The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5.b. PCExecSummWayneTransport01242017EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Planning Commission Regular Meeting: January 24, 2017 Tentative City Council Meeting: February 21, 2017 AGENDA ITEM: Case 17-01-CPA; 17-02-V; 17-03-SP Wayne AGENDA SECTION: Transport, Inc. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Variance, and Site Plan Review Public Hearing to expand truck trailer parking. PREPARED BY: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner and Anthony AGENDA NO. 5.b. Nemcek, Planner ATTACHMENTS: Site Location Map; Comp Plan Amendment Map, Resolution BA2017-01, Application Memorandum; ; Declaration Exhibits A-E (Site Aerial, Property Reports, Rosemount Land Use Plan Excerpts, TH42/52 Official Right-of-way Map, Dakota APPROVED BY: K.L. County Original Taking Area), Plan Submittals: Site Plan, Legend, Existing Conditions, Grading and Erosion Control Plan, Details, Landscape Plan, County ROW Acquisition Maps, January 19, 2017, Historical Site Photographs (2011, 2013, 2016) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission make the following motions: 1. Motion to recommend the City Council deny a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use designation of Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot B of Rich Valley Industrial Park from RC Regional Commercial to GI General Industrial based on report. 2. Motion by the Board of Appeals and Adjustment to adopt Resolution BA2017-01 denying variances for parking setback standards and minimum building size requirements as required in the GI General Industrial Zoning District standards staff report. 3. Motion to deny the site plan review for Wayne Transports to allow the expansion of a truck trailer parking area on Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot B of Rich Valley Industrial Park staff report. SUMMARY The Planning Commission is being asked to consider an application from Wayne Transports, Inc., for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use designation of Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot B of Rich Valley Industrial Park from RC Regional Commercial to GI General Industrial. The application also includes separate requests for variances and site plan approval to create a parking area on the subject property that will allow an expansion of the Wayne Transports motor freight terminal located immediately north of the site. The proposal does not propose any additional structures than the one currently located in the SW corner of the site. Provision of the parking without more building on the site is inconsistent with the City ordinances and is one of the variance requests. The site is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for Regional Commercial due to its close proximity to the future 42/52 interchange. The applicant is requesting the property be reguided to General Industrial to permit the parking lot/freight terminal use, which is permitted . As indicated in the following report, staff has strong reservations about expansion of the General Industrial designation unto the site, particularly when the entire site is devoted to a parking lot. Staff is recommending denial of each of the requests for reasons outlined in this report. BACKGROUND Applicant: Wayne Transports, Inc., 14345 Conley Avenue Location: Two parcels south of the existing Wayne Transports site at 14345 Conley Avenue: Lot 1 Block 1 and Outlot B of Rich Valley Industrial Park. Immediately northeast of the TH 52 and CSAH 42 interchange. Size: 14.39 Acres Existing Comp Plan Designation: RC-Regional Commercial Proposed Comp Plan Designation: GI-General Industrial Existing Zoning: GI-General Industrial Proposed Zoning No Change Proposed The site under consideration (two separate parcels) was acquired by the applicant in 2012. Prior to this acquisition, the property was used by Solberg Aggregates for its business, which included a small building housing offices with a small storage/shop area, paved parking area, and informal exterior storage area for trucks and equipment on what appears to have been a crushed rock or natural surface. Solberg had previously used the site for a limited amount of gravel extraction starting in 1979; however, any active mining appears to have ceased several years ago. The existing building was constructed in 1993 and was permitted by the City under the zoning in existence at that time. area is designed to serve the needs of general industrial and highway-As part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan adoption, the property was guided to Regional Commercial. The updated land use designation took into account the changing nature of the Highway 52 corridor, continued expansion of urban development to the east, and the general land use suitability for highly visible property at the intersection of two busy highways. This was also the recommendation of the 42/52 Task Force which lead to the changes in the Plan. Sometime after acquiring the property in 2012, the applicant began modifying the site by expanding the crushed rock parking area and began parking trucks and semi-trailers on the property. Staff has attached an aerial image to this report that documents the site conditions in 2012 and the conditions in 2015. These aerial photographs clearly show a major expansion of parking on the site, and the conversion of larger areas that were previous bare ground and unimproved to parking. After becoming aware of the parking improvements sometime in late 2014/early 2015 staff notified the applicant that the parking expansion was not approved as is, and would need to be reviewed and permitted by the City of Rosemount. If not permitted, the property would need to be brought back to the conditions that existed before the expansion. The work performed was done in violation of the City Code, and if the City does not grant the requested permits for this work, the site must be brought back to its pre-existing condition (essentially what existed at the time it was purchased by the applicant). The City has delayed any enforcement action pending formal review of the current request. Additionally, the City has delayed enforcement action at the 2 property owners request as they were working with the County to negotiate land acquisition associated with the 42/52 road improvements. While the City has been working with the property owner to address the issues noted above, Dakota County has been negotiating with the property owner to acquire a portion of the property for the planned 42/52 interchange project. At present, the County is not planning to construct the full clover leaf project as planned, and is instead seeking to move forward with an interim strategy that will be constructed in 2017. The interim strategy calls for the replacement of the existing TH52 bridge and widening of TH42 to a full four lanes through the intersection. Roughly 10 years ago, the City adopted an Official Map identifying the land needed for future road improvements at full build-out, and the Official Map identifies all of the subject property for future acquisition. The official map designation permits the City to deny construction or other site improvements with the intention to purchase the property within a six month time period. The official mapping process was approved to assist in future planning of the clover leaf project and the result of this mechanism should assist in reducing future land acquisition costs. However, although the official map designation prohibits the issuance of a building permit on the property, limited improvements such as parking areas, may be approved at the discretion of the City Council and provided said improvements will not interfere with the future public purpose (i.e. make it more difficult or costly to acquire the property). During initial negotiations with the applicant to acquire property for the project, Dakota County sought to acquire all land needed for the future expansion (the full clover leaf) as documented by the applicant on Exhibit E of their declarations. Subsequent to a successful appeal by the property owner, the County is limiting their acquisition to no more than the property needed for the interim project, and will presumably need to renegotiate with the applicant (or future property owner) when they are ready to proceed with the full intersection/clover leaf improvements. Please note that the County has previously decided that it will not need all of the property regulated by the Official Map to complete full project build out, but will not pursue any more land acquisition until they are ready to proceed with the next stage of the project. Regardless of the outcome of the current application, the City should modify the official map to reflect the anticipated land needed for the right of way. The site plan submitted by the applicant has been prepared in response to the reduced Dakota County acquisition area. Since the acquisition area is limited to a 30-foot wide strip of land adjacent to the existing TH42 right-of-way, it will not impact the proposed improvements, all of which are located further away on the site and north of the existing paved driveway/parking area. All of the proposed site improvements are located within the area currently stated that the improvements are necessary to generate a reasonable return from the property. Staff does not agree with this assessment, and in particular, would like to note that the site has been improved and used in the past for a business. In addition, the County had indicated less property is needed for future right of way meaning that approximately 8 acres of land will be available for future commercial development. Eight acres is large enough to construct a significant development. For example, the Cub Foods property (including the two strip malls) is 9.67 acres, the mall with the Pond, and two outbuldings is 7.10 acres and the SunBelt implement dealer site is 5.85 acres. SITE PLAN DETAILS The proposed site plan calls for the construction of two larger parking areas on the property, one north of the existing building and the other located over the eastern parcel along Conley Avenue. The parking areas are designed to accommodate the parking of semi-trailers, with 127 stalls with dimensions of 12 feet by 60 feet each. The proposed parking configuration and use is very similar to how Wayne Transports developed its site to the north. Access to the parking areas is from an existing driveway entrance to the site located approximately 150 feet north of TH42. The plans depict a potential future access on the north part of the property along Conley Avenue. Other than the parking areas, the other major site 3 improvement is a storm water retention area in the central portion of the property that will drain into an existing pond in the southeast vements made without proper permits) and would result in the paving of most of the Class 5 crushed rock parking areas presently on the site. There is a small area between the new western parking area and the existing building that would remain unpaved. Although historically there has been some parking occurring on areas outside of the paved parking lot around the existing building, the is no evidence that any of the recently expanded gravel parking areas were used for this purpose at any time in the past. The gravel parking area was not part of the Solberg site plan approval in 1993 and any expansion of the parking areas used by the previous property is considered an illegal expansion of the parking lot. The attached aerial images were obtained from the before it was acquired by the applicant), 2013 (one year after acquisition) and from 2016 (the most recent image available). These images clearly show a significant expansion of the gravel/unimproved parking area -11-2 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies that any non-conformity may be continued, but not expanded. The only circumstances under which the Zoning Ordinance allows the expansion of a non-conformity is if the expansion is made so as to bring the site into conformance with the regulations of the Ordinance. In this case, the applicant did not secure the proper permits for the work and is proposing improvements that are not allowed under the Zoning Ordinance. The application under review is intended to address these discrepancies by changing the future land use designation of the property to allow the proposed parking and trailer storage use, securing variances for the GI district standards that will not be met, and receiving proper site plan approval for all work proposed. The applicant has indicated that their request for a land use change and variances is justified because they have no n property located immediately north of the site. The structures situated on the property to the north are also not compliant with the ordinance standard requiring a building of at least 10% of the property size within the General Industrial zoning district. ns do not represent a substantial investment that would significantly hinder future acquisition and re-use of the property. The staff report below does not focus on this aspect of the proposal, and instead the staff analysis and draft findings instead concentrate on the broader land use issues and criteria for granting variances as spelled out in the Zoning Ordinance. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT The applicant has requested a reguiding of the site to match its zoning. Currently, it is zoned General Industrial and it is guided Regional Commercial. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan takes precedence . However, the Commission and Council could, upon review, decide that General Industrial is a more suitable land use for the site. The site was designated for Regional Commercial in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan because of its location in the NE corner of the future 42/52 clover leaf interchange. The City anticipated that the rebuilt interchange would be attractive to l Regional Commercial district is intended for businesses with a regional draw or with products that are sold annually or less often. Big box retail, theaters, or hotels are appropriate uses in this area, as well as an area Staff continues to believe that the opportunity for regional commercial exists around the 42/52 interchange area and does not believe that general industrial, particularly developed as a parking lot for truck storage, is the highest or best use of 4 the site. The Comprehensive Plan lists the balancing commercial and industrial land uses as an economic development goal. Presently, the City has 2,493 acres designated for industrial use and 985 acres for commercial. The City has more industrial land than many other communities due to the presence of Flint Hills Refinery, and it is questionable if expanding general industrial lands is warranted. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the size of each General Industrial District should be greater than 400 acres. The amendment to the comprehensive plan would create a General Industrial District that is segregated from other GI-guided land by Light Industrial to the north, Highway 52 to the west, and RC- Regional Commercial to the east and south. The size would not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. As the community grows to the east, staff continues to field calls about land undeveloped in the Hwy 52 area. The recent Regents approval of an agreement between University and Opus to market 160 acres in the NE section of UMore for future business park development means that commercial and professional services will be needed in the eastern portion of the City. As the City continues to work to attract a hotel, convenience store and other commercial entities, there have been discussions about locating these businesses near the interchange; drawing drivers from Hwy 52 and local customers. project acquisition area as previously established would still leave 7.78 acres of usable land, large enough for a hotel, restaurant, and other commercial uses. Given the location and high visibility of the site, staff feels that the site is best situated for commercial uses rather than industrial. For these reasons, staff is recommending denial of the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment. VARIANCES The applicant is requesting variances from two of the site development standards for the GI General Industrial District as follows: A variance to allow the construction of and outdoor storage/trailer parking area and other improvements to the site without meeting the minimum building size of 10% of the subject property excluding protected wetlands. The site is 14.39 acres in size, which requires a minimum building size of 62,683 square feet. The existing building is just over 10,000 square feet in area. Even if combined with the northern parcel, the site would still be well under the 10% building requirement as the northern Wayne Transports property does not currently comply with the 10% structure size requirement. A variance to allow a parking area to be set back 25 feet from the Conley Avenue right-of-way (street side yard) and the rear property line. The district standards for the GI district require a 40 foot setback from both of these property lines. The requested variances specifically relate to the nature of the business being run by the applicant, which is considered a truck terminal under the Zoning Ordinance. These types of businesses generally include activities related to receiving, storing, and dispatching trucks carrying products for shipment out to another destination. Wayne Transports focuses on the transportation of asphalt, chemicals, petroleum, propane, and other bulk transportation, hence the need for the storage and staging of the tanker trailers. This type of use, while permitted in the GI zoning district, is regulated by performance standards, one of which requires the construction of a building meeting minimum size requirements. The first variance described above would not be necessary if the applicant were to construct a building of 62,683 square feet with the other proposed site improvements. In this case, there is an existing building on the property that could count towards the overall building size, which leaves the site approximately 52,700 square feet short of the ordinance requirement. Staff has also examined the site to the north to determine whether or not combining all parcels under common ownership might bring the site closer to compliance with the minimum building size required. The northern site is currently used for 5 parking of semi-trailers and trucks, and also has two buildings of around 32,000 and 10,000 square feet. The overall area of this parcel is 19.44 acres, however, which would require a minimum building size of nearly 85,000 square feet (43,000 short of the ordinance standard). Combining the two parcels still leaves scenario, the proposed improvements to the southern parcel will leave the site far short of the minimum building requirements specified in the code and result in a use of land that is discouraged under the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Variances allow individual properties or buildings to exceed the standards of the zoning district in which the property is located. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties In this case, the use of State Statutes very clearly indicates that the City is not required to approve the variance, even if all the listed standards are met (which Staff does not believe they are). Variance Standards According to Section 11-12-2.G, there are five criteria for granting of a variance request. The five criteria used to assess request against these criteria, there are also two key issues to consider. The first is whether the applicant has reasonable use of their property without the variance. The second is whether the project can be redesigned to eliminate or reduce the need for a variance. The Commission must approve or deny each request based on findings related to each of the five standards. Building Size Variance - Findings As mentioned previously, the proposal does not include any additional structure on the site, meaning that the 10% building coverage is not met. Taking into account the existing building on the premises, the proposed building coverage for the subject site is 1.6%, which is a variance of 8.4% or 52,683 square feet from the minimum zoning requirement. Staff has found that the variance is not warranted upon review of Commission: 1. The variance request is not in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. Finding: The City Code lists off street parking or loading as an accessory use within the General Industrial zoning district. The ordinance specifically notes that the minimum building size is 10% of subject property, excluding protective wetlands. The proposal does not include any structure, meaning the proposal is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. The intent of the ordinance is to encourage investment in property that will bring jobs and tax base into the community, which is not achieved with the expansion of parking and outdoor storage. 2. The variance is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: Should the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to reguide the site from Regional Commercial to General Industrial not be approved, the variance would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the amendment is approved, the variance should be weighed against the General Industrial Land Use designation. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the size of each General Industrial District should be greater than 400 acres. The amendment to the comprehensive plan would create a General Industrial District that is segregated from other GI-guided land by Light Industrial to the north, Highway 52 to the west, and RC-Regional Commercial to the east and south. The Economic Development section of the Comprance economic industrially designated land. Most of this is related to the Flint Hills Refinery which has a lot of 6 equipment at their facility. From a tax base perspective, structures or buildings are valued and taxed, equipment is not. Similarly parking lots are assessed at a low level which affects taxes paid. For example, the current Wayne Transports (land value of $1,171,900 and building value of $1,580,200) site pays taxes of $5114/acre. A commercial use such as the retail center with Great Clips pays $32,316/acre, the Kwik Trip on Hwy 3 pays $984,117/acre (this is illustrative since the site is only .51 acres), the 9.7-acre Cub Foods shopping center pays $34,819/acre, and the 6.5-acre Rosemount Crossing shopping center pays and aggregate of $31,448/acre. Given the goals of the Comprehensive Plan which include maximizing tax base, promoting commercial development along 42/52 and balancing tax baseopinion the propose site plan with variances does not meet those standards. 3. Granting of the variance allows reasonable use of the property. Finding: The proposed use of the site for an expanded truck terminal parking and storage facility without an associated building that meets the minimum building size requirements is not a reasonable use of the property because it promotes a use that is otherwise not allowed under the Zoning Ordinance. In this case, exterior storage and parking would be the primary use of a site that is large enough to accommodate a building that meets the minimum building coverage requirement of the GI zoning district. The request for variance is related to the type of business owned and not any specific deficiencies in the site. 4. There are unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner. Finding: The unique circumstances claimed by the applicant Official Map documenting the land needed for future reconstruction of the 42/52 interchange. The site, after acquisition will still be 7.78 acres, which is of a size that can allow multiple commercial uses. Additionally, the applicant bought the site well after the official map was adopted by the City with all related restrictions on property already in place. There are no deficiencies or other restrictions associated with property that would limit construction of a building or that would limit the use of the property for parking that meets setback requirements. The applicant has indicated that without the condemnation, the applicant would have continued using the site in a legal nonconforming manner; however, most of the site improvements performed by the applicant represent expansion of a non-conforming use and are not allowed. If the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and variances are not approved, the City will continue with enforcement action to bring the site into compliance. Based upon aerial photos of the site, at the time of purchase the property contained 3.14 acres of circumstances have been created solely by the applicant when they purchased land that was guided for a different use than the applicant desired. 5. Granting of the variance does not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: It is unclear if the essential character of the locality as it exists today would not be altered by the granting of the variance. However, the City has enforced this regulation of the ordinance for several businesses in the General Industrial zoning district. Allowing a variance that is substantially inconsistent with the requirement could result in other property owners anticipating similar treatment. A movement away from the 10% requirement would alter the character of the locality, particularly in the eastern portion of the community where much of the General Industrial land is zoned. The granting of the variance would allow a use of the property that is inconsistent with long term vision and goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages buildings and jobs within its commercial and industrial areas. 7 Setback Variance - Findings The applicant is requesting a variance from the City Ordinance requiring a 40 foot front yard setback. The applicant it requesting the variance t property to the north of the site. The applicant has not met the criteria for the granting of a variance. Staff is proposing the following findings related to this variance request: 1. The variance request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. Finding: The purpose of the GI general industrial district is to provide for the establishment of both light and medium manufacturing uses along with warehouse, repair, and business uses. The GI general industrial district is intended to include uses that may require outdoor and vehicle or trailer storage but exclude heavy industrial uses. The general industrial district is the preferred transition district between the heavy industrial district and may be compatible with residential uses or include relatively higher on site populations, subject to higher performance standards. Staff feels that this request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: Should the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to reguide the site from Regional Commercial to General Industrial not be approved, the variance would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan because a tru Commercial land use designation. If the amendment is approved, the variance should be weighed against the General Industrial Land Use designation. The Comprehensive Plan lists trucking and freight terminals as typical uses. The use associated with the variance request would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. Granting of the variance allows reasonable use of the property. Finding: The proposed use is not a reasonable use of the property because the site is large enough so support a parking lot that complies with the GI zoning district setback requirements and the requested setback variances are not needed to provide a reasonable parking area and building(s) on the site. While the variance request allows the applicant to include more parking stalls than they would be able to otherwise, the GI zoning regulations still allow a significant portion of the site to be used for parking. This criterion is not met. 4. There are unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner. Finding: While the potential future acquisition of the property by Dakota County was not a result of actions by the property owner, the taking of the property is not the reason for the variance request. In addition, the land was purchased with the Official Map designation already in place on the property. planned acquisition area) that would limit construction of a building or that would limit the use of the property for parking that meets setback requirements. 5. Granting of the variance does not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: Granting of the variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. SITE PLAN REVIEW Land Use and Zoning Standards As described above, there are several land use and zoning issues identified with the proposed development. The following reviews the proposal using the site plan standards for the General Industrial zoning district. If Comprehensive Plan amendment and variances are recommended for approval, the Planning Commission should take the following issues into consideration in making its decision: 8 Landscaping and Berming The landscape plan provided by the applicant shows 57 trees planted on the site. City Code requires 8 trees or 1 per 3,000 square feet of land area, whichever is greater. The site is 7.79 acres, or 339,332 square feet. The plan is short 56 trees, nearly half of the required amount. The landscape plan shows deciduous trees spaced every 50 feet in the boulevard along Conley Avenue. A mixture of deciduous and coniferous trees would be placed along the southwest property line to provide screening of the site from the 42/52 interchange. The landscape plan as provided does not meet the minimum requirements of the City Code. Any approval would need to substantially increase the amount of landscaping on the site to bring the property into compliance with ordinance standards. Access and Parking The site would be accessed via the existing driveway along Conley Avenue, with a potential future access near the northern limits of the parcel. The plan indicates parking for 127 semi-trailers positioned in two separate areas on the western and eastern portion of the property. All proposed stalls would be 12 feet wide by 60 feet deep to accommodate both a truck and a trailer. Traffic would circulate around a central stormwater basin. The access drive is 60 feet wide with 104 and 109 feet of maneuvering space within each respective parking area to accommodate truck traffic. There are no specific parking requirements for truck terminals, but enhanced screening is required and should be included in the updated landscape plan. Future Platting The western parcel included the current application was platted as an outlot within the Rich Valley Industrial Park subdivision. The site must be replatted to be reclassified as a buildable parcel, and should be combined with the western parcel to form one site. Engineering Comments Comments from the City Engineer relate to stormwater management on site and the need for additional January 19, 2017. One of the more significant changes recommend by City Engineer is that the applicant provide curb and gutter for all of the proposed paved parking areas. Stormwater will be managed on site using a stormwater basin located centrally on the site. The applicant is required to submit documentation of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) received from the Minnesota Pollution Control before a building permit will be issued. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The applicant has submittvariances staff does not support reguiding of the property. Additionally, staff does not support the variance as they are inconsistent with the criteria for granting variance including the requirement that variances be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending the following motions: Motion to deny the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Regional Commercial to General Industrial based upon the following findings: 1. The property location adjacent to the 42/52 interchange is more suited for Regional Commercial use. 2. Reguiding of the site is inconsistent with the goal to balance economic growth within the overall tax base of Rosemount as much of the non-residential land is currently designated for industrial use. 3. Based upon the proposed land use for the site, reguiding to General Industrial is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan to encourage additional high quality and tax base generating industrial development in the community. 9 4. The property size is smaller than that recommended for General Industrial districts in the community. 5. The land use as proposed on site does not meet zoning ordinance criteria and therefore does not meet the goals of the City Council. Motion to deny the variances from the requirement for 10% of the lot area to be contain a building and a front yard setback parking variance based upon the following: 1. There are no unique circumstances associated with the property that are not made by the applicant. 2. The proposed use is not consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 3. The property owner is proposing a plan that does not represent a reasonable use of the property with the requested variance. 4. The proposed use is not Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances. 5. The proposed use will alter the essential character of the area. Should the Planning Commission adopt the above motions, the following motion concerning the site plan review would also be in order: Motion to deny the site plan for Wayne Transport at Lot 1 Block 1 and Outlot B of Rich Valley Industrial Park based upon the following: 1. The site plan requires variances that were not granted and a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment that was denied. 2. Comprehensive Plan for future Regional Commercial use of the property. 3. The site plan does not comply with the required street side and rear yard setbacks for a parking area and is 52,700 square feet short of the minimum building size requirement for the GI General Industrial Zoning District. 10 Wayne Transport October 10, 20161:9,600 0437.58751,750ft 0135270540m Property Information Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. EVA N OTYALC EV A NOTYAL C CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION BA2017-01 A RESOLUTION DENYINGAVARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXTERIOR PARKING ANDSTORAGE AREA THAT DOES MEET MINIMUM SETBACKS OR BUILDINGCOVERAGE REQUIREMENTS W HEREAS, Wayne Transports, Inc., 14345 Conley Avenue, (the “Applicant”) has submitted an application to the City Rosemount (the “City”) for variances from the minimum setbacks and minimum building coverage requirement of the GI – General Industrial zoning district to expand semi-trailer and truck parking on two parcels located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of TH42 and TH52; and WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Rosemount Zoning Ordinance, Section 11-12-2; and W HEREAS, the Rosemount Board of Appeals and Adjustments held a public hearing and considered said on said matter on January 24, 2017. N OW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the Rosemount Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS 1)That the procedures for obtaining said Variance are found in the Rosemount Zoning Ordinance, Section 11-12-2. 2)That all the submission requirements of said Section 11-12-2 have been met by the Applicant. 3)That the proposed variance will allow the construction of an expanded parking area for an existing truck terminal operation on the adjacent parcel north of the subject property. The specific variances requested are as follows: a)Building Coverage: A variance to allow the construction of and outdoor storage/trailer parking area and other improvements to the site without meeting the minimum building size of 10% of the subject property excluding protected wetlands within a GI zoning district. The site is 14.39 acres in size, which requires a minimum building size of 62,683 square feet. The existing building is just over 10,000 square feet in area, which results in a requested variance of 52,683 square feet. Resolution BA2017-01 1 b)Setbacks: A variance to allow the proposed parking area to be set back 25 feet from the Conley Avenue right-of-way (street side yard) and rear property line. The district standards for the GI zoning district require a 40 foot setback from both of these property lines, which results in a requested variance of 15 feet. 4)That the Variance will be located on property legally described as follows:Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot B of Rich Valley Industrial Park, Dakota County, Minnesota.PID 34-63950-01-010 and 34-63950-00-020. 5)That the variance request is notin harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. Specific findings: a)Building Coverage: The proposed use of the site for an expanded truck terminal parking and storage facility without an associated building that meets the minimum building size requirements is not a reasonable use of the property because it promotes a use that is otherwise not allowed under the Zoning Ordinance. In this case, exterior storage and parking would be the primary use of a site that is large enough to accommodate a building that meets the minimum building coverage requirement of the GI zoning district. The requestfor variance is related to the type of business owned and not any specific deficiencies in the site. b)Setbacks: The purpose of the GI general industrial district is to provide for the establishment of both light and medium manufacturing uses along with warehouse, repair, and business uses. The GI general industrial district is intended to include uses that may require outdoor and vehicle or trailer storage but exclude heavy industrial uses. The general industrial district is the preferred transition district between the heavy industrial district and may be compatible with residential uses or include relatively higher on site populations, subject to higher performance standards. Staff feels that this request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. 6)That the variance is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Specific findings: a)Building Coverage: The variance would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan which guides the subject property for General Commercial land uses.The Economic Development section of the Comprehensive Plan has a goal of “Balance economic growth within the overall tax base of Rosemount.” The City has an abundance of industrially designated land. Most of this is related to the Flint Hills Refinery which has a lot of equipment at their facility. From a tax base perspective, structures or buildings are valued and taxed, equipment is not. Similarly parking lots are assessed at a low level which affects taxes paid. For example, the current Wayne Transports (land value of $1,171,900 and building value of $1,580,200) site pays taxes of $5114/acre. A commercial use such as the retail center with Great Clips pays $32,316/acre, the Kwik Trip on Hwy 3 pays $984,117/acre (this is illustrative since the site is only .51 acres), the 9.7-acre Cub Foods shopping center pays $34,819/acre, and the 6.5-acre Rosemount Crossing shopping center pays and aggregate of $31,448/acre. Given the goals of the Comprehensive Plan which include maximizing tax base, promoting commercial development along 42/52 and balancing tax base, the propose site plan with variances does not meet thesestandards. b)Setbacks: The use associated with the variance request would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Planbecause a truck terminal and exterior parking area is not a compatible use with the City’s Regional Commercial land use designation. Resolution BA2017-012 7)That granting of the variance does not allow a reasonable use of the property. Specific findings: a)Building Coverage: The applicant has reasonable use of the property without the granting of the variance. While it may be true that the property owner has the need for additional parking storage and not for additional building space, there are numerous uses that could occur on the property without need of variance. The request for variance is related to the type of business owned andnot deficiencies in the site. b)Setbacks: The proposed use is not a reasonable use of the property because the site is large enough so support a parking lot that complies with the GI zoning district setback requirements and the requested setback variances are not needed to provide a reasonable parking area and building(s) on the site.While the variance request allows the applicant to include more parking stalls than they would be able to otherwise, the GI zoning regulations still allow a significant portion of the site to be used for parking. 8)That there are no unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner. Specific findings: a)Building Coverage: The unique circumstances claimed by the applicant relate to the City’s adoption of an Official Map documenting the land needed for future reconstruction of the 42/52 interchange. The site, after acquisition will still be 7.78 acres, which is of a size that can allow multiple commercial uses. Additionally, the applicant bought the site well after the official map was adopted by the City with all related restrictions on property already in place.There are no deficiencies or other restrictions associated with property (outside of the County’s planned acquisition area) that would limit construction of a building or that would limit the use of the property for parking that meets setback requirements.The applicant has indicated that without the condemnation, they would have continued using the site in a legal nonconforming manner; however, most of the site improvements performed by the applicant represent expansion of a non-conforming use and are not allowed. If the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and variances are not approved, the City will continue with enforcement action to bring the site into compliance. Based upon aerial photos of the site, at the time of purchase the property contained 3.14 acres of surface parking. The current circumstances have been created solely by the applicant when they purchased land that was guided for a different use than the applicant desired. b)Setbacks: While the potential future acquisition of the property by Dakota County was not a result of actions by the property owner, the taking of the property is not the reason for the variance request. In addition, the land was purchased with the Official Map designation already in place on the property. There are no deficiencies or other restrictions associated with property (outside of the County’s planned acquisition area) that would limit construction of a building or that would limit the use of the property for parking that meets setback requirements. 9)That granting of the variance does alter the essential character of the locality. Specific findings: a)Building Coverage: It is unclear if the essential character of the locality as it exists today would not be altered by the granting of the variance. However, the City has enforced this regulation of the ordinance for several businesses in the General Industrial zoning district. Allowing a variance that is substantially inconsistent with the requirement could result in other property owners anticipating similar treatment. A movement away from the 10% requirement would alter the character of the locality, particularly in the Resolution BA2017-013 eastern portion of the community where much of the General Industrial land is zoned. The granting of the variance would allow a use of the property that is inconsistent with City’s long term vision and goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages buildings and jobs within its commercial and industrial areas. b)Setbacks: Granting of the variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Based on the foregoing, the Applicant’s application for a Variance is hereby denied. th Passed and duly adopted this 24 day of January 2017 by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota. __________________________________ Melissa Kenninger, Chair ATTEST: ________________________________ Amy Roudebush, Planning & Personnel Secretary Resolution BA2017-014 LI N DQ U IST Minneapolis • Denver • Sioux Falls Lindquist & Vennum LLP Phone: (612) 371-3211 80 South Eighth Street Fax: (612) 371-3207 4200 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402-2274 Memorandum Date: December 20, 2016 To: City of Rosemount From: William E. Flynn Joseph S. Lawder ::.? L G 16 (612) 371-3211 Re: CMC Properties, LLC Site Plan Application Lindquist & Vennum, LLP serves as legal counsel to CMC Properties, LLC, ("Applicant"). This memorandum is submitted in support of Applicant's site plan and permit application for the development and construction of a parking areas on its property. Applicant is the property ownership entity of Wayne Transports. Applicant owns the site that is the subject of the site plan, as well as, the parcel contiguous to the north where Wayne Transport's main operations are located. Applicant's business and use of the site proposed for development is the same as the use of its contiguous parcel to the north as a trucking terminal. This is a permitted use under the City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance section General Industrial District, the zoning designation applicable to Applicant's property. Pursuant to Rosemount Ordinance 11-4-16, this use includes uses that may require outdoor and vehicle or trailer storage. Applicant seeks approval of its site plan despite the restrictions imposed by the official mapping and performance standards contained in Rosemount Ord. 11-13-8 and 11-4-16.F.9.B. As applied to the subject parcel, these restrictions and standards are in conflict for one prohibits any building or structure and the other requires a building of ten percent of the size of the property. As a reasonable reconciliation of this conflict and proposed use of the site, Applicant's site plan balances the restrictions and requirements under the standards applicable to official mapping exceptions and variances from performance standards. Applicant respectfully requests approval of the site plan, issuance of a building permit and, to the extent necessary, approval of any exception to the official mapping restrictions and variances to performance standards. History of Site The entire area that is the subject of this application is situated at the northeast corner of State Highway 52 and CSAH 42, and is legally -described as Lot 1 Block 1, and Outlot B, Rich Valley DOCS -#5553939-v2 City of Rosemount December 20, 2016 Page 2 Industrial Park, Dakota County, Minnesota ("Property"). (See Vedders Decl., Ex. A, Pictorial depiction of Property) In 2000, Koch Petroleum Group conveyed the Property to Solberg Partnership. (Vedders Decl., Ex. B, Orbit property reports.) Solberg conducted excavating operation on the property using heavy equipment, including parking heavy trucks and machinery. Although the Property is zoned as General Industrial, it has been designated as future commercial in the City of Rosemount Comprehensive Land Use — 2020 plan created in the year 2000. During 2004 — 2005, this Comprehensive Plan was updated in the County Road 42/U.S. Highway 52 Corridor Study to determine the development and land uses of that side of Rosemount which retained the commercial designation for the Property. (Vedders Decl., Ex. C, Fig. 7.4.) In 2005, the City of Rosemount began the process of officially mapping areas surrounding the 52/42 intersection including the Property. Official Mapping is authorized by Minnesota Statute Section 462.359 and as per Rosemount City Code Chapter 13 to restrict land needed for future street or public purposes. On August 8, 2007, the City of Rosemount recorded its Official Map against the Property. (Vedders Decl., Ex. D.) The entire Property, all of Lot 1 Block 1 and Outlot B, was designated and still remains within the Official Map restricted area. According to Rosemount Ordinance I I - 13-8, the Official Map has a restricting impact on the Property: After an official map has been adopted and filed, the issuance of building permits by the city shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter. The city shall deny every application for a permit to construct a new building or structure or expand an existing building or structure within any area designated on the official map for street or public purposes, or outside of any building line that may have been established upon the existing street. In 2009, the City published its Comprehensive Land Use — 2030 plan. The 2009 plan designated the property as Regional Commercial and defined it as: intended for businesses with a regional draw or with products that are sold annually or less often. Big box retail, theaters, or hotels are appropriate uses in this area, as well as an area for existing vehicle sales businesses in other parts of the City to relocate. (Vedders Decl, Ex. Cat p. 70.) In 2012, the Property was acquired by Applicant from Solberg. Wayne Transport has expanded its truck terminal operations on to the Property and leased part of the Property to other trucking - related tenants. Wayne has a legal non -conforming right to continue to use the Property as it historically has been used for parking trucks and trailers on various parts of the Property. DOCS -#5553939-v2 City of Rosemount December 20, 2016 Paqe 3 In August 2016, Dakota County commenced a condemnation action seeking to acquire a large portion of the Property consisting of approximately 284,528 square feet or 6.53 acres. This Property was claimed for expansion of the 52/42 interchange including the possibility of a cloverleaf design that generated the arcing triangular-shaped taking area of the Property ("Original Taking Area"). (Vedders Decl., Ex. E.) After the public purpose hearing on the condemnation in October 2016, Dakota County limited its acquisition of the Property to its immediate project need of widening parts of the intersection. During the negotiations between CMC/Wayne and Dakota County, it was disclosed that the County planned to expand the intersection in the future so it was still willing to consider acquiring the Original Taking Area and even the entire Property. This is consistent with the Rosemount 2030 Land Use Plan with Roadway Network which depicts the cloverleaf design in the Original Taking Area. (Ex. C.) An agreement as to valuation for the Original Taking Area or the entire Property could not be reached between CMC/Wayne and Dakota County in the time frame available. Dakota County has represented that it is still willing to negotiate acquiring the Original Taking Area or the entire Property because of the public need and future expansion of the intersection. Official Mapping Restriction Favors Modest Lot Improvement Under the Rosemount Official Mapping Ordinance 11-13-8, no building permit for any new building or structure can be issued within any area designated on the official map. On appeal to the board of appeals and adjustments (Planning Commission), however, a permit can be granted upon evidence and argument: a) that the entire property of the appellant of which the area designated for public purposes forms a part cannot yield a reasonable return to the owner unless such a permit is granted, or b) that balancing the interest of the city in preserving the integrity of the official map and of the comprehensive city plan and the interest of the property owner in the use of his property and in the benefits of ownership, the grant of such permit is required by considerations of justice and equity. Rosemount Ord. 11-13-9. Here, Rosemount's interest in the Official Map providing for an improved intersection and the comprehensive plan's goal of regional commerce balanced with Applicant's proposed slight improvement of the Property to generate a reasonable return achieves a just and equitable solution until such time as Rosemount's goals come to fruition. Rosemount's interest in the 52/42 intersection improvement and the future development of regional commerce stands on equal footing with Applicant's use of the Property and right to generate a reasonable return. The equal weight accorded a municipality's land use restrictions and a property owner's rights is reflected in the right of the municipality to acquire officially mapped property if a permit is granted upon appeal. Rosemount Ord. 11-13-9. This mechanism allows DOCS -#5553939-v2 City of Rosemount December 20, 2016 Page 4 "both the public and private property owners to adjust their building plans equitably and conveniently before investments are made that will make adjustments difficult to accomplish." Minn. Stat. § 462.359, subd. 1. Applicant's proposed site plan permits it to achieve a reasonable return with improvement to the Property which respects the growing needs of the intersection and limits the impediments to and expense for acquisition based upon future regional commerce. The installation of a bituminous parking lot as designed will accommodate the remaining need for the Original Taking Area. As opposed to a 60,000 square foot industrial building, it is less invasive, more readily -convertible to regional commerce and is more susceptible to modification as the public needs progresses. Without the construction of a parking lot, however, the Property does not yield a reasonable return based upon its size, Rosemount's view of allowable use and the uncertain size and shape of likely public taking. The site plan design would allow Applicant to generate approximately $4,200 per month in revenue that could not be generated without it. Without installation of the parking, this revenue stream will be unavailable. The remaining area of the Property is leased to a tenant which generates only $3,400 per month. If the Original Taking Area is acquired, Applicant is likely to lose the $3,400 per month revenue stream leaving Applicant with virtually no return from the Property. Although the $4,200 parking lot income stream combined with the tenant rental is still only a marginal return from the Property, Applicant accepts it as reasonable and consistent with the less substantial investment in the parking lot and uncertain future of the Property. The site plan design balances Applicant's use of its private property against the public with a design that anticipates the cloverleaf expansion, minimizes improvement of the Original Taking Area, which will avoid wasteful acquisition of improved property. The site plan design justly and equitably permits Applicant to realize the benefit of and a reasonable return on its property while minimizing the structural and financial burden to the public need and plans. Inconsistent Performance Standards Should Not Be Required The building permit for the site plan should be issued without any requirement that a building be constructed on the Property. In the first instance, the General Industrial performance standard requiring building size of ten percent of the subject property (11-4-16.F.9.b.), should not be applicable because it is inconsistent with the Official Mapping restriction which prohibits building or structures in the mapped area absent an exception. Where there is a conflict between a specific zoning control and general zoning restriction, the specific should be given effect. McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations § 25.77. Here the more specific controls of the Official Map should take precedence over general inconsistent zoning performance standards. Even if these competing zoning controls could be interpreted to both apply, they should be considered as a whole and construed reasonably and fairly to limit the financial burden of the private landowner and the acquisition exposure of the government. When the performance standard requiring a building of ten percent of the Property is harmonized with the Official Map DOCS -#5553939-v2 City of Rosemount December 20, 2016 Pane 5 building prohibition and exceptions, a variance should be granted to achieve the balance of public and private rights embodied in the modest parking lot improvement of the site plan design. Variance is Warranted and Preserves Balances of 1Gtiahts and Risks Under Minnesota Statute Section 462.357, subd. 6, variances are permitted when in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. The purpose of the Rosemount Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, welfare and safety by, among other things: 1. Implementing the comprehensive plan; 2. Promoting orderly and compatible development and transition of uses; 3. Avoiding premature extension of utilities and city services and overcrowding of land; 4. Promoting a safe vehicular circulation system. Rosemount Ord. 11-1-2. Rosemount's Comprehensive Plan provides for the improvement of the intersection to include a cloverleaf and envisions the Property as part of a regional commerce center. In light of the staged improvement of the intersection and phased acquisition of the Property into the future, development of the Property which anticipates that acquisition and does not frustrate future regional commercial development correlates the performance standards with the intent of the ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan and Official Map goals. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. Consistent with this statutory authority, the Rosemount Zoning Ordinance authorizes variances: The board of appeals and adjustments and the city council, upon appeal, must find as follows in the granting of a variance from this title. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. DOCS -#5553939-v2 City of Rosemount December 20, 2016 Page 6 1. The variance request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. Granting of the variance allows reasonable use of the property. 4. There are unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner. 5. Granting of the variance does not alter the essential character of the locality. Rosemount Ord. 11-12-2.G. Consideration of these factors establishes that there are practical difficulties that merit granting a variance from the ten percent building requirement. Practical Difficuldes/Unique Circumstances Not Created by Applicant The Property is designated for future improvements to the 52-42 interchange that are likely to result in public acquisition of the Original Taking Area or more. Dakota County's willingness to acquire the entire Property and Rosemount's categorizing it as Regional Commercial in the current Comprehensive Plan and restricting it on the Official Map also limits Applicant's rights and makes uncertain the length and value of continued ownership. The public limitations on the Property severely limit its marketability to other users. For Applicant, the impact is that the Property will continue to be at risk for shrinking to the remainder parcel or greater that, according to the City's view of historical use,' has little, if any, useable area absent some development of the site. But to require a 60,000 foot industrial building in light of the uncertain future acquisition and size of the Property would be an unfair and infeasible investment inconsistent with Rosemount's and Dakota County's vision of the Property. The public limitations are unique circumstances that pose current real difficulties suppressing the Property's ability to produce a reasonable return without the modest lot improvement. These practical difficulties were not created by Applicant. They are a direct result of the public controls and plans for the Property which severely restrains the usability of the Property to Applicant. ' The site is currently a legal nonconforming use that permits the parking and storage of commercial vehicles including trucks and trailers. By this site plan submission and variance application, Applicant preserves and does not waive its right to continue its legal nonconforming use of the site for all purposes and areas for which it is currently grandfathered under ordinances. See White v. City of Elk River, 840 N.W.2d 43, 51 (Minn. 2013). Any facts and argument set forth in this submittal is without prejudice to Applicant's right to continue legal nonconforming use status to the maximum extent allowed by law. DOCS -#5553939-v2 City of Rosemount December 20, 2016 Paqe 7 Reasonable Use Applicant proposes to use the Property in a reasonable manner. The site is zoned General Industrial and the use Applicant seeks to continue is as part of its terminal for parking and storage of trucks and trailers, the same zoning and use as Applicant's contiguous parcel to the north. See Rosemount Ord. 11-11-6. Permitting the site plan maintains consistency with Applicant's contiguous parcel, the surrounding area, and the future goals for the area. Not requiring the construction of a building whose area covers ten percent of the site is reasonable because the site is already served by large and adequate structures on the contiguous parcel to the north. The lot improvement will tie the parcels together and facilitate the next interchange improvement. Allowing no structure on the site will permit a more aesthetically pleasing area with greater open space and landscaping integrated into the surrounding area. As opposed to a 60,000 square foot industrial building, it will provide a compatible transition to regional commerce as envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. Variances Preserves Essential Character The area is zoned General Industrial and is predominantly trucking use and storage with another trucking company using the parcel to the northeast of Applicant. Most of the surrounding area is open agricultural and recreational space. Not requiring a structure maintains less clutter and preserves more open space which is beneficial to the surrounding area and anticipated future use of the site. The site plan provides better transition between uses then a 60,000 square foot building butting up against the intersection of 52-42. An adjacent golf course would benefit from the grant of the variance because landscaping controls would relate more aesthetically to it than the existing attributes. Without the variance, the site is not likely to develop and the legal nonconforming use would continue without performance controls. Granting the variance allows for controlled preservation and enhancement of the character of the area. Variance Harmonizes Purpose and Intent of Ordinance Granting the variance and permitting modest development of a lot on the Property site supports the zoning ordinance purpose of providing for General Industrial permitted uses and providing a transition between residential and heavy industrial districts. See Rosemount Ord. 11-4-16.A. As opposed to a 60,000 square foot industrial building, the site plan also supports the more general purpose of promoting public health, safety and general welfare by promoting orderly development of industrial uses, utilization of existing city utilities and services, avoiding overcrowding of land with structures, providing for preservation of natural resources and promoting safety of vehicular circulation. Once developed as per the site plan, the Property will conform with all other performance standards, be consistent with the Applicant's contiguous site and be more aesthetically pleasing and tied into the surrounding area and interchange plans. It will provide a gradual move towards the commercial status that is envisioned for the site without industrial structures that would be DOCS -#5553939-v2 City of Rosemount December 20, 2016 Paae 8 inconsistent with that vision. The site is served by existing utilities and is designed to address storm water standards and creation of landscaping that would not be required under a legal nonconforming use. The site plan creates an orderly circulation and parking of trucks that has not been historically or currently controlled. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan's implementation of a cloverleaf intersection and vision of a regional commercial is facilitated by permitting a modest lot improvement that anticipates that change. Granting the variance and allowing lot development moves the site closer to commercial use without the construction of large industrial structure that physically and financially impedes the potential for future commercial use. Conclusion The Property is uniquely impacted by government acquisition needs and plans. Where the City of Rosemount has restricted building on the Property, it cannot require under another control a building on the Property. Such an application is arbitrary and capricious. A just and equitable solution is to allow the site plan's parking lot development that preserves government plans, minimizes its financial risk and ensures the Applicant's reasonable return from the Property. Applicant respectfully requests the issuance of a building permit on its site plan applications and any other approvals or variances necessary thereto. DOCS -#5553939-v2 Z, 2016 In Re Wayne Transport's Request for Site Plan Approval and Building Permit Issuance Declaration of Carl Vedders Carl Vedders, being first duly sworn upon oath, states as follows: 1. I am the President of Wayne Transports, Inc., and President and Chief Financial Manager of CMC Properties, LLC, the property -ownership entity of Wayne Transports. I make this declaration of my own personal knowledge in support of the application of CMC Properties ("Applicant") for approval of its site plan, issuance of a building permit and such other approvals/variances as are necessary for Applicant's lot improvement project. 2. The real estate that is the subject of CMC's application is situated at the northeast corner of State Highway 52 and CSAH 42, and is legally -described as Lot 1 Block 1, and Outlot B, Rich Valley Industrial Park, Dakota County, Minnesota ("Property"). Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct pictorial depiction of Property outlined in orange. 3. In 2000, Koch Petroleum Group platted and conveyed the Property to Solberg Partnership. Attached hereto as Exhibit B are true and correct copies of Orbit property reports referring to the Koch - Solberg plat and conveyance. Solberg conducted excavating operation on the property using heavy equipment, including parking heavy trucks and machinery. 4. Although the Property is zoned as General Industrial, it has been designated as future commercial in the City of Rosemount Comprehensive Land Use — 2020 plan which was created in the year 2000. During 2004 — 2005, this Comprehensive Plan was updated in the County Road 42/U.S. Highway 52 Corridor Study to determine the development and land uses of that side of Rosemount which retained the commercial designation for the Property. Attached hereto as Exhibit C, are true and correct copies of excerpts and diagrams from the Comprehensive Plan. DOCS -#5471779-v 1 5. In 2005, the City of Rosemount began the process of "officially mapping" areas surrounding the 52/42 intersection including the Property. Official Mapping is authorized by Minnesota Statute Section 462.359 and as per Rosemount Zoning Code Chapter 13 to restrict land needed for future street or public purposes. 6. On August 8, 2007, the City of Rosemount recorded its Official Map against the Property, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit D. The entire Property, all of Lot 1 Block 1 and Outlot B, was designated and still remains within the Official Map restricted area. 7. In 2009, the City published its Comprehensive Land Use — 2030 plan. The 2009 plan designated the property as Regional Commercial and defined it as: intended for businesses with a regional draw or with products that are sold annually or less often. Big box retail, theaters, or hotels are appropriate uses in this area, as well as an area for existing vehicle sales businesses in other parts of the City to relocate. (Ex. C at p. 70.) 8. In 2012, the Property was acquired by CMC Properties from Solberg. Wayne Transport has expanded its truck terminal operations on to the Property and leased part of the Property to other trucking -related tenants. Wayne has a legal non -conforming right to continue to use the Property as it historically has been used for parking trucks and trailers on various parts of the Property. 9. In August 2016, the County of Dakota commenced a condemnation action seeking to acquire a large portion of the Property consisting of approximately 284,528 square feet or 6.53 acres. This Property was claimed for expansion of the 52/42 interchange including the possibility of a cloverleaf design that generated the arcing triangular-shaped taking area of the Property DOCS -#5471779 -vi ("Original Taking Area"). Attached hereto as Exhibit E, is a true and correct pictorial depiction of the Original Taking Area. 10. After the public purpose hearing in October 2016, Dakota County limited its acquisition of the Property to its immediate project need of widening parts of the 52/42 intersection. During the negotiations between CMC/Wayne and Dakota County, it was disclosed that the County and highway department had plans to expand the intersection in the future so it was still willing to consider acquiring the Original Taking Area and even the entire Property. This is consistent with the Rosemount 2030 Land Use Plan with Roadway Network diagram which depicts the cloverleaf design in the Original Taking Area. (Ex. C.) An agreement as to valuation for the Original Taking Area or the entire Property could not be reached between CMC/Wayne and Dakota County in the time frame available. Dakota County has represented that it is still willing to negotiate acquiring the Original Taking Area or the entire Property because of the public need and future expansion of the intersection. 11. In light of the likelihood that the Original Taking Area will be acquired and our existing use and future needs, Applicant does not need or desire a building to be part of this area. Wayne has sufficient building space on the adjacent property to the north. Wayne's needs are for truck parking. The development restrictions render the Property unable to achieve a reasonable return. Without installation of the parking lot and if the City does not allow parking in Outlot B or other areas it views as outside of the historical use, there is little unleased area that is available for parking and able to achieve a reasonable return. The site plan design would allow Applicant to generate approximately $4,200 per month in revenue that could not be generated without it. Without installation of the parking, this revenue stream will be unavailable. The remaining area of the Property is leased to a tenant which generates $3,400 per month. If the Original Taking 3 DOCS -#5471779 -vi Area is acquired, Applicant is likely to lose the $3,400 per month revenue stream. Although the $4,200 income stream combined with the tenant rental is still only a marginal return from the Property, this is reasonable and consistent with the less substantial investment in the parking lot and uncertain future of the Property. 12. The site plan conforms to all performance standards that are not inconsistent with the Official Map and Comprehensive Plan. The landscaping will enhance the aesthetics and natural transition of uses. Public utilities are available and accessible to the property. Lighting will be the minimum required by City for our use in order to minimally disturb adjacent uses. Applicant does not anticipate significant levels of noise, vibration, glare, smoke, odor, waste or other emissions, but levels consistent with the continuing use as a truck/trailer storage facility. 13. Wayne Transports employs over 600 people companywide with around 250 of those employees located at our Rosemount facility. Wayne is providing a necessary service in this area and values the good relationship with the City of Rosemount while operating our business here and wishes to continue that relationship moving forward. We believe this plan is a reasonable approach to the limitations and uncertainty inherent in the Property and would greatly appreciate the City giving us approval to proceed. I declare under penalty of perjury that everything I have stated in this declaration is true and correct. 4 DOCS -#5471779-v 1 Dated: December .2 0, 2016 5 DOCS-#5471779-vl f, � Aerial Lot 1 and Outlot B September 21, 2016 FA Torrens Property Multi -owner Parcel Tax Parcels Water in Tax Parcel Tax Parcel Right of Way Easement Dedicated Right of Way Pending New Water 1:4,110 0 0.035 0.07 0 0.05 01 0.14 mi 0.2 km Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, appraisal, survey or for zoning venficabon Title Basket ISL/51406.0006 Created Date: 12/5/2016 County: OK Order Number: 1 1 12:18:04 PM Subdivision RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK Name: Book: 2800 Page: 1102 Lot: is Block: From Date: 11/1/1988 ITo Date: 11/28/2016 Doc Doc Type Grantor/Grantee Dated Recorded Details Number RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK SOLBERG PARTNERSHIP LLP &FLEETDEVELOPMENT LLC 1631708 PLAT &KOCHPETROLEUM GROUP LP 8/24/1999 8/24/1999 L,B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK Ref Doc: 36-40 1631709 RES CITY OF HE PUBLIC 8/3/1999 8/3/1999 8/24/1999 L , B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK 1680417 WD H PETROLEUM GROUP LP SSSOLBERG PARTNERSHIP LIMITED ` 8/25/2000 3/21/2000 LB, B OUTLOT B XCEL ENERGY INC. 1805118 AST NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY FKA NORTHERN POWER 12/29/2000 8/23/2001 L,B CORPORATION ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK AMERICAN BANK OF ST. PAUL 1997779 AMD FS FLEET DEVELOPMENT LLC ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK 2/10/2003 L , B Ref Doc: 1516382 MIDWAY NATIONAL BANK OF ST. PAUL 1997780 AMD FS AMERICAN BANK OF ST. PAUL ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK 2/10/2003 L , B Ref Doc: 1516382 AMERICAN BANK OF ST. PAUL 1997781 CONT FS FLEET DEVELOPMENT LLC ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK 2/10/2003 L , B Ref Doc: 1516382 2189213 SUB FLEET DEVELOPMENT, LLC, ETAL TWIN CITIES -METRO CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ETAL 3/26/2004 L , B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK AMERICAN BANK OF ST. PAUL 2302157 REL MTG FLEET DEVELOPMENT, LLC 2/22/2005 3/7/2005 L,B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK RELEASE OF MTG 1516380 & AR 1516381 AMERICAN BANK OF ST. PAUL 2302158 TERM FS FLEET DEVELOPMENT, LLC ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK 3/7/2005 L , B Ref Doc: 1516382 2535824 R/W MAP CITY OF ROSEMOUNT THE PUBLIC 6/29/2005 8/8/2007 L B, B TH 52/CSAH 42 2914725 WD SOL.BERG LLP CMC PROPERTIES LLC' 11/15/2012 12/12/2012 L B, B WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 3025260 REL FLEET PARKING AND LOGISTICS INC. 8/8/2014 8/15/2014 L , 8 ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK Ref Doc: 2189213 DAKOTA COUNTY 3141998 R/W MAP THE PUBLIC 8/2/2016 8/4/2016 LB, B CO RD AD]. Ref Doc: 340 COUNTY OF DAKOTA 3163050 R/W MAP THE PUBLIC PARCEL 6 ON CR R/W MAP 340A 11/15/2016 11/22/2016 L B, B Ref Doc: 340A 1-1 EXHIBIT 12/5/2016 12:22:44 PM Title Basket JSL/51406.0006 Created Date: 12/5/2016County: DK Order Number: 12:17:40 PM Subdivision RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK Name: Book: 2800 Page: 1102 Lot: 11 Block: 11 From Date: 11/1/1988 ITo Date: 11/28/2016 Doc Doc Type Grantor/Grantee Dated Recorded Details Number RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK' SOLBERG..PARTNERSHIP LLP &FLEETDEVELOPMENT LLC 1631708 PLAT &KOCHPETROLEUM GROUP LP 8/24/1999 8/24/1999 L , B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK Ref Doc: 36-40 CITY OF 1631709 RES THE PUBLICEMOUNT 8/3/1999 8/24/1999 L , B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK XCEL ENERGY INC. 1805118 AST NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY FKA NORTHERN POWER 12/29/2000 8/23/2001 L , B CORPORATION ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK AMERICAN BANK OF ST. PAUL 1997779 AMD FS FLEET DEVELOPMENT LLC 2/10/2003 L , B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK Ref Doc: 1516382 MIDWAY NATIONAL BANK OF ST. PAUL 1997780 AMD FS AMERICAN BANK OF ST. PAUL 2/10/2003 L , B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK Ref Doc: 1516382 AMERICAN BANK OF ST. PAUL 1997781 CONT FS FLEET DEVELOPMENT LLC ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK 2/10/2003 L , B Ref Doc: 1516382 FLEET DEVELOPMENT, LLC, ETAL 2189213 SUB TWIN CITIES -METRO CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ETAL 3/26/2004 L , B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK AMERICAN BANK OF ST. PAUL 2302157 REL MTG FLEET DEVELOPMENT, LLC ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK RELEASE OF MTG 1516380 & 2/22/2005 3/7/2005 L , B AR 1516381 AMERICAN BANK OF ST. PAUL 2302158 TERM FS FLEET DEVELOPMENT, LLC ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK 3/7/2005 L , B Ref Doc: 1516382 2535824 R/W MAP CITY OF ROSEMOUNT THE PUBLIC 6/29/2005 8/8/2007 L 1, B 1 TH 52/CSAH 42 2914725 WD SOLBERG LLP 11/15/2012 12/12/2012 L 1, B 1 CMC PROPERTIES LLC WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 3025260 REL FLEET PARKING AND LOGISTICS INC. 8/8/2014 8/15/2014 L, B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK Ref Doc: 2189213 DAKOTA COUNTY 3141998 R/W MAP THE PUBLIC 8/2/2016 8/4/2016 L 1, B 1 CO RD ADJ. Ref Doc: 340 COUNTY OF DAKOTA 3163050 R/W MAP THE PUBLIC PARCEL 5 ON CR R/W MAP 340A 11/15/2016 11/22/2016 L 1, B 1 Ref Doc: 340A 1 - 1 12/5/2016 12:21:42 PM 2030 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN May, 2009 4ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA EXHIBIT Location Criteria: The size of districts intended for auto orientated businesses may be as small as 10 acres, while the size of districts intended for businesses with a regional draw should be a minimum of 50 acres. Auto orientated business district should be located along arterial roads, while regional draw districts should be located at the intersections or interchanges of principal arterial roads. Minimum Requirements for Development: Frontage and backage road systems. Utilities: Municipal water and sanitary sewer are required. Typical Uses: Hotels; theaters; big box retail; post -secondary education; vehicle sales and rentals; auto repair garages; tool repair; machinery sales; contractor yards; and retail. Appropriate Zoning: C3 — Highway Commercial Limited Secondary Zoning: C4 — General Commercial Two Regional Commercial districts are provided within the Land Use Plan: an approximately 20 acre district bounded by South Robert Trail, Canada Circle, and the Union Pacific rail line; and an approximately 350 acre district surrounding the intersection of County Road 42 and US Highway 52. The 20 acre Regional Commercial district is intended for auto oriented businesses. This district provides an area for the auto orientated businesses currently located Downtown, or the contractor businesses located southwest of County Road 42 and South Robert Trail, can be relocated. The 350 acre Regional Commercial district is intended for businesses with a regional draw or with products that are sold annually or less often. Big box retail, theaters, or hotels are appropriate uses in this area, as well as an area for existing vehicle sales businesses in other parts of the City to relocate. Business Park (BP) Purpose: The intent of the Business Park district is to develop businesses with a large number of employees, wages that support an entire family, and constructed of high quality buildings that provide both beauty and tax base to the community. Establishments within the business park are intended to have little or no outdoor storage, with the majority of the business activities occurring completely indoors. Location Criteria: The size of each Business Park district is intended to be greater than 150 acres in size. The district should be located adjacent to heavily traveled arterial roads to provide both visibility and access to these major Webb Company, Rosemount Business Park employment centers. Minimum Requirements for Development: Within the MUSA and with an improved access to a collector and/or arterial road to serve the district. The street network within the business park should be designed to accommodate truck and freight traffic while also providing sidewalks and pedestrian improvements for employees to use during breaks and lunch periods. 70 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan +, ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Document No. 2535824 Office of the County Reoorder Dakota County, Minnesota 08108/2007 at 08:00am Certified and filed on the date and time above Joel T. RIGHT OF WAY PLAT By: CK, Deputy County Recorder Fee: 66.00 Charge: Rosemount GRANTORS: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT' Return: File > t PUBLIC Dated: JUNE 29th._ 2005 Filed: AUQUSI Btb. 2007 Time: Q8:00 am Boole: Page: -- FEE: - Part of: The Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Ouarter of Section 191 FUZ The Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 311 The Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30; -- The Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter. of Section 361 The Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Ouarter,of Section 3(h The Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Ouorter,of Section 301 MAL: The Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Ouarter. of Section '301 The Southeast Ouorter of the Northeast Oucrter.of Seotlon 30s — The Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter.of Section 30; Lemli 4 &Wior 8 The Southeast Quarter of the Northwest 'Quarter, of Section 30; 1�. F4% casaetaurcarA.�{Th0 Southwe4t Quarter of the Northwest Ouarter.of Section 30;} iA Rr ,A�The Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter.of Section. 30; Arc ALL-EYZWK'Pin Township 115. Ranos, 18. Dakota County, Mirmesoto. Also part of: The Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Ouarter or Sectlon 241 The Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, of . Section 251 - the Sbutheast Quarter of the Northeast Ouarter.of Section 251 --5he Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter.of Seation 251) -p° he Northwest Duarter of the Southeaat Quarter. of Seotion 251 The Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter.of Sectlon 251 -• The Southeoet Quarter of the Southeast Quarter.of Section 251 All In Township 115. Range 19.0akota County Minnesota. CITY LOCATED: Roje fAgoti r PLAT NAME: CjTy Of: P pOsat 0 00-r T C6 A 42- 'OFFte-im . tAA4 OF PROPOSeD RICIIA-OP-WA'Yf **Information sheet only --Original document found in fde- EXHIBIT 0mvM+o-2aAm rn 9ozosN r c� .0lom.-Iewo rn n. .—ZZZ3 00 Z oan�� chino zoo srr o j azzzr mv�o.. ,n�Kmm -zip-si oco. �2 z 1 ii ��pApm smK y N 2 og `z Cn m V) 2K y mD --1-) C7 9 r 0�: .um .. LIP m m -m-I $ \M t rst a [ a[.".u. A• i qer^..} �. 4s, . Dt .t Cn m V) 2K y mD --1-) C7 9 r 0�: .um .. LIP m m -m-I $ \M V) rst a [ a[.".u. L.m......... Or _rn� m � # z �S 44 MATCH LINE A (SEE SHEET 2 OF 4 SHEETS)a " WHIM SI .. 61 ;0— w -n O rj °a gz .J�iiiia:s33RR� a°g444°S33°.: ! fIs�s�� a---�-i ::L m r1„ ^ f m IIA f• !'.i 9 Ln F 9 y« W= Or _rn� m � # z �S 44 MATCH LINE A (SEE SHEET 2 OF 4 SHEETS)a " WHIM SI .. 61 ;0— w -n O rj °a gz .J�iiiia:s33RR� a°g444°S33°.: ! fIs�s�� d r' F k =nosh may z o.. pGm �ma m o��r-x►n n$ m..►Z2M05— O ZOO azi'zI m'mm r• ►� oro O G y K n Z T 2CZ r =T= zmnz K K Nom N 2 O S me MA nx o z N m rn rn a 9 y» X$ rf6'+Ki tia.Rd ----.Y .faM_ti3. k?ii i•ai .Z7 O A vo N OTI -4 —1 V)m Z G rn_ 00 tT O s-« N -n x> \ "r- 0 M 0 to O x3c a CA iD x m Iv � O o x'10 N C I TI Z D i ZODO•+C mXf�'19 r OcO-:!»n m OOznmy-aiv q rrn >mmm0. 0n z O pn.. zzy7izz m o ZO ~S rr OpO 9ZZ9r Z2r9-., m__cpaz =Om 0= pcprosA ~ ' 2Ctit PiZ� mmmz Kmi zom < Oc m� c i= IA ti m z (I a I Y � � rn w : N m On z m a � LA m x> --- ' --...._....._.._ -.:__ ...--_...._.. "" oaas'x.+^x .cKa�- w. a�•q, aa..s: `..,. mD US HWY. 52 �i �.'.4 x90�'ai•i?�a n"..e --"' �•u•Ift u17.�! - __ Orr"' 4 i z N n ax Ni...f v v�Y•Ma i '" • CeyCD7 a tes.ka { >, rrlS § . a•a•aa� w.n__• rri } I 9 e a m o -n Nm 1 �1 Z00 Ln � c x m a ♦ �3 ��7 0� a o mo ry c ,r4 D rge �„ z n 00 V rOWor(Nj1 wLn0000 tA(AtA T T T n� O O �M m `u' =" h & .A rt N - IN CO N EXHIBIT n C) -0 O --1 0O :3_0 r r fD -N m O X `p' Zr N 0 0 N z z + a oz •• O 3 t0 z Z�Qzz� U H �;- zF" a Q = o o U o WOCD14 zz' 0& o - o II z ,-;�icri�vi x 'I <w I z --_ — - _ 00 _ _ �� —�� —zaa, 3f1N3AV Ail ®—_-<>,—��-- zo a� N0C H� r, I NJ SZ 35 � O w IIII rYr F� I rf 1/11 �IllI{{�I ISI \ L ° Y � 4 0 II Ill, �m I------------ �W \ o _�" �safl pjE z — — — — — — — — — — S2 W� 3 'o 3U o r .a z a< � - ° ZD r -- - - m mmmmmaa°aaaaaww,_,_,_°°°�x�_a��x��aaaaaaaaaaa�amm�� II II w Ci a Ohio a a" d z aUl11.1 oll, e€ ado e m M2 b0�ad� .�3mLLo f11 s 0 10 67 o o0a a�}o®••�CUo�o•�®®®be®o- O O d n`®1 I} I Ili I �li I ® � ) i I d ° 01 E A 3 � 3 a vv, inLLx ott p33caim v,LL�r�v,�a v,c» » » xo v,m¢wo�ac�rv�mmawoo�r LL¢LLaLLc�i�rwv, ° mrcww vim a a T8 Q • b n 3 � 3 a vv, inLLx ott p33caim v,LL�r�v,�a v,c» » » xo v,m¢wo�ac�rv�mmawoo�r LL¢LLaLLc�i�rwv, ° mrcww vim a a Q J _ ryI Ilo s U � Q - Vl 1 w a N H o o j w a - � Il�si m w III III � III I T A^ 1111 G o 3Eg�a e®off®A A G I�� Sap G I - — — — — — ------------ - 3oN3AV A3IN00 -\ _ � t O -/ ---- o d� N LL 3 l6 3U d z ow w� 0 0 I �< �< 3nN3A-- --- t. <�_,___�<____ �V ,131N00 ----- %; 4 9 iM z,x esu o \ j .............eLe��s o ogy -------------eL I' a I /ol i P _--- ------ tH ��amo .�3mLL° W� o Nam NH-a— On o z �Ao mho z ZD r n` -E mgE6 nm NA z -q, Fw U.oE E N E. NO< jj z ofz- . . . —H Mn P. iY_5=5 0 u mem in cn �En < 0 cn 17 < F� EL LL] u zo >— Qol 0 O0 o <%9�- CD LLI 10 LLI < > EL < EL (n In gko ,2 OD E ,Z I [L 0 b4 A Al MF 21, IL • -- — 3nN]AV _ — _ — — None of the Brd'e•�d�-6'9NPI•TV—FMf;I•I•T-2r MtihB LEGEND PID# 346395001010 DENOTES PARCEL LINE DENOTES EXISTING R/W LINE MAP #340 PARCEL #5 --- DENOTES PROPOSED R/W LINE ------ DENOTES TEMPORARY EASEMENT LINE CMC PROPERTIES LLC NEW HIGHWAY R/W (FEE) 12,349 S.F. COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY N0. 42 & STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY 56/52. ROSEMOUNT, MN I p igr OUTLOT B — — North line of the NW 1 PID# 346395000020 MAP #340 PARCEL #6 CMC PROPERTIES LLC 04 I-- 0 J 0 1 i RCEL 6 lwk_ LEGEND DENOTES PARCEL LINE - - - DENOTES EXISTING R/W LINE - - - DENOTES PROPOSED R/W LINE _-- - -- DENOTES TEMPORARY EASEMENT LINE NEW HIGHWAY R/W (FEE) 7,583 S.F. TEMPORARY EASEMENT 1,026 S.F. MEMORANDUM DATE: January 24, 2017 TO: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner CC:Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director John Morast, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Amy Roudebush, Planning and Personnel Secretary FROM:Mitch Hatcher, ProjectEngineer RE: Wayne TransportsEngineering Review S UBMITTAL: Prepared by Pioneer Engineering, the Wayne Transports Rosemount Terminal, dated December 2, 2016. The review comments were generated from the following documents included in the submittal: Plan comprised of the following: Site Plan Existing Conditions Grading & Erosion Control Plan Details Landscape and Seeding Plan Stormwater Management Plan and Calculations G ENERAL C OMMENTS: 1.Dimensions, contours, grades, and spot elevations should be shown on the proposed pavement sections. 2.The proposed parking lots should be installed with concrete curb and gutter with storm sewer catch basins to route stormwater runoff to the pond. 3.It is recommended that the section to remain gravel on the west side of the site be improved to a paved surface. 4.If the proposed pavement sections are to be used for parking, a striping plan should be submitted for review. 5.Compliance with the requirements of the NPDES permit is the responsibility of the owner/contractor. Documentation of permit acquisition shall be forwarded to the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. 6.Record drawings (paper and electronic formats) of the site that meet the standards set forth in the Engineering Guidelines shall be submitted to the City. S TORMWATER C OMMENTS: 7.NWL and HWL should be shown on the plan sheets. 8.Lining of NURP ponding areas is not required by the City; however, the developer may want to consider as ponding areas will likely not maintain vegetation below the NWL. 9.No EOF labels are shown for the proposed stormwater basins. 10.Max slope of 4:1 are allowed above the NWL for stormwater basins. Detail on sheet 5 shows 3:1 slopes. Update grading plan, details, and calculations accordingly. 11.FES are set to the NWL, they should be set with ½ the pipe diameter below the NWL. Water Quantity: 12.City Engineering Guidelines require an infiltration surface area that is 1/12 of an acre- foot/acre/day for the entire drainage area. The requirements for Pond 20 based on the 10.64 ac-ft drainage area is 0.88 ac-ft/day. The Hydraulic Report should be updated to reflect the correct calculations. Infiltration surface area provided above the NWL does not meet the City standards utilizing and infiltration rate of 1.0 in/hr. Additional information is required to justify this infiltration rate assumption. a.Infiltration calculations should be calculated over a 24 hour period, not 48 hours as calculated in the Hydraulic report. Developer should provide the correct basin surface area consistent with the HydroCADreport and correct calculations to show compliance with City requirements. b.Max allowable infiltration rate in accordance with City Engineering Guidelines for HSG A Soils is 0.30 in/hr. Different infiltration rates will be considered (up to a maximum of 3.0 in/hour) by the City Engineer on a site-by-site basis based on percolation tests or other pertinent information conducted by a professional soil scientist or Professional Engineer. c.Note: USGS Soils map submitted indicates HSG B soils in the area of the proposed infiltration basin surrounded by HSG A under the proposed parking surfaces. 13.A post construction percolation test must be performed on each infiltration basin and must demonstrate that the constructed infiltration rate meets or exceeds the design infiltration rate prior to project acceptance by the city. 14.No discharge or infiltration can be assumed for the 100-year, 24-hour storm event to establish the 100-year HWL. HWL to be listed on the Grading Plan should reflect this requirement. 15.Discharge Volume Table below summarizes information provided in the development HydroCAD report. Storage for the runoff from this site has not been accounted for in the proposed stormwater basin to be constructed onsite. Discharge Volume Sub-catchment 2-yr/24-hr 10-yr/24-hr 100-yr/24-hr SummaryArea (2.79”) (4.15”)(7.43”) Proposed Pond 20 Outflow 0.53 ac-ft 1.17 ac-ft 3.19 ac-ft Conditions Total Offsite 0.53 ac-ft 1.17 ac-ft 3.19 ac-ft Rate Control: 16.Discharge Rate Table below summarized information provided in the development HydroCAD report. Storage of the runoff from the 100-year 24 hour storm event is required to be kept on-site as stated in the City Engineering Guidelines Section II.2.b. Discharge Rate Sub-catchment 2-yr/24-hr10-yr/24-hr100-yr/24-hr SummaryArea(2.79”)(4.15”)(7.43”) Proposed Pond 20 Outflow 1.10cfs1.75 cfs 8.72 cfs Conditions Total Offsite 1.10 cfs 1.75 cfs 8.72cfs Water Quality: 17.Pretreatment of stormwater is required prior to discharge to an infiltration basin. 18.The water quality table in the submitted stormwater management plan should show the requirements for Pond 20 onsite. The design does not appear to meet the NURP ponding requirements. a.The required NURP volume is 1.23 ac-ft and the stage storage tables in the HydroCAD report for Pond 20 indicates cumulative storage available at elevation 868.0’ to be 0.82 ac-ft. 19.Permanent pool average depth shall be greater than 4 feet based on City Engineering Standards Section II.3.a.ii. Average pool depth looks to be about 2.7 feet. 20.The City requires skimmers in the construction of new ponds in accordance with the City Engineering Guidelines Section II.3.f. Recommend requiring the developer to install an OCS with a submerged outlet pipe with the invert placed a minimum of 6 inches below the normal water level. The skimmer design shall be consistent with the current City detail. Should you have any questions or comments regarding the items listed above, please contact me at 651-322-2015. AerialImagefrom2011 AerialImagefrom2013 AerialImagefrom2016