplies. However, short-term temporary uses may include crop production, animal husbandry not involving new feedlots, forest management, other agricultural uses, and sand and gravel operations.

Comment: The Land Use Plan correctly identifies the current zoning of this area. While this

designation does allow for Sand and Gravel operations, it also clearly defines sand and gravel use

as short term-temporary, not a 50 -100 year use as indicated by the DNR application.

Geologic Resources:

Geologic resources, including sand, gravel, and rock, dictate the location of extraction facilities. Where feasible, sites

with excellent geologic resources should be preserved for such uses. Where such sites are in the path of development,

development phasing should provide for resource extraction prior to development. The operations and site plans of

such facilities should address the control of water pollution sources, noise and dust, storage and disposal of waste,

impact on surrounding lands.

Comment: The proposed area does include potentially desirable aggregate resources. The Land

Use Plan dictates that these types of resources should be extracted according to an Orderly

Development plan.

”Orderly development plan which also means that adjacent uses are compatible with one another. This Plan

strives to reduce nuisances resulting from mixing incompatible land uses, thereby protecting community (public

and private sector) investments and property values.”

Comment: Since this is already a fully developed Suburban Area, the zone change request is

not “orderly”, is “not compatible with existing development”, clearly “introduces nuisances”

resulting from “mixing incompatible land uses” and will “adversely impacts property values”.

Resource Protection Area Policies:

Areas are more likely to be included in the Resource Protection Area if they have the following characteristics. Aggregate Resource:

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has released draft maps of important bedrock and sand and gravel

aggregate resources in Olmsted County. Because aggregate resources are rare, have high transportation costs, and are

an important resource for construction, sites with high aggregate resource potential are more likely to be included in

the Resource Protection Area.

Comment: All of these references point to the extraction of sand, gravel and aggregate from

this site. While this is an important consideration, it is only one element of making an

appropriate zoning decision as directed by the Land Use Plan.

The Land Use Plan dictates that a zoning decision cannot be made based on one criterion (i.e.

quarry activity):

“The judgmental system of locational criteria used in the development of this Plan reflects all of the criteria, but (usually) no single criterion can determine the designation of an area.”

There is a specific, relevant, example of how these criteria should be applied:

It may also be the case that an island of land scores strongly for resource protection. If it is surrounded by suburban development area, however, that land may be more appropriately designated for suburban development.

Furthermore, when a quarry location is identified, a buffer of 1/4 mile needs to be defined as

incompatible with Urban or Suburban development. There is NO buffer in this zone change

request:

“An Incompatible Land Use Score of 0 is given to industrial sites, highway and railroad corridors, the Airport Zoning Districts, and areas within a buffer of 1/4 mile around feedlots, pits, and quarries.”

And finally, the Land Use Plan is very clear about the location of Industrial Uses:

“Some land uses (such as wind energy development and bio-fuels production, airports, landfills, rock quarries, and sand and gravel pits) may need extensive land areas and buffer areas due to odor, noise, dust, related environmental impacts, or potential safety problems. These uses must usually locate outside urban areas where their locational requirements are met. Such uses should be separated from existing or planned residential areas. New residences should not be located near these uses.”

Conclusion: Since the Olmsted County General Land Use Plan is very clear and dictates a judgmental system of locational criteria, very specific direction on how to take surrounding development into consideration, a clear delineation of the incompatibility of quarry activity with Urban or Suburban development and the requirement for a ¼ mile buffer for quarry activity, I urge the Township board to reject this zone change request.

4) The Zoning Change Request by Mathy Construction meets the threshold for triggering a full DNR Environment Impact Statement.

The Rochester Sand and Gravel site has been characterized by the applicant as a single project (quarry activity) that “are connected actions or phased actions that must be considered in total.” The total

acreage of the south and north quarry far exceeds the 160 acre guideline and therefore triggers an EIS.

MN Administrative Rules. 4410.4400 MANDATORY EIS CATEGORIES. Subpart 1. Threshold test.

An EIS must be prepared for projects that meet or exceed the threshold of any of subparts 2 to 25. Multiple projects and multiple stages of a single project that are connected actions or phased actions must be considered in total when comparing the project or projects to the thresholds of this part.

Comment: The quarry activity on Section 11 & 14 described by Mathy Construction and Olmsted County have historically been characterized as a single project. The expansion to the north Quarry has been characterized by Mathy as being the being the “next phase”, connected by the historical activity across both sections 11 & 14.

Subp. 9. Nonmetallic mineral mining.

B. For development of a facility for the extraction or mining of sand, gravel, stone, or other nonmetallic minerals, other than peat, which will excavate 160 acres of land or more to a mean depth of ten feet or more during its existence, the local government unit shall be the RGU.

Comment: Sections 11 & 14 consist of more than 160 acres.

The are several comment in the Milestone Minerals Presentation that elude to a single project:

“1970 to Present; Rochester Sand & Gravel continue mining operations in Sections 11 & 14 of Cascade Township

“1998; Upon receipt of judgment to allow mining, and fulfillment of contingency, Wilmar Investments and Mathy Construction enter into an agreement to complete mining in Sections 11 & 14”

Comment: Mathy Construction has characterized their mining activities as a contiguous project across Sections 11 & 14. (Red outline)

Olmsted County, in their letter to Rochester Sand and Gravel on February 9, 1998, described the south and north quarry as a singular, continuous activity “…the existing sand and gravel pit located in Section 11 and 14 of Cascade Township.

Comment: Olmsted County and Mathy Construction have historically portrayed Section 11 & 14 as a single project.

The Cascade Township Planning Commission Review shares the same

perspective of a “single, continuous project”:

“The Cascade Township Planning Commission Review: “Along with the sale, Mathy received the rights to mine the sand and gravel from the property owned by Wilmar Investments in Sections 11 and 14 of Cascade Township.”

Comment: The Cascade Township Planning Commission review characterized the sale and mineral rights of Mathy Construction as a contiguous project. DNR Application: “In April 2011 Mathy Construction applied to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for an Environmental Review in order to expand their operation onto the parcels proposed in this application.” Comment: The original Mathy Construction application to the Minnesota DNR characterized the activity in the north quarry as an expansion of the existing quarry project or operations. Mathy Presentation: “About 1998 the owners of Rochester Sand and Gravel; Wilmar Investments LLC, sold the operation along with the track of land that is the site of the asphalt plant and the plant itself, to Mathy Construction a division of Milestone Materials.” Comment: The sale of the operation and mineral rights from Rochester Sand and Gravel to Mathy Construction has been characterized as the sale of a single entity and therefore should be treated as a single project. Conclusion: The quarry operation on section 11 & 14 of Cascade Township has been characterized by Rochester Sand and Gravel, Mathy Construction, and Olmsted County as a

continual, contiguous project. The expansion of the expanded activity in the north quarry as described in the DNR EWS is an expansion of an existing project. Because the acreage of this entire project (south and north quarry) is more than 160 acres, it automatically triggers an EIS. I urge the Board to return this zone change request to the Planning Commission with the direction to request a full EIS. As I conclude, I would be remiss in not pointing out that this property is extremely desirable due to its proximity to the new 55th St. extension, the current urban amenities (sewer and water) and suburban zoning. The potential for DMC driven development in this area is infinitely more compatible and desirable than the current proposal. To create a “100 year hole” in this prime location would be a decision that would be regretted for generations. As I have studied this issue, I have found a plethora of concerns that I felt must be brought to the attention of the Board. It is clear to me that this zone change request cannot be approved at this time. The Township Board must either reject this request outright or return it to the Planning Commission for further review and request a complete DNR EIS. Thank you for your service to our community, Chuck Wallace

Fwd:Proposed QuarryExpansion1 message

CenturyLink Customer <corkyatk@q.com> Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:34 AMTo: Lenny <lenny@rochester-township.com>, ARLEN HEATHMAN <frecklesicq@aol.com>, Michael Brown<townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.com>

FYI,Ireceivedthislastnight.CORKY

From: "BillKleis"<wckleis@gmail.com>To: corkyatk@q.comCc: adamgene@hotmail.comSent: Wednesday,October29,20145:07:40PMSubject: ProposedQuarryExpansion

HiCorky,

Isawyoulastatyouranniversaryparty,andIworkedwithyouatIBM.IhavegreatrespectforyouandyourservicebothatIBM andasourCascadeTownshipBoardmember.

MaryAnnandIwanttobeonrecordasbeingopposedtothisproposal.Itseemstogoagainstanygoodsenseofsoundpropertymanagementgiventheurbannatureofthislocation.Ihaveheardoutlandishnumbersintermsofwaterdisplacementandpotentialimpacttoexistingwellstomakethiswork.Ialsoknowthereareseriousconcernsaboutwhenandhowpeoplehavebeeninformedoftheproposalandthewordingofenvironmentalfactorsandalmostlimitlessamountoftimerequestedtoquarryinthefuture.Iwouldcertainlywanttoknowtheownersofthispropertywouldpayforthecostofanywellworkduetolossofaccesstogroundwaterwithinareasonabledistanceifitgoesforward.I'm notawareofanysuchsenseofresponsibility.

Unfortunately,IlivednexttoaquarryinMarionTownshipuntilImovedtoCascadeTownship.Thequarrywasinthecity,andmyadjacentpropertywasinthecounty.Thecitylawsdonotallowanactivequarry,andanyquarryworkissupposedtoexistonlyifitistomakewayforaplannedbuildingsite.Yet,theownerandpeopleworkingthequarryignoredeverything,includinganinjunction.Therewasasenseofarroganceontheirpartandasenseofhelplessnessonmine.

Isuggestthequarrybeingconsideredhereisnolongerfarenoughoutsidethecitytobeexpandedthisway.Ihopeyourvotewilltakeinallthefacts.Idon'thavethem,butIhaveseenmany,andtheydon'tgivemeanyconfidenceinanythingbutthedesiretomakemoneywithDMCpotentialscomingatthepotentialresourceandenvironmentalexpenseofanyneighbors.Ithinkthequarryownersshouldbelookingtobuypropertymanymilesfrom thismainlyurbansetting.Iwonderifweshouldn'tbedeterminingwhereactivequarriescanexistwithinourtownshipandbeingmoreproactive.

Goodluckwithyourdecision.IknowitwillbewiththebestinterestsofCascadeTownshipinmind.Iam copyingourZumbroRidgeAdditionPresident,Adam Block.PleasefeelfreetocopyanyoneelseontheboardifyouthinkanythingIsaidisrelevant.Idoknowthatyouneedtoworkwithfactsinsteadofopinions.

Sincerely,Bill

Gravel Mining1 message

paul goldstein <rxunlimited@yahoo.com> Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:53 AMReply-To: paul goldstein <rxunlimited@yahoo.com>To: "townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.com" <townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.com>

Hello Michael,

Only the minimum meeting notification requirements were met by the PlanningCommission. None of the Trailer Court residents were notified. Only those propertyowners within ¼ mile of the quarry were notified. The DNR has stated that private wellsup to 1 ½ miles may be affected.

· At the only public hearing (October 21, 2014), not all relevant facts weredisclosed.· The Cascade Township Planning Commission did not properly analyze thiszoning request in accordance with the Olmsted County General Land Use Plan.

Sincerely,

Paul GoldsteinBuck Ridge HOA President

Milestone Material Zoning Change Request1 message

Tom Kratky<gizzardguy@gmail.com> Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 8:57AMTo: lenny.township@gmail.com, raheathman@gmail.com, corkyatk@q.com,townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.comCc: brown@charter.net, Jim@softflannel.us, cmasog@msn.com, danfriz@gmail.com

Township Board Members,

It has come to my attention that a venture is about to happen without appropriate vetting. MilestoneMaterial has been granted permission to mine at a new location just north of the current Rochester Sandand Gravel location on East River Road. Concerns about this activity are:

The notification of the Public meeting and subsequent decision of the Planning Commission did not includeinput from all of the affected residents. Residents from the two Trailer Courts adjacent to the property werenot notified. Property owners outside of 1/4 mile of the proposed property were not informed, even thoughthe DNR report indicated that private wells 1-1/2 miles from the mine could be impacted. The OlmstedCounty General Land Use Plan indicates that a 1/4 mile buffer is recommended for quarry operations.Zumbro Ridge is within a mile of the proposed quarry and we WILL be impacted by noise, dust and odor!

Information needed by the affected public was not made available in a timely or open manner. ThePlanning Commission Staff Review provided by the (TPCA) Township Cooperative Planning Association tothe Planning Commission to make the zoning recommendation was not available in any form until October13, 2014, 8days before the meeting. Key responses from Olmsted County Public Works, MN DOT, theowner of the Hallmark Terrace, and Rochester-Olmsted Planning Commission were either received justbefore the meeting or the day of the meeting with NO time to review.

The Planning Commission Meeting itself did not disclose all of the relevant details of the Staff Review.Here are three specific quotes from that review that were NOT discussed at the meeting:

•Developmenthasoccurredonmanyoftheparcelsonallsidesofthisarea,but to the northand

west theyare separated bythe Zumbro River. To the east isamobile home park.Mitigation

measureswillbe required.

• Manyofthe homeson the parcelsto the northand west ofthispropertyare higher in elevation than this

property.Sitemitigation-includingdustandnoise-maybehardtomitigate.

•Becausethisareaissurroundedbydevelopment,thisrequestisdifficult.The applicant should

beencouraged to remove the resource assoon as possible and not haulmaterialinto the present

asphalt plant from other locationsuntilthisresource isdepleted.

Historical data indicates that the public has no control over speed of extraction.

The Planning Commission did not take into consideration all of the direction provided by the OlmstedCounty General Land Use Plan. There is clear direction from the Land Use Plan to look at the totality of

the impact of a zoning decision, not just a single issue. The following highlighted material was cut from thatdocument:

The judgmental system oflocational criteria used in the development ofthis Plan reflects all ofthecriteria,but (usually)no single criterion can determine the designation ofan area.

There is a specific example of how these criteria should be applied:

It mayalso be the case that an island ofland scores stronglyfor resource protection. Ifit issurrounded bysuburban development area,however,that land maybe more appropriatelydesignated for suburban development.

Specifically, when a quarry location is identified, a buffer of 1/4 mile is defined as incompatible with Urban

or Suburban development. There is NO buffer in this circumstance:

An Incompatible Land Use Score of0is given to industrial sites,highwayand railroad corridors,the Airport Zoning Districts,and areas within a buffer of1/4mile around feedlots,pits,andquarries.

Some land uses (such as wind energydevelopment and bio-fuels production,airports,landfills,rock quarries,and sand and gravel pits)mayneed extensive land areas and buffer areas due toodor,noise,dust,related environmental impacts,or potential safetyproblems. These uses mustusuallylocate outside urban areas where their locational requirements are met. Such uses shouldbe separated from existing or planned residential areas. New residences should not be located nearthese uses.

The Staff Report did pick a couple of items from the Land Use Plan to justify their decision:

Suburban development areas consist oflarge lot residential development and verylow densitycluster style residential development. New commercial and industrial uses are compatible with thisdesignation onlywhere suitable sites are mapped in the detailed Land Use Plan maps. The long –term predominant use ofthese areas is intended to be verylow -densityresidential development(3.5acres per lot average density)relying for the indefinite future on on -site sewage treatmentand private water supplies. However,short -term temporaryuses mayinclude crop production,animal husbandrynot involving new feedlots,forest management,other agricultural uses,andsand and gravel operations

According to the DNR application submitted by Milestone Materials, the duration of their miningactivities is defined as 50-100years.

I intend to be present at the Board meeting on 11/3 to support opposition of this decision which appears tohave been fast tracked to avoid scrutiny by the people who live in the area.

Tom Kratky1525 Ridge Dr NERochester, MN 55906507-421-2052

Milestone Materials,Rochester Sand and Gravel -North QuarryProject1 message

Greg Arends <arends1@yahoo.com> Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:53 PMTo: lenny.township@gmail.com, raheathman@gmail.com, corkyatk@q.com,townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.comCc: brownmk@charter.net, Jim@softflannel.us, raheathman@gmail.com, cmasog@msn.com,danfriz@gmail.com

I enjoy spending as much time as I can in the woods particularly along the Zumbro river. My time mightinclude enjoying peaceful nature walks or winter time cross country skiing where all I hear is the riverwater, birds, and experience an occasional surprise as a deer runs by. BuckRidge has miles of trails alongthe river shared by many with similar viewpoints. It seems those who own residential property in OakMeadows and Buckthorn should have the same opportunities while I strive to keep mine. The NorthQuarry project is requesting beginning mining operations that cannot be more than 40 feet or so from theirriver property.

The EAW for the Plans for the 55th Street Extension and Broadway Avenue North Reconstruction includesthe following:

AlongtheCR133(WestRiverRoad)accessroad,westoftheSouthForkZumbroRiverandsouthof55thStreet,

anewDNRcanoelaunchwillbeconstructedjustsouthofthebridge.

IfMilestoneMaterialsisgrantedtheprivilege to begin theNorthQuarryProject,whenan adventurer wishing toescape the city launches a canoe from this location, the first thing they will experience is the Western sideof the proposed Quarry followed by North side of the proposed Quarry.

Can mitigation techniques be stuffiest to allow residential land owners and canoe adventurers to evenapproximate what they would experience without the Quarry? Should a Quarry be started in an area that isboth residential and recreational? I suspect resolution to these questions will be a significant influencewhen I place my vote in future elections and even more so for the hundreds that live in Zumbro RidgeEstates Trailer Court and Hallmark Terrace.

Greg Arends

quarry1 message

David and Susan Harker <harker@mail.com> Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:11 PMReply-To: harker@mail.comTo: townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.com

I live in Zumbro Ridge and am NOT happy about the proposed zoning change to allow a new quarry to bebuilt near us. I was not aware of the Planning Commission meeting, but my neighbor was there for theentire 4 hours and I have discussed this with him.

1) the DNR states that private wells within a 1.5 miles distance could be impacted, yet we were notinformed.

2) the Planning Commission held their meeting even though they had no time to review the responses tothis change. These responses from Public Works, MN DOT, the owner of Hallmark Terrace, and theCounty Planning Commission were recieved immediately before the meeting, and were not reviewed.

3) the Planning Commission did not discuss key parts of the Staff Review at their meeting (my next-doorneighbor was at this meeting). Quotes not discussed at the meeting include:- "Development has occurred on many of the parcels on all sides of this area"- "Many of the homes on the parcels to the north and west of this property are higher in elevation than thisproperty. Site mitigation - including dust and noise - may be hard to mitigate. "- "Because this area is surrounded by development, this request is difficult."

4) the Planning Commission did not consider all the guidance in the County General Land Use Plan. Forexample, the County document states that when a quarry location is identified, a buffer of 1/4 mile isdefined as incompatible with Urban or Suburban development, yet this proposed quarry location has NObuffer due to its location next to Hallmark Terrace and other nearby homes.

Another County Land Use Plan section states that Industrial Uses (such as sand and gravel pits) "mayneed extensive land areas and buffer areas due to odor, noise, dust… Such uses should be separatedfrom existing or planned residential areas"

That makes is clear that locating this proposed quarry directly adjacent to Hallmark Terrace and otherhomes is in direct CONTRADICTION with the County Land Use plan.

This request for a zoning change needs to be REJECTED.

David Harker1621 Camelback Ct NE

Rezoning ofMilestone Material's property1 message

Kenneth Kiefer <kenkiefer@aol.com> Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 4:03 PMTo: lenny.township@gmail.com, raheathman@gmail.com, corkyatk@gmail.com,townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.com

Dear Cascade Township Board Members,

We strongly oppose the change of Milestone Material's property from A-3 to A-4.We have lived in the Buckridge Development for 25 years and truly enjoy ourquiet neighborhood. How can it even be possible that all of a sudden (withoutadequate notice), they are considering rezoning area property to include mining?We didn't even know that the property in question belonged to Milestone Material.

This is a suburban area and should be treated as such. We feel taxpayersshould have rights also. We just re-drilled our well at a considerable cost. Pleasedo not change the zoning on this particular piece of land.

Thanks for your consideration,

Ken and Rita Kiefer1031 Quarry Ct., NERochester, MN. 55906.

Zoning Change Request from Milestone Material1 message

Schambu <schambu@netscape.net> Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:22 PMTo: lenny.township@gmail.com, raheathman@gmail.com, corkyatk@q.com,townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.comCc: brownmk@charter.net, Jim@softflannel.us, raheathman@gmail.com, cmasog@msn.com,danfriz@gmail.com

Hello,It has been brought to our attention that this zoning change is coming up for vote next Monday. I find itdisconcerting that a zoning change of this magnitude has not been properly communicated to the residentsaround the area being proposed. It was only through the diligence of out neighborhood association that wewere made aware of it. My wife talked to someone in the trailer court next door to the area to be rezonedand they were not even aware that it was being proposed!

The Planning Commission did not take into consideration all of the direction provided by the OlmstedCounty General Land Use Plan. There is clear direction from the Land Use Plan to look at the totality ofthe impact of a zoning decision, not just a single issue. The following highlighted material was cut from thatdocument:

The judgmental system oflocational criteria used in the development ofthis Plan reflects all ofthecriteria,but (usually)no single criterion can determine the designation ofan area.There is a specific example of how these criteria should be applied:It mayalso be the case that an island ofland scores stronglyfor resource protection. Ifit issurrounded bysuburban development area,however,that land maybe more appropriatelydesignated for suburban development.

An Incompatible Land Use Score of0is given to industrial sites,highwayand railroad corridors,the Airport Zoning Districts,and areas within a buffer of1/4mile around feedlots,pits,andquarries.

And finally, the Land Use Plan is very clear about the location of Industrial Uses:Some land uses (such as wind energydevelopment and bio-fuels production,airports,landfills,rock quarries,and sand and gravel pits)mayneed extensive land areas and buffer areas due toodor,noise,dust,related environmental impacts,or potential safetyproblems. These uses mustusuallylocate outside urban areas where their locational requirements are met. Such uses shouldbe separated from existing or planned residential areas. New residences should not be located nearthese uses.The Staff Report did pick a couple of items from the Land Use Plan to justify their decision:

Suburban development areas consist oflarge lot residential development and verylowdensitycluster style residential development. New commercial and industrial uses arecompatible with this designation onlywhere suitable sites are mapped in the detailedLand Use Plan maps. The long –term predominant use ofthese areas is intended to beverylow -densityresidential development (3.5acres per lot average density)relying forthe indefinite future on on -site sewage treatment and private water supplies. However,short -term temporaryuses mayinclude crop production,animal husbandrynot involvingnew feedlots,forest management,other agricultural uses,and sand and gravel operations

We live approximately 1 mile from this area and do not want to experience the side effects of addednoise, smell and dust that this type of operation will create. It is our understanding that a DNR reportindicated that private wells 1-1/2 miles from the mine could be impacted. We do not care to haveour well possibly impacted!

We disagree with the proposed zoning changes.Mike and Marlyn Schambureck

Zoning Change Request from Milestone Material

AG B <adamgene@hotmail.com> Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 8:32 PMTo: Adam Block <adamgene@hotmail.com>Cc: "lenny.township@gmail.com" <lenny.township@gmail.com>, "raheathman@gmail.com"<raheathman@gmail.com>, "corkyatk@q.com" <corkyatk@q.com>, "townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.com"<townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.com>, "brownmk@charter.net" <brownmk@charter.net>,"Jim@softflannel.us" <Jim@softflannel.us>, "cmasog@msn.com" <cmasog@msn.com>, "danfriz@gmail.com"<danfriz@gmail.com>

Hello,

I attended the planning commission meeting held on Oct 21, 2014 and am strongly apposed to thedecisions made regarding the Milestone Zoning change. I believe there are many reasons other then theneighbors dissatisfaction to not grant this zoning change!

The land is adjoined on 3sides by residential property and even though land use documents state thatminerals should be stripped before development they also state in a timely manner and I believe Milestonehas exceeded their timeliness!

This will directly affect low income housing along the trailer park and part of destination medical centersfuture we need places for them to live too. With the 55th street expansion it would provide publictransportation to that are. They are also within 1/2 mile of public water and sewer making them a goodcandidate for low income housing!

Some land uses (such as wind energy development and bio-fuels production, airports,landfills, rock quarries, and sand and gravel pits)may need extensive land areas andbuffer areas due to odor, noise, dust, related environmental impacts, or potentialsafety problems. These uses must usually locate outside urban areas where theirlocational requirements are met. Such uses should be separated from existing orplanned residential areas. New residences should not be located near these uses.The Staff Report did pick a couple of items from the Land Use Plan to justify their decision:

Suburban development areas consist oflarge lot residential development andvery low density cluster style residential development. New commercial andindustrial uses are compatible with this designation only where suitable sitesare mapped in the detailed Land Use Plan maps. The long –term predominantuse ofthese areas is intended to be very low - density residential development(3.5acres per lot average density)relying for the indefinite future on on - sitesewage treatment and private water supplies. However, short - term temporaryuses may include crop production, animal husbandry not involving newfeedlots, forest management, other agricultural uses, and sand and graveloperations

We live approximately 1 mile from this area and do not want to experience the side effectsof added noise, smell and dust that this type of operation will create. It is our understanding

that a DNR report indicated that private wells 1-1/2 miles from the mine could beimpacted. We do not care to have our well possibly impacted

Sincerely,Adam and Darci Block1637Camelback ct ne

Milestone Materials Mining1 message

Susan Kadlec <suekad@gmail.com> Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 5:01 PMTo: lenny.township@gmail.com, raheathman@gmail.com, corkyatk@q.com,townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.comCc: brownmk@charter.net, Jim@softflannel.us, cmasog@msn.com, danfriz@gmail.com

As residents of Buckridge, and as taxpayers in Cascade Township, we are opposing the Milestoneproposition to use nearby property as a mining operation.

We feel that communication of this proposition has not been sufficient to nearby property owners andresidents. This mining operation could have huge impact on the lives and property values of those livingnearby.

Our area is already impacted by noise, dust and traffic from the existing gravel and rock mining nearby.Any expansion of the operations area would just add to the environmental impact.

Further consideration must be given to the effect on the water resources and wells of the nearby longexisting residential and business properties.

We are very concerned about our safety and quality of life and that of our neighbors and their families.

Please give serious thought to our wishes when you consider the Milestone Materials proposal.

Thanks for your attention.

Sincerely,Gary and Susan Kadlec910 Buckridge Dr NE.

Milestone Materials, Rochester Sand and Gravel - North Quarry Project1 message

John Koster <hawkeyej@chartermi.net> Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 9:21 AMTo: lenny.township@gmail.com, raheathman@gmail.com, corkyatk@q.com,townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.comCc: brownmk@charter.net, jim@softflannel.us, cmasog@msn.com, danfriz@gmail.com

Cascade Township Boardmembers:

As a 17-year township homeowner, we have many concerns with the potential rezoning ofland located within the township district. After attending the Plan and Zoning

public hearing meeting on October 21, it became very apparent that not all relevant facts weredisclosed nor all impacted people notified.

We believe any approval to move forward with the rezoning is premature, that the processwas not open and fair, and appears to be a ‘rush through’ request.

Our concerns:

• The notification of the Public meeting and subsequent Planning Commission decision toapprove the request did not inform the appropriate and affected public.

• The information needed for the affected public was not made available in a timely or openmanner.

• The long term affect of noice (blasting), dust, odor, and water (our well and the ZumbroRiver).

• What is definition of short term use.. according to the DNR application, mining operationscould last 50 – 100 years.. is that really short term ?

We enjoy our beautiful environment, the joys of walking along the Zumbro River, and thequality of living as a resident of Buckridge and Cascade Township.

Rezoning property for a mining operation should NOT be a viable option.

Thank you

John and Pam Koster993 Buckridge Dr NE

Milestone Material Zoning Change Request1 message

Tom Kratky <gizzardguy@gmail.com> Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 8:57 AMTo: lenny.township@gmail.com, raheathman@gmail.com, corkyatk@q.com,townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.comCc: brown@charter.net, Jim@softflannel.us, cmasog@msn.com, danfriz@gmail.com

Township Board Members,

It has come to my attention that a venture is about to happen without appropriate vetting. MilestoneMaterial has been granted permission to mine at a new location just north of the current Rochester Sandand Gravel location on East River Road. Concerns about this activity are:

The notification of the Public meeting and subsequent decision of the Planning Commission did not includeinput from all of the affected residents. Residents from the two Trailer Courts adjacent to the property werenot notified. Property owners outside of 1/4 mile of the proposed property were not informed, even thoughthe DNR report indicated that private wells 1-1/2 miles from the mine could be impacted. The OlmstedCounty General Land Use Plan indicates that a 1/4 mile buffer is recommended for quarry operations.Zumbro Ridge is within a mile of the proposed quarry and we WILL be impacted by noise, dust and odor!

Information needed by the affected public was not made available in a timely or open manner. ThePlanning Commission Staff Review provided by the (TPCA) Township Cooperative Planning Association tothe Planning Commission to make the zoning recommendation was not available in any form until October13, 2014, 8 days before the meeting. Key responses from Olmsted County Public Works, MN DOT, theowner of the Hallmark Terrace, and Rochester-Olmsted Planning Commission were either received justbefore the meeting or the day of the meeting with NO time to review.

The Planning Commission Meeting itself did not disclose all of the relevant details of the Staff Review.Here are three specific quotes from that review that were NOT discussed at the meeting:

• Development has occurred on many of the parcels on all sides of this area, but to the north and

west they are separated by the Zumbro River. To the east is a mobile home park. Mitigation

measures will be required.

• Many of the homes on the parcels to the north and west of this property are higher in elevation than this

property. Site mitigation - including dust and noise - may be hard to mitigate.

• Because this area is surrounded by development, this request is difficult. The applicant should

be encouraged to remove the resource as soon as possible and not haul material into the present

asphalt plant from other locations until this resource is depleted.

Historical data indicates that the public has no control over speed of extraction.

The Planning Commission did not take into consideration all of the direction provided by the OlmstedCounty General Land Use Plan. There is clear direction from the Land Use Plan to look at the totality of

the impact of a zoning decision, not just a single issue. The following highlighted material was cut from thatdocument:

The judgmental system of locational criteria used in the development of this Plan reflects all of thecriteria, but (usually) no single criterion can determine the designation of an area.

There is a specific example of how these criteria should be applied:

It may also be the case that an island of land scores strongly for resource protection. If it issurrounded by suburban development area, however, that land may be more appropriatelydesignated for suburban development.

An Incompatible Land Use Score of 0 is given to industrial sites, highway and railroad corridors,the Airport Zoning Districts, and areas within a buffer of 1/4 mile around feedlots, pits, andquarries.

Some land uses (such as wind energy development and bio-fuels production, airports, landfills,rock quarries, and sand and gravel pits) may need extensive land areas and buffer areas due toodor, noise, dust, related environmental impacts, or potential safety problems. These uses mustusually locate outside urban areas where their locational requirements are met. Such uses shouldbe separated from existing or planned residential areas. New residences should not be located nearthese uses.

The Staff Report did pick a couple of items from the Land Use Plan to justify their decision:

Suburban development areas consist of large lot residential development and very low densitycluster style residential development. New commercial and industrial uses are compatible with thisdesignation only where suitable sites are mapped in the detailed Land Use Plan maps. The long –term predominant use of these areas is intended to be very low - density residential development(3.5 acres per lot average density) relying for the indefinite future on on - site sewage treatmentand private water supplies. However, short - term temporary uses may include crop production,animal husbandry not involving new feedlots, forest management, other agricultural uses, andsand and gravel operations

According to the DNR application submitted by Milestone Materials, the duration of their miningactivities is defined as 50 -100 years.

I intend to be present at the Board meeting on 11/3 to support opposition of this decision which appears tohave been fast tracked to avoid scrutiny by the people who live in the area.

Tom Kratky1525 Ridge Dr NERochester, MN 55906507-421-2052

On The Matter of the Zone Change Request by Wilmar Investments LLC andMilestone Materials, etc.2 messages

Chuck Wallace <crwalla@yahoo.com> Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:07 PMReply-To: Chuck Wallace <crwalla@yahoo.com>To: "lenny.township@gmail.com" <lenny.township@gmail.com>, "raheathman@gmail.com"<raheathman@gmail.com>, "corkyatk@q.com" <corkyatk@q.com>, "townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.com"<townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.com>Cc: "brownmk@charter.net" <brownmk@charter.net>, "Jim@softflannel.us" <Jim@softflannel.us>,"cmasog@msn.com" <cmasog@msn.com>, "danfriz@gmail.com" <danfriz@gmail.com>

Dear Cascade Township Board,

Please find attached my input and concerns regarding the Zone Change Request byWilmar Investments LLC and Milestone Materials.

I am requesting that you seriously consider this input as you make your decision onMonday, November 3, 2014, and that this letter be entered into the public record.

Chuck Wallacecrwalla@yahoo.comCell 507 951-8745Home 507 289-8613

Nita Wallace <nitawallace@yahoo.com> Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:50 PMReply-To: Nita Wallace <nitawallace@yahoo.com>To: "lenny.township@gmail.com" <lenny.township@gmail.com>, "raheathman@gmail.com"<raheathman@gmail.com>, "corkyatk@q.com" <corkyatk@q.com>, "townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.com"<townclerk.cascadetownship@gmail.com>Cc: "brownmk@charter.net" <brownmk@charter.net>, "Jim@softflannel.us" <Jim@softflannel.us>,"cmasog@msn.com" <cmasog@msn.com>, "danfriz@gmail.com" <danfriz@gmail.com>

It has come to my attention that the fonts used in this letter may not bereadable on some computers, so I am resending it using a more common font.

Chuck Wallace

[Quoted text hidden]