HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.c. PCExSummFHR_ATS_SP01242017EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Planning Commission Meeting: January 24, 2017
Tentative City Council Meeting: February 21, 2017
AGENDA ITEM: 17-05-V, 17-06-V, 17-07-SP: Request by
Flint Hills Resources for Site Plan
AGENDA SECTION:
Review of an Ammonium Thiosulfate
Public Hearing
Storage and Load Out Facility with
Variances
PREPARED BY: Anthony Nemcek, Planner AGENDA NO. 5.c.
ATTACHMENTS: Site Location Map, Site Plan, Landscape
Plan, Building Elevations, Applicant
APPROVED BY: K.L.
Narratives, Engineering Memo Dated
January 24, 2016, City Comments on
EAW
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to approve a variance from the
Landscaping Ordinance requirements for required plantings with the following conditions:
1. Payment of $25,500 in lieu of planting 85 trees.
2. Planting of 85 trees on the berm being created on the western boundary of Flint Hills
AND
Motion by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to approve a variance from the
Zoning Ordinance setback requirements.
AND
Motion to approve the site plan for Flint Hills Resources to allow construction of an
Ammonium Thiosulfate (ATS) Storage and Loadout Terminal at 12895 Courthouse
Boulevard, subject to conditions:
1. Issuance of a building permit.
2. Submission of a landscape security equal to one hundred and ten percent (110%) of
the total cost of the required plantings.
3. All trash containers shall be stored within a building or an enclosure consistent with
the standards in Section 5-1-3.
4. Conformance with all conditions of the City Engineer as outlined in the memo dated
January 24, 2016
SUMMARY
The applicant, Flint Hills Refinery (FHR) is requesting site plan approval of a proposed Ammonium
Thiosulfate (ATS) Storage and Load Out Facility along with variances from two sections of the City Code.
The project involves the replacement of several older existing tanks with new tanks to support the ATS
service. Additionally, the project will include improved rail and truck load out facilities and small buildings
to house pumps and office/garage space. The applicant is anticipating construction will commence in
early 2017.
Applicant and Property Owner: Flint Hills Resources
Location: 12895 Courthouse Boulevard at the 52/55 interchange
Area in Acres: 50.608
Comp. Guide Plan Designation: GI-General Industrial
Current Zoning: HI-Heavy Industrial
BACKGROUND
This project was originally announced by the applicant in 2014. The applicant, Flint Hills Resources, plans
to develop this site to capture sulfur and nitrogen from fuel processing at the refinery and produce a form
of fertilizer that will then be sold. , which tighten sulfur limits for
gasoline, are the impetus behind this project. Rosemount
Clean Energies biodiesel blending terminal which is located in the southeast quadrant of the Highway 52
and 55 intersection. Improvements to the site include the removal and replacement of several existing
tanks, new rail and truck loadout facilities, and two buildings to house pumps and office/shop space. In
2016, the proposed ATS terminal was reviewed by the Pollution Control Agency as part of a larger EAW
dedicated to site modifications entitled technology and efficiency improvement projects. The Agency
granted a negative declaration on the need for an Environment Impact Statement. The City made some
minor comments relating to entire EAW which are included for the Commissions information.
Heavy manufacturing, including large structures or equipment which: 1) refine or store combustible or
explosive materials or 2) blend, store, and distribute chemicals or fertilizer are permitted uses in the HI-
Heavy Industrial zoning district. This site was part of the original Continental Nitrogen site, which was
subdivided into three parcels. The active part of the site is zoned Heavy Industrial as dictated by the
Comprehensive Plan. The subject site is surrounded by industrial uses with the Hawkins, Inc. plant and
warehouse to the north and the Origination O2D, Inc. distribution facility to the east. The land south of
the site contains open land owned by the applicant and beyond that southern parcels are being farmed.
The southern properties are zoned for General Industrial; there is no intention to expand the Heavy
Industrial zone in this area, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
In addition to a general site plan, the applicant has provided architectural drawings of the office/shop and
pump buildings, a drainage study and stormwater pollution prevention plan, a landscape study, and other
how it relates to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance is provided in the next section. Staff has also
re
There are two variance requests included with the site plan review. The applicant is requesting a variance
from the landscaping requirements and a variance from the setback requirements of the Heavy Industrial
Zoning District. These requests will be reviewed in detail in subsequent sections of this report.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
The purpose of a site plan review is to evaluate each project as it relates to the performance and site design
standards of the zoning ordinance. Site plan approval is required for all commercial, industrial,
institutional, and multi-family development projects. In this case, the applicant is proposing to construct
an industrial storage and loadout facility that is subject to the site plan review process.
2
Site plan applications are approved by the Planning Commission and considered a quasi-judicial action. As
such, the City has a set of standards and requirements for review. Generally, if a site plan application meets
the ordinance requirements it must be approved. These standards are outlined in Section 11-4-16-1
(Heavy Industrial District) and 11-10-3 (Site and Building Plan Review).
The subject property is guided for General Industrial uses in accordance with
the 2030 Future Land Use Plan, which is intended to provide an opportunity for employment with wages
that can support an entire family while the businesses typically have a lower tax base per acre than other
commercial and industrial uses. General Industrial businesses normally generate noises, smells, vibrations,
and truck traffic that can be disturbing to non-industrial land uses. The present zoning of the property as
HI-Heavy Industrial is consistent with the land use designation. The proposed ATS storage and loadout
facility is consistent with the land use plan and the facility is compatible with adjoining industrial uses.
As proposed, the subject property is consistent with the HI-Heavy
Industrial lot standards. The subject property is an existing lot of record and exceeds the minimum lot
requirements. The site plan provided by the applicant indicates the proposed office/shop building shows
a side yard setback along the northeast lot line shared with Hawkins of 36 feet; the required setback is 75
feet. The proposed site plan indicates that variances are also required for the setbacks of the storage tanks
from the western and northeastern parcel lines. The lot and building standards for the HI district are
detailed in the table below.
Building Performance Standards for the HI-Heavy Industrial District
Standard Required Proposed
Minimum Lot Size 25 Acres 50.61 acres
Front (Northwest) 75 317 ft.
Side (West) 75 feet or 150 feet for tanks up to 35 ft. tall 119 ft.
Side (Northeast) 75 feet or 300 feet for tanks taller than 35 ft. 36 ft. and 289 ft.
Rear (Southeast) 75 405 ft.
Maximum Lot Coverage 70% 46.5% (with future add.)
The zoning ordinance requires industrial buildings facing right of way or
residential uses to have a combination of glass, brick, natural stone, specialty integral colored concrete
block (including textured, burnished, and rock faced block), tile (masonry, stone or clay), architectural
textured concrete panels cast in place, precast concrete panels or better. All other wall surfaces shall be
constructed of at least forty percent (40%) of these materials. The remaining sixty percent (60%) of the
surfaces of these walls that do not face a right of way or residential uses may be finished steel or
aluminum.
Plans provided by the applicant indicate that the operations building containing the office and shop area
will feature brick on the northwest and west exterior walls. The other walls will have surfaces comprised
of 40% brick. All four walls of the pump building, because it is located at the interior of the site and
surrounded by storage tanks, will have surfaces containing 40% brick.
The Zoning Ordinance requires that new uses provide a certain number of parking
stalls based on the parking schedule found in Section 11-6-1 of the City Code. The plans provided by the
applicant indicate 9 parking stalls provided at the Office/Shop building. The requirement for offices
3
within an industrial use is one parking stall for every 200 square feet of gross floor area. The plan meets
the requirement. In addition to the office portion of the building, a shop containing three parking bays is
included in the building plans. Because this area provides parking for three vehicles and is not anticipated
to create additional need for parking beyond what is provided, staff feels the plans as proposed meet the
requirements of the ordinance. The second building on the site is intended to house pumping units and is
not included in the parking calculations or requirements.
The proposed plans include 105 trees, seven deciduous, and 98 coniferous. The trees are
located in two areas. The deciduous trees are located in a grassy area separating the parking and
office/shop from Pine Bend Trail near the entrance to the site. The coniferous trees are located along the
Highway 52 frontage and along the paved roadway leading to the ATS terminal facility. The ordinance
requires one tree for every 3,000 square feet of land area. The site is 2,220,720 square feet equating to a
740 tree requirement. Therefore the plan is 635 trees short of the ordinance standard. The applicant is
requesting a variance from the total amount of trees required to be planted.
based on the amount of land that is actually being disturbed as a part of the proposed project. That area is
823,284 square feet. Based on lessor area, the total amount of trees to be planted is 275. Further, the
applicant is asking that consideration be given to the amount of landscaping the applicant has planted in
other locations owned by the applicant away from the site of the proposed ATS Terminal. The variance is
reviewed in more detail below. Staff is recommending approval of the variance with the condition that half
of the difference between the 275 trees required based on the affected area (85) be paid for in lieu of
planting. That amount is $25,500. Plantings on the proposed berm at the edg can
count for the other half. The landscaping ordinance also requires foundation plantings to be planted
around each building in the amount of one per every 10 linear feet. The landscaping plan provided by the
applicant exceeds this requirement for plantings around the office building. Because of the placement of
the pump building within the tank farm and out of view of surrounding rights of way, staff feels that the
intent of the ordinance is met by installing additional foundation plantings around the office/shop
building. The total perimeter of the pump building and office/shop building is 430 linear feet. The
landscape plan indicates 44 foundation plantings around the office/shop.
The applicant has conducted a survey to identify significant trees on the site. The site
currently has 256 significant trees. The applicant will be removing 59 trees, which represents 23% of the
existing significant trees. The City Code allows developers to remove up to 25% of significant trees on the
site without replacement.
The applicant is intending to use the existing signage at the site and has no plans for additional
signage. Existing signage consists of one freestanding sign and small directional signage.
A lighting plan provided by the applicant indicates that all lights will be mounted on
poles no taller than 30 feet in conformance with City Code. The lighting fixtures are consistent with the
different uses on the site in both design and bulb type. City Code requires all lighting to be directed
toward the ground and shielded to prevent glare. Additionally, fixtures must be placed in a manner that no
light emitting surface is visible from any public roadway when viewed at ground level. The applicant will
be installing lighting fixtures that are dark sky friendly and that meet the city code. A photometric model
for the entire site will be provided for the entire site with the final design package that is submitted with
the building permits to ensure that the lighting is within the City required limit of .5 lumens at the property
line.
4
recommends a condition of approval require the applicant to store all trash containers within a building or
construct an enclosure consistent with the standards in Section 5-1-3.
memo dated January 24, 2016. The comments include the need for confirmation of adequate truck
turning radii and that stacking will not occur on Pine Bend Trail. The applicant is confident that adequate
stacking space is provided within the site. Other comments from the engineer relate to stormwater and
utility services.
VARIANCE REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Background
The applicant is requesting variances from some of the landscaping and setback requirements of the
zoning ordinance. Regarding the landscaping variance, the applicant is seeking permission to avoid
planting the total number of trees required by the ordinance based on the size of the site. The zoning
ordinance requires one tree to be planted for every 3000 square feet of land area. In this case, the size of
the parcel on which the proposed ATS Terminal is located is 2,220,720 square feet. This results in a
requirement of 740 trees to be planted on the site. The applicant has provided a landscape plan that
indicates 105 trees will be planted. The majority of the trees are located along the Highway 52 frontage.
The rest of the trees are located near the entrance to the site located on Pine Bend Trail and along the
driveway leading to the interior of the site. The applicant is requesting that only the affected area of the site
is used to calculate the number of trees required in the landscaping plan and that consideration be given to
the amount of landscaping the applicant is providing on land owned by the applicant away from the site of
the proposed ATS terminal. As noted above, staff is supportive of the landscape plan and suggested
landscape calculations.
The second variance request pertains to the setback requirements contained in the zoning ordinance.
Plans provided by the applicant propose structures that encroach upon required setbacks at three different
points. The first is the office building. The proposed location of the office building is 36 feet from the
northeast property line. The City Code requires a setback of 75 feet. The applicant is requesting the
variance due to the irregular shape of the property and the need to accommodate truck traffic within the
site. The second and third setback variance requests pertain to storage tanks. One storage tank is
proposed to be located 119 feet from the nearest property line. The setback requirement for a tank of its
height is 150 feet. The applicant is requesting this variance due to the location of an electrical substation
that causes the property line to jut in closer to the proposed storage tank. The other storage tank is taller
and has a higher setback requirement of 300 feet. As proposed the setback is 289 feet from the nearest
property line along Highway 52.
taller tanks are being removed and additional screening is being provided to make the site more in
compliance with the intent and purposes of the City Code. The review of these variance requests as
weighed against the five criteria is provided below.
Variance Standards
According to Section 11-12-2.G, there are five criteria for the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to
review when considering a variance request. The five criteria used to assess
findings for each are listed below. While weighing a variance 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
5
variance. The Board of Zoning Appeals must approve or deny each request based on findings related to
each of the five standards.
Landscape Variance
1. The variance request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance.
Finding: Staff finds that the intent of the ordinance to improve the visual appearance of the site
from the property boundary is kept due to the planting of trees along the entire property line
running parallel to Highway 52. The proposed trees will provide enhanced screening that was not
previously available.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Finding: The Comprehensive Plan, in the Environmental and Natural Resources Plan section, lists
protecting wetlands and natural resources from environmentally insensitive development. Staff
feels that this goal is met by allowing the applicant to leave the undisturbed, natural areas on the
site in their current state. Requiring an additional 635 trees to meet the City Code requirements
would necessitate the disturbance of the remaining natural areas on the site.
3. Granting of the variance allows reasonable use of the property.
Finding: While the applicant would still have reasonable use of the site if the Code requirements
were met, staff finds it more important to avoid excessive disturbance of the natural areas of the
site.
4. There are unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner.
Finding: The size of the parcel on which the proposed project is located is much larger than the
area affected by the project. The landowner was not involved in the subdivision of the parcel,
which is creating the need for the variance.
5. Granting of the variance does not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: Granting of the variance does not alter the essential character of the locality. In fact, the
character will be improved with the project, and granting the variance will limit impacts on the
essential character of the locality. Specifically, more of the natural areas on the site will remain
undisturbed by the granting of the variance.
Setback Variance
1. The variance request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance.
Finding: Staff finds the request in harmony with the ordinance. The variance request is a result of
irregular parcel lines. The proposed project will bring the site further into compliance with the
ordinance than currently is.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Finding: The comprehensive plan calls for placing industrial uses near one another and to use
buffering to limit the impacts of the use. The site plan shows the property to be located within the
existing developed area of the site. By keeping the affected area to the north and west portion of
the site allows a greater buffer from Highway 52 and less disturbance of natural areas on the site.
6
3. Granting of the variance allows reasonable use of the property.
Finding: The variance allows the landowner to avoid disturbing currently undisturbed areas. Also,
the variance allows for easier traffic movement within the site by taking into account the wide
turning radius required by trucks.
4. There are unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner.
Finding: The site features irregular parcel lines including a tapering near the Pine Bend Trail right
of way and a jut into the property around an unmanned electrical substation. These circumstances
that were not caused by the landowner create the need for the variance.
5. Granting of the variance does not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The essential character of the locality will not be altered by granting of the variance.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on information provided by the applicant, findings made by staff and reviewed in this report, and
the conditions outlined in the Recommended Actions section above, staff recommends approval of the
site plan for Flint Hills Resources to allow construction of an Ammonium Thiosulfate (ATS) Storage and
Loadout Terminal at 12895 Courthouse Boulevard, subject to conditions. Staff is also recommending
approval of the variance requests by the Board of Appeals.
7
!+L
m
V
w
r
•�
z
_
v
♦�3z
a
<n
�
a
w
o�E
y
U
cc
CO
Z Z
95
/
Z¢z
w�F
�
/
CC
u
W
� _ o
Z
..I IIII�hii 411i'v 'i I 'I I I � � w
/Ihnl v vv } I I I I
X " 1
LU
CC
a O w - Z
L x Q��
---
y_ yo D o
W� W
zzwoQ
0
"
7 \
vvv 1, AI
1 I
I I
I
I
I �\
,
,
cD
o
V
�o
C m
Q
O
0
cN
O
z+cs
O
U
d
O
U
o�w
w
0
LL
O
0 o-
o�i
o
%
o
o
—
— —
— —
z�¢�z
z
¢-2
m0
�o
o�lo
o
_
<, z
�
Irk
ID
U
-
-
O
O
F^e
U
L�
$�
F O w
u O U
rn O
z ¢
�d
z
�oQo�
—
o
LL
a
—
LL�
¢ s
0 r
O
scN
.o.E
n m
O
M
V
O
p
wk
NpooE9
p
a�
Adws oma
2HE
o- — —
—
—
—
FW vtA�
gnz
O
oa
o
m�
CL
LL,
O
o-- ——
LLHJLutLO
O
Oar
O
O
—11
Ev
a Opp -
- -
NEEO - z
J
ig
Z
a
-�
CL
a
EL
a
z
U
O
.c
—
_— 0
og
J
0
LL
50
ti�
LU
C.)
o
J
U
0
W
o
J o
o
Lu
—
=
W =
11
L o
M
lo
o,
O �
—
Q
o
u CD
CD
V m Z O
�o C O o
c 10 U W
z♦� s JcD
H P
d
O oz
� I =
sa =
— — —LUO
��� ILII III III
LL _
O ¢
z
zz
LU <wl
F 0_ 0 x
O F O
z ^
9
w � w
N� F^e o
u n
O
¢
rc
n O
z
O
J
_
IdI =01II --
o
Ali° oi- oi-
W
��IIIII�IIIIIII�IIII�III
a
}
IHI IIID W
3
a
O
=mil
=
_ — LL
— -
- — LL
0
O-
f0
III
III Ia
J
J
_
IdI =01II --
o
Ali° oi- oi-
W
��IIIII�IIIIIII�IIII�III
��IIIII�IIIIIII�IIII�III
II-III IIh
}
-
—
a
m
o g 5F.I
III
III Ia
J
-
�H
- - -
of z
0i o
W
0o
k o
?�
a
f
O�I�
�
� N
O
maa
p.a
=-III
IIII�IIII I�I�
a
J
—
J
s
III I
11—lI.
odIl so
Qo
w's -
�2
5p
o
W
oil
O
L
\
)
-:
§
\
: §
}:
j
U)
\�
2
�
)�:
(
\
/
-
4 !
M
� )\\
�
¥25%§
�
2§\\
§,
}
lu
§-
e -
\
e
a
< , ,
®: _
§�`\
§
§
}`
\loHE
\ :
§
CD
m 00
pia �o C (n O
m z+cs U
o a o
_ = o
o w
W O
F-
W
r
Qm � oFo OD � a
LU
WLL
� o
HALL — w 'z
z
MO
g=o= N O O 5 2
zgop m � O w
. C) o
zoQ<o
p� say m�
� � O
LU
LL
N o
W IT
lu
LL LL
Ll ! pP
O
10
Oa 32
p p N o ao=
o a
vpoaov
OR
o Ti
W
0 0 a �Q m -=v
H
.o
a:
x o = x o
L —
Z =dap
COO p
OR
_ co TiLU
=a wpa
N� w�m Nip
Q
-
a
IN
j
V
O
�CD
m
o C
Z
Q
O
0
lo
co
CN
Ph tr�
ua
m
o
�E
w
a
d
CD m —
— —
—
— —
��
Z
o
Qz�
pNILda
- - -�-
-�
-�- -
- -
a
�wz m
Oo
M~o
X052
?NMNH
J
LL-
�
z��Q�
oLU�
LL
U
U) Q m U D
W < 3dni
L J
a�
0
�
o
h0
ariAl
O —
—
Z o
o�
-o�o��o
`apav
vMY
No9ov -
J
MUM
O —
—
LL
o=
��r
v
-
-
-
N
-10Ll
I
LU
-
a
IN
j
0
Lo
CD
.o
C
c
j
w
o
'o
lo
w
K
N
CCD)m
o
0
W
R£
Z
5
mg
❑
7
m
_
d
d
7
d
I
� ❑ Q
QZ
Z�
U
~O
�0DO2w
�eu �Ow
O
z��nQo
IoQo�
Z
0
LU
J
W
lL
2
o Ti
0
�d81O
pa =m
ool1D
b
3
0
pz
W
Z
�
W
0
Z�
-
J
LU
❑
w
-
�5
-
w
-
81
o
o
V
z
CD
O
�o
m
C
c
O
_ O
10
w
U
w
0000
lo
o U m
H
z
0
-
_
s =
-
.
N
zaz
az2
J
w2I_: e
< ~ 0
o
Q-�
OQOW
Jf
zee O
k o
k o
�I of
3N
��
o a
o
w
w_
�
N
mO
I.:.
s
III III J
3
—
Z
0
Oyyyy
a -
U
W
-
—
III
N
z
z
zEllo
of
oofLU
o
D
-
N
m
m - OIC m
Z
o
CD
V m Z O
u CD
g
oe w
CD
z
a
7
K
v ~
9NI1Vl
2GM H
Z Q
l Z
rl QZ�
Lu
< Z
W 0
_ �e eu rn o U)z rc n<0
�w LL m CoQ
W a 3dni w
a ADLL
cr
06
O� N - - - - - - - -
CL
8 10
lu
0�
0
vNoaov
gvzaamr�o=
W
HEa
O
0
wk
m - - -
N ----------
CL
- - - -
4Z
J
LL,
zJ 0
O
a m
Q
o
m
C
o
>
CD
o
loc
O
°. U
w
� ~
a
❑
U
zZ
7
o❑oJ
QV
z z
z
-
�
o
Z
o
w �
m
x QFC
O
Q
o g
❑
� o
>
"
J
W
O
W
J
-
H ,
N o
W
2
W
H o
O
— -
.5
11
I
-
,
oCV oCV
Z
CV
6
lu
zz
o o
�OaaL�a
vpoH oa
Fn=9an o_'o_c
9�
I
v
O
w
3
I
_
� o
Z N I I
Z
>
Q
—
-
W
J
W
>
W
2
m -
O
J
W
H=
Ho
N
0=
z
of z
a
w�
r
w ?�
w o
a
M
s
—
a�
Q
N01133S-rivm3a1S Z-nvmaN3 - WW
oN1100 099 V = = `JNll000 000 N 0 o
c 'o
_ w N
Uoa 3i3a�Now — oa 3i3a�No� z+� s Q
S
III III Nn a a3a �vani�nau a3a a o
a
Pill
— b 66 III III IIII .IIII IIII II
oiivoNno� oi NoiivoNno, o
.. o o o-�oo� O o
2oMo Nld 2JOO�d Nld Q s s
noa�Noa sa�aae 3a Nva uw Nl
nojwNon ae sa°a3aS ua O
eme eme mg Y o o m
Maio 3eve U
d 7
K
H
QV
Z
F� z
o~
�OjO
2
�eu Ow
c) u)
o0
101-01 N-1 o Q
lu
z
Mi
aoovaov=
Boa
vN000v oa
gvzao�=
a�o�a owe ,�w w�a�,3Nda,�w �� va V oa N
,3Nd11V. w�NI-1
oAl-11
wd3a owaNdaa waZ wd3a owaNdaa wa�,a
CD
O
C
2K
a
00
N
z
,ff rip
2
O
U P
�
o
o
�
mg
_
-----------------
- - -
- -
d
a
�
o
Qll
Z
z _
m o
-
om
z
CL
Mo
o
0.
Ti
OLL�
O
-
3
a
CI1
-
J o
CL
LL,
Do
lo
i
O
N
O
o
La
o
olo
5m
G
11
J
CD
oz
w
�a
O
O
Q
K
-
p �
az
F
wOEz e
z -
MFO
°'^Opp
ll.l
u u
J
rc o
F
HCO,
O
LU
N
O
oo
V
co
CD
O
0-��-��M
N01133S iivm3a1S O
��0-.L=.UL
IIVMaN3 O
�o
1110
z
m
C
a14 s
�a
Z
Q
Q
Q
a
0
wff C14c
H m
—Mm
m
6
ONI10000� `JNILOO� 0�
II
VIII IIElII11 HEIIIE
1111
= idaNnoi 3i3ea No
11111 V I I I III I� I I I I� P�
Ili y — NoiiVMIOl_o�
0 O
oa3�od w'o�' a00,d Na
a 1INONOI-INa�aao
�s iia
I I II II II I III II I II
NOuvaN'0- 0�
0-B00L
Tia a00,d N1
a 101(NojaNa-a'
Qz�
x' W Z e
o'o
n 0 0 W
w�ow
U)
zo0
L101-01 Naiad
I
o
0
1H IM �/
e NOlill Ni 1.11a
1.0 d£3
\
\ �ONad �dai33is
_1 100I
wd3e oNi0Ndie Naiad
wd3e oNi0Ndie Naiad
�
r1 -
VARIANCE APPLICATION ATTACHMENT
11-6-3: Landscaping Requirements
Reason for Request
Project Background
Per the Site Plan documentation, FHR intends to build an Ammonium Thiosulfate (ATS) storage and load out
facility on the property located at 12895 Courthouse Blvd. The size of the property lot is 50.13 acres; however,
only 18.9 acres will be affected by this project.
Removal of Significant Trees
The site currently has 256 significant trees, as defined by the code 11-6-3: E.2. As part of the project, 59
significant trees will be removed, which represents 23% of the existing significant trees onsite. On the basis of
code 11-6-3: E.8.b, because we are removing less than 25% of the existing significant trees, there is no obligation
to replace these 59 trees.
New Plantings
The affected area for this project is 18.9 acres. The minimum number of plantings for Heavy Industrial zoning is
one tree per 3000 square feet land area. Applying this to the affected area would require a minimum planting of
275 trees. Our current landscape plan includes planting 85 Black Hills spruce trees along the property line facing
Hwy 52., as well as of 7 sugar maple and 13 Black Hills spruce trees near the property entrance
We feel we have kept the intent of the code to improve the visual appearance of the site from the property
boundary. Furthermore, the plantings on the property line will serve as a natural screen as the trees mature.
FHR Commitment to Landscaping and Habitat Preservation
Flint Hills Resources conducts landscaping and habitat restoration as part of its ongoing land management
program, which. This includes planting more than 10,000 deciduous and evergreen trees on the refinery's
property since just 2000. Flint Hills plans to continue planting approximately 1000 trees annually. Flint Hills
Resources also continues to partner with habitat organizations Friends of the Mississippi River and Great River
Greening to restore a 1,650 -acre natural area along the Mississippi River near the refinery, which has become
one of the largest and most diverse native ecosystems in the Twin Cities. The land is critical habitat in a
migration corridor for millions of songbirds and 40% of North American waterfowl and shorebirds. Flint Hills
Resources customarily consults with environmental and habitat restoration organizations when it's considering
new projects and is committed to minimizing environmental impacts and protecting natural habitat.
Because of our demonstrated commitment and our fulfillment of the intent of the requirement, we are
requesting a variance for the balance of the trees.
VARIANCE APPLICATION ATTACHMENT
11-4-16-1: HI Heavy Industrial District
11-5-1: Dimensional Standards
Reason for Request
Project Background
Per the Site Plan documentation, FHR intends to build an Ammonium Thiosulfate (ATS) storage and load out
facility on the property located at 12895 Courthouse Blvd. The size of the property lot is 50.13 acres; however,
only 18.9 acres will be affected by this project.
Project activities include the demolition of existing old unsightly assets. The assets included in the demolition
are: five large vertical storage tanks, four small horizontal storage tanks, old scale house, old shop building and
truck loading racks. The existing three closest visible tanks from Highway 52 are not in compliance with the
setback requirements. They have been grandfathered as they were built over 40 years ago. The tallest tank is
96 feet high and the other two are 47 feet high. The demolition of these tanks will greatly improve the street
view from Highway 52.
Per the Site Plan, new assets include two smaller storage tanks (45' diameter x 36' height), two larger vertical
storage tanks (100' diameter x 40' height), operations building, truck load racks, and rail load racks.
Elevation and Setback for Tanks
Per 11-4-16-1: F.5., for storage tanks with a visible above grade height of up to 35 feet, the setback is 150 feet.
The south smaller storage tank is 119 feet from the closest property line. Per the survey plot, this property line
juts around the utility, substation and then back to the original property line paralleling Highway 52. Were the
sub -station not there, this storage tank would comply with the setback. The utility substation is unmanned with
no permanent occupancy buildings, therefore, the smaller storage tank complies with the intent of the setback
(i.e., negatively impact residential uses or high concentrations of people).
For storage tanks with a visible above grade height of more than 35 feet, the set back is 300 feet. The south
larger storage tank has a visible above grade height of 36.5 feet, but has a setback of 289 feet from the closest
property line along Highway 52. This distance is slightly under the setback requirements (<3.7%), which we feel
is insignificant compared to the improvements that will be made, including planting 85 trees along the property
line facing Highway 52. The trees will improve the visual appearance of the property and act as a natural screen
as the trees mature.
Setback for Buildings
Per 11-4-16-1: F.5. and 11-5-1, the minimum setback for structures that contain a non -heavy manufacturing use
is 75'. The new operations building is 36 feet from the property lined shared with Hawkins Inc. The operations
building utilizes the existing drive and includes a new drive on the south side of the building. One lane is an
entrance drive and the other an exit drive. Moving the operations building to the southwest to comply with the
setback will complicate truck traffic patterns by creating sharper, more difficult turns from Pine Bend Trail to the
entrance drive; it would also increase project costs. The two existing buildings owned by Hawkins Inc. located to
the east of the property line do not comply with the setback requirements. These buildings were grandfathered.
Hawkins Inc. is not currently and does not intend to use these buildings in the future. Therefore, the new
operations building will not negatively impact our neighbors. The new operations building will follow the
building/architectural requirements per city code and match the newest building structure on the property built
in 2009. The proposed new buildings will be an improvement compared to the existing neighboring buildings.
Variance Requests
We feel we have complied with the intent of the code in these instances. Because of our past demonstrated
commitment and good standing relationship with the City, we request that the following variances be approved:
• Southern smaller storage tank within 118 feet of closest property line
• Southern larger storage tank within 289 feet of closest property line
• New operations building within 36 feet of shared property line with Hawkins Chemical
MEMORANDUM
DATE:January 24, 2017
TO:Anthony Nemcek, Planner
CC:Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner
John Morast,Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Amy Roudebush, Planning Department Secretary
FROM:Mitch Hatcher, ProjectEngineer
RE:Flint Hills ATS TerminalEngineeringReview
S UBMITTAL:
Prepared by Flint Hills Resources and MKEC, the ATS Terminal plans, dated October 27, 2016.
Engineering review comments were generated from the following documents included in the
submittal:
Buildings Plans Landscape Plans
Civil Plans Lighting Plans
Drainage Report Property Information
Geotechnical Report SWPPP
ENERAL C OMMENTS:
G
1.Confirm adequate truck turning radii entering the site from Pine Bend Trail and that
stacking/queuing will not occur on Pine Bend Trail.
2.The owner/contractor is required to ensure that erosion and sediment control is in
conformance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Best Management Practices.
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.
3.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 prior to issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy.
S TORMWATER C OMMENTS:
1.The Hydraulic Report summary provided information that the stormwater requirements are
being met, however the hydraulic model input data was not provided. In order to confirm,
the input data (drainage areas, land use CNs, TCs, outlet details, etc.) or a digital version of
the model should be provided for review.
2.Low Floor/Low Opening elevations should be shown for the proposed truck loading and
rail loading buildings.
3.Surface water management plan pond number, NWLs, HWLs, and storage volume should
be shown on the plan.
4.No EOFs are identified on plan. Show all EOF routes from all low points with spot
elevations.
5.Show proposed contours for raised berm and confirm grading limits for the length of the
berm.
6.Sediment pretreatment required prior to discharge to wetland areas.
7.Minimum wetland buffers should be shown on the plan.
U TILITY C OMMENTS:
1.Sanitary sewer services to be SDR 35 or SDR 26.
2.Water service connections shall be made with wet taps connections.
3.Sanitary sewer connections to existing manholes shall be core drilled.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding the items listed above, please contact me at
651-322-2015.
4ROSEMOUNT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
November 1, 2016
Charles Peterson
Resource Management and Assistance Division
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, IVIN 55155
RE: Flint Hills Resources — Pine Bend Technology and Efficiency Improvement Project
Dear Mr. Peterson:
The purpose of this letter is to submit comments, questions, and responses to the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (PCA) from the City of Rosemount on the Flint Hills Resources (FHR) Pine Bend
Technology and Efficiency Improvement Project Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) We have
reviewed the EAW and appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback. The City of Rosemount's comments
are as follows:
Page 8; Item 8: Permits and Approvals Required by the City of Rosemount: The specific approvals required
by each project axe as follows:
Coker Replacement Project — A Conditional Use Permit and a supporting Site Plan Review is
required for structures that exceed 250 feet in height, a building permit is required for the
footings that will support the derrick structure.
Barge Slip Improvement Project — A Conditional Use Permit is required for aIl projects located in the
Flood Plain Zoning District and a Site Plan Review is required for all projects located within the
Mississippi River Critical Overlay District, a building permit will be required for the barge slip
ramp.
A grading perinit is required if more than one acre of ground will be disturbed.
Page 9; Item 9 -a -I; Third Paragraph: The EAW states the facility is located four miles northeast of the City of
Rosemount. The Facility is located within the City of Rosemount and therefore there should be no miles
between the Facility and the City. An alternative would be that the Facility is 4 miles northeast of Downtown
Rosemount.
Page 10; Item 9 -a -ii; First Paragraph: The EAW states that the Facility is part of the 6,000 acre Industrial
District. While it is true that the Proposer owns 4,073 acres of land in Rosemount, the extent of the General
Industrial and Light Industrial Land Use Districts within the City of Rosemount is approximately 3,100 acres.
Additional industrial land in adjacent Inver Grove Heights totals approximately 1,000 acres.
SPIRIT OF PRIDE AND PROGRESS
Rosemount City Hall • 2875 145th Street West • Rosemount, MN 55068-4997
651-423-4411 • TDD/TTY 7-1-1 • Fax 651-423-5203
www.ci.rosemount.mn.us
Page 11; Item 9-b; First Paragraph: The Proposer is required to obtain a conditional use permit and site plan
review and approval for structures over 250' in height and to establish setback standards for the coker drum
derrick structure. The City has received applications for the required planning reviews.
Page 11; Item 9-b; Third Paragraph: The Proposer is required to obtain a conditional use permit and site plan
review for construction of improvements to the Proposer's barge slip within the FP -Flood Plain zoning
district and Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District.
Page 12; Item 10; Fifth Paragraph: Please indicate the depth of the water table at the sites and at what depth
construction work will take place.
Page 42; Second Paragraph; Residential Developments: The RAW states that the closest residential
development area is 1.5 miles west of the Facility boundarlr. The closest residential development area is 1.25
miles west of the facility boundary.
Page 45; Land Use; Development; The combined General Industrial and Light Industrial Land Use district
within Rosemount is approximately 3,100 acres in size. An additional 1,000 acres of industrial land uses lies
in the adjacent section of Inver Grove Heights to the north of Rosemount, The barge dock is located within
the Flood Plain zoning district as well as the Mississippi River Critical Area Overlay District.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the EAW.
Sincerely,
William Droste, Rosemount Mayor