Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.a. SKB Master Dev. Final Plan & Simple Plat 17-08-PUD & 17-16-SMPEXECUTIVE SUMMARY Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 25, 2017 Tentative City Council Meeting Date: TBD Based on Commission Action AGENDA ITEM: Case 17-08-PUD; 17-16-SMP: SKB Environmental Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan, PUD Final Site and Building Plan and Simple Plat for a Metals Recycling Facility and Maintenance Shop. AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing PREPARED BY: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner AGENDA NO. 6.a. ATTACHMENTS: Location Map, Future Land Map, Zoning Map, Application Materials: Cover Letter, Updated Response Letter, Attachments 1) City Applications, 2) Site Plan Review and PUD Checklist, 3) Legal Description with Site Survey and Simple Plat, 4) Project Description and Operations Narrative, Adjacent Property Owners, Soil Boring Logs, Wastewater Holding Tank Design Memo, Surface Water Analysis, 5) Tree Survey and Preservation Plan, 6) Project Plan Drawings, 7) Simple Plat Drawings, Resolution 2016-03 (Approving Concept Plan), City Engineering Memorandum, Public Works Director Comment Letter, Fire Marshall Review Memo, Business Park Example Photos, Excerpt of 12/14/15 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED BY: KL RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to table the application and request additional information and plan revisions as discussed in the Staff report. SUMMARY The Planning Commission is being asked to consider an application from SKB Environmental for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Development Plan, PUD Final Site and Building Plan and Simple Plat associated with a proposed metals recycling operation and maintenance facility that will be located on property immediately east of the existing landfill site at 13425 Courthouse Boulevard (Highway 55). The current application follows the City’s late 2015 approval of a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment that ultimately changed the zoning of the property from LI Light Industrial and BP Business Park to General Industrial to support the proposed use of the site. In conjunction with the plan amendment and rezoning, the applicant had also submitted a PUD concept plan for the site that was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and Council with conditions. Following the concept plan approval, the applicant has prepared more detailed plans for 2 development of the site and is seeking approval of the PUD Master Development and Final Site and Building Plan to allow development in accordance with the updated plans. In a departure from the Concept Plan submission, the applicant is submitting a PUD Master Development and Final Site and Building Plan application only for the westernmost portion of the property it now owns adjacent to the SKB landfill site as opposed to the entire concept plan area. This will allow the applicant to move forward with plans for the first phase of development (metals recycling and maintenance shop) without submitting detailed plans for future phases. In order to proceed in this manner, the applicant has applied for a simple plat to separate the PUD property from the remainder of the parcel. The proposed simple plat will re-subdivide two existing parcels into a one buildable lot and an outlot to be further subdivided or combined with adjacent parcels in the future. The PUD Master Development Plan includes four proposed buildings ranging in size from 40,500 to 70,500 square feet of which three will house various operations to further process and recycle metals from the mixed municipal solid waste ash coming into the landfill facility. The operation also includes use of the resulting ash residual to create a lightweight, high strength aggregate for the concrete industry. One of the buildings will provide space for general maintenance activities for both the recycling facilities and the overall landfill operations (labeled as “Proposed Maintenance Shop” on the plans). The submitted plans include details concerning grading, drainage, and erosion control, utilities, building design, tree preservation and protection, and other information as required by the Zoning Ordinance. With the City’s previous approvals, the zoning of the subject site has been established as GI/PUD (General Industrial/Planned Unit Development, and the zoning standards for the GI district will serve as a basis for following analysis. Condition seven of the concept approval stated: It is anticipated that future development on the site, with the exception of the area adjacent to the future intersection will be consistent with General Industrial or Light Industrial zoning standards and will meet the ordinance requirements for those districts. There is no intention to expand the Waste Management Land Use. At this time, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to consider public testimony concerning the proposed PUD Master Plan, but that the Commission table taking action on the application. As noted in the following report, there are several aspects of the development plans that do not comply with the City’s GI district standards and grading requirements or there is additional information needed about specific aspects of the project before the staff can appropriately review the plan. Staff is recommending that the development plans be updated to bring the site into conformance with all applicable requirements before any action is taken by the City to approve the application. BACKGROUND Applicant: SKB Environmental, Inc., 251 Starkey Street, St. Paul, MN Owner: Same Location: The westerly 1,200 feet of property located immediately east of the SKB Environmental landfill at 13425 Courthouse Boulevard). The PUD Master Plan site aligns the recent Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendment for the same property. Proposed legal description: Lot 1, Block 1 SKB Rosemount First Addition Area in Acres: 52 Acres Comprehensive Plan Designation: GI General Industrial Current Zoning: GI-PUD General Industrial/Planned Unit Development 3 The applicant presently operates the SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility at 13425 Courthouse Boulevard immediately west of the of the subject property. The waste facility is permitted by the City through an interim use permit, which was most recently amended in 2013. As part of the 2013 approval, the applicant was allowed to expand the operation, which included ability to operate and maintain a recycling/transfer facility on the premises (this was carried forward from an earlier approval). The City authorized construction of a new building for the recycling operations in September of 2014, located southwest of the office/testing labs, with a revision to the earlier plans to allow an outdoor waste depositing pad. The other operations on the landfill site are in conformance with the interim use permit, which was approved for a term of five years. After the renewal of its IUP, SKB expressed an interest in continuing to make investments in its recycling operations, and applied for the necessary land use and zoning changes to construct an additional set of buildings and related improvements on land immediately east of the landfill site. Although applicant has acquired 184 acres of land adjacent to the landfill, the City only authorized future land use and zoning changes for the eastern 1,200 feet of this property. In fact, the approval specifically states the intention to keep the remainder of the site as Business Park and Commercial. The future land use map now reflects GI General Industrial use for the subject site, and the corresponding zoning was established as GI-PUD General Industrial/PUD. The PUD designation is important because the applicant is required to apply for a Planned Unit Development for any activity on the parcel, which gives the City additional review authority for future uses on this site. The remainder of the land now owned by SKB east of the landfill has retained its AG Agricultural zoning designation, and is still planned for future business park or commercial development in the future. Focusing on the present application, the SKB Environmental has submitted a PUD Master Development and Final Site and Building Plan for the area that was rezoned. The application does not include any part of the larger concept plan area because the applicant is not prepared to move forward with any development in the eastern, later phases at this time. The current application therefore provides details about the proposed development for the western-most portion of their property consistent with the area now zoned GI –General Industrial. Because the boundaries of the first development phase (as defined by the PUD Master and Final Plans) do not align with the current parcels, the applicant must subdivide the property to ensure that the development is properly contained within a specific area. The applicant has submitted a project narrative for the request, with information concerning the proposed activity and improvements proposed for the site. The site is currently vacant and has historically been used for general agricultural purposes. In addition to sharing a border with the landfill, the subject property is adjacent to 140th Street to the south and two single family parcels with agricultural zoning to the north. One of these residential parcels is owned by SKB Environmental while the other is under separate ownership and still used as a residential dwelling. The project site includes roughly 140 feet of frontage along TH55. Overall, the site is relatively level; however, there are a series of small hills and valleys as you move from east to west on the property. The bulk of the site is around 900 feet in elevation (close to the elevation of Highway 55) but drops off significantly along the southern edge, close 140th Street, which is 40 feet lower than TH55 in the southwestern most corner of the site. While most of the site is lacking in tree cover, there is a significant band of trees along the hillside adjacent to 140th Street. 4 The PUD Master Development and Final Site and Building Plan includes buildings and activities that will support an enhanced metals recycling operation for the landfill, and specifically buildings for the processing of materials, a maintenance shop, and aggregate driveway and operations area. This new site will differ from the current recycling operation because it will be able to separate even finer amounts of metal from the waste coming into the facility. In practice, this means that materials will first be sorted at the existing facility on the landfill site and then brought to the new site for further processing. The primary material that is being handled by SKB to remove metals for recycling is mixed municipal solid waste ash that would otherwise be deposited into one of the landfill cells on the premises. By sorting and reclaiming metal material that would otherwise go into the ground, SKB is able to reduce the need for additional landfill space (and conversely would also be able to process more waste due to the decreased demand for landfill space). The applicant’s project narrative and development plans contain information about the proposed PUD. In summary, the major components of the project include the following:  Buildings. The plans include the construction of four buildings on the site including one that will be used as a general maintenance shop serving both the existing landfill operations and the new expanded recycling activities. The other three structures will serve various functions associated with the further processing of non-ferrous (non magnetic) metals from the MSW ash stream coming into the land fill. As reported by the applicant, the furthest north recycling building will be similar to the existing Gem-Ash building at the landfill site. This proposed building will recover nonferrous metal from ash and will house technology that would enable further recovery beyond the existing operation. The middle building will be an upgrade facility with equipment to differentiate the various metals and prepare the metal for sale to the market. The furthest south building will be used to further recycle the ash to a lightweight, high strength aggregate for the concrete industry and will be constructed sometime after the two recycling buildings are established.  Access/Parking. The site plan indicates that there will be two access points into the site with one connecting into an adjacent haul road on the landfill property and one providing a direct connection to 140th Street in the southwest corner of the site. The majority of the trucks and vehicles entering the site will come from the landfill property (which will provide the ash supply for further processing), and the primary access to the landfill is located approximately ¼ mile west along Highway 55. The southern driveway will be gated in order to limit general access to the site. The applicant’s materials do not provide any description of the types of vehicles that will be entering the site, the number of expected vehicles trips, or the estimated portion of traffic that will be entering or existing from the landfill versus the 140th Street entrance. There is no information available relating to additional truck traffic to the site due to the new operations and hauling of material from the site. The center portion of the site will be paved for a driveway and operations area, and will include a formal off-street parking area with 21 stalls for employees and guests.  Utilities. The applicant is proposing a holding tank to provide for sanitary sewer service on the property until such time that public sewer service is extended to this area. The development plans identify a connection to a future trunk sanitary sewer line from 140th Street that will follow the western edge of the development. The plans further indicate that the development will be served via an extension of the City’s existing 12 inch water main within Highway 55; however, the existing main ends near the landfill entrance over 1,200 feet from the planned connection point into the PUD area. The applicant identifies the water main 5 extension as a future project. A six inch service line is shown internal to the development to provide water to the individual buildings.  Grading. The site and grading plan proposes a significant amount of grading on the property that will lower the overall site by approximately 20+ feet from the current elevations. This will create a bowl in which the buildings and parking areas will be located within the interior depression, with steeper slopes around the edges matching into the adjacent grades. The site will generally drain from the north to the south, with one larger storm water pond collecting and infiltrating storm water runoff. The applicant is proposing to leave a majority of the wooded hillside in the southern-most portion of the site intact, which would act as a large berm given the extensive grading taking place on the remainder of the site. However, utilities are proposed in the tree preservation areas, and therefore additional trees will be removed although not accounted for. The applicant notes that the buildings will be set below the adjacent grade to provide screening.  Storm Water Management. As noted in the preceding section, storm water runoff will be directed into one storm water retention pond in the southern portion of the site. The plans include the construction of a storm water overflow pipe that will tie into an existing box culvert within 140th Street. The proposed pond is essentially being built into the steep hill side facing 140th Street, and the bottom of the pond will be 45 feet below the top of the hill and adjacent land to the east. The storm water system has not been designed to accommodate runoff from any of the adjacent properties.  Landscaping/Tree Preservation. The applicant has submitted both a landscape plan and tree preservation plan for the development. These plans call for the planting of 419 trees on the site, which falls short of the 674 that are required by the landscape ordinance. The applicant is proposing to pay a fee in lieu of tree planting in accordance with the City’s fee schedule. The bulk of the trees to be planted are located in the northern portion of the site, with a large number located between the proposed buildings and the residential property to the north. The remainder of the trees will be planted adjacent to buildings or just off of the parking and maneuvering area. The tree removal plan indicates that the number of trees to be removed from site falls below the amount that would require replacement (25%). The plans also identify 373 shrubs/foundation plantings which matches the amount required for the building sizes proposed.  Simple Plat. The applicant owns approximately 185 acres east of the landfill site spread across five individual parcels. Because the applicant has submitted PUD development plans for only the westernmost 1,200 feet of this land, the property included in the PUD must be separated from the remainder of the undeveloped land. The proposed plat of SKB Rosemount 1st Addition will split the applicant’s land so that the PUD may proceed separate from the rest of their property. Staff has completed a review of the proposed PUD development plans and has broken down its comments into three distinct sections. The first covers the general development issues associated with the PUD application, and are high level concerns that extend beyond the specific components of the development plans. The next section addresses the major site issues and questions that were generated from the staff review, and are items that must be addressed before staff can recommend approval of the project. The final section is a more traditional review focusing on compliance with the City’s zoning regulations and development standards. 6 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS The City reviewed and approved general concept plan for the subject property late in 2015, and since that time the applicant has been working to prepare the detailed plans necessary to proceed with development of the property. With the submission of these more detailed plans, staff has found that they have raised some broad land use planning questions that should be acknowledged and potentially addressed by the City as part of its review. These are higher level issues concerning sewer system planning, future site development implications, and general land use concerns that touch on broader City policy decisions concerning land development in this part of the community (as opposed to the more localized questions of compliance with the underlying subdivision and zoning standards). These larger issues are as follows:  MUSA Development Staging. The subject property is located within the City’s planned 2030 sewer service (MUSA) area. This designation indicates that the City is expecting to serve this area with sanitary sewer service sometime within the 2020-2030 time frame. The applicant’s plans identify future connections the regional sewer system, but do not propose any extensions of the City’s trunk main that would allow the site to connect at this time. Instead, the applicant is proposing to utilize a holding tank to provide for the sanitary needs of the development. Although the applicant suggests that the holding tank is temporary, the City does not have any plans to extend sewer to this area in the near future and there is no time frame for doing so. Moreover, any such plans would likely be driven by development as future sewered projects extend services from the west. The lack of sanitary sewer to serve the project raises questions about the timing of the project, and whether or not the City should allow industrial development to occur within the MUSA area without public services. The City Council has generally discouraged development from occurring before services are available to sites within planned urban areas, which can ultimately lead to problems down the road. Most importantly, the City has developed a sewer staging plan that helps ensure that expenditures and investments are made where they are needed and on a schedule that helps the City budget for larger capital projects. By allowing development to occur outside of this schedule, it is often more expensive to ultimately serve a given area. In some cases, the need for the public improvement project could be questioned since development has already occurred without services. If the City were to approve development in advance of extending services to a development site, staff would strongly recommend that the developer be required to pay access charges at the time of approval to help ensure that these costs are collected up front and considered as part of the overall development costs. The disadvantage in this situation is that a developer will be fronting the costs for both the temporary system and future system without the benefits of the latter. In general, the lack of sanitary sewer service will limit the amount of activity that can take place on the property, and in particular, the number of employees that can feasibly be accommodated. While fewer employees is a benefit for a site that will be pumping a holding tank on a regular basis, it does not further the City’s long range plans to encourage tax base and employment within its industrial and commercial land areas. Ultimately, the decision to allow development within the MUSA with no plans for extension of services to the site is a policy decision that must be made by the City in order for the current application to move forward. The City can deny the application if this is determined to be a critical issue.  Site Grading and Excavation. The proposed grading plans call for the lowering of the entire site by at least 20 feet, and in some areas, even deeper. Dropping the site in this manner will 7 result in a very large amount of material being excavated, which is consistent with the applicant’s stated plans to use the fill in its adjacent landfill operation. From a site development perspective, however, the planned excavation of the site is not necessary for the proposed buildings and activities. This also raises concerns about the timing of the grading work, and what it means for future development of the area. In general, a developer is able to complete grading and excavation work needed to prepare a site for construction as long as the resulting grades comply with the City’s development standards. Typically, this means balancing the site to avoid situations in which a lot of fill is needed, or conversely, needing to truck a lot of material off the site. The SKB Environmental situation is somewhat unique because the landfill operation generates a need for fill material, and there is a benefit to using material right next to the landfill (transportation and staging expenses will be much lower). From the City’s perspective, the significant excavation raises several concerns that have not been adequately addressed in the PUD application materials. In order to gain a better understanding about the excavation of the site, staff is requesting that the applicant provide the following information: - An accurate estimation of the amount of total material that will ultimately be excavated from the site (all earthwork quantities in cubic yards). - A phasing plan/timeline documenting the timing of when the excavation will take place. Staff believes that grading and excavation activity that coincides with the development of the site is permitted under the City Code, but is concerned that the proposed amount of material to be removed cannot be completed at the same time as the other site improvements. - A plan for the hauling of material from the site, and specifically, the anticipated size, number, and travel patterns for vehicles to be used. - A description of any staging areas used for stockpiling, processing or transferring material either on the development site or adjacent landfill property. As part of the PUD, the City will need to determine whether or not the extensive grading proposed should be included as part of the development plans. There does not appear to be any direct need to lower the site in the manner proposed, and if it is lowered, future development will need to take the final grades into account. While development to the east could occur at higher elevations, the developer’s concept plan shows the excavation continuing further east. Final grades that are substantially lower than the surrounding property and streets, while providing the ability to partially screen the buildings, is not ideal or necessary to promote business park development. Staff is concerned that the proposed grading will negatively impact the City’s ability to promote high quality business park development in this area.  Future Development. As the Planning Commission reviews the proposed Planned Development plans, it should take into account the ways in which the current proposal will impact future development in this area. The City established a clear requirement with the concept plan that the developer comply with the City’s GI – General Industrial district standards for the metals recycling site, and that all development to the west would be consistent with the BP – Business Park future land use designation. For now, the applicant has chosen to focus their request on the western portion of the site on property that was rezoned to GI, and has developed a plan that provides for large expanses of paved surfaces and buildings with limited employment activity (much of the space in each building will be devoted to machinery and equipment). While this type of development is allowed in a GI 8 district, there are still building and site development requirements which must be met, including building design, landscaping, parking, etc. The approval of the current PUD will require meeting these standards (the latter section of this report will focus on some of these requirements). Any aspect of the proposed project that does not meet City standards will set the stage for future development in this area. The issues raised in the above sections, dealing with the future adjoining Business Park development, the amount of grading activity on site, and the underutilization of the lands indicate that this is not a typical development. In general, developers are looking to maximize site development and reduce costs. This often is in the City’s best interest as it results in more lot coverage in our zoning districts that would translate to buildings. Additionally, developers want to minimize cost and often try to “balance” site grading so they don’t have to haul off excess fill or bring in additional fill. These typical development goals are not at work with this project. The current proposal and the concept plan before it, illustrate a large site with little development, reducing the amount of associated tax base. The current plan, with metal construction and applied bricking, indicate a lower quality building that will not result in the values, and ultimately taxes, indicated in the applicant’s narrative. The site grading indicates an operator who is using the site as a borrow pit, which is a secondary benefit, and therefore significant grading is occurring that will remove a very large amount of fill from the site. This creates a less attractive site for future phases, results in additional hauling and trucking, and continues to reinforce the lower quality of the project. Staff has provided in the packet several aerials of Business Park development in surrounding communities. Although this site is designed for general industrial, the adjoining property is zoned and guided for Business Park and the development pattern on the present site will impact the final plans for the entire property. The City should be applying ordinance standards to ensure quality development occurs. This means that as development moves from west to east, there is a higher standard that will impact properties in the area, benefiting the community consistent with the City’s economic development goals. MAJOR SITE ISSUES/QUESTIONS Staff has completed an initial review of the application materials and has found that there are either inconsistencies with the City’s zoning and development standards that have not been met by the applicant or additional information is needed in order for staff to be able to fully evaluate the proposal. These are critical items that must be addressed for the application to move forward, and serve as the basis for staff’s recommendation to table the application at this time. The major site issues and questions that need to be address include the following: 1) Grading. The grading plan includes slopes of 3:1 throughout the project area and most prominently around almost the entire perimeter of the site. The City’s grading and excavation standards require slopes of no more than 4:1 with limited exceptions. Because the plans do not leave a lot of room for extending the perimeter slopes out further to lessen the steepness of these slopes, the applicant will likely need to raise the elevation of the site in order to address this issue. An updated grading plan should also address the City’s concerns about the phasing and timing of excavation of the site, and in particular, how this relates to the construction of the proposed site improvements. Please see the attached memorandum from the City Engineer for addition information documenting the City’s concerns with the grading plan. 2) Traffic Study. The applicant has not provided any detailed information concerning the flow of traffic into and out of the site, and staff is strongly recommending that a traffic study be prepared for the proposed development. Of particular concern are the potential increases in truck traffic along Highway 55 and ability of this road to handle additional traffic. The City 9 should also have a better understanding of how the 140th Street access will work and what percentage of traffic will be using this roadway. A traffic study should provide information concerning the type and number of trucks and other vehicles accessing the site, peak volume times, and the major transportation routes for vehicles coming and leaving the site. 3) Water Service. The PUD development plans must be updated to include the construction of all water line necessary to serve the site, including any extension of the trunk water service line within Highway 55. The applicant could petition the City to do this work, but it must be done as a part of the project, otherwise there will be no water service available to serve the proposed buildings. As noted by the City Engineer, when development proposes to connect to the public water service, the City’s policy is to require the extension of such services to the next adjacent property. In order to comply with this requirement, the applicant will need to plan for and construct a 16 inch water main from a point roughly 1,200 feet east of the site, and carry this line through to the next property (in this case Outlot A of the final plat). In addition to the off-site extension of water to the site, there are additional details lacking in the utility plan concerning water services. In particular, there are no hydrants shown internal to the development or along Highway 55. The plans also do not provide any details concerning the activities within each building, so there is little information concerning the water needs of each structure. The applicant has stated that the proposed recycling process is proprietary information; however, the City still needs to have a better understanding of the water usage in order to complete its review. The applicant has stated that no water will be used in the recycling operations, but water service is shown connecting to the maintenance shop and two of the recycling buildings. The Fire Marshall is requesting additional information from the applicant in order to complete his review of the project and PUD plans. This information should be provided before staff can make a final recommendation concerning the water systems plan. 4) Sanitary Sewer Service. The applicant is proposing to use a holding tank to provide the sanitary sewer service for the site. Although described as a temporary solution until public services are extended to the site, the City does not have any plans or a schedule to bring services to this area. The City Code further prohibits the use of a holding tank except in certain instances, none of which apply to the subject property. The specific code requirements read as follows: Holding Tanks - A holding tank may be used for the following application only after it can be shown conclusively by the property owner that an SSTS permitted under this chapter cannot be feasibly installed: a) As a replacement for an existing failing SSTS; b) For an SSTS that poses an imminent threat to public health or safety; or c) For use with buildings with limited water use. The application contains no information concerning the installation of an SSTS (Sub-Surface Sewage Treatment System), and there do not appear to by any site restrictions that would otherwise prevent such a system from being installed. If the City is supportive of development within the MUSA prior to sewer services being extended to the site, the applicant will need to revise the plans to accommodate an on-site treatment system or document why this type of system cannot feasibly be installed on the premises. If on-site system is used, there may still need to be a holding tank as well to accommodate the flammable and hazardous waste generated by the maintenance shop. The applicant cites other businesses in the area as part of the reason why they should be granted an exception to the City’s regulations; however all of these industries are located outside of the City’s sewer service area, and most have been in place since before the City adopted a comprehensive sanitary sewer management plan. If the City does determine that 10 non-sewered development should not be allowed within the MUSA boundary, the applicant would need to either wait to develop until the City extends sewer to this part of the City or will need to develop a plan than extends services to the site. Given the very large distance to the nearest sewer trunk facility, the extension of services at this time would be very costly for either the City or a developer. 5) Building Design Standards. The project site is zoned GI – General Industrial and new development in this district is subject to specific site and building standards. These standards specify certain requirements for building materials and other design elements, and require an enhanced design for portion of any buildings facing a public right of way or residential use or district. In evaluating the proposed project and arrangement of buildings on the site, there are several areas in which the buildings fall short of meeting the City’s requirements. The extent to which the plans need to be revised are dependent on which sides of the building are considered facing a right-of-way or residential use. One of the challenges with the site is that it is technically a double-frontage lot, meaning that it has frontage on two public streets. Additional, the building are arranged in a manner so that some portions of the buildings face outward towards Highway 55 at an angle, while other building sides face inward towards the parking and maneuvering area to towards another building. To address this issue, staff is recommending that the City require the enhanced building design for the eastern elevations of the three recycling buildings and the northern elevations of the maintenance building and first (further north) metals recycling building. This recommendation is intended to represent a compromise so that the fronts of each building, which all face inwards to the site, and most building sides could make use of the lesser standards. In order to address this recommendation, the applicant will need to submit revised plans with the appropriate mix of materials for each side of the building. The applicant should also submit elevation drawings for all sides of the buildings for consideration with the current request. The staff analysis contains additional review comments concerning the proposed building designs. Please note that some of the proposed materials are not allowed under the zoning ordinance. ISSUE ANALYSIS Because staff is recommending that the Planning Commission table the PUD and Simple Plat request, the analysis below is a somewhat truncated review. Staff anticipates that the applicant will need to revise certain elements of the plan to address the major issues described in the preceding section. Should the Planning Commission elect to take action, the following information will be useful in evaluating the request. Legal Authority. Subdivision and planned unit development requests are considered quasi-judicial actions. In such cases, the City is acting as a judge to determine if the regulations within the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance are being followed. Generally, if the application meets these requirements it must be approved. The applicable standards, along with initial staff findings related to each are provided below. Subdivision Request. Standards for reviewing subdivision requests are outlined in Title 12 of the Rosemount City Code. This section of the Code details the two-step preliminary and final plat process for land subdivision. In this case, the applicant requests the City review the preliminary and final plats concurrently as a simple plat. 11 Preliminary Plat. The applicant is proposing to plat the two westernmost parcels of its larger holdings in this area, and will create two new lots: Lot 1, Block 1 that will contain the entire PUD development area, and Outlot A that will be further subdivided or combined with adjacent parcels in the future. The plat also dedicates right-of-way along both Ehlers Path and State Highway 55 consistent with the long range plans for these roads. Finally, the plat dedicates a 30-foot wide trail easement adjacent to the Ehlers Path right-of-way to accommodate the City and County’s plans for a multi-purpose trail in this area and accommodates the required drainage and utility easements along property lines. Land Use and Zoning. The subject property is guided and zoned GI – General Industrial consistent with the City approvals granted last year. The prosed metals recycling activities and maintenance shop are proposed as part of a planned development on the property and are generally compatible and consistent with the GI zoning subject to the specific performance standards of this district. Although the applicant is able to request exceptions to these standards, Staff is not recommending that any exceptions be granted beyond the GI district requirements. The PUD will allow the combination of different buildings and activities on one parcel and will allow development under a unified set of plans. Furthermore, the City’s approval of a Comprehensive Plan amendment and Rezoning or the property explicitly requires that future development be approved through a PUD process. Planned Unit Development. The purpose of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is to allow flexibility from typical zoning performance standards to encourage higher quality development. This process involves an exchange in which the City eases certain performance standards in return for an enhanced development. Based on approvals granted to date for the rezoning and concept plan, staff is recommending that the plans be revised to meet the GI district standards to remain consistent with these previous approvals. The applicant has not specifically requested flexibility from any City standards, but as noted throughout this report, there are currently several areas where the plans do not conform to standards and should be updated to address these deficiencies. The applicant does cite some positive features of the project that are intended to reduce any off-site impacts, including the lowering of buildings below adjacent grades to provide screening, the large numbers of trees and shrubs planted for screening, restrictions that will prohibit public access, and the fact that all activities will take place within an enclosed building. As the Planning Commission reviews the proposed development plans, it should consider the following required findings for a PUD application: 1) compatibility of the proposed plan with the PUD standards and the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, 2) effect of the proposed plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be located, 3) internal organization and adequacy of various uses or densities, circulation and parking facilities, public facilities, recreation areas, open spaces, screening and landscaping, 4) consistency with the standards of section 11-10-3 pertaining to site and building plan review, and 5) such other factors as the planning commission or city council deems relevant Streets and Access. There is only one new access planned for the project area from Ehlers Path while the bulk of the traffic moving into and out of the site would access the property directly from the adjacent landfill. Because the recycling operations will increase traffic levels coming into the landfill, staff is asking for additional information in the form of a traffic study. This information can then be shared with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to help ensure that the project will not have any adverse impacts to the state highway. Additionally, staff would like more information about the extent to which vehicles will be using Ehlers Path, which is not a road that is capable of supporting a large increase in traffic without substantial improvements. 12 Parks and Open Space. Because the City’s plans do not identify a new park on or in close proximity to the subject property, staff is recommending that the developer be required to pay a fee in lieu of land dedication consistent with the current fee schedule and as further documented in the attached review memorandum form the Parks and Recreation Director. Sidewalks, Trails, and Pathways. As an industrial development far removed from any residential neighborhoods, the PUD plans do not call out any new sidewalks or internal trail connections to adjacent properties. The plans do incorporate an easement for a future trail along Ehlers Path consistent with the City and County plans for a regional trail in this portion of the City. The future alignment of the trail as it heads west of the PUD site will need to be incorporated into any platting/development plans in this area. Pedestrian Circulation. The site is intended to facilitate the hauling and processing of recycled materials, therefore pedestrian access is not something that is addressed in the attached plans. The proposed buildings, parking and maneuvering area, and access points are not intended to be primarily used or accessed by pedestrians. Although the projected employment for the site is very low, the applicant should give some consideration to the location of the off-street parking for the site, which is located a considerable distance from the nearest building. The plans should also identify a pathway for pedestrian circulation between the parking area and buildings. Engineering Comments. The Engineering department has reviewed the preliminary and final plats as well as the site plan for the recycling operation. Engineering comments are detailed in the attached memo dated April 25, 2017. Site Plan Review As noted above, the planned unit development application requires a corresponding site plan review. The purpose of a site plan review is to evaluate each project as it relates to the performance and site design standards of the zoning ordinance. The applicable site plan review standards and staff’s initial findings for each are detailed below. Lot and Building Standards. The site conforms to all required building setbacks, and the applicant has updated the plans to meet the minimum building coverage ratio of 10% of the lot. The lot is 52 acres in size, which results in a minimum building coverage of 227,000 square feet, which is the exact combined building square footage proposed. Buffer Area. The City requires additional setbacks and buffering when a use within the GI district abuts a non-commercial or non-industrial use or district. The additional buffering requirement applies to the northern portion of this site since there are two parcels that are zoned agricultural with residential structures north of the subject property. The proposed building setbacks well exceed the required minimum setback with buffering of 105 feet. The number and types of plantings proposed will also provide the appropriate opacity level for screening of parking and loading areas on the site. Exterior Building Materials. Based on Staff’s analysis of the site, the northern maintenance shop and first recycling building (north) elevation and the eastern elevation of all the recycling buildings must comply with the following building materials requirement: Any exterior wall surface facing a public right of way or residential uses or district shall be constructed of a combination of glass, brick, natural stone, specialty integral colored concrete block (including textured, burnished, and rock faced block), tile (masonry, stone or clay), architectural textured concrete panels cast in place, precast concrete panels or better. The other portions of the building may use the lesser standard, referenced as follows: 13 All other wall surfaces shall be constructed of at least forty percent (40%) of these materials. The remaining sixty percent (60%) of these exterior wall surfaces may be finished steel or aluminum. The proposed building materials include a mix of galvanized metal panels, architectural textured concrete, brick or colored concrete block, glass panels and stucco panels. Stucco is not an allowed material and must be removed from the plans. The other materials are acceptable provided they meet the minimum percentages for those portions of the buildings that face a public right-of-way (currently, only one side of the maintenance building meets this requirement). Per the staff recommendation, at least one side of the other buildings must be brought up to this standard. Architectural Appearance and Building Massing. In reviewing the applicant’s building plans, staff is concerned that the building designs do not meet two specific site and building standards from the zoning ordinance as follows:  Entry Features. Building entrances facing a public right of way shall be accented by visually pleasing entry features. This feature shall extend a minimum three hundred (300) square feet around a single entrance. None of the proposed buildings includes any type of discernible entrance feature.  Building Massing. Facades facing a public right of way or residential use or district shall be articulated to reduce their mass and scale and provide visual interest consistent with Rosemount's identity, character, and scale. Large uninterrupted building walls or elevations are prohibited. Any wall facing a public right of way or residential uses or district more than one hundred feet (100') in length shall be divided into increments of no more than fifty feet (50') through the articulation of the facade. This shall be achieved through combinations of the following techniques: a) divisions or breaks in the materials, b) arcades, entry features, window bays, or the like, c) variations in rooflines or slope plane, d) variation in building plane or setback, e) equivalent techniques approved by the city. Staff is of the opinion that the selection and arrangement of materials on the buildings does little to meet the intent of the above provisions. While a change from one material to another can help reduce the apparent massing of a building, the applicant is proposing no such breaks throughout the lower portions of the buildings and is proposing nothing to break the long expanse of building roof lines (in one case over 300 feet in length). The Planning Commission should consider these specific aspects of the building design as part of its review. Staff is recommending that the applicant revise the proposed building design to more closely align with the site and building standards. Off-Street Parking. The specific type of activity proposed is not directly covered by the City’s off-street parking ordinance. Looking at the industrial use section of the parking ordinance, the City would require somewhere between 114 and 757 parking stalls for other industrial uses with the same amount of total building space. The applicant is providing 21 stalls on the site. Without additional information concerning the specific activity taking place in each building, it is difficult to project a specific parking demand for the operation. While the formal parking area only includes 21 stalls, the applicant notes that the driveway and operations area is 608,000 square feet (14 acres) in size. This area will presumably be used by the trucks entering and exiting the site, which are expected to be the main type of vehicle coming to the facility. In addition to the paved parking and operations area, the applicant is also proposing a secondary class 5 (non-paved) area adjacent to the maintenance shop. Staff’s 14 review comments concerning the parking/operations area are as follows:  The proposed amount of paving far exceeds what would normally be required to facilitate access to each of the buildings, even for larger trucks. While the applicant states that there will be no outside processing or storage, it is not clear why so much pavement area is necessary. This should be addressed as part of the application.  The City’s parking and driveway standards do not permit the use of a crushed rock or other non-bituminous surface material. The proposed class 5 operations area should be removed from the plans or should be paved.  The applicant should provide a building use analysis to help determine the appropriate level of parking required for the site. Staff would suggest using the lowest parking standard for industrial uses (warehousing) as a starting point for determining an appropriate level of parking for the site. If a parking exception is requested, there should be documentation in the application materials to support a lesser requirement.  The City Engineer identifies specific requirements for the paved portion of the site, and in particular, is requesting curb and gutter to help manage storm water runoff from these areas. Landscaping and Tree Preservation. The City’s landscape ordinance requires the planting of one tree per 3,000 square feet of land area within an industrial zoning district. Based on this ordinance, the PUD area would need to provide 674 trees to meet this requirement. The applicant is proposing 419 trees with the expectation that they would be able to pay a fee in lieu tree planting for the remaining 255 trees. The landscape ordinance requires 373 foundation plantings, which is met by the landscape plan. As part of the landscape plan, the applicant has prepared a tree preservation and protection plan. Nearly all of the trees currently on the site are located in the extreme southern portion of the property along Ehlers Path. The majority of these trees will not be removed, although there are some that will be removed to create the driveway entrance and storm water ponding area. The applicant’s analysis indicates that the number of trees to be removed falls under the threshold for any replacement. Please note that the PUD development plans show a storm water pipe and sewer line crossing through the wooded hillside, and the trees impacted by the construction of these lines has not been addressed in the preservation plan. The plan should be updated to account for the planned disturbances in these areas. Staff has two additional comments concerning the landscape plan at this time: 1) with the amount of paving proposed on the site, there is a limited amount of space that can accommodate new trees, and 2) the City does require interior landscaping with parking area, and for a parking are of 608,000 square feet would require 30,400 square feet of interior planting area and 101 interior islands. Given the nature of the propose use of the site, this much interior landscaping area may not be feasible; however the site plan should be updated to better align with the spirit and intent of the City’s parking area landscaping requirements. Signage. The site plans do not depict any signage specific for the recycling operation. If the applicant will be proposing signage for this use, it will need to be included in the PUD development plans. 15 Exterior Lighting. The site plan notes that each building will have lights on the side of the building facing internal portions of the site; the plans otherwise contain general references to stand-alone lighting elsewhere on the site. A specific lighting plan should be provided that identifies the location, type of fixture, and intensity of all proposed lighting fixtures/poles. Trash Enclosures. The site plan does not depict any exterior trash enclosures. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a motion to table the request for a PUD Master Development Plan, PUD Final Site and Building Plan and Simple Plat associated with a proposed metals recycling operation and maintenance facility, and that the applicant address the major areas of concern and other initial review comments from staff prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. SKB Property Information 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. - Wenck Enterprises, Inc. | 1800 Pioneer Creek Center | P.O. Box 249 | Maple Plain, MN 55359-0249 Toll Free 800-472-2232 Main 763-479-4200 Email wenckmp@wenck.com Web wenck.com March 28, 2017 Mr. Kyle Klatt Senior Planner Rosemount City Hall 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 RE: SKB Environmental Phase 1 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Application and Administrative/simple Plat Application for the property located immediately east of the current SKB Rosemount Landfill site – 13425 Courthouse Boulevard Wenck File #3053-0064 Dear Mr. Klatt, On behalf of SKB Environmental, Inc. (SKB), enclosed are the following applications: • Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Plan, Site Plan, and Building Design for SKB’s proposed Phase 1 development in Rosemount, Minnesota. • Administrative/Simple Plat Application for the proposed Phase 1 development. The general concept for the PUD and the Administrative/Simple Plat is for SKB to develop Phase 1, which consists of approximately 52 acres, which had previously been rezoned to GI - General Industrial, to include buildings and activities that will support an enhanced metals recycling operation for the municipal solid waste combustor ash that is currently disposed of in the SKB Rosemount Landfill. The application plat for Phase 1 matches the PUD project boundary. It is important to note that a PUD Application detailing the enhanced metals recycling on Phase 1 of the property located immediately east of the current SKB Rosemount Landfill site was originally submitted to the City on April 26, 2016 with subsequent submittals on May 27, 2016 and January 31, 2017 with communications from the City regarding items incomplete in the PUD Applications on May 5, June 8, June 24, 2016, and February 9, 2017. The most recent February 9, 2017 Notice of Incomplete Application issued by the City stated that if SKB wishes to proceed with only the first phase of the development, a revised request that includes an application to plat the two lots included in Phase 1 must be submitted. Mr. Kyle Klatt Senior Planner Rosemount City Hall March 28, 2017 2 T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 28, 2017 PUD Submittal\LKK SKB PUD Application - tjs.docx A Chronology of events listed above and related to the enhanced metals recycling operations is as follows: Date Item December 14, 2015 City of Rosemount Planning Commission meeting to discuss project. January 5, 2016 City Council meeting with resolutions to approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment to General Industrial and PUD Concept Plan with conditions. Property rezoned from Agricultural to General Industrial. April 27, 2016 SKB submits Master PUD Development Plan and Site Plan to the City of Rosemount. May 5, 2016 City provides comments and notice of incomplete items to SKB. May 20, 2016 City and SKB meet to discuss. May 27, 2016 SKB provides response to City comments and revised PUD Master Plan Application. June 8, 2016 City provides comments and notice of incomplete items to SKB. June 24, 2016 City and SKB meet to discuss. June 30, 2016 SKB submits revised PUD Master Plan Application to the City. September 27, 2016 The June 30, 2016 revised PUD Master Plan submittal is pulled by SKB and the Enerkem/Recycling PUD Master Plan Application is submitted. January 26, 2017 City staff and SKB meet to discuss PUD application for expanded metals recycling to be submitted on January 31, 2017. January 31, 2017 SKB submits revised PUD Master Plan Application to the City. February 9, 2017 City provides notice of Incomplete Application. February 23, 2017 City staff and SKB meet to discuss January 31, 2017 PUD submittal. March 7, 2017 City staff and SKB meet to discuss platting requirements. As discussed during the February 23, 2017 meeting and for this submittal, SKB has addressed the items that were identified as incomplete in the prior communications, and it was SKB’s understanding from that meeting that with past submissions, there are no other outstanding completeness issues other than the application to plat the Phase 1 development. SKB understands that there may be elements of the PUD plans that will require further discussion with City staff and evaluation by the City Council, including design and layout considerations, not matters of the completeness of the application. A listing of the City comments regarding GI zoning requirements that have been raised by the City for further discussion have been compiled with responses provided for each item. This listing with response is provided in Attachment 2 following the PUD Application Checklist. Mr. Kyle Klatt Senior Planner Rosemount City Hall March 28, 2017 3 T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 28, 2017 PUD Submittal\LKK SKB PUD Application - tjs.docx Attached in support of the PUD Application are the following attachments: 1) A completed PUD Application Form and Administrative/Simple Plat Application 2) A completed PUD Application Checklist 3) Legal Description of Property 4) A Project Description and Operations Narrative 5) A Tree Inventory Report 6) Two 22” x 34” and three 11” x 17” copies of the following Plans: Figure 1 – Site Location Map with Adjacent Property Owners Figure 2 – Site Easements Figure 3 – Phase 1 Detailed Site Development and Grading Plan Figure 4 – Proposed Phase 1 Utility Plan Figure 5 – Proposed Water Service Extension Figure 6A – Proposed Building Sections Figure 6B – Proposed Building Sections Figure 6C – Proposed Building Sections Figure 7 – Proposed Phase 1 Landscaping and Tree Replacement Plan Figure 8 – Tree Preservation and Removal Plan Figure 9 – Proposed Phase 1 Erosion Control Plan 7) Administrative/Simple Plat Application submittal. We thank you for your thoroughness and we look forward to working on the details of site layout and design with you. If you have any questions, comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at 763-479-4226. Sincerely, Wenck Enterprises, Inc. Tom Shustarich, PE Wenck Associates, Inc. Project Manager C: John Domke, SKB Ryan O’Gara, SKB Geoff Strack, SKB Encl: Attachments 1-7 Attachment 1 PUD Master Development Plan Application Administrative/Simple Plat Application ,S ROSEMOUNT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Rosemount City Hall 2875 145TH Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 651-423-4411 651-423-4424 (FAX) revised 2008 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION (REZONING) SKB Environmental, Inc. (651)224-6329 Name of Applicant (to be used on legal documents) Telephone No. 251 Starkey Street, St. Paul, MN 55107 (651) 223-5053 Address of Applicant Fax No. JohnDo@wasteconnections.com Email Address of Applicant Wenck Associates, Inc. (763)479-4200 Name of Consultant Telephone No. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center (763)479-4242 Address of Consultant Fax No. SKB Environmental, Inc. Name of Property Owner 251 Starkey Street, St. Paul, MN (651)224-6329----------------Address of Property Owner Telephone No. General Industrial Current Zoning Agricultural Present Use $2,500.00 Fee Paid? (!) Yes 0 No Location Map of Property(ies) Involved Attached: ® (!) (!) Current Description(s) and Survey Attached? Revised Description(s) and Survey Attached? Project Description: See attached information. Proposed Zoning (if applicable) Proposed Use (if applicable) Yes 0 No Yes 0 No Yes 0 No Conditions or Requirements: Is the property recorded under the Torrens system? Q Yes 0 No (If yes, a copy of the property owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title must be included with this application.) This application must be accompanied by a list of names and addresses of property owners within a 350 foot radius of the subject property or, if application pertains to property located in Agricultural (AG), Agricultural Preserve (AP), or Rural Residential (RR) District, the application must be accompanied by a list of names and addresses of property owners within a quarter (1/4) mile. Also to be included are two sets of address labels of the property owners. These must accompany the application at the time of submittal. NOTE: APPLICATIONS ARE NOT COMPLETE UNTIL ALL REQUIRED SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND SIGNATURE: THE UNDERSIGNED APPLICANT HEREBY REPRESENTS UPON ALL OF THE PENAL TIES OF THE LAW, THE PURPOSE OF INDUCING THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT TO TAKE ACTION HEREIN REQUESTED, THAT ALL STATEMENTS HEREIN ARE TRUE AND THAT ALL WORK HEREIN MENTIONED WILL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, AND THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, AND THAT THE UNDERSIGNED APPLICANT WILL PAY ALL FEES AND CHARGES INCURRED BY THE CITY FOR THE EXAMINATION AND REVIEW OF THIS PETITION. D BY CHECKING THIS BOX, I HEREBY AGREE TO ALL STATEMENTS HEREIN AND SUBMIT MY SIGNATURE ELECTRO NI CALLY TO THIS FORM. John Domke John Domke Printed Name of Applicant Printed Name of Property Owner 1/31/2017 1/31/2017 Date Date  Rosemount City Hall 2875 145TH Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 651-423-4411 651-423-4424 (FAX) revised 01.10.2005 ADMINISTRATIVE/SIMPLE PLAT APPLICATION _____________________________________________ ____________________________ Name of Applicant (to be used on legal documents) Telephone No. ______________________________________________ ___________________________ Address of Applicant Fax No. __________________________________________________________________________ Email Address of Applicant _________________________________________ ________________________________ Name of Consultant Telephone No. __________________________________________ _______________________________ Address of Consultant Fax No. __________________________________________________________________________ Name of Property Owner ____________________________________________ _____________________________ Address of Property Owner Telephone No. ________________________________ _____________________________ Current Zoning Proposed Zoning (if applicable) ________________________________ _____________________________ Present Use Proposed Use (if applicable) $1,120.00 Fee Paid? Yes No Location Map of Property(ies) Involved Attached: Yes No Current Description(s) and Survey Attached? Yes No Revised Description(s) and Survey Attached? Yes No Project Description: Conditions or Requirements: Attachment 2 Site Plan Review and PUD Final Development Plan Application Checklist X A.Title or description of the proposed project including a legal description of property. Project description provided in Attachment 4 and legal description provided in Attachment 3. X B.Name of person(s) preparing and presenting the site plan information, name(s) and address(es) of the owner/developer. The Site Plan must also contain the scale, north point, date and number of streets. Information requested is provided in cover letter application forms in Attachment 1, and plan drawings provided in Attachment 6. X C.Location of the property with respect to and including names and addresses of adjacent landowners (required for the public notice mailings) within 350 feet (minimum). The Site Plan must also include information regarding uses, streets, highways, railroads, easements and/or other landmarks. Refer to Attachment 4, Attachment 6 and Appendix A. X D.Two 22” x 34” and three 11” x 17” copies of all plans as well as electronic copies of each. Refer to Attachment 6 and Full Size Drawings attached to this submittal. X E.Existing topography shown on a contour map having contour intervals no greater than two feet (2’), which must include existing buildings, structures, improved surfaces, transmission lines, existing and abandoned pipelines and pipeline easements, fences, septic systems and drain fields, vegetation, streams, wetlands and other water bodies. Refer to Attachment 6. X F.Existing drainage pattern of the site showing direction and the rate of storm water flow, including all offsite areas draining the subject property and the final destination of flow. Refer to Attachment , Attachment 6 and Appendix D. X G.A description of soils. Refer to Attachment 4 for soil boring logs. X H.The proposed size, alignment, height, building materials and use of structures, signs or work performed, including all sign, lot and structure dimensions. Refer to Attachment 6. X I.A description of driveways, sidewalks and parking facilities, including a description of the type and quantity of surfacing materials. Refer to Attachment 4. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND PUD FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION CHECKLIST Revised 04.14.15 The following items are required information that must accompany a completed application form and fee in order to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Failure to provide any of the required information may result in rejection of the application as an incomplete Rosemount City Hall 2875 145TH Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 651-423-4411 651-423-4424 (FAX) X J.A grading plan at two foot (2’) contour intervals and a description of the change in grade as it relates to structure location, other lot improvements, adjacent properties, drainage control and proposed rate of storm water runoff. Refer to Attachment 6. X K.A scaled landscape plan showing the location, size, quantity and type of landscape materials to be used and an explanation of any existing vegetation that may be disturbed, removed, or replaced. Refer to Attachment 6. X L.A tree inventory as required by the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Refer to Attachment 5. X M.A description of the availability and access to required public utilities. Refer to Attachments 4 and 6. X N.A description of the method of waste treatment to be utilized and an analysis of the wastewater flows generated from the development. Refer to Section 2.5 of Attachment 4. X O.An erosion control plan, which may be necessary to prevent erosion during construction or after project completion. Refer to Figure 9 in Attachment 6. X P.A description of lot lighting or extraordinary illumination projection from a structure. Refer to Section 2.8 of Attachment 4. X Q.A description of the levels of noise, vibration, glare, smoke, odor, waste or other emissions generated and the methods employed to contain or control such emissions. Refer to Section 3.0 of Attachment 4. X R.A site plan showing total area of property/plat, dimensions, impervious area, and the area of ponding easements (if any). Refer to Attachment 6. X S.Other information pertinent to the particular application which in the opinion of the City or applicant may be necessary for review of the project. Refer to Attached Plat submittal in Attachment 7. NA T.A street light plan is compliance with street light policy P-5, if applicable. City Comments Regarding GI Zoning Requirements T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 28, 2017 PUD Submittal\Cmt response table.docx Requirement Comment Response (March 28, 2017 submittal) Minimum building size: Ten percent (10%) of subject property, excluding protective wetlands. The phase 1 site is approximately 50 acre in sizes, 10% of which is 217,800. The site plan indicates that the proposed buildings will occupy 196,000 square feet, and will not be constructed at the same time. The Phase 1, Lot 1 site is proposed at 52 acres in size, thus 10% is 226,500 square feet. The proposed buildings for Phase 1 will occupy 227,000 square feet. Building entrances facing a public right of way shall be accented by visually pleasing entry features. This feature shall extend a minimum three hundred (300) square feet around a single entrance. None of the proposed buildings include an entry feature. Based on discussions with City staff, none of the proposed buildings have an entrance facing a public right- of-way. Any wall facing a public right of way or residential uses or district more than one hundred feet (100') in length shall be divided into increments of no more than fifty feet (SO') through the articulation of the façade. The proposed buildings do not include any articulation measures. The proposed buildings for Phase 1 do include articulation measures as show on Figures 6A and 6B. City Comments Regarding GI Zoning Requirements T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 28, 2017 PUD Submittal\Cmt response table.docx Permitted Materials: Any exterior wall surface facing a public right of way or residential uses or district shall be constructed of a combination of glass, brick, natural stone, specialty integral colored concrete block (including textured, burnished, and rock faced block), tile (masonry, stone or clay), architectural textured concrete panels cast in place, precast concrete panels or better. All other wall surfaces shall be constructed of at least forty percent (40%) of these materials. The remaining sixty percent (60%) of these exterior wall surfaces may be finished steel or aluminum. Unadorned materials are prohibited. All wall surfaces are depicted as 40% poured-in place or pre-cast concrete and 60% pre- engineered metal. A portion of all four buildings face the 140th Street right-of-way, while the northern building faces a residential use. The proposed buildings for Phase 1 will include a least 40 percent of textured or rock faced block, tile, and textured or precast concrete panels. The portions of the buildings that face residential use will be constructed with 100% of the above materials. Landscaping: A minimum of five percent (5%) of the parking area shall be landscaped. This landscaping shall be located on islands, peninsulas or the like within the perimeter of the parking area There is no internal landscaping proposed within the parking and maneuvering areas. The internal parking areas must also include a certain ratio of trees. A minimum of five percent of the parking area has been landscaped as shown on Figure 7. The GI District requires the planting of 8 trees or 1 per 3,000 square feet land area, or 726 trees. The landscape plan proposes 241 trees or 485 less than required by the Ordinance (not including the tree preservation requirements). Tree planting calculations and planting plan as required by City ordinances are provided on Figure 7. 1 foundation planting per 10 linear feet of building (principal or accessory) perimeter No foundation plantings have been proposed. Foundation plantings are proposed for Phase 1 development as shown on Figure 7. City Comments Regarding GI Zoning Requirements T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 28, 2017 PUD Submittal\Cmt response table.docx For development which exceeds the percentage of allowable removal of significant trees, all significant trees shall be replaced at the ratio of one-half (0.5) caliper inch per one caliper inch removed. The tree preservation must be revised to provide a specific number of caliper inches to be replaced. The replacement number would increase the tree deficiency noted above. Tree preservation calculations for the proposed Phase 1 development are provided on Figure 7. Surfacing: All parking lots and drives other than for a single-family residence without public sewer shall be paved with a concrete or bituminous surface in accordance with standards as established by the city. A portion of the parking and drives are proposed as a Class 5 crushed rock surface. All parking lots and drive areas are proposed to be bituminous as shown on Figure 3. Holding Tanks: A holding tank may be used for the following application only after it can be shown conclusively by the property owner that an SSTS permitted under this chapter cannot be feasibly installed: a) as a replacement for an existing failing SSTS; b) for an SSTS that poses an imminent threat to public health or safety; or c) for use with buildings with limited water use. The City's plans and ordinances do not anticipate that holding tanks will be used within the City's urban service area. A holding tank is currently proposed for the Phase 1 development. A holding tank is a more environmentally sound application for this type of operation than an SSTS would be given that there is a maintenance facility as part of this development. Refer to the Operations Narrative in Attachment 4 for a detailed discussion and a Fact Sheet from the MPCA that states that floor drains and sinks in maintenance garages should not be connected to a septic system. The City's Site and Building Design Review Ordinance requires the submission of a plan depicting utilities and utility rights of way and easements, including electric, natural gas, telephone, water (domestic and fire) and sewer (sanitary and storm). The submitted utility plans only show the internal utilities, but provide no information concerning any work needed to connect to existing infrastructure. Figures 4 and 5 provide utility plans and connections to existing infrastructure. Attachment 3 Legal Description of Property Phone (320) 253-9495 3701 12th Street North, Suite 206 Fax (320) 253-8737 St. Cloud, MN 56303 Toll Free (800) 270-9495 N54°58'38"W 652.90N54°06'00"W 528.00S0°06'38"W 373.97S67°31'19"E 1440.78OUTLOT ALOT 1BLOCK 1STATE HIGHWAY NO. 55EHLERS PATHS0°12'58"W391.55N54°05'58"W 1539.77N0°14'34"W 734.09S89°19'33"E 888.62N0°08'33"E 909.14 S0°12'58"W 1903.60 LEGEND PRELIMINARY PLAT -SKB ROSEMOUNT 1ST ADDITION N54°58'38"W 652.90N54°06'00"W 528.00S0°06'38"W 373.97S67°31'19"E 1440.78OUTLOT ALOT 1BLOCK 1STATE HIGHWAY NO. 55EHLERS PATHS0°12'58"W391.55N54°05'58"W 1539.77N0°14'34"W 734.09S89°19'33"E 888.62N0°08'33"E 909.14 S0°12'58"W 1903.60 SKB ROSEMOUNT 1ST ADDITIONWENCKASSOCIATESLEGEND Attachment 4 Project Description and Operations Narrative January 31, 2017 WENCK File #3053-0064 March 2017 Prepared by: WENCK Associates, Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center Maple Plain, MN 55359 Phone: 763-479-4200 Fax: 763-479-4242 Prepared for: City of Rosemount Rosemount City Hall 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 SKB Environmental Planned Unit Development - Project Description and Operations Narrative for the Phase 1 Enhanced Recycling Operations January 2017 i T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 28, 2017 PUD Submittal\Description and Operations Narrative 28Mar2017.docx Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 General Information ............................................................................ 1-1 1.3 Consistency with Comprehensive Plan .................................................... 1-2 1.4 Benefits to the City .............................................................................. 1-2 2.0 GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................... 2-1 2.1 Site Location and Description ................................................................ 2-1 2.2 General Facility Description .................................................................. 2-1 2.3 Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan .................................................... 2-2 2.4 Site Grading and Landscaping ............................................................... 2-3 2.5 Site Utilities ........................................................................................ 2-3 2.6 Erosion Control Plan ............................................................................ 2-4 2.7 Floor Plans ......................................................................................... 2-4 2.8 Lot Lighting ........................................................................................ 2-4 2.9 Signage ............................................................................................. 2-5 3.0 PROPOSED FACILITY OPERATIONS ............................................................ 3-1 3.1 General Faciltiy Operations ................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Stormwater Management ..................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Hours of Operation and Security ........................................................... 3-2 3.4 Traffic, Noise, Dust and Odor ................................................................ 3-2 APPENDICES A Adjacent Property Owners within a 350 foot Radius B Soil Boring Logs C Wastewater Holding Tank Design Memo and MPCA Car Wash and Vehicle Maintenance Facilities D Stormwater Management System and Calculations March 2017 1-1 T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 28, 2017 PUD Submittal\Description and Operations Narrative 28Mar2017.docx 1.0 Introduction 1.1 PURPOSE SKB Environmental, Inc. (SKB) respectfully submits to the City of Rosemount this Project Description and Operations Narrative in support of the Planned Unit Development (PUD), Master Development Application. The proposed Phase 1 facility development is located on approximately 52 acres located immediately east of the current SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste landfill (13425 Courthouse Boulevard) south of Courthouse Boulevard, north of Ehlers Path and 142nd Street East, and approximately 1,000 feet west of the intersection of County Road 42 and Highway 55. It should be noted that this PUD Application focuses on the proposed Phase 1 development that encompasses approximately 52 acres for which an Administrative/Simple Plat application has also been included as part of this submittal. The Preliminary and Final Plat Drawings are titled – SKB Rosemount 1st Addition. The proposed Phase 1 development will be on the 52 acres or Lot 1, Block 1, which is zoned GI -General Industrial. There is also an Outlot A detailed as part of the plat. The PUD Application and Plat Application have been prepared in accordance with the applicable City codes. The Application Forms and Checklist are presented in Attachments 1 and 2, respectively, of this submittal. Refer to Figure 1 of the PUD Application for a site location map. In efforts to support environmental initiatives consistent with SKB and City values, the proposed Phase 1 development will allow SKB the opportunity to continue to make investments in and expand its recycling operations. The four (4) buildings proposed for Phase 1 would support the recycling operations as well as provide for a maintenance building. The proposed buildings will be discussed in more detail, but in general, three of the buildings will be for processing recyclables, while the fourth building is a proposed maintenance shop to add landfill support to the recycling operation. 1.2 GENERAL INFORMATION Land Owner SKB Environmental, Inc. Attn: John Domke 251 Starkey Street St. Paul, MN 55107 (651) 224-6329 Applicant SKB Environmental, Inc. Attn: John Domke 251 Starkey Street St. Paul, MN 55107 (651) 224-6329 Professional Consultants Wenck Associates, Inc. Attn: Mr. Tom Shustarich, PE 1800 Pioneer Creek Center PO Box 249 Maple Plain, MN 55359 (763) 479-4226 March 2017 1-2 T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 28, 2017 PUD Submittal\Description and Operations Narrative 28Mar2017.docx 1.3 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed Phase 1 development is consistent with nearby existing industrial uses and is consistent with a transition between planned use categories. The proposed use in Phase 1 meets the spirit and intent of the following goals and objectives as referenced in the Rosemount 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan:  Chapter 4 – Economic Development. This project meets goal 2 to expand Rosemount’s employment base to provide jobs that can support an entire household (p. 27). Grow Rosemount by attracting and supporting businesses.  Chapter 6 - Environment and Natural Resources. This project meets goal 4 to encourage activities that reduce the consumption of finite resources and ensure there are opportunities to reuse or recycle natural resources (p. 43).  Chapter 7 – Land Use. This project meets goal 7 to encourage and promote sustainable development, green building, and resource conservation (p.80). 1.4 BENEFITS TO THE CITY The proposed Phase 1 development will benefit the City of Rosemount in the following ways:  Property tax revenue  Local employment The financial benefits offered to the City by the Phase 1 development is provided in more detail in the following text. For the proposed Phase 1 development, SKB estimates approximately 227,000 total square feet of building space and a property tax value of $2.09 per square foot, which equates to roughly $474,430 per year in property taxes. This figure does not include additional fees such as utility, storm water, etc. March 2017 2-1 T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 28, 2017 PUD Submittal\Description and Operations Narrative 28Mar2017.docx 2.0 General Project Description 2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A site location map which also shows adjacent property owners is presented as Figure 1 in Attachment 6 of this PUD Application submittal. A list of adjacent property owners within a 350 foot radius of the site is provided in Appendix A. With regards to easements, Figure 2 in Attachment 6 depicts the existing and proposed site easements. It should be noted that a proposed 30-foot alternate trail corridor easement on the south side of the Phase 1 property (Lot 1 Block 1) is shown for a proposed bike path, per discussions with City staff. The proposed facilities for Phase 1 are proposed to be served by city water and sewer in the future upon the extension of sanitary sewer by the City. The soils beneath the site consist predominantly of sands and gravels. This information is based on soil boring logs completed along the eastern boundary of the landfill as well as a site investigation completed in July 2015. Soil boring logs from the July 2015 investigation are provided in Appendix B. 2.2 GENERAL FACILITY DESCRIPTION It is important to note that this PUD application is for development of Phase 1, which encompasses approximately 52 acres. Currently, ash material recovery operations are occurring at the SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste facility. To expand upon and enhance this ash material recycling operation, SKB is proposing to expand operations into the Phase 1 proposed development area. To serve the proposed recycling operations in Phase 1 development, SKB is proposing to construct three new pre-engineered steel frame buildings on a concrete foundation. It should be noted that the exterior wall surfaces will be constructed using at least 40% textured concrete panels. The remaining 60% will be finished steel. The portions of the buildings that face a residential use will be constructed with 100 percent textured concrete panels or other acceptable materials. The buildings will vary in size with the site and location of the buildings shown on Figure 4 provided in Attachment 6 of the PUD Application. A new maintenance building is also proposed as part of Phase 1 development. The recycling operations will employ approximately 20 people. The buildings will be designed and constructed in accordance with City codes. Detailed construction plans will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to any construction. Other features of the recyclery buildings to note are the following:  The site and proposed buildings will be set below surrounding grade to provide screening.  The proposed buildings will be extremely well screened by the proposed landscaping plan.  The site is not open to the public.  All recycling activities will take place within the enclosed building. Plans and specifications for the proposed buildings will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to construction. March 2017 2-2 T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 28, 2017 PUD Submittal\Description and Operations Narrative 28Mar2017.docx Additional detail regarding the proposed activities that are proposed for each recycling building is as follows:  The furthest north recycling building will be similar to the existing Gem-Ash building at the existing landfill site. This proposed building will recover nonferrous metal from ash. This building would house technology that would enable further recovery beyond the existing operation.  The middle building would be an upgrade facility. This building and equipment would differentiate the various metals and prepare the metal for sale to the market.  The furthest south building would be used to further recycle the ash to a lightweight, high strength aggregate for the concrete industry. This building would be subsequent to the establishment of the two recycling buildings. As requested by the City, the estimated values of the buildings are: North Building: 52,000 sq. ft. x $150/sq.ft. = $ 7,875,000 Middle Building: 40,500 sq. ft. x $150/sq.ft. = $ 6,075,000 South Building: 70,500 sq. ft. x $150/sq.ft. = $10,575,000 Maintenance Building: 64,000 sq. ft. x $150/sq.ft. = $ 9,600,000 The above cost per foot of $150 is based on recent construction projects completed by Wenck Associates for similar type buildings. The above costs are estimates and may vary depending upon final building design. With regards to the City’s minimum building site requirement of 10% of the subject property, SKB is proposing 227,000 square feet of building construction. For the entire Phase 1 site of approximately 52 acres in size, a minimum building size of 10% is approximately 226,500 square feet. Again, SKB is proposing 227,000 square feet of building construction. It is important to note that SKB has maximized the amount of building construction that can take place in Phase 1 to also allow for the additional site space needed for the safe and efficient access and movement of equipment and tractor trailers, for the appropriate management of stormwater, and in order to preserve as many of the mature trees as possible. There will be no outdoor storage associated with the recycling operations. The drive and parking areas in and around the proposed buildings will be mainly bituminous paved with a small area of Class 5 near the maintenance building. There is approximately 608,000 square feet of bituminous paving proposed for the Phase 1 development. The Class 5 in this area is needed to adequately support the types of heavy equipment that will be around the maintenance building. The Phase 1 area will be accessed via 140th street or the adjacent landfill property SKB is proposing to place a gate at the 140th Street entrance/exit. The Phase 1 development has sufficient area to allow for the safe passage of all vehicles. 2.3 TREE INVENTORY AND PRESERVATION PLAN A tree inventory and preservation plan was completed and is provided as Attachment 5 of the PUD Application. SKB has redesigned the Phase 1 development from the original submittal in an attempt to maintain and preserve as many trees as possible during Phase 1 development. This was done to adhere to the City’s desire to keep as many trees as practical. The area of tree removal as well as the area where the existing trees will remain during Phase 1 development is shown on Figure 8 in Attachments 5 and 6. The calculations March 2017 2-3 T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 28, 2017 PUD Submittal\Description and Operations Narrative 28Mar2017.docx for the number of trees to be removed are also provided in the Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan. 2.4 SITE GRADING AND LANDSCAPING The site will be graded to provide screening and to promote proper stormwater drainage as well as provide proper slopes for traffic flow. A proposed Site Grading Plan is provided as Figure 3 in Attachment 6. The site will be graded to generally slope from north to south at slopes ranging from one (1) to four (4) percent. The stripping of topsoil and excavation of native soils will be required for development of Phase 1. There is incidental grading to match existing grade along the eastern edge of this Phase 1 development that extends beyond the Lot 1 Block 1 area into Outlot A. the portion of Outlot A where the incidental grading will take place is zoned GI-General Industrial. A proposed landscaping plan was prepared by a landscape architect and is presented as Figure 7 of Attachment 6 in the PUD Application submittal. The required calculations with regards to landscaping are also provided on Figure 7 in Attachments 5 and 6. The landscaping plan focused on the northern area of the Phase 1 development near the adjacent property owner. Phase 1 was developed to leave a portion of the existing trees in– place to the south along 140th Street. Landscaping along the site access road and site parking area are detailed on Figure 7 in Attachments 5 and 6. As shown on Figure 8, protective fencing will be installed during all site grading activities to protect the existing trees that are not being removed from damage. Based on City code requirements, calculations performed indicate that the number of trees required for development is 674 trees. The proposed landscaping plans provides for 419 trees. An additional 255 trees would be required according to the City code requirements. As shown on Figure 8, the existing trees left in-place to the south and the new proposed trees to the north adequately screen the proposed building and site operations on this existing farmland. SKB respectfully requests the Fee in lieu of option as laid out in the city code11-6-3-E14 for the additional 255 trees. As shown on the Landscaping Plan, SKB has provided for foundation plantings around the proposed parking areas and around the proposed buildings. SKB has provided a total of 366 foundation plantings to meet the city requirements were planting space is available. 2.5 SITE UTILITIES As previously stated, the proposed Phase 1 development will be served by City sewer and water. A proposed utility plan is provided as Figure 4 in attachment 6. The proposed utility plan has been developed based on multiple conversations and meetings with the City engineer and staff. With regards to water service, a 6-inch water service connection is proposed for the Phase 1 development. The 6-inch water service will connect to a future 12-inch watermain in the northwest corner of the property. The water service extension is based on a meeting with the City Engineer and is detailed on Figure 5 in Attachment 6. Sanitary service is proposed at 6-inches and is to connect at a future City trunk line at 140th Street. Future watermain and sewer connection are based on the City East Side Study Plan and input from City staff. To accommodate any uncertainties with the City’s schedule and March 2017 2-4 T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 28, 2017 PUD Submittal\Description and Operations Narrative 28Mar2017.docx plans to extend the city trunk sewer, SKB is proposing to install a temporary waste holding tank to serve the sanitary needs of the Phase 1 development. This temporary alternative would alleviate the City’s need to leap-frog development and delay the need for an expensive capital project until the time the city is ready to proceed or additional development in the area warrants installation. This alternative is consistent with other nearby industrial properties that have approved on-site sewage treatment systems. Most importantly, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency states in a July 1999 Car Wash and Vehicle Maintenance Facilities publication (a copy is provided in Appendix C) that, Underground disposal of commercial and industrial wastewater can cause serious soil and ground-water contamination if not carefully controlled. On- site sewage treatment systems are designed to treat household wastewater and do not provide adequate treatment for the types of contaminants found in commercial and industrial facilities. Floor drains and shop sinks connected to onsite septic systems or dry wells can be pathways for contaminants to reach groundwater sources especially in vehicle maintenance facilities. For this reason, these types of connections will not be allowed. This position is consistent with current federal policy. Thus, a temporary holding tank would provide a more environmentally sound method to manage wastewater on this industrial project until city sewer access is extended than would a septic system. The temporary holding tank will be removed once City sewer is extended to the site. The proposed waste holding tank was designed to meet estimated design flows at the site. A technical memorandum outlining the waste water holding tank design and operation is provided as Appendix C. 2.6 EROSION CONTROL PLAN An erosion control plan has been prepared for Phase 1 development and is provided as Figure No. 9 in Attachment 6. It is also important to note that NPDES stormwater permits will need to be obtained prior to any construction activities disturbing more than one acre at the site. 2.7 FLOOR PLANS Building sizes and sections for the recycling buildings as well as the maintenance building in the Phase 1 Recycling Operations are provided on Figures 6A, 6B, and 6C. Detailed floor plans for the recycling operation buildings have not been finalized at this early stage in the project, but will be completed and submitted to the City as part of the building permit approval process. 2.8 LOT LIGHTING Lighting will be provided on all buildings within the proposed Phase 1 development as shown on Figure 4 in Attachment 6. Lighting will also be provided along the entrance/exit driveway areas. It is important to note that all outdoor lighting will be LED low profile. The outdoor lighting will be aimed downward and have bulb caps or shields to minimize any light pollution. All non-essential lighting will be turned off after business hours. March 2017 2-5 T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 28, 2017 PUD Submittal\Description and Operations Narrative 28Mar2017.docx 2.9 SIGNAGE The appropriate signage for the Phase 1 project will be placed at the 140th Street entrance/exit and where traffic enters Phase 1 from the landfill. The proposed signage will be provided to the City for approval prior to installation. March 2017 3-1 T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 28, 2017 PUD Submittal\Description and Operations Narrative 28Mar2017.docx 3.0 Proposed Facility Operations 3.1 GENERAL FACILTIY OPERATIONS Currently, ash material recovery processing is occurring at the SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste facility. The material recovery operations involve the removal of recyclable metals from both the previously landfilled ash as well as from the incoming ash from the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC). To expand upon this ash material recycling operation, SKB is proposing to expand operations into the Phase 1 proposed development area. Three (3) proposed buildings would be constructed to further process the ash to remove additional metals for recycling. The proposed Phase 1 recycling buildings will be similar in design to the existing buildings constructed at the SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste facility. The buildings will be designed and constructed in accordance with City codes. The approximate size and locations of the proposed recycling buildings are shown on the attached Plan Drawings in Attachment 6. Additional detail regarding the proposed activities that are proposed for each recycling building is as follows:  The furthest north recycling building will be similar to the existing Gem-Ash building at the existing landfill site. This proposed building will recover nonferrous metal from ash. This building would house technology that would enable further recovery beyond the existing operation.  The middle building would be an upgrade facility. This building and equipment would differentiate the various metals and prepare the metal for sale to the market.  The furthest south building would be used to further recycle the ash to a lightweight, high strength aggregate for the concrete industry. This building would be subsequent to the establishment of the two recycling buildings. 3.2 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The surface water management system has been designed to manage the 100-year, 24-hour storm event of 7.42 inches. All calculations and details for the proposed stormwater management system in accordance with City requirements and as discussed at the May 20, 2016 and June 24, 2016 meetings between City staff and SKB are provided in Appendix D. Run-off from the facility will be controlled in accordance with an NPDES General Stormwater Management Permit for the site. As discussed previously, the driving surfaces on-site are proposed to be mainly bituminous and the site will be graded for stormwater to drain to the proposed pond located on the southern portion of the property and away from the building in all directions. Regular inspections will be conducted to prevent stormwater run-off and/or run-on problems. If problems are found, they will be immediately corrected, and action will be taken to prevent a future occurrence. Recycling processing and maintenance operations will take place within the enclosed facilities. A proposed erosion control plan for Phase 1 is provided as Figure 9 in Attachment 6. March 2017 3-2 T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 28, 2017 PUD Submittal\Description and Operations Narrative 28Mar2017.docx 3.3 HOURS OF OPERATION AND SECURITY The hours of operation will be 24 hours per day, seven days a week. All entrances and exists to the Phase 1 area will be equipped with locking gates to control access. 3.4 TRAFFIC, NOISE, DUST AND ODOR In general, traffic related to the recycling facility operations will enter and exit the Phase 1 development through the adjacent landfill property. Workers and visitors may enter the site through the south gate off 140th Street. It is important to note that all Phase 1 recycling operations will occur indoors to mitigate noise, dust, and odor concerns. Appendix A Adjacent Property Owners with 350 Foot Radius CALVIN V & ELEANOR C TWINING 5525 ANNETTE AVE INVER GROVE HEIGHTS, MN 55077-1804 BRIAN AGRE 14175 EHLERS PATH E ROSEMOUNT, MN 55068-2459 GREAT RIVER ENERGY 12300 ELM CREEK BLVD MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369 ASTLEFORD FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 1308 HIGHWAY 13 W STE 4 BURNSVILLE, MN 55337 STEVEN VANG & MARY V HER 5693 142ND ST E ROSEMOUNT, MN 55068 CYRIL M & CAROL A SCHMITZ 14050 COURTHOUSE BLVD ROSEMOUNT, MN 55068 GARY A BROWN 14070 COURTHOUSE BLVD ROSEMOUNT, MN 55068 RANDY KIMMES & STEVEN BAUER 12711 220TH ST HASTINGS, MN 55033 BURGER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 3209 GALLERIA UNIT 1008 EDINA, MN 55435 BONNIE MAE TROSKA 9830 ABIGAIL CT INVER GROVE HEIGHTS, MN 55077 MASAHIRO & BRENDA SUGII 13701 COURTHOUSE BLVD ROSEMOUNT, MN 55068 ENDRES ROSEMOUNT HOLDINGS LLC 1505 RIVER SHORE DR HASTINGS, MN 55033 Appendix B Soil Boring Logs 886.6 866.6 848.1 MAC 1 MAC 2 MAC 3 MAC 4 MAC 5 MAC 6 MAC 7 MAC 8 47 40 70 70 80 80 80 80 SP SW TOPSOIL: Dark brown/black silt, some decomposed plant material twigs and roots, slightly sandy and clayey, moist, soft. SAND: Tan medium to coarse grained, slightly gravely, moist, loose. Redox staining present. GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft. Bottom of hole at 40.0 feet. 1.5 21.5 40.0 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 888.1 ft LOGGED BY CJA DRILLING METHOD Geoprobe AT TIME OF DRILLING --- AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- HOLE SIZE 2.25" DRILLING CONTRACTOR Matrix Environmental GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY JMW DATE STARTED 7/20/15 COMPLETED 7/20/15 DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER B-1 CLIENT SKB Landfill PROJECT NUMBER 3053-0013 PROJECT NAME Soil Borings PROJECT LOCATION Rosemount, MN GENERAL BH / TP / WELL BORING LOGS.GPJ WENCK.GDT 7/29/151800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359Telephone: 763-479-4200Fax: 763-479-4242 RECOVERY %U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION 880.8 879.3 866.8 848.8 841.8 MAC 1 MAC 2 MAC 3 MAC 4 MAC 5 MAC 6 MAC 7 MAC 8 40 60 60 57 63 80 0 80 OL SP SW SP TOPSOIL: Dark brown/black silt, some decomposed plant material grass and roots, slightly sandy and clayey, moist, soft. ORGANIC CLAYEY SILT: Tan, slightly sandy, some roots, moist, soft. Low to moderate plasticity and cohesiveness. SAND: Tan, medium to coarse grained, slightly gravely, moist, loose. GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft. Cobbles present. SAND: Tan, medium to coarse grained, slightly gravely, moist, loose. Bottom of hole at 40.0 feet. 1.0 2.5 15.0 33.0 40.0 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 881.8 ft LOGGED BY CJA DRILLING METHOD Geoprobe AT TIME OF DRILLING --- AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- HOLE SIZE 2.25" DRILLING CONTRACTOR Matrix Environmental GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY JMW DATE STARTED 7/20/15 COMPLETED 7/20/15 DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER B-2 CLIENT SKB Landfill PROJECT NUMBER 3053-0013 PROJECT NAME Soil Borings PROJECT LOCATION Rosemount, MN GENERAL BH / TP / WELL BORING LOGS.GPJ WENCK.GDT 7/29/151800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359Telephone: 763-479-4200Fax: 763-479-4242 RECOVERY %U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION 887.4 885.4 869.4 863.4 858.4 853.4 MAC 1 MAC 2 MAC 3 MAC 4 MAC 5 MAC 6 MAC 7 40 40 60 60 60 80 80 OL SP SW SP SW TOPSOIL: Dark brown/black silt, some decomposed plant material grass and roots, slightly sandy and clayey, moist, soft. ORGANIC CLAYEY SILT: Tan, slightly sandy, some roots, moist, soft. Low to moderate plasticity and cohesiveness. SAND: Tan, medium to coarse grained, slightly gravely, moist, loose. Some redox staining present. GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft. SAND: Tan, medium to coarse grained, slightly gravely, moist, loose. GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft. Cobbles present. Bottom of hole at 35.0 feet. 1.0 3.0 19.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 888.4 ft LOGGED BY CJA DRILLING METHOD Geoprobe AT TIME OF DRILLING --- AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- HOLE SIZE 2.25" DRILLING CONTRACTOR Matrix Environmental GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY JMW DATE STARTED 7/20/15 COMPLETED 7/20/15 DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER B-3 CLIENT SKB Landfill PROJECT NUMBER 3053-0013 PROJECT NAME Soil Borings PROJECT LOCATION Rosemount, MN GENERAL BH / TP / WELL BORING LOGS.GPJ WENCK.GDT 7/29/151800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359Telephone: 763-479-4200Fax: 763-479-4242 RECOVERY %U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION 899.5 895.5 880.5 871.0 865.5 860.5 MAC 1 MAC 2 MAC 3 MAC 4 MAC 5 MAC 6 MAC 7 MAC 8 37 60 40 3 80 73 80 80 SP SW SP SW SP TOPSOIL: Light brown silt, decomposed plant material grass roots and twigs, slightly sandy and clayey, moist, soft. SAND: Tan, fine to medium grained, moist, loose. GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft. Cobles present. SAND: Light tan/white, fine to medium grained, slightly gravely, dry to moist, loose. GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft. SAND: Light tan/white, fine to medium grained, moist, soft. Bottom of hole at 40.0 feet. 1.0 5.0 20.0 29.5 35.0 40.0 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 900.5 ft LOGGED BY CJA DRILLING METHOD Geoprobe AT TIME OF DRILLING --- AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- HOLE SIZE 2.25" DRILLING CONTRACTOR Matrix Environmental GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY JMW DATE STARTED 7/20/15 COMPLETED 7/20/15 DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER B-4 CLIENT SKB Landfill PROJECT NUMBER 3053-0013 PROJECT NAME Soil Borings PROJECT LOCATION Rosemount, MN GENERAL BH / TP / WELL BORING LOGS.GPJ WENCK.GDT 7/29/151800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359Telephone: 763-479-4200Fax: 763-479-4242 RECOVERY %U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION 896.3 892.0 888.0 883.0 878.0 857.0 MAC 1 MAC 2 MAC 3 MAC 4 MAC 5 MAC 6 MAC 7 MAC 8 40 40 60 80 80 80 80 80 SP SW SP SW SP TOPSOIL: Dark brown silt, some decomposed plant material grass and roots, slightly sandy and clayey, moist, soft. SAND: Tan, medium to coarse grained, trace gravel, moist, loose. GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft. SAND: Light tan/white, fine to medium grained, trace gravel and cobbles, moist, loose. GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft. SAND: Light tan/white, fine to medium grained, trace gravel, moist, loose. No gravel present. Bottom of hole at 40.0 feet. 0.8 5.0 9.0 14.0 19.0 40.0 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 897.0 ft LOGGED BY CJA DRILLING METHOD Geoprobe AT TIME OF DRILLING --- AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- HOLE SIZE 2.25" DRILLING CONTRACTOR Matrix Environmental GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY JMW DATE STARTED 7/21/15 COMPLETED 7/21/15 DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER B-5 CLIENT SKB Landfill PROJECT NUMBER 3053-0013 PROJECT NAME Soil Borings PROJECT LOCATION Rosemount, MN GENERAL BH / TP / WELL BORING LOGS.GPJ WENCK.GDT 7/29/151800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359Telephone: 763-479-4200Fax: 763-479-4242 RECOVERY %U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION 901.7 893.2 881.9 872.7 870.7 862.2 MAC 1 MAC 2 MAC 3 MAC 4 MAC 5 MAC 6 MAC 7 MAC 8 40 40 10 10 73 80 3 10 SP SW SP GW SW TOPSOIL: Light brown silt, some grass and roots, slighty sandy and clayey, moist, soft. SAND: Tan, medium to coarse grained, trace gravel, moist, soft. GRAVELY SAND: Tan/brown/gray/red, medium to very coarse grained, some cobbles, redox staining, moist, soft. SAND: Light tan/white, fine to medium grained, some cobbles, moist, soft. GRAVEL: Gray/brown/red, fine to coarse grained, some sand and cobbles, moist, soft. GRAVELY SAND: Tan/brown/gray/red, medium to very coarse grained, some cobles, redox staining, moist, soft. Bottom of hole at 40.0 feet. 0.5 9.0 20.3 29.5 31.5 40.0 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 902.2 ft LOGGED BY CJA DRILLING METHOD Geoprobe AT TIME OF DRILLING --- AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- HOLE SIZE 2.25" DRILLING CONTRACTOR Matrix Environmental GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY JMW DATE STARTED 7/21/15 COMPLETED 7/21/15 DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER B-6 CLIENT SKB Landfill PROJECT NUMBER 3053-0013 PROJECT NAME Soil Borings PROJECT LOCATION Rosemount, MN GENERAL BH / TP / WELL BORING LOGS.GPJ WENCK.GDT 7/29/151800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359Telephone: 763-479-4200Fax: 763-479-4242 RECOVERY %U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION 907.0 896.0 893.0 887.0 877.0 869.0 868.0 MAC 1 MAC 2 MAC 3 MAC 4 MAC 5 MAC 6 MAC 7 MAC 8 50 80 73 80 80 77 67 80 SP SP SW SP SW TOPSOIL: Brown silt, some decomposed plant material grass and roots, slighty sandy and clayey, moist, soft. SAND: Tan, medium to coarse grained, moist, loose. Becoming light tan/white. GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft. SAND: Light tan/white, fine to medium grained, moist, soft. GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft. SAND: Light tan/white, fine to medium grained, moist, soft. Becoming moderately stiff. GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft. Bottom of hole at 40.0 feet. 1.0 12.0 15.0 21.0 31.0 39.0 40.0 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 908.0 ft LOGGED BY CJA DRILLING METHOD Geoprobe AT TIME OF DRILLING --- AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- HOLE SIZE 2.25" DRILLING CONTRACTOR Matrix Environmental GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY JMW DATE STARTED 7/21/15 COMPLETED 7/21/15 DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER B-7 CLIENT SKB Landfill PROJECT NUMBER 3053-0013 PROJECT NAME Soil Borings PROJECT LOCATION Rosemount, MN GENERAL BH / TP / WELL BORING LOGS.GPJ WENCK.GDT 7/29/151800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359Telephone: 763-479-4200Fax: 763-479-4242 RECOVERY %U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION 902.0 901.5 893.0 889.0 868.0 MAC 1 MAC 2 MAC 3 MAC 4 MAC 5 MAC 6 MAC 7 40 60 80 67 80 73 60 OL SP SW SP TOPSOIL: Dark brown/black silt, decomposed plant material, some roots and grass, slightly sandy and clayey, moist, soft. ORGANIC CLAYEY SILT: Tan, slightly sandy, some roots and decomposed wood, moist, soft. Low to moderate plasticity and cohesiveness. SAND: Tan, medium to coarse grained, slightly gravely, moist, loose. Some redox staining present. GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft. SAND: Tan, medium to coarse grained, trace gravel, redox staining, moist, soft. No redox staining. Becoming light tan/white, fine to medium grained. Gravel seem. Becoming moderately stiff. Cobbles Present. Bottom of hole at 35.0 feet. 1.0 1.5 10.0 14.0 35.0 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 903.0 ft LOGGED BY CJA DRILLING METHOD Geoprobe AT TIME OF DRILLING --- AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- HOLE SIZE 2.25" DRILLING CONTRACTOR Matrix Environmental GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY JMW DATE STARTED 7/21/15 COMPLETED 7/21/15 DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER B-8 CLIENT SKB Landfill PROJECT NUMBER 3053-0013 PROJECT NAME Soil Borings PROJECT LOCATION Rosemount, MN GENERAL BH / TP / WELL BORING LOGS.GPJ WENCK.GDT 7/29/151800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359Telephone: 763-479-4200Fax: 763-479-4242 RECOVERY %U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION 898.8 888.8 879.8 869.3 859.8 MAC 1 MAC 2 MAC 3 MAC 4 MAC 5 MAC 6 MAC 7 MAC 8 40 60 80 60 80 60 40 60 SP SW SP SW TOPSOIL: Brown silt, some grass roots and twigs, slightly sandy and clayey, moist, soft. SAND: Tan, medium to coarse grained, trace gravel, moist, loose. GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft. SAND: Light tan/white, fine to medium grained, trace gravel, moist, loose. GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft. Bottom of hole at 40.0 feet. 1.0 11.0 20.0 30.5 40.0 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 899.8 ft LOGGED BY CJA DRILLING METHOD Geoprobe AT TIME OF DRILLING --- AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- HOLE SIZE 2.25" DRILLING CONTRACTOR Matrix Environmental GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY JMW DATE STARTED 7/22/15 COMPLETED 7/22/15 DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER B-9 CLIENT SKB Landfill PROJECT NUMBER 3053-0013 PROJECT NAME Soil Borings PROJECT LOCATION Rosemount, MN GENERAL BH / TP / WELL BORING LOGS.GPJ WENCK.GDT 7/29/151800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359Telephone: 763-479-4200Fax: 763-479-4242 RECOVERY %U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION Appendix C Wastewater Holding Tank Design Memo and MPCA Car Wash and Vehicle Maintenance Facilities Technical Memo Wenck Associates, Inc. | 1800 Pioneer Creek Center | P.O. Box 249 | Maple Plain, MN 55359-0249 Toll Free 800-472-2232 Main 763-479-4200 Email wenckmp@wenck.com Web wenck.com To: SKB Environmental From: Micah Heckman, PE Date: May 26, 2016 – Revised March 27, 2017 Subject: SKB PUD Application – Sanitary Sewer Flows Sanitary Sewer Flow Rates Wenck was tasked with providing estimated design flows for the sanitary sewer system at SKB Landfill in Rosemount, MN. The system will include a wastewater holding tank that will be used during the planning and construction phase of a nearby sanitary sewer trunk line. Once the trunk line is constructed, the wastewater system will be tied into the trunk line. This memo serves to provide details into the basis of the design. The first step in designing the system is to determine the design flow for the proposed use. The proposed development includes an industrial recycling facility (not open to the public) that includes a total of four buildings, one maintenance building and three recycling buildings. The proposed development will employ a total of 20 persons once in operation. Daily wastewater flow for the proposed development was calculated based on unit flow estimates found in the Minnesota Administrative Rules (7081.0130). Table 1: Wastewater Flow Type of Establishment Independent Variable Unit Avg. Day Flow Total Avg. Day Flow (gpd) Industrial Facility 20 employees/8-hour shift 17.5 gal/employee/day 350 Design Avg. Day Flow 350 In addition, it was assumed that periodic washdowns of the maintenance area floor will be required. Since the wastewater from the maintenance area could possibly be contaminated with oil, grease, and other automotive fluids, an oil/water separator will be installed beneath the maintenance area. The wastewater flow for the maintenance shop area was calculated based on an assumed flow of 10 gpm for a wash hose and it was assumed each wash would last approximately 30 minutes. These washdowns will not be a daily occurrence, rather on an as needed basis. Therefore, the flow was not included in the wastewater flow table. It is important to note that the size of the holding tank designated below was conservatively sized to allow for miscellaneous wastewater, such as the case above. The second step in designing the system is to size the holding tank based on the design flow. To design the holding tank Minnesota Administrative Rules (7080.2290) were consulted. Based on 7080.2290, holding tanks for establishments other than dwellings must have a minimum capacity of 5 times the design flow. For this development, the minimum tank size is 1,750 gallons. However, a 1,750 gallon tank would need to be pumped every 5 days on average. To decrease the pumping frequency, it was assumed that the tank would be emptied every 7 to 10 days. Therefore, based on the total average day flow, a 3,000 gallon tank was selected. Typical septic tank haul trucks also hold approximately 3,000 gallons, so the holding tank could be emptied with one trip from the septic hauler. At the average day flow of 350 gallons per day, the tank would need to be cleaned every 8 days. Per MN Rules, the tank would need to be equipped with an alarm device unless regularly scheduled pumping is used. If an alarm device it used, the alarm would be triggered when the tank reaches 75 percent of capacity and would include both an audible and visual alarm. Car Wash and Vehicle Maintenance Facilities UICP/8-04/July 1999 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194 (651) 296-6300, toll-free (800) 657-3864, TTY (651) 282-5332 or (800) 657-3864 This material can be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities. Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20 percent fibers from paper recycled by consumers. Metro, North and South Districts, Community and Area Wide Program Underground disposal of commercial and industrial wastewater can cause serious soil and ground-water contamination if not carefully controlled. On-site sewage treatment systems are designed to treat household wastewater and do not provide adequate treatment for the types of contaminants found in commercial and industrial facilities. This series of fact sheets provides an overview of the regulations and restrictions concerning the management, treatment and disposal of industrial wastewater in underground sewage systems in Minnesota. Because of the potential for wastewater to contaminate soil and ground water, the policies and regulations regarding underground disposal systems are strict. Hazardous Waste Disposal It is illegal in Minnesota to disposal of any hazardous waste through underground discharge, including septic systems and dry wells. All wastes must be evaluated to determine if they are hazardous. Waste which meet the definition of a hazardous waste must be managed in accordance with Minnesota’s hazardous waste rules. Floor drains and shop sink connections Floor drains and shop sinks connected to on- site septic systems or dry wells can be pathways for contaminants to reach ground- water sources¾especially in vehicle maintenance facilities. For this reason, these types of connections will not be allowed. This position is consistent with current federal policy. Vehicle wash wastewater Discharge of vehicle wash wastewater to an on-site sewage treatment system could result in contamination of the ground-water sources. For this reason, it should be avoided where possible. Two possible options are hooking up to a municipal sewer system or capturing and reusing wastewater. Connecting to sewers Connecting to a municipal sewer system with permission from the local utility may allow operators to discharge larger volumes of wastewater than they would using on-site disposal methods. In addition, small amounts of hazardous wastes may be A plumbing system that allows pollutants to enter ground water and soil can cause serious environmental problems. Car Wash and Vehicle Maintenance Facilities Page 2 Metro, North and South Districts, Community and Area Wide Program UICP/8-04/July 1999 discharged into some municipal systems with permission from the wastewater treatment plant operator. For more information on connecting to sewers, contact the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) at (651) 296-8006 or toll-free at (800) 657-3864. Reusing wastewater There are a variety of methods to capture and reuse wastewater ranging from sophisticated recycling systems with a series of filters and separators to a simple system of holding tanks hooked in series with water reused out of the last tank. For more information on reducing and recycling wastes, contact the Minnesota Technical Assistance Program (MNTAP) at (612) 627-4646 or toll-free at (800) 247-0015. On-site disposal If on-site disposal is unavoidable, the design of the plumbing system can help in reducing the amount of pollutants discharged. Plumbing should include a sediment collection point and a flammable waste trap at facilities where wastes will be discharged to a septic tank or drainfield. Plumbing for public buildings must be approved by the Minnesota Department of Health, or a city agency delegated to perform plumbing plan reviews. Septic tanks and drainfields should also be carefully designed so that they can handle the amount of wastes that will be discharged. For more technical information on septic tank and drainfield design, contact the MPCA at (651) 282-6246. Car wash operational controls Operational controls are essential to ensure that no on-site disposal of hazardous waste occurs. The MPCA recommends the following for car wash and maintenance facilities: · Train all facility users to assure compliance with rules. · Have an attendant on site when facility is open. · Use biodegradable soaps only¾no solvent-based cleaners. · Exterior vehicle washing only¾no engine cleaning. · No washing of oily vehicles. · No parking or maintenance of vehicles in wash bay. · No storage or use of hazardous materials in wash bays. This means that most coin-operated car washes should not be connected to on-site sewage treatment systems. Facilities that do not conform to these recommendations will be referred to the United States Environmental Protection Agency for further evaluation. Contacts for more information Hazardous waste management and disposal Call the MPCA at (651) 297-8362 or toll-free at (800) 657-3864. Reducing and recycling wastes For ideas on reducing and recycling wastes, contact your local trade association or call the Minnesota Technical Assistance Program at (612) 627-4546 or toll-free at (800) 247-0015. To find out more about the MPCA’s Underground Disposal Control Program, please read the other fact sheets in this series, or contact Jackie Deneen, MPCA, at (651) 296-5695 (voice); (651) 282-5332 (TTY); or call toll-free at (800) 657-3864 (voice/TTY). Additional information is available through the MPCA’s subdistrict offices: Brainerd (218) 828-2492 Detroit Lakes (218) 847-1519 Duluth (218) 723-4660 Mankato (507) 389-5235 Marshall (507) 537-7146 Rochester (507) 285-7343 MPCA Website: http://www.pca.state.mn.us Appendix D T:\3053 Waste Connections\0035 - PUD Application - SKB Rosemount\Stormwater\Revised Landfill\Revised June 2016 (no drainage from LF)\SW write-up_june 2016.doc Surface Water Analysis The surface water management system has been designed to manage the 100-year, 24-hour storm event of 7.42 inches. The proposed management system consists of one pond on the southern portion of the subject property. South Pond Subwatershed Runoff from the proposed development will be routed via surface drainage to the proposed South Pond. Prior to development to the east of Phase 1, a portion of the adjacent property will also be routed to the South Pond. These grades will likely change in the future as development continues and this area will likely be routed to additional surface water management features/ponds on the development area; however, the South Pond has been sized to handle the run-off from this additional area in the interim. HydroCAD-Stormwater Modeling was used to calculate run-off hydrographs for the proposed development site. The proposed site consists of one large subwatershed area as shown on the attached figure. A run-off curve number of CN=49 was assigned to grassed areas of the site; this number is representative of HSG A soils and conservatively assumes fair grass cover (50-75% coverage). A CN of 98 was assigned to the class 5 surfaces, paved surfaces and building areas; a CN of 100 was assigned to the pond. Time of concentration for the proposed subwatershed was calculated using the HydroCAD model by inputting hydraulic distance and slope for applicable sheet flow and shallow concentrated flow conditions. With this method, a time of concentration of 11 minutes was calculated. South Pond Design The south pond will be designed to meet the City of Rosemount requirements. The current design consists of the following: Bottom Elevation: 845 Top Elevation: 862 NWL (Discharge Elevation): 854.9 On the following page is a table of the City of Rosemount requirements and the design parameters of the proposed south pond: T:\3053 Waste Connections\0035 - PUD Application - SKB Rosemount\Stormwater\Revised Landfill\Revised June 2016 (no drainage from LF)\SW write-up_june 2016.doc Table 1: South Pond Design Summary Requirement Proposed Pond (Current Design Iteration) No discharge or infiltration assumed for purposes of establishing the 100-year, 24-hour storm event HWL Does not discharge during 100-year event; infiltration was not included in modeling. For events with longer duration, a maximum peak stormwater discharge rate will be limited to 0.05 cfs/acre The NWL elevation is approximately 3.4 acres in area. Therefore the maximum discharge rate for longer storm events is 0.17 cfs. The 100-year 2-day event was modeled and the resultant pond discharge rate is 0.11 cfs, indicating conformance with this requirement. Storage of the runoff from the 100-year, 24-hour storm event is required on-site. This requirement applies to the “live storage” per the City of Rosemount Stormwater Retention/Infiltration Basin Design detail. Assuming no infiltration or abstraction, storage of 100% of the 7.42 inch 100- year 24-hour storm event is provided. (46.1 acre drainage area * 7.42 inches = 28.5 ac-ft required; 29.8 ac-ft provided above the NWL) Development will be required to provide 1/12 of an acre-foot/acre/day of infiltration for the entire site’s acreage. Maximum of 3.0 in/hour. The drainage area is 46.1 acres; 1/12 ac-feet/acre * 46.1 acres = 3.8 ac-feet/day required. On-site soils are anticipated to infiltrate at a rate higher than 3.0 in/hour. However, using the allowable maximum rate, based on the NWL area, 23.8 ac-ft per day of infiltration is provided (NWL area = 3.4 acres; 3.4 acres * 3.0 inches/hour * 24 hour/day ÷ 12 inches/foot = 20.4 ac-feet/day). Permanent pool (“dead storage”) volume greater or equal to the runoff from a 2.5- inch storm event over the contributing area. The modeled runoff from the 2.5 inch event is approximately 6.5 ac-feet; 2.5 inches over the entire drainage area is 9.6 ac-feet. The “dead storage” provided is approximately 25 ac-feet. Considering application of either calculation method to determine the 2.5-inch runoff volume, the requirement is met. Permanent pool average depth > 4 feet with maximum of < 10 feet. The permanent pool depth is 9.9 feet. "Red" Subwatershed= 46.1 AcresSouth Pond; NWL =854.9; 100-yr HWL =854.948-inch OCS; invert854.9; 12-inch RCP outletculvert to existing boxculvert (does notdischarge during100-year event) 8S Red - to South Pond 7P South Pond Routing Diagram for sw model 2016_rev Prepared by Wenck Associates, Printed 6/28/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 02201 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link sw model 2016_rev Printed 6/28/2016Prepared by Wenck Associates Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 02201 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 5.500 49 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A (8S) 36.200 98 Paved parking, HSG A (8S) 4.400 100 pond area (8S) 46.100 92 TOTAL AREA sw model 2016_rev Printed 6/28/2016Prepared by Wenck Associates Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 02201 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 41.700 HSG A 8S 0.000 HSG B 0.000 HSG C 0.000 HSG D 4.400 Other 8S 46.100 TOTAL AREA sw model 2016_rev Printed 6/28/2016Prepared by Wenck Associates Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 02201 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Ground Covers (all nodes) HSG-A (acres) HSG-B (acres) HSG-C (acres) HSG-D (acres) Other (acres) Total (acres) Ground Cover Subcatchment Numbers 5.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.500 50-75% Grass cover, Fair 8S 36.200 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 36.200 Paved parking 8S 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.400 4.400 pond area 8S 41.700 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.400 46.100 TOTAL AREA sw model 2016_rev Printed 6/28/2016Prepared by Wenck Associates Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 02201 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pipe Listing (all nodes) Line# Node Number In-Invert (feet) Out-Invert (feet) Length (feet) Slope (ft/ft) n Diam/Width (inches) Height (inches) Inside-Fill (inches) 1 7P 854.90 852.50 160.0 0.0150 0.012 12.0 0.0 0.0 MSE 24-hr 3 2.5 inch event Rainfall=2.50"sw model 2016_rev Printed 6/28/2016Prepared by Wenck Associates Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 02201 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-60.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 6001 points x 2 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=46.100 ac 88.07% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.69"Subcatchment 8S: Red - to South Pond Flow Length=1,722' Tc=11.0 min CN=92 Runoff=115.15 cfs 6.504 af Peak Elev=848.08' Storage=6.504 af Inflow=115.15 cfs 6.504 afPond 7P: South Pond Outflow=0.00 cfs 0.000 af Total Runoff Area = 46.100 ac Runoff Volume = 6.504 af Average Runoff Depth = 1.69" 11.93% Pervious = 5.500 ac 88.07% Impervious = 40.600 ac MSE 24-hr 3 2.5 inch event Rainfall=2.50"sw model 2016_rev Printed 6/28/2016Prepared by Wenck Associates Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 02201 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 8S: Red - to South Pond Runoff = 115.15 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 6.504 af, Depth= 1.69" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-60.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2.5 inch event Rainfall=2.50" Area (ac) CN Description 5.500 49 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A * 4.400 100 pond area 36.200 98 Paved parking, HSG A 46.100 92 Weighted Average 5.500 49 11.93% Pervious Area 40.600 98 88.07% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 2.7 300 0.0300 1.88 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 2.79" 8.3 1,422 0.0200 2.87 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 11.0 1,722 Total Subcatchment 8S: Red - to South Pond Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 605550454035302520151050Flow (cfs)120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 MSE 24-hr 3 2.5 inch event Rainfall=2.50" Runoff Area=46.100 ac Runoff Volume=6.504 af Runoff Depth=1.69" Flow Length=1,722' Tc=11.0 min CN=92 115.15 cfs MSE 24-hr 3 2.5 inch event Rainfall=2.50"sw model 2016_rev Printed 6/28/2016Prepared by Wenck Associates Page 8HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 02201 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 7P: South Pond Inflow Area = 46.100 ac, 88.07% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.69" for 2.5 inch event event Inflow = 115.15 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 6.504 af Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Atten= 100%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-60.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 2 Peak Elev= 848.08' @ 24.63 hrs Surf.Area= 2.279 ac Storage= 6.504 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: initial storage exceeds outflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= (not calculated: no outflow) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 845.00' 55.781 af Custom Stage Data (Irregular) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (acres) (feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acres) 845.00 2.000 1,627.0 0.000 0.000 2.000 846.00 2.040 1,640.0 2.020 2.020 2.086 848.00 2.270 1,689.0 4.308 6.328 2.394 850.00 2.500 1,736.0 4.768 11.096 2.698 852.00 2.750 1,786.0 5.248 16.344 3.030 854.00 3.000 1,834.0 5.748 22.092 3.358 854.80 3.400 1,915.0 2.558 24.651 3.914 856.00 4.000 1,999.0 4.435 29.086 4.517 858.00 4.300 2,047.0 8.298 37.384 4.884 860.00 4.600 2,093.0 8.898 46.282 5.244 862.00 4.900 2,144.0 9.498 55.781 5.651 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 854.90'12.0" Round Culvert L= 160.0' RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 854.90' / 852.50' S= 0.0150 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 854.90'3.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #3 Device 1 858.00'4.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 #4 Device 1 861.50'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=845.00' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 2=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) MSE 24-hr 3 2.5 inch event Rainfall=2.50"sw model 2016_rev Printed 6/28/2016Prepared by Wenck Associates Page 9HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 02201 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 7P: South Pond Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 605550454035302520151050Flow (cfs)120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Inflow Area=46.100 ac Peak Elev=848.08' Storage=6.504 af 115.15 cfs 0.00 cfs MSE 24-hr 3 100-year 2-day Rainfall=7.80"sw model 2016_rev Printed 6/28/2016Prepared by Wenck Associates Page 10HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 02201 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-60.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 6001 points x 2 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=46.100 ac 88.07% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.85"Subcatchment 8S: Red - to South Pond Flow Length=1,722' Tc=11.0 min CN=92 Runoff=430.77 cfs 26.298 af Peak Elev=855.26' Storage=26.265 af Inflow=430.77 cfs 26.298 afPond 7P: South Pond Outflow=0.11 cfs 0.337 af Total Runoff Area = 46.100 ac Runoff Volume = 26.298 af Average Runoff Depth = 6.85" 11.93% Pervious = 5.500 ac 88.07% Impervious = 40.600 ac MSE 24-hr 3 100-year 2-day Rainfall=7.80"sw model 2016_rev Printed 6/28/2016Prepared by Wenck Associates Page 11HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 02201 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 8S: Red - to South Pond Runoff = 430.77 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 26.298 af, Depth= 6.85" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-60.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-year 2-day Rainfall=7.80" Area (ac) CN Description 5.500 49 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A * 4.400 100 pond area 36.200 98 Paved parking, HSG A 46.100 92 Weighted Average 5.500 49 11.93% Pervious Area 40.600 98 88.07% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 2.7 300 0.0300 1.88 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 2.79" 8.3 1,422 0.0200 2.87 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 11.0 1,722 Total Subcatchment 8S: Red - to South Pond Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 605550454035302520151050Flow (cfs)450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 MSE 24-hr 3 100-year 2-day Rainfall=7.80" Runoff Area=46.100 ac Runoff Volume=26.298 af Runoff Depth=6.85" Flow Length=1,722' Tc=11.0 min CN=92 430.77 cfs MSE 24-hr 3 100-year 2-day Rainfall=7.80"sw model 2016_rev Printed 6/28/2016Prepared by Wenck Associates Page 12HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 02201 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 7P: South Pond Inflow Area = 46.100 ac, 88.07% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.85" for 100-year 2-day event Inflow = 430.77 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 26.298 af Outflow = 0.11 cfs @ 24.26 hrs, Volume= 0.337 af, Atten= 100%, Lag= 725.0 min Primary = 0.11 cfs @ 24.26 hrs, Volume= 0.337 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-60.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 2 Peak Elev= 855.26' @ 24.26 hrs Surf.Area= 3.624 ac Storage= 26.265 af Plug-Flow detention time= 2,017.3 min calculated for 0.337 af (1% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,610.0 min ( 2,376.7 - 766.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 845.00' 55.781 af Custom Stage Data (Irregular) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (acres) (feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acres) 845.00 2.000 1,627.0 0.000 0.000 2.000 846.00 2.040 1,640.0 2.020 2.020 2.086 848.00 2.270 1,689.0 4.308 6.328 2.394 850.00 2.500 1,736.0 4.768 11.096 2.698 852.00 2.750 1,786.0 5.248 16.344 3.030 854.00 3.000 1,834.0 5.748 22.092 3.358 854.80 3.400 1,915.0 2.558 24.651 3.914 856.00 4.000 1,999.0 4.435 29.086 4.517 858.00 4.300 2,047.0 8.298 37.384 4.884 860.00 4.600 2,093.0 8.898 46.282 5.244 862.00 4.900 2,144.0 9.498 55.781 5.651 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 854.90'12.0" Round Culvert L= 160.0' RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 854.90' / 852.50' S= 0.0150 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 854.90'3.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #3 Device 1 858.00'4.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 #4 Device 1 861.50'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=0.11 cfs @ 24.26 hrs HW=855.26' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Passes 0.11 cfs of 0.65 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.11 cfs @ 2.33 fps) 3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) MSE 24-hr 3 100-year 2-day Rainfall=7.80"sw model 2016_rev Printed 6/28/2016Prepared by Wenck Associates Page 13HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 02201 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 7P: South Pond Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 605550454035302520151050Flow (cfs)450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Inflow Area=46.100 ac Peak Elev=855.26' Storage=26.265 af 430.77 cfs 0.11 cfs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr 24-hr Rainfall=7.42"sw model 2016_rev Printed 6/28/2016Prepared by Wenck Associates Page 14HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 02201 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-60.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 6001 points x 2 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=46.100 ac 88.07% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.47"Subcatchment 8S: Red - to South Pond Flow Length=1,722' Tc=11.0 min CN=92 Runoff=408.47 cfs 24.854 af Peak Elev=854.86' Storage=24.854 af Inflow=408.47 cfs 24.854 afPond 7P: South Pond Outflow=0.00 cfs 0.000 af Total Runoff Area = 46.100 ac Runoff Volume = 24.854 af Average Runoff Depth = 6.47" 11.93% Pervious = 5.500 ac 88.07% Impervious = 40.600 ac MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr 24-hr Rainfall=7.42"sw model 2016_rev Printed 6/28/2016Prepared by Wenck Associates Page 15HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 02201 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 8S: Red - to South Pond Runoff = 408.47 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 24.854 af, Depth= 6.47" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-60.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr 24-hr Rainfall=7.42" Area (ac) CN Description 5.500 49 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A * 4.400 100 pond area 36.200 98 Paved parking, HSG A 46.100 92 Weighted Average 5.500 49 11.93% Pervious Area 40.600 98 88.07% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 2.7 300 0.0300 1.88 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 2.79" 8.3 1,422 0.0200 2.87 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 11.0 1,722 Total Subcatchment 8S: Red - to South Pond Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 605550454035302520151050Flow (cfs)450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr 24-hr Rainfall=7.42" Runoff Area=46.100 ac Runoff Volume=24.854 af Runoff Depth=6.47" Flow Length=1,722' Tc=11.0 min CN=92 408.47 cfs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr 24-hr Rainfall=7.42"sw model 2016_rev Printed 6/28/2016Prepared by Wenck Associates Page 16HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 02201 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 7P: South Pond Inflow Area = 46.100 ac, 88.07% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.47" for 100-yr 24-hr event Inflow = 408.47 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 24.854 af Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Atten= 100%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-60.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 2 Peak Elev= 854.86' @ 24.63 hrs Surf.Area= 3.429 ac Storage= 24.854 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: initial storage exceeds outflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= (not calculated: no outflow) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 845.00' 55.781 af Custom Stage Data (Irregular) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (acres) (feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acres) 845.00 2.000 1,627.0 0.000 0.000 2.000 846.00 2.040 1,640.0 2.020 2.020 2.086 848.00 2.270 1,689.0 4.308 6.328 2.394 850.00 2.500 1,736.0 4.768 11.096 2.698 852.00 2.750 1,786.0 5.248 16.344 3.030 854.00 3.000 1,834.0 5.748 22.092 3.358 854.80 3.400 1,915.0 2.558 24.651 3.914 856.00 4.000 1,999.0 4.435 29.086 4.517 858.00 4.300 2,047.0 8.298 37.384 4.884 860.00 4.600 2,093.0 8.898 46.282 5.244 862.00 4.900 2,144.0 9.498 55.781 5.651 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 854.90'12.0" Round Culvert L= 160.0' RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 854.90' / 852.50' S= 0.0150 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 854.90'3.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #3 Device 1 858.00'4.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 #4 Device 1 861.50'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=845.00' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 2=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr 24-hr Rainfall=7.42"sw model 2016_rev Printed 6/28/2016Prepared by Wenck Associates Page 17HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 02201 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 7P: South Pond Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 605550454035302520151050Flow (cfs)450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Inflow Area=46.100 ac Peak Elev=854.86' Storage=24.854 af 408.47 cfs 0.00 cfs Attachment 5 Tree Survey and Preservation Plan Technical Memo Wenck Associates, Inc. | 1800 Pioneer Creek Center | P.O. Box 249 | Maple Plain, MN 55359-0249 Toll Free 800-472-2232 Main 763-479-4200 Email wenckmp@wenck.com Web wenck.com To: From: Date: Kyle Klatt, City of Rosemount, Minnesota Lucius Jonett, Wenck Associates, Inc. January 24, 2017, updated March 27, 2017 Subject: SKB Rosemount Tree Survey and Preservation Plan This technical memorandum presents a Tree Survey and Preservation Plan (Plan) for Phase I of a planned construction project adjacent to the SKB Rosemount Industrial Landfill facility in Rosemount, Minnesota. Tree Survey Wenck Associates (Wenck) completed a tree survey for the area bounded in red on Figure 1. The survey was completed on two dates: February 1 and June 24, 2016. In accordance with Rosemount City Code Section 11-6-3 part E, Tree Preservation, Wenck staff tagged, identified and measured healthy deciduous hardwoods, deciduous softwoods, and conifers that met or exceeded the following minimum sizes: •Deciduous softwoods: minimum 12 inches diameter at breast height (DBH, 4.5 feet above ground). As defined by City Code, softwoods are cottonwood, aspen, poplar, box elder, willow, silver maple, and elm. •Deciduous hardwoods: minimum 6 inches DBH •Conifers: minimum 12 feet in height Numbered aluminum tags were attached to eligible trees. For deciduous trees, DBH was estimated to the nearest inch, calibrated with a DBH tape measure. For conifers, height was estimated to the nearest foot by comparing tree height to the height of the surveyors. Tag number, species, size, and GPS coordinates for each tree were logged into a Trimble GeoXT handheld GPS unit. Data were downloaded after returning from the survey. Survey data are shown in Table 1. Tree Preservation Plan As required by Rosemount City Code Section 11-6-3, Part E.5, the following information is presented: a.The name(s) and address(es) of property owners and developers. SKB Environmental, Inc. 13425 Courthouse Blvd. Rosemount, MN 55068 b.Delineation of the buildings, structures, or impervious surfaces situated thereon or contemplated to be built thereon. See Figure 7. Kyle Klatt City of Rosemount, Minnesota January 24, 2017 2 T:\3053 Waste Connections\0035 - PUD Application - SKB Rosemount\Tree survey 2016\Summer 2016 tree survey\Tech Memo\Tree survey technical memo 6-28-16.docx c.Delineation of all areas to be graded and limits of land disturbance. See Figure 3. d.Size, species, and location of all significant trees (as defined by city code) located within the area to be platted or the parcel of record. See Figure 8. e.Identification of all significant trees on all individual lots. See Figure 8. f.Measures to protect significant trees. As shown in Figure 8, only those tree on the far west side of Phase I construction will be removed. To protect the remaining significant trees, T bars and orange construction fencing will be placed 10 feet from proposed grading contours. In addition, the boundary will be marked with signs indicating that no trees are to be removed beyond that point. This will be verified during construction inspections. g.Identification of all significant trees proposed to be removed within the construction area, including the contouring of all areas to be clear cut. See Figure 8. h.Size, species, and location of all replacement trees to be planted on the property in accordance with the tree replacement schedule. See Figure 7. i.Signature of the person preparing the plan and statement which includes acknowledgment of the fact the trees to be used as replacements are appropriate species with respect to survival of the replacement trees. I, Lucius Jonett, a Professional Landscape Architect, acknowledge that the trees to be used as replacements are appropriate with respect to their survival in this location. _____________________________ Lucius Jonett, PLA (MN 52856) I, Seth Bossert, acknowledge that the tree survey was conducted in accordance with accepted professional standards and as required by Rosemount City Code, and that the data is accurate to the best of our ability. _____________________________ Seth Bossert, MLA Tables 1. Tree Survey Data Tag ID DBH (in) Height (ft) Common name Scientific name Type Date Remove 1 34 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 2 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 3 32 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 4 13 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 5 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 6 13 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 7 13 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 8 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 9 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 10 6 0 Hackberry Celtis occidentalis hardwood 1‐Feb 11 19 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 12 25 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 13 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 14 14 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 16 16 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 17 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 18 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 19 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 20 60 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 21 13 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 22 13 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 23 17 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 24 26 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 25 26 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 26 15 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 27 6 0 Hackberry Celtis occidentalis hardwood 1‐Feb 28 8 0 Hackberry Celtis occidentalis hardwood 1‐Feb 29 6 0 Hackberry Celtis occidentalis hardwood 1‐Feb 30 13 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb x 31 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 32 14 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 33 49 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 34 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 35 24 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 36 14 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 37 20 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 38 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 39 16 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 40 28 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 41 14 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 42 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 43 15 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 44 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 46 18 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 47 20 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb Table 1. Tree Survey Data All trees listed are significant trees, as defined by Rosemount City Code. There were no Heritage Trees. Those to be  removed are marked with an "x" in the last column, and their rows are shaded gray. Tag ID DBH (in) Height (ft) Common name Scientific name Type Date Remove Table 1. Tree Survey Data All trees listed are significant trees, as defined by Rosemount City Code. There were no Heritage Trees. Those to be  removed are marked with an "x" in the last column, and their rows are shaded gray. 48 18 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 49 24 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 50 13 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 51 40 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 52 14 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 53 26 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 54 16 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 55 24 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 56 8 0 Black Cherry Prunus serotina hardwood 1‐Feb 57 9 0 Basswood Tilia americana hardwood 1‐Feb 58 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 59 17 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 60 15 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 61 18 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 62 14 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 63 9 0 Basswood Tilia americana hardwood 1‐Feb 64 16 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 65 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 66 8 0 Basswood Tilia americana hardwood 1‐Feb 67 0 14 Eastern Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana conifer 1‐Feb 68 8 0 Basswood Tilia americana hardwood 1‐Feb 69 10 0 Basswood Tilia americana hardwood 1‐Feb 70 6 0 Basswood Tilia americana hardwood 1‐Feb 71 14 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 72 6 0 Basswood Tilia americana hardwood 1‐Feb 73 0 25 Eastern Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana conifer 1‐Feb 74 15 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 75 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 76 14 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 77 6 0 Black Cherry Prunus serotina hardwood 1‐Feb 78 0 25 Eastern Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana conifer 1‐Feb 79 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 80 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 81 14 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 82 0 20 Eastern Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana conifer 1‐Feb 84 13 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 85 15 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 86 13 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 87 0 30 Eastern Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana conifer 1‐Feb 88 12 0 Basswood Tilia americana hardwood 1‐Feb 89 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 90 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 91 14 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 92 14 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 93 0 12 Eastern Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana conifer 1‐Feb Tag ID DBH (in) Height (ft) Common name Scientific name Type Date Remove Table 1. Tree Survey Data All trees listed are significant trees, as defined by Rosemount City Code. There were no Heritage Trees. Those to be  removed are marked with an "x" in the last column, and their rows are shaded gray. 94 24 0 Black Cherry Prunus serotina hardwood 1‐Feb 95 15 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 1‐Feb 96 0 15 Eastern Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana conifer 1‐Feb 97 6 0 Basswood Tilia americana hardwood 1‐Feb 98 7 0 Black Cherry Prunus serotina hardwood 1‐Feb 99 12 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 1‐Feb 100 15 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 1‐Feb 101 30 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 102 14 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 103 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 104 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 105 18 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 106 40 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 107 38 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 108 14 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb x 109 16 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 110 19 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 111 45 0 Cottonwood Populus deltoides softwood 1‐Feb 112 13 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 113 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 116 0 30 Eastern Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana conifer 1‐Feb 117 30 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 123 15 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 124 14 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 1‐Feb 2001 10 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2003 13.5 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun x 2004 19 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun x 2101 14 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun x 2102 8 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2103 8 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2104 13 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2105 10 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2106 13.5 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2107 13 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2108 12.5 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2109 12.5 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2110 7.5 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2111 12 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2112 14 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun x 2113 16 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun x 2114 12 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun x 2115 13 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun x 2116 16 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun x 2117 10 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun x 2118 10 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun x Tag ID DBH (in) Height (ft) Common name Scientific name Type Date Remove Table 1. Tree Survey Data All trees listed are significant trees, as defined by Rosemount City Code. There were no Heritage Trees. Those to be  removed are marked with an "x" in the last column, and their rows are shaded gray. 2119 17 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun x 2120 9 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun x 2121 16 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun x 2122 10 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun x 2123 12 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun x 2124 6 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2125 9 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun x 2126 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun x 2127 7 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2128 10 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2129 13 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2130 16 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2131 13 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2132 6 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2133 13 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2134 9 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2135 7 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2136 11.5 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2137 15 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun 2138 9.5 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2139 16 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2140 9 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2141 12.5 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2142 13 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2143 9 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2145 17 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2146 10 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2147 10 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2148 9.5 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2149 13.5 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2150 12 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2151 10 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2152 11 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2153 17 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun 2154 12 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2155 15.5 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2156 13.5 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun 2157 0 25 Eastern Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana conifer 24‐Jun 2158 8.5 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2159 13 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2160 7.5 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2161 15 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2162 7.5 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2163 13.5 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2164 14 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun Tag ID DBH (in) Height (ft) Common name Scientific name Type Date Remove Table 1. Tree Survey Data All trees listed are significant trees, as defined by Rosemount City Code. There were no Heritage Trees. Those to be  removed are marked with an "x" in the last column, and their rows are shaded gray. 2165 14.5 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2166 22.5 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2167 12 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2168 14 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2169 9 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2170 10.5 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2171 9 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2172 15 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2173 9 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2174 15 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2175 16 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2176 12.5 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun 2177 13 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun 2178 16 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2179 19 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2180 7 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2181 26 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2182 14 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun 2183 15.5 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2185 11 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2186 14 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2192 12 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2193 9 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2194 12 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2195 11.5 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2197 6 0 Hackberry Celtis occidentalis hardwood 24‐Jun 2198 12.5 0 Siberian Elm ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2199 13 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2200 8 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2201 22.5 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2206 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2209 16 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun 2219 19 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun 2301 15 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun x 2302 32 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun x 2303 13 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun x 2304 8 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun x 2305 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun x 2306 15 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun x 2307 15 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun x 2308 16 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun x 2309 8 0 Black Cherry Prunus serotina hardwood 24‐Jun x 2310 13 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun x 2311 13 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun x 2312 28 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun x Tag ID DBH (in) Height (ft) Common name Scientific name Type Date Remove Table 1. Tree Survey Data All trees listed are significant trees, as defined by Rosemount City Code. There were no Heritage Trees. Those to be  removed are marked with an "x" in the last column, and their rows are shaded gray. 2313 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun x 2314 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun x 2315 12 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun x 2316 21 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun x 2317 6 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun x 2318 0 25 Eastern Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana conifer 24‐Jun x 2319 0 15 Eastern Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana conifer 24‐Jun x 2320 8.5 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun x 2321 25 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2322 15.5 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2323 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2324 17.5 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2325 6.5 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2326 13.5 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2327 12 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2328 9.5 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2329 7.5 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2330 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2331 21 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2332 24 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun 2333 18 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2334 18 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun 2335 12.5 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun 2336 11 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2337 6.5 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2338 10 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2339 13 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2340 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2341 12.5 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2342 13 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2343 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2344 16.5 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2345 25 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2346 6 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2347 19.5 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2348 7 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2349 17 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun 2350 16.5 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2351 13 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun x 2352 13 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun x 2353 28 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun x 2354 0 20 Eastern Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana conifer 24‐Jun x 2355 18.5 0 Black Cherry Prunus serotina hardwood 24‐Jun x 2356 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun x 2357 7 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun x Tag ID DBH (in) Height (ft) Common name Scientific name Type Date Remove Table 1. Tree Survey Data All trees listed are significant trees, as defined by Rosemount City Code. There were no Heritage Trees. Those to be  removed are marked with an "x" in the last column, and their rows are shaded gray. 2358 30 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun x 2401 15.5 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2405 17.5 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2406 11.5 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun x 2411 11.5 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun x 2416 16 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2417 17.5 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2421 27 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun 2426 14.5 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2428 13 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2429 16 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2430 22 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2437 15 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2438 13 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2440 12 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun 2441 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2442 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2444 18.5 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2445 7.5 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2446 10 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun 2448 13.5 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2449 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2450 14 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2451 14 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun 2452 9 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2457 7 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun 2458 13 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2461 9 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun 2462 13 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2463 9 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2464 22 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun 2466 12 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2468 12.5 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2470 0 15 Eastern Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana conifer 24‐Jun 2471 12 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun 2472 17 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2473 7 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2474 15 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2476 13 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun 2477 12.5 0 American Elm Ulmus americana softwood 24‐Jun 2479 19 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2490 14 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2491 11.5 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2494 16 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2495 7 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun Tag ID DBH (in) Height (ft) Common name Scientific name Type Date Remove Table 1. Tree Survey Data All trees listed are significant trees, as defined by Rosemount City Code. There were no Heritage Trees. Those to be  removed are marked with an "x" in the last column, and their rows are shaded gray. 2496 8 0 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica hardwood 24‐Jun 2497 18.5 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun 2499 19 0 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila softwood 24‐Jun Figures 1. Tree Survey Area 3. Phase I Detailed Site Plan 7. Tree Replacement Plan 8. Tree Preservation Plan SKB LANDFILL JUNE 2016 Tree Survey Area Figure 1 KEYQtySpeciesLatinSizeHeightWidthCO60HackberryCeltis occidentalis2.5" B&B50+50PR143Pine, red (Norway)Pinus resinosa6' B&B40+25+PS164Pine, eastern whitePinus strobus6' B&B40+25+QE52Oak, Northern PinQuercus ellipsodalis2.5" B&B40+25+CS195Dogwood, Arctic FireCornus stolonifera 'Farrow'#5 POT6'4'DL178Honeysuckle, DwarfDivervilla lonicera#5 POT3'3' Attachment 6 Project Plan Drawings KEYQtySpeciesLatinSizeHeightWidthCO60HackberryCeltis occidentalis2.5" B&B50+50PR143Pine, red (Norway)Pinus resinosa6' B&B40+25+PS164Pine, eastern whitePinus strobus6' B&B40+25+QE52Oak, Northern PinQuercus ellipsodalis2.5" B&B40+25+CS195Dogwood, Arctic FireCornus stolonifera 'Farrow'#5 POT6'4'DL178Honeysuckle, DwarfDivervilla lonicera#5 POT3'3' Attachment 7 Administrative/Simple Plat Application Submittal N54°58'38"W 652.90N54°06'00"W 528.00S0°06'38"W 373.97S67°31'19"E 1440.78OUTLOT ALOT 1BLOCK 1STATE HIGHWAY NO. 55EHLERS PATHS0°12'58"W391.55N54°05'58"W 1539.77N0°14'34"W 734.09S89°19'33"E 888.62N0°08'33"E 909.14 S0°12'58"W 1903.60 LEGEND PRELIMINARY PLAT -SKB ROSEMOUNT 1ST ADDITION N54°58'38"W 652.90N54°06'00"W 528.00S0°06'38"W 373.97S67°31'19"E 1440.78OUTLOT ALOT 1BLOCK 1STATE HIGHWAY NO. 55EHLERS PATHS0°12'58"W391.55N54°05'58"W 1539.77N0°14'34"W 734.09S89°19'33"E 888.62N0°08'33"E 909.14 S0°12'58"W 1903.60 SKB ROSEMOUNT 1ST ADDITIONWENCKASSOCIATESLEGEND CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2016 - 03 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN FOR SKB ENVRIONMENTAL WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount has received an applicarion for a Planned Unit Development (I'UD) Concept Plan for SKB Environmental, Inc. to be located on land directly east of the SKB Landfill site at 13424 Courthouse Boulevard; and WHEREAS, on December 14,2015, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount conducted a public hearing for review of the PUD Concept Plan;and WHEREAS, the Planning Cominission adopted a morion to recommend that the City Council approve the PUD Concept Plan subject to condirions; and WHEREAS, on January 5, 2016, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recomtnendarions. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the Ciry of Rosemount hereby approves the PUD Concept Plan for SKB Environmental, subject to the following conditions: 1. PrioY to submission of a PUD Master Development Plan foY the site, the applicant will need to submit detailed plans as required for a Planned Unit Development,including: grading, drainage and erosion control, storm water management,landscape, tree preservation and replacement, site development, and other plans specified in the Zoning OYdinance or requested by the City. 2. The PUD development plans must include a plan for access and final approval by MnDot should access be from Highway 55. 3. The final grades for the site are subject to review and approval by the City and must take into account future development on all portions of the site that will be excavated. 4. The applicant must dedicate or provide an easement for public road and utility purposes from the e sting centerline of 140th Street consistent with the Interixn Use Permit for the SKB Industrial Containment Facility. 5. The applicant should maintain as much of the vegetation along 140th Street as possible to provide screening and separate from adjacent property south of the subject property. Future site plans will be reviewed for compliance with the City's buffering and screening and tree preservation requirements. 6. The future development plans must account for an e sting single-family home located adjacent to the Phase 1 development area. Screening between this site and the proposed development should eitheY be maintained or added in order to provide buffering between these uses. RESOLUTION 2016- 03 7. It is anticipated that future development on the site,with the exceprion of the area adjacent to the future intersecrion will be consistent with General Industrial or Light Industrial zoning standards and will meet the ordinance requirements for those districts. There is no intention to expand the Waste Management Land Use. 8. No construction or mining activity may commence on the property until a PUD Master Development Site Plan and PUD Final Site and Building Plan have been approved by the Ciry ADOPTED this 5``' day of January, 2016 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. William H. Droste,Mayor ATTEST: Clarissa adler, City Clerk Motion by: '(r P/{PA Second by:,(.1 Voted in favor: E C F f', l' . I`{C!, t'YI LL`'l. Voted against: Member absent: t! 2 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 25, 2017 TO: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner CC: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director John Morast, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Amy Roudebush, Planning Department Secretary FROM: Mitch Hatcher, Project Engineer RE: SKB Engineering Review SUBMITTAL: Prepared by Wenck Associates, Inc. the SKB Planned Unit Development, dated January 2017. Engineering review comments were generated from the following documents included in the submittal:  Project Description and Operations Narrative  Stormwater Management Plan and Calculations  Wastewater Holding Tank Design Memo  Soil Borings  Grading and Drainage Plan  Tree Survey and Preservation Plan  Project Plan Drawings (Figure 1-9) GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. Revise grading plan slopes to be in conformance with the City Engineering Guidelines. Maximum slopes of 4:1. Maximum slopes of 3:1 are only allowed below the 10:1 maintenance bench for NURP ponds. Slope grades should be labeled on the plan set. 2. The proposed parking lot should be installed with concrete curb and gutter with storm sewer catch basins to route stormwater runoff to the pond. 3. Low floor elevations should be shown on the plans for the proposed buildings. 4. Show erosion control blanket for slopes around pond and parking lot. Additional stabilization may be required for some of the long steep slopes surrounding the site. 5. The plan shows a significant amount of excavation required for the proposed grading plan. Earthwork quantities, estimated truck loads, haul routes, and timeframe should be provided. As stated in the submittal all truck access will be on to TH 55 and any necessary permits should be obtained from MnDOT. 6. A soil boring location map should be provided. UTILITY COMMENTS: 7. The plan indicates connections to City sanitary sewer and watermain. Currently, no sewer is available for the site. Water is located at two locations near the project site. A 4” rural irrigation line runs along the north side of 140th Street and a 12” main runs along the north side of TH 55 that terminates approximately 1200’ west of the project site. The City’s East Side Utility Study identifies a 16” trunk main extension along TH 55. 8. The extension of the City’s trunk watermain along TH 55 will need to be extended past the property line of the site. 9. A sanitary sewer holding tank is proposed as part the plan. The owner shall be responsible for all pumping, maintenance, and acquiring all necessary permits. 10. Water service is not shown to be installed to the northern proposed recycling building. 11. The sanitary sewer alignment is not consistent with Tree Preservation Plan. STORMWATER COMMENTS: 12. The storm sewer pond grading and overflow pipe is not consistent with Tree Preservation Plan. 13. The City’s storm sewer standards require a minimum pipe diameter of 15”. The proposed 12” storm sewer should be increased to 15”. 14. Provide overland emergency overflow for the pond or label the pipe as the emergency overflow during the 100-yr event. 15. Show all emergency overflow routes from all low points and show high point elevations along emergency routes and the direction flow arrows. 16. Owner is required to obtain a NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit and provide a copy of the approved SWPPP to the City prior to the start of any construction activity. 17. Provide a berm or other energy dissipation west of the proposed Maintenance Building Shop to protect from runoff from the adjacent site through the drainage down chutes. 18. Show storm sewer profile section and connection details for the proposed outlet from the pond into the existing culvert under 140th Street. 19. NWL should be set at 954.9’ in the HydroCAD model to accurately reflect that the basin is wet at all times, not just during rainfall events. 20. Rate control will be provided by the basin as the south end of the site. Rate control orifice with sluice gate should be set in the outlet wall to limit the discharge out of the basin at the HWL to 0.05 cfs/acre of drainage area to the pond. 21. Confirm freeboard requirements are maintained after update of basin HWLs 22. The NURP volume provided by the pond is significantly oversized for the proposed site. An explanation should be given as to why the ponding has been designed above and beyond the City’s stormwater requirements. 23. The City requires skimmers in the construction of new pond outlets. Skimmer design shall provide that a minimum of 6” below the water surface and minimize velocities of water passing under the skimmer to 0.5 ft/s for 1-yr rainfall events. Should you have any questions or comments regarding the items listed above, please contact me at 651-322-2015. MEMORANDUM To: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner Anthony Nemcek, Planner John Morast, Interim City Engineer Mitch Hatcher, Project Engineer From: Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director Date: April 19, 2017 Subject: SKB PUD and Simple Plat The Parks and Recreation Department recently received the plans for the PUD and Simple Plat for the SKB Recycling Facility. After reviewing the plans, the Parks and Recreation Department staff has the following comments: Parks Dedication Staff is recommending that the City collect cash in-lieu of land to satisfy the park dedication requirement for the development. The dedication requirement for industrial development is 10% of the site being developed. Lot1 block 1 of the SKB project is 52 acres in size, thus the parks dedication would be based on 5.2 acres of land multiplied by the per acre fee of $50,000 or the fee at the time of final plat. The current cash dedication requirement would be $260,000 (5.2 acres multiplied by $50,000). Regional Trail Staff feels that the developer has provided the necessary space for the Rosemount Greenway/Regional Trail by allowing for thirty additional feet of right of way on the south side of the project. Please let know if you have any questions about this memo. To: John Domke, Vice President David Hackel, General Manager From: Rick Chase, Fire Marshal Date: 4-17-2017 Project Name: SKB Proposal Phase one The following review comments provided require additional information. The review is based on a utility site plan dated 3-28-17 figure 4. Additional information is required to be added to this plan page to continue the review. Provide locations and sizing on scaled site plan for: A. Flammable waste trap for Maintenance shop. Include above or below grade storage as applicable B. Proposed sanitary system to be utilized. C. Proposed industrial waste system. Include above or below grade storage as applicable. D. Complete the hazardous material inventory statement and summary for each proposed building on site. These are attached there are 2 sheets for each building, numbering the buildings will allow the sheet to reference such building. E. Estimated daily total water usage for the processing/mining of material. F. Estimated daily total water usage for maintenance shop including any proposed wash bay. G. Will this facility require an industrial waste water permit by the MPCA? This review is based on the information referenced. We look forward to working with you, when the above is received plan review will continue. Attachments: Hazardous Material Information Summary Hazardous Material Inventory Statement Rick Chase, Fire Marshal/Inspector City of Rosemount, 2875 145th Street, Rosemount, MN 55068 Ph. 651-322-2027 / http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us Apple Valley Burnsville Eagan Inver Grove Heights PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 24, 2015 PAGE 1 Call to Order: Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 24, 2015. Chair Miller called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with Commissioners VanderWiel, Henrie, Kurle, and Freeman. Commissioners Kenninger and Forester were absent. Also in attendance were Senior Planner Klatt, Community Development Director Lindquist, City Administrator Johnson, and Recording Secretary Roudebush. The Pledge of Allegiance was said. Additions to Agenda: None Audience Input: None Consent Agenda: a. Approval of the November 24, 2015 Meeting Minutes MOTION by Henrie Second by VanderWiel. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Public Hearing: 5.a. Request by SKB Environmental, Inc. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning and PUD Concept Plan Applications to facilitate the future construction of an enhanced metals recycling operation adjacent to the existing landfill site. (15-44-RZ & 15-45-CPA) Senior Planner Klatt summarized the staff report for the Planning Commission. Commissioner Freeman confirmed that first and second motions should be westerly 1200 ft. not easterly. The public hearing was opened at 6:47 pm. Public comments: John Domke 3222 Downey Trail, Apple Valley division manager for SKB, was on hand to answer questions. He noted that SKB has been in business since 1983, and haven’t had any violations since their existence. Chair Miller inquired about what non-ferrous metals are. Domke stated that non-ferrous metals are non-metallic metals like; gold, copper, and zinc. They are valuable and difficult to extract, and they need to pull the contaminates out to make usable product. Miller also inquired about the process. Domke stated that most of the process will be done inside anything outside would be addressed to ensure there was no impact to the environment Commissioner Henrie asked what outreach has been done for neighbors. Domke stated that the neighbor told her last time not to contact her, so no contact has been made. Brenda Sugii, 13701 Courthouse Boulevard, stated that she is the sole neighbor to the facility and is concerned about how the facility will affect her, what are the tax implications, how the expansion will affect the future sale of her home and if the zoning would be changed for her property. She also was originally told that dump would only last 30 years and then replaced with a park; and that has been changed through subsequent approvals for expansion. Community Development Director Lindquist said her property is designated as light industrial and hasn’t been rezoned as there has not been a request to do so. Rezoning of the SKB property should not affect her property taxes unless the County felt the value increased. Property valuation is not in the control of the City to determine. She stated that staff intends this area would function as a business park; most of the processing would happen indoors like a business park. In 2018 the next comprehensive plan is due; the City should have a conversation with neighbor to see what she would like to see happen with her property. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 24, 2015 PAGE 2 MOTION by Henrie to close the public hearing. Second by Kurle. Ayes: 6. Nays: 0. Motion Passes. The public hearing was closed at 6:7 pm. Additional Comments: Chair Miller asked about the city’s expectations for items E & F of the 3rd motion. Klatt stated there needs to be screening between industrial and residential to help provide a buffer to north and south, additional screening and to maintain or replace trees. He also stated that a stormwater pond is needed and thinks that with careful site planning these types of more natural features could be placed to buffer the single family home from the future industrial use. Commissioner Henrie inquired about condition D regarding dedication of an easement and the necessity of it. Klatt stated that the roadway easement is needed to maintain the road, utility easements, and long term development. In a previous approval for the landfill, SKB can use the easement for stormwater ponding, but the applicant would be responsible to relocate the ponding if necessary. Lindquist stated dedication of the easement is desired to avoid legal action if upgrades to the road are needed. SKB has been very receptive to the idea and would also benefit from road improvements. Chair Miller confirmed that this would come before the Commission again with a more detailed site plan and there would also be a public hearing. He also wants to be sure that storm water management controls are investigated; Lindquist stated that standards are in place and the future development would be subject to those standards. Motion by Henrie to recommend the City Council approve a Comprehensive Plan Amendment changing the land use designation of the westerly 1,200 feet of the applicant’s parcels from LI – Light Industrial and BP – Business Park to GI – General Industrial subject to the following: a. Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the Metropolitan Council. b. No construction or mining activity may commence on the property until a PUD Master Development Site Plan and PUD Final Site and Building Plan have been approved by the City Second by Kurle. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion by VanderWiel to recommend the City Council approve rezoning the westernly 1,200 square feet of the applicant’s parcels from AG Agricultural to GI-PUD General Industrial PUD subject to approval of the above conditions. Second by Freeman. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion passes. Motion by Henrie to recommend the City Council approve a PUD Concept Plan for the Phase 1 development area as documented on the Concept Grading Plan subject to the following conditions: a. Prior to submission of a PUD Master Development Plan for the site, the applicant will need to submit detailed plans as required for a Planned Unit Development, including: grading, drainage and erosion control, storm water management, landscape, tree preservation and replacement, site development, and other plans specified in the Zoning Ordinance or requested by the City. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 24, 2015 PAGE 3 b. The PUD development plans must include a plan for access and final approval by MnDot should access be from Highway 55. c. The final grades for the site are subject to review and approval by the City and must take into account future development on all portions of the site that will be excavated. d. The applicant must dedicate or provide an easement for public road and utility purposes from the existing centerline of 140th Street consistent with the Interim Use Permit for the SKB Industrial Containment Facility. e. The applicant should maintain as much of the vegetation along 140th Street as possible to provide screening and separate from adjacent property south of the subject property. Future site plans will be reviewed for compliance with the City’s buffering and screening and tree preservation requirements. f. The future development plans must account for an existing single-family home located adjacent to the Phase 1 development area. Screening between this site and the proposed development should either be maintained or added in order to provide buffering between these uses. g. It is anticipated that future development on the site, with the exception of the area adjacent to the future intersection will be consistent with General Industrial or Light Industrial zoning standards and will meet the ordinance requirements for those districts. There is no intention to expand the Waste Management Land Use. Second by Kurle. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion passes. Recommendation will go to council, if approved the met council will have 60 days to respond, then applicant can submit a PUD master plan. Timing is unsure at this time and neighbor will be notified of any changes. Old Business: None New Business: None Reports: None Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission, Chairperson Miller adjourned the meeting at 7:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Amy Roudebush, Recording Secretary