HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.c. 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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council Regular Meeting: May 15, 2018
AGENDA ITEM: Case 18-21-PUD and 18-22-SMP
(formerly 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:
New Business
PREPARED BY: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner AGENDA NO. 9.c.
ATTACHMENTS: Please see the sheet labeled SKB Metals
Recycling PUD Master Development Plan
Attachments for a complete list.
APPROVED BY: LJM
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council adopt the following motions:
1) Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Master Development Plan and PUD Final Site and Building Plan for the SKB
Metals Recycling Facility, Maintenance Shop, and Waste Exchange Operation
with conditions.
2) Motion to adopt a resolution approving a simple plat for SKB Rosemount 1st
Addition subject to conditions.
3) Motion to approve the Planned Unit Development Agreement for SKB
Rosemount 1st Addition.
SUMMARY
The City Council 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).
This request was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission in April of 2017, but was
suspended by the City after determining that the project met the threshold for a mandatory
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The EAW was prepared late last year and completed
on Mach 13, 2018 with the adoption of a Record of Decision concerning this matter by the City
Council. Under State Law, the City has 60 days from the EAW decision to complete its review of the
request, and the original application is now back in front of the City for this reason.
In April of 2017, staff prepared a detailed report concerning the PUD and platting request from SKB.
Rather than duplicate the background and application review information included in this report, staff
2
has attached this previous report in its entirety. The current report will instead focus on those aspects
of the project that have be revised in response to the City’s former review comments, where new
information has been submitted by the applicant, and to include a summary of the Planning
Commission’s review on April 24th. SKB has submitted an entirely new set of application materials for
review by the City, most of which have been revised in some fashion as a result of the previous review
comments or EAW process.
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
The Planning Commission first reviewed the PUD and platting request at its April 25, 2017 meeting
and conducted a public hearing on the application at that time. The Commission raised several
questions and concerns about the proposed development covering a wide range of subjects, including
the following:
• Overall grading of the site and how it would connect to adjacent properties.
• The potential for assessments associated with the extension of water main along Highway 55.
• Proposed impervious coverage on the lot, which was found to be in compliance with the City’s
ordinances.
• The general timing and phasing of mineral extraction, and how this is regulated under the City
Code. It was noted that the site is outside of the City’s mineral extraction overlay district, and
that the ordinance does not limit the extent of grading for an individual development project.
• Plans for sewer service and the proposed interim solution until public services are available.
• The need for a traffic study and a better understanding of how trucks and other vehicles will
maneuver around the site.
• How the waste exchange program would work, with comments from the applicant that no
new trucks would be visiting the site because of the extraction or recycling activities.
The Commission noted that there were several questions raised during the meeting that warranted
additional review time. Commissioners also stated that they did not have any issues with allowing the
development in advance of public services being extended into the area due to the low usage
projections for the facility and uniqueness of the project. The most significant issue identified by the
Commission concerned the amount of grading proposed, and two Commissioners recommended that
the overall final grades be raised to bring the request more in line with a typical development project.
Commissioners further stressed the need for a phasing plan to help the City better understand the
time frame for construction of individual buildings in relation to the proposed site excavation.
The Commission tabled the application at its April 25, 2017 meeting, but did not complete its review
of the application until April 24, 2018 after the conclusion of the EAW process. At this more recent
meeting, the Commission reviewed the updated development plans and related information submitted
by the applicant in addition to the new staff report. Commissioners noted that under the proposed
development plans, the site will be functioning as a mining operation without the mining permit, but
also pointed out that they were more comfortable with the request now that the EAW has been
completed.
Ryan O’Gara, representing SKB Environmental, stated that the original concept plan approval noted
that sand would be removed from the site. He also expressed concern with two of the recommended
conditions of approval the requirement to install an acceleration lane and requiring park dedication
fees. He noted that the project would be stalled if MnDOT decided not to approve the acceleration
lane in its right-of-way, and that SKB was not informed about the park fees until the end of the
application process. Staff noted that the recommendation for an acceleration lane stems from the
3
EAW traffic study, which was reviewed by MnDOT. Commissioners noted that park dedication fees
are listed as required in the city’s approved fee list. Commissioners also expressed their desire to see an
ordinance amendment brought forward to clarify that site mining is a separate action from site
development.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD Master Development Plan, PUD Final
Site and Building Plan and Simple Plat with the conditions of approval as recommended by Staff.
Both motions passed unanimously (6-0).
Since the Planning Commission meeting, staff has reviewed the process for appealing the City’s fees in
lieu of park dedication with the applicant and further discussed the acceleration lane condition. Based
on these conversations, staff is recommending minor revisions to the conditions of approval
associated with each of these issues to more clearly note that 1) if the Council decides to change the
park dedication fee for the subdivision, the applicant will pay the reduced fee, and 2) if MnDOT does
not want an acceleration lane in its right-of-way, the applicant’s project will not be held up because of
this decision. Staff believes that both of these revisions are consistent with the spirit and intent of the
original wording.
In the near future, the applicant will be submitting a letter formally appealing the park dedication fee
calculated for the subdivision. The applicant has been asked to articulate why the fees are not
appropriate for the project. Upon receipt of the information, this item will be scheduled independently
from the current action at a future council meeting.
BACKGROUND
Focusing on the request currently in front of the City Council, the following is a brief timeline of
events since it was considered by Planning Commission in early 2017:
4/25/17 Public Hearing conducted by Planning Commission for PUD Master Plan, Final
Plan, and Simple Plat. Tabled with direction to applicant to address numerous
questions concerning the application.
4/28/17 Staff sends list of questions to applicant as a follow-up to PC meeting.
5/9/17 Applicant submits response to questions with updated application information,
including traffic information and additional grading details.
5/16/17 The City notifies the applicant that an EAW is mandatory for the project; the
applicant is also notified that the review is suspended per State Statues.
1/16/18 EAW completed and authorized for distribution.
2/21/18 End of EAW comment period; six agencies provide responses.
3/20/18 City Council adopts record of decision concerning EAW and finds no need for an
Environmental Impact Statement. EAW process concluded.
3/27/18 SKB submitted updated application materials for PUD and Simple Plat
4/2/18 Applicant provides 30 day extension for City to complete application review (new
deadline is June 19, 2018, or 90 days from completion of EAW)
4/24/18 Planning Commission continued review of application with new public hearing.
5/15/18 Council consideration of Planning Commission recommendation.
4
The EAW document is not included as part of the meeting attachments, but is available for viewing in
its entirety on the City’s website under the Community Development Department’s page:
(https://ci.rosemount.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/3023).
The record of decision for the EAW is included with this report, and includes a summary of the
general EAW information along with a list of agency comments and the City’s responses to these
comments
An EAW was required for the applicant’s project because of the amount of material projected for
excavation from the site. Specifically, Minnesota environmental rules require an EAW for the
extraction of sand, gravel, stone, or other non-metallic minerals which will excavate more than 40
acres of land to a mean depth of 10 feet. SKB’s plans, even as revised, exceed this threshold. Please
note that while the EAW applies specifically to the extraction of non-metallic minerals from the site,
the overall building plans were taken into account during this review because the applicant has tied all
of this activity together as part of the PUD development plans. As noted in the above timeline, the
City receive comments from six agencies during the EAW public comment period covering a range of
issues from native plant communities to water resources to potential traffic impacts. At the end the
process, the City Council ultimately determined that the project does not have the potential for
significant environmental effects and that the applicant would not need to complete a more intensive
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The final EAW includes a response to comments from
agencies, some of which proposed mitigation strategies to deal with any potential impacts. The
proposed conditions of approval incorporate many of these strategies.
As a follow-up to the last Planning Commission meeting on April, the applicant provided a response
to questions from the meeting, a portion which included a traffic analysis and response to the City
Engineer’s comments. After the response was prepared, City staff and the applicant discussed the
EAW thresholds and additional changes that were recommended by Staff to further minimize the site
impacts and extent of excavation activity. As a result of these discussions, the applicant agreed to
reduce the amount material excavated from the site by raising the average final depth (cut) by
approximately 12 feet. This revised plan was used as a basis for the subsequent environmental review,
and serves as the basis for the new submission currently under review by the City. Please note that
due to the timing of these changes, some of the earlier responses and information still incorporate an
earlier version of the grading plan (the tree preservation plan and the applicant’s May 2017 response to
City questions are the most notable of these materials).
Rather than submit only information that has been updated since early 2017, the applicant provided a
full set of application materials for consideration by the Planning Commission consistent with its
earlier submittal package. Staff has added the follow-up questions and responses completed in May of
2017 for review, along with the EAW findings and any new review memoranda from other City staff.
All of the site development plans have been updated in accordance with the reduced grading and
excavation plans, and the narratives and supporting information have been updated accordingly (with
the exceptions noted above).
Because the Planning Commission spent a fair amount time reviewing the project details as part of last
year’s submission, and the Council had been briefed on the application previously, Staff would like to
point out the major revisions to the plans and focus on those changes in the updated “Issues
Analysis” portion of this report. The most significant plan revisions include the following:
• The overall amount of material to be excavated from the site has been reduced from over 2
million cubic yard to less than 1.5 million cubic yards.
5
• The mean cut (average depth) from the current grade has been reduced from over 30 feet to a
little more than 18.2 feet
• The lowest proposed elevation (at the bottom the storm water pond) has been increased from
845 feet to 857 feet.
• All slopes meet the City’s standard for a 4:1 slope; the previous plans included several 3:1
slopes.
• The paved parking and maneuvering area has been reduced by expanding a landscape area in
the eastern portion of the site.
• The number of trees depicted on the landscape plan has increased from 419 to 447 trees due
in part to the increased landscape area on the east portion of the site.
• The amount of flat surface area that is potentially accessible to emergency vehicles has been
increased around all four buildings. The previous plans left little room between the back or
side facades of buildings and adjacent slopes.
• A public water main extension to the edge of Lot 1, Block 1 is now shown as part of all
project utility plans consistent with a previous City recommendation.
• The architectural design for all buildings has been updated to bring them into conformance
with the City’s GI General Industrial District building design standards. The majority of all
building surfaces are proposed to be precast concrete panels with variations in material color
and building massing along with limited use of metal panels as an accent material.
• The plan now includes 68 off-street parking spaces that have been moved closer to the
buildings they will serve (the previous plan included only 21 designated parking stalls). A
pedestrian walkway between the parking areas and nearest building and outside of truck
maneuvering areas has also been designated on the updated plans.
• The development plans have been updated to include both a septic system to serve the metals
recycling building and holding tank to serve the maintenance building. The applicant
previously had proposed a holding tank only to service all the buildings.
• The plans include an entrance sign at the Ehlers Path driveway.
• Lighting is now depicted on all project development plans.
• The storm water pond has been shifted slightly to the north and has been designed with a
reduced overall capacity (the original and revised designs provide more storage capacity than is
required under City regulations).
Please refer to the April 2017 staff for a full summary and history of the SKB Environmental
application. Consistent with the discussion from the previous City review, Staff republished the public
hearing notice for this request so all property owners notified last year would receive notice for the
Planning Commission’s continued review. Staff’s updated review comments are included in the
following section of this report, with a focus on the subjects discussed at the previous meeting
concerning this application. Staff is ultimately recommending approval of the request based on this
analysis and the detailed information provided by the applicant.
6
UPDATED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS
The previous staff report identified three general development concerns that were larger picture
concerns not adequately addressed by the applicant. The report then identified five areas of non-
compliance with City regulations and standards and further offered more specific review comments
concerning the various components of the project. With the completion of an environmental review
and resubmission of project plans and drawings, staff will be looking at each of these sections and
offering an updated analysis as follows (divided into the larger project questions first and then the
more specific review issues):
• MUSA Development Staging. The project plans now note that he applicant will be installing a
private septic system to serve the site, which will therefore avoid conflicts with City Code
provisions prohibiting the use of holding tanks as a primary treatment system except under
extreme circumstances (staff has not identified any such circumstances on the site that would
warrant such an exception). Under the revised plans, SKB will install a new septic system in the
southeast portion of the property adjacent to the third recycling building and will install a holding
tank on the north side of the maintenance building. The holding tank will allow liquid, flammable
wastes from the maintenance building that cannot be deposited into a septic system to be
separated and dispose of properly.
The application materials further state that the applicant is planning to connect to pubic sanitary
sewer service once it is available at the site. Although the City’s long-rang utility plans do call for a
trunk sewer line extension along Ehlers Path, there is no time table to complete these
improvements, and new development is not expected to extend this far east of Highway 52 for
some time. At a minimum, staff is recommending that the City’s review of the PUD request
include a condition that the applicant agree to connect to sewer whenever it is made available to
the site, and that this connection occur no later than one year from the date sewer is extended to
the property.
Even with the proposed septic system, holding tank, and future connection requirement in place,
the City Council must still make a policy decision to approve development on the site in advance
of public sewer service being available. Generally, a more intensive use would be much more
likely to require urban services; while a lesser intensive use could feasibly operate for a while
without these services. This raises the question of how much development or activity the City is
willing to approve in future sewer service areas until utilities are extended, and it ultimately
highlights why the City adopts a sewer staging plan in the first place. Placing more buildings and
users in a non-sewer area will generally make it more difficult to extend services into the area in
the future, which is why the City zones all of future development areas outside the MUSA line for
very large lot/agricultural uses.
Approval of the PUD would represent acknowledgement by the City that the proposed
development would not act as an impediment to the future extension of services in the area, and
that due to the size and nature of the project, it can be adequately served by a private on-site
sanitary sewer treatment system for a potentially lengthy period of time.
Consistent with previous review comments, the applicant has updated their utility plans to depict a
2,400-foot extension of the City’s existing water main within Highway 55 to the project site and
adjacent parcel to the east. The proposed extension will allow the project to connect into public
7
water services, and will provide a proper connection point for future development to the east.
• Site Grading and Excavation. The revised development plans bring the overall excavation of
materials within the site to a more reasonable level and will reduce the overall depth of the project
by an average of 12 feet across the entire parcel. This will lessen the stark transition between the
project site and adjacent parcels, and less excavation will result in a quicker turn-around for
building construction and site development. One of the key pieces of information that was
missing from the previous application was the overall amount of material to be excavated within
the project area, which the applicant had since quantified at over 2 million cubic yards. The
revised plan drops this number down to 1.47 million cubic yards, which still far exceeds the
amount that would be necessary for just building construction. As the applicant explained during
the previous meeting, the development of the site will include a waste exchange program for
haulers at the landfill, who will be able to drop material on the landfill site and leave with gravel
from the PUD property. The excavation of gravel from the PUD site will also allow SKB to use
this material for cover and filling within the landfill.
In response to some of the questions previously raised by staff, the applicant has also provided a
hauling and circulation plan for trucks entering and exiting the site, a general phasing and build-
out plan, and has stated that material stockpiling will be minimized on the site. On this last point,
SKB notes that because material will be exchanged on a one-to-one basis with materials deposited
in the landfill, it will not need to keep a large stockpile of material on hand (i.e. it will be mined at
the same rate it is being removed). In terms of hauling, the applicant indicates that all trucks
collecting soil and gravel from the PUD site will be entering and exiting through the landfill access
road. They do not expect to see a significant number of trucks coming to the site specifically for
gravel that would not otherwise be visiting the landfill.
The anticipated timeframe for mineral extraction and future building construction was included in
the applicant’s repose to questions from the last meeting. With time necessary to complete an
EAW review, this schedule has been pushed back by one year. The applicant intends to begin
grading later this year, with the first buildings being constructed in 2020.
The proposed waste exchange program and associated mineral extraction activity represents a very
unique situation from a land use perspective and is not typical or required for industrial
development. Staff is posing that the City may need to modify its ordinances so that excavation is
not allowed as a use unto itself. Of particular concern is that the City has adopted an overlay zone
for mineral extraction uses, and the proposed excavation within the PUD acts as a de facto mining
permit outside of this zone. Beyond the current PUD review, staff is planning to bring a broader
ordinance discussion forward at some point in the future. Please also note that approval of the
current plan does not guarantee approval of future grading and excavation to the east, and would
not be consistent with the planned use of that land for a business park.
• Future Development. One of the primary concerns expressed by staff in the previous review
memorandum was that the proposed project fell short of meeting several of the City’s zoning
requirements for an industrial development. The updated plans have been brought much closer to
conformance with the City’s standards, with PUD exceptions that are related to the unique nature
of the proposed uses. As such, these exceptions should not be used as an example for future
development in the surrounding area. In addition, the revised architectural plans also are much
closer to the types of buildings that would be expected within an adjacent future business park
development in terms of building design. All development to the east will need to conform to the
8
City’s BP zoning district standards, which are more stringent than the GI – General Industrial
district standards. Staff does not expect to approve any significant site excavation on the eastern
BP parcels except to facilitate development and not as a waste exchange operation.
SITE ANALYSIS UPDATE
Focusing on the previous list of issues identified by staff, the following section represents an update of
the more specific development components and zoning review requirements for the project:
Grading. The overall extent of grading and the creation of steep slopes throughout the project site
have been reduced due to the raising of the lowest final grades. All 3:1 slopes have been eliminated,
and all slopes now meet the City’s 4:1 standard. In conjunction with the grade changes, the applicant
is also providing a flat area around each of the buildings large enough to accommodate emergency
vehicle access. The applicant will need to secure a NPDES (national pollution discharge) permit in
addition to a City grading permit prior to commencing with any grading activity on the property. The
City Engineer offers several recommendations concerning grading and storm water management in his
review memorandum that will need to be met by the applicant. The applicant has provided an
updated erosion control plan for the property, and this plan includes the installation of protective
fencing around trees on the site not slated for removal.
As part of a future grading permit, the applicant must provide additional detail concerning the phasing
of grading work, and in particular, how this work will correlate with other site improvements
(buildings, storm water pond, utilities, and septic system). Phasing is a critical issue because many of
the improvements must be in place before the first building can be occupied.
Traffic Study. The City has received additional information concerning future traffic impacts
associated with the project from two sources: 1) the “traffic circulation narrative” provided by the
applicant as part of its May 2017 response to City questions, and 2) the EAW, which includes a
specific traffic analysis section. These sources are the basis for the following important review points:
• The applicant’s traffic narrative notes that nearly all traffic to and from the site will come
from the existing landfill, and will primarily include waste exchange vehicles that have
previously emptied their loads in the landfill or landfill vehicles being serviced in the
maintenance building.
• No trucks will be operating on the site outside of the landfill’s operating hours.
• The 140th Street (Ehlers Path) entrance will be used by employees only (no landfill, waste
exchange, or metal recycling trucks).
• The EAW traffic impact study indicates that an acceleration lane for vehicles exiting the
landfill site (which will includes vehicles ultimately bound for the PUD site) will be needed
to help address safety issues at the Highway 55 entrance at full project build out. Staff is
recommending a condition of approval that requires the acceleration lane to be installed
prior to completion of the first building on the subject property.
• Other impacts to roads around the site are related to changing background conditions and
congestion at the Highway 42/Highway 55 intersection and are not directly impacted by
the proposed site improvements.
The ap plicant’s response includes plans and diagrams depicting vehicle access routes and anticipated
maneuvering lanes for trucks internal to the site. These drawings illustrate that there is more than
adequate room for the type of vehicles using the site, even with the reduction in paved surface area
along the western edge of the parcel. The applicant has also moved the designated off-street parking
areas away from the center of the site and closer to the buildings that will be using this parking.
9
Further reductions to the amount of hard cover could be accomplished without negatively impacting
the ability of trucks to turn around on the site; however, the plans and traffic circulation narrative do
not identify any areas of concern for vehicles being able to function properly on the site as currently
proposed.
Water Service. The utility plans have been updated to provide a water main extension from its
current terminus near the landfill entrance along Highway 55 to the edge of the proposed
development site. A new private service line from the main will be extended southwards to serve each
of the four proposed buildings. These plans address previous staff concerns that the water main
extension was not included with the project plans, and that the applicant is responsible for extending
service to the adjacent parcel. The development plans now include fire hydrants consistent with
previous review comments from the Fire Marshall and City Engineer. The final water main design,
hydrants, and other details will need to be approved by the City Engineer.
One of the questions that came out of the previous staff review and EAW concerns the amount of
water that will be used by the maintenance shop and metals recycling buildings. The EAW includes
the applicant’s responses to these questions, and specifically notes that the buildings are expected to
have fairly low water usage. Due to the large size of the water main that will be extended to the site,
staff does not anticipate any specific issues associated with water use or supply that will negatively
impact the PUD or the City’s water system.
Sanitary Sewer Service. The earlier development plans included only a holding tank to serve the
sanitary sewer needs of the entire project area. Based on the previous meeting comments, the
applicant has revised these plans to provide an on-site septic system in addition to a holding tank.
Staff requested that the plan include a septic system at a minimum; however, after further research the
City determined that a holding tank would be needed for the maintenance building regardless of the
treatment system used elsewhere on the site because of the wastes that are typically generated by such
a facility. The holding tank has been sized according to the anticipated uses, and will need to be
pumped on a regular basis to ensure proper operation over its lifetime. Staff is recommending that
the applicant prepare an operating plan for the holding tank to clarify the pumping schedule,
maintenance activities, and other requirements needed to comply with all state and local permits.
An on-site sewage treatment system is planned to serve the three metals recycling buildings and will be
located south of the most southern of these buildings. The structures will eventually connect to the
City’s planned sewer line within Ehlers Path via a private line that will extend from the septic system
site to the public street. Since the applicant is requesting development ahead of the City’s sewage
staging plan, the project should only be approved with a condition that the applicant will connect to
the sewer line once it is in place and within a relatively short amount of time (within one year). Staff
is concerned that the location of the system will make it difficult to comply with applicable
requirements for an on-site treatment system in terms of the underlying soils (which must be
undisturbed or properly engineered for the site) and potential for disturbances after it is built. These
details will need to be addressed by the applicant prior to construction of the system, and it will need
to be designed in accordance with the City’s septic system design standards.
As part of future permitting associated the on-site treatment system, it will be important for the
applicant to clarify the timing of various site improvements as they relate to the septic system and
holding tank. Staff is particularly concerned that no grading, excavation, or construction activity occur
near these areas once the systems are in place. The applicant will need to clarify the specific timing
prior to the constriction of any buildings on the site.
10
Building Design Standards. The proposed building designs have undergone a significant revision
sine the City’s previous review; the updated designs being them much closer to full compliance with
the City’s GI district building standards. The staff review comments below include additional
comments concerning the architectural appearance and massing of the proposed buildings.
Other Planning and Zoning Issues. Based on the updated site and development plans, staff offers
the following comments as a follow-up to the last meeting review:
• Subdivision/Platting. The applicant has submitted an application for a Simple Plat
(combined preliminary and final plat review) and the request meets the City’s minimum
requirements (no more than three commercial lots and no more than one final plat
development phase). The application materials include a preliminary and final plat that creates
two lots: Lot 1, Block 1 will contain the PUD development area and Outlot A that will be
further subdivided or combined with adjacent parcels for development in the future. The plat
has been reviewed for consistency with the City’s platting requirements, and includes the
dedication of additional right-of-way along Ehlers Path to provide room for future
improvements to this road. Subdivision of the property prompts payment of park dedication
fees.
• Planned Unit Development. The previous review noted that while the purpose of a planned
development is to allow for flexibility from typical zoning standards to encourage higher
quality development, there were several aspects of the applicants proposed development that
were not consistent with the overall purpose and intent of the City’s general industrial zoning
district. With the updated plans, the overall project is closer to these objectives and more
closely aligns with the underlying zoning standards. The applicant has previously stated that
they intend to comply with the underlying zoning requirements, but there are some elements
of the project that warrant further consideration because of the unique aspects of the site and
planned uses. After reviewing all aspects of the updated submission, staff has found that the
overall site is generally consistent with the requirements for the GI district, with the exceptions
noted as follows:
o Several buildings will be located on one lot, whereas the underlying zoning regulations
do not otherwise allow more than one principal structure on an individual parcel. All
the buildings will share the entrances, parking, and maneuvering space, and utilities are
planned to extend across the entire site.
o The applicant is proposing to construct a gravel driveway and access into the
maintenance building that runs parallel to the paved driveway area. SKB has noted
that the equipment used in the landfill and recycling uses are large, heavy, and would
damage paved surfaces over time. Parking and driveway areas are required to be paved
within commercial and industrial zoning districts.
o The applicant is not proposing to construct the first building on the property for at
least two years from the date of approval. Under the City’s standard site plan review
requirements, an applicant must commence building within one year. The future
construction within the SKB Addition will instead be governed by the phasing
documented in the PUD document.
o The landscape plan falls short of the number of trees required by the zoning
ordinance. The applicant is requesting, as part of the PUD, to pay a fee in lieu of
11
planting these additional trees. Staff concurs with the applicant’s statements that there
are no suitable locations for additional trees on the site.
o The building design does not include entrance or corner features as required and/or
encouraged under the GI district standards. The front of the buildings all face inward
to the site and will generally not be visible from adjoining public roadways. The
applicant further points out that the buildings will be well below the adjoining
property. With the proposed landscaping, the buildings will also be difficult to see
from off-site.
o The parking provided is well short of the requirements for a typical industrial site given
the size of the proposed buildings. Staff estimated that the zoning ordinance would
require between 114 and 757 stalls for other industrial uses. Based on the applicant’s
description of the planned building uses, the buildings will not generate anywhere close
to the need for that much parking. The number of stalls has been increased to 68, and
these stalls are better situated on in relation to the buildings. In addition, the paved
areas provide more than enough room for parking should the buildings be used for a
different purpose.
The PUD exceptions noted above will be included as part of a final PUD agreement for the
development.
• Streets and Access. The EAW includes a traffic analysis that examines the amount of traffic that
will be generated by the development taking into account the background conditions for the area.
MnDOT has previously provided comments regarding the development and again in response to
the EAW. Because there is no new access planned to Highway 55, MnDOT’s comments are
generally limited to mitigating any impacts to its right-of-way. One area of concern; however,
relates to the safety of vehicles entering to the highway from the landfill site. As noted in the
traffic study section of this report, the study found that an acceleration lane will be needed to help
ensure proper flow of traffic and safety along Highway 55 at full build-out. To help ensure the
acceleration lane is completed in conjunction with the development of the site it should be
installed prior to the construction of any buildings on the site.
There are no other road improvements planned for the project other than the new driveway
connection to Ehlers Path. Because this road is not designed to handle larger truck traffic or
larger amounts of traffic in general, the users of this access should be limited to employees or
service vehicles only. The applicant has stated that this access will include a gated crossing in
order to restrict general traffic from using it. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to
limit the access at Ehlers Path to employees or service vehicles only.
• Sidewalks and Trails. In response to comments from the Met Council concerning the planned
Mississippi Regional Trail near the project site, the EAW notes that the Dakota County Board
recently revised the proposed trail alignment that formerly followed Highway 55. In previous
review comments, City staff has also noted that the preferred alignment for any regional trails
connecting to Spring Lake Park Reserve would be better situated further to the east of the PUD
site rather than bisecting the industrial land uses and landfill area. In response to these comments,
the applicant no longer shows a trail easement around the entire site, and instead will be granting a
30’ easement for future trails along the southern property boundary (next to Ehlers Path). This
will set aside land for any future City trails adjacent to the immediate development while delaying
future trail easements until the property to the east is platted.
12
There are no sidewalks included with the project plans, nor is staff recommending sidewalks due
to the isolated nature of the project. The plans do identify interior pedestrian connections,
although due to the limited number of employees working on the premises, these are not expected
to be heavily used. The revised plans do reduce the need for pedestrians to cross truck
maneuvering lanes around the site.
• Storm water management. A large portion of City Engineer’s comments focus on the storm
water management plan for the development. His main concerns include the sizing of the storm
water pond (which is overbuilt for the site), the lack of an infiltration area for storm water runoff,
and the lack of curb and gutter to manage the extensive runoff that will occur due to the large
impervious areas. These issues can be addressed with modifications to the grading, storm water
management, and erosion control plans without affecting the current configuration of other
activities on the site.
• Engineering comments. The attached memorandum from the City Engineer includes detailed
review comments concerning various aspects of the development plans. Compliance with these
comments has been included as a recommended condition of approval.
SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
• Exterior building materials. The exterior building materials have been updated to consist
primarily of tip-up concrete panels in three primary colors to add visual interest and break up the
overall impact of the large industrial buildings. The secondary materials will include metal panels
above the main building entrances, along with aluminum and glass at the ground level of the
entrances. Given the nature of the proposed recycling and maintenance uses, there will be a
minimal use of windows on all sides of the structures. The materials used and percentages used
are in compliance with the City’s GI district standards.
• Architectural appearance and massing. Other than the lack of building entrance features or
corner features noted earlier in this report, the proposed buildings provide varied rooflines and
breaks in the materials and patterns of materials being used. This helps break up the long,
unbroken walls of the previous design, and helps the buildings achieve the primary objectives of
the district design standards. All four buildings use the same materials, colors, and design
elements to create a unified appearance across the site.
• Outside storage. The applicant has stated that there will be no outside storage associated with
any of the proposed activities on the site. Staff is recommending inclusion of a condition of
approval to make this a requirement for the PUD.
• Impervious coverage. The storm water plan indicates that the impervious surface coverage on
the site is around 50%, which is well under the maximum allowed of 70%. The development
parcel is over 50 acres in size; however, so even with the permitted coverage, the applicant will be
covering nearly 25 acres of land with hard surfaces.
13
• Off-Street parking. As noted under the PUD exceptions, the site plan provides a portion of the
parking stalls that would otherwise be required with a typical industrial user given the size of the
buildings. This reduction is justified given the low employee count on the site and because a large
portion of the buildings will be occupied by processing equipment. There is sufficient room to
provide required parking if the building usage changes. The applicant has also provided interior
landscaping between the middle recycling buildings and around the parking lot edges in order to
address this aspect of the City’s landscape ordinance.
• Access and circulation. The applicant’s traffic circulation analysis documents how larger
vehicles will maneuver around the site and circulate between the landfill site and proposed
buildings. The applicant has also adjusted the plans to provide a flat area around each building to
allow for access by larger emergency vehicles. Staff does have some concern that there is not
enough room along the southernmost building to allow for full access without impacting the
septic system, storm water pond, or landscaping. The applicant will need to demonstrate that
there is adequate maneuvering space around this building to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall
and that it will not impact the septic system or other improvements.
• Landscaping and Tree Preservation. The applicant has not updated the tree preservation plan,
but the previous survey work and tree counts are not impacted by the revised development plans.
The applicant has stated they attempted to minimize tree removal with further refinements to the
grading plan and has kept tree removal within the limits allowed under the ordinance before
replacement or trees is required. In terms of general landscaping, the very large development site
will require a large number of new trees to be planted in accordance with the ratio specified in the
zoning ordinance (1 tree per 3,000 square feet of land area or 674 trees based on staff’s earlier
calculations). With the space available for planting of new trees, which is reduced because of the
large impervious areas, storm water pond, and buildings, the applicant has indicated that 447 is the
maximum number that can be accommodated on the site. In order to bring the total trees up to
the required amount, the applicant has stated they will pay a fee in lieu of tree plantings for the
trees they are short. The 373 proposed foundation plantings, which can be clustered as shown
near the buildings, meet the minimum required under the landscape ordinance.
Based on comments received during the EAW review, staff has drafted conditions of approval to
encourage the use of native plants and pollinator-friendly seed mixes within landscaped areas.
• Signage. The plans have been updated to include an entrance sign at the Ehlers Path entrance.
Any such sigh will need a sign permit and will need to conform to the City’s sign ordinance.
• Exterior Lighting. Light poles are included on the development plans along the Ehlers Path
entrance driveway, and exterior lighting on the sides of buildings are also depicted on the plans.
As long as the fixtures conform to the City’s lighting ordinance, staff does not believe a separate
photometric plan would be justified in this case due to the large setbacks of the fixtures to other
properties.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of 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 with conditions. The City Council is also being
14
asked to approve the PUD Agreement for the project as drafted by staff. These recommendations are
based on the information submitted by the applicant, findings made in this report and the conditions
detailed in the attached memorandums.
Attachments – SKB Metals Recycling PUD Master Development Plan
Planning Case 18-21-PUD and 18-22-SMP
1) PUD Resolution
2) Simple Plat Resolution
3) PUD Agreement
4) Site Location Map
5) Project Plans and Drawings
a. Fig. 1 – Site Location Map
b. Fig. 2 – Site Easements
c. Fig. 3 – Phase 1 Detailed Site Development and Grading Plan
d. Fig 4. – Phase 1 Utility and Lighting Plan
e. Fig. 5 – Proposed Water Main Extension
f. Fig. 6A-6D – Proposed Building Elevations
g. Fig. 7 – Landscaping and Tree Replacement Plan
h. Fig. 8 – Tree Preservation and Removal Plan
i. Fig. 9 – Erosion Control Plan
6) Simple Plat Application Submittal
a. Preliminary Plat
b. Final Plat
7) Applicant Materials (New):
a. Cover Letter
b. City Comments and Response Regarding GI Rezoning Requirements
c. Legal Description/Survey
d. Project Description and Operations Narrative (3/27/18 Update). Includes:
i. Narrative
ii. Wastewater Holding Tank Design Memo and Information
iii. Surface Water Analysis with Maps and Modeling (not included)
iv. Tree Survey and Preservation Plan
8) Staff Memorandum – 4/25/17
9) April 2017 Meeting Follow-up Materials
a. Questions for SKB (after 4/25/17 Meeting)
b. SKB Response to Questions – 5/9/17
c. Traffic Circulation Narrative, Schematics, and Master Equipment List
d. Grading Narrative
e. Response to City Engineer
10) City Engineer Review Memorandum 4/19/18
11) Parks Director Memorandum 4/19/18
12) MnDOT Review Memorandum 6/30/17
13) Excerpt of 4/25/17 Planning Commission Minutes
14) Excerpt of 4/24/18 Planning Commission Minutes
15) SKB Environmental EAW (not included – available to view on City website)
16) SKB Environmental Metals Recycling EAW/Record of Decision
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018-47
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PUD FINAL SITE AND BUILDING PLAN FOR
SKB ENVIRONMENTAL
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received a
request for a Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan and Final Site and Building Plan
for the SKB Metals Recycling Facility, Maintenance Shop and Waste Exchange Operation
concerning property legally described as:
E 75 ACRES OF SW ¼ & W 87.5 ACRES OF SE ¼ EX PT LYING E OF LINE
BEG 165.31 FT E OF NW COR SE ¼ THENCE SW’LY TO PT ON S LINE
57.31 FT E OF SW COR SE ¼ SUBJ TO HWY ESMNT OVER N 50 FT. Section
29, Township 115, Range 18, Dakota County, Minnesota (34-02900-500-11).
And PT OF W 87.5 ACRES OF SE ¼ LYING E OF LINE BEG 165.31 FT E OF NW
COR SE ¼ THENCE SW’LY TO PT ON S LINE 57.31 FT E OF SW COR SE ¼ &
THERE TERM SUBJ TO HWY ESMNT OVER N 50 FEET, in Section 29, Township
115, Range 18, Dakota County, Minnesota (34-02900-500-12).
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2018, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public
hearing and reviewed the PUD Master Development Plan, Final Site and Building Plan for the SKB
Metals Recycling Facility, Maintenance Shop and Waste Exchange Operation; and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2018, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD
Master Development Plan, Final Site and Building Plan for the SKB Metals Recycling Facility,
Maintenance Shop and Waste Exchange Operation, subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2018, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning
Commission’s recommendations;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Development Plan, Final Site and Building
Plan for the SKB Metals Recycling Facility, Maintenance Shop and Waste Exchange Operation,
subject to:
1. Execution of a PUD Agreement.
2. Payment in-lieu of required trees of $68,100 (calculated as 227 trees x $300 per tree).
3. Entry signs shall be subject to sign permits and normal zoning standards. Appropriate sight
distances must be maintained.
4. Securing an NPDES construction storm water permit.
5. Erosion control best management practices such as silt fence, inlet protection, and a
stabilized construction entrance will be in place during construction to reduce sedimentation
and prevent erosion from the site.
6. The landscaping on the site shall utilize native plant species. The landscape plan shall be
updated to incorporate additional native trees and shrubs for diversity.
7. Tree protection must be installed prior to the start of any grading.
RESOLUTION 2014-
2
8. Pollinator-friendly seed mixes shall be used on ground whenever possible in place of rock,
mulch or turf grass.
9. The buildings on the site will be required to connect to public sanitary sewer service within
one year of this service being extended and available to the site. The City will plan on a
service connection in the location shown on the site development plans.
10. An acceleration lane meeting MnDOT design standards must be installed at the exit to the
landfill at Highway 55 prior to the completion of the first building unless MnDOT
determines that said acceleration lane is not necessary or refuses to issue a permit for work
meeting its design standards.
11. The septic treatment area shall be clearly delineated on the development plans and conflicts
with other activities in this area, including utilities, vehicle access, landscaping and other site
improvements, must be avoided.
12. The septic system must comply with all applicable city and state regulations with a final
design and location approved by City.
13. Execution of a subdivision agreement, or other form of agreement as approved by City,
pertaining to the water main extension.
14. The driveway access at Ehlers Path entrance is restricted to employees and service vehicles
only. Truck access shall be limited to the landfill connection road. No vehicles coming to or
from the landfill site may use the Ehlers Path entrance.
15. An operating permit for holding tank is required and the tank must be pumped at
frequencies identified in permit.
16. The grading permit must include a phasing plan approved by the City and detail the
proposed timing of excavation of gravel material, the construction of buildings and site
infrastructure, the installation of the septic system, and construction of the storm water
pond.
17. No outside storage is allowed.
18. The storm water pond will be designed to include an area for infiltration as required by the
City.
19. Tree clearing and grubbing will occur between August and March to avoid impacts to
endangered species within the project area.
20. Dust control measured shall be used throughout the site to control dust from gravel hauling
and site operation.
21. The applicant shall comply with state noise standards.
22. Compliance the City Engineer’s review memorandum dated April 19, 2018.
23. Compliance with the mitigation strategies included in the EAW for the project.
ADOPTED this 15th day of May 2018, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
__________________________________________
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Jeff May, Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018-48
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SIMPLE PLAT
FOR SKB ROSEMOUNT 1ST ADDITION
WHEREAS, the Planning Department received an application for approval of a Simple Plat to plat
approximately 52 acres of land for property legally described as follows:
E 75 ACRES OF SW ¼ & W 87.5 ACRES OF SE ¼ EX PT LYING E OF LINE
BEG 165.31 FT E OF NW COR SE ¼ THENCE SW’LY TO PT ON S LINE
57.31 FT E OF SW COR SE ¼ SUBJ TO HWY ESMNT OVER N 50 FT. Section
29, Township 115, Range 18, Dakota County, Minnesota (34-02900-500-11).
And PT OF W 87.5 ACRES OF SE ¼ LYING E OF LINE BEG 165.31 FT E OF NW
COR SE ¼ THENCE SW’LY TO PT ON S LINE 57.31 FT E OF SW COR SE ¼ &
THERE TERM SUBJ TO HWY ESMNT OVER N 50 FEET, in Section 29, Township
115, Range 18, Dakota County, Minnesota (34-02900-500-12).
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2018, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount conducted a
public hearing as required by ordinance for the purpose of receiving public comment regarding the
proposed Simple Plat to plat approximately 52 acres of land; and,
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2018, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of
the application and found it consistent with the criteria for simple plat review outlined in the
Subdivision Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2018, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the application
and agreed with the Planning Commission’s recommendation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount does
hereby approve the Simple Plat to plat approximately 52 acres of land subject to the following
conditions:
1. Execution of a subdivision agreement concerning the extension of a City water main to the
project site.
2. Payment of a fee-in-lieu of park land dedication of $260,000 for 52 acres of General
Industrial Land or a fee-in-lieu of park land dedication as otherwise approved by the by the
City Council.
3. All easements as required by City shall be included on the final plat.
ADOPTED this 15th day of May, 2018 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
__________________________________________
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Jeff May, Deputy City Clerk
1
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS
AND RESTRICTIONS
SKB ROSEMOUNT 1 ST ADDITION
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DECLARATION made this ______ day of _________________, 2018, by SKB
Environmental, Incorporated (hereinafter referred to as the “Declarant”);
WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of the real property as described on Attachment One,
attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Subject
Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is subject to certain zoning and land use restrictions
imposed by the City of Rosemount (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) in connection with the
approval of an application for a master development plan planned unit development for an industrial
development on the Subject Property; and
WHEREAS, the City has approved such development on the basis of the determination by
the City Council of the City that such development is acceptable only by reason of the details of the
development proposed and the unique land use characteristics of the proposed use of the Subject
Property; and that but for the details of the development proposed and the unique land use
characteristics of such proposed use, the master development plan planned unit development would
not have been approved; and
2
WHEREAS, as a condition of approval of the planned unit development, the City has
required the execution and filing of this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
(hereinafter the “Declaration”); and
WHEREAS, to secure the benefits and advantages of approval of such planned unit
development, Declarant desires to subject the Subject Property to the terms hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Declarant declares that the Subject Property is, and shall be, held,
transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to the covenants, conditions, and restrictions,
hereinafter set forth.
1. The use and development of the Subject Property shall conform to the following
documents, plans and drawings:
Attachment 1: City Resolution No. 2018-47
Attachment 2: Site Easements
Attachment 3: Detailed Site Development and Grading Plan
Attachment 4: Utility and Lighting Plan
Attachment 5: Watermain Extension
Attachment 6: Building Elevations – North Recycling Building, Middle Recycling Building,
South Recycling Building, Maintenance/Operations Building
Attachment 7: Landscape and Tree Replacement Plan
Attachment 8: Tree Preservation and Removal Plan
Attachment 9: Erosion Control Plan
all of which attachments are copies of original documents on file with the City and are made a part
hereof.
3
2. The Subject Property may only be developed and used in accordance with
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Declaration unless the owner first secures approval by the City Council
of an amendment to the planned unit development plan or a rezoning to a zoning classification that
permits such other development and use.
3. In connection with the approval of development of the Subject Property, the
following deviations from City Zoning or Subdivision Code provisions are approved:
a. Section 11-2-2. B. Lot Provisions: More than one principal building will be permitted on
the lot .
b. Section 11-6-1 L. Off-Street Parking Design and Construction Standards: A portion of
the driveway between the Landfill Site and Maintenance/Operations Building may use an
aggregate surface as documented on the site development plan instead of being paved with a
concrete or bituminous surface in accordance with standards as established by the City.
c. Section 11-10-3 K. Site Plan and Building Design Review – Term of Approval:
Building construction will be allowed to commence more than one year from the date of
approval in accordance with the project phasing plan.
d. Section 11-6-3 B. Landscaping Requirements – Minimum Number of Plantings. The
overall number of plantings on the site will be 227 trees less than required by the landscape
ordinance, with the developer paying a fee in lieu of planting these trees,
e. Section 11-4-16 G. Site and Building Standards – Architectural Appearance. The
architectural design of the buildings will be allowed without an entrance feature that extends
300 feet around the entrance or without corner architectural elements to define the corner of
the buildings.
4
f. Section 11-6-1 H. Off Street Parking Required: The development includes designated
off-street parking stalls for 68 vehicles, which is less than the 114 to 757 required under the
ordinance. Any changes in building uses will need to be re-evaluated within the context of
the PUD and the off-street parking requirements.
In all other respects the use and development of the Subject Property shall conform to the
requirements of the Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Declaration and the City Code of Ordinances.
4. The obligations and restrictions of this Declaration run with the land of the Subject
Property and shall be enforceable against the Declarant, its successors and assigns, by the City of
Rosemount acting through its City Council. This Declaration may be amended from time to time by
a written amendment executed by the City and the owner or owners of t he lot to be affected by said
amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned as duly authorized agents, officers or
representatives of Declarant have hereunto set their hands and seals as of the day and year first
above written.
DECLARANT
SKB Environmental, Incorporated
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF __________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of _________,
2018, by _____________________, the _________________, for and on behalf of
_________________________, a ____________________, by and on behalf of said
_______________________.
_______________________________
Notary Public
5
This Amendment is approved and consented to by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
By:
William H. Droste, Mayor
And by:
Jeff May, Deputy City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me t his ___ day of ___________, 2018,
by William H. Droste and Jeff May, the Mayo r and Deputy City Clerk, respectively, for and on
behalf of the City of Rosemount, a Minnesota corporation, by and on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
2875 145TH STREET WEST
ROSEMOUNT, MN 55068
651-423-4411
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.
Attachment 6
Project Plan Drawings
fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.24'-0"top of precast - 132'-0"top of precast - 234'-0"fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.24'-0"top of precast - 132'-0"top of precast - 234'-0"fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.24'-0"top of precast - 132'-0"top of precast - 234'-0"fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.24'-0"top of precast - 132'-0"top of precast - 234'-0"North Recycling BuildingRosemount, MNSouth ElevationEast ElevationNorth ElevationWest ElevationScale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Keynotes1.Insulated precast concrete wallpanel - type a: warm gray, withhorizontal bands where indicated.2.Insulated precast concrete wallpanel - type b: light gray / creamcolor; horizontal reveals whereindicated 48" o.c.3.Insulated precast concrete wallpanel - type c: dark gray / charcoalcolor; horizontal reveals 16" o.c.4.Insulated steel overhead door5.Painted steel door in paintedhollow metal frame6.Thermally broken aluminumstorefront framing with 1 inchinsulated glazing7.Prefinished metal panels8.Prefinished metal coping / flashing9.Wall mounted, downcast full cut-offlight fixtureX2688888888455559999969123222233111122313270POST EAW APPLICATION SUMITTALJVBTJS03/27/18(UPDATED MARCH 2018)0
fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.24'-0"top of precast - 132'-0"top of precast - 234'-0"fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.24'-0"top of precast - 132'-0"top of precast - 234'-0"fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.24'-0"top of precast - 132'-0"top of precast - 234'-0"fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.24'-0"top of precast - 132'-0"top of precast - 234'-0"Middle Recycling BuildingRosemount, MNSouth ElevationEast ElevationNorth ElevationWest ElevationScale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Keynotes1.Insulated precast concrete wallpanel - type a: warm gray, withhorizontal bands where indicated.2.Insulated precast concrete wallpanel - type b: light gray / creamcolor; horizontal reveals whereindicated 48" o.c.3.Insulated precast concrete wallpanel - type c: dark gray / charcoalcolor; horizontal reveals 16" o.c.4.Insulated steel overhead door5.Painted steel door in paintedhollow metal frame6.Thermally broken aluminumstorefront framing with 1 inchinsulated glazing7.Prefinished metal panels8.Prefinished metal coping / flashing9.Wall mounted, downcast full cut-offlight fixtureX888888884555599999666232132132212372120POST EAW APPLICATION SUMITTALJVBTJS03/27/18(UPDATED MARCH 2018)0
fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.24'-0"top of precast - 134'-0"top of precast - 236'-0"fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.24'-0"top of precast - 134'-0"top of precast - 236'-0"fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.24'-0"top of precast - 134'-0"top of precast - 236'-0"fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.24'-0"top of precast - 134'-0"top of precast - 236'-0"South Recycling BuildingRosemount, MNSouth ElevationEast ElevationNorth ElevationWest ElevationScale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Keynotes1.Insulated precast concrete wallpanel - type a: warm gray, withhorizontal bands where indicated.2.Insulated precast concrete wallpanel - type b: light gray / creamcolor; horizontal reveals whereindicated 48" o.c.3.Insulated precast concrete wallpanel - type c: dark gray / charcoalcolor; horizontal reveals 16" o.c.4.Insulated steel overhead door5.Painted steel door in paintedhollow metal frame6.Thermally broken aluminumstorefront framing with 1 inchinsulated glazing7.Prefinished metal panels8.Prefinished metal coping / flashing9.Wall mounted, downcast full cut-offlight fixtureX8888888849999555669721212222111222120POST EAW APPLICATION SUMITTALJVBTJS03/27/18(UPDATED MARCH 2018)0
Maintenance / Operations BuildingRosemount, MNfin.floor0'-0"clear ht.20'-0"top of precast - 128'-0"top of precast - 230'-0"fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.20'-0"top of precast - 128'-0"top of precast - 230'-0"fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.20'-0"top of precast - 128'-0"top of precast - 230'-0"fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.20'-0"top of precast - 128'-0"top of precast - 230'-0"South ElevationEast ElevationNorth ElevationWest ElevationScale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Keynotes1.Insulated precast concrete wallpanel - type a: warm gray, withhorizontal bands where indicated.2.Insulated precast concrete wallpanel - type b: light gray / creamcolor; horizontal reveals whereindicated 48" o.c.3.Insulated precast concrete wallpanel - type c: dark gray / charcoalcolor; horizontal reveals 16" o.c.4.Insulated steel overhead door5.Painted steel door in paintedhollow metal frame6.Thermally broken aluminumstorefront framing with 1 inchinsulated glazing7.Prefinished metal panels8.Prefinished metal coping / flashing9.Wall mounted, downcast full cut-offlight fixtureX123548238888882246999968566933215331772212221113230POST EAW APPLICATION SUMITTALJVBTJS03/27/18(UPDATED MARCH 2018)0
KEYQtySpeciesLatinSizeHeightWidthCO58HackberryCeltis occidentalis2.5" B&B50+50PR154Pine, red (Norway)Pinus resinosa6' B&B40+25+PS179Pine, eastern whitePinus strobus6' B&B40+25+QE56Oak, Northern PinQuercus ellipsodalis2.5" B&B40+25+CS195Dogwood, Arctic FireCornus stolonifera 'Farrow'#5 POT6'4'DL178Honeysuckle, DwarfDivervilla lonicera#5 POT3'3'
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
LEGENDPRELIMINARY 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
-
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 27, 2018
Mr. Kyle Klatt
Senior Planner
Rosemount City Hall
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
RE: Updated 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 updated 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 applications were previously submitted on March 28, 2017 and have been updated to
reflect information identified during the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) process
that was completed with the issuance of the Record of Decision ordering a negative declaration
of the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on March 20, 2018.
As previously submitted, 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.
A listing of the City comments regarding GI zoning requirements that had 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 27, 2018
2
T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 2018 PUD-Plat Update Submittal\LKK Phase 1.docx
Attached again in support of the PUD Application are the following updated 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 and Lighting Plan
Figure 5 –Proposed Water Main Extension
Figure 6A – Proposed Building Elevations
Figure 6B – Proposed Building Elevations
Figure 6C – Proposed Building Elevations
Figure 6D – Proposed Building Elevations
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.
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
Attachment 2
Site Plan Review and PUD Final Development Plan Application
Checklist
City Comments Regarding GI Zoning Requirements
T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 2018 PUD-Plat Update Submittal\Att 2 Cmt response table.docx
Requirement Comment Response
(March 28, 2017 submittal)
Post EAW Response
(March 27, 2018)
Minimum building size: Ten
percent (10%) of subject
property, excluding protective
wetlands.
The phase 1 site is
approximately 50 acres 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.
No change.
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.
See updated Plan Drawings 6A,
6B, 6C, and 6D.
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.
See updated Plan Drawings 6A, 6B,
6C, and 6D.
City Comments Regarding GI Zoning Requirements
T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 2018 PUD-Plat Update Submittal\Att 2 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.
See updated Plan Drawings 6A,
6B, 6C, and 6D.
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.
Site Grading Plan has been
updated with landscaping 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.
Tree planting calculations have
been updated and are provided
in Figure 7.
City Comments Regarding GI Zoning Requirements
T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 2018 PUD-Plat Update Submittal\Att 2 Cmt response table.docx
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.
Foundation plantings have been
updated as shown on Figure 7.
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.
No change.
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.
No change and see 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.
A holding tank is currently
proposed for the maintenance
building as part of the Phase 1
development. A holding tank is a
more environmentally sound
application for this type of
maintenance operation than an
SSTS. 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.
There will be a septic system
installed to meet the sanitation
requirements of the three (3)
proposed recycling buildings.
City Comments Regarding GI Zoning Requirements
T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 2018 PUD-Plat Update Submittal\Att 2 Cmt response table.docx
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.
No change with Figures 4 and 5
updated as part of EAW.
Attachment 3
Legal Description of Property
Phone (320) 253-9495 3701 12th Street North, Suite 206Fax (320) 253-8737 St. Cloud, MN 56303Toll Free (800) 270-9495
Attachment 4
Project Description and Operations Narrative
March 28, 2017
Updated March 27, 2018
WENCK File #3053-0064
March 2017
Updated March 2018
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
Updated March 2018 i
T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 2018 PUD-Plat Update
Submittal\Description and Operations Narrative 27Mar2018.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 .................................................... 2-3
2.4 Site Grading and Landscaping ............................................................... 2-3
2.5 Site Utilities ........................................................................................ 2-4
2.6 Erosion Control Plan ............................................................................ 2-5
2.7 Floor Plans ......................................................................................... 2-5
2.8 Lot Lighting ........................................................................................ 2-5
2.9 Signage ............................................................................................. 2-5
3.0 PROPOSED FACILITY OPERATIONS ............................................................ 3-1
3.1 General FacilIty 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
Updated March 2018 1-1
T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 2018 PUD-Plat Update
Submittal\Description and Operations Narrative 27Mar2018.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
Updated March 2018 1-2
T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 2018 PUD-Plat Update
Submittal\Description and Operations Narrative 27Mar2018.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
Updated March 2018 2-1
T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 2018 PUD-Plat Update
Submittal\Description and Operations Narrative 27Mar2018.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 and a boring location map 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.
SKB Environmental is proposing to excavate 1.4 million cubic yards of sand and gravel from
52 acres of agricultural land located adjacent to the existing SKB disposal facility for the
purposes of waste exchange, followed by the development of three buildings for processing
recyclable metals and one building for maintenance activities.
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.
March 2017
Updated March 2018 2-2
T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 2018 PUD-Plat Update
Submittal\Description and Operations Narrative 27Mar2018.docx
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.
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
480,500 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.
March 2017
Updated March 2018 2-3
T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 2018 PUD-Plat Update
Submittal\Description and Operations Narrative 27Mar2018.docx
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. As identified in
the EAW, SKB will clear and grub trees outside the prime nesting season of the Loggerhead
Shrike, from August through March, to avoid adverse impacts to this State and Federally
listed endangered species. The calculations 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. Approximately 52 acres of the existing agricultural project area
will be disturbed and graded as a part of this project and 1,472,000 cubic yards (18-foot
average depth) of sand and gravel will be excavated and removed from the site. Excavated
material will be used in a waste exchange program at the current landfill.
Waste exchange is the practice where landfill customers dump industrial and demolition
debris in exchange for a load of sand which the customer hauls off site. Excavation of the
1.4 million cubic yards of material will occur on an as-needed basis over a 15-month
timeframe, dependent on the need by customers participating in the waste exchange
program. Equipment such as excavators and graders will be used to move the soils. During
excavation, the material will be loaded directly into dump trucks or will be temporarily
stockpiled onsite prior to loading into dump trucks and hauled away from the site.
Stockpiling of excavated material will take place on site to aid in the efficient loading of
trucks that will haul the material off site and stockpiles are expected to be in place short
term, depending on traffic flows.
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.
March 2017
Updated March 2018 2-4
T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 2018 PUD-Plat Update
Submittal\Description and Operations Narrative 27Mar2018.docx
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 447
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 16-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
plans to extend the city trunk sewer, SKB is proposing to install a temporary wastewater
holding tank to serve the sanitary needs of the maintenance building in the Phase 1
development as well as a septic system to serve the three proposed recycling buildings. 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 at the proposed maintenance building until city sewer access is
extended than would a septic system. The temporary holding tank will be removed once
March 2017
Updated March 2018 2-5
T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 2018 PUD-Plat Update
Submittal\Description and Operations Narrative 27Mar2018.docx
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.
Until the city trunk sewer line along 140th Street is constructed, the three proposed
recycling buildings will be serviced by a septic system. Daily wastewater flow for the three
proposed recycling buildings was calculated for 20 employees at approximately 350 gallons
per day. The recycling process is anticipated to use approximately 350 gallons per day of
process water which is recycled or reused. The septic drain field is located south of the three
recycling buildings. The septic system design will conform with city standards to provide
adequate separation between the drain field and the groundwater.
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.
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
Updated March 2018 3-1
T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 2018 PUD-Plat Update
Submittal\Description and Operations Narrative 27Mar2018.docx
3.0 Proposed Facility Operations
3.1 GENERAL FACILITY 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 and updated in October 2017
for the EAW process 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
Updated March 2018 3-2
T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\March 2018 PUD-Plat Update
Submittal\Description and Operations Narrative 27Mar2018.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.
All Phase 1 recycling operations will occur indoors to mitigate noise, dust, and odor
concerns.
It is important to note that a noise analysis and detailed traffic analysis were completed as
part of the EAW process Please refer to the EAW for more detailed information.
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: Tom Shustarich, PE
Date: May 26, 2016 – Revised May 8, 2017 and Update May 27, 2018
Subject: SKB PUD Application – Revised for Sanitary Sewer Flows in Maintenance Building
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 serving the proposed maintenance
building that will be used during the planning and construction phase of a nearby sanitary sewer trunk
line. It should be noted that a septic system will serve the three (3) recycling buildings and is detailed in a
separate memorandum. Once the trunk line is constructed, the wastewater systems will be tied into the
trunk line. This memo serves to provide details into the basis of the design of the holding tank.
The first step in designing the system is to determine the design flow for the proposed use. The proposed
development includes an industrial maintenance facility (not open to the public). The proposed
maintenance building will be occupied by a total of 1 to 2 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)
Maintenance Facility 2 employees/8-hour shift 17.5 gal/employee/day 40
Design Avg. Day Flow 40
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, a conservative flow of 600 gallons per week or
approximately 90 gpd was assumed and added to the above design avg. day flow of 40 gpd.
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 130 gpd x 5 = 650 gallons. However, a 650
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 approximately every
14 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 130 gallons per day, the tank would need to be cleaned
approximately every two to three weeks.
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
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
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
KEYQty SpeciesLatinSizeHeightWidthCO60HackberryCeltis occidentalis 2.5" B&B 50+ 50PR 143Pine, red (Norway)Pinus resinosa6' B&B 40+ 25+PS 164Pine, eastern whitePinus strobus6' B&B 40+ 25+QE52Oak, Northern PinQuercus ellipsodalis2.5" B&B 40+ 25+CS 195Dogwood, Arctic FireCornus stolonifera 'Farrow' #5 POT6'4'DL178Honeysuckle, DwarfDivervilla lonicera #5 POT3' 3'
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
EXECUTIVE 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.
7
• 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
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 will 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
8
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
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 removal 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
9
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
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.
10
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 determines that
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.
11
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.
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
12
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.
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
13
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:
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:
o 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.
o 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) quivalent 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
14
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
review comments concerning the parking/operations area are as follows:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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 ENVIRONMENTAL METALS RECYCLING PUD
QUESTIONS AND ISSUES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY STAFF
The list below is a list of questions and comments concerning the SKB Environmental PUD application
prepared by City Staff after the 4/25/17 Planning Commission meeting. This list is not intended to
document all issues, but instead should be used as a starting point for addressing questions raised by
the City during its review of the application.
Phasing and Timing
•Provide a phasing & timing plan for grading work and construction of the four buildings.
Traffic/Circulation/Parking/Access
•Circulation/operational plan for the entire site including landfill.
o What is the circulation pattern for a truck entering the site?
o How is the same truck used for multiple trips between the landfill and PUD site?
o Please answer how long one truck is on the site ferrying between various activities on
the site after buildings are up and operational. What is the maximum amount of time
that one truck will be parked on the PUD site?
o Also please clarify truck circulation during grading activity.
•For industrial uses, the parking ordinance requires one parking stall per 300-2,000 square feet of
gross floor area. The PUD plans show roughly 1 stall per 10,000 GFA.
o Provide information to support the lower amount of parking (this could be more fully
addressed with the employment question below).
o The plans should be updated to provide a proof of parking area within the existing
paved area, in case the demand for parking is greater than expected or a change in use
is proposed for the site.
•How many vehicles will use the 140th Street/Ehlers Path access to enter and exit the site? How
will the gate be set up to control access to the site?
Trucks/Vehicles/Equipment
•What type of vehicles will be on-site and which ones preclude paving of drive aisles?
•Please provide information on trucks and equipment on site and the weight of these trucks and
equipment.
•What is the length of the trucks on site?
Grading/Excavation
•Submit an accurate estimate of the amount of total material that will be excavated and removed
from the PUD site (all earthwork quantities in cubic yards). How much material could be
excavated in future phases (the remaining 132 acres owned by SKB)?
•What is the State requirement for washing out trucks hauling waste/ash material to the landfill
and then hauling off sand/gravel material?
•Please clarify how many trucks will be washed out, what is the estimated water use and where
water will be directed after use.
•Describe any processing or stockpiling of excavated material that will take place on the site.
How is sand and other material being prepared for shipment off-site. If this processing will not
take place on the PUD site, where will it occur?
Activity/Employment
•What is the estimated number of employees for each of the four buildings proposed?
•If water is being removed from the ash stream, what type of waste will be generated by the
recycling operation and where will this be stored? Will the remaining ash waste be hauled back
to the landfill?
•The current recycling building includes an outdoor pad for depositing ash waste before it is
brought inside the building for processing. Will the proposed recycling operations include any
outside storage such as this? At present it is indicated that all activity will be conducted inside,
meaning, no equipment or materials would be allowed outside.
Traffic Study
•Submit a traffic study that includes, at a minimum the information listed above.
General Comments:
•Based on comments from the meeting, the Planning Commission does not support the extent of
the excavation proposed; the entire site must be raised to meet the Commission’s expectations.
•The amount and timing of material excavated should be consistent with a development project
and not a mineral extraction use.
•Utility plan must be updated to include hydrants that meet City spacing requirements. The
City’s water supply plan calls for a 16” trunk line along Highway 55.
•No slopes greater than 4:1 are allowed.
•The site plan must include the location for a SSTS, including drain field area, and any holding
tanks for industrial waste.
•Consider an internal landscape area for the maneuvering area/parking lot. Can this be designed
to accommodate the wider turning movements for trucks?
•Add signage to plans; if none indicate as a note on plans.
•Add curb and gutter to paved parking and maneuvering areas.
•Revise plans to address all other comments from the City Engineer.
•Add parking lot and driveway lighting to plan.
•Maintain a flat grade around each building for access per Fire Marshal requirements
•Describe how pedestrians will move around the site. Provide improvements as necessary to
delineate pedestrian walkways.
•Address other comments from Planning Commission report and as discussed at the Planning
Commission meeting.
Wenck | Colorado | Georgia | Minnesota | North Dakota | Wyoming
Toll Free 800-472-2232 Web wenck.com
May 9, 2017
Mr. Kyle Klatt
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
RE: SKB Environmental Metals Recycling PUD
Responses to Questions and Issues from the Planning Commission and City Staff
Dear Mr. Klatt:
This letter is in response to the list of questions and comments concerning the SKB
Environmental PUD application prepared by City Staff after the 4/25/17 Planning Commission
meeting.
Phasing and Timing
Comment: Provide a phasing & timing plan for grading work and construction of the
four buildings.
Response: A phasing and timing plan for the development of Phase 1 is provided below:
Phase/Task Anticipated Schedule
1.Approval granted to begin Phase 1 site
development grading.
July 2017
2.Phase 1 site grading completed.July 2019
3.Construction of the two northern most
ash recycling buildings.
July 2019 through December 2019
4.Construction of maintenance building.May 2020 through August 2020
5.Construction of southernmost ash
recycling (light weight aggregate)
building.
May 2021 through August 2021
SKB would prefer to construct the maintenance building concurrently with the two metals
recycling buildings so as to get the maintenance services up and running, but is unsure of the
logistics and budgeting of the three simultaneous building constructions. SKB has proposed
the above schedule to be conservative. Regarding the 18-month gap between the metals
recycling buildings and the new ash recycling building, it took a full year of operation of the
Gem Ash operation on the landfill site to get the process fully tuned and produce a consistent
Mr. Kyle Klatt
City of Rosemount
May 9, 2017
2
T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\April Planning Commission Follow-up\Comment Response_Planning Comm and City - final.docx
product. That will be a similar constraint on operation of the new ash recycling process. SKB
has planned for an 18-month lag, to reflect that the process is more sophisticated than the
Gem Ash operation and is new to the United States.
Traffic/Circulation/Parking/Access
Comment: Circulation/operational plan for the entire site including landfill.
•What is the circulation pattern for a truck entering the site?
•How is the same truck used for multiple trips between the landfill and PUD
site?
•Please answer how long one truck is on the site ferrying between various
activities on the site after buildings are up and operational. What is the
maximum amount of time that one truck will be parked on the PUD site?
•Also, please clarify truck circulation during grading activity.
Response: Schematics detailing traffic circulation patterns for both during Phase 1 grading
activities and after grading activities are complete and the recycling buildings constructed are
attached along with a narrative describing traffic circulation.
Comment: For industrial uses, the parking ordinance requires one parking stall per
300-2,000 square feet of gross floor area. The PUD plans show roughly 1 stall per
10,000 GFA.
•Provide information to support the lower amount of parking (this could be
more fully addressed with the employment question below).
•The plans should be updated to provide a proof of parking area within the
existing paved area, in case the demand for parking is greater than expected
or a change in use is proposed for the site.
Response: A total of twenty employees are estimated to serve the three recycling building
operations, which operate 24 hours per day. The maintenance building will have one
employee. As a result, parking needs are minimal. Approximately seven to eight employees
are anticipated to be on-site at any one time. There is ample parking to serve employees as
well as any visitors. To the extent the City desires additional spaces for greater future site
use flexibility, a total of 54 parking spaces can be provided for the Phase 1 development as
shown on the attached Figure 3 – Detailed Site Development and Grading Plan. As shown,
forty (40) spaces are provided in the southern portion of the site, while fourteen (14)
additional spaces are provided on the northern portion of the site near the maintenance
building. SKB would accept these as conditions of approval.
Comment: How many vehicles will use the 140th Street/Ehlers Path access to enter
and exit the site? How will the gate be set up to control access to the site?
Response: It is estimated that approximately 20 employee vehicles per day will use the
140th Street access to enter and exit. A locking gate can be installed to control access to the
site and employees will be equipped with keys or passcode for the gate. SKB would accept
this as a condition of approval.
Mr. Kyle Klatt
City of Rosemount
May 9, 2017
3
T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\April Planning Commission Follow-up\Comment Response_Planning Comm and City - final.docx
Trucks/Vehicles/Equipment
Comment: What type of vehicles will be on-site and which ones preclude paving of
drive aisles?
Response: The types of vehicles on-site will include off-road haul trucks hauling ash and
metal to the recycling buildings for processing. Semi-tractor trailers will also be used to haul
recyclable metal and lightweight aggregate from the site. The types of vehicles that cannot be
driven on pavement without causing significant damage include landfill compactors and
dozers used in the landfill operation. Please refer to the previously referenced and attached
narrative describing traffic circulation for additional detail.
Comment: Please provide information on trucks and equipment on site and the
weight of these trucks and equipment.
Response: A master equipment list as provided by SKB is attached.
Comment: What is the length of the trucks on site?
Response: The tri-axle dump trucks utilized by SKB are approximately 30 feet in length
while the semi-tractor trailers and other waste delivery vehicles can be up to approximately
48 to 53 feet in length.
Grading/Excavation
Comment: Submit an accurate estimate of the amount of total material that will
be excavated and removed from the PUD site (all earthwork quantities in cubic
yards). How much material could be excavated in future phases (the remaining
132 acres owned by SKB)?
Response: The amount of soil material to be excavated during Phase 1 development was
calculated to be approximately two (2) million cubic yards. An estimate on how much material
could be excavated from future phases (remaining 132 acres) is not provided as there are no
detailed future development plans for the remaining area to the east.
Comment: What is the State requirement for washing out trucks hauling
waste/ash material to the landfill and then hauling off sand/gravel material?
Response: There are no state requirements for washing out trucks.
Comment: Please clarify how many trucks will be washed out, what is the
estimated water use and where water will be directed after use.
Response: There are no plans to wash out trucks on-site.
Comment: Describe any processing or stockpiling of excavated material that will
take place on the site. How is sand and other material being prepared for
shipment off-site. If this processing will not take place on the PUD site, where will
it occur?
Mr. Kyle Klatt
City of Rosemount
May 9, 2017
4
T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\April Planning Commission Follow-up\Comment Response_Planning Comm and City - final.docx
Response: During Phase 1 site development activities, there will be some stockpiling of
excavated soil material to aid in the efficient loading of trucks that will be hailing sand off-
site. The intention is to fill trucks on as close to a day-to-day fill-as-needed basis as possible,
to minimize stockpiling. An operator may create a temporary stockpile on expected heavier
traffic days, so as not to fall behind demand. Nevertheless, the objective is to have little to no
stockpiling overnight. The sand will be excavated and either loaded directly into trucks or
stockpiled using a backhoe(s).
Activity/Employment
Comment: What is the estimated number of employees for each of the four
buildings proposed?
Response: Approximately twenty employees to serve the three recycling buildings and one
to two employees in the maintenance building. On any given shift, SKB anticipates
approximately two employees for each recycling building. This may vary slightly as
experienced is gained with the processes, but is not expected to change more than by one
person per building per shift, up or down.
Comment: If water is being removed from the ash stream, what type of waste will
be generated by the recycling operation and where will this be stored? Will the
remaining ash waste be hauled back to the landfill?
Response: There will be no water removed from the ash stream in the Phase 1 buildings.
The ash initially received at the landfill is stockpiled within the lined landfill area to allow the
ash to dry prior to processing. While some moisture can be absorbed by the ash if
loading/transfer from the landfill during wet conditions, this is not expected to necessitate
any water removal or generate wet-waste.
Comment: The current recycling building includes an outdoor pad for depositing
ash waste before it is brought inside the building for processing. Will the
proposed recycling operations include any outside storage such as this? At
present, it is indicated that all activity will be conducted inside, meaning, no
equipment or materials would be allowed outside.
Response: There are no plans to store any equipment or materials outside at the Phase 1
area.
Traffic Study
Comment: Submit a traffic study that includes, at a minimum the information
listed above.
Response: Please refer to the schematics and information previously provided detailing
traffic flow at the site.
General Comments
Comment: Based on comments from the meeting, the Planning Commission does
not support the extent of the excavation proposed; the entire site must be raised
to meet the Commission’s expectations.
Mr. Kyle Klatt
City of Rosemount
May 9, 2017
5
T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\April Planning Commission Follow-up\Comment Response_Planning Comm and City - final.docx
Response: Please refer to the Grading Concept Plan provided as an attachment. This
explains where there is flexibility in the grading/excavation plan.
Comment: The amount and timing of material excavated should be consistent with
a development project and not a mineral extraction use.
Response: Again, please refer to the attached Grading Concept Plan.
Comment: Utility plan must be updated to include hydrants that meet City spacing
requirements. The City’s water supply plan calls for a 16” trunk line along
Highway 55.
Response: The Utility Plan has been updated to include hydrants and a 16” trunk line. Please
refer to Figures 4 and 5, which are attached. SKB would accept these as conditions of
approval.
Comment: No slopes greater than 4:1 are allowed.
Response: This is not a correct statement of City Code, which provides that 3:1 slopes are
approvable. Nevertheless, the attached alternative concept site grading plan reflects no
slopes greater than 4:1. SKB would accept a 4:1 slope limitation as a condition of approval.
Comment: The site plan must include the location for a SSTS, including drain field
area, and any holding tanks for industrial waste.
Response: As with the slopes, there is no prohibition on having a holding tank for this type
of site operation. A technical memorandum has been prepared and is attached for the holding
tank that can serve the maintenance building.
With regards to the septic system, the first step in design of 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 three 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
Based on a flow of 350 gpd and sandy subsoils, a 350 sqft seepage bed would be adequate
per MN Chapter 7080 design and sizing requirements. Upon project approval and as part of
the final building design further hydraulic testing would need to be completed at the site to
ensure that the soils can accept the daily wastewater flow.
Mr. Kyle Klatt
City of Rosemount
May 9, 2017
6
T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\April Planning Commission Follow-up\Comment Response_Planning Comm and City - final.docx
Please refer to the attached Figure 4 for the location of the SSTS to serve the recycling
facilities and the holding tank which serves the maintenance building. SKB would accept this
holding/SSTS arrangement as conditions of approval.
Comment: Consider an internal landscape area for the maneuvering area/parking
lot. Can this be designed to accommodate the wider turning movements for
trucks?
Response: SKB minimized hardscape on the west side by projecting treed landscaping as far
into the working area as far as was consistent with vehicle maneuvering. An internal
landscape area was considered but has not been included due to the fact that trucks backing
into buildings need sufficient area for maneuvering.
Comment: Add signage to plans; if none indicate as a note on plans.
Response: Please refer to Figure 3, which is attached for the location of signage. SKB would
accept these locations (and potentially alternative signage locations, if requested) as
conditions of approval.
Comment: Add curb and gutter to paved parking and maneuvering areas.
Response: Potential curb and gutter adds have been added to the Site Plan. Please refer to
Figure 3, which is attached. SKB would accept the depicted curb and guttering as conditions
of approval.
Comment: Revise plans to address all other comments from the City Engineer.
Response: The comments provided by Mitch Hatcher, Project Engineer in a Memorandum
dated April 25, 2017 have been addressed and the responses are provided in an Attachment
to this submittal.
Comment: Add parking lot and driveway lighting to plan.
Response: Potential parking lot and driveway lighting locations are shown on Figure 3, which
is attached. During final design of the site and buildings, SKB will work with a lighting
contractor to develop a photometric plan. The final lighting plan will be submitted to the City
for approval.
Comment: Maintain a flat grade around each building for access per Fire Marshal
requirements
Response: It is not clear that the flat grade around each building is required by law.
Nevertheless, SKB does not object to this is a condition of approval. The Site Plan has been
provisionally modified per the Fire Marshall’s requests. Please refer to Figures 3, 4, and 5
which are attached.
Comment: Describe how pedestrians will move around the site. Provide
improvements as necessary to delineate pedestrian walkways.
Mr. Kyle Klatt
City of Rosemount
May 9, 2017
7
T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\April Planning Commission Follow-up\Comment Response_Planning Comm and City - final.docx
Response: Pedestrian walkways will be provided and painted on the pavement. As requested
by City staff, Figure 3 shows how walkways can be further relocated to facilitate safe
pedestrian movement at the site. SKB would not object to these as conditions of approval.
Comment: Address other comments from Planning Commission report and as
discussed at the Planning Commission meeting.
Additional Comment in Staff Report: Staff flagged that the Project is not scheduled for
MUSA service until 2030, which produced extensive discussion at the April 25, 2017 Planning
Commission hearing.
Response: Based on the discussion at the Planning Commission hearing, it appears that the
MUSA issue will not be an obstacle to approval. As communicated at the hearing, SKB
expects, and does not object to a condition of approval, that SKB will tie in to MUSA service
as soon as it becomes available.
Additional Comment: At the May 3, 2017 meeting with City Staff, the question was raised
whether the southernmost building could be rotated 90 degrees so as to face north, and
potentially reduce the amount of hardscaping. SKB considered this suggestion. The principal
difficulty is that such a re-alignment would create a potential increased safety
hazard. Hazards increase when a site layout involves inconsistent and overlapping heavy
equipment turning patterns. Even though the amount of traffic on the site is relatively low,
when added up over months and years of operation, even a small increase in daily risk should
be avoided, particularly when the objective of the suggested change is primarily aesthetic. In
addition, rotating the building would place the building more directly in the path of
stormwater flow. While this can be mitigated to a degree, in general it is advisable to
minimize the frontage of buildings in the path of stormwater. Consequently, at present SKB is
not prepared to accept rotating the south building as a condition of approval.
Additional Comment/Response: As discussed at a May 3rd meeting with City of Rosemount
staff and SKB, SKB would not object to constructing the three (3) recycling buildings and the
maintenance building using precast concrete panels, to address facing-concerns. Additional
visual detail regarding the building designs are in development and will be provided to the
City in a follow-up submittal. This building design submittal will be provided no later than May
16, 2017. SKB would accept the modifications shown in those submissions as conditions of
approval.
Sincerely,
Tom Shustarich, PE
Wenck Associates, Inc.
Project Manager
Attachments
Traffic Circulation Narrative, Schematics (3), &
Master Equipment List
Traffic Circulation Narrative
Existing Traffic Flow
The SKB Rosemount Landfill receives approximately 200 to 1,000 vehicles per day. This
number of vehicles includes trucks delivering ash waste, industrial waste, and construction
and demolition debris (C&D). On average, under 1% of waste delivery truck visits is ash
waste, although that will vary considerably from day to day. The waste delivery trucks
enter at the site entrance off Highway 55 and proceed to a scale to be weighed and directed
to the proper disposal area where they unload. Trucks are typically on-site for fifteen (15)
minutes. With regards to on-site ash management, incoming ash material is stockpiled
within a lined cell area for drying purposes. Currently, SKB utilizes two tri-axle dump truck
vehicles. Once dried the ash is transferred using loaders and tri-axle dump truck vehicles to
the Gem-Ash recycling building for processing and metals recycling. Once enough metal is
removed and stockpiled, it is loaded and hauled off-site to an end use market. Trucks with
recovered metal depart the facility approximately 3 to 4 times per week. The ash delivery
trucks presently leave the site empty. The industrial waste and C&D delivery trucks may or
may not leave the site empty. Waste exchange has been an operational practice performed
at the site since the year 2000. Waste exchange is the process where waste delivery trucks,
following unloading the waste at the proper disposal area, are loaded with sand for off-site
uses. Approximately 20 percent of the empty industrial waste and C&D trucks would be
loaded with sand. At present time, all trucks currently leave empty due to the lack of sand
available at the landfill.
Phase 1 Development
During Phase 1 development the number of vehicles received per day at the landfill will not
change from the approximately 200 to 1,000. In addition, the Gem-ash recycling operations
and the general traffic circulation patterns will also not change. However, with sand
available from the Phase 1 development area, approximately 20% of the empty vehicles
leaving the site will be directed to the Phase 1 development area to be loaded with sand as
part of waste exchange operations. It should be noted that some of the sand from the Phase
1 development area will also be directed to the landfill for use in landfill operations. It is
estimated that approximately one (1) million cubic yards may be hauled to the landfill for
landfill operations over the two (2) year Phase 1 development timeframe. No additional
trucks will be entering or leaving the site over the existing traffic count at the site. Some
additional equipment such as a backhoe and a tri-axle dump truck will be used at the Phase
1 development, but will not leave the site. A schematic detailing traffic flow for the Phase 1
development is attached in support of the above narrative.
After the site is fully excavated and prepared, construction will begin on the buildings.
During the building construction phase, the site will, as would be expected, see an increase
in vehicles accessing and leaving the site to provide building materials and equipment.
Post Phase 1 Development
Once Phase 1 is developed, a site maintenance building for the landfill and three (3) ash
recycling buildings will have been constructed. Details of the activities proposed for each
recycling building are as follows:
The furthest north recycling building will be similar to the existing Gem-ash building
currently located at the 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. Only metal would be delivered to
this building for processing. 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 construction would
be subsequent to the construction and operations establishment of the other two
recycling buildings.
The delivery of ash to the site and processing at the Gem-ash building would not change.
However, following processing at the Gem-ash building, the ash would be transferred by a
tri-axle dump truck vehicle to the north recycling building for further processing. SKB
presently anticipates that this transfer will accomplished by existing tri -axle dump truck
vehicles on site. Metals that have been removed at the existing Gem-ash operation would
also be transferred by a tri-axle dump truck to the middle recycling building for further
processing. Following processing of the ash at the north recycling building, the recovered
metals will be transferred to the middle recycling building for further processing, while the
residual ash will be transferred to the southern-most building for the incorporation into
lightweight aggregate products. Any residual ash that remains following processing through
the recycling buildings will be hauled by tri-axle dump truck vehicles back to the landfill for
disposal. Currently, the tri-axle dump truck vehicles make approximately 30 to 40 trips per
day for the ash recycling operations. The only additional traffic generated from the Phase 1
development and enhanced ash recycling operations will be the additional recycled metals
and the lightweight aggregate block produced. There will be no truck traffic at the landfill or
Phase 1 development area after landfill operating hours. A schematic detailing traffic flow
for the Post Phase 1 development is attached in support of the above narrative. In addition,
a Figure detailing the turning radius for trucks accessing the recycling facilities is also
attached.
The April 25, 2017 staff report prepared for the Planning Commission meeting stated that
“The plans include 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.” For clarification, the maintenance building traffic will include
only vehicles and equipment owned by SKB. The types and approximate number of vehicles
and equipment anticipated to utilize the maintenance shop building include:
•2- tri-axle dump trucks
•1- off road truck
•3- pickups
•1- loader
•2- Excavator
•1- Skid Steer
Employee traffic will enter and exit off 140th Street. As reported, the recycling operations
expect approximately 20 employees to report to the site daily, although the 20 employees
will arrive at varying times over a 24-hour period due to the recycling facilities operating in
shifts. Minimal visitors are anticipated at the facility. This proposed traffic will have minimal
impact on 140th street. The Minnesota Department of Transportation provided an average
annual daily traffic (AADT) volume for 140th street in 2013-2014 and the AADT on 140th
street south of the existing SKB landfill and near the Rich Valley Golf Course was reported to
be 125.
Region Name District Number Equipment Number FAS Parent#Manufacturer Year Family S/N Current Hours Accum Hours ActivitiyHourAmounHours Usage Miles Usage DIR Enable Status InactiveDays_TotalDistrict Name Model Type
Equipment Master Report
Site Type Equip#
All
From Date To Date Sort Options
5/1/2017 5/1/2017 District/Equipment
After adjusting your report parameters select Ctrl+Shift+J to pull the report on the new parameters
Region District #Equipment FAS Manufacturer Family Current Accum Hours as of Hours Miles DIR Days
Name Name Number Parent #Model Year Type S/N Hours Hours 5/1/17 Usage Usage Enabled Status Inactive
Central 3063 A38 0 INGERSOLL 2003 Shop Equipment 331853UHM295 423 423 0 0 0 Yes Active 0
Rosemount Landfill P 185 AWIR Air Compressor
Central 3063 A39 0 INGERSOLL 2003 Shop Equipment 331854UHM295 490 490 0 0 0 Yes Active 0
Rosemount Landfill P 185 AWIR Air Compressor
Central 3063 B15 0 CATERPILLAR 1973 Wheeled Machine 49G789 25 25 0 0 0 No Active 0
Rosemount Landfill 16G MOTOR GRADER
Central 3063 D100 0 CATERPILLAR 2016 Compactors 0836KJTWZ00550 3291 3291 3262 8 0 Yes Active 0
Rosemount Landfill 836K COMPACTOR LF
Central 3063 D140 0 CATERPILLAR 2008 Track Machine OSKL00307 14067 14067 14038 7 0 Yes Active 0
Rosemount Landfill D6T Dozer-Trash
Central 3063 D143 94964 CATERPILLAR 2008 Track Machine 00D6TVSKL00481 11857 11857 118548 106709 0 Yes Active 0
Rosemount Landfill D6T Dozer-Trash
Central 3063 D146 0 CATERPILLAR 2015 Track Machine 0TMY00314 3821 3821 3797 6 0 Yes Active 0
Rosemount Landfill D6T Dozer-Trash
Central 3063 D147 0 CATERPILLAR 2016 Track Machine 0TMY00368 776 776 748 9 0 Yes Active 0
Rosemount Landfill D6T XW Dozer-Trash
Central 3063 D90 99068 KOMATSU 2008 Track Machine 71293 10857 10857 0 0 0 Yes Active 0
Rosemount Landfill D65PX Dozer-Cover
Central 3063 D91 125176 CATERPILLAR 1980 Compactors 87x00162 0 0 0 0 0 No Inactive-No PM 0
Rosemount Landfill 826C COMPACTOR LF
Central 3063 G32 0 AMIDA 1992 Support Machine 8704B0168 2768 2768 0 0 0 No Active 0
Rosemount Landfill 5000 LIGHT PLANT LIGHT PLANT
Central 3063 H64 94966 CATERPILLAR 2004 Track Machine DKY02745 9522 9522 9509 2 0 Yes Active 0
Rosemount Landfill 330CL EXCAVATOR
Central 3063 H72 94967 KOBELCO 2006 Track Machine LL09-U1002 5807 5807 0 0 0 Yes Active 0
Rosemount Landfill SK250LC EXCVTOR SOIL
Central 3063 HT01 0 CATERPILLAR 2011 Wheeled Machine 0b1m03183 4313 4313 4313 1 0 Yes Active 0
Rosemount Landfill 730 HAUL TRUCK
Central 3063 L126 0 CATERPILLAR 2005 Wheeled Machine AXJ02327 14881 14881 0 0 0 Yes Active 0
Rosemount Landfill 966G WHEEL LOADER
Central 3063 L98 0 CATERPILLAR 2006 Wheeled Machine MSTO4657 1855 1855 1842 0.5 0 Yes Active 0
Rosemount Landfill 262C SKID STEER L
Central 3063 M38 120603 SUPERIOR 1996 Support Machine 2242-96 1284 1284 0 0 0 No Active 0
Rosemount Landfill 60' FEED HOPPER CONVEYOR
Central 3063 M41 120604 SUPERIOR 1992 Support Machine 1515-92 1 1 0 0 0 No Active 0
Rosemount Landfill 40x50 HYD CONVEYOR CONVEYOR
3063
Location
Usage between From and To Date
Equipment Master Report
Site Type Equip#
All
From Date To Date Sort Options
5/1/2017 5/1/2017 District/Equipment
After adjusting your report parameters select Ctrl+Shift+J to pull the report on the new parameters
Region District #Equipment FAS Manufacturer Family Current Accum Hours as of Hours Miles DIR Days
Name Name Number Parent #Model Year Type S/N Hours Hours 5/1/17 Usage Usage Enabled Status Inactive
3063
Location
Usage between From and To Date
Central 3063 M42 0 Krause 2001 Support Machine 01KRA07401 1 1 0 0 0 No Active 0
Rosemount Landfill CHAIN SLACK FEED CON CONVEYOR
Central 3063 M43 0 Krause 2001 Support Machine 01KRA07402 1 1 0 0 0 No Active 0
Rosemount Landfill POST SORT CONVEYOR CONVEYOR
Central 3063 M44 0 Krause 2001 Support Machine 01KRA0743 3686 3686 0 0 0 Yes Inactive 0
Rosemount Landfill SUPER PORT. POWER PA Power Plant
Central 3063 M95 0 CEC 2000 Support Machine 46690 3652 3652 0 0 0 No Inactive 0
Rosemount Landfill SCREEN IT-6X16 SCREENER
Central 3063 M96 95767 SWIFT 2000 Support Machine 20299 6727 6727 0 0 0 Yes Inactive 0
Rosemount Landfill 36X90 RSC-SELF CONTA CONVEYOR
Central 3063 M97 0 PETERSON PACIFIC 2005 Support Machine 31B201213 4478 4478 0 0 0 Yes Inactive 0
Rosemount Landfill 6700B SHREDDER
Central 3063 M98 94959 POWER SCREEN 2010 Support Machine 7442001 2156 2156 0 0 0 Yes Inactive 0
Rosemount Landfill 36X90 RSC CONVEYOR
Central 3063 M99 94980 WILDCAT 2008 Support Machine 1W98532F295351707 2237 2237 0 0 0 Yes Inactive 0
Rosemount Landfill 626 SCREENPLANT
Central 3063 N100 0 WACKER 2008 Support Machine 4PUMP16H.P 0 0 0 0 0 No Active 0
Rosemount Landfill PTS4 PUMP
Central 3063 N101 0 HONDA 2008 Support Machine 8HP 301-TH 0 0 0 0 0 No Active 0
Rosemount Landfill 301-TH PUMP
Central 3063 N115 0 THOMPSON 2006 Support Machine PSOT160TWSSM-000002 571 571 0 0 0 No Active 0
Rosemount Landfill PSOT160TWSSM PUMP
Central 3063 N144 0 POLARIS 2007 Support Machine 4XARH50A382374096 1679 1679 0 0 0 No Active 0
Rosemount Landfill 500 RANGER ATV
Central 3063 N153 0 THOMPSON 2010 Support Machine 6TSC-508 20 20 0 0 0 No Active 0
Rosemount Landfill 6" PUMP 6TSC PUMP
Central 3063 N98 0 LANDA 1990 Shop Equipment P0497-1726 495 495 0 0 0 No Active 0
Rosemount Landfill DGHW5-3500E POWERWASHER
Central 3063 N99 0 BOMBADIER 2002 Support Machine 2297603 4065 4065 0 0 0 No Active 0
Rosemount Landfill 7475 TRAXTER ATV
Central 3063 R63 104345 JOHN DEERE 2012 Wheeled Machine 1LV5101ECBY341346 423 423 423 0 0 Yes Active 0
Rosemount Landfill 5101E TRACTOR/MOWER FARM TRACTOR UTILITY
Central 3063 R64 0 KUBOTA 2002 Support Machine 41223 897 897 0 0 0 No Inactive 0
Rosemount Landfill RCK60-21Z MOWER
Central 3063 R68 94976 CATERPILLAR 2005 Support Machine 9MW01244 880 880 0 0 0 Yes Active 0
Rosemount Landfill CS-563D ROLLER
Central 3063 R73 94977 BOMAG 2007 Compactors 9.01582E+11 1271 1271 0 0 0 Yes Active 0
Rosemount Landfill BW213PDH-3 Support Equipment
Central 3063 S43 121539 CATERPILLAR 2006 Wheeled Machine 8LJ02934 21278 21278 21273 17 0 Yes Active 0
Rosemount Landfill 613C WATER TRUCK
Central 3063 S44 0 JOHNSTON 2005 Wheeled Machine 1J9VM4LD75C172049 4212 4212 0 0 0 Yes Active 0
Rosemount Landfill 4000 JOHNSTON SWEEPER
Central 3063 T241 95001 MACK 1991 Wheeled Machine 2M2AM09Y9MC001708 323022 323022 0 0 0 Yes Active 0
Rosemount Landfill TM600 ROLL OFF
Equipment Master Report
Site Type Equip#
All
From Date To Date Sort Options
5/1/2017 5/1/2017 District/Equipment
After adjusting your report parameters select Ctrl+Shift+J to pull the report on the new parameters
Region District #Equipment FAS Manufacturer Family Current Accum Hours as of Hours Miles DIR Days
Name Name Number Parent #Model Year Type S/N Hours Hours 5/1/17 Usage Usage Enabled Status Inactive
3063
Location
Usage between From and To Date
Central 3063 T246 94971 Clark 1992 Support Machine GPX23003049155 1900 1900 0 0 0 Yes Active 0
Rosemount Landfill GPX25 Forklift
Central 3063 T248 99138 TOYOTA 2013 Support Machine 70485 5637 5637 0 0 0 Yes Active 0
Rosemount Landfill 7FDU80 Forklift
Central 3063 T420 0 FORD 2006 Wheeled Machine 3frwf65f26v362911 0 0 0 0 0 No Active 0
Rosemount Landfill F650 SERVICE TRUC
Central 3063 T442 0 MACK 2009 Wheeled Machine GU713-9M005963 198590 198590 0 0 0 Yes Active 0
Rosemount Landfill Granite TRK OTR DUMP
Central 3063 T443 117326 STERLING 2007 Wheeled Machine 2FZWAZCVX7AX64989 154986 154986 154945 24 0 Yes Active 0
Rosemount Landfill LT9511 TRK OTR DUMP
Central 3063 T55 0 CHEVROLET 2009 Support Machine 1GCHK59K49E164852 0 0 0 0 0 No Active 0
Rosemount Landfill 2500 PERSONAL USE
Central 3063 T62 94998 CHEVROLET 2011 Wheeled Machine 1GCPKSE33BF228727 0 0 0 0 0 No Active 0
Rosemount Landfill 1500 PICKUP
Central 3063 TT104 0 GATOR 2012 Support Machine 4Z1HD1827CS02111 0 0 0 0 0 No Active 0
Rosemount Landfill 18' SKID TRAILER TRAILER
Central 3063 TT70 0 HAULMARK 2001 Support Machine 16HGB25242Ho88948 0 0 0 0 0 No Active 0
Rosemount Landfill RVT85X25 ENCLOSED TRAILER
Central 3063 TT75 0 FELLING 2002 Support Machine 5FTLE16213102003 0 0 0 0 0 No Active 0
Rosemount Landfill 16’ ETIOL TRAILER
Equip Count:50
Grading Concept Plan
GRADING CONCEPT PLAN
In its March 27, 2017 Application for a PUD Master Development Plan, Final Site Plan, and
Building Plan, SKB Environmental, Inc., displayed the proposed layout and elevation for the
development. This prompted a number of questions from City staff and from the Planning
Commission during the April 25, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting. Staff and Planning
Commission member queried whether the site elevations could be raised, consistent with
purposes of the project and compatibility with existing and potential future uses of
neighboring properties. This Grading Concept Plan further explains the rationale for SKB’s
proposal, and identifies areas of grading flexibility.
This Grading Concept Plan is for the SKB Environmental, Inc. PUD application for
development of Phase 1, which encompasses approximately 52 acres (“Property”).
Currently, ash material recovery operations are occurring at the SKB Rosemount Industrial
Waste facility, located immediately adjacent to the west of the subject property. SKB is
proposing to expand operations into the Phase 1 proposed development area to further
enhance the material recovery operations and subsequently reduce the overall volume of
material that will be permanently landfilled. To enclose the proposed recycling operations in
the Phase 1 development, SKB is proposing to construct three new pre-cast concrete
buildings on a concrete foundation. The buildings will vary in size and are proposed to be
located as shown on Figure 3 provided with this Attachment. In addition to the proposed
material recovery buildings, a new maintenance building is also proposed as part of the
Phase 1 development. In total, SKB is proposing 227,000 square feet of building
construction.
There are four major constraints on development of the 52 acre Property:
1.Access to the Property from SKB’s adjacent landfill property is constrained to the
northeast corner, at an elevation of 900’;
2.There is a residential property immediately north of the Property. City staff
emphasized the need to screen operations from this property in planning for the site;
3.The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) has clearly stated that it is
highly unlikely that public access to the Property would be granted from Highway 55.
Consequently, any public access is required to tie into 140th Street at the south side
of the Property, an elevation of 856’; and
4.The Property must be developed to ensure maximum flexibility and compatibility with
future Business Park uses of the adjacent property to the east.
Consequently, grading and site development must rationally and safely bridge the 900’
northern and 856’ southern access points.
SKB has carefully considered comments made at the April 25, 2017 Planning Commission
Meeting and by City Staff, and looked for areas of flexibility.
•Safe site operations are of the utmost importance to SKB. SKB has designed the area
of building construction that can take place in Phase 1 to also allow for the site space
needed for the safe and efficient access and movement of equipment, tractor
trailers, and other haul vehicles. The site layout and grading allows for a safe
separation of employee/visitor traffic from the industrial traffic.
•In addition to safe site operations, safe site access was also important in preparing
the grading plan. Based on past conversations and projects with the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MNDOT), it is considered highly unlikely that an
access to the SKB Phase 1 development from Highway 55 would be granted. This
results in 140th street on the southside of the property as the only option for site
access. At existing site grades, an access road into the site from 140th Street would
have a slope of approximately 13%. In accordance with the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the MNDOT Road Design
Manual, a maximum recommended road grade/slope is 3%. The site has been
graded to elevations that provide for a site access road from a 140th street at a
maximum grade of 3%.
•A key criterion regarding site grading expressed by City staff at initial project
meetings and reiterated by staff at the Planning Commission meeting was to provide
for screening of the recycling operations from the residential property to the north.
As currently shown, the site and proposed buildings will be set below surrounding
grade to provide screening by grade differential. The proposed buildings will be
additionally screened by the proposed landscaping plan. Screening occurs not only
visually, but the reduction in elevation also provides sound insulation.
•Similarly, the proposed elevations maximize flexibility of use of the eastern property.
To the extent development of the eastern property remains at existing grades, the
Property is well screened both visually and audially, and the rooflines can be further
screened with moderate additional berming along the property line. Conversely, if
development of the eastern property more closely follows the contours of 140th
Street (as the public access road), then the eastern property can be very effectively
tied into the grades of this Property. All options are open. In contrast, if the Property
elevation were to be significantly raised, the screening requirements for the eastern
property would also be increased, and it would be more difficult to establish a
consistent tie-in to 140th Street. Presumably any Business Park development of the
eastern property would involve substantially more traffic than this Site, making it all
the more likely that the contours of the eastern property would be tied in to the
grades of 140th Street.
•Another concern raised by City staff upon review of initial site grading plan
submittals was the preservation of existing trees located on the southern portion of
the property. SKB modified these earlier grading plans to accommodate the request
of City staff to save as many trees as possible on the southern portion of the site.
Further alterations would result in the loss of areas for planting trees as required by
City ordinance.
•SKB has reviewed other industrially-zoned properties in the City, and all have
operations either at or below grade from public street access. Because of the unique
character of this site, SKB nevertheless went with a gradual rise in elevation.
The following describes each site elevation segment from north to south in the March 27,
2017 Application, the rationale for each segment, and how the segments were connected.
Segment Rationale
Northeast Entrance = 900’ Only feasible entrance
Downslope from Northeast Entrance to widening
of work area = max. 3% grade Maximum safe slope; take
traffic below view/hearing of
residential property as quickly as
possible
Start for work area = 878’
Work area slope = 1.5% grade Slight slope consistent with
Takes elevation from 878’ to 864’ constructability and good drainage
864’ elevation for 300 feet = 0.75% grade Tie-between work area and
entrance rise
133’ stretch to end of easement = 3% grade Maximum AASHTO slope
85’ easement to centerline of 140th = flat Complies with AASHTO standard
and width of bike/trail easement
South Entrance Elevation = 856’ Only feasible public access
The South Entrance profile is shown in more detail in Attachment to this Plan.
Of the foregoing, the north and south entrance elevations are fixed by topography, the 85’
stretch from the centerline of 140th street to the end of the easement are dictated by
AASHTO provisions and the easement, and no slopes should exceed 3%, also per AASHTO.
That leaves two areas of potential flexibility: (1) the 300’ stretch presently at 0.75%, and
(2) the work area slope to the 878’ start of the slope for the North Entrance.
If the 300’ stretch is increased to the 3% AASHTO standard, then the entrance road would
connect to the work area at 866.5’ rather 864’, and elevation increase of 2.5 feet. Tying
that elevation to the 878’ north elevation would adjust the work area slope to a 1.35%
grade. While a 1.35% grade is likely also consistent with reasonable drainage, SKB is
hesitant make that slope flatter, on engineer’s recommendations. As the work approaches
flatness, drainage is inhibited and the potential for “birdbath”-type pooling increases.
As SKB stated from the submission of its rezoning request in 2015, waste exchange remains
an important element of the overall Project plan. The existing grading plan results in
approximately 2 million cubic yards of excavated soil during development. Current landfill
operations need approximately 1.3 million cubic yards of soils for continued operations
(cover material, cell construction, etc.) over the next few years. As SKB has stated and has
mentioned in the past rezoning report, the sand soils to be excavated in development of
Phase 1 are needed to allow for waste exchange at the landfill. Waste exchange is the
practice where landfill customers deliver and dump industrial or demolition debris waste at
the landfill and after dumping, the customer obtains a load of sand prior to leaving the site.
The waste exchange practice has been essential, and will continue to be essential, in
keeping waste volumes up at the landfill and thus the associated host fees paid to the City.
The net effect of the two adjustments would reduce overall extraction of soils by just under
100,000 cubic yards. This will be a significant loss to the waste exchange component of the
Project. SKB would nevertheless be prepared to accept those revisions as conditions to City
approval, if the City concludes that a rise in the entrance road and site elevation would help
meet other City objectives. It is also important to note that if SKB were to have approached
this site as a mining site, SKB estimates that it could reasonably have extracted
approximately 4 million cubic yards of material. While waste exchange is and always has
been an important component of the Project, it is not accurate to describe the Project as
nothing more than mining.
SKB appreciates the thorough review of the site plans and the comments provided by the
Planning Commission and City staff regarding the site grading plan including the possibility
of raising the site. SKB trusts that the above discussion on the design basis and other
factors reflected in the proposed grading plan provide a clearer understanding on why the
site has been graded to the proposed elevations.
Response to City Engineer
Wenck | Colorado | Georgia | Minnesota | North Dakota | Wyoming
Toll Free 800-472-2232 Web wenck.com
May 9, 2017
Mr. Kyle Klatt
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
RE: SKB Environmental Metals Recycling PUD
Comment Responses to City Engineer’s Review
Dear Kyle Klatt:
On behalf of SKB, this letter is in response to comments in the Memorandum dated April 25,
2017 as prepared by Mitch Hatcher, Project Engineer concerning the SKB Environmental PUD
application.
GENERAL COMMENTS:
Comment 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.
Response: The above comments have been noted and have been incorporated into
the project drawings. Please refer to Figure 3, which is attached. SKB does not
object to these revised slopes being a condition of approval.
Comment 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.
Response: See the related discussion in SKB’s response to the comments of City
Staff. Please refer to the attached Figure 3. SKB does not object to such curb and
guttering being a condition of approval.
Mr. Kyle Klatt
City of Rosemount
May 9, 2017
2
T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\April Planning Commission Follow-up\May Submittal\City Eng. Comment Response -Final.docx
Comment 3: Low floor elevations should be shown on the plans for the
proposed buildings.
Response: As discussed at a May 3rd meeting with City of Rosemount staff and SKB, SKB
does not object to constructing the three (3) recycling buildings and the maintenance building
using precast concrete panels. Additional detail regarding the building designs will be
provided to the City in a follow-up submittal. This building design submittal will be provided
no later than May 16, 2017, and will depict low floor elevations as well as roofline design
considerations.
Comment 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.
Response: SKB has always planned for the Phase 1 development that erosion
control blankets will be utilized for slopes around the pond and parking lot and any
other long steep slopes. Please refer to the attached Figure 9 – Phase 1 Erosion
Control Plan.
Comment 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.
Response: Please refer to the traffic narrative and schematics section of this
submittal, which is attached. As explained there, there will be no net increase in
traffic to the site, except for a small number of additional metals trucks (lightweight
concrete). No additional MnDOT permits will be necessary.
Comment 6: A soil boring location map should be provided.
Response: A soil boring location map is attached.
UTILITY COMMENTS:
Comment 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.
Response: Please refer the attached Figures 4 and 5.
Mr. Kyle Klatt
City of Rosemount
May 9, 2017
3
T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\April Planning Commission Follow-up\May Submittal\City Eng. Comment Response -Final.docx
Comment 8: The extension of the City's trunk watermain along TH 55 will need
to be extended past the property line of the site.
Response: Please refer the attached Figures 4 and 5.
Comment 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.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment 10: Water service is not shown to be installed to the northern
proposed recycling building.
Response: Please refer the attached Figures 4 and 5.
Comment 11: The sanitary sewer alignment is not consistent with Tree
Preservation Plan.
Response: Once the trunk sewer is extended to the Phase 1 site, the sanitary
sewer connection line can be directionally drilled as to not remove any existing
trees, and SKB does not object to this being a condition of approval.
STORMWATER COMMENTS:
Comment 12: The storm sewer pond grading and overflow pipe is not consistent
with Tree Preservation Plan.
Response: The stormwater discharge pipe can be directionally bored, and SKB
does not object to this being a condition of approval.
Comment 13: The City's storm sewer standards require a minimum pipe
diameter of 15". The proposed 12" storm sewer should be increased to 15".
Response: SKB does not object to increasing the outlet pipe diameter to 15” as a
condition of approval. Increasing the pipe size does not change the stormwater
model results for the 100-yr event that were previously submitted.
Comment 14: Provide overland emergency overflow for the pond or label the
pipe as the emergency overflow during the 100-yr event.
Response: The pond will not discharge during the 100-yr event, but the pipe will
serve as the emergency overflow for larger or longer duration events and has been
labeled accordingly.
Mr. Kyle Klatt
City of Rosemount
May 9, 2017
4
T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\April Planning Commission Follow-up\May Submittal\City Eng. Comment Response -Final.docx
Comment 15: Show all emergency overflow routes from all low points and show
high point elevations along emergency routes and the direction flow arrows.
Response: See response to Comment 14 above.
Comment 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.
Response: Noted.
Comment 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.
Response: A drainage ditch with appropriate stabilization has been provided as
shown on the plans.
Comment 18: Show storm sewer profile section and connection details for the
proposed outlet from the pond into the existing culvert under 140th Street.
Response: Connection/installation details will be provided at the time of
construction/during construction level design.
Comment 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.
Response: It is not anticipated that the basin will be wet due to the natural
infiltration rates of the underlying soils. The basin was designed per City of
Rosemount requirements so that the NWL is equal to the HWL and the 100-year
storm will not be discharged. The design conservatively assumed no infiltration to
establish the 100-year HWL, also per City of Rosemount requirements.
Comment 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.
Response: The 100-year storm event (HWL) will not discharge. Rate control was
limited to 0.05 cfs/acre of drainage area for a 100-year 2-day (longer duration)
event as demonstrated in the January 2017 submittal. The outlet structure/model
includes a weir wall and orifice for rate control.
Comment 21: Confirm freeboard requirements are maintained after update of
basin HWLs
Response: Minimum 3-feet separation between low openings and the 100-year
HWL will be maintained per city requirements.
Mr. Kyle Klatt
City of Rosemount
May 9, 2017
5
T:\3053 Waste Connections\Rosemount Projects\0064 Rosemount PUD\April Planning Commission Follow-up\May Submittal\City Eng. Comment Response -Final.docx
Comment 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.
Response: As discussed at the May 3, 2017 meeting, the pond has been sized
based on the requirement of no allowable discharge of the 100-year event.
Comment 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 0.5ft/s
for 1-yr rainfall events.
Response: The City’s standard skimmer detail will be incorporated into the pond
outlet structure.
Sincerely,
Tom Shustarich, PE
Wenck Associates, Inc.
Project Manager
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 19, 2018
TO: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner
CC: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
Brian Erickson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Stacy Bodsberg, Planning Department Secretary
FROM: Mitch Hatcher, Project Engineer
RE: SKB Engineering Review
SUBMITTAL:
Prepared by Wenck Associates, Inc. the SKB Planned Unit Development, dated March 27, 2018.
Engineering review comments were generated from the following documents included in the
submittal:
Project Description and Operations
Narrative with attachments,
appendices, and figures
Stormwater Management Plan and
Calculations
Soil Borings
Tree Survey and Preservation Plan
Project Plan Drawings
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. All documents and plans should be updated to reflect the findings and recommendations
outlined in the EAW.
2. Several of the submittal documents have discrepancies in the dates, revisions and plan
versions. Please have submitted materials include only the most current and up to date
documents for review.
3. The proposed parking lot should be installed with concrete curb and gutter with storm sewer
catch basins to route stormwater runoff to the pond. Curb and gutter has been added but
additional storm sewer and catch basins are recommended to avoid any overcapacity to the
proposed catch basins due to the large impervious drainage areas.
4. Low floor elevations should be shown on the plans for the proposed buildings.
5. Additional stabilization may be required for some of the long steep slopes surrounding the
site and the existing granular material.
6. The developer is required to obtain a NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit and provide
a copy of the approved SWPPP to the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit and
start of any construction activity.
7. Final construction plans and specifications for grading, street, and utilities should be
submitted to the City for review prior to construction.
8. Upon completion of the street, sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer construction, the
City requires record drawings. See Engineering Guidelines for submittal and formatting
requirements.
UTILITY COMMENTS:
9. For the watermain extension along TH 55, the city will need to work with the developer to
determine the best course for completing the watermain extension project. Further
discussion is needed.
10. The number and locations of onsite hydrants should be reviewed and approved by the
Building Official/Fire Marshal.
11. The future sanitary sewer alignment is not consistent with Tree Preservation Plan.
STORMWATER COMMENTS:
1. 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.
2. In order to take credit for the regional ponding volume an infiltration surface needs to be
provided either above the NWL or in an adjacent infiltration basin. The completed EAW
requires the addition of an infiltration bench or two-celled system to maximize the
infiltration surface area and to meet NPDES permit requirements. Infiltration surface area
needs to be greater than or equal to the area as calculated below:
Assuming 0.3 in/hr, required infiltration area is 6.4 acres. If a infiltration tests are complete
onsite to confirm the 3 in/hr, required infiltration area would reduce to 0.63 acres.
3. The storm sewer pond grading and overflow pipe is not consistent with Tree Preservation
Plan.
4. Show all emergency overflow routes from all low points and show high point elevations
along emergency routes and the direction flow arrows.
5. 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. A small
swale has been added west of the maintenance shop. Confirm grading is adequate to drain
runoff away from the building.
6. A curb cut is shown south of the Maintenance Building directing stormwater through a
drainage swale into a catch basin prior to discharging into the stormwater pond. Additional
catch basins and storm sewer will be needed in this area due to the large drainage area.
7. Curb cuts are shown on the south end of the parking lot to discharge runoff into the
stormwater basin. Catch basins and storm sewer will need to be added to route stormwater
into the basin to prevent high concentrated flows into the pond.
8. 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.
9. Confirm freeboard requirements are maintained after update of basin HWLs
10. 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.
11. City maximum infiltration rate for HSG type A soils is 0.3 in/hr. Different infiltration rates
will be considered (up to a maximum of 3.0 in/hour) by the City Engineer on a site-by-site
basis based on percolation tests or other pertinent information conducted by a professional
soil scientist or Professional Engineer. No infiltration recommendations were observed in
the Geotechnical report. Infiltration testing must be completed after the infiltration system is
constructed to confirm infiltration rates.
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
Brian Erickson, City Engineer/Public Works Director
Mitch Hatcher, Project Engineer
From: Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director
Date: April 19, 2018
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.
Metropolitan District
1500 County Road B2 West
Roseville, MN 55113
An equal opportunity employer
June 30, 2017
Mr. Kyle Klatt
City of Rosemount
2875 145th St W
Rosemount, MN 55068
SUBJECT: SKB Development
MnDOT Review S17-042
SW Quad MN 55 and 145th Street, immediately north of 140th Street
Mendota Heights, Dakota County
Control Section 1910
Dear Mr. Klatt,
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the site plan for the proposed
SKB recycling and landfill operation. Please address the following issues before any further
development:
Right of way:
1. Please contact Casey Crisp (651-366-4332), MnDOT Surveyor, to confirm that the MnDOT right of
way is correctly shown on the plat.
2. There is a Trail being planned by Dakota County in the vicinity along MN 55. Please contact Molly
Kline (651-234-7723) for additional information.
For questions regarding these comments please contact Matt Aguirre at (651) 234-7599, or
matt.aguirre@state.mn.us
Permits:
The future water main on MN55 will require permit #2525 with the City as the applicant. In addition to
this permit, any use of or work within or affecting MnDOT right of way requires a permit.
Permit forms are available from MnDOT’s utility website at
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/maintenance/permits.html
Please include one 11 x 17 plan set and one full size plan set with each permit application. Please
submit/send all permit applications and 11X17plan sets to: metropermitapps.dot@state.mn.us. Please
direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (651-234-7911) of MnDOT’s Metro
Permits Section.
Review Submittal Options:
MnDOT’s goal is to complete the review of plans within 30 days. Submittals sent in electronically can
usually be turned around faster. There are four submittal options. Please submit either:
1. One (1) electronic pdf. version of the plans. MnDOT can accept the plans via e-mail at
metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us provided that each separate e-mail is under 20 megabytes.
2. Three (3) sets of full size plans. Although submitting seven sets of full size plans will
expedite the review process. Plans can be sent to:
MnDOT – Metro District Planning Section
Development Reviews Coordinator
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, MN 55113
3. One (1) compact disc.
4. Plans can also be submitted to MnDOT’s External FTP Site. Please send files to:
ftp://ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/incoming/MetroWatersEdge/Planning
Internet Explorer doesn’t work using ftp so please use an FTP Client or your Windows
Explorer (My Computer). Also, please send a note to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us
indicating that the plans have been submitted on the FTP site.
If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 234-7784.
Sincerely,
Karen Scheffing
Principal Planner
Copy sent via E -Mail:
Molly Kline, Area Engineer
Matt Wernet, Surveys
Clare Lackey, Traffic
Merlin Kent , Traffic
Buck Craig, Permits
Matt Aguirre, Right of way
Alan Rindels , Water Resources
Natalie Ries, Noise/Air Quality
Nancy Jacobson, Design
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 25, 2017
PAGE 1
I. Regular Meeting
Call to Order:
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, April
25, 2017. Chair Kenninger called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with Commissioners Freeman, VanderWiel,
Clements, and Mele. Commissioner Henrie was absent. Also in attendance were Community Development Director
Lindquist, Senior Planner Klatt, Planner Nemcek, Project Engineer Hatcher, and Recording Secretary Bodsberg.
The Pledge of Allegiance was said.
Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
Commissioner VanderWiel nominated Commissioner Kenninger for Chairperson.
MOTION by Mele to elect Commissioner Kenninger by unanimous consent to the position of Chairperson.
Second by Clements.
Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion Passes.
Commissioner Clements nominated Commissioner VanderWiel for Vice-Chairperson.
MOTION by Clements to elect Commissioner VanderWiel by unanimous consent to the position of Vice-
Chairperson.
Second by Freeman.
Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion Passes.
Additions to Agenda: None
Audience Input: None
Consent Agenda:
a.Approval of the March 20, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes.
MOTION by Freeman.
Second by Clements.
Ayes: 5. Nays: 0.
Public Hearing:
5.a. SKB Environmental Master PUD Final Site, Building Plan and Simple Plat for a Metals Recycling Facility
and Maintenance Shop. (17-08-PUD and 17-16-SMP)
Senior Planner Klatt gave a brief summary of the staff report for the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Mele asked for clarification on the grading of the property. Klatt clarified that the grading starts at grade
in the north, and then slopes down in the middle where development is and the ponding area and then back up to grade
in the south.
Commissioner Clements inquired if the property near the project site that SKB does not own would be assessed for the
water main installation. Community Development Director Lindquist stated that the property will be required to hook
up to the water main in 10 years and in the past, the City has required payment of the appropriate fees upon hook up.
Chair Kenninger inquired if this project was a part of the 2040 or 2030 MUSA line. Klatt stated that it is a part of the
2030 MUSA line. Klatt continued to explain the maps included in the staff report.
Commissioner Clements questioned if Outlot A would be replatted at this time. Klatt stated that is correct. Clements
questioned if we should get the trail easements at this time too. Klatt confirmed that would be reasonable.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 25, 2017
PAGE 2
Commissioner VanderWeil inquired what the process is for tabling this item. Klatt stated that staff is recommending the
public hearing be opened and continued to the next meeting. Klatt stated that the Commission may recommend
approval or denial, but that staff has a number of conditions and information that they would like to provide to the
Commission before that decision is made.
Commissioner VanderWeil questioned if the City’s ordinance limits the amount of impervious surface on a property.
Klatt confirmed that the ordinance does and that the applicant is not exceeding the limit.
Commissioner Clements questioned if the applicant would first be mining this specific site and then building the
buildings. Lindquist confirmed that is correct. Clements questioned if the applicant would need a mining permit for this
area. Klatt confirmed that the site is outside of the City’s mining district and therefore the applicant cannot obtain a
separate mining permit. Clements stated that he had a hard time with the letter that was included in the packet from Mr.
John Domke, SKB Environmental requesting a rapid review. Clements stated that it seems counterintuitive if they are
mining the site for two years prior to construction of the buildings.
Commissioner Freeman asked about the sewer plans for the property. Klatt stated that the applicant would need to
develop a plan so that the City can understand how the property will be served now and in the future. The site would
currently have to have a private sewer system and later hook up to the public system when available.
Commissioner Clements inquired if the Plat application fell under the 60-day rule. Klatt stated that the City is
considering the plat to fall within the 60-day rule. Lindquist clarified that the PUD is what falls under the 60-day rule.
Klatt stated that the extension letter has already gone out to the applicant extending the review time to 120-days.
Chair Kenninger inquired about the specific grading of the site. Klatt confirmed that the site will be higher than Ehlers
Path.
The public hearing opened at 7:57 pm.
Public Comments:
John Domke, Divisional VP of SKB Environmental, 13222 Downey Trail, Apple Valley, stated that he is very excited
about this project. Domke stated that this project has been in the process for about a year and a half. SKB has been
working to address the concerns of staff and will continue to do so.
Mike Drysdale, Dorsey and Whitney, 50 South Sixth Street, Attorney for SKB Environmental, stated that there are some
unique aspects to this application, the first being the issue of sewer and that it would be rather costly to bring sewer all
the way to the site. Drysdale stated that the second issue is the grading of the site but that they agree to the 4:1 slopes.
Drysdale further explained the layout and specifications of the site. Drysdale stated that SKB Environmental does not
see the need for an additional traffic study. There are going to be a small number of employees at the site and the trucks
going in and out of the site are going to be the same. Drysdale further explained the need for the amount of proposed
pavement. He stated that the amount of pavement is reasonable for the proposed use and that it is needed for larger
trucks with trailers to turn around. He requested that the Commission or Staff provide them with some insight as to
what they need to do in order to get the application completed. The holding tank proposal is necessary because of some
materials from the maintenance shop that cannot go to the septic system. SKB could use a smaller holding tank just for
the maintenance shop and septic for the rest of the site until they are able to get sewer to their site.
Commissioner Mele questioned if we are concerned about the traffic study because of the truck traffic or the excavation
process. Klatt stated that the City is concerned with both. Mele inquired how long the mining would take place. Mr.
Domke stated that if SKB can get started during a majority of the construction season this year, it would take two years.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 25, 2017
PAGE 3
Commissioner Clements questioned if the trucks coming into the facility are coming in full of material and then moving
product off of the site and that the net number of trucks in and out of the site is zero. Mr. Domke confirmed that is
true. They will be using all internal trucks to move the ash. Clements questioned once the ash is ready to be sold how
many additional trucks are they anticipate to move the product. Domke stated that they will be taking the ash that they
are already processing and moving it to the new site. They will then process the metal out and bring the ash back to the
landfill. Clements questioned if the ash will be used for concrete in the future. Domke confirmed that is a possibility.
Clements stated if that is the case then there will be increased off site traffic because of the sale of the ash. Mr. Drysdale
stated that if they have trucks that are leaving empty, then the empty trucks would be able to carry the ash off of the site.
It’s possible that the traffic could increase but SKB doesn’t have that answer at this time. Clements stated that is where
the traffic study is coming into place and could possibly give clarification.
Commissioner Clements asked a question about the provision of utilities and the potential cost to extend City services to
the site. Mr. Drysdale stated that the issue is whether the City will let this project continue without water and sewer and
have it be installed at a later date or if the City will require the water and sewer to be installed before this project can
start. If that is the case, then that would be a very large investment. Lindquist stated that the water and sewer actually
comes from County Road 42 and that it cost roughly $6 million to extend these services to the project site. Drysdale
stated that this facility will be a low water user and that it was known when this site was rezoned that utilities were not
available to the site. Clements asked if the water is available to serve the development. Lindquist confirmed that is true
and that the applicant will be required to hook up. Clements questioned why this site needs sewer versus a private
system. Lindquist explained that since the site is located within the MUSA it should be developed with public facilities.
The question is whether to allow the property to develop with a private system and connect in the future, to provide
services that leapfrog other undeveloped sites and therefore does not provide orderly development, or to wait until
development comes to the site, bringing utilities.
Commissioner VanderWiel questioned why would there be resistance to hook up to public utilities by SKB down the
line if they are an industrial facility. Lindquist stated that the issue would be if SKB put in a septic system and shortly
after installation, the City brings public sewer to the site. The applicant would not be getting their financial benefit on
the septic. Drysdale stated that SKB is not concerned about the loss that they may endure from purchasing a septic to
having to get sewer in the future. Lindquist stated the concern is that the City does not typically allow development on
properties in the MUSA until the property has public utilities. In other instances, the City has told the property owner
they will have to wait until utilities are available to their site or they have had to pay to bring the utilities to the property.
Commissioner Mele questioned if the Commission could shed some light for the applicant onto how the Commission
would be proceeding. Lindquist stated that if the Commission approves the application without public utilities, the
Commission may be setting a precedent for potential other applicants that would expect the same treatment.
Chair Kenninger stated that the site is unique that the project has a low volume of employees and sewer usage and that
the site has access to water.
Commissioner Clements questioned if SKB’s landfill had a septic system. Domke confirmed the site has a sewer system
that connects directly to the abandoned wastewater treatment plant. Clements questioned whether this site could
connect to the landfill’s sewer system temporarily. Lindquist stated that the City would not allow more than one
property to be connected to one sewer system.
Drysdale stated that there are many different items that can make this application unique compared to potential future
applications. Klatt stated that there are many unique aspects to this application and the zoning changes that had taken
place. Commissioner Clements questioned what the volume would be for the sanitary sewer. Drysdale stated that SKB
has estimated 350 gallons per day in their application. Lindquist stated that staff would like to collect more information
and get more exact details on how many employees and the amount of water use.
Commissioner Clements questioned what the elevation for the driveway to the North would be. Engineer Hatcher stated
that the elevation is about 900 degrees.
Commissioner Mele stated that Outlot A is at a higher elevation that the project site. He asked if SKB chooses to
continue developing, would they need to do additional cutting similar to the proposed grading. Domke stated that is
correct.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 25, 2017
PAGE 4
Commissioner Clements asked for clarification on the grading and asked if the business park area could be left at a
higher elevation than recycling site. Clements stated that he does want to see all of the elevations to the east lowered in
the future. Mr. Drysdale confirmed that it would need to be brought down slightly but that might too premature to
discuss final grades.
Commissioner Freeman questioned if the trucks need to be washed out in between loads and whether or not this
washing would require additional water. Mr. Domke stated that they are not required to wash the trucks. There was
concern expressed about the amount of material hauling and the potential effect of heavy trucks on adjoin roads.
Domke indicated that SKB can do the traffic study requested but it only calculates volume of traffic not weight of
individual vehicles.
Commissioner Clements questioned if the potential use of this facility would increase the truck traffic. Domke replied no
because the trucks that SKB will be using are currently going to their old mining site and instead will now be coming to
this site. Clements stated that a new company would be managing the mining site. and that this is part of the reason why
a traffic study is necessary. He sees the potential for increased truck traffic.
MOTION by Clements to continue the public hearing to the May 23, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting.
Second by Mele.
Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion Passes.
The public hearing was continued to the May 23, 2017 meeting at 8:57 pm.
Additional Comments:
Commissioner Mele stated that he agreed to table this item until staff can get some questions answered. With the
uniqueness of this project it leaves some important topics that need to be addressed. Mele stated that he thinks that the
traffic study would be helpful. It would also be helpful to get further clarification on the excavation process.
Commissioner VanderWiel stated that she doesn’t see an issue with the MUSA and that other potential applicants won’t
be similarly situated. VanderWiel stated that she has some concerns about the grading on the property and how it
pertains to the property to the east.
Commissioner Freeman stated that she is open to developing within the MUSA line because of the uniqueness of the
projects location as long as all of the other questions get worked out.
Commissioner Clements stated that he would be open to approving the application as long as the waste water system is
sized for 350 gallons/day and would then support the septic until the sewer is available. Clements stated that it would be
beneficial to raise the grading by at least 10 feet so that it would be an easier transition to the North. Clements stated
that he fully supports the traffic study. Clements stated that on the class five it would be helpful to have large traffic
barriers set up to show separation.
Chair Kenninger stated that her largest area of concern is the grading and that she would like to see it raised to help with
the transition. Kenninger stated that she would like to see that the agreement on the sewer and septic is fully
documented so that when it is time to hook up there is no confusion. The traffic study would be helpful but doesn’t
seem like it would be necessary based on the information provided.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 25, 2017
PAGE 5
Commissioner Clements asked for clarification from Community Development Director Lindquist on the possibility
that the ash would be sellable and whether or not it was a done deal. Lindquist stated that the proposed uses would be
approved through the PUD Master Plan and a Final Site and Building Plan, meaning that this is the only time the plan
will come before the Planning Commission and City Council. Lindquist stated that one of the General Industrial zoning
requirements is a 10 percent building coverage requirement. If the fourth building doesn’t happen then the applicant
would not meet that requirement. The City needs to know exactly what the site is going to be used for and what the plan
is before approval. What the applicant shows on the plan is what the City expects to happen. Clements asked that the
applicant put together a phasing plan for the site so the City can understand what the plan is for the specific site and in
what time frame. Mr. Domke confirmed that he could provide this information. Commissioner Mele stated that the
Commission needs to make sure that the applicant is meeting the minimum requirements of General Industrial. He does
not want the applicant to avoid constructing the fourth building in the future. The Commission needs to stay consistent.
Chair Kenninger stated that the Commission would like to have a guideline of a phasing schedule from the applicant by
the next meeting.
Motion by Clements to table the application and request additional information and plan revisions as
discussed in the Staff report until the May 23rd, 2017 Planning Commission meeting.
Second by Freeman.
Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion Passes.
Planning Commission agreed to take a 5-minute recess starting at 9:10 p.m.
Planning Commission meeting continued at 9:15 p.m.
6.b. Rezoning from GI-General Industrial to C4-General Commercial for property at 3615 145th Street, Lot 1,
Block 1, Rich Valley Industrial Park and Outlot B Rich Valley Industrial Park. (17-17-RZ)
Planner Nemcek gave a brief summary of the staff report.
Commissioner Clements inquired if the current map shows the changes with the County’s acquisition to this property.
Nemcek stated that it does not. It was created using the existing parcel lines.
The public hearing opened at 9:22 pm.
Public Comments: None.
MOTION by VanderWeil to close the public hearing.
Second by Clements.
Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion Passes.
The public hearing closed at 9:23 pm.
Additional Comments:
Chair Kenninger clarified that this item is getting brought forward at this time to make it clear that this property is for
commercial use. Lindquist confirmed that is correct.
Motion by Mele to recommend the City Council approve the rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1, Rich Valley
Industrial Park and Outlot B, Rich Valley Industrial Park from GI-General Industrial to C4-General
Commercial.
Second by Clements
Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion Passes.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
April 24, 2018
PAGE 7
6.d. Request by SKB Environmental for a Master Development Plan, PUD Final Site and Building Plan and Simple
Plat for a Metals Recycling Facility and Maintenance Shop. (18-21-PUD and 18-22-SMP Formerly: 17-08-PUD and 17-
16-SMP)
Senior Planner Klatt gave a brief summary of the staff report for the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Clements stated that the site is turning into a mining site without the mining permit.
Commissioner VanderWiel stated that she agrees with Commissioner Clements and stated that she feels more
comfortable now that the EAW has been completed.
Commissioner Reed inquired if there were any comments from residents at previous meetings. Klatt stated that there
were none at the last meeting and one resident at the prior meeting that had questions on the separation between her
property to the north and the applicants buildings.
The public hearing opened at 9:53 pm.
Public Comments:
Ryan O’Gara, SKB Environmental, 13225 Gallaria Court, Apple Valley, stated that the initial concept plan approval
indicated that the project would be removing sand from the property. Mr. O’Gara stated that they agree with all of the
proposed conditions except for two; the first being the acceleration lane. Mr. O’Gara is concerned that if MnDot does
not approve the lane then their project would be stalled. The second being the park land dedication fee. This fee was not
brought to their attention until the end of this application process.
Commissioner VanderWiel stated that she strongly disagrees with Mr. O’Gara’s comments.
MOTION by VanderWiel to close the public hearing.
Second by Clements.
Ayes: 6. Nays: 0. Motion Passes.
The public hearing was closed at 10:12 pm.
Additional Comments:
Commissioner Mele inquired if MnDot does not approve their application what happens to the project. Klatt stated that
staff believes MnDot will support an acceleration lane if it is designed and built to their specifications. Asst. City
Engineer Hatcher stated that this recommendation stems from the EAW and that MnDot has reviewed the traffic study.
Commissioner Clements questioned that if the commission passes this item tonight do they miss their opportunity to
change the wording in the ordinance before they start digging. Klatt stated that if you have concerns with the project
then you can use that for your basis of your vote. Staff will be coming forward with an ordinance amendment that will
not allow mining of a site relating to site development but it will not impact this project, but would affect any future
phases.
MOTION by Mele to recommend the City Council approve a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master
Development Plan and PUD Final Site and Building Plan for the SKB Metals Recycling Facility, Maintenance
Shop, and Waste Exchange Operation with the following conditions:
a. Execution of a PUD Agreement.
b. Payment in lieu of required trees of $68,100.00 (calculated as 227 trees x $300 per tree).
c. Entry signs shall be subject to sign permits and normal zoning standards. Appropriate sight distances
must be maintained.
d. Secure a NPDES construction storm water permit.
e. Erosion control best management practices such as silt fence, inlet protection, and a stabilized
construction entrance will be in place during construction to reduce sedimentation and prevent
erosion from the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
April 24, 2018
PAGE 8
f. The landscaping on the site shall utilize native plant species. The landscape plan shall be updated to
incorporate additional native trees and shrubs for diversity.
g. Tree protection must be installed prior to the start of any grading.
h. Pollinator-friendly seed mixes shall be used as ground whenever possible in place of rock, mulch or
turf grass.
i. The buildings on the site will be required to connect to public sanitary sewer service within one year
of this service being extended and available to the site. The City will plan on a service connection in
the location shown on the site development plans.
j. An acceleration lane must be installed at the exit to the landfill at Highway 55. The acceleration lane
must be reviewed by MnDOT, and shall be completed prior to completion of the first building within
the PUD area.
k. The septic treatment area shall be clearly delineated on the development plans and conflicts with
other activities in this area, including utilities, vehicle access, landscaping and other site improvements,
must be avoided.
l. The septic system must comply with all applicable city and state regulations with a final design and
location approved by City.
m. Execution of a subdivision agreement, or other form of agreement as approved by City, pertaining to
the water main extension.
n. The driveway access at Ehlers Path entrance is restricted to employees and service vehicles only.
Truck access shall be limited to the landfill connection road. No vehicles coming to or from the
landfill site may use the Ehlers Path entrance.
o. An operating permit for holding tank is required and the tank must be pumped at frequencies
identified in permit.
p. The grading permit must include a phasing plan approved by the City and detail the proposed timing
of excavation of gravel material, the construction of buildings and site infrastructure, the installation
of the septic system, and construction of the storm water pond.
q. No outside storage is allowed.
r. The storm water pond will be designed to include an area for infiltration as required by the City.
s. Tree clearing and grubbing will occur between August and March to avoid impacts to endangered
species within the project area.
t. Dust control measured shall be used throughout the site to control dust from gravel hauling and site
operation.
u. The applicant shall comply with state noise standards.
v. Compliance the City Engineer’s review memorandum dated April 19, 2018.
w. Compliance with the mitigation strategies included in the EAW for the project.
Second by Reed.
Ayes: 6. Nays: 0. Motion Passes.
MOTION by Freeman to recommend approval of a simple plat for SKB Rosemount 1st Addition subject to
the following conditions:
a. Execution of a subdivision agreement concerning the extension of a City water main to the
project site.
b. Payment of a fee in lieu of park land dedication of $260,000 for 52 acres of General Industrial
Land.
c. All easements as required by City shall be included on the final plat.
Second by Clements.
Ayes: 6. Nays: 0. Motion Passes.
Record of Decision
SKB Environmental Waste Exchange Excavation and Metal Recycling Facilities EAW Record of Decision
City of Rosemount, MN
WSB Project No. 010901-000
SKB ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE EXCHANGE EXCAVATION AND METAL RECYCLING
FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT EAW
City of Rosemount
March 13, 2018
Prepared by:
WSB & Associates, Inc.
701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
763.541.4800 | wsbeng.com
SKB Environmental Waste Exchange Excavation and Metal Recycling Facilities EAW Record of Decision
City of Rosemount, MN
WSB Project No. 010901-000 Page 1
I. ADMINISTRATIVE BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Minnesota Rule 4410.4300, the City of Rosemount has prepared an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed SKB Environmental Waste Exchange and Metal
Recycling Facilities Project. This Record of Decision addresses State of Minnesota environm ental
review requirements as established in Minnesota Rule 4410.1700. SKB Environmental is the
project proposer for this project. The City of Rosemount is the Responsible Governmental Unit
(RGU).
The EAW was filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and circulated for
review and comments to the required EAW distribution list. A Notice of Availability for the initial
EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on January 22, 2018. Notices of Availability and Press
Releases were published in the Dakota County Tribune on Thursday January 25, 2018.
The public comment period ended February 21, 2018. Comments were received from Dakota
County, the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). All comments were considered in
determining the potential for significant environmental impacts. Summaries of the comments
received, and the City of Rosemount’s responses to those comments, are provided in Section III,
below.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
As to the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on this project and based on the
record in this matter, including the EAW and comments received, the City of Rosemount makes
the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions:
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SKB Environmental Inc. (SKB) is proposing to excavate 1.4 million cubic yards of sand
and gravel from 52 acres of land located adjacent to the existing SKB disposal facility for
the purposes of waste exchange, followed by the development of three buildings for
processing recyclable metals and one building for maintenance activities.
B. PROJECT HISTORY
• The project was subject to a mandatory EAW per Minnesota Rule 4410.4300
Subpt. 12B – Nonmetallic Mineral Mining.
• The EAW was distributed to the EQB and to the EQB mailing list on January 18,
2018.
• Public notices containing information about the availability of the EAW for public
review were provided to the Dakota County Tribune for publication in the January
25, 2018 paper.
• Hard copies of the EAW were provided for public review at Rosemount City Hall,
Trail Library, and the Environmental Conservation Library.
• A notice was published for the EAW in the January 22, 2018 EQB Monitor. The
public comment period ended February 21, 2018. Comments were received from
Dakota County, Metropolitan Council, MnDOT, MPCA, SHPO, and DNR. Copies
of these comment letters are hereby incorporated for reference and included in
Attachment A.
SKB Environmental Waste Exchange Excavation and Metal Recycling Facilities EAW Record of Decision
City of Rosemount, MN
WSB Project No. 010901-000 Page 2
C. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.
Minnesota Rule 4410.1700, subp. 1, states “An EIS [Environmental Impact Statement]
shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects.”
In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the
City of Rosemount must consider the four factors set out in Minnesota Rule 4410.1700,
subp. 7. With respect to each of these factors, the City of Rosemount finds the following:
1. MINNESOTA RULE 4410.1700, SUBP. 7.A - TYPE, EXTENT, AND REVERSIBILITY
OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
a. The type of environmental impacts and mitigation efforts anticipated as part of
this project include:
Zoning and Special Districts – The project area is zoned GI PUD – General
Industrial Planned Unit Development. Recycling operations are a conditional use
within the GI – General Industrial zoning district. Through either the planned unit
development (PUD) or the conditional use permit (CUP) approval process, the
City can place appropriate conditions on the operations of the facilities to mitigate
any environmental impacts that may arise.
Land Use – The City can use its Comprehensive Plan authority to ensure that
appropriate uses are located within the proximity of the uses and operations
proposed within this EAW.
Soil Disturbance and Removal - The project will involve soil disturbance and
excavation of approximately 1.4 million cubic yards of sand and gravel. A
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction
Stormwater permit will be required and erosion control best management
practices (BMPs) such as silt fence, inlet protection, and a stabilized construction
entrance will be in place during construction to reduce sedimentation and prevent
erosion from the site. The mining and hauling and handling of ash materials for
metal recycling operation is already occurring on-site with no complaints from
nearby receptors regarding dust. The addition of the three buildings will not result
in an increase to the mining intensity over what is currently occurring on-site.
Vegetation Removal - Approximately 1.5 acres of trees will be removed during
development. Trees and shrubs will be planted after construction to comply with
the City ordinances. The following mitigation measures have been recommended
by the DNR:
Use native plant species.
Landscaping plans should incorporate additional native trees and shrubs
for diversity.
Utilize pollinator-friendly seed mixes (such as those provided by BWSR)
as ground cover, opposed to rock, mulch, or turf grass, which provide
bloom times throughout each season.
Wastewater – No connection to city sanitary services is proposed during the
construction of this project. A future trunk sewer line will be constructed along
140th Street within the 2030 MUSA. The three recycling buildings will be serviced
by a septic system that will meet all siting and design standards for septic
system s and drain fields. The maintenance building will utilize a 3000-gallon
holding tank for wastewater that will be emptied by a licensed septic hauler
SKB Environmental Waste Exchange Excavation and Metal Recycling Facilities EAW Record of Decision
City of Rosemount, MN
WSB Project No. 010901-000 Page 3
approximately once per week.
Water Supply – The proposed project will increase average day water demands
by approximately 350 gallons per day for employees at the proposed recycling
buildings and approximately 130 gallons per day at the proposed maintenance
building. The wet process at the second recycling building will use approximately
350 gallons of water per day, but the water from this process will be reused and
recycled. These flows will be delivered from an existing city water main located
along Trunk Highway 55 (TH 55), northwest of the project. Once at final grades,
water service connections will be constructed between all four proposed
buildings. A 16-inch water main will be constructed from the existing water main
along TH 55 and will extend to the east along TH 55 for approximately 2,400
linear feet where it will be plugged for a future water main connection. The City’s
existing water storage and supply will be adequate in managing the increased
water demand from this proposed project.
Water Quality – The City has commented that the dead-pool portion of the
stormwater pond is 1.4 times larger than what is required to meet NURP
requirements. It has been recommended that SKB regrade the pond with either
an infiltration bench or a two-celled system. Infiltration is also anticipated to occur
along the side slopes of the South basin. Per Rosemount Stormwater
Management Plan Requirements, the stormwater pond will be required to retain
and infiltrate the 100-year runoff volume from the entire site. There are no
restricted activities proposed for this site that would prohibit infiltration.
Based on available geotechnical boring information, the anticipated depth to
shallow groundwater at the site is greater than 40 feet below grade, deeper than
the proposed excavation of the project.
Transportation – A Traffic Impact Study was completed for the project. This
Study provided a comprehensive look at existing traffic conditions and
anticipated traffic impacts for the regional area and identified recommended
mitigation improvements for 2021 and by 2040 as the area develops. The
recommendations include:
1. 2021 with the SKB Recycling Facility Full Development Condition
• No intersection operates below LOS C; however, as a result of
primarily the background traffic, Courthouse Boulevard (TH 55)
at 145th Street (CSAH 42) will experience unsatisfactory delay in
the northbound direction during the PM peak hour. This can be
mitigated by signalization of the intersection.
• Traffic safety issues are anticipated for exiting truck traffic from
the site at the Courthouse Boulevard (TH 55) and Existing Site
Entrance. This can be mitigated with the addition of an
acceleration lane for exiting traffic.
2. 2040 with SKB Recycling Facility Full Development Condition
• No intersection operates below LOS C except Courthouse
Boulevard (TH 55) at 145th Street (CSAH 42) which will operate
at LOS F with the existing conditions, primarily due to the
background traffic. This can be mitigated by signalization of the
intersection and geometric improvements with the addition of a
SKB Environmental Waste Exchange Excavation and Metal Recycling Facilities EAW Record of Decision
City of Rosemount, MN
WSB Project No. 010901-000 Page 4
through lane on Courthouse Boulevard (TH 55) and dual left turn
lanes from Courthouse Boulevard (TH 55) to 145th Street (CSAH
42).
• No traffic safety issues are anticipated if the mitigation from 2021
was implemented at the Courthouse Boulevard (TH 55) and the
Existing Site Entrance.
Wildlife – The state-listed endangered loggerhead shrike is known to occur near
the proposed project. Tree clearing and grubbing will occur between August and
March, outside of the prime nesting period of this species, to avoid impacts. It is
recommended that natural netting erosion control products are used to prevent
injury to wildlife.
Noise – It was determined that the scope of the new operations would not have
impact on the adjacent receptors and therefore no analysis was conducted.
There may be a slight increase in noise during construction and equipment
should be fitted with proper mufflers and contractors should follow city noise
ordinances.
b. The City of Rosemount finds that the analysis completed for the EAW is
adequate to determine the extent and reversibility of environmental impacts for
the proposed project. This document provides clarifications and summarizes the
dominant and recurring issues within the EAW. By following the proposed
mitigation and the responses to comments, impacts which cannot be avoided will
be minimized to the extent practical.
2. MINNESOTA RULE 4410.1700, SUBP. 7.B - CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS
OF RELATED OR ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS
The project area is zoned GI PUD – General Industrial Planned Unit Development
and recycling operations are a conditional use within the GI – General Industrial
zoning district. The properties to the south are guided LI – Light Industrial and BP –
Business Park, and the properties to the east are guided BP – Business Park. These
guided uses are all compatible with the proposed industrial use of the project area.
The project area is within the 2030 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). No
reasonable foreseeable future projects that would combine with the impacts
described in this EAW to create cumulative impacts exist.
3. MINNESOTA RULE 4410.1700, SUBP. 7.C - THE EXTENT TO WHICH
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFECTS ARE SUBJECT TO MITIGATION BY ONGOING
PUBLIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY
a) The following permits or approvals may be required for the project:
Unit of government Type of application Status
State
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit To be obtained
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Industrial Stormwater Permit To be obtained,
if necessary
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Solid Waste Permit To be obtained,
if necessary
Minnesota Department of Health Water main plan review To be obtained
Minnesota Department of Transportation Drainage Permit To be obtained,
SKB Environmental Waste Exchange Excavation and Metal Recycling Facilities EAW Record of Decision
City of Rosemount, MN
WSB Project No. 010901-000 Page 5
if necessary
Minnesota Department of Transportation Misc. work permit To be obtained
County
Dakota County Solid Waste Processing License Type A To be obtained
Local
City of Rosemount Land use application (PUD) Under review
City of Rosemount Declaration of Need for an EIS To be obtained
City of Rosemount Building and/or grading permit To be obtained
City of Rosemount Platted subdivision To be obtained
City of Rosemount Subsurface Sewage Treatment System
Maintenance Permit
To be obtained
b) The City of Rosemount finds that the potential impacts identified as part of the
proposed SKB Environmental Waste Exchange and Metal Recycling Facilities
project are minimal and can be addressed through the regulatory agencies as
part of the permitting process. As a result, additional analysis of these impacts is
not required.
4. MINNESOTA RULE 4410.1700, SUBP. 7.D - THE EXTENT TO WHICH
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAN BE ANTICIPATED AND CONTROLLED AS A
RESULT OF OTHER AVAILABLE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY
PUBLIC AGENCIES OR THE PROJECT PROPOSER, INCLUDING OTHER EISs.
The City finds:
1. The proposed project is reasonably similar to other General Industrial
development projects. Other similar and large-scale General Industrial
developments have been completed across Minnesota in recent years.
2. No EIS that addresses a similarly sized project is known to be available in
the City of Rosemount or the surrounding area.
3. Considering the results of environmental review and permitting processes
for similar projects, the City of Rosemount finds that the environmental
effects of the project can be adequately anticipated, controlled, and
mitigated.
The City of Rosemount finds that the environmental effects of the project can be
anticipated and controlled as a result of the environmental review, planning, and
permitting processes.
SKB Environmental Waste Exchange Excavation and Metal Recycling Facilities EAW Record of Decision
City of Rosemount, MN
WSB Project No. 010901-000 Page 6
D. CONCLUSIONS
The SKB Environmental Waste Exchange Excavation and Metal Recycling Facilities
EAW and comments received have generated information adequate to determine that the
proposed project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects.
The EAW has identified areas where the potential for environmental effects exist, but
appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project plans and the
required approvals and permits to mitigate these effects will be obtained. The project will
comply with all county, city, state, and federal review agency requirements.
Based on the criteria established in Minnesota Rule 4410.1700, the project does not have
the potential for significant environmental effects.
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not have the potential
for significant environmental impacts.
Therefore, an EIS is not required for the SKB Environmental Waste Exchange Excavation
and Metal Recycling Facilities project.
III. AGENCY COMMENTS AND CITY OF ROSEMOUNT’S RESPONSES
A 30-day comment period for the above-referenced EAW ended on February 21, 2018.
Comments were received from Dakota County, Metropolitan Council, MnDOT, MPCA, SHPO,
and DNR. On behalf of the City of Rosemount as the RGU, comment responses are provided
below.
These comment letters are included in Attachment A. Comments received and responses are
summarized below.
Department of Natural Resources
Comment 1: Page 17. Loggerhead shrike is not a federally listed endangered species,
however it is federally protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. As stated in
the EAW, clearing and grubbing trees and shrubs outside of the nesting periods
will help minimize impacts to nesting birds.
Response:
The City understands that the loggerhead shrike is only a state-listed
endangered species. Clearing and grubbing of trees will occur between August
and March to minimize impacts to this species.
Comment 2: Page 17. Steep slopes do not necessarily make the area on the southern side of
the project undesirable habitat.
Response:
The southern side of the project area contains a steep slope that may provide
wildlife habitat. Approximately 1.3 acres of these trees at the southwest corner of
the site will be removed and approximately 6.2 acres will remain undisturbed.
Comment 3: Page 18. The EAW should discuss invasive species BMP’s that will be employed
as part of the project to avoid introduction and spread of invasive species from
the project and operation.
SKB Environmental Waste Exchange Excavation and Metal Recycling Facilities EAW Record of Decision
City of Rosemount, MN
WSB Project No. 010901-000 Page 7
Response:
Appropriate actions such as cleaning equipment prior to site entry or exit, and
chipping/destroying invasive species will prevent the spread of invasive species
on site. If necessary, herbicide application to pockets of weed growth or regrowth
of invasive woody species may be implemented during and after construction.
Comment 4: Page 19 and Appendix B. We appreciate the use of native plants for landscaping.
We recommend that you consider incorporating additional native tree and shrub
species for diversity, as well as plant with a native pollinator friendly seed mix as
ground cover (opposed to rock, mulch, or turf grass). Incorporating these types of
plants into the landscaping can cut down on maintenance costs (due to mowing
and watering) and can also help stabilize screening slopes. The Minnesota Board
of Soil and Water Resources has a list of state seed mixes on their website that
can help with planning purposes. To provide habitat for pollinators, we
recommend planting a diverse mix of plants, with bloom times that extend from
spring through fall. In addition, we recommend that any erosion control materials
used on the project site be made of natural netting (ex. types 3N or 4N) and not
contain plastic welding (see attachment) in order to prevent entanglement of
small wildlife.
Response:
During final design of the project’s planting plan, the City will work with the
developer to incorporate additional native tree and shrub species as well and
utilizing a pollinator-friendly seed mix as ground cover where feasible. Additional
measures such as using species that have bloom times throughout the year and
the use of all natural-netting erosion control materials will also be considered.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Comment 1: Project Description (Item 6). The EAW does not provide details on the process
involved in recovering non-ferrous metals from ash and converting ash to an
aggregate. Expected details include: if the process is wet or dry, any chemicals
used in the process, waste products generated as part of the process, the source
of the ash material, storage tanks, etc. In addition, information regarding the
activities conducted in the maintenance building and the chemicals that may be
used/stored in the building, and how they are disposed of, is not provided.
Response: The first building furthest north will utilize a dry process similar to the
operation currently occurring on-site, while the second building utilizes a wet
process. The water is recycled and reused as part of the wet process. No
chemicals are used in either the dry or wet process. Waste products generated
as part of the recycling process will be dirt and ash which will be hauled to the
landfill for disposal. The source of the ash material to be recycled is from the
Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC). This includes newly delivered ash
as well as ash that had previously been landfilled. The activities to be conducted
in the maintenance building include completing preventative maintenance such
as, engine tune-ups, oil changes, tire rotation and changes, wheel balancing,
replacing filters, etc. on the heavy equipment used to operate the landfill. Typic al
chemicals utilized in any heavy equipment maintenance shop such as lubricants,
oils, hydraulic fluids, cleaners, etc. will be stored and utilized in the proposed
maintenance shop. The chemicals will be stored and disposed of in accordance
with all applicable requirements and permits.
Comment 2: Permits and Approvals Required (Item 8). The MPCA recommends the Project
proposer determine if the Project requires an Industrial Stormwater Permit by
SKB Environmental Waste Exchange Excavation and Metal Recycling Facilities EAW Record of Decision
City of Rosemount, MN
WSB Project No. 010901-000 Page 8
following the "10 Steps to Compliance" on the MPCA webpage located at. For
industrial stormwater questions, please contact David Bodovinitz at 507-206-
2654.
Response:
This permit table has been updated as shown in Item 3 of this document.
Comment 3: Permits and Approvals Required (Item 8). It is likely that operation of the metal
recycling facility will require an MPCA Solid Waste Permit. For questions
regarding the solid waste permit, please contact Dan Aamodt at 651-757-2435.
Response:
This permit table has been updated as shown in Item 3 of this document.
Comment 4: Air (Item 16). The EAW does not discuss the potential for dust issues from the
mining operations or the hauling and handling of ash materials during metal
recycling operations and the impacts on nearby receptors and the environment.
Response: The hauling and handling of ash materials for metal recycling
operation is already occurring on-site with no complaints from nearby receptors
regarding dust. Additional dust may be experienced during the hauling and site
preparation construction phase. The developer will be required to institute dust
control measures throughout project construction. The addition of the three
buildings will not result in an increase to the mining intensity over what is
currently occurring on-site.
Comment 5: Air (Item 16). The EAW did not address the potential for odor issues with respect
to the metal recycling operations.
Response: The metal recycling operation is already occurring on-site with no
complaints from nearby receptors regarding odor. This would be expected due to
the generally odorless nature of the metal and ash. The addition of the three
recycling buildings, which are enclosed, is not expected to generate additional
odors over what is currently occurring on-site.
Comment 6: Noise (Item 17). The EAW addressed briefly an increase in noise during
construction activity but did not demonstrate any consideration of the state noise
rules or noise created by new operations in the proposed expansion area. Given
that the expansion would bring excavation and recycling activities closer to a
residence on the southeast side of the proposed expansion area, it would be
beneficial for SKB to be aware of the state noise standards in Minn. R. ch. 7030.
The state noise standards, which are independent of city or county rules and
ordinances, are based on noise heard at a receptor. These receptor-based
standards are determined by a project's proximity to different Noise Area
Classifications (NACs). Residences are considered NAC 1, and have the most
stringent noise standards.
Response: The City and developer will take this comment under advisement. It
was determined that the scope of the new operations would not have impact on
the adjacent receptors and therefore no analysis was conducted.
Comment 7: Noise (Item 17). A cumulative increase in traffic noise after construction, in
combination with other recycling activities, may result in increased noise at the
nearby residence. Without any monitoring or modeling information, it is difficult to
say what the noise impacts of the Project may be. At this time, the MPCA has no
SKB Environmental Waste Exchange Excavation and Metal Recycling Facilities EAW Record of Decision
City of Rosemount, MN
WSB Project No. 010901-000 Page 9
concerns; however, if any questions arise regarding noise mitigation after
operations begin in the expansion area, or any other aspect of the state noise
rules as they apply to the Project, the proposer and/or the Responsible
Governmental Unit are encouraged to contact the MPCA.
Response:
If increased noise levels are a concern after the completion of the project, the
City will contact the MPCA regarding noise mitigation.
Comment 8: Noise (Item 17). Finally, the MPCA encourages SKB to ensure that construction
and excavation equipment is fitted with the appropriate mufflers during all
construction and operation activities. For noise related questions, please contact
Christine Steinwand at 651-757-2327.
Response:
Given the proximity to local residences, construction and hauling equipment will
utilize appropriate measures to reduce noise during construction and operations
where feasible.
MnDOT
Comment 1: Drainage Permit: A drainage permit may be required. In looking over the
submitted information, it is not adequate to eliminate the requirement for a
drainage permit. It is MnDOT's policy that current drainage patterns do not
change and drainage rates to MnDOT right-of-way must not be increased.
To determine if a drainage permit is needed, please provide a grading plan
showing existing and proposed contours. Also provide drainage area maps for
the proposed project showing existing and proposed drainage areas with flow
directions indicated by arrows.
Response: This permit table has been updated as shown in Item 3 of this
document.
Comment 2: Permits: Aside from the drainage permit, any use of or work within or affecting
MnDOT right of way requires a permit. Permit forms are available from MnDOT’s
utility website at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/utility/index.html Please include one
to one set of plans formatted to 11X17 with each permit application. Please
submit/send all permit applications and 11X17plan sets to:
metropermitapps.dot@state.mn.us.
Response: The developer will obtain all necessary permits to work within
MnDOT right-of-way.
Metropolitan Council
Comment 1: Item 7 - Cover Types (Jim Larsen, 651-602-1159) Table 2 on page 6 of the EAW
estimates there will be approximately 11 acres of impervious surface on the site
following development as proposed on Figure 3 - the Phase 1 Detailed Site
Development and Grading Plan, in Appendix B. The 11-acre estimate appears to
Council staff to underestimate the extent of impervious surface coverage by a
few acres, when all planned asphalt surfaces and site buildings footprints are
considered.
SKB Environmental Waste Exchange Excavation and Metal Recycling Facilities EAW Record of Decision
City of Rosemount, MN
WSB Project No. 010901-000 Page 10
Response: The PUD application dated March 2017 states that the 52-acre site
will have 36.2 acres of new impervious. New impervious will consist of four (4)
new recycling buildings (227,000 sq-ft), parking bituminous parking (608,000 sq-
ft), class 5 operations areas, and access roads from 140th Street.
Comment 2: Item 9 - Land Use (Jan Youngquist, 651-602-1029) The reference to "Spring
Land Park Reserve" in the text in the Existing Land Use Section 9.a.i on page 7
should be changed to "Spring Lake Park Reserve." The planned Rosemount
Greenway Regional Trail and the Project ' s proposed 30-foot wide trail easement
should be described in the Planned Land Use Section 9.a.ii on page 7 of the
EAW. The boundaries of Spring Lake Park Reserve are incorrect as shown on
the Figure 7 - Parks and Trails map in Appendix A. Additionally, the Mississippi
River Regional Trail and the planned Rosemount Greenway Regional Trail
should be added to the map. Maps and shapefiles of the regional parks system
units in Rosemount can be downloaded from the Rosemount Community Page
on the Council 's
website: https://lphonline.metc.state.mn.us/CommPage?ctu=2396433&applicant
=Rosemount.
Response: The Rosemount Greenway Regional Trail is shown running along the
western boundary of the EAW area and along the eastern edge of the existing
SKB landfill. On November 29, 2016, the Dakota County Board authorized a
study of the Mississippi River Regional Trail alignment which at that time a
portion of the Trail ran along MN Highway 55 near the SKB landfill. On March
21, 2017, the Dakota County Board rescinded the MN Highway 55 Mississippi
River Regional Trail alignment and adopted an alignment in general alignment
with the Pine Bend Trail. With this re-alignment of the Mississippi River Regional
Trail, the Rosemount Greenway Regional Trail alignment is expected to be
moved to the northwest side of the existing SKB landfill and therefore moving the
Rosemount Greenway Regional Trail alignment outside of the EAW boundary.
Given the uncertainty of the trail alignment, the update to Figure 7 is obsolete.
Comment 3: Item 12.b. - Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes (Jim Larsen, 651-602-
1159) Information in the EAW regarding the size and location of the proposed on-
site sanitary waste holding tanks is inconsistent. The text in Section 12.b. on
page 16 indicates a 3000-gallon onsite wastewater holding tank will be installed
for use by the maintenance building, and the text in Section 11.b.i.2 on page 11
states the maintenance building will be serviced by a 1000-gallon onsite
wastewater holding tank during the planning and construction phases of the
future sanitary sewer service line. Council staff suspects the latter-referenced
1000-gallon tank should more accurately be identified as servicing the three
recycling buildings, and not the maintenance building.
Response: The maintenance building will be serviced by a 3000-gallon holding
tank.
Comment 4: Item 12.b. - Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes. The text on page 11
also indicates a septic drain field is proposed to be sited and constructed south of
the three recycling buildings. The site plan drawings incorporated in the EAW do
not identify the locations of planned primary and secondary drainfield sites, but
they will be difficult if not impossible to site on the 52-acre parcel, due to the
extent of land modification and excavation planned on the site, considering the
MPCA Rule 7080.2150 requirement that soil absorption areas must be
constructed in 'original', unaltered soils. Council staff requests that the Project
proposer clarify the planned holding tank sizes and locations, and interim
SKB Environmental Waste Exchange Excavation and Metal Recycling Facilities EAW Record of Decision
City of Rosemount, MN
WSB Project No. 010901-000 Page 11
Subsurface Sewage Treatment System plans for the facility in the Response to
Comments document.
Response:
The developer will be required to meet siting and design standards for the septic
system and drain field and will obtain all necessary permits.
Dakota County
Comment 1: 8. Permits and Approvals Required, page 6: An operating permit for the holding
tank would be useful, so that the City of Rosemount can verify proper
maintenance. Weekly pumping is frequent. SKB should have some form of
documentation stating that they intend to follow that strict pumping schedule.
Response:
The developer will meet all city regulations for the storage tank.
Comment 2: 11.b.i.2) Waste water discharge, page 11: Regarding the proposed maintenance
building, it is stated that the building will have a 1,000-gallon holding tank.
However Page 16, first paragraph, states that a 3,000-gallon holding tank will be
utilized. Please clarify the size of the holding tank at the maintenance building.
Response: The maintenance building will be serviced by a 3000-gallon holding
tank.
Comment 3: 11.b.ii. Stormwater, pages 11-1 2: The EAW suggests that stormwater treatment
will be adequately sized with plans to meet the City of Rosemount and NPDES
requirements for infiltration and rate control. However, the plans do not show an
infiltration area, only a stormwater pond. An infiltration area would be required
under the NPDES permit unless prohibited under Part 111.D.l(j) of the permit.
The EAW should address infiltration.
Response: The City has commented that the dead-pool portion of the
stormwater pond is 1.4 times larger than what is required to meet NURP
requirements. It has been recommended that SKB regrade the pond with either
an infiltration bench or a two-celled system. Infiltration is also anticipated to occur
along the side slopes of the South basin. Per Rosemount Stormwater
Management Plan Requirements, the stormwater pond will be required to retain
and infiltration the 100-year runoff volume from the entire site. There are no
restricted activities proposed for this site that would prohibit infiltration.
Comment 4: 12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes, page 13-14: No known
environmental contamination issues were identified on the property. If the
potential for vapor intrusion from volatile organic compounds derived from offsite
sources to the proposed buildings is possible, additional investigation and/or
mitigation may be needed.
The EAW states that if contamination or regulated materials are discovered
during project area redevelopment, materials will be handled and managed in
accordance with state and federal regulations. If solid waste, regulated materials
or contamination is found, please contact the Dakota County Environmental
Resources Department.
Response:
SKB Environmental Waste Exchange Excavation and Metal Recycling Facilities EAW Record of Decision
City of Rosemount, MN
WSB Project No. 010901-000 Page 12
If contamination or regulated materials are discovered during project area
redevelopment, the county and State Duty Officer will be notified and materials
will be handled/managed in accordance with county, state, and federal
regulations.
Comment 5: Transportation: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has
jurisdiction over the intersection at Trunk Highway (TH) 55 and County State Aid
Highway (CSAH) 42. MnDOT is the agency responsible for the assessment of
potential signal need and the recommended mitigation identified in the EAW.
Response:
The developer will work with MnDOT to obtain the appropriate project reviews
and assessment of the need for the recommended mitigation measures.
State Historic Preservation Office
Comment 1: Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no
properties listed in the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no
known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by
this project.
Response 1:
The City has noted that there are no known listed or suspected properties within
the project site.
SKB Environmental Waste Exchange Excavation and Metal Recycling Facilities EAW APPENDIX
City of Rosemount, MN
WSB Project No. 010901-000 Page 1
APPENDIX A – Agency Comment Letters