HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.a. 05-40-PUD Endres Properties 2nd Addition Preliminary PLat, Final Plat, & PUD Concept Plan K!
4ROSEMOUNT
EX11'E U E M ARY
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Regular Meeting: August 15, 2006
AGENDA ITEM: 05-40-PUD Endres Properties 2" AGENDA SECTION:
Addition Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and New Business
PUD Concept Plan
PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber, AICP; Senior Planner AGENDA NO. 9a
ATTACHMENTS: Rezoning Ordinance, Preliminary Plat
Resolution, PUD Concept Plan Approval
Resolution, Final Plat, Preliminary Plat
and Site Plan Reductions, MnDOT APPROVED BY:
Comments, Traffic Study, DNR
comments, Excerpt from the Planning
Commission Minutes, Endres Letter
7/21/2006
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Motion to adopt an ordinance rezoning the property to PUD GI, General Industrial
Planned Unit Development; and,
2. Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for Endres
Properties 2"d Addition subject to conditions; and,
3. Motion to adopt a resolution approving the PUD Concept Plan for Endres
Rosemount Holdings LLC for the property located at 13420 Courthouse Blvd subject
to conditions.
RELATED COUNCIL ACTIONS
At the July 18, 2006 meeting, the City Council had approved the Drainage and Utility Easement Vacation
need to execute this Final Plat. Also on tonight's Agenda, the City Council will be acting on the
Adventure Zone Interim Use Permit for Lot 1 and Lot 3 of Block 1 Endres Properties 2"d Addition.
ISSUE
Leon Endres has applied for PUD Concept Plan, Preliminary Plat, and Final Plat approval to subdivide the
Endres property located at 13420 Courthouse Blvd. Ultimately, three lots will be created, one for the
existing Endres facility and two new lots for industrial use along State Highway 55. Endres Rosemount
Holdings LLC owns approximately 50 acres of land for the Endres processing plant along the east side of
State Highway 55 across from the SKB landfill. Much of the site beyond the 10 acres occupied by the
Endres facility is undeveloped. However, "The Adventure Zone", a commercial outdoor recreational use
for paintball games is also established on the site. If approved, the Interim Use Permit ("IUP") for the
Adventure Zone will have to be amended with the new legal description for the parcel it will occupy.
The site is in the General Industrial zoning district,located between Highway 55 and the Mississippi River.
The property is also part of the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area ("MRCCA") which is an overlay
district intended to protect and preserve steep slopes or bluffs and protect views from the river and
control erosion among other things. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") has had
the opportunity to provide comments regarding the proposed preliminary plat and its potential impact on
the regulated bluff areas. In addition, the Minnesota Department of Transportation ("MnDOT") also
reviewed the preliminary plat because it has direct access onto State Highway 55.
PUD Concept Plan approval has been requested to illustrate how the proposed lots can be developed in
light of the MRCCA standards. The concept provides a development scenario for discussion and
comment. Since the owner will not be the developer for the parcels it is unclear what the final site plans
will look like. However,it is useful for the city to determine if the Preliminary Plat is practical or realistic.
The applicant could not commit to a detailed Master Development Plan approval at this time,until future
owners and businesses for the new lots are identified. Prior to development of the two new sites,Master
Development Plan approval is required. It is expected that the final master plan will need to be
comparable in size and scope to the concept due to the individual site constraints. These constraints limit
the options for site development. It is expected that the two new parcels,if approved, should not require
additional variances from the ordinance standards than that reflected under the current submittal. The
DNR's role is to ensure that the MRCCA standards are enforced relative to the regulated bluff areas. With
the exception of the protected bluffs and bluff setbacks, the traditional General Industrial standards apply.
BACKGROUND
The site was developed in 1998. Approximately 20% of the site is utilized by the Endres facility. The
balance of the property is open space,woods, areas for ponds and regulated bluffs. The Adventure Zone
use has been utilizing the site in various forms since the early 1990's. The site seems under utilized,given
it has an industrial influence from the surrounding land uses and nearby railroad spurs on the west and
north sides. The property is not currently in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). City water is
available to the west along State Highway 55 but sanitary sewer is not.
Applicant&Property Owner: Leon Endres of Endres Rosemount Holdings LLC
Location: 13420 Courthouse Blvd., 1.2 miles east of U. S. 52
Zoning& Comp. Plan: General Industrial
Area in acres: 50.7
Proposed Subdivision: Lot 1 —6.87 acres, for General Industrial use.
Lot 2—9.74 acres, for General Industrial use.
Lot 3—34.09 acres remaining for the Endres Facility.
Surrounding Land Uses: Neighboring use Direction Zoning& Comp Plan
SKB Landfill South Waste Management (across TH 55)
Spectro Alloys West General Industrial (across RR tracks)
C. F. Industries North General Ind. (across Pine Bend Tr.)
Agriculture East Agriculture (former feedlot)
Status of Planning Commission review/action: The Planning Commission initially opened the Public
Hearing on October 25, 2005 for discussion and direction concerning PUD issues with action continued
for significant plan revisions. On January 10, 2006, the Commission reviewed revised plans. The
Commission was satisfied that they could recommend approval of the PUD concept and Preliminary Plat
approval with conditions. However, a number of technical issues,primarily regarding dedication of
permanent easements and the need for existing temporary easements relating to site drainage and utilities.
These issues have been primarily resolved and are reflected in the conditions of approval where necessary.
2
On July 25, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final Plat and recommended approval with
conditions. At that meeting, Endres requested that the PUD Concept Plan condition that prohibited
outdoor storage for Lot 1 and Lot 2 be removed. The Planning Commission recommended that the
prohibition of outdoor storage remain a condition of PUD Concept Plan approval.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The preliminary plat is based upon the concept PUD of two new lots for office/warehouse development
and a remaining large lot for the Endres facility. The plat has an unusual amount of green space which
results from the site's location on the bluffs overlooking the Mississippi River. The plat has been revised
several times in response to issues identified by staff.
REZONING
Rezoning to General Industrial- Planned Unit Development also allows for flexibility that is useful for
development of the site should the city wish to approve the applications. The following issues are not
consistent with the existing ordinance standards and if approved as proposed flexibility or variance would
have to be granted for the following:
1. Minimum building requirements (10% of site) for Lot 2 and 3.
2. Use of the existing driveway in lieu of a street.
3. Potential inadequate parking for Lot 1,if more than small portions of the warehouse area are
occupied by assembly, manufacturing or other more intense uses.
In return, the City will get more value from permanent improvements,jobs, and tax base. Because the site
is difficult to develop, there is more open space associated with the parcels than other projects in the area.
The MNRAA standards also impact the "buildability" of the property. Staff does not support flexibility in
the parking standards and expects to see ordinance standards met when the property comes before the
City for final master development plan approval.
The Adventure Zone is a use that has no permanent facilities since all gaming areas are outdoors. It has a
gravel parking lot and booths for concessions and equipment rental. The concept plan does not include
the Adventure Zone use. Staff had also assumed that at some time the Endres facility would be expanded
or additional development would occur on the site considering the property is underutilized.
Applicable lot standards for General Industrial
Lot Area Width Coverage Min. Bldg Footprint Setbacks Front Side Rear
5 acres min. N/A 50-75%* 10%** Building 75 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft.
Parking 40 ft. 25 ft. 50 ft.
MRCCA Bluff 40 ft.
* 50%if storm water is managed on site, 75%if Storm Sewer is available
** Excludes protective wetlands
Lot data summary Area overall Developable area Concept building Building% of site
Lot 1 6.87 acres 5.15 acres 37,030 sq. ft. 16.5% of dev. area
Lot 2 9.74 acres 5.6 acres 33,303 sq. ft. 13.6 % of dev. area
Lot 3 34.09 acres 10 approx. 53,930 sq. ft. (existing) 3.6%*
*Staff has not pro-rated the developable proportion of the site. If the 10 acres is valid, then the
building with its expansion area consists of about 6% of the site according to the Dakota County
parcel data.
3
SITE TOPOGRAPHY
Site topography contains a series of bluffs and a centrally located large ravine with a storm water pond
easement west of the Endres facility. The largest open and relatively level area was previously developed
for the Endres facility,which is approximately 10 acres. The bluff protection standards of the MRCCA
prohibit altering all slopes of 18%grades or greater. The site contains 7.24 acres of 18% or greater bluffs
scattered across the site. To protect the bluffs, there is a setback of 40 feet from any bluff line for any
paving or buildings. As a result, the only areas on the site potentially available for additional development
are close to Highway 55 between the Highway and the first series of bluffs facing the ravine, or south of
the Endres facility. The entire site was platted as a single lot and easements were dedicated for utilities,
storm ponds in the ravine and the drainage swales that lead to the pond. A wetland delineation,
subsequest granting of Conservation Easements around the wetland and wetland buffers,is required for
the entire site prior to the recording of the Final Plat.
ACCESS
The proposal includes utilizing the existing driveway labeled as Street A. It provides exclusive access for
the three lots to State Highway.55. The current driveway is centrally located along the frontage of
Highway 55, across from the SKB entrance. Joint maintenance and cross-access easements shall be
recorded for the shared use of the driveway. In addition, a cul-de-sac would be constructed as the street
terminus approximately 550 feet east of the driveway entrance.
The access way does not meet city design standards in a number of areas. The driveway does not have a
perpendicular alignment with Highway 55. It flairs extensively in width to accommodate semi traffic
turning movements,it was not constructed to City standard for building materials and it is unclear how
and with what materials the driveway was constructed. Staff would not recommend taking over the road as
is and would require a total reconstruct of the drive and redesign to meet city standards. The
reconstruction would be at the developer's cost. (See the Engineer's comments)
Therefore, the plan reflects the staff recommendations to keep the driveway private and that an association
will be required to be formed among the three properties for maintenance and replacement.
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
The initial MnDOT review comments identified concerns about the increase of traffic,particularly trucks
and potential conflicts with traffic ingress and egress to Highway 55. MnDOT comments indicated needs
for the following:
1. Left turn lanes are needed on Highway 55 for both the preliminary plat area and the SKB
landfill. There is also a concern about turning movements in street"A" that may cause
conflicts with traffic entering the site.
2. Trip generation information for the three lots and SKB are needed to determine if there are
further turn lanes needed or improvements for"Street A".
3. Permits from MnDOT are needed for all work in the highway 55 right-of-way.
In response, a traffic study was prepared by Benshoof&Associates (attached) and submitted to MnDOT.
Subsequently, on December 27, 2005, staff received written comments from MnDOT with specific
requirements regarding the development. Access permits are required because of the change in use of the
property as well as any work affecting the right-of-way.
Specific improvements to TH 55 turning lanes are required as a result of the increased traffic generated by
the proposed plat. The attached comments include dimensions for the left-turn lane and taper providing
access into the site for eastbound traffic. Both right and left turn lanes are required to be 300 feet long
4
with additional space for taper. The lane widths are 13 feet for the left turn and 12 feet for the right-turn
lanes. Meeting MnDOT design standards and permitting requirements is a recommended condition of
approval.
PUD CONCEPT PLAN LOT 1
Lot 1 is located between Highway 55 and the ravine west of the driveway. It consists of 6.87 acres,but
only about 5 acres of the site uphill from the MRCCA bluff will be suitable for development of buildings
and paving including setbacks. Protected slopes of 18% or more cover 1.41 acres of Lot 1. The eastern
portion of the lot extends to the bottom of the bluff to the edge of the ponding easement in the ravine.
The concept includes a 37,000 sq. ft. building and up to 61 parking spaces. The building consists of 7,725
sq. ft. for office space (about 20%), and 29,312 sq. ft. of warehouse or manufacturing, (80%). The access
occurs at a single driveway approximately 100 feet east of the Highway 55 frontage. The shape of the
developable portion of the site influences its design. The area suitable for development funnels down
towards the entrance at"Street A". The building and parking footprint is defined by the industrial
setbacks along Highway 55, "Street A", the west property line and the MRCCA bluff setbacks. The drive
aisle aligning with the driveway entrance is 30 feet wide to allow additional space for truck traffic.
One concern about the narrow frontage along"Street A"is that the driveway is close to the intersection
with Highway 55. There is a potential for vehicles making left turns into Lot 1 to cause congestion at the
"Street A" entrance for other traffic entering and leaving the site. The non-perpendicular alignment may
inhibit by-pass functions. The developer's traffic consultant has provided an analysis and
recommendations to address this concern.
Septic system discussion
Sanitary sewer is not available, as the property is outside of the industrial MUSA. The plans indicate two
areas designated for drain fields to serve the site. The need for septic system drain field areas reduces the
space available for the building envelope. Two drainfield areas are required, a primary for construction of
the actual septic system, and a secondary location for a replacement system if ever needed. The primary
drain field area is located west of the building in the side-yard setback area. The revised plans locate the
secondary site alongside the primary area. Previously, the secondary area was located downhill of the
MRCCA bluff,which was impractical. Because of the needed additional space for drainfield use, the
building pad is 100 feet from the side property line at its closest point.
A "Soil Testing and Design for Septic Systems"report includes flow projections for the proposed lots.
This information has been reviewed by the Building Official who oversees the implementation of septic
system requirements in the City. The Building Official is satisfied that the drainfield sizes and soil
information is acceptable for the proposed building size and uses. The report states: "Lot 1 should be
limited to 2,460 gallons per day of water suitable to enter a septic system." Should the ultimate use
generate process water which is determined to be unsuitable for the septic system, the process water would
have to be dealt with separately.
Bluff discussion
Lot 1 contains 1.41 acres of restricted bluff area with a slope of 18% or more.
The bluff area is bisected by a gully that has eroded uphill and perpendicular from the bluff. The Planning
Commission was willing to exclude the gully area from the bluff area. This was based upon DNR officials
endorsing the strategy. Therefore, the concept grading plan will fill the gully to match contours of the
bluff on either side. The storm water would be accommodated by a storm water pipe with catch basins
5
and erosion control measures implemented to preserve the bluff.,The intended result should stabilize the
bluff from further erosion.
Further restrictions include a maximum of 12% slope allowed for drainfield location. This restriction was
a factor in locating both the primary and secondary drainfield areas west of the building envelope.
Lot 1 has been revised several times to accommodate the drainfield area and balance the building foot-
print with parking and the bluff setbacks. The recommendation will include a specific condition of
compliance with the setback for emphasis.
Minimum Building Requirements
The General Industrial District has a minimum building square footage requirement of 10% of the site
excluding protective wetlands. The current plan reduced the Lot 1 area enough so that the proposed
building footprint is now 12%, meeting the ordinance standard.
Parking analysis
The parking requirement.will be based upon the use break-down of the building when it is built. The plan
indicates 61 spaces provided,but there may be room for more. The plan also indicates that 44 spaces are
required. Staff's analysis is that a minimum of 54 spaces are required based upon the amount of office
space and warehouse in the building footprint. If half of the warehouse space will actually be used for
assembly,manufacturing or other processing, the parking requirement would increase to 94 spaces. The
space available for additional parking would be on the perimeter of the paved areas north of the building.
It is assumed that loading docks will also be located in this area, so the potential for traffic conflicts exists.
Use Standard Requirement Comments
Office 1 space / 200 sq. ft. 39 spaces
Warehouse 1 space / 2000 sq. ft. 15 spaces Assumes 100%warehouse use of space.
Mfg. assembly etc. 1 space / 300 sq. ft. Multiplies requirement of warehouse use
Total requirement 54 spaces minimum
Final parking requirements will be determined in the Master Development Plan approval.
Landscaping plan
The concept plan includes 25 trees arranged in groupings of boulevard, evergreen and ornamental trees
along the Highway 55 frontage and "Street A". Site Plan review in connection with the required PUD
master plan will be required and General Industrial landscaping standards will apply to the site. Staff
expects enhanced landscaping during the final approval phase. The zoning standards include building
perimeter shrub plantings and allow the Planning Commission to add additional recommendations.
Generally, the Commission has supported boulevard trees on the perimeter of the site along street right-
of-way and groupings of shrubs in the front yards. Screening plantings for parking lots and outdoor
storage is also common. No outdoor storage is currently proposed for either Lot 1 or 2 at this time.
The tree preservation replacement requirement is for 90 trees. Lot 1 should absorb a proportionate share
of this requirement. Replacement trees are expected to be in addition to the landscape plan boulevard
trees. Therefore, additional trees should be planted on the perimeter of the paved areas and bluff setback
zones. It may also be advisable to plant the northern edge of the pavement area to stabilize the slope in
the filled gully area.
6
t .
Outdoor storage
No outdoor storage is shown on the plan. The space beyond the building and parking envelope is either
setbacks or designated drain field area. Therefore, the only obvious space would be the paved parking area.
Given the potential need for additional parking, a consideration of the PUD should prohibit outdoor
storage, or specify that outdoor storage would trigger and amendment to the PUD requiring an analysis of
parking, screening and minimum building size requirements.
Site grading
Site grading is limited to the area uphill of the protected bluff area for the building envelope and the
parking and driveway. The site drains towards the ravine north east of the site mostly on Lot 3 with an
easement. The storm water will be conveyed along the edges of the site and through two pipes that
discharge into the ravine. Final grading plans will occur with the site plan.
PUD CONCEPT PLAN LOT 2
Lot 2 is proposed along the Highway 55 frontage east of the driveway and south of the Endres site.
Approximately 5.6 acres of the site is suitable for development. Lot 2 is shaped like a triangle with a
panhandle on the east end. A protected bluff area effectively separates the east panhandle area from the
triangle,resulting in the panhandle being practical for green space. Lot 2 has 0.63 acres of 18% slopes or
greater,mostly in an area that separates the panhandle from the majority of the site.
Triangle shaped lots are often challenging to develop for buildings and parking. The concept provides a
generic rectangular building, and uses the corners for the parking lot and the west drain field area. The
triangle shaped paved area serves as a turn-around area for trucks so as to make site utilization as efficient
as possible.
The concept indicates Lot 2 would accommodate a 33,000 sq. ft. building and 49 parking stalls. That
equates to about 24.4% of the lot available for development of buildings and pavement.
Lot 2 is not capable of supporting a building that meets the minimum building size standard of 10%lot
area. The proposed building footprint is about 7.8% of the site area. Approximately 60% of the site is
capable of sustaining development. If credit were given for the land unavailable for development, the site
would accommodate a 25,000 sq. ft. building to satisfy the 10% minimum building requirement. Variation
from this standard is a policy decision they City needs to be comfortable with. The site,while larger,has
several constraints that preclude development at ordinance standards. Approval of this change should be
based upon the unique characteristics of this site to ensure future developers in the general industrial
district do not expect relaxation of this standard.
Septic System Discussion
The submitted"Soil Testing and Design for Septic Systems"report includes percolation test data and flow
projections based upon the general size of the buildings/uses. The report states that Lot 2: "should be
limited to 2,530 gallons per day. Process water for the use which is determined unsuitable for the septic
system will have to be dealt with separately.
Parking Analysis
The minimum parking requirement based upon office and warehouse use only is 39 spaces. 49 spaces are
striped. The parking requirement would increase to 79 spaces if 50% of the warehouse space was given
over to manufacturing, assembly or processing. There are a number of locations available for additional
parking that would not conflict with assumed loading dock locations.
7
Landscaping Plan
The landscaping plan indicates 21 trees located along the TH 55 frontage and lining the driveway entrance.
As previously suggested,required tree preservation replacement plantings should be added to the
boulevard plantings, especially along the northern property line, the parking/pavement edges and the open
space of the "panhandle" area east of the developed area of Lot 2.
Outdoor Storage
Similar to Lot 1, there is no area designated for outdoor storage. Some space could be available in the
isolated "panhandle"portion of the site. However, staff would recommend that like Lot 1, the PUD
should exclude outdoor storage on this lot. This is especially relevant because this lot will not meet the
minimum building size. What space is available in the "panhandle" area is isolated by steep slopes and
should first be considered for accessory uses rather than outdoor storage. In light of the relaxed building
footprint standard, staff recommends a prohibition on exterior storage.
Site grading
The building and paving area is designed to drain to the ravine through catch basins and pipes that will be
installed under"Street A". A pond is proposed between the building and"Street A"presumably for pre-
treatment and discharge rate control. Engineering comments included in this report and as specific
conditions provide recommendations for easements supporting the pond and location of the utilities.
PUD CONCEPT LOT 3
Lot 3 is the site of the Endres facility. More than half of the current property,Lot 3 consists of 34.09
acres. The building consists of 53,930 sq. ft. and the developed proportion of the site amounts to about
32% of the site including the potential expansion area. Regulated bluff areas occupy 5.2 acres of the site,
which is much of the northern and eastern edges of the site. The northeast corner of the site has 180 feet
of frontage along Pine Bend Trail,but it is not accessible because of the extent of the bluffs. Therefore,
access is still necessary to Highway 55.
An open area of about 45,000 sq. ft. south of the building is available for expansion. The balance of the
site includes steep slopes, the east side of the ravine and a pond that limits the rest of the site to green
space. The regulated bluff area ungulates north and east side of the facility.
Drainfield information for the existing Endres facility has been submitted and found acceptable. The
primary and secondary drainfield areas extend east from the northeast corner of the building.
The preliminary plat requires the existing site to be consistent with General Industrial standards as well.
Therefore, the previously discussed 10% minimum building standard applies to the new lot for Endres
even as a remnant lot. The Endres Facility was constructed prior to the ordinance amendment requiring
the 10%building footprint. By subdividing the existing parcel, the Endres property is decreased, thereby
reducing the existing non-conformity. In other respects, the lot conforms to General Industrial setbacks.
The preliminary plat includes a rail spur introduced to the property;however,the grading plan does not
address it. The DNR has previously expressed concerns about the spur and addressed those in previous
correspondence. In 1998, the City Council included the rail spur in concept with their approval of the
project. In light of the concerns identified by the DNR, staff will provide additional background regarding
previous actions related to the rail spur approval. The Planning Commission acting as the Board of
Appeals &Adjustments also granted a variance to the bluff setbacks near the southwest corner of the
building. DNR officials at the time were not opposed to the variance.
8
Tree Preservation
An inventory of trees was taken for the area encompassed by the proposed lots, focusing on the areas
suitable for development. The inventory indicated which trees would be saved and which would be
removed. The following was found:
Total number of trees: 631 100%
Total number of removed trees: 193 30% of total
Total number of insignificant trees removed: 149 77% of removed (box elder, elms &cottonwoods)
Total number of significant trees removed: 44 23% of removed (oaks, cherries & cedars).
193
Total number of replacement trees: 90 trees
Most of the oaks removed are located in the parking lot area of Lot 1. The building pad areas for both
lots contain mostly box elder, cottonwoods and elms. The tree preservation ordinance replacement
requirement is activated after the first 25% of the trees on the site are removed. The requirement is then 2
for 1 for significant trees up to 20 inches in diameter and 4 for 1 for significant trees 20 inches or more in
diameter. Evergreens are 2 for 1 up to 12 feet in height and 4 for 1 larger than 12 feet. Then, the
replacement requirement would be applied to 75% of the replacement of 44 significant trees with size
factored. The total number of replacement trees based upon the above is 90 trees.
As the PUD is still at the concept stage, the final numbers will be verified during the more rigorous final
site plan review process. Given that some of the paved areas proposed for Lot 1 will be scaled back, some
of the tree removal may not actually occur. During the final master development plan review staff will
verify final numbers for tree removal and replacement.
PUD findings
The following suggested findings in support of the PUD are based upon the Planning Commission
discussion regarding the minimum building size requirement and development of underutilized land in the
General Industrial District.
1. The Planning Commission finds that the Endres site, originally developed in 1998,prior to the
adoption of the minimum building size requirement is capable of sustaining additional
development of General Industrial uses.
2. The site is in the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area with restrictions to development of
slope areas of 18% or more gradients,reducing the amount of the site available for
development.
3. The site prior to subdivision contains a total of 7.24 acres of bluffs with grades of 18% or
more excluding setbacks which is a high proportion of land that is unavailable for
development. The bluff restrictions do not apply to other sites in the General Industrial
District south and west of STH 55.
4. The proposed subdivisions utilize land that is not practical for expansion of the Endres facility,
but is otherwise available for development of small industrial uses.
5. The PUD enables a higher performance from development in return for the considerations of
PUD flexibility. Staff recommends that outdoor storage, display or sales is prohibited on Lots
1 and 2.
6. The site has underutilized highway frontage along STH 55, a Principal Arterial highway
according to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
7. The uses proposed for the site are consistent with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan for the
General Industrial Land Use area.
9
Engineering comments
There were concerns early on regarding the drainage and utility easements necessary for the final site plan
and those that must remain until development on Lots 1 & 2 occurs. The previously approved vacation of
existing easements contained a condition that the city obtain the new easements necessary for
development on the plat while taking temporary easements necessary until development occurs. Other
issues that have been of some concern have been addressed by the applicant at this stage of the project
review. Additional engineering review will take place during the final master development plan approval
process.
PARK DEDICATION
No land is proposed for park dedication. After review of the plans, the Parks and Recreation Department
is recommending the parks dedication be collected as cash in lieu of land. The amount to be paid on the
16.61 acres (Lots 1 and 2) of industrial property is $83,050 (10% of 16.61 acres x$50,000 per acre). This
fee is based on City's Subdivision Ordinance and the 2006 Fee Policy. The applicant may pay the park
dedication fee upon development of sites 1 &2;payment would be based upon the fee policy in effect at
that time.
The executive order creating the MRCCA also requires that park dedication funds must be spent on park
land acquisition, or facilities constructed with the MRCCA district. The City has been working with other
agencies to construct a regional trail to Dakota County Spring Lake Park. The proposed alignment is
expected to be in the Pine Bend Trail area and crossing TH 55 further to the east.
CONCLUSION
The Concept PUD and Preliminary Plat have been revised based upon previous review discussions. The
Final Plat is found to be substantially consistent with the Preliminary Plat. The Concept Plan,Preliminary
Plat, and Final Plat are found to be acceptable although significant details such as final grading,wetland
delineation and final building plans will be necessary for final site plan and PUD Master Development Plan
approval.
Probably the bigger issue is the unknown future of the two created lots. While the concept illustrates two
building plans and associated parking that work for the sites,it is expected that changes will come about
once a user is identified. Staff expects that the future site plan approvals, and associated Master
Development Plan approval,will address those detailed issues such as site grading,parking,building
architecture, and landscaping that have been touched on in this general review. Staff does not expect that
additional variations from the ordinance criteria above that required for the Concept Plan will be approved
during the site plan approval process. Additionally, future property owners need to be aware of the
conditions of the PUD which vary from the ordinance criteria such as the prohibition of exterior storage
on Lots 1 &2 and the use of a private street system for the subdivision.
10
City of Rosemount
Ordinance No. B-171
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE
Endres Properties 2nd Addition
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance B, adopted September 19, 1989, entitled"City of Rosemount Zoning
Ordinance," is hereby amended to rezone the property located on the north side of Minnesota
Highway 55 (Courthouse Boulevard) at 13420 Courthouse Boulevard, from GI, General Industrial,
to PUD GI, General Industrial Planned Unit Development,legally described as follows:
Lot 1,Block 1;Lot 2,Block 1;and Lot 3,Block 1 of Endres Properties 2nd Addition
Section 2. The Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount,referred to and described in said
Ordinance No. B as that certain "
ma entitled "Zoning Ma of the Ci of Rosemount shall not be
P g p ry
republished to show the aforesaid rezoning,but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the said zoning
map on file in the Clerk's office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for
in this Ordinance and all of the notation references and other information shown thereon are hereby
incorporated by reference and made part of this Ordinance.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication
according to law.
ENACTED AND ORDAINED into an Ordinance this 15`'' day of August, 2006.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Amy Domeier, City Clerk
Published in the Rosemount Town Pages this day of .12006.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2006-
A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
FOR ENDRES PROPERTIES 2"D ADDITION
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an
application from Endres Rosemount Holdings,LLC requesting Preliminary Plat approval
concerning the property located at 13420 Courthouse Blvd to allow the subdivision of the existing
49.44 acre property legally described as follows into three industrial lots:
Lot 1, Block 1, Endres Properties Addition, Dakota County
WHEREAS, on January 10, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed
the Preliminary Plat and PUD Concept Plan for Endres Properties 2nd Addition;and
WHEREAS, on January 10,2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount conducted a
public hearing for review of the Preliminary Plat and PUD Concept Plan application as required by
Ordinance B, the Zoning Regulations;and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council
approve the Preliminary Plat and PUD Concept Plan subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS on July 25 2006 the Planning Commission of the Ci ty of Rosemount reviewed of the
Final Plata application as required equired by Ordinance B, the Zoning Regulations; and
WHEREAS the Planning Commission adopted amotion to recommend that the City Council
approve the Final Plat subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS on August 15 2006 the City Council approved the PUD Concept Plan
subject to
conditions; and
WHEREAS on August 15 2006 the Ci Council of the Ci of Rosemount reviewed the Planning
� City
�' g
Commission's recommendation regarding the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat application for Endres
Properties 2nd Addition and adopted a motion for approval by this resolution subject to conditions.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat, Endres Properties 2nd Addition, subdividing Lot 1,
Block 1, Endres Properties 2nd Addition, Dakota County into Lots 1, 2, and 3,Block 1, Endres
Properties 2nd Addition,Dakota County, subject to:
1. Final development of any parcel is contingent upon City approval of a site plan, PUD
Master Development Plan and execution of a PUD agreement.
2. The developer shall be responsible for all MnDOT required permits and the costs associated
with the required improvements to the highway.
3. "Street A" shall be located in a driveway easement with cross-access rights for Lots 1&2 and
a joint maintenance agreement for "Street A"recorded in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney.
RESOLUTION 2006-
4. The applicant shall submit a conservation easement over the site wetland and associated
wetland buffer for staff review and approval.
5. Development charges shall be paid upon development of Lot 1 or Lot 2 respectively. The
fees are as follows or those in effect at the time of development based upon the adopted
Council fee resolution:
a. Trunk Water Area charges for Lots 1 and 2 at a rate of$4420/acre.
b. Trunk Storm Water Area charges for Lots 1 and 2 at a rate of$6200/acre.
c. GIS Fees for Lots 1 and 2 at a rate of$120/acre.
6. Park dedication,as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Director, shall be in the form
of cash contribution for Industrial subdivisions as established in the current fee schedule.
The applicant can pay the fees upon final platting of the property or when development
occurs on Lots 1 and
2.
7. The recording of temporary Drainage and Utility Easement in place of the vacated Endres
Properties Addition Drainage and Utility Easements that will be in effect until grading
necessary for development of Lots 1 and 2 occur.
ADOPTED this 15th day of August, 2006,by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Amy Domeier, City Clerk
Motion by: Second by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Member absent:
2
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2006-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
PLAN FOR ENDRES ROSEMOUNT HOLDING, LLC FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 13420 COURTHOUSE BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an
application from Endres Rosemount Holdings,LLC requesting Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Concept Plan concerning the property located at 13420 Courthouse Blvd to
allow the subdivision of the existing 49.44 acre property legally described as follows into three
industrial lots:
Lot 1,Block 1, Endres Properties Addition,Dakota County
WHEREAS, on January 10,2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed
the Preliminary Plat and PUD Concept Plan for Endres Properties 2nd Addition; and
WHEREAS, on January 10, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount conducted a
public hearing for review of the Preliminary Plat and PUD Concept Plan application as required by
Ordinance B the Zoningtions n
Regulations;,a d
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council
approve the Preliminary Plat and PUD Concept Plan subject to conditions;and
WHEREAS, on August 15,2006, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning
Commission's recommendation and the Preliminary Plat,Final Plat, and PUD Concept Plan
applications for Endres Properties 2nd Addition and adopted a motion for approval by this
resolution subject to conditions.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the PUD Concept Plan for Endres Rosemount Holdings,LLC for the property located at
13420 Courthouse Blvd. subject to:
1. Final development of Lot 1 or Lot 2 is contingent on City approval of a site plan,PUD
Master Development Plan and execution of a PUD agreement.
2. Approval of the Minnesota Department of Transportation including the following detailed
in the December 27, 2005 correspondence:
• The plans shall be revised in conformance with design and dimensional standards for the
westbound and eastbound approach to "Street A".
• The developer shall be responsible for all MnDOT required permits and the costs
associated with the required improvements to the highway.
3. Plan revisions to "Street A" and the entrance to Lot 1 may be required to reduce conflicts
resulting from left turning movements to Lot 1 causing traffic to back up into TH 55.
RESOLUTION 2006-
4. An association shall be formed for the three lots to share maintenance and replacement
responsibilities for"Street A",located on Lot 3. "Street A" shall be located in a driveway
easement with cross-access rights for Lots 1 &2 and a joint maintenance agreement for
"Street A" recorded in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
5. Prior to the recording of the final plat, the Interim Use Permit for the"Adventure Zone"
commercial outdoor recreational use shall be rescinded. Any costs associated with the
rescission shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
6. Development charges shall be paid upon development of Lot 1 or Lot 2 respectively. The
fees are as follows or those in effect at the time of development based upon the adopted
Council fee resolution:
a. Trunk Water Area charges for Lots 1 and 2 at a rate of$4420/acre.
b. Trunk Storm Water Area charges for Lots 1 and 2 at a rate of$6200/acre.
c. GIS Fees for Lots 1 and 2 at a rate of$120/acre.
7. Park dedication as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Director shall be in the form
of cash contribution for Industrial subdivisions as established in the current fee schedule.
The applicant can pay the fees upon final platting of the property or when development
occurs on Lots 1 and 2.
8. The applicant shall submit a conservation easement over the site wetland and associated
wetland buffer for staff review and approval.
9. Variances from the MRCCA Bluff setback requirements are not permitted for the parking
lot on Lot 1. The PUD Master Plan shall clearly indicate the edge of paving and the MRCCA
protected bluff area for verification of the required setback.
10. The proposed hydrant locations must be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal.
11. The PUD Concept Plan does not guarantee building size,land uses or any reductions of
General Industrial or MRCCA setback or lot dimensional standards.
12. The PUD Master Development Plan will have to provide sufficient parking based upon
ordinance standards for industrial uses through plan revisions,building size reductions or
proof-of-parking.
13. Incorporation of comments from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources relative
to the regulations of the Mississippi River Critical Corridor District.
14. The Lot 1 drain field will accommodate up to 2,460 gallons per day and the Lot 2 drain field
will accommodate up to 2,530 gallons per day of water suitable for a septic system. Process
water that increases the amount or is not suitable for septic systems must be treated
separately and shall be the sole responsibility of the property owner.
2
RESOLUTION 2006-
15. The submission and approval of a tree replacement plan in accordance with City Ordinance
11-6-3 Subsection E9.
16. Prohibition of outdoor storage on Lots 1 and 2.
17. The development of either Lot 1,Block 1 or Lot 2,Block 1 will require the grading of entire
subdivision (Lots 1, 2, and 3,Block 1) in accordance with the approved plans.
18. Parking of vehicles and trucks along the shared driveway is prohibited.
ADOPTED this 15th day of August,2006 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Amy Domeier, City Clerk
Motion by: Second by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Member absent:
3
= g gq
\ h / !`
E§
\ : \ _
71
!•!; _ � ( | : 2
|f) § _
CO
-
} `�! : • = m
�
m
@
!! �
|E _
0
r
�b
7 •>~......Ln
�Z:�_fir} t- j0���i,YTe � ., 3'�'$ir`` •`�=a
i
��� , i'' C' a tet•' ; _ ,, ''--rn
r �, � •� ��. � r s:� , 5e i•
tp
� �iY/�j �I I HJ3Ywtiif�"� .• T......... _ `\y�g� -i i qR� Co
O
Ate
co
ol
Z6ngg �-29e.21 Soo72'se'w-,� .... — — 4 —'Cr,n.,.KT>..•. — — — m;�1•.,,r,,�
aD
V�i9ag•'3,10
+�e l I I ,..a-xw�:=6 if�__l i.�^ yI sc•e•7
I m
�I y1 1 ;I 1• i ,/b r,+
1 &Ila 0
I / >
I L
;1 IB u
1�1 ;I I�'aaa111•m -fl
I 101 a..0
C • - I 1248.95 500'07'38-w I -
r PGO
0 En
n £�o �
/ a
00
-IJ,
^�_ :sem��:s°� Via? '�mgg,,�'•{�"I`a$~'!�"'� •,� -
av
cj
:
3 J�l is,s,� 6'Y '•�� -^ 1 L��..�,Y��` I `�
I "yY it �:•:.�:'.'``/ p 1 �{..-�%:ws �1 ap
/ _/ • ��� 11��. 1 v4o,YfT-=�(fy 1� 4-��V ��� 4�� � ��F,. - Y�6
+`' s�>o- ii,?� i>xi. yFa�,✓r'-,'1 ,.5._,..61
-�>,��.;
�4t�9/ ?' .ka I �Y:;F,`�v�s' d�;C� :� �i'� "avirt-4 '���--sS,�;a '•I�q;; I�e �J^Iw:
4+"r / 1�xs.4• i r9lKi
"i � i
I I Iia y e
Rig
r '`•.. - I I .> T'i our u"vvnc,.'P-♦ '\7 � ''I
-------------Y�_•L YI I I I — _ ^ qrr — — — 1 —9l\R:'1 �
W ,'•.\
C� I 9N ry1 I LJlE7 1�%-
G I 9
r�yR3 > I I f R4
� U
I I i -Ray6�vt lroyylyx g - y
x�ljj Illy �i- 1 ~ 1)
PkI
"10 ta
d �1
R"LY tl _ /`
L@@ 1 i lb Cil
4q�,/�
ISI .1, �Nr >
— 1249.94 SOO'07 3B"W« I or
suwss nmsutts.mum I �``--11
SS SgF n
�a110"1-,A
;n �o
-
tinm
�eFIE
8A A -� 99
io
Z.
A Ra. w a
�S S 89S YY 68 d9 'n
w;9 144 41 99 H ¢ s
A g? ENDRES PROPERTIES 2ND ADDITION James R. Hill, Inc.
RMMOUNT,MNNM'R
$ eg ? S" PRELIMINARY PLAT / /
o� PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS
V o' s g m ENDRES ROSEMOUNT HOLDINGS LLC
i
1120 CC 1—M BLVD.R06CMO 11 wNNC501N 55069 �v3L]L.q/b_fP= Rwf:(Af)11]-IIY ryN)M-I]Y
IaR]SV Dcc 10-
/
g
1
......
C � I I `•...Z \\
l 11 a \\
I
I
11 1
11 II I
1 1 I I I Il�
11 II �
41
-
- ► D< .
Eg
- e N - a
p�
L2 H
pfb
gg�-- EN
DRES PROPERTIES 2ND ADDITION
RosEuoJames R. Hill, Inc,
pk $ d A A lmr.u uaEso>'A
e e g a a w COs z PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN PLANNERS/ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS
o \ oR s.Ki�.B.eWaw 51111
9 F ENDRES ROSEMOUNT HOLDINGS LLC
O j i
13420 CO"RUSE BLVD,R.——.—MIA 55060 om.�'�� ..ex�P9— viwnL 11 6111 9 1-.18 K'(lulfll-U.l
02/07/2006 TUE 14:51 FAX 651 582 1010 ST MN TR.9NSPORTATION 1x002/003
a�clot 5prQ0C: Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan District
oFTaPaWaters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville MN 55113-3174
February 7,2006
Mr. James Sturm
James R. Hill, Inc. f.J
PIanners/Engineers
2500 West County Road 42, Suite 120
Burnsville,MN 55337
SUBJECT: Endres Properties 2"d Addition—Follow up letter
1!ULMOT Review#P 05-107A
Northeast side of Trunk Highway(TH) 55,east of Chicago and Northwestern
(Union Pacific)Railroad
Rosemount,Dakota County
Control Section 1910
Dear Mr. Strum:
You had requested a letter from Mn/DOT to address the "time"element as to when the turn lanes
needed to be constructed for the above-referenced development. I refer you to the Mn/DOT letter
dated December 27,2005,Review#P05-107A, enclosed,which addressed the timing issue.
When a developer needs a Mn/DOT permit,the permit must be applied for, and issued,prior to
the time that the"work"begins,for which the permit was required. A new access permit is
required by law before the proposed additional volumes of traffic begin using the existing
driveway. Typically,before a city issues a building permit,the city assures itself that the building
permit applicant has a legal access to a development site. In this case, the Mn/DOT access
permit will require that Left Turn Lanes and Right Tum Lanes are to be completed before the
new buildings are completed.
If you have further questions on this process, I suggest that you contact Lars Impola, Mn/DOT
Metro District Traffic Engineering, at (651) 634-2379, and/or Buck Craig, Mn/DOT Metro
District Roadway Regulations Supervisor(Permits Office),at(651) 582-1447
Please address all future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to:
Development Review Coordinator
Mn/DOT-Metro Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville,Minnesota 55113
Mn./DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2)
copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a
plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay
Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. If you happen to know the property
PID#, please include that with your submittal.
02/07/2006 TUE 14:51 FAX 651 582 1010 ST MN TRANSPORTATION Q003/003
We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this
will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals.
Feel free to contact me at(651) 634-2083 if you have any questions regarding this review letter_
incerely,
ke kd�f
Mary McNeff
Transportation Planner
Enclosure: Mn/DOT letter dated December 27,2005,Review#P05-107A
Cc: Todd Tollefson,Dakota County Surveyor
Chris Remus,James R.Hill,Inc. Burnsville,MN
Amy Domeier, City of Rosemount Planning Secretary
Copies to Mn/DOT Metro District files: Mn/DOT Division File C.S. 1910
Mn/DOT LGL File—City of Rosemount
Blind copies distributed via Groupwise: Tod Sherman
Nancy Daubenberger
Lars Impola Buck Craig
Todd Tollefson
Dakota County Surveyor
14955 Galaxie Avenue
Apple Valley,MN 55124
Mr.Chris Remus
James R.Hill,Inc.
Planners/Engineers
2500 West County Road 42,Suite 120
Burnsville,MN 55337
Amy Domeier
Planning Secretary
City of Rosemount
City Hall 2875—145`h Street West
Rosemount,MN 55068-4997
amy.domeiergei.rosemount.mn.us
02/07/2006 TUE 14:39 FAX 651 582 1010 ST MN TRANSPORTATION 1x004/005
osO� Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan District
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville MN 55113-3174
December 27, 2005
Kim Lindquist
Community Development Director
City of Rosemount
City Hall 2875— 145`h Street West
Rosemount,MN 55068 -4997
SUBJECT: . ]Endres Properties 2"d Addition—Re-subnnittal
Mn/DOT Review A P 05-107A
Northeast side of Trunk Highway(TH) 55,east of Chicago and'Northwestern
(Union Pacific)Railroad
Rosemount,Dakota County
Control Section 1910
Dear Ms.Lindquist:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation(Mn/DOT)-has reviewed the above-referenced plat
in compliance.with Minnesota Statute 505.03 Subdivision 2,Plats: Before any further
development,please address the following comments:
Traffic:
Thank you for providing the Traffic Study,which bbnfiims that the left turn lanes are
- needed. Please modify the
Pman sheet included_ ni the traffic study to adhere to the i
following:
1) The Mn/DOT standard to develop aleft-tum-lane(LTL)is to use a speed:
1 taper to shift the mainline
. p traffic.over. The standard full width for a
LTL is 13', for a length of 300'.
2) The Mn/DOT standard for right-turn lane.(RTL) is.a full 12'width,for a
length of 300'plus a 15:1 taper.
For the westbound approach to the driveway our standards listed above must be
met.
For the eastbound approach the LTL should have a full width for 300'. The length
of the taper for the.LTL and the tapering out of the EB mainline traffic should be
maximized with a starting point
on the cast side of the
RR tracks.
Please note that an in-place signing plan, an in-place's trip ing plan, a proposed
signing plan, and a proposed signing plan are required for the access permit. For
questions on these points,.please call Lars.Impola, Mn/DOT Metro District
Traffic Engineering, at(651) 634-2379.
An equal opportunity employer
02/07/2006 TUE 14:39 FAX 651 582 1010 ST MN TRANSPORTATION [ 005/005
Permits:
■ A Mn/DOT permit will be required for the water main connection. Mn/DOT Form 1723
is available from the website listed below. A Mn1D0T access permit will also be
required because of the change in land usero osed for the new
P P development. The
Access Permit application must '
PP include plans showing the required right turn lane and
bypass lane, including signing ngand
stuping. Any use of or work within or affecting
Mn/DOT right of way requires a permit.Permit forms are available from MnDOT's
utility website at www.dot.state.mn.us/tecsW/utility. Please direct
any questions
regarding Permit requirements to Buck Craig (651_582-1447)ofMnDOT's MetroPermits Section.
The City should work with the developer in requiring the major improvements
that are needed at these intersections, which are development driven. Any
improvements will be the financial responsibility of the City, developer, or both.
Please address all future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to:
Development Review Coordinator
Mn/DOT-Metro Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville,Minnesota 55113
Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2)
copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a
plat and/or two (2)copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay
Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. If you happen to know the property
PID#, please include that with your submittal. We appreciate your anticipated.cooperation in
providing.the necessary number of copies, as this will, prevent us from having to delay and/or
retum incomplete submittals.
Feel free to contact me at(651)634-2083 if you have any questions regarding this review letter.
cereiy,
Juanita Voigt
Transportation Planner
Cc: Todd Tollefson,Dakota County Surveyor
Chris Remus,James R.Hill,Inc.Burnsville,MN
Amy Domeier, City of Rosemount Planning Secretary
Copies to MaWT Metro Division files: WDOT Division File C.S.1910
M&DOT LGL File—'City of Rosemount
Blind copies distributed via Groupwise: Tod Shenuan Cindy Carlsson
Ken Llung Nancy Daubenberger
Lars hupola Buck Craig
Ann Braden
BENSHOOI= & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD, SUITE TWO/HOPKINS, MN 55343/(952)238-1667/FAX(952)238-1671
December 2, 2005 Refer to File: 05-93
MEMORANDUM
TO: Leon Endres, Rosemount Holdings, LLC
FROM: Jim Benshoof fJ�
RE: Traffic Study for Proposed Industrial Subdivision in City of Rosemount
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
The purpose of this memorandum is to present the results of a traffic study we have
completed for the industrial subdivision you have proposed for your property in the City
of Rosemount. As shown in Figure 1, the site is located on the north side of TH 55 east
of the TH 52/TH 55 interchange. Your proposal would create two new parcels for
industrial development, in addition to the existing processing facility that occupies the
remainder of your property.
The primary purpose of this traffic study is to respond to questions and comments raised
by Mary McNeff of Mn/DOT in a letter to Kim Lindquist of the City in a letter dated
October 12, 2005. In this letter, Mr. McNeff requested information regarding traffic
forecasts resulting from the proposed subdivision. Also, Mr. McNeff expressed an
opinion that left turn lanes would be needed on TH 55 at the site access location.
As previously mentioned, the proposed subdivision would create two new parcels on
your property for industrial development. Figure 2 shows these two new lots, together
with your existing development. Lot 1 would be on the north side of the existing
driveway serving your site. Access to this lot would be provided via one driveway that
would connect to your existing driveway. For traffic analysis purposes, we have assumed
that development on Lot 1 would consist of 5,600 square feet of office space and 31,430
square feet of warehouse space. Lot 2 would be on the south side of the existing
driveway serving your site. Access would be provided via two driveways that would
connect with your existing driveway. Development on this lot is expected to consist of
4,961 square feet of office space and 28,342 square feet of warehouse space. We should
mention that the above development statistics for the two lots are preliminary and are
subject to change. However, the types and sizes of uses assumed for the traffic analysis
result in conservatively high trip generation projections.
i3 117th ST. E. U 0
\ APPROXIMATE SCALE
--- 0 2000
�O
qo
i=
dD
A�
Ltio' �
�0
W}�
SF
.s'
L}v
PROJECT Pry
LOCATION
52
55 ul
Li
0th ST. E.
4
FI*FR S
fq
c
142nd ST. E. 42
u 12 145th ST.E. @
ROSEMOUNT
HOLDINGS, LLC TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 1
PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL
Min SUBDIVISION IN PROJECT LOCATIONBENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES,INC. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
Mr. Leon Endres -3- December 2, 2005
EXIST
00 IUILDI 109
hyo'•.�\.� on
\3..\ '•'�\\\`.`moi.. '�`'\ �\ +��. l
1]
`•`� �'��� ���. � `°^rte _
APPROXIMATE SCALE �, o
0 250'
SOURCE:DRAWING PROVIDED BY JAMES R.HILL,INC.
ROSEMOUNT TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 2
HOLDINGS, LLC PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL
SUBDIVISION IN OVERALL
BENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES, INC. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERSANDPLANNERS
Mr. Leon Endres -4- December 2, 2005
It is anticipated that full development of the two lots will be completed in about two
years. Thus, in accordance with standard practice for this type of study, our traffic
analysis has been completed for the year 2008, one year after expected full completion.
It is important to emphasize that development on the two new parcels will not change
existing access on TH 55. No new driveways are being proposed on TH 55. All access
for the two new parcels will be provided by the existing private driveway on TH 55,
which is opposite the driveway that presently serves the SKB site.
EXISTING ROADWAY AND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
TH 55 is a Principal Arterial and has a 55 mph speed limit at the location of the site
access. Both the site access and the driveway on the opposite side of TH 55, which
serves the SKB site, are subject to stop sign control. Traffic on TH 55 has the right-of-
way. Southbound traffic on TH 55 has one lane that serves through movements and left
turns into the subject site and one lane for right turns into the SKB site. Northbound
traffic on TH 55 has one lane that serves left turn movements into the SKB site and
through movements and a second lane, which presently is undesignated. Thus, this
second lane presently serves right turns into the subject site, as well as a bypass lane for
northbound through movements.
In order to address questions raised by Mn/DOT staff, turning movement traffic counts
were recorded at the intersection of TH 55 with the site access and SKB driveway. These
volumes were recorded during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods on a typical weekday,
Tuesday,November 1, 2005. The resultant existing volumes are presented later, along
with the traffic forecasts.
PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
From inquiries with Mn/DOT staff, we have learned that plans have been prepared to
eventually relocate TH 55 away from its present alignment along the site frontage. As we
understand, the plans would involve use of existing CSAH 42 for movements between
the north and east on TH 55. When implemented, the existing segment of TH 55 between
TH 52 and CSAH 42, including the site access location, would become just a local
roadway.
According to Mn/DOT staff, this improvement for TH 55 is not in Mn/DOT's current 10
year work program, and no funds presently have been allocated for this work. Mn/DOT
staff commented that this improvement likely would occur sometime in the next 15 to 20
years.
Since the subject segment of TH 55 is expected to remain a State Highway and Principal
Arterial for the next 15 to 20 years, the traffic analysis is based on these conditions.
Mr. Leon Endres -5- December 2, 2005
TRAFFIC FORECASTS
To address traffic implications of the proposed subdivision, traffic forecasts have been
prepared both for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. From counts recorded at the site access
intersection on TH 55, the a.m. peak hour occurs from 7:00 to 8:00 a.m., and the p.m.
peak hour occurs from 4:45 to 5:45 p.m. In addition to establishing the existing volumes
from actual counts on a typical weekday, traffic forecasts have been prepared for 2008
without the development and 2008 with the proposed development.
For the purpose of projecting growth in traffic volumes on TH 55 by 2008 without the
development, we referred to volumes recorded on this segment of TH 55 every two years
since 1996. From this historic volume data, we learned that traffic volumes on this
segment of TH 55 have increased at an average annual rate of 4.34 percent. Projecting
this trend for the next three years, we have anticipated that the through volumes on TH 55
in 2008 will be 1.135 times the existing volumes.
The next step is to project the trips generated by the anticipated new development. The
number of trips generated by the new development has been estimated using trip
generation rates presented in the following publication: "Trip Generation, 7`h Edition,"
Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. For the a.m. and p.m. peals hours and on a
daily basis, the results are presented in the following table:
LOT AND A.M. PEAK HOUR P.M. PEAK HOUR DAILY
USES IN OUT IN I OUT RATE TRIPS
RATE TRIPS RATE TRIPS RATE TRIPS RATE TRIPS
Lot 1
Office— 1.36 8 0.19 1 0.25 1 1.24 7 11.01 62
5,600 sq. ft.
Warehouse— 0.37 12 0.08 2 0.12 4 0.35 11 4.96 156
31,430 sq. ft.
Lot 2
Office— 1.36 7 0.19 1 0.25 1 1.24 6 11.01 55
4,961 sq. ft.
Warehouse— 0.37 10 0.08 2 0.12 3 0.35 10 4.96 140
28,342 sq. ft.
Totals 37 6 9 34 413
The new development trips from the preceding table then were distributed to and from
the northwest and southeast on TH 55 in accordance with existing turning movements at
the site access location.
The resultant traffic volume projections for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours are shown in
Figure 3.
Mr. Leon Endres -6- December 2, 2005
A.M. PEAK HOUR
ss � pJ5
9Ci
� ►�j c�j\ P�pP�JP
OP
N
EXISTING (2005)
2008 WITHOUT
DEVELOPMENT
NOT TO SCALE 2008 WITH
RM. PEAK HOUR F�— DEVELOPMENT
XX/XX/XX
� Wyss \•'`\�� oJS�
�Q r0
�7
fp � O/O�� �oc9i
ro\
lroQ
SA � 4
FUPTRANSPORTATION
OSEMOUNT TRAFFIC STUDY FOR
LDINGS, LLC PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL FIGURE 3
SUBDIVISION IN TRAFFIC FORECASTS
BEN &ASSOCIATES, INC. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
ENGINEERSANDPLANNERS
Mr. Leon Endres -7- December 2, 2005
TRAFFIC ANALYSES
To effectively address traffic questions raised by Mn/DOT and City representatives, our
analyses have focused on the following two questions:
a) Is a left turn lane needed on TH 55 to safely accommodate increased traffic
associated with the proposed development? If yes, what basic improvements
are needed on TH 55 through the site access intersection?
b) What layout and/or traffic control modifications should be made to the
existing site driveway so that this driveway can effectively serve the two new
developments, as well as the existing processing facility?
To address whether a left turn lane is needed on TH 55, we referred to policies and
guidelines presented in the Mn/DOT Road Design Manual. In applying this resource, we
determined that a left turn lane is needed on TH 55 to serve the development site during
both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. As shown in Figure 3, projected left turn volumes
from the northwest on TH 55 into the subject site are not very high—32 vehicles in the
a.m. peak hour and 10 vehicles in the p.m. peak hour. Nonetheless, a left turn lane is
warranted due to the high through volumes on TH 55.
In order to meet applicable design standards, a left turn needs to be provided for both
directions of traffic flow on TH 55. It is not desirable to provide a left turn lane in just
one direction. Given these circumstances, we have prepared a preliminary layout shown
in Figure 4 to illustrate the widening on TH 55 needed to create left turn lanes in both
directions at the site access location. Three important points regarding the layout shown
in Figure 4 are:
a) The left tum lanes can be created through slight widening on the southwest
side of TH 55 north of the SKB driveway and slight widening on the northeast
side of TH 55 south of the site driveway.
b) No additional right-of-way is needed to accomplish the widening mentioned
in point a).
c) Construction of the left turn lanes will not alter the existing auxiliary lanes on
TH 55 southeast of the railroad crossing—a truck stopping lane in the
northwest-bound direction and a truck acceleration lane in the southeast-
bound direction.
The next analysis item pertains to the layout and traffic controls for the site driveway to
determine what, if any, changes are needed for this driveway to serve the two new
development parcels plus the existing processing facility. Our first observation on this
point is to agree with a City staff comment that this roadway should remain a private
driveway, not be converted into a public street. Cross-access easements should be
established so that all three parcels have legal use of this driveway for their access to and
from TH 55.
Mr. Leon Endres -9- December 2, 2005
Following our review of the preliminary site plan, we suggested that this plan be revised
to create a form of T intersection just northeast of TH 55. At this T intersection, the
south leg would connect with TH 55, the west leg would be the driveway to serve Lot 1,
and the east leg would be the driveway to serve the existing processing facility and Lot 2.
To provide safe traffic operation at this intersection and to prevent the possibility that
incoming traffic would back onto TH 55, traffic control at this T intersection would
consist of stop signs on both the west and east legs (for traffic exiting from the
development in both directions). Traffic entering the site from TH 55 would have the
right-of-way and could turn right or left without having to yield to other vehicles.
The current development plan includes the preceding recommendations for the site
driveway, as shown in Figure 5.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analyses presented in this memorandum, we are confident that safe and
efficient traffic operation will be experienced following completion of the proposed two
new development parcels, provided that left turn lanes are constructed on TH 55 as
shown in Figure 4 and that the recommended layout and traffic control for the site
driveway are implemented. It is important to emphasize that the need for left turn lanes
on TH 55 is driven by the high through volumes, State Highway jurisdiction, and
Principal Arterial function of this highway. Left turn lanes would not be needed if this
segment of TH 55 were realigned to CSAR 42 in accordance with current long-term
plans.
z
w
d
cz
�
O ZOz
OcZ) d w
Z W
V— = � � zOwad � u
w co wWO J
O Q I
),VM2AW(I +
CEO
o ? o o
SJNIaIOH a L) ? = o
1NnOWSSOa J. AA3AIHa W �-' �- z w z
8>iS ? Oz Q ? - p w i
0 ct w z
0 W: M
i�
I
w
U 'Om
WNW
F
-Z 0
a �
+ a o
I
I �
A
1
b
+ f
I
I
I
I
I �
I I u7
L
LO
' II �
II
I 1
I
I
q
gg5
PI
R R I
I
I I
I
awl 11111 uun+I o-n+ y y
Mr. Leon Endres -10- December 2, 2005
-F 7
--------_
X4b
5 5:;
ti
N
APPROXIMATE SCALE
RECOMMENDED EDGE OF DRIVEWAY
SOURCE:BASE DRAWING PROVIDED BY JAMES R.HILL,INC.
F' BENSHOOF
OSEMOUNT TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 5
LDINGS, LLC PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL
SUBDIVISION IN PLAN FOR ACCESS
&ASSOCIATES,INC. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT TO/FROM TI-I 55
ORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
Pearson,Rick
From: Pat Lynch [pat.lynch@dnr.state.mn.us]
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 3:20 PM
To: Pearson,Rick
Subject: Endres Properties 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat, Hwy 55,Mississippi River Critical Area
I am in possession of a set of plans relative to the subject zoning matter. This plan set
was originally addressed to Ms. Sandra Fecht of the DNR, who previously reviewed such
matters located within the Mississippi River Critical Area. That Critical Area work (in
Dakota County) once performed by Ms. Fecht is now my responsibility. I have little
familiarity with the CA program and will be getting myself up to speed as quickly as I
can.
Prior to receiving the set of plans I currently have, I have met with Sandy and the
property owner to discuss the proposal. This occurred perhaps two years ago. I am
generally familiar with the site from past visits and air photo review.
I appreciated the opportunity to sit down with you at your office last Wednesday, October
19th to go over the plans in some detail. My comments on the proposed plat are brief and
as follows:
Sheet PP1 indicates a maximum building height of 75 feet. Please confirm that this is
correct for the river district the site is located in.
Parcel 1 shows an alternative septic drainfield site located northwest of a significant
bluff/steep slope area. How would they propose to get across these sensitive slopes with
the sewer pipes without jeopardizing the integrity of the slope or vegetation?
Is there adequate area and site conditions to provide stormwater ponding to address both
stormwater quantity and quality? Please have your Engineering Department look at this
carefully.
The gully on Parcel 1 is proposed to be filled slightly at its head (top) . This appears
to significantly aid in the creation of a building pad. The Dakota Soil & Water
Conservation District provided an air photo and on-site review of this site. It looks as
if the gully on Parcel 1 has developed since the area was settled, most likely on response
to changes on the land use. I'm not opposed to minor filling of the upper portion of this
gully as depicted on the drawing. If done properly, it could benefit the area by
controlling erosion and sedimentation and stopping the current gully from continuing to
cut itself back towards Courthouse Blvd. Details would need to be provided as to exactly
how the gully would be partially filled, and how water would be conveyed to the
depressional area in the center of Parcel 1 without creating a new erosion problem.
If you identify any inconsistencies with this plan with respect to the city's Critical
Area requirements, please bring them to my attention.
Thanks again for taking the time to sit and discuss this matter with me. Let me know of
the outcome on this as well, please.
1
Public Hearing:
5b. 05-40-PUD Endres Properties 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat and PUD Concept Plan.
Mr. Pearson reviewed the staff report. Endres Rosemount Holdings,LLC owns over 50 acres
of land for the Endres processing plant along the east side of State Highway 55 across from the
SKB landfill. The Endres facility occupies about 10 acres of the site. The balance of the
property is undeveloped except for "The Adventure Zone", a commercial outdoor recreational
use for paintball games. Leon Endres has applied for concept PUD approval and a preliminary
plat to subdivide the property and sell two lots for industrial use along State Highway 55. Mr.
Pearson added that an additional condition for prohibition of outdoor storage of Lots 1 and 2 is
suggested by staff.
Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Pearson.
Chairperson Messner asked if the applicant would like to come forward.
Leon Endres, 1411 Ridgewood Court, Hastings, stated he opposed the addition of Condition 16
regarding the prohibition of outdoor storage. Based upon not knowing the end use of the
parcels, he preferred the restriction not be placed on the parcels. Chairperson Messner noted on
page 8 of the staff report that the prohibition of outdoor is referenced. Chairperson Messner
asked what process the applicant would have to do to amend the condition. Mr. Pearson
explained that there is an amendment procedure and the scale of the amendment determines if a
public hearing is required.
Carol Eiden, attorney for Endres Properties questioned if the outdoor storage issue could be
addressed at the Master Development Plan level rather than an outright prohibition.
Chairperson Messner stated he understood the concern.
Leon Endres further added that the turn lanes will be a substantial improvement already in turn
for the PUD.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Powell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schultz. Ayes: All.
Nayes: None. Motion approved.
Chairperson Messner asked the Commission for any additional follow-up comments or
questions. Chairperson Messner stated he supports the addition of Condition 16 simply because
based upon the concept plan the type of use proposed is not determined and there is the ability
to amend the plan.
MOTION by Messner to recommend that the City Council approve the Concept PUD and
Preliminary Plat for Endres Second Addition subject to:
1. Final development or recording of the final plat of any parcel is contingent of City
approval of a site plan,PUD Master Development Plan and execution of a PUD
agreement.
2. After approval of the PUD Master Plan and recording of a PUD agreement,
conformance with the requirements of final plat including recording of a subdivision
development agreement.
3. Approval of the Minnesota Department of Transportation including the following
detailed in the December 27, 2005 correspondence:
• The plans shall be revised in conformance with design and dimensional standards for the
westbound and eastbound approach to Street"A".
• The developer shall be responsible for all MnDOT required permits and the costs
associated with the required improvements to the highway.
4. Plan revisions to Street "A" and the entrance to Lot 1 may be required to reduce
conflicts resulting from left turning movements to Lot 1 causing traffic to back up into
TH 55.
5. An association shall be formed for the 3 lots to share maintenance and replacement
responsibilities for Street"A",located on Lot 3. Street"A" shall be located in a
driveway easement with cross-access rights for Lots 1 &2 and a joint maintenance
agreement for Street"A"recorded in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
6. Prior to the recording of plats, the conditional use permit for the "Adventure Zone"
commercial outdoor recreational use shall be rescinded. Any costs associated with the
rescission shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
7. Incorporation of comments by the City Engineer regarding drainage, easements,grading,
streets and utilities including:
• Wetland requirements shall be met in accordance with the City's Comprehensive
Wetland Management Plan (CWMP). This includes but is not limited to the following:
a. Approval of wetland delineation report.
b. Preparation of a RoseRAM function and value assessment.
c. Establishment of wetland buffer in accordance with CWMP.
d. Conservation easement for wetland buffer area.
• Detailed storm sewer information shall be shown on the plans including size,type and
elevations.
• Provide appropriate drainage and utility easements for stormwater conveyance and
ponding system.
• Development charges will be required as follows with a final plat:
a. Trunk Water Area charges for Lots 1 and 2 at a rate of$4420/acre.
b. Trunk Storm Water Area charges for Lots 1, 2, and 3 at a rate of$6200/acre.
c. GIS Fees for Lots 1,2, and 3 at a rate of$120/acre.
• The storm water management plan for the site shall be developed in accordance with the
requirements of the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan.
8. Variances from the MRCCA Bluff setback requirements are not permitted for the
parking lot on Lot 1. The PUD Master Plan shall clearly indicate the edge of paving and
the MRCCA protected bluff area for verification of the required setback.
9. The proposed hydrant locations must be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal.
10. The PUD Concept does not guarantee building size,land uses or any reductions of
General Industrial or MRCCA setback or lot dimensional standards.
11. The PUD Master Plan will have to provide sufficient parking based upon ordinance
standards for industrial uses through plan revisions, building size reductions or proof-of-
parking.
12. Incorporation of comments from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
relative to the regulations of the Mississippi River Critical Corridor District.
13. Park dedication as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Director shall be in the
form of cash contribution for Industrial subdivisions as established in the current fee
schedule.
14. The Lot 1 drainfield will accommodate up to 2,460 gallons per day and the Lot 2
drainfield will accommodate up to 2,530 gallons per day of water suitable for a septic
system. Process water that increases the amount or is not suitable for septic systems
must be treated separately and shall be the sole responsibility of the property owner.
15. Additional plantings will be required to include the tree preservation replacement
requirement in addition to the boulevard plantings shown on the preliminary plat, those
additional plantings shall include parking lot / pavement edges, the "panhandle" area of
Lot 2 and stabilize slope / bluff areas as appropriate.
16. Prohibition of outdoor storage on Lots 1 and 2.
Second by Powell. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion approved.
Mr. Pearson noted this item is tentatively scheduled for February Th City Council agenda,but
revisions to the plans are recommended prior to placement on the agenda.
ENDRES13420 Courthouse Boulevard
Rosemount, Minnesota 55068-2055
Innovative Processing of Food Waste Phone: (651)438-3113Fax:(651)438-3011
July 21, 2006
Kin Lindquist
Community Development Director
City of Rosemount
2875-145t' Street West
Rosemount, Minnesota 55068-4941
Re: City of Rosemount General Industrial and Heavy Industrial District Text Amendment and Draft
Zoning Map—Comments on Definition of Recycling Operation and Endres Uses
Dear Ms. Lindquist:
On July 13, 2006 we met with Eric Zweber and Jason Lindahl of the City Staff in connection with the
proposed text amendments to the General Industrial Zone. As you may recall, during the Planning
Commission Workshops we discussed several issues with you regarding our operations which we will
cover below.
The first issue is how the definition of recycling operations may or may not affect Endres Processing's
use as a permitted use in the proposed new revised zoning ordinance uses.
As you know, Endres Processing refines, compounds, stores, and processes organic materials or
products from raw or unprocessed food wastes and grains such as wheat, com,barley and other organic
products. We understand that based on conversations and the discussion by the Planning Commission
and by staff that the Endres Processing operations ("Processing Facility") would not be considered a
"Recycling Operation" in the context of the zoning text changes. Consequently, the use classification
would continue as manufacturing and a permitted use.
We believe that a text amendment to the definition of"recycling operation" would clarify the intent of
the City and help Endres and other manufacturers who in the manufacturing process, use "recycled"
materials and processes these materials into a new product.
To that end, we would like to propose the following text amendment to the definition of recycling
operation as defined in Section 11-1-4 of the Rosemount City Code. The current definition reads as
follows:
,,RECYCLING OPEIL4TION. an area where used, waste, discarded or salvaged materials are
bought, sold, exchanged, stored, baled, cleaned, packed, disassembled or handled, including,
but not limited to, scrap iron, and other metals,paper, rags, bottles and Zulazber. "
We would like the definition to be amended to read as follows:
Ms. Kim Lindquist
Page 2
"RECYCLING OPERATION: an area where used, waste, discarded or salvaged materials ,
are bought, sold, exchanged, stored, baled, cleaned, packed, disassembled or handled,
including, but not limited to, scrap iron, and other metals, paper, rags, bottles and lumber.
This definition specifically excludes manufacturers whose operations result in the manufacture
or production of new Uroducts. "
While we respect the City's desire to make the traditional recycling operations, salvage yards and scrap
yards as a conditional use, we do not believe our operations are the type of operations you are trying to
address with the ordinance. The difference we think can be addressed by changing the definition. We
yvant to make certain the current use continues as a permitted use. We would request that you send to
us a letter confirming the City's position that the Processing Facility is not a"recycling operation".
Second, as you know we are finalizing the plat of Endres Properties Second Addition. That plat
creates three lots — two lots along the highway (Lots 1 and 2, Block 1) and a third lot which is the
current Endres Processing Facility (Lot 3, Block 1). Our comments regarding this proceeding are
addressed in a companion letter. However, it was interesting to us to have our plat approval process on
a nearly parallel path with the proposed zoning changes both of which actions have a significant
impact on our property, the operations of our Processing Facility and the future growth and
development of our business in Rosemount.
Since 1997, with the help of the City through the establishment of the Endres Tax Increment Financing
District (the "TIF District") to its current operations, we have seen a steady growth of our business. It
is within that context that we looked at how the changes to the ordinance will affect our fixture growth.
We started wondering whether our long-range plans for the business operations would fit with the
inclusion of the Endres processing plant within the newly defined General Industrial ("GI") District,
and more specifically, if our operations were more aligned with the definition of heavy manufacturing
rather than medium manufacturing (as that set of uses is defined in the new ordinance). We addressed
that concern with you at several of the workshops. Each time both the staff and the Planning
Commission have concluded that our operations do not constitute the uses contemplated by the new
ordinance definition of Heavy Manufacturing.
While we believe that the two highway parcels will be properly included in the new GI district, we
believe, as several of our industrial neighbors have indicated to the City and that our operations at the
Processing Facility might fall more directly Linder the definition of Heavy Manufacturing, we are
willing to proceed in the General Industrial classification based upon the following understandings
with the City.
1. Currently, Endres Processing manufactures organic product which is used for poultry and hog
feed. However, our current research and development are leading us to believe that these swine
raw organic products in the future could be processed into fuel products. We are asking that
the City recognize that we have addressed this potential future use at this time.
2. In the redefined GI District we will have two conditions which will be affected and probably
create non-conforinities. These are both conditions germane to our heavier industrial
operational needs and will need to be addressed by the City as it changes the ordinance.
y
Ms. Kim Lindquist
Page 3
(a) The first relates to the new General Industrial District height limitation of 70 feet. We
currently have elevators, tanks and bins exceeding the 70 foot limitation. These
structures are integral to our business operations. We anticipate we may need other
structures which will be of similar or greater height. We believe the height should be
related to the pre-existing operational needs of the business. These structures are
—typica and necessary conditions in our industry. We have discussed this concern with '
st and they have suggested Endres seek a variance. We are requesting that the City
respond in writing that this is the correct procedure for the current and the future
conditions.
(b) The second condition relates to the limitation of outdoor structures to 15% of the floor
area of the building. Currently, Endres has outdoor structures which would measure
nearly 100% of the building floor area. These large unscreened outdoor structures
include conveyor belt systems, storage silos, tanks, a bag house filter system, tube and
shell heat exchanger and a bio mass burner. These outdoor structures are not able to be
integrated into the building design as the operation of these structures demand the
operational separation outside. Similarly this condition might create a non-conformity
under the new GI District.
We would like the City to address in writing that the Processing Facility use and operating conditions,
including the height, outdoor structures, outside storage and other conditions are permitted uses and if
a non-conformity exists, the procedure to establish conformity is a variance and that similarly, this
condition, in any event, would not be viewed negatively in any variance or future conditional use
request proceeding.
It is our hope that the City's efforts to provide standardization and uniformity in the zoning process
will not result in the restriction of the ability of our business and the businesses of our industrial
neighbors to operate in the manner necessary for their continued industrial growth and the continued
growth and development of the City of Rosemount.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at phone number (651) 438-3113, ext.
200 or contact Gary N. Petersen, the President of Endres Processing, at (651) 438-3113, ext. 109.
Very truly yours,
ENDRES PROCESSING,LLC
Leon J. Endres
cc: Eric Zweber, Senior Planner
Jason Lindahl,Assistant City Planner
Daniel R. Tyson
James Sturm