HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.a. Request by Copper Creek Development, LLC for a Preliminary Plat, Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with Rezoning to Develop a 90 Lot Subdivision named Dunmore (formerly Evermore Place)EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council Meeting Date: June 16, 2015
AGENDA ITEM: Cases 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 to New Business
Develop a 90 Lot Subdivision named Dunmore
(formerly Evermore Place)
AGENDA NO.
PREPARED BY:
Eric Zweber, Senior Planner
9.a.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolutions; Ordinance; Planned Unit APPROVED BY:
Development Agreement; Location Map; ddj
Preliminary Plat;
Cul-de-Sac (Sheets C2-1 and C2-2); Grading
(Exhibit A); Utility Plan; Tree Replacement
Plan; Tree Replacement Summary; Phasing
Plan; Concept Home Designs; Comprehensive
Plan Map; Parks Master Plan Map; Rehder &
Memorandum; Traffic Memorandum; Excerpt
of the Draft May 26 Planning Commission
Minutes; Resident Emails and Letters
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Ifthe City Councilchooses to approve the developer proposed Preliminary Plat with a Cul-
de-, then pass the four following motions:
Motion
1. to Adopt a Resolution Approving the Preliminary Plat for Dunmore with a
Road -de-Sac.
Motion
2. to Adopt a Resolution Approving the Planned Unit Development Master
Development Plan with Rezoning for -de-Sac.
Motion
3. to Adopt an Ordinance Amending Ordinance B City of Rosemount Zoning
Ordinance for Dunmore.
Motion
4. to Approve the Dunmore -de-Sac) Planned Unit Development
Agreement and Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into these
agreements.
OR
Ifthe City Councilchoses to approve the continuing south to
connect with Dodd Blvd, then pass the four following motions:
Motion
1. to Adopt a Resolution Approving the Preliminary Plat for Dunmore with
Dodd Blvd.
Motion
2. to Adopt a Resolution Approving the Planned Unit Development Master
Development Plan with Rezoning for Dunmore with
Connect with Dodd Blvd.
Motion
3. to Adopt an Ordinance Amending Ordinance B City of Rosemount Zoning
Ordinance for Dunmore.
Motion
4. to Approve the Planned
Unit Development Agreement and Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into
these agreements.
If the Council would like to include a mini-park within the development, staff
recommends the following additional condition to the Preliminary Plat Resolution:
Condition L.: Dedicate Lots 10 through 12, Block 1 for public park purposes.
If the Council would like to include the Planning Commission recommended
architectural standards, the Council should replace condition a in the PUD approval, with
the following:
a. The front elevation design shall include three and a half (3.5) feet of brick or
stone wainscoting, excluding doors, windows or the wall behind the front
porch and shall include one of the following elements:
i. A front porch with railing that extends at least 30% of the width of the
front elevation, including the garage;
ii. A side entry garage;
iii. No more than 70% lap siding, excluding doors and windows.
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
2
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 Dunmore 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 an approximate 1.5 acre outlot on the southeast side of the development for a stormwater
pond.
The site is designated as TR
states
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 expect that the development of this area would require the reconstruction
nd
and reconnection of Dodd Boulevard to Connemara Trail and 132 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 a density of greater than three (3) units per
than the current proposal which would have prompted the need for the Dodd Blvd connection. The
proposed development is on the low level of the anticipated density scale with a gross density of 3.36 units
per acre.
Outstanding Issues
Development Name
Glendalough
Dunmore, nor is there a street or plat in Dakota County named Dunmore.
Traffic and Road Extension
Since the Planning Commission meeting, Copper Creek has provided a grading plan that shows the
extension of the Road A to Dodd Blvd south of the property which would result in an 8% road grade for
approximately 500 feet. This grading plan is labeled Exhibit A and is attached to this Executive Summary.
Additionally, the extension would reduce one (1) lot from the development and remove almost all trees on
the south side of the development. The grading and tree loss cannot be reduced due to the three pipelines
under the existing Dodd Blvd to the south; meaning the existing Dodd Blvd cannot be lowered due to the
pipeline elevations. Staff is aware of only one road in Rosemount that has an 8% grade with a longer
length than 500 feet. For comparison purposes, Danube Lane between the Danube Court and the cul-de-
sac to the west has an 8% grade for about 775 feet in length.
Exhibit A shows that the entire stand of trees on the south side of the development will be removed due
to the grading, which is counter to the stated desires of a number of the neighboring residents in
Glendalough, particularly those most affected. There have been questions asked about reducing the width
of the road or some other type of construction technique to reduce the grading impacts. The grading
boundaries are set by the need to grade the road to city design standards and create a reasonable house
pad. The extension of the road prompts grading for the street but also shifts the building pads west and
south, closer to the existing neighborhood and into the more severe topography on site. The extension
would require the removal of 46 additional trees totaling 690 caliper inches. These trees include 3 oak
trees greater than 27 inches in size (heritage trees), 26 oak trees between 6 and 27 inches, 9 cherry trees
and 6 hackberry trees.
3
A traffic study of the proposed development has projected the traffic impact on the surrounding road
system caused by the proposal. From a purely traffic standpoint the traffic study does not support the
necessity of the through road extension. A typical traffic volume for local City streets is from 250 to 750
nd
vehicles per day. In 2014, traffic counts on Dodd Blvd north of 132 Street were 318 average daily trips
nd
(ADT); 217 ADT on Dodd Blvd (the future Road A) south of 132 Street; and an estimated 220 ADT on
ndnd
132 at South Robert Trail. The Dodd Blvd number (south of 132) should be considered synonymous to
th
the traffic on 134 Street as the current road system does not have an outlet for Dodd Blvd. In other words
nd
all traffic on Dodd, south of 132 is either for the two homes off of Dodd or going through the existing
Glendalough neighborhood. Adding the traffic from the proposed development without the through street,
the projected traffic counts are:
Existing Average Daily Trips Projected Average Daily Trips
(ADT) (ADT)
Dodd Blvd North of 132 nd Street 318 459
nd
132 Street 217 715
134 th Street 217 439
None of the traffic projections exceed the guidelines of up to 750 ADT on a local City street. The traffic
memorandum is attached to this Executive Summary.
th
Due to the fact that the increased traffic on 134 Street will not exceed the guidelines for a local street; that
the development is at the lower end of the density allowed; and in consideration of the increased tree
removal for road construction, staff does not support extending Road A south to Dodd Blvd. If the
extension could be completed without significant grading, or if the anticipated traffic was considered
unreasonable, staff would support the road extension. However, half of the Planning Commissioners were
concerned about traffic impacts on existing adjoining residents and did support the extension of Road A.
Staff has provided two different packages for approval, one with the road proposed by the developer and
the other with the road extension. Conditions of approval have been modified for each of the proposals to
fit the decision made at the Council meeting. The issue of traffic and connectivity between new and existing
neighborhoods is one of the primary issues associated with development in communities. The Council will
need to balance a myriad of differing goals found in our development regulations to determine the
appropriate development pattern for the site and surrounding neighborhood.
Copper Creek has included a memorandum explaining that extension of Road A is infeasible for them
because of tree loss; additional grading and importation of fill material; excessive grade on the regional
trail; loss of one (1) lot; reduction in lot quality; increased construction costs; and the reduction of over
$500,000 in revenue from the development. Copper Creek concludes that if the extension is required, they
will consider significant modifications to the project to make it economically viable. The memorandum is
attached to this Executive Summary.
Neighborhood Park-parks and open space
Brockway Park (east of South Robert Trail) and the proposed regional trail running west of South Robert
Trail that will connect Lebanon Hills Park and Downtown Rosemount. 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
nd
Connemara Trail to 132 Street. The trail will allow residents to get to Schwartz Pond Park or use the
4
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 believes Schwartz Pond Park
would also provide recreational benefits to the property along with the regional trail and Brockway Park.
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 t
the development. With that determination, the Director proposed two recommendations. First, that the
southern half of the development could not reasonably access the 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.
dations
conveniently served by Schwartz Pond or Brockway Parks. The Parks Commission recommendation is to
require dedication of a pocket park of approximately one (1) acre adjacent to the regional trail. This would
remove lots 10,11,& 12 Block 1, in the northeast. The Parks Commission was concerned about the
perceived isolation of this neighborhood given its border to Hwy 3 and that it is not included in the larger
Evermoor development. The Commission, similar to many Glendalough residents expressed concern
about the lack of park opportunities in the new subdivision because the private Glendalough park is closer
to the neighborhood than public parks noted above. As part of the Evermoor development, there were
several private parks installed by the developer as an amenity to specific neighborhoods. The dedication of
public parks and trails and the installation of private parks and trails were accepted by the City Council at
that time instead of park dedication on a per lot basis. The Glendalough neighborhood contains two
private parks located near Carlingford Way and another at Coachford Way which contain amenities such
as a play structure and pool. These parks are owned and maintained by the HOA and are not available for
general public use.
At the Planning Commission meeting the Commissioners voted 3-3 as to whether a mini-park should be
included in the project or not. Those in support echoed the comments of the Parks Commission and
residents, that there are access barriers to the other available public parks and that the close proximity to
private neighborhood parks may cause future problems between neighbors. Staff has been uncomfortable
characterizing the access to nearby public parks as difficult since there are designated routes and
crosswalks, although it is recognized that existing public parks are not as convenient to the new residents
as compared to other neighborhoods in the community. Staff also notes that a mini park was not in the
similar neighborhoods in the city, along major roadways such as Bonaire, Connemara and Akron that are
not designated for their own park and this project could re-set resident expectations.
If the City Council finds that provision of the mini-park would be appropriate for this project, staff would
recommend acquiring Lots 10 through 12, Block 1. This recommendation is made for the following
reasons:
The lots are adjacent to the regional trail and relatively flat.
The lots are generally in the middle of the development.
The mini-park is recommended to include a playground, some benches (or other seating) and a
connection from the interior sidewalk to the regional trail.
5
The border of a playground is approximately 80 feet in diameter necessitating acquisition of three
lots to provide amenities and adequate separation to adjoin residential units.
Provision of the mini-park would affect funding associated with construction of new parks or equipment
installation. The Parks Master Plan is set up to acquire land in developments that indicate a park on the
Parks Master Plan map and then get fee-in-lieu of park dedication in developments without a park to
construct the new parks. If the City does not require a mini-park in Dunmore, then the City would receive
$306,000 (90 lots times $3,400 per lot) in park dedication fees. If the City requires the mini-park, then
approximately $90,000 would remain after the construction of the mini-park for the construction of new
parks. This figure was determined using the following factors:
Park Dedication for 87 Lots (90 lots minus 3 lots for mini-park) 3.48 acres
Land Dedicated with Lots 10 through 12, Block 2 0.60 acres
Park Dedication requirement after land dedication 2.88 acres
Fee-in-lieu of Park Dedication (2.88 acres times $85,000 per acre) $244,800
Estimated Equipment and Construction Costs for Mini-Park $155,000
Funds Remaining for Construction of New Parks (fee-in-lieu minus construction) $89,800
If the City Council chooses to include the mini-park in Dunmore, the Council should add the following
condition to the Preliminary Plat Resolution:
On a separate item, staff has revised the location of the regional trail connection from that reviewed and
recommended by the Planning Commission and Parks Commission. Because the stormwater pond will have
a lift station which requires year round city access for maintenance, staff is recommending the trail
connection use the same paved accessway and then be placed on the bench of the pond, heading east to the
regional trail. This means the small segment between lots 33 and 34 would be deleted with the access being
located between lots 28 & 29 Block 1 and placed along the south edge of the pond to connect to the trail.
Architectural Standards
Staff is recommending removal of the Planning Commission recommendation that all homes have three and
a half (3.5) feet of brick or stone wainscoting. The statement that this condition would be consistent with
the homes in Glendalough is incorrect. Looking at the homes on Carlingford Lane and Carbury Avenue,
some, but less than half, have brick or stone wainscoting, some have a front porch and a few have neither
wainscoting or a front porch. Staff had recommended the same front façade requirements, and continues to
do so, as the Bella Vista, Greystone, Prestwick Place, and the Wilde Lake Estates subdivisions. Staff does not
believe this development should have more restrictive architectural standards than other neighborhoods in
the city. The condition found in the attached resolutions is the staff recommendation consistent with other
neighborhoods and found below:
The front elevation design shall include one of the following elements:
iv.Three and a half (3.5) feet of brick or stone wainscoting, excluding doors, windows or the wall behind the front
porch;
v.A front porch with railing that extends at least 30% of the width of the front elevation, including the garage;
vi.A side entry garage;
vii.No more than 70% lap siding, excluding doors and windows.
Copper Creek has provided four home designs as samples. These designs are illustrative of homes that can
6
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.
MAY 26 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The Planning Commission reviewed the request by Copper Creek development for Preliminary Plat of a
90 unit small lot residential subdivision and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Development
Plan with Rezoning from RR Rural Residential to R-1 PUD Low Density Residential Planned Unit
ndth
Development. Staff reviewed the subdivision design including a connection to 132 Street and 134
Street and a cul-de-sac to the south. Staff also reviewed the Comprehensive Plan designation of 3 to 5
units per acre for this area and provided a summary of the May 19 resident open house and other
comments received.
Before opening the public hearing, the Commissioners had questions about why Road A is not extended
to Dodd Blvd; what is the difference between this transitional residential area and other transitional
residential areas within the City; what will the development look like from South Robert Trail; and the
opportunity for a park in the development.
Staff responded that Road A is not proposed to be extended to Dodd Blvd due to excessive grades where
the connection would occur and the resulting tree removal. The resulting road would have an 8% grade
which is allowed by ordinance but not desirable and that the traffic generated from the new single family
th
neighborhood would not exceed typical traffic standards for local roads on 134 Street. The subdivision
ndnd
also has a connection to 132 Street in the north and it is anticipated that the intersection of 132 Street
and South Robert Trail will have a traffic signal when warrants are met.
Staff stated that the RR designation along the west side of South Robert Trail is to transition between
single family to the north and west and the townhomes to the south and east; it also provides a transition
between Hwy 3, a minor arterial and existing residential neighborhoods. When the CDA Family Housing
project was reviewed it was recognized that townhomes were appropriate due to the two adjoining land
uses and the existing site topography. The RR designation on the west side of Bacardi Avenue is
transitioning between RR single family to the north and the urban single family to the east and south; and
finally the RR designation outside the MUSA is RR lots generally less than one (1) acre in size where the
City could provide municipal sewer and water if the septic systems were to fail.
Staff explained that there is no recommended condition of approval that requires privacy fences similar to
the east side of South Robert Trail, in the Harmony project, because Copper Creek will be retaining many
of the trees on the perimeter of the site. The regional trail will be installed along the east side of the
development, along Hwy 3 and additional trees will be installed between development and the regional
trail.
Staff explained that the Parks and Recreation Director did not recommend a mini-park in this
development because this area is served in the Parks Master Plan by Brockway Park and that residents can
get to Brockway Park by using the regional trail to Connemara Trail and then crossing South Robert Trail
at the traffic signal. There is a designated pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Connemara Trail and
South Robert Trail.
Four residents had provided emails to the Planning Commission between the time when the packet was
7
delivered and the Planning Commission met. The four emails were provided to the Commissioners and
staff reviewed the general comments. One email was generally supportive of the project because it was
not townhomes or senior housing and the resident did not feel the connection south to Dodd Blvd was
needed. One email was generally against the development because it is not the development that
Minnetonka or Edina would approve. The other two emails were similar to the comments received at the
open house: the name Evermoor should not be used; Road A should continue to Dodd Blvd to the south;
and a park should be included so that residents do not use the Glendalough subdivision private parks.
Association (HOA) and their concerns were focused on their objection to the use of the name Evermoor.
One resident was from the rural residential area and wished that the development was closer to one (1)
unit per acre than the three (3) plus unit per acre density proposed. The remaining five residents were
within two blocks of the development on Carlingford Lane, Carbury Avenue or Coachford Avenue.
Of the five neighbors, two of them were concerned about losing the existing trees and vegetation behind
their homes; two were opposed to the increased traffic; and one was opposed to the additional traffic and
wanted a park in the development to prevent the new residents from using the private Glendalough parks.
standard for local roads; that they are public and
th
and that 134 Street and its connection to this development were specifically approved by the City Council
three times, once during the Concept Plan approval, one during the Preliminary Plat approval and once
during the Final Plat approval for Evermoor. Staff also stated that the City does not have any regulations
regarding the name of subdivisions and that Condition F was included in the recommendation requiring
the developer to retain all vegetation in areas that would not be graded. Staff clarified that this condition
applies only to the developer and that future homeowners could remove trees and vegetation in
Commissioners Henrie and Freeman asked if a connection to the south with a grade less than 8% could be
created with the current subdivision design. Staff stated that a connection at an 8% grade would require
change to the design of the southern half of the subdivision.
Chair Miller stated that he is leaning to deny the proposal because it does not have a connection to the
south and that the development needs a park. Additionally, he supports a greater front façade requirement
than staff has recommended to match homes in the Glendalough neighborhood. Staff stated that the
choice is not only approval or denial, but that the Commission could add conditions to address their issues
as part of the recommendation for approval. Staff also expressed caution about a park recommendation
when the Parks Master Plan is the jurisdiction of the Parks and Recreation Commission and not the
same as that approved in the Bella Vista, Greystone, Prestwick Place and the Wilde Lake Estates
subdivisions.
Commissioner Forster stated that he is not in favor of the development because it does not have the
access to the south.
Commissioner Freeman stated that she is not in favor of the development because it does not include a
pocket park.
Commission Henrie asked if the developer can be allowed to speak. Chair Miller asked Greg Schweich of
Copper Creek Development to speak.
8
th
Mr. Schweich stated that 134 Street already is located on the Raak property and that his development will
nd
have a regional pond that will address stormwater from Harmony, South Robert Trail, and 132 Street in
difficult, that the cul-de-sac is a nice amenity and that he does not think that the name of the development
should be a condition of approval.
Chair Miller asked if Mr. Schweich would consider the park; if the development will have an HOA and if
Mr. Schweich would come back with a plan showing the park and the road connection to the south. Mr.
Schweich responded that he is open to the park, that he will form an HOA and that he is unsure that he
would come back with a revised plan.
Commissioner Hernie asked about the use of the Evermoor name. Mr. Schweich stated that he is open to
changing the name and that residents have provided a number of suggestions.
Follow the discussion with Mr. Schweich, Commissioner Kenninger asked if the item could be tabled for
further discussion and staff responded that there is time in the review schedule to table this item until the
next Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner VanderWiel stated that she is strongly opposed to the connection to the south because it
would destroy the woods and the quality of life would be diminished. Commissioner Kenninger agreed
with Commissioner VanderWiel on the connection to the south and that she is unsure that 90 units
warrants its own park.
The Planning Commission forwarded a r Preliminary Plat with the staff
recommendations, a condition requiring a pocket park and a condition requiring Road A connection to
Dodd Blvd to the south on a tie 3-3 vote. Because the Planning Commission is only providing a
recommendation and not an actual approval, a tie vote can be forwarded the City Council.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of PUD with Rezoning to R-1 PUD with the staff
recommendation and a condition to require three and a half (3.5) feet of brick or stone on all front facades
with a 6-0 vote.
Commissioner Kurle was absent from the meeting.
RESIDENT COMMENTS
All written comments received by the City are attached to this Executive Summary. The sections below
are summaries of those comments and the verbal comments that staff received the May 19 open house.
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
with emails for the Planning Commission
packet. The questions asked at the open house included why the development uses the name Evermoor
when it is not part o
remain, particularly those on the property line; will the development send their drainage into Glendalough;
th
will this development overcrowd Shannon Park Elementary school; will a stop sign be installed at 134
9
people to drive through the Evermoor neighborhood. The majority of the attendees were supportive of
the future regional trail.
Evermoor Name
This is no longer an issue. Copper Creek has changed the name of the subdivision to Dunmore.
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. Similarly, the property is a transition from a minor arterial road, Hwy 3, and the low
density single family development, Evermoor. 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 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. Primarily, 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. Given the other issues relating
to development of the site, such as the parks and roadway, it would not be prudent to try and create lots
that are more similar to the Glendalough properties. Finally, in staffs opinion, the proposal functions as a
contained neighborhood and there is consistency between the various lots.
Tree Preservation
Residents have expressed the desire to preserve trees along the western and southern boundary of the
development. To some extent this goal is consistent with the developers; maintaining more 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, consistent with the rest of the City. Additionally, the developer is
proposing to install new trees in gaps along 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 into 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
would be to remove the trees and re-grade the area. Most residents understood this contradiction and
have changed their request to any area re-graded for development be restricted from draining to
Glendalough.
Staff shares this concern and the majority of the engineering grading comments address the need for the
development to handle its own drainage. This will be ensured during the Final Plat review and approval.
Drainage is a greater issue if Road A is connected to Dodd Blvd to the south. The homes on the west side
of the extension have back yards that flow toward the Glendalough to the west because the road is the
10
high point. This water could be picked up by catch basins at the base of the hill, in one of the backyards
but it would appear that more grading and tree removal would be necessary than what is shown on the
grading plan. Final details would be determined in the future, prior to final plat approval.
ISD #196
Elementary. Staff had a phone conversation addressing this issue. Staff explained that ISD #196 is
separate from the City and actually includes students from Rosemount, Apple Valley and Eagan. It was
explained that City staff meets with ISD #196 staff periodically to discuss proposed growth in Rosemount
particularly that proposed in the Comprehensive Plan and environmental reviews 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
expected
and high schools without requiring a new school to be constructed.
It should 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 Dunmore 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 required at
nd
the intersection of Road A and 132 Street. Additionally, City staff is reviewing the installation of a stop
th
sign at Carlingford Lane and 134 Street. The procedure for 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
ces such as
Stop Signs. This issue is separate from the current subdivision review and will be addressed independently
from this project review.
Dodd Blvd Connection
As stated previously in the executive summary, staff does not support the connection of Road A with the
Dodd Blvd south of the development. Staff does not believe the additional traffic generated by this project
warrants the extension and is concerned about the amount of grading and tree removal (46 trees totaling
690 caliper inches) created by the road construction and re-arranged lot configuration and building pads.
Additionally, a traffic study for the development has been completed and that study determined that the
th
traffic on 134 Street with the Road A cul-de-sac will not exceed the guidelines for a local road.
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?
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. The zoning of Rural Residential was in place to reflect the existing development
11
pattern which is inconsistent with the long-term plan of urbanized development as anticipated through the
Comprehensive Plan designation.
Is there a reason to sacrifice neighborhoods feel (country neighborhood living)?
The RR Rural Residential C
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. The project provides a buffer or transition between the minor arterial road to the east
and the single family development to the 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
Four residents had provided emails to the Planning Commission between when the packet was delivered and
the Planning Commission meeting. One email was generally supportive of the project because the proposal
is not townhomes or senior housing and the resident did not feel the connection south to Dodd Blvd was
needed. One email was generally against the development because it is not the development that
Minnetonka or Edina would approve. The other two emails were similar to the comments received at the
open house: the name Evermoor should not be used; Road A should continue to Dodd Blvd to the south;
and a park should be included so that residents do not use the Glendalough private parks.
Eleven residents have emailed their comments since the May 26 Planning Commission public hearing. One
nd
resident lives on Dodd Blvd north of 132 Street and the other ten residents live in Glendalough on either
Carlingford Lane or Coachtown Avenue. The Dodd Blvd resident is concerned about traffic on Dodd Blvd.
Eight of the ten residents are concerned about traffic in the Glendalough neighborhood. The remaining two
residents are opposed to connect Road A with Dodd Blvd, one because it would remove additional trees and
the other because he feels the additional traffic would be suitable.
Three of the Glendalough neighbors requested the pocket park and one suggested that maybe some park
facilities can be installed along the regional trail. Two neighbors want the name changed and two neighbors
th
requested that 134 Street be disconnected from the new neighborhood.
BACKGROUND
A preliminary plat requests are quasi-judicial decision meaning that the City Council is acting as a judge to
12
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 City Council 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
Dunmore 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, 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.
nd
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 the east and include an intersection with Road A.
nd
gins about 130 feet south of 132 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.
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 has 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
to the sidewalks on both sides of 134th 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 a trail be constructed in the rear yards of Lots 29, 30,
32 and 33 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.
13
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
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 single family 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
Plan, 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
nd
Street West
and Connemara Trail may be considered to exceed three (3) per acre to transition between the multiple
family housin
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
nd
132 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, Dodd Blvd will be reconstructed into Road A and the development will maintain a
nd
connection to 132 Street and onto South Robert Trail. Dodd Blvd is not proposed to be connected to the
th
the projected traffic on 134 Street and Dodd
Blvd to the north would not exceed the guidelines for traffic on a local road; the connection 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
14
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.
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 Dunmore.
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 Dunmore 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.-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 increased.
15
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
of Carlingford Lane is approximately 975 feet and the distance between the intersection of Carrach Avenue
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.
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 dedication 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 20 foot wide drainage and utility and trail easement on the
between lots 28 & 29 Block 1 to provide access to the lift station and access for a trail connection which
would also run along the south end of the regional pond and to the east to provide neighborhood access
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.
The Parks and Recreation Committee, and half of the Planning Commission, recommended that a mini-
park be dedicated within the subdivision. Discussion about the park dedication is earlier in the memo. If
the Council decides to provide a mini-park in the project, a condition of approval should be added which
states:
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%.
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
16
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.
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 can be addressed when additional information is available between
the preliminary and final plat approval. One concern specifically called out in the recommended conditions
of 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
lots may be reduced to accommodate an expanded pond. Staff will not support increased deviation in the
PUD to maintain 90 lots if the regional pond must be increased after 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 stormwater into the forcemain constructed in
Glendalough and then onto the pond near Connemara Trail and the Progress Rail tracks. The estimated
cost of the lift station is $400,000. This lift station was included when the City set its rate structure for
nd
The feasibility study for 132 Street has not been finalized at this time because there are outstanding issues
associated with road and utility construction limits and determining appropriate construction easements.
nd
There is an issue associated with the Xcel transmission easement on the south side of 132 Street and
what impact this may have on the final cost of the necessary infrastructure. In general, the developer is
expected to pay for half of the reconstruction costs for 132nd Street.
his
executive summary.
17
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 Road A Cul-de-Sac. This recommendation is based on the information
submitted by the applicant, findings made in this report and the conditions detailed in the attached
memorandums.
If the City Council choses to require the extension of Road A to Dodd Blvd to the south, then staff has
attached two resolutions, an ordinance and a PUD agreement that would approve that extension.
If the City Council choses to require the mini-park within Dunmore, the Council will need to add the
following condition to the Preliminary Plat Resolution:
Condition L.: Dedicate Lots 10 through 12, Block 1 for public park purposes.
standards, the Council
If the Council would like to include the Planning Commission recommended architectural
should replace condition a. in the PUD approval, with the following:
a.The front elevation design shall include three and a half (3.5) feet of brick or stone wainscoting, excluding doors, windows or the
wall behind the front porch and shall include one of the following elements:
viii.A front porch with railing that extends at least 30% of the width of the front elevation, including the
garage;
ix.A side entry garage;
x.No more than 70% lap siding, excluding doors and windows.
18
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2015 -
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR DUNMORE WITH A ROAD “A” CUL-DE-SAC
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount received a request for Preliminary Plat approval from the
Copper Creek Development, LLC concerning property legally described as:
That part of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 115, Range 19,
Dakota County, Minnesota which lies northerly of ROSEMOUNT FAMILY HOUSING,
according to the recorded plat thereof and westerly of the occupied right of way line of State
Trunk Highway No. 3.
Together with the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 115,
Range 19, lying westerly of the occupied right of way for State Trunk Highway No. 3, Dakota
County, Minnesota, except that part described as follows:
Commencing at a point on the North line of the Southwest Quarter of Section 20,
Township 115, Range 19, said point being 607.8 feet East of the Northwest corner
of said Southwest Quarter of Northeast Quarter; thence East along the said North
line of the Southwest Quarter of Northeast Quarter, 50 feet; thence South 40 feet;
thence West 50 feet; thence North 40 feet to the point of beginning.
WHEREAS, on May 26, 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public
hearing and reviewed the Preliminary Plat for Dunmore (then named Evermoor Place); and
WHEREAS, on May 26, 2015, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation with a tie
vote for the Preliminary Plat for Dunmore, subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2015, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning
CommissionÔs recommendation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Preliminary Plat for Dunmore with a Road ÑAÒ Cul-de-Sac, subject to the following
conditions:
a.Approval and execution of a subdivision agreement that includes the payment for
and/or construction of Dodd Blvd.
b.Approval of a Major Planned Unit Development rezoning the subject property and
designating minimum lot requirements and setbacks.
c.Along the rear property line of Lots 29, 30, 32 and 33, Block 1, construct an eight (8)
foot wide trail that connects the regional trail along South Robert Trail with the
access drive for the lift station. The developer shall dedicate a 20 foot wide trail
easement to the City.
d.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.
e.Dedicate a 30 foot wide trail easement over the regional trail corridor to the City.
f.MnDOT must grant a trail easement over the regional trail within Minnesota
RESOLUTION 2015-
Highway 3 right-of-way. If MnDOT does not grant the easement, then the trail
grading must be moved onto the developerÔs property.
ndth
g.Driveways shall not access onto 132 Street, 134 Street or South Robert Trail.
h.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.
i.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.
j.Conformance with all requirements of the City Engineer as detailed in the attached
memorandum dated June 10, 2015.
k.Conformance with all requirements of the Parks and Recreation Director as detailed
in the attached memorandum dated June 10, 2015.
th
ADOPTED this 16 day of June, 2015, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
__________________________________________
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Clarissa Hadler, City Clerk
2
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2015 -
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DUNMORE WITH
ROAD “A” CONTINUING SOUTH TO CONNECT WITH DODD BLVD
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount received a request for Preliminary Plat approval from the
Copper Creek Development, LLC concerning property legally described as:
That part of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 115, Range 19,
Dakota County, Minnesota which lies northerly of ROSEMOUNT FAMILY HOUSING,
according to the recorded plat thereof and westerly of the occupied right of way line of State
Trunk Highway No. 3.
Together with the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 115,
Range 19, lying westerly of the occupied right of way for State Trunk Highway No. 3, Dakota
County, Minnesota, except that part described as follows:
Commencing at a point on the North line of the Southwest Quarter of Section 20,
Township 115, Range 19, said point being 607.8 feet East of the Northwest corner
of said Southwest Quarter of Northeast Quarter; thence East along the said North
line of the Southwest Quarter of Northeast Quarter, 50 feet; thence South 40 feet;
thence West 50 feet; thence North 40 feet to the point of beginning.
WHEREAS, on May 26, 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public
hearing and reviewed the Preliminary Plat for Dunmore (then named Evermoor Place); and
WHEREAS, on May 26, 2015, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation with a tie
vote for the Preliminary Plat for Dunmore, subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2015, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning
CommissionÔs recommendation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Preliminary Plat for Dunmore with Road ÑAÒ connecting to Dodd Blvd, subject to the
following conditions:
a.Approval and execution of a subdivision agreement that includes the payment for
and/or construction of Dodd Blvd.
b.Approval of a Major Planned Unit Development rezoning the subject property and
designating minimum lot requirements and setbacks.
c.Along the rear property line of Lots 29, 30, 32 and 33, Block 1, construct an eight (8)
foot wide trail that connects the regional trail along South Robert Trail with the
access drive for the lift station. The developer shall dedicate a 20 foot wide trail
easement to the City.
d.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.
e.Dedicate a 30 foot wide trail easement over the regional trail corridor to the City.
f.MnDOT must grant a trail easement over the regional trail within Minnesota
RESOLUTION 2015-
Highway 3 right-of-way. If MnDOT does not grant the easement, then the trail
grading must be moved onto the developerÔs property.
ndth
g.Driveways shall not access onto 132 Street, 134 Street or South Robert Trail.
h.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.
i.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.
j.Conformance with all requirements of the City Engineer as detailed in the attached
memorandum dated June 10, 2015.
k.Conformance with all requirements of the Parks and Recreation Director as detailed
in the attached memorandum dated June 10, 2015.
th
ADOPTED this 16 day of June, 2015, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
__________________________________________
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Clarissa Hadler, City Clerk
2
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2015 -
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH REZONING FOR
DUNMORE WITH A ROAD “A” CUL-DE-SAC
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an
application from the Copper Creek Development, LLC requesting a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Master Development Plan with Rezoning concerning property legally described as:
That part of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 115, Range 19,
Dakota County, Minnesota which lies northerly of ROSEMOUNT FAMILY HOUSING,
according to the recorded plat thereof and westerly of the occupied right of way line of State
Trunk Highway No. 3.
Together with the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 115,
Range 19, lying westerly of the occupied right of way for State Trunk Highway No. 3, Dakota
County, Minnesota, except that part described as follows:
Commencing at a point on the North line of the Southwest Quarter of Section 20,
Township 115, Range 19, said point being 607.8 feet East of the Northwest corner
of said Southwest Quarter of Northeast Quarter; thence East along the said North
line of the Southwest Quarter of Northeast Quarter, 50 feet; thence South 40 feet;
thence West 50 feet; thence North 40 feet to the point of beginning.
WHEREAS, on May 26, 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public
hearing and reviewed the PUD Master Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, on May 26, 2015, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD
Master Development Plan, subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2015, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning
CommissionÔs recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Development Plan with Rezoning for
,
Dunmore with a Road ÑAÒ Cul-de-Sacsubject to:
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.
RESOLUTION 2015-
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 June 10, 2015.
k.Conformance with all requirements of the Parks and Recreation Director as
detailed in the attached memorandum dated June 10, 2015.
th
ADOPTED this 16 day of June, 2015, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
__________________________________________
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Clarissa Hadler, City Clerk
2
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2015 -
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH REZONING FOR DUNMORE WITH ROAD
“A” CONTINUING SOUTH TO CONNECT WITH DODD BLVD
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an
application from the Copper Creek Development, LLC requesting a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Master Development Plan with Rezoning concerning property legally described as:
That part of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 115, Range 19,
Dakota County, Minnesota which lies northerly of ROSEMOUNT FAMILY HOUSING,
according to the recorded plat thereof and westerly of the occupied right of way line of State
Trunk Highway No. 3.
Together with the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 115,
Range 19, lying westerly of the occupied right of way for State Trunk Highway No. 3, Dakota
County, Minnesota, except that part described as follows:
Commencing at a point on the North line of the Southwest Quarter of Section 20,
Township 115, Range 19, said point being 607.8 feet East of the Northwest corner
of said Southwest Quarter of Northeast Quarter; thence East along the said North
line of the Southwest Quarter of Northeast Quarter, 50 feet; thence South 40 feet;
thence West 50 feet; thence North 40 feet to the point of beginning.
WHEREAS, on May 26, 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public
hearing and reviewed the PUD Master Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, on May 26, 2015, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD
Master Development Plan, subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2015, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning
CommissionÔs recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Development Plan with Rezoning for
,
Dunmore with Road ÑAÒ connecting to Dodd Blvdsubject to:
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.
RESOLUTION 2015-
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.Conformance with all requirements of the City Engineer as detailed in the
attached memorandum dated June 10, 2015.
j.Conformance with all requirements of the Parks and Recreation Director as
detailed in the attached memorandum dated June 10, 2015.
th
ADOPTED this 16 day of June, 2015, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
__________________________________________
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Clarissa Hadler, City Clerk
2
City of Rosemount
Ordinance No. B-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE
Dunmore
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance B, adopted September 19, 1989, entitled ÑCity of Rosemount Zoning
Ordinance,Ò is hereby amended to rezone property from RR-Rural Residential to R-1 PUD Ï Low
nd
Density Residential Planned Unit Development that is located south of 132 Street and west of
South Robert Trail (Minnesota Highway 3), legally described as follows:
That part of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 115, Range 19,
Dakota County, Minnesota which lies northerly of ROSEMOUNT FAMILY HOUSING,
according to the recorded plat thereof and westerly of the occupied right of way line of State
Trunk Highway No. 3.
Together with the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 115,
Range 19, lying westerly of the occupied right of way for State Trunk Highway No. 3, Dakota
County, Minnesota, except that part described as follows:
Commencing at a point on the North line of the Southwest Quarter of Section 20,
Township 115, Range 19, said point being 607.8 feet East of the Northwest corner
of said Southwest Quarter of Northeast Quarter; thence East along the said North
line of the Southwest Quarter of Northeast Quarter, 50 feet; thence South 40 feet;
thence West 50 feet; thence North 40 feet to the point of beginning.
Section 2. The Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount, referred to and described in said
Ordinance No. B as that certain map entitled ÑZoning Map of the City of Rosemount,Ò shall not be
republished to show the aforesaid rezoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the said zoning
map on file in the ClerkÔs office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for
in this Ordinance and all of the notation references and other information shown thereon are hereby
incorporated by reference and made part of this Ordinance.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication
according to law.
th
ENACTED AND ORDAINED into an Ordinance this 16 day of June, 2015.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Clarissa Hadler City Clerk
th
Published in the Rosemount Town Pages this 25 day of June, 2015.
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS
AND RESTRICTIONS
DUNMORE (ROAD “A” CUL-DE-SAC) MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
th
THIS DECLARATION
made this 16 day of June, 2015, by Copper Creek Development,
LLC, a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Declarant”);
WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of the real property as described on Attachment One,
attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Subject
Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is subject to certain zoning and land use restrictions
imposed by the City of Rosemount (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) in connection with the
approval of an application for a master development plan planned unit development for a residential
development on the Subject Property; and
WHEREAS, the City has approved such development on the basis of the determination by
the City Council of the City that such development is acceptable only by reason of the details of the
development proposed and the unique land use characteristics of the proposed use of the Subject
Property; and that but for the details of the development proposed and the unique land use
characteristics of such proposed use, the master development plan planned unit development would
not have been approved; and
1
WHEREAS, as a condition of approval of the master development plan planned unit
development, the City has required the execution and filing of this Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions (hereinafter the “Declaration”); and
WHEREAS, to secure the benefits and advantages of approval of such planned unit
development, Declarant desires to subject the Subject Property to the terms hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Declarant declares that the Subject Property is, and shall be, held,
transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to the covenants, conditions, and restrictions,
hereinafter set forth.
1. The use and development of the Subject Property shall conform to the following
documents, plans and drawings:
a. City Resolution No. 2015 - , Attachment Two
b. Preliminary Plat, Attachment Three
c. Preliminary Grading Plans (Sheets C2-1 and C2-2), Attachments Four and
Five
d. Preliminary Utility Plans (Sheets C3-1 and C3-2), Attachments Six and
Seven
e. Tree Replacement Plan, (Sheets C5-1 and C5-2), Attachment Eight and Nine
f. Tree Preservation Calculations, Attachment Ten.
all of which attachments are copies of original documents on file with the City and are made a part
hereof.
2. Development and maintenance of structures and uses on the Subject Property shall
conform to the following standards and requirements:
2
a. Maintenance of the stormwater basin, infiltration basin and associated
stormwater infrastructure necessary for the long term operation and function will be
performed by the City. All other maintenance including but not limited to garbage
collection, or landscape replacement or the like shall be the responsibility of the of the
private property owners. All maintenance of the stormwater basin and infiltration basin
shall be the responsibility of the City after the basins have been established.
b. Maintenance and replacement of trees and landscaping other than that
associated with the stormwater basin and infiltration basin described in standard a. shall
be the responsibility of the adjoining homeowners’ association.
c. The front elevation design shall including one of the following features:
1)Three and a half (3.5) feet of brick or stone wainscoting, excluding
doors, windows or the wall behind the front porch;
2)A front porch with railing that extends at least 30% of the width of
the front elevation, including the garage;
3)A side entry garage;
4)Or no more than 70% lap siding, excluding doors and windows.
3. The Subject Property may only be developed and used in accordance with
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Declaration unless the owner first secures approval by the City Council
of an amendment to the planned unit development plan or a rezoning to a zoning classification that
permits such other development and use.
4. In connection with the approval of development of the Subject Property, the
following deviations from City Zoning or Subdivision Code provisions were approved:
3
Section 11-2-15 F. Single Family Detached Dwelling Garage
a.
Requirements:
The home designs do not need to include an option for a three garage stall.
Section 11-4-5 F. 1. R-1 Minimum Lot Area:
b.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.
Section 11-4-5 F. 2 . R-1 Minimum Lot Width:
c.Reduce the minimum lot
width to sixty (60) feet for interior and seventy seven and one half (77.5) feet for corner lots.
Section 11-4-5 F. 4. R-1 Minimum Front Yard Setback:
d.Reduce the front
yard setback to twenty five (25) feet for Blocks 1 and 3; and to twenty feet (20) feet for
Block 2.
Section 11-4-5 F. 5. R-1 Minimum Side Yard Setback:
e.Reduce the side
yard setback to seven and one half (7.5) feet.
Section 11-4-5 F. 9. R-1 Maximum Lot Coverage:
f.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.
Section 11-5-2 C. 6. b. Minor Arterial Highway Setback Enlargement:
g.
Remove the requirement of increasing setbacks from Minnesota Highway 3.
Section 12-3-1 K. Cul-de-sac Length:
h.Allow the cul-de-sac for Road A up
to eight hundred fifty (850) feet in length.
In all other respects the use and development of the Subject Property shall conform to the
requirements of the Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Declaration and the City Code of Ordinances.
4
5. This Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions provides only the Subject Property
only master development plan planned unit development approval. Prior to the improvement or
development of the Subject Property, beyond the rough grading, a final development plan planned
unit development approval pursuant to Zoning Code Section 11-10-6 C. 5. of the Subject Property is
required and an addendum filed with County Recorder to this Declaration of Covenants and
Restrictions.
6. The obligations and restrictions of this Declaration run with the land of the Subject
Property and shall be enforceable against the Declarant, its successors and assigns, by the City of
Rosemount acting through its City Council. This Declaration may be amended from time to time by
a written amendment executed by the City and the owner or owners of the lot or lots to be affected
by said amendment.
5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned as duly authorized agents, officers or
representatives of Declarant have hereunto set their hands and seals as of the day and year first
above written.
DECLARANT
Copper Creek Development, LLC
___________________________________
ByGregory Schweich
ItsPartner
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF __________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of _________,
2015, by _____________________, the _________________, for and on behalf of
_________________________, a ____________________, by and on behalf of said
_______________________.
_______________________________
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
TH
2875 145 STREET WEST
ROSEMOUNT, MN 55068
651-423-4411
6
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS
AND RESTRICTIONS
DUNMORE (ROAD “A” CONNECTION WITH DODD BLVD) MASTER
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
th
THIS DECLARATION
made this 16 day of June, 2015, by Copper Creek Development,
LLC, a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Declarant”);
WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of the real property as described on Attachment One,
attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Subject
Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is subject to certain zoning and land use restrictions
imposed by the City of Rosemount (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) in connection with the
approval of an application for a master development plan planned unit development for a residential
development on the Subject Property; and
WHEREAS, the City has approved such development on the basis of the determination by
the City Council of the City that such development is acceptable only by reason of the details of the
development proposed and the unique land use characteristics of the proposed use of the Subject
Property; and that but for the details of the development proposed and the unique land use
1
characteristics of such proposed use, the master development plan planned unit development would
not have been approved; and
WHEREAS, as a condition of approval of the master development plan planned unit
development, the City has required the execution and filing of this Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions (hereinafter the “Declaration”); and
WHEREAS, to secure the benefits and advantages of approval of such planned unit
development, Declarant desires to subject the Subject Property to the terms hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Declarant declares that the Subject Property is, and shall be, held,
transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to the covenants, conditions, and restrictions,
hereinafter set forth.
1. The use and development of the Subject Property shall conform to the following
documents, plans and drawings:
a. City Resolution No. 2015 - , Attachment Two
b. Preliminary Plat, Attachment Three
c. Preliminary Grading Plans (Sheets C2-1 and Exhibit A), Attachments Four
and Five
d. Preliminary Utility Plans (Sheets C3-1 and C3-2), Attachments Six and
Seven
e. Tree Replacement Plan, (Sheets C5-1 and C5-2), Attachment Eight and Nine
f. Tree Preservation Calculations, Attachment Ten.
all of which attachments are copies of original documents on file with the City and are made a part
hereof.
2
2. Development and maintenance of structures and uses on the Subject Property shall
conform to the following standards and requirements:
a. Maintenance of the stormwater basin, infiltration basin and associated
stormwater infrastructure necessary for the long term operation and function will be
performed by the City. All other maintenance including but not limited to garbage
collection, or landscape replacement or the like shall be the responsibility of the of the
private property owners. All maintenance of the stormwater basin and infiltration basin
shall be the responsibility of the City after the basins have been established.
b. Maintenance and replacement of trees and landscaping other than that
associated with the stormwater basin and infiltration basin described in standard a. shall
be the responsibility of the adjoining homeowners’ association.
c. The front elevation design shall including one of the following features:
1)Three and a half (3.5) feet of brick or stone wainscoting, excluding
doors, windows or the wall behind the front porch;
2)A front porch with railing that extends at least 30% of the width of
the front elevation, including the garage;
3)A side entry garage;
4)Or no more than 70% lap siding, excluding doors and windows.
3. The Subject Property may only be developed and used in accordance with
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Declaration unless the owner first secures approval by the City Council
of an amendment to the planned unit development plan or a rezoning to a zoning classification that
permits such other development and use.
3
4. In connection with the approval of development of the Subject Property, the
following deviations from City Zoning or Subdivision Code provisions were approved:
Section 11-2-15 F. Single Family Detached Dwelling Garage
a.
Requirements:
The home designs do not need to include an option for a three garage stall.
Section 11-4-5 F. 1. R-1 Minimum Lot Area:
b.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.
Section 11-4-5 F. 2 . R-1 Minimum Lot Width:
c.Reduce the minimum lot
width to sixty (60) feet for interior and seventy seven and one half (77.5) feet for corner lots.
Section 11-4-5 F. 4. R-1 Minimum Front Yard Setback:
d.Reduce the front
yard setback to twenty five (25) feet for Blocks 1 and 3; and to twenty feet (20) feet for
Block 2.
Section 11-4-5 F. 5. R-1 Minimum Side Yard Setback:
e.Reduce the side
yard setback to seven and one half (7.5) feet.
Section 11-4-5 F. 9. R-1 Maximum Lot Coverage:
f.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.
Section 11-5-2 C. 6. b. Minor Arterial Highway Setback Enlargement:
g.
Remove the requirement of increasing setbacks from Minnesota Highway 3.
In all other respects the use and development of the Subject Property shall conform to the
requirements of the Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Declaration and the City Code of Ordinances.
4
5. This Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions provides only the Subject Property
only master development plan planned unit development approval. Prior to the improvement or
development of the Subject Property, beyond the rough grading, a final development plan planned
unit development approval pursuant to Zoning Code Section 11-10-6 C. 5. of the Subject Property is
required and an addendum filed with County Recorder to this Declaration of Covenants and
Restrictions.
6. The obligations and restrictions of this Declaration run with the land of the Subject
Property and shall be enforceable against the Declarant, its successors and assigns, by the City of
Rosemount acting through its City Council. This Declaration may be amended from time to time by
a written amendment executed by the City and the owner or owners of the lot or lots to be affected
by said amendment.
5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned as duly authorized agents, officers or
representatives of Declarant have hereunto set their hands and seals as of the day and year first
above written.
DECLARANT
Copper Creek Development, LLC
___________________________________
ByGregory Schweich
ItsPartner
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF __________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of _________,
2015, by _____________________, the _________________, for and on behalf of
_________________________, a ____________________, by and on behalf of said
_______________________.
_______________________________
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
TH
2875 145 STREET WEST
ROSEMOUNT, MN 55068
651-423-4411
6
5ǒƓƒƚƚƩ
tƌğƓƭ
to It provide family may
frontage.
to
Area.
65)
homes
South
development
housing
and
single
(page
to
Boulevard
reconstruction
the
residential
West
Boulevard
the
family
Plan
along
of
Street
of
use
Comprehensive
Dodd
multiple
townhouses
level
rural
term
Dodd
nd
the
this
the
132
and
long
require
and
the
and
for
that
west,
from
the
towards
townhouses
acre
Trail
anticipated
would
the
requiring
2030
per
transition
Connemara
to
housing
units
Use:
area
housing
by
is
without
this
(3)
It
to
Land
bounded
family
access.
three
expected to
of
family
Boulevard
development
development
(TR)
than
single
is
single for
Area
is
Residential
greater
east
property
to
east,
Dodd
Boulevard
frontage
the
the
the
of
the
to
of
that
density
The
to
neighborhood
and
Transitional
reconnection
access
Trail
expected
north.
Dodd
south
a
Robert
Place
create
direct
The
the the
is
Evermoor
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
5ǒƓƒƚƚƩ
&
Rehder Associates, Inc.
MEMO
&
Civil Engineers, Planners Land Surveyors
3440 Federal Drive, Suite 110 Eagan, Minnesota 55122
651-452-5051 Fax: 651-452-9797 Email: info@rehder.com
Date:June,4,2015
To:TheHonorableWilliamDroste,MayorandtheCityofRosemountCityCouncil
From:BentonG.Ford,P.E.
Re:DUNMORE(PreviouslynamedEvermoorPlace)RoadConnection
ThepurposeofthismemoistoaddressarequestmadebytheCityofRosemountPlanningCommissionwhen
theyheardourproposalattheregularmeetingofthePlanningCommissiononMay26,2015.Their
recommendationwasthatweconsiderthepossibilityofconnectingRoadAontheDunmoreplat
(whichas
proposedterminatesinaculdesac)totheDoddBlvdstubroadthatwasconstructedaspartoftheCDA
associated
developmentjusttothesouthoftheDunmoreproperty.Thismemosummarizethechallenges
withmakingthatroadconnection.Inadditiontothismemo,theCityhasaskedtheirtrafficconsultant
toreviewthetrafficcountswithandwithouttheconnection.
GradingandTreeLoss
Connectingtothestubstreettothesouth(DoddBlvd)mustbecompletedwithamaximumstreetgradeof8%,which
isdictatedbyCitycode.Theattachedexhibit(ExhibitA)isagradingplanshowinghowsuchaconnectionwouldlikely
bemadewithRoadAatthesouthendofDunmore.Theexhibitalsoshowshowthelotswouldbereconfigured.
Theentireroadwaythroughthesoutherlysectionofourprojectwouldbeplacedonfill,requiringimporting
approximately30,000cubicyardsofmaterialtoconstructtheroad,buildingpadsandslopes.
Asaresultofplacingthisfill,approximately46additionaltreestotaling690caliperincheswouldbelostduetothe
additionalgradingrequired:
threeheritageoaktrees
26significantoakstrees
9significantcherrytrees
6significanthackberrytrees
3boxelderstrees
Roughly95%oftheadditionalcaliperinches
thatwouldberemovedwouldbedeciduoushardwoodtrees.
RegionalTrail
Aspartofthisproject,theCityinconsultationwithDakotaCountyhasrequestedaregionaltrailbe
accommodatedonDunmoreproperty.Thegoalofallregionaltrailistoprovideatrailwithlongitudinalgrades
lessthan5%tobeincompliancewithADAcodes.Althoughtherearesectionsofthetrailinthenonconnected
layoutthataregreaterthan5%,thoseareaswereminimizedtotheextentpossible.Connectingtheroadway
makesgradingthetrailconsiderablymorechallengingandwilllikelyresultinseveralhundredfeetoftrail
increasingingradeby2%to3%.
LossofLotsandLotQuality
TheattachedexhibitshowshowthelotswouldbereconfiguredtoaccommodatetheconnectiontotheDodd
Blvdstub.Inthecurrent,nonconnectedlayout,RoadAanditsterminatingculdesac,remainlowandnestle
intothetreedslopes.
Connectingtheroad,forcesthesouthendofRoadAmuchhigher,requiring10to15feetoffilltobeplaced.
AttemptingtomaintainaculdesactotheeastofftheelevatedRoadAwouldhaveresultedinbuildingpads
thatareroughly12feethigherthanthoseshownonthenonconnectedlayout.Theincreasedpadelevations
wouldmakepadsunbuildablebasedonfillrequired,additionaltreeslostandunusableyards.
Asaresult,aviableculdesaccannotbeconstructedwiththethrustreetconnectionand1lotislost.Much
moreimportantly,however,isthedecreasedvalueof24lotsthatarenolongeronaculdesac,butonathru
street.Furthermore,thesize,spacingandwoodednatureofthe8to9lotsthatringedtheculdesacwith
broadeningbackyardshasbeenlostandtradedfordecreasedvaluelotsalongthestraight,thruconnecting
streetwithlittleexistingvegetation.
IncreasedConstructionCostsandLotRevenueLost
Theconnectiontothesouthwouldresultinadditionalprojectcosts,includinganadditional100feetof
roadway,100feetofsanitarysewer,100feetofwatermain,400feetofstormsewerand30,000
cubicyardsof
materialimportnecessarytoconstructtheelevatedroadandhousepads.
Weanticipateadditionalconstructioncostsofapproximately$15,000.00intheincreaseroadwaylength,
$225,000.00ofimportedfillmaterial,$12,000.00intrunkutilitiesand$25,000.00instormsewerforatotalof
$277,000.00ofincreasedconstructioncosts.
Wealsoanticipateadecreaseinlotrevenuebasedon24nonculdesaclotsat$5,000.00/lot,decreaseinvalue
ofthe8lotsringingtheculdesacat$8,000.00/lotandlossofonelotat$95,000.00/lotforatotalof
$279,000.00oflostrevenue.Combiningtheadditionalconstructioncostswithlostlotrevenuetotals
$556,000.00.
Conclusion
Theabovesummaryoutlinesanumberofreasonswhymakingtheconnectionischallengingandtheresult
reducesthequalityofthedevelopmentfrombothapublic(treesremovedandtrailcompromised)andprivate
(increasedconstructioncostsandlossoflot
revenue)perspective.ShouldtheCityCouncilmaketheconnection
aconditionofapproval,thedeveloperwill,inalllikelihood,consideradifferenttypeofhousingproductthat
wouldbeabettertransitionfromtheCDAtownhomestothesouthandmakebetteruseoftheavailable
land/terrainthatremainswhenthe
connectionismade.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
June 11, 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:
Dunmore 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)
Road Connection Memo and Exhibit A, dated June 4, 2015 (2 pages)
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 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
applied to the Evermoor Place development based
calculations. The credit will be determined once the grading plan is finalized and the exact
excavation and land areas can be determined.
7.The City will apply offsite ponding charges to the surrounding drainage areas that will utilize
the regional pond. Below is a list of areas and corresponding ponding fee.
Harmony Development: $81,104
Harmony Park (City): $20,720
nd
132 Street (City): $2,308
8.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
9.A traffic analysis memo has been prepared to address traffic impacts associated with the
development. The memo was written by Charles Rickart and is dated June 9, 2015.
10.An existing conditions/removal plan should be provided to show the removal of the existing
homes and relocation of existing utilities.
11.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.
12.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.
13.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
14.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.
15.An erosion control plan will be required prior to issuance of a grading permit for mass
grading.
PC:
HASING OMMENTS
16.Mass grading is required to be completed as part of Phase 1.
ndth
17.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 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
18.Emergency Overflow (EOF) elevations and drainage arrows are required to be added to the
grading plans.
19.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.
20.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.
21.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.
22.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.
23.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% from Road A to the lift station. The access road should also extend around the south
side of the infiltration basin and connect to the regional trail. Additional requirements are
24.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
25.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.
26.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.
27.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.
28.A wetland review/delineation of the site should be completed and submitted to the City for
review.
29.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.
30.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.
31.Sump manholes are required prior to discharge to a pond. Sumps will be added during final
design.
32.Additional infiltration volume is . The development is
required to infiltrate 1/12 of an acre-foot/acre/day for it
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.
33.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.
34.Additional modeling is required to demonstrate the 100-yr HLW of 946.
35.1 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.
36.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
37.The C
at two separate l
38.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
39.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
40.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.
41.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.
42.
adequate for the existing soils.
43.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.
44.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.
45.The low point elevation on the regional trail should be updated.
th
46.Pedestrian ramps are required to be added at the intersection of 134 Street and Road A to
allow for crossing Road A.
47.The west facing pedestrian ramp at the north intersection of Road A and Road B should be
removed.
48.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.
49.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-
to follow the manual when considering the installation of Traffic Control Devices such as
Stop Signs.
EC:
ASEMENT OMMENTS
50.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.
51.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
52.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.
53.A 30-foot wide trail easement is required for the regional trail. An easement sketch showing
the easement location should be submitted.
54.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.
55.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.
56.The width of drainage and utility easements over all public utilities shall be verified during
final design.
RACSD(DB):
OAD ONNECTION OUTH OF EVELOPMENT ODD OULEVARD
1.The road connection from Road A to Dodd Boulevard at the south end of the development
is feasible from an engineering standpoint. The large hill at the south end of the property
will require a large amount of mass grading and removal of existing trees. A different design
for the regional trail is required and it is likely that the grade of the regional trail will need to
be increased or switchbacks will be needed.
2.Grading revisions and an additional rear yard catch basin are required to prevent drainage
from crossing the rear lot lines of Lot 39. A swale and drainage and utility easements will be
required in the rear lots of this area to direct the drainage to the proposed pond. EOF
elevations are required to be added to the grading plan.
3.A revised stormwater management plan, utility plan, grading plan, tree replacement plan,
road profile plan, and phasing plan are required to be submitted for review.
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:
June 10, 2015
Subject:
Dunmore Preliminary Plat
Parks and Recreation staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission recently reviewed the plans
for the Dunmore Preliminary Plat and made the following recommendations:
Staff Recommendations:
Staff is recommending that we collect cash in-lieu of land to satisfy the parks dedication
requirements for this development versus acquiring land for a mini-park. The Parks Master
Plan does not identify a park in this area and there are other nearby parks that can serve the
residents.
Along with the access being provided to the City between lots 28 and 29 on block 1, staff is
recommending a trail be installed behind lots 29, 30, 32 and 33 on block 1, connecting to the
regional trail.
Parks and Recreation Commission 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 Dunmore 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.
Please let me know if you have any questions about this memo.
Infrastructure Engineering Planning Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite #300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763 541-4800
Fax: 763 541-1700
Memorandum
D: June 8, 2015
ATE
T: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
O
Eric Zweber, Senior Planner
Phil Olson, Assistant City Engineer
F: Charles Rickart, P.E., PTOE
ROM
R: Dunmore Development - Evermoor Place/Glendalough Traffic
E
City of Rosemount, MN
WSB Project No. 1916-71
An analysis was completed to evaluate the potential traffic impacts the proposed development
nd
south of 132 Street-Dunmore Development would have on the adjacent roadways. The traffic
study includes evaluation of traffic characteristics, site trip generation, trip distribution, future
traffic forecasts, and recommendations for street improvements and traffic control. The
following provides a summary of the analysis.
Existing Roadway System
Currently the roadway network providing access and circulation for the area consists of:
nd
132 Street is a local east / west two lane street providing access from TH 3 to Dodd
Boulevard. It is paved for approximately 175 feet west of the intersection with TH 3. The
remaining portion of the roadway has a gravel surface.
Dodd Boulevard is a local / north south two lane street parallel to TH 3. It has a gravel surface
providing access from CSAH 38. Several local streets intersect Dodd Boulevard including; Dodd
stndth
Court, Charlston Way, 131 Street, 132 Street and 134 Street.
th
134 Street is a local east / west two lane paved street providing access from the Glendalough
neighborhood to Dodd Boulevard.
In order to determine a base line condition, existing traffic volumes on Dodd Boulevard counted
in August 2014 were used. Based on these counts the following traffic conditions currently exist.
nd
Dodd Boulevard (future Road A) south of 132 Street
Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 217
Existing AM Peak Hour 29
Existing PM Peak Hour 30
Dunmore Development - Evermoor Place/Glendalough Traffic
City of Rosemount
June 9, 2015
Page 2 of 4
nd
Dodd Boulevard north of 132 Street
Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 318
Existing AM Peak Hour 29
Existing PM Peak Hour 32
nd
132 Street east of Dodd Boulevard (estimated)
Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 220
Existing AM Peak Hour 20
Existing PM Peak Hour 26
These street volumes are very low in comparison to other local City streets which typically range
from 250 to 750 vehicles per day.
Site Trip Generation
The Dunmore development proposes 90 single family residential units. The estimated trip
Table 2.1.
generation for the development is shown below in
The trip generation rates used to estimate the site traffic are based on extensive surveys for other
similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation
th
Manual, 9 Edition. The table shows the total daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour trip
generation.
Table 2.1 Estimated Site Trip Generation
ADT AM Peak PM Peak
Use Size
Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out
Single Family
90 Units 858 429 429 68 17 51 90 57 33
Residential
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition
Site Traffic Distribution
Generated trips for the proposed site development were assumed to arrive or exit from the
ndth
collector roadway network using 132 Street, 134 Street and Dodd Boulevard. The trips were
assigned to these roadways based on the existing traffic volumes and anticipated growth areas
within and adjacent to the City.
Projected Traffic Volumes
The future traffic conditions on the area roadways were determined by adding the anticipated site
generated trips to the existing traffic volumes. The following shows the anticipated traffic
conditions on each of the roadways.
Dunmore Development - Evermoor Place/Glendalough Traffic
City of Rosemount
June 9, 2015
Page 3 of 4
nd
Road A (former Dodd Blvd) south of 132 Street
Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 439
Projected AM Peak Hour 47
Projected PM Peak Hour 52
nd
Dodd Boulevard north of 132 Street
Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 459
Projected AM Peak Hour 40
Projected PM Peak Hour 44
nd
132 Street east of Dodd Boulevard
Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 715
Projected AM Peak Hour 58
Projected PM Peak Hour 75
Traffic Analysis
Based on the projected traffic generation and distribution discussed previously, the projected
traffic volumes on the area roadways will still be within acceptable levels for local City streets
and no capacity or operation issues are anticipated.
The primary issues identified adjacent to the proposed site are:
ndnd
Traffic north of 132 Street on Dodd Boulevard It is estimated that traffic north of 132 Street
on Dodd Boulevard would increase by approximately 139 vehicles per day. In order to minimize
nd
the potential for additional traffic traveling north of 132 Street, the intersection of Dodd
nd
Boulevard and 132 Street will be designed such that traffic exiting from Road A-Dodd
nd
Boulevard is directed east on 132 Street to TH 3.
th
Traffic increases through the Glendalough neighborhood from 134 Street The proposed
nd
development plan south of 132 Street includes removal of Dodd Boulevard and construction of
a new north-south road named Road A in conjunction with the development. The develo
proposal would not extend Road A south to connect to Connemara Trail. The primary reason for
not extending Dodd Boulevard is the topography and significant trees within the area. It is
th
estimated that traffic on 134 Street will increase from approximately 221 vehicles per day to
439 vehicles per day. As indicated previously these projected traffic volumes are within
acceptable local City street levels. The primary reason that traffic with origins or destinations
north on Dodd Boulevard, would travel through the Glendalough neighborhood and not use
nd
132 Street to TH 3, is how difficult access is to and from TH 3. In order to minimize the
th
amount of additional traffic on 134 Street the street network could be designed such that traffic
from the north on Road A-Dodd Boulevard would be directed to TH 3. In addition, more traffic
nd
would use 132 Street to and from TH 3 at such time as a traffic signal is warranted.
Dunmore Development - Evermoor Place/Glendalough Traffic
City of Rosemount
June 9, 2015
Page 4 of 4
Alternative connection of Road A with Dodd Blvd to Connemara Trail With an alternative
connection of Road A to Dodd Boulevard with access to Connemara Trail, a portion of the traffic
from the new development would travel south to Connemara Trail. In addition, a portion of
nd
traffic that is currently on Dodd Boulevard north and uses 132 Street to TH 3 south would now
travel on the new Road A to Connemara Trail. It is estimated, based on the existing traffic
th
patterns approximately 380 vehicles per day would use this roadway south of 134 Street. This
includes approximately 180 vpd from the development and 200 vpd with origins or destinations
nd
north of 132 Street.
Street improvement recommendations
Based on the above review and analysis the following street improvements are recommended:
nd
1.Reconstruct 132 Street to include one lane in each direction from TH 3 connecting to
Road A and Dodd Boulevard.
nd
2.A left turn lane should be provided on 132 Street approaching TH 3 to line up with the
westbound CR 38 approach. A minimum of 200 feet of left turn lane storage should be
provided.
3.Following development of the area conduct an intersection control evaluation at the TH 3
nd
and 132 Street intersection to determine the appropriate intersection control.
Excerpt of the Draft May 26, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Public Hearing:
5.a. Request by Copper Creek Development for a Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat to
build 90 single family homes(15-16-PUD)
Senior Planner Zweber summarized his report for the Planning Commission. He also noted that there are
four citizen comments received via email since packet has been published.
Commissioner Forster inquired about the history behind the property being guided TR - Transitional
Residential. Senior Planner Zweber stated that was designated TR in 1998 Comprehensive Plan as the
future Evermoor neighborhood was; however the specific written description for 3+ units per acre was
adopted with the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Forster also confirmed that most developments along the
MUSA line are transitional as well. Zweber stated that there are also some areas guided as transitional
that are outside the MUSA, due to the size of the lots, and should those septic systems fail, the City can
bring municipal water and sewer to those residents. A number of the lots outside the MUSA are less
and South Robert Trail, if
than one acre. Forester also inquired about the proposed intersection of 132
nd
there has there been a traffic study for that intersection. He is mostly concerned about the queuing lane
being adequate for future traffic from the new development. Zweber stated that the feasibility study
should be done by before the Final Plat for this development goes before City Council.
Forster asked for more details on the connection of Dodd Blvd and why there is a deviation from what
the Comprehensive Plan shows, which connects Dodd Blvd through the proposed development.
Zweber stated that they did not want to create a sole cul-de-sac within the neighborhood that an access
would need access to South Robert Trail. Forester also inquired about turn lanes. Zweber stated that
there are turn lanes currently on South Robert Trail, and they would be added on 132 Street with its
nd
reconstruction. Forester also inquired about the citizen comment about an additional load on existing
park in Glendalough and wondered if staff has reviewed it and if it is a non-issue. Zweber stated that
there is a private park and two private pools for Glendalough residents only and residents of Evermore
Place would not be allowed to use the private parks. Zweber stated that the regional trail is the access
point to city parks for the proposed neighborhood. The construction of the trail will be before the
development is fully built, the City is working with Dakota County to install the regional trail in the
second phase of the development.
Commissioner Henrie inquired who will be responsible for the up keep along South Robert Trail, as it is
one of the first impressions when transitioning from rural Rosemount to higher density residential along
South Robert Trail. Zweber stated that the requirements are to maintain as much of the current exterior
vegetation as possible. The plan is to keep many trees and add additional trees along the north and west
side of the development. The plan has been submitted to MnDOT for review, and their initial response
is the removal of two driveways is a huge benefit. No additional right-away will be needed along South
Robert Trail. There are no plans to expand South Robert Trail. If South Robert Trail were to expand,
that would destroy RosemountÔs downtown and that Akron Avenue is now being planned as a minor
arterial north to south through Rosemount. Henrie also inquired about the necessity of a homeowners
association. Zweber stated that nothing in the proposed development needs to be maintained by the
Page 1
group of homeowners, so the City wouldnÔt require a homeowners association. The stormwater pond
will be maintained by City and the Regional Trail will ultimately be maintained by the County.
Commissioner Kenninger inquired if there are plans for a fence along houses that back onto South
Robert Trail. Zweber stated that the trail buffers the development that doesnÔt exist along the eastern
side of Hwy 3, as well as a buffer of additional vegetation to be installed, so that staff isnÔt
recommending a fence. Kenninger also inquired if GlendaloughÔ s private park has a keyed access like
the pools do. Zweber stated that the park is signed as private parks, but that there is no fence or gate.
Commissioner Freeman inquired about the need to connect Dodd Boulevard when the development
was proposed for townhouses and how has that changed since the density has been reduced. Zweber
stated there would be a 40% reduction in units from what a townhouse development would generate and
therefore an assumption that it would generate less traffic.
Commissioner Miller asked for clarification on park dedication and opportunity for a park within the
development. Zweber explained that the City has adopted a Parks Master Plan that depicts where parks
should be and the Master plan map labels N=neighborhood park and M=mini park. There is no call for
a mini park on Parks Master Plan for this area. There is wording regarding multilane roads and railroads
that signify that a mini park would be called for. There are other places within the City where parks are
designed where neighborhoods would need to cross high traffic roads to access a park and that there is a
traffic signal and a pedestrian walkway at the intersection of South Robert Trail and Connemara Trail.
The Parks Commission is recommending a pocket park and their recommendation and the Parks
Director recommendation will go before the City Council for them to decide if a park is needed. Miller
also asked for more clarification on the Dodd Boulevard connection. Zweber stated that he doesnÔt have
anything to add beyond what he has already explained.
The public hearing was opened at 7:34 pm.
Public comments:
Brad Owens 13444 Carlingford Lane, his property is located directly behind lots 42 and 43. He is
concerned about losing the view behind his house as well as water drainage issues. He stated that Planner
Zweber told him that they wouldnÔt really know how the water will drain until final plat is completed. He
also wanted to make sure the look entering Rosemount heading south on South Robert Trail is a
pleasant one.
Michael Ferris, Evermoor Homeowners Board Member, 13279 Derryglen Court, his biggest concern is
the name of the development, may cause confusion to visitors. Emergency vehicles may not know the
difference between the two neighborhoods.
Shawn Pedri, Evermoor Master Association President, 13173 Drumcliffe Way, stated that there are 15
sub associations, with about 1,100 homes within the Evermoor neighborhood. These associations spend
lots of money protecting the neighborhood and would ask that the developer change the name of the
development to help preserve the neighborhood and name.
Andy Powell, 13494 Carbury Avenue, is concerned about the lack of vegetation behind lot 39. He feels
there is no need to remove vegetation in that area.
Page 2
Lisa Larsen, 13334 Carlingford Lane, stated her house backs new development. Her main issue is safety,
and the excess traffic on 134 street. She stated currently it is a safe place for kids to play on the street,
th
with the extra traffic it would not be safe for children to play in the street as they do now. She also
expressed the need for a stop sign at the intersection of Carlingford Lane and 134Street. She believes
th
that the way to solve this safety issue is to find a way to connect Dodd Boulevard on the south side of
the proposed development. Safety of children is more important than keeping a few trees. Traffic has
increased traffic on Hwy 3, which means traffic will go through Glendalough to avoid traffic.
Steve Campen, 13412 Coachford Avenue, expressed concern and disappointment about the increase in
through traffic the new development will bring into his neighborhood. He also feels that safe
neighborhood streets should be more important than removal of trees. He also expressed his concern
that the signs on the private parks will be ignored. He is in favor of the addition of a park for proposed
development.
Randy Kaiser 12919 Bolivia Avenue, doesnÔt think there is a need to jump into approving this
development when Rosemount has so many other developments in progress. He thinks we should slow
down and not develop this land until there is demand. He is concerned if there is another drop in the
economy there will be roads servicing a small number of homes and would be a waste of city resources.
Alan Glynn 13373 Carlingford Lane, stated his main concern is safety as well. He is glad townhouses are
not being proposed.
MOTION by Kenninger to close the public hearing.
Second by Henrie.
Ayes: 6. Nays: 0. Motion Passes.
The public hearing was closed at 7:53 pm.
Additional Comments:
Planner Zweber first addressed the drainage issue, current info shows that all areas developed will flow
east, in southern part it is planned to flow northeast, but where the existing trees are protected, the water
will continue flow to the west as it does today. The final plat will look at the grades around each house
and emergency overflow needs. Zweber also addressed Mr. PowellÔs concerns about the tree removal in
the southwest corner of the development, stating that Condition F was added to address this concern by
requiring the vegetation be preserved where grading does not occur. Zweber also addressed comments
on keeping density as is, it is stated in the Comprehensive Plan, to meet the 3+ units per acre
requirement. As for the name concerns, the developer has stated that he would take suggestions for a
new name. There is nothing in the City Code regulations relating to the naming of a subdivision. He also
noted that the name on the plat doesnÔt have to be the same as the name of the development.
Street within Glendalough is a public street and was constructed to be a public
Zweber stated that 134
th
Street is not a
street, its annual maintenance is provided the City using general funds and that 134
th
private association street. Has been reviewed the reviewed the three times (during the concept plan,
Street and that it was determined as
preliminary plat and final plat) that the City Council approved 134
th
a through street between the two neighborhoods. He stated that there is nothing substandard regarding
Street and
the Glendalough streets. The City Engineer will review the need for a stop sign on 134
th
Page 3
Carlingford Lane. There is no ability for City to enforce keeping people out of private parks and that the
regional trail will give access to parks. The Police Chief is opposed to deviating from the 8% road grade
for safety reasons.
Commissioner Kenninger inquired about the housing demands within Rosemount. Zweber stated that
with plans approved this year there will be about 250 lots available. Rosemount is currently building over
100 units per year, which would be enough lots to get us through 2016. There is no excess of housing in
Rosemount. A meeting was held with City Council recently to discuss the lack of developable land, some
of which is due to owners unwilling to sell.
Commissioner Henrie inquired if it is possible to stay at 8% grading with a different plan. Zweber stated
it would be possible with a completely different plan. If Dodd Boulevard were connected, a corridor of
about 80 feet worth of trees would need to be removed for the road itself.
Commissioner Freeman inquired if moving the Dodd Boulevard connection directly into the cul-de-sac
would be an option. Zweber stated that it would not because the curve would be too great.
Chair Miller stated he will be voting to deny the due to lack of park, also not fair for homeowners to pay
extra money to preserve their neighborhood and amenities. He feels there is a need to connect Dodd
Boulevard. He also feels standards on the front facade of the houses should be preserved to match with
the connecting Glendalough neighborhood.
Commissioner Forester also stated he will not be voting in favor due to the lack of connectivity to
Connemara Trail. The Comprehensive Plan shows a connection to Dodd Boulevard and feels we should
follow that plan.
Commissioner Freeman is also concerned about the lack of a park in the plan and feels we should follow
the Park & Recreation CommissionÔs recommendation to add a pocket park within neighborhood.
Planner Zweber stated that there are more choices than simply approving or denying, but that conditions
can be added to the approval to address the CommissionersÔ concerns. Different Commissions have
different roles, and that denying the subdivision based on a Parks Commission recommendation is
outside the Planning CommissionÔs jurisdiction and is not recommended.
Commissioner Henrie asked that the developer be allowed to speak.
Greg , Copper Creek Development, LLC, reiterated that 134 Street was extended onto RaakÔs
Schweich
th
property. The pond is a regional pond for Harmony, stormwater for MnDOT, and storm water on 132
nd
Street. Currently HarmonyÔs emergency overflow is discharging onto private property. The development
will address storm water management for the whole area. To connect Dodd Boulevard is not a feasible
option; a cul-de-sac is a nice amenity. He doesnÔt think the name of the development should be a
condition of approval.
Page 4
Chair Miller inquired if adding a park was acceptable and Mr. Schweich stated he is open to adding a
park. The Park & Recreation Commission determined that it would be a City park that would service this
neighborhood, so no HomeownerÔs Association (HOA) would be needed. But he went on to state that
his other neighborhoods had a HOA developed for garbage pickup to reduce traffic in the
neighborhood and maintain streets. Schweich also stated he wants to make it a nice neighborhood and
the connection of Dodd Boulevard will deviate from that intent.
Commissioner Forester inquired why there is a deviation from what is shown on the Comprehensive
Plan shows the connection was expected to connect Dodd Boulevard. Zweber stated that there is a pipe
line north of Dodd Boulevard that grade canÔt be changed. The grade wasnÔt determined by townhouse
development, it was preexisting and why the former Dodd Boulevard was placed to the west of the
development because of the varying elevation in the area. Forester wants to know how connecting Dodd
Boulevard affect density and wants to see the proof behind not being able to keep the grading at 8% or
less.
Commissioner Kenninger confirmed that the Comprehensive Plan states the density was expected to be
3-5 units per acre, but current plan shows just over 3 units per acre.
Commissioner Henrie understands the legality of the naming of Evermoor Place and wonders what
would need to be done to change the name. Schweich stated he is open to a name change.
Commissioner Forster inquired if an HOA is implemented would a monument sign be installed. Zweber
stated that there is no requirement for a monument.
Commissioner Kenninger wondered if there is an option to table this for further discussion. Zweber
stated that the Commission could table the proposal.
Chair Miller stated his concerns are the lack of a park and transportation connectivity. He asked
Schweich if he would be able to come back and provide an option that showed the changes if the
connection to Dodd Boulevard was made. Schweich stated he was unsure at this time.
Commissioner VanderWiel stated she is strongly opposed to the connectivity of Dodd Boulevard as it
would destroy the woods and the quality of life would be diminished. There are ways to slow traffic
through signage instead of connecting Dodd Boulevard.
Commissioner Kenninger agrees with VanderWiel that it shouldnÔt be a condition of approval. She also
stated that she is concerned about the lack of a park but isnÔt sure that 90 homes defines a need for a
park. Kenninger stated that small park might be a plausible solution.
Preliminary PlatRecommendation
1.Motion by Forester 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.
Page 5
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.
e.Driveways shall not access onto 132 Street, 134 Street or South Robert Trail.
ndth
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.
j.Construct a connection to Dodd Road on the southern side of the proposed
development.
Second by Miller
Commissioner Freeman requested a friendly amendment to require a mini-park. Commissioner
Forster denied the friendly amendment.
Ayes: 2, Freeman and Forester Nays: 4, Henrie, Miller, Kenninger, And VanderWiel
Motion fails.
Motion by Freeman to recommend the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Evermoor
Place, subject to conditions:
k.Approval of a Major Planned Unit Development rezoning the subject property and
designating minimum lot requirements and setbacks.
l.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.
m.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.
n.Dedicate a 30 foot wide trail easement over the regional trail corridor to the City.
Page 6
o.Driveways shall not access onto 132 Street, 134 Street or South Robert Trail.
ndth
p.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.
q.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.
r.Conformance with all requirements of the City Engineer as detailed in the attached
memorandum dated May 19, 2015.
s.Conformance with all requirements of the Parks and Recreation Director as detailed in
the attached memorandum dated May 20, 2015.
t.Conformance with Park and Recreation Commission recommendation to add a Pocket
Park.
Second by Forester
Chair Miller requested a friendly amendment to add the requirement of the Dodd Boulevard
connection. Commissioner Freeman agreed to add Condition U. requiring the connection.
u.Construct a connection to Dodd Boulevard on the southern side of the proposed
development.
Ayes: 3; Freeman, Forster, Miller and Nays: 3; Henrie, Kenninger, VanderWiel Tie vote.
Senior Planner Zweber stated that the Planning Commission can forward tie votes to the City
Council and no further votes on the Preliminary Plat are required.
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Recommendation:
Commissioner Kenninger inquired if the PUD motion is where the Commission would address the
design elements. Zweber confirmed if changes are what are recommended, then Condition A. could be
amended. He stated that if the stone facing is required for all homes, then that would need to be a
separate condition.
2.Motion by Miller to recommend the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development
Master Development Plan with the Rezoning of the property from RR Ï Rural Residential to R1
PUD Ï 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;
i. A front porch with railing that extends at least 30% of the width of the front
elevation, including the garage;
ii.A side entry garage;
iii.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
Page 7
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.
l.The front elevation design shall include three and a half (3.5) feet of brick or stone
wainscoting, excluding doors, windows or the wall behind the front porch.
Second by Kenninger
Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion approved.
Planner Zweber noted that this is tentatively scheduled to go before City Council June 16, but that the
developer may need more time to address the additional requirements. The City Council will be provided
with both the original plat as well as the plat showing the recommendations of the Planning
Commission. Planning Commission will not see the preliminary plat again but will see the final plat and
how it meets the City CouncilÔs preliminary plat approval.
Page 8
5ǒƓƒƚƚƩ
wĻƭźķĻƓƷ
/ƚƒƒĻƓƷƭ
Zweber, Eric
From:Johnson, Dwight
Sent:Monday, June 01, 2015 10:50 PM
To:Lindquist, Kim; Zweber, Eric
Subject:Fwd: Proposed Development Concerns
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S® 6.
-------- Original message --------
From: Douglas Allan <douglastallan@gmail.com>
Date: 06/01/2015 10:22 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: citycouncil <citycouncil@ci.rosemount.mn.us>, Rosemount Mayor <MAYOR@ci.rosemount.mn.us>,
"Debettignies, Mark" <mark.debettignies@ci.rosemount.mn.us>, "Demuth, Vanessa"
<vanessa.demuth@ci.rosemount.mn.us>, "Nelson, Shaun" <Shaun.Nelson@ci.rosemount.mn.us>, "Weisensel,
Jeff D." <Jeff.Weisensel@ci.rosemount.mn.us>
Subject: Proposed Development Concerns
Mayor and Council Members -
I am writing to express my concern with the proposed development by Copper Creek (proposed name Evermoor
Place).
I live at 13314 Carlingford Lane - my lot backs up to the proposed development. While I am happy to hear the
developer plans to keep most of the trees on the west and south edges of this neighborhood, I do have a number
of other concerns with his plans:
1. The name:
By proposing to use the name ‘Evermoor Place’ in a neighborhood that is directly connected to
Glendalough of Evermoor and the entire Evermoor community, the developer is benefiting from our intellectual
property and good reputation curated over years of association fees, upkeep and private management. This new
neighborhood is not part of the Evermoor association and choosing this name is doing a disservice to the rest of
the Evermoor community. Consider if a nearby town decided to name themselves ‘Rosemount Heights’ or
‘Rosemount Valley’. How would you feel about that as the City Council of Rosemount? Do you think people
may be confused? Do you think people would assume this new city is just an addition your city, even though it
is not within your city limits and they would not be paying city taxes? The developer has mentioned he would
consider other names, but at the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, May 26th he proudly held up a
registration with the state of Minnesota for the name Evermoor Place - this doesn’t sound like cooperation a
partnership we or the city would like to be involved with.
2. Parks:
The park board has said the master plan does not call for a city park in this area - and other parks are
accessible by walking paths. Instead of building a park within this neighborhood, they will collect over
$300,000 towards other parks. Do you have little kids, would you want them walking across Hwy 3 or
Connemara to go to a park? Of course not - that is too far and too dangerous. So these 90 homes with roughly
200+ kids will want to walk to the nearest park - the private parks in Glendalough of Evermoor. This will put
1
even more users into our parks without paying for their upkeep. It will also put residence in of Evermoor in a
tough spot of having to police their parks - not a great situation for either party.
3. Access South and West:
As mentioned at the Planning Commission meeting - a large number of the
residences of Evermoor are very concerned there will be no access from this neighborhood heading either South
or West - where all the schools and shopping are located. New residences of this neighborhood will either have
to go out to Hwy 3 and down to Connemara or more likely - they will just cut through our neighborhood and
make their way to Connemara. The master plan from long ago required this new neighborhood to connect to
Dodd and use this as an exit to Connemara. The Planning Commission voted with this amendment in place.
Please take their recommendation and our concerns seriously on this matter. The road has already been started
and is built part-way down that hill - the work just needs to be completed. The irony here is the developer
doesn’t want to do this because he wants ‘a nice quiet cul-de-sac for his new neighborhood’ and doesn’t want
traffic going through it - but he is just fine sending all that traffic through our neighborhood. He mentioned a
road would cut out 80’ wide swath of trees - that is too bad, but it is only one lot-width and there would still be
plenty of trees on all sides to keep the separation from Hwy 3 and Evermoor.
4. Intersection:
The street that connects this proposed neighborhood into Evermoor is 134th. The intersection
at 134th and Carlingford Lane is already very dangerous - I have had many close calls here with cars not
stopping, looking or slowing down as it is uncontrolled by any stop sign or yield signs. It is the location for 4
bus stops everyday and has a high number of children present often. Eric Zweber mentioned this intersection is
not in the proposed development and a stop sign could be put up there any time traffic deems it necessary. Well
it is past time - and 90 new homes x 2 cars each x 2 trips a day adds 360 additional vehicles passing through
here everyday. This is an accident waiting to happen - please put a 4 way stop at this intersection before a child
is killed or injured along a quiet residential street.
I am not opposed to this section of land being developed into housing - I just want it done correctly and safely. I
want what is right for current residents of Rosemount and future residents in the proposed development. Not
having easy access to a park or an easy way to get to schools and shopping would be a detraction for them as
new home owners. Soon after this development finished the developer will be long gone, but you and the
residents will have to live with the repercussions of the decisions you make for years on.
Thanks for listening to my concerns,
Douglas Allan
13314 Carlingford Lane
Rosemount, MN 55068
651-253-5489
2
Zweber, Eric
From:Robin Argentieri <robinsmnproperties@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 26, 2015 1:31 PM
To:Zweber, Eric
Subject:New Development
Wemovedhereacoupleofyearsago.Wewantedsomethingthatfeltruralbutwasclosetothecityforwork.ŷğƷƭ
noteasytofind.WefellinlovewithwƚƭĻƒƚǒƓƷƭsmalltownfeelanddirtroadsthathousedhorses.Wetakeour3
girlsonagolfcartdownDoddBlvd.almosteverydaytoseethehorses.IcouldhavebuiltsomewhereelseandIķźķƓƷ
becauseIlovedtheoldhousesandhorses.IfeellikeRosemountissellingitssoultodevelopers.Whenyouthinkof
middletoupperclasslivingyouthinkofEdinaandMinnetonka,youķƚƓƷthinkofRosemount.Howevertheirschools
arealsothebestinthestate.LƷƭbecausetheyŷğǝĻƓƷloweredthebarforresidentsandthoseresidentssupporttheir
schools.IhaveliterallylostsleepfornightsthinkingabouthowthisiswhereIwantedtoraisemyfamilybutnowthe
cityislettingtoomanysmallhousedevelopmentspopup.LƒlosingallfaithandprideinthecityofRosemount.Ihate
toseethedeveloperskeepwinningbecauseRosemounthaslostźƷƭheartfortheruralsmalltownfeel.Whenpeople
enterRosemountonSouthRobertstrail,theywillbewelcomedbytrailersontheleftand1600sqfthomesontheright.
Lƒsureifthisdevelopmentgoesforwardwiththesesmallhousesthenelectionoutcomeswillbedrasticallydifferent
nextterm.PleasereconsidersellingtheheartofRosemounttogreedydevelopersjusttryingtogetthebiggestbangfor
theirbuck.\[ĻƷƭmakeRosemountbetterthanEdinaandMinnetonkaschoolsbyputtinghigherincomesintothe
community.IworkinrealestateandIdoREOsforbanks,LǝĻworkedonforeclosesforhomesinHarmonyand
BloomfieldespeciallyBloomfieldwhichtheseneighborhoodswillbeequivalentinabout10years.EvermoorPlacewillbe
next.PleasestoplettingRosemountbeeverycheapdevelopersdream,itsweakeningourcommunityandschool
systems.
ThanksforreadingmypleaforhelpingrowingRosemounttobebetter.
Robin
1
Zweber, Eric
From:Katy Bland <katybland1828@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 08, 2015 12:37 PM
To:Zweber, Eric
Subject:Evermoor Place Development
Hi Eric,
I wanted to quickly make sure that you were aware of my main concern about this new development; traffic. When we chose to buy our
home on Coachford Ave. we did so because it was on what we thought would be a relatively quiet street. Unfortunately, it has turned
out to be busier than we expected, but the city was kind enough to put in a couple of stop signs which have greatly helped. However, it
is quite obvious from the plans that our street will become the "main drag" for residents of this new development, which I think poses a
huge safety problem given the number of small children living in our neighborhood. I would greatly appreciate it if the city would
reconsider the current plans to make Hwy 3 and Connemara more accesible without having to drive through our neighborhood in an
effort to keep our kids safe. In a neighborhood where homes are already sitting on the market not selling, turning it into the main route
for an additional 90 families will do nothing but make it a less desirable place to live. Thank you for your consideration.
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.
Zweber, Eric
From:Matt Dowell <mdowell@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 28, 2015 9:29 AM
To:Zweber, Eric
Cc:Jennifer Martinson
Re: Question about new Dodd development
Subject:
Eric,
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I will take up my concerns at the next meeting even but I am guessing
the planning commissions don't like to deviate from developer proposals. Here are my concerns, in case you
have any thoughts I might not have:
As a resident that lives on Dodd blvd. it looks like 90 homes (~200 cars) will have 3 ways to enter/exit their
neighborhood, with 132nd being the quickest egress, and Dodd blvd being the second quickest. Don't you agree
the increase in traffic will be noticeable? Not only does my wife/kids use this road to walk our dogs, but the
cross-country teams use it to train and horses are ridden on it. I think this plan (with its lack of direct access to
Connemara and Hgwy 3 will greatly reduce the quality of life of those existing residents that use Dodd blvd.
Thanks for hearing me out,
Matt
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Zweber, Eric <eric.zweber@ci.rosemount.mn.us> wrote:
Matt,
nd
Attachedistheproposeddevelopment.NochangesprosedtoDoddBlvdnorthof132Streetwiththisdevelopment.
Eric Zweber, Senior Planner
CityofRosemount,2875145thStreet,Rosemount,MN55068
Ph.6513222052/http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us
1
From: Matt Dowell \[mailto:mdowell@gmail.com\]
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 7:35 PM
To: Zweber, Eric
Cc: Jennifer Martinson
Subject: Question about new Dodd development
Hi,
I have a quick question regarding the nee planned development. The article in the paper wasn't completely clear,
are you going to allow people from the new 90 houses cut north through Dodd blvd to get to McAndrews?
Thanks,
Matt
2
Zweber, Eric
From:Johnson, Dwight
Sent:Thursday, May 28, 2015 5:33 PM
To:Lindquist, Kim; Zweber, Eric
Subject:Fwd: Copper Creek Development
FYI
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S® 6.
-------- Original message --------
From: MICHELLE GOODWIN <michelle.goodwin@gtservicing.com>
Date: 05/28/2015 4:40 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: citycouncil <citycouncil@ci.rosemount.mn.us>
Subject: Copper Creek Development
AsaresidentofGlendaloughofEvermoorIhavebeenmadeawareofsomepotentiallyconcerningissuesregardingthe
th
CopperCreekDevelopment.Primarily,theonlyaccesspointtoConnemarabeing134Streetwhichleadsrightintothe
Glendaloughdevelopment.Increasedtrafficfrom90newhomeswouldbeamajorconcernformostoftheresidentsof
Glendalough.Glendaloughhasprivatepoolsandparksandtheadditionaltrafficthroughtherewouldimpactthequality
oflifeofmanyoftheresidents.ThemajorityofthefamilieslivinginGlendaloughhaveyoungchildrenandthe
additionaltrafficthroughtheneighborhoodwouldprovideamoredangeroussituationoutside.WeliveonCoachford
AveclosetoConnemaraandthespeedlimitonourstreetis30whichistoofastforaresidentialstreet.Ifvehiclesare
passingthoughonthewaytoanotherneighborhoodthedriversmighthavelessincentivetobecautiousabouttheir
speed.Also,iftheelementaryschoolthefutureresidentsofthefuturedevelopmentwillbeShannonParkitverylikely
thatthetrafficto/fromschoolwillbedirectlythroughourneighborhoodasitisthemostdirectroute.
Anotherissuethatwasaddressedisthenameofthedevelopmentusingtheͻ9ǝĻƩƒƚƚƩͼname.Theresidentsof
ͻ9ǝĻƩƒƚƚƩͼarepartofahomeownersassociation.Iftheresidentsofthenewdevelopmentarenotgoingtobepaying
forthat,thenthenameshouldnotbeavailableforthedevelopmentregardlessofthelegalavailability.Notonlyisit
deceiving,butthedeveloperwouldbeusingtheEvermoornametoboostthevalueofthenewpropertieswhileinno
waypayingforit.Theadditionofsomanyhomesinsuchasmallspacecouldpotentiallybringthevaluesofthe
Glendalough(andgreaterEvermoor)propertiesdownandatthesametimebringthevalueupforthenewhomesby
piggybackingofftheEvermoorname.
ThepotentialdevelopmentwasnotdisclosedtotheresidentsofGlendaloughwhenwepurchasedourhomesandmany
residentswouldhavegivenseriousconsiderationtobuyingpropertiesherehaditbeendisclosed.Thecommunityof
Rosemountisgrowingrapidlybutifthegoalistoattractresidentsforthelongterm,carefulconsiderationshouldbe
giventoalltheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofeachpotentialdevelopment.Othernearbycommunitieshavemuch
moretooffercommerciallysomuchofthereasonresidentsmoveherefromelsewhereisthequalityoflife.Thecity
councilshouldgiveequalifnotmoreweighttocurrentƩĻƭźķĻƓƷƭconcernsbecausetheyaretheonesthatalreadylive
here,havekidsinactivitiesandschoolinRosemountandarecommittedtothecommunity.Ifthe90homesaregoing
tobelocatedonsmalllotsitismorelikelythesehomeswouldbeturnedovermorefrequentlythansomeofthemore
expensivehomewhereresidentsintendtostayforalongerperiodoftime.Ifso,thereisnoguaranteethatthose
residentswouldremaininRosemountforthelongterm.
1
Thankyouforyourservicetothecommunityandpleasegivecarefulconsiderationtosomeoftheseissues.Manyother
residentssharesimilarconcernsandwewantwhatisbestforourneighborhoodandRosemountcommunity.
Michelle Goodwin
Green Tree Servicing Ï Tax Manager
P 651 293 3605
michelle.goodwin@gtservicing.com
2
Zweber, Eric
From:Kim Jones <Kim_Jones@cotyinc.com>
Sent:Friday, June 05, 2015 1:39 PM
To:Zweber, Eric
Subject:Proposed Development in Rosemount- traffic through our neighborhood
Eric,
I am writing to you in regards to the proposed traffic routing of a new development that will take
traffic right through my neighborhood in Glendalough. Four years ago we sold our home in Eagan in
part because the street we were on was used as a shortcut for people to get from Yankee Doodle
Road to Blue Cross Blue Shield. It got so bad that we decided to take the $15k loss on our home in
order to raise our son in an area that was safe for him to play, and that is the reason why we
purchased our home in Rosemount and in the Glendalough development. He is now 7 and we also
have a 2 year old. We love the fact that the kids can go from one home to another and it is safe.
I need to explain to you what kind of neighborhood we live in so you understand why this would be
a DISASTER if it happens. Everyone knows everyone, the kids all play together, we babysit each
other’s kids, BBQ and spend time together. It is truly a community. The kids play baseball in my
backyard and when they are done they go to Gavin’s to play basketball or to Lexi’s to jump on her
trampoline. As parents, we feel good knowing it is safe for them to cross the street as there is not
a lot of traffic.
We have had some issues with people going too fast through the neighborhood and have had a few
near misses with kids getting hit by cars. People who don’t live there do not realize that there are
nothing but small kids in this neighborhood and they don’t think about the consequences. This
change would significantly raise the risk for our children.
I have been to a funeral for a 5 year old boy who was riding his bike and hit by a car. I was 18
when it happened and I can personally tell you, I have never forgotten that. I vowed to raise my
kids somewhere that I feel they are safe. If this happens, I will no longer feel that way. We live
right on Coachford Ave.
My husband and I have already decided that if this does go through, we will put our home on the
market. It is not worth the risk of something happening and it takes away the neighborhood feeling
that we so desperately were seeking AND FOUND in Glendalough. We thought this would be the
home that we raise our kids in until we retire, but now we are being faced with a decision to leave
if this goes through. I would much rather people be slightly inconvenienced by taking Hwy 3 to
Connemara than a short cut through our neighborhood and the chance that a child will get hit. I
am asking you to put yourself in our shoes and see how you would feel.
I can tell you, good people who are part of the community will be leaving the community if this
happens. Please stop and think about the impact this would have on so many families both from a
safety perspective and financial perspective.
I appreciate your time and hope that the right decision will be made.
Thank you!
1
Kim Jones
Kim Jones
Category Manager, Target
800 Nicollet Ave, Ste 2670
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Kim_Jones@cotyinc.com
D: 612-238-8767
C: 651-269-9461
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This message is intended for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and/or
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of the information contained in this message is strictly unauthorized and prohibited. If you have
received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message from your
system. Opinions, conclusions, or other statements in this message which do not relate to the business of Coty
Inc., its subsidiaries or affiliates, are neither given nor endorsed by Coty Inc.
2
Zweber, Eric
From:Nikki Kent <nkent@pivotalimpact.net>
Sent:Tuesday, May 26, 2015 8:54 PM
To:Zweber, Eric
Subject:Proposed Development by Copper Creek
Eric,
AsaGlendaloughHomeownerIamwritingtoexpressmyconcernsovertheproposeddevelopment.Specificallymy
concernscenteraroundtheincreasedtrafficthatwillbedirectedthroughtheneighborhood.
IliveonCarlingfordLaneanddailycrosstheintersectionat134thandCarlingfordLn.Icannottellyouthenumberof
nearaccidentsIhavewitnessedhere.Thesimplefactthat25elementarystudentsareatthebusstopatthiscorner
shouldbothdemonstratethenumberofyoungchildreninthispartoftheneighborhoodandtheneedforadditional
diligenceinkeepingthemsafe.
ObviouslythebestsolutionisaconnectiontotheexistingDoddroad,whichwasclearlytheintentofthecitybasedon
howtheoriginalroadwasconstructed.Attheveryleastthecitymustputinastopsign!
Idon'twantthenexttimethecityweighsinonthistobewhensomeoneisseriouslyinjuredduetotheirinaction.
Iwelcomeanyquestionsyoumayhaveforme.
NicoleKent
13273CarlingfordLn.
SentfrommyiPhone
1
Zweber, Eric
From:Johnson, Dwight
Sent:Tuesday, May 26, 2015 5:41 PM
To:Lindquist, Kim; Zweber, Eric
Subject:Fwd: Proposed Evermoor Place Development
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S® 6.
-------- Original message --------
From: Jackie and Mark Laurel <mjlaurel@gmail.com>
Date: 05/26/2015 5:10 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: Comment <Comment@ci.rosemount.mn.us>
Subject: Proposed Evermoor Place Development
Dear City of Rosemount:
As homeowners along the 134th block of Coachford Avenue, we would like to offer some comments regarding
the proposed "Evermoor Place" housing development planned for the area between current Dodd Road and
Highway 3, south of 132nd St. West.
1. Superficially, calling the proposed development "Evermoor Place" may erroneously confer the idea that the
neighborhood is associated with and/or shares facilities with the large Evermoor development. There are
features and facilities available to Evermoor that (I assume) will not be available to residents of "Evermoor
Place" such as community pools and private parks. This may be a source of confusion for prospective
homeowners in "Evermoor Place".
2. On a related note, the lack of city-maintained park facilities within the development will cause families in
"Evermoor Place" to seek park facilities nearby- likely the private parks in Glendalough. While we don't object
in principle to broader use of these private parks, their use by 90 or so additional families will likely increase
wear and tear for which Glendalough homeowners will be financially responsible via HOA fees. "Evermoor
Place" homeowners will share no financial responsibility for park upkeep as they are not city-owned
properties. Additionally, as these parks are intended as localized "neighborhood" parks, there are no parking
facilities provided; it is likely that "Evermoor Place" residents will drive to these parks and increase non-local
traffic and vehicle parking for which the parks and neighborhoods of Glendalough were not designed.
3. Most importantly- as homeowners along Coachford Avenue, we already experience substantial "through
traffic" as homeowners off Dodd Blvd use Coachford as a shortcut from Connemara to Dodd and streets north
of 132nd Street West. Many of these "through" vehicles travel along Coachford and right onto 134th at a
higher-than-desirable speed given the residential nature of Coachford Avenue. We are therefore very upse to
see that, from what it appears on the proposed neighborhood plat, the only access to the 90 homes of "Evermoor
Place" are from 132nd on the north and 134th from the west. This will greatly increase the volume of traffic
transiting the Glendalough neighborhood and (in our opinion) specifically Coachford Avenue, as it offers the
most direct route from Connemara to the "Evermoor Place" access at 134th Street. It is safe to assume that
1
speed will be an issue for these drivers, as they will view Coachford as simply a through street into their own
neighborhood. We have to ask why the 2nd access point for the neighborhood wasn't established from the short
Dodd Blvd spur directly off Connemara Trail to the south of the proposed development; this spur already exists
as an access from Connemara to Glendalough and would provide a shorter (and slower?) access point to
"Evermoor Place". In any case, we do not feel that 134th Street should be used as an access to the new
development as it will essentially turn Coachford Avenue into a feeder/through street.
Primarily due to item number 3, we do not support the proposed "Evermoor Place" development as currently
laid out. We strongly object to the use of 134th Street as an access road for the proposed development.
Sincerely,
Mark and Jackie Laurel
13406 Coachford Avenue
Rosemount, MN 55068
(651) 322-1821
2
Zweber, Eric
From:Jackie and Mark Laurel <mjlaurel@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2015 9:45 PM
To:Zweber, Eric
Subject:New Evermoor Place developement
We are very concerned about the way the new developement is planning on feeding traffic through our
neighborhood in order to get out to Connamara or hwy 3. There will 90-100 families driving through a
residential area that has many small children playing, walkers and bikers.
The way it's set up right now would be a definite traffic hazard to our neighborhood. These roads are residential
and we're never meant to be used as a through way for another neighborhood. We are convinced that Coachford
will become the primary access for anyone going to or from Apple Valley.
Wouldn't it make much more sense for the new development to have one north and one south exit onto hwy 3?
Or else feed out the south end onto Dodd.
Honestly, had we known that this development was going to be set up this way, we would never have purchased
this home. Not to mention the adverse affect this will have on our home values.
We would appreciate if you would share our concerns with the City Council.
Sincerely,
Mark and Jackie Laurel
13406 Coachford Avenue
651-322-1821
1
Zweber, Eric
From:Dodi Matti <dodi.matti@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 26, 2015 11:17 AM
To:Zweber, Eric
Cc:<lisalisa1234@gmail.com>
Copper Creek Development
Subject:
Good morning Eric. My name is Dodi Matti. My husband, Chris and our 2 young boys are residents of the
Glendalough neighborhood. My address is 13254 Carlingford Lane, Rosemount. I'm writing in regard to the
development that is being considered off of Dodd Road. While my property itself does not appear to be directly
impacted (albeit I understand why those that will be are concerned) by this, I do have some concerns relating to
the fallout I would like to express.
1) There needs to be a stop sign at the corner of 134th Street and Carlingford Lane. This has been a major
concern since we moved there in 2013. I am told this concern has been raised before and the powers that be see
no reason to have one there. This is a very busy intersection in a community with so many children I cannot
even count. Their safety should be first and foremost. Most (if not all) other intersections in the community
have stop signs. Why not here? I myself had a near miss two weeks ago. Someone coming from Dodd did not
yield. I slammed on my brakes (child in the back). The person went through and realized what they had done
as they stopped after the fact. This being said,I do think if there were a stop sign, everyone will be much more
aware. In addition, adding another 90-100 families and not having this is not logical and more importantly
irresponsible.
2) In that same realm. Has anyone considered making Dodd road the main point of entrance into the
neighborhood? In other words, extend and pave. It makes no sense to increase the traffic from this
development through a neighborhood. (134th and Carlingford Lane)
3) Also, I am concerned over the use of the Evermoor name. We pay specific dues to have the parks and pools
and look to our neighborhood. Is there nothing the planning commission can do to ensure another name is
used? As I'm sure you are well aware, there are certain standards that the association expects from its
residents. We pay the association to ensure those are met across everyone. Calling this neighborhood
Evermoor, while not being able to reinforce the standards would not be equitable. Also, while I was not at the
last meeting, the expression by the City of Rosemount was such that we should all be 'thankful' there aren't
townhouses going in there. If this is truly what the knee jerk expression was, I find this reaction very
disappointing.
I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Dodi Matti
1
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:Constantin Moisei <constantin.moisei@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 28, 2015 1:03 PM
To:Zweber, Eric
Subject:Lots of concerns as a result of May 26th Planning Commission Meeting
Dear Mr. Zweber,
That was quite some meeting we had on the 5/26! Finally I got a chance to write my thoughts.
While I think that a park and better home facades would be really good additions for the look and the value of
the new development I strongly feel that reconnecting Dodd and killing so many old oak trees is a very bad
idea.
Here why
1. lots of big trees being cut down to accommodate the grading for a steep 2-lane street, side walks and homes
on the South side of the new development
2. Loosing a really heavy wooded and quiet area that's prime real-estate (cul de sac) for a street
3. Ruining the privacy and value of directly bordering lots on the South and West side of the new development.
4. drawing extra traffic from outside of the neighborhood, traffic that would cut thru the new development
creating noise, reducing new development values
Anyhow, going back to how the meeting unfolded, the original motion to reconnect Dodd seemed
orchestrated/prepared. Both Mrs. Freeman and Mr. Miller took stubs at it, trying to convince the other planing
commissioners to jumped on board. When that didn't work and was voted down, they turned it around and
rephrased it differently and barely got a tie. I find puzzling that Mr. Wade Miller, the chairman, an expert in
Environment and a public servant, is willing to cut more thick oak trees instead of doing everything in his
power, as a planning commissioner and expert, to preserve them. And he is doing that for what ? Just to avoid
more traffic on his streets which by the way are public streets.
I think the two aforementioned clearly acted in their personal and friends/neighbors interest to make sure the
neighborhood they live in (West-side of Glendalough) does not get extra traffic. Isn't that an indirect financial
interest (they tried make sure their sure nothing impacts their property value) ? Shouldn't they recuse themselves
? It's unfortunate that the committee required speakers to tell where they live yet they don't disclose their
addresses, wanting to have their bias undisclosed. If any planning commissioner lives in the Evermoor they
should recuse themselves as they would have bias into the matter. From my perspective, they, as public
servants, acted against other neighbors interest for their own interest and that's is a conflict of interests.
Also, I really don't think Mr Schweich, the builder, got a good hearing - it looked like the planning
commissioners didn't seem to want to let him speak as the wanted to proceed to a vote.
All properties bordering the South and West sides of the new development will be impacted to some degree by
loss of privacy
* homes will be built behind our properties
* tree lines will be slimmed down significantly
* more traffic will happen on our streets and adjacent streets (Dodd)
1
The goal of the City, when dealing with a new development should to preserve the privacy, the look and the
value of the neighborhoods and why not, to even increase it. The concern that kids are playing in the street and
they will not be able to do that anymore as more cars will be passing by is not and should never an argument in
this case. Kids should stay off the streets and parents should enforce that as a rule for their own children - it a
very serious safety matter.
I live at 13424 Carlingford Ln, in front of Dan McDonald property(the blue house), and If the Dodd is
reconnected to the top my lot's privacy will considerably drop in value from a nice quiet, open view lot, lots of
green grass, big trees and lots of wild life to a lot of homes and noisy/busy street. - we'd get a lot more traffic
and noise both in front and in our backyard. The quietness of the planned cul de sac will be replaced with traffic
on Dodd our property value would drop even more.
So, it I didn't manage to convince you to do not proceed with reconnecting Dodd I think it would only be fair
that the following things to happen
1. Fill all the gaps between the old lots(Glendalough) and new lots(new development) with medium size trees
and hedge lines to bring back up the privacy and cut down the Dodd Blv traffic noise
2. Reduce the property tax as we take a direct hit
3. Add traffic slowdown measures on Dodd and on Dodd intersecting with 134th
Bullet #3 might be a thing to consider even if the Dodd is not opened up.
I really hope the feasibility study to connect Dodd would fail due to the steep slop, loss of tree and unreasonable
grading costs and all of the above will be gone.
Feel free to let me know what you thing. If you need anything I'd be more than happy to do all in my power to
help you.
My very best,
Constantin Moisei
13424 Carlingford Ln
Rosemount, MN 55068
2
Zweber, Eric
From:Shannon Murphy <pezito@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 06, 2015 10:36 AM
To:Zweber, Eric
Subject:New Evermoor Place Development - Traffic Concerns
Hello Eric,
My wife and I are residents of Glendalough of Evermoor who currently reside on Coachford Avenue.
We are very concerned about the potential increase in traffic on Coachford Avenue as a result of the
proposed street layout in the new Evermoor Place development. We already deal with more traffic
than we expected when we moved here due to the existing 134th street connection to Dodd
Boulevard and are certain that the new development as proposed would greatly increase this
problem.
In my mind the most logical thing to do is connect the old Dodd Boulevard to the new Dodd Boulevard
near the town home developments. Reasons I have heard for not doing this including saving trees
and slope issues do not come across as strong reasons and if anything there is a perception by
residents on my street that the current road design favors the developer and property values within
the new development at the expense of current city residents.
Another alternative we would consider would be to close off the existing connection between 134th
Street and Dodd Boulevard to prevent this flow of traffic into our neighborhood.
My wife and I sincerely believe this is a safety issue for children on our street. We already witness
cars every day that use our street as a through street with increased speed and little apparent
concern for children who can be visibly seen at play out in their front yards. Our street was not
designed for through traffic and cannot sustain the increase in such traffic that I believe will result
from this new development.
Please explore the proposed options or look at other alternatives to address this.
Sincerely,
Brendan & Shannon Murphy
13413 Coachford Avenue
651-600-8203
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)Lƒassuming
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
Zweber, Eric
From:Todd Rosauer <todd.rosauer@charter.net>
Sent:Thursday, June 04, 2015 8:28 AM
To:Zweber, Eric
Subject:"Evermoor Place" and Dodd Road
Eric,
Ijustreadaboutthenewlyapprovedͻ9ǝĻƩƒƚƚƩtƌğĭĻͼdevelopment.
PLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASE findawaytoextendDoddroadouttoConnemara.Orfindsomeotherwaytoavoid
intentionallyfunnelingthetrafficof100newhomesthroughtheGlendaloughneighborhood.Perhapsyoucoulddecide
th
tocloseoff134streetbetweenthetwoneighborhoods.
Itiseasytoseethatthecurrentplanwillcauseahugeincreaseintraffic,muchofitdrivingunsafely,intheGlendalough
neighborhood.Thisisirresponsible.Thisislikelytodrivedownpropertyvalues,butiscertaintoposearealdangerto
thescoresofchildrenlivingintheneighborhood.
YouareprobablyalreadywellawarethattrafficthatͻĭǒƷƭƷŷƩƚǒŭŷͼneighborhoodscancauseallsortsofproblems.You
canfindallsortsofexamplesaroundthecitieswhereneighborhoodsaredealingwiththeseproblemscausedbypoor
foresight.\[ĻƷƭnotmakethesamemistake.
ToddRosauer
13304CoachfordAvenue
1
Zweber, Eric
From:Roger <roger@e-schlegel.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 27, 2015 9:33 AM
To:Zweber, Eric; gschweich@coppercreekmn.com
Subject:Evermoor Place
Eric,
IjustwantedtocommentthatIthoughtyoudidanoutstandingjoblastnightmanagingtheconversation...andRobert's
Rules...attheplanningcommissionmeeting.
ItwascleartomewhatactuallygotaddedasconditionsontheapprovaltomovetheplanstotheCityCouncil...but
whatIthoughtIheardwasrather"toothless"asitsoundedlikeitwastoreviewthefeasibilityofaparkandthe
feasibilityofconnectingDoddBlvd...buttofollowrecommendationsfromLawEnforcement,CityMaintenance,Parks&
Rec,etc.Ofcourse,weknowthoserecommendationshavealreadybeenmade.
IhopeIheardthatcorrectly.
Iwantedtosharewiththetwoofyouathoughtorideathatoccurredtomethismorningandmaybeasuitable
alternativetokeeptheplanratherintact.IdonotbelieveanyonewillagreetoconnectDoddBlvd...pipeline,grade,
vegetation,landuse/density(roadusinguprealestatewherehousesarepreferable),Doddrunningthrough
Glendaloughbackyards,etc.etc.justmakeitundesirableallaroundinmyopinion.Also,a"pocket"parkdoesn'tappear
tobeidealinthecurrentplanwiththedepression.
Ontheflipside,theDoddBlvd"stub"atthetopofthehillisaneyesoreandIsuspectthatLawEnforcementandCity
Maintenancewouldconsidersuchenvironmentsasundesirable.Iknowthisprobablyisn'taseasyasitsounds...but
couldthat"wasted"spaceatthetopofthehillbeconvertedtoaparkandatrailsomehowleadtoitfromtheEvermoor
Placeneighborhood?Theparkcouldservethreeneighborhoodsinthatlocation.Justathoughtforyouasyouwork
throughalltherhetoricandcomplaining.
Kindregards,
Roger
(612)9649788
R
1
Zweber, Eric
From:Greg Schweich <gschweich@coppercreekmn.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 26, 2015 3:07 PM
To:Zweber, Eric
Cc:Lindquist, Kim
FW: Evermoor Place
Subject:
EricandKim,
PleasefindbelowanemailIreceivedthismorning.Isthisanemailweshouldsharewiththeplanningmembers?
Seeyoutonight.
Thanks,Greg
OriginalMessage
From:RogerSchlegel\[mailto: ]
Sent:Tuesday,May26,201511:12AM
To:gschweich@coppercreekmn.com
Subject:EvermoorPlace
Greg,
IjustwantedtodropyoualineandletyouknowIliketheplanyouhaveforEvermoorPlace.Severalneighborshave
sentoutemailsaskingforustocommentonyourplanandmoreimportantlytothem,thenameofyourdevelopment.I
wouldlikeyoutoknowthatthename"EvermoorPlace"isjustfinebymeandtheHOAs(GlendaloughandtheEvermoor
Master)havenothingtosayaboutit...thereisnorestrictionsontheword"Evermoor"andtheyhavenoclaimtoit.Iam
hopingyouwillkeepthenameasproposed.
IamhearingnothingbutnegativityfrommyneighborsandtheHOAandIjustwanttoletyouknowthatnoteveryone
looksatyourplanswitha"cuphalfempty"perspective.
Iamappreciativethattheplancallsforsinglefamilyhomesvsseniorhousing,townhomes,orworse.Iappreciatethat
weneedtomakebetteruseofthelandfootprintavailabletousanddenserhousingisamust.
IalsoappreciatethattherereallyisnowaytokeepthecourseofthecurrentDoddRdanditmustbemovedtothe
"front"ofthelotsinEvermoorPlace.Idonotseethepossibilityofasignificantamountoftrafficcomingthrough
GlendaloughfromEvermoorPlace;ratherIseeincreasedtrafficgoingthroughEvermoorPlacefromGlendaloughnow
thatitwillbepaved.ThequickestwayoutofEvermoorPlacewouldbeoutDoddorHwy3.
Ionlyhopethattherewill:
1)beasmuchofthetreespreservedaspossible
2)trafficlightsplacedattheintersectionofHwy3
3)useofasqualityaproductaspossibleonthehomestokeeptheareaabitmoreupscale(butalsorealizethe
economicrealities)
Goodluckwiththemeetingtonight.ItisnotlikelyIwillbeabletoattend.
Thanks,
1
Roger
(612)9649788
2
Zweber, Eric
From:Wolf, Steven (MKT) <
Sent:Wednesday, May 27, 2015 4:12 PM
To:citycouncil
Cc:Zweber, Eric; Rosemount Mayor
Evermoor Place Concerns
Subject:
Importance:High
HelloCityofRosemountLeadershipΑ
MynameisSteveWolfandIliveat13264CarlingfordLaneintheGlendaloughneighborhood.Thisemailisinregardto
theproposedͻ9ǝĻƩƒƚƚƩtƌğĭĻͼdevelopmentdirectlyeastoftheGlendaloughneighborhoodbetweenDoddRoadand
nd
CR3,southof132andnorthofConnemaraTrail.WhileIsupportcontinueddevelopmentofRosemountandeventhis
specificproperty,Ihave3MAJORconcernswiththecurrentplansfortheͻ9ǝĻƩƒƚƚƩtƌğĭĻͼdevelopmentastheyexist
today.TheseconcernsareechoedbyalargenumberofRosemountresidents,specificallythoselivinginthe
GlendaloughandEvermoorcommunities.
1.)SAFETY ΑThenumber1priorityofourcitycouncilistoensurethesafetyofRosemountresidents.Thecurrentplan
fortheͻ9ǝĻƩƒƚƚƩtƌğĭĻͼdevelopmentignoresthisbyroutingtrafficintothisneighborhoodviaCarlingfordLaneand
th
134St.throughtheGlendaloughneighborhood.Theoriginalcityplandidcallforanentranceintothisproposed
th
developmentviaanextensionofDoddRoadoffofConnemara(inadditiontooff134st).However,thecurrent
planbypassesaDoddpassthroughandflowsallthetrafficthroughtheGlendaloughneighborhoodinordertoget
th
toͻ9ǝĻƩƒƚƚƩtƌğĭĻͼ(via134).WhiletheRosemountPlanningCommissiondidrequestthedevelopertoreview
extendingDoddintothenewdevelopment,itwasextremelyclearthatthedeveloperdidnotwanttoconsiderthis
optioninordertopreserveaculdesacinhisnewdevelopment.Hesaid,ͻLwantaneighborhoodthatallowsfor
families/kidstohaveasafeenvironment,playinthestreets,andofferhigherpricehomesviaaculdeƭğĭͼ͵The
majorproblemhereΑthiscomesattheexpenseofthecurrentSAFETYoftheGlendaloughneighborhood,
th
specificallythosethatliveon134andCarlingfordLn.WespecificallydecidedtomovetoRosemountfromSt.Louis
Parkinsearchofasafe,trueneighborhoodenvironmentwherethekidscanrunfromhometohomewithno
concern.TheproposalofroutingtraffictothisnewdevelopmentthroughGlendaloughiscompletelycounterto
whatthecityanddevelopmenthadinmindwhencreatingafamilyfriendlyneighborhoodlikeGlendalough.The
removalofafew(orevenseveral)treesinordertomakeaDoddRoadentranceiscompletelyworthitforthesafety
ofourchildren.BecausethedeveloperisextremelyopposedtoaDoddRoadentrance,Iamconcernedtheviability
ofsuchasolutionwillnotbepresentedappropriately.AthirdpartyshouldbereviewingtheDoddRoadentrancein
additiontothedevelopertoensureanonbiasedproposalisconsidered.Irecognizeasecondentrancetothe
nd
communitywouldexistvia132St,butanytimeresidentswantedtoheadSouthorWest(whichiswherethegreat
majorityofthetrafficwouldheadtogettoshopping,groceries,restaurantsandschools),theywouldbegoingright
throughGlendalough.
2.)PARKSΑ Therearecurrentlynoproposedparksinthenewdevelopment.Theclosestparktogettowouldbethe
privateparkspecifictoGlendaloughresidentswhoinvestinasignificantHOAtomaintain.Therearesignsthatsayit
isprivate,butcommonsenseclearlytellsusthatnonGlendaloughresidentswillcertainlyusethisparkandthereis
nomeanstoenforcetheprivacyofthepark.Theotherparkoptionforͻ9ǝĻƩƒƚƚƩtƌğĭĻͼresidentswouldbeonthe
othersideofCRЌͶƚƓĭĻagain,notasafeorviableoptionforfamiliestobecrossingCR3togotothepark.Finally,
thecurrentprivateparkinGlendaloughislocatedontheverystreetthatalltheͻ9ǝĻƩƒƚƚƩtƌğĭĻͼtrafficwouldbe
drivingontoentertheirdevelopment.Increasedtraffic+hundredsofchildren=disasterwaitingtohappen.The
planningcommissiondidrequestthedeveloperreviewplanstoincludeaparkinthefutureƦƌğƓƭͶLaskthatthecity
councilholdshimtothis.
1
3.)ͻ99wahhwt\[!/9ͼNAMEΑ Clearlytheuseofͻ9ǝĻƩƒƚƚƩtƌğĭĻͼisawayforthedevelopertotryandgeta
premiumforhishomeseventhoughthisdevelopmentisnottothesamestandardorbuildqualityastherestofthe
officialEvermoorHOAhomes.WhileIķƚƓƷhaveaproblemwiththehomedesignsbeingproposed(Ithinkthey
looknice),Idothinktheuseofͻ9ǝĻƩƒƚƚƩͼinthenameismisleadingtohomebuyerswhowouldbeunclearthat
theprivateparksandpoolsoftheEvermoorHOAareseparatefromwhattheyarebuyinginto.Thedeveloperhas
saidhewouldconsideralternatenames,butthisclearlyisnotapriorityforhimashestartedhisstatementatthe
planningcommissionmeetinglastnightboastingabouthislegalauthoritytonameitͻ9ǝĻƩƒƚƚƩtƌğĭĻ͵ͼ
Iapologizeforthelengthyemail,butyoucanseethatmyselfandseveralhundredotherresidentsoftheareaare
extremelyconcernedaboutthesafetyofourfamilies.Theintentofthisisnottostagnatethegrowthofthecityorthe
development.Theintentistoensurethatanydevelopmentthatgoesinisdonesoinaresponsiblewaythatprotects
thelocalresidents.Pleaseensuresafetyisapriorityoverdevelopmentυƭ͵Ithinkthereisawaytogetboth.
Iwouldbehappytodiscussmoreorclarifyanyofmycommentsiftherearequestions.
Thanks!
SteveWolf
13264CarlingfordLane
2