Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.c. Brockway Area Preliminary Plat, Planned Unit Development Final Development plan, Shoreland Overlay District Permit and Wetland Conservation Act Permit and Outlots of Brockway Final Plataye uo aq Ileys 6u! aed ° 'a pa ap!su! �I £ '8 Z jaaajS uO - Aluo ap!s auo uo pamolle aq hays 6u!�ijed 'slaaals o!Ignd aay }o Ile and '9 pue g 'i, ' L sleeilS uo pemolle aq ll!m 6uiNjed oN 'L *Aluo apps auo uo pamolle aq Ileys 6u'NJed •aoel 01 aoel app 1991 8Z jo wnwlu!w a aq Ileys r pue H sjolinp jo suorpod 66lloauuoo •aoel of aoe, ep!m laaj 8Z to wnw!u!w a aq lleys `S pue d 'd slollno `s}aaJls alenud y6nojyl IlV 9 '8£ peo21 �4unoo pue 9199ijS 'q 499als L 199ajS aol Aem- jo -jy6u Ile 10 uo!leolpap ayj apnlqui lleys juawdolanap ayj J01 palaldwoo }eld leug Isap ayl •9 •sjuawanoadw! 8E peo21 �4unoo q !m pajeloosss s}soo ao, A ayj yj!m papsodep aq llegs 8£ peO2j f}unoo 6uole loot -}uoaj jad 00'001.$ jo juawAed yseo y I!eal eiewauuoo jo apps yjnos ayj uo p 689 L# uise8 o} joefoid ayj woaj 1911no games waols a jo uo!jonalsuoo ayj ql!m paleposse sIsoo Ile apnloul lleys sisoo asayl •Iuewdolanap ayj oju! 8£ peo21 Ajunoo punoglsee uo euel uanl Iy6!a a jo uo ayj 6u 'juawdolanap ayJ 6 UUUaS sjuawanoadw! �(j!l!jn pue 19aals yl!nn paje!oosse sIsoo Ile jol elq!suodsai aq Ileys jadolanaa ayl '£ uo!�e}aodsueal jo juawpedaQ ejosauu ayj pue uo!ssiwwoo jeld � jun.00 ejo� ea `01 palpil jou Inq '6ulpnloui s9!oua6e algeo!ldde aayjo jo Ienojddy z 'ivawaaa6y afld s jo uo!jn09x3 ' L :suo!l!puoo 6u1m0110J ay} yl!m jell tieu!wilaid eaae Aemn oojq ayj 10 lenoidde 6ulpu9wwooaa uo! }ow a paidope uolss!wwoo 6u!uueld ay1 , vooz `5Z AeW uO •uedo Ills si spoweunbai 4od uogemasuoopuel,aM 044 iol polaad juewLuoo Aep - 0£ 9 41 -Gwq sl ' .4 W papuawwoaaa sl uol }oe ON :N011aV aaaN3WWOa321 •A8 a3AONddb xapul p94oe0y aaS :S1N3WHad1.lb' 6 A Pau Jaau! u3 j!o 'aapoa8 Apuy `•a!Q juawdolanaa Aj!unwwoo 'jslnbpu! wiyl 'aauueld /3!0 'uosaead r!21 :AS a 3NV d3Nd leld leu!d Aemvoiq jo sjollnp .Z ssaulsng m9N }!Wad uo!jenaasuoo :N0I133S baN30V pUellaM pue I!wJad 131JIs!Q AelaanO puelaaoLIS 'ueld juawdolanaa Ieu!d wn pauueld 'Jeld Raeuiwilaad eajy AeMN00a8 'I W311 `daN30 b 'j7ooZ '9 L aunp :ajea 6ullaaW Ilounoo Apo NO113d No:l ANvwwns 3Auno3X3 1NnomsON = iO Alla 8. Lot 2, Block 5 shall include a driveway turn - around to provide an alternative to backing into the street 5. As no on- street parking is recommended, the turn around shall also provide guest parking. 9. The existing driveway access to State Highway 3 shall be closed with the first phase of grading. Construction access shall be restricted primarily to Connemara Trail and secondarily to County Road 38. 10. Seven additional common parking spaces are required for Blocks 21 and 22. 11 The approval permits garages below minimum size requirements in Gables II and Villa II housing based upon meeting Met Council affordable housing criteria. 1.2. Repair and maintenance of all private trails and sidewalks are the responsibility of the homeowners' association(s). Snow removal from all public and private trails and sidewalks shall be the responsibility of the homeowners' association(s) or the adjacent private property owners. The trail exhibit outlines public and private responsibilities. 13.Outlots A and B shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association or the outlots shall be eliminated by extending the lot lines from Blocks 2 and 3 to the outer edge of the plat and dedicating drainage and utility easements for storm water and infiltration ponding. 14. Single family housing in Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 shall have minimum garage setbacks of 30 feet and principal structure front yard setbacks of 25 feet. The architectural conditions of Resolution 2004 -6 may be waived on interior lots as long as a majority of the lots including all corner lots shall have traditional housing styles. Those interior lots with building fronts behind or even with garages shall be subject to the 30 foot garage setback. 15. Additional landscaping is required for screening along State Highway 3. In cases where berms are not feasible, a double row of staggered six foot high Spruce (or equal), or over -story boulevard trees shall be augmented by shrub planting beds to facilitate full- spectrum screening subject to Staff approval. 16. All landscaping with public rights -of -way outlots and the roundabout shall be maintained and replaced as necessary by resident homeowners association(s). Landscaping is subject to sight- triangle criteria for preservation of visibility at intersections, subject to City Engineer approval. 17. Entry monuments shall be subject to sign permits and normal zoning standards. Appropriate sight distances must be maintained. The north entrance monument shall be located in Outlot B dedicated to the City. If Outlot B is absorbed by adjacent single- family lots, an easement shall be dedicated to the homeowners association 2 w for monument maintenance. 18. PUD Amendments are required for the 120 apartments and 60 senior units in Blocks 14 and 15. Site Plan, architectural elevations, landscaping and all associated site amenities shall be reviewed in conformance with the approved concept plan and Resolution 2004 -6. 19. The neighborhood commercial on Outlot R, Block 20 is subject to Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning, and separate PUD approval. 20. Restrictive covenants shall be recorded for preservation of open space and landscaping on Blocks 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in conformance with the requirements of the Shoreland Overlay District. The covenants shall prohibit accessory structures over 120 square feet, and parking of vehicles within back yards of these Blocks. 21. The revised clubhouse shall require Planning Commission and City Council site plan approval for conformance with the PUD and applicable standards. 22. No privacy, chain -link, or generally opaque fences will be permitted along any public street right -of -way. Split rail or equivalent may be permissible, subject to city approval. 23. Incorporation of other agency comments resulting from the Environmental Assessment Worksheet process including implementation of the Dakota County and MPCA approval of a response action plan (RAP) and a construction contingency plan (CCP) prior to City issuance of a grading or demolition permit for the property: 24. Incorporation of recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding Park Dedication and facility design & construction. • Parks dedication credit should not be given for any pipeline easements, unnecessary ponding in the park, or other items that negatively impact the park site or are deemed unusable. • The playground area needs to be enlarged to at least 60'x 95'. • The infiltration basin in Outlot M has not been removed. • The park plan needs to have approval from the owners of the pipeline easement. • The need for parking has not been adequately addressed for the disc golf course. 26 parking spaces in the park located in Outlot M and on- street parking will not be enough parking for the public park areas. • As outlined in the City's Subdivision Ordinance, all park dedication in the form of land and monetary compensation will occur with the first final plat approval prior to recording. Staff would recommend that we continue with this practice unless other arrangements can be made to have the park installed in a timeframe that satisfies the Parks and Recreation Commission. 3 • The lot line for the senior apartment area should be adjusted for the trail to remain in the parka • The park plan also needs to include other on -site amenities such as an irrigation structure drinking fountains, etc. 25. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer relative to drainage, grading, street design, easements and utilities. 26. Receipt of WCA permit and conformance with the permit conditions in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act. 27. Development of a temporary west pond and infiltration basin west of Street 2 until such time that off -site regional ponding is available. 28. The cul -de -sac Street 8 shall have all mailboxes clustered in one location as approved by the Postmaster. In addition, driveways may be shared with cross- access easements and relief from side -yard parking and driveway setbacks. Only three driveways will be allowed within the cul -de -sac bubble. 29. The following outlots shall be dedicated to the City at the time of final plat: T & M for Park Dedication, Outlots D, E, I shall be dedicated to the Homeowner's Association with a public trail easement. 30. Revise sidewalks and trail locations in Outlots G, I, and O near roundabout to provide appropriate street crossings within the project and create cohesive public open space with amenities. 31. Conservation easements shall be provided for the stormwater ponds and infiltration basins and wetlands to the High Water Level or buffer setback, whichever is greater, per the City's Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan. The buffer areas need to be preserved and posted for public notification. 2. On May 25, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending approval of the Wetlands Conservation Act permit and accept the wetlands mitigation plan and wetlands exemption. A resolution reflecting the Wetlands Conservation Act permit will be prepared that will include some of the above recommended conditions as they relate to the WCA. 3. On May 25, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending approval of the Outlots of Brockway Final Plat with the following conditions: 1. Consistency with the Brockway Site Preliminary Plat as approved. 2. Approval of the Dakota County Plat Commission. 4 3. Approval of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 4. Upon approval of the preliminary plat, Council will be requested to adopt an ordinance rezoning various areas to R -1, Low Density, R -2, Moderate Density and R- 3, Medium Density Residential consistent with the neighborhoods included with this review. ACTION: Conditions Modifications: Since Planning Commission review, staff has met with the applicant who raised several questions regarding the wording or intent of the recommended conditions of approval. These changes are not reflected in the above as the above is the Planning Commission action taken. The Council should expect minor modifications to the recommended conditions of approval to address the following and any items raised during the Council review. The developer would like clarification that the $100 /linear foot for Highway 38 does not include the right turn lane into the project. That is correct, the right turn lane is the sole cost of the developer. The developer indicated they can widen the drive aisle width for Outlot H but cannot on Outlot J. Staff has requested an expansion of Outlot J drives but is comfortable that the whole 28' requirement does not need to be met over the entire length of the drive. The main concern is appropriate turning radius and other geometric standards to permit fire and maintenance equipment. The developer is requesting that the city maintain all bituminous trails and the Homeowners Association maintain all concrete sidewalks. Staff does not support this request. We have outlined our proposal in the attached documents, and while there could be some changes they would be minor. The city will not maintain all trails. Staff is willing to discuss some minor modifications to the trail alignments as currently shown, particularly near the public spaces and to assess the best pedestrian transportation routes after the final design for the center round- about and public areas are defined. The developer has requested that the City better define the required maintenance for HOA owned outlots.'Outlots the City receives for stormwater holding will be maintained for the stormwater function only. That means the city will periodically dredge the pond, ensure the outlet is functioning properly, etc. The HOA is required to perform maintenance relating to the upkeep of the grounds, such as cleaning up debris and garbage and mowing if necessary. The developer has questioned the wording of Condition 17 as it conflicts with the idea of the HOA owning outlots. This will be rectified in the final conditions. The developer notes that Condition 25 is very open- ended. Staff continues to struggle with the condition wording that clarifies the developer must comply with all city infrastructure 5 design standards and policies. We will be working over the next several months to incorporate more of the design standards and guidelines by reference in the ordinance, which will provide more solid guidance to applicants. The developer has requested that the City delete the requirement to place a trail within Outlot D. The topography is steep in this location and would be difficult to grade, construct and maintain a trail that allows reasonable public access. We are exploring this request further and most likely will be looking at an open space /view shed corridor instead of a paved trail. ISSUE The preliminary plat for the Brockway site has been revised several times, starting with discussions concerning issues identified by Staff. Most recently, application of the State Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA) rules relating to several wetlands on the site resulted in the latest revisions. Three single- family lots were eliminated for the creation of a NURP (National Urban Runoff Protection) pond located immediately west of the existing wetland along 132 " Street. Other ponds on the site have been reviewed, with additional comments below. Along with the WCA issues, the applicant has addressed many of the concerns staff has raised over the course of the city review. Although there are numerous conditions of approval recommended, they generally provide additional clarity or reaffirm representations made by the applicant. No action is recommended at this time, because the 30 -day comment period required by WCA is still open (at this writing). The preliminary plat is being presented as it was reviewed by the Planning Commission and recommended for conditional approval. It will give the applicant an opportunity to address Council identified issues and the potential for revisions in anticipation of ultimate approval. This review also includes a final plat application that subdivides the site into large outlots. The Outlots coincide with multiple block areas, and right -of -way for the north -south street. It is an interim step supporting the construction phasing of the development, as well as parceling the site for various housing types and development partners. Future final plats will occur that Will subdivide outlots into individual blocks, lots, smaller outlots, the park, and right -of -way for public streets. BACKGROUND Applicant & Property Owner(s): Homer Tompkins of Contractor Property Developers Company Location: East of STH 3, North of Connemara Trail, South of 132 "d Street West. Area in Acres: 113.46 Comp. Guide Plan Desig: Urban& High Density Residential, Commercial. Requested Zoning: R -1, Low Density, R -2, Moderate Density and R -4, High Density Residential: Commercial Number of Units & Density: 624 units total, 5.34 Dwelling units per acres (gross); 7.06 6 du. / ac. net (excluding highway & Collector Street right -of- way and Park Dedication. Housing units /types: 79 Single Family lots (55' & 70' lots); 40 Garden Townhouses (1 story quads); 115 Row Townhouses (single loaded); 112 Villa Townhouses (double loaded 2 story); 98 Gable Townhouses (double loaded 3 story) Previous City Council Action: Approved Concept with conditions 1 -6 -2004. Planning Commission Action: Unanimous recommendation of conditional approvals for the Preliminary Plat, WCA permit, and Outlots of Brockway Final Plat. CITY REVIEW PROCESS The Brockway development review process is a Planned Unit Development (PUD). PUD is essentially a custom approach to zoning development standards. However, the basis for negotiation is the applicable requirements found within the traditional zoning districts. As proposed, the plan has its own standards, which are often different from City standards. In return for the special consideration, the City should be getting a better development as compared to that which could be attained when normal zoning standards are applied. Usual developer offerings include increased amenities, preservation of natural features, and shared public and private open space. Section 12.6 of the Zoning Ordinance provides the framework for the PUD process. The process starts with a concept that describes the character of the development and sets the land use types, density, and general amenities. After the concept is approved, the Developer prepares the final development plan or preliminary plat, which is the actual design with all of the architecture and engineering including grading, drainage, landscaping, streets and utilities. Because of the complexity of the Brockway project, the concept review process was somewhat of a hybrid review process'. Traffic impacts, environmental concerns and general building architecture were presented with the concept plan to provide additional information to the City for their deliberations. Ultimately, concept approval of the Brockway site redevelopment occurred on January 6, 2004 with a series of conditions (see attached resolution 2004 -6). Among those conditions was Metropolitan Council approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the development, which occurred on March 24, 2004. The current review process for the preliminary plat containing the design and engineering documents for the development was started on March 23, 2004. The preliminary plat review was run concurrently with the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), which was accepted by the City Council on April 6, 2004. On May 25, 2004, the Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the current plan revision. The plan includes a redistribution of housing units with an overall increase of 18 units. Comments from the EAW have resulted in procedures that will be included with the construction process to deal with potential or known pollution contaminated areas within the project. 7 In April, the Planning Commission discussed conformance with shoreland regulations relative to Keegan Lake, prior to the wetlands issues. Each permit has a separate review process, either dictated by State Statute or local ordinance. While each process can be run concurrently with other local approval processes, there are nuances to each. By this time, all items are before the Council at one time with all process requirements undertaken. In addition to the above applications, the City Council will also be reviewing the rezoning request for the site. This was acted upon by the Planning Commission but was held over until the preliminary plat could be approved. That will allow the City to more accurately apply the appropriate zoning to the various project components. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS The Planning Commission opened the public hearing on three separate occasions, March 23, April 27 and May 25, 2004. Public Hearing comments concerning the preliminary plat were received from nearby property owners on March 23 and May 25, 2004. Correspondence was also received (attached herein with meeting minutes). The three individuals'. concerns centered around traffic, storm water management and density of the development. At various times throughout the review process, the Commissioners' questions included the timetable of demolition and construction, clarification of the recommended conditions, drainage, sidewalks, bike trails, storm water ponding, traffic relative to highway 3, water supply and the pipeline easement, and the feasibility of a pedestrian underpass to connect the park areas. Ultimately, after all of their questions had been answered, the Commissioners adopted unanimous motions recommending approval of the preliminary plat, Wetlands Conservation Act permit and the Outlots of Brockway final plat. The rezoning and Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment had been recommended for approval as part of the Concept Plan review and approval process. BROCKWAY APPLICATIONS DISCUSSION WETLANDS The following is a detailed summary of the wetlands on the site based upon the recent field analysis and application of the WCA rules. The WCA rules describe a specific process to deal with wetlands within developments. The City's consultant is ensuring those steps are made. The Brockway site contains five wetland areas. Westwood Professional Services delineated these wetlands on April 26, 2004. WSB and City Staff reviewed this wetland delineation and concurred with the wetland boundaries. A Wetland Replacement Plan was submitted to the City on May 11, 2004 as required by the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The City is the Local Government Unit (LGU) for the WCA and thus makes determinations on wetland applications. As required by the WCA, the City sent out a Notice of Application to the appropriate review agencies on May 11, 2004. The 30 -day comment period for this application will end on June 8 11, 2004. Once the comment period ends, the City Council will be asked to make a determination on the application. • The five wetland areas are shown on the Figure 1 and information about each wetland is provided below. Westwood Wetland Identification City of Rosemount Wetland - Management Plan Number Wetland Management Plan Classy kation Wetland A WMP #356 Manage II Wetland B WMP #411 - Utilize Wetland C WMP #408 Manage II Wetland D NA NA Wetland E WMP #408 Manage II The wetlands permit application includes filling 4,036 square feet of Wetland A. The filling of Wetland A is associated with the construction of a turn lane and trail as part of the road improvements necessary on County Road 38 to accommodate the development. While it is anticipated that a total of 11,564 square feet of wetland impact will occur at Wetland A, 4,036 square feet of this impact is specifically related to the Brockway development and 7,528 square feet is related to future safety improvements to County Road 38 that will be completed by the City and the County, The City /County impacts will be addressed and permitted at a later date once the road design is finalized. Mitigation for the 4,036 square feet of impacts associated with the Brockway development is proposed on -site through the expansion of Wetland A. Wetland A will be enlarged on the south end of the wetland to create approximately 5,362 square feet of New Wetland Credit. Approximately 26,627 square feet of Public Value Credit will be obtained through the proposed storm water pond west of Wetland A. Additionally, an average 30 foot buffer will be created or maintained around Wetland A. The City requires a 30 foot buffer for ponds with Manage 11 wetland classifications as part of the Wetland Management Plan. The wetland buffer areas will be protected with recorded conservation easements that will include restrictions, on uses within the easements. Conservation easements are comparatively new, having been utilized after the Evermoor development. The easement gives the City a higher level of control without having to own the property affected. Recording of the easement places the easement restrictions on the property, which then runs with the land. The recorded easement coupled with the signing of the buffer area should make future owners more attuned to the city expectations for the buffer. Staff has also discussed internally putting together a one page summary of permitted uses within the buffer and providing that to homeowners through the association documents 9 The application also includes obtaining an exemption for Incidental Wetland status for Wetland B, Wetland C, Wetland D, and Wetland E. Incidental Wetland status is outlined in Minnesota Rules 8420.0122 Subpart 5 that states: "A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for activities in wetland areas created solely as a result of... actions by public or private entities that were taken for a purpose other than creating the wetland... Impoundments or excavations constructed in nonwetlands solely for the purpose of effluent treatment, storm water retention, ...and water quality improvements.. that may over time take on wetland characteristics are also exempt. Wetlands B, C, D, and E appear to be exempt per Minnesota Rules 8420.0122 Subp. 5 as they were created to treat effluent from the Brockway Glass site and /or as a golf course water hazard (see attached photos). A number of storm water management improvements are being proposed to treat storm water from the Brockway site. The storm water management plan is being reviewed by City Staff for conformance with City standards and will not be summarized here. However, two items relate specifically to wetlands and are outlined below for your review and information. • Wetland #394 in the Wetland Management Plan is also identified as Pond 1552 in the City's Stormwater Management Plan (see Figure 2). This area is located west of TH3 and west of the Brockway site. This area is classified as a Manage II in the City's Wetland Management Plan. Regional ponding for the Brockway site and other general development is proposed in this area per the City's Stormwater Management Plan. Toward that end, WSB conducted a wetland delineation in this area to determine the wetland boundaries. Based on this field work, it was determined that this area is not a wetland and as such is not regulated under the Wetland Conservation Act or the City's Wetland_ Management Plan. Therefore, neither wetland replacement nor stormwater pretreatment is required for any work in this area. • Wetland #425 in the Wetland Management Plan is also identified as Pond 1589 in the Stormwater Management Plan (see Figure 2). This area is located just south of Connemara Trail and is classified as a Manage 11 wetland. Regional ponding for the Brockway site and other general development is proposed in this area per the City's Stormwater Management Plan. Historic aerial photos (attached) show this area was created in upland around 1957. These photos indicate this area would also be exempt under the Wetland Conservation Act as an Incidental Wetland and would therefore not be required to conform to the policies in the Wetland Management Plan for storm water pretreatment. Therefore, the City is proposing to use this Pond as a regional storm water pond as indicated in the Stormwater Management Plan. The Brockway Wetland Replacement Application, wetland exemptions, and Pond 1552 and 1589 items will be reviewed at a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) meeting on May 26, 2004. 10 The TEP is made up of the City, the Soil and Water Conservation District, and the Board of Water and Soil Resources. These agencies provide input to the City on wetland decisions. At the TEP meeting the group agreed with the wetlands delineation provided by the applicant and also agreed that the wetlands impact had been minimized on'site, based upon the grading plan. They supported the exemption request for the southwest wetlands and also agreed that two wetlands off -site that the city has designated for future ponding were in fact not wetlands under the state definition. A summary of the wetlands regulatory activities is provided in the attachments. OUTLOTS OF BROCKWAY FINAL PLAT This final Plat segments the Brockway area into large parcels that will be platted and developed into the individual neighborhoods and right -of -way. The distribution is as follows: Outlots of Brockway Include these areas as future Blocks, outlots and streets Outlot A Blocks 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10 as well as portions of Street 2 and 3. Outlot B Blocks 14, 15 and the Park Outlots M & T. Outlot C Blocks 21 & 22. Outlot D North -south Streets 1 & 6 and the roundabout, Outlot K. Outlot E West portion of the future neighborhood commercial site. Outlot F Blocks 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 (and part of Street 2). Outlot G Blocks 11, 12 and 13. Outlot H Blocks 3, 4, 5 and 6 (and part of Street 2). The final plat is based upon the preliminary plat and assumes that all of the right -of -way and blocks are the right shape and located property. Blocks and lots should be appropriately platted so variances are not needed. The outlots will all be replatted with future final plats. For this reason, Staff is prepared to recommend approval of the Outlots of Brockway Final Plat pending the resolution of the additional right -of -way question for Street 1. Staff is in agreement with the developer that no subdivision agreement will be triggered for this final plat. PROJECT PHASING The revised Preliminary Plat includes a reference for three phases. The timetable for each phase has not been specified in the documents. Phase One The first phase includes the north -south Streets 1 & 6 and the southeast quarter of the Brockway area east of Street 6 and south of Street 5. All four townhouse types are represented in this phase. This phase appears to be exclusively Rottlund Homes. Phase Two All of the single- family lots on the northern side, and the apartments, senior condos, and the active public park area in the southwest center are included in the second phase. The single- family lots on the west side. of Street 1 are expected to be developed by Contractor Property Developers Company, and the single - family on the east side are expected to be largely Rottlund Homes. The apartments and senior condo developer has not been identified at this 11 time. Phase Three All of the west side townhouses, three of the single - family lots and the southwestern park are shown as phase three. Rottlund Homes is expected to be the developer. The Parks and Recreation Commission may recommend that the Park Area be developed with the first phases of construction depending upon the actual timing of each phase, following previously established practice. bilUKtLANU VVLKLAY U15 I Kit; 1 The Keegan Lake area is subject to special zoning standards called the Shoreland Overlay District. The northeast portion of the Brockway site within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water elevation (OHWE) of Keegan Lake is the area affected. The intent of the overlay district is to preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters and related land resources. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) oversees this process along with the City to ensure that the standards are applied. MnDNR officials reviewed the preliminary plat initially during the Environmental Assessment Worksheet process and requested that a public hearing be conducted specifically for the shoreland issues. The overlay district has a number of categories based upon the type of water body and if sanitary sewer service is available. These variables determine which set of standards are applied to the preliminary plat. Keegan Lake is classified by MnDNR, as "Recreational Development Waters" and the Brockway area will be served with sanitary sewers. The resulting standards relate to lot size, setbacks and elevation above OHWE. The area of Brockway in the overlay district includes all of Blocks 3, 4, 5, 6, 13 and 19. Portions of Blocks 2, 7, 10, 11, 12, 17 and 18 are also included. County Road 38 separates the Brockway site from Keegan Lake, but much of the overlay area drains towards and has a view of Keegan Lake. Applicable standards from the Rosemount zoning ordinance are: • 10,000 sq. ft. lot areas. • 75 foot building setbacks from OHWE. • Lowest floor elevation a minimum of 3 feet above highest known water level. However, the MnDNR standards are stricter than the Rosemount ordinance, and take precedence in cases of inconsistency. MnDNR Standards Zoning to a Planned Unit Development allows some flexibility in the DNR standards. The district is divided into several tiers radiating from the lake in concentric circles. The development is examined for the amount of impervious surface and open space. The basic MnDNR lot area standard is 15,000 sq. ft. and the overlay area must consist of 50% open space throughout. There is also a determination of useable space that excludes wetlands and steep slopes. The DNR standards then allow a density multiplier, which increases in each tier. In applying the standards, the first tier allows one house per 15,000 sq. ft. of useable area. This 12 translates to a density limitation given the individual lots may be actually less that the 15,000 in size. Developments that incorporate increased setbacks and mitigating vegetative management features qualify for a density bonus. The tiers that extend out from the lake each have a multiplier of 1.5, 2 or 3 based upon distance from the lake that determines the density bonus available. The single- family lots proposed within Brockway are all generally less than 10,000 sq. ft. in area. However, there are also several outlots set aside for storm water ponding or infiltration that compensate for the smaller lots lo keep the densities within DNR limits. In addition, the lots in Blocks 3 and 4 have additional lot depth because they are double - fronted lots that back up to County Road 38. As a result, the increased lot depth on specific lots and the open space for ponding, qualify the entire development for the density bonuses. The location of County Road 38 causes the minimum setback from OHWE to be about 130 feet for the houses that will overlook the lake. The lowest elevations of walkout lots are estimated at about 968, 17 feet above the 943 OHWE. Pat Lynch, DNR Area Hydrologist has indicated that the Plan appears to be generally consistent with the standards. The Shoreland Open Space Analysis originally included the 7 acres on the east side, currently beyond the development. The Developer does have a purchase agreement for the 7 additional acres. Additional analysis excluding County Road 38 has been completed with the conclusion that the Brockway site has the required open space. Mr. Lynch's comments indicate that the open space requirements are met if controls can be placed on the single- family open space (back yards) to ensure that they not include additional hard- surfacing. Staff has recommended a condition that does not allow accessory structures over 120 square feet and parking areas within the Shoreland District. It should also be noted that the easterly 7 -acre site is limited to ten single- family lots as a result of the Shoreland Overlay District issues analysis. Staff will ensure that when an application is received for the 7 -acre parcel that it complies with the Shoreland standards, SITE PREPARATION / DEMOLITION The Brockway site redevelopment is similar to many industrial sites in the metro area commonly called referred to as brownfields. Contamination is often found in old farmsteads, but Brockway represents the first large scale industrial redevelopment area in Rosemount, with the possible exception of the University of Minnesota's U -MORE Park. Dakota County provided comments as part of the environmental review process regarding the inventory of potential contamination stemming from the former glass plant. Site clean up has occurred already in the southeast corner of the property, near the entrance of the railroad spur onto the site from Connemara Trail. That site has been proposed for neighborhood commercial use, as being unsuitable for residential use. Other possibly contaminated sites include the ponding areas, the former wastewater treatment area east of the plant, and the potential for contamination under the building. Special construction management steps will be taken during the demolition / construction process for testing, containment and removal of any contaminated material. In addition, 13 contingency plans will be implemented upon the verification of suspected contamination, or discovery of previously unknown materials. The City is relying on the PCA and Dakota County to review and manage contamination issues that may arise on the site. A response action plan (RAP) and a construction contingency plan (CCP) are both required as part of the process. Both the RAP and CCP must be accepted by the PCA and the County, prior to the City issuing a grading permit or demolition permit for the property. PUBLIC & PRIVATE PARKS The Park facilities shown on Outlots -M & T have been revised, following direction form the Parks and Recreation Commission. The following summarizes the revisions: • The ballfield becomes a multi- purpose play field for softball, baseball and soccer overlay, and reorientation of the backstop away from the pipeline easement. • New facilities include: a full basketball court, 2 tennis courts, horseshoes and shuffleboard courts, and various shelter buildings. • A 20 -car parking lot with access to Street 2. • Elimination of infiltration pond basins on the outer edge of the former ballfield. • A disc golf course in the passive park area (which will be retaining much of the former golf course character, south of Street 2). Minor revisions are recommended, for example, the examination for the need of a storm water retention pond near the Tot lot. Additional parking is needed for the Disc golf course, and the trail crossing onto Block 15 should be contained within the park area. GRADING & DRAINAGE The revised plan includes the elimination of proposed ponding and infiltration in the southwest corner of the development adjacent to Connemara Trail. Additional park space and units are now shown. The acceptability of this modification is conditional upon developer agreeing to pay all costs.associated with the construction of a storm sewer outlet to Basin KL- P1589 located on the south side of Connemara Trail. This is listed as a condition of approval. For the proposed infiltration basin located in Outlot B, the City's infiltration requirements are met. It is strongly recommended that consideration be given to the incorporation of dead -pool storage into the design to enhance the aesthetics of the infiltration basin. Staff is requiring that outlots A &B be replatted to become part of the adjoining residential lots or the outlots be dedicated to the Homeowners Association. Drainage and utility easements and conservation easements are required over the stormwater ponds, infiltration ponds, and wetlands per ordinance requirements. ACCESS & CIRCULATION Access occurs from the south at Connemara Trail and from the north at 132 " Street (County -Road 38). A future connection to Bonaire Path (County Road 38) to the east will project through the previously mentioned 7.5 -acre parcel, likely to be combined with the development. These entrances to the development connect with a north -south street labeled Streets 1 & 6. A roundabout splits the street in the middle creating the primary intersection (with east -west 14 streets 4 and 5) and providing a central focal point amenity for the development. A ring road (Street 2) echoing the outer edge of the development provides another dominant feature, which connects the various housing neighborhoods and the park in the southwest corner. Generally, the street design segments the site into quarters and provides edges to neighborhoods made up of different housing styles. Individual driveways from attached units will connect only to private shared driveways that are maintained by homeowners associations. Only single - family detached units will connect to public streets 2 (north of 4 & 5) and the north side of Street 3. For public streets, a reduced street width of 28 feet face to face will be allowed with sidewalks on both sides and parking on one side only. Parking will be permitted on the interior curve of the public roads. Private streets will be 28 feet face to face and many will serve shared driveways and connect to pubic streets (essentially serving as private residential collectors). Otherwise, shared driveways that serve ten or fewer units are shown as 22 feet wide (outer edge of mountable curb). All of the townhouse units are expected to have fire- suppression sprinkler systems, providing an alternative to eliminating all dead -end private streets (generally serving 8 -10 units or less). For the proposed roundabout, concrete medians shall be added on Street 4 & 5. No on- street parking shall be allowed on Streets 1, 4, 5, and 6. SIDEWALKS & TRAILS Generally, the City standards include sidewalks and /or trails on both sides of arterial and collector streets, and usually one side of local through streets. The Preliminary Plat now includes sidewalks on both sides of all public streets except the cul -de -sac. The sidewalks are an important part of the new urban concept and supports the higher density residential uses and enhance pedestrian connections to the park. All of the Row Townhouses have sidewalks in front serving the pedestrian entrances and contributing to the pedestrian friendliness of the development. The higher density Gabel and Villa townhouses have sidewalks around the end units providing pedestrian access to side oriented front doors. Sidewalks are provided for connecting purposes between Blocks 3 & 4; 5 & 6; 11 & 12; 14 & 15 (as part of the park); and Blocks 21 & 22. A sidewalk is shown on the south side of County Road 38 between Street 1 and Highway 3, and shown as a future sidewalk east of Street 1 anticipating the upgrading of County Road 38 in the future. Staff is requesting the developer revise at the trail /sidewalk connections in the roundabout area. Presently trails direct pedestrians to the roundabout, which has no pedestrian access. Staff would prefer that street crossings do not occur at the roundabout because traffic - maneuvers at this location are the most complex. Linkages should be reevaluated to provide safe road connections so that each neighborhood has reasonable pedestrian access to the park and other shared amenities. 15 aq lou IIiM eiaaliao cull -alis IewaoN - suoiloesialui le Apelnoped `Al!ligisin oi}jeal 6uiuieluiew lnoge pawaouoo si }}elS •o pue I `E) slollno se yons coeds uado jo se6pe ayl uo pue lnoge -punoi ayl `sueipaw ui saaJI leluaweuao pue paenalnoq yliM pamas ace sasodand anileaooad *laails oiignd a jo apis aaglia uo rolq- ol- �oolq'Ailensn `sadAl 6uisnoy juaaa}lip uaemleq uoilisueJl a se suoilounj osle saaal paenalnoq jo jagwnu paseajoui ayl - lno seoueleq liun aad saaal to aagwnu ayl pue `luoal ui liun cad aaal auo jo �4lilglssod ayl sidwaaad (sliun elgeo pue eilin papeol- elgnop ayl Alleioadso) sAeManup pue spn ayl to 6uioeds ly6ii ayl ` seaae asnoyuMol Alisuap aay6iy eql olui 6ui:4aE) -(lol `l} 09 cad auo) saaal paenalnoq Aliwel 916uis jo Aouenbaal lensn ayl aoiml si yoigm `laede 1991 ot paoeds uMoys ace said paenalnoq isoW - lunoo 6uilueld aaal jay6iy a ui llnsai saop Ajisuap y6iy Alanileaedwoo ayl 'alis ayl uo aail pea col aigisuodsaa sl oyM aano aaplinq pue aadolanap ayl 10 alppiu.w ayl ui 196 of lueM lou saop.}els `luiodpuels anileJlsiuiwpe ue woaJ `aaylan j - loefoid ayl jo asinoo ayl aano paulejulew pue pallelsui eq ueo ja}}nq ayl leyl os awil awes ayi le pallelsui aq s6uilueld ayi Ile leyi 6uipuawwooei si gejS 'aaplingawoy Aiiwel 916uis ayl Alai !I isow :siaylo Aq awos `jadolanap ayl Aq auop aq II!M s6uilueld awos leyl smogs u6isap adeospuel ayl - s6uilueld jo 6uiwil ayl si enssi auo `JanannoH - seaae „dab„ ui uoileluaw6ne awos of loefgns £ AeMyBiH 6uole s6uilueld ayl yliM elgelaolwoo si gels `:ped lsow ayl aoj �opiaaoo S£ peo�j Alunoo ayl to lied se pasodoid 6uideospuel 'ayl yliM elgelaojwoo si gels `lej9u96 ul - algiseal lou aie swaaq ajaM seaae ui Alleioadse `s6uilueld uoileluaw6ne awos spuawwooaa }}elS - snonuiluoo lou ace lnq `algissod se yonw se paseaaoui uaaq sey £ AeMy6iH 6uole swjaq jo 6uipea6 ayl -£ AeMy6iH 6uole Alleioadse s6uilueld 6uivaaa3s ayl aoueyua of aoinpe }}els of spuodsaa uoisinaJ ueld aq I - asiou AeMy6iy 6uipae6aa sluieldwoo aminj ldwe -cad of M9IAGJ geld Aieuiwilaad a yl loped aiayl se 6uiaa}}nq aainbaa of Aliun:poddo oNel Alunoo eloNea pUe loduW yloq `seseo esegl uI '(yled aJieuo8 / laa4S p I, S£ peo�l Alunoo) afipe uaaglaou aqj se Ilam se (Beal laago2i ylnoS / £ AeMy alelS) a6pa walsaM ayl 6uole luelaodwi Alieinoilaed si Saa paenalnoq to uoilounl 6uivaaaos ayl - aoeldaa pue uieluiew of sieuMo Apedoid aleniad ao uoileioosse s,aauMoawoy ayl }o Ai!I!q!suodsaa ay} aq Keys saaal paenalnoq IIV quawdolanap aql jo 96pa aalno ayl uo 6uideospuel 6uivaaaos io `liun yoea to luoal ui s99JI paenalnoq se peziaaloeieyo Alleaaua6 si u61sep 6uideospuel ayl JNldvosaNVI '96eao }s pue isnowaa mows lonalsgo lou op pue Aoeniad ueyl aapjoq a augap of ajow aie yoigm seoual iieJ i!Ids to uoilellelsui aapisuoo pinoM OIS 'joefoid eqi uiuliM sleeils oilgnd 6uole saoual Aoeniad ou aie ajayl leyi 6uijinbei aq II!m Uels `6uioual g6iy -9neq legs slol apis uo a6eaols Mous yl!m swelgoad peoueiaadxe sey A4i0 ayl asneoa8 • sailrl!gisuodsai medal pue eoueueluiew sagpelo yoigm paiedaid uaaq sey i!q!yxa uy •slieal ayl ureluiew II!M Apo eql `aaayl pue spuel oilgnd uo paleooi aie slieal aaagM seaae Mal a ace aaayl - Mous jo aealo pue uieluiew of aauMo A:pedoid aleniad ao uoileioosse sieuMoawoy ayl to Ai!I!q!suodsai ay} aq Ileys luawdolanap ayl uiyl!M sNleMapis pue SIleal II`d a�e ue699}1 of auii - ells e 6uwasaad Aluo of peliwil aq ly a lollno ayl jeyl aq Aew 11 - sepea6 deals jo asneoeq Alasolo peuiwexe aq of aneq Aew 1, pue £ sNoo18 uaan4eq a lollno uo Beal ayl `uoilippe ul waived as part of the PUD process. The landscaping standards for Apartment and Condo buildings require eight trees plus one tree per unit for 1 -3 story buildings and eight trees plus on tree per two units for more than 3 stories. There is also a planting requirement for building foundations of one shrub per ten feet of building perimeter. This standard will be applied at the time the apartments and condos are proposed. TREE PRESERVATION AND INVENTORY The Tree Preservation Plan provides an inventory of existing trees on the site, and a chart indicating species, size and most importantly, if the tree is to be saved or removed. The Tree Preservation ordinance requires replacement for the removal of significant trees by a two for one or a four for one ratio. Significant trees exclude Boxelder, Russian Olive, Cottonwood and Poplar trees. The existing trees on the site are associated with the Southwest corner, and delineating the edges of the fairways and parking lots. Most of the saved trees will be in the land dedicated for park. Discussions with staff have also resulted in grading plan revisions to reduce the amount of tree removal in gaps between housing blocks and open space areas on the outer edge of the development. The Plan indicates that the tree replacement requirement is 870 trees. The landscaping plan provides enough trees to satisfy the replacement requirement in addition to the normal plantings associated with residential developments as previously discussed. • Typical required trees per ordinance - 643 trees Tree replacement requirement 870 trees • Total- 1513 trees 1048 are indicated on the Planting Key on the outer edges of the development and boulevard trees with another 852 proposed to be the responsibility of the builders of the townhouses and the apartments. Those plantings are shown in the details for the individual units included with the architectural elevations. There are very few opportunities for planting replacement trees, other than augmenting the screening plantings along Highway 3. OPEN SPACE AND PRIVATE AMENITIES 22.5% of the development is public and private open space after subtracting highway right -of- way and the Keegan Lake outlot. For comparison, a stand -alone townhouse would require 20 % open space. The PUD gives the City the ability to expect other amenities such as additional trails, sidewalks, gazebos, play equipment, games courts, landscaping and the clubhouse mentioned below. Housing policies allow for density bonuses for increased recreational and other amenities. However, there are no standards in the zoning that calculate or reward a rate of density increase as a ratio of specific types and scale of amenities. 17 HOUSING & LOT SUMMARIES TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING STANDARDS FOR BASELINE COMPARISON Housing type Front, Side & Rear Setbacks* tot Area Density Zoning District Single Family 30', 10' 30' 10,000 sq. ft. 2.5 du. / ac. R -1 Townhouses (row) 30' from all property lines; 20' from (28 ft. wide) private streets; 20' between buildings alongside, 40 ft. side to front, 60' front to front, rear to rear. Density up to 6 du. / ac.; R -2. Architectural, garage and parking standards apply. Townhouses (double - loaded) Same as above, with densities up to 12 du. /ac.; R -3 * Setbacks increase along Arterial and collector streets and railroads. Corner lots treat street- sides as front yards. HOUSING SUMMARIES AND PLAT REVISIONS BY BLOCK Blocks 1 -7 The northern portion of the development closest to 132nd Street West / County Road 38 and Keegan Lake is exclusively single- family detached housing with 55 ft. wide lots on Blocks 1, 2 and 7 (closest to STH 3) and 70 ft. wide lots on Blocks 3, 4, 5 and 6 oriented towards Keegan Lake. The cul -de -sac in the northwest corner (Block 1) has been redesigned from a rectangle to a tear -drop shape, and shortened with the addition of the NURP pond. As a result, four lots have been lost in this area over the course of the process. Block 1 includes 6 garden townhouse buildings (24 units total) extending south along STH 3 towards the park area. Brock one contains three small wetlands and a portion of a fourth just north of the park area that qualify for exemption from the mitigation requirements. The grading plan indicates a -retaining wall in a small eastern portion of the northerly wetland to create a building pad for the most southerly four -unit (Garden) townhouse building. Single- Family Lots (55 and 70 foot -wide lots) Generally, these lots will have 25 -foot minimum front -yard setbacks for the houses and 30 ft. setbacks for garages. The architecture is intended to have a traditional character with most units exhibiting front porches, and recessed garages. Those that may have a "foreground" garage would have the deeper setback as a result. Side yard setbacks are 7.5 feet for the 70 ft. lots and 5 feet for the 55 ft. lots. The housing design tends to be narrower and deeper to fit on the lots. The concept PUD envisioned that all garages would be recessed. The building plans for some of the 70 ft. wide lots on Blocks 3, 4, 5 and 6 show garages at the leading edge of the elevation. If these are going to be acceptable, staff will recommend that the garages maintain the 30 ft. setback, and that these housing types be restricted to a minor proportion overall. They should also be restricted from the most visible lots (corner lots especially) so that they do not detract from the theme of traditional neighborhoods. 18 6L Garden Homes (Attached four -unit buildings — 40 units) Block 1 contains six buildings for 24 units. The Garden homes are the only single -level residential units in the development. They will have 6:12 roof pitch, gabled front entries and a combination of lap siding and face brick, with a large proportion of brick on the front elevation. Blocks 8, 9 & 10 The three blocks containing row houses and double loaded villa units exhibit a housing design strategy that layers the outer edges of the blocks with single loaded row - houses with sidewalk orientations on three sides. The Villa double - loaded units are in the interior, with the driveways oriented to private garage courts instead of the public streets (and sidewalks). Outlot F is a private through street that separates Blocks 8 from 9 & 10. Row Townhouses (Urban Villa II) These homes provide a traditional townhouse with units arranged side -by -side or as a row with interior units having garages on one side and front doors on the opposite side facing sidewalks and the public streets. Interior units have two party walls and end units have only one party wall. This design emphasizes a pedestrian orientation for the development, and provides an insulating effect for the higher_ density double- loaded townhouses generally in the interior of the blocks. All garages are oriented towards the interior of the block to private shared driveways / garage courts. The two -story buildings feature face -brick wainscoting, second story shudders (facing the street) and columned canopies over the front entries. Gabled window treatments break up the long roof -line effect running the length of the buildings. 20 r' Blocks 11, 12 & 13 This area enclosed by Streets 1, 3 and 5 is exclusively row houses. The Row houses either face the public streets at the outer edge of the blocks, or an interior trail corridor that links the round -about with a site -line to Keegan Lake. The interior of block 11 and the space between Blocks 12 and 13 serves as garage courts. The width of the pavement in. the garage courts will be less that 28 feet, so no parking will be allowed other than in individual unit driveways and the common spaces provided. The setbacks are twenty feet to Streets 3 & 5, and twenty -five feet along Street 1. Blocks 14 (120 Apartments) & 15 (60 Senior units) The preliminary plat indicates a building setback of 25 feet from street right -of -way and 20 feet from interior property lines. The height of the buildings will likely be more than the setback, which will place more importance on the building architecture. A driveway off -set problem for the Block 14 apartments connecting to Street 2 across from the garden units of Block 1 has been corrected. Apartments (120 units & Condos (60 units) As mentioned in previous reviews, these two high - density housing areas will require future review to cover architectural design features not herein provided. When the proposals come before the City, the concept plan conditions will be used as the basis for evaluating the projects. The concept anticipates three -story buildings with under - ground parking. 21 Blocks 16. 17 & 18 This townhouse area enclosed by Streets 2, 5 & 6 includes two styles of townhouses. Row houses orient towards three outer corners of this area. Seven row house units open up to a small open space (outlot O) across from the round- about; six units face Outlot N (pipeline easement) and Streets 6 & 2; and six units face Street 2 on either side of the shared private entrance driveway (outlot P). Private street Outlot P is required to be to 28 feet back to back (not face to face). Sufficient common parking is provided on Outlot P for the three -block area. Building setbacks allow for a 25 -foot setback along Street 6. Setbacks along the other streets are a minimum of 20 feet. However, the pipeline easement dramatically increases the distance of buildings from Street 2. Permission is required from the pipeline company for any use of the easement area including sidewalks and streets. Gables 11 (mostly ten unit double- loaded townhouse buildings — 98 units) These units are arranged in mostly ten -unit double - loaded buildings (units back -to -back in addition to side -by- side). Looking at it another way, interior units have three party walls and end units are corners with two party walls. The units are the most compact of the town houses and are three stories in height with tuck -under garages and decks above the garages. "Interior units" have split -entry front doors alongside the garages, but 10 risers above the garage doors. Corner units have front doors around the side. The side offers the smallest view of the buildings, and will face the public streets. Materials consist of lap siding and cedar shake appearance. Corner and middle interior units have gable features to add interest to the roof - lines. 22 1 r Blocks 19 & 20 This area is located on the outer edge of Street 2 and backs up to the future neighborhood commercial, railroad and part of the easterly open space. Three building types include one row house (5 units), five Villa buildings (40 units) and 4 Garden townhouses (16 units). Buildings have been shifted to eliminate unnecessarily long driveways (for townhouses) and create space for needed common parking. Villa II (eight and ten unit double- loaded townhouse buildings -112 units) These buildings have corner units with front doors facing public rights -of -way with a cape -cod look. The interior units are oriented away from public streets with garages oriented to private shared driveways. Front entries are next to garages at grade, with a small courtyard as a patio / front yard enclosed by a picket fence and a four -foot garage bump -out. General materials include lap- siding, brick accents, second story shutters, and gabled window features and end units. One issue relative to both the Gable and Villa 11 units is that the garage sizes are less than 440 sq. ft. as required by ordinance. This deficiency applies to Villa end units and all of the Gable units. The 2020 Comprehensive Plan includes policies, which could support the garage size variance if the housing units were affordable. The base price for the units are likely to meet affordable criteria, however, inclusion of "options" will likely lift the prices above the affordable threshold. Blocks 21 & -22 This area consists of two styles of unit/buildings: 52 Villa II double - loaded townhomes with four 8 -unit buildings and two 10 -unit buildings; and 27 Row (Urban Villa II) townhomes. The Row units are arranged on the outer edge of the two blocks in two 5 -unit buildings, two 4 -unit 23 tIz nnolle jo }I azipsgns of si lsoo 941 aanoo of Aenn Aluo eqi •uolllslnboe ells to lsoo s,aadolanap lensn aul of pappe asuedxe ue si do -ueelo pue uoiplowap alp to lsoo eqi • asn leulsnpul paly6iiq lou 11 alalosgo pue elglsin Alawaalxa ue eoeldaj ll!m 11 •iopiaaoo uoilepodsuejl lepape aoulw £ AemgBIH ayl 6uole sadAl 6uisnoq jo Alapen a yltnn spooyaoggBieu 6ululelsns -Iles aleajo of Aliunlaoddo ue saleaao luawdolanapaJ /Xenn )looa8 aql to lenoiddy NOIsmONO3 - spiepuels algeolldde pue and ay} u11M eouewaoluoo ainsue of ssaooid nnainaa veld ap aqj g6noagl 06 01 paalnbai aq llegs asnoggnlo pazis -unnop pue paslnaa ayl g 1999 S of Aennanlap a 41!M papinoid si lol 6ul�aed Ilels -t7Z y •selge6 eqj uigl!m saueld leoilaan ayl of pappe sl aanlxel eNegs'aepeo y •aalueo aul to epls aaglia uo s6ulnn 6ulpling aul uo pue halue luoal ayl Jano in000 slueooe aigeO - sluaooe Ajuosew pue 6ulloosulenn Ajuosew euols plag `6uipis del to lslsuoo sleualew 6u1p11n8 •swooa lsai pue ja�ool 'buileaw `gnlo `asioiaxe apnloul apls aaglia uo swooa aaglO •aaluao ayl ul wooi 6uuagle6 pue aingllsan tilua pue `s6ulllao pallol 4lIM 6ulpllnq Aaols- 916uis a si paluasaid seen leyl ainjonils aqj - poogjogqBieu lloaossoao liun -gLZ ayl 01 anisnloxe aq 01 poolsaapun si asnoygnio leul 'll •bs 009`l, si aoowaan3 w asnoggnlo lloaossoao aql `uosljedwoo jo j -Allunwwoo aql to spaau eql llns pinonn azis loot aaenbs 000`1 ayl ul aaow asnoggnlo a 1e41 paleoipui pue sloefoid aellwis aaylo uo luawssesse slyl paseq Aaul •ainlonils asnoggnlo aallews a 6uilonilsuoo aq ll!m Aeqj 164j paleoipui seq aadolanap 9 41 `azis s141 le unnogs el!4M 'luawdolanap as lue aul aol klivawe leuolleWOW a apinoid of papualui seen 11 - 1 lollnO uo 6uipilnq •l} •bs,000`9 a apnpui suoiJenala leinloapgoiV all 3snOHsm3 luawpuawy and aleaedes a se aanl,nl. aql ui an000 limn nnalnaa S14l `aJolaaayl �adolanad ayl �(q palioaluoo Alluaaano lou lsea aul of puel leuollippe saambaa luawdolanap ells `JanannoH - ldaouoo leui6uo ayl qpm papnloui 6uwpllnq lepawwoo poogaogy6lau aqj jo lsow saledlollue lollno siyl OZ Mool8 2i 1ollnO - 96pe Noolq ayl l0 6uideospuel paenalnoq jol saipunpoddo 6wpinoid paenainoq a u11M peoa a6elu04 a aMii sloe LIolynn `laaals aleAud leuialul ue sseooe Aayl jaylea :Z leads sseooe jou op sAennanup pun ayl `aseo siyl ul JanannoH •Z laaals 6uioel £ 6u plinq to shun ang seq goiynn `g Noolg si luawdolanap ayl ui luawa6ueaae slyl of uoildaoxe Aluo aq *slaaals o1lgnd eqj 6uloel shun pue q }Inn sMoolq eqj of jo ale sepis „6uol„ yloq: uo sa6eae6 6uillgigxa s6ulplinq papeol- alqnop ayl •slanoo 96eJ*ef aleAud ,ol seBeie6 eqj 6uizlleuialui snyl `sa6pa aalno aul uo uoileluaiao ueialsepad qpm sesnoq nnoi a41 seq uolle&pw u6isep lseq ayl „Tool sNoeajeq„ a se pagposep uallo swaouoo oileglsee juesaid pue salpsuap lsegBiq ylinn seaae asnoqunnol aqj aje OZ pue 91. ,L l, 91. sNool8 qpm 6uole eaae slut 11o11nO to eaje Need eqj Minn g laaals 6uiloauuoo S lollnp sasaaneal lreJl y •seoeds avow L col 6ui�aed uowwoo leuoilippe aol peau a suiewai aJayl `aanannOH 'papinoid uaaq seq 6uiMied uowwoo pue (Noeq of Noeq painseew) 1991 gZ of paseaaoui uaaq seq (S lollnO) laaals alenljd Ajewljd ayl •s6ulpllnq pun-£ aaayl pue s6ulplinq higher densities (or both). Locating the higher density development along the transportation corridor gives the city an alternative to allowing higher densities in other, less advantageous locations limited to access via collector streets. The preliminary plat has been revised in response to a number of issues, primarily solving circulation conflicts and coming up with a new park development scenario. The Shoreland Ordinance review has been found to be acceptable by the MnDNR. More recently, the review has focused on Wetland requirements with full compliance with Wetland Conservation Act rules. Staff believes the development provides a "life - cycle" community where a variety of housing types and styles will result in a demographic diversity. The open space, public and private can set a standard for future developments if implemented appropriately. The adopted motion of the Planning Commission also included refinement to the round -about area. This is a key element that should be a focal point of the development, and provides an opportunity to make it a show- piece. It is hoped that this design feature will be available for the Council's review at the July 6th 2004, meeting, where -formal action will be requested on the various applications. 25 or INDEX OF ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft excerpted minutes of Planning Commission meeting May 25, 2004 2. Report from WSB regarding the Brockway Residential Development Wetland Replacement Plan 3. Memo from WSB regarding Brockway EAW 4. Findings of Fact in the matter of the Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement 5. Memo from WSB regarding updated RoseRAM Evaluation 6. Memo from MnDOT with comments 7. Cost of Analysis of On -site vs. Off -site Ponding 8. Memo from CPDC regarding wetlands issues with attachment 9. ' Planning Commission Meeting minutes April 27, 2004 10. Memo from DNR regarding Shorelands issues 11. Shoreland Analysis Drawing 12. Shoreland Open Space Analysis Drawing 13. Open Space Calculations 14. Letter from Rosemount residents Dan and Mary Kehoe 15. Preliminary Plat Drawings Page 1 -12 16. Trail and sidewalk Drawing 17. Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan Pages 1 -3 18. Park Concept Plan Page 1 -2 19. Executive Summary Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting April 26, 2004 20. Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting minutes March 22, 2004 21. Planning Commission Meeting minutes March 23, 2004 22. Memo from Director Parks and Recreation dated March 9, 2004 23. Letter from Westwood dated March 30, 2004 24. Brockway Location Map 25. Resolution 2004 -6 Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PUD 26. Planning Commission Meeting minutes November 25, 2003 27. City Council Meeting minutes January 6, 2004 28. Memo from Community Development Director dated December 31, 2003 29. Building designs and elevations Pages 1 -34 f Excerpt from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 25, 2004 6B. CASE 04 - 16 -PP Brockway Development (CPDC) Shoreland Ordinance Permit/PUD (Preliminary Plat) & Outlots of Brockway Final Plat City Planner Rick Pearson presented this application. Staff is recommending three separate motions relating to approval of the Preliminary Plat with conditions, approval of the Wetlands Conservation Act permit, and approval of the Outlots of Brockway Final Plat. Andie Moffatt, Wetlands Specialist from WSB, presented the wetlands portion of the report. She explained the: Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA) and the process this application is required to go through. She then explained the wetland impact of the Brockway site. There is a 30 day comment period for applicable agencies to provide input. It is her recommendation that the application does meet the Wetland Conservation Act. City Planner Rick Pearson explained some of the more significant revisions submitted with the latest preliminary plat and plans. He also discussed and clarified some of the conditions of approval. Horner Tompkins, Tim Whitten, Mike Waldo, and Dave Hempel were present to represent the applicant and to answer questions. Commissioner Zurn asked about the timeline of events. Dave Hempel of CPDC explained that July 7, they are expecting to apply for a demolition permit. There is some environmental cleanup that will be involved with demolition. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing. Bonnie Rohr, 2813 132 St. W. She lives at the intersection of Highway 3 and 132 " St. There is a culvert that runs into the wetland on her property. She wanted to know how the holding pond that will be constructed will affect her property. MOTION by Powell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schultz. Ayes: Powell, Schultz, Zurn, Messner, and Humphrey. Nays: None. Motion carried. City Engineer Andy Brotzler explained that there will be an outlet constructed to Keegan Lake. The basin on the north side of County Road 38 will drain into the new infiltration basin which will be constructed. The north side and south side areas will operate independently of each other. It will not have an affect on the basin on the other side of the road. Commissioner discussion followed regarding further clarification of some of the conditions. E h�b�f • x Ms. Allison Fraser Westwood Professional Services 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 You are hereby notified that the decision of the Local Government Unit on the above- referenced application was made on the date stated above. A copy of the Local Government Unit's Findings and Conclusions is attached. Pursuant to Minn. R 8420:0250 any appeal of the decision must be commenced by mailing a petition for appeal to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources within thirty (30) days of the date of the mailing of this Notice: Date of mailing of this notice: City of Rosemount By: Andrea Moffatt Title: Environmental Scientist WSB &Associates Inc. for the Ci r' f WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS LGU :City of Rosemount 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 Name of Applicant: Dave Hempel, CPDC Project name: Brockway Residential Development The wetland replacement plan for the above referenced project was approved by the Rosemount City Council on date to be inserted after Council meeting based on the findings and conclusions outlined below: It has been determined that wetland impacts have been avoided, minimized, rectified, and reduced to the greatest extent reasonable based on site constraints within the project area. An average 3.0 foot buffer will be created and/or maintained around Wetland A and the associated mitigation area. For the impacts that could not be avoided, the proposed wetland replacement plan includes the following impact and mitigation plans: Additionally, Wetland B, Wetland C, Wetland D, and Wetland E have been determined to be exempt under Minnesota Rules 8420.0122, Subp. 5 — Incidental Wetlands. These wetlands were created in upland areas for wastewater treatment and as a water hazards on a golf course and are therefore exempt. Square feet Wetland Fill 4,036 sf Wetland Excavation NA Total Impact 4,036 sf New Wetland Credit Proposed 5,362 sf Public Value Credit Proposed 26,627 sf Total Mitigation Proposed 31,989 sf Total Mitigation Required 8,072 sf Additionally, Wetland B, Wetland C, Wetland D, and Wetland E have been determined to be exempt under Minnesota Rules 8420.0122, Subp. 5 — Incidental Wetlands. These wetlands were created in upland areas for wastewater treatment and as a water hazards on a golf course and are therefore exempt. The submitted application is approved based on the following conditions: 1. All wetlands and buffers will lie substantially in platted outlots deeded to the City of Rosemount, or within conservation easements. 2. Mitigation area monitoring reports will be prepared yearly for five years beginning the first growing season of the mitigation areas. 3. The WCA Deed Forms are filed with the County, as required. Qualified by the above conditions, the wetland replacement plan outlined in the permit application has been determined to offset the wetland impacts and fully complies with the Wetland Conservation Act and the City of Rosemount's Wetland Management Plan. Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF NO LOSS OR EXEMPTION* 6s ui JMUMCMUUML — t me(s) of Applicant I Street Address APPLICANT AND PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION onnelly LGU: City of Rosemount Project Location: 1/4 SE S - 20 T 115N R 19W UTM Coordinates: X: Y: County Name/Number: Dakota Minor Watershed Name/Number: Minn. River Lk Pep'n 1381 City,, State, Zip Code Size of entire wetland: l.$ acres Wetland type: Circular 39 5 ; NWI PUBGx (651) -2005 ( ) Check one: 0 <50% 9 50 % -80% or 9 > 80% Telephone a (Evening) Check one: 9 Agricultural land; Q Non-a . land PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Describe the nature and purpose of the proposed project. The City is proposing to use Wetland 425/ Pond 1589 as a regional storm water pond. (anach aMdonal pages if nmded) Timetable: ect will begin on 6 / 1 / 04 mo /da and will be completed by 6 / 1 / 05 The wetland activity at the above site qualifies for the following under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) (check one): L1 No Loss Determination (attach plans) Nf Exemption # 8420.0122 Supb.5, (per MN Rule Chapter 8420.0122) (Note: Applicant is responsible for submitting the proof necessary to show qualication for the exemption claimed.) Description of Exemption Claimed: Wetland #425/ Pond 1589 was created in upland between 1951 and 1957 City Staff at Rosemount have indicated that the pond was created for the old Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Facility for effluent treatment. Therefore, this wetland is incidental per Minnesota Rules 8420 0122 Su bp 5 The aerial photos are attached. APPLICANT SIGNATURE The information provided for this determination is truthful and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I ensure that, in draining or filling the subject wetland under an exemption noted above, appropriate erosion control measures will be taken to prevent sedimentation of the water, the drain or fill will not block fish passage, and the drain or fill will be conducted in compliance with all other applicable federal, state and local requirements, including best management practices and water resource protection requirements established under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103H. (Signature of App leant) (Date) Catfle me of No -Loss or Exemption (2000) Page t of t 9/Z te9Z zzc 199 - idea 8ulieeul9ug iunowesoa }o 8 310 Ad /o:31 tool /LZ /90 S0iz0'd 00LZZ17S29L S31dI90SSU IS SSM bZ:Zti VOW-LE-MW * APPROVAL OF THIS CERTIFICATE ONLY APPLIES TO THE WCA Permits from local, state, and federal agencies maybe required. Check with the appropriate authorities before commencingwork in or near wetlands. The Combined Project Application form can be used for this purpose. Within 10 da s of the decision, notice of the above decision must be mailed to: Mr. Les Lemtn Mr, Brian Watson Board of Water and Sod Resources Dakota Soil and Cenfficate of No -Loss or Exemption (2000) Page 2 of 2 B/E t69Z Zze t99 idad 9uliaauleu3 iunowasoa }o Rilo S0 M'd 004TTbS291L S31UI '8 HSM Wd W Zt t00Z /LZ /90 bT :ZT 1700Z— LZ —AtiW Water Conservation District One West Water Street -Suite 200 4100 2220` West St. Paul, MN 55107 Fatmin on, MN 55024 W. Wayne Barstad DNR Wetland Coordinator DNR - Ecological Services Division Ecological Services Section 1200 Warner Road 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 St. Paul MN 55106 St. Paul MN 55155 Mr. Joe Yanta Mr. John Jaschke US Corps of Engineers Dakota County Att a: CO -R 190 Fifth Street B 14955 Galaxie Avenue St Paul MN 55101 Apple Valley, MN 55124 Mr. Pat Lynch DNR Waters 1200 Warner Road LSt MN 55106 Cenfficate of No -Loss or Exemption (2000) Page 2 of 2 B/E t69Z Zze t99 idad 9uliaauleu3 iunowasoa }o Rilo S0 M'd 004TTbS291L S31UI '8 HSM Wd W Zt t00Z /LZ /90 bT :ZT 1700Z— LZ —AtiW WETLAND CONSERVATIONACT TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL FINDINGS OF FACT Date: May 26, 2004 LGU: City of Rosemount County: Dakota LGU Contact: Chad Donnelly or Andi Moffatt Project Name / #: Brockway Residential Development Phone #: (651)322 -2005 or (763)287 -7196 Location of Project: SWl /4 of the NE 1/4, Section 20, T115N, R19W '/s '/e '/a Section Township Range Lot/Block Rosemount, Minnesota Dakota County City County TEP Members (and others) who reviewed project: (Check if viewed project site) O SWCD: David Hohnen O BWSR: Les Lemm (X) LOU: Chad Donnelly O COE: Other Wetland Experts present: Andi Moffatt, WSB (viewed site and verified delineation on behalf of LGU), • David Weetman, Westwood Professional Services TEP requested by: LGU 1. Type of TEP determination requested (check those that apply): Delineation check • Exemption Determination (WCA Exemption # 5 - Incidentall No -Loss Determination • Replacement Plan 2. Description of Wetland with proposed impact: a. Wetland Type (Circular 39) Type 5 (Cowardin) b. Size of Proposed Impact (tenths of acre) 4,036 sf 3. Have sequencing requirements been addressed? X yes _ no 4. Is the project consistent with the intent of the comprehensive local water plan and/or the watershed district plan, the metropolitan surface water management plan and metropolitan groundwater management plan, and local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? Yes (X) No( ) 5. The project will affect the following wetland functions: Functions Impact No Impact Improve Floodwater Storage X Nutrient Assimilation X Sediment Entrapment X Groundwater Recharge X Low Flow Augmentation X Aesthetics/Recreation X Shoreland Anchoring X Wildlife Habitat X Fisheries Habitat X Rare Plant/Animal Habitat X Commercial Uses X 6. For replacement plan or no -loss determinations, are wetland functions maintained at an equal or greater level? Yes (X) No( ) 7. Does Technical Evaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item 1.? Yes (X) , No( ) If no, why? JUN -01 -2004 16:42 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.01i01 FEB -13 -1900 18:25 P.01 • Summary of Discussion: - t t U U , a The wetland impacts, mitigation, and City buffer requirement associated with the Brockway site were reviewed. The TEP concurred that sequencing had been met and that the mitigation.was I consistent with WCA requirements. The Incidental Wetland exemption for Wetlands B, C, D, and E were reviewed. The TEP concurred that these wetlands met Wetland Exemption 8420.0122, Subp. 5. • Wetland 3941 Pond 1552 (located west of TH3 off of the Brockway site) is noted in the City's ! Wetland Management Plan, the National Wetland Inventory, and the soil survey, however, this wet area appears on only two of the;historic photos that were reviewed (Years 1937,1940, ,1951, 1957 ,1964,1970,1979,19$4,1991;1997, and 2002). Afield delineation was completed in May 2004 and indicated that this area did not meet wetland criteria since it lacked hydrophytie vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology. Additionally, the site was reviewed after significant rainfalls in the Spring of 2004 to determine if water ponded in this location. No water was evident in this area following significant rainfall events, Therefore, the TEP concurred that this area was not Wetland. • Wetland 4251 Pond 1589 (located south of Connemara Trail off of the Brockway site) was reviewed for Incidental Wetland status per Minnesota Rules 8420.0122, Subp. 5. This pond was constructed between 1951 and 1957, information from City Staff at Rosemount indicated that this pond was constructed for the old Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Facility for effluent treatment. The TEP concurred that if this site was constructed for the WWTF, it would qualify for the Incidental Wetland exemption. The City will complete an Exemption Application. 8. SIGNA TEP decision is not a consensus, note with an asterisk and explain on the back of this page) � r �y- SWCD Representative (Data) SWSR Representative (Dm) WU Rcprescntativc (DUC) TEP Findings of Fact (2000) i i i i i i TOTAL P.01 TOTAL P.01 S0 'd luiol Summary of Discussion: a The wetland impacts, mitigation, and City buffer requirement associated with the Brockway site were reviewed. The TEP concurred that sequencing had been met and that the mitigation was consistent with WCA requirements. a The Incidental Wetland exemption for Wetlands B, C, D, and E were reviewed. The TEP concurred that these wetlands met Wetland Exemption 8420.0122, Subp. 5. a Wetland 394/ Pond 1552 (located west of TH3 off of the Brockway site) is noted in the City's Wetland Management Plan, the National Wetland Inventory, and the soil survey. however, this wet area appears on only two of the historic photos that were reviewed (Years 1937, 1940, 1951, 1957, 1964, 1970, 1979,19$4,1991, 1997, and 2002). A field delineation was completed in May 2004 and indicated that this area did not meet wetland criteria since it lacked hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology. Additionally, the site was reviewed after significant rainfalls in the Spring of 2004 to determine if water ponded in this location. No water was evident in this area following significant rain_ fall events. Therefore, the TEP concurred that this area was not wetland. • Wetland 425/ Pond 1589 (located south of Connemara Trail off of the Brockway site) was reviewed for Incidental Wetland status per Minnesota Rules 8420.0122, Subp. 5. This pond was constructed between 1951 and 1957. Information from City Staff at Rosemount indicated that this pond was constructed for the old Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Facility for effluent treatment. The TEP concurred that if this site was constructed for the WWTF, it would qualify for the Incidental Wetland exemption. The City will complete an Exemption Application. 8. SIGNATURES (:f TEP decision is not a consensus, note with an asterisk and explain on the back of this page) SWCD Representative (Date) BWSR Representative (Date) LGU Representative (Date) TEP Findings of Fad (2000) 9/9 4693 ZZ£ 199 idea 2ujj9eu18u3 lunowesoa }o di10 Wd 90 :Z1 *DOZ /LZ /90 SO/SO ' d 00L T Z t7G29Z S31U 190SSU '8 ESM S z : z z t'00Z— LZ -1,dW cAssociates, Inc. Memorandum X To: Jon Larson, EQB Monitor a From: Andi Moffatt, WSB & Associates, Inc. _ Anna Brenes, WSB & Associates, Inc. Date: May 13, 2004 Re: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EANg Brockway Residential Development WSB Project No. 1556-03 The public comment period for the Brockway Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) ended March 17, 2004. Responses to comments and Findings of Fact were prepared and are attached. From this process, the City g P P P t3' Council � concluded that this project does not have the potential for significant environmental affects. Therefore the City has issued a Negative Declaration of Need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). C. Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator Rick Pearson, City Planner Andy Brotzler, City Engineer " x }. Dave Hutton, WSB & Associates, Inc. Bill Weber, CPDC Dave Hempel, CPDC Fran Hagen, Westwood Professional Services Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council Brigid Gombold, Mn/DOT Senior Transportation Planner Mary McNeff, Mn/DOT Transportation Planner Lynn Moratzka, Dakota County Planning Jay Riggs, Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District Wayne Barstad, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources �t , 415 ' MemJ Suit' I inn F.•197T+7 dl1556- 031051304jlnegneed.doc X t 7 Exh� bit 763 54th l) X Minneapolis • St. Cloud • .Equal Opportunity Employer r CITY OF ROSEMOUNT In the matter of the Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact FINDINGS OF FACT Statement (EIS) for AND CONCLUSIONS Brockway Residential Development in Rosemount, MN Contractor Property Developers Company (CPDC) is proposing a mixed use residential development consisting of 612 total units. Housing types will consist of single and multi- family residential. Several outlots are proposed on the project site.. This development includes construction of 86 single - family homes, three 60 -unit apartment buildings of which 1/3 will be senior housing, and 346 town home units, as well as a 15,000 SF of a Neighborhood Commercial area. The 106 acre area is located south of County Road 38, and east of State Highway 3 (South Robert Trail). One outlot will consist of up to 15.0 acres of dedicated city park, a storm water pond, a ball field, and a trail system. Pursuant to Minnesota R. 4410.4300, subp. 19D, the City of Rosemount has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for this proposed project. As to the need for an Environmental Impact Statement _(EIS) on the project and based on the record in this matter, including the EAW and comments received, the City of Rosemount makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT L PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project The proposed project involves grading the 106 -acre site to. construct streets, utilities, and residential units. It is anticipated that 1.8 acres of wooded area will be removed and 26 acres of impervious area will be added as part of this project. Lawn and landscaped area will comprise 36 acres of the site after construction. Four additional acres of storm water ponding areas and a 15 acre public park are also proposed as part of the project. B. Project Site The proposed project is located north of Connemara Trail, south of County Road 38, west of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul Railroad, and east of TH 3. The site currently contains 6 acres of brush/grassland, 77.06 acres of golf turf, 7 acres of wooded area, 0.94 acres of wetland, and 15 acres of an existing warehouse and associated parking lot. F. ]tFHIV i>i6 03 rerised.doc x h� hid II. PROJECT HISTORY A. The project was subject to the mandatory preparation of an EAW under Minnesota R. 4410.4300 subp. 19D. B. An EAW was prepared for the proposed project and distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on February 9, 2004. C. A public notice containing information about the availability of the EAW for public review was published in the Rosemount Town Pages on February 13, 2004. D. The EAW was noticed in the February 16, 2004 EQB Monitor. The public comment period ended March 17, 2004. Comments were received from the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Dakota County, and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Copies of these letters are hereby incorporated by reference. Responses to the comments are also incorporated by reference. IIL CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp. 1 states "an EIS shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant'environmental affects." In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental affects, the City of Rosemount must consider the four factors set out in Minnesota R 4410.1700, subp. 7. With respect to each of these factors, the City finds as follows: A. TYPE, EXTENT, AND REVERSIBILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The first factor that the City must consider is "type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects ", Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.A. The City's findings with respect to each of these issues are set forth below. 1. The type of environmental impacts and mitigation efforts anticipated as part of this project include: a. Land Use: The land use will be converted from industrial and open space /park to residential. To address this concern the development plans contain park and open space to mitigate for the conversion of land use. b. Wastewater and Water Consumption: This development is anticipated to use and generate approximately 167,688 GPD of water and wastewater. The MCES Wastewater Treatment F TH 7N".]5i6- 0; ;040004FOF -rer ced.doc Facility has adequate capacity to handle the sewage volumes from this site. The increase in water use will be mitigated by the expansion of the City's water supply, storage, and distribution systems. c. Storm Water: The project is anticipated to generate additional storm water runoff. This runoff will be treated within on -site and off -site ponding facilities and infiltration areas to NURP guidelines. The design of the on -site stormwater management system is required to be sized to accommodate the 100 -year, 24 -hour critical storm event. d. Traffic: Traffic volume on TH 3, Connemara Trail, and CR 38 will increase. As a result several improvements will be necessary to ensure the safety and operation on these roadways. These improvements are outlined in the 2003 Traffic Impact Study completed for this site and are included with the EAW. e. Dump Sites/ Known and Potential Sources of Soil and Groundwater Pollutant Sites: Information from Dakota County and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency indicates that there are several known and potential sources of pollutants within the site. These areas will be investigated and remediated in conformance with federal and state regulations and with Dakota County Ordinance 110, Chapter 14. 2. The extent and reversibility of environmental impacts are consistent with those of residential development. B. CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RELATED OR ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS The second factor that the City must consider is the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects ", Minnesota R. 4410.1700 subp.7.B. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below. 1. The Brockway property is currently zoned B -P2 and PI. The city will need to re -zone and re -guide the area to a combination of urban and high density residential uses to reflect the different housing types proposed in the plan as well as the commercial site. The regional land use conversion from parks, business park, and open space to developed residential space is anticipated to have a cumulative impact on the area. Attempts to mitigate this impact will include providing open space and park in the development, providing adequate storm water management facilities, and addressing traffic impacts. The F f4PTf7N' 1556- 031040604FOF- rerised.doc l City's current ordinances, standards, and policies are anticipated to be adequate to address these issues. C. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL AFFECTS ARE SUBJECT TO MITIGATION BY ONGOING PUBLIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY 1. The following permits or approvals will be required for the project: State TyRe of Appli cation MPCA Review / Approval of a Construction Contingency Plan/Response Action Plan MPCA NPDES /SDS Phase II Storm Water Construction Permit MPCA Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit Minnesota DNR Water Appropriation Minnesota Department of Health Water Main Extension Permit City/Local Met Council Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment Met Council Sanitary Sewer Extension Dakota County Review Construction Contingency Plan/Response Action Plan Dakota County Access Permit City of Rosemount/Dakota County Plattin City of Rosemount Building Permits City of Rosemount Site Plan Review City of Rosemount WCA Permit 1. The City finds that the potential environmental impacts of the project are subject to mitigation by ongoing regulatory authorities such that an EIS need not be prepared. D. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAN BE ANTICIPATED AND CONTROLLED AS A RESULT OF OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY PUBLIC AGENCIES OR THE PROJECT PROPOSER, OR OF EISs PREVIOUSLY PREPARED ON SIMILAR PROJECTS. The fourth factor that the City must consider is "the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, F JIT11N.1'56-053,0 004FOF- nn^seddoc s or of EISs previously prepared on similar projects," Minnesota R. 4700.1700, subp. 7.D. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below: The proposed project is subject to the following plans prepared by the City: 1. City of Rosemount Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (2003) 2. City of Rosemount Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan (1999) 3. City of Rosemount 2020 Comprehensive Plan The proposed project is subject to the investigation and remediation, if deemed necessary, of the following sites in conformance with the County and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: 1. Dakota County Environmental Management Department Dump Sites 5363, 5358, 5424, 5387, 5366, 5388, and 5004. 2. Any additional areas identified by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as potential sources of soil and/or groundwater pollution. The proposed project is subject to the Response Action Plan and Construction Contingency Plan that will be prepared by the project proposer to address known and potential contaminants within the site. These documents will be reviewed and/or approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Dakota County. The City finds that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and controlled as a result of the environmental review, planning, and permitting processes. CONCLUSIONS The preparation of Brockway Residential Development EAW and comments received on the EAW have generated information adequate to determine whether the proposed facility has the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW has identified areas where the potential for significant environmental effects exist, but appropriate measures have or will be incorporated into the project plan and/or permits to mitigate these effects. The project is anticipated to comply with all City of Rosemount standards and review agency standards. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required. F. J"17'117A' : ? iG -G!; 010(lIaFOF- rcrise�.dnc N�$B v� & Associates, Inc. Memorandum To: David Weetman, Westwood Professional Services -- Copy: _ Andy Brotzler, City of Rosemount = Kim Lindquist, City of Rosemount ti A` Chad Donnelly,,City of Rosemount E, Dave Hempel, CPDC Brian Watson, Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District - Les Lemm, Board of Water and Soil Resources From: Andi Moffatt, WSB & Associates, Inc. Date: May 6, 2004 Re: Brockway Site Wetland #356— Updated RoseRAM Evaluation Y WSB Project No. 1005 -97 �} As a follow up to the discussions between the City and CPDC regarding the wetland on the k fi north side of the Brockway site (Wetland #356 in the City's Wetland Management Plan), we 4 have conducted an updated RoseRAM on this wetland. RoseRAM is the City's version of MnRAM that was used in the development of the City's Wetland Management Plan. The purpose of this review was to determine if Wetland #356 could be classified as a Utilize wetland rather than a Manage II wetland as indicated in the City's Wetland Management Plan. The following information was used to complete this review: • Information from the Phase I study that was completed for the Brockway site that indicated that Wetland 356 had been contaminated from waste discharge from past activities on the Brockway site. • Information from the Brockway EAW. • The original RoseRAM completed in 1997 for Wetland #356. • Historical aerial photos • a Data from WSB's 2003 wetland delineation for Wetland #356. • Site visit information from April 26, 2004 and May 3, 2004 for Wetland #356. $ {Y, '- Based on this information, an updated RoseRAM was completed. This updated evaluation scored the wetland at 300. Based on the City's Wetland Management Plan, wetlands that ` ors ' 4150 Olson `. receive scores of 280 to 420 are Mana e II wetlands. Therefore, this wetland will remain in the g ' Manage II category. As such, a 30 foot buffer and sediment pretreatment are required. Memorial High .` Suite 300 If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (763) 287 -7196. Minneapolis Minnesota 55422 kh �ti�f _ � F: \WPWIIVV 005 97 \050504dw.doc 763.541.4800 - ' FAX Minneapolis • St. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer I ,HNES°� ti Minnesota Depart. ,nt of Transportation S'4 Q° Metropolitan Division A►� �" f OF � - TR Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Y--A 1- 1 Roseville, MN 55113 foAA^'01" el *'r Z., D kd �Mf� May 5, 2004 Mr. Rick Pearson Community Development Director City of Rosemount City Hall 2875 — 145th Street West Q �4 Rosemount, MN 55068 4997 SUBJECT: Brockway Glass, Mn/DOT Review # PO4 -038: Northeast quadrant of TH 3 and Connemara Trail Rosemount, Dakota County Control Section 1921 Dear Mr. Pearson: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, Subdivision 2. Plats. Please incorporate these additional comments with those that were originally mailed to the City in our letters dated March 12, 2004, and March 22, 2004. Before any further development, please address the following comments. Please note that additional or more specific comments may arise during Mn/DOT Metro Division's permitting process: ■ Mn/DOT Metro District Water Resources Engineering has reviewed the grading plans and sewer plans submitted recently. Please provide Mn/DOT Metro District Water Resources Engineering with a copy of the hydraulic model(s) used to substantiate the design, along with the maps or figures to indicate the proposed location of major ponding areas. The model or models should show the site and all ponds within the site, and the destination of the outflow outside of the site. A watershed area map must accompany the model, or models. We believe that the City has established useful requirements, and Mn/DOT needs information identical to what the City receives on hydraulic and hydrologic design. For questions, please call Scott Carlstrom, Mn/DOT Metro Water Resources Engineering, at (651) 634 -2416. Please send hydraulic models and other requested materials to: Scott Carlstrom Mn/DOT Metro Water Resources Engineering Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B -2 Roseville, MN 55113 ■ Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. An equal opportunity employer Mr. Rick Pearson Page 2 May 5, 2004 Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway fuftds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project' proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding Mn/DOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 582 1293. As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to: Development Review Coordinator Mn/DOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B -2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. If you have any questions regarding this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 582 -1462. Sincerely, Mary McNeff Transportation Planner Copy: Todd Tollefson, Acting Dakota County Surveyor Anna Brenes, WSB and Associates, Minneapolis, MN Ann Braden / Metropolitan Council � MPS � e� Cost Analysis of on- site vs. off - site ponding - Brockway 5/7/04 Costs for on site ponding - J 1. Grading for ponding of DA -2 (16.5 acres), DA -2A (4.0 acres) Southwest Pond - 21,292 cu yds common borrow @ $1.50 =$ 31,938 Surface area (100 year elev) 450x130/43560 =1.34 acres Southeast pond - 13,008 cu. yds common borrow @ $1.50 = $19,512 Surface area (100 year elev) 800x80/43560 =1.47 acres 2. Outlet Control structures - 2 @$4,000 = $8,000 3. Ponding Fee credits 16.5 @ $3,920 /acre = <$64,680> 4.0 acres x $2,613 /acre = <$10,452> 4. Trunk Storm Fee .Credit 1.34 ac. X $4,575/ac = <$6,131> 5. Lost Park Land 100'x 570'/43560 =1.31 acres x $60,000 = $78,600 Total $56,787 Costs for off -site ponding - 1. Storm sewer crossing at Commemara Tr with twin 26 x43 arch RCP (See Westwood estimate) _ $186,975 2. Engineering Fees 20% x $186,975 _ $37,395 3. City Fees 5% x $186,975 = $9,349 4. GIS Fees - 22 units x $55 /unit = $1,210 5. 5 ft Sidewalk - 700 L.F. @ $16/L.F. _ $11,200 6. 22 Sanitary sewer & water services @ $1,500 /each = $ 33,000 7. Soil testing on 22 Pads @ $200 /unit = $4,400 8. Additional street (pvt) 120 l.f. @ $601L..F. = $7,200 9. Grading 22 units @ $1,500 /unit = $33,000 10. Park Dedication fee for 22 units x 1/25 =5.5 Acres x $60,000 = $330,000 12. Park land gain -1.31 acres @ $60,000 /acre = <$78,600> 13. Additional 22 units @ $27,535 /unit (finished pad) = <$605,770> 14. Ponding Fee 16.5 @ $3,920 /acre = $64,680 4.0 acres x $2,613 /acre = $10,452 15. Trunk Storm 1.34 area (southwest pond surface area) x $4,575 = $6,131 Total $50,622 Net difference for off - site ponding (50,622 - 56,787) <$6,165> Note: Tax benefit to City not included in estimate y a n ► MAY 1 0 2004 �l By ! ®�� RrK -s� -2884 11 3'r crllc 651 P.01 /02 e CONTRACTOR PROPERTY DEVELOPERS COMPANY FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SI3EET TO: FROM: Kim Lindquist /Rick Pearson David Hempel COMPANY: DATF: City of Rosemount April 30, 2004 PAX NUMBER: TOTAL NO, OF PACES 1NCLUDING COVER 651) 423 -5203 2 PHONE NUMBER: SENDER'S PHO&U NUNMCR: 65 1=556-454/cell 612 =240 -7822 RE: Brockway 651- 556 -4545 X•URGENT X FOR REVIEW X PLEASE COMMENT Q PLEASE REPLY ❑ PLEASE RECYCLE, NOTES/COMMENTS: Kim and Rick, we were brainstorraing the other day on ways to minimize impacts to the north wetland (adjacent Co Rd 38) and maximize open space area. The thought is to reduce the median & road right of way along; the N/S street at the north end where it connect to Co. Rd 38. The street width and geometries would not change significantly only the center median and R,O.W width. Currendy the median is 18 feet wide (f to f) and we arc requesting to reduce it to 6 feet wide(same as C:onncrnara tr.) and the R.O.W. from 100 ft to around 84 feet, north of Street 2. Eventually taper back to a 62 foot wide R.O.W. south of street 2. I have asked Andy Brotzler about the median change and his first thought was it appeared reasonable but_couldn% address any issues that planning may have.' The only down side would be the amount of landscaping area in the median would reduced. However, there seemed to be a concern from the city anyway about landscaping in the medians from a traffic and sight line issue. Therefore, this change appears to be a win -win for everyone: Please review and share any concerns /comments you may have. We would like to have Westwood in corporate tlds modification as soon as possible. Your attention in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Cc: Mike Waldo ` `.`v By 3030 CENTRE POINTR DR., SUITE 800, ROSF,VILLE.MN 55113 APR -30 -2004 11 :38 CrllC N00 ° 02'34'W 1411.7 4 ILIA A l in It in tL I f y� 't �1 L I - 1 1 a•, •�- � C j I { Ir 1 I - II - -- - - r `1�r — ^ I I �✓ �� 1 flp �lil III ��I F II d 1, (IM41 lIG90 t, KLnOS) E • 'ON AYMHOH 91d1S i 6C'£SOl 3,.LZ,50o00N C9'SCS= - l�'! 15 . .♦5,91oZ =1 ,I b LO'OSt TOTAL P.02 Excerpt from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 27, 2004 6C. CASE 04 -16 -PP Brockway Development — Shoreland Ordinance Permit & PUD with Variance (Preliminary Plat) Rick Pearson presented the continuing application from Contractor Property Developers Company. Staff has received revised plans for the preliminary plat for the Brockway area redevelopment. Many of the previously raised issues have been resolved. However, the environmental review process identified several outstanding concerns, specifically, the requirements of the City's Shoreland Overlay district relative to Keegan Lake, and the State Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA) rules relating to several wetlands on the site. The Shoreland requirements trigger a separate public hearing and opportunity for DNR comment, and WCA rules require field delineation of the wetlands. Due to the time of year, the wetland delineation has not been conducted as yet, however, if is expected that the delineation and initiation of the agency comment period will occur prior to the Commission's May meeting. Staff's preference is to continue the discussion of the revised preliminary plat, giving the Commissioners increased familiarity with the project and the opportunity to comment about any plan revisions. However the public hearing would be continued until May 25, 2004 at which time the wetland and shoreland issues should be substantially resolved. Pat Lynch, DNR Area Hydrologist has indicated that the Plan appears to be generally consistent with the standards. A condition of approval would require consistency with the DNR shoreland standards either with inclusion of the 7 -acre site, upon development, or for the current Brockway proposal independently. Upon review of the proposed stormwater plan, it has been determined that the City's stormwater goals and policies are primarily achieved with the design. At this time, Staff is working with the developer to review alternatives for managing stormwater in the southern area of the property. Discussion occurred regarding stormwater ponding, drainage, pipeline easement, and water supply issues. City Engineer Brotzler explained the improvements that will be occurring on Highway 3 The project in conjunction with MnDOT includes a signal that will be installed at Connemara Trail and Highway 3. At County Rd. 38 (132 St.) there will be turn lanes and widening and striping. The remainder of the project will be at McAndrews Road, which will also receive a signal. Approval of the preliminary plat will include a condition that the first phase of the development include the platting and construction of the entire length of the north -south road, as well as the improvements to County Road 38 that will result in left turn lanes off Highway 3 at County Road 38 and a right turn lane at County Road 38 into the development. Those improvements would probably be phased over a 2 year period. a Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. MOTION by Messner to continue the Brockway Project Public Hearing to May 25, 2004. Second by Schultz. Ayes: Messner, Humphrey, Powell, Schultz, and Zurn. Nays: None. Motion carried. Peerson,Rick From: Pat Lynch_ [pat.lynch @dnr.state.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 3:22 PM To: Pearson,Rick Subject: Brockway Glass Site, CPDC thanks for meeting last week with me and representatives of Westwood and Contractor Property Developers Corp to discuss the shoreland zoning aspects of the Brockway site. Roughly a third of the project are falls with the shoreland overlay of Keegan Lake. I just today received the drawing from Westwwod depicting open space. Under PUD standards for shoreland, at least 50% of the project area (within shoreland district only) must be maintained in open space. Adequate provisions must be developed to ensure the preservation and maintenance, in perpetuity, for the proposed development. The provisions for the preservation and maintenance of the open space must be in form of deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements, public dedication, or other equally effective -and permanent means. The provisions must prohibit construction of accessory buildings or storage /parking of vehicles and vegetative and topographic alteration, other than routine lawn maintenance. The provisions should be enforceable . Typically, in my experience, the open space requirements are met through conservation easement or public dedication. What is proposed at the Brockway site is non - traditional, in that it identifies front, rear, and side yard areas of single family homes /lots to accomplish a large percentage of the open space requirement. This gets difficult to enforce the requirements of open space. It 'appears the open space, when including the 7 -acre exception to the east and the 10 units shown on the drawing, minimally meets the 50% requirement. Although meeting the minimum requirement, I am concerned about the long -term effectiveness of maintaining it. Wherever possible, markers, monuments, or other visual identifiers of open space should be considered. As we discussed last week, the overall impervious surface within shoreland slightly exceeds the allowable 25% maximum. Overall impervious in shoreland is calculated at 28 %, however, within the first two tiers (closest to the lake) the impervious surface, as reported by Westwood, is 23 %, 2% less than the maximum. -The fact that impervious surface closer to the lake is less than maximum, and that the stormwater management in the proposed development goes beyond traditional rate control, I can accept the slight increase in maximum impervious surface up to 28% within the entire shoreland area. The density, as we discussed last week, is well within that which is allowable under a residential PUD I am satisfied the intent of the Shoreland PUD regulations are met in the development proposed. Thanks again for working with me on this. Let me know if you have further questions of me Pat Lynch DNR South Metro Area Hydrologist phone 651.772.7917 fax 651.772.7977 pat.lynch @dnr.state.mn.us 1 +10 : i I _ .799 f _ .267 ... •.,/ 247 _ _ _ _ c. w .q,x, t l gOPNER STATE ONE CALL r -I KwGGN LAKE -- I, _� \ r ` r. _...� j -�— -':•.� \ _. j 1, r 1 -_.a rl,;_ :T \ it a jw - 7 FI. _ r r �t 3 I _ A '. \ y IX is \ a v '.0 t I I _'t--` r • - Y ^�. , < r� : 'F6 y . l : � e \ J., � rr - �,� � opm of 7 1 , 3 7 — , li r - L . ; § ; -, '_!iln •`�11 t m�, � � d }N �d��, , � r �'�._ , . s 77777 i 77 B� 977 ®a7S107777» 777��77� 77� 7�� 7��t7777��77777�a� �f• 7777a�� _^JCe'fS]♦ 777C17_'!�1♦�. ®.. tira��nQrFaAttE7rr�rat?n���� ,�� Oepi�OOEf•oA !1.7777��i 77777751♦�7��7777777�a7777� 7077777 r 1 77 �!>♦ 77 R� 7© 77777T77S777777G1�777777777777777� m 777 ® 77 ®777777777 70777 ilEa.'77® 77A� 77777�'>♦, � 77777 T : � T� 7077Er �� 777 X777"JiIlE17776.L*F17777r}ai'b; ^,,r�tl,7i1�777777�17777i�� >7- '7'7r7�3.r1777�r1.77777f,>� s�777�a7� a77? 7 77LR�'Gt77T7777f=ffi)♦@jt>♦� ®�7 77777® —OFT �� .S�77711i77R mom= rr7ti EN07T. 7 b�777777P� �tT[[� 777777� r. •- 7�. .�. .111 t1 .` � .. 4 � :' � %�«�� '� • y s / 4. x.mm / y am_. —T e�. �? _ I ._ _ : S .: I / t I Brockway — w„ Contractor Property Developers Company Site Sh—1 -d Andpd.1 EIMAIVT Q u a y n cD -�� fp o �o U dD rn a ° cb 3b p cD y ` Cq (``D Q (� (D 41 Q C b b rn Q Q �..7 k b m bQ 0 q y 3' c� c ro o� a 11 a tnD (OD Q \. lb Q oh o- (b l (b Q O' Q � ti n o Z Co II II 0 ' o q ° 3 Co o Q OCn VCo NIJ 0 Cb y cD n p V CZ) o� p o NJ Op 0 r , j � �- c> C,. C, p c CD O � .y V o ° Cb Q "3 R° C O' 7 Y Lf _ �` �...__.._.. Suitable Area within the Shoreland Overla District I Tier Total Area (so. ft. 1 Total Area (acresl Unsuitable Area (s qua feet Suitable Area (S Q. ft. Suitable Area acres Wetlands Bluffs Lake Access Lots 1 238,084.0 5.5 0 0 0 238,084.0 5.5 2 348,733.4 8.0 0 0 0 1 348,733.4 8.0 3 460,725.6 10:6 8859.1 0 0 451,866.5 10.4 4 416,239.0 9.6 25,665.9 0 0 390,573.1 9.0 Total 1,463,782.0 33.6 34 525.0 0 0 1 429 257.0 32.8 I Shoreland Densrty per DN13 Standards _ _- _ ........ ____......__.._._..y 1 2 2a 3 4 5 6 7 Tier Suitable Area i (sq. ft.) Suitable Area. (acres) Required Lot Size (sq. ft.) Allowable Base Density Z Density Increase Multiplier Allowable Density w/ Multiplier Density Proposed 1 238,084.0 5.5 15,000 16 1.5 24 6, 2 348 733.4 8.0 15,000 23 2 46 21 3 451,866.5 10.4 15,000 30 3 90 34 4 390 573.1 9.0 15000 26 3 78 53 Total 1,429,257.0 32.8 95 239 114 ' Suitable area does not include wetlands, bluffs, lake access lots, or any area below the OHWL. x In accordance with the Shoreland Ordinance, at least 50 percent of the project area is open space by DNR definition (see open space plan). T p also i in creased structu setbacks from the OHWL and mitigating vegetative management features, _ _ which allows for use of density multipliers. . . ................. .._ ...... :.... . ......... _. ... ......... .... . ... _ ........ ....... ........_ ....... - -.__ Total Impervious Surface Within Shoreland (Brockway site only) Tier - Tier Area Impervious Surface by Type Impervious Surface (s.f.) % Impervious Surface (s.t) Sin le Fain t Multi Fam s Roads S' ewa s 3 Trails 1 238,084.0. 17,400 0 22,265.7 1,208.7 1,256.0 42,130.4 17.7% I 2 348,733.4 60,900 0 28,948.6 8,491.4 1,909.9 100,249.9 28.7% 3 460,725.6 55,100 26,834.6 77,310.6 21,043.7 1,834.5 182,123.4 39.5% 4 416,239.0 14,500 67,451.6 91,711.5 17,444.5 5,377.7 196,485.3 47.2% Total 11,463,782.0 i ( 520,989.0 35.6% 1 Based on average " o 2,900 s.f Single Family home impervious surface. = Based on building pads and driveways. Based public and private sidewalks. INote: Eiminati rig the existing CoAd. 38 roads urface (22,109 s0 from the calculations reduces the Impervious Surface sf to 498,880 sf (34.0 ) Total Impervious Surface Within Shoreland (Including 7 acre exception) Tier Impervious Surface by T Total Square Feet % Impervious Surface Tier Area (s.f.) Single Family i Multi Family 2 Roads Sidewalks 3 Trails 1 276,775.5 20,300 0 27,047.4 1,282.7 1,256.0 49,886.1 18.0% 2 454,990.9 81,200 0 41,032.9 11,641.0 1,909.9 135,783.8 29.8% 3 547,128.8 60,900 26,834.6 80821.5 22,207.1 1834.5 192,597.7 35.2% 4 459,781.0 14,500 67,451.6 91,711.5 17,444.5 5,377.7 196,485.3 42.7% Total 1,738,676.2 574,752.9 33.1% i Based o average of 2,900 s.f. S ingle Family ho impervious surfac Z B ased on building pads and drivewa V _ Based public and private sidewalks. lNote !Eliminating the existing Co.Rd 38 road surface (29,295 s0 from the calculations reduces the hnpervtous Surface sf to 545 457.9 sf (313°/ )- April 21, 2004 U;; BY Rosemount Planning Commission 2875 145 St West Rosemount MN 55068 Council members, We were notified of the meeting regarding the development of the Brockway Glass site and were unable to attend. We have expressed our concerns at previous meetings regarding the high density of the development which will exacerbate our main concern: TRAFFIC! The traffic issue is continually brought up and validated, but there have been no real solutions. The only response to the problem is a projected stop light at Connemara. Is that all there is? At the last planning commission meeting a suggestion was made to eliminate all access from the development onto 132 "d Street West. This would alleviate some of the congestion that would inevitably exist at this intersection without a traffic light. This suggestion was never addressed. We live close to the proposed development and are greatly affected by the decisions of the council. There have been an overwhelming number of people who have spoken with us and share in our efforts to bring the traffic issue to light. We are genuinely concerned for the safety of our families, local commuters, and the residents of Rosemount. Sincerely, Dan and Mary Kehoe 13100 South Robert Trail Rosemount MN 55058 C �, � 1 1 .h •, \ _mil, ��,�? {► J.. , f � }' ;� %' IsR- ; IN Vm r R IOO' ]00' ,pp• S NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ]a las R-W- Wta 05/14/04 `� •w 02/17/0+ .r 1 w 14 I 1�•�oYns- ;:� . - ..„., �• Brockway Contractor Property Developers Company Glass Existing Conditions >� tea. ra.r �....... ON / Survey I p ft t—i h 1_m a-- Lr. f I P w u W4 RRrr r�a 'tea'. 311 Ki ' ' � SE eta } � i � ,,A .� ---�• � �1! � rt!"sr� •!'!r J _raa mo t - °� �N� ,��ii>-.� M.0 6 3 F c t - LN a.Im ra r. 1 f «.m.,l u• n «I rrs amw ryr .� I k , ! O iSh YYlmn a }• }i LH Ar.s IIH�iLN la_smr YW AmM S Aw,« 3S' Sr. W M.s aft) H E a � i Irk/ - ,,,rlp ` f • / Y1Jrx« la'St: lol Ars a1Sf ,L v r Yxx1Yi1/ A V N I` H • ll}Y n ! j A w N' Sr. LW Mcs II.)M ,L :,: 2 r / L rN c�wrwLw r.+' Llm,.' �,ro' 14 7 f fr.N rodp) r•rYP7 rak.1 lamlN Paedlr La t i �Fyf[ as' Yw.. z l ` f 1 1 l S.W, Mai/ smoot - aT LHL a%S•: La' Ir T .. 1 I / • Ia' .w il� • � • "Z 7.'.'''•' •. ar ( . �`: i• ` 1. ! i `: ' 20 Garb Iron N 'W is - ! �� I / YNnae m»r. qM ffmh M u or W-0 s . ! I. Yxinpm amfmrr. eH..« muaa . za• +9L - - YMnvn _ �L 1 sw • ;5 1 - - f • / / S.WYN r.rm.r• f/mxf gfrb: A4AW, T.r -. P.OW 44 Y1r 1 .d,rkr, aar}na caiwlwn daYwpc ane 111YIS Le«mmt M 41. u«pl c t 1 s.m.a ro s.m«L ro. mwf. un a j MAY 14 2004 I �� f� - �_ � I C• � I 'I Legal Deearlptlon 1 y 3 N.f r .r m. s..0 w«e r/ H q. x..m GH r /�, t.Hwr za pe.rnnp na rwaL Nr. H.,a4 } fM. x. L 1I«f N q. q N .vy Ih, eJ kaaa. w.aW.,y sL I — / � I � I.N ,nf PoHM Saas.q � Ilgp xwh rq f.sf N M. raro.iy f..rm.e Ibc }L' Iad of PoHae - z P r/}, .to L fuH /% rN IW r IStl ]0a / I My xp5! N w mm e! Gir.yq YhaAM bov; Ihmce SeuN a nY.r« rs r«.,er a',+L ...ww >.rhp .ap rHe sw,q ar. zraap a.r f U I.irl .r he Miry a/ N, xrr M h. /..r+O.S Mm« NaM If «pIw 04 miwro. rS L. Nurc, Yrq a mpnn a ,ai,aw ra ..p«n f «t aapx x.f NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION e. ,HS w.,r«r xyr .r ., m.. «s aw f.•men » LA'rR87� N DATE: 06/ 1 "`T. �:�.,� ,� , Brockway 1NeftlNfaodP tdessim•Ilstylrices,lr¢. IM �° I � '@ Contractor Property Developers Company Glass Development Plan .,, WIL/al 1� zxD I v I swf lYm. Pr rar IM.., 8H1. fpp eumistary Plat .. .. .. P,.IS. }q1 emot Wu1a wai. s..,fe..,`yae. 1 ^ c .ac. r K — � .1... — J , ceY IB Ilwn eNa. dlYWnf: ST6lE ONE CALL cum C NiW1E iB3L (tT OUww �\ I , fWILOtB � KEOAN LAKE I 1 )r m p tea- 1. .6 1 Trldral7o' Binr P�±U L OLM A _ x w • \ xxl. a>aa I .0 ft— YH AIbM AbnD "-1 Srw— +o• � cxBx .6v + J �; _ _ ��:,.+ .�..lix,n.i; 1` / °Y/ na�i+,� ,� ,.J 901 .A60 lfiBAGY A. / 1 f I.w —1 m= ss• a s.m.a M.,,,q� 14,,, 41 i � ..8. .�I. ..14�+ 1 "' I, 1 , , -^ �.� -'�-- - -6.� .� ,ab >,� ��� �t . 1 TrP�si. t"c 10' Rw L+areanl LLt _j 8 1 1_ - � �, ` �� \�' r5•. 1 � ,..Ra i �'1" r� xoe nu® sf1BAa I •�- i � _ -^ x.. \ ) f � 1. \' l ; f B 3oY HlarlrB I �. 1 J L J' ` / - . 1 1 � 1 '� • J �!'� s+6. faaaanf _ __ 1 _ 1" 7 1 _ ^�l __ x•sr..f rw amaa f6bw6J 1 1 L _1 �___ r , ��- - - I j $Phil NWtl P-07 lap , Y ^ p.a3mga aM UIpgF�la a bb mat MpI 14 20p4 ,. X 8y NOT FOR cONSTRUCIYON IATM M"JON DAM O$n4 /04 w.. w"/1" m.6 a n u I �,• WestuvoodRdessia�krvices,tK, ...... ';�G^' S.:"" a..,.. a waf..aar.Y Bromway " x - `"-- I I Contractor Property Developers Company Glass rrdftftWU7 Plat aeeslu I � -AIM 310E 1616 Cab. frm Delp. 6Wm r61 . -..B4. .m, 56116 B I m 11 It BRIM, 44 GG I I 11 i�rrGiw s" K �� 1 � as. �` .... �� , !'�♦ �' _. �. -_iris � ► Y �� f i7� tI _ N u � ri��u �. u n��iu n�i �u ♦ r n .Y � � n' 1IIL �' ': n ���ttff u y i 1 u� .■ /� ^ � -��� n��rif n�Rn In Ir ull M N MI :� In�M�u � mg Big NNW WIN HIM pt ss ue— 7 d, n� . � - �L'1 •� nc n x n x x i' I — .2O Wut—, P-1 d s.vteq be. id 1a 11uun k.b. d996iW \ 9P HHE.Ro-ST ONO C ALL , J �1•��_l' \L_ _ � 1 19� Tetl Frw 1 BOD - ]St - 1166 _J. . • _ ^^ OMOTC 1 1QT bTANnARn4 M..Ix Y...+1 Nhnnum Btaloncr Betwan Buydhys 2B' ' Mhrknum PrfwfF DHw NidN ( p ) D— on o f._ curb KEOAN LAKE Ybieum Of ft— fc. fo fn 1B' 21' 1 pdkd) I A puaiiil �f Orlwr^ y LMyfh TQB' 22' f a] , qukFd ioaM a Parkk, R oWdd T I P r—h a Parking 2 1uM! h ,, 21 - common 1 8 ?/ !I infFrior, 2/an(f -w.; 0.3/ R iammon . —... \ � NAME TUIL (BT OWIFBS) ♦ oddlfknd en —sheet p"ky ��� � -� .'� 1 '` 1 . � ( \.. � SeIOaM fo Ahmd PuWte RIM 20' q �[[ 1 ♦ �� Sefbad to W,*-, J 60 ' — — —__ 1 fe 1 Soork to Cwnemora &d 40' Srl0ock fo Pl" Brtw/Por 13' mh (SFr .Re W^^) Se Wd a I^ Proprfy Baundwy IS' mh (See rile pion) . a0' pewa9 IINrM xcyf hr. L.14. 9%r . N.G n16Fr>K t WAS. t . M9' F.11cek _ "F T _� ^.. e.`�� �� ♦ a ` y � ./ � � ` 'Parking Stf>l! Oelaf7 _ _ 1 B 1 —, O 1 .♦ 1 1 1 I I I � _ j Q J I, • 1 ♦ _ 1` � 1 1 i ' , IS 1 , J _ __ I f �— — f71l1LMP L ,1 I 1 1 .2• . WRfiiO �� a'♦ . `�... , ` , '�191No�K J _" .t 1 __ ' P - �. t 1' ' i _ w X e �, ey � o• Irw Sao• . wo•. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - "MT nMICN "n 09)1401 1 w. tW o�a�ieB�tK. m.�;•- 6 I r Brockway 21U /P6 ar a -14 1,' ""' °""'° `•�•°•� osnua I Contractor Property Developers Company Glass Pre Site Plan Tom aon C.O. al raw .., ado- 696 - North Half I Yr...n., ta4 aalY lFrrmomp 611nroF4 F J t• was •.:. I �1 ►�� 11 ■ ■. r1,1� r � M W- ': i ltd. � ;•`.�. � � t•,• 'rrrr , � - � ��i� Miff wed \ ■ q• q � y �.���e�? • n �� .fi1R..�Ri.:aR: �r -) . ..�� y�� I .���. �1 - ■ ■�� ��. r P\Zpp ErN/ZWI Ibe4om M COT 1 5�F � e JE L P sty g I °, • _ _ x, fit W � � � � I ....j_i I ma N4 �� a L nE t[tj I . f L Tp m MA rt y 1 Q MAMA �� r r y b :,' € gi g;s PR a $ jQ ip ' g ; -lip A 01 ollw! rip Z `IRS, =e g Piggy • s o � ,r =�mn :RZ tls 0 F all .f11 . . ; ; �'� Y " • .Ik Jim me owl" ■f � •� ,���, �•,w� p Ii•lp�i } p �,.► r h s ss s �� �l e B 1 t IIII'' ° ii --- =� ---- - - - - -' - I L 1— -_ ,_._.._— 1-- _. - -. -- 4 159400. — _ R+.T 91 T:2f 'fit ° t 4 43 M ,43 - , 1 a I rhr a�LR7M79a - I tr -� 1 rv i 'k — , �. ►� I op � FT ' "•max- - - -r - " « _44_44 �_ -� r• �_ � S�} j L__�c_ _.IC___ I 1»1 ►� �' n `CI � ('� — - ,; t" n. _ � _J j'. r _ F • I'd "bw J Lh-�F i� i -r LL CL cn zr CD m , p f . ., .r a. � SJ cp � II. ,�'. � � / � t � Q i� •� ' 1 1 � � �� Sr � 1 �- 9 n � �4•.. � - L :444,4{ _ lb �' +'."- "- 't : � i f1• 1 r � •4f , /.. �•.,,�7. iT' [d ! 1 114` ��' � / _ � CD � I i rr•-E �1 I �. iF F'" YY �.. � i 7 • s 1 i C y • / / F d•. Q "A go SSA[ l i t +�ro•9zii .AY.ts,so°ootl 4 / 7 y C b y � f-� �C G1 . 2OD4 x t..d Fa.r..a..rr Sar L— Ix ] i TA kd ! +. 1 I t 1 .✓•• 1 .••Fw�:� y jT;, ' l . •`.� i � a. I' 1 i. µ leN R.r Cz – — — � � � L � •� 1... „ r --,. \ S •- r --• _ _ r ' � Q a�r�fi�i � it 8 .'I�jt 1 1, 1 / to.a nwt a ..r ts' nwr Yaa 7 J` f SSum ' is _ YAWS 20 r I s s _ ovr�or u t r / 1111 i I t /.gy r a'-/ •„ - � / – t' t� / I l d al Wr— (fown..e' 'T Y"T l4l Ad > ouRa;'r " a a' ` 1 N81f °ware sodas .od d� 1 Trail and Sidewalk Responsibility Key / s s • + City R.O.W. — H.O.A. Maintained I , I r 1I 114 "' "" "' Public Trail Easement - Private Outlot — H.O.A. Maintained NOT FOR C( City Owned and Maintained IATM RM �ro VINSW � All sidewalks to be maintained by the H.O.A. Brockway Freliminar t►x + IT X.1 q Zt U ,' ` �,�� '1 W� K / _\ 1 . / . T • f � N l� � �.,� r �'��: r` '`^��- •"'SS, g 1 t r F z. q* �� •:: �+ _ �.� a 5� � ,,' �x is ? J �r�,1' �' 1 Q my �'. (�1 � i , � xS .EfC �K y z 5i�gstfivi' � � E }� �t ""•' � ;• ,� I A, \� • � � �r * �(. f 4 t 1 yC . il R � •� 6 r ,� Y Rt r 3 .� t �� � � \ �, {. yn �' f yi! k Y •ar � � �� ar .. ����{•''. fir,.. , \ � ,_ j6 �+ rr^^ Y r ry . ^ iy r �,n i is]rr t ° / � �,jrr�A�51•+ a �/. � u V l f i �y� ,c kL .A -� f ru �" its •n- 1 t" '; " y '" , . I j .. � U1 � ;ti ^`�`a�"�f' .a� •sad. „;f .r ;'�?��'1`. ..�.4�: � 9. ;4d"."�k' ' �p i -r��.e F •_ '�' y �" r �S� t: �'K'' i / + ,� �cr £�' �� C`.y 1Y c �: ,,,, � , �• !. ��� � { • ' "'� Z I ..4t. � `t, s,!•F,,: pt / � ,�,�,y, <: �r,�, ° t i ��r���3.T' • � ^ = 1��t r�,a. ,�. X;t,,�rt:4 � �%�. r`l' � i ,4n 4k ."' `f�;� f , i .,, � f�IJ t a �! ,�* e r',nr �� F �t � 1'�a 4>' r !!�j„" �•'• ` Fr 1 r u Z13 ,• l�° ft_).�. li TJ`f°`"'a !•�.�� T'.r`t" i4 tvlr Y.r u t ` �t ;.r1�°[ ;i �w �� n �'/ 1 z1�.r t t ' / 'F41 t +�' 1 '" • filx�rc C � �tr� �*'� � t r ' � ,�'�' �` � - _-^� F L 7•! Lr .h � v..�� t �.S .x A 7k �y rw-� 3 .� ';.•� y',t" i; , __K r �°^���< ,'� „ fi r ,. M ,�T,'� '' ;��, • , i'�� fw ,. 'p�`� i5 Fh}v S'' , H r �" 4N't -r3 ...•� Z .:: t � _ d � 7' . f t r ✓ "�'� � C � � �° *+ yy ��,, .` •hA I '" a is f r i •' / , r - . , 't_T` � ; / .v,Y s � �.� •.F... "') � t. ��,�t �, �; 'fie.. , a+ ''. r � �• / ' r a t " It— N S �ro � /1 Z �tsti. b . hla '$ •.. � iqq. ` y � PEA ._, � ! � I 'M1 cc tV. ^ s! } Y .� i } ^ fi r v t. fl : '4.' - '` 4 �}r4 Sy � `� � ! '• _ 7 . b " �� � - tiff• 2 � ��'�'�.. � 7\it V a f `� .- I� N . � c 7 � �.1 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: April 26, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Brockway Preliminary Plat - PUD AGENDA SECTION: Old Business PREPARED BY: Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director AGENDA NO.: 6. a.. ATTACHMENTS: Preliminary Plat and Park Maps APPROVED BY: .1 CPDC has submitted an updated preliminary plat proposing 627 units on 113 acres. The development is a mix of single family, multiple family and apartment units. Based on the area and number of units, staff continues to recommend a neighborhood park be included in this development. Using our parks dedication calculation formula, 1/25 of an acre for each unit (627) equals 25.08 acres of parks dedication. The preliminary plat identifies Outlots M and T as 15.03 acres of public park land dedication. If all of the 15.03 acres in outlots M and T are suitable for land dedication, the developer would then pay a cash dedication of $603,000(10.05 acres x $60,000). The updated park plan includes an area for traditional active recreation and also an area for disc golf, which staff would consider to be a non- traditional recreation facility. Based on the discussion at last month's Commission meeting, staff views the new park plans as having amenities that will serve the public well. Staff's review of the plat has generated the following comments /conditions: 1. The updated park plans should be incorporated into the preliminary plat and a grading plan should be provided to staff. 2.- Parks dedication credit should not be given for any pipeline easements, unnecessary ponding in the park, or other items that negatively impact the park site or are deemed unusable. 3. The northern edge of Outlot T should be the same as the southern edge of the pipeline easement. 4. The park plan needs to include parking for the disc golf course. Also staff would recommend that on street parking be allowed based on the current parking lot only having 20 spaces in the park located on outlot M. 5. As outlined in the City's subdivision ordinance, all park dedication in the form of land and monetary compensation will occur with the first final plat approval prior to recording. Staff would recommend that we continue with this practice unless enough funding can be provided to complete the park project desired by the Parks Commission. Parks and Recreation Department staff supports the new public park design and the preliminary plat as submitted with the conditions listed above. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend the City Council approve the preliminary plat with the conditions listed in items 1 -5 of the staff report. PARK AND RE COMMISSION ACTION: ..u„�vv. •�r.v Regular Meeting Minutes March 22, 2004 roximately $75,000. MOTION by Johnson to recommend that the City participate, if need, in fun ing the Wiklund property purchase up to $100,000. These funds would be used to ac Vre adjacent land ently owned by Earl Bester. All funds received from /en R grant that has be applied for are to be u \nthe eplenish City funds used for this purchase. SEy Eliason. Jac s asked for clarifif the second sentence of the motion. Per Schulttion should a stated that we would put $1toward the Wiklund project to include the purchny land, i ]uding the Bester properNDLY AMENDMENT by Jacobs to change funds ould be used to acquire adjaceurrently owned by Earl Bester." to "These fundals a used to acquire adjacent land from E ." The motion would now read: Motion to r that the City participate, if neededdi the Wiklund property purchase up to $1 00,ese funds could also be used to acquirnt 1 from Earl Bester. All funds received froNR grant that has been applied for are to to rep] ish City funds used for this purchase. Nays: 0 Motion passed. 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Dakota County Parks — Fu re Regional Park — Sc ultz has been working on this item for the past few months - meeting with•Dakota County staff regard' the possibility of developing a regional park just south of Rosemount. Curt Cha eld, Dakota Co Planning Office and Steve Sullivan, Dakota County Parks Director were in attendance o inform the ommission that the County is looking at developing a new regional park in Empire Town ip. Cha field provided the Commissioners with maps and information on a site study for the new county p , alo g with a number of photos of the area that is being proposed for development. Chatfield explaine t due to the population growth in Dakota County, the County Board has decided that they need to to at expanding the regional parks. The County has talked with Schultz and other parks directors an City taff in this area to find out what their interests and expectations area 'Chatfield reviewed the site re ort and aps. The area the County is looking at is located in the middle of Empire Township jus south of Ros mount. The County felt that this was the best of the regional park candidate sites cause it has hi quality natural resources that would provide a variety of recreational opportunities. ey have one or tw landowners who may be interested in selling land and there are no homes to pur ase. The northern sec n of land the County is looking at is adjacent to the University of Minnesot roperty and they may be a e to coordinate use of trails on the U of M property. Sullivan has talked ' representatives from the U o and felt that the University is moving in a direction that is co atible with the regional park plan. a southern section of land could be a wildlife management are at could be open to hunting, as well a trout fishing and canoeing in the Vermillion River. Sterner nd Johnson both asked questions about c ing facilities. Per Chatfield, this is something will be looking into. The County plans to inc de facilities such as hiking, biking, equestrian ails, bathrooms, picnic shelter, and possibly youth mps or public camping. The County is looking r support from the Commission for this project. Schul asked if the Commission would like to move orward with a recommendation to the City Council on this it MOTION by Sterner in support of the oncept of the Empire Wetlands Natural Area Regional Park to be sed for passive recreation. COND by Eliason. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Motion passed. Sullivan th nked Schultz on behalf of the ounty Parks Department for his expertise and work on the Spring Lake ark project. b. Brockway Preliminary Plat — PUD — Schultz reviewed the preliminary plat and two maps identifying the areas being looked at for public parks. The plat proposes 606 units on 113 acres and includes a mix of single family and multiple family units. The area should be served by a neighborhood park, which typically serves 300 to 650 households. Based on the Parks Master Plan, we'd be looking at approximately four to 10 acres. This depends on the proposed amenities and the location of the park. Based on the parks dedication formula, we collect 1/25 of an acre per unit. In this case, this equals 24.24 acres of park dedication. The current plan identifies Outlot K, where the ball field is located, and Outlot S, which is being looked at for passive recreation use. These two outlots combined equal 13.74 acres of parks dedication. We would be collecting cash dedication on 10.5 acres, which would come to $630,000 (10.5 acres x $60,000). Schultz reviewed maps of the preliminary plat and advised the Commission of a number of concerns regarding the current plat, including the pipeline easement, the infiltration basin, adequate 2- �k, i ai + 10 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes March 22, 2004 public parking, parks dedication, and trails. Schultz recommended revising the plan so it will work better as a neighborhood park and looking at including bocce ball courts, horseshoe pits, a picnic shelter, etc. Schultz does not support the current public park design as submitted with the preliminary plat. Dave Hemple, Project Manager, Contractors Property Development Company (CPCD), 3030 Center Pointe Drive Suite 800, Roseville, MN 55113, addressed the Commission. CPDC is working with City engineers to revise the plan so it meets with City approval. Their attorney is working on getting more. information regarding the pipeline easement and what can be built on it: Hemple handed out copies of a summary of CPDC's comments and concerns regarding the project. The summary explained what CPDC would like to see happen as far as parks dedication and addressed some of the concerns with the preliminary plat that were listed in the Executive Summary. CPDC is open to working with the City to create a park plan that fits the needs of the City and the new residents of the development. Hemple was attending the meeting to get feedback from the Commission regarding the preliminary plat, and to ask for any latitude the City could grant them on this project. Due to delays and timing issues, Hemple stated that to require up front fees would be very burdensome to CPDC's construction loans and financial situation. They are open to dedicating the entire parkland with the initial final plat, but asked for latitude on fees. CPDC had an issue with the amount of parks dedication being assessed and also felt they should receive parks dedication credit for part of the pipeline easement. Schultz explained how our parks dedication is computed and that we typically do not give credit for pipeline easements. The Commission discussed the amenities they would like to see included, as well as the concerns from the Executive Summary regarding parking issues, parks dedication, and giving credit for the pipeline easement, etc. - Hemple stated that CPDC wasn't happy with the current plan either, and they are willing to work with the City to include the amenities the Commission would like to see in the park. Sterner had a comprehensive list of amenities that should be considered: archery; horseshoe pit; bocce ball; full court basketball; two tennis courts; disc golf, mini golf; shuffleboard; tournament croquet; playground area; open grass for kickball, soccer, etc.; putting area; and walking trails. The Commission was against changing the parks dedication formula for this project and they were not comfortable with park amenities being used in lieu of all of the parks dedication fees. It was the consensus of the Commission that the current guidelines for parks dedication should not be changed. Hemple would like to bring back a revised plan with amenities and still give the City some parks dedication. He stressed that this development is different from others as it is a redevelopment district area, and that the cost of the project has gone up so there is a lot more cost involved for them. The Commission decided to table this issue until CPDC comes back with a revised plan. MOTION by Eliason to table the item. SECOND by Johnson. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Motion passed. C. nnon Park — Proposed Batting Cage — Schultz was contacted by representatives from the Rosemount Area letic'Association's (RAAA) traveling softball team about the possibility o i ding a batting cage for softba layers at Shannon Park. The location they had chosen, betwee ds 3 and 4, would infringe on the soccer a football fields that use the outfields of softball fiel and 5. There is also a water main running between th two fields. If they could relocate the ng cage to a spot that doesn't impact the other facilities and doesn eate safety issues for par s, Schultz would support building it. RAAA would pay for the building an aintenance of t atting cage. Because the batting cage can't be built on the location RAAA was looking at, re no issue to discuss. d. Director's Report — The Par provement balance as of February 29, 2004 was $251,224.93. This will be increasing a o final plats are coming i on. The Facilities Force met on March 18. Schultz expects a lot ood ideas from the group. Another meeting e scheduled in April. etic Complex — The City Council is 100% in support of this project. Schultz is currently talking to landowners in eastern Rosemount who may be interested in selling their property. -3- 0 Excerpt from the minutes of the March 23, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting Public Hearing: Brockway Glass — Preliminary Plat & Lot Combination City Planner Rick Pearson presented the Preliminary Plat for Contractor Property Development Company for development of the Brockway Glass site located East of STH 3 between Connemara Trail & 132 St. (County Road 38). On January 6, 2004, the City Council approved the Concept Plan for this project. The Preliminary Plat review which follows, provides design details covering overall site development with grading, streets, utilities, landscaping and architecture for the townhomes and single - family units. The apartments, senior housing and neighborhood commercial have not been included. Those components of the plan will be for future review, presumably in a subsequent phase of the development. Preliminary plat approval commits the City to lot and parcel size, setbacks and street standards. The next step after preliminary plat approval is final plat. Final plat creates the individual lots and outlots that can be sold and developed. Unless significant plan revisions are requested, no other public hearings are necessary in the planning review process. Staff has met with the applicant to discuss the issues raised in the staff report. They are presently looking to make modifications addressing many of the concerns raised. However, given the size and complexity of the Brockway project, staff felt it was important to introduce the project to the Commission now. Staff is recommending tabling based upon the staff discussions but would also like feedback from the Commission regarding any aspect of the project. In that way, future revisions can attempt to address all noted concerns to provide a better project for the community. As stated during the concept plan review, the Brockway site is self - contained by the outer edges formed by County Road 38, State Highway 3, Connemara Trail and the Canadian Pacific railroad with a 7.5 acre farm stead on the east side. The preliminary plat organizes the site into a variety of housing neighborhoods, public & private streets and public & private open space. The density is about 6 units an acre (Gross). If you net out the park area and the public streets, the density is about 8 units an acre. The overall development has a very compact character and as currently proposed includes setback reductions along all internal public streets. All public streets in the development are intended to have a setback of 20 to 25 feet. The goal is to give the development a more intimate character. The architecture contributes towards the concept with front porches and de- emphasized garages. The intended result is a more active streetscape that contributes to a sense of community. The theory is called "neo- traditional design ". Staff's concern is that the reduced setbacks may push the buildings too close to the internal streets that convey a significant amount of traffic. In discussions with the applicant staff has requested that certain portions of the project have increased setbacks. One area is the single family homes. There the applicant proposed 20' front yard house setbacks with 25' setbacks for the garages. Staff has requested that both of these be increased by 5'. It appears that this is achievable in most if not all of the single family lots due to the proposed depths of the lots. This recommendation would result in a 5' reduction for front yards for the single family homes as compared to the zoning ordinance standards for the RI District. Two primary access points for the development occur at County Road 38 (132 street / Bonaire Path) and at Connemara Trail. A north -south street links bisects the site with a round -about in the middle forming the central intersection, organizing the site into quarters. The preliminary plat includes public streets that are numbered, and private streets that are outlots. The street north of the round -about is labeled Street 1 and south of it is street 6. The round -about connects with the primary east -west street labeled street 4 on the west side and street 5 on the east. Street 5 extends east to the edge and will link with a future connection to County Road 38 through the 7.5 acre farmstead when it develops as a future phase. Generally, only single family homes will have individual driveway connections to public" streets (Streets 2 and 3). All of the attached and multiple family housing will utilize shared driveways or private streets that will intersect to public streets. All of the private streets are shown as 22 feet wide. This is a reduction.from current ordinance standards for private streets. Staff is recommending that new private streets be a minimum of 28 feet. There are some fairly lengthy dead end streets that will be expected to be modified before staff would support the street design. One of the features of the development is the roundabout in the center which adds some character to the design. That will have to meet MNDot standards, as well as adjustments made to channel the flow of traffic. There are some areas dedicated to parks and open space. There is an extensive amount of private open space, that will be owned and maintained by homeowners associations. Many will have ponding functions. There is also a pipeline corridor traversing the site. And while development within that corridor will be restricted, it will contribute to the character and provide some open space. If some trails can be built in that area, then there will be some advantage taken of that part of the development. The Parks and Recreation Commission will be preparing a recommendation on the design of the park. That is in process, and their recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. This evening, because there are some expected design revisions, we are going to recommend that this Public Hearing be continued until April 13 assuming we can get some of those revisions done, and have a thorough review of them. Hopefully there will be a recommendation to forward to the City Council at that time. There will be extensive landscaping along Highway 3 for buffering purposes. There will be trails and sidewalks throughout the development. The through streets will be expected 2 3 to have a sidewalk on either side, or a trail. And the lesser traveled streets that connect will have a sidewalk on one side. There is an opportunity to put a trail along Hwy 3, but there might be conflicts with the need for berming and landscaping. There will perhaps be an opportunity to bring that trail through the development with design revisions. There is an Environment Assessment Worksheet (EAW) process that is ongoing and required and it will be presented to the City Council. They would consider the final EAW, and at that time, the Council can take action on the Preliminary Plat. City Planner Pearson presented examples of the various planned housing units. City Engineer Andy Brotzler discussed the issue of Hwy 3, and whether it will be expanded. He explained that Hwy 3 is considered a "preserve highway ", and so MNDot will only invest money to preserve its current status. They will not invest on improvement -type projects such as widening. They will re- surface or make safety improvements as required. City Engineer Brotzler provided background about the wetlands on the property. The city has a Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan that was adopted in 1999. When that plan was done, it was completed by city staff through aerial photos and some limited field work and based on that limited information, there were wetlands throughout the city that were identified, mapped and classified. There are several wetlands located on the property. According to the City's Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan, the following wetlands and associated 1 • f t resent on the ro 9Z14 c asst ica ions are a. Wetland #356 Manage II b. Wetland #408 Manage II c. Wetland #411 Utilize Based on current information, it appears that Wetland #356 and #408 can be reclassified as Utilize wetlands. This will be verified in the spring based on a field review of these two wetlands. Stormwater management issues were discussed. Upon review of the proposed stormwater plan, it has been determined that the City's stormwater goals and policies are primarily achieved with the design. At this time, Staff is working with the developer to review alternatives for managing stormwater in the southern area of the property.. Depending on the outcome of this review, the proposed NURP pond and infiltration basin located adjacent to the proposed park may be eliminated or reduced in size with off -site ponding being utilized. Also, it should be noted that the plan identifies a temporary basin along TH 3. This basin will be required until such time that off -site regional ponding becomes available on the west side of TH 3. Staff is currently working to negotiate the acquisition of easements for this regional pond. 3 All the city's public streets shown on the plan are shown at 32 feet face to face. That is the city's minimum standard to provide on street parking and to provide areas for pedestrians to walk in the street. Staff is considering allowing the developer to build those streets to 28 feet face to face with parking on one side only and with sidewalks on both sides. This would take pedestrians off the street and limit on street parking. Commissioner Zurn asked about ownership of the off- -site ponding on the south side of the development. Brotzler answered that the city has the drainage utilities over that pond. Chairperson Weisensel asked for comments from the applicants. Tim Whitten, Executive Vice President of Rottlund Co. Also of CPDC Development are Mike Waldo, Dave Hempel, and Dan Janocek. Also Corey Meyer of Westwood Professional Services is present. Tim Whitten discussed the theme of the project, and acknowledged that there are changes being made. This is a mixed use development and a life cycle development. There are a number of types of houses in *one community, and will incorporate some commercial into the development as well. The intent was to keep the lowest density to the perimeter of the site, and concentrate the highest density internally. It was also a goal to have a strong streetscape throughout the development with the houses facing the streets. In order to accomplish goals such as landscaping, sidewalks and open spaces, the housing had to be concentrated: Tim Whitten talked about the general design and presented the different housing units. He discussed the lot sizes and home and garage details. Commissioner Zum asked if the 8 foot pathways are going to be wide enough for community use. Andy Brotzler replied that the 8 foot wide pathway is the city standard. The possibility of an underpass between the park areas and the ball diamond was discussed. City Planner Rick Pearson replied that the amount of traffic on the interior street does not warrant an underpass. Plus, the pipeline that runs through the area complicates the construction of an underpass. There will be a pedestrian crossing. Rick Pearson discussed the dead end streets and the issue of fire department needs and maintenance needs. Staff is hoping to come back with a revision that makes some of the streets 28 feet wide. Also, turnarounds for fire trucks are being considered, and the design will have to conform to standards. Chairperson Weisensel opened the public hearing. Chairperson Weisensel asked for public comments. Dan Kehoe, 13100 S. Robert Trail. He attended two previous Planning Commission meetings in regard to the issue of added congestion to traffic on Highway 3. He questioned the high density of the units in the development, and how the development 4 will affect citizens' water usage considering the recent sprinkling ban put in affect due to the load on the water towers. Traffic is the main concern. He has discussed the possibility of a center turn lane at 132 St. with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. He would like the city to consider the safety implications of this for the existing homeowners. William Rohr 2813 132 St. W. This is the third Planning Commission meeting attended, plus one Council meeting. He stated that there is great difficulty in making a left hand turn onto 132 Street off of Highway 3. He feels that this project will only make that worse. The issue of stormwater runoff has not been addressed until tonight. With a pond on his property, he currently gets runoff from the west side of Highway 3 and the south side of 132nd Street through large culverts under both roads. He feels he should not have to handle additional runoff from the proposed project. Andy Brotzler addressed the citizens' comments.. He explained the city of Rosemount's policies regarding water usage in the city. As the city continues to develop, there will be strains on the water system. With water conservation in mind, the city is protecting the municipal water system in order to meet the daily demands, and also to get people into the frame of mind to use water wisely. The current watering ban restrictions promote efficient and smart use of the resource. In regards to stormwater runoff, City Engineer Brotzler explained that the Brockway project will not direct runoff to any properties other than Keegan Lake, as well as the off - site regional ponds that were shown earlier. The pond in question north of 132n Street may possibly be improved as a part of improvements planned for Co. Rd. 38 in the future. In regards to the traffic issues on Highway 3, City Engineer Brotzler stated that there is a cooperative agreement project with the Minnesota Department of Transportation which would include the installation of signals at Connemara Trail, striping of left turn lanes on Highway 3 at 132 Street, and the addition of a signal system at Co. Rd. 38 (McAndrews Rd.). With the cooperative agreement, there is an annual maximum dollar amount to be spent and this year we already have approached the maximum. Next year we'll make another application for safety improvements along Highway 3 between 132 St. and McAndrews. Commissioner turn asked about reducing the speed limits for safety. City Engineer Brotzler explained that the speed limit is regulated by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Chairperson Weisensel advised the audience members that upon a motion to continue the public hearing, they will have a chance to speak once again at the next meeting: MOTION by Weisensel to recommend that the Public Hearing for the Brockway Glass Preliminary Plat be continued to the April 13, 2004 meeting. Second by 5 Messner. Ayes: Messner, Zurn, Napper, and Weisensel. Nays: None. Motion carried. MOTION by Weisensel to approve the Brockway Glass application for a Lot Combination. Second by Napper. Ayes: Zurn, Napper, Weisensel, and Messner. Nays: None. Motion carried. 6 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 9, 2004 TO: Rick Pearson, City Planner Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director Andy Brotzler, City Engineer Anthony Aderhold, Pr9j ect Engineer Jason Lindahl, Assistant City Planner Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator FROM: Dan Schultz, Director of Parks and Recreation RE: Brockway Preliminary Plat and Lot Combo Please understand that this memo is being written with three items that are key to the review comments: 1. The Park and Recreation Commission has not reviewed the plans but will do so on March 22, 2004. 2. Staff verbally provided the developer with a list of items that the City would be considering for the public park. The items included: tennis courts, play equipment, trails, a small in -house baseball /softball field, sun shelter, basketball court, horseshoe pits and possibly a bocce ball court. Staff also indicated that a review of the housing types would be considered when designing the park. 3. The park plans identified on the preliminary plat are designed by the developer and are currently not supported by the Parks and Recreation staff or the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Parks and Recreation Department is submitting the following comments after reviewing the submittal: 1. Parks Dedication credit will not be given for any pipeline easements, unnecessary ponding in the park, or other items that negatively impact the park site. 2. Before the preliminary plat is approved, written permission should be secured to allow for placing park amenities and/or trails in the pipeline easement. 3. The northern edge of Outlot S should be the same as the southern edge of the pipeline easement. 4. The developer's park plan does not include the necessary public parking. 5. The infiltration basin in the public park should be removed or relocated to allow for the park to be redesigned making better use of the public park space. 6. As outlined in the City's subdivision ordinance, all park dedication in the form of land c xc i h; t �Z.► and monetary compensation will occur with the first final plat approval prior to recording. 7. A trail should be added on the west side of the property between State Highway 3 and the housing. A trail connection at the split between the single family lots and the multiple family units should also be included. A sidewalk should also be added to the north side of Street 4. Parks and Recreation Department staff currently do not support the preliminary plat as submitted. We will be working with the Parks and Recreation Commission to redesign the future public park. If you have any questions, please call me at 651 -322- 6012. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. PLANNING . ENGINEERING • SURVEYING March 30, 2004 L" L ` �' MAR 3 p 7599 Anagram Drive � 0 04 {' Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ' Phone: 952- 937 -5150 Kim Lindquist Fax: 952- 937 -5822 Community Development Dept �` °"" -� _= Toll free: 1 -888- 937 -5150 City of Rosemount E -mail: wps @westwoodps.com 2875 145th Street West TW CITIES /MET Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 ST. CLOUD Re: Brockway Glass Site Development: Preliminary Plat Re- Submission BRAINERD Project No. 20031057 Dear Ms. Lindquist: Enclosed, please find 20 full size and 20-11 "x17" reduced size sets of the Preliminary Plat Re- Submission Drawings & Preliminary Tree_ Preservation Plans, dated revised 3/30/04 & the revised ponding calculations for the Brockway Glass Site Development. We anticipate that all the required information is complete for staff review and request being placed on the next Planning Commission Meeting and City Council Agendas. If you require any additional information to complete your review, please give us a call. These plans have been revised to respond to our meetings with your staff to review your design concerns. A brief summary of the key design changes is as follows: - Preliminary Plat/Site Plan Design Revisions: I Front Yard setbacks for the single family lots have been increased from 20' house /25' garage to 25' house /30' garage. 2. ' Front Yard setbacks for the apartment/senior housing buildings have been increased from 20' to 25'. 3. Front Yard setbacks along Street 1 & Street 6 (north -south collector) have been increased to 25'. 4. Front and Side yard setback encroachment of townhome porches and/or stoops have been eliminated. All porches and/or stoops now fall outside of the setbacks. 5. The townhome area located northwest of the circle (Blocks 7,8, & 9) has been reworked by the following: • Eliminating the seven single family lots and replacing them with additional Rowhomes. Removing the Rowhome building fronting the circle and creating more open space similar to opposite quadrants. • Providing a 28' F -F private street through connection 6. The townhome area located northeast of the circle(Blocks 10,11, & 12) has been revised to provide more building separation down the trail corridor, and private streets have been redesigned to accommodate emergency vehicle turning movements. 7. The southeast townhome area (Block 19) has been revised by replacing two Garden buildings with two 8- unit Villa buildings, and reworking the layout to provide more off - street parking. 8. The southerly townhome area (Blocks 20 & 21) has been revised to eliminate the ponding area and has added additional Rowhomes (see Stormwater section). Also, a 28' F -F private street through connection has been made. Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan: 1. Any trees within the Co. Rd. 38 ROW have been excluded from the removal calculations as their removal will be part of a regionally required upgrade of a county road, and therefore the Developer requests that their replacement should be part of the county road improvement project. 2. Adjustment to the site plan, grading plan and removal of two ponds have reduced the tree removal impacts by almost 100 trees, to a new total of trees removed to 382, or 48% of the total. 3. Required replacement of tree losses has decreased from 1,090 trees to 866 trees. C. r yj t i t ?. Designing the Future Today ..since 1972 i Grading Plan Revisions: 1. Emergency Overflow Routes have been added to the plan. 2. Grades in the traffic circle island have been raised. 3. The berm between the park's ballfield and the apartment's garage access has been raised to prevent the ballfield from flooding the apartment garages. 4. The proposed driveway grades have been added to, the grading plan. The design criteria used was a minimum of 2% and a maximum of 10% grade, with the preferred range of 4 % -8 % for the driveway grades. Transportation /Street Issues: 1. The Street 8 (formerly Street 9) cul -de -sac right -of -way & island have been redesigned to meet city standards. 2. All public streets, except Streets 1 & 6, have been narrowed to 28 ft. F -F, with No Parking on one side of the road. 3. Main private streets have been.increased from 22' B -B to 28' �F -F as noted on the site plans: 4. Other interior private streets have been increased from 22' B -B to 22' F -F as noted on the site plans. 5. The Co. Rd. 38 ROW has been expanded to 100 feet in width and the anticipated future 3 lane upgraded street section (44 ft. F -F) has been shown on the plans and labeled as "Future County Road Upgrade, by others ", as it is the developer's assumption that the upgrading of Co. Rd. 38 will either be a City or a County project, whose construction will be separate from the project's. Sanitary Sewer & Watermain: 1. The trunk water main has been increased in size to 16 ". 2. The trunk sanitary sewer main has been increased to 18 ". Stormwater Concerns: 1. The storm sewer in the Southeastern comer of the project has been re- routed back to and down Street 6 ROW, rather than across the exception property, as previously shown. 2. The two southerly ponds for previous Drainage Areas DA -1 & DA -2 have been eliminated and additional town homes have been added, along with additional park and open space. The Developer has eliminated these ponds, at the request of city staff, with the understanding that the city will negotiate with the developer and consider participation in the construction costs of the necessary upgrade of the site's discharge pipe under Connemara Trail. 3. The infiltration area for DA -6 pond has been increased to 0.33 Ac. 4. A skimmer structure is shown for the outlet from the north pond to the north infiltration basin. 5. The dead storage volume for DA -7 pond has been increased to 4. 10 AF and the live storage volume has been increased to 12.52 AF. Landscape Revisions: 1. Landscape plans have been revised to incorporate the increased tree preservation numbers and the reduced tree replacement requirements. 2. Additional detail has been added to the landscape plan to facilitate review by city staff, i.e. proposed plants have been identified by species and size. 3. Landscape plantings have been broken out separately by responsible party, distinguishing between those plantings to be installed by CPDC and those to be planted by others. Overall the number of plantings has increased by over 500 trees. 4. Additional buffer plantings have been shown along Highway 3 and along Co. Rd. 38. These additional plants are being provided by both the developer and the single family builder/homeowner. 5. Additional notes have been added that address the sight triangle visibility issue and that restrict the plantings within the center medians to MnDOT standards. 7 Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, W STWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. Cor e Landscape Architect / Planner �a Francis D. Hagen, II, PE C Sr. Associate Enclosures CC: Andy Brotzler, City of Rosemount Rick Pearson, City of Rosemount Dave Hempel, CPDC N y ri . . _.._._. -- _ a � � r�ss�ssa�si ,.� aaan o.. Wvri ted W0V CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2004- 6 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2020 ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND APPROVING A CONCEPT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE BROCKWAY SITE WHEREAS, The Planning Department received an application for concept approval of a residential planned unit development to redevelop the Brockway Site on September 24, 2003 for said property legally described as: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 20, Township 115 North, Range 19 West, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying East of the center line of STH No. 3 (formerly STH No. 218); All of Government Lot 2, said Section 20; That part of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 20 lying East of the center line of said STH No. 3 lying West of the Westerly right -of -way of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad, and lying North and West of the following described line: Commencing at the intersection of the South line of said North Half, Southeast Quarter and said Westerly right -of -way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence South 89 degrees 43 minutes 18 seconds West assumed bearing along said South line 270.47 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 12 degrees 05 minutes 15 seconds West, 357.87 feet; thence North 89 degrees 43 minutes 18 seconds East, 500.28 feet to said Westerly right -of -way line and there terminating. 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 residential planned unit development on October 28, 2003 and again on November 25, 2003; and, WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend approval of the concept planned unit development on November 25, 2003 with conditions: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, The Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the concept Planned Unit Development for the Brockway Site subject to the following conditions: 1. Amending the 2020 Rosemount Comprehensive Plan to reflect the requested land use F e Y RESOLUTION 2004 areas as defined by the concept and authorizing staff to prepare the amendment and forward it to the Metropolitan Council. 2. The concept plan shall be revised as follows: a) Aligning driveways and street intersections to eliminate off -set intersections with intervals of less than 250 feet. b) Provision of unrestricted turn- arounds with a minimum turning radius of 45 feet for all dead end common driveways or streets exceeding 150 feet, or as approved by the Rosemount Fire Marshal. c) The Parkway and public streets shall be constructed in accordance with City standards and a minimum of eight feet of boulevard width shall be provided for boulevard trees to eliminate conflicts with curb & gutter, sidewalks and trails. The round - about shall be consistent with applicable standards for minimum turning radius and lane width and shall include ornamental -tree plantings and a . water fountain in the center to be maintained by a homeowners association. d) In all cases where private streets are 22 ft. wide (or otherwise less than City standards), no parking will be allowed on either side. Common parking areas must be provided in these areas, consistent with the ordinance parking requirements. e) The applicant must utilize 'a portion of the excess lot depth along the outer.edge of the single - family component to create a greenway for trails / sidewalks and buffering the effects of the traffic and dissimilar land uses. f) Single- family lots with setback and lot width reductions shall have front porches or entires as prominent design features and garages shall be setback a minimum of five feet from the front elevation of the house. Most of the houses shall be. two - story designs with complementary colors, materials and architectural elements. Minimum materials expectations include low maintenance siding with aluminum trim and brick / stone accents. g) All townhouse units shall have two -car garages consistent with applicable zoning standards. h) ` Transitions between housing types shall include landscaping to buffer dissimilar housing styles and neighborhoods. The outer edge of the development, particularly along STH 3, Connemara Trail, County Road 38, and the railroad right -of -way shall have increased setbacks consistent with City standards as a minimum for screening the effects of higher traffic volumes and the railroad. Additional landscaping is required in these areas. i) Trails or sidewalks will be included along collector or arterial streets / highways. Sidewalks or trails are required on both sides of the north - south parkway connecting County Road 38 with Connemara Trail, and on at least one side of all other streets except single - family cul -de -sacs, or.private shared dead -end driveways serving less than three buildings. j) The apartment and senior condos shall be limited to three stories in height and have a minimum of 40 % brick, or cultured stone and monolithic vertical building RESOLUTION 2004 -6 planes shall be avoided with articulation of dwelling units, windows and balconies. Architectural details such as dormer windows, or similar features shall be used to provide relief of long roof eves. Primary building entrances shall have a variety of design features including separate gables, verandas or canopies creating significant relief (off- -sets in excess of six feet). k) Concept approval does not guarantee the number of dwelling units. 1) Incorporation of recommendations by the Parks and Recreation Commission relating to park land dedication fees include dedication of a neighborhood park including active public recreational facilities, payment of park dedication fees, and installation of public park amenities within the project. Public parking for park uses shall also be provided as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission. m) Amenities located within the neighborhood park may include bocce ball, tennis, basketball and softball/baseball. A picnic shelter, large playground,.and trails and walkways are also anticipated. The final improvements for the public opens space_ will be based upon discussion and recommendation by the Parks Commission to be determined through the preliminary plat review process. n) Private amenities include the neighborhood community center and associated recreational features. o) The neighborhood commercial site shall have architectural treatment that conform to standards that include: i. Two story buildings that may have mixed uses including accessory apartments or offices. ii. Gabled roofs with a minimum pitch of 4:12. iii. Rooflines shall consist of multiple gables, or be given variation through architectural devices such as cupolas, dormer windows or off -sets in the facades. iv. Variation of building fagade to reinforce an individual character for each separate use / tenant. v. The building shall be pedestrian oriented with no vehicular access or .parking between the building and Connemara Trail or the north -south parkway. vi. Inclusion of gasoline fuel pumps shall be consistent with the standards specified in Section 6.14.B.2; and shall be thoroughly screened from residential uses with a bufferyard conforming to the standards of Section 6.14.E.9 as a minimum. p) Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer including, but not limited to the following: i. Storm Water Management in accordance with the City Storm Water " Management Plan. ii: Implementation of the recommendations from the Traffic Impact Study as prepared by WSB & Associates, Inc. dated November 12, 2003. r pa!� ieo u 'auoN :sAeN 'aaddeN pue 'wnZ 'jaussaVy 'IesuaslaAA :say V 'jaddeN Aq puooaS 'panojdde Alleuoil puoo se u aalsew Ideouoo ayl purr ueld anisuayaidwoo papuawe ayj yl!nn juals aq of seaie ash -puel leloiawwoo PUB 6ulsnoy ayj auozai Ilounoo � l!0 aye fey} puauawo0ai ol uanZ Aq NOIlOW .'pa!Jaeo uolloW 'auoN :sAeN 'uanZ pue 'aaussavy 'lasuaspAA 'iaddeN :s9AV 'ujnZ Aq puooaS •Iiouno0 uel!lodoa}aI/y ayj of }uawpuawe ayj pJennUoj PUB ueld an!suayaadwoo junowaso�j OZOZ ayl of juawpuawe ue aiedaid 01 }4els ez!joylne I!ounoo AI!C) ayj leyl puawwooai of aaussaW Aq NOIlOW 'pa!Jaeo uoiIoVy 'auoN :sA8N •JaussaW pue 'lasuas!aM `jaddeN 'wnZ :s@AV 'aaussaVy Aq puooaS •6uueaH o ?lgnd ayl asolo of uinZ Aq NOIJLOW '9191dwoo aie g£ 2jo 01 sjuawanojdw pun I!ejl eaewauuoC) woaj aps ayj JaJua 01 aney pinonn salolgan uollon.ilsuoo pue �onjl 'uado o} Apeaa si joa(oid ayj pun 8£�I0 Ohio 6u!woo OL4eij 1pil of 9� q pinom '8£�Io uosiapUV iJjar sde6 aleajd pinonn ly6ll Ieu6!s a pue sAennanIjp ayl yl!nn sanss ayl ssaippe p!noo �(enny6iy ayj jo 6u!uap!nn e pue £ AMH 10 6u!dduls auel wnl '8£2jo nnau pue g£ �13 plo uaann}aq sAennanup ay} ssaJppe IOU p!p Apnjs ayj pauleldxa liar oi�j jl/y - spiepuels 40 yl!nn aouepJ000e u! saI!s J!ayl W04 s40 uni pue Ioiluoo @lei u!elu!ew lsnw sju9wd0lanaa 'sessai6oid alp ayj jo juawdolanap ay} se aw!} J91e1 a le passaJppe Allewjoj aq of pa}oadxa aie sanssi aajenn wogs palels 'Jaau!6u3 Al!o `japoi8 `aW seeie 6ulpunaians ayj ui spuod uo joage sl! pue ails Aemrojg aye jol veld a6eurejp ay} yl!nn passaadxa seen waouoo Ieuo!l!ppe pue 6u!u9na ayj ul uanas pue inol jo sinoy ayl uaeNgeq 2£?80 wog} swnj puey 4al 9� ew of Al!l!ge ayj yl!m uiaouoo.,passaidxe '}saM jaaajS p L £ L 2 iqo�j we!II!M - Aenny6!y uoije/uasald e se £ AmH JO uo!}eu6lsap iOaNW ayj pue 'sRennanup 6u!Is!x9 J!ayl W04 pue 01 ss900e ayl '£ �^nH uo 0 !.4ejl jo awnlon ayj y }!nn waouo0 passaidxa 'i!ejl jjago�j y}noS 00 L L 'aoga>j uea 'sluawwoo oilgnd jol 6u!Je9H ollgnd ayl pauedo lasuas!aM uosaadjiey:D 'suo!4senb Aue .iannsue of luasajd seen pue a }!s pasodoid ay} jo uo!lewjoj ayj paddeoai Allauq 'sa!uedwo0 punpo�j 'Iuap!saad 901A an!lnoax3 'ua :g! qm w!1 sieu6!s pasodoid ayj aol 6u!punj pue '£ AMH COI sjuawanojdwi jo 6uiwll NI 'sewil dead Bump £ AmH 01 ssa00e 'suoljoasia }u! algejedwoo 'o!�ea� �o1 s6u!}e� Ianai aowas ayj uaann}aq aouajag p ay} 6ulpie6ai pansua bo!ssnosia w MOTION by Napper to recommend that the City Council approve the concept master plan for the Brockway site subject to: a. Aligning driveways and street intersections to eliminate off -set intersections with intervals of less than 250 feet. b. Provision of unrestricted turn - arounds with a minimum turning radius of 45 feet for all dead end common driveways or streets exceeding 150 feet, or as approved by the Rosemount Fire Marshal. C. Utilization of the'excess lot depth along the outer edge of the single family land use areas to create a greenway for trails /sidewalks and buffering the effects of the traffic and dissimilar land uses. d. Further articulation of high - density amenities, building materials & character. In the absence of such details, each building fagade shall have a minimum of 25% brick, stucco or stone — natural, manufactured or cultured, and monolithic balconies. Architectural details such as dormer windows shall be used to provide relief of long roof eves. Primary building entrances shall have a variety of design features including separate gables, verandas or canopies creating significant relief (off -sets in excess of six feet). e. Concept approval does not guarantee the number of dwelling units. f. Incorporation of recommendations by the Parks and Recreation Commission including land dedication of four to ten acres and active public recreational facilities in the private park area with easements as necessary. g. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer relative to access, circulation, drainage, easements, grading, storm water management, traffic and utilities. h. Execution of PUD agreement. i. Preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and incorporating resulting recommendations into the preliminary plat design. j. Conformance with PUD Final Development Plan /Preliminary Plat and Final Plat requirements. Commissioner Zurn expressed concerns with traffic, the agreement application, and what city is going to do with the traffic lights. Motion seconded by Weisensel. Chairperson Weisensel stated the traffic issues are beyond scope of this project but do have an impact. Suggestions were made to include the Traffic Study as part of the recommended action. MOTION by Weisensel to amend condition 3g to include the Traffic Impact Study dated November 12, 2003. Second by Messner. Ayes: Messner, Zurn, Napper, and Weisensel. Motion carried. s Vote on main motion as follows: MOTION by Napper to recommend that the City Council approve the concept master plan for the Brockway site subject to: a. Aligning driveways and street intersections to eliminate off -set intersections with intervals of less than 250 feet. b. Provision of unrestricted turn - arounds with a minimum-turning radius of 45 feet for all dead end common driveways or streets exceeding 150 feet, or as approved-by the Rosemount Fire Marshal c. Utilization of the excess lot depth along the outer edge of the single family land use areas to create a greenway for trails /sidewalks and buffering the effects of the traffic and dissimilar land uses. d. Further articulation of high - density amenities, building materials & character. In the absence of such details, each building facade shall have a minimum of 25% brick, stucco or stone — natural, manufactured or cultured, and monolithic balconies. Architectural details such as dormer windows shall be used to provide relief of long roof eves. Primary building entrances shall have a variety of design features including separate gables, verandas or canopies creating significant relief (off -sets in excess of six feet). e. Concept approval does not guarantee the number of dwelling units. f. Incorporation of recommendations by the Parks and Recreation Commission including land dedication of four to ten acres and active public recreational facilities in the private park area with easements as necessary. g. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer relative to access, circulation, drainage, easements, grading, storm water management, traffic and utilities and recommendations of the Traffic Impact Study of November 12, 2003. h. Execution of PUD agreement. i. Preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and incorporating resulting recommendations into the preliminary plat design. j. Conformance with PUD Final Development Plan /Preliminary Plat and Final Plat requirements. Second by Weisensel. Ayes: Zurn, Napper, Weisensel, and Messner. Nays: None. Motion carried, ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 6, 2004 Flint Hills Resources Simple Plat Request for 14380 Blaine Avenue Community Development Director Lindquist reviewed Flint Hills' request to combine eight home lots that had been built in the 1950's into four lots in the agricultural district. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 1 unit per 40 -acre density in the agricultural district. Staff recommends placing a deed restriction on other property Flint Hills owns prohibiting additional residential units. If the property is rezoned, then the' density requirement is moot and the deed restriction would no longer be necessary...This was discussed with Flint Hills. They would also be required to conform to' the Dakota County ISTS standards for the septic systems. Council Member Strayton thanked Lindquist for addressing the issues with Flint Hills. MOTION by Strayton to adopt A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FLINT HILLS ESTATES PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. Second by Riley. Ayes: Shoe - Corrigan, Droste, Riley, Strayton, DeBettignies. Nays: None. Motion carried. Brockway Site Redevelopment - CPDC Community Development Director Lindquist presented the request by Homer Tompkins of Contractor Property Developers Company (CPDC) to amend the Comprehensive Plan on the 120 -acre site east of Highway 3 and south of 132 Street West. It is zoned PI (Public Institutional) and BP -2 (Business Park 2) and would be changed to R1 /R2/R3/R4 for 612 units of various types of housing. This site now hosts the Brockway Glass Co. buildings and Brockway Golf Club. Staff looked at the amount of Business Park (BP) land that was available and concluded that the tax base would not be affected greatly because there are still 294 acres available that are zoned BP and 1057 acres in the GI (General Industrial). The proposed single' family and multi- family housing was not envisioned. The concept plan would provide about 13 acres of green space and about $6 million for park dedication fees. They do propose to have a commercial site on the southeast corner. The developer has a clear understanding that this property does have some difficult issues such as pipeline easement, ponding, and possible environmental contamination. Chuck Rickart, Associate Project Engineer, WSB Engineering, conducted a traffic study and met with Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT). MNDOT was encouraging in that cooperative agreements for improvements of Highway 3 could provide a maximum of $500,000. Signals would be recommended at McAndrews and Connemara on Highway 3 and turn lanes at 132 Street West. Projections show 45% of traffic going north and 25% going into town. City Engineer Brotzler discussed the stormwater ponding issues which are very flexible at this point. If off_ site stormwater storage is needed the developer would be required to fund it. Tim Whiten, Rotlund Homes Executive Vice - President, presented drawings of the housing types. Council was concerned with the 12 -unit townhomes and asked if they would consider 6 to 8 unit buildings. Whiten indicated they could look at that. 5 lei ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 6, 2004 Council Member Strayton had concerns about the Comprehensive Plan amendment and if Tax Increment Financing was necessary. More information will become available as the concept plan moves forward. MOTION by DeBettignies to adopt A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2020 ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND APPROVING A CONCEPT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE BROCKWAY SITE and authorizing staff to forward the amendment to the Metropolitan Council and to add a condition - u., "The twelve (12) unit townhouse buildings may have to be reduced to six (6) or eight (8) unit townhouse buildings." Second by Riley. Ayes: Droste, Riley, DeBettignies, Shoe- Corrigan. Nays: Strayton. Motion carried. MOTION by DeBettignies to continue the rezoning requests for the Brockway Site by CDPC. . Second by Riley. Ayes: Riley, Strayton, DeBettignies, Shoe - Corrigan, Droste. Nays: None. Motion carried. Announcements City Administrator Verbrugge noted a change of location for the Downtown Redevelopment Committee. It will be held at the Community Center, Room 215, on Thursday, January 8, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. There is a public informational meeting scheduled at City Hall for the pending street improvements for 2004 on January 8 at 6:30 p.m. Mayor Droste reviewed the upcoming meetings noting the following special meeting: Trails and Pedestrian Improvements Informational Meeting on January 29, 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. Mayor Droste moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:38. p.m. Second by Strayton. Ayes: Five. Respectfully submitted, .^. ,�7 r. Linda Jentink, 'ity Clerk Recording Secretary The City Council Agenda Packet is Clerk's File 2004 -1. 6 TO: Honorable Mayor, Council Members City of Rosemount Planning Commission FROM: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director Rick Pearson, City Planner Andy Brotzler, City Engineer DATE: December 31, 2003 RE: Brockway Site Redevelopment Applicant: Homer Tompkins of Contractor Property Developers Company Location: Brockway Site East of STH 3 between Connemara Trail & County Road 38 Property Owner(s): George Wintz Area in Acres: Approximately 120 Number of units: 612 Comp. Guide Plan Desig: Business Park & Existing Parks / Open Space Current Zoning:. BP -2, Business Park and PI Public / Institutional SUMMARY During the Council workshop there were four major issues raised for further evaluation. They deal with the loss of designated Business Park land due to the reguiding request; loss of existing parks and open space property; more clarity on the traffic ramifications of the project and what actions the City can take to mitigate escalating traffic problems on Hwy 3, regardless of whether the project is approved; and what is the status of sanitary sewer capacity for the City and what is the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services doing to address a future capacity problem. The following information is what staff has been able to compile to address those questions. • Business Park Land At the December 10th Committee of the Whole - meeting, several Council members discussed the change in land use on the Brockway property from Business Park and Open Space to various Residential land uses, with a small neighborhood commercial component. The concern was raised as to whether the guide plan should be changed given that one of the city goals is to increase the overall tax base by adding more commercial and industrial development. Staff has inventoried land currently available for business park and industrial to help the Council assess the available land for those types of development: The figures are Brockway Site Redevelopment January 6, 2004 City Council Meeting Page 2 of 6 y based solely on the current Zoning Map and do not include other lands in the east, being discussed for future industrial use but currently zoned for agriculture. The amount of undeveloped land for the industrial use (GI) may vary depending upon what the Council perceives as developed. Land controlled by Flint Hills, but generally open space, even if it contained a road or small structure, was considered undeveloped for purposes of this exercise. The figure for the business parkland does not include the Brockway parcel.' Business Park General Industrial Total 442.33acres Total 2933.24acres Built 146.52acres Built 1875.47acres Undev. 294.0 l acres Undev. 1057.77acres *There is 1.2 acres of Industrial Park, which is developed. This is a zoning district no longer used by the City but maintained due to an existing business use. Recently, staff met with a developer to discuss the Business Park property within the community. Staff asked what his thoughts were about business park development in Rosemount and what type of absorption rate we could expect. In his opinion, Rosemount would be more attractive to smaller owner /users. This is primarily due to access and visibility within the Park. While the area has reasonably good access to Hwy 52, there remain other vacant properties within the metro area that are in closer proximity to the principal arterial system. Additionally, if access to Hwy 52 were very desirable, a developer would most likely look at other land in the east within Rosemount. Due to his belief that owner /users would be the primary target market, he felt you could expect perhaps, one to two users a year. The size of any particular project would be in the 5 -10 acres range. Based upon that absorption, available land within, the Business Park would meet the City needs for the next 7 -10 years. Staff also expects by that time that additional land in the east, affected by it's proximity to Flint Hills, will be available for more industrial development. In conclusion, staff believes there is available land within the community to achieve the Council goal of diversification of tax base by introduction of additional businesses into the community even with the development of the Brockway parcel as residential. • Parks and Open Space Property At the Workshop meeting the Council also noted that the development also reduces the amount of parks and open space in the area. The golf course functions more as an open space amenity since it is a private course although open to the general public. In discussions with the Parks Commission, the developer has indicated that they will be dedicating at least 12. 9 acres or approximately 10.7% of the gross acreage of the property. The Parks Commission has also 46 Brockway Site Redevelopment January 6, 2004 City Council Meeting Page 3 of 6 recommended that the activity area interior of the ring road also be dedicated to the City, increasing the total acreage dedicated. It is unclear what the final total land dedication will be; it will be determined with the preliminary plat review. Because of the size of the project, and because the Parks Master Plan did not envision a park needed in this area, due to the current land use designation, Parks is recommending that a neighborhood park be provided within the project. The land dedication recommended would allow for creation of a neighborhood park to serve this development. It is also expected that the developer may be paying some portion of the park fee to satisfy the ordinance requirement. The developer has indicated they would like to contribute to the park amenities to offset the park dedication fee requirement. It is difficult to say at this point what the park improvements will be. Additional review of the area needs, and a better understanding of the site plan, particularly the grading plan will be necessary. Regardless, at this time the Parks Director is anticipating that the development itself will satisfy the park dedication requirements through a combination of land dedication, paying for neighborhood park amenities, and paying a portion in cash. Relating to the discussion above, the amount of business park and industrial land currently available, based upon the adopted zoning map is 1351 acres. These lands, using the 2004 fee rates, would generate $6,048,000 in park fees to permit ,future acquisition and improvements. In lieu of fees, the ordinance requires a 10% land dedication. Overall, staff believes the change in land use from parks and open space to residential continues to allow the opportunity for public open space opportunities. The change in use results in a more public solution than the current condition because the development will contain a city -owned park, rather than a private golf course. Other opportunities continue to exist within the community to provide additional. open space amenities that may be obtained through park dedication or cash payment in lieu of dedication. • . Traffic Issues At the December 10 Committee of the Whole meeting, traffic on Trunk Highway (TH) 3 and the traffic impacts of the proposed Brockway development were discussed. As previously noted, a Traffic Impact Study has been completed to review the impacts of the proposed development on the existing street and highway system and specifically the intersections of TH 3 and Connemara Trail and TH 3 and 132 Street (CR 38). Based on the results of the Traffic Impact Study, the following improvements are recommended for completion in conjunction with the development: 1. Install left and right turn lanes on TH 3 at 132n Street (CR 38). 2. Improve 132 Street (CR 38) to a 44 -foot three -lane section from the Brockway Site Redevelopment January 6, 2004 City Council Meeting , Page 4 of 6 proposed site access to TH 3 to accommodate left turn lanes at the site access and TH 3. 3. Monitor the operation of the TH 3 and 132 Street (CR 38) intersection to determine need for signal system in the future. Funds should be collected from the developer for future City costs associated with the construction of a signal system at this location. 4. Install signal system on TH 3 at Connemara Trail. 5. Construct site accesses on Connemara & 132 Street to three -lane cross sections with.Dpe entering lane and two exiting lanes. The City has submitted to Mn/DOT a request for Municipal Cooperative Agreement funding for the construction of a sisal system on TH 3 at Connemara Trail, turn lane improvements on TH 3 at 132" Street (CR 38), and intersection improvements and installation of a signal system on TH 3 at McAndrews Road (CSAH 38). One premise of the submittal is the closure of the existing Brockway facility driveway that currently gains access to TH 3 located between Connemara Trail and 132 " Street (CR 38). The closure of this access is accommodated with the proposed development of the Rrnclrwnv gitP nc climun nn +ham, ...1..-. . _ _ ____ - .J ---- -„ w.v . — Lu UV11vNt.1t pull. The submittal to Mn/DOT was also made to address existing traffic safety issues on TH 3. With the recent opening of Connemara Trail to the east of TH 3, the intersection of Connemara Trail and TH 3 will meet warrants for a signal system with or without the development of the Brockway site. As such, staff is proceeding with the preparation of a Signal Justification Report (SJR) for this intersection in preparation for the installation of signal system at this intersection once funding is available. Funding for the project would either occur with participation from Mn/DOT or 100 percent funding by the City with Mn/DOT payback in the future, estimated to be in 2007 or 2008. For the TH 3 and McAndrews Road (CSAH 38) intersection, the submittal to Mn/DOT included a request for funding participation to improve this intersection through the construction of turn lanes and installation of a signal system. Another item discussed was access to existing residential. driveways along TH 3 between 132 Street (CR 38) and McAndrews Road (CSAH 38). A possible solution to this issue is the widening of this segment of TH 3 to accommodate the installation of a continuous center left turn lane or the installation of a continuous center median, limiting the accesses to right - in/right -out. As the MnDOT Municipal Cooperative Agreement funding program is limited to $500,000 per year, alternatives to address this issue can be discussed with MnDOT in a future funding cycle. It should be reiterated that the cooperative agreement was not prompted by the Brockway project, and that staff would continue to pursue the funding regardless of the Council's decision on this specific project. However, given that traffic on Hwy 3 is an issue raised in the context of the Brockway review, staff has provided the cooperative agreement information. Most recently, the City received a letter ' Brockway Site Redevelopment ' January 6, 2004 City Council Meeting Page 5 of 6 from MnDOT relating to the cooperative agreement application. The letter is attached for the Council's information along with the City's response. From the letter, it appears that MnDOT staff is very supportive of the city's application; however, an independent group makes the final determination as to whether the city will receive funding. We expect to hear about the final status of the city's application by the end of January 2004. • Sanitary Sewer Capacity Over the past several months, staff has been working with Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) to review the current and fixture sewer capacity for the City of Rosemount. The majority of Rosemount is served by the Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant located along 140` Street, east of TH 52. The Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant serves a small area of Rosemount. MCES has previously prepared a Rosemount/Empire Master Facility Plan that indicated the elimination of the Rosemount WWTP and construction of an interceptor to the Metropolitan Plant. In recent conversations with MCES, based on their analysis, it has been determined that interim alternatives to the construction of an interceptor to the Metropolitan Plant will need to be reviewed. An alternative that MCES is reviewing is the construction of an interceptor to the Empire WWTP and continuing to `operate the Rosemount WWTP to provide additional sewer capacity for development in Rosemount. MCES staff has verbally indicated their intent to meet with City staff in February 2004 to review these alternatives and to work towards the completion of a project in 2005 to provide additional capacity to the City of Rosemount. In regard to the proposed Brockway development and based on flow and capacity information provided by MCES, it appears that the Rosemount WWTP will have sufficient capacity to accommodate the development of the Brockway site. This determination will be verified by MCES as part of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) review and the required Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment. The revised resolution contains an expanded set of recommended conditions of approval resulting from the Council discussion at the Dec. 10, Committee of the Whole meeting. The conditions are intended to identify project specifics and City expectations of developer performance in recognition of the City granting variances or giving concessions to typical ordinance standards. While concept review normally focuses on the broader land use implications of a project, the Brockway Site Concept Review booklet provides enough detail that specific site design issues can be addressed. The concept presents a dramatic change for the Brockway area. The concept presents comparatively high density over a large area and the proposed amenities must provide for Brockway Site Redevelopment January 6, 2004 City Council Meeting ' Page 6 of 6 the recreational and open space needs for the future residents. The concept also takes varies from current city development standards, and therefore must conform to conditions meant to protect the public health, welfare and safety. 1 5 I I1CCC I_ F, xx S 3 S b -p •Q r ' �$ � Ea $ a r 'x° # ,Y BROCKWAY SITE .• E 6 ;oy? '= x ROSEMOUNI', MN F i t inn O . F r xAa a [ a v�Z f R a 'v - --- ---- -- --- -- - -- - - �! � MT - r l PI II ling a VIM � I • � "1" _ III � �� L7�Rim ■�- IM1111 ONE 'W I N 0 Evils RONNIE ullull lull C9 �� �D o� = sq� DaDOOOOO�o ooOOBOOOOa� ooa000MUN. ® ���aooO�oOOOOOO�O�QO� ._ BRO CKWAY SITE •• Ililllll • 111111111111 �� _ m p A ^: op - > s i ri II •� 1 a'. R ce"F� � @9 - D N , - = � � o { BROCKl. AY ! � 1 I II , I " L3 m � ROSEMOUNT. MN m p VPaari ^: op T Oa I 11 i R ce"F� � @9 - D N , - = � � o { BROCKl. AY SITE , m VPaari ^: op T C a D N , - = � � o { BROCKl. AY SITE , C a D { BROCKl. AY SITE , I " o m � ROSEMOUNT. MN s 'S. UNITE - - ' VallevCrest " - Landscape D— lopmed ,. Y",W Lw. bw M�.a Yl Iul, •A• uNrcs 1 , A Nna WE NF Y MAY —w. am •A' UNITS PxENUn,Y E 'A' UNITS 'S' UNITS 'B• UNITS 'S' UNITS 'A' UNITS 1REVERSED) CREVERBED 'A' UNITS E am aOCa 10V , NOTE, PLANT INCLUDES ONLY (1) 'A• UNIT L (1) S' UNIT PLANT LIST OVERSTORY TREE6: M t • Im • ada! Ol.dlbh MaeaEho. rar. in.rmb,m eel.' 23' 'S' UNITS BROCKWAY BITE Re oemeunt, MN PS GENERAL NOTES: ma tYk PA�en, S ba.. wk. ante P,be..a' eb Pd �! •� IPa Mr � w.. wi � N Mme. w' —"n.' h w.r.�'_" """' DEC rte. `..."�...`.�'.. � r- + r. ............a bmman Dwad E er PS 4 ma tYk PA�en, S ba.. wk. ante P,be..a' eb Pd """ ^ •'^' •— •' �+� +•+M ' —'" DEC 0 bmman Dwad E er EVERGREEN S„ IMBS: ....r. A ! Arbenl6e iselul aeebedd, Te �• b e' - s P • •• • _.,, N Y I ! Ynv Tavion S medln aaw m.db TwNtai eS P. r... ..r. • r �. """ "� "� ""` ..,r � .... w. reREN,AAI. rLoweRS: PD 61 ,O i _ D. 1 67H P.Ed Aseb< Henitle GnallW ErmMl SNP: — Npe ,hneldldi.H mrk Gn.a.M' ca, r E r..tiw r.r r..r.,.�w ,r,"r µas ova. URBAN VILLA TOWNNOUBE rTYPJ FOUNDATION CLlk —th .1 .. . GA P Gerw,ter, En ev GemNum drawn AI 1 W e1 Pd ! -r sx eA: L -3 P ' �{7 I rll �I�� ��I���s O ©� IfIGl��uiml �i�l� � Iw�uu�m�I�IJlolllll � ''," • IIIIifTh��� ��� O I• �i , i � ���� I � I ��a�� �� O t 4 ■/r:ii s mown� I � � Ipll �vr�luu"L� m�ull�������l�i !i�l�l���lli�l�llh�llli�flll �I!III n ' �� I hill :21 i . r• ? 'II h 119 9I�I II l �� Imo, i 1_ � ILIIPIiI I i f�. � � III � lill I�IIIIIIiiih��T:��is��l! I' •r�m I ■■■/, �� arr r/u Rig 1 gn IIIII �II�IIII ■rF■ ��� I I I �I'I I ■/r� `'I �a� ti3 I II i ij II i� r���� E�]I ■.. ? I MillIVIII c tat�J�ff�JJl�l�l @I�r `II� I�'IIIII�II�i.�-71�1 ■�il� II —J L� � IPIR I _��_ ,, (� �,!�� ■ ■ r2r.i RI� Jill : e "i IN Iff aw •ru (•] i r •■rig, r�l! �� aD I�IIIIIIIIII� 1>_:?�Ifll��il ti��� � ■ ■ r i ' in III I II IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII P !III I• "y IN ILIJ1I( , !I , c!r,: r,: -. r f IIIIIIIIIIilllll I II IT�I!� i I�) mm BROCKWAY SITE ROSEMOUNT, MN. of ■ PLANT LIST (END UNIT ONLY) aw VaileyCres"t A. �7 ec 1 K MOCK W.1pa tkil I t� I-d.." DaT elopnaN "AA KCGK ILP3J 1014pir... Me Pr 991 5 keu oN,s IN. RI ... .1 BROCKWAY SITE 05 pcg PLANT LIST (INTERIOR UNIT ONLY) DECIDUOUS SHRUBS. I bo ISO— 1.0-k. %A. kk—�� 'PERENNIAL ROWERS. ILI 6 avii". aa� De Oro Rosemount, MN END t"T5 PLANT LIST (END UNIT ONLY) ec 1 Chokeb.gy, W.1pa tkil I t� ILP3J 1014pir... Me Pr 991 5 keu oN,s IN. RI ... .1 W . pi ITI I - — .1. l j" - jpew. , unensis 'Sc a Greed 05 pcg PLANT LIST (INTERIOR UNIT ONLY) DECIDUOUS SHRUBS. I bo ISO— 1.0-k. %A. kk—�� 'PERENNIAL ROWERS. ILI 6 avii". aa� De Oro YA LE N .conk to "T • Rni+mwa rc I ]. eiwc wtx io ec f oer+. HA• pa. K.wm Km a KeKK .eaer O. w'.T�' L-4 i wN . tf ATU BC, m ! S o� ` f A t o t am is D �3i lif atrtl o r t ( ��I , iaa46- 2 r[ a r F} i r,i{ #Fa r p it c m iru:r i r Fi'CRl R� Fi� - s D { {� {l i Fci � h1 X71 � 0 �$3 N it r� 8 lit {��, �Fl Ertl fi r •.2 E ff a I e 6 MAIM- N a� � a: a :rn:t _•a ° ~ "rA[ P �~ ? � � R • � � t � � F� , - 6313 ! a 3 e � 4 s -o RR,� 666 y�•• i oss it uNnu n BROCKWAY SITE a Z Dm -�— ROSEMOUNT MN m 1 a -• , —a `— r �ur } � R b � a' � A F5 R �i 1 < A �.D N � �� 3• � � L• T �F• � � Q � f � L. 99• 99� 99990 Mxn O g o r o ra Jill r m 2 0 P A R m A I t- n 3 4 m i J• � 7 QQ > S Y� zy Y if Rt ! 11 . �Y - 3 L'16 mo BROCKW SI E� ,4Y z ROSEMOUNT, MN 1 , L� ValleyCrest Lmdu pc Dwellpmem 1W CIS �ww Y Wr W IOT 1r+ W- YI.000 I� W- ol-tltr 6 BROCKWAY BITE Ro MN GARDEN TOWNNOUIE fTYFi FOUNDATION PLAHr(JST GENERAL NOTES, cu? - mftI � [E ti D GrrtW ced CI y y I! Mm ♦W1 WVL M1.vnIW M6wIMiWI w�v Blow f. �Mi �eruen n w m! rnw a rg cwx+ l u eu.. ate.. IP 5M3l RFcwr _ c aria Pmrf n eme+a rwnw! v.w row srvcw !me me.l. w nx! arcveiwert. IL B Uhmrrt /lhdo Drama M mmnbbm'Htde' ' IR a. w r m �e !' oern va• m. xeu w ew wu ucx .++ x u.ew r.wc rti.ew we eaa. vAstw m9W11B& �' w �e a to ° uJ .. w�J i nn w lim W res e a, a e�lbm i t rla.dk•E,doi r ee . M 1 ed m{drtl; I• pp FEf�HK/tOhtR� . iz . . _ v� w U n r- m <� -170 20 sz q -I >— ti it m z ii m m i :sss o < ;kip ea 05 �fr o i F� � a rn 2 O � i C XoD ii ii w e r _ E G Y e 1 � a s R S � m i° m �a u i F P W MPH o� 0 f L}__."""'---- :sss Du ;kip ea 05 �fr o i F� � a rn 2 O � i C w e r _ E G Y e 1 � a s R S � m i° m �a u i F P W MPH o� 0 f L}__."""'---- :sss Du ea 05 N m m F rn m r a XoD !� o C)T z� rE r O ' ° Q n c O w e r _ E G Y e 1 � a s R S � m i° m �a u i F P W MPH o� 0 f L}__."""'---- 2000 MINNESOTA ENERGY CODE COMFUANCE NOTES • THESE YmE ARE N ACCORDANCE NTN LMNE.WTA R LLEE, C/NPIFR yli • AR fEALN4 REOVREIffNi {: • A CONTINUOUSLY SEALED VAFOR/AR BARBER ELL BE INSTALLED. • NTE AND TYPE DF EONPIIENT - • TO mr PROTECTION A E rot EXCEfNYE OFPNESEURDAIMHL HOUSE MAP NLL BE METALLED ON EUMNE NOUS"VERLA"M L'. •ALL SEAf15 ALL BE OVERLAPPED t' AND TAPED, . U A • EOIIPNENi CONTI(OLk E •TTVE PAIN 1 ELL !! POLlDUED. TAPED ION. P AND EA FLANGEf. • ACOUST CAI SEALANT WILL LE USED AT TOP AND BOTTOM PLATES. • MTER NEATER: NRNACE FAN CYCLER: • FX1ERgR l UN DPE L DOORS. A N $Knr LS: SEX PAGES N{ {I-7. N-7. K 57 • INSULATION. POIT ISEAlEO TO Ne- M1OORI, VAPOR BANNER NU BE TAPED TO LESCO BOX FLANGES. CLD FAN ELL at LOCATED ET ANO DRTEALL Ell RE • ACOUSTN:AI BEALANT SILL BE NEED AT EXTERIOR HALL NTERfECT70Nf. • SATERACE: • PUNNA FOR NNDIE HOUSE ' S U N D OF NINDOYA, DO P AND S. Al. AS APPIED SEHND TUS DEW AND S{IOUERS STALLS ON OUTSIDE EALLE • • TIIEE pR�� . SEE NXDDL {CIEDiRBf ON PAGES AS, Al AS • POLY AND OSE EEL BE APPLIED OEHNO AND AT lOP OF {OFHT{ THAT. R -VA •ALL PWNNM4 AND IIEC TRCAL ►ENETIUIN)NL NCl1mN4 NENIE LSCO • NAXGE HOOP. TIERIIOSTAT TO A NOTE • LES OF N ALATTON MATERIALS: SEE PAGES Nj SM. 51-3. SL f7 INTERSECT NTN NBEATED SPACES /EX?lWR BALLS. INDICATING r. FURPOEL RDEN AND ■XD NASH • RN AOET INL EE SEAMED. BOXES NLL BE SEALED. • LOCAilON5 OF KUWR AR'BARRSUL VAPOR BETA NITOLE NOOSE fAN: MRlEI4 SEE PAGES SR N-7. N-) - •ALL EXTERIOR PENETRAiNIN9 NLL BE 6EALED. • NATN FAN& • CAUUpm ENL. BE AEPIFD BEMSMD RUMOR FLANGES. • PASSIVE OPO. 0UC71 o l E� FRONT ELEVATION AI SCALE; 1 /E' -1' -0' eurerea IwnAL K L2\StU ELEVATIO AI SC — ALE: 1/8' -I' -0 'H' FRONT WALKOUT LEXINGTON LODGt—= i- W AOg1EEi o �, t• �.*� sMieeT PT O: Te iV.iJLaYltilrylmiSa7 :NMa 6 A Y �•a••. Alto f TYP. FRONT QELEV. TRIM Ai SCALE: 1/1' —1' —O' 1 1 e 3 1 r, ................. 1 J6666 e �e + I- ______________ m3 TT �' P � •' »'�} > � <lii cam• p� ° Di =sD py p0 ZsN mmzm zD '`1-•_____________" Dr S' mC Dm D 0 ° � � ��„yir ¢ i OmO�m AN nT O S�RE�L�eo�^ R ' S c J I OS<Ng im =D. m pp �7 FFi n e m -- - -- - -- s . om m 1 IN M-mEn NS u�. og. Z T A> Z �TT.A i i � E u s�S p r du �i m om .. Q S G' I _ �a 0 O o rig Z z. R e O C Ho pfla CT1 s .0 LAbHING YU BE INSTALLED UNDER PLYWOOD 1� } - ` CHIMNE ,JUNCTIONS OF ROOF AND LLS, }-y 1•.. ICI *I T O ___ __ ° ° OZ CHIMNEYS, ROOF VALLEYS CHANG OF SIDING LS, O .4L. E ` ' `l I r ; . r ; MATERIAP. WHERE SIDING MEETS RIM L OD GE BOARD AT BOTTOM OF A WALL ] -I -01 A■E 14M 4 E■b■wCE Eow .t1YpRi l/ r T . r r ---------- ___------------- ____________ __________________________1 AT °NATI ------------ ----------------- - ----------- ___ ___�� SHEET N O: � yb• T • jM.�■ ■1Aii,iJ •// 11INNESOTA ENERGY CODE I NO TES •••. MUSE MAP ILL BE INSTALLED ON RNME TAPED SEA"5 AND UKDON FLANGES p l.Ilt Iit11i1 ll�ltl, Ittllt► �. -_ © .i.rt.iltaui i1nt11it.ln /tii.il► Jllt.11l.11 ■. , -, - • - ,, , INTEMSECT SITH UNHEATED SI ACESIUTERM �■ ■a ■. a ■..■ h.�, SIZE ■lun LII...... tnm AND TYPE Of EQUNWIM �i �nlnl L....,ilal.., ,nunll FURNACE FAN CYCLEIL. RANGE MOD, A NOUSE FAN: Et N 7% - �-,.T, ■ ■ ■ —_ —_� - I, � Inn , ■u� un nee ■en �■u ,III ` I�bI11111111111I11111 !111111 'fi +11 �= ■ p v v p , v /IItt111tt11] uuu aol �.+ - I ° - .motlniununlnnumuu n.nuuunt.umn..uulu.ms. 11si�iiui■ °1 1��� ■�� �1�1�JI Doff — nutuu■a " ■n.■nt■u.■■umouum . e . ■ - ...1...11 t11b�111■ 1.1.1.1. It1i1t11ii . .. ...1...1...1 /It1lItltltltll�I8Itltittiittt� , � ..1...1...1. \. r - •• p � 1 n.11ttI/11t1111.11 � li!llitllt li!► ,I v ri_ I■ . . f Ev LAbHING YU BE INSTALLED UNDER PLYWOOD 1� } - ` CHIMNE ,JUNCTIONS OF ROOF AND LLS, }-y 1•.. ICI *I T O ___ __ ° ° OZ CHIMNEYS, ROOF VALLEYS CHANG OF SIDING LS, O .4L. E ` ' `l I r ; . r ; MATERIAP. WHERE SIDING MEETS RIM L OD GE BOARD AT BOTTOM OF A WALL ] -I -01 A■E 14M 4 E■b■wCE Eow .t1YpRi l/ r T . r r ---------- ___------------- ____________ __________________________1 AT °NATI ------------ ----------------- - ----------- ___ ___�� SHEET N O: � yb• T • jM.�■ ■1Aii,iJ cif' oT F N i HENRI C � K A T � Q F � m at o . R -i x A $ S.r f S ail 0P M om � o=S s Y } W m M —1 m ZI b UI i D � � r m � a r o z tt11 °os3i� F� �, o m * � ra ti7 In k Oi M . r§ oa on. Ferro 0 R Y . �tf 0 II� � aqg�� N N 'n 1 j (Ti m 1 p �m F i co e O 1" r 0 d S I; m cif' oT F N i HENRI C � K A T � Q F � m at o . R -i x A $ S.r f S ail 0P M om � o=S s Y 2000 MINNESOTA ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE NOTES • TSESE PLANS ARE M ACCORDANCE WIN MINNESOTA Alit, CTIAFIFN Y4 • ■4m "DIED TO PROVIDE AR SEALING REOORE1EN74. PROVIDE PROTECTION AGAINST EKCEfYVE oEPRElSURO.ATIOR "ME + NIAL ELL BE MST • A CONYMUOUSLT SEALED VAPOR/AM'EARRER EEL BE NfTA PRESCRIPTIVE EN E 1 E NT MAT EO. g pLA ON EN1StE HdllE OVERLAPPED C. • ALL SEAMS WILL BE OYERLAPPW S' AND TAPED. • SIDE AND ME Of EOYPM N7 L RN AM OF MOVIE. COM O DOORD. T MAIERWF. SEE PAGE! iFL N-1 fFS, N f7 . N TMBA SEAR AND LED O NGfL. • ACACOUSTICAL SEALANT ELL BE USED A • PURNAC6 • fOOMENT CONTROLS: • au N EE OF IED DOORR AND L A4. iTF 7NNL DOLT TSEA 0 TO NAiLOORL AND DRl'tALL BILL T TOP AND NO E PLATES. • TER NMNACE PAN CTCLER APPLED DEMO lOp oECKS AND {LOWERS STAW ON OUTSIDE WALLS. • VAP OR SEAWALL BILL USED LE C O BO OR HALL M7ERSFCTIDNL MATER NEA • OR SEE LOCATION fCTEDLLES ON PAGE[ AE AI, AT • POST AND Oft EEL NE APPIED DEMO AND AT TOP OF &oWY, TH • VAPOR PLUMING BARRIER WIL EE TAPED TO l MTI NOR FLANGE {, CLOT S SETTCN F D RYER, • 11-VALUES OF INSU M7E1 SEE PAGES AR EFL, D-!. 4 U •ALL PIYMMG AM6 ELECTRICAL PENETRA7TONR NCLIONG MUM LESCp • SAN ELL BE LOCATED pT iNERtiDSTAt ETN A NOTE • 8ARMER W NTERIOR AR NARRER VAPOR RETARDER AIID WIID MALL SITF:LSECT MIN IMNEATiD {PACEf/TMERNIR EALLf. DOW "LL pE SEALED. • RANGE HOOD. SENICA7NG l PIMPOSE NARRER SEE PAGE{ il{ LFR N-I •. RN ADIST ELL BE SEATED. • ALL E%TER OR PENETRATIONS BILL BE IJA M, MOLE LOUSE FAR • IAlAKR1G EWL BE, APPUFp ON", EEIDOtl FLANGES. • NATO PANS. • PASSIVE OPG. DUCT! n n 10� N7.� Z * t0 - 13 .... outaN Ta v«. c.••r a tl � I FRONT ELEVATION Al SCALE: I /8` =i' -O' � SIDE ELEVATION - - AI — • u_W u GENERAL NOTES SCALE: 1 /8• -I I -p• I' 1 1. • P OOORE D TRW P OVER NNDOOL h- - • INSTALL V7' O.SA. SWAYING pa4ND i - ALL VINYL SNAKES AND STONE VENEER 1 i� • PANE fi, AINCTIOWE OF ROOFAND'OALLbO� }}.�( }��^�� (/'�J. •EAR• /�R`(O'..LNT } }��. F N Ii NOrrnL MATERIA LS ROR UNFR T SIOSNG IA MEET6 A BOARD A NOT TRNG B 1 \ V O i\ V T O 1 ` L LODGE ' .li r•e�i +�� Wv. T TOM OF HALL TY P. FRONT PuR.EVN u •DNxE.D s ELEV. TRI ENYERt INITIAL. D -L w LEL {L T'O'OJ lot CFINNT.sD. Tot u •DOwRER AI BCALET 1/4' �t -p• o :re _ o-im TO Q � l .++�:.4....r /o! o-Tm T{ SPIFFY N O: mss« . e , • EOEPMENT CONTROLS: FURNACE PAN CYCLER • SETCH FOR WHOLE NOIRE PAN SILL BE LOCATED by THERMOSTAT YTH A NOTE MDN:A7NG ITS PURPOSE 0 FRONT ELEVATION 2 RIG ELEVATION __- -------- AI SCALE: 1/8' =1'=0' 6I SCALE: 1 /0' al' -O' GENERAL NOTES. Oi °'O • PROVIDE DRIP CAP OVER YINDOWS, RN. DOORS AND TRIM H - H v • INSTALL V2' 0.5E. SHEATNG - BEHIND Nu i I II ALL VNTL $HAKES AND STONE VENEER 1!v vi £ 1 II . FUbWNG TO BE INSTAL UNDER PlTY0o0 I PANELS, A RO T FWV LL ROALS, FR ON T CHIMNEYS, ROOF S OF OF AND ROOF CHANGE BL AL SIDING F. 1 MATERIALS. 0 YNERE A RI G MEETS A TRIM OF :���' ;`'\ BOARDAT BOTTOM DF A MALL (WALKOUT) >«.,��.�.. K I N CA I D L ODGE TYP. FRONT TYP. TRIM DETAIL r-4 ELE TRI W ERN L ITL.L._ •°� T� AI SCALE, 1/0' -I' -0' 2000 MINNESOTA ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE NOTES • THESE PLANS ARE N ACCORDANCE NTN MNNEII, RISES. CHAPTER YTA • TO PROVIDE PROTECTION AGAINST EXCESSIVE DEPRECLUNLATIO R • AN SEALING REOYRETIENTS: • HOME • A CONTRIUMLY SEALED VAPOR/AIR BARRIER NSTALIED. ELL BE PRESC 7IfYE PAIN I YLL BE FOLLOWED INTERIOR EN V EL OPE COM MATERIALS, S 6EE PAGES 5H N -1 IFS. N 67 WRAP YLL BE INSTALLED ON ENTIRE NOISE - OVERLAPPED C; TAPED SEAMS AND ENDOY ILANGES • N$ULA • ALL SEAMS ELL BE OVERLAPPED C AND TAPED. ACOUSTICAL SEALANT NULL BE USED AT TOP AND BOTTOM PLATEN SIZE AND TYPE OF EQUIPMENT • IZ ENA N D OF • "ALLIES AL"ALLIES OF YNDOWS DOORS, AND iKTLKATb AN NEE SORROW ON PAGES Al, AL AS • AND DRYW O ALL ELL BE now. DOLT ISEALED TO SUS- PLOORO, STA APPLIED APPLIED BEHIND 1VB OECCi AM fIWWERS LLS OUTSIDEWALLL • POLY AND DEB ELL BE APF BEHIND AND • ACOUSTICAL SEALANT NN.L BE USED AT EXTERIOR NALL MTERCELTNLNS. VAPOR BARRIER • BILL BE TAPED TO lESCO BOX FLANGES. WATER HEATER • flREPL ACE DR7Lb • CL ES F INSULATION R -YAWES OF NSN.tTION MATERLLLS: SEE PAGES OR N-1 N-1 X E7 • LOCATIONS Of AR BARRER. VAPOR RETARDER AND Rum NAM AT TOP a SOF7if3 THAT INTERSECT 11TH UNHEATED NPACES/E%TERMIR WALLS. • • '� PLIWLBNG AID ELECTRICAL PE NE7RATONS. IICLIODIN4 NSq[ tRECO BOXES YLL BE SEALED. '• RANGE HOOD: BARR SEE P Ft PAGES 11{ N 1 $FI AGES 61 Ph JOST WILL BE SEALED, • CALLENG IR BE APPLID SEHIND NNDOW FLANGES . • ALL EXTERIOR PENETRATION$ WILL BE SEALED. • WHILE MOUSE FAR • BATH PANS: . • PAEHVE OPG. DUCT: • EOEPMENT CONTROLS: FURNACE PAN CYCLER • SETCH FOR WHOLE NOIRE PAN SILL BE LOCATED by THERMOSTAT YTH A NOTE MDN:A7NG ITS PURPOSE 0 FRONT ELEVATION 2 RIG ELEVATION __- -------- AI SCALE: 1/8' =1'=0' 6I SCALE: 1 /0' al' -O' GENERAL NOTES. Oi °'O • PROVIDE DRIP CAP OVER YINDOWS, RN. DOORS AND TRIM H - H v • INSTALL V2' 0.5E. SHEATNG - BEHIND Nu i I II ALL VNTL $HAKES AND STONE VENEER 1!v vi £ 1 II . FUbWNG TO BE INSTAL UNDER PlTY0o0 I PANELS, A RO T FWV LL ROALS, FR ON T CHIMNEYS, ROOF S OF OF AND ROOF CHANGE BL AL SIDING F. 1 MATERIALS. 0 YNERE A RI G MEETS A TRIM OF :���' ;`'\ BOARDAT BOTTOM DF A MALL (WALKOUT) >«.,��.�.. K I N CA I D L ODGE TYP. FRONT TYP. TRIM DETAIL r-4 ELE TRI W ERN L ITL.L._ •°� T� AI SCALE, 1/0' -I' -0' > OA _ >� O s�. e m 70 UN o O ¢ r m m 4 y 114 \ D g „ g 0 to m -4 >m� m m -470 • 70 p - -- -- E C) z M m D O Z O e` Z Z ij n E o r -vZ i� Y of a M �p r � q >F �S� b r ° Fp��o Y �C r M il; � g F I S m - L ; a m qq > z m A 0 . -c n @ @@ 0m €# �d s �S OA _ >� O s�. e UN ' gil N � r r � B m m tl A 6 6 R 6 of a M �p r � q >F �S� b r ° Fp��o Y �C r M il; � g F I S m - L ; a m qq > z m A 0 . -c n @ @@ 0m €# �d s �S w w Wup S • EQUIPMENT CONTROLS: • FURNACE FAN CTCLEIL• • {NCH POR WALE HONE FAN ALL BE LOCATED BY THERMOSTAT WIN A MOTI MpCATING ITS PIRPO {E 1 FRON EL �1 SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8' RMV -O AI SCALE: I /e° =I' -O" 4 GENERAL NOTES + ALL EXTERIOR TRIM TO BE - 'L;'1 t RONT 1 II CEDAR UNLE55 OTHERWISE NOTED + AP DYER WINDOWS ( FUL L) PROVIDE DRIP C - DOORS AND TRIM ANTHEM TRADITIONS +INSTALL 1/2' 0.5.0. SHEATHING TYP. FRONT BEHIND STONE VENEER D ■ror Pux RErpu u o oN FRONT BEHIND BE INSTALED U eurERS "TIALp enuio er0 sET u ° ELE TRIM PANELS, JU NCTIONS OF R AND WALLS, NDER PLYWOOD NrNWt D Lo ,+DOxes■ CHIMNEYS, ROOF VALLEYS, CHANGE OF SIDING cn.Te u oro o- o 9FIEET N O: IlWUN AI SCALE: I/1' -I' -O° MATERIALS, OR WHERE SIDING MEETS A TRIM BOARD AT BOTTOM OF A WALL � F+�.� t�TIB f77 E.•. f UUU�t6A.?.ltlLLef}L .r . a ■ ■ ■ ■ ■i 2000 MINNESOTA ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE NOTES ENE, i • m ilt : ■ THESE ARE N MINNESOTA ACCORDANCE WITH PEES; CHAPTER 11 • 70 PROYDE PROTECTION AGAINST EXCESSIVE DEPRESSUROATN)N, PAIN I OQ • AIR SEALING REOUREMENT& 11016E WRAP ULL BE INSTALLED ON ENTIM MOUSE -0VERLAPPED t', • A CONTINUUISLT SEALED VAPORVAR BARRIER IMl pE INSTALLED. • ALL SEAMS ' M! AND TYPE OF EOUPMENY ■ial ■� SUR X E PLANS EXTEJUOR XTU NA E R ELOPE COMPONENT M MATERI ALS; SEE PAGES SIR N-T, N -), yl U • S OF U DOORS, AND TAPED SEAMS AND Wool FLANGES. • NSULATAH, POLY ISEALED TO U0 {LOORL AND DRTWALL WILL BE IUL BE OVEROVERLAPPED PED t' AND TAPED. • ACOUSTIC SEALANT ULt BE IEEO AT TOP AND UOTf011 PLATES. ACOUSTCAL • FURNACE, •WATER NEATER; % S: SE E V K SEE NEDLLE SCHEDULES E 6 ON PAGES As. A4. AS AS • APPLIED BEHIND TUB DECKS ASO SHDNERS STSTALLS ON OUTSIDE RALLL • POLY AND 05B ALL BE APPLIED BEHIND AND AT TOP OF SOFFIT{ TWAT SEAIANi WILL BE USED A7 !ALL NTlRSECTb115. EX . r/APOR EARLIER WILL BE 7APE0 TO AT EX BOX FLANGES. • FIREPLACE • CLOTHES DRTEk UEf It-VALUES Of INSULATION IIATERWS; SEE a PAGES fH N -1 10-3. R 11 • LOCATIONS OF INTERIOR AR BARREL VAPOR RETARDER AMD UND UASN INTERSECT WIN UNHEATED SPACESIEXTE UDN WALLS. • ALL PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL FRNETRATIDN{, N INCLUDING us" LUCO boxes BOXES SILL BE SEALED. • RANGE MOOD; BARRIER: SEE PAGES SIR 11 W - ) • RU JOIST SILL BE SEALER • CALMING NLL BE APPLIED SEMND UNOOW FLANGES, • ALL EXTERIOR PENETRATION$ SILL BE SEALED.' • WHOLE HOUSE PAR. • BATH PANS: • PASSIVE OPG. DUCT. w w Wup S • EQUIPMENT CONTROLS: • FURNACE FAN CTCLEIL• • {NCH POR WALE HONE FAN ALL BE LOCATED BY THERMOSTAT WIN A MOTI MpCATING ITS PIRPO {E 1 FRON EL �1 SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8' RMV -O AI SCALE: I /e° =I' -O" 4 GENERAL NOTES + ALL EXTERIOR TRIM TO BE - 'L;'1 t RONT 1 II CEDAR UNLE55 OTHERWISE NOTED + AP DYER WINDOWS ( FUL L) PROVIDE DRIP C - DOORS AND TRIM ANTHEM TRADITIONS +INSTALL 1/2' 0.5.0. SHEATHING TYP. FRONT BEHIND STONE VENEER D ■ror Pux RErpu u o oN FRONT BEHIND BE INSTALED U eurERS "TIALp enuio er0 sET u ° ELE TRIM PANELS, JU NCTIONS OF R AND WALLS, NDER PLYWOOD NrNWt D Lo ,+DOxes■ CHIMNEYS, ROOF VALLEYS, CHANGE OF SIDING cn.Te u oro o- o 9FIEET N O: IlWUN AI SCALE: I/1' -I' -O° MATERIALS, OR WHERE SIDING MEETS A TRIM BOARD AT BOTTOM OF A WALL � F+�.� t�TIB f77 E.•. f UUU�t6A.?.ltlLLef}L .r . a ■ ■ ■ ■ ■i IR ENE, i • m ilt : ■ =_l n ■ial ■� SUR ;� i �� % El D— N N N N N D � D r' m m r ]> m M 7U •m n < o D • —I 0 y z N N 70 D m r ]> T 7U m t m y o i O i S u z N I� O e F u F p �HH. Fig °= PH � u A •.• .> K ° a Sm � X686 ^•> x� €es F S W >m'4 � 8 1 _ E rn -4 Y ° n m < o §e iii fa N — 11 p Q a =ny mN aro ns oa_xar m OA mr m m _ Opmui O� A O nX 7U A alb Non mp A� mA O N I' r � 7 Omm O D � AO Ep Q � I � J E Dp��i. 6110 ° z mm z r x c O o r�m.A e m tl o O NE I c K .I � r PI M II ��_ O ;� a° °gyp M a�Bz m a t. a Q O �) o e F u F p �HH. Fig °= PH � u A •.• .> K ° a Sm � X686 ^•> x� €es F S W >m'4 � 8 1 _ E D— N co n N (!� n D r m m m ca r , m N < 1 6 z Z a m DN N co n 70 Dm r Y m 70 ; FZ v f z a m 1' < a lii i a O n O N /U C � > r O Tr IZ N - 1000 MINNESOTA. ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE NOTES AI SCALE: 1/8' =1' -0' GENERAL NOTES THESE PLANS ARE N ACCORDANCE MTN MINNESOTA RLSES. CHAPTER IM • AR SEALING REQUIREMENTS; A CONTINUOUSLY SEALED VAPOR /Apt BARKER ELL BE INSTALLED.. • SIZE AND TYPE Of 'EQUIPMENT • 70 PROVIDE PROTECTION AGAINST EXCESSIVE DEPRESSRDATION. • ROUSE BRAP BILL BE INSTALLED ON ENTIRE NOM -OVERLAPPED V. • ALL SEAMS ELL BE OVERLAPPED C AND TAPED. • FURNA 1URHAC6 • EQUIPMENT CONTROL& IPMENTGTCLEW PEESCRIP M E PATH i SI LL BE FOLLOWED. MS TAPED SEA AND ENDON FLANGES. • ACOUSICAL SEALANT ELL BE USED AT TOP AND BOTTOM PLATES. • NEATER: • FURNACE E& FAN AN EXTERIOR ENVELOPE' COMPONENT MATERIALS: SEE PAGES NA N -S. 10-3. R U • • NSULATIOI, POLY tSEALED TO SUS- FLOORI, AND DRYNALL WILL BE • ACOUSTN:AI SEALAtlT SILL 0E QSED AT FJLTERgR PALL NTERSECTgMb. • FIREPLACE: N CYC • PAR BILL BILL Y- VALUES OF BROODS. DOORS, AND EKYUGNTi: SEE KINDON SCHEDRES ON PAGES AS. APPLIED DEMO TUB DECKS AND SNORERS STALLS ON OUTSIDE WALLS. • VAPOR DARR" SILL BE TAPED TO LESCO BON FLANGES. • CLOTHES DRYER: T BE LOCATED BY E NTH A NOT! M, AS • R- VALUES OF INSULATION MATERIALS, SEE PAGES 51 -L SI-], 51-3, SL 63 • POLY AND QED SILL BE AFFLED BEHIND AND AT TOP Of SOFFITS THAT INTERSECT MTN UNHEATED SPACES /EXTERIOR BALLS, • ALL PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL PENETRATIONS, INCLUDING MUM LESCO BOXES BILL BE SEALED . • RANGE N00D: • N10LE HOUSE FAN: - INDICATING IT'S PURPOSE • LOCATION S OF INTERIOR AN BARRIER, VAPOR RETARDER AND RI ND IM6N • RIM JOIST ELL BE SEALED. • ALL EXTERIOR PENETRATIONS KILL BE SEALED. • BATH FANS: BARRIEL. SEE PAGES 51-1. WIL N-3 • CAULKNG BILL BE APPLIED BEHIND ONDOK FLANGES. • PASSIVE DIG, DUCT: to AI SCALE: 1 /8• =1' -0' TYP. FRONT r3"),ELEV. TRIM AI SCALE: 1/4• -1' -0• ASIDE ELEVATION AI SCALE: 1/8' =1' -0' GENERAL NOTES 3 ALL TRIM ON FRONT ELEVATION TO BE CEDAR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED f PROVIDE DRIP CAP OVER WINDOWS DOORS AND TRIM f INSTALL 1/2 O.S.B. SHEATHING BEHIND ALL VINYL SHAKES AND STONE VENEER 'B' FRONT FULL . FLASHING TO BE INSTALLED UNDER PLYWOOD _ REVERE PANELS. JUNCTIONS OF ROOF AND WALLS, O MATERIALS, OR WHERE SIDING MEETSA TRIM .. eurmee :NITL[a_ 'O' � BOARD AT BOTTOM OF A WALL T FoF•:r.T •o.• _ ' �� � _ r Dh.TR__ A ` ^ �w 5.. Inm voiN n o.NV I 7p y y�1�F•7�hpliTpTL� N � S 7�� ' } ll [� 8 JC1LyJ2VJLJCwy J \LJAMUpI�V� .ewse 6MEET N p! Al Np,R, au• o-BN 2000 MINNESOTA ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE NOTES • THESE PLANS ARE N ACCORDANCE RTII IRINESATA IN•aa SEE PAGES W CHAPTER LTL. • AR SEALING REOIAREMENTS: • A CONTWIIOIISLT SEALED VAPOR /AR BARREN BILL 1E INSTALLED. • m AND iTPE Of EOBPXENT • EORPMENT LONTROLF • TO PROVIDE PROTECTN91 AGAINST EXCESNVE OEPRESSIIRQATKNL •HOUSE WRAP .WLL BE INSTALLED ON SURE HOUSE-OVERLAPPED C, • ALL SEAMS BUL BE OVERLAPPED S' AND TAPED. • M AND •FURNACE FAR CYCLER: E XIBIWO TM[ PATH 1 SWL BE FOLLOIYEO, TAPED SEAMS AND WINDOW FLANGES. • ACOU511CAL SEALANT WILL BE tl5ED AT TOP AND NOTION PLATES, • EXTENOR ENVELOPE COMMENT MATERIALS: SEE PAGES SR IN -T. 51-5, A ES • IMSNATN)N. POLT ISEALED TO 5fEiLOOR1. AND DRYWALL BILL BE • RATER HEATER: • SWITCH FOR R CT "ME ACOUSTICAL SEALANT. WILL BE USED AT EXTERIOR WALL SITE [LATHES DRYER: SECTIONS. • FIREPLACE : I' FAR WILL BE LOCATED BY • S OP C HEDUL S O PA FIND S . TS: POLY BEHIND ILL BE AND SHOIIER6 STALLS ON OU SA • VAPOR BARRIER BILL BE TAPED TO LESCO BOX FLANGES. • THERMOSTAT O A NOTE R-VALUES OF UMATN SEE WROW SCHEDULES ON PAGES A5, Al. Ai. AS • POIT AND OSp SLLL WE APP BFHND AND AT TOP OF SOFRTS THAT • ALL PLUMRG AND EIECTRCAt /ENETRATIONf, RICl1ENiG INSIDE tE1C0 • RANGE N000: INDICATING ITS PORPOSE . N RATERIALS: L 5 1-7, SH. SL 57 INTERSECT LION UNHEATED SPACEVEXTERWR WALLS. BOXES IOI BE SEALED. EAGLE HO FAN; • LOCATIONS M INTERIOR AIR BARREN, VAPOR RETARDER, AND BIND WASH • RN JOIST BILL BE SEALED. • ALL O E WIL P E SEA . W WE SEALED. • W HOL FAMS: BARREN: SEE PAGES SK SH. 51-5 • CAKKING BILL BE APPLIED BENNO ROOM FLANGES. . • PASSIVE OFG. DUCT: BI S D S:7A.en oa oa IT =! - - - -- { FRONT ELEVATION AI SCALE: 1/8' =1' -0• [SIDE ELEVATION A I—nm —� AI SCALE: I /8' =I' -0" GENERAL NOTES -7 `uocwc ALL TRIM ON FRONT ELEVATION TO BE I II A CEDAR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED I II. .a rw I 1 1 e.• o _. cio.a uX ��` � PROVIDE DRIP CAP OVER WINDOWS ; 1 _ - ' eB ..w•re ;:i w DOORS AND TRIM I M INSTALL 1/2 O.S.B. SHEATHING BEHIND I p • _ om ALL VINYL SNAKES AND STONE VENEER I 'C' FRONT 1 L y� � a w � fO ' FULL FLASHING TO BE INSTALLED UNDER PLYWOOD _ "• +, RE V ERE PANELS. JUNCTIONS OF ROOF AND WALLS " ° .,. :` �%� �` ��• «S :. CHIMNEYS, ROOF VALLEYS, CHANGE Of SIDING �� a14r1T0Y �� MATERIALS. OR WHERE SIDING MEETS A TRIM ro• �"°` s RAIL DE TAIL e RAiL ELEV. BOARD AT BOTTOM OF A WALL T Y P. FRONT al SCALE: 1/1' P -O' AI 6CALE. 1/4" -1' -0- s ELEV. TRIM . v: lion• UYla!6 .«rr _LR_� .M/•. a..,, sOe.ca •rae Al SCALE: 1/1' =1' -O' Q)ELEV. /SECTIONLT — " "^ o " ° "' T 1a' �.... v IDY, TfD -il•p R TATIM aI-IEeT n MJ: Al SCALEv 1 /i' +•P -O' `^` ��. ln`LL.�1'D IIJL �) - D- to 70 M m ; M . r- 1 m o < •D O z II Du j� < r ■ � 11 i�si� Fy x i I T . i 1,111 Hill ,-w c u w w N I w An N z 0 T/I/10 - ------- - ------ - ----------------- --------- -------------------------- --------- REAR ELEVATION rZSIDE ELEVATION A SCALE: I /e' -I' —O' A GENERAL NOTES SCALE: Ve" -I' —O' PROVIDE DRIP r OVER GENDOYS. DOORS AND M SWEAT REWIND • ALL VINYL *WAKES D SiIONE • FLASFYNG TO EE MSTALLED ENDER PLTISOOD CMHIIETS ROOf 5 O ETS CHARGE Oi SSNNG 1507 4L5. OIL YHERE SD NG F EEiS A MM EOARD AT EDT; OP A PALL 'C' FRONT FULL REVERE ]/O D -1196 LO EDY @RS INITIAL._ 1/00 0 -1506 LO SHEET No DATE_ ®uwmauwyW ii09 D - ]1G Lp A2+ T/I/10 2000 MINNESOTA ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE NOTES • THESE PLANS ARE M ACCORDANCE KITH MINNESOTA MILES. CHAPTER IM AR SEALING REQUIREMENTS: • A CONTMUONSLT SEALED VAPOR /AIR BARRIER WILL BE INSTALLED. • WIE AND TYPE OF EQUIPMENT • i0 PROVIDE PROTECTION AGAINST EXCESSIVE DEPRESSUiQAT1ON, • HOUSE CRAP BILL BE INSTALLED ON ENTIRE HOUSE- OVERLAPPED S', • ALL SEAMS WILL BE OVERLAPPED L' AND TAPED. • FURNACE • EOUPryENT CONTROLS: MIALCRIPTNE PATH 1 WILL BE FOLLOWED. EXTERIOR ENVELOPE TAPED SEAMS AND WINDOB FLANGES. • AC0115TN:AL SEALANT WILL BE USED AT TOP AND BOTTOM PLATES. • RATER PRAYER: • FURNACE FAN CYCLER: COMPONENT MATERIALS: SEE PAGES SIR 51-1 SI-3. N 53 • U-VALM OF WINDOWS, • INSULATION, PUT (SEALED TO SUB - FLOOR(. AND DRYWALL TELL BE ACOUSTICAL SEALANT BELL BE NEED AT EXTEROK BALL INTERSECTIONS. • PREPUCE • SNITCH FOR WHOLE HOUSE FAN FAN V WRL DOORS, AND SKYLIGHTS. SEE M SERU SCHEDULES ON PAGES AS, AL AS APPLIED BEHIND TUB DECKS AND SHOWERS STALLS ON OUTSIDE NALLS. • POLT AND 065 HILL BE APPLIED BEHIND AND AT TOP OF SOFFITS THAT • VAPOR BARRIER WILL BE TAPED TO LESCO BOX PLANGEE. • ALL ?LOSING AND ELECTRICAL PENETRATIONS, NCUDNG MIDI LESCO •CLOTHES DRYER: • RANGE HOOP. OCA BE LOCA TED BY A A XO NO NO THERMOSTAT N NOTE • R- VALUES OF INSULATION MATERIALS: SEE PAGES N-L SI-1 51_3, SL $7 INTERSECT WITH UNHEATED SPACES /EXTERroR WALLS, BOXES WILL BE 3EADE0. • MOLE HOUSE FAN: • LOCATIONS OF INTERIOR AR SARRUR VAPOR RETARDER AND WIND WASH • RN AMY WELL SEALED. • ALL EXTERIOR PENETRATIONS HILL BE SEALED. • BATH FANG: BARRIER: SEE PAGES SI-L 31_1 . 51_3 • CAULKNG WILL BE APPLIED BEHIND WINOOW PURGES. - • PASSIVE OPG. DUCT: � (��j Ai SCALE: 1/8" -1'-0" ASIDE ELEVATION AI SCALE: 1/8" -1' -0" 'A' FRONT PULL HAMILTON GENERAL NOTES L ALL TRIP( ON FRONT ELEVATION TO BE CEDAR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED • PROVIDE DRIP CAP OVER WINDOWS DOORS AND TRIM 3 INSTALL- 1/1' O.S.B. SHEATHING BEHIND ALL VINYL SHAKES AND STONE VENEER • FLASHING TO BE INSTALLED UNDER PLYWOOD PANELS, JUNCTIONS OF ROOF AND WALLS, CHIMNETS. ROOF VALLEYS. CHANGE OF SIDING MATERIALS, OR WHERE SIDING MEETS A TRIM T7P. FRONT BOARD AT BOTTOM Of A WALL (a1ELEV. TRIM YYERS IMITU,LW_ woo p-� AI SCALE: 1/1' -1' -0" SFEET N O: Al \, aIj SCALE: I /e' -1- -o . �1 SIDE ELEVATION •.5.. ».+R i— R;--� \,!Llj SCALE: 1 /e' -1--o- GENERAL NOTES 5 AlL TRIM ON FRONT ELEVATION TO BE It , CEDAR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED II o i'�'q,ic. i•¢ 5�?•+ ••wsv,. F PROVIDE DRIP CAP OVER WINDOWS 11 DOORS AND TRIM I II INSTALL 1/2' O,S.B. SHEATHING BEHIND - .!! n.. •,rc v.x. c+o•, n ._ : ALL VINYL SHAKES AND STONE VENEER L " ' '' f FLASHING TO BE INSTALLED UNDER PLYWOOD �' 4tl"•"'^°'��u"'$^' r RAIL ELEV. V. C FRONT FULL PANELS, JUNCTIONS OF ROOF AND HALLS, DETAIL AI SCALE: 1/1' -1' -O' CHIMNEYS, ROOF VALLEYS, CHANGE OF SIDING ,-•L MATERIAL5, OR WHERE SIDING MEETS A TRIM TYP. FRONT ", � AI SCALE, 1/1• -I' -O' HAMI LT O N BOARD AT BOTTOM OF A WALL s ELEV. TRIM AI SCALE: 1M" '1• -O" i�:T+�. wP�f :`.J...n,. .. p T,.L._ 5 roE �.R R �R•a ELP.1 Y^w iYn %u owTe_ vv� w to SHEET N o- AI SCALE /5ECT - ,.'r • to �.. A l - nro! o- Te Orvunx 2000 MINNESOTA ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE NOTES • THESE PUNS ARE I ACCORDANCE MR MINNESOTA • ec a""" - d • TO PROVES PROTECTION AGAINST EXCESSIVE DEPRESUMILATION, • AR EEALM4 REpISREMENTS' NOOSE tlRAP A • CONTINUOUSLY SEALED VAPOR/AIR BARBER ULL BE INSTALLED. POL EXTEW MLL EE FOLLOYE 5 E%TEWOR ENVELOPE COIIPONEMT MATERIALS SEE PAGES 6R 6F1 MLL BE INSTALLED ON ENTIRE NWEEOYERLAIfED t'; TAPED SEAMS AND UNDOM FLANGES. • ALL . SEAMS ILL EE OVERLAPPED C AND TAPED. - • ACOWTM;AL SEALANT • MLE AND TYPE OF EOMIMENi • FURNACE EOUIPnENT CONTROLS: ' 7F), f4 f] • Y- VALUES OF MXODtlS, ODORS, AND iCTLY:NTE, FEE "DOW SCIEpRE6 ON PAGES AS. A,, AS • RIMAXTWY PMT (SEALED TO SUB- FLOOR), AND DRYWALL MLL BE APPLIED HIT TUB DECES AND SHOWRS STALLS ON OUTSIDE BALLS, MILL BE USED AT TOP AND 0077011 PLATEN. • ACOUSTICAL. SEALANT ILL BE USED AT EXTERIOR HALL SITER5EcTmS. • tlATER LEATER • FMEPLACE - FURNACE fAN.C7CLER:. • SMfCH FOR UIOLE NMI R IGUE • R- VALISE OP INSULATOR MATERIAL!: FEE PAGES Mi 61-2. WS. sl 57 • LOCATIONS BE • POIT AM O50 EYL BE AfPU 5EHXD AND AT TOP Of SOFFITS TWAT MTH UNHEATED SPACES/EXTERIOR tlALLE VAPOR BARRIER MLL BE TAPED TO LESCO. BOX FLANGES. • ALL PLNMBM4 AND ELECTRICAL PENEIRAl10p1, MCtIRif1G MUM lEfCO CLOTHES ORTER: • RANGE N000: SAN tlEL LO ET FAR BIL BE WITH A NOTE E AGES M AU BARIUM yAIDR RETARDER. AND MIND tlASN BARBER: SEE PAGES 6F{ M -). WS • RM -5T WILL BE SEALED. • CMARM4 MLL BE APPLIED BEHIND Bu BOXES o BE SEALED. • ALL EXTENSOR PENETRATIONS NU. BE SEALED. • tlHOlf HOPS! FAN: • WAIN INDICATING WE PURPOSE _ INNIDY FLANGES. FANS: • PASSIVE OP4. DUCT, H M \, aIj SCALE: I /e' -1- -o . �1 SIDE ELEVATION •.5.. ».+R i— R;--� \,!Llj SCALE: 1 /e' -1--o- GENERAL NOTES 5 AlL TRIM ON FRONT ELEVATION TO BE It , CEDAR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED II o i'�'q,ic. i•¢ 5�?•+ ••wsv,. F PROVIDE DRIP CAP OVER WINDOWS 11 DOORS AND TRIM I II INSTALL 1/2' O,S.B. SHEATHING BEHIND - .!! n.. •,rc v.x. c+o•, n ._ : ALL VINYL SHAKES AND STONE VENEER L " ' '' f FLASHING TO BE INSTALLED UNDER PLYWOOD �' 4tl"•"'^°'��u"'$^' r RAIL ELEV. V. C FRONT FULL PANELS, JUNCTIONS OF ROOF AND HALLS, DETAIL AI SCALE: 1/1' -1' -O' CHIMNEYS, ROOF VALLEYS, CHANGE OF SIDING ,-•L MATERIAL5, OR WHERE SIDING MEETS A TRIM TYP. FRONT ", � AI SCALE, 1/1• -I' -O' HAMI LT O N BOARD AT BOTTOM OF A WALL s ELEV. TRIM AI SCALE: 1M" '1• -O" i�:T+�. wP�f :`.J...n,. .. p T,.L._ 5 roE �.R R �R•a ELP.1 Y^w iYn %u owTe_ vv� w to SHEET N o- AI SCALE /5ECT - ,.'r • to �.. A l - nro! o- Te Orvunx I$ D u — m D N /70 m n b r D : m m 70 m m m • l t C � e f o Nm Lf j ! o • < D - 0 O >D 3, o _� _ 4�— O z r r N � a m D N � m m : m m r m b l t C � e f o O Lf j ! O D � T i m i .: a u 0 W r7 _. ii D — N D /7 D r T X mm a ,• o D z o c r r - `1 m N M m m r �..® mm -4 D it #f p e' v p z 1 y y D a u p s � � u - tl � r r r r r r u 0 W 2000 MINNESOTA ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE NOTES • THESE PLAINS ARE M ACCORDANCE YTH MINNESOTA NESS, CHAPTER YL. • AIR SEALING REGBIREMENTS: • A CONTINUOUSLY SEALED VAPORJAR BARRIER WILL Of INSTALLED. • SIZE AND TYPE Of EOUPIIENT • TO PROVIDE PROTECTION AGARST EXCESSIVE DEPRESSURDATUNI, HOUSE MAP BILL BE INSTALLED ON DUTIES HOUSE - OVERLAPPED L', . ALL SSARS BILL BE OVERLAPPED 1' AND TAPED. •FURNACE: • EQU CONTROLS: PREE PATH 1 BULL OV FOLLOYED. TAPED SEAM AND BItIDW FLANGES. • ACOUSTICAL BE.LLANT MALL pE USED AT TOP AND BOTTOM PLATES. •PATER NEATER: FURNACE FAX CTCLEb E1(TERN'N! ENVELOPE COMPONENT MATERIALS: 6EE PAGES SK EI-1 W9. EL 57 • MSIEATEW, POLY ISEALED TO SUB-FLOOR4 AND ORTMALL BILL BE • ACOUSTCAI.SEALANf NLL SE USED AT TP AN E X T E RI OR ROLL M PLATES. • FIREPLACE; • FURNA FOR WHOLE HOUSE SMITCH • SEE M S OF HE D DOORS, LE AND S. A4. f! APPLIED 6ENN0 To DECK{ AM SWEDEN STALLS ON OUTSIDE BALLS.' • YAPDR WIPER YRL BE TAPED TO LESCO BON FLANGES. • CLOTHES DRTER: FAN BILL BE LOCATED ST SEE LUES SCHEDULED ON PAGES AT. A1. AS • POLY AND OSB NEL BE APPLIED SENND AND AT TOP OF SOFFITS TNAT • ALL PLUMBING AND ELECIRR:AL pENETRAIIOME. YICLIINNG MNDE LESCO •RANGE HOOD: TNRMOST WITH A NOTE • R -VALUES OF MSISATION MATERIALS: SEE PAGES WA N-7. SF), M. S7 INTERSECT BTR UNHEATED SPACES /EXTERIOR PALLS. WOR:.LiNG E TP i PURPOSE • LOCATIONS OF INTERIOR AR BARRIER, VAPOR RETARDER AND MIND RASH • RIM JOIST BILL BE SEALED. BONES BILL OE SEALED. • RNOLE IIOUSE FAIN BARREN& SEE PAGES SH wt SI-) • ALL EXTERIOR PENETRATIONS BILL BE SEALED. • pAE{IV USE A X - . • CALLING BILL BE APPLIED DEMO BINDOY FLANGES - •OATH FANS: -il lO AKR D --- ------- T r ----- ------ - --'--- ---- '• - �� si 1 . 1 I I - -- - --- - ------ - - -- 1 t 1 — -- — — ' _ _ _ 1 _- _ - - -- : I FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION I �„ A� SCALE: 1/0" -1' -0" AI SCALE: 1/0" =1' -0" _, F.a:. a:R•, Fo. GENERAL NOTES DOORS AND�TpM P OVER WOODS. INSTALL V7. OAS . SHEATRIG BEHIND " ALL SHARES' AND STONE VENEER II 'A' FRONT FULL 1 N- ^,w fir. • F C.M. 4L6ROR WINE EEb�INGH NORDALL OD Ip II PANELS. ARCTIONS OF ROOF ANGE OF SIDING MEET {. tRll WOODWARD LODGE B TT OARD AT 60OM OF A WALL FRONT ELEV. TRIM surereR Nu Au_ .x.oL o -Tm TA Ai SCALE: 1/0" =1'—O" ®_ oATt_ R -fu5 w IOyt•1lA�O•R p {p TiFT B ET N o: EH . �r^�� oxa TR D�TLYII DDX/1VIll' 2000 MINNESOTA ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE NOTES - • THESE PLANS ARE ARE M ACCORDANCE NTH MKWAOTA LLS& CNAPTEN - NU • AE SEALSIG REOUREMEIT6 • TO PROVIDE PROTECTION AGAINST EXCESSIVE DEPRESSURIZATION, NMI URAP 141 BE INSTALLED ON ENTRE HOUSE-0OVERLAPPED I% PREEORP)IVE PATH 1 IUL EE POISONED. • A CONTINUOUSLY SEALED VAPOR/AIR BARRIER SEL BE INSTALLED. • ALL SEAMS WILL BE OVERLAPPED P AND TAPED. • � AND B11 ME OP [ONPIIEMT • EOUPMENT CONTROLS. TAPED SEAM AND MINION FLANGES. • EXTERIOR ENVELOPE C"ONENT MATERIALS: SEM PAGES SILL 6I-2. WS. N. 12 • INSULATION. RT AT POLY •SEALED TO NM-ROM AND DEALL BILL BE . ACOUSTICAL SEALANT NLL BE USED AT TOP AND BOTTOM PLAINS: . • AMD . EATER HB E FURNACE J FURNACE MM • V-VAl= OF MOSS, DOOR, AND SKTIMY& A PPLED MEMO TUB DECKS AND SNORERS STILLS ON OUTSIDE YAW. SEE LSI®DE.iCHEDLLE{ ON PAGES A1: AT, AS • ACOUSTY..LL SEALANT SEA BE USED AT SXTERIOR EAU NTE REECTIONE • VAPOR SARRVER BILL SE TAPED TO LESCO BOX FLANGES. • MREPLA • • FOR NIOLE OU6[ FAN NU PAN SLL OR LOCAT 11 E N BT • POLY AND 060 ILL BE APPLIED BIND AND AT TOP OF SOFFITS TLN7 R NS EH • -YAW Of INI MATERIALi: LEE MGRS AIR 51-2. N S INTERSECT NTH UNHEATED SPACES/EXTENOR SA KNG . AND ELECTRICAL PENETRATIONS, INCLUDING NWE LESCO ALL PINNW. E •RANGE OPLES DRY DRY R� A NOT • INTERIM NS Of R BARRIER VAPOR RETAIIOER AJIO MID 00 4fN • RN JOIST ELL BE SEALED. BOXES BILL BE SEALED. • NNAE NOU6E PFAR, NDkA1NN. H'S PIMLPOSE PANE BARREIL CO S $I SEE MGES N•l tFE WS CAIRLL BE APPLIED SENHO ENDOW FLANGES. E . ALL EXTERIOR PE NETRAINNIf YLL BE HALED. . BATH /AR: • PASSIVE OFG OUCT, .T IN•eo nRF1 ao w..0 IOnu Rn L!•T p.ON tR /1! I FRONT ELEVATION (SIDE ELEVATION .eumm�iTNB AI SCALE: 1/8• -1' -0. - AI SCALE: I/8' -I' —O•. I 4 GENERAL NOTES na I II F C 1 1 � 1 • P ANO TRkIAP OVER ENDOWS. 'N' FRONT FULL TYF' FROI`IT ' INSTALL VT' B ED. S BEH ND O O D L ALL SNARES AND STONE VENEER • PL III TD EE METALLED ORDER PlYB000 PANELS, JUNCTNNIS OF ROOF AND DALLS, CMIMETS. ROOF VALLEYS. CHANGE AL SIDING ELEV. V. TRIM MATERIALS. OR tlHERE SIDING MEETS A TRM EN _-3- BOARD AT BOTTOM OF A Wlt sR• Irinwls_ AI SCALES 1/4' -P -O' _ ••� D -Tn, L wN;7 DATE nioa O -asn BPEET N Oi u,a,aooa 1 „ - - -- • - - - -- - ' Lil "'---- - - <--- --_---- – - — --- -- ------ ------ ' ' __ _ ____ __ SIDE ELEVATION REAR EL A2 SCALE: I el' -O' Al SCALE: 1/8' -1 'A' FRONT FULL E WOODWARD LODGE o.r�T ! ME ET N o: �iw xmxwu�.k a o- ASIDE ELEVATION CIREAR ELEVATION <+� SCALE: I/8" —r—O' SCALE: 1/8" -I' —O" 'N' FRONT FULL auresa ir�.� WOODWARD LODGE 2 M� 9i] /]003 CITY OFROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION City Council Meeting Date: JUNE 15, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: D.A.R.E. GRADUATION FOR AGENDA SECTION: SHANNON PARK ELEMENTARY ANNOUNCMENTS PREPARED BY: MARK DEBETTIGNIES, AG O COUNCIL MEMBER IV APPROVED BY: ATTACHMENTS: NONE RECOMMENDED ACTION: ACKNOWLEDGE AND CONGRADULATE STUDENTS AND STAFF ACTION: ISSUE Acknowledge graduates of D.A.R.E. BACKGROUND Officer Tim Murphy is the D.A.R.E. instructor who conducted 17 weeks training against abuse of drugs for fifth grade students. Council Member Mary Riley attended the ceremony. SUMMARY Shannon Park Elementary School held its D.A.R.E. graduation on June 9, 2004. The students received certificates and the best essays were selected from each class. Also the Spirit Award is presented to the one student who exemplifies the qualities taught in the D.A.R.E. training. Winners were as follows: D.A.R.E. Essay winners: Megan Fitzgerald, Tony Prostrollo, Sam Moffat, Selena Carlson, Jonathon Bishop Spirit Award: Sarah Scinto