The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5.a. PCExSumm_Major Amend 7 & 8_07262016EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Planning CommissionPublic Hearing:July 26 2016 Tentative City Council Meeting:August 16, 2016 AGENDA ITEM: Case 16-27-MA;Request by Metro Land Holdings for aPUD Master Development Plan which would permit an81-unit three story apartment building and seven single AGENDA SECTION: family homes. Additionally, staff Public Hearing recommends approval of the preliminary plat for the Harmony 7th and Harmony 8th Additions. PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development AGENDA NO. 5.a. Director ATTACHMENTS:Site Location Map; January 6, 2004 Approval, July 6, 2004 Approval, June 17, 2008 th Approval, Harmony 8Architectural th Rendering; Harmony 8Elevation; Harmony thth 8Existing Conditions, Harmony 8 th Preliminary Plat, Harmony 8Preliminary th Erosion Control Plan, Harmony 8Grading thth Plan, Harmony 8Utility Plan, Harmony 8 th Preliminary Street Profiles, Harmony 8 th Landscape Plan, Harmony 8Lighting Plan, APPROVED BY:K.L th Harmony 8City Engineer’sMemorandum th dated July 19, 2016,Harmony 7Existing th Conditions, Harmony 7Demo Plan, thth Harmony 7Preliminary Plat, Harmony 7 th Preliminary Erosion Control, Harmony 7 th Grading Plan, Harmony 7Utility Plan, th Harmony 7Preliminary Street Profiles th Harmony 7City Engineer’s Memorandum dated July 19, 2016,Citizen Comment Map, Citizen Comments, Petition, RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission make the following motions: 1.Motionto Recommend Approval of the Major Amendment to the Harmony PUDto permit an 81 unit 3-story rental apartment instead of 29 townhome units and seven single family homes instead of three quad buildings subject to the following conditions: a.The total number of units in the apartment cannot exceed 81. b.The applicant to provide a proof of parking plan that will increase the total number available on site to 162 (underground and surface parking). The additional stalls shall be installed on site if a parking issue occurs at thesite, as determined by the City staff. c.The applicantmodify the building elevations to ensure 40% brick or stone on all facades and add the building embellishment on the south and west wing consistent with the design of the north and east building facades. The interior building facades should include additional embellishment for staff review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. d.The applicant modify the landscape plan to increase the total amount of overstory trees provided on site and increase the number of boulevard trees in the southern perimeter of the site. Landscaping shall be installed in the parking lot islands. A landscape letter of credit must be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. e.The applicant to comply with the Engineers Memos dated July 19, 2016 for the th 8Additions. th 2. Motionto Recommend Approval of the simple plat application for Harmony 7 Addition: a.Dedicate standard drainage and utility easements. th b.Development of the seven single family lots created in Harmony 7Addition cannot occur until: i.The applicant enter into anoffsiteponding agreement ii.The regional pond west of the site, within the Dunmore project be installed c.The applicant to comply with the Engineers Memo dated July 19, 2016 for the th Harmony 7Addition th 3. Motion to Recommend Approval of the simple plat applications for Harmony 8 Addition, subject to the following conditions: a.Dedicate standard drainage and utility easements b.The applicant comply with the Engineers Memo dated July 19, 2016 for the th Harmony 8Addition SUMMARY The proposal is to amend the PUD for the Harmony project to construct a 3-story 81-unit apartment building and plat seven single family lots when threequad units were approved in the location of the temporary pond along Hwy 3. The change in the building style and number of units prompts the need for a major amendment to the PUD. The applicant is also requesting platting of the apartment site and seven single family lots. The apartment is proposed south of the clubhouse, which in the original PUD that location was approved for a 60-unit senior housing project. Coincidentally, an apartment complex was proposed within the Harmony project, west of the clubhouse, adjacent to the public park. The current apartment site and the previously anticipated apartment site were both amended to permit construction of townhomes when the market changed and a new builder took over the project; they did not build apartments. Since that time some of the townhouse units have been constructed. The proposed apartment is a 3-story building with 81 units with access from Bronze Parkway and underground parking with a surface lot. The single family homes are located within the area of the temporary pond and were initially designated for 3 quad home buildings. The temporary pond was provided because there was not public access to the designated regional pond located across Hwy 3, within the Dunmore development. When the Dunmore 2 project moves forward, and the regional pond created, the Harmony ponds can be filled and construction of the seven single family homes occur. Preliminary plat for the seven single family lots and the apartment project are also part of the requested approval. Applicant: Metro Land Holdings, LLC Property Owner: Metro Land Holdings, LLC Property Location: Outlot F Harmony Addition Size of Property:2.61 acres Comprehensive Plan Designation:MDR Medium Density Residential Zoning:R3-Medium Density Residential Number of Units: 81 units Site Density:31 units/acre Harmony Project Density: Approximately 6 units/acre Current Neighboring Land Uses: North – Neighborhood Clubhouse South – Future Townhomes East – Existing Townhomes West – City Park BACKGROUND In July 2004, the City Council approved a Master Development Plan and Preliminary Plat for the Brockway project. Included as part of the project, was a 60-unit senior housing project in the general location of the current apartment proposal. Additionally, there was a 120-unit market rate apartment project recommended on the NW side of the public park. At the time of the initial approval, 624 units were approved. The review and approval process included an environmental review and traffic study to assess the impacts of the project on the existing infrastructure and adjoining roadways. Additionally, the internal road system and utilities were designed for the initial 624-unit project. In June 2008, the City Council approved an amendment to the PUD to allow townhomes in the location of the two apartment projects. The request was prompted by the purchase of the remaining lots by Rottlund Company; they were a residential builder but did not build apartment buildings. In place of the 120 apartments, 49 townhouse units were proposed; in place of the senior housing apartment building 29 townhome units were approved. The change created a net decrease in project units of 102. More recently, the current property owner, which is different than the Rottlund Company, has found there is demand in the community for apartments. They are recommending 81 units in the location of the initial 60-unit senior housing project. The building configuration and height are similar to that anticipated in the initial 2004 PUD approval. In 2004, there were 624 unitsproposed, in a combination of single family, townhomes, quads, and apartments. The currently approved units are 488 which would change to 535 if the apartments and single family homes are approved. . Apreliminary plat request is aquasi-judicial decision for the City Council meaning that the City Council is acting as a judge to determine if the regulations within the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance are being followed. The Major Amendment to the Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan is a legislative decision because of potential Code deviations being requested. Legislative decisions give the City Council more latitude, but consideration should be given to the PUD standards of the existing 2004 Brockway Area (Harmony) PUD agreement. DISCUSSION The modification from the townhouse project to the apartment project is considered a major amendment 3 because it substantially alters the location of buildings, parking areas or roads. In 2004 the Brockway approval included 624 residential units. The number of units included a variety of residential attached and detached units including 120 rental apartments in northwest of the park and 60 rental senior housing units in the current apartment location. With the removal of the 120 apartments, the switch from quads to single family detached units, and the changes to various townhouse buildings, the number of units has been decreased to 535 or an 89-unit reduction for the initial approval. TheJuly2004 PUD Final Development Plan also required the condition that PUD amendments were required for the apartments and senior units and be consistent with the January 2004 PUD concept plan approval. Specifically, it noted that information relating to the site plan, architectural elevations, landscaping, and all associated site amenities shall be reviewed. The January 2004 concept plan approval condition is listed below: The apartment and senior condos shall be limited to three stories in height and have a minimum of 40% brick, or cultured stone, and monolithic vertical building planes shall be avoided with articulation of dwelling units, windows, and balconies. Architectural details such as dormers, windows, or similar features shall be used to provide relief of long roof eves. Primary building entrances shall have a variety of design features including separate gables,verandas, or canopies creating significant relief (off-sets in excess of six feet). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The sites for the original two multi-family projects were designated as medium density residential. The townhouse portion of the Brockway project wasalso designated for medium density residential with the single family areas being designated as low density. The portions of Harmony that are not single family fall within the medium density comprehensive plan designation. For this reason, even though the apartment project is high density, staff is not recommending modifying the comprehensive plan designation. For informational purposes the density at the apartment 2.61acre siteis 31 units/acre. The entire Harmony project is approximately 6 units per acre includingthe two projects before the Commission. The City’s Comprehensive Plan embraces the goal of providing life cycle housing in the community. It is estimated, that at present approximately 7.5% of the total housing in the City is rental multi-family housing. And of that amount, slightly one third is subsidized housing with income restrictions. The City Council has expressed an interest in providing housing that can be attractive to millenniums who maybe cannot afford home ownership options at this time. Construction of the apartment complex would assist in meeting housing goals for higher density development and rental housing opportunities. STORMWATER As noted above, the area proposed for the seven single family lots was initially designated for three quad- homes. Because there was not access to the planned regional pond across Hwy 3 from the Harmony site a temporary pond was created to properly address site stormwater. The development of the Dunmore project allows construction of the regional pond and permits filling the Brockway pond, removing obsolete piping and development of the single family homes. There are no site stormwater impacts associated with the project as the infrastructure system is in place to permit the proposed development. UTILITIES Roads and public utilities were installed in initial phases of development. There are no new utilities needed for the apartment project or the seven single family homes proposed. A sanitary and water service has been installed in into the apartment site. 4 GRADING The grading plan illustrates some grading work to finalize site grades to facilitate construction of the apartment building. Although the site is relatively flat, the apartments need a flat site, which will be set at the 874 elevation. The east side of the site will be even with the adjoining road, Brockway Avenue. The southeast building corner has some grading to create the building pad. The western side of the parking lot slopes down, to accommodate the underground parking entrance. There are no grading issues raised by the request. With the seven single family homes the temporary pond will be filled and the existing storm sewer dismantled. A new pipe will be added between lots 5 and 6 which will direct drainage to the low area along Hwy 3. From there the drainage will be directed under Hwy 3 to the regional pond that will be enlarged within the Dunmore project. Filling of the pond and creation of lots cannot occur until the regional pond is installed. An offsite stormwater fee must be paid in association with removal of the temporary pond. ARCHITECTURE The 3-story apartment building contains 81 units, twenty-seven units per floor. The units mix is as follows and the estimated rents are from $1000/month to $1800/month. Unit Type Number of Percent of Mix Units S1: Studio, 1 ba9 11% A1: 1 bd, 1 ba3340% B1: 1 bd+den, 1 ba 3 4% C1: 2 bd, 2ba 2126% C5: 2 bd+den, 2 ba 3 4% D1: 2 bd+den (or 3 full bd), 1215% 2 ba Building height is approximately forty-fourfeet as measured by the ordinance. The ordinance measurement is calculated by the average distance between the eaves and the ridge level for the roof. There is some variation in height due to the site grades but it is only a few feet. For comparison purposes the 3-story townhouse units (Vista Townhouses) are 39’ in height. The Vista buildings are located directly east of the apartment site, across Brockway Avenue with another Vista building northwest of the apartment site. The architecture is enhanced on the north and east which is visible to Brockway Avenue and the association clubhouse. The facades on the south and east have some enhancement although the interior of the apartments are less ornate. The 3-story building is similar to other residential buildings in the area. Rock face block is at the base of the building on all four sides whereas most of the townhome units include brick. The predominant material is brick which covers the first two levels. Metal horizontal siding is on the third story. On the more visible north and east sides there is an architectural tower feature that extends above the roof line and is comprised of metal panels, alternating with the brick and balcony facades. This is similar to the technique used at the Waterford Commons property. The change in façade, materials, and height provides visual relief to the longer building sides. The 2004 PUD requires 40% brick or stone on the building façade. The applicant should verify that the 40% requirement is met by providing exterior materials calculations. Regarding other exterior 5 modifications, Staff is requesting the same embellishment on the south and west “wings” as that on the north and east. The lessor treatment proposed on the south and west should be introduced along the interior of the apartment facades to provide visual relief interior to the site. The seven single family homes would be incorporated into the exiting PUD standards for the single family homes already built in the Harmony neighborhood. LANDSCAPING The ordinance for 1-3 story residential buildings requires 1 overstory tree per unit. That would require 81 trees be planted on the site. The site is relatively small and it may be difficult to provide the ordinance required amount. However, the plan currently contains 36 overstory trees and 19 understory or ornamental trees. Additional trees should be planted south of the building within the open area to increase the total on the site. The ordinance also requires boulevard trees be planted 50’ apart. The trees are generally placed in the right location but should ring the site including along the south. Parking lot landscaping must be added consistent with the ordinance criteria. City Code requires one foundation planting for every 10 feet of linear feet of building. The proposed apartment building has a perimeter of 965 linear feet. Therefore, 97 foundation plantings are required. The landscape plan indicates 497 foundation plantings. PARKING& ACCESS The applicant indicates there are 80 underground stalls and 73 surface stalls provided at the apartment site. The ordinance requires 2 stalls per unit. The applicant has indicated that they manage approximately 1800 apartment units and finds that the parking demand they experience is approximately 1.65 cars per unit. Staff is comfortable with the amount of stalls provided but is requesting as a condition of approval a proof of parking plan that would bring the total stall number into compliance with the two to one unit standard or a total of 162 spaces. These stalls would be constructed if parking problems were experienced at the site. Because there have been parking concerns in the overall Harmony development, staff wants to ensure this project does not contribute to that problem. Vehicular access will be from Bronze Parkway. The curb cut is approximately 1100’ from the intersection between Bronze Parkway and Brockway Avenue and meets ordinance criteria. This access was set previously and the curb cut is already installed. As part of the initial Brockway/Harmony project a traffic study was conducted. There were improvements to the regional transportation system recommended in the study. These included widening Hwy 3 and Bonaire Path to add turn lanes, and adding a traffic signal to Connemara and Hwy 3. When warrants are met, it is intended that Bonaire and Hwy 3 will also be signalized. Comments from many of the residents expressed reservation about introduction of the apartment complex due to traffic concerns. The following is a table which illustrates the 2004 traffic projection versus the traffic generation under the current proposal. Because the number of units has been decreased from the initial proposal, the traffic generation has also decreased. The internal road system was designed to address the traffic generation for the 2004 approval and therefore is reasonable for the Harmony neighborhood with the proposal. 6 Land UseTrips generated per Number of Total trips generated day/unit Unitsper day 2004 Approval Single Family9.5282781 Townhome 5.81 3622104 Apartments 6.65 120798 Senior Condos 3.48 60 209 Total Units 624 Total Trips Generated 3892 2016 Proposal Single Family 9.52 95 905 Townhome 5.81 3592086 Apartments6.6581539 535 Total Units Total Trips Generated 3530 Based upon the table, the entire Harmony neighborhood, including the proposed projects, would generate 3530 trips per day. All properties in Harmony gain access along Brockway Avenue, although traffic patterns are generally related to convenience. So the assumption is an approximately 50/50 split with entrancing and exiting from Bonaire Path or Connemara Trail. That would mean at full development, the southern or northern leg of Brockway Avenue would have approximately 1700 to 2000 vehicle trips per day. For comparison purposes Shannon Parkway south of McAndrews has 3150 ADT, Connemara Trail west of Biscayne has 2900 ADT, and Bonaire Path west of Hwy 3 is 1950 ADT. Pedestrian access from the ground level units on the east occurs from private sidewalks which link with the public sidewalk along Brockway Avenue. Other units do not have that individualized access. There is presently no connection from the western portion of the property to the existing public trail which extends into the adjoining public park. The applicant should modify the plans to include the public trail and provide a link from the site to the existing trail. A sidewalk along the western parking lot edge would allow that extension. PARK DEDICATION The park dedication requirements have been paid or been achieved through land dedication. There are no new Park fees created by the request. PRELIMINARY PLAT th The Harmony 7 Addition creates seven single family lots in place of three quad homes that were initially approved as part of the project. From a technical standpoint, all properties platted must contain standard drainage and utility easements. NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS The City has received numerous emails, letters, and a petition (attached) opposed to the proposed apartment project and in some cases the change to the seven single family lots. A map showing the residences of writers and petitioners is provided for the Commission’s information. 7 As mentioned above, the estimated traffic generation for the project as compared to the 2004 approval is less than current proposal. This is important because the infrastructure was designed for the 2004 approval. Additionally, the regional traffic improvements suggested in the initial traffic study have been implemented. Based upon information from the police department crime in the Harmony neighborhood appears to be less than some other neighborhoods in the community-based upon geographic size and estimated population. For apartment comparison, staff has chosen the Waterford Commons project. The project will be by the same builder and owner although is slightly larger with 105 units instead of 81 and contains 13,000 square feet of commercial space and there will be none in Harmony. For the first 5 months of 2016 there were 6 police calls to Waterford Commons with two of the calls for a medical. There have been comments made regarding whether the apartment complex would be included in the HOA and statements that the private facilities are already crowded. Staff has assumed that the apartments would be part of the HOA. The City does not regulate the structure of the HOA’s and therefore would not consider access to HOA benefits as part of the approval process. There have been concerns expressed about the demand for parking in the entire Harmony neighborhood with concerns that the apartments would prompt more demand. The City’s ordinance requires provision of 2 spaces per apartment unit. The project is below the 2 to 1 ratio by 9 stalls. The applicant indicates that they manage approximately 1800 units and find that their properties have 1.65 cars per unit. If so, the number of parking spaces provided would be adequate and allow some approximately 20 stalls for guests. Concerns have been expressed regarding the filling of stormwater ponds and replacement with single family homes. What prompted the planning review is the replatting to single family lots versus the three quad homes which were initially approved in the Harmony PUD. Once the regional pond within the Dunmore project is constructed, the temporary ponds within Harmony are no longer needed and the developer can build on the sites. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission make a motion to recommend approval of the PUD Master Development Plan which would permit an 81-unit three story apartment building and seven single family homes. Additionally, staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat for the Harmony 7th and th Harmony 8Additions. 8 Harmony 7th & 8th additions July 12, 20161:4,800 0225450900ft 065130260m Property Information Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. REG. NO: 21629 I HEARBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WASPREPARED UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM AREGISTERED ARCHITECT UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA. ARTISTIC RENDERINGAREA MAP 1i 101 N 101 1t 150 SF W2430 HATCH KEY Room name SYMBOLS KEY Room name ABBREVIATIONS REG. NO: 21629 I HEARBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WASPREPARED UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM AREGISTERED ARCHITECT UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA. SD_500 1 711 ft²711 ft²711 ft²711 ft²888 ft² Unit A1Unit A1Unit A1Unit A1Unit B1 Unit C1Unit C1 1,066 ft²1,066 ft² Unit D1 1,162 ft² Unit C5 1,084 ft² 711 ft² Unit A1 Unit D1 1,162 ft² 533 ft²711 ft²711 ft²533 ft² Unit C1Unit C1 Unit S1Unit A1Unit A1Unit S1 1,066 ft²1,066 ft² Unit C1 1,066 ft² Unit C1 1,066 ft² 3 SD_500 711 ft² Unit A1 711 ft² Unit A1 2 4 SD_500 Unit C1 1,066 ft² 711 ft² Unit A1 711 ft² Unit A1 533 ft² Unit S1 Unit D1Unit D1 1,162 ft²1,162 ft² 25'-8" Level 1 1/16" = 1'-0" 2 SD_500 1 3 SD_500 2 4 SD_500 Parking ScheduleLevelCount Level -179Level -1: 79Level 173Level 1: 73 Level -1 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 REG. NO: 21629 I HEARBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WASPREPARED UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM AREGISTERED ARCHITECT UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA. SD_500 1 711 ft²711 ft²711 ft²711 ft²888 ft² Unit A1Unit A1Unit A1Unit A1Unit B1 Unit C1Unit C1 1,066 ft²1,066 ft² Unit D1 1,162 ft² Unit C5 1,084 ft² 711 ft² Unit A1 Unit D1 1,162 ft² 533 ft²711 ft²711 ft²533 ft² Unit C1Unit C1 Unit S1Unit A1Unit A1Unit S1 1,066 ft²1,066 ft² Unit C1 1,066 ft² Unit C1 1,066 ft² 3 SD_500 711 ft² Unit A1 711 ft² Unit A1 2 4 SD_500 Unit C1 1,066 ft² 711 ft² Unit A1 711 ft² Unit A1 533 ft² Unit S1 Unit D1Unit D1 1,162 ft²1,162 ft² Level 3 1/16" = 1'-0" 2 SD_500 1 711 ft²711 ft²711 ft²711 ft²888 ft² Unit A1Unit A1Unit A1Unit A1Unit B1 Unit C1Unit C1 1,066 ft²1,066 ft² Unit D1 1,162 ft² Unit C5 1,084 ft² 711 ft² Unit A1 Unit D1 1,162 ft² 533 ft²711 ft²711 ft²533 ft² Unit C1Unit C1 Unit S1Unit A1Unit A1Unit S1 1,066 ft²1,066 ft² Unit C1 1,066 ft² Unit C1 1,066 ft² 3 SD_500 711 ft² Unit A1 711 ft² Unit A1 2 4 SD_500 Unit C1 1,066 ft² 711 ft² Unit A1 711 ft² Unit A1 533 ft² Unit S1 Unit D1Unit D1 1,162 ft²1,162 ft² Level 2 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 REG. NO: 21629 I HEARBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WASPREPARED UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM AREGISTERED ARCHITECT UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA. 33'-7 3/8" 32'-7 3/8" Unit C5 1,084 ft² Unit D1 1,162 ft² D1C5 1/8" = 1'-0" 1/8" = 1'-0" 65 29'-7 3/8" Unit C1 1,066 ft² NameAreaCount Unit Totals w/ Gross area by Level Level 1Unit A1711 ft²11Unit B1888 ft²1Unit C11,066 ft²7Unit C51,084 ft²1Unit D11,162 ft²4Unit S1533 ft²3Level 2Unit A1711 ft²11Unit B1888 ft²1Unit C11,066 ft²7Unit C51,084 ft²1Unit D11,162 ft²4Unit S1533 ft²3Level 3Unit A1711 ft²11Unit B1888 ft²1Unit C11,066 ft²7Unit C51,084 ft²1Unit D11,162 ft²4Unit S1533 ft²3Grand total: 81 C1 1/8" = 1'-0" 4 29'-7 3/8" Unit Counts Total w/ Gross Area NameAreaCountComments Unit S1533 ft²9Studio, One BathUnit A1711 ft²33One Bed, One BathUnit B1888 ft²3One Bed + Den, One BathUnit C11,066 ft²21Two Bed, Two BathUnit C51,084 ft²3Two Bed + Den, Two BathUnit D11,162 ft²12Three Bed, Two BathGrand total: 81 888 ft² Unit B1 B1 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 29'-7 3/8" 711 ft² Unit A1 A1 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 29'-7 3/8" 533 ft² Unit S1 S1 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 ony Village Apts.AGIemp\\notes90C43B\\HarmFilename: C:\\Users\\matt\\AppData\\Local\\T Matt Welch Drawn By: .egakcap noitatnemucod noitcurtsnocs' tcejorpa fotrapg niebsaronno itcurtsnocrofd ednetnitonsi dnasesoprup lanoitamrofnir ofstnemucod yrosivdasa,t rapni roelohwni, deussisingi sedgnithgiLe hT.REZUORybd ettimbusdnad etaercsgniwar dnodetatsyll acificepsesoh t fo noitpecxeeht htiwstnemeriu qeredocyrota lugerelbacilp paynahtiwtna ilpmocsatnet ningiseDgnit hgiLehtfo Filename: Harmony Village Apts.AGI ytilibati usrossenetelp moc,ssenetair porppaehtstne serperron,d etatsrodeilp mirehtie,seit narrawrehtien REZUOR .ngi seDgnithgiLe htybdetartsul liesohtotde rapmocsasleve lnoitpmusnoc ygreneroslev elthgilderusa em lautcaotd ragerhtiwdet atsrodeilpmi rehtie,seitna rrawrehtien REZUOR.noitaira vecuderotd eifirevdleif ebnoitamrofn irehtodnasre temarapngised tahtsdnemmoc erREZUOR.snoi tidnocdleifl autcaehtmorf yravyam Version A stl userderusaem lautcaerofere htdnaREZUORy bdeifirevdle ifneebtonev ahsrehtoybde Date:6/30/2016 divorpnoitam rofni dnasret emarapngised esehT.sreht oybdeilppusn oitamrofnidna sretemarapng isednopudesab Lighting Layout e cnamrofrepmet sysgnithgilfo noitciderpde tapicitnanas tneserper)"REZU OR"(REZUORy bdedivorp ) ngiseDgnithgi L"(noitalumiS lausiVro/dna sisylanAygre nE,tuoyaLze, sisylanAgnithg iLehT Scale: as noted Job Name: Harmony Village ApartmentsPrepared For: JOE MCELWAIN 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00 .00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.5 fc 0.5 fc 1 fc 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 1 fc 0.5 fc 1 fc 1 fc 1 fc 0.5 fc1.40.13.80.11.80.10.5 fc 15S 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.30.14.50.70.18.71.20.10.80.50.17.21.40.1 11S 16S 7S 14S 13S 2S 10S 9S 5S 3S 1S 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.5 fc 1 fc 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.5 fc 1 fc 6P 0.00.00.0 0.5 fc 1 fc 1 fc 1 fc 0.00.00.00.0 4P 1 fc 0.5 fc 1 fc 1 fc 17AAA 12AA 8AAA 1 fc Parking lotReadings taken at 0'-0" AFGIlluminance (Fc)Average = 1.81Maximum = 5.6Minimum = 0.5Avg/Min Ratio = 3.62Max/Min Ratio = 11.20 0.5 fc 1 fc 1 fc 1 fc 1 fc 0.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.1 0.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.1 0.5 fc 0.5 fc 0.5 fc 0.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.10.10.1 0.5 fc 0.00.10.10.10.20.30.30.40.40.50.40.40.30.30.20.10.10.1 0.10.10.10.20.30.50.70.80.91.01.01.00.91.00.10.10.20.40.60.81.21.61.71.71.61.61.30.80.60.40.30.20.10.10.10.10.20.30.40.60.81.01.11.11.11.00.80.60.40.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.70.70.60.60 .40.30.20.10.10.1 0.10.10.20.30.40.60.81.01.21.31.31.31.21.510.10.10.10.20.30.50.71.01.51.81.91.91.91.71.41.31.50.10.10.20.40.60.91.52.42.93.53.53.02.51.71.21.54.10.41.90.20.10.10.20.40.60.81.11.52.02.01.22.02.11.61.2 0.80.60.56.41.40.10.10.10.20.40.60.81.21.83.03.52.53.53.32.11.30.90.60.56.30.60.10.10.10.20.40.60.81.32.13.85.25.45.44.12.51.40.90.70.52.70.30.10.10.20.30.50.81.32.03.24.44.84.53.32.31.40.90.60.40.10 .10.10.10.20.30.50.71.11.82.63.13.33.12.62.01.20.80.50.30.20.10.1 0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300 3503403303203103002902802702602502402302202102001901801701601501401301201101009080706050403020100 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00 .00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00. 00.00.00.10.10.10.30.40.71.11.62.83.94.95.04.13.01.81.31.00.70.57.20.40.10.10.20.30.50.71.11.63.14.45.55.64.73.31.91.30.90.70.52.70.30.10.10.20.30.50.71.11.52.63.33.12.93.32.81.61.20.80.70.512.32.60. 10.10.10.20.30.50.71.01.42.02.11.71.52.12.01.51.20.80.70.60.80.70.10.10.10.20.30.50.71.01.41.81.71.20.91.62.01.61.10.90.70.53.42.40.20.10.10.20.30.50.71.01.31.81.91.41.11.82.01.61.20.90.70.63.30.40.1 0.10.20.30.50.71.01.32.12.72.52.12.92.71.71.20.90.70.59.10.70.10.10.10.20.30.50.71.01.42.53.63.92.64.03.41.91.20.90.70.53.30.50.10.10.10.20.30.50.70.91.32.12.72.72.02.72.61.61.10.80.70.54.20.20.10.10 .20.30.40.60.91.21.62.01.51.01.61.81.41.10.80.60.51.90.20.10.10.20.30.40.60.81.01.41.41.00.71.11.41.31.00.80.70.55.60.30.10.10.10.10.20.40.60.81.01.31.61.20.71.21.61.41.00.80.60.54.31.30.10.00.00.00. 00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Scale: 1 inch= 20 Ft. ony Village Apts.AGIemp\\notes90C43B\\HarmFilename: C:\\Users\\matt\\AppData\\Local\\T Matt Welch Drawn By: .egakcap noitatnemucod noitcurtsnocs' tcejorpa fotrapg niebsaronno itcurtsnocrofd ednetnitonsi dnasesoprup lanoitamrofnir ofstnemucod yrosivdasa,t rapni roelohwni, deussisingi sedgnithgiLe hT.REZUORybd ettimbusdnad etaercsgniwar dnodetatsyll acificepsesoh t fo noitpecxeeht htiwstnemeriu qeredocyrota lugerelbacilp paynahtiwtna ilpmocsatnet ningiseDgnit hgiLehtfo Filename: Harmony Village Apts.AGI ytilibati usrossenetelp moc,ssenetair porppaehtstne serperron,d etatsrodeilp mirehtie,seit narrawrehtien REZUOR .ngi seDgnithgiLe htybdetartsul liesohtotde rapmocsasleve lnoitpmusnoc ygreneroslev elthgilderusa em lautcaotd ragerhtiwdet atsrodeilpmi rehtie,seitna rrawrehtien REZUOR.noitaira vecuderotd eifirevdleif ebnoitamrofn irehtodnasre temarapngised tahtsdnemmoc erREZUOR.snoi tidnocdleifl autcaehtmorf yravyam Version A stl userderusaem lautcaerofere htdnaREZUORy bdeifirevdle ifneebtonev ahsrehtoybde Date:6/30/2016 divorpnoitam rofni dnasret emarapngised esehT.sreht oybdeilppusn oitamrofnidna sretemarapng isednopudesab Lighting Layout e cnamrofrepmet sysgnithgilfo noitciderpde tapicitnanas tneserper)"REZU OR"(REZUORy bdedivorp ) ngiseDgnithgi L"(noitalumiS lausiVro/dna sisylanAygre nE,tuoyaLze, sisylanAgnithg iLehT Scale: as noted Job Name: Harmony Village ApartmentsPrepared For: JOE MCELWAIN 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00 .00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.5 fc 0.5 fc 1 fc 1 fc 0.5 fc 1 fc 1 fc 1 fc 0.5 fc 1.40.13.80.11.80.1 15S 8.71.20.10.80.50.17.21.40.1 11S 16S 7S 14S 13S 2S 10S 9S 5S 3S 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.5 fc 1 fc 0.00.0 0.5 fc 1 fc 6P 0.00.00.0 0.5 fc 1 fc 1 fc 1 fc 0.00.00.00.0 4P 1 fc 0.5 fc 1 fc 1 fc 17AAA 12AA 8AAA 1 fc Avg/Min Ratio = 3.62Max/Min Ratio = 11.20 0.5 fc 1 fc 1 fc 1 fc 1 fc 0.5 fc 0.5 fc 0.5 fc 0.5 fc 0.00.10.10.10.20.30.30.40.40.50.40.40.30.30.20.10.10.1 0.10.10.10.20.30.50.70.80.91.01.01.00.91.00.10.10.20.40.60.81.21.61.71.71.61.61.30.80.60.40.30.20.10.10.10.10.20.30.40.60.81.01.11.11.11.00.80.60.40.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.70.70.60.60 .40.30.20.10.10.1 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.40.60.81.01.21.31.31.31.21.510.10.10.10.20.30.50.71.01.51.81.91.91.91.71.41.31.50.10.10.20.40.60.91.52.42.93.53.53.02.51.71.21.54.10.41.90.20.10.10.30.40.71.11.6 2.83.94.95.04.13.01.81.31.00.70.57.20.40.10.20.30.50.71.11.63.14.45.55.64.73.31.91.30.90.70.52.70.30.10.20.30.50.71.11.52.63.33.12.93.32.81.61.20.80.70.512.32.60.10.10.20.30.50.71.01.42.02.11.71.52.1 2.01.51.20.80.70.60.80.70.10.10.20.30.50.71.01.41.81.71.20.91.62.01.61.10.90.70.53.42.40.20.10.20.30.50.71.01.31.81.91.41.11.82.01.61.20.90.70.63.30.40.10.20.30.50.71.01.32.12.72.52.12.92.71.71.20.90 .70.59.10.70.10.10.20.30.50.71.01.42.53.63.92.64.03.41.91.20.90.70.53.30.50.10.10.20.30.50.70.91.32.12.72.72.02.72.61.61.10.80.70.54.20.20.10.20.30.40.60.91.21.62.01.51.01.61.81.41.10.80.60.51.90.20. 10.20.30.40.60.81.01.41.41.00.71.11.41.31.00.80.70.55.60.30.10.10.10.20.40.60.81.01.31.61.20.71.21.61.41.00.80.60.54.31.30.10.10.10.20.40.60.81.11.52.02.01.22.02.11.61.20.80.60.56.41.40.10.10.10.20.4 0.60.81.21.83.03.52.53.53.32.11.30.90.60.56.30.60.10.10.10.20.40.60.81.32.13.85.25.45.44.12.51.40.90.70.52.70.30.10.10.20.30.50.81.32.03.24.44.84.53.32.31.40.90.60.40.10.10.10.10.20.30.50.71.11.82.63 .13.33.12.62.01.20.80.50.30.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.0 Not to Scale ony Village Apts.AGIemp\\notes90C43B\\HarmFilename: C:\\Users\\matt\\AppData\\Local\\T Matt Welch Drawn By: .egakcap noitatnemucod noitcurtsnocs' tcejorpa fotrapg niebsaronno itcurtsnocrofd ednetnitonsi dnasesoprup lanoitamrofnir ofstnemucod yrosivdasa,t rapni roelohwni, deussisingi sedgnithgiLe hT.REZUORybd ettimbusdnad etaercsgniwar dnodetatsyll acificepsesoh t fo noitpecxeeht htiwstnemeriu qeredocyrota lugerelbacilp paynahtiwtna ilpmocsatnet ningiseDgnit hgiLehtfo Filename: Harmony Village Apts.AGI ytilibati usrossenetelp moc,ssenetair porppaehtstne serperron,d etatsrodeilp mirehtie,seit narrawrehtien REZUOR .ngi seDgnithgiLe htybdetartsul liesohtotde rapmocsasleve lnoitpmusnoc ygreneroslev elthgilderusa em lautcaotd ragerhtiwdet atsrodeilpmi rehtie,seitna rrawrehtien REZUOR.noitaira vecuderotd eifirevdleif ebnoitamrofn irehtodnasre temarapngised tahtsdnemmoc erREZUOR.snoi tidnocdleifl autcaehtmorf yravyam Version A stl userderusaem lautcaerofere htdnaREZUORy bdeifirevdle ifneebtonev ahsrehtoybde Date:6/30/2016 divorpnoitam rofni dnasret emarapngised esehT.sreht oybdeilppusn oitamrofnidna sretemarapng isednopudesab Lighting Layout e cnamrofrepmet sysgnithgilfo noitciderpde tapicitnanas tneserper)"REZU OR"(REZUORy bdedivorp ) ngiseDgnithgi L"(noitalumiS lausiVro/dna sisylanAygre nE,tuoyaLze, sisylanAgnithg iLehT Scale: as noted Job Name: Harmony Village ApartmentsPrepared For: JOE MCELWAIN ony Village Apts.AGIemp\\notes90C43B\\HarmFilename: C:\\Users\\matt\\AppData\\Local\\T Matt Welch Drawn By: .egakcap noitatnemucod noitcurtsnocs' tcejorpa fotrapg niebsaronno itcurtsnocrofd ednetnitonsi dnasesoprup lanoitamrofnir ofstnemucod yrosivdasa,t rapni roelohwni, deussisingi sedgnithgiLe hT.REZUORybd ettimbusdnad etaercsgniwar dnodetatsyll acificepsesoh t fo noitpecxeeht htiwstnemeriu qeredocyrota lugerelbacilp paynahtiwtna ilpmocsatnet ningiseDgnit hgiLehtfo Filename: Harmony Village Apts.AGI ytilibati usrossenetelp moc,ssenetair porppaehtstne serperron,d etatsrodeilp mirehtie,seit narrawrehtien REZUOR .ngi seDgnithgiLe htybdetartsul liesohtotde rapmocsasleve lnoitpmusnoc ygreneroslev elthgilderusa em lautcaotd ragerhtiwdet atsrodeilpmi rehtie,seitna rrawrehtien REZUOR.noitaira vecuderotd eifirevdleif ebnoitamrofn irehtodnasre temarapngised tahtsdnemmoc erREZUOR.snoi tidnocdleifl autcaehtmorf yravyam Version A stl userderusaem lautcaerofere htdnaREZUORy bdeifirevdle ifneebtonev ahsrehtoybde Date:6/30/2016 divorpnoitam rofni dnasret emarapngised esehT.sreht oybdeilppusn oitamrofnidna sretemarapng isednopudesab Lighting Layout e cnamrofrepmet sysgnithgilfo noitciderpde tapicitnanas tneserper)"REZU OR"(REZUORy bdedivorp ) ngiseDgnithgi L"(noitalumiS lausiVro/dna sisylanAygre nE,tuoyaLze, sisylanAgnithg iLehT Scale: as noted Job Name: Harmony Village ApartmentsPrepared For: JOE MCELWAIN FilenameSLIM12N - Neutral - ITL81603.IESENTRA12N - Neutral - ITL76949.IESALED4T78N - Neutral - ITL79610.IESALED4T78N - Neutral - ITL79610.IES Total Watts166.827.8158.8476.4 ENTRA12N Meter TypeNormal Arr. Watts13.913.9158.8238.2 PtSpcTb10 Lum. Watts13.913.979.479.4 PtSpcLr10 ALED4T78N DescriptionSLIM12NENTRA12NALED4T78N 2 @ 180°ALED4T78N - 3 at 90° LLF1.0001.0001.0001.000 DescriptionReadings taken at 0'-0" AFGReadings taken at 0'-0" AFG Max/MinN.A.11.20 Arr. Lum. Lumens13729821334620019 SLIM12N Avg/MinN.A.3.62 Min0.00.5 Lum. Lumens137298266736673 Max12.35.6 Tilt0000000000000000000000 Avg0.651.81 Orient1.51.51.52251.52251.591.628181.6281.6281.51.51.521821.51.51.51.5271.5531.553181.553 ArrangementSINGLESINGLEBACK-BACK3 @ 90 DEGREES rnational intellectual property laws. UnitsFcFcMTG HT777575725252577725257777252525 Y282.036266.754249.981239.822223.324222.504206.095195.189193.647193.733188.866162.173146.885136.959136.855129.899108.21191.52873.93570.19171.73171.649 at the top of the symbol for ceiling mounted luminaires LabelSLIM12NENTRA12NALED4T78N 2 @ 180°ALED4T78N - 3 at 90° he predicted results for planes of calculation eitheric, our lighting simulations assume a mounting height any variables, only lamp lumen depreciation (LLD) CalcTypeIlluminanceIlluminance designs are protected under U.S. and Inte the anticipated performance and are subject TagSPAAAAA lamp manufacturers' specifications. X240.979246.197242.346144.831243.165163.213248.746100.75699.3102.298244.864245.592250.687104.394101.396246.805247.381253.144249.201105.94107.398104.4 as designated in the calculation summary. Meter orientation is normal Qty12212 TagSSSPSPSAAAAAAAAASSSAAAASSSSAAAAAAAAA Calculation SummaryLabelProperty_PlanarParking lotLuminaire ScheduleSymbolExpanded Luminaire Location SummaryLumNo123456788891011121213141516171717Total Quantity: 22 NOTES:* The light loss factor (LLF) is a product of mhas been applied to the calculated results unless otherwise noted. The LLD is the result (quotient)of mean lumens / initial lumens per* Illumination values shown (in footcandles) are tto the plane of calculation.* The calculated results of this lighting simulation represent an anticipated prediction of system performance.Actual measured results may vary fromto means and methods which are beyond the control of the designer.* Mounting height determination is job site specif(insertion point of the luminaire symbol) to be taken and at the bottom of the symbol for all other luminaire mounting configurations.* RAB Lighting Inc. luminaire and product horizontal, vertical or inclined Patents issued or pending apply. MEMORANDUM DATE: July 19, 2016 TO: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director CC: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner Anthony Nemcek, Planner Amy Roudebush, Planning & Personnel Secretary John Morast, Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM: Mitch Hatcher, Project Engineer th RE: Harmony 8 Addition Engineering Review S UBMITTAL: th The plans for Harmony 8 Addition have been prepared by James R. Hill, Inc. Engineering review comments were generated from the following documents included in the submittal: Preliminary Development Plans (8 sheet), dated June 28, 2016 Existing Conditions Utility Plan Preliminary Plat Dimensional Plan Erosion Control Plan Details Grading and Drainage Plan G ENERAL C OMMENTS: 1. Development fees are required based on the current Schedule of Rates and Fees. For 2016, the estimated development fees are listed below: Storm Sewer Trunk Charge: $ 6,865 / acre Sanitary Sewer Trunk Charge: $ 1,075 / acre Watermain Trunk Charge: $ 6,500 / acre 2. The proposed site plan is very similar to the previous Harmony development plan approved in 2004. Public utilities within the existing roadways are sized appropriately for the proposed changes to the development. No additional public utilities are required. 3. Street and utility construction shall be installed in accordance with the 2015 City of Rosemount General Specifications and Standard Detail Plates. 4. City inspection of street and utility installation is required during construction. 5. Emergency Overflow Route elevations and arrows must be shown on the plans at all low points. 6. The developer is required to obtain a NPDES construction Stormwater Permit and provide a copy of the approved SWPPP to the City prior to the start of any construction activity. 7. The existing bituminous trail along the south and west of the property is not shown on the plans. 8. Existing sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer constructed in 2008 is not shown on the plan. These utilities were installed north of Bronze Parkway beneath the gas pipelines and past the easement line. It is recommended to use the existing utilities to limit the amount of crossings for the gas pipelines. 9. Recommend adding a second CB near CBMH-100 to handle the amount of runoff generated from the drainage area in case of clogging. There appears to be about 0.79 acres of impervious area draining to this CBMH-100. An Atlat-14, 10-yr, 24-hr rainfall event generates approximately 4.1 cfs of runoff. 10. 11. Regional ponding for this portion of the Harmony development is provided in basin KL- 1589 south of Connemara Trail. 12. Roadway and sidewalk maintenance is the responsibility of the developer, which includes concrete and pavement repair and snow removal. 13. The proposed storm sewer will be privately owned and maintained. 14. Upon completion of the sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer construction, the City requires record drawings. See Engineering Guidelines for submittal and formatting requirements. 15. Koch Pipeline and Magellan Pipeline have gas pipelines crossing the site. Crossing permits and grading permits will be required from the gas companies for the proposed improvements. The developer is required to work with the gas companies to execute any required permits. Should you have any questions or comments regarding the items listed above, please contact me at 651-322-2015. MEMORANDUM DATE: July 19, 2016 TO: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director CC: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner Anthony Nemcek, Planner Amy Roudebush, Planning & Personnel Secretary John Morast, Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM: Mitch Hatcher, Project Engineer th RE: Harmony 7 Addition Engineering Review S UBMITTAL: th The plans for Harmony 7 Addition have been prepared by James R. Hill, Inc. Engineering review comments were generated from the following documents included in the submittal: Preliminary Development Plans (8 sheet), dated June 28, 2016 Existing Conditions Grading and Drainage Plan Demolition Plan Utility Plan Preliminary Plat Details Erosion Control Plan G ENERAL C OMMENTS: 1. Development fees are required based on the current Schedule of Rates and Fees. For 2016, the estimated development fees are listed below: Storm Sewer Trunk Charge: $ 6,865 / acre Sanitary Sewer Trunk Charge: $ 1,075 / acre Watermain Trunk Charge: $ 6,500 / acre 2. Site development is contingent upon the City securing the Subdivision Agreement for Dunmore and construction of the regional stormwater pond (KL-1552). 3. The proposed site was originally reviewed in 2008 as 3 quad townhomes. The sanitary and water utilities within the existing roadways are sized appropriately for the proposed changes to 7 single family homes. New sanitary and water services are required to reflect the proposed single family homes sites. 4. Street and utility construction shall be installed in accordance with the 2015 City of Rosemount General Specifications and Standard Detail Plates. 5. City inspection of street and utility installation is required during construction. 6. Emergency Overflow Route elevations and arrows must be shown at all low points. 7. The developer is required to obtain a NPDES construction Stormwater Permit and provide a copy of the approved SWPPP to the City prior to the start of any construction activity. 8. Maximum allowable slope is 4:1. Adjust grading between and behind house pads accordingly. 9. Verify the existing conditions are correct. th On Bronze Parkway, there is an existing CB along the west curb line north of 135 Street just north of the pedestrian ramp. th On Bronze Parkway, the CBs shown just south of 135 Street do not exist. 10. Rim elevation of STMH-103 is incorrect. Update to show correct elevation 11. Dunmore ponding submittal will include a review of the HWL in the swale east of the 12. Regional ponding for this portion of the Harmony development is provided in basin KL- 1552 in the Dunmore development. Stormwater review for the proposed Harmony site has been accounted for in the review of the Dunmore regional pond. 13. Storm sewer is proposed along the side and back lot lines of certain properties to convey drainage. Drainage and utility easements along these lines shall prohibit the installation of sheds to ensure that access can be provided for storm sewer maintenance. Fences are allowed but shall not restrict drainage and are required to include gates for truck access over the drainage and utility easement. Also, landscaping that will block access should be prohibited. These restrictions should be added as a restriction on the property deed. This will impact the following properties: Block 1: Lot 1, 2, 5, and 6 14. Upon completion of the sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer construction, the City requires record drawings. See Engineering Guidelines for submittal and formatting requirements. Should you have any questions or comments regarding the items listed above, please contact me at 651-322-2015. Single Family ?@§ A Apartments Letter Petition Both Petitioner/Letter Project Location Parcels Harmony 7th & 8th Additions Project 0350 7/26/16 Feet Document Path: T:\\GIS\\City\\Maps\\Departmental Maps\\CommunityDevelopment\\Mike_Phillippi\\HarmonyProject_ReceievedAddressesMap.mxd Marci Campen 13260 Brass Pkwy Rosemount, MN 55068 July 16, 2016 Rosemount Planning Commission 2875 145th St West Rosemount, MN 55068 Dear Planning Commission: As a resident of Harmony Village, I am strongly opposed to the recent proposal from Metro Land Holdings, LLC to develop an 80 unit apartment building and 7 single family homes. As stated in the proposal, it may be true that the proposal does not add any more units than were in the original concept plan for the Harmony Planned Unit Development (PUD). However, it adds substantially more units than the current PUD allows for and is not consistent with RosemountÈs Å2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan.Æ Yes, if you look at plans for the original Harmony PUD or RosemountÈs original Å2020 Comprehensive Land Use PlanÆ, a senior high-density unit was planned for the Harmony PUD. However, as the neighborhood and city grew at faster rates than expected both the Harmony PUD and the city Comprehensive Land Use Plan were revised. I have to believe the neighborhood and city both had well thought out reasons to eliminate the high-density housing in the Harmony PUD. Thankfully, two brand new senior high-density housing units have been built in the downtown corridor to meet the needs of senior high-density housing that was originally planned for Harmony. When we purchased our house in Harmony Village in 2010, our decision was based on the existing PUD. If there had still been a plan for a high-density housing, we would have looked elsewhere due to the fact we do not believe high-density housing aligns with our neighborhood unity, safety or identity. Unity- Harmony is a neighborhood with an association. Two of the main amenities of our association are a neighborhood pool and a club house. Both of these amenities are small and were not built to handle the number of people in high-density housing. If a high-density housing unit were to go into Harmony we would either need to exclude people from the high-density housing from our pool/ clubhouse amenities or allow them to join which would make both amenities overcrowded and unsafe. Neither of these options will create unity within our neighborhood. Safety- Harmony Village has one road (Brockway Ave) that all trafÐc must drive on with one entrance/exit at each end of the neighborhood. There are no side streets that allow trafÐc to Ñow differently to get in or out of Harmony Village. Adding 80 additional units will cause unreasonable trafÐc for our small neighborhood. Also, the proposed plan on Ðle at the city for the high-density housing is a 72 unit building with an open air parking lot with 72 parking stalls. Most households have more than one car. Where would all of these additional cars be parked? Either they would would use the spaces for the community pool/ clubhouse, or the city lot for the park, or they would need to all be on the street, all options prohibit overnight parking for at least part of the year. None of these options are safe or acceptable. Identity- Our neighborhood is a neighborhood that has embraced single family homes, multi- level medium-density townhouses, and single-level medium-density townhouses. All of the housing options include garages rather than open air parking lots as the only option. Our housing options are welcoming to people who can afford a wide range of housing styles. Our housing options are welcoming to people of all ages. We are not looking to discriminate against anyone with varied housing needs. However, our neighborhood trafÐc infrastructure and our neighborhood association infrastructure can not handle the needs of a high-density housing. In addition to adding a high-density housing unit to Harmony, the developer would like to re-plat land to make it suitable for single family homes. The addition of seven single families homes in and of itself does not concern me. However, the location does. According to the map, the developer is proposing Ðlling in a pond and using the surrounding green space to create 7 lots, which is concerning. Green spaces and proper drainage areas are important to all neighborhoods. These open spaces and drainage ponds are thought out to create balance and proper water run-off when PUDs are developed. It is irresponsible to take these away. In ÅRosemountÈs 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan as of May 2009Æ there are listed several Housing Element Goals and Policies of which I quote the Ðrst one below: 1. Design subdivisions to create independent neighborhoods. Facilitate neighborhood planning for improvements which reinforce neighborhood unity, A. safety, and identity. Natural corridors or buffer yards shall be utilized along boundaries of dissimilar housing B. types and densities by maximizing the use of existing landforms, open space, and vegetation to enhance neighborhood identity and integrity. All transitional residential areas shall provide a unique urban/rural character with a mixture C. of housing types, but with a relatively low average net density of 2.0 dwelling units per acre, with a lower density along areas guided for rural residential use. Encourage the use of planned unit developments to protect and enhance natural features, D. open space, and to provide appropriate neighborhood transitions.Æ Harmony Village has a Planned Unit Development, as encouraged in these goals and policies, with clearly outlined land use to help accomplish the sub-goals of neighborhood unity, safety, identity, and protecting open spaces. I am strongly opposed to a developer trying to change the PUD without any input from the existing neighborhood and existing association. The PUD was created and approved with purpose and long-range planning in mind. Yes the developers proposal will create proÐt for a builder and most likely additional tax dollars for the city. However, forcing a lot of extra houses and families into a space goes against our neighborhood and cityÈs goals and policies for neighborhood and housing planning. I thank you for taking these concerns seriously. Sincerely, Marci Campen July 21, 2016 Dear Planning Commission, We are writing to voice our concern and strong opposition to the recent proposal from Metro Land Holdings, LLC to construct 7 single family lots and an 80 unit apartment building in Harmony Village. We built our home in Harmony Village in 2009, and have been investing in it since. At the time of our purchase agreement we purchased our home with the understanding that the development would be a combination of townhomes and single family homes, per the PUD Agreement. Our primary concerns 1) We feel that the addition of what appears to be a multi-level apartment complex would alter the look and feel of our development, resulting in less of a neighborhood feel, due to the entire complex being rental property. 2) We are concerned that an 80 unit apartment complex will overshadow the city park/baseball field and neighborhood pool/clubhouse areas. This will make residents feel boxed in and not in any way open to the views around them. 3) There are still some undeveloped spaces within our neighborhood as well as others. We are concerned that allowing this apartment complex will open the possibility of setting a precedent for high density living to be added amongst planned housing communities. This be a natural fit in any of the suburban areas that we can think of. 4) Additional traffic from 80 apartment units and 7 single family homes could be an additional 87 cars at minimum. This is already a busy neighborhood with only one main street to get through, and with one entrance/exit in each direction (North and South). In addition, these vehicles would add to already congested intersections on Connemara Trail and Bonaire Path during peak times. The large increase in vehicles in the neighborhood also creates concern for the many lives, young children to seniors, and even pets that use the sidewalks and walking paths throughout the neighborhood. 5) We understand that the apartment complex will have underground parking for 80 spaces and an external parking lot for 73 parking spaces. We have several questions around this, based on information we have gathered from friends and family that live in similar apartment complexes. Will the underground parking spaces be included in rent or will they be an additional cost? If they are an additional cost, it could drastically increase the number of vehicles we see in the external parking lot of the proposed apartment complex. This could also vary seasonally if garage space is rented on a monthly basis. Will there be a limit to the number of vehicles each unit is allowed? 6) We currently see minimal criminal activity and would be devastated to see an increase in crime due to a large increase in the population. We feel that adding a large external parking area could cause an increase in thefts from vehicles, which has already been increasing over the past few years. 7) - what does that mean and will it change over the coming years? We have invested in our home and fear that the addition of a large apartment complex could greatly impact the value of homes in this development. Thus affecting the city property tax base. 8) We currently have 3 townhome associations, together with the single family homes they comprise the master association in our neighborhood. Is the vision that the apartment complex would be part of the association as well? Unfortunately this is a complex issue. If the apartments were to be part of the association 1) how do you assess dues to a rental property? 2) the pool and clubhouse are already heavily used and sometimes very crowded, adding so many additional residents would create very serious safety concerns. If the apartments were to be separate from the association 1) how does that create a neighborhood feel and not a division? 2) how do you rationalize the costs that the master association pays for the upkeep of all of the general areas? 3) there are already issues around restricting the pool access to those that belong to the association. 9) Regarding the 7 single family lots, we have concerns about the removal of 2 large holding ponds the environmental impact it could have regarding wildlife and flooding to our area. We are also concerned about the amount of space for 7 single family lots what would the lot sizes be, would they be comparable to the homes surrounding them? We agree that Rosemount could potentially use some high-density housing, if there is a need for it. H would be the best fit for everyone in the community. We have considered all of the other rental apartment complexes in the area and none are within a planned housing community. We ask you to see this through a homeowners eyes, if this were your neighborhood, where your family resides. We appreciate your time and thank you for taking our concerns seriously. Sincerely, Adam and Allison Helgren 13369 Brass Parkway Rosemount, MN 55068 From:Lindquist, Kim To:Roudebush, Amy; MPhillippi@wsbeng.com Subject:FW: Against Development Proposal Harmony Village Date:Thursday, July 21, 2016 3:07:20 PM Another letter, another address. Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director City of Rosemount, 2875 145th Street, Rosemount, MN 55068 Ph. 651-322-2020 / http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us From: Josh Cesaro-Moxley \[mailto:joshmoxley@gmail.com\] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 3:00 PM To: Lindquist, Kim; Johnson, Dwight Subject: Against Development Proposal Harmony Village DearDwightandKim, IthasbeenbroughttoourfamiliesattentionthattheCityofRosemountiscurrentlyreviewing planstochangetheHarmonyVillagePUDtoallowfora3storyapartmentbuildinginour neighborhood.WesubmittedourconcernstotheCityCouncilandMayorandwantedto voiceouropiniontoyouaswell.Weareopposedtotheproposedchangesforanumberof reasonsincluding: -Thesize anddensityisnotfeasibleinsuchasmallneighborhoodwithonly2ratherbusy entrancesandexits;posespedestrianandvehiclesafetyissuesascurrentlyplanned. -Parkingisalreadyrestrictedoncitystreetsand150parkingspacesmaynotadequately accommodatethe160+occupantsofthebuildingandtheirguests. -Theassociationinplacehadthisareadesignedfortownhomes.Addinganapartment buildingdoesnotfitthedesignorcharacteroftheneighborhood.Ascaleddownversionor rentaltownhomesmightworkatthislocation,butthesizeproposediswayoutofline.Why doesthedevelopernotconsiderotherlocationsthatdonotrequirechangingthePUD? VacantlandinRosemountisabundant. -Asarealestateprofessionalforover10years,I'veseenfirsthandhowhomeownershipis proventoaddstabilitytoacommunity.ThePUDascurrentlyoutlinedwouldofferthattype ofstrongcommunityandstabilitytoRosemount.Addinganapartmentbuildingdoesnot offerthissamestability.Rentalsareneeded,buttheyareproventonotofferthesame economicprogressforacommunity ashomeowners.Inadditionthehousingstockistight throughouttheTwinCitiesandnowisagreattimetobuildsinglefamilyhousingsothe developersstillstandtomakeasignificantamountofmoneyontownhomes. Again,westronglyopposethedevelopmentasproposedbyMetroLandHolding,LLC. Thankyouforyourconsideration, -- Josh Cesaro-Moxley Rachel Cesaro-Moxley 13327 Brass Parkway Rosemount, MN 55068 From:Lindquist, Kim To:MPhillippi@wsbeng.com Cc:Roudebush, Amy Subject:FW: Harmony Village Application Date:Friday, July 22, 2016 11:13:32 AM One more? Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director City of Rosemount, 2875 145th Street, Rosemount, MN 55068 Ph. 651-322-2020 / http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us From: Johnson, Dwight Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 11:09 AM To: Vicki Stute; Comment; dwight.johnson@ci.rosemunt.mn.us; Hadler, Clarissa; Debettignies, Mark; Rosemount Mayor; Nelson, Shaun; Weisensel, Jeff D.; Demuth, Vanessa; kim.lundquist@ci.rosemount.mn.us Cc: Lindquist, Kim Subject: RE: Harmony Village Application Hello Vicki and Nick, Thanks for your comments and I will have them passed along to the Planning Commission as well. Since you can’t make the hearing, you might be interested to see the information packet online later today at http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us/index.aspx?nid=109. Thank again. Dwight Johnson City Administrator th 2875 145 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068-4997 651-322-2006 From: Vicki Stute \[mailto:vicki.stute@gmail.com\] Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 10:54 AM To: Comment; dwight.johnson@ci.rosemunt.mn.us; Hadler, Clarissa; Debettignies, Mark; Rosemount Mayor; Nelson, Shaun; Weisensel, Jeff D.; Demuth, Vanessa; kim.lundquist@ci.rosemount.mn.us Subject: Harmony Village Application Goodmorning. Iamwritingtoyouinoppositionoftheproposedapplicationforan80-unit apartmentbuildingtobeincludedtheHarmonyVillagedevelopmentwhichrequiresre- zoning. Whilewehaveseveralconcernsregarding theinclusionofrentalpropertyinthis area,specificallyourconcernsarefocusedon increasedtraffic, highvolume usageofthe communitycenteramenitieswithlimitedcapacity,and decreasingpropertyvalues. WebuiltourhomelessthanthreeyearsagoundertheassumptionthattheHarmonyVillage developmentdidnotincluderentalproperty. OurselectionofHarmonyVillagewas purposefulforthatveryreason;andwhileweunderstandthat marketconditionshave changed,webelievethereare anumberofalternative,undeveloped propertiesinRosemount that couldaccommodate newhousingdevelopmentswhichcould includebothsinglefamily and multi-family(ownandrent)options. Theinclusionofrentalpropertieswithinthenew developmentswouldbetransparentfromthebeginningofanyhomeownerseekinghousing options. Duetoaconflictwithour workschedulesweareunabletoattendthePlanningCommission meetingonJuly26,2016butwestronglyurgethePlanningCommissiontovotein oppositionofthe applicationandre-zoningrequirementsandalsourgetheCityCounciltodo thesame. Pleaselet usknowifyouhaveanyquestions. Thankyouforyourtimeandconsideration. VickiandNickStute 13302BrassParkway,Rosemount,MN 55068 From:Lindquist, Kim To:Roudebush, Amy; MPhillippi@wsbeng.com Subject:FW: Harmony Village proposed apartment building Date:Friday, July 22, 2016 8:32:17 AM Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director City of Rosemount, 2875 145th Street, Rosemount, MN 55068 Ph. 651-322-2020 / http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us -----Original Message----- From: Tati Terfa \[mailto:tbterfa@gmail.com\] Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 12:57 AM To: Lindquist, Kim Cc: bayano62@gmail.com Subject: Harmony Village proposed apartment building Please disregard the last email. Here is the final email. Thanks Tati >> Good morning, >> >> My name is Tati Terfa. I live in Harmony Village with my husband and 4 adorable kids. >> >> We built our house in 2007 right before the economic downturn. When we decided to build our house in the southern Mpls and more specifically in the great city of Rosemount, we had several factors we looked at - kids friendly village, one of the best school district and the density of the population. >> >> With the proposed plan, I am concerned about the density, the value of the house and crime that comes with the apartment building. At the time, I do not recall the builder mentioning market level apartments. I vividly remember the builder's plan to build senior apartments, which was and is not a problem for us and our neighbors since we won't be concerned about crime. >> >> Please reconsider the decision to build apartment buildings. >> Thanks >> >> Tati and Bahiru 13219 Bronze Parkway Rosemount, MN, 55068 >> >> Sent from my iPhone From:Lindquist, Kim To:Roudebush, Amy Subject:FW: Harmony Village proposed apartment Date:Tuesday, July 19, 2016 2:14:28 PM Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director City of Rosemount, 2875 145th Street, Rosemount, MN 55068 Ph. 651-322-2020 / http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us From: Johnson, Dwight Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 2:01 PM To: Jo Ann Benson Cc: city council members; Lindquist, Kim Subject: RE: Harmony Village proposed apartment Hello Sanford and Jo Ann, Thanks for writing to the City Council about your concerns. They have received your message and I am also making sure that the Planning Commission will see it in their packets next week. The Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing on Tuesday, July 26, at 6:30 p.m. in City Hall. Regarding the drainage issue, if the pond is filled in on the west side of Harmony, the water will be directed under Highway 3 to go west to a new development which will build an oversized pond to accommodate the water from Harmony. So, there should be no increased danger of flooding. The developer would pay for this re-routing of the storm water. You will be able to review what is in the packet by looking online at http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us/index.aspx?nid=109 beginning late Friday. Again,thanks for your comments. Dwight Johnson City Administrator th 2875 145 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068-4997 651-322-2006 From: Jo Ann Benson \[mailto:joannb@mnfairplan.org\] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 1:44 PM To: city council members Subject: Harmony Village proposed apartment Please respect the wishes of the Harmony Village residents who have worked hard to be able to own a home in this residential community. A 72 unit apartment will increase traffic, causing safety hazards, as well over stressing utilities. We are also concerned with filling in the drainage ponds, we experienced that first hand while residing in Eagan, our street flooded, water rose up to the house and caused our basement to flood on several occasions. Thank you for your consideration. Sanford & Jo Ann Benson Harmony Village residents. The information contained in this message is privileged and confidential and intended only for the person or entity to which it is being sent. If you are not the intended recipient (or someone responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient) please be aware that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by telephone or e-mail immediately. Thank you. From:Lindquist, Kim To:Roudebush, Amy Subject:FW: Harmony Village Proposed Apartments Date:Tuesday, July 19, 2016 12:54:30 PM Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director City of Rosemount, 2875 145th Street, Rosemount, MN 55068 Ph. 651-322-2020 / http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us From: Johnson, Dwight Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 11:27 AM To: Kenneth DeVilbiss Cc: city council members; Lindquist, Kim Subject: RE: Harmony Village Proposed Apartments Hello Ken, Thank you for writing to us about the proposed apartment structure in Harmony. I am forwarding your comments to the Community Development Department so that they can be sure to have them in the packet for the Planning Commission meeting next week. The Planning Commission will be th having the public hearing on this issue on Tuesday, July 26 at 6:30p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. You may also want to look at the staff report for this item which can be found on the city’s website at http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us/index.aspx?nid=109. The reports and the packet should be online by the end of the day on Friday. Thanks again for writing. Dwight Johnson City Administrator th 2875 145 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068-4997 651-322-2006 From: Kenneth DeVilbiss \[mailto:kendevilbiss@gmail.com\] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 9:10 AM To: city council members Subject: Harmony Village Proposed Apartments As a Senior Citizen we have determined that we need to down size and sell our single-family house. Our realtor tells us that the publishing of the fact that apartments MAY be built in our sub-division will reduce the value of our house by $10,000. That is a large piece of profit that should go into our retirement account. The original sizing of the Community Center and Pool were based on the current development plan and not adding 80 additional housing units. To respond to this the HOA will need to drastically increase there rate and again impact the value of our house. As I understand the plan the proposal will eliminate Wet Lands and impact downstream houses by removing retention ponds on the east side of the addition. Has there been an environmental impact statement filed with the city, county or state by the builder? Has the city evaluated the impact of removing the retention ponds? When the builder came to the HOA Master board, we were very happy to see him start to build 1-story and two-Story multi-family buildings in harmony with the existing housing. When he came to the board with the idea of building high density apartments the board told him that that this would NOT be in keeping with the either the plan or design for the Harmony Village development. He then filed plans to do what he wanted without telling anyone within the HOA except within the narrow legal requirement of 350 feet of the proposed build. The above actions indicate that this builder is not trustworthy and will have to be monitored very closely during any further build activities. This will add additional costs to the city to ensure compliance with existing codes. Please do not change the existing planning documents for the Harmony Village development. Kenneth R. DeVilbiss 2487 135th Ct W Rosemount, CO. -- KenDeVilbiss From:Lindquist, Kim To:Roudebush, Amy Subject:FW: Harmony Village, 7th and 8th additions Date:Monday, July 18, 2016 4:03:48 PM Importance:High Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director City of Rosemount, 2875 145th Street, Rosemount, MN 55068 Ph. 651-322-2020 / http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us From: deb.ausen@thomsonreuters.com \[mailto:deb.ausen@thomsonreuters.com\] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 2:47 PM To: Lindquist, Kim Cc: deb.ausen@thomsonreuters.com Subject: RE: Harmony Village, 7th and 8th additions Importance: High Ms. Lindquist, I’m writing a brief note in regards to the high density housing units being proposed in Harmony Village. Please note this will cause an unfortunate turn of value in our neighborhood based on the fact that our common facilities are already overcrowded and many of my neighbors—myself included—have already made the decision that we’ll put our homes up for sale should this request be approved. Property values for the entire area would plummet. We respectfully ask that you and your constituents review the negative ramifications closely….for Harmony Village residents, as well as the Rosemount community and its property values. From:trbissen@frontiernet.net To:city council members Cc:Johnson, Dwight; Foster, Emmy; Hadler, Clarissa; Berg, Jackie; Cox, Alan; Debettignies, Mark; Demuth, Vanessa; Rosemount Mayor; Nelson, Shaun; Weisensel, Jeff D.; Lindquist, Kim; Strand, Alan; Klatt, Kyle; Nemcek, Anthony; McNeish, John; Wotczak, Julie; Roudebush, Amy; Bodsberg, Stacy; Nelson, Sharon Subject:Fw: letter Date:Wednesday, July 20, 2016 8:25:21 PM To Whom It May Concern, We would like to voice our adamant opposition to the proposed apartment complex in the Harmony Village neighborhood. We are homeowners in a single family home in Harmony village. When purchasing this house, we were told that Harmony Village was to consist of single family homes and townhouses designated for ownership, not as rental properties. The addition of apartments is contrary to the spirit of our neighborhood. We purchased our home with the understanding that there would be no rental or short term residents. Please help us keep it that way. Additionally, We are concerned that this planned apartment building will add significantly to the traffic in the neighborhood. We moved to this neighborhood, which was planned to be single family and townhouses, because of the quiet suburban neighborhood feel. Adding 80 apartment units will greatly change the neighborhood, which is not what we paid for. I am also concerned that others feel the same as we do, which means we will have a much more difficult time eventually selling our home. Adding these apartments will definitely hurt our property value. We do not know what the plans are for allowing these new residents access to the pool/fitness center, but we have concerns that the facilities are not large enough to handle that many additional guests. If they are not given access to the facilities, we would like to know what the plan is for realistically guaranteeing their exclusion. As it is today, we are frequently asked by non-residents to open the gate and let people in who do not pay dues. We always refuse, but we know that more often than not they are allowed in by someone who isn't quite as discerning. With the addition of so many apartments, the number of people seeking access to the pool will grow exponentially. This will lead to overcrowding, and an increased need for pool maintenance and area cleaning, all of which we pay for with our dues. Putting this many people in the vicinity of the pool and assuming that they will not seek entrance is naive. Allowing them access puts too much strain on the facilities and takes away from the current experience. Might we suggest moving a multi-family facility to the DCTC area where there is plenty of open land and student need? We are not opposed to single family or town home development in Harmony Village. Apartments are unacceptable to us. Regards, Eric W. Miller Trisha A. Miller 1-952-797-4395 1-952-797-4396 From:Lindquist, Kim To:Roudebush, Amy Subject:FW: Proposed Apartment Building in Harmony Village Date:Thursday, July 21, 2016 1:07:54 PM Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director City of Rosemount, 2875 145th Street, Rosemount, MN 55068 Ph. 651-322-2020 / http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us From: Shawn Turner \[mailto:shawno1019@yahoo.com\] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 11:51 AM To: Lindquist, Kim Subject: Proposed Apartment Building in Harmony Village Hello Kim, I hope that your day is going well. I am writing to you (as so many others from our neighborhood have already done) to voice my opposition to the construction of an apartment complex within the Harmon Village neighborhood. My main concern is that renters do not take the same pride in their neighborhood as actual owners do. We work hard to maintain our neighborhood, which in turn maintains the value of our homes. This brings me to my second point. I believe that our home values will suffer if this apartment building is allowed to be built. It's hard enough to sell an existing home in Rosemount these days. Thank you, Shawn Turner From:Lindquist, Kim To:Roudebush, Amy Subject:FW: proposed apartment building in Harmony Village Date:Tuesday, July 19, 2016 4:32:52 PM Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director City of Rosemount, 2875 145th Street, Rosemount, MN 55068 Ph. 651-322-2020 / http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Hartley \[mailto:whartle99@charter.net\] Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 4:59 PM To: Lindquist, Kim Subject: proposed apartment building in Harmony Village Dear Ms. Lindquist, I would like to voice my concern as a resident of the Harmony Village Association over the possible construction of a multi-unit apartment building. I live in one of the one-level garden homes on the west side of Harmony Village West Association. I am concerned with the obvious additional traffic, especially when we already have some of that with the Frisbee Golf Course and the ball field. Also, I am concerned with the idea of that many additional folks using our little Community Center and pool. If that is true, I am sure our Association fees would have to be increased to for a pool expansion. If they would not be allowed to use it, would we be faced with some folks attempting to use it anyway? I plan on attending the July 26th meeting and hopefully bringing along a petition with several supporters' names. I am wondering if we will have to sign up ahead of time to speak and/or present the petition? I know that these hot button items can be long and heated. I hope that you and the other council members will remember that real people's lives will be affected and that the bottom line (increased $ for the developer as well as the city) is not always worth the cost. Thank you for your time and understanding. Respectfully submitted, Wendy Hartley 2765 134th St. W., Rosemount From:Lindquist, Kim To:Roudebush, Amy; MPhillippi@wsbeng.com Subject:FW: Proposed Apartment Building in Harmony Village Date:Thursday, July 21, 2016 4:56:35 PM Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director City of Rosemount, 2875 145th Street, Rosemount, MN 55068 Ph. 651-322-2020 / http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us From: Michael Johnson \[mailto:mdjohn71@gmail.com\] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 4:53 PM To: Lindquist, Kim Subject: Proposed Apartment Building in Harmony Village GoodAfternoon, IthascometomyattentionthattheCityofRosemountisreviewingarequesttochangethe PUDintheHarmonyVillageneighborhoodtoallowan80unitapartmentbuildingtobebuilt atthecornerofBronzeParkwayandBrockwayAve. Iamaskingthatyoutodenythisrequestanddonotallowtheapartmentbuildingtobebuilt inthislocation. Ihavelivedintheneighborhoodsince2008andIhaveseveralmajorconcernsaboutthis project. Theamenitiesinourneighborhoodarecurrentlystretchedthinandcannotaccommodatethe additionofan80unitbuilding. Ourneighborhoodalreadyhasparking/speedingissues duringtheevenings. Iamveryconcernedaboutthesafetyissuesthatsuchalargeincreases intrafficwillcause. Additionally, Iexpectthatthiswouldhaveanegativeaffectonourpropertyvalues. We builtourhomeinthiscityandneighborhoodwiththeunderstandingthatthiswouldbea singlefamilyhome/townhomecommunity. Itfeelslikethiswouldbechangingtherulesof thegameinthemiddleofthe4thquarter. Thankyouforyouconsideration. MichaelJohnson 13344BrassPkwy RosemountMN,55068 From:Lindquist, Kim To:Roudebush, Amy Cc:MPhillippi@wsbeng.com Subject:FW: Proposed Apartment Complex in Harmony Village Date:Wednesday, July 20, 2016 1:44:40 PM Attachments:image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png image007.png Amy another letter. Mark another address: 13495 Brass Parkway Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director City of Rosemount, 2875 145th Street, Rosemount, MN 55068 Ph. 651-322-2020 / http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us From: Johnson, Dwight Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 1:37 PM To: Jon Ottman; Lindquist, Kim Cc: city council members Subject: RE: Proposed Apartment Complex in Harmony Village Hello Jon, Thank you for your comments about the proposed apartments. The Council has received them and I will also request that they be added to the Planning Commission materials for their upcoming meeting. The Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing on this issue on Tuesday, July th 26 beginning at 6:30 p.m. and the Council will consider it after the Planning Commission makes its recommendations. If you wish to see the Planning Commission packet online beginning late Friday afternoon, please follow this link: http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us/index.aspx?nid=109. Thank you. Dwight Johnson City Administrator th 2875 145 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068-4997 651-322-2006 From: Jon Ottman \[mailto:jeottman1@mmm.com\] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 12:55 PM To: city council members Subject: Proposed Apartment Complex in Harmony Village Dear Rosemount Councilmembers, I live in Harmony Village at 13495 Brass Parkway for the past 8 years and am opposed to the proposed apartment complex in our neighborhood. There are a number of issues and problems that we would see in our neighborhood that would make this apartment complex not a good idea. 1)This is a neighborhood. There are townhomes and single family homes. An apartment building of this size should be located in its own location, not squeezed into an existing neighborhood. 2)Increase in traffic. There are only two ways in and out of Harmony village. The main roads dissects the neighborhood with connections on Connemara and Bonaire. This main road gets very busy at times and is not designed for this added traffic. The neighborhood already has substantially more traffic than designed with the Frisbee golf park located inside the boundary. The added traffic will make this road and intersections very dangerous and not neighborhood friendly for kids walking to/from their bus stops, as the bus stops are along this road, and walking to the park and our community pool. 3)Not enough space. I have heard the preliminary design calls for 80 units. A building of this size should not located in a neighborhood squeezed in between a ball field and the existing parking lot for our community center. The size of the building would make this space very crowded and make the neighborhood feel very industrial and ‘city-like’. 4)Not enough adequate parking. The preliminary design calls for underground parking with limited surface parking lot. The size of the parking lot is limited due to space, see point 3 above, which results in not enough parking for the complex. If the tenants have more than two cars per unit, there is no space for parking. This would result in people parking in the existing parking lot for our community city and also the local city park. 5)Decrease in housing value. The reality is that this apartment complex would bring the property value down in our neighborhood. After having bought before the recession, our housing values are just now getting back to original value. We can’t afford another decrease in value. 6)Unsustainable increase in people density. Along with land usage, parking, and an increase in traffic there will also be an unsustainable increase in people. Our neighborhood is designed for medium density housing, townhomes and single family. Adding this many additional people is not sustainable for the school busses, parks, and our community center. As a tax paying (and a lot of taxes at that!) and voting citizen of Rosemount, I urge you to vote down the proposed apartment complex in Harmony Village. There are a lot of other locations within Rosemount that an apartment complex can be built that will not impact a neighborhood and its members like this one will. Thank you for your consideration. Jon Ottman 13495 Brass Parkway Rosemount, MN 55068 651-423-7078 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon E. Ottman | Sr. Process Dev Engineer Specialist Materials Resource Division – Chemical Process Development Center 3M Cottage Grove 70-1 | 10746 Innovation Rd, Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Office: 651-458-2235 jeottman1@mmm.com From:Lindquist, Kim To:Roudebush, Amy; MPhillippi@wsbeng.com Subject:FW: Proposed building in Harmony Village Date:Thursday, July 21, 2016 8:41:54 AM Amy for packet Mike another address: 13674 Brass Parkway Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director City of Rosemount, 2875 145th Street, Rosemount, MN 55068 Ph. 651-322-2020 / http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us From: Johnson, Dwight Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 8:22 AM To: Heidi Holmes Cc: city council members; Lindquist, Kim Subject: RE: Proposed building in Harmony Village Hello Heidi, The City Council has received your message and I am also making sure that the Planning Commission will have them for their meeting next week on this issue. The Planning Commission will be holding th the official public hearing on the proposal on Tuesday, July 26 beginning at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall. The information packet for this meeting will be available late tomorrow afternoon at this link: http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us/index.aspx?nid=109. Thank you for writing to us and sharing your questions and concerns. Dwight Johnson City Administrator th 2875 145 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068-4997 651-322-2006 From: Heidi Holmes \[mailto:hsholmes1957@gmail.com\] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 8:10 AM To: city council members Subject: Proposed building in Harmony Village To whom it may concern: I am a town home owner within sight of the proposed apartment building. I urge you all to vote NO on this application. I have lived here for 4 years. I can not imagine our streets handling that many more vehicles, more people, noise etc...I question the reason behind building this apartment building in a residential area. I pay association fees for street maintenance, lawn maintenance, the boulevard trees, flowers, watering, mowing, the park, playground, the pool etc...If the apartment is built-God forbidding, are they part of the association? If so the pool can not maintain that many more people. As it is the pool is crowded with the residents now. If they are not then how fair is that to the members of Harmony Village? Who are they trying to attract to the apartment? Seniors? Section 8? Low price renters? High price renters? As far as I am concerned this is a bad idea, my market value will drop, the neighborhood will lose it's charm. Harmony Village is exactly that---a village that has Harmony. Please vote NO. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Heidi Holmes-Helgren 13674 Brass Parkway Rosemount, MN 55068 651-214-1697 "In the blink of an eye everything can change, so forgive often and love with all your heart, you may not have that chance again." ~~Zigler "I used to think the worst thing in life was to end up alone, it's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel alone."~~Robin Williams From:Lindquist, Kim To:Roudebush, Amy; MPhillippi@wsbeng.com Subject:FW: Proposed Change to Harmony Village PUD Date:Friday, July 22, 2016 8:31:46 AM Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director City of Rosemount, 2875 145th Street, Rosemount, MN 55068 Ph. 651-322-2020 / http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us From: Helen Wilberding \[mailto:hwilberding@cs.com\] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 9:32 PM To: Lindquist, Kim; Debettignies, Mark; Demuth, Vanessa; Nelson, Shaun; Weisensel, Jeff D.; Rosemount Mayor Subject: Proposed Change to Harmony Village PUD Dear Rosemount City Planning Commission and City Council, This week, I received a memorandum from the Harmony Village Master Board of Directors. The memorandum stated that Metro Land Holdings, LLC is proposing to build a large apartment building in Harmony Village, close to the townhome my wife and I purchased in 2013. In 2013, we moved from Apple Valley to Rosemount. We understood when we purchased our townhome that townhomes would eventually be built on any vacant lots. We understood that only townhomes would be built, NOT a 70+ apartment building. I understand the developer’s motivation to change Harmony Village’s PUD and construct the apartment building. They want to make money. And, I understand if the City Planning Commission and the City Council desires to approve the change. City taxes will increase. But because of the understanding which was in place when I purchased our townhome, I ask the City Planning Commission and the City Council to reject the request of Metro Land Holdings, LLC. The money Metro Land Holdings, LLC and the increased taxes the city of Rosemount will receive will be at the expense of the current Harmony Village residents. Because of the proposed apartment building, we owners will see a decrease in our home values. If the City Planning Commission and City Council approve the changing of the Harmony Village PUD to construct the proposed apartment building, I would ask that the current Harmony Village townhome owners be compensated in the following manner: 1) A reduction in the real estate taxes of all Harmony Village townhomes owners, and 2)A tax credit equal to the decrease in the value of the individual townhomes caused by the construction of the proposed apartment building. Thank you for reading this email and for taking our concerns seriously. Unfortunately, we are th unable to attend the city council meeting scheduled for July 26. Sincerely, Helen and Timothy Wilberding rd 2658 133 Street W. Rosemount, MN 55068 From:Shayna Fleming To:Roudebush, Amy Subject:Fw: Proposed HDH in Harmony Village Date:Monday, July 18, 2016 3:59:25 PM To City Planning & City Council, I am the owner of a single family home in the Harmony Village Community development, I would like to express my opposition to the proposed change made by a developer to build an apartment building where townhomes were originally slated to go. In 2009 my husband and I purchased our home and it was our understanding from the developer at the time that the entire development was to be townhomes and single family homes. Reasons why we are opposed to the plan: 1. Changing the feel of the neighborhood - residents would likely be less invested in our community, this is already evident with tenants who don't have the same sense of ownership. 2. Increased traffic, noise and congestion. There are a lot of young families with small children which poses potential safety issues. 3. Potential conflict of renters using association maintained facilities and property. 4. Changing the aesthetics of the neighborhood. A boxy, bland 3 story building with a large open air parking area surrounded by single family homes and townhomes. 5. There are plenty of privately maintained rentals throughout Harmony Village which come with the issue I mentioned before. This would add to the that and make our community less desirable to future residents. 6. Renters can move if they don't like it. As homeowners we have to sell in order to move. Thank you for your time and consideration, Peyton and Shayna Fleming 13215 Bronze Ct Rosemount, MN 55068 From:Lindquist, Kim To:Roudebush, Amy Subject:Fwd: Date:Saturday, July 16, 2016 7:25:06 AM Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: A Dillishaw <adillishaw@hotmail.com> Date: July 15, 2016 at 9:10:15 PM CDT To: "kim.lindquist@ci.rosemount.mn.us" <kim.lindquist@ci.rosemount.mn.us> Hello, I live in Harmony Village and was recently made aware of the proposal for an apartment building to be constructed on the property. I am writing to express my family's concerns about this project. From my understanding, it is to be a 72 unit building. If 65 of the units were rented and each family had one car, that would be an additional 65 cars driving through the neighborhood. If every unit is full, there could potentially be approximately 150 additional cars. I assume you have been through our neighborhood. I don't see how we could handle the traffic. The reason we all live here is because the neighborhood is quiet, the traffic is minimal, and people can ride their bikes or walk without issue. Another thing that concerns me is that the pool, playground, and gym are small. If the tenants in the apartments are allowed to use those amenities, those areas will become so crowded they will become impossible to use. Will the tenants also pay an HOA fee? I think that if the plan goes through, there will be many people that move out of the neighborhood. People that have been raising their children in this neighborhood would feel forced out. I don't think anyone wants to separate their children from the friends they have bonded with over the years. Please consider our objections in this matter. Thank you for your time, Amy Dillishaw Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone From:Kim Colburn-Lindell To:Roudebush, Amy; Lindquist, Kim Cc:city council members Subject:Fwd: Read/edit draft for letter to city council: Proposed Apartment Building in Harmony Village Date:Thursday, July 21, 2016 10:06:47 AM Dear Ms. Roudebush and Ms. Lindquist, Harmony Village is a thoughtfully planned community. We live and play together in this landscape. Our village is made up of single family homes, two story town homes, and single level homes. Young and old, all of us homeowners share and are connected by sidewalks, the community pool and fitness center, school bus stops, and Brockway park. My husband and I own a single family home in Harmony Village. We have been here since December of 2011. We have seen homes being built and the neighborhood grow as per our neighborhood's Planned Unit Development(PUD). I am writing to you because of our concern over the recent proposal for an 80 unit apartment building, next to our neighborhood pool and community center on Brockway Avenue. The proposed apartment building disregards our Homeowner association's PUD,and there are good reasons why our PUD is what it is. We appreciate the opportunity to be heard by the council. The location of the proposed apartment building on Brockway Avenue would increase traffic on the major road of our pedestrian friendly community. Brockway Avenue provides two entrances and exits into and out of the community with a roundabout at the center. Brockway's roundabout is located directly across from our Community center, and attached pool, and nearby Brockway Park playground. Residents cross Brockway to get to these communal places. The sidewalks are heavily used as children walk, bike or skate to and from the pool as well as friends' houses and the park. Homeowners walk pets, families push strollers and toddlers with training wheels come and go from the pool and park. Older folks are out collecting mail, getting exercise or joining families who are carrying swim toys to the community pool and fitness center. And it works. Thanks to the careful design of our neighborhood, cars move through our community more slowly creating a reasonable and safe pedestrian friendly environment. Consequently, the dramatic increase of traffic on our main road, particularly Brockway Avenue, is a major safety concern for all of our community members. The increased traffic to and from the proposed apartment building would increase the traffic dramatically on Brockway Avenue--the very road that is at the center of our communal spaces to which residents most frequently walk. A proposal for an eighty unit apartment building disregards the community of homeowners that have invested in our neighborhood. Our Planned Unit Development has laid the ground work for a stable neighborhood community, that already honors integrated land use and economically diverse price-points for home ownership. To plop an 80 unit apartment building seems to be a careless proposal that disregards that intentional community that already exists in Harmony Village. When developers build in our neighborhood, we would hope that the City would respectour neighborhood's PUD. In closing, we ask that our concerns are heard and addressed. We are highly concerned about the increased traffic and resulting safety concerns in our pedestrian friendly community. We are highly concerned about the developer's disregard for our neighborhood's pedestrian friendly community of homeowners. We respectfully ask that the City Council decline the developer's proposed apartment building and stick to the criteria established in our neighborhood's PUD. Sincerely, Kim Colburn-Lindell and Ben Colburn 2506 135th Court W Rosemount MN 55068 From:Travis Rasmussen Subject:Harmony Village Proposed Apartment Addition Date:Thursday, July 21, 2016 10:02:51 AM Esteemed Mayor, City Council Members and Community Developers, We love our home and neighborhood in Harmony Village and plan to stay here for many years. However, the recent proposal to build a large apartment building in our neighborhood has us concerned. We implore you to please consider NOT approving this development. Many of us who purchased and built homes in the early years of Harmony Village’s founding were lured by the promise of a nice, mid-to-high range neighborhood, complete with a nice pool and tennis court area. A housing crash and several development owners later brought lower quality and lower cost homes, a high density of townhouses, and no tennis courts. We are not the high-end development we had hoped to be, but we work hard to keep it a quality, mid-range development. We feel this apartment complex would push Harmony village over the edge to a low-range, low quality neighborhood; one that we wouldn’t be comfortable continuing to reside in. Here are some of our concerns: A.Being so close to Highway 3 (South Robert Street), we already are dealing with a significant level of traffic noise, including the many, many cars that travel rapidly through our development on Brockway Avenue (often as a shortcut to other streets in Rosemount). Adding almost 160 additional parking spots (including the planned underground and surface lots) will add a significant amount of additional traffic through our neighborhood, adding unnecessary opportunities for our children and pedestrians to get hurt, along with adding a significant amount of traffic noise. We live on the corner of Brockway (the main thoroughfare of our neighborhood) and Brass Parkway, and have watched countless cars speed by our home. Because of these issues, our neighbors even once requested that the police place a radar speed detector on Brockway Avenue. This did not remedy the issues, and they continue. B.This high concentration of people in the neighborhood is concerning: 1.Our neighborhood has recently seen a rash of car break-ins. We have been working hard as a neighborhood to get to know each other and build trust to combat this issue. Adding this large number of apartment units and associated people/renters will likely only exacerbate this type of problem. 2.Our shared community resources are already at capacity. The Community Center, which houses a small gym and the pool are regularly overcrowded. It will be nearly impossible to use these facilities when adding this number of units to the neighborhood. And we do not want our association dues increased to expand these facilities. C.We want our neighborhood to be filled with respectful and trustworthy individuals. We are concerned about the quality of individuals that will be drawn to an apartment complex in our neighborhood. We have already had several instances where suspicious people are loitering around our neighborhood, and only see this increasing with an additional apartment complex. D.Dogs. We already have an issue with noisy dogs, and dog owners that do not clean up after their pets. Again, surely many renters will have dogs, worsening this issue. We, and many of our neighbors (as shown through our petition you have received) are strongly opposed to the planned apartment building. Again, we implore you to please help us preserve the quality of our neighborhood and deny this request. We would like to raise our seven-year-old son in a safe, quiet, and friendly neighborhood. At times, we feel that Harmony Village is already nearing the point that it cannot fulfill those wishes. We strong believe that adding this apartment complex would tip the scales to the point that it would be impossible for us to stay. Thank you for your consideration, Emily and Travis Rasmussen 13299 Brass Parkway Rosemount, MN 55068 651-303-4945 (Emily) 651-303-3825 (Travis) emily.rasmussen@bluecrossmn.com traviswrasmussen@gmail.com From:Lisa Morley To:Roudebush, Amy Cc:Johnson, Dwight; Foster, Emmy; Hadler, Clarissa; Berg, Jackie; Cox, Alan; Debettignies, Mark; Demuth, Vanessa; Rosemount Mayor; Nelson, Shaun; Weisensel, Jeff D.; Lindquist, Kim; Strand, Alan; Klatt, Kyle; Nemcek, Anthony; McNeish, John; Wotczak, Julie; Bodsberg, Stacy; Nelson, Sharon; "Brian Portzen" Subject:Harmony Village, Major Amendment to PUD Date:Thursday, July 21, 2016 3:24:56 PM Dear Ms. Roudebush, Thank you for agreeing to submit our comments to the planning commission. For your convenience, our comments are both attached and reproduced below. Best Regards, Lisa Morley Brian Portzen Lisa Morley 2679 133rd St. West Rosemount, MN 55068 July 21, 2016 City of Rosemount Planning Commission Melissa Kenninger Pamela VanderWiel Michael Clements Ryan forster Gretchen Freeman Brandon Henrie John Mele RE: Developer Request to Amend PUD and Build Apartments in Harmony Village Dear Rosemount Planning Commission: We recently learned that the developer, Metro Land Holdings, LLC, has applied for a major amendment to the Harmony Village Planned Unit Development (PUD) in order to build an apartment building and add additional homes. We live in Harmony Village (Harmony) near the proposed sites and would be directly affected by this change. For the following reasons, we ask that you recommend to the city council that the developer’s application be DENIED. Harmony Village is a small, welcoming community of pleasant and well-tended houses and townhomes, with minimal surface parking and easy access to green space, a PUD that prohibits apartments, and a homeowner’s association (HOA) intended, among other things, to allow residents a voice in our neighborhood. We appreciate the character of the neighborhood and that it attracts a wide range of residents, such as older people and singles, in addition to young families. It is already a mixed-use community, and we like that about our neighborhood. But the introduction of an apartment building where it was not contemplated will introduce several problems. First, Brockway Avenue, the road that runs between Connemara and Bonaire, would service the apartment complex and is already quite busy. Because we live on the corner of Brockway and 133rd we know that even though a roundabout is in place there are repeated problems with speeding, noise, and safety. We have had to call the police several times. The fact that the road provides a shortcut between two large streets makes it even more challenging to deal with. At times, the noise from speeding cars is intrusive and certainly has presented safety concerns since we have so many young kids living nearby. Anything that would make the road more congested and less safe should not be considered. Second, Harmony’s community pool and recreation center is pleasant but quite small. It will not accommodate large numbers of new residents. Yet, even if possible, excluding apartment dwellers would not be a good solution as it would be contrary to the friendly ethos of the neighborhood and would create a separate category of community members who would not be entitled to all the amenities. It would also be impossible to monitor. Third, construction should not be approved for housing on the holding ponds without thorough investigation to ensure that the quality of our watershed and water flow patterns will not be disrupted. Fourth, we already have folks renting townhomes in Harmony, and do not believe that the existence of apartment buildings or renters alone automatically lowers property values. However, in this instance because of the increased crowding, street safety and noise issues, lack of facilities, and more transient population that would result, our property values and the desirability of our neighborhood will very likely be negatively impacted. Finally, we bought our home in July 2014. We would not have purchased this house had we believed apartments could be built. Like all Harmony residents, we should be able rely on the plans and PUD that have informed our decision to buy and to invest in our homes and property. The PUD and HOA are also meant to ensure that any changes to the neighborhood are thoughtful and appropriate. Yet here the commission has limited consideration and input on the proposal by failing to provide notice to the HOA or the vast majority of residents. As residents of Rosemount, we suggest that in the future members of the planning commission be more careful to show consideration towards its residents and ensure that all Rosemount community members get the notice and process that we all desire and deserve. Please recommend to the City Council that Metro Land Holdings’ request for a major amendment to our PUD in order to build an apartment complex be denied. Sincerely, Brian Portzen Lisa Morley 2679 133rd St. West Rosemount, MN 55068 Cc: Rosemount City Council City of Rosemount Community Development Director City of Rosemount Community Development Department From:STEPHEN NANCY ENGEL To:Roudebush, Amy Subject:Metro Holdings Proposal for Harmony Village Date:Tuesday, July 19, 2016 2:20:07 PM July 19, 2016 Ms. Kim Lindquist Mr. Kyle Klatt Mr. Anthony Nemcek Ms. Amy Roudebush Members of the City Planning Commission We are writing to express our concerns about the recent request made by Metro Holdings, LLC, to amend our current PUD agreement to allow for the construction of an apartment building and the destruction of two of our holding ponds in Harmony Village. The following explains our concerns and we appreciate you taking the time to read and consider them: Harmony Village is an association comprised of homeowners who have a voice, through our elected HOA Board of Directors, in issues that impact our neighborhood. Metro Holdings, LLC, did NOT inform our Board of Directors nor our property management company, New Concepts, of this request to dramatically alter our neighborhood. We feel that by doing so, Metro Holdings, LLC, has deliberately avoided consulting with us residents, thus eliminating our input into important decisions that affect all of us. Building a multi-story apartment building will negatively change the look and feel of our neighborhood. We are a development with tastefully designed and well-maintained single family homes and medium density townhomes. A multi-story, large apartment building would look out of place here and it threatens to dwarf existing buildings and the adjacent public park. If there are 80+ apartment units added to our development, that will mean potentially 100 or more cars on the streets in our neighborhood on a daily basis. As things stand right now, we frequently see drivers who speed through the neighborhood, mostly on Bronze Parkway and Brockway Avenue. If an apartment building is built at this intersection, this will surely increase the odds of car crashes as apartment dwellers try to get out of their parking lot. Also, with the addition of more vehicles, comes the increased risk of harm to pedestrians. We are lucky to have plenty of sidewalks and walking trails in our neighborhood and many residents take full advantage of them. Everyone from young children to seniors walk and ride on these sidewalks and trails every day. We are worried that the up-tick in traffic could lead to serious harm to our residents as they walk and bike through the neighborhood. We are also fortunate to have a community center and an outdoor pool, both of which are maintained by New Concepts, our property management company. These facilities are paid for by us homeowners with our monthly dues. What is not clear at this point is if the renters at the apartment building will be allowed to use these facilities. If they are, will they pay the same rates as we do? In addition, if apartment renters are allowed to use these facilities, then there is also yet another safety concern to be considered. Our pool is not large and is at capacity for many days in the summer. If at least 80 more people are allowed access to the pool, it could very easily push the capacity above safe levels. As any parent who’s ever taken their child to a pool can attest to, it is difficult to maintain total focus on your child if there are too many people in and around the pool. This pool is not staffed by lifeguards who can maintain safe numbers of swimmers. We simply cannot rely on everyone to play by the rules and remove themselves when the numbers are too high. Self-policing is ineffective at best and in the case of a pool, it can be quite dangerous. If it is decided that apartment renters are not allowed use of the pool and community center, that may look good on paper as a way to solve the concerns stated above. But, the reality is people sneak in to both facilities, mostly the pool, on a pretty consistent basis. It isn’t difficult to do. Again, we cannot rely on us residents keeping track of who’s allowed where and denying access to neighbors. Not only is that ineffective, it makes people feel very uncomfortable. Another concern we have is the fact that part of our monthly dues to our HOA covers snow removal of sidewalks and trails and lawn care of common areas. Would residents of this apartment building benefit from these common areas without having to pay for any of them? These concerns also impact the value of our homes. There’s no getting around the fact that putting a large apartment building in a residential area will cause our property values to drop. I have to believe that our city officials and representatives do not want to see this happen to us. Finally, we have serious concerns about the destruction of the two holding ponds off Highway 3 in order to build single family homes. We welcome single family homes, but not if it comes at the price of destroying the holding ponds. Holding ponds are created for very specific reasons: to protect our watershed from all the damage run-off can cause, to prevent flooding and erosion and to create a safe habitat for wildlife. We want to make it clear that our concerns do not reflect our opinions of renters. This isn’t a case of “not in my backyard” where “certain types of people” aren’t welcome. In fact, our neighborhood already has a lot of residents who rent town homes, causing no trouble at all for our community. Our neighborhood is diverse, both in ethnicity and in age and income levels. The one thing we all share in common is our desire to keep Harmony Village a safe, comfortable place to live for everyone. From singles to families, from empty-nesters to seniors, we are a safe, stable neighborhood and we want it to remain that way. Adding a large, high density apartment building will forever alter the look and feel of our neighborhood, making it feel less like a neighborhood and more like a busy, urban setting. If we wanted to live in such a setting, we wouldn’t have built in this neighborhood. We chose to live here because of the beauty of the area, the pool and community center, the sidewalks and walking trails and the neighborhood feel of the development. This is the place we have called home for almost 8 years and we want to continue to call this home for many years to come. Please vote no on Metro Holdings, LLC’s request to change our PUD agreement. Thank you again for considering our concerns. Best regards, Nancy and Stephen Engel rd 2609 133 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 From:Paul Rovnak To:Paul Rovnak Subject:Proposed apartment building in Rosemount"s Harmony Village neighborhood Date:Monday, July 18, 2016 4:00:59 PM Members of the city council, city administration and city community development My name is Paul Rovnak and I write to you today as a concerned citizen of Rosemount. I live in the Harmony Village development - just down the street from rd City Hall - at 2721 133 St. W. I am writing today because I will be out of town for work on July 26 when there is a planning commission meeting to discuss a possible apartment building being built in Harmony Village. My family loves living in Rosemount, but I am strongly opposed to any apartment buildings being added to Harmony Village. There is ample available land in Rosemount where an apartment could be constructed – and they are certainly needed – but Harmony Village is not it. City planning is about finding what works where and then building it. It is not about putting an apartment building in the middle of an existing neighborhood. An 80-unit apartment building would not only be an eyesore, but it would also drive down the price of every existing home in the neighborhood – which is in the heart of Rosemount. That’s not good for the city. This apartment is not worth making existing homeowners and taxpayers unhappy. It would also burden an already heavily trafficked area and would force the city to spend additional money to restructure traffic patterns at Robert Trail and Connemara and at Robert Trail and Bonaire Path. These intersections are already busy and adding 300 more residents essentially on top of those intersections would be troublesome. The apartment would also create unnecessary additional foot traffic in the neighborhood itself, which already sees an abundance of outside visitation due to the Frisbee golf course, baseball field and park. It would also certainly create friction between Harmony Village homeowner association residents and apartment residents, as this apartment would be right next to the private community pool and workout facility. Again, I am strongly opposed to any apartment building construction in Harmony Village. I implore you to listen to the residents who live in this neighborhood and to not allow an apartment building to be built right in the middle of it. We do not want an apartment building in Harmony Village. Please put yourself in our homes for a second where many of us have put down roots and are raising young families. We are the future of Rosemount. Is this something you would want in your neighborhood? Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Paul Rovnak rd 2721 133 St. Rosemount, MN 55068 From:MARINDA SCHADER To:Lindquist, Kim; Strand, Alan; Klatt, Kyle; Roudebush, Amy Subject:Proposed apartments in Harmony Village Date:Thursday, July 21, 2016 7:15:46 PM Marinda Schader 13453 Brass Parkway Rosemount, MN 55068 July 21, 2016 To: Coumunity Development: Re: Proposed apartment building in Harmony Village We live in Harmony Village, in one of the single homes in the area, and write to express our opposition to the application changing the zoning of the lots at the intersection of Bronze Parkway and Brockway Avenue submitted a proposal to the City of Rosemount, to amend our PUD agreement to ALLOW an apartment building to be built at that site. We believe this proposed high-density zoning change is: a) not compatible with the surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods and city park and will harm those stable neighborhoods and the park; b) not consistent with any adopted plan (there is no small area plan for this neighborhood because it has been and remains quite stable) and contrary to the zoning in the adopted Rosemount Zoning Code. c) not required by any instability in this thriving neighborhood, which is an area stability in Rosemount. The specific 80-unit apartment building that is being would lack sufficient parking for residents and guests, leading to spillover parking on residential streets along the park and in front of surrounding homes. It would also decrease the safety for our children with more people driving around our neighborhood. We have moved to this neighborhood and the city of Rosemount for the family life we wanted for our children. We have invested heavily in our home and in this neighborhood to give our children the lifestyle we remember growing up with. Allowing this apartment building to come into this development will stop the feeling of stability we have found since moving to Rosemount and this neighborhood all most three years ago. Thank you, Marinda Schader From:tiskgirls@aol.com To:Roudebush, Amy Subject:Proposed Apt Building and draining of holding pond adding 7 single family lots for Meeting 7/26/16 Date:Thursday, July 21, 2016 1:04:00 PM Reasons we oppose proposed apartment building: 1. To keep Harmony Village an owner occupied development. If the status is changed it would have declining affect on present values of homes and negatively affecting resale of homes. 2. Not enough parking spaces to accommodate apartment building tenants, guests and current homeowners. 3. Safety concerns and increase in crimes. VOTE NO FOR PROPOSED CHANGES Reasons we oppose proposed to holding pond drained and add 7 single family lots 1. The current area is surrounded by 1 level condos and the holding pond is for runoff water and to eliminate possible flooding in the area and integrity of all the homes in the area. 2. Having spoke to Army Corp of Engineers Office in St Paul to understand what the holding pond and 7 houses would do to the area. At this time no formal request has been submitted toeliminate ormoving the holding pondor how it might impact the general area andaquatic area. VOTE NO FOR PROPOSED CHANGES Please respond you have received this letter and it will be added for the hearing tothe Planning Commission. Karen Schuler Sonja Schuler Homeowners 13589 Bronze Parkway, 651-200-2428. From:Amanda Wiinamaki To:Roudebush, Amy; city council members Subject:proposed property changes in Harmony Village Date:Wednesday, July 20, 2016 8:54:19 AM City Council Members, Thank you in advance for taking the time to read my email. My husband and I recently became aware of the proposed property changes in Harmony Village which includes plans to construct an apartment building within our community. We are opposed to this decision and would like our concerns heard by the city council members. My husband and I bought our home with the understanding that we were buying into a homeowners association which we pay quarterly association fees to be a part of. The inclusion of an apartment building within this community would not add to this association of homeowners. We pay fees to have the community grounds maintained and for access to our community pool and gym. The residents of this apartment complex would not help pay for these amenities but would benefit from the fees the homeowners are paying. We would rather see this property be used for the addition of either single family homes, townhomes, or condos which are owned and not rented. Generally adding rental apartments to a community will reduce property values of the neighboring homeowners which is also a concern of ours and our fellow neighbors. Rental properties also don't add to the cohesiveness of a community. With renters frequently changing, it becomes difficult to form a bond with our neighbors and feel like a community. In addition to the apartment complex that is being considered there are also plans to turn an area of wetlands into single family homes. We would like to see this land remain as a wetland and instead see the single family homes in the area where the apartment complex is proposed. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Amanda Fries and Doug Fries 13242 Bronze Parkway Rosemount MN From:John TAYLOR To:Roudebush, Amy Subject:Re: Resident Comment Date:Wednesday, July 20, 2016 12:02:01 PM Thank you for the opportunity for input on the proposed development of 7 single family units and an 80 unit apartment building at Harmony village. While the single family units would fit the existing homes in the area, an 80 unit apartment building would certainly not blend into the neighborhood. Not only would an apartment building change the neighborhood, the proposed location would make it the prominent structure when entering from Conamara. I realize that this is America, and I don't have the right to stop development of someone else's property, but an apartment building would reduce the desirability of my home and those that surround me. From: Roudebush, Amy <Amy.Roudebush@ci.rosemount.mn.us> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 4:00 PM To: jetaylor47@hotmail.com Subject: Resident Comment John, You can email me with your comments for the Harmony Apt proposal and they will get added to the packet the Planning Commissioners receive on Friday. Here is the link to where you can review the summary Friday afternoon: http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us/index.aspx?nid=109 Rosemount, MN - Official Website - Planning Commission www.ci.rosemount.mn.us Overview The Rosemount Planning Commission is an advisory board to the City Council that helps review plans and development within the City. Project applications and ... Thanks! Amy Roudebush, Planning & Personnel Secretary City of Rosemount, 2875 145th Street W, Rosemount, MN 55068 Ph. 651-322-2051 / http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us From:jmrwnana@charter.net To:Roudebush, Amy Subject:New Message Date:Friday, July 22, 2016 2:51:41 PM Regarding the apartment building proposed for Harmony Village. We strongly appose this being built. It will add more people and traffic to the area The price of our homes will be affected. Thank you! Russell and Joanne Johnson 13600 Brass Pkwy Rosemount, Mn 55068