HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.a. PCExecSummRosewoodCommonsMasterPlan 11-22-16
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Planning Commission Meeting: November 22, 2016
Tentative City Council Meeting: December 19, 2016
AGENDA ITEM: Case 16-35-SP, 16-61-CP, 16-62-PUD,
Planned Unit Development Master Plan
with Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Zoning Map Amendment, and Preliminary
Plat
AGENDA SECTION:
Public Notice (Continued)
PREPARED BY: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner AGENDA NO.
5.a.
ATTACHMENTS: Site Location; UPDATED PLANS: Site
Development Plan; Phasing Plan,
Grading and Erosion Control Plan; Site
Utility Plan; Landscape and Tree
Preservation Plan; Apartment Building
Floor Plans and Elevations; PREVIOUS
PLANS: Drainage Area Map Building
Floor Plans and Elevations (Garage
Buildings x1, Office/Caretaker Building
x4); Color Rendering; Staff Report and
Minutes from 10/25/16 Planning
Commission Meeting; Response to
Public Hearing Questions, City
Engineer’s Memorandum dated 11/22/16;
Traffic Study from WSB dated 11/17/16
City Fire Marshall Memorandum dated
10/12/16; City Park & Rec Director’s
Memorandum dated 10/12/16;
Stormwater Memorandum dated 9/15/16;
Letter from Eric and Heidi Larson,
Questions and Staff Response from
Jeremy Oliver
APPROVED BY:
K.L.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission make the
following three motions:
1) Motion to recommend the City Council approve a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
changing the land use designation of Lot 1 Block 1 Greif Addition from BP-Business
Park to HDR-High Density Residential, and Lot 1 Block 2 Rosewood Village 3rd Addition
from MDR-Medium Density Residential to HDR-High Density Residential.
2) Motion to recommend the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Rosewood
Crossing, subject to the following conditions:
a) Approval of a Planned Unit Development Master Plan with rezoning.
b) Approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment reguiding the property to HDR.
c) Submittal of a written agreement for a shared access with El Dorado Packaging.
2
d) Conformance with all requirements of the City Engineer as detailed in the attached
memorandum dated November 22, 2016.
e) Vacation of existing drainage and utility easements.
f) Dedication of new drainage and utility easement over all ponding areas, drainage
areas and utilities as required by the City.
g) Conformance with all requirements of the Parks and Recreation Director as detailed
in the attached memorandum dated October 12, 2016
3) Motion to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Master Plan with the
rezoning of the property from BP-Business Park and R1-Low Density Residential,
subject to the following conditions:
a) Execution of a PUD Agreement.
b) Approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment reguiding the property to HDR
c) A deviation from City Code Section 11-6-1H to allow the office and public gathering
space to shared parking otherwise required for the apartment use.
d) Payment in lieu of replacement trees up to $11,700 should there be no additional
reasonable locations for tree plantings.
e) The preliminary development plans are approved for no more than six apartment
buildings or 193 dwelling units. Final approval for a seventh apartment building (32
additional units) is subject to the completion of a parking study after construction of
the third apartment building in development phase three. If the City finds that
adequate parking has been provided for the all existing structures, the seventh unit
may be incorporated as shown in the preliminary development plans. If the City
determines that there is a parking shortage, the preliminary plans will be amended to
eliminate building number three (Phase 5) from the plans.
f) No more than three of the apartment buildings may be constructed before the
emergency vehicle access, with curbing on both sides through the adjacent parking
lot, providing a connection to Lower 147th Court West is installed and connected to
the built portions of the site.
g) A temporary turn-around shall be provided on the site prior to the construction of the
second or any subsequent apartment buildings.
h) The developer shall consider the use of sound insulating materials for portions of
any buildings that will be facing the railroad right-of-way.
i) The applicant to obtain final site and building plan approval from the City. The Plans
should address the following items:
The construction and installation of the decorative fence shall coincide with
the timing of construction of apartment buildings within each phase.
Submission of details for the decorative fence prior to the approval of a final
plan for the first phase.
Submission of final landscape plan that meets ordinance criteria for site and
foundation plantings, landscape screening and buffering. includes:
Realignment of the sidewalk at least four feet from parking and driving areas
when said sidewalk is not located in front of a building. Sidewalks adjacent to
parking areas shall be increased to 7 feet.
Revision of the main entrance road to include sufficient vehicle stacking areas
3
as required by the City Engineer.
All garbage storage areas and dumpsters must meet City ordinance
standards for construction and screening, including fire code separation
requirements.
Submission of detailed plans for the playground area.
Exterior building materials are limited to no more than 60% lap siding not
including doors and windows. All other primary materials will be limited to
brick or natural stone. Final architectural plans and exterior materials
samples and colors should be submitted as part of the final site and building
plan approval.
j) Incorporation of recommendations from the City Engineer in a review memorandum
dated November 22, 2016 relative to drainage, grading, street design, easements,
utilities and the adjacent sidewalks.
k) Pay a fee in lieu of park land dedication for 225 units consistent with the most recent
fee schedule as adopted by the City Council. The payment of these fees shall be
collected at the time a building permit is issued for each building.
l) Construction of the emergency vehicle access connecting to Lower 147th Court West
must be completed as part of the fourth phase. Maintenance of the emergency
vehicle access through the railroad spur and up to the Lower 147th Court West cul-
de-sac shall be the responsibility of the developer and/or the Rosewood Crossing
HOA. These maintenance responsibilities will include snow removal, signage,
pavement markings, and other requirements specified in Resolution No. 2010-44
approving the Rosewood Village Third Addition.
m) Provision of contact information for the caretaker or other responsible party in the
absence of a caretaker to city.
n) The applicant is responsible for reconstruction of shared access drive with El Dorado
Packaging and all costs associated with this construction.
o) Exterior building materials are limited to no more than 60% lap siding not including
doors and windows. All other primary materials will be limited to brick or natural
stone. Final architectural plans shall be submitted with any final PUD development
plans. The final development plans shall include exterior material samples and
colors.
p) Repair and maintenance of all private trails and sidewalks are the responsibility of
the developer and/or homeowners association(s). Snow removal from all public and
private trails and sidewalks shall be the responsibility of the developer and/or
homeowners association(s).
q) Entry monuments shall be subject to sign permits and normal zoning standards.
Appropriate sight distances must be maintained.
r) The final PUD development shall include details concerning parking lot lighting
standards and a photometric plan which conforms to the City’s lighting ordinance.
SUMMARY
The Planning Commission is being asked to continue its discussion and review of a request by Warren
4
Israelson (Copperhead Development, Inc.) to construct an apartment complex with 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 is requesting 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 redraw
the drainage and utility easements on the site. The developer will still need a final site and building plan
approval prior to construction. Many of the conditions listed above are to itemize areas of further
refinement when the final site and building plans are reviewed.
The apartment complex is proposed south of 145th Street West between the railroad and El Dorado
Packaging (formerly Greif Brothers).
Because the Planning Commission received a detailed staff report concerning this application at its last
meeting, the following report will focus instead on the questions and issues raised at the last meeting and
any new information that has been brought forward by the applicant.
BACKGROUND
The previous staff recommendation to table the application included a list of six issues that the developer
was asked to address prior to the City’s continued review of the request. The applicant has subsequently
updated the proposed plans in order to address these concerns, and most significantly, has eliminated one
unit from each of the proposed buildings to bring the total unit count down to 225 units (seven 32-unit
buildings and one caretaker’s residence). This reduction in units was achieved by removing the efficiency
apartments from the plan and utilizing all one and two bedroom units. In addition to lowering the
required parking by 14 stalls, the reduction in units also allowed the applicant to slightly reduce the size of
each apartment structure and add some articulation to the back of each building. The site plan has also
been amended to increase the overall number of parking stalls to meet the City’s parking requirement of
two parking stalls per unit.
A summary of the other site plan changes are as follows:
The width of the driving aisle has been increased from 24 feet to 28 feet consistent with the Staff
recommendation.
The width of the sidewalk has been increased to 6.5 feet from 5 feet when adjacent to a parking
area. Staff is recommending a sidewalk width of 7 feet.
The width of the entrance has been expanded somewhat to provide room for stacking of cars
turning left on to 145th Street West and a separate lane for vehicles turning right on to the same
road.
The landscape plan has been updated to include 151 overstory trees, which is an increase from the
90 depicted on the original plan.
The landscape plan now includes a typical planting plan around each building with the minimum
number of shrubs necessary to meet the City’s foundation planting requirements (54 shrubs
required, 105 depicted on plans).
A much higher density of evergreen trees is shown on the eastern boundary with Rosewood
Village Addition to provide the required 90% opacity level of screening.
A dedicated emergency access connection to Lower 147th Court West has been provided and is
marked separate from adjacent parking stalls.
A decorative fence is proposed along the western railroad right-of-way that will tie into each garage
5
unit and will extend from 145th Street West to “Garage 5”.
Two additional sidewalks have been added to the plans connecting the eastern and western parking
areas.
The applicant is still working on finalizing a lighting and photometric plan that will demonstrate
compliance with the City’s lighting standards. This work should be completed prior to the
Planning Commission meeting.
The applicant has prepared a phasing plan depicting the anticipated staging of construction within
the project area.
The other elements of the plan, including the general location of each building, the configuration of
garages, and the looping access road are very similar to the plans presented last month. Each of the
buildings has been shifted slightly in order to provide room for the expanded driving lanes and wider
sidewalks throughout the project area.
Response to Questions and Concerns:
Staff has attached a document to this report with answers to some of the specific questions that were
raised during the public hearing last month. In addition, the minutes from that meeting area included with
the November 22, 2016 Planning Commission packet, and include a more detailed description of the
concerns expressed by the 10 residents that addressed the Commission.
ISSUE ANALYSIS – UPDATED INFORMATION
With the submission of updated information, staff will provide additional analysis as warranted below. For
further background information and analysis, please refer to the October 25, 2016 staff report.
Legal Authority .
No change.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
No change. Staff still 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 would still create one parcel for the purposes of facilitating construction of the
proposed planned apartment buildings. The developer will bring a final plat forward for the first phase of
the project and will likely plat future phases as a larger outlot. Some of the easements shown on the
preliminary plat will need to be included on the final plat since a large portion of the public infrastructure
will need to be installed with the first phase and will extend outside of the first project stage.
Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with Rezoning
The plans have been revised to lower the overall number of apartment dwelling units to 252 (a decrease of
seven units from the earlier plan). These units would be allocated across seven buildings with 32 units in
each building in addition to the caretaker’s residence. Along with the decrease in units, the applicant has
also reconfigured each building to modify the allocation of units within each structure. Specifically, all
efficiency apartments have been eliminated from the plans and the number of one and two-bedroom units
have been increased accordingly. The revised allocation of units (along with a comparison to the previous
plans) is as follows:
Proposed Types of Apartment Units for Rosewood Commons
Type of Unit Size Number of Units Percentage of Units
Proposed (Former) Proposed (Former)
Efficiency 571 Square Feet 0 (28) 0% (12%)
6
One Bedroom 700 Square Feet 140 (126) 63% (54%)
Two Bedroom 829-894 Square Feet 84 (77) 37% (33%)
The changes to the unit allocation and number of units still fits within the City’s zoning requirements for
the R4 – High Density Residential zoning district with an overall density of 18.4 units per acre. The
revised site plan did not substantially alter any of the previous dimensional standards, including lot
coverage, setbacks, and building height. All apartment buildings continue to maintain a minimum setback
of 20 feet from another residential structure.
Street System and Parking
One of the more significant changes from the previous plans is the addition of 53 parking stalls to the site,
bringing the overall number of parking spaces between the garage structure and outside surface areas to
450. Most of the additional parking has been accommodated by extending perpendicular parking along
both sides of the access lanes in the southeast part of the site and by reconfiguring the parking around
Building 7. Previously, the garage spaces for Building 7 were split between two different buildings with
parking on only one side of the eastern access road. The building itself has also shifted to the south in
order maintain an adequate setback to other buildings. Between the reduction in units (with a
corresponding decrease of 14 required stalls) and increase in parking, the plans now provide enough
parking to accommodate the City’s standards of two parking spaces per dwelling unit; however, required
parking for the leasing office and gathering space in the office building have not been included in these
calculations. A fair number of the parking stalls included in the overall totals are located immediately in
front of the leasing office/caretaker’s residence, and would not be likely used by apartment residents or
guests unless they are using the gathering space or there are no other alternatives. The applicant has
pointed out that there is a garage available for use by the caretaker in addition to the space in front of the
garage, and these parking spaces have not been counted in the overall totals.
The other major concern expressed by Staff at the last meeting was the width of the driving aisles
throughout the project area. The access road has now been increased to 28 feet in width per staff’s
recommendation, which matches the City’s minimum standard for a local street. The parking stalls
continue to meet the City’s minimum depth requirement by using a bumper curb that will allow a portion
of vehicles to overhang beyond the paved stall. This overhang was previously a concern for staff because
it would have led to obstructions into many of the planned sidewalks with the development. To address
the sidewalk concern, the applicant has expanded the width of all sidewalks adjacent to parking areas to 6.5
feet to account for this overhang. Since a typical vehicle will extend one to two feet over the curb, and the
ordinance allows a 2 foot reduction for a car overhang, staff is recommending increasing the sidewalk next
to the parking to 7 feet. This will allow for a 5 foot sidewalk after the overhang which is consistent with
the City policy for 5 foot sidewalks.
In general, staff still remains concerned that the parking as laid out in the attached plans may prove to be
inadequate to serve the demand of residents and visitors to the apartments. In particular, many of the
parking stall locations are a considerable distance from the units they serve. For instance, the
northernmost parking stall is situated 290 feet from the entrance to the closest building. In addition, the
parking in front of each building is limited due to the linear nature of the parking areas. For each
individual building to make use of two full parking stalls per unit, individual cars would need to park in
front of one of the neighboring buildings (this is especially true in front of buildings two, three, and four).
If parking exceeds the demand for available spaces, there is no space for overflow parking on site and
individuals will need to either park and walk a considerable distance to their building or will be tempted to
find alternative parking that could block driving lanes or interfere with other activities on the site or
perhaps negatively affect adjoining land uses.
The proposed development is being brought forward as a PUD in order to allow several principal
buildings to be constructed on one site. If the developer were required to plat each building separately, all
7
required parking would need to be located on the building site, which would be very difficult to achieve
due to the site design. However, staff recognizes that the lot configuration is limits alternative options.
While the PUD can grant some flexibility from this standard, staff is recommending review of the project
once some of the buildings have been constructed in order to identify any issues that may be occurring
because of the parking limitations.
Since parking and access to parking continues to be a concern with the project, staff is recommending that
the City’s approval of the PUD specify that the project is approved for six buildings and the office at this
time, and that the parking situation must be evaluated before a seventh building could be constructed.
Under the project phases as proposed by the developer, it would make sense to perform this evaluation
after Phase 3 and before the project could proceed to Phase 4. Staff is therefore recommending that a
parking analysis and study be performed after the third phase and prior to approval of the fourth phase. If
parking for phases one through three is found to be inadequate, the developer will need to revise his plans
to eliminate one of the remaining buildings. Given its location in the middle of the project area and in an
area most restricted for parking, Staff is recommending that the Phase 5 building (building #4 on the site
plans) be identified as the building for removal if the parking analysis identifies a parking shortage on the
premises.
Pedestrian Circulation/Sidewalks
As noted above, the applicant has revised the plan so that all sidewalks in front of parking areas will be at
least 6.5 feet in width. Staff’s initial concern with the sidewalks as originally proposed was that they were
only 5 feet wide and would be obstructed by any vehicles overhanging the curb line next to the sidewalk.
The updated plans address this concern by adding additional depth to all walking paths. The revised plan
also includes some additional connections running east and west through the project site in order to
promote the use of parking areas that would otherwise be more difficult to access without a paved
walkway. Staff’s original comments suggested that there be at least four feet of separation between any
parking area and sidewalk; however, the applicant has stated that removing an additional eight feet of non-
buildable area (four feet on both sides of the project area) would greatly reduce the development potential
of an already constrained lot. With the additional pedestrian connections and additional sidewalk width
along parking areas, staff has found that the updated plans should provide adequately for the interior
movement of pedestrians within the site.
Where feasible, staff is recommending that the sidewalks be moved back at least four feet from parking
and driving areas in order to address one of the City’s earlier review comments. The opportunities for
achieving this setback will generally be limited to the areas between buildings five and six and north of
building seven. Staff is also concerned about the corner of building one extending right to the sidewalk,
and is recommending a condition of approval to add at least two feet of separation between the building
an sidewalk.
Traffic
In response to the concerns identified in the previous staff memorandum and to address comments and
questions from the public hearing, the City Engineer asked WSB (the City’s consulting traffic engineer) to
conduct a traffic impact analysis for the project. This report is attached for consideration by the Planning
Commission, and includes an evaluation of 145th Street West, the estimated trip generation from the
project, peak hour trips, and turning movements from the site. In general this report notes that the
anticipated traffic from the site will not overburden 145th Street and specifically that the “projected total
traffic volumes on 145th Street are well within the typical acceptable traffic volume capacity of a 2-lane
urban street of less than 10,000 vehicles per day”. The engineer does identify some recommended
modifications entrance into the site in order to add additional queuing capacity for vehicles waiting to turn
on to 145th Street from the development. Staff is recommending a condition of approval that requires the
applicant to update the plans to add the requested additional stacking space.
8
Exterior Building Materials and Massing
In response to the preliminary staff comments, the applicant has revised the design of the back side of the
buildings by adding a slight articulation to the middle portion of the rear façade. The overall width of the
rest of each building was reduced by 2 feet, which lowers the overall area of the structures. As a final
design change, the applicant has modified four of the two-bedroom units so that they will be able to access
a private deck/patio area in the rear of the building. The original design as proposed by the applicant
remains otherwise unchanged from the earlier plans. The applicant has not updated the proposed design
of the office/caretaker’s residence.
One of the requirements of a Planned Unit Development is to encourage “high quality of design and
design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned”. While the front of
the building does incorporate a mix of “LP Smartside” composite siding and natural stone with along with
some vertical design elements, the sides and rear of the structures are limited to composite siding only.
The backs of the buildings do include some vertical elements and decks with a slight articulation of the
middle portion of the structure, but with no variation in materials or higher quality materials. As
proposed, the building design would fall short of the City’s design requirements for non-single family
structures and other recent multi-family and townhouse planned developments.
Because the development is being submitted as a PUD, staff is recommending that the City require a
certain percentage of the apartment buildings and office building to be brick or natural stone and limit the
overall percentage of lap siding to no more than 60% of the structure, not including windows and doors.
Staff would like to see brick or natural stone included on the front and sides of the buildings directed
toward neighborhood views, and the enhancement should be distributed throughout the building
elevations. The updated design requirements will help ensure that the planned development does not
detract from the surrounding land uses or nearby downtown. This design requirement will also help off-
set the visual impact of the proposed garages, which by design are limited in their ability to make use of
different materials and design.
Trash Enclosure
The plans supplied by the applicant indicate that dumpsters will be located adjacent or in-between the
garages on the site. The Fire Marshall has noted that there are some fire separation requirements that will
need to be met by the developer in order to place the dumpsters in the locations proposed. All dumpsters
will need to be enclosed in a manner consistent with the City Code.
Landscaping and Tree Preservation
The landscape plan has been updated and now includes 151 overstory trees, up from the 90 in the original
plans, but still short of the 241 needed to meet the minimum requirements of the landscape ordinance.
Many of these new trees were added to the property setback area between the project site and the
Rosewood Village Addition or placed on the back sides of the garages on the western portion of the site.
Overall, the plan has been brought closer to compliance with the City’s requirements, however, staff
believes that there is still room for additional plantings and there is no compelling reason for the City to
grant any deviations from the ordinance landscaping requirements. Staff is recommending that approval
of the PUD be contingent upon the developer submitting a landscape plan that provides for all 241 over
story trees as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The landscape plan would be part of the Final Site and
Building Plan approval which is required before any work can commence on the property.
The landscape plan stills denotes that the developer will be removing 196 caliper inches of existing
vegetation beyond the threshold for removal without replacement being required. Because of the amount
of landscaping required for the site, staff would support the applicant pay in lieu of planting for the trees,
if reasonable locations on site cannot be found. The cost per tree is $300 and therefore the applicant
would be required to pay $11,700.
9
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 and updated on November 17,
2016. The applicant has provided updated storm water and utility plans for review, and there will likely be
final modifications needed to address the City Engineer’s previous concerns. However, staff does not
anticipate needed changes to the stormwater plan will result in significant alterations to the site plan and
project design.
Parks and Open Space
There are no changes to Staff’s original recommendation that the developer be required to pay a fee in lieu
of park land for the project. This fee was estimated at $792,200 based on the City’s current fee schedule.
The applicant is proposing a private playground area on the preliminary site plan; a specific plan for this
area (i.e. type of equipment and structures to be used and location of said facilities) should be incorporated
in the final development plans for the project. Staff is recommending that the construction of the
playground area occur no later than the fourth phase of the development.
Phasing Plan
One of the requirements for a PUD is that the application materials include a specific phasing plan for any
project that will not be constructed at one time. The applicant has prepared a separate phasing plan that
breaks the project up into seven distinct stages, starting with construction of the northernmost building
and office, and then proceeding south with the construction of adjacent buildings. He intends to
construct one apartment building each year, so the anticipated build-out for the entire project is expected
to be at approximately seven years. A final phasing plan should be submitted that addresses detailed
installation per phase including landscaping, fencing and utilities. Each phase will be required to install 2
parking stalls per unit in order to assess parking impacts as development on site occurs.
Emergency Vehicle Access
When the Rosewood Village Third Addition was platted in 2010, the City’s approval included several
conditions related to an emergency only vehicle access that was planned to connect across the railroad
spur and into the applicant’s site (Lot 1, Block 2 of Rosewood Village 3rd Addition). By that time, the City
has already reviewed and approved a concept plan for the applicant’s site, so the City was interested in
ensuring that both developments functioned property from an access and emergency response perspective.
The Rosewood Village 3rd final plat conditions included specific requirements for the design of the
emergency access only connection as follow:
Future development of Lot 1, Block 2, Rosewood Village 3rd Addition consistent with the
approved Rosewood Commons concept plan will require a comprehensive plan amendment, re-
zoning and connection to the auxiliary fire apparatus access road proposed for this final plat for
emergency vehicle access.
Conformance with all requirements of the Fire Marshal as outlined in the June 10, 2010 memo,
including extension of an auxiliary fire apparatus access road from the west end of the private cul -
de -sac to the west boundary of Lot 7, Block 1.
All fire apparatus access road surfaces shall be asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface
capable of supporting the imposed load of at least 75,000 pounds.
The width of the street at the circle drive must be increased to a minimum of 20 feet curb to curb
to be in compliance with MNSFC as a fire apparatus access road. The 26 foot width of the street
connecting the circle drive to Boxwood Path is adequate.
10
Fire access roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING FIRE LANE signs complying
with the 2007NNSFC D103.6, posted on both sides of the road. In addition, the applicant shall
label this road on the Grading and Utility plans as "Emergency Vehicle Access Only."
Gates securing the fire apparatus access road shall comply with all of section D103.5 of the 2007
NNSFC.
Because there were several questions raised during the public hearing concerning this access issue, staff has
spent some additional time reviewing the previous platting approvals for the area. Based on this research,
the City has determined the following:
The roads within Rosewood Village 2nd and 3rd Additions are private roads (Boxwood Path and
Lower 147th Court West), but have public drainage and utility easements over these roadways.
Because of these easements, the City retains the right to uses these roads for access in order to
maintain the public utilities serving these neighborhoods.
All building sites are required to maintain access for emergency vehicles regardless of whether the
street serving individual homes or building is publicly or privately owned and maintained.
The Rosewood Village Third Addition PUD approval included specific conditions that an
emergency vehicle access be extended to the railroad spur at the western edge of this development
in order to provide emergency access to Lot 1, Block 2 of this addition (which is part of the
property being proposed for development by the applicant). Removal of this access would be a
violation of the development conditions. Likewise, expanding this access to allow public access
between the neighborhoods would represent a substantial change to the PUD and would not be
permitted.
Private streets in general are still accessible to the public, and as is the case with Rosewood Village,
connect directly into adjacent public streets in the area.
Based on these findings, staff is recommending that the applicant assume all maintenance responsibility for
the emergency access across the railroad spur, including all portions of this access west of the Lower 147th
Court West cul-de-sac (approximately 108 feet east of the apartment site property line). It is also
understood that the Rosewood Village 3rd Addition PUD clearly limits the use of this driveway for
emergency access only, and that this access is need primarily for the benefit of the development occurring
west of the spur. As part of his maintenance responsibility, the applicant will need to adhere to the
conditions specific to the emergency access as listed in the resolution approving Rosewood Village 3rd
Addition, and specifically, the sign requirements.
As presently depicted on the applicant’s site plan, the emergency access will extend through the railroad
spur, but will be marked with striping only for that portion extending through the parking area. Staff is
recommending that the emergency access land be protected with a curb through the parking area until it
reaches the driving land to help avoid potential confusion with the adjacent parking spaces.
The other question that has come up concerning this access is the timing for construction. The first few
buildings that will be constructed on the site will have adequate access to and from 145th Street; therefore,
the developer would like to tie the construction of the emergency access to a later phase of the project.
Staff concurs that the first few buildings may be constructed without this access in place, but that it will
need to be installed after the third building/phase of the project. Staff has drafted a condition of approval
that requires the emergency/gated access to be completed in full in conjunction with the fourth phase.
Other Issues
The City’s parking requirements for multi-family projects do not require that any of the two stalls be in a
11
garage; however, the Planning Commission has previously expressed concern that the parking on the site
will not be maximized if a garage unit is not included with the rent for each unit. Because the plans
provide enough structured parking so that each unit is able to have a garage, staff is recommending a
condition of approval that will require a garage to be included in the rent for each unit. This condition is
intended to help ensure that a significant number of garage stalls do not remain unused because individuals
choose not to pay for a garage or that one rented is able to occupy several garage spaces at one time.
The developer has not yet received a photometric lighting plan back from his consultant. This plan will
need to demonstrate compliance with City’s lighting ordinance for lighting standards and the maximum
intensity of light at neighboring property lines.
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the application for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, PUD Master Development Plan and
Preliminary Plat to allow the construction of an apartment complex with seven two-story buildings and a
leasing office/maintenance building that contains a community room and a three-bedroom caretaker’s unit
subject to the conditions of approval outlined in the recommended action section above.
10PROPOSED UTILITY
EASEMENT 11686060192
EXISTING EASEMENT
(TO BE VACATED)
20
206819296GARAGE 6A
8 STALLS- 963.50
GA
R
A
G
E
2
16 S
T
A
L
L
S
-
9
6
4
.
0
0
BLDG 1-32 UNITS
966.00
BLDG 7-32 UNIT
966.00
BLDG 6-32 UNIT
963.50
BLDG 3-32 UNIT
963.00
BLDG 2-32 UNIT
964.0
BLDG 5-32 UNIT
962.00
BLDG 4-32 UNIT
962.5015LEASING
OFFICE
970.00 16881612011968681111185111131111141119611019112101111711031116810'6820010'68200
6820068
200
200
6
8
20200202020068
68
68
192
192
192
192
192 192202019219220962020202040
20
40
PROPOSED 20'
UTILITY EASEMENT GARAGE 6B8 STALLS- 964.00GARAGE 7
16 STALLS- 963.00
GARAGE 416 STALLS- 962.50GARAGE 3
16 STALLS
-
9
6
3
.
0
0
GA
R
A
G
E
1
16
S
T
A
L
L
S
-
9
6
6
.
0
0 171020102010227.87 10201017.47
2036.44 20106191.221
5
6
.
0
2
195.2820.
0
0
18.25
120202020151141212122
2
192
192
2020702
70702 70702 602 7070
60 270
270
60
702260
70
7022
60 2270 702020Rosewood Crossing
For Review
November 17,2016
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 9
Date: 11/17/2016
0 50 100 150
FILE PATH: C:\Users\Skills\Documents\Projects\Rosemount\Rosewood Commons\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RWCOM-APT.dwg
04/18/16 Revised
SHEET INDEX
1 Site Plan
2 Phasing Plan
3 Preliminary Plat
4 Grading and Erosion Control Plan
5 SWPPP
6 Utility Plan
7 Sanitary Sewer Construction
8 Landscape Plan
9 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 SIDEWALK6.5'4'17.5'8.5'
28'28'28'28'28'28'28'28'28'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: November 17, 2016
09/08/16 Revised
11/08/16 Revised
PARKING
REQUIRED
2 STALLS PER UNIT (225 UNITS)450
PROVIDED
GARAGE STALLS 113
PARKING STALLS 337
TOTAL 450
14'
11/17/16 Revised
121212For Review
November 17,2016
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
Phasing Plan
Registration #: 40175
Rosewood
Crossing
Rosemount, MN
SHEET 2 of 9
Date: 11/17/2016
0 50 100 150
FILE PATH: C:\Users\Skills\Documents\Projects\Rosemount\Rosewood Commons\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RWCOM-APT.dwg
04/18/16 Revised
06/17/16 Revised
07/18/16 Revised
LAST SAVED: November 17, 2016
09/08/16 Revised
PHASE 1
PHASE 3
PHASE 2
PHASE 5
PHASE 4
PHASE 6
PHASE 7
PHASE 3 TEMPORARY LOOPPHASE 6 TEMPORARYLOOP11/17/16 Revised
10962.50959.0011961.30REMOVE EXISTING ENTRACE ANDCONSTRUCT NEW ENTRANCEGARAGE 6A
8 STALLS- 963.50
GA
R
A
G
E
2
16 S
T
A
L
L
S
-
9
6
4
.
0
0HP70.069.2BLDG 1-32 UNITS
966.00
BLDG 7-32 UNIT
966.00
BLDG 6-32 UNIT
963.50
BLDG 3-32 UNIT
963.00
BLDG 2-32 UNIT
964.0965.50964.50BLDG 5-32 UNIT
962.00
BLDG 4-32 UNIT
962.50
963.50963.00961.50962.00961.50959.90960.0015966.50LEASING
OFFICE
970.00 1967.50963.508161119111118511113111114111961101911210111171103111968.50966.70962.00961.50961.00961.00967.00962.50960.50962.00961.00959.60GARAGE 6B8 STALLS- 964.00GARAGE 7
16 STALLS- 963.00
GARAGE 416 STALLS- 962.50GARAGE 3
16 STALLS
-
9
6
3
.
0
0
GA
R
A
G
E
1
16
S
T
A
L
L
S
-
9
6
6
.
0
0 171020'X 75' ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE20102010227.87 10201017.47
2036.44 20106191.221
5
6
.
0
2
1120202020151141212122020 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 4 of 9
Date: 11/17/2016
0 50 100 150
FILE PATH: C:\Users\Skills\Documents\Projects\Rosemount\Rosewood Commons\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RWCOM-APT.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
November 17,2016
LAST SAVED: November 17, 2016
09/08/16 Revised
11/17/16 Revised
10PROPOSED UTILITY
EASEMENT 11686060192
EXISTING EASEMENT
(TO BE VACATED)
20
206
8
19296GARAGE 6A
8 STALLS- 963.50
20'-12" STEEL CASING FOR BORING BOTH
SANITARY AND WATER UNDER RAIL ROAD
GA
R
A
G
E
2
16 S
T
A
L
L
S
-
9
6
4
.
0
0
BLDG 1-32 UNITS
966.00
BLDG 7-32 UNIT
966.00
BLDG 6-32 UNIT
963.50
BLDG 3-32 UNIT
963.00
BLDG 2-32 UNIT
964.0
BLDG 5-32 UNIT
962.00
BLDG 4-32 UNIT
962.5015LEASING
OFFICE
970.00 168816120119686811111851111311111411196110191121011117110311110.0 IN
C
H
P
V
C
PI
P
E
@
0.
2
2
%
10.0
I
N
C
H
P
V
C
P
I
P
E
@
0
.
2
2
%10.0 INCH PVC PIPE @ 0.22%MH3
T=965.56
I=957.41
6810'6820010'68200
6820068
200
200 6820200202020068
68
68
192
192
192
192
192 19220201921922096202020CONNECT INTO EXISTING MANHOLE
2040
20
40
8" C900 PVC
8" C900 PVC8" C900 PVC
8" C900 PVC
PROPOSED 20'
UTILITY EASEMENT
MH1
T=962.00
I=956.12GARAGE 6B8 STALLS- 964.00GARAGE 7
16 STALLS- 963.00
GARAGE 416 STALLS- 962.50GARAGE 3
16 STALLS
-
9
6
3
.
0
0
GA
R
A
G
E
1
16 S
T
A
L
L
S
-
9
6
6
.
0
0
CONNECT TO EXISTING 8" WATER
EX-MH
T=967.20
I=955.37
CONNECT TO EXISTING 8" WATER
171020102010227.87 10201017.47
2036.44 20106191.221
5
6
.
0
2
195.2820.
0
0
18.25
1MH2
T=963.04
I=956.68 20202020151141212122
2
192
192
2020702
70702 70702 602 7070
60 270
270
60
702260
70
7022
60 2270 702020 8
"
C
9
0
0
P
V
C8" C900 PVCI 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 6 of 9
Date: 11/17/2016
0 50 100 150
FILE PATH: C:\Users\Skills\Documents\Projects\Rosemount\Rosewood Commons\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RWCOM-APT.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
November 17,2016
LAST SAVED: November 17, 2016
09/08/16 Revised
11/17/16 Revised
3XA14DECORATIVE FENCE1911858915171324XX6X127XXXXXAMAXMMAALLLLAX11DECORATIVE FENCEXX16XX10MMDECORATIVE FENCE10
20102010
10201020
2010^ϴϵΣϯϯΖϬϮΗt40.00EϬϬΣϮϱΖϰϰΗ 55.00EϬϬΣϮϱΖϰϰΗ 55.00^ϴϵΣϯϯΖϬϮΗt40.00
LAMAM2
0
202020
LAMAMAALMMMMMAALLAALLLLMMAALMLMAALAMDECORATIVE FENCEDECORATIVE FENCE12 1212L
MMLLLALLLMMMLLAALMMMMM20
20POLY LANDSCAPING EDGETYPICAL BUILDING LANDSCAPING(NOT TO SCALE)BUILDINGMULCH BEDSIDEWALK105- SHRUBS SPACED 30" ON CENTERSODI 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 8 of 9Date: 11/17/2016050100150FILE PATH: C:\Users\Skills\Documents\Projects\Rosemount\Rosewood Commons\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RWCOM-APT.dwgX963 EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING TREE AND TAG NUMBER963 COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE (57 TREES)NOTES:* CONIFEROUS TREES STAGGERED WITH15' SPACING* DECIDUOUS TREES-20' SPACING* SHRUBS TO BE PLANTED IN FRONT OFALL BLDGS*DECORATIVE FENCE TO BE JERITH EP-1OR EQUIVALENT1/3 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 (32 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 (30 TREES)MAPLE (32 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: November 17, 2016DECORATIVE FENCE07/18/16RevisedPOST CONSTRUCTION TREE INVENTORYFor ReviewNovember 17,2016 LAST SAVED: November 17, 201609/08/16Revised11/08/16Revised11/17/16Revised
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
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 STONE
ASPHALT SHINGLES
LP SMARTSIDE
LP SMARTSIDELP SMARTSIDELP SMARTSIDE LP SMARTSIDESTONE STONE
LP SMARTSIDE
ASPHALT SHINGLES
LP SMARTSIDE
ASPHALT SHINGLES
LP SMARTSIDE
ASPHALT 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
2&
$'&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)65655)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)
5)5)5)2&
5)
Á
5)
Á
5)
ÁÁ
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
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
ÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁ
Á
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
5)
Á
5)
Á
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁ
Á
Á
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
Á
Á
Á
Á
Á
Á
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁ
Á
Á
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
Á
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁ$'&411/ÁÁÁ
Á
Á
ÁÁÁÁ$'&411/ÁÁ
$'&411/
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ-+6%*'0
ÁÁ$#6*
$#6*$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
-+6%*'0-+6%*'0
$#6*
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
$#6*
-+6%*'0
-+6%*'0
$#6*$#6*Á-+6%*'0
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ$'&411/
$'&411/Á$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/
$'&411/
$'&411/
$'&411/
$'&411/
$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/
$#6*
$#6*
-+6%*'0
-+6%*'0
$#6*
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*$#6*
$#6*
$#6*
-+6%*'0-+6%*'0 -+6%*'0
-+6%*'0
$#6*
$#6*ÁÁ
Á
Á
$'&411/ÁÁÁ$#6*
$#6*
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁ
2&2&
:
2#6+1
:
2#6+1
:
2#6+1
:
2#6+1
6565ÁÁ
(+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
FLOOR
2&
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
5614#)'
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
.#70&4;
5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)
5)5)5)2&
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
$'&411/
70+6
53(6
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
5)
Á
5)
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁ
Á
Á
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁ$'&411/ÁÁÁ
Á
Á
ÁÁÁÁ$'&411/ÁÁ
$'&411/
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Á
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ-+6%*'0ÁÁ
$#6*
$#6*$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
-+6%*'0-+6%*'0
$#6*
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
$#6*
-+6%*'0
-+6%*'0
$#6*$#6*Á-+6%*'0
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ$'&411/
$'&411/Á$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/
$'&411/
$'&411/
$'&411/
$'&411/
$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/
$#6*
$#6*
-+6%*'0
-+6%*'0
$#6*
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*
-+6%*'0
$#6*$#6*
$#6*
$#6*
-+6%*'0-+6%*'0 -+6%*'0
-+6%*'0
$#6*
$#6*ÁÁ
Á
Á
$'&411/ÁÁÁ$#6*
$#6*
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
ÁÁÁ
2&2&2&:
&'%-
:
&'%-
:
&'%-
:
&'%-65656565ÁÁÁ
5'%10&(.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: October 25, 2016
Tentative City Council Meeting: December 6, 2016
AGENDA ITEM: Planned Unit Development Master Plan
with Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and Zoning Map Amendment
AGENDA SECTION:
Public Notice
PREPARED BY: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner
Anthony Nemcek, Planner AGENDA NO. 5.a.
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
3/20/07 City Council Commission
Meeting; City Engineer’s Memorandum
dated 10/22/16; City Fire Marshall
Memorandum dated 10/12/16; City Park
& Rec Director’s Memorandum dated
10/12/16; City Engineer’s Memorandum
dated 9/20/16; Stormwater Memorandum
dated 9/15/16; Letter from Eric and Heidi
Larson, Questions and Staff Response
from Jeremy Oliver
APPROVED BY: K.L.
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 is requesting 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
redraw the drainage and utility easements on the site. The apartment complex is proposed south of 145th
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
3
split. In addition to the surface parking, the applicant is proposing to construct several garage buildings, all
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
5
proposes ten foot drainage and utility easements along the edges of the site not including Outlot A. The
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
6
buildings and any property lines. All apartment buildings will maintain a minimum setback of 20 feet from
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
7
residential private drives; it is the location of the parking stalls with drive that make the
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
8
of traffic on this portion of 145th Street will be less than currently exists on 145th Street, west of South
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
9
There are a number of trees that will be removed while the site is developed. The applicant’s tree
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.
Public Hearing Questions and Response
Planning Case 16-35-SP: Rosewood Crossing Apartments
11/22/16 Planning Commission Meeting Attachment
The following are some of the specific questions received during the public hearing conducted on
October 25, 2016 concerning the Copperhead Development (Warren Israelson) Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, Preliminary PUD Master Plan with Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat associated with a 225
unit apartment development located along 145th Street West in Rosemount. Each question is shown in
bold and the Staff response follows each.
What is the area of each individual parcel within the development? The northern parcel (Greif
Addition) is 4.63 acres while the southern parcel (Rosewood Village 3rd) is 7.62 acres.
Does the City consider all stakeholders from their perspective before making a decision on a request?
The City is required to hold a public hearing on certain land use requests, and this process is intended to
allow neighboring property owners to comment on more significant applications that are expected to
impact a wider area. The Planning Commission weighs any public feedback as part of its decision
making process.
Can the project include more permanent fencing to restrict people from climbing over? The updated
plans include a decorative fence that will extend from 145th street to the last garage on the southern
portion of the site. Planning staff is not recommending extending the fence beyond this point due to
the location of a storm water retention pond in this area and the large distance between the parking
area and railroad spur. Staff has informed the developer that the fence should be a wrought iron or
another non-climbable design. Final details for the fence will be submitted with final PUD plans.
Why change the previous zoning that was established for this area? Landowner’s have the ability to
request changes to the future land use or zoning of their property. These types of decisions typically are
made either as part of a broader City-wide planning effort or are submitted in conjunction with a
specific development plan. The City will generally not make changes to a specific site or parcel without
plans showing how the property will be used. Land use and zoning changes are considered legislative,
meaning the City has fairly broad discretion when approving or denying these types of requests. In this
case, the proposed development site presents some very unique challenges, and the City has previously
approved a concept plan for high density residential on the site.
How visible will lighting be from Rosewood Village? All new development must conform to the City’s
lighting ordinance, which restricts the amount of light than can spill over on to an adjacent property. All
lighting must also be shielded or directed away from residential uses.
How tall will the proposed structures be? For purposes of determining compliance with the zoning
ordinance, the each building will be 24 feet high. The peak of the roofs will be 30 feet above the
adjacent ground level.
Can the City stipulate that Lower 147th Court West never be used as a public access? Will the
emergency only access be opened at some point in the future? Lower 147th Court West is a private
street with drainage and utility easements over the road to provide access for the public utilities serving
this neighborhood. The approval for Rosewood Village 3rd Addition required the construction of an
emergency vehicle access across the rail spur, which would not allow the opening of this crossing for
public access without an amendment to these plans. Because these roads are not public, the City does
not have an interest in assuming any responsibility for these roads.
Can the emergency access cross part of the parking area? No – the previous plans included a conflict in
this area. The revised plans show an areas marked with special striping to delineate the emergency
access lane. Staff is further recommending that the emergency access be separated from the general
parking area by a curb.
If the site is developed in stages, will a fence be built now or later? The staff review of the revised
plans includes a condition that the fence be installed with each project phase. The northern one-third of
the fence would be installed with the first phase.
How will traffic backing up at the railroad crossing be addressed? Please see the traffic study
performed by WSB Engineering and dated November 17, 2016. This report requires the developer to
add additional stacking depth at the 145th Street entrance to allow for the queuing of cars on to 145th
Street. The additional stacking capacity will also help ensure the free flow of cars trying to make a right
turn out of the site during these times.
How will future traffic increase be addressed? The City’s Comprehensive Plan includes a specific
section concerning transportation. The future land use map is used as the basis for determining future
traffic levels throughout the City (and improvements needed to accommodate this traffic). The model
used for these projections looks at the City as a whole and also takes into account background and
regional factors that will impact each roadway. The proposed land use amendment would not
significantly alter the City’s previous information. The WSB traffic study discusses the current and future
projections for traffic on 145th Street.
What kind of lighting will be on the site? The developer has yet to identify a specific lighting standard
for the site, but the development plans indicate that there will be exterior lights on the buildings and
freestanding light poles spaced throughout the parking areas. All lighting will need to be down-lighting
or directed away from residential areas.
How will noise impacts be addressed? Has there been a sound study conducted? The project is not
required to complete a sound study under the State’s environmental rules. The developer is being
encouraged (but not required) to use sound mitigation strategies in the construction of each building.
Are there other options for the site? The site is presently guided for business park (office and limited
commercial/manufacturing) and medium density residential uses. Other uses would require an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is requesting such a change to allow high density
housing on the entire site. The City must approve land uses on the property that are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and that comply with the underlying zoning regulations.
Were the school district impacts considered and were they consulted on the project? Is there capacity
in the school system to handle the additional students? The school district is required to review any
changes to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The school bases its facility needs on the plans within each
community it serves. The proposed plan amendment would not significantly alter precious population
and household projections in the City.
Who will maintain Lower 147th Court West (i.e. for snowplowing and road patching)? Lower 147th
Court West is a private street and is maintained by the private home owner’s association. The City will
require the developer to assume all maintenance responsibility for the emergency vehicle access that
crosses the railroad supr.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 22, 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. Typical cross section and pavement sections should be provided for the drive and parking
areas.
3. Rock construction is required at the site entrance and should be shown on the erosion
control plan.
4. 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.
5. 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:
6. All required agreements with the railroad for the utility crossings should be secured by the
developer.
7. Developer is responsible for obtaining a MPCA Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit for the
connection to the City’s sanitary sewer system.
8. Watermain is required to be DIP CL 52.
9. Utility construction shall be in conformance with the City General Specifications and
Standard Detail Plates.
10. Hydrant spacing should be approved by the Fire Marshal.
STORMWATER COMMENTS:
11. 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.
12. Minimum storm sewer pipe size is 15” diameter.
13. Two-foot sump catch basins are required for CB2, CBMH 5, CBMH 9
14. It is recommended catch basins are placed in the curb line to collect drainage. Some are
shown in the parking stalls and drive lanes.
15. Additional spot elevations should be added for green areas and top of curb and gutter
elevations to clearly show drainage.
16. 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.
17. 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:
18. A traffic review has been completed by WSB & Associates. The traffic review memo is
attached.
19. Sight distances have been reviewed for both left and right turn lanes on to 145th Street. In
both cases, there is adequate sight distances for the turning movements.
20. The developer should demonstrate adequate stacking/queuing length is available internal to
the site for the left and right turn lanes on to 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 = [/ / /] [ ][. /][ / ][/]
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
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.
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 = [/ / /] [ ][. /][ / ][/]
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
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