Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.m. MCES Proposal for Combined Treated Effluent/Stormwater OutfallCITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 19, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: MCES Proposal for Combined Treated AGENDA SECTION: Effluent/Stormwater Outfall Consent PREPARED BY: Andrew J. Brotzier, P.E., City Engineer AGENDA NO: ��MM ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum, MCES Letter APPROVED BY: / Over the past year and a half, City Staff has been working with MCES Staff towards the construction of a combined treated effluent/stormwater outfall to the Mississippi River. This opportunity to combine systems and reduce overall cost was identified with completion of the City of Rosemount Stormwater Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan and the MCES decision to route a new outfall for treated effluent from the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant through the City of Rosemount, over to the Mississippi River. As a result of a series of meetings with City and MCES representatives, the attached letter dated June 25, 2003 from Mr. Bryce Pickart with MCES presents a proposal for the MCES to oversize a segment of the proposed outfall to provide capacity for the City of Rosemount to discharge stormwater to the outfall As presented at the Council work session on August 13, 2003 and as outlined in the attached memorandum, it is recommended that the City pursue the development of Option 3 to utilize excess MCES capacity in the short- term, as well as pay MCES to oversize the system so 40 CFS capacity will always be available for stormwater runoff from the City of Rosemount. The estimated cost to the City of Rosemount for the oversizing of the outfall to provide 40 CFS permanent capacity for stormwater runoff is $5,000,000. For the MCES to maintain their current project schedule, they have requested a determination by the City of Rosemount of the financial feasibility for City participation in costs associated with the oversizing of the outfall Following the discussion at the August 13, 2003 Council work session, Staff is working to prepare a resolution to present to Council for your consideration. A proposed resolution will be provided to Council prior to the meeting: RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION COUNCIL ACTION: 5 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION UTILITIES COMMISSION MEETING DATE: August 11, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: MCES Proposal for a Combined Outfall AGENDA SECTION: Old Business PREPARED BY: Andrew J. Brotzler, P.E., City Engineer AGENDA NO: 5b. ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum As you are aware, City Staff has been working with MCES for the past year and a half towards the construction of a combined outfall system to the Mississippi River.as part of the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant Outfall project. Recently, the MCES presented to the City a proposal to oversize the downstream end of the outfall system to accommodate additional stormwater flow from the City of Rosemount. The attached memorandum from Pete Willenbring outlines for consideration a review of the options available to the City. Staff is recommending that the Commission consider pursuing Option 3 as outlined in the attached memorandum. RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF OPTION 3 - UTILIZE EXCESS MCES CAPACITY IN THE SHORT -TERM, AS WELL AS PAY MCES TO OVERSIZE THE SYSTEM SO 40 cfs WILL ALWAYS BE AVAILABLE FOR STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT. I Memorandum To: Rosemount Utility Commission From: Pete Willenbring, P.E., WSB & Associates, Inc. Andrew Brotzler, P.E., City Engineer, City of Rosemount Date: Au; ust 6, 2003 Re: Review and Analysis of Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Division Proposal WSB Project No. 1005 -55 It is the purpose of this memorandum to provide a review of the alternatives available to the City of Rosemount to carry water from the City to the Mississippi River in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. As you are aware, the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan anticipates the construction of a stormwater trunk line from the Bloomfield development, easterly, to the Mississippi River. As part of the construction of the outfall, the City has been investigating combining the construction of our system with the proposed MCES treated effluent outfall from the Empire plant. Based on a recent response from MCES concerning potential options for combining these two systems, we have completed an updated analysis of the alternatives that are now available to the City of Rosemount to convey water to the Mississippi River. A general listing of the alternatives that are now available, along with general highlights of these alternatives and their estimated cost are outlined below: Option 1- Build System as Currently Proposed in City of Rosemount Plan Project would be constructed by the City of Rosemount. Outlet will have capacity of 40 cfs at Bloomfield 5` Addition. • Outlet will have capacity of 380 cfs at Trunk Highway 52. C: (Documents and SettingslajblLocal Settingsl Temporary Internet FilesIOLK14W80503- memo- ab.doc WSB WSB & Associates, Inc. 4150 Olson Memorial Highway, #300 Minneapolis, MN 55422 (763) 541 -4800 (763) 541 -1700 (fax) & Associates, Inc. Memorandum To: Rosemount Utility Commission From: Pete Willenbring, P.E., WSB & Associates, Inc. Andrew Brotzler, P.E., City Engineer, City of Rosemount Date: Au; ust 6, 2003 Re: Review and Analysis of Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Division Proposal WSB Project No. 1005 -55 It is the purpose of this memorandum to provide a review of the alternatives available to the City of Rosemount to carry water from the City to the Mississippi River in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. As you are aware, the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan anticipates the construction of a stormwater trunk line from the Bloomfield development, easterly, to the Mississippi River. As part of the construction of the outfall, the City has been investigating combining the construction of our system with the proposed MCES treated effluent outfall from the Empire plant. Based on a recent response from MCES concerning potential options for combining these two systems, we have completed an updated analysis of the alternatives that are now available to the City of Rosemount to convey water to the Mississippi River. A general listing of the alternatives that are now available, along with general highlights of these alternatives and their estimated cost are outlined below: Option 1- Build System as Currently Proposed in City of Rosemount Plan Project would be constructed by the City of Rosemount. Outlet will have capacity of 40 cfs at Bloomfield 5` Addition. • Outlet will have capacity of 380 cfs at Trunk Highway 52. C: (Documents and SettingslajblLocal Settingsl Temporary Internet FilesIOLK14W80503- memo- ab.doc Rosemount Utility Commission August 6, 2003 Page 2 of 4 • Outlet will have capacity of 765 cfs at Mississippi River. • This outlet will reduce flood storage required in the City by 7,000 acre -feet when compared to other alternatives identified herein and could reduce pond construction costs by $10 to $60 million compared to other alternatives outlined herein. • This alternative will allow water to drawdown from a 100 -year snowmelt within 10 days. • The cost for this outfall project is estimated at $30 million. • This project would need to be constructed in 10 -15 years. Option 2 - Utilize Only Excess Capacity that is Available in MCES Outfall for as Long as Possible, Build Separate City System When Needed. It is anticipated that in the near future, approximately 40 cfs of excess capacity will be available in the MCES outfall. This excess capacity will gradually be utilized by MCES, with it being anticipated that no additional capacity will be available in 2025 -2030. MCES has indicated that the City of Rosemount would need to pay MCES to utilize the excess capacity available in this line when it is used. The details of this arrangement have yet to be established. Specifics regarding this alternative are provided below: • Outlet will have capacity of 40 cfs at Bloomfield 2 nd Addition. • Outlet will have capacity of 40 cfs at Trunk Highway 52. • Outlet will have capacity of 40 cfs at Mississippi River. • This outlet will reduce flood storage required in the City by 800 acre -feet and reduce ponding'costs by $1.1 to $6.6 million when compared to other alternatives identified herein. • This alternative will allow water to drawdown from 'a 100 -year snowmelt in about 200 days. • The cost for utilization of this system is not yet established. • An outlet would still need to be constructed in the future, but the construction project could be delayed for 15 to 25 years. C: (Documents and SettingslajblLocal SettingsMemporary Internet FilesiOLK141080503- niemo- ab.doc Rosemount Utility Commission August 6, 2003 Page 3 of 4 Option 3 — Utilize excess MCES capacity in the short -term, as well as pay MCES to oversize the system so 40 cfs will always be available for stormwater runoff from the City of Rosemount. In the short-term, 75 cfs would be available, but this rate would be reduced to 40 cfs by approximately 2030. MCES has indicated that the cost to the City of Rosemount to oversize the system to accommodate this rate would be approximately $5 to $7 million. More specifics regarding the cost and benefits of the system are provided below: • Project would be constructed by MCES. • Outlet will have capacity of 40 -75 cfs at Bloomfield 5` Addition. • Outlet will have capacity of 40 -75 cfs at Trunk Highway 52. • Outlet will have capacity of 40 -75 cfs at Mississippi River. • This outlet will reduce flood storage required in the City by 1,500 acre -feet and reduce funding costs by $2 to $12 million compared to other options. • This alternative will allow water to drawdown from a 100 -year snowmelt in about 100 days. • The cost for this project is $5 to $7 million plus excess capacity usage fees. • This project would need to be constructed by 2005. Option 4 — Oversize MCES system so the City of Rosemount would always have a capacity of 167 cfs reserved for it within the system. It is also anticipated that, in the short-term, an additional 38 cfs would also be available as excess capacity until such a time as the area develops and the treatment plant is upgraded to discharge to its anticipated peak capacity. Details regarding this alternative are provided below: • Project would be constructed by MCES. • Outlet will have capacity of 40 cfs at Bloomfield 5►h Addition. C: (Documents and SettingslajblLocal SettingSITemporary Internet Files OLK14W80503- memo- ab.doc Rosemount Utility Commission August 6, 2003 Page 4 of 4 • Outlet will have capacity of 125 - 160 cfs at Trunk Highway 52. • Outlet will have capacity of 167 - 210 cfs at Mississippi River. • This outlet will reduce flood storage required in the City by 4,000 acre -feet and reduce funding costs by $5.3 to $32 million compared to other options. • This alternative will allow water to drawdown from a 100 -year snowmelt in about 45 days. • The cost for this project is $20 million. • This project would need to be constructed in 2005 (year). Recommendation Based on a review of the above alternatives and the observations made as a result of this analysis, we would recommend that Option 3 be selected provided a suitable agreement can be worked out with MCES. Justification for this selection is based on the following observations: 1. Outlet would be available to accommodate City's needs in the short-term, as well as possibly address longer -term needs if infiltration practices prove to be a long -term effective measure to reduce downstream discharge rates and/or if Flint Hills Resources has a use for our water. 2. If future capacity is not adequate, a system to serve only the east side of Rosemount could be constructed at a cost that is not greater than the cost for the original City system. If you have any questions concerning this information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 763- 287 - 7188. C: (Documents and SettingslajblLocal Settingsl Temporary Internet FileslOLK14W80503- memo- ab.doc Metropolitan Council Building communities that work Environmental Services June 25, 2003 Mr. Jamie Verbrugge City Administrator City of Rosemount 2875 145`' Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 Subject: City Stormwater Discharge into Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Outfall to Mississippi River Dear Mr. Verbrugge: At our June 11, 2003 meeting, we committed to sending you our proposal for leasing 15 million gallons per day (mgd) of outfall capacity for City stormwater conveyance. This letter addresses capital and operating costs for leasing 15 mgd capacity. Capital Cost We propose monthly leasing costs calculated at 4% interest over a 30 -year term for 25% of the capital cost of the 60 mgd segment to be leased. Preliminary calculation examples: 1. Connection Point at downstream end of inveited siphon (1,000 L.F. west of Akron Avenue): a. Lease 15 mgd capacity from this point to 140'' Street West of TH 52 (25 mgd capacity downstream to be purchased as permanent capacity). b. Five -year terms renewable by mutual agreement of City and Metropolitan Council. C. Capital cost of segment = $13,000,000. d. Monthly lease cost = $15,500. 2. Connection Point at 140' Street west of TH 52: a. Lease 15 mgd capacity in addition to 25 mgd capacity purchased as permanent capacity. b. Five -year terms renewable by mutual agreement of City and Metropolitan Council. C. Capital cost of 60 mgd = $22,400,000. d. Monthly lease cost = $26,700. 3. Capital cost of connection facilities shall be borne by the City. Facilities shall include flow control, quality control, flow monitoring, and sampling- access. www.metrocouncil.org Metro Info Line 602 -1888 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 -1626 (651) 602 -1005 Fax 602 -1138 1'1Y 291 -0904 Mr. Jamie Verbrugge City Administrator June 25, 2003 Page Two Operating Cost 1. Sewer Maintenance a. Based on MCES systemwide gravity sewer maintenance cost. b. Volume Charge = $15 per million gallons 2. Quality Control a. MCES plans to monitor stormwater quality before and during a discharge event. b. Event charge is being determined. As stated at our June 11 meeting, our proposal for permanent stormwater conveyance capacity is 25 mgd, i.e. increasing outfall capacity from 60 mgd to 85 mgd. Assuming a stormwater connection point at 140` Street west of TH 52, the incremental capital cost is estimated to be $5,000,000. The City will be expected to pay this incremental cost to the Council on or before completion of construction. Your City Engineer, Andy Bratzler, has requested a meeting on technical issues between your stormwater consultant and our outfall designer, which I have asked our Project Manager, Jim Roth, to coordinate. You have committed to the following: 1. Arranging a meeting with Great River Energy to discuss wastewater effluent reuse and the impact of stormwater. 2. Completing your technical analysis of the impact of our proposal on your stormwater management plan by July 15, 2003. 3. Determining financial feasibility by August 1, 2003. We look forward to our further discussions on this proposal. Please feel free to call me at (65 1) 602 -1091. Sincerely, Bryce J. Pickart, P.E. Assistant General Manager Environmental Services BP:HS cc: W. G. Moore, General Manager J. Roth, Project Manager vJall /bryce/letter /verbrugge.doc i z � i, CITY OF ROSEMOU NT CITY HALL 2875 — 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 Phone: 651. 423.4411 Hearing Impaired 651- 423 -6219 Fax: 651- 423 -5203 PUBLIC NOTICE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Rosemount will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 in the Council Chambers of the Rosemount City Hall, 2875 145 Street West, beginning at 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a public drainage and utility easement vacation affecting the following legally described property: Outlot C, Bloomfield Addition as recorded in the City of Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota. Such person(s) as desire to be heard with reference to the above item will be heard at this meeting. Dated this 7 day of August, 2003. Linda Jentink, C Clerk City of Rosemount Dakota County, Minnesota Auxiliary aids and services are available - Please contact the City Clerk at (612)322 -2003, or TDD No. (612)423 -6219, no later than August 13, 2003 to make a request. Examples of auxiliary aids or services may include: sign language interpreter, assistive listening kit, accessible meeting location, braille, etc. Mailing List for Drainage & Utility Easement Vacation Public Hearing 8 -19 -03 @ 7:30 p.m. Wisconsin Town Lot Co ', Centex Homes Prop Tx Dept 10 Floor Craig J Minea 12400 Whitewater Drive, Suite 120 U Pacific RR Co pMB 078 -463 Minnetonka, MN 55343 1700 Farnam St 827 Union Pacific Omaha, NE 68102 Laredo, TX 78045 -9452 The Rosemount Town Pages AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PLIBIdC NOTICE Chad Richardson, being duly sworn, on oath says that he is an authorized CITY OF ROSEIYIOUNT agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper, known as The DAKOTA COU1vTy, Rosemount Town Pages, and has full knowledge of the facts which are MINNESOTA stated below: NOTICE O)F rusiac DRAINAGE Arm U U.. ry , Y (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting EASEMENT VACATION qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statutes Towl 331A.02, 331A.0 d they ap 1' abl ws s amended> xorlca is G t ( The rented o Roaemouut � council of l ) p the Ci f ondnctA publk hearing on r Tuesday, August 19, 2003 in the Council Chambers of the Rosemount City Hall, 2875 145th, St at reet West beginning this 1 " or -, s 1 reaf[er as possible. The purpose : - of this` heanng rs to consider a public drainage and utility' easement vacation , affecting the following legally': which is attached, was cut from the col s of s newspaper, and was (ks bedpropett}: printed and published once each week for successive outint c ]37oomfiela Addition eks; it was first published on Friday, the _____ = — __.___ day of as recorded in the Cit of Rosemount, Dakota Count 2003 and was thereafter prin d published on every Mmnea °'� Frid , to I l in Friday, the —_ �� -- day Of Such person (s) as desire to be heard with reference to the 2003; and minted below is a copy of the �''° ° "' '" b ` 1i�`d at thi mee"° lower case Aphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby DBrea acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition Ligdalentlnk cttyclerk i and publication of the notice: cit of Rose Clerk Dakota County; Minnesota _ AuxjTtary aids and services areavailablt - Please co - the City Ckrk at ( -2003, or 7DD (612 n n42.ta" ct i abcdefghijklmoopgrstuvwxyz 6219, no Jitter M= August 13, 2003 to make No. a'reguest. Examples of auxiliary aids or services may include: sign - 1 -g -ge fi`nopreter, assistive 14111ning kit accessibk meeting location, braille; etc. 8/08 -8/15 By: Subscribed and sw to before me on this day o3 Notary Public AMY '; AFFIDAVIT gZ DAWN M SMITH' NOTARY PUBLIC -MINNESOTA 40 My Commission Expires Jan. 31,2W5 `+Iw PUBLIC NOTICE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Rosemount will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 in the Council Chambers of the Rosemount City Hall, 2875 145' Street West, beginning at 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a public drainage and utility easement vacation affecting the following legally described property: Outlot C, Bloomfield Addition as recorded in the City of Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota. Such person(s) as desire to be heard with reference to the above item will be heard at this meeting. Dated this 7 th day of August, 2003. Linda Jentink, City Clerk City of Rosemount Dakota County, Minnesota Auxiliary aids and services are available - Please contact the City Clerk at (612)322 -2003, or TDD No. (612)423 -6219, no later than August 13, 2003 to make a request. Examples of auxiliary aids or services may include: sign language interpreter, assistive listening kit, accessible meeting location, braille, etc. t MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator FROM: Andrew J. Brotzler, P.E. City Engineer DATE: August 19, 2003 RE: Supplemental Information Item 6.m. MCES Proposal for Combined Outfall Attached to this memorandum, please find a resolution for Council consideration which authorizes City Staff to enter into negotiations with MCES for the construction of an oversized MCES outfall to the Mississippi River to accommodate stormwater flow from the City of Rosemount. As discussed at the August 13, 2003 Council Work Session, City Staff will pursue the MCES alternative to oversize the outfall to accommodate a 40 cfs discharge of stormwater by the City of Rosemount into the MCES outfall pipe along with the ability to utilize temporary excess capacity in the MCES facility for a period of 20 to 25 years. As noted, the preliminary estimated City cost for the oversizing of the MCES outfall pipe is $5,000,000. A preliminary financial analysis has been prepared by the City's financial consultant, Springsted to review the impact to the City's stormwater utility rate and stormwater core funds. Based on. this preliminary analysis, an annual 5% increase of the stormwater utility rates will be required to fund the projected improvements. The stormwater trunk fee which is collected at the time that properties are developed will need to be increased significantly in 2,004 and then increased 6% annually through 2009. Beginning in 2010, the annual stormwater trunk fee increase can be reduced to 1 %. Attached is a summary of the project stormwater utility fees and trunk fees through 2032. Based on this information, Staff is recommending Council approval of a resolution "AUTHORIZING THE CITY STAFF TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (MCES) TO OVERSIZE THEIR PROPOSED OUTFALL FROM THE EMPIRE PLANT TO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER TO ACCOMMODATE STORM WATER FROM THE CITY OF ROSEOUNT ". HA081903- memo -cc. doc CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2003 — A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY STAFF TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (MCES) TO OVERSIZE THEIR PROPOSED OUTFALL FROM THE EMPIRE PLANT TO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER TO ACCOMMODATE STORM WATER FROM THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT WHEREAS, the MCES is in the process of designing an outfall that will be constructed through the City of Rosemount to carry treated effluent from the Empire Plant that will be directed to the Mississippi River, and WHEREAS, this outfall is proposed to be installed along an alignment similar to that proposed by the City of Rosemount for a future storm water outfall to the Mississippi River, and WHEREAS, the opportunity exists for MCES to oversize their proposed outfall from the Empire Plant to accommodate storm water runoff from the City of Rosemount along this alignment at a cost that would be less than building both systems independently, and WHEREAS, MCES has provided the City with a letter indicating that they may be in a position to oversize their outfall to accommodate storm water from the City of Rosemount provided suitable terms for an agreement can be negotiated between the two parties. These terms deal with sharing capital costs, maintenance costs, addressing MPCA permitting issues and financing considerations, agreeing to the location at which storm water could be introduced into the outfall line, as well as addressing other issues that may or may not have even been identified at this time, and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed three potential alternatives that were outlined in an MCES letter to the City of Rosemount dated June 25, 2003 and has decided that the option to oversize the outfall to accommodate a 40 cfs outflow rate from Rosemount in the future, as well as utilize excess capacity that may be temporarily available in the next 20 to 25 years are options that the City would be interested in pursuing further. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rosemount that: 1) The City Council is authorizing City staff to enter into good -faith negotiations with MCES in an attempt to develop a formal agreement that would address the outstanding issues associated with sharing the outfall, and direct the MCES to oversize their outfall to accommodate storm water runoff from Rosemount. This agreement should also be developed to define terms that may allow the City of Rosemount to utilize additional excess capacity that will be temporarily available to accommodate storm water runoff from the City of Rosemount if needed. Resolution 2003 - 2) This agreement will be subject to the City Attorney's review and approval. ADOPTED this 19` day of August, 2003. William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Linda Jentink, City Clerk Motion by: Voted in favor: Voted against: _ Second by: 2 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA STORM WATER UTILITY PLANNING MODEL SUMMARY SHEET Springsted Incorporated Summary Sheet Advisors to the Public Sector Page 1 8/19/2003 2:53 PM CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA STORM WATER UTILITY PLANNING MODEL SUMMARY SHEET Springsted Incorporated Advisors to the Public Sector Summary Sheet Page 2 8/19/2003 2:53 PM CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA STORM WATER UTILITY PLANNING MODEL SUMMARY SHEET Springsted Incorporated Summary Sheet I Advisors to the Public Sector Page 3 8/19/2003 2:53 PM CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA STORM WATER UTILITY PLANNING MODEL SUMMARY SHEET Springsted Incorporated 4 Advisors to the Public Sector Summary Sheet 8/19/2003 Page 4 2:53 PM CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA STORM WATER UTILITY PLANNING MODEL SUMMARY SHEET Springsted Incorporated Advisors to the Public Sector Summary Sheet Page 5 8/19/2003 2:53 PM t 41 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2003 - A RESOLUTION FOR DENIAL OF A CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REQUESTED BY TOLLEFSON DEVELOPMENT INC. BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for a concept planned unit development for a single - family residential development on April 22, 2003, for which the Developer asked to delay the review. WHEREAS, on July 2, 2003 Tollefson Development submitted a revised plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing as required on July 22, 2003; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received information from staff explaining the inconsistencies of the concept with the 2020 Rosemount Comprehensive Plan and AG District Zoning; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend denial of the concept to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, The City Council considered the concept request with the Planning Commission recommendation and meeting minutes indicating concerns from staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby denies the concept planned unit development request requested by Tollefson Development based upon fmdings of fact: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The concept plan is inconsistent with the 2020 Rosemount Comprehensive Plan. 2. The concept plan is an example of "leap -frog" development, which proposes urban density development on land that does not have urban services available. 3. The concept plan is not located within the current Metropolitan Urban Service Area. 4. The concept plan proposes in installation of urban infrastructure that would connect to future infrastructure that has not yet been designed. Therefore, approval of the concept infrastructure limits future design scenarios. 5. The concept is inconsistent with Agriculture District density and lot standards. 6. The concept site is only accessible over unimproved County Roads, with no method available to improve the roads at this time. Resolution 2003 ADOPTED this 19th day of August, 2003 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount William Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Linda Jentink, City Clerk Motion by: Voted in favor: Voted against: _ Member absent: Seconded by: ` 4� Au` ust 13 2003 Rosemount City Council Member- City of Rosemount ff)) Rosemount, MN 550682' ---� Re: Asbury Glen Drainage Pond Dear Members of the City Council: z I am writing this letter on behalf of interested residents of Asbury Glen in response to a letter sent to me by An y Brotzler who stated his reasons for our pond's problem with e.Qsion G- Ll He made two point in his evaluation: (1) The fjm we have had in place for seven years aerating and beautifying the pond causes a ripple effect eating away at the shoreline. (2) Pond weeds should be planted on the shoreline 20 & up the slope. As to the fountain causing wave action to the degree of eroding the edge we honestly can say that ripples reaching the edge from fountains function are actually miniscul _ hat should be asked is why the effect --9f winct.on the wave netin., wa nnt 'mP ed The winds from the south and northwest whistle between our townhouses and cause an almost constant and relentless wave action far more sever than that caused by the fountain. In response to the planting pondweeds around the shore we can say this pond is very close and personal. We don't have a gradually slopping bank made up of many feet of pond approach. Right now the pond's edge . A . 17 feet from our patio retaining wall. To say the pitch of the slope is quite steep would be a mild observation. Already, several grand children have "rolled" into the water so far with no serious results. We have lost more than a foot of shoreline since 1994 making the slope even steeper. 0 s ` We 1 e our ducks. We dote on them and we don't want to lose them, but ey too are responsible for feeding on the available weed and grass r ts, which could help to retain our fragile shoreline. We make no claims to be more knowledgeable than the experts on pond maintenance. We do live "on the pond" and are keen observers of its deterioration over the years. We maintain that Asbury Pond is not your normal or average catch basin. Wensmann Construction dug the original basin. He landscaped it as we see it today with sod to the waters edge. His sales people charged $5,000 extra for a pond lot. This last item bonded us closely to this pond. r With these observations in mind we ask that our pond be reconsidered as f a candidate for minimum riprap rock treatment before the damage is so drastic and severe that danger and costs will escalate. We ask for a six (6) foot plastic underlayment with rock three (3) feet in the water and rock three (3) feet around the bank of the pond. Please reconsider our pond in your restoration program. We thank you for your consideration regarding this matter. Any questions you may have regarding this matter please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Si cerely, ` 4( 91d Eibner (651) 322 -2512 401