Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.a. Wayne Transport, Inc. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Appeal of Variance Decision, and Appeal of Site Plan Review Decision to Expand Truck Trailer Parking EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council Meeting Date: April 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM: Case 17-01-CPA; 17-02-V; 17-03-SP Wayne Transport, Inc. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Appeal of Variance Decision, and Appeal of Site Plan Review Decision to Expand Truck Trailer Parking. AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing PREPARED BY: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner AGENDA NO. 7.a. ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum from City Attorney, Resolution Denying a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Resolutions (2) Upholding Board of Appeals and Planning Commission Decisions, Site Location Map. County ROW Map with Areas, Dakota County TH42/T52 Plans, Updated Application Memorandum (Applicant’s Attorney), Planning Commission Memorandum Dated 1/24/17 and Attachments: Comp Plan Amendment Map, Resolution BA2017-01; Applicant’s Declarations; Declaration Exhibits A-E (Site Aerial, Property Reports, Rosemount Land Use Plan Excerpts, TH42/52 Official Right-of-way Map, Dakota County Original Taking Area), Plan Submittals: Site Plan, Legend, Existing Conditions, Grading and Erosion Control Plan, Details, Landscape Plan, County ROW Acquisition Maps, Engineer’s Memo Dated January 19, 2017, Historical Site Photographs (2011, 2013, 2016) APPROVED BY: LJM RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: 1) Motion to adopt a resolution denying a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use designation of Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot B of Rich Valley Industrial Park from RC – Regional Commercial to GI – General Industrial. Staff further recommends the City Council adopt the following motions: 2) Motion to adopt a resolution upholding the decision of the Board of Appeals and 2 Adjustments denying a variance. 3) Motion to adopt a resolution upholding the decision of the Planning Commission denying a site plan review. SUMMARY The City Council is being asked to consider the following land use items related to a request by Wayne Transports, Inc. to construct a parking lot on property south of their existing facility at 14345 Conley Avenue:  A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use designation of Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot B of Rich Valley Industrial Park from RC – Regional Commercial to GI – General Industrial. The Planning Commission has recommended denial of the proposed amendment.  An appeal of a decision made by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments (the Planning Commission) to deny a variance request to allow the construction of a semi-trailer parking lot and other improvements to the site without meeting the minimum building size of 10% of the subject property excluding protected wetlands. A related parking setback variance has been withdrawn by the applicant since the Planning Commission meeting.  An appeal of a decision made by the Planning Commission to deny a site plan review request to allow the construction of a semi-trailer parking lot on Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot B of Rich Valley Industrial Park. Attached to this memorandum is the complete staff report submitted to the Planning Commission in advance of its meeting, which includes a detailed summary of each of the above land use requests along with background information, staff review, draft findings, and the staff recommendation presented to the Commission. Please note that staff has made some minor modifications to the original memorandum to more accurately summarize the City’s requirements for non-conforming uses. The City Attorney has also drafted a memorandum for Council consideration with more specific information concerning the City’s legal obligations and requirements for each of the requests in front of the City Council. The applicant’s attorney has updated his letter originally submitted for the Planning Commission meeting, and the revised letter (with all previous attachments) is included in the Council packet as well. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission held public hearings to review the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Site Plan Review at its January 24, 2017 meeting. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments, which is the Planning Commission sitting as the Board of Appeals, held a public hearing to consider the variance requests at the same meeting. A complete set of minutes from each of these hearings is attached. Some of the main points of discussion during the meeting (organized by the specific hearing) are as follows: 3 Comprehensive Plan Review/Action  Commissioners asked for clarification concerning the official map for the TH42/TH52 area. Staff noted that the original map included the entirety of the applicant’s parcel with the understanding that Dakota County would likely be acquiring the entire site. Since this time, the County has further refined its plan, and no longer needs the entire parcel to construct the proposed intersection improvements. For the interim improvements, a strip along County Road 42 was acquired. For the full clover leaf, more land is needed and a graphic is included in the packet.  The County has recently acquired a narrow strip of land along TH42, and this land is all that will be needed for the first phase of the project. The County will not be acquiring any additional land until they are ready to proceed with the full interchange project.  Staff clarified its position that the site, even after the land acquisition planned by the County, is large enough to support a wide variety of commercial activity. Staff also noted that the 10% building requirement was set by the Council in order to ensure that the City would see a reasonable level of tax revenue from new development in industrial areas.  The Commission noted that the official map was approved in 2006, well before the applicant acquired the property.  Without approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment, staff noted that the site would revert back to the pre-existing use as an office and shop and the illegally placed parking expansion would need to be removed from the site. It was noted that the industrial zoning was likely retained in order to avoid making the existing use non-conforming.  After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment based on the findings presented by Staff. The motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 nay. Variance Review/Action  The Commission questioned if there was a way to allow the proposed parking on a temporary basis until a commercial use for the property comes along. Staff noted that it is not possible to grant a variance with a time limit. It would be possible to establish parking as an interim use; however, the zoning ordinance would first need to be amended to allow such an interim use for this site and all general industrial zoning districts in the City. Parking as an interim use is not supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is inconsistent with the City’s goal for redevelopment of the site to a commercial use.  The applicant’s attorney summarized his letter to the Commission, and encouraged the Commission to consider all of the issues together rather than individually. One of the main issues raised in the letter is that the entire property is under the official map designation which prohibits a structure from being built on the site (the City Attorney has addressed this issue more fully in her memo). He summarized his position that the variance request met all of the required findings under the zoning ordinance.  Carl Vedders, the owner of the business, noted that a denial of the applications would negatively affect his business, and that he needs additional area to park trucks to expand his business.  In response to a Commission question, staff noted that a gravel parking area is not permitted and would need to be paved if the variances were approved. The applicant stated that the improvements needed to bring the site into conformance with performance standards for a parking lot would be between $300,000 and $500,000. 4  The applicant confirmed that they could work around the setback requirements, and that the only variance needed was the one for building coverage.  The Commission asked if the subject property could be combined with the applicant’s northern parcel. The applicant’s engineer stated that they would need to consider the implications of taking this action before making a decision to combine the parcels.  The Commission discussed the issues associated with the variance, and expressed concern that granting the variance would set precedence for similar requests in the future. The Commission also noted that the applicant should have known about the site restrictions before proceeding with its improvements.  After closing the variance hearing, the Board of Appeals and Adjustments (Planning Commission) adopted a resolution denying variances for parking setbacks and minimum building size with findings of fact to support such action. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes and 2 nays. Site Plan Review/Action  The Commission asked for clarification concerning what would happen if the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and variances were not approved. Staff responded that the applicant would need to remove the gravel parking areas and bring the site back to its condition prior to these improvements being. Please note that the Zoning Ordinance does not allow gravel as an approved parking surface in commercial and industrial zones.  The Commission noted that the site plan review could not be approved without the Comprehensive Plan Amendment or variances.  After closing the site plan review hearing, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to deny the site plan review to allow the expansion of a truck trailer parking area based on the findings presented by staff. The motion passed with a vote of 7 ayes and 0 nays. ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS Since the Planning Commission meeting, Staff has been working to address some of the comments that have been raised about the City’s land use plan and zoning for this area and to address some of the issues raised by the applicant. These issues (with response) are as follows:  Official Map. Dakota County’s most recent acquisition map for the TH42/TH52 interchange project indicates that they will only be acquiring about half of the applicant’s parcel in order to complete the full build out of the project. This means that the adopted official map includes more property than will be needed, and therefore, the map should be updated to reflect the new project boundaries. In order to address concerns that the map eliminates all potential use of the applicant’s property, Staff will be initiating the process to amend the official map to remove a large portion of the applicant’s property from the future acquisition area, which will also remove any restrictions for construction of buildings within this area. The Planning Commission is scheduled to consider the official map revision at its April 25, 2017 meeting.  Zoning Map Amendment. During Planning Commission review of the applicant’s request, the Commission questioned why there was a discrepancy between the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map for this property. Staff is not aware of any specific reason why the property has not been rezoned to commercial, but has suggested the City may have delayed the zoning 5 change to avoid creating a non-conforming situation. Given the issues and questions that have been raised as part of the current review, Staff is recommending that the City initiate a rezoning of the parcel to change the zoning of the property from GI – General Industrial to C3 - Highway Commercial to bring the site into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing will be conducted by the Planning Commission on April 25, 2017 to consider this amendment.  Non-Conforming Use Status. There is a discussion in the Planning Commission memorandum concerning the non-conforming status of the subject project. Staff would like to further clarify that although the contractor shop/office is a conforming use, (i.e. is allowed under the GI zoning district) the building is non-conforming from a dimensional perspective because it does not meet the minimum size requirement of 10% of the lot size. In this case, the building is situated on a 9.48 acre parcel (taking into account the recent County right-of- way acquisition) which would require a minimum building size of 41,295 square feet. By adding the adjacent outlot to this analysis, the minimum building size jumps up to 60,680 square feet. Under the City’s non-conforming regulations, a property owner is not allowed to expand a non-conformity unless such expansion brings the site closer into conformance with the City Code. This means that no additional parking is allowed on the property until the site complies with the minimum building size requirement. On a related issue, the previous use of the site included a parking area accessory to the contractor office/shop building. Given the non-conforming nature of the building, any parking on the site would also be considered a legal non-conforming use provided it was in existence, and legally approved by the City, and met all the ordinance criteria at that time. Staff was able to find a site plan associated with the 1999 platting of the Rich Valley Industrial that does not show any parking outside of the paved area on the Solberg Aggregate site. Staff also was not able to find any official authorization for parking outside of the existing paved area shown on the building permit for the Solberg facility. Based on the lack of any approvals from the City, Staff has determined that only parking within the paved areas of Lot 1, Block 1 of the Rich Valley Industrial Park would be considered part of the legal non-conforming use of the site. If the City does not grant the requested variance, the applicant would be limited to parking in only those areas paved under previous permits with the City.  Setback Variance Removed. The applicant has stated that they are dropping the request for a setback variance, therefore, the Council resolution concerning the appeal does not include any findings specific to this part of the original request. Staff is also recommending modifications to the conditions concerning practical difficulties or reasonableness in response to comments from the City Attorney for the variance under appeal. These revised findings are included in the draft resolution prepared consideration by the City Council. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend denial of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use designation of Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot B of Rich Valley Industrial Park from RC – Regional Commercial to GI – General Industrial. Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decisions of the Board of Appeals to deny a variance request and the Planning Commission to deny a site plan review concerning an expansion of a truck parking area over Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot B of Rich Valley Industrial Park. These recommendations are based on the 6 information submitted by the applicant, the analysis made in this and attached reports, the memorandum from the City Attorney, and the findings detailed in the attached resolutions. 1 Kennedy Mary D. Tietjen 470 US Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 & Graven (612) 337-9277 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax mtietjen@kennedy-graven.com http://www.kennedy-graven.com C H A R T E R E D MEMORANDUM To: Rosemount City Council From: Mary Tietjen, city attorney Re: Wayne Transports, Inc. Land Use Applications Date: March 31, 2017 Wayne Transports’ Applications Wayne Transports, Inc. (“Applicant”) filed the following with the City: 1. An application for a comprehensive guide plan amendment to re-guide the subject property from Regional Commercial to General Industrial; 2. An application for two variances (from the minimum building size and setback requirements (the Applicant has since withdrawn its request for a setback variance)); and, 3. An application for a site plan to construct a 127-space truck and trailer parking lot. At its meeting on January 24, 2017, the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the comprehensive plan amendment and voted to deny the site plan application. The Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustment, denied the variance requests. The Council’s role is to: 1) take final action on the comprehensive plan application; and, 2) decide the Applicant’s appeal on the denial of the variance and the site plan application. Council Review of Applications – Legal Requirements & Options I. Comprehensive Plan The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council relating to comprehensive plan amendments. The City Council takes final action on an application to amend the 2 comprehensive plan. The Council can only approve a comprehensive plan amendment with a two-thirds vote of all members of the Council. The Council acts in its legislative capacity when it amends a comprehensive plan. This means that the Council has broad discretion when it acts on an application to amend the comprehensive plan. The Council must have a rational basis for its decision. Planning Commission Recommendation. The Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the application based on the reasons provided by staff, which included five findings, as set forth in the staff report. Council Options. The Council has the following options with respect to the comprehensive plan amendment application: 1. Accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation and adopt the Resolution proposed by staff, (Council may also direct that additional or different findings be included); or 2. Reject the Planning Commission’s recommendation of denial; state reasons on the record for the Council’s support of the application; and, direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the application. (Staff would bring this Resolution back to the Council for final action at the next meeting.) II. Variances The Planning Commission acts as the City’s Board of Appeals and Adjustment and takes action on variance applications, after holding a public hearing. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the city’s zoning ordinance and when they are consistent with the comprehensive plan. To obtain a variance, an applicant must demonstrate “practical difficulties” in complying with the zoning ordinance. To meet the practical difficulties test and statutory factors, a variance application must meet the following criteria in order to be approved: a. The variance request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. b. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. c. Granting the variance allows a reasonable use of the property. d. There are unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner. e. Granting of the variance does not alter the essential character of the locality. Board Action. The Board concluded that the Applicant’s variance requests did not meet the legal criteria and voted to deny the requests. The Board adopted a resolution that included the findings recommended by staff and that addressed the criteria outlined above. The Applicant appealed the Board’s denial of the variances to the City Council. The City Council is required to evaluate the same criteria (above) as the Board. Council Options. The Council has the following options with respect to the variance appeal: 3 1. Affirm the Board’s denial of the variances and adopt the Resolution proposed by staff (Council may also direct that additional or different findings be included); or 2. Overturn the denial; state the reasons for support of the variances on the record; and, direct staff to prepare a Resolution approving the variances with appropriate findings as directed by the Council. III. Site Plan Application The Planning Commission takes action on site plan applications, after a public hearing. The Commission reviews a site plan to determine its compliance with the City’s comprehensive plan and other specified standards as identified in city code, including land use and zoning standards. Commission Action. The Commission voted to deny the Applicant’s site plan application based on the findings proposed by staff. The site plan would have required the requested variances and comprehensive plan amendment. Therefore, the Commission denied the site plan. Council Options. The Council has the following options with respect to the site plan appeal: 1. Affirm the Commission’s denial of the site plan and adopt the Resolution proposed by staff (Council may also direct that additional or different findings be included); or 2. Overturn the denial of the site plan; state the reasons for support of the site plan on the record; and, direct staff to prepare a Resolution approving the variances with appropriate findings as directed by the Council (this could occur only if the Council approves the comprehensive plan amendment and the requested variances). Applicant’s Memorandum The Applicant’s legal counsel has submitted a memorandum, dated March 29, 2017, addressing a number of issues. I wanted to briefly touch on two of those issues. 1. Comprehensive Plan Issues. The Applicant argues it was under no obligation to submit an application for a comprehensive plan amendment and that it only did so because staff required it. Staff has explained that in discussing the required variances with the Applicant, staff noted the factor that the variances and site plan must be consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan (see above criteria). Because of the discrepancy between the zoning and the guiding on the property, staff directed the Applicant to submit the comprehensive plan amendment in order to allow a possible finding that the variances and site plan would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Applicant did not appear to disagree with that approach because the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting on January 24, 2017, reflect a statement by the Applicant’s attorney that the reason the applicant proposed the change in the Comprehensive Guide plan is so they can get their variance request passed. If the Council were to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment, this would be beneficial to the Applicant’s variance and site plan applications because consistency with the comprehensive plan is one of the 4 factors to be considered. Without a change in the comprehensive plan, this factor would not be met and, therefore, a variance could not be granted. The Applicant also contends that the City is attempting to use the comprehensive plan to somehow limit their proposal for a permitted use. This contention mischaracterizes staff’s recommendation to the Applicant regarding the comprehensive plan. First, as noted above, the reason for the comprehensive plan amendment was to allow the Applicant to satisfy the factor of consistency with the comprehensive plan. Second, contrary to the assertion in Applicant’s memorandum, their proposed parking lot use is not a permitted principal use in the GI Zoning District. Off-street parking or loading is a permitted accessory use in the GI Zoning District. (City Code Section 11-4-16 (C). By definition an “accessory use” is a use of land incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the land and located on the same lot with the principal use. (City Code Section 11-1-4) Therefore, a parking lot is not allowed as a stand-alone principal use on a parcel of land. 2. Official Map. The Applicant also argues that its variance request from the 10% building requirement should be approved because it satisfies the official mapping “exceptions” and because the City can’t both require a building under the Zoning ordinance and prohibit a building permit under the Office Maps ordinance. The “exceptions” to which Applicant refers are criteria that the Board of Appeals may consider when an applicant has been denied a building permit because of the Official Map: The city shall deny every application for a permit to construct a new building or structure or expand an existing building or structure within any area designated on the official map for street or public purposes. . . (City Code 11-13-8) Whenever a building permit is denied pursuant to the chapter, the board of appeals and adjustments shall, upon appeal filed with by the owner of the land, grant a permit for building in an area designated on the official map . . . in any case in which the board finds, . . . a) that the entire property of the appellant of which the area designated for public purposes forms a part cannot yield a reasonable return to the owner unless a permit is granted, or b) that balancing the interest of the city in preserving the integrity of the official map and of the comprehensive city plan and the interest of the property owner in the use of his property and in the benefits of ownership, the grant of such permit is required by considerations of justice and equity. (City Code 11-13-9) Here, however, the Applicant has not applied for a building permit to construct a new building or structure. Therefore, the criteria for an appeal under the Official Maps ordinance are not triggered and do not apply. Also, staff has initiated the process to amend the Official Map to exclude the subject property as it is no longer needed for public purposes. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2017 - A RESOLUTION DENYING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1 AND OUTLOT B OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from Wayne Transports, Inc., 14345 Conley Avenue, requesting a comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use designation of the property located legally described as follows: Lot 1 Block 1 and Outlot B of Rich Valley Industrial Park WHEREAS, on January 24, 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public hearing and reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the future land use designation of Lot 1 Block 1 and Outlot B of Rich Valley Industrial Park from RC – Regional Commercial to GI – General Industrial; and WHEREAS, on January 24, 2017, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council deny the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan changing the land use designation Lot 1 Block 1 and Outlot B of Rich Valley Industrial Park from RC – Regional Commercial to GI – General Industrial; and WHEREAS, on April 4, 2017, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed and agreed with the Planning Commission’s recommendation; and. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby makes the following: FINDINGS 1) That the subject property was designated for Regional Commercial in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan because of its location in the northeast corner of the future 42/52 clover leaf interchange, and property adjacent to this interchange is better suited for regional commercial uses. 2) That the opportunity for regional commercial exists around the 42/52 interchange area and general industrial land uses, and specifically a parking lot for truck storage, is not the highest or best use of the site. 3) That reguiding of the site is inconsistent with the goal to balance economic growth within the overall tax base of Rosemount as much of the City’s non-residential land is currently designated for industrial use. 4) That based upon the proposed land use for the site, reguiding to General Industrial is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan to encourage additional high quality and tax RESOLUTION 2017- 2 base generating industrial development in the community. Similar parking lots are assessed at a low level which affects taxes paid. For example, the current Wayne Transports site (land value of $1,171,900 and building value of $1,580,200) pays taxes of $5114/acre. A commercial use such as the Great Clips retail center pays $32,316/acre, the Kwik Trip on Hwy 3 pays $984,117/acre (this is illustrative since the site is only .51 acres), the 9.7-acre Cub Foods shopping center pays $34,819/acre, and the 6.5-acre Rosemount Crossing shopping center pays and aggregate of $31,448/acre. 5) That the property size is smaller than that recommended in the Comprehensive Plan for General Industrial districts in the community, which should be greater than 400 acres. The amendment to the comprehensive plan would create a General Industrial District that is segregated from other GI-guided land by Light Industrial to the north, Highway 52 to the west, and RC-Regional Commercial to the east and south. 6) That the City will continue to see development moving eastwards along TH42, and commercial and professional services will be needed in the eastern portion of the City. 7) That the overall interchange acquisition area as established by Dakota County would still leave 7.78 acres of usable land, large enough for a hotel, restaurant, and other commercial uses based on the City’s analysis of similarly-sized sites in the community. 8) That the land use as proposed on the site does not meet zoning ordinance criteria and therefore does not meet the goals of the City Council. The proposed parking lot use is not a permitted principal use in the General Industrial District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby denies an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation of Lot 1 Block 1 and Outlot B of Rich Valley Industrial Park from RC – Regional Commercial to GI – General Industrial. ADOPTED this 4th day of April, 2017 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. __________________________________________ William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Clarissa Hadler, City Clerk Resolution 2017- CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2017- RESOLUTION STATING FINDINGS OF FACT RELATED TO AN APPEAL OF A DECISION BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS TO DENY A VARIANCE AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE BOARD WHEREAS, Wayne Transports, Inc., 14345 Conley Avenue, (the “Applicant”) submitted an application to the Rosemount Board of Appeals and Adjustments (the “Board”) for variances from the minimum parking setbacks and minimum building coverage requirement of the GI – General Industrial zoning district to construct a semi-trailer and truck parking lot on property legally described as: Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot B of Rich Valley Industrial Park WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing to consider said variances on January 24, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Board denied the variances at its January 24, 2017 meeting with findings as documented in Resolution BA2017-01; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an appeal to the City Council regarding the decision by the Board to deny said variance requests; and WHEREAS, the Applicant subsequently withdrew its request for a setback variance; and WHEREAS, on April 4, 2017, the Rosemount City Council considered the Applicant’s appeal and the facts of this case. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rosemount makes the following findings related to the appeal by Wayne Transports, Inc. of the Board’s decision to deny said variance: FINDINGS 1) That the procedures for obtaining said Variance are found in the Rosemount Zoning Ordinance, Section 11-12-2. 2) That all the submission requirements of Section 11-12-2 have been met by the Applicant. 2 Resolution 2017 3) That the proposed variance would allow the construction of a parking lot for an existing truck terminal operation on the adjacent parcel north of the subject property. The specific variance requested is as follows: a) Building Coverage: A variance to allow the construction of a truck/trailer parking lot and other improvements to the site without meeting the minimum building size of 10% of the subject property excluding protected wetlands within a GI zoning district. The site (after recent right-of-way acquisition by Dakota County) is 13.93 acres in size, which requires a minimum building size of 60,679 square feet. The existing building located on the southern portion of Lot 1, Block 1 of Rich Valley Industrial Park is just over 10,000 square feet in area, which results in a requested variance of 50,679 square feet. 4) That the variance request is not in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance as specified in Finding 5a adopted by the Board in Resolution BA2017-01. The Council concurs with these findings. 5) That the variance is not consistent with the comprehensive plan as specified in Finding 6a adopted by the Board in Resolution BA2017-01. The Council concurs with these findings. 6) That granting of the variance does not allow a reasonable use of the property; however, the Council does not affirm Finding 7a adopted by the Board in Resolution BA2017-01 and instead finds that the proposed use of the property is not reasonable because:: a) a parking lot is not a permitted principal use in the GI zoning district; b) the City’s zoning regulations encourage the improvement of property within the GI zoning district to bring jobs and tax revenue into the community and the value and economic activity generated by a parking lot are far lower than a building that would meet the minimum building coverage requirements for the parcel. c) it would result in two disconnected parking lots separate from the principal use they are serving and would violate the Zoning Ordinance which requires all accessory parking to be located on the same lot as the principal use. 7) That there are no unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner as specified in Finding 8a adopted by the Board in Resolution BA2017-01. The Council concurs with these findings and additionally finds as follows: a) There are no unique physical characteristics of the subject property that warrant the approval of the requested variance. Instead, the Applicant has focused on the economic benefits that it claims it will reap if the variance is approved. Such economic considerations alone are not a sufficient basis to approve the variance. 8) That granting of the variance does alter the essential character of the locality as specified in Finding 9a adopted by the Board in Resolution BA2017-01. The Council concurs with these findings. 3 Resolution 2017 CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Based on the foregoing, the City Council confirms and upholds the decision of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments and denies the Applicant’s appeal of the variance. Passed and duly adopted this 4th day of April 2017 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota. ________________________________________ William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Clarissa Hadler, City Clerk Resolution 2017- CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2017- RESOLUTION STATING FINDINGS OF FACT RELATED TO AN APPEAL OF A DECISION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A SITE PLAN AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION WHEREAS, Wayne Transports, Inc., 14345 Conley Avenue, (the “Applicant”) submitted an application to the Rosemount Planning Commission (the “Commission”) for site plan review to allow the construction of a truck and trailer parking lot on property legally described as: Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot B of Rich Valley Industrial Park WHEREAS, the Commission held a public hearing to consider said site plan on January 24, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Commission denied the site plan at its January 24, 2017 meeting based on the findings documented in the staff report to the Commission for the meeting; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an appeal to the City Council regarding the decision by the Commission to deny said site plan; and WHEREAS, on April 4, 2017, the Rosemount City Council considered the Applicant’s appeal and the facts of this case; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rosemount makes the following findings related to the appeal by Wayne Transports, Inc. of the Commission’s decision to deny a site plan: FINDINGS 1) That the procedures for obtaining said site plan review are found in the Rosemount Zoning Ordinance, Section 11-10-3. 2) That all the submission requirements of Section 11-10-3 have been met by the Applicant. 3) That the proposed site plan would allow the construction of a parking lot for an existing truck terminal operation on the adjacent parcel north of the subject property. 2 Resolution 2017 4) That the site plan requires a variance that was not granted and a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment that was denied. 5) That the site plan does not conform with the City’s designation of the subject property in the Comprehensive Plan for future Regional Commercial use of the property. 6) That the site plan is 52,700 square feet short of the minimum building size requirement for the GI – General Industrial Zoning District. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Based on the foregoing, the City Council confirms and upholds the decision of the Planning Commission, and denies Applicant’s appeal of the site plan.. Passed and duly adopted this 4th day of April 2017 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota. __________________________________________ William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Clarissa Hadler, City Clerk Wayne Transport Property Information October 10, 2016 0 875 1,750437.5 ft 0 270 540135 m 1:9,600 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. 7.78 ACRES 6.18 ACRES US 52 and CR 42 Interchange Reconstruction Project Summary CR 42 will be expanded from a two-lane to a four-lane highway which will improve the sight lines from the US Highway 52 off-ramps, and the US 52 bridges over CR 42 will be replaced. The interchange ramps will be reconstructed on similar alignments with dedicated turn lanes being added to off-ramps. Construction of the project is scheduled to begin in 2017. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT Conley AveDAKOTA COUNTY 52 42DAKOTA COUNTY Dakota County TH42/TH52 Concept Plan LINDQUIST Minneapolis . Denver. Sioux Falls Lindquist & Vennum LLP 80 South Eighth Street 4200 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402-227 4 Memorandum Date: To: From: Phone: (612) 371-3211 Fax: (612) 371-3207 March 29,2077 City of Rosemount City Council William E. Flynn Joseph S. Lawder (612) 371-3211 CMC Properties, LLC - Appeal of All Actions of Planning Commission and Board of Appeals and Adjustment relating to Case l7-01-CPA; 17-02-Y;17-03-SP Re: Lindquist & Vennum, LLP serves as legal counsel to CMC Properties, LLC, ("Applicant"). Applicant is the property ownership entity of Wayne Transports. Applicant owns the site that is the subject of the site plan, as well as, the parcel contiguous to the north where Wayne Transport's main operations are located. Applicant seeks a building permit and variance for the development and construction of a parking areas on its property. This memorandum is submitted in support of Applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's/Board of Appeals and Adjustment's denial of Applicant's site plan, variance request and the Planning Staffs requirement that the comprehensive plan be amended. Applicant seeks approval of its site plan despite the restrictions imposed by and pursuant to the exceptions contained in the official mapping (Rosemount Ord. 11-13-8) and with variance from one performance standard. (Ord. ll-4-16.F.9.B.) As applied to the subject parcel, these restrictions and standards are in conflict for one prohibits any building or structure and the other requires a building of ten percent of the size of the property. As a reasonable reconciliation of this conflict and future vision of the site, Applicant's site plan balances the restrictions and requirements under the standards applicable to official mapping exceptions and variances from performance standards and preserves guiding the property to future regional commerce. HISTORY OF SITE AND RELEVANT FACTS The entire area that is the subject of the application is situated at the northeast comer of State Highway 52 and CSAH 42, and is legally-described as Lot I Block l, and Outlot B, Rich Valley Industrial Park, Dakota County, Minnesota ("Property"). (See Vedders Decl., Ex. A, Pictorial depiction of P r operty.) DOCS-#5685962-v I City of Rosemount March 29,2017 Page 2 In 2000, Koch Petroleum Group conveyed the Property to Solberg Partnership. (Vedders Decl., Ex. B, Orbit property reports.) Solberg conducted excavating operation on the property using heavy equipment, including parking heavy trucks and machinery. The Property has been zoned General Industrial since 1991 , according to Planning Staff. Planning Staff confirmed that its comprehensive plan guiding remained as General Industrial from 1991 - 2005, even though the Planning Staff report says it was designated as Industrial/Mixed Use in the City of Rosemount Comprehensive Land Use - 2020 plan created in the year 2000. (Staff Report at p. 2.) During 2004 -2005, that Comprehensive Plan was updated in the County Road 42lU.S. Highway 52 Corridor Study to determine the development and land uses of that side of Rosemount. That is when the commercial guiding for the Property first arose. (Vedders Decl., Ex. C, Fig. 7.4.) At the same time, in 2005, the City of Rosemount began the process of officially mapping areas surrounding the 52142 intersection including the Property. Official Mapping is authorized by Minnesota Statute Sec. 462.359 and as per Rosemount City Code Chapter 13 to restrict land needed for future street or public purposes. On August 8, 2007, the City of Rosemount recorded its Official Map against the Property. (Vedders Decl., Ex. D.) The entire Property, all of Lot 1 Block 1 and Outlot B, was designated and still remains within the Official Map restricted area. According to Rosemount Ordinance 11- 13-8, the Official Map has a restricting impact on the Property: After an official map has been adopted and f,rled, the issuance of building permits by the city shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter. The city shall deny every application for a permit to construct a new building or structure or expand an existing building or structure within any areadesignated on the official map for street or public purposes, or outside of any building line that may have been established upon the existing street. In2009, the City published its Comprehensive Land Use -2030 plan. The 2009 plan designated the property as Regional Commercial and defined it as: intended for businesses with a regional draw or with products that are sold annually or less often. Big box retail, theaters, or hotels are appropriate uses in this area, as well as an area for existing vehicle sales businesses in other parts of the City to relocate. (Vedders Decl, Ex. C at p. 70.) In 2012, the Property was acquired by Applicant from Solberg. Wayne Transport has expanded its truck terminal operations on to the Property and leased part of the Property to other trucking- related tenants. Wayne has a legal non-conforming right to continue to use the Property as it historically has been used for parking trucks and trailers on various parts of the Property. DOCS-#5685962-v I City of Rosemount March29,2017 Page 3 In August 2016, Dakota County commenced a condemnation action seeking to acquire a large portion of the Property consisting of approximately 284,528 square feet or 6.53 acres. This Property was claimed for expansion of the 52142 interchange including the possibility of a cloverleaf design that generated the arcing triangular-shaped taking area of the Property ("Original Taking Area"). (Vedders Decl., Ex. E.) After the public purpose hearing on the condemnation in October 2016, Dakota County limited its acquisition of the Property to its immediate project need of widening parts of the intersection. During the negotiations between CMC/Wayne and Dakota County, it was disclosed that the County planned to expand the intersection in the future so it was still willing to consider acquiring the Original Taking Area and even the entire Property. This is consistent with the Rosemount 2030 Land Use Plan with Roadway Network which depicts the cloverleaf design in the Original Taking Area. (Ex C ) An agreement as to valuation for the Original Taking Area or the entire Property could not be reached between CMC/Wayne and Dakota County in the time frame available. Dakota County has represented that it is still willing to negotiate acquiring the Original Taking Area or the entire Property because of the public need and future expansion of the intersection. I. The Comprehensive Plan Does Not Impose a Requirement that Affects Consideration of Applicant's Site PIan and Variance Request. The Planning Department Staff required that Applicant request a change to the Comprehensive Plan in order for it to consider Applicant's site plan and variance request. Applicant submitted the form required by Planning Staff simply to obtain its consideration of Applicant's site plan and variance request. As stated in its written submission to the Planning Commission and as argued at the Planning Commission Hearing on January 24, 2017, there is no requirement under Rosemount Ordinances, Minnesota Statutes or case law that a property owner applicant seek and obtain a change in the Comprehensive Plan when the use for which it has submitted a site plan is within the uses permitted for the zoning classification applicable to the property. This requirement has been erected by Planning Staff simply to impose a hurdle to consideration and provide a false justification for its arbitrary actions. The Property is zoned General Industrial and has been since 1991. Applicant's business and use of the property subject to the site plan ("Property") is the same as the use of its contiguous parcel to the north as a trucking terminal. This is a permitted use under the City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance section General Industrial District. Pursuant to Rosemount Ordinance l7-4-16, this use includes uses that may require outdoor and vehicle or trailer storage. Planning Staff can point to no authority in the code or state law that the Applicant's variance request triggers the requirement Planning Staff has imposed to change the Comprehensive Plan guiding. And Applicant is not seeking a change in the zoning because its use is permitted on the Property, just as if the site plan did not include a variance request. The Comprehensive Plan guiding of the Property was amended to Regional Commerce in its 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan dated May,2009. It is not the Applicant's burden to change this. DOCS-#5685962-v I City of Rosemount March 29,2017 Page 4 If there was a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan guiding of this Property and its zoning as General Industrial, Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.865 obligated the City to amend the official control within nine months of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment so as not to conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Similarly, in May 2009, the City stated in its 2030 Comprehensive Plan that "The City will review these plans and ordinances to ensure they implement the Comprehensive Plan and will make amendment to the official controls as necessary." (Comp. Plan at p. 8l) Having made this review and not taken any action in the last eight years to rezone the Property, the City cannot now assert there is a conflict. Minnesota law recognizes that: when a city designates a specific use as permissible in a particular zone or district, the city has exercised its discretion and determined that the permitted use is consistent with the public health, safety, and general welfare and consonant with the goals of its comprehensive plan. PTL, LLC v. Chisago County Bd. Of Com'rs,656 N.W.2d 567,574 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003), quoting Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass'n v. City of Chanhassen, 342 N.W.2d 335,340 (Minn. 1984). In PTL, the county board denied PTL's application for approval of a preliminary plat that proposed a germitted use because the proposed use, although permitted, was different than the comprehensive guide plan. Id. The PTL court explained the difference in purpose between a comprehensive plan and official zoning controls: The comprehensive plan is "the guide for the future development of the county." It contains "the policies, statements, goals, and interrelated plans for private and public land and water use, transportation, and community facilities." It also contains recommendations for its execution. Off,rcial controls, by contrast, "are the means of translating into ordinances all or any part of the general objectives of the comprehensive plan." 656 N.W.2 d at 574 (citations omitted). The PTL court explained that in denying the landowner's request because its proposed plat was inconsistent the comprehensive guide plan, the County failed to recognize the uniquely advisory role of the comprehensive guide plan and elevated it to the stature of the zoning ordinances: [G]iving the comprehensive guide plan regulatory effect ignores the statute, the subdivision ordinance, and the comprehensive guide plan itself, all of which define the plan as a policy guide to be implemented by official controls. A majority ofjurisdictions treat comprehensive plans as advisory, notwithstanding ordinance provisions, such as the one before us, requiring that the subdivision DOCS-#5685962-v I City of Rosemount March29,2017 Page 5 of land be "consistent with" or "in accordance with" a comprehensive plan. ff Stuart Meck, The Legislative Requirement that Zoning and Land Use Controls be Consistent with an Independently Adopted Comprehensive Plan: A Model Statute, 3 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 295,297-306 (2000) (noting that despite the widespread adoption of the "consistently with" or "in accordance with" language in enabling acts, a majority of states treat comprehensive plans as advisory). 656 N.W.2 d at 575. The PTL Court went on to hold that "The Standards established in the zoning ordinance are conclusive until the board rezones the district or amends the zoning ordinance through proper legislative channels." Id., citing Chanhassen Estates Ass'n,342 N.W.2d at 340 (city's argument that proposed use inconsistent with comprehensive plan lacked merit). See also R.A. Putnam & Associates, Inc. v. City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County,510 N.W.2d264 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994) (holding that in a rezoning case a discrepancy between a zoning ordinance and a local comprehensive plan does not affect presumption that municipal zoning decision is valid; rather, refusal to zone in accordance with comprehensive plan is merely evidence that city's action was arbitrary). PTL makes clear that a difference between the zoning and comprehensive plan cannot prevent an approval of a use that is permitted under the zoning control. Since a comprehensive plan guiding designation that differs from the current zoning cannot be used to deny a landowner's permitted use, it certainly cannot be the Applicant's burden to change the Comprehensive Plan to conform to the current zoning. This is particularly so because the City did not consider the two inconsistent when it did not rezone the Property after having reviewed the consistency. Applicant's site plan is for a permitted use. The Comprehensive Plan poses no requirement that burdens Applicant. But here, the City is attempting to use the future guiding to limit a permitted use. It would be arbitrary for the City Council to require the Applicant to change the Comprehensive Plan, when it was statutorily-obligated to rezone the Property if there was inconsistency and it did not do so. Whatever the City Council decides to do with the Planning Staff s Motion to Deny the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, that decision cannot be used to avoid or impact consideration of Applicant's site plan and variance request. II. Variance Factors. A. OfJicial Mapping Must be Considered The Property is within the boundaries of the City's Official Mapping. Official Mapping is an official control on the Property. Under the Rosemount Official Mapping Ordinance 11-13-8, no building permit for any new building or structure can be issued within any areadesignated on the official map. On appeal to the Board of Appeals and Adjustment (Planning Commission), however, a permit can be granted upon evidence and argument: DOCS-#5685962-v I City of Rosemount March29,2017 Page 6 a) that the entire property of the appellant of which the area designated for public purposes forms apart cannot yield a reasonable retum to the owner unless such a permit is granted, or b) that balancing the interest of the city in preserving the integrity of the official map and of the comprehensive city plan and the interest of the property owner in the use of his property and in the benefits of ownership, the grant of such permit is required by considerations ofjustice and equity. Rosemount Ord. 1 1 -1 3-9. Because Planning Staff ignored the Official Mapping restrictions on the Property, the Board of Appeals and Adjustment/Planning Commission failed to take into account and address Applicant's evidence and argument as to why it satisfied the exceptions which would permit the issuance of building permit. The Official Mapping is the most specihc and restrictive control on the Property. It must be addressed and reconciled with any other control or plan for the Property. The City Council does not have discretion, as the Staff says, to "not focus on this aspect of the proposal." (Staff Report at 2.) The Planning Commission/Board of Appeals and Adjustment's failure to act or make finding's upon this aspect of Applicant's request is arbitrary and capricious. The City Council must take into consideration the Official Mapping restrictions and Applicant's evidence satisfying the exceptions for issuing a building permit in order to avoid an arbitrary result and to reconcile the controls and guiding of the Property. Accordingly, a building permit should be granted because Applicant can satisfy both of the above exceptions. The City's interest in the Official Map providing for an improved intersection and the Comprehensive Plan's goal of regional commerce balanced with Applicant's proposed modest improvement of the Property to generate a reasonable return achieves a just and equitable solution until such time as Rosemount's guiding goals come to fruition. Rosemount's interest in the 52142 intersection improvement and the future development of regional commerce stands on equal footing with Applicant's use of the Property and right to generate a reasonable return. The equal weight accorded a municipality's land use restrictions and a property owner's rights is reflected in the option of the municipality to acquire officially-mapped property if a permit is granted upon appeal. Rosemount Ord. 11-13-9. This mechanism allows "both the public and private property owners to adjust their building plans equitably and conveniently before investments are made that will make adjustments difficult to accomplish." Minn. Stat. $ 462.359, subd. l. Planning Staff recognize this risk and exposure to the City when it states: The official mapping process was approved to assist in future planning of the clover leaf project and the result of this mechanism should assist in reducing future land acquisition costs. However, DOCS-#5685962-v I City of Rosemount March 29,2017 Page 7 although the official map designation prohibits the issuance of a building permit on the property, limited improvements such as parking areas may be approved at the discretion of the City Council and provided said improvement will not interfere with the future public purpose (i.e. make it more difficult or costly to acquire the property).. . . (Staff Report at p. 3.) Planning Staff goes on to admit that: "[A]pplicant's plans do not represent a substantial investment that would significantly hinder future acquisition and re-use of the property." (Id. at p. 4.) But instead of acknowledging that Applicant's site plan satisfies the exceptions and reconciles the inherent conflict between the Official Mapping restriction and the performance standard requiring a 52,000 square foot industrial building, Planning Staff disregards its own analysis and admission and chooses not to focus on this specific issue but instead looks at loftier "land use issues" and purports to apply the variance criteria. The failure to "focus" or address the Official Mapping controls/exceptions and reconcile its impact through consideration and determination of Applicant's evidence is arbitrary. Applicant's evidence to be considered under the exceptions to the Official Mapping restrictions is unrebutted and adequate to warrant a building permit. Applicant's proposed site plan permits it to achieve a reasonably-acceptable return with improvement to the Property which respects the growing needs of the intersection and limits the impediments to and expense for acquisition based upon future regional commerce. The installation of a bituminous parking lot as-designed will accommodate the remaining need for the Original Taking Area necessitated by a clover-leaf interchange. As opposed to a 52,000 square foot industrial building, it is less invasive, more readily-convertible to regional commerce and more susceptible to modification as the public needs progresses. Without the construction of a parking lot, however, the Property does not yield a reasonable return based upon its size, the City's view of allowable use and the uncertain size and shape of likely public taking. The site plan design would allow Applicant to generate approximately $4,200 per month in revenue that could not be generated without it. Without installation of the parking, this revenue stream will be unavailable. The remaining area of the Property is leased to a tenant which generates only $3,400 per month. Based upon the Planning Staffs view as to the scope of allowable non-conforming use, it is unclear whether even that amount of revenue can be generated from the Property.r Once the Original Taking Area is acquired, Applicant is likely to lose the I Applicant has the right to continue a legal nonconforming use that permits the parking and storage of commercial vehicles including trucks and trailers. Planning Staff s limited view of the legal non-conforming use of the property is only relevant to the extent it supports Applicant's evidence that the Property without the site plan improvement generates an unreasonable return. This is not the reason, however, for which Planning Staff proffered their view of legal nonconforming use. Despite the complete irrelevance to any other issue under consideration, Planning Staff has gone to great lengths to argue its view of the legal non- conforming use of the Property. Whatever use has been made of the Property is not before the DOCS-#5685962-v I City of Rosemount March 29,2017 Page 8 $3,400 per month revenue stream, leaving Applicant with virtually no retum from the Property. Although the $4,200 parking lot income stream combined with the tenant rental is still only a marginal return from the Property, Applicant accepts it as reasonable and consistent with the less substantial investment in the parking lot and uncertain future of the Property. The site plan design balances Applicant's use of its private property against the public with a design that anticipates the cloverleaf expansion, minimizes improvement of the Original Taking Area, and which will avoid wasteful acquisition of improved property. The site plan design justly and equitably permits Applicant to realize the benefit of and a reasonable retum on its Property while minimizing the structural and financial burden to the public need and plans. Pursuant to its authority under Rosemount Ordinance 11-12-3, the City Council has the power to hear and decide that the Planning Commission/Board of Appeals and Adjustment erred in its procedure failing to address the Offrcial Mapping and not making a determination upon Applicant's establishment of the exceptions. The City Council should determine that the Official Mapping restriction does not prohibit the issuance of a building permit because Applicant has established the exceptions and that after consideration of Applicant's variance request, direct the issuance of a building permit for Applicant's site plan. B. Inconsistent Performance Standards Should Yield Consistent with minimizing future acquisition costs and avoiding industrial structures that impede the comprehensive plan guiding, the building permit for the site plan should be issued without any requirementthat l\Yo of the Property include a general industrial building. The General Industrial performance standard requiring building size of ten percent of the subject property (11-4- 16.F.9.b.), is irreconcilable with the Ofhcial Mapping restriction which prohibits building or structures in the mapped area. Planning Staff chose not to confront this conflict. But where the specific zoning control clashes with the general zoning restriction, the specific should be given effect. McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations $ 25.77 . Here the more specific controls of the Official Map take precedence over general inconsistent zoning performance standards. Even if these competing zoning controls could be interpreted to both apply, they should be considered as a whole and construed reasonably and fairly to limit the financial burden of the private landowner and the acquisition exposure of the govemment. When the performance standard requiring a building of ten percent of the Property is harmonized with the Official Map building prohibition and exceptions that allow for development, a variance should be granted to City Council and is not relevant to any factor being considered. Because this is not the forum to litigate Applicant's use of the Property, it is improper for the Planning Staff, and shows an arbitrary motive, to continue to argue it. Applicant merely states for the record and to avoid any waiver that it disputes Planning Staff s characterization of the past use of the Property. Applicant preserves and does not waive its right to continue its legal nonconforming use of the site for all purposes and areas for which it is currently grandfathered under ordinances. See White v. City of Elk River,840 N.W.2d 43, 51 (Minn. 2013). DOCS-#5685962-v I City of Rosemount March 29,2017 Page 9 achieve the balance of public and private rights embodied in the modest parking lot improvement of the site plan design. C. Variance is Warranted and Preserves Balance of Rights and Risks Under Minnesota Statute Section 462.357, subd. 6, variances are permitted when in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when consistent with the comprehensive plan. The purpose of the Rosemount Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, welfare and safety through the following objectives: A. To assist in the implementation of the city of Rosemount comprehensive guide plan upon which this title is based. B. To promote the orderly development and compatibility of residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational and public uses. C. To promote the orderly transition of rural to urban uses. D. To prevent the premature extension of city utilities and services. E. To prevent overcrowding of the land and structures. F. To prevent congestion in public rights of way. G. To protect natural resources in the city and promote reforestation and the replacement of other replenishable resources. H. To promote agricultural preservation. L To promote a safe, effective pedestrian and vehicular circulation system. Rosemount Ord. 11-1-2. Rosemount's Comprehensive Plan provides for the improvement of the intersection to include a cloverleaf and envisions the Property as part of a regional commerce center. In light of the staged improvement of the intersection and phased acquisition of the Property into the future, development of the Property which anticipates that acquisition and does not frustrate future regional commercial development correlates the performance standards with the intent of the ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan and Official Map goals. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, DOCS-#5685962-v I City of Rosemount March 29,2017 Pase 10 will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Minn. Stat. $ 462.357, subd.6. Consistent with this statutory authority, the Rosemount Zoning Ordinance authorizes variances: The board of appeals and adjustments and the city council, upon appeal, must find as follows in the granting of a variance from this title. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. 1. The variance request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. 2.The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. Granting of the variance allows reasonable use of the property. 4. There are unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner. 5. Granting of the variance does not alter the essential character of the locality. Rosemount Ord. ll-12-2.G. Consideration of these factors establishes that there are practical difficulties that merit granting a variance from the ten percent building requirement. 1. Variance Harmonizes Purpose and Intent of Ordinance The Planning Staff Report says that "The intent of the ordinance is to encourage investment in property that will bring jobs and tax base into the community, which is not achieved with the expansion of parking and outdoor storage." (Report at p. 6.) First, Rosemount Ordinance ll-l-2, quoted above and stating the purpose of the zoning ordinance, does not state that intent at all. The quest for increased tax base may benefit the City, but it is not a specihc stated purpose of the zoning ordinance. Second, the only evidence in the record shows that granting the variance to allow development and expansion of Applicant's facility will increase the tax base above its current value and will bring jobs into the community. Mr. Vedders testified as to the potential for 100 new good paying jobs, including truck drivers that eam $75,000 or more, and mechanics, schedulers, and accountants. (Jan, 24, 2017 Hearing.) Moreover, the drafting engineer stated that the lot development was expected to be several hundred thousand dollars of improvement. (Id.) Without the variance, there will be no additional jobs and no increase in tax base. DOCS-#5685962-v I City of Rosemounl March 29,2017 Page 11 Finally, it is noteworthy that, despite the Planning Staff Report analysis of this factor, the Findings of the Board of Appeals and Adjustment (drafted by Planning Staff) says nothing about the increase in tax base, but says something completely different from the rationale advanced in the Staff Report. The Finding states that the variance request is "not a reasonable use of the property because it promotes a use that is not otherwise allowed under the Zoning Ordinance." (Resolution at Finding 5a.) It is unclear whether this is intentional misdirection or careless obfuscation of the factor under analysis. In any event, it shows the arbitrary, circular reasoning deployed to obscure objective scrutiny of the factor under consideration: o Finding 5a says nothing about the purpose of the zoning ordinance. This omission acknowledges the false purpose stated in the Staff Report. o Finding 5a is also incorrect on its face because outdoor parking is a specifically permitted use in a General Industrial zone. Rosemount Ord. 1l-4-16. o To say that it is an unreasonable because it does not conform to the performance standard would render every variance request ever sought unreasonable. Necessarily, a variance does not conform to the performance standard. . This factor does not take into account Applicant's business needs or the uniqueness ofthe site - those are considered under other factors. The complete change of basis from the Planning Staff Report to the Findings and the incorrect, overbroad, off-factor rationale is arbitrary and capricious. An honest and straightforward review of this factor establishes that granting the variance and permitting modest development of a lot on the Property site supports the zoning ordinance purposes of providing for General Industrial permitted uses and providing a transition between residential and heavy industrial districts. See Rosemount Ord. 11-4-16.4. As opposed to a 52,000 square foot industrial building, the site plan also supports the more general purpose of promoting public health, safety and general welfare by fostering orderly development of industrial uses, utilizing existing city utilities and services, avoiding overcrowding of land with structures, providing for preservation of natural resources and improving vehicular circulation. Once developed as per the site plan, the Property will conform with all other performance standards,2 be consistent with the Applicant's contiguous site and be more aesthetically pleasing and tied into the surrounding area and interchange plans. It will provide a gradual move towards the commercial status that is envisioned for the site without industrial structures that would be inconsistent with that vision. The site is served by existing utilities and is designed to address storm water standards and creation of landscaping that would not be required under a legal 2 Applicant will revise the design to address all setback requirements. Therefore, Applicant is not pursuing a variance from the setback performance standards. The City Council should allow the 10% building variance and site plan conditioned upon compliance with setback standards. DOCS-#5685962-v I City of Rosemount March29,2017 Page 12 nonconforning use. The site plan creates an orderly circulation and parking of trucks that has not been historically or currently controlled. 2. Variance is Consistent with Comprehensive Plan As explained above, if the City viewed General Industrial use as inconsistent with the vision for this property, it was mandated by statute to change the zoning. Minn. Stat. $ 473.865, subd. 3. The City's retention of the General Zoning designation and allowing a variance creates a pathway, to future regional commerce. In light of the uncertain scope and timing of acquisition and interchange expansion, the lot improvement allows some development (and increase in tax base) but moves the site closer to commercial use, unobstructed by a large industrial structure that physically and financially impedes the potential for future commercial use. The Planning Staff Report and Board of Appeals and Adjustment Findizgs, however, do not focus on the specific Comprehensive Plan Land Use goals for the Property. Instead, the emphasis has shifted to general Economic Development goals. This is another arbitrary shift of the factor analysis to manufacture a rationale for denial. The City Council should focus on the Land Use goals of the Comprehensive Plan to judge whether the variance is consistent. Since the City has retained the General Industrial zoning of the Property for years after and consistent with Comprehensive Plan guiding, there is no impact on the Comprehensive Plan guiding goals and percentages. Furthermore, even if economic development goals of increasing the tax base are considered, granting the variance will immediately achieve an increase with the lot improvement and preserve the possibility of substantial future increases with development of big box retail. Without the variance, the Property will remain undeveloped and no tax base increase will be achieved. 3. Variance Permits a Reasonable Use The question for consideration on this factor under state law and Rosemount's ordinance rsl. Does granting the variance allow a reasonable use of the Property? Undeniably it does. The site is zoned General Industrial and the use Applicant seeks to continue is as part of its terminal for parking and storage of trucks and trailers, the same zoning and use as Applicant's contiguous parcel to the north. See Rosemount Ord. 11-l l-6. The variance optimizes a permitted use of the Property, that for any owner, is plagued with an uncertain future and limited marketability. After acquisition by the County and construction of a clover-leaf, it is uncertain that the remainder of the Property will have any viable use; as is apparent from the entire Property being restricted by the Official Map and the County's willingness to negotiate for acquisition of the entire Property. It is reasonable to permit a use that minimizes acquisition exposure and impediments to regional commerce. The Planning Staff Report and Board of Appeals and Adjustment Findings arbitrarily reconfigures the analysis of this factor. They revert the questionto Does Applicant have any reasonable use of the Property without the variance? The legislature clarified that is not the question when it DOCS-#5685962-v I City of Rosemount March29,2017 Page 13 amended Minn. Stat. Sec. 462.357 , subd. 6, in2011, effectively eliminating that notion that arose in Krummenacher v. City of Minnestonka, TS3 N.W.2d 721,732 (Minn. 2010). Consistent with how municipalities had historically interpreted the reasonable use factor, the 2011 statutory amendment clarified that the issue is whether "the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control." Minn. Stat. $ 462.357, subd. 6. The City's Ordinance is consistent with state law in considering only whether "Granting of the variance allows reasonable use of the property." Rosemount Ordinance 11-12-2.G. This review does make the Applicant's business and alternative uses for the land relevant. Reliance upon a Finding that "there are numerous other uses that could occur on the property" is an arbitrary misapplication of the reasonableness factor. Even so, one need only look at Planning StafPs view of legal non- conforming use to see how they will attempt to unreasonably constrict Applicant's use of the Property if the variance is not granted. 4. Unique Circumstances Not Created by Applicant There are several aspects of the Property that present unique circumstances not created by Applicant. First, the Property has been designated for future improvements to the 52-42 interchange that are likely to result in public acquisition of the Original Taking Area or more. The County has voluntarily participated in negotiations to acquire some or all of the Property. In addition, the City's categorizing the entire Property as Regional Commercial in the current Comprehensive Plan yet retaining its zoning for General Industrial is unique. Given the City's obligation to rezone uses inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the transitional aspect of the Property has been acknowledged by the City. Finally, the restriction of the Property on the Offrcial Map is a uniqueness that Applicant did not create. Constructive notice of this from the public record does not eliminate the uniqueness that distinguishes it from unrestricted parcels. Because the public limitations on the Property and uncertainty surrounding some or all of its future availability severely limit the length of viable ownership and the marketability to other users, it is different than other comparably-sized parcels. Planning Staff and the Board of Appeals and Adjustment say the uniqueness is caused by Applicant. But a commercial or retail developer would be confronted with the same problem: a property zoned for a use that is different than the guiding, Official Map restrictions on any building and uncertain scope and timing of future acquisition. The Property will continue to be at risk for shrinking to the remainder parcel or even less, regardless of who owns it. The Property will still be restricted by the Ofhcial Mapping, regardless of who owns it. These are not self-inflicted attributes. The public limitations are unique circumstances that pose curent real difficulties suppressing the Property's ability to produce a reasonable return without the modest lot improvement. They are a direct result of the public controls and plans for the Property which severely restrains the usability of the Property to Applicant or any owner. Furthermore, the legal nonconforming use has nothing to do with the uniqueness of the Property. Planning Staff has bootstrapped this into the analysis in order to imply that Applicant has done something wrong, therefore, it should not get objective consideration. The past use of the Property is irrelevant to the proposed site plan. Planning Staff and the Board of Appeals and Adjustment DOCS-#5685962-v I City of Rosemount March 29,2017 Page 14 reliance upon irrelevant and disputed past circumstances is not fair consideration. It is arbitrary retribution. 5. Variances Preserves Essential Character of the Locality Planning Staff and the Board of Appeals and Adjustment admitted that "It is unclear if the essential character of the locality as it exists today would not be altered by the granting of the variance." (Staff Report at p. 7.) Then they express fear that other landowners may request a variance if one is granted to Applicant. That has nothing to do with whether granting the variance would alter the essential character of the locality. This is another arbitrary shifting of the analysis in order to fabricate a denial. Each variance application must be judged objectively upon its own merits. Since each situation is unique, no part of Rosemount's Ordinance or state statute allows for consideration of whether others might apply for a variance because another property owner satisfied its burden. It is clear, however, that granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the locale. The area is zoned General Industrial and is predominantly trucking use and storage with another trucking company using the parcel to the northeast of Applicant. Most of the surrounding area is open agricultural and recreational space. Not requiring an industrial structure maintains less clutter and preserves more open space which is beneficial to the surrounding area and future guided commercial use of the site. The site plan provides better transition between uses than a 52,000 square foot building butting up against the intersection of 52-42. An adjacent golf course would benefit from the grant of the variance because landscaping controls would relate more aesthetically to it than the existing attributes. Without the variance, the site is not likely to develop and the legal nonconforming use would continue without performance controls. Granting the variance allows for controlled preservation and enhancement of the character of the area. III. ved. Planning Staff and the Planning Commission denied Applicant's site plan because it required a variance that was not granted, based upon misinterpretation of comprehensive plan requirements, and because it did not comply with setback requirements. Applicant has satisfied its burden to establish entitlement to the 10% building requirement variance. Applicant has established that the City's Comprehensive Plan guiding of the Property is not inconsistent with its retention of the General Industrial zoning classification. Applicant has waived any request for set-back variances. Applicant will submit an updated site and landscape plan compliant with Planning Staff s and engineering comments. Applicant will replat the two parcels that make up the Property to form one buildable lot. Subject to these amendments, Applicant's site plan should be approved by the City Council. DOCS-#5685962-v I City of Rosemount March29,2017 Page 15 CONCLUSION Since the Comprehensive Plan guiding of the Property has not changed and, under the law, need not change to accommodate Applicant's site plan and variance request, the City Council need not overturn the decision of the Planning Commission as to the Comprehensive Plan. Whatever resolution the City Council makes of the Comprehensive Plan aspect of the Planning Commission's process, it cannot be used to impede Applicant's site plan and building permit request. The Board of Appeals and Adjustment's denial of Applicant's variance request should be overturned and Applicant should be granted a variance from the 10% building requirement. As part of this determination, there should be a specific finding by the City Council that Applicant has met its burden of satisfying the exceptions to the Official Mapping restrictions. The Planning Commissions denial of Applicant's site plan should be overtumed and Applicant's site plan should be approved subject to amendments complying with setback requirements, landscaping and engineering comments. DOCS-#5685962-v I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Edited 4/4/17) Planning Commission Regular Meeting: January 24, 2017 Tentative City Council Meeting: February 21, 2017 AGENDA ITEM: Case 17-01-CPA; 17-02-V; 17-03-SP Wayne Transport, Inc. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Variance, and Site Plan Review to expand truck trailer parking. AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing PREPARED BY: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner and Anthony Nemcek, Planner AGENDA NO. 5.b. ATTACHMENTS: Site Location Map; Comp Plan Amendment Map, Resolution BA2017-01, Application Memorandum; Applicant’s Declarations; Declaration Exhibits A-E (Site Aerial, Property Reports, Rosemount Land Use Plan Excerpts, TH42/52 Official Right-of-way Map, Dakota County Original Taking Area), Plan Submittals: Site Plan, Legend, Existing Conditions, Grading and Erosion Control Plan, Details, Landscape Plan, County ROW Acquisition Maps, Engineer’s Memo Dated January 19, 2017, Historical Site Photographs (2011, 2013, 2016) APPROVED BY: K.L. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission make the following motions: 1.Motion to recommend the City Council deny a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use designation of Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot B of Rich Valley Industrial Park from RC – Regional Commercial to GI – General Industrial based on the findings documented in the “Conclusions and Decision” section of the staff report. 2.Motion by the Board of Appeals and Adjustment to adopt Resolution BA2017-01 denying variances for parking setback standards and minimum building size requirements as required in the GI – General Industrial Zoning District standards based on the findings documented in the “Conclusions and Decision” section of the staff report. 3.Motion to deny the site plan review for Wayne Transports to allow the expansion of a truck trailer parking area on Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot B of Rich Valley Industrial Park based on the findings documented in the “Conclusions and Decision” section of the staff report. SUMMARY The Planning Commission is being asked to consider an application from Wayne Transports, Inc., for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use designation of Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot B of Rich Valley Industrial Park from RC – Regional Commercial to GI – General Industrial. The application also includes separate requests for variances and site plan approval to create a parking area on the subject property that will allow an expansion of the Wayne Transports motor freight terminal located immediately north of the site. The proposal does not propose any additional structures than the one currently located in the SW corner of the site. Provision of the parking without more building on the site is inconsistent with the City ordinances and is one of the variance requests. The site is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for Regional Commercial due to its close proximity to the future 42/52 interchange. The applicant is requesting the property be reguided to General Industrial to permit the parking lot/freight terminal use, which is permitted in any of the City’s commercial districts. As indicated in the following report, staff has strong reservations about expansion of the General Industrial designation unto the site, particularly when the entire site is devoted to a parking lot. Staff is recommending denial of each of the requests for reasons outlined in this report. BACKGROUND Applicant: Wayne Transports, Inc., 14345 Conley Avenue Location: Two parcels south of the existing Wayne Transports site at 14345 Conley Avenue: Lot 1 Block 1 and Outlot B of Rich Valley Industrial Park. Immediately northeast of the TH 52 and CSAH 42 interchange. Size: 14.39 Acres Existing Comp Plan Designation: RC-Regional Commercial Proposed Comp Plan Designation: GI-General Industrial Existing Zoning: GI-General Industrial Proposed Zoning No Change Proposed The site under consideration (two separate parcels) was acquired by the applicant in 2012. Prior to this acquisition, the property was used by Solberg Aggregates for its business, which included a small building housing offices with a small storage/shop area, paved parking area, and informal exterior storage area for trucks and equipment on what appears to have been a crushed rock or natural surface. Solberg had previously used the site for a limited amount of gravel extraction starting in 1979; however, any active mining appears to have ceased several years ago. The existing building was constructed in 1993 and was permitted by the City under the zoning in existence at that time. In the 2020 Comprehensive Plan the property was guided IM Industrial/Mixed Use; “the Industrial Mixed area is designed to serve the needs of general industrial and highway-oriented commercial uses.” As part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan adoption, the property was guided to Regional Commercial. The updated land use designation took into account the changing nature of the Highway 52 corridor, continued expansion of urban development to the east, and the general land use suitability for highly visible property at the intersection of two busy highways. This was also the recommendation of the 42/52 Task Force which lead to the changes in the Plan. Sometime after acquiring the property in 2012, the applicant began modifying the site by expanding the crushed rock parking area and began parking trucks and semi-trailers on the property. Staff has attached an aerial image to this report that documents the site conditions in 2012 and the conditions in 2015. These aerial photographs clearly show a major expansion of parking on the site, and the conversion of larger areas that were previous bare ground and unimproved to parking. After becoming aware of the parking improvements sometime in late 2014/early 2015 staff notified the applicant that the parking expansion was not approved as is, and would need to be reviewed and permitted by the City of Rosemount. If not permitted, the property would need to be brought back to the conditions that existed before the expansion. The work performed was done in violation of the City Code, and if the City does not grant the requested permits for this work, the site must be brought back to its pre-existing condition (essentially what existed at the time it was purchased by the applicant). The City has delayed any enforcement action pending formal review of the current request. Additionally, the City has delayed enforcement action at the 2 property owners request as they were working with the County to negotiate land acquisition associated with the 42/52 road improvements. While the City has been working with the property owner to address the issues noted above, Dakota County has been negotiating with the property owner to acquire a portion of the property for the planned 42/52 interchange project. At present, the County is not planning to construct the full clover leaf project as planned, and is instead seeking to move forward with an interim strategy that will be constructed in 2017. The interim strategy calls for the replacement of the existing TH52 bridge and widening of TH42 to a full four lanes through the intersection. Roughly 10 years ago, the City adopted an Official Map identifying the land needed for future road improvements at full build-out, and the Official Map identifies all of the subject property for future acquisition. The official map designation permits the City to deny construction or other site improvements with the intention to purchase the property within a six month time period. The official mapping process was approved to assist in future planning of the clover leaf project and the result of this mechanism should assist in reducing future land acquisition costs. However, although the official map designation prohibits the issuance of a building permit on the property, limited improvements such as parking areas, may be approved at the discretion of the City Council and provided said improvements will not interfere with the future public purpose (i.e. make it more difficult or costly to acquire the property). During initial negotiations with the applicant to acquire property for the project, Dakota County sought to acquire all land needed for the future expansion (the full clover leaf) as documented by the applicant on Exhibit E of their declarations. Subsequent to a successful appeal by the property owner, the County is limiting their acquisition to no more than the property needed for the interim project, and will presumably need to renegotiate with the applicant (or future property owner) when they are ready to proceed with the full intersection/clover leaf improvements. Please note that the County has previously decided that it will not need all of the property regulated by the Official Map to complete full project build out, but will not pursue any more land acquisition until they are ready to proceed with the next stage of the project. Regardless of the outcome of the current application, the City should modify the official map to reflect the anticipated land needed for the right of way. The site plan submitted by the applicant has been prepared in response to the reduced Dakota County acquisition area. Since the acquisition area is limited to a 30-foot wide strip of land adjacent to the existing TH42 right-of-way, it will not impact the proposed improvements, all of which are located further away on the site and north of the existing paved driveway/parking area. All of the proposed site improvements are located within the area currently designated for acquisition on the City’s Official Map. The applicant has stated that the improvements are necessary to generate a reasonable return from the property. Staff does not agree with this assessment, and in particular, would like to note that the site has been improved and used in the past for a business. In addition, the County had indicated less property is needed for future right of way meaning that approximately 8 acres of land will be available for future commercial development. Eight acres is large enough to construct a significant development. For example, the Cub Foods property (including the two strip malls) is 9.67 acres, the mall with the Pond, and two outbuldings is 7.10 acres and the SunBelt implement dealer site is 5.85 acres. SITE PLAN DETAILS The proposed site plan calls for the construction of two larger parking areas on the property, one north of the existing building and the other located over the eastern parcel along Conley Avenue. The parking areas are designed to accommodate the parking of semi-trailers, with 127 stalls with dimensions of 12 feet by 60 feet each. The proposed parking configuration and use is very similar to how Wayne Transports developed its site to the north. Access to the parking areas is from an existing driveway entrance to the site located approximately 150 feet north of TH42. The plans depict a potential future access on the north part of the property along Conley Avenue. Other than the parking areas, the other major site 3 improvement is a storm water retention area in the central portion of the property that will drain into an existing pond in the southeast that then flows into the City’s storm sewer system in Conley Avenue. Historically, the site under consideration was used for a contractor’s office and shop with a limited amount of parking in a paved area on the southern portion of the site. Although the contractor shop/office is a conforming use, (i.e. is allowed under the GI zoning district) the building is non-conforming from a dimensional perspective because it does not meet the minimum size requirement of 10% of the lot size. In this case, the building is situated on a 9.48 acre parcel (taking into account the recent County right-of- way acquisition) which would require a minimum building size of 41,295 square feet. By adding the adjacent outlot to this analysis, the minimum building size jumps up to 60,680 square feet. Under the City’s non-conforming regulations, a property owner is not allowed to expand a non-conformity unless such expansion brings the site closer into conformance with the City Code. This means that no additional parking is allowed on the property until the site complies with the minimum building size requirement. In order to establish the extent of the legal non-conforming use of the property, Staff reviewed the site plan approved with the 1999 platting of the Rich Valley Industrial Park and the building permit for the Solberg facility issued in 1993. Given the non-conforming nature of the building, any parking on the site would also be considered a legal non-conforming use provided it was in existence, and legally approved by the City, and met all the ordinance criteria at the time it was constructed. Staff was not able to find any official authorization for parking outside of the existing paved area shown on the building permit documentation or any later site plans for the Solberg facility. Based on the lack of any approvals from the City, Staff has determined that only parking within the previously paved areas of Lot 1, Block 1 of the Rich Valley Industrial Park would be considered part of the legal non-conforming use of the site. If the City does not grant the requested variance, the applicant would be limited to parking in only those areas paved under previous permits with the City. In order to help further describe the extent of the gravel parking improvements completed by the applicant (without proper permits from the City), Staff has assembled a series of aerial images obtained from the County’s GIS system that depict the conditions of the site as they existed in 2011 (one year before it was acquired by the applicant), 2013 (one year after acquisition) and from 2016 (the most recent image available). These images clearly show a significant expansion of parking on the site after it was acquired by the applicant, and parking that extended outside of the paved areas approved by the City. The only circumstances under which the Zoning Ordinance allows the expansion of a non-conformity is if the expansion is made so as to bring the site into conformance with the regulations of the Ordinance. In this case, the applicant did not secure the proper permits for the work and is proposing improvements that are not allowed under the Zoning Ordinance. The application under review is intended to address these discrepancies by changing the future land use designation of the property to allow the proposed parking and trailer storage use, securing variances for the GI district standards that will not be met, and receiving proper site plan approval for all work proposed. The applicant has indicated that their request for a land use change and variances is justified because they have no need for an additional building due to the fact there are two buildings located on the applicant’s property located immediately north of the site. The structures situated on the property to the north are also not compliant with the ordinance standard requiring a building of at least 10% of the property size within the General Industrial zoning district. From the perspective of the future planned intersection improvements in the area, the applicant’s plans do not represent a substantial investment that would significantly hinder future acquisition and re-use of the property. The staff report below does not focus on this aspect of the proposal, and instead the staff analysis and draft findings instead concentrate on the broader land use issues and criteria for granting 4 variances as spelled out in the Zoning Ordinance. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT The applicant has requested a reguiding of the site to match its zoning. Currently, it is zoned General Industrial and it is guided Regional Commercial. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan takes precedence over a site’s zoning. However, the Commission and Council could, upon review, decide that General Industrial is a more suitable land use for the site. The site was designated for Regional Commercial in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan because of its location in the NE corner of the future 42/52 clover leaf interchange. The City anticipated that the rebuilt interchange would be attractive to larger commercial uses. The Comprehensive Plan states, “The 350 acre Regional Commercial district is intended for businesses with a regional draw or with products that are sold annually or less often. Big box retail, theaters, or hotels are appropriate uses in this area, as well as an area for existing vehicle sales businesses in other parts of the City to relocate.” Staff continues to believe that the opportunity for regional commercial exists around the 42/52 interchange area and does not believe that general industrial, particularly developed as a parking lot for truck storage, is the highest or best use of the site. The Comprehensive Plan lists the balancing commercial and industrial land uses as an economic development goal. Presently, the City has 2,493 acres designated for industrial use and 985 acres for commercial. The City has more industrial land than many other communities due to the presence of Flint Hills Refinery, and it is questionable if expanding general industrial lands is warranted. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the size of each General Industrial District should be greater than 400 acres. The amendment to the comprehensive plan would create a General Industrial District that is segregated from other GI-guided land by Light Industrial to the north, Highway 52 to the west, and RC- Regional Commercial to the east and south. The size would not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. As the community grows to the east, staff continues to field calls about land undeveloped in the Hwy 52 area. The recent Regents approval of an agreement between University and Opus to market 160 acres in the NE section of UMore for future business park development means that commercial and professional services will be needed in the eastern portion of the City. As the City continues to work to attract a hotel, convenience store and other commercial entities, there have been discussions about locating these businesses near the interchange; drawing drivers from Hwy 52 and local customers. The County’s overall project acquisition area as previously established would still leave 7.78 acres of usable land, large enough for a hotel, restaurant, and other commercial uses. Given the location and high visibility of the site, staff feels that the site is best situated for commercial uses rather than industrial. For these reasons, staff is recommending denial of the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment. VARIANCE S The applicant is requesting variances from two of the site development standards for the GI – General Industrial District as follows: • A variance to allow the construction of and outdoor storage/trailer parking area and other improvements to the site without meeting the minimum building size of 10% of the subject property excluding protected wetlands. The site is 14.39 acres in size, which requires a minimum building size of 62,683 square feet. The existing building is just over 10,000 square feet in area. Even if combined with the northern parcel, the site would still be well under the 10% building requirement as the northern Wayne Transports property does not currently comply with the 10% structure size requirement. • A variance to allow a parking area to be set back 25 feet from the Conley Avenue right-of-way (street side yard) and the rear property line. The district standards for the GI district require a 40 5 foot setback from both of these property lines. The requested variances specifically relate to the nature of the business being run by the applicant, which is considered a truck terminal under the Zoning Ordinance. These types of businesses generally include activities related to receiving, storing, and dispatching trucks carrying products for shipment out to another destination. Wayne Transports focuses on the transportation of asphalt, chemicals, petroleum, propane, and other bulk transportation, hence the need for the storage and staging of the tanker trailers. This type of use, while permitted in the GI zoning district, is regulated by performance standards, one of which requires the construction of a building meeting minimum size requirements. The first variance described above would not be necessary if the applicant were to construct a building of 62,683 square feet with the other proposed site improvements. In this case, there is an existing building on the property that could count towards the overall building size, which leaves the site approximately 52,700 square feet short of the ordinance requirement. Staff has also examined the applicant’s site to the north to determine whether or not combining all parcels under common ownership might bring the site closer to compliance with the minimum building size required. The northern site is currently used for parking of semi-trailers and trucks, and also has two buildings of around 32,000 and 10,000 square feet. The overall area of this parcel is 19.44 acres, however, which would require a minimum building size of nearly 85,000 square feet (43,000 short of the ordinance standard). Combining the two parcels still leaves the overall site roughly 86,000 square feet short of the district’s minimum size requirement. In either scenario, the proposed improvements to the southern parcel will leave the site far short of the minimum building requirements specified in the code and result in a use of land that is discouraged under the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Variances allow individual properties or buildings to exceed the standards of the zoning district in which the property is located. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties In this case, the use of the word may in both the City’s ordinance and State Statutes very clearly indicates that the City is not required to approve the variance, even if all the listed standards are met (which Staff does not believe they are). Variance Standards According to Section 11-12-2.G, there are five criteria for granting of a variance request. The five criteria used to assess each request along with staff’s findings for each are listed below. While weighing a variance request against these criteria, there are also two key issues to consider. The first is whether the applicant has reasonable use of their property without the variance. The second is whether the project can be redesigned to eliminate or reduce the need for a variance. The Commission must approve or deny each request based on findings related to each of the five standards. Building Size Variance - Findings As mentioned previously, the proposal does not include any additional structure on the site, meaning that the 10% building coverage is not met. Taking into account the existing building on the premises, the proposed building coverage for the subject site is 1.6%, which is a variance of 8.4% or 52,683 square feet from the minimum zoning requirement. Staff has found that the variance is not warranted upon review of the City’s variance standards, and offers the following as draft findings for consideration by the Planning Commission: 1. The variance request is not in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. Finding: The City Code lists off street parking or loading as an accessory use within the General Industrial zoning district. The ordinance specifically notes that the minimum building size is 10% of subject property, excluding protective wetlands. The proposal does not include any structure, meaning 6 the proposal is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. The intent of the ordinance is to encourage investment in property that will bring jobs and tax base into the community, which is not achieved with the expansion of parking and outdoor storage. 2. The variance is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: Should the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to reguide the site from Regional Commercial to General Industrial not be approved, the variance would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the amendment is approved, the variance should be weighed against the General Industrial Land Use designation. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the size of each General Industrial District should be greater than 400 acres. The amendment to the comprehensive plan would create a General Industrial District that is segregated from other GI-guided land by Light Industrial to the north, Highway 52 to the west, and RC-Regional Commercial to the east and south. The Economic Development section of the Comprehensive Plan has a goal of “Balance economic growth within the overall tax base of Rosemount.” As mentioned previously the City has a lot of industrially designated land. Most of this is related to the Flint Hills Refinery which has a lot of equipment at their facility. From a tax base perspective, structures or buildings are valued and taxed, equipment is not. Similarly parking lots are assessed at a low level which affects taxes paid. For example, the current Wayne Transports (land value of $1,171,900 and building value of $1,580,200) site pays taxes of $5114/acre. A commercial use such as the retail center with Great Clips pays $32,316/acre, the Kwik Trip on Hwy 3 pays $984,117/acre (this is illustrative since the site is only .51 acres), the 9.7-acre Cub Foods shopping center pays $34,819/acre, and the 6.5-acre Rosemount Crossing shopping center pays and aggregate of $31,448/acre. Given the goals of the Comprehensive Plan which include maximizing tax base, promoting commercial development along 42/52 and balancing tax base, in staff’s opinion the propose site plan with variances does not meet those standards. 3. Granting of the variance allows reasonable use of the property. Finding: The proposed use of the site for an expanded truck terminal parking and storage facility without an associated building that meets the minimum building size requirements is not a reasonable use of the property because it promotes a use that is otherwise not allowed under the Zoning Ordinance. In this case, exterior storage and parking would be the primary use of a site that is large enough to accommodate a building that meets the minimum building coverage requirement of the GI zoning district. The request for variance is related to the type of business owned and not any specific deficiencies in the site. 4. There are unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner. Finding: The unique circumstances claimed by the applicant relate to the City’s adoption of an Official Map documenting the land needed for future reconstruction of the 42/52 interchange. The site, after acquisition will still be 7.78 acres, which is of a size that can allow multiple commercial uses. Additionally, the applicant bought the site well after the official map was adopted by the City with all related restrictions on property already in place. There are no deficiencies or other restrictions associated with property (outside of the County’s planned acquisition area) that would limit construction of a building or that would limit the use of the property for parking that meets setback requirements. The applicant has indicated that without the condemnation, the applicant would have continued using the site in a legal nonconforming manner; however, most of the site improvements performed by the applicant represent expansion of a non-conforming use and are not allowed. If the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and variances are not approved, the City will continue with enforcement action to bring the site into compliance. Based upon aerial photos of the site, at the time 7 of purchase the property contained 3.14 acres of surface parking. It is staff’s belief that the circumstances have been created solely by the applicant when they purchased land that was guided for a different use than the applicant desired. 5.Granting of the variance does not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: It is unclear if the essential character of the locality as it exists today would not be altered by the granting of the variance. However, the City has enforced this regulation of the ordinance for several businesses in the General Industrial zoning district. Allowing a variance that is substantially inconsistent with the requirement could result in other property owners anticipating similar treatment. A movement away from the 10% requirement would alter the character of the locality, particularly in the eastern portion of the community where much of the General Industrial land is zoned. The granting of the variance would allow a use of the property that is inconsistent with City’s long term vision and goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages buildings and jobs within its commercial and industrial areas. Setback Variance - Findings The applicant is requesting a variance from the City Ordinance requiring a 40 foot front yard setback. The applicant it requesting the variance to maintain consistency with the variances granted on the applicant’s property to the north of the site. The applicant has not met the criteria for the granting of a variance. Staff is proposing the following findings related to this variance request: 1.The variance request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. Finding: The purpose of the GI general industrial district is to provide for the establishment of both light and medium manufacturing uses along with warehouse, repair, and business uses. The GI general industrial district is intended to include uses that may require outdoor and vehicle or trailer storage but exclude heavy industrial uses. The general industrial district is the preferred transition district between the heavy industrial district and may be compatible with residential uses or include relatively higher on site populations, subject to higher performance standards. Staff feels that this request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. 2.The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: Should the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to reguide the site from Regional Commercial to General Industrial not be approved, the variance would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan because a truck terminal and exterior parking area is not a compatible use with the City’s Regional Commercial land use designation. If the amendment is approved, the variance should be weighed against the General Industrial Land Use designation. The Comprehensive Plan lists trucking and freight terminals as typical uses. The use associated with the variance request would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3.Granting of the variance allows reasonable use of the property. Finding: The proposed use is not a reasonable use of the property because the site is large enough so support a parking lot that complies with the GI zoning district setback requirements and the requested setback variances are not needed to provide a reasonable parking area and building(s) on the site. While the variance request allows the applicant to include more parking stalls than they would be able to otherwise, the GI zoning regulations still allow a significant portion of the site to be used for parking. This criterion is not met. 4.There are unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner. Finding: While the potential future acquisition of the property by Dakota County was not a result of 8 actions by the property owner, the taking of the property is not the reason for the variance request. In addition, the land was purchased with the Official Map designation already in place on the property. There are no deficiencies or other restrictions associated with property (outside of the County’s planned acquisition area) that would limit construction of a building or that would limit the use of the property for parking that meets setback requirements. 5. Granting of the variance does not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: Granting of the variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. SITE PLAN REVIEW Land Use and Zoning Standards As described above, there are several land use and zoning issues identified with the proposed development. The following reviews the proposal using the site plan standards for the General Industrial zoning district. If Comprehensive Plan amendment and variances are recommended for approval, the Planning Commission should take the following issues into consideration in making its decision: Landscaping and Berming The landscape plan provided by the applicant shows 57 trees planted on the site. City Code requires 8 trees or 1 per 3,000 square feet of land area, whichever is greater. The site is 7.79 acres, or 339,332 square feet. The plan is short 56 trees, nearly half of the required amount. The landscape plan shows deciduous trees spaced every 50 feet in the boulevard along Conley Avenue. A mixture of deciduous and coniferous trees would be placed along the southwest property line to provide screening of the site from the 42/52 interchange. The landscape plan as provided does not meet the minimum requirements of the City Code. Any approval would need to substantially increase the amount of landscaping on the site to bring the property into compliance with ordinance standards. Access and Parking The site would be accessed via the existing driveway along Conley Avenue, with a potential future access near the northern limits of the parcel. The plan indicates parking for 127 semi-trailers positioned in two separate areas on the western and eastern portion of the property. All proposed stalls would be 12 feet wide by 60 feet deep to accommodate both a truck and a trailer. Traffic would circulate around a central stormwater basin. The access drive is 60 feet wide with 104 and 109 feet of maneuvering space within each respective parking area to accommodate truck traffic. There are no specific parking requirements for truck terminals, but enhanced screening is required and should be included in the updated landscape plan. Future Platting The western parcel included the current application was platted as an outlot within the Rich Valley Industrial Park subdivision. The site must be replatted to be reclassified as a buildable parcel, and should be combined with the western parcel to form one site. Engineering Comments Comments from the City Engineer relate to stormwater management on site and the need for additional information. Those requirements can be found in the attached Engineer’s Memo dated January 19, 2017. One of the more significant changes recommend by City Engineer is that the applicant provide curb and gutter for all of the proposed paved parking areas. Stormwater will be managed on site using a stormwater basin located centrally on the site. The applicant is required to submit documentation of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) received from the Minnesota Pollution Control before a building permit will be issued. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The applicant has submitted requests for an Amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and variances 9 from the City’s Zoning Code. Based on the information outlined above staff does not support reguiding of the property. Additionally, staff does not support the variance as they are inconsistent with the criteria for granting variance including the requirement that variances be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending the following motions: Motion to deny the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Regional Commercial to General Industrial based upon the following findings: 1.The property location adjacent to the 42/52 interchange is more suited for Regional Commercial use. 2.Reguiding of the site is inconsistent with the goal to balance economic growth within the overall tax base of Rosemount as much of the non-residential land is currently designated for industrial use. 3.Based upon the proposed land use for the site, reguiding to General Industrial is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan to encourage additional high quality and tax base generating industrial development in the community. 4.The property size is smaller than that recommended for General Industrial districts in the community. 5.The land use as proposed on site does not meet zoning ordinance criteria and therefore does not meet the goals of the City Council. Motion to deny the variances from the requirement for 10% of the lot area to be contain a building and a front yard setback parking variance based upon the following: 1.There are no unique circumstances associated with the property that are not made by the applicant. 2.The proposed use is not consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 3.The property owner is proposing a plan that does not represent a reasonable use of the property with the requested variance. 4.The proposed use is not consistent with purpose and intent of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances. 5.The proposed use will alter the essential character of the area. Should the Planning Commission adopt the above motions, the following motion concerning the site plan review would also be in order: Motion to deny the site plan for Wayne Transport at Lot 1 Block 1 and Outlot B of Rich Valley Industrial Park based upon the following: 1.The site plan requires variances that were not granted and a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment that was denied. 2.The site plan does not conform with the City’s designation of the subject property in the Comprehensive Plan for future Regional Commercial use of the property. 3.The site plan does not comply with the required street side and rear yard setbacks for a parking area and is 52,700 square feet short of the minimum building size requirement for the GI – General Industrial Zoning District. 10 145TH ST E TO SB CLAYTON AVE145TH ST E145TH ST E TO NB CLAYTON AVECLAYTON AVECLAYTON AVE TO 145TH ST ECONLEY AVE 145TH ST E TO SB CLAYTON AVE145TH ST E145TH ST E TO NB CLAYTON AVECLAYTON AVECLAYTON AVE TO 145TH ST ECONLEY AVE AG Agriculture DT Downtown NC Neighborhood Commercial RC Regional Commercial CC Community Commercial AGR Agricultural Research RR Rural Residential LDR Low Density Residential TR Transitional Residential MDR Medium Density Residential HDR High Density Residential PI Public/Institutional PO Existing Parks/Open Space BP Business Park LI Light Industrial GI General Industrial WM Waste Management AG Agriculture DT Downtown NC Neighborhood Commercial RC Regional Commercial CC Community Commercial AGR Agricultural Research RR Rural Residential LDR Low Density Residential TR Transitional Residential MDR Medium Density Residential HDR High Density Residential PI Public/Institutional PO Existing Parks/Open Space BP Business Park LI Light Industrial GI General Industrial WM Waste Management Comprehensive Plan Amendment Current Future Land Use Proposed Future Land Use Document Path: T:\GIS\City\Maps\Departmental Maps\CommunityDevelopment\Comprehensive Plan Update 2018\CompPlanAmendmentMap.mxd Comprehensive Plan Amendment CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION BA2017-01 A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXTERIOR PARKING AND STORAGE AREA THAT DOES MEET MINIMUM SETBACKS OR BUILDING COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS WHEREAS, Wayne Transports, Inc., 14345 Conley Avenue, (the “Applicant”) has submitted an application to the City Rosemount (the “City”) for variances from the minimum setbacks and minimum building coverage requirement of the GI – General Industrial zoning district to expand semi-trailer and truck parking on two parcels located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of TH42 and TH52; and WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Rosemount Zoning Ordinance, Section 11-12-2; and WHEREAS, the Rosemount Board of Appeals and Adjustments held a public hearing and considered said on said matter on January 24, 2017. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the Rosemount Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS 1)That the procedures for obtaining said Variance are found in the Rosemount Zoning Ordinance, Section 11-12-2. 2)That all the submission requirements of said Section 11-12-2 have been met by the Applicant. 3)That the proposed variance will allow the construction of an expanded parking area for an existing truck terminal operation on the adjacent parcel north of the subject property. The specific variances requested are as follows: a)Building Coverage: A variance to allow the construction of and outdoor storage/trailer parking area and other improvements to the site without meeting the minimum building size of 10% of the subject property excluding protected wetlands within a GI zoning district. The site is 14.39 acres in size, which requires a minimum building size of 62,683 square feet. The existing building is just over 10,000 square feet in area, which results in a requested variance of 52,683 square feet. Resolution BA2017-01 1 b) Setbacks: A variance to allow the proposed parking area to be set back 25 feet from the Conley Avenue right-of-way (street side yard) and rear property line. The district standards for the GI zoning district require a 40 foot setback from both of these property lines, which results in a requested variance of 15 feet. 4) That the Variance will be located on property legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot B of Rich Valley Industrial Park, Dakota County, Minnesota. PID 34-63950-01-010 and 34-63950-00-020. 5) That the variance request is not in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. Specific findings: a) Building Coverage: The proposed use of the site for an expanded truck terminal parking and storage facility without an associated building that meets the minimum building size requirements is not a reasonable use of the property because it promotes a use that is otherwise not allowed under the Zoning Ordinance. In this case, exterior storage and parking would be the primary use of a site that is large enough to accommodate a building that meets the minimum building coverage requirement of the GI zoning district. The request for variance is related to the type of business owned and not any specific deficiencies in the site. b) Setbacks: The purpose of the GI general industrial district is to provide for the establishment of both light and medium manufacturing uses along with warehouse, repair, and business uses. The GI general industrial district is intended to include uses that may require outdoor and vehicle or trailer storage but exclude heavy industrial uses. The general industrial district is the preferred transition district between the heavy industrial district and may be compatible with residential uses or include relatively higher on site populations, subject to higher performance standards. Staff feels that this request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. 6) That the variance is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Specific findings: a) Building Coverage: The variance would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan which guides the subject property for General Commercial land uses. The Economic Development section of the Comprehensive Plan has a goal of “Balance economic growth within the overall tax base of Rosemount.” The City has an abundance of industrially designated land. Most of this is related to the Flint Hills Refinery which has a lot of equipment at their facility. From a tax base perspective, structures or buildings are valued and taxed, equipment is not. Similarly parking lots are assessed at a low level which affects taxes paid. For example, the current Wayne Transports (land value of $1,171,900 and building value of $1,580,200) site pays taxes of $5114/acre. A commercial use such as the retail center with Great Clips pays $32,316/acre, the Kwik Trip on Hwy 3 pays $984,117/acre (this is illustrative since the site is only .51 acres), the 9.7-acre Cub Foods shopping center pays $34,819/acre, and the 6.5-acre Rosemount Crossing shopping center pays and aggregate of $31,448/acre. Given the goals of the Comprehensive Plan which include maximizing tax base, promoting commercial development along 42/52 and balancing tax base, the propose site plan with variances does not meet these standards. b) Setbacks: The use associated with the variance request would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because a truck terminal and exterior parking area is not a compatible use with the City’s Regional Commercial land use designation. Resolution BA2017-01 2 7) That granting of the variance does not allow a reasonable use of the property. Specific findings: a) Building Coverage: The applicant has reasonable use of the property without the granting of the variance. While it may be true that the property owner has the need for additional parking storage and not for additional building space, there are numerous uses that could occur on the property without need of variance. The request for variance is related to the type of business owned and not deficiencies in the site. b) Setbacks: The proposed use is not a reasonable use of the property because the site is large enough so support a parking lot that complies with the GI zoning district setback requirements and the requested setback variances are not needed to provide a reasonable parking area and building(s) on the site. While the variance request allows the applicant to include more parking stalls than they would be able to otherwise, the GI zoning regulations still allow a significant portion of the site to be used for parking. 8) That there are no unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner. Specific findings: a) Building Coverage: The unique circumstances claimed by the applicant relate to the City’s adoption of an Official Map documenting the land needed for future reconstruction of the 42/52 interchange. The site, after acquisition will still be 7.78 acres, which is of a size that can allow multiple commercial uses. Additionally, the applicant bought the site well after the official map was adopted by the City with all related restrictions on property already in place. There are no deficiencies or other restrictions associated with property (outside of the County’s planned acquisition area) that would limit construction of a building or that would limit the use of the property for parking that meets setback requirements. The applicant has indicated that without the condemnation, they would have continued using the site in a legal nonconforming manner; however, most of the site improvements performed by the applicant represent expansion of a non-conforming use and are not allowed. If the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and variances are not approved, the City will continue with enforcement action to bring the site into compliance. Based upon aerial photos of the site, at the time of purchase the property contained 3.14 acres of surface parking. The current circumstances have been created solely by the applicant when they purchased land that was guided for a different use than the applicant desired. b) Setbacks: While the potential future acquisition of the property by Dakota County was not a result of actions by the property owner, the taking of the property is not the reason for the variance request. In addition, the land was purchased with the Official Map designation already in place on the property. There are no deficiencies or other restrictions associated with property (outside of the County’s planned acquisition area) that would limit construction of a building or that would limit the use of the property for parking that meets setback requirements. 9) That granting of the variance does alter the essential character of the locality. Specific findings: a) Building Coverage: It is unclear if the essential character of the locality as it exists today would not be altered by the granting of the variance. However, the City has enforced this regulation of the ordinance for several businesses in the General Industrial zoning district. Allowing a variance that is substantially inconsistent with the requirement could result in other property owners anticipating similar treatment. A movement away from the 10% requirement would alter the character of the locality, particularly in the Resolution BA2017-01 3 eastern portion of the community where much of the General Industrial land is zoned. The granting of the variance would allow a use of the property that is inconsistent with City’s long term vision and goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages buildings and jobs within its commercial and industrial areas. b) Setbacks: Granting of the variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Based on the foregoing, the Applicant’s application for a Variance is hereby denied. Passed and duly adopted this 24th day of January 2017 by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota. __________________________________ Melissa Kenninger, Chair ATTEST: ________________________________ Amy Roudebush, Planning & Personnel Secretary Resolution BA2017-01 4 In Re Wayne Transport's Request for Site Plan Approval and Building Permit Issuance Declaration of Carl Vedders Carl Vedders, being first duly sworn upon oath, states as follows: 1.I am the President of Wayne Transports, Inc., and President and Chief Financial Manager of CMC Properties, LLC, the property-ownership entity of Wayne Transports. I make this declaration of my own personal knowledge in support of the application of CMC Properties Applicant") for approval of its site plan, issuance of a building permit and such other approvals/variances as are necessary for Applicant's lot improvement project. 2.The real estate that is the subject of CMC's application is situated at the northeast corner of State Highway 52 and CSAH 42, and is legally-described as Lot 1 Block 1, and Outlot B, Rich Valley Industrial Park, Dakota County, Minnesota ("Property"). Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct pictorial depiction of Property outlined in orange. 3.In 2000, Koch Petroleum Group platted and conveyed the Property to Solberg Partnership. Attached hereto as Exhibit B are true and correct copies of Orbit property reports referring to the Koch - Solberg plat and conveyance. Solberg conducted excavating operation on the property using heavy equipment, including parking heavy trucks and machinery. 4.Although the Property is zoned as General Industrial, it has been designated as future commercial in the City of Rosemount Comprehensive Land Use — 2020 plan which was created in the year 2000. During 2004—2005,this Comprehensive Plan was updated in the County Road 42/J.S. Highway 52 Corridor Study to determine the development and land uses of that side of Rosemount which retained the commercial designation for the Property. Attached hereto as Exhibit C are true and correct excerptscopiesofis and diagrams from the Comprehensive Plan.P rP DOCS-#5471779-v 1 5.In 2005, the City of Rosemount began the process of"officially mapping" areas surrounding the 52/42 intersection including the Property. Official Mapping is authorized by Minnesota Statute Section 462.359 and as per Rosemount Zoning Code Chapter 13 to restrict land needed for future street or public purposes. 6.On August 8, 2007, the City of Rosemount recorded its Official Map against the Property, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit D. The entire Property, all of Lot 1 Block 1 and Outlot B, was designated and still remains within the Official Map restricted area. 7.In 2009, the City published its Comprehensive Land Use—2030 plan. The 2009 plan designated the property as Regional Commercial and defined it as: intended for businesses with a regional draw or with products that are sold annually or less often. Big box retail,theaters, or hotels are appropriate uses in this area, as well as an area for existing vehicle sales businesses in other parts of the City to relocate. Ex. C at p. 70.) 8.In 2012, the Property was acquired by CMC Properties from Solberg. Wayne Transport has expanded its truck terminal operations on to the Property and leased part of the Property to other trucking-related tenants. Wayne has a legal non-conforming right to continue to use the Property as it historically has been used for parking trucks and trailers on various parts of the Property. 9.In August 2016, the County of Dakota commenced a condemnation action seeking to acquire a large portion of the Property consisting of approximately 284,528 square feet or 6.53 acres. This Property was claimed for expansion of the 52/42 interchange including the possibility of a cloverleaf design that generated the arcing triangular-shaped taking area of the Property DOCS-#5471779-vi Original Taking Area"). Attached hereto as Exhibit E, is a true and correct pictorial depiction of the Original Taking Area. 10. After the public purpose hearing in October 2016, Dakota County limited its acquisition of the Property to its immediate project need of widening parts of the 52/42 intersection. During the negotiations between CMC/Wayne and Dakota County, it was disclosed that the County and highway department had plans to expand the intersection in the future so it was still willing to consider acquiring the Original Taking Area and even the entire Property. This is consistent with the Rosemount 2030 Land Use Plan with Roadway Network diagram which depicts the cloverleaf design in the Original Taking Area. (Ex. C.) An agreement as to valuation for the Original Taking Area or the entire Property could not be reached between CMC/Wayne and Dakota County in the time frame available. Dakota County has represented that it is still willing to negotiate acquiring the Original Taking Area or the entire Property because of the public need and future expansion of the intersection. 11. In light of the likelihood that the Original Taking Area will be acquired and our existing use and future needs, Applicant does not need or desire a building to be part of this area. Wayne has sufficient building space on the adjacent property to the north. Wayne's needs are for truck parking. The development restrictions render the Property unable to achieve a reasonable return. Without installation of the parking lot and if the City does not allow parking in Outlot B or other areas it views as outside of the historical use, there is little unleased area that is available for parking and able to achieve a reasonable return. The site plan design would allow Applicant to generate approximately $4,200 per month in revenue that could not be generated without it. Without installation of the parking, this revenue stream will be unavailable. The remaining area of the Property is leased to a tenant which generates $3,400 per month. If the Original Taking 3 DOCS-#5471779-vi Area is acquired, Applicant is likely to lose the $3,400 per month revenue stream. Although the 4,200 income stream combined with the tenant rental is still only a marginal return from the Property, this is reasonable and consistent with the less substantial investment in the parking lot and uncertain future of the Property. 12. The site plan conforms to all performance standards that are not inconsistent with the Official Map and Comprehensive Plan. The landscaping will enhance the aesthetics and natural transition of uses. Public utilities are available and accessible to the property. Lighting will be the minimum required by City for our use in order to minimally disturb adjacent uses. Applicant does not anticipate significant levels of noise, vibration, glare, smoke, odor, waste or other emissions, but levels consistent with the continuing use as a truck/trailer storage facility. 13. Wayne Transports employs over 600 people companywide with around 250 of those employees located at our Rosemount facility. Wayne is providing a necessary service in this area and values the good relationship with the City of Rosemount while operating our business here and wishes to continue that relationship moving forward. We believe this plan is a reasonable approach to the limitations and uncertainty inherent in the Property and would greatly appreciate the City giving us approval to proceed. I declare under penalty of perjury that everything I have stated in this declaration is true and correct. 4 DOCS-#5471779-v 1 Dated: December.2 0 2016 ZCarlfftenrs I 1 E r t 5 DOCS-#5471779-v1 Aerial Lot 1 and Outlot B n 4 Zf 15 r a Z y J is F 9 September 21, 2016 1:4,110 0 0.035 0.07 0.14 mi Torrens Property Multi-owner Parcel 0 0.05 01 0.2 km Tax Parcels F Water in Tax Parcel Tax Parcel Right of Way Easement EXHIBIT Dedicated Right of Way Pending New Water A Disclaimer Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate,but accuracy is not guaranteed.This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal,survey or for zoning verficabon Title Basket ISL/51406.0006 Created Date: 12/5/2016 County: OK Order Number: 1 1 12:18:04 PM Subdivision RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK Name: Book: 2800 Page: 1102 Lot:is Block: From Date: 11/1/1988 ITo Date: 11/28/2016 Doc Doc Type Grantor/Grantee Dated Recorded Details Number RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK SOLBERG PARTNERSHIP LLP&FLEETDEVELOPMENT LLC 1631708 PLAT KOCHPETROLEUM GROUP LP 8/24/1999 8/24/1999 L, B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK Ref Doc: 36-40 CITY OF 1631709 RES THE PUBLIC 8/3/19998/3/1999 8/24/1999 L, B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK KOCH PETROLEUM GROUP LP 1680417 WD SSOL.BERG PARTNERSHIP LIMITED 8/25/2000 3/21/2000 LB, B OUTLOT B XCEL ENERGY INC. 1805118 AST NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY FKA NORTHERN POWER 12/29/2000 8/23/2001 L, B CORPORATION ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK AMERICAN BANK OF ST. PAUL 1997779 AMD FS FLEET DEVELOPMENT LLC 2/10/2003 L,B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK Ref Doc: 1516382 MIDWAY NATIONAL BANK OF ST. PAUL 1997780 AMD FS AMERICAN BANK OF ST. PAUL 2/10/2003 L, B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK Ref Doc: 1516382 AMERICAN BANK OF ST.PAUL 1997781 CONT FS FLEET DEVELOPMENT LLC 2/10/2003 L, B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK Ref Doc: 1516382 FLEET DEVELOPMENT,LLC, ETAL 2189213 SUB TWIN CITIES-METRO CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,ETAL 3/26/2004 L,B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK AMERICAN BANK OF ST.PAUL 2302157 REL MTG FLEET DEVELOPMENT, LLC 2/22/2005 3/7/2005 L,B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK RELEASE OF MTG 1516380& AR 1516381 AMERICAN BANK OF ST. PAUL 2302158 TERM FS FLEET DEVELOPMENT, LLC 3/7/2005 L, B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK Ref Doc: 1516382 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 2535824 R/W MAP THE PUBLIC 6/29/2005 8/8/2007 L B, B TH 52/CSAH 42 2914725 WD SOL.BERG LLP 11/15/2012 12/12/2012 L B, B CMG PROPERTIES LLC' WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 3025260 REL FLEET PARKING AND LOGISTICS INC.8/8/2014 8/15/2014 L,8 ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK Ref Doc: 2189213 DAKOTA COUNTY 3141998 R/W MAP THE PUBLIC 8/2/2016 8/4/2016 LB, B CO RD AD]. Ref Doc: 340 COUNTY OF DAKOTA 3163050 R/W MAP THE PUBLIC 11/15/2016 11/22/2016 L B, B PARCEL 6 ON CR R/W MAP 340A Ref Doc:340A EXHIBIT 1- 1 12/5/2016 12:22:44 PM Title Basket JSL/51406.0006 Created Date: 12/5/2016 County: DK Order Number: 12:17:40 PM Subdivision RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK Name: Book: 2800 Page: 1102 Lot: 1 Block: 1 From Date: 11/1/1988 ITO Date: 11/28/2016 Doc Number Doc Type Grantor/Grantee Dated Recorded Details RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK SOLBERG..PARTNERSHIP LLP&FLEETDEVELOPMENT LLC 1631708 PLAT KOCHPETROLEUM GROUP LP 8/24/1999 8/24/1999 L, B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK Ref Doc: 36-40 CITY OF 1631709 RES THE PUBLICEMOUNT 8/3/1999 8/24/1999 L, B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK XCEL ENERGY INC. 1805118 AST NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY FKA NORTHERN POWER 12/29/2000 8/23/2001 L, B CORPORATION ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK AMERICAN BANK OF ST. PAUL 1997779 AMD FS FLEET DEVELOPMENT LLC 2/10/2003 L,B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK Ref Doc: 1516382 MIDWAY NATIONAL BANK OF ST. PAUL 1997780 AMD FS AMERICAN BANK OF ST. PAUL 2/10/2003 L,B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK Ref Doc: 1516382 AMERICAN BANK OF ST. PAUL 1997781 CONT FS FLEET DEVELOPMENT LLC 2/10/2003 L,B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK Ref Doc: 1516382 FLEET DEVELOPMENT, LLC, ETAL 2189213 SUB TWIN CITIES-METRO CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,ETAL 3/26/2004 L,B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK AMERICAN BANK OF ST.PAUL 2302157 REL MTG FLEET DEVELOPMENT, LLC 2/22/2005 3/7/2005 L,B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK RELEASE OF MTG 1516380& AR 1516381 AMERICAN BANK OF ST. PAUL 2302158 TERM FS FLEET DEVELOPMENT, LLC 3/7/2005 L, B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK Ref Doc: 1516382 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 2535824 R/W MAP THE PUBLIC 6/29/2005 8/8/2007 L 1, B 1 TH 52/CSAH 42 2914725 WD SOLBERG LLP 11/15/2012 12/12/2012 L 1, B 1 CMC PROPERTIES LLC WELLS FARGO BANK,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 3025260 REL FLEET PARKING AND LOGISTICS INC.8/8/2014 8/15/2014 L, B ALL OF RICH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK Ref Doc: 2189213 DAKOTA COUNTY 3141998 R/W MAP THE PUBLIC 8/2/2016 8/4/2016 L 1,B 1 CO RD ADJ. Ref Doc: 340 COUNTY OF DAKOTA 3163050 R/W MAP THE PUBLIC 11/15/2016 11/22/2016 L 1, B 1 PARCEL 5 ON CR R/W MAP 340A Ref Doc: 340A 1 1 12/5/2016 12:21:42 PM 2030 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN yyw/ \ \ qq i May, 2009 RoSEM0UNT MINNESOTA EX""h'IBIT COO C.I_1 LTI 1, L J r g Yr 0 q t 3 49 fi; l 3 b d f « a i a 3 3 s r 3 HAS j] x 3 b sf 7 'per Y Q C..I f s i i 3 t. i i 3 3 € r t i g s t7i 71 s S ) C 33 N« E rrr' ep Y 4P i w. wn--i f'-i x _ L 3 iY` •i L T z, y I I 7 A i IV fYWlwwM9 a LJ t r- x Ffr:. 7 Y rY s sitYY W" ll wr+rsrrrrrr.rr u max c i a q w '•q a 3£ '`, gip` 3 ff am ,t,. q i 4P yga p xu a i Location Criteria: The size of districts intended for auto orientated businesses may be as small as 10 acres,while the size of districts intended for businesses with a regional draw should be a minimum of 50 acres. Auto orientated business district should be located along arterial roads,while regional draw districts should be located at the intersections or interchanges of principal arterial roads. Minimum Requirements for Development: Frontage and backage road systems. Utilities: Municipal water and sanitary sewer are required. Typical Uses: Hotels;theaters;big box retail;post-secondary education;vehicle sales and rentals;auto repair garages;tool repair;machinery sales;contractor yards; and retail. Appropriate Zoning: C3—Highway Commercial Limited Secondary Zoning: C4—General Commercial Two Regional Commercial districts are provided within the Land Use Plan: an approximately 20 acre district bounded by South Robert Trail,Canada Circle,and the Union Pacific rail line;and an approximately 350 acre district surrounding the intersection of County Road 42 and US Highway 52. The 20 acre Regional Commercial district is intended for auto oriented businesses. This district provides an area for the auto orientated businesses currently located Downtown,or the contractor businesses located southwest of County Road 42 and South Robert Trail,can be relocated. The 350 acre Regional Commercial district is intended for businesses with a regional draw or with products that are sold annually or less often. Big box retail, theaters,or hotels are appropriate uses in this area,as well as an area for existing vehicle sales businesses in other parts of the City to relocate. Business Park (BP) Purpose: The intent of the Business Park district is to develop businesses with a large number of employees,wages that support an entire family, and constructed of high quality buildings that provide both beauty and tax base hV' to the community. Establishments within the business park are intended to have little or no outdoor storage,with the majority of the business activities occurring completely indoors Location Criteria: The size of each Business Park district is intended to be greater than 150 acres in size. The district should be located adjacent to heavily traveled arterial roads to Webb company,Rosemount Business Park provide both visibility and access to these major employment centers. Minimum Requirements for Development: Within the MUSA and with an improved access to a collector and/or arterial road to serve the district. The street network within the business park should be designed to accommodate truck and freight traffic while also providing sidewalks and pedestrian improvements for employees to use during breaks and lunch periods. 70 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Document No.2535824 Office of the County Reoorder Dakota County,Minnesota 08108/2007 at 08:00am Certified and filed on the date and time above Joel T.RIGHT OF WAY PLAT By:CK,Deputy County Recorder Fee:66.00 Charge:Rosemount GRANTORS: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT'Return: File s TO PUBLIC Dated: JUNE 29th._ 2005 Filed: AUGUSI Btb. 2007 Time: 08:00 am Books: Page: -- FEE: Part of: The Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Ouarter of Section 191 jiUZ The Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 311 The Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30; -- The Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter.of Section 361 The Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Ouarter,of Section 3(h The Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quorter,of Section 301 MAL: The Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Ouarter.of Section'301 k The Southeast Ouorter of the Northeast Oucrter.of Seotlon 30s - The Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter.of Section 30; Lov-0 4 6~r 8 The Southeast Quarter of the Northwest'Quarter,of Section 301 1. FIr.cased faurcarA.{Th0 Southwe4t Quarter of the Northwest Ouarter.of Section 301} iA Rr uA The Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter,of Section.30; Arc AA In Township 115.Rangle, 18.Dakota County,Mirmesoto. j Also part of: The Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Ouarter or Section 241 re b , The Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter.of.Section 251 - the Sbutheast Quarter of the Northeast Ouarter.of Section 251 5he Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter.of Seation 251) p° he Northwest Duarter of the Southeast Quarter.of Seotion 251 The Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter.of Sectlon 251 -• The Southeoet Quarter of the Southeast Quarter.of Section 251 All In Township 115.Range 19.0akota County Minnesota. CITY wcATED: Rpje fAgoti r PLAT NAME: CjTyP-p5EM0001 T6 52.ZC6AH4 2- OFFte-w . tAA4 OF PROPOSeD F4014t"-Or--WAY Information sbeet only--Original document found in fde- EXHIBIT s>o. N+cmx z r f 3A . m ozo» mv c S o-+om_a No m mmmgZZNN Z 09m11p Ol,O j F* zoo srr o i{ az zzr 9m0 mv< 0isaimo E. O Z 1 3dI Mir 2 r s n mmm MK M> rrm w2 0o c— s aa+e ars ssas s- res Jivt v.r_-_ r wyr a wano r n m p m m W a N h s op"', s 4h F..t ooA s•[yam.[!___ yr e s mai;sem*[m,« .,._-' 4; s" ~` MATCH LINE A y'4" ER, SEE SHEET 2 OF 4 SHEETS) a Ti u c . ,`+, .1` i • rRe o ^' $i R4R $+k T!•-a-a S Q;? N o Or ( A O Y eo$-a• RRM11111! V) O o 0 sg SEE SHEET 1 OF 4 SHEETS) df is iq JAJ It CA n f i r• r ...'. s a OSI —1 on N 0 r- 0 C) t (A of to 4 z o..pCm n9 mor-x n n$ 0 os-19-Nm C) smmmo.+NN Z A.. 22922 m p j 1 09ffHti CaAO 77I7 Zoo xrr o a2i'9rii? 9.<vimmi¢x ge- NaKm oio o gg zoom K K Nom I 1( N2 O 9r l2 Zl S j] 111 111 I D a a a arils. xatt.. 1° _ »c:«t'tt•.ta+l.e: a.. m r»-s wwu• Ino a cn a w 4 t y a s o N r«Y tt n t M—oo Ln, aoa c"n o I 0 nO N C I TI Z d D TI n l ZODO-+C mXf'19 r OOzonmay-aiv q rrn O> mmmO- 0i z pn-. zzy7izz m o ZO~S rr OpO 9ZZ9r Z2.9-•, m__cpaz = OM 0= pcprosA ~ '2Ctit I Z I mmmz Kmi zom Oc m c i= IA y z a I Y rn w N m xz m a Nx oaasx.+^x.cKai- w.a•q, mD US HWY. 52 iJ i 4 x90'ai•i?a#N.q u•Ift u17.!---_. Oar"' 4 i y z wroi•Ny• .ra wa°-°lute ae - 3.' `m.w° Nn a tes.ka ax>, rrlS ur N I 9 e + r ,c ,r ,r N-1 x n oT s R M" jj pp jj vc in r c o a 59 a - 8 ypy x i d' I1 f 4 G7 N O r ,P ,1. x D Nm a 3 X1'•7 0 a o mo ry c T1 m 1 A o r) -u n K O , 0 n z O c m vw o m -i 0 rDrD ,, iii NF o z zUq p0 a 7O 70 W C nV) O1 m Ln DK ;0 m Z = m z K -4 tn Ln to n7oO D r A C ZC o z y D1-4 MOm q D DW (m Z O D M w N V 00 U1 Na ul W M-l0 s W Ch1co V1 V1 y F T T T7 n O rF rn rl r+ N 0 00 -z N fa O tea,° ^' +- ,§ :.Sc .,., a 2zw i x a s CD EXHIBIT c 1lBdfll 4JfJDYtg. 1 . n n rl =3 n r Z Orn c m -0W 0 m to XQ n N O Z Z000 n rj Ul Co 00 D * 0 O 1. z 7, Z N Ln r In (m} W oo mo a jo C a 3> O ,-q " = C y: O Z uu, Ln n z rt fD T 3 V m o. X ru Zr r. F+ y Y N x rrz i O 00 SEP N k a 5-. co V .1%#6+10/#2 Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä%184  )4#&+0) '415+102.#0 %18'45*''65+6'2.#05*''6+0&': 9#;0'64#0521465415'/17066'4/+0#. 5+6'+/2418'/'062.#0415'/1706/+00'516# %18'45*''65+6'2.#0 Know what's R +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1( ÄÄ 2,% ,// 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG  Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG 9#;0'64#0521465+0% %10.';#8'07' 415'/1706/+00'516# 415'/17066'4/+0#. 415'/1706/+00'516# ÄÄ2CTMKPI%JCPIG ':+56+0)%10&+6+105 &'6#+.5 .')'0&  .#0&5%#2'2.#0. 011(2#4-+0)56#..5 Äž:ž56#..5 Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä.')'0& .')'0& Know what's R +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1( ÄÄ 2,% ,// 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG  Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG 9#;0'64#0521465+0% %10.';#8'07' 415'/1706/+00'516# 415'/17066'4/+0#. 415'/1706/+00'516# ÄÄ2CTMKPI%JCPIG Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä':56 ':+56+0)%10&+6+105 Know what's R +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1( ÄÄ 2,% ,// 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG  Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG 9#;0'64#0521465+0% %10.';#8'07' 415'/1706/+00'516# 415'/17066'4/+0#. 415'/1706/+00'516# ÄÄ2CTMKPI%JCPIG Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä)4#& )4#&+0) '415+10%10641.2.#0 Know what's R +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1( ÄÄ 2,% ,// 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG  Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG 9#;0'64#0521465+0% %10.';#8'07' 415'/1706/+00'516# 415'/17066'4/+0#. 415'/1706/+00'516# ÄÄ2CTMKPI%JCPIG x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä&6.5 &'6#+.5 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1( ÄÄ 2,% ,// 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG  Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG 9#;0'64#0521465+0% %10.';#8'07' 415'/1706/+00'516# 415'/17066'4/+0#. 415'/1706/+00'516# ÄÄ2CTMKPI%JCPIG E 1( 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG  Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF.CPFUECRG#TEJKVGEV WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC  ,GPPKHGT.6JQORUQP 9#;0'64#0521465+0% %10.';#8'07' 415'/1706/+00'516# 415'/17066'4/+0#. 415'/1706/+00'516# ÄÄ2CTMKPI%JCPIG .#0&5%#2'2.#0 .ÄÄ LNV LNV MEMORANDUM DATE: January 24, 2017 TO: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner CC: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director John Morast, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Amy Roudebush, Planning and Personnel Secretary FROM: Mitch Hatcher, Project Engineer RE: Wayne Transports Engineering Review SUBMITTAL: Prepared by Pioneer Engineering, the Wayne Transports Rosemount Terminal, dated December 2, 2016. The review comments were generated from the following documents included in the submittal:  Plan comprised of the following: ▫ Site Plan ▫ Existing Conditions ▫ Grading & Erosion Control Plan ▫ Details ▫ Landscape and Seeding Plan  Stormwater Management Plan and Calculations GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. Dimensions, contours, grades, and spot elevations should be shown on the proposed pavement sections. 2. The proposed parking lots should be installed with concrete curb and gutter with storm sewer catch basins to route stormwater runoff to the pond. 3. It is recommended that the section to remain gravel on the west side of the site be improved to a paved surface. 4. If the proposed pavement sections are to be used for parking, a striping plan should be submitted for review. 5. Compliance with the requirements of the NPDES permit is the responsibility of the owner/contractor. Documentation of permit acquisition shall be forwarded to the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. 6. Record drawings (paper and electronic formats) of the site that meet the standards set forth in the Engineering Guidelines shall be submitted to the City. STORMWATER COMMENTS: 7. NWL and HWL should be shown on the plan sheets. 8. Lining of NURP ponding areas is not required by the City; however, the developer may want to consider as ponding areas will likely not maintain vegetation below the NWL. 9. No EOF labels are shown for the proposed stormwater basins. 10. Max slope of 4:1 are allowed above the NWL for stormwater basins. Detail on sheet 5 shows 3:1 slopes. Update grading plan, details, and calculations accordingly. 11. FES are set to the NWL, they should be set with ½ the pipe diameter below the NWL. Water Quantity: 12. City Engineering Guidelines require an infiltration surface area that is 1/12 of an acre- foot/acre/day for the entire drainage area. The requirements for Pond 20 based on the 10.64 ac-ft drainage area is 0.88 ac-ft/day. The Hydraulic Report should be updated to reflect the correct calculations. Infiltration surface area provided above the NWL does not meet the City standards utilizing and infiltration rate of 1.0 in/hr. Additional information is required to justify this infiltration rate assumption. a. Infiltration calculations should be calculated over a 24 hour period, not 48 hours as calculated in the Hydraulic report. Developer should provide the correct basin surface area consistent with the HydroCAD report and correct calculations to show compliance with City requirements. b. Max allowable infiltration rate in accordance with City Engineering Guidelines for HSG A Soils is 0.30 in/hr. Different infiltration rates will be considered (up to a maximum of 3.0 in/hour) by the City Engineer on a site-by-site basis based on percolation tests or other pertinent information conducted by a professional soil scientist or Professional Engineer. c. Note: USGS Soils map submitted indicates HSG B soils in the area of the proposed infiltration basin surrounded by HSG A under the proposed parking surfaces. 13. A post construction percolation test must be performed on each infiltration basin and must demonstrate that the constructed infiltration rate meets or exceeds the design infiltration rate prior to project acceptance by the city. 14. No discharge or infiltration can be assumed for the 100-year, 24-hour storm event to establish the 100-year HWL. HWL to be listed on the Grading Plan should reflect this requirement. 15. Discharge Volume Table below summarizes information provided in the development HydroCAD report. Storage for the runoff from this site has not been accounted for in the proposed stormwater basin to be constructed onsite. Discharge Volume Summary Sub-catchment Area 2-yr/24-hr (2.79”) 10-yr/24-hr (4.15”) 100-yr/24-hr (7.43”) Proposed Conditions Pond 20 Outflow 0.53 ac-ft 1.17 ac-ft 3.19 ac-ft Total Offsite 0.53 ac-ft 1.17 ac-ft 3.19 ac-ft Rate Control: 16. Discharge Rate Table below summarized information provided in the development HydroCAD report. Storage of the runoff from the 100-year 24 hour storm event is required to be kept on-site as stated in the City Engineering Guidelines Section II.2.b. Discharge Rate Summary Sub-catchment Area 2-yr/24-hr (2.79”) 10-yr/24-hr (4.15”) 100-yr/24-hr (7.43”) Proposed Conditions Pond 20 Outflow 1.10cfs 1.75 cfs 8.72 cfs Total Offsite 1.10 cfs 1.75 cfs 8.72 cfs Water Quality: 17. Pretreatment of stormwater is required prior to discharge to an infiltration basin. 18. The water quality table in the submitted stormwater management plan should show the requirements for Pond 20 onsite. The design does not appear to meet the NURP ponding requirements. a. The required NURP volume is 1.23 ac-ft and the stage storage tables in the HydroCAD report for Pond 20 indicates cumulative storage available at elevation 868.0’ to be 0.82 ac-ft. 19. Permanent pool average depth shall be greater than 4 feet based on City Engineering Standards Section II.3.a.ii. Average pool depth looks to be about 2.7 feet. 20. The City requires skimmers in the construction of new ponds in accordance with the City Engineering Guidelines Section II.3.f. Recommend requiring the developer to install an OCS with a submerged outlet pipe with the invert placed a minimum of 6 inches below the normal water level. The skimmer design shall be consistent with the current City detail. Should you have any questions or comments regarding the items listed above, please contact me at 651-322-2015. Aerial Image from 2011  Aerial Image from 2013  Aerial Image from 2016