Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.b. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment by Marlon Danner, Case 04-44-TAt - r CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION City Council Meeting Date: October 5, 2004 AGENDA ITEM; CASE 04 -44 -TA ,Zoning Ordinance Text AGENDA SECTION: Amendment requested by Marion Danner.' New Business PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director AA ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution, Draft City Council Minutes September 15, 2004 and report, Draft City Council Minutes August 17, 2004 and report,. APPROVED BY: Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2004 and report, Pine Bend Paving asphalt plant - pictures and Modem Asphalt Plants RECOMM ACTION: Motion to approve resolution denying the text amendment request. ACTION: ISSUE Marlon'Danner has requested an amendment to the zoning ordinance that would permit an asphalt plant on his property. He has a permit for a mineral extraction operation on a 75- acre site in the Agriculture zoning district. The site is locat approximately 1.2 miles east of the intersection of Counter Road 42 and U.S. 52, on the south side of County 42. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission adopted a motion to support the amendment. However, questions from the Commission prompted staff to suggest that the prepared ordinance language be refined. Staff also indicated that Council direction would be sought prior to further refinement of the draft ordinance language. Subsequent discussions with the City Attorney resulted in a suggestion that the Interim Use process may be preferable to the Conditional Use process to establish the terms for ultimate removal of the asphalt plant. Gravel mines established as interim uses may be easier to "sunset" rather than permitted uses as is the case for the Danner property. The Council' briefly discussed the item at their regular meeting on August 17,' 2004 and requested the item be brought before them at a work session. On September 15, 2404, the Council discussed the appropriate route for regulating asphalt plants. Based upon that discussion staff is recommending denial of the current application and will initiate other text amendment changes to implement the Council's direction. 1� PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING On July 27,2004, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to discuss the proposed amendment. Generally, the Commissioners were in support of the draft language that staff had prepared for an asphalt plant conditional use permit procedure. However, several questions were raised by Commissioners concerning the potential longevity of an asphalt plant, prompting staff to propose further examination of the issues. In their discussions, the Commissioners acknowledged the consolidation of traffic generation as a benefit to the co- location of an asphalt plant with the source of most of the asphalt ingredients. They also noted that new construction and consumption of asphalt depends on locally available material. However, a question was raised about the possibility of an asphalt plant outliving the mining process, continuing to operate as a non - conforming use. SUMMARY Given the operational nature of asphalt plants, staff has raised some concerns about their impact on adjoining properties. This concern becomes magnified as urban development continues to move closer to the properties that would be permitted for asphalt plants under the requested text amendment. The desire to regulate asphalt plants due to their potentially negative impacts leads staff to recommend denial of the text amendment request. - The Danner site is in the Agriculture District. The application would permit asphalt plants in agricultural districts. This would be in addition to them being permitted in the General Industrial District. By allowing asphalt plants into agricultural districts 12,119 acres of property within the City would be zoned appropriately for asphalt plants. In staff's opinion this is too liberal for a use that can produce negative off -site impacts. The final issue is that asphalt plants, similar to mining uses, are somewhat interim uses, even though they can be "interim" for an extended period of time. To ensure that certain uses do not preclude a future "higher or best' use of the property, staff will be looking at an interim use permit approach to asphalt plants. This will allow the plants to be sited in certain areas of the community for a specific duration. The permit process also allows the city to regulate specific off -site impacts generally associated with an asphalt plant. Typical concerns include odors, dust, emissions, noise and traffic. Finally, the permit process will also recognize the transient nature of the use and will give the owner relief from some of the more onerous zoning regulations required for permitted uses. CONCLUSION Regulations relating the asphalt plants within the City of Rosemount need to be modified to allow the use but to address negative impacts of the operation. The current application, allowing asphalt plants in agricultural districts allows expansion of the use without addressing the potential negative consequences. Staff's preference is to work within the framework of the current ordinance rather than expand the ability to locate asphalt plants within the community. For that reason, as well as the items mentioned above, staff is recommending denial of the Danner text amendment application. K CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION DENYING THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY MARLON DANNER WHEREAS, the Planning Department received a request for an amendment to the zoning ordinance that would permit an asphalt plant on the Danner property located at the following address: The W Eighty Five (85) acres of the SE Qtr (SW 1/4) of Section Twenty Nine (29), Township of Hundred Fifteen (115), Range Eighteen (18), Except no Seventy -Five (75) Rods of the W Twenty -One one third (21 1/3) thereof. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount conducted a public hearing as required by ordinance for the purpose of receiving public comment regarding the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment that would permit an asphalt plant on the Danner property, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the application July 27, 2004 and recommended that the City Council adopt an amendment to the zoning ordinance designating asphalt plants as a conditional use in conjunction with a mineral extraction permit in the Agricultural District, WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the application August 17, 2004 and, due to the need for more research including maps and mining facts, the application was moved to the September 15, 2004 work session and tabled until the October 5, 2004 regular City Council meeting, WHEREAS, the City Council held a work session on September 15, 2004 to review the background on the changes in the ordinance relating to mining and a map showing the mining sites, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount does hereby deny the application to adopt an amendment to the zoning ordinance designating asphalt plants as a conditional use in conjunction with a mineral extraction permit in the Agricultural District, according to the following findings of fact: 1. There is already a significant portion of the city zoned GI, General Industrial, that allows asphalt plants. Permitting of asphalt plants in the Agricultural Districts would expand the opportunities for this use beyond what is desired by the Council. 2. Asphalt plants have adverse off -site impacts such as noise, emissions, truck traffic, and odors that are more consistent with uses allowed in the GI, General Industrial zoning district. 3. Permitting two principal uses on an agricultural property, mining and asphalt plants, negatively impacts adjoining properties and public infrastructure due to increases in truck Resolution 2004 - traffic, noise, and odors. ADOPTED this 5th day of September, 2004 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. ATTEST: Linda Jentink, City Clerk Motion by: Voted in favor: Voted against:_ Member absent: William H. Droste, Mayor Second by: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION City Council Meeting Date: September 15, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Asphalt Plants and Mineral Extraction. AGENDA SECTION: Discussion PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director. AGENDA NO. Rick Pearson, City Planner. ATTACHMENTS: Mining Extraction Background, Mining APPROVED BY: Map, Apple Valley Information RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide -staff direction. ACTION: ISSUE Marlon Danner has requested an amendment to the zoning ordinance that would permit him to locate an asphalt plant on his property. The Danner property is in the Agriculture District and is currently the site of a permitted mineral extraction operation. Mr. Danner was previously granted a conditional use permit for a concrete plant. The Planning Commission recommended consideration of the idea, however, did not specify text for an amendment. They forwarded the recommendation to the Council, to assess the level of support by the City Council After the Planning Commission meeting, staff had a discussion with the City Attorney regarding the idea of allowing asphalt plants as a conditional use in agricultural districts where a mining permit was already issued. He raised several points which lead planning staff to be less supportive of allowing asphalt plants in conjunction with mining. After the presentation at the City Council meeting, the Council requested the item come before them at a work session. To assist in the discussion, background on the changes in the ordinance relating to mining and a map showing the mining sites was requested. ASPHALT PLANTS The ordinance currently permits asphalt, cement and concrete production as permitted uses in the IG zoning district. There are 2,754 acres within the city that are zoned General Industrial. The IG district also has exterior materials standards for any building from 150 square feet to over 100,000 square feet. The ordinance requires up to 50% of the building fagade abutting a public right -of -way, residential uses, or public areas must contain higher quality masonry finishes such as brick, decorative block, or concrete panels. What prompted the Danner application was a desire for Pine Bend Asphalt to relocate their operations from Flint Hills property. When discussed with the City staff they were told any building installed would need to meet the ordinance criteria for exterior materials. Because an asphalt plant is somewhat temporary, however, of a long duration, there was not a desire to install a substantial building associated with the use. The following are possible options to permit an asphalt plant within the community, without some of the restrictions of the existing performance standards currently in effect. Modify the existing IG minimum building performance standard There has been some discussion about modifying the minimum building standards recently adopted for the IG zoning district. The current ordinance requires a minimum building size of 10% of the subject property excluding protective wetlands. An asphalt plant does not require any building and therefore they would like to be exempt from this requirement. A variance from the standard would be one approach although it would be difficult to justify a hardship. Also other businesses that would not need a building, or would need less than the 10% minimum, would be asking for similar treatment. Modifying the ordinance language to exclude asphalt plants from the minimum building standard would also prompt requests from other industrial users who want equal treatment. Since the ordinance requirement is fairly new, and prompted by a user that had a small building generating little taxes, modification of the ordinance is inconsistent with the general intent. Further, an exception for one will prompt requests for equal treatment by other industrial users. Modify the existing IG zoning district permitted uses Asphalt, concrete and cement plants could become interim uses within the IG district. This would allow the city the ability to regulate its removal within a certain time. This solution provides better certainty and control to the City, while allowing the business to locate within the IG zoned area. The city can set up conditions that would not require the exterior materials standards given the temporary nature of the use. Further, the city can add other standards to the approval such as number of trucks, height of stockpiles, and limitations on noise and odor. The ordinance change could also recognize that two principal uses could occur on the same property given that the asphalt plant would be covered under the interim permit and would be temporary in nature. This solution is less permissive than the current condition as asphalt plants are currently a permitted use. However, the interim permit allows the city to justifiably waive certain performance standards, such as the exterior materials, which is more advantageous for the businesses than the current condition. This solution also allows the city to place standards on uses that in the present may not be seen as a nuisance but as development moves closer, it could be considered more of a nuisance. Modify the AG zoning district conditional uses While this was initially favored by the staff, this concept is the least favorable from the city perspective. A conditional use permit runs with the property upon approval and would not allow a sunset date for the asphalt business. 2 Modify the AG zoning district creating an interim permit The discussion of this item is similar to the one above. Staff supports the interim permit as the appropriate vehicle for allowing asphalt plants in the community. The philosophical issue the Council must deal with is whether it is desirable to allow asphalt plants in other portions of the community aside from the IG district. As stated above there are 2,715 acres of industrially zoned property in the community. By also allowing asphalt plants in the agricultural district, 9,335 acres of additional land would be available for this use. If asphalt plants were permitted only with a mining use in an agricultural zone, there would be 397 acres available for siting of an asphalt plant. Comment The Council needs to evaluate the long and short term implications of permitting changing the ordinance to facilitate siting of asphalt plants. Often this type of use is considered undesirable near development due to the amount of truck traffic, noise, dust, and general unsightly nature of the business. While the areas currently under review for expansion of asphalt plants are not near development now, it is recognized that over time, development will be moving toward the east, potentially near mining and potential asphalt plant locations. While the current discussion relates to relocation of the Pine Bend Paving facility, modifications to the ordinance will allow any asphalt plant into the community, so long as they would meet appropriate performance standards. Therefore, the Council needs to consider that a larger plant may settle in the community also and not just a long -time local business. Other issues that were raised by the Planning Commission and in discussions with the City Attorney relate to the length of time for the operation, what type of regulations need to be in place to mitigate potential off -site impacts, and if the business should be accessory to the principal use (mining). One of the concerns with linking mining and asphalt plants was that there is no regulation defining what constitutes mining activity. If a mining permit was issued and two shovels full of dirt were removed, would that be mining? The concern was that the timeframe for mining out the site might be delayed to permit the operation of the asphalt plant. Both of these uses are seen as interim uses until such time as development occurs. Staff is concerned about the potential to artificially delay removal of the mining or asphalt operation because it is lucrative to stay in its existing location, even when development is occurring around it. If the Council was interested in developing an interim permit process for asphalt plants, additional research is needed regarding traffic generation, noise, dust, odors, and amount of stockpiling for the operation. Conditions of an approved permit would address these items, as would the regulations for granting of the permit. The City Attorney raised the issue of whether the mining operation should be tied to the asphalt plant operation. If so, then perhaps the asphalt plant is accessory to the mining operation, meaning that material from the mine is used for the asphalt plant. That would mean little to no recycled material would be imported to the site. This apparently would not be economically feasible for asphalt plants as processing recycled material is an important part of the business. Therefore, it begs the question if the two uses should be permitted on the same property. They both can independently operate as principal structures. On the surface, the advantage of combining 3 the two uses was that the asphalt plants use mining materials and therefore trucking would be reduced to the site. Without that benefit, it is unclear why the two should be linked. It seems that part linkage of the two uses, mining and asphalt plants, is prompted by the application currently before the City. If Mr. Danner had not requested a zoning text amendment it may be that we would be dealing with asphalt plant requirements without discussing mining. While that request is before the city, it does not mean that the two should necessarily be sited together. Recommendation Staff believes an interim permit is the most appropriate zoning vehicle for permitting asphalt plants within the community. Further, staff would recommend that the IG district be modified to make asphalt plants (along with concrete and cement) interim uses rather than permitted uses. This will permit the city greater control over the duration of the activity as well as the ability to address potential negative impacts associated with the uses. This change would also allow the city to not require a minimum building size and improved exterior materials, given that the use is temporary in nature. With 2,784 acres of industrially zoned land in the community, staff believes that there is sufficient opportunity for siting of an asphalt plant within the community without expanding into agriculturally zoned property. If the Council wants to consider linking mining and asphalt plants, staff would recommend using the interim permit in both the industrial district and agricultural district. 0 MINERAL EXTRACTION BACKGROUND Mineral extraction currently occurs by permit in six locations in Rosemount. Two zoning districts are affected. One site (Solberg on Flint Hills Resources property) is in the General Industrial (IG) District. Mining is a permitted use in IG as is asphalt production. The other five sites are in the Agriculture District. Three are east of US 52 near County Road 42 (within Y2 mile on the south side). These three sites include the Danner, Ped and Furlong properties and are on land in the Agriculture District that previously permitted mining in much the same way it was allowed in the IG district. The other Agricultural properties are Shafer and Vesterra, both west of County Road 71. The Shafer property has been mined since the 1970's and is now a legal non - conforming use. Due to its location, the Shafer mine would not be eligible to obtain a mining permit and bring the property into compliance. A zoning amendment was adopted in 2002, which opened up about 600 acres of Ag land north of County Road 42 with an Interim Use Permit procedure. This allowed the permitting of the Vesterra site. At the same time, the amendment omitted the allowance for mining on Agricultural land east of US 52. All ongoing permitted mining activities in this area can continue according to the permit conditions. In 2002, the Council direction was to implement the Mixed -use Industrial zoning district along County Road 42 on either side of US 52. Among other things, the intent was to permit mining as a means of preparing the land for future industrial sites. The view was that mining would be short-term, and that the accelerating value of the land would encourage the timely extraction of the resource. Mining has been controversial in the past, especially with the visibility of it in Apple Valley, and some problems that occurred with previous operators in Rosemount. Another issue is a concern that the quality of material available is variable, and the areas that permitted mining in Rosemount did not align with high - quality deposits. Staff's perception is that the material available in the low areas along County Road 42 east of US 52 is mostly "sugar sand." Staff has also observed that many of the large companies have "leap- frogged" past Rosemount to the townships. It appears that this is not due to any regulatory action taken by the City but, rather it is because of the availability and quality of the materials. Apparently, the Glaciers deposited the highest quality of materials in a large arc that covers much of today's Apple Valley, and swings southeast into Empire Township. Recently, an Environmental Impact Scoping document was circulated concerning approximately 3,600 acres in Empire. 5 Excerpt from the City Council Work Session of September 15, 2004 Asphalt Plant and Mineral Extraction Community Development Director Lindquist directed the question to City Council if zoning should allow asphalt plants in mining areas. Asphalt plants are allowed in Industrial zoned areas. A recent zoning ordinance amendment requires a percentage of building square footage with industrial use. Building space is not required to operate an asphalt plant. Council may consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance or the use of an Interim Use Permit (IUP). An IUP would give a timeline to the asphalt plant, although extensions could be requested. If zoning is changed and a mining expansion is requested, the City, because of State restrictions, would not control an end date. Joe Jacoby of Pine Bend Paving noted that his mining operation has not received any complaints from the public and that his business needs to expand. Council Member Shoe- Corrigan noted that this mining area is east of the MUSA line and that sewer capacity would likely not be built out for ten to twenty years. Council consensus indicated denying the zoning ordinance amendment and starting over with a new Interim Use Permit. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION Citv Council Meetina Date: Auaust 17. 2004 AGENDA ITEM: CASE 04 -44 -TA Zoning Ordinance Text AGENDA SECTION: Amendment requested by Marlon Danner. New Business PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner AGENDA NO. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes 7- 27 -04, Pine Bend Paving asphalt plant pictures APPROVED BY: and Modern Asphalt Plants RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to direct staff to further research potential amendments to the zoning ordinance with the City Attorney to determine the most appropriate method of permitting asphalt plants in conjunction with a mineral extraction permit in the Agriculture District for further discussion with the Planning Commission; Or Motion to direct staff to prepare findings of fact to deny the requested amendment. ACTION: ISSUE Marlon Danner has requested an amendment to the zoning ordinance that would permit an asphalt plant on his property. He has a permit for a mineral extraction operation on a 75- acre site in the Agriculture zoning district. The site is located approximately 1.2 miles east of the intersection of County Road 42 and U.S. 52, on the south side of County 42. PROCESS This item is being brought to Council for two reasons: 1) To determine if Council might entertain asphalt plants under any circumstances in the Agriculture District. 2) If the Council wants to explore permitting asphalt plants, the Planning Commission and staff should further research the most appropriate permitting mechanism to respond to questions that were raised by the Planning Commission and City Attorney. The Planning Commission adopted a motion to support the amendment. However, questions from the Commission prompted staff to suggest that the prepared ordinance language be refined. Staff also indicated that Council direction would be sought prior to further refinement of the draft ordinance language. Subsequent discussions with the City Attorney resulted in a suggestion that the Interim Use process may be preferable to the Conditional Use process to establish the terms for ultimate removal of the asphalt plant. Gravel mines established as interim uses may be easier to "sunset" rather than as permitted uses as is the case for the Danner property. The focus of this application is to consider if and how asphalt plants may be permitted in the Agriculture District. It is not intended to deal with specific issues related to the Danner property. If the zoning ordinance is amended, then the City could anticipate a future application proposing the development of a plant on the Danner property and applying standards to the review. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING On July 27, 2004, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to discuss the proposed amendment. Generally, the Commissioners were in support of the draft language that staff had prepared for an asphalt plant conditional use permit procedure. However, several questions were raised by Commissioners concerning the potential longevity of an asphalt plant, prompting staff to propose further examination of the issues. In their discussions, the Commissioners acknowledged the consolidation of traffic generation as a benefit to the co- location of an asphalt plant with the source of most of the asphalt ingredients. They also noted that new construction and consumption of asphalt depends on locally available material. However, a question was raised about the possibility of an asphalt plant outliving the mining process, continuing to operate as a non - conforming use. BACKGROUND Mr. Danner has been operating the sand and gravel operation on his property since 1996. In 2003, he requested an amendment to the zoning ordinance to create a conditional use permit for a concrete plant. The CUP was approved, and recently amended for the enclosure of the apparatus inside a metal building. The concrete plant has not yet been constructed. Applicant & Property Owner(s): Location: Area in Acres: Comp. Guide Plan Desig: Current Zoning: Relevant approvals: Nature of Request: Marlon Danner of Danner, Inc. 4594145 th Street East 75 Mixed Use Industrial AG Agriculture Mineral Extraction permit Conditional use permit for Cement Plant Create a permitting process to allow an asphalt plant in the Agriculture District (for the Danner property). Mineral Extraction is permitted in a limited portion of the Agriculture District, between Akron Avenue and County Road 71, within one mile north of County Road 42 (aligning with known deposits of aggregate resources). The Danner property is in an area in the Agricultural district that previously permitted mining within % mile on either side of County Road 42, east of US 52. Subsequently, previous Council direction would have supported mineral extraction as an interim use to facilitate mixed -use industrial development in the County Road 42 corridor. SUMMARY Asphalt plants are currently permitted only in the General Industrial District. The request K is intended for the relocation of Pine Bend Paving, Inc., currently located on Flint Hills Resources property. The existing Pine Bend Paving, Inc. site has a mineral extraction permit operated by Solberg Aggregate Company that is being phased out. The current site is located on the west side of US. 52, between the new railroad overpass and the refinery. The existing Pine Bend Paving asphalt plant is not visible from any of the local streets or highways. The entrance is located at the southern edge of the frontage road along the west side of U.S. 52. Photographs of the plant have been attached for review. The Danner site is in the Agriculture District. The request should be considered in the context of asphalt plants in general, not just a means to facilitate the relocation of a local company. A special exception is not an option. The sitting of asphalt plants can be controversial. Previous mining related public hearings conducted for sites in the County Road 42 area have generated questions about asphalt plants. The typical concerns include odors, dust, emissions and traffic. The Planning Commission also identified stockpiled material as a concern. All of these issues and any others identified in the process must be addressed by the applicant. RELEVANT EXAMPLES FROM NEIGHBORING C City example Zoning District Apple Valley 1 -2 General Industrial District Sand & Gravel Burnsville GIH Gateway Industrial Heavy Eagan 1 -2 Gen. Industrial Inver Grove Hts. Sand & Gravel Overlay :ITIES Regulatory Structure Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit According to standards According to standards Conditional Use Permit No city permits asphalt plants in their respective Agriculture districts (those that have them). The examples tend to acknowledge asphalt plants as a processing activity directly connected to a mining operation. However, asphalt production is treated as a principal use in Eagan. The potential nuisance effects of the asphalt plant are regulated with the conditional use permit process. FURTHER DISCUSSION There are land -use advantages to co- locating an asphalt plant with a mineral extraction permit. According to the National Asphalt Pavement Association, 95% of the pavement mix by weight is aggregates, originating in the mining area. Therefore, the advantages are as follows: 1. The traffic generated by a mineral extraction permit and an asphalt plat is consolidated. As a result, trucks can go directly to a job site, instead of to and from an asphalt plant in a separate location. 2. An asphalt plant located near on- going, street and highway construction provides some efficiencies in terms of trip length, highway impact and resulting costs. Under this concept, the asphalt plant would function as an accessory use to the mining operation. The city could regulate the longevity of the plant by making it requiring an interim 3 permit, however, conditions of the permit would tie the operation of the plant to use of the aggregate removed from the mining operation. Recycling of import material for example would be limited or not permitted. The Planning Commission and subsequent discussions with the City Attorney have identified potential disadvantages: 1. An asphalt plant originally co- located with an aggregate mining operation might find it advantageous to remain, with all materials imported to the site, especially if it provides a competitive source of asphalt for local construction projects. 2. An established asphalt plant in an advantageous location creates value for the operator, thus inhibiting or stalling development of the site for "higher and better" uses consistent with mixed -use land use and zoning strategies. 3. Asphalt plants do not typically depend on buildings, contributing to tax -base value. 4. The benefits of locally available asphalt should be compared with the number of jobs created, the truck traffic generation, and the nuisance effects of the asphalt plant operation. Staff would not support an asphalt plant as a permitted use anywhere beyond the General Industrial District unless it is in conjunction with a mineral extraction permit. Once the mineral extraction and related processing ceases, then there would no longer be any justification for an asphalt plant. The asphalt plant would need to be relocated to another aggregate source, within the general industrial zoning district, or out of the community. Asphalt plants are a use that does not typically include a significant building enclosing the apparatus as a principal use. The Danner property is designated as part of the Industrial / Mixed (IM) Use area in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The zoning district for IM has not yet been implemented. Previous discussions of implementation would have structured mineral extraction as an interim use with an ultimate objective of preparing the land for industrial development. The opportunity to initiate the development of building pads and frontage roads as part of the restoration strategy provides an end -use incentive. The IM zoning district will be reevaluated as part of the implementation of the 42/52 land use study. Mineral extraction is currently a permitted use in the General Industrial District according to standards. It is also permitted in a limited portion of the Agriculture District — otherwise described as an "overlay" district. The Danner, Furlong, Ped and Vesterra mineral extraction permits are all within the Agriculture district. However, mineral extraction ordinance amendments previously adopted intended to remove properties including those owned Danner, Ped & Furlong as permitted uses. An Interim Use process was discussed for mining as part of the implementation of Mixed -Use Industrial, however the IUP process would only serve to limit the lifespan of new pit operations. CONCLUSION The Planning Commission and the City Council need to be satisfied that asphalt plants could be acceptable in the Agriculture district in conjunction with a mineral extraction permit. Staff 0 had prepared a draft ordinance that permits asphalt plants as a conditional use permit (CUP). A key consideration is the CUP would only be permitted as accessory to a mineral extraction permit. However, questions have surfaced concerning the possibility of the asphalt plant remaining on site after completion of the mining process because of its location and access, and the difficulty companies often experience in permitting new plants. For these reasons, the CUP process would not be the appropriate permitting process for asphalt plants. The Council is asked to provide direction to staff and the Planning Commission as to whether they would like to consider permitting asphalt plants in some limited capacity outside of the General Industrial zoning district. There is no compelling reason to support the change. There is available land in the city currently zoned GI that would allow the relocation of the Pine Bend Paving. Because they have an opportunity to relocate on a site in the Agricultural District, in and of itself is not a compelling reason to change the ordinance. However, if the Council would consider asphalt plants in other portions of the city, staff will be recommending that the process is through the interim permit process so that the length of the plant operation is fixed. Staff will also be investigating other conditions to address off -site impacts such as noise, odor, and truck traffic. Finally, staff, in consultation with the City Attorney, would recommend that the mining operation and the asphalt plant operation be linked, so that the asphalt plant is accessory to the mining operation. This would mean the aggregate needed for the asphalt plant would come primarily from the mining operation, thereby reducing the total truck traffic for the two uses if sited independently. Finally, the City is looking toward the future development potential of the "east side" of Rosemount. The Pine Bend area's current reputation is one of the drawbacks for the area, and the addition of an asphalt plant, or perhaps several, may add to that perception. If the Council would like to consider the ordinance amendment, the ordinance would be written quite restrictively so long -term, the city doesn't retain a business that does not complement new development that will occur in the area. 5 Excerpt from the Regular City Council Meeting of August 17, 2004 Danner Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Community Development Director Lindquist presented an amendment to the zoning ordinance that would permit an asphalt plant on the property of Marlon Danner. City Attorney LeFevere noted that a conditional use permit (CUP) could be used in conjunction with the mining permit. The Planning Commission noted that it would be hard to track with the mining permit. An interim use permit could restrict the time period and not allow any extensions. LeFevere said this is a difficult decision since the future of the mining business is unknown. LeFevere suggested linking the asphalt plant as an accessory use to the mining. Staff does not support the interim use process for an asphalt plant because it has a ten to fifteen year window. There are zoning districts now that do allow an asphalt plant. Mr. Joe Jacoby, from Pine Bend Paving, explained that they had been leasing the land from Flint Hills for the past 31 years and Flint Hills recently asked them to move their operations. Jacoby noted that their truck traffic would be three trucks per hour for about 60,000 tons of fill per day. The asphalt plant consists of a small control house within the mining operation. They employ thirty people with an average hourly wage of $24. Community Development Director Lindquist noted that the land would have to be zoned industrial in order 'to locate an asphalt plant on it and industrial also has a minimum building size of 10% of the land size. Lindquist thought this zoning amendment is premature due to the Highway 52/42 Corridor Study and its affects on land use. Council Member DeBettignies reminded Council about the possibility of siting the air cargo facility in that area and its affects on land use. City Attorney LeFevere noted that once a business was allowed it may be harder to shut it down if land uses change. Council consensus was that more research would be needed including maps and mining facts, and directed staff to add this item to the Council's September work session. MOTION by Strayton to table the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment requested by Marlon Danner until the October 5, 2004 regular City Council meeting. Second by Riley. Ayes: Riley, Strayton, DeBettignies, Shoe - Corrigan, Droste. Nays: None. Motion carried. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION Planning Commission Meeting Date: July 27, 2004 Anticipated Council review / action: Auqust 17, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: CASE 04 -44 -TA Zoning Ordinance Text AGENDA SECTION: Amendment requested by Marlon Danner. Public Hearing PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner AGENDA NO. 5D ATTACHMENTS: Draft language for Section 6.1 Agriculture District and Section 12.4.J Mineral Extraction zoning excerpts, Section 12.7 Conditional Use APPROVED BY: Permits, Pine Bend Paving asphalt plant p ictures and Modern Asphalt Plants RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to recommend that the City Council adopt an amendment to the zoning ordinance designating asphalt plants as a conditional use in conjunction with a mineral extraction permit in the Agriculture District. ACTION: ISSUE Marlon Danner has requested an amendment to the zoning ordinance that would permit an asphalt plant on his property. He has a permit for a mineral extraction operation on a 75- acre site in the Agriculture zoning district. The site is located approximately 1.2 miles east of the intersection of County Road 42 and U.S. 52, on the south side of County 42. PROCESS The focus of this application is to consider if and how asphalt plants may be permitted in the Agriculture District. It is not intended to deal with specific issues related to the Danner property. If the zoning ordinance is amended, then the Planning Commission could anticipate a future application proposing the development of a plant on the Danner property and applying standards to the review. BACKGROUND Mr. Danner has been operating the sand and gravel operation on his property since 1996. In 2003, he requested an amendment to the zoning ordinance to create a conditional use permit for a concrete plant. The CUP was approved, and recently amended for the enclosure of the apparatus inside a metal building. The concrete plant has not yet been constructed. Applicant & Property Owner(s): Marlon Danner of Danner, Inc. Location: 4594145 th Street East Area in Acres: 75 Comp. Guide Plan Desig: Mixed Use Industrial Current Zoning: AG Agriculture Relevant approvals: Mineral Extraction permit Conditional use permit for Cement Plant Nature of Request: Create a permitting process to allow an asphalt plant in the Agriculture District (for the Danner property). SUMMARY Asphalt plants are currently permitted only in the General Industrial District. The The request is intended for the relocation of Pine Bend Paving, Inc., currently located on Flint Hills Resources property. The existing site has a mineral extraction permit operated by Solberg Aggregate Company that is being phased out. The current site is located on the west side of US. 52 between the new railroad overpass and the refinery. The existing Pine Bend Paving asphalt plant is not visible from any of the local streets or highways. The entrance is located at the southern edge of the frontage road along the west side of U.S. 52. Photographs of the plant have been attached for review. The Danner site is in the Agriculture District. The request should be considered in the context of asphalt plants in general, not just a means to facilitate the relocation of a local company. A special exception is not an option. The sitting of asphalt plants can be controversial. Previous mining related public hearings conducted for sites in the County Road 42 area have generated questions about asphalt plants. The typical concerns include odors, dust, emissions and traffic. The Planning Commission should be satisfied that all of these issues and any others identified in the public hearing process be addressed by the applicant. RELEVANT EXAMPLES FROM NEIGHBORING C City example Zoning District Apple Valley 1 -2 General Industrial District Sand & Gravel Burnsville GIH Gateway Industrial Heavy Eagan 1 -2 Gen. Industrial Inver Grove Hts. Sand & Gravel Overlay :ITIES Regulatory Structure Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit According to standards According to standards Conditional Use Permit No city permits asphalt plants in their respective Agriculture districts (those that have them). The examples tend to acknowledge asphalt plants as a processing activity directly connected to a mining operation. However, asphalt production is treated as a principal use in Eagan. The potential nuisance effects of the asphalt plant are regulated with the conditional use permit process. FURTHER DISCUSSION There are land -use advantages to co- locating an asphalt plant with a mineral extraction permit. According to the National Asphalt Pavement Association, 95% of the pavement mix by weight is aggregates, originating in the mining area. Therefore, the advantages are as K follows: 1. The traffic generated by a mineral extraction permit and an asphalt plat is consolidated. As a result, trucks can go directly to a job site, instead of to and from an asphalt plant in a separate location. 2. An asphalt plant located near on -going street and highway construction provides some efficiencies in terms of trip length, highway impact and resulting costs. Staff would not support an asphalt plant as a permitted use anywhere beyond the General Industrial District unless it is in conjunction with a mineral extraction permit. Once the mineral extraction and related processing ceases, then there would no longer be any justification for an asphalt plant. The asphalt plant would likely be relocated to another aggregate source. Asphalt plants are a use that does not typically include a significant building enclosing the apparatus as a principal use. The Danner property is designated as part of the Industrial / Mixed (IM) Use area in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The zoning district for IM has not yet been implemented. Previous discussions of implementation would have structured mineral extraction as an interim use with an ultimate objective of preparing the land for industrial development. The opportunity to initiate the development of building pads and frontage roads as part of the restoration strategy provides an end -use incentive. Mineral extraction is currently a permitted use in the General Industrial District according to standards. It is also permitted in a limited portion of the Agriculture District — otherwise described as an "overlay" district. The Danner, Furlong, Ped and Vesterra mineral extraction permits are all within the Agriculture district. CONCLUSION The Planning Commission needs to be satisfied that asphalt plants could be acceptable in the Agriculture district in conjunction with a mineral extraction permit. Staff has prepared a draft ordinance that permits asphalt plants as a conditional use permit (CUP). A key consideration is the CUP would only be permitted as accessory to a mineral extraction permit. The CUP process includes findings that are based upon mitigation of potentially undesirable effects. 3 Excerpt from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting 07 -27 -04 5D. CASE 04 -47 -TA Danner Zoning Ordinance — Text Amendment. City Planner, Rick Pearson, introduced the Danner Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment which would allow the permitting of asphalt plants in the agricultural district that in conjunction with mineral extraction. Marlon Danner requested an amendment to the zoning ordinance that would permit an asphalt plant on his property. He has a permit for a mineral extraction operation on a 75- acre site in the Agriculture zoning district. The site is located approximately 1.2 miles east of the intersection of County Road 42 and U.S. 52, on the south side of County 42. According to Pearson, asphalt plants are currently permitted only in the General Industrial District. The request was intended for the relocation of Pine Bend Paving, Inc., currently located on Flint Hills Resources property. The existing site has a mineral extraction permit operated by Solberg Aggregate Company that is being phased out. The current site is located on the west side of US. 52 between the new railroad overpass and the refinery. Mineral extraction is currently a permitted use in the General Industrial District according to standards. It is also permitted in a limited portion of the Agriculture District - otherwise described as an "overlay" district. The Danner, Furlong, Ped and Vesterra mineral extraction permits are all within the Agriculture district. The Planning Commission needs to be satisfied that asphalt plants could be acceptable in the Agriculture district in conjunction with a mineral extraction permit. There are land -use advantages to co- locating an asphalt plant with a mineral extraction permit. According to the National Asphalt Pavement Association, 95% of the pavement mix by weight is aggregates, originating. in the mining area. The Danner property is designated as part of the Industrial / Mixed (IM) Use area in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Staff prepared a draft ordinance permit that would allow the operation of asphalt plants under a conditional use permit (CUP). A key consideration was the CUP would only be permitted as accessory to a mineral extraction permit. The CUP process included findings that are based upon mitigation of potentially undesirable effects. Present for this hearing, representing the Danner interest, was Marlon Danner of Danner, Inc. and Joel Jacoby from Pine Bend Paving. Chair Messner opened the public hearing. No one responded, therefore, Commissioner Powell motioned to close the public hearing which was seconded by Commissioner Humphrey. All ayes to close the public hearing. Questioning was opened by Chair Messner with his own inquiry related to conditional use permits and how they expire. He felt this could be become a permit without limit. Pearson pointed out that completion of mineral extraction activities would cause the expiration of the conditional use permit for the asphalt plant. Zurn inquired as to whether all people in the area have been notified of this potential plant construction — in reference to public noise due to operations and disturbances with the increased traffic of trucks. Pearson indicated that a mailing had not been sent out. The zoning text amendment process is not site specific. If the text amendment were to be adopted, it would be expected that a subsequent application would be processed for the Pine Bend Paving Plant to be located on the Danner property, triggering a public hearing with mailings. Joel Jacoby of Pine Bend Paving introduced Pine Bend Paving as a local business that has been in business for 31 year and has never had a single citizen complaint. Chair Messner asked for clarification on the brochure that indicated 95% of the asphalt came from recycled product. Jacoby said that was correct. Messner was concerned with any limitation to the height of the stock piles. This issue would be resolved via further investigation on Pearson's end prior to the City Council meeting. MOTION by Powell and second by Schultz to recommend that the City Council adopt an amendment to the zoning ordinance designating asphalt plants as a conditional use in conjunction with a mineral extraction permit in the Agricultural District. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey, and Powell. Nays: None. Motion carried. Pearson indicated the follow up would consist of presentation of this Zoning Ordinance text amendment application at the August 17, 2004 City Council Meeting and that this issue would return to the Planning Commission in September in draft form. � � « AV, ��� WIN, A ,. _ _ , .. L Ott 1 � r I F(: Y n 1 I le G.Z.h T7h '?•;'. ra' as .�: -a,.> .r��xw �. .�3 °S 1 T..�lfiiia•ww -*r�' .. - ^C::�.( - - .f..e+•i..- .Jy,...:1�;.+. �..i. .:.i.wc ;aa.til: �..�.u'.'�.rah:Hrila., �.a.'ii,a �..a.3:+.. '!G` 23 C7.i A 3_;k �il�,.�, y ' ti s ' kta IT i l l BIN I T . a _ •� A rs till � 1 � �:• g � , s VN f "® re { ct � '*��r ..�+ ";rC r 'cb ..,a2a a 0 � 9 t. .�' •. rr Yxl s P� IL E F A I 4 � T J 1� s P� IL E F A 1 3 a at ! J 1� 1 1 1 i E d "U M m!_ fib - �`n� 1 1 3 a at ! y� r�{�A�'a 5 * lv t k''FG`Ts 't1�S sr`` �'xi,3!kG xW _ f3 _ >yl 3� � s :„ � '!7 e• {fi z v� +' _ • ,t { _ J +.@ ,.. +s ")1 wg8, t l - ,v L n N011b900SSb1N3W3Atld" ' XIVHdSV IVNOIIV ti G VdvdfN �.+� x .4• � �` �s � � �uxo p 'Y""�•..�= "✓�+� ". rw -fwi..++.o.s..n. L}tw,�ftRpR -a. Pi �ar...� ®��+��� .:roSMgj�wYe,� t ga � � •, ,,,x,�,.tl ct -�i �, -�S „",s =s .� ^i i�p� ?�., �i �i °^ .y+ f3 ': I . A N ': I ssaooid 6uunloelnuew e uegl aaglea ssaooid buixiw e si 11 'al!s 6ulned agl of uollel.iodsueal jol s� onal of uagl 95ejols wjal -hogs aol (sons palleo) suiq 6ulpl0y of paaaalsueJl uallo s! VAH agl 'Oy gl!M paleoo pue paxlw uagl `paleaq pue palip aae sale6aa66e agl legl si Al!I[oel b'WH ono ui sueddeq legnn `AIlapq 'say el AIleaau96 llegdsy x!W loH asn . pue waol IeUll agl s! slgl — 1N3W3n`dd VWH 'sale6aab6e pue O`d to aanlxlw e si golgnn `sall!Iloe; ino to lonpoid IeU1l agl s! slgi — (VWH) l�b'HdStf XIW lOH 'Aaoleaogel e ui paulwaalap si legl elnwjol u6lsap x!w e of bulpa000e peulgwoo aie `saoinos luaaall!p woil uallo `sale6aa66e to sazis luaaall!4 'Plies pue `laneJ6 `auols pagsnio apnlou! Aeq_L 'ajnlxlw luawaned agl to `lg6lann. Aq `luaoiad 96 6ululew8a agl do a�eu.w asagl — S31V93U99V 'sale6a�66e buiaq lgblam agl to lsaa agl `aanlxlw luawaned lelol agl to `lg6lann Aq `lueoaad 9 lnoge do say eui l! `AIleaauaO 'sl000 l! se p!los e sawooeq pue seanleaadwal g6lg le p!nbll s! 11 'slonpoid wnaloilad aaglo eonpoid legl saljaupi awes agl Aq apew Allensn si pue wnaloaled agl to lied }salneay agl si 11 'aagla60l luawaned eqj sploq legl ,enl6„ agl se sloe legl leualew wnaloilad � oelq `pigl e sl slgj — (OV) 1N3W30 1 'uolsnluoo sigl do aealo of A6oloulwial o!lloads ldope of luawuaan06 pue Aalsnpui agl bul6einooua ueeq seg (`ddVN) uolleloossy luawaned llegdsy leuo!leN eql `aouaH 'slonpoid llegdse snolaen buivaaouoo suoissnosip ui uoisnluoo sasneo uallo goigm `slonpoid buiuieluoo- llegdse jo oillegdse to A19IJen . e of Jalaa of Alasool pasn uallo s! llegdsy 'llegdse prom agl to asn agi — aawouslw jagloue loajaoo s,lal lsa!l lnq `luawow e ui waal AVY loH„ agl uieldxa II,aM •juauaaned e olui uoilonjisuoo aol alis Ruined ayl of palaodsueij si yoigm `lleydsy x!W 1 olui papualq purr jaglaBol IL16no.aq aae sleiaalew aaayM si jueld Ifeydse ud "An asphalt plant in my community? What's going on here ?" More than 94 percent of the nation's two million miles of streets and highways are paved with asphalt. That's because federal, state, and local highway departments have long known that asphalt pavements are smooth, cost - effective to construct and maintain, exceptionally durable, quiet, environmentally friendly, and 100 percent recyclable. The asphalt industry is also proud to be the nation's number one recycler. More than 70 million tons of reclaimed asphalt pavement is reused. or recycled every year. Around the country, asphalt plants are located near homes, businesses, golf courses, and farms. Chances are good that there has been an asphalt facility not far from you for years, and you didn't even know it was there. The terms "asphalt plant" and "asphalt facility" are used interchangeably -in the pavement industry. These terms may be misleading, in that they may also imply the production of petroleum asphalt itself, which is actually done at an oil refinery. Whichever term is used, however, you can be sure that no refining takes place at asphalt plants or asphalt facilities. "What exactly is asphalt ?" What most people mean when they say "asphalt" — also known as blacktop, macadam, or tarmac — is actually a particular product, known in our industry as asphalt pavement, or sometimes, Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavement. "Is it a complicated process ?" It's really pretty simple. There are two basic ingredients in Hot Mix Asphalt. The first is aggregates, a mixture of crushed stone, grav- el, and sand. The aggregates used are almost always Focally available stone. About 95 percent of the total weight of an asphalt pavement consists of aggregates. The remaining 5 percent is Asphalt Cement, which acts as the glue to hold the pavement together. Asphalt Cement (AC) is a petroleum product. It generally comes from the same refineries that produce gasoline for your car and heating oil for your house. AC is the heaviest part of the petroleum. Mix the two ingredients together, and you get Hot Mix Asphalt pavement material. "What else happens at an asphalt facility ?" The paving aggregates are heated and dried, then mixed and coated with Asphalt Cement. The Hot Mix Asphalt is often put in storage silos, then trucked to the paving site. "Why do we need an asphalt plant in my community ?" Hot Mix Asphalt is usually mixed at about 300 OF — cooler than what you'd use to bake a pie. And it has to be placed hot, no less than about 250 °F. The HMA must be deliv- ered to the paving site hot. Transporting the mix over long distances could allow the mix to cool too much, ultimately harming the quality of the pavement. Therefore, it is necessary for HMA plants to be near paving sites. "Are there health risks ?" If you visit an HMA facility, you'll see people wearing typical construction clothes such as hard hats, gloves, and long- sleeved shirts. There is no evidence that the very low levels of emissions from an HMA facility pose health risks to humans. "But don't you have to keep hazardous chemicals on site ?" Liquids that must be handled with care at a Hot Mix Asphalt facility are: 1) fuel oil for the burner, which is the same kind of fuel oil you may be using to heat your home, 2) fuel for vehicles, which is the same product you buy at the gas station, and 3) at some facilities, solvents for the quality control lab. These solvents are used in small quantities with great care and new lab procedures are quickly making the solvents obsolete. By federal law, a Hot Mix Asphalt facility must keep and use these products, including the fuel oil, in accordance with strict EPA stan- dards. "What happens if there's a spill or leak ?" Asphalt Cement starts to harden the moment it cools. Unless it's over 250 OF outside, it simply cannot travel over the ground more than a few feet. It will not penetrate the soil more than an inch or two before solidifying. Asphalt Cement does not mix with, or become soluble, in water. "How about a tour ?" There are two basic kinds of HMA facilities. We'll take you through a "drum mix" plant since most new facilities are of this type, and then describe the differing components of a "batch mix" operation. Aggregates in cold feed bins (1) are measured into specified portions according to the kind of pavement required and carried by a conveyor belt (2) into the drum (3) where they are dried and heated by a burner (4). If pavement removed from existing paved surfaces is to be recycled into new pavement, it is usually conveyed to the mid- dle of the drum (5). Asphalt Cement is pumped from its holding tank in liquid form (heated to about 300 °F) and injected into the drum where it mixes with and coats the aggregates. The drum operates very much like a clothes dryer. As it rotates, "flights" along its sides keep the aggregates tumbling and dropping which ensures that they are thoroughly dried, heated, and mixed with Asphalt Cement before being dropped into the discharge chute and carried by a conveyer (6) to the, top of the storage silos (7). An exhaust fan (8) at the end of the baghouse (9) creates an airflow velocity in the drum which pulls uncoated dust through a, knockout box (10). This is a large volume structure that allows the exhaust gas to spread out, reducing its velocity so that a large portion of the heavy dust particles drop to the bottom to be returned to the mix in the drum. A small amount of lighter particles are carried into the main body of the baghouse which functions like a series of vacuum cleaner bags, except the dust collects on the outside rather than the inside of the bags. The reason for this is that we want only clean air to be exhausted out of the stack 1 -191 \ /D", cn - - ..I - - -.r - : - :- .- . -_a_� :_a_ The entire operation is controlled and monitored by a computer, or a programmable controller (12), which make sure the system is performing properly and warns the operator of any :failure., The batch mix HMA plant differs from the drum mixer in terms of where the AC coating takes place. The aggregates are dried in the drum, but not coated with AC. Instead, the dried aggregates are conveyed by a bucket elevator (13) to a mixing tower where they are separated by - vibrating screens (14) at the top and dropped into individual storage bins (15) by size. They are dropped from the holding bins to a weigh hopper (16), the amount of each size being determined by the type of mix being produced. From the weigh hopper they go to the pugmill (17) where they are coated with AC, which has been weighed separately. The finished product can be transferred directly to a waiting truck, although _it is common to transfer the HMA into storage `silos -like those at a drum mix plant. Batch facilities- manufactured`slnce 1973 must have a "fugltive dust system ";(18) which connects the tower to the air pollution control equipment (ba.ghouse�= (19) to1 prevent the release of fugitive dust into the atmosphere "What about the environment ?" Thirty or more years ago, Hot Mix Asphalt facilities often generated noticeable levels of dust, smoke, odors, and noise. But two things have brought big changes. One was the EPA's New Source Performance Standards, which went into effect in 1973. These stan- dards required HMA producers to meet strict emis- sion standards and install control systems to prevent the release of dust and smoke into the air. A plant must also meet stringent "visible emissions" tests in order to comply with regulations. An even stronger incentive for clean operation is economic. It's in the owner's best interest to make sure that all the equip- ment is operating at peak efficiency — which means producing very little in the way of emissions. In the past 40 years, production of HMA paving material has increased by more than 250 percent; during that time, total emissions from HMA opera- tions have decreased by 97 percent. Recognizing the improvements in air quality that have been achieved by the asphalt pavement industry, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has declared that no HMA plant has the potential to be a major source of hazardous air pollutants. Hot Mix Asphalt producers want to be good neighbors. They strive to build clean, quiet operations that are compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. "it sounds like this would be okay." 3 , , h,rte' f b i�. �'�' I You're right. When people get the facts about modern Hot Mix Asphalt facilities, they understand the need for having one in the community. And they appreciate their critical role in building and maintaining the nation's infrastructure. This informational brochure was produced by the National Asphalt 'Pavement Association, whose members are dedicated to quality, safety, and environmental protection in every phase of Hot Mix Asphalt production and placement. For more information, visit www.beyondRoads.com NAPA publication order # PS -24 NAPA 5100 Forbes Blvd. 0 Lanham, MD 20706 -4407 Tall Free: 888 -468 -6499 Tel: 301-731-4748 • Fax: 301- 731 -4621 www.hotmix.org E -mail: napa @hotmix.org 07/27/2004 22:54 6514377. PINE BEND PAVT INC R 11 VALLEY GOL11 C"I - LTB IC 3856 145th SL East R=6MOUtit MN 55068 651-437-4653 Fu 6b1- 137 -b048 ; uly 2 2004 PItY of Rosemount 075 145th Street W. Rosemount, IVIN 55068 to Whom It May Concern: Ihis letter Is written In regard to Pine Bend Paying, moving their plant to Bounty Road 42 In Rosemount, We have been In business on County Road 42 for the post fifteen years. We Nave been customers of Pine Bend Paying, and believe they are a reputable �mpany. We would welcome having them In our neighborhood p .�� L�. , L1 �� i � 8 no IS JUL 2 7 2004 3 7 PAGE 02 LT +:� 11, C MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor, City Council members FROM: Rick Pearson, City Planner DATE: October 5, 2004 RE: New Business Item 11c. Additional information concerning Rosemount Crossing Final PUD & Preliminary Plat • Revised Resolution • Steiner Development Inc. Comments, Corrections and Clarifications to Staff Report and draft resolution. • October 4, 2004 Benshoof & Associates Inc. Responses to questions regarding Parking Study. • October 1, 2004 Benshoof & Associates Parking Study. The resolution for Rosemount Crossing has been revised as a result of discussions with the City Attorney. Items #1, 2, 7b and 22 have been edited for clarity or typos. In addition, references to the latest plans have been updated to September 23, 2004. Todd Johnson representing the Developer is requesting modifications to the resolution. Specifically, new or added language requested: &__ -� UJA 18. (New language) "Building Awnings will be of a natur *Fcolbbr tone." Staffs intent is to follow the Downtown Redevelopment Committee's recommendation to avoid florescent, excessively bright or offensive colors. oj� /Z2. (Added language) "...which shall be assessed to the properties on a pro -rata f basis." Staff's concern is that this is a Council policy decision. 23. Please delete this condition. Staff's concern is that turn -over of uses on the site might increase the parking demand with no ability to provide additional parking. The only other opton is to review new parking demands related to new uses. 1 25. (Added language) "for purposes of determining required parking, Rosemount Crossing will be considered a shopping center." CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2004 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PREMILINARY PLAT AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FINAL PLAN FOR ROSEMOUNT CROSSING WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from Steiner Development, Incorporated, requesting a Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Final Development for the Rosemount Crossing, legally described as: Marian Terrace excepting therefrom that part now platted as Marian Terrace Replat and also excepting therefrom that part now platted as Marian Terrace Replat 2 °d Addition, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County of Dakota and State of Minnesota. Together that portion of public lands vacated in Document No. 11942 filed June 21, 1955, which accrue to subject premises. WHEREAS, on June 21, 2004, the applicant submitted a revised site plan that responded to some staff identified concerns, where upon the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount continued the public hearing for the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan to July 14, 2004 to provide sufficient time to review the revised plans; and WHEREAS, on July 2, 2004 the applicant submitted another revised PUD Concept Plan for the project renamed Rosemount Crossing addressing additional concerns. WHEREAS, on July 14, 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised concept PUD for Rosemount Crossing and received comments at the continued public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for Rosemount Crossing, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, August 2 2004, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation, the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for Rosemount Crossing. WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Rosemount approved the Plan Unit Development Concept Plan for Rosemount Crossings, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council approved the Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Final Plan for Rosemount Crossing, subject to conditions; and RESOULTION 2004- WHEREAS, on October 5, 2004, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Final Plan for Rosemount Crossing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Final Plan for Rosemount Crossing, subject to: LJ 2 construction unless otherwise specified in the PUD agreement. 3. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer regarding drainage, erosion control, grading, street, storm water and utility design including the following specifics: a. A maintenance agreement shall be required for the underground storm water storage system prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. b. The sanitary sewer shall be reconfigured to utilize the two stubs already present on -site. c. The plans shall conform to all City of Rosemount Engineering Standards and guidelines and address comments specifically listed in the following report. d. Dedication of right -of -way for the street connection between Camero Lane and Cambrian Avenue and provision of funds necessary to construct the street to City standards. e. Obtain a MnDot access permit. 4. Reconstruction of Cambrian Avenue for exclusive access into the Rosemount Crossing site and provision of landscaping for screening adjacent residential uses. In consideration that site access is located within the public right -of -way, the City may at its own discretion take over the driveway within Cambrian Avenue for public access purposes. 5. Plan revisions to eliminate setback and sight - triangle encroachments of the monument signs along Highway 3 at the corners with County Road 42 and Cambrian Avenue, and setback encroachments along Highway 3 and County Road 42 for ground signs. 6. Ground signs shall have monument bases consistent in width with the sign face, and consistent with building architecture and materials. Three ground signs are permitted within the entire PUD consistent with the approved site plan. All freestanding signs may not exceed the height width and sign tenant into and logo than the plan dated 9/2/04 and received by the City on 9/23/04. 7. Implementation of the revised landscaping plan received on September 23, 2004, and further refinements to the plan: a. Provide additional plantings within the normal parking setback area along Highway 3 to immediately and effectively screen the drive- through from south -bound traffic year round achieving 90% opacity to a height of three feet. b. Reduce the overall percentage of Ash trees to no more than 25% (currently more than 50% of all boulevard trees). 0 Execution and recording of a PUD agreement to assure the property is developed and used in accordance with the plan documents received on September 23, 2004. c The development shall include a 6,500 sq. ft. restaurant with the first phase of , 2. c. To coordinate with grading revisions associated with the emergency storm water overflow. 8. All landscape areas including parking lot islands shall be irrigated. 9. Pedestrian or service doors entering into the drive- through lane shall not be permitted in the 4,200 sq. ft. restaurant, or delivery times will be restricted to periods exclusive of drive - through service availability. 10. Provision of a sign plan for consistency of design of wall signs. The sign plan should designate a sign band for sign placement on each building, the type of signs acceptable on the site, and the sign area for each tenant space. This sign plan or covenant serve as the sign regulations for the entire property and will supersede City adopted ordinance regulations. 11. The grocery building shall not have additional tenant signs located outside of the E.LF.S. sign locations near the entrances and windows. A PUD amendment shall be required if the building is proposed to be altered for multiple uses or tenants. 12. Construction of the sidewalk / trail connection to Camfield Park consistent with specifications of the Parks and Recreation Director. 13. Approval of the Dakota County Plat Commission including provision of additional right -of -way for County Road 42 14. Sidewalks intersecting with driveways shall emphasize the pedestrian crossings with pavement detail including either textured concrete or brick pavers. 15. Incorporation of Recommendations from the Parks and Recreation Commission for Park Dedication in the amount of $64,710 based upon current fee resolution. 16. The four light fixtures lining the outer edge of the retail building service area shall be reduced to 20 maximum heights. Parking lot lighting and wall lighting must be complementary to the light standards along Hwy 3. Light fixtures A -3, all D and E fixtures shall be "Acorn" style fixtures as installed along highway 3. 17. The light fixture "E -26" shall be moved out of the pedestrian ramp / curb cut adjacent to the 22,400 sq. ft. retail building. 18. Building awnings shall be in muted tones with up to two colors. 19. The applicant shall obtain necessary permits for work within right -of -way from MnDOT and Dakota County and necessary permits from the State such as the NPDES permit. 20. The applicant shall install masonry trash enclosures consistent with the materials of the principal structures. 21. The applicant shall provide the three public plaza spaces shown on the final development plan accessory to the freestanding restaurant, south of the coffee shop, and on the southern end of the multiple tenant retail space. 22. Payment of all required development fees including park dedication fees. 23. Should the property experience a parking shortage which creates negative off -site impacts, as determined by the City, the City may restrict the type of uses within the project to obtain a lower demand for on -site parking. The restriction will be based upon typical industry standards or, if found acceptable, information generated specifically for the end user. 24. The applicant must pay for no parking signs in adjoining residential neighborhoods if they experience on- street parking associated with the project. 25. The tenant mix is restricted to that portrayed in the October 1, 2004 parking study 3. RESOULTION 2004- submitted by the applicant: The introduction of non - retail uses aside from an 15,000 sq ft ALDI grocery store, a 1,800 sq ft Starbucks, a 1,200 sq ft bagel shop, a 6,500 sq ft full - service freestanding restaurant, and a 3,000 sq. ft casual dining/high turnover site -down restaurant will not be allowed without a parking study showing that the site has adequate parking, to be reviewed and approved by the City. ADOPTED this Fifth day of October, 2004 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Linda Jentink, City Clerk Motion by: Second by: Voted in favor: Voted against: Member absent: 4. 1 4 '10/05/04 07:36 FAX 9524737058 STEINER DEVELOPMENT INC. IA002 steiner =J -{ Development, Inc. 3610 County Road 101 Wayzata, MN 55391 (952)473 -5650 Fax (952)4737058 October 4, 2004 Ms. Kim Lindquist Mr. Rick Pearson Community Development City of Rosemount 2875 145' Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 RE: Comments, Corrections, and Clarification to Staff Report and Draft Resolution Rosemount Crossing Final PUD Dear Ms. Lindquist; Steiner Development has reviewed the staff report issued for the October 5, 2004 city council meeting regarding the final P1-JD development plan and preliminary plat for Rosemount Crossing. Several items need comment, correction or clarification for the public record. Please include this letter in the minutes of the city council meeting. The following are listed in order of the item heading: BACKGROUND. The Applicant and Property Owner is Steiner Development, Inc. The lot areas have been updated to reflect 2.002 acres for lot 1 and .337 acres for the Co Rd 42 right of way. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING. A reference is made to the restaurant's 200 seats "requiring additional parking spaces beyond the number allotted by ordinance ". SDI's position is that the project is a shopping center and exceeds the required parking, and further that our parking study demonstrates that the parking planned exceeds expected demand. DRAINAGE, GRADING, & STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. Our revised plans reflect all of the feedback from engineering staff, and engineering staff has expressed acceptance of the revisions. 10/05/04 07:36 FAX 95 24737058 STEINER DEVELOPMENT INC. IA003 Ms. Lindquist Mr. Pearson Page 2 October 4, 2004 PARKING. Benshoof & Associates has conducted a parking study based on published averages for shopping centers similar to Rosemount Crossing. Staffs review raised concerns, and Benshoof & Associates has responded to staff s concerns in the attached letter. In the unlikely event that there is a parking problem on the neighborhood streets, we accept the responsibility for installing "no parking" signage on immediately adjacent city streets in the event of spillover parking. We object to the city's regulation of tenants in the project beyond the dictates of the zoning code. The final PUD plan shows eight more parking stalls than the concept plan. SDI requests that council review the parking analysis, ask questions of the traffic engineer in the city council meeting, and put the issue to rest with the condition of SDI installing signs on the immediately adjacent streets in the event of spillover parking, and formally recognizing Rosemount Crossing as a shopping center. CAMBRIAN AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS. SDI has maintained that the Cambrian — Camero connector loop road was to be constructed and paid for by others. In light of the condition of approval requiring payment of the loop road construction, SDI is requesting that we restructure other costs of the project to make this feasible. SDI requests that council direct staff to assess the fees (not to include construction costs) listed in item #19 of the subdivision agreement, totaling $134,507.00. If the fees can be assessed, SDI will be able to construct the loop road. SIDEWALKS & TRAILS. As discussed with staff, the sidewalk accents will be exposed aggregate concrete. The roadway crossings will be pattern - stamped bituminous. BUILDING ARCHITECTURE. Staff indicates a concern that the building awnings may be "excessively bright ", and wants to limit the color choices to two — muted tone colors. Please do not limit the ability of the architect to select the proper colors for the awnings. A condition of "no artificial colors" or other description limiting offensive colors is acceptable. LOADING DOCK AND DUMPSTER AREAS. The screen wall for the truck loading area at the Northwest comer of the grocery building is 65' x 10', which is sufficient to fully screen the trucks in the loading area. The dock is recessed into the ground and is 2'6" low at the end of the screen wall, effectively screening a 12' high truck. '10/05/04 07:37 FAX • 952 4737058 STEINER DEVELOPMENT INC. 10004 Ms. Lindquist Mr. Pearson Page 3 October 4, 2004 SIGN PLAN. The three pylon signs are to be divided as follows: Lot 1 along Co Rd 42: 60% ALDI's as shown on the elevations.: Lot 2 along STH 3: Multiple sign bands for tenants. Lot 3 along STH 3: Dedicated to the full service restaurant only. LANDSCAPING. All of staff's suggestions have been implemented and are shown on the current plans. LIGHTING PLAN. SDI has incorporated utilitarian lighting in the large areas, and decorative light standards on the entrance and the center pedestrian corridor. This plan incorporates a decorative lighting element that satisfies the condition that the Rosemount Crossing lighting be complimentary to the lighting standards on STH 3. RESOLUTION, ITEM #6 Clarification: The signs will be for use of ALDI and other tenants of Rosemount Crossing, RESOLUTION, ITEM #14 Clarification: The roadway crossings will be pattern - stamped bituminous. RESOLUTION, ITEM #18 This requirement limits the design flexibility of the architect and retailers. SDI does not want, nor will SDI allow, inappropriate colors to be used for the awnings. Please amend to read `Building awnings will be of a natural color tone ". RESOLUTION, ITEM #22 If SDI and City Council are in agreement regarding the payment of the "loop road" construction in exchange for payment of development fees through assessment, please add the following to the resolution: "which shall be assessed to the properties on a pro -rata basis ". RESOLUTION, ITEM #23 Our traffic engineer has issued a report finding the parking adequate at Rosemount Crossing. SDI has also agreed to install "no parking" signs if necessary. Please delete this condition. 10/05/04 07:37 FAX 9524737 STEINER DEVELOPMENT INC. tA005 Ms. Lindquist Mr. Pearson Page 4 October 4, 2004 RESOLUTION, ITEM #25 Per the previous comment, please delete this condition and replace with "for purposes of determining required parking, Rosemount Crossing will be considered a shopping center ". Please consider this letter in the spirit of teamwork to arrive at an agreement that all parties can adopt. SDI intends to build a first class shopping environment for the city of Rosemount on this important corner. Sincerely, STEINER DEVELOPMENT, INC. T A. Johnson Vice President — Development 1W BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD, SUITE TWO / HOPKINS, MN 55343 / (952) 238 -1667 / FAX (952) 238 -1671 October 4, 2004 Refer to File 04 -71 Ms. Kim Lindquist Community Development Director City of Rosemount 2875 145 Street W. Rosemount, MN 55068 RE: Responses to Questions Regarding the Adequacy of Parking for Rosemount Crossing Development Dear Kim: As you are aware, we submitted a memorandum on October 1, 2004 to Todd Johnson of Steiner Development regarding a review of parking adequacy for the proposed Rosemount Crossing development. Later that day, we received from Mr. Johnson a copy of pages 4, 5, and 6 from a City staff report concerning the development. This report raised four questions regarding our memorandum of October 1. The purpose of this letter is to provide a response to each of the four questions raised in the staff report. The comments made by City staff are cited below, with our replies following each comment. The study varies in its use of data. Sometimes the Urban Land Institute numbers are used, sometimes the ENO Foundation for Transportation study is used, and sometimes the information is from that gathered by the consultant. Staff questions the variation and would have preferred that the Urban Land Institute information be used consistently as that is the generally accepted source for parking information. Our approach is to use all pertinent sources of information to establish the most valid results. We find that it is important, especially where parking analyses are concerned, because no one source (including the Urban Land Institute) is complete. By considering and using all available resources, it allows us to present results that have the highest possible degree of completeness and validity. Ms. Kim Lindquist -2- October 4, 2004 2. Similarly, staff has no frame of reference for assessing whether the data collected by the consultant is consistent in location and size of that proposed for this project. Typically, information in a parking study would use accepted standards and rates. It is unclear how Mr. Benshoof's information compares to this "industry standard". The parking analysis approach we applied for the Rosemount Crossing development has been accepted by multiple cities in prior projects. We have completed similar parking projects for the Cities of Hopkins and Rochester using this approach. In addition, we completed a project in Lilydale for a private client, and our findings were accepted by the City. 3. The restaurant parking is based upon gross square footage of the building rather than seats. The city's current ordinance regulates parking on number of seats and it would have been preferable to have a similar computation. Staff believes number of seats is a better indicator of trips and parking demand. Our values for restaurant parking come from Parking (Robert A. Weant and Herbert S. Levinson, published by the Eno Foundation for Transportation, 1990). Weant and Levinson cite a suggested parking space value of 12.3 spaces per 1000 square feet of gross building floor area in a suburban setting (p.43). The Urban Land Institute publication Shared Parking (1983) only provides a range of values for parking demand (between 7.2 and 25.8 spaces per 1000 square feet, p.19). Nevertheless, gross building floor area is the unit used in both publications. 4. The study allows for a 15% adjustment in recognition that some trips to the site will be shared trips, taking up only one parking space. The adjustment also takes into consideration that some trips to the site will be pedestrians rather than by vehicle. Chuck Richart of WSB indicated that the 15% adjustment would seem high given the suburban location of the property. He recognizes that there will be shared trips to the various entities at the Center, however, believes there will be less pedestrian trips than in an urban setting. He would reduce the adjustment factor. For our study in Lilydale, the proposed development was located in a suburban area, immediately adjacent to residential areas. We used a factor of 15% to account for multi -use trips and non - vehicle trips (i.e., pedestrians and bicycles). The Metropolitan Council, in a study entitled Trip Generation Data for Multi -Use Developments (December 1984), examined the ratio of trips generated by multi -use developments as compared to overall trips on the surrounding roadway networks. Two of the study locations featured retail centers in suburban areas (the Ridgedale area in Minnetonka, and the Earle Brown Center in Brooklyn Center). Ms. Kim Lindquist -3- October 4, 2004 The factors for multi - purpose trips were determined to be 15% and 12% for the Minnetonka and Brooklyn Center locations, respectively. Our adjustment of 15% for the proposed Rosemount Crossing development is reasonable and consistent with previously published studies. In addition, where the Metropolitan Council study only accounts for multi - purpose vehicle trips, our factor also takes pedestrian and bicycle trips into account. We trust that the information provided in this letter will satisfactorily answer your questions regarding our memorandum of October 1. Based on this further review, we remain highly confident that the proposed development plan provides sufficient parking spaces to meet the expected parking demand. Please feel free to contact either David May or myself if you have any further questions. Sincerely, BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. )� James A. Benshoof BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD, SUITE TWO/ HOPKINS, MN 55343 / (952) 238 -1667 /FAX (952) 238 -1671 October 1, 2004 Refer to File: 04 -71 MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Johnson, Steiner Development, Inc. FROM: James A. Benshoof and David C. May RE: Review of Parking Demand/Supply Relationships for Rosemount Crossing Development This memorandum is to present the results of the study we have completed concerning parking at the proposed Rosemount Crossing development. The purpose of this study has been to address the following questions: • What are the parking demand requirements for each of the uses occupying the development? • Is the amount of parking provided by the development suitable to fulfill the demand requirements? As we understand, the Rosemount Crossing development consists of four buildings and the following uses: Southwest corner (15,000 square foot building) • ALDI grocery store Southeast corner (4,200 square foot building) • Starbucks coffee store with drive - through (1,800 square feet) • Bagel shop • Small retail store (to be determined) Northeast corner (6,500 square foot building • Full- service restaurant (high - turnover, e.g. Perkins' or Axel's /Bonfire) Northwest corner (22,400 square foot building) • "Quick casual" restaurant (high - turnover) (3,000 square feet) • Fantastic Sam's hair salon Mr. Todd Johnson -2- October 1, 2004 • Nail salon • Ebay auction assistance store • Remainder to be determined Based on a review of the current development plans, a total of 256 spaces are supplied for all four buildings. We have projected parking demand for the proposed development using parking generation information previously collected by Benshoof & Associates for other similar land uses, and from the following two sources: • Shared Parking Urban Land Institute, 1983. • Parking, Robert A. Weant and Herbert S. Levinson, ENO Foundation for Transportation, 1990. A 15% reduction factor has been applied to all land uses to account for walking and multi - purpose trips. Parking demands vary throughout the day for different land uses. To account for this variation, the net parking demand was determined for each land use during five periods throughout the day. The net parking demand for each land use was then added together to obtain the gross total parking demand for each period throughout the day. The gross total parking demand was then was multiplied by a factor or 1.1 to obtain the total number of parking spaces needed for each period of the day. The 1.1 factor is to account for items that limit the efficiency of a parking facility, such as snow storage, motorists taking two spaces, and the time lag between when a motorist leaves a space and another motorist arrives to occupy the space. Drivers perceive that parking lots are "full" when approximately 90% of the spaces are occupied. Table 1 presents the demand/supply relationships for each land use in the Rosemount Crossing development during a typical weekday, and Table 2 presents the same relationships during a typical Saturday. As indicated in the two tables, the proposed development provides sufficient number of parking spaces to meet the total expected parking demand during all time periods on a typical weekday and a typical Saturday. 10 V 3 M C u y CL E O ro — y O 0 C6 OP = C FA � . O H m +m' U -cw 3 ML 0 H. ul 'O d £. L cn C A IL as �aoLnV coNC%l aq N m Ln o, E ° a �w. 0 Lo Ln 0 M Ul F=' ate:. M Imo. f� V' N h 01 N N 2` � m d. O Ot' M n d to V• W N N' a� C J N a - .+ d g o o o h q� \p � A 'o G CL Ln 00 wLn 70 E H- I d ' as O f+"f lA. 000:000.0 00 V' tn: T M M a+ Y A d a z a ° a 4 + v a m o000 rn v t2 LA o. F o o w w �n a o CO Ln r, CIN ON Lk L 0 0 0 a( a:' V OD COV'NN VV c 0 0 m 0 0 o 0 o f'o Ln Ln In a 0 In a o 0 o Ln ln. a ns a' 0 0 GLQOO L t6 — W N N O O O O.O O O.D q O t/Y O m t4 N Lf1 q. V' C 7 C -7 I m U N `` 0 } !9 O ,,-fO, c ° c€ (J 9 a N •- .� C Q Ln m' N C ,- W' W t/1 � Z m'. d c ar J T O c E,: tooZ `i zagolop -£- uosuuof PPO L 'jw Mr. Todd Johnson -4- October 1, 2004 yZ as p n �- z m Q. N p C {p KF IA n o . :*a p — m iii• �, � d R !fl� gyp.^'•. m ''` ui AO QOOQPOO -.� VIN I(J� GppO SS (/x. N o -IcL S awrn��.; fl.0 n G! .,� r�r 'Q ter .•... �� a � SQ��.� G �, F , o N a �{ p 1NA - el o °:o'R m ga L Ln .n w SI M VI cD w Cr b N a y R V F c n d O C ij, L n 0 S1 6 N 4p p , {p Z y n to R N p tD y� O r- .0 O 3 V O A 00� ail rt h; o 0 ' Q r VNNV.N.. ,b W 33 rr N N A .. p1 Nr W- P.wOCD 3 OD O J� to V V N 3N, W tN K WNCAD"'nCOkDD w < v L? 171. September 28, 2004 Rosemount Mayor and City Council Meetings Agenda Issues regarding conditions of approval: 1. Payment of loop road expense is a condition of approval. SDI considers this an improper extraction; even so, the land has been dedicated. To pay for off site improvements that are not a result of, or benefit to our development is unacceptable. Estimated cost $80,000. 2. Timing of the draft/final PUD agreement review. Staff has stated they want to deliver draft after council due to possible changes by city council action. Staff gave some indication they would get us a PUD draft sooner, but fell short of a commitment. 3. Condition for herringbone brick or stamped concrete for sidewalk detail. We have specified exposed aggregate on the plans. 4. The restaurant construction condition: Our position is that the site is dedicated to a full service sit down restaurant, any timing constraints hurt all parties. 5. The residential neighbors on the southwest corner recently called the city and want a fence. This runs counter to the recent zoning code change to specifically remove fencing as an option for screening, fencing is only available at staff and council discretion. 6. Parking. The site has parking exceeding code requirements. Staff requests justification for parking for one building, where the entire development functions utilizing cross parking. Staff may review the parking study and waive this condition prior to council 7. Hedge along Hwy 3. Staff originally wanted a 3' hedge to screen headlights going to the Starbucks drive through window. We added this to the landscape plan, now staff wants a 3' high, double row hedge the entire length of the Hwy 3 frontage. This would be an unsightly mental barrier to the site, which is supposed to be inviting to the public. Estimated costs of amenities and requirements SDI has agreed to: 1. R.O.W land dedication: $197,588 @ $7.00 /ft 2. Cambrian Ave separation from neighborhood: $8,000 3. Cambrian Ave. third lane addition: $30,000 4. Sidewalk inlays - $12,000 (going to stamped concrete from exposed aggregate is another $12,000) 5. Decorative Lighting: $7,200 6. Pond & Water fountain: $20,000 7. Comer Monument: $10,000 8. Increased Landscaping above code: $20,000 9. Emergency water overflow: $10,000 Total: $326,788 10. Stormtech Underground Stormponding: $350,000 (necessary in part due to site constraints from handling storm runoff from 4 residential acres) Total: $676,788 k.evi,5ed 1U15 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2004 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PREMILINARY PLAT AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FINAL PLAN FOR ROSEMOUNT CROSSING WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from Steiner Development, Incorporated, requesting a Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Final Development for the Rosemount Crossing, legally described as: Marian Terrace excepting therefrom that part now platted as Marian Terrace Replat and also excepting therefrom that part now platted as Marian Terrace Replat 2 nd Addition, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County of Dakota and State of Minnesota. Together that portion of public lands vacated in Document No. 11942 filed June 21, 1955, which accrue to subject premises. WHEREAS, on June 21, 2004, the applicant submitted a revised site plan that responded to some staff identified concerns, where upon the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount continued the public hearing for the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan to July 14, 2004 to provide sufficient time to review the revised plans; and WHEREAS, on July 2, 2004 the applicant submitted another revised PUD Concept Plan for the project renamed Rosemount Crossing addressing additional concerns. WHEREAS, on July 14, 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised concept PUD for Rosemount Crossing and received comments at the continued public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for Rosemount Crossing, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, August 2" d , 2004, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation, the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for Rosemount Crossing. WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Rosemount approved the Plan Unit Development Concept Plan for Rosemount Crossings, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council approved the Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Final Plan for Rosemount Crossing, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on October 5, 2004, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Final Plan for Rosemount Crossing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Final Plan for Rosemount Crossing, subject to: 1. Execution and recording of a PUD agreement to assure the property is developed and used in accordance with the plan documents received on September 23, 2004 and this resolution. To the extent of any inconsistencies between this resolution and the approved declaration of covenants and restrictions, the latter will control. 2. The development shall include a 6,500 sq. ft. restaurant with the first phase of construction unless otherwise specified in the PUD agreement. 3. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer regarding drainage, erosion control, grading, street, storm water and utility design including the following specifics: a. A maintenance agreement shall be required for the underground storm water storage system prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. b. The sanitary sewer shall be reconfigured to utilize the two stubs already present on -site. c. The plans shall conform to all City of Rosemount Engineering Standards and guidelines and address comments specifically listed in the following report. d. Dedication of right -of -way for the street connection between Camero Lane and Cambrian Avenue and provision of funds necessary to construct the street to City standards. e. Obtain a MnDot access permit. 4. Reconstruction of Cambrian Avenue for exclusive access into the Rosemount Crossing site and provision of landscaping for screening adjacent residential uses. In consideration that site access is located within the public right -of -way, the City may at its own discretion take over the driveway within Cambrian Avenue for public access purposes. 5. Plan revisions to eliminate setback and sight - triangle encroachments of the monument signs along Highway 3 at the corners with County Road 42 and Cambrian Avenue, and setback encroachments along Highway 3 and County Road 42 for ground signs. 6. Ground signs shall have monument bases consistent in width with the sign face, and consistent with building architecture and materials. Three ground signs are permitted within the entire PUD consistent with the approved site plan. All freestanding signs may not exceed the height width and sign tenant into and logo than the plan dated 9/2/04 and received by the City on 9/23/04. 7. Implementation of the revised landscaping plan received on September 23, 2004, and further refinements to the plan: a. Provide additional plantings within the normal parking setback area along Highway 3 to immediately and effectively screen the drive- through from south -bound traffic year round achieving 90% opacity to a height of three feet. 2. b. Reduce the overall percentage of Ash trees to no more than 25% (currently more than 50% of all boulevard trees). c. To coordinate with grading revisions associated with the emergency storm water overflow. 8. All landscape areas including parking lot islands shall be irrigated. 9. Pedestrian or service doors entering into the drive - through lane shall not be permitted in the 4,200 sq. ft. restaurant, or delivery times will be restricted to periods exclusive of drive - through service availability. 10. Provision of a sign plan for consistency of design of wall signs. The sign plan should designate a sign band for sign placement on each building, the type of signs acceptable on the site, and the sign area for each tenant space. This sign plan or covenant serve as the sign regulations for the entire property and will supersede City adopted ordinance regulations. 11. The grocery building shall not have additional tenant signs located outside of the E.I.F.S. sign locations near the entrances and windows. A PUD amendment shall be required if the building is proposed to be altered for multiple uses or tenants. 12. Construction of the sidewalk / trail connection to Camfield Park consistent with specifications of the Parks and Recreation Director. 13. Approval of the Dakota County Plat Commission including provision of additional right -of -way for County Road 42 14. Sidewalks intersecting with driveways shall emphasize the pedestrian crossings with pavement detail including either textured concrete or brick pavers. 15. Incorporation of Recommendations from the Parks and Recreation Commission for Park Dedication in the amount of $64,710 based upon current fee resolution. 16. The four light fixtures lining the outer edge of the retail building service area shall be reduced to 20 maximum heights. Parking lot lighting and wall lighting must be complementary to the light standards along Hwy 3. Light fixtures A -3, all D and E fixtures shall be "Acorn" style fixtures as installed along highway 3. 17. The light fixture "E -26" shall be moved out of the pedestrian ramp / curb cut adjacent to the 22,400 sq. ft. retail building. 18. Building awnings shall be consistent with all applicable standards recommended in the Draft Downtown Design Guidelines (Revised September 2004). 19. The applicant shall obtain necessary permits for work within right -of -way from MnDOT and Dakota County and necessary permits from the State such as the NPDES permit. 20. The applicant shall install masonry trash enclosures consistent with the materials of the principal structures. 21. The applicant shall provide the three public plaza spaces shown on the final development plan accessory to the freestanding restaurant, south of the coffee shop, and on the southern end of the multiple tenant retail space. 22. Payment of all required development fees including park dedication fees. 23. Should the property experience a parking shortage which creates negative off -site impacts, as determined by the City, the City may restrict the type of uses within the project to obtain a lower demand for on -site parking. The restriction will be based upon typical industry standards or, if found acceptable, information generated specifically for the end user. 24. The applicant must pay for no parking signs in adjoining residential neighborhoods if they experience on- street parking associated with the project. 25. The tenant mix is restricted to that portrayed in the October 1, 2004 parking study submitted by the applicant. The introduction of non - retail uses aside from an 15,000 sq ft ALDI grocery store, a 1,800 sq ft Starbucks, a 1,200 sq ft bagel shop, a 6,500 sq ft full - service freestanding restaurant, and a 3,000 sq. ft casual dining/high turnover site -down restaurant will not be allowed without a parking study showing that the site has adequate parking, to be reviewed and approved by the City. ADOPTED this Fifth day of October, 2004 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Linda Jentink, City Clerk Motion by: Second by: Voted in favor: Voted against: Member absent: