HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.f. Discussion of Multi Family Housing at Rosewood Commons
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council Work Session Meeting: November 9, 2015
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of Multi Family Housing at
Rosewood Commons
AGENDA SECTION:
Discussion
PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development
Director AGENDA NO. 2.f.
ATTACHMENTS: Concept Narrative, Proposed Site Plan,
Rosewood Commons Flyer, Brochure, Excerpt Minutes from
Planning Commission Feb 27, 2007, Planning Commission
Staff Report Feb 27, 2007, Excerpt Minutes from City Council
Meeting March 20, 2007, City Council Staff Report March 20,
2007, City Council Work Session Staff Report May 1, 2007
APPROVED BY: ddj
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide Staff Direction
SUMMARY
In 2006, the City approved an administrative subdivision that split the Greif property into two lots; the one
containing the building and the other a vacant lot west of the building. The intention was to create a new
buildable lot that would be combined with a residential lot to the south, within the Rosewood Addition that
could permit construction of a larger multi-family development. In 2007 the City Council reviewed a
concept plan for a mixed-use project which included primarily higher density residential located in six
separate buildings with a commercial establishment(s) along 145th Street. The council approved the concept
plan for approximately 240 units in up to six 40-unit residential buildings. It was recognized that the site
would need to be rezoned and re-guided and need further master development plan and site plan approval
to allow the project. The site is currently guided Medium Density Residential and zoned Low Density
Residential in the south and guided Business Park and zoned Business Park in the north.
The property owner had come to the City after 2007 with a more dense residential development pattern for
the site which is illustrated on their marketing brochure. Staff cannot find any formal approval of that
design.
However, the current proposal is more akin to the 2007 proposal. The site plan includes 180 units within 8
buildings on the approximate 17 acre site. The apartment buildings are all 3-stories and with 7 holding 24
units and 1 building of 12 units. The clubhouse would include a business center, community room, and
fitness room. The project would be targeted for families and includes 2 and 3-bedroom units. The project is
affordable and will serve families with household earning within 60% of the area median income, which is
stated at $53,960 for a family of four.
At this time, staff is asking the Council to take a look at the project concept and see if there is interest in this
type of project. The property location is difficult and there has been quite a bit of discussion about what
would be the best use for that property. The developer initially wanted to develop single family lots in a
manner consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The Council at that time did not want to add more
2
single family development into the area, given the proximity to the active railroad, the rail spur, and Greif
Brothers. The thought was maybe adding a different type of housing mix could allow for more separation
from the rail than individual lots and that building materials could aid in addressing sound issues.
The reason for this item on the Council work session is to see if the Council would continue to entertain a
higher density development on the parcel. The density would be approximately 14.7 units per acre. The
concept of the parking around the outside of the housing pushes the buildings more interior to the site,
which is desirable. Staff would anticipate landscaping to assist in addressing the rail and rail spurs which
surround the site. Further, discussion about sound mitigation, including specific building techniques might
be warranted, if the Council would like to explore this use on the site. It should be noted that other
developments have been constructed adjacent to active rail lines within the community, prior to installation
of Quiet Zones, and have not required any sound mitigation as part of the approval.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff is bringing this item forward for Council information and discussion. There are a lot of details that
need to be worked out with the property owner and applicant if the item would go forward through the
formal planning review process. At this juncture staff is trying to gauge the temperature of the Council about
a multi-family project on the site and what issues the developer should address should they move forward.
Concept
Narrative
Rosemount
Village,
Rosemount,
MN
Located
along
145th
Street
West,
LDG
proposes
an
apartment
development
that
will
offer
a
distinctive
and
unmistakable
sense
of
place
and
character.
Rosemount
Village
will
consist
of
(180)
newly
constructed
affordable
apartment
homes.
The
residents
of
Rosemount
Village
will
benefit
from
proximity
to
schools,
public
transportation,
grocery
stores,
health
clinics
and
other
commerce.
Residents
can
live,
work
and
shop
without
having
to
travel
to
far
from
the
neighborhood.
Development
and
Unit
Description
Rosemount
Village
is
proposed
to
be
located
on
145th
Street
West,
Rosemount,
MN,
on
12.25
+/-‐
acres.
Surrounded
by
a
wide
variety
of
public
and
private
services,
the
proposed
development
will
include
(8)
three-‐
story
energy
efficient
residential
buildings
and
one
clubhouse/community
building
with
community
room,
business
center
and
fitness
room.
Reserved
for
families
with
household
earnings
within
60%
of
the
area
median
income
($51,960.00
for
family
of
4),
the
proposed
project
will
be
built
using
4%
Tax
Credit
financing.
Rosemount
Village
will
be
an
ideal
choice
for
families,
young
professionals
and
seniors
who
desire
quality,
safe
and
sanitary
apartment
home
living
at
an
affordable
price.
The
unit
mix
will
include
(90)-‐1,072
sf
2-‐bedroom
and
(90)-‐1,185
sf
3-‐bedroom,
garden
style
units
with
very
affordable
rents
ranging
from
$1050.00-‐$1150.00
per
month.
The
development
team
has
envisioned
Rosemount
Village
with
the
overall
well
being
of
its
residents,
the
community
at
large
and
the
natural
environment
in
mind.
Some
Amenities
In
and
Around
the
Development
UNIT
AMENITIES:
•
ELECTRIC
RANGE
•
CARPET
•
REFRIGERATOR
•
CENTRAL
AIR
CONDITIONING
•
DISHWASHER
•
MICROWAVE
OVEN
•
WINDOW
BLINDS
•
WASHER/DRYER
HOOKUPS
•
CEILING
FAN
COMMUNITY
AMENITIES:
•
ON-‐SITE
MANAGEMENT
•
BUSINESS/COMPUTER
CENTER
•
CLUBHOUSE
•
COMMUNITY
ROOM
•
FITNESS
CENTER
Development
Team
LDG
Multifamily,
LLC
is
a
multifamily
affordable
home
developer
with
experience
developing
over
5000
multifamily
units
in
the
last
15
years.
Affordable
Housing
Finance
Magazine
listed
LDG
Development
as
the
6th
largest
affordable
housing
developer
in
the
country
in
the
April/May
2012
issue.
The
General
Contractor
is
Xpert
Design
and
Construction,
which
has
been
the
general
contractor
for
all
LDG
developments.
Development
Quality
The
proposed
development
involves
the
new
construction
of
three-‐story,
walk-‐up
apartment
buildings
containing
two
and
three
bedroom
garden-‐style
affordable
rental
units.
The
floor
plans
and
unit
sizes
are
large,
appropriate
and
appealing.
These
unit
sizes
will
be
very
marketable
and
will
be
comparable
to
the
unit
sizes
at
other
affordable
and
market
rate
rental
communities
in
the
Rosemount
area.
The
accompanying
site
plan
shows
(8)
three-‐story
energy
efficient
buildings.
90%
brick
exterior
combined
with
Hardi-‐Plank
siding
will
give
Rosemont
Village
a
sleek
and
modern
aesthetic.
The
buildings
will
be
serviced
by
a
single-‐story
clubhouse
and
with
on-‐site
management,
computer
center,
community
room
and
gym.
Creating Property Solutions For You… With You
For more information, contact:
Bruce Rydeen
952.469.9444
brucer@cerron.com
Land For Sale
The information contained herein is deemed reliable but is not guaranteed. We have not verified its accuracy nor do we make any warranty or representation about it.
You and your tax and legal advisors should conduct your own investigation of the property and transaction.
Rosewood Commons, NEC Hwy 3 & CR-42, Rosemount, MN
Multi-Family Residential
Rosewood Commons
14.4 Acres
Guided / Zoned Multi-
Family Residential
Total of 14.4 Acres (625,521 SF)
Status: Raw Land
Guided/Zoned Multi-Family
Residential
(4) Four—60 unit apartment
complexes approved
Near restaurants, grocery,
pharmacy, c-stores, banks
Vermillion State
Bank
C
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
F
o
r
Y
o
u
…
W
i
t
h
Y
o
u
Th
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
h
e
r
e
i
n
i
s
d
e
e
m
e
d
r
e
l
i
a
b
l
e
b
u
t
i
s
n
o
t
g
u
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
d
.
W
e
h
a
v
e
n
o
t
v
e
r
i
f
i
e
d
i
t
s
a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
n
o
r
d
o
w
e
m
a
k
e
a
ny
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
y
o
r
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
b
o
u
t
i
t
.
Yo
u
a
n
d
y
o
u
r
t
a
x
a
n
d
l
e
g
a
l
a
d
v
i
s
o
r
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
y
o
u
r
o
w
n
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
.
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
Ro
s
e
w
o
o
d
C
o
m
m
o
n
s
,
N
E
C
H
w
y
3
&
C
R
-42
,
R
o
s
e
m
o
u
n
t
,
M
N
Pa
r
c
e
l
S
i
z
e
:
14
.
4
a
c
r
e
s
(6
2
5
,
5
2
1
S
F
)
Pr
i
c
i
n
g
:
$1
,
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
($
2
.
5
6
/
S
F
)
PI
D
#
’
s
:
34
-30
9
0
0
-01
-01
0
34
-65
2
0
2
-02
-01
0
34
-65
2
0
2
-00
-02
0
LDG DEVELOPMENT
1469 S. 4th Street
Louisville, KY 40208
(502) 638-0534
www.LDGdevelopment.com
QUALITY LIVING COMES HOME
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
L
I
V
I
N
G
C
O
M
E
S
H
O
M
E
QUALITY LIVING COMES HOME
S
i
n
c
e
1
9
9
4
,
L
D
G
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
h
a
s
w
o
r
k
e
d
c
l
o
s
e
l
y
w
i
t
h
n
e
a
r
l
y
a
d
o
z
e
n
s
t
a
t
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
n
a
v
i
g
a
t
e
a
n
d
m
a
x
i
m
i
z
e
t
h
e
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
o
f
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
G
r
o
w
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
:
•
T
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
s
e
n
i
o
r
l
i
v
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
•
E
x
p
a
n
d
i
n
g
p
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
i
n
o
u
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
r
e
g
i
o
n
•
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
t
o
a
n
y
c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
t
h
a
t
m
a
y
a
r
i
s
e
w
i
t
h
s
w
i
f
t
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
•
O
n
g
o
i
n
g
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
T
h
i
s
t
e
a
m
o
f
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
s
y
n
e
r
g
y
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
T
h
e
i
r
e
x
p
e
r
t
i
s
e
r
e
m
a
i
n
s
a
s
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
m
a
t
u
r
e
s
,
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
a
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
a
n
d
p
r
o
s
p
e
r
o
u
s
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
T
h
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
i
s
p
r
o
m
i
s
i
n
g
a
s
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
’
s
n
e
e
d
f
o
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s
.
S
T
R
E
N
G
T
H
Since 1994, LDG Development has worked closely with nearly a dozen state housing
corporations to navigate and maximize the opportunities of affordable housing projects.
Growing Services Include:
• The development of independent senior living housing communities
• Expanding pipeline in our development region
• Continued attention to any challenges that may arise with swift action and positive solutions
• Ongoing sustainability and compliance with historic preservation districts
This team of professionals provides a constant synergy throughout the entire development
process. Their expertise remains as the property matures, establishing a successful and
prosperous community. The future is promising as America’s need for quality housing continues.
STRENGTH
QUALITY LIVING COMES HOME
EXCERPT FROM MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 27, 2007
5.b. Case 07-06-CON Rosewood Commons Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Progress Land Company. Planner Lindahl stated that the applicant, Progress Land
Company, requests Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval of a mixed-use
residential and commercial development consisting of up to six 40-unit residential buildings
containing approximately 240 apartment units and up to two (2) commercial buildings. The
subject property is located south of 145th Street, north of the railroad spur, east of the railroad
line and west of the Greif Brothers Packaging and the Rosewood Village neighborhood.
Mr. Lindahl reviewed the background of the property, the process of the concept plan and PUD
development plan, and specific details of the four different concept plans proposed by the
developer. Mr. Lindahl stated that staff recommends Design Four focusing on the internal
greenspace and the clusters of the buildings, the roundabouts added to the site and the
commercial uses.
Chairperson Messner asked about the absence of underground parking for Apartment 2 on
Design Four. Mr. Lindahl stated that the absence was an oversight and there will be
underground parking similar to the other apartment buildings. Commissioner Schwartz
questioned why the plan does not quite meet the ordinance requirement of two parking stalls per
unit. Mr. Lindahl responded that that item had not been addressed at the concept plan level but
that staff will need to work with the developer to meet those requirements.
The applicant, John Stainbrook, Progress Land Company was present and approached the
Commission. He gave a brief history of the property and intentions of the new development.
He stated he prefers Design 3 or 4 with the buffering around the perimeters. Progress Land
Company is hoping to meet with Greif Brothers regarding the open space next to their building
for possibly a landscaping buffer. There is a five year timeline in completing the development.
They plan on working with the City to get the park dedication fees reduced.
Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 8:34p.m.
Joseph Brady, 14710 Boysenberry Court, approached the Commission. He and his neighbors
are concerned about the access between Rosewood Village and the proposed Rosewood
Commons. He asked if there will be a barrier or fence stopping traffic down Boysenberry
Court. Mr. Lindahl responded that under the current proposal, the main access would come
from 145th. There will be one emergency access from Boxwood path with some sort of divider
that would provide access to only emergency vehicles.
Jason Devries, 14719 Boysenberry Court, stated his concerns: 1. Continuity of the surrounding
community. 2. Pending fire marshall approval of such a high density with only one main access.
3. Confusion with the buffer schematics. 4. Loud noise from the railroad for the units backed
to the railroad. 5. Whether or not there are an appropriate number of parking spaces. Mr.
Stainbrook responded to his concerns. There will be a landscaping buffer on the new side of the
tracks, similar to single family side where Mr. Devries lives; it will remain that way as part of a
public open space. The wall of pine trees will remain on the west side of the property and will
act as a buffer to the railroad tracks. Chairperson Messner asked whether or not the homes next
to the railroad will be built with thicker windows or insulation to mitigate the noise impact. Mr.
Stainbrook responded he will have the builder available to answer more specific questions at a
later meeting.
Jeff Mademann, 14722 Boysenberry Court, stated his major concern with the development is the
high density. The area is not equipped or designed to handle the extra traffic. He is concerned
that if the barrier on Boxwood Path is not approved, Rosewood Village will have a huge increase
in traffic. He mentioned that in previous meetings it was stated that the properties close to the
railroad would be more suitable for commercial than residential. He feels the developer is
looking to put as many buildings as possible on a small chunk of land to make more money than
with single family units. Mr. Stainbrook responded that Rosewood Village was platted with a
buffer for medium density housing. The land south of Outlot C is also zoned commercial so
there is a transitional buffer. There is a market for apartments for people who cannot afford a
single family home. Progress Land will work with the City on the traffic concerns.
Tom Kenninger, 2734 148th Street West, lives on the backside of the spur. He stated about a
year and half ago, Progress Land planned a townhome development on the property to the west.
The mayor at that time said the property needed to be commercial because it was too close to
the railroad tracks and no one would want to live there. The property now up for development
is closer to the railroad tracks than the past parcel. Mr. Stainbrook responded that Outlot C will
be a pond area and they do have a commercial buyer looking at the southern parcel west of
where Mr. Kenninger lives. Mr. Kenninger asked who determines the highest and best use of
the property and Mr. Stainbrook replied that Progress Land makes the determination, not an
appraiser.
Jeff Mademann, 14722 Boysenberry Court, approached the Commission again and stated it is
clear that people do not want this type of development in this area. It is not suitable to make the
area a high density area in a low density neighborhood. He is concerned this result in more
crime in the neighborhood.
There were no further public comments.
MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schwartz.
Ayes: 3. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 8:57p.m.
Chairperson Messner stated he preferred Design 3 over Design 4 because the units are not back
to back. He liked the location of Apartment Building 6 on Design 4 better than on Design 3.
He liked the commercial building on Design 3 rather than two separate buildings. He feels the
market rate apartment site is a good use but the overall number of units may be a little above
what can be accomplished. Chairperson Messner also stated that the access on 145th and the
emergency route will need to be worked out between the fire marshall and traffic engineers.
Community Development Director stated that the 145th access has been approved by the City
engineers. The City’s concern is not to block a public road and that traffic is contained within
the development.
Commissioner Schwartz stated she liked the placement of Apartment Building 6 on Design 4
but wondered if the commercial building by 145th can be revised to put the parking behind the
building as on Design 3.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz to recommend the City Council approve a
Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Rosewood Commons endorsing Design Three
(except placement of Building 6 on Design Four) containing a mixed-use residential and
commercial development consisting of up to six 40-unit residential buildings totaling
approximately 240 apartment units and one (1) commercial buildings, subject to the following
conditions:
1. In exchange for the PUD, the developer shall create a universal “Historical Railroad
Depot” architectural theme for this neighborhood. This theme shall carry over into the
buildings, amenities, lighting, pedestrian facilities and signs for the development. In
addition, the developer shall provide underground parking in each residential building,
extensive berming and landscaping, and private on-site recreational facilities.
2. The applicant shall work with Greif Brothers to eliminate glare from their existing
lighting.
3. The applicant shall work with Greif Brothers to secure a landscape easement over the
Greif Brothers land adjacent to the Rosewood Commons site to provide additional area
for landscaping and open space.
4. Conformance with all comments in the City Engineer’s memo dated February 22, 2007.
5. Conformance with all comments in the Park and Recreations Director’s memo dated
February 20, 2007.
Second by Howell.
Ayes: 3.
Nays: 0.
As follow-up, Mr. Lindahl stated this item will go to City Council on March 20, 2007.
4 ROSEIv1OLII'IT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLANNING COMMISSION
Planning Commission Meeting Date: February 27, 2007
Tentative City Council Meeting Date: March 20, 2007
AGENDA ITEM: 07 -06 -CON Rosewood Commons Concept AGENDA SECTION:Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Progress Land Company
Public Hearing
PREPARED BY: Jason Lindahl, A.I.C.P.
AGENDA NO. 5.c.Planner
ATTACHMENTS: Site Location Map, Excerpt Minutes for the
June 27, 2006 Planning Commission,
Concept Plan Designs 1-4, Commercial
Building Elevation, Residential Buildings APPROVED BY:
Elevations, Site Aerial Photo, City Engineer's
Memo Dated 2/22/07, Park and Recreation
Director's Memo Dated 2/20/06
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to recommend the City Council approve a Concept
Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Rosewood Commons endorsing Design Four
containing a mixed -use residential and commercial development consisting of up to six 40-
unit residential buildings containing approximately 240 apartment units and up to two (2)
commercial buildings, subject to the following conditions:
1. In exchange for the PUD, the developer shall create a universal "Historical Railroad
Depot" architectural theme for this neighborhood. This theme shall carry over into
the buildings, amenities, lighting, pedestrian facilities and signs for the development.
In addition, the developer shall provide underground parking in each residential
building, extensive berming and landscaping, and private on -site recreational
facilities.
2. The applicant shall work with Greif Brothers to eliminate glare from their existing
lighting.
3. The applicant shall work with Greif Brothers to secure a landscape easement over
the Greif Brothers land adjacent to the Rosewood Commons site to provide
additional area for landscaping and open space.
4. Conformance with all comments in the City Engineer's memo dated February 22,
2007.
5. Conformance with all comments in the Park and Recreations Director's memo dated
February 20, 2007.
SUMMARY
Applicant Property Owner(s):Progress Land Company
Location:South of 145 Street, north of the railroad spur, east of the railroad
line and west of Greif Brothers and the Rosewood Village
neighborhood.
Area in Acres:Approximately 14 Acres
Density:Approximately 240 Units 17 Units /Acre
Comp. Guide Plan Desig:UR Urban Residential and BP Business Park
Current Zoning:R -1, Low Density Residential and BP Business Park
The applicant, Progress Land Company, requests Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval of
a mixed -use residential and commercial development consisting of up to six 40 -unit residential buildings
containing approximately 240 apartment units and up to two (2) commercial buildings. The subject
property is located south of 145` Street, north of the railroad spur, east of the railroad line and west of the
Greif Brothers Packaging and the Rosewood Village neighborhood.
BACKGROUND
Originally, the southern portion of this site was zoned and guided for residential use as part of the
Rosewood Estates and Rosewood Village developments to the south and east. That designed called for
this property to contain residential uses similar to those in these neighboring developments with access
from two private roads that connect with Boxwood Path to the east by crossing the railroad connection to
Greif Brothers. For various reasons, not the least of which was access, both the City and the landowner
found this design problematic. As a result, the applicant negotiated the subdivision and purchase of
approximately 5 acres from Greif Brothers last year. That application was reviewed by the Planning
Commission during the June 27, 2006 meeting and approved by the City Council on July 18, 2006.
Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting are attached for your reference. The applicant purchased
the land from Greif Brothers with the intention of combining it with the existing undeveloped portion of
Rosewood Village to the south and gaining a new access point from the north via 145t Street West. The
mixed use concept PUD before you is a result of that plan.
DISCUSSION
Review of this concept plan represents the first of the City's three step planned unit development review
process. The purpose of the concept plan review is to provide the applicant with general comments from
the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the proposal. While, the applicant may use these
comments to draft their subsequent plans, it should be noted that any concept plan comments are for
guidance only and are not considered binding regarding future PUD application submittals. The
subsequent Master Development Plan and Rezoning as well as the Final Site and Building Plan will include
detailed plans that address the general comments made through the concept review process.
As you may recall, the purpose of a planned unit development is to allow flexibility from the City's
traditional development standards in return for a higher quality project. According to Section 11 -10 -6,
when considering a PUD, the City should encourage the types of development listed below.
1. Flexibility in land development and redevelopment in order to utilize new techniques of building
design, construction and land development.
2. Provision of life cycle housing to all income and age groups.
2
3. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and the
clustering of buildings and land uses.
4. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive
environmental features, including, but not limited to, steep slopes, trees and poor spoils.
5. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land
uses and assembly and development of land into larger parcels.
6. High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing
and planned.
7. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along
significant transportation or scenic corridors within the city.
S. Development that is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Land Use and Zoning The current land use and zoning classifications are inconsistent with the concept
proposal. As a result, future formal approval of this proposal would require both a comprehensive plan
amendment and rezoning. Currently, the Comprehensive Plan guides the northern portion of the site as
BP Business Park while the southern portion is guided as UR Urban Residential. Similarly, the
northern portion of the subject property is currently zoned BP Business Park while the southern portion
is zoned R -1 Low Density Residential. While the BP Business Park land use and zoning classifications
could accommodate the proposed commercial office use, the balance of the residential portion of the site
will need to be re- guided and re -zoned to accommodate the project's proposed density. As a reference,
the existing adjacent land uses are illustrated in the table below.
Adjacent Land Uses to the Propose Rosewood Commons Site
Direction Land Use
North Self Storage Facility
South Railroad Spur and Residential
East Railroad and Downtown
West Greif Brothers Package Facility and Residential
Density. The subject property is approximately 14 acres in size and the applicant's proposal calls for a
mixed -use residential and commercial development consisting of up to six 40 -unit residential buildings
containing approximately 240 apartment units and up to two (2) commercial buildings. This design
produces a residential density of approximately 17 units per acre. This density is greater than the 12 units
per acre allowed under the medium density land use and zoning classification but less than the 40 units per
acre allowed under the high density zoning. Should the Commission find the requested 17 units per acre
density appropriate for the site, staff will work with the applicant to determine the appropriate land use
and zoning classification as part of the Master Development Plan and Rezoning.
3
Potential setback standards for the apartment portion of this development are illustrated in the table below.
Setback Standards for Attached Single Family Dwelling Developments
Front, Side or Rear Lot Line Principal Structure Accessory Structure Parking
Adjacent to:Setback Setback Setback
Railroad 60 ft.60 ft.10 ft.
Collector Street 40 ft.20 ft.20 ft.
Local Street 30 ft.20 ft.20 ft.
Private Street 20 ft.*20 ft.*15 ft.*
Measuredfrom back of curb.
Site Design. The concept plan includes four different site designs. Each design contains the same
mixed -use residential and commercial development consisting of up to six 40 -unit residential buildings
containing approximately 240 apartment units and up to two (2) commercial buildings with variations in
the proposed commercial office building's footprint and the site's overall layout. Details of these
variations are illustrated in the table below.
Rosewood Commons Concept PUD Site Design Elements
No. of Configuration of
Category Commercial
Overall
Buildings, Parking, and Design
Buildings Layout Greenspace
Amenities
Design One 1 Linear Buildings Outside, Parking None
and Greenspace Inside
Design Two 2 Grouped Parking Outside, Buildings Residential Entry Feature
and Greenspace Inside
Design Three 1
Linear Parking Outside, Buildings Residential Entry Feature
Grouped and Greenspace Inside Roundabouts
Design Four 2 Grouped Parking Outside, Buildings Residential Entry Feature
and Greenspace Inside Roundabouts
Each of the four design alternatives offers both strengths and weakness. Design One includes one
commercial building with some parking behind the building. The residential buildings are positioned in a
linear fashion along the perimeter of the site. This design places all the residential buildings up against
either the railroad or Greif Brothers and offers no other site amenities. Design Two includes two
commercial buildings with some parking behind the building. The residential buildings are situated in two
3- building groups centered around common open space with parking along the perimeter. In addition,
this design places an entry feature at the access to the residential area. Design Three comprises one
commercial building with parking in front of the building. The residential layout combines both the linear
and group designs, places most of the parking around the southern and western edges of the site, and
incorporates both an entry feature and several roundabouts. Finally, Design Four contains two
commercial buildings with some parking located behind the building. Like Design Two, Design Four
places the residential buildings in two 3- building groups centered around common open space with
parking along the perimeter. The main difference is that in Design Four the parking for Building 6 is
located along the perimeter. Overall, staff believes Design Four illustrates the best combination of
elements for this site because it groups the residential buildings around common open space, creates
additional external buffer area by placing parking along the perimeter of the site, and offers the most site
amenities. Staff requests the Commission review each design and provide the applicant direction regarding
the proposed site layouts and amenities or make additional suggestions.
4
Architectural Appearance, Exterior Materials Building Massing. Given the site's proposed
density, isolated location and its close proximity to downtown and the railroad, staff recommends the
PUD require this neighborhood to have a universal architectural theme consistent with its surroundings.
Although details have yet to be established, initially staff and the developer have agreed on a "Historic
Railroad Depot" theme.
The applicant has submitted initial architectural elevations for your review. The commercial elevation
illustrates a seven bay building with a hip roof and a masonry base. The building's fac is divided by a
main entrance feature and several columns. The residential pictures are of a similar apartment project
done by the developer. These pictures show a three story building also with a hip roof and a masonry
base. The pictures also show several peaks and both shakes and lap siding on the upper floors to accent
the building's facade. In General, staff is encouraged by these initial submittals but recommends the
applicant continue to refine the elevations to more closely reflect the "Historic Railroad Depot" theme and
create a pedestrian friendly environment consistent with the adjacent downtown.
Proposed Types of Apartment Units for Rosewood Commons (Per Building)
Type of Unit Size Number Percentage of Units
1 Bedroom 452 Sq. Ft.72 30%
2 Bedroom 841 Sq. Ft.144 60%
3 Bedroom 1,000 Sq. Ft.24 10%
Parking Each of the four designs includes underground residential parking with variations in the layout
and number of surface parking stalls. Staff believes the underground residential parking has the potential
to increase overall greenspace and create a more pedestrian friendly development. By comparison, the
surface parking appears slightly short of both the commercial and residential standards. Staff will continue
to work with the applicant to provide the required number of parking stalls as the uses and size of the
buildings in this development are refined. Overall, staff thinks surface parking should be minimized and
located along the perimeter of the site to promote usable open space, reduce potential automobile and
pedestrian conflicts, and provide additional buffer area for the residential uses. However, staff
recommends the commercial parking areas be located internally (behind the buildings) to the extent
possible to continue the land use pattern established in the downtown area.
Building, Parking and Hard Surface Data for Rosewood Commons Concept PUD
Residential Commercial Parking Total
Design No. of Size
No. of Size Hard
Bldgs. Dimensions Sq. gldgs.
Dimensions Sc Residential Commercial SurfaceFt.Ft.
1 6 71' x 177' 75,227 1 90' x 130' 9,400 400 52 61.94%
2 6 71' x 177' 75,227 2 48' x 130'
10,700 461 48 59.06%48' x 100'
3 6 71' x 177' 75,227 1 90' x 130' 9,700 464 28 58.86%
4 6 71' x 177' 75,227 2
48' x 130'10,700 452 48 58.95%48' x 100'
Landscaping and Berming. Given the proposed density and the surrounding railroad and Business Park
activity, staff recommends that the PUD require extensive screening and buffering. Landscaping and
berming shall be the primary source for screening and these elements may require additional setback area.
However, should there be insufficient setback area to accommodate the necessary landscaping and
berming, screening and buffering may be accomplished through decorative fencing or masonry walls. As
5
mentioned by the City Engineer, no berming or landscaping may be located within any required drainage
and utility easements. Staff request the Commission provide additional direction as to screening and
buffering of the site.
Signage. Given the site's limited visibility and mix of use, sign design and placement will be important to
the success of both the commercial and residential uses on this site. Staff recommends the PUD require
the applicant to submit a comprehensive sign plan for the site. This plan should call for a unified sign
theme consistent with the architecture, scale and materials of the principal buildings. A detailed
comprehensive sign plan should be submitted with the Master Development Plan.
Lighting. This site is unique in that it has the potential to have both internal and external light glare
issues. Staff recommends that the applicant submit a comprehensive lighting and photometric plan to
address these issues as part of the Master Development Plan. This plan should illustrate both light design
as well as light levels and dispersion patterns. The plan should have a universal theme that includes
decorative wall and ground lighting consistent with the development's scale and architecture. When
creating this plan, the applicant should consult with Greif Brothers on methods to eliminate glare from the
existing lighting adjacent to the subject property.
Engineering. Upon review of the Progress Land Rosewood Commons Concept Plan, the Engineering
Department offers the following comments:
Street Layout and Access Comments:
1. As shown in concept, the accesses to the site appear to meet City requirements. As previously
agreed upon with Progress Land, the new northern access to 145``' Street will necessitate closure of
one of the Greif access drives to the east, thereby resulting in no net increase in access points along
145 Street.
2. It should be demonstrated that emergency vehicles can successfully navigate the proposed street
layout, and roundabouts on Site Plan Design 3, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall.
Storm Water Comments:
1. Several concept design alternates show proposed improvements such as parking lot, roadway, and
structures located within existing drainage and utility easements. The concept should be revised to
relocate these items outside the drainage and utility easements. Future easement needs may be
identified and recording of said required as conditions of approval in subsequent reviews.
2. Drainage and utility easements shown on the boundary survey do not appear to correspond to
those shown on the concept alternates.
3. Several concept alternates show landscaping within the southern Regional Pond A area, and within
drainage and utility easement. Any screening, landscaping, or berming requirements will need to
be met outside the pond areas and drainage and utility easements.
6
4. The proposed structures appear to have underground parking. The high water elevation of 956
may exceed the low floor elevation of the underground parking areas. To allow construction of
low floors below high water elevation, the applicant may submit documentation outlining
construction methods that would prevent groundwater issues and flooding. Approval of these
construction methods shall be on a case -by -case basis.
5. Any floor drains in underground parking areas should not discharge to the ponds.
6. Overflow routes from parking lot or roadway areas located at low points should not be located at
the entrances of the proposed structures.
7. The pond maintenance access routes appear to be accessible from the interior of the site in some
of the submitted concept alternates, however, future submittals should clearly include previously
approved grading contours associated with the ponds to ensure that maintenance access routes are
not obstructed by landscaping or other improvements.
8. The ultimate pond outlet location and type will require review and approval by the City Engineer.
9. The overflow routes and conveyance of storm water from the Greif Brothers site to the pond
should be included in the site design.
Parks and Open Space. After reviewing the Rosewood Commons PUD Concept Plan submittal, the
Parks and Recreation Department is recommending approval of the concept plan and would ask the
developer to consider and incorporate the following comments when submitting a preliminary plat:
1. The public parks and recreation needs for this development would be satisfied by existing nearby
parks that include Biscayne Park and Central Park.
2. Staff recommends accepting the parks dedication as cash in -lieu of land. The dedication
requirements for the residential portion of the development would be 9.6 acres (240 units x .04 per
acres of land per unit). Based on the City's 2007 Fees and Fee Policy, the cash dedication of the
residential portion of the development would be $816,000.
3. Land dedication of 10% of the total land area is required to meet the parks dedication
requirements for commercial development. Staff is also recommending cash in -lieu of land for the
parks dedication payment for the commercial area. Once the commercial area has been more
clearly identified, staff can make a more accurate recommendation on the cash dedication
requirement for this portion of the development.
4. None of the four concept proposals illustrate pedestrian circulation facilities. Given the proposed
density, mix of uses, and surrounding railroad and Business Park activity, staff recommends that
the PUD require the applicant to submit a comprehensive pedestrian circulation plan as part of the
Master Development Plan. The plan should have a universal theme that includes high quality
pedestrian circulation facilities with decorative sidewalks and bike trails consistent with the
development's scale and architecture. These facilities should extend throughout the development
and provide connections to the City wide park and trail system.
7
II II
5. Due to the high density of the proposed development, staff is recommending that the PUD
require the developer install some on -site recreational amenities.
6. The Parks and Recreation Commission will be reviewing this concept plan at their meeting on
Monday, February 26, 2007.
CONCLUSION RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests the Planning Commission and City Council provide staff direction regarding the four
Concept PUD designs alternatives for Rosewood Commons. These concepts illustrate a mixed -use
residential and commercial development consisting of up to six 40 -unit residential buildings containing
approximately 240 apartment units and up to two (2) commercial buildings. The proposal is inconsistent
with the property's current land use and zoning classification but could be permitted through a
comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, and a Planned Unit Development (PUD). In exchange for the
PUD, staff recommends the developer create a universal "Historical Railroad Depot" architectural theme
for this neighborhood. This theme should carry over into the buildings, amenities, lighting, pedestrian
facilities and signs for the development. In addition, the developer should provide partial underground
residential parking, extensive berming and landscaping, and private on -site recreational facilities. Should
the Planning Commission and City Council agree with staff's recommendation, the applicant will prepare a
Master Development Plan detailing the elements requested.
8
ORosewood Commons
MI e El El e
00 01
11111 a 1111
111111Ea.1:-31:1,,,, X s
r rein
yyam g,rm.
iI i reini
1 SITE
Alamo moo
rnookcoot4r,:cix.7i.1ci-..:swi 1
i 1111111 C .
I i n. j III
rimEN7MI/I win"'LCD "Y
1 Acipi
NI
lie Alb.
inakisinini p.i
MOOT ss 7
IM
11 I 1
EXCERPT FROM MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 27, 2006
5.b. 06 -38 -LS Greif Paper Packaging Services Administrative Plat.
Community Development Planner Lindahl reviewed the staff report. The applicant, Colliers
Turley Martin Tucker, requests Administrative Plat approval for the Greif Brothers site located
at 2750 145t Street West. Approval of this request will allow the subdivision of the existing
15.65 acres parcel into two separate parcels legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Greif Addition. As
proposed, Lot 1 would be a vacant 5.94 acre parcel for future development while Lot 2 would be
approximately 9.18 acres in size and contain the existing Greif Brother manufacturing building.
The site is currently zoned and guided BP Business Park.
Chairperson Messner asked Commissioners for any questions.
Chairperson Messner requested clarification of Page 3, business park lot and building standards
with respect to lot coverage requirement of 75% and proposed 15 Lindahl explained the
percentages and what is allowed. The green space requirement is 25% and that the current green
space the Applicant is providing under the current plan submitted is 15% so there is a 10%
adjustment that needs to be made and they are trying to accommodate that.
Chairperson Messner invited the Applicant to come forward. John Stainbrook, Progress Land
Company, 6001 Egan Drive, Suite 100, Savage, Minnesota 55378, developer of Rosemount
Estates, Rosemount Village and Rosemount Village 2', which are adjacent to the proposed lot.
They are the contract buyer for the lot and are working with Greif on the configuration to
accommodate the 30 They make a recommendation to angle lot line to eliminate the 90
degrees which allows them to accommodate a road more efficiently to access the lot and there
should be no net gain or loss on the green space.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
No public comment.
MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Second by Palda.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Chairperson Messner asked if Commissioners had any questions. There were none.
MOTION by Messner to recommend that the City Council approve an administrative
plat allowing the subdivision of the existing 15.65 acre Grief property into two separate
parcels legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Greif Addition, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Redesign of the plat to conform with the requirements for Administrative Plat approval
including, but not limited to, conformance to the parking and green space standards
prior to action on this item by the City Council.
2. Elimination of the existing western access to Lot 2 and creation of a separate access for
Lot 1 from 145 Street West. The access to Lot 1 shall be a minimum of 150 feet from
the adjacent railroad.
3. Conformance with all requirements of the City Engineer including, but not limited to,
dedication of all required right -of -way for 145 Street West and all existing drainage
easements, drainage utility easement, or other type of permanent easement across the
existing parcel shall be shown on the plat and be recorded to exist as they do today
across the two new lots.
4. No development fees will be required with the creation of the new lot, however all
appropriate fees shall be collected at the time of building permit issuance. The fee rates
shall be as set forth in the Schedule of Rates and Fees for the current year of building
permit issuance.
5. Creation of restrictive covenants over Lot 1, Block 1, Greif Brothers Addition and
Outlot B of Rosewood Estates requiring payment of all development fees for both
property if either property is developed separately.
Second by Schwartz.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Mr. Lindahl stated the item is tentatively scheduled to go before the City Council on July 18,
2006. In the interim, Staff will be working with Applicant to resolve the access and green space
issues.
0 0
I% II SP 5O
a• 4 11111%1'1 I I I I Jla .
0MMERCIAL BUILD!
i
1TIII Ri^911HJ1
I,PS
Zi
tr
Verat
o
sr et 1
0.
I o
V o o at IV
a .,i t
t /APT 1 1
A 0 I
fie t
if. iA
4
t
M 0 I
j,,
V
ff j
4
VI
ev
r
co
as
0 1 i i
r„,, 960.49
Inv. 95439 v
ev
S o 1 APT6 AITOOallC
a. P a•
1'pp b t f, mil
I
lo--
1
A 11
a
c
VA
pj r
Zit ai elftiI 9 7
sV ,V6 IPA sr
t
HWL 956.0
95
r °333315:D Inv.
955.81
11 21 T1200. SITE PLN DESIGN 1
I I
20609 cricket lane
ROSEWOOD COMMONS
gn
lenexa, ke
ROSEMONT, MN b 309.409.9258&
VP' usr. s
I l l l 1 I
COMMERCIAL BUILDING 1 v I
COMMERCIAL BUILDING 2 4."
it 14
f'y
14 1119
01 iii
A
cb 4 O cG 1
it,t t
i p.-i A 1
t
A
v
r.
NH i
a,..:#
ii. NI
pl
tit
44,10,.
t i
MH z.9 a I g..
AI wr ire T A
I 0
al
m!1111111 kf' 11111111 1 II.
VP 4 1% 0 it i
0 0 Z 0
t 1 s EAO
r p t WV
o i 0
0 O de•mac Irra, 4 s4,4 oti foi
SKIMMER 4t iG 4INV946.0
t
VI
1•\946.41
ltd St
HWL 956.0
9s.96
0
SITE PLAN DESIGN 2 24
11
23
11 22 III 21 7/ 20 SCA 5(1•0'
lane
om ROSEWOOD COMMONS
20609
ks 2ph
ROSEMONT, MN
lenexa, ks
319.409.9258fxd,;ley,,,.g 309.409.9258fx
0
I II SP 5
iOf
A z•
F
d::: 0 MERCIAL BUILD' s 4.
ytea
a00 ii
h1 h O i
1
i i
ii a'
t p
JP. li
j r
1,b41fAPT If f,c'i C, 11 o V.
0'C') i i o 'eV4 •,If r
40
4. ze i
0 d
yi e 11
3 1 PT24 4'
ti 9 In
b'°
Ig{9 -"ii a EXISTING
T 4p fit ii'Z.1 i BUILDING i
xi
T a,.. ll 41
o N&G °50' °l^I iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiriiiii
inv. 954 Is•
gr. Li
4 h,...o a 9 II IF H954.93 1:1 P•APT6 JP LJ
T A IIIII
Jr.
go al
p 1 I=
4
s...s
1 0 VII,
i
Z ly 4
c6 t
D
10 lit' ts 141: ere 4,-•' 10 0 v 1 0- 7
1 N 110
o 4i Jr. i lair 1
o
law
1 a a®eeVilikrlalls
4,-,tirt A tr:
SKIMMER 40 SPACES
RINV946.0 s
19 946.4]S/
HWL 956.0 sr
mom.
953.9D
953.61
r l-
63-15:61 24 F23 22 7I N89 °52 22 W
l 1 I I 21 12D LE 116SITEPLANDESIGN3150' -0•
OGRESS ROSEWOOD COMMONS
20609 cricket lane
lenexa, ks
NW WO COMNOWP4
t 913.422.5762 ph
ROSEMONT, MN ar hleedure d trawlers 309.409.9258 (x
40 r r s
I
P.$
COMMERCIAL BUILDING 1 41:. 411
COMMERCIAL BUILDING 2 C
r'
t
G i1'
40 i
f r
PV
RI 1. 1
zip,
i'1'i G
JP,
o
1i APT AY e 1.
ill
gigIL I
r. .
c.Is riricp° 1v
i 4 M iH
1•r r
1°P 7=gip:-t1• 1t 1 t
45..9
o A0
SS 1 s b AP
1t
LaP P I,IC
t
M 1•
a
APT 6 M 1t 1
1•; a L
C l 44 4.01•1t4111t
d b CV iPi
1t
O
tom•1•
I
aI .G Ate 1t 1•
le
l f 1t
7:4 4 70 OD Z. M 4
SKIMMER f
INV 946.0 Ii 1t s
Ir. lio
1•
9 6 Q3'.
1t
1. %t
HWL 956.0
952.98
qp Inv.
95391
20 I 22 I 21 f 2IIIIIi
1
SITE PLAN DESIGN 4 SCALE 1' 50' -0'
f)20609 cricket lane
ROSEWOOD COMMONS b lenexa, ks
ctes 319.409.92 ph
ROSEMONT, MN 58
8
fxoahllaauraainterior.
Q ZoNXiN.)X11ITICI111111E':3ili• lfl i1116Nz11111I1i,.....II i1_2141-
li I1
II1iu,:1111_Im O111III: nIUIL Mgt
I I'
o
V 111111u1:1u1n—O Q
co
s
co
I_- I
0 O li
imrnIIIII111:11nn1:lil O
0 II,a
Eiiin co
z n v..'
N1 c).11 ipi':: nin1-. ee cm_r:O11111111I::i.....O
Z K
iNisi
C_)/1E Asiorri
I11 Ili 1 O
I,ifflasasim
I ignillid
I0.--W
AI ctpnlnuI
E
111111mmili t r,®Q p
a 1 1 g're
co
0 m N I
n
e w o (p N D ng `u VIII 4 CDwrn1111L
X Q J I
O N N
O O1 n p I:
a N V
X S Q
co 0
N,,.,,,,,„:::„„.,,,:..,.,,,, z4.s.4i. 1 r,ipt.,..p, ii„
i ip)
1 T------- i
to i i,—,-,.------
t 11YR 1.1
I..ism
1
v...,t
ps
Uk 7,
Li)
v.
i
i
AMR IOW
i
i;
4
H
4t ,ki 1 1
1 4,
3pv,l'i 3..e‘
4 ...,,o:IA
1 4,2.,„Iyi.;:",!:...'
K
CD 3
i4iit.,:r.
4,,,.:T
u
2.,_.
i.,...
n
r
1 Y 33
0
1;;;P
0Lt: A
A
t-r-
0.4.1..r
CD
CD °r
i .it* i„ 1
i
sp
0 a0- KEr. E 1 0iiAt0, ,3 AV I iligE1t40106(011111110530 4-'''I itis F
li.i i
t t A 1II._ T,ite t i
4 :
it 1
t Wg nx,
1 lo t, 1 1 4 t7,, 4 1 ii.VI. II 4 i 1
A
F,tr-.•t
1
1 A
k i11, 4 r.
if 1, r
v s.,
s'i I 4
o 1
1
r
g 1.a 1 s
tts, 4„i A a
4
11 I IT
L i
E.,
ao
P t
L..,
1
4 4
S
u i 1 4 6
1Q .4;2
t
r f' 4 i'...1
1, 1.11.
0
4
v1 T-etst4z-o-
1.LA
I 1 i A i, i._ t.
0
t..t
I
soc
C
1 Aft.. i I t
ord i
t t i.-,i
r 0 t
i t1
6 ir
i
t 1lFe'
0Ili4
9ROEMOLINT
PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:February 22 2007
TO:Jason Lindahl, Assistant City Planner
CC:Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
Andrew Brotzler, City Engineer
Kathie Hanson, Planning Department Secretary
FROM:Morgan Dawley, Project Engineer
RE:Rosewood Commons (Progress Land) Concept Plan Review
The City of Rosemount received the Rosewood Commons Concept Plan and boundary survey from
Progress Land dated January 30, 2007, on January 30, 2007. Three further concept alternates were
submitted electronically February 20, 2007. As this development plan progresses through the
concept phase, reviews that are more detailed will follow.
Upon review of the Progress Land Rosewood Commons Concept Plan, the Engineering
Department offers the following comments:
Street Layout and Access Comments:
1. As shown in concept, the accesses to the site appear to meet City requirements. As
previously agreed upon with Progress Land, the new northern access to 145 Street will
necessitate closure of one of the Greif access drives to the east, thereby resulting in no net
increase in access points along 145 Street.
2. It should be demonstrated that emergency vehicles can successfully navigate the proposed
street layout, and roundabouts on Site Plan Design 3, to the satisfaction of the Fire
Marshall.
Storm Water Comments:
1. Several concept design alternates show proposed improvements such as parking lot,
roadway, and structures located within existing drainage and utility easements. The concept
should revised to relocate these items outside the drainage and utility easements. Future
easements needs may be identified and recording of said required as conditions of approval
in subsequent reviews.
2. Drainage and utility easements shown on the boundary survey do not appear to correspond
to those shown on the concept alternates.
3. Several concept alteles show landscaping within the southe•egional Pond A area, and
within drainage and utility easement. Any screening, landscaping, or berming requirements
will need to be met outside the pond areas and drainage and utility easements.
4. The proposed structures appear to have underground parking. The high water elevation of
956 may exceed the low floor elevation of the underground parking areas. To allow
construction of low floors below high water elevation, the applicant may submit
documentation outlining construction methods that would prevent groundwater issues and
flooding. Approval of these construction methods shall be on a case -by -case basis.
5. Any floor drains in underground parking areas should not discharge to the ponds.
6. Overflow routes from parking lot or roadway areas located at low points should not be
located at the entrances of the proposed structures.
7. The pond maintenance access routes appear to be accessible from the interior of the site in
some of the submitted concept alternates, however, future submittals should clearly include
previously approved grading contours associated with the ponds to ensure that maintenance
access routes are not obstructed by landscaping or other improvements.
8. The ultimate pond outlet location and type will require review and approval by the City
Engineer.
9. The overflow routes and conveyance of storm water from the Greif Brothers site to the
pond should be included in the site design.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding the item listed above, please contact me at
651- 322 -2022.
ROSEMO
PARKS AND RECREATION
M E M O R A N D U M
To:Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
Eric Zweber, Senior Planner
Jason Lindahl, Planner
Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator
Andy Brotzler, City Engineer
Morgan Dawley, Project Engineer
From:Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director
Date:February 20, 2007
Subject: Rosewood Commons PUD Concept Plan
After reviewing the Rosewood Commons PUD Concept Plan submittal, the Parks and Recreation
Department is recommending approval of the concept plan and would ask the developer to consider
and incorporate the following comments when submitting a preliminary plat:
The public parks and recreation needs for this development would be satisfied by
existing parks that include Biscayne Park and Central Park.
Staff recommends accepting the parks dedication as cash in lieu of land. The
dedication requirements for the residential portion of the development would be 9.6
acres (240 units x .04 per acres of land per unit). Based on the City's 2007 Fees and
Fee Policy, the cash dedication of the residential portion of the development would
be $816,000.
Land dedication of 10% of the total land area is required to meet the parks
dedication requirements for commercial development. Staff is also recommending
cash in -lieu of land for the parks dedication payment for the commercial area. Once
the commercial area has been more clearly identified, staff can make a more accurate
recommendation on the cash dedication requirement for this portion of the
development.
None of the four concept proposals illustrate pedestrian circulation facilities. Given
the proposed density, mix of uses, and surrounding railroad and Business Park
activity, staff recommends that the PUD require the applicant to submit a
comprehensive pedestrian circulation plan as part of the Master Development Plan.
The plan should have a universal theme that includes high quality pedestrian
circulation facilities with decorative side walks and bike trails consistent with the
development's scale and architecture. These facilities should extend throughout the
development and provide connections to the City wide park and trail system.
ROSEMOU
PARKS AND RECREATION
M E M O R A N D U M
Due to the high density of the proposed development, staff is recommending that
the developer consider installing some on site recreational amenities.
The Parks and Recreation Commission will be reviewing this concept plan at their
meeting on Monday, February 26, 2007.
Please call me at 651 322 -6012 if you have any questions about this memo.
EXCERPT OF DRAFT MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 20, 2007
9.a. Rosewood Commons Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) Progress Land Company, 07-
06-CON
Community Development Director Lindquist summarized the staff report. Progress Land Company
requested Concept Planned Unit Development approval of a mixed-use residential and commercial
development consisting of up to six 40-unit residential buildings containing approximately 240 apartment
units and up to two commercial buildings. Ms. Lindquist added that since the Planning Commission meeting,
the Fire Marshall indicated that a secondary emergency access from the east was not necessary. She spoke of
the 17 units per acre density and noted it was higher than most projects in the City. Ms. Lindquist also talked
about construction techniques to mitigate sound from the nearby railroad tracks.
Council Member DeBettignies questioned why the northern part of the development would have a
commercial component. John Stainbrook, the representative from Progress Land Company, stated the
approach was to have a mixed use. The commercial portion would be for small users such as a real estate
office, Subway restaurant or even a chiropractor’s office.
Council Member DeBettignies also questioned the circular intersections located within the proposed project.
Mr. Stainbrook stated the circular areas were for landscape additions. He added a depot theme would be
expressed in the commercial building.
Council Member Baxter stated he was not interested in being flexible on the parking per the zoning
ordinance. He stated the project is a good use but that the project was too dense. He suggested that one of
the apartment buildings be removed to decrease the density. Mr. Stainbrook stated if a building is removed
the project would not work from an economic perspective. He added that with smaller buildings they were
able to accumulate more open space. Mr. Stainbrook stated at this point the project included 60% open
space which is double the zoning requirement. He added the project has less impervious surface since
underground parking is included. Each unit would have one stall of underground parking.
Mayor Droste noted the land use in the comp plan has the front area of the project as Business Park and the
back part as Urban Residential. Ms. Lindquist replied that medium density was incorporated a couple of
years ago in the comprehensive plan amendment. She noted that prior to that the City had been using Urban
Residential for the low and medium density. Mayor Droste stated his concerns with having 17 units per acre
on the constricted piece of property. He was also concerned that no park facility was included in the plan.
However, Mayor Droste supported the commercial building to the front.
Mr. Stainbrook stated since it was a difficult piece to work with Progress was trying to find the highest and
best use. He stated that they were offering transitional zoning from the railroad as well as creating a buffer
from it. He added that Progress was trying to maximize the use of the property and feels that quality rental
housing will fill a market niche in Rosemount.
Council Member DeBettignies stated that with 60% of green space a private park could be built in the central
area. Mr. Stainbrook responded that it would be easy to locate a tot lot within the project. Ms. Lindquist
stated that both Central Park and Biscayne Park are located within walking distance.
Council Member Shoe-Corrigan struggled with development of the property because it is difficult. She
discussed the different scenarios, landscaping and buffer ideas. Her ultimate concern was what would be the
best use for the surrounding residents. She felt apartments could work if the proper buffering was put in
place and if amenities were included to make it a high quality project. Council Member Shoe-Corrigan
suggesting moving the commercial building closer to the street and to have the parking located behind it. She
was fine with the density and the underground parking. She stated that adequate buffering should also be in
place for those neighbors to the east and south.
Mayor Droste stated the historical depot architecture was a good idea but he didn’t like that there was only
one entrance to the project. Ms. Lindquist stated the east entrance would eliminate users on the private road
and through the existing residential neighborhood.
Council Member Sterner questioned what density the Council would be most comfortable allowing. Mayor
Droste stated that six to nine units would be high density for this project. Mr. Stainbrook explained the
layout and the market for apartments. Council Member Baxter stated he would favor five buildings instead
of six. He would support the project with approximately 14 units per acre. Council Member DeBettignies
was fine with the density of the proposed project. Council Member DeBettignies stated he understood the
economics of the project and commended Progress Land on the proposed plan given the site implications.
He stated his support of the recommended action as proposed by the Planning Commission. Council
Member Shoe-Corrigan supported the proposed density as long as the developer would be sensitive to
neighbors, have adequate landscaping, mitigate sound, include amenities and have good architecture.
Mayor Droste suggested requiring a park facility. Council Member DeBettignies stated that it was covered in
Condition 1 of the resolution. Director of Parks and Recreation Schultz stated that based upon the number
of units the cash dedication fee would be $800,000. He added he spoke with the developer and once the plan
is approved they will move forward based upon the number of units built. Mr. Schultz stated there was
excellent access to Biscayne Park from the project.
Motion by DeBettignies. Second by Shoe-Corrigan.
Motion to approve a Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Rosewood Commons
endorsing Design Four containing a mixed-use residential and commercial development consisting of
up to six 40-unit residential buildings totaling approximately 240 apartment units and up to two (2)
commercial buildings, subject to conditions.
Ayes: Sterner, DeBettignies, Shoe-Corrigan
Nays: Baxter, Droste. Motion carried. (Resolution 2007-29)
rt
ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Meeting Date: March 20, 2007
AGENDA ITEM: 07 -06 -CON Rosewood Commons Concept AGENDA SECTION:
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Progress Land Company
New Business
PREPARED BY: Jason Lindahl, A.I.C.P.AGENDA NO. 61•QPlanner
ATTACHMENTS: Site Location Map, Planning Commission
Recommended Site Plan, Concept Plan
Designs 1 -4, Draft Resolution, Excerpt
Minutes from the December 07 and 21, 2004
City Council Meetings and the February 27,
2007 and June 27, 2006 Planning
Commission Meetings, Resolution Approving APPROVED BY:the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment
to Reguide Rosewood Estates from UR-
Urban Residential to C Commercial,
Commercial Building Elevation, Residential
Buildings Elevations, Site Aerial Photo, City
Engineer's Memo Dated 2/22/07, Park and
Recreation Director's Memo Dated 2/20/07
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve a Concept Planned Unit Development
PUD) for Rosewood Commons endorsing Design Four containing a mixed -use residential
and commercial development consisting of up to six 40 -unit residential buildings totaling
approximately 240 apartment units and up to two (2) commercial buildings, subject to
conditions.
SUMMARY
Applicant Property Owner(s):Progress Land Company
Location:South of 145 Street, north of the railroad spur, east of the railroad
line and west of Greif Brothers and the Rosewood Village
neighborhood.
Area in Acres:Approximately 14 Acres
Density:Approximately 240 Units 17 Units /Acre
Comp. Guide Plan Desig:UR Urban Residential and BP Business Park
Current Zoning:R -1, Low Density Residential and BP Business Park
The applicant, Progress Land Company, requests Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval of
a mixed -use residential and commercial development consisting of up to six 40 -unit residential buildings
containing approximately 240 apartment units and up to two (2) commercial buildings. The subject
property is located south of 145` Street, north of the railroad spur, east of the railroad line and west of the
Greif Brothers Packaging and the Rosewood Village neighborhood.
BACKGROUND
Originally, the southern portion of this site was zoned and guided for residential use as part of the
Rosewood Estates and Rosewood Village developments to the south and east. That designed called for
this property to contain residential uses similar to those in these neighboring developments with access
from two private roads that connect with Boxwood Path to the east by crossing the railroad connection to
Greif Brothers. For various reasons, not the least of which was access, both the City and the landowner
found this design problematic. As a result, the applicant negotiated the subdivision and purchase of
approximately 5 acres from Greif Brothers last year. That application was reviewed by the Planning
Commission during the June 27, 2006 meeting and approved by the City Council on July 18, 2006.
Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting are attached for your reference. The applicant purchased
the land from Greif Brothers with the intention of combining it with the existing undeveloped portion of
Rosewood Village to the south and gaining a new access point from the north via 145 Street West. The
mixed use concept PUD before you is a result of that plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission held a public hearing to review this item on February 27, 2007. Minutes from
that meeting are attached for your reference. Four residents from the adjacent Rosewood Village and
Rosewood Estates neighborhoods were present to comment. Their comments can be summarized into six
main issues. First, they felt the Council had established a land use policy by regarding residential property
along County Road 42 to commercial from residential. It was indicated that during that application some
Council members expressed concern about having residential near the railroad, and that this project with a
higher density would be more inconsistent with that way of thinking. As part of that application, staff did
note in the December 21, 2004 City Council meeting that "Rosemount does have a shortage of available
commercial property and because of the busy traffic and railroad line and spur in this area, it is better re-
guided as commercial." However, the resolution approving the re- guiding to commercial included a
finding of "The subject properties are adjacent to high volume railroad or principal arterial highways that
would require extensive screening to support residential." Minutes from the December 21, 2004 meeting
and the resolution are also attached for reference.
Second, the residents felt the proposed apartment project density is too high and incompatible with the
existing adjacent single family low density residential use. Third, the residents felt the four concept designs
lack sufficient screening to support the proposed high density residential use. Fourth, the residents were
concerned that the single access to the site from 145 Street was not sufficient to support the proposed
high density apartment proposal. Fifth, a resident asked the developer if they were planning to incorporate
construction techniques to limit the impact of noise from the adjacent railroad on the apartment units.
The developer responded that they will not be constructing the apartment buildings but would consult
with their partner regarding this concern. Finally, the residents were concerned that none of the four
concept plans appeared to supply the required amount of off -street parking. The Commission noted each
of these comments and informed the residents they would be forwarded to the City Council.
Next, the Planning Commission reviewed the four concept plan proposals, the presentation from staff,
and the comments from the applicant and the four residents. Staff endorsed Design Four because it
represents the best combination of elements for this site by grouping the residential buildings around
common open space, creating additional external buffer area by placing parking along the perimeter of the
site, and offering the most site amenities. However, the Planning Commission chose to endorsed Design
Three except placement of Building 6 on Design Four (See Planning Commission Recommended Concept
Plan attached). The Commission chose this design because they felt the Buildings 1 and 2 in Design Four
2
111 1
were too close together. In addition, they recommended that parking for the commercial building be
located behind the building to the extent possible to continue the land use pattern established in the
downtown area. Individual Commissioners provided some comments although there was no consensus
by the entire body. The comments related to the overall density of the project, site design and spacing
between buildings, and the need for additional design attributes as the project moves through the formal
PUD process.
NEW INFORMATION
When this item was before the Planning Commission staff had not received full input from the Fire
Marshall. Since that time the Fire Marshall has indicated that a secondary emergency access from the east
is unnecessary. This determination is in recognition that the buildings will be sprinkled and the primary
private access from 145` Street will be designed to allow for ease of access by emergency vehicle
equipment. This information allows the developer to redesign the site somewhat as they are not
constricted by the location of the eastern access. This also prevents any cut through traffic opportunity
from the new project to the eastern neighborhood, which has been an expressed concern. Staff would
expect the plan during the next phase of review will recognize this site design change and additional plan
modifications will result.
DISCUSSION
Review of this concept plan represents the first of the City's three step planned unit development review
process. The purpose of the concept plan review is to provide the applicant with general comments from
the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the proposal. While, the applicant may use these
comments to draft their subsequent plans, it should be noted that any concept plan comments are for
guidance only and are not considered binding regarding future PUD application submittals. The
subsequent Master Development Plan and Rezoning as well as the Final Site and Building Plan will include
detailed plans that address the general comments made through the concept review process.
As you may recall, the purpose of a planned unit development is to allow flexibility from the City's
traditional development standards in return for a higher quality project. According to Section 11 -10 -6,
when considering a PUD, the City should encourage the types of development listed below.
1. Flexibility in land development and redevelopment in order to utilize new techniques of building
design, construction and land development.
2. Provision of life cycle housing to all income and age groups.
3. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and the
clustering of buildings and land uses.
4. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive
environmental features, including, but not limited to, steep slopes, trees and poor spoils.
5. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land
uses and assembly and development of land into larger parcels.
6. High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing
and planned.
3
7. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along
significant transportation or scenic corridors within the city.
8. Development that is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Land Use and Zoning. The current land use and zoning classifications are inconsistent with the concept
proposal. As a result, future formal approval of this proposal would require both a comprehensive plan
amendment and rezoning. Currently, the Comprehensive Plan guides the northern portion of the site as
BP Business Park while the southern portion is guided as UR Urban Residential. Similarly, the
northern portion of the subject property is currently zoned BP Business Park while the southern portion
is zoned R -1 Low Density Residential. While the BP Business Park land use and zoning classifications
could accommodate the proposed commercial office use, the balance of the residential portion of the site
will need to be re- guided and re -zoned to accommodate the project's proposed density. As a reference,
the existing adjacent land uses are illustrated in the table below.
Adjacent Land Uses to the Propose Rosewood Commons Site
Direction Land Use
North Self Storage Facility
South Railroad Spur and Residential
East Railroad and Downtown
West Greif Brothers Package Facility and Residential
Residents present at the Planning Commission public hearing state they felt the proposed apartment use
was inconsistent with the single family residential uses to the south and east.
Density. The subject property is approximately 14 acres in size and the applicant's concept plans call for a
mixed -use residential and commercial development consisting of up to six 40 -unit residential buildings
containing approximately 240 apartment units and up to two (2) commercial buildings. This design
produces a residential density of approximately 17 units per acre. This density is greater than the 12 units
per acre allowed under the medium density land use and zoning classification but less than the 40 units per
acre allowed under the high density zoning. Like land use, the density of the proposed project was a
central concern of the residents that testified during the Planning Commission public hearing. Some of
the Planning Commissioners shared this concern but were unsure as to the appropriate density should be.
Should the Council find the requested 17 units per acre density appropriate for the site, staff will work
with the applicant to determine the appropriate land use and zoning classification as part of the Master
Development Plan and Rezoning.
Potential setback standards for the apartment portion of this development are illustrated in the table below.
Setback Standards for Attached Single Family Dwelling Developments
Front, Side or Rear Lot Line Principal Structure Accessory Structure Parking
Adjacent to:Setback Setback Setback
Railroad 60 ft.60 ft.10 ft.
Collector Street 40 ft.20 ft.20 ft.
Local Street 30 ft.20 ft.20 ft.
Private Street 20 ft.*20 ft.*15 ft.*
Measuredfrom back of curb.
4
Site Design. The concept plan includes four different site designs. Each design contains the same
mixed -use residential and commercial development consisting of up to six 40 -unit residential buildings
totaling approximately 240 apartment units and up to two (2) commercial buildings with variations in the
proposed commercial office building's footprint and the site's overall layout. Staff originally endorsed
Design Four because it represents the best combination of elements for this site by grouping the
residential buildings around common open space, creating additional external buffer area by placing
parking along the perimeter of the site, and offering the most site amenities. However, the Planning
Commission chose to endorsed Design Three except placement of Building 6 on Design Four (See
Planning Commission Recommended Concept Plan attached). The Commission chose this design
because they felt the Buildings 1 and 2 in Design Four were too close together. In addition, they
recommended that parking for the commercial building be located behind the building to the extent
possible to continue the land use pattern established in the downtown area. This part of the Commission's
recommendation was not followed in the applicant's redesign. Details of four original concepts are
illustrated in the table below.
Rosewood Commons Concept PUD Site Design Elements
No. of Configuration of
Category Commercial
Overall
Buildings, Parking, and Design
Buildings Layout Green space
Amenities
Design One 1 Linear Buildings Outside, Parking None
and Green space Inside
Design Two 2 Grouped Parking Outside, Buildings Residential Entry Feature
and Green space Inside
Design Three 1
Linear Parking Outside, Buildings Residential Entry Pave
Grouped and Green space Inside ment Designs Features
Design Four 2 Grouped Parking Outside, Buildings Residential Entry Pave
and Green space Inside ment Designs Features
Each of the four design alternatives offers both strengths and weakness. Design One includes one
commercial building with some parking behind the building. The residential buildings are positioned in a
linear fashion along the perimeter of the site. This design places all the residential buildings up against
either the railroad or Greif Brothers and offers no other site amenities. Design Two includes two
commercial buildings with some parking behind the building. The residential buildings are situated in two
3- building groups centered on a common open space with parking along the perimeter. In addition, this
design places an entry feature at the access to the residential area. Design Three comprises one
commercial building with parking in front of the building. The residential layout combines both the linear
and group designs, places most of the parking around the southern and western edges of the site, and
incorporates both an entry and pavement design features. Finally, Design Four contains two commercial
buildings with some parking located behind the building. Like Design Two, Design Four places the
residential buildings in two 3- building groups centered on a common open space with parking along the
perimeter. The main difference is that in Design Four the parking for Building 6 is located along the
perimeter.
The table below illustrates the number and percent of each type of apartments in each building. The
majority, 60 percent, of the apartment in each building will be two bedroom units. Thirty percent of the
apartments will be one bedroom units with the remaining 10 percent designated as three bedroom units.
5
Proposed Types of Apartment Units for Rosewood Commons (Per Building)
Type of Unit Size Number Percentage of Units
1 Bedroom 452 Sq. Ft.72 30%
2 Bedroom 841 Sq. Ft.144 60%
3 Bedroom 1,000 Sq. Ft.24 10%
Architectural Appearance, Exterior Materials Building Massing. Given the site's proposed
density, isolated location and its close proximity to downtown and the railroad, staff recommends the
PUD require this neighborhood to have a universal architectural theme consistent with its surroundings.
Although details have yet to be established, initially staff and the developer have agreed on a "Historic
Railroad Depot" theme. Both the Commission and the residents present at the public hearing endorsed
this design concept; however, they agreed that the residential building should incorporate construction
techniques to limit impact from the adjacent rail line.
The applicant has submitted initial architectural elevations for your review. The commercial elevation
illustrates a seven bay building with a hip roof and a masonry base. The building's facade is divided by a
main entrance feature and several columns. The residential pictures are of a similar apartment project
done by the developer. These pictures show a three story building also with a hip roof and a masonry
base. The pictures also show several peaks and both shakes and lap siding on the upper floors to accent
the building's facade. In General, staff and the Commission are encouraged by these initial submittals but
recommends the applicant continue to refine the elevations to more closely reflect the "Historic Railroad
Depot" theme and create a pedestrian friendly environment consistent with the adjacent downtown.
Regardless of the final design, both the commercial and residential building will be required to meet the
performance standards of the assigned zoning district.
Parking. Each of the four designs includes underground residential parking with variations in the layout
and number of surface parking stalls. Staff believes the underground residential parking has the potential
to increase overall green space and create a more pedestrian friendly development. By comparison, the
surface parking appears slightly short of both the commercial and residential standards. This parking
shortage was noted as a concern by the resident that provided comment during the Planning Commission
public hearing. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to provide the required number of parking
stalls as the uses and size of the buildings in this development are refined. Overall, staff and the Planning
Commission believe surface parking should be minimized and located along the perimeter of the site to
promote usable open space, reduce potential automobile and pedestrian conflicts, and provide additional
buffer area for the residential uses. However, staff and the Planning Commission recommend the
commercial parking areas be located internally (behind the building) to the extent possible to continue the
land use pattern established in the downtown area.
Building, Parking and Hard Surface Data for Rosewood Commons Concept PUD
Residential Commercial Parking Total
Design No. of Size
No. of Size Hard
Bldgs. Dimensions Sq. Bldgs
Dimensions Sq. Residential Commercial Surface
Ft.Ft.
1 6 71' x 177' 75,227 1 90' x 130' 9,400 400 52 61.94%
2 6 71' x 177' 75,227 2
48' x 130'
10,700 461 48 59.06%
48' x 100'
3 6 71' x 177' 75,227 1 90' x 130' 9,700 464 28 58.86%
4 6 71' x 177' 75 2
48' x 130'
10,700 452 48 58.95%48' x 100
6
1
Landscaping and Bernming Given the proposed density and the surrounding railroad and Business Park
activity, staff recommends that the PUD require extensive screening and buffering. This recommendation
was endorsed by both the Planning Commission and the resident that testified during the public hearing.
Landscaping and berming shall be the primary source for screening and these elements may require
additional setback area. However, should there be insufficient setback area to accommodate the necessary
landscaping and berming, screening and buffering may be accomplished through decorative fencing or
masonry walls. As mentioned by the City Engineer, no berming or landscaping may be located within any
required drainage and utility easements. Staff request the Commission provide additional direction as to
screening and buffering of the site.
Signage. Given the site's limited visibility and mix of use, sign design and placement will be important to
the success of both the commercial and residential uses on this site. Staff recommends the PUD require
the applicant to submit a comprehensive sign plan for the site. This plan should call for a unified sign
theme consistent with the architecture, scale and materials of the principal buildings. A detailed
comprehensive sign plan should be submitted with the Master Development Plan.
Lighting This site is unique in that it has the potential to have both internal and external light glare
issues. Staff recommends that the applicant submit a comprehensive lighting and photometric plan to
address these issues as part of the Master Development Plan. This plan should illustrate light design as
well as light levels and dispersion patterns. The plan should have a universal theme that includes
decorative wall and ground lighting consistent with the development's scale and architecture. When
creating this plan, the applicant should consult with Greif Brothers on methods to eliminate the external
glare from the existing lighting adjacent to the subject property.
Engineering Upon review of the Progress Land Rosewood Commons Concept Plan, the Engineering
Department offers the following comments:
Street Layout and Access Comments:
1. As shown in concept, the accesses to the site appear to meet City requirements. Nevertheless,
access to this development was a major concern of the residents that commented during the public
hearing. As previously agreed upon with Progress Land, the new northern access to 145t Street
will necessitate closure of one of the Greif access drives to the east, thereby resulting in no net
increase in access points along 145` Street.
2. It should be demonstrated that emergency vehicles can successfully navigate the proposed street
layout, and pavement features on Site Plan Design 3, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall.
According to the Fire Marshall, one access to this development from 145thStreet is sufficient for
public safety access and the emergency access to Boxwood Path should be eliminated from future
plans. All future plans will be required to illustrate turning radii for all corners and demonstrate
they are in conformance with all applicable section of the Fire Code.
Storm Water Comments:
1. Several concept design alternates show proposed improvements such as parking lot, roadway, and
structures located within existing drainage and utility easements. The concept should be revised to
relocate these items outside the drainage and utility easements. Future easement needs may be
identified and recording of said required as conditions of approval in subsequent reviews.
7
1
2. Drainage and utility easements shown on the boundary survey do not appear to correspond to
those shown on the concept alternates.
3. Several concept alternates show landscaping within the southern Regional Pond A area, and within
drainage and utility easement. Any screening, landscaping, or berming requirements will need to
be met outside the pond areas and drainage and utility easements.
4. The proposed structures appear to have underground parking. The high water elevation of 956
may exceed the low floor elevation of the underground parking areas. To allow construction of
low floors below high water elevation, the applicant may submit documentation outlining
construction methods that would prevent groundwater issues and flooding. Approval of these
construction methods shall be on a case -by -case basis.
5. Any floor drains in underground parking areas should not discharge to the ponds.
6. Overflow routes from parking lot or roadway areas located at low points should not be located at
the entrances of the proposed structures.
7. The pond maintenance access routes appear to be accessible from the interior of the site in some
of the submitted concept alternates, however, future submittals should clearly include previously
approved grading contours associated with the ponds to ensure that maintenance access routes are
not obstructed by landscaping or other improvements.
8. The ultimate pond outlet location and type will require review and approval by the City Engineer.
9. The overflow routes and conveyance of storm water from the Greif Brothers site to the pond
should be included in the site design.
Parks and Open Space. After reviewing the Rosewood Commons PUD Concept Plan submittal, the
Parks and Recreation Department is recommending approval of the concept plan and would ask the
developer to consider and incorporate the following comments when submitting a preliminary plat:
1. The public parks and recreation needs for this development would be satisfied by existing nearby
parks that include Biscayne Park and Central Park.
2. Staff recommends accepting the parks dedication as cash in -lieu of land. The dedication
requirements for the residential portion of the development would be 9.6 acres (240 units x .04 per
acres of land per unit). Based on the City's 2007 Fees and Fee Policy, the cash dedication of the
residential portion of the development would be $816,000.
3. Land dedication of 10% of the total land area is required to meet the parks dedication
requirements for commercial development. Staff is also recommending cash in -lieu of land for the
parks dedication payment for the commercial area. Once the commercial area has been more
clearly identified, staff can make a more accurate recommendation on the cash dedication
requirement for this portion of the development.
8
4. None of the concept proposals illustrate pedestrian circulation facilities. Given the proposed
density, mix of uses, and surrounding railroad and Business Park activity, staff recommends that
the PUD require the applicant to submit a comprehensive pedestrian circulation plan as part of the
Master Development Plan. The plan should have a universal theme that includes high quality
pedestrian circulation facilities with decorative sidewalks and bike trails consistent with the
development's scale and architecture. These facilities should extend throughout the development
and provide connections to the City wide park and trail system.
5. Due to the high density and isolated location of the proposed development, staff is recommending
that the PUD require the developer install some on -site recreational amenities.
6. The Parks and Recreation Commission will be reviewing this concept plan at their meeting on
Monday, February 26, 2007.
CONCLUSION RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of a Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Rosewood Commons
endorsing Design Four containing a mixed -use residential and commercial development consisting of up
to six 40 -unit residential buildings totaling approximately 240 apartment units and up to two (2)
commercial buildings, subject to conditions. While staff originally endorsed Design Four to the Planning
Commission, they chose to endorsed Design Three with the placement of Building 6 as shown on Design
Four (See Planning Commission Recommended Concept Plan attached). The Commission chose this
design because they felt the Buildings 1 and 2 in Design Four were too close together. Regardless of
which concept design is selected by the City Council, the proposal is inconsistent with the property's
current land use and zoning classification but could be permitted through a comprehensive plan
amendment, rezoning, and a Planned Unit Development (PUD). In exchange for the PUD, staff
recommends the developer create a universal "Historical Railroad Depot" architectural theme for this
neighborhood. This theme should carry over into all buildings, amenities, lighting, pedestrian facilities and
signs for the development. In addition, the developer should provide partial underground parking for
each residential building, extensive berming and landscaping, and private on -site recreational facilities as
well as incorporate construction techniques to limit impact from the adjacent rail line. Once the City
Council endorses a concept design, the next step will be for the applicant to prepare a Master
Development Plan detailing the comments for the Council.
9
osewood Commons W
N krrrn--si—w
B ee B
1 El EB
I ixo_.", RA a ir
1111'rc r 00 mom
11!i LW M/
VIEW P`rei-F l i
ir rill- •t g rein
SIT111 0
1 Ili
tut P
1 l ksigma,'
uMI 1 LUIlI a
f 111,s
wimIr
i
F1.YYatH1.
145TH ST. W.
iW IlrtrIJV5lam'! .I4
To`c 5+c1.VII
COMMERCIAL vBUILDINGi
bOy
f
itv
O
iOphp.1 0t0
4 414 73,0 ci
vim 0
44/10
M
6 6 4,
A y 0 N,4;AP; ENT p 0i%
i,INGV
1ft X11
y 1rI7 d firc1.
l i' ART- ENTO **II'
J°v*'.R NG 2'fIa,y
A .1 1
1 omNc
Q J t Pe 2 1 i BUILDING j
i 11 I J 'I
91 \w•APARMEN,A..4J I n 0
I
it av N q o i i SP sm 1 1 i I
11 I I
1 D APARTMENT BUILDING 6 1
v 1 JAI
xi Z S i i I1
mow 1 Caw vv
sue r11vC i CO' v• li ii I I Jn
q. v c 1 Pij\ APILD
TMEN1•ai i o SE O \\*
Z TS U 4 4 i 1E y' 1
I i 114 44)i
a v i
lb"
ilfiNv ®
i KIIaMER 1 IO SPA(EB\I
N v_
4
y6 t MN. iii 2
ss\ e.'w_
SPOTw .0" w iii s,
Irv'HWL956.0 1 o.
J t r
J
1 1
1
g.67 I II I N922 "yy
1 I
I 1
24 1 23 X11 22 i1 21 7 20 16
i Planning Commission Recommended Concept Plan 1SITEPLAN SCALE r 50.0'
III l OGRESS ROSEWOOD COMMONS bnb 20609 cricket lane
lenexa, ks
i design 913.422.5762 ph
ROSEMONT, MN orchilecive 8 inlefion 309.409.9258 ix
j&;iN i
IIP1410
R 145P 5
411" I I I I h I I I I I
WV AL
OMMERCIALBUILDI
A111 O1111e
ffl 1
1zPns 7
qt iii 1Jt
t
Writ. ie
a,-, !
7
w C.
R
I
4:
tti
510.9.C.
II" APT 1 mot
owavint. It 1,
74 f 1
t
r
i AV'i Ii1 C• A"
o i
4 ia 960.49 I1MIrrv. 95439
954.93 4 .1 5 1 0
APT 6 kilo O A
CT.1 d Z d ICUTLe
fa 5P' S 13 ”5
1111111111111111111
0 51
S 1j 40 a P iil,
r6 AL a MH a.'SS
3/0110
VP
n
jto
jr.vir,AA
if"ks 10 1 I s,..\,,,.,,.
Br
Nil 11%
t
t
Is
9I
1
d r ci
a4 so i r
SIMMER A
IN
K
946.0 is m
it tad w it
tt
Inv.
t t 4V-1 946.4T
4411
HWL 956.0
457.9e
20 Inv.
953231
20 24 11-2731 22
7j
I I I 21 20
SITE PLAN DESIGN 1 a
I I 1 SCALE 1' 50'-0"
20609 cricket lane11ROSEWOODCOMMONS2nexa,
ksle
a C `"1 913.422.5762 ph
cv nr ROSEMONT, MN ard+ne a .a
r
309.409.9258 ix
IIIPIS
Ifl'ISPtiIIIfU test 2
1
4 113P C
COMMERCIAL BUILDING 1 I
COMMERCIAL BUILDING 2 0,
a tli ipi
ile
ef,
4 i 1
a+
0 t ill 1
f'916
l t
41 0 961/ It 1
40
tti 4
il t.
t C.
t
10 eir
At; 4 APT Z cii 1
to
I '
i 111ITop96,r W,
tum
MH Inv.9 IniVC t
4 mv.o 954.93 Q I_ F_
i :4-4 APT t A
d®d!s m
all
t
m.
1111111
t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f "IPT`Y I I I I I III 1 P
j A.i cf.,,,iii
i•aI ol0 i i iii It. OO
E r\
al.o go i.• C.
1 v
d at Co 0 MH 4B/
11 4, NSKIMMER S
0
INV 946.0
i
mA. 996 .
t q
i' .I/
Inv.
t t 946.47
HWL 956.0 s'
mv.
452.9H
Inv.
95391
III
SITE PLAN DESIGN 2 24 23
11I 22 I I 2 7/ 20 SCA 50'•0°
OGRESS ROSEWOOD COMMONS b b 120609 cri cket lane
enexa,
ROSEMONT, MN
fx1' 913.4225762p
architects e 8
h
fi a
a
werbn 309.409.9258 fx
0
4DE51 (IN 3
4 4 RPT I4 5P s S
y` 4%R
11.4016,
sOMMERCIAL BUILDI 1.
y v.t Ci O
AO
O Jr.
O"f A.
t
7 A*114 1
e.7 lo
yam
VI Iti, lor
1 APT p l64
0 '44 7 c• _o 4:
i,y a ,11,0
WV Off) VP
PT 2 8 wig'.114sltoi
As 4w y A. I
1 iii
m;Z.B VA EXISTING i
o it r 4: IN I BUILDING
4.
t• i i i
r 4 v411S t.NBq °50'16 "W 7.///i
r4 954.93 c4.*1
I
laV
as c Cif
ts
b al
CEi 4 444
IIII I:
fit.'di 1 PE.g 10'its
SKIMMER 40 SPACES
4.4 r•iii 1111 Ci s, Wr
INV 946.0 n
t
v ja I 946.47
im.
HWL 956.0 SJ
Mv.
952.96
Inv
95361
rii.-
1
24 —1Ir 22 II N 1 °52 2 2 °w
16
II II 21 LEI 50 -0
517E PLAN DESIGN 3 I 1 1
OGRESSr
1 OR ROSEWOOD COMMONS b b 20609 cricket lane
ONO 1111t 913422. phtX5762
ROSEMONT, MN
te'
arcMkdara d interiors 309.409.9258 fx
IP
0
pis EIN 4-'
COMMERCIAL BUILDING 1 y.
COMMERCIAL BUILDING 2 7
1'c V'
4 I A
gi
i ii
t
y
d
ley
41 WS
law zor
lilyAPTli 1
i d 0 0
a: '
1
fat q q v
04 i
N i i
4
4 ,
l ti .
11/4 i i i
r P
s i i
4. Inv X14 4
g
itt O
5 'Ti5
954 1 Q
4 O n
0...M Q APT6 44i 101731
i A a
t
Iv 01 FV A.It. t 041%4a,
s
SKIMMER r
INV 946.0 1,o `S i
II. Wi 01 946.41
1 i
lily
HWL 956.0
nv.
952.96
Inv.
953.61
o
2 23 2 II 21 7 2C
1
SITE PLAN DESIGN 4 SCALE 1' 50' -0'
1 0-
206 cricket lane
41 p ROSEWOOD COMMONS 913.4, 2s
R U Y 973.422.5762 ph
ROS EMO N T, M N or hikdure mbmrs 309.409.9258 ix
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2007
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR
ROSEWOOD COMMONS
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received
an application from Progress Land Company requesting a Concept Planned Unit
Development approval concerning property legally described as:
Lot 1, Block 1, Greif Addition;
Outlot B, Rosewood Estates; and
Outlot C, Rosewood Estates, all in Dakota County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held
a public hearing and reviewed the Staff report evaluating four Concept Planned Unit
Development design alternatives; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2007, Staff recommended approval of Design Four subject to
conditions while the Planning Commission recommended approval of Design Three (except
placement of Building 6 on Design Four) containing a mixed -use residential and commercial
development consisting of up to six 40 -unit residential buildings totaling approximately 240
apartment units and one (1) commercial buildings, subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2007, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the
comments from the public hearing as well as the recommendations from both staff and the
Planning Commission and agreed with the staff recommendation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Concept Planned Unit Development, endorsing Design Four containing a
mixed -use residential and commercial development consisting of up to six 40 -unit residential
buildings totaling approximately 240 apartment units and up to two (2) commercial buildings,
subject to:
1. In exchange for the PUD, the developer shall create a universal "Historical Railroad
Depot" architectural theme for this neighborhood. This theme shall carry over into
the all buildings, amenities, lighting, pedestrian facilities and signs for the development.
In addition, the developer shall provide underground parking in each residential
building, extensive berming and landscaping, and private on -site recreational facilities
as well as incorporate construction techniques to limit impact from the adjacent rail
line.
1
II IIII
RESOLUTION 2007
2. To the extent possible, off -street parking for the commercial building shall be located
behind the building to continue the land use pattern established in the downtown area.
3. The applicant shall work with Greif Brothers to eliminate glare from their existing
lighting.
4. The applicant shall work with Greif Brothers to secure a landscape easement over the
Greif Brothers land adjacent to the Rosewood Commons site to provide additional
area for landscaping and open space.
5. Conformance with all comments in the City Engineer's memo dated February 22,
2007.
6. Conformance with all comments in the Park and Recreations Director's memo dated
February 20, 2007.
7. Concept Plan comments from the Planning Commission and City Council shall be for
guidance only and shall not be considered binding upon the city regarding approval of
the formal PUD application when submitted.
ADOPTED this 20t day of March, 2007, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Amy Domeier, City Clerk
Motion by:Second by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Member absent:
2
City Council
Excerpt Minutes 12 -07 -04
Public Comment Rosewood Estates Comprehensive Guide Amendment
Drew Storley, 14808 Boston Circle, spoke against the rezoning of property to commercial
next to residential homes near the northeast corner of Highway 3 and County Road 42.
Mr. Storley noted that 51 new homes were built with quiet streets and a safe
neighborhood. Mr. Storley said this change to a large retail commercial area would
change the neighborhood, lower property values, and asked City Council to consider the
quality of life for the current residents.
Mayor Droste noted that this area is the Rosewood Village development and the
reguiding issue is scheduled to be before the City Council on December 21, 2004.
Julie Benson, 2722 148 Street, said they bought their dream home in Rosewood Village
Development. She said the train is not a problem and she has seen many metro areas
build residential near railroad tracks. Ms. Benson reported that crime is low and kids play
outside safely. Ms. Benson stated she is opposed to commercial zoning or low- income
housing because it would cause crime to rise and change their neighborhood.
Joe Dangor, 14896 Brenner Court said he moved into Rosewood Village last February.
One reason they liked the location was they could walk to the downtown area. Mr.
Dangor said about 90 children live in this development and many play in the cul -de -sacs
and streets. Mr. Dangor stated that many homes here have property values of $340,000
and they would not like to see dumpsters in their back yards from a commercial business.
Mr. Dangor asked City Council to appeal to their sense of responsibility to Rosewood
Village and to think about how a large chain retailer would affect local business owners.
City Administrator Verbrugge suggested that others in the audience who may wish to
leave written comments for the December 21, 2004 City Council meeting leave them
with the City Clerk. The City web site also can receive comments that would be directed
back to the City Council.
i
City Council
Excerpt Minutes 12 -21 -04
Rosewood Estates Comprehensive Guide Amendment
Mayor Droste noted that the public was allowed to speak two weeks ago at City Council and the
Planning Commission had held a public hearing also prior to that. Droste said that comments
would be taken at the end of this presentation for one -half hour allowing representatives to speak
for three minutes.
Community Development Director Lindquist reviewed the history of the zoning for the parcels
next to Rosewood Estates. In 1993 this land was reguided to residential from industrial. Staff is
not recommending that rezoning would occur now, but that it would wait for an application from
an interested developer and then proceed with rezoning. Staff recommends reguiding the
property that fronts along County Road 42 west of Biscayne Avenue and property north of
existing commercial, east of Highway 3 to commercial which requires an amendment to the
Comprehensive Guide Plan for the two properties here. Rosemount does have a shortage of
available commercial property and because of the busy traffic and railroad line and spur in this
area, it is better reguided as commercial. A service road from Biscayne Avenue would need to be
planned because of limited access onto County Road 42. Lindquist did note that the taxes
generated by commercial versus residential compensation are comparable. Public comments
showed concern over crime in this area if commercial is allowed. Police Chief Kalstabakken
conducted a survey from similar areas in Apple Valley and Eagan and found that crime was not
increased. Staff reviewed information on property values near commercial development. The
information makes it difficult to draw any conclusions. Staff would look to keep commercial
traffic separated from the residential area. There will be a public process which includes a public
hearing when a rezoning site plan is considered by the City. City Council Members and the
Mayor commented on some of the concerns of resident's letters and e-mails that were presented
to them. Mayor Droste opened the meeting to public comments. City Attorney LeFevere
confirmed that a four -fifth's vote would be necessary to move this amendment forward.
Patty Dangor, 14896 Brenner Court, urged Council to vote against this Comprehensive Guide
Plan amendment. She noted that had they known of the commercial development they would not
have purchased in this area.
Marc Tobias, 14836 Boston Circle, reported he was looking forward to a church being built and
was concerned for increases in traffic and child safety. Mr. Tobias noted that the Planning
Commission did not recommend this change to zoning and he did not approve of the rezoning
either.
Drew Storley, 14808 Boston Circle, noted this was a difficult decision for Council. Mr. Storley
asked Council what they would do if it was their house. Mr. Storley asked Council to table their
vote and conduct more research and open discussion.
Jeanne Kulawczyk, 2614 148th Street West, said she had purchased her dream home in this area
in March, 2002. Theirs was the second house built in the development. She said it was terrible
that the City had waited until the last lots were sold before bringing up the land use change. Ms.
Kulawczyk said the railroad does not bother them and she would be willing to pay more taxes to
not have the commercial area there.
1
IP 11,
Vicki Myers, 14810 Boise Circle, had lived a few blocks from the Mall of America and she
chose Rosemount as a true neighborhood with a small town feel. This also was her dream home
and she liked the quality of life here. Ms. Meyers urged Council to do what was right.
Melissa Kenninger, 2734 148 Street West, noted that this reguiding of land use affects one
hundred Rosemount residents and eighty children. She noted that it should be too late to turn
back residential is already here. Ms. Kenninger urged Council to vote against this change.
Andrea Hinrichs, 14867 Bittersweet Court, said she could not understand why residential was
allowed in this area. Ms. Hydrangker said this land use change will greatly affect residents here.
Cheryl DeBetts, 2698 148 Street West, reported that the trains do not bother them. They love
their new neighborhood and have made great friends. She asked Council from her heart to vote
against this reguiding.
David Kolacheck, 2814 148 Street West, was against the land use change.
Renee Ward, 2602 148 Street West, reported she had listened to all the information tonight and
this will be a hard decision. Council and staff have researched neighboring communities but all
these neighbors did the same thing before they bought homes here. Ms. Ward noted she was
looking for something else, not convenience, but the small town atmosphere.
Mayor Droste thanked all those who had spoken. The Mayor noted that public safety is the
Council's first goal. The Mayor said that children will always find the shortest route to their
favorite spots and in this case, it could mean crossing a railroad track or highway. Mayor Droste
recalled that many City Councils have changed land uses by rezoning when needed or when a
developer has made an application to do so. The Light House Church owned the corner lot, but
they were not able to move forward with their financing, so plans changed for that piece of
property. Mayor Droste said that City Council would have to look to the benefits to the
community as a whole. City Engineer Brotzler showed how the frontage road would eliminate
any commercial traffic from interacting with the residential streets. Brotzler noted that the
ponding may have to be increased in size. All Council Members voiced their concerns and
appreciated the residents' comments. Council Member DeBettignies said some of the comments
brought up issues from the last community survey and that the upcoming survey will also help in
making decisions.
MOTION by Riley to adopt a resolution amending the Comprehensive Guide Plan for two
properties in the Rosewood Area from UR- Residential to C- Commercial. Second by Shoe
Corrigan. Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Riley, DeBettignies. Nays: Strayton. Motion carried.
Mayor Droste reminded the audience that the rezoning will not occur until a developer comes
forward to make application for it.
2
IP IIP
EXCERPT FROM MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 27, 2007
5.b. Case 07 -06 -CON Rosewood Commons Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Progress Land Company. Planner Lindahl stated that the applicant, Progress Land
Company, requests Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval of a mixed -use
residential and commercial development consisting of up to six 40 -unit residential buildings
containing approximately 240 apartment units and up to two (2) commercial buildings. The
subject property is located south of 145 Street, north of the railroad spur, east of the railroad
line and west of the Greif Brothers Packaging and the Rosewood Village neighborhood.
Mr. Lindahl reviewed the background of the property, the process of the concept plan and PUD
development plan, and specific details of the four different concept plans proposed by the
developer. Mr. Lindahl stated that staff recommends Design Four focusing on the internal
greenspace and the clusters of the buildings, the roundabouts added to the site and the
commercial uses.
Chairperson Messner asked about the absence of underground parking for Apartment 2 on
Design Four. Mr. Lindahl stated that the absence was an oversight and there will be
underground parking similar to the other apartment buildings. Commissioner Schwartz
questioned why the plan does not quite meet the ordinance requirement of two parking stalls per
unit. Mr. Lindahl responded that that item had not been addressed at the concept plan level but
that staff will need to work with the developer to meet those requirements.
The applicant, John Stainbrook, Progress Land Company was present and approached the
Commission. He gave a brief history of the property and intentions of the new development.
He stated he prefers Design 3 or 4 with the buffering around the perimeters. Progress Land
Company is hoping to meet with Greif Brothers regarding the open space next to their building
for possibly a landscaping buffer. There is a five year timeline in completing the development.
They plan on working with the City to get the park dedication fees reduced.
Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 8:34p.m.
Joseph Brady, 14710 Boysenberry Court, approached the Commission. He and his neighbors
are concerned about the access between Rosewood Village and the proposed Rosewood
Commons. He asked if there will be a barrier or fence stopping traffic down Boysenberry
Court. Mr. Lindahl responded that under the current proposal, the main access would come
from 145 There will be one emergency access from Boxwood path with some sort of divider
that would provide access to only emergency vehicles.
Jason Devries, 14719 Boysenberry Court, stated his concerns: 1. Continuity of the surrounding
community. 2. Pending fire marshall approval of such a high density with only one main access.
3. Confusion with the buffer schematics. 4. Loud noise from the railroad for the units backed
to the railroad. 5. Whether or not there are an appropriate number of parking spaces. Mr.
Stainbrook responded to his concerns. There will be a landscaping buffer on the new side of the
tracks, similar to single family side where Mr. Devries lives; it will remain that way as part of a
public open space. The wall of pine trees will remain on the west side of the property and will
act as a buffer to the railroad tracks. Chairperson Messner asked whether or not the homes next
to the railroad will be built with thicker windows or insulation to mitigate the noise impact. Mr.
Stainbrook responded he will have the builder available to answer more specific questions at a
later meeting.
Jeff Mademann, 14722 Boysenberry Court, stated his major concern with the development is the
high density. The area is not equipped or designed to handle the extra traffic. He is concerned
that if the barrier on Boxwood Path is not approved, Rosewood Village will have a huge increase
in traffic. He mentioned that in previous meetings it was stated that the properties close to the
railroad would be more suitable for commercial than residential. He feels the developer is
looking to put as many buildings as possible on a small chunk of land to make more money than
with single family units. Mr. Stainbrook responded that Rosewood Village was platted with a
buffer for medium density housing. The land south of Outlot C is also zoned commercial so
there is a transitional buffer. There is a market for apartments for people who cannot afford a
single family home. Progress Land will work with the City on the traffic concerns.
Tom Kenninger, 2734 148 Street West, lives on the backside of the spur. He stated about a
year and half ago, Progress Land planned a townhome development on the property to the west.
The mayor at that time said the property needed to be commercial because it was too close to
the railroad tracks and no one would want to live there. The property now up for development
is closer to the railroad tracks than the past parcel. Mr. Stainbrook responded that Outlot C will
be a pond area and they do have a commercial buyer looking at the southern parcel west of
where Mr. Kenninger lives. Mr. Kenninger asked who determines the highest and best use of
the property and Mr. Stainbrook replied that Progress Land makes the determination, not an
appraiser.
Jeff Mademann, 14722 Boysenberry Court, approached the Commission again and stated it is
clear that people do not want this type of development in this area. It is not suitable to make the
area a high density area in a low density neighborhood. He is concerned this result in more
crime in the neighborhood.
There were no further public comments.
MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schwartz.
Ayes: 3. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 8:57p.m.
Chairperson Messner stated he preferred Design 3 over Design 4 because the units are not back
to back. He liked the location of Apartment Building 6 on Design 4 better than on Design 3.
He liked the commercial building on Design 3 rather than two separate buildings. He feels the
market rate apartment site is a good use but the overall number of units may be a little above
what can be accomplished. Chairperson Messner also stated that the access on 145 and the
emergency route will need to be worked out between the fire marshall and traffic engineers.
Community Development Director stated that the 145 access has been approved by the City
engineers. The City's concern is not to block a public road and that traffic is contained within
the development.
1
Commissioner Schwartz stated she liked the placement of Apartment Building 6 on Design 4
but wondered if the commercial building by 145t can be revised to put the parking behind the
building as on Design 3.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz to recommend the City Council approve a
Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Rosewood Commons endorsing Design Three
except placement of Building 6 on Design Four) containing a mixed -use residential and
commercial development consisting of up to six 40 -unit residential buildings totaling
approximately 240 apartment units and one (1) commercial buildings, subject to the following
conditions:
1. In exchange for the PUD, the developer shall create a universal "Historical Railroad
Depot" architectural theme for this neighborhood. This theme shall carry over into the
buildings, amenities, lighting, pedestrian facilities and signs for the development. In
addition, the developer shall provide underground parking in each residential building,
extensive berming and landscaping, and private on -site recreational facilities.
2. The applicant shall work with Greif Brothers to eliminate glare from their existing
lighting.
3. The applicant shall work with Greif Brothers to secure a landscape easement over the
Greif Brothers land adjacent to the Rosewood Commons site to provide additional area
for landscaping and open space.
4. Conformance with all comments in the City Engineer's memo dated February 22, 2007.
5. Conformance with all comments in the Park and Recreations Director's memo dated
February 20, 2007.
Second by Howell.
Ayes: 3.
Nays: 0.
As follow -up, Mr. Lindahl stated this item will go to City Council on March 20, 2007.
EXCERPT FROM MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 27, 2006
5.b. 06 -38 -LS Greif Paper Packaging Services Administrative Plat.
Community Development Planner Lindahl reviewed the staff report. The applicant, Colliers
Turley Martin Tucker, requests Administrative Plat approval for the Greif Brothers site located
at 2750 145 Street West. Approval of this request will allow the subdivision of the existing
15.65 acres parcel into two separate parcels legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Greif Addition. As
proposed, Lot 1 would be a vacant 5.94 acre parcel for future development while Lot 2 would be
approximately 9.18 acres in size and contain the existing Greif Brother manufacturing building.
The site is currently zoned and guided BP Business Park.
Chairperson Messner asked Commissioners for any questions.
Chairperson Messner requested clarification of Page 3, business park lot and building standards
with respect to lot coverage requirement of 75% and proposed 15 Lindahl explained the
percentages and what is allowed. The green space requirement is 25% and that the current green
space the Applicant is providing under the current plan submitted is 15% so there is a 10%
adjustment that needs to be made and they are trying to accommodate that.
Chairperson Messner invited the Applicant to come forward. John Stainbrook, Progress Land
Company, 6001 Egan Drive, Suite 100, Savage, Minnesota 55378, developer of Rosemount
Estates, Rosemount Village and Rosemount Village 2n which are adjacent to the proposed lot.
They are the contract buyer for the lot and are working with Greif on the configuration to
accommodate the 30 They make a recommendation to angle lot line to eliminate the 90
degrees which allows them to accommodate a road more efficiently to access the lot and there
should be no net gain or loss on the green space.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
No public comment.
MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Second by Palda.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Chairperson Messner asked if Commissioners had any questions. There were none.
MOTION by Messner to recommend that the City Council approve an administrative
plat allowing the subdivision of the existing 15.65 acre Grief property into two separate
parcels legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Greif Addition, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Redesign of the plat to conform with the requirements for Administrative Plat approval
including, but not limited to, conformance to the parking and green space standards
prior to action on this item by the City Council.
1111 11111
2. Elimination of the existing western access to Lot 2 and creation of a separate access for
Lot 1 from 145 Street West. The access to Lot 1 shall be a minimum of 150 feet from
the adjacent railroad.
3. Conformance with all requirements of the City Engineer including, but not limited to,
dedication of all required right -of -way for 145 Street West and all existing drainage
easements, drainage utility easement, or other type of permanent easement across the
existing parcel shall be shown on the plat and be recorded to exist as they do today
across the two new lots.
4. No development fees will be required with the creation of the new lot, however all
appropriate fees shall be collected at the time of building permit issuance. The fee rates
shall be as set forth in the Schedule of Rates and Fees for the current year of building
permit issuance.
5. Creation of restrictive covenants over Lot 1, Block 1, Greif Brothers Addition and
Outlot B of Rosewood Estates requiring payment of all development fees for both
property if either property is developed separately.
Second by Schwartz.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Mr. Lindahl stated the item is tentatively scheduled to go before the City Council on July 18,
2006. In the interim, Staff will be working with Applicant to resolve the access and green space
issues.
IP
CITY OF ROSEMOUN
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2004-155
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE
GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT TO REGUIDE ROSEWOOD ESTATES FROM
UR URBAN RESIDENTIAL TO C COMMERCIAL
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount requested a
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to reguide the property fronting along County Road 42,
west of Biscayne Avenue and north of existing commercial, immediately east of the main line
railroad tracks in Rosewood Estates from UR Urban Residential to C Commercial, as depicted in
the map below:
Progress Land Company Parcels
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
v
ME
EDIN11o
a 7,7t mi
ar fff
r.
A5_ 3. E
3 A
p
7,
LEGEND
Streak F771 7M:: W le Regraded from
Railroads UP. -Uroan ResDor
Comme^
o.mesa_150 0 50 700 Peet
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount
reviewed the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment reguiding the residentially designated
property in the Rosewood Estates area from UR Urban to C Commercial; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council
not approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment reguiding the residentially designated property
in the Rosewood Estates area from UR Urban to C Commercial, and
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the
Planning Commission's recommendation and the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment
reguiding the Rosewood Estates area property from UR Urban Residential to C Commercial and
finds as follows:
RESOLUTION 2004 155
1.The Comp Plan Amendment would contribute towards the established goals of the
key financial strategies of broadening the tax base, moderating the tax rate and
maintaining high service levels.
2.The subject properties are adjacent to high volume railroad or principal arterial
highways that would require extensive screening to support residential uses.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment reguiding the property in Rosewood
Estates from UR Urban Residential to C Commercial subject to Metropolitan Council approval.
ADOPTED this 21 day of December, 2004 by the City Council of the City of ems t.
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda Jentink, Ci er
Motion by: Riley Second by: Shoe Corrigan
Voted in favor: Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Riley, DeBettignies
Voted against: Strayton
Member absent: None
2
ii OPzNON11. I I I 111ZlilEuunni-'o et 0iiiiiiir1SiIAltIHIPittb
11 ornium PIMP.
I
o a
ImmuII 12-145
Li 111110
II leillam 1
413131
0 0
O
npIm umr- -n I s=_OIlluua {mul irn4
O 0
9999 O
1 It sozn0L _i
oii01.1.moum_ I... 41,0.0 gromp crsi-glu, u..
tii.iiam -7 Fold.
z K Wilizig
co
CDjIalmi
0 Win 1=ii
f. F CT pp
II
Inummp
Z p I sr
IIIIIIII 11111=1
n
s IIIWIOI.n111 0
iRIiii_
F11111111.--.
IIII Iup pp
w m o Fn Im111 iii: WI l 4 O
s 4, Q P2ONJ
n• O,
U, o.11
co N
S
O
m Q
0 0 Np.,...,,, lF,sty. t cif ?111i
r' ^1' r,i I a
V1 5
e A Z'S r)t....
4.,
x,ngi rw r;1-i- i i-
ii.:7_,„:41.,
al 1
ii,i
k
j 7y.-ice..'J
it,'X
prat
I;
0r
r;.. .1 w44
i,i,...,
V r
4
i
IPO0 N
1.71
p.,P
c 4
lb 1...........t "'G;
4 F,
CD 0
a
Fr 1111111111111
a.R__
1M
v
CD
oaM a 0F4in b alt1yyt t,-xj1p11 1 k A111i'L,•7lidtti1,/,'s a fir rL
pIll 4'1,.. t f
k....
lti 1 4.
d a
y
1 r
y 1 j t'‘'..,,'rte.
Ird is M I.
t
K..
a hr
6 ti
w ti
Id', lilk
i
e i...
tt
ir
1 1
IjIVii.._.A
l
9' 1 4f f,
a 1*4 o
i 1
4.41.'
4RO
PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:February 22 2007
TO:Jason Lindahl, Assistant City Planner
CC:Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
Andrew Brotzler, City Engineer
Kathie Hanson, Planning Department Secretary
FROM:Morgan Dawley, Project Engineer
RE:Rosewood Commons (Progress Land) Concept Plan Review
The City of Rosemount received the Rosewood Commons Concept Plan and boundary survey from
Progress Land dated January 30, 2007, on January 30, 2007. Three further concept alternates were
submitted electronically February 20, 2007. As this development plan progresses through the
concept phase, reviews that are more detailed will follow.
Upon review of the Progress Land Rosewood Commons Concept Plan, the Engineering
Department offers the following comments:
Street Layout and Access Comments:
1. As shown in concept, the accesses to the site appear to meet City requirements. As
previously agreed upon with Progress Land, the new northern access to 145 Street will
necessitate closure of one of the Greif access drives to the east, thereby resulting in no net
increase in access points along 145 Street.
2. It should be demonstrated that emergency vehicles can successfully navigate the proposed
street layout, and roundabouts on Site Plan,— Design 3, to the satisfaction of the Fire
Marshall.
Storm Water Comments:
1. Several concept design alternates show proposed improvements such as parking lot,
roadway, and structures located within existing drainage and utility easements. The concept
should revised to relocate these items outside the drainage and utility easements. Future
easements needs may be identified and recording of said required as conditions of approval
in subsequent reviews.
2. Drainage and utility easements shown on the boundary survey do not appear to correspond
to those shown on the concept alternates.
0
3. Several concept alte show landscaping within the southe regional Pond A area, and
within drainage and utility easement. Any screening, landscaping, or berming requirements
will need to be met outside the pond areas and drainage and utility easements.
4. The proposed structures appear to have underground parking. The high water elevation of
956 may exceed the low floor elevation of the underground parking areas. To allow
construction of low floors below high water elevation, the applicant may submit
documentation outlining construction methods that would prevent groundwater issues and
flooding. Approval of these construction methods shall be on a case -by -case basis.
5. Any floor drains in underground parking areas should not discharge to the ponds.
6. Overflow routes from parking lot or roadway areas located at low points should not be
located at the entrances of the proposed structures.
7. The pond maintenance access routes appear to be accessible from the interior of the site in
some of the submitted concept alternates, however, future submittals should clearly include
previously approved grading contours associated with the ponds to ensure that maintenance
access routes are not obstructed by landscaping or other improvements.
8. The ultimate pond outlet location and type will require review and approval by the City
Engineer.
9. The overflow routes and conveyance of storm water from the Greif Brothers site to the
pond should be included in the site design.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding the item listed above, please contact me at
651- 322 -2022.
S9 ROSEMOUN'
PARKS AND RECREATION
M E M O R A N D U M
To:Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
Eric Zweber, Senior Planner
Jason Lindahl, Planner
Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator
Andy Brotzler, City Engineer
Morgan Dawley, Project Engineer
From:Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director
Date:February 20, 2007
Subject: Rosewood Commons PUD Concept Plan
After reviewing the Rosewood Commons PUD Concept Plan submittal, the Parks and Recreation
Department is recommending approval of the concept plan and would ask the developer to consider
and incorporate the following comments when submitting a preliminary plat:
The public parks and recreation needs for this development would be satisfied by
existing parks that include Biscayne Park and Central Park.
Staff recommends accepting the parks dedication as cash in -lieu of land. The
dedication requirements for the residential portion of the development would be 9.6
acres (240 units x .04 per acres of land per unit). Based on the City's 2007 Fees and
Fee Policy, the cash dedication of the residential portion of the development would
be $816,000.
Land dedication of 10% of the total land area is required to meet the parks
dedication requirements for commercial development. Staff is also recommending
cash in -lieu of land for the parks dedication payment for the commercial area. Once
the commercial area has been more clearly identified, staff can make a more accurate
recommendation on the cash dedication requirement for this portion of the
development.
None of the four concept proposals illustrate pedestrian circulation facilities. Given
the proposed density, mix of uses, and surrounding railroad and Business Park
activity, staff recommends that the PUD require the applicant to submit a
comprehensive pedestrian circulation plan as part of the Master Development Plan.
The plan should have a universal theme that includes high quality pedestrian
circulation facilities with decorative side walks and bike trails consistent with the
development's scale and architecture. These facilities should extend throughout the
development and provide connections to the City wide park and trail system.
I VIP
4 ROSEMOUN
PARKS AND RECREATION
M E M O R A N D U M
Due to the high density of the proposed development, staff is recommending that
the developer consider installing some on site recreational amenities.
The Parks and Recreation Commission will be reviewing this concept plan at their
meeting on Monday, February 26, 2007.
Please call me at 651 322 -6012 if you have any questions about this memo.
o
ROSEN4OUI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Work Session: May 1, 2007
AGENDA ITEM: 07 -06 -CON Rosewood Commons
AGENDA SECTION:Concept Planned Unit Development Work Session
PUD) Progress Land Company
PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development AGENDA NO.Director
ATTACHMENTS: Concept Plan APPROVED BY:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide Direction to Staff
DISCUSSION
In March the City Council granted concept PUD approval to the Rosewood Commons project. The
approval was by simple majority. Ultimately the rezoning and guide plan approval for the project will
require a 4 /5ths vote of the Council. The two dissenting votes expressed concern about the overall
density on the site and requested a reduction in total units.
The property owner has revised a drawing which has the same number of units but has
repackaged" them into four larger buildings instead of the initial six, 40 -unit buildings. The owner
is requesting feedback from staff and the Council. Staff is requesting direction from the Council to
aid in providing further direction to the applicant through the remaining planning review process.
The question from staff is whether the issue is solely a density issue or whether it is somewhat a site
plan issue. In other words, could a site plan be found acceptable that serves 240 units if site
amenities, attractive architecture, and adequate open space and recreational active areas were
provided or is it immaterial whether there are four buildings or six; given the overall density is not
supported? The answer to this fundamental question would assist in future development of a plan
submittal by the applicant.