Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.a. Public Hearing for Easement Vacation - EndresAGENDA ITEM: 05 -40 -PUD Endres Properties 2 "d AGENDA SECTION: New Business Addition Preliminary Plat, and PUD Concept Plan PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber, AICP; Senior Planner AGENDA NO. 9a ATTACHMENTS: Rezoning Ordinance, Preliminary Plat Resolution, PUD Concept Plan Approval Resolution, Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Reductions, MnDOT Comments, Traffic Study, DNR comments, Excerpt from the Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt an ordinance rezoning GI, General Industrial PUD, and, Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat for Addition subject to conditions; and, Motion to adopt a resolution approving the PUD concept plan Holdings LLC for the property located at 13420 Courthouse Blvd the roperty to PUD Endres Properties 2nd for Endres Rosemount subject to conditions. 4 ROSEMOUN 1 CITY COUNCIL City Council Regular Meeting: July 11, 2006 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ISSUE Leon Endres has applied for PUD Concept Plan and Preliminary 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 facihty 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 piotect 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 fight 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 cornniit to a detailed Master Development Plan approval at this tune, until future owners and businesses for the new lots are identified. Pnor to development of the two new sites, Master Development Plan approval is regiured. 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 Indusmal 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 vanous 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 Apphcant 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 m 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 remauung for the Endres Facility Surrounding Land Uses Neighboring use Direction Zoning_& Comp Plan SIB Landfill South Waste Management (across TH 55) Spectro Alloys West General Indusmal (across RR tracks) C. F. Indusmes North General Ind. (across Pine Bend Tr.) Agriculture East Agriculture (former feedlot) Status of Planning Commission review /action: The Planning Commission initially opened the Pubhc 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 m the conditions of approval where necessary. 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 2 several tunes in response to issues identified by staff. REZONING Rezonmg to General Industrial Planned Unit Development also allows for flexibihty 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, lobs, and tax base. Because the site is difficult to develop, there is more open space associated with the parcels than other protects m the area. The MNRAA standards also impact the "buildability" of the property. Staff does not support flexibihty m 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 facihty 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. Bldq 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 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 vand, then the building with its expansion area consists of about 6% of the site according to the Dakota County parcel data. 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 altermg 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 3 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 m the ravine and the drainage swales that lead to the pond A wetland delineation, subsequest granting of Conservanon 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 utilvmg 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 dnveway 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 m width to accommodate semi traffic turning movements, it was not constructed to City standard for building materials and it 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 mgress 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 m street "A" that may cause conflicts with traffic entering the site. 2. Trip generation Information for the 3 lots and SKB are needed to determine if there are further turn lane needs 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 ruin lanes are required to be 300 feet long with additional space for taper. The lane widths are 13 feet for the left tum 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 parkmg 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 mdustual setbacks along Highway 55, "Sweet A the west property line and the MRCCA bluff setbacks. The dove aisle ahgrung 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 mdicate two areas designated for dram fields to serve the site The need for septic system dram field areas reduces the space available for the building envelope Two dramfield 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 dram 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 dramfield 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 dramfield 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 pet 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 and erosion control measures implemented to preserve the bluff. The intended result should stabilize the 5 bluff from further erosion. Further restrictions include a maximum of 12% slope allowed for dramfield location. This restriction was a factor in locating both the primary and secondary dramfield areas west of the building envelope Lot 1 has been revised several tunes to accommodate the dramfield 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 m the building footprint. If half of the warehouse space will actually be used for assembly, manufacturing or other processmg, 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 m 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 m 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 requned 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 m 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 m the filled gully area. 6 Outdoor storage No outdoor storage is shown on the plan The space beyond the building and parking envelope is either setbacks or designated dram 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 hmited to the area uphill of the protected bluff area for the building envelope and the parking and driveway. The site drams 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 m 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 dram 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°/o of the lot available for development of buildings and pavement. Lot 2 is not capable of supporting a buildmg 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 0 /0 minimum building requirement. Vanation 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 m the general mdustrial 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 hmited 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 processmg. There are a number of locations available for additional 7 parking that would not conflict with assumed loading dock locations. Landscaping Plan The landscaping plan indicates 21 trees located along the TH 55 frontage and lining the driveway entrance. As previously suggested, required tree preservauon 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 hke 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 dram 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 m 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 Drauifield information for the existing Endres fac 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 °/o 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 footprmt By subdividmg 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 m previous correspondence In 1998, the City Council included approved the rail spur in concept with their approval of the project. In hght of the concerns identified by the DNR, staff will provide additional background 8 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 build rig. DNR officials at the time were not opposed to the variance. 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 Total number of removed trees: 193 Total number of msigmficant trees removed: 149 Total number of significant trees removed: 44 193 Total number of replacement trees: 90 trees 100% 30% of total 77% of removed (box elder, elms cottonwoods) 23% of removed (oaks, cherries cedars). 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 apphed 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 venfy final numbers for tree removal and replacement PUD findings The following suggested findings m 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 m 1998, pnor to the adoption of the minimum building size requirement is capable of sustaining additional development of General Industnal 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 pnor 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 m return for the consideranons of PUD flexibility. Staff recommends that outdoor storage, display or sales is prohibited on Lots 1 and 2. 9 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. 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 occui The proposed action for vacation of existing easements elsewhere on the agenda allows the city to 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 m 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 distract 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 m 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 Concept Plan, Preliminary Plat, and Final Plat are found to be acceptable although significant details such as final grading, wetland delineation and final buildmg plans will be necessary for final site 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 approve 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 cntena such as the prohibition on 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 I, and Lot 3, Block 1 of Endres Properties 2 Addition Section 2. The Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount, referred to and described in said Ordinance No. B as that certain map entitled"Zonmg Map of the City of Rosemount," shall not be 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 11 day of July, 2006. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk William H. Droste, Mayor Published in the Rosemount Town Pages this day of 2006. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2006- A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR ENDRES PROPERTIES 2ND 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 into three industrial lots, legally described as: 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 2 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 11, 2006, the City Council approved the Preliminary Plat and PUD Concept Plan subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on July 11, 2006, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the preliminary plat and PUD Concept Plan application for Endres Properties 2 11d 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, Endres Properties 2' Addition, subdividing Lot 1, Block 1, Endres Properties Addition, Dakota County into Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Endres Properties 2 Addition, Dakota County, subject to: 1. Final development of any parcel is contingent of 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 Attomey. 4. The applicant submit a conservation easement over the site wetland and associated wetland buffer for staff review and approval. RESOLUTION 2006 5. Development charges shall be paid upon development of lot12 or lot 2 respectively. Payment of fees associated with lot 3 will be paid prior to release of the final plat. 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, 2, and 3 at a rate of $6200 /acre. c. GIS Fees for Lots 1, 2, and 3 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 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 2 occur. ADOPTED this 11 day of July, 2006 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk William H Droste, Mayor 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 into three industrial lots, legally described as: 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 2 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 11, 2006, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation and the Preliminary Plat and PUD Concept Plan applications for Endres Properties 2 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 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. 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. Payment of fees associated with lot 3 will be paid prior to release of the final plat 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, 2, and 3 at a rate of $6200 /acre. c. GIS Fees for Lots 1, 2, and 3 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 2. 8. The applicant 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 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. 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 11 day of July, 2006 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk William H. Droste, Mayor Motion by: Second by: Voted in favor: Voted against Member absent: 3 C y PROJECT NO I 21497 9 LE 2149]99 1 I._ =RII l ENDRES PROPERTIES 2ND ADDITION Wx, ..xx :o,. PRELIMINARY PLAT ENDRES�RCSEMOUNT HOLDINGS LLC James R. Hill, Inc. PLANERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS IP' C y /G.,Qa.. ENDRES PROPERTIES 2ND ADDITION PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN ENDRES ROSEMOUNT HOLDINGS LLC James R. Hill, Inc. °L>NNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS 1 02/07/2006 TUE 14.51 FAX 651 582 1010 ST MN TRANSPORTATION Metropolitan District Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B -2 Rosevr le MN 55113-317'4 February 7, 2006 Minnesota Department of Transportation Mr James Sturm James R Hill, Inc Planners /Engineers 2500 West Counry Road 42, Suite 120 Burnsville, MN 55337 Dear Mr. Strum: Development Review Coordinator Mn/DOT Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B -2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 An equal opportunity employer SUBJECT Endres Properties 2°" Addition Follow up letter Mn /DOT 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 You had requested a letter from Mn/DOT to address the "rime" 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 dnveway. 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 Turn Lanes are to be ompleted before the new buildings are completed If you have farther 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 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) cop:es 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 1002/003 02/07/2006 TUE 14 51 FAX 651 582 1010 ST MN TRANSPORTATION 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 l t etAtr 'Pe Mary McNeff Transportation Planner Enclosure: Mn/DOT letter dated December 27, 2005, Review PO5 -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: 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 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 4997 amy.domeier@cisosemount.mn.us Tod Sherman Nancy Daubenberger Lars Impola Buck Craig [{]J 003/003 02/07/2006 TUE 14 39 FAX 651 582 1010 ST MN TRANSPORTATION to Minnesota Department of Transportation Aw Metropolitan District Da' Waters Edge 1503 West County Road B -2 Roseville MN 55113-3174 December 27, 2005 Kim Lindquist Community Development Director City of Rosemount City Hall 2875 145' Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 4997 SUBJECT: Endres Properties 2n Addition —Re- submittal Mii/DOT Review it P 05 -107A Northeast side of Tnmk 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 confirms that the left turn lanes are needed. Please modify the plan sheet mcluded in the traffic study to adhere to the following: 1) The Mn/DOT standard to develop a left-turn-lane (LTL) is to use a speed: 1 taper to shift the mainline 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 east side of the RR tracks. Please note that an in -place signing plan, an in -place striping plan, a proposed sign.ing plan, and a proposed signing plan are required for the access permit. For questions on these points, please call Lars Impola, Mu/DOT Metro District Traffic Engineering, at (651) 634 -2379. An equal opportunity employer Z004/005 02/07/2006 TUE 14 :39 FAX 651 582 1010 ST MN TRANSPORTATION Permits; A Mil/DOT permit will be required for the water main connection. Mn/DOT Form 1723 is available from the website listed below A Mit/DOT access permit will also be required because of the change in land use proposed for the new development. The Access Permit application must include plans showing the required right tam lane and bypass lane, including signing and striping 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 /tecsup /utility. Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (651 582 -1447) of MnDOT's Metro Permits Section. Please address all future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to: erely, 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. 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 MnDDOT's review and response to development proposals. If you happen to know the property 19D 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 return incomplete submittals Feel free to contact me at (651) 634 -2083 if you have any questions regarding this review letter. Juanita Voigt Transportation Planner 7,7P Cc: Todd Tollefson, Dakota County Surveyor Chris Remus, James R. Hill, Inc Burnsville, MN Amy Domeier, City of Rosemount Planning Secretary Copies to MD/DOT Metro Division files: Mn+DOT Dinsron Ft:e C S. 1910 Ma+DOT I.GL File City of Rosemount Blind copies distributed via Groupwise: Tod Sherman Ken Ljung Lars Impala Ana Braden Cindy Carlsson Nancy Daubeaberger Buck Craig Ph 005/005 BENSHOOF 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 cA 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 industnal 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 dnveway. 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 dnveways 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 tnp generation projections. PROJECT LOCATION ROSEMOUNT HOLDINGS, LLC BENSHOOF ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERSANGPLANNERS TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION IN CITY OF ROSEMOUNT FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION Mr. Leon Endres APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 250' iit SOURCE: DRAWING PROVIDED BY JAMES R. HILL, INC. ROSEMOUNT HOLDINGS, LLC BENSHOOF ASSOCIATES, INC. rRANSPORTATION ENGINEERSAND PLANNERS -3- TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION IN CITY OF ROSEMOUNT December 2, 2005 FIGURE 2 OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Mr. Leon Endres EXISTING ROADWAY AND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS -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 pnvate driveway on TH 55, which is opposite the driveway that presently serves the SKB site 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 tums 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 nght 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 dunng the a.m and p.m. peak penods on a typical weekday, Tuesday, November 1, 2005 The resultant existing volumes are presented later, along with the traffic forecasts. PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS From inquines 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. LOT AND USES A M PEAK HOUR P M PEAK HOUR DAILY IN OUT IN OUT RATE TRIPS RATE TRIPS RATE TRIPS RATE TRIPS RATE TRIPS Lot 1 Office— 5,600 sq ft. 1.36 8 0.19 1 0.25 1 1.24 7 1101 62 Warehouse 31,430 sq. ft. 0.37 12 0.08 2 0.12 4 0 35 11 4.96 156 Lot 2 Office 4,961 sq. ft. 1.36 7 0 19 1 0.25 1 1.24 6 11.01 55 Warehouse 28,342 sq. ft. 0.37 10 0 08 2 0 12 3 0.35 10 4.96 140 Totals 37 6 9 34 413 Mr. Leon Endres TRAFFIC FORECASTS -5- December 2, 2005 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 ofprojecting 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 histonc 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 tnp generation rates presented in the following publication: "Trip Generation, 7th Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003 For the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and on a daily basis, the results are presented in the following table: The new development tnps 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 N NOT TO SCALE a poyo A.M. PEAK HOUR P.M. PEAK HOUR 40 Oit 70 9/ Q O .9 EXISTING (2005) 2008 WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT 2008 WITH I DEVELOPMENT XX/XX /XX ROSEMOUNT HOLDINGS, LLC BENSHOOF 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATI 0 N ENGINE ERS AND PLANNERS TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION IN CITY OF ROSEMOUNT FIGURE 3 TRAFFIC FORECASTS J Mr. Leon Endres TRAFFIC ANALYSES -7- December 2, 2005 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 dnveway so that this dnveway can effectively serve the two new developments, as well as the existing processing facility? To address whether a left tum 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 tuna lane is warranted due to the high through volumes on TH 55. In order to meet applicable design standards, a left tum 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 prelirmnary 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 nght -of -way is needed to accomplish the widening mentioned in point a). c) Construction of the left tum 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 dnveway 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 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 dnveway to serve Lot 1, and the east leg would be the dnveway 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 TI3 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 entenng the site from TH 55 would have the nght -of -way and could turn nght 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 -9- December 2, 2005 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 dnven by the high through volumes, State Highwayjunsdiction, and Pnncipal Artenal function of this highway. Left turn lanes would not be needed if this segment of TH 55 were realigned to CSAI -I 42 in accordance with current long-term plans. AVM3AIHo SONIOIOH SNf1OW2SOH a vMBAIHd BNS 1' 1 10 V 0 W c Z O O Z j 0 N a 2 W tat OO Q WO 0 ¢u_ ZW F¢0 v wz ')nI na 000 LU 5-1 LT QZz ft T. cC F- z 0 Z ui H 0 w o z CO z m 0 a O 1- =f z u z m F co Mr. Leon Endres APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 80' SOURCE, BASE DRAWING PROVIDED BY JAMES R. HILL, INC. RECOMMENDED EDGE OF DRIVEWAY ROSEMOUNT HOLDINGS, LLC BENSHOOF ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATI ON ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS -10- December 2, 2005 TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION IN CITY OF ROSEMOUNT Nes FIGURE 5 PLAN FOR ACCESS TO /FROM TH 55 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 1 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 oy Ys. Fecht is now my responsioil_ty. I nave lit-le 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 town 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 signi=ficant 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 tne gully on Parcel 1 has developed since the area was settled, most likely on response to changes cn the land use. I'm not opposed to minor filling of tne upper portion of this gully as depicted on the drawing. If done properly, it could oenefit the area ay 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 sIn and discuss this matter with me. Let me know of the outcome on this as well, please. 1 1 Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Pearson. Public Hearing: 5b. 05 -40 -PUD Endres Properties 2n Addition Preliminary Plat and PUD Concept Plan. Mr Pearson reviewed the staff report. Endres Rosemount Holduigs, 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 pamtball 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 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 pubhc 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 m tum 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. Pnor 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 RoseRA1\1 function and value assessment. c Establishment of wetland buffer m 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 appropnate 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 of 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 Depaitiuent of Natural Resources relative to the regulations of the Mississippi River Critical Corndor District. 13 Park dedication as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Director shall be m the form of cash contribution for Industrial subdivisions as estabhshed in the current fee schedule. 14. The Lot 1 drainfield will accommodate up to 2,460 gallons per day and the Lot 2 dramfield 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 m addition to the boulevard plantings shown on the prehmmary plat, those additional plantings shall include parking lot pavement edges, the "panhandle" area of Lot 2 and stabilise 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 7 City Council agenda, but revisions to the plans are recommended prior to placement on the agenda.