HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket AGECity CoNDA
uncil Reg ular Meeting
4ROSEMOUNTMay 15, 2007
CITY COUNCIL 7:30 .m. all
ity Council Chambers, City H
1 Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance
2.
Additions or Corrections to Agenda
3 Public Comment
4. Response to Public Comment
5. DEPARTMEN a. Commend s T on REoPORr �nSmBn of"Eagle Scout rank
6. CONSENT AGENDA 1 2007 City Council Proceedings
a. Minutes of the May
b. Bills Listing Parks &Recreation Dept. Project#410
c. Receive Donation.— —act Improvement Project, City
d. Settlement with Arcon 2007 CityProject jest
fe. Change Oid Order#ar ConnConemara Tower Painting,
411
f, Change
g. Kidder Park Apartments; goisclair Corp
7 PUBLIC HEARINGS
g_ OLD BUSINESS
a. Approval of the Rosemount Business Park EA
W
g. NEW BUSINESS
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS
11. ADJOURNMENTinyt cjy / q /sz, ./A,
tdtto :1_ 1,1„ ataft_frktt__(._
!
..111.11...-___
RSE \4cLIIscT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Meeting Date:May 15, 2007
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM: Kidder Park Apartments; Boisclair Corp Consent
io.
PREPARED BY: Jason Lindahl, AICP AGENDA NO.
Planner
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution of Support, Site Map, Existing APPROVED BY:
Site Plan, Proposed Redevelopment Plans
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve a resolution supporting redevelopment of
the Kidder Park apartment site.
SUMMARY
Applicant Boisclair Corporation
Location: North of Dodd Road, South of 145th Street West and East of
Cimarron Avenue
Area in Acres: Approximately 3.2 Acres
Density: 36 Units @ 11.25 Units/Acre
Comp. Guide Plan Desig: HR—High Density Residential
Current Zoning: R-3,Medium Density Residential
The applicant,Boisclair Corporation, requests the City Council approve a resolution supporting their
intent to redevelop the Kidder Park Apartment site. The applicant is applying to the Dakota County
Community Development Agency (CDA) for Section 42 federal housing tax credits to assist them with
redeveloping the subject property. According to the CDA,a resolution of support from the host city
would be a key component of their application. The existing site consists of 36 three-bedroom apartments
in nine buildings with associated garages, off-street parking,green space and recreational area.
The proposed redevelopment would renovate the apartment site within the footprint of the existing
buildings. The renovation plans to convert the single level flat style apartments into two-level townhomes
units. The renovation would also make significant changes to the buildings' exterior by adding covered
pedestrian entrances and windows along the street-side of the site,installing new patio areas and walkways
that connect with the City's sidewalk and trail system, residing the site with Hardie Board siding, and
replacing the accessory garage buildings.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approve of the attached resolution of support. The tax credit program is a competitive
program and support by the City would assist in obtaining the tax credits.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2007 -
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING REDEVELOPMENT OF
THE KIDDER PARK APARTMENT SITE
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received a
request from Boisclair Corporation for a resolution supporting their intent to apply for tax
credits to redevelop the Kidder Park apartment site located north of Dodd Road, south of
145th Street West and east of Cimarron Avenue and legally described as:
Lot 1, Block 1, Cimarron Village Townhouses, Dakota County, Minnesota
WHEREAS,redevelopment of the existing site will make improvements to the subject
property, upgrading the development and improving it for existing and future residents; and
WHEREAS,investment in the site will positively impact the neighborhood, and
WHEREAS,redevelopment of this site will encourage development of quality life-cycle
housing consistent with the City's Livable Communities Act Goals; and
WHEREAS, redevelopment of existing sites will promote the efficient use of land and
existing infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the proposed redevelopment intends to improve the pedestrian scale and
exterior appearance of the site by adding covered pedestrian entrances and windows along the
street-side of the site,installing new patio areas and walkways that connect with the City's
sidewalk and trail system,residing the site with Hardie Board siding, and replacing the
accessory garage buildings; and
WHEREAS, the proposed redevelopment works to promote Building Green by increasing
insulation and installing energy efficient windows, heating, air conditioning, and appliances;
and
WHEREAS, the redevelopment intends to provide more livable units by redesigning the units
to offer larger bedrooms and more interior storage area.
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
supports the Boisclair Corporation's intent to redevelop the Kidder Park apartment site.
ADOPTED this 15th day of May, 2007 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
William H. Droste,Mayor
ATTEST:
Amy Domeier, City Clerk
Motion by: Second by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Member absent:
Kidder Park Apartment Site _
x
gq
cci
u
►yam 16- AI. 4a .
/ --
/pow
l 4 F,7
999)
PI
� k
a
si
a
a
1-
x
u
/—I
// —
0
Copyright 2007,Dakota County-Map Date: May 9,2007
\V .
1
•
'� - GI1"fARRON;AYi=NU�,`'` �.""'" �� ,-�-",
. � -• '; - 8`��` � 'fin� 4'�
1
�Xm' z'I' — Fc t t Ali
N Ga Syy s v rho `�), Ai .f
a 1 'r�.: .�.,I 'fi '3- �fi�u''."., 'raf'sue, Ci . > ,
F Z, 4' Lw { OL •�x g 'I � 1�-' p {'fir
w
;, . e t —� BALD
a _
1
�\ ��\ • rn .
s-\,,
® -� ! ®® F.
O ctt :;
II X , \ f �
VJ y\ 1 `� F-M
cp
0,7
a� c .F �'` i ClCA07n, --^A N
\ / 71
\ U uP
G
`I ON N b
\ \ I A D a
a A D o�
\ II z n N
— 1
.;� -i N
\\ \`� \ ',I ;;I — noCP A
1 ON
\ :"I ID W O IP CP_i N n
\ \ I
�� I N NNNNNN
,'p ; -`I DTI ;n`II'ii`II.TI`)I
pu
3 ) l9
cm 0�D O_ \._._t ......
n,vrn F.
io o -'
mDK ti�
'am e 0 O3R
minor Om R.
33o• N 3—�
o r.y.
a cO
- D� »7
3 zP_s zo
8VWo $(D
o O cn co 0)
1
t
CIMARRON AVENUE
•
—— — .: ,:
_
flX nZ 82 .
- g. .� Nii.,.. ._... P- m zm yii c - e C '� - Ul
l
..••••••,, ...1 _-. ii
. -
.,__-:_•_,...:,.: .,•••: . _ - •• is L� . , `•• 1 N:,
z .AI h AAyy. al, ;ems 0-yr ��yF E
l- An 52 tm it m ',IL n • I /V;
..t7'.,-,1?-;:,'.'-'1,,\i-i.j':':•-!::,-1,.,,;:,,,, , .--,' , — ‘dt,:c—i44%ii- ...,‘ . .:.,itica-e , - . „. _:,\_',,,m,-_,,,,,,:, 17 rAiiegIv_. _ fz. . ..,- 1 ..,..,.: _i.
.74
�wA rD'D3
'15';',•: ::.::;I„':4•I-..\4:7.-: •. 'NA% '-,-1'.'...,' .
iilltli
I::,...--:...-...: ,..,.„.•,,,...:11.,-,.,„ ,,,AiltIv-to, _. ---. - ,--.--„„. :„....,_,,,„1, 1.r
,.._.:-_„.-.-.\••,-.,;:•„_-. ,--,.-? 0,.,_-- - .-...Ttb„,.: --..„. -, -1,. g . 1,-1 -,.r...,-; -, •
C 1it "0 _\\\'(\:):,„.,- i,..,....,..l0_ ,—A
mod$ bw -n //
i
3 0 e' ;/
CD
a. \�O \
\CD , `
-_, \ ^ .1 0 m01@lA(1PZ wwwA D Ifl
A GN ,411
—
" w" I.a 0 mnlv�A� A
m \ \ N Z a—
o &z v� I�::� A D0 tP0ON — m6\
\ 1 � m• u 1 A U.
0
\ I n A 1'• roN
\ \ I" 2L 4 m w n
\ .711 ll to
I
A
\ \\\\ .L,� .., 1 tN iD ai_1 CP zo. 6 N—
\ i 11 �o�� 6,,, to
\ W cow. CP d`CP A
\
,, :ii ,`No'n,'n,`n',Nn,1nn',T
a, :I
o \ i
,6' 3mm
'< = e1
'0)OSi
�o CD o
.vim¢� z
izo . z0
'°kcRi'3
ACWC03 DCO CI O ao •
.p
•
ag a
e . '�ks_cu'Fgi j
+s
,fix r, t
-'.s y..,3c -3 g .-
�"' �Eo --LL"`2
bye n f
fi` w"2
M
r ' -- .4.;'-'
i.._,---t..?,,, s
_ , . El s,.:1
- r 9
, .1
.. , 1
,.,_ , i „„-/
J , „ ;_:...,_, ...,\ : tt.
`1 ...,,,,,t
, ,,-.4.xt _.,_ ,
Ee.. a r,.Y y
. - e
1a", c * -
\st
p Ce
sytoo 3 - a - .f e ) e ag ..
r
t� f�
(ncD tr3 E F
44' §.s S r4r t4"4`
5.
y� 2 tea / ' 1.
4 "4g `1
3
�� r ;0
5.�' �
0.
y qx
CO
E rEa EH ti its:
•
�' . e
E E" /ham'; �,
—,4 -� - F
5 a/h A
o �E. e"
e un
3 F
II
®n�—Sj �+ 1
.°cn.g0 as
n� d a3
�Zo W zp
7 OI n N fill 3
O , "45- K
' k& A•
,—.a 0
CA)
+a i5 ti ,
•
ROSR\4OUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Meeting: May 15, 2007
AGENDA ITEM: Approval of the Rosemount Business AGENDA SECTION:
Park EAW Old Business
PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber, AICP; Senior Planner AGENDA NO. SA.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, EAW, Memorandum from
Terrance Jeffery of WSB, Agency
Comments, WSB responses to Agency APPROVED BY:
Comments, Findings of Facts and
Conclusions
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a Resolution issuing a negative declaration
of need of an Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemount Business Park.
ISSUE
An EAW was prepared for the Rosemount Business Park and distributed for review and comment on
February 26, 2007. The comment period ended on March 28, 2007. Comments were received from the
Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the
Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Dakota County Physical
Development Division, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. These comments and the
subsequent responses are included for your review. The findings of the EAW and the comments received
do not warrant further investigation in the form of an Environmental Impact Statement.
BACKGROUND
Ryan Companies is proposing to develop 41.4 acres within the Rosemount Business Park located south of
Boulder Avenue and east of TH 3. Under Minnesota Rules 4410.4300, subpart 14 "Industrial,
Commercial and Institutional Facilities" this proposed land use exceeded the threshold for a mandatory
EAW. Two concepts were provided for review and consideration during the EAW process. In both
scenarios 433,400 square feet of gross floor space would be created on either five or eight lots with varying
ratios of office space to warehouse space. The primary difference between the two scenarios was in the
number of units developed and the ratio of office space to warehouse space. Both scenarios were
considered when drafting the EAW.
During the review, no significant environmental, traffic or infrastructures issues were identified which
result from the development of this area to the proposed land use. The development is consistent with
the Rosemount Comprehensive Plan.
SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution issuing a negative declaration of need of an
Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemount Business Park for publication in the June 4, 2007
EQB Monitor.
2
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2007-
A RESOLUTION ISSUING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE ROSEMOUNT BUSINESS
PARK
WHEREAS, the preparation of the Rosemount Business Park EAW and comments received on
the EAW have generated information adequate to determine whether the proposed project has the
potential for significant environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the EAW has identified areas where the potential for significant environmental effects
may exist,but appropriate measures have or will be incorporated into the project plan and/or
permits to reasonably mitigate these impacts; and
WHEREAS, the Rosemount Business Park project is expected to comply with all the City of
Rosemount and other review agency standards; and
WHEREAS,based on the criteria established in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, the project does not have
the potential for significant environmental effects; and
WHEREAS,based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not have the
potential for significant environmental impacts.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Rosemount has determined that an
Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
ADOPTED this 15th day of May, 2007 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Amy Domeier, City Clerk
Motion by: Second by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Member absent:
WSB&Associates,Inc
701 Xenia Avenue S. Suite#300
Minneapolis,olis MN 55416
AOMMIllk
(763)541-4800
&Associates,Inc. (763)541-1700(fax)
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council, City of Rosemount
cc: Kim Lindquist, City of Rosemount
Andrew Brotzler, City of Rosemount
Genevieve McJilton,Ryan Companies US
Andrea Moffatt, WSB&Associates,Inc.
From: Terrance Jeffery, WSB &Associates,Inc.
Date: May 9, 2007
Re: Rosemount Business Park
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
City Project No. 413
WSB Project No. 1556-95
The public comment period for the Rosemount Business Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) ended March 28, 2007. The purpose of the EAW is to identify potential environmental impacts
and determine whether or not an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) is required. An EIS is a more
extensive environmental review process. Determining whether or not an EIS is needed does not equate
to providing approval or denial for the project.
Based on the information in the EAW and review agency comments regarding the EAW, the project
does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts that cannot be addressed as part of the
permitting and platting process. Therefore, it is our recommendation that an EIS is not required.
Enclosed,please find the following items for your review relating to this EAW:
• Rosemount City Council agenda item executive summary.
• The Findings of Fact on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS).
• Draft memo dated May 9, 2007 to the review agencies responding to comments received on
the EAW(hereby referred to as the comment/response memo). This memo restates the
agencies' comments and then responds to each issue.
• Resolution issuing a negative declaration of need
K11556-951AchmthDocsIEAWSubminaMpril181e-mad memo hmcc 050907doc
Honorable Mayor and City Council
May 9,2007
Page 2
Summary of Major Comments
Comments were received from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA),the Dakota County
Soil and Water Conservation District(DSWCD), the Metropolitan Council,the Minnesota Department
of Transportation(MnDOT), the Dakota County Physical Development Division(DCPDD) Department
and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Those comments supplied by DCPDD and the
Corps were received on March 30, 2007 after the comment period had ended. These comments are
summarized below:
• Because of the highly erodible nature of some of the soils on the subject property as well as
the extent of land to be graded,the DSWCD is considered about erosion issues and sediment
deposition off site. The DSWCD would like to see Low Impact Development(LID)
strategies, erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) and for the site
grading to be phased on the subject property. The comment response indicates that Ryan will
be phasing the development of the site and that they will be required to develop an erosion
control plan and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP). These items are to be
submitted to the City Engineer for review, comment and approval. In addition, Ryan will be
encouraged to use BMPs in a manner consistent with City policy. Ryan will also be made
aware of programs offered by DSWCD to assist development teams in the incorporation of
LID strategies and BMP implementation.
• The MPCA did not review the EAW and"therefore...has no specific comments"but wanted
to make clear that this does not constitute a waiver of required MPCA permits. Ryan
Companies is responsible for procurement of any permission required by the MPCA or any
other regulatory and oversight agencies.
• MnDOT stated that at such a time as the extension of Boulder Trail to TH 3 at Canada Circle
is necessary, right and left turn lanes will need to be constructed along TH 3. The EAW
addressed the need for these additional improvements.
• The Metropolitan Council pointed out that the subject property lies within the proposed
corridor for the Dakota County North South Regional Trail. The comment response
expressed the City's willingness to work with Dakota County during the trail planning
process and to identify and accommodate future trail alignments to the extent practicable and
feasible.
• Dakota County Physical Development Division had questions regarding the assumptions
used in the traffic model. These are addressed in the comment and response memo.
• The Corps confirmed that there were no known Waters of the United States on the subject
property.
K11556-951AdmmlDocslEAWISubmtttallAprtl181e-mail memo hmcc 050907.doc
Honorable Mayor and City Council
May 9,2007
Page 3
City Council Decision Action
The decision before the City Council regarding the EAW is to decide whether or not the project has the
potential for significant environmental impacts that cannot be addressed through the permitting
processes. If the Council determines that the project does not have the potential for these significant
environmental impacts,the Council should issue a Negative Declaration of Need for an EIS. If the
Council determines that the project does have the potential for significant environmental impact that
cannot be addressed through the permitting and approval process,the Council should require an EIS.
Based on the review completed by WSB &Associates, it is our recommendation that an EIS is not
needed for this project.
K11556-951AdminlDocsIEAWLSvbmitta[IAprill81e-mail memo hmcc 050907.doc
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency •
520 Lafayette Road North I St.Paul,MN 55155-4194 1651-296-6300 1800-657-3864 1651-282-5332 TTY I www.pca.state.mn.us
March 20,2007
Ms. Kim Lindquist
Community Development Director
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount,MN 55068
RE: Rosemount Business Park
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Dear Ms. Lindquist:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA)has received copies of the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet(EAW)prepared for the above project,prepared by the city of
Rosemount, Responsible Governmental Unit(RGU). The MPCA has not reviewed the EAW for
this project; therefore, the MPCA has no specific comments to provide the RGU. This decision
not to review the EAW does not constitute waiver by the MPCA of any pending permits required
by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the project proposer to secure any required
permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. The enclosed checklist identifies
permits that the project may require,together with the most recent contacts at the MPCA.
We remind the RGU that,pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 5 (Environmental Quality
Board Rules), a copy of the RGU's decision on this EAW needs to be sent to the MPCA.
Sincerely,
c4„--- 7
Jessica Ebertz
Project Manager
Environmental Review and Operations Section
Regional Division
JE:mbo
Enclosure
cc: Genevieve McJilton,Ryan Companies US,Inc.
St.Paul I Brainerd I Detroit Lakes I Duluth I Mankato I Marshall I Rochester I Willmar I Printed on 100%post-consumer recycled paper
• CHECKLIST I '
•
After a cursory review of the proposed project,the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA)staff noted areas that may
• need additional follow-up and/or a permit from the MPCA. Those specific areas are checked below:
•
SDS Permit—Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit
A State Disposal System(SDS)Permit is required for any extension of a sanitary sewer. If a sanitary sewer is
proposed as a part of this project,an application for the SDS Permit should be made to the MPCA by contacting
David Sahli,Municipal Division(MUN),Metro Region,at 651/296-8722.
[1, NPDES/SDS Permit for dredged material disposal.
If disposal of dredged material is anticipated, then Brett Ballavance(Duluth office)at 218/723-4837 or Jaramie
Logelim(Duluth office)at 218/529-6257(northern),or Elise Doucette(MUN/Metro Region)at 651/296-7290 or
Jeff Smith(Rochester office)at 507/285-7302(southern)should be contacted.
•
• n NPDES Permit—Construction Stormwater:
A General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)Permit from the MPCA for construction .
activities will be required for all projects that disturb one(1)or more acres of land. The NPDES Permit
specifically requires Best Management Practices which are detailed in the permit(additional information can be •
. found in the MPCA document Protecting Water Quality in Urban Area)to prevent erosion and control
sedimentation during construction and.a stormwater pollution prevention plan to manage pollutants in storm-
water runoff from the site that will occur after construction is complete. As a requirement of the NPDES Permit,
storm-water wet-detention ponds must be installed to treat the storm-water runoff whenever a project replaces
surface vegetation with one or more cumulative acres of impervious surface. If you have need of technical
• • assistance regarding this,please contact Michael Findorff(MUN/Metro Region)at 651/296-6798 or Todd Smith
(MUN)at 651/215-6008. For more general information,please contact the appropriate MPCA Regional Office
staff below:
❑ •Brainerd,Lisa Woog at 218/855-5017
. ❑ Duluth, Jim Dexter at 218/529-6253 • •
❑ Detroit Lakes,Joyce Cieluch at 218/846-7387
• ❑ Willmar/Marshall,Judy Mader(St.Paul office)at 651/296-7315 or
Mark Hanson(Marshall Office)at 507/537-6000
❑ Rochester,Roberta Getman at 507/280-2996
X' Metro,Brian Gove(REM/Metro Region)at 651/296-7597
❑ Industrial Stormwater
❑ Brainerd,Robin Novotny at 218/828-6114
❑ Duluth,John Thomas at 218/723-4928
❑ Detroit Lakes,Jack Frederick at 218/846-0734 •
-
• 0 Marshall,Brad Gillingham at 507/537-6381
❑ Mankato,Teri Roth at 507/389-5235 • '
0 Rochester,Dennis Hayes at 507/280-2991 •
❑ Rochester,Jeff Smith at 507/285-7302
0 Major Facilities,Elice Doucette(MUN/Metro Region)at 651/296-7290 •
❑ Willmar,Ben Koplin at 320/231-5321
❑ Septic Tank System
Individual septic tank systems design and construction must comply with Minn.R. 7080.
For additional information,contact Mark Wespetal(MUN, Water Policy and Coordination)at
651/296-9322.
6/21/05 1 OVER
n Water Quality Certification
Waiver of the Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required. When wetlands are altered or
impacted by filling,drainage,excavation,or inundation as part of the federal Clean Water Act Section 404 permit
process,a statement waiving the 401 Certification from our agency must be obtained.
If you have any questions regarding this,please contact Jennifer Olson,of the Regional Division,Business
Systems Unit 1,at 651/297-8611. The MPCA requires the project be evaluated for mitigation in accordance with
the following hierarchy of preference:
a. Avoid the impact.
b. Minimize the impact.
c. Mitigate the impact through wetland replacement.
❑ Demolition Debris
Demolition debris must be disposed of at a properly permitted disposal facility. For information on the location
of one nearest you,please contact the appropriate MPCA Regional Office staff below:
❑ Brainerd,Curt Hoffman at 218/828-6198 •
❑ Detroit Lakes,Roger Rolf at 218/846-0774
❑ Duluth,Heidi Kroening at 218/723-4795 or Tim Musick at 218/723-4708
❑ Marshall,Brad Gillingham at 507/537-6381
❑ Rochester,Mark Hugeback at 507/280-5585
❑ Metro,Jackie Deneen(MUN)at 651/297-5847
❑ Asbestos
Asbestos may be present in the building(s)that will be demolished,which requires special handling. Please
Contact Jackie Deneen(MUN)at 651/297-5847 for additional information. •
n Wells
Abandonment and/or installation of wells must be done by a licensed well driller. Please contact the Minnesota
Department of Health 651/215-0823 for additional information.
Above and Below Ground Tanks
The installation and/or removal of ALL above and below ground tanks must be reported to the MPCA before any
work begins. Please contact the MPCA Customer Assistance Center at 651/297-2274 or 800/646-6247 for
additional information.
n Potential Cumulative Effects
The section of the EAW designated for the analysis and discussion of potential cumulative effects is
incomplete. Please refer to Citizens Advocating Responsible Development v.Kandiyohi Board of
Commissioners,713 N.W.2d 817(Mimi.2006).The Court held that a"cumulative potential effects"inquiry
under Mimi.R.4410.1700,subp.7,requires a Responsible Governmental Unit to inquire whether a
proposed project,which may not individually have the potential to cause significant environmental effects,
could have a significant effect when considered along with other projects that(1)are already in existence,
are actually planned for,or for which a basis of expectation has been laid;(2)are located in the surrounding
area;and(3)might reasonably be expected to affect the same natural resources
n Other Issues Identified by Staff
6/21/05 2 OVER
DAKOTA COUNTY SOIL AND WATER
`' CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Dakota County Extension and Conservation Center
4100 220th Street West, Suite 102
, � Farmington, Minnesota 55024
Phone: (651)480-7777 Fax: (651)480-7775
www.dakotacountyswcd.org
March 15, 2007
Ms. Kim Lindquist
City of Rosemount
2875 145th St.West
Rosemount, MN 55068
RE: EAW for Rosemount Business Park
Dear Ms. Lindquist;
We have reviewed the EAW for the Rosemount Business Park and have the following comments:
We recommend planned and phased grading of this site in order to reduce possible soil loss when these
highly erodible soils are exposed. We also hope that the areas with 12%to 18%slopes are treated with
stabilizing practices within a short timeframe; again to decrease the possibility of erosion.
As you note in the EAW,this area currently has a high infiltration capacity. However, 35 acres of new
impervious surfaces is significant and will result in high amounts of runoff. In order to reduce the need for
large stormwater ponds and decrease the potential to impact downstream resources,we recommend both
innovative and proven low impact development and infiltration practices such as rain gardens, sunken
parking lot islands, and building downspouts directed toward pervious areas.
Additionally, in order to preserve the infiltration capacity of this area during and after construction,we
recommend that non-compacting grading and finishing practices be used whenever possible.
Native landscaping and prairie restoration(rather than 3.7 acres of turf)would also increase infiltration and
would require less watering, nutrients, pesticides, and labor to maintain.
The Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District has a variety of programs and services designed to
assist developers technically and financially with the implementation of best management practices like
those described above. In particular, our"Conservation Initiative Funding" Program may cost share large-
scale low impact development projects that could be employed on this site. A fact sheet on this program is
included.
We hope the development team can take advantage of this program. Thank you for the opportunity to
comment on this project.
Sincerely,
/51,,,e;24.7
Brian Watson, District Manager
Cc:Dakota County Water Resources Office
encl.
Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District
Fact Sheet
. .. . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. .. ..
Conservation Initiative Funding
The Conservation Initiative Funding (CIF) Projects will be ranked for eligibility based on
serves as a source for site designers and eight(8)criteria:
developers to obtain technical information and
cost share assistance to help integrate Low Impact 1. Water Quality Improvement: Improves
Development (LID) strategies into urban and protects water quality through
development and redevelopment projects. implementation of practices or processes.
Up to$40,000 of cost share funding is 2. Benefits to Wetlands, Lakes or Streams:
available to development projects in Dakota Improves or restores wetland, lake or stream
County that integrate Low Impact functions.
Development(LID)practices to reduce
storm water runoff and improve water 3. Soil Erosion Control: Implements controls
quality above the minimum measures to minimize erosion.
required by the regulating agencies.
4. Wildlife Habitat Improvement: Creates or
From concept design through final construction, improves wildlife habitat through plantings
our staff will assist you to successfully integrate or other restoration efforts.
LID practices into your project. Many types of
Low Impact Development (LID) practices will 5. Public Benefit: Provides water quality
qualify for this program Some examples include benefits, data, or other product that is readily
reduced impervious surfaces, gully, wetland, lake accessible and of use to the public. Includes
or stream restorations, vegetative buffer planting, public education components.
sediment basins and bioretention practices. All
projects must demonstrate water quality 6. Innovative Applications: Uses innovative
improvement to receiving waters. Proposed methods or techniques to study processes,
projects must comply with all local and state acquire data, or implement conservation
regulations. practices.
Cost Share applications will be reviewed for 7. Collaboration: Involves more than one
funding on a first come, first served basis. landowner or occupant and results in greater
Depending on project ranking and the availability resource protection because of this
of funding, cost share amounts up to a maximum collaboration.
of $40,000 may be approved to reimburse the
applicant for between 25% to 50% of the total 8. Public Outreach: Willingness of applicant
actual project cost. to allow signs, tours, and site visits to
promote the conservation activity.
Project proposals must also include a construction
schedule and a 10-year operation and maintenance
plan.
DAKOTA COUNTY SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
• Dakota County Extension and Conservation Center
4100 220th Street West, Suite 102
1 Farmington,MN 55024
�� _� Phone: (651)480-7777 Fax: (651)480-7775
Web site: www.dakotaswcd.org Adopted 2/1/07
tMetropolitan Council
March 26, 2007
Kim Lindquist
Community Development Director
City of Rosemount
2875 145t1i Street West
Rosemount,MN 55068
Re: City of Rosemount Environmental Assessment Worksheet(EAW)
Rosemount Business Park
Metropolitan Council Review No. 19974-1
Metropolitan Council District 16(Brian McDaniel, 952-239-3612)
Dear Ms. Lindquist:
The Metropolitan Council received an EAW for the Rosemount Business Park project on
February 23,2007. The proposed project is located between Biscayne Avenue and TH 3 and
south of Boulder Avenue. Ryan Companies is proposing to develop 41.1 acres of agricultural
land to a business park. Two concepts are proposed for developing warehouse and office space
and associated parking.
The staff review finds that the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns
and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. An EIS is not necessary for
regional purposes. However, staff offers the following comments for your consideration.
Item 18- Water Quality: Wastewaters
Concept A proposes 377,950 s.f. of warehouse and 180,950 s.f of office development for a
potential wastewater flow of 35,452 gpd. Concept B proposes 216,700 s.f. of warehouse and
216,700 s.f. of office for a potential wastewater flow of 33,222 gpd. The Metropolitan Disposal
System that provides service to this project location has adequate capacity.
Item 25-Nearby Resources
The EAW site is located within the Dakota County North South Regional Trail Search Corridor.
This regional trail that will connect the"Empire Wetlands"Regional Park to the proposed Chub
Lake Regional Park,the proposed Dakota South Cannon River Regional Trail, and Lake
Byllesby Regional Park. The trail does not have an approved master plan yet. Dakota County
will conduct a master planning process to determine the trail alignment and will include
Rosemount and others in the planning process. Steve.Sullivan,Dakota County Parks Director
(952-871-7088), is the contact person for Regional Park facilities.
www.metrocouncil.org
390 Robert Street North • St.Paul,MN 55101-1805 • (651)602-1000 • Fax(651)602-1550 • TTY(651)291-0904
An Equal Opportunity Employer
March 26,2007
Kim Lindquist
Page 2
This concludes the Council's review of the EAW. The Council will take no formal action on the
EAW. If you have any questions or need further information,please contact Greg Pates,
Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1410.
Sincerely,
. ?IAA.j6zer.rN,
Phylli anson,Manager
Local Planning Assistance
cc: Jack Jackson,MultiFamily Market Analyst,MHFA
Tod Sherman,Development Reviews Coordinator,MnDOT Metro Division
Brian McDaniel,Metropolitan Council District 16
Keith Buttleman,Environmental Services
Patrick Boylan, Sector Representative
Greg Pates,Principal Reviewer
Cheryl Olsen,Reviews Coordinator
VAR E VIEWS;Communities\ROSCmount\Letters\Rosemount 2007 EA\V Rosemount Business Pk 19974-I.doc
mEsotl Minnesota Department of Transportation
yoMetropolitan District
(11c
,oF�pd' Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, MN 55113-3174
March 27,2007
Kim Lindquist
Community Development Director
City of Rosemount
City Hall 2875— 145th Street West
Rosemount,MN 55068—4997
SUBJECT: Rosemount Business Park
Mn/DOT Review#EAW07-002
SE of TH 3 and Lower 150th St. W(CSAH 42)
Rosemount/Dakota County
Control Section 1921
Dear Ms.Lindquist:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Rosemount Business Park EAW. Mn/DOT's staff
has reviewed the document and has the following comments:
Traffic:
When the proposed future street is extended to TH 3 (across from Canada Circle),right and left
turn lanes will need to be constructed on TH 3. Please direct questions concerning this issue to
Sheila Kauppi at(651)634-2379,of Mn/DOT Metro's Traffic Engineering section.
Permits:
Any use of or work within or affecting Mn/DOT right of way requires a permit.Permit forms are
available from MnDOT's utility website at www.dot.state.mn.us/tecsup/utility .Please include
one 11 x 17 plan set and one full size plan set with each permit application. Please direct any
questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig(651-582-1447)of MnDOT's Metro
Permits Section.
Drainage:
The entire Rosemount Business Park project has been issued an approved drainage permit(D-
2006-11974)that includes all future additions to this business park. Therefore,no further
drainage permit will be required for this development.
As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as
plats and site plans to:
Development Reviews
Mn/DOT-Metro Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville,Minnesota 55113
Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2)
copies of other review documents including site plans.
An equal opportunity employer
Failure to.provide three(3)copies of a plat and/or two(2)copies of other review documents will
make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's 30-day review and response process to
development proposals.
We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this
will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals.
If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at
(651)582-1548.
Sincerely,
0. 00,,zosie
erman
Planning Supervisor
Copy: Eric Zweber/City of Rosemount
Genevieve McJilton,Ryan Companies US,Inc.
Copy sent via Groupwise:
E.Buck Craig/Permits
Ken Johnson/Area Engineer
Sheila Kauppi.Traffic
File Copy:
Mn/DOT Division File CS 1921
Mn/DOT Local Government File:Rosemount
COUNTY*4‘1
Physical Development Division
Gregory J.Konat,Director March 28,2007
Dakota County
Western Service Center
14955 Galaxie Avenue
Apple Valley,MN 55124-8579 Ms. Kim Lindquist
City of Rosemount
952.891.7000 2875 145th Street West
Fax 952.891.7031 Rosemount, MN 55068
www.dakotacounty.us •
Environmental Mgmt.Department
Farmland&Natural Areas Program RE: EAW for the Rosemount Business Park
Office of GIS
Parks Department
Office of Planning
Surveyor's Office Dear Ms. Lindquist:
Transit Office
Transportation Department Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the environmental
Water Resources Office assessment worksheet(EAW)for the Rosemount Business Park.
The two concept layouts have been reviewed by staff in the Physical Development
Division. Our comments are included with this letter. In addition,we have also
attached a series of maps that provide further explanation.
This property is in close proximity to the former Rosemount Dump Site. Potential
effects on the development are unknown at this time; however,we will continue to •
work with Rosemount to better understand the relationship between the dumpsite
and the proposed development. Cathy Undem of our Environmental Management
Department will contact you in the near future with the results of an environmental
analysis.
We look forward to working with you and the city of Rosemount as this project moves
forward. If you have any questions, please call me at(952)891-7034.
Sincerely,
Greg Kona , irector
Physical Development Division
Encl
cc: Willis Branning, Dakota County Commissioner—District 7
•
Panted on recycled paper
with 30%post-consumer waste.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUPRTY EMPLOYER
Dakota County Comments: Rosemount Business Park
Comments
Item 9—Land Use-Former
This proposed development is in close proximity to the Rosemount Dump. Dakota County
Environmental Management is still studying the effects of the dumpsite on surrounding
development. We will continue to work with Rosemount to mitigate any potential hazards as this
development moves forward
Item 21 —Traffic
In General
1. Include future development's traffic generation into analysis(CSAH 42 &Akron
AUAR, Mining study)as applicable
2. Show projected AADT's and turning movements for scenarios A, B, and no-build for
2017 and 2027.
Table 21-1
1. The EAW should address the current AADT's (average annual daily traffic)for CSAH
42,TH 3, and for city streets.
2. The EAW should address Trip Generation with respect to CSAH 42, TH 3, and local
streets. Current data is shown in isolation.
Table 21-2
1. Explain what background growth rate was used in analysis for 2017 and 2027.
2. In the 2017 Scenario A,there is large increase of traffic for the PM peak(compared
to Institute of Transportation Engineers manual trip generation + background growth).
This is inconsistent with the increases in traffic for Scenario A 2017 AM and Scenario
B 2027 AM and PM. Explain why this is.
3. Include the intersection of CSAH 42 and TH 3 in the analysis for traffic impacts for all
scenarios and years. Figure F1 shows that the traffic distribution is 25%on TH 3 and
35%on CSAH 42, a combined majority of the development traffic.
1
W _- 4 - ;t DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
� � C 'xi:- iM
ST.PAUL DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS
'rl n ��
� 190 FIFTH STREET EAST
bITt s OF
ST.PAUL,MN 55101-1638
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF MAR 3 0 2007
Operations
Regulatory(2007-1593-BAJ)
Ms. Kim Lindquist
Community Development Director
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, Minnesota 55068
Dear Mr. Lindquist:
The St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers has reviewed an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet for the Rosemount Business Park. The study area is in the NE1/4 of Section 32 in
Township 115 North,Range 19 West, Dakota County,Minnesota.
Our preliminary jurisdictional determination is that there are no waters of the U.S.
present on this development site.
Please note that work performed in waters of the United States,or the discharge of
dredged or fill material into wetlands,without a Department of the Army permit could subject
you to enforcement action. Receipt of a permit from a state or local agency does not obviate the
requirement for obtaining a Department of the Army permit.
If you have any questions,contact Mr. Bradley Johnson in our St. Paul office at(651)
290-5250. In any correspondence or inquiries,please refer to the Regulatory number shown
above.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Whitin
)11-1)
Chief,Regulatory Branch
Memorandum
To: Jon Larson,Environmental Quality Board
Jessica Ebertz, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Brian Watson,Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District
Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council
Todd Sherman,Minnesota Department of Transportation—Metro Division
Greg Konat,Dakota County Physical Development Division
Brad Johnson, United States Army Corps of Engineers
Copy: Kim Lindquist, City of Rosemount
Andrew Brotzler, WSB&Associates
Andrea Moffatt, WSB &Associates
Genevieve McJilton,Ryan Companies US,Inc.
From: Terrance Jeffery, WSB &Associates
Date: May 9, 2007
Re: Rosemount Business Park EAW
Responses to Comments
WSB Project No. 1556-95, City Project No. 413
The public comment period for the proposed Rosemount Business Park(formerly known as the
Pahl property) development Environmental Assessment Worksheet(EAW) ended March 28,
2007. Comments were received prior to the March 28, 2007 deadline from Dakota County Soil
and Water Conservation District,the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota
Department of Transportation,the Metropolitan Council. The Dakota County Physical
Development Division and the United States Army Corps of Engineers also submitted comments
which were received after the comment deadline but have been included in this memorandum.
Outlined below,please find the comments from each agency followed by responses to these
comments. The comment letters are also attached for your information.
Comments from Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District(DSWCD)
Comment#1: "We recommend planned and phased grading of this site in order to reduce
possible soil loss when these highly erodible soils are exposed. We also hope that the areas with
12%to 18%slopes are treated with stabilizing practices within a short timeframe; again to
decrease the possibility of erosion. "
Response: The developer has stated that they will be phasing the project. It is
anticipated that this phasing will occur from the northeast to the
southwest. Phasing will be based in part on the timeframe with which end
G:120071Ci6,CounciMymi Prop EAWlCommeniResponse RSMT13usinessPnrk 05152007doc
Memorandum—Responses to Rosemount Business Park EAW
May 9,2007
Page 2 of 6
users are identified. Those areas with steeper slopes (12%to 18%)tend to
be located easterly on the property, removed from the majority of the mass
site grading. Those steep slope areas that are disturbed will be stabilized
employing rapid stabilization methods. The developer will be required to
develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) and an erosion
control and turf establishment plan for review and approval by the City
Engineer. Potential erosion problem areas will be further addressed
during this review.
Comment#2: "...35 acres of new impervious surface is significant and will result in high
amounts of runoff. In order to reduce the need for large stormwater ponds and decrease the
potential to impact downstream resources, we recommend both innovative and proven low
impact development and infiltration practices.... "
Response: The City acknowledges the increase in volume of stormwater runoff which
will be generated by the increase in impervious land cover. It is the City's
policy to encourage and promote alternative stormwater treatment and
erosion/sediment control practices with new development. This includes
low impact development practices (LID). The City will continue using
this policy with the Rosemount Business Park and will request the
developer investigate and utilize LID practices wherever and whenever
practicable to do so.
Comment#3: "...in order to preserve the infiltration capacity of this area during and after
construction, we recommend that non-compacting grading and finishing practices be used
whenever possible. "
Response: This comment has been forwarded to the City Council for there
consideration. Again, it is the policy of the City to encourage LID
practices and erosion and sediment control best management practices on
all developments.
Comment#4: "The Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District has a variety of
programs and services designed to assist developers technically and financially with the
implementation of best management practices...In particular, our "Conservation Initiative
Funding"Program may cost share large-scale low impact development projects that could be
employed on this site. A fact sheet on this program is included. We hope the development team
can take advantage of this program. "
Response: We appreciate your comments and assistance with regard to BMPs. The
development team will be made aware of this program and the services
offered by the Dakota County SWCD and encouraged to contact your
office for assistance.
G:\200TCity Council\Ryan Prop EAW1CommentResponse_RSMTBusinessPark_05152007.doc
Memorandum—Responses to Rosemount Business Park EAW
May 9,2007
Page 3 of 6
Comments from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Comment#1: The MPCA has not reviewed the EAW for this project; therefore, the MPCA has
no specific comments to provide the RGU. This decision not to review the EAW does not
constitute a waiver by the MPCA of any pending permits required by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is
the responsibility of the project proposer to secure any required permits to comply with any
requisite permit conditions. The enclosed checklist identifies permits that the project may
require, together with the most recent contacts at the MPCA.
We remind the RGU that,pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 5 (Environmental Quality
Board Rules), a copy of the RGU's decision on this EAW needs to be sent to the MPCA.
Response: Your comments will be forwarded to the council for review. The enclosed
checklist will be provided to the project proposer for their consideration
and action as needed. A copy of the decision will be sent to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency pursuant to the pertinent MN Rule.
Comments from the Metropolitan Council
Comment#1: Item 18—Water Quality: Wastewater"The Metropolitan Disposal System that
provides service to this project location has adequate capacity. "
Response: Your comment is appreciated.
Comment#2: Item 25—Nearby Resources "The EAW site is located within the Dakota
County North South Regional Trail Search Corridor. This regional trail that will connect the
"Empire Wetlands"Regional Park to the proposed Chub Lake Regional Park, the Proposed
Dakota South Cannon River Regional Trail, and Lake Byllesby Regional Park The trail does
not have an approved master plan yet. Dakota County will conduct a master planning process to
determine the trail alignment and will include Rosemount and others in the planning process.
Steve Sullivan, Dakota County Parks Director (952-871-7088), is the contact person for
Regional Park Facilities. "
Response: Your comments will be forwarded to the council for review and
consideration. Where appropriate to do so, easements or additional right
of way may be dedicated to future trail alignments. We look forward to
working with Dakota County during the planning process for this trail
corridor development.
Comments from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
Comment#1: Traffic "When the proposed future street extension is extended to TH 3 (across
from Canada Circle), right and left turn lanes will need to be constructed on TH 3. "
G:\2007\City Councilayan Prop EAW\CommentResponse_RSMTBusinessPark_05152007.doc
Memorandum—Responses to Rosemount Business Park EAW
May 9,2007
Page 4 of 6
Response: Thank you for your comment. In our review of the future traffic needs,we
came to the same conclusion and have addressed this as a mitigation
measure in within Item#21. The City will work with MnDOT when the
road is extended to TH 3.
Comment#2: Permits "Any use of or work within or affecting Mn/DOT right of way requires a
permit. Permit forms are available from MnDOT's utility website at
www.dot.state.mn.us/tecsup/utility. "
Response: Thank you for your comment and guidance. Appropriate permits for any
work within or affecting the MnDOT right-of-way will be applied for and
all necessary review materials in the required format will be submitted to
MnDOT for review and comment.
Comments from the Dakota County Physical Development Division (DCPDD)
Comment#1: Item 9—Land Use—Former "This proposed development is in close proximity
to the Rosemount Dump. Dakota County Environmental Management is still studying the effects
of the dumpsite on surrounding development. We will continue to work with Rosemount to
mitigate any potential hazards as this development moves forward. "
Response: Thankyou for
your comment. The Cityis aware of the Rosemount Dump
site. Ryan Companies has performed a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment. No recognized environmental conditions were found.
Further, it appears unlikely, given the distance from the subject property
and the fact that potable water will be supplied by the municipal water
system,that the dump site poses a material threat to the subject property.
We look forward to any assistance and information that Dakota County
Environmental Management may have to offer. However, as the comment
period ended on March 28, 2007, any comments will be addressed outside
of the scope of the EAW.
Comment#2: Item 21 —Traffic - General "Include future development's traffic generation
into analysis (CSAH 42 &Akron AUAR, Mining study) as applicable. "
Response: Thank you for your comment. The future year analysis did include
background traffic growth. The 2017 volumes were based on a straight
line increase of 2.5%per year on CSAH 42 and TH 3 and 1%per year on
other roadways. The 2027 volumes were based on the Akron/CSAH 42
AUAR and the City's Transportation plan which includes the other
adjacent development in the area. It was assumed that resource projects,
such as the Empire Mining project,were included in the 25%/year annual
growth and was not specifically included in the analysis. The proposed
development traffic was then added to this background traffic.
G:120071City Coma! Prop EAVACommentResponse_RSMTBusinessPark_05152007.doc
Memorandum—Responses to Rosemount Business Park EAW
May 9,2007
Page 5 of 6
Comment#3: Item 21 —Traffic—General "Show projected AADT's and turning movements
for scenarios A, B, and no-build for 2017 and 2027.. "
Response: Thank you for your comment. The Peak Hour turning movement counts
were included in Appendix C of the EAW. 2025 AADT projections were
included in the Akron/CSAH 42 AUAR and City's Transportation plan,
which again included development of this site and adjacent sites in the
City. A figure showing these volumes is attached. The analysis of
capacity and LOS impacts is based on peak hour volumes consistent with
the procedures followed in this study.
Comment#4: Item 21 —Table 21-1 "The EAW should address the current AADT's (average
annual daily traffic)for CSAH 42, TH 3, and for city streets. "
Response: Thank you for your comment. See General Response#3 above.
Comment#5: Item 21 —Table 21-1 "The EAW should address trip generation with respect to
CSAH 42, TH 3, and local streets. Current data is shown in isolation. "
Response: Thank you for your comment. We are not sure what the County's intent
was with this comment; however the anticipated traffic generation from
the site is shown in Table 21-1 and was distributed to the roadways based
on the distribution shown in Figure F-1.
Comment#6: Item 21 —Table 21-2 "Explain what background growth rate was used in
analysis for 2017 and 2027. "
Response: Thank you for your comment. See General Response#2 above.
Comment#7: Item 21 —Table 21-2 "In the 2017 Scenario A, there is a large increase of
traffic for the PM peak(compared to Institute of Transportation Engineers manual for trip
generation + background growth). This is inconsistent with the increases in traffic for Scenario
A 2017 AM and Scenario B 2027 AM and PM Explain why this is. "
Response: Thank you for your comment. The increase in traffic appears to be
consistent for both concepts in each year. The existing traffic in the area is
very directional with a large volume on CSAH 42 Eastbound in the AM
and Westbound in the PM.
Comment#8: Item 21 Table 21-2 "Include the intersection of CSAH 42 and TH 3 in the
analysis for traffic impacts for all scenarios and years. Figure Fl shows that the traffic
distribution is 25% on TH 3 and 35%on CSAH 42, a combined majority of the development
traffic. "
G:\2007\City Cooncil\Ryan Prop EAV✓\CommentResponse_RSMTBosinessPazk_05152007.doc
Memorandum—Responses to Rosemount Business Park EAW
May 9,2007
Page 6 of 6
Response: Thank you for your comment. The intersection of TH 3 and CSAH 42
was not analyzed for the fact that even though a large portion of the traffic
from the site would travel though the intersection,the overall increase of
traffic in the intersection would be small in comparison. This intersection
has been identified by both the City and County in their transportation
plans needing improvements in the future.
Comments from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
Comment#1: "Our preliminary jurisdictional determination is that there are no waters of the
U.S.present on this development site. "
Response: Thank you for your comment. This information will be forwarded to the
City Council and the developer.
Comment#2: "Please note that work performed in waters of the United States, or the
discharge of dredged or fill materials into wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit
could subject you to enforcement action. Receipt of a permit from a state or local agency does
not obviate the requirement for obtaining a Department of Army permit. "
Response: Thank you for your comment. This information will be forwarded to the
City Council and the developer. Any change in scope for this project or
change in jurisdictional status of water features will be made known to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for their review and comment.
This concludes the responses and comments. Contact me with any questions at(763) 541-4800.
tj/lh
G:\20071Cay Cooncdayan Prop EAW CommeoiResponsc_RSMTBosinessPark_05152007.doc
In the matter of the Decision
on the Need for an 91 ROSEMOUNT
Environmental Impact
Statement(EIS) for CITY COUNCIL
Rosemount Business Park in
Rosemount, MN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
Ryan Companies US, Inc. is proposing a 41.4 acre business park development in the City
of Rosemount in Dakota County, MN. Two conceptual plans were submitted for review.
These ranged in gross floor square footage from 433,400 square feet to 558,900 square
feet and would involve warehouse and office space.
Pursuant to Minnesota R. 4410.4300, subp. 14, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW)has been prepared for this commercial facility project. As to the need for an
Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) on the project and based on the record in this
matter, including the EAW and written comments received, the City of Rosemount makes
the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Project
The proposed project involves grading up to 41.4 acres to construct streets,
utilities, parking lots,trails, and commercial buildings. The project is not
anticipated to remove woodland nor impact any wetlands. In addition, the
proposed project will involve the construction of a storm water conveyance
system and treatment areas, and add approximately 35 acres of impervious
area.
B. Project Site
The project is located primarily in the SE '/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 32 in
Township 115N, Range 19W in Dakota County, MN. The site currently
contains approximately 41.4 acres of cropland.
II. PROJECT HISTORY
A. The project was subject to the mandatory preparation of an EAW under
Minnesota R. 4410.4300 subp. 14 when it was determined that it would
exceed the 300,000 square foot threshold for a second class city.
B. This EAW dated February 2007 was prepared for the proposed project and
distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other
interested parties on February 26, 2007.
April18,2007 FindingsofFact_RSMTBusinessPark 05152007.doc
Page 1 of 5
C. A public notice containing information about the availability of the EAW for
public review was published in the The Rosemount Town Pages on February
23, 2007.
D. The EAW was noticed in the February 26, 2007 EQB Monitor. The public
comment period ended March 28, 2007. Comments were received from the
MPCA and the Dakota County SWCD. The comment letters and responses to
the comments are also incorporated by reference.
III. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.
Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp. 1 states"an EIS shall be ordered for projects that
have the potential for significant environmental affects." In deciding whether a
project has the potential for significant environmental affects,the City of
Rosemount must consider the four factors set out in Minnesota R. 4410.1700,
subp. 7. With respect to each of these factors,the City finds as follows:
A. TYPE,EXTENT,AND REVERSIBILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS
The first factor that the City must consider is "type, extent and reversibility of
environmental effects", Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.A. The City's
findings with respect to each of these issues are set forth below.
1. The type of environmental impacts and mitigation efforts anticipated
as part of this project include:
a. Wildlife Habitat: The area is currently dominated by
agricultural land use. There are no native communities on the
subject property nor did a file review of the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Database
reveal any occurrence of state or federally listed plant or
animal species.
b. Water Consumption: These developments are anticipated to
use approximately 51,125 gallons of water per day upon full
development. The City's existing municipal wells and storage
are adequate to supply the demands of this development.
c. Wastewater Generation: This development is anticipated to
generate approximately 43,100 GPD of wastewater upon full
development. The Metropolitan Council Environmental
Services (MCES) is currently constructing and interceptor
sewer that will divert wastewater flow from the Rosemount
Wastewater Treatment Facility(RWWTF)to the MCES
April 18,2007 FindingsofFact_RSMTBusinessPark 05152007.doc
Page 2 of 5
Empire Wastewater Treatment Facility (EWWTF). The
sanitary sewer system and the WWTF have adequate capacity
to accommodate this increased load.
d. Storm Water: The project is anticipated to generate
additional storm water runoff. This runoff will be treated
within stromwater detention pond located southerly on the
property. The design of the on-site storm water management
system is required to provide storage for runoff from the 100
year, 24 hour storm event.. The storm water management
system is also required to treat storm water to NURP
recommendations, thus reducing pollutants discharged from the
site as compared to the existing conditions. There are no
impaired waters which will receive stormwater input from the
site.
e. Wetlands: There are no jurisdictional wetlands within the
subject property. The development is not anticipated to have
any significant impacts on any downstream wetlands located
off the subject property.
f. Traffic: The development will generate additional traffic in the
area. The mitigation measures outlined in the Traffic Study in
the EAW will mitigate the impacts of this additional traffic.
The extension of Boulder Trail from the proposed site to
Canada Circle at TH 3 will be needed prior to full build out and
additional improvements will be needed at this intersection.
2. The extent and reversibility of environmental impacts are consistent
with those of commercial development.
B. CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RELATED OR
ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS
The second factor that the City must consider is the "cumulative potential
effects of related or anticipated future projects", Minnesota R. 4410.1700
subp.7.B. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below.
1. Currently there is no planned development immediately adjacent to the
project site. The EAW does take into consideration that the remaining
220 acres adjacent to the subject property will be developed at some
point in the future. This remaining acreage is zoned Business Park and
is anticipated to be developed as zoned. The City is currently
reviewing the infrastructure needs of the area and will review any
future development within this area to assure that adequate
Apri118,2007 FindingsofFact_RSMTBusinessPark_05152007.doc
Page 3 of 5
infrastructure either exists or is provided for at the time of the
development.
2. The project site is located in the Dakota County North South Regional
Trail Corridor. This should not result in any significant increase in
environmental risk but should be considered during the platting
process.
3. The City finds that any anticipated future projects can be adequately
addressed through the plan review and platting process such that an
EIS need not be prepared.
C. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL AFFECTS ARE
SUBJECT TO MITIGATION BY ONGOING PUBLIC REGULATORY
AUTHORITY
1. The following permits or approvals will be required for the project:
•
MPCA NPDES Construction Permit
MPCA Sewer Extension Permit
Dept of Health Water Main Extension Permit
Dept of Health Well Abandonment Certificate(if irrigation wells are
discovered on the property. No known wells exist.)
City of Rosemount Grading Permit
City of Rosemount Site Plan Review and Approval
City of Rosemount Subdivision Approval
City of Rosemount Deferred Assessment
City of Rosemount Building Permit
2. The City finds that the potential environmental impacts of the project
are subject to mitigation by ongoing regulatory authorities such that
an EIS need not be prepared.
D. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAN BE
ANTICIPATED AND CONTROLLED AS A RESULT OF OTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY PUBLIC
AGENCIES OR THE PROJECT PROPOSER, INCLUDING OTHER
EIS's.
April18,2007 Findings ofFact_RSMTBusinessPark 05152007.doc
Page 4 of 5
The fourth factor that the City must consider is "the extent to which
environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other
environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer,
including other EIS's"Minnesota R. 4700.1700, subp. 7.D. The City's
findings with respect to this factor are set forth below:
The proposed project is subject to the following plans prepared by the City:
• City of Rosemount Comprehensive Plan(originally adopted 1998,
amended Sept. 2005)
• City of Rosemount Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan
(November 2003)
• City of Rosemount Comprehensive Wetland Management and
Protection Plan(1998)
The City finds that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated
and controlled as a result of the environmental review, planning, and
permitting processes.
CONCLUSIONS
The preparation of the Rosemount Business Park EAW coupled with comments received
on the EAW has generated information adequate to determine whether the proposed
development has the potential for significant environmental effects.
The EAW has identified areas where the potential for environmental effects exist,but
appropriate measures have or will be incorporated into the project plans and/or permits to
mitigate these effects. The project is anticipated to comply with all City of Rosemount
standards and review agency standards.
Based on the criteria established in Minnesota R. 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.
An Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
April18,2007 FindingsofFactRSMTBusinessPark05152007.doc
Page 5 of 5
11.
1
',43tr �, � fly;�� ', W ✓'',,,7„� ,O✓z7'i .'�,� i,s. ,,c � ;q',; ,,� ,.r- 0i? ,".; a�.r c;,0.. ,, �,''?3. r� �:"
1
1.
k '1 '
ki R
•
Rosemount Business Park
; RGU:
�sm
' 4ROSEMOUNT
MINNESOTA
WSB Project No. 1556-95
E Comment Period: February 26-March 28,2007
I
1
1
A
WSB
&Associates,Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Note to preparers: This form is available at http://www.egb.state.mn.us. EAW Guidelines will be available in
Spring 1999 at the web site.The Environmental Assessment Worksheet provides information about a project that
may have the potential for significant environmental effects.The EAW is prepared by the Responsible
Governmental Unit or its agents to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared.The
project proposer must supply any reasonably accessible data for—but should not complete—the final worksheet.
If a complete answer does not fit in the space allotted,attach additional sheets as necessary.The complete question
as well as the answer must be included if the EAW is prepared electronically.
Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period following notice
of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information,potential
impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS.
1. Project title Rosemount Business Park
2. Proposer RYAN COMPANIES US, Inc 3. RGU CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
Contact person Genevieve McJilton Contact person Kim Lindquist
Title Director of Development Title Community Development Director
Address 50 South Tenth St., Suite 300 Address 2875 145th Street W.
City, state,ZIP Minneapolis, MN 55403-2012 City,state,ZIP Rosemount, MN 55068
Phone 612.492.4000 Phone 651.423.4411
Fax 612.492.3000 Fax 651.423.5203
E-mail E-mail
kim.lindquist@ci.rosemount.mn.us
4. Reason for EAW preparation (check one)
EIS scoping X Mandatory EAW Citizen petition RGU discretion Proposer
volunteered
If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number:4410.4300,subpart 14 and subpart name:
Industrial,Commercial and Institutional Facilities
5. Project location County:Dakota City/Township:Rosemount
SE '/. NW ''A Section 32 Township 115N Range 19W
Attach each of the following to the EAW:
• County map showing the general location of the project;
• U.S.Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries(photocopy
acceptable);
• Site plan showing all significant project and natural features.
6. Description
a.Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor.
Ryan Companies is proposing to develop 41.4 acres of agricultural land to a business park.
There are two concepts for the project. Concept A involves developing 377,950 square feet of
warehouse and 180,950 square feet of office. Concept B involves developing 216,700 square
feet of warehouse and 216,700 square feet of office.
b.Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional sheets as
necessary.Emphasize construction,operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the
environment or will produce wastes.Include modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes and
City of Rosemount
Rosemount Business Park EAW
February 13,2007
Page 1 of 19 KA01556951AdminlDocslEAW1EAW-Rsml Business Park.doc
significant demolition,removal or remodeling of existing structures.Indicate the timing and duration of
construction activities.
Ryan Company is proposing to develop a 41 acre parcel to Business Park on a site located
between Biscayne Avenue and TH 3 and south of Boulder Avenue in Rosemount, MN. As there
are no identified users at this time, a detailed construction plan has not yet been prepared.
Construction methods will be consistent with professional standards. The site will be graded as
users are identified. The intent is to phase the project from the northeast towards the southeast
as tenants are identified.
There are two conceptual designs which were considered for this EAW. These concepts can be
found in Appendix A. Concept A involves the construction of five buildings ranging in total floor
area from 30,000 square feet to 347,000 square feet. Each building will have warehousing and
office facilities. In addition, parking lots capable of accommodating 1,193 stalls will be
constructed. Concept B involves the construction of 8 buildings ranging in total floor area from
30,000 square feet to 74,000 square feet. As with concept A, each building will have office and
warehousing facilities.
There are no existing structures on the subject property aside from the well house for Rosemount
Municipal Well 12. This well will remain as is. A test well was advanced adjacent to the
municipal well and was abandoned to Minnesota Department of Health guidelines as of February
13, 2007. No additional well abandonment will be needed. In the event that an undocumented
well is discovered on the site, this well shall be abandoned according to Minnesota Department of
Health guidelines.
Nearly the entire 41 acres will be graded. Given the relatively flat topography, it is anticipated
that soils will be balanced on-site.
c.Explain the project purpose;if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit,explain the need for the
project and identify its beneficiaries.
The project is intended to provide warehouse and office space consistent with Rosemount's
Comprehensive Plan allowing for economic expansion within the City of Rosemount.
d.Are future stages of this development including development on any outlots planned or likely to happen? X
Yes No
If yes,briefly describe future stages,relationship to present project,timeline and plans for environmental review.
The City is exchanging a four acre parcel currently owned by the Rosemount Port Authority and a
larger seven acre parcel owned by the City for a thirteen acre parcel located easterly on the
subject property with Ryan Companies. This acquired parcel is referred to as Lot 10 or Lot 7
depending upon the concept. Although it will not directly be a part of this project, it is the intention
of the City to construct a water treatment facility on this property. There is no current timeline for
the construction of this facility. The construction of the facility is not considered to significantly
contribute to the impacts of the Ryan proposal. Environmental review thresholds passed, if any,
will be addressed according to State and Federal rules and guidelines. Further, once the lots
adjacent to Boulder Avenue are fully developed, Boulder Avenue will be extended south and west
to intersect with TH 3. No timetable has yet been established for this extension
e.Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? _Yes X No
If yes,briefly describe the past development,timeline and any past environmental review.
7. Project magnitude data
Total project acreage 41.4 acres
City of Rosemount
Rosemount Business Park EAW
February 13,2007
Page 2 of 19 K:O1556951Admin\Docs\EAW\EAW-Rsmt Business Park doc
Number of residential units: unattached NA attached NA maximum units per building
Commercial,industrial or institutional building area(gross floor space): total square feet
433,400 S.F.(concept B) to 558,900 S.F. (concept A)two conceptual arrangement
Indicate areas of specific uses(in square feet):
Office (concept B)216,700 SF (concept A)180,950 SF Manufacturing
Retail Other industrial
Warehouse (concept B)216,700 SF (concept A)377,950 SF Institutional
Light industrial Agricultural
Other commercial(specify)
Building height If over 2 stories,compare to heights of nearby buildings
8. Permits and approvals required.List all known local,state and federal permits,approvals and financial
assistance for the project.Include modifications of any existing permits,governmental review of plans and all
direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees,Tax Increment Financing and
infrastructure.
Unit of government Type of application Status
MPCA NPDES To be applied
MPCA Sanitary Sewer Extension To be applied
MDH Watermain Extension To be applied
City of Rosemount Grading Permit To be applied
City of Rosemount Site Plan Review&Approval To be applied
City of Rosemount Subdivision Approval To be applied
City of Rosemount Deferred Assessment To be applied
City of Rosemoutn Building Permit To be applied
MCES Sewer Extension To be applied
9. Land use.Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands.Discuss
project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses.Indicate whether any potential conflicts involve
environmental matters.Identify any potential environmental hazards due to past site uses,such as soil
contamination or abandoned storage tanks,or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines.
Aerial photography was reviewed for the following years: 1937, 1940, 1951, 1953, 1957, 1964,
1970, 1979, 1984, 1991, 1997, 2000, and 2003. Historic land use for the subject property and
adjoining property was determined based largely upon these documents and supplemented with
information from individuals with knowledge of the land. Additional Environmental Data was
obtained from the Dakota County Environmental Data web site and the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency web site.
In 1937, the land use on both the subject property and the adjoining properties was exclusively
intensive agriculture. The railroad and Roberts Trail South(TH 3), both located immediately west
of the site, also existed at this time. Land use throughout the review area remained unchanged
until 1951 when the Rosemount Elevator Disposal site was constructed. Between 1953 and 1957
two structures were constructed adjacent to the railroad track on the west side. A few additional
buildings were constructed in this area over the next 17 years. County State Aid Highway
(CSAH)42 was constructed between 1970 and 1979. By 1979, single family residential
development had begun northwest of the subject property. This development was limited to the
area north and west of TH 3 and CSAH 42. In the same year the area south of CSAH 42 and
west of TH 3 began developing to commercial land use. This area continued to develop
commercial land use until 2003 when it was built out to approximately its current state.
From the review of aerial photography, it appears that Business Parkway and a portion of Boulder
Avenue were constructed in 1996. This is consistent with Dakota County tax records which
indicate that the two facilities adjacent to Business Parkway were constructed in 1996. Between
2000 and 2003 Boulder Avenue was continued to the west and Boulder Trail was extended to
City of Rosemount
Rosemount Business Park EAW
February 13,2007
Page 3 of 19 K:W155695\Admin\Does\EAWEAW-Rsmt Business Park.doc
•
Biscayne Avenue. By 2001 most of the remaining properties along these roads were
constructed.
The adjoining property to the east is still in agricultural production today as it has been since at
least 1937. A pipeline easement does border the subject property to the east. According to a
review of data on the Dakota County Environmental site, no spills or releases from this pipeline
have occurred near the subject property
According to the Dakota County Environmental Data web site, three leaking underground storage
sites are known northwest of the subject property between Robert Street South and Canada
Avenue. Review of the MPCA files indicated that all of these sites have been conditionally closed
between eight(8)and twelve (12)years ago. It is unlikely that any of these sites pose a material
threat to the subject property.
The subject property remains in agricultural production to this date. There is nothing inherent
with this land use that would pose an environmental hazard. Based upon the development trends
on the adjoining properties the proposed land use is not incompatible with the surrounding land
use and is consistent with the Rosemount Comprehensive Plan.
10. Cover types.Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after
development:
Before After Before After
Types 1-8 wetlands 0.0 0.0 Lawn/landscaping 0.0 3.7
Wooded/forest 0.0 0.0 Impervious surfaces 0.0 35.0
Brush/Grassland 0.0 0.0 Other(stormwater pond) 0.0 2.7
Cropland 41.4 0.0
TOTAL 41.4 41.4
If Before and After totals are not equal,explain why:
11. Fish,wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources
a.Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be affected
by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts.
The entire subject property is being used for agricultural production. There are no native
communities, water features or other natural features which would be displaced or impacted as a
result of the proposed land use.
The Dakota County rates this area as a "low priority"natural area based upon their Natural
Resources Inventory. The land cover type according to the MLCCS is classified as planted or
cultivated vegetation. There are no unique communities according to the MCBS.
b.Are any state-listed(endangered,threatened or special concern)species,rare plant communities or other
sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat,colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally
rare plant communities on or near the site? _Yes X No
If yes,describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project.Indicate if a site survey of the
resources has been conducted and describe the results.If the DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research
program has been contacted give the correspondence reference number:ERDB 20070495 .Describe measures
to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological Services performed a file
review of the Natural Resources Heritage Database at the request of the RGU. The file review
did not reveal the presence of any known occurrence of threatened or endangered species nor
any County Biological Sites of"High Biodiversity Significance"nor any other communities of
City of Rosemount
Rosemount Business Park EAW
February 13, 2007
Page 4 of 19 KA0155695VAdmin\Dors1EAW1EAW-Rsml Business Park.doc
interest.
The file review did reveal the presence of a nesting population of loggerhead shrikes within the
Section east of the subject property. None were reported within the subject property. The
proposed land use change is not expected to impact the loggerhead shrikes.
12. Physical impacts on water resources.Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration—
dredging, filling,stream diversion,outfall structure,diking,and impoundment—of any surface waters such as
a lake,pond,wetland,stream or drainage ditch? _Yes X No
If yes,identify water resource affected and give the DNR Protected Waters Inventory number(s)if the water
resources affected are on the PWI: NA.Describe alternatives considered and proposed mitigation measures to
minimize impacts. NA
13. Water use.Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells,connection to or changes in
any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water(including dewatering)? X Yes _No
If yes,as applicable,give location and purpose of any new wells;public supply affected,changes to be made,
and water quantities to be used;the source,duration,quantity and purpose of any appropriations;and unique
well numbers and DNR appropriation permit numbers,if known.Identify any existing and new wells on the site
map.If there are no wells known on site,explain methodology used to determine.
The City of Rosemount's water distribution system currently consists of two pressure zones. One
serves the urbanized, west side of the City and the other serves the more industrial, eastern
portion of the City. The western pressure zone consists of six wells and three storage facilities.
The eastern pressure zone consists of two wells and one storage facility. The western pressure
zone maintains a higher pressure than the east, and the two zones are connected by a pressure
reducing valve(prv). The pry allows the eastern pressure zone to maintain a constant pressure
regardless of the water supplied to the western pressure zone.
The City of Rosemount recently completed a Comprehensive Water System Plan (Plan)to
determine water system infrastructure needs necessary to serve future demand growth based on
its land use plan through 2020. The City has been expanding the trunk mains and water supply
based on the plan. Well No. 15 is currently under construction and has been estimated to provide
1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) in the future. The increased water demand from the proposed
development concepts were accounted for in the Plan. Total system supply should equal
maximum day demand and total system storage for a City the size of Rosemount should equal 75
to 100% of average day demand. The City's water appropriation permit number is 766069.
Existing wells and storage are shown in Table 1 on the next page.
City of Rosemount
Rosemount Business Park EAW
February 13,2007
Page 5 of 19 K:101556-955Admin\Doa\EAW1EAW-Rsmt Business Parkdoe
Well Number Unique Well Storage Capacity(gal)
Well No. Capacity
(gpm)
3 211999 500 Chippendale Tower 500,000
7 112212 1,200 Conamera Tower 1,000,000
8 509060 1,000 Bacardi Tower 1,500,000
9 554248 1,600
12 1,300
14 1,200
'Total Western Supply 6,800 'Total Western Storage 3,000,000
2RR 1 457167 400 2East Tower 500,000
2RR 2 474335 400
Total System Supply 7,600 Total System Storage 3,500,000
Table 1-Existing Wells and Storage.
The proposed development is located in the western pressure zone and is designated Business
Park in the City's land use plan. Both Concept A and B maintain the same gross developable
acreage of 40.9 acres. Gross developable acreage includes all land with the exception of City
owned parcels (Lot 10 and Well House). The proposed development will demand approximately
1,250 gallons/acre/day or approximately 51,125 gallons/day(gpd)on average. The
Comprehensive Water System Plan determined the peaking factor for City water demand,
maximum day demand divided by average day demand, for the City to be approximately 2.5.
Since Rosemount is largely residential, the peaking factor for this development is estimated to be
equal to or less than 2.5. Therefore maximum day demand was estimated to be approximately
128,000 gpd.
The City's existing municipal wells and storage are adequate to supply the demands of the
development. The 2006 water system average day demand was 2.58 Million Gallons per Day
(MGD), with a maximum day demand of 6.37 MGD. Adding the proposed development demands
to the existing average day demand and maximum day demand will total 2.59 MGD and 6.50
MGD (4,800 gpm)respectively. Distribution mains will be sized in accordance with the
Comprehensive Water System Plan to deliver approximately 3,000 gpm for fire flow and provide
60-70 psi of pressure under average day demand conditions. Available fire flow and system
pressure estimates are based on current total system conditions including total demand, supply,
and storage.
14. Water-related land use management district. Does any part of the project involve a shoreland zoning
district,a delineated 100-year flood plain,or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use
district? _Yes X No
If yes,identify the district and discuss project compatibility with district land use restrictions.
15. Water surface use.Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? _Yes X
No
If yes,indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts
with other uses.
i Since the Eastern pressure zone cannot provide service to the western pressure zone,only western pressure zone supply and
storage are applicable to the development concepts.
2 Well RRI and RR2 supply the eastern pressure zone. The East Tower provides storage for the eastern pressure zone.
City of Rosemount
Rosemount Business Park EAW
February 13, 2007
Page 6 of 19 K:\D1556951Admin\DocMEAW\FAW•Rsmt Business Park doe
16. Erosion and sedimentation.Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be
moved:
acres 41.4 ;cubic yards 133,584*.Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the
site map.Describe any erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after project
construction.
Cubic yards of soil to be moved was estimated by assuming that 41.4 acres would have an
average cut of 2 feet. It is anticipated that soil volumes will be balanced on-site.
Topography on the site is typified by flat to gently rolling slopes with grades less than 6°/a. The
majority of the soils on the site are Waukegon silt loams with a 1% to 6% grade. The soils are
classified as potentially highly erodible lands according to the NRCS soils data. A small area of
Wadena loams with 12% to 18% slopes occurs northeasterly on the property. These soils are
considered to be highly erodible lands. The remaining soils are not highly erodible lands. (See
Exhibit E2, Appendix A) Soils on the site have a Wind Erodibility Group Index of 6 on the
NRCS 8 point scale. (1 being most susceptible and 8 being least susceptible) The Revised
Universal Soil Loss Equation attributes are shown in Table 16-1 below.
RUSLE2 Related Attributes
Dakota County,Minnesota
Representative value
Mapsymbol and soil name PCt.of Hydrologic group Kt T factor
y map unit %Sand °..4 Silt %Clay
39C:
Wadena •
85 B .24 4 42,1 37.8 20.0
39D:
Wadena 85 B .24 4 42.1 37.9 20.0
250:
Kennebec 85 B .32 5 9.2. 66.3 24.5
3018:
Lindstrom 85 .28 5 20.7 67.3 12.0
B
411A:
Waukegan 90 B .32 4 9.5 68.0 22.5
411B:
Waukegan 90 B .32 4 9.5 68.0 22.5
Table 16-1-Erosion Susceptibility Characteristics of soils on and adjacent to the subject property.
A National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will need to be applied for
and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)will need to be prepared and submitted to
the City Engineer for review and approval prior to construction. Perimeter erosion control
measures and any best management practices identified in the approved SWPPP will need to be
implemented prior to any site grading and site inspections will take place in compliance with the
NPDES permit and 10-1-12 of the Rosemount City Code.
The City of Rosemount, as required by its' Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)
Permit, conducts regular inspection of all construction sites for compliance with NPDES Permit
and SWPPP of record.
17. Water quality: surface water runoff
a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project.Describe permanent controls to
manage or treat runoff.Describe any stormwater pollution prevention plans.
City of Rosemount
Rosemount Business Park EAW
February 13,2007
Page 7 of 19 K:ta1556-95vdmin\Docs\EAW\EAW-Rsmt Business Park.doc
Per City requirements, in both concepts, all stormwater will be treated and stored on-site for a
100-year, 24-hour rain event. When a preliminary plat plan set is submitted, the
hydrologic/hydraulic model will need to be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
The dead pool storage needed to treat to NURP recommendation is estimated to be 5.77 acre-
feet of volume.
The City of Rosemount, in recognition that it does not have stormwater overflow for the City, has
expanded ponding requirements and infiltration requirements for all new development. It is
required by the City of Rosemount that storage of the runoff from the 100 year, 24 hour event be
provided on-site. The City also requires that any development provides infiltration of at least 1/12
of an acre-foot/acre/day. The City also has implemented discharge rate requirements, new storm
sewer system design requirements, and other water quality requirements which are detailed in
the City of Rosemount, Storm Water Development Standards—Developer's Guidelines included
within the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan.
The City is also promoting stormwater management through low impact development techniques
such as bioretention, slope flattening, disconnected impervious areas, vegetated swales,
disturbance minimization and other best management practices(BMP's)where practicable to do
so. These requirements and guidelines should be implemented into the stormwater design, as
practicable to do so, for this site.
b. Identify routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site;include major downstream water bodies as
well as the immediate receiving waters.Estimate impact runoff on the quality of receiving waters.
It is required by the City of Rosemount that storage of the runoff from the 100 year, 24 hour event
be provided on-site. In those cases where runoff exceeds the 100 year, 24 hour event, water will
primarily flow to Basin 2274 as identified in the City of Rosemount Comprehensive Water
Management Plan. Basin 2274 has 182.5 acre feet of storage at the 100 year high water level
(HWL). A less significant portion of the runoff would discharge to Basin 2164. (See Exhibit G,
Appendix A)
There is discussion of a regional pond being constructed in the vicinity of the site. Depending
upon the design of this pond and the treatment requirements, stormwater may be diverted to this
regional pond in the future.
18. Water quality:wastewaters
a.Describe sources,composition and quantities of all sanitary,municipal and industrial wastewater produced or
treated at the site.
b.Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition after
treatment.Identify receiving waters,including major downstream water bodies,and estimate the discharge
impact on the quality of receiving waters.If the project involves on-site sewage systems,discuss the suitability
of site conditions for such systems.
c.If wastes will be discharged into a publicly owned treatment facility,identify the facility,describe any
pretreatment provisions and discuss the facility's ability to handle the volume and composition of wastes,
identifying any improvements necessary.
d.If the project requires disposal of liquid animal manure,describe disposal technique and location and discuss
capacity to handle the volume and composition of manure.Identify any improvements necessary.Describe any
required setbacks for land disposal systems.
Existing Conditions
Within the study area there is a municipal well pump house that is served by an on-site seepage
pit for process drainage. The well house does not have any other sanitary facilities. All of the
City of Rosemount
Rosemount Business Park EAW
February 13,2007
Page 8 of 19 K:\0155&95Wdmin\DocseAWEAW.Rsml Business Park.doc
proposed development within the study area would be required to discharge to the regional sewer
system.
Within the City of Rosemount, there are approximately 6,190 connections to regional sewer. The
City has approximately 752 residential units that are served by on-site septic systems. Of the
6,190 connections to regional sewer, most are single family residential with some multi-family
residential, commercial/industrial, and institutional connections. Based on the City's Sewer Rate
Study, the average daily wastewater flow is 1,698,385 gpd with a peak hour flow of 4,925,000
gpd.
Since the wastewater generated from the City of Rosemount is primarily from residential units,
the wastewater characteristics are assumed to be of typical domestic strength. Table 18-1 is a
summary of the estimated wastewater characteristics for Rosemount.
Parameter Estimated Wastewater Characteristics and Average
Daily Loading
mg/1 lbs/day
Biochemical Oxygen Demand 220 3,116
Total Suspended Solids 220 3,116
Ammonia—Nitrogen 25 354
Total Phosphorous
8 113
Table 18-1.Estimated Wastewater Characteristics and Total Average Daily Wastewater Loading for the City of Rosemount
Wastewater generated from the City is collected by a series of lift stations, laterals, and trunk
sewer mains, and is then directed to one of two interceptor sewers that are owned, operated and
maintained by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services(MCES). These two interceptors
include the Rosemount Interceptor and the Apple Valley Interceptor.
MCES Interceptor Sewer System
Figure 18. 1 shows existing and proposed MCES interceptor sewers and lift stations that serve
the City of Rosemount. As discussed in the previous paragraph, two existing MCES interceptor
sewers, the Rosemount Interceptor and the Apple Valley Interceptor, collect wastewater
generated by the City. The Rosemount interceptor sewer is approximately 8 miles long and
ranges in diameter from 24 inches to 48 inches. It carries approximately 3/4 of the wastewater
currently generated by the City east to MCES's Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Facility, which
is located east of State Highway 52, along the north side of 140th Street. The Rosemount WWTF
has an average day treatment capacity of 1.28 MGD. The Apple Valley Interceptor carries
approximately'A of the wastewater flow generated from the City south to the Empire Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
MCES is currently underway with the construction of an interceptor sewer that will divert
wastewater flow from the Rosemount WWTF to MCES's Empire WWTF. This proposed diversion
interceptor sewer will allow for the abandonment of the Rosemount WWTF. The diversion
interceptor sewer will consist of two lift stations,forcemains and gravity sewer that will extend
west along 140th Street, crossing Highway 52, then turn south and run to County State Aid
Highway(CSAH)42, where it will turn west and run along CSAH 42 to Biscayne Avenue. At
Biscayne Avenue the interceptor line will turn south following Biscayne Avenue to the Empire
WWTF. Just east of the study area, along Biscayne Avenue, the diversion interceptor line will be
gravity sewer at the intersection of Akron Avenue/CSAH 42. MCES intends to extend a 24-inch
sanitary sewer line from this intersection north along Akron Avenue, where it will connect to the
existing Rosemount Interceptor sewer and divert wastewater south to the new interceptor sewer.
The wastewater flow generated from this study area will be directed north to the western section
of the existing MCES Rosemount interceptor sewer.The western section of the Rosemount
City of Rosemount
Rosemount Business Park EAW
February 13,2007
Page 9 of 19 K\01556.95Admso1Docs\EAW EP.W.Rsmt Business Park.doe
interceptor is 24", 27", and 30" RCP. The 30" RCP portion of the interceptor has a capacity of
8.4MGD. This is currently operating at a peak of 4.93 MGD,far below capacity.
Concept Layouts
Both concepts involve the construction of office/warehouse facilities on the site that include the
use of 35.4 acres of the total 41.4 acres for the office/warehouse facilities. This excludes that
land which will be dedicated right-of-way and drainage and utility easement and will be used for
estimating the amount of wastewater flow generated from the site.
Development within all of the study area will be connected to the regional sewer system. An
average daily wastewater flow of 1250 gpd per acre will be used. Table 18-,below summarizes
the number of units under this development scenario and the wastewater generated. An
assumed peaking factor of 4.0 will be used to determine the peak hour flow(per MCES standard).
Future wastewater flow for the study area is shown below in Table 181
Type Number Average Daily Total Average Peak Hour
of Acres Wastewater Daily Wastewater Wastewater
Flow per Acre Flow(gpd) Flow(gpd)
(gpd)*
Proposed Business 34.5 1250 43,100 173,000
Park
Total 34.5 43,100 173,000
Table 18-2.Estimated Average Day and Peak Hour Wastewater Flow from the Business Park Area.
*Rates based on MPCA information for wastewater planning.
Table 18-3 summarizes the estimated wastewater characteristics and loading for the wastewater
that will be generated under both concept layouts.
Parameter Estimated Wastewater Characteristics and Average
Day Loading
mg/1 lbs/day
Biochemical Oxygen Demand 220 82
Total Suspended Solids 220 82
Ammonia—Nitrogen 25 10
Total Phosphorous 8 3
Table 18-3.Estimated Wastewater Characteristics and Total Average Daily Wastewater Loading from the Business Park Area.
Wastewater generated from the site will enter the existing 21"trunk sewer through either a new
extension of the existing 8"to 10" branch on the west side or the 15"to 18" branch on the east
side. Most of the wastewater generated from this concept will have to be routed through the east
branch to avoid overloading the 8" portion of the west branch for future development. The 21"
trunk sewer discharges north into the existing 27"portion of the Rosemount Interceptor sewer
(see Figure 18-1).
Municipal Trunk Sewer System
Wastewater generated from the concept layouts investigated here will discharge into the existing
21" RCP trunk sewer line in Business Parkway and eventually to the existing 27" RCP branch of
the MCES interceptor to the north and east of the study area.The existing lines are able to
handle wastewater generated by development of this site. Figure 18-1 shows the approximate
location of the trunk sewer system. The segments labeled in Figure 18-1 correspond to the
analysis of the trunk sewer in Table 18-4.
City of Rosemount
Rosemount Business Park EAW
February 13,2007
Page 10 of 19 K:101556-951AdmtrADocs EAW1E4W-Rsnd Business Padc.doc
Pipe Service Area Description Avg.Wet Peak Peak Pipe Slope Full Flow Full Flow
Segment Weather Flow Flow Size (%) Capacity Capacity
Flow(gpd) Factor (MGD) (in) n=0.013 n=0.010
(MGD) (MGD)
1 West side
22.4 acres x 1250 gpd/acre 28,000 (not within EAW study area)
5.3 acres x 1250 gpd/acre 6,625
Total 34,625 4.0 0.139 8 0.49 0.5 0.7
2 Flow from Segment 1 34,625
Total 34,625 4.0 0.139 10 0.18 0.6 0.8
3 East side
16.4 acres x 1250 gpd/acre 20,500 (not within EAW study area)
30.1 acres x 1250 gpd/acre 37,625
Total 58,125 4.0 0.233 15 0.16 1.7 2.2
4 Flow from Segment 3 58,125
Total 58,125 4.0 0.233 18 0.29 3.7 4.8
5 Flow from Segment 2 34,625
Flow from Segment 4 58,125
34.6 acress x 1250 gpd/acre 43,250 (not within EAW study area)
Total 136,000 3.9 0.531 21 0.12 3.6 4.6
6 Flow from Segment 5 136,000
Flow from west 984,000 (not within EAW study area,estimated from rate study)
Total 1,120,000 3.1 3.48 27 0.10 6.3 8.3
7 Flow from Segment 6 1,120,000
Flow from north 200,000 (not within EAW study area,estimated from rate study)
Total 1,320,000 3.0 3.96 30 ( 0.01 18.4 1 10.9
Table 18-4. Trunk Sewer Capacity Analysis for the Business Parkway Sewer and MCES Interceptor Sewer.
Wastewater Mitigation Plan
Figure 18-1 shows a conceptual layout of gravity sewers to serve the proposed study area. The
majority of the wastewater generated from the southern and western portion of the study area
would be collected in a proposed branch sewer that would extend south from the existing 18" or
15" City branch sewer into the study area as shown in Figure 18-1. This proposed branch sewer
is estimated to require a pipe size of 8"to 10" in diameter. An additional 8" branch sewer line
collecting wastewater from the various portions of the western and northern portions of the study
area will be constructed to connect with the existing 8" branch sewer line to convey wastewater to
the existing sewer system. Wastewater generated from the northeastern most portion of the
study area will be conveyed to the 15" branch sewer directly through service connections.
19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions
a.Approximate depth(in feet)to ground water: 72 feet minimum 75 feet average
to bedrock: 165 foot minimum 170 foot average
Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site map:
sinkholes,shallow limestone formations or karst conditions.Describe measures to avoid or minimize
environmental problems due to any of these hazards.
Two wells (Municipal Well 12 and the test well)are located on the north side of the parcel
(nearest to Lot 3 in either scenario), reaching bedrock at 165 and 175 feet respectively. The test
well has been abandoned and Municipal Well 12 will remain in the current location and is not _
considered in the subject property. The measured static water level was 72 and 76.4 feet
respectively. Water level is expected to be approximately 30 feet lower while the well is being
pumped.
Information from the Minnesota Geological Survey indicates that the area is not an active karst
area; however, karst conditions start south of the study area within Dakota County. Information
City of Rosemount
Rosemount Business Park EAW
February 13,2007
Page 11 of 19 K.\0155695\Admin\Dots\EAW\EAW-Rsmt Business Park.doc
from Dakota County indicates that east of project area is within the Rich Valley area that is a
covered karst valley. No limestone, sinkholes or karst conditions are known at the site.
b.Describe the soils on the site,giving NRCS (SCS)classifications,if known.Discuss soil granularity and
potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils.Discuss any
mitigation measures to prevent such contamination.
The majority of the soils on the site are Waukegon silt loams. A small portion of the site has
Wadena loam and Lindstrom silt loam in descending order of percent area. Kennebec silt loam is
mapped southeast of the subject property and may extend slightly onto the subject property. All
of the soils mapped within the subject property boundary are well drained soils within the B
hydrologic group. The Waukegon soils are comprised of approximately 22.5% clay. The high
porosity associated with the silts and sands leads to a high infiltration rate. Additionally there is
no bedrock or other confining layer so travel time to the water table would be relatively short.
This is consistent with the Dakota County Geologic Atlas which rates the area as having a high
sensitivity to groundwater contamination, meaning the estimated travel time for water-borne
surface contaminants to reach the aquifer is weeks to years.
Drainage Class
Summary by Map Unit—Dakota County
Soil Survey Map Unit Name Rating Total Acres Percent of
Area Map in AOI AOI
Unit Symbol
39C
Wadena loam 6 to 12 Well drained
.percent slopes ,w a.. ., z... ..
22 ,
.... �'. ,-.-c a.µf•....-.,. w�:.....b......t w ...x.M .;.x.x...........�.,. '',.,•.A„ .........:.0
39D Wadena loam,12 to 18 Well drained 4.6 5.9
percent slopes
Kennebec silt loam
250 3 Moderately w ,_u,... _,�. .. ��� .....u.,�ell cirairted � 0 6 � 0 8
301B Lindstrom silt loam,1 to 4 Well drained 3.8 5.0
percent slopes
411A Waul egar silt loam 0to 1 ", ' Weu drained
18 1
ercentslopes
411B Waukegan silt loam,1 to 6 Well drained
percent slopes
Table 19-1-Drainage Class of soils on and adjacent to the subject property
The anticipated end users of the site will not include heavy manufacturing facilities. While there
may be some small quantity generators of hazardous waste, no large quantity generators are
expected at the site. All occupants will need to comply with OSHA, MPCA, EPA and other local,
state and federal regulations as they pertain to the manufacture, storage, handling, transportation
and disposal of hazardous material. (See Exhibit El through Exhibit E5, Appendix A for
additional soils information.)
Based on the proposed commercial land use, the potential for groundwater contamination and/or
adjacent drinking well contamination should be no greater than, and is anticipated to be less than,
the potential that exists with the existing agricultural land use. The pesticides and fertilizers that
are used in agricultural uses currently are allowed to run off the site and/or infiltrate into the
ground, thus having the potential to contaminate existing wells.
The NPDES Phase II Construction Site permit requires a site specific Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP)to be completed for the construction. This SWPPP is required to
include pollution prevention management measures for solid waste and hazardous material spills
that occur during construction.
City of Rosemount
Rosemount Business Park EAW
February 13,2007
Page 12 of 19 1001556951AdmireDocMEP.WIEAW_Rsmt Business Parkdoc
Mitigation includes conformance with the City spill response plan. Spills will be reported to the
fire chief and/or applicable City Staff. The fire chief and/or applicable City Staff will in turn notify
any other appropriate officials depending on the nature of the spill.
20. Solid wastes,hazardous wastes,storage tanks
a.Describe types,amounts and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes,including solid animal manure,
sludge and ash,produced during construction and operation.Identify method and location of disposal.For
projects generating municipal solid waste,indicate if there is a source separation plan;describe how the project
will be modified for recycling.If hazardous waste is generated,indicate if there is a hazardous waste
minimization plan and routine hazardous waste reduction assessments.
Wastes will be typical of office and warehouse facilities. Solid wastes will be hauled by local
garbage collectors to approved landfill facilities. Garbage collectors and site residents will be
encouraged to recycle. All tenants of the business park must comply with 5-1 of the Rosemount
City Code.
b.Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present at the site and identify measures to be used to
prevent them from contaminating groundwater.If the use of toxic or hazardous materials will lead to a regulated
waste,discharge or emission,discuss any alternatives considered to minimize or eliminate the waste,discharge
or emission.
No large quantity generators of hazardous waste will be among the end users of the site. All
occupants will need to comply with OSHA, MPCA, EPA and other local, state and federal
regulations as they pertain to the manufacture, storage, handling, transportation and disposal of
hazardous material.
c.Indicate the number,location,size and use of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum products or
other materials,except water.Describe any emergency response containment plans.
It is unknown if any under/above ground storage tanks will be associated with any of the end
users. Any tanks to be installed will need to comply with all local, state and federal regulation
regarding the installation, inspection, maintenance, and abandonment of any tanks.
21. Traffic.Parking spaces added 1193 (concept A) 1330(concept B).
Existing spaces(if project involves expansion) NA.
Estimated total average daily traffic generated 4187(concept A)3840 (concept B).
Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated(if known) and time of occurrence AM Peak-430 (concept A)
408(concept B).Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any
traffic improvements necessary.If the project is within the Twin Cities metropolitan area,discuss its impact on
the regional transportation system.
TRIP GENERATION
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour,;
Concept A ,,,.. Size Average Daily Traffic Office 180,950 sf 2,310 259 233
Warehouse 377,950 sf 1,877 171 179
Total Concept A 4,187 430 412
Concept B Size Average Daily Traffic AM:Peak Hour PM Peak.Hou.r.;-
Office 216,700 sf 2,765 309 280
Warehouse 216,700 sf 1,075 99 104
Total Concept B 3,840 408 384
Note: The estimated trip generation is based on information identified in the 7`I Edition of the Institute of Transportation
Engineers Trip Generation Manual.
Figures Cl through C6 in Appendix C illustrates the existing and proposed full development
•
City of Rosemount
Rosemount Business Park EAW
February 13,2007
Page 13 of 19 K:\0155695Admin\Dots\EAW\EAW-Rsmt Business Park.doc
AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes on the impacted roadways, as well as the estimated traffic
distribution for the proposed development. The analysis assumes full development will occur by
2017 as illustrated on the proposed site plan for Concept A and Concept B. The analysis also
includes a 20-year forecasted (2027) traffic impact analysis with the proposed development.
Impacted roadways adjacent to the site are Trunk Highway(TH) 3, County State Aid Highway
(CSAH)42, Biscayne Avenue, Business Park Boulevard, and Boulder Trail. All traffic access to
the proposed site will be via Boulder Trail and be distributed to the regional roadway system via
Business Park Boulevard and Biscayne Avenue. The critical intersections that were evaluated as
part of the analysis include:
• CSAH 42 at Business Park Boulevard
• CSAH 42 at Biscayne Avenue
• Biscayne Avenue at Boulder Trail
• TH 3 at Canada Circle/future Boulder Trail
As part of the future year(2017 and 2027), it was assumed the extension of Boulder Trail from its
current terminus on the south side of the existing site to TH 3 at the intersection of Canada Circle
would be completed.
The level of service(LOS) analysis for the a.m. and p.m. peak hour was conducted at each of the
impacted intersections for the existing and projected build conditions. The results of the analysis
are shown on the following table. All site accesses to Boulder Trail are anticipated to operate at
LOS A under full-build conditions.
CAPACITY AND LOS ANALYSIS
Existing,'2007 ' 'r: Projectedi2017 ..,.; Projected2027 .
Concept A Concept B Concept A Concept B
Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay L Delay
(sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) 0 (sec)
S
CSAH 42 at
Business Park
Boulevard
AM Peak A 0.4 C 17.5 C 16.8 D 22.5 D 21.6
PM Peak A 0.5 C 18.6 C 17.2 D 28.2 D 27.5
CSAH 42 at
Biscayne Avenue
AM Peak A 1.4 C 18.9 C 17.5 E/B 35.5 E/ 34.6/
/8.5 B 8.4
PM Peak A 1.6 C 19.1 C 18.6 E/B 37.8/ E/ 36.5/
9.1 B 9.0
Biscayne Avenue at
Boulder Trail
AM Peak A 0.1 A 0.8 A 0.7 B 8.6 B 8.4
PM Peak A .0.8 A 1.5 A 1.2 B 9.2 B 9.0
TH 3 at Canada
Circle Boulder Trail
AM Peak A 0.1 B 7.8 B 7.5 D 24.5 D 23.4
PM Peak A 0.2 B 9.1 B 8.5 D 26.1 D 25.9
The intersection of CSAH 42 at Business Park Boulevard is currently operating at an LOS A
today and would anticipate operation at an LOS C / D under full-build conditions in 2017 and
City of Rosemount
Rosemount Business Park EAW
February 13,2007
Page 14 of 19 1001556-951Admin1Docs\EAW\EAW-Rsmt Business Park.doc
2027. The County has indicated that this intersection may be restricted to a three-quarter access
(no left turn allowed from Business Park Boulevard to CSAH 42) in the future if excessive delays
begin to occur at the intersection. These delays would likely be a result of future growth along the
CSAH 42 corridor and is not anticipated as a result of this development. However, should delays
occur, the other intersections at Boulder Trail and Biscayne Avenue and Boulder Trail at TH 3 will
experience slightly higher traffic, but no degradation of level of service.
The intersection of CSAH 42 at Biscayne Avenue is currently operating at an LOS A and would
operate at LOS E in the future(2027) as an unsignalized intersection. This intersection is
included as part of the County's overall access plan for CSAH 42 as a potential signal in the
future. The LOS at this intersection as a signalized intersection in the future would be LOS B.
This intersection would not be signalized until such time as traffic signal warrants are met, and it
is included in the County's capital improvement program.
All other intersections will operate at satisfactory levels of service with the proposed site traffic
now and in the future.
Based on the proposed development, the only roadway improvement that would be required
would be the extension of Boulder Trail from the proposed site to Canada Circle at TH 3. This
should be completed with the full build on this area. This roadway should be a single lane in each
direction with a right-turn lane and combination through/left-turn lane at the intersection of TH 3.
In addition, the intersection of TH 3 should be modified to include a southbound left-turn lane and
a northbound right-turn lane.
Coordination will be necessary between the developer, the City of Rosemount, Dakota County,
and Mn/DOT to ensure the site accesses are constructed and permitted as required.
22. Vehicle-related air emissions.Estimate the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality,including
carbon monoxide levels.Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality
impacts.Note: If the project involves 500 or more parking spaces,consult EAW Guidelines about whether a
detailed air quality analysis is needed.
The project is not anticipated to have an appreciable impact on air quality. Traffic will be
consistent with the proposed end use with the majority of emissions produced from people driving
to and from the area to park. Vehicles will not be idling for extended periods of time.
23. Stationary source air emissions.Describe the type,sources,quantities and compositions of any emissions
from stationary sources of air emissions such as boilers,exhaust stacks or fugitive dust sources.Include any
hazardous air pollutants(consult EAW Guidelines for a listing)and any greenhouse gases (such as carbon
dioxide,methane,nitrous oxide)and ozone-depleting chemicals(chloro-fluorocarbons,hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride).Also describe any proposed pollution prevention techniques and
proposed air pollution control devices.Describe the impacts on air quality.
The end users of the property will not include heavy manufacturing facilities. Emissions will be
consistent with the power plant and climate control devices needed for similar facilities.
24. Odors,noise and dust.Will the project generate odors,noise or dust during construction or during operation?
X Yes No
If yes,describe sources,characteristics,duration,quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate
adverse impacts.Also identify locations of nearby sensitive receptors and estimate impacts on them.Discuss
potential impacts on human health or quality of life.(Note: fugitive dust generated by operations may be
discussed at item 23 instead of here.)
The conversion of these parcels from agricultural office/warehouse is expected to generate noise
and dust during construction. However, post-construction, the end uses are not anticipated to
City of Rosemount
Rosemount Business Park EAW
February 13,2007
Page 15 of 19 K:10155695WdminlDocs\EAWIEAW-Rsml Business Park.doc
generate significant dust. Phasing and Best Management Practices will be employed to control
dust generation and transmission during site grading and construction.
Due to an increase in traffic, some increase in noise may occur. There is little noise increase
otherwise anticipated as a result of the end uses. The proposed land use is consistent with the
surrounding land uses. There are no sensitive receptors in the area.
25. Nearby resources.Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site?
Archaeological,historical or architectural resources? _Yes X No
Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? X Yes _No
Designated parks,recreation areas or trails? _Yes X No
Scenic views and vistas? _Yes X No
Other unique resources? _Yes X No
If yes,describe the resource and identify any project-related impacts on the resource.Describe any measures to
minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office performed a file review at the request of the
RGU. Their review indicated no historic structures on the site. Bridge number 6306 where MN
TH 3 runs under the Soo Line Railroad is listed as a historic structure within the search area.
This structure is outside of the project area and will not be impacted by the project.
A review of aerial photography and site visits are consistent with these findings as no structures
or otherwise unique landforms were observed on the site. Based upon these observations and
the historic review of the property, it is reasonable to conclude that no historic properties or
archaeological sites exist on the subject property. This does not dismiss the contractor or
developer from contacting SHPO in the event that a historic property or archaeological site is
discovered during the development of the property.
With the exception of those Wadena soils having a slope greater than 12 percent, all of those
soils are classified as being farmland of statewide significance or prime farmland. By developing
this project to the proposed land use, all of the land within the project area will be removed from
agricultural production. There is little opportunity to minimize the impact on the resource while
developing the land to the proposed land use. The farmland rating for the soils in the area can be
found on Table 25-1.
Prime and other Important Farmlands
Dakota County,Minnesota
Map Map unit name Farmland classification
Symbol
3016 Lindstrom silt loam,1 to 4 percent slopes Alf areas are prime farmland
411A Waukegan silt loam,0 to 1 percent slopes Alt areas are prime farmland
4116 Waukegan silt loam,1 to 6 percent slopes All areas are prime farmland
39C Wadena loam,6 to 12 percent slopes Farmland of statewide importance
Table 25-1—Prime and Unique Farmland on and adjacent to the subject property.
26. Visual impacts.Will the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation?Such as glare
from intense lights,lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust
stacks? Yes X No
If yes,explain.
27. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations.Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive
plan,land use plan or regulation,or other applicable land use,water,or resource management plan of a local,
City of Rosemount
Rosemount Business Park EAW
February 13,2007
Page 16 of 19 K:10 1 5 56 9 51Admin\Docs\EAW\EAW-Rsmt Business Park.doc
regional,state or federal agency?
X Yes _No. If yes,describe the plan,discuss its compatibility with the project and explain how any conflicts
will be resolved.If no,explain.
In the current(2006)zoning map,the area is zoned Business Park District(BP). The Land Use
Map from the 2020 Rosemount Comprehensive Plan continues to guide this area for Business
Park. End users are anticipated to be consistent with the permitted uses within the BP District.
These may include office space, warehouse, distribution, light manufacturing, laboratory and
other similar uses. The adjoining properties are similarly zoned BP. As such, no conflicts are
expected between the proposed land use and the existing or projected surrounding land uses.
28. Impact on infrastructure and public services.Will new or expanded utilities,roads,other infrastructure or
public services be required to serve the project? X Yes No. If yes,describe the new or additional
infrastructure or services needed.(Note: any infrastructure that is a connected action with respect to the project
must be assessed in the EAW; see EAW Guidelines for details.)
Water and sewer services exist along Boulder Avenue. (See Exhibit Fl and F2, Appendix A)
Sewer and water services will need to be extended onto the property to service each facility.
Storm Sewer facilities will also need to be constructed on the site. These will need to provide an
emergency overflow but should otherwise not need to tie into the existing system. In the event
that a regional pond is constructed in the area and this site is tied to that pond, storm sewer will
need to be extended to this pond. Design should be done to facilitate this potential future
extension.
Boulder Avenue is anticipated to be extended to the south and west to intersect with TH 3. A
timetable has not yet been established for the construction of this extension.
29. Cumulative impacts.Minnesota Rule part 4410.1700,subpart 7,item B requires that the RGU consider the
"cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects"when determining the need for an
environmental impact statement.Identify any past,present or reasonably foreseeable future projects that may
interact with the project described in this EAW in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts.Describe the
nature of the cumulative impacts and summarize any other available information relevant to determining
whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to cumulative impacts(or discuss each
cumulative impact under appropriate item(s)elsewhere on this form).
Approximately 220 acres remain undeveloped around the project area. This land is guided to be
developed as Business Park. There are no immediate plans for the development of this area.
However, it is anticipated to occur at some time in the future. The development of these parcels
will contribute to the traffic on Boulder Avenue, County Road 42 and Biscayne Avenue.
Development of these parcels will also result in an increase water demand and wastewater
generation as well as an overall increase in hard surface and stormwater runoff. The City of
Rosemount is aware of the future guidance of this area and will address infrastructural needs
through the Comprehensive Plan and as the area develops.
The land use on these undeveloped parcels is intensive agriculture. Because of this land use,
there are no significant natural communities likely to be impacted as the area develops.
Biscayne Avenue will be upgraded in the future as the parcels adjoining Biscayne Avenue
develop. Boulder Avenue will also be extended at some point in the future to eventually connect
with Trunk Highway 3. Neither of these items is to take place concurrent with or as a subsequent
phase of this development.
The thirteen(13.0)acre parcel, identified as either Lot 7 or Lot 10, which is to be exchanged for
the current Rosemount Port Authority parcel and an additional 7 acre City owned parcel, will
eventually house a water treatment facility. There are no immediate plans for the construction of
City of Rosemount
Rosemount Business Park EAW
February 13,2007
Page 17 of 19 K:\0155695\Admin\Mrc\EAW\EAW-Rsmt Business Park.doc
this facility.
As the land in the vicinity of this development is developed to Business Park per the City's
Comprehensive Plan, additional unique and prime farmland will be permanently taken out of
rotation. This will have a net effect of further decreasing the amount of prime tillable acreage in
Dakota County.
30. Other potential environmental impacts.If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts not
addressed by items 1 to 28,identify and discuss them here,along with any proposed mitigation.
This EAW has addressed any foreseeable impacts. No additional environmental impacts are
anticipated as a result of the projected end use or the construction thereof.
31. Summary of issues.Do not complete this section if the EAW is being done for EIS scoping;instead, address
relevant issues in the draft Scoping Decision document, which must accompany the EAW. List any impacts and
issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is begun.Discuss any
alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues,including
those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions.
The following issues have been identified through the EAW process:
1. Storm Water Management—Increased impervious surface will result in an increase in
runoff. The developer will need to meet the requirements of the City of Rosemount's
Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. The development will also need to
implement other water quality BMP's as practicable.The City of Rosemount is a
landlocked area with no formal overflow route for storm water runoff. Volume and rate
control will need to be provided on-site or through a regional pond should one be
constructed in the future.
2. Traffic—Based on the proposed development, the only roadway improvement that would
be required would be the extension of Boulder Trail from the proposed site to Canada
Circle at TH 3. This should be completed with the full build on this area. This roadway
should be a single lane in each direction with a right-turn lane and combination
through/left-turn lane at the intersection of TH 3. In addition, the intersection of TH 3
should be modified to include a southbound left-turn lane and a northbound right-turn
lane.
City of Rosemount .
Rosemount Business Park EAW
February 13,2007
Page 18 of 19 K.N0155695tAdmin1DocstEAW1EAW.Rsmt Business Park.dos
RGU CERTIFICATION.The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental Assessment
Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor.
I hereby certify that:
• The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge.
• The EAW describes the complete project;there are no other projects,stages or components other than
those described in this document,which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions,
as defined at Minnesota Rules,parts 4410.0200,subparts 9b and 60,respectively.
• Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list.
Signature: Date :
Title :
Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared by the staff of the Environmental Quality Board at the
Administration Department.For additional information,worksheets or for EAW Guidelines,contact:Environmental
Quality Board,658 Cedar St.,St.Paul,MN 55155,651-296-8253,or http://www.egb.state.mn.us
City of Rosemount
Rosemount Business Park EAW
February 13,2007
Page 19 of 19 K:0155695tAdminlDocs\EAW\EAW-Rsmt Business Park.doc
Appendix A
Figures
_
. t.-- ••• /II\"-....1
,, ...1. -- ...--z".' .„. i - •
.--;...:::: 1.../'•-•,-,.•- .....- --.?..5-.:14.„.::::7-.11-...s:`.. .1-2:-.._, • .,k.
... vi. ..'i',...' I.,. ".. fi t,...•--..' L- -;7....--;?.:4,1`"s•-•'''.7'; %."-:'---••• • ,_-• :,--- 1.
...‘„,,...,...;,..g„: _ ••.:71.1-,.,_,.,!..,..): ...-:..:::: ..,....,_ .. .•.•.-.to, t. 5._. .../ ..,IV. ..-...,,7,-
'... t,
•4:;:.••••,_3(,I,r_C.I.,:-.:1 •-,:.- i.s.14- ..',...,tk:;.-••,:.•,..-,-•-•,;,e,,--••• •••?\_. ,-"..- '•'•'.•''..%,:::, ,:k.i....ff‘.., , ..,-,^ •-‘1•1,-1_,k '''' •-'.. ,/, f.17.-' 1.-...-7.-:,
rz2
,...,.•-..-.... r!`-.r....,.-..i.,....47:11.:4-714•1; • , f,....,i'.',-...',•••• '' ...;-,- ....--6.1._....‘ f' I '' .."...::‘,„ ,...": .-,..• ' -•. „ ;A.A 9: • . I A--.,‘• 4 4,.2...L.,.r
..,-,-,.•, r ,-1: .,...... k ''. .' :.i r''''. .c 5-41:;;,S:2% ..--,•'...' '-4.1'. . • . - ' 14. -; '-'. I . .• k f• J I ,,••"1,..,7‘ ......s i ....." L!'
...... .a. ..,i:•,,..5..,4.>. .,e.lr. •,...N. ••••,I.•,.....:4:::*) ' ,c• ,..1,,,j..17• 417-.-- , •...:•+• . Itt.ir ,:wpt...; ...,..,-..- l•-.',....1 k 5 -' if',
. ..:"'-'1..'I . ..r..).' -'....41,,,T...47-77, .\-;('-';;-•"'••••7;74.1:•.- 4friiioi•iy...c.0.-•• - • • es.••••,fc,1..,13,• „,, .•,_ , -..-,.. , ...... ' ,... ..r. ,•• •, ..,.1,;,....-0...../.0C-.1.--. \ LI
•-...',`v,C;.-.: l''':-14..7.'••'? ..C•1;'1,-.:Y•Ss;"'v..-`••;-:'''.4777-..*...--.7-.>,•-•.,1 1'..)(r, . ,qi ' :,1,/,' ! ..\\\ ‘,‘„ r., b,-.,, (--,.•
,...',., ..-...x....6,..4.01..,‘
•I ,<:\lk•••":41e.1.1e'rf,!' ,:•,• •$.;.;-7:.*.r.-411'.1'•C4:: :. ;;%:k;A••.P.K..'1. ....• 3'Z/1. /1)11t-P.t.e.--i,, -7 1 •
% V '',:"\ '''''',' \:' •I'..r1',-- ,3'-e-... • --7----T ,
4
".''ilii.•&-,.., ...-.e. ''''.. ' '.'"".....:%:•.-.4.:,•;,..:-: :', .,41;w1 ',..-..t-i...:••. .',..; -L.-.LL'.. :if t(ty?.7.) •..e.-- ' . „••.4ev?- i..--
• __ ,....1i. .. _ ..
.'•1 :9*-,1'....;1,r L.,?;.!!/..7.1'1/4%.„1:-'•••:":,...:.-;-." ...,, ..,'as,,-., ....,... ,.-.s.,,.;"---"/./,'- -,•ii ,.'S J S •'. 1 •-••,„ - ))....toti, .1 .•
-1 ..,..,
,•••••••-pv) -, ..--- "A*... '. --•-• ' .....:-.4 I- ' • ,1.,',...6k. A -- ::•''7'. 1: .,' ')--.."..
• ;'..•••••.1 -.,•..../,' t4f, •%.........-1 1).•'-;••••;.. .14- .s..z.i, '.'• ....:• . :115 .. .1..• •>1 -1370:ITT'-./ ,/ .1 I;f'''•••-,' i ,?..,, 1(T.
.,....-,, „..,‘,......
'.,_:;,,,;-:...,,,---,,,..,..r..--...„;,..-7.,,,c,.,,:!.,,,,, ..\-, ..::;,/, ,,, ::,.... -...... I.4?•_L;•Fl••' It it I••.40fit,...'hl. .
•
: .••• • ..7C:....,•••& ` ,.., .-‘''..-. ...i''-'- ''', :.'1,..`'''';4:4X.,,1:',4 Zal I . •A i'..7j •r - V" 4'''' .
"-..i.7.r7.... "....e,...;....:.','..7.:sk.....'j ''. ••I'''....C7'....004...4 •-•-,_.,-".' •i...7F.'"I•it)ie,-...,4-.4-`!,If,i
i
„' ,„ ._ . ..„...
fq.,`:','.-•,;_.,•:,-.,..,-_,•";•••,„::'":",-!!--.,1 ...-r, .7,..1,(N.. ...,.. -:.......r-,..-1-:1.•;Agg-•...,•;.7. .ft..,,,..••.1t,*1 -.e.N.,..,•...•-•;•ti -- ..... ....--•:::\_--• ' , •t:.-%' •-' ..,
.1........:4-:.4...,::::,..0.-.4,71.,ff.,'.' ii..7...1,.. ..;xi:-;-...,\7 .....,,..,.....,4es..--,' :i c,'§ ,.v.,...,... ,.. -1,,,-:„/"...;f•
....--•- ) ''..• --_, , ...- ..
i_r-,,,,,,;A%-,.c.,,_-:".'f A .?; .:4.-.,,-'.!,...-i ki'_..-,.; '..;141''' '_;44•%.,.... ,-.e.'''-.01.411 •••lit:4' *SIIP 1
. ..F,4,, wl.II e'5 \•-"' . . r -II, k \
.., ,.••x% 1 V,LY
.;j 1 ,. ' - -* `•....."-....,_ ,''1,
,O,,1_;,.._°Y.,.,i,.._........-"--A- e_•••:-"" ,,-,.• „-At, . ,,:;,.:.,;.r.3,,...t • 1. .......,F.ku- . '-' ( 41,..4
(
;.-- go + r,r, '- "•(••• ‘`...` .r•
jr"...-:4;..... . .J. .;,..c :.....i.' ,...-F 4:- ..-•'7.-:!:;.•*...7-1.:- ....-71 .---=-...„:" a 1.?,,2 lob, ./S y.
4)U Nt - -1). :Fe. 1, . ....1;./..
r' "s. --='-',k'r."-::".;i ''4,''Ne_....'1"-i;?trir41-..-"-i-[1jYta'r.f..- 4,•',1111•1:',, ----11,()8 Iri 121'.'
. .
---',1":".•••-.L.,:•••-. • &. 2. . ',1:-.r.-...-"1,:".r...,. n ••••/:-•'..se.',.„-j ) ,:-.,,,,' 3 ;
"'••-•••.1 LLA '\ .- ::;,--t.c:-/',„,,,,.+•:'' rA17-2CTI5C.:.1;i,:":';.'',IM....i'••••77 .3.,.;" Ilt,';;;41.11k. I 1,-..-,, ,.......:.• 1';-,.-'4... 7'--• -•,. • A, fl.4.,,,',.---' s' ,
• .t.L'...-.,....•.,,,t,-;:..e-i,-....,...,--4--r,
-••••:-•.,-/T.-s---.1...ITCV' '4.‘..'.- , ,•- •••••:•.....
..) ,'''-'- k.:"Le-';'.\7:•-•::\.:k\'''...".
..-'!2...,,-7t..4:::1.`fiCiP•-":7.. ....' :..7 I !','....:''%.,1.-..1;:"'.; •"'"--*-11..i.. 4,7.v .„:
t,
:., ..!-..,' .A..
4: •---- ,.....je
-•" 4.611.e.
, -..--, .f.,,,,.-;,,:-....„-t.---7,--;- -..- .L., -
1••tn-77,,o-^....::---, - t...,,,,-...„... 1.._ .i,„;.,,,.1-..,......,..z„...;„,_,..;.........i.,,...7,....•.. I
:71.•-'1`I:.1..• .1 ,•':,. ; „,,.'':'-•ts,"":„,'''',7- l':'•'•••514A' r'4•., ,',..‘ .?"....r:;:''''' 'Af4'''''''q•‘-.....ti••‘'.., • l' . - •,i2
41-,,1.E.INI•.4',''''...- I,sr:4,cl' :i!"7 • :.,....•14-[`_,:i!,..:1•....:-.---4,7i•' '•••,....:...:1!;I:•::7‘. •t,. , ...,- • I i•ttr
1
•':-..':••,:17:71 1;••-;: 04>r•-'' ;--.;', :'.: ••'-E-*,IA:;'64 .11a- -",:lie 1:0 '-'=-".--.-""
]
.'
'..... I /4.
I.'
::1i:::4-",•-.7-7-•.1:"-.4.-I.:''c'..!.....kn.T-irct'''- '':•• • :-:;'--..-..'.'.-',''''..•":t.1.::t.-17;,...;7.C.-• .111'!-:..41-4.4-‘,...
.if ..._ _ ...,
.. , 1,...
:? l' r' ''`.----.:\
5
3„,Tti•<:_4•!..9..*.:.:::,),",:,A,i'...i..-:•,.._.•:,-,..,..: 411-:,....-",...viia:-.KI:••':.:,:-..-..j.-- 1,,,-, . .:.i= ...',..74... \--) , .. .-,_...::, ,
---N r. r-- --, ,• j .
,--3:-;:...:,l':.0,..,,c;•,,:.-1.„--,••••, i 1,,:II ..• -•'1- ,..-f-•-4.7v;...'ir• I -ff -ir ' 4., ., ,. ....
...., k
•.i•' ...":-.J1',".?.".P.'. ,..-- '";•••,..--- ''':',..„.',..-„,_,' .1,-5-37 -f'.','•-..,'.!. 4-:7'....7-.' •lir.'' 14,7 .. 1 r's ' ...-/i.../
.t.,,,,r).',...,.. ..,.i•,...4k;•,-..,,,•••••-q•,..• •-•?:1,4 ,-..4•=t",: i••%Ity__Ji: •-''-'':7'''T .-=.,,:Alt-ff-5- . -: '.. / ,...,-,.. \ , • . .,,.. :
tr:,..-••••,...•:•,-.-•.•ie_..1., :i'eiTyttF•••.' .''',---••7'..2.',"17:-'• ••=r---_-.- Fl le ...1,1, -..h, ? f
",.. ... \ c-'....--""."..., ....
7f„ .......S..!',! ..... 1'4'. -1,--_.- = =-- r•-•- . k i _-- ,-.• s'- - f lc, %,' -..) .÷v:
L.i.---.:.--.4 .:•;`'.&."--- ..••.•;:rid)=-"""- k•''st•--7 ''. lir t.';': .i..&.• ' ) : N..,., • \
) .'
.'
...,,..
......k..1::0„.s • 1,,j . ,
...\\ s...' ...('.... .: ', I
.„,... ...,. (, ... ,,•....'" : •-i ..,, ••„ ‘'' - -. 4. s.5
7\ ;
5. •..., ...7-.1.‘4 '„,.-;./--.) _i_,,,01 `., -..,
....,,...).___.,•
__..... :. • •_... -
-77-:,,-;;::.,,,..A.." .1'2'.6 L'''. - ,-- N7-..
'''
'''
1."-•,..,11 I N.
::•:.1..f17''','''''..;,, .'_ ,.. •‘••••••••'• -.• •.. -+-1 •••:f , ..ze
--,•••••. . Ni
.
•,......,...,:•::::,...,;,,,...,..„..,,•_,,_,, .....„, .....„ ......6„..... .2.:. ..,._ .. • : est Arns . .1.-., .%_
• 9 ,. -: /73
, ,
',..-,.• : -;.,... -",....,,,,J;,,--,.-,..;::',..-- i ,. . •••• -, •-e ••',...pkr 0. „ .. 1 ,..., le‘.f..5
'33 , \ • 4
• j. ' ' ''•e•,,1
...7. ,- ,.'i.-if; 1 .---1-, N '-..L';:' c'..,...'-''';'-.) \! . ) ...A •,._-1.----4.,i; . .. .
Lk .': ?1,-..'• .1'.-.-i•C ,:•:',.--`4., '-, .. " (-• /-",-4N.r
'.; r ' 'f....-;11..i.4 '''.- I n N. .:
-5.z.::-.4 .,.*-''",'`.i".:": :,. :...':ii.7,(,):1''4,.,...L 1' 71211' .k/ '''''.''''1)•-41 II ••• - 1I...-" •s
II .---11
..:
...:':"...I'E.1...V ., .•;.1.4-14-.4. -: :::-1-'.46.2:'::.%'71',.i. " ,iiZ,.. ..'-';•;?:I'1 '' .! ..-7 - r.., ,.•%•••_..•5 ,-.."
•'.---.::"..--•i, ; 71..1_L•y••.-: !.."-:.;ii :1,-•-•••J.•_.-..-:‘, . ',f ,k-IS '
11 e i r
-1'• ::,--' .(1 ,1'. -' l's":'". '''..f.:•:•-•-•:--/...re• Ni-7„..„..• i.,
•.! j .../' .,
.;_., L., A.-,-...,...i.,•• ,,,-...z- • 'k' ••1,•:- i • • /1 • 11 I 1 7 '4, I
f I
• +-.•,-.f.L...,,,,-: .).. .,...;,,, ' " L. ,.., ) 0.fictl (t, '-'" -I; N.
.,_ :_,
,,
•I'S • .
--;-,.,- -..../ '\'''..,kl...,-1!',.."--:!•'4::•7:'"•;',.-11 .-•:-•.:;:,--„ ''"-• /
'' ----• I-r-'N.'''''''.".'i 1.....17.1; .',..••.2,;.'" ' .. ' / , .,,-
. ) ... ....i.•
z' -. \,•• .., , ,.:•-;•-t.".•••,„, ',7,..,--1 4,..--••: i -'-_,1 , I ••
,,,t J,• :,,,,,'N. ...-•
11. --.':(5c-..1::.3:- '. - L-)
).,-•-t___,
1 c:. .,\ .f• ,,..t.1,-•K- "%,:,,- , t•- - ......,,, 1, ..jr-
f ,•#-'4 L7' 1 )::) ./'-Nk ;- .1-1 '',
'' ''\ 757-"F:'. ..`,'.-'Fi` t.,..,\‘:k..,11...Sr''...-__,,-*•*' ; e
,t1,,........ ,,t
.4- --t:_i' ','''it'
,.ttr.' I I .:
cl...1."4."::.'t-1;'?"-- :',".v.:---... ;: %,1)'s, r:- •it ...7 k__.
L
a -...i.,*,,./.., . H.r.. , ..s•-•7:".e-E", .,,111.%:AW 1
I.Vati;."1•::";:(4,1:::::.-.)0.'-:4.e 1 L''''.'.' N. -'4,*-.7 .,.. e'l .. iv.4.
‘..'n.
I...... • • 4iriliriF....,'"•;;:•• •.' ••• ...'••s:'•.1 4.•••.:'P.
,,,,,---7k1_1?
--r - /.., • ..,
•:. 7:• -/e,'•,:' .. . • ' -•••i',Illi. i=..' • .•!_.._. . ...--
i
1 , -....,
. .• oil
4,7z:2•-._.• .;.k:.0.-..i- •.,iegg L •. ,-.'7.• ...
'''
7.771-- .. .,,,-,,. I-77.:
._ 7....1.-' *k.r. -17"..., _,...;:.; ,. . . k• r 5.. •,•.!,,,• , ..••. '''....,,.. 4 -- •••,'-'
...._.... ....„::, .,--,i e , % -, ": 1..,„,.. .
.1. /..-....% . i
.'I : ..../ •
'' '' ''''.• .q14•41.1 :r...,...-1.;4 .-::,4, •*-%;,' ! _.4.•'?3`11 ..L.'''' ):.. 1-,/,....1.::•., 1.....-,,
J
..-...- „.,
•••e r- --,.. I Ai
i 1-.t•.:1/
Iray.,••?'1:•!•1•5 ',Or,' :%•.•-•.:1;--•'::":. .•..'4.1-41.'d I io "I ••••7,7'--•lz••- /11../...'' :::•..? .--"\ -•.• ' --- ••'' I.::-. c-., :
- -'.7_.•,-4• -
\ -.. .k*.f , .:- -( •••• ••••:'tt,,::-• 1 Ntit.... 4••••4 .., •'? % ,)."..?=.'. . .f.• • ..,,, ,-/ CI../ .-ac' •
'•••-----'-
- '
.. •• .•
•••-, •-,..,•••.‘
.-: 41.-,2,..,_. •-•*,;.i.,' . e •, f,... •fr? • .1'..6 . .';;('iti '... •.'.....',7..' '.i ..1 /4.1.,,t•,..N...6".....f., •••• 1.1 ,N., ! ''•'', .'S
., 7,r,se'il.' L'.x C••-•'1... ,„1••••• \. .e..... ' r......i. • .,...-.•••• ..• -.. • ., : ...., ,i.t........,... i
..,..,Ad...4.•s ..::„....,::---:-.:7_:... , ); •.. I, ••.,.../7 "...• .......• ... c .
,th,^-n-V,..re•-*.:11 . -- '-\ • c, ,`:.1- . ,--"-/ ... .e"..--;; t' ::: I-- --
,g
r.1 . _,_ ,..,_.,...........
•.‘... ••• . 9..,.
''
.....r•••• - ---,-. -,N., ..,,,:. •• .
,-.,t• --: „ •, . '•-••':- • ‘ ... 1 :• .• : ••• ...,._ , % ..,5,7.,,,i,„-,..,...s.:4,,..
s--•
„ • ••• .,;:r- "•••• ..i. • • .1 I-• ;••.,, , •• - •i '..k. 1 ..,-'. -..--1‘i •-....%J. I
I.:•,,:',. _I
.,...
•,.
I ',2. :.
-: -.'"s• ../') • 6 • rs.--, ..0. 647..,..... ,,,,.. / .\,..i.T.,-, \-‘,J." '',, I ''::-,-,--„
'-,
p • -, ...
I' ( k -1•• ? ...\.0 1 r• •4.-„. , k, ,. ...
.., ..,. , L-L. ,'_ %, \ v..,...
1 „.
\.,-....„ .. •
....., ,. . .. -„. . .... . .
..,1 „ ... I 4,
•-....7k‘:. ",....„
• ;/ '1 I s . \11 (\.) ."••
'ith, -.,::•
• '---\ 0.\,---•\:-._ -T1' I 1
i 1 %k
u. •
-- ie. • .. ..; . - ...•
\
t%i7.-. -, '.,',.• "•,. " • • ' ' • ' •-,,,,
7-"j .-%•."--..\.. • `C., \ ..)
cs....::•.•
-... ;.„ -^-..".--•
N.
r ....... \I
)
LEG EN D
•i- • - ,,, \--N, , 'N„ ..
"‘. '•". ...
• ,--- -
, .-•
, • ' .‘'...s..,'k'::•----) ..'s-- -'\ 1. • \ I* f ::.'-•-
•
k •,,,, ..„ I ..--1 ‘..
TO:fi f ,
•
dil Boundary . \ ...., .-.„..i..,,.-----,...,..,.. '..:) .- \-:-.:71,• -e).i, • ..„,,,,_
, ,__
.
..• r.), .....10.,:.%:•,-.." ....7., ..7........--,-7-4,,,1 1 .,........ II ••,.A e' -
-
) .
, --11 ..,\ ‘......";,-;'• ..• k '•••
- I- .. s .• '.... -- .••L. )1, -
RSMT& PA Property - •••---- \..
s„, . A..---- s•,: --
0 2,000 Feet
2,000 1,000
)
, -re_.-1:.-
,.
III
ii IIIME IIIIIII
A
. • •
...m 0,, Exhibit A - USGS 7.5
..1- .
WSB
c'al'-k Coates and
11111111MIL
Farmington Quads
V
&Associates,Inc
..4-
RosemountBDuaski on teasscoPuanrkty
iv,vEso Rosemount,