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: