HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.a. Request by Copperhead Development Inc. and Warren IraelsonEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Planning Commission Meeting: October 25, 2016
Tentative City Council Meeting: December 6, 2016
AGENDA ITEM: Planned Unit Development Master Plan
AGENDA SECTION:
with Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Public Notice
and Zoning Map Amendment
PREPARED BY: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner
AGENDA NO. 5.a.
Anthony Nemcek, Planner
ATTACHMENTS: Site Location; Site Plan;Preliminary Plat,
Grading and Erosion Control Plan; Storm
Water Plan, Site Utility Plan; Sanitary
Sewer Construction; Landscape and Tree
Preservation Plan;Drainage Area Map
Building Floor Plans and Elevations
(Apartment Buildings x3, Garage
Buildings x1, Office/Caretaker Building
x4);Color Rendering;Staff Report and
Minutes from 6/27/06, Planning
Commission Meeting; Staff Report from APPROVED BY: K.L.
3/20/07City CouncilCommission
Meeting; City Engineer’sMemorandum
dated 10/22/16;City Fire Marshall
Memorandum dated 10/12/16;City Park
& Rec Director’s Memorandum dated
10/12/16;City Engineer’sMemorandum
dated 9/20/16; Stormwater Memorandum
dated9/15/16; Letter from Eric and Heidi
Larson, Questions and Staff Response
from Jeremy Oliver
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to continue public hearing to November 22, 2016 and
direct the applicant to address the issues noted in Staff Report under “Conclusion and
Recommendation”.
SUMMARY
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request by Warren Israelson (Copperhead
Development, Inc.) to construct an apartment complex consisting of 232 units within seven two-story
buildings and a leasing office/maintenance building that contains a community room and a three-bedroom
caretaker’s unit. The applicant is requesting approval of a master development plan for a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) along with a rezoning from BP-Business Park and R1-Low Density Residential to
R4-High Density Residential. The proposal also requires reguiding the land use designation from BP-
Business Park and MDR-Medium Density Residential to HDR-High Density Residential. As a final
component of the request, the applicant isrequesting to plat the site by combining the two lots and then
resubdividing in order to create lots for the common areas and proposed buildings separately and to
th
redraw the drainage and utility easements on the site. The apartment complex is proposed south of 145
Street West between the railroad and El Dorado Packaging (formerly Greif Brothers).
2
Applicant: Warren Israelson
Property Owner: Warren Israelson and Copperhead Development Inc.
Property Location: Lot 1 Block 1 Greif Addition and Lot 1 Block 2 Rosewood Village
3rd Addition
Size of Property: 12.25 Acres
Comprehensive Plan Designation: BP Business Park and MDR Medium Density Residential
Zoning: BP-Business Park and R1-Low Density Residential
Number of Units: 232 units
Site Density: 18.9 units/acre
Current Neighboring Land Uses: North – Self-storage Facility
South – Residential and Future Commercial
East – Detached Townhomes
West – Railroad and Rosemount Park and Ride
BACKGROUND
The applicant owns two parcels located south of 145th Street and immediately east of Downtown
Rosemount and the Progressive Railroad right-of-way. The site is comprised of 12.25 acres in total, but
includes many odd angles and curves because it is surrounded by the rail line on the west, industrial to the
east, and a series of rail spurs that connect back to the main line on the south and east. The two parcels
are relatively flat and the area was graded at the same time as some of the neighboring developments to
create a storm water retention basin along the southern property boundary.
Originally, the southern portion of this site was zoned and guided for residential use as part of the
Rosewood Estates and Rosewood Village developments to the south and east. An earlier concept for the
area called for residential uses on the subject property similar to those in these neighboring developments.
This concept also depicted access into the site from adjoining private roads extending east Boxwood Path
while crossing the easternmost railroad spur. For various reasons, including concerns about crossing the
railroad spur as the only means of access, both the City and the landowner found this design problematic.
As a result, the applicant negotiated the subdivision and purchase of approximately 5 acres from Greif
Brothers in 2006. This land was purchased with the intent of combining it with the existing undeveloped
portion of Rosewood Village to the south and gaining a new access point from the north via 145th Street
West. A condition of approval of that subdivision required Greif Brothers to remove their western most
access onto 145th Street West. The staff report and minutes from the June 27, 2006, Planning Commission
meeting concerning this subdivision are included in the attachments.
Subsequent to acquisition of the northern property in early 2007, the applicant submitted a mixed use
concept PUD for review and approval for the entire site. That concept plan consisted of six apartment
buildings with underground parking containing 240 units and one commercial building. The City Council
approved the concept plan, but the applicant has not moved forward with any further land use
applications on the site until now. Generally, the layout of the 2007 concept plan is similar to the current
submittal with the key differences being the building height and parking layout. The concept plan as
approved in 2007 included 3-story buildings in addition to surface and underground parking, while the
current submittal is surface parking and some garages only. The staff report and minutes from the March
27, 2007, City Council meeting are attached to this report.
The proposed project includes a series of seven two-story buildings that will be located along a private
road/parking area located within the front of each building. Each building will contain 33 apartment units
for a total of 231 units, with a breakdown of 78 two bedroom units and 154 one bedroom units. The
surface parking will follow a linear path around the project site, looping back to the main entrance near a
leasing office. The main access to the site will be along 145th Street, and will align with a shared access
point with the El Dorado Packaging business as required in the 2006 City resolution approving the lot
split. In addition to the surface parking, the applicant is proposing to construct several garage buildings, all
3
of which will also have direct access to the main roadway through the site. No public access is shown to
the east across the rail spur and into the Rosewood Village development, and instead, the applicant is
proposing a gated emergency-only access at the end of Lower 147th Court West.
Another major component of the preliminary development plans include a leasing office/caretaker’s
residence located at the northern end of the site. The bulk of the main floor of this building will be used
as a party room available for use by the residents of the development, but will also include the sale and
leasing office for the apartments and a small maintenance garage. The second level provides living space
for an on-site caretaker which will be set up as a three bedroom apartment. All the proposed buildings will
be served by a five-foot sidewalk that loops around the site in front of each building and ultimately
connects unto the existing sidewalk and trail system along 145th Street. With the railroad lines surrounding
most of the site, there are no opportunities for providing direct pedestrian connections to the south or
west. All public utilities to serve the property will connect into existing public water and sewer services
within 145th Street and Lower 147th Court West. All services were stubbed to the site with previous
developments or public improvement projects.
ISSUE ANALYSIS
Legal Authority . Amendments to the City Comprehensive Plan and approval of Planned Unit
Development Master Development Plans are legislative decisions because the City is formulating public
policy. The City may amend the Comprehensive Plan after a public hearing before the Planning
Commission and a two-thirds majority vote by the City Council. These applications also require
notification to the surrounding communities and approval by the Metropolitan Council.
Preliminary and final plat approvals, as well as rezonings, are quasi-judicial decisions for the City meaning
that the City is acting as a judge to determine if the regulations within the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance are being followed. Generally, if these applications meet the City’s
established requirements they must be approved. Staff review of each application is provided below.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The northern parcel on the site is currently guided BP-Business Park and the Southern Parcel is guided
MDR-Medium Density Residential. These designations are reflective of the previous development plans
for the area that would have extended residential development east across the railroad spur via one or
more connections into the Rosewood Village neighborhood and kept a separate parcel available for
commercial development along 145th Street. Given the very unusual configuration of the parcel and
constraints imposed by the main rail line and spurs, the City has previously agreed (via concept plan
approval) that the two existing parcels are better suited for development as one site, and that a higher
density residential development could provide the best use of the land. In this case, staff agrees that
changing the future land use of both parcels to higher density residential should be considered because: 1)
the potential for commercial development on the north parcel is limited because the parcel is narrow with
limited visibility from 145th Street, 2) Without a connection to 145th Street, the southern parcel is left with a
very limited access that must cross a rail spur and move traffic into a narrow private cul-de-sac, 3) a
designation as high density residential allows the developer to arrange buildings, parking, and accessory
buildings on the site in a manner that will minimize impacts from railroad noise, and 4) the site is located
immediately adjacent to Downtown and a public transit facility and within easy walking distance to a large
number of attractions and services.
When evaluating a Comprehensive Plan amendment request, the Planning Commission should consider
whether or not there are existing goals and policies in place that support the request. Below, staff has
highlighted a number of Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies that support adding the two lots to the
HDR-High Density Residential District to allow development of the Rosewood Commons apartment
complex south of 145th Street West and east of the railroad.
4
Executive Summary: Nine Overarching Goals:
2. Preserve the existing rural residential areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan and increase
housing opportunities in the community to attain a balance of life cycle housing options.
Apartment units provide a housing choice that is appealing to residents that do not need large amounts of living
additional space (or prefer a smaller amount of space) or that may find it difficult to take care of a single-family
home and associated yard. The pace of multi-family construction in the City has not kept pace with single-family
construction over the past decade and more.
Housing Element Goals and Policies
4. Provide a mixture of rental and home ownership opportunities to provide life cycle housing.
A. Provide rental opportunities for young adults and recent college graduates returning to
Rosemount. The proposed units would all be market-rate rental units available to the age group referenced in
this section of the Plan.
5. Locate different housing styles within the appropriate areas.
B. Disperse high density residential in appropriate areas throughout the community to avoid
entire neighborhoods of high density residential. A variety of uses are located adjacent to the property,
none of which are high-density residential. The closest residential use is the detached townhome neighborhood to
the east. This neighboring use offers a buffer between the high-density residential proposed for the site and the
low-density residential further east of the site.
C. Locate high density residential with access to the collector and arterial street network. The site
will be accessed from 145th Street West, a collector street identified in the City’s transportation plan.
D. Locate high density residential in conjunction with Downtown and the commercial areas along
County Road 42 to create mixed-use neighborhoods and transit-oriented districts. This site is
located adjacent to the Downtown land use and zoning districts. Directly to the west of the proposed
development is the Rosemount Transit Station.
E. Provide opportunities for seniors to live near their children and families. While this development is
not intended to be strictly for seniors, the proposed development contains single bedroom units that are often
rented by seniors. The proposed development will be adjacent to the single family neighborhoods to the east and
south which could allow seniors to live near their extended families.
The Comprehensive Plan also includes a general purpose statement for the High Density Residential land
use as follows: The intent of the High Density Residential district is to accommodate many of the life cycle
housing options not addressed within the Low Density or Medium Density Residential land uses. Senior
and assisted living development for the increasing aging population, along with affordable rental or
ownership units for new graduates or young families, often require greater densities than are allowed
within the low or medium density neighborhoods. High density residential housing shall be constructed of
the same or better building materials and have access to the same recreational, institutional, and
commercial amenities as the other residential uses.
Staff finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment supports a number of goals and policies
adopted by the City in the Comprehensive Plan.
Preliminary Plat
The preliminary plat shows the proposed lot lines and easements over the existing conditions survey. The
plat will generate nineteen lots within a single larger common area. Lots 1-17 contain the footprints of the
apartment buildings, garages, and leasing office/maintenance building. Lot 18 contains all the common
areas. The plat also indicates a single outlot, Outlot A, will contain the required ponding for the
development. Outlot A is located at the southern end of the property. The preliminary plat generally
proposes ten foot drainage and utility easements along the edges of the site not including Outlot A. The
5
preliminary plat also proposes vacating the existing easements which extend much further into the
property boundaries. The applicant intends to develop the site in construction phases of one building per
year.
At this time, the applicant has not submitted a document that meets the City or County’s requirements for
a final plat, and will need to bring a final plat request forward upon approval of a preliminary plat.
Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with Rezoning
The northern portion of the property is currently zoned BP-Business Park and the southern portion of the
property is in the R1-Low Density Residential zoning district. The applicant is proposing an apartment
complex containing 233 units. The table below illustrates the number and percent of each type of
apartments in each building. The majority will be one bedroom units. The site also includes one three
bedroom unit located above the community room/leasing office. This unit is dedicated to the caretaker of
the apartment complex.
Proposed Types of Apartment Units for Rosewood Commons
Type of Unit Size Number of Units Percentage of Units
Efficiency 571 Square Feet 28 12%
One Bedroom 700 Square Feet 126 54%
Two Bedroom 894-905 Square Feet 77 33%
The proposed development is not a permitted use in the BP-Business Park district, nor would this use be
allowed in the R2-Medium Density Residential zoning district due to the high density residential use and
type of housing. The applicant is requesting to have the property rezoned for R4-High Density Residential
PUD.
Comparison of Lot Requirements and Standards
Category Current R-4
Standards
Proposed Rosewood
Commons Standards
Min. Lot Area 22,500 sq. ft. Average Lot Area 28,082 sq. ft.
Maximum Density 40 units/acre 19 units/acre
Max. Impervious Surface 75% 49%
The applicant has requested a planned unit development to accommodate the plat request. As such,
standards for lot width and depth are not being considered due to the irregular lot shapes. The setback
requirements for the R-4 zoning district will be met with relation to the exterior lot lines of the site. The
minimum side yard setback for accessory buildings, the garages in this case, is ten feet. The site plans
indicate that the garages will be located at least ten feet from the exterior side lot lines of the site. The
leasing office is being considered a principal structure on the site, and it is located thirty three (33) feet
from the side lot line. The side lot setback standard for principle structures is thirty (30) feet. The front
yard setback standard for principle structures is thirty feet. The leasing office is located sixty seven (67)
feet from the front lot line.
The apartment buildings all have varying setbacks given the uneven curves and lot line configurations of
the property. The shortest distance between one of the apartment buildings and the closest lot line is 40
feet, which is the distance between apartment building #1 and westernmost property line with El Dorado
Packaging. The other buildings have varying setbacks, and the closest to a residential property line is 75
feet between building # 5 and the western boundary of Rosewood Village. Throughout the site, the
planned parking areas and accessory garage structures are located between the proposed apartment
buildings and any property lines. All apartment buildings will maintain a minimum setback of 20 feet from
6
another residential structure.
Street System and Parking
The primary access to the site will be via an entrance along 145th Street West that will be shared with the El
Dorado Packaging facility located to the east of the site. When the parcel was subdivided in 2006 from
what was then the Greif Brothers property, a condition of approval was that any new access to the
subdivided property would require the removal of an access to the Greif Brothers property. El Dorado
Packaging has indicated that they are in agreement with sharing an access with Rosewood Commons and
Staff is recommending that the applicant provide a signed agreement between the two parties as a
condition of approval. The proposed private street system was reviewed by the City’s Fire Marshall who
indicated that the street widths would be sufficient for emergency vehicles to have access to the entire site.
A secondary access via 147th Court West should be maintained in case of emergency with a locked gate to
prevent regular vehicular access to the neighborhood east of the site. Pedestrian circulation is provided
within the site in front of the apartment buildings. Two sidewalks are provided to access the trail along
145th Street West on either side of the leasing office.
The plans provided by the applicant indicate 397 parking stalls will be provided including 112 garage stalls.
The applicant is requesting a deviation from City Code for the required parking stalls. City Code requires
2 parking stalls per unit in multiple family dwellings, and the Code does not specify different parking
requirements based on the number of bedrooms in the units. The applicant is requesting approval of a
plan that provides 2 parking stalls per two-bedroom unit and 1.5 parking stalls per one-bedroom and
efficiency unit. This results in a net provision of 1.66 stalls per unit. Roughly 2/3 of all units will be one
bedroom or efficiency units.
Staff is concerned with the proposed parking exceptions and general layout and spacing of the parking
areas, and these concerns are further magnified due to the unique layout of buildings on the site. The
proposed plan is 67 stalls short of meeting the City’s standards, or roughly 10 for each building. Given the
lineal nature of the parking throughout the site, there are no shared parking areas between each building.
In addition, the site is isolated from any near-by streets and neighborhoods, which means there will be no
opportunities for any on-street parking to off-set the need for additional parking during periods of peak
demand. This problem is further amplified because there is only one route by each building, which means
any parking issues could potentially spill over into the main driving lanes through the site.
The City’s off-street parking regulations include standards for the minimum width of a parking stall and
associated driving lanes. For a parking lot with 90 degree parking as shown on the applicant’s site plans,
each parking space is required to be a minimum of 8.5 feet wide and 19 feet deep (which can be reduced to
17 feet with a curb stop that allows a portion of a vehicle to extend beyond the curb) with a 24 foot
driving lane allowing for two-way traffic. The parking stalls depicted on the site plan are 8.5 feet in width,
18 feet deep, and include a 24 foot driving lane for an overall width of 60 feet. While these dimensions
meet the technical minimums of the zoning regulations, staff is concerned that the width of the driving
lanes will not be sufficient for the site due to the following:
• The long length of the private drive (over 2,600 feet) that loops though the site. Any
blockage of the road will effectively cut off access to a large portion of the site.
• The placement of garage structures up to the edge of the driving lane, which means any
eaves or other extensions of the garages will protrude into the driving lanes.
• The driving lane will essentially function as a private roadway because it will need to
accommodate all resident and visitor traffic, maintenance vehicles, emergency vehicles, and
other traffic that normally accesses a residential area.
• While not stated in the ordinance, these standards are typically applied to parking lots not
residential private drives; it is the location of the parking stalls with drive that make the
7
configuration more unique than the typical multi-family project with private drive.
In order to address these concerns, Staff is recommending that the driving lanes be expanded to a
minimum of 28 feet with an overall curb-to-curb dimension of 64 feet including the parking on either side
of these lanes. The City has typically looked for a 28’ access drive, which is what was required in the
recently approved St Croix Builders townhome project which had significantly less units. The project
layout means that the drive aisle serves as access to parking but more importantly is the primary drive aisle
to each unit. The 28’ width is reasonable.
The requested drive aisle plan revision should be considered with the staff comments in the following
section as well. In order to address concerns regarding the number of required parking stalls and driving
lane width, the applicant will need to revise the site plan to 1) provide additional width along the interior
driving lanes, 2) add parking to comply with the ordinance criteria, in a manner that does not conflict with
other ordinance requirements; or revise the site plan to eliminate one or more buildings. Staff is willing to
consider a “proof of parking” option whereby the applicant delineates room for parking that could be
constructed in the future; however, the site constraints noted throughout this report will make this option
(or just adding more parking to the site) difficult to achieve.
Pedestrian Circulation/Sidewalks
The applicant is proposing a looping sidewalk system that will provide a pedestrian walkway in front and
between each building. All internal sidewalks will connect into the public trail and sidewalk system along
145th Street. Although the five-foot sidewalk as proposed would typically be considered adequate for a
development like the one proposed, the sidewalks are located immediately adjacent to a portion of the
planned parking area. Because the parking areas include a curb between each stall and the sidewalk,
vehicles will overhang the curb and encroach into the sidewalk area. With vehicles extending over the
curb, the usable portion of the sidewalk will only be around three feet in width, which is not adequate for
supporting pedestrian movements within a high density development such as this one. Staff is suggesting
that all sidewalks be separated from the edge of a parking area by at least four feet, and that the plans be
updated to include this separation.
Traffic
With the proposed change in land use from Business Park and medium density residential to high density
residential, the City should examine the potential traffic impacts on the adjoining street network as part of
its review. As planned, the proposed project will include one access into and out of the development at
145th Street approximately 250 west of the closest rail line. There will be no public access into the adjacent
residential neighborhoods, so all vehicle trips into and out of the project site will occur at 145th Street. As
noted by the City Engineer the ITE projects an apartment development like the one proposed is expected
to generate approximately 6.65 vehicle trips per day per apartment unit (every time a vehicle leaves or
enters the site, it is considered a separate trip). By multiplying this number by the total number of
apartments, the Engineer is estimating that the project will generate roughly 1,550 vehicle trips per day.
For comparison purposes, the Rosewood Village neighborhood to the west is expected to generate
approximately 1,000 vehicle trips per day using the ITE standards for single family residential units. For
comparison, a small commercial convenience store could generate anywhere from 2,000 to 5,000 trips per
day.
Since access to and from the development is limited to 145th Street only, Staff next examined the design
capacity of 145th Street to identify any potential capacity issues by adding more development with direct
access to this road. The City’s most recent traffic counts indicate that there are roughly 5,700 vehicle trips
on 145th Street on a daily basis for the segment east of South Robert Trail. Because the present design
capacity of the roadway approximately 8,000 daily vehicles, the proposed apartments will not add more
traffic to the road than it was designed to handle. Even with the proposed development, the overall level
of traffic on this portion of 145th Street will be less than currently exists on 145th Street, west of South
8
Robert Trail. Internal to the development, staff is recommending that the applicant demonstrate that the
proposed access at 145th Street will provide adequate stacking and maneuvering room for vehicles leaving
the site to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Exterior Building Materials and Massing
Elevations provided by the applicant indicate the exteriors of the building will feature a combination of
brick or natural stone facing, lap siding, and board and batten siding. The City has required specific
building materials in other planned unit developments, and the front elevations submitted in this
application fall within those standards. Primarily, the City has required a variation in surfaces materials.
The apartment buildings will be 2 stories and have a building height of approximately 26.5 feet. The foot
print of each apartment building will be 200 feet by 70 feet.
Although the front elevations provide a variety of building materials and also incorporate some vertical
design elements, the roof lines, rear, and sides of each building consist of long, unbroken expanses of
siding and shingles. Staff is recommending that the final building plans incorporate additional design
elements along the side and rear elevations in the form of building articulation, vertical design elements,
porches or decks, breaks in the roof lines, introduction of alternate materials, dormers, or other similar
options.
Trash Enclosure
The plans supplied by the applicant indicate that dumpsters will be located adjacent or between the garages
on the site. A total of 4 areas for trash disposal are provided in the plans. The areas are positioned
regularly throughout the site.
Landscaping
The City Code requires a minimum of 8 trees plus one tree per unit. A minimum of 241 trees are required
to meet this requirement. The landscaping plan includes 90 trees, far below the requirements of City
Code. Part of the reason for the reduced number of trees is the fact that over 21% of the site area is taken
up by ponding. The landscape plan includes extensive screening along the outer edges of the site in the
form of coniferous trees. Forty-seven deciduous trees are placed throughout the site at fifty foot intervals.
Trees are also placed at fifty foot intervals along the boulevard of 145th Street West. Due to the site
constraints and necessary spacing, staff feels that the landscape plan provides the most trees possible in the
space available. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to identify areas for additional overstory
trees as the project moves forward. Shrubs will be placed in front of all the buildings in accordance with
City Code.
Because the project includes a larger parking area located adjacent to a single family residential area, the
zoning ordinance requires screening that achieves 90% opacity year round along the property boundary
with the Rosewood Village Addition. The landscape plans must be updated to reach this level of
screening. Staff has also made other observations as follows concerning the landscape plan:
• The plan does not identify any foundation plantings. The landscape ordinance requires one
foundation planting per 10 linear feet of building (principal or accessory) perimeter. The perimeter
of the principal buildings will require 398 foundation plantings, while the garages will require close
to 300 of such plantings. The landscape plan should be updated to include all required foundation
plantings.
• There are no trees depicted within any of the larger parking areas. All of the proposed bump outs
into parking areas will be used for sidewalks and pedestrian access points. Staff is recommending
that the final parking lot design include internal planting areas for trees.
Tree Preservation
There are a number of trees that will be removed while the site is developed. The applicant’s tree
9
preservation plan indicates a total of 26 trees on the site. This equates to 372 caliper inches. The applicant
intends to save 83 caliper inches and remove 289 caliper inches. Developers are allowed to remove up to
25% of the caliper inches of trees on site without replacement. In this case that equals 93 caliper inches.
The applicant is removing 196 inches beyond that threshold. City Code requires the applicant to replace
one half of the amount removed beyond the 25% threshold, or 98 caliper inches, to mitigate the loss of
trees during development. The applicant’s landscape plan is already well below the amount of trees
required by City Code so a fee in lieu of tree dedication in the amount of $9800 should be provided by the
applicant.
Engineering, Grading, and Drainage
The City Engineer has worked with the applicant to identify the appropriate means of handling
stormwater runoff created by the site. There is an existing stormwater pond that receives stormwater from
145th Street West as well as the neighborhood to the east of the site. An additional stormwater pond has
already been created in the triangle section inside the railroad spur. Additional comments from the City
Engineer are included in the Engineer’s Memo dated October 20, 2016.
Parks and Open Space
It was determined at the time the concept plan was approved in 2007 that the public parks and recreation
needs of the development could be satisfied by nearby parks. After reviewing the Rosewood Commons
Master Development Plan, the Parks and Recreation department is recommending the City collect cash in-
lieu of land to meet the parks dedication requirements. That amount totals $792,200 (233 units x $3,400
per unit). Due to the high density and isolated location of the proposed development, staff recommended
that the PUD require the developer install some on-site recreational amenities. The plans show a
playground area located on the open space among the three southernmost buildings in the development.
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission table the application for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, PUD Master Development Plan and Final Development Plan and
Preliminary Plat (and continue the public hearing), and direct the applicant revise the development plans to
address the following issues:
1) Provide a minimum of at least four additional feet within the interior driving lanes for a total driving
width of 28’.
2) Add parking to the site in a manner that does not conflict with other requirements or eliminate one
or more buildings in order to meet the City’s Parking Ordinance requirement of two off-street
parking stalls for each residential dwelling unit. A proof of parking concept may be considered if
these stalls may be constructed in a manner that does not conflict with any other City requirements.
3) Create a minimum separation of at least four feet between the curb line of any parking stalls the
internal sidewalk system.
4) Comply with the City’s Landscape provisions concerning:
a. Screening at an opacity level of 90% between the site and adjacent Rosewood Village
Addition.
b. Foundation plantings.
c. Interior parking lot plantings.
5) Incorporate additional design elements along the side and rear building elevations in the form of
building articulation, vertical design elements, porches or decks, breaks in the roof lines, alternate
exterior materials, dormers, or other similar options.
6) Demonstrate that there is adequate stacking and maneuvering room for vehicles entering and leaving
the site at the 145th Street entrance.
Apartment Complex
Property Information
September 12, 2016
0 450 900225 ft
0 130 26065 m
1:4,800
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.
PROPOSED UTILITY
EASEMENT
BLDG 1-33 UNITS
966.00
EXISTING EASEMENT
(TO BE VACATED)
BLDG 6-33 UNIT
963.50
BLDG 2-33 UNIT
964.0
BLDG 3-33 UNIT
963.00
BLDG 7-33 UNIT
966.00
BLDG 4-33 UNIT
962.50
BLDG 5-33 UNIT
962.00
LEASING
OFFICE
970.00 7117011811520115200
20070 70151113111111111112141013101811109961011161011129810'10'200
707070200
200
200
707
0
200
200 200707070
20020020070 20020070
2070
19220
2020192
192
192
192
20192 19220192192192202020202096
96
20 2020
9620
40 969620
40 96PROPOSED 20'
UTILITY EASEMENT
GARAGE 416 STALLS- 962.50GARAGE 7A8 STALLS- 963.00GA
R
A
G
E
2
16 S
T
A
L
L
S
-
9
6
4
.
0
0
GA
R
A
G
E
1
16
S
T
A
L
L
S
-
9
6
6
.
0
0
GARAGE 6A
8 STALLS- 963.50
GARAGE 3
16 STALLS
-
9
6
3
.
0
0
GARAGE 7B
8 STALLS- 966.00 GARAGE 6B8 STALLS- 964.0016101010101020202017.47 2017.0036.44
20.0017.0020.00
19.4
3 20.0010149.0661.03
310.191
5
6
.
0
2 2044.02357.02
23.4
3
227.92
173.70
Rosewood Crossing
For Review
September 8,2016
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me,
or under my direct supervision, and that I am a
duly registered engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
Warren John Israelson
6001 Egan Drive, Ste 100, Savage, MN 55378
Phone: 952.226.3200 Web: www.kjwalk.com
Date:
04/18/13
Revision:
Original
Site Plan
Registration #: 40175
Rosewood
Crossing
Rosemount, MN
SHEET 1 of 8
Date: 9/9/2016
0 50 100 150
FILE PATH: C:\Users\Skills\Documents\Projects\Rosemount\Rosewood Commons\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RWCOM-APT CONCEPT.dwg
PARKING
REQUIRED
# 2 BR UNITS(78) x 2=156
# 1 BR UNITS(154) x 1.5=231
LEASING OFFICE(3000 SQ FT) =10
TOTAL =397
PROVIDED
GARAGE STALLS =112
PARKING STALLS =285
TOTAL =397
04/18/16 Revised
SHEET INDEX
1 Site Plan
2 Preliminary Plat
3 Grading and Erosion Control Plan
4 SWPPP
5 Utility Plan
6 Sanitary Sewer Construction
7 Landscape Plan
8 Drainage Areas
Legend
Existing watermain
Proposed watermain
Existing sanitary
Proposed sanitary
Existing storm
Proposed storm
Existing hydrant
Proposed hydrant
Existing gate valve
Proposed gate valve
Existing manhole
Proposed manhole
Proposed catchbasin
Silt fence
Inlet protectors
Parking lot lights
Building Lights
Rip Rap
TYPICAL PARKING SPACE
(NOT TO SCALE)
BLDG
CONCRETE SIDEWALK5'5'18'9'
26'28'24'24'24'24'24'24'24'24'DUMPSTER LOCATION
DUMPSTER LOCATION
DUMPSTER LOCATION
DUMPSTER LOCATION
06/17/16 Revised
07/18/16 Revised
NOTES
LIGHTS ALSO INSTALLED ON EXTERIOR OF
BUILDINGS.
LAST SAVED: September 9, 2016
09/08/16 Revised
PROPOSED UTILITY
EASEMENT
210.58
EXISTING EASEMENT
(TO BE VACATED)517.38539.33 197.82163.79
1
6
2
.
8
3
82.16
526.
1
2185.1854.
0
6
2 9 4 .4 8
43.12 374.545 2 3 .7 6
19.3110'10'PROPOSED 20'
UTILITY EASEMENT
11592815NOT TANGENTNOT TANGENT22.00196
.
0
0
196
.
0
022.00204
.
0
074.00204
.
0
0
74.0044.00
79.00204.
0
0
44.00
74.0074.0022.00196.
0
0
196
.
0
0
204.00
204.00
74.0024.00100.00
196.00 24.0024.00204.00
74.00204.00
24.00100.00100.0022.00
24.00100.0022.00100.00
204.0022.0074.00
74.00
204.0074.00204.0024.00196.00204.0074.
0
0 204.0024
.
0
0
196.0024
.
0
0 196.0024.1919.29248.11 196.0081.
6
4 1010101010202020417.47 201017.0036.44
720.0017.0020.006 19.4
313
111420.00121617OUTLOT A10196.0024.0022.00204.
0
074.00100.00
74.00100.0079.007
4
.
0
0
100.00
22.00
103.9
7204.00259.792
4
.
0
0 285.6274.
0
0
149.0661.03
310.191
5
6
.
0
2 2044.02357.02
23.4
3
227.92
173.70
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me,
or under my direct supervision, and that I am a
duly registered engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
Warren John Israelson
6001 Egan Drive, Ste 100, Savage, MN 55378
Phone: 952.226.3200 Web: www.kjwalk.com
Date:
04/18/13
Revision:
Original
Preliminary Plat
Registration #: 40175
Rosewood
Crossing
Rosemount, MN
SHEET 2 of 8
Date: 9/9/2016
0 50 100 150
FILE PATH: C:\Users\Skills\Documents\Projects\Rosemount\Rosewood Commons\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RWCOM-APT CONCEPT.dwg
Block Lot Area(sf)Area(Ac.)
1 1 3476 0.080
2 4312 0.099
3 15096 0.347
4 4312 0.099
5 15096 0.347
6 2200 0.051
7 15096 0.347
8 2200 0.051
9 4704 0.108
10 15096 0.347
11 2200 0.051
12 15096 0.347
13 2200 0.051
14 4704 0.108
15 15096 0.347
16 4704 0.108
17 15096 0.347
18 277457 6.370
PONDING(OL A)115430 2.650
TOTAL 533571 12.249
SITE AREA 533571 12.249
IMPERVIOUS AREA 262362 6.023
04/18/16 Revised
06/17/16 Revised
07/18/16 Revised
For Review
September 8,2016
LAST SAVED: September 9, 2016
09/08/16 Revised
REMOVE EXISTING ENTRACE ANDCONSTRUCT NEW ENTRANCE963.00HP70.069.2BLDG 1-33 UNITS
966.00
965.50BLDG 6-33 UNIT
963.50
BLDG 2-33 UNIT
964.0
BLDG 3-33 UNIT
963.00
BLDG 7-33 UNIT
966.00
BLDG 4-33 UNIT
962.50
BLDG 5-33 UNIT
962.00
963.50964.50963.00962.50962.00961.50961.50959.90960.00LEASING
OFFICE
970.00
966.50967.00711967.50963.50959.001181151151511131111111111121410131018111099610111610111298968.50966.70962.00961.50961.00967.00961.00961.00960.50962.50962.00959.60961.00961.80960.80961.50964.30CBMH11
T=62.00
I=59.00
CB2
T=59.00
I=52.00
CBMH10
T=61.00
I=58.00
FE7
I=48.00
CB9B
T=64.50
I=61.50 GARAGE 416 STALLS- 962.50CBMH12
T=62.50
I=59.65
CBMH9A
T=62.00
I=59.00 GARAGE 7A8 STALLS- 963.00FE1
I=48.00
FE3
I=48.00
GA
R
A
G
E
2
16 S
T
A
L
L
S
-
9
6
4
.
0
0
GA
R
A
G
E
1
16
S
T
A
L
L
S
-
9
6
6
.
0
0
GARAGE 6A
8 STALLS- 963.50
GARAGE 3
16 STALLS
-
9
6
3
.
0
0
GARAGE 7B
8 STALLS- 966.00 GARAGE 6B8 STALLS- 964.0016CBMH9
T=61.50
WI=52.00
NI=56.00
EI=56.00
CB13
T=63.00
I=60.00
15" RCP
@1
.74%18" RCP
@4
.55%
15" RCP
@1.56%
15" RCP @1.
0
9
%
15"
R
C
P
@
0
.
8
4
%
1
2
"
R
C
P
@
4
.
0
0%
1
2
"
R
C
P
@
3
.
3
9
%
CBMH5
T=61.00
I=52.0010 1010101020202017.47 2017.0036.44
20.0017.0020.00
19.4
3 20.0010149.0661.03
310.191
5
6
.
0
2 2044.02357.02
23.4
3
227.92
173.7020'X 75' ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE961.50CB6
T=59.00
I=56.00
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me,
or under my direct supervision, and that I am a
duly registered engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
Warren John Israelson
6001 Egan Drive, Ste 100, Savage, MN 55378
Phone: 952.226.3200 Web: www.kjwalk.com
Date:
04/18/13
Revision:
Original
Grading and
Erosion Control Plan
Registration #: 40175
Rosewood
Crossing
Rosemount, MN
SHEET 3 of 8
Date: 9/9/2016
0 50 100 150
FILE PATH: C:\Users\Skills\Documents\Projects\Rosemount\Rosewood Commons\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RWCOM-APT CONCEPT.dwg
04/18/16 Revised
06/17/16 Revised
07/18/16 Revised
Silt Fence to be installed along perimeter of
construction area prior to the start of work.
NOTES:
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SLOPE 3:1
PONDS MAY BE USED AS TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION
BASINS DURING CONSTRUCTION, IF A POND IS USED AS
A TEMP. SED. BASIN IT MUST BE CLEANED OUT PRIOR
TO BEING PUT INTO SERVICE.
DRAINAGE TO THE TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION
BASINS MUST BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE
CONSTRUCTION PROCESS.
SEED MIXES AS SHOWN IN LEGEND , WHERE NOT
SPECIFIED USE MN DOT MIX 250 AS GENERAL SITE
STABILIZATION.
STOCKPILES TO BE STABILIZED IF NOT UTILIZED FOR
MORE THAN 7 DAYS.
For Review
September 8,2016
LAST SAVED: September 9, 2016
09/08/16 Revised
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me,
or under my direct supervision, and that I am a
duly registered engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
Warren John Israelson
6001 Egan Drive, Ste 100, Savage, MN 55378
Phone: 952.226.3200 Web: www.kjwalk.com
Date:
04/18/13
Revision:
Original
SWPPP
Registration #: 40175
Rosewood
Crossing
Rosemount, MN
SHEET 4 of 8
Date: 9/9/2016
FILE PATH: C:\Users\Skills\Documents\Projects\Rosemount\Rosewood Commons\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RWCOM-APT CONCEPT.dwg
04/18/16 Revised
06/17/16 Revised
07/18/16 Revised
SWPPP (STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN)
For Review
September 8,2016
LAST SAVED: September 9, 2016
09/08/16 Revised
PROPOSED UTILITY
EASEMENT
BLDG 1-33 UNITS
966.00
EXISTING EASEMENT
(TO BE VACATED)
BLDG 6-33 UNIT
963.50
BLDG 2-33 UNIT
964.0
BLDG 3-33 UNIT
963.00
BLDG 7-33 UNIT
966.00
BLDG 4-33 UNIT
962.50
BLDG 5-33 UNIT
962.00
LEASING
OFFICE
970.00 7117011811520115200
20070 70151113111111111112141013101811109961011161011129810.0
I
N
C
H
P
V
C
P
I
P
E
@
0
.
2
2
%
10.0 INCH
P
V
C
P
I
P
E
@
0
.
2
2
%10.0 INCH PVC PIPE @ 0.22%MH3
T=965.56
I=957.38
MH2
T=963.62
I=956.7810'10'200
707070200
200
200
7070200
200 200707070
20020020070 20020070
2070
19220
2020192
192
192
192
20192 19220192192192202020202096
96
20 2020
9620
40 969620
40 96CONNECT INTO EXISTING MANHOLE
8" C900 PVC
8" C900 PVC8" C900 PVC8" C900 PVC
PROPOSED 20'
UTILITY EASEMENT
MH1
T=962.00
I=956.12
GARAGE 416 STALLS- 962.50GARAGE 7A8 STALLS- 963.00GA
R
A
G
E
2
16 S
T
A
L
L
S
-
9
6
4
.
0
0
GA
R
A
G
E
1
16 S
T
A
L
L
S
-
9
6
6
.
0
0
GARAGE 6A
8 STALLS- 963.50
GARAGE 3
16 STALLS
-
9
6
3
.
0
0
GARAGE 7B
8 STALLS- 966.00 GARAGE 6B8 STALLS- 964.00EX-MH
T=967.20
I=955.37
CONNECT TO EXISTING 8" WATER
CONNECT TO EXISTING 8" WATER
20'-12" STEEL CASING FOR BORING BOTH
SANITARY AND WATER UNDER RAIL ROAD
16101010101020202017.47 2017.0036.44
20.0017.0020.00
19.4
3 20.0010149.0661.03
310.191
5
6
.
0
2 2044.02357.02
23.4
3
227.92
173.70
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me,
or under my direct supervision, and that I am a
duly registered engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
Warren John Israelson
6001 Egan Drive, Ste 100, Savage, MN 55378
Phone: 952.226.3200 Web: www.kjwalk.com
Date:
04/18/13
Revision:
Original
Site Utility Plan
Registration #: 40175
Rosewood
Crossing
Rosemount, MN
SHEET 5 of 8
Date: 9/9/2016
0 50 100 150
FILE PATH: C:\Users\Skills\Documents\Projects\Rosemount\Rosewood Commons\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RWCOM-APT CONCEPT.dwg
04/18/16 Revised
NOTES
6" C900 PVC FOR ALL WATER SERVICES
6" PVC PIPE FOR ALL SEWER SERVICES
06/17/16 Revised
07/18/16 Revised
For Review
September 8,2016
LAST SAVED: September 9, 2016
09/08/16 Revised
BLDG 1-33 UNITS
966.00
BLDG 6-33 UNIT
963.50
BLDG 2-33 UNIT
964.0
BLDG 3-33 UNIT
963.00
BLDG 7-33 UNIT
966.00
BLDG 4-33 UNIT
962.50
BLDG 5-33 UNIT
962.00
LEASING
OFFICE
970.00 7117011815115200
20070 70151113111111141013961011161011129810.0
I
N
C
H
P
V
C
P
I
P
E
@
0
.
2
2
%
10.0 INCH
P
V
C
P
I
P
E
@
0
.
2
2
%10.0 INCH PVC PIPE @ 0.22%MH3
T=965.56
I=957.38
MH2
T=963.62
I=956.7810'10'200
7070200
200
200
7
0
200 200707
0
70
20020020070 20020070
2070
19220192 192192192192202020202096
96
20 2020
9620
40 969620
40 968" C900 PVC
8" C900 PVC8" C900 PVC8" C900 PVC
PROPOSED 20'
UTILITY EASEMENT
MH1
T=962.00
I=956.12
GARAGE 416 STALLS- 962.50GARAGE 7A8 STALLS- 963.00GA
R
A
G
E
1
16
S
T
A
L
L
S
-
9
6
6
.
0
0
GARAGE 6A
8 STALLS- 963.50
GARAGE 7B
8 STALLS- 966.00 GARAGE 6B8 STALLS- 964.00EX-MH
T=967.20
I=955.37
161152815101010101020202017.47 201017.0036.44
720.0017.0020.006 19.4
313
111420.00121617OUTLOT A10149.0661.03
310.191
5
6
.
0
2 2044.02357.02
23.4
3
227.92
173.70
Rim = 967.20
Sanitary Sewer
955
960
965
970
975
955
960
965
970
975
0+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+009+009+50 MH38.18 BUILDMH26.84 BUILDMH15.88 BUILDEX-MH11.83 BUILDInv = 957.38 Inv = 956.78
Inv = 956.12
Inv = 955.37
Rim = 965.56
272' - 10" SDR 35 PVC @ 0.22%
Rim = 963.62
301' - 10" SDR 35 PVC @ 0.22%
Rim = 962.00
342' - 10" SDR 35 PVC @ 0.22%
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me,
or under my direct supervision, and that I am a
duly registered engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
Warren John Israelson
6001 Egan Drive, Ste 100, Savage, MN 55378
Phone: 952.226.3200 Web: www.kjwalk.com
Date:
04/18/13
Revision:
Original
Sanitary Sewer
Construction
Registration #: 40175
Rosewood
Crossing
Rosemount, MN
SHEET 6 of 8
Date: 9/9/2016
0 50 100 150
FILE PATH: C:\Users\Skills\Documents\Projects\Rosemount\Rosewood Commons\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RWCOM-APT CONCEPT.dwg
04/18/16 Revised
06/17/16 Revised
07/18/16 Revised
For Review
September 8,2016
LAST SAVED: September 9, 2016
09/08/16 Revised
1915189158317213X612XX4XX7XXXALMAMXAMALMALLLAMMALAMMLLALMALLMLMMDECORATIVE FENCE111610X14XXXXMXALMLAMMAAMDECORATIVE FENCEDECORATIVE FENCE10
10101010202020201020
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me,or under my direct supervision, and that I am aduly registered engineer under the laws of theState of Minnesota.Warren John Israelson6001 Egan Drive, Ste 100, Savage, MN 55378Phone: 952.226.3200 Web: www.kjwalk.comDate:07/12/16Revision:OriginalLandscape PlanRegistration #: 40175RosewoodCrossingRosemount, MNSHEET 7 of 8Date: 9/9/2016050100150FILE PATH: C:\Users\Skills\Documents\Projects\Rosemount\Rosewood Commons\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RWCOM-APT CONCEPT.dwgX963 EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING TREE AND TAG NUMBER963 COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE (43 TREES)NOTES:* CONIFEROUS TREES STAGGERED WITH20' SPACING* DECIDUOUS TREES-50' SPACING* SHRUBS TO BE PLANTED IN FRONT OFALL BLDGS1/3 TREEHEIGHT ROOT CROWN ATFINISH GRADE,OR 1-2" ABOVE GRADEFINISH GRADETILLED OR BROKEN UPSOIL MIN 12" DEEP2" SETTLED LAYER OF MULCH2X WIDTH OF ROOTBALLLEGEND ASH (15 TREES)1/3 TREEHEIGHT ROOT CROWN ATFINISH GRADE,OR 1-2" ABOVE GRADEFINISH GRADETILLED OR BROKEN UPSOIL MIN 12" DEEP2" SETTLED LAYER OF MULCH2X WIDTH OF ROOTBALLLINDEN (15 TREES)MAPLE (17 TREES)ALMROOT CROWN ATFINISH GRADE,OR 1-2" ABOVE GRADEFINISH GRADETILLED OR BROKEN UPSOIL MIN 12" DEEP2" SETTLED LAYER OF MULCH2X WIDTH OF ROOTBALL LAST SAVED: September 9, 2016DECORATIVE FENCE07/18/16RevisedPOST CONSTRUCTION TREE INVENTORYFor ReviewSeptember 8,2016 LAST SAVED: September 9, 201609/08/16Revised
101010101020202017.47 2017.0036.44
20.0017.0020.00
19.4
3 20.0010149.0661.03
310.191
5
6
.
0
2 2044.02357.02
23.4
3
227.92
173.70
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me,
or under my direct supervision, and that I am a
duly registered engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
Warren John Israelson
6001 Egan Drive, Ste 100, Savage, MN 55378
Phone: 952.226.3200 Web: www.kjwalk.com
Date:
04/18/13
Revision:
Original
Drainage Areas
Registration #: 40175
Rosewood
Crossing
Rosemount, MN
SHEET 8 of 8
Date: 9/9/2016
0 50 100 150
FILE PATH: C:\Users\Skills\Documents\Projects\Rosemount\Rosewood Commons\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RWCOM-APT CONCEPT.dwg
04/18/16 Revised
06/17/16 Revised
POND A
2
6
5
10
11
1213
99A
9B
07/18/16 Revised
For Review
September 8,2016
LAST SAVED: September 9, 2016
09/08/16 Revised
STONE LP SMARTSIDE
LP SMARTSIDE
LP SMARTSIDE
LP SMARTSIDE
LP SMARTSIDESTONESTONE
ASPHALT SHINGLES
STONE
LP SMARTSIDE
ASPHALT SHINGLES
LP SMARTSIDE LP SMARTSIDE
ASPHALT SHINGLESASPHALT SHINGLES
24'.+/Á
(4106'.'8#6+10 Á
4'#4'.'8#6+10 Á'ICP&TKXG5VG5CXCIG/02JQPG 9GD YYYMLYCNMEQO4+)*6'.'8#6+10 Á.'(6'.'8#6+10 Á#22#46/'065)#4#)'524'.+/Á
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
/'%*#0+%#.
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
.#70&4;
5722.;
%.15'6 5)5)65655)5)65655)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)
5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6 $'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
5)
Á
5)
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/
$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/
-+6%*'0
$#6*
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
$#6*ÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁ$'&411/$#6*
$#6*
(+456(.114 Á'ICP&TKXG5VG5CXCIG/02JQPG 9GD YYYMLYCNMEQO911&567&(4#/+0)
56(.114)4155#4'# 53(6#22#46/'065)#4#)'524'.+/Á
24'.+/Á
.#70&4;
'((+%+#0%;
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)
5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)65655)5)6565$'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
'((+%+#0%;
70+6
53(6
'((+%+#0%;
70+6
53(6
'((+%+#0%;
70+6
53(6
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁ
ÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ$#6*ÁÁ
Á
$#6*ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/
$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/
$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/
$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/
$'&411/$'&411/
$'&411/$'&411/
$'&411/$'&411/
$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/
-+6%*'0
$#6*
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
$#6*$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
-+6%*'0 $#6*
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
-+6%*'0
-+6%*'0
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
-+6%*'0
(+456(.114 Á'ICP&TKXG5VG5CXCIG/02JQPG 9GD YYYMLYCNMEQO911&567&(4#/+0)
0&(.114)4155#4'# 53(6#22#46/'065)#4#)'524'.+/Á
24'.+/Á
LP SMARTSIDE LP SMARTSIDELP SMARTSIDE
ASPHALT SHINGLES
ÁÁÁ
ÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
LP SMARTSIDE
ASPHALT SHINGLES
#22#46/'065)#4#)'54'#4'.'8#6+10 Á
(.1142.#0 Á'ICP&TKXG5VG5CXCIG/02JQPG 9GD YYYMLYCNMEQO4'#4'.'8#6+10 Á.'(6'.'8#6+10 Á4+)*6'.'8#6+10 Á
911&567&(4#/+0)
)4155#4'# 53(6
24'.+/Á
24'.+/Á
ASPHALT SHINGLES
ASPHALT SHINGLES
LP SMARTSIDE
LP SMARTSIDE
LP SMARTSIDELP SMARTSIDE
LP SMARTSIDE
.'#5+0)1((+%'/#+06#0%'2#46;411/%#4'6#-'4#22#46/'06(4106'.'8#6+10 Á
4'#4'.'8#6+10 Á4+)*6'.'8#6+10 Á.'(6'.'8#6+10 Á'ICP&TKXG5VG5CXCIG/02JQPG 9GD YYYMLYCNMEQO24'.+/Á
24'.+/Á
70':%#8#6'&
ÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁ70':%#8#6'&
70':%#8#6'&
ÁÁÁ
.'#5+0)1((+%'/#+06#0%'2#46;411/%#4'6#-'4#22#46/'06(170+102.#0 Á'ICP&TKXG5VG5CXCIG/02JQPG 9GD YYYMLYCNMEQO24'.+/Á
24'.+/Á
Á
Á
Á
Á
.'#5+0)
1((+%'
2#46;
411/
/#+06'0#0%'
)#4#)'
Á
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁ
(.11464755'5
1%
(.11464755'5
1%
:18*&4
:18*&4
Z+057.#6'&9#..
Z
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁ
(+:(+:(+:(+:(+:
5)5)(+:(+:(+:(+:(+:(+:(+:
ÁÁÁÁÁ/'%*
(+:(+:(+:ÁÁÁZ
Á
N'#5+0)1((+%'/#+06#0%'2#46;411/%#4'6#-'4#22#46/'06(+456(.1142.#0 Á'ICP&TKXG5VG5CXCIG/02JQPG 9GD YYYMLYCNMEQO911&567&(4#/+0)
56(.114)4155#4'# 53(6
24'.+/Á
24'.+/Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
$'&411/
ÁÁÁÁ
-+6%*'0
ÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁ
Á
/#56'4
$'&411/$'&411/
.+8+0)&+00+0)
411/
ÁÁÁÁÁ
Z
Á
Á
ÁÁZZ
ÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
4'(9&
(+:5)5*5)5)5*5)65
$#6*
$#6*
Á)4#07.#4(+..
&4#+06+.'
95+.641%-
);2$1#4&
#.7/(#5%+#
#.7/8'06'&51((+6
#52*#.65*+0).'5
('.6
5*'#6*+0)
411(64755'5
'0'4);*''.
)4#&'
:%10%(6)5
:64'#6'&5+..2.#6
*14+<.#25+&+0)
9'#6*'4$#44+'4
5647%65*'#6*+0)
:567&5"1%
4Á+057.#6+10
);2$1#4&
2174'&%10%9#..
94'$#42'4%1&'
4Á25+
4+&)+&+057.4Á+057.#6+10
%10%5.#$18'4
/+0.#;'41(4+8'441%-
ÁÁ)4#07.#4(+..
#.7/(#5%+#
&4#+06+.'
95+.641%-
);2$1#4&
'0'4);*''.
#.7/8'06'&51((+6
#52*#.65*+0).'5
('.6
5*'#6*+0)
411(64755'5
*14+<.#25+&+0)
9'#6*'4$#44+'4
5647%65*'#6*+0)
:567&5"1%
4Á+057.#6+10
);2$1#4&
:%10%(6)5
4+/,1+56 (.114
64755'51%
6 )57$(.114
);2$1#4&
:64'#6'&5+..2.#6
4Á524#;(1#/
)4#&'
4Á25+
4+&)+&+057.
2174'&%10%9#..
94'$#42'4%1&'
*14+<.#25+&+0)
9'#6*'4$#44+'4
5647%65*'#6*+0)
:567&5"1%
4Á+057.#6+10
);2$1#4&4Á+057.#6+10
%10%5.#$18'4
/+0.#;'41(4+8'441%-
N'#5+0)1((+%'/#+06#0%'2#46;411/%#4'6#-'4#22#46/'065'%10&(.1142.#0 Á'ICP&TKXG5VG5CXCIG/02JQPG 9GD YYYMLYCNMEQO411(2.#0 Á
6;2+%#.5614;9#..5'%6+10 Á6;2+%#.5614;9#..5'%6+10 Á
911&567&(4#/+0)
0&(.114)4155#4'# 53(6
24'.+/Á
24'.+/Á
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 27, 2006
Tentative City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2006
AGENDA ITEM: Case 06-38-ADM PLAT – Administrative
Plat Greif Paper Packaging 2750 145th St.
Colliers Turley Martin Tucker
AGENDA SECTION:
Public Hearing
PREPARED BY: Jason Lindahl, A.I.C.P.
Planner
AGENDA NO. 5.b.
ATTACHMENTS: Site Location Map, Preliminary Plat, Final
Plat, Engineering Comments, Park and
Recreations Comments.
APPROVED BY:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to recommend that the City Council approve an
administrative plat allowing the subdivision of the existing 15.65 acre Grief property into two
separate parcels legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Greif Addition, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Redesign of the plat to conform with the requirements for Administrative Plat
approval including, but not limited to, conformance to the parking and green space
standards prior to action on this item by the City Council.
2. Elimination of the existing western access to Lot 2 and creation of a separate access
for Lot 1 from 145th Street West. The access to Lot 1 shall be a minimum of 150 feet
from the adjacent railroad.
3. Conformance with all requirements of the City Engineer including, but not limited to,
dedication of all required right-of-way for 145th Street West and all existing drainage
easements, drainage & utility easement, or other type of permanent easement
across the existing parcel shall be shown on the plat and be recorded to exist as
they do today across the two new lots.
4. No development fees will be required with the creation of the new lot, however all
appropriate fees shall be collected at the time of building permit issuance. The fee
rates shall be as set forth in the Schedule of Rates and Fees for the current year of
building permit issuance.
5. Creation of restrictive covenants over Lot 1, Block 1, Greif Brothers Addition and
Outlot B of Rosewood Estates requiring payment of all development fees for both
property if either property is developed separately.
SUMMARY
Applicant & Property Owner(s): Colliers Turley Martin Tucker & Greif Paper Packaging Services
Location: 2750 145th Street West - South of 145th Street West and East of
Railroad
Area in Acres: 15.65 Acres
Number of Lots: 1 Existing Lot to be Subdivided into 2 Lots
Comp. Guide Plan Desig: BP - Business Park
Current Zoning: BP- Business Park
The applicant, Colliers Turley Martin Tucker, requests Administrative Plat approval for the Greif Brothers
site located at 2750 145th Street West. Approval of this request will allow the subdivision of the existing
15.65 acres parcel into two separate parcels legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Greif Addition. As
proposed, Lot 1 would be a vacant 5.94 acre parcel for future development while Lot 2 would be
approximately 9.18 acres in size and contain the existing Greif Brother manufacturing building. The site is
currently zoned and guided BP – Business Park.
BACKGROUND
According to Section 12-2-6, Administrative Plats shall conform to all requirements of standard
subdivision. Property may be subdivided through an administrative platting procedure which combines
the preliminary and final plat procedures in conformance with the following conditions:
1. The resulting subdivision shall contain no more than three (3) parcels.
2. The proposed subdivision shall be in areas where municipal streets and utilities are already in place
and capable of serving the plat.
3. Future streets shall not be constructed and the proposed subdivision shall not interfere with
proper development of neighboring adjacent properties.
4. Resulting parcels shall conform to all zoning ordinance requirements.
Staff finds that the proposed administrative plat conforms or can be redesigned to meet the four standards
outlined above. Changes necessary for this proposal to be eligible for administrative plat approval are
defined in the following review. Should the applicant choose not to meet these recommends, they must
re-apply for a standard preliminary and final plat as well as any necessary variances.
Land Use and Zoning
The subject property is zoned and guided BP- Business Park. This property was recently rezoned from BP
– 1 to BP – Business Park in conformance with the new BP – Business Park zoning standards. Given
these land use and zoning classifications, Lot 1 appears to conform to the minimum performance
standards while Lot 2 may be nonconforming with regard to lot coverage and access to a public street.
Depending on the final use of Lot 1, the sites may also have parking, setback, buffering and screening
issues. Staff requests more information regarding these issues to conduct a full analysis. Based on the
information provided by the applicant, the lot and building performance standards for the two proposed
lots are compared in the table below.
2
Business Park Lot and Building Standards
Category Lot 1 Lot 2
Required Proposed Status Required Proposed Status
Lot Size 1 Acre 5.94 Acres Conforming 1 Acre 9.18 Acres Conforming
Lot Width 120 ft. 227 ft. Conforming 120 ft. 526 ft. Conforming
Lot Coverage 75% N/A N/A 75% 15% Nonconforming
Front Bldg. Setback 40 ft. N/A N/A 40 ft. 121 ft. Conforming
Side Bldg. Setback 10 ft. N/A N/A 10 ft. 30/61 ft. Conforming
Rear Bldg. Setback 10 ft. N/A N/A 10 ft. 15 ft. Conforming
Front Parking Setback 30 ft. N/A N/A 30 ft. 14 ft. Conforming
Side Parking Setback 10 ft. N/A N/A 10 ft. 15/12 ft. Conforming
Rear Parking Setback 10 ft. N/A N/A 10 ft. 58 ft. Conforming
Off Street Parking N/A N/A N/A To be
Determined Unknown Unknown
In addition to the setback requirements illustrated above, the new BP performance standards require
buffer yards and increased setbacks for buildings abutting non-commercial or non-industrial uses or
districts. These buffer yards must contain landscaping and berming to provide a ninety (90) percent
opacity screen to a height of at least six (6) feet and shall not contain any structures, parking, off-street
loading or storage. Should landscaping and berming be found ineffective by the City, it may approve
screening walls and/or decorative fencing as an alternative. These screening walls shall be constructed of
the same materials as the principal building and shall not extend more than thirty five (35) feet without a
change in architecture to reduce its mass and appearance.
The existing Greif Brothers building is larger than 100,000 square feet and abuts residential uses on its
south and east sides (Rosewood Village Second Addition). If this were a new development these areas
would be required to meet the new buffering and landscaping standards outlined above. While the site is
currently zoned and guided BP – Business Park, the applicant has indicated a desire to rezone and reguide
Lot 1 and combine it with the property to the south for either residential or public and institutional use.
Should the newly created Lot 1 be used for anything other than an industrial use, the 60 foot buffer yard
and screening requirements will apply. These buffering and screening requirements combined with the
irregular and narrow design of Lot 1, and the 60 foot rear yard setback requirement for any residential use
from the existing railroad require the redesign of the common property line between Lots 1 and 2 and
parking area along the west side of the Grief Brothers site.
In addition to the access, parking, setback, buffer yard and screening issues, Lot 2 appear to not meet the
25 percent green space requirement for all properties in the BP District. Staff recommends that the
subdivision be redesigned to provide at least 25 percent green space for Lot 2. Staff recommends this
green area be added along the west side of the Greif site to provide a future buffer area.
Streets & Access
The Greif Brothers Addition will not require new streets but the newly created vacant lot will need access
to a public street. Since the existing Greif Brothers site has three accesses to 145th street, staff had initially
offered the applicant the option to either have the two sites share Greif’s existing western access or to
close this access and create a separate access for Lot 1. The applicant has stated that the intent to develop
the site for either residential or public and institutional use. Given the potential use of the newly created
lot, the corresponding buffering and screening requirements and its close proximity to the railroad tracks,
staff now recommends the applicant be required to close Greif’s existing western access and create a
separate access for Lot 1. This access must be a minimum of 150 feet from the railroad.
3
Utilities
The subject property is located with the City’s Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and sewer and
water services are located in 145th Street. The existing Greif Brothers facility is connected to these
services. Any future development of Lot 1 will be required to connect to City sewer and water.
Development Fees
As with any subdivision, this application will be required to pay all applicable development fees, including
but not limited to park dedication, GIS, sewer, water, and storm water fees. Given the uncertainty of the
future use of Lot 1, staff recommends that all applicable fees be paid prior to issuance of a building permit.
Should the applicant agree to this condition, the City Attorney recommends placing restrictive covenants
over the site to insure all fees are paid prior to development.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the administrative plat request to subdivide the existing Greif Brothers
15.65 acres site located at 2750 145th Street West into two separate lots legally described as Lots 1 and 2,
Greif Addition. Staff requests additional information regarding the future use of Lot 1. This information
has the potential to require significant changes to the proposed plat. These changes are outlined in the
above review and must be addressed prior to action on this item by the City Council. This
recommendation is based on the information provided by the applicant as well as the findings made in this
report and is subject to the conditions outlined in the recommended action section above.
4
EXCERPT FROM MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 27, 2006
5.b. 06-38-LS Greif Paper Packaging Services Administrative Plat.
Community Development Planner Lindahl reviewed the staff report. The applicant, Colliers
Turley Martin Tucker, requests Administrative Plat approval for the Greif Brothers site located
at 2750 145th Street West. Approval of this request will allow the subdivision of the existing
15.65 acres parcel into two separate parcels legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Greif Addition. As
proposed, Lot 1 would be a vacant 5.94 acre parcel for future development while Lot 2 would be
approximately 9.18 acres in size and contain the existing Greif Brother manufacturing building.
The site is currently zoned and guided BP – Business Park.
Chairperson Messner asked Commissioners for any questions.
Chairperson Messner requested clarification of Page 3, business park lot and building standards
with respect to lot coverage requirement of 75% and proposed 15%. Lindahl explained the
percentages and what is allowed. The green space requirement is 25% and that the current green
space the Applicant is providing under the current plan submitted is 15% so there is a 10%
adjustment that needs to be made and they are trying to accommodate that.
Chairperson Messner invited the Applicant to come forward. John Stainbrook, Progress Land
Company, 6001 Egan Drive, Suite 100, Savage, Minnesota 55378, developer of Rosemount
Estates, Rosemount Village and Rosemount Village 2nd, which are adjacent to the proposed lot.
They are the contract buyer for the lot and are working with Greif on the configuration to
accommodate the 30%. They make a recommendation to angle lot line to eliminate the 90
degrees which allows them to accommodate a road more efficiently to access the lot and there
should be no net gain or loss on the green space.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
No public comment.
MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Second by Palda.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Chairperson Messner asked if Commissioners had any questions. There were none.
MOTION by Messner to recommend that the City Council approve an administrative
plat allowing the subdivision of the existing 15.65 acre Grief property into two separate
parcels legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Greif Addition, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Redesign of the plat to conform with the requirements for Administrative Plat approval
including, but not limited to, conformance to the parking and green space standards
prior to action on this item by the City Council.
2. Elimination of the existing western access to Lot 2 and creation of a separate access for
Lot 1 from 145th Street West. The access to Lot 1 shall be a minimum of 150 feet from
the adjacent railroad.
3. Conformance with all requirements of the City Engineer including, but not limited to,
dedication of all required right-of-way for 145th Street West and all existing drainage
easements, drainage & utility easement, or other type of permanent easement across the
existing parcel shall be shown on the plat and be recorded to exist as they do today
across the two new lots.
4. No development fees will be required with the creation of the new lot, however all
appropriate fees shall be collected at the time of building permit issuance. The fee rates
shall be as set forth in the Schedule of Rates and Fees for the current year of building
permit issuance.
5. Creation of restrictive covenants over Lot 1, Block 1, Greif Brothers Addition and
Outlot B of Rosewood Estates requiring payment of all development fees for both
property if either property is developed separately.
Second by Schwartz.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Mr. Lindahl stated the item is tentatively scheduled to go before the City Council on July 18,
2006. In the interim, Staff will be working with Applicant to resolve the access and green space
issues.
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Kyle Klatt, City Planner
From: Rick Chase, Fire Marshal
Date: September 12, 2016
Subject: Rosewood Commons
The following comments are provided following a cursory review of plans dated September 12,
2016 for Rosewood Commons.
1. A secondary access road is required to be included; this 2nd entrance shall be access
controlled and require a Knox box for emergency situations. This access connects to
Boxwood Path.
2. The minimum road width of the secondary access point is 14’.
3. Signage shall be provided that states no parking on both sides of the controlled access
(gate).
4. Additional fire hydrant is required to be located between buildings 1 & 2 on the (west).
5. Additional fire hydrant is required to be located between buildings 3 & 4 on the (west).
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner
Anthony Nemcek, Planner
John Morast, Interim City Engineer
Mitch Hatcher, Project Engineer
From: Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director
Date: October 12, 2016
Subject: Rosewood Commons
The Parks and Recreation Department recently reviewed the development plans for the Rosewood
Commons apartment complex project. After reviewing the plans, the Parks and Recreation
Department staff has the following comments:
PARKS DEDICATION
The parks dedication requirement for 233 residential units is .04 acres of land per unit or $3,400 per
unit. The Parks Master Plan does not call for a park in this area so staff is recommending the City
collect cash in-lieu of land to meet the parks dedication requirements for the 233 units. The cash
dedication for 233 units would be $792,200 (233 units x $3,400 per unit).
The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this item at their regular meeting on Monday,
September 26 and recommended approval.
Please let me know if you have any questions about this memo.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 20, 2016
TO: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner
CC: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
John Morast, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Amy Roudebush, Planning and Personnel Secretary
FROM: Mitch Hatcher, Project Engineer
RE: Rosewood Commons Engineering Review
SUBMITTAL:
Prepared by KJ Walk, Rosewood Commons dated July 18, 2016. The review comments were
generated from the following documents included in the submittal:
Plan comprised of the following:
▫ Site Plan
▫ Grading & Erosion Control Plan
▫ Utility Plan
▫ Landscape Plan
▫ Details
Stormwater Management Plan and Calculations
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. Development fees are required based on the current Schedule of Rates and Fees. 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
1. Existing conditions and removal plan should be included for review.
2. The proposed drive width is shown as 24’. It is recommended the drive width be a minimum
of 28’.
3. Typical cross section and pavement sections should be provided for the drive and parking
areas.
4. In some areas the sidewalk is located along the back of curb adjacent to parking stalls. There
should be a 4’ clearance from back of curb to provide for parking vehicle overhang.
5. Rock construction is required at the site entrance and should be shown on the erosion
control plan.
6. The owner/contractor is required to ensure that erosion and sediment control is in
conformance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Best Management Practices.
Compliance with the requirements of the NPDES permit is the responsibility of the
owner/contractor. Documentation of permit acquisition shall be forwarded to the City
prior to issuance of a building permit.
7. Record drawings (paper and electronic formats) of the site that meet the standards set forth
in the Engineering Guidelines shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy.
UTILITY COMMENTS:
8. All required agreements with the railroad for the utility crossings should be secured by the
developer.
9. Developer is responsible for obtaining a MPCA Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit for the
connection to the City’s sanitary sewer system.
10. Watermain is required to be DIP CL 52.
11. Utility construction shall be in conformance with the City General Specifications and
Standard Detail Plates.
12. Hydrant spacing should be approved by the Fire Marshal.
STORMWATER COMMENTS:
13. Stormwater review has been completed by WSB & Associates. The attached memo outlines
the stormwater ponding required for the site. Plans and calculations will need to be revised
and resubmitted to confirm compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Plan.
14. Minimum storm sewer pipe size is 15” diameter.
15. Two-foot sump catch basins are required for CB2, CBMH 5, CBMH 9
16. It is recommended catch basins are placed in the curb line to collect drainage. Some are
shown in the parking stalls and drive lanes.
17. Additional spot elevations should be added for green areas and top of curb and gutter
elevations to clearly show drainage.
18. Additional catch basins may be required extending north out of CB13. Inlets are generally
required every 300’. Inlets should be located such that 3 cfs is the maximum flow at the inlet
for the 10-yr design event and does not exceed the applicable spread and run design.
19. Lining of NURP ponding areas is not required by the City; however, the developer may want
to consider as an aesthetic benefit as ponding areas will likely not maintain vegetation below
the NWL.
TRAFFIC COMMENTS:
The current Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of this segment of 145th Street is 5700 veh/day. After
completion of all units in Rosewood Commons, the increase in ADT on 145th Street is expected to
be approximately 1550 veh/day, for a total volume on 145th Street of 7250 veh/day.
In the City’s Transportation Plan, 145th Street is classified as a collector roadway. With the current
configuration as a two-lane collector, 145th Street has the capacity for an ADT of 8,000 veh/day. In
the future, the 145th street configuration could be modified to a three-lane configuration, providing
capacity for up to an ADT of 16,000 veh/day. The increased traffic from the development does not
appear to have a negative impact on the function of 145th Street.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding the items listed above, please contact me at
651-322-2015.
701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416 | (763) 541-4800
Building a legacy – your legacy.
Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com
K:\02235-260\Admin\Docs\MEMO -jmorast_Rosewood Apartments 091516.docx
Memorandum
To: John Morast, PE, City of Rosemount
Mitch Hatcher, WSB & Associates
From: Bill Alms, WSB & Associates
Date: September 15, 2016
Re: Stormwater Requirements for Proposed Rosewood Commons Housing Complex
WSB Project No. 02235-260
KJ Walk submitted conceptual plans for the Rosewood Commons Apartment Complex at 6001 Egan
Drive in Rosemount on August 15, 2016. In response the conceptual site plan, this memo provides
recommendations for meeting the City’s Stormwater management requirements, assumptions used as
part to develop recommendations, description of site drainage area layouts, and additional details on the
City’s Stormwater Management Plan Requirements.
Recommendation:
The following items are recommended for the proposed apartment complex development to meet the
City’s stormwater management requirements:
1. In accordance with the City development requirements, regional basin EP-2474 (located inside
the Rosewood Commons Development) would need to be sized to provide a water quality and
live-pool volume for the entire EP-2474 subwatershed. The off-site area that is tributary to EP-
2474 is 52.2 ac (CN=79). Onsite Values below are based on submittal information (See attached
HydroCAD Report for additional Information):
a. WQ Vol. (NURP) = 5.1 ac-ft (Off-site) + 1.2 ac-ft (Onsite) = 6.4 ac-ft
b. Live Pool Vol. (100-yr, 24-hr Runoff) = 21.6 ac-ft(Off-Site) + 5.2 ac-ft (Onsite) = 26.8 ac-ft
c. Infiltration Surface Area = 14.5 ac (Off-Site) + 3.4 ac Onsite = 17.9 ac (HSG B)*
Note: Infiltration Areas are based on HSG B infiltration rates of 0.15 in/hr. Recommend
developer submit conduct geotechnical investigation in vicinity of the regional basin and
provide a geotechnical report. The City will accept infiltration rates based on the
recommendations of a Geotechnical Engineer up to a 3 in/hr max. This could reduce the
required infiltration area down to 0.9 acres.
2. The basin should have an outlet control structure designed in accordance with the City Standard
Details to meet the 0.5 cfs/acre from basin EP-2474. Based on the drainage area to the pond, the
outlet will need to be sized to meet a discharge rate of 31 cfs.
An alternative method to meet the stormwater requirements outlined in recommendation 1 would be to
secure ponding rights over the triangle parcel inside the railroad tracks just south of the site. There
appears to be sufficient area to meet the regional ponding requirements by combining basins EP-2474
and EP-2475.
Stormwater Requirements for Proposed Rosewood Commons Housing Complex
September 15, 2016
Page 2
K:\02235-260\Admin\Docs\MEMO -jmorast_Rosewood Apartments 091516.docx
Assumptions:
All stormwater assumptions are listed below.
1. The Rosewood Commons PDF was Georeferenced into Geographic Information System (GIS)
and area measurements were approximated using GIS’s measuring tools.
2. The City Stormwater Management Plan drainage area boundaries and LiDAR was used to
approximate the sub watersheds for this site. For the purposes of this assessment existing and
proposed drainage areas were assumed to be the same.
3. Using the NRCS 2001 Hydrologic Soils survey, Type B soils were assumed with an infiltration
rate of 0.15 in/hr (HSG B Soil Planning value from City Stormwater management Plan. Higher
rates will be considered with additional geotechnical investigation as outline in the City
Engineering Guidelines).
4. A Curve Number (CN) of 98 was uses for all impervious areas and a CN of 61 (>75% Grass
cover, Good, HSG B) was used for all pervious areas.
5. NOAA Atlas-14 2, 10, & 100-yr, 24-hr rainfall events with corresponding MSE-3 were used for all
calculations contained in this memorandum.
Site Layout Description:
The KJ Walk divided the proposed site into ten sub-drainage areas that all drain to basin EP-2474.
Proposed impervious areas were estimated based on the preliminary site layout descriptions and are
shown in Figure 2. The drainage areas are shown in the submitted plan set.
The onsite drainage area (parcel area) to basin EP-2474 consists of approximately 12.3 acres.
Approximately 6.0 acres of this drainage area is proposed to be impervious surfaces. The total drainage
area consists of 61 acres with and existing 23.8 acres of impervious surface. The CSW MP Hydraulic
Model indicates that the existing 100-yr, 24-hr (TP-40) HWL for basin EP-2474 is 953.59’. With the
increased impervious surface from the apartment complex development and the Atlas 14 update, the new
HWL for basin EP-2474 is 957.8’ with 14.3 cfs of discharge. The Proposed pond is approx. 8.1 ac-ft short
of the City’s Live Pool storage requirement.
By securing ponding right over the basin EP-2475 the HWL in EP-2474 & EP-2475 would be 955.0’ with
no discharge for the 100-yr 24-hr Atlas-14 storm event.
Total proposed storage of basin EP-2474 as shown on the submitted site plan is approximately 22.1 ac-ft.
Table 1 below shows the stormwater requirements for the proposed development and regional basin.
Stormwater Management Plan Requirements:
CSWMP Appendix C - Developer’s Handout outlines all of the City’s policies to address storm water
management for new developments. http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/202
Developers Handout Page 1, Para - A.6 (TP-40 Designed Storm events) should be replaced with
obtain Atlas-14 data from NOAA’s PFDS. (See Use of Atlas 14 Precipitation data within the City
of Rosemount, MN)
Stormwater Requirements for Proposed Rosewood Commons Housing Complex
September 15, 2016
Page 3
K:\02235-260\Admin\Docs\MEMO -jmorast_Rosewood Apartments 091516.docx
Table 1 below outlines the required NURP water quality volumes, 100 yr, 24-hr storage volumes and
estimated required infiltration surface area for the proposed site.
Table 1: Stormwater Ponding Requirements
Onsite Drainage Offsite Drainage
Drainage Area 12.3 acres 52.2 acres
Impervious Area 6.0 acres 24.6 acres
Impervious % 49.2% 47.1%
Stormwater Management Plan Development Design Requirements for Proposed Site
Required NURP Volume (Dead
Pool)
1.24 ac-ft 5.11 ac-ft
Required 100-yr, 24-hr Volume
(Live Pool)
5.16 ac-ft 21.62 ac-ft
Required Infiltration Surface Area1
(Based on HSG B Design
infiltration rate of 0.15 in/hr & 1/12
acre-foot/site acres/day rule)
3.42 acres 14.5 acres
1 Required infiltration surface area = [1/12 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎−𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓/𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑠/𝑑𝑎𝑑] ∗[𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑠][0.15 𝑠𝑖/ℎ𝑎]∗[1 𝑓𝑓/ 12𝑠𝑖]∗[24ℎ𝑎/𝑑𝑎𝑑]
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 763-231-4845 or at
walms@wsbeng.com.
Attachments:
• Figure 1 – Existing Condition
• Figure 2 – Proposed Condition
• Figure 3 – Soils Map
• Analysis HydroCAD Report
Path: K:\02235-220\GIS\Maps\Fig1_Existing Condition.mxd Date Saved: 9/15/2016 4:40:12 PMRosewoodVillageFigure 1: Existing ConditionRosemount, MN ±0 500250Feet
Legend
DA_ID
EP-2474 (On-Site ) = 12.3 Ac
EP-2474 (Off-site) = 52.2 Ac
EP-2475 = 4.8 Ac
EP-2442 = 61.1 Ac
Ex EP-2442 Contours
Ex EP-2475 Contours
Ex EP-2474 Contours
"""""""""""
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#*
#*""""""""""""""
"
"
"
"""
"""""""""""""""""""
"
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
""
"
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!
!(!(
!!
!
!(
!
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!Path: K:\02235-260\GIS\Maps\Fig2_Proposed Condition.mxd Date Saved: 9/9/2016 5:18:57 PMRosewood VillageFigure 2: Propo sed Con ditionRosemount, MN ±0 250125Feet
Legend
"StormLines
Proje ct Boun dary
Drainage Area
Text
September 26, 2016
To: Rosemount Planning Commission
Re: Public notice of Copperhead Development Inc.and Warren Israelson apartment complex
Dear Planning Commission Members,
Our family relocated to 148th St.W. in Rosemount in September,2014,due to the safety,stable property
values and peaceful neighborhood.We were specifically looking for a home located in a neighborhood
consisting of single-family units only.
We are concerned that re-zoning and building the large apartment complex proposed for 145th St.would
ruin the character of the neighborhood and affect the property values of existing residents.Traffic
would certainly increase on Highway 3,a route that is already quite congested, especially during rush
hour times.Additionally,with more people comes more crime. For all of these reasons,we are writing
to express our opposition for the proposal.
We ask that the commission reject this proposal in favor of others that would improve the character,
quality and functionality of the neighborhood.
Thank you,
Eric& Heidi Larson
2645148 th St. W.
Rosemount, MN 55068
r
2016
1
Klatt, Kyle
From:Nemcek, Anthony
Sent:Friday, October 21, 2016 11:39 AM
To:Klatt, Kyle
Subject:FW: Responses to questions regarding Rosewood Commons proposal
Attachments:Rosemount Apartment Complex questions.pdf
From: Nemcek, Anthony
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 12:49 PM
To: Jeremy Oliver
Subject: Responses to questions regarding Rosewood Commons proposal
Jeremy,
Thank you for your patience while City staff compiled answers to the questions you submitted last week. I’ve attached
your document you sent over with the answers in red. Please do not hesitate to ask if you have any follow up questions,
or if you or your neighbors have thought of any other questions regarding this proposal since the last time we
spoke. Again, the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting with links to the Planning Commissioners’ packets will
be added to the City’s website the Friday before the meeting. I will likely forward the hyperlinked agenda to you to
share with your neighbors as well.
Thanks for reaching out to us with your questions about this project,
Anthony
Anthony Nemcek, Planner
City of Rosemount, 2875 145th Street, Rosemount, MN 55068
Ph. 651‐322‐2090 / http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us
October 6, 2016
Mr. Nemcek,
Thank you for taking the time to speak to me on October 4th and to answer the following
questions. I have been asked to gather information on behalf of the residents that will
potentially be affected by the development of the property next to El Dorado Packaging. Our
goal is to save us all some time by getting some preliminary questions answered to that we can
all work together during the October 25 Planning/Council meeting.
I believe you have seen the Facebook page titled “Rosemount Rezoning Opposition.” While the
page title implies opposition (and therefore a negative connotation), I don’t think everyone
involved with it is necessarily opposed to developing the area and some may actually be for it,
so long as the residence needs are taken into consideration.
There are many people that will be attending the City Planning and Council meeting on October
25th and I will probably be speaking at it, so I will provide my preliminary opinion as a courtesy.
I understand that it would benefit the city to develop the property next to El Dorado Packaging.
It will help the tax base and provide additional traffic to local businesses. It is my personal
opinion that the new areas of redevelopment over the past few years, especially along highway
3, have added to our city and not taken away from it. So thank you for your diligence!
In talking with some of my neighbors, I think the biggest issue they have is what could
potentially happen to Lower 147th Court West, and thus the traffic flow in the neighborhood in
general. Although I don’t live in that particular cul-de-sac, my wife and I chose to pay several
thousands of dollars extra to live in our cul-de-sac (Boise Circle) here in Rosemount as opposed
a street in Hastings. We have low to no traffic and it is an EXTREMELY safe environment for
children to play. For the residents that live in Lower 147th Ct. W., redeveloping that into a main
street entrance/exit would, in my opinion, amount to a “bait and switch.” It would also cause
entirely too much traffic in the greater Rosewood Estate neighborhood. As a compromise, I
think if there can be language in the rezoning to leave the cul-de-sac intact and use the road for
emergency use only, then you would have greater support from the community. Of course my
opinion could change after you answer the following questions, but I do think there are many
others that feel the same way.
With that said, here are the questions we have put together. Thanks again for taking the time
to address this important matter.
1. Can you provide a brief history of how this proposal came about?
The project property is comprised of two different parcels. The northern parcel was created when it
was subdivided from what was then the Greif Brothers property in 2006. The current owner
purchased the property at that time with the intent to develop it. The southern parcel was part of
the Rosewood Village 3rd Addition, which also created the eleven single family lots immediately to
the east. The property owner, Warren Israelson, was the developer of Rosewood single family
neighborhoods east of the property and west of Biscayne Avenue, north of County Road 42 and
south of 145th Street. City staff is not sure how long he has owned land in this neighborhood, but
residential building occurred in the early 2000s. Mr. Israelson was the land developer but not the
builder for these residential neighborhoods.
The applicant negotiated the subdivision and purchase of approximately 5 acres from Greif Brothers
in 2006. The applicant purchased the land with the intention of combining it with the existing
undeveloped portion of Rosewood Village to the south and gaining a new access point from the
north via 145th Street West. A condition of approval of that subdivision called for Greif Brothers to
remove one of their accesses onto 145th Street West. In early 2007, the applicant submitted a mixed
use concept PUD for review and approval. That concept plan consisted of six apartment buildings
containing 240 units and one commercial building. Generally, the layout of the 2007 concept plan is
similar to the plans in this submittal with the key differences being the building height and parking
provisions. The concept plan as approved in 2007 included 3-story buildings with underground
parking in addition to surface parking. The current plan being reviewed includes seven 2-story
buildings with surface parking and garages, which are located along the perimeter of the site.
The Planning Commission discussed the concept plan on February 27, 2007, and the City Council
discussed the concept plan on March 20, 2007.
2. Who is proposing this? Who is Warren Israelson and Copperhead Development? What kind of
vetting has been/will be done as it is very difficult to find on any information on him/company
on the web or BBB.
As mentioned, Warren Israelson has owned much of the property in the immediate area for some
time and was the land developer for the Rosewood neighborhoods. He also owns the commercial
property along County Road 42 between Biscayne Avenue and Hwy 3. Staff is aware that he has also
developed other properties in Dakota County. Copperhead Development is the owner of the
northern parcel and is a company owned by Mr. Israelson. Decisions to approve or not approve a
proposed development are based on information provided by an applicant and reviewed by city
staff, Planning Commission and City Council based upon the standards of the ordinance.
3. Who currently owns the land?
The land is comprised of two parcels that are owned by Warren Israelson (southern parcel) and his
company, Copperhead Development (northern parcel).
4. How is the council/planning commission currently leaning?
The City Council and Planning Commission must remain neutral until they have received all of the
information pertaining to an issue. This includes information from public hearings where public
comments are received. The City Council and Planning Commission are each given a staff report
that outlines the various aspects of the project and assesses the project based upon existing
ordinance regulations. The staff report is a public document and will also be available for public
review on the Friday before the Commission meeting. The agenda and staff report will be posted on
the City’s website http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us/ under Government/Agendas and Minutes.
What is the timeframe on a vote/decision?
The item is currently scheduled for Planning Commission review at their meeting on October 25th.
The Planning Commission holds the public hearing and takes public comment at their meeting. The
Commission may take action that evening to recommend approval or denial of the application. The
Commission can also recommend continuance to a later meeting and ask for more information.
Their charge is to review the project on its technical merits.
The Commission is an advisory body and only makes a recommendation to the Council. Generally,
the items approved on October 25, 2016, would be scheduled for the City Council meeting on
November 14, 2016. The final schedule is dependent upon the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and may be delayed if additional information is needed prior to the Council taking
action.
What past council meetings have addressed this and is there a way to watch a recording or get
meeting minutes?
In 2007, the Planning Commission discussed an apartment concept plan for the site which was
similar but not the same as the current proposal. The concept was recommended for approval
February 27, 2007. The City Council recommended approval of the concept on March 20, 2007. The
concept approval provided direction about the project and what issues were important to the
Council at that time. The property owner, which is the existing applicant, did not pursue the project
after the Council’s 2007 action.
The Planning minutes are at page 20 of http://rs-
img.ci.rosemount.mn.us/weblink/0/doc/334002/Page1.aspx. The Council minutes are at page 46 of
http://rs-img.ci.rosemount.mn.us/weblink/0/doc/225273/Page1.aspx. Recordings of Planning and
Council meetings are only retained for one year.
5. Can you provide links to specific meetings so that citizens can review?
See above.
6. How is the property currently zoned? Is the proposal for rezoning limited only to apartments?
The northern parcel is currently zoned BP-Business Park and the southern parcel R1- Low Density
Residential. The property is guided in the City’s Comprehensive Plan as Business Park in the north
and Medium Density Residential in the south. Under state law the Comprehensive Plan takes
precedence over the zoning. If the property is rezoned as requested by the applicant, permitted
uses in the R4 zoning district will include apartments, assisted living facilities, condominiums,
congregate housing, licensed child care for twelve or fewer persons, nursing and retirement homes,
and residential facilities, licensed by the state of Minnesota for six or fewer persons.
7. Are there any stipulations on who can live in said apartment complex?
No. Under state law, the City cannot regulate who can live in a residential project.
8. Has the fire chief been consulted and what safety concerns have arisen?
The Fire Marshal has reviewed the proposed development and is requiring two additional fire
hydrants as well as a secondary emergency access to the site via Lower 147th Ct. West. The intention
is that this access will not be a customary public accessway and would only be used during
emergencies. The applicant would be required to have a locked gate or other type of impediment to
customary access. However, the area will need to be maintained in the winter to ensure there is
adequate seasonal access during emergencies. No Parking signs on either side of the emergency
access are to be included with the development.
9. Is there space for fire trucks (assuming a parking lot full of cars) to maneuver in case of
emergency?
The Fire Marshal and City Engineer have reviewed the site plans and determined that the
thoroughfares within the site are sufficient to allow for emergency vehicles to travel within the site.
10. Have estimates been made on number of automobiles that will be in the complex? If so, what is
the number?
Parking for 397 vehicles is indicated in plans provided by the developer. The developer has provided
parking at 1.5 stalls per unit. The City ordinance requires apartment buildings provide 2 parking
spaces per unit. The applicant has indicated that many of the apartments are one-bedroom and are
asking for a reduction in the total number of spaces required.
From a traffic standpoint, the Institute of Traffic Engineers has a manual that is the basis for
estimating traffic generation. For apartments the estimate is 6.65 daily trips per unit. For your
information, the estimates for a single family home is 9.52 daily trips/unit and for townhomes are
5.81 daily trips/unit. That would mean approximately 1543 trips are estimated for the project. Staff
anticipates that most of the backup would be internal to the site, as residents try to exit onto 145th
Street. While that might be undesirable for future tenants, it does not adversely affect the
operations on the adjoining public streets. Similar to most residential traffic patterns, there would
be AM and PM peak hours, which coincide with normal commuter traffic.
11. 145th St Access:
a. Assuming 1.5 cars (est) per unit x 232 units = 348 additional vehicles
b. Will the 145th St outlet be the only outlet as seen on the proposal? Yes
c. With only one outlet near the railroad tracks with a relatively steep hill leading up
eastbound, how will the city deal with the limited site of traffic coming from the west on
145th as people leave the complex?
d. How will the city deal with the additional traffic on 145th?
e. Is there a minimum distance an entryway/exit can be from railroad tracks and if so,
what is it?
Development of the site is difficult due to the presence of the railroad and rail spur. It is very
difficult to obtain approval from the railroad to get any new at-grade crossings. That means
access to the site would come either from the north, from the east, or both. The City is aware
that the existing neighborhood would prefer that access to the east be restricted, meaning that
the primary access to the site would come from the north. The applicant purchased the
northern parcel in 2006 to provide for another access to the site, along with increasing the size
of the site. The City was aware at that time that the primary access to the site would be from
145th Street. The condition of the plat approval required that the most western access into Greif
Brothers be removed so that the new site access could be as far east as possible, without
mingling with Greif truck traffic.
The City does not have a distance requirement between the street and the railroad; the greater
the distance the better. Unfortunately there are several neighborhoods in Rosemount that are
close to rail lines and the access for this project has been shifted as far away as possible.
145th is a designated Major Collector and has been constructed to handle the existing traffic on
the road as well as the additional traffic that would be created by the current proposal.
12. Lower 147th Court West: THIS IS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST CONCERN FOR THE CITIZENS IN THE
AREA.
a. Are there stipulations that Lower 147th Court West CANNOT be used as an access into
and out of the complex? City staff has discussed with the applicant that 147th Court W.
would be for emergency vehicle access only. The access will be restricted through a
mechanism that is satisfactory to the Police and Fire Chiefs. This type of restriction
would be a recommended condition of approval.
b. If not, can this be added? See above
c. Will this road be used as an emergency access? Yes, see above.
d. If this is to be used as emergency access, then how will the planned parking lot that is in
the way be changed on the plans? The Fire Marshall has indicated that no parking signs
must be located along both sides of the access. This will be a condition of approval.
e. Will any changes be made to the cul-de-sac as it is structured? It is unclear if there are
any roadway modifications necessary for access; further review will be needed. Work
would occur to install a barrier preventing full access from 147th Court West. The drive
must be maintained during the winter months to ensure public access is available if
needed.
13. Have estimates been made on how many children will live in the complex?
No. The number of children, under law, cannot be the basis for approval or denial of a planning
project.
14. Railroad issues
a. Has the city considered what type of people would want to live so close to an active
railroad track?
Because of the location of existing railroads in town we have several residential
neighborhoods that are immediately adjoining railroads. Some of neighborhoods are
single family, townhomes, and now proposed apartments. The City works with the
developer to try and mitigate impacts of the rail line on adjoining residences. One way
has been to designate a portion of the rail line as a quiet zone. This means additional
safety improvements have been added at rail crossings to allow trains to avoid blowing
their whistles when travelling through the city.
b. What type of partition will separate the property from the railroad land? Has the city
considered the fact that currently, the only thing separating the railroad area from our
homes is a 6 ft chain-link fence? Will this also be the only partition separating the
complex from the railroad?
The site plan shows garages being the main barrier between the apartment complex,
with a six-foot fence between the garage structures.
c. 232 units x 2 kids (est) per unit = 464 additional kids in the area of the railroad tracks.
d. How will the city ensure that children cannot trespass on the railroad property?
The proposal includes garages and fencing along the west property line to discourage
crossing into the railroad property.
15. How does the city think this will affect property values in the area?
The City does not estimate effects of a project on the property values of adjoining
neighborhoods.
16. What does the city see as the economic benefit of this complex?
This project meets several goals identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The biggest benefit
to Rosemount is a better balance of life-cycle housing, meaning there is housing for people of all
ages to live within the community. Rosemount’s residential development has primarily been
single family residential and there is an interest providing more rental housing in the
community. Rental would provide housing opportunities to people who cannot afford or don’t
want to purchase a house at this time. The City Council has received feedback that there are not
a lot of opportunities for adult children of existing residents to live in town, or for independent
living seniors.
17. What alternative sites has the city considered/is the city considering for a complex of this type?
The proposed project was brought to the city by a private landowner and will be developed
privately. The City’s Comprehensive Plan includes the goal of dispersing high-density residential
throughout the community to avoid entire neighborhoods of high-density residential. The
Comprehensive Plan indicated that the southern site would be designated for medium density
residential development, indicating support for some type of multi-family housing.
18. Does El Dorado Packaging have any comment pro or con?
The applicant and City staff have met with representatives from El Dorado Packaging. Their
comments concerned a shared access to their site from 145th Street West as well as a desire for
a fence to separate the two properties. No other concerns were raised.
19. Does the Railroad have any comment pro or con?
City staff has not received any comments from the railroad regarding this project.
20. How will the additional influx of children affect the capacity of our schools?
City staff meets with the school district on a regular basis so the District is aware of areas for
new development, meaning new children coming into the school district. School representatives
recognize that Rosemount will continue to grow and that school capacity will be needed in the
future. The district is drawing attendance zones for the new elementary school in Lakeville to
reduce the student count at Rosemount Elementary.
Thank you again for your attention to this matter.
Jeremy Oliver
14795 Boise Circle
Rosemount, MN 55068
651-470-3436