Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.a. Dakota County Shop UpdateCITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR DISCUSSION COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE: April 11, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: Dakota County Shop Update AGENDA NO. PREPARED BY: Tom Burt, City Administrator f - L `= ATTACHMENTS: Memo from Bret Weiss, WSB Attached is a memo from Bret Weiss, Interim City Engineer, regarding the proposed Dakota County Shop. Bret will be making a presentation at the meeting and answer any of the questions you may have with reference to this memo or project. RECOMMENDED ACTION NOTES: Memorandum M Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Rosemount Bret A. Weiss, P.E. Interim City Engineer April S, 2001 Dakota County Shop Utility Service At the March 6, 2001 Council meeting, the City Council directed Staff to evaluate the issues surrounding Dakota County's proposal to construct their new maintenance facility south of 160' Street and east of Trunk Highway 3. Recently Dakota County purchased 80 acres in that area, 40 of which would be utilized for the construction of a new maintenance facility with a south 40 acres being retained for the future. Attached to this memo is documentation associated with the identified issues that needed to be addressed along with a copy of the letter sent to Dakota County requesting necessary information. It is our understanding that Dakota County fully intends to construct the maintenance facility in this site and has prepared design plans to utilize on -site water and sanitary sewer facilities. Recently however, Environmental Protection. Agency (EPA) has imposed new regulations on the design of such a facility from an on -site treatment standpoint. The EPA, MPCA and Met Council have encouraged further evaluation of utilizing municipal water and wastewater systems as opposed to constructing on site systems. The attached material is intended to summarize responses to the issues identified previously as well as provide supporting documentation so that the City Council can make an informed decision. Minneapolis - St. Cloud • Equal Opportunity Employer Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Rosemount April 6, 2001 Page 2 Consideration of Extension of Public Utilities to Proposed Dakota County Shop Located South of 160t Street At the March 6, 2001 City Council Meeting, County Engineer, Don Theisen, on behalf of Dakota County, asked the City Council to reconsider the extension of public utilities to the proposed Dakota County Shop located south of 160' Street between Trunk Highway (TH) 3 and the Biscayne Avenue. This request was predicated on a request by the EPA that Dakota County reconsider on -site systems for this type of facility due to potential environmental concerns. Attached to this memo is the letter sent to Don Theisen requesting additional information in order to provide appropriate answers to your questions. The discussion within this document is mostly informational and was derived from the County, with the exception of certain items. Consequently, the memo may sound as though it is written in the County's voice. The following items are identified through the discussion at the council meeting as well as other issues that are pertinent to the discussion: 1. Site Selection: At the meeting there was some discussion with regard to how the County selected the current site for construction of the county shop. In an effort to better understand how the site was selected, the County Engineer prepared a chronological history of the siting process. The chronological history is attached for your information. D 2. What will happen with the existing county shop located on Biscayne Avenue north of 145" Street ?: The following response was received from the County. "The county is reviewing options for all county property that will become vacant with the construction of the proposed transportation facility and northern service center. A report to the County Board is expected in July 2001 with regard to what properties will become available. Currently no options have been identified for this property. The City of Rosemount will be informed and consulted as options are considered. The County intends any future use to be consistent with city regulations." 3. What will happen to the south 40 -acres of the 80 -acre parcel ? ": The County purchased 80 -acres directly south of 160t' Street for the construction of the County Shop. The County identified that 80 -acres was purchased because that is the amount that was owned by the property owner. The County stated "The south 40- acres will remain zoned in the Empire Township Comprehensive Plan as agricultural. Permitted uses under this zoning are identified on the attached excerpt from the Empire Township Comprehensive Plan.00 In the short term the County plans to lease the property for farming. The transportation facility is being designed so that all expansion needs for the future can be met on the north 40- acres. Any building construction plans on the south 40 -acres will require a comprehensive plan Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Rosemount April 6, 2001 Page 3 amendment approval from the Township and the Metropolitan Council. The County is not opposed to a water and sewer service agreement that limits service to the north 40 -acres to address development concerns for the south 40- acres." 4. Landscape Plan and Buffers: There was some question as to how the shop would blend into the area and how the buffers would be established. The County stated the following "A landscaping plan will be provided as the project moves forward. The attached memo dated November 24, 2000 from Oertel Architects describes the level of commitment by the County in this area and the theme for the landscaping." A memo is attached to this letter from Oertel Architects states that the budget for landscaping is set at 2% of the project budget or approximately $120,000.00 The buffers are in accordance with the Empire Township Zoning ordinance proposed setbacks of 110 -feet from the property line. According to the County, the setback areas will include berming which would make any encroachment into the setback area undesirable. In addition, the construction of parking lots, fuel islands, and building orientation provide physical barriers. The facility is being planned so that all expansion needs for the next 25 -years or foreseeable future can occur well outside of any minimum setback area. 5. Water and Sanitary Sewer Requirements: The County has provided information that the current Rosemount Highway Shop used approximately 325,000 gallons of water in the year 2000. Of that, approximately 150,000 gallons were used for domestic purposes. The remainder was utilized for vehicle washing. They expect that vehicle washing will increase due to improved capabilities and consolidating the fleet to this new site. An approximate increase of 75,000 gallons for a total water usage of 400,000 gallons is anticipated. The County stated that trucks will be washed in the winter after snow removal operations and in the summer when necessary. Sediment and flammable waste traps would be used before any water is discharged to the sanitary sewer system. To provide a frame of reference a single family residential home typically utilizes approximately 100,000 gallons per year. Therefore this site would be the equivalent of four single family residential home sites. 6. Cost to Extend Utilities to the Site and Necessary Easement Needs: In an effort to evaluate the possible routes, costs, and easement requirements for extending sanitary sewer to the Dakota County Shop, SEH was asked to complete a minor study of the options. The parameters set forth for the options were to find the most direct, cost effective, and least intrusive route to provide sanitary sewer service to the County facility. As you are aware, currently the watermain is located along 160t' Street and is readily accessible to the County should the City decide to provide Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Rosemount April 6, 2001 Page 4 water service to the County. Two options for sanitary sewer service were identified and are attached to this memo.® Option Number 1 is the recommended option for the following reasons: a. Provides the most direct route to the Dakota County Shop. b. Could be completed with minimal disruption to adjacent property owners. c. Could be readily designed by the City of Rosemount and constructed by Dakota County, including the acquisition of any easements at Dakota County's cost. The downside to Option 1 is that it does not provide sewer access to existing businesses located north of 160' Street within the City of Rosemount and would still require the extension of sewer onto those properties in the future. Ultimately, if it were the City's goal to extend sewer immediately to those property owners, then Option Number 2 would be the preferred option. The property surrounding Dakota Fence noted as the RCD real estate property can not be served by sanitary sewer from the north and in order to develop would need the extension of the proposed sanitary sewer line shown in Option 2. Concerns with this option, however, involve increased easement costs and significant assessment to the adjoning property owners. Further, crossing along the property line between the Stern and Car Nav Five property may create an undesirable piece of land once the extension of Boulder Trail is completed. It should be noted that the estimated assessments provided for Option 2 assume that Option 1 is not constructed. If Option 1 is constructed, the assessments would need to be readjusted for Option 2 when it is constructed in the future. It should further be noted that Option 2 is the sanitary sewer extension that will be necessary in the future but does not have to be constructed at this time. If the City were to move forward with the extension of sanitary sewer, it would be our recommendation that the County assume all responsibility for acquisition of easements negotiating any assessment to the Car Nav Five property and being responsible for the bidding and construction of the project. We would recommend that the City oversee with the design and construction administration but that the full construction cost would be the responsibility of Dakota County. 7. Fire Protection Issues: The City of Rosemount currently has a water system located on the north side of 160' Street along the proposed County facility. The extension of water service for fire protection needs is readily available and easily completed. In an effort to best answer the fire protection question, I had a discussion with George Lundy, City of Rosemount Fire Marshall. Mr. Lundy stated that the City of Rosemount has a mutual aid agreement with adjacent cities that provides for fire response for properties Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Rosemount April 6, 2001 Page 5 located within a mile of the City borders. Considering the proximity of the proposed Dakota County Shop, the City of Rosemount would likely be the first fire fighters to respond to any fire at the facility. Mr. Lundy stated that if water service was not provided from the City of Rosemount there would need to be some creative design work done that would likely include a fire pump, tank, and multiple wells that could be significantly expensive. Mr. Lundy's recommendation was that at a minumum, the City of Rosemount should consider extending fire protection to the shop facilities. It is likely that the Rosemount fire department will otherwise utilize the existing fire hydrants along 160`' Street and would shut down 160`' Street to run hoses across even if the watermain was not extended due to the close proximity of the watermain. Mr. Lundy stated that the City could charge a surcharge to areas outside the city due to the fact that they do not pay taxes within the City in an effort to address the potential cost of providing these services. It is possible that the County could also petition the City for fire protection services. Mr. Lundy stated that because the City is likely to be the first responder that it would be his recommendation that the City extend fire protection at a minimum to the County Shop to insure the best capabilities for fire fighting in the area and to protect the Rosemount fire department personnel. Empire Wastewater Treatment Capacity Issues: In order to address how the connection of the proposed Dakota County shop would impact the capacity of the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant, I contacted Jim Roth and Kyle Colvin of the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. They stated that there are concerns with the amount of discharge to the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant and that the City must stay within the guidelines of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Roth stated that as long as the City stays within those guidlines he would not have any problem with the highway shop being connected to the system. It appears that the City may have some issues related to what was stated in the Comprehensive Plan through the year 2005. Attached you will find a copy of the service district for the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant. Additionally, the following areas were determined to be likely to be developed by the end of 2005: a. Shennaigan's Liquor Store b. Carousel Plaza Town Homes c. Carousel Plaza Office Building d. Rosemount Commons e. Shannon Pond South f. Geronomie Pond g. Properties Located East of TH 3 Calculating the area that is anticipated to be connected through the end of 2005 within this area amounted to an additional estimated average daily flow of + 200,000 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Rosemount April 6, 2001 Page 6 gallons. This amount is in question with the MCES. However, the letter from Caren Dewar, Metropolitan Council Community Development Director, encourages the connection to public systems with the notion that truck wash water be limited until adequate capacity is developed at the Empire Plant. 9. Who is Affected by Extending the Service ?: If Option 1 is selected, the property owners of Car Nav Five would be affected through the purchase of additional easement and possible assessment. The property would be increased in value however through the extension of sanitary sewer adjacent to the property. No other properties would be affected by extension of the service to the property. 10. How is adjacent development control addressed ?: I'm not aware of any other development proposed in this area. The City does not have any responsibility to provide utility service to any adjacent properties in the area. It appears from the attached letter from the Metropolitan Council that any other development in the area would be subject to review by the Metropolitan Council, which doesn't appear likely to be approved.6 I would also direct your attention to the letter from Mr. Stenzel, Chair of the Empire Town Board that addresses this issue.© 11. How Does the Fact That This is a Public Entity Affect the Issue ?: It seems apparent from the memos from Empire Township as well as the Metropolitan Council that no other type of development has even been considered in this area. The City can benefit from the construction of the Dakota County Shop adjacent to their border and not within the City limits. Obviously, the fact that the development is a County Highway Shop has had a definite impact on the agencies offering support to the project. There are many options for private developers within Rosemount and adjoining Cities that denying any other development in this location would not be a hardship. 12. Identify the Pro's and Con's: Pro's • Shared Salt Facilities: Currently the City of Rosemount does not have a salt storage area and utilizes the parking lot adjacent to the public works facility. There is current legislation being pushed forward to require that all salt piles greater than 100 -ton be covered.0 This legislation has passed every committee so far and is presently listed under general orders. It can be brought to the floor at any time. The City did place $50,000 in their 2001 budget for enclosing the existing salt pile, however, it is unlikely that this amount would be adequate to build an acceptable storage area. Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Rosemount April 6, 2001 Page 7 The County has indicated a willingness to allow the City to utilize the County Shop facilities for sand and salt and would provide access to their facility for the City to use as necessary. Further, currently the City of Rosemount rents a loader during the winter months to load the sand and salt into the plow trucks. Rick Cook stated that in 2000 -2001 winter we have spent in excess of $18,000 on rental fees. The County has stated that we would be allowed to utilize their loader at no additional cost. • Central Location: Central location of the shop is good for all of Dakota County and will help reduce costs and improve service for maintenance activities. Further the location adjacent to the City of Rosemount allows for convenient access for the City to easily access the facility. Compatible Adjacent Land Use: Considering the land use located within the City north of the proposed Dakota County Shop there would not be any impact to adjoining property owners. • Minimal Loss of Tax Base: This location is the best of all worlds for the City of Rosemount because it so not utilize taxable lands yet it is located directly adjacent to the City. • No Sensitive Environmental Features: While there are some concerns with the environmental issues related to constructing an on -site system, there are no other environmental issues that have been identified that would be of a concern for construction in this location. Payment of Trunk Connection Fees: Dakota County would be required to pay trunk fees for the developed area with little or no cost to the City of Rosemount trunk systems. Con's • Development Within an Agricultural Zone Outside the City Without Utilities: Construction of a facility of this type using on -site facilities could cause groundwater contamination issues. It is in an area that has been identified for agricultural uses and no development. Creates an issue with the existing shop as to how that area will be developed: It is likely that this issue would be in place one way or the other because the County has determined that they can not utilize the existing shop. Summary: Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Rosemount April 6, 2001 Page 8 The development of a County shop near the City of Rosemount is beneficial to the City in many ways. The most significant economical reason has to do with salt and sand storage. An intangible advantage is to continue the positive working relationship with the County so that the important transportation projects continue to be actively pursued. At a minimum, I would recommend connection of fire protection water to the facility due to the close proximity and the importance of fire protection. Please don't hesitate to call me at (763) 287 -7190 if I can answer any questions prior to the meeting or if you need additional information. Jw o 11, Fig CITY HALL 2875 — 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 Phone: 651-423-4411 Hearing Impaired 651- 423 -6219 Fax: 651 - 423 -5203 March 14, 2001 Mr. Don Theisen Dakota County Highway Engineer Dakota County Western Service Building 14955 Galaxie Avenue Apple Valley, MIV 55124 Re: Information Request Proposed Dakota County Highway Shop Dear Mr. Theisen: This letter is a follow -up to the March 6, 2001 Council discussion regarding Dakota County's request to have City services extended to the proposed shop. At that meeting, the City Council directed Rosemount Staff to prepare information related to the anticipated cost of extending services to the facility as well as evaluate other potential issues. Once the cost information is prepared, City Council would like to have the Dakota County Board agree to Dakota County's share of the costs prior to the information being brought back to a future City Council workshop. Council also expressed an interest in other information that is prudent to their discussion on whether or not to extend services to the proposed facility. The following is a list of issues that the Staff will attempt to address prior to the workshop: 1. What was the site selection process that was completed for the proposed shop? 2. What will happen to the existing shop? 3. What are the possibilities for the south 40 acres? 4. Provide the landscaping and screening plan in letter or legal size? 5. How are we assured that the buffers will not be expanded into? 6. Provide the anticipated water and sewage needs for the facility. Explain the truck washing process and how it impacts the sewer system. 7. Provide any other information that may be pertinent to the issue or would assist the Staff. To that end, we would appreciate the County provide us with all available information to assist with addressing the issues. The City Staff was asked to review the following issues: 1. What is the cost to extend utilities to the shop and how will those costs be allocated? 2. What easements are required to complete the sanitary sewer installation and what are the costs associated with acquiring the easements? Will condemnation be necessary? 3. Are there fire protection issues related to not connecting to the City system? Who is the first call for fire service? How will the fire protection contract be handled? 4. What is the sanitary sewer capacity for the Empire WWTP and how would the shop affect that capacity? 5. Who will be affected by this extension of services? 6. How does this project accomplish the Met Councils goals for a buffer from urban to rural? 7. How can the Council be sure that additional development won't follow the construction of the shop? S. What are the pro's and con's of the shop being constructed in this location? 9. If this were a private entity instead of public, would we be considering extending services? The City Council is quite adamant in the fact that the City of Rosemount should not be' responsible for the costs to complete the analysis. Accordingly, we are requesting that Dakota County place a deposit with the City in the amount of $15,000 to allow for the completion of the anticipated analysis. We propose that the information is gathered over the next month and if possible discussed at the April I Ith Council work session. We appreciate your assistance in gathering as much information as possible to allow the City to complete this analysis and prepare the appropriate information for the City Council. If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter do not hesitate to contact Tom Burt or me at 651- 322 -2006 or 651- 322 -2025, respectively. Sincerely, n Bret A. Weiss, P.E. Interim City Engineer cc: Tom Burt, City Administrator File T, CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF TRANSPORTATION fFACILJTY SITING [PROCESS In 1997 a feasibility study projected future space and site requirements. it became clear that the County needed additional land both for shop operations and as a buffer from encroaching residential development. The study determined that the County needed a minimum of 30 acres. ® For nearly a year, the County tried to buy property adjacent to the existing site. The adjacent landowner rejected all County Offers. 4 While it is highly desirable to centralize operations in one location, the County considered a split facility with buildings in close proximity. We explored purchasing property across the street from the current facility from the National Guard and 2 landowners. The National Guard and the owners of the first site were not interested in selling nor leasing any of their property. The owners of the second site wanted $70,000 an acre, which is significantly above market value. ® By March 1998, the County Board made the decision to relocate all functions of the highway operations facility to a new site and to sell the existing site. 1. It is more efficient and effective to centralize the highway operations f unctions in one location. 2. More land is needed for a larger building(s) and to sore the equipment and materials. 3. The current 30 year old facility is too small and in poor condition. 4. The facility is now surrounded by no- compatible (residential) uses. 4 Based on the response time criteria, staff identified an area between County Road 58 (south) and County State Aid Highway 38 (north) and County State Aid Highway 31 (west) and Trunk Highway 52 (east) as the target search area. ® The County explored sites in the Rosemount Business Park. The City of Rosemount was not receptive to this facility being located in this Business Park due to loss of tax base. The search area expanded to include the Koch buffer land, the University of Minnesota, the Dakota County Vocational Technical College, property adjacent to the County's Farmington site and a variety of other sites 1. Koch indicated that for risk management reasons that they did not want to sell or lease any corporation land. They referred us to property directly adjacent to their buffer. This owner (corner of Akron and Hwy 42) wanted $30,000 an acre for agricultural land. 2. The University replied that a highway shop is not consistent with their vision for the use of their property and was not interested in selling or leasing. We have contacted the University on three occasions in the last two years and received the same response. 3. The VoTech College has a master plan that utilizes all of its property and therefore declined the County's offer. 4. Farmington, like Rosemount, indicated that they do not want a highway shop in their business park. They also did not want expansion of the current highway shop in Farmington. In the fall 1999, the County contracted with a local real estate agent in hopes that he would be able to identify a willing seller in the Rosemount area. No additional land with city utilities was identified. The relocation of the Trunk Highway 3 and County State Aid Highway 46 (160 Street) intersection and the construction of CSAH 46 provided an opportunity for the County to negotiate for a compatible site south of CASH 46. North of CSAH 46 is the Rosemount Business Park; south of CSAH is Empire Township. The land in Township is not served by city utilities. Empire The County made three offers — two in Empire Township at the intersection of Trunk Highway 3 and CSAH 46 and one at Akron Avenue and CSAH 42. Only one of the owners (Mullery et.al.) accepted the offer. After considering the implications of building with well and septic, the County again searched for a site looking east of Trunk Highway 52, and in northern Lakeville to the west. No site with city utilities, in a non - residential area was for sale for less than $25,000 per acre. ® The County Board approved a Purchase Agreement with the landowners on October 3, 2000. ® The County closed and took ownership of the property on March 2, 2001. L 1 -D-IG 666 `OU7, r' , ;9w .-Ur dzrfsuAgol oTjo saoz7z!jnQar PUF sfaof azp .7Ptp aaMsua of YjaaardolaAap uozsr irpgres lF aol slaaraaaf'V XT9urd0fa/ -k7 oi f s,�2'�pPCar aofhu 07 S=70F rllaM lo/PUF JU- 7azd0faAap ffZMS= Oj 7=019fpF sMITF of aaaurdolar ap �rrar7 � sVRrjnn -�Prlgnd oV ssaMP Prm 67aarudofaAap.yau ur aza -v.Wd s7ran aarga s gs?lgwH f ssaaF IF17=prar ffum= -7 uz s- 7,UZUap UMJZBFur PUP J -7Wazd Mquapasay sP.a UW Jolpaaj uraolaan Pun saorsMO-Td =W 0; jgffzr dolaWa � - raumuaw am SP- UPUW -AY mb - IPJV.ad P171? Iros _lMp arnsua of .repro ur `Paelruaul -rof « sa�z rd �garaa raPrrr .l W., moumrd `. �znilra�r� lraddns ao aA.zas �l,�aArp jnlp ssagrsa�q jo 70A* -7= 91P gjzm `sraar lumllmzjffv aar sasn Fz4mPaTPav lr=raruuaos jrgrrlard � l p mlr ?Lr alp zq sRgrpm Pap jLvgj J =urdolaw- ap .lrgrrfard s A ru�z�ordsarLraasardl�ara�ltz�r age' ZUPuZl3o Jrraurllorcra f -M.IZ7nlOA jaoddZ7S surp-saepur asn PuPlluaMIZZ; Par suognzado ffara aW as mq= pum amlareur llz& .7mp safuYaaur offrmwua pur zroddnr � - aoz7oas.ra�az�nb aagenb -a.7d auroal auo o4 smTV lw lw b' ua sar asuap juaurdofar�au PAuapz l =J uOu larg77 ,p F.injji :DuA -r 99 ZoN® •4rgsumc.L arp ro s uaprsaalfP of s- z,gfwwoddo u ®r��aa:,ara� ass d pug -7 WV apr�oa� 5F.gm waddo feu ®r�na ar to I �aaa�f o� ssao�� a�Vq a7dUTgJO s7aap= aaP JF -IZ=H 99J -Rds undo par s, pug of qra'7 Urzm aP ro ruatszs V, ajvarD � •u ®afar age o.� drr�su.�a,� alp ffV?73auuoa puM arazlsZrhlOj a1P Zpoq =X,& aojzMrodsup..r? x o-;p pay ass E, azrrsu f -� aaP',fo f.,arsrafbz�rq prr�.��rguq a .T,oa.�ard ,,w -7fregaaur -mmm Puno-TsPIM Swum m7rgp"fmmiFa y- ; arAmb q,JaWsa-- `ssFgnnZWoddo aro ,70a= a ;ouroad or scam puma m prae aw� mgxud- IlddrPS -z;l --.siPuaaoffs, drarlsar, of 9'97 I-WUMb pa747Mb agP;79.7aad P�zaaa� rrr�aaruao as laar�tuu aq� to �uaara fmas su www7s Zur par :s gap ®oll Viz® rallo asroa .10 zap `aaXA : uoZg la g ro ==zT `apc od aa. q, ` ;a; sz�a sf rSuouea uraOS7 � aarsrdofaf�ap a gm= ;Uoaazr PUP .za.JLP&UUoXsjo uo=Z;&T PZW M ag7.rolS7=, /-rl a arar. s rdPu a � i OLM05 = .Ha G& 7y, JIZPM zaAof ,agsdr cz, of s n3r aAeg, P-rm tna'7 of I-x-mWo4 o aq7 'Trzp aazessv ,a - =- agvc sf off ��aof a aA�g$ s� aoo ��fP� Pew - 123V pros &ar Vwnco o1 paj s7mos7 go a`hpmmo,L aT jd aqqujaa=rdad � umm q M 4ar^- 22 -'01 03 e 200 CERTEL AV�CHITECTS 653 6 ST �3a P _ D3 (3)ERTEL ARCHITECTS 1795 SAINT, CLAD AVENUE, SAINT PAUL, IVIN 55105 TEL 6 FAX 651/646 -5188 DATE: November 24, 2000 TO: Dean Johanso RE: Dakota County Highway Department Empire Facility Landscaping P_4 I Date iR of pages Fax Note 876731 4a Fax# TVOM Phone# The following is a brief description of our approach to the landscaping for the Highway Department project. The final plans for the site will be ready in December / January and will be provided to Empire 'Township for review and approval. Landscaping Design Philosophy The current site has been used for farming for several decades, replacing the native prairie grasses and vegetation. It is our intent to restore a greater portion of the site to the prairie -like landscape. Since the need for screening, noise reduction and buffering is important to the community and owner, trees, bushes and larger landscaping features will be provided as they are considered an important elements of the total project. Buffering and screening will also be created with t. a use of earth berms, on which some of the landscaping will be planted. The larger open areas of land will be planted with native gausses and wildflowers. The wildflowers will include cone flowers, daisies, black eyed susans, Queen Ann's lace and similar native flowering plants. At these areas, native trees will be placated strategically, in groups, to minimize headlight glare, noise and visual impact from highway operations. Around the building more conventional landscaping will be used including sod, colorful bushes and shrubs, and a number of deciduous and coniferous trees. The trees will be selected for their color and variety to provide interest year - round. These trees include birch, dogwood, flowering crab and similar plants. The conifers include the hearty black hills spruce, for example. Landscaping Financial Corm - dtmeant: The budget for the vegetation is set at 2% of the project budget, or approximately $120,000.00. It is the intent to provide - gees with reasonable size and substance so that the site will look 'free dimensional, colorful and full within a short period of tune. G� Don Theisen, Dakota County Dakota- County Shop Sanitary Sewer Study Rosemount, Minnesota Option 1 April 4, 2001 Cost Summary - KE ESTAM PT s Subtotal Sanitary Sewer Construction $155,900 Plus 10% Contingencies $15,590 Estimated Construction Cost $171,490 Plus 30% Admin, Legal, Fiscal, and Engineering $51,510 Estimated Cost without Easements $223,000 Estimated Easement Cost $62,000 Total Estimated Cost $285,000 Assessment Summary Parcel Owner Parcel ED Construction Easements Total Car Nav Five 340321002370 $52,000 $15,000 $67,000 Dakota County - -- $171,000 $47,000 $218,000 Total - -- $223,000 $62,000 $285,000 Dakota County Shop Sanitary Sewer Study Rosemount, Minnesota Option 2 April 4, 2001 Cost Summary Subtotal Sanitary Sewer Construction $283,260 Plus 10% Contingencies $28,326 Estimated Construction Cost $311,586 Plus 30% Admin, Legal, Fiscal, and Engineering $94,414 Estimated Cost without Easements $406,000 Estimated Easement Costs $108,000 Total Estimated Easement Cost $514,000 Assessment Summary Parcel Owner Parcel ID Estimated Assessment Car Nav Five 340321002370 $48,339 Leo G. Stern 340321001165 $48,339 Highstone Lmtd Ptn 343280001001 $107,424 Donfranco 340321001585 $35,449 Metro Mosquito Control 340321001985 $35,449 Dakota County - -- $131 Total - -- $406,000 91 Assessments assume Option 1 is not constructed. If Option 1 is constructed, assessments may change Metrop olitan Council Improve regional competitiveness in a global economy February 22, 2001 Thomas Burt, City Administrator City of Rosemount 2875 145`' Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 Re: Dakota County Highway Facility Dear Mr. Burt: I am writing to outline the thinking of the Metropolitan Council staff concerning the proposed Dakota County highway facility to be located adjacent to your southern border across 160' Street. On February 14`' the Council approved an Empire Township Plan Amendment that will permit the county project. A copy of the staff report on the project is enclosed. From a land use perspective, our concern was the conversion of farmland to urban purposes. The Council's Regional Blueprint provides that urban uses should not be permitted on agricultural lands unless there is strong evidence that the proposed urban use cannot be located elsewhere. In light of the county's location requirements for a central county facility and its extensive efforts to locate the facility in Rosemount, as described in Attachment 2 to our report, staff has concluded that the project is consistent with the Regional Blueprint. We are concerned about the provision of public services for the project. As noted in our report, new EPA regulations prohibit the discharge of waste from floor drains or the vehicle wash process to ground waters. Without public services, it will be difficult and expensive to take the appropriate environmental precautions. The site is in the Vermillion River watershed and tributary to the Vermillion River trout stream. For these reasons, we believe it would be very desirable for the facility to be served with public sewer and water service. We strongly recommend that any service extensions be sized to serve this facility only in order to discourage unplanned growth into the agricultural area south of 160`' Street. We strongly encourage the city of Rosemount to provide public water and sewer service in a manner consistent with applicable rules. We are also concerned that the project be developed in a way that recognizes the current capacity limitations at the Empire wastewater treatment plant. That may mean that the truck wash water discharges into the sewer system might need to be carefully limited until additional treatment capacity comes on line. If you have any questions about this matter, my staff is ready to assist the city in this important matter. Sincerely, Caren Dewar Community Development Director Attachment cc: John Conzemius, Metropolitan Council District 16 Susan Hoyt, Director, Physical Development Division, Dakota County Lynn Moratzka, Director, Office of Planning, Dakota County Donald Theisen, County Engineer, Dakota County Gerald Stelzel, Chair, Empire Town Board ter, Dean Johnson, Research Strategies Corporation Eli Cooper, MCCD Director, Planning and Growth Management o `� Michael King, Sector Representative C �'�_ L — L U Judy Sventek, Watershed Coordinator V:ILIBRARrCOMMUYDV\2001Tmp PI Amed. Dk. Cty. Hway ltr to Rose. 2.22.01.doc .uw.metrocouncil.org Metro Info Line 602 -1888 230 East Fifth Street • St. Paul. Minnesota 55101 -1626 • (651) 602 -1000 • Faa 602 -i.gsn . i-ry ,)oi -non,, Livable Communities Committee Meeting date: Fe Date: Subject: District(s), Member(s): Policy/Legal Reference: Staff Prepared/Presented: Division/Department Proposed Action/Motion 5, 2001 January 24, 2001 Executive Summary Agenda Item: SW- 2001 -26 Empire Township Comprehensive Plan - Referral File No. 18440 -1 Metropolitan Council District 16 (John Conzemius) 507- 263 -2545) Minn. Stat. § 473.864, Subd. 2 and § 473.175, Subd. 1 Michael R. Ding AICP, Principal Reviewer (651 -602- 1438); Eli Cooper, Director, Planning and Growth Management Department (651- 602 - 1521); Caren Dewar, Director, Community Development Division (651 -602 -1306) Community Develo That the Metropolitan Council adopt the following recommendation: and Growth That Empire Township may place the revised plan amendment into effect. Issues Should the Council permit Empire Township to place the revised comprehensive plan amendment into effect? Overview The Township fixed a plan amendment to change the land use designation of 80 acres from Long -Term Agriculture to Public/ Institutional to accommodate a new Dakota County highway maintenance facility. The site is located in the northwest section of the township on the south side of County Highway 46 (160 street) and adjacent to the southerly border of the city of Rosemount. The Regional Growth Strategy map designates the site as "Permanent Agricultural Area." The site is across County Highway 46 from the 2000 MUSA boundary and Iands designated "Urban Area, "(see attachment 1). The discussion of the Permanent Agricultural Area in the Blueprint says that urban uses should not be permitted on agricultural lands unless there is a strong showing that the use cannot be located elsewhere. Council staff believes that Dakota County has met that test. The county has been unsuccessful in finding an urban site despite its extensive efforts as described in its December 6, 2000, letter and attachments (see attachment 2). After reviewing the proposed amendment, Council staff suggested that a land use change of 40 acres would.meet the - :ounty's long -term operational requirements and be more consistent with the county, township and Council agricultural preservation policies. The county and township have concurred with the smaller 40 -acre land use change, (see attachments 4 and 5). E Infrastructure: The new facility will assist in the efficient maintenance of Dakota County roads. There is no water or sewer system impact, as wells and a septic system will serve the facility. El Quality of life: The services provided by the new facility will contribute to the quality of life enjoyed by Dakota County residents. L Communication/constituency building: The proposed amendment results from County and Township public review processes. Q alignment: This project requires the Council to balance service and quality of life concerns with the potential impact on agricultural preservation policies. EMPIRE TOWNSHIP PLAI! :IiIENDMENT BACKGROUND The County proposes to construct an 80,000 square foot highway facility and operating yard (8 acres paved) on 34 acres. The southern 40 acres will remain in agricultural use. Six acres are dedicated for road right -of -way. Private wells and a septic system will serve the facility. The site is well located to serve the entire county and maintain over 400 miles of county roads. A preliminary site plan for the project provides a great deal of room for building and yard expansion. The County has not been able to find an urban site that meets its location requirements for a central county location with excellent east/west and north/south highway access. The County tried for a year to purchase land adjacent to its existing site in Rosemount, but failed. The County was turned down by the city of Rosemount and the city of Farmington, the Koch Refinery, the University of Minnesota, and a number of other property owners as outlined in more detail in its letter, (see attachment 2). REGIONAL BLUEPRINT This parcel of land is designated in the Regional Growth Strategy as Permanent Agricultural Area. The Blueprint states, "the Council will support agriculture as the primary long -term land use in the permanent agricultural area.' The Blueprint goes on to say that, "Urban facilities should not be located in this area (lands which are certified but not presently in agricultural preserves), unless there is strong evidence that a proposed urban use cannot be located in the general rural use area." Notably, there are no lands in central Dakota County guided for Permanent Rural. REGIONAL SYSTEMS The plan amendment is in conformance with the policy plans for Aviation, Recreation Open Space, Transportation and Water Resources Management. However, the Council offers the following water resources management technical comments. There are two environmental matters, which will need to be resolved prior to construction. One concem is the disposition of stormwater (rate, volume and treatment). Another concern is how and where floor drains and vehicle wash water will be treated. These wastes will not be able to be discharged into groundwater, as they are a prohibited waste in a class V injection well, under rules administered by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. The site is in the Vermillion River watershed and tributary to the Vermillion River trout stream. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Given the Blueprint language concerning the location of urban uses in the Permanent Agricultural Area, and the county's extensive efforts to find an urban site, the requested land use change is consistent with the Blueprint. 2. The Council finds that the revised 40 -acre comprehensive plan amendment is in conformity with metropolitan system plans, and has no impact on the plans of other units of local government. RECOMMENDATION That the Metropolitan Council adopt the Executive Summary and attached review with the following recommendation. • That Empire Township may place the revised plan amendment into effect, and no modifications are necessary. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Regional Growth Strategy Map / Land Use Change Location Attachment 2: December 6, 2000 Letter from Dakota County with attachments Attachment 3: Aerial photograph / Land Use Change Location Attachment 4: January 12, 2001 Letter from Dakota County Attachment 5: January 24, 2001 Letter from Empire Township V: ILI BPARY\COMMUNDV\REFERRAL\Emp. Tship Plan Amend 1.24.01 18430 -1_doc gional Growth Strategy Policy Areas ,- , ) sed Dakota County Highway Facility Location owth Strategy Policy Areas Urban Area C3 2000 MUSA (as of 1998) Illustrative 2020 MUSA "-', 2000 Street Centerlines (TLG) Urban Reserve ® University of Minnesota MF Permanent Agriculturzd Area Rosemount Research Station 9C A 3 r i t4 r. +'slon Pilvs-cai Deveioprne -,; Susan L. Hoyt o:rector - - Dakota Cou;,ty Mr. Ted Mondale, Chair Western Service Center Metropolitan Council �s °ss a iax.e 4ve ;;e 230 East 5" Street -zS `J'` St_ Paul, MN 55101 95' 2.29 U000 Fax 952.891.7031 Dear Mr. Mondale and Council M embers. - wwwco.dakota.mn.us ' Zi v: December 6, 2000 This letter is to provide you with additional background information for the current Comprehensive Plan Amendment requested by Empire Township. This amendment will revise 80 acres of agricultural zoning to Public/institutional. This revision will allow construction of the new Dakota County Transportation Department Facility. Siting the County Transportation Facility posed several unique challenges for Dakota County. To be an efficient and responsive facility, the site needs to be centrally located. Our space needs analysis showed that a minimum of 30 acres was needed. The existing facility is located on 8 acres in Rosemount. This size provides room for consolidation of operations, expansion, and buffering from adjacent land uses. During our siting process, we found no industrial park property available or acceptable to local units for this facility in the central part of Dakota County. In addition, no landowners were willing to consider offers for their undeveloped land that was within the projected 20 -year urban service area. Dakota County made an extraordinary effort to find a site that meets our needs, provides for expansion, is cost - effective for taxpayers, and is consistent and compatible with adjacent land uses; current and planned. We believe that this has been accomplished with this site. A chronological history of the efforts we have made to site this facility is attached. We appreciate the time and assistance your staff members Mike King- Sector �e�.ir:.s and �r 5111fiiCn. ri;�, ' �,OrrldOr Pianner, have provicied 1(1 reviewing this amendment request. Your support and approval of the Empire Township Plan amendment is appreciated, . erely, n . Hoyt, irector Physical Development Division cc Dakota County Board of Commissioners Brandt Richardson, County Administrator Empire Township Board 3inti n i rle C`ur£uxrJ tax 3385 197th ST. WEST FARMINGTON, MN 55024 (651) 463 -4494 January 24, 2001 Mr. Tom Burt, Administrator City of Rosemount 2875 -145 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 RE: Dakota County Maintenance Facility - Utility Options Dear Tom: The Empire Town Board is aware of renewed interests by Dakota County to pursue sewer and water services from the City of Rosemount. We are also aware that the City may be discussing this issue at a pending work session. The Town Board has briefly discussed this issue and offers the following comments for consideration by you and the City Council. It is our understanding that the City Council previously declined to consider utility service to the proposed facility, at least in part, because of concerns about urban sprawl into the Township and general "smart growth" concerns. I can assure you that the Town Board shares similar concerns and does not want to initiate urban development in the 160th Street corridor. At the same time, the Board understands that the cities do not want tax exempt facilities in their industrial parks, which creates problems for the County in properly locating such facilities. We also acknowledge that rural communities require facilities like the County's highway shop. Empire agreed to work with the County on this project because the Township's central location could make the highway shop convenient to cities and towns, alike. The Town Board also felt it had a responsibility to assist the County in a facility that benefited the Township and other rural areas. In debating the land use along 16e Street, the Board also felt that a�blic facilities in the agriculture area do not necessarily set a precedent for other development. A case in point is the University of Minnesota. Its presence in the community has not caused pressure for development. The same may be true for the MCES treatment plant and the former MnDOT weigh station in Empire. The Town Board is willing to cooperate with the County and City to pursue an appropriate solution for utility service at the proposed highway shop site. The Township would propose a joint powers agreement that would clearly protect all parties' interests. Specifically, the Township would suggest that any utility provisions be strictly limited to individual service connections to guarantee that the decision to serve the County facility did not result in speculation or pressure to consider any non - public development. The Township would continue City of Rosemount January 24, 2001 Page Two to designate all the rest of the land in the area as agriculture in the Empire Township Comprehensive Plan. Empire has been asked by the Metropolitan Council to participate in a smart growth study to "perpetuate the hard urban —rural edge ". In preliminary discussions on this topic, the Planning Commission and Town Board have discussed long term agricultural preservation techniques. Some alternatives include the establishment of "buffers" along urban -rural boundaries. These may consist of "green corridors ", protected with some form of conservation easement or development rights transfer. Dakota County is reviewing similar techniques in their "farmlands and natural areas" project. The County highway shop may fulfill a comparable objective, if its presence serves as a buffer or transition between rural and urban areas; yet, it does not serve as an inducement to private development. Perhaps other public uses may be appropriate in this area to create a meaningful buffer between urban and rural uses, one that reduces further speculation on urban development along the City /Township border. The Town Board is interested in working on common objectives with the City and County. Please be assured that we are willing to work out an agreement that addresses all concerns. We have also discussed the proximity of this facility to the Rosemount Fire Hall. It is clear that the parties should also discuss the appropriateness of an emergency services contract for this area. In conclusion, the Town Board wishes to make certain that the City Council understands that the Township shares similar concerns, regarding urban services to the proposed County highway shop. The Town Board is willing to pursue alternatives and discussions with the City, however, that would address these concerns and provide an appropriate remedy to the County's needs. Please do not hesitate to contact me, if you have any questions. Sincerely, E _�OMN� G. E. Stelzel, Chair Empire Town Board S.F No. 1105, 1st Engrossment KEY: r,#;Pi ep = old language to be removed underscored = new language to be added Page 1 of 11 -7 Legia.4tuto'Home 1 Search I Help ! t ft* to the World NOTE: If you cannot see any difference in the key above, you need to change the display of stricken and/or underscored language. Authors and Status ■ List versions S.F No. 1105, 1st Engrossment: 82nd Legislative Session (2001 -2002) Posted on Mar 19, 2001 1.1 A bill for an act 1.2 relating to the environment; creating design, 1.3 construction, and use requirements for salt 1.4 distribution stockpiles; proposing coding for new law 1.5 in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 116. 1.6 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 1.7 Section 1. [116.913] [SALT DISTRIBUTION STOCKPILES.] 1.8 (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), after July 1, 1.9 2002, a person may not store more than 100 tons of salt at a 1.10 single site unless the storage site and the use of the sit 1.11 comply with the following requirements: 1.12 (1) the subbase and pad for the site are constructed to 1.13 achieve the lowest permeability consistent with current asphalt 1.14 construction techniques at the time of construction; 1.15 (2) the site drainage systems prevent contact between salt 1.16 and storm water runoff from adjacent terrain; 1.17 (3) the stockpile is covered to prevent precipitation 1.18 contact except when receiving salt, building the stockpile, or 1.19 loading out salt; 1.20 (4) the seams for the covering material are watertight and 1.21 resistant to damage in winds up to 50 miles per hour; and 1.22 (5) the working face of the stockpile is established and 1.23 maintained at the downwind end of the stockpile whenever 1.24 operationally feasible. 1.25 The facility must be maintained to assure physical 2.1 integrity consistent with the criteria in this section. 2.2 Notwithstanding section 645.27, the state is subject to this 2.3 section. 2.4 (b) By September 1, 2003, a town must comply with the 2.5 requirements in paragraph (a). http://www.revisor.leg.state.n 105. 1 &session =1s82 4/5/2001 �' �-