HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.a. GlenRose of Rosemount Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and PUD Master Development Plan 05-15-ZA and 05-16-PPAGENDA ITEM: Case 05 -15 -ZA and Case 05 -16 -PP
GlenRose of Rosemount (Dean Johnson)
Rezoning to PUD R -2 and GlenRose of
Rosemount (Dean Johnson) Preliminary
Plat and PUD Master Development Plan
AGENDA SECTION:
New Business
PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner
AGENDA NO.
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution, Draft Ordinance,
Location map, Preliminary Plat
reductions, Resolution 2005 -11, 06/14/05
PC Minutes, 06/26/05 and 04/25/05
Parks and Recreation Minutes 02/01/05
CC Minutes, 07/27/04 PC Minutes,
related correspondence
APPROVED BY:
P1A/
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt an ordinance rezoning the property to PUD R -2, Moderate Density
Residential PUD, and
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the preliminary plat and PUD master development
plan for Glen Rose subject to conditions.
4 ROSEMOUNT
City Council Meeting: July 19, 2005
CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ISSUE
This review concerns the preliminary plat and planned unit development master plan and rezonmg for
Glen Rose, a 76-unit townhouse development proposed for the vacant 10 acre site between Rosemount
Woods and the St. Joseph's Cemetery on the east side of South Robert Trail. The property is currently
zoned Public Institutional and the appropriate zoning for the townhouse protect would be R -2,
Moderate Density Residential, PUD The City Council approved granted concept plan approval m
February 2005
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
On June 14, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing as requited by ordinance. The
Commissioners had several questions and one person from the audience commented. As a result, one of
the recommended conditions of approval was modified to include reference to roadway alignments with
Highway 3.
The Commissioners' questions concerned the alignment of the proposed 140 Circle, the primary access
for the development, and conformance with MnDOT recommendations. They were concerned that 140
Circle is entirely on the GlenRose property, mstead of splitting the property line with Rosemount Woods.
The Commissioners were also concerned about the building materials for the row house (building 1) m the
northwest corner closest to the entrance, sidewalks and trails, the anticipated demographics of typical
homebuyers and the ability of the Homeowner's association to maintain the storm water pond facilities.
The audience member who spoke was the owner of the automobile sales lot north along Highway 3. He
was upset about the previous City actions regarding rezoning his property and other properties along
Highway 3 He felt that the subject property should have remained commercial. After making several
comments about the development in general, he questioned the availability of sewer and water to the area.
He was concerned about assessments, not having access to services and lastly, he wanted his property
rezoned back to commercial (the property was rezoned to R -2, Moderate Density Residential as part of the
implementation of the Comprehensive Plan several years ago).
PLAN REVISIONS
In response to the Planning Commission pubhc hearing and recommendation, the developer has revised
the preliminary plat. The following revisions have been made
1. The sidewalk and trail system incorporate a grading plan received on June 8. The trail is
realigned in response to Parks and Recreation Commission recommendations and fill is being
imported from the park to raise some of the building pads
2. The internal streets have been shifted to eliminate setback problems between buildings and
between buildings and the private roadways improving the geometries of the roadways In
several locations were the setbacks are cnncal, the actual footprint of the building with all its
indentations has been shown on the plan to verify setbacks, particularly the northeast corner of
Building 8
3. The building elevations have been revised to include additional brick. Building 1 in the
northwest corner has brick covering the basement elevation on the sides and between the
porches on the first floor and brick wainscoting on either side of the garages, and wrapping
around the corners of the buildings.
4. The landscaping plan has been expanded to include additional trees to satisfy the tree
preservation requirements and screen the eastern edge of the development from the athletic
lights m the park.
5. The grading plan has been revised in response to storm water concerns.
6. The entry monument has been shifted to respond to setback concerns.
7. Building 3 along the storm water utility easement has been shown to have enough space for
decks or patios of the 4 northerly units that will not encroach into the easement. However, the
easement gets wider pre empting decks or patios for the southerly umt The developer may
ask to have that portion of the easement vacated Easements are normally sized for very
practical reasons, such as the depth of the pipe If the apphcable easement is not vacated (and
it is unhkely that staff will support the vacation), then the building design cannot include a
sliding door on the elevation oriented towards the easement.
The attached draft resolution would normally include the entire Planning Commission recommendation.
However, the resolution has been modified to reflect the issues that have been resolved through
subsequent plan revisions. The conditions are a combination of routine conditions, and those specific to
this development such as the structure of park dedication and wetland mitigation requirements Since the
latest plan revision responds to many of the previously identified issues, the PUD agreement will be tied to
those latest plans as exhibits.
BACKGROUND
Apphcant Property Owner(s).
Location:
Area m Acres•
Number of Lots Density:
Comp. Guide Plan Desig:
Dean Johnson of Dean Johnson Homes, Inc.
14000 South Robert Trail (Old Sunrise Lumber site)
10.75 gross, 9 55 less Right -of -way and wetland (net)
76 townhouse units C 7 units per acre (gross), 7.9 units per acre net
Urban Residential (for townhouses) when the Comp Plan
2
Current Zoning:
Requested Zoning:
City Council Action:
Amendment is complete
P I Public Institutional
R -2, Moderate Density Residential PUD
Approved Concept by Resolution 2005 -11.
Previous discussions regarding the site focused on the land use change. The site was onginally zoned C -2,
Community Conunercial as the Sunrise Lumber site. At various tunes there was considerable discussion
about acquiring the site as an expansion of Central Park, adjacent on the eastern edge The site was guided
for Public Institutional Use in the 1990 The site zoning remained C -2, Community Commercial, and
was occupied by a landscaping company after the departure of Sunrise Lumber The Church of St. Joseph
purchased the site for a new church in the late 1990s Anticipating the church use, the 2000
Comprehensive Plan Update process guided the property for Pubhc Institutional Use and a rezonung to
bring the site zoning into comphance with the guide plan was accomplished. In 2000, St. Joseph's
embarked on the site planning process, ultimately deciding that more land was needed. The church then
purchased about 30 acres east of Biscayne Avenue and put the 10 -acre site up for sale.
Dean Johnson Homes acquired the option for the site hoping to obtain approvals for a townhouse project
and applied for concept approval. Concept approval was granted m February 2005 with the approved
resolution attached.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The townhouse development consists of row houses and back -to -back units that would be a self contamed
neighborhood north of the St. Joseph's cemetery and west of the northern portion of Central Park The
back -to -back or double loaded buildings are 6- plexes with 3 units per side and row houses with 3 to 7
units distributed among 6 buildings
The site has rolling topography, sloping towards the center from Highway 3 and to the eastern side. A
wetland in the south center of the site forms a natural depression and there are scattered groupings of
trees The development will use the wetland and buffer area as an amenity focal point. There is also a
draw or saddle on the eastern boundary between the two high cornets that leads into the pond in the
Koch interpretive trail area associated with Central Park.
Concept approval was conditioned on several specifics including:
The pubhc access ahgning with the southerly Community Center dnveway and designed for 3 lanes
(2 outbound).
Dead -end driveways are required to meet turning radius standards or must be approved by the Fite
Marshal.
Two -car garages ate required in all units consistent with zoning standards.
Significant and naturalistic landscaping buffering is required along Highway 3, and as a transition to
adjouung natural areas
The number of dwelling units is not guaranteed.
A trail easement through the site for connections to the park and an access easement for a future
Hwy 3 underpass.
The developer must receive approval of a WCA wetland mitigation plan.
There are other conditions also, but these items are highhghted because they set expectations for the final
site layout. Comphance with the concept plan approval and recommended conditions of the master plan
must both be met as part of the recommended PUD approval.
There will be a homeowners association for maintaining the building exteriors and the common space
including the private streets
3
1
REZONING
The Comprehensive Plan Amendment changed the land use designation for the property from Pubhc
Institutional (PI) to Urban Residential, UR Urban Residential is a broad residential category that includes
single -family housing and lower density townhouses. The zoning for the development site will be R -2,
Moderate Density, PUD That is the zoning category for most townhouses in the 6 units per acre density
range and acknowledges the PUD approval.
Surrounding properties
South- St. Joseph's Cemetery
East- Central Park
North- Rosemount Woods
West- Rosemount High School
Zoning
PI, Public and Institutional
PI, Pubhc and Institutional
R -2, Moderate Density Res.
PI, Public and Institutional
Land use designation
PI, Pubhc Institutional
PI, Public Institutional
Urban Residential
PI, Pubhc Institutional
The rezoning to R -2, Moderate Density Residential is consistent with the zoning for the Rosemount
Woods manufactured housing area (an early 1980's PUD), as well as the properties along South Robert
Trail to the north, including the South Metro Auto Brokers property (a non conforming commercial use).
The maximum density for residential use m the R -2 District is 6 units per acre. The density based upon
the current plan is 7 units per acre (gross). By approving the project in the current configuration, the City
would be in effect granting a density bonus for the development. A density bonus is not unusual,
generally, enhanced architectural or site amenities can qualify a development for increasing density.
Further, the number of units has not changed significantly from the concept plan recently approved, which
proposed 75 dwelling units The Comprehensive Plan includes applicable pohcies for high density housing,
even though the development is not in the high- density residential category that is usually associated with
apartments and condomuuums.
Discourage the use of existing local residential streets for access to high- density residential areas.
Approve lugh- density residential housing m dispersed locations that are compatible with
adjoining uses
Allow high density residential housing only when it represents a logical transition from higher to
lower intensity land uses, or provides sufficient on -site open space to effectively buffer dissimilar
uses, or is adjacent to the central business district or represents a logical extension of existing
multi- family zoning.
Promote high- density residential housing that fills specific market niches.
Strengthen the downtown commercial area with additional high density housing at targeted
locations.
Staff used the Urban Residential designation for the site as we did not want to designate the property as a
high- density use That category implies a higher level of density than anticipated by the concept plan and
we did not want to promote development of more units onto the site. At present there are only two multi-
family land use designations, either high density or urban residential For this reason staff is exploring
adding a medium density land use category to the Comprehensive Plan and has recommended this
designation m the 42/52 land use plan.
ACCESS CIRCULATION
Access to the site will occur on a new pubhc cul -de -sac street connecting to South Robert Trail across
from the southerly dnveway entrance to the Community Center. This new street will be 140 Circle,
forming the northern edge of' the townhouse development The street will be entirely within the Glen
Rose property to avoid obtaining easements on adjacent property. However, grading is proposed off site
If future redevelopment occurs in the Rosemount Woods project or properties adjacent to Hwy 3 a road
extension to the north from 140 Circle would be explored. It would be preferable to ultimately have a
4
north /south road that would intersect with Connemara Trail and 140 Circle.
The 140 Circle cul -de -sac also provides direct driveway access to 6 row style townhouse units. All of the
other units depend on private streets for access within the development. Staff would have preferred that
there be no direct access unto the public road however, site grades make it impossible to access the row
house from the southern side. Additionally, staff expects that traffic m this area of the pubhc road to be
low as most access to the site should occur west of the row house It is also expected that the future
extension to the north will occur west of the row house The internal private street system connects to
140 Circle m two places, then, loops within the development, connecting with another internal loop The
double looped private streets are intended for though traffic and are 28 feet wide. Connected to the
double loop system are 5 dead -end private streets extending from the loops that are 20 feet wide.
Apphcable zoning standards for private streets include: Internal roadways are required to be 28 feet wide
(face to face). This will allow enough space for parking on one side of the street Staff considers the 20-
foot streets different than the major looped roads due to their function. They are not considered
roadways, which function as through streets but rather would be considered shared dnveways. This
approach is consistent with the Harmony development approvals.
Although the roads are private the geometncs of the intersections need to comply with overall city
standards. Many of the streets are too curvilinear and could pose problems. The mtersecnon between
buildings 7 and 8 has been "T'd" as suggested by staff. However, driveways with building 8 enter the
street very close to the intersection. Two of the driveways should be combined to encourage additional
vehicle stackmg space for the intersection Another concern is the intersection separating buildings 9, 10,
11 and 12 There are 2 intersections m this area that are 50 feet apart. The preferred solution is to
consohdate the east -west street and accept a single off -set intersection of the north -south connections
rather than the "compound" intersection shown on the latest plan.
PARKING
Parking requirements are 2.5 spaces per unit. The 1/2 space per unit is for common parking accessible to
all The 20 ft. front yard unit setback allows for 2 parking spaces m the driveway. Garages also have
minimum size requirements for 440 sq ft. and are to have 150 cubic feet of storage space
190 spaces are required overall m the development, including 38 common spaces. The development offers
more than sufficient parking given that each unit has a 2 -car garage, and most of the units have a setback
of 20 feet to the private streets, allowing for additional visitor parking. The site has enough on -street
parking spaces for 44 cars. There are 6 dead -end driveways, each wide enough for 2 spaces However, the
common driveway east of building 10 would have to be lengthened to eliminate parking conflicts with
driveway openings. The driveway east of building 7 is not meant to provide parking as it would intrude on
the rear yards of building 2.
SETBACK DISCUSSION
The following standards found in the R -2 and Section 4 Townhome Requirements are the basis for
evaluation of the PUD request
Townhouse setbacks
Unit to unit
Unit to property line
Front to front
60 feet
40 feet (Hwy 3)
Side to side
20 feet
30 feet
Rear to side
40 feet
30 feet
Rear to rear
60 feet
30 feet
Unit to pnvate street 20 feet (allows enough room in driveway for private parking).
Unit to common parking 15 feet
The original plan had a number of setback deficiencies based upon the above, primarily between individual
5
buildings of between buildings and the private street system that were itemized m the Planning
Commission recommendation The revised plans eliminated all of those setback deficiencies
Site Plan Revision
The plan revision shifted the buildings and internal streets to eliminate the setback problems The
developer also redrew the plan to show the actual shape of the townhouse that has indented building
cornets that should ehmunate the setback problems. The indented building corners have posts that do
encroach into the setbacks However, the posts support open porches with patios, and the homeowners
association documents will include restrictions that will prohibit these spaces being converted to enclosed
hving space.
BUILDING DISCUSSION
There are 2 general building types m the development including 34 tow house units and 42 townhouses m
seven back -to back 6- plexes. There are also 2 types of row houses.
Row Houses
Most of the row houses (28 units) are labeled "6 plea type 1 which are 2 -story buildings facing the
street with tuck -under garages and front entrances alongside the garages. The rear elevations of the
buildings have a 2.5 to 3 story height including basements The basement styles include full, look out and
walk outs. Rooflmes telescope with the front entrances and space above recessed behind the leading plane
of the garage A gabled window above the garage breaks up the otherwise horizontal rooflmes of the eves.
Roof pitches are 6:12 and the dormered windows are 12.12.
Applicable zoning standards for building materials include: All vertical surfaces shall be treated as a
"front" with at least 50% of the exterior materials that are non- combusuble, non degradable and
maintenance free (for example, base bnck, natural stone, glass and aluminum, steel of vinyl siding) or those
comparable m grade and quality
Materials include face -brick accents on either side of the textured garage doors, and vinyl siding with a
cedar shakes texture around the second story dormer windows The rest of the front elevations include 4"
lap vinyl siding on the upper levels of the front elevations and 6" lap on all of the other surfaces. The face
brick runs the entire length of the front elevations and wraps around the end unit corners 4 feet as
recommended by the Plannug Commission.
The rear elevations include 2 -foot "bump- outs" on the main levels, with an optional deck that would be
centered on the main level. The bump -outs and optional decks provide the only relief along the rear
elevations End -units with the recessed front entrances include columns at the comers to support the
cantilevered roofs.
The other type of row house is labeled "6 plex type 2" for 6 units is a 3- story building m the northwest
corner of the site near Highway 3 and 140` Circle These units have a smaller footprint with tuck -under
garages with 2 levels above. The front doors are on the opposite side of the units, facing 140` Circle. The
entrances include open front porches or verandas on the second level, and are accessed by 2 flights of
steps. The buildings materials are primarily vinyl lap siding with a 4 inch lap. The end units have gabled
roofs that are connected with a hip runnmg the length of the mtenor units The mtenor units have dormer
windows to break up the honzontal rooflmes. All of the dormered windows have vinyl shake, consistent
with the other row house style. Face brick has been added creating a brick wainscoting between the garage
doors. The face brick covers the end unit elevations up to the first floor. The front elevations have bnck
applied between the front porches, extendmg up to the second floor No brick has been applied to the
porch walls under the verandas or basement walls direedy underneath as this area will be obscured by the
lattice screen.
6
One item of concern is the proximity of building 3 to the storm water utility easement The plan shows the
4 northerly umts have decks that would extend up to the easement. The easement becomes 5 feet wider
along side the 4` unit, and wraps around the deck of the 4`" unit. Consequently, the southerly end unit
backs right up to the easement and will not have space for a deck. Utility easement encroachments by
decks are not allowed. The developer may ask to have a portion of the easement vacated, especially in the
area alongside the southerly 2 units where the easement becomes 5 feet wider. Because easements often
have to be acquired from property owners (as in this case originally), they generally are not excessively
wide. The easement width is often a function of the depth of the storm sewer pipe that was installed.
6 -Plex Buildings
These double loaded buildings with 3 -umts pet side are labeled in the elevations as "6 plex
condominiums" There are a total of 42 units distributed among seven 6-unit buildings. The end or
comer units have two- stones of hying space and the mtenor umts are three stones.
Building materials include face brick accents on either side of the textured garage doors and at the base of
columns supporting the cantilevered roof eves at the building corners. The face brick wraps around the
cornets of the garages to include the front entrees In this area, the brick extends to the top of the first
level. The brick then wraps around the corners of the end units 4 feet as recommended by the Planning
Commission The remaining materials consist of vinyl siding with 4" lap on the entry level and 6" lap
above The 3 -story center umts have a deck above the garage and a dormer window feature on the 3`
floor with vinyl shake textured siding.
LANDSCAPING
The townhouse development requires a more uniform grade across the site than that provided by the
existing topography Extensive retaining walls are proposed along the frontage of Highway 3 and
extending into the site along the northern edge about 200 feet and the southern edge about 230 feet.
Additional walls are proposed near the southeastern corner of the site and along the outer edge of a pond
that forms the northern edge of the wetland buffer area. One benefit of the retaining walls is to provide a
defined area along Highway 3 for screening. The height of the walls range from three feet in the
southwest corner of the site to a maximum of 16 feet near the middle, then 12 feet near the 140`" Circle
intersection. An observation deck is shown overlooking the wetland /pond area. The observation deck has
an octagonal shape, measuring 16 feet across with a link with the mtenor sidewalk system
The landscape plan provides for boulevard trees planted between driveways at the row houses and at the
building corners for the 6 plex condominiums The rest of the landscaping is along highway 3 or the
eastern edge for buffering the athlenc fields m the adjacent park There are also 12 trees arranged around
the wetland /pond area Foundation plantings have also been provided, pnmanly at the building entrances
and between decks /patios.
Landscaping zonuig quantity tequnements are for 100 trees including 76 boulevard trees (1 per unit) along
the street unit frontages and the 24-tree replacement requirement from the tree preservation standards.
In addition, landscape screening along Highway 3 and a transition to natural areas is a requirement of
concept approval. Lastly, there is a requirement for 20% of the open /green space is reserved for
playgrounds and /or passive recreanonal space. By subnactmg the area to be dedicated for the 140 Circle
right -of -way, the wetland /pond area and the land east of the utility easement amount to about 21% of the
site.
The revised landscaping plan includes 95 over -story trees, 37 evergreens, 8 ornamental trees and 89
shrubs. The quantities now exceed the typical minunum standards; as well as the tree preservation
replacement standards. Eighteen Bur Oaks have been included consistent with the Planning
Commission's recommendation for the edge of the pond and the northeastern comer hillside contiguous
with the park.
7
Previous concerns about inaccurate driveway alignments particularly concerning buildings 4 and 5 have
been addressed with the plan revisions. The monument sign has also been moved as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
Landscaping summary
Boulevard (shade) /evergreen trees
Ornamental trees
Foundation plantings
Tree species
Box elder
Cottonwood
Oaks
Elm
Ash
Total Cut Saved
6 4 2
24 24 0
15 12 3
5 2 3
1 1 0
Required
100 including replacement req.
None
None
Provided
137
8
89
TREE PRESERVATION
The Tree Inventory Plan shows a total of 51 trees in scattered groupmgs on the site. It has been expanded
to include 6 trees that are on the edge of the parkland that will be graded along with the development.
Comments
Considered insignificant
Considered insignificant
Most of the replacement requirement
Siberian elms considered insignificant
The saved trees are on the outer edges of the site, south of the wetland, and in the northeast corner of the
site beyond the utility easement. The replacement requirement is calculated by totaling the number of
Oaks and Elm trees to be removed The size of the removed tree determines whether the replacement
requirement is 2 or 4 trees. Then that number is reduced by 25%. The resulting minimum tree
replacement requirement is 24 trees.
SIDEWALKS TRAILS
Sidewalks are shown on the plan to provide access across the site to the park trail system in conformance
with one of the conditions of Concept approval. They are shown as 5 feet wide, consistent with City
standards. There is a section on the north side of 140 Circle, between the private street connections and
across from the 6 northerly row house units of building 2 The sidewalk continues along 140 Circle to a
point just beyond the utility easement at the eastern end of the cul -de -sac. At that point, an 8 ft. wide trail
extends east and south towards the existing trail m the park beyond the utihty easement. The trail enters
the development between buildings 3 and 4, then crosses a 20 foot wide street and ahgns with a sidewalk
that provides a connection to the observation deck overlooking the pond and wetland area.
A sidewalk has also been provided along the westerly pnvate street entrance adjacent to Building 1 on the
suggestion of the Planning Commission. It is labeled as a 5 ft. wide bituminous path City standards
would require bitummous paths to be 8 feet wide Concrete sidewalks are 5 feet wide Therefore, this
path should be a concrete sidewalk if it is to be limited to 5 feet wide.
PARK DEDICATION
The following is the latest recommendation by the Parks and Recreation Commission on June 27, 2005
based upon the revised grading plans, but pnor to receiving the latest plan revisions that included
additional landscapmg in the park.
The Parks and Recreation Commission motion stated that the City complete an underpass feasibility study,
however if such study is not approved by the City Council, the recommendation relative to the project
include:
1. Cash dedication with the payment to be made at the tate at the tune of payment.
2. The trail connection at the mid -block of 140 Circle needs to be identified on their (the
8
GlenRose) plan as a future connection to the north, giving us (the City) access to Connemara
Trail
3. Grading is allowed in the park as per the plan, with only the seven identified trees to be
removed from the northwest corner of the park.
4. The developer will pay for all trail costs including those on City property.
5. Increase the buffer at the northeast edge of the park with additional plantings to create a
buffer from the lights, etc..
PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS
Staff is studying the potential for a pedestrian underpass. If an underpass were feasible, it would connect
the High School property dtrecdy across Highway 3 from the site What is known at this time is that the
right -of -way for Highway 3 is 150 feet wide, which would be the minimum length of the underpass By
comparison, the underpass that was constructed Connemara Trail is 115 feet long underneath an 85 foot
wide right -of -way. Financially there was an economic benefit realized when Connemara Trail and the
underpass were constructed concurrently. This would not be the case with a Highway 3 underpass. Staff
expects construction of a Highway 3 underpass to be very costly and there is some question to its benefit
m this locanon now that this site will be privately developed rather than become public open space.
However, staff will be checking the ground elevations needed to install an underpass and still allow the
minimum depth of cover required for the highway Those elevations will be compared with the grading
plan for GlenRose to determine what kind of impact would be made to the development to make the
underpass ADA (Amencans with Drsabilines Act) accessible It is expected that some proposed dwelling
units would be lost in order to construct the transitional grade for the underpass access.
GRADING STORMWATER PONDING
Development of the site is hampered by existing topography and the presence of a wetland. The developer
is proposing to fill a portion of the wetland and provide adjacent mtnganon. A wetland replacement plan
application must be made to the City meeting State standards. The application has begun processing theft
WCA permit with the City. Although the final review and comment period has not concluded, staff does
not expect any wetland related conditions of the permit to impact the master development plan for the
site. The WCA permit must be issued prior to Council acnon on the preliminary plat and PUD master
development plan Based upon the submitted plans there remain a vanety of issues left to address These
include:
The plans show nprap m the existing wetland. However, this is not shown as impact in the
application or plans The plans and application need to be revised to address this impact or the
impact needs to be removed.
Minnesota Rules 8420 requires a cross- section of the mitigation site to be shown on the plans.
The plans do not show a cross section of the mitigation site which requires no side slopes
steeper than 5.1 and more than half of the slopes inside the mitiganon area being 10.1
A 30 foot buffer is required because the wetland is designated M2. Since a storm water pond is
proposed within the buffer and there is approximately 20 feet between the wetland and the
NWL of the pond, the addmonal 10 feet of buffer needs to be provided on the back side of
the storm water pond in conformance with the City's Plan The buffer needs to be shown on
the plans
The wetland mitigation seeding needs to be shown on the plans. Additionally, sodding around
the storm pond and m the wetland buffer is not permitted A native upland seed mix needs to
be shown on the plans.
9
As required by WCA, the wetland replacement application needs to state that replacement will
be prior or concurrent to wetland fill
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The development site has been discussed m a variety of land use scenarios in the past, with the current
proposal as the first residenttal use The current submittal is consistent with the previous concept plan
approved earlier m the year by the City The plan has been revised since the Planning Commission review
to reduce the number of conditions. Staff believes most of these items have been adequately addressed
without significantly altering the site plan for the project. This step was important, because this action is
for master development plan approval, and that the plans approved must closely approximate the future
built project.
Staff is recommending approval of the rezoning to R -2 PUD, master development plan approval and
approval of the prelmmmary plat. The main issues of concern have been addressed through various plan
revisions and although several items remain, the apphcant should be able to address them within the
general confines of the subject site plan
1 0
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2005-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIINARY PLAT AND PUD FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR GLENROSE OF ROSEMOUNT
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an
application from Dean Johnson Homes requesting Preliminary Plat and PUD Final Development
Plan approval concerning property legally described as:
That part of Lot One (1) and Lot Six (6) of Auditor's Subdivision No. 1 to the Village of Rosemount,
according to the recorded plat thereof now on file and of record m the office of the Registrar of Deeds
within and for the County of Dakota and State of Minnesota, said part of Lot One (1) being located in the
Northeast Quarter (NE 'A) and said part of Lot Six (6) being located m the Northwest Quarter (N/W 1/4) of
Section Twenty -nme (29), Township One Hundred Fifteen (115) North, Range Nineteen (19) West, and
being described as follows Beginning at a judicial land mark on the East line of the Northwest Quarter
(NW Ya) of said Section Twenty -nme (29), a distance of 1997 40 feet North of the Southeast corner thereof,
said East line assumed to be North 00 degrees East, thence South 88 degrees 13 minutes 27 seconds East
495 00 feet to a judicial land mark at the southeast coma of said Lot One (1), thence North 16 degrees 46
minutes 28 seconds East along the Easterly line of said Lot One (1), a distance of 668 00 feet to a judicial
land mark on the North line of said Northeast Quarter (NE thence South 88 degrees 00 minutes00
seconds West along the North line of said Northeast Quarter (NE 9) and Lot One (1), a distance of 688.00
feet to a judicial land mark at the Northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter (NE of Lot One (1), thence
South 89 degrees 44 minutes 42 seconds West along the North line of said Northwest Quarter (NW and
said Lot Six (6), a distance of 80 68 feet to a judicial land mark on the Easterly right of way line of State
Trunk Highway No 3 as now established, thence South 17 degrees 29 minutes 51 secoids West along said
right of way line 618.44 feet to a judicial land mark, thence South 87 degrees 51 minutes East a distance of
266 81 feet to the East Ime of Lot Six (6) and of said Northwest Quarter (NW ''A) being the pomt of
beginning, the land herein &scribed
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed
the Preliminary Plat, Final Development Plan, rezoning from PI to PUD R -2, and Final Site and
Building Plan; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2005, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, PUD Final Development Plan, subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2005, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning
Commissions recommendations; and.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Preliminary Plat and PUD Master Development Plan for the GlenRose of
Rosemount development, subject to:
1. The developer shall provide documentation from MnDOT that the plan has been
reviewed and approved by MnDOT. This documentation will need to be received by
the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
2. For the proposed grading on the adjacent property to the north, the developer shall
provide documentation of an easement or right-of-entry to complete this work prior to
the issuance of a grading permit.
RESOLUTION 2005
3. The EOF spot elevation between Lots 8 9 and Lots 12 13 require 1' of freeboard
to the low floor opening elevation. Also, all EOF locations shall be labeled on the
plans.
4. The street section shall reflect the City of Rosemount's typical section for residential
street construction of 2" bituminous wear course, 2" bituminous non -wear course, 6"
Class V, 24" select granular and B618 curb and gutter.
5. The developer shall complete the Wetland Conservation Act permit for the proposed
impact. The following items shall be addressed relative to the wetland and storm
water pond.
6. A 30' buffer shall be shown on the plan from the delineated wetland edge and
proposed mitigation edge. Buffer averaging will be required to meet the wetland
buffer requirements.
Buffer monumentation shall be shown on the plan.
A conservation easement will be required for the wetland, mitigation site,
storm water pond and a buffer area.
Restoration of the wetland, mitigation site and storm water pond shall be with
MnDOT Seed Mixture 310.
7. All final plans meet the detail and specifications of the engineering department
relating to drainage, easements, grading, storm water management, street alignments
and utilities.
8. Park dedication shall be in the form of cash dedication in lieu of land dedication with
the payment to be made at the rate of the current fee schedule at the time of final plat.
9. The trail connection at the mid -block of 140 Circle needs to be identified on the plan
as a future connection to the north, intended for access to Connemara Trail.
10. Grading is allowed in the park as per the plan, with only the seven identified trees to
be removed from the northwest corner of the park.
11. The developer will pay for all trail costs including those on City property.
12. Increase the buffer at the northeast edge of the park with additional plantings to create
a buffer from the ballfield lights, etc.
13. All public trails and sidewalks shall be designed and built to current standards.
Sidewalks shall be made of concrete and a minimum of 5 feet wide. Trails shall be
made of asphalt and are 8 feet wide.
2
RESOLUTION 2005
14. Execution of a PUD agreement based upon the revised plans received on July 12,
2005, and recording the PUD agreement with Dakota County. The plan revision
satisfactorily resolved previously identified setback, landscaping, architectural and
site plan deficiencies referred to in the Planning Commission recommendation.
15. Conformance with the requirements for final plat including execution of a subdivision
development agreement to secure public and private infrastructure to serve the
development.
16. Conformance with the attached housing garage standards for minimum size and
storage space.
17. Conformance with all of the conditions of Resolution 2005 -11.
18. Homeowners association covenants and documents shall be approved by the City
Attorney and recorded at Dakota County at the time of final plat.
19. Driveways for building 8 shall be combined to increase the driveway spacing from the
intersection between buildings 7 and 8.
20. The intersections between buildings 9, 10, 11 and 12 shall be redesigned by
consolidating the east -west street and connecting the north -south streets with
perpendicular alignments.
ADOPTED this 17 day of May, 2005 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
ATTEST:
Linda Jentink, City Clerk
Motion by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Member absent:
William H. Droste, Mayor
Second by:
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2005-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIINARY PLAT AND PUD FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR GLENROSE OF ROSEMOUNT
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an
application from Dean Johnson Homes requesting Preliminary Plat and PUD Final Development
Plan approval concerning property legally described as.
That part of Lot One (1) and Lot Six (6) of Auditor's Subdivision No. 1 to the Village of Rosemount,
according to the recorded plat thereof now on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Deeds
within and for the County of Dakota and State of Minnesota, said part of Lot One (I) being located in the
Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) and said part of Lot Six (6) being located in the Northwest Quarter (N/W'/) of
Section Twenty -nine (29), Township One Hundred Fifteen (115) North, Range Nineteen (19) West, and
being described as follows Beginning at a judicial land mark on the East line of the Northwest Quarter
(NW Y) of said Section Twenty -nme (29), a distance of 1997 40 feet North of the Southeast comer thereof,
said East line assumed to be North 00 degrees East, thence South 88 degrees 13 minutes 27 seconds East
495 00 feet to a judicial land mark at the southeast coma of said Lot One (1), thence North 16 degrees 46
minutes 28 seconds East along the Easterly line of said Lot One (1), a distance of 668.00 feet to a judicial
land mark on the North line of said Northeast Quarter (NE'/), thence South 88 degrees 00 minutes00
seconds West along the North line of said Northeast Quarter (NE and Lot One (1), a distance of 688 00
feet to a judicial land mark at the Northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter (NE'/) of Lot One (1), thence
South 89 degrees 44 minutes 42 seconds West along the North line of said Northwest Quarter (NW 1,) and
said Lot Six (6), a distance of 80 68 feet to a judicial land mark on the Easterly right of way line of State
Trunk Highway No 3 as now established, thence South 17 degrees 29 minutes 51 secoids West along said
right of way Line 618 44 feet to a Judicial land mark; thence South 87 degrees 51 minutes East a distance of
266 81 feet to the East line of Lot Six (6) and of said Northwest Quarter (NW'/) being the point of
beginning, the land herein described
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed
the Preliminary Plat, Final Development Plan, rezoning from PI to PUD R -2, and Final Site and
Building Plan; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2005, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, PUD Final Development Plan, subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2005, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning
Commissions recommendations; and.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Preliminary Plat and PUD Master Development Plan for the GlenRose of
Rosemount development, subject to:
1. The developer shall provide documentation from MnDOT that the plan has been
reviewed and approved by MnDOT. This documentation will need to be received by
the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
2. For the proposed grading on the adjacent property to the north, the developer shall
provide documentation of an easement or right -of -entry to complete this work prior to
the issuance of a grading permit.
RESOLUTION 2005
3. The EOF spot elevation between Lots 8 9 and Lots 12 13 require 1' of freeboard
to the low floor opening elevation. Also, all EOF locations shall be labeled on the
plans.
4. The street section shall reflect the City of Rosemount's typical section for residential
street construction of 2" bituminous wear course, 2" bituminous non -wear course, 6"
Class V, 24" select granular and B618 curb and gutter.
5. The developer shall complete the Wetland Conservation Act permit for the proposed
impact. The following items shall be addressed relative to the wetland and storm
water pond:
6. A 30' buffer shall be shown on the plan from the delineated wetland edge and
proposed mitigation edge. Buffer averaging will be required to meet the wetland
buffer requirements.
Buffer monumentation shall be shown on the plan.
A conservation easement will be required for the wetland, mitigation site,
storm water pond and a buffer area.
Restoration of the wetland, mitigation site and storm water pond shall be with
MnDOT Seed Mixture 310.
7. All final plans meet the detail and specifications of the engineering department
relating to drainage, easements, grading, storm water management, street alignments
and utilities.
8. Park dedication shall be in the form of cash dedication in lieu of land dedication with
the payment to be made at the rate of the current fee schedule at the time of final plat.
9. The trail connection at the mid -block of 140 Circle needs to be identified on the plan
as a future connection to the north, intended for access to Connemara Trail.
10 Grading is allowed in the park as per the plan, with only the seven identified trees to
be removed from the northwest corner of the park.
11. The developer will pay for all trail costs including those on City property.
12. Increase the buffer at the northeast edge of the park with additional plantings to create
a buffer from the ballfield lights, etc.
13. All public trails and sidewalks shall be designed and built to current standards.
Sidewalks shall be made of concrete and a minimum of 5 feet wide. Trails shall be
made of asphalt and are 8 feet wide.
2
RESOLUTION 2005
14. Execution of a PUD agreement based upon the revised plans received on July 12,
2005, and recording the PUD agreement with Dakota County. The plan revision
satisfactorily resolved previously identified setback, landscaping, architectural and
site plan deficiencies referred to in the Planning Commission recommendation.
15. Conformance with the requirements for final plat including execution of a subdivision
development agreement to secure public and private infrastructure to serve the
development.
16. Conformance with the attached housing garage standards for minimum size and
storage space.
17. Conformance with all of the conditions of Resolution 2005 -11.
18. Homeowners association covenants and documents shall be approved by the City
Attorney and recorded at Dakota County at the time of final plat.
19. Driveways for building 8 shall be combined to increase the driveway spacing from the
intersection between buildings 7 and 8
20. The intersections between buildings 9, 10, 11 and 12 shall be redesigned by
consolidating the east -west street and connecting the north -south streets with
perpendicular alignments.
ADOPTED this 17 day of May, 2005 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
ATTEST:
Linda Jentink, City Clerk
William H Droste, Mayor
Motion by: Second by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Member absent:
3
City of Rosemount
Ordinance No. B -156
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE
GlenRose of Rosemount
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
Section L Ordinance B, adopted September 19, 1989, entitled "City of Rosemount
Zoning Ordinance," is hereby amended to rezone the property located on the East side of Htghway
3 across from the Rosemount High School Athletic Fields, Rosemount, Minnesota, from PI, Public and
Institutional, to R2 PUD, Moderate Density Density Residential Planned Unit Development,
legally described as follows.
That part of Lot One (1) and Lot Six (6) of Auditor's Subdivision No 1 to the Village of Rosemount,
according to the recorded plat thereof now on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Deeds
within and for the County of Dakota and State of Minnesota, said part of Lot One (1) being located in the
Northeast Quarter (NE '/n) and said part of Lot Six (6) being located in the Northwest Quarter (N/W 9) of
Section Twenty -nme (29), Township One Hundred Fifteen (115) North, Range Nineteen (19) West, and
being described as follows: Beginning at a judicial land mark on the East line of the Northwest Quarter
(NW of said Section Twenty -nine (29), a distance of 1997 40 feet North of the Southeast corner thereof,
said East line assumed to be North 00 degrees East, thence South 88 degrees 13 minutes 27 seconds East
495 00 feet to a judicial land mark at the southeast comer of said Lot One (1), thence North 16 degrees 46
minutes 28 seconds East along the Easterly line of said Lot One (1), a distance of 668 00 feet to a judicial
land mark on the North line of said Northeast Quarter (NE '/n); thence South 88 degrees 00 minutes 00
seconds West along the North line of said Northeast Quarter (NE'/) and Lot One (1), a distance of 688.00
feet to a judicial land mark at the Northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter (NE of Lot One (1),
thence South 89 degrees 44 minutes 42 seconds West along the North line of said Northwest Quarter (NW
and said Lot Six (6), a distance of 80 68 feet to a judicial land mark on the Easterly right of way line of
State Trunk Highway No 3 as now established; thence South 17 degrees 29 minutes 51 seconds West
along said right of way line 618 44 feet to a judicial land mark, thence South 87 degrees 51 minutes East a
distance of 266.81 feet to the East line of Lot Six (6) and of said Northwest Quarter (NW /J) being the
point of beginning, the land herein described.
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 19 day of July, 2005.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
William H Droste, Mayor
C 0MtituN 119
tet c 2
j
iezrro c
cat t ETEtz`(
Pee po seo
Davf LopME N7
Fb ra 74
tow N f}0u)65
1
i
ItoSamountT
yl0005
PA R.-
w I m
n i Y i;
ti m
1 1/1/
M
o
ltnn sT W j;
0
Q
i
!F!!
T
M
a t e
4.�
AI/ i
SECTION B-B
oasodone
1OIIVOIIIY
ONV11JM
i
�VDI,III
V113M
—I__
w3
1
w3 i 1
a t e
4.�
AI/ i
SECTION B-B
oasodone
1OIIVOIIIY
ONV11JM
i
L--
o
1
FRIO
w3
1
a t e
4.�
AI/ i
SECTION B-B
0 0E: 0
0
a"
IIII
r
r
11
I)
7
U
P
d 8
(C H
/ate S
4
S. y 1L
°^re
0
N O
r N
0) 0)
I 1 I I1'
O LC 0 N O f)
n
h- (0 CO I U]
0 rn m mi m co m
Ca
1 :31
O L) O n O
rj i ww
E
MEMOS% SEM
MINIMMESIMMIN
MEMMEMIMMIIMM
MMMIAMMMMMMIIM
rAWINIMMEMMIMEM
0 N O
CO CO (f) N
m 0) co 0)
�r)
0
0
0)
m
N O
r7 M
m. 0)
0
N O
N N
0) 0)
0)
0,
s
s
CITY OF ROSEMOUN
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2005 11
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONCEPT PLAN
AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR GLENROSE OF ROSEMOUNT
BY DEAN JOHNSON HOMES
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an
application from Dean Johnson Homes requesting the Concept Plan and Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for the GlenRose of Rosemount, legally described as.
Pt Lot 6 lying E. of Rd EX N 3 acs Lot 5 EX Com NW cor NE I/4 29- 115 -19 E on N line 688
ft to NE cor Lot 1 SE on E line Lot 1 668 ft to NE cor Lot 5 SE on E line Lot 5 329.79 ft to Pt of
Beg cont SE on E line 750.47 ft to most S'ly cor Lot 5 W line NE1 /4 N 335.94 ft to NE cor Lot
28 Auditor's Subdivision No, I Rosemount N 51 °06'51" E 478 25 ft to be; AND N 3 A of that
part of Lot 6 E of Dodd Rd., all in Auditor's Subdivision No 1 Rosemount
WHEREAS, on July 26, 2004, the Parks and Recreation Commission of the City of Rosemount
reviewed the Concept Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Committee of the City of Rosemount recommended to
reject the Concept Plan and recommend that the City Council purchase the property; and
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed the
Concept Plan and Comprehensive Plan Amendment for GlenRose of Rosemount for 25 attached
townhome units the area east side of Highway 3 across from the Rosemount High School
Athletic Fields; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount conducted a public hearing
concerning the Concept Plan and Comprehensive Plan Amendment as required by ordinance and
received no comments from the public or affected neighboring property owners, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council
approve the Concept Plan and Comprehensive Plan Amendment for GlenRose of Rosemount,
subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, August 17, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning
Commission's recommendation the Concept Plan and Comprehensive Plan Amendment for
GlenRose of Rosemount, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rosemount continued the item and requested it be
place on a workshop agenda for discussion; and
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2004 the Parks and Recreation Committee of the City of Rosemount
considered land dedication or payment of the park fee as part of the approval of the Concept
Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Committee of the City of Rosemount did not favor the
land dedication tabled the item to be discussed at a future meeting, and
1. Approval of the amendment by the Metropolitan Council.
RESOLUTION 2005 -11
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2004 and October 28, 2004 the City Council of the City of
Rosemount held workshops to discuss the development of the site, traffic and land use issues;
and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2005 the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the
Planning Commission's recommendation, the Parks and Recreation Committee's
recommendations, and the Concept Plan and Comprehensive Plan Amendment for GlenRose of
Rosemount.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for GlenRose of Rosemount, subject to:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount
hereby approves the Concept Plan for GlenRose of Rosemount, subject to:
1. Concept plan approval is for the 75 unit residential townhouse project concept plan that
was part of the initial application The concept plan with the library and townhomes is
denied.
2. The public access road must be aligned with the southern community center access and
be expanded to 3 lanes to permit 2 outbound lanes from the site.
3. Provision of unrestricted turn arounds with a minimum turning radius of 45 feet for all
dead -end common driveways or streets exceeding 150 feet, or as approved by the
Rosemount Fire Marshal.
4. All townhouse units shall have two -car garages consistent with applicable zoning
standards.
5. The site plan shall include adequate buffer area from Highway 3 for the residential
portion of the project. Significant landscaping should occur along Highway 3 which shall
include a combination of differing plant materials to create a natural buffer. Natural
plantings should be installed where there is a transition from the maintained area to the
adjoining natural areas.
6. Concept approval does not guarantee the number of dwelling units.
7. Payment in lieu of land dedication consistent with the ordinance standards.
8. The applicant provide a trail easement through the site to the adjoining park and an
access easement for future installation of a Hwy. 3 underpass.
9. Incorporation of recommendations by the City Engineer relative to access, circulation,
drainage, easements, grading, storm water management, traffic and utilities.
2
10. Rezoning to PUD and execution of a PUD Agreement.
11. Conformance with PUD Final Development Plan/Preliminary Plat and Final Plat
requirements.
12. The developer receive approval of a WCA wetland mitigation plan.
ADOPTED this first day of February, 2005 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
ATTEST:
Lnd. Jentink, City rk
William H. Droste, Mayor
Motion by: DeBettignies Second by: Baxter
Voted in favor: Baxter, DeBettignies, Shoe Corrigan, Droste
Voted against: Sterner
Member absent: None
3
RESOLUTION 2005 -11
Excerpt from the Planning Commission Special Meeting of June 14, 2005
Public Hearing:
5A. Case 05 -15 -ZA GlenRose of Rosemount (Dean Johnson) Rezoning and Case
05 -15 -PP GlenRose of Rosemount (Dean Johnson) Preliminary Plat and PUD
Master Development Plan.
City Planner Pearson reviewed the staff report. This review concerns the prehminary plat
and planned unit development master plan and rezoning for Glen Rose, a 76 -unit
townhouse development proposed for the vacant 10 acre site between Rosemount Woods
and the St Joseph's Cemetery on the east side of South Robert Trail The property is
currently zoned Pubhc Institutional and the appropriate zoning for the townhouse project
would be R -2, Moderate Density Residential, PUD The City Council granted concept plan
approval in February 2005.
Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr Pearson.
Commissioner Powell questioned the MnDOT letter included in the packet. His concern
was if the current plan is consistent and responsive to the comments outlined m the letter
Mr. Pearson indicated the plan is consistent and follows recommendations from
conversanons with MnDOT that pre -dated the letter.
Commissioner Zurn asked for clanfication on the size of the trail behind the row houses.
Mr Pearson indicated it would be an 8 ft trail per the Parks and Recreation Committee's
recommendation
Chairperson Messner asked the apphcant to come forward.
John Bergh, Loucks Associates, represented Dean Johnson Homes Mr. Bergh commented
on the grading issues that were discussed. To accomplish the grading needed for the 100
year flood and the property to the north he showed a larger plan to the Commission Two
problems include the amount of water that goes through the cemetery and also the property
to the north that is higher also drams down to the project so they had to create an outlet for
the water and raise the grades in the development and created an emergency storage area.
The issues for the trail, pondmg, snow storage and 100 year flood mark was to move the hill
back and align the tnal to create a dramage way from the north to the pondmg area and
created some holding areas for the stormwater They resolved it by grading into the park
area. By grading, they used the additional dirt to raise the buildings a foot and a half to deal
with the pondmg issues There are a number of small things that can be accomphshed when
doing the final plans Mr. Bergh is worried there might be an issue with the Erickson Park
plan with the trailway /passage way from Erickson Park to the Community Center. What
will happen now is if the trail is extended under Highway 3 you end up m the storm pond
under the Community Center They are not for sure where the tunnel will be placed All the
rest of the issues can be accomplished as for the rest of the requests.
There were no questions for Mr Bergh.
Chairperson Messner questioned Dean Johnson if he would be willing to add more face
brick to some of the buildings Mr. Johnson had no objections to adding the brick to
buildings or any other enhancements. Chairperson Messner asked how the top elevation
faces on the northwest corner building and if the mammoth long look could be changed.
Mr Johnson offered adding columns between the garages, adding gables and some shake
siding.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
Todd Franz, owner for 14 years of South Metro Auto Brokers, Rosemount, stated he is
having a hard tune understanding how two years ago the property had to be rezoned for the
Met Council even though all the owners north of the property objected. Now, a short time
later, the property is being rezoned again. Mr Franz feels it is not fair and does not
understand why the land owner is being screwed. He thinks the project is a crane and
should've been a park or a civic use He doesn't understand the road is moved and not lined
up where it should've been as originally planned Mr Franz's opinion is that the townhouses
look cheap and are a dime a dozen Beyond that, he has not heard one thing about accessing
city water to the properties to the north or how they are going to deal with the storm sewer,
draining and sanitary sewer hft station Mr. Franz stated these items will directly affect his
property since he does not currently have access to city water at his property and he is
worried he will not get access. Mr Franz asked for his property to be rezoned back to
commercial.
Chairperson Messner asked Mr Franz where his property is located. Mr. Frantz rephed it is
located directly north of the proposed project.
MOTION by Humphrey to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schultz. Ayes.
Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell Nayes: None. Motion canned.
Chairperson Messner asked if there some other plan regarding the alignment of the road.
Mr Pearson stated that scenario would've coveted up a storm water pipe that takes storm
water from the big pond at the Community Center and routes it through to the park That
pipe follows a drainage and utility easement and is owned by Rosemount Woods
Chairperson Messner asked where the current closest water and sewer is located. Project
Engineer Aderhold stated the closest sewer is 300 feet north of the dnveway access and is
the line servicing the Community Center. The closest water is on the west side of Highway
3. Community Director Lindquist stated that the City Council will be holding a work session
on June 15 to discuss the extension of sanitary sewer to this project. The project could
stand on its own with the use of a lift station; however, a property owner to the north with a
failed system has indicated he would like city sewer which would require a modified project
for this site only and would potentially impact the Franz property if he's interested m getting
City sewer and water. Some of it is a policy issue because we're getting more pockets where
people have rural septic and they are having problems with their septic and what are we
going to do with properties adjouung them that don't need City services. Those items will
all be part of the conversation on June 15
Commissioner Zurn was concerned with the row houses that are the tuck under style by
140` Circle and South Robert Trail. When you come in the development and take the first
right there would be no sidewalk. Commissioner Zurn feels a sidewalk along that step
would help prevent any safety issues.
Commissioner Powell had a few comments including whether the pnvate toads have been
reviewed for emergency vehicle access and also proposed condition 11 should include
"roadway alignments. Commissioner Powell asked staff if m the past homeowner
associations have been asked to contribute towards stormwater pond maintenance. It is also
his understanding that the trail alignment recommended by staff is not mcluded on the
current plans Mr. Powell commented about locating a road over a trunk storm sewer and
would like to know what the challenges are for doing so. Questioned the forced mains in
the project and how it would affect the property owner to the north.
City Planner Pearson summarized the alignment of the road. Rosemount Woods is not a
party to this development so the ROW of would have to be acquired from Rosemount
Woods Community Development Director Lindquist stated the ROW is platted up until
the north property line so that road will be extended to north when the Rosemount Woods
property would be redeveloped. Ms. Lindquist also stated the Fire Marshal did review the
plans for emergency vehicle access and is comfortable with the plan. Again, Ms Lindquist
stated they are proposing a forced main to the north and those properties would not be able
to access the force main and that will part of the discussion at the June 15, 2005 City Council
work session. The trail alignment is part of the packet but it is a revised plan. The Parks
Commission has not taken action on that revision but will the changes will go to the Parks
Commission at the end of the month.
Commissioner Powell questioned the contribution by the HOA regarding the stormwater
pond maintenance. Is there adequate funding to maintain the facilities; Community
Director Lindquist stated the HOA would be the property owner and the City would have a
public easement. The City maintains the mkt and outlet and ensures it functions correctly.
The HOA physically maintains it Commissioner Powell stated he wants to strengthen the
HOA requirements for funding the facilities. Ms. Lindquist stated she will talk to the City
Attorney about the issue. Commissioner Powell stated he places a high value on
maintenance on storm water ponds and wetlands. He also questioned if the City has
explored to connect the driveway immediately to the north and take it out to 140 instead of
Highway 3. City Planner Pearson stated that was a suggestion only from MnDOT
Commissioner Powell feels Highway 3 will be the single biggest challenge to the City m the
future in regards to developments and connections and we should start looking at it now.
Further discussion was held regarding road alignments with 140` Circle in regards to lining it
up to the Community Center driveway and Comnussioner Powell asked the issue to be
explored
Comnssioner Schultz questioned the developer in regards to parks and sidewalks and what
age group this development is targeted at Dean Johnson stated the chental is young people
before they have children, empty nesters, and snowbirds Mr Johnson stated a tot lot is
something that would not be used in the development The biggest amenity m the
development will be the overlook to the pond.
Commissioner Powell asked if staff was comfortable with the trail alignment and since the
Parks Commission's concerns are m the report it's covered Community Development
Director Lindquist stated there have been a fair amount of modifications made to the plan
and that a new set of plans will be required for the Council.
Commissioner Powell asked the applicant if he was comfortable with the conditions set
forth. Dean Johnson stated they are very comfortable with the conditions.
MOTION by Powell to recommend that the City Council approve the rezoning of
the property to R -2, Moderate Density Residential PUD. Second by Humphrey.
Ayes Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes: None. Motion
carried.
MOTION by Powell to recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary
plat and PUD master development plan for Glen Rose subject to
1 Execution of a PUD agreement
2. Conformance with the requirements for final plat including execution of a
subdivision development agreement to secure public infrastructure.
3. Incorporation of recommendations of the Parks and Recreation
Comnussion, prior to City Council approval, including:
All public trails and sidewalks shall be designed and built to current
standards. Sidewalks shall be made of concrete and a minimum of 5 feet
wide Trails shall be made of asphalt and are 8 feet wide
The placement of the trail on the north side of 140t Circle should be
identified as being a potential /proposed trail connection to the north
when future development occurs.
Consideration of a potential tunnel underpass for State Highway 3 on
this site shall be investigated by the developer.
Payment of park dedication fees in lieu of land dedication. The
developer could receive parks dedication credit for the construction of
the trail m Erickson Park as shown on the plans with the credit to be
determined by staff and developer based upon variables including trail
cost
4. Plan revisions as needed to eliminate setback variations pnor to City Council
review and approval:
Building Scaled dimension Standard Correction
3 35 feet from buildings 7 and 8 40 feet 5 feet
3 13 feet from private street 20 feet 7 feet
5 18 feet from pnvate street 20 feet 2 feet
6 18 feet from private street 20 feet 2 feet
8 17 feet from private street 20 feet 3 feet
8 14 feet from private street 20 feet 6 feet
9 9 feet from pnvate street 20 feet 11 feet
5. 6 additional 2 -inch caliper deciduous trees or 6 -foot tall coniferous trees shall
be installed in conformance with the tree replacement requirements prior to
City Council review and approval.
6. Revision of the landscaping and other plans as necessary based upon
reconciling the driveway locations between the plans and the building
elevations pnor to City Council review and approval.
7. Additional screening landscaping along the eastern property hne to mtngate
the effects of the athletic field lighting in Central Park prior to City Council
review and approval.
8. Conformance with the attached housing garage standards for minimum size
and storage space.
9. The developer add a brick or equivalent matenals wainscoting along the
front facade of each building which wraps around the side for 4 feet For
building #1, a brick or equivalent matenal wainscoting will be included on all
four sides of the structure Plans complying with this standard should be
submitted prior to City Council review and approval
10. The monument sign shall conform to sight triangle requirements.
11. Incorporation of recommendations by the City Engineer regarding drainage,
easements, grading storm water management, roadway alignments, and
utilities poor to City Council approval
12. Conformance with all of the conditions of Resolution 2005 -11.
13. Approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and all permits
necessary relative to State Highway 3 access and improvements to serve the
development.
14. Homeowners association covenants and documents shall be approved by the
City Attorney and Recorded at Dakota County at the time of final plat
15 Submit a wetland replacement plan apphcation and receive City approval
prior to City Council approval for PUD master development plan and
preliminary plat.
Second by Zurn. Ayes: Schultz, Zum, Messner, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes:
None. Motion carried.
Commissioner Messner asked for follow -up information on the item. City Planner Pearson
stated this Item is expected to be on the July 5 City Council agenda
From: Schultz,Dan
Sent: Wednesday. July 13, 2005 2:53 PM
To: Aderhold,Anthony, Brotzler,Andy; Pearson,Rick; Lindquist,Kim
Cc: Verbrugge,Jamie
Subject: Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation for Glen Rose 6 27 05
M Below is the latest recommendation by the Parks and Recreation Commission
regarding Glen Rose.
M MOTION by Jacobs that the City completes an underpass feasibility study, however
if such study is not approved by the City Council, out recommendations relative to
the project include.
1. cash dedication with the payment to be made at the rate at the time of payment
2 the trail connection at the nud -block of 140 Circle needs to be identified on
their plan as a future connection to the north, giving us access to Connemara
Trail
3 grading is allowed in the park as per the plan, with only the seven identified trees
to be removed from the northwest corner of the park
4. The developer will pay for all trail costs including those on City property
5. increase the buffet at the northeast edge of the park with additional plantings to
create a buffer from the hghts, etc.
Let me know if you have questions
Dan Schultz
Director of Parks and Recreation
City of Rosemount
651- 322 -6012
Excerpt from the Regular Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting of April 25,
2005
Glen Rose Development Preliminary Plat Schultz provided the Commission with a
preliminary plat for this development. The plat currently includes 74 town homes on 10.75 acres
located east of Hwy. 3, between Hwy. 3 and Erickson Park Schultz had the following
recommendations regarding this plat: All public trails and sidewalks should be designed and built
to current standards typically, sidewalks are made of concrete and are five feet wide and trails
are made of asphalt and are eight feet wide, The trail along the main entrance to the development
and leading into Erickson Park should be reviewed for realignment; The trail on the north side of
140w Circle should be identified as having a future connection to the north, Review the possibility
of securing an easement for a future underpass under State Hwy. 3. Based on the number of
concerns with this plan, it will be revised and Schultz will bring it back for the Commission to
review again. Schultz also recommended collecting parks dedication as cash m lieu of land, and
giving the developer cash credit for the off -site construction of the trail from the edge of the
development to the Flint Hills trail in Erickson Park (130 feet) The amount of the credit would be
agreed upon by the developer and staff, and would be included m the subdivision agreement
Schultz reviewed the plat and went over how the trail through the development would be
realigned. Sampo suggested that as long as they are realigning the trail, it would be a good idea to
extend it and have access all the way to Hwy 3 Jacobs asked for a recommendation on the cash
dedication/credit, and then to continue with discussion regarding the underpass under Hwy 3.
MOTION by Johnson to recommend accepting parks dedication m the form of cash in Lieu of
land, minus the cash credit that could be given for the off -site improvement which would connect
the trail from the end of the developer's property to the existing Flint Hills trail, by mutual
agreement of both the developer and City staff. SECOND by Defries. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Motion
passed.
Excerpt from the Regular City Council Meeting of February 1, 2005
Concept Plan Review and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, GlenRose of
Rosemount by
Dean Johnson Homes, 04- 26- CON /04 -52 -CP
Community Development Director Lindquist presented the application facts to Council
on the development of land north of St. Joseph's cemetery. This property has been known
as the Sunrise Lumber site. This site was at one time on the selection list for a county
library The county library was recently sited at another location. Council is asked to
direct staff on the land use designation for this site. The land in 1993 was reguided as
Parks and Open Space. Then, in 2000 the Comprehensive Plan zoned it as
Public /Institutional due to the ownership of St. Joseph Church. The issues that remain are
traffic congestion on Highway 3 and deciding the most appropriate land use. Staff is
recommending a residential use because it would allow for a more even flow of traffic
throughout the day Any public, park, or commercial use would dump traffic on Highway
3 at peak times. Conditions of the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) for
residential townhomes were reviewed. Ideally access onto Connemara Trail would be the
best traffic pattern. The City does not have easement rights through the private property
to the north at this time A future underpass is proposed to connect the school and
community center to Erickson Park through this development. The entrance to the
housing development will have to be aligned with the Community Center access on the
west side of Highway 3. Parks and Recreation Director Schultz requested that the trails
connect with the Koch Trail in Central Park. Council Member Shoe Corrigan noted that a
sidewalk along the east side of Highway 3 should be considered because residents will
likely take the shortest route to downtown. Director Schultz said that at present
pedestrians would be directed to one of the controlled intersections to cross to the west
side of Highway 3. Council Member Baxter reported that he visited the site and his
personal opinion is that it would not be a good place for residential Admittedly Baxter
said he was not familiar with zoning issues and would depend on staff's professional
opinion Baxter said that due to the logic of the traffic counts he would go along with the
recommended action. Council Member Sterner did not agree with changing the land use
designation. Mayor Droste agreed with Council Member Baxter and admitted this is a
difficult property because it is low and on a busy highway. Droste said the amenities of
the park to the east may be attractive to home buyers and the townhomes should also be
good transitional zoning between the downtown and the Brockway housing site. Droste
noted that the elevation drawing of the townhome structure is massive and should have
more detail to break up the view Landscaping would be used as a buffer along Highway
3. Community Development Director Lindquist noted the process would have the
Planning Commission reviewing the PUD, then the zoning would be reguided, and City
Council would have final approval Council Member Shoe Corrigan noted she will be
looking for more creativity in the PUD process.
MOTION by DeBettignies to ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
CONCEPT PLAN AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR
GLENROSE OF ROSEMOUNT BY DEAN JOHNSON HOMES subject to
conditions. Second by Baxter. Ayes: Baxter, DeBettignies, Shoe Corrigan, Droste. Nays:
Sterner. Motion carried.
Excerpt from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 27, 2004
5B. CASE 04 -26 -CON and 04 -52 -CP Dean Johnson Homes Concept Planned Unit
Development and Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director introduced the item The applicant,
Dean Johnson Homes, requests concept approval for a townhouse project to be located
along Highway 3 across from the City's Community Center. The applicant submitted
two designs for the site, one with and one without 3 acres dedicated for the Dakota
County Library. With the library, the plan depicted 51 attached units, either in
townhouse or row house style with an overall density of 6.5 unites per acre. The
townhouse project without the library set aside had 75 units with an overall density of 6.9
units per acre.
The current comprehensive plan land use designation for the property is
public /institutional consistent with the zoning on the site. The library use would be
consistent with the zoning and land use plan; the residential component requires
reguiding and rezoning of the property. Typical uses found within a Public /Institutional
zone might be a church, school, or medical facility
Lindquist summarized that the plan before the Commission which shows 51 townhouse
units Removing the library site, the project density was 6.5 units /acre. Six units per acre
is typical for townhouse units such as the ones proposed. The appropriate land use
designation for the residential component of the property would be Urban Residential.
Further, Lindquist indicated that Staff was comfortable with the implied change to Urban
Residential required by the submittal. Staff had spent some time discussing the merits of
differing land uses on the site. All hinge on the potential traffic impact to the area,
although along Highway 3, commercial or office would typically generate more traffic
than residential development, especially at the peak hour traffic. Peak hour travel times
are the times where traffic counts are higher, and safety more at risk, than off -peak hours.
For that reason staff believed residential to be a good fit for the site
Approval of the concept would require an amendment to the 2020 Rosemount
Comprehensive Plan as well as rezoning for the residential portion of the project.
The developer has worked to address many of the previous staff concerns. This plan
addressed the need for public access to the site, and the property to the north, but allowed
more creativity by using private drives. This improved circulation and access for safety
vehicles also.
One of the main issues associated with development of the site was whether this property
would become the site of the new library. The developer showed two altemative
development plans. Staff would like to recommend approval of both, so that the
developer could have some level of certainty that either development scenario would be
acceptable With the decision where to site the library expected to be made by the end of
2004, the applicant will be able to proceed with the appropriate development scenario this
winter for final master plan approval, allowing construction in 2005.
In summary, the first item up for motion was to recommend that the City Council
approve an amendment to the 2020 Rosemount Comprehensive Plan from
Public /Institutional to Urban Residential for the Glen Rose property subject to approval
of the amendment by the Metropolitan Council.
Also up for motion was the recommendation that the City Council approve the concept
master plan for the Glen Rose site.
John Berg was in attendance from Dean Johnson Homes. He presented the drawing for
his plan with and without the proposed library, stating they were exactly the same, except
for the omission of the library in the second plan. He also pointed out plans to buffer
noise with landscaping.
Questioning was opened by Chair Messner. Commissioner Zum asked about the Storm
Water Pond which was not on his plan, but was on the plan on display, whereby, Mr.
Berg clarified in the Planning Commission packet the pond was yellow not blue.
Chair Messner opened the public hearing. No one responded, therefore, Commissioner
Powell motioned to close the public hearing which was seconded by Commissioner
Humprey. All ayes to close the public hearing.
MOTION by Zurn, second by Humphey, to recommend that the City Council
approve an amendment to the 2020 Rosemount Comprehensive Plan from
Public /Institutional to Urban Residential for the GlenRose property subject to the
following:
1. Approval by the Metropolitan Council.
Ayes: Schultz, Zum, Messner, Humphrey, and Powell.
Nays: None.
MOTION by Messner, second by Powell, to recommend that the City Council
approve the concept plan for the GlenRose Site subject to the following
1. The concept plan for the site that includes the library development is the plan that
govems development on the site until or unless another library site has been
purchased by the city for the library The city must have a formal purchase
agreement with another party for a different site. In the event the City chooses
another property for the library site, the concept which illustrates all attached
residential housing on the site will be considered the approved concept plan.
2. The public access road must be aligned with the southern community center
access and be expanded to 3 lanes to permit 2 outbound lanes from the site.
carried.
3. Provision of unrestricted turn arounds with a minimum turning radius of 45 feet
for all dead -end common driveways or streets exceeding 150 feet, or as approved
by the Rosemount Fire Marshal.
4. All townhouse units shall have two -car garages consistent with applicable zoning
standards.
5. The site plan shall include adequate buffer area from Highway 3 for the
residential portion of the project. Significant landscaping should occur along
Highway 3 which shall include a combination of differing plant materials to
create a natural buffer. Natural plantings should be installed where there is a
transition from the maintained area to the adjoining natural areas.
6. Concept approval does not guarantee the number of dwelling units.
7. Incorporation of recommendations by the Parks and Recreation Commission
including payment in lieu of land dedication, provision of a trail easement and an
access easement for future installation of a Hwy. 3 underpass.
8. Incorporation of recommendations by the City Engineer relative to access,
circulation, drainage, easements, grading, storm water management, traffic and
utilities.
9. Rezoning to PUD and execution of a PUD Agreement.
10. Conformance with PUD Final Development Plan Preliminary Plat and Final Plat
requirements.
11. The developer receive approval of a WCA wetland mitigation plan.
Ayes: Schultz, Zum, Messner, Humphrey, and Powell. Nays: None. Motion
Lindquist stated that the issue would be on the August 17, 2004 City Council meeting for
action.
v oo Minnesota Department of Transportation
M etropolitan District
Waters Edge
15C0 West County Road B -2
Roseville MN 55113 -3174
May 23, 2005
Amy Domeier
City of Rosemount
2875 145 Street West
Rosemount, MN 550684997
SUBJECT. GlenRose of Rosemount
Mn/DOT Review P05 -048
East Side of TH 3, North of 142"" Street
Rosemount, Dakota County
Control Section 1921
Dear Ms Domeier.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced plat
in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats. Before any further
development, please address the following issues:
Traffic
The 140"' Circle access to the development must be directly opposite the Community
Center /Ice Arena driveway. We will not allow the dnveways to be offset because an
offset creates a left turning off of TH 3 conflict. We will need to see detailed plans
showing both sides of TH 3 and the driveway alignments before we will issue an access
pernnt. A nght turn lane from TH 3 onto 140 Circle will also be require&
140 Circle should be able to serve the property(s) to the north m order to remove access
points off of TH 3. One option is to have the existing car dealer driveway closed now
and be served by the new road, and if future redevelopment occurs, construct a frontage
road to the north to serve additional properties In addition, the extension of this road to
the east should be possible, as discussed with the City of Rosemount in 2002. If you
have any questions about these issues above, please contact Lars Impala, Traffic Program
Support Engineer, Mn/DOT Metro District, at 651- 634 -2379.
Drainage
A drainage permit will be required The proposed development will need to maintain
existing drainage rates (i.e., the rate at which storm water is discharged from the site must
not increase) The Township or project developer will need to submit before/after
hydraulic computations for both 10 and 100 year rainfall events venfymg that all existing
drainage patterns and systems affecting MnJDOT nght of way will be perpetuated.
Please provide the following:
A gradmg plan of the existing proposed project.
An equal opportunity employer
Please direct questions concerning these issues to Scott Carlstrom at (651- 634 -2416) or
scott.carlstrom( dot.state nm us of Mn/DOT's Water Resources section.
Permits
Other
Drainage area maps for the proposed project showing both existing and proposed
drainage areas and flows (with flow arrows).
Hydrologic, Hydrogeologic, and hydraulic computations /modeling before and after
proposed reconstructions (i.e., Hydro CADinput assumptions, calibration data,
results for 10 and 100 year storm events). Please note that the drainage information
we have received thus far does not assist in checking drainage computations and
modeling assumptions.
A long form utility permit (form 2525) is required for the water main crossing TH 3.
A size must be determined for the culvert.
An access permit will be required. Any use of or work within Mn/DOT nght of way
requires a permit. Permit forms are available from Mn/DOT's utility website at
www.dot.state.mn.us /tecsup /utility Please direct any questions regarding the above
issues and/or permit requirements to Keith Van Wagner (651 -582- 1443), or Buck Craig
(651 -582 -1447) of Mn/DOT's Metro Permits Section.
The 75 feet of right -of -way from centerline of TH 3 should be indicated on plat. Please
contact Steven R. Channer, Right of Way Project Manager, Mn/DOT Metro District, at
651 -582 -1272 if you have any questions.
Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and
highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic
noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that
municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities
listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use
would result in violations of established noise standards.
Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure
of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess
the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway
noise. If you have any questions regarding Mn/DOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in
our Design section at 651 582 -1293.
Please send a copy of the final plat for Mn/DOT review to the following address:
Brad Canaday
Mn/DOT Metro East Surveys
3485 Hadley Ave. N.
Oakdale, Minnesota 55128
Phone: (651) 779 -5007
2
Please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site
plans to:
Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2)
copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a
plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay
Mn/DOT's 30-day review and response process to development proposals. We appreciate your
anticipated cooperation m providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from
having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals.
As our request, please send an electronic .pdf file copy of your plan submittal for our record
keeping purposes to marv.jaekson @dot state mn.us Please refer to "Mn/DOT Review P05.048"
when emailing the .pdf file. If you have any questions concerning this review, please feel free to
contact me at 651 -582 -1724 or Tod Sherman 651 -582 -1548.
Sincerely,
g nolo-nt
Mary E. Jackson
Planner
Development Review Coordinator
Mn/DOT Metro Division
1500 West County Road B -2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Copy: Mark Krebsbach, Dakota County Engineer
Lynn Moratzka, Dakota County Planning Director
Todd Tollefson, Dakota County Surveyor
Dean Johnson Homes
3
Condition #21
The applicant dedicate a public trail and access easement over 100' between the Hwy 3
and the southem private street for an underpass and a 10' easement for a sidewalk system
along the southern side of the private drive to link with the sidewalk shown on the plans
date stamped July 12, 2005 adjacent to the overlook. The applicant is required to install
the 5' sidewalk in back of the curb of the pnvate dnve around the pond, terminating at
the private driveway or some reasonable location acceptable to staff The applicant shall
dedicate a 400' temporary easement between Hwy 3 and the western pnvate drive that
shall be in effect until such time as the City constructs an underpass or the City vacates
the easement. To facilitate the future construction of the underpass the southem private
drive shall have a 945.1 elevation at the westem edge.