HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.q. Kathy Trimble Custom Homes, Inc PUD Master Development Plan and Final Site and Building Plan and Preliminary PlatCITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
City Council Meeting Date March 15, 2005
AGENDA ITEM: Case 05 -12 -PUD and Case 05 -08 -PP
AGENDA SECTION:
Kathy Trimble Custom Homes, Inc PUD
Master Development Plan (with Rezoning)
CONSENT
and Final Site and Building Plan and
Preliminary Plat
PREPARED BY: Jason Lindahl, A I C P
A N
Assistant City Planner
ATTACHMENTS Draft Resolution, Draft Ordinance, Draft
02/22/05 PC Minutes, Location Map, Lot
APPRO Y:
Illustrations, Existing Conditions and Tree
Preservation Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Motion to approve a resolution granting Master Development Plan and Final Site
and Building Plan approval and preliminary plat approval for the property located at
4101 143 Street West to allow subdivision of the existing 184 acre property into
three single family lots, subject to conditions
2. Motion to approve an ordinance rezoning the property at 4101 143 Street West
from R -1, Low Density Residential to R -1, Low Density Residential PUD
ACTION:
SUMMARY
Applicant Property Owner(s):
Location
Area in Acres
Number of Lots Density
Comp Guide Plan Desig�
Current Zoning
Requested Zoning.
Planning Commission Action
Kathy Trimble Custom Homes, 1
4101 143 Street West (Lot 11,
1 84 Acres (80,205 square feet)
3 Lots 163 Units /Acres
Urban Residential
R -1, Single Family Residential
PUD R -1
Recommended approval 4 to 1
nc
Block 2 Hawkins Pond)
The applicant, Kathy Trimble Custom Homes, requests Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Master Development Plan and Final Site and Building Plan approvals for the Hawkins
property located at 4101 143 Street West Currently, this site contains a single family home
on 1 84 acres The applicant is also requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide this
site into three single family lots Lot 1 would retain the existing home while Lots 2 and 3
would each contain a new single family home
BACKGROUND
As you may recall, the City amended the Planned Unit Development review standards late in
2004 This is the first application processed under the new standards The new standards
require all PUD applications to include a Master Development Plan (with rezoning) and a
Final Site and Building Plan while leaving the Concept Plan as optional The new standards
also allow applicants to process the Master Development Plan (with rezoning) and the Final
Site and Building Plan applications simultaneously In this case, the applicant has elected to
pass on the Concept Plan and combined the Master Development Plan (with rezoning) and
the Final Site and Building Plan into one application Preliminary plat approval is also
required If approved, the development will still require Final Plat approval
The factors necessitating the use of a PUD for this development include the applicant's
desire to create 3 separate single family lots containing homes with substantial building pad
area while preserving the site's existing trees, topography, and single family home Given
these factors, the applicant submits the attached design To its credit, this design creates
three lots with a density that meets the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance and is lower than the surrounding developments, while preserving the site's
existing trees, topography and single family home By contrast, the large homes and lot
design selected by the applicant combined with preserving the site's existing single family
home produces a site design requiring a flag lot which is atypical of the neighborhood
development pattern
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission held a public hearing to review this item during their February 22,
2005 regular meeting During the hearing, residents expressed support for the proposal but
raised several concerns including landscaping, tree preservation, house setbacks and
architecture compatibility, as well as access and driveway design In addition to these
concerns, the Commission raised the issues of lot design, the location of and connection to
city utilities and runoff from Lot 2 Both the applicant and staff attempted to respond to these
questions First, the applicant expressed the desire to preserve as many trees as possible
while working with staff and the neighbors to create a quality development Staff noted that
many of the issued raised were addressed by the conditions of approval including meeting
the Engineering and Fire Marshall requirements for driveway design, submitting a detailed
landscaping and tree preservation plan, and shifting the northern lot line on Lot 3 to the north
to expand the backyard After some minor clarifications to the conditions of approval, the
Commission recommended the City Council approve this application 4 to 1 Changes made
to the proposal as a result of the Commission's conditions of approval are described below
First, to address the concern over lot design, the Commission added a condition requiring the
applicant to submit a revised preliminary plat shifting the northern lot line on Lot 3 to expand
the backyard area The applicant agreed to this condition and has revised the preliminary
2
I
plat accordingly. While this change reduces the size of Lot 2, it adds desirable backyard
space to Lot 3.
Second, the Commission required the applicant to redesign the site to conform with the
access standards outlined by the City Engineer and Fire Marshall As originally proposed,
Lots 1 and 2 would have access through a common driveway from 143` Street while Lot 3
would have its own separate access to 143` Street The applicant states that this design is
necessary given slope of the subject property Staff concedes the topography of the subject
property creates access challenges for this site Typically, the Fire Marshall requires any
driveway over 150 feet to be a minimum of 20 feet wide, have a slope of 9 percent or less,
extend to within 150 feet of all buildings, support the load of a fire truck, and provide sufficient
area for turning around a fire truck Given the design and topography of this site, conforming
to all the Fire Marshall's access design standards may be problematic As a result, staff
offered the applicant two options Option one would be to design the shared driveway to
conform with the 9 percent slope standard and record an agreement against each property
relieving any emergency service provider from liability should their vehicles damage a private
driveway The second option would be to sprinkle the homes on Lots 1 and 2 while building
the shared driveway to meet the typical Engineering Department 10 percent slope standard
The applicant has elected to meet the 9 percent standard and has redrawn the preliminary
plat accordingly The applicant still must submit an agreement relieving any emergency
service provider from liability should their vehicles damage a private driveway
Third, since tree preservation was a key factor for granting a PUD for this site, the
Commission recommended submission of a detailed landscaping and trees preservation
plan According to the applicant's tree preservation plan, 10 of the site's 55 trees (or 18
percent) will be removed as a result of construction These trees include four 8" Birch, three
6" Birch, two 10" Crabapple, one 24" Pine, one 20" Oak, and one 14" Oak With the
exception of the two Oaks, these trees are located on the southern half of Lots 2 and 3 and
must be removed for driveway and home construction By ordinance, the applicant can
remove up to 25 percent of the significant trees on site before being required to replace trees
However, staff is concerned about the long term maintenance of the preserved trees and
recommends the recording a conservation easement over the southern 10 feet of all three
properties and the western 80 feet of Lot 1 to maintain the significant tree massing as
illustrated on the tree preservation plan
Finally, the Commission had some concerns regarding drainage from Lot 2 (the flag lot)
across Lot 3 To address this concern, the Engineering Department recommends that all lots
provide positive drainage away from each individual home
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
In general, the purpose of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is to allow flexibility from
typical zoning performance standards to encourage higher quality development This process
involves an exchange in which the City eases certain performance standards in return for an
enhanced development Section 12 6 A outlines the specific types of development the City
wishes to encourage through the PUD process Those applicable to this development are
listed below
3
Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of
sensitive environmental features, including, but not limited to, steep slopes, trees and
poor spoils
In this case, the developer requests relief from the lot width and access performance
standards to allow the creation of three single family lots in exchange for preservation of the
existing topography and trees. Section 12 6 C 1 of the new PUD standards contains criteria
for the City Council to weigh when considering a PUD application These criteria are listed
below
1 Compatibility of the proposed plan with this Chapter and the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan
2 Effect of the proposed plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be located
Internal organization and adequacy of various uses or densities, circulation and
parking facilities, public facilities, recreation areas, open spaces, screening and
landscaping
4 Consistency with the standards of Section 12 3 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to
site and budding plan review
5. Such other factors as the Planning Commission or City Council deems relevant
A detailed review of this proposal is provided below Staff requests the Council consider the
advantages and challenges of this proposal and determine if it meets the PUD review criteria
listed above The Planning Commission and City Council may attach such conditions to their
actions as they determine necessary or convenient to better accomplish the purposes of this
Chapter
PROJECT ANALYSIS
When combing the Master Development Plan (with rezoning) and the Final Site and Budding
Plan applications, the project is subject to the standards outlined in Sections 12 3 (Site and
Building Design Review), 12 6 B (PUD Development Standards), and 12 11 (Amendments)
The standards for these sections are included in the following analysis
Rezoning All Master Development Plan applications shall include a rezoning to a specific
PUD Distnct The district shall be designated by the letters "PUD" and the designation of the
underlying zoning district In this case, the applicant requests rezoning the property from R-
1, Low Density Residential to PUD R -1
The primary issue to consider for a rezoning application is compatibility with the
Comprehensive Plan and surrounding zoning designations Currently, the site and
surrounding area are guided for Urban Residential use Similarly, the site and surrounding
area are zoned R -1, Low Density Residential. In addition, the adjacent Country Hills and
M
Hawkins Pond subdivisions were developed as PUD's Given these findings and the design
of the proposed development, staff finds the proposed PUD R -1 zoning classification
compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning designations
PUD and Site Design Review Development of this project is constrained by the desire of
the City and the applicant to achieve certain goals in the overall design. The applicant's
interest in preserving the existing home and vegetation lead to a solution like the proposal If
the house was removed three lots could easily be accommodated without creation of a flag
lot This would also provide for a development pattern more consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood which has longer, somewhat narrower lots
When staff first discussed the proposal there were two ways to approach processing the
application One would be to process a subdivision application with variance for the flag lot
requiring a lot width variance The second option was to use the PUD process which allows
flexibility for city standards Because of the hardship standards associated with granting of a
variance, staff recommended use of the PUD process In either event, the Commission and
Council should be aware that through a very simple lot line adjustment, the flag lot can be
made conforming and the existing subdivision layout and location of budding pads would
remain unchanged Because the development pattern would remain unchanged, staff is
supportive of the layout in the current configuration
Area Each PUD shall have a minimum area often (10) acres, excluding areas within a
designated wetlands, flood plain or shoreland district or right of way, unless the applicant can
demonstrate the development as a PUD will preserve natural features or will appear similar to
an adjacent PUD In this case, the subject property is only 1 84 acres However, the
applicant intends to preserve the site's existing topography and trees In addition, this site is
surrounded by the Country Hills and Hawkins Pond PUD's As designed, with the exception
of the flag lot, the development would appear and function as an extension of the surrounding
PUD developments while preserving the site's existing topography and trees
Density Each residential PUD shall have a density within the range specified in the
Comprehensive Plan for the PUD site The density of individual buildings or lots within a
PUD may exceed these standards, provided the density for the entire PUD does not exceed
the permitted standards The table below compares the proposed density for Highlands of
Hawkins Pond and the two adjacent PUD subdivisions with the density requirements for the
Urban Residential and R -1 designations It shows that the net density for the proposed
development meets the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and
is lower than the surrounding developments
Density Analysis for Highlands of Hawkins Pond
Subdivision
Size
(Acres)
Number
of Lots
Density Units /Acre
Status
Required
Proposed
Count Hills
250
567
>3
22
Conformin
Hawkins Pond
34
71
>3
20
Conformin
Subject Pro pert
1 84
3
>3
1 6
Conformm
5
Streets, Utilities, Public Facilities and Subdivisions The City ordinances governing the
specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be
modified based upon the unique characteristics of the PUD The City Council may therefore
approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions that are not in compliance with
usual specifications or ordinance requirements if it finds that strict adherence to such
standards or requirements is not required to meet the intent of this Chapter or to protect the
health, safety or welfare of the residents of the PUD, the surrounding area or the City as a
whole.
While this development will not require new streets or public facilities, it will necessitate new
utilities and subdivision of the existing property At 80,205 square feet, the subject property
could accommodate up to eight standard 10,000 square foot lots However, with only 300
feet of frontage along 143r Street, the site can only accommodate three standard 80 foot
wide lots (4 X 80' =320') The table below compares the required and proposed lot
subdivision performance standards for properties in the Urban Residential and R -1 districts
It illustrates that while each lot exceeds the minimum lot size, only two meet the minimum lot
width standard and only one has direct access to a public street
Lot Anal sis for Highlands of Hawkins Pond
Lot
Lot Sizes ft.
Lot Width feet
Lot Access
Status
Required
Proposed
Required
Proposed
Required
Pro osed
1
1
1
10,000
44,082
80
161
Direct
Shared
Nonconformin
2
10,000
25,021
80
50
Direct
Shared
Nonconformm
3
10,000
11,132
80
89
Direct
Direct
Conformin
Setbacks, Buffers and Greenspace Setbacks, buffers and greenspace within a PUD shall
be consistent with applicable sections of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, unless the
developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be
permitted with the addition of screening treatments or other mitigative measures
The table below illustrates that, as designed, the principal buildings on the subject property
meet the minimum required setbacks for properties in the R -1 District However, it should be
noted that the existing accessory structure on Lot 1 encroaches approximately two feet into
the required 30 foot rear yard setback Since this development does not increase the
nonconformity of the existing accessory structure, it is considered an existing nonconforming
use which is allowed to continue until it is expanded
Principal Building Setback Analysis for Highlands of Hawkins Pond
Lot
Front feet
Side feet
Rear feet
Required
Proposed
Required
Proposed
Required I Proposed
Status
1
30 ft
127 ft.
loft
98110 ft
30 ft
1 90 ft
Conformin
2
30 ft
155 ft
loft
28/10 ft.
30 ft
32 ft.
Conforming
3
30 ft
30 ft
loft
10/10 ft
30 ft
L 4 3 ft
Conforming
Covenants All applicants for a PUD shall establish an association to oversee the
maintenance of commonly held properties and review of architectural modifications to the
A
approved plans This is a fairly small project and there is no commonly held property
proposed For these two reasons, staff is not requiring establishment of a HOA However,
staff is recommending as a condition of approval that a cross access easement and
maintenance agreement be recorded against the two properties that will share a driveway
Architectural and Landscape Design All residential PUD applicants shall demonstrate
that the architectural and landscape design will provide privacy for both internal and exterior
living areas This provision shall include, but not be limited to, landscape and fence screens
and the location of structures relative to adjacent homes
Given that tree preservation was a key factor in granting a PUD for this site, the Commission
and staff required the applicant submit a detailed tree preservation plan According to the
applicant's tree preservation plan, 10 of the site's 55 trees (or 18 percent) will be removed as
a result of construction These trees include four 8" Birch, three 6" Birch, 2 10" Crabapple,
one 24" Pine, one 20" Oak, and one 14" Oak With the exception of the two Oaks, these
trees are located on the southern half of Lots 2 and 3 and must be removed for driveway and
home construction By ordinance, the applicant can remove up to 25 percent of the
significant trees on site before being required to replace trees However, staff is concerned
about the long term maintenance of the preserved trees and recommends the recording a
conservation easement over the southern 10 feet of all three properties and the western 80
feet of Lot 1 to maintain the significant tree massing as illustrated on the tree preservation
plan
During the Planning Commission hearing, one resident expressed concern regarding the
architecture of the proposed and existing houses and their compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood The applicant expressed a desire to meet or exceed the architecture style of
the surrounding neighborhood with the two new homes but does not plan to make
improvements to the existing house
PUD Discussion. After reviewing these plans, staff finds that the location of the existing
house and the dimension of all three houses necessitate a subdivision design which creates
a flag lot that is inconsistent with the zoning and subdivision standards and the design of the
surrounding PUD neighborhoods First, the existing house is located lust to the west of the
center of the property After creating a lot for the existing house with the required setbacks,
the remaining parcel is approximately 36,153 square feet in size with 139 feet of frontage.
This parcel is large enough to accommodate three additional single family lots, however, all
three lots could not meet the required 80' wide dimensional standard Second, neither the
existing or proposed homes could fit on a standard 80 foot wide lot The existing house is
just over 60 feet wide while the proposed houses are 70 feet wide The dimensions of the
existing and proposed houses combined with the location of the existing house are key to the
design of this subdivision and the need for a flag lot
Engineering, Grading and Drainage The existing topography and preservation of the
existing trees create development challenges for this site The lot gains 28 feet of elevation
from the southern to the northern property lines with the majority of the elevation change
occurring over the south half of the site The grade change is steepest on the west side
7
These factors combined with the maximum driveway slope of 10 percent force access points
to the southeast corner of the site This design promotes preservation of the existing trees
along the southwest and western property lines
The Engineering Department has estimated the following fees for this development.
1. Trunk Sewer Area Charges 1 84 AC x $1,045 /AC $1,922 80
2 Trunk Water Area Charge 1 84 AC x $4,210 /AC $7,746 40
3. Trunk Storm Area Charge 1 84 AC x $6,015/AC $11,067 60
4 Sewer Connection Fees SAC units are calculated by MCES
a MCES Fee $1,450 /SAC
b City Fee $1,160 1SAC
5 Water Connection (WAC), Single Family Residential $1,410
6 Storm Connection (STAC) $670 per lot
The Commission had some concerns regarding drainage from Lot 2 (the flag lot) across Lot
3 To address this concern, the Engineering Department recommends that all lots provide
positive drainage away from each individual home
Access This development proposes to access Lots 1 and 2 through a common driveway
from 143` Street while Lot 3 would have its own separate access to 143` Street The
applicant states that this design is necessary given slope of the subject property Staff
concedes the topography of the subject property creates access challenges for this site
While the Engineering Department requires driveway to have a maximum 10 percent slope
the Fire Marshall requires a maximum 9 percent slope When two standards conflict, the
ordinance directs staff to apply the more stringent standard Typically, the Fire Marshall
would also require any driveway over 150 feet to be a minimum of 20 feet wide, extend to
within 150 feet of all buildings, support the load of a fire truck, and provide sufficient area for
turning around a fire truck
Given the design and topography of this site, conforming to all the Fire Marshall's access
design standards may be problematic As a result, staff offered the applicant two options
Option one would be to design the shared driveway to conform with the 9 percent slope
standard and record an agreement against each property relieving any emergency service
provider from liability should their vehicles damage a private driveway The second option
would be to sprinkle the homes on Lots 1 and 2 and building the driveways to meet the
typical Engineering Department standards Given these options, the applicant elected to
meet the 9 percent standard and submit the agreement releasing the City from liability
Parks and Open Space After reviewing the Kathy Trimble Custom Homes proposal, the
Parks and Recreation Department recommends parks dedication is collected in the form of
cash for two units The parks dedication fees for two units using the current 2005 Fee
Schedule would be $6,000 (2 x $3,000) The parks dedication fees are to be paid based on
the fee at the time of final plat approval
CONCLUSION RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat, Master Development Plan (with rezoning)
and Final Site and Building Plan for the Hawkins Pond 3 lot subdivision subject to conditions
This recommendation is based on the plans submitted by the applicant and the findings made
in this report The applicant's proposal creates a three lot development that preserves the
existing topography, trees, and single family home and is consistent with the use, density, lot
size, and setback standards for the Urban Residential and R -1 designations as well as the
surrounding PUD neighborhoods To achieve this development, the City must grant the
applicant relief from the 80 foot lot width standard to permit the flag lot Even with the flag lot,
the PUD application gives the Council the ability to approve this development if it finds strict
adherence to the lot width standard is not required to meet the intent of the PUD Ordinance
or to protect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the PUD, the surrounding area or
the City as a whole
Should the Council believe that a flag lot is not the appropriate subdivision design for the
project the Council should continue the request to allow time for the applicant to adjust lot
lines to remove the variation from the lot width requirement As stated previously, this can be
accomplished without substantially altering the layout and house pad locations of the current
proposal
A final question for the Council is the flag lot issue This plat creates a lot which can meet all
ordinance criteria and still have the effect of placing a house behind another house The flag
lot situation is the atypical development pattern but has occurred in the Uitdenbogerd plat and
is proposed in the subject application Staff is asking for direction from the Council as to
whether amendments to the zoning ordinance should be made to preclude this type of
pattern even if lot dimensional standards are met
0
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2005-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT,
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND FINAL SITE AND BUILDING PLAN
FOR HIGHLANDS OF HAWKINS PONDS
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an
application from Kathy Trimble Custom Homes, Inc requesting Preliminary Plat, Master
Development Plan, and Final Site and Building Plan concerning property located at 4101 14P
Street West to allow subdivision of the existing 1 84 acre property into three single family lots,
legally described as
Lot 11, Block 2, Hawkins Pond, Dakota County
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount
reviewed the Preliminary Plat, Master Development Plan, and Final Site and Building Plan for
Highlands of Hawkins Pond, and
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount
conducted a public hearing for review of the Preliminary Plat, Master Development Plan, and
Final Site and Building Plan application as required by Ordinance B, the Zoning Regulations,
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council
approve the Preliminary Plat, Master Development Plan, and Final Site and Building Plan subject
to conditions, and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2005, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the
Planning Commission's recommendation and the Preliminary Plat, Master Development Plan,
and Final Site and Building Plan applications for Highlands of Hawkins Pond and adopted a
motion for approval b) this resolution subject to conditions
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Preliminary Plat to the Highlands of Hawkins Pond, subdividing Lot 11, Block 2,
Hawkins Pond, Dakota County into Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 1, Highlands of Hawkins Pond, Dakota
County, subject to
Design the shared driveway for Lots 1 and 2 to conform to the Fire Marshall's 9 percent
slope standard and record an agreement against Lots 1 and 2 relieving any emergency
service provider from liability should their vehicles damage a private driveway or
sprinkle the homes on Lots 1 and 2 while building the shared driveway to meet the typical
Engineering Department standards including a 10 percent maximum slope
2. Payment of all applicable development fees including 2 units of park dedication
calculated using the current fee schedule at the time of Final Plat
RESOLUTION 2005
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount
hereby approves the Master Development Plan and Final Site Plan and Building Plan of
Highlands of Hawkins Pond, subject to
1 Submission of a detailed landscape and tree preservation plan illustrating all new and
preserved plants and retaining walls prior to City Council action
2 Execution of a Planned Unit Development Agreement between the applicant and the City
Dedication of cross access easements and recording of a maintenance agreement for
shared access to Lots 1 and 2
4 Issuance of a building permit
5 Recording of a conservation easement over the southern 10 feet of all three lots and the
western 80 feet of Lot 1 to maintain the significant trees missing as illustrated on the tree
preservation plan
ADOPTED this 15 day of March, 2005 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
William H Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda Jentmk, City Clerk
Motion by_
Voted in favor
Voted against._
Member absent
Second by:
City of Rosemount
Ordinance No. B -152
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE
Highlands of Hawkins Pond
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS
Section 1 Ordinance B. adopted September 19, 1989, entitled "City of Rosemount
Zoning Ordinance," is hereby amended to rezone the property at 4103 143` Street West from
RI, Low Density Residential, to PUD RI, Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development,
legally described as follows
Existing Legal Description
Lot 11, Block 2, Hawkins Pond, Dakota County
Proposed Legal Description
Lots 1, 2, and 3, Highlands of Hawkins Pond, Dakota County
Section 2 The Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount, referred to and described in said
Ordinance No B as that certain map entitled "Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount," shall not
be republished to show the aforesaid rezoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the said
zoning map on file in the Clerk's office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning heremabove
provided for in this Ordinance and all of the notation references and other information shown
thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made part of this Ordinance
Section 3 This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and
publication according to law
ENACTED AND ORDAINED into an Ordinance this 15"' day of March, 2005.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
William H Droste, Mayor
ATTEST
Linda Jentink, City Clerk
Published in the Rosemount Town Pages this day of 2005.
Excerpt from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 22, 2005
Public Hearing:
5B. Case 05 -12 -PUD and 05 -08 -PP Kathy Trimble Custom Homes, Inc. PUD Master
Development Plan (with Rezoning) and Final Site and Building Plan and
Preliminary Plat.
City Planner Lmdahl reviewed the staff report Kathy Trimble Custom Homes, Inc
requests Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Development Plan and Final Site and
Building Plan and Preliminary Plat approvals for the Hawkins property located at 4101
143` Street West
Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr Lmdahl.
Commissioner Powell questioned the utility plan having four sets of services to this lot
and if it is known which of the set of services the existing house is connected to which
would require a utility easement and wanted to make sure there wasn't service connection
crossing over on to another lot Mr Lindahl stated he would confirm that with the
engineering department Mr Powell also asked staff to follow through if this approved
that the runoff from Lot 2 be confined to Lot 2 and doesn't cross over to Lot 3 or a
drainage easement may be needed if it can't be confided to that single lot
Chairperson Messner asked if the applicant would like to come forward
Kathy Trimble, 1566 Wexford Court, Eagan, stated the brief history of her company and
her interest in the Hawkins' site Ms Trimble said she intended to work with the City on
the driveway issues Ms Trimble also stated she plans to save as many trees as possible
and the current driveway plan would only cause the loss of two trees Her intentions are
to create something the neighbors and the Hawkins can be proud of
Chairperson Messner asked the applicant if she knew with the existing home which of
any existing services is tied into the home Ms Trimble stated that Ed McMenomy
believes the utilities on the west side of the property were the ones that were brought into
the house The four utilities were requested by the Hawkins thinking that some day this
property may be developed
Commissioner Humphrey asked which of the houses on Lot 2 will be built Ms Trimble
stated she was hoping to move the lot lines as shown in the artist's rendering so the rear
lot would be 148 feet wide which would give a nice yard once built on If able to angle
the rear lot line of 3 you could give Lot 3 a little nicer backyard
Chairperson Messner wanted clarification if she has switched the lot lines between Lots 1
and 2 Ms Trimble stated that line pretty much has to stay there in order to meet the
setbacks Ms Trimble also stated she was not opposed to the staff proposed 80 foot lot
setback but that she wanted to save as many evergreens as possible.
Chairperson Messner asked City Planner Pearson if the preliminary plat portion would be
approving the lot lines as drawn Mr Pearson talked about shifting the lot line across the
lot and stated this would come back as a final plat and would solidify the final location of
the property lines, Chairperson Messner had a question about the specific location of the
house on Lot 2 Mr Pearson stated if it is a PUD they have the ability to influence the
location of the house With the PUD process, the City can require conservation
easements and deed restrictions
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing
Ed McMenomy, 1422 143 Street West, Rosemount, stated that Kathy has done a
wonderful fob to meet the land topography Mr McMenomy questioned if there would
be a retaining wall by the driveway based upon the slope Mr McMenomy suggested
there be a condition that would include landscaping to make the driveway work Mr
McMenomy would like the plan to stay the same and didn't approve of the 80 foot
frontage Mr McMenomy would like to see all the evergreens in a conversation
agreement
Vicki Gophn, 14106 Dearborn Path, Rosemount. stated she has been in the area for 15
years and is pleased to see the intent of Kathy to keep the trees as is and encouraged the
Commission to pass the item
Dan Huberty, 4212 143 St Rosemount, was concerned about the house and existing
property being tied in with the continuity of the neighborhood Mr Huberty was glad to
see the trees would be preserved Mr Huberty questioned the driveways not being far
apart and suggested all three homes share one driveway
Michelle Huberty, 4212 143 St., Rosemount, was concerned about the setbacks of the
current homes and the setback of proposed Lot 3 Ms Huberty also questioned how
close the house would be to the evergreens on Lot 3.
Mr Pearson stated that setbacks are 30 feet from the property line which makes them
about 45 feet back from the curb Mr Pearson stated that Lot 3 is the minimum 30 foot
setback and the evergreens appear to either straddle or are dust inside the property line
Dan Huberty, 4212 143 St, Rosemount, expressed concern about the setbacks in
Hawkins Pond and if Lot 3 is going to be too close to the street
Chairperson Messner stated that using a rough scale it suggests that that other lots are not
setback much more than 30 feet Mr Pearson stated a fairly consistent setback is shown
at about 35 feet.
Dan Huberty, 4212 143 St Rosemount, again expressed concern about the setback with
the lone house not architecturally tied into the development
Kathy Trimble addressed the concerns about the driveway but the lot width to the lot on
the front is 89 feet wide She explained as far as setbacks, she prefers to show more
home than garage
Chairperson Messner asked Ms. Trimble to answer the question about the architecture of
the current home
Ms Trimble stated it was not her plan to change anything with the existing home The
existing home is white with maintenance free siding and black shutters with the large
pillars in front with a colonial feel Ms Trimble feels the home is relatively attractive
MOTION by Humphrey to close the Public Hearing. Second by Zum. Ayes.
Schultz, Zum, Messner, Humphrey and Powell Nayes None Motion carried
Chairperson Messner asked for any follow -up questions or discussion.
Chairperson Messner asked if a tree preservation plan will address the tree conservation
easement Mr Pearson stated that the grading plan shows a lot about the impact of the
property and that grading follows the driveway to get it to a manageable grade Mr
Pearson suggested that everything downhill of this line can be preserved and that
restrictive covenants or conversation easements could be recorded against the property to
require preservation of the trees
Community Development Director Lindquist stated three conditions of approval the
Commission could add if they so desired One would be to shift the northern lot line on
Lot 3 to provide more backyard space which would address Ms Trimble's proposal. A
Condition 8 could be that the applicant would dedicate a tree preservation easement over
the coniferous trees over the front property line Ms Lindquist stated the condition could
then address the concerns brought forward tonight Ms Lindquist also suggested that Mr
McMenomy's concern be addressed with stating the applicant install additional
vegetation south of the retaining wall or within the graded area necessary for the
construction of the driveway on Lot 1 regardless of the tree preservation requirements
Commissioner Powell questioned the shifting of the north line of Lot 3 and if there was a
specific dimension or amount Ms Trimble stated she did it based it on the trees in the
rear comer and she wanted to retain a significant amount of the backyard Commissioner
Powell suggested a Condition 7 to shift the northern lot line on Lot 3 consisted with the
alternate lot line identified on the Trimble drawing
MOTION by Powell to recommend the City Council approve the Master
Development Plan (with rezoning) and Final Site and Building Plan and
preliminary plat approval for the property located at 4101 143` Street West to
allow subdivision of the existing 1 84 acre property into three single family lots,
subject to the following
I Issuance of a building permit
2 Execution of a Planned Unit Development Agreement between the applicant
and the City
3 Submission of a detailed landscape and tree preservation plan illustrating all
new and preserved plants and retaining walls prior to City Council action
4. Redesign of all access driveways to meet the performance standards outlined
by the City Engineer and Fire Marshal
5 Dedication of cross access easements and recording of a maintenance
agreement for shared access to Lots 1 and 2
6 Payment of all applicable development fees including 2 units of park
dedication calculated using the current fee schedule at the time of Final Plat
7 Shift the northern lot line on Lot 3 consistent with the alternate lot line shown
on the Trimble drawing
Second by Zorn Ayes Schultz, Zum, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes Messner.
Motion approved 4 -1
Mr McMenomy questioned if there was anything in the motion about the conservation
easement Chairperson Messner stated there was not.
HIGHLANDS OFHAWKINS POND 1108
City of Rosemount e
Dakota County, Minnesota
.E
s
i t 3
4
I
I r 11 I V
I 1
I fi ii i�t
I I II II_ a5jy a
IT A I
PKELIMIMAKY J-LAI
I
I :..`..u. 1 i.' I a •ii a
II 1`rt II
uralrr PLAN
.Lilo
i' MAR 102005
t `.�i T
14 t
C
I
1 e`er
®0
I l j Y I
°M
eW°wwavmxmw.¢ v uA
ti
I I
sETSCC REDV(sErxrrs
Il
I
IT'"� 1
nw4 .0
"17l
.w mo�Wow nw.Xc
I
u. `I
i
I II
Itvl
II
I I
I
I
4
L
NOI I hUtt L'ONSTttUCT1Uh
ms vu ♦u° .wo
W9%XWS PW NC.S .vm ryn
.W W
nvuwc�
xrcac�xawN�£ %N
OHN. N.11Y
14 t
SITE DATE
I
1 e`er
wf J
C-
I l j Y I
°M
eW°wwavmxmw.¢ v uA
ti
it m N ruxiro.Ttn n ore .ovwnr
sETSCC REDV(sErxrrs
Il
I
I- C
SITE PLAN
X
4-
1 e`er
wf J
C-
I l j Y I
ti
it m N ruxiro.Ttn n ore .ovwnr
tur
1II//IIIIII 9 IF
I
I- C
nw4 .0
"17l
.w mo�Wow nw.Xc
SITE PLAN
GRADING EROSION CONTROL PLAN
CSNEA CDNSTNOMON NOTES
1
4-
1 e`er
wf J
C-
I l j Y I
ti
it m N ruxiro.Ttn n ore .ovwnr
tur
I, Ill
I lr'VV
I
I- C
i10
1[
`Wlv¢
41 me rtn wry X w�u rrr wn X�
mva
�`„;M
mm�i er uxe um r w,a'
mX �1 °�tX
PREUMIN/�RY
w�oun nn .snug,
NOI I hUtt L'ONSTttUCT1Uh
ms vu ♦u° .wo
GRADING EROSION CONTROL PLAN
CSNEA CDNSTNOMON NOTES
L
Y w°uYn.u..
�l uwrw wx wnwm wi c rmrcm.r arc v.mdosn
gn
it m N ruxiro.Ttn n ore .ovwnr
tur
5 v
al nr�iux w rerun nrwox. mz m¢�a nw wmua
a A.a
`Wlv¢
CSN£SIL CA,DING NOTES
�Q+
�l uwrw wx wnwm wi c rmrcm.r arc v.mdosn
it m N ruxiro.Ttn n ore .ovwnr
5 v
al nr�iux w rerun nrwox. mz m¢�a nw wmua
`Wlv¢
41 me rtn wry X w�u rrr wn X�
mva
�`„;M
mm�i er uxe um r w,a'
mX �1 °�tX
PREUMIN/�RY
w�oun nn .snug,
NOI I hUtt L'ONSTttUCT1Uh
ms vu ♦u° .wo
W9%XWS PW NC.S .vm ryn
.W W
nvuwc�
,MIUML IVOS OF HAWK /NS POND
City of Rosemount
Dalrota County, Minnesota
`,v
EXISTING CONDITIONS
WILT FFNC6 TYPICAL
xw
$w
4Zk< p p F
Wg 4
qb
�O A�
�y Rl�
3
I PRELIMINARYI
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) 2
TREE PRESERVATION
of Hans pond plane
ed
ment N
lYlur
1Jnit Develop
�s�