Loading...
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.