No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.a. Planned Unit Development Master Plan with Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning Map Amendment, and Preliminary Plat for a 225-unit apartment complex EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council Regular Meeting: December 20, 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 for a 225-unit apartment complex. AGENDA SECTION: New Business PREPARED BY: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner AGENDA NO. 9.a. ATTACHMENTS: Site Location Map; Comprehensive Plan Resolution, Preliminary Plat Resolution, PUD Master Plan Resolution, Ordinance Rezoning to R4-PUD, Rosewood Crossing PUD Agreement, Except of Minutes from 11/22/16 Commission Meeting, Staff Report and Minutes from 10/25/16 Planning Commission Meeting 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; Photometric Plan; 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 9/12/2016; 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: ddj RECOMMENDED ACTION: Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council approve the following three motions: 1) Motion to adopt a Resolution approving 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 adopt a Resolution approving the Preliminary Plat for Rosewood Crossing previously known as Rosewood Commons 2 3) Motion to adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance B, the City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance rezoning the Lot 1 Block 1 Greif Addition and Lot 1 Block 2 Rosewood Village 3rd Addition from PB Business Park and R1 Low Density Residential to R4 PUD High Density Residential PUD 4) Motion to approve a resolution approving the PUD Master Development Plan with Rezoning for Rosewood Crossing previously known as Rosewood Commons, a 225-unit apartment project, with conditions. 5) Motion to approve the Planned Unit Development Agreement for Rosewood Crossing, a 225-unit apartment complex and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into this agreement SUMMARY The City Council is being asked to consider a request by Warren Israelson (Copperhead Development, Inc.) to construct an apartment complex consisting of 225 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 rezoning from BP-Business Park and R1-Low Density Residential to R4-High Density Residential Planned Unit Development and master development plan approval. The proposal also requires re-guiding 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 re-subdividing in order to create lots for the common areas and proposed buildings separately and to redraw the drainage and utility easements on the site. Final site and building plan approval is also required as part of the PUD process which is not part of the current application and will be processed in the future. Many of the recommended conditions of approval note items that must be detailed as part of the site and building plan review and approval process. The apartment complex is proposed south of 145th Street West between the railroad and El Dorado Packaging (formerly Greif Brothers). 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 PLANNING COMMISSION Planning Commission October 25, 2016 The Planning Commission reviewed the application and conducted a public hearing on this matter at its October 25, 2016 meeting with a recommendation to continue the item. Continuance was recommended to address six identified issues: 1) Provide a minimum of at least four additional feet within the interior driving lanes for a total driving width of 28’. 3 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 and 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 October Staff has attached a document to this report with answers to the specific questions that were raised during the first public hearing in October along with the minutes. During the meeting the Commission members discussed parking, traffic and landscaping. There were concerns mentioned about safety and the location of the rail to the residential development and the question as to whether additional screening should be added. The residents that spoke expressed concern about introduction of a multi-family high density project in the neighborhood. Several members of the public indicated they did not support any residential on the site and felt Business Park or some type of governmental use would be more appropriate. There were numerous concerns about traffic both negatively affecting 145th Street and also concern about the connection to Lower 147th Street. Neighbors were interested in more landscape screening, had questions about site lighting, and concern about the rental nature of the project and potential impacts on the value of their homes. Planning Commission November 22, 2016 At the November 22, revised plans were reviewed that addressed several of the items noted above. The main issue was reduction in the total number of units from 232 units to 225 units by omitting one unit from each building. Additional parking was added and the main drive aisle increased in width. The following itemizes the changes made to the plans between the first and second Commission meeting and are reflected in the plans currently before the Council: • 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 4 marked separate from adjacent parking stalls. • A decorative fence is proposed along the western railroad right-of-way that will tie into each garage 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 City Council 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 similar to the plans presented in October. Each of the buildings had been shifted slightly in order to provide room for the expanded driving lanes and wider sidewalks throughout the project area. Public Hearing November At the Commission meeting in November revised plans were reviewed and the public hearing continued. The modifications to the plans were noted above but generally dealt with the parking concerns. The Assistant City Engineer spoke to the issues of traffic generation, sight distances and impact of more traffic on 145th Street. He noted the traffic study conducted since the last Commission meeting. The Commission discussed the building layout and an interest to shift buildings providing more space on site and more closely aligning buildings with specific parking areas. The Commission also discussed numerous aspects of the development phasing, including questions about when parking, landscaping, emergency access and a temporary access would be constructed in recognition that the project was projected to have a seven year build-out. Four residents and the applicant spoke during the public hearing. Several asked that the property not be rezoned from a Business Park use. They also expressed reservations about seven years of construction and the impact on the existing neighborhood and the future residents of the apartment. Commissioners expressed some reservations about the project relating to the amount of trees provided, and the lack of fencing in areas adjoining the rail spur. It was determined that during the next phase of approval for the project, the site and building plan approval, specifics about the construction phasing will be needed. Additionally, better details on the landscaping, building materials, and sidewalk location, fence detailing and playground design are also required. To address the concerns about the parking availability, the Commission supported a condition that approves 6 buildings and 193 dwelling units. Final approval of the seventh apartment building is subject to a parking study to be approved by the City Council after construction of the third building in development phase three. This will allow the City to more adequately gauge the parking demand, and potential impact of that demand on how the site operates and if there are impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. The five Commissioners in attendance unanimously recommended approval of the project. ISSUE ANALYSIS – UPDATED INFORMATION With the submission of updated information, below are comments relating to the revised submittal that is before the Council. The initial analysis is found in the October 25, Planning Commission staff report. Preliminary Plat The preliminary plat will combine the two properties and create lots for individual buildings and common open space. At this time only preliminary plat approval is requested. 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 5 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 phase. Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with Rezoning The plans have been revised to lower the overall number of apartment dwelling units to 225 (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 plan) 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%) 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 The Plan before the Council includes 53 more parking spaces than initially proposed by the applicant and reviewed by the Commission in October. That means the number of parking spaces between the garage structures and outside surface areas is 450 stalls. Most of the additional parking has been accommodated by extending perpendicular parking along both sides of the access lane 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 standard 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 likely would not be used by apartment residents or guests unless they are at the meeting space no other parking alternatives exist. 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 450 parking space total. Initially, staff and Commission had expressed reservations about the drive aisle width throughout the project area. The access road is now 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 within 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 any car 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 6 feet. This will allow for a 5 foot sidewalk after the overhang which is consistent with the City policy for five 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. For comparison purposes, 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 required parking would need to be located on the building site, which would be very difficult to achieve with this plan, due to the site design. However, staff recognizes that the lot configuration limits alternative options. While the PUD can grant some flexibility from this standard, staff is recommending City Council review of the project once some of the buildings have been constructed in order to identify any issues that might occur because of the parking demand. 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 seven buildings and the office subject to City Council review of the parking situation 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 and approved by the City Council after the third phase and prior to building permit approval of the fourth phase. If parking for phases one through three is found to be inadequate by the City Council, the developer will need to revise his plans to eliminate one of the remaining buildings, freeing up parking for the ultimate 6-building development. 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 their 5 foot width which would be obstructed by vehicles overhanging the curb line next to the sidewalk. The current plan addresses this concern by adding additional depth to all walking paths. The 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. Given the amount of space taken by cars parking, staff is recommending the sidewalks adjacent to parking areas be 7 feet in width. This will allow a 5 foot walking area with a car overhang of 2 feet. 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 7 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 engineer) to conduct a traffic impact analysis for the project. This report is attached for consideration and includes an evaluation of 145th Street West (a designated collector road), 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 to the site entrance 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. Exterior Building Materials and Massing In response to the preliminary staff comments, the applicant revised the design of the back side of the apartments 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 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. There have been no changes to 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 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 in the central 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 a certain percentage of the apartments 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 functional 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 8 The landscape plan 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 indicates that the developer will be removing 196 caliper inches of existing vegetation beyond the threshold for removal without replacement being required. Because of the 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. E ngineering, 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 The developer is being asked 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 site and building 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, City 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 had already reviewed and approved a concept plan for the applicant’s site, so the City was interested in ensuring that 9 both developments functioned properly 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 follows: • 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. • 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 conditions of approval. Likewise, changing the emergency access to provide full public access between the neighborhoods would represent a substantial change to the PUD and is currently not permitted by the approval. • 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 the 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 limits the use of the driveway for emergency access only, and that the access is needed 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. 10 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 lane 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. It is estimated that the first few buildings 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 the emergency access in place. Staff anticipates that the emergency access 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 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 renter is able to occupy several garage spaces at one time. The developer has submitted a photometric lighting plan from his consultant. This plan demonstrates compliance with City’s lighting ordinance for lighting standards and the maximum intensity of light at neighboring property lines. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends 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. Apartment Complex Property Information Se pte mber 12, 2016 0 450 900225 ft 0 130 26065 m 1:4,800 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. City of Rosemount Ordinance No. B- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B, THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE REZONING THE ROSEWOOD CROSSING SITE FROM BP-BUSINESS PARK and R1-LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO R4 PUD – HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance B, adopted September 19, 1989, entitled “City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance,” is hereby amended to rezone property from BP-Business Park and R1-Low Density Residential TO R4 PUD – High Density Residential Planned Unit Development that is located south of 145th Street West & east of the rail road tracks, legally described as follows: LOT 1, BLOCK 1; GREIF ADDITION, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AND LOT 1, BLOCK 2; ROSEWOOD VILLAGE 3RD ADDITION, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. Section 2. The Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount, referred to and described in said Ordinance No. B as that certain map entitled “Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount,” shall not be republished to show the aforesaid rezoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the said zoning map on file in the Clerk’s office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this Ordinance and all of the notation references and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made part of this Ordinance. Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. ENACTED AND ORDAINED into an Ordinance this 20th day of December, 2016. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Clarissa Hadler City Clerk CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2016 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF ROSEWOOD COMMONS WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from Copperhead Development Inc. and Warren Israelson. requesting a comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use designation of the property located legally described as follows: Lot 1 Block 1 of the Greif Addition Together with: Lot 1 Block 2 of the Rosewood Village 3rd Addition WHEREAS, on November 22, 2016, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public hearing and reviewed the Comprehensive Plan amendment changing the future 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; and WHEREAS, on November 22, 2016, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan changing the land use designation 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; and WHEREAS, on December 20, 2016, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed and agreed with the Planning Commission’s recommendations; and. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan changing the land use designation for 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, subject to the approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the Metropolitan Council ADOPTED this 20th day of December, 2016 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. __________________________________________ William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Clarissa Hadler, City Clerk CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2016 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ROSEWOOD COMMONS WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount received a request for Preliminary Plat approval from Copperhead Development Inc. and Warren Israelson concerning property legally described as: Lot 1 Block 1 of the Greif Addition Together with: Lot 1 Block 2 of the Rosewood Village 3rd Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, on November 22, 2016, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public hearing and reviewed the Preliminary Plat for Rosewood Commons; and WHEREAS, on November 22, 2016, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat for Rosewood Commons, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on December 20, 2016, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission’s recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Preliminary Plat for Rosewood Commons, 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. 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 ADOPTED this 20th day of December, 2016, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. __________________________________________ William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Clarissa Hadler, City Clerk CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2016 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH REZONING FOR ROSEWOOD COMMONS WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from Copperhead Development Inc. and Warren Israelson requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Development Plan with Rezoning concerning property legally described as: Lot 1 Block 1 of the Greif Addition Together with: Lot 1 Block 2 of the Rosewood Village 3rd Addition; Dakota County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, on November 22, 2016, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public hearing and reviewed the PUD Master Development Plan; and WHEREAS, on November 22, 2016, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD Master Development Plan, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on December 20, 2016, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission’s recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves 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) The preliminary development plans are approved for no more than seven apartment buildings and 225 dwelling units. However, final approval for a seventh apartment building (32 additional units) is subject to completion of a parking study after construction of the third apartment building in development phase three. If the City Council 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 Council determines that there is a parking shortage, the preliminary plans will be amended to eliminate a building, anticipated as building number three (Phase 5) from the plans. d) A deviation from City Code Section 11-6-1H to allow the office and public gathering space to share parking otherwise required for the apartment use. e) Payment in lieu of replacement trees up to $11,700 should there be no additional reasonable locations for tree plantings. f) The developer shall consider the use of sound insulating materials for portions of any buildings that will be facing the railroad right-of-way. RESOLUTION 2016- 2 g) 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. h) 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. i) 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. j) Provision of contact information for the caretaker or other responsible party in the absence of a caretaker must be submitted to the city. k) The applicant is responsible for reconstruction of shared access drive with El Dorado Packaging and all costs associated with this construction. l) 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). m) Entry monuments shall be subject to sign permits and normal zoning standards. Appropriate sight distances must be maintained. n) The applicant shall obtain final site and building plan approval from the City prior to any site work or issuance of building permit. 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 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. RESOLUTION 2016- 3 • A Final Phasing Plan that addresses installation of landscaping, paving, utilities, and parking. A temporary turn-around shall be provided on the site prior to the construction of the second or any subsequent apartment buildings. 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. • 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. • A lighting plan that includes details about parking lot lighting standards and a photometric plan which conforms to the City’s lighting ordinance. ADOPTED this 20th day of December, 2016, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. __________________________________________ William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Clarissa Hadler, City Clerk 1 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS ROSEWOOD CROSSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DECLARATION made this ______ day of _________________, 2016, by the Copperhead Development, Incorporated (hereinafter referred to as the “Declarant”); WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of the real property as described on Attachment One, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is subject to certain zoning and land use restrictions imposed by the City of Rosemount (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) in connection with the approval of an application for a master development plan planned unit development for a residential development on the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, the City has approved such development on the basis of the determination by the City Council of the City that such development is acceptable only by reason of the details of the development proposed and the unique land use characteristics of the proposed use of the Subject Property; and that but for the details of the development proposed and the unique land use characteristics of such proposed use, the master development plan planned unit development would not have been approved; and 2 WHEREAS, as a condition of approval of the planned unit development, the City has required the execution and filing of this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (hereinafter the “Declaration”); and WHEREAS, to secure the benefits and advantages of approval of such planned unit development, Declarant desires to subject the Subject Property to the terms hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, the Declarant declares that the Subject Property is, and shall be, held, transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, hereinafter set forth. 1. The use and development of the Subject Property shall conform to the following documents, plans and drawings: a. City Resolution No. 2016-, Attachment Two b. Site Plan (Dated 11/17/2016), Attachment Three c. Exterior Elevations, Attachments Four and Five d. Garage Plan, Attachment Six e. First Floor Plan, Attachment Seven f. Second Floor Plan, Attachment Eight g. Grading and Erosion Control Plan, Attachment Nine h. Utility Plan, Attachment Ten i. Landscape Plan, Attachment Eleven j. Lighting Plan, Attachment Twelve all of which attachments are copies of original documents on file with the City and are made a part hereof. 2. The Subject Property may only be developed and used in accordance with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Declaration unless the owner first secures approval by the City Council 3 of an amendment to the planned unit development plan or a rezoning to a zoning classification that permits such other development and use. 3. In connection with the approval of development of the Subject Property, the following deviation from City Zoning or Subdivision Code provisions were approved: a. Section 11-6-1. H Off Street Parking Required: The office and public gathering space may share parking otherwise required for apartment use. In all other respects the use and development of the Subject Property shall conform to the requirements of the Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Declaration and the City Code of Ordinances. 4. The obligations and restrictions of this Declaration run with the land of the Subject Property and shall be enforceable against the Declarant, its successors and assigns, by the City of Rosemount acting through its City Council. This Declaration may be amended from time to time by a written amendment executed by the City and the owner or owners of the lot to be affected by said amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned as duly authorized agents, officers or representatives of Declarant have hereunto set their hands and seals as of the day and year first above written. DECLARANT Copperhead Development, Incorporated By Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF __________ ) 4 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of _________, 2014, by _____________________, the _________________, for and on behalf of _________________________, a ____________________, by and on behalf of said _______________________. _______________________________ Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 2875 145TH STREET WEST ROSEMOUNT, MN 55068 651-423-4411 EXCERPT OF DRAFT MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 2016 5.a. Request by Copperhead Development Inc. and Warren Iraelson for a preliminary plat, site plan review with rezoning and reguiding, and final plat to construct a development named Rosewood Commons that would consist of 232 multi-family units. Rezoning the property from BP: Business Park and R-1: Low Density Residential to R4: High Density Residential Planned Unit Development. (16-35-SP). Senior Planner Klatt gave a brief summary of the staff report and reviewed the changes that have been made to the project since the last meeting. He noted that the item was continued from the October meeting and pointed out that answers to the questions from last meeting were in the staff report and available for the public. Engineer Hatcher gave a brief summary on the traffic review memo prepared with WSB Engineering. Hatcher stated that staff does not anticipate a traffic capacity issue on 145th Street. He also noted that the sight distances exiting the from the site are also not at issue. Chair Kenninger confirmed that the property would be rezoned to R4: High Resolution-Planned Unit Development. Klatt confirmed that was correct. Chair Kenninger inquired about the specific landscape phasing process and the specifics of the loop and emergency road installation as part of the phasing plan. There was discussion about how much of the road needs to be installed and at what time. Klatt clarified the recommendation and noted that a more clear phasing plan is requested. Commissioner Forster inquired if the setbacks on the plans are for the sidewalks to the private roadways or are they to the building face or the soffit overhangs on the building. Klatt clarified that it would be to the building face. Commissioner Clements inquired if the applicant has thought of shifting the building in phase 7 to allow more parking and to open up the entire development. Klatt said that had been discussed but the conclusion was made that setbacks may be an issue with shifting the building. Commissioner Clements would like clarification on motion 3, item G. Klatt clarified that would be the temporary loop. The Commission discussed the different building phases and when the loop road would be installed, and where would be the appropriate location. Commissioner Clements would like to know how many parking spaces would be available for the club house. Klatt said that under the ordinance criteria there should be about 10 stalls for that building. Chair Kenninger confirmed that there would be a total of 11 stalls including the care takers stall at the club house. Klatt confirmed that is correct. Commissioner Forster inquired if there would be any safety measures put into place on the private roads that run through the proposed development. Klatt stated that because of the design of the development there are no recommendations for slowing down traffic because the road will be so compressed with the buildings and parking spots immediately adjacent to the driving lane. Klatt mentioned that this is not a public road and that the owner could make adjustments in the future, although nothing is proposed at this time. Chair Kenninger inquired as to why the park is getting developed near the end of the phasing. Klatt indicated that the park area is located closer to the later phases. Klatt stated that because the more northern buildings have easy access to Central Park they can utilize that park until the development park is complete. Commissioners discussed their concerns over the possibility of the development not getting completed and the temporary loop not getting completed and how that would affect the development. Klatt stated that the phasing is laid out with options so that if the first few building are installed and they don’t get developed, the developer then has options for the future. Community Development Director Lindquist stated that with approving the PUD if the current developer walks away from the project the next developer would have to continue with what we are approving today. The public hearing was opened at 7:50 pm. Public comments: Nathan Marks, 14676 Blanca Ave, inquired if the public could get a copy of the previous questions. He also inquired if the seven year build out is something that is necessary as it would impact the neighborhood for many years. Luke Israelson, 14738 Landau Lane, Prior Lake, stated that he is a representative of the developer KJ Walk and is available for any questions. Zach Barker, 14705 Boysenberry Ct, asked the Commission to not approve the rezoning of the property from business park to multi-family. He stated that the seven year construction concerns him as well as not knowing what the schools capacities are. He also stated his concern with how the exit of the development is laid out. With the exit onto 145th Street and the close proximity to the train tracks he is concerned that the traffic will get really backed up. The traffic would get unbearable for the future residents. James Linnan, 14710 Boysenberry Ct, stated his concern that this property is getting redeveloped as high density housing vs. a light industrial property. Mr. Linnan suggested that if this development does get approved that the emergency access be locked. Mr. Linnan questioned if the railroad has been contacted about their thoughts on the development and about it being so close to the railroad tracks. He stated that with no fencing between the development and the tracks he is concerned that the space is going to be used as a recreational area for kids or adults. Greg Roob, 14838 Boise Circle, stated that his biggest concern is the seven year time frame. He is worried that with the constant construction during the summer months that it will be disruptive to current residents as well as the residents that reside in Building 1. Commissioner Clements questioned what the intent was for the phasingand whether the applicant would constructing one building, then renting it out and then starting on the next building the following year. Mr. Israelson confirmed that is correct. This project is being built with all private funding. That is why the phasing is spread out over the next seven years. Commissioner Clements questioned as to why Building 7 couldn’t be turned the way he suggested earlier. Mr. Israelson stated that they were trying to keep the space around the park as open as possible. Commissioner Freeman was curious as to why only 8 out of the 32 units in each building have a patio or deck. She stated that it would be more appealing to renters as well as look better on the exterior if all the units had some outdoor space. Mr. Israelson stated that the buildings are designed with one and two bedroom units and it is not possible to have a patio or deck on a two bedroom unit. With a one bedroom unit the exterior wall can have the sliding door to the patio or deck but with a two bedroom that exterior wall is taken up by the extra bedroom. Zachary Barker, stated that with the private funding being used to build the development; he hopes that they would make sure to have Building 1 fully occupied before they move forward with phase two. MOTION by VanderWiel to close the public hearing. Second by Forster. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion Passes. The public hearing was closed at 8:04 pm. Additional Comments: Chair Kenninger stated that the Commission’s packet is available on the city website. The video from the last meeting as well as tonight’s meeting is also available. Chair Kenninger questioned if it is common to have a seven year build out. Klatt stated that it is common to have developers phase a project over time but they don’t usually commit to a specific time frame. If phase one and phase two get completed and the developer walks away, then the site would be like that until another developer comes along to either finish with the current PUD or start over and suggest a change to the plan. Chair Kenninger asked for confirmation that the emergency access would be locked. Klatt confirmed that is correct. Chair Kenninger questioned if the railroad has been contacted. Klatt stated that the railroad has been contacted just like all of the other property owners within 500’ of the property. Commissioner Freeman questioned if there is a railroad speed limit through the City of Rosemount. Klatt replied that he is uncertain that there is a speed regulation or what the speed limit would be. The railroad does a lot of staging in Rosemount, so train speeds are generally much lower than in other communities. Chair Kenninger is concerned that there is no fencing planned between the development and the railroad tracks in the southeast portion of the site. Community Development Director Lindquist confirmed that the City would need access to that area because the City needs access to the ponding. It was noted that there are other areas of the City where residential is next to railroad tracks and the City does not require fencing. Chair Kenninger confirmed that it is the school district that would monitor the number of kids in the neighborhood and how that could impact school enrollment. Lindquist confirmed that is correct. Commissioner Forster stated that at the last meeting it was talked about that the property is not all the same zoning. He indicated that he thinks this proposal would be solving some of the properties’ current issues. Chair Kenninger agreed that the property is unique and that the eastern access is deemed an emergency access. Klatt confirmed what was previously approved relating to access for the southern section of the property. An easement was put into place to provide access to the current southern site from the Rosewood Village plat. Commissioner Clements clarified that with this current proposal there will be no traffic through the emergency access. Klatt confirmed that was correct. Commissioner Clements feels like this would be a very positive development for the city and he is in full support of the proposal. Chair Kenninger stated that she struggles with the fact that there are not enough trees proposed for the site. She is hopeful that some can get added back into the plan. She agrees that there is a huge need for apartments in Rosemount and theDakota County area and this proposal is only a third of what is in demand for our city. She is also glad that theCcommission will see this proposal again and that they will have the opportunity to see the exterior designs of the buildings and have an opportunity to address the other requirements such as landscaping and the phasing plan. 1) Motion by Clements 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. Second by Freeman. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion Passes. 2) Motion by Clements 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. 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 Park and Recreation Director as detailed in the attached memorandum dated October 12, 2016. Second by Forster. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion Passes. 3) Motion by Clements 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 buil ding. Sidewalks adjacent to parking areas shall be increased to 7 feet.  Revision of the main entrance road to include sufficient vehicle stacking areas 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 147 th 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 147 th 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 materials 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. Second by VanderWiel. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion Passes. 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. EXCERPT OF DRAFT MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2016 5.a. Request by Copperhead Development Inc. and Warren Iraelson for a preliminary plat, site plan review with rezoning and reguiding, and final plat to construct a development named Rosewood Commons that would consist of 232 multi-family units. Rezoning the property from BP: Business Park and R-1: Low Density Residential to R4: High Density Residential Planned Unit Development. (16-35-SP). Senior Planner Klatt gave a brief summary of the staff report. Commissioner Clements confirmed that there are two parcels and total acreage is 12.28 acres total. Klatt confirmed that was correct. Clements went on to question if zoning doesn’t change on the southern portion then a townhome development could be built and traffic could be directed through the current access point on Lower 147th Ct W. Klatt stated that is correct and with the proposed design nothing is planned to go through the current neighborhood except emergency traffic. Clements inquired if there is any concern about application timing; going over the 120 days to process the application. Klatt said there is not any concern and it is closely monitored. Clements also wondered if the applicant has to pay park dedication along with needing to provide recreation space. Klatt confirmed both are required. Commissioner Mele inquired about the width of the drive lane and the sidewalk. Klatt stated those are two issues staff has highlighted; staff is recommending the drive lane be a minimum of 28 feet wide and a four feet of separation be added between curb line and sidewalk areas. Mele noted that would require the buildings to be pushed back eight feet. Mele also inquired if El Dorado had any concerns about residents using the other two entrances into El Dorado’s lot. Klatt stated that is why they are asking for more details at the entrance. Mele asked how many trains crossed 145th Street; Klatt estimated about 6-10 trains a day but many seem to take longer to clear intersection due to switching cars onto different tracks. It was recognized that when trains are running, left turns will be problem regardless of the land use on site. Mele also inquired about snow removal. Klatt stated that is something that the applicant needs to address but the loop system allows for moving snow around and can push to storm water drainage areas. Mele inquired about the tree replacement plan. Klatt stated that the applicant will need to bring the site as close to the 240 trees required as possible and pay a fee in lieu of the trees required. Engineer Hatcher stated that this is a private site so City Public works doesn’t plow the drive and snow removal is a private issue. Commissioner Henrie inquired about the previous PUD approved in 2007 and asked if that would allow the applicant to build that plan without City approval. Klatt stated there are no entitlements with a concept approval and therefore they must go through this process. Henrie inquired if there are any other options to solve the parking issue other than removing a building. Klatt stated the recommendations laid out are really the only options from staff’s perspective, but the applicant feels they can address the issue without removing the building. Commissioner Forester acknowledges the effort to combine the properties to direct traffic away from residential area. Originally he wasn’t for the plan but now is leaning toward approval and he appreciates the opportunity to table it and take in all the information. He went on to ask for clarification about the previous plan. Klatt stated that it was designated for urban residential, which consist of townhouses and single family. In 2009 the ranges in the Comp Plan were modified and the city felt the site was better suited for something other than single family. Chair Kenninger inquired about the landscape plan and resulting tree coverage between the 2007 concept plan and the current plan. Klatt stated it might be doable to follow original plan but some plan adjustments might be needed. She also inquired why the applicant went away from underground parking to street level. Klatt sated he would let the applicant answer. Commissioner Forester inquired if site lighting been has been addressed. Klatt stated that the city has requirements; if this goes forward the applicant would address them before next meeting. Chair Kenninger inquired about protection and screening from the rail line. Klatt noted there are some spots there is screening but most is too small to count towards the city threshold. Kenninger inquired about fencing. Klatt stated along the spur there a fence, should the project go forward the city is asking for a plan to provide a buffer between the project and railroad tracks. Commissioner Clements stated that he visited 147th Street before the meeting, he feels the street seems tight and if the street would be changed to accommodate emergency vehicles. Lindquist stated that the Fire Marshal indicated the 147th Street access would open for residents to get out; fire and police would use main entrance. The public hearing was opened at 7:55 pm. Public comments: Warren Israleson, the applicant, was on hand to answer questions. He has owned the land for about 15 years; the first concept had a different developer who backed out when the market crashed. He will maintain ownership and his design is different than the original plan. Commissioner Forester inquired if Mr. Israelson has looked at medium density vs. high density. Israelson stated he has but city hasn’t been very receptive a project similar to the housing already in the neighborhood, and is leaning towards a higher density development. He went on to explain that this is a family business and wants to have something for his son to take on. He has looked at the comments and feels he could meet the staff requested requirements. If he does do townhouses they would be for sale but agrees the city does need more rental. Since the site is surrounded by railroad tracks he feels apartments are the way to go. Commissioner Clements inquired why the deviation from the original design. Israelson stated this is a small family business and they want to reduce the size and limit their exposure. Clements also inquired whether or not parking would be included in the rental fee. Israelson stated he hasn’t determined if it will or not at this point. Clements feels if a fee is associated with parking then the visitor parking will be over encumbered and snow removal could become an issue for parking. Clements inquired if the plan is reduced to six buildings it would hurt cash flow. Israelson stated they would build one at a time and could make 30 unit buildings instead of 32 if needed to meet the parking requirement. Most are one unit or efficiency apartments which are typically only one tenant per unit. Chair Kenninger felt that garage spaces would be used for storage instead of parking, where underground parking would actually be used for parking and reduce issues associated with parking. Commissioner Forester inquired how landscaping would be done if only one building is completed at a time. Israelson stated they wouldn’t want to put landscaping in where it would be disturbed but would add trees that wouldn’t be disturbed right away. Commissioner Clements wondered if curb and gutter would be done in the first phase. Israelson stated no, they would start on the west along the railroad tracks and continue south. Chair Kenninger clarified that the first year would be building one and the leasing building along with the garages. Commissioner Forester inquired if the applicant has answers to all the issues the city has raised. Israelson stated the only issue is being 14 stalls short, but they could reduce the number of units by seven to accommodate. Commissioner Clements asked for further clarification on the phasing process and how and when the connection to the emergency exit would get completed. The applicant stated it could possibly take 5-7 years to complete the project. Lindquist stated that the applicant would need to have a more deliberate phasing plan when it comes back before the Commission to address the access to the emergency exit. Clint Hanson, 2683 Lower 147th Ct W, stated the stub piece is currently used by residents for parking, and asked for consideration of the current use by residents. Jason Maag, 2686 Lower 147th Ct W, is concerned about density and how it will affect property values. He is also concerned about adequate screening along the property line and whether or not the sewer system is designed to handle the additional residents. Michele Elin, 2674 Lower 147th Ct W, stated she doesn’t like the idea of her view being blocked by the apartment buildings. She also asked for more permanent fencing as part is ripped down. She also questioned if there were better uses for this site. Maria Mojica, 2695 Lower 147th Ct W, is concerned about maintenance of the road and who will pay, currently HOA maintains road. She is also concerned about lighting and if it will be visible at her home. She inquired about the price range of the apartments and the demographics of the renters as well as the height of the buildings. She stated that three homes have put their houses up for sale since this proposal has come up. Jeremy Oliver, 14795 Boise Circle, feels that there is an advantage to have more people in the community but need to look at consequences as well. He feels that there shouldn’t be any deviation from the required 2 stalls per unit. He also inquired about an agreement on Lower 147th Ct W to keep it a private road. He also brought up the broken fence and the need to fix it. He is also concerned about the hill at the railroad tracks that restricts the view of traffic and the possibility of accidents. He feels that there should be a restriction on left turns from the site. Brenda Rivera, 2358 Birch Street, stated she works for the railroad. She feels that there will be a traffic issue on 145th with the increase in residents in that area. There are three different railroads that use the line and it is an interchange location for CP, which blocks the railroad for a longer period of time. She feels that traffic should be restricted from making left turns. David Heil, 14671 Blanca Ave, stated he also works for the railroad. He has major concerns about chemicals and materials that are transported on the rail and could be harmful to the apartment residents if there was a spill or derailment. He thinks there is a security issue as well, kids are curious about the trains and need a fence to keep them out as well as other security measures need to be taken. He thought a government building would be a better use of the property, or something other than residential. Nathan Marks, 14676 Blanca Ave, wanted to know whether the school district has weighed in on this new development and is concerned that capacity will reach 90% again. Greg McElroy, 14611 Boxwood Path, has a background in fire and emergency access. He stated that it is hard for him to maneuver his truck around Lower 147th Ct W and doesn’t think a fire truck would fit. He is also concerned that the emergency access eventually open up to daily use and who would be responsible for snow removal if access is opened up. He agrees the City needs more apartment buildings, but this is not the spot. Greg Roob, 14838 Boise Circle, is concerned that there could be multiple cars per unit. He thought the reason the land south of this area was rezoned from residential to commercial because of the proximity to the railroad. He noted it was weird that further north that reasoning isn’t used. Mr. Israleson responded to the citizen comments. He stated he is looking to get market rate for rent and is planning on using nice finishes to attract higher end renters. Rent would be similar to the Waterford with the exception of not adding three room apartments to deter families from renting there. MOTION by Clements to continue the public hearing to the November 22, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting. Second by Mele. Ayes: 6. Nays: 0. Motion Passes. The public hearing was continued to the November 22nd meeting at 8:45 pm. Additional Comments: Klatt stated that he has written down comments and questions and will address a few of them tonight and the rest will be addressed before the next meeting. Lindquist provided a map of the community and stated that the railroad bisects a good portion of the city and most of it runs through residential developments. The uses have been a mix of single and multi-family along the railroad. The garages would act as a physical barrier from railroad. All city projects are reviewed by Fire Marshal, including access and sprinkler requirements. Adjoining property would maintain their side and applicant would maintain to his property line. Klatt stated that looking at city as whole they are trying to balance growth across the city. He noted that the City meets yearly with the school district to address attendance concerns and Rosemount is one of the few in the district that is in the growth phase and the district is aware of the continuing growth within the City. Chair Kenninger inquired about the height of the buildings. Klatt stated they at the peak it would be about 30-32 feet in height, about 6-8 feet lower that current single family. Commissioner Clements clarified that if applicant only used southern lot they could put up 84 town homes in this area and they would gain access through Lower 147th Ct w. Mr. Israelson stated that the intent was always to direct traffic to the north. Klatt went on to say that if the developer does townhouses it would have an association and they would maintain the private streets. All questions not answered tonight will be addressed in the staff report for the November 22nd meeting. Motion by Henrie to continue public hearing to November 22, 2016 and direct the applicant to address the issues noted in Staff Report under “Conclusion and Recommendation”. Second by Mele. Ayes: 6. Nays: 0. Motion Passes. 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^ϴϵΣϯϯΖϬϮΗt40.00EϬϬΣϮϱΖϰϰΗ55.00EϬϬΣϮϱΖϰϰΗ55.00^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   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+10žÁ 4'#4'.'8#6+10žÁ'ICP&TKXG5VG5CXCIG/02JQPG9GDYYYMLYCNMEQO4+)*6'.'8#6+10žÁ.'(6'.'8#6+10žÁ#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) žÁ 5) žÁ 5) žÁžÁ 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 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 žÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ 5) žÁ 5) žÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁ žÁ žÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁ žÁ žÁ žÁ žÁ žÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁÁžÁžÁÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁÁÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁÁÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁ$'&411/žÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁ$'&411/žÁžÁ $'&411/ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ-+6%*'0 žÁžÁ$#6* $#6*$#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* -+6%*'0-+6%*'0 $#6* $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* $#6* -+6%*'0 -+6%*'0 $#6*$#6*žÁ-+6%*'0 žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ$'&411/ $'&411/žÁ$'&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*žÁžÁ žÁ žÁ $'&411/žÁžÁžÁ$#6* $#6* žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁ 2&2& ž:ž 2#6+1 ž:ž 2#6+1 ž:ž 2#6+1 ž:ž 2#6+1 6565žÁžÁ (+456(.114žÁ'ICP&TKXG5VG5CXCIG/02JQPG9GDYYYMLYCNMEQO911&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 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ 5) žÁ 5) žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁ žÁžÁÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁÁÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁÁÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁÁÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁ$'&411/žÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁ$'&411/žÁžÁ $'&411/ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ-+6%*'0žÁžÁ $#6* $#6*$#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* -+6%*'0-+6%*'0 $#6* $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* $#6* -+6%*'0 -+6%*'0 $#6*$#6*žÁ-+6%*'0 žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ$'&411/ $'&411/žÁ$'&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*žÁžÁ žÁ žÁ $'&411/žÁžÁžÁ$#6* $#6* žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁ 2&2&2&ž:ž &'%- ž:ž &'%- ž:ž &'%- ž:ž &'%-65656565žÁžÁžÁ 5'%10&(.114žÁ'ICP&TKXG5VG5CXCIG/02JQPG9GDYYYMLYCNMEQO911&567&(4#/+0) 0&(.114)4155#4'#53(6#22#46/'065)#4#)'524'.+/Á 24'.+/Á   STONE LP SMARTSIDE LP SMARTSIDE LP SMARTSIDE LP SMARTSIDE LP SMARTSIDESTONESTONE ASPHALT SHINGLES STONE   LP SMARTSIDE ASPHALT SHINGLES     LP SMARTSIDE LP SMARTSIDE ASPHALT SHINGLESASPHALT SHINGLES  24'.+/Á (4106'.'8#6+10žÁ 4'#4'.'8#6+10žÁ'ICP&TKXG5VG5CXCIG/02JQPG9GDYYYMLYCNMEQO4+)*6'.'8#6+10žÁ.'(6'.'8#6+10žÁ#22#46/'065)#4#)'524'.+/Á $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 /'%*#0+%#. $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 .#70&4; 5722.; %.15'6 5)5)65655)5)65655)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5) 5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5) $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ 5) žÁ 5) žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁÁÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁÁÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁÁÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁÁÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/ $'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/ -+6%*'0 $#6* $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* $#6*žÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁ$'&411/$#6* $#6*  (+456(.114žÁ'ICP&TKXG5VG5CXCIG/02JQPG9GDYYYMLYCNMEQO911&567&(4#/+0) 56(.114)4155#4'#53(6#22#46/'065)#4#)'524'.+/Á 24'.+/Á .#70&4; '((+%+#0%; 70+6 53(6 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5) 5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)5)65655)5)6565$'&411/ 70+6 53(6 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 $'&411/ 70+6 53(6 '((+%+#0%; 70+6 53(6 '((+%+#0%; 70+6 53(6 '((+%+#0%; 70+6 53(6 žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁÁÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁÁÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁÁÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁÁÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ$#6*žÁžÁ žÁ $#6*žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/ $'&411/$'&411/$'&411/ $'&411/$'&411/$'&411/ $'&411/$'&411/$'&411/ $'&411/$'&411/ $'&411/$'&411/ $'&411/$'&411/ $'&411/$'&411/$'&411/$'&411/ -+6%*'0 $#6* $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* $#6*$#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* -+6%*'0 -+6%*'0 $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* -+6%*'0 $#6* -+6%*'0  (+456(.114žÁ'ICP&TKXG5VG5CXCIG/02JQPG9GDYYYMLYCNMEQO911&567&(4#/+0) 0&(.114)4155#4'#53(6#22#46/'065)#4#)'524'.+/Á 24'.+/Á          LP SMARTSIDE LP SMARTSIDELP SMARTSIDE ASPHALT SHINGLES žÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ   LP SMARTSIDE ASPHALT SHINGLES #22#46/'065)#4#)'54'#4'.'8#6+10žÁ (.1142.#0žÁ'ICP&TKXG5VG5CXCIG/02JQPG9GDYYYMLYCNMEQO4'#4'.'8#6+10žÁ.'(6'.'8#6+10žÁ4+)*6'.'8#6+10žÁ 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+10žÁ 4'#4'.'8#6+10žÁ4+)*6'.'8#6+10žÁ.'(6'.'8#6+10žÁ'ICP&TKXG5VG5CXCIG/02JQPG9GDYYYMLYCNMEQO24'.+/Á 24'.+/Á 70':%#8#6'& žÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁ70':%#8#6'& 70':%#8#6'& žÁžÁžÁ .'#5+0)1((+%'/#+06#0%'2#46;411/%#4'6#-'4#22#46/'06(170&#6+102.#0žÁ'ICP&TKXG5VG5CXCIG/02JQPG9GDYYYMLYCNMEQO24'.+/Á 24'.+/Á žÁ žÁ žÁ žÁ .'#5+0) 1((+%' 2#46; 411/ /#+06'0#0%' )#4#)' žÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ žÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁ (.11464755'5 1% (.11464755'5 1% :18*&4 :18*&4 Z+057.#6'&9#.. Z žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁ (+:(+:(+:(+:(+: 5)5)(+:(+:(+:(+:(+:(+:(+: žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ/'%* (+:(+:(+:žÁžÁžÁZ žÁ N'#5+0)1((+%'/#+06#0%'2#46;411/%#4'6#-'4#22#46/'06(+456(.1142.#0žÁ'ICP&TKXG5VG5CXCIG/02JQPG9GDYYYMLYCNMEQO911&567&(4#/+0) 56(.114)4155#4'#53(6 24'.+/Á 24'.+/Á žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ $'&411/  žÁžÁžÁžÁ -+6%*'0 žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ /#56'4 $'&411/$'&411/  .+8+0)&+00+0) 411/ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ Z žÁ žÁ žÁžÁZZ žÁžÁ žÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁžÁ žÁ 4'(9& (+:5)5*5)5)5*5)65 $#6* $#6*              žÁ)4#07.#4(+.. &4#+06+.' 95+.641%- );2$1#4& #.7/(#5%+# #.7/8'06'&51((+6 #52*#.65*+0).'5 ('.6 5*'#6*+0) 411(64755'5 ž '0'4);*''.   )4#&' :%10%(6)5 :64'#6'&5+..2.#6 *14+<.#25+&+0) 9'#6*'4$#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%- žÁžÁ)4#07.#4(+.. #.7/(#5%+# &4#+06+.' 95+.641%- );2$1#4& '0'4);*''. #.7/8'06'&51((+6 #52*#.65*+0).'5 ('.6 5*'#6*+0) 411(64755'5 ž  *14+<.#25+&+0) 9'#6*'4$#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.#0žÁ'ICP&TKXG5VG5CXCIG/02JQPG9GDYYYMLYCNMEQO411(2.#0žÁ 6;2+%#.5614;9#..5'%6+10žÁ6;2+%#.5614;9#..5'%6+10žÁ 911&567&(4#/+0) 0&(.114)4155#4'#53(6 24'.+/Á 24'.+/Á CommentsDate:11/22/2016Page 1 of 3RevisionsDate#Scale:KJ WalkDrawn By: JOChecked By: JOCHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC RAILROADBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGS23°54'20"W523.80DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC.# 189828830" ST30" ST30" ST30" ST30" ST30" STTop 966.90Inv. 960.20Inv. 956.88Top 963.78MHMHMHTop 960.49Inv. 954.39Inv.954.9310101010Drainage and Utility Easement per plat of GREIF ADDITIONBLDG 1-32 UNITS966.00965.500.50%%%-->1.00%%%-->BLDG 2-32 UNIT964.0BLDG 3-32 UNIT963.00BLDG 7-32 UNIT966.00BLDG 4-32 UNIT962.50BLDG 6-32 UNIT963.50BLDG 5-32 UNIT962.00964.50963.50963.00962.50962.00961.50961.50959.90960.00966.500 .6 4 %%%-->LEASINGOFFICE970.00967.000 .7 0 -->967.500.50%%%-->1.00%%%--><--0.50%%%0.50%%%--><--0.60%%%<--0.60%%%0.50%%%-->963.500.50%%%-->959.001811311111111111112141161119111098103611017111110115115119EX. WATERMAINEX. SANITARY10'10'686820068682006820068686820068682006820068606860682002020192192202019219220201921922019219220201921922020202020969640408" C900 PVC8" C900 PVC 8" C900 PVC8" C900 PVC8" C900 PVC968.50967.00966.70962.00961.50962.00961.00959.60960.50961.00961.30961.00963.00962.500.60%%%-->0.50%%%-->0.75%%%-->0.75%%%-->0.50%%%-->1.50%%%-->0.50%%%-->GARAGE 116 STALLS- 966.00GARAGE 216 STALLS- 964.00GARAGE 316 STALLS- 963.00GARAGE 416 STALLS- 962.50GARAGE 6A8 STALLS- 963.50GARAGE 6B8 STALLS- 964.00GARAGE 7 16 STALLS- 963.00PLAYGROUND AREA1718191817141051539121611247613XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXALMALALAMLMAM15" RCP1 5 " R C P 15" RCP15" RCP15" RCP15" RCP145106792811121314151617OUTLOT A18101010102020202020611012020202015LAMAMAALMMMMMAALLAALLLLMMAAALLMMMLLAA114LMMLLLALLLMMMLLAAMM1922019220227070707022607070226070702 2 6070702 2 6070702 2 602 2 70702018 " P V C 2015" RCP15" RCP15" RCP15" RCP15" RCP15" RCP8" C900 PVC8" C900 PVC0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.2 0.5 1.4 5.30.1 0.1 0.0 0.00.5 1.5 5.00.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.10.4 0.8 1.6 1.60.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.40.2 0.4 0.5 0.40.6 1.3 1.6 0.90.2 0.2 0.20.4 1.1 3.4 6.90.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.2 0.4 1.0 4.40.1 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.20.1 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.20.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.1 0.40.2 0.1 0.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.10.4 0.2 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.02.4 0.8 0.3 0.20.0 0.1 0.112.9 3.5 1.0 0.4 0.20.1 0.1 0.43.0 1.7 0.7 0.3 0.20.1 0.1 0.20.7 0.6 0.4 0.20.3 0.3 0.10.2 0.2 0.2 0.10.6 0.9 0.7 0.30.1 0.1 0.1 0.11.2 2.9 3.10.0 0.1 0.1 0.10.6 1.7 7.30.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.2 0.4 1.20.0 0.00.1 0.2 0.40.0 0.00.1 0.1 0.10.0 0.00.0 0.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.1 0.40.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.1 0.30.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.00.2 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.00.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.10.0 0.00.0 0.1 0.70.2 0.10.0 0.10.7 0.10.0 0.0 0.10.4 0.10.1 0.1 0.10.1 0.00.2 0.3 0.30.0 0.00.4 0.8 1.50.0 0.00.5 1.5 5.90.1 0.01.5 5.00.5 0.10.8 1.5 1.30.6 0.10.4 0.5 0.30.1 0.00.2 0.2 0.2 0.10.0 0.00.1 0.1 0.40.0 0.00.1 0.1 0.3 2.50.0 0.00.0 0.1 0.20.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.10.0 0.0 0.00.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.10.3 0.30.0 0.1 1.21.0 0.60.0 0.1 0.54.1 1.40.0 0.0 0.1 0.17.1 1.80.0 0.0 0.02.4 1.10.0 0.0 0.00.6 0.40.0 0.0 0.00.2 0.20.0 0.0 0.00.10.0 0.0 0.20.0 0.00.0 0.1 0.40.0 0.00.0 0.2 0.50.00.0 0.0 0.10.00.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.1 0.50.0 0.00.0 0.1 0.80.0 0.00.0 0.1 0.20.0 0.00.0 0.1 0.10.0 0.00.0 0.1 0.10.0 0.00.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.00.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.00.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.00.4 0.9 1.4 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.02.1 5.6 3.4 1.0 0.35.4 1.0 0.3Luminaire ScheduleSymbolQtyLabelArrangementCalculation Summary712-SBHC-120-50-MV-5SINGLE1414-WPHC-40-50-MV-5SINGLELabelCalcTypeUnitsAvgMaxMinAvg/MinMax/MinLot LightingIlluminanceFc0.4212.90.0N.A.N.A. CommentsDate:11/22/2016Page 2 of 3RevisionsDate#Scale:KJ WalkDrawn By: JOChecked By: JOC H I C A G O , M I L W A U K E E , S T . P A U L & P A C I F I C R A I L R O A D24MHInv.EXISTINGBUILDINGEXISTINGEXISTINGEXISTINGEXISTINGEXISTINGEXISTINGEXISTINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDING946.4772" STInv.952.9848" ST48" STMHSTS 2 3 °5 4 '2 0 "W 5 2 3 .8 0 D R A I N A G E A N D U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T P E R D O C .# 1 8 9 8 2 8 8 30" ST30" ST30" ST30" ST30" ST30" STTop 966.90Inv. 960.20Inv. 956.88Top 963.78MHMHMHTop 960.49Inv. 954.39Inv.954.93xxxxxxxxxEX 8" DIPEX 8" PVC1BOXWOOD PATH10101010Drainage and Utility Easement per plat of GREIF ADDITIONBLDG 1-32 UNITS966.00965.500.50%%%-->1 .0 0 %%%-->BLDG 2-32 UNIT964.0BLDG 3-32 UNIT963.00BLDG 7-32 UNIT966.00BLDG 4-32 UNIT962.50BLDG 6-32 UNIT963.50BLDG 5-32 UNIT962.00964.50963.50963.00962.50962.00961.50961.50959.90960.00966.500.64%%%-->LEASINGOFFICE970.00967.000.70--> 0 .5 0 %%%--> 1 .0 0 %%%--><--0.50%%%0.50%%%--><--0.60%%%<--0.60%%%0.50%%%-->963.500.50%%%-->959.001811311111111111112141161119111098103611017111110115115119EX. WATERMAINEX. SANITARY10'10'68682 0 0 68682 0 0682 0068686820068 68 2006820068606 86068 20020201 9 2 1 9 2 20201 9 2 1 9 2 202019219220192192202019219220202020209696408" C900 PVC8" C900 PVC8" C900 PVC8" C900 PVC8" C900 PVC967.00966.70962.00961.50962.00961.00959.60960.50961.00961.30961.00962.500.60%%%-->0.50%%%-->0.75%%%-->0 .7 5 %%%-->0.50%%%-->1.50%%%-->0.50%%%-->G A R A G E 1 1 6 S T A L L S - 9 6 6 .0 0 G A R A G E 2 1 6 S T A L L S - 9 6 4 .0 0 GARAGE 316 STALLS- 963.00GARAGE 416 STALLS- 962.50GARAGE 6A8 STALLS- 963.50GARAGE 6B8 STALLS- 964.00GARAGE 7 16 STALLS- 963.00PLAYGROUND AREA1718191817141051539121611247613XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXALMALALAMLMAM15" RCP15" RCP 15" RCP1 5 " R C P 15" RCP 1 5 " R C P 145106792811121314151617OUTLOT A101010102020202020611012020202015LAMAM AALMMMMMAALLAALLLLMMAAALLMMMLLAA114MMLLLALLLMMMLLAALMM 192201922022707070702 2 6070702 2 6070702 2 6 0 7 0 7 0 226 0 7 0 7 0 22602 2 70702018" PVC 2015" RCP15" RCP15" RCP15" RCP15" RCP15" RCP8" C900 PVC 8" C900 PVC0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.30.70.00.00.00.00.00.20.51.45.30.10.10.00.00.51.55.00.20.20.10.10.10.40.81.61.60.50.50.40.20.40.20.40.50.40.61.31.60.90.20.20.20.41.13.46.90.10.10.10.10.20.41.04.40.10.10.10.10.10.20.10.10.10.10.10.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.10.40.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.10.40.20.10.00.00.00.02.40.80.30.20.00.10.112.93.51.00.40.20.10.10.43.01.70.70.30.20.10.10.20.70.60.40.20.30.30.10.20.20.20.10.60.90.70.30.10.10.10.11.22.93.10.00.10.10.10.61.77.30.00.00.00.00.20.41.20.00.00.10.20.40.00.00.10.10.10.00.00.00.10.10.00.00.00.00.10.40.00.00.00.00.10.30.00.00.00.00.00.20.50.20.10.00.00.10.40.40.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.00.00.00.10.70.20.10.00.10.70.10.00.00.10.40.10.10.10.10.10.00.20.30.30.00.00.40.81.50.00.00.51.55.90.10.01.55.00.50.10.81.51.30.60.10.40.50.30.10.00.20.20.20.10.00.00.10.10.40.00.00.10.10.32.50.00.00.00.10.20.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.00.00.00.10.10.00.00.10.30.30.00.11.21.00.60.00.10.54.11.40.00.00.10.17.11.80.00.00.02.41.10.00.00.00.60.40.00.00.00.20.20.00.00.00.10.00.00.20.00.00.00.10.40.00.00.00.20.50.00.00.00.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.50.00.00.00.10.80.00.00.00.10.20.00.00.00.10.10.00.00.00.10.10.00.00.10.10.10.00.00.10.10.20.20.20.10.00.10.20.40.50.50.30.20.10.10.00.40.91.41.20.60.30.10.10.02.15.63.41.00.35.41.00.3Luminaire ScheduleSymbolQtyLabelArrangementCalculation SummaryLabelCalcTypeUnitsAvgMaxMinAvg/MinMax/Min7Lot LightingIlluminanceFc0.4212.90.0N.A.12-SBHC-120-50-MV-5SINGLE1414-WPHC-40-50-MV-5SINGLEN.A. CommentsDate:11/22/2016Page 3 of 3RevisionsDate#Scale:KJ WalkDrawn By: JOChecked By: JO 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. Infrastructure  Engineering  Planning  Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite #300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763 541-4800 Fax: 763 541-1700 Memorandum To: Mitch Hatcher, P.E., Project Engineer City of Rosemount From: Chuck Rickart, P.E., P.T.O.E., Traffic Engineer WSB & Associates, Inc. Date: November 17, 2016 Re: Traffic Review Rosewood Commons Apartments City of Rosemount, MN WSB Project No.: 1005-99 As was requested we have reviewed the anticipated traffic impacts the proposed development of the Rosewood Commons Apartments would have on 145 th Street. The proposed site will be located on the south side of 145th Street, west of Biscayne Avenue adjacent to the Union Pacific railroad tracks. All site access will be through one driveway on 145th Street. The site will consist of seven (7), 32 unit apartment buildings with one caretaker apartment. 145th Street is a 40 foot, City State Aid Major Collector roadway with 12 foot lanes in each direction with a paved 8 foot shoulder on each side of the street. Turn lanes are provided at major intersection including Biscayne Avenue east of the site and TH 3 west of the site. A 30 mph speed limit is posted on this section of 145 th Street. The Union Pacific railroad crossing is located approximately 200 feet west of the proposed driveway. This crossing was upgraded to include four quadrant gates to accommodate the railroad whistle quiet zone. The existing traffic volume on 145th Street in this area, based on the MnDOT traffic volume map, is 5,700 vehicles per day. The AM peak hour traffic volume is approximately 425 vehicles per hour and the PM peak hour traffic volume is approximately 625 vehicles per hour. The estimated trip generation from the proposed Rosewood Commons Apartment site is shown below in Table 1. The trip generation used to estimate the proposed site traffic is based on rates for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. The table shows the Daily, weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour trip generation for the proposed development. Rosewood Commons Traffic Review November 17, 2016 Page 2 Table 1 - Estimated Site Trip Generation Planned Use Size Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total In Out Total In Out Apartments 225 units 1496 115 23 92 140 91 49 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition Based on the existing traffic volumes and the anticipated site traffic generation, the resulting traffic volumes would be approximately: 7,200 vehicles per day; 5 40 vehicles per hour in the AM peak hour, and; 760 vehicles per hour in the PM peak hour. The anticipated projected total traffic volumes on 145 th Street are well within the typical acceptable traffic volume capacity of a 2-lane urban street of less than 10,000 vehicles per day. However, as traffic continues to increase on 145th Street consideration should be given to restriping the roadway to add a continuous center left turn lane. This would improve safety and increase capacity on the roadway with the numerus driveways in the corridor. The proposed site access will include a single lane entering and two lanes exiting. The exiting lanes provide for left and right turning vehicles. It appears the available staking before the left or right turn lane would be blocked is between 75 and 100 feet or 3 to 4 vehicles. Based on the amount of traffic exiting the site and the delay waiting for a gap on 145th Street there would be a need for storage of up to 3 vehicles. With increased traffic on 145th Street the delay will grow possibly blocking vehicles from getting into the appropriate lanes. The close proximity of the railroad to the entrance will also increase the required staking especially for the left turn movement out of the site. It is therefore, recommended that the two lanes be extended to the first dri ve and isle to maximize the amount of storage available. If you have any question concerning these comments please feel free to contact me by email crickart@wsbeng.com or phone (612)360-1283. 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 = [1/12 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎−𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓/𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑠/𝑑𝑎𝑑] ∗[𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑠][0.15 𝑠𝑖/ℎ𝑎]∗[1 𝑓𝑓/ 12𝑠𝑖]∗[24ℎ𝑎/𝑑𝑎𝑑] If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 763-231-4845 or at walms@wsbeng.com. Attachments: • Figure 1 – Existing Condition • Figure 2 – Proposed Condition • Figure 3 – Soils Map • Analysis HydroCAD Report Path: K:\02235-220\GIS\Maps\Fig1_Existing Condition.mxd Date Saved: 9/15/2016 4:40:12 PMRosewoodVillageFigure 1: Existing ConditionRosemount, MN ±0 500250Feet Legend DA_ID EP-2474 (On-Site ) = 12.3 Ac EP-2474 (Off-site) = 52.2 Ac EP-2475 = 4.8 Ac EP-2442 = 61.1 Ac Ex EP-2442 Contours Ex EP-2475 Contours Ex EP-2474 Contours """"""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#* #*"""""""""""""" " " " """ """"""""""""""""""" " """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" "" " !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( ! !(!( !! ! !( ! ! !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( ! !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!Path: K:\02235-260\GIS\Maps\Fig2_Proposed Condition.mxd Date Saved: 9/9/2016 5:18:57 PMRosewood VillageFigure 2: Propo sed Con ditionRosemount, MN ±0 250125Feet Legend "StormLines Proje ct Boun dary Drainage Area Text September 26, 2016 To: Rosemount Planning Commission Re: Public notice of Copperhead Development Inc.and Warren Israelson apartment complex Dear Planning Commission Members, Our family relocated to 148th St.W. in Rosemount in September,2014,due to the safety,stable property values and peaceful neighborhood.We were specifically looking for a home located in a neighborhood consisting of single-family units only. We are concerned that re-zoning and building the large apartment complex proposed for 145th St.would ruin the character of the neighborhood and affect the property values of existing residents.Traffic would certainly increase on Highway 3,a route that is already quite congested, especially during rush hour times.Additionally,with more people comes more crime. For all of these reasons,we are writing to express our opposition for the proposal. We ask that the commission reject this proposal in favor of others that would improve the character, quality and functionality of the neighborhood. Thank you, Eric& Heidi Larson 2645148 th St. W. Rosemount, MN 55068 r 2016 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