Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket L.iYd% Ait- / ROSEIVIOLINTI AGENDA City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 20, 2007 CITY COUNCIL 7:30p.m. City Council Chambers, City Hall II 1. Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance / ��' 2. Additions or Corrections to Agenda � 411 3. Public Comment 4. Response to Public Comment 5. DEPARTMENT HEADS REPORTS/BUSINESS 6. CONSENT AGENDA a. Minutes of the January 16,2007 Regular City Council Proceedings b. Minutes of the February 6,2007 Regular City Council Proceedings c. Bills Listing d. Budget Encumbrances e. Transferring of Control,Authority and Operation of projects and programs of the Rosemount ' HRA and the Rosemount EDA to the Rosemount Port Authority f. Community Center/Armory Maintenance Agreement g. Receive Donation—Parks&Recreation Dept. h. Expenditure Approval from the Donation Account—Parks&Recreation Dept. I. Resolution and Consent Order imposing Civil Penalty on AMF Bowling Centers,Inc.D/B/A AMF City Limits j. Resolution and Consent Order Imposing Civil Penalty on Pat's Shenanigan's,Inc.,d/bla Shenanigan's k. Linder's Greenhouse Interim Use Permit for a Transient Merchant Sales Lot,06-61-4UP I. Vesterra,LLC and Stonex,LLC 2007 Mineral Extraction Permit Renewals,06-62-ME m. Solberg Aggregate Company(Ped-Kuznia)Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal,06-43-ME n. Flint Hills Resources Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit Allowing Construction of a 135,000 Square Foot Maintenance Building,06-65-SP and 06-66-CUP o. Crosscroft 3`d Addition Minor Planned Unit Development(PUD)Amendment,DR Horton, 07-10-AMD 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. 2007 Street Improvement Project,City Project#410 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS a. Donation Agreement with Flint Hills Resources b. 2007 Leprechaun Days Service Agreement c. Innisfree Homeowners Association Planned Unit Development Major Amendment,06-64-AMD d. Approve Distribution of Rosemount Business Park EAW e. Rosemount Business Center Lot Combination,Rezoning,and Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan and Final Development.Plan,06-67-SP,06-68-LC,06-69-CON 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS 11. ADJOURNMENT 12. CLOSED SESSION a. Arcon Construction Company Demand for Mediation The exterior building materials and accents meet the C4 architectural standards.The proposed colors are a red brick for the columns and roof cap,while the scored concrete will be beige. These colors are acceptable provided that they are integral to the exterior materials. Painting of the exterior materials will not be permitted. Access and Parking As proposed, the site has three access points. First, a joint access drive with the Chroust Dentistry on Chippendale; second, along Carrousel Way approximately 270 feet east of the intersection of Chippendale Avenue; then third, along Carrousel Way approximately 10 feet from the east end of the property. Interior circulation of the parking lot allows full access to all sides of the building. Trucks will access the warehouse space via an access drive running the entire length of the rear of the building to serve the loading dock doors. The loading docks are designed to be served by panel trucks and lighter delivery vehicles, not full semi trailers. The expected office/warehouse or retail/warehouse uses, such as dry cleaners or small contractor offices, normally use service and delivery vehicles that are suited for this type of loading dock area. The rear access drive connects directly onto both Chippendale Avenue and Carrousel Way. The applicant is proposing 80 parking stalls. The proposed office or retail uses requires 1 parking stall per 200 square feet,while the proposed warehouse uses require 1 parking stall per 2,000 square feet. The provided plans propose approximately 10,000 square feet of office or retail uses and 18,000 square feet of warehouse uses,which would require 59 parking stalls. The provided plans are an estimate of uses because the actual tenants are currently unknown. The provided parking will not be able to satisfy a building completely occupied by office or retail uses. If approved the PUD agreement will limit the total amount of office/retail to 14,600 square feet which is the maximum allowed given the amount of parking available on the site. The remaining square footage, as depicted below,would be allocated to warehouse use only. Office or Retail Warehouse Parking Requirement Parking Standard 1 stall per 200 Sq. Ft. 1 stall per 2,000 Sq. Ft. N/A Proposed Plan 50 stalls (10,000 Sq. Ft.) 9 stalls (18,000 Sq. Ft.) 59 stalls (28,000 Sq. Ft.) Maximum Use 73 stalls (14,600 Sq. Ft.) 7 stalls (13,400 Sq. Ft.) 80 stalls (28,000 Sq. Ft.) Pedestrian Circulation The front and side facades are served by a six foot sidewalk and a connection to the existing City sidewalk along Chippendale Avenue from the west side of the building. Architectural elements are included into the internal sidewalk via stamped and colored brick patterns in front of each public entrance and a stamped concrete crosswalk with the parking area. Grading The existing site is relatively flat with a gentle slope from a high point in the northeast to the lowest area adjacent to the Chippendale Avenue and Carrousel Way intersection. The site is proposed to be graded to provide a level building pad from west to east. The lot will match into the grades of the parcels to the north,while the parking lot will be elevated approximately six feet above the intersection of Chippendale Avenue and Carrousel Way. Drainage will occur interior to the site with a reverse crown parking lot and catch basins located in the middle of the drive. 3 The applicant has proposed different grading than the Chroust Dentistry. The applicant will need to coordinate with Chroust to provide a joint grading and storm water infrastructure plan that is acceptable to the City Engineer. Screening The applicant has proposed screening through landscaping via boulevard trees approximately every 30 to 35 feet, a berm approximately two feet higher that the parking lot, and a variety of bushes filling in between the trees. This screening method matches the screening approved at the Chroust Dentistry and the Carrousel Office Plaza buildings. Landscaping and Tree Replacement In addition to the landscape screening addressed above,parking lot landscape peninsulas and foundation plantings have been provided. A total of 41 trees are being planted along the boulevard,parking lot peninsulas,and along the boundary within the northeast area of the property. In addition,the applicant will be planting ten pine and spruce trees on the Chroust Dentistry property. Planting of off site landscaping is uncommon,but staff believes that the intent of the ordinance to provide screening from the adjacent uses is met. On site screening within this area is impractical due to the joint access drive shared with Chroust property. Exterior Lighting The parking lot is being light by wall mounted vertical forward throw lights. No pole mounted light will be provided. The photometric plan shows that these wall mounted lights will illuminate the parking lot while not exceeding the property line lighting intensity limits. The design of the lights must meet ordinance standards for provision of light shields. Trash Enclosure The applicant has proposed a brick trash enclosure on the north side of the building, directly west of the loading dock doors from units 1 and 4. This location provides screening of the loading dock doors from view from Chippendale Avenue. The trash enclosure doors open to the east, on the opposite side from Chippendale Avenue. Mechanical Equipment The exact location of the building's mechanical equipment is currently unknown,but is expected to be mounted on the roof. The proposed stepped capital roof cap may screen some shorter mechanical equipment,but any equipment that can be seen from Chippendale Avenue or Carrousel Way will need to be screened through the use of walls that have a similar architectural appearance as the building. Fencing is not a permissible mechanical equipment screening method. Signs The applicant proposes a single monument sign for the entire building at the corner of Chippendale Avenue and Carrousel Way. The monument sign will say"Rosemount Business Center" and contain a logo and the building addresses. No individual business names will be placed on the monument sign. Individual businesses will place signs only in their 3 foot by 12 foot 4 inch wall sign banner over their individual store fronts. Sign requirements for the building will be clarified in the PUD agreement and will vary from the ordinance requirements so they are only located in the designated sign band area. 4 Utilities The site has two sewer and water stubs, one to each of the existing lots. The building is proposed to be served using the easterly set of sewer and water stubs. Fire hydrants will need to be installed per the fire code. If the building is not sprinkled, then there will need to be one installed within 150 feet of any part if the building. If the building will be sprinkled,then only one interior fire hydrant will be required. The storm water infrastructure is catch basins constructed within the parking lot and connected to the City system within the Chippendale Avenue. The supplied storm water calculations are deficient and additional information will need to be provided and approved by the City Engineer. The applicant is proposing to install redundant storm water infrastructure to the Chroust proposed infrastructure within the joint access drive. A common grading and storm water infrastructure plan for the joint drive will need to be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. Engineering Attached is a memorandum from the City Engineer is attached to this report. The major elements of the memo have been included within the previous sections of the staff report,but there are some other minor changes or additional information include within the memorandum. The require City engineering fees include: o GIS Fee = 2.2 acres * $300/acre = $660 o Sewer Connection (SAC,Units calculated by MCES) • MCES Fee $1675/SAC Unit • City Fee $1200/SAC Unit o Water Connection (WAC), 6" Meter = $29,500 o Storm Water Connection (STAC), = 2.2 acres * $2200/acre = $4,840 Park Dedication Parks dedication should be collected as cash in lieu of land. Based on a total acreage of 2.18 acres, the cash dedication amount is $19,620.00 (10%of 2.18 acres = .218 acres x$90,000 = $19,620). The fees are based on the rates that are set by the 2007 Fees and Fee Policy. Should the property owner provide information showing that the park dedication fees have been paid with a previous plat, a parks dedication fees will not be collected. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DEVIATIONS FROM THE ORDINANCE STANDARDS Mixed Use Office Warehouse The applicant has requested that the building include warehousing uses,which are not permitted with the C4 zoning district. Due to the existence of neighboring office/warehouse uses farther north on Carrousel Way and the building meeting the other standards of the C4 zoning district, staff supports this deviation. Parking Setback from the Joint Access Drive The C4 zoning district requires a ten foot setback from a joint access easement. Meeting this setback would eliminate twelve parking stall from the rear of the building. The applicant has provided a parking and access layout that will function without the ten foot setback. Staff supports this deviation.The presences of the shared drive is unusual given they are separately owned and developed. The site plan seems to address this anomaly reasonably well, even though the required setback is not met. 5 Lot Coverage The proposed development contains an impervious surface coverage of 80.6%, 5.6% beyond the permitted 75%within the C4 zoning district. The City Engineer is comfortable that the City's storm water infrastructure can support this level of impervious surface. Staff is generally supportive of this deviation. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Rezoning,Lot Combination, and Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan, subject to conditions. 6 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2007- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND LOT COMBINATION FOR THE ROSEMOUNT BUSINESS CENTER WHEREAS,the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from Rosemount Business Center requesting a Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan Plat approval concerning property legally described as: Lot 1,Block 1, South Rose Park 3rd Addition, except the North 140 feet thereof, and Lot 3, Block 1, South Rose Park 3`d Addition,Dakota County,Minnesota. WHEREAS, on January 23,2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public hearing and reviewed the Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan;and WHEREAS, on January 23, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan, subject to conditions;and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2007,the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Lot Combination, subject to: 1. Parks dedication should be collected as cash in lieu of land. Based on a total acreage of 2.18 acres, the cash dedication amount is $19,620.00 (10% of 2.18 acres = .218 acres x $90,000 = $19,620). The fees are based on the rates that are set by the 2007 Fees and Fee Policy. Should the property owner provide information showing that the park dedication fees have been paid with a previous plat, a parks dedication fees will not be collected. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan, subject to: 1. Execution of the PUD Agreement. 2. Payment of all applicable City development fees. 3. The colors of the exterior materials must be integral to the material. Painting of the exteriors materials will not be permitted. 4. Office or Retail Uses are limited to total of no more than 14,600 square feet. 5. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from Chippendale Avenue and Carrousel Way in accordance with the City Ordinance. 6. Signs for individual businesses are permitted only in the 3 foot by 12 foot 4 inch sign banner above each store front. 7. A common grading and storm water infrastructure plan for the joint access drive with Chroust Dentistry will need to be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. 8. Submission of a landscape security equal to one hundred and twenty five percent (125%) of the cost of the plantings. 9. All portions of this facility shall be within 150 feet of an approved fire hydrant, these hydrants shall be capable of providing sufficient fire flow for this facility. If the owner would install an approved automatic fire suppression system, only one (1) on site fire hydrant will be required. This hydrant shall be within 100" (feet) of the fire department connection. 10. If the owner would choose this fire suppression option a post indicator valve with alarm will be required. 11. Conformance with all conditions of the City Engineer Memorandum dated January 12, 2007 prior to issuance of a building permit. ADOPTED this 20th day of February,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: 2 City of Rosemount Ordinance No. B-186 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE Rosemount Business Center THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance B, adopted September 19, 1989, entitled "City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance," is hereby amended to rezone property from C-4 General Commercial to C-4 PUD General Commercial Planned Unit Development that is located north of Carrousel Way, and East of Chippendale Avenue within the City of Rosemount as depicted on the map attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. Section 2. The Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount,referred to and described in said Ordinance No. B as that certain map entitled"Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount," shall not be republished to show the aforesaid rezoning,but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the said zoning map on file in the Clerk's office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this Ordinance and all of the notation references and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made part of this Ordinance. Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. ENACTED AND ORDAINED into an Ordinance this 20th day of February, 2007. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk Published in the Rosemount Town Pages this day of ,2007. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS Rosemount Business Center Planned Unit Development THIS DECLARATION made this day of February, 2007, by the ROSEMOUNT BUSINESS CENTER, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as the"Declarant"); WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of the real property as described on Attachment One, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof(hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is subject to certain zoning and land use restrictions imposed by the City of Rosemount, Minnesota ("City") in connection with the approval of an application for a planned unit development for a residential development on the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, the City has approved such development on the basis of the determination by the City Council of the City that such development is acceptable only by reason of the details of the development proposed and the unique land use characteristics of the proposed use of the Subject Property; and that but for the details of the development proposed and the unique land use 1 characteristics of such proposed use, the planned unit development would not have been approved; and WHEREAS, as a condition of approval of the planned unit development, the City has required the execution and filing of this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (hereinafter the"Declaration"); and WHEREAS, to secure the benefits and advantages of approval of such planned unit development,Declarant desires to subject the Subject Property to the terms hereof. NOW, THEREFORE,the Declarant declares that the Subject Property is, and shall be,held, transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, hereinafter set forth. 1. The use and development of the Subject Property shall conform to the following documents,plans and drawings: a. City Resolution No. 2007- ,Attachment Two b. Rosemount Business Center Plat,Attachment Three c. Site Plans dated 2/12/2007 (Sheet S2),Attachment Four d. Grading and Stormwater Plan dated 2/02/2007,Attachment Five e. Landscape Plan dated 2/15/2007(Sheet L1),Attachment Six f. Floor Plan dated 2/12/2007 (Sheets Al),Attachment Seven g. Architectural Elevations dated 10/11/2006 (Sheets A2),Attachment Eight h. Architectural Renderings dated 1/16/2007,Attachment Nine i. Sign Plan(Sheet A2;6-8),Attachment Ten all of which attachments are copies of original documents on file with the City and are made a part hereof. 2 2. Development and maintenance of structures and uses on the Subject Property shall conform to the following standards and requirements: a. The colors of the exterior materials must be integral to the material. Painting of the exteriors materials will not be permitted. b. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from Chippendale Avenue and Carrousel Way in accordance with the City Ordinance. c. Signs for individual businesses are permitted only in the 3 foot by 12 foot 4 inch sign banner above each store front. d. A common grading and storm water infrastructure plan for the joint access drive with Chroust Dentistry will need to be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. 3. The Subject Property may only be developed and used in accordance with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of these Declarations unless the owner first secures approval by the City Council of an amendment to the planned unit development plan or a rezoning to a zoning classification that permits such other development and use. 4. In connection with the approval of developers of the Subject Property, the following variances from City Zoning or Subdivision Code provisions were approved: a. Section 11-4-14 B. Permitted Uses: In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 11-4-14 B., Office/Warehouse and Retail/Warehouse uses are permitted provided that the total of all office and retail uses do not exceed 14,800 square feet. b. Section 11-4-14 F.3. Lot Coverage: The lot coverage for the subject property shall not exceed 81%. 3 c. Section 11-4-14 F.8.d. Parking Setback: There is no required parking setback from the joint access easement with the property to the north. In all other respects the use and development of the Subject Property shall conform to the requirements of the City Code of Ordinances. 5. The obligations and restrictions of this Declaration run with the land of the Subject Property and shall be enforceable against the Declarant, its successors and assigns, by the City of Rosemount acting through its City Council. This Declaration may be amended from time to time by a written amendment executed by the City and the owner or owners of the lot or lots to be affected by said amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned as duly authorized agents, officers or representatives of Declarant have hereunto set their hands and seals as of the day and year first above written. DECLARANT By Daniel Huntington Its Chief Manager 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2007, by Daniel Huntington, the Chief Manager, for and on behalf of Rosemount Business Center, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company,by and on behalf of said Company. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 2875 145TH STREET WEST ROSEMOUNT,MN 55068 651-423-4411 5 .. . ..-..._... ATTACHMENT ONE Legal Description of Property Lot 1,Block 1, South Rose Park 3`d Addition, except the North 140 feet thereof, and Lot 3, Block 1, South Rose Park 3`d Addition, Dakota County,Minnesota. ,. .. SITE MAP . go emouNI-1" 6os , ► I65S cE&JTrr� I \ 1 I / CSAJ LI/. 1111jLi± - Ni .< ;:) I 1 I il 11 I I I I 1 1 I Illirli I I illilf/111 I/ I iii•Ilir MEI LI _ do • ilit� 2 ��{Ro USTTo �� iftiiiikihkio:____ w0. u #i *'#*•�4y }S7Nn ST W as /vtovt a - 7 4fATExf (? K_ 1 S3RD ST W a uuiuilki / iiimimp. t...._ i I I I I I I IrTTTTri N OTE: Dimensions rounded to nearest foot opyright 2007,Dakota County- his drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. s his drawing is a compilation of records,information and data located in various city,county,and ate offices and other sources,affecting the area shown,and is to be used for reference purposes ily. Dakota County is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepancies are ,und,please contact Dakota County Survey and Land Information Department .ap Date:January 18,2007 Parcels Updated:1/11/2007 Aerial Photography: \ t\ f I I I I I PRECAST CAP I -_:o,Se,, I_ ,.. _ � I I I. E, I I I I L® Sl7� 1 _ m j c 11 1 I 1 I ILA ,u• _ L iI Ell BRICK VINEJR 1- 1 I I I I 11 1 I 1 I 1 I- I I TO MATCH itloc5-isiop tairr6upe4 v'i I I I I r suli.nlNG m` 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PRECAST TRIM N p ' 4"x4" TILE 1 TO MATCH \ -.-\ BUILDING - 0 I (n in \ J• FOOTING 6 Sign Elevation k / 2 1/2" = 1'-O" 1.. _ Ni3Anfd�BI `E al 'I!Iintfl } .,,�i iNati. 'R 0M117 a0l �t= - -1 —1 = sl e'SS= --- • 01011 \X 1' - S" 8 SIGN PLAN VIEW "7 SIGN PERSPECTIVE A2 1/4" = 1'-O" A2 4ROSEMOUNT PARKS AND RECREATION MEMORANDUM To: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director Eric Zweber, Senior Planner Jason Lindahl, Planner • Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator Andy Brotzler, City Engineer Morgan Dawley, Project Engineer From: Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director Date: January 16, 2007 Subject: Rosemount Business Center The Parks and Recreation Department has reviewed the Rosemount Business Center submittal and is providing the following comments: • Parks dedication should be collected as cash in lieu of land. Based on a total acreage of 2.18 acres,the cash dedication amount is $19,620.00 (10% of 2.18 acres = .218 acres x$90,000 = $19,620). The fees are based on the rates that are set by the 2007 Fees and Fee Policy. Should the property owner provide information showing that the park dedication fees have been paid with a previous plat,a parks dedication fees will not be collected. • Staff is recommending a sidewalk be installed to connect the existing sidewalk along Chippendale Avenue and the sidewalk around the proposed building. Please call me at 651-322-6012 if you have any questions about this memo. ` r Memorandum To: Erick Zweber„ City Planer Scott Aker, Fire Chief From: George A Lundy, Fire Marshal Date: January 11,2007 Subject: Site plan review of purposed Rosemount Business Center Carrousel @ Chippendale Ave Erick/Chief Aker The above mentioned plan has be reviewed to meet the minimum requirements of the 2002 Minnesota State Fire Code. Please note the following comments. All portions of this facility shall be within 150 feet of an approved fire hydrant,these hydrants shall be capable of providing sufficient fire flow for this facility. If the owner would install an approved automatic fire suppression system, only one(1) on site fire hydrant will be required. This hydrant shall be within 100" (feet)of the fire department connection.. If the owner would choose this fire suppression option a post indicator valve with alarm will be required. Please be advised this is only an site review, once construction plans have been submitted further requirements may be required. 4ROSEMOUNT PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: January 12, 2007 TO: Eric Zweber, Senior City Planner CC: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director Andrew Brotzler, City Engineer Kathie Hanson, Planning Department Secretary FROM: Morgan Dawley, Project Engineer RE: Rosemount Business Center Site Plan Review Upon review of the Rosemount Business Center Site Plan and Preliminary Plat,dated January 8, 2007 and received on January 8,2007, the Engineering Department offers the following comments: General Comments: 1. The review of the storm water management plan will require the storm sewer design calculations for the 10-year event.Please forward detailed calculations including runoff coefficients,time of concentration, and 10-year event intensity values used in designing the storm sewer. 2. The storm sewer system design on the north connecting to the Chippendale Avenue storm should include the fully developed conditions flow tate from the Chroust Family Dentistry site.The downstream system capacity in Chippendale Avenue should be included in the design calculations. 3. The plans should be coordinated with the Chroust Family Dentistry development plan to the north. As submitted,the applicant's site plan does not correspond with proposed improvements to the north,including storm sewer design and shared access driveway grades and parking lot/drive aisle grades. Please incorporate the future grading plan and storm sewer design/layout from the Chroust Family Dentistry site in this plan set. 4. NPDES permit is the responsibility of the developer/contractor. Documentation of permit acquisition shall be forwarded to the City prior to issuance of a grading/building permit. 5. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP) shall be provided for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading/building permit. 6. The south driveway access to Carousel Way shall be relocated to the east to lie directly across from the Rosemount Theatre driveway access. Site Plan Comments: Grading Plan—Sheet 2 1. The emergency overflow elevations from the parking lot do not meet the City criterion of 1' of freeboard to the low building opening elevation.The emergency overflows from the parking lot should provided adequate capacity to ensure that 1' of freeboard will be provided. 2. The proposed grading plan of the Chroust Family Dentistry office on the north should be show to ensure that grades on both sites are corresponding. 3. The proposed storm sewer from the Chroust Family Dentistry to the north should be shown on the plan. 4. The plan appears to require street removal along with curb and gutter on Chippendale and Carousel Avenue to install storm sewer, sanitary sewer,and watermain. The removals should be shown on the grading plan. 5. The spot elevations at the Rear Drive&Front Drive intersection do not appear to correspond with the profile elevations on sheet 3. Please verify the spot elevations and correct as necessary. 6. The storm sewer pipe slope from CB C to CB D does not correspond to the profile on sheet 3.Please verify and correct as necessary.This appears to be the case for the pipe slope from MH B to CB C. Please verify all pipe slopes with the storm sewer profiles. Utility Plan—Sheet 3 1. The Utility Plan shall more clearly differentiate between existing utilities/topographic features and proposed improvements. Although it is not clear from the submitted plan,it appears that proposed improvements would necessitate construction in Chippendale Avenue and/or Carousel Way. A Traffic Control/Detour plan shall be provided for review and approval addressing utility work within Chippendale Avenue or Carousel Way. A pavement section and specification will be provided for street replacement work on Chippendale Avenue and/or Carousel Way. A separate work within right-of-way permit and security or bond,in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer, shall be required prior to issuance of a building/grading permit. 2. No construction details or utility notes were included in the submitted plans—the City of Rosemount Standard Detail Plates,where applicable, shall supersede plan standard details. 3. The pipe slopes in the plan view for the Front Drive do not appear to correspond to the profile slopes. Please verify and correct as necessary. 4. The connection to the existing storm sewer manhole in the northeast corner of the Chippendale Avenue and Carousel Way intersection appears to require a larger diameter manhole to provide 9" of structure wall between the pipes entering the structure.The structure may require replacement with a larger diameter to accommodate the storm sewer connection. 5. It is requested that the sanitary sewer and watermain profiles from the building to Carousel Way be included in the plans. 6. The high point and low point elevations for the Front Drive should be shown on the profile view. 7. It is recommended that the entrance profiles to Chippendale Avenue (5.5%) and Carousel Way (6.78%) be evaluated based on the City standard detail for commercial driveway apron entrance slope. 8. Hydrants shall be installed to meet minimum fire protection per the City's Fire Marshall. Estimated City Development Fees: o GIS Fee = 2.2 acres * $300/acre = $660 o Sewer Connection (SAC,Units calculated by MCES) • MCES Fee$1675/SAC Unit • City Fee$1200/SAC Unit o Water Connection (WAG), 6"Meter = $29,500 o Storm Water Connection (STAC), = 2.2 acres * $2200/acre = $4,840 The applicant's plan submittal,as reviewed,is preliminary. Future reviews of subsequent plan submittals may identify additional items necessitating modifications to ensure proposed site improvements meet all applicable City requirements. Grading permits or building permits will not be issued until all outstanding plan comments have been addressed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Should you have any questions or comments regarding the items listed above,please contact me at 651-322-2022. \d/\0 Third, the Innisfree HOA can prepare and record a conservation easement over Outlot A in the name of the City in addition to the PUD amendment. This provides the City an ownership right to deny development of the parcel while allowing the private use and maintenance of the property. Fourth, the City could chose to deny the PUD amendment request and maintain the outlot in its current status with its potential for a future request for development. The Innisfree HOA states that the first amendment to their declaration of covenants prevents the development of Outlot A,but the City is not a party to this agreement and the HOA can choose to amend the covenants again to allow for the development of Outlot A if they choose. The first three options could result in Dakota County re-assessing the property as un-buildable,which would result in the reduction of tax revenue to the City. In 2006, $584.16 in taxes was collected on Outlot A, $209.59 of which was paid to the City of Rosemount. The reduction in taxes is unknown at this time because the re-assessment of the property would not occur until after the City placed a restriction on the property. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Steve Hegge,President of the Innisfree HOA, spoke on behalf of the HOA. Mr. Hegge stated that the HOA proposes to keep control of the area as green space,get a lower tax on it,but still be in control of the property. The HOA would be support of the third option,in which the Innisfree Homeowners Association prepare and record a conservation easement over Outlot A in the name of the City and modify the Evermoor PUD Agreement accordingly. Mr. Hegge also requested that the fee for the PUD Amendment be reduced from$2,200 to $500. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the reduction of the number of units allowed within the Evermoor 2nd Addition from four units to three units on the condition that the Innisfree Homeowners Association prepare and record a conservation easement over Outlot A in the name of the City. REQUESTED FEE REDUCTION The Innisfree HOA has requested that some or all of the application fee be reduced. Specifically, they have requested that the fee be reduced from$2,200 to $500. As with other fees, the City's fee structure is set up to reflect the amount of time allocated to the task. This system means that the general population is not subsidizing development related activities. When considering this request,it should be noted that staff has spent a considerable amount of time on this project, similar to that of other Major PUD Amendment requests. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the reduction of the number of units allowed within the Evermoor 2nd Addition from four units to three units on the condition that the Innisfree Homeowners Association prepare and record a conservation easement over Outlot A in the name of the City. 3 , . SITE MAP i14lr3IsFREE 2(ic) A . ► -rlc J r 1 S 11 t APPLE . `S1 VALLt`� 4 ^rNt Ilt eti :,,O,11: . lc ft ft �•.tS '1. Alls •- r ` TO v 6] 0.0 0 (i;1)00,,,,, , ' \ 10 10 6:--3 17411111911 . -61 R ci ER. I 12° w nOrlb L ROSE rya0r jT I` DTE: Dimensions rounded to nearest foot. 'V opyright 2007,Dakota County- lis drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. its drawing is a compilation of records,information and data located in various city,county,and ate offices and other sources,affecting the area shown,and is to be used for reference purposes ily. Dakota County is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepancies are und,please contact Dakota County Survey and Land Information Department. ap Date:January 18,2007 Parcels Updated:1/11/2007 Aerial Photography: SITE MAP ,. , ,J,3,S 1REE. Ana /Vi> I Tt o t �i / f //7 �/ Z�NSISFREE ,�' PAK K L.a7 I i" LOT 2 LOT 3 ---":"----;---- — ,z I _ _ Q / / I - 17( .. 0 ll_ - ) <, o \ \ ''-----..,„„,_____________,-----. \ J `_ ---__ tiooR_ P a N OTE: Dimensions rounded to nearest foot. i opyright 2007,Dakota County- his drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. his drawing is a compilation of records,information and data located in various city,county,and ate offices and other sources,affecting the area shown,and is to be used for reference purposes ily. Dakota County is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepancies are 1 ,und,please contact Dakota County Survey and Land Information Department. lap Date:January 16,2007 Parcels Updated:1/11/2007 Aerial Photography. t7 ell lift • IUIE { itt<t. 't / I' / cob V,s• t ..` ,�.�.lo;'). \..-.• .. r ?'`yia'\\ 1\ ..j>: •� �r '' •, - 9¢ � �`��1`lr%try • /1 # f �(�� r .., i. ,,,,, -s• 6,6,........ \ \ .-- - Z - ;','7' ' 1'�'. T • j 1 \''\\\ •� '".; \�` \` a' . s._ \ ."----..',..0 ', vc,\ ,... ,----,*4-..-L----- 986--"----`11.4... eft. . .././ i r 7, : , , • • __•-, „,...,..„...;,:„ ..../ • , • , ... „,, xill .illi 1 56--, ``-<9...6-'-``••-1,`-;."%:---•::-... -----:\s\":N.9.5\r"---;-11.:.•'":,•' : •71 I I j H t' 'N., .."\ ' \\\ ; • 7.jp ,>, -,, g c \` 8 c .:- �C r. t a: ' , 2 # 99 \, \ ; < \ \ \ ' : -�.,,.. • ``,'nS4"`'^ V8"".•. �\`, ----"5,-. f.-`"tiro••.,••• . I co , v.,, \ \- . 1 1 tilik "..�- „...." r•�""`-•. -",.. *... O" �,'„,... �. " �'``'ti•`iN.. -••,;'...W .'M..,: • 1 S, , �.' 7'-.....y•am -' 1 "' / ``�•/"f,- -�'-�'-f•✓n i•y % P h A 1 A N L P `��',i i,, \\\\- ... '� F • �_ ,f�,... i / Jam.?�.r, , o,.� `ti,:.-- : .•.:"'.-1 i•: +\ ,. - n e � �\ \`po' r ' , , ir,in5iSFR zat _)111r .ww 11.� �: , / f ti -\ " ':.• '.--- 6 g•'' 9 "''- tip } € N. N.' \�' / :' ... -- "-,..\ ^ `,9 .4>," `.,—�0 6'�Zg 6''��� t #£s€{ ��• \ k\\�tiV. ' --n. - �, " ..k . , ,fig,•`�g..-;,` ,� .\\\ \ .\ '< . • • l}i' ."-- .....m•+,•„-. -'` -\.\. ' T ................''_ .`„ i l..ry's, ✓./j.Jc6.„.•4 �f •i << "SSsA 1 i `� 1 1 �Mgwe..... m v Z' ry .': fir.,;` i iE< . 1$`-1 \'S t \' ‘ ry -,...,,.. ` - w \ �,,• +. `l i f .,i l 1, to• ' s i) 'A '3< C` 1 I ----,`.. `-,, '`N '° .......-c3-C'"r •r ..,—A-- ), :\EFL . •\`.. di..\ 41-‘ \: N-\- \':\:..„..s,\.\...-..^\:... 7-1.W .. ""•',-`.^- ..o- --•-j("'• -,.?t ram- _ \,\"~` `\ `\ N,` e. ..•4•"'7t1,-.,.,,.....\•7 •\.,\\.:,,,\..,.::<....:.„_ 8 '\ .7 \\.'•36.—.A., ....." i—1—. v y 'Ai,•; -"T e 1' ,'''.........tit 27/ ' •'`• it'`; ,. .."- .... -, f . ,c-, --'\.vim, ; , .,,s S=".' • r .rh • \ '1/4 9 / o p ] cm ` sue► �^, `• Z\ v s ,y . \\KT, .. - • • ~ �I s •. , �n � ( jc= ,�3/\ r -9�r�,- � '\ ~� r\ \� s ,11 .,,.. ._ ,, .-' / ,,-.,ten • 1s. , • !�•I/ ''�� ; ''v "�"- —' "^ y r` ,r••-^ s!sc€ N. 89 \ 9p Is < .1 ,. . ' Co '�� r •`-.`•s ,'�'" ... q'•.'','fie'�.,y-'•4','�h..a..�•' !;, •"x$•R;ww M .?8' rsi'Zo2t �'tf�a:•n�'' � a�':R'�.� � '\ Y •� \'..i�i.Y ..`°.•...!.-�R:::,. \\• . ., 0 11::''s\,.: P. ' '•:-. .>". 902,7 \ ) . , ill ,gi /r/ j 1� w✓ . :3f s3 ss $ a ¢! � a m �•'.",- i '02 rA` ,�c r'•'�S•!,o •$i:s0 , -- i \ '\\ • 4`- 1 fi'Cife oo . r ---^ '--M-'-892• s Jl 1 l .•r !� �•�. '.`\\ f r 1 It JsirCv - , /4 4 j �,.... ,--892..-,,,,.�.->„.. ..r:::// . .f r 9� 4~• ► � j - 1 /f , r,r j. - �,i r . . shy l' . INNIS I TALCITT GREEN TYPICAL LOT DEVELOPMENT DATA (No Scale) Total Townhomes 84 Unit Areas 36 — Average Unit Area 10,550 s.f. 36 Unit Standards — Front Setback 0 — Public 30 ft. 0 — Private 25 ft. //•W IS 'r-RGR DEVE1,6PmENT STA kRb S P Rom • NOTE: The lot dimensions and areas on this p approximate. Refer to the Final Plat an data for exact lot dimensions and area All street dimensions reference the back of curb. ..446 • 1 • • 0' 100' 200' INNISFREE ASSOCIATION DEC. 2 2006 Board of Directors ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA By December 15,2006 City of Rosemount Rosemount City Hall 2875 145t.Street West Rosemount,MN 55068 Re:Land Rezoning request. To whom it concern: Attached is a request to Amendsome land we own.We have been working with Wensmann Homes for over 2 years to have this completed_The land was deeded�a�e devfter ee took over as an lopers I hope we have this under antroL At without our approval.After a number of calls tom eCity, ted ensmann to clear this up. the advise from the county We would like to ask the city to Waive all or most of the processing fee related to this parcel.We ask this for the following reasons. I.We were not asked if we wanted this unusable property from the development Co.or From the Builders. the development Co.) 2.It should have been zoned this way the first time(by to et this resolved. 3.We have paid the last 2 years Taxes on this property while trying g 4.It is NOT a usable property and we would like to maintain it as green space. Lastly we are a neighborhood of 33 homes in Ros mount Pgsomething we should pay high taxes on to in excess of$200,000 per year. Since already pay a great deal of taxes,we feel that this property s not help beautify the areas around s,for application everyone gonfee e to enjoy. d We respectfully ask you to consider this request and return some or all of our *-'-'?--cere—T.--y—- Steven Hegge Board President Date: November 2, 2006 IL DEC 2 ; 2:0Ci3 �J � � �.� To: City of Rosemount, Planning Department By _ u From: Innisfree Homeowners Association Attn. Mr. Steve Hegge, President 14985 Glazier Avenue Apple Valley, MN 55124 Applicant Contact: Wensmann Homes, Inc Kelly Murray 1895 Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Eagan, MN 55122 651-406-4400 Re: PUD Amendment -Evermoor Request: The Innisfree Homeowners Association is requesting a major PUD amendment to designate Outlot A, Innisfree 2nd Addition and as a non- buildable parcel, reserved as open space for the use and enjoyment as a common element of the homeowners association. History: The Innisfree neighborhood is part of the overall Evermoor development and Evermoor PUD. During the PUD process, a phased development plan was established and approved. Within the larger Evermoor Development, the Innisfree Neighborhood and the Innisfree Homeowners Association, was established by the developer, Contractor Property Developers Inc. (CPDC). Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions were filed for the Innisfree plat, and Amended when the Innisfree 2nd Addition was platted. The Declaration clearly spells out the common elements and does not allow for adding additional units beyond the current 33 units. The common elements are the private streets (Outlots A and B, Evermoor 3rd Addition and open space, Outlot A, Evermoor Innisfree 2nd Addition). Wensmann Homes, Inc. purchased some of the lots within the Innisfree Neighborhood, subsequently building homes. Wensmann Homes is assisting the Innisfree Association with this request on behalf of our customers. Purpose: The primary purpose for the amendment is to eliminate the current property tax valuation and therefore assessment against Outlot A. The county assessor has the Outlot valued as a buildable parcel because the PUD does not designate this parcel as open space. Other options were considered to achieve the same outcome rever, the Association Board determined that this was the route they preferred. tly The association is not opposed to a tax Evermoor1t,they re 3rd Addation.rThe issue being assessed for the Oulots A an is the value the county assessor is placing on the g or zoningptandpo'nt that would erty. The assessor's view is there is no reason fromattn the lot and sellingit to the public. prevent the association from platting With an amendment to the PUD, it would the use and enjoyment of th purpose of the outlot is preserved open space for Innisfree Homeowners Association, and not future development property. Copies of the Declaration have been provided, however the assessor's position is that the Declaration could be amended to allow for the sale of the common element. The association wants to ensure and preserve Once the PUD is revised, the assessor would revalue the property and it would fall in line with the two other outlots the association currently owns. Exhibits: First Amendment to Declat n of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, Copies of currentreal estate tax statements with assessed values shown, plats of Evermoor 3rd Adddition, Evermoor Innisfree, and Evermoor Innisfree 2nd Addition. Secondary Request The Innisfree Homeowners Association is requesting that the City of Rosemount consider refunding a portion of the application fee required. This is a minor request that did not involve significant time in reviewing complicated site plans and concepts. The $2200 O required leaving a fee of$SOOthe request. Applicant requests a refund of for the processing. • , ...xec....^-•-•.--,n,--•,- ,...,,-,,..1 . 3 L--..,--__:" ,-=•:---•--- i r__, 'Ll--...7-:••5 ..7n ,,,•„,---. !„.,1 . . . . . i ! 4.........1 . :-.-',',..'-:-F'•'.../-...:...: . :. - :, 2: ',Ls ‘--•-1* • I ,\ i•c. .. : i I i'•••••L' i:-..7:7:4". = ---9•C' c7, ___- II .... . ., .... ,... . . .. 1: 4106.13'33T 468.38 • :4 ..... : .. . ... ......... . ...._... ;.--------- — .s.,,,,, ,. • .. . II •z--• '. ; •;;. • '-• ••,, -.. •,-,•,;::-.......4.7.•;-;.„.• . ..., ;1; ! '-' ...: • . ,.. .,:••:•. ). . '.@, 1 ..._.......,....,, ;i T.: 11!.1 :-..7::-:-.2-2:l..3 -....,4, i r• : Et t ....- .4 m s''''s•'' :\s -.'-',•',.";•1 • ..• ‘. v : . r. . . G . , ..--7-:_----:.:,-.!•“ '»,.......- ' ,,-,.f.', . 4.. ,,•.. vl_'----;-'1,-5,-- i •,:t z• '•,....,,,,,2:4:,;•;,,,,..:.-- •;.•,,,,, -,,,... ,:., -.: ... :....1,...,-.4.,.., ,.— -•;.'.;?...:1 ...:4•14,-'' '4"--:?.. ...-` : , I • • ! rri t--.-,,,,,,•:. - :.1,-,.. Vll .?!•%"'....-..-.::•.--",-.;:,- ; i.. s,.. ...,,,,f,., .R. i.A.:.......-,.. • ,.., , ..., V• c2,•4-:•... : ,,t ....._111 ....-•:_"---"•.-..--,k- '...• a / ••' `.:-:.:.----.:-;•:7•r-'''''.. ;. ':,4;; \....•., . : , 1 ,,. •••:).?:.., \*,-•• -. ., ,r . • __.:-.. ::-7--•N,snrS;, -.....,-•1.,,,, : , ; 0 .. ,. ,.... .d::' • • v _,, , 33 4 L---- -- ; •i' i It. .,... ... ,•-• ,,,, .. •., / .•., I 44. .. .. / • . •.. .;'''.; — .••••,,, 4.4), '',,...• , , .1.1 / ..41... • "• •--$ / /.'/ C a , '''' .? 5*1,,. , • , . ' i 1 ': 'a/ / = • Z. ii••:. x !..;', ...-.. ,...,• , -2 'i ,,,,,.;-il f 1 1? •...,,...„,,...1.-P...""• ,_4.. i `t f, i'''''': 'V. s ,....':-f: 4 : 12 t?..b. ',I; j :, 2 i•i: --.•-7--77.1-7-.-F-: ''..t C.P It' Fi 4 . '—'0e--- -' 1...- t 1 •.... it .S!..1-1. •..S ' IZ '1. ..1 1: ?f !:-f-•-•' .7,.,X, '''5 - 1,--,,, ;e i. ,.. 1 i t ,..3 :2 .....--• '4 I : ,.. Y i , i 't S • ,. I . - - ,..,-:,-.....c.:3.•:/•:„<.:--•,-.;:.:,.... ..--":"*,,...::"„,',::' .. . .. ...,......- .......--........-....... -- •7....-:••••••.•••:-.,:•:,,.--- -:-........,...„,...„..„...,„ •••••_,..... -2_,.=••:••:-5•_•;.5.,,,•••.: ..,....,....„, ,i-sr:,,g1:.: i :,:.:1,:,..nr1;r:r.,..,,,,:•:: i tik,..•."..:•:,,•it.Z.•••••X"..7.•.; ...,^•.••.:t.,:;. ................ L. -:. • .. . . . 1 rri I V) ..4 i q ft 0 0 K tz .--- s 4 • \''' 1/, .‘'.: -:'.'...:•-, ..1. ..•. '1 A 50." -;",' h3\••'i ,I, -.4':. ',V;% , •:,v 0, .:..s. .,ot ., •, -.A ,:. .... . ... ...•( .. ',. ; ., . -,:j -...'': ••, qt.',..v-i-t•-i.•.:t.,. •••', n .•;',/,` " , i •.,.!. "-. ‘0 ..:•••• ... .. , . - • .. ../.• ',% '.1 ....',...1. .-..-_....6ivn.:..,,..t ,..6:.._......;-.' I ,t •/'•• .7/ ..,,.„-; ...,.. 47 i :-.*XF:0'••,1 ,, .. e• g %, : ...•, ••/.' ./^ . fe• •. • rri ,., ..., ,z. .........;,......,, ,,,,ir--..,:•.,,k,,,,,i,,.4...i}:::..,...:.....;„. tt,..\ .„- „.„-,0-:...-- ./ '//.1,,X.--i-71 ,./., 'N: • .. '/...'. illi....•.,'t -.. ,IY.-- ..e.';if .'.... -.5/1.',.. ••• ••r.../X. /:.? ,/,6* ; .' , ; ..IIIU 7:::;.;:,; 4 ,0.' s;ii:',:',,, ''' '' -N„ i..7$ "6; if.••1 : it /.. \s, ,•.., ..., • -. 1 .. ,,,,,••-... ,•,, ,,,:.• ..' 4.,./,...'4 •.s/.‘ ,. '''''; ,,:•-••••'.. " 1,4' .:,... •••: $ i t .:,m 4- ....• e' ;-.1 Y,...4e.,•••'-• / .. ,• -% ,.4" 'Pi' • • •.. • , -. • • :Et , t... /.. ,,, I;......, „ a •s.,, ....Z,.., i °EP: / / // c„.5 /.1. ..:.."!!,„ "..• Z.'''',,,,: , , Zi '.'4%1 ./, ''/:•'.' .,,4 /. li / ....r...•!,...''':;•...P.,.''.."'",ry••.. / '1.:' /.....;? '../"` '4' .•--''''\' ! . ..., "'..., -••'7- '//4 .::•',"4, / i„,.., •./.4* • : •-; n, l-'t •,"4' '-, CO .-:1'... 4 -:re4•' 4, It% / • ..,;/, / ra ,..4.. ,......1,,,. ..i/ 1;•a Il .g 111, • . I i I ti . . . .; , 1.14... 0 X 1 I % ., l % ' \ , . \ . • . G. ........ ..,... .,........ „- ....„...."'..... • C V::CI It...------------ . 7; 0 ,---- -•-•-•-1 !,*1 .- t-w t i t. i13:: P It 1..,.,=1-3 , 1 ',...v,x.r..",=•:--Tr—I 11)-.„. : •,.! .2.. i,!r t.Z s ;,.. ;,..:::..,.... ..:- ill ix Ix K ,,,....0.. •:,., 13, 0 itf ----IC , -.F; ,:. — .' i '.." : .: '..--i•:.•' .. .:4 i Yr 3 Z-4 v 2 1 , 3 •4 k k i k.._ ,., I• & 3.: ; — ...,. c.. 1 . - .. .... . - . .... . . . . . .........................----•-••- -. .... ......-..... ii'-';K.K?..-:!•:fj.:;::::•• . . .. . • . .....,,,_,...,..,, .. :,:••:-::-Ms: .....,.........,......„ -........ ... .. ... ... ... , „....,,.. 1 • • _. R O_R ,=ac_ ' --Z-1 r•..YH.nw r�Y.+•e0.Pva rr_ v rb I r,iI.r:o.4Psr c.=:rl F.. I . ' • o N00.13'39"E 194.75 \• - 1` p^ Q§§3 e "o =I 7� 1 b 1. t,\'''-..r .‘ • \ 2 0 5 3 g i ....2 1N W a ` ,1" 0.S 5 _.I •;: ucc•rnrz ' at' it 2,1 71;m t y I rl � :�t A 95= I: a L§L.- •:' • i , '" r1 . '—' • -- a i r' ' VN � L_ �µ� m.aa _-1J". e C • �w� c.n r_ _, :x.r _ Str rJ ttt. I tJ '(-` IZN ` - �1 20 I cc ,1 %: _t .ca G`I r ib o . . I _gt- tBB - Y f. ! vlsi- r a... 7. Sse a — A of §z..r:' -ASS.. / e � ,.m na 'PtEr !0 I` 9z• '9Lt M.19.LEREO N '�} F;1 4 I Q > I = iL•t 1 1 a3 >§§ h1 '�... � 4 so ----fN-- �a ;,. `\� -1 e:: I pa; V O v�3 ` t-'i m !r 34 i „ill F3 " 3a 2 'e'111 S a Se R `s j IIR IT 7 —'-)i. tll s., I --.. ,,,,,i, fi ,,t-zi liE lir 4.1 .. 1 kg 2� e i nn 3` ga g'- i ¢ 3a .a4 N • ^ p_Ea 11- 3 >Ea .g @ i s y,a °o It < op[( _aD_; •2 s- Z. F. .0,,i, ntt. g igi 7:: I tot m -5 Fe< sr� .. 1 I o <�a g r �� •m • � x f 3 i[ gng,�1 y€ g1 e$ r B. s t! IN 1! 3F i3 n g g�i jq s P ll �ta ''�•r 3-I nC g yy' 4S g'33 3� a .! (\ "g3 <� yog 3g� oR I .I,� I-' a "� -ym 3 s s a'' t'` FA RgB _ 0 i g e 1 N = z l'p n S - e g Ao ^o NntltlQ dBi' N-NKJIOHQ d3BVdf:N°JNb.r cro N — -------- 2 2 4 5 5 4 8 W z o Oa v x ❑ w 'd cc � 6 w w - Z z Q Q n o Z za.. o z m = cc \ -\.. 1 nz � N co 0 0 0 f7 O 1 = �`� `n 8 v Z w�z co _ x ❑ cc I NI ~ ct w ,� U ui I' O c O a wU v •• ccChu w� ¢ Q N. u. 0 LaN cn W C.) i Co 0 0 la (Above Space Reserved for Recording Data) FIRST AMEN DMENT DITION SAND RESTRICTIONS OF COVENANTS, INNISFREE This First Amendment to Declaration o Coven nts, Conditions and by Chctions os (theh_ dayof SL!_ d "Amendment") is made this a Wensmann Homes, Inc., a Minnesota LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, corporation Declaration of Covenants,Conditions and Restrictions of Innisfree(the "Declaration _ WHEREAS, the Declaration was recorded in the office of the Dakota County Recorder as Document No. 1767281; and WHEREAS, the two entities identified above Developer development rights with respect to the Property by reason of Transfer of Developer Rights recorded in the office of the Dakota County Recorder as Document No. 1767281. WHEREAS, Section 16 of the Declaration and ldes for the addition to the Property ants to Developer the authority to dd Additional Real Estate as defined in the Declaration, I� said property,and WHEREAS, Developer desires to add to the Property and subject to the Declaration the Additional Real Estate legally described as: Lots 1, 2 and 3, and Outlot A, Block 1, Evermoor Innisfree 2nd Addition, • Dakota County,Minnesota. (formerly Outlot C,Evermoor)which Additional Real Estate includes three additional Units. NOW THEREFORE, the undersignedb hat tis he Additional Real mendment in accorEstate ce with the requirements of the Declaration, andherebydeclares and shall be held, sold, conveyed and occupied described above shall be added to the Property MPLS.Word 59633.1 1 i subject to the covenants, restrictions, easements, charges and liens provided for in the Declaration and this Amendment, all of which shall be binding upon all persons having or hereafter acquiring any right, title or interest therein, including their heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. A. ADDITION OF UNITS The three Units (lots) described in Exhibit B attached hereto are subjected to the Declaration and made a part of the Property, resulting in a total of thirty-three Units. All Units are restricted to residential use, except as otherwise provided in the Declaration. Each Unit constitutes a separate parcel of real estate. No additional Units may be created except as permitted by the Declaration, subject to approval, if required, by the applicable governmental authorities. The total Units included within the Property are identified on Exhibit A attached hereto. B. REALLOCATION OF VOTING RIGHTS AND COMMON EXPENSE OBLIGATIONS Voting rights and Common Expense obligations shall be reallocated among all Units created by the Declaration and this Amendment in accordance with the Declaration. C. DESCRIPTIONS OF PROPERTY AND ADDITIONAL REAL ESTATE Exhibit A to the Declaration, containing the legal description of the Property, shall be amended and replaced by Exhibit A attached hereto. All references to Exhibit A in the Declaration shall mean and refer to Exhibit A attached hereto. Exhibit B to the Declaration, containing the legal description of the Common Elements, shall be amended and replaced by Exhibit B attached hereto. All references to Exhibit B in the Declaration shall mean and refer to Exhibit B attached hereto. Exhibit C to the Declaration which contained the legal description of the remaining Additional Real Estate, shall be deleted, because all Additional Real Estate has now been added to the Property. D. APPLICABILITY AND BINDING EFFECT This Amendment is effective upon recording in the applicable Dakota County recording office. Except as specifically modified by this Amendment, the Declaration, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect, and all of the rights, benefits, restrictions and obligations conferred by the Declaration, as amended, shall apply to the Additional Real Estate added hereby and all Units created therein. Unless otherwise specifically set forth in this Amendment, all words and terms used in this Amendment shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Declaration. MPLS-Word 59633.1 t • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Developer has executed this instrument the day and year first set forth above. CHARLES CUDD LLC By Title: _I ___,___---- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF4iA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Refit day of {fu.1.u3T , the ��L£5�0£� gyp_ o�, by Of riZi G uD� an on behalf of said entity. of Charles Cudd LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, A A/L-1A id Notary Public • �.06. 4_ MARK W.POFF MES,INC. s":wJ; NOTARY PUBEiC-M.lNNE907A N S MAN my COMh1l45PON EXPIREE91.3i4pDS WFs ■ s B : Tit STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ,,,, ) ss. COUNTY OF ) da The fore Ding instrument wasla � edged btherV eehis Y of U.Sr> yby ° r J1SN of Wensmann Homes, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of said entity. Not Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: David B. Eide, Esq. KELLY M�MURRAY FELHABER, LARSON, Natary Public +.����` Minnesota FENLON&VOGT,P.A. ,, uy Commissian Expves Jan.31.2005 220 South Sixth Street, Suite 2200 - - - - - - - Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402-4504 (612) 373-8520 MPLS-Word 59633.1 INNISFREE EXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY The legal description of the Property is as follows: J Lots 1 through 13, Block 1; Lots 1 through 17,Block 2; and Outlots A and B;Evermoor 3rd Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota; and Lots 1, 2 and 3,and Outlet A,Block 1, Evermoor Innisfree 2nd Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Note: Each Lot(exclusive of outlets)constitutes a Unit as defined in the Declaration. MPLS-Word 59633.1 INNISFREE EXHIBIT B TO FIRST AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION DESCRIPTION OF COMMON PROPERTY Outlots A and B,Evermoor 3rd Addition,Dakota County, Minnesota. °d Addition,Dakota County,Minnesota. f Outlot A,Evermoor Innisfree 2 A Mn s-v/0rd 59633.1 INNISFREE CONSENT OF MORTGAGEE • The undersigned (the "Mortgagee"), is a mortgagee of portions of real property described in the First Amendment to Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of lnnisfree (the "Amendment") by a Mortgage or Mortgages recorded in the office of the Dakota County Recorder, Minnesota (collectively the "Mortgage"). Mortgagee hereby consents to the Amendment; provided, that by consenting to the Amendment, the Mortgagee does not in any manner constitute itself or obligate itself as a Declarant as defined in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Innisfree (the "Declaration") nor does such consent modify or amend the terms and conditions of the Mortgage and other loan documents; and provided further that the Mortgage shall be and remain a lien on the property described therein, prior to any Assessment liens or other liens imposed under the Declaration, until released or satisfied. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Mortgagee has caused this Consent to be executed on the d'�a day of July, 2004. Scherer Bros.Lu Co. By: Peter L. Scherer Title: President STATE OF MINNESOTA ) 400 COLLEEN RAE SKEIE NORENBERG �.�:.+'c r n,C NOTARYPUBLIC ) SS. j�;, MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ��� yCommfssion Expires Jan.31.2007 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this.( day of July, 2004, by Peter L. Scherer the President of Scherer Bros. Lumber Co, a corporation under the laws of the state of Minnesota, on behalf of said corporation. . V �J Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: David B.Eide, Esq. MPLS-Word 59633.1 , . • SITE MAP ,. i /4ISFREE 9- 'd A�N1 -rlvrJ � 10 0 ______ __________. APPLE — .va 0 vALL YIllillkilhip ,tr, OF 1110 _ 4* i./`7?t1 I I 11 lk rier if dLIIII 41 \ J 4111111111W:A444:' 4 c. rill ill* •'' .r,, PIIIIIIPPAL Oft •• 6 __ TO ,i ..f .,... • 6::: _. ...... .61 k GI E2 r* do c___-- /..„_________„.. 4 .4 • Abili.gli ROsEmo0 T t DTE: Dimensions rounded to nearest foot. N opyright 2007,Dakota County- iis drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. its drawing is a compilation of records,information and data located in various city,county,and ate offices and other sources,affecting the area shown,and is to be used for reference purposes ily. Dakota County is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepancies are und,please contact Dakota County Survey and Land Information Department. ap Date:January 18,2007 Parcels Updated:1/11/2007 Aerial Photography: Third, the Innisfree HOA can prepare and record a conservation easement over Outlot A in the name of the City in addition to the PUD amendment. This provides the City an ownership right to deny development of the parcel while allowing the private use and maintenance of the property. Fourth, the City could chose to deny the PUD amendment request and maintain the outlot in its current status with its potential for a future request for development. The Innisfree HOA states that the first amendment to their declaration of covenants prevents the development of Outlot A,but the City is not a party to this agreement and the HOA can choose to amend the covenants again to allow for the development of Outlot A if they choose. The first three options could result in Dakota County re-assessing the property as un-buildable,which would result in the reduction of tax revenue to the City. In 2006, $584.16 in taxes was collected on Outlot A, $209.59 of which was paid to the City of Rosemount. The reduction in taxes is unknown at this time because the re-assessment of the property would not occur until after the City placed a restriction on the property. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Steve Hegge,President of the Innisfree HOA, spoke on behalf of the HOA. Mr. Hegge stated that the HOA proposes to keep control of the area as green space,get a lower tax on it,but still be in control of the property. The HOA would be support of the third option,in which the Innisfree Homeowners Association prepare and record a conservation easement over Outlot A in the name of the City and modify the Evermoor PUD Agreement accordingly. Mr. Hegge also requested that the fee for the PUD Amendment be reduced from$2,200 to $500. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the reduction of the number of units allowed within the Evermoor 2"d Addition from four units to three units on the condition that the Innisfree Homeowners Association prepare and record a conservation easement over Outlot A in the name of the City. REQUESTED FEE REDUCTION The Innisfree HOA has requested that some or all of the application fee be reduced. Specifically, they have requested that the fee be reduced from$2,200 to $500. As with other fees, the City's fee structure is set up to reflect the amount of time allocated to the task. This system means that the general population is not subsidizing development related activities. When considering this request,it should be noted that staff has spent a considerable amount of time on this project, similar to that of other Major PUD Amendment requests. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the reduction of the number of units allowed within the Evermoor 2"a Addition from four units to three units on the condition that the Innisfree Homeowners Association prepare and record a conservation easement over Outlot A in the name of the City. 3 "Ass m ntWEnvironmentalork * s B j( 711 Rosemount Business Park RGU: 4 ROSEVIOUNT MINNESOTA WSB Project No. 1556-95 a i Comment Period: February 26-March 28,2007 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 Ki01556951AdmintDocs5EAW1EAW-Rsmt 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:\01556-95\Admfn\Dow\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. Type of application Status Unit of government 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,Thisila family rwad limited to the esidential development had begun northwest of the subject property. development 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 -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 K:101556-95\Admin\DonMEAWEEAW.Rsmt Business Park.don 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:\01556-95\Admin\Docs\EAW EAW.Rsmt Business Park.doc 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. 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.\01556-95Wdmin\Docs\EAWIEAW-Rsmt Business Park.doc 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%. 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 barns 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 Map symbol and Soil name Pct,of Hydrologic group Kf T factor Representative value map unit %Sand %Silt %Clay 39C: Wadena 85 B .24 4 42.1 37.9 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 301B: Lindstrom 85 B .28 5 20.7 67.3 12.0 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:\01556-95Wdmin\Does\EAW\EAW-Rant Business Pa,k 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.\01556-95Adm,n\Docs\EAW\EAW-Runt 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/I 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 18-3 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'/4 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.\0155695WdmintDocs\EA\MEAW-Rsmt Business Park.doc 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 18-2 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 18-2. 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/I 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:10155r.95Admimo.1EAW1EAW-Rsmt Business Paik.doc ti I 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 10.01 18.4 110.9 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:\01 5 56-9 51Admin1Docs\EAWIEAW-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 4Vadezta loam, to 12 ' Well drained 0 39D Wadena loam,12 to 1$ Well drained 4.6 5.9 percent slopes `250 Kennebec silt loam' Moderately well �.. .,� .. Era ...; _ � 301E Lindstrom silt loam,1 to 4 Well drained 3.8 5.0 percent slopes 411A Waukegan silt loam,O to I Well drained Percent slopes.. ., t . >. 1$ .,. . 3 R }� 3ry _ YM k, 411E Waukegan silt loam,i to 6 Well drained 47.8 62.0 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 K:\0155695\Admin\Docs\EAW\EAW-Rsmt Business Park.doc 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 Concept A Size Average Daily Traffic AM Peak Hour,. PM Peak Hour 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 Hour 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 7tfi 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:10155&951AdminlDocs1EAW1EAW-Rsmt Business Perk doe 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 m. Projected 2017 Projected 2027,_ 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 377.8/ EB/ 366.55/ .1 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 K:\01556951Admin\Docs\EAWIEAW-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:NO155695V dmio Docs EAWIEAW-Rsmt 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 not dismiss toric e contractor eies or archaeological sites exist on the subject property. This is 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 All areas are prime farmland 3018 Lindstrom silt loam,1 to 4 percent slopes All areas are prime farmland 4 11 A Waukegan silt loam,0 to 1 percent slopes All areas are prime 4118 Waukegan silt loam.1 to 6 percent slopes llareaFarmland ro prime farmlandide importance 39C Wadena loam,6 to 12 percent slopes 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:\015569541dmin\Does\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:N11556-951Admin\Dots\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 rmland rotation. have aan, dnet effectonal lque and of further prime c decreasing ng the amount of primell be tly taken out of t tillable acreage in rotation. This will 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. tnal This EAW has addressed ofd any foreseeable the projected endsmpacts. No use or the constluetion thereofinental impacts are anticipated as a 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-turnrindbe modified to anc include intersection southbound left-turn laneaddition, and a northbou intersection nd right-turn should be lane. City of Rosemount Rosemount Business Park EAW February 13,2007 Page 18 of 19 K.\015569SAdmin\Docs\EAVV\EAW-Runt Business Padc.doc 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 htt3://www.egb.state.mn.us City of Rosemount Rosemount Business Park EAW February 13, 2007 Page 19 of 19 K:\01556-951Admin\Docs\EAW\EAW•Rsmt Business Park.doc • • 'Jr�t:Y - v.._ . .r..-.., ' •• .'s. '-- - '.yti ... r 1:. _ .e, ti_, ' .^� I 'yL ,• -�.„-.,�1;r. �;'' - `r�,Yy,�'1.1- .cA-? ' rs f r,. �ti, �Yf'f� T ._ '_ _ _.'f+ V ` _ (�'`.rw�r�.�...�..,�'ct _ <-� '_-� .J` �. _r4_e�'1, �;• ".� 1. ��"'J 4.,rr. ' • :: _•. t4"4 J'�Nth -gyp{ i win �.. - .1r • I''. i'`7: :.r.'-�' -'•`...;,JI 1!�!.'''' ~V` y�r, ,ds� '" 4'.+.1 jU'" 7� I,11,Pr. " 4 I �'-~ r ,y - 1 .1-i, "�. I .6 A,- ')- •,,yy'�.�I 1 :' Fy I tF1 i y - �i `'} i'l,lr ,'1�,-ii I E'. :.j.' r `v,') . . 1 }r' I I� i-;:„jfF ti + I,^'' r'..1 } t. ••'rti 1•+1.:` _ - 1:•, • "1;�41.43.' . "•,'(•(,I{ I,R-;t,r`- "( ' r , \',,- `r� ".. ." •ft { %- e =� i �R .r'r • , i _ S 'i I 'F' t+ ,1"` l r ,� �. {•� J ti t ' p �' f ' !{S I - .�' 1�:�rL. It''( ;y' .�:_..` •1_`. yY r n: ~ s`;Iwl_i •S' t IL; I. ,s !.' . .+ I ` wt �ru 3 �• ,: I r .-4r F �, _J.. -,,,,: ;'ice:., tr .i:, y '-' ..• I . •",,✓ t is 1st}-/Y �''Y:..KI -Y. ky. _ 1 .: i 1V.14 i1``Car1 i ' • `, '--., Y+, d� 1 !`..4., ' .4- -1R'i�..I� —•� { fi .,` .',# ?y .. 1;`- ,�1 f'r ,ys*l%"y:N,' }' _ n._... •i. r?Cf }•.1k<'!'�, . ` ': . ,Y:t^ f t 1 -r ;f - I:•r ' p. iT l-- 4rr-.._•-•C. iY- ..J.d':, J _ " l�.f'.�, �,Y,? " f ` . �, l --+.+ •.- 'r' .. � r� � ',. J01117.• •• .uu 5.. N•1;!• ".f 1,)I *•.: • 'w .� !/t f' I •'�1 �y �4-�.` •' _/may.' . r �' '•u� I <'�, iL l I ` `I '2.... `~T 'x1 --+.' �Y{ l7f # c .r- .... 'j', !.14 r • I +- f_4ly i'•" a "4.ytr F' ,fir -i - , •tra F+r 14 1].-:`K(; '.. F 4a49. '�' -y1S�r+ '- .•.„ .r , ±,. ".y ,�.-}k. .- _•I a� trt4444114 .L"M�.�. -Ir10?r.1.7 `f :�; �`->' r ll f 1 ✓1'fK .T-1 , 1J' t 1 `° R -WrZi• b£... 1� 'f . .... ":: r:4Y r } ``\ t,ft- ` !c1. .la, „o ew4wwua4«4411' j! L;";:t r +; '•--�.--fg&e '"'-�..._..'. •1+ I,:„r:„nib:,f 4-:.•..=,..1--l'i-. g -,...."..ii a#.-I-:.,•3:7::, -- i'k, . I . , it 1...r.z..-... 't-r `' '"y •, y s t ',,.' fir. ; ;} • I �.• - 5r� fr1 - . •Y t�tiI. .` • �`'4 k �f 'i �1 i.# , ti 4 • - `,eft , rt� - .- '-- r_:-, 'r „� y vv\ I �G+,•'� (� �� _ [ .f Zr,...,,sd q' sqX '-I i if r 4. PLC Ares... yvAv __ �4 S,-. � " r,•i..�. !"�. yam ` c I - lir y II ' �� '•� ,� .1" `'�'_ -t:/'�":c",I;�.r �1 Ir '"- -� II -_�yF " III r ". r4 p tJ i I` F•T� L- r•5 .. , 1 --.. r` tii ;. k'-- 1 fv, „ c,x• z€`�r.++ _ ^"• ti]l,raih! .� �!;r �t II ` I • ..„.., . ,-) a ..........,.. -...\ ,,,-. .,..,,, :,.„,,, I,r., y.!l Is..:,'}=�_- „f._ �,:_'I I S}4-t , + 5 ,--1 - ,`.1� �' 1 - �'^^'-r---- pq v,: I. ter'+ ! - ..... _ r 4 I�i.'.k 0' 'r'• r ) 'fJ , t}".�;e.': f:iri C"ti-' X �}! 111 �ai 4� •�.;I 1 AV.tits t" ,C �y F"• r- r "€sl 'mit- 'CfT 'C0L3'. ." Nf1nIFr "� 7,`''• y� 'yj * , L I � • .r iT,x . •� '•- � I• , ! -�� rATI,� `. •�S Tic ocET. 'II �1 J;: 4.' k^ r J _ ti _ r,.` '� '� ,,.''. A Y_ ,s._�y � I r r�` _ r, '� I ti i _~III _�.• 1" 1i,w�-, '`�=r_�. i• ! �1 f' +�I r 'y r 1 I ! `'� ; ". .#vim - I I, 'I ' f J i y f t f` "4. 7_ ( 4 ` S — - ya S'ter: :. ! ^,.rI Imo.` 'I • LEGEND r,r.;, ,ti `•• ';'',. ` _ �k JI ;I. - j .'. 1 ,� ) 1i j I Boundary - '` 1 ) I :t •.'z f] RSMT& PA Property - ...---•.. ` _. ' -.,`,. !�`�'�` L,� , < 701-14 li.'.4 ' 1+�.r I P . o,.,M O( 'bit A - USGS 7.5" 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet a Coates and Farmington Quads lt — um A Rosemount Business Park 44--- 1. "NEST SB Rosemount, Dakota County V &4— .ssocunes Inc. 19 = . _ .........9:4--11 r%firi,e±i miltr..., „Lit° 211 ti- ....)‹. i 0 �� I - I ,__ 229 ; g '� — - I /[ fQ + 14 A 1E�t OI T 2` ig r ROSE. 3 1 ,i i IVI ,1.0-••, 1 ______ tr ' k 4 ,* J 17 11 'ODUCTS31 � � 33 11 F....., ,,,,, ■ , , co. 4,,,:,,, • • . . . . . . ■ ■ ■ 1 ■ 1 ■ 1 I 11 0 II NM IIMI -... ...... mu.- iiial op•P I J ? 1 I I .61. 4q I ill I C...) I t . 5 i \ LEGEND 0 Approximate Boundary N RSMT& PA Property ■ • ■ \47 r --- Q`liantMr°2 Exhibit B - Dakota County Highway Map 2,000 moo = 2,000 Feet a ti Rosemount Business Park © A 4 N E s o Rosemount, Dakota County V WSB &Asmcinias,Inc r• _ �a z ..,. r * - , _ r l +` - �IM� t_ f , t y . 1 i - t huh _+ , ro ' , *it '4l," e - 5 r/ ., r 1. • ik dy m a. I g.: 71 a d. -e LEGEND di Approximate Boundary 1 II0 RSMT&PA Property ' + 0 Dakota PWI _ 3 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet IME A oS M 0G� Exhibit C - DNR PWI Dakota County- Tile 1 of 3 IMiE '�NESo� Rosemount Business Park © WSB Rosemount, Dakota County D ,�� • t ppgggvts _ j. .a 'p•../ja ".t a as..-. , ii - , -. ' y 4_ •c' • ... .IL'f t ,may Via,. ,'. .. 77. ! 4 at I �."/J i ' •.ham g!Y bY•:.,. .. n , ``- . .a 4 3 91111 �� t' I �1, I. r ;* • er. i J La__ ifi ! 4. -I' d le 1 ' ROSEMOUNT WETLAND INVENTORY - `I;j; i Approximate Boundary ' •`4 0 <2 RSMT&PA Property ., ' s 1' ,,R y PRESERVE r r yi 13 MANAGE1 .,7..: ,...: , ;1.4.,,,,. 1.1.0.*74,': MANAGE2 s 44� `I -• {� k a ,�, y UTILIZE ..P.,1 f„,„,":,:,..**, , I , o F.M o&2 Exhibit D - Rosemount CSWMP 1,000 500 0 1,000 Feet a ti Wetland Management ClassificationMI IMM A :IFZIP� Rosemount Business Park" Rosemount, Dakota CountyV WSB &4ssocimes•Inc 117 is 01 E. „ 6 i N r. a , I I ' r r ,:i , . . ry 1 �*........._. +w�,, yip G' 41-4 Z.+ LEGEND IV Approximate Boundary RSMT&PA Property C3 Urban Land-Undefined C3 Hydrologic Group A K Hydrologic Group B �4.M o Exhibit El - Soil Survey At, 500 250 0 500 Feet MI= NM ° Hydrologic Group -e-, Rosemount Business Park © WSB "ES° Rosemount, Dakota County 4 ROSE EXECUTIVE SU MMARY SM MARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Regular Meeting: February 20, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Transferring of Control, Authority and Operation of projects and programs of AGENDA SECTION: the Rosemount HRA and the Rosemount Consent EDA to the Rosemount Port Authority PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber, AICP; Senior Planner AGENDA NO. 6.e. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Ordinance APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a Resolution approving the transfer ng of Control, Authority and Operation of projects and programs of the Rosemount HRA and the Rosemount EDA to the Rosemount Port Authority. Motion to adopt an Ordinance transferring economic development, housing and redevelopment powers from the Rosemount HRA and the Rosemount EDA to the Rosemount Port Authority. ISSUE In the 1980s,the City conducted a number of redevelopment projects through the use of the Rosemount Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). In 1991,the City established the Rosemount Port Authority to conduct redevelopment and economic development activities,but the projects that had been conducted by the HRA have never been transferred to the Port Authority. Tonight's requested action would transfer the control,authority and operations of all the projects that had been conducted by the HRA to the Port Authority. SUMMARY In 1979, the City of Rosemount established an HRA to conduct redevelopment and housing projects within the City. In the 1980s,a number of projects were conducted by the HRA,including the development of the Rosemount Plaza development at the southeast corner of South Robert Trail and 145th Street West. As a part of the Rosemount Plaza project,the HRA entered into a Deed of Declaration (Declaration)with the developers of the Plaza that expires in December 31,2007. The current owners of Rosemount Plaza wish to extend the Declaration. In 1991,the City established the Port Authority to conduct redevelopment,economic development, and housing project. At that time,the City did not transfer the control,authority,and operations of the HRA to Port Authority. Tonight's request would transfer these powers,allowing the Port Authority to consider the extension of the Declaration or any other former HRA matters that would need to be addressed in the future. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of resolution and ordinance transferring HRA duties to the Port Authority. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING CONTROL,AUTHORITY AND OPERATION OF PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS OF THE ROSEMOUNT HRA AND THE ROSEMOUNT EDA TO THE ROSEMOUNT PORT AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the City Council has formed the Rosemount Port Authority pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.0813, for the purpose of undertaking housing,economic development and redevelopment activities in the City;and WHEREAS, the Rosemount Port Authority is given all powers granted by statute to economic development authorities pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,Section 469.0813;and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.094, Subd. 2, authorizes the transfer of all such programs and projects from the development agencies that established the program or project to economic development authorities;and WHEREAS,in the interest of more effective and efficient administration of local government activities, the Council has determined that consolidation of all economic development, redevelopment and housing activities should be consolidated into one organization, and transferred from the Rosemount Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the Rosemount Economic Development Authority to the Rosemount Port Authority. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount that,pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,Section 469.094: 1. The City hereby transfers the control, authority and operation of all projects as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 8, and all other programs, projects and activities authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 or Sections 469.124 to 469.134 undertaken or operated by the Rosemount Housing and Redevelopment Authority or the Rosemount Economic Development Authority to the Rosemount Port Authority. The City transfers all powers relating to all such projects and programs to the Rosemount Port Authority. 2. The Rosemount Port Authority shall accept control, authority and operation of all such projects, programs and activities so transferred and exercise all powers that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority or the Rosemount Economic Development Authority exercised with respect to such projects,programs and activities,all of which powers are explicitly transferred to the Rosemount Port Authority. 3. The Rosemount Port Authority shall covenant and pledge to perform the terms,conditions and covenants of any bond, indenture or other agreement executed for the security of any bonds issued by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. 306370v1 CLL RS230-1 4. City staff and officers are authorized and directed to provide such services and take such actions as are necessary to effect the transfer of all programs,projects and activities of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the Rosemount Economic Development Authority to the Port Authority and to assist the Port Authority in the administration and operation of such projects, programs and activities. 5. All property or interest in property, both real and personal, under the authority and control of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority or the Rosemount Economic Development Authority are hereby transferred to the Rosemount Port Authority, and the Rosemount Port Authority is directed to accept and assume responsibility for all such property and any obligations related thereto. Adopted by the Rosemount City Council this dayof 2007. A 1'1'hST: Mayor William H. Droste Amy Domeier,City Clerk Motion by: Second by: Voted in favor: Voted against: Member(s) absent: 306370v1 CLL RS230-1 i ORDINANCE NO. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA CITY OF ROSEMOUNT AN ORDINANCE TRANSFERRING ENT POWERS FROM THEC NT, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPM ROSEMOUNT HRA AND THE OSEMOUNT AUTHORITY DA TO THE ROSEMOUNT PORT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ORDAINS as follows: ted er Section 1. All economic development, housing and 9.090eto 1opment 469 108 powers e hereby gxantednand Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 and 4 transferred to the Rosemount Port Authority and all such Rosemount Economic powers previously Deve Development to the Rosemount Housing and Redevelopment Authority and to Minnesota Statutes, Authority are hereby cancelled, rescinded, and terminated, all pursuant Section 469.094. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective the day following its publication. Adopted this day of 2007. William H.Droste,Mayor ATTEST: Amy Domeier,City Clerk 306366V 1 CLL RS230-1 ROSEN4OLIN1TEXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Meeting: February 20, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: 06-62-ME Vesterra, LLC and Stonex, AGENDA SECTION: LLC 2007 Mineral Extraction Permit Consent Renewals PREPARED BY: Jason Lindahl, AICP AGENDA NO. LT•�. Planner ATTACHMENTS: January 23, 2007 Excerpt PC Minutes, 2007 Conditions, Location Map, Phasing APPROVED BY: Plan, Applicant's Narrative RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to renew the Vesterra and Stonex Mineral xtraction Permit for 2007, subject to conditions: BACKGROUND Applicant: Jonathan Wilmshurst of Vesterra,LLC and Stonex,LLC Property Owner: Flint Hills Resources Location: South of 135th Street(County Road 38) extending 1/2 mile to southern boundary, IA mile west of Blaine Ave. Area in acres: Vesterra—75 Acres,the north half along 135th Street East. Stonex—80 Acres,the south half. Comp Plan Designation: IM Industrial Mixed Use Current zoning: AG,Agriculture Nature of request: Annual renewal of the mineral extraction permit Material removed in 2006: Approximately 30,000 tons PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission held a public hearing to review this item on January 23,2007. Minutes from that meeting are attached for your review. During that meeting, staff presented the item and noted the applicant would be required to meet all of the 2007 Conditions for Mineral Extraction particularly submission of an updated surety bond and certificate of comprehensive general liability insurance. The applicant has submitted these documents. No comments were offered by the public. Following the public hearing, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend the City Council approve renewal of the Vesterra and Stonex mineral extraction permit for 2007. ISSUE The applicant,Jonathan Wilmshurst of Vesterra LLC/Stonex LLC,requests renewal of the Vesterra and Stonex mineral extraction permits for 2007. The sites consist of two neighboring properties,each approximately 80 acres in size,located south of 135th street, '/a mile west of Blaine Ave. (County Road 71). The properties are owned by Flint Hills Resources which leases them back to the applicant to permit mineral extraction. The responsibility for securities and compliance with the conditions remains with Vesterra and Stoner as the property lessee. According to the applicant,there has been relatively little activity on site in 2006;however, should the applicant secure an operator,activity could increase in 2007. Mr.Wilmshurst reports approximately 30,000 tons of material was removed from the pit in 2006. Should the applicant retain an operator for the pit,the site could process up to 250,000 tons of construction sand and gavel during 2007. All activity will occur in Phase I. City of Rosemount records indicate no police activity on this site in 2006. The combined sites are zoned AG,Agriculture and guided IM,Industrial/Mixed Use and are included within the current Metropolitan Urban Service Area(MUSA). The current and future land use information of the surrounding properties,as well as zoning classifications are detailed in the table below. It should be noted that some of the agriculture use includes associated residential uses. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Information Direction Current Land Use Guided Land Use Zoning North Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture South Agriculture Medium Density Residential(west half) Agriculture Business Park(east half) East Agriculture Mixed Use Industrial Agriculture West Agriculture Urban Residential Agriculture Access to both properties is currently through a gate to 135th Street at the northeast corner of the Vesterra property. As the activity on the Stonex property progresses,access will be shifted to County Road 71, across an 80 acre parcel to the east owned by Flint Hills Resources. The applicant does not anticipate a change in access during 2007. However, should the need arise;the applicant will come back to the City to amend the permit. RECOMMENDATION Upon review of these standards,police records,and the information submitted by the applicant, staff recommends renewal of the Vesterra and Stonex Mineral Extraction Permit 2007,subject to conditions. This request is subject to the conditions outlined in the attached permit as well as the mineral extraction permits standards outlined in Section 12.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2 EXCERPT FROM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2007 5.b. 06-62-ME Vesterra, LLC /Stonex, LLC Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal. Planner Lindahl presented this item. The applicant,Jonathan Wilmshurst of Vesterra LLC/Stonex LLC, requests renewal of the Vesterra and Stonex mineral extraction permits for 2007. The sites consist of two neighboring properties, each approximately 80acr sin size,located are owned bysouh Flint Hills of 135th street,'/a mile west of Blaine Ave. (County Road 71). propertiesThe Resources which leases them back to the applicant to permit mineral extraction. The responsibility for securities and compliance with the conditions remains with Vesterra and Stonex as the property lessee. Chairperson Messner asked about the access on 135th and whether or not the company will keep the access there or move it to County Road 71. Mr. Lindahl replied that the applicant mentioned their access currently comes from County Road 38. In the future they anticipate the resident to the east to be moving which would allow them to utilize an existing access giving them direct access to the site. In any event, the applicant would come back to the City for approval for any necessary improvements. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 6:40p.m. There were no public comments. MOTION by Howell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Panda. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 6:41p.m. There was no discussion among the commissioners. MOTION by Chairperson Messner to recommend the City Council approve renewal of the mineral extraction permit for Vesterra and Stonex, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conformance with the attached 2007 Conditions for Mineral Extraction, including: a. Submission of an updated Surety Bond in the amount outlined in the attached 2007 Conditions for Mineral Extraction. b. Submission of an updated Certificate of Comprehensive General Liability Insurance as outlined in the 2007 attached Conditions for Mineral Extraction. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Mr.Lindahl stated this item will go to City Council on February 20,2007. Mineral Extraction Permit 2007 Conditions for Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal VESTERRA, LLC and STONEX, LLC A. By their signatures below, Vesterra, LLC And Stonex, LLC (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Property Lessee") and Flint Hills Resources (herein after"the Property Owner") consent to these conditions, binding themselves and their successors, heirs or assigns to the conditions of this permit. Vesterra LLC and Stonex, LLC are jointly and severally liable and responsible for compliance with all conditions of this permit and all requirements of law relating to the licensed activities. Mineral Extraction is an Interim Use in the Agriculture District of which the permit area is a part according to Ordinance B, the City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance Regulations. Property Owner consents to entry onto the Subject Property by the City, the City's employees, agents, and contractors, as needed to inspect the work of the permit, enforce the conditions of the permit and undertake any work needed to comply with permit conditions including mine closing and reclamation. B. This permit is granted for the area designated as Phase 1 on Exhibit 2 which is attached hereto as one of the exhibits. C. The completion date of the overall mineral extraction process including site reclamation shall be no later than December 31, 2014 for the northern 75 acres,the Vesterra site. The completion date of the overall mineral extraction process including site restoration shall be no later than December 31, 2018 for the southern 80 acres, the Stonex site. The term of this permit shall extend from February 21, 2007 until December 31, 2007 unless revoked prior to that for failure to comply with the permit requirements. A mining permit fee of$370.00 shall be paid to the City of Rosemount. D. All required permits from the State of Minnesota, County of Dakota and City of Rosemount(hereinafter "City")or any of their agencies shall be obtained and submitted to the City prior to the issuance of the permit. Failure by the Property Lessee to comply with the terms and conditions of any of the permits required under this paragraph shall be grounds for the City to terminate said mining permit. E. The final grading for the permit area shall be completed in accordance with the grading plan labeled Exhibit 3, which is attached hereto, or as approved by the City Engineer, and any other conditions that may be imposed by the City from time to time. F. All gravel trucks and other mining related traffic shall enter and exit the mining area from 135th Street East(County Road 38). It shall be the Property Lessee's responsibility to obtain any access permits or easements necessary for ingress and egress. The location of the accesses and/or easements for ingress and egress shall be subject to approval by the City, as well as the Dakota County Highway Department or the Minnesota Department of Transportation if applicable or if any changes occur ' 2007 Mining Permit Vesterra,LLC/Stonex,LLC 2 of 5 relative to the mining process. The current location of the access driveway is indicated on the Location Map, Exhibit A. Warning signs including "Trucks Hauling" shall be installed at the Property Owner's expense as needed in accordance with Dakota County requirements. Any street improvements to County road 38, 71 or CSAH 42 necessary to accommodate the generated traffic shall be the sole responsibility of the Property Lessee. G. A plan for dust control shall be submitted to and subject to approval by the City. The Property Lessee shall clean dirt and debris from extraction or hauling operations related to the Mineral Extraction Permit from streets. After the Property Lessee has received 24-hour verbal notice,the City may complete or contract to complete the clean-up at the Property Lessee's expense. In the event of a traffic hazard as determined by the City Administrator(or his designee)or Rosemount Police Department,the City may proceed immediately to complete or contract cleanup at Property Lessee's expense without prior notification. H. The surface water drainage of the mining area shall not be altered so as to interfere, contaminate or otherwise impact the natural drainage of adjacent property. I. No topsoil shall be removed from the site and the Property Lessee shall take necessary measures to prevent erosion of the stockpiled topsoil. The location of the stockpiled topsoil shall be indicated on Exhibit 2,the Phasing Plan. J. Any costs incurred now or in the future in changing the location of existing public or private utilities including but not limited to pipelines, transmission structures and sewer infrastructure located within the permit area shall be the sole obligation and expense of the Property Lessee. K. All costs of processing the permit, including but not limited to planning fees, engineering fees and legal fees, shall be paid by the Property Lessee prior to the issuance of the permit. The Property Lessee shall reimburse the City for the cost of periodic inspections by the City Administrator or any other City employee for the purpose of insuring that conditions of the permit are being satisfied. The Property Lessee agrees to reimburse the City for any other costs incurred as a result of the granting or enforcing of the permit. L. The daily hours of operation for the mining area shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., subject, however,to being changed by the City Council. M. The Property Lessee shall deposit with the Planning Department a surety bond or cash deposit in the amount of Seven Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars per acre ($7,500.00/acre)for any active phase in favor of the City for the cost of restoration, regrading and/or revegetating land disturbed by mining activities and to ensure performance of all requirements of this agreement and City ordinances by Property Lessee. The required surety bonds must be: 2007 Mining Permit Vesterra,LLC/Stonex,LLC 3 of 5 (1) With good and sufficient surety by a surety company authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota. (2) Satisfactory to the City Attorney in form and substance. (3) Conditioned that the Property Lessee will faithfully comply with all the terms, conditions and requirements of the permit; all rules,regulations and requirements pursuant to the permit and as required by the City and all reasonable requirements of the City Administrator(or his designee) or any other City officials. (4) Conditioned that the Property Lessee will secure the City and its officers harmless against any and all claims, or for which the City,the Council or any City officer may be made liable by reason of any accident or injury to persons or property through the fault of the Property Lessee. (5) The surety bond or cash deposit shall remain in effect from February 21, 2007 until July 31,2008. Upon thirty(30)days notice to the Property Lessee and surety company, the City may reduce or increase the amount of the bond or cash deposit during the term of this permit in order to insure that the City is adequately protected. N. The Property Lessee shall furnish a certificate of comprehensive general liability insurance issued by insurers duly licensed within the State of Minnesota in an amount of at least Five Hundred Thousand and no/100 ($500,000.00) Dollars for injury or death of any one person in any one occurrence, and at least One Million and no/100 ($1,000,000.00)Dollars for injury or death of more than one person arising out of one occurrence and damage liability in an amount of at least Two Hundred Fifty Thousand and no/100 ($250,000.00)Dollars arising out of any one occurrence. The policy of insurance shall name the City as an additional insured and shall remain in effect from February 21, 2007 until December 31,2007. O. No processing or mixing of materials shall occur on the site, except as approved by the Dakota County Environmental Health Department as incidental to a sand and gravel mining operation. Any such activities will be enclosed with snow or cyclone fencing or as approved by City staff. Construction of any ponding areas, wash plants or other processing or equipment brought to the site shall require additional site and grading plan information subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. P. The Property Lessee and the Property Owner shall hold the City harmless from all claims or causes of action that may result from the granting of the permit. The Property Lessee shall indemnify the City for all costs, damages or expenses, including but not limited to attorney's fees that the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims. 2007 Mining Permit Vesterra,LLC/Stonex,LLC 4 of 5 Q. The Property Lessee and the Property Owner shall comply with such other requirements of the City Council as it shall from time to time deem proper and necessary for the protection of the citizens and general welfare of the community. R. Complete mining and reclamation is required in all phases before any additional mining is authorized. Modifications or expansion of the mining areas must be approved in writing to the City. Property Lessee shall submit to the City semi- annually a written report indicating the amount of material extracted from the site for the prior six-month period. S. The Property Lessee shall incorporate best management practices for controlling erosion and storm water runoff as specified by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. T. The Property Lessee must have a copy of the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District mining application completed and on file with the City of Rosemount Planning Department prior to the issuance of the Mineral Extraction Permit. U. Reclamation shall include the replacement of the entire stockpile of topsoil on the mined area, reseeding and mulching necessary to re-establish vegetative cover for permanent slope stabilization and erosion control. The minimum depth of topsoil shall not be less than two inches after reclamation. Topsoil for reclamation shall conform to specifications on file with the City. No restored slopes may exceed a gradient of 25%or four to 1 (4:1). V. The Property Lessee must show how materials stockpiled for recycling will be processed and inform the City of all stockpiled materials. W. The Property Lessee may not assign this permit without written approval of the City. The Property Lessee will be responsible for all requirements of this permit and all City ordinances on the licensed premises for the permit period unless the Property Lessee gives sixty(60) days prior written notice to the City of termination and surrenders the permit to the City. The Property Lessee shall identify all Operators prior to their commencement of mineral extraction-related activities in the pit area. The City shall have the authority to cause all mineral extraction activities to cease at any time there is an apparent breach of the terms of this Permit. X. The Property Lessee shall install and maintain a"stock" gate(or equivalent) at the entrance to the property where the mining operation is located. The gate must be secured at 7:00 p.m. and at any time the pit is not in use. Y. There shall be no "haul-back" of materials from any other property or job site that would be imported to the property for fill or other purposes other than incidental concrete recycling as referred to in paragraphs 0 and V; and topsoil imported for the purpose of re-establishing turf as accepted by the City. 2007 Mining Permit Vesterra,LLC/Stonex,LLC 5 of 5 Z. Truck operators within the pit area shall not engage in practices involving slamming tailgates,vibrating boxes,using of"fake"or engine brakes (except in emergency situations)or other such activities that result in excessive noise. AA. The Property Lessee shall comply with directions from the City Engineer. BB. A landscaping plan shall be prepared subject to approval by City Staff, for the purpose of providing vegetative screening within the setback areas of the various phases of the mining area. Said landscaping shall be installed according to City standards,prior to commencement of operations within an adjacent phase area. CC. No retail activity is permitted on the site. Materials imported to the site are limited to materials to be recycled and mixed with aggregate extracted from the site and topsoil for reestablishing ground cover or turf. DD. Off-site mining connected with the reconstruction of County Road 38 or construction of Connemara Trail shall require separate project approval by the City Council. The site reclamation plan with proposed grades and future street alignments is subject to approval by the City Engineer. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,Vesterra, LLC and Stonex, LLC hereby consents and agrees to the foregoing conditions of said mining permit this day of , 2007. Vesterra,LLC and Stonex,LLC By: Jonathan J.Wilmshurst, Owner STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2007,by Jonathan J. Wilmshurst,the Owner of Vesterra, LLC and Stonex, LLC Notary Public 2007 Mining Permit Vestena,LLC/Stonex,LLC 6 of 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Flint Hills Resources, hereby consents and agrees to the foregoing conditions of said mining permit this day of 2007. Flint Hills Resources Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The forgoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2007 by , Flint Hills Resources, Its , the Property Owner, on behalf of the company. Notary Public • funk/WA 3s Vesterm .14 Roney Cotiwii-y j "a4 y d i r g �,. a2Jsi N n t"�' o._. c n ;-3`o Z ._ ]anuany auie�g r 0.e r �.� wi4 N g m m N :,:• A a g g A 8 1cm is.25g 1j R f 3 fi 7�'E , O 1 V a G C 0 1 L a N O N e e Z . t• h3__" ._ ,__,__ y_ J 4 ��.-.-'.� t tY 1.'.il.v it * N z - `{ f ;. c E a z Z to t ;.0^4 / f o-a Q N CPC �M 'S 4. o s C gi PROPOSED Q CU U ' Z m 1 t K-+ Y , ', U > o Z c 3 E W. co m G Xce 1 , W o o 0. cn } d, ! E i L Y 2 F } a m , N CO m u_ Q 0 0 .1 • : �. co 8 (i i U w } Q° • y ,� ,, rl t k s r, i aD w c — �,v ,,s ",, '� tea..,,. �.+. •w� -wr _®+ .w JINNI' LI=31 _,F:Ii; ME, a '--• •— • nv • r1 � T ' 1�;1 l+']• t •1 4:Y11�] thr1,A Idd1Vr' I r 7 2 - +N "; -' • Frfr nTIrP 'V 'i Ali 1 t m t il.,•cp.'; ] 1 Pir•d I� I I 0 '• • yvlr}r.F4n FI,11II . i�•'lit' i'.(1•]1 11'.•i i I 1'na.lit )41:6 I f) � � ,171 }1'111,t,1� 114'116•It 1,...,1;,71., 1 ( ( 2 �� a T'W:i dlflltl. g ,'+ i I,IKi I,,I/V:1+'Ill II 1 n �44 4,0. �. • 5 ,{>c I. 1 w •il! tt I f♦•'Lp *� II r� �E F,i/.ios, l '4 1 t i p SO " !; I' I IA } wyf I l A 7 w •1.Y'f's `y, q }� • I J t PIP { I I I 1 i 1 ®'/ �L', 5 n ,er- Sj , It )f) I'f 111 f 11. ,041 11 4,I) 6 ItIAI•(I(It1 v•<I�ilh1 I a ill , .1i1111n, '}0 e('I a i\I1 ) 10 :iNB—\(f S I1,,, clb:,,F3�•' ir. 1. n �F l F 1 6 64,0,, 1}1. '1111)r' .>', L I z "Iy1 i III, ! 1 0 ' a ' ��I]]� �!d4 tVv1J 1•1'(_;••?;ill trr I I :l. g, l°1 Yt�,,l�'u �5rrt T1 . �{{YY ',l1I �(• 7 1.11\1F1 1 5!1'',I I a)'Ja it l�f'jilt 1ji1"+• !7 11��o I a1 7� IN A'� Y 1V" {lM\,y L •Ilb .—a..u-�9J._..JJ,'}..� .9.].—.Lil In�...,l. 1.311+.'1i4t � +'^itd icy cloc:::(:?: Il \( I' ll - I I rl � RUBE W �.. / /11111Ii1) 4\\`•-1'F7{.'N ,t. •� lbll \ � I II T°' %- ../ Ia.'1.1i 9} j` 1\\\_�.\ I11I'1. r - \ �dll\ � } Ill_ _ / /ii////IIt ��"lii�.Irwi'�..i 1 ` 21 : / ,I11_ t''�itl \�,�'(� Ii\\`T�lil/ i/'Jr�I' , // '>'T�'-) 1.� _r?I\I\1 r\,�` \•� n „� I '1 1 /lit"S�i�`rs _-r 1\dt, I111\I)f11I//-, ,,} \\\ \ 1// IS/, I f I 1/1/ / O Np' \ LIII 11111\I III. bzffi''.,....'t 7 l --..�1111) / 11 / 1, 1 I I ! I Firs d i-4v\III1'it})1•Vi \l \\ . C l/)�` Ji17 1 i =\\n\\_J'/l/1\\ \�\`\ -C\)ild?rll1 -i,r;(YrApsPW ,^\\\\11\\\`lil\ II •" �L •i44t w i�_�' -� 1114/' 1 /l/ J� _ - 1 , -'I',-.!i/�r/ /�i�,--\\`/ I Ill!/\ \1111\\\\\4 *\1\\ 1\ ;4 v•v .1 ii^ r /i;ill /ll j \I / -\1)1 f���\\.�� �rr 1 /]Y�%� \\�-i 111 111(\\tl\\\\\\ \\\g\ I • / /� 1 J \_/ NN^^ �"9i'' / \1 !r/� iii .01 I)IlI/ \�_/ Il //,'\ \ II 11/ l\Ail IT\\\\ I. l '•,='tla /lllllrrr\-�.q\\\tl I \ 1/1/11 '-``_,�%,111.iiN1r II\ .�_ llltl\\�J1111111 ')�U\\\\\\ • p \ ) \• I -- ' 111l r \NO\1\,),III I\\ \� �_-'•%-') \ 1 ", /' Grimm-, 11101�11111 I1.1 - •• -1 1 I 1\\\ )111111// • ' \`\ - � =/�% ' 1fi-- ç ) ) .4 , ` �_,1 i1711" %in/I , //ll1) \\- �.. . //%ice...„. , / 1 I�n/jr/1I /1 ---- -•'''" \.'/r/' -. ' /1)41\11 Illll/lfl • li J• k.• .off___--� \\\\D\1111 o Il/1/j/ )I1\ •- =--- \ 1 (- \\\ 11111 \ b . • ��-��\'I �I 11\\=llllll WI( r/ (-� ----\\\ `/ I j ./ \\�\'�q\II\\\ \ j - L� /l/-`\ / 11f1 1////� \ \1 (IU \�_�� -\ /'n l(\\ ` 11111111 1 ..: / i/�- // //' 1 /1 ./ \1\\l. - �.� ,-,,\ 1 • /\1,.-11\ 1\'Y;// i l I 44' �' r1-\` .�/1 1 lll\\\1- \Ill//})I'•/�`- //.--- \\1 ••.//r/%�\��///.4 /1!// I ri -°'-_/Ic 1 1,-'"--....._------ _ r'��'���•�\��--1/lr�r•_,, _ \` l i // 11 \ i'J/////c"�\/ I�// Plit.'C to 1/I ♦ //�-Q\\\ IVl/llllll�r� ./)mil r , �-_ �1 //-\ �/ )II,/ice% 1itM Jf -:----�1/i/1 Ct //--/ /////' 111t11 il/ \1\l\1\\ ''' (/',liirJ1 / /:4j 'i /i///J�\ -1r ;j///r. _ _ -/ / • 1/l 1i��\t\\\\\:.v1///r^lll/lr / ry f/ /iir �fr/ `�k-I.'1 //r 1 14i.^tAt.5;'. ---' / r / / . /111/r11 T \ I / -I VI /• / , ///j�� Jam'\ I I l/ f] r,l.':;z y: ��� / 4-. I './ / /\\\1,1IIII),/If \\\1\ 0\ilifeII�1I L 7<7 J/1/)..=J/r//:S�/- j \ I�j101 II (r -I = =, //^\I I/ 1///,///111\\! ,ry\ ..-:.')\I Pik\l L�/ 1 I I I L\ i%��r1.,,;_.r , I:/)11\ /11// -.�\-_l // � / ///,/rl.\\\) ) \\ .\\\Z- �11111j //r_z-bl1/jis_-?//� .{G \ll 1\ " %%4� J / /�.//�-1/1//fl��\\I\I,\ -- \\\�\-,\%I,IUI 1i11r✓� :,/,/. -r illi\ _T-'�. )1\ - l /11- l�- 1 , it..••••- 1, Imo_11 ',\ I f\�.\ \1i//i,III I)))ll /ii,��.^,,,:---, s 1 11/1 a 1 1 \ /�/�:_/ j lam- Ill\ l 1O\�r�lllll 1 =�/S�%.-, \\D \\--- i �Il\1lll�%/�.j ll1//%%i- \--- \\�-- \1\..'r\ �\-\`h�'111111 �O� �`i�IM' ) 1 I \ ` I . \\\\\'d( / it/rl/f//i--_ W�-\.1 \\\\�`1\ it / 1`I�'�it� / I I I . . •`\\"J �f%illllr/r. \\\\IIII�\\5\ 11 .,�\t11�i/f 1dr' I 5 -�- /, r /IIII(\ r - 1\11 II ri)IIV�--�-iyi 1 \ in( 1.1 \ -._.I-- \\ 111/1)Ite1- k0''.,1 / i i%1/�II1111ff\r\r� r__-J .J ) ) IZno I \ --- _�c • 1 11\t1\���1)�j//�j/ <i ��Ji i/�'1JJ/llu••I (1\ /1 ,, /l,/s2 �l-\\`- ,. '\:t \-- /, / f/i/ /ill I If f l / / ..,\ .-- ' -�\ J ). I: ;i lll1\ )I//.,:i/1/ , 1 rt�/ram/l�i, r 41,� 1 r , f A __`,--- i' -I j'.'.: ... / )\I\\1111j1/r//i/!/`• __-Y \\ ))r 4jll:, �'� / / ( 0 t 1 ', • i; 1\�\\\�1�111111t1j�`o'S -�-\ y ��1%/�l4�,�ia�i,1y, 1 ^\ .'r'l /'/Og - �4 - \\0 • p1;(' \\II\tt11Q�1_ 1' -- /- (r\\ ,k J • '�� / / 0 I ---- \ A— I .\V /\\\\\�I/1//ir/ 1/r`�- I iii�r/i.^ / / / - \\(li/1�. •-�4y) r///". +=ram. - I I -- { 11111)II��IfrrrrCr,jroSlr� /////�//. ' r __ r/ /.7C f i > I \ ®.• 11)llfl (1/1//oll �fl\lrlli� L//.%.� _-_' --- z--- ` _ I�\_ - i V 1 s ./ - ) 11)llli/ /,;,,, rr0 -.=-,. T j- � 1 .. -.;,,-„1) ‘ y -- --_.ti._____• �- ' I L. \ 1 �\ \ - __ s ( •1 1 / \ \ I / • I l--- - /1 - ---\_ \� .l l .1" \ \ 1 1 `' L (` - - --1 L' 1 . I ' 1 I / l \ I • i(I) NICIJ / cl? L -\`./ r\_� l I I HAUL ROUTE o\ r. • • It :I n L-) \• \ \ [] I \ belt,- Illl C�r .��. SANDERS VESTERRA, LLC LOCATION MAP wncl�x ROSEMOUNT MINE PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS. EXHIBIT 1 Mora INC cLY HAUL ROUTES • . LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS • ROSEMOUNT,' S55 re lnl �i I`'+'19`55Bm . MINNESOTA • JANUARY 13,21)03 Phony(051)221-0401 5 • . Fow(551)297-5017• Web Paget www.ewbine.eom . ..1-._-}L ' ci , ' •-- ' - ,•,.. .---... _,, ,._.—' ' __:,•;. _:,.: — 1 _. .... 1, • • .•.•:.,.•,.,,,..,..,. . .,. \-.1 i 1 - • - 1-7- •, -- .,.........._ ......,_ .. s ' ' . ..• ,.. 1 c) , . . • 5 a i 1 1 — 5 • CO • .,,,..i.:.f4...L'., rra ' 'i - , • ,i ',. -"'"'", )I\ 4.!;',:..i;,•:.:.,,:,:i! 0 ,,. . 0 • ''•. -, , , I i _1 i ' ' / • ' / -I----1' . li'"1 it , • • . - • -It i , i I , = ;, )' • .f, .. ',:.:...:; ----- ..: -.:--, -, .-,1 ttii,j0 ., 1 i .' I, 1 k iikk • • 1,i i 101.„....---- rci , `... \.'ull.. • '.' ,i p, •-,..t ‘ , ,),,f). .I ,. _ . ., i / ., , t, , ^.7. rs•?, :-...: 5. -lid / I/iiiii 1' "' } I 'I I / . %\ \. 11,\ g.:•'..i..li;1' -,' .- \ / /4/../ // / \ ,--i-I,-1- , . vimilmimi :silk ''Elimeminw• ." //, /7./. - ---- --,-- •---._ ••' /./ i. .-- . -L- -, -, , , , . -•.,\,„,, „,,.. „,,,.,: . !,,,. , , , , , _.. , ,k ',,\%A,, 'N.\\ 1;i•.:.:',1 Y;;?::::; 7 0 ItOr 0 • C E ,,,• m -7,:l ::,"---", , /—Ci -_ ,, .., I, ' • , i 1 , .. ' it . 1,7.'',.. k..• , .;•.,.... .-,..„,.. •• • • -:- "-." ./ f- , i'tt, s' . .L 1 i ; ,,v • \\\,..1,. .-1‘ • 7,, ‘.., • rTi -------- • . , , • • , rn ..... 1 1 x 1 ) s.\ \ \• .:;Hr .q2';'..;.•,.:':.. m \ . , t..).,171 • ;4 • •:/:/:::,_---. [2---------1 \I 11 ; V / / \I '‘1 '\I pill6\171'.'" \ 1\.\ I CO* --./''' -• --\ 1 I IiiiII ( C.,)-1 -. %K.-. .•' , k...) V Lk' 4iiiii ,. •..•• . . • • \ ..,. •. . • , - - „ I 1,. \ - --• ... ----- .,/ I \ .7,,,,ji i 1, :7' IF,•i•.',.:,!..., ::: ...... .,.• Ca co 03 1 - 1, 1, 11 ji IL 1 i 1 li 1 1......: , .4., ''\. *"1 ' ',, , ..._ ...... ., .... \ —.1.• _...... . '‘,.. ' . )\\\ :'•',.'''''.; .,' :•I ... .. , =4.1' \ ' ' j!' )1 •-•-::'`':'. ''1' -\. •,, 1 7,7_, . 1,....P_,,11, .,..,...!,!,:....,..;:',....: 02 /-2 t . '" ' /c, ' 11A.SE -.6 ...„.... "--- --------930.-.) . , _. — ---- \ .. ( 1 1 f:j, 1 F, ,::,..:',. .:. sf .. , . • • (91 .'80, 51!1> i ...--- , .;,...71.../:•,/, if: • ,. ,_ -- --, ....• P11...A -S--E-- .23 I 01 - .1M i..,.:.•.-:•.. -- ' ' '' • .)! , • lif 4,!.! , /--, , — -- • - ., . , • .. , - • 1/1.....L.-- . ._ I 1 \' , \ ..-- - - ',..N ./ 1 I .,.\\\. _... ,•,\. . i.,i, :: • (( \( (1 --,.rnisJE,.------7------- .1, \s"..: -P PHA ' i ..• \.\\ - iik,\\ ,i,.:• • .- ...-1.- , . , -; (-, \ •iiiii. ..,--:,. •••.:. s . . . •_.• )11 r,',, I ?;; .: .,.. . 'I)14 .. ... .. - , -\,. 7.,--7-,..,,\ -. J!if- irli i/ -•• 1 , \ ..... • i !. '...•----. "---- -, 14 ,-:_j ---, I ,- , , f,",. .s,• ,.- .,., -- .:-.,).- . . ///..:- L.)— ,\ i I „ I `•i ,\-- 9ee---,-/ i , i, ,f-, ...,- •,. -, -. ,,,, - i;si- ',.- -' , ..., _ - _ I,ii, :,- .:--..-- -,--. .,. ,,,--7 -- ,• /Le- .. ;I [..,t7.-::-.- - I ,,,.., .. / --' i(i . -iri- \'\\\.... '.,), / I,.-'- ..- ---=.11:19:--4-r--.----•'// Li\\ ,,, . i '''''- a ,.- •,,,,, f,if.. 6!.. ..• ) , •.',•›-',------1 -c i .,--, • \, .. •.,,,, yr...-„,... -//.,.--, ./.,.:,•., _ , 2,„s_ ..•.„,...„._• . , 1 Jai I 1 ---- ll'il/ ,.• ,ru / r i 1 ..-- • if -."-C-J___/ ,,..,, 2_,..-:::-, Iilt,", i I T1,1,1 c 1-.\l'ii•sc": ',,,,,j....• ...Lt 1('./,-,,,,,____.-' 55c1::,_ _rj.,. . .___ ,. .r.H../.:1 \--, :--.)\IA I --•• \'' s.\ "------- ll' ) I i ' /,21----- -',/ V777,<:71- . j ,). .., 1 ., 4", -., !, ,, ...... •. \ \ ,,.\ , , . 4„ii. - -;„„ , ,/,/,_. -..„ ‘ , --' \. ,N \‘',. ..•-.,_-"E///'/:( I I 1 l 7111110r '---. --'. '\ 1\ s -- --- — /- \ --,- ,,,• • ..—, I•1 , i .://01.----.--" , :_, 1 .. . • : - N•-• .: :. ?y I 40'1:"•-.% \ ( t ...-4:-I''PI 1,, ..! i I , 0 ',...., 1,_,.......1 I . :. . .. .... . . ,\ \------_,,,,. ,,,// 7 . ----- / l / 1 ! . • .\ i 4,,,,.........-.. \ \ V. //„.-..-',.:,..:•:•• i/ i • . , ' ..., . . • .. .. X '.--':_'•------,os-'-/—' - . ) i -4 Y---xy ,\$ i ' -...? . ,...- kli r- trri GN\ __.._.--••• , ..., ./_ X. ---- j • • •- / (if---±•1, : rri Fri' F. 'AV 1 i , % -,4\ `.. -_ _....- Of - J1( , i I .• 7,1J3 (P/Frl . r-mri ./ Al''—$ T.— X ..1 I: 1 II(/.. / 1 ' •DO RI Fil• }. — • r . ,•ii, & ,/7/7yrn' '''m-n6L.: -. m - -- I-I ..-- • --.< 0 :710 ..-- , ill ....- 7,. m ,, / 1 )' -. -T — --- - 73-1,- °' ,-, ..:.: . -rf --__ -1 t---: . -- -47/-- . ..2--. , --, . ---- . • ..--• 1 . ......- , 1 i - - iwgilogs.... SANDERS VESTERRA, LLC •MINING OPERATIONS PLAN rata WACKER T ROSEMOUNT MINE PLAN EXHIBI 6 10,:ro BERGLY . . INI&Ova IN C. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS ROSEMOUNT, EV;11,1114101i MINNESOTA JANUARY 13,2003 Phena(651)221-0401 Foc(651)297-6517 . . lob P4 .• . . .. . • . . . • . :: \\ I / I/ - I e ) \k1 i --M N I N M N 11,1. __ x • \ / � f � �/ n O w CD A' r. rij -j mN l '?fix/ z - p� . L_1•Z..T. I r ka\ / i ' 1- k 2E m 'VDco 2b/ // m "co p mm I 1 \ I � . _or M 21 zI a j / I z0 XA \ I \ +f m /— _I / G� 1 / Ir .'- _ m I • GN \\ • I / Pi cl • • I co I m \ / I n I I K` m A o Ia • , \_,\/ o M;:;I,. . --c-.* co / ) \ / ,---^�33e' I f ,40, /\-4 - ,... ...- m ,t • o / t f CO 0 co mI ' / I ! 11 Z 0 Zm / 1 / '' 09 / 1 , I/. • \\ I I. \ Y's \ I \ • /, \ I tf;.:.• A \ I / � / 1 �•t_A•i II-�-F i _ 4 • I I ? I,.. L-JL -J Sx• Ila /.Z t -? • / \\ I '�c�i j f� $ °� m L\ YI /� I / G�D U1/�\I / \ I I 1 0 61 ai '"o I I I /I .. s �1j7�. I j I N 1 / /;. / 1 /✓ \\ ram► 0 ii y ! A \.1 �'. •/'1�--P 7.: . '/;. •� .",',`ai u., ITT 1 -, mI D ` Y - ' /1 .'0 TT'''.--.;\iII>:'•';'-'7?-: ';';7.:.Ii;1 .,II.I 4 . 3=- .1. . . • a J I t+`Ly ,./t' •: iD DI— ^ o..._.,\y\•mo,\\ ' N � %\ • ® N - / / m1 I I i O-4 /• J s t pZ/ I. s, •'�:: , O • Y Z `ma ./. m. . o m Zl t % :t . - � _ 0.. m m .:. -N._ :m cs �r )› ;;; —. _ i— I) I / .. m ;� I le . to �-I0 � t• ��4,7 71 • mD _ T.n6 . ..... ,. _... _. 1. ... ....7„ • ow -�i so—..gym.i_--•m. -0 .-- Am/ O Z i O — 1 D��77 1 0 . • . /— / z mm /_ I m D • • ;,w SANDERS VESTERRA, LLC OPERATIONS PLAN - wncR-u BERGLY ROSEMOUNT MINE PLAN YEAR 1 EXHIBIT 2 .ron INC. JDSCAPE ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS ROSEMOUNT, -74WI1;95:1` M I N N E S O TA JANUARY 13.2003 c(651 ,22'-0401 (651)267-6617 �ogc xxw.rAFccom ' • r . , ;Jr- n r i .4v.."7., , % D 1 , 1 . i f C O a ' Q i I I �b it li f ii 1ii IC(411111.Milrillhi lb i i 730 - - - iMll�l T9 0.6 4:ArSEOP-E ti t!' :0VT------- t ! T. �� 100-Fo• Setbati�„�l I O,o * ��e�e� 41=SLOPE ig le Ili> III I L x) CCi iI 6r_ 'N. • • m • r - d6e I I 1 •' Ca G� $ ! rJI i `m 9U 3E co t (��� 'n !Yr at vx•' Ili �� �"' r `ff.. 1 i i I a i� ` rr�[ i i .: 2, .. Zt r f.f}y 1i (f■4 11 i i n J/ z �:1 I O T rn 55 L r y f 9 Htir m �,x� mo ii zm 3d0_ISeC.4, � I/1j" S F ' i i ��r u� Ali t 7'!/-r/ii.�, i����-m�.ter• i 1 ii. it e. ! 8 .01 k ! !) . / - . ,,k „ 3. ili m prof : _cr r'•i- Topography,roads and parcel data from Prepared for Stonex.LLC Dakota County CONCEPTUAL END USE PLAN Contour Interval 2 feel I hereby catty that this plan,document,or report was prepared by CA) property line setbacks except for me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed northwest - Professional Geologist under the laws or the state of Minnesota. Stonex and Vesterra Properties (71A1 0 150 300 Feet 1 I City of Rosemount,Dakota County,Minnesota - J.D.Lehr Date:January 13,2005 Reg.No.30063 Vesterra,LLC and Stones,LLC Annual Mining Permit Renewal Request November, 2006 There has been some activity at the Vesterra operation during 2006, although not as much as we had hoped. We were all set to sign a lease with an operator,when they backed out at the last minute in April leaving no time to seek a new one for the 2006 season. We have done a small amount of dry screening and sold some fill material during the year. We are currently talking with several prospects, any one of which has the potential to become a long-term lessee. This remains our preferred plan—to have a single operator working the whole site. In the event that this does not happen, then we will market material ourselves as we did this year. A new lessee will sub-lease the properties and install a crushing, washing and screening plant,together with settling ponds in the spring of 2007. A well will be required, for which permits will be secured from the DNR. The layout of the operation will look very much as it does today. The plant will process 300-500 tons per hour of sand and gravel. The estimated annual volume in the short term is estimated at 300,000 tons, but this would rise to 500,000 tons within a few years. Truck traffic from the operation is minimal as yet. The Kraft family is still living in the farmhouse but intend to move out early in 2007. Subsequent to their departure, it is intended to exit the pit to the east using the existing Kraft farm driveway direct onto Co. Rd. 71. At that time, the appropriate driveway and access improvements will be made. In the meantime, Vesterra accepts that it will be responsible for fixing any impacts made to Co. Rd. 38 as a result of truck traffic. Dust control measures will be employed as follows: regular reclamation and planting/seeding of berms and pit floor will keep exposed soils to a minimum, and roads will be regularly sprayed with water. In addition, the much lower elevation of the mine floor will tend to protect it from westerly winds that may pick up dust. Vesterra thanks the Rosemount Planning Commission and City Council for its consideration of this application for renewal 4 ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Meeting: February 20, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: 06-63-ME Solberg Aggregate Company (Ped- AGENDA SECTION: Kuznia) Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal. Consent PREPARED BY: Jason Lindahl, AICP Planner AGENDA NO. •�, ATTACHMENTS: January 23, 2007 Excerpt PC Minutes 2007 Mineral Extraction Permit, Location map, APPROV D Phasing Plan, Letter from Solberg Aggregate Company. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to renew the Solberg Aggregate Company (Ped- Kuznia) Mineral Extraction Permit for 2007, subject to conditions. SUMMARY Applicant&Property Owner(s): Solberg Aggregate Company&Otto Ped/Grace Kuznia Location: 4992 145th Street East Area in acres: Ped—80 Acres,the East half along Co.Rd. 42. Kuzma—80 Acres,the West half along Co.Rd. 42. Mining area: Approximately 30 acres Comp. Guide Plan Desig: IM,Industrial Mixed Use and AG,Agriculture Current Zoning: AG,Agriculture Nature of request Annual renewal of the mineral extraction permit with expansion into the adjacent 80 acre Grace Kuznia property. Material removed in 2006: Approximately 125,000 tons PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission held a public hearing to review this item on January 23,2007. Minutes from that meeting are attached for your review. Staff noted that the renewal also included a request to expand the pit into the Kuznia property to the east and that all plans have been updated to reflect this change. After hearing a presentation from staff and no comments from the public,the Commission unanimously recommended the City Council approve renewal of the Solberg Mineral Extraction Permit for 2007, subject to conditions. These conditions included submission of an updated surety bond,certificate of comprehensive general liability insurance and reclamation plan. The revised reclamation plan was to illustrate matching conditions and final grades along any property line adjoining another mineral extraction site (in this case,the Danner pit to the west) as well as show no greater than an eight(8)percent slope from the eastern property line of the Kuznia property to the existing grade of the site to insure proper conditions for any future roads. The applicant has submitted these documents and has agreed to make further revision to their plans should they be necessary when Danner comes in for renewal. ISSUE The applicant,Solberg Aggregate Company,requests renewal of the mineral extraction permit for the Otto Ped and Grace Kuznia properties located 4992 145th Street East. Solberg Aggregate Company took over operation of the pit in 2005 from Ames Construction and continues to operate the mine on a day-to-day basis. This application represents the routine annual permit renewal as required by ordinance;however,the applicant also requests to expand the mining permit into the adjacent 80 acre property owned by Grace Kuznia. This expansion is consistent with the performance standards for mineral extraction outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. According to the applicant,approximately 125,000 tons of material was removed from Phases I and II during 2006. The applicant anticipates removing a similar amount of material from Phase II,and possibly Phase III,during 2007. It should be noted,that the applicant will be required to fulfill the requirements of their existing permit and complete all mining and reclamation of Phase I prior to any mining activity in Phase III. City of Rosemount records indicate no police activity on this site in 2006. Phase III of this mineral extraction permit is located on the newly added Kuznia property directly to the east. The applicant will be required to submit an access easement allowing all ingress and egress for mineral extraction related activities to come through the Ped property via County Road 42. No direct access to County Road 42 from the Kuznia property for any mineral extraction related activity will be allowed without permission from Dakota County and the City of Rosemount. The subject properties are zoned AG,Agriculture and guided IM,Industrial/Mixed Use and AG, Agriculture. The current and future land use information of the surrounding properties,as well as zoning classifications are detailed in the table below. It should be noted that some of the agriculture use include associated residential uses. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Information Direction . Current Land Use Guided Land Use Zoning North Agriculture IM,Industrial/Mixed Use&Agriculture Agriculture South Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture Preserve East Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture West Mining IM,Industrial/Mixed Use&Agriculture Agriculture Site Grading and Reclamation. The Solberg site directly abuts the Danner mineral extraction site. As such,staff recommends that these applicants coordinate their respective phasing and reclamation plans. Therefore,staff recommends a condition of renewal for both permits require the applicants to submit revised phasing and reclamation plans that illustrate matching conditions and final grades along the abutting property line. In addition,the Solberg plans shall illustrate no greater than an eight(8)percent slope from the eastern property line of the Kuznia property to the existing grade of the site to insure proper conditions for any future roads (see modified Condition V in the attached permit). CONCLUSION Upon review of these standards,police records,and the information submitted by the applicant, staff recommends renewal of the Solberg Aggregate Company(Ped-Kuznia)Mineral Extraction Permit for 2007, subject to conditions. This request is subject to the conditions outlined in the attached permit as well as the mineral extraction permits standards outlined in Section 12.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2 EXCERPT FROM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2007 5.c. 06-63-ME Solberg (Ped/Kuznia) Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal. Planner Lindahl presented this item. The applicant, Solberg Aggregate Company,requests renewal of the mineral extraction permit for the Otto Ped and Grace Kuznia properties located 4992 145th Street East. Solberg Aggregate Company took over operation of the pit in 2005 from Ames Construction and continues to operate the mine on a day-to-day basis. This application represents the routine annual permit renewal as required by ordinance;however, the applicant also requests to expand the mining permit into the adjacent 80 acre property owned by Grace Kuznia. This expansion is consistent with the performance standards for mineral extraction outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. This request is subject to the conditions outlined in the permit as well as the mineral extraction permits standards outlined in Section 12.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lindahl stated that staff recommends renewal of the Solberg Aggregate Company (Ped-Kuznia) Mineral Extraction Permit for 2007, subject to conditions. Chairperson Messner asked where the haul road led from. Mr. Lindahl replied that the access road runs between the Ped property and Danner property and is shared by the Danner pit. Chairperson Messner asked about the recommendation to do reclamation on Phase 1 before going to Phase 3. Mr. Lindahl confirmed that is the current plan. Lauren Howard, Solberg Aggregate Company, 3615 145th Street,Rosemount, approached the Commission and stated he was available for any questions. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 6:46p.m. There were no public comments. MOTION by Schultz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Palda. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 6:47p.m. Mr. Lindahl mentioned the letter from John Reese, 504 Broadway, Goodhue,who owns the property west of the Danner site. Mr. Reese has questions with respect to the standards of mineral extraction permits. For purposes of explanation,Mr.Lindahl stated that mineral extraction is allowed as a conditional use in the agriculture district with two standards: 1. Occurs on any property zoned agricultural, and 2. the property is located east of Hwy. 52 and within 1/2 mile of County Road 42. Any mineral extraction permit application is subject to approval. Mr. Lindahl stated that staff will follow up with Mr. Reese. MOTION by Commissioner Howell to recommend the City Council renew the Solberg Aggregate Company (Ped-Kuznia) Mineral Extraction Permit for 2007. 1. Conformance with the attached 2007 Conditions for Mineral Extraction, including: a. Submission of an updated Surety Bond in the amount outlined in the attached 2007 Conditions for Mineral Extraction. b. Submission of an updated Certificate of Comprehensive General Liability Insurance as outlined in the 2007 attached Conditions for Mineral Extraction. c. The applicant shall submit a Reclamation Plan to the City for review and approval. Said plan shall be coordinated with the any abutting Mineral Extraction site to insure matching conditions and final grades along any adjoining property line(s). In addition, the Solberg plans shall illustrate no greater than an eight (8) percent slope from the eastern property line of the Kuznia property to the existing grade of the site to insure proper conditions for any future roads (see modified Condition V in the attached permit). Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. For follow up,Mr. Lindahl stated this item will go to City Council on February 20,2007. Mineral Extraction Permit 2007 Conditions for Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal SOLBERG AGGREGATE COMPANY(PED-KUZNIA) A. Solberg Aggregate Company(hereinafter the"Operator") shall sign a written consent to these conditions binding itself and its successors and assigns to the conditions of this permit. Otto A. Ped and Grace Kuznia(hereinafter the"Owner") shall sign written acknowledgment and consent to these conditions and to issuance of this permit in the form set forth at the end of these conditions. B. This permit is granted for the area designated as Phase 1, 2, and 3 on Exhibit A which is attached hereto as one of the exhibits dated March 3, 2006. However,the applicant shall not proceed into Phase 3 without completing all reclamation requirements of this permit for Phase 1. C. The term of the permit shall extend from February 21, 2007 until December 31, 2007 unless revoked prior to that for failure to comply with the permit requirements. A mining permit fee of$370.00 shall be paid to the City of Rosemount. D. All required permits from the State of Minnesota, County of Dakota and City of Rosemount (hereinafter "City") or any of their agencies shall be obtained and submitted to the City prior to the issuance of the permit. Failure by the Operator to comply with the terms and conditions of any of the permits required under this paragraph shall be grounds for the City to terminate said mining permit. E. The final grading for the permit area shall be completed in accordance with Exhibit A, or as approved by the City Engineer, and any other conditions that may be imposed by the City from time to time. F. All gravel trucks shall enter and exit the mining area from County State Aid Highway 42 (CSAH 42) from the location shown on Exhibit A and the designated truck route to (and from)the site shall be CSAH 42, west to State Trunk Highway 52 (STH 52),north on STH 52 to the City boundary. It shall be the Operator's responsibility to obtain easements for ingress and egress. The location of the accesses and/or easements for ingress and egress shall be subject to approval by the City, as well as the County Highway Department or the Minnesota Department of Transportation if applicable or if any changes occur relative to the mining process. G. A gate must be placed at the driveway entrance that shall be secured after hours. 2007 Mining Permit Solberg Aggregate Company./Otto A.Ped&Grace Kuznia Page 1 of 5 H. A plan for dust control shall be submitted to and subject to approval by the City. The Operator shall clean dirt and debris from extraction or hauling operations related to the Mineral Extraction Permit from streets. After the Operator has received 24-hour verbal notice,the City may complete or contract to complete the clean-up at the Operator's expense. I. The surface water drainage of the mining area shall not be altered so as to interfere, contaminate, or otherwise affect the natural drainage of adjacent property. J. No topsoil shall be removed from the site and the Operator shall take necessary measures to prevent erosion of the stockpiled topsoil. The location of the stockpiled topsoil shall be indicated on Exhibit A the Phasing Plan. K. Any costs incurred now or in the future in changing the location of existing public or private utilities including but not limited to pipelines,transmission structures and sewer infrastructure located within the permit area shall be the sole obligation and expense of the Operator. L. All costs of processing the permit, including but not limited to planning fees, engineering fees and legal fees, shall be paid by the operator prior to the issuance of the permit. That the Operator shall reimburse the City for the cost of periodic inspections by the City Public Works Director or any other City employee for the purpose of insuring that conditions of the permit are being satisfied. That the Operator agrees to reimburse the City for any other costs incurred as a result of the granting or enforcing of the permit. M. The daily hours of operation for the mining area shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., subject, however,to being changed by the City Council. N. The Operator shall deposit with the Planning Department a surety bond or cash escrow in the amount of Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars per acre ($7,5000.00/acre) of active phase in favor of the City for the cost of restoration,regrading and/or revegetating land disturbed by mining activities and to assure compliance with these conditions by the Operator. The required surety bonds must be: (1) With good and sufficient surety by a surety company authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota with the right of the surety company to cancel the same only upon at least thirty(30) days written notice to the permit holder and the City. (2) Satisfactory to the City Attorney in form and substance. (3) Conditioned that the Operator will faithfully comply with all the terms, conditions and requirements of the permit; all rules, regulations and requirements pursuant to the permit and as required by the City and all reasonable requirements of the Public Works Director or any other City officials. 2007 Mining Permit Solberg Aggregate Company./Otto A.Ped&Grace Kuznia Page 2 of 5 (4) Conditioned that the Operator will secure the City and its officers harmless against any and all claims, or for which the City, the Council or any City officer may be made liable by reason of any accident or injury to persons or property through the fault of the Operator. (5) The surety bond or cash escrow shall remain in effect from February 21, 2007 until July 31, 2008. Upon thirty(30) days notice to the permit holder and surety company,the City may reduce or increase the amount of the bond or cash escrow during the term of this permit in order to insure that the City is adequately protected. O. The Operator shall furnish a certificate of comprehensive general liability insurance issued by insurers duly licensed within the State of Minnesota in an amount of at least Five Hundred Thousand and no/100 ($500,000.00)Dollars for injury or death of any one person in any one occurrence,bodily injury liability in an amount of at least One Million and no/100 ($1,000,000.00)Dollars and property damage liability in an amount of at least Two Hundred Fifty Thousand and no/100 ($250,000.00)Dollars arising out of any one occurrence. The policy of insurance shall name the City as an additional insured and shall remain in effect from February 21, 2007 until December 31, 2007. P. Processing and crushing of materials are permitted on the site in accordance with the Operations and Dust Control Plan received by the City on December 28, 2004. No additional processing or production of materials may occur on the site and construction of any ponding areas or wash plants shall require additional City Council approval and notification of adjacent property owners, except as approved by the Dakota County Environmental Health Department as incidental to a sand and gravel mining operation. Any such activities will be enclosed with cyclone fencing, or as approved by City staff, and the fencing shall be properly maintained. Q. The Operator and the Owner shall hold the City harmless from all claims or causes of action that may result from the granting of the permit. The Operator and the Owner shall indemnify the City for all costs, damages or expenses, including but not limited to attorney's fees that the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims. R. The Operator comply with such other requirements of the City Council as it shall from time to time deem proper and necessary for the protection of the citizens and general welfare of the community. S. Complete mining and reclamation is required in all phases before any additional mining is authorized. Modifications or expansion of the mining areas must be approved in writing to the City. 2007 Mining Permit Solberg Aggregate Company./Otto A.Ped&Grace Kuzma Page 3 of 5 p T. The Operator shall incorporate best management practices for controlling erosion and storm water runoff as specified by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. U. The Operator must have a copy of the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District mining application completed and on file with the City of Rosemount Planning Department prior to the approval of the Mineral Extraction Permit. V. The applicant shall submit a Reclamation Plan to the City for review and approval. Said plan shall be coordinated with any abutting Mineral Extraction site to insure matching conditions and final grades along any adjoining property line(s). Reclamation shall include the replacement of the entire stockpile of topsoil on the mined area, reseeding and mulching necessary to re-establish vegetative cover for permanent slope stabilization and erosion control. The minimum depth of topsoil shall not be less than two inches after reclamation. No restored slopes may exceed a gradient of 25% or four to 1 (4:1) except there shall be no greater than an eight(8)percent slope from the eastern property line of the Kuznia property to the existing grade of the site to insure proper conditions for any future roads. W. The Operator must show how materials stockpiled for recycling will be processed and inform the City of all stockpiled materials. X. All recycling must be completed with the completion of the current phase and materials removed from the site. No recycling processes shall be allowed to continue into subsequent phases. Otto A. Ped and Grace Kuznia, Minnesota residents and owners of the properties for which this permit is issued, hereby consents and agrees to the issuance of a mineral extraction permit for said properties and to the imposition of the foregoing conditions. Owners further agree and consent to entry onto said properties by the City, its officers, agents, contractors and employees and by the surety of the bond issued in accordance with paragraph N, its officers, agents, contractors and employees to take any action deemed necessary by the City to enforce and assure compliance with the conditions of this permit and law. Owners further agree that they will not bring any claims or legal actions against the City, its officers, agents, contractors or employees for damages arising out of issuance of this permit or administration or enforcement by the City of the conditions of this permit or of law. The foregoing agreements of Owners shall run with the land of said properties and shall bind the Owners,their heirs, successors and assigns. By: Otto A. Ped By: Grace Kuznia 2007 Mining Permit Solberg Aggregate Company./Otto A.Ped&Grace Kuznia Page 4 of 5 That Bob Solberg,President of Solberg Aggregate Company, , Rosemount, MN 55068,the operator, hereby consents and agrees to the foregoing conditions of said mining permit. Solberg Aggregate Company By: Bob Solberg Its: 2007 Mining Permit Solberg Aggregate Company./Otto A.Ped&Grace Kuznia Page 5 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA SS COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2007 by Otto A. Ped, Minnesota resident and property owner. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA SS COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2007 by Grace Kuznia, Minnesota resident and property owner. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA SS COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2007 by Bob Solberg, President of Solberg Aggregate Company,Rosemount, MN 55068,the operator. 4 Notary Public 2007 Mining Permit Solberg Aggregate Company./Otto A.Ped&Grace Kuznia Page 6 of 5 Solberg Aggregate Site -*--- tri _ _ _„ iiiiii ___ , 1 ii„.,. \ _„ , ......,,, „ ,, --\: . 116 -_,,„,, am „„„,, - ---',,,, Nil Ma -_ i af 1(\/ IN ZD 2- 1 r: / _ _ , ;0- 0 ! J _L., i - ; \ H • _ III) i L j I 'LH n ' i C L • 1 a""'^••" '"'6°' — 3JV�2tOOY Otl38lOS o; • MI.111f0,15011 _w,.le.l au a,ltal wee kill ��m�e�a..s mom. ram..: ; JJ81HX3 NOIJ.3VN.LX3 '1VN3N111 '�<� F q "fig suoauns/S8311983/S83Ntrdld e� .3111 `II!H •a sewer .. �1:� a d S s. �� �" ids $ J tNa3 : s 9e:6 - #: :e- 1.,.no if.if7p 1 B•aea a D. a: -1 iiiii islii tjl � I I ll1 •i Al t' it , i 1 1 I l irl/l E^"" - •y L4 —L�_—_ —_ aa TrC_ }i.' iJ �/ If f •f,,j„ r X Iam— — — ! Y - - T f1 t �I f / _ f Yt /r - S t . jtt i f k, ' t ,4,41-.'_ ? II r`Z 1 1 t j I / ' 7;�.iiyj 1 �' i i' I, q f .f V, t v r I ,r, j xi r� v _ ` 1 . � ''' r s. I y:� r / ; i t II If. itJ t \ . :r , t tI, rt ' bi \ i‘ 1, , ' ,- 's•\% 1; '',' ;;',.• ,' IF‘ux 0 16 , 5. ,?III I . 1 ', t t ' v,'i?j9 trr' t'. 5�j r 1 iv r ` t s' 1 i rll'm G g W — . . ,„ - — — — t f 1 f iI� 1 — —' 11 : r 7�I ' i ' f i v 7 f �.. `� v —71 !!! I" t iJ4 ! t J f t r r. 4rjt, y,`,'� ya1 1 r -.i ,- /r', f i' 'i ' '' .".: \`•�4./ .. �` III Ti I ( ! / t , t r r ,,1 = \`, 2 }III w 1 1 �' f I. i 1 / f �r• rvt 3t`�' 1� 1rI�Yy• r-zs _ cam//'' .er�.—__ . ^' i i• _.' ' jr Iiy%.rJrr -- / _ 43F Tit, . i o<l P.REld gg�Crc �ju a * mluau rrfu"vz- ....,,,LR N-8-2007 11:37 FROM:SOLBERG AGGREGATE CO 651 437 5308 18 sOLBERG TO:4234424 P:1/1 Aggregate Co. • 3615 145th Street E. • Rosemount,MN 55068 Phone (651) 437-6672 • Fax(651)437-5308 go,„.(7 v . , a '7 _„..../c., , ce,. ......_,Le. F-- , cs/- ,2J- VYZ , ,q.:,,,t, 1 . ,,,,,,,,,,,.•, ,,,,,,,,...z..;_, Q.,i_ ,,, ,J4 .ei,,,,_,__e__ ,,,,,,...,„ 474e-c---6, S ROSEtV1O EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Meeting Date:February 20, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Case 06-65-SP & Case 06-66 CUP Flint Hills Resources AGENDA SECTION: Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit to Consent Allowing Construction of a 135,000 Square Foot Maintenance Building PREPARED BY: Jason Lindahl, AICP AGENDA NO.(, 1, Planner ATTACHMENTS: 01-23-07 PC Excerpt Minutes, Resolution, APPROVED BY: Title Sheet, Site Plan, Grading Plan, Utility Plan, Plan and Profile Clark Road, Planting Plan, Overall Floor Plan, Building Elevations, Proof of Parking Plan, Profile Plan, Truck Turning Plan, Property Subdivision Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve a site plan and conditional use permit for Flint Hills Resource to allow construction of a 135,000 square foot maintenance, warehouse, and office facility, subject to conditions. SUMMARY Applicant & Property Owner(s): Flint Hills Resources Location: South of the Clark Road access onto Highway 52, north of Union Pacific's track facilities, and west of Highway 52 Area in Acres: 44.7 Acres Comp. Guide Plan Desig: GI — General Industrial Current Zoning: HI — Heavy Industrial The applicant,Flint Hills Resources,requests site plan and conditional use permit approvals to allow the construction of a 135,000 square foot maintenance,warehouse,and office facility. The building will be used to house approximately 200 existing Pine Bend Refinery employees with capacity to accommodate an additional 70 future employees for a total future population of 270 employees.The proposed building will be located on a newly created parcel south of the Clark Road access onto Highway 52,north of Union Pacific's track facilities,and west of Highway 52. PLANNNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission held a public hearing to review this item on January 23,2007. A Copy of the minutes from that meeting is attached for your reference. After a presentation from staff,the Commission questioned the applicant about the requested waivers for the HI District Site and Building Standards for the pedestrian access,parking lot internal green space and truck dock location as well as the absence of curb and cutter around the parking area. The applicant stated they intend to continue to work with staff to resolve these issues and will either meet the conditions outlined by staff or the requirement of the Ordinance. After hearing no other comments,the Commission voted unanimously to recommend the City Council approve this item,subject to the conditions outlined by staff. Subdivision The applicant intends to create a new 44.7 acre parcel to contain the proposed maintenance, warehouse and office facility. The new 44.7 acre parcel will be made by combining a new 6.1 acre parcel with an existing 38.6 acre parcel. According to State statute and the City of Rosemount Subdivision Orclitiance,any separation of an area,parcel,or tract of land where the resulting parcels are five (5)acres in size or larger for commercial or industrial use are exempt from the City subdivision requirements. As a result,the subdivision is not subject to City review or associated fees;however,staff recommends that a condition of approval require the applicant to demonstrate the proposed parcel has been recorded with Dakota County prior to issuance of a building permit. Conditional Use Permit The purpose of conditional use permits (CUPs)is to allow for those uses which are not generally suitable within a given zoning district but may be suitable under some circumstances. In this case, the applicant is proposing a maintenance,warehouse,and office facility to serve the primary refining use. The burden of demonstrating a conditional use is suitable for the given zoning district and all applicable standards have been met lies with the applicant. Staff finds the applicant has met this burden. After reviewing the standards and requirements for conditional uses outlined in the Zoning Ordinance as well as the materials submitted by the applicant, staff recommends approval of Flint Hills Resources'request for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 135,000 square foot maintenance,warehouse,and office facility based on the findings listed below and subject to the conditions contained in this report. 1. The proposed use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,safety,or general welfare of the neighborhood_or the city. 2. Subject to the required conditions,the proposed use will be harmonious with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and city code provisions. 3. The proposed use will be designed, constructed,operated and maintained so as to be compatible in an architectural and landscape appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. 4. The proposed use will be served adequately by proposed essential public facilities and services (i.e. streets,police and fire protection, drainage, structures,refuse disposal,water • and sewer systems and schools). 5. The proposed use will not involve uses,activities,processes,material equipment and conditions of operation that will be hazardous or detrimental to any persons,property,or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke,fumes,glare or odors. 2 6. The proposed use will have vehicular ingress and egress to the property which does not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic on surrounding public streets. 7. The proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic,or historic feature of major importance and will comply with all local, state,and federal environmental quality standards. Site Plan Land Use&Zoning. With the associated conditional use permit and conditions outlined by staff, the proposed maintenance,warehouse,and office facility is consistent with the current land use and zoning designations for the subject property. The 2020 Land Use Plan guides the property as GI— General Industrial while the Zoning Map designates the site as HI,Heavy Industrial. The following table compares the required building performance standards with those proposed by this development. Building Performance Standards for Non-Heavy Manufacturing Uses the HI—Heavy Industrial District Standard Requirement Proposal Status Front Yard(East) 75 ft. 640 ft. Conforming Side Yards (North/South) 75 ft. 135/790 ft. Conforming Rear Yard (West) 75 ft. 380 ft. Conforming Building Height 75 ft. Max. 29 ft. Conforming Hard Surface 70%Max. 28% Conforming The HI District requires sites to be no more than 70 percent impervious (buildings, sidewalks, drive lanes,parking, etc.). In this case, the maintenance facility site will be approximately 72 percent green space and 28 percent impervious. In addition, the proposed setback far exceeds the minimum requirements for non-heavy manufacturing uses in the HI District. Site and Building Standards. As mentioned above, the non-heavy manufacturing use is allowed with a conditional use permit, subject to the Site and Building Standards of the GI, General Industrial District. The proposed plans comply with all but three of the zoning ordinance standards. The applicant is seeking waivers on the pedestrian circulation, the truck dock location,and parking lot internal green space requirements. The HI District specifically list six reasons or criteria for the Council to waive some or all of these standards. These criteria are listed below. Staff supports waivers of pedestrian circulation, the truck dock location, and parking lot internal green space requirements subject to conditions (see Loading and Parking sections below). 1. The proposed building will be located in a remote location that does not abut a public right- of-way or a non-industrial use or district. 2. The proposed building will be made of high quality long lasting material compatible with both adjacent properties and other buildings in the HI District. 3. The provision of pedestrian faculties is unnecessary based on the use of the proposed building. 3 4. Parking,loading,and trash handling facilities are supplied by the surrounding site and do not abut a public right-of-way or a non-industrial use or district. 5. The applicant agrees to provide the required number and species of landscaping along the perimeter of the site. 6. The proposed building will not have separate ground or wall signage. Access. The subject property is consistent with the access standards used in the HI District. The Zoning Ordinance requires each lot to have frontage on a public right-of-way. In this case,the subject property has direct frontage along Highway 52;however,it is not anticipated that the State of Minnesota will grant an additional access to Flint Hills for this specific property. To be clear, the applicant is not requesting another access. As a result, staff and the applicant have agreed that the applicant will improve their existing private access road and record an easement to provide permanent access to this site from the Clark Road right-of-way. Improvements to the access road will be completed by Flint Hills and include re-grading to flatten steep vertical grades and the potential closure of the southern access from Clark Road to Highway 52. The applicant's plans also illustrate a new Emergency Exit from the southeast corner of the proposed parking lot to Highway 52. According to the applicant,these plans are being reviewed by MnDot, and the applicant will work with the City to implement their recommendations. These modifications are acceptable to the City,pending MnDot approval. Parking. As designed,the subject property fails to meet the off-street parking requirements for Non-Heavy Manufacturing Use in the HI District. In General, the parking area will have a bituminous surface to accommodate 326 stalls without the required five (5) percent green area. Section 8.1.H outlines the off-street parking standards for the proposed building including maintenance,warehouse, office and testing and research uses. In this case, the ordinance requires 367 total stalls. By comparison, the applicant plans to construct 326 stalls,including two disability stalls,but feels they only need 306 to meet their employees' and vendors'parking needs. As designed, the site would be 41 stalls short of the ordinance requirement. However, the applicant's plans include another 132 stalls as proof of parking for a total of 458 off-street parking stalls, or 91 more than required. These standards and the number of stalls provided on site are compared in the table below. Off-Street Parking Requirement Comparison Use Size Standard Required Proposed Status Maintenance 71,265 1 Stalls /300 Sq. Ft. 239 208 -31 Warehouse 34,300 1 Stalls /2,000 Sq. Ft. 19 17 -2 Office 24,485 1 Stall/200 Sq Ft. 92 91 -1 Testing 5,211 1 Stall/500 Sq. Ft. 19 10 -9 Proof of N/A N/A N/A 132 N/A Parking Total 135,261 N/A 367 458 +91 4 Staff supports waiving the five (5) percent green area requirement and allowing a proof of parking area for the balance of the off-street parking area not provided by the applicant subject to the condition that should the proof of parking be installed, the entire parking area shall be improved to meet the internal greenspace as well as associated berming and landscaping standards. The applicant has acknowledged this condition is the letter dated February12,2007. g Landscaping&Berming. The landscape plan meets the minimum building and site planting requirements but fails to meet the parking lot internal green space requirement (see parking section). The landscape and grading plans illustrate the existing berm along the east side of the subject property will provide the required screening of the site. The landscape plan illustrates 90 over-story trees and 172 shrubs.According to the City's landscaping standards,this site should have 46 deciduous trees of 2 inch caliper measurement or greater (1 tree per 3,000 square feet of gross building floor area). Four coniferous trees of 6 feet in height or greater should also be provided to replace one significant conifer which must be removed for road improvements. Forty trees of 2" caliper measurement or greater will be planted along the improved road, as per the city requirement to plant 1 tree per 50 linear feet. One hundred seventy-two shrubs will also be planted to fulfill the requirement of 1 foundation planting per 10 linear feet of building perimeter. All plants except those in close proximity to the building will be placed in naturalistic clusters. Planting requirements and quantities are summarized in the table below: City Requirement Amount of Plant Quantity Plant Quantity Disturbance Required Provided 1 tree per 3,000 gross square 135,510 square 45.17 46 feet of building feet 4 coniferous trees per 12 feet plus significant conifer 1 Eastern Red 4 4 removed Cedar 15'tall 1 tree per 50 linear feet of 2,000 linear feet 40 40 boulevard 1 foundation plant per 10 1,714 linear feet 171.4 172 feet of building perimeter Staff recommends that a condition of approval require the applicant to provide a landscaping letter of credit equal to 125 percent of the value of the plantings illustrated on the approved landscape plan. Loading. The proposed building fails to meet the requirement prohibiting loading docks that face public rights-of-way. The applicant is requesting a waiver from this standard citing that adequate screening will be provided by the combination of the building enclosure, 600 foot setback as well as the existing topography and the required landscaping. In addition, the applicant cites security needs. Deliveries to this set of loading docks will be "non-secure"and Flint Hills wishes to provide a 5 separate location for these deliveries outside their high level security area. Given these factors and the revised building design that includes the screening enclosure, staff supports this waiver request. Building Appearance,Massing&Materials. As designed, the building meets the appearance, materials and massing standards for non-heavy manufacturing uses in the HI District. In general,the building will be a single story, steel framed and masonry building with exterior walls of insulated pre- cast panels at most of the perimeter and brick veneered wall construction at the office area. The appearance standards require all building entrances facing a public right-of-way to include a 300 square foot entry feature. Their will be two entrances (one for employees and one for the public) to the office portion of the building that faces Highway 52. These entrances extend out from the building's east elevation and incorporate rock faced masonry block, faced brick and glass windows. The building materials standards require any exterior wall surface of a Non-Heavy Manufacturing uses in the HI District facing a public right-of-way or residential uses or district to be constructed of a combination of glass,brick,natural stone, specialty integral colored concrete block,tile, architectural textured precast or cast in place concrete panels or better. All other wall surfaces shall be constructed of at least forty (40) percent of these materials. The remaining sixty (60) percent of these exterior wall surfaces may be finished steel or aluminum. Unadorned materials are prohibited and all materials shall be earth tone in color. As proposed, the office portion of the building will be a combination of rock faced masonry block, faced brick and glass windows while the maintenance and warehouse sections will be insulated precasted concrete wall panels with insulated translucent light panels. The applicant also plans a guard house which has been revised to meet the exterior building materials standards. The massing standards require facades facing a public right-of-way or residential use or district to be articulated to reduce their mass and scale and provide visual interest consistent with Rosemount's identity,character, and scale. Specifically, any wall facing a public right-of-way or residential uses or district more than one hundred (100) feet in length shall be divided into increments of no more than fifty (50) feet through the articulation of the facade. As designed only the east elevation will face a public right-of-way (Highway 52). On the east elevation the office portion of the building will be divided by columns and the two entry features while the warehouse and maintenance section will be divided by changes in the materials and roof line as well as glass windows. Outdoor Storage. The site plan illustrates an outdoor storage area behind the northeast corner of the building. This area conforms to the Outdoor Storage standards in section 11-4-16-2.C.5 of the HI District. Trash Enclosure. No exterior trash enclosure will be necessary for this building. According to the applicant, the refinery has a central collection system for waste material. Interior waste containers will be placed throughout the building and refinery staff will regularly empty these containers and transfer the material to the central collection system for disposal. Fencing. The applicant plans to install a six foot chain-link fence with barbed tops along the west side of the reconstructed site access off Clark Road and along the south side of the East Parking lot. Both fences will terminate at the north and south elevations of the building to separate the secure and non secure areas. This design conforms to the City's standards for fencing in industrial districts. 6 Signage. This site will have no exterior wall or ground signage. Directional signs will be place throughout the site to guide employees, deliveries and visitors to the appropriate areas. Exterior Lighting. The exterior lighting/photometric plan appears to meet the lighting performance standards for the HI District. Site lighting will be limited to the building itself and the parking and loading areas on either side of the building.The applicant has revised their plans to ensure that all lighting will be Dark Sky compliant. The photometric plan indicates acceptable light levels along the perimeter of the site. Grading. In general, the site is currently"bowl" shaped with the high portions on the east and west sides and a low portion in the middle that slopes to the south. . The site will need to be re-graded to accommodate the new building and associated parking and maneuvering areas in northern-middle portion of the site. The grading plan appears to attempt to accentuate the existing eastern slope to provide a natural berm to screen the site from Highway 52. The applicant has revised their plans to include concrete curb and gutter as required by staff. Details grading, drainage and stormwater comments are provided by the Engineering Department below. Utilities. The applicant is in the process of working with the City to provide sewer and water services to the refinery which would include the proposed maintenance,warehouse and office facility. As stated in the Engineering comments below,no building permit will be issued for this project prior the Council awarding the contract to extend sewer and water from the existing City infrastructure to the maintenance facility. In addition,no Certificate of Occupancy will be issued for this project prior to completion, testing, and acceptance of the sewer and water utilities to the maintenance facility site by the City Engineer. Engineering. Upon review of the Flint Hills Resources Maintenance Shop and Warehouse Facility Site Plan, Geotechnical Reports,and Drainage Report dated December 22,2006 and received on December 26,2006 and February 12, 2007,the Engineering Department offers the following comments: General Comments: 1. Documentation of FHR's updated SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) and approval by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency shall be submitted to the City. In lieu of the aforementioned documentation, trunk storm water area assessments (see Estimated Development Fees,below) shall be collected at time of building permit for areas of improvements not within FHR's existing SWPPP. 2. Building permit issuance shall be conditional upon award of construction contract by Council to extend sewer and water utilities from existing City infrastructure to the proposed maintenance shop and warehouse facility. 3. Certificate of Occupancy issuance shall be conditional upon completion, testing,and acceptance of sewer and water utilities extended to the maintenance shop and warehouse site by the City Engineer. Stormwater Management: 1. The revised storm sewer system design for areas with new curb and gutter appear to meet the 10-year event design criteria. 7 Site Plan Comments: Grading Plan—Sheet C2.2 1. FHR's response to the City comment that an access route for the south Stormwater Basin should be provided states that all access activities,to be conducted by FHR and not the City, can and shall readily be undertaken with the slope configuration as shown on the plans (1H:4V). It is understood that FHR assumes responsibility for all maintenance activities and the provision of adequate access necessary to undertake said maintenance to ensure proper function and performance of the stormwater basin.. Estimated City Development Fees: o Trunk Sanitary Sewer Area Charge 10.0 acres * $1075/acre = $10,750 o Trunk Water Area Charge 10.0 acres * $4860/acre = $48,600 o Trunk Storm Water Area Charge* 10.0 acres * $6665/acre = $66,650 o GIS Fee 10.0 acres * $300/acre = $3,000 o Sewer Connection (SAC,Units calculated by MCES) • MCES Fee$1675/SAC Unit • City Fee $1200/SAC Unit o Water Connection (WAC), 4"Meter= $25,800 * -Trunk Storm Water Area Charges will not be assessed provided documentation that site improvements lie within revised SWPPP boundaries,as permitted by the MPCA,is received by the City. Park Dedication. Park dedication fees are typically paid as part of final plat approval. While the applicant will be subdividing and re-combining property to create a new parcel for this facility,this process is exempt for the City's subdivision review process and associated fees (see the Subdivision section of this report). Therefore,no park dedication is due as part of this application. CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the site plan and conditional use permit for Flint Hills Resource to allow construction of a 135,000 square foot maintenance,warehouse, and office facility. These applications include requests by the applicant to waive the HI District Site and Building Standards for pedestrian access,parking lot internal green space and truck dock location. The new Heavy Industrial District standards allow for,and staff supports,waiving these standards subject to the conditions identified above and cited in the accompanying resolution. This recommendation is based on the plan submitted by the applicant, the findings made in this report and the conditions outlined in the recommended actions section above. RECOMMENDATION Approve the request, subject to the conditions outlined above and in the accompanying resolution. This approval includes waivers of the HI District Site and Building Standards for pedestrian access, parking lot internal green space and truck dock location. 8 EXCERPT FROM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2007 5.e. 06-65-SP, 06-66-CUP Flint Hills Resources Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit. Planner Lindahl presented this item. The applicant,Flint Hills Resources,requests site plan and conditional use permit approvals to allow the construction of a 135,400 square foot maintenance,warehouse, and office facility. The building will be used to house approximately 200 existing Pine Bend Refinery employees with capacity to accommodate an additional 70 future employees for a total future population of 270 employees.The proposed building will be located on a newly created parcel south of the Clark Road access onto Highway 52,north of Union Pacific's track facilities, and west of Highway 52. Staff recommends the Commission approve the request subject to the ten (10) conditions. Mr. Lindahl reviewed the conditions and waivers requested by the applicant. Mr. Lindahl also reviewed the elevation diagrams of the exterior of the building. Commissioner Schultz asked for clarification of the conditions with the provided staff report and the revised report. Chairperson Messner asked about the amount of acres for development. Project Engineer Dawley responded that 10 acres was supplied on the site plan for proposed improvements only. The 10 acres were calculated by looking at the impervious surface added to the site. 44.7 acres applies to the area being approved. Applicant,Don Kern,Flint Hills Resources, approached the Commission. Also present were Mark Murphy,Project Manager of Flint Hills,and Peter Brozek, from TKDA, the engineering company. Mr. Kern noted the reason for deviation on the curb and gutter is to get different ideas for water retention from the County. They are looking for more innovative ways to deal with water retention. Mr. Murphy showed the Commission detailed elevations of the exterior of the building. They plan to add a canopy to hide the overhead doors. The exterior material will be colored concrete,not plain grey. In discussions with the County to find the best way to manage stormwater runoff, they will place curb and gutter around the perimeter of the parking lot. One idea is to possibly slope the elevation to the east and put in curb cuts to allow the water to drain into a large storm basin. Mr. Murphy also showed a third diagram of the road leading north to Clark Road and showed the amount of curbing being put by the road. Chairperson Messner asked how high the berm would be east of the property. Mr. Murphy showed a diagram of the berm in relation to the building height and level of Highway 52. They stated the loading dock should not be visible from Hwy. 52. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 7:28p.m. There were no public comments. MOTION by Commissioner Howell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Palda. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 7:29p.m. There was no discussion among the Commissioners. MOTION by Commissioner Schultz to recommend the City Council approve a site plan and conditional use permit for Flint Hills Resources to allow construction of a 135,400 square foot maintenance,warehouse,and office facility, subject to the following conditions: 1. Recording of the proposed subdivision and lot combination to create the subject property prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Submission of an easement insuring permanent access to the maintenance building site from the existing access point to the Clark Road right-of-way for review and approval by the City Attorney. The approved easement shall be recorded with Dakota County,prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. The City Council waives the pedestrian circulation and parking lot green space standards of Section 11-4-16-2.G (Site and Building Standards). Should the applicant improve the proof of parking area, the applicant shall bring the entire parking area into compliance with the internal green space standards as well as replace all associated berming and landscaping. 4. Issuance of a building permit. 5. Redesign of the site to include continuous concrete curb and cutter around all parking and maneuvering areas,prior to action on this item by the City Council. 6. Redesign of the east elevation of the building to eliminate the all loading docks facing a public right-of-way,prior to action on this item by the City Council. 7. Submit plans to ensure the guard house and storage building conform with the ordinance exterior building material standards and are compatible with the proposed warehouse structure,prior to action on this item by the City Council. 8. Submission of a landscape security equal to one hundred and twenty five percent (125%) of the cost of the plantings illustrated on the approved landscape plan. 9. No light surface shall be visible from the adjacent Highway 52 right-of-way. 10. Conformance with all conditions of the City Engineer as outlined in this report prior to issuance of a building permit,including but not limited to the following: a. Building permit issuance shall be conditional upon award of contract by Council to extend sewer and water from existing City infrastructure to the maintenance shop and warehouse facility. b. Certificate of Occupancy issuance shall be conditional upon completion,testing, and acceptance of sewer and water utilities extended to the maintenance shop and warehouse site by the City Engineer. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Mr. Lindahl reported these items will go to City Council on February 20,2007. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2007 — A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR FLINT HILLS RESOURCES, LP WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from Flint Hills Resources,LP requesting a Conditional Use Permit(CUP) for the construction of a 135,000 square foot maintenance,warehouse,and office facility on property located south of the Clark Road access onto Highway 52,north of Union Pacific's track facilities, and west of Highway 52,legally described as follows: NE1/4 of SE1/4,SECTION 24,TOWNSHIP 115 RANGE 19,EX PARCEL 420 OF MNDOT R/W PLAT 19-144, Dakota County,Minnesota. WHEREAS, on January 23,2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Conditional Use Permit application from Flint Hills Resources,LP;and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for Flint Hills Resources,LP,to allow construction of a 135,000 square foot maintenance,warehouse,and office facility, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on February 20,2007,the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission recommendations for the Conditional Use Permit and agreed with the Planning Commission's findings. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Conditional Use Permit for Flint Hills Resources,LP to construct a 135,000 square foot maintenance,warehouse and office facility, subject to: 1. Recording of the proposed subdivision and lot combination to create the subject property prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Submission of an easement insuring permanent access to the maintenance building site from the existing access point to the Clark Road right-of-way for review and approval by the City Attorney. The approved easement shall be recorded with Dakota County,prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. The City Council waives the pedestrian circulation and parking lot green space standards of Section 11-4-16-2.G(Site and Building Standards). Should the applicant improve the proof of parking area,the applicant shall bring the entire parking area into compliance with the internal green space standards as well as replace all associated berming and landscaping. 4. Issuance of a building permit. 5. Redesign of the site to include continuous concrete curb and cutter around all parking and maneuvering areas in accordance with City standards or submission and approval of a plan illustrating alternative methods which are acceptable to City staff,prior to action on this item by the City Council. RESOLUTION 2007- 6. Redesign of the building's east elevation to include walls and a roof to screening the proposed loading dock. This screening structure shall completely enclose the entire loading area,accept for the entrance,and be designed to include architectural materials and features similar to the office portion of the principal building. 7. Submit plans to ensure the guard house and storage building conform with the ordinance exterior building material standards and are compatible with the proposed warehouse structure,prior to action on this item by the City Council. 8. Submission of a landscape security equal to one hundred and twenty five percent(125%)of the cost of the plantings illustrated on the approved landscape plan. 9. No light source shall be visible from the adjacent Highway 52 right-of-way. 10. Conformance with all conditions of the City Engineer as outlined in this report prior to issuance of a building permit, including but not limited to the following: a. Building permit issuance shall be conditional upon award of contract by Council to extend sewer and water from existing City infrastructure to the maintenance shop and warehouse facility. b. Certificate of Occupancy issuance shall be conditional upon completion,testing,and acceptance of sewer and water utilities extended to the maintenance shop and warehouse site by the City Engineer. ADOPTED this 20th day of February,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: 2 f 0�d WpW1- _ 1I _ W p gD d R, WW C�n' =J 11 0z co L- LL _ Il . 4 ;1 2 d ZQJ '' ' W $ ZOQ1' i LY6 ° s a . . S -,Ti, [— II Lgi -•L zc .1' :1----- ate' y `y QFi 111.111.1132 w k1z; Wp Fdiw' " E g aw .7 ., N I gEg F. , �I. e i g,• t"\ '' '' t Iffffff ff11Iiiii1 1 N E 1116 4 g ' 1- e6 1 rkr + 1 IF>- ,i ,\., ,,,,, ,:„,,,, * i ;A if 110 VI .11 E J It: w a E0 0IitB :Ii E! !iU a =- _ qv _ 4 i— IfC Fgaa aaaaaaaaa gaa iia aaa QI ..._ LL - • r , @W S~ E Fb■ gm .m lit; : b ';!hh Pill Ci ,1!gi q 14 31 I* 1.; a i!e :E !!11 lmm MU WQ W1..1.. 01- W e,e} 2 D Q z di. P1[rs Q. b m iei et g 1 4- I 0 so t eF gy; s b e g I i-- f ' W t 4 it am p+ s em .:11 [ I '.Y.1 0 s` 11 °ill ! !C' — W �---- - - - --- ,.., — ---T .. Q �t� + 'Ckkoz CO z '' �_�_ I jc W m [ 42 /1 1 Lt 1 , 6� ` ►' g 9 a, 1 I i \_4 o = _ f fir.;: 4a ,v . I 1 W 11 it 1 .'i i 1 1 ,F. 1l , I[ i' 1 I ri7.1..,...„ „),11 , ...\..„.,.. .....,, 2 : Er r \' p 1 11,`A.,`, 1' - ' 1 ! t..L 1 , ( / {( YaF:, 014 q $ ipf/ - , j J '1£ -f [ 1 Z y^ 1 1 1 fA y -- I j.f J/ z I. - �; ,r i 0 6aHiY i:1.;',,,:, ' @ se I i — I \;,7G'l 61 - S -- 11 I tf G I I a y• I FII i I 1 Rosemount's Pavement Management Philoso.h e 0 History ora. Pavement Age(Years) Project Background October 17, 2006: City Council authorized preparation of a Feasibility Report 1 2007-2010 Street Improvement Program identified a total of 9 areas to be evaluated Areas were identified based on current PCI ratings of 35 and below 9 identified areas visually evaluated t December 20, 2006: Public Informational Meeting Areas Identified • \ i 1. Danbury Way 2 Chinchilla Avenue/127th Court fv i i l -ti`l3 3 128th Street/130th Way 4 T S 4 Dander Court 5. Damask Avenue/Damask Court/Dallara Avenue/Upper 150th Street 11,11 of .,.4.�,,,,,, , 6 Camero Lane/Cambrian t pit • 7 Avenue -�/ 4t r 7 Biscayne Way t 8. Danville Avenue/157th Court/158th Court ; 9. Claret Avenue/Cornell Trail/156th Street/Cicerone ,.,,,,,,,o,,.,m,,,'„o,,,, ----- Path '' � 1.2 Proposed Improvements and Estimated Costs 4 Area 1 —Danbury Way Full reconstruc>ar of scree: 8618 curb and a.1c:0 'nstallat'on of storm s,w�� Project Cost S2. Area 2—Chinchilla Avenuei127''Court Reconstructioi i st<<rt n __, � . at::cr Pos ible road r a.t.r> _- proper drainage Project Cost 6621 Area 3— 128th Street/1301 Way Do nothing Continue to mro:u Proposed Improvements and Estimated Costs Area 4—Dander Court Do nothing Continue to monitor Area 5—Damask Avenue/Damask Court/Dallara Avenue/Upper 15011 Street Full reconstruction of street B618 curb and gutter installation Installation of additional store,sewer Improvements to Twin Puddles Perk Fond Replacement of sanitary sewer on Damask Court Replacement of water main Project Cost-$22Fi0.000 Proposed Improvements and Estimated Costs 4 Area 6—Camero Lane/Cambrian Avenue Full reconstruction of street B618 curb and gutter Installation of addition ul storm sewer Replacement of sanitary sewer end water main Project Cost$1 2110200 Area 7—Biscayne Way Full reconstruction of street Altering current rural sectiorr to urban section,eliminating ditches and surface flow Replacement of sanitary sewer and water main Installation of storm sewer Project Cost $1,291,900 1.3 Proposed Improvements and Estimated Costs Area 8—Danville Avenue/157ii Court/158th Court Do nothing Continue to monitor Area 9—Claret Avenue/Cornell Trail/156" Street/Cicerone Path Rehabilitation at street mid s.hacue Spot curb replacemror Minor storm sewer I rrp ovemrr1S f vOCOSS aiv Project Cost St.281.900 2007 Street}}pp Improvement Program Project -��'r1i 1� +7 9 I _._ Area 6-Camera Lanel Cambrian Avenue swit Area 7—Biscayne Way 2007 Street Improvement Program Project Area 6—Camero Lane/Cambrian Avenue Full Street Reconstruction B618 Curb and Latter Installation of Additional Storm Sewer Replacement of Sanitary Sewer and Water Main i a= 1.4 2007 Street Improvement Program Project Area 7—Biscayne Way Full street reconahu:hon en 3e c; rt'and gutter Current rural section t.:_;r!.u's:.t ei ri raCr;;d'crr as and surface flaw Replacement of nor tar',seac'.; •Attar mart Installation of storm 2007 Street Improvement Program Project i Area 7—Alternate-Biscayne Way Full street rec on•Urr,hon Restoration of exist+nq rrir;hes vnth drain tile Replacement of sanii.t+y sewer and water main • ma Alternative Stormwater Methods for Area 7 Rain Gardens Requires cooperation and coordination with residents Added Maintenance Curb Cuts € Aesthetic Appeal t R • - , Reduces Runoff ,.. Photo from the City of Maplewood 1.5 Proposed 2007 Project Costs Summa Construction Area Surface Sanitary Water Main Storm S Total Year 1,nproyernent$!Irnprovernents Improvements Improvements 2007 Area6 4715700 4298800 5336000 $119700 41470200 2007 Area 7 4699400 1 5220200 $254.000 ', 4118.300 S1,291,9001 2007 Aea] 4624700 5220.200 4254000 $121,200 41,220,1001 Area 68Ar ]ate Total $1415100 4519000 3590 000 $238000 42 762100 Area 6 A Area] Alternate Total $1340400 3519000 4590 000 5240900 1426903001 Proposed Funding & Assessments s Payment for Street Improvements come from various sources: Street Capital Improvement Fe 1111;CIPii.funds —General Citywide Taxes Special Assessments fel beeefltng property owners Based on City of Rosemount Assessment Policy Area 6—Camera Lai e/C:rmbria'l Avenue —With Existing Concrete Curb and Gutter $4.800/Lot Area 7—Biscayne Way —35%of Surface Inlpl overlent $6.276/Lot Area 7—Alternate—dlscayne Wav- -35%of Surface Improvement $5.841/Lot Proposed FundingSplit p Proposed Fundin \tea 6 \n a 7 �n 7 W att t �I t p nl 1 url I6,1 1 • ii, ti I rau tiJ .1 a OH n I\hei 1 A ., c11. A I piu F V1�'1111 I Vlr,a NI 110 I �1 �_ A ro Ili1 r 1 rll l `11 In 1 11'r11 v 1 S ti l rl roil u ti �1111 �� ll al nd 1'II`ruu 11 I:: W I'I'nlru 3 10111ij Si,4711,21111IIII SI 291 91101111 Sl_Y0,1011.1111 1.6 Proposed Schedule for 2007 Project Public Hearing February 20. 2007 Complete Final Plans April 17,2007 4 Receive Bids/Award Contract May 15, 2007 Begin Construction June 1.2007 4 Assessment Hearing Fall 2007 Schedule for 2008 - 2010 Communicate through City of Rosemount web page Communicate through mailings sent out by the City of Rosemount I Public Informational Meetings every December/January 2008 2009 2010 Beyond 2010 Area 5 Area 9 Area 1 Area 3 Area 2 Area 4 Area 8 Questions/Comments? 1.7