Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.a. Site Plan Review for UMore Ballfields 4 ROSEN4OLII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PLANNING COMMISSION Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 24, 2012 AGENDA ITEM: Case 12- 05 -SP: Site Plan Review for AGENDA SECTION: UMore Athletic Complex Phase 1 Old Business PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber, Senior Planner AGENDA NO. 5. ATTACHMENTS: Site Map; Color Site Plan; Color Phasing Diagram; Layout and Materials Plan; APPROVED BY: Grading Plan; Photometric Plan; Lighting Fixture Brochure; Letter from Barr Engineering dated April 17; Email from the City Attorney dated April 18; Planning and Zoning Discretion Pyramid; Site Locations from EPA Report. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the Site Plan for the UMore Athletics Complex subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Council approval of the Public and Institutional text amendment including adding Parks as a Permitted Use within the AG Agricultural Zoning District. 2. A separate Site Plan Review is required to be submitted and received for the Multi- purpose Building. 3. If the Stadium Seating would be enclosed underneath and contain occupied spaces such as restrooms, concessions, or tickets sales, then a separate Site Plan Review shall be submitted for and received. SUMMARY The City is planning a five ball field athletic complex on the approximately 28 acres property pre dedicated by the University of Minnesota. The ultimate athletic complex would include four little league /softball fields and one high school /collegiate baseball field. The first phase of development is proposed to be two little league /softball fields and an 84 stall parking lot. March 27 Planning Commission Meeting During the March 27 meeting, Planning Commissioners inquired about what environmental investigation was performed on the site before the City acquired the property and graded this site. They asked about the testing and what contaminants were investigated. During the public hearing, Myron Napper raised concerns about environmental issues on properties near the ball field site. Staff explained that a Phase I, a limited Phase II, and supplemental investigation were conducted on the ball field site, but staff did not have those reports with them at the meeting. Following the discussion, the Planning Commission voted to continue the review to the April 24 meeting to allow for time to answer the questions and provide the environmental reports. Environmental Investigations On March 29, internet links, to the three environmental documents (Phase I, Phase II and Follow -up Soil Investigation, Proposed Ball Fields Property, UMore Park) were sent to the Planning Commissioners and City Council. The three investigations included a review of the available previous environmental investigations and interviews with University and Dakota County staff. The reports also provided information on the ten (10) soil borings and fifteen (15) test trenches taken on the site. From these samples, twenty one (21) soil tests were conducted and only one sample indicated an elevated level of mercury. That one location had a second sample taken and tested separately and that testing did not indicate mercury above the recreation soil reference value (SRV). Following these investigations, the City Council accepted the site as parkland pre dedication for UMore and rough graded the site in 2011. When the City acquired the property, there were six building foundations previously installed by the University for materials research. Prior to the foundation demolition, these foundations were investigated for asbestos and lead and neither were discovered. This investigation report was previously emailed to the Planning Commission for their review. Following Commissioner Miller's review of the documents, Mr. Miller requested clarification why asbestos and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) were not investigated on the ball field site. Staff contacted Barr Engineering (the firm that prepared the three environmental documents) and requested a response to Mr. Miller's concerns. Jim Eidem of Barr Engineering provided a response that was emailed to the Planning Commissioners and is also attached to this Executive Summary. Mr. Eidem's response can be summarized thusly: asbestos is associated with gopher ordnance works (GOW) era building materials and there were no GOW buildings constructed on or directly adjacent to the ball field site. Therefore there was no reason to perform soil testing for asbestos. There was a MDH- Certified Asbestos Inspector present during all soil investigation and no asbestos was identified when collecting soil samples or digging test trenches. Further, there were three sites on the UMore property that had previously been identified for PCB concerns, but that those sites are more than a mile east of the site. It is an accepted environmental standard that further investigation would not be necessary given the source and location of the PCB sites. Mr. Eidem will be present at the April 24 Planning Commission meeting if there are additional questions on the environmental review conducted. Since the Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Demuth has provided information that PCA staff affiliated with Superfund environmental review can review the Barr reports. Staff has contacted the PCA but their staff member cannot review the documentation before the April 24 Planning Commission meeting. City staff will meet with PCA staff during the first week in May. The City Attorney has provided an email providing additional information on the Planning Commission role in site plan review. The email and a graphic of the City's discretion in decision- making for planning applications are attached to this Executive Summary. The email states that the site plan review is limited to deciding if the proposal meets the code requirements or not and should not include issues not specifically listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Superfund During the Planning Commission meeting the term "Superfund" was used a number of times when describing the ball field site. The University of MN Rosemount Research Center was designated a Superfund site and listed on the National Priority List in 1986. The documentation associated with the listing notes that three tenants on the property are associated with the designation. "Specific to this 2 Superfund Site, the University contracted with tenants who disposed of lead, copper, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in three industrial disposal sites; the George's Used Equipment (GUE) site, the Porter Electric and Machine Company (PE) site, and the U.S. Transformer (UST) site." Another area of investigation is the Burn Pit site, located just north of 160 Street, mid -way between Akron and Blaine Avenues which was used by the University as a disposal area for waste chemicals. A "close out report" was conducted in June 1996. In February 6, 2001 the entire property (not just the ball field site) was deleted from the National Priority List (i.e. delisted). BACKGROUND The City has prepared a plan for a five ball field athletic complex on the approximately 28 acre property pre dedicated by the University of Minnesota for the future development of UMore. The site is located on the east side of Akron Avenue about 1/2 miles south of County Road 42. The site is located directly south of the joint Dakota County Technical College (DCTC) and City soccer fields. The overall proposal is to include four little league /softball fields and one high school /collegiate baseball fields. The baseball field will include stadium seating and in the center of the four softball fields will be a multi- purpose concessions /restroom /storage building. A parking lot is proposed between the baseball field and the four softball fields. The project will be phased over time as resources become available. The first phase of the project is to construct two of the softball fields and about 40% of the overall parking area. The construction of Phase 1 is anticipated this year with the fields being playable next year. Access and Parking Lot The overall parking plan includes 212 parking stalls with access directly from Akron Avenue and to a future street that will run along the northern property line. The Akron Avenue access is centrally located in the middle of the western property line. Access to the northern road is planned in the northeast corner of the site. The Phase 1 parking lot includes the access onto Akron Avenue and 86 parking stalls, including four handicapped stalls. Landscaping The landscaping in Phase 1 includes 35 deciduous trees, with 12 of the 35 trees being located within the parking lot peninsulas. The two parking lot peninsulas are designed to serve as rain gardens to provide for preliminary storm water management. The outfield will be seeded with ball field turf, the area directly surrounding the ball field will be seeded with non -field turf, and the remaining area will be seeded with low maintenance grass. The landscaping plan meets code requirements. Lighting The Phase 1 plan does not include lighting for the ball fields. The only lighting provided is within the parking lot. The parking lot lighting has 14 cut -off style LED lighting fixtures on 11 poles. All poles are 20 feet in height. The eight perimeter poles contain one fixture per plan and the three interior poles contain two fixtures per pole. The resulting photometric plan results in site lighting meeting the code requirement of no more than 1.0 lumen at the property line. Future Phases Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission approve the entire athletic complex that would include all five fields, the overall parking lot and accessory facilities. There are two features that cannot be approved with the information provided at this time: the multi purpose building and the stadium seating. Those two features would require an evaluation of the building design and materials used. The staff recommended condition includes that a separate site plan approval would be required for the multi- purpose building. 3 Depending upon the design of the stadium seating a site plan review might also be required. If the seating is enclosed underneath and contains additional space, formal review would be needed. A separate site plan review would not be needed if the space under the seating is open. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Site Plan Review with the prepared conditions. 4 UMore Ball Park 1s 1 1 e q ,.b� i __L__ Li_ :r r ,.4.. /1" 4114 F r` uMO 4 R K f s. z a.r. .,H i, r C PHASE!: Y e �T l i6 a y r f aF 1, 1. Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not Map Scale guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, 1 inch 800 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. s DCTC Prope-tyLine 3 0 4-._ `-t o I'- a :r, t ..o q Via. ..A a, cri it OS) p 1 L lit s_ co 0 (1) o 1.f fi.. 5 i f 0 r I ..f....,_-__,- ..-..._...-.:1--- 0 e k:i 0.. ,,:_,I .4 f" 5 7, 3 S 0 g,,m_. 0 f O. Q t r, i O 0 0 0 '-d 0 0 0 1 rt C6 ■,0 I I 1 t Z r T= t Q w r L J Y 0 I t r-�� 4......,-, t .t om 9 x, a un iI' O d a DCTC :'•cperty Line v O 0 H n 4. 'P I .t S 'r t „ire t. m v oc n f. 0 W1.litl a C ;r S r, f 11 A a o- 1 n 1 co N i r I/ „s4 0 r I., 1 1 SI r I yI 1 I 4, II (ail 1t i1 I /'C/ V A >dd t; it /I,` t It I a= 1 I 1 1 ft. tc 1 e 1 11 I.^-5 N✓ t "Cj 1 i F:-.; c' 1 i' 1 Nd 6 No, 0 CC C "Th' a 1 °v ......f.. 1 1 �i Vi n1 a.% i%.j c c c- 0 la 1 1 a i m L +i t 1 g g.... o I1 (1 1 I 1 j 1 p 1, �1 v It IA l 1 .I I 11 11 S 1 (mil 111 Y t V1 11 N 1: J 1.J 1 i e I i i I 1 FI 1 A 1h r II L 1 1 1 P 1,-, I r /1 1 1 1 I 1 i C 1 1 11 I I t 1 11 1 1 1 1 Ii i ii i 1 1 1 1 C) .0 1 J (1 1 rD N 1 I (t /1 I 1 m 1 11 I// 1 H 1t I 1 i 1 1 II I 1 1 it k 1 i 1 9 't o a N c 1 r 1 0 C t rD o O D s m T. mo �oNii 3 �1 F/ f m 4 m m Mc 4 n3 Z T n Y _yo GO mm m nfy s A 0 p o. V___ O O i� o v4 i m °auYv° m 1 a "1 ash 4) O x O O O FT, m➢ D V 2,P mummmmm= D 10 €r m s o �C rl aN� app s O O O no' O o go Z Z a m I-3-5- AD p N D O m n 1 F1 a m C o Z f R'o 0� 00 O i 2 S A O I w A y A m z fy- m m F O g N 0 s m I o R rr 0 1 i O° 00c 0 1;j r r o m a 0 0 N 1 n oO x z Z O L.. (I NX a Cc 0 p g m m m AR 7 U m mn G Op N O N eon LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN d._ Ko� cm�� m� s ©8 em „a.e ,s;<iro. UMORE ATHLETIC COMPLEX o I eV w PHASEIIMPROVEMENTS neon sawn n we ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA 1 d," VIOS3NNIW `1NfOW3S021 ,R<,. I. 3SVHd X310100 31131H1V 32100111 85+M w �,b xs x =Nm _A 0 ,.0 .»....,..,w.,,..,.,., NVId oNIaV2I 1VNld 1 G c 'Z mod_, 36 2 4111 0� P O b e T O p Z 5 N 3 O. s j 1 k c -F --Li,■■■•■ s. CD �6 J. Z o s. r W J O. U W c, F- 1 s O 1—ow O Z 9�. ti U O o o o U V) N N s Z O O O 0 0 0 w a a a VI V1 V) �S` V) IL' w O 1-='. O O w W w W 0 0 0 0 I I I 1 0 i W J u 935- V1OS3NNIIN `1Nf1OW2SO2! m sto-gtelo w h,o� I.3SVHd X310100 OI131H1V 3JOWf1 w 88M nw n3 NVId 9NIOV2IJ 1VNId U a z Z 0 o w J a. a 0 W =O 1- CG 0 Z Z D 0 a 0 0 N O O 0 z 0 0 0 0 p N N N 4a Z O O O V i- a a a N O O 0 o w a a a z W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Z w 0 W 0 O 0 0 I 1 1 1 ..:3( w J m 3 I 2 a c' i rn t m\ i .4 a P 7 P +JiP �a -4 i Wier as E P i 3 Lu V s '.7, r. 1 4 7 <f6 K t' VF d K4 a G :1 O B i I a y co O h M M h M N t O t t 0 O d O +11 M N M Nn O d' el t0 CO (1 0) V, r +r V' c 0 'c{ M N r M N t N +4.4 fV C O O f t0 (0 N CO O Of st c r 1 7 0 O 1 CV N N1 !M NM et N O C O CV N r N NO t1) r W O V 'C C? 1n 40 7 tl1 47 7'.' C +CV +V 10 V NO Ch r p.. r r r O m al co h NO 1 ..r r d o .tii: M v. O 10 M 710 +r +r +O CO T NO r O V; NC) M M 71 M f.4 M M Y0 A` pt r r Q BYO, r r 4 r O t0 O NO r o �qG. 0 C^ r tC) ap 1.0 r +6 V N O1' N Cl 1 W CO C•1 (11. oc3 "t c0 C? h 7 o r +r N r M NC) Cr! N W. 7 O v* h 4 v N N0 CA O r +r 10 l0 N- 0 J, r +r .1e44 N o.r tl' d' N N CV r N7 CO CT N CO t0 a0 olio 7 h O O r E N N. r NO 46 •t tr.6. d 4 0. ch 0 +O in V q M Nf7 7 L 4 t11 C 1 j C1j e} O h h W to M N t 6' •t. M M V t0 O 0l O O CV C■1 r C o C3 h C• •T %q.0•'• N C V r N CV CA C'7 h M M 'n,,.p. O 7 Q CO M M CO v: b. ti%'"o l'.43 j i NA U M V. 0 N NCl V Yra% N •Y VI O O N N d II C y' +M `f +N +r +O +O 7 0 4 N r' y�_� 0 r- d L c C'? h M r r- 0) d :•]9.. N` X0,004 O c o O c v c h co d r cD O oOC.Iv. +p O +r +r y +N r NO t0 c ¢Y O CA .."460 10 •a o fts W. CO 1..-: O M V r O CO rt r r r r e- O 4 'a': r o r or O r O N T n ria'• d CA .0120 t6,'&469.• d v n v, to N c0 M it? Q7 0) V t0 9,1 CA o oQ n O M O) M N M N C• T T r T r {j•: sr O 0 N N I` C 7 h N crl J NO NO O M N0 to N0 NO t, x w r r N 111 M q it to <Y N I 'M sf st d N n I I0 +N M O N O M h r co to a h N n E u s d N N CM •p y am 4- v N N N N 01 N t� i ,,+1,-. o NO a M r M O C.4 d 1 cs. +4 +4 .pN +N +r r 'd' r M M h r d d NO T V `4 M N M M N N r r r M to N N Ni N N T M N N +N Q N N el 0 0 1 1 N+ -4. t o q G N 0 o t o c 0 'r. N v U 0 U N N J t- o C m 3 E 0 -J Q 0 N`�F- d CIO 0 LL N Cam P' o °o `F o M M co 4c GL Ro c: c 0 o c F o. 0 0 °0 00 ri 00 2 n o c 0 0 e o 0 o; J D o1 u o -r; 0. o Z a 0 o o�� Cl) c F- W d 0 00 o ilk V. 411 o. N z g o o o a o'' a J M 0 o (4c 0 Cl Ail") 2.1 ao .43." N p� 111 lip 8 c -w 0 lip 0 co Z Y_ J M 0 c y°J (0 I- mO Q I W V 2 o2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e- a- a- N et CO h 0 N N r- a-- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x 0000666666 0 6 0-6606.'.0666606.606 o +O o +O +O +O +O s- •+a- +O (0 +n ID 0!7 +a- r- +o 0 Z" V aO +O O ,O 0 +0 0 ,0 6 ,6 6 60 +0 0 +0 +010 +0 O O 0 0 0 0 O •A a W _W d .0 Q 3 Z E Lithonia Lighting The best value righting Page 1 of 1 fA LITHON /A LIGHTING' Home Company Resources Training Distributors Sales Sustainability Contact H PI2 -L D Lithonia Lighting Products 1 Omero" LED Area and Roadway Lighting I Outdcer I Area Light 1 Bollards I Intended Use Highly efficient and long- lasting, the MR2 -LED is ideal for streets, Floodlighting f I walkways, parking lots and surrounding areas. Parking Garage Canopy Construction Poles Sturdy low- copper aluminum, single -piece die cast housing. Unique flour Pale Brackets &Accessenes through design allows for optimized thermal management through 1 convective cooling. A perforated housing prevents debris build -up while Roadway Lighting 1 allowing air -flow and natural cleaning of the light engine heat sink. Rough Service I Modular design allows for ease of maintenance and furture light engine f upgrades. The LED driver and electronics are thermally isolated from the Security Lighting i heat generating Tight ensuring long life. Housing Is completely sealed Wall Mounted moisture and environmental contaminants. Low profile design minimizes wind loading. Commercial Industrial Fluores Fluorescent and LED High Bay Finish: Exterior parts are protected by a zinc- Infused super durable TG1C Product Overview thermoset powder coat finish that provides superior resistance to Special Applications corrosion and weathering. A tightly controlled multi -stage process ensures Specification Sheets Indoor HID a minimum 3 mm thickness for a finish that can withstand extreme climate changes without cracking or peeling. Standard Super Durable Building Information Models Emergency colors Include dark bronze, black, natural aluminum and white. Available Cownli htin g Track in textured and non textured finishes. I< 0 Installation Instructions Decorative Indoor Outdoor 1 Optics Individual recision molded acrylic lenses provide optimal luminaire Additional Images Contractor Select p y p p J spacing and Improved uniformity. Lenses are indexed to the circuit board 4 to ensure consistent optical alignment on each module and mechanically Questions about this product? ABL Wiring and Controls j set in a proprietary material, delivering repeatable photometric RELOC Wiring Solutions 1 performance. Choice of three optimized distributions: Type 111, Type IV, Related Products and Type V. The optical system controls light above 90 degrees, Synergy Lighting Controls I eliminating wasteful up light. i Additional ABL Companies i I Electrical 1 IL I �I! i High efficiency S100K 70 CRI LEDs mounted to a metal -core circuit Resources I board and aluminum heat sink, ensuring optimal thermal management 0 series CSXI -LED KADT LED Specification Sheets i and long life (L70 50,000 hrs, 40 °C ambient). Standard and dimming Area Pltotametres drivers are available 120 -277V and 347 -480V; 50/60 Hz. Drivers have power factor >90% and THD <20%. Thermal isolation results in expected I r ,4 Building Information Models driver life of over 50,000 hours, matching that of the light engine. Integral ,.ir I PSG Catalog i I surge protection in accordance with IEEE /ANSI C62.41.2 Category C Low I- i t i is standard. I y 1r 1 Acrylic /Polycarb Compatibility TT I I Installation CS (7_ L 1r MIFTt I ED A TI -LED 4 1 I I Integral arm provides easy Installation to a pole and ensured alignment r and leveling. Rugged, secure connection built to withstand up to 1.5 G I I 1 I vibration load per ANSI C136.31. MR2 pole- mounted luminaire utilizes the Did you find what you need? pole drillin AERIS`" series p drilling pattern. Optional wall mounting. I reed nck 1 I 1 L Decorative Poles Architectural distinction from top to bottom. Optional VIP LED KAD LEO MR I. LEO 1 decorative bases complete the contemporary daytime assembly. Listings I fiKeb001C CSA certified to U.S. and Canadian standards. Light engine is 1P67 rated. Luminaire is 1P65 rated. US Patent No. D556,357. I L_ WARRANTY: Five -year limited warranty. ASt LED tIRP LED I ii Our Brands Cusanuer SerVico L<A C 11l tY t,; f i;; L 1 cnia L. gFtrg Accu .r p Aimsr ca o E t L r r.t.r Ai t o S -1 Lamps Coral Dail To L Gotharr Contact U, Co m 1 1 a lhcara LigSLng Hclr „pf ar I lye r .1 .Lighting Control 2 D Bryn 1,lar„ Arcf de _,u n Lrcr y P:,e.nass Re cc S,t Terns P •ury Pol cy ROAM Sensor Switch Sunopkcs 5, r: s y •'fouan 'P1san1 L (Ming htth: \1vw.lithonia.com/ commercial /I\1R3- LRD.html ?ht= OLitcloor 3/19/2012 resourceful. naturally. BA RR engineering and environmental consultants April 17, 2012 Mr. Dan Schultz Parks and Recreation Director City of Rosemount 2875 145 Street West Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 Re: Questions regarding Asbestos and PCB Concerns at the UMore Ballfields Property, Rosemount, Minnesota Dear Mr. Schultz: This letter has been prepared at your request in response to a question raised by the City of Rosemount Planning Commission regarding past investigations of the UMore Ballfields site (Property) located on Akron Avenue and south of Dakota County Road 42 in Rosemount, Minnesota (Figure 1). A brief background section summarizing the past investigations of the Property is provided below, followed by a response to the question raised by the Planning Commission. Background The Property was included in a site wide Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of UMore Park conducted in 2006 by Peer Environmental. In 2009, Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) conducted a Phase 1 ESA and a Phase II Investigation of the Property for the University of Minnesota. The purpose of the 2009 Phase I ESA was to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the Property as defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice E 1527 -05 and to review the environmental history of the Property prior to the University transferring property ownership to a separate entity (the City of Rosemount) for future development as a baseball field complex. Barr performed the 2009 Phase 1 ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527 -05 (Practice). No intentional deviations from the Practice were made in performing the 2009 Phase I ESA except for the minor deviations described in the report (which were not considered significant). In following the Practice, the Phase I ESA also complied with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 312 Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries; Final Rule. Based on the findings of the 2009 Phase I ESA, it appeared that historical use of the Property included farming, undeveloped buffer land around the Gopher Ordnance Works (GOW), and the site of University building foundation research. No disposal areas or buildings were known to be constructed at the Property during the construction and operation of the GOW. The 2009 Phase I ESA revealed no evidence of RECs in connection with the Property except for the following: Potential airborne deposition of hazardous materials onto the Property from past burning practices used at nearby sites during the time the GOW was in operation. Potential placement of fill of unknown nature at the Property. Barr conducted a Phase II Investigation to determine if the RECs identified in the 2009 Phase I ESA resulted in releases hazardous substances or petroleum products at the Property. The Phase II Investigation included the collection of ten surface soil samples and the excavation of seven test trenches for the purpose of collecting field screening data and soil samples for laboratory analysis. Laboratory analyses included semi volatile organic Barr Engineering Co. 4700 West 77th Street, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com Mr. Dan Schultz April 17, 2012 Page 2 compounds (SVOCs), nitrocellulose, and thirteen metals included on the EPA Priority Pollutant List. The results of the Phase II Investigation included the identification of fill at one test trench and a unconfirmed detection of mercury above a Soil Reference Value in one surface soil sample (BF -SS3). Mercury was not detected in the duplicate of the sample BF -SS3 (which was collected during the Phase II Investigation) or in an additional sample collected from this location on September 18, 2009. No suspected asbestos containing material was encountered at the Property by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH)- Certified Asbestos Inspector that conducted the Phase II Investigation field work. Barr conducted a follow -up investigation on behalf of the City of Rosemount to further investigate the fill soils encountered during the Phase II Investigation. Eight test trenches were placed and five soil samples were collected for laboratory analysis of lead, arsenic, and mercury. Mercury was not detected in any of the samples and lead and arsenic concentrations were typical of background concentrations in the area and below Soil Reference Values. No suspected asbestos containing material was encountered at the Property by the MDH- Certified Asbestos Inspector that conducted the follow -up investigation field work. Why weren't asbestos and PCBs considered recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in the 2009 Phase I ESA and included in the Phase II Investigation sampling plan for the UMore Ballfields Property? Asbestos and PCBs were not identified as RECs for the UMore Ballfields Property because, based on the findings of the 2009 Phase I Assessment, neither material was suspected to be present at the Property. Consistent with standard practice, neither of these materials were included in Phase 1I Investigation sampling plan. Furthermore, no observations made during the investigation field work lead Barr to think otherwise. Transite siding from GOW -era buildings is the primary source of asbestos at UMore Park. Asbestos was not suspected to be present in the soils at the Property because GOW -era buildings were not constructed at the Property. Additionally, no buried debris containing potential asbestos containing materials was identified at the Property by the MDH- Certified Asbestos Inspector that conducted the Phase II and follow -up investigation field work. No samples were collected for asbestos analysis during the Phase 11 Investigation because no suspected asbestos containing material was encountered. GOW -era PCB sources included PCB containing oils in electrical transformers. PCBs were not suspected to be present in the soils at the Property because no electrical transformers were formerly present at the Property. The sites with PCB releases that are referenced in the regulatory report in the Phase I Assessment are located approximately one mile east of Akron Avenue and the identified PCB releases were not considered threats to the Property. No samples were collected for PCB analysis during the Phase II Investigation because no evidence of an actual or threatened release of PCBs was suspected at the Property. Please let me know if there are further questions or additional clarification I can provide prior to the Planning Commission on April 24, 2012. Sincerely, Ji Eidem, P.G. P oject Manager c: Janet Dalgleish, University of Minnesota P:AMpls \23 MN \19\23191095 UMore Ballfields Follow up InvACommunications \Ballfield response_041612.docx Zweber, Eric From: LeFevere, Charlie L. [clefevere @Kennedy Graven.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 4:13 PM To: Zweber, Eric Cc: Lindquist, Kim Subject: Planning Commission site plan review standards Attachments: SKM BT_C36012041808380. pdf Eric, At the last Planning Commission meeting, there was a good deal of discussion about whether possible environmental issues related to the use of the ball field site on the UMORE property had been adequately addressed. You have asked for my comment on the scope of review when the planning commission acts on applications for site plan approval. The section of the zoning code dealing with site plan review is section 11 -10 -3. The part of that section that describes review standards is paragraph E, which describes the standard as whether the site design complies with performance standards of the city zoning code. Paragraph E lists the various elements of the zoning code that should specifically be addressed. I have attached to this email a graphic depiction of the amount of discretion that cities have in acting on various land use applications. This pyramid is often used in seminars or training sessions on city consideration of land use applications. At the bottom of the pyramid are the decisions that give the city the greatest degree of discretion. Decisions to adopt or amend a comprehensive plan or zoning code are legislative or policy decisions in which the city has the greatest degree of latitude to exercise its judgment. The land use decisions higher up on the pyramid involve less and less authority to exercise discretion. The decision with the least amount of discretion is the issuance of a building permit. If an applicant meets the requirement of the building code, the city has essentially no discretion to deny it. The zoning application one step down from building permits on the scale of discretionary review is site plan review. The city can exercise very little discretion in the site plan review process. This is consistent with the Rosemount City Code, Section 11 -10 -3, paragraph E, which specifically lists the review considerations for site plan review. The Planning Commission, or even the City Council, may feel that a land use is inappropriate for the site or is not a good match for other land uses in the neighborhood. However, the city is not free to deny a site plan application for those reasons if the application meets all of the requirements of the zoning code. In the case of the environmental concerns that the Planning Commission discussed at the last meeting, these are matters for the City Council to decide in its capacity as the landowner and public body making decisions about use of public property for public parks. This is not to suggest that questions about environmental contamination are not important. However, they are matters that fall within the responsibility of the City Council rather than the authority of the Planning Commission in acting on a site plan review application. Let me know if you have any follow -up questions. 1 Charlie Charles L. LeFevere Kennedy and Graven, Chartered 470 U. S. Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 337 -9215 Fax: (612) 337 -9310 clefevere(cc7kennedy- graven.com 2 i. ri L. i•ol 1 I 1 1 CA v 1i 11'1,?1 f ./..:1._ 0 1 M c.).-. 4, Pi j w ...4".e 4, Owe Conditional. CLil io co Use Permit *44 CI i 4 Variances e..0 I.* 1 pmi Subdivision/Plats A* *I ,...0 c7 -1---- .k: v• k.' v LI A 'N 10' 43 (244 i 0 Fl, r) r-ir. .r.3 41 a ji S C, t f,, E, 1 ..L...k 1 a nil iiig cw; I-4(4 :IA S 1 J 0ED $74� Site Location Superfund f Q U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a a „Rote University of Minnesota (Rosemount Research Center) Dakota County, MN MND980613780 Bloomington J i S7 Eagan 61 w t a Burnsville Minnesot. M 'yd: A.�t'�'iC� Mill con. i n A iffill D a k 41011i `r o. i State r 52 y County 4 z low ii 145th S W 145th St E F St E 2 d s 1 g E 153rd St o Y 6 151nd St y 1 t r W 154th St U r■ i CI to 1559h St i m W E 156u H S! ..r 15 F G rn 160th w 7 io)t hStE o 1 E 156th St a T v .0 Q m U r W n iu d d %`t 165th St E W '1 m Q V �p 3 166th St E t m d 170th St W t m m 3 m c S o 5. U 1 Legend may 130th SIF MI Rosemount Research Center I GUE Deep Site m GUE Shallow Site 5. US Transformer Site 190th St W A Burn Pit Site Site I I Porter Electric and Machine Site Produced by Sarah Badd oueo U S EPA Region 5 on 4/19/07 1 Figure 1 1 7 Image Date 2003 J�11ED STgrFs Institutional Control (IC) Review Superfund Q Areas Depicting Implemented U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Z e ti Institutional Controls o f 1.4 PROt' University of Minnesota (Rosemount Research Center) Dakota County, MN MND980613780 s �i, E 151st St Vi i, 152nd St E u t• i g t ,ter,., fig w," 15gth St E r Porter Electric and Machine Situ t r E 156th t a a r w 1 W ''',',7,„ 1,"1,1"" hk '4 ate Legend 0 500 1,000 Implemented Institutional Controls: Feet I i Restricted Access Parcel A' GUE Deep Site i ".,m. Restricted Parcel D` Burn Pit Site Restricted Parcel B' GUE Shallow Site ED Restricted Parcel E* Porter Electric and Machine Site C Restricted Parcel C' US Transformer Site V V See the University of Minnesota Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants (2000) for restriction details created by sash Bedchouae FPA Disclaimer Please be advised that areas depicted in the map have beer estimated The map aces p U S. EPA Region 5 on 3/1512006 net create any rights enforceable by any pan y. EPA may refine or change this data and map at any tima Fig g U C `i Image Date 2003