HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.h. Request by Metro Land Holdings for a PUD Master Development Plan to permit 7 single family homes and Simple Plat approval for Harmony 9th Addition
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council Meeting Date: August 16,2016
AGENDA ITEM: Case16-27-MA &16-33SP–Request by
Metro Land Holdings for a PUD Master
Development Plan to permit 7 single AGENDA SECTION:
family homes and Simple Plat approval for Consent
th
Harmony 9Addition (formerly listed as
th
Harmony 7Addition)
PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development AGENDA NO.6.h.
Director
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution (Simple Plat), Resolution (PUD APPROVED BY:
Amendment), Amended PUD Agreement,ddj
Location Map, Project Description,
th
Harmony 9Addition Final Plat, City
Engineer Memorandum dated July 19,
th
2016, Harmony 9Addition Preliminary
th
Development Plans, Harmony 9Exiting
th
Conditions, Harmony 9Demo Plan,
thth
Harmony 9Preliminary Plat, Harmony 9
th
Preliminary Erosion Control, Harmony 9
th
Grading Plan, Harmony 7Utility Plan,
th
Harmony 9Details,Excerpt Planning
Commission Minutes July 26, 2016
RECOMMENDED ACTION:Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the
following motions:
1.Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving a Minor Amendment to the Harmony Area
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement allowing 7 single family homes
instead of 3 quad homes subject to conditions
th
2.Motionto Adopt a Resolution Approvinga Simple Plat for Harmony 9Addition
without conditions.
3.Motionto authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Minor Amendment to
the Harmony Area PUD Agreement.
SUMMARY
The City Councilis being asked to consider a Simple Plat request to replat a portion of the Harmony
Planned Unit Development (PUD) area. The proposed subdivision would change a portion of the
th
lots that were originally approved as part of the Harmony 5 Addition for three Quad buildings to
single family homes. The area is in the location of the existing temporary ponding, along the east side
of Hwy 3. The ponding was created because public access was not available to the regional pond,
which is designated within the Dunmore project, on the west side of Hwy 3. The change also requires
a major amendment to the PUD, which is supported by staff.
This project was initially reviewed at the July Planning Commission meeting with a 81-unit apartment
proposal. The apartment project is not part of this request. All residents in the Harmony project,
based upon the Dakota County ownership records were sent a notice explaining the delay in the
apartment project review but noting the single family portion of the request was being processed. The
main issue associated with the request, from staff’s perspective, is that the ponding area cannot be
filled and developed until such time as the regional pond is fully created and infrastructure installed.
That timing is dependent upon the developer of the Dunmore project.
Applicant: Metro Land Holdings, LLC
Property Owner: Metro Land Holdings, LLC
Property Location: Outlot C Harmony Addition
Size of Property: 2.08 acres
Comprehensive Plan Designation: MDR Medium Density Residential
Zoning: R2-Moderate Density Residential
Number of Units: 81 units
Site Density: 3.365 units/acre
Harmony Project Density: Approximately 6 units/acre
Current Neighboring Land Uses: North – Single Family
South – Quad Townhomes
East – Existing Townhomes
West – Hwy 3
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed Simple Plat request and
Major Amendment to the PUD on July 26, 2016. The item was packaged with a request for the
th
Harmony 8 Addition which was a request for an 81-unit 3 story apartment project. Prior to the
Commission meeting, the City received numerous letters opposing the projects and a petition from
the Harmony neighborhood. During the public hearing 25 residents spoke all opposed to the
apartment project with many also voicing concern about induction of the single family lots. Most of
the concern about the single family portion of the project was concern over future impacts on
stormwater in the area, and a question as to whether the ponding was part of a protected wetland.
During the meeting it was clarified that the ponding was installed as a temporary device until such
time as the regional pond became available. The regional pond is located in the depression area of the
Dunmore subdivision which will be expanded to receive regional drainage from the adjoining roads
and Harmony area. During the meeting there were numerous concerns about the apartment project
which is not the subject of the current action before the council.
With the clarification about the future regional ponding planned the Planning Commission
th
recommended approval of the 7 Addition master development plan and simple plat. After the
th
Commission meeting, staff determined that a previous plat had been assigned the 7 Addition and
th
therefore the name of the plat has been changed to 9 addition. The current proposal is consistent
with that reviewed by the on April 26, 2016.
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.
2
UTILITIES
Roads and public utilities were installed in initial phases of the Harmony development. There are no
new utilities needed for the seven single family homes proposed. Utility fees must be paid as part of
the platting project and are noted in the Engineering memorandum.
GRADING
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.
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
Addition creates seven single family lots in place of three quad homes that were
The Harmony 9
initially approved as part of the project. From a technical standpoint, all properties platted must
contain standard drainage and utility easements.
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
th
The Planning Commission and Staff recommend approval of a Simple Plat request for Harmony 9
Addition. This recommendation for approval is based on the information submitted by the applicant
and the findings made in this report and is subject to the conditions listed in the recommended action.
Staff further recommends that the City Council
3
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2016-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING
TH
A SIMPLE PLAT FOR HARMONY 9 ADDITION
WHEREAS, the Planning Department received an application for approval of a Simple Plat for
thth
Harmony 7 Addition (renamed to Harmony 9 Addition)to replace 3 quad home buildings with 7
single family homes within the Harmony Subdivision and to reduce the total number of units
planned for property legally described as follows:
Outlot C of Harmony 5th Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota
County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount conducted a public hearing as
required by ordinance for the purpose of receiving public comment regarding the proposed
thth
Harmony 7 Addition, which was modified to Harmony 9 Addition, Simple Plat on July 26,
2016; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the application on July 26, 2016 and found it
consistent with the criteria for simple plat review outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend approval of the
application for a Simple Plat on July 26, 2016.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, The Council of the City of Rosemount does
th
hereby approve the Harmony 9 Addition Simple Plat, subject to the following conditions:
a. Dedicate standard drainage and utility easements.
b. Development of the seven single family lots created in Harmony 7th Addition cannot
occur until:
i. The applicant enter into an offsite ponding 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
Harmony 7th Addition
th
ADOPTED this 16 day of August, 2016 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
__________________________________________
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Clarissa Hadler, City Clerk
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2016 -
TH
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE HARMONY 9
ADDITION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AGREEMENT APPROVING
SEVEN SINGLE FAMILY LOTS INSTEAD OF THREE QUAD-BUILDINGS
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received a
request from Metro Land Holdings to amend the Harmony Planned Unit Development Agreement
to allow seven single family lots where three quad-buildings were approved: and
WHEREAS, staff has prepared and recommends a Minor PUD Amendment to allow seven single
family homes instead of three quad;
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2016, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the
application and staff recommendation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Minor Amendment to the Harmony Planned Unit Development Agreement, subject to
the following condition:
1. The single family homes are subject to the same design guidelines as the existing single
family development standards in the current PUD agreement.
th
2. Development of the seven single family lots created in Harmony 9 Addition cannot occur
until:
a. The applicant enter into an offsite ponding agreement
b. The regional pond west of the site, within the Dunmore project be installed
th
3. The applicant to comply with the Engineers Memo dated July 19, 2016 for the Harmony 9
th
Addition (previously 7 Addition).
th
ADOPTED this 16 day of August, 2016, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
__________________________________________
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Clarissa Hadler, City Clerk
A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE HARMONY (FORMERLY BROCKWAY)
AREA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AGREEMENT
ALLOWING DEVELOPMENT OF SEVEN SINGLE FAMILY LOTS INSTEAD OF
THREE QUAD BUILDINGS
th
THIS DECLARATION made this 16 day of August, 2016 by and between METRO
LAND HOLDINGS LLC CITY OF
ROSEMOUNT, a Minnesota municipal corporation
WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of the real property described as Lots 1 7 Block 1,
th
Harmony 9 Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota (hereinafter refe
Properties
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is subject to a Planned Unit Development Agreement,
Brockway Area Planned Unit Development Agreementdated September 27, 2004,
WHEREAS, Declarant wishes to amend the Planned Unit Development Agreement as
hereinafter provided, which amendment has been approved and consented to by the City of
Rosemount, acting through its City Council, as evidenced by the duly authorized signatures of its
officers affixed hereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Declarant declares that the Subject Property is, and shall be,
held, transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to the covenants, conditions, and
restrictions, hereinafter set forth.
th
1. The use and development of the Subject Property and Harmony 9 Addition shall
conform to the Planned Unit Development Agreement except as modified herein.
a. The Planned Unit Development Agreement shall be amended to allow seven
single family lots instead of three quad-building on the Subject Property.
th
2. The use and development of the Subject Property and Harmony 9 Addition shall
conform to the documents, plans, and drawings listed in Paragraph 1 of the Planned Unit
Development Agreement and, in addition, to the following:
1
th
a. City Resolution No. 2016- Approving a Simple Plat for Harmony 9 Addition
Exhibit 1
b. City Resolution No. 2016- Approving A Minor Amendment to the Harmony PUD
Agreement Exhibit 2
th
c. Harmony 9 Addition Final Plat Exhibit 3
th
d. Harmony 9 Addition Preliminary Development Plans (Sheets C1.1-C6.1 dated
6/28/16) Exhibit 4
3. Except as modified by paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Amendment, the Planned Unit
Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
4. The obligations and restrictions of this Amendment shall run with the land of the Subject
Property and shall be enforceable against the Declarant, its successors and assigns, by the
City of Rosemount acting through its City Council. This Amendment may be amended
from time to time by a written amendment executed by the City and the owner or owners
of the lot or lots to be affected by said amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned as duly authorized agents, officers or
representatives of Declarant have hereunto set their hands and seals as of the day and year first
above written.
DECLARANT
METRO LAND HOLDINGS LLC
By
Its
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ___________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of _________, 2016
by _____________________ and _________________, the _________________ and
______________________, for and on behalf of Metro Land Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota
Limited Liability Corporation, by and on behalf of said corporation.
_______________________________
2
Notary Public
This Amendment is approved and consented to by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
By:
William H. Droste, Mayor
And by:
Clarissa Hadler, City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 2016
by William H. Droste and Clarissa Hadler, the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, for and on
behalf of the City of Rosemount, a Minnesota corporation, by and on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
3
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
City of Rosemount
th
2875 145 Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
651-423-4411
4
Harmony 9th Addition
August 11, 20161:2,400
0112.5225450ft
03060120m
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.
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.
EXCERPT OF DRAFT MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
JULY 26, 2016
6.a. Request by Metro Land Holdings, LLC. for a major amendment to the Harmony (Brockway Area)
Planned Unit Development (PUD) to construct 7 single family lots and an 80 unit apartment building. (16-27-
PUD).
Community Development Director Lindquist gave a brief overview of the staff report.
Comm
there is not a specific goal that the city has but the City is interested in providing life cycle housing in the community.
Commissioner Clements noted the 4 calls for potential crime at the Waterford in the past 6 months and inquired about
the how the Waterford compares to the proposed apartment building. Lindquist stated that the Waterford has 105 units
with commercial space on the main level. Clements also questioned if there would be parking on Brockway. Lindquist
stated there would not be on street parking on Brockway.
Commissioner Forester asked to define medium density vs. low density and how the neighborhood is a combination of
different housing types. Lindquist indicated the guide plan is a combination of low density and medium density
residential. The medium density residential is over everything that is not single family or the park and that is because the
overall density of the project is about 6 units per acre which is medium density. It would be too hard to have each piece
individually guided. Medium density is defined as 5-10 units per acre and high density is above 10 units.
Chair Kenninger inquired if the density would still be medium if apartment building is approved. Lindquist stated it
would. Kenninger noted that the original approval was for 624 units, and streets and utilities were set up for this density.
Lindquist confirmed that is correct. Kenninger also inquired about the comment in the motion for the exterior
embellishments on the south and west wing to be consistent north and east wing be consistent. Lindquist stated the
elevations in the packet were mislabeled. The condition means that the interior spaces that face the parking lot would
need to match the street side views.
Commissioner Forester asked about how the planning commission analyzes the changes in the PUD. Lindquist lists the
8 purpose statement for use of a PUD. She noted the ordinance allows modifications to be made after a PUD is
approved. The council and planning commission review minor and major amendments to modify the original plan,
when it is over 5% change then both bodies need to approve. Both the Planning Commission and City Council need to
keep in mind the comp plan and zoning when reviewing PUD amendments.
Commissioner Clements inquired how many homes were built prior to 2008. Lindquist stated that 188 units were built,
22 single family and 166 townhomes were constructed based on the 2007 staff report.
Chair Kenninger confirmed that when a PUD is amended, the developer is not able to go back to the original plan
without approval from the City. Lindquist stated that is correct but that previous amendments to Harmony were minor
amendments because the number of units was smaller.
The public hearing was opened at 7:12 pm.
Public comments:
Joe McElwain, Metro Land Holdings/Chase real estate, gave a brief overview of who Chase Real Estate is and the
proposal for the apartment building. McElwain stated rents would run between $1,200 and $2,400 per month; they run
background checks on renters and buildings are drug free and non-smoking. He also stated that the Waterford mostly
rents to single people or couples without children and there is a waiting list for units at the Waterford. He stated that one
building as compared to the townhomes would eliminate driveways and garage doors and one driveway to create a
predictable traffic pattern. He went on to address parking, stating that at his other buildings across the metro they find
demand of about 1.65 parking stalls per unit. At Waterford the parking ratio is 1.85 and they are about 75% parked and
100% occupied.
Commissioner VanderWiel inquired what kind of common spaces or amenities will this building provide for residents.
McElwain stated there will be a clubroom for residents to rent and common spaces, he also stated that most residents
expect more amenities.
Chair Kenninger inquired if underground parking is an additional fee. MeElwain stated yes there is a fee, currently the
Waterford charges $50 a month and typically is full in the winter.
Commissioner Forester inquired when Metro Land Holdings purchased the property. McElwain stated they purchased
the property from Rottland around 2010.
Commissioner Clements inquired if the applicant knew whether the homeowners association amenities were designed to
accommodate the senior housing and two apartment buildings. Lindquist states that there has always been an intention
for a community building, although the details were never defined and the building was part of the original 2004 plan.
Clements also asked if they have looked at other parcels in Rosemount to place an apartment building. McElwain stated
they have not.
th
Thomas Hartley, 2765 134 Street West, encouraged the Commissioners to not discount the 37 personal letters and 140
signatures. He feels that they should continue to operate under 2008 PUD. He also questions why the traffic study for
2004 is relevant. There are three other sites in Rosemount slatted for apartment buildings, he questions why this location
was chosen versus the others. He also stated that the Homeowners Association does not speak to apartment buildings.
rd
Christopher Bates, 2610 133 Street West, he is on board of both master association and sub association, Harmony
West, for about three years. There are three sub associations that make up the master association plus the single family
homes. The HOA agreement that he has from when Rottlund was around doesn
understand how the HOA could reasonably accommodate the apartments and how they would pay and share facilities.
Jon Ottman, 13495 Brass Parkway, lived in his house for the last 8 ½ years. Unlike his neighbors he financia
afford to move out of his neighborhood if this passes. This is not about figures, but about their neighborhood and the
way it would change the dynamics of it. He said his family moved in after the PUD was changed to eliminate the
apartment buildings. He suggests looking elsewhere to build an apartment building and encourages the Commissioners
to vote no.
rd
Nancy Engel, 2609 133 Street West, thanked the commission for accommodating the crowd. She also built her home
in 2008, based on 2008 PUD Amendment. She found out about the proposal from neighbor about the proposal for the
have known an apartment building was going to be built in this neighborhood. Chase real estate is changing the rules.
Waterford is between Hwy 3 and the railroad tracks, in a commercial district. She also stated that Metro Land Holdings
approached the HOA months ago about this proposal and was told homeowners would not be interested; she feels
Metro Land Holdings side stepped the HOA.
Allison Helgren, 133369 Brass Parkway, built her home in 2009 and would not have considered building if apartments
would have been in the plan. There were 25 single family homes built before the PUD was amended and now there are
87 homes, most built under the knowledge of no apartment buildings in the neighborhood. She asked the Commission
to consider if this is the best fit for all residents of Rosemount. She also stated that the pool capacity is 82.
Marcy Compton, 13260 Brass Parkway, states that 30 % of homes were built before 2008, and 70% after the PUD
cutting through from Bonaire to get to the light at Connemara. She encourages the Commission to vote no.
Mark Sawyer, 13482 Brilliant Gem Avenue, stated the traffic study is now 12 years old, does it consider all the traffic that
is east of Hwy 3 since there has been considerable development in that part of the city since the traffic study. Property
change and is not fair to the residents of this neighborhood. He would also like to know what is the Metropolitan
Council criteria for affordable housing and what is planned for the parcel to the south.
Alex Hedstrom, 13614 Brass Parkway, wants to speak to the point of young professionals moving back to Rosemount.
Rosemount just like the applicant is saying they want young professionals to do. This apartment building would greatly
reduce any chance for him to p
and it would ruin the neighborhood.
Kathryn Farsht, 13604 Brass Parkway, is wondering if the apartments would be accepting any vouchers for other income
assistance. She also inquired about the number of police calls since Waterford Commons was built not just the last 6
if the apartment buildings were approved. She is disappointed that the rules are being changed in the middle of the
game.
rd
Lisa Morley, 2679 133 st w, thanks the Commission for their hard work and thoughtfulness. She questions the number
of police calls on Brockway, as she has called a couple of time in the past 2 years. She is not against apartment buildings
as she has an 18 year old son and would love for him to have a place to live in Rosemount. However, the traffic is
dangerous and the apartments would have a negative impact on neighborhood; clubhouse, and the pool, which was
never built to accommodate an apartment building. To completely change the character of the neighborhood without
their consent would greatly affect them. The vision from 2004 is not sustainable and would lower property values. She
wants to know if it is city policy for a PUD to be a placeholder until a developer changes their mind. The notice process
should be longer and feels the communication was not good.
Joseph Le, 13676 Brass Parkway, moved in 2005 to build a single level townhouse and personally feels his property value
will go down. Traffic has increased since he has built in 2005. A house close to an apartment will not bring buyers but
deter them.
Pat Lawler, 13659 Bronze Parkway, says traffic is constant for 12-13 hours a day at Disc Golf Course and Park and also
lots of people parking on the street. She lives in the first unit facing the disc golf course, and is concerned about the
additional traffic the apartment building would bring to her street.
th
Mark Sawyer, 2789 134 Street West, is a retired police officer, and has seen that when apartments go up so does crime.
building was put in their backyard how they would feel.
Bill Blundell, 13592 Brass Parkway, loves the feel of Harmony Village now, but an apartment building would ruin the
take ca
buildings.
th
Connie Marquardt, 2709 134 Street West, bought single level townhouse a year ago, because of the smallness of the
beautiful
Harmony have bought our property based on the 2008 PUD.
Mark Meunier, 13426 Brilliant Gem Avenue, noted that a developer can come and have the PUD changed at any time to
more than 3 years or you had to sell because the HOA is concerned about renters. He asked the applicant how close
their other buildings are to single family homes or townhouses. The roads are too busy for him to safely walk to the
community center. He also asked the Commissioners to call all the association members and see if they can find five
people who are for the apartment building bec
th
Wendy Hartley, 2765 134 Street West, purchased her home 6 years ago. Last week when she walked around the
t of them are concerned about
the traffic going to the park. Townhouses are being sold and moved in a fast as they can be built. She stated that if you
can afford the rent proposed by the developer then why not buy a house.
Dick Victor, 13624 Brass Park
indicated the vacant piece of property across the road that would be a better fit.
th
Curt Seabloom, 2781 134 Street West, noted that the year after he built his house Rotllund went under and the
homeowners have been trying to recover ever since, warranties were gone, management company was gone, reserves
were gone and they have been struggling since. He is the president of Harmony West Association and he deals with it on
accommodate apartment residents. Many of them are seniors living on a fixed income. He also questioned where trash
will be stored and who is going to monitor grass and landscaping. Homeowners have struggled for 12 years to get to
no.
Kevin McDermott, 13411 Brass Parkway, he is a father of four and now he feels comfortable to let his older kids go to
do is put his home for sale. Buyers would pass up Harmony to o
building in the neighborhood. A vote to approve would show a lack of care for community and family and encouraged
the Commissioners to vote no.
Jerome Kerkhoff, 13454 Brilliant Gem Avenue, his family had a townhouse in Harmony and he and his wife decided to
expand his family and chose to build in the same neighborhood because they loved the neighborhood. Also would not
allow 10 year old daughter walk the neighborhood park if apartments are built. He will also put his home up for sale as
well if proposal goes through.
Brian Guenther, 13341 Brass Parkway, purchased his home 2011, were told no apartments would be built in area. He
noted the developer purchased land in 2010 under the PUD without apartments planned. He stated based on 1.6 cars
per unit there would be a 109 more cars if an apartment building went in vs. three quad townhouse units. He also
inquired how this would be an option to expand housing options when the rent is similar to a mortgage for a townhouse
in the neighborhood. He would have not bought, and will sell, if he had known about the possibility of an apartment
building in his neighborhood.
Michael Johnson, 13344 Brass Parkway, stated that Brockway is a cut through for drivers, which is going to get worse as
development continues to grow to the east. He is also interested in crime around Waterford not just at the apartment
becau
plans were changeable at any moment and also encouraged the Commission to vote no.
Mike Samuelson, 13289 Bronze Parkway, he specifically asked the developer if there were any apartments going to be
built in the neighborhood and was told no. He also stated that the neighborhood is being used as a cut though for those
who want to avoid traffic at Bonaire or Connemara depending which way they are trying to travel on Hwy 3.
th
Ben Colburn, 2506 135 Court, found out on the news that Rottlund was going under when they were half finished
building their house and they could have backed out and got their earnest money back and went on their way. But they
jumped through the hoops to get their house completed, because they liked the neighborhood so much. He also would
have not built if there was a possibility of an apartment building. Metro Land Holdings, LLC knew what the PUD was at
the time of purchase
Chair Kenninger asked the applicant to come back up to address the questions raised in the public comments, they
declined.
MOTION by Clements to close the public hearing.
Second by Freeman.
Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion Passes.
The public hearing was closed at 8:49 pm.
Additional Comments:
Commissioner Mele inquired about the retention ponds and the timeline of completion. Lindquist stated that Dunmore
was approved last year but the develo
moved until the permanent pond is completed.
Chair Kenninger inquired what is the plan for the parcel that is located directly south of the apartment building.
Lindquist indicated the parcel directly south is planned for townhouses and the parcel to the southwest approved for
small retail.
Lindquist addressed the questions raised in the public comments. She stated notifications requirements are set by state
law and that is what the city adopted and uses. The city sends notices to property owners, publishes in the paper, and put
y affordable housing at this building. Records on crime were received from the Rosemount Police
County; it is new software and only have five months of records at this point.
that is affordable it is around $230,000 if owner occupied or 30% of income based on household size for rentals. The
Met Council has specific guidelines for the total number of new affordable housing units that Rosemount is to provide
in the future, which can be found in the Comp Plan, it a fairly large number for Rosemount. The number is not relevant
for this project because affordable housing is not being proposed in this application.
Chair Kenninger inquired how trash will be handled. Lindquist stated she is unsure but often it is interior. Kenninger
also inquired if there are other apartment buildings in a similar layout in the county, where the apartments are integrated
into a residential neighborhood. Lindquist stated that Cobblestone Lake in Apple Valley has a mixed use. Lindquist also
s, but Carboury rental townhomes are adjoining
Evermore and prompted a similar conversation.
Commissioner Clements inquired if there are any three story townhouses that would have a similar elevation in
Harmony. Lindquist stated there are three level townhouses in Harmony, located mostly to the east of the site.
Chair Kenninger noted she read it would be about a five foot height difference between the two building types.
Lindquist stated that at the peaks it would be closer to an eight foot height difference.
Commissioner Clements inquired if a three story town house could be built on the site. Lindquist stated it would be an
acceptable use.
Chair Kenninger inquired if there was anything that could have led that applicant to believe that they could build an
apartment building since they purchased under the existing PUD. Lindquist stated the applicant would have to answer.
Commissioner Clements inquired if Metro Land Holdings, LLC already owns the property or if there is a purchase
agreement on land. Lindquist stated that all open lots are owned by Metro Land Holdings, LLC. Clements also inquired
about other spots for apartment buildings in Rosemount. Lindquist stated that the original concept for Prestwick Place
had apartments. The lot just east of the railroad tracks and west of El Dorado Packaging is slated for apartments and
would be adjacent to single family. They would only be two stories but multiple buildings. There are also places in the
southeast portion of the City that are designated as high density residential.
Chair Kenninger inquired the city policy on PUD amendments, referencing the public comment to amend a PUD at the
n
policy based.
Commissioner Mele
second motion to create the 7 single family home is a reasonable request. But he has a hard time to going against the
residents and not listening to their concerns. He will not recommend the City Council vote yes.
Commissioner Freeman stated she bought her home in 2008 in a neighborhood that was nearly complete because she
surance that the information
they were given when they purchased their homes stays the same.
Commissioner Clements stated that while those who bought before 2008 knew that the PUD had apartment buildings;
those who purchased after were told there would n
community that has completely changed. He has a hard time approving the apartments, but is in favor of the seven
single family homes.
omments aloud. She is in favor of approving the apartments but
with the condition that 2 parking spaces per unit be provided as required by ordinance. She also feels that screening of
parking lot needs to be reviewed. She noted that she drove through neigh
is likely that the public would drive though the neighborhood to access Connemara Trail and there was very little traffic
at the time of her drive through. She also feels that the apartment building has a similar appearance to three story
townhouses across the street. While she appreciates the many concerns, most of the issues raised are policy issues. On a
purely quasi-judicial basis she feels this complies. She goes on to mention that she has had her business in Waterford for
last five years, it is very safe, no crime, nice amenities, including a large exercise room and community room. It also
looks the same as it did five years ago. She stated it seems like there would be little impact on the HOA recreational
spaces.
Chair Kenninger stated she is in the same spot as the residents here today, not an apartment building, but similar
situation. It is a very tough decision to make but the apartments fit the land use and comp guide. Nothing has changed
from 2004 to now in regards to land use, zoning, comp guide. She would also recommend two parking spaces per unit
and screening on the parking lot. Is a tough decision, but based on land use she is in favor of the apartments and the
seven single family homes.
Commissioner Forester stated buyers need to do due diligence, he agrees with Kenninger and everything she said but
based on info residents had at the time of purchasing he is voting no.
1. MOTION by Clements to deny Approval of the Major Amendment to the Harmony PUD to permit an 81
unit 3-story rental apartment instead of 29 townhome units.
Second by Freeman
Ayes: 4. Nays: 1-Kenninger opposed
2. MOTION by Clements Recommend Approval of the simple plat application for Harmony 7th Addition:
a. Dedicate standard drainage and utility easements.
b. Development of the seven single family lots created in Harmony 7th Addition cannot occur until:
i. The applicant enter into an offsite ponding 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 Harmony 7th Addition
Second by Forester
Ayes: 5. Nays: 0.