HomeMy WebLinkAboutpf_03338
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City 'Council of the city of
Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was duly called and held at the City Hall on Monday,
the 1 ih day of December, 2001, at 6:30 p.m.
The following members were present: Mastel, Klausing, Goedeke, Maschka and Kysylyczyn
The following members were absent: None
Member Maschka introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 9970
RESOLUTION GRANTING AUTHORIZATION TO DISTRIBUTE A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION DECISION ON NEED FOR
A VOLUNTARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SOLUTIA PUD AMENDMENT (PF 3338)
WHEREAS, a Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) was prepared for
the Solutia project to provide for a PUD amendment of an additional 15,240 square feet to the
total building area of the 47 -acre Centre Pointe Business Park Planned Unit Development, on an
existing 61,000 square foot lot (Lot 3, Block 1, Centre Pointe Business park 2nd Addition) to
construct at 2 story, 21,240 square foot office building in lieu of a one story, 6,000 square foot
sit-down style restaurant; and
WHEREAS, the Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet was distributed to all
parties included in the EA W distribution list, as well as those required to be included pursuant to
the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) regulations; and,
WHEREAS, three comments (Metropolitan Council, MnDOT and MnPCA) were
received and considered by the City of Roseville;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Roseville
hereby adopts the Findings for the Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet on the
Solutia project; and
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 1
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City ofRoseville hereby
adopts the written responses (staff report 12/17/01) prepared in response to the comments
received on the Solutia Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Roseville has
reviewed the entire Record of Decision prepared for the Solutia project; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on all information gathered during the EA W
process, comments received on the EA W, and additional information created and obtained in
response to comments made on the EA W, that while additional permits may be required, the
Solutia project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects and an
Environmental Impact Statement (ElS) will not be prepared; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rose vi lIe hereby
authorizes the distribution of a negative declaration on the need for an EIS to all parties included
in the Voluntary EA W distribution list and to all persons that commented in writing during the
review period.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member
Klausing, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Mastel,
Goedeke, Kysylyczyn, Maschka, and Klausing.
and the following voted against the same: None
WHEREUPON, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 2
Resolution - Solutia
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville,
County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared
the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council
held on the 17th day of December, 2001, with the original thereof on file in my office.
WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 17th day of December,
2001.
~
Signed or attested before me on
~~\l
,2001
by Neal J. Beets
~iC~.~ef
I'
.
ARGARET H, DRISCOLLI
NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA
My Comm. Expires Jan, 31, 2005
II
II
w
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
March 30, 2001
Mr. Greg Downing
Environmental Quality Board
658 Cedar Street, Third Floor
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
RE: Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park (Veritas)
Dear Mr. Downing:
The Roseville City Council, on March 26, 2001, unanimously adopted the enclosed
Resolution (#9877), granting authorization to distribute a Negative Declaration Decision
on the need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the RyanlVeritas project (as
described in the attached "Request for Council Action").
If you should have any questions relative to the project or Council action, please call me
at 651-490-2232, or Cathy Bennett, Economic Development Specialist, at 651-490-2241.
Sincerely,
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Dennis P . Welsch
Community Development Director
Attachments: Resolution No, 9877, Request for Council Action document
\\ Victoria\CommDev\Planning Files\3283 _Ryan Co_ Veritas\EQB _Council Action Letter 03,26,0 \,doc
"
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the city of
Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was duly called and held at the City Hall on Monday,
the 1 ih day of December, 2001, at 6:30 p.m.
The following members were present: Mastel, Klausing, Goedeke, Maschka and Kysylyczyn
The following members were absent: None
Member Maschka introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 9965
RESOLUTION GRANTING AUTHORIZATION TO DISTRIBUTE A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION DECISION ON NEED FOR
A VOLUNTARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SOLUTIA PUD AMENDMENT (PF 3338)
WHEREAS, a Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) was prepared for
the So lutia project to provide for a PUD amendment of an additional 15,240 square feet to the
total building area of the 47-acre Centre Pointe Business Park Planned Unit Development, on an
existing 61,000 square foot lot (Lot 3, Block I, Centre Pointe Business park 2nd Addition) to
construct at 2 story, 21,240 square foot office building in lieu of a one story, 6,000 square foot
sit-down style restaurant; and
WHEREAS, the Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet was distributed to all
parties included in the EA W distribution list, as well as those required to be included pursuant to
the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) regulations; and,
WHEREAS, three comments (Metropolitan Council, MnDOT and MnPCA) were
received and considered by the City of Roseville;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City ofRoseville
hereby adopts the Findings for the Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet on the
Solutia project; and
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 10
,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Roseville hereby
adopts the written responses (staff report 12/17/01) prepared in response to the comments
received on the Solutia Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rose vi lie has
reviewed the entire Record of Decision prepared for the Solutia project; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on all information gathered during the EA W
process, comments received on the EA W, and additional information created and obtained in
response to comments made on the EA W, that while additional pem1its may be required, the
Solutia project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects and an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be prepared; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Roseville hereby
authorizes the distribution of a negative declaration on the need for an EIS to all parties included
in the Voluntary EA W distribution list and to all persons that commented in writing during the
review period.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member
Klausing, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
WHEREUPON, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Q:\Planning Files\3338_So1utia\EA Wresolution_121701.doc
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 11
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) 55
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville,
County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared
the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council
held on the 1 ih day of December, 2001, with the original thereof on file in my office.
WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 1 ih day of December,
2001.
1lPi Jid;g
Neal Beets, City Manager
(SEAL)
Signed or attested before me on
IXtth1/x / /7. 2001 by
fil.4(:/lLA/&7~(d-;~
ary Public "------..
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Item Description:
DATE: 12/17/01
ITEM NO:
Agenda Section;
ORDINANCE
A request by Solutia Consulting for an amendment to Planned Unit
Development #1177 for Lot 3, Block 1, Centre Pointe Business Park
2nd Addition and review of comments on a voluntary Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EA W) for office expansion (PF3338).
Manager Approved:
Department Approval:
1. REQUESTED ACTION:
. Take final action on the project Decide whether the EA Wand Final Plan for a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment to the Centre Pointe Business Park are
consistent with the original master plan and the specific PUD ordinance and the
Voluntary EA W impacts and suggested mitigation strategies.
2. HISTORY of REVIEW:
· Application and Draft EA W submitted on: August 28,2001
· Deadline: 60 days after completion of the EA W process.
· Staff Review: Approval/Denial with choices - October 10,2001.
. Planning Commission Recommendation of approval (5-0) - October 10,2001.
. City Council Approval of Concept Plan and EA W submission - October 22, 2001
. City Council Final Actions on EA Wand PUD - December 17,2001
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 Centre Pointe is a 47 .6-acre master planned business park. Solutia Consulting, a high
technology computer consulting company, has purchased the last remaining lot (61,000
s.f.) in Centre Pointe. Solutia is proposing a 21,240 square foot office building in lieu of
the original Master Site Plan and PUD designation of a maximum 6,000 square foot sit-
down restaurant.
1.2 The Solutia Consulting proposal calls for a 15,240 square foot increase in the square
footage allowance to construct a 2-story building totaling 21,240 square feet with both
underground and surface parking for 87 vehicles.
1.3 The current total permitted square footage of building area in the Ryan Centre Pointe
PUD is 802,500 square feet (as originally approved in 1997 and amended in 2000 and
2001); with the new proposal the total building area would be approximately 818,140
square feet. Also, Woodbridge previously developed 120,000 square feet of building
area prior to the current Ryan PUD for a total of 93 8, 140 square feet.
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 1
Centre Pointe Planned Unit Development Sta2:es of Approval
Centre Pointe PUD 1985 1997 1999 2000 2001
Woodbridge PUD 647,0000 s.f.
Woodbridge -Built 120,000 s.f. 120,000 s.f. 120,000 s.f. 120,000 s.f.
Ryan PUD 619,000 s.f. 619,000 s.f. 619,000 s.f. 619,000 s.f.
Adm. Amendment 10%) 61,900 s.f. 61,000 s.f. 61,900 s.f.
CSM Hotel PUD Amend. 3rd Business Hotel
(no signif. s,f. added)
Veritas Exp.PUD Amend 122,000 s.f.
Solutia Amendment 15,240 s.f.
Approved PUD 647,000 s.f. 739,000 s.f. 800,300 s.f. 802,500 s.f. 938,140 s.f.
1.4 The original Centre Pointe Master Site Plan for the 61,000 s.f. vacant parcel showed a
6,000 square foot building footprint for a restaurant. The new proposal would add 4,620
square feet to the first floor footprint and a 10,620 square feet second floor. Therefore,
new office building coverage of the parcel totaling 15,240 square feet would occur.
1.5 To reduce parking lot coverage ofthe parcel and allow for 25% landscaped area, Solutia
Consulting proposes a parking structure to be built under the building for 30+ vehicles.
As proposed, construction would occur in 2002.
1.6 The text for the PUD indicates that the first choice of a permitted use is a sit-down
restaurant and that a second choice of a permitted use is an office building. Specifically
Section 7.2 reads: The uses shall be restricted to those specified in the site plan and
supporting documents including office, office/showroom, office/manufacturing, 2 hotels,
and 1 restaurant within the Centre Pointe Business Park Plan. If either of the hotels or
the restaurant are not built, the lots/sites for those uses on the approved land use/site
plans shall be used for office, office/showroom, or office/manufacturing uses per Exhibit
E-2.
1.7 The major change for the Master Site Plan (a drawing) is changing the identified use
from restaurant to office and adding approximately 4,000 square feet of "footprint" on
the 6,000 square foot building pad.
1.8 The major change for the PUD Agreement (written ordinance) is increasing the building
dimensions for that particular lot.
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 2
1.9 The City Council also is requested to review and comment on the proposed Voluntary
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) that identifies changes in environmental
impacts based on the Solutia change in use and a 15,240 square foot increase in office
building area. While the EA W is in process and the staff expects no major environmental
impacts, the most significant issue will be traffic volumes. This information is available
in a Draft EA W attached to this memo. Staff review has found no significant issues or
changes in the traffic; however, further comment will be sought through the EA W
process.
2.0 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLICATIONS:
2.1 The City of Roseville Comprehensive Plan designates the entire Centre Pointe Business
Park development as a business area. No specific maximum square footage is stipulated
or required in the Comprehensive Plan. The guiding document is the PUD for the Centre
Pointe Business Park, adopted in 1997 and amended in 1999,2000 and 2001. A copy of
this document is attached.
3.0 POLICY/FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
3.1 The Centre Pointe Business Park was originally planned as a mixed-use development.
Since its creation, the business park has experienced major office growth and little
growth in the warehouse and showroom sector. (The planning for the Business Park had
anticipated a minimum of 50% office space within the Park.) Within the Park developers
have also constructed three hotels specifically to meet the business cliental needs of the
Centre Pointe companies and their employees.
3.2 The Master Site Plan (map) illustrates uses that can complement one another, reducing
the need to travel outside the park for meetings and/or dining. Currently, Centre Pointe
has three hotels all in close proximity to the vacant parcel. Only one of those hotels has a
small dining facility, which is targeted to their own guests. The Master Plan indicates
joint access between two hotels (Courtyard and Fairfield Inn) and the connecting vacant
parcel. Where possible and appropriate, shared parking and access was planned to
minimize traffic and parking impacts on neighboring properties. The PUD (Section 15.2)
requires any restaurant site to have a shared parking easement with adjoining hotels in
order to carry out the Master Plan vision.
3.3 The Master Site Plan (map) also anticipated business park interaction via an elaborate
path system. These paths are in place to allow employees walking access to any structure
for their personal or business needs. Transit service has also been provided to get
employees to and from the park and to reduce vehicle travel.
3.4 Based upon jobs per square feet of building and construction values used in the Twin
Lakes Master Plan process, the fiscal impacts of an office development and a restaurant
are different.
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 3
a. JobslWa2es: It is estimated that for a 21,240 square foot office building there is a
capacity for approximately 48 jobs that pay an average wage (higher for tech staff
and lower for office staff) of$75,000 for an annual wage of over $3.5 million. A
6,000 square foot restaurant would have at least 22 jobs, with the majority of
them being part time, at an average wage of $20,000 for an annual wage of
$440,000.
b. Construction Value: Office construction and assessed value is higher than that of
a restaurant. A 21,240 square foot high tech office has an estimated construction
value of$120 per square foot for a total value of$2.5 million and an estimated
assessed value of $90 per square foot or $1.9 million. A 6,000 square foot
restaurant may have a construction value of $1 00 per square foot for a total value
of $600,000 but the assessed value is usually lower at about $70 per square foot
or $420,000.
c. Overall Business Park Value: The build out of Centre Pointe has exceeded the
City's expectations for jobs and tax base. There are an estimated 1,350
employees, an annual payroll of $54 million, $40 million of new construction
value, and estimated annual property taxes of $720,000. (In addition, the Veritas
Campus will add 1,000 employees, annual payroll of$70 million, $30 to $35
million in value with an estimated $600,000 in new annual property tax revenue.)
Nearby, the master plan for Twin Lakes includes an estimated 3 million square
feet in new multi level office and 600 housing units. Currently, the Twin Lakes
Master Plan does not include a new sit down restaurant but is flexible enough to
accommodate it in the service area at County Road "c' and Cleveland.
4.0 SITE PLAN COMMENTS:
4.1 The Development Review Committee has considered the proposed site plan for Solutia
Consulting and concluded that a few modifications and additional information were
necessary. These include:
A. The trash enclosure must be located adjacent to the existing trash enclosure on the
Fairfield Inn site or in close proximity to the proposed Solutia office building.
Proper setbacks from the parking lot and building are necessary as is adequate
landscape screening.
B. The shared access with Marriott Residence Inn should be eliminated.
C. Screening of the parking lot from Centre Pointe Drive must be 80% opaque
screening to a height of 30 inches (Section 7, # 10 PUD). A revised landscape
plan must be submitted for review and approval prior to final City Council
approval.
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 4
"~
D. The utility and landscape plan must be combined on one sheet and submitted with
the other development plans. An irrigation plan is also required and must be
included in the final plan set.
E. The landscape plan must be revised to include all perennials species noted on the
plan.
F. Rice Creek Watershed review and approval is necessary.
5.0 EA W SUMMARY:
5.1 The Draft EA W explains that the level of disturbance on the site has been high and the
uses are all urban developments except for the storm water catchment areas. There are no
occurrences of endangered species.
5.2 The Draft EA W notes that there is adequate water capacity on the site but that the sewer
capacity is limited by the pumping systems. The City has been aware of this situation
since the review and approval of the Courtyard Hotel PUD amendment. Eventually a
new pumping system with added capacity will be installed to meet the needs of the
Business Park when fully occupied.
5.3 Runoff from the site will continue to be handled by a series of filtration areas and ponds.
Silt screening and hay bale erosion interception will handle construction erosion. Storm
water will be pretreated in infiltration areas and ponds before it reaches the wetlands
areas, in a method previously approved by the Rice Creek Watershed. Centre Pointe has
a requirement ofretaining 25% of the site in green space. With the proposed
configuration of the buildings (adding height, not impervious surface area) approximately
25% of the site will be green space.
SA In terms of generation of toxic or hazardous materials, the site is clean; the Solutia offices
will produce none of these materials. Solid waste (trash) would be collected by private
haulers and delivered to landfills or processing plants. (A restaurant generally would
produce more trash and air exhaust issues.)
5.5 Traffic and parking are important issues in Roseville. The peak PM hour trips will
increase from 22 up to 37 trips, yet the total trip count would only increase by 6
trips (243 to 249). The new facilities (21,240 s.f. of offices, rather than 6,000 s.f. of
restaurant or offices) would create a need for 85 to 88 Solutia on-site parking spaces,
which are shown on the site plan. An Indirect Source Permit, analyzing vehicle exhaust
levels, is no longer required by MnPCA. The EA W states that none of the intersections
will exceed the MnPCA guidelines for carbon monoxide levels.
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 5
'-'"
5.6 In total, the Centre Pointe Business Park is estimated to generate 7,369 vehicle trips per
day, with approximately 900 trips per peak p.m. traffic hour (244 entering, 686 leaving
the site). The proponents state that no signalized intersection will have service
difficulties based on the proposed development, even with growth in the background
traffic by 2% per year. Only one intersection will change its level of service in the
future, the ramp from Cleveland Avenue onto 35W North will change from a service
level of"B" to a service level of"C", which is still functional.
5.7 Non-signalized intersections will continue to function as today, except the North Centre
Pointe Drive intersection with Cleveland A venue, where cars will queue up in Centre
Pointe Drive while attempting to make a left turn to north bound Cleveland Avenue. A
solution at this intersection could be a signaled intersection. Signalizing could also help
reduce straightway speeding along Cleveland Avenue. (The 1997 PUD and planning
process planned for a signal further south at Lydia and Cleveland in order to reduce
traffic noise and congestion close to residences and to provide a 4 way intersection into
the industrial/park area east of Cleveland. Staff and city traffic consultants will be
reviewing this issue during the EA W review and comment period.)
5.8 The proponents state that the 21,240 square feet of office area will have little negative
impact on the traffic and in fact will remain similar to past projections for the Business
Park, in part, because of the changing nature of the work force (more hi-tech than daily
retail restaurant users) and work hours. The proponents note that hi-tech workers tend to
work at different hours that a tradition 9 to 5 work day.
5.9 Existing noise levels have historically exceeded state noise standards for residential areas
near County Road "D" and Cleveland A venue. The added traffic from the proposal will
not significantly increase or decrease noise levels. However, construction noise may
have a temporary impact, but only during weekday daytime construction hours.
Construction for the building is estimated to take 12 to 14 months, during which noise
and construction dust will be managed to reduce impacts, as much as possible.
5.10 EAW Comments: As on December 12,2001, the staff has received comment from
. MnDOT regarding protection and permitting of work in or near state highway right-
of-way and MSA roads;
. Metro Council regarding the description and illustration of bus routes near Centre
Pointe that serve this site along Cleveland Avenue;
. MnPCA regarding NDPES permits, storm water runoff and ponding calculations;
. MnDNR regarding planting and screening between trails and new construction, and
protection from erosion and flooding, no work in ponding areas is proposed.
(next page)
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 6
6.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
6.1 The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the proposed change in the
Master Site Plan, the proposed Solutia site plan, the proposed PUD Amendments, and the
draft EA W. The DRC concluded that the Master Site Plan designates the vacant parcel
as a restaurant site to serve the users of the Business Park. It is limited to 6,000 square
feet of building area and 82 off-street parking spaces. The proposed change in use is not
sensitive to the mixed-use nature of the Master Site Plan, and is not supportive or
complementary to the existing uses, both directly adjacent to the vacant parcel as well as
those throughout the business park. By not developing a restaurant on the site, it is
possible that more off-site employee vehicle trips will be generated, especially during the
lunch hours.
6.2 Recently staff received an inquiry regarding the location of a sit-down restaurant in
Centre Pointe. Also, the tenants and some property managers in Centre Pointe have
indicated the location of a restaurant in Centre Pointe as a specific need. This
information has been provided to staff through on-site visits as part of the City's business
retention program and as evidenced by the attached letter from Ryan Companies,
property manager for many of the buildings in Centre Pointe.
6.3 The DRC concluded that the PUD controls the uses on the site with specific terms and
conditions under which parcels and uses shall develop. The PUD indicates that if a
restaurant is not developed, an office is an appropriate alternative. However, the site is
limited to 6,000 square feet of building, unless a PUD amendment is approved.
6.4 The Community Development Director reviewed the proposed change in the Master Site
Plan, the proposed Solutia site plan, the PUD Amendments, and the Draft EA W. The
Community Development Director concluded that PUD Agreement is the regulatory
document for the vacant parcel and that the proposed use, as an office, is appropriate and
permitted, especially if the previous lot owner has demonstrated that there is no market
for a restaurant. In addition, the proposed two-story office could increase the parcel's
allowable square footage, lot coverage, and impervious coverage; however, these
changes do not present heightened environmental concern as evidenced in the Draft
EAW.
6.5 The Planning Commission was presented three recommendation options based on the
staff considerations indicated above:
~ Deny the request; retain the 6,000 sq. ft restaurant pad.
~ Approve a 6,000 sq. ft. one story office building.
~ After an EA W negative declaration, amend Master Site Plan and PUD to allow
two-story 21,240 sq. ft. office building
7.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 7
7.1 On October 10, 2001, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing
regarding the Solutia Consulting request. At the hearing no citizens addressed the
Commission. E-mails were presented to the Commission from tenants and property
managers supporting the need for a restaurant on the vacant parcel. However the
Commission did ask questions pertaining to the difference in the Master Plan, Master
Plan Map, and the adopted PUD. The Commission also asked specific questions
pertaining to the site and use of the building (see attached draft minutes).
7.2 The Planning Commission determined that the Concept PUD Amendment for land uses
and master site plan proposed by Solutia, consisting of a 15,500 square feet of additional
office space and 6,000 square feet of allowable office space within the existing Planned
Unit Development, is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the intent of the 1997
Centre Pointe PUD, noting that the city policy is market driven development and office
space is now needed in the market, and the proposal meets/exceeds the City's goals for
head of household living wages.
7.3 Based on the above determination, the Roseville Planning Commission recommended (S-
O) approval of the proposed General Concept Plan for a PUD amendment (#1177) to
allow construction of the 21,500 square foot Solutia office building, an increase in the
allowable square footage within the Centre Pointe PUD of 15,240 square feet subject to
the conditions listed in that project report dated 10/1 % 1.
7.4 Further, the Planning Commission made no comment on the Draft EA W nor cited any
significant environmental impacts requiring further review in an Environmental Impact
Statement.
8.0 CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS:
Previously the Roseville City Council took the following actions:
· Approved the change in the Master Site Plan for Lot 3, Block 1, Centre Pointe
Business Park from restaurant to office and the General Concept Plan for Solutia
Consulting regarding the proposed construction of a 21,240 square foot, two-story
office structure, which increases the allowable building size by 15,240 square feet
from 6,000 square feet to total of21,240 square feet, subject to the conditions
listed in Section 4.1 (A through F) of the project report dated 10/22/01 and
eliminating all references to a restaurant use, associated terms and conditions, and
stipulating terms and conditions under which the Solutia Consulting office
structure must be developed consistent with the proposed site plan, structure
design plan and other supporting plan set documents.
· Approved the first reading of an ordinance amending Planned Unit Development
Agreement # 11 77.
· Approved the distribution of the Voluntary Draft EA W for review, with notice to
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 8
~
be published concerning its availability.
9.0 SUGGESTED FINAL ACTIONS:
For December 17,2001, the following final actions are suggested:
9.1 By resolution, approve the Voluntary Draft EA W Final Decision of "No Negative
Impact" and the distribution of the decision to EQB and state agencies and
commentors. Since no significant environmental impacts were identified, the Council
action should be to provide a "negative declaration" on the EA W - which means there
are no significant impacts that would require further environmental analysis and
additional mitigation than what is proposed.
9.2 After a second reading of the PUD amendment and ordinance, by motion take final
action to approve (deny or modify) the SoIutia Office Building PUD Amendment
and ordinance.
Report by: Thomas Paschke (651-490-2236); Dennis Welsch (651-490-2232)
Attachments: Draft EA W; Site Plans; Centre Point PUD and amendments
Acceptance date: 60-Day Time Limit: 60 days after conclusion ofEA W process
Q:\Planning Files\3338_So1utia\RCA (121701).doc
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 9
.,
~
RLK:.
Engineering. Planning
( KUUSISTO LTD )
~
Surveying. Landscape Architecture
November 5, 2001
EA W Distribution List
(Attached)
Re: Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet .
Centre Pointe Solutions (Solutia Consulting)-Centre Pointe Business Park-Roseyille, MN
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. ProjectNo. 2001-302-M
Dear Sir or Madam:
On behalf of the City of Roseville, RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. is forwarding a copy of the voluntary
EA W prepared for the Centre Pointe Solutions (Soluti~ ' Consulting) site at the Centre Pointe
Business Park. The EA W has been prepared to address potential environmental impacts for an
increase in office space proposed by Centre Pointe Solutions (Solutia Consulting).
If you have any questions, please contact either I)ennis Welsch or Thomas Paschke, Community
Development, City of Roseville at 651-490-2200 or myself at 952-933-0972,
Very truly yours,
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd.
fi?~ ;;: RL-
Brian Sullivan, RLA, AICP
Principal Landscape Architect
Attachment (EA W Distribution List)
Enclosure (EA W)
Offices: Hibbing' Minnetonka . 51. Paul . Twin Ports
. (952) 933-0972 . 6110 Blue Circle Drive' Suite 100 . Minnetonka, MN 55343 . FAX (952) 933-1153
Equal Opportunity Employer
"
t.
EA W Distribution List
Centre Pointe Solutions (Solutia Consulting)-Centre Pointe Business Park-Roseville, MN
City of Roseville (4-copies)
Community Development
Dennis Welsch and Thomas Paschke
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville,MN 55113-1815
Department of Transportation (3-copies)
Gerald Larson
395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 620
St. Paul, MN 55155
Environmental Quality Board (I-copy)
Environmental Review Program
300 Centennial Office Building
. 658 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55155.
Minnesota Historical Society (I-copy)
State Historical Preservation Office
345 West Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55102
Board of Water and Soil Resources (I-copy)
Jim Haertel
One West Water Street, Suite 200
St. Paul, MN 55107
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (3-copies)
Beth Lockwood, Supervisor
Operations and Planning Unit
Metro District/MPCA '
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
Department of Agriculture (I-copy)
Becky Balk
90 West Plato Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55107
Environmental Conservation Library (2-copies)
Minneapolis Public Library .
300 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Department of Health (I-copy)
Environmental Health Division
Policy, Planning and Analysis Unit
121 East 7th Place, Suite 230
St. Paul, MN '55101
Legislative Reference Library (2-copies)
Carol Blackburn
645 State Office Building
St, Paul, MN 55155
Department of Commerce (I-copy)
Marya White
200 Metro Square Building
121 East 7th Place
St. Paul, MN 55101
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (I-copy)
Char Hauger
Regulatory Functions Branch
Army Corps of Engineers Center
190 5th Street East
St. Paul, MN 55101-1638
Department of Natural Resources (3-copies)
Thomas W, Balcom
Environmental Review Unit
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155-4010
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (I-copy)
William D. Franz
Chiefof Environmental Review
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago,IL 60604-3590
oj
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (I-copy) .
Twin Cities Field Office E,S.
4101 East 80th Street
Bloomington, MN 55425-1665
Metropolitan Council (I-copy)
Linda Milashius, Referrals
. Mears Park Centre .
230 Ea~t 5th Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Centre Pointe Solutions (2-copies)
(Solutia Consulting)
Rick Kuula
1241 Amundson Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
Terranova LLC (I-copy)
Rob Miller
14685 Langdon Place'
Eden Prairie, MN. 55347
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. (2-copies)
Brian Sullivan
: DRAFT "
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
, , For the
Centtf;!"Pointe Busin~ss'PaJk
,Centre Pointe'Solutions
(Solutii;l Consul~ing) :'
"
Prepared For "
, .
, MINNESOTA'
, November 5/2001
Prepared By
~
,"RLK
,,( "KUUSISTO L TD ')
\~,'
Pi-oject No., 2001-302-M
.' . '.
Offices: Hibbillg'. Minneto~ka . Ham Lake + 'Twin Ports .
, '
,Tel. 952-933-0972" + 6110 Blue Cir~le Drive, Suite,lOO + Mi~netonka, MN 554343 . Fax 952-933-1153
, -
, -
. ,
Table of Contents
1. Project Title", ", "".,.,." ,." ,." ,.".,..., .,.., ,.,...""..".,.,.,.,.,'..,.", ,..,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,...,.,..".." 3
2, Proposer .,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.".,.,.,.,.,.,.,...,.,.,.,.,.,.,.".,.,.,.,.,...,.,.,.,.,.",."".",.,.,...,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,......,..."..,. 3
3. RGU .,.,.,., ,.,.",." "., ".,.,.,."" ,...,.,.,.".", ,..,.,.,.,...,...,.,.,.""" ".,.,.,." ,.'".....,..... ".,......,., ,.,., ....., 3
4, Reason for EA W Preparation .........,...,.........,............................,...,.................,.................. 3
5. Project Location".",.,.,."""""."..,.,.,.,.,.,.,.".",.,.,.,." ,.,.,.,.,...,.,...,..'..',.,.,.,.,.,.'.,."".,.,.,.,.,.,. 4
6, Description,.,.,.",.",..",.,.",...",.,.",.,.",.""", ,...,.",.,.,.,."..".,.,.,.,.,.".. ,."",.,.",.",.,.,.",'.,.,.", 5
7, Project Magnitude Data ".,.,., '" ,..,.,.'.,.,."..,.,.,.",." ".,.,.,.,.,.. "".,.,.,.,.,..." "" ,.,.,.,.,., ,.. ,.,.." '." 7
8, Penn its and Approvals Reguired.........,.,...,............,.,.......,....................,............................ 8
9. Land Use.,.,.,.",.,.,.,.,.".,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,...,.,.,.".,.,... ....",...,.,.".,.,.,.,.,.,.,.......,...,.....'.......,."".,...,., 9
I 0, Cover Types ....'...,....."....,..".,.,....,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.'.,.,.".....,.,........,....,...,...,.,." ,...,." ,.,.,.,.....,.,., 10
11. Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources ...........,........................................... 10
12. Physical Impacts on Water Resourc~s.........................,............,.................,..................... 11
13, Water Use .,.,....,...,.,...,.'" ,....,.,......,.'.,...,.,.. ".,.,.,." ,.".,.,........., ...,...,.,.,...,.,.,...,.,.,.,.....,..".. 11
14. Water-Related Land Use Management District..................,.,.,......................................... 12
15 . Water S urface Use.",.".,.,.......",.,.,.,.,.,.,.,..,.,.......,...,.,."..."..,.,.,....,..,.,.,.....,.,.......,.,.,..,.,., 13
16, Erosion and Sedimentation .................. ...........,...,....................,.,...................................... 13
17. Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff.......,.......,..........................................,.......,........... 13
18. Water Quality: Wastewaters .............,...........................................,.................................., 14
19. Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions,.........,.................................................................. 15
20. Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, Storage Tanks............................................................. 16
21, Traffic.,.,.."... ........,..,.,.,.,.,.,....., ...,...,.,......,.,..,. .......'. ,....,.,.,...,......,.,'....,.,.,.'...........,......... 17
22. VehicIe-Related Air Emissions.".,.,.,.,.,.,."........ ,...".,.,."...,.,.........., ,.. ........"".,... ...., ...','.. 20
23, Sanitary Source Air Emissions ......................,...,...,...........:..,...,.,...........................,.........23
24, Odors, Noise and Dust.,.,.,.,.,.,...,.,..".,.,.,.".",.,..,......,.".,.,.,.,........,...,.,....,..",.......,.,.".,.,., 23
25. Nearby Resources ,..,.,." ,.,., ".,.,.., ".,., ".,.,.,..............,.,.,........,....,........, .....,.,.,.....,., ,......."..26
26, Visual Impacts "."" ",...,.,..." ,..,.,.', ..., ,..'"..,.',...,.,.,....,.,....., '..,...,.,.,...,.,.,." ,.",.., ,.,.,.,.,...".. 26
27. Compatibility with Plans and Land Use Regulations.;...............,.,....,.,........................,.,., 27
28. Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services .............,.........................................,........... 27
29. Cumulative Impacts. ,...,.,...,.,.',.,... ,...,.,.....,...,.,..,.,. ,.. .....,.",., ,.......,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,...,.,.,.,.,...",. 27
30. Other Potential Environmental ..Impacts.................................,...,.................................... 28
31. Summary of Issues.,." ".,.., ..,.'".,.,.,...,.,.,.,..,.........,.,...,....,.................,...............,...........,.,.28
RGU Certification,.,........,.,...........,......,.,...,.,.,.. .....,...,....,.,.,.......,.,.,...,..",...,.,.,...,.,...,.,........... 29
Fil!:ures & Attachments
1. Site Location.,.,.,. ....,.,., ,...",.,.,.....,. ....,.,.,..,.,...,. ......,.,.,....,...,.,....... ........,.......,.,...,.. ......., :Figure 1
2, USGS Topographic Map .,.,...,.,.,."."...,..,.,.....,.....,......,.,.,.......,.,..........",.,.....,.,.,.,...........Figure 2
2A, Aerial Photo.,...,.,."".,.,... '" .....,..,.....,.,.,.. .....,.,.'.,..,.,.,...,...,.....,.,.,."...,.,.....,...,.. ....... ,....... .Figure 2A
3, Spring 2001 Site Plan ..,...,.,...".,.....,..........,.,...,.,...,.....,.,.,..."...,.,........,..,...,.....................Figure 3
4, Proposed Master Site Plan,..,.....,.,.,.,.,.,.,.".,.............,.,.".....,.,.,...",...,.".,.,..,.,.,................Figure 4
5. 1985 Site Plan ................,.,..............................,.,...,..,....................................,...,..............Figure 5
5A 1997 Site Plan ,....,.,.,.."".,...,....,.,..".,.,.,..".,.,...,..,.,.,.",...,.,.,....,..,..........,.,...........,...,.....,.Figure 5A
6, DNR Protected Waters Map,.,.....,.,.,.,.....".,...,.,...,...,.,.,....,...,.,.,.,.,.."...,.....,.............,......Figure 6
7. Soil Survey Map ..,.,.,.".,...,.....,.,.....,...,..,.,.,... ..,...,.,." ".,.,...,.,...,......." ,..,.,.,.,...........,.,..,...Figure 7
8. Comprehensive Plan Map,.,.,.".,.,.,.,.,.,.....,.,...,.,..",.,.,...,...,.,.,.....,....,.,...........,.,.,.... .......: .Figure 8
9. Zoning Map.".,.,.,.,.".".,.,.,.,..,.,. ..........,.,.,.".,.,.,.,., .......,........,.,.,.,...",...,.......,..,.,....,.,.,... .Figure 9
10. CO Receptor Locations ..,.'.,.....,.,.....,...,..,.,.........,.,.,.,..,.,...,...........,..",.,...,.,.........,.,.,....Figure 10
A, Air Quality (CO) Modeling Results..................,.,..................,.....,..........................,Attachment A
B. Noise Model Runs and Monitoring Results............................,................................ Attachment B
C. Traffic Impact Report..,.,.,."..". .......... ....,.,.,'.,.,.,.......,.....,....,.,...,.......,.,.",.,.'.,.,...,.' Attachment C
D. Natural Heritage Letter,.,.,.,. ........,.,.,.,.,....,...... .......,...,..,.,.,.,.,., ..., ...",...,...,.,.,.,.,.,., . Attachment D
E. Minnesota Historical Society Letter ..............................................................'......... Attachment E
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 2 of 29
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
Note to pre parers: An electronic version of this form is available at www.mnplan.state.mn.us. EA W Guidelines will be
available in spring 1999, The Environmental Assessment Worksheet provides information about a project that may have the
potential for significant environmental effects, The EA W 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 EA W is prepared
electronically,
Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EA W
in the EQB Monitor, Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information , potential impacts that warrant
further investigation and the need for an ElS.
1.
Project title
2.
Proposer
Contact Person
Title
Address
Phone
3.
RGU
Contact Person
Title
Address
Phone
Centre Pointe Business Park
Centre Pointe Solutions (Solutia Consulting)
Rick Kuula
President
1241 Amundson Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
651-351-0123
651-430-1733 FAX
City of Roseville
Dennis Welsch
Community Development Director
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
651-490-2200
651-490-2276 FAX
Reason for EA W preparation
EIS Scoping Mandatory EA W
RGU Discretion Proposer Volunteered
4.
Citizen Petition
If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number and subpart name:
The current project proposer, Centre Pointe Solutions (Solutia Consulting) proposes to
construct its corporate facilities within a portion ofthe Centre Pointe Business Park in
Roseville, a project first proposed more than fifteen years ago.
In 1985, Woodbridge Properties, Inc. proposed constructing Centre Pointe, which included
647,000 square feet of office and garden/office/service space. As part of the approval
process, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared for the City of Roseville in
December of 1985. In February 1986, the City of Roseville adopted a negative declaration
on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 3 of 29
Woodbridge constructed supporting infrastructure for Centre Pointe (internal roads,
stormwater ponds, and utilities) and three buildings, Due to market conditions, Woodbridge
did not complete the project.
In January of 1997, Ryan Companies US, Inc. became the developer of Centre Pointe and
submitted an EA W; additionally; the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency issued an Indirect
Source Permit. The Ryan proposal included a total of 619,000 SF; this total did not include
the buildings already constructed by Woodbridge. In March 1997, the City again adopted a
negative declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the revised
Centre Pointe,
In February 2000, in accordance with City ordinances the PUD was administratively
amended to allow an increase in building square footage by 10% (61,900 square feet) in
Centre Pointe. In April 2001 the City approved a PUD Amendment that increased the
building square footage by 122,000 SF for the proposed Veritas Corporate Campus.
Centre Pointe Solutions is proposing to construct a 21,500 SF building on the remaining
undeveloped parcel on the Centre Pointe Development. The increase in building area from
the previously approved building area of6,000 SF is 15,500 SF will be accomplished by
constructing a two story building with an underground garage.
The additional office space proposed by Centre Pointe Solutions does not exceed a
mandatory threshold for EA W preparation. Nevertheless, Centre Pointe Solutions
volunteered preparation of this EA W for, among others, three principal reasons: (1) assure
Roseville as the RGU, other EA W reviewers, and itself that the proposed expansion does not
have the potential for significant adverse environmental effects; (2) present the proposed
expansion in the context of prior Centre Pointe approvals and status of construction in EA W
format so that the community may fully understand the environmental effects of the
expanded Veritas corporate campus; and (3) achieve certainty that all Minnesota
environmental review requirements have been met.
5. Project location
County: Ramsey County City/Township: City of Roseville
NE \14 NE \14 Section 5, Township 29N, Range 23W
Attach copies of each of the following to the EA W-
a. A county map showing the general location of the project:
See Figure 1 - Site Location Map.
b. Copy(s) of USGS 7,5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map (photocopy is OK) indicating the
project boundaries:
See Figure 2 - USGS Topographic Map.
c. A site plan, showing all significant project and natural features,
See Figure 2A - Aerial Photograph
See Figure 3 - Existing Conditions
See Figure 4 - Proposed Master Site Plan
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 4 of 29
6. Description
a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor.
Centre Painte Solutions is proposing to construct an additional 15,500 SF of office
space at Centre Pointe Business Park in Roseville, MN. Upon completion of the
development, the business park will consist of three hotels, one restaurant (located
within a hotel), office buildings, and office-showrooms, buildings totaling
approximately 819,000 SF of floor area and 2,840 parking spaces.
b, Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction,
Attach additional sheets as necessary, Emphasize construction and operation
methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or
produce wastes, Indicate modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes
and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate
the timing and duration of construction activities.
Centre Pointe Business Park is located between I-35W, Cleveland Avenue, County
Road C, and County Road D in the City of Roseville. The City of Rose vi lie
approved, in 1985, a proposal for the development of 647,000 square feet of office
and garden office/service space at the 56.4-acre business-park. The approvals
included a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, rezoning the property to B-4 Office
Service District, Replatting, Tax Increment Financing and a Special Use Permit for a
Planned Unit Development. The plan approved in 1985 is shown as Figure 5,
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet was also prepared in December 1985 to
examine the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed 1985
project. According to the 1985 EA W, the EA W was mandatory for the following
reasons:
· Construction of a new industrial, commercial or institutional facility equal to or
in excess of 300,000 SF of gross floor space in a second class city.
· Construction of a new parking facility for 1,000 or more vehicles.
· Expansion of an existing municipal or domestic wastewater treatment facility or
sewer facility by an increase in capacity of 50 percent or more over the existing
capacity or by 50,000 gallons per day or more.
On February 10, 1986, following the mandatory EA W comment and review process,
the Roseville City Council passed Resolution 7861-Finding of a Negative
Declaration for a Full Environmental Impact Statement-Centre Pointe Business Park
project.
Following the approval and in accordance with the approved plan, all identified
environmental hazards were removed, all required permits were obtained and the site
was mass-graded in preparation for the development. In addition, two public roads
(Lydia Avenue and Centre Pointe Drive) storm sewer, water mains, sanitary sewer,
and eight stormwater ponds were installed to service the site.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 5 of 29
Due to relatively low demand for office space, only 2 of the 12 lots approved in the
1985 plan were built. These 2 lots currently contain 120,000 SF of office space,
In 1997, Ryan proposed to develop the remaining ten lots, replatting them to create
two additional lots (see 1997 Master Site Plan, Figure SA), The proposed uses
included two business hotels, two sit-down restaurants, five office buildings, two
office-showrooms, and one office-manufacturing for a total of 619,000 SF. In 1997
an EA W was prepared and a negative declaration adopted by the City of Roseville
for the Centre Pointe Business Park as summarized above.
In February 2000 the City of Roseville approved a minor administrative amendment
permitting an increase in the building area by 10%. The south 16 acres of Centre
Pointe Business Park were then sold to Veritas and Veritas commenced construction
on Veritas Building 1. In the summer of2000, the PUD was amended to allow
construction of a third hotel in place of an office building within Centre Pointe. In
April of 200 1, the PUD and EA W was amended to allow an increase of 122,000 SF
of office space for the Veritas Campus, The following chart summarizes the
approvals for the Centre Pointe project.
647,000 SF
92,000 SF
61,900 SF
o SF
122,000 SF
922,900 SF
-122,000 SF
802,900 SF
15,500 SF
818,400 SF
Centre Pointe Solutions (Solutia Consulting) proposes to increase the gross building
area by 15,500 SF for the property. Under the currently approved PUD, a 6,000 S. F.
building has been approved. Solutia Consulting, which is a Minnesota-based
business and information consulting company, purchased the Centre Pointe property.
To meet its growth needs, Solutia is proposing to replace the previously approved
6,000 SF building with a new building that would total 21,500 SF. This would be
accomplished by converting the one-story building into two-story building with
underground parking. Please see Figure 4 for the proposed improvements to the
Centre Pointe Solutions property.
The project will utilize the existing roads, water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and
stormwater ponds on the site, making only minor adjustments in the infrastructure
required to service the proposed buildings. Due to past environmental clean-up and
mass grading which has occurred on the site, only minimal earthwork is anticipated,
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 6 of 29
Water mains, storm and sanitary sewers, and on-site and regional stormwater
ponding areas are all designed to service the site. Centre Pointe Solutions proposes
to utilize the existing storm water ponding system, which currently exists.
The proposed building will be two-stories tall, which is permitted within the original
PUD, When fully developed, the total area of all buildings in Centre Pointe Business
Park will be 819,000 SF, plus the 120,000 SF built by Woodbridge pursuant to the
1985 approval by the City of Roseville,
The construction schedule for the project is estimated to occur over the next two
years. During this time, noise from construction equipment and construction dirt and
dust will need to be controlled. Minnesota Best Management Practices will be
followed to minimize the impact of construction and control erosion,
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 will allow Solutia Consulting to construct their corporate headquarters.
Solutia Consulting has been searching for over a year for a site that is centrally
located for their employees and customers. The Centre Pointe site meets their needs.
d. Are future stages of this development including development of any outlots planned
or likely to happen? Yes No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to
present project, timeline and plans for environmental review,
No, there are not any future stages planned or likely.
e, Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? Yes No If yes, briefly
describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental reviews
Please refer to the response to Question 6b for a complete description of past
development.
7. Project magnitude data
Total project acreage: 47.6 acres (1.4 Acre Centre Pointe Solutions Site)
Number of Residential Units: unattachedN/A attachedN/A maximum units per building
N/ A. No residential units will be constructed
Commercial, industrial or institutional building area (gross floor space): total square feet
819,000.
Indicate area of specific uses:
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 7 of 29
Square Feet
Office: 511,962
Office/Manufacturing: 15,120
Retail : 0
Other Industrial: 0
Warehouse: 0
Institutional: 0
Light Industrial: 0
Agricultural: 0
Other Commercial (specify):
Hotel 183,432
Restaurant 6,000
Office Warehouse 101,886
Building Heights: Vary from 1-5 stories, maximum 60-foot height.
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 indirectforms of public financial assistance including bon guarantees, Tax
Increment Financing and infrastructure,
Unit of Government
MPCA
MPCA
Rice Creek Watershed
Ci of Roseville
Ci of Roseville
Ci of Roseville
City of Roseville
Ci of Roseville
Army Corps of Engineers
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
T e of Permit! A roval
NPDES Permit
Permit for Sanitary Sewer
Extension and/or Chan e
Drainage and Erosion Control
Permit
Plan Review
Environmental Assessment
Approval of an Ordinance for
a Planned Unit Develo ment
A roval of Subdivision
Gradin Permit
Buildin Permits
Wetland Conservation Act
Exem tion
PUD Amendment
Exemption or Nationwide
Permit
Status
N/A
Pending
Pending
Pendin
Pend in
Approved
A roved
To be a lied for
To be a lied for
N/A
Pend in
N/A
Page 8 of 29
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.
Prior to 1985, land use on the Centre Pointe Business Park site included single-family homes
along the west and northeast portions, a gas station near the intersection of Cleveland and
County Road D, agricultural lands throughout much of the site and Garrett Trucking
Company at the southern extreme, The remainder of the site was used for agricultural
purposes or maintained as a natural habitat and had never been developed,
The above-described structures were removed as part ofthe initial phase of the 1985
development plan (Figure 5). Since that time, the entire site has been graded, Centre Pointe
Drive and Lydia Avenue were constructed, 8 stormwater ponds and storm sewer were
constructed, a paved trail system was constructed, utilities (sanitary sewer and municipal
water) were provided to accommodate full development ofthe property, The site is
developed with the exception of the Centre Pointe Solutions site and the second and third
phase for the Veritas Campus. The Courtyard by Marriott is currently under construction.
Existing site conditions are shown in Figure 2A.
Adjacent land uses include the Interstate 35- W right-of-way along the entire western
property boundary, a gas station adjacent to and north of the site, single-family homes
directly east of Cleveland along the northern third, and industrial uses along the remainder of
the eastern property boundary. DNR Wetland 50W is adjacent to and south ofthe subject
property and DNR Wetland 203W is east of the property across Cleveland Avenue (Figure
6).
The office, office-showroom, business hotel, and restaurant uses are compatible with the
existing and planned uses of the surrounding area.
As part ofthe purchase of the property by Woodbridge, a Phase I and II environmental
assessment were conducted in 1994, All known environmental hazards associated with past
use of the site have been removed, Phase I and Phase II Environmental Assessments
determined that "no conditions were found to pose an environmental risk to the Property and
that further environmental assessment was unwarranted" (Delta Environmental Consultants,
Inc., 1994).
The proposed development presents low potential for adverse environmental impacts due to
previous land uses.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 9 of 29
10. Cover types
Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after
development,
Before (acres) After (acres)
Types 2 to 8 ,Wetland
W ooded/F orest
Brush/Grassland
Cropland
Urban/Suburban Lawn/Landscaping
Impervious Surface 34.3 34.3
Stormwater Ponds 2.2 2.2
Maintained Lawn ill ill
Total * 47.6 47.6
* "Before" total based on the PUD and EA W approved by the City of Roseville in 1997 and
on related permits received by the developer.
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 remaining lots on the site not occupied by streets, buildings, or excavated
storm water ponds are upland and are either under construction or have been graded
to accommodate development. Temporary sediment and erosion control devices
have been established on the sites under construction. No wooded' or brushy areas
are present, and the overall structural diversity of the habitat is low.
The quality and value of this habitat for wildlife is relatively low due to the
following reasons:
The nature of the adjoining areas is such that it does not attract or harbor significant
wildlife populations. Interstate 35W borders the site to the west, Interstate 35W
interchanges lie to the north and south, and a combination of residential housing,
business, and industrial developments lie to the east. Ponding areas to the south and
east may attract some waterfowl and waterbirds, but there are no significant ponding
areas on the subject site other than the 8-stormwater ponds scattered throughout.
The degree of disturbance to the area has been high. Buildings and houses have been
removed, the entire site was graded, and storm water ponds and ditches were
excavated. Buildings, an internal road and trail system were constructed, all within
the last 10 years. This has resulted in the removal of all natural habitat components.
The undeveloped portions of the site are a combination of landscaped and turf areas.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 10 of 29
Wildlife species likely to occupy the existing upland habitat on the site include
grassland songbirds (such as meadowlarks, field sparrows, house sparrows,
yellowthroats, etc.), voles, mice, shrews, ground squirrels, cottontails, toads, garter
snakes, etc.
The proposed development plan would convert nearly all upland habitats to
pavement, building, or landscaped lawn. Existing stormwater ponds would remain.
Wildlife species associated with the grassland upland habitat would be replaced by
those adapted to developed conditions such as house sparrow, robins, squirrels, and
chipping sparrows. All wildlife species adversely impacted by the project are
considered "common" in Minnesota - their departure would not be detrimental to
their populations at the local or national level and would not be considered a
significant adverse environmental impact.
b. Are any state-listed (endangered, threatened, or special-concern) species; rare plant
communities or other rare ecological resources such as native prairie habitat,
colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities on or near
the site? Yes 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 Center and Nongame Research program has been contacted give
the corresponding reference number: Describe measures to minimize or avoid
adverse impacts.
A search of the Minnesota Natural Heritage Database by the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources (DNR)in January of 1997 and December of 2000 found no
occurrences of rare species or unique natural features within an approximate one
mile search radius (see Attachment D).
A September 1996 site review by a wildlife biologist revealed no unique natural
features or rare species of plants or animals, and indicated very low probability for
their occurrence on the subject property.
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 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: _' Describe alternative
considered and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts,
The project will not involve physical or hydrologic alteration of any surface water.
13. Water use
a. 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)? Yes No
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 11 of 29
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 on site, explain methodology used to determine,
There are no wells on the site that will be abandoned as a result of the project.
The development will be served by the existing municipal water system and will not
involve the installation of any wells,
No appropriation of ground or surface water will be required. No dewatering is
expected to occur.
The City of Roseville municipal water supply will be used. Roseville receives its
water from the City ofSt. Paul, Appropriation Permit Numbers 756227 (Vadnais
Lake), 756228 (Centerville Lake), 756229 (Otter Lake), 756230 (Mississippi River),
and 776229 (unnamed groundwater wells). Water is utilized from the 5 sources in
approximately equal amounts. The City of Roseville has a water demand of 2-
million gallons per day.
Using an average annual demand per square foot of 0.070 gpd/ft2 for commercial
uses, MJ. Hammer and W. Viessman, Ir" Water Supply and Pollution Control, 5th
Edition, (New York: Harper Collins College Publishers, 1993), Total water demand
for Centre Pointe Business Park as currently planned is 56,245 GPO. The increase
due to the Solutia site would create an additional 1,085 GPO. This would bring the
total usage to 57,330 GPO. According to the St. Paul Water Utility, the maximum
capacity of their water supply facility is 168 million GPO and their current average
utilization rate is 52 million GPO. There is sufficient capacity to accommodate the
estimated total demand of 57,330 GPO for the site.
14. Water-related land use management district. Does any part of the project site involve a
shore land zoning district, a delineated 1 OO-year flood plain, or a state of federally
designated wild or scenic river land use district? Yes No
If yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility with the district land use
restrictions,
The City of Roseville has a shoreland management ordinance that applies to specified water
bodies in the City, which are listed in the ordinance (Subsection 1016.13), The project site
does not contain any of the specified water bodies, nor does any shoreland district extend
onto the project site from nearby water bodies. Although ONR Wetland 50W is near the site
on the south and 203W on the east, neither of these bodies is listed in the shoreland
ordinance. Therefore, the project site does not involve a shoreland district.
No floodplains or river-related districts have been established in Roseville.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 12 of 29
15. Water surface use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water
body? Yes No
If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential
overcrowding or conflicts with other uses,
No recreational surface waters are present on the site.
16. Erosion and sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards
of soil to be moved: acres ->' cubic yards--"- 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.
Improvements to the site wil1 not require significant grading. The site has already been mass
graded as part of improvements to the Business Park in 1997. An erosion control plan is not
required for review by the Watershed District due to the acreage to be distributed.
No steep slopes are located on the property. Minimal potential for problem erosion exists.
The Solutia site was graded to pad elevations during mass grading in 1997. Grading, utility,
street and drainage pond construction has been completed. The earthwork required to final
grade the site will be minimal.
It is anticipated that during site grading, existing topsoil will be stockpiled and later re-
applied in the landscape areas. The remaining ground will need to be adjusted to final grade
with proper soil preparation to support the buildings and parking lots.
Standard practices for erosion control will be followed for this site. Anticipated BMP's are:
Rock Entrance to minimize soil tracking on the roadways from vehicle traffic; silt fence / hay
bale interception to keep silt and fine soils from eroding off-site and onto hard surfaces;
storm sewer inlets will be screened to minimize the loss of soil into the existing and
proposed storm structures. Although reviewed by the watershed is not required, final
grading plans will meet or exceed the Rice Creek Watershed District requirements for
erosion control.
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.
The Centre Pointe Business Park has been developed with sites meeting the Business
Park PUD requirement of 25% green space. The 1997 EA W was developed
assuming that 25% of the developed area would be green space. The proposed
improvements to the Solutia site will exceed the minimum green space requirements
of 25%.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 13 of 29
A stormwater pond located just south of the site has been sufficiently designed to
handle the site runoff. The proposed site will produce a peak flow of approximately
3.84-CFS and a total quantity of 0.68 acre-feet for a 100-year event.
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.
The site will drain to the existing stormwater pond through the storm sewer system,
The storm water pond drains to an existing storm sewer located in Centre Pointe
Drive. Once in the sewer the water is carried north and then west to Ramsey County
Ditch #2. Ditch #2 transfers and discharges the water into Rice Creek. County
Ditch #2 has been designed to accept water from this area. The development of this
site will not adversely affect the existing storm drainage system,
18. Water quality: wastewaters
a, Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and
industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site.
This site is proposed as a typical office building. This use produces normal domestic
sewage.
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. Jjthe project involves on-site sewage systems, discuss the
suitability of site conditions for such systems.
No onsite waste treatments are expected with these proposed uses,
c. Jj 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.
Sanitary sewer will be handled by the existing City of Roseville system. Typical
wastewater flow rates from general office uses are 274 gallons per 2,900 square feet
per day. Total flow rate for the Centre Pointe Solutions site would be approximately
2,031 gallons/day. Total flow rate for Centre Pointe Development will be 77,381
GPD. Existing 8" and/or 10" sanitary sewers exist in Centre Pointe Drive, Lydia
Avenue and Cleveland Avenue, These gravity lines flow to a lift station located
about 600' north of Lydia Avenue, on the west side of Cleveland Avenue. This lift
station was upgraded in 1987 to handle all flows from the Centre Pointe
development. The City has recently completed an analysis of the sanitary sewer lift
station and will be making improvements to accommodate increased effluent from
the Centre Pointe Business Park. Improvements will be completed in 2001, The
sewer lines are centrally located and will collect efficiently from the site. All of the
sewer lines ultimately reach the trunk line in lona Lane, then proceed onto the Metro
Treatment Plant in St. Paul.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 14 of 29
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.
There will be no disposal of liquid animal manure from the proposed development.
19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions
a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water: Q minimum 10 maximum; to bedrock:
unknown minimum unknown maximum
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.
Recent soil boring logs indicate that sand is a significant component of soils on the
site. Many borings encountered surface layers of sand and subsurface layers with
sand lenses. Sand has a fairly high infiltration and percolation rate, which could
allow downward movement if hazardous materials are spilled on the soil surface.
There are no abandoned or unused wells on site, All abandoned or unused wells
were closed during environmental clean up of the site associated with the 1985 plan.
The potential hazard of ground water contamination would be minimal after site
development since work areas will be converted to impervious surface. Remaining
areas will be landscaped, with layers of soil and sod added. These actions will
significantly reduce the risk of hazardous materials contaminating groundwater.
The proposed uses for the site are business park uses, which include office and hotel
uses, These uses do not produce or handle toxic or hazardous materials,
b, Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications, if mown. 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.
Soils are mapped as a combination of Urban Land Zimmerman Complex, Urban
Land, Urban Land Lino Complex, and Isanti Loamy Fine Sand (Figure 7).
Original soil types mapped on Figure 7 (as described above) are no longer present on
the site due to the mass grading and filling which has occurred. Currently, soils on
the site are most appropriately classified as Urban Land in developed portions and as
Udorthents (fill) in most of the undeveloped land.
Profiles, drainage characteristics, and depth to water table indicated for soils mapped
on Figure 7 and described in the soil survey are no longer valid due to these
described soils alterations.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 15 of 29
Recent soil boring logs from 1994 and 1999 found ground water levels on the site to
range from 4.5 to 15 feet below the surface. Based on the soil borings, the average
water table elevation was 9.4 feet below ground, at an average elevation of 90 I
MSL. The ordinary high water level (OHWL) ofDNR Wetland SOW is 902 MSL,
also indicative of the water table elevation.
The described soil borings were to a depth of20 feet below the surface, and no
bedrock was encountered, According to Mossier and Cleland, depth to bedrock in
the area is approximately 100 feet (Depth to Bedrock Map, County Atlas Series,
Atlas C-7, Plate 5 in the Geologic Atlas, Ramsey County, Minnesota, University of
Minnesota, St. Paul, 1992).
The described soil boring logs are available for review upon request.
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. '
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.
The proposed types of site users would generate no wastes that are considered
"hazardous". Types of solid wastes generated would include those common to office
uses such as paper, cardboard, newspaper, food wastes, metal cans, film plastics,
glass, etc. Using data from a 1993 study of wastes generated by various types of
businesses (Los Angeles AB 939 Plan: Commercial Generator Strategies, 1993),
estimated quantities of solid wastes that will be disposed are as follows:
Type of Sample A vg. Amount Proposed Estimated Amount of
Business Size of Solid Waste Number of Solid Waste to be
Disposed Businesses Disposed
(tons per year) (tons per year)
(a) (b) (a) x (b)
Office 1,000 137 8 1,096
Total 1,096
The following table shows typical recyclable materials generated by 2 types of
businesses proposed for the site and the percentage of each business' waste stream
that is comprised of those materials.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 16 of 29
Business Recvclable Material Percent of Waste Stream
Office mixed paper 15.3
ledger paper ]5. ]
corrugated cardboard ]2.4
newspaper 8,5
organic compostables 6.9
Source: SCS Engineering, 1991; Ventura County, CA, Source Sampling Study, 1992
The City of Roseville has no recycling program or applicable recycling ordinance in
place for businesses. Individual businesses will be responsible for their own source
separation plan, and recycling will be coordinated through their chosen solid waste
contractor. All unrecyclable wastes will be hauled off-site by licensed waste haulers
to approved landfills.
c, Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or belowground tanks to
store petroleum products or other materials, except water. Describe any emergency
response containment plans,
Proposed site uses are not of the type that typically require above or below ground
storage of petroleum products or other potentially hazardous materials in tanks. Any
such tank that is necessary for a future user would have to be approved and permitted
through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and other jurisdictional
agencIes.
21. Traffic:
Parking spaces added: 54 Existing spaces (if project involves expansion): 2,840 Estimated
total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) generated: The proposed Centre Pointe development is
expected to generate 6,890 daily trip ends on a typical weekday. Estimate maximum peak
hour traffic generated (if known) and time of occurrence. At full development, the proposed
Centre Pointe development is expected to generate 883 trips in the p.m. peak hour of 4:30 to
5:30 p.m. Of these 896 trips, 213 trips are expected to be entering the site and 683 trips are
expected to be exiting the site. Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on
affectedroads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. Ijthe project is within the
Twin Cities metropolitan area, discuss its impact on the regional transportation system.
An addendum to the comprehensive traffic study has been performed to examine the
additional potential impacts ofthe Centre Pointe development due the additional 15,000 SF
of office usage. The detailed traffic report and addendum are appended to this report as
Attachment C. The following paragraphs provide a summary of the traffic analyses
presented in the attached report.
The daily and peak hour trip generation was estimated using the Institute of Transportation
Engineers' Trip Generation, 6th Edition, resulting in the trips listed above. Table 2]-1
presents the current trip generation estimate along with trip generation estimates prepared for
the 1997, February 2000 and Spring 2001 Centre Pointe development concepts.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 17 of 29
Centre Pointe Development Scenario
Table 21-1
Tri Generation for Previous and Current Centre Pointe Business Park Co nee ts
Tri Generation
Dail PM Peak Hour
7389 788
6446 802
6735 883
6890 896
The p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts were developed for five signalized intersections and five
unsignalized intersections. The five signalized intersections examined are:
· Cleveland Avenue I County Road C
· Cleveland Avenue I Northbound 1-35 Ramps
· Cleveland Avenue 1 County Road D
· Northbound 1-35 Ramps I County Road D
· Southbound 1-35 Ramps I County Road D
The five unsignalized intersections are located on Cleveland A venue and provide stop sign
control for the approaches to Cleveland Avenue. Traffic on Cleveland Avenue does not stop
at these intersections, The five unsignalized intersections examined are:
· Veritas Way I Cleveland Avenue
· County Road C2 (South Centre Pointe Drive) 1 Cleveland Avenue
· Lydia Avenue I Cleveland Avenue
· Brenner Avenue I Cleveland A venue
· North Centre Pointe Drive I Cleveland Avenue
Because the Centre Pointe development will be completed in 2003, traffic forecasts and
analyses were completed for 2004, The weekday p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts were
developed for the following three development scenarios:
· 2004 with development approved in 1997
· 2004 with development approved in February 2000
· 2004 with development approved in Spring 2001
· 2004 with current proposed development
Traffic forecasts for the above 2004 scenarios are based on 2001 p.m. peak-hour background
traffic volumes estimated in 1997 by the BRW firm for the Centre Pointe EA W. The 2001
volumes were then adjusted to 2004 p.m. peak-hour volume levels and account for the
following changes in traffic conditions between 2001 and 2004:
· Background traffic growth at 2% per year
· Construction of Twin Lakes Parkway in 2003/2004
· Portions of the Twin Lakes development anticipated being complete by 2003.
Once the 2001 background traffic volumes were adjusted to 2004 levels, development trips
were added to the roadway system to obtain 2004 post-development p,m. peak hour traffic
volumes for each of the three Centre Pointe development concepts.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 18 of 29
The p.m, peak hour traffic volumes for the three scenarios were used to perform capacity
analyses at the ten critical intersections, The level of service for the signalized intersections
was estimated using Synchro computer software. The unsignalized intersection level of
service was estimated using the unsignalized intersection module of the Highway Capacity
Software. (Note: The Spring 2001 analysis was conducted with an older release of the
software, then either February 2000 analysis or the current addendum)
Table 21-2 summarizes the level of service for the signalized intersections. Level of service
D is generally considered acceptable operating conditions. As table 21-2 presents, no level
of service difficulties are expected at any of the five signalized intersections. In addition, all
movements at the five intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better in the 2004
p.m, peak hour under the currently proposed development concept.
TABLE 21-2
. . ea our eve s 0 ervlce or 12na lze ntersectlOns
2004 Level of Service by Development Scenario
With With With Spring 2001 With Currently
Intersection Development Development Proposed Proposed
Approved in 1997 Approved in Development Development
February 2000
Cleveland Ave 1 D D D D
Co. Rd, C
Cleveland Ave 1 B B C C
NB 1-35 Ramps
Cleveland Ave / C C C C
Co. Rd. D
NB 1-35 Ramps C C C C
/ Co. Rd. D
SB 1-35 Ramps / A A A A
Co. Rd. D
PM P kH
L
fS
~ S'
r dI
Level of service results for the unsignalized intersections are presented in Table 21-3.
Unsignalized intersection results refer to the lowest side street approach level of service
experienced. All intersections are expected to provide level of service D or better operations
under all 2004 scenarios, with the exception of the North Centre Pointe Drive intersection
with Cleveland A venue. The high volume of left turns expected from North Centre Pointe
Drive to northbound Cleveland Avenue will likely cause the west approach of the
intersection to operate at level of service F in the 2004 p.m, peak hour under the current
proposed development concept.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 19 of 29
TABLE 21-3
P.M. Peak our eve S 0 ervlce or oSI2oa Ize otersectlOos
2004 Level of Service b Development Scenario
With With With Spring 200 I With Currently
Intersection Development Development Proposed Proposed
Approved in 1997 Approved in Development Development
February 2000
Veritas Way / B B B B
Cleveland Ave
Co. Rd. C2 / C C C C
Cleveland Ave
Lydia Ave / C C C C
Cleveland Ave
Brenner Ave / C C C C
Cleveland Ave
N. Centre Pointe Dr. E E F E
/ Cleveland Ave.
H
L
fS
~ U .
r dI
1)
1) Unsignalized intersection results refer to the lowest side street level of service experienced
Two options exist to mitigate the level of service difficulties at the North Centre Pointe
Drive/Cleveland A venue intersection. The options include installation of traffic signal
control at either North Centre Pointe Drive or Lydia Avenue intersection with Cleveland
Avenue. Traffic volumes at the North Centre Pointe Drive and Lydia Avenue intersections
with Cleveland Avenue intersection should be monitored following completion of the Centre
Pointe development and traffic signal control should be considered when actual traffic
volumes meet the required warrants.
The overall conclusion of the traffic analysis report is that the current proposed Centre
Pointe development would not cause any significant negative traffic impacts at the any of the
10 intersections that have been examined. The traffic impacts associated with the current
Centre Pointe development proposal are nearly identical to the impacts that would have been
experienced with the Centre Pointe development proposals approved in February of 2000 and
in the spring of 1997.
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 EA W Guidelines about whether a detailed air quality analysis is
needed.
As part of the approval of the Amended PUD and EA W in April of 200 1 Veritas prepared an
update to the ISP Permit Application submitted to the MPCA and approved in 1997. That
application included extensive analysis to estimate the potential impact of the proposed
project upon air quality in the vicinity of the site. The analysis focuses upon carbon
monoxide (CO), which is the primary pollutant of concern with vehicle emissions.
Subsequent to the MPCA approving the ISP in June of200l, the State Legislature has
repealed the requirements for preparing an ISP.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 20 of 29
For purposes of responding to this section of the EA W, calculations predicting carbon
monoxide levels in the vicinity of the development were utilized from the April 2001
Amendment. Because the increase in traffic is minimal the following analysis is based on
the previously approved EA W.
The basic methodological approach used in performing CO calculations for ISP Permit
Applications, and this analysis, is as follows:
1. Establish an assessment year defined as one year following the anticipated occupancy of
the project.
2. Determine busiest intersection in the vicinity ofthe project, which will be significantly
impacted by the project (source intersection).
3. Project CO levels generated at the source intersection for the assessment year by non-
project traffic in combination with project-related traffic.
4. Determine potentially sensitive receptors, which could be impacted by CO dispersion
from the source intersection.
S. Model CO dispersion from the source intersection to the identified receptors.
6. Add the CO from the source intersection to projected background CO levels, and
compare this sum to state air quality standards for CO concentrations,
The year 2004 has been established as the assessment year (estimated one year after
development). Source intersections modeled in this analysis were determined to be the
intersection of Cleveland Avenue and County Road C and Cleveland Avenue and County
Road D. Vehicular CO generation for 2004 at the source intersection was projected using
MOBILE5a with traffic projection information from Benshoof and Associates, Inc.
referenced in Response 22. Receptor locations for the modeling study were selected based
upon locations where the general population may be during the appropriate averaging times
for the MPCA CO standard (one hour and eight-hour). The receptor locations used in the
ISP analysis for the proposed project are identified in Figure 10. CO dispersion from the'
source intersections to the receptor locations was modeled using the CAL3QHC model.
Background CO levels for the area were based upon historical data projected to 2004 levels
taking into account anticipated overall increases in traffic levels and other factors. The
methods and procedures used in this analysis were consistent with Indirect Source Permit
Application Guidelines provided by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
The Minnesota air quality CO standard as regulated by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency is defined as follows:
· I-hour average: 30 parts per million (ppm)
· 8-hour average: 9 ppm
A summary of the analytical work generated in the ISP Permit Application for the proposed
project is provided in the following Tables.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 21 of 29
Centre Pointe Site ..Intersection of County Road C and Cleveland
P d' d M' CO I
re Icte aXlmum mpacts
Receptor Projected CO 1 Hour Average 8 Hour Average
Concentration CO from Source CO from Source
From Source Intersection Plus Intersection Plus
Intersection Background" Backgroundb
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
1 (Proposed Office) 0,0 3.6 2.6
2 (Proposed Office) 0.0 3.6 2.6
3 (Hotel) 0,0 3.6 2.6
4 (Office) 0.0 3.6 2.6
5 (Residential) 0.0 3.6 2.6
6 (Residential) 0.0 3.6 2,6
7 (Office/WH) 0.1 3.7 2.7
Centre Pointe Site -Intersection of County Road D and Cleveland
P d' d M' CO I
re Icte aXlmum m pacts
Receptor Projected CO I Hour Average 8 Hour Average
Concentration CO from Source CO from Source
From Source Intersection Plus Intersection Plus
Intersection Background" Backgroundb
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
1 (Proposed Office) 0.2 3,8 2.8
2 (Proposed Office) 0.1 3.7 2.7
3 (Hotel) 0.1 3.7 2.7
4 (Office) 0.2 3.8 2.8
5 (Residential) 2.1 5.7 4.7
6 (Residential) 2.0 5.6 4.6
7(Office/WH) 0.2 3.8 2.8
aCity of Roseville, 1 Hour Adjusted Average = 3.6 ppm.
bCity of Roseville, 8 Hour Adjusted Average = 2.6 ppm.
CO levels predicted at each receptor by modeling traffic levels at County Road C are very
low. This is because, although it is the busiest intersection by traffic count, the intersection
of Cleveland and County Road C is relatively far from the receptor locations established.
It can be seen from the above table that the CO standards are not projected to be exceeded at
any of the receptor locations assuming the project is developed as envisioned, and using the
information and methods outlined above, With the increase in traffic caused by the
additional 15,500 SF of office it is unlikely that the Co standards will be exceeded. Thus, it
is not anticipated that traffic improvements or other mitigation measures will be required to
address air quality issues associated with the proposed project.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 22 of 29
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 EA W Guidelines for a
listing) and any greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) and
ozone-depleting chemicals (chloro-fluorocarbons, hydro fluorocarbons, per fluorocarbons or
sulfur hexafluoride), Also describe any proposed pollution prevention techniques and
proposed air pollution control devices. Describe the impacts on air quality.
The project will involve installation of small, natural gas-fired space heating devices in new
buildings. Natural gas-fired space heaters exhaust small amounts of PM, NOx, CO, and He.
These space-heating devices are not expected to adversely affect air quality in the area,
24. Odors, noise and dust. Will the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or
during operation? OOYes DNo
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 project will not generate significant odors.
The proposed development has the potential to generate noise from two types of sources:
· Construction activities;
· Additional traffic generated by the development.
Significant noise impacts occur when:
· Noise levels increase by 2: 3 decibels (dBA);
· Noise levels exceed state standards.
There are two descriptors for state noise standards:
· L1 0 - the 90th percentile, in which noise levels are exceeded 10 percent ofthe time.
· L50 - the 50th percentile, in which noise levels are exceeded 50 percent of the time.
Minnesota noise standards are listed by time of day and land use in the following table.
Minnesota Noise Standards
Daytime 7 a,m.-l0 p.m, Nighttime 10 p.m.-7 a.m.
Land use LIO (dBA) L50 (dBA) LIO (dBA) L50 (dBA)
Residential 65 60 55 50
Commercial 70 65 70 65
Industrial 80 75 80 75
Noise impacts from construction of the development may exceed the state noise standards for a
limited period oftime. Every effort will be made to reduce construction noise by ensuring that
all equipment has proper noise reduction devices. In addition, construction activities will occur
only during daytime hours.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 23 of 29
According to the MPCA, noise monitoring, is recommended, although not required:
III To establish baseline levels and indicate if a noise problem already exists.
· To calibrate the noise analysis model, thereby lending greater reliability to its estimates.
Noise monitoring was conducted at the intersections of County Road C and Cleveland and
County Road D and Cleveland on December 29,2000. Although residential areas are located
significantly far from the intersection of Cleveland and County Road C, residences are located
in the southeast quadrant of Cleveland and County Road D, Refer to the following table for
noise monitoring results. The noise monitoring was done using an Ametek Model Mark 3
Audio Dosimeter.
It can be seen from the results of the noise monitoring (see table below) that current traffic
noise levels currently exceed the Minnesota Residential noise standards at County Road D and
Cleveland. It is anticipated that a significant portion of the noise levels observed are
attributable to traffic on Interstate 35W immediately west ofthe development.
Traffic Noise Momtorim
Monitoring Point Morning Rush (7-9 a.m.) Evening Rush (4:30-6:30 p.m.)
LIO (dBA) L50 (dBA) LIO (dBA) L50 (dBA)
Intersection of 74.24 64.40 69.2 60.0
Cleveland and Co.
Rd.D
Intersection of 71.3 64.9 71.9 62.4
Cleveland and Co.
Rd.C
Noise impacts from post-project traffic volumes were evaluated using the STAMINA 2.0
(FHW A 1982) model provided by MnDOT. STAMINA 2.0 predicts A-weighted noise levels
(LEQ, Ll 0, L50 and L90) based on traffic volume, speed, and vehicle type. For this analysis,
vehicles were placed into three categories: cars, medium trucks, and heavy trucks.
As indicated above, the main source of the noise causing the measured exceedances appears to
be from Interstate 35W. However, the principal source of any additional noise anticipated to be
caused by the proposed development is from additional traffic generated along the roadways
surrounding the development, mainly Cleveland, County Road C and County Road D. The
nearest residences are located near the intersection of County Road D and Cleveland. Other
potentially noise sensitive areas would include any nearby schools, churches or parks, hotels, as
well as outdoor restaurants. A hotel (receptor #3) and an office (receptor #4) have been
included in the modeling as well.
Only daytime (rush hour) impacts were predicted using STAMINA 2.0. Nighttime noise
standards only differ from daytime noise standards in residential areas. Residential areas
located in close proximity to the development are not expected to experience significant
increases in noise levels. In addition, peak nighttime traffic is assumed to be 78 percent of the
peak daytime volume, using MnDOT methods.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 24 of 29
MnDOT methods also assume the following vehicle type percentages:
· Cars: 97.8 percent;
· Medium trucks: 1.4 percent;
· Heavy trucks: 0,8 percent.
Traffic volumes provided by Benshoof and Associates, Inc. for the Spring 2001 PUD
Amendment were used for the STAMINA 2,0 model runs,
The following tables summarize the STAMINA 2.0 model results for development for the 2004
projections (daytime impacts) at the intersections of both Cleveland and Co. Rd. C and
Cleveland and Co. Rd. D.
County Road D and Cleveland STAMINA 2.0 Noise Modeling Results
Davtime Peak Hours
Receptor LIO (dBA) L50 (dBA)
Development I Baseline Development T Baseline
1 Proposed Office 59.4 55.8
2 Proposed Office 58.7 55.3
3 Hotel 59.0 55.6
4 Office 59.0 55.6
5 Residential 70,0 64.6
6 Residential 69.4 62.8
70ffice/WH 68.7 62.3
County Road C and Cleveland STAMINA 2.0 Noise Modeling Results
Davtime Peak Hours
Receptor LIO (dBA) L50 (dBA)
Development I Baseline Development T Baseline
1 Proposed Office 60.7 57.6
2 Proposed Office 59.8 56.8
3 Hotel 59.9 56.8
4 Office 59.8 56.6
5 Residential 69.2 63.4
6 Residential 70.6 64.5
70ffice/WH 70.1 64.2
This analysis indicates that predicted noise levels near Receptors 5 and 6 exceed the state
Residential Daytime LI0 and L50 limits, However, these predictions also indicate that the
additional traffic generated by the development will result in noise levels that are moderately
lower than those currently existing (see monitoring results above). Please refer to the Figure 10
for noise modeling receptor locations. It should be understood that the receptor locations used
for the air quality analysis were the same as those implemented for the noise level analysis.
It is anticipated that the proposed additional elevations to the existing buildings will help
mitigate some of the noise produced by Interstate 35W,
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 25 of 29
Some dust will be generated during the construction portion of the project. It is anticipated
that construction activities will last from 12 to 14 months. Dust will be mitigated by
minimizing the areas of exposed soils, re-vegetating or paving as soon as practical after final
grading and watering exposed soils during dry and windy conditions.
25. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site?
Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? DYes [2J No
Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? DYes [2J No
Designated parks, recreation areas or trails? [2J Yes D No
Scenic views and vistas? DYes [2J No
Other unique resources? DYes [g] No
If yes, describe the resource and identify any project-related impacts on the resource.
Describe any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts,
There are no archeological, historical, or architectural resources known to occur on the site
or in proximity to the site. A letter from the Minnesota Historical Society states that "the
project is unlikely to affect any historic properties." (Appendix F).
There are no prime or unique farmlands on the site or in proximity to the site.
A paved walking trail, constructed to facilitate pedestrian traffic through the developed site,
will remain upon completion of the project.
There are no scenic views or vistas on the site. There are no scenic views or vista within
proximity of the site, which would be impacted by the proposed project.
There are no other unique resources on the site or within proximity of the site, which would
be impacted by the proposed project.
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? DYes [2J No
If yes, explain.
The proposed increase in building square footage is not anticipated to produce any adverse
visual impacts, This additional office space will be designed to be compatible with adjacent
businesses. The surrounding area is developed and does not constitute scenic vista or
wilderness area that would be intruded upon. No intense lighting, cooling towers, or large
exhaust stacks are anticipated on the site.
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, regional, state or federal agency? [2J Yes D
No, If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project and explain how any
conflicts will be resolved.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 26 of 29
If no, explain.
The City of Roseville's current Comprehensive Plan, adopted in January 2001 (Figure 8)
guides the site for Business uses, a designation that "deals with high volume retail,
restaurants, office parks, gas stations and other high traffic generating users."
28. Impact on infrastructure and public services. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other
infrastructure or public services be required to serve the project? DYes [3J 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
EA W; see EA W Guidelines for details.)
Centre Pointe Business Park has most required infrastructure in place. The water mains and
sanitary sewer were constructed concurrent with the existing internal road system. Minor
relocation of infrastructure may be required to accommodate slight differences between the
new site layout and the original proposal. All main storm sewer lines are in place. New site-
specific storm sewers will be required to direct roof and parking lot drainage to the ponds.
All required external infrastructure is in place and has adequate capacity to serve the project,
as documented in responses to previous questions.
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
EA W 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).
The described project represents ultimate site development. Upon completion of the
described plan, the entire Centre Pointe Business Park will be developed. No outlots or
adjacent lands are available for future expansion of the Park; no future stages are planned or
likely.
In 1997 as amended through April of2001, Centre Pointe has been approved for the
construction of 802,900 square feet. The current proposal is not a subsequent stage of an
earlier project. Rather, the current proposer seeks to complete a project first proposed more
than eleven years ago. In 1985, Woodbridge Properties, Inc. proposed constructing Centre
Pointe Business Park in Roseville. Supporting infrastructure for Centre Pointe Business Park
(internal roads, stormwater ponds, and utilities) and a majority of the buildings are built or
under construction. The Centre Pointe Solutions office building will complete Centre Pointe
by providing some additional office space, which will meet the growth demand for an
environmentally friendly user in addition to the already constructed hotels, restaurants,
office/showrooms, and office/manufacturing in Centre Pointe.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 27 of 29
The boundaries of Centre Pointe are I-3SW to the west, Cleveland Avenue to the east,
County Road D to the north and DNR Wetland SOW and County Road C to the south.
Adjacent lands are currently developed or not developable (i.e.: roads, wetlands). There are
no adjacent outlots platted. No future development is anticipated on adjacent lands.
Centre Pointe Business Park fronts I-3SW through Roseville, a mature first-ring suburb. A
service station, trucking operation and residences had previously used the site until it was
cleared in the mid-1980s for the Centre Pointe project. Current adjacent land uses include
roadways, a stormwater pond, and office buildings constructed as part of the original Centre
Pointe development. Trucking operations and residences can be found immediately beyond
Centre Pointe, Centre Pointe Solutions proposes completing the redevelopment of a partially
completed business park. Once complete, the cumulative environmental impact of Centre
Pointe to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects is expected to be
minimal. Compared with the site's historic uses (i.e.: trucking operation and a service
station), the completed Centre Pointe redevelopment would be considered an environmental
benefit. The areas immediately adjacent to Centre Pointe are currently fully developed and
the completion of Centre Pointe, thus, is not expected to cause any reasonably foreseeable
future development in the area,
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.
All known and anticipated environmental impacts were previously addressed in questions 1
through 29.
31. Summary of issues. Do not complete this section if the EA W is being done for EIS scoping;
instead, address relevant issues in the draft Scoping Decision document, which must
accompany the EA W. 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.
1. Traffic - The overall conclusion of the traffic analysis report is that the current proposed
Centre Pointe development would not cause any significant negative traffic impacts at
the any of the 10 intersections that have been examined. The traffic impacts associated
with the current Centre Pointe development proposal are nearly identical to the impacts
that would have been experienced with the Centre Pointe development proposals
approved in April of2001, February of2000 and in the spring of 1997.
2. Air Quality - CO levels predicted at each receptor by modeling traffic levels at County
Road C are very low. This is because, although it is the busiest intersection by traffic
count, the intersection of Cleveland and County Road C is relatively far from the
receptor locations established, The CO standards are not projected to be exceeded at any
of the receptor locations assuming the project is developed as envisioned, and using the
information and methods outlined in the EA W. It is not anticipated that traffic
improvements or other mitigation measures will be required to address air quality issues
associated with the proposed project.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 28 of 29
3. Dust, Odors, Noise - Some dust will be generated during construction, dust will be
minimized by various means as described in Item 25. The project will not generate
significant odors. Noise impacts during construction may exceed state noise standards
for a limited period of time; every effort will be made to reduce construction noise.
Predicted noise levels from traffic appear to be moderately lower than the current
existing conditions.
4. Wetlands - No direct impact to wetlands will occur due to the project. Treated site
runoff and pretreatment in the storm water pond is expected. Adverse impacts to the
quality of water in the described wetlands due to stormwater runoff from the site are
expected to be minimal due to pretreatment of runoff and existing use of the basin for
stormwater ponding. ..
5. Stormwater Management - The Centre Pointe Business Park has breri developed with
sites meeting the Business Park PUD requirement of 25% green space. The 1997 EA W
.was developed assuming that 25% of the developed area would be green space. The
proposed improvements to the Centre Pointe Solutions site will result in meeting the
25% greenspace requirement. The green space will result in a reduction of the quantity
of surface runoff from this site and ultimately reduce the total runoff identified in the
1997 EA W from the Business Park.
RGU CERTIFICATION. The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED
Envirott111.ental Assessment Worksheets/or public notice in the EQB Monitor.
I hereby c~ttify that:
· The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my
knowledge.
· The EA W 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 am;! 60, respectively.
· Copies o/this EAW ate being sent to the entire EQB distributiQn list.
Signa/w'e~ ~~-' . Date.n..~." .'2=1
Title ~~/1e ~wt~~ ~p~ n~
Environmental Assessment Work$heet was prepared by the staff of the. Environmental Quality Board ~t Minnesota
Planning. Foraddiiional information, worksheets or /or EAWGuidelines, contact: Environmemal Quality Board,
658 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55155, 651"296-8253, Qr www.mnplan.state.IJID.115 Revised 2/99
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 29 of 29
3, Dust, Odors, Noise - Some dust will be generated during construction, dust will be
minimized by various means as described in Item 25. The project will not generate
significant odors. Noise impacts during construction may exceed state noise standards
for a limited period oftime; every effort will be made to reduce construction noise.
Predicted noise levels from traffic appear to be moderately lower than the current
existing conditions.
4. Wetlands - No direct impact to wetlands will occur due to the project. Treated site
runoff and pretreatment in the stormwater pond is expected. Adverse impacts to the
quality of water in the described wetlands due to stormwater runoff from the site are
expected to be minimal due to pretreatment of runoff and existing use of the basin for
stormwater ponding,
S. Stormwater Management - The Centre Pointe Business Park has been developed with
sites meeting the Business Park PUD requirement of 25% green space. The 1997 EA W
was developed assuming that 25% of the developed area would be green space. The
proposed improvements to the Centre Pointe Solutions site will result in meeting the
25% greenspace requirement. The green space will result in a reduction of the quantity
of surface runoff from this site and ultimately reduce the total runoff identified in the
1997 EA W from the Business Park.
RGU CERTIFICA TION. 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 EA W 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 Minnesota
Planning. For additional information, worksheets or for EA W Guidelines, contact: Environmental Quality Board,
658 Cedar St., St, Paul, MN 55155, 651-296-8253. or www.mnplan.state.mn.us Revised 2/99
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 29 of 29
. . J .
, .
- ,
'FIGURES&.A.TTACHMENTS,
, ,
, ,
'. ,Figure 1-.,
site Loc~tio~ Map
, 'Figure 2.
. .
USGS Topographic Map
Figure 2A. " ", Aerial Photo
Pigure3., , ,
,'Spring 200 I ,Site Plan
'. Figure 4. "
Proposed Master Site Plan
Figure 5.
1985 Site Plan '
-,
, Figure 5A~
1997 Site Plan _, '
Figure' 6. '
DNRProtected Waters Map'
, ,
Figure 7.' Soil Survey'Map
Figure 8. - ,Comprehensive Plan Map
"Figure 9~ Zoning M~p , ,
- ,
Figure 10.;, CO Receptor Locations'
Attachment A, Air Quality (CO) Modeling Results -
'Attachment B' Noise MQ~el Runs and Monitoring Results
Attachment C Traffic Impact Report'
Attachment D, ,Natural Heritage' L~tter
~ ." . .
Attachment ,E ", Minnesota HistoricatSociety Letter-
,- ,
-
,
i!lda. '-I;: ~
I~ ". ~ I;'t!: ~ n ';;...i ",",-I~~-
,~ _ .1"/' " l~' .Ai~. h~;'~"I;f' " It'
:1; ...'~ I, ;~~': ~ '1'1"' .Iift.," ~i_~~'_UEJ ....~..-~ '. I I! - '\... I! i -'
.~' ~_-..,..~ ~;I"~~'s:1 ~; ~~..YJ:.,.;~~",...f('- ~~ t - .~~!!~-~ ""-"4"+:2~
:>' ~"" ,~I !)" ~, . _. ,_. ..". r.. " . -= ~.-- ...-oL:."'!::"oo..
M' . . - · '-. ..'," ".' ....~.._, -", +ii"!,~ ~-"'- - ~
::::Ii. '_. ~~ '''to _.. [~':....-r"-~-!. .,.~~s.- rrac . ~t"....",=::'" i'''." ~ f. ~~__,_L\.'\._ - ;,
.. '. .,::'"' ...-n" _ n>:. _ ", · t/ IU'N' . ,~''': ,!.,....,
~"7~"-~~"'" 'i J..- --." ~.~~--". 0 '~f~
_.....~.. I ~--.. . - .. .~~ ..,.. - ,,"'- ~,=<'-, .-."
:~, '-.., . .. _~ w -i :''';''!'~___ ' "~' - ~'.Q -" - ,-. ,\ ~.oiil", ."'!' '':'
, _. . ...... k. :&s,. fN.M., .'_ _ ~~ ~ ..n'\. ' -, ;"'7...... : ~ A.
I ... "re · '.' I · """''' - . ..." ,. ' · ' · '0.'
; ....-1 lu_Yi' ," ~_-~,~-,. '. :r ~...' ~~ .".~,..~'i:'. -".'fw.-' 3:;J . ~'i
! :":' ~~~;~~' i!~'- ;,.,--.- '--"1"'.-- . t~., lJi!r.@"iD:"\? -,-., ~~
I'.:.~:W"" "..~.J.. ~ ~. '. ii..~~i ~fl"', -i ~-~"7 ,""'f- \,''W.'",rl ii
,=.. ~' !.,,, ~.- . .., ...~.-j ..."~,., ,.
.~,'" ioi... ........ ~~ ".."."~. · ~ !!.I d.' .. ................ .~,. .. '".,,~ !
. ' ., '=" ....."., ,'.' ....5.:::. ..,-. ",," e- .. · k ... -
1 :.....,.. ""iii ~f-w i ; CI '7'~~ -"'1$ ~,~ i !;,ni-S;-~ - ~ f... . l -"'....::.- --"- ".~. z; t----
..__...- :III~". _ ".,"I!'"i ",,.,ji , .._ ~~. -" -, ,......, ", ,.. --=~ i-.-...........
, , . _, "'"""'"~ ,1 ~ .. _ f ,~!:,!i" :11;-'" t =:f ;=;.-. ",-1!! :.:,: '.....';;;,. ~~...... .. ..,....
.--'-'~. . i""';:" ."," .....-F " r-"'. .... - '-,' ' ,
~-=-=co'~;'::' ~ 5-<:~' · ~H{t'~::' .i~:m.;~:; ~.. 'L:: . t ~"'" ~= :::~. E ,~. j ~
._ ,,,,.uMBU. ......;!~' ;. '. - "",~ _',. ~ ~"' , \ . 'd": . .- '" . ,""- , ... .'
: : :_:' .._ =Ii;"'Jii ~'--.;...".:.. .~ ~ . "''', "-'i'; ;'~F-i~i 'L1'" '"}, J.~'- I'......., "'.~~,...
._' . '1m .1 "-,,If/;, ."- ii \ ~'i""..-w',~" -,..,'.. - _I' ...., --~.._..... ...
..JJ.. I"".~ ..~':.O""-", . ....;;;_ !~, f..t:',1~1:.'''-P' "',: ,~nl . \ .;,-..../-~ll.!i 70..- r-oo '~_'i~.; -.-
. .../ . . -"" r\' "" -" - ..' - < .. -,
"'" on :=.I;<;!i'!' ""..>-; _~H;., t. W ..:,.,.-~:.,'~ -- 4 !-, n _<c" .~iI';::'.'!; - '-,,-
__ . ___... . ~,,,' ~__.., "" 'W '~~ r-...Ii ~ ""'" ,~..: -., -" "6"
~..~ ,;;:" ~_~ _ ~~~ ~~~'I --;R'~'~ .1 ~<t' "'.> i ~ ; t ... ,'~fc-"S
~..;.! _'"./......,., ,:;;.. ...... '.; 1!l1 .~ ~'':'': _ ~,- ~_...~. 1."\ 3 _ pa l ,;;...:.....~
, :L.:"I~:n~-""""'I"i---~~, ~~" .,..}.,..~,--:.i~.- .-..... ;.-1 ;:-~ -iJ'1'~';;. "':;f'"u ...~~'! .r.'~"~\ "''' = ;..';:';..1"-"'
, .e. _ :r"'. ..._ ......... ... #... !~~"..... - - 0 ..... ....~... ~~ ' 1!;! ~ &.. ~~-....r
. .:!.~.. .,>>~ ~1 ==~ .1Jj"'-i'..:.~jI ~ J "'''''::111W ~ ", ~. - <,,~ ~""f-- 4A &~I,.f.'
........... . .. .. ';'."... I' N" -., - ., -~.:. ~:z
"'J M ~<r~:" "."""" -""" ':' " .:.,' - .-:::;; , ,-- ~.~""," ''''''--~;'' -~~j'
, ,-~ .-- _ .-'- ..' . . _ ... . ~ -
. .~.. "... '" ". " _~. . ,,=;;a....... · - ,~..;" '. ~ .... ·
%pi, . _ "....____::_:..~.. ~'~' I'd t"'" ST"1NtitQN~~,?~)" · '" ,""'11'- .,.,........IA"'. "-~'- " .:....
, ""4_1': i .._ tU'~~~-'lt; " __.';...... '>..'-" ."1; .,~~ H-I; ;.!~ ~;'-"'".~... .......'',,'''...'''' I'~ ....'-.0, ·
_ ___ ".... ...... ~.;:..;; 11""'; ..' _ ~ ""_..:-,~ . ...,'~ ~ ., F. -....
.--. ""--~ '" '.- -", .:;;.-......, , ..., - ' ,. .....-, -"..., ,""'" ,
_." "." >e'~'"'' ...~..! 0' ..,' - ,--' ., "
. . <0 ~~ ___,""'. _ _ ''''.P''Ji''' .,,1'" I1>d ' ,'. I .' ".~ ..-- ", . ~... ' ,-.-
....... '..1' ,=_ _, __ . . .. .~; - :-. "... .'T----,;;.~"-, -'.......:'J.~ ~ ~. u"'.'" ~; ..- -~ .;.\' -- ..."." = ......' < '1....,
~', ''1'_ 11<"'.... _"" _ _ _..' ... "t-';::"" ,.,,' ~~L~ ," ~ ..' . a '-' ...." s ~ ~.. h - j ~ i 5'7r'~ .,,;: ~" ;.....
1.;~:~/=~~f:~- _ ~~"O:-!.~ ' ,'~" :0::.1.' z : ~.,~~. j co-- 00 -"
E'" . :-~, _ .. ,', ,.,. ;I\JlON ,- ...:;.;, ," ..,."
n'.~C'-"'''''''' .-".,'-'J.-"" ," · '-. - ,i _'OO(~
. -- .' ~--, -' ,- - ,,' >'
. _..:...~.. ~.~.-.+t~_4!'sc;.. ...+.J' i _~__.:J ~"~Oj-' ...,! :~
~ ~-"..r---'~ .-i...,,,~" , - "t1' - ! ,,", _..-
:I i!= . -; ';;', _ _ ~ ---=-~ !,::::J...-'P ~, ! .'" -, Y' :; ; "C,,:~=~~~ I :~'=_~--:f~''i-,~'~.. ~.' .-_<.,1 J.'_Y:~ ~ ~~.~:~
_ &1_ . ~,~. ' ." " =~., .' - C ',..' ' .' .' " -- <.
'. . _ _ wnc- ~ --:5:~ ..... t _ .. o..,,~; a; ~:: @j'
,,;-,-,,'=' . ." .--=~......,., .. "" - ~- ~', -, .-. -..-..'~
_ ~""\ilEb. . ~i',,_ ~..~~,.E.. ,.....~=ii~ ",,-'~ w OM';} ,',].,- · ---", ....~ -....~' "<'.."',,
~...- - ", ,~,,- , . . ." ..- . -- .. '-
~;_.ei' :---4 ~ii ir'l>..!?1\\\\::' ,n._, ..' "-,' '.-- · :;:rt;r~~~i'!~
'.~ '. ~_.2-:: ': ~~:."'Ji~" ! i/,},..,.. .'._~~~_'~ ,Y-;".".''': - ,-','.~."" _-,,,,".f,:~~~.__.__.~~J"~,
" ~ .'" ' - ,,- - ~. '" ,.... -" -' . -!
.. '..., _' ' ~. - .. _" ;., ,,~_' 'd.,"'" ~ ."--.. '"--
."'~ .. ,~-'~' '- .. , ,--' . ...., -." ,-,'"
,~t ~:;.- "-" ~ ~ ~ .l j....... c --..'" =.....~.
,~. ~.....IIiI(._~. : ....-.r......~' ." -" ~ . ~"-5 - ~ 8~ ~A.~'i_ -~
,u" ~ <-."k.: f _;j"'..c= .y, J/. ~ ! --.--'--':' -., .' ,- ' --
. ,,1~r ..;..~i. :;$t.~:--'~~ U~~":~ ..:3~~!.c :F:~- _"~=-'.._~_~..-.:_..:,,_-'_'.~_~~~~~-:~-:~-.' _' ._:.-:-,~,._J~_- ~.;-:-;-",_,;_.._...~----..".:,r,~~..:~,'~~
--i i 1~1 ~ ;a rl"'"1lC'" i j' ,~ ..... - . 'IT --.-r I";:::':;';" j;-'-"~ '-'"::.;';';;: , = -" 0' -
~:~~:i! 1'-.' ~'.;." i " ,"",","'~""'''''' l~,;;'''~rji:~ ".-..-c::j -.T-.......
._.. . _,.'. I.;' ,:-...;" .", : I ',' _. -- i! -g ~ ..' .<-'.' -..-'.'
~=;Jim; , "'I\j"" ,_"11,....,.,.. ';;L'\!!"<~ __,i ll";'-~' T ;~'.:~ ,~"1~ ...........
.. .'~' .... .~- . ," " ,.".. - . ---.".... ,~.
. .'.' 'i'" ,.1.' ,-,' ""',oO' - ,...,.j ~"~ - - " -' -,,- ..
~~':~.o;:.~" 'i...[";;:.:'C::'::~:' ~-; . . I .ii ~r ftll:':' ~p1 ,,!;,
:4..~~~ _ :~~~:";:~,t,. _ ~ ~ ~ ~..~_I- II;;':=~-!~ .~ ~ ~~1""~1.!:.;~-a.1
~'i~,v$,/z~ ~~_,y:~~~~,_,.t '1 ~-:--~) ~ --;~l~;N;EI~~~.':L:~~ ~ -
~~ __. ,..' .~ ,. _ .'''' 'Y"'"" - ii'" .:=
+.''''~~~' ~~ eo: .. ~~~5_i.i' J) ~ ~::: II::", '.. ,....,j, . '..~-' "..~Ki+ i~ :
\ ><.~ _" ,_ . N 1....., ~, . '('!, - '" .....',,, ~".-.. .....-
~~ ~'h~"i, . ~ '\?~. :',~:;:;;i~~.i.f{- :;~;.=f~~!I:"'~_~)-'1
~ .'\7i );.".,. <;.!~ '. ..~ ,~ ~--i"~ ~~
.~.. .",:;~~~:?~~~~:5-'8~~~i'~:;'- ~~J,~" I . ~LUl.
;-v~~u~~ ~' '"yC.- - I I~....\ N '
~~ ''''''o's~;;'i.% - ..,...~~. -':'-,\' .~"'""~~
".~....... "0. ~
:\5343
Fu: ~:m :~~:~;; SITE L.OCATION MAP
-
-
FIGURE 1
~ /.. 111
<:'\ l~~\~ r.J. illl . . ~-"\:~~
,II ~ / i\....~ ~~ ... ~-=-~~~ - I .
. :l: J\ ~ ~ ~I - -- :.'-
" ' " . ~~$ ~~~~' ~M?~\5i ,-'./ ; I ,e t *-~,o/~ ~ ,
) '" r....-; . ._, '. I - 0 ~:Bf/~ f
'., f)\~' ~. ~~-.~~~~:J '-/i . ;:J'~~; ~'::'J:;:.: ---..._~ rs :S'
~'~_ . . ~ ~-/___ -. 7/_
, ~ )~1!a~~w~r _'. t ~,' --
0'., . _ 0 "'m::i" ~~ ,: ;. i,', .,' .,o/,~;:;""'J
.. r h ~#.~. ~~ ~\~1zes 'e ~ ',', '=-.----
" , ,(j t".arK .'1 ;F" __ ~-- _~-' ~~ :!: ;~ t.,' ~,..:..: 7'" ~~J5'
" '. '- , ~~... -=*':.7r' 'I, F, ~ ;j,:,.,':... T ~\( U.C~.~~-~
In b:.~II' ,,'," II..:- ~ '. h ,.....-Slv/fr0IJ1" ' ','; '<. "ci\~, \..ill )JJfJ /o"'~/o ~'tt. \
.IV':'-~~\~':i fa: R~o~t:'~-~~li'<'~:'f;i)\!!>~ ~((LJ~ ~ \~Ja .
. ,'.j~ /'., ~_, 't: ~I\I~~ 1\ \.O~t" ~J : -.' ;< .~_-.u '\~9~'~rk::::j. ,~/<::;\ ~~3CO ,L~ ~~... ~-=
l:l ' ' l1li ~ ~~ ')L.. _~ .J., .~:~' ~M t"....';)fu: '.s- .
r~ < ' ,,'"]'A : ... -""'ll ~ ~ .. .....' iJJlp'-' ,"
I_ .~ ".~':: ~~Ji;'~ ..~ " '~~,-; "~ /'1/:'" ,v I. -,1 ,! . ..~~ 15//A~- :%<'
, _ ,".' ",'~'( ;.L\-~';:'~ ~ J Ii' ~:Y'~5:1 ~~' r [: ~ {3'~ .7L\'" ~'~b.. G --
: ' ..;, '~A:. i~~ I,," n' C\i ,. '~ ,~ .J: ~~ ~'~ 'III l ~ a k~ . 2#
_ _ ,,_~ ' . e. :7; . ..au"'- ~ i g ~~ ' j '" r '~ ll:~, ~"L
I~ ~~ <,':~',',' IJ ~ ~%~--;; 5',/",1 J;if~,~:; ~ ? ~;IIYlr~: ~\--- "~j- '~"~" :~~
I~ ' ,::~, ~ ,~. ~~~It~~ :---:~ r<at(A~' --< '~"<' ;; ,..dr~~~: a:~m.0' ,
I~';"'.s-::~, I ~!8: '11'"' fA ~ ~~ .I' r I - h ~ ~ It - f -".: " " " ,
f/cenC;r-,\\-. ,~~ .~,>>." ({3~~1 ~ ~~ " I SITE LOCATlON[k '\\. ,~>->[~c..T;:
SchOOL':1 1'-" : I;:::"h ~ c.'~' .. t a.'; iI. ' ",\, J, <; ,::-.
,_~~rk jJ ~ ..;,. ~PJ< "'f7///~' ~ 1/(. d ~' ~ t~,);'AfI9~r!J. j~ ~:yJII)( '-. .~. '. -:. ,
~. ==== l\\~,~_~~" .~. \; ,~ .,.".", .ald IT' ~~ - ;!:
~\~ 'It I~W.JQQ~b~;-,.i ofJl ~: ~"':J! f,," ~to-- \0 < ~~ ~~\I , ~~~'~~
III ~\j " . $' ~?/ ." 'J... I \ ftj , :1] \\'-., I \ ''0 '
111": H .' .- ~. f &,0 \!e:.: . I'M;} ~,.:~~ 9O<;,f' <:,~.~'~ 0':"'\) ~~= r' .).J -,. ,
I 7/1' I ') 'e "e ei'\. ',' A\! '\ '.I ;~~ ," ~;\ y ( 0"''::' . .,'
,~~ rI~~ ~ "(/\Y. ;.,. ;!- , : ': ~;-=-:; ~\J ,:'- ~ U)) ~..~ , :m8~roof~ ,I~ \ I.
II\.' c.' 0 1~~r'4 ,e . :". ': ,"o,(n ),'" ~ ~ '(YJ :.:.\ . ,,7: ~1~Z6 ~ R,tt!!el.
!=I:":; re:; ,~]I~I\.I~;[;~.;~ ~ ~~"~'l \ ~~ \+_930-\~t~ \'.i'~~ t~( ~. ~!j.j;~fi- ~f/; B
= II -... · I I i ~ _ '-- ,,--". II \", I.~L~" /.. I, 't ~.........,.J;Z
,~ ,'! ~^ t Iri-l , .,:.j . -, \-----/ --- " I ~I.- ,,"...,( [
, ~..: ~:; '.: 0 "~N" .".0:_' ;~:. ~:iif L?' . !!ill~ ,~:,.:.~.~ "': ,~. i,J. ~ - 'j, ~
__. ,. /;)1- II ~~ ~J "0' 1"'\' ~~ =',--,~.~',',""'-;'''' ':>':...";"'; \ "'-, I r-.
....I-.~ ~f// ,&"~~ ..,0/ ':..i <:,''''':'';;:?''''H'';<~ ~,. R) I '( ',' ~
i":;;:', '1\..-.-. ~ -. II---=- -, . ,!...\..~,. ::::!: '" .'.~~'. :~~;._,.-~,~:!~\)~,: \ " i -'park ~L ~.., ,~
1/" 'J{i -"'" Q1:-::J B,.V/ 'I'.'.'. l~oJ w \!;. .''';-7c","" " .\.. f~ -' '.'
~ ~.v<.::J1 r8~ ., 'fui~f., ~:;;o-.' ". ,.~"F."~ D1 K~. . '.
i"J ':)0 ~ j!:' ;~'1#/~ ~ " " \~~~~~ '''''" ,.., 'eI .~<' .
I/:\~ j~ ~N:~ '1 .0 . "<;7" .>,~'~ S
~' lc\~ 0 J o,<?Z .. . ',' I .~ Y \::J "'~~;-[I.;~;~~~!~:I~~~ ~ ~.~~: :
: ~ );,; .... ",'to r:o:1 . r ~A : ,'" , '0" \ ~ . ~",- ~
;~ _, :x: '( ~~.'II ." C Q:- ~l".''!f' .:,,;',..:,",.., Q .. IY\.... '.,'
I ~ [;.J \ ~ r s r :;' ~\ " .:' ,', ~;/~ .'".... .', ~ , .
""'" _ _, "" 'r..;:::: -~; , 'J~\'I'=';?,~, \ ,~~.:"., .:.,,' ~, .",
I~ .' 0, " . . ' ~.~ t? """ . ''::. .. . .. ,d'ld I~ ~1 :;~B'
"" a Lj " ( ::p:/ It' ~ ~;,:~;.:
r ~ - 'l - II 11'" '" ,;~:
I cO /) . . ~:.' :,:..~: ,-11': . " - '"1t1....,~ ..
,If ..". " ,'- ,...;~ a,; ~ ol1"W' mir
I 9 d ;-"., ;.,. ,::, ",,:-; '.'.. 0 ".'.% }.
_ _ _, _____ ":~'. - :. .T\"dC/.... .~( . I ; 1f,.:;".. .. ~
I -=- '.- " ,. ~}~:,,~', ~",^" I;. · -
I_ ll;~ . _ 0 0 ", ; "''', ".""'";to. 0 liG:~ u' i/~' ~.'
t~ :~ 0) 'iJ1~. .fu1 i.~' .' s~
,. . 1 N I a;~~:.,NJW~:" '~B""'" N. ~.
~ ." ,~f ,"
, '\ 6110 Blue CIrcle Dr.
~ Suite '100
W1nn~tonk.. Jln.
:i5:U3
(612) $33-0972
Faz: (612) tt33-1153
~
U.S.G.S. MAP
FIGURE 2
HH m ~
iiH H~ ~
i 1:1,
c
c
,...
I
.-
,
(~pi
~
~
c
~
~
C\$
.~
~
(])
< c::
.....
C
C/
(!,;
< s::
s::
.-
N ~
(]) (!,;
~ -
-
5b .:;
(1)
v.
.~ C
~ (Y.
. Ii I\~;:;~ ~,:;~:",,+) I
~ u, <\.....<j\>: \\:","1<<>\)
i ,,";,' 'CO/, ., "
I !l;\(:'10~'W' ~'! .
~ ~i i l " j, ji~:,r"w,1:i ~
i "" ' " , . ·
\ ! ,~:,' ~ )' h:, ,I .I!~!
~h~1 i i ~+l;:)~ \.)"" '!i~~" ~i ~"8~=
~~ .. ' .r-. ~,~f > ~" I
~:'~ !~I}">-"" "t,j' 'i
; !\ t ,', '- " ',j' :i . '
"j ^'.,/>,',;/ f j." ': ~
'! ~" '.," / /f j ". ~ , ' ~
~'i 'N"/>"~'~<' ,.{/ ~'>>.~, 'f ! ~ ~~i
~i 'L,::~:C,:/Y.AV' ~<:;~ft'" f I J~~~;
;: ,,,,,,~,,~ (' "?8" ,":~~""--?:)" ;'
,/F p.-4 ','8' ,,"-'M':>!'
;'~ M~~ "_~~' ~/.'/'l"'" .-
J ~ ,. ' ..... '< .~X.... -"},
!,! " c,: ,\. /) ~~,,0 ,:/l
i ! 1 ! ,,",;,?"''''-.....,,;/
III I" ~1{ -O;J
"I, .,'J /'
I ~.,i<:~/
~
~
~a
~~~ ~
~~~~ u
~~~~~
s;;:~~
t~~
K~
~
(' ~
~ ~~;
~m
M
W
Ir:
::I
"
u:
i
I~
.-1
II ~
1!J~~i
~"'2t1.
~~~~
"
~
~
;:!;
~ ~ ~
,'i" iL~
~1",': I~~~i
,,' ~...
,,' . ,-
::: .:Q::;
~
J." "':
~ n :iJ j
!I!! i ~[,~t~l tr--'
~ f~'\.. \:~
j j \~\~~\2:~\ '\~~i~,
~ ! k "\.~? >/0.. "\"
~ I : -\-, ", ,,<>:::( ,,-. \~t
~ 'I ~ /<, ," "
~ i y ~ ">#';f'~ ,) \\
~ i ,j // ~:'''' \:-. '! "
~ . ", A ,," I' ,~I
I i ,1 ~< r' q ~", ~j'~:;_
~ ~I~~ caiC! !i~!:;
~ > : I, \:~r,
~ e I' .' : ' :' ~"
~ ~ ' : ~, 1'",,\... "I, J\
. I .....", ""0;;... /' " ~
~~! : ';"- '<:<"\", ), ~ ; ,1, , I
il~~; !'!\ ~/^>~:;~;f:l,\~tl\\:,'u","/
L ", / "-"'...,f ;7 f'..' ..,- ,
i ,i ~:^v~:;:~~>;!!~~::\,~, ,'! / /
r I"" y ,> /~ <<rt......
~;.~;.~~~~I
~: : I : ......,~ /. ~ '.....v-
ii: l.:~Y{r?)
Ii! i tAI/
Il~:::.o/
i
o~
~H
~" ~
~~LI
g~~~'
~zE~3
,ll rn~
1,' m
.1 lfJ
~~I
di
W~
UOI
~
~
I
.. e
. ~
~p
nii~
e
(d
~ ~~~
~ .a!;
J
'!
h
HI
't.
"J
I!,
n.
f1J
~Ii
Ilil W. !
'I~I
i
I
(~i
e
~
g~~~~
~lJ.g:;s
--.J
~
W
0::
-:J
C)
iL
i
I~
J
I!
2J!J!
I~~
~' C lO
I. ~
'I' W
a.. a:
:J
I" L.. ~
Q) u.
~
en
<<S
~
Q)
~
.-
(f)
:;, I;
"-4 i
i !
1 .
-
/~
'.~
'. ,r-'\
.~'~)
.:~~:
[
C
34
<I(
I-
o
· i z
<I(
~~
.Ie:
. > w
. w....
_en en
~~ a? ~
~
a:
~
en
en
w
z
-
en
:::>.
m~
cri
w~
J-~
z~
-UJ
08
a.fE
w~
a:>:
I-~
z~
wg
o~
z
<
....I
a..
w
t-
-
(/)
10
co
m
,...
u
c
-
t$
G)
...
co
'8
~
~
~
c
E
.&:.
U
~
~
I
C
o
1:
~ II
~~
~
a:
<
Q.
en
en
w
z
en
~
m
w
f-
Z
~
w
a:
) ;:)
li'/ r:: 0
. I ~ u:
.
.
,
~~. . is:il
h~ .E
i.~'
~~~
~ ~ 00 I
~ ~a
t :
....
i~
.
i
I
!
,
I
t
i
If
SITE LOCATION
~
,
"14 \0>'
('\
:>
I
Jo4I~NEAPOLlS _
4!!. .
x
: ~
SAINT ANTHONY
. .;:, .J"
,;..........._CO..::Ji_
'..I......W.<.C.o,. u.
....
~
?i
...::.. . t et,
.
I
r~
~,
"'y 1.15"'"
~/
i;~c:-_ .
I
.
i
.~
.:..... .....:........
~.~
(.(
,"
~
))
~
Z '...
3:).$
Z., i
Z .
(I1
)>
"0
0/
~~/. t:
C, (fJ
~,
J".... .
~o Z
-1-, "~
JJ
FALCON
HEIGHTS
...........'.WJW
L
~
-......\:,..,....,
....:......:..,
"
r---'-.'
~
~
~
6110 Blue Circle Dr,
Suit.<: 1100
Winnelonka. No.
5!>343
(612) 1133-0972
Fe..z: (612) 933-1153
D.N.R. PROTECTED WATERS MAP
FIGURE 6
Soil Legend:
161- Urban Land
863- Urban Land-Lino complex,O to 3% slopes
859B- Urban Land- Zimmerman Complex, 1 to 8% slopes
1039- Urban Land
~
~a
"-../
6110 Rlue Circle Dr.
Suile #100
WinnelonJc... ),(D.
55343
(612) 933-ogn
FA"': (612) 1133-1153
SOIL MAP
FIGURE 7
-'
.:; .r ',-.
The Citv of
~
Minnesola
Revised and approved by City Council,
June 26, 2001
Mi-ip refl;:!;1S 5LJl1SI':~lI'~f\1 Ct')uncll-appr(jJe1j C()ffipren~(\~, it: 1'1(1/1
chilngf!S II}( III.: p.-:r...,\1Irom January 1. 2001 1Iuo1,l911
.June 30 :JO~J1 r~.;j.~f 10 mv~r5~ 01 map 1m ,j("~\(llls r~I<lIH"~
1') Itl!: (If'~;j<;' "I ,> )ll1pf.:II';!\'~'V~ PicHI (j;~"'~jn-1II' ,n~
;J: ~ ~ ;)rt 1'::-:1 t)'l"
....: ;1"1)'1:111",' :J,~'....:I/)I)rl~:r1t 0":11.;11\1118'1;
:)',r.~.<iJjb ;? .:'I;-!1
c;.-;~ CI1".' ,'.(;tUefl";':fI';IV'J Pf,lJ) (Of f~...f fI:/;j!1fI9 '1", !~'./I',j()ns
.....-... ~ .
'""'.. .
, '~..
.....
"
0,
W'&~i~~j!{d~cJI
tf ,,--,,'. --I, -, , ___L
iI0~f~!;_:~~~~~
~J ,_,_~ ,J:,.., ,__ --"--
,_J L.L.J ._..L_., _.~_..J~'; L.
f r~::Sj1,y-:-i-T ""'.
'-'
..
Ir~~~
-
-
D
-
-
-
~,-"
~
;-=--~I
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Designations
B-Business [_....J LB-limiled Business
BP-Business Park c===-~ LR-Low Density Resider
C-Civic 0 MR-Medium Densily Re:
CEM-Cemetery III P-Park
CH-Church Right of Way
GC-Golf Course _ Railroad Tracks
HR-High Density Residential ~ S-School
I-Industrial .. SC-Shopping Center
IN-Institutional :_....'-::-J W-Water Ponding
Lake
-F16tURt:
TPEG image 1500x963 pixels
nnp:/IWWW ."'UU~VU1".WJL""'nuUf W"P'" LAIIIW!5' .<.VUU'O.Jt'5
Th~kit):_~ ~ -"-,'_
R
Zot><nq M:ap ...tn.bed ahd :apptoWd by
City Council. June 26,2001
Mill t._<:~ "".;'QY~ _pp~.' ..,..... _un ~r
klll'n<>G 1Iom........1I)' 1, 2DIIt ".,..n Jure :JJ.:mD1.
~.r l"mll IS' "fm.. 'Cr.. &!ll1I mil"'. b I/'I! Itta. "".
aMillgo..ifI"lItioll$
I ,';:0i:.,I81.llmolted 8usmeu .'UO.PIa",,.ed Un
I~BI9.~I'.6ReQa DRI.S..,,1e family
._92.Reu~ Business Om. Two Family
_83-Generlll Business ~R3.Gue"l ReJi.
_.4. Reull Oflloe Slt\llcI _RJA-ThteHO rw
_96- Office $'311< _R4. Threund Fa
City Zoning Map
lof2
10/3/01 9:44 AM
'fl6tu~f: ,
tl
Ix
t
I
If ~
I~.~I
"g.
~.
~
~
D~:I
h;~
~
;~~~~
----1 IL
~
~~l
id~
"
~
!..;~
D:t.~!
S ql~~
I
r
o <M)Ij A.IH1OO
I
i
~
i
i
""
..
..
'"
~ ...
.5 ~ =
~ ~ ~.....
:! Qj
" -
.. ~
:. 0
~ ::q,
.... ~ ~
~ ~~
U ..
~
o
u
,~ =
~ i~"
3 ;~ij
~ !"S
2 Hf
~ iJ-
. .
~ -
';; za
~p
,~ :'t'~
o "'....
~ i ~
.. -,
~ .
"
~~h~
1111 ~fi
...- "
~ -
co
8
N
'"
~
1J
>
e
~
g
0:
:J
u;
~
u
~
~'
~
"
""
~
~
~ ,5
B :g
,~ ~
2 'S
8: ""
-=- ~
~ ~
:0 I
t ~
j j
ATTACHMENT A
Air Quality (CO) Monitoring Results
U~/U4/Ul 11:54 FAX 763 559 2202
1
ERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
BA LIESCH
Clv cout
_,___'4J_002/0 11
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - V
PAGE 1
JOB: CENTRE POINTE (ROSEVILLE, MN)
CLEVELAND & COUNTY C INTERSECTION
DATE: 01/04/01 TIME: 10:19
s
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS ::
U ::
MIXH ==
0.0 CM/S
1.0 M/S
1000. M
VD == 0.0 CM/S
CLAS = 4 (D)
0.0 PPM
AMB
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
*
LINK DESCRIPTION
LENGTH BRG TYPE
VPH
*
(FT) (DEG)
zo ==
ATIM
RUN
175. CM
60. MINUTE
*
EF
Xl
(G/MI)
LINK COORDINATES (FT)
H W V/C QUEUE
Yl X2
(FT) (FT) (VEH)
*
Y2
------------------------*------------------------------------
----*----------------------------------------------------------
6.0 *
6.0 *
2.0 *
0.0 *
6.0 *
4.0 *
4.0 *
9.0 *
0.0 *
4.0 *
6.0 *
5.4 *
3.0 *
1. COUNTY
1000.
2. COUNTY
47.
3. COUNTY
33.
4. COUNTY
12.
5. COUNTY
850.
6. COUNTY
1000.
7. COUNTY
76.
8. COUNTY
37.
9. COUNTY
72.
10. COUNTY
850.
11. Clvlnd
2077.
12. Clvlnd
119.
13. Clvlnd
19.
C WB Appr. *
90. AG 633.
C WB Queue *
90. AG 779.
C WB Q.R *
90. AG 390.
C WE Q.L *
90. AG 390.
C WB Dep. *
270. AG 633.
C EB Appr. *
270. AG 1197.
C EB Queue *
270. AG 779.
C EB Q.R *
270. AG 390.
C EE Q.L *
270. AG 390.
C EB Dep. *
90. AG 1197.
NB Appr. *
295. AG 751.
NB Queue *
295. AG 390.
NB Q.R *
295. AG 390.
1015.0
12.0
1015.0
100.0
1015.0
100.0
1015.0
100.0
865.0
12.0
965.0
12.0
965.0
100.0
965.0
100.0
965.0
100.0
1115.0
12.0
1006.0
12.0
1006.0
100.0
1012.0
100.0
Page 1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
166.0
48.0
166.0 1061.8
24.0 0.15 2.4
172.0 1048.0
12.0 0.20 1.7
160.0 1026.8
12.0 0.07 0.6
166.0 15.0
48.0
134.0
48.0
134.0 888.7
24.0 0.24 3.9
129.0 928.3
12.0 0.22 1.9
140.0 892.6
12.0 0.44 3.7
134.0 1965.0
48.0
125.0
48.0
125.0
12.0 0.37
125.0
12.0 0.11
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2015.0
-35.0
-875.0
898.4
6.0
995.0
1.0
16
16
17
16
16
13
13
12
14
13
100
17
13
U1/04/01 11:55 FAX 763 559 2202
0.6 *
5.0 *
5.0 *
5.0 *
6.2 *
3.7 *
7.3 *
4.0 *
1
14. Clvlnd
13.
15. Clvlnd
1000.
16. Clvlnd
1000.
17. Clvlnd
1000.
18. Clvlnd
6l.
19. Clvlnd
9.
20. Clvlnd
62.
21. Clvlnd
2168.
NB Q.L
295. AG
NB Dep.
360. AG
SB Appr.
360. AG
SB Appr.
360. AG
SB Queue
3 6 O. AG
SB Q.R
360. AG
SB Q.L
360. AG
SB Dep.
296. AG
779.
751.
*
565.
*
565.
*
390.
*
390.
*
390.
5651.
BA LIESCH
Clv cout
*
1000.0
100.0
1006.0
12.0
974.0
12.0
974.0
12.0
974.0
100.0
968.0
100.0
980.0
100.0
974.0
2.0
0.0
125.0 987.9
24.0 0.08 0.7
275.0 1006.0
48.0
175.0 974.0
60.0
175.0 974.0
60.0
175.0 974.0
12.0 0.19 3.1
175.0 968.0
12.0 0.05 0.4
175.0 980.0
12.0 0.38 3.2
25.0 -975.0
60.0
..~9~_~
13
127
117
117
23
18
23
97
PAGE 2
JOB: CENTRE POINTE (ROSEVILLE, MN) RUN
CLEVELAND & COUNTY C INTERSECTION
DATE: 01/04/01 TIME: 10:19
OACH
L
0.0
*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
*
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
--------------------------------
LINK DESCRIPTION
SATURATION IDLE
FLOW RATE
EM FAC
SIGNAL
TYPE
*
CYCLE
ARRIVAL
LENGTH
RATE
(SEC)
*
*
RED
CLEARANCE
APPR
VO
H} (VPH) (gm/hr)
------------------------*------------------------------------
(VP
--------------------------------------------
8
1
4
8
8
1
3
2. COUNTY
3401
3. COUNTY
1770
4. COUNTY
1770
7. COUNTY
3437
8. COUNTY
1770
9. COUNTY
1770
12. Clvlnd
3465
13. Clvlnd
C WB Queue
290.60
C WB Q.R
290.60
C WB Q.L
290.60
C EB Queue
290.60
C EB Q.R
290.60
C EB Q.L
290.60
NB Queue
290.60
NB Q.R
2
2
2
2
*
80
3
80
3
80
3
80
3
80
3
80
3
80
3
80
*
*
*
2
*
*
2
*
2
*
Page 2
TIME
LOST TIME
(SEC)
( SEC)
40
4.0
40
4.0
40
4.0
40
4.0
40
4.0
40
4.0
40
4.0
40
4.0
42
15
5
69
16
33
54
8
V.L/V'I/U.l
11:55
~AX 763 559 2202
BA LIESCH
"--"'--
u 141 004/0~L___
Clv cout
6 1770 290.60 2 3
14. Clvlnd NB Q.L * 80 40 4.0 12
2 1770 290.60 2 3
18. Clvlnd SB Queue * 80 40 4.0 28
0 3539 290.60 2 3
19. Clvlnd SB Q.R * 80 40 4.0 4
0 1770 290.60 2 3
20. Clvlnd SB Q.L * 80 40 4.0 28
5 1770 290.60 2 3
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (FT)
*
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
*
-------------------------*------------------------------------
-*
1. REC 1 (SW) * 500.0 2075.0 6.0
*
2 . REC 2 (W) * 425.0 3010.0 6.0
*
3. REC 3 (W) * 445.0 3980.0 6.0
*
4. REC 4 (W) * 435.0 4335.0 6.0
*
5. REC 5 (NE) * 1080.0 5530.0 6.0
*
6. REC 6 (NE) * 1060.0 4665.0 6.0
*
7. REC 7 (BE) * 1070.0 1700.0 6.0
*
1
PAGE 3
JOB: CENTRE POINTE (ROBEVILLE, MN) RUN
CLEVELAND & COUNTY C INTERSECTION
MODEL RESULTS
--------.....----
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE:
0.-360.
Page 3
UL/Uq/U~ ~~:~~ ~AA 763 559 2202
BA LIESCH
.-...-.--"
I4J 005/011
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR) * RECl REC2 REC3 REC4 REC5 REC6 REC7
------* ------------------------------------------
o . * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
20. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
30. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
40. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SO. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
60. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
70. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
80. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
90. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
100. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
110. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
120. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
130. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
140. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
150. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
160. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
170. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
180. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
190. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
200. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
210. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
220. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
230. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
240. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
250. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
260. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
270. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
280. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
290. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
300. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
310. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
320. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
330. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
340. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
350. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
360. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
------*------------------------------------------
MAX * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
DEGR. * 0 0 0 0 0 0 180
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 0.10 PPM AT 180 DEGREES FROM REC7
1
Clv cout
Page 4
UI/U4/01 11:56 FAX 763 559 2202
BA LIESCH
Clv cout
--..
I4J 006/011
PAGE 4
JOB: CENTRE PO.INTE (ROSEVILLE, MN) RUN
CLEVELAND & COUNTY C INTERSECTION
DATE: 01/04/01 TIME: 10:19
RECEPTOR - LINK MATRIX FOR THE ANGLE PRODUCING
THE MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION FOR EACH RECEPTOR
* CO/LINK (PPM)
* ANGLE (DEGREES)
* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 RECS REC6 REC7
LINK # * 0 0 0 0 0 0 180
-------*------------------------------------------
1 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
7 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
8 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
9 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
11 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
12 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
13 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
14 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
15 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
16 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
17 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
18 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
19 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
20 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
21 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Page 5
uv Ulfl U~ 11::'0 FAX 763 559 2202
BA LIESCH
~~/Oll __
Clv dout
1
ERSION 2.01 JANUARY 1992
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - V
PAGE 1
JOB: CENTRE POINTE (ROSEVILLE, MN)
CLEVELAND & COUNTY D INTERSECTION
DATE: 01/04/01 TIME: 10:52
RUN
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS =
U =
MIXH =
0.0 CM/S
1. 0 M/S
1000. M
VD = 0.0 CM/S
CLAS = 4 (D)
0.0 PPM
ZO
ATIM =
175. CM
60. MINUTE
S
AMB
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
*
LINK DESCRIPTION
LENGTH BRG TYPE
*
VPH
*
EF
Xl
(G/MI)
LINK COORDINATES (FT)
H W V/C QUEUE
Y1 X2
(FT) (FT) (VEH)
Y2
*
(FT) (DEG)
------------------------*------------------------------------
----*----------------------------------------------------------
1. COUNTY DWB Appr. * 1050.0 5656.0 2050.0 565
6.0 * 1000. 90. AG 459. 12.0 0.0 48.0
2. COUNTY D WB Appr. * 1050.0 5656.0 2050.0 565
6.0 * 1000. 90. AG 459. 12.0 0.0 48.0
3. COUNTY D WB Queue * 1050.0 5656.0 1090.7 565
6.0 * 41. 90. AG 779. 100.0 0.0 24.0 0.18 2.1
4 . COUNTY D WB Q.R * 1050.0 5662.0 1057.0 566
2.0 * 7. 90. AG 390. 100.0 0.0 12.0 0.03 0.4
5. COUNTY D WB Q.L * 1050.0 5650.0 1061.8 565
0.0 * 12. 90. AG 390. 100.0 0.0 12.0 0.05 0.6
6. COUNTY D WB Dep. * 900.0 5656.0 -100.0 565
6.0 * 1000. 270. AG 459. 12.0 0.0 48.0
7. COUNTY D EB Appr. * 1000.0 5624.0 0.0 562
4.0 * 1000. 270. AG 781. 12.0 0.0 48.0
8. COUNTY D EB Appr. * 1000.0 5624.0 0.0 562
4.0 * 1000. 270. AG 781. 12.0 0.0 48.0
9. COUNTY D EB Queue * 1000.0 5624.0 959.5 562
4.0 * 40. 270. AG 779. 100.0 0.0 24.0 0.19 2.1
10. COUNTY D EB Q.R' * 1000.0 5618.0 939.9 561
8.0 * 60. 270. AG 390. 100.0 0.0 12.0 0.28 3.1
II. COUNTY D EB Q.L * 1000.0 5630.0 970.3 563
0.0 * 30. 270. AG 390. 100.0 0.0 12.0 0.14 1.5
12. COUNTY D EB Dep. * 1150.0 5624.0 2150.0 562
4.,0 * 1000. 90. AG 781- 12.0 0.0 48.0
13. Clvlnd NB Appr. * 1041.0 5615.0 1041.0 461
5.0 * 1000. 180. AG 1077. 12.0 0.0 48.0
Page 1
Ul/U4/Ul 11:56 FAX 763 559 2202
BA LIESCH
Clv dout
!4J 008/011
14. Clvlnd NB Queue * 1041.0 5615.0 1041.0 559
5.5 * 19. 1BO. AG 779. 100.0 0.0 24.0 0.12 1.0
15. Clvlnd NB Q.R * 1047.0 5615.0 1047.0 557
2.6 * 42. 180. AG 390. 100.0 0.0 12.0 0.27 2.2
16. Clvlnd NB Q.L * 1035.0 5615.0 1035.0 283
4.6 * 2780. 180. AG 390. 100.0 0.0 12.0 1.56 141. 2
17. Clvlnd NB Dep. * 1041.0 5765.0 1041.0 676
5.0 * 1000. 360. AG 1077. 12.0 0.0 48.0
18. Clvlnd BB Appr. * 1009.0 5665.0 1009.0 666
5.0 * 1000. 360. AG 125. 12.0 0.0 60.0
19. Clvlnd BB Appr. * 1009.0 5665.0 1009.0 666
5.0 * 1000. 360. AG 125. 12.0 0.0 60.0
20. Clvlnd SB Queue * 1009.0 5665.0 1009.0 566
8.7 * 4. 360. AG 779. 100.0 0.0 24.0 0.01 0.2
21. Clvlnd SB Q.R * 1003.0 5665.0 1003.0 568
0.3 * 15. 360. AG 390. 100.0 0.0 12.0 0.06 0.8
22. Clvlnd SB Q.L * 1015.0 5665.0 1015.0 566
9.4 * 4. 360. AG 390. 100.0 0.0 12.0 0.02 0.2
23. Clvlnd SB Dep. * 1009.0 5515.0 1009.0 451
5.0 * 1000. 180. AG 125. 12.0 0.0 60.0
1
PAGE 2
JOB: CENTRE POINTE (ROSEVILLE, MN) RUN
CLEVELAND & COUNTY D INTERSECTION
DATE: 01/04/01 TIME: 10:52
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
--------------------------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * CYCLE RED CLEARANCE APPR
OACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL
* LENGTH TIME LOST TIME VO
L FLOW RATE EM FAC' TYPE RATE
* (SEC) ( S EC) (SEC) (VP
H) (VPH) (gm/hr)
------------------------*------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
3 . COUNTY D WB Queue * 80 40 4.0 37
3 2426 290.60 2 3
4. COUNTY D WB Q.R * 80 40 4.0 3
2 2426 290.60 2 3
5. COUNTY D WB Q.L * 80 40 4.0 5
4 2426 290.60 2 3
9. COUNTY D EB Queue * 80 40 4.0 37
0 2319 290.60 2 3
10. COUNTY D EB Q.R * 80 40 4.0 27
5 2319 290.60 2 3
II. COUNTY D EB Q.L * 80 40 4.0 13
Page 2
UL/U4/U1 11:57 FAX 763 559 2202
BA LIESCH
I4J 009/011
Clv dout
6 2319 290.60 2 3
14. Clvlnd NB Queue * 80 40 4.0 17
9 1717 290.60 2 3
15. Clvlnd NB Q.R * 80 40 4.0 19
4 1717 290.60 2 3
16. Clvlnd NB Q.L * 80 40 4.0 70
4 1060 290.60 2 3
20. Clvlnd SB Queue * 80 40 4.0 3
5 2827 290.60 2 3
21. Clvlnd SB Q.R * 80 40 4.0 7
0 2827 290.60 2 3
22. Clvlnd SB Q.L * 80 40 4.0 2
0 2827 290.60 2 3
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (FT)
*
RECEPTOR * X y Z
*
-------------------------*------------------------------------
-*
1. REC 1 (SW) * 500.0 . 2075.0 6.0
*
2 . REC 2 (W) * 425.0 3010.0 6.0
*
3. REC 3 (W) * 445.0 3980.0 6.0
*
4 . REC 4 (W) * 435.0 4335.0 6.0
*
5. REC 5 (NE) * 1080.0 5530.0 6.0
*
6. REC 6 (NE) * 1060.0 4665.0 6.0
*
7. REC 7 (SE) * 1070.0 1700.0 6.0
*
1
PAGE 3
JOB: CENTRE POINTE (ROSEVILLE, MN) RUN
CLEVELAND & COUNTY D INTERSECTION
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
Page 3
...,..&.., u-., V.I..
~~.ul r^A {bJ ~~~ ZZUl
BA LIESCH
Clv dout
'-'.-.-.-
I4J 010/011
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 REC5 REC6 REC7
------*------------------------------------------
o . * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.7 0.2
10. * 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.1
20. * 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0
30. * 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0
40. * 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0
50. * 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0
60. * 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0
70. * 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0
80. * 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0
90. * 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
100. * 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
110. * 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
120. * 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
130. * 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0
140. * 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0
150. * 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0
160. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0
170. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.0
180. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.3 0.0
190. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.7 0.0
200. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.6 0.0
210. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.5 0.0
220. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.4 0.0
230. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.3 0.0
240. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.2 0.0
250. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.2 0.0
260. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.2 0.0
270. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.2 0.0
280. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.2 0.0
290. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.2 0.0
300. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.2 0.0
310. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.4 0.0
320. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.5 0.0
330. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.7 0.0
340. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.9 0.0
350. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.0 0.1
360. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.7 0.2
------*------------------------------------------
MAX * 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 2.1 2.0 0.2
DEGR. * 20 10 20 40 310 350 0
Page 4
v~/Uq/U~ ~1:57 PAX 763 559 2202
BA LIESCH
~ Oll/Qll
Clv dout
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.10 PPM AT 310 DEGREES FROM REC5
1
PAGE 4
JOB: CENTRE POINTE (ROSEVILLE, MN) RUN
CLEVELAND & COUNTY D INTERSECTION
DATE: 01/04/01 TIME: 10:52
RECEPTOR - LINK MATRIX FOR THE ANGLE PRODUCING
THE MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION FOR EACH RECEPTOR
* CO/LINK ( PPM)
* ANGLE (DEGREES)
* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 REC5 REC6 REC7
LINK # * 20 10 20 40 310 350 0
-------*------------------------------------------
1 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
7 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
8 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
9 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
10 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
11 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
12 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
13 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.0
14 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
15 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
16 * 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 1.2 0.2
17 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
18 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
19 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
20 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
21 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
22 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
23 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Page 5
ATTACHMENT B
Noise Model Runs and Monitoring Results
UlfU4/Ul
10:56 FAX i63 559 2202
BA LIESCH
Cleveland and D
Morning
LIO "" 74.25 at Receptor 5
LSO ;; 64.40 at Receptor 5
Evening
LlO = 69_2 at Receptor 5
LSO = 60.0 at Receptor 5
Cleveland and C
Morning
LIO =-71.3 at Receptor 7
LSO = 64.9 at Receptor 7
Evening
LlO = 71.9 at Receptor 7
L5D = 62.4 at Receptor 7
[4J 002/006
t'\o~.,k\f\.-~ ~s~lb
U1/04/01 10:56 FAX 763 559 2202
BA LIESCH
!41 003/006
04 d out
1 . STAMINA 2.0/BCR
FHWA VERSION (MARCH 1982)
TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
DEVELOPED UNDER CONTRACT BY BBN
(INPUT UNITS- ENGLISH , OUTPUT UNITS- ENGLISH )
MODIFIED BY THE MINNESOTA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
FOR OPERATION ON A MS-DOS PERSONAL COMPUTER, 1985
CLEVELAND AVENUE/COUNTY ROAD D W/DEVELOPMENT - WEEKDAY PEAK, 2004
OPROGRAM INITIALIZATION PARAMETERS
HEIGHT
.00
1. 00
.00
8.00
2.30
CODE
1
2
3
4
5
DESCRIPTION
RECEIVER HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT
A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL ONLY
HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT FOR PASSENGER CARS
HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT FOR HEAVY TRUCKS
HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT FOR MEDIUM TRUCKS
( CARS)
(HT)
(MT)
o ROADWAY 1 ROADWAY PARAMETERS FOR CLEVELAND AVE (N/S), 97.8%V
, 1.4%MT, 0.8%HT
CLEVELAN
CLEVELAN'
VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES/HOUR SPEED
CARS 1176. 40.
HT 9. 40.
MT 1 7 . 40 .
------------COORDINATES-------------
X Y Z
990.0 .0 .0
990.0 5900.0 .0
GRADE
o
o
o
o ROADWAY
2
ROADWAY PARAMETERS FOR COUNTY HIGHWAY D (E/W)
o
VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES/HOUR SPEED
CARS 1212. 40.
HT 10. 40.
MT 17. 40.
------------COORDINATES-------------
X Y Z GRADE
Page 1
01/04/01 10:57 FAX 763 559 2202
BA LIESCH
04 d out
I4J 004/00~
COUNTY H
.cOUNTY H
lRECE:lVERS
.0
1.200.0
5640.0
5640.0
. 0
.0
o
o
o
------------COORDINATES-------------
R-I
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
R-6
R-7
1 ALPHA
x y
500.0 2075.0
425.0 3010.0
445.0 3980.0
435.0 4335.0
1080.0 5530.0
1060.0 4665.0
1070.0 1700.0
FACTORS - ROADWAY ACROSS, RECEIVER DOWN
z
. 0
.0
. 0
.0
.0
.0
.0
1 * .0 .0
2 * .0 .0
3 * .0 .0
4 * .0 .0
5. .0 .0
6 * .0 .0
7 * .0 .0
1 SHIELDING FACTORS - ROADWAY ACROSS, RECEIVER DOWN
1 * .0
2 * .0
3 * .0
4 * .0
5 * .0
6 * .0
7 * .0
lCLEVELAND
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVENUE/COUNTY ROAD D W/DEVELOPMENT - WEEKDAY PEAK, 2004
ORECElVER LEQ (H) SIG LI0 L50 L90
R-l 56.7 2.8 59.4 55.8 52.1
R-2 56.1 2.7 58.7 55.3 51.8
R-3 56.4 2.6 59.0 55.6 52.2
R-4 56.4 2.6 59.0 55.6 52.3
R-5 66.6 4.2 70.0 64.6 59.3
R-6 65.8 5.1 69.4 62.8 56.2
R-7 65.2 5.0 68.7 62.3 55.9
Page 2
01/04/01 10:57 FAX 763 559 2202
BA LIESCH
III 005/006
04_C_OUt
1
STAMINA 2.0/BCR
FHWA VERSION (MARCH 1982)
TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
DEVELOPED UNDER CONTRACT BY BBN
(INPUT UNITS- ENGLISH , OUTPUT UNITS- ENGLISH )
MODIFIED BY THE MINNESOTA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
FOR OPERATION ON A MS-DOS PERSONAL COMPUTER, 1985
CLEVELAND AVENUE/COUNTY ROAD C W/DEVELOPMENT - WEEKDAY PEAK, 2004
OPROGRAM INITIALIZATION PARAMETERS
HEIGHT
.00
1.00
.00
8.00
2.30
CODE
1
2
3
4
5
DESCRIPTION
RECEIVER HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT
A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL ONLY
HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT FOR PASSENGER CARS
HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT FOR HEAVY TRUCKS
HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT FOR MEDIUM TRUCKS
(CARS)
(HT)
(MT)
o ROADWAY 1 ROADWAY PARAMETERS FOR CLEVELAND AVE (N/S) 1 97. 8%V
1 1.4%MT, 0.8%HT
CLEVELAN
CLEVE1J.\N'
VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES/HOUR SPEED
CARS 1612. 40.
HT 13. 40.
MT 23. 40.
------------COORDINATES-------------
X Y Z
990.0 .0 .0
990.0 5900.0 .0
GRADE
o
o
o
o ROADWAY
2
ROADWAY PARAMETERS FOR COUNTY HIGHWAY C (EjW)
o
VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES/HOUR SPEED
CARS 1780. 40.
HT 15. 40.
MT 25. 40.
------------COORDINATBS-------------
X Y Z GRADE
Page 1
U1/U4/Ul 10:57 FAX 763 559 2202
BA LIESCH
@006/006
04 C out
COUNTY H
COUNTY H
lRECEIVERS
. 0
1200.0
150.0
150.0
.0
.0
o
o
o
------------COORDINATES-------~-----
X y Z
500.0 2075.0 .0
425.0 3010.0 .0
445.0 3980.0 .0
435.0 4335.0 .0
1080.0 5530.0 .0
1060.0 4665.0 .0
1070.0 1700.0 .0
FACTORS - ROADWAY ACROSS, RECEIVER DOWN
R-l
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
R-6
R-7
1 ALPHA
1 * .0 .0
2 * .0 .0
3 * .0 .0
4 * .0 .0
5 * .0 .0
6 * .0 .0
7 * .0 .0
1 SHIELDING FACTORS - ROADWAY ACROSS, RECEIVER DOWN
1 * .0
2 * .0
3 * .0
4 * .0
S * .0
6 * .0
7 * .0
1CLEVELAND
.0
. 0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVENUE/COUNTY ROAD C W/DEVELOPMENT - WEEKDAY PEAK, 2004
ORECEIVER LEQ (H) SIG LI0 LSO L90
R-l 58.3 2.4 60.7 57.6 54.5
R-2 57.5 2.3 59.8 56.8 53.8
R-3 57.5 2.4 59.9 56.8 53.7
R-4 57.3 2.5 59.8 56.6 53.5
R-5 65.8 4.6 69.2 63.4 57.5
R-6 67.1 4.8 70.6 64.5 58.4
R-7 66.6 4.6 70.1 64.2 58.4
Page 2
ATTACHMENT C
~
Traffic Impact Report
TRAFFIC IMP ACT REPORT ADDENDUM
The purpose of this addendum is to update the traffic study completed for the proposed Centre
Pointe Business Park development in the Spring of2001, In particular, this addendum documents
the impacts associated with modifying the single tenant office space use from 6,600 square feet to
21,500 square feet.
To assess the impact ofthe additional office space, this analysis estimated the additional traffic
anticipated for the expanded use, and reanalyzed the traffic operations at the study area
intersections through the use of Synchro and HCS. The analyses of the traffic impacts due to the
increased office space indicate no change in operations. The following discussion summarizes
the findings.
Trip Generation
In order to assess the off site traffic impacts of the proposed development it is necessary to
estimate the anticipated traffic conditions one year after its completion, thereby creating a
baseline condition, Subsequently, the estimate traffic generated by the development is added to
the baseline and comparison of the no-build and build conditions is conducted. In this case the
baseline conditions remain as stated in the traffic impact report.
The trip generation for the Centre Pointe Business Park was first estimated in 1997 for th~
original approved land use, using Trip Generation published by ITE. Table 1 presents the
original estimate and is provided for comparison purposes. It is noted that the trip generation
estimate has been reduced by ten percent to account for the shared trip potential associated with
multi-use sites.
Table 1
Trip Generation for Centre Pointe Business Park
Approved in 1997
PM Peak Hour
Land Use Size Daily Entering Exiting Total
Trips Trips
General Office 342,322 sq, ft. 3557 79 380 459
Sho~oonVVVarehouse 156,565 Sq. ft. 764 41 75 116
Business Hotel 190 Rooms 1381 70 48 118
High Turnover Restaurant 14,100 Sq.ft. 2508 102 80 182
Subtotal 8210 292 583 875
10% Multi Use Reduction -821 -29 -58 -87
Net New Trips 7389 263 525 788
The estimate was revised in February of 2000 and again in the Spring of 2001. Table 2 presents
the Spring 2001 estimate.
Table 2
Trip Generation for Centre Pointe Business Park
Approved in Spring 2001
PM Peak Hour
Land Use Size Daily Entering Exiting Total
Trips Trips
General Office 230,311 sq. ft. 2007 49 239 288
Corporate Office 383,157 sq. ft, 2874 51 413 464
Business Hotel 189 Rooms 1374 70 47 117
Business Hotel 125 Rooms 909 47 31 78
Quality Restaurant 85 Seats 243 15 7 22
Single Tenant Office 6,600 sq. ft. 76 2 10 12
Subtotal 7483 234 747 981
10% Multi Use Reduction -748 -23 -75 -98
Net New Trips 6735 211 672 883
The current trip generation potential was also estimated through the use of Trip Generation
resulting in the information provided in Table 3. The estimate includes the same ten-percent
shared trip reduction factor.
Table 3
Trip Generation for Current Proposed
Centre Pointe Business Park
PM Peak Hour
Land Use Size Daily Entering Exiting Total
Trips Trips
General Office 230,311 sq. ft. 2007 49 239 288
Corporate Office 383,157 sq. ft. 2874 51 413 464
Business Hotel 189 Rooms 1374 70 47 117
Business Hotel 125 Rooms 909 47 31 78
Quality Restaurant 85 Seats 243 15 7 22
Single Tenant Office 21,500 sq. ft. 249 5 22 37
Subtotal 7,656 237 759 996
10% Multi Use Reduction -766 -24 -76 -100
Net New Trips 6,890 213 683 896
A comparison of the current trip generation estimate with the original estimate and the Spring
2001 estimate shows that the daily trip generation potential is 499 trips less than the original
estimate but 155 greater than the Spring 2001 estimate. The peak hour potential is 112 greater
than the original and 13 greater than the Spring 2001 estimate.
Capacity Analysis
The estimated site generated traffic has been distributed through the study area intersections and
combined with the baseline traffic. The study intersections were then reanalyzed to reflect the 13
additional peak hour site generated trips. Table 4 compares the results of the approved 2001 land
use with the current proposed use.
,
Table 4
Level of Service Comparison
~
Intersection Approved Current Proposed
Sprint! 2001 LOS LOS
Cleveland Ave/Co. Rd. C D D
Cleveland Ave/NB 1-35W Ramps C C
Cleveland Ave/Co. Rd. D C C
NB 1-35 Ramps/Co, Rd. D C C
SB 1-35 Ramps/Co. Rd. D A A
Veritas Way/Cleveland Ave C C
Co. Rd. C2/Cleveland Ave C C
Lydia Ave/Cleveland Ave C C
Brenner A velCleveland Ave C C
N. Centre Pointe Dr/Cleveland Ave F E*
· Note: the Spring 2001 analysIs used an earher version of HCS software to analyze the unsignahzed intersections resulting in a
marginally lower LOS,
It is noted that the overall operations are the same at the study area intersections, and remain at an
acceptable LOS D or better for all intersections except North Centre Pointe and Cleveland
Avenue.
Since there is no change to the traffic operations at the study area intersections associated with the
additional traffic generated by the expanded single tenant office use, the conclusions and
recommendations stated in the original study are still valid. No additional mitigation is
suggested.
TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT
FOR CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
ROSEVlLLE, MINNESOTA
Prepared for:
RLK Kuusisto L TD
Ryan Companies US, Ine.
Prepared by:
Benshoof & Associates, IDe.
January 15, 2001
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES ... ... .,. '" ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... '"
LIST OF TABLES ... ... ... ...... .., ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... , .. 11
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
History of Centre Pointe Business Park and Prior Traffic Studies . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 1
Approach ................................................................................. 2
FRAMEWORK FOR TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND ANALYSES
Centre Pointe Business Park ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 4
Roadway Characteristics .................. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Future Roadway Changes ... ...... ... ... ... .,. ... ... ......... ... ... ... ... ... ... .., ...... 5
TRAFFIC FORECASTS
Traffic Forecast Methodology...... ... ...... ......... ... ...... ... ......... ... ... '" ..... 8
Trip Generation ............. ................................. ............ ... ...... ...... 9
Trip Distribution . .. ... .. . ... .. . ... .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . . . . .. ... .. . .. . .. . .. .... .. .. . . .. .. 11
Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Approach ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ......... ... ... ... ... ... ...... 14
Signalized Intersection Analyses... ......... ............ ... ......... ... ................ 14
Unsignalized Intersection Analyses... ... ............. ... ...... ... ...... ... ........ ..... 16
CONCLUSIONS...... .~.... .... ......... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ...... ... ............ ... ...... ... 18
APPENDIX ....................................................................................... 19
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
21-1 PROJECT LOCATION... ... .,. ...... ... .., ... .. , ,.. ... . .. ... . .. ... . .. ... ... , .. ., . ... 3
21-2 EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS ...... .........,.. .., ... ,., .., ... ... 6
21-3 FUTURE INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS...... ... ... ... '" ... ... ... ... ... .. .., . 7
21-4 TRIP DISTRIBUTION... ... ... ...... .., ... ... .., '" ... .,. ... . " .,. ... ... ... ... . ., ... 12
21-5 2004 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES... ...... ...... ............ 13
-1-
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
21-1 TRIP GENERATION FOR CENTRE POINTE
BUSINESS PARK APPROVED IN 1997 ...........................,........,.. 9
21-2 TRIP GENERATION FOR CENTRE POINTE
BUSINESS PARK APPROVED IN FEBRUARY 2000 ........................ 9
21-3 TRIP GENERATION FOR CURRENT PROPOSED
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK ...... ............ ..................... ...... 10
21-4 LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ............ 15
21-5 LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS... ... ... 18
11
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The purpose of this traffic study is to detennine what impact a proposed increase in office
space in the Centre Pointe Business Park will have on the adjacent roadway system. The
results of this study will be used by the City ofRoseville during its development review
process and will be included as part of a voluntary Environmental Assessment
Worksheet. The Centre Pointe Business Park is located south of County Road D between
I-35W and Cleveland Avenue in the City ofRoseville.
IllSTORY OF CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK AND PRIOR TRAFFIC STUDIES
The Veritas Software Company ("Veritas") proposes to expand its corporate facilities by
approximately 122,000 square feet within a portion of the Centre Pointe Business Park.
Ryan Companies US, Inc. is assisting Veritas in the development of its corporate
. facilities.
In 1985, Woodbridge Properties, Inc. proposed constructing Centre Pointe, which
included 647,080 square feet of office and garden/office/service space. As part of the
approval process, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, Traffic Study, and
Development Plans were prepared for the City ofRoseville in December of 1985. In
February 1986, the City ofRoseville adopted a negative declaration on the need for an
Environmental Impact Statement, and approved Woodbridge's development plans.
Woodbridge constructed supporting infrastructure for Centre Pointe (internal roads,
stonnwater ponds, and utilities) and three buildings. Due to market conditions,
Woodbridge did not complete the project.
In January of 1997, Ryan Companies US, Inc. became the developer of Centre Pointe and
submitted an EA W, Traffic Study, and related Development Plans. Additionally, an
Indirect Source Pennit was issued by the Minnesota Pollution C<;mtrol Agency. The
Traffic Study submitted by Ryan was prepared by the OSM fIrm dated November 1996.
Another Traffic Study was prepared by the BRW firm (March 1997), on behalf of the
City ofRoseville. The City used the BRW Traffic Study for its decisions concerning the
EA Wand Development Plans.
The Ryan proposal included a total of619,600 square feet; this total did not include the
three buildings already constructed by Woodbridge. In March 1997, the City again
adopted a negative~declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement for
the revised Centre Pointe. In April 1997, the City approved the revised Centre Pointe
Development Plans and Planned Unit Development.
In February, 2000, the 1997 PUD was administratively amended to allow an increase in
building square footage by 10% (61,464 square feet) in Centre Pointe. The southern 16
acres of Centre Pointe were sold to Veritas in 2000. Veritas is experiencing exponential
growth and needs more office space than was approved in the amended PUD. The
122,000 square foot increase in the PUD now proposed would be accomplished by
redesigning two proposed buildings and adding a parking structure. When approved, the
Centre Pointe Business Parle
- 1 -
Janwuy IS, 200 1
Veritas property will become a fully integrated corporate campus. This redesign for the
Veritas property represents a total expansion of 183,330 square feet of office space, as
compared to the existing Centre Pointe project as described in the 1997 PUD.
APPROACH
This study updates traffic forecasts and analyses prepared by the BRW firm in 1997 to
account for the previously mentioned changes to the Centre Pointe Business Park. Figure
21-1 illustrates the project location and the ten intersections that have been examined.
Nine of the examined intersections were evaluated in 1997 by the BRW firm, and the
tenth (Veritas Way/Cleveland Avenue) was approved and constructed after 1997. All
phases of the Centre Pointe Business Park are expected to be completed by 2003. Traffic
forecasts and analyses were completed for 2004, the first year following completion of
development. The weekday p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts were developed for the
following three development scenarios to provide a comparison between the traffic
impacts associated with Centre Pointe as previously approved and the current
development proposal:
· 2004 with development approved in 1997
· 2004 with development approved in February 2000
· 2004 with current proposed development
Centre Pointe Business Park
-2-
January 15.2001
.
o
a:
w
<..:>
o
t-1
0:
RENNER AVE.
.-
~ L
o
VEt ~
RD. C2
........
.t:1
[!
cu
f
c5
co. RD. C
w
<..:>
o
t-1
0::
I-
Z
~
o
:2
c
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
RU< KUUSISTO
OJ BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
V TRANSPORTATION EIIGINEERSANDPlANNERS
TRAFFIC STUDY FOR
CENTRE POINTE
BUSINESS PARK
.
l-
V)
Z
,...
-l
W
>
W
!RD. D~L
a::
w
-1
W
W
:I:
?=
.
SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
EXAMINED
UNSIGNALlZED
INTERSECTION
EXAMINED
w
U
o
AI
C
0::: CENTE { NNIAd
::J
:I: ~
I-
a:::
<t TERf
>
lJJ
......
. >
L.1..J 0:::
> ........
. <t <!
W l..L.
:>
<t 0:::
::)
I N
.- t
a::
<1:
APPROXIMATE SCALE
~
0 800'
FIGURE 21-1
PROJECT LOCATION
FRAMEWORK FOR TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND ANALYSES
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
The Centre Pointe Business Park approved in 1997 included approximately 150,000 sq.,
ft. of showroom/office, approximately 350,000 square feet of general office space, two
hotels, and two restaurants. The changes to the development concept approved in early
2000 eliminated the office/showroom use and one of the restaurants and included an
approximate total of 560,000 sq. ft. of general office. The current proposed Centre Pointe
Business Park includes three hotels (one with a restaurant), approximately 230,000 sq. ft.
of general office, a 6,600 square foot office building and a corporate campus with about
380,000 sq. ft. of office space. Two hotels and all of the general office space have
already been constructed. Construction is currently underway for one of the three
buildings that will make up the Veritas corporate campus and the third hotel building.
ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Cleveland Avenue, County Road C, and County Road D will be the primary roadways
that provide access to/from the site. North of the ramps to/from northbound 1-35W,
Cleveland Avenue is a four lane undivided roadway. Between County Road C and the
northbound I-35W ramps, Cleveland Avenue is a divided four-lane roadway. County
Road D (CSAH 19) is four lanes west of Cleveland Avenue and tapers to a two lane
section east of Cleveland Avenue. County Road C (CSAH 23) provides four lanes and is
divided west of the Cleveland Avenue intersection and undivided east of the Cleveland
Avenue intersection. Cleveland Avenue, County Road C, and County Road D are
classified by Ramsey County as arterial roadways. Centre Pointe Drive and Lydia
Avenue are existing local roads that serve the Centre Pointe Business Park. Veritas Way
is an existing private driveway on Cleveland Avenue that will also service development
traffic.
Existing intersection geometrics are illustrated in Figure 21-2 for the ten intersections
examined in this study. The following five examined intersections provide traffic signal
control:
· Cleveland Avenue / County Road C
· Cleveland Avenue /Northbound 1-35 Ramps
· Cleveland Avenue / County Road D
· Northbound 1-35 Ramps I County Road D
· Southbound 1-35 Ramps / County Road D
Traffic signals at these five intersections provide actuated control that responds to
changing traffic conditions. The intersection of County Road C and Cleveland Avenue
provides protected-only left turn phasing for all approaches. Left turns may advance only
when provided with a green arrow. The other four signalized intersections provide
protected/permissive left turn signal phasing for selected approaches. Left turns are
provided with a lead phase and may also proceed with through traffic after yielding to
Centre Pointe Business Parle
-4-
January 15,2001
opposing traffic movements, Protectedlpennissive left turn phasing is provided for the
following intersection approaches:
'. Northbound approach at intersection of Cleveland Avenue and the ramps to
northbound I-35W
· Northbound approach at intersection of Cleveland Avenue and County Road D
· Eastbound approach at intersection of County Road D and the ramps to
northbound 1-35W
· Eastbound and westbound approaches at intersection of County Road D and the
ramps to southbound 1-35W
Five unsignalized intersections were examined as part of this traffic study. They are
located on Cleveland Avenue and provide stop sign control for the approaches to
Cleveland Avenue. Traffic on Cleveland Avenue does not stop at these intersections.
The five unsignalized intersections examined are:
· Veritas Way / Cleveland Avenue
· County Road C2 (South Centre Pointe Drive) / Cleveland Avenue
· Lydia Avenue I Cleveland Avenue
· Brenner Avenue I Cleveland Avenue
· North Centre Pointe Drive / Cleveland Avenue
FUTURE ROADWAY CHANGES
Several roadway changes are expected prior to the 2004 forecast and analysis year and
have been included in the traffic analysis. Construction of Twin Lakes Parkway is
expected in 2002 and 2003. This new roadway will intersect Cleveland Avenue opposite
the existing intersection with the northbound I-35W ramps and continue east to Fairview
and Snelling AveI].ues. ,In conjunction with the new roadway, the loop from northbound
I-35W to westbound County Road C will be removed. An additional southbound lane on
Cleveland Avenue from the existing ramp intersection to County Road C and free right
turn lanes will accommodate traffic that currently utilizes the loop. Figure 21-3
illustrates the geometrics that are anticipated at this intersection and that have been used
in the traffic analyses. We expect that protective/permissive left turn phasing will be
provided for all four approaches of the new Cleveland A venuelTwin Lakes Parkway
intersection.
Improvements to County Roads C and D are also expected prior to 2004. County Road D
will be reconstructed and upgraded to a three or four lane facility east of Cleveland
Avenue. County Road C will be upgraded to a divided facility with reduced access and
dedicated left turn lanes at access locations. At this time, no specific changes have been
identified at the Cleveland Avenue intersections with County Roads C and D, aside from
the previously mentioned changes associated with construction of Twin Lakes Parkway.
Centre Pointe Business Parle
-5-
Janwuy 15,2001
i .(1..\ f:
*1;: ~
- COUNTY ROAD 0
:1 if ir ~ it
..
~U
..U
"if
~
~ 4~ t- COUNTY ROAD C2
to-'
(f)
a:: -4 1t
~ ..
.J . TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROL
.. "if o STOP SIGN CONllIDL
w FOR EAST AND/OR
:J WEST APPROACHES
z
w
~
0 N
z
:5 t
~
0
4~\. t- NOT TO SCALE
DRVEWAY
-4 ,ft
..
4~\. ~
7' COUNTY ROAD C
~ ,tt
~
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
RLI< KUUSISTO
(Xi BENSHOOF &~ INC
V TRANSPORTATION E118INEERSAlCD ~~S
TRAFFIC STUDY FOR
CENTRE POINTE
BUSINESS PARK
FIGURE 21-2
EXISTING
INTERSECTION
GEOMETRICS
LOOP FROM NORTHBOUND I-35W
TO WESTBOUND COUNTY ROAD C
TO BE REMOVED
FREE RIGHT TURN LANES
AND ADDITIONAL
SOUTHBOUND lANE ON
CLEVELAND AVENUE
w
::>
z
w
~
c
z
:5
w
>
W
-!
o
"-
~
r TWIN LAKES PARKWAY
,iir
A.
-r
=:!. ,tr COUNTY ROAD C
---v-
t
NOT TO SCALE
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
RU< KUUSISTO
(Xi BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES,INC.
V TIWISPORTATION BlGINEERSAIIDPlANNERS
TRAFFIC STUDY FOR
CENTRE POINTE
BUSINESS PARK
FIGURE 21-3
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
GEOMETRICS
TRAFFIC FORECASTS
TRAFFIC FORECAST METHODOLOGY
The 2001 p,m. peak hour background traffic volumes presented in the 1997 Centre Pointe
Traffic Impact Study prepared by the BR W firm served as the basis for the current traffic
forecasts. The 2001 background traffic volumes in the BRW study are based on counts
conducted by the OSM firm in 1996, Barton-Aschman in 1994, and BRW in 1997. Also,
the RoseviIle Traffic Model was used by the BRW firm to assist in establishing the 2001
background volumes.
The 2001 background traffic volumes were then adjusted to reflect the 2004 forecast and
analysis year and account for the following changes in traffic conditions between 2001
and 2004:
· Increases in background traffic at a rate of two percent per year. This two-percent
rate was used in the 1997 BRW study and is based on historical ADT volumes.
· According to City staff: approximately 200,000 sq. ft of office will be constructed
as part of the Twin Lakes development by the end of 2003. An EA W was
prepared for the Twin Lakes development by the BR W firm in 1997. The trip
generation associated with the 200,000 sq. ft. of office represents 16% of the total
trip generation estimated for the Twin Lakes development when complete in
2010. To account for the completed portion of the Twin Lakes development in
the current traffic forecasts, 16% of the total site generated traffic was added to
the roadway system using the distribution from the 1997 Twin Lakes EAW.
· Construction of Twin Lakes Parkway is anticipated in 2002 and 2003. Slight
changes in traffic patterns are expected with the J',vailability of this new route and
have been estimated for the 2004 analysis year, using the 2011 background traffic
forecasts for the p.m. peak hour in the Twin Lakes EA W. The 2011 background
traffic volumes were based on the Roseville Traffic Model by the BRW firm.
Centre Paiute Business Parle
-8-
Janwuy IS, 2001
TRIP GENERATION
Table 21-1 presents the trip generation estimate for Centre Pointe prepared by BR W in
1997. The Institute of Transportation Engineers' 5th Edition of Trip Generation was used
to develop the trip generation estimate. The trip generation estimate includes a ten-
percent reduction for multi-use and internal trips.
TABLE 21-1
TRIP GENERATION FOR CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
APPROVED IN 1997
PM Peak Hour
Entering Exiting
Land Use Size Dailv Trips Trips Total
General Office 342,322 sq. ft. 3557 79 380 459
Showroom/W arehouse 156,565 sq. ft. 764 41 75 116
Business Hotel 190 Rooms 1381 70 48 118
High Turnover Restaurant 14,100 SQ. ft. 2508 102 80 182
Subtotal 8210 292 583 875
l001c. Multi-use Reduction -821 -29 -58 -87
Net New Trips 7389 263 525 788
Source: 1997 Centre Pointe Traffic Impact Study, BRW.
Table 21-2 presents the trip generation estimate for Centre Pointe Business Park concept
as approved in February 2000. Current trip generation rates from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers' 6th Edition of Trip Generation were used to develop this
generation estimate. The estimate includes the same ten-percent multi-use reduction.
The development as approved in February 2000 was estimated to generate roughly 950
fewer daily trips and only 14 additional p.rn. peak hour trips. The decrease in daily trip
generation is the result of one restaurant being removed from the development concept.
TABLE 21-2
TRIP GENERATION FOR CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
APPROVED IN FEBRUARY 2000
PM Peak Hour
Entering Exiting
Land Use Size Daily Trips Trips Total
General Office 230,808 sq. ft. 2052 49 241 290
General Office 332,348 sq. ft. 2955 71 348 419
Business Hotel 189 Rooms 1374 70 47 117
High Turnover Restaurant 6000 sq. ft. 782 39 26 65
Subtotal 7163 229 662 891
10% Multi-use Reduction -716 -23 -66 -89
Net New Trips 6447 206 596 802
Centre Pointe Business Parle
-9-
Jamwy IS, 2001
Table 21-3 presents the trip generation estimate for current Centre Pointe Business Park
proposal. Trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' 6th Edition
of Trip Generation was used to develop this estimate. A ten-percent multi-use reduction
was again applied. The current development concept is expected to generate
approximately 650 fewer daily trips and 95 additional trips in the p.m. peak hour in
comparison to the development approved in 1997.
TABLE 21-3
TRIP GENERATION FOR CURRENT PROPOSED
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
PM Peak Hour
Entering Exiting
Land Use Size Daily Trips Trips Total
General Office 230,311 sq. ft. 2007 49 239 288
Corporate Office 383,157 sq. ft. 2874 51 413 464
Business Hotel 189 Rooms 1374 70 47 117
Business Hotel 125 Rooms 909 47 31 78
Quality Restaurant 85 Seats 243 15 7 22
Single Tenant Office 6,600 sq. ft. 76 2 10 12
Subtotal 7483 234 747 981
10% Multi-use Reduction -748 -23 -75 -98
Net New Trips 6735 211 672 883
Centre Poiute Business Parle
- 10 ~
January IS, 2001
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The trip distribution developed for the 1997 Centre Pointe EA W by BR W was used as
the basis for the distribution of trips to/from the Centre Pointe Business Park in current
traffic forecasts. The distribution in 1997 was based on the City ofRoseville Traffic
Model. The 1997 distribution was adjusted to include trips to/fTom the east on Twin
Lakes Parkway. Construction of Twin Lakes Parkway is expected to serve four-percent
of development trips. Under the 1997 distribution, these development trips would have
utilized County Roads C and D. Figure 21-4 illustrates the trip distribution estimate used
for current traffic forecasts.
The trip assignment in the traffic study for the 1997 EA W estimated that development
trips would be split equally between three intersections with Cleveland Avenue (North
and South Centre Pointe Drive and Lydia Avenue). A fourth intersection, Veritas Way,
was constructed following the 1997 traffic study. Based on an examination of the current
site plan, it is expected that 28% of trips will enter/exit via each Lydia Avenue, North
Centre Pointe Drive, and South Centre Pointe Drive and 16% of all trips will enter/exit
via Veritas Way.
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The resultant traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 21-5. Traffic volumes for the p.m.
peak hour are i11ustrated for the ten examined intersections and the three development
concepts. All three scenarios include the same changes in background traffic conditions
as previously discussed. The traffic volume forecasts represent the traffic volumes that
would be expected in 2004 for each of the development concepts.
Centre Pointe Business PaIk
-11-
January IS, 2001
++
10%
N
t
~
NOT TO SCALE
~
~
~
a:
~
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
RU< KUUSISTO
OJ BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
V TIWISPORTATIONEIIGINEERSANDPlANNERS
t1%
COUNTY ROAD 0
BRENNER AVENUE
++
16%
~
COUNTY ROAD C2
~
w
;:)
z
w
:::
i
o
TWIN LAKES PAPJ<WAY
~
TRAFFIC STUDY FOR
CENTRE POINTE
BUSINESS PARK
COUNTY ROAD C
~
FIGURE 21-4
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
~
~
I
J~!~I J~tL
23fWl3 lb,o 4-
~ ~ 1070/1077/1085 136/136/136 32132/32
~rnF-"'" == ~!Jr~
I~I d I 7ijiF III
~ bn4821510 ~f
7i~~ ~95019571966 201/213/227 ~
, 97/105t114 ~
Ilfl bLlli
~ 4-~ ~
~31212.
~21212
i~ JI
101/114/128~
7W86t94~
~ I,t
I ~i~ I I il
8911~ ~
...i;)f,~ if~
~ii ~~i
Nj~ ~!;
4-
52160.'68 ~
31/36/41 ~
i ~ ,t
~III I ~I
~~ -!
~ 2!it23I23
15011501150 +-~
~~iF J-1i
~~'" "'L
.... t
N'" 3311330/330 1 52/1491149
~ir
IIRBINER Aveue
w
::>
~
;
~ Development Approved In 1997
r-= Development Approved In February 2000
I I Currently Proposed Development
XXIXXIXX
.
t
NOT 10 SCAlE
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
RU< KUUSISTO
<Xi BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES,INC.
V TRAHSPORTATION EIIGINEERSAIID PlANNERS
TRAFFIC STUDY FOR
CENTRE POINTE
BUSINESS PARK
FIGURE 21-5
2004 PM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION
VOLUMES
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
APPROACH
In order to better understand how each intersection operates from an overall traffic
capacity standpoint, a capacity analysis was perfonned for each of the ten intersections
using the traffic volumes forecasted for the three development concepts. Capacity
analysis results are presented in tenns oflevel of service (LOS), which ranges from A to
F. Each letter grade represents a specific range of traffic operation based upon the
average delay experienced by a vehicle. Level of service A represents the best
intersection operation, with very little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. Level
of service F represents the worst intersection operation, with excessive delay and large
queue lengths. In general, level of service D or better is considered acceptable in the
Twin Cities area. A more detailed description of the levels of service is provided in the
appendix of this traffic report.
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSES
The levels of service for the signalized intersections were estimated using Synchro
computer software. The five signalized intersections provide actuated traffic control that
responds to changing traffic conditions to minimize delay. Synchro optimizes the traffic
signal timing. at each intersection using the signal phasing and range of cycle lengths
observed operating the intersections. Using the optimized traffic signal timing, Synchro
estimates the level of service for each movement and the overall intersection. The traffic
volumes and lanes associated with the free right tums from northbound I-35W to
southbound Cleveland Avenue and from southbound Cleveland Avenue to westbound
County Road C were excluded from the analyses. These free right turn movements occur
via channelized islands and thus are separated from the signal control. Left turn
movements from northbound Cleveland Avenue to westbound County Road D and ftom
eastbound County Road D to northbound I-35W occur from shared through-left lanes.
However, because of the high volume of left turning traffic, these lanes most often
operate as dedicated left turn lanes and were analyzed as such.
The level of service results for the signalized intersections are summarized in Table 21-4.
As table 21-4 presents, no level of service difficulties are expected at any of the five
signalized intersections. In addition, all movements at the five intersections are expected
to operate at LOS D or better in the 2004 p.m. peak hour under the currently proposed
development concept. Only slight differences in level of service occur between the three
development concepts.
Centre Paiute Business Park
-14 -
January 15,2001
V'J
Z
o
-
Eo-
U
~
V'J
~
r;;;J
Eo-
Z
-
Q
r;;;J
N
...,. -
· ..J
~ -<
r;;;J Z
..J ~
CQ -
-< V'J
Eo- ~
o
'-
r;;;J
U
-
;>
~
~
V'J
'-
o
V'J
..J
r;;;J
;>
~
..J
=:
.-
] 0 0 0 a:1 a:1 U U U U U U U -< -< -<
(1)
>
0
-0 f- N
~ P:::
::s - U U U
0 ::r:
.D U U U a:1 a:1 -< U U U
..s::: f-
...
::s -
0 f-
V'J ..J 0 0 0 -< -< -<
-0 f- -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -<
~ P:::
::s - 0 0 0 -< -< -<
0 ::r:
.D a:1 a:1 a:1
..s::: f-
1:: - U U U
0
:z f- U U U a:1 U U U U 0 0 0 0
....:I
f- -< -< -<
-0 ~
s:: ~ 0 0 0 U U U
::s
0 ::r: u u u u u u -< -< -<
.D
- f-
rn
(1) ~
~ f- 0 0 0 a:1 a:1 a:1
....:I
f- ~ -< -< -<
-0 ~ N
s:: ~ U U U
::s
0 :r:: u u u 0 0 0 -< -< -<
.D f-
-
rn ~ -< -< -<
ro
~ f- 0 0 0 U a:1 U 0 0 0
..J
"
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N
~ ~ ~ C C
ro - ro ..... ro - ro ..... ro -
r- 2 ~ r- 2 s:: r- 2 s:: r- 2 s:: r- 2 s::
(1) (1) (1) Q) Q)
0'1 .D E 0'1 .D E 0'1 ~ E 0'1 .D E 0'1 .D E
0'1 (1) 0'1 (1) 0'1 0'1 Q) 0'1 Q)
- ~ Q., WJ - ~ Q., - ~ Q., - ~ Q., - ~ Q.,
.5 .5 0 =- .5 .5 0 .5 .5 0 .9 .9 0 .9 .9 0
"0 5 "0 "0 ~ "0 "0
-0 -0 > <U -0 -0 > ;;) -0 -0 > Q -0 -0 > -0 -0 >
U Q) (1) (1) ~ Q) Q) Q) Q Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q Q) Q) Q)
> > 0 > > 0 > > 0 ~ > > 0 > > 0
~ 8 8 -0 tt') 8 0 -0 ~ 8 0 -0 0 0 -0 'Q 0 0 -0
<<'? 1-0 1-0 ~ 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0
C ~ Q., ~ Q) Q., Q., Q) ~ Q., Q., Q) Q., Q., Q) ~ Q., Q., Q)
;: Q., CI) - Q., Q., CI) ~ Q., CI) Q Q., Q., en Q., Q., en
Q -< -< 0 -< -< 0 Q -< 0 -< -< 0 Q -< -< 0
<U Q., CQ Q., Q., U Q., Q,
C U - ... 8 z - 'E 0 u ..... - 8 ..... - 8 u - ..... 0
Q,j ~ s:: s:: 1-0 s:: c: ...... c: c: c: c: 1-0
~ ...... (1) Q) A.. ...... Q) Q) A.. ...... Q) Q) A.. Q) Q) A.. ...... Q) Q) t:!..
V'J E E E E E E fI.I E E fI.I E E
Q,j >. Q,j b Q,j b =- b Q., b
- > Q., Q., .- > Q, Q, > Q., g. 5 Q, Q, 5 Q, Q,
C < - < - < - ..... -
0 0 c: 0 0 c: 0 c: 0 0 s:: 0 0 c:
Q,j .- "0 ~ "0 "0 Q) "0 "0 Q) GS "0 "0 Q) GS "0 "0 ~
5 'Q Q) 'Q I:: 'Q I:: ~ I:: ~
c > > C > > C > > > > > >
Q., Q) (1) ::s Q) Q) ::s Q) Q) ::s tt') Q) Q) ::s Q) Q) ::s
c <U 0 0 U <U 0 0 U GS 0 0 U ('f') 0 0 U VI 0 0 U
~ - ~ ('f')
~ Q,j I .
> ..s::: ..s::: ..s::: > ..s::: ..s::: ..s::: > ..s::: oS ..s::: - ..s::: oS oS - ..s::: ..s::: ..s:::
> Q,j ~ - ~ Q,j ..... ..... ~ Q,j ..... ~ = ..... ~ ~ ~
Q,j u ~ u ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ co
Q Z V'J
~
Q)
u
>.
c..
E
(..IJ
Q)
u
C
Q)
'"
"-
o
0)
>
~
Q)
E
""
'"
Q)
-5
Q)
>
""
..c
-0
c
""
Q)
c
""
""
Q)
....
""
..c
'"
'"
c
Q)
E
Q)
>
o
E
Q)
C Q)
"" C
""
..c -
0II..c
~ OIl
o ~
~ 0
- ....
~..c
-o~
e-o
"" e
..c ""
'" ..c
C '"
"" c
-5 ""
-5
Q)
-5
<;;
-5
....
Q) ....
..c Q)
<;;..c
.... <;;
Q) ....
'" C Q)
Q) c "" c
~ .s E ..::!
:.a'E ~E
.5 (/] -::s
(/] t (t::-
cc ~~
Q).- -0
~ fi ~ 13
0> .f^ U <;;
~ :.a U
E Q) Q) :.a
Q)..c -0 Q)
c.... Q)-O
0<;; .CoQ)
~ ~ ~ .: 00
..c..o"''''c
...... m :>-'.J:: 4;;]
0.> ::: t;; .~ ..c:
5 ~ 1a ~ .<;:
E""S-o~
...50~"2
cE"'<l:::>'N
CI) .': -0 ~ ~
.~ fi ~ '" :g
C E ~ E '"
~Q)>o~E
4- )( - ::s
o os CI) <::: ....
0) E ~ <:::
>CI)::s-o~
~-=- C-o
~] ~j g
.: ; ~ 'E ~
(I) 0; ~ 0 ~
~.~ ~ Z (..IJ
-0
~.= N~~
Unsignalized Intersection Analyses
The unsignalized intersection levels of service were estimated using the unsignalized
intersection module of the Highway Capacity Software. For each intersection, a level of
service grade is assigned to left turn movements iTom Cleveland Avenue, each movement
iTom the minor streets, and overall minor street approaches. Table 21-5 presents the level
of service results for the unsignalized intersections. With the exception of the North
Centre Pointe Drive/Cleveland Avenue intersection, acceptable operations are expected at
the unsignalized intersections. All movements at the Veritas Way, South Centre Pointe
Drive, Lydia Avenue, and Brenner Avenue intersections with Cleveland Avenue are
expected'to operate at LOS D or better in the p.m. peak hour under the three development
scenanos.
Level of service F is expected for the left turn ITom North Centre Point Drive to
northbound Cleveland Avenue under all development scenarios. As a possible measure
to improve this level of service, we evaluated whether the intersection would warrant
traffic signal control. One of 11 warrants must be met for a traffic signal installation to
occur. The peak hour warrant is met when the traffic volume of the high volume minor
street approach (North Centre Pointe Drive) and the two-way approach volume on the
major street (Cleveland Avenue) are greater than specified minimum volumes for one
hour of the day. Traffic volumes are expected to be sufficient in the p.m. peak hour
North Centre Pointe Drive intersection with Cleveland Avenue for the 2004 currently
proposed development concept. Thus, under the peak hour traffic signal warrant, traffic
signal control is expected to be warranted at the intersection in 2004 with the current
Centre Pointe development concept.
Although the North Centre Pointe Drive/Cleveland Avenue intersection is likely to
experience level of service difficulties and meet traffic signal warrants in 2004,
installation of traffic signal control at Lydia Avenue may be a preferre<1 alternative for
two reasons. First, a signalized intersection at Lydia Avenue would better conform to
County access spacing guidelines. Second, the potential for an east leg to the intersection
at Lydia may exist. A broader benefit would be provided by a traffic signal on Cleveland
Avenue that has the potential to serve both the east and west sides. Installation of a
traffic signal at Lydia Avenue would improve the level of service at the North Centre
Pointe intersection by creating gaps in the traffic stream on Cleveland Avenue and
shifting left turning traffic ITom the unsignalized intersection to Lydia Avenue.
Following completion of the Centre Pointe Business Park, traffic volumes should be
monitored and traffic signal control considered when actual traffic volumes at Lydia
Avenue and Cleveland Avenue meet warrants for traffic signal installation.
Centre Pointe Business PaIk
-16 -
January IS, 200 1
In order for Lydia Avenue to have sufficient traffic volumes to meet warrants for traffic
signal installation, there may be a need to alter the North Centre Pointe Drive/Cleveland
Avenue intersection to direct traffic to the Lydia Avenue intersection. Two options exist
at the North Centre Pointe Drive/Cleveland Avenue intersection that require construction
of a raised center island rrom Brenner Avenue to County Road D. One option is to limit
the North Centre Point Drive approach to Cleveland Avenue to right turns only (~
access). A second option that exists is to prohibit left turns to northbound Cleveland
Avenue (J,4 access). This option would require an expanded radius in the southwest
comer of the intersection to ensure that left turns to the north do not occur through the
median break provided for left turns rrom Cleveland Avenue to North Centre Pointe
Drive. The City and County will need to evaluate installation of traffic signal control
along Cleveland Avenue and any changes to North Centre Pointe Drive in terms of their
goals and policies.
Centre Pointe Business Park
-17 -
January 15,2001
r/:J
Z
o
-
E-c
U
~
r/:J
~
~
E-c
;z:
-
Q
~
-
N
'I') ~
I -<
;::: ;z:
~ ~
~ ;)
~ Z
-< ~
E-c ~
o
~
~
U
-
;,
~
~
r/:J
~
o
00
~
~
;,
~
~
.-
-
..c
(,)
CIj
0 CO CO U U U U U U U p:.J p:.J (.l..
a.-
0..
0..
"0 -<
c: -
::1
0 f-< -< -< CO -< -< -< CO CO CO CO CO CO
J:J ~
....
en -
CIj
p:.J ::r:
f-
- U U 0
f-< U U U 0 0 0 (.l.. (.l.. (.l..
.....J
..c
(,)
CIj
8 u u u u u U
0..
0..
"0 -<
c: -
::1
0 f-<
oS ~
en
~ -
:s ::r: u u u u u U
f-<
-
f-
.....J
co f-< -< -< -< -< -< -<
rJ:) .....J
co f- -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -<
Z .....J
0 0 Co 0 0
0 0 0 0 ~ 0
0 0 0 0 ;. 0
N N N N -< N
Q ~ C C '0 Q
CIj ..... .... CIj .... CIj .... = CIj ....
f' 2 c: f' 2 c: f' 2 t:: f' 2 t:: CIS f' 2 c:
~ ~ Q) Q) - ~
0\ J:J S 0\ J:J S 0\ J:J e 0\ J:J e ~ 0\ J:J e
0\ ~ 0\ Q) 0\ Q) 0\ Q) ;. 0\ Q)
- ~ 0.. - ~ 0.. - ~ 0.. - ~ 0.. ~ - ~ 0..
.S .S 0 .S .S 0 .S .S 0 .S .S 0 - .S .S 0
-0 -0 ~ ~ ~ U ,-
~ Q)
;. "0 "0 ;. ~ "0 "0 ;. "0 "0 ;> ;. "0 "0 ;> ....... "0 "0 ;>
-< Q) ~ ~ ;. Q) Q) ~ ~ Q) Q) Q) < Q) Q) Q) ~ Q) Q) Q)
;> ;> 0 -< ;. ;. 0 ;. ;> ;> 0 ;> ;. 0 ;. ;> ;. 0
'0 0 0 0 0 < 0 0 '0 0 0 - 0 0
a.- a.- "0 a.- a.- "0 a.- a.- "0 = a.- a.- "0 - a.- a.- "0
Q = 0.. 0.. Q) '0 0.. 0.. Q) '0 0.. 0.. Q) CIS 0.. 0.. I\) Q 0.. 0.. Q)
- CIS 0.. 0.. en = 0.. 0.. en = 0.. 0.. en - 0.. 0.. <n 0.. 0.. <n
- ~ <( -< 0 CIS -< -< 0 <( <( 0 ~ -< <( 0 ~ -< <( 0
CIS ;. 0.. ~ 0.. ..! 0.. ;. 0.. - 0..
= ~ .... .... 0 ;. .... .... 8 ~ .... .... 0 ~ .... .... 0 s:: .... .... 0
~ - t:: t:: a.- t:: s:: ;. t:: t:: a.- - s:: s:: a.- 'E t:: s:: a.-
U U ~ ~ 0.. ~ Q) ~ 0.. ~ ~ Q) 0.. U ~ Q) Po. ~ ~ ~ Po.
r/:J S S U e e e e s e e s
....... ~ ~ U b ....... b ~ b
- 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. ~ 0.. 0.. 0.. 0..
>-> ..... ....... ~ c c - ....
= CIS 0 0 c: 0 0 ....... 0 0 ;. 0 0 - 0 ..9 t::
~ -0 -0 ~ M -0 -0 ~ -0 -0 Q) -< ~ ~ Q) s:: -0 ~
5 ~ U ~ Q)
;> ;> t: ;. ;> t: ;. ;. ;. t: ;. ;. t: ~ ;. ;> t:
Q. Q) ~ ::1 ~ ~ ~ ::1 -< ~ Q) ;::s - ~ ~ ;::s U Q) Q) ::1
Q .." 0 0 U 0 0 U 0 0 U ~ 0 0 U 0 0 U
CIS .~ = .:
- - ~
~ -c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c = ..c ..c ..c - ..c ..c ..c
;. ~ ~ ~ Q .... .... .... '0 ~ .... .... ~ .... .... .... - ~ ~ ~
~ Q,I :s ~ ~ >-> :s ~ - ~ ~ ~ 0
Q ;, U ~ ~ Z
>,
C.
E
LU
I\)
.~
c
I\)
'"
<+-
o
I\)
>
I\)
I\)
E
'"
'"
I\)
-5
I\)
>
'"
.t::
-0
c:
'"
I\)
c:
..!!!
'"
I\)
....
'"
.t::
'"
.'!3
c:
I\)
E
I\)
>
o
E
I\)
-5
<U c:
-5 0
~ (3
- I\)
.~ ~
] .~
.; ~
c: >
I\) .-
E 01)
I\) I\)
>-5
o _
E '"
I\)~
C:,J:)
o '"
c:::=
'" '"
-5 ~
~ 5
o '"
E '':
.... c:
<E I\)
I\) E
.~ ~
c 0
I\) E
'" I\)
~-:5
~ a;
>.t::
I\) -
- I\)
..2 ~
01) .~
C-o
-;,;; -=
-<~
--- I\)
- 0
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analyses presented in this report, we have determined the following
conclusions:
.
The current Centre Pointe development concept is expected to generate 6735 daily
trip ends and 883 trip ends in the p.m. peak hour. This trip generation estimate
represents 650 fewer daily trip ends and 95 more p.m. peak hour trip ends in
comparison to the development concept approved in 1997.
.
No level of service difficulties are expected at any of the five signalized
intersections examined. Four of the five sigt1~1i7.ed intersections are expected to
provide level of service C operation under all development scenarios in the 2004
p.m. peak hour. The Cleveland Avenue/County Road C intersection is expected to
operate at LOS D under all 2004 p. m. peak hour scenarios.
.
With the exception of the North Centre Pointe Drive intersection with Cleveland
Avenue, no level of service difficulties are expected at the unsignalized intersections
along Cleveland A venue. The left turn from North Centre Pointe Drive to
northbound Cleveland Avenue is expected to operate at level of service F under all
development scenarios in the p. m. peak hour. All other movements at the five
unsignalized intersections should operate at level of service D or better in the p. m.
peak hour of all 2004 scenarios.
.
Two options exist to mitigate the level of service difficulties at the North Centre
Pointe Drive/Cleveland Avenue intersection. The options include installation of
traffic signal control at either North Centre Pointe Drive or Lydia A v~ue
intersection with Cleveland Avenue. The City and County should monitor the two
intersections and take appropriate action to resolve level of service difficulties as
they arise.
Our overall conclusion is that the current proposed Centre Pointe Business Park would
not cause any significant negative traffic impacts at the any of the 10 intersections that
have been examined. The traffic impacts associated with the current Centre Pointe
Business Park proposal are nearly identical to the impacts that would have been
experienced with the Centre Pointe Business Park proposals approved in February of
2000 and in the spring of 1997.
Centre Pointe Business Parle
-19 -
January IS, 2001
APPENDIX
In order to better understand how the intersections operate ITom an overall traffic
capacity standpoint, capacity analyses were perfonned using the methodology presented
in the Highway Capacity Manual. Capacity analyses detennine how well or poorly an
intersection is operating. Capacity analysis results are presented in tenns oflevel of
setvice, which is defined in terms of traffic delay at the intersection, and ranges ITom an
A to an F letter grade.
.
Level of setvice A corresponds to a iTee flow condition with motorists virtually
unaffected by the intersection control mechanism. For a signalized or an un signalized
intersection, the average delay per vehicle would be approximately 10 seconds or
less.
.
Level of setvice B represents stable flow with a high degree of ITeedom, but with
some influence ITom the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. For a
signalized intersection, the average delay ranges nom 10 to 20 seconds. An
unsignalized intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for this
level.
.
Level of setvice C depicts a restricted flow which remains stable, but with significant
influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. The general
level of comfort and convenience changes noticeably at this level. The delay ranges
iTom 20 to 35 seconds for a signalized intersection and iTom 15 to 25 seconds for an
unsignaIized intersection at this level.
.
Level of setvice D corresponds to high-density flow in which speed and freedom are
significantly restricted. Though traffic flow remains stable, reductions in comfort and
convenience are experienced. The control delay for this level is 35 to 55 seconds for
a signalized intersection and 25 to 35 seconds for an unsignalized intersection. For
most. agencies in the Twin Cities area, level of setvice D represents the minimal
acceptable level of setvice for regular daily operations.
.
Level of setvice E represents unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of the
intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges from 55
to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and iTom 35 to 50 seconds for an
unsignalized intersection at this level.
.
Level of service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic approaching
the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served. Characteristics often
experienced include: long queues, stop-and-go waves, poor travel times, low comfort
and convenience, and increased accident exposure. Delays over 80 seconds for a
signalized intersection and over 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection
correspond to this level of setvice.
Centre Poinfe Business Park
-20 -
January 15,2001
A TT A CHMENT D
Natural Heritage Letter
. ., . ' .. . , '.. ,
.. ."
. . . .. , . . . ",
ID
\II'\'\I~I'! \ 11!~il,j:i, \i .....'Ii II :'~
January 14, 1997
Mr. Ken Powell
RLK Associates
6110 Blue Circle Drive - Suite 100
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343
Dear Mr. Powell:
RE: Office/business park dcvclopm~i1t, S5, T29, R23, Roseville, Ramsey Counry
SHPO Number: 97-0836
Thank you for consulting with our office during the preparation of an EA W for the above referenced
project.
There are no reported historic properties in the project area, and we feel that the probability of any
unreported properties is low. Therefore, based on available information, we conclude that project is
unlikely to affect any historic properties,
Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation for the protection of historic properties. I f this project is considered for federal assistance,
or requires a federal license or permit, it should be submitted to our office with reference to the
appropriate federal agency,
Please contact me at 612-296-5462 if you have any questions regarding our review of this project.
Sincerely,
, ~/~_-=:>
Dennis A. Gimmestad
Government Programs and Compliance Officer
ATTACHMENT E
Minnesota Historical Society Letter
Minnesota Departlnent of Natural Resources
Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Box 25
)()() Lal'ayclIl' Road
51. Palll. Minncsota )) I ).'i-40
~ ,-... t.'-" ,-":--, r ....,-, I
' ,.,., 1\' , ,
. ~ - ,: ,'" . " ': I'.,
!, '.' ~j ~. ;':. !
! \ .... --
I
,.~; D';.- 1. .:' l 'H\M
. - )..... ~ ..., LUUU
~ !
.' ~-;..5GuUtTLS{
---------------------.
Phone: (651) 296-7863 Fax: (651) 296-1811 E-mail: sarah.hoffman@dnr,state,mn,us
December 20, 2000
Brian Sullivan
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd.
6110 Blue Circle Dr., Suite 100
Minnetonka, MN 55343
Re: Request for Natural Heritage information for vicinity of proposed Center Pointe PUD, T29N
R23W S.5, Ramsey County.
NHNRP Contact #: ERDB 20010543
Dear Mr. Sullivan,
The Minnesota Natural Heritage database has been reviewed to detennine if any rare plant or
animal species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mile
radius of the area indicated on the map enclosed with your infonnation request. Based on this review,
there are no known occurrences of rare species or natural community in the area searched.
The Natural Heritage database is maintained by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research
Program, a unit within the Division of Ecological Services, Department of Natural Resources. It is
continually updated as new infonnation becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on
Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, natural communities, and other natural features. Its
purpose is to foster better understanding and protection of these features.
Because our infonnation is not based on a comprehensive inventory, there may be rare or
otherwise significant natural features in the state that are not represented in the database. A county-by-
county survey of rare natural features is now underway, and has been completed for Ramsey County.
Our infonnation about natural communities is, therefore, quite thorough for that county. However,
because survey work for rare plants and animals is less exhaustive, and because there has not been an
on-site survey of all areas of the county, ecologically significant features for which we have no records
may exist on the project area.
Please be aware that review by the Natura] Heritage and Nongame Research Program focuses
only on rare natural features. It does not constitute review or approval by the Department of Natural
Resources as a whole. If you require further infonnation on the environmental review process for
other wildlife-related issues, you may contact your Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist,
Wayne Barstad, at (651)772-7940.
An invoice for the work completed is enclosed. You are being billed for map and database
search and staff scientist review. Please forward this invoice to your Accounts Payable Department.
Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural
resources.
Sincerely,
~ I ~
Sarah D. HO~
encl: Invoice Environmental Review Coordinator / Ecologist
DNR Infonnation: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 · 1TY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Who Values Diversity
~ Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
"iI" Minimum 01 10% Pos1-COOSumer Waste
3, Dust, Odors, Noise - Some dust will be generated during construction, dust will be
minimized by various means as described in Item 25. The project will not generate
significant odors. Noise impacts during construction may exceed state noise standards
for a limited period of time; every effort will be made to reduce construction noise,
Predicted noise levels from traffic appear to be moderately lower than the current
existing conditions.
4. Wetlands - No direct impact to wetlands will occur due to the project. Treated site runoff
and pretreatment in the stormwater pond is expected. Adverse impacts to the quality of
water in the described wetlands due to stormwater runoff from the site are expected to be
minimal due to pretreatment of runoff and existing use of the basin for stormwater
ponding.
5. Stormwater Management - The Centre Pointe Business Park has been developed with
sites meeting the Business Park PUD requirement of 25% green space. The 1997 EA W
was developed assuming that 25% ofthe developed area would be green space, The
proposed improvements to the Centre Pointe Solutions site will result in meeting the 25%
greens pace requirement. The green space will result in a reduction of the quantity of
surface runoff from this site and ultimately reduce the total runoff identified in the 1997
EA W from the Business Park.
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 EA W 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 Jku. '2. ,~I
Title ~dle ~&4It~~ ~p~ Dr:~
Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared by the staff of the Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota
Planning. For additional information, worksheets or for EAW Guidelines, contact: Environmental Quality Board,
658 Cedar St., St, Paul, MN 55155, 651-296-8253, or www.mnplan.state.mn.us Revised 2/99
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Centre Pointe Business Park
Page 31 of 31
CITY of ROSEVILLE
Community Development Department
LAND USE PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST
APPLICATIONNAM!: ~(llch\!9: ~()~':^t
FILE NUMBER: PI- 3338
ACTION
Date on which the application was filed with Community
Development Department.
Date on which the application was accepted as complete.
Date of letter notifying the applicant that the application was
accepted as complete.
Date of letter notifying the applicant that the application was
incomplete and not accepted, with the reasons listed.
Scheduled date for Planning Commission hearing/action.
Expected date of City Council meeting/action.
Sixty-day deadline (MS 15.99).
Date of publication in official newspaper.
Date notice was sent to adjacent property owners.
Date(s) of staff meetings with applicant and/or applicant's
consultant/representative.
Date of Planning Commission hearing and action taken (approve,
deny, continue). If continued, the reason(s) must be listed.
Date of City Council meeting and action taken.
Date of letter notifying the applicant of City Council's decision.
DATE
~~ .W ,10(> ,
~t · t~ . 1<<>'
~I.~ec.'
lOt- \0, 1a)'
btc.. \1 ..-z.q,\
~~\t~e(
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
December 18, 2001
Mr. Greg Downing
Environmental Quality Board
658 Cedar Street, Third Floor
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
RE: Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet
SoIutia Consulting Office Building within Centre Pointe Business Park
Dear Mr. Downing:
The Roseville City Council, on December 17, 2001, unanimously adopted the enclosed
Resolution (#9965), granting authorization to distribute a Negative Declaration Decision
on the need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Solutia Consulting
project (as described in the attached "Request for Council Action").
If you should have any questions relative to the project or Council action, please call me
at 651-490-2232, or Cathy Bennett, Economic Development Specialist, at 651-490-2241.
Sincerely,
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
~~~
Community Development Director
cc: Solutia Consulting, RLK (Brian Sullivan),MnDot, MnDNR, MnPCA, Metro Council
Attachments: Resolution No, 9965, Request for Council Action document
2660 Civic Center Drive .:. Roseville .:. Minnesota .:. 55113
651-490-2200.:. TDD 651-490-2207 .:. www.ci.roseville;mn.us
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the city of
Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was duly called and held at the City Hall on Monday,
the lih day of December, 2001, at 6:30 p.m.
The following members were present: Mastel, Klausing, Goedeke, Maschka and Kysylyczyn
The following members were absent: None
Member Maschka introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 9965
RESOLUTION GRANTING AUTHORIZATION TO DISTRIBUTE A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION DECISION ON NEED FOR
A VOLUNTARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SOLUTIA PUD AMENDMENT (PF 3338)
WHEREAS, a Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) was prepared for
the Solutia project to provide for a PUD amendment of an additional 15,240 square feet to the
total building area of the 47-acre Centre Pointe Business Park Planned Unit Development, on an
existing 61,000 square foot lot (Lot 3, Block 1, Centre Pointe Business park 2nd Addition) to
construct at 2 story, 21,240 square foot office building in lieu of a one story, 6,000 square foot
sit-down style restaurant; and
WHEREAS, the Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet was distributed to all
parties included in the EA W distribution list, as well as those required to be included pursuant to
the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) regulations; and,
WHEREAS, three comments (Metropolitan Council, MnDOT and MnPCA) were
received and considered by the City of Roseville;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Roseville
hereby adopts the Findings for the Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet on the
Solutia project; and
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 10
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Roseville hereby
adopts the written responses (staff report 12/17/01) prepared in response to the comments
received on the Solutia Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet; and, .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Roseville has
reviewed the entire Record of Decision prepared for the Solutia project; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on all information gathered during the EA W
process, comments received on the EA W, and additional information created and obtained in
response to comments made on the EA W, that while additional permits may be required, the
Solutia project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects and an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be prepared; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Roseville hereby
authorizes the distribution of a negative declaration on the need for an EIS to all parties included
in the Voluntary EA W distribution list and to all persons that commented in writing during the
review period.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member
Klausing, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
WHEREUPON, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Q:\Planning Files\3338_So1utia\EA Wresolution_12] 701 ,doc
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/0]) - Page I]
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager ofthe City of Roseville,
County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared
the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council
held on the 1 th day of December, 200 I, with the original thereof on file in my office.
WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 1 th day of December,
2001.
11YJ! ~
Neal Beets, City Manager
(SEAL)
. ~""'''4( JOl/i',,'.,: STAPLETON
NOleJl Y Public
M MinneSota
y Commission Expilcs JiIfI :11,2005
Signed or attested before me on
. /(~/~
Response to Comments for the Centre Point Business Park EAW dated November 5, 2001
Re: EAW Response to Written Comments
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
RLK Kuusisto, Ltd. Project # 2001-302-M
Response to letter from Charlotte Cohn MnDNR to Dennis Welsch, City of Roseville, dated
December 11, 2001.,
The Centre Pointe Solutions site will incorporate plantings between the existing trail system and
the building. The lowest level of the building will be set to ensure that flooding will not occur in
the lowest level of the building,
Erosion control devises will consist of the appropriate measures needed to ensure that sediment
does not damage resources downstream. These measures will include temporary seeding,
erosion control blankets and mulch on soil that is exposed for more than two weeks,
Efforts have been made throughout the site planning process to decrease the amount of
impervious area on the site. An infiltration basin is proposed as part of the project to help reduce
runoff from the site, Other techniques for reducing runoff will be used if appropriate,
No work is proposed in the regional storm water pond or DNR wetland 50-Was part of this phase
of the project. If work is required a DNR public waters permit will be obtained.
\\Victoria\CommDev\Planning Files\3338_Solutia\Ltr Response EAWSubmittal(121701 ),doc
Response to Comments for the Centre Point Business Park EAW dated November 5, 2001
Re: Response to Written Comments
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
RLK Kuusisto, Ltd. Project # 2001-302-M
Response to letter from Lynne Kolzem MnPCA to Dennis Welsch, City of Roseville, dated
December 10,2001.
The Centre Pointe EAW amendment is for an increase in building size for the last undeveloped
parcel at Centre Pointe, The property is owned by Centre Pointe Solutions and they are
proposing to increase the building square footage from what was originally approved at 6,000 SF
to 21,500 SF, The lot that the proposed building is on is approximately 1.4 acres, The need for
a NPDES permit will be determined and the developer will obtain the necessary permits.
The pond located at the Centre Pointe Solutions site will meet current standards of the MnPCA,
City and the Rice Creek Watershed District. The remaining ponds in Centre Pointe have been
designed to meet the design standards in effect at the time buildings were constructed.
\\Victoria\CommDev\Planning Files\3338_Solutia\Ltr Response EAWSubmittal(121701 ),doc
Response to Comments for the Centre Point Business Park EAW dated November 5, 2001
Re: Response to Written Comments
Metropolitan Council
RLK Kuusisto, Ltd. Project # 2001-302-M
Response to E-mail from Adam Harrington, Metro Transit to Christy Stark Metropolitan
Council dated December 4, 2001.
The Centre Pointe Development is served by Metro Transit Route 801 along Cleveland Ave,
Route 801 provides direct connections to the Rosedale Center Transit Hub, The Columbia
Heights Transit Hub, and the Brookdale Center Transit Hub, These Hubs provide connections
throughout the metropolitan area, Bus stops are provided along Cleveland Ave. The Bus stops
have direct pedestrian access to the businesses in Centre Pointe via sidewalks and the trail
system, Weekday bus service is from 6:00 AM to 9:45 PM, Weekend service is limited to
Saturday from the hours of 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM, The bus service provides curbside drop-off
along Cleveland Ave. Bus shelters were not constructed because the number of commuters using
the system does not warrant their construction,
\\Victoria\CommDev\Planning Files\3338_Solutia\Ltr Response EAWSubmittal(121701 ),doc
Response to Comments for the Centre Point Business Park EAW dated November 5, 2001
Re Response to Written Comments
Minnesota Department of Transportation
RLK Kuusisto, Ltd. Project # 2001-302-M
Response to Letter to Dennis Welsch, City of Roseville from Jennifer Chaput, MnDOT
dated December 6, 2001
The Proposed Solutia Consulting Site will not increase drainage rates onto the MnDOT right-of -
way,
No work is proposed within the MnDOT right-of way. If work is proposed the appropriate permits
will be applied for.
The proposed connections to Cleveland Ave, at Lydia and at Terrace Drive are not part of this
project. The proposed connections will be reviewed as the property to the east of Cleveland Ave,
is developed,
\\Victoria\CommDev\Planning Files\3338_Solutia\Ltr Response EAWSubmittal(121701 ),doc
Minnesota Department of Natural Resource.s
.~(I() LlraY::II~ RO:lcI
SI. 1';1111. !\1ml.H:Sl1\,' .'i5IS~...I()_
10
March 7,2001
Dennis Welsch
Community Development Director
City ofRoseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, }J[N 55113
RE: Centre Pointe Business Park
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W)
Dear Mr, Welsch:
Tbe Department QfNatural Resources (DNR) has revievved the EA W for the Centre Pointe
Business Park projeet. We offer the followmg cormnents for your consideration,
Item 13 indicates that no water appropriation is anticipated with the project. If construction does
indeed require t~porary dewatering in exc.ess of 10,000 gallons per da.y, or 1,000,000 gallons
per year. then a DNR water appropriation permit is necessary.
hem 18 disc.usses issues ofproject-related storm water runoff management. We have tvvo
com.mei.j,~s tv Gffer:
1. Item 18a indicates that the project will u.tilize infiltration areas. This is a positive project
feature and DNR tommends the proposer for this projett feature. Increasingly, D~~ is
recommending consideration of infiltration-based techniques to ensure that both runoff
quanrity and quality are addressed in a project's envirornnental design, We also
commend the proposer for reducing the footprint offue buildings at the site, which will in
turn reduce the amount of storm water runoff generated at the site from the current
condition.
2. Item 18b i11.mcates that runoff will be directed to a regional storm water pond that in tu....'1l
discharges 10 nDNR Wetland 50-W.n This waterbody is Wilson Lake, which is listed on
thrt public waters wetland inventory as #62-00S0W, The regional storm water pond is
part of Wilson Lake. As such ifthe project requires any work io the pond below the the
Ordina.J.)' High Water (OHVl) level of 903.5' (NGVD, 1929), then this activity is under
the jurisdiction of the DNR a.J.ld the work may require a DNR public waters permit.
DNR Informacion: 651-296-6157 " 1-888-646-6~67 " ITY: 651-296-5484 " 1-800-657-3929
An EqWll Oppon:unity Employer
Who Vlllucs OivcP.;;!)'
~:)
Printed on R~e;ycled Paper Containing a
Minimum of 10% Post~on~l[mer Waste
!70'd
~!7:01 100~ 11 JaQ
L!70996~1S9:xe.:J
..
Dennis Welsch. Community Development Director
March i, 2001
The project will include a paved walking trail according to Item 26c, We encourage landscaping
the area beside the trail with native species of shrubs and trees to lessen the impacts of freeway
noise on trail users.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. We do not recommend preparation of an
environmental impact statement (EIS) based upon natural resource considerations, We look
forward to receiving your record of decision and responses to comments at the conclusion of t.'1e
environmental review. Minnesota Rules part 4410,1700, subparts 4 & 5, require you to send us
your Record of Decision within five days of deciding this action. Please contact Bill Johnson of
my staff at (651) 296-9229 if you have questions regarding this letter,
Sincerely.
~~ y (f3?~
Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor
Environmental Planning and Review Section
Office of Management and Budget Services
c: Kathleen Wallace
Con Christianson
Joe Oschwald
Russ Peterson, USFWS
Jon Larsen, EQB
Luigi Sciabarrasi, Veritas Software Company
1120010543-0002
CENTREPOTNTE, WPD
2
SO.d
~U:O~ 100~ ~1 J8Q
LuOg96~~S9:X1?.:J
Fax:6512966047
Dee 11 2001 10:42
P.02
;jlSeM J<1wn'SuIY.J-Isod %OliO wntU!UlW ~~
n 6UiUIIIIU<Y.) mled pop,l,:);jl;! UO OOIl.J!.Id ...
.(j!g}:)A10 S:mrCA QlJh\
n,(OldU/3. Al!un1JoddO {I1nb;:! uv
6Z{)[-L~9-008- I " t>8t>~-96(::-1 ~9:A.LI. .. L9(9-9179-S88-1 " L!;19-96'l-1 ~9 :uo!11JWJOJuI IDXG
',\p;,dOJd ~Hn liO spuod J31t'1r.\u.uO~s gtpJo SUO!}U^~P POOu (l-e~'\-OOI) % I lU~1~10d ~l{~
~AOq'e ITM\ r~Wjr 1s:;JM.Ol S1! l{}~M pgrml~SUo~ s~ ~~Pl!nq M8U :::Il{1 1Bt{1 dlnSUd O} ~uePOdUI~ s~ }~ 'gHS
lU!Od 31WgJ ~nn uo SU~"BldpooU p~pm2~sgp-J\:)u:J~V 1~Ula?hm1?W A:JU~~l;;lUIa [e.r<JpatI OU:;J.n; ~lg1.p
~1!lI.M. 'uoq!pp~ III "SGd.1{ A\gU ~UHl:m!d q2no.nn JO S<181.1 ~UnS!x:;) JO :;)sn ;nn ~no.nn SJ:,;JSTI lli~1S,(S
EBJ} 10 :>{It'd lliO.g ~U!Pl!Dq pGSOdOld :;)tp 2U~a~1:JS lSgg~ns ;},\\ '~:)ueu~p~o 1UdU1g~Bmm.I pmploqs
S~~ U! MOSOO-Z9 U~SBq pnv.ndl\\ 1::J1UA\ :J!lqnd Gpn[:'u~ NU S;lOP 8[[~.,\:;JSOlI JO ~D ::np ~nmPIV
'SP~+S!p }u~~uaZJ~up.w asn PtroI P81t'I:;J~-J.;}1E'A\ s:;)ssn~s!p M \is ~Hn JO 171 'oN lU:;JH
'){IBd sS;:Ju!sng
:)1u~od ~.qu~J ;,')41 .IO] u~[d lJ1u~AO ~tp 01 ~2ueq:J .1Of-etu 'C 8q NU o~ slBaddE rE:sodoxd s~ql
'UO~reliUOJli! mo'\ JOJ ldU~t S~llJ 1.{W'....
p~pnpu~ S! SlU;:)tUtUO:) ;;1s011UO i\dOJ 1:: pm IBsodold JEt{} uo S1UaUlTIlO::J p~U!Ulqns 1iNG g4r '.re~'\
S!I.f3 .!:;)![rea pdll.\g~J\~l s'Ctx\ G::>Bds ;:J:)YJO U~ as-edl:)a~ u-e lO] NI. va 1m linn S;)lOU (!NO ~1U
'UO~re~p~$Uo() mOA 10J
SJU;;)lliWO~ ffU~h\onoJ ~tp l~JJO 'JNI. 'aZ-e.re~ fJup[.rnd puno~.I~pun tre 111fM iju!PEnq A.rO}S-OM.J 100J
Jl1mbs OO~c 1 Z ~ JO uo~p~suo:) S<3AloAIT! pafold <:141 '){lBd sS~U1sn8. ~~u~od ~U}UgJ ~)ll} JO u09-Iod
E U!Ql!i\\ (15u~nnsuoJ -e:nnros) suo9nroS ~Jtr!od d.Ij.U~:) JOJ Sd!1!n~'CJ 31UJodIo:J gql JO UO!Ptu1suo::>
S~AtOAU! pafold S}t{l 'NunO;) ,(~sure1:I tl! GIF^gSO~]O A1!J ~1.{1 u~ :>[lEd ss;;)uJsng :;))U!Od ~IjUGJ
p~SOdOld ::Iq1 JO] M. va dlp P::1A\;)!A3l S1::l{ (<INa) S::I::IJ1l0S::J1I [UJD}eN JO lU;)tl.I).IEd;)G ~ql
:tpsPA\ 'XI^! .maG
(ill va) 1adT..{S)(10.M.1U;)UJSSGSSY ~~UaI.lIUO,I!J\U3: )[.md SSdU!Sn1;l d~U!Od G.11U;):) ::nr
t 1 I ~S NJ;\! ';)H!A;;)SOlI
G1I.!lQ lQ1U;)J :)!J\D 099<::
GWAaso(IjO Al!:)
101:);:).lTG lu8urdoJ;:JJ\ga A1!UTIillUIO:)
'l{:>St~M. s!uuaQ,'.IW
100Z '111;')qLU.3::>~G
{n"ew '!:rn Aq .\\OJ(O,i OJ J;)n\!'11Euf3POJ
[3'1IWIS:>Va Ail}
Or !:!: I~!: r.1I1~:1UII!l\J "PlI:ct 'IS
pHl)~ :>1I:lAI:JI:"] ()()~
s~:)jnos:)~ punn~,N JO ~UdW:WBd~a 'B10SdUU~W
...
Mr. D. Welsch
December 11, 2001
Page 2
In Item No. 16 of the EA W there is the discussion of erosion and sedimentation. Since
large rains can still cause a great deal of damage to the water resources dO\\lnstn~am of this site,
erosion control should consist of elements or methods in addition to sediment fences. The
primary erosion control methods should rely on erosion control blankets, and mulch and seed
that are placed on exposed soils where no work is planned for more than two weeks.
Water quality and surface water runoff are addressed in Item No. 17. We note that the
proposed building site will have more than the City of Roseville's requirement of 25% for green
space. Efforts should still be made to reduce the amount of storm.water that will runoff from the
site. These efforts may include reducing impervious surfaces, using rain gardens, using swales
to convey $[ormwater, using infiltration technique::;, <1.Od using a frost ripper to lQo:;co compacted
soils before they are planted to permanent vegetation.
Thank you for the opportWlity to review this project and the EA W. The project does not
require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (ElS) based on natural resource
impacts or considerations. We look forward to receiving your record of decision and responses
to comments at the conclusion of environmental review. Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700,
subparts 4 and 5, require you to send us your Record of Decision within five days of deciding on
this action.
If you have questions about this letter or these comments, please contact me at (651) 296-
4790.
Sincerely,
Charlotte W. Cohn, Environmental Planner
Environmental Policy and Review Section
Office of Management and Budget Services
Attachment
c; Kathleen Wallace
Steve Colvin
Wayne Barstad
Joe Oschwald
Joe Richter
Rebecca A. Wooden
J on Larsen, EQB
Dan P. Stinnett, USFWS
Rick Kuula, Centre Pointe Solutions (Solutia Consulting)
#20010543-0003
CENTRE POIN'fE BUSINESS ('ARK-CENTRE POINTE SOLUTIONS BAW.DOC
m'd
~~:01 100~ 11 JaQ
L170996~1S9:xe..:J
. 'Qed \2./n/o \
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency~
1:;-"";;;;-~';M*~~-;'.m~~M.=.~!n:>;U,"'O~""~(~~>*,'iW:'~>~_~~=~;:i;i>'4~:0%~""'''''''~'''w=;~,~___,.o~'o ""'f'""f-', 1i"""+>~~_""=~-/...,*,;iF:<i~__,.
December 10, 2001
Mr. Dennis Welsch
City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
RE: Centre Point Business Park EA W
Dear Mr. Welsch:
The staff of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has reviewed the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EA W) for the proposed Centre Point Business Park. We offer the following
comments for your consideration as you make a determination on the need for an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
Item 8 - Permits and Approvals Needed
The EA W incorrectly lists the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System
(NPDES/SDS) General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity (Permit) for this project as not
applicable, Any project that disturbs five or more acres of land is required to obtain a Stormwater Permit.
Also, if a project is less than five acres, but is part of a larger common plan of development or sale that is
greater than five acres (where multiple separate and distinct construction activities may be taking place at
different times on different schedules but under one plan), it is defined as "five or more acres ofland",
This means that-this project will need to obtain a NPDES Pennit from this agency.
Item 17 - Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff
The EA W identifies a stormwater pond located just to the south of the site as the pond that will handle the
site's runoff. Under other items in the EA W, there is reference to eight ponds that were created in 1985
when initial construction work took place on the site. These ponds were created prior to the issuance of
NPDES Stann water Permits for construction activity, which the MPCA started requiring in January of
1994.
The Stormwater Permit requires that any project which creates more than one acre of new impervious
surface must discharge their storm water runoff into a wet-sedimentation basin prior to discharge into
waters of the state, The permit contains design criteria and settling velocity requirements for the ponds,
For smaller storm events these requirements can be the controlling factor in the design of the outlet
structure so that the pond meets the permit requirements. It is unlikely that the ponds that were created
in 1985 will meet these requirements. For more information on permit requirements pJease call
Mike Findorff at (651) 296-6798,
520 Lafayette Rd. N,; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296-6300 (Voice); (651) 282-5332 (HY)
St. Paul . Brainerd . Detroit Lakes . Duluth . Mankato . Marshall . Rochester · Willmar; www.pca.state.mn.us
Equal Opportunity Employer' Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20% fibers from paper recycled by consumers,
Mr. Dennis Welsch
Page 2
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. As the responsible governmental unit for this
environmental review, the city of Rose vi lie is required to prepare specific responses to comments on the
EA W. The city of Roseville is also required to provide notice of its decision on the need for an EIS to all
persons on the EA W distribution list and a copy of the responses to all persons who submitted timely and
substanti ve comments. (Ref. Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 4 and 5) The MPCA must recei ve notice of a
negative declaration for this project before being able to proceed with pennitting. We also seek the
opportunity to review the responses to comments on the EA W prior to the issuance of the MPCA pennits
or approvals for the project so that pertinent infonnation may be ref1ected in these decisions, If you have
any questions concerning our review of this EA W, please contact me at (651) 282-5992.
- Sincerdy,
,_ / ,/ r:.J
- / t. 0'..... ",,,.,,"
,/,,/-t./'I~.'''_ '''?J
." " .I
I ' ,."
./Lynne Kolze
Project Manager
Operations and Environmental Review Section
Regional Environmental Management Di vision
LK:gs
cc: Mike Findorff, MPCA', MD'!'CAP
Welsch, Dennis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Adam Harrington (adam.harrington@metc,state,mn.us]
Tuesday, December 04, 2001 9:05 AM
Christine Stark
Aaron Isaacs
Fwd: EAW review-Centre Pointe Business Park
~
EA'vV rlN!Ow.Cl!n!1i]
POln:e Bus:n
iE Chriscy,
:~',<~r:.t:S .~~o:c s(~ndi.nq t.his E~A.v~. Se(:~ l\aron Isaacs COn\H\ents attach(~d.
agree completely, There is no mention of t~ansit and the service that
is provided to this site via Rt 801, and the connections to everything
e,.se at Rosec!ale etc. vie anc! t1et,ro Commut.er Services l'lorked vlith a
!!l.:mbcr of employees at Centcc;! Point. 1.n 1999-2000 to get bet ter txansi t.
service to that location.
';"!'ilrIsi 1 ar1(1 ped c.icc::es:.~; !nust bf~ rloted, anej .is t'.her(.;!fo:cc: incompJet(~.
'~'hc,!!! k~~; I
hdam Hdl~r.i,n9ton
Hi)!"laqc::r", f{out.e &. 5yst:cITI Planrlinq
".'1et: co Transi t
'::60 6th Ave N
[''Ii. nneapo 1.i, s, [vjN 5 ':) ill1
1
Welsch. Dennis
kD \l,JIO{O (
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Christine Stark [Christine.Stark@metc.state,mn,us]
Monday, December 10,2001 1 :26 PM
denn is, welsch@ci,roseville,mn,us
Fwd: EAW review-Centre Pointe Business Park
~
Fwd EAW
rev(eW~Ct!n!fe POtnle
Hi Dermis,
1 'm the principalrev:i.evler for the Cent.re Pointe EA\'. I've received
c:orrunent.s fro!n all of our L(;?chnical reviewers. The t:.8cr";ni.cdl .rev.l.c;vJer-s
.if! env,i.romnenta.l serv,i.ces, t.ransportation, housing, piH'ks, and
wastewater services have det.ermined the CAW is con~lete, Met.ro Transit
!idS determined the EAW is incomplete and needs addit.ional in.fonnation in
order to find the EAI^! complete. I 1,01 ill attach Aaron Issacs comments per
the EAW, If possible, can you provide me the additional information so
that it can be passed onto Metro Transit. This way a completeness
letter can be mailed! faxed to you on Dee, l~.
/.\n\/ que~:)t ions, let. rile: knov.J.
Thanks,
Chr~.srv
Che.i.sty Stark
t='.Lanner
Planning & T~;chnical 1\.ssi!3t:ance
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park
230 Ease Fifth Street
S::, Paul, MN 55101-1626
651-602-1750
fax: 651-602-1674
christine.stark@metc.state.mn,us
1
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Item Description:
DATE: 12/17/01
ITEM NO:
Agenda Section:
ORDINANCE
A request by Solutia Consulting for an amendment to Planned Unit
Development #1177 for Lot 3, Block 1, Centre Pointe Business Park
2nd Addition and review of comments on a voluntary Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EA W) for office expansion (PF3338).
Manager Approved:
Department Approval:
1. REQUESTED ACTION:
. Take final action on the project Decide whether the EA Wand Final Plan for a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment to the Centre Pointe Business Park are
consistent with the original master plan and the specific PUD ordinance and the
Voluntary EA W impacts and suggested mitigation strategies.
2. HISTORY of REVIEW:
. Application and Draft EA W submitted on: August 28, 2001
. Deadline: 60 days after completion of the EA W process.
. Staff Review: Approval/Denial with choices - October 10, 2001.
. Planning Commission Recommendation of approval (5-0) - October 10,2001.
. City Council Approval of Concept Plan and EA W submission - October 22, 200 I
. City Council Final Actions on EA Wand PUD - December 17, 2001
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 Centre Pointe is a 47 .6-acre master planned business park. Solutia Consulting, a high
technology computer consulting company, has purchased the last remaining lot (61,000
s.f.) in Centre Pointe. Solutia is proposing a 21,240 square foot office building in lieu of
the original Master Site Plan and PUD designation of a maximum 6,000 square foot sit-
down restaurant.
1.2 The Solutia Consulting proposal calls for a 15,240 square foot increase in the square
footage allowance to construct a 2-story building totaling 21,240 square feet with both
underground and surface parking for 87 vehicles.
1.3 The current total permitted square footage of building area in the Ryan Centre Pointe
PUD is 802,500 square feet (as originally approved in 1997 and amended in 2000 and
2001); with the new proposal the total building area would be approximately 818,140
square feet. Also, Woodbridge previously developed 120,000 square feet of building
area prior to the current Ryan PUD for a total of938,140 square feet.
PF 3338 - RCA (12117/01) - Page I
Centre Pointe Planned Unit Development Sta2es of Approval
Centre Pointe PUD 1985 1997 1999 2000 2001
Woodbridge PUD 647,0000 s.f.
Woodbridge -Built 120,000 s.f. 120,000 s.f. 120,000 s.f. 120,000 s.f.
Ryan PUD 619,000 s.f. 619,000 s.f. 619,000 s.f. 619,000 s.f.
Adm. Amendment 10%) 61,900 s.f. 6 I ,000 s.f. 61,900 s.f.
CSM Hotel PUD Amend. 3'0 Business Hotel
(no signif. s.f. added)
Veritas Exp.PUD Amend 122,000 s.f.
Solutia Amendment 15,240 s.f.
Approved PUD 647,000 s.f. 739,000 s.f. 800,300 s.f. 802,500 s.f. 938,140 s.f.
1.4 The original Centre Pointe Master Site Plan for the 61,000 s.f. vacant parcel showed a
6,000 square foot building footprint for a restaurant. The new proposal would add 4,620
square feet to the first floor footprint and a 10,620 square feet second floor. Therefore,
new office building coverage of the parcel totaling 15,240 square feet would occur.
1.5 To reduce parking lot coverage of the parcel and allow for 25% landscaped area, Solutia
Consulting proposes a parking structure to be built under the building for 30+ vehicles.
As proposed, construction would occur in 2002.
1.6 The text for the PUD indicates that the first choice of a permitted use is a sit-down
restaurant and that a second choice of a permitted use is an office building. Specifically
Section 7.2 reads: The uses shall be restricted to those specified in the site plan and
supporting documents including office, office/showroom, office/manufacturing, 2 hotels,
and 1 restaurant within the Centre Pointe Business Park Plan. If either of the hotels or
the restaurant are not built, the lots/sites for those uses on the approved land use/site
plans shall be used for office, office/showroom, or office/manufacturing uses per Exhibit
E-2.
1.7 The major change for the Master Site Plan (a drawing) is changing the identified use
from restaurant to office and adding approximately 4,000 square feet of "footprint" on
the 6,000 square foot building pad.
1.8 The major change for the PUD Agreement (written ordinance) is increasing the building
dimensions for that particular lot.
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 2
1.9 The City Council also is requested to review and comment on the proposed Voluntary
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) that identifies changes in environmental
impacts based on the Solutia change in use and a 15,240 square foot increase in office
building area. While the EA W is in process and the staff expects no major environmental
impacts, the most significant issue will be traffic volumes. This information is available
in a Draft EA W attached to this memo. Staff review has found no significant issues or
changes in the traffic; however, further comment will be sought through the EA W
process.
2.0 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLICATIONS:
2.1 The City of Roseville Comprehensive Plan designates the entire Centre Pointe Business
Park development as a business area. No specific maximum square footage is stipulated
or required in the Comprehensive Plan. The guiding document is the PUD for the Centre
Pointe Business Park, adopted in 1997 and amended in 1999, 2000 and 2001. A copy of
this document is attached.
3.0 POLICY/FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
3.1 The Centre Pointe Business Park was originally planned as a mixed-use development.
Since its creation, the business park has experienced major office growth and little
growth in the warehouse and showroom sector. (The planning for the Business Park had
anticipated a minimum of 50% office space within the Park.) Within the Park developers
have also constructed three hotels specifically to meet the business cliental needs of the
Centre Pointe companies and their employees.
3.2 The Master Site Plan (map) illustrates uses that can complement one another, reducing
the need to travel outside the park for meetings and/or dining. Currently, Centre Pointe
has three hotels all in close proximity to the vacant parcel. Only one of those hotels has a
small dining facility, which is targeted to their own guests. The Master Plan indicates
joint access between two hotels (Courtyard and Fairfield Inn) and the connecting vacant
parcel. Where possible and appropriate, shared parking and access was planned to
minimize traffic and parking impacts on neighboring properties. The PUD (Section 15.2)
requires any restaurant site to have a shared parking easement with adjoining hotels in
order to carry out the Master Plan vision.
3.3 The Master Site Plan (map) also anticipated business park interaction via an elaborate
path system. These paths are in place to allow employees walking access to any structure
for their personal or business needs. Transit service has also been provided to get
employees to and from the park and to reduce vehicle travel.
3.4 Based upon jobs per square feet of building and construction values used in the Twin
Lakes Master Plan process, the fiscal impacts of an office development and a restaurant
are different.
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 3
a. Jobs/Waees: It is estimated that for a 21,240 square foot office building there is a
capacity for approximately 48 jobs that pay an average wage (higher for tech staff
and lower for office staff) of$75,000 for an annual wage of over $3.5 million. A
6,000 square foot restaurant would have at least 22 jobs, with the majority of
them being part time, at an average wage of $20,000 for an annual wage of
$440,000,
b. Construction Value: Office construction and assessed value is higher than that of
a restaurant. A 21,240 square foot high tech office has an estimated construction
value of$120 per square foot for a total value of$2.5 million and an estimated
assessed value of $90 per square foot or $1.9 million. A 6,000 square foot
restaurant may have a construction value of $1 00 per square foot for a total value
of $600,000 but the assessed value is usually lower at about $70 per square foot
or $420,000.
c. Overall Business Park Value: The build out of Centre Pointe has exceeded the
City's expectations for jobs and tax base. There are an estimated 1,350
employees, an annual payroll of $54 million, $40 million of new construction
value, and estimated annual property taxes of $720,000. (In addition, the Veritas
Campus will add 1,000 employees, annual payroll of$70 million, $30 to $35
million in valuewith an estimated $600,000 in new annual property tax revenue.)
Nearby, the master plan for Twin Lakes includes an estimated 3 million square
feet in new multi level office and 600 housing units. Currently, the Twin Lakes
Master Plan does not include a new sit down restaurant but is flexible enough to
accommodate it in the service area at County Road "c' and Cleveland.
4.0 SITE PLAN COMMENTS:
4.1 The Development Review Committee has considered the proposed site plan for Solutia
Consulting and concluded that a few modifications and additional information were
necessary. These include:
A. The trash enclosure must be located adjacent to the existing trash enclosure on the
Fairfield Inn site or in close proximity to the proposed Solutia office building.
Proper setbacks from the parking lot and building are necessary as is adequate
landscape screening.
B. The shared access with Marriott Residence Inn should be eliminated.
C. Screening of the parking lot from Centre Pointe Drive must be 80% opaque
screening to a height of30 inches (Section 7, # 10 PUD). A revised landscape
plan must be submitted for review and approval prior to final City Council
approval.
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 4
O. The utility and landscape plan must be combined on one sheet and submitted with
the other development plans. An irrigation plan is also required and must be
included in the final plan set.
E. The landscape plan must be revised to include all perennials speCies noted on the
plan.
F. Rice Creek Watershed review and approval is necessary.
5.0 EAW SUMMARY:
5.1 The Oraft EA W explains that the level of disturbance on the site has been high and the
uses are all urban developments except for the storm water catchment areas. There are no
occurrences of endangered species.
5.2 The Draft EA W notes that there is adequate water capacity on the site but that the sewer
capacity is limited by the pumping systems. The City has been aware of this situation
since the review and approval of the Courtyard Hotel PUD amendment. Eventually a
new pumping system with added capacity will be installed to meet the needs of the
Business Park when fully occupied.
5.3 Runoff from the site will continue to be handled by a series of filtration areas and ponds.
Silt screening and hay bale erosion interception will handle construction erosion. Storm
water will be pretreated in infiltration areas and ponds before it reaches the wetlands
areas, in a method previously approved by the Rice Creek Watershed. Centre Pointe has
a requirement of retaining 25% of the site in green space. With the proposed
configuration of the buildings (adding height, not impervious surface area) approximately
25% of the site will be green space.
5.4 In terms of generation of toxic or hazardous materials, the site is clean; the Solutia offices
will produce none of these materials. Solid waste (trash) would be collected by private
haulers and delivered to landfills or processing plants. (A restaurant generally would
produce more trash and air exhaust issues.)
5.5 Traffic and parking are important issues in Roseville. The peak PM hour trips will
increase from 22 up to 37 trips, yet the total trip count would only increase by 6
trips (243 to 249). The new facilities (21,240 s.f. of offices, rather than 6,000 s.f. of
restaurant or offices) would create a need for 85 to 88 Solutia on-site parking spaces,
which are shown on the site plan. An Indirect Source Permit, analyzing vehicle exhaust
levels, is no longer required by MnPCA. The EA W states that none of the intersections
will exceed the MnPCA guidelines for carbon monoxide levels.
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 5
5.6 In total, the Centre Pointe Business Park is estimated to generate 7,369 vehicle trips per
day, with approximately 900 trips per peak p.m. traffic hour (244 entering, 686 leaving
the site). The proponents state that no signalized intersection will have service
difficulties based on the proposed development, even with growth in the background
traffic by 2% per year. Only one intersection will change its level of service in the
future, the ramp from Cleveland A venue onto 35W North will change from a service
level of "B" to a service level of "C", which is still functional.
5.7 Non-signalized intersections will continue to function as today, except the North Centre
Pointe Drive intersection with Cleveland A venue, where cars will queue up in Centre
Pointe Drive while attempting to make a left turn to north bound Cleveland A venue. A
solution at this intersection could be a signaled intersection. Signalizing could also help
reduce straightway speeding along Cleveland A venue. (The 1997 PUD and planning
process planned for a signal further south at Lydia and Cleveland in order to reduce
traffic noise and congestion close to residences and to provide a 4 way intersection into
the industrial/park area east of Cleveland. Staff and city traffic consultants will be
reviewing this issue during the EA W review and comment period.)
5.8 The proponents state that the 21,240 square feet of office area will have little negative
impact on the traffic and in fact will remain similar to past projections for the Business
Park, in part, because of the changing nature of the work force (more hi-tech than daily
retail restaurant users) and work hours. The proponents note that hi-tech workers tend to
work at different hours that a tradition 9 to 5 work day.
5.9 Existing noise levels have historically exceeded state noise standards (or residential areas
near County Road "D" and Cleveland A venue. The added traffic from the proposal will
not significantly increase or decrease noise levels. However, construction no'ise may
have a temporary impact, but only during weekday daytime construction hours.
Construction for the building is estimated to take 12 to 14 months, during which noise
and construction dust will be managed to reduce impacts, as much as possible.
5.10 EA W Comments: As on December 12, 2001, the staff has received comment from
. MnDOT regarding protection and permitting of work in or near state highway right-
of-way and MSA roads;
. Metro Council regarding the description and illustration of bus routes near Centre
Pointe that serve this site along Cleveland A venue;
. MnPCA regarding NDPES permits, storm water runoff and ponding calculations;
. MnDNR regarding planting and screening between trails and new construction, and
protection from erosion and flooding, no work in ponding areas is proposed.
(next page)
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 6
6.0 ST AFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
6.1 The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the proposed change in the
Master Site Plan, the proposed Solutia site plan, the proposed PUD Amendments, and the
draft EA W. The DRC concluded that the Master Site Plan designates the vacant parcel
as a restaurant site to serve the users of the Business Park. It is limited to 6,000 square
feet of building area and 82 off-street parking spaces. The proposed change in use is not
sensitive to the mixed-use nature of the Master Site Plan, and is not supportive or
complementary to the existing uses, both directly adjacent to the vacant parcel as well as
those throughout the business park. By not developing a restaurant on the site, it is
possible that more off-site employee vehicle trips will be generated, especially during the
lunch hours.
6.2 Recently staff received an inquiry regarding the location of a sit-down restaurant in
Centre Pointe. Also, the tenants and some property managers in Centre Pointe have
indicated the location of a restaurant in Centre Pointe as a specific need. This
information has been provided to staff through on-site visits as part of the City's business
retention program and as evidenced by the attached letter from Ryan Companies,
property manager for many of the buildings in Centre Pointe.
6.3 The DRC concluded that the PUD controls the uses on the site with specific terms and
conditions under which parcels and uses shall develop. The PUD indicates that if a
restaurant is not developed, an office is an appropriate alternative. However, the site is
limited to 6,000 square feet of building, unless a PUD amendment is approved.
6.4 The Community Development Director reviewed the proposed change in the Master Site
Plan, the proposed Solutia site plan, the PUD Amendments, and the Draft EA W. The
Community Development Director concluded that PUD Agreement is the regulatory
document for the vacant parcel and that the proposed use, as an office, is appropriate and
permitted, especially if the previous lot owner has demonstrated that there is no market
for a restaurant. In addition, the proposed two-story office could increase the parcel's
allowable square footage, lot coverage, and impervious coverage; however, these
changes do not present heightened environmental concern as evidenced in the Draft
EAW.
6.5 The Planning Commission was presented three recommendation options based on the
staff considerations indicated above:
~ Deny the request; retain the 6,000 sq. ft restaurant pad.
~ Approve a 6,000 sq. ft. one story office building.
~ After an EA W negative declaration, amend Master Site Plan and PUD to allow
two-story 21,240 sq. ft. office building
7.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 7
7.1 On October 10,2001, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing
regarding the Solutia Consulting request. At the hearing no citizens addressed the
Commission. E-mails were presented to the Commission from tenants and property
managers supporting the need for a restaurant on the vacant parcel. However the
Commission did ask questions pertaining to the difference in the Master Plan, Master
Plan Map, and the adopted PUD. The Commission also asked specific questions
pertaining to the site and use of the building (see attached draft minutes).
7.2 The Planning Commission determined that the Concept PUD Amendment for land uses
and master site plan proposed by Solutia, consisting of a 15,500 square feet of additional
office space and 6,000 square feet of allowable office space within the existing Planned
Unit Development, is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the intent of the 1997
Centre Pointe PUD, noting that the city policy is market driven development and office
space is now needed in the market, and the proposal meets/exceeds the City's goals for
head of household living wages.
7.3 Based on the above determination, the Roseville Planning Commission recommended (5-
0) approval of the proposed General Concept Plan for a PUD amendment (# 1177) to
allow construction of the 21,500 square foot Solutia office building, an increase in the
allowable square footage within the Centre Pointe PUD of 15,240 square feet subject to
the conditions listed in that project report dated 10/ I % I.
7.4 Further, the Planning Commission made no comment on the Draft EA W nor cited any
significant environmental impacts requiring further review in an Environmental Impact
Statement.
8.0 CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS:
Previously the Roseville City Council took the following actions:
· Approved the change in the Master Site Plan for Lot 3, Block I, Centre Pointe
Business Park from restaurant to office and the General Concept Plan for Solutia
Consulting regarding the proposed construction of a 21,240 square foot, two-story
office structure, which increases the allowable building size by 15,240 square feet
from 6,000 square feet to total of 21,240 square feet, subject to the conditions
listed in Section 4.1 (A through F) of the project report dated 10/22/0 I and
eliminating all references to a restaurant use, associated terms and conditions, and
stipulating terms and conditions under which the Solutia Consulting office
structure must be developed consistent with the proposed site plan, structure
design plan and other supporting plan set documents.
· Approved the first reading of an ordinance amending Planned Unit Development
Agreement # II 77.
· Approved the distribution of the Voluntary Draft EA W for review, with notice to
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 8
be published concerning its availability,
9.0 SUGGESTED FINAL ACTIONS:
For Decem5er 17,2001, the following final actions are suggested:
9.1 By resolution, approve the Voluntary Draft EA W Final Decision of "No Negative
Impact" and the distribution of the decision to EQB and state agencies and
commentors. Since no significant environmental impacts were identified, the Council
action should be to provide a "negative declaration" on the EA W - which means there
are no significant impacts that would require further environmental analysis and
additional mitigation than what is proposed.
9.2 After a second reading of the PUD amendment and ordinance, by motion take final
action to approve (deny or modify) the Solutia Office Building PUD Amendment
and ordinance.
Report by: Thomas Paschke (651-490-2236); Dennis Welsch (651-490-2232)
Attachments: Draft EA W; Site Plans; Centre Point PUD and amendments
Acceptance date: 60-Day Time Limit: 60 days after conclusion of EA W process
Q:\Planning Files\3338_Solutia\RCA (121701 ).doc
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 9
Mr. Brian Sullivan
RLK Kuusisto LTD
6110 Blue Circle Drive, #100
Minnetonka, MN 55343
MN Dept of Natural Resources
Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor
Charlotte W. Cohn, Env'l Planner
Office of Mgmt and Budget Services
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
Christy Stark
Plan'g & Tech Asst
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park, 230 E 5th St
St Paul, MN 55101-1674
Adam Harrington
Mgr., Route & System Planning
Metro Transit
560 6th Ave N
Mpls., MN 55411
MN Pollution Control Agency
Lynne Kolze
Project Mgr, Reg'l Env Mgmt Div
520 Lafayette Rd N
St. Paul, MN 55155-4194
Solutia Consulting
Mr. Rick Kuula
1241 Amundson Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the city of
Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was duly called and held at the City Hall on Monday,
the 1 ih day of December, 2001, at 6:30 p.m.
The following members were present: Mastel, Klausing, Goedeke, Maschka and Kysylyczyn
The following members were absent: None
Member Maschka introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 9965
RESOLUTION GRANTING AUTHORIZATION TO DISTRIBUTE A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION DECISION ON NEED FOR
A VOLUNTARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SOLUTIA PUD AMENDMENT (PF 3338)
WHEREAS, a Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) was prepared for
the Solutia project to provide for a PUD amendment of an additional 15,240 square feet to the
total building area of the 47-acre Centre Pointe Business Park Planned Unit Development, on an
existing 61,000 square foot lot (Lot 3, Block 1, Centre Pointe Business park 2nd Addition) to
construct at 2 story, 21,240 square foot office building in lieu of a one story, 6,000 square foot
sit-down style restaurant; and
WHEREAS, the Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet was distributed to all
parties included in the EA W distribution list, as well as those required to be included pursuant to
the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) regulations; and,
WHEREAS, three comments (Metropolitan Council, MnDOT and MnPCA) were
received and considered by the City of Roseville;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Roseville
hereby adopts the Findings for the Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet on the
Solutia project; and
PF 3338- RCA (12/17/01) - Page 10
)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Roseville hereby
adopts the written responses (staff report 12/17/01) prepared in response to the comments
received on the Solutia Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Roseville has
reviewed the entire Record of Decision prepared for the Solutia project; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on all information gathered during the EA W
process, comments received on the EA W, and additional information created and obtained in
response to comments made on the EA W, that while additional permits may be required, the
Solutia project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects and an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be prepared; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Roseville hereby
authorizes the distribution of a negative declaration on the need for an EIS to all parties incbded
in the Voluntary EA W distribution list and to all persons that commented in writing during the
review period.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member
Klausing, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
WHEREUPON, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Q:\Planning Files\3338 _ Solutia\EA Wresolution_12170 ) ,doc
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 11
(
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville,
County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared
the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council
held on the lih day of December, 2001, with the original thereof on file in my office.
WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 1 ih day of December,
2001.
11uJ &:t9
Neal Beets, City Manager
(SEAL)
Signed or attested before me on
/{~~
~
Metropolitan Council
Building communities that work
~""IC:C ~~
\'2../Ut lot
fo-;.+ \A.(A"Ice~ \7../Z.1 ~I
December 14,2001
Dennis Welsch
Community Development Director
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
RE: The City of Roseville Environmental Assessment Worksheet- Centre Pointe Solutions/ Solutia
Consulting
Metropolitan Council District 11
Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 18468-2
Dear Mr. Welsch:
Metropolitan Council staff reviewed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) on the Centre
Pointe Solutions expansion project. The review concludes that the EA W is incomplete with respect to
regional concerns. The Council is unable, without additional infonnation, to detennine whether the EA W
is accurate or if there are major issues of consistency with Council policies. Until additional infonnation
is provided, the Council withholds any opinion about the necessity of an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for regional purposes. The Council encourages the city to withdraw the EA W, prepare additional
materials to address the issues identified below and re-issue the EA W at a later date.
Centre Pointe Solutions proposes to buil9 a 21,,500 square: foot buildjng within a portion of the Centre
Pointe' Business Park in Ros~vill~., The office,project was previously approve4,for 6,900 square feet of,
office space, and Centre Pointe Solutions is proposing an additional i5,500 SF bfoffice space for the site.
Item 28- Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services (Aaron Isaacs, MetroTransit)
For the following reasons, the EA W is incomplete for review. The EA W makes no mention that Centre
Pointe Business Park is directly served by Route 801 and indirectly by all other routes serving the
Rosedale and Columbia Heights hubs. Bus stops adjacent to the business park are not indicated in the
EA W. Additionally, there is no mention if sidewalks are present or planned along the development to
connect the business park to bus stops, or if bus shelters are being considered for the area.
In addition, staff provides the following advisory comments for your consideration:
Transportation (Ann Braden, 651-602-1705)
The conclusions and recommendations for the original 1997 traffic study are still valid for this modified
development plan. The traffic impacts associated with the current Centre Pointe Business Park proposal
are nearly identical to the impacts that were concluded to with the Centre Pointe Business Park proposals
approved in the spring of 1997 and February 2000.
. .f ~. ~.
".- '.- ,"'.
. o'. ~ ....;.., .
, - -.._ . -' .Jr-' ~ " " " , p-
The only Level of-Service (LO$) problem exist~,atrtpe,North Centre p'ojpte-Drive 'and Clevelarid Avenue
':ihtersection: 'fheproblem ~an be mitigated with th~': instaHa,tiq1} ~9rtf~r.~p'Mgllal:c~h~(jis~a~r e'~t~~~'Nof.th
Centre Pomte DrIVe or LydIa Avenue along Cleveland Avenue. The cIty'and county should mom tor-the
: two iritersections"and take appropriate action to resol~e LOS difficulti~s a,~)hey arise.
. \ . ~, ." . . - .. ,.. .
. .... I
. r:.:
"_.1
www,metrocouncil,org
Metro Info Line 602- I 888
230 East Fifth Street . St. Paul. Minnesota 55101-1626 . (651) 602-1000 . Fax 602-1550 . TIT 291-0904
An Equal OpportWlity Emp/nyer
Dennis Welsch
December 14,2001
Page 2
Once additional infonnation is received, Council staff will complete the review process in a timely
manor. The Centre Pointe- Solutions EA W is in confonnity with regional systems for parks, aviation,
wastewater services, transportation, environmental services, and the Regional Growth Strategy. This
concludes the Council's review of the EA W. The Council will take no fonnal action on the EA W. If you
have any questions or need further infonnation, please contact Christy Stark, principal reviewer, at 651-
602-1750,
Sin/y' ~
Ca~
Deputy of Regional Administration
cc: Roger Williams, Metropolitan Council District 11
Eli Cooper, MCCD Director, Planning and Growth Management
Phyllis Hanson, Manager, Planning and Technical Assistance
Christy Stark, Planner, Planning and Technical Assistance
Cheryl Olsen, Referrals Corrdinator, Planning and Technical Assistance
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 12/17/01
ITEM NO: J-2
-Manager A roved:
)1J -
A request by Solutia Consulting for an amendment to Planned Unit
Development #1177 for Lot 3, Block 1, Centre Pointe Business Park
2nd Addition and review of comments on a voluntary Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EA W) for office expansion (PF3338).
Agenda Section:
ORDINANCE
1. REQUESTED ACTION:
. Take final action on the project Decide whether the EA Wand Final Plan for a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment to the Centre Pointe Business Park are
consistent with the original master plan and the specific PUD ordinance and the
Voluntary EA W impacts and suggested mitigation strategies.
2. HISTORY of REVIEW:
. Application and Draft EA W submitted on: August 28, 2001
. Deadline: 60 days after completion ofthe EA W process.
. Staff Review: Approval/Denial with choices - October 10,2001.
. Planning Commission Recommendation of approval (5-0) - October 10, 2001.
. City Council Approval of Concept Plan and EA W submission - October 22, 2001
. City Council Final Actions on EA Wand PUD - December 17,2001
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 Centre Pointe is a 47.6-acre master planned business park. Solutia Consulting, a high
technology computer consulting company, has purchased the last remaining lot (61,000
s.f.) in Centre Pointe. Solutia is proposing a 21,240 square foot office building in lieu of
the original Master Site Plan and PUD designation of a maximum 6,000 square foot sit-
down restaurant.
1.2 The Solutia Consulting proposal calls for a 15,240 square foot increase in the square
footage allowance to construct a 2-story building totaling 21,240 square feet with both
underground and surface parking for 87 vehicles.
1.3 The current total permitted square footage of building area in the Ryan Centre Pointe
PUD is 802,500 square feet (as originally approved in 1997 and amended in 2000 and
2001); with the new proposal the total building area would be approximately 818,140
square feet. Also, Woodbridge previously developed 120,000 square feet of building area
prior to the current Ryan PUD for a total of938,140 square feet.
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 1
Centre Pointe Planned Unit Development Stae:es of Approval
Centre Pointe PUD 1985 1997 1999 2000 2001
Woodbridge PUD 647,0000 s.f.
Woodbridge -Built 120,000 s.f. 120,000 s.f. 120,000 s.f. 120,000 s.f.
Ryan PUD 619,000 s.f. 619,000 s.f. 619,000 s.f. 619,000 s.f.
Adm. Amendment 10%) 61,900 s.f. 61,000 s.f. 61,900 s.f.
CSM Hotel PUD Amend. 3rd Business Hotel
(no signif. s.f. added)
Veritas Exp.PUD Amend 122,000 s.f.
Solutia Amendment 15,240 s.f.
Approved PUD 647,000 s.f. 739,000 s.f. 800,300 s.f. 802,500 s.f. 938,140 s.f.
1.4 The original Centre Pointe Master Site Plan for the 61,000 s.f. vacant parcel showed a
6,000 square foot building footprint for a restaurant. The new proposal would add 4,620
square feet to the first floor footprint and a 10,620 square feet second floor. Therefore,
new office building coverage of the parcel totaling 15,240 square feet would occur.
1.5 To reduce parking lot coverage of the parcel and allow for 25% landscaped area, Solutia
Consulting proposes a parking structure to be built under the building for 30+ vehicles.
As proposed, construction would occur in 2002.
1.6 The text for the PUD indicates that the first choice of a permitted use is a sit-down
restaurant and that a second choice of a permitted use is an office building. Specifically
Section 7.2 reads: The uses shall be restricted to those specified in the site plan and
supporting documents including office, office/showroom, office/manufacturing, 2 hotels,
and 1 restaurant within the Centre Pointe Business Park Plan. If either of the hotels or the
restaurant are not built, the lots/sites for those uses on the approved land use/site plans
shall be used for office, office/showroom, or office/manufacturing uses per Exhibit E-2.
1.7 The major change for the Master Site Plan (a drawing) is changing the identified use from
restaurant to office and adding approximately 4,000 square feet of "footprint" on the
6,000 square foot building pad.
1.8 The major change for the PUD Agreement (written ordinance) is increasing the building
dimensions for that particular lot.
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 2
1.9 The City Council also is requested to review and comment on the proposed Voluntary
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) that identifies changes in environmental
impacts based on the Solutia change in use and a 15,240 square foot increase in office
building area. While the EA W is in process and the staff expects no major environmental
impacts, the most significant issue will be traffic volumes. This information is available
in a Draft EA W attached to this memo. Staff review has found no significant issues or
changes in the traffic; however, further comment will be sought through the EA W
process.
2.0 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLICATIONS:
2.1 The City ofRoseville Comprehensive Plan designates the entire Centre Pointe Business
Park development as a business area. No specific maximum square footage is stipulated
or required in the Comprehensive Plan. The guiding document is the PUD for the Centre
Pointe Business Park, adopted in 1997 and amended in 1999, 2000 and 2001. A copy of
this document is attached.
3.0 POLICYIFISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
3,1 The Centre Pointe Business Park was originally planned as a mixed-use development.
Since its creation, the business park has experienced major office growth and little growth
in the warehouse and showroom sector. (The planning for the Business Park had
anticipated a minimum of 50% office space within the Park.) Within the Park developers
have also constructed three hotels specifically to meet the business cliental needs of the
Centre Pointe companies and their employees.
3,2 The Master Site Plan (map) illustrates uses that can complement one another, reducing
the need to travel outside the park for meetings and/or dining. Currently, Centre Pointe
has three hotels all in close proximity to the vacant parcel. Only one of those hotels has a
small dining facility, which is targeted to their own guests. The Master Plan indicates
joint access between two hotels (Courtyard and Fairfield Inn) and the connecting vacant
parcel. Where possible and appropriate, shared parking and access was planned to
minimize traffic and parking impacts on neighboring properties. The PUD (Section 15.2)
requires any restaurant site to have a shared parking easement with adjoining hotels in
order to carry out the Master Plan vision.
3,3 The Master Site Plan (map) also anticipated business park interaction via an elaborate
path system. These paths are in place to allow employees walking access to any structure
for their personal or business needs. Transit service has also been provided to get
employees to and from the park and to reduce vehicle travel.
3,4 Based upon jobs per square feet of building and construction values used in the Twin
Lakes Master Plan process, the fiscal impacts of an office development and a restaurant
are different.
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 3
a. JobslWae:es: It is estimated that for a 21,240 square foot office building there is a
capacity for approximately 48 jobs that pay an average wage (higher for tech staff
and lower for office staff) of $75,000 for an annual wage of over $3.5 million. A
6,000 square foot restaurant would have at least 22 jobs, with the majority of them
being part time, at an average wage of $20,000 for an annual wage of $440,000.
b. Construction Value: Office construction and assessed value is higher than that of
a restaurant. A 21,240 square foot high tech office has an estimated construction
value of$120 per square foot for a total value of$2.5 million and an estimated
assessed value of $90 per square foot or $1.9 million. A 6,000 square foot
restaurant may have a construction value of $100 per square foot for a total value
of $600,000 but the assessed value is usually lower at about $70 per square foot or
$420,000.
c. Overall Business Park Value: The build out of Centre Pointe has exceeded the
City's expectations for jobs and tax base. There are an estimated 1,350
employees, an annual payroll of $54 million, $40 million of new construction
value, and estimated annual property taxes of $720,000. (In addition, the Veritas
Campus will add 1,000 employees, annual payroll of$70 million, $30 to $35
million in value with an estimated $600,000 in new annual property tax revenue.)
Nearby, the master plan for Twin Lakes includes an estimated 3 million square
feet in new multi level office and 600 housing units. Currently, the Twin Lakes
Master Plan does not include a new sit down restaurant but is flexible enough to
accommodate it in the service area at County Road "C' and Cleveland.
4.0 SITE PLAN COMMENTS:
4.1 The Development Review Committee has considered the proposed site plan for Solutia
Consulting and concluded that a few modifications and additional information were
necessary. These include:
A. The trash enclosure must be located adjacent to the existing trash enclosure on the
Fairfield Inn site or in close proximity to the proposed Solutia office building.
Proper setbacks from the parking lot and building are necessary as is adequate
landscape screening.
B. The shared access with Marriott Residence Inn should be eliminated.
C. Screening of the parking lot from Centre Pointe Drive must be 80% opaque
screening to a height of 30 inches (Section 7, # 10 PUD). A revised landscape
plan must be submitted for review and approval prior to final City Council
approval.
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01)- Page 4
D. The utility and landscape plan must be combined on one sheet and submitted with
the other development plans. An irrigation plan is also required and must be
included in the final plan set.
E. The landscape plan must be revised to include all perennials species noted on the
plan.
F. Rice Creek Watershed review and approval is necessary.
5.0 EAW SUMMARY:
5.1 The Draft EA W explains that the level of disturbance on the site has been high and the
uses are all urban developments except for the storm water catchment areas. There are no
occurrences of endangered species.
5.2 The Draft EA W notes that there is adequate water capacity on the site but that the sewer
capacity is limited by the pumping systems. The City has been aware of this situation
since the review and approval of the Courtyard Hotel PUD amendment. Eventually a
new pumping system with added capacity will be installed to meet the needs of the
Business Park when fully occupied.
5.3 Runoff from the site will continue to be handled by a series of filtration areas and ponds.
Silt screening and hay bale erosion interception will handle construction erosion. Storm
water will be pretreated in infiltration areas and ponds before it reaches the wetlands
areas, in a method previously approved by the Rice Creek Watershed. Centre Pointe has
a requirement of retaining 25% of the site in green space. With the proposed
configuration of the buildings (adding height, not impervious surface area) approximately
25% of the site will be green space.
5.4 In terms of generation of toxic or hazardous materials, the site is clean; the Solutia offices
will produce none ofthese materials. Solid waste (trash) would be collected by private
haulers and delivered to landfills or processing plants. (A restaurant generally would
produce more trash and air exhaust issues.)
5.5 Traffic and parking are important issues in Roseville. The peak PM hour trips will
increase from 22 up to 37 trips, yet the total trip count would only increase by 6
trips (243 to 249). The new facilities (21,240 s.f. of offices, rather than 6,000 s.f. of
restaurant or offices) would create a need for 85 to 88 Solutia on-site parking spaces,
which are shown on the site plan. An Indirect Source Permit, analyzing vehicle exhaust
levels, is no longer required by MnPCA. The EA W states that none of the intersections
will exceed the MnPCA guidelines for carbon monoxide levels.
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 5
5.6 In total, the Centre Pointe Business Park is estimated to generate 7,369 vehicle trips per
day, with approximately 900 trips per peak p.m. traffic hour (244 entering, 686 leaving
the site). The proponents state that no signalized intersection will have service
difficulties based on the proposed development, even with growth in the background
traffic by 2% per year. Only one intersection will change its level of service in the future,
the ramp from Cleveland Avenue onto 35W North will change from a service level of
"B" to a service level of "C", which is still functional.
5.7 Non-signalized intersections will continue to function as today, except the North Centre
Pointe Drive intersection with Cleveland A venue, where cars will queue up in Centre
Pointe Drive while attempting to make a left turn to north bound Cleveland A venue. A
solution at this intersection could be a signaled intersection. Signalizing could also help
reduce straightway speeding along Cleveland Avenue. (The 1997 PUD and planning
process planned for a signal further south at Lydia and Cleveland in order to reduce
traffic noise and congestion close to residences and to provide a 4 way intersection into
the industrial/park area east of Cleveland. Staff and city traffic consultants will be
reviewing this issue during the EA W review and comment period,)
5.8 The proponents state that the 21,240 square feet of office area will have little negative
impact on the traffic and in fact will remain similar to past projections for the Business
Park, in part, because of the changing nature of the work force (more hi-tech than daily
retail restaurant users) and work hours. The proponents note that hi-tech workers tend to
work at different hours that a tradition 9 to 5 work day.
5.9 Existing noise levels have historically exceeded state noise standards for residential areas
near County Road "D" and Cleveland A venue. The added traffic from the proposal will
not significantly increase or decrease noise levels. However, construction noise may
have a temporary impact, but only during weekday daytime construction hours.
Construction for the building is estimated to take 12 to 14 months, during which noise
and construction dust will be managed to reduce impacts, as much as possible.
5.10 EA W Comments: As on December 12, 2001, the staff has received comment from
. MnDOT regarding protection and permitting of work in or near state highway right-
of-way and MSA roads;
. Metro Council regarding the description and illustration of bus routes near Centre
Pointe that serve this site along Cleveland Avenue;
. MnPCA regarding NDPES permits, storm water runoff and ponding calculations;
. MnDNR regarding planting and screening between trails and new construction, and
protection from erosion and flooding, no work in ponding areas is proposed.
(next page)
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 6
6.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
6.1 The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the proposed change in the
Master Site Plan, the proposed Solutia site plan, the proposed PUD Amendments, and the
draft EA W. The DRC concluded that the Master Site Plan designates the vacant parcel as
a restaurant site to serve the users of the Business Park. It is limited to 6,000 square feet
of building area and 82 off-street parking spaces. The proposed change in use is not
sensitive to the mixed-use nature of the Master Site Plan, and is not supportive or
complementary to the existing uses, both directly adjacent to the vacant parcel as well as
those throughout the business park. By not developing a restaurant on the site, it is
possible that more off-site employee vehicle trips will be generated, especially during the
lunch hours.
6.2 Recently staff received an inquiry regarding the location of a sit-down restaurant in
Centre Pointe. Also, the tenants and some property managers in Centre Pointe have
indicated the location of a restaurant in Centre Pointe as a specific need. This
information has been provided to staff through on-site visits as part of the City's business
retention program and as evidenced by the attached letter from Ryan Companies, property
manager for many of the buildings in Centre Pointe.
6.3 The DRC concluded that the PUD controls the uses on the site with specific terms and
conditions under which parcels and uses shall develop. The PUD indicates that if a
restaurant is not developed, an office is an appropriate alternative. However, the site is
limited to 6,000 square feet of building, unless a PUD amendment is approved.
6.4 The Community Development Director reviewed the proposed change in the Master Site
Plan, the proposed Solutia site plan, the PUD Amendments, and the Draft EA W. The
Community Development Director concluded that PUD Agreement is the regulatory
document for the vacant parcel and that the proposed use, as an office, is appropriate and
permitted, especially if the previous lot owner has demonstrated that there is no market
for a restaurant. In addition, the proposed two-story office could increase the parcel's
allowable square footage, lot coverage, and impervious coverage; however, these changes
do not present heightened environmental concern as evidenced in the Draft EA W.
6.5 The Planning Commission was presented three recommendation options based on the
staff considerations indicated above:
~ Deny the request; retain the 6,000 sq. ft restaurant pad.
~ Approve a 6,000 sq. ft. one story office building.
~ After an EA W negative declaration, amend Master Site Plan and PUD to allow
two-story 21,240 sq. ft. office building
7.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 7
7.1 On October 10,2001, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing
regarding the Solutia Consulting request. At the hearing no citizens addressed the
Commission. E-mails were presented to the Commission from tenants and property
managers supporting the need for a restaurant on the vacant parcel. However the
Commission did ask questions pertaining to the difference in the Master Plan, Master
Plan Map, and the adopted PUD. The Commission also asked specific questions
pertaining to the site and use of the building (see attached draft minutes).
7.2 The Planning Commission determined that the Concept PUD Amendment for land uses
and master site plan proposed by Solutia, consisting of a 15,500 square feet of additional
office space and 6,000 square feet of allowable office space within the existing Planned
Unit Development, is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the intent of the 1997
Centre Pointe PUD, noting that the city policy is market driven development and office
space is now needed in the market, and the proposal meets/exceeds the City's goals for
head of household living wages.
7.3 Based on the above determination, the Roseville Planning Commission recommended (5-
0) approval of the proposed General Concept Plan for a PUD amendment (#1177) to
allow construction of the 21,500 square foot Solutia office building, an increase in the
allowable square footage within the Centre Pointe PUD of 15,240 square feet subject to
the conditions listed in that proj ect report dated 10/1 % 1.
7.4 Further, the Planning Commission made no comment on the Draft EA W nor cited any
significant environmental impacts requiring further review in an Environmental Impact
Statement.
8.0 CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS:
Previously the Roseville City Council took the following actions:
· Approved the change in the Master Site Plan for Lot 3, Block 1, Centre Pointe
Business Park from restaurant to office and the General Concept Plan for Solutia
Consulting regarding the proposed construction of a 21,240 square foot, two-story
office structure, which increases the allowable building size by 15,240 square feet
from 6,000 square feet to total of21,240 square feet, subject to the conditions
listed in Section 4.1 (A through F) of the proj ect report dated 10/22/01 and
eliminating all references to a restaurant use, associated terms and conditions, and
stipulating terms and conditions under which the Solutia Consulting office
structure must be developed consistent with the proposed site plan, structure
design plan and other supporting plan set documents.
· Approved the first reading of an ordinance amending Planned Unit Development
Agreement # 11 77.
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 8
· Approved the distribution of the Voluntary Draft EA W for review, with notice to
be published concerning its availability.
9.0 SUGGESTED FINAL ACTIONS:
For December 17,2001, the following final actions are suggested:
9.1 BY RESOLUTION, APPROVE THE VOLUNTARY DRAFT EAW FINAL
DECISION OF "NO NEGATIVE IMPACT" AND THE DISTRIBUTION
OF THE DECISION TO E~ AND STATE AGENCIES AND
COMMENTORS. Since no significant environmental impacts were identified, the
Council action should be to provide a "negative declaration" on the EA W - which means
there are no significant impacts that would require further environmental analysis and
additional mitigation than what is proposed.
9.2 After a second reading of the PUD amendment and ordinance, by motion take final
action to approve (deny or modify) the Solutia Office Building PUD Amendment
and ordinance.
Report by: Thomas Paschke (651-490-2236); Dennis Welsch (651-490-2232)
Attachments: Draft EA W; Site Plans; Centre Point PUD and amendments
Acceptance date: 60-Day Time Limit: 60 days after conclusion of EA W process
Q:\Planning Files\3338 _ Solutia\RCA (121701 ).doc
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 9
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the city of
Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was duly called and held at the City Hall on Monday,
the 1 ih day of December, 2001, at 6:30 p.m.
The following members were present: Mastel, Klausing, Goedeke, Maschka and Kysylyczyn
The following members were absent: None
Member
introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION GRANTING AUTHORIZATION TO DISTRIBUTE A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION DECISION ON NEED FOR
A VOLUNTARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SOLUTIA PUD AMENDMENT (PF 3338)
WHEREAS, a Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) was prepared for
the Solutia project to provide for a PUD amendment of an additional 15,240 square feet to the
total building area of the 47-acre Centre Pointe Business Park Planned Unit Development, on an
existing 61,000 square foot lot (Lot 3, Block 1, Centre Pointe Business park 2nd Addition) to
construct at 2 story, 21,240 square foot office building in lieu of a one story, 6,000 square foot
sit-down style restaurant; and
WHEREAS, the Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet was distributed to all
parties included in the EA W distribution list, as well as those required to be included pursuant to
the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) regulations; and,
WHEREAS, three comments (Metropolitan Council, MnDOT and MnPCA) were
received and considered by the City of Roseville;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Roseville
hereby adopts the Findings for the Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet on the
Solutia project; and
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 10
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Roseville hereby
adopts the written responses (staff report 12/17/01) prepared in response to the comments
received on the Solutia Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Roseville has
reviewed the entire Record of Decision prepared for the Solutia project; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on all information gathered during the EA W
process, comments received on the EA W, and additional information created and obtained in
response to comments made on the EA W, that while additional permits may be required, the
Solutia project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects and an
Environmental Impact Statement (ElS) will not be prepared; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council ofthe City of Roseville hereby
authorizes the distribution of a negative declaration on the need for an EIS to all parties included
in the Voluntary EA W distribution list and to all persons that commented in writing during the
review period.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
WHEREUPON, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Q:\Planning Files\3338_So1utia\EA Wresolution_121 701.doc
PF 3338 - RCA (12/17/01) - Page 11
Resolution - Solutia
ST ATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville,
County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared
the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council
held on the 17th day of December, 2001, with the original thereof on file in my office.
WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 17th day of December,
2001.
Neal J. Beets, City Manager
Signed or attested before me on
,2001
by Neal J. Beets
(Notary Public)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT #1177,
BEING THE CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, TO ALLOW AND ADDITIONAL 15,240 SQUARE FEET OF
OFFICE DEVELOPMENT (PF3338)
The City Council of the City of Roseville does ordain:
Section 1. Pursuant to Section 1008 (Planned Unit Developments) of the City
Code of the City of Roseville, Planned Unit Development 1177, for property generally
located at 3015 Centre Pointe Drive, within the Centre Pointe Business Park, is herein
amended to allow the following:
Within the 47-acre Centre Pointe Business Park Planned Unit Development, on
the vacant 61,000 square foot lot (as described below), an additional 15,240
square feet in total building area, to allow Solutia Consulting to construct a two-
story, 21,240 square foot office building, which shall meet all other criteria and
required permits of the original P UD# 1177 as well as implement the Solutia EA W
state agency comments, The previous Master Site Plan indicated a 1 story, 6,000
square feet restaurant building.
The vacant parcel addressed as 3015 Centre Pointe Drive is legally described as:
Lot 3, Block 1, Centre Pointe Business Park 2nd Addition, City of Roseville,
Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance amendment to the City Code shall take
effect upon passage by the City Council and publication,
Passed this _ day of
,2001.
Q:ComDev/Planning Files/PF _3338_SolutialPUD Amend Ordinance 12170 I
Response to Comments for the Centre Point Business Park EAW
Re: Centre Pointe Business Park EAW Response to Written Comments
Minnesota Department of Transportation
RLK Kuusisto, Ltd. Project # 2001-302-M
Response to Letter to Dennis Welsch, City of Roseville from Jennifer Chaput, MnDOT dated
December 6, 2001
The Proposed Solutia Consulting Site will not increase drainage rates onto the MnDOT right-of-
way,
No work is proposed within the MnDOT right-of way, If work is proposed the appropriate permits
will be applied for,
The proposed connections to Cleveland Ave, at Lydia and at Terrace Drive are not part of this
project. The proposed connections will be reviewed as the property to the east of Cleveland Ave,
is developed,
C:\TEMP\Ltr Response EAWSubmittal.doc
tl1
,. OF ~'f,6
Minnesota Department of Transportation
kd
~\D.u:o(
~
Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road 82
Roseville, MN 55113
December 6, 2001
Mr. Dennis Welsch
City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Subject:
Centre Point Business Park -- MnlDOT Review File # EA W01-029
East ofl-35W and North of County Road C
Roseville, Ramsey County
Control Section 6284
Dear Mr. Welsch:
Please be advised that the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above
referenced Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W). Please address the following issues before any
further development:
· The proposed development will need to maintain existing drainage rates (i.e., the rate at which storm
water is discharged fi-om the site must not increase). The City or project developer will need to
submit before/after hydraulic computations for both 10 and 100 year rainfall events verifying that all
existing drainage patterns and systems affecting MnlDOT right of way will be perpetuated, Please
direct questions concerning these issues to Eric Kasa (651-634-2076) ofMnlDOT's Water Resources
section.
· Any use of or work within MnlDOT right of way requires a permit. A drainage permit may be
required. Please direct questions regarding permit applications to Keith Van Wagner (651-582-1443)
of MrJDOT's Permits section.
· As a reminder, the Roseville Municipal State Aid system includes proposed connections to Cleveland
Avenue at Lydia Avenue (MSA 226) and at Terrace Drive (MSA 246). Any work on a MSA route
must meet State Aid rules and policies. Also, the City must review any changes to its Municipal State
Aid system so that they stay within its system limitations. You may obtain additional information
regarding State Aid rules and policies in any of the following ways:
~ http://www.dot.state.mn.lIs/stateaidl shows or has links to the applicable forms and the MnlDOT
State Aid Manual.
~ Refer to the Mn/DOT State Aid Manual, Chapter 5-892.200 for information regarding standards
and policies.
~ Please go to http://\\'Ww,revisor.leg..state.mn,us/arule/8820/ for information regarding State Aid
Operations Rules Chapter 8820.
~ For driveway standards, the designer is directed to refer to the Mn/DOT Road Design Manual
(English) Table 5-3.04A and Figure 5-3.04A for guidance and policies. Driveway widths, other
than those recommended, up to 50 feet will be permitted only by special permission of the
Commissioner of Transportation or designee.
Please contact Jim Deeny in our State Aid section at (651) 582-1389 with any additional questions.
An equal opportunity employer
Please address all future correspondence for development activity such as plats, site plans, environmental
reviews, and comprehensive plan amendments to:
Paul Czech, Principal Transportation Planner
Mn/DOT - Metro Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of
other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2)
copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and
response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the
necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete
submittals.
Feel free to contact me at (651) 582-1378 if you should have any questions,
Copy: David Claypool, Ramsey County
Dan Soler, Ramsey County
Rick Kuula, Centre Point Solutions
Mn/DOT Division File - C.S. 6284
Mn/DOT LGL - Roseville
2
Response to Comments for the Centre Point Business Park EAW dated November 5, 2001
Re: Response to Written Comments
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
RLK Kuusisto, Ltd. Project # 2001-302-M
Response to letter from Lynne Kolzem MnPCA to Dennis Welsch, City of Roseville, dated
December 10, 2001.
The Centre Pointe EAW amendment is for an increase in building size for the last undeveloped
parcel at Centre Pointe, The property is owned by Centre Pointe Solutions and they are
proposing to increase the building square footage from what was originally approved at 6,000 SF
to 21,500 SF, The lot that the proposed building is on is approximately 1.4 acres. The need for
a NPDES permit will be determined and the developer will obtain the necessary permits,
The pond located at the Centre Pointe Solutions site will meet current standards of the MnPCA,
City and the Rice Creek Watershed District. The remaining ponds in Centre Pointe have been
designed to meet the design standards in effect at the time buildings were constructed,
C:\TEMP\Ltr Response EAWSubmittal.doc
"Qed \2./ nlD \
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency~
.~_._y,-_?_~.>
...-....--"''''->-... 1
December 10, 2001
Mr. Dennis Welsch
City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
Rosevi11e, MN 55113
RE: Centre Point Business Park EA W
Dear Mr. Welsch:
The staff of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has reviewed the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EA W) for the proposed Centre Point Business Park. We offer the following
comments for your consideration as you make a determination on the need for an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
Item 8 - Permits and Approvals Needed
The EA W incorrectly lists the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System
(NPDES/SDS) General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity (Permit) for this project as not
applicable. Any project that disturbs five or more acres of land is required to obtain a Stormwater Permit.
Also, if a project is less than five acres, but is part of a larger common plan of development or sale that is
greater than five acres (where multiple separate and distinct construction activities may be taking place at
different times on different schedules but under one plan), it is defined as "five or more acres of land".
This means that-this project will need to obtain a NPDES Permit from this agency.
Item 17 - Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff
The EAW identifies a stormwater pond located just to the south of the site as the pond that will handle the
site's runoff. Under other items in the EA W, there is reference to eight ponds that were created in 1985
when initial construction work took place on the site. These ponds were created prior to the issuance of
NPDES Storm water Permits for construction activity, which the MPCA started requiring in January of
1994.
The Stormwater Permit requires that any project which creates more than one acre of new impervious
surface must discharge their storm water runoff into a wet-sedimentation basin prior to discharge into
waters of the state. The permit contains design criteria and settling velocity requirements for the ponds.
For smaller storm events these requirements can be the controlling factor in the design of the outlet
structure so that the pond meets the permit requirements. It is unlikely that the ponds that were created
in 1985 will meet these requirements. For more information on permit requirements please call
Mike Findorffat (651) 296-6798.
520 Lafayette Rd. N,; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296-6300 (Voice); (651) 282-5332 (TTY)
81. Paul . Brainerd . Detroit Lakes . Duluth · Mankato · Marshall · Rochester · Willmar; www.pca.state.mn.us
Equal Opportunity Employer' Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20% fibers from paper recycled by consumers,
Mr. Dennis Welsch
Page 2
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. As the responsible governmental unit for this
environmental review, the city ofRoseville is required to prepare specific responses to comments on the
EA W. The city ofRoseville is also required to provide notice of its decision on the need for an EIS to all
persons on the EA W distribution list and a copy of the responses to all persons who submitted timely and
substantive comments. (Ref. Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 4 and 5) The MPCA must receive notice of a
negative declaration for this project before being able to proceed with permitting. We also seek the
opportunity to review the responses to comments on the EA W prior to the issuance of the MPCA permits
or approvals for the project so that pertinent information may be reflected in these decisions. If you have
any questions concerning our review of this EA W, please contact me at (651) 282-5992.
Sincerdy,
:l" '//if-_/
f..- u. ". --~..~'
.~--. ~",~,,-,,_., ~.
(/ I
../'Lynne Kolze
Project Manager
Operations and Environmental Review Section
Regional Environmental Management Division
LK:gs
cc: Mike Finaorff I MPCA',: MD'I'CAP
Response to Comments for the Centre Point Business Park EAW
Re: Centre Pointe Business Park EAW Response to Written Comments
Metropolitan Council
RLK Kuusisto, Ltd. Project # 2001-302-M
Response to E-mail from Adam Harrington, Metro Transit to Christy Stark Metropolitan
Council dated December 4, 2001.
The Centre Pointe Development is served by Metro Transit Route 801 along Cleveland Ave,
Route 801 provides direct connections the Rosedale Center Transit Hub, The Columbia Heights
Transit Hub, and the Brookdale Center Transit Hub, These Hubs provide connections throughout
the metropolitan area, Bus stops are provided along Cleveland Ave, The Bus stops have direct
pedestrian access to the businesses in Centre Pointe via sidewalks and the trail system,
Weekday bus service is from 6:00 AM to 9:45 PM, Weekend service is limited to Saturday from
the hours of 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM, The bus service provides curbside drop-off along Cleveland
Ave. Bus shelters were not constructed because the number of commuters using the system
does not warrant their construction,
C:\TEMP\Ltr Response EAWSubmiUal,doc
Welsch. Dennis
kD I'2.-J 10 {o (
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Christine Stark [Christine.Stark@metc,state.mn.us]
Monday, December 10, 2001 1 :26 PM
dennis. welsch@ci.roseville.mn.us
Fwd: EAW review-Centre Pointe Business Park
~
Fwd EAW
revIew-Centre Pointe ... HiDe n n is,
I'm the principal reviewer for the Centre Pointe EAW. I've received
comments from all of our technical reviewers. The technical reviewers
in environmental services, transportation, housing, parks, and
wastewater services have determined the EAW is complete. Metro Transit
has determined the EAW is incomplete and needs additional information in
order to find the EAW complete. I will attach Aaron Issacs comments per
the EAW. If possible, can you provide me the additional information so
that it can be passed onto Metro Transit. This way a completeness
letter can be mailed/ faxed to you on Dec. 14.
Any questions, let me know.
Thanks,
Christy
Christy Stark
Planner
Planning & Technical Assistance
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park
230 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101-1626
651-602-1750
fax: 651-602-1674
christine.stark@metc.state.mn.us
1
Welsch, Dennis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Adam Harrington [adam.harrington@metc.state,mn.us]
Tuesday, December 04, 2001 9:05 AM
Christine Stark
Aaron Isaacs
Fwd: EAW review-Centre Pointe Business Park
~
EAW review~Cenlre
POlnte Busin...
Hi Christy,
Thanks for sending this EAW. See Aaron Isaacs comments attached. I
agree completely. There is no mention of transit and the service that
is provided to this site via Rt 801, and the connections to everything
else at Rosedale etc. We and Metro Commuter Services worked with a
number of employers at Centre Point in 1999-2000 to get better transit
service to that location.
Transit and ped access must be noted, and is therefore incomplete.
Thanks,
Adam Harrington
Manager, Route & System Planning
[vjetro Transit
560 6th Ave N
Minneapolis, MN 55411
Response to Comments for the Centre Point Business Park EAW dated November 5,2001
Re: EAW Response to Written Comments
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
RLK Kuusisto, Ltd. Project # 2001-302-M
Response to letter from Charlotte Cohn MnDNR to Dennis Welsch, City of Roseville, dated
December 11, 2001.
The Centre Pointe Solutions site will incorporate plantings between the existing trail system and
the building, The lowest level of the building will be set to ensure that flooding will not occur in
the lowest level of the building,
Erosion control devises will consist of the appropriate measures needed to ensure that sediment
does not damage resources downstream, These measures will include temporary seeding,
erosion control blankets and mulch on soil that is exposed for more than two weeks.
Efforts have been made throughout the site planning process to decrease the amount of
impervious area on the site, An infiltration basin is proposed as part of the project to help reduce
runoff from the site, Other techniques for reducing runoff will be used if appropriate,
No work is proposed in the regional storm water pond or DNR wetland 50-Was part of this phase
of the project. If work is required a DNR public waters permit will be obtained.
C:\TEMP\Ltr Response EAWSubmittal.doc
'Kc~
\~lpfo'
'Minnesota Department of N'atural Resources ~
5(){) l.arilyt:II': Ruud
$1. Paul. Minnesota 55155,40_..,
[BY FACSIMILE]
rOri2inal Letter to Follow by u.s. Mail]
December 11, 2001
Mr: Dennis Welsch
CommWlity Development Director
City of Rosevi11e
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville,:MN 55113
RE: Centre Pointe Business Park Enviromnental Assessment Worksheet (EA W)
Dear Mr. Welsch:
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EA W for the proposed
Centre Pointe Business Park in the City of Roseville in Ramsey County. This project involves
construction of the corporate facilities for Centre Pornte Solutions (Soluua CODsulting) within a
portion of the Centre Pointe Business Park. The project involves constl1.1ction of a 21,500 square
foot two-story building with an undergroW1d parking garage. We offer the following comments
for your consideration.
The DNR notes that an EA W for an increase in office space was -reviewed earlier this
year. The DNR submitted comments on. that proposal and a copy of1hose comments is included
with this letter for your infonnatioIl.
This proposal appears to n.ot be a major change to the overall plan for the Centre Pointe
Business Park.
Item No. 14 of the EA W discusses water-related land use m<inage111ent districts.
Although the City of Roseville does not include Public \-Vater Wetland basin 62-0050W in its
shoreland management ordinance, we suggest screening the proposed building from park or trail
system users thxough the use of existing trees or through planting new trees. In addition, while
there are no Federal Emergency Management Agency-designated floodplains on the Centre Point
site, it is important to ensure that the new building is constructed with its lowest level well above
the potential 1 % (lOO-year) flood elevations of the stormwater ponds on the property.
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 .. TTY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929
An Equal OppQ{\unity Employcr
Who Values Diversity
.,.,., Printad on Aecycletl Paper ContaIning \I
""W Minimum of 10% Posl.{;Onsumer Waste
7". I
7~.^T T^^~ TT ~~~
,L-"""''''''',._.._.... ..~_ .
Mr. D. Welsch
December 11, 2001
Page 2
In Item No. 16 of the EA W there is the discussion of erosion and sedimentation. Since
large rains can still cause a great deal of damage to the water resources downstream of this site,
erosion control should consist of elements or methods in addition to sediment fences. The
primary erosion control methods should rely on erosion control blankets, and mulch and seed
that are placed on exposed soils where no work is planned for more than two weeks.
Water quality and surface water runoff are addressed in Item No. 17. We note that the
proposed building site wj1l have more than the City of Roseville's requirement of 25% for green
space. Efforts should still be made to reduce the amount of stor.mwater that will runoff from the
site. These efforts may include reducing impervious surfaces, using rain gardens, llsing swales
to convey sronnwarer, using infiltration tcchniquc:;. cmd using a fro5t ripper to 1005(:11 compacted
soils before they are planted to pennanent vegetation.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project and the EA W. The project does not
require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) base:d on natural resource
impacts or considerations. We look forward to receiving your record of decision and responses
to comments at the conclusion of environmental review. Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700,
subparts 4 and 5, require you to send us your Record of Decision withi.n five days of deciding on
this action.
If you have questions about this letter or these COlID11ents, please contact me a.t (651) 296-
4790.
Sincerely,
Charlotte W. Cohn, Environmental Planner
Environmental Policy and'Review Section
Office of Management and Budget Services
Attachment
c: Kathleen Wallace
Steve Colvin
Wayne Barstad
Joe Oschwald
Joe Richter
Rebecca A. Wooden
Jon Larsen, EQB
Dan P. Stinnett, USFWS
Rick Kuula, Centre Pointe Solutions (Solutia Consulting)
#20010543-0003
CENTRE P01N'fE. BUSIN8SS f.!'\RK-CENTRE POLNTE SOLUTIONS SAw.OOC
,...,.... I
~h.AT T~~7 TT ~~n
.....r-.^"r7Trr\. vn I
::....
~
~
~
\j
cj::\j l,1,J
~~ ~
)..,~ ~
~ ~-3 ~ ~
~~~~~
l1.J::::>~lLJQ:.j
gg~g~
~ ~~td
:5~~~!JJ
Oct:s;.~
~~9::~3
U!:IJ~~
~~ <: ~i
~~ t.) ,
-J 1,lJ(j ;;J
"'1: 00
~
~
CJ
cS
I
.
f
I ;
I
Ii!
J' 81
,I IJ
~i ~J
i11 H
~h ! Ii 1
II i ! a: I
II' t II
· Ii 1'1 I
}, "1 I
III I H ~!
.n t ~IJ fi
11& . ! I!
!Ilt ! II' H
,I,. : :I'
HiI ~ I, ,I
jjli i 11 tI
lilt g JI II
~ lhi ! ~h d
Iill
1,,)
-'I
! Jjll
I IHf
j I~hf
1 hU~
I nil 1
J Hi ~
j !hll J B
! hhJ k ~ -I
~ tnt'J ! I~ ~ h
j ,~It I J I
I hu! i ; ) I!
I
5
i
J}'
~.}
III
ill I
I r I i
I r J J)1 liJ
! I ! riB !] ij
J J
i j
I I
,JJ ,JJ
~h ~h
! !H !H
I
I
J 1 !
I I I I I H
: I 111I1I1'hll! /,11 ~
htilhlHII rhflll JhH i
~. JJJ JJJ JJJ JJ JJ HJ m IIJ JI J
:I!~
. J
~ -=---(;-- ,----?
c!lSit:,t~J:il;ae",q.,1 if:G'U. .
)/lfjld SS3NISfl8
i
!
II
..
I
:~ ,.._J
c ,/,/
'"
~
'\
\
\
\ ~~!
\ ~
\ ! '" ",
\ ~
\ .!
\ 1\1) ;-
......-.......,lj; 0
0...
i,
I -
I
I,
!;
" 'r' I
" !,rl=, ,t) ""~ 1 .I'",Ir.:",
.
~=:S~
I,
I'
.!
"
M.9c
ON
A t>'MHoIH
=u. t>'.1stBiN/
!!
U
t
J:,I
~
~
'"
'"
-..,::
""
<>::
""
"-
'"
'"
'"
~
;;;
::,
'"
..~ :
'to ::
I._.g--'."~~"--""I-<>'" -U"'I
::::-""'I:r~ , .c.=:. ,
:=.::- x-IH "'_-.kJ~-::;:"':,.""":
::: =-~ '-.-/ -~::.::==-_'"":.'t:"~~
~
~i!~i~ i; I~~ ~;i I ~
A 9~~~ ~5 ~~~ ~.~ ~ ~
~ B~ ~ ~- ~ge ~~~ ! ~
;i~;!1 ii i~! ~!i s I
(/) iR ~iI " gl ~~ ~ S 1\
~ 91!;a~ ~ta ;5i .~i ~ j
o I:!gQeh IS!~ gb~ (;e~ . ~
~ ~b;ljj ~I! Ai~i ~~e I ~
~ 3~ygll III III! lil~ i I
~ Aa~sAi ~~W !e.~ ~~~ ~ ~
.., ~-'._~,-_..... .....
,:.:
CENTRE
". ....
, ,
'.
~~ ,"hHh
~ ~ "
!jj'; hi
~~~ 'L
~
~
-
h!
gi
i~
!J~~~
~I~!~
~Jvt
, rM,
,. ~~_tc--,
L~~~i)
_"N ..
~i
~i
~i
\
c::w
..w~
~80SS HI'! 'I!3J.YIII11tlS
:n:nll:) NOSaNIU'IY ~?~I
':111 'SNOUn1OS l.NiOd ]!l.LNJ:)
j.~
~~i:
:i~.
~Q'e.
~.. ,
i1~!
, ",'~,
.:(::')
'I di ..
: ,;h ~~,
l' .:",
I . 0 ':~ ;
! ~ .
'N~'~
. .".
: -.
, ~
! :!-:
..~..
i
. ,
~-
_.'. . .,..; "
. :'~ ..:..~'~-t.) """
)~ .~.:., /~~;:~'"''
"'\"'."
" '
, "
/.'
=u. I1'.JStSiN
"" -.-.....
DNmna 3:!li:IO
DNtl 1t1SNOO ytlmos
;/
"
'.
)
"
I~;"."'~'~I-"'''. -.., I
"a~. 'X'TIf.. - -_-=:, -=-=.,......--:
WI .--. "--/ - ~::.= ::=- _..:::..:::.::.
'--
~~ Nft '!l3J.VMl1l1S
:n:)I!I:J NOSONnllV It~1
':Jl1 'SNOl1nlOS lNlOd 3!1lN3:J
i ~I~li ~! i ~ I g~ K
a cb~5 ~ " ~ 0 ~i ~
~ ~ ;i~t~ Is 3 ~ ~ t~ b
b "5~! 11~ .. " !! lOt 11'
~ li~)I ~ ~ ~ t n -0 e ~
~ .Rae~~ ."~ A ~ i ~~ aw
~ :~Ii'-:~ ~ii; I ;:i il
en Q II I!~el i IS,,!J e!j 0
~ il !.~ii~21 ~:~ ;1 :~ ; I~ Ii
w 10 ~BgH~!lB ~e 90 ~ 5 ..5 I~
~ t~ A~~ni~ M t~ i~ t Ii ~i
.. ......
~ -
~ i
~~~ ~~~
~~'" 5I'2R
~~~~:i:;i n~~~
~~~~S3 h;'..
5r;~~2. ;! ~
~ i ~
~
;
~
"00 ~
~ "" ~ ~:
<t ~~i~dl ~ 3~
~ ~!ni ailn ~ ~~i
~ :1=%1111111 ~ i~
en
:.::
()
<t
<D" .,
~ Ih~lj~~
'~.
<
CENTRE t '. .j
a~ BE ~R
;~ i~ i"
, ~
pOIN1f
"' .." .~~. ~_. ....
I I
I I
n~)\'
to
r-
c=
~==
.- -j ,-
l---- s
- ' -
_._..__ ~ ~ -----'I 9
I ,,-" · "
r--. ~~
I -'.
[--' .._"~.
_____ ~~ I
I 1-'
, ,
-_.~_.. .
. ---
L.;~, I.,,-'-"........i.,j
r----: '~j i
t--- ,
,........--- --=1.
r- I;~ -r~i
! :'l:':Z~J ~a~
I i gI,~t;: ~
j i~ B;-,~;
"~ ~K
, ~~
~~
.~
~:
-"
I
;
,-1
ti~
S~
~~
~.
f
~
cw
..w~
:Ii. "'.l.Sl:EI.W
H'fld 3.16 A.tn'H.1U'mId
'm "'Jm\1$OV
:Jr8t~I~~~ms
~~I
,
I,
IVTE1isrA TE
~AY
~~~
"8
35W h
;3
~~
M?
~ ':
":p>- .~._.-
;f;' .
--'-"~-.' -.".,."'
'"n.
.
.-:,J
~:'
,-
l
~ 1
rl
~ 1)
.aUh";' \
;~ . ~ "-~~ '.i
R" .. 'i
~"!~i:~: ,,\"
.......
,,-
.-
,-
(1'
.~,
',_ ",:,_':";"'~_,k _:.:........,"'~ ,'" ...k-_~.,..~.v. ~
;.
..-A"'" ,"
. ..~~ ,r
~" E
H l
"
I~~
~i i~i ~ rid t ~Rili sigiU~Ei I~ ~~~ ~ . ~
~! ~R! K ~~a i ! 1III ~~i6 e~'~ ~ ~~a I ~
ii ~Ie i aJ~ I;; . ~IJ li;i~x!;1 ~~ I!~ ~~I!il ~
I; :i I ;i! ~~I ;ii I!I;I;R~~; ;f~ il~12; ~
~ ~; ~ Iii :!~ i~~ ;;!a!~I! i !I !;;a:x
i ~~ II ~u i!I!R I!lii iI~~ijijiile - a!1 I! R@I~
i ij~ i ;.~ il2; X5~ ~&R~g~~~ I a~ ~;I~ g
: ~g i I~~ ~I!' ~R5 !~IR.;ll; ~ ~~ iaxi g
~ ~I ~ gi ~i ... ~ ~/ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~
~ 0
~
CEN'IRi: POINT SOLUTIONS. u.c,
1241 AI.IIJNOSON ORa.E
STIU.WA TER. UN 55082
I ;:z$'E':E-=....==. ~ I ~ -= =1
-....-.- RI...K ._.....-.sa.
~ ":::J;L.::';:=
DA1't_ II:I:'MO_ .'.I_a....r........'......,..::..:,...MSoI
~
~
f
;
~
I~}-
/
"
SOOO&mln1{,NG
~....
PII!I.I>IIIIARY
WIDSCAI'[ FUH
MERsrA TE
-I-
~AY
....,
""
,r
~
Wlllj!llilil! ~I
i!.~
~'"
c-
I ~ ~ "'i';'.
~~
"';!;
I ~
~
, f Hhut ~ '"
~
IhU;UHIII :
" I
- c
. .,
i iliI;Ii;;5ij;;;J;~5;iI ~
~i ~i ~ ~ is I
d ~~ h" ~ ~
Ii U nh!
~uq ~U a
a s~ "~ 5
~ Id; ~
.BI! Ii ~
~ R fi i1
, Q e 8
; ~ h
~ ~
~
CENTRE POiNT SOLUTIONS. ll.C,
1241 AJ.IUNOSON 0RClE
S11ll.WA 1ER. UN 55082
I
~
I
I ~~-E:: I~ ~;~I
C.1!t_ 1t'!:C,..-.:I_ "n_~..." ........1......=_:.."'" IUo.t
~
31:J.J./oB::J
00
.
~
I
I
:;!
~
a
~
i
!!
~CI>
-~ -
;;I" l .
~~s?
ul~
~~
51
~
"
H[
~ ~ .
"" I
er;~
~gJ
I
sF I
f
8 8 ~ I
.......R1.....il!
~
~
r
~:::~~~~~an~--:::t:t:N
ii'5'"
[ g
" "
~f
s: ~..
rr
\ 1-
:lJ
. !
. .
p "l q
. . " ,.. -I~
v~ i~ ~ j! f .ij 5 0 ;; E" r.
i~ i: !!~ !~I !~ hil;1 !!~I m; ~
.I! I! !b I~ al ~i:~ ~p ~~~i ~U i ,..
~. ~. ~.~~: !l ~c i MI "i
~ ~ ~ ~ R ;; q ~~~ =
,...
5
%
!~
II~
fi~
'0
1=
, ... ,
~p
.0 sa ~
~~ ~.~'
- ~ ~ ) .1
,~~~; ~!
~- '--c - !
:~ jC"! ~i~
," ',_.ii~" ".i
.~ ,_.,,'" \ .A.
~ "i r ~ ;~
--;....-
3'(;:;~
IJ II~ II
iv
.. 'I
r
a
M1:RsrA TE
~AY
~-----
-----
:;;' \".
i~
,)_'; ~ u'
"
..'
'u
~:, ....0'
~.
li
Ei
i~
~.i
J!
;
, - -
!i miJi!(I ~'!i~ ~~inlmFm ~jili~lm~lmUH
!i -lfil!!I' d IJII~ f~h ~ H 61 f!jjlil~;liIM I\'ji
.1 :i. Ii , , j !!'!i1' 'I n ,s--II'S.' il-' Ir
~i HJlfli~l! HII! !jiil} J ii :iHil~~ll'~' IIJI~!
H 'f I, : ,,_I !'llf! j! I, -w'WI1! ~ i,
'I !hj!! I I.H~ H illl ~i H lii!iiHinH i IHi
=j I 'II' _~I !I "li I: II !11"f Ip!i ! i' i
! ! Ii l' !j!! ;: Ii,: '1~: ;lIill 11th IJh
i II H Wi II Itll! It ii !ifiii ~lif'll ;'1:
I h : j fill III H ! Iii H 11 "I" H. j ! !' ',;
, ! } ! t JI! :I,f Ii') t ~I ; I .-
I,! Ilf: ,I~tli If 11 ~i]' 1} fi i If
i ill ~!'! f 11 H.t i '!I I ~~
i: iii} ! I]!!! !~i~ \1 lj!:!f iil! 1 J Ii
J! I ~ I' 111 1. ~! II 'I! t ~.
J j illl ! iiP i;1 illl ,I d d!
I; ,~lr i!! 1il: If m~ Ii ~i : =1" H
1\ !II . II! I' f' J ,'t:; I
II gr; If~ ;11 '~lji!liljl
',! tfi ! I' -I' !I! I I'~ I ! il
! J I . ! ! J i!!!
CEN1RE POINT SOlUTIONS. LLC,
1241 AIofUNDSON CIIIa.E
STILLWATER. UN 55D82
I ~~==:: 1,.-...., -"= ~I
-....-..- RLK. ---==-
"'0"" "::: .J;L.:::::::
t;.JI'It_ 1It.c...~_ 1111_O"'"...h.."..'I....._...O~
l'
{
f
\
M:J.
~
:: :::::
-----.
~.~...
---j
., 0'
" 0
- 0'
0'
0' ..
"
~,. O'
" 0
0 :;
0 0
" eO
-
3WJoB:)
-
· ~ --<I}-
&
8 s
lHiEIf:mwmUfUi! i
Iplj(Ui~/3J'n,:lif~B s
I,H,tlit:eISjl :,'hll ~ ~
! f.I!! ' fil I I H i
!f ;"1 'Ill I tJ[!'*
, 'I! llPllb 1. ,I..r
!! Uf!~~':I! It!ln~i
H ~!!'111!~'il t' ti"!
i' J: W"Ht" {'{Ii'i'
-I IJhl'Is.,'f !~Irl!':
I jJ" i' . I ,;11 !t'
i Ii-',lI-; I'jiil'!!
! H -, hlflJ I "II .
<,:, i'! 1 'I ,1'
'I} '! 11 il' I it'!I!
I ,'If'jl.-k.
~ i! ~ !!, i ,I!"p
i j~ ! !!hil { t!.!jl!
I II I fr" I ',I II
- 1; ~Iit," itl(ll
I I' I I Hi! r:l t
, "! II ',; . f t'l
~ 'I, 1=1 -, .! f
I ~Il !fP:! " 1111~i
! Ii I P~;Jf I ~:!t::
!. 1.1 ii' I r I' 'h
; "1, I[~ H O,n"
I .! 1~.1I . -II
1 r! ~I~ Ii I! p!
/'
F~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ a~;;, "'8
!:' ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ i il~ ~~
~ ~ 6>, a ' I-~
". ~ 8j;1 !i 0 ~ i\~
~ ' 0~!S ~ . ,,> ~
8 ~ I~!i ;II!!I 0iS. /;.;
~ ~ I ~ ; ~ :g i
~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,,~
~ i ; 7
I
~ ~~ I H I~ Ii P ~~; ~~
~~ ~ ~., 0 ' a sll ~f
. . ~~ ~ ~ ~::I.. ~o
~ !!i ~~ !i ~ ~ ~o /;.;
~ ~ e ~ tg'l
! n ~ "I
8 '
~
g .
en
::c
~
c:
ca
i~~
S!~
~~~
EI!
~.
.~
I~! i p~
. ~ ~ 5!~;
i ~ Rtti:i
I iiel
~~ ~u
~8 !~
02 ;.
~~ ~~
~a !~
~ ~
\( -
~A:cgjMi;rbNG
~.....
~~ I~~~O" ~i!~
,..J; ~!_~L7I......
~~ ;.e~~ ~r
5~~~ ~'"
8 ~ilig.n ~i
o~ i~~~~i ~'"
~~ . ~"Iig ~~
~~ ~ > ~"' ~~
~ ~~' g ~~
~ CI.,:rB. 0
. g~
I.:~ i! ~ ~~~
I" ~ s ~;:j,^
Po;::! t"IJ::I
; n ~ ~ ~o
~i~ ~ !i ~!
. ~~ ~ ~ .~
i~ ~ ~ ~...
.~ ~ ~ ~~
~~ ~-
~o ~ ~ ~~
VI~ ~ _~
:~ I ~ t
..~ ~ 0 '~
t ~! i
U I ~ ~
I. ~
~ ~
~ ~
-~ ~
"- '
Ag
~
.
~ g~~ ~II' ~~ in~~s i~~ ~~6 8 ~~ :.:~~~ 88 ~g~ C')
("'J -.- ~ >- ;;,;I~ ~ ~ ~ - 0 ~~'"~'" Z1J .Z~ tSJ
g h~ ~ ~ ~~ g~~~ o! i~;:~ ~ Ii ~~~~~ b ~~~ ~
o g~'" 6~g . ~ . R!<> i!~ ~ ~ e 8. !i~~I~ "~~3~ ;I>
c: 5g~ >~~ ~ g;i1 ~~ > ~ ~ :a ~~oo~ gl ~~~ t'"
en ~j~ ~~~ ~ ~A~ ~~ g~~ ~ ~o ~~::~ ~~ 5ig 2
~ ~~ 3~ s ..~~ F h~ ~ ZZ C>"'A~ 0 zL 0
~ 1>>~ ~;f ~ -2~ ~n ~~~ ~ ai ~~~~~ z~ ~oo ~
~ p~~ ~~~ ~ i~i! ~~ ~;~ ~ ~o ~~~;: ~~ ~~ ~
~~ ~n~ ~ ~~o ~~ ~ 0 _ ~~~al ~ ~~
~~ ;~; . ~~~ i~ E~~ ~ ~~ ~~~g5 6 ~~
;; ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~I~ 0 ~ ~~;~~ ~ ~~
:> ~zc ~. ~~ ~ ~ i C ~b~ '" t -:,
~~ Q~B ~ ~'~ > ~ ~ 8 ~.:'~' c '",
.~ ~~~ ~ ;~i -~ ~~ 8 ~ ~~~~a ~ ;~
~. !:1~' ~ !; ~ 00 o. ~ ~ "'-
~~ 8~~ ~ o~A ~~ ~~ ~ ;g~;i ~ ~8
<~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ 5~ ~ '50~~' ~
~~ ;~ '" ~~~ ~~ g~ ~ ~i~~~ ~ g~
~~ i; ~ i~~~:!f i ;~~i i *~
I~ ~i ~ ~i~ ~ ~~ ~ 3~~2 ~ i~
o~; ~I~ 5 ~ M~ ~ ~~
: -:; 0 ~ sago.
(; F. PI ~ 0
.
I
("'J
o
2
:;;
tSJ
~
o
c:
en
~
~
tSJ
tSJ
o
Q
N ~m ~I ~~~ m~~ ~~a~~ ~~~ ~8 ~~
og - ' "13 rt ; ~'!! 6"~a' ~ ~ ~~ ~
~~~ g~~~ '~ alll~:~! ~2"~,~ a~~ ~~ ~~
;~~ ~i~~ i ~i ,'~61' ;!~~: ~~~ i~ ~
~~~ ~d~ i i~i mo! ~~I~~ ii~ ~~ Ii
;;; ~~a ; i~~ g:g~~ ~~i~~ M ~g;~
~i: ~d : ~I; i;:~1 i~~~: :~~ ~; =~
hi ~~l ;1 I ~ ~~~~~ ~~~;I e~" !j ~i
g~ 6~m R ~~~ ~~t~l~ ~~!~ ~~~ ~ ~
~ ~ tjiS.' 3 3~~ >~e 1:;1" oE~ ~ ~~
~ii ~~! ~ ~~~ bi; '~w i!~ i~ ~l
~~ ~h Ii g~ ~'",o ~~!i~ ~ ~~ ~~
r ~~F ~ .~ fA'!! 5 ~< ~~ I F
!~ m ~ ~i Ji; ~;i~ i~ ~ ;
8~ ~~~ ! !~ ~!~i ~~~~ ~~ 2 ~
~~ .~" ".;;g ~o~ ~ ~ ~
",,0:, p.!t~ XI
- .
~~~;% ~~i a!:~ S Uu ~
~~ ., ~~MO Q ~.i C)
I~ Ii; ~~U! ~~~ g
hl,il !;!! ;!! ~
~b ;1 m I ;~; ~
:1 ~i3 li~ ~ 1:1 en
!: i!i ii!! :!.
~: jg ~~x ~ i. ~~
~: ~o ~~ *
gg ~i I~~ ~ii
~~ ~! ~~~ ~~I
{~ ~~ S!~ ~~n
- ~ ~; o~.
~ ';~ I
lAHOSCAPf DETAILS
CENTRE POINT SOlUTIONS. LlC,
1241 AIoIUNDSON CIRClE
S11U.WA lER, UN 55082
.
~~ ~~ ~~S ~! ~~~ ~ ~~ 8~~: ~~'5 5:
'"~ ~~ 6:.!!~ /!~ ~;!~ ~ ~- ~- iJ, ~~ ii 2
~ ~~ "'~ is ooS: '^ ~~ ~~g~ (]~ g ~
~ <5 i:1" i' ~- _ ~~,;I gi'i ~ ~ I' -
~ ~~ g~ :~~ ~ ~~ ~~,a~ ~~~; ~
- ~ i' ~~ i~ 3 I'~ ..'!!gn 0_ S 2
i ~ ~n~ ~~~ ~ ~qhl ~~ >~ 0
; ~ i:!~ ~i~ d ~~ ~~~g!a ; ;j
i i iPI ~I~ i ;1 :1;1 i! : en
i 9 ~~ ~i !~ ~ i! iiV~ ~ K
~ ~ ~~ ~o ~8 8 ~~ i~!~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~u ~~ ;~ ~ ~i ~~Q! ~ I
i ~ 8~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~" I ~
~ r~ 8 ~~ ~; !;is.~ 0 9
Ii ~ :~ ~ !~ ~~. ~~~; s ~
c O'!~ c 8"" S!~ o!~! Po Si
o ~ ~a ~ j~ Ii; ~~;~ ~ ~
~ 0 ;~ ; ~~ ag i~!j~ ~ ~
Ai ~ ~~ !" a
o
. .
.
"'C
s:
2
~
Z
C')
en
"'C
tSJ
("'J
:;;
n
;I>
..;J
(5
2
en
I ~-::"''"''l,-:''-'::''::=:'_I ~ ---I
:....w:.-r=':':.....-- -,.,. RLK ~::-,
Q.,_ .to .._ ~'h~'..,r=~:'
m-"'~
I
(~i
1'-
, I
II
I '
I I
! !
II i
~
i i--
I !
, i
I :
II
! I
! 1 j
!: ,
j i
! i
1 I
\ r
_ _ ' -- _ ]__, I r-- ,,..--
1"r--~'-
'-' ,
-nl un I i ~u_ j-==::-u-i;_u_j_n
~ I II, =' '!1 '
I I :
--- lo-rr ' ---
'JJ ~~ 1 m_ I' I i - ~
, !' 0: I ' ' <(;;
! ! I "I : I ~ 'i ~ ~
; ~ ~ ~I; ! i - -~ : - - + - -1 I i Ii) 2
i T------~r(, ~ --'i! ~ -- r :-f?;ll '01 i :: 1+
I \ ! : 1Q11. ~ 3 : ,i (L
~ \ ':- - -- - --! ~ % . -, H -- - -- - -1, - - ---l Jl' ( ~! -- .- i
I ! ,; : r ! I I I I! ~ i
o-rr. il -- : ------ 1____._: ----~ t:;\ -~l~ 0------
'I II ,V ; I Ii ~
Iii: "ii~-
I IJ Ii i i iL--J I ~
-+1--- :1-- -- ---' -- - ---1'---- -1; - -- --l : 1- - -'~i- - -- -,,- i-- ;----i-~ --
I ! '; i' i: I" - i h ~'~
o-bi:, -- -- -- -- -- -- --~ 0-b!:-- r
-t i I i r I i "--! i :~ i
H !:;: I ~! ~I !~; ,
(0 <b cb cb ~!i G
~;I
~
~
~
i
~
~
] '.
j l~
- !
~. l~ni
U ~i~i
J~ ~h::
r
I
,
I
o -,r.
iii', iiI!
I if'l
/.II
i
EBi
~i! III r ),1 i
I~ II \ \ I II, 11.j','.~J,J I
till ! I AI! II i I II
m! I ~ ,I Ei III i I II
I..I.J
U
u::
u...
o
<(lJ
_Z
.--
:)0
-'=
0:)
V1 c:c
~
Co
2 8
s ::
'-; I r------'------j I
! I i I; I
'I' II
II! I 1 I
I I' I
II I I
Ii! i
III i i
II :~
,I !
11 i I
~1 ~I
_..,!1L__....,,_,____.._,_,,______ ,__..___,_,_,___
I
I
~~
"".
~ ~ ga
}-. -
O!
<( ~S!!i~'
... 4r- QI'I
L 9-aa
:L
m. ~~ 9
<(~~n::~
~ ~hl
h~~
I
i)
"
\ ':
-,- !---------
I
I.
-- ----
~ i
~~
~
o
f-rl j
~ ~
~
~
jii'j !II!
I II I
11
UJ
U
u:
o
<LJ
-z
r--
:)0
....J-'
05
<I'> aJ
5' i~
,..9 h
N <lijfi
!~ ! €i
J~ a liE
!
J
(~
'Ir illll
III III II
,i,l,/III ::: I I
i i ~ I !
Ii i ill i
I I I it.1 !
l1J ____,_,____@
EB!
~
5:
~ 8
S- ~
II! 'II I
'n \ j' B
tll . fl
m II
rill I i Jill
jU,! II ti!! I
Iii i
111 I ~ I
. ,II ~'l..I'J' I
I I Ii I !
IIII I I
1111 ~Jn!
- - - - - - --
- - - - ~ . - -
'!
~;
i
8
,;
rl
A
6
-...
-....
I
I
8
G
~
~
~
~
~
1~ u
H Ii}!!
~2! I .%
~ ~ I ~~
~1
..E
o
m
'"
z
a:o
0-
-....
a:CI;
~iU
)C...J
......
I~Jj 111111\ ~? j
Ilii J j 1I1I1II1 J U 1
,ni J I1111111 ~ ] ~ J
j
l .
it I
I
... ~
a:
::>
'"
C 0
...J
<.J Z
Z
... 0
Z % ~
0 ~ i
~ ....
...J
> ~ia w
w :J:b
...J 3!i
w ....
:J:. ~, 0:::'
1-';' 0.'
:;):- :' a Z!!
0.' ~ .
en!!
. "
I
~ '
i
I J
- I
. Ii
;i "
i-I;
z !3~i I
0 \' ! Z
~ 0
> ~
W
...J W
W. ...J
1-':' w.
en:- ...':'
<.' en:'
w!! w'
;:~
';
r'
City Council Minutes - 10/22/01
DRAFT Copy Page 4
Call, Ayes: Klausing, Maschka, Goedeke, and Kysylyczyn. Nays: none.
F-3 Goedeke moved, Maschka seconded, to approve the Cost Approve Cost Participatio[]
Participation Agreement for the Zimmerman Lake Drainage Agreement / Zimmerman
Improvement Project. Roll Call, Ayes: Klausing, Maschka, Goedeke, Lake Drainage
and Kysylyczyn. Nays: none.
G. Recognitions & Announcements
G-l
Beets described the Proclamation.
Maschka moved, Klausing seconded, to adopt a Proclamation
declaring October 23, - November 23, 2001 as Manufacturers'
Month in the City of Roseville. Roll Call, Ayes: Klausing, Maschka,
Goedeke, and Kysylyczyn. Nays: none.
H. Hearings
H-1
Kysylyczyn moved, Goedeke seconded,' to adopt a resolution
(proposed resolution was distributed at meeting) extending the 60-
day review period regarding consideration of the PUD Final Plan
Rezoning of Roseville Mobile Home Park at 2599 Lexington A venue
North. Roll Call, Ayes: Klausing, Maschka, Goedeke, and Kysylyczyn.
Nays: none.
I. Land Use
I-I
Welsch reviewed the features of this request. Goedeke asked bou
the types of restaurants interested in this site. Gloria Sharp, of
Solutia, overviewed the history and mission of that company. Rick
Houla, of Solutia, reviewed their site selection process, and the cos
and financing for this project. Tony Reichenberger, an employee f
Ehlers, noted other restaurant opportunities in this area.
Maschka moved, Klausing seconded, to approve the change in the
Master Site Plan for Lot 3, Block 1, Centre Pointe Business Park
from restaurant to office and the General Concept Plan for Solutia
Consulting regarding the proposed construction of a 21,240 square
foot, two-story office structure, which increases the allowable
building size by 15,240 feet from 6,000 square feet to total of2l,
240 square feet, subject to the conditions listed in Section 4.1 (A
through F) of the project report dated 1 0/22/01 and eliminating all
references to a restaurant use, associated terms and conditions, and
stipulating terms and conditions under which the Solutia Consulting
Proclamation
Minnesota Manufacturers
& Technology Month
Resolution 9951
Extend 60-Day
Review Period
Roseville Mobile
Home Park
2599 Lexington A v N
(PF3225)
Solutia Consulting
1 st Reading
Amendment to PUD
Centre Pointe Business
Park, 2nd Addition
Review EA W
(PF3338)
~.
City Council Minutes - 10/22/01
DRAFT Copy Page 3
13659-13660
13661-13703
13704-13 8 04
13805-13811
13812-13854
13855-13949
13952-13962
Roll Call, Ayes:
none.
505.99
243,403.85
220,261.04
5,463.42
13,196.71
727,613.92
22.206.31
1,232,751.24
Klausing, Maschka, Goedeke, and Kysylyczyn. Nays:
D. Items Removed from Consent Agenda
E. Organizational Business
E-1 Kysylyczyn moved, Klausing seconded, a change for the November Time Change
13, 2001 meeting time to 5:00 p.m. for the joint work session with City Council Meeting
the Parks and Recreation Commission, with a regular session to Of November 13, 2001
follow at 7:00 p.m. to canvass the vote from the November 6, 2001
General Election and to conduct other City business. Roll Call,
Ayes: Klausing, Maschka, Goedeke, and Kysylyczyn. Nays: none.
F. Reports And Recommendations
F-1
Burrell described the effect of reducing the City's debt. If this
Resolution were approved, Roseville's debt per capita would fall
below the $800 per capita for communities Roseville's size that the
City Council has established as a goal in its Budget Plan. Maschka
asked about the City's bond rating.
Maschka moved, Goedeke seconded, to adopt a resolution providing
for the calling of certain maturities of General Obligation
Improvement Bonds, Series 22. Roll Call, Ayes: Klausing,
Maschka, Goedeke, and Kysylyczyn. Nays: none.
F-2
Bloom reviewed the history of this drainage problem, and the
proposed solution. She also described the cost of the proposed
solution and how those costs would be spread among the affected
parties. Klausing asked why Falcon Heights was not choosing to
participate financially at this time.
Maschka moved, Goedeke seconded, to adopt a resolution
approving plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for
bids for the Zimmerman Lake Drainage Improvement Project. Roll
Resolution 9949
Full Call
General Obligation
Improvement Bonds
Series 22
Resolution 9950
Approve Plans &
Specification /
Order Advertisements
For Bids
Zimmerman Lake Drainag
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
roval:
DATE: 10/22/01
ITEM NO: I-I
Agenda Section:
LAND USE
A request by Solutia Consulting for an amendment to Planned Unit
Development #1177 for Lot 3, Block 1, Centre Pointe Business Park 2nd
Addition and review of a voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EA W) for office expansion (PF3338).
1. REQUESTED ACTION:
. Recommend whether the General Concept Plan for a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) amendment to the Centre Pointe Business Park is consistent with the original
master plan and the specific PUD ordinance; and add comments on the draft EA W,
which identifies potential impacts of the proposed amendment.
2. HISTORY of REVIEW:
. Application and Draft EA W submitted on: August 28,2001
. Deadline: 60 days after completion of the EA W process.
. Staff Review: Approval/Denial with choices - October 10,2001.
. Planning Commission Recommendation of approval (5-0) - October 10,2001.
. City Council Action - October 22,2001
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 Centre Pointe is a 47 .6-acre master planned business park. Solutia Consulting, a high
technology computer consulting company, has purchased the last remaining lot in Centre
Pointe. Solutia is proposing a 21,240 square foot office building in lieu of the original
Master Site Plan and PUD designation of a maximum 6,000 squareJoot sit-down
restaurant.
1.2 The Solutia Consulting proposal calls for a 15,240 square foot increase in the square
footage allowance to construct a 2-story building totaling 21,240 square feet with both
underground and surface parking for 87 vehicles.
1.3 The current total permitted square footage of building area in the Ryan Centre Pointe
PUD is 802,500 square feet (as originally approved in 1997 and amended in 2000 and
2001); with the new proposal the total building area would be approximately 818,140
square feet. Also, Woodbridge previously developed 120,000 square feet of building
area prior to the current Ryan PUD for a total of938,140 square feet.
PF 3338 - RCA (10/22/01) - Page 1 of9
Centre Pointe Planned Unit Development Sta2es of Approval
Centre Pointe PUD 1985 1997 1999 2000 2001
Woodbridge PUD 647,0000 s.f.
Woodbridge -Built 120,000 s.f. 120,000 s.f. 120,000 s.f. 120,000 s.f.
Ryan PUD 619,000 s.f. 619,000 s.f. 619,000 s.f. 619,000 s.f.
Adm. Amendment 10%) 61,900 s.f. 61,000 s.f. 61,900 s.f.
CSM Hotel PUD Amend. 3'd Business Hotel
(no signif. s,f. added)
Veritas Exp.PUD Amend 122,000 s.f.
Solutia Amendment 15,240 s.f.
Approved PUD 647,000 s.f. 739,000 s.f. 800,300 s.f. 802,500 s.f. 938,140 s.f.
1.4 The original Centre Pointe Master Site Plan for the vacant parcel showed a 6,000 square
foot building footprint for a restaurant. The new proposal would add 4,620 square feet to
the first floor footprint and a 10,620 square feet second floor. Therefore, new office
building coverage of the parcel totaling 15,240 square feet would occur.
1.5 To reduce parking lot coverage of the parcel and allow for 25% landscaped area, Solutia
Consulting proposes a parking structure to be built under the building for 30+ vehicles.
As proposed, construction would occur in 2002.
1.6 The text for the PUD indicates that the first choice of a permitted use is a sit-down
restaurant and that a second choice of a permitted use is an office building. Specifically
Section 7.2 reads: The uses shall be restricted to those specified in the site plan and
supporting documents including office, office/showroom, office/manufacturing, 2 hotels,
and 1 restaurant within the Centre Pointe Business Park Plan. If either of the hotels or
the restaurant are not built, the lots/sites for those uses on the approved land use/site
plans shall be used for office, office/showroom, or office/manufacturing uses per Exhibit
E-2.
1.7 The major change for the Master Site Plan (a drawing) is changing the identified use
from restaurant to office and adding approximately 4,000 square feet of "footprint" on
the 6,000 square foot building pad.
1.8 The major change for the PUD Agreement (written ordinance) is increasing the building
dimensions for that particular lot.
PF 3338 - RCA (10/22/01) - Page 2 of9
1.9 The City Council also is requested to review and comment on the proposed Voluntary
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) that identifies changes in environmental
impacts based on the Solutia change in use and a 15,240 square foot increase in office
building area. While the EA W is in process and the staff expects no major environmental
impacts, the most significant issue will be traffic volumes. This information is available
in a Draft EA W attached to this memo. Staff review has found no significant issues or
changes in the traffic; however, further comment will be sought through the EA W
process.
2.0 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLICATIONS:
2.1 The City of Roseville Comprehensive Plan designates the entire Centre Pointe Business
Park development as a business area. No specific maximum square footage is stipulated
or required in the Comprehensive Plan. The guiding document is the PUD for the Centre
Pointe Business Park, adopted in 1997 and amended in 1999,2000 and 2001. A copy of
this document is attached.
3.0 POLICY/FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
3.1 The Centre Pointe Business Park was originally planned as a mixed-use development.
Since its creation, the business park has experienced major office growth and little
growth in the warehouse and showroom sector. (The planning for the Business Park had
anticipated a minimum of 50% office space within the Park.) Within the Park developers
have also constructed three hotels specifically to meet the business cliental needs of the
Centre Pointe companies and their employees.
3.2 The Master Site Plan (map) illustrates uses that can complement one another, reducing
the need to travel outside the park for meetings and/or dining. Currently, Centre Pointe
has three hotels all in close proximity to the vacant parcel. Only one of those hotels has a
small dining facility, which is targeted to their own guests. The Master Plan indicates
joint access between two hotels (Courtyard and Fairfield Inn) and the connecting vacant
parcel. Where possible and appropriate, shared parking and access was planned to
minimize traffic and parking impacts on neighboring properties. The PUD (Section 15.2)
requires any restaurant site to have a shared parking easement with adjoining hotels in
order to carry out the Master Plan vision.
3.3 The Master Site Plan (map) also anticipated business park interaction via an elaborate
path system. These paths are in place to allow employees walking access to any structure
for their personal or business needs. Transit service has also been provided to get
employees to and from the park and to reduce vehicle travel.
3.4 Based upon jobs per square feet of building and construction values used in the Twin
Lakes Master Plan process, the fiscal impacts of an office development and a restaurant
are different.
PF 3338 - RCA (10/22/01) - Page 3 of9
a. Jobs/Wa2es: It is estimated that for a 21,240 square foot office building there is a
capacity for approximately 48 jobs that pay an average wage (higher for tech staff
and lower for office staff) of$75,000 for an annual wage of over $3.5 million. A
6,000 square foot restaurant would have at least 22 jobs, with the majority of
them being part time, at an average wage of $20,000 for an annual wage of
$440,000.
b. Construction Value: Office construction and assessed value is higher than that of
a restaurant. A 21,240 square foot high tech office has an estimated construction
value of$120 per square foot for a total value of$2.5 million and an estimated
assessed value of $90 per square foot or $1.9 million. A 6,000 square foot
restaurant may have a construction value of $100 per square foot for a total value
of $600,000 but the assessed value is usually lower at about $70 per square foot
or $420,000.
c. Overall Business Park Value: The build out of Centre Pointe has exceeded the
City's expectations for jobs and tax base. There are an estimated 1,350
employees, an annual payroll of $54 million, $40 million of new construction
value, and estimated annual property taxes of $720,000. (In addition, the Veritas
Campus will add 1,000 employees, annual payroll of$70 million, $30 to $35
. million in value with an estimated $600,000 in new annual property tax revenue.)
Nearby, the master plan for Twin Lakes includes an estimated 3 million square
feet in new multi level office and 600 housing units. Currently, the Twin Lakes
Master Plan does not include a new sit down restaurant but is flexible enough to
accommodate it in the service area at County Road "c' and Cleveland.
4.0 SITE PLAN COMMENTS:
4.1 The Development Review Committee has considered the proposed site plan for Solutia
Consulting and concluded that a few modifications and additional information were
necessary. These include:
A. The trash enclosure must be located adjacent to the existing trash enclosure on the
Fairfield Inn site or in close proximity to the proposed Solutia office building.
Proper setbacks from the parking lot and building are necessary as is adequate
landscape screening.
B. The shared access with Marriott Residence Inn should be eliminated.
C. Screening of the parking lot from Centre Pointe Drive must be 80% opaque
screening to a height of30 inches (Section 7, # 10 PUD). A revised landscape
plan must be submitted for review and approval prior to final City Council
approval.
PF 3338 - RCA (10/22/01) - Page 4 of9
D. The utility and landscape plan must be combined on one sheet and submitted with
the other development plans. An irrigation plan is also required and must be
included in the final plan set.
E. The landscape plan must be revised to include all perennials species noted on the
plan.
F. Rice Creek Watershed review and approval is necessary.
5.0 EAW SUMMARY:
5.1 The Draft EA W explains that the level of disturbance on the site has been high and the
uses are all urban developments except for the storm water catchment areas. There are no
occurrences of endangered species.
5.2 The Draft EA W notes that there is adequate water capacity on the site but that the sewer
capacity is limited by the pumping systems. The City has been aware of this situation
since the review and approval of the Courtyard Hotel PUD amendment. Eventually a
new pumping system with added capacity will be installed to meet the needs of the
Business Park when fully occupied.
5.3 Runoff from the site will continue to be handled by a series of filtration areas and ponds.
Silt screening and hay bale erosion interception will handle construction erosion. Storm
water will be pretreated in infiltration areas and ponds before it reaches the wetlands
areas, in a method previously approved by the Rice Creek Watershed. Centre Pointe has
a requirement of retaining 25% of the site in green space. With the proposed
configuration of the buildings (adding height, not impervious surface area) approximately
25% of the site will be green space.
5.4 In terms of generation oftoxic or hazardous materials, the site is clean; the Solutia offices
will produce none of these materials. Solid waste (trash) would be collected by private
haulers and delivered to landfills or processing plants. (A restaurant generally would
produce more trash and air exhaust issues.)
5.5 Traffic and parking are important issues in Roseville. The peak PM hour trips will
increase from 22 up to 37 trips, yet the total trip count would only increase by 6
trips (243 to 249). The new facilities (21,240 s.f. of offices, rather than 6,000 s.f. of
restaurant or offices) would create a need for 85 to 88 Solutia on-site parking spaces,
which are shown on the site plan. An Indirect Source Permit, analyzing vehicle exhaust
levels, is no longer required by MnPCA. The EA W states that none of the intersections
will exceed the MnPCA guidelines for carbon monoxide levels.
PF 3338 - RCA (10/22/01) - Page 5 of9
5.6 In total, the Centre Pointe Business Park is estimated to generate 7,369 vehicle trips per
day, with approximately 900 trips per peak p.m. traffic hour (244 entering, 686 leaving
the site). The proponents state that no signalized intersection will have service
difficulties based on the proposed development, even with growth in the background
traffic by 2% per year. Only one intersection will change its level of service in the
future, the ramp from Cleveland Avenue onto 35W North will change from a service
level of"B" to a service level of"C", which is still functional.
5.7 Non-signalized intersections will continue to function as today, except the North Centre
Pointe Drive intersection with Cleveland Avenue, where cars will queue up in Centre
Pointe Drive while attempting to make a left turn to north bound Cleveland A venue. A
solution at this intersection could be a signaled intersection. Signalizing could also help
reduce straightway speeding along Cleveland Avenue. (The 1997 PUD and planning
process planned for a signal further south at Lydia and Cleveland in order to reduce
traffic noise and congestion close to residences and to provide a 4 way intersection into
the industrial/park area east of Cleveland. Staff and city traffic consultants will be
reviewing this issue during the EA W review and comment period.)
5.8 The proponents state that the 21,240 square feet of office area will have little negative
impact on the traffic and in fact will remain similar to past projections for the Business
Park, in part, because of the changing nature of the work force (more hi-tech than daily
retail restaurant users) and work hours. The proponents note that hi-tech workers tend to
work at different hours that a tradition 9 to 5 work day.
5.9 Existing noise levels have historically exceeded state noise standards for residential areas
near County Road "D" and Cleveland A venue. The added traffic from the proposal will
not significantly increase or decrease noise levels. However, construction noise may
have a temporary impact, but only during weekday daytime construction hours.
Construction for the building is estimated to take 12 to 14 months, during which noise
and construction dust will be managed to reduce impacts, as much as possible.
6.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
6.1 The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the proposed change in the
Master Site Plan, the proposed Solutia site plan, the proposed PUD Amendments, and the
draft EA W. The DRC concluded that the Master Site Plan designates the vacant parcel
as a restaurant site to serve the users of the Business Park. It is limited to 6,000 square
feet of building area and 82 off-street parking spaces. The proposed change in use is not
sensitive to the mixed-use nature of the Master Site Plan, and is not supportive or
complementary to the existing uses, both directly adjacent to the vacant parcel as well as
those throughout the business park. By not developing a restaurant on the site, it is
possible that more off-site employee vehicle trips will be generated, especially during the
lunch hours.
PF 3338 - RCA (10/22/01) - Page 6 of9
6.2 Recently staff received an inquiry regarding the location of a sit-down restaurant in
Centre Pointe. Also, the tenants and some property managers in Centre Pointe have
indicated the location of a restaurant in Centre Pointe as a specific need. This
information has been provided to staff through on-site visits as part of the City's business
retention program and as evidenced by the attached letter from Ryan Companies,
property manager for many of the buildings in Centre Pointe.
6.3 The DRC concluded that the PUD controls the uses on the site with specific terms and
conditions under which parcels and uses shall develop. The PUD indicates that if a
restaurant is not developed, an office is an appropriate alternative. However, the site is
limited to 6,000 square feet of building, unless a PUD amendment is approved.
6.4 The Community Development Director reviewed the proposed change in the Master Site
Plan, the proposed Solutia site plan, the PUD Amendments, and the Draft EA W. The
Community Development Director concluded that PUD Agreement is the regulatory
document for the vacant parcel and that the proposed use, as an office, is appropriate and
permitted, especially if the previous lot owner has demonstrated that there is no market
for a restaurant. In addition, the proposed two-story office could increase the parcel's
allowable square footage, lot coverage, and impervious coverage; however, these
changes do not present heightened environmental concern as evidenced in the Draft
EAW.
6.5 The Planning Commission was presented three recommendation options based on the
staff considerations indicated above:
~ Deny the request; retain the 6,000 sq. ft restaurant pad.
~ Approve a 6,000 sq. ft. one story office building.
~ After an EA W negative declaration, amend Master Site Plan and PUD to allow
two-story 21,240 sq. ft. office building
7.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
7.1 On October 10, 2001, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing
regarding the Solutia Consulting request. At the hearing no citizens addressed the
Commission. E-mails were presented to the Commission from tenants and property
managers supporting the need for a restaurant on the vacant parcel. However the
Commission did ask questions pertaining to the difference in the Master Plan, Master
Plan Map, and the adopted PUD. The Commission also asked specific questions
pertaining to the site and use of the building (see attached draft minutes).
PF 3338 - RCA (10/22/01) - Page 7 of9
7.2 The Planning Commission determined that the Concept PUD Amendment for land uses
and master site plan proposed by Solutia, consisting of a 15,500 square feet of additional
office space and 6,000 square feet of allowable office space within the existing Planned
Unit Development, is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the intent of the 1997
Centre Pointe PUD, noting that the city policy is market driven development and office
space is now needed in the market, and the proposal meets/exceeds the City's goals for
head of household living wages.
7.3 Based on the above determination, the Roseville Planning Commission recommended (5-
0) approval of the proposed General Concept Plan for a PUD amendment (#1177) to
allow construction of the 21,500 square foot Solutia office building, an increase in the
allowable square footage within the Centre Pointe PUD of 15,240 square feet subject to
the conditions listed in that project report dated 10/10/01.
7.4 Further, the Planning Commission made no comment on the Draft EA W nor cited any
significant environmental impacts requiring further review in an Environmental Impact
Statement.
8.0 SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
It is suggested that the Roseville City Council take the following action:
.
By motion approve (approve w/modifications or deny) the change in the
Master Site Plan for Lot 3, Block 1, Centre Pointe Business Park from
restaurant to office and the General Concept Plan for Solutia Consulting
regarding the proposed construction of a 21,240 square foot, two-story office
structure, which increases the allowable building size by 15,240 square feet from
6,000 square feet to total of21,240 square feet, subject to the conditions listed in
Section 4.1 (A through F) of the project report dated 10/22/01 and eliminating all
references to a restaurant use, associated terms and conditions, and stipulating
terms and conditions under which the Solutia Consulting office structure must be
developed consistent with the proposed site plan, structure design plan and other
supporting plan set documents.
.
By motion approve (approve w/modifications or deny) first reading of an
ordinance amending Planned Unit Development Agreement #1177.
.
By motion approve the distribution of the Voluntary Draft EA W for review,
with notice to be published concerning its availability.
PF 3338 - RCA (10/22/01) - Page 8 of9
8.0 NEXT STEPS:
8.1 In late November or December 2001, ifthere are no significant environmental impacts,
the Council action may be to provide a "negative declaration" on the EA W - which
means there are no significant impacts that would require further environmental analysis
and additional mitigation than what is proposed. After that decision, the Council would
take final action on the Solutia PUD Amendment and ordinance
Report by: Thomas Paschke (651-490-2236); Dennis Welsch (651-490-2232)
Attachments: Draft EA W; Site Plans; Centre Point PUD and amendments
Acceptance date: 60-Day Time Limit: 60 days after conclusion ofEA W process
Q:\Planning Files\3338 _ Solutia\RCA (102201 ).doc
PF 3338 - RCA (10/22/01) - Page 9 of9
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT #1177,
BEING THE CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, TO ALLOW AND ADDITIONAL 15,240 SQUARE FEET OF
OFFICE DEVELOPMENT (PF3338)
The City Council of the City of Roseville does ordain:
Section 1. Pursuant to Section 1008 (Planned Unit Developments) of the City
Code ofthe City ofRoseville, Planned Unit Development 1177, for property generally
located at 3015 Centre Pointe Drive, within the Centre Pointe Business Park, is herein
amended to allow the following:
An additional 15,240 square feet to the total building area of the 47-acre Centre
Pointe Planned Unit Development, to allow Solutia Consulting to construct a two-
story, 21,240 square foot, office building. The previous Master Site Plan
indicated a restaurant use, which will be amended to an office use, and the
previous building pad size indicated a 6,000 square feet allowance, which will
increase to 21,240 square feet.
The vacant parcel addressed as 3015 Centre Pointe Drive is legally described as:
Lot 3, Block 1, Centre Pointe Business Park 2nd Addition, City of Roseville,
Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance amendment to the City Code shall take
effect upon passage by the City Council and publication.
Passed this _ day of
,2001.
Ordinance - Solutia (PF3338)
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
Neal J. Beets, City Manager
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
BY:
John Kysylyczyn, Mayor
~
RIK.. Engineering. Planning Surveying Landscap,e Architecture
( KUUSISTO LTD ).
~
August 6, 2001
City of Roseville'
Community Development Department
Development Review Committee
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113-1899
Re: Request for Amendment. .
, Centre Pointe Business Park Planned Unit Development No. 1177 Agreement
Solutia Software
RLK File'- 2001-302-M
Dear Development Review Committee Members:
On behalf of Centre' Pointe Solutions (Solutia Consuiting), RLK - Kuusisto, Ltd. is pleased to
present this submittal package to request an amendment to the Centre Pointe Business Park
Planned Unit Development (PUD) No. 1177 Agreement. This amendment request would
allow an increase in the total building square footage on the site owned by Solutia
Consulting. Solutia is proposing to construct a 21,240 S.F; building, and chang~ the
approved use from restaurant to office. The increase'in building area form the previously
approved building area of6,000 S,F. is 15,240 S:F, will be accomplished by constructing a
two story building with an underground garage. The change in use is permitted in the
existing PUD Agreement. '
Centre Point Solutions, LLC was formed as a building development company,
initially to bujld an office building which will support Solutia Consulting,
Inc. Solutia Consulting, Inc. is a Minnesota based Business and Information
Systems Consulting company headquartered in the Twin CitIes since 1997. , We '
provide consulting services to assist our Fortune 500 customers in building
applications which support their business. Key disciplines include Project
Management, Business Analysis, Application Development(Microsoft & Java),
Quality Assuranc'e and Package Selection/Implementation. Rick Kuula
currently owns both companies.
This will become our: corporate office location. Solutia is
planning to occupy the first floor of the office building and lease the 2nd
floor to other tenant(s) until our growth requires us to use the additional
space. Some things we would like the city to consider with our application
include: '
Offices: Hibbing . Minnetonka . St. Paul' . Twin Ports '
(952) !B3-0972 . 6110 Blue Circle, Drive . Suite 100 . Minnetonka, MN 55343 ~ FAX (952) 933-1153
,Equal Opportunity Employer
"
.' I.
Requestfor Amendment to pub
Soluiia-Rosevill~
August 6, 2001
Page2 of 7 ;
Solutia Consu1tant~ work, on long~te~ assignments on 'the cli~nt'sslte,;
so there would be a low traffic voh.mie, in general {or the volume of space ,,:"e .' .
utilize. Traffic itivolving these consultants (80% of our staff) would be '
primarily at'off~peakh~urs (evenings). ' . ,
. We bring a professional, well trained and highly compensated high-tech
work force to Roseville.
'. We expect to,l;mild aprofessjpnal,buildingappropriate for this site
arid maximize the use for a viable office building. .,' '
.. .' . ,
, .
The following narrative describes th~ proposed amendment for the Solutia Site'in more
detail; we hope it addr~sses all important issues.
PRO.JECT HISTORY ANn LOCATIQN , '
TheCe~tre Pointe Busjness P~rk pub Business Zone No. '1177 was approved by the City
~ouncil in April of 1997 and pen:nits a variety of office park :uses. The PUD for Centre'
Pointe has been a~ended several times through the years to accommodate changes in use and
density., As the attached table illustrates, the Centre Pointe Business Park i~ built out WIth the
exception' ofthe Solutia Consulting parcel and severa! buildings on the Veritas campus.
. . .
This PUD, site covers 47.6 'acr~s and is bound by Interstate 35W to the west, County Road D
t9 the north and Cleveland Avenue to the east with a 'City/MnDOT pond and wetlands to the
south. The Solutia Site ,lies in the northern section of Centre Pointe. ' The Site is 1.42-acres
and was purchased by Centre Pointe Solutions in the Spring of 2001:,
, . '
The followingcharts compare the previously approved Center Poi,nte PUD with the requested
, ,amendment.
APPROVED/ PERMITTED PUD ( 2001)
Approved Buildout of Centre Pointe Status ' ' , Square Foota!!e
C.P.B.P. Phase 2 Building A &,8 " Built '101,886
Ehlers and Associates Built ' 13,425
Veritas software Built '62,420
C.P.B.P. Phase ,1 ,Building A & B" Built 25,445
Builders Association Built 15,120 "
. Office Building , Built 12,015
Fairfield Hotel Built 37,013 . '
Residence Hotel , Built, 75,391 _
Courtyard by Marriott Under 71,Q28
, Construction
Proposed Veritas,Building 1 " ' Built , 143,157 .
Proposed VeritasBuilding 2, _. Undeveloped '129,000
Proposed Veritas. building 3 , Undeveloped 120,0'00
Proposed restaurant Undev.eloped 6,000
Total S.F. 'permittedbv the 2001 PUD . , 802.900 S.F.
. 'Request for Amendment to PUD '
Solutia-Rosevil/e ,.
August6. 2091
, Page 3 of.7 ,
Proposed Buildoutof Centre Pointe Status Square Foota2e, .
C.P.B.P. Phase 2 Building A &B Built 101,886
Ehlers and Associates " . Built '13,425 "
Yeritas software Built 62,420
C.P.B.P. Phase 1 Building A & B Built . . 25,445
Builders Association --: - , Built ' 15,120
Office Building' - Built 12,015 ,
-
Fairfield Hotel' Built ,37,013
Residence Hotel 'Built' 75,391
Courtyard by: Marriott Hotel Under 71,028
Construction' ,
,Yeritas Building 1 Under 14~,157
Construction
Yeritas Building 2 ' Proposed 120,000
Veritas building 3 Proposed 120,000 ,
Proposed Solutia Consultimt Proposed .21,240
Total S.F. proposed ., 818,140S.F.
Total S.F. permitted bv 2001 PUD ' 802,900 S.F. '
PROPROSED PUD AMENDMENT
..
, PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Solutia Consulting development will consist of a 21,240 S.F. buildipgsituated on the lot
to capture views of the Minneapolis' skyline and ~n close proximity to the existing pond on'
the property, The building will be two stones and include an underground parking garage.
, ,The building will be the new headquarters for Solutia Consulting. The project would both
meet and exceed the existing PuD development standards by utilizing a superior building
design and building materials as well as incorporating a high-quality site design that takes
adv~ntage of the parcel's distinctive amenities. The site'has been designed to 'locate the
, 'proposed building !lear the soutl1em property line, offering views'ofthe pond areas south of
the building and of the Minneapplis Skyline, The proposed building will be similar in '
materials to the building currently c,onstructed at Centre Pointe; thus creating a cohesive
image for the Business Park. Landscaped green areas are provided around the buildings
providi~g a naturalistic setting.
Architecturally the project consists 'of a two-story office building with a 10,620 S.F.J100r
plate for a total of21,240 S,F. of gross building area and a lowerievel garage for 24 cars. '
The floor to floor height is 12'-8',' on (he first level with an overall parapet height ,of 31 '-0".
The rooftop mechanical systems, are entirely enclosed within the parapet scr~en wall.
.. ,
The exterior iIpage of the building reflects the style of its primary tenant Solutia, Consulting.
The desJgn ,is a contemporary classi9 Ioo~ predomimintly brick and,glass with accents of
precast panel and efis. The massing of the exterior waIis is broken up by the change in
materials to give the building a sense of human proportion and sca1e'. The front face ofthe'
building has a prominent entrY canopy that directs visitors to the main lobby area this allows
the signage to be placed off center and to remain understated.. ,
_ Request for Ame1Jdment to PUD
Solut(a-Roseville-' ,.' '
. '..' '~,
August 6; 2001
Pag~ 4 of 7' '
"
Construction of the proposed siteimproveme~t,~'wiH begin 'in 2002..',
SITE IM:PROVEME~TS
Parkin!!: SoIut'ia C~msulting'~parking requirements for the site differs from' City
standards: Sol~tia's requirem~ntsare 5 parking spaces per 1000 S.F.,of net building
area. The City's requiremen~ is 5 parking spaces per 1000 S.F. of gross building area.
S.olutia's needs are based on the number of employees that will be located on the'
campus. The net building area for the building is 17 ,495S.F., which gener~tes a
p~rking needof88 parking spaces, . ,
Sanitary Sewer: Based on' anticipated sanitary sewer flo~s from this type of use, the
existing sanitary sewer system is adequately size4. The future buildingswiil
di~charge into the sanitary sewer system located 'in Centr~ Pointe DriVe. It is our
understan4ing that the CitY of Roseville is 'studying the,sewershed t<;>deteimine if
improvements to the, existing downstream lift station are necessary. ' ,
..
.'
Watermain: Water service will be provided to. the building from t4e 12"main
looped through the site during Phase 1cohstruction, Based on the size 'of the existing
water main located in Centre PointeDriVe, adequate water supply is available. ' '
, '
Storrtt Sewer: St~rm water run off from the Site will be co~sistent with the
approved master plan.' AU surface water will be collected ,at low points 'and carried
, via storm sewer to the retention basin located-along the south property lin~:
. '
Gr'adin!!: The Site will be graded according to the approved master,plan.
, DistUrbance to existing site grades will be required to bring in additional soil. MPCA
Best Management Practices will be implemented to minimize site erosion and
impacts to' the surrounding environment.'
SITE LANDSCAPING, LIGH1;'ING AND TRAILS "
, The proposed site design wjil preserve the pond south ofthisparcel. The pond will b,e the
focal point oftheproject's:;ite design. Additionally,)andscape amenities will be added to
, complement and re-affirm the distinctive natural setting. 'A greenway trail system will be
retained along the westerly property line to naturally weave the natural setting to the bUIlt.
, environment C;lnd to providG passive recr~ationaI opportunities for workers and residents ,,'
alike:' An entrance plaza landscape ,with tress and benches will provide a distinctive, entrance
to the building: A patio near the pond will provide eJIlployees with a place,to take a break
and enjoy lunch.' , ' '.
Lighting will be provided that meets tbe se~urity requirements of employees. Additionally;'
the lighting will be designed to red~ce glare and light pollution on the surrounding properties,
a!1d roads. ,This feature will pr~)Vide, distinctive and vaIue-enhancin,g amenities, for the
projec~~
The folloWing chart coinp~res the development standards -f()f Solutia Consulting,- Software as
they relate to the approved pub design ~tandards. .
. . '_ 'J , .
. '
" '. ' ,
Requestfor,Amf!ndment (0 PUD
Solutia-Roseville
,Develo II)ent Standard
Setbacks: Front'
Side
Rear
Minimum Lot Size
Buildin Hei hi
Buildi~g Materials
" 'Parking'
Loading Areas
Green S ace
PUD Re uhoement
30' -
10'
20'
60,000 S.F.
3-Sto
Must be a combination of
brick"natural sto.ne, masonry
tile, architectural'steel and
glass on a minimum of 65%
- of all vertical surfaces.
Consistent with City
standards. Setbacks of 5'
from the property line. A
minimum of 5% o(the
parking area shall be 'green ' '
with tre~s.
Must be screened from
public view. Entrances must
be no wider than 28'. ' '
25% minimum
August 6; 2001
'Page 50f7
Pro
The 5' minimum setback
from property line and the
5% minimum interior
landscaping are provided on ,
the ,surface parking lots. -
Will 'be screened ~om public
VIew.
25% minimum
, ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASESSMENT WORKSHEET (EA W)
The city Council originally approved the Centre Poirite Business Park POD in 1997. - As part
oi'that approval process, Ryan Companies:_prepared a voluntaryEnvironmentalAs~essment
Worksheet'(EA W) for the PUD. After extensive review and public discussion, the City
Cou1).cil made a IlnegatiY,edecIaration'~ on the EA W in March of 1997. The City Council in
.affect said that tbe proposed development did not have the "po~ential for significant
environmental effect", and ~hat no additional env~ronmental review was required.
" '
-The proposed amendment to the ~entre Pointe POD made as part of this narrative and,
application.is to increase the amount of office by approximately 15,240 square feet. This
,additi()nal office space is not ~ignificantly diff~rent than what was anticipated as-part of the
o.riginal pur:>, nor does this additionai office space have the "potential.for significant
environmental effect. "
o . TRANSPORT ATION/T,RAFFIC IMPACTS
fOllowing isacomparison o.fthe proposedSolutia Consluting development with the
previously approved restaurant.' _ _'
· ,It is ariticipated that the proposed development will not adversely impact the adjacent
intersections in the area, Nor significantly increase the amount of traffic volume during
th~ P.M, peak rush hour. Upon full dev~Iopment the intersections will operate within the
ranges indicated by the previously,approved E.A.W.
0, ';
:, \..
- ~
Request for Amendmentto PUD ' . '
Solutia-Rosevil/e
Augu-rt 6, 2001 '
, Page 6 Qf 7 '
The following.compares the P.M:peak trip generation ofth~ previously approved 6,000 S.F.
restaurant with'the proposed 21,600 S.F. office building. The number of P.M. tIips is less'for
the general office th~n the Quality .Restaurant. As demonstrated in tp,e previously approve.d
, P.U.D.,. the surrounding road, system is adequately'sized to handle the traffic generated by the
development. .
,. ' Quality Resta~rant - ITE Coqe 831
P.M:. Peak Trip Generation:, ,
7.4g trips/JOOO sq. ft. of development.or
(7.4g) (6) = 45 'trips. 67%.enter =30
,3~% exit = 15 '
· General Office - ITE Code 710' ,
P.M. Peak Trip G~neration: t "
l.4g trips/lOOO sq. ft. or
o .4g)(21)= 31 tTIps 17% enter = 5
, 83% ,enter =.26
. '
, ,
FISCAL IMPACT/SOCIAL IMPACTS, , .
The expansion of Solutia Software within the Centre Point Business, Park will also provide
.. several fiscal and social benefits: '
. ,
· The stability of the Business Park will, increase and its overall image will be enhanced.
· 'A fully leased new 'development will generate immediate revenues and strengthen the
City's tax base. " ' , '
· The ~oIutia CaIIlPus will provide more job opportunities for local residents, instead of
losing opportunities to anQther more distant community. "
· Encourages smart'growth by encouraging development in areas where there is existing
infrastructure, community services and an acces~ible labor force. 'Promotes a job-h01.ising
b(iIance. , ' , " .
· Promotes compact and complementary landus~s. .
· Pror:notes open space and conserVes, distin,ctive natural features ,to create a unique sense
of-place. . " '
· Will provide passive recreational opportunities for employees and for neighborhood
residents. .. '.
, · Provide na~ural linkages to and sensitlvity.towards the greater neighborhood,
environment.
CpNTACTS:
Owner
,
Centre Poi~te Solutions, LL~.
C/o Solutia Consulting
1241 Amundson .circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
(65.1) 35f-0123
Fax (651) 430-1733
Rick Kuula, . President
,Gloria Sharp, Resource .A1a~ager
Architect'
KKE Architects,' 1m;.
, 300 First A venue North
" Suite 500" ,
- Minneapolis, MN~5401
(612)339-4200
Fax (612) 342-9267
Todd Young ,
"
, Request for Amendment to PUD '.
Sol~tia-Roseville - .
August 6, 2001
Page 70f 7
. "
Plannine and Enei'neerine'
RLK-Ki.lUsisto, LTD.
611 0 ~lue CirCle Drive, Suite 100 ,
.Minnetonka, MN 55343,
(952) 933-0972
Fax (952) 93~~1153
Brian Sullivan, RLA, AICP, Project Manager
](Je Sa'!llf,e/, Civil Engineer, '
PleaseTeview our enclosed submittal package for this amendment request. ,Should you have
any questions' or comments regarding thi~ package, please do not hesitate to contact our -
office. ' . ,
Development Consultant
Terranova, LLC
14685 Langdon Place
,Eden Prairie, MN 55347
(952) 937-7663
Fax (952) 937-8104'
Rod Miller, P.E.
, Sincerely,
, . RLK-Kuusisto, LTD.,
~JCL
nan Sullivan
Landscape Architect
, '
"j .
, '
Ryan Companies US, Inc.
700 International Centre
900 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55402-3387
612/336-1200 phone
612/337-5552 fax
~YAN
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Roseville
FROM: Dianne Olsby, Ryan Properties, Inc.
DATE: October 4, 2001
SUBJECT: CITY OF ROSEVILLE PUBLIC HEARING - October 10, 2001
OFFICE BUILDING INSTEAD OF A RESTAURANT IN CENTRE POINTE
DEVELOPMENT
I would like to express my concern and disappointment if the City of Roseville deviates
from their Master Plan to allow an office building in place of a restaurant in the Centre
Pointe Development. As a Property Manager for several buildings along Centre Pointe
Drive my Tenants have expressed the importance of a restaurant time after time and
have questioned when one would be added to the Development.
With all the hotels and business now constructed it only makes sense for a restaurant to
accommodate the businesses, hotels, employees, and business customers now coming
and working in this area. I have informed my Tenants to voice their opinion in this
matter and hope they do so.
The Master Plan developed by the City of Roseville for Centre Pointe should remain as
planned to include a restaurant.
'b Quail/v
,\\'\ - ~
'S: 1; <:::..
~ A -;;
~iefVlH~
?>' ::::
~. itI
~ ~
;> -9 'b~
"rQl,i.v M(.I"O;
C:\WINNT\PROFILES\THOMASP\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLKI7\CITY OF ROSEVILLE 10-10-01 OPINION,DOC
TP
Paschke. Thomas
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Johnson [MJohnson@COLLlNS-Com.com]
Friday, October 05,2001 10:48 AM
'thomas.paschke@ci.roseville.mn.us'
Restaurant
Mr. Paschke:
I am in charge of facilities at our office in the Centre pointe Development.
HickoryTech Enterprise Solutions has over 100 employees at this site. Most
of our employees would be very disappointed if the possibility of having a
full service restaurant within the development were to be eliminated.
I am very opposed to any action that would approve the construction of more
office space in this area at the expense of a restaurant. It is my
preference, that no action be taken at the meeting scheduled for October
lOth that would change the existing plan. I am sure that most employees at
my company, as well as most who work in this area do share this sentiment.
Mark Johnson
Purchasing Manager
HickoryTech Enterprise Solutions
651.634.1562
651.634.1762 fax
mjohnson@co11ins-com.com
1
"
\
l Iv
'..-
,) I
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT #1177 AGREEMENT
PLANNING FILE 2880
AGREEMENT, dated April 11 , 1997, between the City of Roseville (the"City") and Ryan
Twin Lakes Limited Partnership ("Developer"), '
1, Request for Planned Unit Development Approval
The DEVELOPER has asked the CITY to approve a Planned Unit Development
consisting of proposed office. office! warehouse, showroom, manufacturing, 2 hotels
and 1 restaurant on 47.6 acres located on land generally bounded by 135W on the west
and County Rd D to the north, and Cleveland Ave to the east and City!MnDot ponding
to the south. The standards listed below have been adopted as a portion of Ordinance
# 1177, a summary of which has been published along with the legal description of
property to be included within Planned Unit Development #1177, The subject property
is legally described as follows:
The property affected by this Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall include all lots
within Centre Pointe Business Park 2nd Addition and all lots within the original Centre
Pointe Business Park Addition except Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 2, Block 2 of the original
plat, all in Ramsey County.
2, Planned Unit Development Approval
The CITY hereby grants approval of the Final Development Plan and subject to the
DEVELOPER'S compliance with the terms and conditions of this agreement. The CITY
agrees to approve applications for building permits, provided that said plans are
consistent with the exhibits which were approved at the concept and final stage of the
Planned Unit Development process, and all of the conditions of this agreement have
been satisfied,
3. Approval by the CITY
The CITY hereby approves the Development as shown on the following exhibits, The
DEVELOPER shall develop the subject properties in accordance with the general plans
approved by the City Council on April 11, 1997, If, however, the exhibits vary from the
written terms of this Agreement, the written terms shall control. The exhibits marked
approved by the City Council on April 11, 1997 include:
c
._,
Site Plan
Preliminary Plat and Final Plat (Centre Pointe Business Park 2nd, Add)
Elevations
Grading Plan
Utility Plan
Landscape Plan
Minor Subdivision Plan
A.
B.
C.
D.
F.
G,
1
4. Grading
Grading plans will be approved if they are in conformity with the approved preliminary
grading plan, and provided that the conditions set forth below, which relate to the
grading process, have all been satisfied,
5, Compliance with Laws and Regulations
The DEVELOPER represents to the CITY that the proposed Development complies
with all City, County, Metropolitan, State, and Federal laws and regulations, including
but not limited to: Subdivision Ordinances, Zoning Ordinances and Environmental
Regulations. The DEVELOPER agrees to comply with such laws and regulations.
6. Rezoning
The CITY conducted hearings to consider the rezoning of the Subject Property from B-4
Business to PUD Planned Unit Development. The CITY agrees to rezone the Subject
Property to PUD, subject to the DEVELOPER's strict compliance with the approved
plans and the terms and conditions of this agreement. (Minor variations from the
approved plans may be approved by the CITY's Design Review Committee, under the
direction of the Community Development Director), Substantial departures from the
approved plans will require an amendment to the Planned Unit Development in
accordance with Section 1015 of the Roseville Zoning Code, Failure by the
DEVELOPER to commence development activity (that is, receive at least one building
permit and begin construction on same), in substantial accordance with the Final
Development Plans, within one year following the final approval of this Planned Unit
Development will necessitate the approval of an extension by the City Council prior to
the expiration of the one year period. If an extension is not applied for, the Council
may instruct the Planning Commission to initiate rezoning to the original zoning district.
7, Additional Conditions of Approval
To insure that the proposed development meets the City's standards for the approval of
a planned unit development, as set forth in Section 1015 (Roseville) Zoning Ordinance,
the Development shall also comply with the following specific PUD standards:
1. All final land use designations, site, building, landscaping, subdivision,
signage, lighting, final EAW document, utility plans and Exhibits A through H
shall be part of the standards for development of the 1997 Centre Pointe
Business Park PUD. The written PUD shall be utilized as a set of development
and design standards that describe standards to be used as new buildings and
designs evolve over time.
2. In the PUD, the intent is to maintain at least 50% of each building as office
uses, except for the hotel and restaurant buildings. Permitted "office" uses shall
be defined as listed in Exhibit E-2. The uses shall be restricted to those
2
.'
specified in the site plans and supporting documents including office,
office/showroom, office/manufacturing, 2 hotels and 1 restaurant within the
Centre Pointe Business Park Plan. If either of the hotels or the restaurant are
not built, the lots/sites designated for those uses on the approved land use/site
plans shall be used for office, office/showroom, or office manufacturing uses as
per Exhibit E-2. Accessory structures or exterior trash collection areas shall be
prohibited, Where not superseded by more restrictive requirements of this PUD,
the standards of the 8-4 zoning district and the City Zoning Code shall apply,
See Exhibit E1-E3 attached.
3, The green space with pond areas shall be 25%, the building height shall
be limited to 3 stories maximum north of Lydia, and 8 stories south of Lydia,
4. The minimum lot size shall be 60,000 s.f. or 1.4 acres, The building
setbacks shall be equivalent to the B-4 zoning district requirements including 30
feet of front setback, 10 feet of side setback, and 20 feet of rear setback,
5. Building materials shall be a combination of brick, natural stone, masonry
tile, architectural steel, and glass on a minimum of 65% of all vertical exterior
wall surfaces visible from any public right of way. The brick shall be of an earthen
tone similar to the brick used on the existing buildings within the Centre Pointe
Business Park. No more than 35% of any vertical exterior wall may be a
combination of color impregnated rock face block stucco, or EFIS/Dryvit,
primarily for base, trim, or accent and sign banding. Vertical walls in loading bay
areas (or portions thereof) that are not visible tram any public right-at-way may
use matching color impregnated masonry materials such as block, poured or tip
up panel concrete. Exceptions: Hotel architecture, ground mounted HVAC for
common areas, and dish/antennas shall be constructed as per drawings
approved on April 11 , 1997. Restaurant architecture shall be compatible with
other buildings within the Centre Pointe Business Park and be subject to review
and approval by the Community Development Director,
6, Exterior HVAC may be roof mounted, Parapet walls at the same material
as the primary structure shall visually screen such devices on all four sides from
any adjoining right-of-way lines or property lines. HVAC may be internal or
ground mounted and must be screened,
7. Loading dock areas shall be screened from view from any public right-ot-
way by building design or with 80% opaque year-round screening, masonry wing-
walls, and/or berming to a minimum height of 10 feet (or the building sign band
height, whichever is higher) above adjacent curb heights. Loading area
entrances shall be no wider than 28 feet, with appropriate curb radius for truck
turning. Loading docks may not face Cleveland Avenue unless screened by
another building or by such other screening acceptable to the Community
Development Director,
3
8, The requirements for parking on public streets shall be established and
approved by the City. No semi tractor or trailer parking on streets, landscaped
areas or parking lots, or loading areas, except while delivering materials, shall be
allowed in the business park, Except for customers, no RV parking shall be
allowed,
9. Stoplights and right turn lanes may be necessary in the future for
entry/exit safety into the business park. At such time as the stoplight and turn
lanes are (individually or at the same time) determined to be necessary by the
County Engineer and the City, the stoplight shall be installed and assessed to all
parcels within the PUD, The location of the stoplight and turning lanes may not
be known until the major users are in place within the park - estimated to be 3
years after approval of the PUD.
10. Parking setbacks shall be a minimum of 15 feet from the front property
line and shall require 80% opaque year-round screening and berming to a
minimum height of 30" above curb height.
11. Planting areas with shade trees shall cover a minimum of 5% of the
parking lots. All landscaped areas, including planting islands shall be irrigated to
protect the turf and treesllandscaping materials. A mixture of coniferous
evergreens and shrubs shall be required to provide screening, especially in
areas and berms along Cleveland Avenue, A landscape performance bond shall
be required as per the city code, Coniferous evergreens and other screening
materials shall be placed in areas that reduce impacts on residential areas. The
minimum standards for landscape materials and sizes shall be the City Code
Design Standards,
12. Sidewalks shall be required along both sides of all interior streets.
Connections shall be required between the sidewalks and the pathway. The 8
foot pathway (along the north, west, and south side of the business park shall be
dedicated for public use through an access easement. The location of the
pathway along Cleveland may be moved. The Cleveland pathway shall be
treated as a required sidewalk rather than a pathway, The pathways shall
connect to pathways east of Cleveland. The City will make its best efforts to
provide pathway connections to Langton Lake Park from Brenner Avenue and
from Cleveland Avenue. See Exhibit B for pathway map.
13. Parking spaces and size requirements for each use or modified use shall
be established consistent with the City Code parking standards in use at the time
of building permit issuance. Proof of parking plans may be filed by the developer,
with additional parking to be installed by the developer as parking thresholds are
met.
14, Bus/transit easements for turn-out lanes and loading areas shall be
designated along Cleveland and on Centre Pointe Drive if required by the City by
December 31,2005, Because this is a PUD and a resubdivision, the developer
4
shall be responsible for dedicating the land and the cost of construction of these
bus areas. These locations and configurations will be designated as the ultimate
users are identified.
15. Cross parking easements shall be filed for the following lots:
1) any adjoining multi tenant buildings lots shall share parking through a
cross parking easement,
2) any restaurant lot shall share parking through a cross parking
easement with adjoining hotels lots.
16. Ponding shall be reconstructed and maintained as per City of Roseville
and Rice Creek Watershed requirements and permits, The owner/developer
shall provide appropriate easements. The owner shall be responsible for any
pond maintenance.
17, Lighting (downcast) for streets and parking lots. and lighting for exterior
building areas and signs shall be of one consistent type and applied/installed
uniformly throughout the business park on all lots, as described in Exhibit D.
18, Each multi-tenant building shall have a signage plan submitted at the time
of building permit application, identifying a sign band area or entry detail. The
total exterior building wall signage shall not exceed 10% of the front face area of
the building. and shall be placed within the sign band or entry detail. The
developer shall submit sign criteria for each building as part of the building permit
application, The developer shall approve all sign permit applications as being
consistent with the building's sign criteria, Exception: Hotel and restaurant
building signage shall be constructed and placed as per drawings approved on
April 11. 1997.
19, Each building may have one monument sign, Freestanding 2-sided
monument signs shall only be placed on interior streets and Cleveland Avenue.
Such signs shall be a maximum of 10 feet in width and 6 feet in height and shall
be constructed of the same background material (brick) as the adjoining building,
Signage per side shall be limited to 16.5 s.f. per side. The setback from any
property line shall be 10 feet.
One project identification/directional sign at North Centre Drive and one at
South Centre Drive shall use the same setbacks and materials background. The
size of the project identification/directional sign background shall not exceed 115
s.f. in area, 12 feet in height, and 9.5 feet in width. The sign area for such signs
shall not exceed 50 s,f. per side, The sign setback from any property line shall be
10 feet. All sign messages shall be on a sign background and shall have a
similar type style and letter heights, and shall not extend closer than 6" to the
5
edge of the sign background, Landscaping of the base shall be required, Signs
may be front or back lighted or internally lighted as per the attached lighting
standards in Exhibit F.
20. Freestanding signs along the interstate frontage shall be limited to one 2-
sided sign for each two lots with interstate frontage (i.e. each building shall be
limited to sharing one sign backboard with an adjoining property), The
freestanding sign shall be a maximum of 20 feet in height, 14.5 feet in width, and
shall be constructed of the same background material (brick) as the adjoining
building. Signage per side shall be limited to 150 s.f. per side. The set back from
any interstate property line shall be consistent with existing signage on the
interstate. All sign messages shall be on a sign background and shall have a
similar type style and raised letter heights, and shall not extend closer than 6" to
the edge of the sign background, Landscaping of the base shall be required,
Signs shall be front lighted or back lighted as per the attached lighting standards
in Exhibit D.
21, All new and replacement street trees shall meet the requirements of the
City Street Tree Master Plan (Exhibit C) and/or be approved by the city forester.
22, Park dedication shall be required for the new PUD in a combination of
land and pro-rata cash contribution amounts as set forth in Section 5,5 ,of the
amended and restated development agreement. As part of the site plan and with
each building permit, the developer shall maintain existing outdoor green
areas/spaces and all weather benches and tables for employees' breaks or lunch
hours.
23, Communications equipment for the private use of occupants of the
buildings (such as antennas and dishes) shall only be installed on roofs, Parapet
walls shall visually screen such devices from any abutting right-of-way lines.
Exception: Hotel and restaurant ground mounted dish/antennas shall be located
as per drawings approved on April 11, 1997, along the west side of the building,
24. Cellular telephone transmission equipment within the PUD shall be the
maximum distance from the residential areas possible within the business park
and shall be architecturally imbedded or attached to building walls as part of the
building design.
25. Business hours for restaurant operations shall be required in licenses
approved by the City Council. No more than 10% of the restaurant gross indoor
floor area shall be utilized for bar area. For purposes of this PUO, the bar area
shall include standing and seating area/stools within 10 feet of all sides of the
bar where drinks are served. No bar shall be located outdoors.
26. Significant proposed amendments which would cumulatively increase the
project size, area, or number of buildings, parking, or roadway system shall be
6
considered a major amendment to the Planned Unit Development and shall
require amendment hearings and approval by the City,
27. There shall only be one additional curb cut placed on Cleveland Avenue
as a driveway exit from the far southeast corner of the plat, adjacent to the city
ponding area. The curb cut permit shall be subject to Ramsey County approval.
The business park shall use the existing three roads as entrances to and from
Cleveland Avenue.
28. Consistent with paragraph #7, the roads shall remain in the same location,
The building(s) within Lot 3, Block 3, shall be redesigned to minimize the visual
impact of the loading areas on the adjacent residential area to the east.
29, In the business park, the hours for construction, snow and trash removal,
truck deliveries and pickup of materials shall be restricted to normal business
hours (7 AM to 10 PM on any weekday and 9 AM to 9 PM on any weekend or
legal holiday),
30. The Staff shall review and may approve pathway realignments and city
pathway plans to match pavements and provide a continuous pathway,
31, Bar space (in square footage) and hours of operation shall be defined in
the bar's liquor license, (See # 25,) Bar and restaurant activities shall be limited
to indoor and outdoor eating areas, No outdoor bars or sports activities
associated with the bars shall be permitted, Retail bar space shall be prohibited
in hotels,
32, Lot 4 of Block 1 of Centre Pointe 2nd Addition (northern most lot of new
plat) shall be designated for one story office building use only, with uses as
specified in E-2.
33. The developer and/or a service district or special assessment to
developer, depending on authorization of the property owners and approval of
the City Council, may be required to pay for or construct sidewalks, berms, and
screening/walls along the east side of Cleveland Avenue from County Rd. "0" to
Lydia. All improvements shall be constructed to meet the City Code Design
Standards.
34. The developer and/or a service district or special assessment to
developer shall pay for and/or construct (subject to City, County, and State
engineering and landscaping approvals) the following:
1) a continuous right turn lane along the west side of Cleveland, from
"0" to North Centre Pointe Drive;
2) a ramp turning lane from 1-35W north onto County Rd. "0" and
along "0" to Cleveland;
7
3) construct a right turn lane from Cleveland onto County Rd, "0";
The Developer will not be required to pay for any necessary rights-of-way and
construction/ expansion of the interstate ramps to provide queuing capacity. The
Developer shall only be required to pay for items 1, 2, and 3 above if the
City/County/State begin construction within a reasonable time but in no event
beyond January 1, 2000.
35. Pending approval by the City and County, the developer and/or a service
district may be required to pay for or construct a Cleveland Avenue center island
with 2 to 3 gaps for left turns. The island and both edges of the Cleveland
Avenue frontage may be landscaped and planted with flowers similar to
Lexington Avenue in St. Paul. The Developer shall only be required to pay for the
above mentioned improvements to Cleveland Avenue if the City/County begin
construction within a reasonable time but in no event beyond January 1, 2000.
36. For 1998 and 1999, the developer and/or a service district or special
assessment to developer shall be required to annually pay for "city service
credits" to be used or "spent", with advice from the neighborhood. The service
credits shall be a maximum of $10,000 per year and shall be invoiced to the
developer on a quarterly basis. Such service credits shall be exclusively for
police services hours,
37. After an engineering and fire/life safety study, Brenner may be modified to
reduce cut through traffic, This will be a city project at City cost.
38. The City shall allow 619,600 s.f, of new buildings on the entire site.
Changes in building size or height from the original, approved plan of April
11,1997, may only occur south of Lydia where building height may be reduced
and single story buildings may be consolidated into vertical building height of up
to 8 stories provided:
1) green space on the site is increased to at least 25% of total lot
area.
2) structured, ramped, or deck parking shall be provided when
additional parking space is needed,
3) the building is sprinklered to increase fire safety and reduce fire
protection costs.
39. Based on the approved (April 11 , 1997) building placement and usage of
the lots north of Lydia. an advisory neighborhood design task force shall be
formed to review landscaping and lighting plans, street widths and driveway
placements, street alignment/realignments and turning movements along and
abutting Cleveland Avenue to the business park building setback lines,submitted
or proposed after the formulation of the task force, in the area from Lydia
Avenue north to and including County Rd, "0" as illustrated in Exhibit H, The task
force shall be formed using the City's task force policy - similar to other
8
neighborhood task forces. The task force shall be in place until one year after
the issuance of the initial certificate of occupancy of the last building within the
Centre Pointe Business Park or the year 2001 whichever ocurrs sooner, Prior to
implementation, all task force recommendations must be approved by the City
Council.
40, All buildings may have integral/interior deli's and/or cafeterias to serve
primarily the office users in one or a series of buildings.
8. DEVELOPER's Default
In the event of a default by the DEVELOPER, as to any of the work to be performed by
it hereunder, the CITY may withhold certificate of occupancies from the DEVELOPER
or, at its option, perform such work, and the DEVELOPER shall promptly reimburse the
CITY for any expense which it incurs.
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the developer may convey a parcel or
parcels of land within the PUD to third parties, which conveyed parcels shall remain
subject to all of the terms of the PUD specifically relating to such parcels, In that
connection, the parties agree as follows:
A. A default by the Developer, or its successors in interest, in the
performance of the obligations hereunder, will not constitute a default
with regard to a conveyed parcel and will not entitle the City to exercise'
any of its rights and remedies hereunder with respect to such conveyed
parcel, so long as such conveyed parcel otherwise complies with
applicable provisions of the PUD,
8, A default with regard to a conveyed parcel will not constitute a default with
regard to the parcels retained by Developer or other conveyed parcel, so
long as such retained or other conveyed parcels otherwise comply with
applicable provisions of the PUD,
The CITY agrees to give the DEVELOPER written notice of its default not less than
thirty (30) days prior to the commencement of the CITY's work. The CITY and the
DEVELOPER recognize the weather conditions may affect the ability of the
DEVELOPER to perform the work required to be performed hereunder and agree that
such thirty (30) days shall not
include those days on which weather conditions preclude performance by the
DEVELOPER.
Notice to the Developer shall constitute, without further action, notice to any contractor
or subcontractor, This Agreement is a license for the CITY to act. When the CITY does
9
any such work, the CITY may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in
whole or in
part. If deemed impractical by the CITY, the above notice requirements shall not be
required by the CITY to control erosion problems,
9, Miscellaneo\..l~
A, This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors
or assigns, as the case may be.
B. Breach of any material term of this Agreement by the DEVELOPER shall
be grounds for denial of building permits,except as otherwise provided in
Section 8.
C. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase
of this Development Contract is for any reason held invalid as a result of a
challenge brought by the DEVELOPER, their agents or assigns, the
balance of this agreement shall nevertheless remain in full force and
effect.
D This Agreement shall run with the Subject Property and shall be recorded
in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office,
E. This Agreement shall be liberally construed to protect the public interest.
10, Notices
Required notices to the DEVELOPER shall be in writing and shall either be hand
delivered to the DEVELOPER, their employees or agents, or mailed to the
DEVELOPER by certified or registered mail at the following address:
Ryan Twin Lakes Limited Partnership
In Care of: Ryan Builders Inc,
700 International Centre
900 Second Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Notices to the CITY shall be in writing and shall either be hand delivered to the
Community Development Director, or mailed by certified or registered mail, in care of
the Community Development Director at the following address:
Community Development Director
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
10
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year
first above written.
By:
By:
RYAN TWIN LAKES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
A MINNESOTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By:
Ryan Builders, Inc,
Ge rat Partner
By:
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
,'. i ) SS
COUNTY OF \ J }J~ )
~
The forgoing instrument was acknowledged before me this c:; [ "s'T day of
\
'~, 1997, by Dan Wall, Mayor, and Steve Sarkozy, City Manager, of the
~e, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and
pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council.
~r:-':,,::,,; ~ ~::T:'::- -~;:' '~I' ,--::;~ ~', .z~, ",)
~. ".' 1., ,~___I_'-_v_N '\
.','" ~ NDT^="-"~"~,""'I'ESOTA ~.
.. t<.r<. ru_........ I,! '"I"~
'. ,,~ :"- .: A:iOKA C':)VHY
. ..,..,.. My Commission Expi;es Jan, 31. 2000
\ I '
\,-1 ~~ 1 j-, (j,~.--
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) S8
COUNTY OF ;t,.717f-1'/~1 )
I
.n '
before me tv~ay of/ ,
,t e 'Cr fj~~~' I dcC'd f
f the partnership.
!tM'^""~^^^AA"".'"", No ary
REV 52197 ~~~...., ....vvvVVVVVVV\I\i'\IY.
J:\CENTRPT\CE ,~D,,"\~~'~:~_~'.};:h,~~~~~8N ~
~...,1 "-.-.: "Jf'r~1I r~w~~:.~/::~~;c:OTA 1
~ \...~.../. :..: ,'::?:,'i CC'..:NTY
<' I J..',--""-!""';" "
. .' -. '.,,-.... -"r".sJ,,' 31 2AM
L, 'v. t-' .. . .1. t 'III\ltJ
. - "- ,v.', !.,.,.,!,.'<..I...',.,..~.. 11
1.
2.
3.
4.
-- 5.
-
6.
7.
8.
9.
, ~ .
, '
"'"j'
'iI""-i'
RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRIcr
SUITE 330 ARDEN PLAZA
3585 LEXINGTON AVENUE NORTH
ARDEN HILLS, MN 55126-8056
RCWD PERMIT NO. 97-06
c:
City of Roseville
Montgomery Watson
Inspector Brough
RCWD File
PERMIT
PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 97-06 Kent Carlson
Issued to:
Kent Carlson, Ryan Companies, US, Inc., 700 International Centre, 900 2nd Avenue S.,
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Location:
Southwest quadrant of County Road D and Cleveland Avenue, Roseville
Purpose:
Approval of a Final Site Drainage Plan for the construction of a commercial
development, 48.8 acres.
At their meeting on February 26, 1997, the Board of Managers cf the Rice Creek Watershed District
reviewed your permit application and the recommendation of the District Engineer based upon the
following exhibits:
Permit App1ic:ation, dated January 9, 1997, received January 10, 1997.
Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, prepared by RLK Associates, last
revised March 5, 1997, received March 5, 1997.
Preliminary Hydrology Plan, prepared by RLK Associates, dated February 13, 1997, received
February 13, 1997.
Preliminary Site Plan, prepared by RLK. Associates, dated February 13, 1997, received February
13, 1997.
General Details Sheet, prepared by RLK. Associates, dated February 13, 1997, received. February
13, 1997.
Project narrative and runoff calculations, prepared by RLK .Associates, dated February 13, 1997,
received February 13, 1997.
Letter regarding regional pond expansion prepared by City ofRoseville, dated February 26, 1997,
received March 5, 1997.
RCWD Permit files 87-49, 86-49, 96-155, and 96-154.
Cash surety in the amount of $10,500, received. March 7, 1997 from Ryan Companies.
Continued on revers&--
RCWD PERMIT NO. 97-06, continued:
Page 2
They found the project as planned to be in accordance with the Rules & Regulations and Guidelines
of the District and therefore approved the permit as requested, with the following additional
stipulations:
Stipulation: Applicant must notify RCWD immediately if regional pond expansion becomes
unfeasible.
It is the responsibility of the Permittee to provide all measures necessary to contain sediment on the
site during construction. This may require the use of erosion control measures not outlined on the
erosion control plan. If this requirement is not met, the Permittee may be ordered to provide additional
erosion control measures if deemed necessary by the District Inspector. It is also the responsibility of
the property owner to provide necessary maintenance to assure that the stormwa.ter management
systems approved as part of this Permit will continue to function as originally designed
NOTE FOR PROVIDERS OF A CASH SURETY: Two (2) inspections of the project site are included
with this Permit, one after erosion control measures are in place and one after project completion,
revegetation, and silt fence removal, and will be conducted to assure compliance with all agreements,
terms, and stipulations of this Permit. Failure to comply with the foregoing may result in forfeiture
of your cash surety, rescission of. the Permit, and is in violation of Chapter 112.89 MSA, a
misdemeanor. Please notify the District Office in writing when project is complete and permanent
vegetative cover has been established and a final inspection will be made. Any additional inspection,
requested or required, will be billed at $25/visit.
."
This document is not transferable, and is valid for eighteen months after the date of issuance. No
construction is authorized beyond the ~ date of October 18, 1998. If Permittee requires more
time to complete construction, a renewal of the Permit will be necessary.
Please contact RCWD at 483-0634 when the project is about to commence so an inspector may view
the work in progress. By acceptance of this Permit, Permittee has consented to the foregoing. The
enclosed Owner's Certification form must be completed and forwarded within ten (10) days of project
completion.
-
RCWD ~~,4)
.~
of Managers
Date of Issuance: March 18, 1997
jak
Form C Revised 1/911
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
PLANNING FILE 2880
Exhibit B
a
~
~
~
C)
~
r:J'J
C\S
~
~
~
~
,
i
I
I
'----
,
I-
I! . .,.
~, .! r.--' ij
I i_I i II
1~..dJ~ "i
~I ['1 ~
~ n ___-1
roO
~
~
0[)
~
~ .~
C)~
z 0
r:J'J~
~~
C\S
~
~
~
ID"~j
!~
~
~s
LA
c}
'~
~
HD
~ ,:::LJ,
1----
~
~
I
i
:L
1
t
I
!
I
~
t
2
U
1\
;
t:
i
II
)'
~
,
n
t
i
t
iC::;If L~
f "" ,/""~
(",~/~>r---
L~-/.-----'-,
i
t
!I' ~
~ t'I2 (I) ~
~ ~ :>. co
.;;.;; ~ ~
~c: .;;-=
~ "'C Q: ~
g ~ ]]
0::0:: .3~ 1.3
~o8 ~I: 11
"080 Z
~;A QI)-g {J)
~~ &. 'E ~ ~
:< p .!!.! 2- :;
'" Ii: :< t: i3
~'~:i
f :
'oA
,8
U
<{z
~
~!
'"
<1
~ j
..
<1
~ ~
o
~
'"
:>
't:
Q.,
'2
~ ~
.D "-
:i: ~
-- :-::
"' :>
" u
~ '"
5 ~
.. U <0..
~ r... 0
oj - :>
~ c3 8
CJOD
, ,~<
'1'; b
'i' ." i~
"
"t "-
,1,',
';" "i
6
E
~
o~
E~
,,-
E '
Cor-.
c-
- ..
~ :)
~~
,,,,"", ....
- "
.G>O
.c
='
E
E
o
U
.I
", ~'"
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
PLANNING FILE 2880
Exhibit C
ExWbar G .
... .h. -
STREET TREE .MASTER PLAN
CITY OF ROSEVlILE, MINNESOTA
1..=.. --.II!"\--.
ll~'N=:- - ~~D
;-_...-..<~.. () ..':'/
, .J !:~~ '." -,,'
, ~ ....~. ..' ..
. 11' .~. " ~ .":,_ ... .',f
f' ';~.,/ '::'.' ,.;~.';.' 1-4';'
11 ,..\:" /~/ ~~. .</ ~
l .,/"".:; ~ ," i/
(..,.,;:t~::":. , :/,{,. ./;,/
II " ,..,'/ .~,., ;/, --
" .."/' '"I i ~~
l'="'~!"" ".' ;!' j: ~
,:=.:::.....//...: ;i' '-.,../
: . ....:;.../ // 0 :j I LOCUS
I..'.. //.' Ii
Ei~~:I.;J':,.'" ~;" i :
~:.<~/ ~ i
I ::-:'~',iO~Dl'~--:I~'_i"~-J-~;~'--
. j :~: I ~! ! ~ {I~)) OAK fr"
u. I:! :!\ ~:I ::; :1
~I: (i...-:~.J . 1~4 'i \:~
~~ ~ i ....... "'I~ Ii i~~. () ~
~u,~~ '~--"
f ....~~I;\~C 3L=~____
ii'--~' <--~~:,~--
I.. , ,"- _~__. ,__ "',\
I:~ ,~~j: '. ---:~..,~, ~,~'
: ': v.:,... i . ~i ....~~,
. .,,". II ""t!".L__~"':"'.. . f '.
'I 0' (l!Lj"t::=;,_ ifi.-.-:-.....:. \'
:: ~~~j t~~slbc:::::P\U'~="
~. I'P:;;'-" ~J-
IND~ Iii a A~TI ~.
, ,,=_=__"r..n_.'_""'_~-
:'.1 ~---- ~ -j!
~ r, :I::
~.-... Q.' ,il ",!
.\;' ,.,
~\!I Jl ;! !! j
. ~ I ~~:::::-., ,.'. .~ :.:..-:..-:-..~~.:KC1AD:1;::: l ~
, ----:--:.~~~~ 1~"J' '~~~':..~=.:~ '! -.-
~~-,..., il \J !'-"r,--~~; ____K:,.,.",
-'~) :r:: 1 J: W;: ~: ..!~~! .
.; I f1) \;1 ~::::..: I A'S' J.i' !~:!
" . . ...., " . Ii! I I) .
11L._.--~--~ ::-==-~::1-' pt ;! Ii Jt L ,Ii
:iir--- ... .--- ... "j: . -~--~.:-::~~=--:_-~;:::-=.~:
'; LO€U5T ,', --~--'
\ 1i ~ I LOCUST
:; ~) ---;"
';~u- 'C<k~:..:::~~~ kY~~~"
:\ \i -~~
~ \ \ ~UST f \ LOCUST
i~~---~-,
11....-.--...,..
I i ~ il'l
..----.~.1_ ......J,;.....
',.. ..
"'. .:~....
....;.:-'"'
,.
"
"j
"
ji:
",'
"
;.
"
./p
J,.
,;
. ._- -
CITY OF ROSEVILLE,
MINNESOTA
~
AREA
1
STREET TREE MASTER PLAN
NORTIi
SCAlA r-lSOO'
page 15
STREET TREE MASTER PLAN
CITY OF ROSEV/liE, MINNESOTA
STREET TREE PALETTE
.}tCOUNTY ROADS - NORTH/SOUTH (CO-NS)
TREE NA!Y1E HT. FORM NOTES:
Ma.rshalls Green Ash 50-60' Oval
Patmore Green Ash 50-60' Oval
Summit Green Ash 50-60' Oval
Hackberry 50-75' Rounded
Skyline Honeylocust 45-50' Broadly pyramidal
Imperial Honeylorost 30-35' Spreading
Ironwood 30-35' Rounded
*HONEYLOCUST GROUP (LOCUST)
TREE NAME lIT. FORM
Skyline Honeylocust 45-50' Broadly pyramidal
Imperr:al Honeylocust 30-35' Spreading
Ironwood 30-35' Rounded
(commercial zones)
(wires overhead, commercial zones)
(use under overhead wires)
NOTES:
(commercial zones)
(overhead wires, commercial zones)
(use under overhead wires)
STREET TREE MASTER PLAN
CITY OF ROSEVIILE, MINNESOTA
APPENDIX I
Street Tree Spacing and Location Requirements
DEFINITION: A Street Tree is any canopied tree that exists on the public right-of-way.
/............................................
fig
I
~~
::::-:::::::::.:::::::::',':::,::::::.,,' :' ,,'r'),,'
LARGE TREE SPACING
35" ON CENTER
. . . . .. .. - . . .
............................ --. ... ............... .
............................ ...... ...... .........................
. ",',.., ',' ,:.. ',.. ffj
......................................./
SMALL TREE SPACING
20' ON CENTER
Almost all streets within the City have rights-of-way that extend behind the curb line. This
area is public property and is generally used for utilities, walks and landscaping. The width of
trus right-of-way area varies considerably in different sections of town. Municipal ordinance
requires that all Street Trees be planted 3 feet inside the public right-of-way (as illustrated).
All Street Trees are to be planted and maintained to meet public requirements. A free,
written permit from the City Horticulturist is required prior to planting, trimming, removing
or otherwise treating trees or shrubs upon public property (see appendix J).
page 29
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
PLANNING FILE 2880
Exhibit 0
------......-..,-..-..,...
-----.--.-----"---.--.-,
..~-~--,.._-,._-_._--
~t>rr Q.
~YAN.
Ryan COl!lpanies LS, Inc.
-;00 IJdt'n1'\!:"".: i /.Jdn'
~HjU ::-"TIJt!1! \ "....ll!lt11
\1!!I,w.q\!,i;-... \1 \ -,.~} Hi:.!-:)'_)\~
hl:.:.}.}h.!:2iHi.. ,'~i ':d!;.
/Juildillg Lox/ill!! Iklllli(J//xhi".~
()I:2 .~-)7 -)}-'_'~.
March 20, 1997
Rick Jobke
Assistant Community Development Director
City of Roseville
2660 Civic Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
RE: CENTER POINTE BUSINESS PARK
ROSEVILLE, MN
Dear Mr Jobke:
I am writing to outline our architecture design intent for the above referenced project. The project
description along with the enclosed information shall provide you with a written pictorial of the quality
of architecture proposed for Centre Pointe Business Park.
Centre Pointe Business Park is designed to meet the office space needs for technology and service
related businesses in the Twin cities metro area.
Exterior building finishes shall be of medium brown brick to coincide with the existing office buildings
on the site. Additionally we will use dark brown brick accents and textured/colored precast concrete to
highlight the overall texture of the brick facade. Windows will be tinted gray glass with butt joints or
narrow bullions and finishes in dark brown. (see enclosed plan and perspectives)
All accessory structures, if any, will match the proposed masonry finishes of the office buildings,
Rooftop mechanical units will be screened from line of sight by brick masonry parapet walls. Line of
sight studies will be completed and submitted to the City of Roseville for record of compliance.
Ground surface mechanical or utility equipment shall be screened from line of sight by landscape
material or brick masonry screen walls.
External loading, trash or service areas shall be totally screened from residential and adjacent area
views except at driveway access points. Whenever possible, trash and service areas will be contained
(within the building perimeter) on the main floor.
Road, driveway and parking lot lighting shall be concealed downcast type fixtures on 30' high poles to
match existing conditions. Building entrances and ground signs shall be ground lit with controlled
bean ground lights. Truck dock areas and rear entrances to buildings shall be lit by wall mounted
concealed down cast type fixtures. (see enclosure)
DOCUMENT6
MW
!'!!!!!t-dH:' H'-I'.t!n! I'''i"r 0
1),',i~1I Hllil.! II 1\",,1 1,:,(;,(" 1)",.,,1"1""""1 iii i""I'<'rI' \1a'''':"''1I1t'1I1
Rick Jobke
March 20, 1997
Page 2
The enclosed monument (ground) sign detail will be typical for each sign location indicated on the site
plan. Additionally polished metal letters, 24" high will be wall mounted at the main entrance for each
user and ground lit.
Hopefully the information and enclosures explain our design intent as you requested. If you have
further questions or need more assistance please call.
Sincerely,
d:r;t~
Project Architect
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
cc: Kent Carlson
RLK Associates
DOCUMENT6
MW
ROAD, DRIVEWAY & PARKING LOT
LIGHTING ON 30' HIGH POLES
TRUCK DOCK ENTRANCE LIGHTING
Performance
and quality
are the
long-term
return on your
investment.
1
2
Performance
designed for
application efficiency.
The true test of any luminaire is
how well it will perform in a
specific installation, At Kim, we
call this application efficiency,
Pole spacing, total watts per
square foot. uniformity of light.
and visibility are the factors to
consider in evaluating an
outdoor luminaire, The EKG has
been designed to provide true
"bottom line" efficiency, As
evidence, a computer analysis
can be provided l;Jy the Kim
lighting Application
Department.
Maintained light
output through sealed
optics.
Coupled with application
efficiency is the ability to
maintain light output on the site
After all, initial light output IS of
little consequence if it cannot
be sustained over the years in
an outdoor environment.
Performance oriented fixtures
lose efficiency and waste
energy when optical chambers
are filled with dirt and insects
A completely sealed optical
chamber was a foremost
consideration in the conception
and design of the EKG, The
results 01 this effort are readily
apparent when comparing the
Kim EKG with competitive
luminaires after several years
of field operation, The EKG is
always substantially cleaner
than any other fixture of
comparable age.
A1-2
/j
3
Rapid installation,
easy maintenance,
and adaptability to
new technology.
"Time is money;' a truism
substantiated by today's high
labor costs, Whether on initial
installation or periodic
maintenance, a fixture
designed specifically for ease
of handling is a time and
money-saving asset. The entire
EKG fixture is constructed in
self-contained subassemblies
that provide for quick
installation and maintenance,
Farsighted engineering allows
these subassemblies to easily
adapt to new developments in
lamp and ballast technology,
keeping the EKG operating at
peak efficiency, There is no
reason for an EKG to ever
become obsolete,
o
4
Materials and
construction
designed for
longevity.
From raw materials, to
construction methods, to final
coatings, there are no
compromises in the production
of an EKG, It must withstand
wind, rain, snow, ice, wide
temperature variation, bugs,
dirt, polluted air and vandalism
throughout its useful life, There
is no harsher environment than
the outdoors, and only the best
materials coupled with proven
construction methods can
stand the test of time, Kim's
50 years of experience in the
outdoor lighting business is the
basis for this philosophy,
u
~
, ~,"
Mounting Details
.Field wire connections made here,
... 1A
... 2B
-' 2L
-'- 3T
+ 4C
... 1A
..1'2 2B
Slandard mouf}ting for aluminum
0' ,Ie" potJ I.cp-
---_..._,-,.,'~-==!!
-------- lib
~2:~f.
,188 wall
Optional wood pole mounting, Wood poles
by others,
--t-.Jf'l~.
J.__"""_....:,,:=,:=~-J
~6'.X2V2'.
,18Bwall
Optional wall mounting
for concrete walls only.
==:t.J 0
.:.:....~:-.:::;::=~::=~:::::::,. <
,---:--; ~
~ L,_,....__,_,___,_-'
1';, ... --::::=::::::,:::::::::,:::::,:=_____ ..
L6"X2Y2"
,188 wall
"
o
fl,
c~
-i. 1W
.I-box In
wall, by others
U
W3E
H
1ft 6E
2U
4U
Optional cluster mounting for sleel poles wilh
2'//' pipe size tenon (2';,,' 0.0 x 4Yj' long)
=:~~r;~
~
A1-9
Versatility
_._,_.~-~----~._~,.,~--,<<...,-"~,-~,,,,-,,,,""~---,^--,.".
Ground Mounting:
As a Qrounc' n;ountcej r!ooc:hOhL (he }\Fl. iunC!ions 'cr
hqhnnq iacadcs s\~.)ns \\J.!is trec;~; or ~i(1~~S For n~CUntlnq, r\i1'n
offers a design cooicjjnateo z.1rCh!t0cturai ,J..8ox. or :he (;C1UC;C
strenGth and pC'rrnanence of a Stanch!on set !n concrete For
locations \a-;here tr1e hght sou[ce can be seen. the exc!usJI!e Barn
Door option can prOVt(IE: f)exitJle glare corHreL in areas V';f"1Cie
vandalism poses a concern, tile Le:<an Shield option wii! protect the
lens Irom breakage When located in planted areas, the clark [Honze
(DB-P) finish is recornrrended because of its al)tiity to [;Ienej WI!fl
surrounding fohage
Kim Lighting
BUILDING ENTRANCE &
GROUND SIGN LIGHTING
""-,,,,---~-~-.....,._--,~-_.
Wall Mounting:
Because It IS suerl a clean and Simple form, the i\FL can be wall
mounted as a complementary acidl(Jon iO arCf'HteClure. As a wail
rnountecj lufnlna:re, tile ,I\FL becomes a versa!!!e extenor ane! Inter:or
lighting tooL When mounted on budding eXlenor 'Nalls, areas around
the structure can be economically illuminated, saving the cost or
poles I,s an Intenor lighting instrument, the f\FL provides an Ideal
lighting solution for today's atnums and high ceilings. nle AFt Barn
Door system should be considered Ideal for precision glare conirol
:n In tenor applications, Where walls or columns are not available the
AFL can also be ceiling mounted
1
1
.~
:i
'~
~
. ,
AFL1 Horizontal Flood
Application Guide
.._..__....~~.~~_._,_...,-_.__..,_.._~_._----.._..._-".~.-.
~ ....... _.,~~~...~",_...._....
~
General Guidelines:
The AFL1 horizontal beam pat-
tern is designed to illuminate
surfaces that are more horizon-
tal than vertical or longer than
wide,
The AFL1 is designed for broad
illumination with the fixture rela-
tively close to the lighted sur-
face, Recommended distance
from the lighted surface is 6' to 20'
depending on lamp and wattage
Optimum aiming angle is 37'120
See pages 12. 13-18 lor
photometric reports
--_.,,--~._._-,.~~._----_...-_--_.._~--
Shipping Docks.
:1\.<."...
"
~
AFL2 Vertical Flood
Application Guide
(-
---- ..--..---. -~ -~..
.........__..-._._~---_..._..._--_..~----_...-._-_._,_._--..-.-----..-.... ..-. "''''--'-'-- ----.-- ~ -,.. -. .... ....-..
General Guidelines:
The AFL2 vertical beam pattern
!s designed to illuminate taller
surfaces when grade mounted,
or wider areas when wall
mounted, In general, AFL2 fix-
ture spacing is less than AFLl
but the beam reaches higher or
farther out. Recommended
distance from the lighted sur-
face is 6' to 20'depending on
lamp and wattage, Optimum
aiming angle is 450,
See pages 12, 19-261of
photometric reports
(
(-
---.------.
Ceilings-wide,
'~
F'ixture Systems
BUILDING ENTRANCE
HIGHLIGHT LIGHTING
LLF -to Direct Lens, Symmetric Downward
"" B Light Distribution, Wall or Ceiling Mounted,
The LLF~ iO IS tf'le bas=c !;91>:~:i9 :nS{f ~.:n(:n1 :o~ h(Y1/0n!al s~H'fa(:c:~~.
Of up to 100 s!op~:\c! rarnps I:' nay a~~;(, DC: c:a~';t '(110 ceihnqs or
overhanqs for sU}.rerb diurf,>:natJon ()f ~~:dlaC(;n: \-vails fhe L.L.F ~O
shouj(j be specified lor 10v,'..i(:\/c: !1cG{j!J9r-ntnq 't:!)crc arChJreCL.Ji a'
perrnanence. superb 9!ar~: GGntrDf t:.'c.; iJ (!u<;iI'iy c'::1S(.alurn!rn.it-r'
archl,ectural appearance is (!eS;iCC:
LLF...20 Direct Lens, Asymmetric Right-Downward
Light Distribution, Wall Mounted.
The LLF-20 conlains an exclusive optical system specifically
engineered to light slalrs or ramps t1aw1g greater than 100 slope Ii
is so eflicient allightln~J Incl neeJ sur/aces that oflen one fixture wil!
do the entire jot) The U. F.20 shouicj tJe specified for unsurpassec
lighting efficiency and glare contro1. INI!h permanence and quality [0
complement the flnesl arcii:tecture CIn(j 51 Ie design
LLF 30 Direct Lens, Asymmetric Left-Downward
om Light Distribution, Wall Mounted.
The LL.F-30 is exactly equal and OpGOSlle to the LLF-20, !,s such,
the specifier has complete ::eXlfJllity :n :ightlng stairways or ramps
trom the right. lei[, or both sloes Please refer to the night
photograph on the preced'i"Q page as an example ot how one
LLF-30 or 20 can light an entire stairway Specify the LLF-30 for
performance, permanence, and a strong architectural character
Kim Lighting
') "
;.,
,
"
,',
,.
:j
rf:(,
'J,
,
'1.,
'rift
. y.
;;,'
'.r
.t
}.'
:(-;
, r
,(
.'
,
llF 40 Direct Lens, Symmetric Upward
, ... = ... ., Light Distribution, Wall Mounted,
nle LLF -..~O superbly dlurninates budej!ng overlJangs and ccdings ;cr
aeSH-!e~iCS or for HldirecUy J~gt1ting pedestrian areas beio'..v It can fJC
used outdoors or ,neioors where 3 high quality iow rnad"cnance
'U!Tiin,We !s c1lctated by the architectural design The smoo:h ouier
s\Aiace of ,he tempered glass lens wli! stay clean and clear in :he
.r:verted position. and v.,i!!I not j"cUo\:v as \,viih plastic fixtures
LlF 50 Concealed Lens, Symmetric Downward
... Light Distribution, Wall Mounted.
'Nlth iis concealed lens and froni light baffle, the LLF-50 is designeci
for sensitive areas requiring absolute minimum fixture brightness.
The LLF-50 produces excellent light distribution for illuminating
iiorlzontal surfaces or SliOrt stairways. Its strong architectural
appearance will enhance quality site design that is built for
permanence Specify tlie black finlsli for minimum fixture brightness
~-'\
~,j
lLF 60 Concealed Lens with Guard, Symmetric
... Downward Light Distribution, Wall Mounted.
The LLF-60 has all the features of an LLF-50, with the addition 01 a
cast alulT1lnum lens guard, ane! a translucent white lens to eliminate
guard shadows Ii should be specIfied in areas requlling a high
degree 01 vandal resistance, concealed Ilglit source, and ale
permanence of iieavy cas\,alurnlnUf'f1 conslrucllon Specify Ihe
biack ilfliSh for minimum fixture I)rtghlness.
(-". .u
~
1<Jrn L!(1r~tH1(j
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
PLANNING FILE 2880
Exhibit E 1
~
M
en en Z g
't'- en en en en en en en en en ~
...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J
W ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J rh ~
...J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ...J ...J
t: ~ ~ ~ ...J (It
en en en en en en en en ...J ...J
m en en en ~ ...J
It) CJ) ID .... V It) .... It) co It) CJ) ~
It) N .... CJ) N to- .... CJ) N CJ) co en
J: .... .... N M N N V ....
LO rn
>< v M
W 10
N
N
~
0 0 0 It) LO It) 0 0 ID 0 0 0 M
0 0 to- to- to- to- 0 0 ~ 0 v 0
Il'i .0 .0 N N N Il'i Il'i M N .0 c)
>
ct
en en en en en en en en rn
...J en ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J en en en ...J
...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J
...J ~ ...J ~ ~ <( ~ ~ ~ ...J ...J ...J ~
~ ~ 1-, ~ ~ ~
en en en en en en en en en en en en rn
.... CJ) to- M CJ) 0 0 LO ID co CJ) LO N
N ID .... co DJ CJ) .... M
LO .... DJ N M N V .... to- co V ....
U) N
C
Il:
<(
C u.: u.: u.: u.: u.: u.: u.: u.: u.: u.: u.: LL
Z en en en en en en u:i en u:i en u.: en
u:i u:i
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to- o M g
0 0 N M 0 0 0 M 0 0 C; 0
N co .... LO CJ) to-. DJ co ID 0 0 co
c:i .0 .0 .0 .0 .... .0 ai ai 0 r-: .... en
U) N CJ) .... 0 M CJ) ID <Ii M ai ....
.... co
W
f-
-
U) 1(1
c u
. ~I c.j c.j c.j c.j c.j c.j c.j c.j c.j c.j c.j c.j
:J :~~. : ct <t <t <t <t <t <t <( <t ct <t <t <
to- lD 0 co LO 0 N N N M co v
a.. It) ID "': co M M DJ .... 0 ~ "': t>-
III N w ,....: N .0 C"'i N M
to- V
Z
<(
>-
Il:
~ ~ ~ ~
en en en en
N M V LO ID to- co ~ ~ ~ ~
b l- I- l- I- l- I- I-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CJ) 0 .... N
....
...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J I-
0 l- I- I-
0 0 0
...J ...J ...J ...J
:>- :>- :>- >-
>- >- >- >- >- >- 0:: 0:: >- 0:: >-
0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0 0 0:: 0 0::
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l- I- 0 I- 0
l- I- l- I- l- I- I- en en I- en I-
en en en en en en en w w en w en
w w w w w w 0 w w w w w
z z z z z z ~ 0:: 0:: Z 0:: Z
0 0 0 0 0 0 :r: :r: 0 :r: 0
l- I- I-
...J
CD
illll I-
:2 :2 :2 ~
0 0 0
:''''1 0 0 0 0 I- <t
0
l"- ii_ 0:: 0:: 0:: Z W
0) W W u.. ~ ~ ~ w W ...J ~ ...J I-
0) :2 w ...J
...- () ~ ill 0 0 ~ () W :J W () ct Ci5
:::::: .: u::: u.. :r: :r: :r: u.. u::: b I- u::: I- i==
.... . ~ 0
...- ~~11: u.. u.. () en en en u.. u.. u.. 0 a..
...- 0 0 u::: ill W W 0 0 :r: en :r: 0 I- 0::
...J u... () () () W I-
~f" :~ 0 u::: u::: u::: 0:: z
a::: u.. u... u. w
..x,..... . ~
a... tit 0 0 0
<( ...,
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
PLANNING FILE 2880
Exhibit E2
....J
a:I~
~<WCI)
~o:::w
CI)~CI)
Wa..CI)
," J c.9 W W
\..I )zoo:::
~ :>: ~ CLI-
o:: -, CL
::J )OCJW
.... oz~
o OOu.
<( ~....JO
LL O~t9
::J Ia:lZ
Z CLW-
_~a~~
......"Z>-
~~i=O:::~
Q~~c.9
Q) 0::: 0::: W Z
~ ~~~~
.... [jj a:I 0 CL
CD ....J
C
.- !Ii ~
:E <WCl)
.- t:: 0::: W c.9
~ "J L- CI) U.
m w"CI);2
'n CL w
.c ~~o:::W
(.) =XCL~
ca~>-W~>
W OOCJ~~
COO~u.....J
.- 0:: P 0 u. <
.c 3:~....JOO
:!:: 0 )5c.90
:> a:lzw
::>oJ: WN~
"C en ~~:J~
Q) >-
::: t:;O:::~~
.- ~ ~ CJ 0
E [w~o:::
Q) w~~0
a. 3tl:o:::~
U) ti]OCLW
Q)
U)
::)
l'
m
- 0:::
OJ ....J W
:2 <( CI)
.c I- :5
w
.c CI) 0::: 0>-
CJ W ~ ~ ZCJ
ca OCl)Z CL <0
CD u.Z~~W (J)....J
- ~OCLOU !YO
~ ....J~gfi~ ~~
o <~w c.9 CLO
~ Zi=>ZZ ;2w
QCI)W~O O~
E Cl)Zo....J....JCI)oO:::
~~f:3....Jzo::>oCJ:5
E<u.<c.90a:l0 z;;;:::
'-II-Ou-Zw::>-~
cEzo:::zf:3<ol-~(J)
E~CL<O>-5(1)~o:::
- ~z -0:::0:::c.9::>0
W~CI)u.G~w~c.9(J)
O~CI)~o:::<CI)OZO:::
- wCI)<o:::wo:::_w
LL~Z~WOUO~~
LLOCl)ZCI)a:lU::O~~:J
OW::><W<U.WO:::O:::W
;2 a:la:IO:::....JOO:::CLCLO
t-
O>
--
o
N
--
1.0
N
W
!::
a:I
I
X
W
..-
a:I
5:
CI)
W
CI)
::>
"f
a:I
i==
a..
0:::
~
Z
W
0'
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
PLANNING FILE 2880
Exhibit E3
EXHIBIT E3
Centre Pointe-Open Space Analysis
~ill~\i~j;\ij\j!i~f': ,
GREEN SPACE
POND AREA
BUILDING AREA
PARKING AREA
SIDEWALK
TOTAL SITE
396.858 s.f.
81,575 s.f.
464.732 s,f.
839,150 s,f,
93,523 s,f.
1,875,838 s.f.
21.16%
4.35%
24.77%
44,73%
4,99%
100%
Summary: Green space and pond area added together equal 25.51%
Percent G reen in Parking Lots
!!!i!!!!!i!i~!!!!t\~llii:!i!!i!!!!if.~iIDi1!iiI~!j!j~!il!!iri!~ii]!~! 1!:][!!j![!]!1~~!~1i!j[f~_:::~;:jl~i;!i:!i1!!i~!!:i!:!I:!!!!!!!!
1 8.5
2 1 1 .0
3 6.8
4 7.0
5 5. 1
6 6.2
7 6. 1
8 8.7
9 1 3.0
1 0 1 1 .0
1 1 1 6.0
1 2 1 8.0
J:\CENTRPT\OPENSPC, TBl
FROM : RlY ~SSOC! ~TE"', L TO
PHONE NO. 612 g33 1153
Mar. 20 1997 12:55PM P4
~.
..:,,(;
I-::~."" ,~~
'1115' ~~
I;' ," I
Ii '.
ri:
.~
---._~._'"
_I. L g
Sli ~ Ii..
, ,.2 , 1D !
I , i =,1 i III ~
!1. III!!
ei; 1~lli'}
011 0:111t5
~1.II,illl !
.. .11511 I B
I ~ !.. ~!I ~ !lIi ~
3:
~
I
i
WE
!J
H
I
Hi
"'t~
t!:I,
- n 1
:
~
"',
I
, .. iI
" .- II
. . 1'."_
.,
..:.
~., '. .-
. .~, :"<",
, '.~'. < ;", t::j~;J~~:?~~~~:::'~f" .
: ~: -," ~~';'~f;:')~~~~:" ~., -.-.~,-=.,
.'. '.. -';-:~:.,;:.:":?..i,?.: . "
- , ,
". :.....
- .'
',:r~~;;~:::;:;~::~/~t~ ".,--: .:
. .
. -, ..' .....
. ',. '.
>l~~;-.:~\,::;\;;~;;,/~,: '
\ _::..~._...a.:.:.~
.~:....;....'J:~_.:
. .... ... -, .
"".: 0':0(: ",:.
:. ?'... .'..
.' ~'~"."
....:.:"'.
. ~ . -
~.'I""'.' :.; 'J.. :'_
,-,:;.-
-
...
',.>.; ...:..... ""..:',
.h:-_..... .
-
.' ..... ': '.. -.. ;'-'" ""~'.. .. . . . .....,.'".. r.,~..' v.. ~."~ Jo"'""","rr.<:<..::~:~~". ": ... ~~ ..
~. .
FRCIM : RU< ASSOC I ATES L TD
-.....
~ .." ....- .
. .
"::~~~:~~~iS-':;~i ;;~:: ".:".
~ .
'i~
, ! ~~i',-j.~
2' --.-L
..L..- -.1 _ _
I ~L, I ,~.
PHONE NO.
t:.12 933 1153
Mar. 20 1997 12:52PM P3
'f . .
'1'.;' .':
:""_' <I '.' ~.~., .
. 1. .\ -.
i
il
I.
~.
II
)0)
I
, ~,
: .:. .
:.~ff~ ,'-.
;. -~). I
It. '
~ .-!
3=
1ft
C?
..
:!
!!
D
:e
rn~
[[
ill[
III
I
I
~
I J
II
!I
!II I] ,
U!
m
"I
~ !
~I
J
,
i I
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
PLANNING FILE 2880
Exhibit F1
"IIi!!II::
~
.s;
J1
r
zl
I
J
,
":
m
EJtlkl)tr fA- i
....,11' ':"~
~-----------'
>
UJ
a
00--------
0
z a
0
-l CJ
~ ~
ffi 0
-l
is 8 ~
t-
Q. <t: a: is
<t: ~ u.. 6
() t:: t-
o <t: i=
ill t- -l ~
t- <t:
ill (; 0 0
~ if) I- ~
ffi ffi ~ u..
() ~ t-
t- o
I- ill Z
if) <t: -l ~ <t:
<t: u..
() ~ 0 <t: ~
~ ill u..
<t: \Q (; t-
o <t: 8
a: 0
a: u..
":
~
<t:
Ii!
<t:
<0
~~
I~
I
+--
~!
-----
~
-l
>-
I-
a:-l
ill<t:
~S,2
a:Q.
a..>-
oI-
l-
.g-,S
t
9
!Q
$
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
PLANNING FILE 2880
Exhibit F2
"
~
~
"'1J
-<
I
o
Z
(j')
G)
z
(j')
(")
I
m
s:
m
\1'-10'
,------..-- --------..-'....---..---..t
6'-0' 3' 0' 6' ,
----------J----=-------J.. .J..
SIGNAGE AREA I I I
.. -- ---I~ r
-------r I
I I
)'-4' )'-0'
-~-t---- ----...
01
:u
o
z
-I
<
ffi
::E:
---
~~6 N ~~ " U1 ~
)> ~
~iBn:t () ~ ()
~ )>
~-UI U1
,,~2 i5~ '1J -i
U1 < 9 -i ()
~~~ 2= 0 ~
~ -i ~
12~ ~~ 0
S r ~ -i -i
-<OJ () m
)> ::t
friUl " ~~ -i ()
)> g ~ )>
"
UI~~ fri ~;
~
2;S-i ~ m9
, ~ S? (f);:5 -i
~~ (f)
m 2
~
;! ;!;! ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ;! ."
~ ~ ~ ; ! ~
rn rn rn Q ~ ~
m m m ~ ~ ~
[!Jrt] [!1~[!J
en
~
<
~
Rytalilll C<D>mJP>2almrli<e~
a."....' I...u., m.I..,o.......
V2' - f-{)'
Jt,
15 w.v 1997
-
C e n1t.ne JP 0 n n1t.e
Busnness JPart
PROPOSED PLY ON SIGN
__o.ouo
--
/. oIf','~""lr'" If'f\ rUnl ",VI\I/" fMo;.l~
toO ~ A..... s..dr.
Q2J>>I--UOO
[)()(
OOO-;>r-.9
i
I
U1!
!I~ II~
)> "
~ I
~ 1-
---1
~
~
~
-n
~
p
N'
t
IlIio _ a.de ~
Iodt.o .
, !'!"".....a.'=
-
, (G12) ~
!'us (G12) 8S3-UG3
Centre Pointe
E){H'~T F2 b
Pylon Sign
Location
==
Lt')
I"')
Pylon Sign
Location'
SIX/1I COORE
~
;
, Q1MY /iQID C
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
PLANNING FILE 2880
Exhibit G
LU
I:
~fn.,.
. 0"'-
1"). '0
:r~~oi
t'oI"o 11')",
Z~'OU
n _-J
B - ".
~
~
.,.
CO
~ iii
I')
,...
~
~ =
15
~ z
~
~
~
~
~
~
.IV
aD
(
SCALE
I::: 1+ I {3 I r G-7
I
CERTIFICA TE OF SURVEY FOR:
RYAN COMP ANIES
\ 25 \ 2~ \
if ~""q,. \\\ \
G~ ~~~ \. k..-
EAST "-::, ".., 'J:.?-\::~., AREA: 301.33.. Sq, H.
122 00 !'\ 6.91 77 A~es
~~"~A":- ~ ~~, .",. '~ PROPOSED ()fSCRIPTlON
~ /.. T )!. \ 9F ~ORTHF'RI Y PAACEL
'\~// .e.o( ~ I ~ That part of LoI 3. Block I, C[NTRE
.~ .~ .~ 'fb. POIHTE BUSINESS PARK, according to
~ . .9:4-~".' 'f' the recorded plot thereo'. RQmlley
~. JIo"r".~ ",\ A" County. Minnesota. l)ing northerly of
v the fol)owlng desc:riCIod line; Commen-
, ).." c:ing at the nDrtheoat corner of said
,- -:"'40' ..' :i"' \ Lot 3: thence South JO degrees 00
.:,f (,') "_\l'~~~ ",inutes 00 secondS EOIlt. ollsumed
":"/l'~, .'~ beorll"~, 171.23 feet alonll the easterty
~ ~Oo L') ~ IIl'Ie of said 1.01 3; IlIe"ce soulherly
,...: I , I 42, J 14 SQ. ft -':t' . t ~J,99 feel along sDid cast line 01 lol
:::; L'..J 3 2625 Acres Uiijl~~ J on 0 longenliol C\.Ir1/8 concave 10 Ihe
... - -- ' ~cfn,.'C2., Os west with 0 radius of 275,00 feet and
g ~ - ...~O .ith 0 cel'ltrol angle 01 30 degrees
(,') rr) 00 Mlnules 00 seconds: thllnce On a
~ '~I becvin9 01 South 90.00 leel tan9~t to
!! : ) '~.~... said curve along said eosl linl! of Lol :3
:; " 10 the point of beoi"ni'UI of the line to
:;; (Y , 0 .~ ' be described: thenc:e an 0 bearing 01
~ - ~ c ' ~ lLj"st 408 50 feel to a point on Ihe
g t') , 25 -_..~ wesl . lin~ of Lol J and sold IlI'Ie there
~ I : lermlnatlng,
WEST ~,50 ...
,..., I VDlA
N r-- _....k. -- p"oPoc;m ['IE~~RIPTtON
. AVE. Of' SOUTHERL Y PARCEL
J 'Thot pcvt or Lot 3. Block I, CENTRE
~ ~ " 2S ..... POINTE BuSINESS PARK. oc:cording to
;:) W the recorded plot therllof, RaMsey
~ &n-, C.....l'lty, "';""e:5olo. l)lin9 southerl, of
Iz Ihe followln9 described Ilnll; Commen-
. clng at the northeaSI corner of said
19 Lot 3: thence South )0 degrua 00
" :' ;: mInutes 00 seconds E081. oesumed
,....... ,'.2:_~_.~_2_s"1 bearing, 171,23 feet alo"g the eosterly
line of sold I.ot 3: th8f\CS southerly
143,99 (eel alan\! said coat line of Lol
:3 on 0 10l'lgllnllol cur..e co"ca~ 10 the
$:105' .b' 1 weat with a rodtus of 275,00 feet a"d
1;'2 0)"
(('.4~.-r ~. .....0 with 0 cenlrol 0"91e of 30 degrees
B '.1 .., 0, 00 minutc:s 00 seconds: t"once on 0
/ ~ ...'i!g bearing 01 South 90.00 feet langent to
~&; D O\/!fj ~oid curWl along said east l!rIe of Lot 3
~ f!;'" ..,J I!:~ to the pOint of beginning or the line to
4" .. '.'1..':.:/ ' -.tJ be dC$C1'bed. thence on 0 bearing of
/ ; : .~.sL~. :::: I~OeB,;~ If:~\ t:n: ,:~t I: ~~:'e
4'- ...~ :; ,iZ;' tennlnoUng.
/.:<SI / ~.~
/ .l' ~~ We hereby c..-lify thot Ihis Is 0 tl'\le and COfTllcl
~ representalion 01 a survey af the boundaries of
..;tJi the land desc:ribed oballe.
.~ 'j Dated this 17th day of F'lIbl'Uory 1997,
..,.,i>,~1 SUNDE LAND SURVEYlNC.~C. .
qv 8Y: ~., - ... ~ -
i Edward H, Sunde. A.L.S,
<'$ . 1.4 inn. Reg, No. 8612
/.~~..,...
,./ i I
I
tEET
OvrRALL PROP~TY OCSCRIPTION
Lot 3, 81oc:tr. I. CENTRE; PQlNTE BUSINESS
PARK, oec:ording to the recorded plat
thereof, Ramsey County. "'i""'O$olo,
159.220 Sq. ft,
3.6552 Acres
~
LI..1
f- -
~-
:R
~
-~
<-
o
()
'...'
--
......
LJ_
C)
()
124.50
WEST
-oJ
, ,
<.. r oJ
-.....
I.J
f-::
ry'
.~
-;:.
<-
I ,
<,,'...J
~ )
o
CaJzD<(Jm Tl../nffi(jl ~~a IJtDa:o
80
96-JIIO T.ZI! R.23 s,~ ovw 1J6JCiOOO5.DWG
IN
_. to .....~on r,_ (J.5Io')
-""..... ... S$olO
(812) 11111-2."
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
PLANNING FILE 2880
Exhibit H
Ii
/ i
I i
/1
i
,
I
I
I
I
---~
!
i
--J
COUNTY
.......--.........
.....................--.
....----..............-............-..-.......
~",',~.,",C~~"'~~~S~~~~~~'"
, I
,j
.',',:/
II ~
/ '1,-,- t8.
/ / "" , _~__t:
/ / ' . ''''" //C~ D~ivE";.j,:
/ / "'. --'-7'
l. / ,/,' .,' ---- -". '
I; " / ,,/' :
1[/'" //",/ ~:
I ~ '~,.," /~;(: i .
'.',>,' '" ~'
EXHIBIT H
'. .........
\
\
\
City of
~I3VILLC
MINNESOTA
Community Development Department
Ma 13 1997
~
It)
(\')
~
~
en
ffi
~
~
-
~:
I~I
: Q.:
I ta
~ \ ~ .
"" \ \ // """" ~, .~
"" \ \ ' fa
""""-_/\, \ ~ ~
\'. S ~~ 0
\\" \ ~ : a
, '\ u
"\\ .g :
';"""~", ~ :Q:
'" " b :<::
\, LU\~ ~ ': ~ '
1~:11 g~:~,
:(.): ,(.)'
: ii, : :
. , ...... .,......,..,..,./.'C :
L YD/A A VENUE W
--.............. .....
Centre Pointe
Task Force Study Area
~ Study Area
,....."".."".BQAP..P".w""
.
:~' . II!
: 1:1
: .
I
a
I
I
.
.1
J!R'~N./Il~R"......J.'y~,,"1r',":','~,.~,'
:/J
...
m~
ra UJ~ I
r::; ~ :
n c:' a.
G!JJ: I
:~~
: "1:(:
./: ; I .
' ,
II-
.
,
Scale: I" = 200'
o 50 100 150 200 Feet A
I 1./
L
en
c
co
a..
C'
co
c
--
E
--
d
:j
J
~
~
o
Cl)
L-
a..
c:
.-
ea
~
I......
o
Y-
L-
CDO')
+-'e:
ea._
S~
L- C,,)
CD en
~-C
CD c:
CI)~
C'-C
CO c:
:,!:CO
c: L-
ea CD
CJ)~
... CD
O')CJ)
c:
.- E
-CL-
ea 0
L-+-,
(!)CI)
0')
c:
.-
"'C
-
.-
::J
fJJ
CD
C,,)
~
o
0')
c:
I......
o
Y-
--------............
g
!~1"'!..!o\"I!!
:! I: i:! ..,
;! i'! I j!!..,
'i! i i j ~~i E
i!'.!' jIi- %
I ! i i i i ~iiI~ en
; i~i~i i i.'. ~~~~ ~
, , '''. 3
''ii~
i
1
~: '
~! i
~
I, :
0..
<(
~
Z
o
~
U
o
-.J
z
o
~
..J
~
.- m
+-' +-'
o
en
Q)
I::
o .1::
O~
~
CO Q)
+:is:
::J Q)
o en
CI)&.
zzzz
:s:s:s:s
~~~~
:a ~ i:~
:2g,.t.~
:c = c:C
~i~
'"
~
:s
()
--I
--I
rJ)
c: a.>N
,2 uCO
- '-0
::3 '-Ul
(5 UUl
(f)C
o
- (f)'
c: -uZ
.- c:~
o ::J
c.. E":
Q) <( a.>
L.. -+J
_ 0
c:~3:
CJ.) ~:==
() ~V1
::J
en
e:
~~~
o~g
I 10
~~:!
"''''.
'NN'g
It)~'::': iii
CJ)QilI .:.:::
~~ =
~)oC ~
C tU~ C
"gt... ~ I:
0.. :i
o
o
;;.
5
'~
'"
d::
e
Q
...
~
...
II:
II.
,~tID
.: 1.o\oJ ~
~~
'd
en
~
~
~
i (~I)!
~
~ I
I !
1 f
I I
~
lp
I" ij
'hx
I!HI
h~ H
i R !I
~h ! Ii I
P! i Ii 1 J
,i. i., I 5
J 1"" J ~
IIi} I J!J ~~ J
-{ J i, 11 I "I '
It, H J- I. · J r
11ft ~ 1'1 U i "I I
{'I!', i I.. IH " d i
f.f 1'1 .f; ! f j
iJjl I Ji 1, ~ I (~ IJj HI
1ft! j hi Hi} J i fm Wi
~I Hu "~, .J ~ , . .
lit)
>.,1
.!-i""1
J Ij:j
~ Alji
I 'II)
llrh}
j liB'
, IJ~"'~
J ...fl;
J H.I,
· '1111
1 Iff ] ~ n
I lub ij ; 'JI
i mil) I i ~ J!
i 'ilf f! 1 II
I !;iJJ I ~ i II
! hH. I 8 ..
! !
i i
1 11
da fu
II Hi f3i
'IS 'IS
;: :i
1
f
I
. I !
I I I Ji I I ~
I j Ihl P I fl till I
II UlmUmhthhi jlm j
~ --= $ ~ :I~
. a
)...
~
~
~
G
~(,) ~
G-.J ~
LI:.-.J :3:
~~'<;(~~
~~~~<:
~S~~~
g~~g~
~ ~~~~!" >'."
~f(!:t:~::5" I'
G !JJ~ ~ ~ _.+. i f I. .' "
~ ~,! t ~.
~ r" , 'I'
:i 9J ~ --...,~i.: ""'i
"'( (j g:j ~~'Dt-.. I i
;:;s ,:Nt.I:'I. . I, "I" Ii
YJ , ~ I. J _=
no:: \ ,j.. /
..... \1 Ii .i
t:::\ ","1 /
.,.J ....., L. /
o ~ ......,J.
~~ .
.Ulhluh.ao.i..1 diU.
JlU'Id SSlNISfl8
(
I
I
\ I!:
\ I
\ '
\ .
~
I
I
I
I
L____
I r r i I
,,'$'S/'=J/ ,O'nz-r,Il,tr.l=' II
I; If h
" M%' ON Att'MHD/H i11. tt'.LsY3LNJ U
.!
:~!
oJ [II
~ IJ*
,~ If;
~II
VI
~
OJ
'"
"
"
VI
,"-
!
""
~
'"
~
'"
'"
""
~
\;)
I
I
I
I
_...J
i
L
I :-~,===...:::= If"',. :.1.=:::::1
.'::'~.~ -."~,,,- RLK .......~...
.:-~: ~ ~.:J!L==
.-- OAtt_ Rto.HO._ tllla..anIoolr..""""I".IU.uI._ka,IDI.MWI
NlERsrATE
~AY
~
At?
"
.~'~A__~._...... ._
.,1"..........."..-
:1
:1
i r------,
:': 2~!:
'''' ii.~
- '" ,,\i^..>~", !Ii
!L.:) ~d
,"....'.\',..
.~
i.
, ~~. .
," .I ii
.....-.. .i
.--........-....
-".~......:~~..~.:~:':.."....., ~
... ..._ _.....~ _':-~ u..~::~~:-::.~-~~{T...,:-~::,.
-'.: . ~',~ _, h....
h_....-......._..
/.
/
/
,
.'
7A..ow"'.....
"
-^
?O
.......
V'
"".:,'
n(.,
',' \
V'/
/
-
,.:::
-~
:'
..
~-" ...)
".
',j
-,
.;' }1
" !.,i
:. ;;
. ....:
~'j,
(,;.-;:
~,,~ ~
/,,1
:;:.~
''r;
,~,
"'-,
-'.
'"
:Q
'"
/
~
"\
-"
:::..
:' 1<,
il /m..>~:~:~_<~;{~~~t~~,:..:;f~:,~~...., '~_,,""/:':~;~~ /~/-_...
- ,';.- , .. ," _ .. -. Z""" AA .bN"',."N...._...'..W.....'''-"..N,.(;.''..M.NWW.'-'o'''.....
,~:_;~~?;:;::;~:_: ,~:,,~:;~::::.~ ..~- ,~.,~._;.:::::_~:~~::::'~~~";":'~'m - ."..,,, ,.,." .
"'i ~I- :';;UO/ /' C~t"~
_{~-/.~.,~ 7- '<_-:;, ~~.:~ (FVTPF POI/fTF
.l!t2,~",j!~....,,,, ,"-"/' ~Ri~.
~i ~~,/:./ ~~g!! B If,';!! r ,s p,/. Ii"
n/ /".' ~if;JU
:: ~
~ ~)--
:~
! i 'III illl I~I !I!III ~
i~ ~ a!~ ~~~~ ~8~ ~~I!;~ ~
~ ~a~ ~q~ ~~~ ilag~~ 0
~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ g~i ~ai~cb ~
~ a ~~~ ~ia t~ ~~~aE~ 00
~; IiI ii~ II li~a:~
~ ~ aia iR; ~~ ~~;~IS
; i ~i; ;!~ I~ ~g~;d
~! ~~~ ~ ~ a~ !~I
f, i i ii! "
F
"
RE\1S1ONS
SObWlA: CO~~I~~NG
RO$EW.LE. UN.
CENTRE POINT SOWllONS. LlC,
1241 AMUNDSON CIRa.E
Sl1LlWA1ER, t.tN 55082
"
i
e
J
I I::":":~="'."""'_"~'_"'''I-'O'''" -~" ,.
::::-1: r::r:.-::.. , ..t:::::;). ,
:e ::E::F'- ~ ::.= ~.==:=?=r~.::: "
"IUI~ '---"" J........___IO...........r
~
j
~
~
.
L
~~
~~
ij
J~
J~
6!
!Ii
i ~i~~ ~~ ~ i ~ g~ ~
~ ~~~5 ai : G ~ ~e ~
~ ~ ii~i ~~ i ~ ~ ~a :
i i:~~11 ;I~ i ~ i i; Ii
~ 9~li~:~ ~:~: I ~ ~~ i~
w! ~~ ~~e~ IBn ~ k ~~ 0
~ ;~ !~;I~!! ~:~ ;~ :~ ; I! Ii
w io i2~id 2 ~~~ 50 gO 5 i ~~
~ ~~ ~~~~tii !e~ ~~ ~~ i ~i ;!
.. .... .
.Nft':mll\~
~NTf-I~~9:> 3?Ifn~os
iii
--<lit-- : ·
~8009 N" '!f3.L"''''11US
31:>111:1 NOSQN""'" ~.~~
':>11 'SN0I1n10S l.NlOd 3W.N3:>
~:;i:;i::i:;i:;i ~~II::I
3~~;5; N ~
5;;~22.. ~ ~
::i i II
~
~~~ ~~~
,I'u')'" ~22
~ -
: i
G .
.,
~
<I
<( -15
1- ~;
~ !~~
- lI!~i
~ Iii
a. ~ ..
~ 66
~ JJ
il!.~~n
~ ~i~~{;::I:~I~
w ~~~~~;~~ I
~ ;!!~!hll! II!
w
:.<:
t)
<(
!II" ..
~ Ih~li~~
-,Y;J V d .~:'S 1N! S I/,q
..:>>r
~. .r",..../'.""~" ,
,........---.........""" -~""~' '~: ...,.,,'//~-
d'^~,...,,/ ~ ~:">... ~/" ,
~. ,,' a 8~,' ii ..
"'-";;;;;;;~""':=.J ..~ .,. ,,,'/i":'~~ ~ ..
~-~L .~~.,. .". .......
~S . ~ ~. ........^""
;: ia ~g ,_-...'v,.......,.,,' . .
.....~..~..,....,,-'-'- .. ' ..,," ;;
'.:'~":: .":""':',
_w....~..'....l
I
'..'....-~-i
I
!
!
-
'W^"..~"" .
J i Iv /O,:l
JHJN.7)
.f
;3 t
~B: "-
~~
"
/
co,
.,/
~g
~"
'm ."t
Mgc
tW
"<1fMM:W
3J.IfJSIEiJN
:.:
'.r.:-
;:
.~,
~,
~','
:;;,~
.~,
~r:}
i'
i.
N1ERsrATE
. ...........
Ht::*1wA Y
~~i
~
..........
............
,
.I
M?
~
........
//'"
/
"
,"oJ' ~'.....
\,~ :...~ \.
"-
':' .......""',...
:{~~::-....'~.)
'"
t..-:
',,--::
-
,.,.
....,
,,,
-..
~
:t;
'"
:.-..,
, l-;
,
\
.,
j,
ft
::,''','~~.., ..", "~, -'"'~f""<',_ " ," ':
.-.. ,.).~m._... ......., ~~if
_...w._~..,............q
; .- ......... ~r....
-
8:'/S/NE5S PAR}.;'
10
: --<11>--
i3 s
:~ ~~~ B ~~~~ ~~~ mi;~ ~i~i~~~;~ Ii ~~i !Vli~~ ~
~; R~~ ~ ,~s~ ~~R mimi ~ ~~~ ~~~ la .~~ ~~.~8~ 6
~. ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ liBi ;~~~~~~~~ 3~ I!~ i~:~~i z
ii ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~Ii :~i 1~:3~~ ~~ ~~ ~!a ~~:~i~ ~
i; :s i ~;~I I~I ~ii I!I~II~I~;~; ~;I i!~I;~ ~
~~ e g~ NAB ~g~ 3~& ~ @~ ~ 8Q 8~~ea~
~ ~E ~ I~ ~%~ S~! i:~ ~ e! I ~~ ~~iia3~
~ ~~ i ~13 Si~ ii= ~e~g~~a~ ~ i~ i~~@~~
i ij~ ~ ~.~ a2~ ~~~ ~5~.i~~~ j N~ ~Ag6~~
a ~5 ~ ~~~ ~i~ ~!5 I~R~;~~~ I I~ i!I~I:
; I~ I i~t ~; ~ ~ ~I~ ~~~ ~ a~ ~~I
i ~ g Qo(
"
SOLUTlA CONSULTING
OFFICE BUILDING
ROSE\iU.E. MM.
PRElJWINARY
eieio, ~~ =~~
....-..--.--.--.... ---
I ~:=":1.,'::..~_===~_1 ~ --=::::1
..~: ~~'::';:''''~w--... RLK. ....::....=::
. . ' "C'.:7 ' 'Z0J!\=JuE
OATt_ lite.. NO._ lu...."aN'.....JwjI.tl "".IU...__...,.._,
CENlRE POINT SOLUTIONS, LLC,
1241 AMUNDSON CIRCLE
STlLLWA1ER. MN 55082
'I
.
~
e
t
p
I~~__"'.""~"._'"''''I-'H.''' -"" 1...._
=rr=~ . .c:::::.. J =-:
::: =.."::"'011 'X'IH .._,.__.__ .-
::: =tI~ '--/ :':~E:: ~.::.~.!.~ ,-
~
I
;
~
G
,L
~
~!:I'
~~~~I
~e:&!
~~"~15
~~~;j
~a!iiE!1
(/) ~"InA~
LlJ ~~~I
b ~~e~
z ~~;ii~
~ ~6 ~~
~ ~~5~~~
:J ~i:I~~8..
;H
;
SNOISv\]iI
NYId .uI1I1n .urtN~113IId
~80Sg Nn 'II3I.V"'11U.g
rolll:> NOSoNnnv ~?~ ~
':>11 'SNOU.mos J.NIOd 3!IJ.N3:>
.HJI'~II
DNI01lna 3:>WO
DNU. 1nSNO:> Vu.mos
"'''''
lil~
--<d>-- :-
G ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ",,"" I ~
&i ;m~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ i! ~
:5 ;I~~I ! ;! i~6 ; sl ;
In; ;~iiffi ~ ~ g, ~51 "" M~ A
h se!!!; B I ""i ~II ~ ;~ ~
~~~ il~s: i, ~ ~I 5~~~ I ~~ ~
~g~ i~~ii ~~ ~ I~ ~~I~ i ~~ ~~
;~~! !:I~~~ !~ i iB It~~1 ~~ ~~g ~~
15 ~ ~~&~~..~ 15 ~ ~~ &2 ~~W _I
~ I! mU",~C1l! e& e m:! dd .bI C"".
~~~ ~~~~~j ~~ ~ ~~ e~~g !i f~i S
~"W ~~~~a~ ig i ~a ~!Ii !o ~~~ ~~
., .......
)18;':/
~:. .~:--.; // ',!.'~
~~,_I'"I""
.. .... t.:;':./
..
'J j
'I>'
....-.,. .............
...hh.......~__<>"<-""=-~~~~~~.::.;.:~~:.::..
CENTRE
....... ............
....-_-:<.,...".:"::;~:.:1....
~ <t r ~ , ..
\.......:.:~., -
.rW ~, r
"I
I '
r
'"
-,
~~
cot
"I' o...~
'" :
!':;: :
...... "
':. ~
rJ:":"
\..:~L;
_e,
cc,
a
,~.,.~,. ~:~
/
',.
"
................' .
__. _ ____ ........ ......... ....h.... _... .
------ ----
-- ------ -
___w .
L
~{
QV
A I>'MH:JH
3J.I>'..i.SISJN
~
.~
Cr,
Co
-,
<o~~
~~
';Q
,.
.'
EI
· ~& --<J~
a s
5oaW/& CC~IN~NC
RostWJ.E, MH.
... ~~
I _.!!B'~----'~-
35W
/
.-
.",,~
--<"
-"~ "',
"
.. ..........:..,...."'...................................... ,.~.)....
///~
..."'........
.._.~.......-...-.""..
.~..-__...........".,..........w..~...........w......... .
/:~ ",-'
-'~- r _""
" j
.,-
~
.- .' .".. .~ .~,,.,...
/
,/
,~
.,/';
~ uPi~!uiIU ~ HI
~'i"'UU!; I ~~~~
~ S Ii \' ~ ~;
i ;n
G=,
~
~
'"
~
~~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ I
~s ai ~ ~ a a \
.!~~t!P
nb!~~~
.U, i !n~
I ~. ~ i ~
~~ ~ a ~
~ ~I H ~
~ ~q
~ H~
~ ~
,
I
~
~
a a. ~ ~?~~~~~~ ~
I
~ ~
~
I I I~
t HhUt i
,hU\HH\H i
" \
. ~
i ~H ~Ha~~~H~ ~
o~
@ 8~€Y9 i
I , i I \
I ~ , I
. ii\ ii\
ii\
I
I
I
,
S
\
i
~
\
,
"
CEN'TRE POINT SOLU110N5. \.LC.
1241 AMUNDSON CIRClE
511\.LWA1ER. 1.11'1 55082
\'~==-~::'-: \~ ==as\
_, ':':': _.h.....- RJ.,K :::::...-~'"
__ ~ .w1!~
._" O/l.1t___ UC,HQ._ 111'....a.-I.Dr..~fl....Ia........lIJI,usd \
~ ~ ~ ;0
.;r [. ,
.
~ ,
~
~ ~
0 1
i~ N..cN-~
n
.
"'cn:z,.r
n ,
.
=:::~ "
pi<
i . I\oIIVI....""%:>
n" %~~~~
~;;;z;;;i
~~i
~
:-"!"'1:> -O~\!~
g;:< ~g 85
rl> g ~
iiil ~ 8;! ooo~r-
I!t~ ~~!g~~
ODgg
gg.
ur bb5'
Og~
~g! gg<
i ~
go.
88~
5'
t:rt:lClt:lClCl>gg"''''CIICllt:I~
t:t:t:~t:t:aI{gai...-~t:t:N
.~ ~
~<; -
igj
~~
P "l q
. . . ,." .I~
IIj IIj 'E~ SER .ij rn. 6 B E ~ ~
j; i; !.a g.~ j~ ~!f i~ ml m; :
I! I! !h~: al ~ ~:~ ~p ~~~i ~Ii II C
'r. r. -IS V. ~l ~~ ~ 4~~~ a_
~~ ~~ p ; ~ ~ t~ K ~~~q _
a~oo~, n"_p
r-
ei
:J:
.....
,..
010
a~
'."
!g
!i~
..10
...
6
z
~. !
"~ -
." ~. ~
a~!:~o~i
~ ~! 5
I~~~
i ~t~
I~~~l
~~
I
n
SOLUTlA CONSUlTING
OFFICE BUILDING
AOSE\1I.1.E. UN.
I>REUWJHARY
01011: UGHl1NO PLAN
.~_.--.---
~
~~.
a~
~. .
NTERsrATE
IOMtAY
m...,.':f.~',,'.~,..~........:.;::=:":.-~2;.~;~.:.. _
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
j
.J..... o!'
'''''',1'' .
" ;0' ,i p
" '< I
" ...
,,~ ','<
;:.:",':.;;." ....
:7:':..:---_
~ ,~".._ff." ';.
/
/
~:.:.;.i(a,
~m
o. O' O'
f[
~l
n
~i
If
r~
~f
i
~
j
J
~
miFH~ ~m; mmmliiH !Uuumiumm~
fnj~h~1 mu H~i!J~ U if fi~~!.I~iJf~;~ hi}
f;f'!'li I' I" "!otif fl J r 'I~f" tar" tot,
IHmh ;ih 'll,l1I~!{ II ~ihh~~ij':j~ _fin
rei.,!, ,-f! I'f fl~ .(1 '.lutJ;U I, l.,.
,~h: ,. .a~ "'f 'if. ;. [iiB.H "I ~ :10
:hi'! I Ifj~ if iN ~1 H f!ijf!i Inll i fHl
! '/ ' ;I' h i,l~ i' 't f i'l '1" .":
~ I ~. i h' ::i JII! !~ it k:11 ~Hii! !fl
! Ii · ~ 'Hi 'j il:~ "1~' ~{JI! !~Ilt { hI~
t !t i ~ ~~:f fHI~I! h Ii "jjit W:J ~ :11'
'i'~! .!. ~ttilll' "j ,,1,111<,;
! d I i 111: ~ Hi !I jJ Jhl ;~i:f ; i 1~
lit '. ! d:. '" If It,; ;.1 I r ".
it} U,; ! H..j 1'111 I,f. iJ fJ i . t:
I I". ...... "a 'j I! i..,
. ~ IIH _,1 j! i 1; H. (}1 . I ! ~.
" z'o; f 'h it J! Jfll' If: 11
J f !!!i 1 h!! !: H !fa fllld LI
" fll' ! !J.! tJ f' ;.11 l If 1 , H
J I i!i~ Ilif! ii jl ! if ii ; i ! ~:
I, ~;.I . f ! II i' -.., t- f' ; ~ "
f 1 Jil! I!! t I[ ii i1~1 t! d ! 1 H
tll;! l'UI,li ~Jllzfl~'1r
r I ~!i ~:'~: 1 . t i! {. I i i~
. I 111 !~ 'I' 111 Ii ,} ; i ,I
! j- -11 {' I' {,. f.j Iii
J ,. , r I
CENTRE POINT SOLUTIONS, LLC,
1241 AMUNDSON CIRCLE
STILLWATER. MN 55082
I ~=-=......P!:l::',:, I r-..... .\1.5::5/
',::' ......,... N.flfllloo-e&. RLK. .._........ l1li.
.. ,..~. ~ ':;!J;!L:;;m:
.. OAT[_ RtG..HO._ '1I._tInI4Dr,'hI"'IOII'__IaI.~ I
I
At::!
i
e
t
i
~
~
r-,
ig"
g'
,"n
..... ~.
I ,....,_...,.
~
o' ~
:;
~
p'
~ ~
,..........,....~
:,~.:;:..:: '.}:.: :-
o' E" :; o' :;
. b
go g' g' :; ~
o'
3l:JJJtS:)
: --<11>---
;<
~ S
Im~ilPWHfRrm![J~ j
!~. ~l I a., iI"j-laS ,
1.!U'.iIi!il~iJ !'U il~ ~
II dWhiiH 'fll'Ju ;
~t ~h!tiiln tJ[:i~ll ~
;! Zl!!'!~hh f'.rL'f
H !,l1h~i:~! 1!1!~i~
H '" U!fM ! I":!
'I i.' 1.'" ii! l'Irt'..
i l'il" -I' {I. 'I..
"I !t<'I'iI!!,1 f:'i(.',
,- jJ~: !i'J" ,!.. ;11 I,:
! 'd!~'ilh; f'iiiHH
. t,:, l'jiU I ,Jlf..
. ~i~l'llr. 1 '-lit
l WI hiF f j)t!!
f ; I ;'r1{'1 r .,jJ..;
, i! !.! ~f i 11 "j I
i j; J Illri! J fH!;}
Iii I,.! i: I I,ll!!
. Ii · f!,f'!' . hlhs
i q I , I..i I"!' t
1 ~~ E lflVE . '(!HI
Ii;" I!~ I, <It-I'[
I!!. I 'I!l,! f. 1'!lr.f
, - .-rl J i.1,
P i i'''l l!'t!'
[ . [ I I tit f i f i.ll
, :~ · ir~tH r ,It! .
ll! f !iiil!. 1 ~ij-il,
i i I Uo; Ii I I FJ
I I'-'~"~-"'~"".""'-""'"'I-''''' -~" I
::::::'l=r=:. ~ ,
:::=...~ 'X"IH --,.-....,--
~=d~ '--/ =:~E=.::"~J:~ u
~
]
~
~
.
L
i w ~ ~ ~: 2 ~~ 0
~ ! ~~!~!I ;; ; !.i ~~o ~
~ ~ .~~: ~~ WQ S ~~ ~
~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~i ~ ~~ ~ ~
g i :;i! i~~2 ~:; if ; ~
~ ~ ~~,~. ~~ wv; ~
~ ~ ~QI~ ~ ~ s< ~~ ~~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~i ~ ia ~;i ~~ ~g ~ 5
~, ~!5~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ !
I ~I ~8!~ ~~ ! ~I~~ i~ ~I I 2
~ ~~ ~ffi~~ ~S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00
en ::I ::Iii: f5 - t; ~ "'5 03 101 ~ ~
~ ~ ~~ g6~~ ~ 0 ~!~ ~~ ~g ~ ~ S
S ~ 2 ~,~ ~ ~ os~ ~< ~- S ~ Z
Z ~~ g~ g~~< ~g ~ :5~ ~~ ~i ~ ;
~ ;a ~~ Ulg~; ~i : ;~; S~ 3~ t ~ ~
2S "w ~~ F.~ ~ e ~1!.~ !!!.O\ ~w ~o $ ~
~ I: ~~ ~!~i ~i ~ ~gi :~ ~;~ :;;ffi ~
p" ~~ ~~ ~toi~iJ ~. ~ ~~I;' i- ~~5 b/I;' I;'~ e:
I
..; r.f ~
oi 2
.; .n.o
,.: cO
00
Z
o
e:::
<
Co>
&::
ti
~
p"
00
~
z
e:::
z
:s
p"
I
a:: "'1:1:1'" &.IV!
2 g ~ ~e~:z: a!~>c;= i!:~. iU
I ~ i~ ~~~; 5:;~ ~~o ~ :n ;~
< 1;' %~ ..~~O e-;;j_~ " ~ ~. 01;' -~
e 0{ g~ <I:;::iti :r: 5101 Lo..Q. VI i5 ~:::
~.I ~~ ~~!i d!1 b i ~J~ ~~
o ",; .'<10 o~ w <~ % 21;'. .:g
Iif!i ~ zi ~z::l ..... z~ -::I :I fAv w
~! ~~ ~d ~~!~.lii~i ~~~ i ~~~ ~i~
~~ ~~ ~'S ~~i~~ tJw~~' ~~~ R g~~ ~ ~
Ii ~~ ;i; I~~i~ i~~:: ~~I ~ ;;i ~:i
~~ ~~ ~g5 ~:~;i ~~~gi ~~~ ~ ~ig ~~~
~i I~ i~~ ~;~~I ~;i:~ 1;1 ~ ~~~ ~~~
II d ~:! iilli ;~;;: ~;! I ~~!i :~;
r! S! ~~~ ~~;!j' Je~. i~~ ~ ~~2~ ~~~
~~ ~~ ~~~ I~h~! ;!~'i ~i~ ~8 ~ib ~i~
e i!~ ~ I ~~~% I;;~ ~ i ~ 2~ j! ~ "i~
~~ 2t! ~~~ i~~~i ~~~d ~i~ ~~ ~~~~ h~
.: N ..;
~
..; ,..; iii c:Ii
00
~
E-o
o
Z
...:I
~
~
Z
~
~
I
. ~ ~
,.: =
C7i 5!
r.j ..;
SNOIS,^)ij
51"'130 ]dY.]S(JNVl
~80!;!; NI'! '!l3J. ...."'TlllS
3l:J!l1:J NOSoNnnv ~t'~~
':JTI 'SNOl1n1OS !NIOd 3!IJ.N3:I
;~ ~
~~ ~!ii <
~~~ ~..~..~ ~~
.w~ Z . <0
5!5~ O~~.~ "''-
~~I ;il ;~, I:
~~~ -g~ ~ <~
~~~ i~ ~~ i~
~;~ ! ~:I i:i i~
ig~ ~ ;~~ ~i~ ~~
~~~ i s~1 ~i~ I~
I;'~~ g i1!~m ~~~~-
~~~ ~ ~~a 80" ~l~
~~~ 1- ;;~ a!! ~fi
I~~~ ~ciO ~~~ ~~t!
.... ~~~ CI ~o
~g ~ ffih ~Sg w:;>~
~e ~ ,.~, w~~ ~~5
iW~a ~ 6M~e m~> ~~~
~ffi~ ~ ~~~~ ~~B ~~~
~ig ; ~~~~ ~~~ ~~!
I
-
.."j ..;
~
g ~o 0 ~ ~ ~ ~
wi ~ ~~~8 ~ ~ ~I~' ~ ~~
;~ i ~;~i ~ :~ ~ ~51 ~ l! j
g~ ~ ~~!!! ~~ ~i!~ ~ ~~ I~
15- s w~,,* .~.~ %f ~~ w~
~5 ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~5 ~i ~>~ ~ ~~ ~~
;~ ; I~;:~ i il~!5 ~;: : ~i~~!
~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ 8 f~ ID~~ ~~~ ~ ~~I:I;'
~~ 0 ~i~~~ S ~ ~~ s Li I;; ,,!58 ~~
Ii ~ ~if! i ! ~~~ ~~ ~i~ ~ :~~:i
~~ ~ Ig~ ~ ~~ ~ g~s i! ~~ ~ ~~~ ~i
i~ I~ gl;h ;1 ~ ~~! i; ~~~ ! I~! ~h !:j
OO~ 5% ~ .~~ ~" ~ ~~~ I;; j~~ ~ ~~ 1~5 ~
i:~ ~i ~::ffi~ :1 I ~!: ~i ~:t ~ ~~~ ~~ :
~~9 l~ .. ~B~ wg i> ~~< ~i II!F~ ~ ~~~ ;0' ;:;)
~~~ ~! II~I~ ~~ ~ ~~!5 ~~ ~~e5 ~, ~~i ~~~ g
III !; I~il: ~~ : !:I ~I li;1 II Iii 1;1 E
Q
I
~
rz:I
~
f-o
CI:I
;:;)
o
~
~
to.
Z
o
C,)
I
-
~~
~ I~
~ ~~
~ ci'~
! '~Ii
~ ! ~ ~m
~, ~ ~ ~~
;1 H ~~
~~ ':! I;; ~
~i ! ~ ~~
~~ ~ 5 h
i>~ i ! it
~~ @ : !2!
~; g i y~w
..~~ ~ ~ ~~I
!5~0 ~ Q ~~
zfjz ~ ~ ca::
Q ~~~e !5
I.o.~ ~ ~~
o~ ~iI;; , :
!~ 1..I;'~g~ !
~ ~~~i!1t ~~
!~ ~gi~ h
~I;; h~.~~ /::~
h~ :;~!~~ ~~
....'..........
!)NI01lnS 3:lWO
!)NI11nSNO:l ....11010S
if
...,~ wo I:! i s~
5 ~ ~~o~ "
Un ~~~b1 ~ :~ ,
~vo I I:j' ~ nm
ZQ.V'lU 11'1
OIo.lU'tI' ~ ~S'
~Ui I.i,~~~ ~ 51:1~
~.- ~~~
~il b ~~ I! ;~ I ~L
~n ~ ~ ~i!
.
;;
~
r:c
;:;)
~
:c
CI:I
I I
~
~i ..., t! ~ ~ ~
~.... ~ J~: ~ II) ~
=~ !;!~ ~ n ~c ~ ~
I~ i!;!~ ~ ~: ~i ~ ~[j
~~ ~!~ b ~ i~ ~i ~ ~ ~ f~
s., ~~~ ..:. ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ :..Iii ~
,. ~! Iii
II!..., 7' ~ 1:1 1!~...,,, ~
:5 g ~ i j ~!I ~ I;;
=j !;!~..., ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 8
~~~'~W!iiWI i1
~~ ~~: ~ ~ ~ ~h ~
II'I~ f~a i ~ ~ 1m U ~ ~~
i~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~!! ~ ~ ~~ ~
j.
, -
..~
~ -0
~
,
,I
,
I .
J I I I
I I I I
--- !-------t------~-------! ---
I I I 1
I I
------ --
IJ
__l~_
~~
o<i'
",)>
~iU
~)>
:><i'
m
;;; ,
Vi
" ,
" ,
I I I
I r I 1
---I------I-----I-------i ---
J I r I
I I ! (
~ ! ! u !
--- -----~- i -----I-~-----i---
(I ~~ !~ I' I I-
I~
~~ )>
AI
!!1: rn~ ~)>
;;; ..,~ ~~
!I 1: _0 i~
~"
.." &~
iO
~ ~-<
'" ~
" & ~
.. ~
:>
I tm III II 1111' rqi~ ;D .r CCV'> !~~) ;tH H ~
8 f cO
11111I111I "I ,. ~c: B ~i ;I:f
-c Q..., ~
, m ~ z- i f= ~[
z C)> i .! p
f II} V>
0 /III ~ ~'
I ~ r ' 11. ..,., f
I hi ..,., ,iii !~!!
I IEB n
, I!I m
jiij Ii! ! LoU Eel ';, II .
u ~h I
. u: jJ~ I
~ j I Ii I it! ..
I! u..
~ 0 II I
~ ]" ~~ i <(lJ ~ tn I J
i -z
fi !i~1 1--
(~I)! :)0 "- iu RIIIIIIIII
'"
~ -':::! f 0
0:) mill! ~IIIIIIIII
~j ft ~8 VI c:I ! g
.j
-j
i)
I
,
-- -I
,
,
I
,
,
I
-----1---
~ , i
I I
~ :: ~ ~~ ~
~!
.
I,
~ i '
~...- ]~ H
~ fi liU
~ ~ j Iba
~J
~
0,
m
!-
.~
=n
'W
II:
::>
<II
0
....
(.) z
i5 0
z: :c ~
0 ~.i
~ ... Gi
-I
[ij W
-I :C.
W '~~
"J:!:" 0.'
1-.
~:- :~ g Z~
0:
en!
!
< . - I
I,Q.,l" .
i
I I
S hi
~ I
1!lIf
aU
z:
o
~
>
,W
-I
W.
1-0
(J)f.
<C.
W~,
; I
..![
~.~I
I~~i ' " "
"
~ z
\!I
III
I
""
z~
.f~lt. ~""JI i'
'~1?
a:
o
a:
III
...
..
III
..'] j j
'\4 .
I. -
Wi J ~ I " II "I
dl; .111 \ I111I
I
a '
.
I
z
o
~
>
W
-I
'W.
1-';'
(1):-
W.
"3:~
1 ~ J
1m
. ........-......
~
~EJlTOF
iA1URAl R8OOR~
State of Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources
Office of Management and Budget Services
500 Lafayette Rd, Box 10
st. Paul, MN 55155
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET
Number of pages including cover sheet 5
DATE:
December 11, 2001
TO:
Mr. Dennis Welsch
Community Development Director
City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
Telephone Number: 651.490-2200
Fax Number~ 651.490..2276
FROM:
Charlotte Cohn
Environmental Policy and Review Section
Telephone Number: 651.296.4790
Fax Number: 651.296.6047
COMMENTS:
Attached is the DNR comment letter (with an attachment) for
the Centre Point Business Park Project Environmental
Assessment Worksheet. Original letter to follow by U.S, Mail.
Thank. you.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The document(s) accompanying this cover sheet may contain confidential information which is legally
protected. The information is intended only for the use of the intended recipient named above. If you are
not tne intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking Of
any action in reliaf1ce on the contents of this telecopied information by you is strictly prohibited and may
result in a criminal penalty. If you have received this fax in error, please notify us by telephone to arrange
for the retum of the documents to u~,
W'd
Gv:Ol 100G 11 JaQ
Lv0996GlS9:X'e~
~~
~~ \1l~ ~
\'-1 \~ ( t> ,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ~
500 Lafayettc Road
SI. Paul. Minncsota 55155-40
[BY FACSIMILE]
[Ori!!:inal Letter to Follow bv U.S. Mail]
December 11, 2001
~<;~se;
+0 'E~
----
~Me.
Mr. Dennis Welsch
Community Development Director
City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
RE: Centre Pointe Business Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W)
Dear Mr. Welsch:
'(
, .
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EA W for the proposed
Centre Pointe Business Park in the City of Roseville in Ramsey County. This project involves
construction of the corporate facilities for Centre Pointe Solutions (Solutia Consulting) within a
portion of the Centre Pointe Business Park. The project involves construction of a 21,500 square
foot two-story building with an underground parking garage. We offer the following comments
for your consideration.
The DNR notes that an EA W for an increase in office space was reviewed earlier this
year. The DNR submitted C0111ments on that proposal and a copy of those comments is included
with this letter for your information.
This proposal appears to not be a major change to the overall plan for the Centre Pointe
Business Park.
Item No. 14 of the EA W discusses water-related land use management districts.
Although the City of Roseville does not include Public Water Wetland basin 62-0050W in its
shoreland management orqinance, we suggest sc~eening the proposed building from park or trail
system users through the use of existing trees or through planting new trees. hi addition, while
there are no Federal Emergency Management Agency-designated floodplains on the Centre Point
site, it is important to ensure that the new building is constructed with its lowest level well above
the potential 1 % (lOa-year) flood elevations of the stormwater ponds on the property.
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 · TTY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Who Values Diversity
o
Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
Minimum of 10% Post-Consumer Waste
, ~
Mr. D. Welsch
December 11, 2001
Page 2
In Item No. 16 of the EA W there is the discussion of erosion and sedimentation. Since
large rains can still cause a great deal of damage to the water resources downstream of this site,
erosion control should consist of elements or methods in addition to sediment fences. The
primary erosion control methods should rely on erosion control blankets, and mulch and seed
that are placed on exposed soils where no work is planned for more than two weeks.
Water quality and surface water runoff are addressed in Item No. 17. We note that the
proposed building site will have more than the City of Roseville's requirement of25% for green
space. Efforts should still be made to reduce the amount of stormwater that will runoff from the
site. These efforts may include reducing impervious surfaces, using rain gardens, using swales
to convey stormwater, using infiltration techniques, and using a frost ripper to loosen compacted
soils before they are planted to permanent vegetation.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project and the EA W. The project does not
require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) based on natural resource
impacts or considerations. We look forward to receiving your record of decision and responses
to comments at the conclusion of environmental review. Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700,
subparts 4 and 5, require you to send us your Record of Decision within five days of deciding on
this action.
If you have questions about this letter or these comments, please contact me at (651) 296-
4790.
Sincerely,
Charlotte W. Cohn, Environmental Planner
Environmental Policy and Review Section
Office of Management and Budget Services
Attachment
c: Kathleen Wallace
Steve Colvin
Wayne Barstad
Joe Oschwald
Joe Richter
Rebecca A. Wooden
J on Larsen, EQB
Dan P. Stinnett, USFWS
Rick Kuula, Centre Pointe Solutions (Solutia Consulting)
#20010543-0003
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK-CENTRE POINTE SOLUTIONS EA W,DOC
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
50() Lar~lyell(' Road
51. Palll. Minnl.:sOla 55155-40_
10
March 7, 2001
Dennis Welsch
Community Development Director
City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
RE: Centre Pointe Business Park
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W)
Dear Mr. Welsch:
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EA W for the Centre Pointe
Business Park project. We offer the following comments for your consideration.
Item 13 indicates that no water appropriation is anticipated with the project. If construction does
indeed require temporary dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day, or 1,000,000 gallons
per year, then a DNR water appropriation permit is necessary.
Item 18 discusses issues ofproject-related stonn water runoff management. We have two
COITlments to offer:
1. Item 18a indicates that the project will utilize infiltration areas. TI1is is a positive project
feature and DNR commends the proposer for tl1is project feature. Increasingly, DNR is
recommending consideration of infiltration-based teclmiques to ensure that both runoff
quantity and quality are addressed in a project's environmental design. We also
commend the proposer for reducing the footprint of the buildings at the site, wl1ich will in
turn reduce the amount of stonn water runoff generated at the site from the current
condition.
2. Item 18b indicates that runoff will be directed to a regional storm water pond that in turn
discharges to "DNR Wetland 50-W," This waterbody is Wilson Lake, which is listed on
the public waters wetland inventory as #62-0050W. The regional storm water pond is
part of Wilson Lake. As such if the project requires any work in the pond below the the
Ordinary High Water (OHW) level of903.5' (NGVD, 1929), then this activity is under
the jurisdiction of the DNR and the work may require a DNR public waters permit.
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6~67 · ITY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929
An EquaJ Opportunity Employer
Who Values Diversity
{\ Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
.... Minimum of 10% Post-ConslImer Waste
. --
Dennis Welsch, Community Development Director
March 7, 2001
The project will include a paved walking trail according to Iteri126c. We encourage landscaping
the area beside the trail with native species of shrubs and trees to lessen the impacts of freeway
noise on trail users.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. We do not recommend preparation of an
environmental impact statement (EIS) based upon natural resource considerations. We look
forward to receiving your record of decision and responses to comments at the conclusion of the
environmental review. Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700, subparts 4 & 5, require you to send us
your Record of Decision within five days of deciding this action. Please contact Bill Johnson of
my staff at (651) 296-9229 if you have questions regarding this letter,
Sincerely,
~~ Y\f?~
Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor
Environmental Planning and Review Section
Office of Management and Budget Services
c: Kathleen Wallace
Con Christianson
Joe Oschwald
Russ Peterson, USFWS
Jon Larsen, EQB
Luigi Sciabarrasi, Veritas Software Company
#20010543-0002
CENTREPOINTE, WPD
2
*************** -COMM. JOURNAL- ******************* DATE DEC-10-2001 ***** TIME 14:36 ********
MODE = MEMORY TRANSMISSION
START=DEC-10 14:35
END=DEC-10 14:36
FILE NO.=817
STN NO. COMM. STAT ION NAME TEL NO.
PAGES DURATION
001
OK
a 9529331153
002/002 00:00:34
-ROSEVILLE-COMM-DEV
************************************ -
- ***** -
6514902931- *********
~
~\o:z.c:ol
~
(I>
Minnesota Department of TransportaUon
Metropolita.n Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road 82
RoseviHe, MN 55113
~
December 6,2001
Mr. Dennis Welsch
City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Phonal Phone I uS1,4q,o-~1hz...
Fax# q.52,...-e:t??-IlS~ Fax # l-~e>'2.&.~
Subj ect:
Centre Point Business Park - MnIDOT Review File # EA WO 1 ~029
East ofI-35W and North of County Road C
Roseville, Ramsey County
Control Section 6284
Dear Mr. Welsch:
Please be advised that the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnIDOT) has reviewed the above
referenced Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W). Please address the following issues before any
further development:
· The proposed development will need to maintain existing drainage rates (i.e., the rate at which storm
water is discharged from the site must not increase). The City or project developer will need to
submit before/after hydraulic computations for both 10 and 100 year rainfall events verifying that all
existing drainage patterns and systems affecting MnlDOT right of way will be perpetuated. Please
direct questions concerning these issues to Eric Kasa (651-634-2076) ofMn1DOT's Water Resources
section.
· A.XJ.y use of or work within MnlDOT right of way requires a permit. A drainage pewit may be
required. Please direct questions regarding permit applications to, Keith Van Wagner (651-582-1443)
ofMnlDOT's Pennits !>ection.
· As a reminder. the Roseville MWlicipal State Aid system includes proposed connections to Cleveland
Avenue at Lydia Avenue (MSA 226) and at Terrace Drive (MSA 246). Any work on a MSA route
must meet State Aid rules and policies. Also, the City m.ust review any changes to its Municipal Statt
Aid system so that they stay within its system limitations. You may obtain additional information
regarding State Aid rules and policies in any of the following ways:
110.. ... ,.. . _ .
*************** -COMM. JOURNAL- ******************* DATE DEC-11-2001 ***** TIME 15:13 ********
MODE = MEMORY TRANSMISSION
START=DEC-11 15:12
END=DEC-11 15:13
FILE NO.=825
STN NO. COMM. STATION NAME TEL NO.
PAGES DURATION
001
OK
a 9529331153
002/002 00:00:34
-ROSEVILLE-COMM-DEV
************************************ -
- ***** -
5514902931- *********
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
m 1l It
December 10, 2001
7671 Date
From~l-\~
Co.
~
Phone #
f'none# uSl..4'io"'2.v;z..
Fad &5'{-~O - 2~~
Mr. Dennis Welsch
City ofRoseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
Fax 8 '\5 z.. -~;.;.. I ( 5 ~
RE: Centre Point Business Park EA W '
Dear Mr. Welsch:
The staff of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has reviewed the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EA W) for the proposed Centre Point Business Park. We offer the following
comments for your consideration as you make a determination on the need for an Environmental Impact
Statement (ElS).
Item 8 - Permits and Approvals Needed
The EA W incorrectly lists the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System
(NPDES/SDS) General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity (Permit) for this project as not
applicable. Any proj~ct that disturbs five or more acres of land is required 'to obtain ,a Stonnwater Permit.
Also, if a project is less'thari five acres, but is part ofa larger common plan of developm.ent or sale that is
greater than five acres (where multiple separate and distinct construction activities may be taking place at
different times on different schedules but under one plan), it is defined as "five or more aC1.'es ofland".
This means that"this project wiU need to obtain a NPDES Pennit from this agency.
Item. 17 - Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff
The EA W identifies a stOnnwater pond located just to the south of the site as the pond that will handle the
site's runoff. Under other items in the EA W, there is rcfc:rence to eight ponds that were created in 1985
when initial construction work took place on the site. These ponds were created prior to the issuance of
NPDES Stonnwater Permits for construction activity, which the MPCA started requiring in January of
4^"'.
*************** -COMM. JOURNAL- ******************* DATE DEC-10-2001 ***** TIME 14:42 ********
MODE = MEMORY TRANSMISSION
START=DEC-10 14:41
END=DEC-10 14:42
FILE NO.=818
STN NO.
COMM.
STATION NAME TEL NO.
PAGES DURATION
001
OK
a 9529331153
002/002 00:00:33
-ROSEVILLE-COMM-DEV
************************************ -
- ***** -
6514902931- *********
Welsch, Dennis
b t'Uro{O(
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Christine Stark [Christine.Stark@metc.state.mn.us]
Monday, December 10,200,1 1:26 PM
dennis. welsch@ci.roseville.mn.us
Fwd: EAW reviewwCentre Pointe Business Park
~
I'wd: fAw
r.view-Cenlr. Poin1,e '," Hi Dennis,
I'm the principal reviewer for the Centre Pointe EAW. I've received
comments from all of our technical reviewers. The technical reviewers
in environmental services, transportation, housing, parks, and
w~stewater services have determined the EAW is complete. Metro Transit
has determined the EAW is incomplete and needs additional information in
order to find the EAW complete. I will attach Aaron Issacs comments per
the EAW. If possible, can you provide me the additional information so
that it can be passed onto Metro Transit. This way a completeness
letter can be mailed/ faxed to you on Dec. 14.
Any questions, let me know.
Christy Stark
Planner
Planning & Technical Assistance
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park
230 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101-1626
651-602-1750
fax: 651-602-1674
christine.stark@metc.state.mn.us
Phone #
From "1)2.\.\ "'~ ~
Co.
PhOno# US'(- 'lo-2Vjz.,
Fsx# lc6[-'-ko. A.i!>~
Thanks,
Christy
Post-it'" Fax Note 7671
DBIS
Fax/l 't5z..-'1~ -1l5~
V-cd \vlH\Ot
~
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
December IQ, 2001
Mr. Dennis Welsch
City ofRoseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
RE: Centre Point Business Park EA W
Dear Mr. Welsch:
The staff of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has reviewed the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EA W) for the proposed Centre Point Business Park. We offer the following
comments for your consideration as you make a detennination on the need for an Environmental Impact
Statement (ElS).
Item 8 - Permits and Approvals Needed
The EA W ,incorrectly lists the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System
(NPDESiSDS) General Stonnwater Pennit for Construction Activity (Pennit) for this project as not
applicable. Any proj,ect tha:tdisturbs five orn\oreacres of land is required to obtain a Stonnwater Pennit.
Also, if a project 'is less than five acres, but is part ofa larger common plan of development or sale that is
greater than five acres (where multiple separate and distinct construction activities may be taking place at
different times on different schedules but under one plan), it is defined as "five or more acres ofland".
This means that this project will need to obtain a NPDES Pennit from this agency.
Item 17 - Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff
The EA W identifies a stonnwater pond located just to the south of the site as the pond that will handle the
site's runoff. Under other items in the EA W, there is reference to eight ponds that were created in 1985
when initial construction work took place on the site. These ponds were created prior to the issuance of
NPDES Stonnwater Pennits for construction activity, which the MPCA started requiring in January of
1994.
The Stonnwater Pennit requires that any project which creates more than one acre of new impervious
surface must discharge their stonnwater runoff into a wet-sedimentation basin prior to discharge into
waters of the state. The pennit contains design criteria and settling velocity requirements for the ponds.
For smaller stonn ,events these requirements can be the controlling factor in the design of the outlet
structure so that the pond meets the permit requirements: It is unlikely that the ponds that were created '
in 198~" will meet'the~erequirements:' 'For more infom'1ation on petrilit requirements please call
Mike Fiildotff at (6~ 1) 296~6798.' ' :,.'. '
, < ~ .
520 Lafayette Rd, N.; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296-6300 (Voice); (651) 282-5332 (TTY)
St. Paul · Brainerd · Detroit Lakes · Duluth · Mankato · Marshall · Rochester · Willmar; www.pca.state.mn.us
Equal Opportunity Employer . Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20% fibers from paper recycled by consumers,
Mr. Dennis Welsch
Page 2
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. As the responsible governmental unit for this
environmental review, the city ofRoseville is required to prepare specific responses to comments on the
EA W. The city of Roseville is also required to provide notice of its decision on the need for an EIS to all
persons on the EA W distribution list and a copy of the responses to all persons who submitted timely and
substantive comments. (Ref. Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 4 and 5) The MPCA must receive notice of a
negative declaration for this project before being able to proceed with permitting. We also seek the
opportunity to review the responses to comments on the EA W prior to the issuance of the MPCA permits
or approvals for the project so that pertinent information may be reflected in these decisions. If you have
any questions concerning our review of this EA W, please contact me at (651) 282-5992.
Sincerely,
~e~'
Project Manager
Operations and Environmental Review Section
Regional Environmental Management Division
LK:gs
cc: Mike Findorff I MPCA l' MD'I'CAP
fll\
~OF~~
Minnesota Department of Transportation
~
~\O:l..co'
~
Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
December 6, 2001
Mr. Dennis Welsch
City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Subject:
Centre Point Business Park -- MnlDOT Review File # EA W01-029
East ofI-35W and North of County Road C
Roseville, Ramsey County
Control Section 6284
Dear Mr. Welsch:
Please be advised that the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnlDOT) has reviewed the above
referenced Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W). Please address the following issues before any
further development:
· The proposed development will need to maintain existing drainage rates (i.e., the rate at which storm
water is discharged from the site must not increase). The City or project developer will need to
submit before/after hydraulic computations for both 10 and 100 year rainfall events verifying that all
existing drainage patterns and systems affecting MnlDOT right of way will be perpetuated. Please
direct questions concerning these issues to Eric Kasa (651-634-2076) ofMnlDOT's Water Resources
section.
· Any use of or work within MnlDOT right of way requires a permit. A drainage permit may be
required. Please direct questions regarding permit applications to Keith Van Wagner (651-582-1443)
of MrJDOT' s Permits section.
· As a reminder, the Roseville Municipal State Aid system includes proposed connections to Cleveland
Avenue at Lydia Avenue (MSA 226) and at Terrace Drive (MSA 246). Any work on a MSA route
must meet State Aid rules and policies. Also, the City must review any changes to its Municipal State
Aid system so that they stay within its system limitations. You may obtain additional information
regarding State Aid rules and policies in any of the following ways:
~ http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/ shows or has links to the applicable forms and the MnlDOT
State Aid Manual.
~ Refer to the MnlDOT State Aid Manual, Chapter 5-892.200 for information regarding standards
and policies.
~ Please go to http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/arule/8820/ for information regarding State Aid
Operations Rules Chapter 8820.
~ For driveway standards, the designer is directed to refer to the Mn/DOT Road Design Manual
(English) Table 5-3.04A and Figure 5-3.04A for guidance and policies. Driveway widths, other
than those recommended, up to 50 feet will be permitted only by special permission of the
Commissioner of Transportation or designee.
Please contact Jim Deeny in our State Aid section at (651) 582-1389 with any additional questions.
An equal opportunity employer
Please address all future correspondence for development activity such as plats, site plans, environmental
reviews, and comprehensive plan amendments to:
Paul Czech, Principal Transportation Planner
Mn/DOT - Metro Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of
other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2)
copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and
response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the
necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete
submittals.
Feel free to contact me at (651) 582-13 78 if you should have any questions.
Copy: David Claypool, Ramsey County
Dan Soler, Ramsey County
Rick Kuula, Centre Point Solutions
Mn/DOT Division File - C.S. 6284
Mn/DOT LGL - Roseville
2
~ \2./nfo \
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency~
December 10, 2001
Mr. Dennis Welsch
City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
RE: Centre Point Business Park EA W
Dear Mr. Welsch:
The staff of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has reviewed the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EA W) for the proposed Centre Point Business Park. We offer the following
comments for your consideration as you make a detennination on the need for an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
Item 8 - Permits and Approvals Needed
The EA W incorrectly lists the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System
(NPDES/SDS) General Stonnwater Pennit for Construction Activity (Pennit) for this project as not
applicable. Any proj,ect that distUrbs five or more acres of hind is required to obtain a Stonnwater Pennit.
Also, if a project is less than five acres, but is part ofa larger common plan of development or sale that is
greater than five acres (where multiple separate and distinct construction activities may be taking place at
different times on different schedules but under one plan), it is defined as "five or more acres of land".
This means that-this project will need to obtain a NPDES Pennit from this agency.
Item 17 - Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff
The EA W identifies a stonnwater pond located just to the south of the site as the pond that will handle the
site's runoff. Under other items in the EA W, there is reference to eight ponds that were created in 1985
when initial construction work took place on the site. These ponds were created prior to the issuance of
NPDES Stonnwater Pennits for construction activity, which the MPCA started requiring in January of
1994.
The Stonnwater Pennit requires that any project which creates more than one acre of new impervious
surface must discharge their stonnwater runoff into a wet-sedimentation basin prior to discharge into
waters of the state. The pennit contains design criteria and settling velocity requirements for the ponds.
For smaller stonn events these requirements can be the controlling factor in the design of the outlet
structure so that the pond meets the pennit requirements. It is unlikely that the ponds that were created
in 1985 will meet 'these requirements; For more infonnation on pennit requirements please call
Mike Findorff at(651) 296-6798.
520 Lafayette Rd. N.; 81. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296-6300 (Voice); (651) 282-5332 (TTY)
81. Paul · Brainerd · Detroit Lakes · Duluth · Mankato · Marshall · Rochester · Willmar; www.pca.state.mn.us
Equal Opportunity Employer .. Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20% fibers from paper recycled by consumers,
Mr. Dennis Welsch
Page 2
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. As the responsible governmental unit for this
environmental review, the city of Roseville is required to prepare specific responses to comments on the
EA W. The city of Roseville is also required to provide notice of its decision on the need for an EIS to all
persons on the EA W distribution list and a copy of the responses to all persons who submitted timely and
substantive comments. (Ref. Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 4 and 5) The MPCA must receive notice of a
negative declaration for this project before being able to proceed with permitting. We also seek the
opportunity to review the responses to comments on the EA W prior to the issuance of the MPCA permits
or approvals for the project so that pertinent information may be reflected in these decisions. If you have
any questions concerning our review of this EA W, please contact me at (651) 282-5992.
Sincerely,
:L"."" ~~
- ..."
. -......
a~1;~e
Project Manager
Operations and Environmental Review Section
Regional Environmental Management Division
LK:gs
cc: Mike Findorff, MPCA'i MDt'CAP
Welsch. Dennis
kD '"2.tJ to to (
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Christine Stark [Christine.Stark@metc.state.mn.us]
Monday, December 10, 2001 1 :26 PM
denn is. welsch@ci.roseville.mn.us
Fwd: EAW review-Centre Pointe Business Park
~
Fwd: EAW
review~Centre Pointe ..
Hi Dennis,
I'm the principal reviewer for the Centre Pointe EAW. I've received
comments from all of our technical reviewers. The technical reviewers
in environmental services, transportation, housing, parks, and
wastewater services have determined the EAW is complete. Metro Transit
has determined the EAW is incomplete and needs additional information in
order to find the EAW complete. I will attach Aaron Issacs comments per
the EAW. If possible, can you provide me the additional information so
that it can be passed onto Metro Transit. This way a completeness
letter can be mailed/ faxed to you on Dec. 14.
Any questions, let me know.
Thanks,
Christy
Christy Stark
Planner
Planning & Technical Assistance
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park
230 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101-1626
651-602-1750
fax: 651-602-1674
christine.stark@metc.state.mn.us
1
Welsch, Dennis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Adam Harrington [adam.harrington@metc.state.mn.us]
Tuesday, December 04, 2001 9:05 AM
Christine Stark
Aaron Isaacs
Fwd: EAW review-Centre Pointe Business Park
~
EAW review-Centre
Pointe Busin...
Hi Christy,
Thanks for sending this EAW. See Aaron Isaacs comments attached. I
agree completely. There is no mention of transit and the service that
is provided to this site via Rt 801, and the connections to everything
else at Rosedale etc. We and Metro Commuter Services worked with a
number of employers at Centre Point in 1999-2000 to get better transit
service to that location.
Transit and ped access must be noted, and is therefore incomplete.
Thanks,
Adam Harrington
Manager, Route & System Planning
Metro Transit
560 6th Ave N
Minneapolis, MN 55411
1
Minnesota Department of N'atural Resources
soo l.ar,1ycll': Road
51. Palll. Minnc~lJta 55155,40.....
[BY FACSIMILE]
rOrh1:inal Letter to Follow by U.S. Mail}
December 11, 2001
Mr.'Dennis Welsch
Community Development Director
City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
RE: Centre Pointe Business Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W)
Dear Mr. Welsch:
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EA W for the proposed
Centre Pointe Business Park in the City of Roseville in Ramsey County. This project involves
construction of the corporate facilities for Centre Pointe Solutions (Solutia Consulting) within a
portion of the Centre Pointe Business Park. The project involves construction of a 21,500 square
foot two-story building with an W1derground parking garage. We offer the foHowing comments
for your consideration.
The DNR notes that an EA W for an increase in office space was reviewed earlier this
year. The DNR submitted comments on that proposal and a copy of those comments is included
with tms letter for your infonnation.
This proposal appears to not be a major change to the overall plan for the Centre Pointe
Business Park.
Item No. 14 of the EA W discusses water-related land use managen'lent districts.
Although the City of Roseville does not include Public Water Wetland basin 62-0050W in its
shoreland management ordinance, we suggest screening the proposed building ITom park or trail
system users through the use of existing trees or through planting new trees. In addition, while
there are no Federal Emergency Management Agency-designated floodplains on the Centre Point
site, it is important to ensure that the new building is constructed with its lowest level well above
the potential 1 % ClOO-year) flood elevations of the stonnwater ponds on the property.
DNR InfQrmation: 651-296-6157 · 1-888.646-6367 · TTY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929
An Equal OppOrtunity Employer
Who V3.lues Divc:rsity
#"Sa. Printad on Aecyclet1 Paper COnllllnln~ a
-.W Mininwm 0110% pO$I-COnsumer Waste
GOOd
Gv:01 100G: 11 JaQ
Lv0996G1S9:X-e.::J
Mr. D. Welsch
December 11,2001
Page 2
In Item No. 16 of the EAW there is the discussion of erosion and sedimentation. Since
large rains can still cause a great deal of damage to the water resources downstream of this site,
erosion control should consist of elements or methods in addition to sediment fences. The
primary erosion control methods should rely on erosion control blankets, and mulch and seed
that are placed on exposed soils where no work is planned for more than two weeks.
Water quality and surface water runoff are addressed in Item No. 17. We note that the
proposed builcling site will have more than the City of Roseville's requirement of25% for grecn
space. Efforts should still be made to reduce the amount of sto:o:nwater that will runoff from the
site. These efforts may include reducing impervious surfaces, using rain gardens. using swales
to convey SCormwacer, using infiltration tcchniquc:), <:md using a. fro5t ripper to 100:;<;0 compacted
soils before they are planted to pennanent vegetation.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project and the EA W. The project does not
require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (ElS) based on natural resource
impacts or considerations. We look forward to receiving your record of decision and responses
to comments at the conclusion of environmental review. Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700,
subparts 4 and 5, require you to send us your Record of Decision within five days of deciding on
this action.
If you have questions about this letter or these comments, please contact me at (651) 296-
4790.
Sincerely,
Charlotte W. Cohn, Environmental Plarmer
Environmental Policy and'Review Section
Office of Management and Budget Services
Attachment
c: Kathleen Walla.ce
Steve Colvin
Wayne Barstad
Joe Oschwald
Joe Richter
Rebecca A. Wooden
Jon Larsen, EQB
Dan P. Stinnett, USFWS
Rick Kuula, Centre Pointe Solutions (Solutia Consulting)
#20010543-0003
CENTRE P01N"fE BUSINBSS ~~-CENTRE POINTE SOLUTIONS EAW.DOC
mOd
~~:01 100~ 11 JaQ
L170996~IS9:xe.:!
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
~()() L:lrily~II': Rn:ld
SI. 1':1111, Mil11:c~m'l ~5155.4()__
10
March 7, 2001
Dennis Welsch
Community Development Director
City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
R.oseviUe, N.IN 55113
RE: Centre Pointe Business Park
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W)
Dear Mr, Welsch:
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EA W for the Centre Pornte
Business Park project. We offer the following cornments for your consideration.
Item 13 indicates that no water appropriatiol1 is anticipated :with the project. If construction does
indeed require temporary dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day, or 1,000,000 gallons
per ytaI, then a DNR water appropriation permit is necessary.
hem 18 discusses issues ofproject-related storm water runoff management. We have two
commej:i.ts to offer:
1. Item 18a indicates that the project will utilize infiltration areas, This is a positive project
feature and DNR commends the proposer for this project feature. Increasingly, DNR is
recommending consideration of infiltration-based. techniques to ensure that both runoff
quantity and quality are addressed in a project's environmenta.l design. We also
commend the proposer for reducing the footprint of the buildings at the site, which \"ill in
turn reduce the amount of storm water runoff generated at the site from the current
condition.
2. Item 18b ffidicates that runoff will be directed to a regional storm water pond that in turn
di$ch~ges to I1DNR Wetland 50- W. II This waterbody is Wilson Lake, which is listed on
thct public waters wetland inventory as #62-0050W. The regional storm water pond is
part of Wilson Lake. As such if the project requires any work in the pond below the the
Ordinary High Water (OHW) level of903.5' (NGVD, 1929), then this activity is unde.r
the jurisdiction of the DNR aJ.'.Id the work may require a DNR public waterS permit.
DNR Informatiqn: 651-296-6157 .,. 1.888.646.6~67 " TTY: 651-296-5484 " 1-800-657-3929
An Eqtul Opportunity Emp'QY~
Who VIl(UCS ()]v~itt
{\. Print.Gd on Rtcycl~d Paper CO"laining a
..... Minimum of 10'% f'oS\~Qn$llmer Waste
t'O'd
~v:OI 100~ 11 JaQ
Lt'0996~IS9:x-e~
Dennis Weise-a, Community Development Director
Ma.rch 7,2001
The project will include a paved walking trail accordio.g to Item 26c. We encourage landscaping
the area. beside the trail with native species of shrubs and trees to lessen the impacts of freeway
noise on trail users.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. We do not recommend preparation of an
environmental impact statement (EIS) based upon natUral resource considerations. We look
forward to receiving your record of decision and responses to comments at the conclusion of the
environmental review. Minnesota. Rilles part 4410.1700, subparts 4 & 5, require you to send us
yoU! Record of Decision within five days of deciding this action. Please contact Bill Johnson of
my staff at (651) 296-9229 if you have questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
~~y~~
'Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor
Environmental Planning and Review Section
Office of Management and Budget Services
c: Kathl een Wallace
Con Christianson
Joe Oschwald
Russ Peterson, USFWS
Jon Larsen, EQB
Luigi Sciabarrasi, Veritas Software Company
#lOOl054~.0002
CENTREPOTNTE, WPD
2
SO'd
~v:OT TOO~ TT JaQ
Lt70996~TS9:X1?.:J
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Roseville will hold its
regular meeting at Roseville City Hall, 2660 Civic Center Drive, on Wednesday, October 10,
2001 at 6:30 p.m., for the purpose of holding public hearings to consider the following requests:
Plannine: File 3338: A request by Solutia Consulting, prepared by RLK Kuusisto L TD,
to amend the Centre Pointe Planned Unit Development to allow an additional 15,226
square feet of office floor area and consideration of a voluntary Draft Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EA W) specific to the Solutia site (a 6,000 square foot restaurant
site). The property is legally described as: Lot 3, Block 2, Centre Pointe Business Park 2nd
Addition (PID # 052923110037).
Information and complete legal descriptions of the above requests are on file in the Roseville
Community Development Department within City Hall, 2660 Civic Center Drive.
-'71t2df ~
Neal Beets, City Manager
For publication the week of September 24,2001.
.c-
.....
u
";j
'"
o
0...
o
....
0..
<+-<
o
o
or)
('f')
=
:fj
'~ OJ)
'" .8
.... .....
~ ;3
= '"
~ ~
o 0
€~
~ op
0... ;:I
e "0
j:l..('/)
....
= ;U
~ '"
.~ Q
'Q. c..
Q c.. ;
E-< < Q.,
o
(,)
.....
+-'
o
Z
OJ:)
~
.....
I-<
ro
o
::0
(,)
.....
........
~
~
o
........
........
.....
>
o
rn
o
~
~
o
>-.
+-'
U
.... <+-< 0
== 0 OJ)
~ =.;3
8 ,s 0
go t)c2
~ 2 ~
...-;t;ro
~ .... = ;:I
~==00'
.... ~ (,) '"
'c 8 ~ 8
;:JS..sS
,,-"@O
~ .;: 0.......
== == ..... 0
; ~ ~~
E:~~~
ro e -< ~
OJ)~~8
.8 " ::' 5-
t;==tUl
~ = -= '"
;:1..-.",0
O'r-~o
~~-r'l
,~ _ -2 or)
.......=+t:~~
;i::'....";j
(,) == == ~
,- ~ ~ ,s
0..88.....
0... ~ '" ~
=~~"O
~ _ '" ro
..d ~ '" =
E-<-<-<'"
";j
'"
o
0...
e
0...
<+-<
o
o
or)
('f')
=
~
'~ OJ)
'" ,8
.... .....
~ "5
= '"
~ =
o 0
€~
aJ 0';::
0... ;:I
8 '0
j:l..f/1
.... ....... 0
== OOJ)
~ =.;3
8 .s 0
go t)<B
~ 2 ~
...-;t;8
CC:5&
.... ~ (,) '"
.... 8 ~
== c: ~ (,)
;:Jc:@S
" - '" 0
~ .~ B '0
; ~ ~~
E:~~~
'" e -< ~
OJ)~ ~ ro
,8 " ::' 5-
t;C:~f/1
~ = ~ '"
;:1'-"-=0
O'r-~o
~r-_r'l
",-Cor)
.-...:> ......
..... ~"
~c:1:~
.- ~ ~.s
0.. 8 8 .....
g.t~~
~ - ~ ~
..d ~ '" =
E-<-<-<'"
....
= ;U
C':I '"
.:: Q
'Q.e-
Q c.. =
E-< < Q.,
'"
"'0 ~
= :;::
ro or::;
~ ;:!
...CC:I
'C ~
o :;::
~ ~ ~
E 0
'0 ~ ~
j:l.. :;:: ~
~l5~
=
~"""'.6
u~:;::
~~5
~CC:lU
..... <v')' ~
'" .... '"
"'0 0 E
E~~
'" '" ~
(,) '"
..s "'0 :;::'
'" ~ ,2
..0 ,....
€'6~
~ '" ~
o....g ."
o "
~..Q~
~";j~
...s::: OJ) ~
E-<~c...
'0
....; =
= .~
=~ ....
.:: 1. .8-
...... Q,) - ...
C':Ic..~~
~ e ~ ~
~Q.,~~
'"
"'0 ~
~ .~
~ ;=
:>CC:I
'c ~
o .0
Eo...
= ~
'0 ...
j:l..=:
~d
=
~
U
or)
......
o
('f')
~
o
~
:;::
:;::
~
.......' .6
~ :;::
~ 5
~u
.....~' ~
'" .... '"
"0 0 E
~ ~ ~
~ ~
(,) ({j
..s "'0 :;::'
.~ cu .9
..J:) .....
€.6 ~
~"'~
o....g "'"
o "
p'..Q~
~";j~
..d OJ) ~
E-<~c...
'0
.... = ==
Q C':I .S!
= >. ....
.g 1:: .9-
.....Q)-J.
~c..('$(j
(jQOJ)",
Q "" Q,I Q,I
~Q.,~~
~
<Vj
~
c:::,
.......
.......
<Vj
~
0..
"I
'"
c:::,
'f:t:
~
~
'"
:.a
.....
.......
o
~
(,)
'"
..J:)
~
..d
.....
E
;.:;
Ii
ro
(,)
C
::3
Q
.>.
e 2
ci. E-<.~
o E:;::
~ .2 ~
.. ~ ,~ g,o
QIJ"'CO
== I:Q
: ;; 8 ~.:'
to"'=' g
~N~~e
==0~E-<
c ...... ]..1<
'~ .... E @
'" ~ ~::::s
's .g ::::s
t) .. 2f
80-62.:
c ~.go
U >. ~ .....
~~.E~
c: '" 0-'
.a ~ ~ ~
== "'0 ,:: "'='
= ~ ro-
E:~6~
0'
...1<
S .g
. ~
0...0
00
('f')]
1.0 0
-.
.....
ro
00
C
'<i3
;j
ro
Q
0{)
.~
u
~~
:>
'C
Q
1-0
~
.....
=
~
u
(,)
';;:
o
o
1.0
1.0
N
=
o
.~
.....
'"
~
;:I
0'
~
....
'"
:.a
.....
....
c2
g.
S
=
,s
.....
~ 0
J2 .~
<8
.... ~
Q =
Q,I 'j:;
8 ~
1==:
'"
:.a
......
.......
o
~
(,)
'"
..J:)
tU
..d
......
~ elf
~ ....
.......D ~
o E ..J:)
.. 0 aJ _ ~
QlJN::::S~~
.5 N . ro ..s:::
~ N ~::::s u
~ ~ ~..p...."""
~ ~ >. .u
~..o-&\ =
-B~.;:I~
'1j (,)>.ro 0
c:o~~u
= C (,) "
c >;.ggj~.d
U.g::::::S:r::~
>.. = ~~ >.~
....- 0 "' ......_ "'0
O::;E~~u~
-= .;.:
= =
Q Q,I
... (j 8
~:E8
'0 = Q
<Q.,U
E
;.:;
Ii
ro
(,)
C
;j
Q
, >.
e 2
ci. E-<.~
o E:;::
~ .2 ~
1.0 0{) 0{)
.. ~ .5 ::3
~ '" C 0
== I:Q
~~u;j...:'
~ 0 0
~~ciJ~
~ ~., e
c:StE-<
c .D ..I<
.~ .... E @
'" <l) ~::::s
.... .g ::::s
8 t) ;;;g
80"'='2.:_
C ~.go'1j
U >. ~.....
~ '" C ~ ;
== ~ ..s:: ~ C
o .... <l) ..g . U
(,)==..t
'';:: :: '2 'a::s! ,Co 0=
<8~~6~u::;E
,~
t:::'..s:::
<v') ....
~
c:::,
.......
.......
<v')
"I
0..
"I
'"
~
~
P::
"-.:-
=
o
.~
......
'"
~
5-
~
....
....
c2
0...
ro
S
=
.s
......
ro
(,)
..s
.... ~
Q =
QJ -c
.5 ~
E-<=
0'
...1<
S .g
. ~
0... 0
00
c;:]
1.0 0
-.
.... ~
Q =
Q,) -;:
(j ~
~ Q,I
i::=:
gf
.<i3
;j
ro
Q
0{)
'C;
....
u
.....
'" <n
....
...... ~
o-s
..o~_
OJ)N ::::S~
= ~:' . ro
... '" c:: ~
~ N ~ ~ ......
Q,I .... (,) 1:: -
~ ..o(l) >. ro .(,)
~ >-.~ =
o '" . ;:I~
t) >.ro 0
O~::2U
~]~
>.oro
~ ':::::s
o c:
>.ro
ro ~
~Q
-;; .;.:
= =
Q IV
'.c .:: 8
:a:C8
"0 = Q
<Q.,U
~
......
'"
(l)
.....
~ ~
(l)..... N
...s::::> N
..... <l) I
o C/J 0 ~ ~
~~::: ;-.:t
t:: (l)~'Ci:j S. ~
.C 8
~.~ ~ ~ ~
..s::: 0 _ .;;: .......
~~c ~o
~ -I-' ~ 0
(l) = ('f') ....
.... (l) 0\ .....:
<2U~~
~.~ ~]
~ U.- "1' ..s:::
..... 0 (,)
~ 0 ~ CJ'j
~I.O><~
~~~: ~
~ ~ c e
'" t:: ('f') 0
>. = - ..s:::
ro cd ....... .....,
s ~ :g
g ,f'Z
>-u::;s
"'0
=
'"
OJ)
=
.C
'"
(l)
..s:::
~
.;3
"'0
t::
<l)
......
......
'"
>.
'"
e
;:1
o
>-
...... N
;u
....
~
c..
.s .;;
~;
Q r..
=:
a)
:>
'C
o
0\
l:"-
N
N
I
o
o 0\
..... '" ~
...... ;:I ......
'Ci:j d ro
E S (!)
~ 2 ~
_ <+-i
.... C ';;: 0
E-, Q)
~ ('f') CI)
~ <l) 0\ e
<B UN.....:
<l) (,) 5? @
.D .- "'"
.....::: ~ <l)
(!)U ~
~0.8..J:::
...... 1.0 >< ii
"'~r.S C5
"8 ~ - rJ5
(l) ~ c ro
'" = ('f') S
>.@::;O
S Q:; :g -B
g .f'Z
>-u~
~"
0..>=-=
..d :>
.... <l)
B ~
OJ)~
.a (l)"
ro .:::
<l) .....
..s:::Q
(!)
..d
.....
....
(!)
.....
=
Q,I
u
(,)
.;;:
o
o
\0
1.0
N
~
....
'"
(l)
.....
"'0
=
'"
OJ)
t::
'C
'"
(l)
...s:::
(!)
..s:::
.....
"'0
=
Q,I
t::
'"
>.
'"
S
;:I
o
>-
","
....
<l)
..J:)
e
'"
..t::
U
-~
'"Ci:i
:r::~
.o~
._ 0
U~
...... N
....~
Q =
OJ .i:
(j C':I
~ Q,I
i::=:
;u
....
~
Q c..
..... :g
~ ....
Q r..
=::
.....
5
S i::
g..g
...... '"
~ E
oc2
.0,8
,- OJ)
S ,8
~&
0......
uc2
(l) (l)
-B-B
::::..t::
cd .~
U ~
;.;
=
.~
.....
'"
IV
=
o
......
=
<l)
S i::
g.,g
...... '"
~ E
0<2
.0.8
.- OJ)
[3 .8
~&
0......
u<B
(!) Q,I
.;3-B
::::..d
'" .~
U ~
en
=
.S!
....
en
IV
=
o
OJ)
t::
.-
.....
~
t::
o
U
'"
'g
"0
Ul
00
<"'\
<"'\
('f')
'f:t:
~ (,j
~ ~
OJ)Z
=
'8
=
'"
~
.....
(,)
(!)
B
....
j:l..
OJ)
.8
......
"S
00
I:::
o
U
,~
~
'0
Ul
00
('f')
('f')
('f')
'f:t:
~ it)
ii: ~
OJ)Z
t::
'8
=
'"
il:
.....
(,)
(!)
'0'
....
i:I-.
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
For the
Centre Pointe Business Park
Centre Pointe Solutions
(Solutia Consulting)
Prepared For
MINNESOT A
August 24, 2001
Prepared By
~
RLK
( KUUSISTO L TD )
~
Project No. 2001-302-M
Offices: Hibbing + Minnetonka + Hain Lake + Twin Ports
Tel. 952-933-0972 + 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 + Minnetonka, MN 554343 + Fax 952-933-1153
Table of Contents
1. Project Title,...... ....,. ...... ......,.,.... .... .............. ..........,.,......,...,.,...,...,.,.,..........,......... ..........,..,.,.,...2
2. Proposer ,.,.......,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.....,.........,.,.................,.,...............................................,.,.,.,...,.,..,.,...... 2
3, RGU ,..............,.,.,.,...........,......,...,...,...........,................,....,...,...........,......................,.,.,..,.....,.,... 2
4. Reason for EA W Preparation ................................,....................,.,.......,.............................,........2
5, Project Location. .... .......... .... ....................' ................ .... ............................,.,.,..,.....,.,.,..............,.3
6. Description, .....,.,.."..........., ,...,.,.,.,.. ............,.,. ,.. ..... .........,.,.,.....,.,.,.,..., ... ........,............. .... ,.,.,....4
7, Proposed Magnitude Data .,.......................................,...,...........................,...............,.......,.,....... 7
8. Permits and Approvals Required ,....................,....................,.......,.................,............................ 8
9, Land Use,.. ... ...........,.,...,.,.,.,.,.. ........, .......,.,.,...., .... .......,...................,.,.,.,.,., .......,...,..., ............,.,9
10. Cover Types ,.,..,...,...,.,.,......................,.'......................,..,.............,........,.........................,....,... 10
11. Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources ................................................................10
12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources ......................................................,.,..............................12
13 . Water Use ,.......,.,.,...,.,...,...,....,. ....... .....,........ ............,.... ..........,.... .....,........,...,.,. ............,....,.,.. 12
14, Water-related Land Use management Districts ..,......................................................................13
15. Water Surface Use.,.......,...,......,.,.........,...............................,..................................,........,.....,.,14
16. Soils.,.... ..........,........ ............. ...... .............. ................., ............................. .... ......... ............,..,..... 14
17. Erosion and Sedimentation ...........,.,.,.........................................................,.,........,.,.,...,....,......15
18. Water Quality-Surface Water Runoff.........,...............................................................,.,............16
19. Water Quality-Waste Waters...................,.................................................................................17
20. Ground Water-Potential for Contamination ..............................................................................18
21. Solid Waste-Hazardous Wastes-Storage Tanks............,.,...............................,.......................... 1 8
22. Traffic. ,...'.'.'"..,.,.,.,...,.,.."....... ,..........,.,.,..,.. .......,.,.....,.. ..........,.,...,.,....,.,...,.,. ,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,., ...,.,.,.20
23, Vehicle Related Air Emissions .,......,.,.....,.'......,...........................................,.,..........................23
24. Stationary Source Air Emissions ,...........,.,..,.,.........,..........,.,............................,.............,.........26
25. Dust-Odors-Noise.. ...... ........,.,.... .......,.,..,...,.......,.,.,.....,..,...........,.,.,.,....,.,.,.,... ,.,.,.,...,.,.......,....26
26. Resources in Proximity to Site .......,.,......................................................................................., 30
27, Adverse Visual Impacts....,..,.,.....,., .....,....,.,.,., ...,.. ...,......,...,...,.....,.,..... ......,......,.,.,.,.,.,.,...., ..... 31
28. Compatibility with Plans ....................,..,.,.,.......,..........................,.,..........................,.,.,...........31
29. Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services .......................................................:..................,.31
30. Related Developments-Cumulative Impacts. ................,........ .....,.,., ... .......................,...,....,. ,.... 32
31. Other Potential Impacts ...,.,.,...........,....,..................................,...........,......................,..............33
32. Summary of Issues/Signature Page.,..,... ........... .... ............ ..... ......... ........,.,.,..... ....................,.,.,33
Fieures & Attachments
1. Site Location .. ....,. ....,.,.,.,.,..... .............,.,.,. ...... .....,.......... .... .................. ... ....,.,..,.,.,.,.,..... ,Figure 1
2. USGS Topographic Map ..................................................................................................Figure 2
2A. Aerial Photo........................,.... ..................... ..................................... ..........., ... ................Figure 2A
3. Spring 2001 Site Plan.........,...,...........,................,.,........................,.............................,...Figure 3
4. Proposed Master Site Plan..........................................................................,...........,.........Figure 4
5. 1985 Site Plan .,...............,....,.,.,..................,....................................................................Figure 5
5A 1997 Site Plan ..,..........,.....,.,.,..............,.,.,.......,........,...,.........,.,.,.,......................,...,.....,.Figure 5A
6. DNR Protected Waters Map.........,.,....,..................,....................................,.....,.,...,...,...,Figure 6
7. Soil Survey Map ....................,...,.,....,...........,..................,...,.................,.,....,.,.................Figure 7
8. Comprehensive Plan Map.,.,..................,.,......................,...........,...,.................................Figure 8
9. Zoning Map. ................... ...............,.,.. ,..................,...,.,.. ...................,.,..... .......,......... ..... .Figure 9
10, CO Receptor Locations ........,...,...'..........,.,......,.............,.......................,.,....,................figure 10
A. Air Quality (CO) Modeling Results.........................................................................Attachment A
B. Noise Model Runs and Monitoring Results............................................................. Attachment B
C. Traffic Impact Report.......................................................................................,......Attachment C
D. Natural Heritage Letter ............................................................................................Attachment D
E. Minnesota Historical Society Letter ........................................................................ Attachment E
Page
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W)
NOTE TO REVIEWERS: Comments must be submitted to the RGU (see item 3)
during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EA W in the EQB Monitor.
(Contact the RGU or the EQB to learn when the comment period ends.) Comments
should address the accuracy and completeness of the information, potential impacts that
may warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. If the EA W has been
prepared for the scoping of an EIS (see item 4), comments should address the accuracy
and completeness of the information and suggest issues for investigation in the ElS.
1.
Project Title:
2.
Proposer:
Contact Person:
Title:
Address:
Phone:
3.
RGU:
Contact Person:
Title:
Address:
Phone:
Centre Pointe Business Park
Centre Pointe Solutions (Solutia Consulting)
Rick Kuula
President
1241 Amundson Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
651-351-0123
651-430-1733 FAX
City of Roseville
Dennis Welsch
Community Development Director
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
651-490-2200
651-490-2276 FAX
Reason for EA W Preparation:
EIS Scoping Mandatory EA W
RGU Discretion Proposer Volunteered
4.
Citizen Petition
If EA W or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category number(s):
The current project proposer, Centre Pointe Solutions (Solutia Consulting)
proposes to construct its corporate facilities within a portion of the Centre Pointe
Business Park in Roseville, a project first proposed more than fifteen years ago.
Page 2
In 1985, Woodbridge Properties, Inc. proposed constructing Centre Pointe, which
included 647,000 square feet of office and garden/office/service space. As part of
the approval process, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared for
the City of Roseville in December of 1985. In February 1986, the City of
Roseville adopted a negative declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact
Statement. Woodbridge constructed supporting infrastructure for Centre Pointe
(internal roads, stormwater ponds, and utilities) and three buildings. Due to
market conditions, Woodbridge did not complete the project.
In January of 1997, Ryan Companies US, Inc. became the developer of Centre
Pointe and submitted an EA W; additionally; an Indirect Source Permit was issued
by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The Ryan proposal included a total
of 619,000 SF; this total did not include the buildings already constructed by
Woodbridge. In March 1997, the City again adopted a negative declaration on the
need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the revised Centre Pointe.
In February 2000, in accordance with City ordinances the PUD was
administratively amended to allow an increase in building square footage by 10%
(61,900 square feet) in Centre Pointe. In April 2001 the City approved a PUD
Amendment that increased the building square footage by 122,000 S.F. for the
proposed Veritas Corporate Campus.
Centre Pointe Solutions is proposing to construct a 21,500 S.F. building on the
remaining undeveloped parcel on the Centre Pointe Development.. The increase in
building area from the previously approved building area of 6,000 S.F. is 15,500
S.F. will be accomplished by constructing a two story building with an
underground garage.
The additional office space proposed by Centre Pointe Solutions does not exceed
a mandatory threshold for EA W preparation. Nevertheless, Centre Pointe
Solutions volunteered preparation of this EA W for, among others, three principal
reasons: (1) assure Roseville as the RGU, other EA W reviewers, and itselfthat
the proposed expansion does not have the potential for significant adverse
environmental effects; (2) present the proposed expansion in the context of prior
Centre Pointe approvals and status of construction in EA W format so that the
community may fully understand the environmental effects of the expanded
Veritas corporate campus; and (3) achieve certainty that all Minnesota
environmental review requirements have been met.
5.
Project Location:
1/4 Section:
County:
City/Township:
Township 29N Range 23W
NE ~ NE ~ Section 5
Ramsey County
City of Rose vi lIe
Page 3
Attach copies of each of the following to the EA W:
a. A county map showing the general location of the project:
See Figure 1 - Site Location Map.
b. Copy(s) of USGS 7.5 minute, 1 :24,000 scale map (photocopy is OK)
indicating the project boundaries:
See Figure 2 - USGS Topographic Map.
c. A site plan, showing all significant project and natural features.
See Figure 2A - Aerial Photograph
See Figure 3 - Existing Conditions
See Figure 4 - Proposed Master Site Plan
6. Description: Give a complete description of the proposed project and
ancillary facilities (attach additional sheets as necessary). Emphasize
construction and operation methods and features that will cause physical
manipulation of the environment or produce wastes. Indicate the timing and
duration of construction activities.
Centre Pointe Business Park is located between I-35W, Cleveland Avenue,
County Road C, and County Road D in the City of Roseville. The City of
Roseville approved, in 1985, a proposal for the development of 647,000 square
feet of office and garden office/service space at the 56.4-acre business-park. The
approvals included a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, rezoning the property to
B-4 Office Service District, Replatting, Tax Increment Financing and a Special
Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development. The plan approved in 1985 is shown
as Figure 5.
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet was also prepared in December 1985 to
examine the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed 1985
project. According to the 1985 EA W, the EA W was mandatory for the following
reasons:
· Construction of a new industrial, commercial or institutional facility equal to
or in excess of 300,000 SF of gross floor space in a second class city.
· Construction of a new parking facility for 1,000 or more vehicles.
· Expansion of an existing municipal or domestic wastewater treatment facility
or sewer facility by an increase in capacity of 50 percent or more over the
existing capacity or by 50,000 gallons per day or more.
Page 4
On February 10, 1986, following the mandatory EA W comment and review
process, the Roseville City Council passed Resolution 7861-Finding of a Negative
Declaration for a Full Environmentallmpact Statement-Centre Pointe Business
Park project.
..
Following the approval and in accordance with the approved plan, all identified
environmental hazards were removed, all required permits were obtained and the
site was mass-graded in preparation for the development. In addition, two public
roads (Lydia Avenue and Centre Pointe Drive) storm sewer, water mains, sanitary
sewer, and eight stormwater ponds were installed to service the site.
Due to relatively low demand for office space, only 2 ofthe 12 lots approved in
the 1985 plan were built. These 2 lots currently contain 120,000 SF of office
space.
In 1997, Ryan proposed to develop the remaining ten lots, replatting them to
create two additional lots (see 1997 Master Site Plan, Figure 5A). The proposed
uses included two business hotels, two sit-down restaurants, five office buildings,
two office-showrooms, and one office-manufacturing for a total of619,000 SF. In
1997 an EA W was prepared and a negative declaration adopted by the City of
Roseville for the Centre Pointe Business Park as summarized above.
In February 2000 a minor administrative amendment permitting an increase in the
building area by 10% was approved by the City of Roseville. The south 16 acres
of Centre Pointe Business Park were then sold to Veritas and Veritas commenced
construction on Veritas Building 1. In the summer of 2000, the PUD was
amended to allow construction of a third hotel in place of an office building
within Centre Pointe. In April of2001, the PUD and EA W was amended to allow
an increase of 122,000 S.F. of office space for the Veritas Campus. The following
chart summarizes the approvals for the Centre Pointe project.
Centre Pointe Planned Unit Development Sta!!:es of Approval
Centre Pointe PUD 1985 1997 1999 2000 2001
Woodbridge PUD 647,000 S.F.
Woodbridge - Built 120,000 S.F. 120,000 S.F. 120,000 S.F. 120,000 S.F.
Ryan PUD 619,000 S.F. 619,000 S.F. 619,000 S.F. 619,000 S.F.
Adm. Amendment (10%) 61,900 S.F. 61,900 S.F. 61,900 S.F.
CSM Hotel PUD Amend, 3rd Business Hotel
(no simif, S,F. added)
Veritas PUD Amend. 122,000 S.F.
Prop. Centre Pointe 15,500 S.F.
Solutions Amend.
Proposed PUD 647,000 S.F. 793,000 S.F. 800,000 S.F. 800,000 S.F. 937,500 S.F.
Page 5
Centre Pointe Solutions (Solutia Consulting) proposes to increase the gross
building area by 15,500 S.F. for the property. Under the currently approved PUD,
a 6,000 S. F. building has been approved. Solutia Consulting which is a
Minnesota based business and information consulting company purchased the
Centre Pointe property. To meet its growth needs, Solutia is proposing to replace
the previously approved 6,000 S.F. building with a new building that would total
21,500 S.F.. This would be accomplished by converting the one-story building
into two-story building with underground parking. Please see Figure 4 for the
proposed improvements to the Centre Pointe Solutions property.
The project will utilize the existing roads, water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and
stormwater ponds on the site, making only minor adjustments in the infrastructure
required to service the proposed buildings. Due to past environmental clean-up
and mass grading which has occurred on the site, only minimal earthwork is
anticipated. Water mains, storm and sanitary sewers, and on-site and regional
stormwater ponding areas are all designed to service the site. Centre Pointe
Solutions proposes to utilize the existing storm water ponding system, which
currently exists.
The proposed building will be two-stories tall, which is permitted within the
original PUD. When fully developed, the total area of all buildings in Centre
Pointe Business Park will be 819,000 S.P., plus the 120,000 S.F. built by
Woodbridge pursuant to the 1985 approval by the City of Roseville.
The construction schedule for the project is estimated to occur over the next two
years. During this time, noise from construction equipment and construction dirt
and dust will need to be controlled. Minnesota Best Management Practices will
be followed to minimize the impact of construction and control erosion.
Provide a 50 or fewer word abstract for use in the EQB Monitor notice:
Centre Pointe Solutions is proposing to construct an additional15,500 S.F. of
office space at Centre Pointe Business Park in Roseville, MN. Upon completion
of the development, the business park will consist of three hotels, one restaurant,
office buildings, and office-showrooms, buildings totaling approximately 819,000
S.F. of floor area and 2,840 parking spaces.
Page 6
7. Project Magnitude Data:
Total Project Area (acres) or Length (miles): 47.6 acres (1.4 Ac Centre
Pointe Solutions Site)
Number of Residential Units: No residential units will be constructed
Unattached: N/ A Attached: N/ A
Commercial/Industrial/Institutional building Area (gross floor space):
Total square feet: 819,000.
Indicate area of specific uses:
Square Feet
Office: 635,568
Office/Manufacturing: 0
Retail: 0
Other Industrial: 0
Warehouse: 0
Institutional: 0
Light Industrial: 0
Agricul tural: 0
Other Commercial (specify):
Hotel 183,432
Restaurant 6,000
Building Heights: Vary from 1-5 stories, maximum 60-foot height.
Page 7
8. Permits and Approvals Required:
List all known local, state, and federal permits, approvals, and funding
required:
Unit of Government: Type of Permit / Approval: Status:
MPCA NPDES Permit N/A
MPCA Permit for Sanitary Sewer Pending
Extensions and/or Changes
Rice Creek Watershed Drainage and Erosion N/A
Control Permit
MN Dept. of Health Plan Review Pending
City of Roseville Environmental Assessment Pending
City ofRoseville Approval of an Ordinance Approved
For Planned Unit Development
City of Roseville Approval of Subdivision Approved
City of Roseville Grading Permit N/A
City of Roseville Building Permits To be applied for
City of Roseville Wetland Conservation Act N/A
Exemption
City of Roseville PUD Amendment Pending
Army Corps of Engineers Exemption or Nationwide Permit N/A
Page 8
9. Land Use:
Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and
on adjacent lands. Discuss the compatibility of the project with adjacent and
nearby land uses; indicate whether any potential conflicts involve
environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazard due to
past land uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks.
Prior to 1985, land use on the Centre Pointe Business Park site included single-
family homes along the west and northeast portions, a gas station near the
intersection of Cleveland and County Road D, agricuUural1ands throughout much
of the site and Garrett Trucking Company at the southern extreme. The remainder
of the site was used for agricultural purposes or maintained as a natural habitat
and had never been developed.
The above-described structures were removed as part of the initial phase of the
1985 development plan (Figure 5). Since that time, the entire site has been
graded, Centre Pointe Drive and Lydia Avenue were constructed, 8 stormwater
ponds and storm sewer were constructed, a paved trail system was constructed,
utilities (sanitary sewer and municipal water) were provided to accommodate full
development ofthe property. The site is developed with the exception of the
Centre Pointe Solutions site, and the second and third phase for the Veritas
Campus. The Courtyard by Marriott is currently under construction. Existing site
conditions are shown in Figure 3.
Adjacent land uses include the Interstate 35- W right-of-way along the entire
western property boundary, a gas station adjacent to and north ofthe site, single-
family homes directly east of Cleveland along the northern third, and industrial
uses along the remainder of the eastern property boundary. DNR Wetland SOW is
adjacent to and south of the subject property and DNR Wetland 203W is east of
the property across Cleveland Avenue (Figure 6).
The office, office-showroom, business hotel, and restaurant uses are compatible
with the existing and planned uses of the surrounding area.
All known environmental hazards associated with past use of the site have been
removed. Phase I and Phase n Environmental Assessments determined that "no
conditions were found to pose an environmental risk to the Property and that
further environmental assessment was unwarranted" (Delta Environmental
Consultants, Inc., 1994).
The proposed development presents low potential for adverse environmental
impacts due to previous land uses.
Page 9
10. Cover Types:
Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before
and after development (before and after totals should be equal):
Before (acres)
After ( acres}
Types 2 to 8 Wetland
W ooded/Forest
Brush/Grassland
Cropland
Urban/Suburban Lawn/Landscaping
Impervious Surface 34.3 34.3
Stormwater Ponds 2.2 2.2
Maintained Lawn 11.1 11.1
Tota1* 47.6 47.6
* "Before" total based on the PUD and EA W approved by the City of Roseville in 1997
and on related permits received by the developer.
11. Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources:
a. Describe fish and wildlife resources on or near the site and discuss
how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to
be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
The remaining lots on the site not occupied by streets, buildings, or
excavated storm water ponds are upland and are either under construction
or have been graded to accommodate development. Temporary sediment
and erosion control devices have been established on the sites under
construction. No wooded or brushy areas are present, and the overall
structural diversity of the habitat is low.
The quality and value of this habitat for wildlife is relatively low due to
the following reasons:
The nature of the adjoining areas is such that it does not attract or harbor
significant wildlife populations. Interstate 35W borders the site to the
west, Interstate 35W interchanges lie to the north and south, and a
combination of residential housing, business, and industrial developments
lie to the east. Ponding areas to the south and east may attract some
waterfowl and waterbirds, but there are no significant ponding areas on the
subject site other than the 8 stormwater ponds scattered throughout.
Page 10
The degree of disturbance to the area has been high. Buildings and houses
have been removed, the entire site was graded, stormwater ponds and
ditches were excavated. Buildings, an internal road and trail system were
constructed, all within the last 10 years. This has resulted in the removal
of all natural habitat components. The undeveloped portions of the site are
a combination of landscaped and turf areas.
Wildlife species likely to occupy the existing upland habitat on the site
include grassland songbirds (such as meadowlarks, field sparrows, house
sparrows, yellowthroats, etc.), voles, mice, shrews, ground squirrels,
cottontails, toads, garter snakes, etc.
The proposed development plan would convert nearly all upland habitats
to pavement, building, or landscaped lawn. Existing stormwater ponds
would remain. Wildlife species associated with the grassland upland
habitat would be replaced by those adapted to developed conditions such
as house sparrow, robins, squirrels, and chipping sparrows. All wildlife
species adversely impacted by the project are considered "common" in
Minnesota - their departure would not be detrimental to their populations
at the local or national level and would not be considered a significant
adverse environmental impact.
b. Are any state-listed endangered, threatened, or special-concern
species; rare plant communities; colonial waterbird nesting colonies;
native prairie or other rare habitat; or other sensitive ecological
resources on or near this site?
Yes
No
If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the
project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources was conducted.
Describe measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
A search ofthe Minnesota Natural Heritage Database by the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in January of 1997 and
December of 2000 found no occurrences of rare species or unique natural
features within an approximate one mile search radius (see Attachment D).
A September 1996 site review by a wildlife biologist revealed no unique
natural features or rare species of plants or animals, and indicated very low
probability for their occurrence on the subject property.
Page 11
12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources: Will the project involve the physical
or hydrologic alteration (dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure,
diking, impoundment) of any surface water (lake, pond, wetland, stream,
drainage ditch)?
Yes
No
If yes, identify the water resource to be affected and describe: The alteration,
including the construction process; volumes of dredged or fill material; area
affected; length of stream diversion; water surface area affected; timing and
extent of fluctuations in water surface elevations; spoils disposal sites; and
proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts.
The project will not involve physical or hydrologic alteration of any surface water.
13. Water Use:
a. Will the project involve the installation or abandonment of any wells?
Yes No
There are no wells on the site that will be abandoned as a result of the
project.
The development will be served by the existing municipal water system
and will not involve the installation of any wells.
For abandoned wells give the location and Unique well number. For new
wells, or other previously un-permitted wells, give the location and purpose
of the well and the Unique well number (if known).
b. Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water
(including dewatering)?
Yes No
No appropriation of ground or surface water will be required. No
dewatering is expected to occur.
If yes, indicate the source, quantity, duration, purpose of the appropriation,
and DNR water appropriation permit number of any existing appropriation.
Discuss the impact of the appropriation on ground water levels.
Page 12
c. Will the project require connection to a public water supply?
Yes No
If yes, identify the supply, the DNR water appropriations permit number of
the supply, and the quantity to be used.
The City of Roseville municipal water supply will be used. Roseville
receives its water from the City of St. Paul, Appropriation Permit Numbers
756227 (Vadnais Lake), 756228 (Centerville Lake), 756229 (Otter Lake),
756230 (Mississippi River), and 776229 (unnamed groundwater wells).
Water is utilized from the 5 sources in approximately equal amounts.
Using an average annual demand per square foot of 0.070 gpd/tY for
commercial uses, M.J. Hammer and W. Viessman, Jr., Water Supply and
Pollution Control, 5th Edition, (New York: Harper Collins College
Publishers, 1993). Total water demand for Centre Pointe Business Park as
currently planned is 56,245 GPD. The increase due to the Solutia site
would create an additional 1,085 GPD. This would bring the total usage to
57,330 GPD. According to the St. Paul Water Utility, the maximum
capacity of their water supply facility is 168 million GPD and their current
average utilization rate is 52 million GPD. There is sufficient capacity to
accommodate the estimated total demand of 57,330 GPD for the site.
14. Water-related Land Use Management Districts: Does any part of the project
site involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100-year flood plain, or
a state of federally designated wild or scenic river land use district?
Yes No
If yes, identify the district and discuss the compatibility of the project with
the land use restrictions of the district.
The City of RoseviIle has a shoreland management ordinance that applies to
specified water bodies in the City, which are listed in the ordinance (Subsection
1016.13). The project site does not contain any of the specified water bodies, nor
does any shoreland district extend onto the project site from nearby water bodies.
Although DNR Wetland 50W is near the site on the south and 203W on the east,
neither of these bodies is listed in the shore1and ordinance. Therefore, the project
site does not involve a shoreland district.
No floodplains or river-related districts have been established in Roseville.
Page 13
15. Water Surface Use: Will the project change the number or type of watercraft
on any water body?
Yes No
If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any
potential overcrowding or conflicts with other users or fish and wildlife
resources.
No recreational surface waters are present on the site.
16. Soils:
Approximate depth (in feet) to:
Ground water:
Minimum 0 feet
Average 10 feet
Bedrock:
Minimum Unknown
Average Unknown
Describe the soils on the site, giving SCS classifications, if known. (SCS
interpretations and soil boring logs need not be attached.)
Soils are mapped as a combination of Urban Land Zimmerman Complex, Urban
Land, Urban Land Lino Complex, and Isanti Loamy Fine Sand (Figure 7).
Original soil types mapped on Figure 7 (as described above) are no longer present
on the site due to the mass grading and filling which has occurred. Currently,
soils on the site are most appropriately classified as Urban Land in developed
portions and as Udorthents (fill) in most of the undeveloped land.
Profiles, drainage characteristics, and depth to water table indicated for soils
mapped on Figure 7 and described in the soil survey are no longer valid due to
these described soils alterations.
Recent soil boring logs from 1994 and 1999 found ground water levels on the site
to range from 4.5 to 15 feet below the surface. Based on the soil borings, the
average water table elevation was 9.4 feet below ground, at an average elevation
of901 MSL. The ordinary high water level (OHWL) ofDNR Wetland 50W is
902 MSL, also indicative of the water table elevation.
Page 14
The described soil borings were to a depth of 20 feet below the surface, and no
bedrock was encountered. According to MossIer and Cleland, depth to bedrock in
the area is approximately 100 feet (Depth to Bedrock Map, County Atlas Series,
Atlas C-7, Plate 5 in the Geologic Atlas, Ramsey County, Minnesota, University
of Minnesota, St. Paul, 1992).
The described soil boring logs are available for review upon request.
17. Erosion and Sedimentation:
Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be
moved:
Improvements to the site will not require significant grading. The site has already
been mass graded as part of improvements to the Business Park in 1997. An
erosion control plan is not required for review by the Watershed District due to
the acreage to be distributed.
Describe any steep slopes or highly erodable soils and identify them on the
site map.
No steep slopes are located on the property. Minimal potential for problem
erosion exists.
The Solutia site was graded to pad elevations during mass grading in 1997.
Grading, utility, street and drainage pond construction has been completed. The
earthwork required to final grade the site will be minimal.
It is anticipated that during site grading, existing topsoil will be stockpiled and
later re-applied in the landscape areas. The remaining ground will need to be
adjusted to final grade with proper soil preparation to support the buildings and
parking lots.
Describe the erosion and sedimentation measures to be used during and after
construction of the project.
Standard practices for erosion control will be followed for this site. Anticipated
BMP's are: Rock Entrance to minimize soil tracking on the roadways from
vehicle traffic; silt fence / hay bale interception to keep silt and fine soils from
eroding off-site and onto hard surfaces; storm sewer inlets will be screened to
minimize the loss of soil into the existing and proposed storm structures.
Although reviewed by the watershed is not required, final grading plans will meet
or exceed the Rice Creek Watershed District requirements for erosion control.
Page 15
18. Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff:
a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the
project. Describe methods to be used to manage and/or treat runoff.
The Centre Pointe Business Park has been developed with sites meeting
the Business Park PUD requirement of 25% green space. The 1997 EA W
was developed assuming that 25% of the developed area would be green
space. The proposed improvements to the Solutia site will exceed the
minimum green space requirements of 25%.
A stormwater pond located just south of the site has been sufficiently
designed to handle the site runoff. The proposed site will produce a peak
flow of approximately 3.84-CFS and a total quantity of 0.68 acre-feet for a
100-year event.
b. Identify the route(s) and receiving water bodies for runoff from the
site. Estimate the impact of the runoff on the quality of the receiving
waters. (If the runoff may affect a lake consult ,rEA W Guidelines"
about whether a nutrient budget analysis is needed.)
The site will drain to the existing stormwater pond through the storm
sewer system. The stormwater pond drains to an existing storm sewer
located in Centre Pointe Drive. Once in the sewer the water is carried
north and then west to Ramsey County Ditch #2. Ditch #2 transfers and
discharges the water into Rice Creek. County Ditch #2 has been designed
to accept water from this area. The development of this site will not
adversly affect the existing storm drainage system.
Page 16
19. Water Quality - Waste Waters:
a. Describe sources, quantities, and composition (except for normal
domestic sewage) of all sanitary and industrial wastewater produced
or treated at the site.
This site is proposed as a typical office building. This uses produce
normal domestic sewage.
b. Describe any waste treatment methods to be used and give estimates
of composition after treatment, or if the project involves on-site
sewage systems, discuss the suitability of the site conditions for such
systems. Identify receiving waters (including ground water) and
estimate the impact of the discharge on the quality of the receiving
waters. (If the runoff may affect a lake consult "EA W Guidelines"
about whether a nutrient budget analysis is needed.)
No onsite waste treatments are expected with these proposed uses.
c. If wastes will be discharged into a sewer system or pretreatment
system, identify the system and discuss the ability of the system to
accept the volume and composition of the wastes. Identify any
improvements, which will be necessary.
Sanitary sewer will be handled by the existing City of Roseville system.
Typical wastewater flow rates from general office uses are 274 gallons per
2,900 square feet per day. Total flow rate for the Centre Pointe Solutions
site would be approximately 2,031 gallons/day. Total flow rate for Centre
Pointe Development will be 77,381 GPD. Existing 8" and/or 10" sanitary
sewers exist in Centre Pointe Drive, Lydia Avenue and Cleveland Avenue.
These gravity lines flow to a lift station located about 600' north of Lydia
Avenue, on the west side of Cleveland Avenue. This lift station was
upgraded in 1987 to handle all flows from the Centre Pointe development.
The sewer lines are centrally located and will collect efficiently from the
site. All of the sewer lines ultimately reach the trunk line in lona Lane,
then proceed onto the Metro Treatment Plant in St. Paul.
Page 17
20. Ground Water - Potential for Contamination:
a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water:
Minimum: 0 feet Average: 10 feet
b. Describe any of the following site hazards to ground water and also
identify them on the site map: sinkholes, shallow limestone
formations/karst conditions, soil with high infiltration rates,
abandoned or unused wells. Describe measures to avoid or minimize
environmental problems due to any of these hazards.
Recent soil boring logs indicate that sand is a significant component of
soils on the site. Many borings encountered surface layers of sand and
subsurface layers with sand lenses. Sand has a fairly high infiltration and
percolation rate, which could allow downward movement if hazardous
materials are spilled on the soil surface.
There are no abandoned or unused wells on site. All abandoned or unused
wells were closed during environmental clean up of the site associated
with the 1985 plan.
The potential hazard of ground water contamination would be minimal
after site development since work areas will be converted to impervious
surface. Remaining areas will be landscaped, with layers of soil and sod
added. These actions will significantly reduce the risk of hazardous
materials contaminating groundwater.
c. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present on the
project site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from
contaminating ground water.
The proposed uses for the site are business park uses, which include office
and hotel uses. These uses do not produce or handle toxic or hazardous
materials.
21. Solid Waste: Hazardous Wastes: Storage Tanks:
a. Describe the types, amounts, and compositions of solid or hazardous
wastes to be generated, including animal manure, sludge and ashes.
Identify the method and location of disposal. For projects generating
municipal solid waste indicate if there will be a source separation
plan, list types (s) and how the project will be modified to allow
recycling.
Page 18
The proposed types of site users would generate no wastes that are
considered "hazardous". Types of solid wastes generated would include
those common to office uses such as paper, cardboard, newspaper, food
wastes, metal cans, film plastics, glass, etc. Using data from a 1993 study
of wastes generated by various types of businesses (Los Angeles AB 939
Plan: Commercial Generator Strategies, 1993), estimated quantities of
solid wastes that will be disposed are as follows:
Type of Sample Size Average Proposed Estimated
Business Amount of Number of Amount of
Solid Waste Businesses Solid Waste
Disposed to be
(tons per Disposed
year (tons per
(b) year)
(a) x (b)
Office 1,000 137 8 1,096
Total 1,096
The following table shows typical recyclable materials generated by 2
types of businesses proposed for the site and the percentage of each
business' waste stream that is comprised of those materials.
Business Recyclable Percent of
Material Waste Stream
Office mixed paper 15.3
ledger paper 15.1
corrugated 12.4
cardboard 8.5
newspaper 6.9
organIc
compostables
Source: SCS Engineering, 1991; Ventura County, CA, Source Sampling Study, 1992
The City of Rose vi lie has no recycling program or applicable recycling
ordinance in place for businesses. Individual businesses will be
responsible for their own source separation plan, and recycling will be
coordinated through their chosen solid waste contractor. All unrecyclable
wastes will be hauled off-site by licensed waste haulers to approved
landfills.
Page 19
b. Indicate the number, location, size, and use of any above or below
ground tanks to be used for storage of petroleum products or other
materials (except water).
Proposed site uses are not of the type that typically require above or below
ground storage of petroleum products or other potentially hazardous
materials in tanks. Any such tank that is necessary for a future user would
have to be approved and permitted through the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) and other jurisdictional agencies.
22. Traffic:
Parking spaces added: 54
Existing spaces (if project involves expansion): 2,840
Estimated total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) generated:
The proposed Centre Pointe development is expected to generate 6,890 daily trip
ends on a typical weekday.
Estimate maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and time of
occurrence.
At full development, the proposed Centre Pointe development is expected to
generate 883 trips in the p.m. peak hour of 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. Of these 896 trips,
213 trips are expected to be entering the site and 683 trips are expected to be
exiting the site.
Provide estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on the affected roads and
describe any traffic improvements necessary. If project is within the Twin
Cities metropolitan area, discuss its impacts on the regional transportation
system.
An addendum to the comprehensive traffic study has been performed to examine
the additional potential impacts of the Centre Pointe development due the
additional 15,000 S.F. of office usage. The detailed traffic report and addendum
are appended to this report as Attachment C. The following paragraphs provide a
summary of the traffic analyses presented in the attached report.
The daily and peak hour trip generation was estimated using tp,e Institute of
Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation, 6th Edition, resulting in the trips listed
above. Table 22-1 presents the current trip generation estimate along with trip
generation estimates prepared for the 1997, February 2000 and Spring 2001
Centre Pointe development concepts.
Page 20
Table 22-1
Tri Generation for Previous and Current Centre Pointe Business Park Concepts
Tri Generation
Dail PM Peak Hour
7389 788
6446 802
6735 883
6890 896
Centre Pointe Development Scenario
The p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts were developed for five signalized intersections
and five unsignalized intersections. The five signalized intersections examined are:
· Cleveland Avenue / County Road C
· Cleveland Avenue / Northbound 1-35 Ramps
· Cleveland Avenue / County Road D
· Northbound 1-35 Ramps / County Road D
· Southbound 1-35 Ramps / County Road D
The five unsignalized intersections are located on Cleveland Avenue and provide stop
sign control for the approaches to Cleveland Avenue. Traffic on Cleveland Avenue
does not stop at these intersections. The five unsignalized intersections examined are:
· Veritas Way / Cleveland Avenue
· County Road C2 (South Centre Pointe Drive) I Cleveland Avenue
· Lydia Avenue / Cleveland Avenue
· Brenner Avenue / Cleveland Avenue
· North Centre Pointe Drive / Cleveland Avenue
Because the Centre Pointe development will be completed in 2003, traffic forecasts
and analyses were completed for 2004. The weekday p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts
were developed for the following three development scenarios:
· 2004 with development approved in 1997
· 2004 with development approved in February 2000
· 2004 with development approved in Spring 2001
· 2004 with current proposed development
Traffic forecasts for the above 2004 scenarios are based on 2001 p.m. peak hour
background traffic volumes estimated in 1997 by the BR W finn for the Centre Pointe
EAW. The 2001 volumes were then adjusted to 2004 p.m. peak hour volume levels
and account for the following changes in traffic conditions between 2001 and 2004:
· Background traffic growth at 2% per year
· Construction of Twin Lakes Parkway in 2002/2003
· Portions of the Twin Lakes development anticipated being complete by 2003.
Page 21
Once the 2001 background traffic volumes were adjusted to 2004 levels, development
trips were added to the roadway system to obtain 2004 post-development p.m. peak
hour traffic v.o1umes for each of the three Centre Pointe development concepts.
The p.m. peak hour traffic volumes for the three scenarios were used to perform
capacity analyses at the ten critical intersections. The level of service for the
signalized intersections was estimated using Synchro computer software. The
unsignalized intersection level of service was estimated using the unsignalized
intersection module of the Highway Capacity Software. (Note: The Spring 2001
analysis was conducted with an older release of the software, then either February
2000 analysis or the current addendum)
Table 22-2 summarizes the level of service for the signalized intersections. Level of
service D is generally considered acceptable operating conditions. As table 21-2
presents, no level of service difficulties are expected at any of the five signalized
intersections. In addition, all movements at the five intersections are expected to
operate at LOS D or better in the 2004 p.m. peak hour under the currently proposed
development concept.
TABLE 22-2
PM P kH
L
fS
~ S'
r d I t
f
. . ea our eve S 0 ervlce or 12na lZe n ersec IOns
2004 Level of Service by Development Scenario
With Development With Development With Spring With Currently
Intersection Approved in 1997 Approved in 2001 Proposed Proposed
February 2000 Development Development
Cleveland Ave / D D D D
Co. Rd. C
Cleveland Ave / B B C C
NB 1-35 Ramps
Cleveland Ave / C C C C
Co. Rd. D
NB 1-35 Ramps / C C C C
Co. Rd. D
SB 1-35 Ramps / A A A A
Co. Rd. D
Level of service results for the unsignalized intersections are presented in Table 22-3.
Unsignalized intersection results refer to the lowest side street approach level of service
experienced. All intersections are expected to provide level of service D or better
operations under a112004 scenarios, with the exception of the North Centre Pointe Drive
intersection with Cleveland Avenue. The high volume of left turns expected from North
Centre Pointe Drive to northbound Cleveland Avenue will likely cause the west approach
of the intersection to operate at level of service F in the 2004 p.m. peak hour under the
current proposed development concept.
Page 22
TABLE 22-3
P.M. Peak Hour Levels of Service for Unsignalized Intersections])
2004 Level of Service by Development Scenario
With Development With Development With Spring With Currently
Intersection Approved in 1997 Approved in 2001 Proposed Proposed
February 2000 Development Development
Veritas Way / B B C B
Cleveland Ave
Co. Rd. C2/ C C C C
Cleveland Ave
Lydia Ave / C C C C
Cleveland Ave
Brenner Ave / C C C C
Cleveland Ave
N. Centre Pointe E E F E
Dr. / Cleveland
Ave.
1) Unsignalized intersection results refer to the lowest side street level of service experienced.
Two options exist to mitigate the level of service difficulties at the North Centre
Pointe Drive/Cleveland Avenue intersection. The options include installation of
traffic signal control at either North Centre Pointe Drive or Lydia Avenue
intersection with Cleveland Avenue. Traffic volumes at the North Centre Pointe
Drive and Lydia Avenue intersections with Cleveland Avenue intersection should
be monitored following completion of the Centre Pointe development and traffic
signal control should be considered when actual traffic volumes meet the required
warrants.
The overall conclusion of the traffic analysis report is that the current proposed
Centre Pointe development would not cause any significant negative traffic
impacts at the any of the 10 intersections that have been examined. The traffic
impacts associated with the current Centre Pointe development proposal are
nearly identical to the impacts that would have been experienced with the Centre
Pointe development proposals approved in February of 2000 and in the spring of
1997.
23. Vehicle-related air emissions. Estimate the effect ofthe 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
EA W Guidelines about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed.
Page 23
As part of the approval of the Amended PUD and EAW in April of2001 Veritas
prepared an update to the ISP Permit Application submitted to the MPCA and
approved in 1997. That application included extensive analysis to estimate the
potential impact of the proposed project upon air quality in the vicinity of the site.
The analysis focuses upon carbon monoxide (CO), which is the primary pollutant
of concern with vehicle emissions. Subsequent to the MPCA approving the ISP
in June of2001, the State Legislature has repealed the requirements for preparing
an ISP. For purposes of responding to this section of the EA W, calculations
predicting carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the development were
utilized from the April 2001 Amendment. Because the increase in traffic is
minimal the following analysis is based on the previously approved EA W.
The basic methodological approach used in performing CO calculations for ISP
Pennit Applications, and this analysis, is as follows:
1. Establish an assessment year defined as one year following the anticipated
occupancy of the project.
2. Determine busiest intersection in the vicinity of the project which will be
significantly impacted by the project (source intersection).
3. Project CO levels generated at the source intersection for the assessment year
by non-project traffic in combination with project-related traffic.
4. Determine potentially sensitive receptors which could be impacted by CO
dispersion from the source intersection.
5. Model CO dispersion from the source intersection to the identified receptors.
6. Add the CO from the source intersection to projected background CO levels,
and compare this sum to state air quality standards for CO concentrations.
The year 2004 has been established as the assessment year (estimated one year
after development). Source intersections modeled in this analysis were
determined to be the intersection of Cleveland Avenue and County Road C and
Cleveland Avenue and County Road D. Vehicular CO generation for 2004 at the
source intersection was projected using MOBILE5a with traffic projection
information from Benshoof and Associates, Inc. referenced in Response 22.
Receptor locations for the modeling study were selected based upon locations
where the general population may be during the appropriate averaging times for
the MPCA CO standard (one hour and eight hour). The receptor locations used
in the ISP analysis for the proposed project are identified in Figure 10. CO
dispersion from the source intersections to the receptor locations was modeled
using the CAL3QHC model. Background CO levels for the area were based
upon historical data projected to 2004 levels taking into account anticipated
overall increases in traffic levels and other factors. The methods and procedures
used in this analysis were consistent with Indirect Source Permit Application
Guidelines provided by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Page 24
The Minnesota air quality CO standard as regulated by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency is defined as follows:
· I-hour average: 30 parts per million (ppm)
· 8-hour average: 9 ppm
A summary of the analytical work generated in the ISP Permit Application for the
proposed project is provided in the following Tables.
Centre Pointe Site -Intersection of County Road C and Cleveland
P d' t d M' CO I
re IC e aXlmum mpacts
Receptor Projected CO 1 Hour Average 8 Hour Average
Concentration CO from Source CO from Source
From Source Intersection Plus Intersection Plus
Intersection Backgrounda Backgroundb
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
1 (proposed Office) 0.0 3.6 2.6
2 (Proposed Office) 0.0 3.6 2.6
3 (Hotel) 0.0 3.6 2.6
4 (Office) 0.0 3.6 2.6
5 (Residential) 0.0 3.6 2.6
6 (Residential) 0.0 3.6 2.6
7 (OfficelWH) 0.1 3.7 2.7
Centre Pointe Site -Intersection of County Road D and Cleveland
Pd' d M' CO I
re Icte aXlmum mpacts
Receptor I Projected CO 1 Hour Average 8 Hour Average
Concentration CO from Source CO :from Source
From Source Intersection Plus Intersection Plus
Intersection Backgrounda Backgroundb
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
1 (proposed Office) 0.2 3.8 2.8
2 (Proposed Office) 0.1 3.7 2.7
3 (Hotel) 0.1 3.7 2.7
4 (Office) 0.2 3.8 2.8
5 (Residential) 2.1 5.7 4.7
6 (Residential) 2.0 5.6 4.6
7(OfficelWH) 0.2 3.8 2.8
'City of Roseville, 1 Hour Adjusted Average = 3.6 ppm
bCity of Roseville, 8 Hour Adjusted Average = 2.6 ppm
Page 25
CO levels predicted at each receptor by modeling traffic levels at County Road C
are very low. This is because, although it is the busiest intersection by traffic
count, the intersection of Cleveland and County Road C is relatively far from the
receptor locations established.
It can be seen from the above table that the CO standards are not projected to be
exceeded at any of the receptor locations assuming the project is developed as
envisioned, and using the information and methods outlined above. With the
increase in traffic caused by the additional 15,500 S.F. of office it is unlikely that
the Co standards will be exceeded. Thus, it is not anticipated that traffic
improvements or other mitigation measures will be required to address air quality
issues associated with the proposed project.
24. Stationary Source Air Emissions: Will the project involve any stationary
sources of air emissions (Such as boilers or exhaust stacks)?
Yes No
If yes, describe the sources, quantities, and composition of the emissions; the
proposed air pollution control devises; the quantities and composition of the
emissions after treatment; and the effects on air quality.
The project will involve installation of small, natural gas-fired space heating
devices in new buildings. Natural gas-fired space heaters exhaust small amounts
of PM, NOx, CO, and He. These space-heating devices are not expected to
adversely affect air quality in the area.
25. Will the project generate dust, odors, or noise during construction and lor
operation?
Yes No
If yes, describe the sources, characteristics, duration, and quantities or
intensity, and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also
identify the locations of sensitive receptors in the vicinity and estimate the
impacts on these receptors.
The project will not generate significant odors.
The proposed development has the potential to generate noise from two types of
sources:
· Construction activities;
· Additional traffic generated by the development.
Page 26
Significant noise impacts occur when:
· Noise levels increase by::::: 3 decibels (dBA);
· Noise levels exceed state standards.
There are two descriptors for state noise standards:
· LlO - the 90th percentile, in which noise levels are exceeded 10 percent of the
time.
· L50 - the 50th percentile, in which noise levels are exceeded 50 percent of the
time.
Minnesota noise standards are listed by time of day and land use in the following
table.
Daytime 7 a.m.-lO p.m. Nightime 10 p.m.-7 a.m.
Land use LIO (dB A) L50 (dBA) LIO (dBA) L50 (dBA)
Residential 65 60 55 50
Commercial 70 65 70 65
Industrial 80 75 80 75
Minnesota Noise Standards
Noise impacts from construction ofthe development may exceed the state noise
standards for a limited period oftime. Every effort will be made to reduce
construction noise by ensuring that all equipment has proper noise reduction
devices. In addition, construction activities will occur only during daytime hours.
According to the MPCA, noise monitoring, is recommended, although not required:
· To establish baseline levels and indicate if a noise problem already exists.
· To calibrate the noise analysis model, thereby lending greater reliability to its
estimates.
Noise monitoring was conducted at the intersections of County Road C and
Cleveland and County Road D and Cleveland on December 29, 2000. Although
residential areas are located significantly far from the intersection of Cleveland and
County Road C, residences are located in the southeast quadrant of Cleveland and
County Road D. Refer to the following table for noise monitoring results. The
noise monitoring was done using an Ametek Model Mark 3 Audio Dosimeter.
It can be seen from the results of the noise monitoring (see table below) that current
traffic noise levels currently exceed the Minnesota Residential noise standards at
County Road D and Cleveland. It is anticipated that a significant portion of the
noise levels observed are attributable to traffic on Interstate 35W immediately west
ofthe development.
Page 27
ra IC Olse oDltonn~
Monitoring Point Morning Rush (7-9 a.m.) Evening Rush (4:30-6:30 p.m.)
LIO (dBA) L50 (dBA) LIO (dBA) L50 (dBA)
Intersection of 74.24 64.40 69.2 60.0
Cleveland and Co.
Rd.D
Intersection of 71.3 64.9 71.9 62.4
Cleveland and Co.
Rd.C
T ffiN' M
Noise impacts from post-project traffic volumes were evaluated using the
STAMINA 2.0 (FHW A 1982) model provided by MnDOT. STAMINA 2.0
predicts A-weighted noise levels (LEQ, L10, L50 and L90) based on traffic volume,
speed, and vehicle type. For this analysis, vehicles were placed into three
categories: cars, medium trucks, and heavy trucks.
As indicated above, the main source of the noise causing the measured exceedances
appears to be from Interstate 35W. However, the principal source of any additional
noise anticipated to be caused by the proposed development is from additional
traffic generated along the roadways surrounding the development, mainly
Cleveland, County Road C and County Road D. The nearest residences are located
near the intersection of County Road D and Cleveland. Other potentially noise
sensitive areas would include any nearby schools, churches or parks, hotels, as well
as outdoor restaurants. A hotel (receptor #3) and an office (receptor #4) have been
included in the modeling as well.
Only daytime (rush hour) impacts were predicted using STAMINA 2.0. Nighttime
noise standards only differ from daytime noise standards in residential areas.
Residential areas located in close proximity to the development are not expected to
experience significant increases in noise levels. In addition, peak nighttime traffic is
assumed to be 78 percent ofthe peak daytime volume, using MnDOT methods.
MnDOT methods also assume the following vehicle type percentages:
· Cars: 97.8 percent;
· Medium trucks: 1.4 percent;
· Heavy trucks: 0.8 percent.
Traffic volumes provided by Benshoof and Associates, Inc. for the Spring 2001
PUD Amendment were used for the STAMINA 2.0 model runs.
Page 28
The following tables summarize the STAMINA 2.0 model results for development
for the 2004 projections (daytime impacts) at the intersections of both Cleveland
and Co. Rd. C and Cleveland and Co. Rd. D.
County Road D and Cleveland STAMINA 2.0 Noise Modeling Results
Daytime Peak Hours
Receptor L10 (dB A) L50 (dBA)
Development I Baseline Development I Baselin
1 Proposed Office 59.4 55.8
2 Proposed Office 58.7 55.3
3 Hotel 59.0 55.6
"4 Office 59.0 55.6
5 Residential 70.0 64.6
6 Residential 69.4 62.8
7 OfficelWH 68.7 62.3
County Road C and Cleveland STAMINA 2.0 Noise Modeling Results
Daytime Peak Hours
Receptor L10 (dB A) L50 (dBA)
Development I Baseline Development I Baselin
1 Proposed Office 60.7 57.6
2 Proposed Office 59.8 56.8
3 Hotel 59.9 56.8
4 Office 59.8 56.6
5 Residential 69.2 63.4
6 Residential 70.6 64.5
7 OfficelWH 70.1 64.2
This analysis indicates that predicted noise levels near Receptors 5 and 6 exceed the
state Residential Daytime LlO and L50 limits. However, these predictions also
indicate that the additional traffic generated by the development will result in noise
levels that are moderately lower than those currently existing (see monitoring results
above). Please refer to the Figure 10 for noise modeling receptor locations. It
should be understood that the receptor locations used for the air quality analysis
were the same as those implemented for the noise level analysis.
It is anticipated that the proposed additional elevations to the existing buildings
will help mitigate some of the noise produced by Interstate 35W.
Page 29
Some dust will be generated during the construction portion of the project. It is
anticipated that construction activities will last from 12 to 14 months. Dust will
be mitigated by minimizing the areas of exposed soils, re-vegetating or paving as
soon as practical after final grading, and watering exposed soils during dry and
windy conditions.
26. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site:
a. Archaeological, historical, or architectural resources?
Yes No
There are no archeological, historical, or architectural resources known to
occur on the site or in proximity to the site. A letter from the Minnesota
Historical Society states that "the project is unlikely to affect any historic
properties." (Appendix F).
b. Prime or unique farmlands?
Yes No
There are no prime or unique farmlands on the site or in proximity to the
site.
c. Designated parks, recreation areas, or trails?
Yes No
A paved walking trail, constructed to facilitate pedestrian traffic through
the developed site, will remain upon completion of the project.
d. Scenic views and vistas?
Yes No
There are no scenic views or vistas on the site. There are no scenic views
or vista within proximity ofthe site, which would be impacted by the
proposed project.
e. Other unique resources?
Yes No
There are no other unique resources on the site or within proximity of the
site, which would be impacted by the proposed project.
If any items are answered Yes, describe the resource and identify any
impacts on the resource due to the project. Describe any measures to be
taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
Page 30
27. Will the project create adverse visual impacts? (Examples include: glare
from intense lights, lights'visible in wilderness areas, and large visible plums
from cooling towers or exhaust stacks.)
Yes No If yes explain.
The proposed increase in building square footage is not anticipated to produce any
adverse visual impacts. This additional office space will be designed to be
compatible with adjacent businesses. The surrounding area is developed and does
not constitute scenic vista or wilderness area that would be intruded upon. No
intense lighting, cooling towers, or large exhaust stacks are anticipated on the site.
28. Compatibility with plans: Is the project subject to an adopted local
comprehensive land use plan or any other applicable land use, water, or
resource management plan of a local, regional, state, or federal agency?
Yes No
If yes, identify the applicable plan(s), discuss the compatibility of the project
with the provisions of the plan(s), and explain how any conflicts between the
project and the plan(s) will be resolved. If no, explain.
The City of Roseville's current Comprehensive Plan, adopted on September 12,
1994 and revised January 10, 1996 (Figure 8) guides the site for Business uses, a
designation that "deals with high volume retail, restaurants, office parks, gas
stations and other high traffic generating users."
29. Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services:
Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure, or public services
be required to serve the project?
Yes No
Centre Pointe Business Park has most required infrastructure in place. The water
mains and sanitary sewer were constructed concurrent with the existing internal
road system. Minor relocation of infrastructure may be required to accommodate
slight differences between the new site layout and the original proposal. All main
storm sewer lines are in place. New site-specific storm sewers will be required to
direct roof and parking lot drainage to the ponds.
All required external infrastructure is in place and has adequate capacity to serve
the project, as documented in responses to previous questions.
Page 31
If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure / services needed. (Any
infrastructure that is a "connected action" with respect to the project must be
assessed in this "EA W"; see "EA W Guidelines" for details.)
30. Related Developments: Cumulative Impacts:
a. Are future stages of this development planned or likely?
Yes No
The described project represents ultimate site development. Upon
completion of the described plan, the entire Centre Pointe Business Park
will be developed with the exception of a restaurant site. No outlots or
adjacent lands are available for future expansion of the Park; no future
stages are planned or likely.
If yes, briefly describe future stages, their timing, and plans for
environmental review.
b. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project?
Yes No
If yes, briefly describe the past development, its timing, and any past
environmental review.
In 1997 as amended through April of2001, Centre Pointe has been
approved for the construction of 803,500 square feet. The current
proposal is not a subsequent stage of an earlier project. Rather, the current
proposer seeks to complete a project first proposed more than eleven years
ago. In 1985, Woodbridge Properties, Inc. proposed constructing Centre
Pointe Business Park in Roseville. Supporting infrastructure for Centre
Pointe Business Park (internal roads, stormwater ponds, and utilities) and
a majority of the buildings are built or under construction. The Centre
Pointe Solutions office building will complete Centre Pointe by providing
some additional office space, which will meet the growth demand for an
environmentally friendly user in addition to the already constructed hotels,
restaurants, office/showrooms, and office/manufacturing in Centre Pointe.
c. Is other development anticipated on adjacent lands or outlots?
Yes No
The boundaries of Centre Pointe are 1-35W to the west, Cleveland Avenue
to the east, County Road D to the north and DNR Wetland 50W and
County Road C to the south. Adjacent lands are currently developed or
undevelopable (i.e.: roads, wetlands). There are no adjacent outlots
platted. No future development is anticipated on adjacent lands.
Page 32
d. If a, b, or c, were marked yes, discuss any cumulative environmental
impacts resulting for this project and the other development.
Centre Pointe Business Park fronts I-35W through Roseville, a mature
first-ring suburb. The site had previously been used by a service station,
trucking operation, and residences until it was cleared in the mid-1980s for
the Centre Pointe project. Current adjacent land uses include roadways, a
stormwater pond, and office buildings constructed as part of the original
Centre Pointe development. Trucking operations and residences can be
found immediately beyond Centre Pointe. Centre Pointe Solutions
proposes completing the redevelopment of a partially completed business
park. Once complete, the cumulative environmental impact of Centre
Pointe to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects is
expected to be minimal. Compared with the site's historic uses (i.e.:
trucking operation and a service station), the completed Centre Pointe
redevelopment would be considered an environmental benefit. The areas
immediately adjacent to Centre Pointe are currently fully developed and
the completion of Centre Pointe, thus, is not expected to cause any
reasonably foreseeable future development in the area.
31. Other Potential Environmental Impacts: If the project may cause any
adverse environmental impacts which were not addressed by items 1 through
28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation.
All known and anticipated environmental impacts were previously addressed in
questions 1 through 30.
32. SUMMARY OF ISSUES: (This section need not be completed if the "EAW"
is being done/or "EIS" scoping; instead, address relevant issues in the draft
Scoping Decision document which must accompany the "EA W".) List any
impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation
before the project is commenced. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative
measures that have been or maybe considered for these impacts and issues,
including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions.
1. Traffic - The overall conclusion of the traffic analysis report is that the current
proposed Centre Pointe development would not cause any significant negative
traffic impacts at the any of the 10 intersections that have been examined. The
traffic impacts associated with the current Centre Pointe development
proposal are nearly identical to the impacts that would have been experienced
with the Centre Pointe development proposals approved in April of 200 1,
February of2000 and in the spring of 1997.
Page 33
2. Air Quality - CO levels predicted at each receptor by modeling traffic levels at
County Road C are very low. This is because, although it is the busiest
intersection by traffic count, the intersection of Cleveland and County Road C
is relatively far from the receptor locations established. The CO standards are
not projected to be exceeded at any ofthe receptor locations assuming the
project is developed as envisioned, and using the information and methods
outlined in the EA W. It is not anticipated that traffic improvements or other
mitigation measures will be required to address air quality issues associated
with the proposed project.
3. Dust, Odors, Noise - Some dust will be generated during construction, dust
will be minimized by various means as described in Item 25. The project will
not generate significant odors. Noise impacts during construction may exceed
state noise standards for a limited period oftime, every effort will be made to
reduce construction noise. Predicted noise levels from traffic appear to be
moderately lower than the current existing conditions.
4. Wetlands - No direct impact to wetlands will occur due to the project. Treated
site runoff and pretreatment in the stormwater pond is expected. Adverse
impacts to the quality of water in the described wetlands due to stormwater
runoff from the site are expected to be minimal due to pretreatment of runoff
and existing use of the basin for stormwater ponding.
5. Stormwater Management - The Centre Pointe Business Park has been
developed with sites meeting the Business Park PUD requirement of 25%
green space. The 1997 EA W was developed assuming that 25% of the
developed area would be green space. The proposed improvements to the
Centre Pointe Solutions site will result in greater than 25% of the site reserved
as green space. The green space will result in a reduction of the quantity of
surface runoff from this site and ultimately reduce the total runoff identified in
the 1997 EA W from the Business Park.
Page 34
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 2A.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 5A.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
FIGURES & ATTACHMENTS
Site Location Map
USGS Topographic Map
Aerial Photo
Spring 2001 Site Plan
Proposed Master Site Plan
1985 Site Plan
1997 Site Plan
DNR Protected Waters Map
Soil Survey Map
Comprehensive Plan Map
Zoning Map
CO Receptor Locations
Air Quality (CO) Modeling Results
Noise Model Runs and Monitoring Results
Traffic Impact Report
Natural Heritage Letter
Minnesota Historical Society Letter
-
1~~7~~. m-i ~I-~'-
, ".WL ~ L if. '-Ji.'i'\[j"1.r.u~_" '., -) t .....' · -.
_~. ;~.~' I':"~~;"'''';=:'~''~~ ." , L I. -_ '),. '1.-.::- ~__-'o.~~' I
.~' ~ .....~., :jfii.t _ ~~..~.:'1~~..- ;.-..~ I. ~":i ~~ ' ·
1_ ' ' .. .'::;~." ,,,.., .... ~. " · ,-', ~~i~'''rt: ' ~
_, =" _. _ ,~. ":!!r-;o.~ ._,;, _ -~,,::::=~ ~'" ''It!' 'C" \"'> "" ~,
!It''T.~~~ .,,"n'~::IM;'~ 't- ~ J, <-'~. ~i~ \4--"~';-'" ! i,,~
-J'{'Bil:". . ""'. 1--'-'" ""'C- ~ . \.. ..."'''' -,
~ ,::;-':To · ~"': k- ~;,;.'(,~o.'- --~.M~" ..~ ~--.-Lq '1!1,\ :- -', ~*.~ ~ ..~'X
'I~. ... ~... ...L ..~ ~_- ..! 'i. :8aRllr i:.~-'~ -"~'" ......It.... -:.-..: ,j~ -' ~'~
, u,'.~ .~". _.,~;"",,., ,~' - " -' E
, !, ~ ~ ~Hro s" ;".... ." · . '''(1 T --;'" . f"'" u.!.r.!. "" pI> " "..-;--
, ' E~ ~ ~' 'I i i:;)E~.i ,.1111 . ,--'" 1"'""'- ,......~'"'r. ' "
= Ui~";')f. _ '...- '.! !.~h ~- ._, ' .., !!'~" ," ~. .,c>" '..' l'
~ ' ,.~ . _r. ;:-- -~ d.... C" ~ '''' , , ;', · ; ............". - .
. ....,. _.,. , ., ". ~ '_.' ................ 1'('" ". ~ , " " -,
:.; .. ~; ~ 1.:J; T,j'jf::i ..., ':'A, "'.;.?~. i ,~,,_, . ',. "<, .',.~ " ,...I?----
~~. ~ ~;i~"~ - V'2 .,~,tjt:j:~if'Y:1'" ,ie, 'FJ { 'f ' "'".........' " · ' -;' ..-"
,....,.. ~ ~--.' "'I "A ,f"", !~-j , ~;'~_." ~,.'. I ....... " [i;; .~-
con" '" ~- ;,',~; .,__,,' , ..... "',' -,"w L' - , . - .'... .,
...~.~MI!I.. .;;.....,.....Y"'" .-- ~ -"i'}!....' \ ," ... " -' I -~....~....
, . ,_ ._.. _ i;! J:I'I' a' ~_"-i'~ .~~ i ~ , L ... t. ::""'t.- '-u,
" u '-"'-'''--- ~ "",,'~'" .,' ...-- .... ..
_ I ~,.. " _..~... -..~' ; ~ .. ~-- r-, f...C~t~:-,,,.~ i h ..---,~..- iIlrTI!'~ \ .--~ ,./-~' (f: to --..'~ '-;-, "-
, .' ~ ..''';.y___' ._n~.! \"' ~~,i.,""::-' i.. ~... "<"1" I'. ,~ " ,....,-.
...1;"1.t ~. <~;..i'i~"-~ ~"U~ ;. oJ ._~ ,"4iio'~i~,:::!IlI !.'~! ;:::.:,\ I-::~"':~!.l.. ~:;:1'
~1- f' '~~ ,f< ' ""\ ;~..,. ~~~ k~ _1.~.t' f11....'.:.t ~ i~"" "f.c",;
~ ' I __ _", -"'" ---..,;;:- 4" .... I ., i >~ '~:'\..f:. - " -....n. -: \. ' ~ i. ~ .on:.. ... ~
, ' '.;.......,' , ~~'. ," ~': 0:<" · .""'..-" I u__.." .' -, · ~ "~- '
I~ _ i rj ~_~I"~_.J;;\_" ~,..;;.:!~ -.~~~.~- . * ':...{}~ i-; ;; J'lZ~ri--:':"\'~~ <~! ,:.p ~:>>- ~! ~
i\j-~- .'~};:.I I"",1.."::, L I(~ i"! ,~~,.~ "L.--~' U...-,~:,o--; ,-r::;,
_,' ,"_" _ _ ~ ' "".. ......;1..' ~~ ~ ,-
. i -,' . -.. ',' ' ' .,..,..".~,. ' -."..' ,'" ."" .
""" ~, ..-:'" .......,:~' .,,' ..' ..... ........... ~ . _." . _ ,. , '...AI. '. ~. ",-"! ,-"
.....- . """-____,.,.___.... i; ~ .. I' Sf ~~1bY1"!?".:...!!i).... ~ .: ~ ofF:: ;; ~T ~j$' .....~~--,~&' _'-on. ·
, I.' .._ ",....~,_ r _ __a ~.." ~'" "f =.: &!... '!!!'~= *'ooot........~ ...
, ____.. __ '....F... _ ~ ",,' ~ ~ ,.' ~ ~ ~ ~ ...I'~ y" .......--,<' "~"'H'" ~'.
__,_, .. _~ . ,." '._ ._'..;,,j. ,_.! "",. . ..' " , ,-""'.' . i "'-
, ,'~__ """"" ,.., '" p .'t."'" '...,.. i1i /, ~ '" I " ',' - ,- --, - .... ,."
" ' ~ ,=_ _ __ " " .. ~_ _ _'_. '"_ ....; _.: ~.'<< -'.........:'J..~ ; l~' ..".'"^ ii --~... ,>,:;' -~ "'''':~'4 ~:~--, 1-
~.7 . - '. '" ." - ' ... ~ Q' -- '" ','"', ......... - .,--, .. .'-
,"_,,_" ",._ '" ..,~,_" · L" ,,' ,-;:,,'" · ;lIn. ';' '-
~T~~"~"\-:~ ~ - ~-~',,~-!-r.I$4J:~~" rATION ~J '~ '~..:~": '~.~. g; c ""'-;,,
" , _ .__< ~ ,_ a ..., .... · I"i' -",'.' '; ,
,...".,=."",- ~~.-:,,,,-!:I" · " ' ' ,-"!' ,,-
" _... .' ~..' ~",J"i:'" ",' , ." : ' I' .-. ,.'-'" ,"
EI ~..u ':.-" ~..'." .... .,' " ,; ,,', "". -. " ,--,
~:'".., ,". .;. __ __ ::=?j' r-...... "':! oJ . ; m ,.. < ..., ,.":..: ; -' '7"=~ 1 Ii CT-:'! I' ~.'
-r : ~ ./"- ~:........._~ .,.-.-;:,.,.~ -" \; ~..; r -" - ,...-'<--0 ~~'~.; ~
Iw ._: ~.:= _ _ ~'_~~..,g.....;$~~ t - ,,'4"0 ' I'm ..... -," ii! 1:1" 9"'.0. '....". -; ..~
~. ,. .'" ,0" ,,,M ,-- ~ - ,"'" "" "-.'" ,..,'>
1--;':-=tDEB "..,.. ",.. 0 4 ,!!, " ._ .. '.... '-" ",,-! ,"," c''''
,_"'''' . -T-. _ ,,_ ". 0, _ ' -, _.: · -,,0 ~:. ~~...,. (1I\1;&::r . -we <.c...
~.. '!I ~--....4- ::1Jc, f~~Tn\~\ c_ ~--~_ .. ~ \. "., ~~,1i~E.Vi~-"i;;
..;!.;I~_. ,_ ~& ~. .!-i!U" "\ i.,. " i"'--- .... ~ ....~!- Ll:bo-'~'"''
'+ _, ~~.... .. u," ! ' -;".,.' .',"." ..~..,.. --. """'
. ; ,.,;,:;.. ..4,;" _.c.~_ -'if _ ; ~ I/c~";1':":~:;::: ,13' '~...... ':- ':..:::1
, ~.-:'; '':== ' ...--.i', '- .' ,,! , ,."" ...-",.' '-' .. - .,~ '
.., .....-~_ : .....i~..t\ . ~' " .::.-.'.;?" ~~ ..8 " ,':\!>! ....'.... il-'!:-L ~'~~ i ::,?,~.......". ',"
..._1.~ ~~.=I_' ~....~ .~' ..-JI;.'" .. ..,....... ,. :-" _!: '--, 0
;;,.I!;.., _._ _,....""... _"":. :;<2-" 1; v. yo ~_~._.. ,~. ---, ."~"~', -,,,,,:, ,-'i::;! -..~; ~
,~_ ';; _. ....' ,~, ,,"~ ~,. :<<~...,.. 1:;-. '. !::. ;;~--'"~......:.._:;
.. '.'......, _' "~. < ' __ _,_ o,p_ . -.. .,-\. ...
: : __,,,,,,..' ,l. ...-:;1~=.:"' .:7'...:;. ,: - ';,~,-- t_ """"-- =~~.......). :1--," 'J_ .!- __.:.c:~~ij- -, ,: -"'--,- ~..... ..
".,_'" ~Z' ",-,. ..... .. ,-!. .' -'.. "~. --..' · -' .. "-
~..-:!II ::H" ~ _. " :' " ,'L ....,' . ,..:";]; ,,.-.=..; Jo:=-"--o "'if t""'" · ',.-', .,' ,c'; - '
I~~' 'H .~'1" .. :'1 . " , " - ..,..".. ."'-11-"'; - ,-,-1 n C1--+
:Ao", ;. ,." - " '.. -T' ,n a" , ' -r o;"..f... ,..'~ ,,' ~ ';:,'::>C'.
'\........~~~ ''P'''i ~. . ,~'.... : 1 '. ~ - -.., i I -C;,"', .- ,,' '....:
~" ~}~,:~_.. ;:~,:!..,_ ;n;!1 "iT~i ~~~ it:~~_ ';:;,7:::..; . Il;:i . ...!..- ~~~?-.~I"li~: l"
,~,~ ~.,' .,,_, ,.,..," _, ",' .... '" _, _~ _ .,..ii~f.. -.ii:li.o,i ~h1-:::' ;;
" "'" ".' ~,' ~ I' ,.' '~!>"-'~ ,,-.
M~~'~~"( ~~~r~""':"u.,~.-~" :I~~" ~ :~~:,..: ~i i :,i. ~...~"d1U ~-~';h"'-~1.f
_ ~ ~7' [',..~....." ~" ';' .~~,~~"" ,.. -, '!-- .-.... <
"'vEt' .~'_''''!!' " ~,II'(1"I! _ . __ , I! ...., ?r,5 I ~
. ~.."';L~, I . ':11".1",.1 .", ~ RdCONHEIGfi ':=-~ ~ '0,., ...
~/l. ~ . >U'L' ~~- ..t~t t '.." -.~ ..,..,,; c, , - .. J,'''' , " -Iii ; .=::
r~",\ I'CL ~_ .. ,~..-:--~_ ' " , _.~,-=r IE~:" .............?i':: ....c;..C<-;.,il!"........
:4r.:-~~""."", n . ','" , ' -.' '. ,. I ~,I,' ~1 ~-1
,........ .....,..... ~ " . <<." ,~~ ! '- '~"'-~..
" "" '_ ., ~ -~.'Y' '<' ,\1;i '" ~ ,."''''''' L- _II" j '1<, ~ .......
~>'. -. " " ,0;....,,:.", >, ",' , ~;- .~ ty i! -~' . ,~~ ~- ,.
~K;~. '~~I: ~~i li: ~' ...(:'. -'~ : '.'" t_/~F.t; tI& I')>-:~ ' ~ -.!j~ ~. ~ ) s
. _. ~ J_: . .. '" - '_, "- '1' ~ ~ "~!:; ~."""D!!~ '~~
'" _....~ Ii! < .J1!!=<- ':. ___~"if '~r -.., ~ ;;0, -
~ -c-~-~::'\ '...... ~'?'~.~~>j_ -8~ +(;~ - ,~J i1'- Oi"~ I '
.4. ""-c f=; '- _,I~ .~'
--.. ",', ~.. , . ." .- - ~
, '\ .". ..... c.".. .. '- "'0 '.- , ,,"-,,-,-,'
~ ,s..... .... · ' : ""] '"","
'ht1Detonka. MD.
55343
Fax: ~:m ::~~ SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 1
'''~~. ,f...\ :."
I Vr.' I... . / i\.... ~ ~;:: ..., ~- '( em - 1 .
,,-~~\~ . -6]\! ~!, "' i~;"
.J~i ~;~ ~.; ,d"'~'~;~ .);. ",
. -/~'>>i,:0W~~~---- ", , :,: i.: / ~ Yj,~
~ '.-{ ','" ".,: ' .
-J = ~ 'jIt 1f_~_ 8 !:?', ~, ' '- ~
<~ '" ~~:--:~,,! i'~' .:;:., + ~i"~' ~
1= : ~..,.,'" ,~ '~i":'~~ ~r-;;~'Vf;/'(' :;lr~l1;~ ,,>..,-,~~ 'i;~~'O <'b~a
. I"." . ~ ~'! ra~':' . J; QV\]~~ ~ ~ ~g:Ji' :.~~c, A'~~~"!\~::~ ~ 'l - ~ ~~J
,,:'_ I ~""')~ \ \ !" } I ' ~J( ._-u ':~f.r~V6' ,.' ,..., ~)O 9
. , _' _:~; ~ ~~) ~ ~ '\TO 'c.!~J )." . ;~ ~~ ~ fte!kSJ_1:. ~::::,::~, ...... M tV)~~ ,~ .c::
'_, ... .' -YA'>f/1 ~~; -;--'J n- ~ ",'. ~ .'-"."., '"" iJ/ '. .~
,~ ~~~~;~ :t::.~ ,-. '," ..:;-iI r""~;" n.' ~,' ~ ~ ,5'JJ, - ~
I! ;:' ^"~' ( i..~'!,,1 ' s r.:.' ~>: ~~ .?, ~ 0', L ~ -
" '. '. ~. " ' ' . ~, ' " ~, ". ~ v, .
:.' ..~ , .:.-. 8~ . ! ~ i;; -J " ~'f'~Jt'-.'.'" ~:' -', ' 0
I~ ' C)i'?"\\~-", Fl>.. '~~.;,'1 - 1""._ __ " !> 1 "11\,1f\ 'I J ",..,~
, li1' ~~~ ~ ,...,., ~ - l:-fj... .~ ')... . ' 1I~'I3' .---- - ~ -,'> -'
~~~~: "~: ~~~~~ <If ~ f' -; ~s ';.:' ,~ ~~:~N''':~' -0 .'~~["~"~J~:
Ii SchooL': ,.,' I" 111 ~ ~.' , ,. .' ' ' "\, J~" .
I~~'lrk ~ ~F= ,';,~j ~ ~ ~:;..,o;~' . ~J",~/ ~ (. ti tel, ~ r:p) 'tI{J~r!J. '&S" ~'-~" '..:. sJ.
-=:::: ,',;:';'." ~r-- '_ ...: - ..... ..;......'{. c-
..~...... f UlJJj" :;... ~'';'~T~' . '- &1 ,~:""""~ \c.... 'I ..'jl-
.,~~ "\. f{/RfJ'J. ,0.' Q ~k' ,\, i .." ~'". ~~')I {!J -,\) ~~,~ "~V ~ '{ ~"
~ ("'1\(', , '5 . -../0 CP: ' J. _" I 2i ,- '\ \ ytU OJ ~J \\~ r .
Lw11=. hO I'" · Ufi" - :i<~r.,l ~~- ' , , ~
[00" ,'rfi. ':f;~ "P.- -r\-::: '-'..... \', ~\ . J :~ ,'-~ (\ .' y~ ,I~
,.,::r- '" r_,~ I '_ (_ . 1;_ , .. 1--..$\\ I'. ,', ~ U)) : ... .. :m2, ,q f--~ .. Ii#, I
~"..:., 0 v.'..': !: .~. ': - '''f; )1' _ ::;,. · r-.Y1:':'\' ,,-,f ~ *-,'
1= ~~ I - '- ~ li ' -- '''- kD::' II \ ~~L\';'''\ ~ " I 1 . ,..---..1i-~
I..... " ~..... Irj.l r ' ..,. d ~"'-" 0""" - \---/ -- i' II.AL--' "~" '....1
_ ",' _. .l."':.' 1\ C)IJNTY -~ -::,:~.:i R... ;:' ml'( II). I." .. 9_ (I .'"j ." ,) ~
_ _'"' ,. -f ~,(." .. ... A=- ,'. Qj: ~ ' ~ ~ 1- T- t~
",,-Pa f. ~ 'I I 4 ~j' fl. '{',- --..."\ .'" ....;: ,~'':'-;'''-;'''':~'''' - -- .. ~ ~ i':'
."1 "IiI' '.1 v(;. \ -.s;; ..,-,.,:.,.-. '-,'1'-",','.",,' \ I r--
'_ .~"'...d '17iI-J~ ~ ~,~- :oi ~ ~. .~..,;..~:.'-" ~..,,-,<.,,:j ';\.. n 1 ~(- -, " ~
__ . ~ -; ~~ _ : "'::." ' "~-:..::::::::' '.' '".... ! lI~ark tt; "
I~j '~~i~~ :_lu~~~(~i?f:7~' \~c>--::';~~~,,,IL.Mlt ~,'. p
'14" ::J ,_\ )[[~f/~LW? < ,0 ,.,. ~:,v:'~,<f~'I~ I
:' ~I.~ " \ >~~~o J q~ E tJ ' WI/. I .~_ '1- \i~~'";- ~~.~~\:, '-;f~ I J ~' u ~~.J .'
III'~ ~ \... !/,i\l1 U ;. 0 (), ",:':{' ':,;:..'...' .0 ' ~ .
I~ ~ \,,,, r S <:: ,~:.I~~' ~j .' ?~ ?;{-l: ; :.:' ' . ' f.ci
I~ ~~ ~ rse q " 0/ G. ".\",'O~..,., .,,~ k~
I~ Ii!' }1 lJ ~.~ €:a '. '" '::' :.~' .-i.J i'. '!'-'T.
~ ~~
~ ~ ~ "":.,.:.
I~ d
~ -::=., -----
I
I~
~,I
~
:>
r
~.'
r
(j
-.
I .....1:.:.~..;cNS "'" b.~.
OI'~M..... IIIBII1Sf'I'
. ~....:~~. ;whir
.. ,_~. "". - . .., iJ .,-
,:::{~"\./..:,.,' .~(. " - ~~ 'I ~
.wD !, :~!f. - * "'~.I' ~ ~,'
J~H~Sch l~ t
'._ .. ~1 ~
..
;,y~:
to!: ;
..
"
,;" -~'f
DO.
e
-
...
oCt
o '
qv~~'<
'_^...I'1.{c:;:,. '_ ~
~I
o
a.;<::,
I.l
6110 Blue ctrcle Dr.
Suite 1100
MlnDetoDka. 1In.
55343
(612) 833-0e?2
Faz: (612) 833-1153
~
U.S.G.S. MAP
I
FIGURE 2
....
i~~~ ~~;
:H ..!
J ]'i
~
...,
~
(~;\
~
<
C
~
ro
.~
~
(])
~ (
..
(
(
(
~ ..,
N '"
(]) -
~ -
~
OJ) (
(
.~ (
~ c:
~ tl~
~
yA
t~
~h
.--~!
~~h;
2E~~
~~ I
I di
rli!
1.,1
I.
-I.
~.g
~ I
~hl
~~m
!
I.
~ ~
~
;;
IL~
~ ....:
.;;:
.~"
i
~
~~I
~~~.
~ .-1
M
UJ
a::
;:)
C)
u:
~
h
J
:::
, :1
: 'I
j! ; ~~;'~ /
:! !., "', [u i
~,1:::: ..... ..... ..;
.........- ~::....!
ti rtl
ltJ
~
~
i
b.
i ' ~
, ~
~~4
~~.~~.
<"t
ZE~'
I~ I
~! i
\:jIB
i:
I
f
I-
~ ~
~
~p
~~i~
'"
:q
~
~
~
,
'j
h
HI I
:,..
Iii
Ii:
fll
!Ii
ii
I~.:
~ .~~
d~~
~ '~"'''~;;'~i:~; .'-~~' ;.::
&. ..t..... .. ,.......... ..~;..;,..;...;...:,~..~.;<,....~;...,";.:~:w.;.:.:~~~::'.J
i 1!~~~\~S~;;;;;~?'1
: : ~~ ,<~~;:-,~~. ~',i"""'_.~'1'-~1
~ 1 ! I'"~ '~;z. ,-" \\ - " JI
~ :'"1 ~-,j'~-:' ""
I iffit 1] 11ilt':"'f',j IG!!
il~~~ ~~Jf~~~
! ! f Ii '-<:"'_ " ~ -'-~ !!I'.. ' j e
i ! 1\ 2)<<-',,:., / ,/ ;1,;":", ," , ,'f ;
, :: _ "<>/;i ",:, ',:;",' f ~~~
, ; ;(; ",<, { A" 1 ,f ~~..
ij,! <::;;.<~',~f'~ ;s
~: ,1..""",,,,,,._-" '. ./. *>;i5~1
~, (r'~c-'v> '~<}~}:// ~
,,! , .", "<: /. ~ "'->/ I
I!I ';;)::k~<()Y -}
"I, '\,}/
Il~~~~/
iiii m!
11)ld
;
a~:~
~~~~
L
I
(~i
~
~ e
ii~d
w"
o:!'JI
L
~
w
D::
::J
C)
u:
\"
,/1
In
~:I c &0
aj UJ
0... CI:
::)
!n t- o
Q) u..
+oJ
(IJ
<<'
~
Q)
+oJ
.-
(f)
i. <
~
....... 0
Y\ '. 0
_. \ ... ,I
z
<
~~ Z
.Ja: <2:
.> w
.11.1 I- ..J
C/) C/)
~g < 0-
~
UJ
.-
-
en
10
~ CO
a: Q)
or-
~
, (fJ
I '
I en
LU
Z
- .
en (,)
c
::>, -
. ( ..
m~ C#)
4)
(/j ~ ...
LU~ CI3
a: .-
I-~ < g
Q.
Z~ en
<n en
_w <n 4
08 w
[ Z c
n.~ ii) ~
W~ ~ E
m .r:
u
a:>= w en
to- 4
C I-CD z .
Z~ ~ c
0
1::
W-' w AI
O~, a:
I- ~
ifi
34 ()
~ ~ 00 I
~ ~.
t :
..~
i~
.
SITE LOCATION
~'
'1"\01
n
:>
I
MIN.NEAPOLlS
t~. .
.. &
..
SAINT ANTHONY
~..........._<o .~_
.-.h._W'<.C..c.,. J)'
~
~
.:..:.......:~~
....
..'j:(
L
~
z ...
::::
Z
z
[I1
)-
'U
o
~~...., ~
~'J .
".. ,
Z
~/.,
~~~.
~
~
~
6110 Blue Circle Dr.
Suite 1100
Whu.et.oGka. ND.
$U43
(612) 1133--0972
Fax: (CH2) 1133-11$3
D.N.R. PROTECTED WATERS MAP
FIGURE 6
Soil Legend:
161- Urban Land
863- Urban Land-Lino complex,O to 3% slopes
859B- Urban Land- Zimmennan Complex, 1 to 8% slopes
1039- Urban Land
~
~
"--./
6110 IHue! Circle Dr.
Suite , 1 00
loIinnelonka. IIn.
55343
(612) g33-C)g7Z
F..",: (612) 933-1153
SOIL MAP
FIGURE 7
~...
=J;..I.l;~~'~"
~f~~ '.~;. · ,.. /",
;:...I-~'~::fy:~~' ,~~/ h91;:>1
f-/:.'".; iJh'_Cb ',.I
I-( ....~ ~ ~" v:. . I
,. ./".'....'--'-'-"', 'I
...:....,'"")......... ...~'.....''''
..,'., :-...:....
r:: ',(, ~" " '1
.~:,,~'~,f 'i
r~ ., I
~!
r//
~ -~W ~ I!: :~ 'j-'>.."
c ,....,-,$ 1'1"i Iii ,_
~'"1 ~ ' ,,' , t--'-Y .. i '
it,.--r-a . ,:j.,J;'---! ~-( .
~ ~~:.+-!, ii' ill:" : \ fI-o
~ ..::JI 1-;, '--+--! '-' ' I '----' ~; I ~
:( ." r--; " ," I .--~ ,~
!4w!l; ~'; i=~t-t.: j ! r;i8I6' :LL.J:
,~ I ;.,.-;!-f"';'--I....;n I . '! >-----i, -,'-'-'
- ~~~. I' ~
'~I~~.'II::lj
I .. :,':)t ~
City of
~r)$"~~'~"~~ 'r~~,?~ .;t=
1.,--~ ~'TI-, ~ .s.~L~--<
--- MINNESOTA
.~.::'.;~.t.. :.:-.:"..::. ::-:.:., ..:~:C.;.'~;
'.~:.~ . .-: : ," .'- ~:. '::, :. :-"~.~.~.~'
- . . .. .. ,-
Comprchcnsivc Plan Designations
Prepared by:
Community Development
Deparunenl
Adopted September 12, 1994
Revised January 10, 1996
See City Comprehensive Plan for lext
relating to revisions.
.. B.BWI;n<"t'1I
_ C-Civic
B CEM-C....."Y
m CH-CI"ucll
_ GC~oIrC......e
_ HR-Higl> Dcnrity R..idrntiaJ
o H.d..trial
~ IN-ln.titutioaal
L:J Lake
~ LB-Lunllc-d Bu,inc'u
D LR-\.ow D...rity R..idrntial
~ MR.Mediwn O~.ity Rcsid4!nriaJ
_ p.hf\;
'c:J Ripalo(W.y
DB RlIilro.d TracL:.
~ S-Sebool
_ SC -Sboppu.s C..e..
~ W.W.tn Pondan,.
C] WW.Wata W(l.rl.
o
lllis map is to b~ u~ as a d~piction of
Cily of Ros~vil1~ land US~ goals and policies only.
500 1000 1500 2000 F~~t D.
N
Soun:e: IUmocy Co...ty Public Wocb pared base map,
~
~
6110 Blue Circle Dr.
Suit.e 1100
Winnet.obka. )In.
~3
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(612) 933-CW12
Fax: (<<112) 933-1153
AGURE 8
\jJ!~:~~:>Y ::~~
~I :~- ' /:;_,::~~ \~\~
I.~
~
D[~.~..;rL.LI~
-~ ~ 1o..::n:::J~-l.-::K~-.I~,Lj
- City of Roseville
Community Development Department
February 16, 1996
~:..
'~''''3"-~'}
, ~~F
,f~ ',: :: ':-." c' . / Highway 36
~ ;, i~",'--ln17i..9--f-..-
, ~tl" - lliJi'~C-~-IW V< 'h~~'C:; .J~;f1~fl: ~ 1_,. '
-A~ " ~'=::r'; \ ;,: / 'f::n\ 1L::-~t:j ~::'-::::;::,I ,,:~i
wtl" I ' , " , IN---' - ~,' ,. ,I 'I '. <."..
:w _ .. -." " : I ,,,........... , +.. ,_
,<:> ~ I I 'BIB:--..-, r-:-' r>/''-1 "ln : I ',-::.J ,! Ii a:I '~-..
, ',. 1~~~IJiuI\JJ; ":D;I-1-_J ; 0;11;:
~~! \ ~rmTIDi ! ii B-J' _
lfJ'Tf11TI: oi ===, .' '~"ffi
;. n-:-l1Tl~ ~ ,_; ~ r...-:-rrn fTT"I":-r ri.--!-i. .
__L.__
o 500 1000 1500 2000 Fcct
'---- -
Zoning Designations
OBI-Limited Business _ PUD-P\anncd Unit Dcvdopmcnt
~ BIB-Limited Retail D RI..singlc F.mJy
_ B2-RdaiI Business 1-:f7~:,1 R1-Two Family
_ B3.(;cncW Business _ R3-GcncnI Residence
III 84.Rdail Oftioe Service _ R3A-T1ln:c to Twenty FOtu F:unily
_ B6..Qftice Pul.: _ R4.1lucc 10 Fow Family
o I1-Lisht Industrial e R6-T~
_ 12-<;C~ Industrial _ R7-ApartrncnI P"k
_ 12A-Sp:ciallndustrial 0 Righi o(Way
o LUe E!HB ~Ir""d T,..b
_ SC.ShoppIn<< CcnlCf
Zoning Revision May 23, 1994 (PF 2(42)
1bc zoning designations shown on !his map must
be interpreted by !he City's Zoning Code and policies,
These zoning designations are subject 10 change as part
of !he City's ongoing planning process.
See Waler Management Overlay District Map
for .dditronaJ boww1aries.
~
N
~
~
OlIO Blue Circle Dr_
Suite 1100
I4hmetonka. )lD.
~!I:U3
ZONING MAP
(612) 033~
Fas:: (612) 1133-1153
FIGURE 9
j
j
j
!
t~
Ix
!it
I
II ~
le~!
6
.
-. ~
a~:i
Sl~~
"
~~L~
~ ,,"l
i w~~
~ "0
- i
~~f
i~~~
;
~
~
6
~
. :~
i!~~i
~.'
.os
;,
;
<
)
J
}
ii
<<
i
I
;
~
;
I
r
a <n'OII AJJIIOO
;;
=
..
...
I
~
I
..
d
<:>
~
.Of: :!
:; j
Ao ..
::! .9
'" c.
i ~ ~
~ ~ ~
:! ~ ~
~ ~-....
Ao <:>-
~ ~C-'
~ -...
~ ~ r.....,
U ..-
=
-<
o
u
i!
!
i
. M
~.~
~ ;~~
I ~~::
., % 8i
~ ~.x
~ -
.~ %~
~ r~~
.~ .<.~t
1 n~
~ ::!.5-
~ ~
~
~ g.,
j"M
~ ~~~
I :;..
!!!~H
..I ~~-
8
g
>,
~
iJ
>
2
c.
c.
<::
c
"
0:
u
Vi
u
~
~
-"
:;;
c.
~
~
u
C
u '~
,~ ~
~ .5
8: ~
::- 1::
u c
~ u
~ '1
.... ~
L g!
] j
ATTACHMENT A
Air Quality (CO) Monitoring Results
01/04/01 11:54 FAX 763 559 2202
1
ERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
BA LIESCH
Clv cout
_n_~002/0Jl
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - V
PAGE 1
JOB: CENTRE POINTE (ROSEVILLE, MN)
CLEVELAND & COUNTY C INTERSECTION
DATE: 01/04/01 TIME: 10:19
S
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS ;:::
U ;:::
MIXH ==
0.0 CM/S
1.0 M/S
1000. M
VD = 0.0 CM/S
CLAS = 4 (D)
AMB;::: 0.0 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
*
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION
LENGTH BRG TYPE
VPH
*
(FT) (DEG)
*
ZO
ATIM
RUN
175. CM
60. MINUTE
*
EF
Xl
(G/MI)
LINK COORDINATES (FT)
H W V/C QUEUE
Y1 X2
(FT) (FT) (VEH)
------------------------*------------------------------------
Y2
----*----------------------------------------------------------
6.0 *
6.0 *
2.0 *
0.0 *
6.0 *
4.0 *
4.0 *
9.0 *
0.0 *
4.0 *
6.0 *
5.4 *
3.0 *
1. COUNTY
1000.
2. COUNTY
47.
3. COUNTY
33.
4. COUNTY
12.
5. COUNTY
850.
6. COUNTY
1000.
7. COUNTY
76.
8. COUNTY
37.
9. COUNTY
72.
10. COUNTY
850.
11. Clvlnd
2077.
12. Clvlnd
119.
13. Clvlnd
19.
C WB Appr. *
90. AG 633.
C WB Queue *
90. AG 779.
C WB Q.R *
90. AG 390 .
C WE Q.L *
90. AG 390.
C WE Dep. *
270. AG 633.
C EB Appr. *
270. AG 1197.
C EB Queue *
270. AG 779.
C EB Q.R *
270. AG 390.
C EB Q.L *
270. AG 390.
C EB Dep. *
90. AG 1197.
NB Appr. *
2 95. AG 751 .
NB Queue *
295. AG 390.
NB Q.R *
295. AG 390.
1015.0
12.0
1015.0
100.0
1015.0
100.0
1015.0
100.0
865.0
12.0
965.0
12.0
965.0
100.0
965.0
100.0
965.0
100.0
1115.0
12.0
1006.0
12.0
1006.0
100.0
1012.0
100.0
Page 1
0.0
0.0
166.0
48.0
166.0 1061.8
24.0 0.15 2.4
172.0 1048.0
12.0 0.20 1.7
160.0 1026.8
12.0 0.07 0.6
166.0 15.0
48.0
134.0
48.0
134.0 888.7
24.0 0.24 3.9
129.0 928.3
12.0 0.22 1. 9
140.0 892.6
12.0 0.44 3.7
134.0 1965.0
48.0
125.0
48.0
125.0
12.0 0.37
125.0
12.0 0.11
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2015.0
-35.0
-875.0
898.4
6.0
995.0
1.0
16
16
17
16
16
13
13
12
14
13
100
17
13
01/04/01 11:55 FAX 763 559 2202
0.6 *
5.0 *
5.0 *
5.0 *
6.2 *
3.7 *
7.3 *
4.0 *
1
14. Clvlnd
13.
15. Clvlnd
1000.
16. Clvlnd
1000.
17. Clvlnd
1000.
18. Clvlnd
61.
19. Clvlnd
9.
20. Clvlnd
62.
21. Clvlnd
2168.
NB Q.L
295. AG
NB Dep.
360. AG
SB Appr.
360. AG
SB Appr.
360. AG
SB Queue
3 60. AG
SB Q.R
3 6 O. AG
SB Q.L
360. AG
SB Dep.
296. AG
Clv cout
BA LI ESC"
779.
75l.
*
565.
*
565.
*
390.
*
390.
*
390.
*
5651.
*
1000.0
100.0
1006.0
12.0
974.0
12.0
974.0
12.0
974.0
100.0
968.0
100.0
980.0
100.0
974.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
125.0 987.9
24.0 0.08 0.7
275.0 1006.0
48.0
175.0 974.0
60.0
175.0 974.0
60.0
175.0 974.0
12.0 0.19 3.1
175.0 968.0
12.0 0.05 0.4
175.0 980.0
12.0 0.38 3.2
25.0 -975.0
60.0
. ~~~_o~_
13
127
117
117
23
18
23
97
PAGE 2
JOB: CENTRE POINTE (ROSEVILLE, MN) RUN
CLEVELAND & COUNTY C INTERSECTION
DATE: 01/04/01 TIME: 10:19
OACH
L
*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
--------------------------------
LINK DESCRIPTION
SATURATION IDLE
FLOW RATE
EM FAC
SIGNAL
*
TYPE
*
CYCLE
ARRIVAL
LENGTH
RATE
( SEC)
*
0.0
0.0
RED
CLEARANCE
APPR
VO
H) (VPH) (gm/hr)
------------------------*------------------------------------
(VP
---------------~----------------------------
8
1
4
8
8
1
3
2. COUNTY
3401
3. COUNTY
1770
4. COUNTY
1770
7. COUNTY
3437
8. COUNTY
1770
9. COUNTY
1770
12. Clvlnd
3465
13. Clvlnd
C WB Queue
290.60
C WB Q.R
290.60
C WB Q.L
290.60
C EB Queue
290.60
C EB Q.R
290.60
C EB Q.L
290.60
NB Queue
290.60
NB Q.R
*
80
3
80
3
80
3
80
3
80
3
80
3
80
3
80
2
*
2
*
2
*
2
*
2
*
2
*
2
*
Page 2
TIME
LOST TIME
(SEC)
(SEC)
40
4.0
40
4.0
40
4.0
40
4.0
40
4.0
40
4.0
40
4.0
40
4.0
42
15
5
69
16
33
54
8
01104/01
11: 55
FAX 763 559 2202
BA LIESCH
----
. @004/0]..1.
Clv cout
6 1770 290.60 2 3
14. Clvlnd NB Q.L * 80 40 4.0 12
2 1770 290.60 2 3
18. Clvlnd SB Queue * 80 40 4.0 28
0 3539 290.60 2 3
19. Clvlnd SB Q.R * 80 40 4.0 4
0 1770 290.60 2 3
20. Clvlnd SB Q.L * 80 40 4.0 28
5 1770 290.60 2 3
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (FT)
*
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
*
-------------------------*------------------------------------
-*
1. REC 1 (SW) * 500.0 2075.0 6.0
*
2. REC 2 (W) * 425.0 3010.0 6.0
*
3. REC 3 (W) * 445.0 3980.0 6.0
*
4. REC 4 (W) * 435.0 4335.0 6.0
*
5. REC 5 (NE) * 1080.0 5530.0 6.0
*
6. REC 6 (NE) * 1060.0 4665.0 6.0
*
7. REC 7 (SE) * 1070.0 1700.0 6.0
*
1
PAGE 3
JOB: CENTRE POINTE (ROSEVILLE, MN) RUN
CLEVELAND & COUNTY C INTERSECTION
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE:
0.-360.
Page 3
01104/01
11:55 FAX 763 559 2202
BA LIESCH
-.-._--
141 005/0 II
Clv cout
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR) * RECl REC2 REC3 REC4 REC5 REC6 REC7
------*------------------------------------------
o . * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
20. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
30. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
40. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
50. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
60. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
70. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
80. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
90. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
100. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
110. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
120. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
130. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
140. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
150. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
160. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
170. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
180. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
190. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
200. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
210. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
220. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
230. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
240. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
250. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
260. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
270. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
280. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
290. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
300. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
310. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
320. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
330. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
340. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
350. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
360. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
------*------------------------------------------
MAX * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
DEGR. * 0 0 0 0 0 0 180
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 0.10 PPM AT 180 DEGREES FROM REC7
1
Page 4
01/04/01 11:56 FAX 763 559 2202
BA LIESCH
Clv cout
-,
!4J006/011
PAGE 4
JOB: CENTRE POINTE (ROSEVILLE, MN) RUN
CLEVELAND & COUNTY C INTERSECTION
DATE: 01/04/01 TIME: 10:19
RECEPTOR - LINK MATRIX FOR THE ANGLE PRODUCING
THE MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION FOR EACH RECEPTOR
* CO/LINK (PPM)
* ANGLE (DEGREES)
* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 REC5 REC6 REC7
LINK # * 0 0 0 0 0 0 180
-------*------------------------------------------
1 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
7 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
8 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
9 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
11 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
12 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
13 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
14 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
15 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
16 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
17 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
18 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
19 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
20 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
21 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Page 5
01/04/01 11:56 FAX 763 559 2202
BA LIESCH
Clv dout
'4ULQ} / 0 11 ,
1
ERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - V
PAGE 1
JOB: CENTRE POINTE (ROSEVILLE, MN)
CLEVELAND & COUNTY D INTERSECTION
DATE: 01/04/01 TIME: 10:52
RUN
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS =
U =
MIXH =
0.0 CM/S
1. 0 M/ S
1000. M
VD = 0.0 CM/S
CLAS = 4 (D)
AMB::: 0.0 PPM
ZO 175. CM
ATIM = 60. MINUTE
s
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
*
LINK DESCRIPTION
LENGTH BRG TYPE
*
*
EF
Xl
(G/MI)
LINK COORDINATES (FT)
H W V/C QUEUE
Y1 X2
(FT) (FT) (VEH)
Y2
VPH
*
(FT) (DEG)
------------------------*------------------------------------
----*----------------------------------------------------------
1. COUNTY D WE Appr. * 1050.0 5656.0 2050.0 565
6.0 * 1000. 90. AG 459. 12.0 0.0 48.0
2. COUNTY D WE Appr. * 1050.0 5656.0 2050.0 565
6.0 * 1000. 90. AG 459. 12.0 0.0 48.0
3. COUNTY D WB Queue * 1050.0 5656.0 1090.7 565
6.0 * 41- 90. AG 779. 100.0 0.0 24.0 0.18 2.1
4. COUNTY D WE Q.R * 1050.0 5662.0 1057.0 566
2.0 * 7. 90. AG 390. 100.0 0.0 12.0 0.03 0.4
5. COUNTY D WB Q.L * 1050.0 5650.0 1061.8 565
0.0 * 12. 90. AG 390. 100.0 0.0 12.0 0.05 0.6
6. COUNTY D WB Dep. * 900.0 5656.0 -100.0 565
6.0 * 1000. 270. AG 459. 12.0 0.0 48.0
7. COUNTY D EB Appr. * 1000.0 5624.0 0.0 562
4.0 * 1000. 270. AG 781. 12.0 0.0 48.0
8 . COUNTY D EB Appr. * 1000.0 5624.0 0.0 562
4.0 * 1000. 270. AG 781. 12.0 0.0 48.0
9. COUNTY D EB Queue * 1000.0 5624.0 959.5 562
4.0 * 40. 270. AG 779. 100.0 0.0 24.0 0.19 2.1
10. COUNTY D EB Q.R * 1000.0 5618.0 939.9 561
8.0 * 60. 270. AG 390. 100.0 0.0 12.0 0.28 3.1
11. COUNTY D EB Q.L * 1000.0 5630.0 970.3 563
0.0 * 3D. 270. AG 390. 100.0 0.0 12.0 0.14 1.5
12. COUNTY D EB Dep. * 1150.0 5624.0 2150.0 562
4.0 * 1000. 90. AG 78l. 12.0 0.0 48.0
13. Clvlnd NB Appr. * 1041.0 5615.0 1041. 0 461
5.0 * 1000. 180. AG 1077. 12.0 0.0 48.0
Page 1
01/04/01 11:56 FAX 763 559 2202
5.5 *
2.6 *
4.6 *
5.0 *
5.0 *
5.0 *
8.7 *
0.3 *
9.4 *
5.0 *
1
14. Clvlnd
19.
15. Clvlnd
42.
16. Clvlnd
2780.
17. Clvlnd
1000.
18. Clvlnd
1000.
19. Clvlnd
1000.
20. Clvlnd
4.
21. Clvlnd
15.
22. Clvlnd
4.
23. Clvlnd
1000.
NB Queue
180. AG
NB Q.R
180. AG
NB Q.L
180. AG
NB Dep.
360. AG
SB Appr.
360. AG
SB Appr.
360. AG
SB Queue
360. AG
SB Q.R
360. AG
BB Q.L
360. AG
SB Dep.
180. AG
BA LI ESCH
Clv clout
779.
390.
390.
*
1077.
*
125.
*
125.
779.
*
390.
*
390.
125.
*
1041.0
100.0
1047.0
100.0
1035.0
100.0
1041.0
12.0
1009.0
12.0
1009.0
12.0
1009.0
100.0
1003.0
100.0
1015.0
100.0
1009.0
12.0
5615.0 1041.0
0.0 24.0 0.12 1.0
5615.0 1047.0
0.0 12.0 0.27 2.2
5615.0 1035.0
0.0 12.0 1.56 141.2
5765.0 1041.0
0.0 48.0
5665.0 1009.0
0.0 60.0
5665.0 1009.0
0.0 60.0
5665.0 1009.0
0.0 24.0 0.01 0.2
5665.0 1003.0
0.0 12.0 0.06 0.8
5665.0 1015.0
0.0 12.0 0.02 0.2
5515.0 1009.0
0.0 60.0
@ 008/011
559
557
283
676
666
666
566
568
566
451
PAGE 2
JOB: CENTRE POINTE (ROSEVILLE, MN) RUN
CLEVELAND & COUNTY D INTERSECTION
DATE: 01/04/01 TIME: 10:52
OACH
L
*
*
*
*
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
--------------------------------
LINK DESCRIPTION
SATURATION IDLE
FLOW RATE
EM FAC
SIGNAL
TYPE
*
CYCLE
ARRIVAL
LENGTH
RATE
(SEC)
*
*
RED
CLEARANCE
APPR
VO
H) (VPH) (gm/hr)
------------------------*------------------------------------
(VP
TIME
LOST TIME
(SEC)
(SEC)
--------------------------------------------
3
2
4
o
5
3. COUNTY
2426
4. COUNTY
2426
5. COUNTY
2426
9. COUNTY
2319
10. COUNTY
2319
11. COUNTY
D WE Queue
290.60
D WE Q.R
290.60
D WE Q.L
290.60
D EB Queue
290.60
D EB Q.R
290.60
D EB Q.L
*
2
*
2
*
2
*
2
*
2
*
Page 2
80
3
80
3
80
3
80
3
80
3
80
40
4.0
40
4.0
40
4.0
40
4.0
40
4.0
40
4.0
37
3
5
37
27
13
01104/01
11:57 FAX 763 559 2202
BA LI ESCH
141009/011
Clv dout
6 2319 290.60 2 3
14. Clvlnd NB Queue * 80 40 4.0 17
9 1717 290.60 2 3
15. Clvlnd NB Q.R * 80 40 4.0 19
4 1717 290.60 2 3
16. Clvlnd NB Q.L * 80 40 4.0 70
4 1060 290.60 2 3
20. Clvlnd SB Queue * 80 40 4.0 3
5 2827 290.60 2 3
2l. Clvlnd SB Q.R * 80 40 4.0 7
0 2827 290.60 2 3
22. Clvlnd SB Q.L * 80 40 4.0 2
0 2827 290.60 2 3
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (FT)
*
RECEPTOR * X y Z
*
-------------------------*------------------------------------
-*
1. REC 1 (SW) * 500.0 2075.0 6.0
*
2 . REC 2 (W) * 425.0 3010.0 6.0
*
3. REC 3 (W) * 445.0 3980.0 6.0
*
4. REC 4 (W) * 435.0 4335.0 6.0
*
5. REC 5 (NE) * 1080.0 5530.0 6.0
*
6 . REC 6 (NE) * 1060.0 4665.0 6.0
*
7. REC 7 (BE) * 1070.0 1700.0 6.0
*
1
PAGE 3
JOB: CENTRE POINTE (ROSEVILLE, MN) RUN
CLEVELAND & COUNTY D INTERSECTION
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
Page 3
01/04/Ul
11:57 VAX 763 559 2202
BA LIESCH
-..---
141010/011
Clv dout
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR) * REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 REC5 REC6 REC7
------*------------------------------------------
o . * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.7 0.2
10. * 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.1
20. * 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0
30. * 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0
40. * 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0
50. * 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0
60. * 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0
70. * 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0
80. * 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0
90. * 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
100. * 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
110. * 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
120. * 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
130. * 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0
140. * 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0
150. * 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0
160. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0
170. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.0
180. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.3 0.0
190. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.7 0.0
200. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.6 0.0
210. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.5 0.0
220. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.4 0.0
230. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.3 0.0
240. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.2 0.0
250. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.2 0.0
260. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.2 0.0
270. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.2 0.0
280. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.2 0.0
290. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.2 0.0
300. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.2 0.0
310. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.4 0.0
320. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.5 0.0
330. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.7 0.0
340. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.9 0.0
350. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.0 0.1
360. * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.7 0.2
------*------------------------------------------
MAX * 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 2.1 2.0 0.2
DEGR. * 20 10 20 40 310 350 0
Page 4
01/04/01 11:57 FAX 763 559 2202
BA LIESCH
Clv dout
~ Oll/Ql1
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.10 PPM AT 310 DEGREES FROM RECS
1
PAGE 4
JOB: CENTRE POINTE (ROSEVILLE, MN) RUN
CLEVELAND & COUNTY D INTERSECTION
DATE: 01/04/01 TIME: 10:52
RECEPTOR - LINK MATRIX FOR THE ANGLE PRODUCING
THE MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION FOR EACH RECEPTOR
* CO/LINK (PPM)
* ANGLE (DEGREES)
* RECl REC2 REC3 REC4 RECS REC6 REC7
LINK # * 20 10 20 40 310 350 0
-------*------------------------------------------
1 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3 * o .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
7 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
8 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
9 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
10 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
11 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
12 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
13 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.0
14 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
15 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
16 * 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 1.2 0.2
17 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
18 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
19 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
20 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
21 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
22 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
23 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Page 5
ATTACHMENT B
Noise Model Runs and Monitoring Results
01104101
BA LIESCH
10:56 FAX 763 559 2202
Cleveland and D
Morning
LIO ~ 74.25 at Receptor 5
L50 =: 64.40 at Receptor 5
Evening
LIO = 69.2 at Receptor 5
L50 ;:: 60,0 at Receptor 5
Cleveland and C
Moming
LI0'" 71.3 at Receptor 7
LSO = 64.9 at Receptor 7
Evening
110 = 71.9 at Receptor 7
L50 = 62.4 at Receptor 7
~o~.,.tw-\~j
[gj 002/006
~~~'b
01/04/01 10:56 FAX 763 559 2202
BA LIESCH
!4J003/006
04 d out
1
STAMINA 2.0/BCR
FHWA VERSION (MARCH 1982)
TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
DEVELOPED UNDER CONTRACT BY BBN
(INPUT UNITS- ENGLISH , OUTPUT UNITS- ENGLISH )
MODIFIED BY THE MINNESOTA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
FOR OPERATION ON A MS-DOS PERSONAL COMPUTER, 1985
CLEVELAND AVENUE/COUNTY ROAD D W/DEVELOPMENT - WEEKDAY PEAK, 2004
OPROGRAM INITIALIZATION PARAMETERS
HEIGHT
.00
1. 00
.00
8.00
2.30
CODE
1
2
3
4
5
DESCRIPTION
RECEIVER HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT
A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL ONLY
HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT FOR PASSENGER CARS
HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT FOR HEAVY TRUCKS
HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT FOR MEDIUM TRUCKS
( CARS)
(HT)
(MT)
o ROADWAY 1 ROADWAY PARAMETERS FOR CLEVELAND AVE (N/S) , 97_8%V
, 1.4%MT{ 0.8%HT
CLEVELAN
CLEVE LAN
VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES/HOUR SPEED
CARS 1176. 40.
HT 9. 40.
MT 17. 40.
------------COORDINATES-------------
X y Z
990.0 .0 .0
990.0 5900.0 .0
GRADE
o
o
o
o ROADWAY
2
ROADWAY PARAMETERS FOR COUNTY HIGHWAY D (E/W)
o
VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES/HOUR SPEED
CARS 1212. 40.
HT 10. 40.
MT 17. 40.
------------COORDINATES-------------
X Y Z GRADE
Page 1
01/04/01 10:57 FAX 763 559 2202
BA LIESCH
@004l006
04 d out
COUNTY H
COUNTY H
1RECElVERS
. 0
1200.0
5640.0
5640.0
.0
.0
o
o
o
------------COORDINATES-------------
R-I
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
R-6
R-7
1 ALPHA
X Y.
500.0 2075.0
425.0 3010.0
445.0 3980.0
435.0 4335.0
1080.0 5530.0
1060.0 4665.0
1070.0 1700.0
FACTORS - ROADWAY ACROSS/RECEIVER DOWN
z
.0
. 0
.0
.0
. 0
.0
.0
1 "" .0 .0
2 'I< .0 .0
3 "" .0 .0
4 * .0 .0
5 * .0 .0
6 * .0 .0
7 * .0 .0
1 SHIELDING FACTORS - ROADWAY ACROSS,RECEIVER DOWN
1 * .0
.2 * .0
3 * .0
4 'I< .0
5 * .0
6 * .0
7 * .0
1CLEVELAND
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
. 0
AVENUE/COUNTY ROAD D W/DEVELOPMENT - WEEKDAY PEAK, 2004
ORECElVER LEQ (H) SIG LIO L50 L90
R-I 56.7 2.8 59.4 55.8 52.1
R-2 56.1 2.7 58.7 55.3 51. 8
R-3 56.4 2.6 59.0 55.6 52.2
R-4 56.4 2.6 59.0 55.6 52.3
R-5 66.6 4.2 70.0 64.6 59.3
R-6 65.8 5.1 69.4 62.8 56.2
R-7 65.2 5.0 68.7 62.3 55.9
Page 2
01/04/01 10:57 FAX 763 559 2202
BA LIESCH
~005/006
04 c out
1
STAMINA 2.0/BCR
FHWA VERSION (MARCH 1982)
TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
DEVELOPED UNDER CONTRACT BY BBN
(INPUT UNITS- ENGLISH , OUTPUT UNITS- ENGLISH )
MODIFIED BY THE MINNESOTA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
FOR OPERATION ON A MS-DOS PERSONAL COMPUTER, 1985
CLEVELAND AVENUE/COUNTY ROAD C W/DEVELOPMENT - WEEKDAY PEAK, 2004
OPROGRAM INITIALIZATION PARAMETERS
HEIGHT
.00
1. 00
.00
8.00
2.30
CODE
1
2
3
4
5
DESCRIPTION
RECEIVER HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT
A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL ONLY
HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT FOR PASSENGER CARS
HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT FOR HEAVY TRUCKS
HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT FOR MEDIUM TRUCKS
(CARS)
(HT)
(MT)
o ROADWAY 1 ROADWAY PARAMETERS FOR CLEVELAND AVE (N/S). 97.8%V
. 1.4%MT, 0.8%HT
CLEVE LAN
CLEVELAN
VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES/HOOR SPEED
CARS 1612. 40.
HT 13. 40.
MT 23. 40.
---------~--COORDINATES-------------
X Y Z
990.0 .0 .0
990.0 5900.0 .0
GRADE
o
o
o
o ROADWAY
2
ROADWAY PARAMETERS FOR COUNTY HIGHWAY C (E/W)
o
VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES/HOUR SPEED
CARS 1780. 40.
HT 15. 40.
MT 25. 40.
------------COORDINATES-------------
X Y Z GRADE
Page 1
01/04/01 10:57 FAX 763 559 2202
BA LIESCH
I4J 006/006
04 c out
COUNTY H
COUNTY H
lRECEIVERS
.0
1200.0
150.0
150.0
.0
.0
o
o
o
R-l
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
R-6
R-7
1 ALPHA
------------COORDINATES-------------
X Y Z
500.0 2075.0 .0
425.0 3010.0 .0
445.0 3980.0 .0
435.0 4335.0 .0
1080.0 5530.0 .0
1060.0 4665.0 .0
1070.0 1700.0 .0
FACTORS - ROADWAY ACROSS , RECEIVER DOWN
1 * .0 .0
2 * .0 .0
3 * .0 .0
4 * .0 .0
5 * .0 .0
6 * .0 .0
7 * .0 .0
1 SHIELDING FACTORS - ROADWAY ACROSS, RECEIVER DOWN
1 * .0
2 * .0
3 * .0
4 * .0
5 * .0
6 * .0
7 * .0
1 CLEVELAND
.0
. 0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVENUE/COUNTY
ROAD C W/DEVELOPMENT - WEEKDAY PEAK, 2004
ORECElVER LEQ (H) SIG LIO L50 L90
R-1 58.3 2.4 60.7 57.6 54.5
R-2 57.5 2.3 59.8 56.8 53.8
R-3 57.5 2.4 59.9 56.8 53.7
R-4 57.3 2.5 59.8 56.6 53.5
R-5 65.8 4.6 69.2 63.4 57.5
R-6 67.1 4.8 70.6 64.5 58.4
R-7 66.6 4.6 70.1 64.2 58.4
Page 2
ATTACHMENT C
Traffic Impact Report
TRAFFIC IMP ACT REPORT ADDENDUM
The purpose of this addendum is to update the traffic study completed for the proposed Centre
Pointe Business Park development in the Spring of 200 1. In particular, this addendum documents
the impacts associated with modifying the single tenant office space use from 6,600 square feet to
21,500 square feet.
To assess the impact of the additional office space, this analysis estimated the additional traffic
anticipated for the expanded use, and reanalyzed the traffic operations at the study area
intersections through the use of Synchro and RCS. The analyses of the traffic impacts due to the
increased office space indicate no change in operations. The following discussion summarizes
the findings.
Trip Generation
In order to assess the off site traffic impacts of the proposed development it is necessary to
estimate the anticipated traffic conditions one year after its completion, thereby creating a
baseline condition. Subsequently, the estimate traffic generated by the development is added to
the baseline and comparison of the no-build and build conditions is conducted. In this case the
baseline conditions remain as stated in the traffic impact report.
The trip generation for the Centre Pointe Business Park was first estimated in 1997 for the
original approved land use, using Trip Generation published by ITE. Table 1 presents the
original estimate and is provided for comparison purposes. It is noted that the trip generation
estimate has been reduced by ten percent to account for the shared trip potential associated with
multi-use sites.
Table 1
Trip Generation for Centre Pointe Business Park
Approved in 1997
PM Peak Hour
Land Use Size Daily Entering Exiting Total
Trios Trios
General Office 342,322 sq, ft. 3557 79 380 459
ShowroomfW arehouse 156,565 Sq. ft. 764 41 75 116
Business Hotel 190 Rooms 1381 70 48 118
High Turnover Restaurant 14,100 Sq.ft. 2508 102 80 182
Subtotal 8210 292 583 875
10% Multi Use Reduction -821 -29 -58 -87
Net New Trips 7389 263 525 788
The estimate was revised in February of 2000 and again in the Spring of2001. Table 2 presents
the Spring 2001 estimate.
Table 2
Trip Generation for Centre Pointe Business Park
Approved in Spring 2001
PM Peak Hour
Land Use Size Daily Entering Exiting Total
Trips Trips
General Office 230,311 sq. ft. 2007 49 239 288
Corporate Office 383,157 sq. ft. 2874 51 413 464
Business Hotel 189 Rooms 1374 70 47 117
Business Hotel 125 Rooms 909 47 31 78
Quality Restaurant 85 Seats 243 15 7 22
Single Tenant Office 6,600 sq. ft. 76 2 10 12
Subtotal 7483 234 747 981
10% Multi Use Reduction -748 -23 -75 -98
Net New Trips 6735 211 672 883
The current trip generation potential was also estimated through the use of Trip Generation
resulting in the information provided in Table 3. The estimate includes the same ten-percent
shared trip reduction factor.
Table 3
Trip Generation for Current Proposed
Centre Pointe Business Park
PM Peak Hour
Land Use Size Daily Entering Exiting Total
Trips Trips
General Office 230,311 SQ. ft. 2007 49 239 288
Corporate Office 383,157 SQ. ft. 2874 51 413 464
Business Hotel 189 Rooms 1374 70 47 117
Business Hotel 125 Rooms 909 47 31 78
Quality Restaurant 85 Seats 243 15 7 22
Single Tenant Office 21,500 sq. ft. 249 5 22 37
Subtotal 7,656 237 759 996
10% Multi Use Reduction -766 -24 -76 -100
Net New Trips 6,890 213 683 896
A comparison of the current trip generation estimate with the original estimate and the Spring
2001 estimate shows that the daily trip generation potential is 499 trips less than the original
estimate but 155 greater than the Spring 2001 estimate. The peak hour potential is 112 greater
than the original and 13 greater than the Spring 2001 estimate.
Capacity Analysis
The estimated site generated traffic has been distributed through the study area intersections and
combined with the baseline traffic. The study intersections were then reanalyzed to reflect the 13
additional peak hour site generated trips. Table 4 compares the results of the approved 2001 land
use with the current proposed use.
Table 4
Level of Service Comparison
Intersection Approved Current Proposed
Sprin2 2001 LOS LOS
Cleveland Ave/Co. Rd. C D D
Cleveland Ave/NB 1-35W Ramps C C
Cleveland Ave/Co. Rd. D C C
NB 1-35 Ramps/Co. Rd. D C C
SB 1-35 Ramps/Co. Rd. D A A
Veritas Way/Cleveland Ave C C
Co. Rd. C2/CIeveland Ave C C
Lydia Ave/Cleveland Ave C C
Brenner Ave/Cleveland Ave C C
N. Centre Pointe Dr/Cleveland Ave F E*
· Note: the Spring 200 I analysis used an earlier version of HCS software to analyze the unsignalized intersections resulting in a
marginally lower LOS,
It is noted that the overall operations are the same at the study area intersections, and remain at an
acceptable LOS D or better for all intersections except North Centre Pointe and Cleveland
Avenue.
Since there is no change to the traffic operations at the study area intersections associated with the
additional traffic generated by the expanded single tenant office use, the conclusions and
recommendations stated in the original study are still valid. No additional mitigation is
suggested.
TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT
FOR CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA
Prepared for:
RLK Kuusisto L TD
Ryan Companies US, Ine.
Prepared by:
Benshoof & Associates, Ine.
January 15,2001
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES
..0 ...... ........................ .......... ... ............... ...... ......... '0.
LIST OF TABLES
.......... .0.................................................... ...... ...... ... '0'
11
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
History of Centre Pointe Business Park and Prior Traffic Studies . . . . . . . . . ... . . . 1
Approach ................................................................................. 2
FRAMEWORK FOR TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND ANALYSES
Centre Pointe Business Park ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ..' ... ... ... 4
Roadway Characteristics ........................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Future Roadway Changes ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .,. ... ... ... ... ... ... .,. ... ... ... 5
TRAFFIC FORECASTS
Traffic Forecast Methodology...... .., ... ... ... ... ... .., ... ... ... ... ... ......... ... ..... 8
Trip Generation ....... ... ...... ............... .................. ... ... ... ......... ...... 9
Trip Distribution . . . . . . , . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. 11
Traffic Volumes . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . , . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. 11
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Approach ..............................,.................................................. 14
Signalized Intersection Analyses... ......... ......... .., ... ...... ................ ...... 14
Unsignalized Intersection Analyses.... ......... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ...... ... .,. .... 16
CONCLUSIONS ...... .~.... ... ... ...... ...... ...... ..................... ...... ... ............... 18
APPENDIX ....................................................................................... 19
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
21-1 PROJECT LOCATION... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . .. ... ... ." ... ... ., . ... .., 3
21-2 EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS ... ...... '.,...... .., .., .., ,.. ... ... 6
21-3 FUTURE INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 7
21-4 'TRIP DISTRIBUTION ... ... '" ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... '" ... ... ... ... 12
21-5 2004 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES........................... 13
-1-
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
21-1 TRIP GENERATION FOR CENTRE POINTE
BUSINESS PARK APPROVED IN 1997 ... ........................... ......... 9
21-2 TRIP GENERATION FOR CENTRE POINTE
BUSINESS PARK APPROVED IN FEBRUARY 2000 ........................ 9
21-3 TRIP GENERATION FOR CURRENT PROPOSED
CENTRE POINTEBUSINESS PARK ... ... ... ... ......... ...... ............... ... 10
21-4 LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ...... ... .,. 15
21-5 LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS... ... ... 18
11
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The purpose of this traffic study is to detennine what impact a proposed increase in office
space in the Centre Pointe Business Park will have on the adjacent roadway system. The
results ofthis study will be used by the City ofRoseville during its development review
process and will be included as part of a voluntary Environmental Assessment
Worksheet. The Centre Pointe Business Park is located south of County Road D between
I-35Wand Cleveland Avenue in the City ofRoseville.
mSTORY OF CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK AND PRIOR TRAFFIC STUDIES
The Veritas Software Company ("Veritas") proposes to expand its corporate facilities by
approximately 122,000 square feet within a portion of the Centre Pointe Business Park.
Ryan Companies US, Inc. is assisting Veritas in the development of its corporate
, facilities.
In 1985, Woodbridge Properties, Inc. proposed constructing Centre Pointe, which
included 647,080 square feet of office and garden/office/service space. As part of the
approval process, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, Traffic Study, and
Development Plans were prepared for the City ofRoseville in December of 1985. In
February 1986, the City ofRoseville adopted a negative declaration on the need for an
Environmental Impact Statement, and approved Woodbridge's development plans.
Woodbridge constructed supporting infrastructure for Centre Pointe (internal roads,
stonnwater ponds, and utilities) and three buildings. Due to market conditions,
Woodbridge did not complete the project.
In January of 1997, Ryan Companies US, Inc. became the developer of Centre Pointe and
submitted an EA W, Traffic Study, and related Development Plans. Additionally, an
Indirect Source Permit was issued by the Minnesota Pollution C~mtrol Agency. The
Traffic Study submitted by Ryan was prepared by the OSM firm dated November 1996.
Another Traffic Study was prepared by the BRW firm (March 1997), on behalf of the
City ofRoseville. The City used the BRW Traffic Study for its decisions concerning the
EA Wand Development Plans.
The Ryan proposal included a total of 619,600 square feet; this total did not include the
three buildings already constructed by Woodbridge. In March 1997, the City again
adopted a negative declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement for
the revised Centre Pointe. In April 1997, the City approved the revised Centre Pointe
Development Plans and Planned Unit Development.
In February, 2000, the 1997 PUD was administratively amended to allow an increase in
building square footage by 100.10 (61,464 square feet) in Centre Pointe. The southern 16
acres of Centre Pointe were sold to Veritas in 2000. Veritas is experiencing exponential
growth and needs more office space than was approved in the amended PUD. The
122,000 square foot increase in the PUD now proposed would be accomplished by
redesigning two proposed buildings and adding a parking structure. When approved, the
Centre Pointe Business Puk
-1-
Jamwy IS, 2001
Veritas property will become a fully integrated corporate campus. This redesign for the
Veritas property represents a total expansion of 183,330 square feet of office space, as
compared to the existing Centre Pointe project as described in the 1997 PUD.
APPROACH
This study updates traffic forecasts and analyses prepared by the BR W firm in 1997 to
account for the previously mentioned changes to the Centre Pointe Business Park. Figure
21-1 illustrates the project location and the ten intersections that have been examined.
Nine of the examined intersections were evaluated in 1997 by the BRW finn, and the
tenth (Veritas Way/Cleveland Avenue) was approved and constructed after 1997. All
phases of the Centre Pointe Business Park are expected to be completed by 2003. Traffic
forecasts and analyses were completed for 2004, the first year following completion of
development. The weekday p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts were developed for the
following three development scenarios to provide a comparison between the traffic
impacts associated with Centre Pointe as previously approved and the current
development proposal:
· 2004 with development approved in 1997
· 2004 with development approved in February 2000
· 2004 with current proposed development
Centre Pointe Business Padc
-2-
Janwuy IS, 2001
, 'Q
0 t-- ,
0: V1
0:::
<J w
.-.J
W
/) W
::I:
?:
Vi
PROJECT e SIGNAUZED U
LOCATION INTERSECTION
Q EXAMINED
J 0 UNSIGNALIZED AI
INTERSECTION
i3 EXAMINED IL
Q::'
~ MAPl E
RD, C
C2
....... CENTE ( NNIAd
.t:J
F! ~
~
G TERJ
cJ
3=
u.J
1-4
, >
u.J a::
> >-4
. I..I.J . <t <t
0 <.) w u...
a::: a >
I--< <t 0::
a:: =>
l- I N
I-
Z 0:: t
CO. RD. C ::J -o::t
0
:E
APPROXlMAl'E SCALE
C ~
0 800'
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
RU< KUUSISTO TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 21-1
CENTRE POINTE
W BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES INC BUSINESS PARK PROJECT LOCATION
TllAllSPOATAT1ON ENGIIlEERSAJlD~~8
FRAMEWORK FOR TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND ANALYSES
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
The Centre Pointe Business Park approved in 1997 included approximately 150,000 sq.
ft. of showroom/office, approximately 350,000 square feet of general office space, two
hotels, and two restaurants. The changes to the development concept approved in early
2000 eliminated the office/showroom use and one of the restaurants and included an
approximate total of 560,000 sq. ft. of general office. The current proposed Centre Pointe
Business Park includes three hotels (one with a restaurant), approximately 230,000 sq. ft.
of general office, a 6,600 square foot office building and a corporate campus with about
380,000 sq. ft. of office space. Two hotels and all of the general office space have
already been constructed. Construction is currently underway for one of the three
buildings that will make up the Veritas corporate campus and the third hotel building.
ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Cleveland Avenue, County Road C, and County Road D will be the primary roadways
that provide access to/from the site. North of the ramps to/from northbound 1-35W,
Cleveland Avenue is a four lane undivided roadway. Between County Road C and the
northbound 1-35W ramps, Cleveland Avenue is a divided four-lane roadway. County
Road D (CSAH 19) is four lanes west of Cleveland Avenue and tapers to a two lane
section east of Cleveland Avenue. County Road C (CSAH 23) provides four lanes and is
divided west of the Cleveland Avenue intersection and undivided east of the Cleveland
Avenue intersection. Cleveland Avenue, County Road C, and County Road D are
classified by Ramsey County as arterial roadways. Centre Pointe Drive and Lydia
Avenue are existing local roads that serve the Centre Pointe Business Park. Veritas Way
is an existing private driveway on Cleveland Avenue that will also service development
traffic.
Existing intersection geometrics are illustrated in Figure 21-2 for the ten intersections
examined in this study. The following five examined intersections provide traffic signal
control:
· Cleveland Avenue / County Road C
· Cleveland Avenue / Northbound 1-35 Ramps
· Cleveland Avenue / County Road D
· Northbound 1-35 Ramps / County Road D
· Southbound 1-35 Ramps / County Road D
Traffic signals at these five intersections provide actuated control that responds to
changing traffic conditions. The intersection of County Road C and Cleveland Avenue
provides protected-only left turn phasing for all approaches. Left turns may advance only
when provided with a green arrow. The other four signalized intersections provide
protected/pennissive left turn signal phasing for selected approaches. Left turns are
provided with a lead phase and may also proceed with through traffic after yielding to
Centre Pointe Business Park
-4-
January IS, 2001
opposing traffic movements. Protected/permissive left turn phasing is provided for the
following intersection approaches:
'. Northbound approach at intersection of Cleveland Avenue and the ramps to
northbound I-35W
· Northbound approach at intersection of Cleveland Avenue and County Road D
· Eastbound approach at intersection of County Road D and the ramps to
northbound I-35W
· Eastbound and westbound approaches at intersection of County Road D and the
ramps to southbound 1-35W
Five unsignalized intersections were examined as part of this traffic study. They are
located on Cleveland Avenue and provide stop sign control for the approaches to
Cleveland Avenue. Traffic on Cleveland Avenue does not stop at these intersections.
The five unsignaiized intersections examined are:
· Veritas Way / Cleveland Avenue
· County Road C2 (South Centre Pointe Drive) I Cleveland Avenue
· Lydia Avenue I Cleveland Avenue
· Brenner Avenue I Cleveland Avenue
· North Centre Pointe Drive / Cleveland Avenue
FUTURE ROADWAY CHANGES
Several roadway changes are expected prior to the 2004 forecast and analysis year and
have been included in the traffic analysis. Construction of Twin Lakes Parkway is
expected in 2002 and 2003. This new roadway will intersect Cleveland Avenue opposite
the existing intersection with the northbound I-35W ramps and continue east to Fairview
and Snelling AveI}ues. ,In conjunction with the new roadway, the loop ITom northbound
1-35W to westbound County Road C will be removed. An additional southbound lane on
Cleveland Avenue ITom the existing ramp intersection to County Road C and ITee right
turn lanes will accommodate traffic that currently utilizes the loop. Figure 21-3
illustrates the geometries that are anticipated at this intersection and that have been used
in the traffic analyses. We expect that protectivelpennissive left turn phasing will be
provided for all four approaches of the new Cleveland Avenueffwin Lakes Parkway
intersection.
Improvements to County Roads C and D are also expected prior to 2004. County Road D
will be reconstructed and upgraded to a three or four lane facility east of Cleveland
Avenue. County Road C will be upgraded to a divided facility with reduced access and
dedicated left turn lanes at access locations. At this time, no specific changes have been
identified at the Cleveland Avenue intersections with County Roads C and D, aside ITom
the previously mentioned changes associated with construction of Twin Lakes Parkway.
Centre Pointe Busiuess Park
-5-
January IS, 2001
i 011.\ ;:
*1;: ~
+- COUNTY ROAD D
:1 1r it" ~ it
..
.!!
J it
..
U.. >- BRENNER AVENUE
tt
.!!
it
~
~
~ .!!.. t- COUNTY ROAD C2
I-"
en -4
a: it
~ ..
.!!
J . TRAFRC SIGNAL CONTROl
.. it o STOP SIGN CONTROL
w FOR EAST ANDJOR
:J WEST APPROACHES
z
w
~
c N
z
s t
~
0
.!!\." t- NOT TO SCALE
DRIVEWAY
-4 ,tt
"
.!!\." ~
+-
r COUNTY ROAD C
~ ,tt
---:
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
RU< KUUSISTO
aD BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES INC
V 11WIIPORTAT1OIIEII8I11EERSAIIO~ ~
TRAFFIC STUDY FOR
CENTRE POINTE
BUSINESS PARK
FIGURE 21-2
EXISTING
INTERSECTION
GEOMETRICS
LOOP FROM NORTHBOUND 1-35W
TO WESTBOUND COUN1Y ROAD C
TO BE REMOVED
w
::>
z
FREE RIGHT TURN LANES W
AND ADDITIONAL ~
SOUTHBOUND lANE ON Q
CLEVElAND AVENUE Z
:5
W
>
W
..J
o
"-
+--
r lWlN LAKES PARKWAY
,ii,
A-
+--
r
~.tr COUNTY ROAD C
t
NOT TO SCALE
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
RU< KUUSISTO
OJ BENSHOOF &ASSOCIATES,INC.
V TlWCSPORTATION EllGlIlEERSAIIDPlAIINERS
TRAFFIC STUDY FOR
CENTRE POINTE
BUSINESS PARK
FIGURE 21-3
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
GEOMETRICS
TRAFFIC FORECASTS
TRAFFIC FORECAST METHODOLOGY
The 2001 p.m. peak hour background traffic volumes presented in the 1997 Centre Pointe
Traffic Impact Study prepared by the BR W firm served as the basis for the current traffic
forecasts. The 2001 background traffic volumes in the BR W study are based on counts
conducted by the OSM firm in 1996, Barton-Aschman in 1994, and BRW in 1997. Also,
the Roseville Traffic Model was used by the BRW firm to assist in establishing the 2001
background volumes.
The 200 1 background traffic volumes were then adjusted to reflect the 2004 forecast and
analysis year and account for the following changes in traffic conditions between 2001
and 2004:
· Increases in background traffic at a rate of two percent per year. This two-percent
rate was used in the 1997 BRW study and is based on historical ADT volumes.
· According to City staff: approximately 200,000 sq. ft of office will be constructed
as part of the Twin Lakes development by the end of 2003. An EA W was
prepared for the Twin Lakes development by the BR W firm in 1997. The trip
generation associated with the 200,000 sq. ft. of office represents 16% of the total
trip generation estimated for the Twin Lakes development when complete in
2010. To account for the completed portion of the Twin Lakes development in
the current traffic forecasts, 16% of the total site generated traffic was added to
the roadway system using the distribution from the 1997 Twin Lakes EA W.
· Construction of Twin Lakes Parkway is anticipated in 2002 and 2003. Slight
changes in traffic patterns are expected with the _availability of this new route and
have been estimated for the 2004 analysis year, using the 2011 background traffic
forecasts for the p.m. peak hour in the Twin Lakes EA W. The 2011 background
traffic volumes were based on the Roseville Traffic Model by the BR W firm.
Centre Pointe'Busincss Parle
-8-
Janwuy IS, 2001
TRIP GENERATION
Table 21-1 presents the trip generation estimate for Centre Pointe prepared by BR W in
1997. The Institute of Transportation Engineers' 5th Edition of Trip Generation was used
to develop the trip generation estimate. The trip generation estimate includes a ten-
percent reduction for multi-use and internal trips.
TABLE 21-1
TRIP GENERATION FOR CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
APPROVED IN 1997
PM Peak Hour
Entering Exiting
Land Use Size Daily Trips Trips Total
General Office 342.322 SQ. ft. 3557 79 380 459
Showroom/W arehouse 156,565 SQ. ft. 764 41 75 116
Business Hotel 190 Rooms 1381 70 48 118
High Turnover Restaurant 14,100 SQ. ft. 2508 102 80 182
Subtotal 8210 292 583 875
100,/0 Multi-use Reduction -821 -29 -58 -87
Net New Trips 7389 263 525 788
Source: 1997 Centre Pointe Traffic Impact Study, BRW.
Table 21-2 presents the trip generation estimate for Centre Pointe Business Park: concept
as approved in February 2000. Current trip generation rates rrom the Institute of
Transportation Engineers' 6th Edition of Trip Generation were used to develop this
generation estimate. The estimate includes the same ten-percent multi-use reduction.
The development as approved in February 2000 was estimated to generate roughly 950
fewer daily trips and only 14 additional p.m. peak hour trips. The decrease in daily trip
generation is the result of one restaurant being removed from the development concept.
TABLE 21-2
TRIP GENERATION FOR CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
APPROVED IN FEBRUARY 2000
PM Peak Hour
Entering Exiting
Land Use Size Daily Trips Trips Total
General Office 230,808 sq. ft. 2052 49 241 290
General Office 332.348 SQ. ft. 2955 71 348 419
Business Hotel 189 Rooms 1374 70 47 117
High Turnover Restaurant 6000 sq. ft. 782 39 26 65
Subtotal 7163 229 662 891
1 ()O,Io Mu1ti-use Reduction -716 -23 -66 -89
Net New Trips 6447 206 596 802
Centre PoiDte Business Parle:
-9-
January IS, 2001
Table 21-3 presents the trip generation estimate for current Centre Pointe Business Park
proposal. Trip generation rates rrom the Institute of Transportation Engineers' 6th Edition
of Trip Generation was used to develop this estimate. A ten-percent multi-use reduction
was again applied. The current development concept is expected to generate
approximately 650 fewer daily trips and 95 additional trips in the p.m. peak hour in
comparison to the development approved in 1997.
TABLE 21-3
TRIP GENERATION FOR CURRENT PROPOSED
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
PM Peak Hour
Entering Exiting
Land Use Size Dailv Trips Trips T ota!
General Office 230,311 SQ. ft. 2007 49 239 288
Corporate Office 383,157 SQ. ft. 2874 51 413 464
Business Hotel 189 Rooms 1374 70 47 117
Business Hotel 125 Rooms 909 47 31 78
Quality Restaurant 85 Seats 243 15 7 22
Single Tenant Office 6,600 SQ. ft. 76 2 10 12
Subtotal 7483 234 747 981
10% Multi-use Reduction -748 -23 -75 -98
Net New Trips 6735 211 672 883
Centre Pointe Business Parle
-10':
January IS, 200 1
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The trip distribution developed for the 1997 Centre Pointe EA W by BR W was used as
the basis for the distribution of trips to/from the Centre Pointe Business Park in current
traffic forecasts. The distribution in 1997 was based on the City ofRoseville Traffic
Model. The 1997 distribution was adjusted to include trips to/from the east on Twin
Lakes Parkway. Construction of Twin Lakes Parkway is expected to serve four-percent
of development trips. Under the 1997 distribution, these development trips would have
utilized County Roads C and D. Figure 21-4 illustrates the trip distribution estimate used
for current traffic forecasts.
The trip assignment in the traffic study for the 1997 EA W estimated that development
trips would be split equally between three intersections with Cleveland Avenue (North
and South Centre Pointe Drive and Lydia Avenue). A fourth intersection, Veritas Way,
was constructed following the 1997 traffic study. Based on an examination of the current
site plan, it is expected that 28% of trips will enter/exit via each Lydia Avenue, North
Centre Pointe Drive, and South Centre Pointe Drive and 16% of all trips will enter/exit
via Veritas Way.
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The resultant traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 21-5. Traffic volumes for the p.m.
peak hour are illustrated for the ten examined intersections and the three development
concepts. All three scenarios include the same changes in background traffic conditions
as previously discussed. The traffic volume forecasts represent the traffic volumes that
would be expected in 2004 for each of the development concepts.
Centre Painte Business Park
-11-
January IS. 2001
NOT TO SCALE
.-.
10%
~
~
t;
II:
~
N
t
~
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
RU< KUUSISTO
aD BENSHOOF & ASSOCtA1ES INC
V TIWISPORTATIOIIEII61J(EER8A110~J(~8
t1%
COUNTY ROAD D
BRENNER AVENUE
......
16%
~
CQUmY ROAD C2
~
w
;:)
z
w
~
Q
Z
i
o
1WIN lAKES PARKWAY ~
4%
TRAFFIC STUDY FOR
CENTRE POINTE
BUSINESS PARK
COUmY ROAD C
~
FIGURE 21-4
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
!
~
I
J~i!L i~~
~ ./. ~:g-;","i.'\m~ ,,,,,,,,,,,}~tL=
~tF~~ == ~~
~~I ~ L 7l1iF ,~i
~ 457/4821510 ~t
71~~ ~95CW571966 201/213/227 J
1'...8~r I ~~ 97110!>'11'4 ~ ,t
I I i~ L ~~
~ _S ~~
o GN ~~
'" -1-~ .~
~31212.
~21212
ztt ~
I~I =:J!I
1011114l128J
79J8&94~
~ I,t
JJgL I ii
-1- 0
891101/115 28128128 '"
~=tif~
7liii ~i
Wi~ I ~~
-1Jt
52J6O.'68 J
31136141 ~
J3bL='li
~ -!
~ 25123123
15011501150 ~~
liF J-11
...~ ~~I
woo 3311330/330 'k49i149
~ir
IIREHNER AVENJE
w
::::>
~
;
~ Development Approved In 1997
r= ~rrentlyelopmepnt Approved In February 2000
I I roposed Development
XXIXX/XX.
.
t
NOT 10 SCALE
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
RU< KUUSISTO
(Xi BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
V TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERSAIIO PlANNERS
TRAFFIC STUDY FOR
CENTRE POINTE
BUSINESS PARK
FIGURE 21-5
2004 PM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION
VOLUMES
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
APPROACH
In order to better understand how each intersection operates from an overall traffic
capacity standpoint, a capacity analysis was perfonned for each of the ten intersections
using the traffic volumes forecasted for the three development concepts. Capacity
analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which ranges from A to
F. Each letter grade represents a specific range of traffic operation based upon the
average delay experienced by a vehicle. Level of service A represents the best
intersection operation, with very little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. Level
of service F represents the worst intersection operation, with excessive delay and large
queue lengths. In general, level of service D or better is considered acceptable in the
Twin Cities area. A more detailed description of the levels of service is provided in the
appendix of this traffic report.
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSES
The levels of service for the signalized intersections were estimated using Synchro
computer software. The five signalized intersections provide actuated traffic control that
responds to changing traffic conditions to minimize delay. Synchro optimizes the traffic
signal timing- at each intersection using the signal phasing and range of cycle lengths
observed operating the intersections. Using the optimized traffic signal timing, Synchro
estimates the level of service for each movement and the overall intersection. The traffic
volumes and lanes associated with the free right turns from northbound I-35W to
southbound Cleveland Avenue and from southbound Cleveland Avenue to westbound
County Road C were excluded from the analyses. These free right turn movements occur
via channelized islands and thus are separated from the signal control. Left turn
movements from northbound Cleveland Avenue to westbound County Road D and from
eastbound County Road D to northbound 1-35W occur from shared through-left lanes.
However, because of the high volume ofleft turning traffic, these lanes most often
operate as dedicated left turn lanes and were analyzed as such.
The level of service results for the signalized intersections are summarized in Table 21-4.
As table 21-4 presents, no level of service difficulties are expected at any of the five
signalized intersections. In addition, all movements at the five intersections are expected
to operate at LOS D or better in the 2004 p.m. peak hour under the currently proposed
development concept. Only slight differences in level of service occur between the three
development concepts.
Centre Pointe Business Park
-14 -
January IS, 2001
00
z
o
-
f-o
U
~
00
~
~
f-o
Z
-
Q
~
N
~ -
, ..J
M <
~ Z
..J C)
= 00
-0( ~
E- 0
~
~
U
-
>-
~
~
00
~
o
00
..J
~
>-
~
..J
=-
] 0 0 0 c::c c::c u u u u u u u ~ ~ ~
U
>
0
"0 E- N
s::: ~
::s '-- U U U
0 ::r:
.D U U U t::D c::c ~ u u U
..s::: E-
....
::s I--
0 E-
r.n ....:I 0 0 0 -< -< -<
"0 E- -< ~ -< ~ -< ~ -< ~ -<
s::: ~
::s I-- 0 0 0 -< -< ~
0 ::z::
.D c::c c::c c::c
..s::: E-
t:: - U U U
0
Z E- U U U c::c U U U U 0 Q 0 Q
....:I
E- -< ~ ~
"0 ~
s:::
::s f..- 0 0 0 U U U
0 ::z:: u u u u u u ~ ~ ~
.D
U; E-
u I--
~ E- O 0 0 c::c c::c c::c
....:I
E- ~ -< ~ ~
"0 ~ .....
s::: I-- U U U
::s
0 ::r: u u U Q 0 0 ~ ~ ~
.D E-
....
en I-- -< -< ~
c:o
tI.:I E- O 0 0 U t::D U Q Q Q
....:I
'"
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N
Q Q Q Q c-
c:o .... c:o ... c:o .... c:o ... c:o ....
t- 2 s::: t- 2 s::: t- 2 s::: t- 2 s::: t- 2 s:::
u u u u U
0\ .D E 0\ .D E 0\ .D E 0\ .D E 0\ ..0 E
0\ Q) 0\ Q) 0\ Q) 0\ Q) 0\ Q)
- ~ Q. <I) - ~ Q. .- ~ Q. .- ~ 0.. .- ~ 0..
.5 .5 0 =- .5 s::: 0 .5 .5 0 .S .S 0 c .S 0
~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ .- ~
"0 "0 > cu "0 "0 > ;:;:;- -0 "0 > Q -0 "0 > -0 "0 >
U Q) u u ~ Q) Q) u Q Q) Q) u Q) u Q) Q Q) u Q)
> > 0 > > Q > > 0 > > 0 > > Q
oQ 0 8 "0 V) 8 0 "0 oQ 0 0 "0 oQ 0 0 "0 0 2 -0
.... ~ Q. ~ .... ~ .... .... -0 ....
= ~ ~ ~ U I 0.. u ~ Q. u c.. Q. u ~ 0.. ~ u
1: 1'1) - Q. Q. cn Q. Q. 1'1) Q c.. Q. 1'1) 0.. 1'1)
-< 0 -< -< 0 ~ -< 0 ~ ~ 0 Q ~ ~ 0
cu Q Q. = c.. Q Q. U c.. Q.
s::: U .... .... 8 ;Z .... .... 0 U ... .... 8 ... ... 2 u ... .... 0
Q) s::: s::: c s::: .... c s::: - s::: s::: s::: c ....
u - Q) u c:l.. - Q) Q) c:l.. - Q) C1) c:l.. C1) C1) c:l.. - C1) C1) c:l..
00 E E E E E E 1'1.1 e E <I) E E
Q) .?;- Q) .?;- Q) .?;- =- .?;- c. .?;-
.... > g. Q. > c.. Q. > c.. Q. E c.. c.. E c.. c..
c < 0 .... < 0 0 .... -< 0 0 .... 0 0 'E 0 0 ....
s::: s::: s::: cu c
Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q) Q) ~ Q) = Q) Q) Q)
E "0 "0 "0 ~ ~
c > > c > > c > > t: > > t: > > t:
c. = Q) C1) ::s = C1) Q) ::s c: C1) C1) ::s V) C1) Q) ;j \I') C1) Q) ;j
e ~ 0 0 u ~ 0 Q U ~ 0 0 u ('r) 0 0 u ('r) 0 0 u
~ , ,
> ..s::: ..s::: ..s::: > ..s::: ..s::: ..s::: > ..s::: ..s::: ..s::: - -5 ..s::: ..s::: - ..s::: ..s::: ..s:::
> Q) .... ~ ~ Q) ... ... ... Q) ~ ~ ~ = ... .... ... .... ...
Q) u ~ u ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~
Q Z 00
~
u
(,)
.?;-
0.
E
~
cu
(,)
(:
cu
'"
......
o
U
>
cu
cu
E
'"
'"
cu
'5
cu
>
'"
..c
~
t:
'"
cu
t::
'"
'"
<U
.....
'"
..c
'"
'"
c
cu
E
<U
>
o
E
cu
-5
cu
t:: cu
'" t::
'"
..c -
0.0...<=
:J 0.0
o :J
::: 0
- .....
~..c
~~
cu ~
~ ~
..c '"
"'..c
s::: '"
'" s:::
-5 '"
-5
.....
cu .....
..c cu
a;..c
..... (;;
cu ...
~.~ ~ j
:g g :J E
.::: <n .....::s
(/) t <t::....
fi .5 ~ ~
E s::: B "2
~ ~ ~....,
0'- .- '"
E ~ ~.~
cu..c ~1S
t: - CU ~
0<<; ~bo~
;j ~ ~ .: 0.0
..c .D '" '" .S
_ca>-~CI]
G) :;:: (tj .-::: ..c
::; g! ;j ~ .<;::
E '" E ~ ~
.....so~1S
cE"'<t:>-N
CU .;:: ~ ~ ~
.~ ~ ~ = ~
(: E ::3 E '"
~ ~"O ::3 E
~o~~=
uEE~q::
>U::l~~
.!:!-=::c-c
u(;;..cgs
00 ..c .~.D 0
c:-L....c.D
ou; ~ 3 ~ u;
-< .~ tt z US
...-..-g,,-....,,-...,...-..
-._ N...... "<T
(;;
-5
UnsignaIized Intersection Analyses
The unsignalized intersection levels of service were estimated using the unsignalized
intersection module of the Highway Capacity Software. For each intersection, a level of
service grade is assigned to left turn movements from Cleveland Avenue, each movement
from the minor streets, and overall minor street approaches. Table 21-5 presents the level
of service results for the unsignaiized intersections. With the exception of the North
Centre Pointe Drive/Cleveland Avenue intersection, acceptable operations are expected at
the unsignalized intersections. All movements at the Veritas Way, South Centre Pointe
Drive, Lydia Avenue, and Brenner Avenue intersections with Cleveland Avenue are
expected'to operate at LOS D or better in the p.m. peak hour under the three development
scenarios.
Level of service F is expected for the left turn from North Centre Point Drive to
northbound Cleveland Avenue under an development scenarios. As a possible measure
to improve this level of service, we evaluated whether the intersection would warrant
traffic signal control. One of 11 warrants must be met for a traffic signal installation to
occur. The peak hour warrant is met when the traffic volume of the high volume minor
street approach (North Centre Pointe Drive) and the two-way approach volume on the
major street (Cleveland Avenue) are greater than specified minimum volumes for one
hour of the day. Traffic volumes are expected to be sufficient in the p.m. peak hour
North Centre Pointe Drive intersection with Cleveland Avenue for the 2004 currently
proposed development concept. Thus, under the peak hour traffic signal warrant, traffic
signal control is expected to be warranted at the intersection in 2004 with the current
Centre Pointe development concept.
Although the North Centre Pointe Drive/Cleveland Avenue intersection is likely to
experience level of service difficulties and meet traffic signal warrants in 2004,
installation of traffic signal control at Lydia Avenue may be a preferred", alternative for
two reasons. First, a signalized intersection at Lydia Avenue would better conform to
County access spacing guidelines. Second, the potential for an east leg to the intersection
at Lydia may exist. A broader benefit would be provided by a traffic signal on Cleveland
Avenue that has the potential to seNe both the east and west sides. Installation of a
traffic signal at Lydia Avenue would improve the level of service at the North Centre
Pointe intersection by creating gaps in the traffic stream on Cleveland Avenue and
shifting left turning traffic from the unsignalized intersection to Lydia Avenue.
Following completion of the Centre Pointe Business Park, traffic volumes should be
monitored and traffic signal control considered when actual traffic volumes at Lydia
Avenue and Cleveland Avenue meet warrants for traffic signal installation.
Centre Paiute Business Parle
-16 -
January IS, 2001
In order for Lydia Avenue to have sufficient traffic volumes to meet warrants for traffic
signal installation, there may be a need to alter the North Centre Pointe Drive/Cleveland
Avenue intersection to direct traffic to the Lydia Avenue intersection. Two options exist
at the North Centre Pointe Drive/Cleveland Avenue intersection that require construction
ofa raised center island from Brenner Avenue to County Road D. One option is to limit
the North Centre Point Drive approach to Cleveland Avenue to right turns only (~
access). A second option that exists is to prohibit left turns to northbound Cleveland
Avenue (% access). This option would require an expanded radius in the southwest
comer of the intersection to ensure that left turns to the north do not occur through the
median break provided for left turns from Cleveland Avenue to North Centre Pointe
Drive. The City and County will need to evaluate installation of traffic signal control
along Cleveland Avenue and any changes to North Centre Pointe Drive in tenns of their
goals and policies.
Centre Poiute Business Parle
-17 -
Jamwy 15,2001
tr.J
Z
o
-
E-
U
JiI;J
tr.J
~
JiI;J
E-
Z
-
Q
JiI;J
-
N
'I') .oJ
. <
~ Z
~ C
.oJ 00
CQ Z
< ;:>
E- "
o
'""
JiI;J
U
-
;>
~
JiI;J
tr.J
'""
o
tr.J
.oJ
~
;>
~
.oJ
=-
..c
(,)
co
0 c:c c:c u u u u u u u ~ ~ u...
'"'
0.
0.
-a <t:
s::: -
:;] E-
O <t: <t: c:c <t: <t: <t: c:c c:c c:c c:c c:c c:c
.0 t=':
-
<IJ -
CO
~ ::r:
E-
- U U 0
E- U U U 0 0 0 u... u... u...
...J
.s:::
(,)
co
0 U U U U U U
'"'
0.
0.
-a <t:
s::: -
:;]
0 E-
.0 t=':
-
<IJ
CI) -
~ ::r: u u u u u U
E-
I--
E-
...J
c:c E- <t: <t: <t: <t: <t: <t:
{/.) ...J
c:c E- <t: <t:: <t:: <t:: <t:: <t:: <t:: <t: <t: <t:: -< -<
Z ...J
0 0 c 0 0
0 0 0 0 ~ 0
0 0 0 0 , 0
N N N N < ~
C- ~ C- C- "'C C-
eo .... - CO - CO - C CO -
r-- 2 s::: r-- 2 s::: r-- 2 s::: r-- 2 s::: eIS r-- 2 s:::
CI) CI) CI) CI) - CI)
0\ .0 E 0\ .0 E 0\ .0 E 0\ .0 E ~ 0\ .0 E
0\ CI) 0\ CI) 0\ CI) 0\ CI) , 0\ CI)
- ~ 0. - ~ 0. - u... 0. - ~ 0. ~ - u... 0.
.s .s 0 .s .s 0 .s .s 0 .s .s 0 0 .s .s 0
~ v v v ~ v v
, -a -a , ~ "0 -a , -a -a , , -a -a , -- -a -a ,
< CI) CI) CI) , CI) CI) CI) ~ CI) CI) CI) -( CI) CI) CI) ~ CI) CI) CI)
, :> 0 < :> :> 0 , :> :> 0 :> :> 0 , :> :> 0
'C 0 0 0 0 -( 0 0 "'C 0 0 - 0 0
c '"' '"' -a '"' '"' "0 '"' '"' -a c '"' '"' "0 .. '"' '"' -a
e 0. 0. CI) 'C 0. 0. CI) "'C 0. 0. CI) eIS 0. 0. CI) Q 0. 0. CI)
1: CIS 0. 0. <IJ C 0. 0. <IJ 0. 0. <IJ 0. 0. <IJ 0. 0. <IJ
- C ~
~ < < 0 CIS < < 0 < < 0 < <t: 0 ~ < <t: 0
CIS :> 0. - 0. eIS 0. :> 0. 0.
C ~ - ..- E ~ 'E ..- E ~ - - 0 ~ ..- - 0 c ..- ..- 0
~ - s::: s::: , s::: , s::: s::: '"' - s::: s::: '"' - s::: s::: '"'
u U CI) CI) c::I.. ~ CI) CI) c::I.. CI) CI) c::I.. U CI) CI) c::I.. e CI) CI) c::I..
tr.J E E 0 E E ~ E E E E Q., E ~
-- ~ ~ 0 b -- ~ b
- 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ~ 0. 0. ~ 0.
C ,.. ..- -- ..- - 'E .. -
CIS 0 0 s::: 0 0 s::: -- 0 0 s::: , 0 0 - 0 0 s:::
~ ~ v v CI) M V V CI) ~ v v CI) -( v v CI) c V V CI)
E :> :> t: U :> :> t: , :> :> t: :> :> t: CI) :> :> t:
c. CI) CI) :;] CI) CI) :;] < CI) CI) :;] .. CI) CI) :;] U CI) CI) :;]
fI.j ~
e CIS 0 0 U 'C 0 0 u 0 0 u c 0 0 U .c 0 0 u
~ - " eIS
1: ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c :a ..c ..c ..c c ..c ..c ..c - ..c ..c ..c
, ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - - - .. ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ,.. ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ e
Q ;> U ..J CQ Z
>,
c..
E
(.l..j
CI)
-~
>
....
CI)
V)
'-
o
CI)
>
CI)
CI)
E
'"
en
CI)
-5
CI)
>
'"
..c
"'0
c:
'"
CI)
c:
'"
'"
CI)
....
'"
..c
en
en
C
CI)
E
CI)
>
o
E
CI)
-5
-; c
..c 0
- --
V) -
CI) u
_ CI)
'" en
U ....
._ CI)
"'Oc
c: -_
-;;; c:
_ CI)
c: >
CI) .-
E 00
CI) CI)
>-5
o _
E '"
CI)~
C:.J:j
o '"
c::;::
'" '"
..c >
- '"
c:
~
-~
CI)
....
o
E
.... C
<2 CI)
CI) E
u ~
-E 0
CI) E
en CI)
'-..c
o -
-ut;
>..c
CI) -
- CI)
~ a;
00 _~
c:"'O
";';; .::
<~
.........4)
- u
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analyses presented in this report, we have determined the following
conclusions:
.
The current Centre Pointe development concept is expected to generate 6735 daily
trip ends and 883 trip ends in the p.m. peak hour. This trip generation estimate
represents 650 fewer daily trip ends and 95 more p.m. peak hour trip ends in
comparison to the development concept approved in 1997.
.
No level of service difficulties are expected at any of the five signalized
intersections examined. Four of the five signalized intersections are expected to
provide level of service C operation under all development scenarios in the 2004
p.m. peak hour. The Cleveland Avenue/County Road C intersection is expected to
operate at LOS D under all 2004 p. m. peak hour scenarios.
.
With the exception of the North Centre Pointe Drive intersection with Cleveland
Avenue, no level of service difficulties are expected at the unsignalized intersections
along Cleveland A venue. The left turn from North Centre Pointe Drive to
northbound Cleveland Avenue is expected to operate at level of service F under all
development scenarios in the p.m. peak hour. All other movements at the five
unsignalized intersections should operate at level of service D or better in the p.m.
peak hour of all 2004 scenarios.
.
Two options exist to mitigate the level of service difficulties at the North Centre
Pointe Drive/Cleveland Avenue intersection. The options include installation of
traffic signal control at either North Centre Pointe Drive or Lydia Av~ue
intersection with Cleveland Avenue. The City and County should monitor the two
intersections and take appropriate action to resolve level of service difficulties as
they arise.
Our overall conclusion is that the current proposed Centre Pointe Business Park would
not cause any significant negative traffic impacts at the any of the 10 intersections that
have been examined. The traffic impacts associated with the current Centre Pointe
Business Park proposal are nearly identical to the impacts that would have been
experienced with the Centre Pointe Business Park proposals approved in February of
2000 and in the spring of 1997.
Centre Pointe Business Parle
-19 -
Ja.nwuy IS. 2001
APPENDIX
In order to better understand how the intersections operate rrom an overall traffic
capacity standpoint, capacity analyses were perfonned using the methodology presented
in the Highway Capacity Manual. Capacity analyses detennine how well or poorly an
intersection is operating. Capacity analysis results are presented in tenns of level of
service, which is defined in terms of traffic delay at the intersection, and ranges rrom an
A to an F letter grade.
.
Level of service A corresponds to a rree flow condition with motorists virtually
unaffected by the intersection control mechanism. For a signalized or an unsignaIized
intersection, the average delay per vehicle would be approximately 10 seconds or
less.
.
Level of service B represents stable flow with a high degree of freedom, but with
some influence rrom the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. For a
signalized intersection, the average delay ranges from 10 to 20 seconds. An
unsignalized intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for this
level.
.
Level of service C depicts a restricted flow which remains stable, but with significant
influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. The general
level of comfort and convenience changes noticeably at this level. The delay ranges
from 20 to 35 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 15 to 25 seconds for an
unsignalized intersection at this level.
.
Level of service D corresponds to high-density flow in which speed and rreedom are
significantly restricted. Though traffic flow remains stable, reductions in comfort and
convenience are experienced. The control delay for this level is 35 to 55 seconds for
a signalized intersection and 25 to 35 seconds for an unsignalized intersection. For
most agencies in the Twin Cities area, level of service D represents the minimal
acceptable level of service for regular daily operations.
.
Level of service E represents unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of the
intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges from 55
to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 35 to 50 seconds for an
unsignalized intersection at this level.
.
Level of service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic approaching
the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served. Characteristics often
experienced include: long queues, stop-and-go waves, poor travel times, low comfort
and convenience, and increased accident exposure. Delays over 80 seconds for a
signalized intersection and over 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection
correspond to this level of service.
Centre Paiute Business Parle
-20-
Jamwy 15,2001
ATTACHMENT D
Natural Heritage Letter
II
\11'\'\!"': \ II:-j,,:;i. \i 'II< jl '"
January 14. 1997
Mr. Ken Powell
RLK Associates
6110 Blue Circle Drive - Suite 100
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343
Dear Mr. Powell:
RE: Office/business park devC:opmcnt, S5, T29, R23, Roseville, Ramsey County
SHPO Number: 97-0836
Thank you for consulting with our office during the preparation of an EA W for the above referenced
project.
There are no reported historic properties in the project area, and we feel that the probabi I ity of any
unreported properties is low, Therefore, based on available information. we conclude that project is
unlikely to affect any historic properties.
Please note that this comment lener does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation for the protection of historic properties. [fthis project is considered for federal assistance,
or requires a federal license or permit, it should be submined to our office with reference to the
appropriate federal agency,
Please contact me at 612-296-5462 if you have any questions regarding our review of this project.
Sincerely,
~'~-~
Dennis A. Gimmestad
Government Programs and Compliance Officer
------- --- --------------
ATTACHMENT E
Minnesota Historical Society Letter
Minnesota Departll1ent of Natural Resources
Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Box 25
~ r-'. t'-- ;'-r",' "'r' - q
, ~ ' ,: ,-" ,I" , !.-,
!, " . ", t
; I . ,i ~ :.' :
! \ ., ..
1
: fJ ~- (', \ 2OO{J
~; , ~"- '.. " :
, ,
. L,':"(';:_~-'::j[fUC~iI
_ .--' '-..../ L..-J
.'iOO Lafaycllc' Road
SI. I'alll. MiIlIlCSOI;1 .'i.'i I .'i).40
---------------------
Phone: (651) 296-7863 Fax: (65]) 296-]81] E-mai]: sarah,hofTman@dnr,state,mn,us
December 20, 2000
Brian Sullivan
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd.
6110 Blue Circle Dr., Suite 100
Minnetonka, MN 55343
Re: Request for Natural Heritage information for vicinity of proposed Center Pointe PUD, T29N
R23W S.5, Ramsey County.
NHNRP Contact #: ERDB 20010543
Dear Mr. Sullivan,
The Minnesota Natural Heritage database has been reviewed to determine if any rare plant or
animal species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mile
radius of the area indicated on the map enclosed with your information request. Based on this review,
there are no known occurrences of rare species or natural community in the area searched.
The Natural Heritage database is maintained by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research
Program, a unit within the Division of Ecological Services, Department of Natural Resources, It is
continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on
Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, natural communities, and other natural features, Its
purpose is to foster better understanding and protection of these features.
Because our information is not based on a comprehensive inventory, there may be rare or
otherwise significant natural features in the state that are not represented in the database. A county-by-
county survey of rare natural features is now underway, and has been completed for Ramsey County.
Our information about natural communities is, therefore, quite thorough for that county. However,
because survey work for rare plants and animals is less exhaustive, and because there has not been an
on-site survey of all areas of the county, ecologically significant features for which we have no records
may exist on the project area.
Please be aware that review by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program focuses
only on rare noJuralfeatures. It does not constitute review or approval by the Department of Natural
Resources as a whole. If you require further information on the environmental review process for
other wildlife-related issues, you may contact your Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist,
Wayne Barstad, at (651)772-7940.
An invoice for the work completed is enclosed. You are being billed for map and database
search and staff scientist review. Please forward this invoice to your Accounts Payable Department.
Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural
resources.
Sincerely,
~ I ~
Sarah D, HO~
encl: Invoice Environmental Review Coordinator 1 Ecologist
DNR Infonnation: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 · 1TY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Who Values Diversity
o
Pllnted on Recycled Paper Containing a
UintfTWtm nf f()O{.., Pnd...rl'\n<::I'f1'\A,.W~tt::t~
~APProval:
Item Description:
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Date: 10/10/01
Item No:
Agenda Section:
Hearing
Manager Approval:
~
Solutia Consulting Amendment to Planned Unit Development # 1177 for
Lot 3, Block 1, Centre Pointe Business Park 2nd Addition and Review of
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Office Expansion
(PF3338)
1. REQUESTED ACTION
. Recommend whether the concept for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment
to the Centre Pointe Business Park is consistent with the original master plan and the
specific PUD ordinance; and add comments on the draft EA W, which identifies
potential impacts of the proposed amendment.
2. HISTORY of REVIEW:
. Application and Draft EA W submitted on: August 28,2001
. Deadline: 60 days after completion of the EA W process.
. Staff Review: Approval/Denial with choices - October 10, 2001.
. Planning Commission Recommendation: - October 10, 2001.
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 Centre Pointe is a 47.6-acre master planned business park. Solutia Consulting, a high
technology computer consulting company, has purchased the last remaining lot in Centre
Pointe. Solutia is proposing a 21,240 square foot office building in lieu of the original
Master Site Plan and PUD designation of a maximum 6,000 square foot sit-down
restaurant.
1.2 The Solutia Consulting proposal calls for a 15,240 square foot increase in the square
footage allowance to construct a 2-story building totaling 21,240 square feet with both
underground and surface parking for 87 vehicles.
1.3 The current total permitted square footage of building area in the Ryan Centre Pointe
PUD is 802,500 square feet (as originally approved in 1997 and amended in 2000 and
2001); with the new proposal the total building area would be approximately 818,140
square feet. Also, Woodbridge previously developed 120,000 square feet of building
area prior to the current Ryan PUD for a total of938, 140 square feet.
PF 3338 - RPCA (10/10/01) - Page lof9
Centre Pointe Planned Unit Development Sta2:es of Approval
Centre Pointe PUD 1985 1997 1999 2000 2001
Woodbridge PUD 647,0000 s.f.
Woodbridge -Built 120,000 s.f. 120,000 s.f. 120,000 s.f. 120,000 s.f.
Ryan PUD 619,000 s.f. 619,000 s.f. 619,000 s.f. 619,000 s.f.
Adm. Amendment 10%) 61,900 s.f. 61,000 s.f. 61,900 s.f.
CSM Hotel PUD Amend. 3rd Business Hotel
(no signif. s,f. added)
Veritas Exp.PUD Amend 122,000 s.f.
Solutia Amendment 15,240 s.f.
Approved PUD 647,000 s.f. 739,000 s.f. 800,300 s.f. 802,500 s.f. 938,140 s.f.
1.4 The original Centre Pointe Master Site Plan for the vacant parcel showed a maximum
6,000 square foot building footprint for a restaurant. The new proposal would add 4,620
square feet to the first floor footprint and a 10,620 square feet second floor. Therefore,
new office building coverage of the parcel totaling 15,240 square feet would occur.
1.5 To reduce parking lot coverage of the parcel and allow for 25% green landscaped area,
Solutia Consulting proposes a parking structure to be built under the building for 30+
vehicles. As proposed, construction would occur in 2002.
1.6 The text for the PUD indicates that the first choice of a permitted use is a sit-down
restaurant and that a second choice of a permitted use is an office building. Specifically
Section 7.2 reads: The uses shall be restricted to those specified in the site plan and
supporting documents including office, office/showroom, office/manufacturing, 2 hotels,
and 1 restaurant within the Centre Pointe Business Park Plan. If either of the hotels or
the restaurant are not built, the lots/sites for those uses on the approved land use/site
plans shall be used for office, office/showroom, or office/manufacturing uses per Exhibit
E-2.
1.7 The major change for the Master Site Plan (a drawing) is changing the identified use
from restaurant to office and adding approximately 4,000 square feet of "footprint" on
the 6,000 square foot lot.
1.8 The major change for the PUD Agreement (written ordinance) is the increased
dimensions, area, and height of the building that would add more office workers and
office hours. Another change to the PUD is increased lot and impervious coverage.
PF 3338 - RPCA (10/10101) - Page 2 of9
1.9 The Planning Commission also is requested to review and comment on the proposed
V oluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) that identifies changes in
environmental impacts based on the Solutia change in use and a 15,240 square foot
increase in office building area. While the EA W is in process and the staff expects no
major environmental impacts, the most significant issue will be traffic volumes. This
information is available in a Draft EA W attached to this memo. Staff review has found
no significant issues or changes in the traffic; however, further comment will be sought
through the EA W process, which will take an additional 45 days.
2.0 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLICATIONS:
2.1 The City of Roseville Comprehensive Plan designates the entire Centre Pointe Business
Park development as a business area. No specific maximum square footage is stipulated
or required in the Comprehensive Plan. The guiding document is the PUD for the Centre
Pointe Business Park, adopted in 1997 and amended in 1999,2000 and 2001. A copy of
this document is attached.
3.0 POLICY/FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
3.1 The Centre Pointe Business Park was originally planned as a mixed-use development.
Since its creation, the business park has experienced major office growth and little
growth in the warehouse and showroom sector. (The planning for the Business Park had
anticipated a minimum of 50% office space within the Park.) Within the Park developers
have also constructed three hotels specifically to meet the business cliental needs of the
Centre Pointe companies and their employees.
3.2 The Master Site Plan (map) illustrates uses that can complement one another, reducing
the need to travel outside the park for meetings and/or dining. Currently, Centre Pointe
has three hotels all in close proximity to the vacant parcel. Only one of those hotels has a
small dining facility, which is targeted to their own guests. The Master Plan indicates
joint access between two hotels (Courtyard and Fairfield Inn) and the connecting vacant
parcel. Where possible and appropriate, shared parking and access was planned to
minimize traffic and parking impacts on neighboring properties. The PUD (Section 15.2)
requires any restaurant site to have a shared parking easement with adjoining hotels in
order to carry out the Master Plan vision.
3.3 The Master Site Plan (map) also anticipated business park interaction via an elaborate
path system. These paths are in place to allow employees walking access to any structure
for their personal or business needs. From this perspective, the park affords workers and
travelers options that do not require trips or travel outside the park. Transit service has
also been provided to get employees to and from the park and to reduce vehicle travel.
PF 3338 - RPCA (10/10101) - Page 3 of9
3.4 Based upon jobs per square feet of building and construction values used in the Twin
Lakes Master Plan process, the fiscal impacts of an office development and a restaurant
are different.
a. Jobs/Wa2:es: It is estimated that for a 21,240 square foot office building there is a
capacity for approximately 48 jobs that pay an average wage (higher for tech staff
and lower for office staff) of $45,000 for an annual wage of$2.1 million. A 6,000
square foot restaurant would have at least 22 jobs, with the majority of them being
part time, at an average wage of $20,000 for an annual wage of $440,000.
b. Construction Value: Office construction and assessed value is higher than that of
a restaurant. A 21,240 square foot high tech office has an estimated construction
value of$120 per square foot for a total value of$2.5 million and an estimated
assessed value of $90 per square foot or $1.9 million. A 6,000 square foot
restaurant may have a construction value of $100 per square foot for a total value
of $600,000 but the assessed value is usually lower at about $70 per square foot
or $420,000.
c. Overall Business Park Value: The build out of Centre Pointe has exceeded the
City's expectations for jobs and tax base. There are an estimated 1,350
employees, an annual payroll of $54 million, $40 million of new construction
value, and estimated annual property taxes of $720,000. (In addition, the Veritas
Campus will add 1,000 employees, annual payroll of $70 million, $30 to $35
million in value with an estimated $600,000 in new annual property tax revenue.)
Nearby, the master plan for Twin Lakes includes an estimated 2 million square
feet in new multi level office and 600 housing units. Currently, the Twin Lakes
Master Plan does not include a new sit down restaurant but is flexible enough to
accommodate it in the service area at County Road "c' and Cleveland.
4.0 SITE PLAN COMMENTS
4.1 The Development Review Committee has considered the proposed site plan for Solutia
Consulting and concluded that a few modifications and additional information were
necessary. These include:
A. The trash enclosure must be located adjacent to the existing trash enclosure on the
Fairfield Inn site. The enclosure must be setback a minimum of five feet from the
north property line and there should be adequate separation between the enclosure
and the pedestrian path to allow for landscaping. This modification is necessary
unless another appropriate location is sited.
B. The shared access with Marriott Residence Inn should be eliminated.
PF 3338 - RPCA (10/10/01) - Page 4 of9
C. Screening of the parking lot from Centre Pointe Drive must be 80% opaque
screening to a height of 30 inches (Section 7, # 10 PUD). A revised landscape
plan must be submitted for review and approval prior to final City Council
approval.
D. The utility and landscape plan must be combined on one sheet and submitted with
the other development plans. An irrigation plan is also required and must be
included in the final plan set.
E. The landscape plan must be revised to include all perennials species noted on the
plan.
F. Rice Creek Watershed review and approval is necessary.
5.0 EA W SUMMARY
5.1 In the EA W, the proponents explain that the level of disturbance on the site has been high
and the uses are all urban developments except for the storm water catchment areas.
There are no occurrences of endangered species.
5.2 The proponents note that there is adequate water capacity on the site but that the sewer
capacity is limited by the pumping systems. The City has been aware of this situation
since the review and approval of the Courtyard Hotel PUD amendment. Eventually a
new pumping system with added capacity will be installed to meet the needs ofthe
Business Park when fully occupied.
5.3 Runoffrrom the site will continue to be handled by a series of filtration areas and ponds.
Silt screening and hay bale erosion interception will handle construction erosion. Storm
water will be pretreated in infiltration areas and ponds before it reaches the wetlands
areas, in a method previously approved by the Rice Creek Watershed. Centre Pointe has
a requirement of retaining 25% of the site in green space. With the proposed
configuration of the buildings (adding height, not impervious surface area) approximately
25% of the site will be green space.
5.4 In terms of generation of toxic or hazardous materials, the site is clean; the Solutia offices
will produce none of these materials. Solid waste (trash) would be collected by private
haulers and delivered to landfills or processing plants. (A restaurant generally would
produce more trash and air exhaust issues.)
5.5 Traffic and parking are important issues in Roseville. The peak PM hour trips will
increase from 22 up to 37 trips, yet the total trip count would only increase by 6 trips
(243 to 249) The new facilities (21,240 s.f. of offices, rather than 6,000 s.f. of restaurant
or offices) would create a need for 85 to 88 Solutia on-site parking spaces, which are
shown on the site plan. An Indirect Source Permit, analyzing vehicle exhaust levels, is
no longer required by MnPCA. The EA W states that none of the intersections will
exceed the MnPCA guidelines for carbon monoxide levels.
PF 3338 - RPCA (10/10101) - Page 5 of9
5.6 In total, the Centre Pointe Business Park is estimated to generate 7,369 vehicle trips per
day, with approximately 900 trips per peak p.m. traffic hour (244 entering, 686 leaving
the site). The proponents state that no signalized intersection will have service
difficulties based on the proposed development, even with growth in the background
traffic by 2% per year. Only one intersection will change its level of service in the
future, the ramp from Cleveland Avenue onto 35W North will change from a service
level of "B" to a service level of "C", which is still functional.
5.7 Non-signalized intersections will continue to function as today, except the North Centre
Pointe Drive intersection with Cleveland Avenue, where cars will queue up in Centre
Pointe Drive while attempting to make a left turn to north bound Cleveland Avenue. A
solution at this intersection could be a signaled intersection. Signalizing could also help
reduce straightway speeding along Cleveland Avenue. (The 1997 PUD and planning
process planned for a signal further south at Lydia and Cleveland in order to reduce
traffic noise and congestion close to residences and to provide a 4 way intersection into
the industrial/park area east of Cleveland. Staff and city traffic consultants will be
reviewing this issue during the EA W review and comment period.)
5.8 The proponents state that the 21,240 square feet of office area will have little negative
impact on the traffic and in fact will remain similar to past projections for the Business
Park, in part, because of the changing nature of the work force (more hi-tech than daily
retail restaurant users) and work hours. The proponents note that hi-tech workers tend to
work at different hours that a tradition 9 to 5 work day.
5.9 Existing noise levels have historically exceeded state noise standards for residential areas
near County Road "D" and Cleveland Avenue. The added traffic from the proposal will
not significantly increase or decrease noise levels. However, construction noise may
have a temporary impact, but only during weekday daytime construction hours.
Construction for the building is estimated to take 12 to 14 months, during which noise
and construction dust will be managed to reduce impacts, as much as possible.
6.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 The Development Review Committee (DRC) has reviewed the proposed change in the
Master Site Plan, the proposed Solutia site plan, the proposed PUD Amendments, and the
draft EA W. The DRC concludes that the Master Site Plan designates the vacant parcel as
a restaurant site to serve the users of the Business Park. It is limited to 6,000 square feet
of building area and 82 off-street parking spaces. The proposed change in use is not
sensitive to the mixed-use nature of the Master Site Plan, and is not supportive or
complementary to the existing uses, both directly adjacent to the vacant parcel as well as
those throughout the business park. By not developing a restaurant on the site, it is
possible that more off-site employee vehicle trips will be generated, especially during the
lunch hours.
PF 3338 - RPCA (10/10101) - Page 60f9
6.2 Recently, staff has received inquiry regarding the location of a sit-down restaurant in
Centre Pointe. Also, the tenants in Centre Pointe have indicated the location of a
restaurant in Centre Pointe as a specific need. This information has been provided to
staff through on-site visits as part of the City's business retention program and as
evidenced by the attached letter from Ryan Companies, property manager for many of the
buildings in Centre Pointe.
6.3 The DRC also concludes that the PUD controls the uses on the site with specific terms
and conditions under which parcels and uses shall develop. The PUD indicates that if a
restaurant is not developed, an office is an appropriate alternative. However, the site is
limited to 6,000 square feet of building, unless a PUD amendment is approved.
6.4 The Community Development Director has reviewed the proposed change in the Master
Site Plan, the proposed Solutia site plan, the PUD Amendments, and the Draft EA W.
The Community Development Director concludes that PUD Agreement is the regulatory
document for the vacant parcel and that the proposed use, as an office, is appropriate and
permitted, especially if the previous lot owner has demonstrated that there is no market
for a restaurant. In addition, the proposed two-story office could increase the parcel's
allowable square footage, lot coverage, and impervious coverage; however, these
changes do not present heightened environmental concern as evidenced in the Draft
EAW.
6.5 Given the discussion above, the Planning Commission has three options for a
recommendation:
A. Retain the 6,000 square foot restaurant pad. Recommend that no change be
made to the Master Site Plan or PUD Agreement #1127 (denial of rezoning
request and no EA W necessary) because the proposed change in use and
increased building square footage are not complementary to the existing uses
within Center Pointe Business Park. Other reasons include:
1.
2.
3.
B. Develop the 6,000 square foot pad for offices. Recommend approval of the
change in the Master Site Plan from a restaurant to an office use, concluding that
the use is acceptable based on the PUD Agreement #1127 (deny requested
expansion of 15,240 s.f.; no EA W necessary). This would limit the office use to
6,000 square feet and 87 off-street parking spaces. The determination is also
premised on the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
PF 3338 - RPCA (10/10101) - Page 7 of9
C. Develop a 2-story office with 15,240 square feet of additional office space.
Recommend approval of the change in the Master Site Plan from restaurant to
office; approval all requested PUD Amendments (eliminating all references to
restaurant use and terms and conditions). The proposed use is acceptable as is the
increase in building size from 6,000 square feet to 15,240 square feet (an EA W is
required). This determination is also premised on the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
6.6 The Planning Commission may wish to make additional comment on the Draft Voluntary
Environmental Assessment Worksheet. The EA W has not yet received a public comment
period. The Commission could comment either at this meeting or at a future meeting,
should the environmental findings change. If the State Environmental Quality Board or
its reviewers find that significant information is not available, incomplete or missing
regarding the PUD land use amendment, the staff will return the document to the
Planning Commission for further comments on that issue at a future meeting.
6.7 In late November (staff estimate), the City Council will again review the Planning
Commission's recommendations, receive comments on the EA W, and decide on the
Council's declaration ofEA W adequacy and impact.
7.0 SUGGESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
7.1 By motion, the Planning Commission finds the Concept PUD Amendment to the Centre
Pointe Business Park PUD for office land uses proposed by Solutia, to be consistent (not
consistent) with the Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the 1997 Centre Pointe PUD,
and further, that the Planning Commission recommends that the ultimate use be .. . (from
section 6.4 a, 6.4 b, or 6.4c.. ...)
7.2 If staff recommendation 6.4c is selected, by motion, the Commission recommends that
after review of the Draft EA W the Commission has found no significant environmental
impacts requiring further review in an Environmental Impact Statement at this time.
8.0 NEXT STEPS:
8.1 On October 22, 200 I, assuming that the City Council concurs with the Planning
Commission and an EA W is required, the Council must then approve the distribution of
the Draft Voluntary EA W for review. After the 30 to 45 day period in which state,
county, local agencies and the public review is completed, and subsequent Planning
Commission comments added, the Council must then determine whether there are any
significant new environmental impacts.
PF 3338 - RPCA (10/10101) - Page 8 of9
8.2 If there are no significant impacts, the Council action may be to provide a "negative
declaration" - which means there are no significant impacts that would require further
environmental analysis and additional mitigation than what is proposed. After that
decision, the Council would decide on the Solutia PUD Amendment and ordinance
Report by: Thomas Paschke (651-490-2236); Dennis Welsch (651-490-2232)
Attachments: Draft EA W; Site Plans; Centre Point PUD and amendments
Acceptance date: 60-Day Time Limit: 60 days after conclusion of EA W process
Q:\Planning Files\3338 _ Solutia\RPCA (101001 ).doc
PF 3338 - RPCA (10/10101) - Page 9 of9
J
"
~1\-
, .. h' ,~
1\" \
'v ....~.
" ..9-1
.,~
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT #1177 AGREEMENT
PLANNING FILE 2880
AGREEMENT, dated April 11 , 1997, between the City of Roseville (the"City") and Ryan
Twin Lakes Limited Partnership ("Developer"),
1. Request for Planned Unit Development Approval
The DEVELOPER has asked the CITY to approve a Planned Unit Development
consisting of proposed office, office! warehouse, showroom, manufacturing, 2 hotels
and 1 restaurant on 47.6 acres located on land generally bounded by 135W on the west
and County Rd D to the north, and Cleveland Ave to the east and City!MnDot ponding
to the south. The standards listed below have been adopted as a portion of Ordinance
# 1177, a summary of which has been published along with the legal description of
property to be included within Planned Unit Development #1177. The subject property
is legally described as follows:
The property affected by this Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall include all lots
within Centre Pointe Business Park 2nd Addition and all lots within the original Centre
Pointe Business Park Addition except Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 2, Block 2 of the original
plat, all in Ramsey County.
2, Planned Unit Development Approval
The CITY hereby grants approval of the Final Development Plan and subject to the
DEVELOPER'S compliance with the terms and conditions of this agreement. The CITY
agrees to approve applications for building permits, provided that said plans are
consistent with the exhibits which were approved at the concept and final stage of the
Planned Unit Development process, and all of the conditions of this agreement have
been satisfied,
3. Approval by the CITY
The CITY hereby approves the Development as shown on the following exhibits. The
DEVELOPER shall develop the subject properties in accordance with the general plans
approved by the City Council on April 11 ,1997. If, however, the exhibits vary from the
written terms of this Agreement, the written terms shall control. The exhibits marked
approved by the City Council on April 11, 1997 include:
A. Site Plan
B. Preliminary Plat and Final Plat (Centre Pointe Business Park 2nd. Add)
C. Elevations
D. Grading Plan
E, Utility Plan
F. Landscape Plan
G. Minor Subdivision Plan
1
4. Grading
Grading plans will be approved if ihey are in cOi1~ormity with ihe approved preliminary
grading plan, and provided that ihe condiiioi1s sei forth below, which relate to the
grading process, have all been satisfied,
5. Compliance with Laws and Regulations
The DEVELOPER represents to the CITY that the proposed Development complies
with all City, County, Metropolitan, State, and Federal ~aws and regulations, including
but not limited to: Subdivision Ordinances, Zoning Ordinances and Environmental
Regulations. The DEVELOPER agrees io comply with such laws and regulations.
6, Rezoning
The CITY conducied hearings io consider ihe rezoning of the Subjeci Property from B-4
Business to PUD Planned Unii Development. The CiTY agrees ~o rezone the Subject
Property to PUD, subject to the DEVELOPER's strict compliance with the approved
plans and the terms and conditions of this agreement (Minor variations from the
approved plans may be approved by the CITY's Design Review Committee, under the
direction of the Community Development Director). Substantial departures from the
approved plans will require an amendment to the Planned Unit Development in
accordance with Section 1015 of the Rosevil:e Zoning Code, Fai~ure by the
DEVELOPER to commence development activity (that is, receive at least one building
permit and begin construction on same), in substantial accordance with the Final
Development Plans, within one year following the final approval of this Planned Unit
Development will necessitate the approval of an extension by the City Council prior to
the expiration of the one year period. If an extension is not app~ied for, the Council
may instruct the Planning Commission to initiaie rezoning to the original zoning district.
7. Additional Conditions of Approval
To insure that the proposed developmeni meeis the City's standards for the approval of
a planned unit development, as set forth in Section 1015 (Roseville) Zoning Ordinance,
the Development shall also comply with ille jollowing specific PUD standards:
1. All final land use designations, site, building, landscaping, subdivision,
signage, lighting, final EAW documen~, utHity plans and Exhibits A through H
shall be part of the standards for development of the 1997 Centre Pointe
Business Park PUD. The written PUD sha~1 be utilized as a set of development
and design s~andards that describe standards to be used aJS new buildings and
designs evolve over time.
2. In the PUD, the intent is to maintain at least 50% of each buHding as office
uses, except for the hotel and restaurant buildings. Permmed "office" uses shall
be defined as listed in Exhibit E-2. The uses shall be restricted to those
2
.I
specified in the site plans and supporting documents including office,
office/showroom, office/manufacturing, 2 hotels and 1 restaurant within the
Centre Pointe Business Park Plan, If either of the hotels or the restaurant are
not built, the lots/sites designated for those uses on the approved land use/site
plans shall be used for office, office/showroom, or office manufacturing uses as
per Exhibit E-2. Accessory structures or exterior trash collection areas shall be
prohibited, Where not superseded by more restrictive requirements of this PUD,
the standards of the B-4 zoning district and the City Zoning Code shall apply.
See Exhibit E1-E3 attached.
3. The green space with pond areas shall be 25%, the building height shall
be limited to 3 stories maximum north of Lydia, and 8 stories south of Lydia.
4. The minimum lot size shall be 60,000 s,f. or 1.4 acres. The building
setbacks shall be equivalent to the B-4 zoning district requirements including 30
feet of front setback, 10 feet of side setback, and 20 feet of rear setback,
5, Building materials shall be a combination of brick, natural stone, masonry
tile, architectural steel, and glass on a minimum of 65% of all vertical exterior
wall surfaces visible from any public right of way. The brick shall be of an earthen
tone similar to the brick used on the existing buildings within the Centre Pointe
Business Park. No more than 35% of any vertical exterior wall may be a
combination of color impregnated rock face block stucco, or EFIS/Dryvit,
primarily for base, trim, or accent and sign banding. Vertical walls in loading bay
areas (or portions thereof) that are not visible from any public right-of-way may
use matching color impregnated masonry materials such as block, poured or tip
up panel concrete, Exceptions: Hotel architecture, ground mounted HVAC for
common areas, and dish/antennas shall be constructed as per drawings
approved on April 11, 1997. Restaurant architecture shall be compatible with
other buildings within the Centre Pointe Business Park and be subject to review
and approval by the Community Development Director.
6, Exterior HVAC may be roof mounted, Parapet walls of the same material
as the primary structure shall visually screen such devices on all four sides from
any adjoining right-of-way lines or property lines, HVAC may be internal or
ground mounted and must be screened.
7. Loading dock areas shall be screened from view from any public right-of-
way by building design or with 80% opaque year-round screening, masonry wing-
walls, and/or berming to a minimum height of 10 feet (or the building sign band
height, whichever is higher) above adjacent curb heights. Loading area
entrances shall be no wider than 28 feet, with appropriate curb radius for truck
turning. Loading docks may not face Cleveland Avenue unless screened by
another building or by such other screening acceptable to the Community
Development Director,
3
8, The requirements for parking on public streets shall be established and
approved by the City. No semi tractor or ~railer parking on streets, landscaped
areas or parking lots, or loading areas, except while delivering materials, shall be
allowed in the business parle !Except for customers, no RV parking shall be
allowed,
9. Stopligh~s and right turn lanes may be necessary in the future for
entry/exit safe~ into the business park. A~ such time as the stoplight and turn
lanes are (individually or at the same time) determined to be necessary by the
County Engineer and the City, the stoplight shall be installed and assessed to all
parcels within the PUD. The location of the stoplight and turning lanes may not
be known until ~he major users are in place within the pari<. - estimated to be 3
years after approval of the PUD.
10. Parking setbacks shai! be a minimum of 15 feet from the front property
line and shall require 80% opaque year-round screening and berming to a
minimum height of 30" above curb height
11. Planting areas with shade trees shall cover a minimum of 5% of the
parking lots. All landscaped areas, including planting islands shail be irrigated to
protect the turf and trees/landscaping materials. A mixture of coniferous
evergreens and shrubs shall be required to provide screening, especially in
areas and berms along Cleveland Avenue. A landscape performance bond shaH
be required as per the city code. Coniferous evergreens and other screening
materials shall be placed in areas that reduce impacts on residentia~ areas. The
minimum standards ~or landscape materials and sizes shall be the City Code
Design Standards,
12. Sidewalks shall be required along both sides of all interior streets.
Connections shall be required between the sidewalks and the pathway. The 8
foot pathway (along the north, west, ar.d south side of the business [park shall be
dedicated for public use through an access easement. The location of the
pathway along Cleveland may be moved. The Cleveland pathway shall be
treated as a required sidewalk rather than a pathway. The pathways shall
connect to pathways east of Cleveland. The City will make its best efforts to
provide pathway connections to Langton lake Park from Brenne~ Avenue and
from Cleveland Avenue. See Exhibit B 10r pathway map.
13. Parking spaces 81nd size requirements 10r e81ch use or modified use shall
be established consistent with the City Code parking standards in use at the time
of building permit issuance. Proof of parking pians may be filed by the developer,
with additional parking to be installed by the developer as parking thresholds are
met.
14. Bus/transit e81sements for turn-out !anes and loading 81reas shail be
designated along Cleveland and on Centre Pointe Drive if :required by the City by
December 31,2005, Because this is a PUD and 81 resubdivision, the developer
4
shall be responsible for dedicating the land and the cost of construction of these
bus areas. These locations and configurations will be designated as the ultimate
users are identified.
15. Cross parking easements shall be filed for the following lots:
1) any adjoining multi tenant buildings lots shall share parking through a
cross parking easement,
2) any restaurant lot shall share parking through a cross parking
easement with adjoining hotels lots.
16. Ponding shall be reconstructed and maintained as per City of Roseville
and Rice Creek Watershed requirements and permits. The owner/developer
shall provide appropriate easements, The owner shall be responsible for any
pond maintenance.
17. Lighting (downcast) for streets and parking lots, and lighting for exterior
building areas and signs shall be of one consistent type and applied/installed
uniformly throughout the business park on all lots, as described in Exhibit D.
18. Each multi-tenant building shall have a signage plan submitted at the time
of building permit application, identifying a sign band area or entry detail. The
total exterior building wall signage shall not exceed 10% of the front face area of
the building, and shall be placed within the sign band or entry detail. The
developer shall submit sign criteria for each building as part of the building permit
application, The developer shall approve all sign permit applications as being
consistent with the building's sign criteria, Exception: Hotel and restaurant
building signage shall be constructed and placed as per drawings approved on
April 11 , 1997.
19. Each building may have one monument sign. Freestanding 2-sided
monument signs shall only be placed on interior streets and Cleveland Avenue,
Such signs shall be a maximum of 10 feet in width and 6 feet in height and shall
be constructed of the same background material (brick) as the adjoining building,
Signage per side shall be limited to 16.5 s.f. per side. The setback from any
property line shall be 10 feet.
One project identification/directional sign at North Centre Drive and one at
South Centre Drive shall use the same setbacks and materials background. The
size of the project identification/directional sign background shall not exceed 115
s,f. in area, 12 feet in height, and 9.5 feet in width. The sign area for such signs
shall not exceed 50 s.f. per side. The sign setback from any property line shall be
10 feet. All sign messages shall be on a sign background and shall have a
similar type style and letter heights, and shall not extend closer than 6" to the
5
edge of the sign background, Landscaping of the base sha~1 be required. Signs
may be front or back lighted or internally lighted as per the attached lighting
standards in Exhibit F.
20. Freestanding signs along the interstate frontage shall be limited to one 2-
sided sign for each two lots with interstate frontage (Le. each building shall be
limited to sharing one sign backboard with an adjoining property). The
freestanding sign shall be a maximum of 20 feet in height, 14,5 feet in width, and
shall be constructed of the same background material (brick) as the adjoining
building. Signage per side shaH be limited to 150 s.f. per side. The set back from
any interstate property line shall be consistent with existing signage on the
interstate. All sign messages shan be on a sign backgrou:'1d and shall have a
similar type style and raised letter heights, and shall not emend closer than 6" to
the edge of the sign background. Landscaping of the base shall be required.
Signs shall be front lighted or back lighted as per the attached lighting standards
in Exhibit D.
21. All new and replacement street trees shall meet the requirements of the
City Street Tree Master Plan (Exhibit C) and/or be approved by the city foreste:-,
22. Park dedication shall be required for the new PUD in a combination of
land and pro-rata cash contribution amounts as set forth in Section 5.5 of the
amended and restated development agreement. As part of the site plan and with
each building permit, the developer shall maintain existing outdoor green
areas/spaces and all weather benches and tables for emp!oyees' breaks or lunch
hours.
23. Communications equipment for the private use of occupants of the
buildings (such as antennas and dishes) shall only be installed on roofs, Parapet
walls shall visually screen such devices from any abutting right-of-way lines.
Exception: Hotel and restaurant ground mounted dish/an~ennas shall be located
as per drawings approved on April ii, 1997, along the west side of the building,
24. Cellular telephone transmission equipment within the PUD shall be the
maximum distance from the residential areas possible within the business park
and shall be architecturally imbedded or attached to building wails as part of the
building design.
25. Business hours for restaurant operations shall be required in licenses
approved by the City Council. No more than 10% of the restaurant gross indoor
floor area shall be utHized for b8!r area. !For purposes of this PUD, the bar area
shall include standing and seating arealstoo~s wi1h~n 10 fee1 of aU sides of the
bar where drinks are served. No bar shaU be located outdoors.
26. Significant proposed amendmen'ls which would cumulatively increase the
project size, area, or number of buildings, parking, or roadway system shall be
6
considered a major amendment to the Planned Unit Development and shall
require amendment hearings and approval by the City.
27. There shall only be one additional curb cut placed on Cleveland Avenue
as a driveway exit from the far southeast corner of the plat, adjacent to the city
ponding area. The curb cut permit shall be subject to Ramsey County approval.
The business park shall use the existing three roads as entrances to and from
Cleveland Avenue.
28. Consistent with paragraph #7, the roads shall remain in the same location,
The building(s) within Lot 3, Block 3, shall be redesigned to minimize the visual
impact of the loading areas on the adjacent residential area to the east.
29. In the business park, the hours for construction, snow and trash removal,
truck deliveries and pickup of materials shall be restricted to normal business
hours (7 AM to 10 PM on any weekday and 9 AM to 9 PM on any weekend or
legal holiday),
30. The Staff shall review and may approve pathway realignments and city
pathway plans to match pavements and provide a continuous pathway,
31. Bar space (in square footage) and hours of operation shall be defined in
the bar's liquor license, (See # 25.) Bar and restaurant activities shall be limited
to indoor and outdoor eating areas, No outdoor bars or sports activities
associated with the bars shall be permitted, Retail bar space shall be prohibited
in hotels,
32. Lot 4 of Block 1 of Centre Pointe 2nd Addition (northern most lot of new
plat) shall be designated for one story office building use only, with uses as
specified in E-2.
33. The developer and/or a service district or special assessment to
developer, depending on authorization of the property owners and approval of
the City Council, may be required to pay for or construct sidewalks, berms, and
screening/walls along the east side of Cleveland Avenue from County Rd. "0" to
Lydia. All improvements shall be constructed to meet the City Code Design
Standards.
34, The developer and/or a service district or special assessment to
developer shall pay for and/or construct (subject to City, County, and State
engineering and landscaping approvals) the following:
1) a continuous right turn lane along the west side of Cleveland, from
"0" to North Centre Pointe Drive;
2) a ramp turning lane from 1-35W north onto County Rd, "0" and
along "on to Cleveland;
7
3) construct a right turn lane from Cleveland onto County Rd. "0";
The Developer will not be required to pay for any necessary rights-of-way and
construction/ expansion o~ the interstate ramps to prrovide queuing capacity, The
Developer shall only be required to pay for items 1, 2, and 3 above if the
City/County/State begin construction within a reasonable time but in no event
beyond January 1, 2000.
35. Pending approval by ~he City amd County, the developer and/or a service
district may be reqU!ired to pay for or construct a Cleveland Avenue center island
with 2 to 3 gaps for left turns. The island and both edges of the Cleveland
Avenue frontage may be landscaped and planted with flowers similar to
Lexington Avenue in St Paul. The Developer shall only be required to pay for the
above mentioned improvements to Cl2ve~and Avenue if the City/County begin
construction within a reasonable time bu'~ in no event beyond January 1, 2000,
36. For 1998 and 1999, the developer and/or a service district or special
assessment to developer shall be required to annua~iy pay for "city service
credits" to be used or "spent", with advice from the neighborhood. The service
credits shall be 8l maximum of $10,000 per year and shalt be invoiced to the
developer on a quarterly basis, Such service credits shan be exclusively for
police services hours.
37. After an engineering and fire/life safety s1udy, Brenner may be modified to
reduce cut through traffic, This will be a city project at City cost
38. The City shall allow 619,600 s.f. of new buildings Oil the entire site.
Changes in building size or height from the original, approved plan of April
11,1997, may only occur south of Lydia where building he~ght may be reduced
and single story buildings may be consolidated into vertical building height of up
to 8 stories provided:
1) green space on the site is increased to at least 25% of total lot
area.
2) structured, ramped, or deck parking shall be provided when
additional parking space is needed.
3) the building is sprinklered to increase fire sa~ety and reduce fire
protection costs.
39. Based on the approved (April ii, 1997) building placement and usage 0'[
the lots north of Lydia, an advisory neighborhood design task force shall be
formed to review landscaping and lighting plans, street widths and driveway
placements, street aiignmenY'realignments and turning movements along and
abutting Cleveland Avenue to ~he business park buiiding setback iines,submittecJ
or proposed after the formulation of the task force, in the area from Lydia
Avenue north to and including County Rd. "0" as illustrated in Exhibit H, The tasi<
force shall be formed using the City's task force policy - similar to other
8
"
neighborhood task forces. The task force shall be in place until one year after
the issuance of the initial certificate of occupancy of the last building within the
Centre Pointe Business Park or the year 2001 whichever ocurrs sooner. Prior to
implementation, all task force recommendations must be approved by the City
Council.
40. All buildings may have integral/interior deli's and/or cafeterias to serve
primarily the office users in one or a series of buildings,
8. DEVELOPER's Default
In the event of a default by the DEVELOPER, as to any of the work to be performed by
it hereunder, the CITY may withhold certificate of occupancies from the DEVELOPER
or, at its option, perform such work, and the DEVELOPER shall promptly reimburse the
CITY for any expense which it incurs.
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the developer may convey a parcel or
parcels of land within the PUD to third parties, which conveyed parcels shall remain
subject to all of the terms of the PUD specifically relating to such parcels. In that
connection, the parties agree as follows:
A. A default by the Developer. or its successors in interest. in the
performance of the obligations hereunder, will not constitute a default
with regard to a conveyed parcel and will not entitle the City to exercise
any of its rights and remedies hereunder with respect to such conveyed
parcel. so long as such conveyed parcel otherwise complies with
applicable provisions of the PUD,
B. A default with regard to a conveyed parcel will not constitute a default with
regard to the parcels retained by Developer or other conveyed parcel, so
long as such retained or other conveyed parcels otherwise comply with
applicable provisions of the PUD.
The CITY agrees to give the DEVELOPER written notice of its default not less than
thirty (30) days prior to the commencement of the CITY's work. The CITY and the
DEVELOPER recognize the weather conditions may affect the ability of the
DEVELOPER to perform the work required to be performed hereunder and agree that
such thirty (30) days shall not
include those days on which weather conditions preclude performance by the
DEVELOPER.
Notice to the Developer shall constitute, without further action, notice to any contractor
or subcontractor. This Agreement is a license for the CI1Y to act. When the CITY does
9
any such work, the CITY may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in
whole or in
part. if deemed impractical by the CITY, the above notice requirements shall not be
required by the CiTY to control erosion prob!ems.
9. Miscellaneous
A. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, ~heir heirs, successors
or assigns, as the case may be.
B. Breach of any material term of ~his Agreement by the DEVELOPER shal]
be grounds for denial of building permits,except as otherwise provided in
Section 8,
C. If any portion, section, subsectjon, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase
of this Development Contract is for any reason he~a1 inva~id as a result of a
challenge brought by the DEVELOPER, their agen~s or assigns, the
balance of this agreement shal! nevertheless remain in full force and
effect.
D This Agreement shall run with the Subject Property and shall be recorded
in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office.
E. This Agreement shall be liberally construed to protect the public interest
10. Notices
Required notices to the DEVELOPER shall be in writing and sha!1 either be hand
delivered to the DEVELOPER, their employees or agents, or mai~ed to the
DEVELOPER by certified or registered mail at the following address:
Ryan Twin Lakes Limited Partnership
In Care of: Ryan Builders Inc.
700 International Centre
900 Second Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Notices to the CITY shall be in writing and Sh8111 either be hand delivered to the
Community Development Director, or mai~ed by certified or registered mail, in care of
the Community Development Director at the foHowing address:
Community Development Direc~or
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
10
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year
first above written.
EVI
B ~ I1I!J:'
y: 1'- .. VI
BY~r
RYAN TWIN LAKES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
A MINNESOTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By:
Ryan Builders, Inc.
Ge ral Partner
By:
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
, i ) SS
COUNTY OF ( A }J~ )
'"
The forgoing instrument was acknowledged before me this c;.. (:ST day of
~~ ,1997, by Dan Wall, Mayor, and Steve Sarkozy, City Manager, of the
City of R seville, a Minnesota mUnicipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and
pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council.
r.:.:::- ..-..::: : ~ .~~2:-:'...-~ - -~:: .:ru~ :--:-:- '::-.;z---z.c..:.., .~~. ~
'~ ", '''::-:, k':,:,:;~LI_I.~'L:~EN :
:,.. " '. NOT^"" .Uc' '''.' ,,,,,t'ESOTA h
. . NI. r ...r..'"" lil.,t,c
'. "i( t .: A:WKA COUNTY
. ..,..... My Commission Expi,es Jan, 31. 2000
\ I '
\~v~i, J.. U~
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS
COUNTY OF ;k/,117f 111f? )
~
before me t~ ~ay of /
,t e Ir !{Fs/[/Prlf
f the partnership.
ffM'\^A'^",^",^^^^"AAAA u...... . . L. . No ary
REV,52197 ~~.......,. '~':."""">'VVVVVV\I\I\NV.
J'\CENTRPT\CE. D , J_~'-:; ~. ~::R~.::"N:~m ~
: "' ,'~. r,:).r., (rl;~' ''''.'''....=~o.... I
\ / .......,..... 10.,".'10.... tit
c" \... ' f :: ..':7'J c....,,~TY
< _/ './. :__'.~ .:;..:....."'\J'W.I
L', ',p" ., "" ~..r'..sJ..~,31,2~OO
" .'. ,~, ;("^,.,^,...hV'",..~. 11
'~
1.
2.
, , 3.
4.
- 5.
-
6.
7.
>" 8.
,.;
9.
"..
',.,-
RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRIGr
SUITE 330 ARDEN PLAZA
3585 LEXINGTON AVENUE NORTH
ARDEN HILLS, MN 55126-8056
RCWD PERMIT NO. 97-06
c:
City of Roseville
Montgomery Watson
Inspector Brough
RCWD File
PERMIT
PERMIT APPUCATION NO. 97-06 Kent Carlson
Issued to:
Kent Carlson, Ryan Companies, US, Inc., 700 International Centre, 900 2nd Avenue S.,
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Location:
Southwest quadrant of County Road D and Cleveland Avenue, Roseville
Purpose:
Approval of a Final Site Drainage Plan for the construction of a commercial
development, 48.8 acres.
At their meeting on February 26, 1997, the Board of Managers cf the Rice Creek Watershed District
reviewed your permit application and the recommendation of the District Engineer based upon the
following exhibits:
Permit Application, dated January 9, 1997, received January 10, 1997.
Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, prepared by RLK Associates, last
revised March 5, 1997, received March 5, 1997.
Preliminary Hydrology Plan, prepared by RLK Associates, dated February 13, 1997, received
February 13, 1997.
Preliminary Site Plan, prepared by RLK. Associates, dated February 13, 1997, received February
13, 1997.
General Details Sheet, prepared by RLK. Associates, dated February 13, 1997, received February
13, 1997.
Project narrative and nmoff calculations, prepared by RLK Associates, dated February 13, 1997,
received February 13, 1997.
Letter regarding regional pond expansion prepared by City ofRoseville, dated February 26, 1997,
received March 5, 1997.
RCWD Permit files 87-49, 86-49, 96-155, and 96-154.
Cash surety in the amount of $10,500, received ~ 7, 1997 from Ryan Companies.
Continued on reverse--
';'i;
RCWD PERMIT NO. 97-06, continued:
Page 2
They found the project as pJanned to be in accordmJ.ce with the Rules & Regulations and Guidelines
of the District and therefore approved. the permit as requested, willi the following additional
stipulations:
Stipulation: Applicant must notify RCWD immediately if regional pond expansion becomes
unfeasible.
It is the responsibility of the Permittee to provide all measures necessary to contain sediment on the
site during construction. This may require the use of erosion control measures not outlined on the
erosion control plan. If this requirement is not met, the Permittee may be cTdered to provide additional
erosion control measures if deemed necessary by the District Inspector. It is also the responsibility of
the property owner to px-ovide necessary maintemmce to assure that ths stormwater management
systems approved as part. of this Permit will continue 00 function as origf.nally designed.
NOTE FOR PROVIDERS OF A CASH SURETY: Two (2) inspections of the project site are included
with this Permit, one after erosion control measures aure in place and one after project completion,
revegetation, and silt fence removal, and will be coJlldlucted to assure compliance with all agreements,
terms, and stipulations of this Permit. Failure to cnmpJly with the foregoing may result in forfeiture
of your cash surety, rescissio:rJl of the Permit, md is in violation of Chapter 112.89 MSA, a
misdemeanor. Please notifY the District; Office in writing when project is complete and permanent
vegetative cover bas been established an.dl a final ins;?ection will be made. Any additional inspection,
requested or required, will be billed. at $25/visit.
.~<
This document is not transferable, and is valid foJ!" eighteen months afteR'the date of issuance. No
construction is authorized beyond the ~ date of October 18, Jl.998. If Permittee requires more
time to complete construction" a i'enewa!! of the Pem:nit will. be necessary.
~~M'
Please contact RCWD at 483-0634 when the project is about to commence so an inspector may view
the work in progress. By acceptance of this Permit, Permittee has consented to the foregoing. The
enclosed Owner's Certification form must be completed and! forwarded within ten (10) days of project
completion.
-
RCWD ~~~4)
.~
of Managers
Date of Issuance: M&reht 18, 1997
jak
Form C Revised 11911
" '
''>
~... ).
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
PLANNING FILE 2880
Exhibit B
a
~
~
~
Q)
~
CJ')
C'd
~
~
$....1
~
~
Q)
CJ)
~
]
~
~
,..
::J
, C,I
, ,t:
[" J~
\, . 13
r 2,-f'-. <..
\t ~ ) (-, ~--,
J iSa.qs ;u~,:;,<; ~
,. .~,
~.
, I
~L.:.c....
<jz
~
~
Iii
~! ~
c:
, ,5
d
~ i
I
I
o
"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ;;' ~ J:
.:; ~ ~ ~
~g", .:;1; 'E
~ ~ g", a ?
~o -0] ~a
~~ "0 -0 .cg",
!I:: ~~.g ~2
~o J;o!: ~ ~'==
OJ) '3 0 Z ~ ?j
,,;gj gfia ~ E~
,~ c.. 'ij ~ ~ 0 :>::
~ ~ '!( 2' ~ ~ 'C;
~ g", , 01 '0 i:
'0 ~,c; ~ 0 iJ
<;-.~ I D=_~
to...
o ,. ,
~i
U
i::
\;,)
5
",~ a
:0 g-
. t;/) C) ,?
} ~1i
. ~ g.:::
g !,
"15
Qu
,e.Q
.. ,If 'g
.::j
~
8
-- ------
--- - ---- --
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
PLANNING FILE 2880
Exhibit C
>
f:': ow; 'm ~j"'~
~,ffl~j ~
STREET TREE .MASTER PLAN
CITY OF ROSEVlUE, MINNESOTA
i::: . -- ~.ffl- Gal)
ll....::-. - - ~fY"Tc51bD
r=;:::-:~""'.:~~,:, () '.~ ->..
, :'1 ~,:<~ ."
. tlJ ..;'.~ ~~ I....'
I' !j,., ." , ." /
,. ,,' ~-, ~...,
I! S~'.' /'/ :~
: ,....., (.-' ~ ,.,,~,
~;:~"~'~:"i.:. tv ..-/
i ..;:.?,.-'. ..'/ ~r ~:.:...
II '/ ,'..'/ "~."
[ho .tk', .' /.'". :1 ~
i:::.....~!"/>. :.: c::J
I ':~ / /.
~!~:>~:< /
:':. ~'~OA1)! Dl'~''\~ -1 q-; - ~~~'
~ :~: I d! i'l ';'1-":>> OAK ("
~:ll:: ~l ~\, ~~~; Ii (;~ ;i
!~ ~h~'I~ Ii \} ~, ~
~~~ ,~-.~ ~
r:t':~~c ~c"~+~~~-~-t\- , _:::
F' i OF - - 1_- '.\)
Ii : \ " I; ':'""'"
1:: , ___; ! ,"- -~---==11::-'~, >:
i : , : 'V _~', i ' 1\ i -;~~,
. . .... 11t.-e".L--1[:!":'\.' 4f ..,
:1 ~: hI' :11 I,t::c=,.. --,"::./", ,\
': ...;;' ~'i... ,i.....~.:, ' ~,
, :ez:-::---=--1 r~=~ ,::~ --- -' I.~=-
, r- , O;7.-:.~~, Iv .
~"I HI"" a
nmv '!L~=---~-~-~._~-~: d
I' t--....-- ---"';~
u.) ~! ' ~!~ ~
<. U }
~. == .-<~../
~!""',:J V. ;J 'I!
I' :j i I
~~ i! Jl :i .J;' j
~' ~~----=-.~.~ - .... 'ia'.W5 :'
: ~~:..:..~~..-i:'~-~--li~;-\)~"~~~~::~F --- ~
~t-'::':-..". I (r-"1r---"~'
--.--- c.: " 'I .~-':.
. :'~II ::r:: i d ~J ~I ';!D::r:t!
~il ~ ---,Jtrj!~f~i J~li '
~~:::""~-~:--:-::---:;-:--:::=--- : :1~:_~'-~~_1.i"l,!j:___
;! uxb~5T : " -~":::--:..JC-=-2r--~-
\ ;; ~ B LOCUST
\. :, q i - '-
\,~.--M~~;;:~~~1 k7-~3e"
\\ ' \\ -4 V ~
\ ~ ~UST ~ \ LOCUST
f: \
I ~~:-=:-~:"'r' \
I i ~ ~ /'
'---~..J.l -. .. t ~...
,___ ~L~.~_
.- -- -
CITY Of' ROSEVILLE"
MINJNESOT A
~
AREA
1
STREET TREE MASTER PLAN
NORm
SCAlIA :['D!'.OOO'
page 15
STREET TREE MASTER PLAN
CITY OF ROSEVlUE, MINNESOTA
STREET TREE PALETTE
..}tCOUNTY ROADS - NORTH/SOUTH (CO-NS)
TREE NAME Hr. FORM NOTES:
Marshalls Green Ash 50-60' Oval
Patmore Green Ash 50-60' Oval
Summit Green Ash 50-60' Oval
Hackberry 50-75' Rounded
Skyline Honeylocust 45-50' Broadly pyramidal
Imperial Honeylocust 30-35' Spreading
Ironwood 30-35' Rounded
*HONEYLOCUST GROUP (LOCUST)
TREE NAME Hr. FORM
Skyline Honeylocust 45-50' Broadly pyramidal
Imperial Honeylocust 30-35' Spreading
Ironwood 30-35' Rounded
(commercial zones)
(wires overhead, commercial zones)
(use under overhead wires)
NOTES:
(commercial zones)
(overhead wires, commercial zones)
(use under overhead wires)
STREET TREE MASTER PLAN
CITY OF ROSEVIILE, MINNESOTA
APPENDIX I
Street Tree Spacing and Location Requirements
DEFIN1TION: A Street Tree is any canopied tree that exists on the public right-of-way.
I
~
I
~~ JJ
:':->:-:,..... ~
,,::::;'::::::::::::::/;:::;::::::::;::::\' :' ,t;),<:
. " .. ......... . ....... - ~ .' . .
LARGE TREE SPACING
35' ON CENTER
:::?;:::::::}"::'(~}.:::"::':::)::.:}::.:::' ~
,.........,........,..,.....,../
......... ......... ......-.....
. ........ ........... ..........
..... .. .. . ........ -.....,....
................. .....--.... ....
. . . .. '. - . . . . . . .. .......... . . .
....... ......................
....-. ",' ...... .... ........
.... ... .........................
............. . . ..............
........ ....-....................
::::::.',',. :::. ','. ::::. "::::.', ::. '::.',', ....
SMALL TREE SPACING
20' ON CENTER
Almost all streets within the City have rights-of-way that extend behind the curb line. This
area is public property and is generally used for utilities, walks and landscaping. The width of
this right-of-way area varies considerably in different sections of town. Municipal ordinance
requires that all Street Trees be planted 3 feet inside the public right-of-way (as illustrated).
All Street Trees are to be planted and maintained to meet public requirements. A free,
written permit from the City Horticulturist is required prior to planting, trimming, removing
or otherwise treating trees or shrubs upon public property (see appendix J).
page 29
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
PLANNING FILE 2880
Exhibit 0
-..---.---.-...-.--.-.
--.----.-.---------"'---.-.
Ryan COInpanies US, Inc.
700 IlJtt'J"1I,lti,lll:lJ ('f'lltn'
\)l\1I S,.t'lIlId \"''''h' Stllll"
.\lilll",,,!,,,li,, .\1 '.'i,') J02.:tV'i,
() I :!;,:"1;){-)- i 200 t"(!rpor:tit~
(j 12::1:57.,,):),')2 CL\
Built/iu{!. 'A/'lillg Hdlltiollships
March 20, 1997
Rick Jobke
Assistant Community Development Director
City of Roseville
2660 Civic Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
RE: CENTER POINTlE BUSINESS JP' ARK
ROSEVILLE? MN
Dear Mr Jobke:
I am writing to outline our architecture design intent for the above referenced project. The project
description along with the enclosed information shall provide you with a written pictorial of the quality
of architecture proposed for Centre Pointe Business Park.
Centre Pointe Business Park is designed to meet the office space needs for technology and service
related businesses in the Twin cities metro area.
Exterior building finishes shall be of medium brown brick to coincide with the existing office bu]dings
on the site. Additionally we will use dark brown brick accents and textured/colored precast concrete to
highlight the overall texture of the brick facade. Windows will be tinted gray glass with butt joi:lts or
narrow bullions and finishes in dark brown. (see enclosed plan and perspectives)
All accessory structures, if any, will match the proposed masonry finishes of the office buildings.
Rooftop mechanical units will be screened from line of sight by brick masonry parapet walls. Line of
sight studies will be completed and submitted to the City of Roseville for record of comp:iance.
Ground surface mechanical or utility equipment shall be screened from line of sight by landscape
material or brick masonry screen walls,
External loading, trash or service areas shall be totally screened from residential and adjacent area
views except at driveway access points. Whenever possible, trash and service areas will be contained
(within the building perimeter) on the main floor.
Road, driveway and parking lot lighting shall be concealed downcast type fixtures on 30' high poles to
match existing conditions. Building entrances and ground signs shall be ground lit with controlled
bean ground lights. Truck dock areas and rear entrances to buildings shall be lit by wall mounted
concealed down cast type fixtures. (see enclosure)
DOCUMENT6
MW
J'rl!:~tdil!j I,. \\I"i: 1'.I!',.r W
J),'si\!1I H,Ii]d 0 Hl'"l [,tall' D,.q'ill!,lIlellt 0 I'roj1nt\ \lall"~t"l1t'lIl
Rick Jobke
March 20, 1997
Page 2
The enclosed monument (ground) sign detail will be typical for each sign location indicated on the site
plan. Additionally polished metal letters, 24" high will be wall mounted at the main entrance for each
user and ground lit.
Hopefully the information and enclosures explain our design intent as you requested. If you have
further questions or need more assistance please call.
Sincerely,
d1L~
Project Architect
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
cc: Kent Carlson
RLK Associates
DOCUMENT6
MW
ROAD9 DRIVEWAY & PARKING LOT
UGHTiNG ON 30' HiGH POLES
TRUCK DOCK ENTRANCE LIGHTING
Performance
and quaUty
are the
long..term
retu rn on you r
investment
1
2
Performance
designed for
application efficiency.
The true test of any luminaire is
how well it will perform in a
specific installation, At Kim, we
call this application efficiency,
Pole spacing, total watts per
square foot, uniformity of light,
and visibility are the factors to
consider in evaluating an
outdoor luminaire, The EKG has
been designed to provide true
"bottom line" efficiency, As
evidence, a computer analysis
can be provided py the Kim
Lighting Application
Department.
Maintained ~ighi
output ~hrolUlgh steaied
optics.
Coupled with application
efficiency is the ability to
maintain light output on the site
After all, initial light output IS 01
little consequence if it cannot
be sustained over the years in
an outdoor environment.
Performance oriented fixtures
lose efficiency and waste
energy when optical chambers
are filled with dirt and insects
A completely sealed optical
chamber was a foremost
consideration in the conception
and design of the EKG, The
results of this effort are readily
apparent when comparing the
Kim EKG with competitive
luminaires after several years
of field operation, The EKG is
always substantially cleaner
than any other fixture of
comparable age,
A1-2
';j
3
Rapid ilil1stallatior\1,
eas'SJ maintenance,
and adaptability tlO
new technology.
"Time is money:' a truism
substantiated by today's high
labor costs, Whether on initial
installation or periodic
maintenance, a fixture
designed specifically for ease
of handling is a time and
money-saving asset. The entire
EKG fixture is constructed in
self-contained subassemblies
that provide for quick
installation and maintenance,
Farsighted engineering allows
these subassemblies to easily
adapt to new developments in
lamp and ballast technology,
keeping the EKG operating at
peak efficiency, There is no
reason for an EKG to ever
become obsolete,
o
4
Materials and
construction
designed for
~ongevity .
From raw materials, to
construction methods, to final
coatings, there are no
compromises in the production
of an EKG. It must withstand
wind, rain, snow, ice. wide
temperature variation, bugs,
dirt, polluted air and vandalism
throughout its useful life, There
is no harsher environment than
the outdoors, and only the best
materials coupled with proven
construction methods can
stand the test of time, Kim's
50 years of experience in the
outdoor lighting business is the
basis for this philosophy,
u
-- -- ---.--
~
,'~,,\
;;
'.---'
Mounting Details
__ 1A
. . . 26
2L
-'
..!. 3T
+4C
__ 1A
. I' III 26
-.{1W
J-box In
wall, by others
U
W3E
H
I Hl6E
2U
4U
'Field wire connections made here,
Standard mou'lting for aluminum
0' ,"" po~J ' I~
--=:-----It
~' It
L6"X2Y2" I
,188 wall
Optional wood pole mounting, Wood poles
by others,
~-
J" c:J
~L6"X2Y2"
,188 wall
Optional wall mounting
for concrete walls only.
i-~
-L6"X2Y2"
,188 wall
o
"
"q.
Optional cluster mounting for steel poles with
2'12" pipe size tenon (2%" 0.0, x 43!4' long),
~~~
-~
A1-9
, I
j
!
t'~~
L._.
'p8jUnoW BUIII8::> 8q oSle ue::> l::llt
8LH 'a;qe,ie^e IOU cue SUWnIO::> JO SlIeM 8J8~MSuOlje::>lldde JOIJ8jUI UI
10JjJO::> 81815 UOISI::>8Jd JOj leapl p8JaplSuo::> aq PlnoLjs wajS^S JOOO
we8 l:N 8Ljl 'S5UIII8::> Lj51Lj pue swnlJj8 s.^epOj JOj UOl1nlos BUIjLjBII
leapl ue S8plAOJd l::llt aLjj 'juawnJjSUI 5uljLj51l JOIJ8jUI ue Sit 'saiod
jO ISOJ 8Ljj 5uIAes 'p8jeUlwn,jI ^lIe::>lwouo::>8 8q ueo 8mpnJ)S aLjj
punoJe Sp.aJE 'slIeM JOU8jXa 5UiPlmq uo pajunow u8LjMI00j 5uljljBq
101J8jU' pc.P. JOU8jX8 alljeSJaA e S8wo::>aa l::llt 8~1 '8JleUIWnl pejunow
!leM E sit 'empalll.p18 OJ UOI;lppe !uejuewaldwoo e se palunow
j.eM Q~ ue::> l::llt aljj 'WJOj aldwls pue ueap 8 Ljons SI}I 8sne088
: I6JM!~(\J]rri1~~ Wef0\
----
~NU.HE)n N!DIS aNffUO~~
~ 3J:J)N~~JLN3 ~N~al~ffUg
BUIILjB1l WI>J
j
. ,
aB8110) BUlpunoJms
ljjlM pUGlq OJ ^jljlq8 S)I )0 asneoaq papuaWUJ008J SI ljSIUlj (d-80)
8ZUOJq )j18p aLjj 'S8a18 pa}Ueld UI paj8::>01 uaLjM 'a6e)je8Jq WOJj sual
8Lj; }::>8jOJd 111M uOljdo PI81LjS uex8l 8Lj} 'UJ80UO::> e sasod wSll8pue^
8J8ljM S8818 UI 'IOJ}UO::> aJ8if:) 810lX8g apl^oJd UB::> uOljdo JOOO
UJ88 8^ISnpX8 8ln 'U88S 80 ueJ aomos jl..lBII aln 8J8ljM SUOIjBOOI
JO::laJaJ:)uo::> U1las UOllj::>U8IS e )0 a::>u8uewJad pUB 4!5uaJ1S
pappe aljj JO 'X08-r 18mpajlljOJ8 pe)8Ulp1OOO uBlsep 8 SJ8jjO
LUI).j 'f:)Uljunow JO::lsBejj 10 saGJ) 'SII8M 'suB!s 's8pe::>ej BUljljBII
10) ^lInjqne8q suolj:Junj '1::1'\1' eljj '1lj6qpoolJ pejunow punoJB e sit
:15U1~~Ulnow p(\J]1110.ll~
----------
A~~~~~Ee$J~^
AFL1 Horizontal Flood
Application Guide
"'N,~~,~"._._~_",_.~~._~._..._.~'....____....~_,,_.'N_.~__.fi_'__'_'__'N
_______~~~._._'.___N'__.__._.N...__.,..____~~_____'.N__"_.
_~ . _.w __._.... ,_'.. . ~
W'~____ _,_",
~
General Guidelines:
The AFL1 horizontal beam pat-
tern is designed to illuminate
surfaces that are more horizon-
tal than vertical or longer than
wide,
The AFL 1 is designed for broad
illumination with the fixture rela-
tively close to the lighted sur-
face, Recommended distance
from the lighted surface is 6' to 20'
depending on lamp and wattage,
Optimum aiming angle is 371/20,
See pages 12, 13-18 for
photometric reports
11"
'"
\J
AFL2 Vertical Flood
Application Guide
("
_ '.' '__~___H ..._..., _
General Guidelines:
The AFL2 vertical beam pattern
is designed to illuminate taller
surfaces when grade mounted,
or wider areas when wall
mounted, In general, AFL2 fix-
ture spacing is less than AFL1.
but the beam reaches higher or
farther out, Recommended
distance from the lighted sur-
face is 6' to 20'depending on
lamp and wattage, Optimum
aiming angle is 450,
See pages 12, 19-26 for
photometric reports,
Facades-two to three stories.
Signs-vertical.
Ceilings-wide,
(
l.-
~~
~
F'ixture Systems
BUILDING ENTRANCE
HIGHLIGHT LIGHTING
llF -to Direct Lens, Symmetric Downward
-I Light Distribution, Wall or Ceiling Mounted.
The LLF-10 is the basic IIgl1tll19 instrument for hOrizontal surfaces
or up to 100 sloped rarnps. It may also be cast into ceilings or
overhangs for superb illumination of adlacent walls, The LLF-10
should be specified for low-level fioodlightlng wllere architectural
permanence, superb glare control, and a quality cast-aluminum
architectural appearance is deSired
llF-20 Direct Lens, Asymmetric Right-Downward
Light Distribution, Wall Mounted.
The LLF-20 contains an exclusive optical system specifically
engineered to light stairs or ramps having greater than 100 slope, It
is so efficient at lighting inclined surfaces that often one fixture will
do the entire job, The LLF-20 should be specified for unsurpassed
lighting efficiency and glare control, with permanence and quality to
complement the finest architecture and site design,
llF 30 Direct Lens, Asymmetric Left-Downward
- Light Distribution, Wall Mounted.
The LLF-30 is exactly equal and opposite to the LLF-20, As such,
the specifier has complete flexibility in lighting stairways or ramps
from the right, left, or both sides Please refer to the night
photograph on the preceding page as an example of how one
LLF-30 or 20 can light an entire stairway. Specify the LLF-30 for
performance, permanence, and a strong architectural character,
Kim Lighting
4,
, .
<t!
l'
" ~
" ,.
Ii- > ;'~
~ \:~ ~~
.i "" ii,
,,: ' t'
; 1;'~;
1 ':~ ~~~
,-. 4(';
:....
~..
""'.'"
II rE fil r(j\ Direct Lens, Symmetric Upward
l1::, u =i'=\,>1:J; Light Distribution, Wall Mounted.
Tile LLF-40 superbly illuminates building overhangs and ceilings for
aesthetics or for indirectly lighting pedestrian areas below. It can be
\Jscd outdoors or Indoors where a high quality, low maintenance
lum,naire IS dictated by the architectural design, The smooth outer
surface of the tempered glass lens will stay clean and clear in the
nverted position, and will not yellow as with plastic fixtures,
/'
llf =5(0) ~i~~~~~~i~~~~'n~~~~~~i~n~~:.nward
With its concealed lens and front light baffle, the LLF-50 is designed
for sensitive areas requiring absolute minimum fixture brightness,
The LLF-50 produces excellent light distribution for illuminating
hOrizontal surfaces or short stairways, Its strong architectural
appearance will enhance quality site design that is built for
permanence, Specify the black finish for minimum fixture brightness,
/1""',
~..J
'--..
..-i~
1
l'j .;}.
)
_ ...--_~,.J
-"f
llF =60 g~~~~a~~: ~~~~ ~~~i~~t~~~', ~~~~~~ed.
The LLF-60 has all the features of an LLF-50, with the addition of a
cast aluminum lens guard, and a translucent white lens to eliminate
guard shadows, It should be specified in areas requiring a high
degree of vandal resistance, concealed light source, and the
permanence of heavy cast-aluminum construction, Specify the
black finish for minimum fixture brightness,
v
L
Kim Liohtina
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
PLANNING FILE 2880
Exhibit E 1
"I!'"'
W
I-
m
J:
><
W
:~~~~~~~~~ ;z
~*~~: ~~ M
:i c;
~f.) UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ I/) ~
...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J >
<< ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J rh ~
...J ~ <( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ...J ...J
~ ..... ~ ~ ...J tJ)
I/) UJ UJ I/) UJ UJ UJ UJ ...J ..J
UJ UJ I/) ~ ..J
It) en to c;; 'It It) .... It) CD It) en ~
N .... N I'- .... en N UJ
It) .... .... N ("') N N ~ .... en CD
It) tJ)
v '"
t~ ID
N
~; N
AI:
~l.:'~;
!~~ i ~
:',' .~.
I~:,:: 0 0 0 It) It) It) 0 0 <D 0 0 0 M
0 0 I'- I'-: I'- I'- 0 0 ~ 0 v 0
Lri Lri Lri N N N Lri Lri .... co? N Lri c;
.... >
;:;:::....:
...... .: c(
,
':
';
~ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ U)
UJ UJ UJ I/) UJ ..J
...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ..J
...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J
...J ~ ..J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ...J ...J ...J ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I/) UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ I/) UJ UJ UJ I/) UJ U)
;:::::,'.: en ,.., en 0 0 It) eo N
;n I'- CD 01 It) '"
;:::;: '; N CD eo M CD CD en .... I'- CD v ...
en ......-:.;0.* .... N N .... v .... N
~1ili~~1:~
C ,I
a:=
<C
c u..: u..: u..: u..: u..: u..: u..: u..: u..: u..: u..: u..:
Z (Jj (Jj en (Jj en en en en (Jj en u..: en
en en
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I'- 0 ("') g
:::::: ~ 0 0 N ,.., 0 0 0 ,.., 0 0 0 0
:~:::.. ,', N CD .... It) en 1'-. CD CD to 0 0 IQ
<( itS; ci .0- .0- .0- .0- 0 .0- m ai 0 r-: .... ai
en .... N .... en .... ("') en eo cD ("') m ...
~ ::::::Ii .... .... IQ
W
!:: ~ li111
rn t= ;IJII
c en
. 1 u u u u u u u u u u u u 0
:J ::::::.,':: <( <( <t <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( c(
::::;: : I'- eo 0 CD M It) 0 N N N ,.., CD ~
D.. ~ ~ <D r-: CD ("') CD .... 0 ~ .... I'-: "'"
.... N ..-- Iri ~ ~ N Lri co? .... N .... M
Z ~
<C
~ I
~ ~ ~ ~
I/) UJ I/) UJ
.... N ("') V It) eo I'- CD ~ ~ ~ ~
:~;:.1 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 en 0 .... N
.... .... ....
"",,1 ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ..... ..... ..... .....
W~I; 0 0 0 0
...J ...J ...J ...J
:;:;:; .
...... .
It:::J
.:.:.:-:.:.;.:.
I >- >- >- >- >- >-
>- >- ~ >- >- >- ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0:: 0 0::
0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ..... ..... 0 ..... 0
tJI: ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... UJ UJ ..... I/) .....
UJ I/) UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ W W UJ W UJ
~::::I w w w w w w 0 w w w w w
...... z z z z z z ~ 0:: ~ Z ~ Z
.;.:.;"
'''I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 :I: :I: 0 :I: 0
::~:: .:; ..... ..... .....
fJt~~I~
...............
illl! :2 :2 :2
0 0 0
"'I 0 0 0 0 .....
~;ili~.' . .:~ ~ ~ ~ Z
:;::::',.; W W u... ~ s: w W ...J ~ ...J W ..J
i:il: u u :2 0 0 u u w w u ~
u::: u::: ijj :I: :I: :I: u::: u::: I- ::> I- u::: :
....... . ~
::::;: .: u... u... U UJ UJ I/) u... u... 0 0 u... I 0
~:1!~: 0 0 u: W W W 0 0 :I: UJ :I: 0 i-
u... U U U W
::111: 0 u::: u::: u: 0::
.:.:-: "
~~~t:::::~~ u... u... u...
~~~~~~~;;~~ I 0 0 0
r--
en
en
or-
...J
co
I-
~
<(
c
w
.....
en
~
11.
0::
.....
Z
w
9
.,
or-
or-
....J
c:::
a..
<(
- -----.-------
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
PLANNING FILE 2880
Exhibit E2
N
UJ
t:
aJ
I
X
UJ
Q)
c.
>-
....
en
c
.-
"C
-
.-
~
OJ
.c
to)
C'O
W
c
.-
.c
.....
~
"C
Q)
~
E
....
Q)
D-
en
Q)
o
::>
.,.
OJ
...J
4:
aJ~
~<{UJOO
~O::UJ
OO~CJ)
UJa..OO
C)~~~~
~ :::> >= X a..
0:: ro. a.. W ~
~QOCDW
I- UZCJ)
o <i 0 5 LLOLL
_ ~...J
u:: 0:J(9
~ IaJz
a..w-
Z -..au!::::!
<(uuz5=
:Eg~o::~
9~~(9
0:: 0:: wZ
I-a..u~
OW-Z
\IJ:JLL-
...J...JLLO::
WaJOa..
...J
~~
<{woo
'-o::w(9
~~OOLL
a..OO~
~~~w
=xa..~
:E~w~>
00 wW
OG~OOO
_p_LL...J
&&. OLL<{
3: '-b = 0 5:?
o :J(90
:I::I:aJZw
U)~g..WN~
~::J<<S
>-
I}::o::~u
rzw:Jz
~OO(90
Wzo::
-~
w~~u
5LLZW
pLLO::...J
jIioa..w
- a::
C) ...J W
'C - 00
:a ~ :5
UJ
.c 00 0:: 0>-
Co) W ~ ~ z(9
C'IS ~ooz a.. <{a
CI) LLZ~2W OO...J
'0 ~2g,g~ ~fi
~ ...J:J...JO::w :JI
o <{~W (9 a..U
g z~>zz ~w
OCJ)w~o o~
E OOZo...J...JOOuO::
::i~~...JZu:JQCD:5
E<{LL~(90aJOZ~
c!:;OUCi)ZW:JN-
L.o::zw<{u~-CJ)
E~a..<{0>-5CJ)~0::
- oC:IZ .0::0::(9:J0
w<<SCf.)LLBOw~CDCJ)
O:;:!Cf.)oC:Io::!;{OOozO::
LLUUJCf.)<{O::wo::_w
LL5~~~0~8~~::J
o W :J <{ W ~ I':!:: wo::o:: UJ
~ aJ aJ 0:: ..J ( J 0:: a.. a.. 0
,....
0)
-
o
N
-
10
.....
fD
~
Cf.)
w
00
:J
~
fD
t==
a..
0::
~
Z
UJ
u.
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
PLANNING FILE 2880
Exhibit E3
EXHIBIT E3
Centre Pointe-Open Space Analysis
!j!:!:lli!:!i:;i:i:!:!:ii!:;lli!;:iB~j_;1:~1~:!~~1}il~i!!:::: tltt:~:".":,:,,, ,',',__" ,.,,',,',., ;!i:!ji!frIJI81B1;lil.j:i!:~
GREEN SPACE 396,858 s.f. 21.16%
POND AREA 81,575 s,f. 4,35%
BUILDING AREA 464,732 s.f. 24,77%
PARKING AREA 839,150 s,f. 44,73%
SIDEWALK 93,523 s.f. 4.99%
TOTAL SITE ~ ,815,838 s.~. 100%
Summary: Green space and pond area added together equal 25.51 %
Percent Green on Parking lo~s
'::!::!!:iii!:;!i:i!:!i:i!:lli!:i:l~i:i!:i:lli!:iill:;;i:i:;ii;i:ii:i1i~;;i\~i!:i:i:i:i:ii;rj:i ':!i;lli!lli;j:!!:;;;i~!;;i:!~!i:!;~r:;:;: :':'::;;~:~:11.111i:;;i:::i!:!:i:;i:i:i:;lli~i!:i:!ii!i
1 8.5
2 1 1 .0
3 6.8
4 7.0
5 5. 1
6 6.2
7 6. 1
8 8.7
9 1 3.0
1 0 1 1 .0
1 1 1 6.0
1 2 1 8.0
J:\CENTRPT\OPENSPC,TBL
FROM : RLK RSSOCIRTES LTD
PHONE NO. 512 933 1153
Mar. 20 1997 12:55PM P4
. ,.,"'~ ~t::
If2~ [!
',', '.' 00
- - - - - . ~ . . . - -
, 1,. II
. S.g I ~..
',aCrie!
I ! i :-1 i:l :
I! It III ,
_toJ! 1IIIwl,.,
~i I !a Ii I
0" O:II~5
~'lllil:1 !
i! ! ~I ! !I ! !!; !
I :
~.'-.
" ~
....
:i:
~
i
~
~.~
"
!=~~
lIP
~P':r.
IIIi
i. ,.b
; ,lliii!lH '
!~ c II c i
': ~!ie ftl ~.~ .
:!I I~III
i I,~ "die :,
- " .... - i!:9
I, !! -:
.......
;,..,
,'", .
.; , .~.
. . - . . '.,-
. ; ~ ;~~. ':'~
I
L
" ~
iiI.
Hi'
o · I
- ff~
,
~
I
, ,i!
> II
>^::~;I~i':~. ", "
, "'.":}::x:: {~:,~;[1~'Y~:;:'
.. ~.: '.: ::~ . :<?t:~.::' .
"',' '}~B]~t~;~,;;;,,".
" ,
. ""-', ;..
..' .
_:4:._._~~' "-
"
. . ,. .. c. ~
. . " :.,', , . ~ .' ~
. "... ~.." .-
. ..:'~ ..>~.~::':'
. " ..
.," .
.,.,,' .
. .:.,.,- I,. "
~ ..;~:....~..: : ,-:;''':'~:f -.' '
I . ,"
~,.;..;~:'.~~~<!~.~.' :.:.. .
- .'
"'-':', ...,.... ,"
:..'>: .:;"ooU :', ; ",
'.:"/:':f;':';:".
- . . '" -':'" _ ." . ~~;'.Y"':.I"::.,~ ,;..'~.' "1...l..'~ ;..
-";"". ,... .... :......~..r.~.,. .. ..~'"'., ~. "..~<....':':~:~ " ....,...~. .' ..~. .'.
<'. .
.~~
.., f". ,:...;r;, ~.,-~
FROM RLK ASSOCIATES LTD
. ,
oJ .....,....
:. ._; :.~.~.~:::~~~~~~~.;;:{ Z:.*,:; )~:'.
'A.,.. .'
.I~.~i~:~.1..43.. '. .~ i..a...- .!.. ".\. ..
, -
" ,. ,j-C-'--cr;'~
~~~2~ ,I
La I 11 -----I !:
U
!>!J
I
PHONE NO.
612 933 1153
Mar. 20 1997 12:52PM P3
,>,
;: "7';;': :::
,...... ., H,. "':'.1', .
.....
.........
,'"<{,
}ii~;'~ ; ';-
Y.. e. ~ ~~
"'~... j. I
~t: :
'.; ;(
3:
en
I!')
CD
:i
CD
;;
S
I
. " "
ru~
[
[i;l
~
1111
II
I
~
h J
:J
~ II]
<L-t
ml
H!
jif!
~ !
~
I
I
i ;
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
PLANNING FILE 2880
Exhibit F1
~
E~M1b~'r
~~~~,""","i2>i22"C:C--" ~:_::':':=.::::.. . 'J
I'
yl
-J
,
- - --
19
Z ~
is
.-J 19
[ij z
t3 is
(5 .-J
~ ~
I-- 0
Q.. -0:: a: (5
-0:: :2 u.. 5
(.) I--
W 0 t: -0:: t=
I-- I-- .-J ~ -0::
W (5 0 0
~ iE en I-- ~
ffi ~
(.) ~ I--
I-- 0
I-- W ~
en < .-J ~
-0:: LL
(.) ~ 0 -0:: ~
~ W LL
-0:: !Q :><: f=
0 -0:: (.) 0
0
a: a: 0
LL
1
- - --
-----
;....
"
" '
.-."
".' ".
.......
I!J
......
:.....
"!
m
-0::
~
<0<
.' ~
<0<
~
en
~
>
I-
z
o
fE
, ,
"
"!
;....
~
:::::i
>-
I--
a:.-J
W-o::
~~
a:Q..
0..>-
01--
I--
.17-.1
.'2-,<;
<;>
\Q
~
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
PLANNING FILE 2880
Exhibit F2
(\fJ
~
{kIL
N81S NOAld OGSOdO~d
111 JI1ed[ SS~1UIgS1rll g
(d)~1UI~Od[ (d)JI~1UI~:)
INl-GOO
'"
)()(]
OOt1-'Ktfm
qu>>S GCImoIoy p;ws 00.:.
""
L66! AV'N 9
'..
.O-! . .lJ1
~1!;)'I:..'U.I-IJlIllU!~ IlJJl.J\l}J/1~\..IJt~J/"1
....-
""""'_OOL
o.a~'i."O'D"'rr"i:J j..,.....'lI j"'1I'G'''i'J
~Gl1pm$dUJDlI@::) 1ID1PtA 'Jill[
~
~
JJ
c
, , ~ ~
:>
~ N
U5 ;:,
~
lS ~~ w
ifj ~ifj g is ~ '
~ 5W I- ~
:~ 1rl ~IV)
~ o I-
~g <C i8~
:x: <C S
U ID>-
I- is:]
~ 0
I- 6<C ~ ~~~
0 _a
I- 0 > (/') iSV)Cl.
ffi @- ~
i V)~ V)~!B
~ ~~ "ffi~
~I-~
ifj <( ti!~ 2~
u. N
!
~ ~ [i]
~ ~ ~ I I I
<( 9 I:IWI
Ii! ~ i
~ . <( I i i
:P~ i-I
'" B
i <D<( ~
z I I ~
C
i ifj
I i5
i ~ :J ~
I ~
I 1&
i
'!
~
j, .~_._.._____{.._...______, V3!:I\I :f.)\IN8IS
.9 ,0-,<; .0-,9
. - --- ----_._._-
.01-,11
._u_._~
.0-.1 .17-.1
~
:>
I-
Z
o
a:
u.
w
2
w
:r:
u
(j)
z
o
(j)
z
o
..J
>-
a..
N'
t
lllio !he QrcIe Dr.
. ~':::
GGa4a
, (1112) ~
ru. (1112) na-U6S
Centre Pointe
EXHI&lT F2 b
Pylon Sign
Location
3=
1.0
t")
---
Pylon Sign
Location.
~
I
, auny ROoID C
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
PLANN~NG F~lE 2880
Exhibit G
t;.J-''' .LJ.'-It ~-'.~'-
"
W
e
~~....:'
- 0"'-
f")- '0
.". '" en .
. ....en
Mo "'as
Z ""u
5~&~.
~
~
...
10
~ '"
,.,
,...
~
~ ~
~
~ z
5:
~
~
~
~
~
.IV
............1 II . ,,'...___
It /{ii r -(;7
E
I
CERTIFICA TE OF SURVEY FOR:
RYAN COMP ANIES
\25 ~ 2~ \
I~; 1&0. \ \ \ OVERAll PROP~TY OCSCRtPTlON
C lbb.., \. Lot 3. Blodt I. CENTRE; POINTE BUSINESS
c;: ~~~ \. ~... PARK. occordin9 to the recorded .,Iat
Q _ ....v.'- thereof, Ramse)' Counly, t.tiMesolo.
EAST -:.:,~, "." 'J:.?\!:~., AREA: 301.33.. Sq, II.
122 00 ~.\ 6.9177 Acres
A...,~^/'.:.I.q."~ ~ ~~, ".,." .~\. PROPOSED DESCRIPTION
._"./' T _ )!. \ pF tjORTHFRI Y PARCEL
~ '/ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ That part of Lol 3. Block I. a:NTRE:
# .~. ~ 'fb. POII'HE BUSINESS PARK, according to
~ ~~- '~ Ihe recorded pIal Ihereof. Romse)'
. ..;.".q; '. A COllntu, MinnesOla. I.;n" norlherl)" of
~<Jl''' ~ \' ..' the Icllo..lng desc;rib~d "line; Comrnen-
.' ~ . ).';' cing at the northooet comer of said
,- ~ ._., ' :if, \ Lot 3: thence 5011111 30 degrees 00
'(,') - "'r;'1t>~ milllltes 00 secondS EOIlt. ollsumed
":, "'~s,. 1\\ bearl/l'il. 171.23 reet along the easterly
: "'~Oo (: ) "ne of sold Lot 3; tll.nc. soulller1)"
,..: , I I 42, I 14 Sq. ft, -".t' 0 1 "3,99 foe! along soid cas! tine at Lol
~ L.'...! 3 2625 A ~ij.cg~ 3 an 0 lan90nliol C\.Ir"'" concave to the
... - ,. ,cres ~':'iC2.0 west with 0 radius of 275,00 feet and
~ ~ - ..-CPO with 0 central ongle of 30 degrees
: 0 s 00 minutes 00 seconds: thence on 0
: ~I bearing of Soutll 90.00 feet tong~t to
-, .~-~-.. said curve alon9 said cost lin8 of Lot 3
, ". to the point of beginni/lg 01 the line 10
o " Ie be described: thence on 0 bearing 01
C ' r"2S Usst 408.50 feet to 0 point 01'1 tile
g "') , 2S ____~ Irest . lin~ of Lot 3 and sold line there
~ I : terminating,
,..., I VOlA
N 1--_ - --- -- p"'oPoc;m (\E~t:RIPTlON
o AVE. Of SOUTH~Rl Y PARCH
! ....~ Tllat Dart of Lot 3, Block I. CENTRE:
:::! ~ I 2S POINT( BuSINESS PARK. acconli"9 to
.. ;:) ,W Clhe rteCo;~ed plot I"~reof, ROlhm::..ey f
'! ~ (}-ol Ou'" )'. ....."osolo. l)IIng sou """ 0
Iz Ihe following describe<! line; Commen-
. clng ot the "ortlleosl C:O,"III' of soid
It"'\ Lot J: thence South 30 degrue 00
:' ~ ml"utes 00 seconds EoaL oaaurned
f I bearing. 171,23 feci olong U'le eosterly
line of sold Lot J: lher>ce southerly
:;-~. -~~. 143.99 feel along soid cost line of Lot
J on a 10"9,,"1101 curve concave !o the
$7". J,' 1 weat .ith a radius of 275,00 feet and
'''''24''' ot " . I I f 30 d
4f'.4J.' ~. _.~O w,!h a cl!ntro on'il e 0 egrees
fA .~ - 0, 00 minutcs 00 seconds: tllence on 0
/ ;,,::~ ~X!8 bearing of South 90.00 feel to"9ent 10
... Qo, D GIoI!!y :;oid curve 0lon9 slIid eost line of Lol ~
/... l:!f >oJ /i:S? to the poInt of beginning of the line 10
4"~ ~ ..~.:..... ' '!L be dcst'l'ibect; thence on a tleorinCJ of
/ ~~ <:J West 408,50 f.et to 0 Dolnt ~ tllO
/ ,: ..'!~ ",cst line of Lot 3 ond sold line lhlff'l!
4~ c,; ::; I . terminating,
,,1<9 / ~.~
/ +." ~~ We hereby c..-tify thai thi!! Is 0 trye and correct
':5"/ 'eptesen lotion of 0 SilrvO)' of the boundarie8 of
.";tJi the lond described obo\te,
~e,/ Doted tnis 17th doy of F'ebt'uory 1997.
",',5>, .,~I SUNDE LAND SURvtYlHC.~C. .
qv BY: 'C~ - ......;Q -
;,;,;{ EdworC! M. Sunde. R.L,S,
..... . Minn. Reg, Nil. Be 12
/ ~~""",
,./ ; I
~
r
::;
C')
:)
[t;
,r)
..
~
WEST
..08.50
159,220 Sq. ft.
3.6552 Acres
~
:",..1
1--
1--
~
...,
-~
-<-
o
()
'~,
--
,...,
lJ_
-....
~ )
()
124,50" '
WEST
-..,J
LrJ
t:.("
/-::
fY'
. '-I
->
~-
, ,
L.' ...J
( )
eo
I
SCALE
~ ITA'lrTI('fI ~!! ~o
o
ao
I
FEET
-, ~ ....klel.. r,_ (.1!IW)
-........ ... >>0211
1',2) 1111-2055
!l6-JIIO T.ll! 11.23 5.5 ovw IlIi~CIOO5,DIrG
IN
CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK
PLANN~NG F~lE 2880
Exhibit H
,90LJ.NTY
.........-..............
..............-- .
.,...."""""""..,.......R9.AP....P.",.w
EXHIBIT H
I
I
III
.1
~:
~~
cS:
Q..:
e!R~N.NER.,--..,'~'~,.~----------____:__:__
...
,
~
10
(\')
~
~
CI)
ffi
j...;:;
~
lLJ:
~[
~:
0:
LYDIA
...,--.,........,..,..,..,..../.':.
AVENUE W
~... ..- ...........
......-_.----.-_.
--..---.--.......---.......
City of
~EVfLIL
MINNESOTA
Community Development Department
Ma 13 1997
Centre Pointe
Task Force Study Area
~ Study Area
Scale: I" = 200'
o 50 100 150 200 Feet A
, I N
"
Community Development Department
651-490-2279 . fax: 651-490-2931
August 16, 2001
Mr. Rick Kuula
Solutia Consulting
1241 Amundson Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
Mr. Brian Sullivan
RLK Kuusisto L TD
6110 Blue Circle Drive, #100
Minnetonka, MN 55343
RE: Application submittal to amend the Centre Pointe Planned Unit Development (#1177).
Gentlemen:
On August 7, 2001 the Community Development Department received the proposed plans for the
Solutia office development in Centre Pointe ofRoseville. The submittal included a full set of
proposed plans, and application to amend the Centre Pointe Planned Unit Development, and a
narrative describing the proposed project.
The Community Development Department has reviewed the submittal and determined that the
application submittal is incomplete. Much like the Veritas project and the need to review
potential environmental impacts, the Solutia proposal is over the threshold for the original and
amended Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) and will need to complete a separate
EA W amendment regarding the 15,300 square feet of additional office area and 4,000 square feet
of additional impervious area.
Though the City has not held a Development Review Committee meeting regarding the proposed
Solutia site development, the existing PUD does not allow for detached trash/recycling facilities.
It is suggested that the proposed building plan be modified to incorporate this necessary area. As
well, the site lighting plan is unclear on whether the luminaries are actually hidden and down
cast, and what are the pole heights. These items should be corrected and resubmitted with the
draft EA W.
Community Development Department
651-490-2279 . fax: 651-490-2931
In summary, we have determination that the application for an amendment to Planned Unit
Development #1177, to allow the construction of a 21,300 square foot office complex on Lot 3,
Block 1, Centre Pointe Business park 2nd Addition, is incomplete. The request will not be placed
on the Planning Commission's agenda until the completion and submittal of the EA Wand
revised plans.
Should you have any question, please feel free to call me at 651-490-2236.
Sincerely,
CITY of ROSEVILLE
Thomas Paschke
City Planner
<Iz
~
0
0
. ('II
0
0
('II
~ II
_ 0
.....0
.. T"
~ CD
13
en
~ 0
~
I-
0
-0
r::
~
r--.. ....-
r--.. CO
,..... M
,..... M
=It:M
o =It:
::J~
c.. -
0 Z
~
~ ~
s::: --
CJJ l-
E 0
-0 CJJ
r:: ~
CJJ r::
E --
0
-<( c..
CJJ
r:: I-
~ ~ z
r:: 0
I- CJJ D~
~ u
~ LO
V) CJJ ,.....
::so w
O"M .-
CJJ US
I- ~
bl) ~
c
s::: aI_
-- ~8
~ ~.2N
- Q) .
::s ~~~
V) ,~~
r::
0 3{
U L~
8
~ ~
--
~ ....
::s 0
en
- ~
0 a
~ ....
~
CY
L-.~~_
_~__ .,~_..__-_..-t:... _____. ___'_ _...d, _ .,_ _ _,_~ _ ...._ ,_ _ ,._.__ .,_ _.,_____ _____. .
~~.._~,_1, Ctc.e~--..-t:cQ~-~--~-~--,~.~---~~ ~--j _cJ~,I;, 2-
~~tl~ ~...17u.~,~ h4S(ht6..r)~~~~~).
~__ ..._-__' ~ __ ~.______--"'-~._~"-.:.....",,,,..~..,.,..-:~_ ~ ._... __~",_,,_.. ___ _._ _.._ __ ___.,.___~.____ __ ......_........ "C:."_ <__. _"_ _____4__.'..______~~~_,._.__ _
"'"
, ~ :t'(-
'_ _A_ ._...~.._"'_y~~_.~.-\M." -'.' _. . __.__ ~-?_~ _ ()l ?__'___.~ __A. _ =_ ..,.....__ _.__.. __ '.
-;:... __. ~,.ir __~.... - '---,---" - _-",-__..,.___.,_.__,~ ~"'-'.-=._.__-"'_" _."'......... ....-,_------"'"'--__...._.. -". __ . .__.__._____..,..
,~~-~ ~-.~~(-~~~~~~_~- ,~~~~,~~_ ,_ ' _:__c,._
~ l~d~~ \AI'I~ ~~AJ "'1JJ~ :
L. .;..' ~ __ .'- _~.:c.- ~.........~..~ __ ......-... __.C-. .__ - =-'-____ __ :._ ......;-.:::--.__ -:....... -+-: '_~ ___~~_.._ .._____.__ _..~____ '..____ _. + ._ ___~__.. "- -,
_.. .. -" C-...._____.""""_....____ _.....,. ~_. "_ ___~__''''_'_''___''' _~ ___ _ '_
~ ' 7
_,0 __. ~~q.~"C~... >~-1r~1,.(-~. ,~t___ _._ .____._=,~~ "t>~~~~~&-~ ~ -. __ ,_..
""_:......... 0..._0<:"...""-__..... ";.._.:_.~ ----"'.,' ._;.~.:.....-_.. =~. ,-"',_..__"";c:Io_.~_ _~.' ~_ _____~..._'".___. _........__....___.,___...""-'<-=-::~..__C"'- ...."--_-....c::.:::-'.:-.
-____~_._ ....::.0-_ .."'.._.,.......~~ ,.'-~....... _.~ _ .,".,,_,_ -_..._ ,~
~ t"'^~ ~ ~~ ~ b ki...a~ ~ U\.t...C<, kcVVV\ --
--~ 'c-~-'.~~~~V~l;'. '" ___=_,.-_:~__~~- :_u ." _,~, _ '. _ .-_~~,,_",
, .. - /h1 M1.. '
_, ..' ....J~~ __..,. .. . _ _. . _. _ .. _
-'w. . 'i -~
"j. P~~aM~-\i-: ~-~ ~- ,--~--
--... -" ._- ~ "...,.. ',' -- . . 'L _'.._=._ ._c,"~~, ", -___,-'._ 't--.~c.- '-,0---,-- '_ . .~. __ __" ,_ ,._.~ _, .. .. _ , _, _ ," "( . - ,"-, ..__ .
, .." ~" .,.~. ~....~_~~ l~l~_/..U/'~61,\,,- _' _,_,_.
. -- .......' ~..' ---,.~..'(.-.~--....-., ,,~-'..---..,,- -- -- --- ..'-.......~......... .. ..~'" , 7--- -,--- . '-''''''(f .
,_.__,,1., _ ~'~l<1c ~_ l..~ 1__
. ' ( .....
'(i;.~~~~;~t;~~-9(' ',."'"".,,,',.,,".,..,,. .:- ~~""'-"" ..
. ".. '_',_ _.n_.._ ,_ ,,',' ,:-~ ~,..,' ,.."" ,_ __ ~
,~:__t -t%\.\... .~M> ,tVb.'fuS~~<~~~ ~M - "
-SD-; _l\: "~,SifP-t~~UM~--1ff<<-~_5.zRJlu~u.-(JPl:tj 7P.L.
4Jt~ \~,~{ fti-e11t&'Uf""'<j 1:ft./F AjL C4,d.1fe<~ '7Ior(2r/kra?,_u~4-f,
'~l-~~-~;;>>vJR-~- ~'-8Ig(~~'~i- ~t~~ {~-JI.~
...' - -..----~_._...~ . _:L..~' '- . .---. ..~--..__.. -,"'---'- -- a..cetcii~'itih.(}-e. .- ',- -- ",' -
~. .. . . -'"D:&~_.~~~f~1 ~(!f!h!1;'?...6... ~ u.~~_s_~_. ,0--
-_._.:\.-i)J~~,~,(.X.o!.l~, ~,./-()Ck':d'II.J\.\\ ~- " -----~ --- "
______j~~_h:?~~. ~,::~...::Q!"r-~~-(l~{f} ,~.'f ~~1. --:-----
~~_~=.__~,.,_~~~-e~~-:_~ .~ __.____~
. ,~.~ -!~:,.-.;
,
.."t.-.
. .'
'. .
.
...".'
, .
V...':; \ow".
..=-N:i,':.'7. ~"~.:"' - ..,'"
...q -- .:....->..t- ...', . r;.-
. l
""," ..~
t ,~:..'~-.= , .~,
',> ~,...~:.:.
..
~...~ "!'.
.;.~.. .
... -., ,.
.. ....... ~
"--........
.-
.<>
-. ~
;
.'-~~' ~<6-
i.; .~;.; . c
" '-.' ",;
r~.. ", '!: r .",' .
"- "
,~
.,.
"-:;t"
<,
:-" - "1.- .......~.
~ .
. .
.c ~J
Q ...:..-"
~.;.-. ~ ~
. '~"".Q
"",
'?
cJ
"-"" ....'
, .
. .
<,
G
> ,
,,"(
"':-'....
.
"
.~ .:!.
. .'
\9
- .~ - --
\It. W~_l~ ~~ ~t~~ (I/J.~c; ~~
,~~lS~ckti ?
~Q <;~ -~ - d..Ack- ~I t>1l.~ CM ~S~ .
~ ~ ~~ $s.,wtv.ct~,C~cR(rV'.e..,~
- . I
- ~ ~. \~o.:QL~\(~ t~..~ <4.- t':,'el (r:!: ~
G _ - W'i~ ~ ~~'~ .\~ t "'~- s.J}/
~~ ~~\ oJ\ ~WeAr -/ ~ ~ ~
\1. ~~..::e€4 5>~ t" t:AW ~
- ~
\8.. ~ ~ .,\QO() ~'-'Dt?-~~ ~~ b>,...}}..;{ ·
~J? Soc \'e0),.- !\IV ~ ~~ U
l'f, F,,~ '3 ~ N.C:;~~ ~ ~ ~t ~, ~{
']0. ?....~ 5" - O~ h.hr-l "b f'~.fJlV .,.~. LU,>-ft:JD tc2.~
'2.\.. ra.~;- - ~~ ~6.t q~'f~SZC ~~ ? _ .
2'2. 'fa.~"'1- ~ {'~ tO~tVJ fI1.Dt:D ')~._) ct~ (~
_____ qSC(.~t>o_ _~ S4~ :.
_~!>_.'P<<c"z1 ..- ~~_<i-c,. o~ ~aM'~ e.J
o. , ~ ~
. - ~~( ~ChvJ-~~~-1Jr-'
-ou 'ft'~ ~'~/~.. J ~~ 1#
~t\. t>ev~..~ \~\,. C{,S~ (Ud,~ ~ ~ ~
_ ~ov&. C, 4b.t~1- _~~wuP.. ~
')..tJ. M q - ~ ~~~~ t:kh ~~.u 4UdWh ~ FiCZ" '5 .,
-- - ~ ~ ~,f5t ~ ~ - QW;cJJbt clIlCPd,.
~~. W~~ ~ &r, ~~O)'\ ~t...JJr ~tI,,~
__ t~ &1A l"~~ ~
---- --------~'-~ -- ---
- -._----..--~~ -- -.- ....-.,.""..-'. ---
.6)
- .
~1 ,,~~t~ -'. ~~ ~ 'D.v1&Lwa.4t' ~r~
u..9 \}.,~ ~~ ~\\W' \.t44cr- cY\~ ~a5i~
~~ -&, (}'#'hJ.,i 5t-.P~ t:/M,.~ CC&.p~'
'I.X' ,~~ - \.ua1l-. h.~ ~ d'V '1,<4,' ~ ~.uR, 011' a.k
"to ( w.e;)... '; b4.~ ~~ ~.;t QQ8' ? ~
, '~cwf-a~~
~ t' ~~ \ V '" ~. 74 C FS ~tI. lit' A-'f- - CIu.dL .v I t:>~ b .
1 \c.., r 0 _ - n ~ _O-.J - -r · I( . It II'"
0-. ra.~ ,- ~o.-t.. w l ~ :. V, V\ 1),,~ 'Z ov-\),1Ck '4 ·
~ (~ f4~ '"1 - ~ ~~ 4+(& LcfJf ~~ - ~ck....
w~.\:)eb. ' .
~'1... -r-~ .l~ - CAt.uM. .vI ~. -e,.. Mi(LA.~ 8u.~$. Luasfe
1)l~~ ,
~~ '
?7. y>Zrif -z.o ',~~ ~~"~(b., 1J/VMtUI.1 if'~
~ .
- CAeLM- ~ T ~ ~ Se.f- tt:.'~.
.
?tf. f"'-)C z. I - T~, w... P~b be b...U itA '2bo~-<J<f
.__ .tA~ '
, .... ?
loS".p"'t 1.1.. - w? . ~ -tz.12.ie. '- "21-2.' ,. t;UnJcI~A27.-2' ·
_. 1)~~ ~ T~ ~ r;uw- p~ -
_ {J.fM. IW lWL "
" \4, wkd~~ k,
3(, .t>a'if"2-"s - ~ ~2.2.-3 ~;~. L-w~dt~
,., "" ~~~" ~
. . _ _ /tIldtaL {JPm~ c W p - '
~. '
- . # ~~ . -'. oV'~
_~7._, ~'1? I - ~~()c~_ &<)r aclc.p+ed? ~ ~~;k;ol
~,~TwW.~ -~i-/z,lIrl
. ~ ~ l..t;:CJl 0'Vl t::J ~ t'}ht~ _
'6, F(f '? l. - /){.LI.if. -tz. ~ ~. f" -It- .~ ~ 6 $. $'"00 ~ t.u.~~J D ro Z.fn,
~.~ ;,~ fJ.S". i~t- "4'> 2-5"/. crz- _ V 1M:...;
r~~~ Q~ .L""'l_~ CJ,,1Al!i-A. ~ 2.bo~ ~
. -V - ,. -Q---~~
40~. t=~~. q - U4.tM~i ~'3~ IU-~ I.~ ~l
LJI,. ~r ])~e 4/U ~cV'.
- - - -- - - - -- - - . . - -. - - - - - . ~
.
- _. - -- -- -
SEE ATTACHMENT #
IN PLANNING FILE PF # 3 '33 R
for hard-copy original of oversized document
To be scanned at a later date and incorporated into final pdf
Q:\Scanning\Attachment Reference Page,doc
~
~
~
i
] ""
(j s"
f~ 'i
F. h~~
~ Ell"
110 ::::t
~j ~ ~~
JC:d,!;'
~J
'0
m
'11 [
iii ,~
i1!'
I~~I
Ill;
f II
rUi!
z
o
~
W
...J
W
:I: ,
1-'7
:::1'-
0,'
en!
~
]
z
o
j::
~
,W
...J
W
I-
en
~,
~ 1 J
II ; j J
Alii 11111 I
,111111111 ' AI
z
o
j::
~
W
...J
W
:I:
l-
lk::
o
Z
z
o
j::
~
W
...J
w.
I-~
en'-
W'
3:~
~[~
~ ~
=
SJ ~
'~I~ q<
~@~
~ "
en
c::
co
a..
C'
co
c::
--
E
--
Q)
L-
a..
L
'-~~'I'"
~
...
c::
.-
ro
~
L
a
'+-
L-
IDC')
+-'c::
cu._
S~
L- ()
ID en
s"'C
ID c::
CI)~
~"'C
ro c:
~ro
c:: L-
ro Q)
CI)S
... Q)
moo
c::
.- E
"'CL-
ro 0
~+-'
(!)(f)
....?'-~'..4nU<<~ ''~.:~;u.i:'I..~.~
C')
c::
.-
"'C
-
.-
::J
aJ
Q)
()
E
o
CJ)
c:
+-,CO
+-'
o
CJ)
<V
c:
o s::
()~
ro <V
.-
+-'
::J
L
a
'+-
>
<V
o CJ)
(f)&'
--~--~.
-/ i II ~-IT'" :tlt.~
I ""111
I I I,,' I I
, 'I
II ,I ; 'g i I
I I ~,
! I: ~ II II
I, I: ':~~ 'h '2
I . I (. ~I<' ' .2
~ I ,. ,~. 2 ",~
~II II 1.5! ,~I~I
~" ,~I~I&5i~1
~ ,!oJ.) ~>-
~i" ' ~M~I
~: : ' : i t,~I~
i. I 1 I
Q..
<:(
:::!:
z
o'
i=
<:(
U
o
--!
z
o
~
...J
~
V1
:i:i :i
:>1:>1 :>1
o
-'
-'
C/)
I:: VN
.Q uCO
..... L.O
~ '-Lt')
'0 ULt')
(/)5
1:: ~z
.- c~
o ;:)
a. E C
Q,) <:( v
.b -0
I::~~
IV ~:=
o ~U1
::J
en
c::
~u1
c~
'- ~
",0
",,,-
:i:c
'i
....
~~~ ~
~ ~ h~ ~
..c MM.~
.; tn~~ ~
:z:: ~~~ Ii
S 0)0:11 -"
.g ~~ ~
g ~~~ ~
~ ,gt..,~ c
p,. :i
.
o
o
;;,
o
;
en
~
~
~
0::
e
c
""
~
""
a:
a.
:-ftll
a: \o\,J ~
B~
'd
UJ
i (~I)i
~
L
"'~""--"'~.~-.,
1'- '," ',,,"....'.,, ..~,.~ .,." ~. ""I -'0' 'OJ' -~" I
~n'~~rr:1:r:::i:, ~
'1I1I'...qlj'/101'PUII ~ ..,-",.".".....,......
:~~ :~~~~Q~ '----/ .., _~ _.....) _..,..... ,.........1... . -
....."."'--\......~"'_.....
I, ..._.. _ .-,d 1i~1 1.... .Ij[\... '...~ I
~
o i;;~! ~ I ,,15 ~
'5: ~ . ~
~~ ~J!j~ i~~ ~ ~
, , ~~~"I ~11 ~
~~ ~~~i~;; ~!; ! t\
ON I'~ ~:~
~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~e ~ u
~~5~~~ z
"
~l ~~ ;Ie ~ u
~ I ;!~~a~~ i~~ ~~~ > "
,;" <F! " f
5! 5~B~~~ ' ~ ;u:t ~~~ @ ~
(fJ ~~~
'hi w ~~~VlC~ ~~~ ~.~ .
~~~~~> !i15~ .:~~ f 01
~. I- ~~~ !o
0 ~~~e:!~ g~~ ~ ~
Z ~i: ~~ ~ 5
-" ~Bc:!~~ & VI VI M~~ ~~o ~
~ ~aal1~~ ~H ~ ~ i ~
~~~~~~ ~g~ 6\1o~ 15~ 8' ~
0 ~c~~; ~....~ ~~~VI ~~~o u
::!; ~~<~ . ~
i:~> i:,,~~ "
w ~~~i~i ~"~ ~I?~~ ~L~ a ~
" 50
ON'" 'J"I^)SO~
DNI01lne 3:>IJJO
DN~lnSNO:> Y~nlOS
~QO~~ Nil! '!l3J. IfM 11~S
31:>!l1:> NOSONmw ~ t~ ~
':>11 'SNO~n10S lNlOd 3!U.N3:>
--<ilt--
~
o ~
M9C
i::W
AI>'~
3J.1>' .JSIi:lJ.N;
.j
~
~
~
.
.~,.....~."..JItff,>'., '"
"
"
'.\
.,";
',~.:
"
','
',;
".;
~
-~~--,-,",",-"QI\.._.
I"~'" ''''''''''"'O''''''~'''''''''''''''''I -'ON'03~-11"'C 1- NY1d 3US A!lVNI"I13Ud \~~O~
m1'~irm:n::1:. ~ >OJH:I:X> aJ~:JJH:J ~eogg Nt'i '!lJ!.VMllIlS N~O('~OO~
'" 31:J!l1:J NOSONnt'iV ~ v~ ~ .....-
'Nn '311~3S0ij o v't.
'~III '~1'1011 >10'.'" X'I'"8 '._",,,,,,,,..101;...1,.._ ':Jl1 'SNOllnlOS !NIOd 3t1J.N3:J DNI01lns 3:JI.JJO
::: :~~~I:f'~ "--/ ..1_1:NU'P"'t__',....I....,',..
.....ll""'___..I....~..._..... SNOJSV.J~ DNlllnSNO:J VllnlOS
~. ..._... ._ '""" "~I 1l>1li 1.<<1"'. .... I A:v.~ns
I
i ~"'~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ !Iv! --<II>-- : ·
~ . ! y;y;y;y;y; ~.-,..-, ~ ~
~ ~ ~~ viviviuhri ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
.~<OI 3 ~~ Nv! v! "
~ !~~b~~ ~ ~~ ~~~s~ ~ ~~~ >!~~
~ ~i.~ [! .. ~ c;~~~.' a 0 ~
" b
b ~~3~~~ ~~ ~ '" ~ 3~ h ~ C- o ~
5 ~ "0 ~ ~
~ ~~~~.~ :jg !I ~~
~~a2~i5 .~! 9 ~ a~
~ "'i~ ~ ~ ~I!! ~~ ~
;2!ii~i~ ~ z '0
~ ~~~ ! .w " 99
~~~ ~b~ "g~ ~ n ~~ ~~ ~ CICI j:5 ;::e
Ii ~ ! ~ ~ v!~
<~"I1~~w ~'S & ~~ ' r < ~~~
(f) ~, :j !~ ~~ ~~ ~
LU ~!1~~~/ a ~i . ~ !i~iOlOlQ.Q. 0 -<~ (f)
d ~o~ !l~ ~~~ o~ ~i ::.::
f- ~~~ g ~g " ..~~ !!n t? a~~ <..J
0 ~~ww ~15 ~. ~.-, ,,~ ~. ~OO~O Z ~gf
Z ~~ ~!v!o:~~ ~~~ ,,~ ~~ ~! D S2 <
:;'0 ~~ 5~ ~ ~~ LU ~!i 4~~~~a~ o~o cc ~~~~!i~~
LU g~~I~~' a 8~ ~~ cr:: j;ot)! f-
f- 00 O~. I- ,,9 'd!:l:Z 0 0 g: ~~~ w
~~ ~zo ~~ ~~ ai f..~il!!S:l!!S: ~I!:~I!! ~I!!
(jj ~~~ 3~! %~~ ~ (jj ~a: (f)
j
j
;
~
L
!
pPSf,
..
~...."
,'-"..-........,..-.-.--.....w.-.w....~_...
............w."......,..w
~.....'".
CENTRE ~. :r
~. ~i
;~ :ga
,I".
~ "
~!........-..... ....
~~
.~
,Jg" ,
.':('
.'\
w.,,)
....,
"5
~"
n
~E
-
"
.
~
~~
tw
AI>'~
ilJ.1>' .i.Sl:S.J.M
~
I'..~." ........'"'~" ..,..,.. .,~ .." ''''1
ffil:wrr:?r::~d ~
~~ :~~f,~al~PW.R ~
~
d
~
~
~
o
-",,, -~" 1
..,........" ,. .,.,~ 00/1 ,. ....,
::', ~:," .=u~~...:.'"!~~~ ~~;:~ ~"':..::
~q P".~..o ..... ""III Ii~\ !.~l Ion.> 'qt... I
~~
~~
~~
i~
~ i
,I"
6!
!~
o 5
i i5 '"0
o ~O::qI:::I1-
~~ ,,~~ ~5
~~~~U ~f
~ii5;~ ~~
_.IS~~~ ~~ ~
~!~~:g F ;
~~a~E!")j~ .
~ 1s'g~tnai ~~~ ~
b ~!a~~5 ~~i ~~
z ~~~...~e ~~tII 2~
r.!J '"~~i'"~ ~~~ ~~
~ ~~..~~~ ~g5 ~~
<( ~OKt.~~ ~-'~ ...0
0:: J5~Z;~~ ~sg ~5
r.!J ~d~$~~ ~S~ ~~
ID~
~~; ~n
'"~ ~~ <~~a
~~iii~6i!i~~
~. iIi" 0>
i OF ~1sj~i5
F< -'III
o ~> ~;!'....II!?
. ~~ w,'
ffiow~~~~~
i,IQ~5iu
~u~:;; ~"~'"
"z.~'.~a
..:1:; ~ iI"'J:
.~~ ~z;'\
&~I'~~!!~~"
~!:1I11~i!iOa-:~~
~-h"~ u
IS ..~ ~9h~
~~61D(,) ()~z
0I....FIf)2.:~81.:)':f
",~~~9h~~
:~d~~a.OQ.~
5
Ii' ~
~I!!~
.o~
t1~w
~Vli5
1!!~5
~g~
'I!>~
~u.
~~~
~IS~
g~~
~~"
~~~I
~'i'!~
~~zffi
~~h
~
i!:~ ;!;: is
.~ ~ !iU
~~~ ~~ ~
~Q~ t!.,~
~~~ ilg
~ ~ ~'II!
~~~ ~; ~
i2~ ;~~
~~~ ~~:
6.iIi ~~o
" tj '"I!>"
~i~ 15" 0'
VI 3; ....~ I!:'
~im gQ~~
~5~ ~~~~
)I))I():)(JI03:w:J3H:J
~81 N'II'I't:lO
~
~
~
6
i
Mgc
t80SS NI'i '~31 VMllLLS
31:J~1:J NOSONnViV ItU
':Jll 'SNOLLnlOS lNIOd 3!!J.N3:J
'N,. ']1'11135011
ONIOllna 3::>1~~0
ONLL lnSNO::> VLLnlOS
C3N:)<;30
SNOISV\3/;j ),~ns
~ 5
'i ~Q ~
~ ~i ;
~ ~~ ~
Q 1l~
L~~ ~
~ ~~ ~
~ uF= ti
1;; d~ ~
~~: ~"
!~" ~~
!" ~i" ~!
'"~ ;!
~~~ i~
i ~:~ Si
5 ;!~~ ~~
, .
2 ffi
~
~il>-
~
Q ~
."
:.:~
tW
A I"MHD/H
:Ii. 'po'.iSt:Ei.JN
L ~
I'~'"'''~''''''.''"'''''~''"''''''''''I-.'".''' -li"
fi~~~r~1:r:::t~ ~
:~ :~!i~a~'rn~ ~ ~:~~iE;;;r~~~lr~~I~J~~
L
i
,i
5
!
~
W~~
cui!=~a:
~h~i
J:&3j!:o(
hd
~~;~3
i~~~~
~ ~~~;~
5 ilii!1e~~
z ~~3i1iS
~ gg!~~
::::; ~~~gi~
5 ~:;j~~i!j~
:,'y:
~ ~ e
o ~..~
g~ ;1j~?!S
~~ l>I~e5~
,,12 ~~~ ~~
~2 tiiis~~
:~ ~p;.;i5
,~f !e~1I5
~ ~ g~:~
!i~l; ~~~~~
~~~ h~~i
~g~ 'iIi .
"'o~ ~!i~;r.{
ug- ~o:I>I~~
u.o ,,~"~ \;/
~~~ ~~I~!~
~gi\ ~M~Sb
~ II!
,~ ~~~
~ ~ ~ iIiI2~
~ .~ 8 ~~!
~ ~~i
~ ~ 0-0
~ J?f e., ~~~
a ~ II!~ :~g
~ VI ~z F=
~ ~ iIi~ ~~;~
~~ ~ n hi~
~~ ~ ~~ ~~~d
,,~ ~ ~~ ~~~
~ IS a:~ ~!~~
126 e ~~ ~dd..
~i i ;~ ~n~
-'-----~--..~ol9i;.
NVld .unlln A.trVNIMJl:ld ~=
oN;oil~8~3~WO o~a.
ONlJ.1nSNO:> VlJ.mos
03N!USJO
SlS A1\Hns
~eo!;!; NN '~31VM11U.S
31:>~I:> NOSONnNV ~ t~,
':>11 'SNOu.mos !NIOd 3W,N3:>
5
~/j ~
~ 51; 0
~ ~::: ~
II ~~ e
~ ,,~ ~u
II! ~~ 5
uo
~ :;j~ ~
iIi ~~ iIi
~ g~ ~~
~ :::.. "~
~ ~8.( ~~
;~ gg~ ~:;;
IIjz ,,~'" ~~
~t.'I ~IoIF .:s;
!! ~..~ i~
~8 ~~~ ~b
219
~if)- : ·
o a
~
QV
A tl'MHDtH
3L ~.iSI:EI.LNI
~
l..m""'..."...."'~"..,~"~.,~...""I-.'"'" -""
ffil.:Wrr::r!:~. ~
:~; ~~~,~~rUft ~ :'~~E:~~-:ii~~~~
I ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ffi
ffi e ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ji c c c c
~ ~ ~ i i i
~ ~ ~
~ ~
z
w ~*IO~
~
w ~o
-J
.
w
g lj~l~
. ' oG'
5 ~ ~ ia~~
d ~ ~ O~
~ u':J
. ~'
u Li
o 0
Q Q
~ ;;,
~ ~
u' ;'
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ p p ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~
L
>0)1<) :>0 (3)Q];Q
NM"'~C
~
~
@
c
@ i
~ ~
@ ~ is ~
~ ~ ~ fu
m 0 S1 ~
~ ~ ~ ,
~ ~ ~ ~
o ~ ~ u
~ a ~~ ~
~ ~ ~~ ~
2 ~ o~ Ji
VI a ID ~.q; 13
~,~~~~~
.~~~!iu~
~ ~ ~ . ~~ u'ei
~~~2~~U~
~ ~ . ~ d~ ~~
w ;' ~ ~ ~~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 5~
(j ~ Q Q ~ ~....I ....1....1
~ · ~ ~ m ~~ ~~
Z ~ ~. ~ ~; ~o
j ~ ~ ~ ....I ~i ~~
I~~::~[:r
zeogg NI'I '~3J. VMllU.S
3'~~1~ NOSONn...v I.ZI
'~11 'SNOu.mOS !NIOd 3!IJ.N3~
ON" '311I1\3S0~
!)NIOllne 3~I.f:IO
!)NU. 'nSNO~ Vu.mos
I
~ g i .1! . I
t~lil, <~i!
~~it~i '[u
li~ih III'
t~d'[ I. I
Jf!;il lif(
~tl!h !h
fd~~I tJII
...H I I 1
~nH:f :HH
lo,l) ,}
!I"" 11, <5 b
1,li:iW !~!Jt (I h )iJJI
J'~lf!-!J {!=iJ II flI.IE!1
W' I!{1 IWi ji fIIJ~h,
HWlf:fl~ Wli !~ iff:i'J)!'"
II-li~2 I J' \'f' f" t.JU t
~ i!:!~Iinf (~HI tl rIJI.tl~~
~ d!I~'t'l i~!tl fl Jill! (I
~ .Jiiul t ,J!. J ;i1h11,~
~
--<ilt-- ~
o ~
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~;!:! ~
"- .
o ::
"
~
L w
ffi ~ .. i~.~,..
(\ ~ !n]Hu"l:rq~
Ii ~ J~r!l~~j r~~~
g Ii: HPi!l~ ~.>
3 nl2!'~ i ~
u f : ~U ~ i
~t1 ~ ~ ~ ~! ~ ~
~; ~; ;~~~~~~~ i~~
:IS ~ .I~"~H~~~^ ~h
<J)w ~ ~i~~~~a: h~
I~ 8 ~~~~j~girl1ii ~9~
I f~!~!n! 1 WS!5S~!n!!!!
j Idhl,1 il ilm/llllulll!
!I !1i,Uh1j h !JU!hIU!)iJt
if 'I i!hI. II ,iu IfJIt Ilf I
B IUH!U! II Hm!~,wJlluj
~
I """~ '.......",~" "..,'~ .,""." ""I
ffil~T=r~:E;~ . ~ I
;== ::~~:~'''." xnI
'~II ".JqQI8 "---./
j
~
~
.
L
-V'~"-""I..
:;',=.:=-~'E~=I~~ ..-.
A..._"_....IINIIOOjII,oA_'...~'
~80gg Nri '!l3J....MllILS
3l:)!l1~ NOSONnriV ~t~~
'~ll 'SNOlLnlOS !NIOd 3W.N3~
, .1 i ] j 'IW j"! f
I,., I .< ~.- , I
IUrJi i. l!iHi j n i
~1"1 l hi;!2! , I; ,
II:,,! I j~i:t, 1 ~j ~
,'~ji~ f ~!;~i! ! i~ '!
!jlJi~ : j.t:i!i r l~
h1.Jt t '.!':'I ".: !
E at ... ';-. 'o/l . p
i.. ." -. .L..! , 2i ,
,',~,! I Hili' i It !
!'Iiif" "J~'I ! !! f
II' I.! I i; 'i'. Ii! ,
i.iw f U;rh j i! {
11.,;; ! fh!'! < II .
;oif~. I Ii!!!~ 1 If 1
..,! . " "I' I ,
j!hll 1 -IIfl I~;. j
~!IH; E j.rU~1I h~o .:
':a.ilt~ 'j Hj1~i ijFj .t
l'B!'.! '~H!I '1 ,J'l '
.Ii;jj~i ;I..1,>1;!,:!
bb>:t-~E-- lE ~_ ~S'i:;;ti j..:
ii5!~.ri! tiH}:j~H~ II
.! >"-~foE -'~I!!tb,]"r:i :
r~.tI'ii HjjiJ~;..~ it
J.'.',.fli "". ;")'1 '1
Ji~"!I:i: i'1'~I!~!!: \j
~'!5'q Ii!'""'!' "
n~l;Ih !. I!~I!:I; ti
~11,!'.i!': It'lit.WI 'I
~.,t,. , , l'l"i~..'J!""!
!HEl,ir!~ ;;':i;l-;:ljJ:h
~:!~I;!~ i~til~;PHt~~ I!IJ!
"HI!.. ",' ~I;!'! Iv H
~~H_Hi~l ~hli~S.~J ~dfH~
w
~~~1;
CENTRE
.0
0" 00 .0 00
,g
.0
.0
.0
.0 .0
.0 .0
.0 .c;"
"
~
SNQISV.JtI
. . . '. j'. i
II i tj i! I I!"" II, t!
!!!!t,~r!ll 2.' .Jj ".-,
If I ! :1 II ! 11 i i~ i ;~ t ;j-!;
11 . ; '! !! { i 1 , ill Ij. id i j
i! ! I!~ j1 '~f: Ii!;!ii I ifJ~ i I
!: g. :1 :j I".; II 11 '.!'.\ 1 ;,'1 ~!
.r i .!'\' !~ '.!Ji " 1, qh j pI. j.j
i< ; r ~ ii I.'~ ;i Ii hI; I ~11! .'
,.> ., .I1!' !h- ".2 'qj" , I'.fO ~!
!" f ., tl f;;~~ .:l;;e hr.~! U ~ ~ ~
!II !' I ;i!~ i' ~f ti:j' ,!I' ; i
j. 1 ' 11,/ Hn II l' ,;1. J ;'!~ "
.. j I ,2".., ' '" '!',' fl i ~I
..". y,... j-." 'I' '." . !~. .1
t' E Ii I 'r' .., .' ',' ..'. .
.i .1 1 !,i ~; ;I! ~ I!!! Hi,! ;!H I r I
~ ~ . : Ii ~: 15:-1.1 .5 j f~ i! ~~ J i tp f 1 '"'
~! I i f;d~ h:J j11; !!Ji j lid .Ir tI'j; j
H'I ! "'it' !i.1 ,'\' II[! . ;. i.'
!I!;! Iht5, 1!!Ht !I U iI" II JW ~. h i
>Ij. ifd:'II;'. ;~;~ i.hi: ':1; !! II
Jf.! .1 ."i,' }I .,~~ C" ,-, ,. ~ I" I.,.! ~ .' !".!
.h$ i:.5w ~_i.,; q' 126."1I! 'l ..-~ b j t II
:;'1 j.!lj d !." 1:1:! 1j;1 ii if" '. 'i
H!i J iHf!HlJU; H j~ !IJ!'~ ~!jl t ii!!!;
.I.'! ; 11 ,,!I!!!'i II" Ihl i! ~.:.. "1..j"f
,>to · ,1!.!1."l~i I" 11Hh ,j;, ! !"il,
.<,~ ~I:h:;;r!!il; .1 '.. 1101; .\ii!i~!: ji
It~J ,11~I!hl: i'! .! HI! i:!! II;! !,;r!l,'j
IIi. ~j.h;'>,i]G" H h !ltj'io ~ Iii . 'HI'hj
~,t!~ ~Wlj~i. !!I.~g~~ ~~ If ~!'Lh~ ~! Ii h!I',W,
"2iij .", 'H. ,~o'.,"ha'l f' t'.
~ifi.,. ~Hi;iltW" ~gq;iOf!~" ~j!J: ~f;>{iiH
!~,Himt:.H~!~!!~ mj,Hm!iE~ ~,jjj I.!:i"~."
.~
...
....,..
.0
.,,'
,~.
o~.~,.~~
.0
".,.,,-
,~.. ...,.......,
0"',"
.0
I
I'
oj."
.0 I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~':::'=::::=.::::c'::=::=;::::=:,., __J
tw
AI>'MM:;w
:J.1>'.iBlBiNl
,
J
.r
!
;
i
J~
E'
ii
j,
.,;
j'
!~
I~
11
,"-
.0
."
.~...'~ o~
;
~'~ ~ 'I
,A,.I if
>
=:) g; :
:;;J) ~
:::.., ~
~j' 0 0
~ - i
.. i ~ B
.~ 'iI - ~
.s '.ii ~,
~!' "'
H~
z
o
;:
<=
!ii1~
=>"
0'"
u..!<
w2
en'"
<\1
..~
....
:I:
"
::;
. ,
c ,
~i :i
Q,~~ '8
~~,g c
~~!~~
~;5;5;g~
~~ ~
!:!!:! w
5~~g~
~M"&>
E~~&:t3
o
~ ~
MO
On
,;
~o
~~. I
~i~~
~TT~
'w ~
~i3 ~
._ 0 0 0 0
U1:)1)bb
VII.. I.. I.. I..
Qj d oJ d CI
~l::Il:Il::Il::I
1...0000
::~~:;:;
~gggg
.3~~~S
c
o
,
o
e~3~~
~~~~~
~ <t tl ~H~
~
C
N:q;q~__rerere:q:q~:q:q:q
~~~<::>~w.t!~<tQQ<=I""<=I<=I
<
]~~
c iJ
~ ~~
'00
<too i ~~
< 0 C OU
:1:00 ~~~~
~~B 91~i
< FiS
~m g~
,. ~
<t..;-:
.
~~~
o ~
~!
U=
.
m
,
:!
:3
~;
o
b
~
'"
~
~ .~~~ ~ ~:, ~ ! I.g i~ i~
~~t ~~~~ a .~~ Ii H g~8 :. :.
i t ~I ~ ~~~ ~~~~ !~ M~ i~ :~ !i~ ~~ ~~
:o~o~:: : ~ di Hii ~~ ~ii~ ~! ..~ N ~i ~~
:, ~!~". -g.h;~~.U!~i~~6~!
'~~. I ~" ." , ri . . d
)~
, 0
."
~ ~~
:; t~
~ 3.
.-J
I~" '"'0"'" ,"" o,~,.~ .,.." .." ''''[
ffil:F.i'f::n::;:, ~
~~~ T~~f~~rQ'~ ~
,
~
~
.
L
VJ
to:!
E-o
o
Z
C-'
z
E:
z
:s
Cl.
.
VJ
Z
o
E:
...:
u
~
U
to:!
Cl.
VJ
C-'
z
E:
z
:s
Cl.
.
en
to:!
E-o
o
Z
..J
...:
I:t::
to:!
:z.
to:!
C-'
.
-'ON~3/j-3J.YO
~
~
8
~
~
~
9
~
~
N I"i
i i
~ ~
~,~
....ts: Q,.
~i ~~
~~ ~~
~u "
~.5 z:.,
i5q~
':1q~
~~ o.~
~ ~ ~~
In~ EVJ
~~ !E~
~U1 ~~
z8 wg
O::E -'...I
~5 ~~
o.-:::Ii II.I~
~.~ ~~
B:! 6...1
(I)... VI;;/,
~~ ~8
~~ 8~
Q.C iDa:
~
X~
iu
~~
~"
t;'o!
z~
~i~
o.~
~~~
~:iO
~~~
w~Z
i~~~
OZ
wO
~8~
a:o..Q
~~n
~5~
~6~
o.~.VI
~i5~
..;;a;~
i?~~
g~~
j:;:!o:'w
~15~
..: ... ...)
g
"
o
~~
~~
~~
~!
~5
Ow
!Q~
Qw
~~
~"
~~
gs
~~
d
~~
z
~e ~
wow... ~
~~Bg ~o
~o~~
~~o~ ~
e~~~ ~
~~~~~ ~
~~e~~ ~
~ii~; ~
~VI~~~ ~ ci
~~~~~ ~ ~
!i5~8~ ~ ...
5z~lib ~ ~
~~~i~ ~~
~~:lf5~ ~~ ~
~~~~~ z~ ~
~;~~5 ~i ~
VlI-.....O'~ ~~ !B
~~~~~ ~: ~
zl-t,O ~o v,
~~~iQ ....0 ~
B~~~~ ~~ ~
~~~~< B~ w
~i~~* ~~
"
x
(;
i
~
~
!i
~
U
~
~
z
o
U
"
~.
o I<!
~.
~Qvi o~
~~~ ~~
~~g ~~
:z~~ w~
8~~ ~K!
.....ua. ~g
~~~ ~g
~~~ @8
"
~
.1_...."'..1.'1''''1'...1
.~1_1~1""'..._P..1po..l.....""'.
"'11"'41''''_I>>4'~''ap.........
..,._.................100Q"o11_......1
~Oi
~~
i~
:0
~~
~~
~:
~~
8.
;i
~~
~~~
~.2~
~~~
~;i
wOo
~g~
"'"
~~~
~~~
;~;
0-
~~~G
~~~~
~~h
i\~8~
5a.~~
~I~~
~~(58
~\E~
~~;~ .
~ .:z:~~
~~i~~
VI!J:~~
~c~~~
!~O~~
~~~~~~
0" is!~
I",IW ~8
8~~gti
&i~~a~
!Qo:ruc
:i~~~~
~~.~:~
~e~~~
~~~~~
5~
!do
!i
is!t;
~Oi
~~
~~
!n~
~v VI~
~q~
U ~~
~~
~5
~~
5~
~w
i~
;~
x'
.-
o
X
i5
~
o
~
"
~
0-
Ii ;
3cr: a ~
w5 ~,;
ro~ !1i~
~~~ ~~ ;~
~~~ ~~ ~~
,...; a)
~~
:;....;:))-
"'e~g
~s~~
~~~~
~~~ffi
~~~~
"'-cr~\::!
~gVl~:i
I~~ai
~8~~~
~'i'~Q.w
~~~~~
2!:::15g
~~,,~g
~:i~I.I.IO
~~~~~
~~~::!~
~~g~~
~~~~~
VlSVlI- .
t;::StJ~~
~~~<~
~~~~~
::~gffi
~~o.JSi
z
~e
~~ i
~~ ~
~~ ~
~VI ;
~g, ~
~8~ ~
~'~~
!i~ ~
d~
~~~ "
~'" "
~~~ 5
~~~ ~
~~o ~
I~~ "
~~ ~
0~o ~
~~: :::
U.
~~g ~
~
o
~
"
o
~~
~~
~~
~"
"Q
~~
~o
~~
~:z
~~
~~
~~
tJj~~
~~~
~;a
~~~
t;;:r~
~~g
~~~
i~:S
,5~
~~~
2~;;;:
~
~~~
~~~
~ h~
~~ g~~
'i'li z~~
;~ !~~
~~ 001...1
SO ~~~
~~ ~~~
3~ U
~ jfU~
;5 8~~
i!5 4:lj~
~~ ;:J
~~ \i-~O
81;; ~oe
~~ ~w"
VlVl ~;~
~~ ~c.
~~ cr""G
~o ~!zJ5
!i ~~!
~~ ~~~
If) oD
g
i
~
3
~
~
~
g
~
o
z
~
~
z
o
i
o
U
!
"
X
(;
jf
~
g
,
o
"
~
~
i
g
~
~
xw
~~~ ~~
~5~ 5:~
~~~ t:J~
~~o :~
:~~ :*
~~~ i~
~5~ ui1i
-~ gjf~
S:1r w~<(
~g~ ~o.~
=0 ~VJ"'"
~~z ~!~
~~~ --
~~w i~~
~U 8~~
~~~ ~~~
S~S:
~~~ ':~~
~~~~ CI)~i5
~es~ ~~~
~!:!a UVJ~
~~8~ g~~
Q..Q..~VI WVl1i5
~vi~~ (;~8
~~08 g~~
~
~
h
~~
i:;~
5 ~~
~I~
e o~~
~ !~~
~ ~g~
z ~~~
~ ~~~
~ ~.~
. ~"~
~ ~~~
~ ~~~
~ ~~z
~~ i~i
~~ ~5~
w
~
~
,;
SNOISV<3t!
en
to:!
E-o
o
Z
Z
o
E:
...:
C-'
Q::
e:
.
.
ig
l?~~
~~g:
~~g
~~~
~i~
~;5
es~
~~~
~*~
~~~
i;!5~
~~~
~8: ~
i:~ J
8~ E
~~ 0
:g~ ~ ?;
5~ 0 ~
..: N";
X
"
~~
~~
z"
~~
w~
:~
~~
;~
f5~
~x
~~
~~
~Ii:
zw,
w~~
l<!.iS
i~w
..
o~
UwO
i~;
\f}~8
~~~
~;~
8~!i
~
>4:>310:;>0 O)KJ)KJ
~....~a
to:!
to:!
Po:
E-o
en
::J
o
Po:
to:!
...
Z
o
u
..
03t.tJISJO
~~
3:w
~~;
00'2:
3~~
o.~
;~~
~~~
i ~:I:I,I')
8 ~~~
g D.g~
:I a-Z
~ ~~5
z ~V1i
Q 8g~
8 V>~u
~ ~~l5
to:!
to:!
I:t::
E-o
en
::J
o
::J
Q
U
to:!
Q
I
_~.--....._....,.,.,.>r.......
LO'~9
tvZOrLOOl
"ON 1~7OIN
511'(130 3~0NY1
~90Gg N~ '~3J.VM11LLS
31:J~1:J NOSONnriV It~1
':J11 'SNOLLOlOS !NIOd 3W.N3:J
~~~
~~~
~~~
:r~::; .
o~~~
~:~~
31D1:.Q.
5
~; j
~ ~eo
g~ ~~
~~ i~
i:- E
g~' i~
~~ "w
~g:z z~
~~~ ~B
~~a ~~
~:~ ~~
~3~ ~g
g~u ~~g!
uoi!: Vlg:Z
w~s a::~~
~5~ 6~g
~a..o ~ 0
~r~ ~~~
~8~ w~~
;~~ ~~~
~>- ao~
~~1'3 53"
~~~ ~~~
s. g ~~
~ gg~~ ~~
3 :~~~;;:g
r ~..jCDo~:5
~ ~~~~ ~~
c ~~Vlif:i~
~ ;~i~ ~~
; i~~~ I: ~
c:;~w ~v 9
~ ~ ~~u~ ~~ jf
~ ~~ ~~~,~ ~~ ~
5 mg ~~i~ ~: ~
~ ~~ g~~5 ~~ ~
;J.:i. a.~1-5 ~o~ ~
o ~~ e5~~ _:
~~ ~~ N~ 2. ~
~: ~; 8~0~ g~ ~
g~ I<!~ ~~;/g .~ ~
~~ ~(I. Q5~~ :::?~
~: it; 5i5~ii ~c ~
2::: ~~ wU,1<! ~" ~
~. ~~ :~,,~ ~~ ~
-i iii
'"
~
~
~
o
o
~
~
5 g
.
~~ ~
I; ~
Peg
8~ ~ 0
~n g
~~ ~ ;
~:s5 ::I!
~~ 0 ~
~:t: ~ Z
~i~ t ~
~8g ~ ~
o
5~
~~
~~
'i~
~~
5~
~t;;
~~~
zw~
f~.~
;~~
e~~
~Vitt
5~~
~~~
1CJ1ii~
t:~8
~
~
~i '-" ! ~
~;;: ~,i~' -
'!.:i. ~~~ w~ 5 a.~~
c~ ~,!..~ ~ ~ ~ l:::!x I
~I<! ~ ~ 0 c~ "
e:: ~ ~~1:!1 (OJ IS'... ~
;~ ~g~ t; ~ ~~ ~~ ~ 5
~. ~::- b ~ ~g ~~ \; ~
8-., .~~.!. ~ ~ t~~ ~ ~ 2 E
'" ~
E- ~
~~ ~~
~~ ~~
8~ ~
~8 gE
~~ ~~
"~ t[
~~~ ~~
%~U ~;r
CQ
::J
I:t::
:r:
en
.
~~
h
8g
~~
Hi
~
Vi~
~ ~~
w<
~;
s~
z~
~~
OZ
~.
~i
~"8
~Ea:
o~~
~~wl
1'0
~~~
i:;
W "ij
~i ~ ~ w
$-- ~d m:
~~ ~~ ~-
~n.!.? " ~
~~ O~ 8
~~ m ~ ~
~~ ~~VI ~ 8
~~ ~~~ ~ 2
~Nr01I;;e~~.:IO O'l:!s
~NLL1nSNO:J VijnlDS
!~
~~~~ ~
M~~~ e;
~VI!f I t::I
ZQ.\I'IU \/I
oW'""6: I
~~~~ g
~7-wi ~
~~ ~
~, ~
c
z
"
o
"
u
"
o
o
:~~
~w8
~~w
xw
~o,
Wo
~~I:
':1"z
~~~
~o~
UnO
~
~~
~~
g ~Q.
~ ~s
; ~~
p~
u ~~
~
;~ ~
~~ ~
"U ~
~
8
.
~d
~ ~:
~ ~,~ g
I~'r'^
wi
~ 8.....u
~~! ~
5 ~~ ~
~ tjO I
~ 00
1?...~ ~
-, U
~;rt:J ~
~ ~i~
~
~
o
o
~
N
d ~ ~d
~ g x~ 0
o ::J. I- 0
... \/I 0:>1< '""
~
,~
~
~
,
]
~
] ~-
, .~
~ .
.t'i I~~~
; ~ . l'.
P .!i,a.
~ ~ ~~i~
;;'1' ~J!
j n'l
)11
UJ
U
i:i:
L.L..
o
<(0
-z
1--
::JO
...J...J
05
V1 c:>
.
!
(~~)!
EB!
i
jJ~ I
V>
z
.:s
...
~ 0
~ 0
~ u:
Iii II
fh
It! j
m If,
tH I sill I IIIII
m! Ii j ~IIIIIIIII
~~
~ ~~~
.~~
,...,..1'1
8 1I)!:0I:)
)-
(}:'~ gm
i~ ...~ ~~
Q -' ~~
2:
::::> ~&
I.f)~ "
:.Q.;:;
<(~ gN ~"
~ .( ~ ..
<( ~~;
-! .! .! i ~U~ iI
"'+= '
8
, "
I I I .
I 1 I I
--- I-------;-------~-------, ---
, "
I
~
I ~ I I" __ J ___
--- :-----~-i------r~- - i
-- ---
-- ---------
------
,
,
I 1 I
, , ,
--- (------'-----1------
, !!>
1
~ ,
I
" i
~ I
,
- - ~-I
~ 1
w
~~
(}:'g
<(~
\!)-
\!).
:~d
-~T--
Q..
N
I m I I ~ 1
, , ,
-- ---"--1' ------1' -~-----I' ---
-i--
,
,.,
,
I"
,
~
~ ,
~;
~
I
~
,
1
c1
:::
~
i
!
Z
:5
"-
,i! c,
~ g
Iii II
fil
,J'
II '
.. !
iH j
m I
fH J sill 11111 I
fir! I i I ill III I III
j
jJ~ I
o
r-r -, ~
~ ~
U ~,~~
~ ~S.
~~ l~~~
~ H ~h~
....!'\;
1111 ! ;
j' IT! I
j11
(~~)i
u.J
U
L:L:
u..
o
<v
-z
1--
:::>0
....J....J
05
VI w
EBi
I I
I i
I
.1 .j j IJ
.j
I
,
- - ---
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I \ \ I
--- I-------~-----~------I ---
)1 , I I
I I I
, ,
, ,
-- !----- - -----J-h
, ,
I I
,
, ,
I I I I i
'I' I: 8 ~~~; : ---+Ih ~ --
I ~ ~j!<Q. n:i I
-,-------</-!k-Q-- -- 8 ---,- -
:_,_u~lI, ,.I,_.j _
, ,
I I I
" ,
, ,
--1------- -- ------ ---
, ,
" ,
I I I I
I I I I
--- i-------i-----j------J1 ---
I I I I
I I I ,
~ , \1
I I
~ ::: ~ ~ ~
~
2~
,
.!
~ J ~f
~
~ ]~ H ;:Ju en
z
"0 0
fE p~~ i=
~ ..
. ~ ~ J~~ en >
w
~~ ~ d ....
w
z
o
i=
~
W
..J
W
i=~'
:;):-
0.'
en!
:1%
~ f
~ e
i!!Jj / 1111111' :!' j~1. j.l
flU J ~IIIIIIII [ i1 h
Jul J I1I111I1 t d
w
a:
=>
en
o
..,j
<J
Z
w
:z:
en ~
ti
z
o
i=
~
W
..J
W
:I:
I-
a:
o
z
a-,( .. .
I,o.,/.
~
~
::;
'"
III
~
II:
~
a:
o
0:
5
I
! '
a
I
z
0 z
i= 0
~ z i=
w C) ~
iij
..J !Z W
w. w ..J
1-0 ::; w.
ClJT. "" 1-';'
Z,'
<. o. en:.
w~, ::;k W.
~~
II
t
~i
u ]~ H
~ ~.'ii
U I D ~d~
~ Um~
JCd,~
~]
"0.
w
I!IJJ IIIIII I J
iHi 1111111111 j J
flli j ,111111111 II
z
o
~
<(
>
W
...J
W
J:'
1-':'
=:I;"
0,'
en~
f
z
o
~
~
,W
...J
W
I-
en
~,
I,
z
o
i=
~
W
...J
W
J:
I-
~
o
z
z
o
~
~
W
...J
w.
I-~
en;..
W'
3:~
02001 Ruc-~wMl.. ltD.
~
,
~If
"." /~, M /
, :' -' , .((\'... l'\. f$\:.. 1\ ;'f . ",
"",'.' ~v~~v' ij, 7r~ ,," "
"""':r~i ~::~/~\~1" "~~n~l~':I~r~'~~JNI~.(D
",; -' ~~ ", ~
:: r: '-,' L!..J ~"'" ~ ,,~
~ :, ' .'\ \....:.~ ,: , ," '. W ". /T\ 11" 7J
': AI'.: ':, .; Jrk r,s D -~ ~~1fZ ~~ '9 :jl/\~7J.i ,
o /D\ :,~ ; : I ~ \ f ,-S X ,,"-I-' ! ~ "," '
~ JJ :,,: ~ ~, .~', \ /<J P'f."'~""" ~~q(J~~".o<.:;~X;' ~ -I' ~:J1~:) ~,
",I; ~ ho:t' ^ ~ ,)', . ASSORTt:D---C ""'" '
; If )G~ sI?o ; /' ''\ . -: x ~ .... )(; ~ , " P[R[~LS - ,,': :
:;: : \. /'~/ ""',, ,")()( 4i/I;~ x::.. ,~ I I\.--=::::" '" \
" I' , . " "^, V \.4 I - . '
,:,; , " )":/ ,," ,," 1i,:w " IIIU ~ '--' " :,
),., ~ '::: I:...-==....! - . \ " "" )',''': ~ ~)( 1!; 1 ~::: rr.777:71 fT'\ ____ ' , ;
,~ -B\. ::Y "'\V1"il'",~ ""), ~~,~ \...!.../ '.:,',
~ .':~: J} (' " '. ,," ,." ").. '-:Xo.iX ~,^ oj ~ ~ ~ ' . ",,': ",
.':'\ iA.. ) " " /' ,,/' "~>,,~ '~" ~,/ '//fD ~ ____ ~ " : ',~' '.~
':': I '- ~"," /' " /''' '^,~ -:':. Lf-f\ ),Y-""'t /1\ [:, ',:, ',', J; 9 \.
':' 7 .- :' ~",."., ",,"'~ ..", .,.>Ij \14/ i;, " ,\ '-\j:/
, r ,V",,, "r"... r- ______ ~ ". "
';'" ,'" ",'", 1--"" SORTt:D ':.' "', '
': '~ -., ""2~ 1 'J'"'J6 S F ,," ,,"', "..' 1 - /'iI\ ~' ";;...,~".\
..... .:' '~~7' ... ~\ - '{.' _" ,,&..c.,... . . ",," ,,">" -, " . . ~ ____. _ ",,' , '" "
" .~ ". '.' -<,., ,,^ m""""-- ~'~'" .
. / . """/ : /~":'-", < '" ,," "','. " ,," '> SOD~ (~'II\ \'1 "
~ ." n. "; .". v" / - ......... 1", - ..\.-.!-I -" v .
,n . ' ~ ,/ ><'~':::;~'".':~<// ,,/' "'."_,.."'____..:.,.~( /. ,~,' "... .~.,~....,..., '\' ""'~"'" ", \",q".
::')1Qi,'/,<:<<"'~~~"<" //'" ;....' , : ,.,~':::,-X'" "~
, ~! /,' '<:,::>.,:~~'., " <"/'//' _ /. /. I" . , . CD::::":"'" .<\ ~~~/:". ','.f"
D i f~' .. ....""....',~:":::~:::~,'~,..\/'/~ \YJl\ ( ~~~\\\\~~', "
, :'"1 Ii .",,:'-<~, ,~~" CH', ,,",'V/l \..U! :J"T\ tJA\;;;:~'~:~:l V'"
: ; " ;: : ~tR~OWERS~:~'0'j, x ~.. ~.................... ':"\:!f"'~ / >"i'~\;;,":
: ! ~ .' ~~" ""<~~. "." ~ _ _ .' --"', -:X)/<. \<:::.,'
. ~ . . " ' ',~' ' 'tF\ I' , ,
i \~::: ; ~ : ~ - - - - ~^:,....,,--;,.~':'::~>", "'., ,==<....,....,:......~...,....,.......<'::":':'::':,....,...,'~~:~,~"~\;::",'w,,. \" "
,-
"
_f
(ODE
A
----L
---L
--L
-L
---'-
---L
H
"
... -
>';/-/
~/~>< _.- :
~
<
.,'
'r,....,:~~,......:_ _". _".".
,,'
."'-. ....
".
.... .-".
.//
'-'
~,/c'
.. ....
,>
,,'
......+.
,>
"
.... :: :
:, ,
"
....... .._"_U
"
,.'
I
,..
............
..............
"
",
"
"
.'
....
'.,
...
,.
,/
~/ ./ /" ....../
.:' ;. i /'
BUILDING
ASSOC1A nON
OF THE
TWIN CITIES
The Cltv of
R~:\SEVfbbE
, ~ Minnesota
A
N
Prepared. by: 0 100 200 300 4DO Fe<:e
Community Development ' '
Development -_OIl'
Centre Pointe
Address Map
September 1999
_, 1I......,.c."""".~TJaw-~,/-
; 1
,,~i!fE~
~t~~Q 'WI '.'It">1~QQIJ11.(lOTI e1Jns.'.I.[J ~1~O!l~
ffiI~~r~:rf~d ~
xn:I
"-.../
-'ON':>3~-3.1"'O
'JaI.O\q7J.B~.."'JI
"IOI"'['I"""'''''JII
"N'1\'"1=d"!"'J.
IUI '''''~qrn
_.."'_O<AJII_
"II_",~~",,~"""'A"'D
""DI 1D<nP"D LIOIIl"ldN 4......Aw _pun ....w
Aqp"'NfJd_UDld"'~IIOIII~A_"1
@~
~~
~~
~~
!~
O~
;!~
~
~
!!i
'"
X
'"
'"
:,j "',
!I! I'!'" "
~ ~~ 9
~ ~~ ~
I" '" ~
~ ~5 h
~ ~~ aj1
~ liil!? ~bt
~ ~~ ffi~
~ rD(n ~5
i ~~ ~ ~
~~ ~i
~ IE<I'! --
.... ~'"":-
!:! l"iS ,,~
iJ 5~ ~ti
~ ~~ ii!~
~
~
!:!
iJ
~
~~
~~
E;Z
IE~
wI" ~
~~z ~
!I! 0 ~
~~g II!
1-t1~ 12
~~~
~~~
~~~
~~~
~~~
~~~
~
~
!!i
N
..
"
~~~;
~~~~>-~
~~~...EioJ
9~~~e~
~~~~~~
t:fflijl'!~~
~~~3m~u)
""-!I<<~
~,,~IEG~"-
ii:~~~~~~
~13i5;~~1!
i!i,,~wiSlE
5V1 f!:wVl
t315r11i1 "i' 15
";""'iBz,."
t=~2~gl.o..<
~d~~!S~~
~
ij:,j
c!l!
1115
~E
BI')
~~
g
!;1
~
g
~~
~~
",0
"'I')
~~
w
"
<
~
I'!
~
i
f:3 ~:,j
I- "'!I!
@ B~
wo
~ ~I')
ii.i ~~
CBIITRE
Mgc
c::w
f
~
~
o
I~~~~~~~~~::~~::::: =~""ool "==
---------------- Q3N01S30
SNOIS1l\3~ S1S A2'lijnS
...,.~_""""""'..."'ZO<-~l..,.........,\~l..,....,.,..""..
w/~;to ~
rflCK ~ooz:
'ONUJroaJ
NVld 3~0NV1
AIf9'Nll'4re1d
l:eogs N~ '~31....It11111S
3l:J~1:J NOSQNn~.... Ivl:1
':J11 'SNOllnlOS lNIOd 3Ml.N3:J
ON" 'mV\3sml /
QNIQ11na 3:JI.:I.:IO II J..
QNlllnSNO:J ....llnl0S
d~~"":"":"":
-c:vi vi uhiv!
~~~~s:
5~g~g.f
~
M-=-M""':'
~~~~
N ~
~ ~
~ II
~ ~
~ ~
'" c
~ ~
...
ffiffiffi ffiffiffi
1I')1t)~ ~2~
I
~
~
<
Z
~
~
"
W
'"
~
w
~
~
~
;!
< ;:~
~ .no<
Or
C) ~,~
z ~~~
52 ~Ii;~
a:: z~z
<Q. ~~~
"- "-
00
..
...
..
o
<
~
'"
"
'"
~
.:.:.=.:
.c 00
~ ~~
i);:;! iiiiU
< ~:~Qliilo..o..
~ i); "!i!~c~~~H
o ..~~i5~l1tJRccc
W ~,,~~,,~~15!1j~i!i
I- I"~]~h~~~~~
(jj D'lco o..11.ICI
(/)
~
~
m ().=.: ..().=.: ..
I- z15w~z15w~
w ie:~~~~~a:
(/) "- ii!
o
z
w
()
w
w
.
~*o~
~"..,,"'"
,>,/
~~,/
,p~~~~-----,:~7 .
~>.'>C</
I
,..........
g ~
A""~
~
~II>--- ~ ~
" ~
3L "".i.SIElJN!