Loading...
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.