Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.a. Request by Copper Creek Development, LLC for a Preliminary Plat, Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with Rezoning and Final Plat to Develop a 90 Lot Subdivision named Evermoor PlaceEXECUTIVE SUMMARY Planning Commission Meeting Date: May 26, 2015 Tentative City Council Meeting Date: June 16, 2015 AGENDA ITEMCases 15-16-PUD, 15-17-PP, : Request by Copper Creek Development, LLC for a AGENDA SECTION: Preliminary Plat, Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with Rezoning Public Hearing and Final Plat to Develop a 90 Lot Subdivision named Evermoor Place PREPARED BY: AGENDA NO. Eric Zweber, Senior Planner 5.a. ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Preliminary Plat; Grading APPROVED BY: Plan; Utility Plan; Tree Replacement Plan; Tree Replacement Summary; Phasing Plan; K.L. Concept Home Designs; Comprehensive Plan Map; Parks Master Plan Map; City Constantin Moisei Email; Andy Powell Email; Richard Dorniden Letter RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission make the following motions: Motion 1. to recommend the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Evermoor Place, subject to conditions: a. Approval of a Major Planned Unit Development rezoning the subject property and designating minimum lot requirements and setbacks. b. Along the property line of Lots 33 and 34, Block 1, construct a five (5) foot wide sidewalk that connects the regional trail along South Robert Trail with the sidewalk proposed within the cul-de-sac of Road A. The sidewalk shall be constructed to ADA standards and the developer shall dedicate a 15 foot wide trail easement to the City. c. Construct a trail to connect the existing Glendalough trail at the western property line of Lot 1, Block 3 to connect with regional trail to be constructed in the right-of-way northeast of Lot 1, Block 3. The developer shall dedicate a 15 foot wide trail easement across the northern portion of Lot 1, Block 3 to the City. d. Dedicate a 30 foot wide trail easement over the regional trail corridor to the City. ndth e. Driveways shall not access onto 132 Street, 134 Street or South Robert Trail. f. Vegetation removal shall be limited to the areas that are required to be mass graded. Trees shall not be removed by the developer from areas in which the grades are not changed. g. The stormwater and ponding calculation cannot be approved with the limited information required during Preliminary Plat review. The stormwater and ponding calculations will be reviewed and approved with the Final Plat and final design. If addition ponding area is required with the final pond design and approval, then the number of lots within the subdivision will need to be reduced accordingly. Additional deviations from the City Code within the Planned Unit Development will not be considered due to an increased ponding area. h. Conformance with all requirements of the City Engineer as detailed in the attached memorandum dated May 19, 2015. i. Conformance with all requirements of the Parks and Recreation Director as detailed in the attached memorandum dated May 20, 2015. Motion 2. to recommend the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with the Rezoning of the property from RR Rural Residential to R1 PUD Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development, subject to conditions: a. The front elevation design shall include one of the following elements: i. Three and a half (3.5) feet of brick or stone wainscoting, excluding doors, windows or the wall behind the front porch; ii. A front porch with railing that extends at least 30% of the width of the front elevation, including the garage; iii. A side entry garage; iv. No more than 70% lap siding, excluding doors and windows. b. A deviation from City Code Section 11-2-15 F. so that the home designs do not need to include an option for a three-car garage stall. c. A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.1. to reduce the interior lot minimum area of 10,000 to 7,000 square feet and corner lot minimum area from 12,000 to 8,750 square feet. d. A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.2. to reduce the minimum lot width to sixty (60) feet for interior and seventy seven and one half (77.5) feet for corner lots. e. A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.4. to reduce the front yard setback to twenty five (25) feet for Blocks 1 and 3; and to twenty feet (20) feet for Block 2. f. A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.5. to reduce the side yard setback to seven and one half (7.5) feet. g. A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.9. to increase the maximum lot coverage to forty five percent (45%) for lots less than 8,250 square feet; to forty percent (40%) for lots between 8,250 square feet and 9,750 square feet in size and thirty five percent (35%) for lots between 9,750 square feet and 11,250 square feet. h. A deviation from City Code Section 11-5-2 C. 6. b. removing the requirement of increased setbacks from minor arterial highways. i. A deviation from City Code Section 12-3-1 K. to allow for a cul-de-sac up to 850 feet in length. j. Conformance with all requirements of the City Engineer as detailed in the attached memorandum dated May 19, 2015. k. Conformance with all requirements of the Parks and Recreation Director as detailed in the attached memorandum dated May 20, 2015. 2 SUMMARY Applicant: Copper Creek Development, LLC Location: East of Glendalough; west of South Robert Trail (State Trunk nd Highway No. 3); and directly south of 132 St. West. Gross Acres: 26.75 Acres Met Council Net Acres: 24.24 Acres Proposed Lots: 90 Lots Gross Density: 3.36 Units/Acre Net Density: 3.71 Units/Acre Existing Comp Plan Designation: TR Transitional Residential (3+ units per acre) Existing Zoning: RR Rural Residential Proposed Density: R1 PUD Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development The applicant, Copper Creek Development, LLC (Copper Creek) requests approval of a Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Development Plan with Rezoning for Evermoor Place to allow 90 lots on approximately 30 acres. The preliminary plat provides legal entitlement to a certain number of lots, but actual developable lots would not be created until a final plat is approved. The proposed phasing plan would develop 32 lots in the first phase and leaves the remaining 58 lots for future phases. Additionally, the plat will include approximately a 1.5 acre outlot on the southeast side of the development for a storm-water pond. The area of this development is designated as TR Transitional Residential within Plan. The Plan states that this Dodd Blvd area is to transition between the rural residential neighborhood to the north, the single family Glendalough neighborhood to the west and townhomes to the south and east. The Plan states that it is expected that the density in this area will exceed three (3) units per acres, which was anticipated to be achieved through townhomes or a mix of small lot single family and townhome lots. The proposed development is on the low level of the anticipated density scale with a gross density of 3.36 units per acre. BACKGROUND A preliminary plat requests are quasi-judicial decision for the Planning Commission meaning that the Planning Commission is acting as a judge to determine if the regulations within the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance are being followed. The Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan is a legislative decision because of the Code deviations being requested. Legislative decisions give the Planning Commission more latitude, but consideration should be given to the TR Transitional Residential land use designation and the additional information regarding the Dodd Boulevard (Blvd) area within the Comprehensive Plan. nd Evermoor Place has a gross acreage of 26.75 acres and a net acreage of 24.24 acres after removing the 132 Street right-of-way and the area under the 100 year high water level (HWL) mark. The property is situated between the existing Glendalough development to the west, the Rosemount Family Housing to the south, and State Trunk Highway No. 3 and the Harmony development to the east. The Harmony neighborhood has both small lot single family and townhouses adjacent to South Robert Trail. Dodd Blvd runs north to southwest through the property. Dodd Blvd currently ends in a cul-de-sac and currently does not reach the south property line of the development. The street system will include removing the existing Dodd Blvd and installation of two n 3 nd at 132 Street and run south almost the entirety of the development and then turn east approximately 180 feet north of the south property line and end in a th cul-de-sac. 134 Street will be extended about 80 feet to east and include an intersection with Road A. nd Street and ends about 140 feet south th of 134 Street. With this design, the development is about four (4) lots wide running east to west. The eastern most lots abut South Robert Trail, the interior block surrounded by Road A and Road B is two lots deep, and the western most lots abut the existing Glendalough neighborhood. The lots on the east and north side of the cul-de-sac will back onto a regional stormwater detention pond. The lots on the west side abut the Glendalough neighborhood and the south side of the cul-de-sac back onto a wooded hill about 20 feet high and containing many oak trees. Most of the oak trees are mature and are between 10 and 24 inches in diameter as indicated on the tree inventory. On the property to the south of the development, a new paved Dodd Blvd exists about 40 feet south of the property line while the Dodd Blvd right-of-way is provided, but not improved, to the property line. Staff does not recommend connecting the proposed Road A to the existing new Dodd Blvd. The extension would require the removal of a significant swath of trees within an 80 foot corridor and result in a 10% road grade. The City Code maximum grade for a local road is 8%. To attain an 8% grade, significantly more grading and tree removal would need to occur due to existing grades in that area. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan describes this site as a potential townhome development that would have created a much higher traffic generation than what is expected from this single family project. Due to the fact that the development is at the lower end of the density allowed and in consideration of the needed tree removal for road construction that would result in an excessive public street grade, staff does not support extending Road A south to Dodd Blvd. The subdivision also provides a regional trail corridor along the north and east side of the development. The developer will grade and provide a 30 foot wide trail easement over the corridor but not construct the trail. The City will construct the trail within this corridor using Dakota County funds. Dakota County and City staff have begun conversations with Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) staff to acquire an easement for the trail and anticipates constructing the trail all the way to Connemara Trail to the south. In addition to the trail, the subdivision indicates sidewalks on one side of Road A and Road B and connects th to the sidewalks on both sides of 134 Street. The sidewalk along Road A ends at the cul-de-sac bulb, which is the typical sidewalk design within the City. To provide a neighborhood access to the regional trail, the Parks and Recreations Director recommends that the sidewalk be continued from the cul-de-sac bulb along the property line of Lots 33 and 34, Block 1 to connect with the regional trail adjacent to South Robert Trail. Staff finds that the general layout of the Preliminary Plat is reasonable while achieving a density greater than three (3) units per acre. Section 11-10-6 A. of the City Code lists eight (8) purposes that could support the use of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Any one (1) of the purposes would support the use of a PUD. This development proposal meets Purposes Number 7 and Number 8 of the City Code. 7. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant transportation or scenic corridors within the city. Finding: The development is located within the TR - Transitional Residential and therefore has been 4 identified as a transition area between the rural residential neighborhood to the north, the single family neighborhood to the west, the small lot single family to the east and the townhomes to the south and the east. The proposed small lot development will serve as a transition from the single family to the north and west and the townhomes to the south and the east. Additionally, the development is bounded by South Robert Trail (Minnesota Highway 3) on the east. South , as well as in the Dakota County and the MNDOT plans, and therefore meets the definition of a significant transportation corridor. It is generally anticipated that high densities will be located next to significant transportation corridors because the additional traffic generated can readily access onto the corridor and the decreased desirability of being located next to the corridor. Staff finds that this development meets Purpose 7 of the PUD standards. 8. Development that is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as TR- Transitional Residential, which describes the density for this area as: West and Connemara Trail may be considered to exceed three (3) per acre to transition between the multiple and multiple family housing to the south and the east, single family housing to the west, and rural residential homes to the north. The property is expected to transition from townhouses along the South Robert Trail frontage to single family housing towards the Dodd Boulevard frontage. It is expected that the development of this area would require the reconstruction and reconnection of Dodd Boulevard to Connemara Trail and 132nd Street West to provide direct access to the development without requiring the long term use of the single family neighborhood to the east for access. It is anticipated that this level of development may create The proposed PUD standards for small lot single family homes are similar to those within the Harmony neighborhood across South Robert Trail and are necessary to achieve greater than three (3) units per acre. The only other option to meet these densities would be to construct townhomes. The proposed gross density of the development is 3.36 units per acre and the net density is 3.71 units per acre. If the development were to use the standard R-1 zoning, then the density would be reduced by at least 25% and therefore drop below three (3) units per acre. The property to the south, the Rosemount Family Housing site, was also designated Transitional Residential to facilitate a higher density development to serve as a buffer between the existing single family residential neighborhood to the west and South Robert Trail. With this development, D nd a connection to 132 Street and onto South Robert Trail. Dodd Blvd is not proposed to be connected to ction would create a street in excess of the City maximum of 8% slope, would remove many significant trees unnecessarily and the small lot single family homes will create less traffic than the townhomes that were anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan. The intention of the language stating that the development should not use Glendalough to the east as a long th term access is to prevent the creation of a long cul-de-sac with 134 Street as its only access, similar to the long cul-de-sacs of Carlingford Lane and Couchtown Court within Glendalough. The long term access for nd this neighborhood is 132 Street which will ultimately have a traffic signal at the intersection with South Robert Trail when warranted. Staff finds that the proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore meets Purpose 8 of the PUD standards. 5 The subject property is currently zoned TR: Transitional Residential. It is intended to transition between the rural residential to the north, the single family homes to the west and the townhomes to the east and the south. To accommodate this transition, small lot single family homes are proposed within Evermoor Place. Copper Creek has requested zoning of R1 PUD - Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development. The deviations from the R-1 standards requested by Copper Creek include reduction in the minimum lot size from 10,000 square feet to 7,000 square feet; reduction in the minimum lot width from 80 feet to 60 feet, reduction in the front yard setback from 30 feet to 20 and 25 feet; reduction in the side yard setback from 10 feet to 7.5 feet; and the increase of the maximum lot coverage from 30% to 45%. In some communities this project, with the smaller size lots, although with the single family product, would be considered a detached townhouse subdivision. The modified standards proposed by the applicant accommodate the proposed preliminary plat and are acceptable to staff. Comparison of Lot Requirements and Standards Category Standard R-1 Zoning Evermoor Place Harmony (Small Lot) Glendalough Min. Lot Size 10,000 sq. ft. 7,000 sq. ft. 7,116 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. Min. Lot Depth 125 ft. 118 ft. 130 ft. 125 ft. Min. Lot Width 80 ft. 60 ft. 55 ft. 75 ft. Building Pad Width 60 ft. 45 ft. 45 ft. 65 ft. Min. Front Yard Setback 30 ft. 20 ft. to 25 ft. 25 ft. 15 ft. a Min. Side Yard Setback 10 ft. 7.5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. Min. Rear Yard Setback 30 ft. 30 ft. 25 ft. 10 ft. Max. Lot Coverage 30% 30% to 45%30% 35% to 43% b Block 2 lots only would be 20 ft. front setback, all others would be 25 ft. a For lots with areas less than 8,250 SF, maximum lot coverage would be 45% b For lots with areas greater than 8,250 SF, but less than 9,750 SF, maximum lot coverage would be 40% For lots with areas greater than 9,750 SF, but less than 11,250 SF, maximum lot coverage would be 35% For lots with areas greater than 11,250 SF, maximum lot coverage would be 30% There are a few additional deviations to the City Code that are recommended within the PUD. First, the elimination of the increased setback from South Robert Trail, a minor arterial. Staff supports this recommendation for three reasons. 1.The rear yards of the lots with the regional trail will include a 30 foot trail easement to permit the trail and landscape screening of the trail to the homes. 2.For Lot 15 through Lot 35, Block 1, there is a significant grade difference between the lots and South Robert Trail. For example, South Robert Trail is 12 feet higher than the building pad for Lot 20, Block 1. 3.The 150 wide right-of-way is wider than most two lane roads and there are no plans to expand South Robert Trail to a four lane road. The shoulder of South Robert Trail is approximately 45 feet from the property line of the lots which creates a minimum of a 75 foot distance between the homes and the shoulder when adding the 30 foot rear yard setbacks. Second, staff recommends increasing the maximum cul-de-sac length from 700 feet to up to 850 feet. The Preliminary Plat design shows a distance of about 775 feet from intersection of Road A and Road B and the center of the cul-de-sac of Road A. Staff is recommending a greater distance (850 feet) in case the distance needs to be increase in final design, such as if the size of the pond needs to be increase. As mentioned previously, existing grades and the amount of tree removal necessary to extend the public road south, lead staff to support the cul-de-sac. For comparison purposes, staff notes that the 850 feet cul-de-sac would be shorter than two of the cul-de- th sacs in Glendalough. The distance between the intersection of 134 Street and the middle of the cul-de-sac 6 is approximately 975 feet and the distance between the intersection of Carrach Avenue and Couchtown Court and the middle of the Couchtown Court cul-de-sac is approximately 1,150 feet. There have been no issues identified with these two cul-de-sacs within Glendalough. Copper Creek has provided four home designs as samples. These designs are illustrative of homes that can be built on 45 foot wide building pads, but they are not meant to be the only designs allowed in the development. A PUD deviation is needed to remove the Code requirement that the developer provide a survey which illustrates how a three car garage can be built on each lot (11-2-5). The homes are designed so that some models can accommodate a three car garage, but not all, due to the decreased building pad width. The ordinance only requires construction of a two car garage. To codify the requirement for the home designs, staff is proposing that all front elevation designs for the homes includes one of four design features: A minimum of three and a half (3.5) feet of brick or stone wainscoting, excluding doors, windows or the wall behind the front porch; A front porch with railing that extends at least 30% of the width of the front elevation, including the garage; A side entry garage; No more than 70% lap siding, excluding doors and windows. These same standards are used in both the Greystone and Prestwick Place developments. The proposed preliminary plat would subdivide the 26.75 acre property into 90 single family lots. The plat also includes one outlot. Outlot A (approximately 1.5 acres) is located on the southeast side of the development and will become a storm-water pond for the development and some runoff from Highway 3. ndth All lots will access directly onto Road A or Road B. No lots will be allowed access 132 Street, 134 Street or South Robert Trail. Platting is the process in which the City can acquire dedications of lands or easements for public purposes. Staff is recommending dedication of three easements for trail or sidewalk purposes within the Preliminary Plat recommendation. First, the dedication of a 15 foot wide sidewalk easement on the property line of Lots 33 and 34, Block 1 to provide a connection to the regional trail. Second, a 15 foot wide trail easement along the northern boundary of Lot 1, Block 3 to provide a trail connection between the Glendalough trails and the regional trail. Third, the dedication of a 30 foot wide easement over the regional trail corridor. These easements are described in more detail within the Parks and Open section of this Executive Summary below. The City Code defines significant trees as hardwood tree six (6) caliper inches or above and softwood trees twelve (12) caliper inches or above. Trees removed due to development that are smaller than the listed sizes do not require replacement. Additionally, the Code defines heritage trees as hardwoods greater than twenty-seven (27) caliper inches in size and requires a greater replacement if those trees are removed. The Tree Preservation Ordinance allows the developer to remove 25% of the significant trees on the site before replacement and requires replacement of all heritage trees. Homeowners could remove an additional 25% of significant trees on their lot but would need to replace any heritage trees removed or any significant trees removed beyond 25%. 7 The developer proposes to maintain the vast majority of trees that exist along the western and southern border of the property, the trees along the South Robert Trail that would not need to be removed for the regional trail and a grove of trees northeast of the cul-de-sac and southeast of the regional pond. The trees for removal will be predominately in the center of the development and within the regional pond. Staff finds that the tree removal is reasonable to accommodate the density called for in the Comprehensive Plan. To maintain as much of the existing vegetation as possible, staff has proposed an additional condition that the developer shall not remove any vegetation that is not located within the areas designated to be mass graded. This would retain any trees below the significant trees status (essentially underbrush) during development, but it would allow future individual homeowner to remove underbrush if they so choose. This is the same allowance as all other homeowners in the City. The City Code requires the installation trees under two provisions: a minimum of one tree per new lot and to replace for removal in excess of 25% of the existing caliper inches of trees. To address compliance with the Ordinance, the developer will need to install 404 trees. The calculation is shown on the table below. Requirement Provided Interior Lots 1 per Corner Lot 81 Corner Lots 2 per Corner Lot 18 Significant Trees ½ inch per 1 inch Removed beyond 25% Removal 199 Heritage Trees 1 inch per 1 inch of Removal 106 404 The 404 trees proposed for installation contain at least two trees on each lot and the remaining trees installed in any gaps on the west side (Glendalough boundary), around the regional pond and adjacent to the regional pond. Staff finds this replacement strategy adequate at the Preliminary Plat stage, but it is expected that additional review will be required during the Final Plat review to insure that the greatest public value is gained by the tree replacement and installation. Schwartz Pond Park (located south of Connemara Trail) and Brockway Park, east of South Robert Trail and the proposed regional trail running west of South Robert Trail that will connect Lebanon Hills Park to the north with Downtown Rosemount to the South. The regional trail has been installed south of Connemara Trail and stops at the intersection of Connemara Trail and the former Dodd Road. The property south of this development is managed by the CDA and staff has meet with CDA staff to begin the process of acquiring the trail easement to connect with the existing trail at Connemara Trail. With this easement, the City will be able to construct the trail (using Dakota County funds) from Connemara Trail to nd 132 Street. The trail will allow residents to get to Schwartz Pond Park or use the sidewalk on Connemara Trail to cross South Robert Trail at the signal light to get to Brockway Park. The Parks and Recreation Director has evaluated the development and determined that with the regional trail, the neighborhood is within the service area of both Schwartz Pond Park and Brockway Park as illustrated within the Parks Master Plan. Therefore, the Director recommended collecting fee-in-lieu of park dedication for the development. The Director also evaluated the sidewalk and trail system within the development and determined two deficiencies: one, the neighborhood does not have sufficient access to the regional trail and two, that the regional trail does not connect with the Glendalough trail system thats stubbed to the northwest corner of the development. With that determination, the Director proposed two recommendations. First, that the southern half of the development could not reasonably access the 8 regional trail and therefore the Director recommended to install a sidewalk on the property line of Lots 33 and 34, Block 1 to provide a second, shorter connect to the trail. Second, that regional trail does not connect to the Glendalough trail leaving about a 70 foot gap across Lot 1, Block 3. The Director made a second recommendation to install a trail to connect the Glendalough trail with the regional trail. addressing trail connections served by Schwartz Pond or Brockway Parks. Therefore, the Parks Commission recommendation is to require dedication of a pocket park of approximately one (1) acre adjacent to the regional trail. This will the recommendation to approve. The Parks Master Plan is not a part of either Section 11 or Section 12 of the City Code, which are the two sections of the City Code that the Planning Commission have jurisdiction; therefore the dedication determination is a policy decision for the City Council. The The majority of the engineering concerns are regarding stormwater, grades of the street and lots to provide nd adequate drainage and the feasibility study for the reconstruction 132 Street. The stormwater and grading concerns are not alarming at the Preliminary Plat status because many of these issues will be resolved with the soil testing and final design that will come along the Final Plat application. One concern addressed with condition approval is the design of the regional pond. It appears that the volume of wet pond will need to be expanded by approximately 20% and the infiltration rates within the infiltration basin have not been determined. As stated earlier, that is not unexpected during Preliminary Plat, but if the final design requires that the regional pond be expanded, then the recommended condition states that the number of lot will be reduced according to the expanded pond. Staff will not support increased deviation in the PUD to maintain 90 lots if the regional is determined to be increase in final design. Stormwater Management Plan. This regional pond has no natural, over-land outlet and therefore will include a stormwater lift station that would send flood water into the forcemain constructed in Glendalough and then onto the pond near Connemara Trail and the Progress Rail tracks. This lift station was included when the City set its rate structure for stormwater fees. nd The feasibility study for 132 Street is not finalized at this time because of the easements that may be nd required from the property owners to the north of 132 Street and the Xcel transmission easement on the nd south side of 132 Street. It appears that the sanitary sewer may need to be jacked instead of trenched due to Xcel construction requirements, which is a significant increase in total construction cost as compared to typical utility installation. Further investiIn general, the developer is expected to pay for half of the reconstruction costs for 132nd Street. d to this executive summary. About a dozen residents attended an open house that staff and the developer hosted for the Glendalough residents who are in close proximity to the proposed development. Two of the attendees have followed up 9 with emails since the open house and Mr. Moisei emails are included in the packet. The questions asked at the open house included why the development uses the name Evermoor when it is not part of either the Evermoor or the Glendalough Homeo development continue the lot sizes and standards of Glendalough; will the existing trees remain, particularly those on the property line; will the development send their drainage into Glendalough; will this th development overcrowd Shannon Park Elementary school; will a stop sign be installed at 134 Street and drive through the Evermoor neighborhood. The majority of the attendees were supportive of the future regional trail. Evermoor Name The residents of Evermoor are concerned with the use of the Evermoor name when this development will not be a part of the Evermoor Master or the Glendalough HOAs. This is a particular concern to the Glendalough neighborhood which supports a private park and two private pools with their HOA dues. The developer now understands these concerns due to the open house and has requested that the residents propose some name that could be a similar but different than Evermoor. Mr. Moisei has proposed a couple of names within his email. Density and Lot Sizes A number of residents questioned why the density of this neighborhood is not the same as Glendalough. Staff responded the reason is because the Comprehensive Plan calls for a density greater than three (3) units per acre and to transition between the Glendalough single family homes and the townhomes to the south and east. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is different than what was designated for the Evermoor property. Staff supports the small lot single family home lots, similar to those across South Robert Trail in Harmony, to meet these Comprehensive Plan requirements. Additionally, Mr. Moisei has requested that western most lots be increased to the same size as the Glendalough lots. Staff does not support this request for a number reasons. First, this would reduce the number of lots by at least six (6) and could result in a density less than three (3) units per acre. Second, this would result in about 18 homes that would look more like Glendalough than Evermoor Place which would increase the likelihood that those homeowners would want to use the private Glendalough facilities. Tree Preservation Residents have expressed the desire to reserve the trees along the western and southern boundary of the development. To some extent this is consistent with the proposal. The developer understands that maintaining the trees would make the lots more desirable to new homeowners. Some residents expressed concern that the trees below the significant and heritage trees size are not protected. To address this concern, staff has added a condition that vegetation within the areas of no grading should be retained. It was explained that this would not prevent individual homeowners from removing underbrush if they chose. Additionally, the developer is proposing to install new trees in any gaps in the western property line. This issue will be reviewed in greater detail during the Final Plat approval process. Drainage Residents expressed concern that drainage from the new development will drain into Glendalough. Staff explained that this request can be contradictory to the desire for tree preservation along the Glendalough boundary. In general, the area west of the existing Dodd Blvd flows into the trees and onto Glendalough, while the area west of the existing Dodd Blvd generally flows toward the depression in the area of the new regional pond. Staff explained that the only way to address the drainage west of the existing Dodd Blvd 10 would be to remove the trees to re-grade the area. Most residents understood this contradiction and have changed their request to any area re-graded for development is prevented from draining to Glendalough. Staff shares this concern and the majority of this of engineering grading comments addressed the need for the development to handle its own drainage. This will be ensured during the Final Plat review and approval. ISD #196 d a concern that this development may result in overcrowding at Shannon Park Elementary. Staff had a phone conversation addressing this issue. First, staff explained that ISD #196 is separate from the City and actually includes the cities of Rosemount, Apple Valley and Eagan. Staff did further explain that City staff meets with ISD #196 staff periodically to discuss proposed growth in Rosemount, particularly that proposed in Comprehensive Plan and environmental review such as the UMore AUAR. Staff explained that ISD #196 staff uses that information to anticipate new elementary school construction, which results in a change in elementary school attendance boundaries to prevent overcrowding due to development. Middle schools and high schools typically do not have the same attendance concerns. It is anticipated that aries in middle and high schools without requiring a new school to be constructed. With that information, it must be noted that since we have no jurisdiction over schools, the City cannot deny a subdivision due to a concern of school overcrowding. Stop Signs th Stop signs are not warranted within the Evermoor Place development (Road A and 134 Street and both Road A and Road B intersections), however further analysis will be needed to determine if signage is nd required at the intersection of Road A and 132 Street. The procedures evaluating the need and location of stop sign control is found in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Section 2B-5. trol Devices such as Stop Signs. Dodd Blvd As stated early in this executive summary, staff does not support the connection of Road A with the new Dodd Blvd south of the development because the traffic generated from single family homes do not support the need for the connection and that the construction of connection would result in the removal of mature oak trees in a corridor at least 80 feet wide and result in a grade of 10%, which is beyond the *5 grade maximum of local streets. The City has received a letter from Richard Dorniden, who lives north of the development in the rural residential that is outside of the metropolitan urban service area (MUSA). He states that he is against the development and asks five questions. Is there a reason this Rural Residential zoning should be abandoned? As stated earlier in this report, staff supports this development because it implements the Comprehensive Plan. This development is within the MUSA and is guided Transitional Residential to facilitate development greater than three (3) units per acre. Staff supports the rezoning from RR - Rural Residential to R-1 PUD to implement the Comprehensive Plan. 11 Is there a reason to sacrifice neighborhoods feel (country neighborhood living)? The RR Rural Residential Comprehensive Plan guided area not be impacted by the proposed development. The development is designated TR - Transitional Residential and is transitioning from the rural residential neighborhood to the north and the townhomes to the south and west. High density of the proposal would be contrary to City policy? This statement is incorrect. The City policy for the area of this development is to create greater than three (3) units per acre. The proposed development is implementing City policy. Are the four gorgeous homes going to be torn down? It is anticipated that the existing homes and buildings on the site will either be moved elsewhere or demolished. It is common that existing buildings are demolished for development. Five (5) homes were rd demolished to the construct the senior housing at 143 Street. Four (4) homes were demolished to th construct the senior housing at Lower 147 Street. The former rectory and convent were demolished to build the library. The City Code does not prohibit building demolition.. Is all of Dodd Road going to be surfaced? nd Dodd Blvd north of 132 Street will not be paved as a part of this development. The paving of Dodd ement Plan (CIP). CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Development Plan with Rezoning from RR Rural Residential to R1 PUD Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development with the conditions listed. This recommendation is based on the information submitted by the applicant, findings made in this report and the conditions detailed in the attached memorandums. 12 Old City Hall Park BirchPark kraPenyacsiB Brockway Park Brockway Park Central Park RMSPark Charlie's Park Camfield Park Schwarz Pond Park Winds Park Chippendale Park Shannon Park Claret Park FamilyRes Ctr k a Pr k ar l ala a P D s u aT P Lions rPark a r f s s ir le na d el nd I amd d e PP u nn Pi e eknnw i r rT ow f sC i n e ne I k r MEMORANDUM DATE: May 19, 2015 TO: Eric Zweber, Senior Planner CC: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director Andrew Brotzler, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director Chris Watson, Public Works Coordinator Amy Roudebush, Planning & Personnel Secretary FROM: Phil Olson, Assistant City Engineer RE: Evermoor Place Plan Review S: UBMITTAL Prepared by Rehder and Associates, Inc., the Evermoor Place preliminary plat is dated May 8, 2015. Engineering review comments were generated from the following documents included in the submittal: Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat Plan Set (11 pages) is comprised of the following: Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan o Utility Plan o Road Profile Plan o Tree Replacement Plan o Details Plan o Storm Sewer Calculations, dated May 8, 2015 (2 pages) Ponding Calculations, dated May 5, 2015 (9 pages) Tree Replacement Plan, dated May 8, 2015 (13 pages) Preliminary Phasing Plan, dated May 8, 2015 (1 page) DF: EVELOPMENT EES 1.Prior to submittal of the final plat, the developer should notify the city if they would like privately install the public infrastructure or if a public process with assessments or cash payment is desired. Preparation of the subdivision agreement cannot begin until a public or private process is selected. nd 2.The developer is responsible for a share of the cost to upgrade 132 Street and extend utilities from TH 3 to Dodd Boulevard. The City is currently completing a feasibility report that will determine the costs. 3.The developer will be responsible for the cost of sidewalks and non-regional trails internal to the development. The developer will be responsible for grading the regional trail and Dakota County will be responsible for the cost of the future construction of the regional trail. 4.The developer will be responsible for the cost for the first roadway seal coat and street lighting costs. 5.Additional development fees are required based on the current Schedule of Rates and Fees. Area charges will be calculated based on the final plat areas at the rates listed below. Storm Sewer Trunk Charge: $6865/net developable acre Sanitary Sewer Trunk Charge: $1075/acre Watermain Trunk Charge: $6500/acre 6.The developer is required to provide ponding for the adjacent properties. A credit will be provided to the Evermoor Place development based on the cityÔs offsite ponding charges. Below is a list of the areas and ponding credits that will be credited to the developments. Harmony Development: $81,104 Harmony Park (City): $20,720 nd 132 Street (City): $2,308 7.In the second phase of the development, the developer is required to install the trunk storm sewer force main with this project. The developer will construct the improvements and receive a credit to the storm sewer trunk area charge. GC: ENERAL OMMENTS 8.An existing conditions/removal plan should be provided to show the removal of the existing homes and relocation of existing utilities. 9.A brief feasibility report is required to document the surrounding roadway and utility improvements. This feasibility report is being completed concurrent with the development review. 10.Individual lots, post home construction, are not allowed to be constructed with a slope greater than 1:4. The final lot survey is requirement to verify that this requirement is met. Walkout models may not use the entire building pad which increases the grade from the front to the back of the house. 11.Storm sewer is proposed along the side and back lot lines of certain properties to convey rear yard drainage. Drainage and utility easements along these lines shall prohibit the installation of sheds to ensure that access can be provided for storm sewer maintenance. Fences are allowed but shall not restrict drainage and are required to include gates for truck access over the drainage and utility easement. Also, landscaping that will block access should be prohibited. These restrictions should be added as a restriction on the property deed. This will impact the following properties: Block 1: Lot 13 & Lot 14, Lot 23 through Lot 25, Lot 28 through Lot 32, Lot 34 through Lot 44 Block 2: Lot 1 through Lot 9 and Lot 18 through 26 12.Trees should not be located over storm sewer pipes or within emergency overflow routes or overland flow routes. Additionally, trees located on individual properties should not be planted near the sanitary sewer and water service lines. These trees should be positioned a minimum of 15 feet from the service lines. An updated utility layout should be shown on the landscape plan and trees should be located as specified above. 13.An erosion control plan will be required prior to issuance of a grading permit for mass grading. PC: HASING OMMENTS 14.Mass grading is required to be completed as part of Phase 1. ndth 15.Phase 1 is shown to include Street A from 132 Street to 134 Street and 7 lots on the north end of Road B. Due to roadway and utility constraints, the following changes are recommended for Phase 1. Storm sewer located along Block 3 and the rear yard of Block 2 is required to be extended to the pond with Phase 1. This will require sanitary sewer and watermain to be extended beyond the limits of the storm sewer. It is recommended that Phase 1 includes Road A to the south property line of Lot 49, Block 1. Also, Road B should be extended beyond the rear property line of Lot 1, Block 2. Lot 2 Ï Lot 7, Block 1 and Lot 14, Block 2 cannot be service with sanitary sewer until utilities are extended on Road B. It is recommended that either the sanitary sewer is revised or that these lots be included in Phase 3. A temporary cul-de-sac or hammerhead intersection should be shown on the plan if any properties are included on a dead-end-road segment. GPC: RADING LAN OMMENTS 16.Emergency Overflow (EOF) elevations and drainage arrows are required to be added to the grading plans. 17.Low building elevations are required to be shown on all plans. At least 3 feet of freeboard is required between the low openings and the 100-yr HWL. 18.The minimum grade in grassed areas is 2% and drainage should be toward the roadway, if possible. Many areas are currently shown with less than 2% grade. These areas are required to be revised. Rear yard catch basins should be added if drainage cannot be directed to the currently proposed storm sewer. 19.Drainage in the rear yards of Block 3 should be directed to Road A to prevent the need for large drainage and utility easements near the building pads. 20.It is recommended that Lot 1 through Lot 4 and Lot 44 through Lot 46, Block 1 be raised to help direct drainage to Road A. 21.The storm sewer lift station is currently proposed without an access roadway. The plan is required to be revised to show a 10-foot wide paved access route with a maximum grade of 8%. Additional requirements are included in section I.6. of the CityÔs engineering guidelines. 22.Lot 24, Block 1 should be revised from a walkout home to a lookout home. Additionally, a more defined swale should be shown at the rear of this property. This area is proposed as an emergency overflow route and the additional grading will increase the elevation of the rear yard. SMC: TORMWATER ANAGEMENT OMMENTS 23.The storm sewer lift station and a portion of the forcemain to manage the stormwater pond is proposed to be installed with the second phase of the development. The lift station should be completed as part of a public project. 24.Riprap or other some other erosion control method is required between the NURP pond and Infiltration Basin. This can be added to the plan during final design. 25.The storm sewer will be revised during final design. Typical revisions will include number and placement of catch basins, pipe alignments, and design of outlet control structures. 26.A wetland review/delineation of the site should be completed and submitted to the City for review. 27.Additional storage volume is required to meet the meet the NURP deadpool design standards. The model currently shows 2.76 acre-feet of deadpool storage and 3.22 acre-feet of deadpool storage is required to meet standards. 28.It is recommended that the ditch on the north side of the trail be extended from CB27 to the low point of the trail. CB27 should be moved to the low point and designed to convey the water directly from TH 3 to the storm pond. 29.Sump manholes are required prior to discharge to a pond. Sumps will be added during final design. 30.Additional infiltration volume is required to meet the cityÔs standards. The development is required to infiltrate 1/12 of an acre-foot/acre/day for its entire siteÔs acreage plus the acreage of all other areas included as regional ponding. This includes 56 acres for Evermoor Place and the Harmony development plus the acreage associated with 132nd Street. 31.Assumptions for infiltration should be included in the stormwater management plan. Infiltration testing is required to be performed at the time of grading to verify the design infiltration rates. This information shall be submitted to the City for review. 32.Additional modeling is required to demonstrate the 100-yr HLW of 946. 33.1 foot of freeboard is required between the 100-yr HWL and the low point in the adjacent trail. The low point of the trail should be a minimum of 947 based on the HWL of 946. 34.Model the depletions within the subcatchments of DA-4, DA-4C and DA-4A with more detail to verify the assumption that 25% of runoff from this area will reach the proposed pond. R/TC: OADWAYRAIL OMMENTS 35.The CityÔs minimum allowed roadway grade is 1%. Road A is proposed to be less than 1% at two separate locations. The plan is required to be revised to meet the cityÔs standards. 36.At intersections, the roadway grade shall not exceed 2% for the first 100 feet approaching an intersection. Road A is proposed to be greater than 2% at two separate locations. The plan is required to be revised to meet the CityÔs standards. 37.Streetlights are required to be added to the following locations: nd Intersection of 132 Street and Road A. Road A: Station 5+50, Station 17+50 Road B: Station 6+25, Station 9+25 38.The trail located along the north side of Block 3, Lot 1 should be connected to the trail at Road A. Trail easement or an outlot owned by the association should be provided along Lot 1 to ensure that the trail can be constructed and maintained as proposed. 39.The development is required to include the removal of approximately 200 feet of road and sidewalk on Dodd Boulevard, south of the southern property line. The removal limits will extend to the northern driveway and a new curb will be installed to create a curved access to the southern development. Dodd Boulevard was planned to be extended through the development but after further review the connection was not needed. 40.Soil boring information should be provided to verify that the cityÔs typical roadway section is adequate for the existing soils. 41.The alignment and profile of the regional trail should be reviewed and approved by Dakota County. Grading of the regional trail is required to be completed by the developer. The cost of paving the regional trail shall be provided by Dakota County. 42.A feasibility report for 132nd Street is currently being completed by the City. The feasibility report will include costs and funding for the extension of utilities and roadway from TH 3 to Dodd Boulevard. It will also calculate proposed assessments for the adjacent properties. 43.The low point elevation on the regional trail should be updated. th 44.Pedestrian ramps are required to be added at the intersection of 134 Street and Road A to allow for crossing Road A. 45.The west facing pedestrian ramp at the north intersection of Road A and Road B should be removed. 46.The two existing driveway accesses to Trunk Highway 3 are required to be removed. The removal of the driveway access should include grading the ditch along TH 3 and the proposed contours should be shown on the grading plan. A permit from Mn/DOT will be required for this work. 47.Stop signs are not warranted within the Evermoor Place development however further nd analysis will be needed to determine if signage is required at the intersection of 132 Street. The procedures evaluating the need and location of stop sign control is found in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Section 2B-5. It is the CityÔs policy to follow the manual when considering the installation of Traffic Control Devices such as Stop Signs. EC: ASEMENT OMMENTS 48.Conservation easements are required over all stormwater ponds, infiltration basins, wetlands, and buffers. Signage for conservation easements shall be provided by the developer and an extended 5 year maintenance warranty shall be required to ensure establishment of the naturally vegetated areas. Costs associated with the establishment of the naturally vegetated areas and the 5 year maintenance period shall be a cost of the development. 49.Drainage and utility easements are required encompass below the EOF elevation plus 1 foot and areas that are part of drainage swales. This includes, but is not limited to, the following locations. Rear yards of Block 2 Rear yards of Block 1, Lot 15 through Lot 21 Rear yards of Block 1, Lot 34 and Lot 35 50.Additional easement is required for an access driveway to the lift station. The easement is required to be 40 feet wide and should be located between two property lines on the west side of the pond (Block 1, Lot 25 through Lot 29). Drainage and utility easements should also extend a minimum of 35 feet west of the lift station location. The 10-foot driveway access should be centered in the easement. 51.A 30-foot wide trail easement is required for the regional trail. An easement sketch showing the easement location should be submitted. 52.All work occurring within the Williams Pipeline Easement shall be by agreement or permit. An agreement or permit between the developer and Williams Pipeline shall be submitted to the City. 53.All work occurring within the Xcel Energy Transmission easement shall be by agreement or permit. The regional trail is currently proposed within the Xcel Energy easement. An agreement or permit between the developer and Xcel Energy shall be submitted to the City. 54.The width of drainage and utility easements over all public utilities shall be verified during final design. Should you have any questions or comments regarding the items listed above, please contact me at 651-322-2015. MEMORANDUM To: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director Eric Zweber, Senior Planner Jason Lindahl, Planner Andy Brotzler, Public Works Director/City Engineer Phil Olson, Assistant City Engineer From: Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director Date: May 20, 2015 Subject: Evermoor Place Preliminary Plat The Parks and Recreation Commission recently reviewed the plans for the Evermoor Place Preliminary Plat and made the following recommendations: The City should collect up to one acre of park land for a mini-park and the remainder of parks dedication will be collected as cash in-lieu of land. A sidewalk should be added between lots 33 and 34 and connect to the regional trail. The developer should complete the connection of the existing trail in the northeast corner of the Glendalough Development to the regional trail in the northwest corner of Evermoor Place. The developer is responsible for grading the regional trail as identified in the proposed grading plan. The Parks and Recreation Commission felt the proposed Evermoor Place neighborhood was isolated from local parks due to having to cross Connemara Trail to get to Schwarz Pond Park and having to cross Highway 3 to get to Brockway Park. The staff recommendation that was included in the Parks and Recreation Commission packet did not include acquiring land for a mini-park but rather accepting cash in-lieu of land to satisfy the parks dedication requirements. Staff did recommend a sidewalk being added between lots 33 and 34 connecting to the regional trail. Please let me know if you have any questions about this memo. Zweber, Eric From:Constantin Moisei <constantin.moisei@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2015 12:37 AM To:Zweber, Eric Subject:Suggestions to add on the agenda Hello Eric, Herewith, in writing, the suggestions for the West/South West edge of the new development. In principle the developer agreed with this verbally but would be nice to have it in the plan. All the areas to the West or South West of the lot that have no trees or vegetation between the old properties and the new are suitable for extra landscape options. That would preserve the privacy we had for the past years. If that happens I won't feel too bad about the 28 arborvitaes planted to block the dust and increase the privacy. If the tree should go, it would be good to know there are going to be options and these options should be included in the plan. One other thing.I didn't bring this one up but would also be great to have a better transition between the lots from Glendalough to the new development something that exists on the other lots throughout the Glendalough - would be great that the back to to back properties from Glendalough and the new development would match the the width of the lots. As far as the names go, personally I am fine with Evermoor Pace although that might raise some legal issues or at least stir some animosity. Here with two names I propose 1. Leprechaun's Den (this might sound funny, but think about all the kids that will be leaving in the area, could have a magic tough for kids and a kick for parents) Tullamore Place (Irish city) 2. There should be a price for the name picked :) Let me know if the above makes sense, questions please let me know Constantin Moisei 13424 Carlingford Ln (I am going to be a direct neighbor with the new development, currently living in front of the Blue House) Ps. Do you have Greg's email address - assuming that I got the name right. 1 Zweber, Eric From:Andy Powell <Andy.Powell@advisorsres.com> Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:55 AM To:Zweber, Eric Cc:Matt Sherman New Development Modification Request Subject: Attachments:Evermoor Place Modification Request.jpg Eric, AsdiscussedonTuesday,wearerequestingthatthevegetationbehindlot39remain.Youalsomentionedthatnotonly wouldyoubeopentodoingso,butalsosaidthatyouwouldbeputtingupafenceͻĬĻƷǞĻĻƓthedarklinesonthe ƌƚƷ͵ͼAttachedaresomemodificationsthattheneighborsbehindlot39wouldliketosee. Also,lookingatthelayoutalittlecloseritappearsthatthelotsmightbeabitelevated.(Specificallylot39)L͸ƒassuming youwillbeputtinginsomesortofdrainingsystem,asthereisconcernthatwaterwillrunintoouryards.Mylast concernthatIwillbelookingtoaddressnextWednesdaywillbewherechildrenfromͻ9ǝĻƩƒƚƚƩtƌğĭĻͼwillbe attendingschool.Pleasebepreparedtosharethatwithusnextweek. WegreatlyappreciateyourwillingnesstohearthequestionsandconcernsfromcurrentGlendaloughofEvermoor homeownersandaregratefulyouarewillingtomodifytheplaninordertosufficeeveryeone. Best AndyPowell CONFIDENTIALITYNOTICE:Theinformationcontainedinthismessageandanyattachment(s)isthepropertyofAdvisorsResource LLC,Inc.anditswhollyownedsubsidiariesandmaybeprotectedbystateandfederallawsgoverningdisclosureofprivate information.Itisintendedsolelyfortheuseoftheentitytowhomthisisaddressed.Ifyouarenottheintendedrecipient,youare herebynotifiedthatreading,copying,ordistributionofthetransmissionisSTRICTLYPROHIBITED.Thesenderhasnotwaivedany applicableprivilegebysendingtheaccompanyingtransmission.Ifyouhavereceivedthistransmissioninerror,pleasenotifythe senderanddestroythemessageandattachment(s). IRSCIRCULAR230DISCLAIMER:TOENSURECOMPLIANCEWITHIRSCIRCULAR230,ANYU.S.FEDERALTAXADVICEPROVIDEDINTHIS COMMUNICATIONISNOTINTENDEDORWRITTENTOBEUSED,ANDITCANNOTBEUSEDBYTHERECIPIENTORANYOTHER TAXPAYER(I)FORTHEPURPOSEOFAVOIDINGTAXPENALTIESTHATMAYBEIMPOSEDONTHERECIPIENTORANYOTHERTAXPAYER, OR(II)INPROMOTING,MARKETINGORRECOMMENDINGTOANOTHERPARTY,APARTNERSHIPOROTHERENTITY,INVESTMENT PLAN,ARRANGEMENTOROTHERTRANSACTIONADDRESSEDHEREIN. 1 May22,2015 TO:RosemountCityPlanningCommission MayorDrosteandCouncilMembers DwightJohnson,CityAdministrator KimLindquist,CommunityDevelopmentDirector FROM:RichardF.Dorniden 13054CharlstonWay Rosemount,MN55068 6514233942 RE:COPPERCREEKDEVELOPMENT,LLC IamsendingthisletterviaemailtoDwightJohnson,CityAdministratorinhopesthathewilldistribute thistothePlanningCommissionmembersaswellastheMayorandCityCouncil.Irealizeitistoolateto getitintotheirmeetingpackets;howeverIwouldappreciateitifyoucouldgetittothempriortothe th meetingonTuesdayevening,May26. NeedlesstosayIam stronglyopposed tothisdevelopmentandthequestionsandcommentsIhavefor youarelistedbelow: 1.IsthereareasonthisRuralResidentialzoningshouldbeabandoned? 2.Isthereareasontosacrificeneighborhoodsfeel(countryneighborhoodliving)? 3.HighdensityofproposalwouldbecontrarytoCitypolicyofprovidingbufferbetweenrural residentialandhigherdensityhousing.Proposalissignificantlydenserthansurroundingarea. 4.Arethefourgorgeoushomesthatalreadyoccupythatspacegoingtobetorndownalongwith allthewellmaintainedoutbuildings? 5.IsallofDoddRoadgoingtobesurfacedatthetotalcostofthedevelopersincetheywillbe contributingthemosttraffictotheroad? PleaselettheCitystopcavingintodevelopers.IftheywanttobuildinaRuralResidentialareathen theyshouldconformandabidebyconditionsoftheexistingzoningortaketheirdevelopmentproject somewhereelse.