HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.b. Rosewood Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from UR Urban Residential to C CommercialCITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
City Council Meeting Date December 21, 2004
AGENDA ITEM: CASE 04 -82 -CP Comprehensive Guide Plan
AGENDA SECTION:
Amendment from UR Urban Residential to C
New Business
Commercial
PREPARED BY- Kim Lindquist, Community Development
AGENDA NO.
Director
e 6
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map, Draft Resolution, Committee of
the Whole Packet 07- 11 -01, Memo from
Police Chief regarding Crime Information,
Residential Value Data, WSB Commercial
Access Options, Rosewood Estates Resident
APPROVED BY:
Letters, Planning Commission Minutes and
Packet 11- 23 -04, Council Work Session
Packet 02 -11 -04
/V`�
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a resolution amending the Comprehensive
Guide Plan for two properties in the Rosewood Area from UR Residential to C Commercial
ACTION:
ISSUE
The City has initiated a reguiding of residentially designated property in the Rosewood
Estates area of the community The property proposed for reguiding fronts along County
Road 42, west of Biscayne Avenue and north of existing commercial, immediately east of the
main line railroad tracks A location map of the two areas is attached
Staff is not recommending rezoning of the property at this time.
BACKGROUND
In January 2004, the City Council discussed at a workshop session the idea of reguiding and
rezoning some of the existing property within the MUSA to commercial The site discussed
was north of existing commercial property along County Road 42, just west of the railroad
tracks The reason for the discussion was the lack of commercial land in the City, the
Council's goal of attracting additional businesses into the community, and the site's location
which makes it less desirable for residential development
Applicant Property Owner(s)
Area in Acres
Current use
City of Rosemount, Applicant
Progress Land Company, Owner
Western parcel 14 9 acres
Eastern parcel 17 3
Vacant
Current Comp Plan Desig Urban Residential
Requested Comp Plan Desig Commercial
Current Zoning R1 Low Density Residential District
DISCUSSION
The application before the Council is prompted by staff who began an inventory of
commercial property within the City at the end of 2003 It became apparent that, while the
Council wanted to attract additional business to the community, there was very little vacant
land to develop A review of potential commercial sites was undertaken and the western 14 9
acre parcel brought before the Council for discussion in January 2004
This parcel was recommended for regurding due to its location along County Road 42 to
provide good visibility and in recognition of the traffic volumes along 42 The recommendation
was also made because of its proximity to the mainline of the Union Pacific railroad It is
estimated that approximately 14 -18 trains travel that line a day This amount is substantially
higher than the two rail spurs that existing Rosewood residents currently live near
Finally, the decision to recommend inclusion of the eastern parcel was made due to Dakota
County restrictions for a signal light at Business Parkway The signal light will be at Biscayne
Avenue meaning a frontage road system is needed to give full access to the western
properties A three quarter access would be permitted at Business Parkway
Through the course of this application there have been a variety of issues raised by the
adjoining neighborhood The following provides additional information regarding these issues:
Property History:
The property is currently guided UR Urban Residential and zoned R1 Low Density
Residential The land use designation changed from an industrial designation to the current
residential designation through the Comprehensive Plan update process that occurred in
1993 While there was some interest expressed in regurding the entire Rosewood Area to
Commercial or keeping it Industrial, the Council at that time opted for commercial The
residential designation was continued when the City updated the Comprehensive Plan in
2000
In June 2001, Progress Land Company proposed a mixed use concept PUD covering the
entire Rosewood Area The concept proposed 92 townhouse units, 54 single family lots, 40
acres of commercial land, 9 acres light industrial, and 15 acres dedicated for church
development The concept illustrated ten 1 5 acre commercial pads, three larger commercial
properties and a 3 6 acre hotel site The Planning Commission recommended approval of the
concept with the following recommendations
1 Amending the Comprehensive Plan for the change of Urban Residential land to more
Commercial and Business Park (light industrial) land,
2 Rezoning in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan as amended,
3 Mitigation of the effects of the rail spur and adjacent Grief Bros industrial use against
the proposed residential uses, and
4 Conformance with the requirements for preliminary plat for the residential and
I:
commercial uses and conditional uses for development of the church site
In July the Concept Plan went to a Council work session Shortly after that time the Council
approved a PUD concept plan that included 86 single family lots, 45 detached townhome
units, a 7 5 acre commercial property, and 15 acres for a church The 40 acres, initially
envisioned for commercial in the June concept, were pulled out and labeled "exceptions" (see
attached information)
Council Goals:
In June 2004 the City Council adopted its 2004 goals One of the goals was to provide a
"fiscally healthy city" The actions to do that would be to broaden the tax base and moderate
the residential tax rate The way to achieve this goal is through increasing the
Commercial /Industrial (C /1) tax base in the city Presently the City's tax base is comprised of
83% residential and 17% commercial /industrial /other Commercial and industrial properties
represent 12% of the overall tax base The remaining 5% is in other classifications such as
apartment, utilities, railroads, agriculture, and personal property Ideally, the reliance on
residential tax base should be in the range of 67% to 75% with C/I in the 25 -33% range
Although the Council's goal is to decrease reliance on residential property taxes, in 2004, the
City continued the trend toward more residential development than non residential As of
November 2004, 511 new building permits were issued for individual dwelling units This
would be a combination of detached and attached residential units In total the building
activity valuation for the first 11 months of the year is $117,224,180 Only 1 of that valuation
is in added commercial value and 2% in new industrial value
To estimate the potential impact on the City's tax capacity, planning staff estimated how
many residential units, or how much commercial square footage could be sited on the two
properties The analysis was based upon existing ordinance standards and review of similarly
sized properties The following table provides the estimates
When reviewing other commercial projects in the area that would have similar types of
development, staff estimates that the value of 270,000 sq ft of commercial would be
approximately $16,000,000. Staff reviewed values for big box users and surrounding
development in Inver Grove Heights, Eagan, Apple Valley, and Burnsville For a commercial
value of $16 million, approximately $108,000 in taxes would be generated to the City
Approximately $236,000 in property taxes would be generated for the school district, county,
city, and others.
E7
Residential Development
Commercial Development
West Side
35 -40 Single Family Lots
Approx 210,000 sq ft
70 -80 Townhome Units
East Side
30 -35 Single Family Lots
Approx 60,000 sq ft.
excluding existing onding areas
65 -70 Townhome Units
When reviewing other commercial projects in the area that would have similar types of
development, staff estimates that the value of 270,000 sq ft of commercial would be
approximately $16,000,000. Staff reviewed values for big box users and surrounding
development in Inver Grove Heights, Eagan, Apple Valley, and Burnsville For a commercial
value of $16 million, approximately $108,000 in taxes would be generated to the City
Approximately $236,000 in property taxes would be generated for the school district, county,
city, and others.
E7
For comparison purposes, the average valuation for detached units was $239,356 (292 units)
and the average for attached units is $149,720 (191) in the first 11 months of 2004 Using the
unit estimates above, the west side parcel would generate approximately $8,856,172 in
single family valuation or $11,227,500 in attached unit valuation Similarly, the east side
would generate an additional $7,659,392 in new single family valuation or $10,029,900 in
attached housing valuation
The range of taxes paid by residential development in the westside would be from $109,076
to $127,800 In the east, the range would be $94,336 to $114,168 Of this amount, the City
receives 40% of the total property taxes paid or $1208 of the single family tax (approximately
$98,264 of the total) or $692 of the attached unit tax (approximately $84,560 of the total)
It must also be said that the introduction of commercial development to the community has
other benefits besides tax base As the City grows, residents expect to have certain services
and conveniences in town, rather than traveling to the adjacent community Based upon the
Market Study conducted by Maxfield Research, Inc for the City's Downtown Redevelopment
Project, it is estimated that 75 cents of every dollar spent by Rosemount residents is spent
outside of the community
Further, the introduction of commercial and industrial uses within the community adds to the
quality of life for the community The introduction of additional businesses increases the
employment base of the community It also brings workers to the City to spend their money
on goods and services, including food Staff has been told that one of the reasons that
restaurants have not been attracted to the community is the lack of a "lunch" crowd This is
due to the lack of employers in the area
Crime:
During the public hearing, residents expressed a concern over the potential increase in crime
due to the close proximity of commercial development The Police Chief has provided some
crime information using the neighborhoods south of Cub Foods This area was chosen
because of the size of the retail center Other residential neighborhoods, without adjoining
commercial, were also reviewed to provide a "control group"
The information notes that within the residential neighborhood, the number of police calls for
service are consistent with similarly sized residential projects Additionally, when reviewing
the specific police calls, the calls received are for typical residential type issues and do not
appear to be generated from the adjacent commercial activity
Chief Kalstabakken's memo recognizes that the study is for calls located within the residential
neighborhood and does not include the adjoining street, 151 Street The reason for the
omission is that incidents on the street are most often generated by the police These
typically are due to a traffic violation and may in some cases lead to other infractions
Because 151 Street is one of the areas targeted in the community for frequent patrol due to
resident complaints, police reports on this street would not be indicative of other
commercial /residential streets
2
3
Chief Kalstabakken has contacted Eagan and Apple Valley regarding their police report
experience with large merchandisers like what may be expected in the property being
considered for rezoning This information has not been received at the time this report is
being prepared, but it is anticipated that information will be available prior to the Council
Meeting Initial reaction from the two neighboring communities is that activity in the retail
areas does not directly impact the nearby residential neighborhoods
Property Values:
With the introduction of a land use that differs from an existing neighborhood there is often
the concern about the impact of the new project on existing home values This concern is
often expressed when commercial, industrial, and higher density residential development is
proposed In an attempt to address this particular concern, staff has reviewed property values
in the Claret townhouse project, south of Cub Foods
Based upon the property records provided by Dakota County, units in this neighborhood were
originally sold in 2000 The Certificate of Occupancy was issued to Cub in August 2001,
meaning that the townhomes were in existence prior to the opening of the store
Attached is a two page handout and map that shows assessed values and sale prices of
several homes in the Claret Townhomes directly south of Cub Foods The information
indicates that all properties shown have realized a gain in valuation since the purchase of the
unit In all cases value has gone up since 2000 when the units were constructed There is a
wide variation in change of value, with a low of a 2% increase to a high of 60% increase
In review of the information it is difficult to draw any particular conclusions Some of units are
directly located on 151 Street and therefore are closer to the commercial area and the
busier street However, those homes have experienced reasonable growth in value It is also
difficult to draw conclusions because some of the information is based upon unit sales versus
assessed valuation Until a property is sold it is unclear what the actual "value" of a property
might be Finally, each of the units have different interior upgrades Because there may be
wide variation in the interior work between the units, a variation in price and in their increased
value would be expected
Potential Mitigation:
As staff had indicated during the Planning Commission meeting it would be easier to discuss
potential mitigation options if there was a specific project before the Council There are many
site planning techniques that can be used to help alleviate resident concerns about noise,
lighting, and views
The location and orientation of the building can permit adequate buffer space to allow
landscaping and bermmg This is the primary way cities attempt to screen greater activity
areas from lesser The City's zoning ordinance requires a greater buffer or setback to side
and rear setbacks between residential and commercial properties The ordinance dictates
that the 10' -30' buffer (depending upon the zoning district) is to be used for landscaping and
screening only and cannot contain any buildings, parking or activity areas While recent
ordinance changes have moved away from requiring fencing, there are cases where the City
5
may IooK toward installation of a fence or screen wall in areas that may need opaque
screening. This is typically requested near loading dock areas.
Lighting standards in the commercial districts require a lesser footcandle reading when
adjoining residential than when adjacent to other commercial
Performance standards for commercial, whether adjacent to residential or not, promote an
architecturally attractive, well landscaped project Landscape standards are to ensure the site
is attractive for on -site views, especially in the parking lot where landscape islands are
required Building materials must be primarily masonry Again, depending upon the zoning
district, brick is required from 50% to 100% of the exterior materials However, during the
Steiner project review, the Council approved a plan that varied from the ordinance standard,
allowing a mix of textures and materials for each of the four buildings
Traffic:
Residents in the Rosewood area have expressed concern over the potential commercial
traffic that would "cut- through" their neighborhood to the new commercial areas. Planning and
Engineering staff had discussed potential road alignments that would disconnect the
residential portion of the project from the Business Parkway south This would mean that
commercial traffic could only access the two sites through Business Parkway or by the
frontage road envisioned along County Road 42 It may be that some commercial traffic
would enter the neighborhood until commercial patrons realized that there was no connection
to the commercial district Appropriate signing may help in this matter Two potential options
designed by WSB are attached for the Council's information These options show Business
Parkway being continuous but have other options, such as a raised median or a one -way
circulation pattern to address commercial traffic through the residential neighborhood
From a regional traffic perspective it would be expected that much of the traffic going to the
commercial sites would use County Road 42 Given the access proposed by the County,
much of that traffic would be directed to the Biscayne intersection with some entering the site
at Business Parkway Traffic from the north would also use Biscayne to access the
commercial area Most likely a traffic study would be conducted through the site plan review
process to ensure that local roads are properly designed to handle projected volumes
However, it is expected that should these properties be reguided to commercial, a new
circulation system would be installed specifically for those commercial users
SUMMARY
Staff supports the reguiding of the property at this time, It is felt that the site locations lend
themselves more to a commercial than residential use This change is consistent with the
Council goals for increasing commercial services within the community and growing the
commercial /industrial tax base in the City
This application is the first step in the process for development of the site The City would like
to market the property as commercial which is easier with the reguiding There will be
additional opportunities for the public to be involved with the final disposition of the site The
9
rezoning and site plan process will permit residents to see what is recommended and
address specific detailed concerns about the use, architecture, lighting, traffic, and on -site
views However, it should be understood that if the reguiding takes place, it is expected that
some type of commercial use would ultimately develop on the property
After much testimony at the Planning Commission, the Commission voted on a 4 -0 vote to
not recommend reguiding of the property Given the charge of the Planning Commission to
enforce the zoning ordinance, it is understandable that this weighty policy decision is left to
the Council As the policy board for the community, it is up to the Council to balance the
needs of the community with the desires of individual neighborhoods
The proposal before the Council is to reguide both of the properties to commercial From
staff's perspective the two are intrinsically tied together Access to the west, either to the
proposed site or the existing commercially guided property, must come via a frontage road
from Biscayne It seems illogical to place that frontage road through a residential
neighborhood The frontage road will be wider than a typical residential collector and will
certainly carry commercial traffic
It may be possible to reguide the eastern parcel without the western, with a different
commercial development pattern than that anticipated by the two parcels In that instance the
frontage road will still be necessary to access the eastern, currently guided commercial
property Additionally, the opportunities for development of the eastern parcel are different
than what could occur in the west The property's depth lends itself more for a strip mall type
of development The need to construct a collector road further reduces the lot depth
There are four options available to the Council,
1 Reguide both parcels to commercial
2. Reguide the eastern parcel to commercial; keep the western parcel residential
3 Reguide the western parcel to commercial, keep the eastern parcel residential
4 Keep both of the properties residential and vote to deny the application
Based upon previous discussions with the Council, staff has prepared a resolution approving
reguiding of both parcels to Commercial Should the Council choose one of the other options,
it should direct staff to prepare a resolution with the specific recommendation for action at the
next Council meeting
7
Progress Land Company Parcels
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
nw-
LEGEND
Streets
Railroads
Source Dakota Counry GISDepartment
C;ty of Rw mcunt Cmmuntry Development Depormteut
November2004
Parcels to be Reguded from
UR Urban Residential to C Commercial
350 0 350 700 Feet (k
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2004-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE
GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT TO REGUIDE ROSEWOOD ESTATES FROM
UR URBAN RESIDENTIAL TO C COMMERCIAL
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount requested a
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to reguide the property fronting along County Road 42,
west of Biscay ne Avenue and north of existing commercial, immediately east of the main line
railroad tracks in Rosewood Estates from UR Urban Residential to C Commercial, as depicted in
the map below
h agL ess Land Company PaL eels
Cam prehenswse Plan Amendment
I L11.
y 4
Fo
tE�trvu
p vreury ®ca���i, weE r+ovu imm
��Mwlms9. L'P burro NU,COrLeI In Cminemd
m (A)
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount
reviewed the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment reguidmg the residentially designated
property in the Rosewood Estates area from UR Urban to C Commercial, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council
not approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment reguidmg the residentially designated property
in the Rosewood Estates area from UR Urban to C Commercial. and
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the
Planning Commission's recommendation and the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment
reguidmg the Rosewood Estates area property from UR Urban Residential to C Commercial and
finds as folio-,Ns
RESOLUTION 2004
The Comp Plan Amendment would contribute towards the established goals of the
key financial strategies of broadening the tax base, moderating the tax rate and
maintaining high service levels
The subject properties are adjacent to high volume railroad or principal arterial
highways that would require extensive screening to support residential uses
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment reguiding the property in Rosewood
Estates from UR Urban Residential to C Commercial subject to Metropolitan Council approval
ADOPTED this 16 day of December, 2004 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount
William H Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda Jentink, City Clerk
Motion by- Second by
Voted in favor
Voted against
Member absent
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING DATE: July 11, 2001
AGENDA ITEM: Rosewood Mixed Use Concept PUD
AGENDA SECTION:
Discussion
PREPARED BY: Jim Parsons
Community Development Director
AG AVO,,,
Church
ATTACHMENTS Rosewood Concept Plan
APPROVED B�
Backuround
Progress Land Company has proposed a development concept for the 107 -acre tract bounded by
Biscayne Avenue, County Road 42, 145` Street and the railroad tracks along Highway .1 The
proposal is for land uses as follows
Commercial
39 acres
Business Park
9 acres
Church
15 acres
Residential
54 single family units
92 townhouse units
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Rosewood concept and sent it to the City
Council with a positive recommendation and conditions
Key Issues
The comprehensive plan shows 7 acres of commercial land on the Rosewood site, with the balance
being residential, including an unspecified amount of "planned /potential attached /multiple housing"
The main issue with the proposed concept is its deviation from the land uses shown in the
comprehensive plan The concept expands the commercial use, adds business park/light industrial use
and adds a church, which is a conditional use in a residential district The issue is whether the City
wishes to accept the increased non residential uses. The proposed change in land use would require
an amendment to the comprehensive plan
The Rosewood proposal has townhouses at 63% of the housing mix and single- family houses at 37%
The issue is whether this housing mix meets the intent and requirements of the comprehensive
plan.
1 of 2
Related to the land use issue is the issue of the rail spur. The Planning Commission's recommendation
includes a condition calling for `mitigation of the effects of the rail spur" and nearby industry on the
residential areas of Rosewood The issue is whether the proposal does a good ,lob of mitigating the
effects of the rail spur and industry by placing toirnhouses next to them.
See attachments for detailed information about the Rosewood proposal
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discussion only
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
2 of 2
ROSEWOOD
ttY17
6
�ya
O1vNOK
{pNMWy UUWM yR
G04
W1v ROµ
vOT yR
R t
OlLw[CRwG MC P
R l IINISO/A
Ti ll
Ras N� NE 1 al s,rons
ROSEWOOD
N
J LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
e o ernu
4
V
y O
1 PCNp
Id5TH 5TREET E
�d �y 1 Y a 5
aid: J i'
a I
n
n
a
u Iz 11 Ie
e
V
u M I6 'ti I`
le �n
T12
e
s la 11 n 11
°9s�ye''L
R
COMKACRCIAL
13 6 AMES
1 ��Ahf
x 1 i,C
�Il
I�
5
9 i,f m
WAY
TOWNHOMES 92 UNITS
SINGLE FAMILY 56 LOTS
CROSS AREA 3353 ACRES
1
Iti
1 �t
1
�R1+
W,Sz
0
DRAFT
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Minutes
June 12, 2001
PuTsua'i�t to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
was duly eld on Tuesday, June 12, 2001, in the Banquet R of the Rosemount
Communit Center Vice- Chairperson Jeff Weisense led the meeting to order at 6:35
p m with me ers JeffArveson and Jana Carr ent. Chairperson Caspar and
Commissioner N er were absent Also in endance were City Planner Rick Pearson,
Planrung Intern Aare Jones, and Cou ember Sheila Zassen.
There were no additions or ctions to the agenda.
Audience Input: No
MOTIOX approve the May 22, 001 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes Arveson Ayes Arve n, Carr, and Weisensel Nays 0 Motion
(Rosewood)
Vice- Chairperson Weisensel confirmed that the recording secretary has placed the
Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of a Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Publication
concerning the public hearing on Progress Land Company Mixed Use Concept PUD
(Rosewood) on file with the City
Councilmember Klassen provided insight on the concerns of City Council regarding the
Rosewood concept plan The City Council will look hard at the expanded commercial
use The Comprehensive Guide Plan, which allows 7 acres of commercial on this
property, would have to be amended to allow the additional commercial The City
Council is reluctant to amend the Comp Plan There is also concern about the impact this
expanded commercial will have on the commercial downtown and other areas in the City
Mr Pearson summarized the concept plan for Rosewood The proposed development is
located west of Biscayne Avenue, between CSAH 42 and 145 St The Comprehensive
Plan designates the entire parcel Urban Residential, except for a 7 acre parcel at the
corner of CS AH 42 and the railroad track that is designated Commercial Approximately
28 additional acres is proposed for commercial use If the concept is approved, the
Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended due to a change in land use for the
additional commercial and 9 acres light industrial. The concept plan also provides for
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Minutes
June 12, 2001
Page 2
h'i'FT
single family housing along Biscayne Avenue, multi- family housing on both sides of the
railroad spur, and 15 acres in the southeast corner for a church Challenges to the concept
plan include mitigation to counter the effects of Greif Bros and the railroad spur
Mitigation could be in the form of physical barriers and increased separation from the
railroad spur and from the industnal uses The previous owner of the property
determined that the railroad spur could not be relocated
Vice Chairperson Weisensel opened the meeting to the applicant Warren Isrealson,
President of progress Land Company, indicated the only definite part of the plan is the 15
acres for the church The developer is open to any suggestions for the remaimng uses
He has concerns with the railroad spur, the railroad tracks, and the industrial uses
surrounding residential uses
Mike OIson, Project Manager, indicated that, other than the church, the developer has no
specific uses in mind for the site The dew eloper is looking for direction from the City If
the increased commercial use is not acceptable, the} will propose residential use
Commissioner Carr stated her preference to have commercial close to the railroad rather
than residential
Activity on the railroad tracks and spur were considered Mr Pearson indicated that
activity on the spur includes weekly shipments to Greif Bros possible salt shipments to
Dakota County, and turnarounds for trains Approximately 10 -12 trains travel the main
line each day,
Vice Chairperson Weisensel opened the Public Hearing
Todd Schoffelman 14712 Bloomfield Way, inquired about the process for changes to the
concept plan
Jim Wilds 14171 Cobbler Avenue, is a representative of St John's church He offered
support for the concept plan and feels the development would be beneficial to the City
Betty Zanmiller 2745 W 145` St feels the city needs more residential land She
beheves the additional commercial proposed for this site would kill the downtown
commercial
Dr Terry Johnson 13037 Charleston Way, responded that problems the downtown is
experiencing would continue to happen without this additional commercial development
He feels that the more commercial the City can offer, the more it will serve to revitalize
the downtown There is limited commercial land remaining in Rosemount
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
Everything's Coming Up Rosemountif
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Pearson, City Planner
DATE: June 6, 2001
RE: Progress Land Company Mixed Use Concept for "Rosewood"
June 12, 2001 Regular Planning Commission Reviews
CITY HALL
2875 145th Street Wes.
Rosemoun MN
55068 4997
Phone 651 423 -4411
Hearing Impaired 551- 423 -6219
Fax 651 423 5203
BACKGROUND
This property consisting of approximately 108 acres between 145` Street West, CSAH 42 and
west of Biscayne Avenue has been anticipated for development for almost ten years Originally
owned by the Milwaukee Road, the property had been designated in the 1980 Comprehensive
Plan for Light Industrial use and zoned accordingly The Milwaukee Road was then liquidated,
and the land was acquired by CMC Heartland Partners CMC proposed a residential
development consisting of 192 single family lots, 70 townhomes, and seven acres of commercial
land near the comer of STH 3 and CSAH 42. The project was approved conditioned on the
relocation of a rail spur, w high bisects the property The spur provides several functions
switching of rail cars into the Greif Bros plant, turning cars around, and delivering road salt to
the County
As time went on, CMC acknowledged that they were unable to relocate the rail spur The city
suggested redesigning the development to mitigate the impact of the spur CMC chose to sell the
property instead y Because the property had been assessed for urban improvements to Biscayne
Avenue, the City Council maintained the Urban Residential and Commercial land use
designations for the property when the Comprehensive Plan was updated
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION AND CURRENT ZONING
Most of the property is designated for Urban Residential use, however, seven acres between
South Robert Trail and Business Parkway along CSAH 42 is designated for Commercial use
This area was viewed as being too heavily influenced by the intersection and railroad (including
Quonset hut) for residential use
Most of the land is zoned R -1, Low Density Residential, consistent with the Urban Residential
land use designation Higher density housing can be allowed through rezoning as long as the
density is capped at six units per acre and the overall density is 3 units per acre Higher density is
usually allowed at the edge of neighborhoods as a transition to other land uses if urban services
have the necessary capacity, and if the street system can accommodate the additional traffic
without undue influence on single- family neighborhoods The seven acres in the southwest
corner is zoned C -4, General Commercial
June 12, 2001 PC Reviews Progress Land Company "Rosewood" Concept
Page 3.
abundant supply of Business Park land Some additional commercial land can probably be
justified The church can be processed as a Conditional Use in the R -1, Low Density Residential
District
The following represents the recommended conditions if the Planning Commission were to adopt
a motion recommending approval of the concept to the City Council
I Amending the Comprehensive Plan for the change of Urban Residential land to more
Commercial and Business Park (light industrial) land
2 Rezoning in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan as amended
3. Mitieation of the effects of the rail spur and adjacent Greif Bros. industrial use against
residential uses
4. Conformance with the requirements for preliminary plat for the residential and
commercial uses and conditional uses for the development of the church site
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator
Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
FROM: Gary Kalstabakken, Chief of Poj ee
DATE: December 13, 2004
RE: Commercial Area Crime Activity
The residential area immediately south of the Cub Foods commercial area has been
compared to other similar sized residential areas to determine if there is any correlation
between reported crime activity and commercial locations
Comparisons were made of the following developments•
Claret Town Homes 151 St /Claret to Shannon Pkwy.
Claret Springs 151 Street/Claret to Chippendale Avenue
Claret Springs East, 156 Street/Chippendale Avenue
Enclave Biscayne Avenue/Bloomfield Path
Bloomfield Georgetown Townhomes Banyan Lane
These areas were chosen because they are comparable to the property south of Cub
Foods For example. the Claret developments are all the same housing style built by the
same builder during the same time period The Enclave and Bloomfield are similar
housing products, but in a different area of the community
Complex
Crime Reports
1/1/04 to 9/30/04
All Calls for
Service 2003*
Number of
Housing
Units
Claret Town Homes (Cub)
0
12
44
Claret Springs (Cub)
3
32
98
Claret Springs East
11
55
121
Enclave
5
45
128
Bloomfield
9
49
150
Calls for Service include any time a police officer is dispatched to the area for any
reason or self initiates activity in the area, such as, a traffic stop Calls can vary from a
medical emergency to assaults to home burglaries Calls- for Service are tracked by
location where reported, whereas, the actual incident may have occurred at another
location For example. a person reports a driving complaint that actually happened on
County Road 42 or a parent reports a dispute that their cluld had with another child at
school or park.
In closer review of the crime reports, it does not appear that any of the reports generated
by calls to the homes within Claret Springs are directly related to commercial activity at
the Cub Foods retail area The three reports consisted of a domestic assault, a driving
complaint and a found bicycle
The calls for service were also examined more closely to determine if there were certain
calls that were directly related to persons going -to -and -from or loitering near the
commercial area Calls at the Claret Springs development were quite similar to the calls
at the developments away from the commercial area Certain calls were reviewed more
closely to determine if there was some connection to the commercial area, these calls
included noise complaints, disturbances and suspicious activity It does not appear that
there are any more of these types of calls near commercial areas than there are at the
other complexes Generally, the number of these calls in Claret Springs was similar to
the other complexes and the calls were generated from actin ity at residences at a home
within the development and not persons passing through to get to the commercial area.
It is important to note that this review of crime reports and calls for service data did not
include activity on the streets adjacent to the complexes reviewed Typically, the
incidents on streets are officer generated. e g traffic stops, curfew checks, etc While
these incidents can be an indicator of other activity spillmg into the neighboring
residential areas. this does not appear to be the case in the areas studied Each of these
developments is served by a collector street (151 St„ Chippendale Av Biscayne Av
145 St and Bloomfield Path) that will carry traffic and will be the scene of traffic stops
and other activity that is not directly related to the immediate area Streets used as
collectors for the commercial areas will have increased traffic and, therefore, increased
opportunities for officer generated activity and other events, such as, vehicle crashes and
stalled motorists
If the Rosewood Estates property is rezoned, efforts to mitigate the traffic impacts should
be undertaken, such as, elimination of the connection of the rezoned property to the
residential streets serving Rosemount Estates.
SITE MAP
PROPERTY ID NUMBER 34- 83611 300.01
FEE OWNER JOSEPH W 8 COLLEEN V PENTON
15156 CLARET CIE
ROSEMOUNT MN 5506ll
PROPERTY ADDRESS 15156 CLARET CIR
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068
PAYABLE 2004 TAXES
NET TAX
320198
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
000
TOTAL TAX SA
3201 98
PAYABLE 2005 ASMNT USAGE RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSE
2004 ESTIMATED MARKET VALUES (PAYABLE 2005)
LAND 45 300 LOT SIZE (EXCLUDES
BUILDING 202800 ROAD EASEMENTS)
TOTAL 248100
3 478 SO FT
SCHOOL DISTRICT 196 0 08 ACRES
LOCATION NW114 NE1f4 SECTION 31115 -19
PAYABLE 2005 HOMESTEAD STATUS NON HOMESTEAD
WATERSHED DISTRICT VERMILLION RIVER
NEW CONSTRUCTION SALE
DATE 102000
Aul INT 1117 POn
2004 BUILDING INFORMATION (PAYABLE 205)
TYPE TOWNHOUSE
YE4RSUILT 2000
ARCHISTYLE ONE STORY
FOUNDATION SO FT 1332
FINISHEDSQFT 2248
BEDROOMS 2
BATHS 225
FRAME WOOD
GARAGE SO FT 440
OTHER GARAGE
MISC BLDG
I. CLARET Towm 14oMEs
Z. CLARET SPR11465
CL Aft S PRar 4 65
EAST
NOTE Dimensions rounded to nearest foot
Ci pynghl2004 Dakota County-
This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one
This drawing is a compJat on of records infortriation and data located in vanous city county and
.ta,e offices and other sources affecting the area shown and is to be used for reference purposes
anly Dakota County is rat responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained If discrepanmes are
ound please contac' Dakota County Survey and Land Information Departmert
Map Date December 15 2004 Parcels Updated 12ID2004 Aerial Photography 2003
4. F1NCL
5. gLOOnF1EC,C
f�FARbEToWrI
TOWN ROTAS b
PLAT NAME WENSMANN 12TH ADDITION
TAX DESCRIPTION LOT 30 BILK 1 INTEREST
ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMON AREA
KNOWN AS LOTS 45 46 47 48
BLK 1 SUBJ TO CIC #261
CLARET SPRINGS WEST
30 1
RESIDENTIAL VALUE DATA
PROVIDED BY THE DAKOTA COUNTY ASSESSING DEPT.
FOR THE TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT CLOSEST TO
THE CUB FOODS GROCERY STORE.
Teresa Mitchell of the Dakota County Assessing Department provided the following
comments and data for analysis,
"Studies have been done regarding impacts of overhead power lines, railroad lines, etc
on property values Results hay e been mixed
Location is taken into consideration, for example, busy streets Teresa has not seen
impact on rate of value increase, The impacts of negative influences such as industrial
parks on neighborhood aesthetics are taken into account
There is no way to quantify the tastes of an individual's perceptions about the value of a
property If one person is discouraged from buying because of an adjacent land use, there
will likely be another person who will have a different perspective on the house and go
ahead with purchasing it
The following data concerns the Wensmann Twelfth Addition, a 44 unit townhouse
development which is the closest residential neighborhood to Cub Foods An attched
map ke} s the individual properties The following properties on Claret Cir have one
wall facing Cub Foods although none have been sold
Address
2004 Assessed Value
Purchase Price
Date
Inc
1. 15143 Claret Circle
$248,700.
$196,000
11/17 /00
27%
2 15147 Claret Cir
$244300_
$177.300.
11/30/00
38%
3 15151 Claret Cir
$253,100
$224802
10/31/00
13%
4 15155 Claret Cir
$244900
$183,402
10/31/00
34%
5. 15175 Claret Cir
$257,100,
$217644
9/22/00
18%
6. 15168 Claret Cir
$237,300.
$211,690
7/31/00
12%
Highest valued unit, not adjacent to 151 Street Cub Foods Store
Second lowest valued unit, not adjacent to 151" Street Cub Foods Store
The following properties on Claret Cir have been sold
Address Sale Price 2004 Assessed Value
7. 15139 Claret Cir $293,900 (5 -04) $257,500
8 15167 Claret Car $283.000 (10 -03) $249,000
Price Inc
$190-286 54%
(10 -00)
$233,337 21%
(7 -00)
s
The following properties on Crestone Cir are adjacent to 151 Street W
Address
Assessed Value
9.
15114
Crestone Cir
$240,800
$200,000
6/16/00
20%
10
15109
Crestone Cir
$242000
$207,253
9/29/00
17%
11.
15141
Creston Cir
$271,200
$227,510
12 /08/00
19%
12
15138
Crestone
$220,400
$217000
8/31/00
2%
Cir
Highest valued unit in development, not adjacent to 151 Street Cub Foods Store
Lowest valued unit on Crestone Cir, not adjacent to 151 St Cub Foods Store
These properties on Crestone Cir have sold
Address Sale Price 2004 Assessed Value
Org Price
13 15117 Crestone $245,356 (8 -03) $247,900
Cir
14. 15157 Crestone $336,950 (7 -04) $266900
Cir
$204,914
(9 -00)
$210,370
(7 -00)
This property on Crestview Cir is along side 151S St W closest to Cub Foods.
Inc
16%
60%
Address Assessed Value Ong Price Ong Sale Inc
15 15106 Crestview Cir $249,900 $195,275 5/17/00 28%
This is the only property on Crestview Cir. that has sold
Ong
Address Sale Price Assessed Value Price Inc
16 15117 Crestview Cir $220,000 (5 -02) $250,600 $184,300 19%
(9 -00)
All assessed values were calculated in February, 2004 All sales that have occurred after
the value assessment have been for a considerably higher price
Kelley Murray of Wensmann Homes has provided some comments regarding the Cub
Foods development "There was some initial grumbling over lights and truck traffic
The nuisance truck traffic has been reduced v<rth the completion of construction Traffic
levels have shifted to a somewhat more acceptable routine delivery traffic Two
important points that separate this project from the Rosewood area are
1 The townhouses were part of the same PUD as the commercial use area
Prospective homebuyers knew that the Cub land was commercial They were somewhat
upset about the scale of Cub, but they always expected commercial of some type
Price Ong Sale Inc
2, The Cub building went up very soon after the townhouses, It seems to be easier
for new residents than if the land had remained vacant for a considerable amount of time,
and new commercial use impacts long -term residents
SITE MAP
PROPERTY ID NUMBER 34 -64680 -010 01
FEE OWNER
CLAREL CORPORATION
COMMON NAME
ROSEMOUNT VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
ARCHISTYLE
q KRAUS ANDERSON REALTY
4210 W OLD SHAKOPEE RD
NOT APPL
BLOOMINGTON MN 55437
PROPERTY ADDRESS
3860 150TH ST W
BEDROOMS
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068
PAYABLE 2004 TAXES
NET TAX 32277540
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 000
TOTAL TAX 8 SA 322 775 40
PAYABLE 2005 ASMNT USAGE COMMERCIAL PREFERRED
I
TILL
i
r
I
I
I
ad
a
O
L-
2004 ESTIMATED MARKET VALUES (PAYABLE 2005)
LAND 2316500 LOT SIZE (EXCLUDES
BUILDING 6600100 ROAD EASEMENTS)
TOTAL 8916500
421 179 SO FT
SCHOOL DISTRICT 196 967ACRES
LOCATION NW V4 NE114 SECTION 31- 115-19
PAYABLE 2005 HOMESTEAD STATUS NON HOMESTEAD
WATERSHED DISTRICT VERMILLION RIVER
LAST QUALIFIED SALE
DATE AMOUNT
n
Pn
P�
N
0
F
as
CG
U
LEGEND
L j RE std o�ra�
s se s sEo vA&
i ns
U
153RD ST W
C C IP L--j
F
2004 BUILDING INFORMATION (PAYABLE 2005)
TYPE
Si DOM RETAIL STR
YEAR BUILT
2DD0
2001
ARCHISTYLE
FOUNDATION SO FINOT APPL
NOT APPL
FINISHED SO FT
82823
74BB
BEDROOMS
0
0
BATHS
15
4
FRAME
C- CONCRETE
C- CONCRETE
GARAGE SO FT
0
0
OTHER GARAGE
MISC BLDG
U 152ND ST W
i
HE Dimensions founded to nearest foot PLAT NAME ROSEMOUNT VILLAGE
TAX DESCRIPTION 1 1
oyngh12004 Dakota County-
drawing Is nePhef a legally recorded map nor a survey and Is not Intended to be used as one
s draw ng Is a compilation of records information and data located In vanous city county and
e offices and other sources affecting the area shown and Is to be used for reference purposes
Dakota County is not resconslb's for any Inaccuracies herein contained B dlaarepancles are
id please contact Dakota Col my Survey and Land Information Department
i
)Date December 15 2D04 Parcels Updated 12RR004 Aenal Photography 2D03
C,
HE Dimensions founded to nearest foot PLAT NAME ROSEMOUNT VILLAGE
TAX DESCRIPTION 1 1
oyngh12004 Dakota County-
drawing Is nePhef a legally recorded map nor a survey and Is not Intended to be used as one
s draw ng Is a compilation of records information and data located In vanous city county and
e offices and other sources affecting the area shown and Is to be used for reference purposes
Dakota County is not resconslb's for any Inaccuracies herein contained B dlaarepancles are
id please contact Dakota Col my Survey and Land Information Department
i
)Date December 15 2D04 Parcels Updated 12RR004 Aenal Photography 2D03
v
I I
i
CSAH 42
a
Alternative 1 Residential Oneway Access
Rosewood Site City of Rosemount, Minnesota
o so 1 O
,f
Q
3 1
wl
pi
I!
i
e;®
CSAH 42
0
Alternative 2 Residential Right In 1 Right Out Access
Rosewood Site City of Rosemount, Minnesota
F4
�8
e
it
1
0 5a iao
Ef
$RENNERSFR -E
i
I!
i
e;®
CSAH 42
0
Alternative 2 Residential Right In 1 Right Out Access
Rosewood Site City of Rosemount, Minnesota
Rosewood Estates Resident Letters
Date Resident
December 9, 2004 Lighthouse Community Church
November 30, 2004 Doug Scurr
November 23, 2004 Neighborhood Petition
November 22, 2004 Theresa Franz Scurr
November 22, 2004 Marc and Heather Tobias
Received Drew Storley
Address
Owner of East Parcel
14821 Blanca Avenue
Referenced on attached map
14821 Blanca Avenue
14836 Boston Circle
14808 Boston Circle
DEC 10 2004
3285 144' Street West Rosemount MN 55068 -4020
Office 651.423.2566 Far 651.322 5760
Email. mad*worldwadelighthouse.com
December 9, 2004
Rosemount City Council
City of Rosemount
2875 145 Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dear Council Member,
We are writing to you regarding the upcoming meeting during which time you are considering
making changes to the Comprehensive Guide Plan that would affect the 15 acres of land owned
by Lighthouse Community Church on the northwest corner of Cc Rd 42 and Biscayne
Lighthouse has walked through a difficult transition in the past few years At one point, we
were on the brink of closing the doors of this 116 year -old congregation Sunday attendance
was down to 85 people With God's grace and direction, we have laid a solid foundation for an
effective ministry to this community and we are happy to report that nearly 300 people now call
Lighthouse their home church Our location so close to 3 schools facilitates an effective
outreach to youth and children, a particular emphasis for our ministry With that said, we are
not in a position at this point to consider building a new church
We have looked for every opportunity to sell the property over the last 3 years and have talked
with more than one developer In every case there have been roadblocks that have prevented a
sale Until the question of appropriate use is ansvv ered, any value the land has is purely
speculative That brings us to the subject of this letter
It is our understanding that the City of Rosemount has initiated the process of changing the
Comprehensive Guide plan so that the designation of our property would change to
commercial We are in favor of this change We believe the highest and best use of this
property situated along Co Rd 42 is commercial This change will provide our city with a
greater tax base and much needed land to service our community As an example, it would be
nice not to have to go to Apple Valley to buy a pair of shoes
During the recent public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission we were pleased to be
able to meet the adjacent property owners and hear their concerns It has helped us to
understand the necessity of taking a more active role in considenng their needs as this property
is developed Our commitment to these neighbors is that we will seek a commercial developer
to partner with who is w illmg to work with these people to minimize any negative impact
Even now, we are working with a new developer on a concept that would provide much needed
commercial office space and at the same time present an attractive buffer
Finally, we wish to thank you for your hard work and time commitment in serving this
community We are encouraged by the direction and vision you have brought to Rosemount in
the past couple of years May God continue to bless you, your families and our community
Sincerely,
Pastor Krai estner, Senior Pastor
Pastor Harvey Matson
Pastor B oodwin
4 t� Dave Lakey
Lighthouse Community Church A place to experience Faith, Hope Lovel
Domeier,Amy
From Pearson, Rick
Sent Tuesday, November 30, 2004 8 49 AM
To. Lindquist, Kim
Cc. Domeier,Amy
Subject: FW Rosewood Estates Rezoning
Importance: High
Original Message----
From Scurr, Doug [mailto doug scurr@retek com]
Sent Tuesday, November 30, 2004 8 37 AM
To Droste,William, Riley,Mary, Shoe- Corrigan,Kim; De Bettigries,Mark, Strayton,Kevin
Cc Pearson,Rick, Lirdahl,Jason
Subject Rosewood Estates Rezoning
Importance High
I am writing to you regarding the possible rezoning of some portions of Rosewood Estates
from residential to commercial I urge you all to support the decision made by the
Planning Commission deny this rezoning request.
I was unable to attend the last Planning Commission meeting, but we had a good
neighborhood representation at the meeting It was very disturbing to hear what was being
proposed for these sites low income housing a Target' We already have Section 8
housing directly to the east of Biscayne Avenue my property taxes are already
outrageous, but that's another .issue I surely don't want a Target in my neighborhood that
stays open till 9 or 10 at night all of the traffic noise that it would bring
There are approximately 51 houses in our development with roughly 65 kids Yes, I said 85'
Most of them are under 10 I would be opposed to anything that adds additional traffic
through our developmert The traffic on Blanca Ave where I live already travels way too
fast' How about building a park for the kids Or concentrate on developing other
commercial areas in Rosemount Some of my neighbors have said they will sell, tneir homes
move if this rezoning goes through. I would really hate to see that, as we have made some
great friends cur children have many friends to play with as well
Please make the right decision deny this rezoning request
Thanks,
Doug Scurr
14821 Blanca Ave
Rosemount MN 55068
651- 423 -5258 HM
612- 587 -2646 WK
1
Page 1 of 1
Lindahl,Jason
From Theresa Franz -Scurr [theresa Franz Scurr @pinehurstbank coni
Sent Monday, November 22, 2004 10 49 AM
To Lindahl,Jason
Subject Zone changes
I understand that at the council meeting tomorrow night (11123), the zoning issues will be discussed for the area of Cty Rd
42 and Business Pkwy My family lives at 14821 Blanca Avenue When we built our house, we were told that the land next
to Cty Rd 42 was going to be a church and the land between the tracks and Business Pkwy would be town homes Now
the issue has come up that this land should be zoned commercial I am strongly against this change As with many of our
neighbors we feel comfortable letting our kids ride their bikes down the block to friends By moving in businesses not only
would there be bright lights to deal with and unsightly views, it would increase traffic and noise There could possibly a
smell issue and litter issue with dumpsters I also do not wish to have an area for kids to "hang out" at Our development is
full of kids under 10 and we would love to see a park area Just in the 6 houses on Blanca Ave there are 9 kids, in the cul-
de -sac behind our house there are 7 kids and the other cul -de -sac there are 12 kids I can't even begin to count the
number of kids on 148th and the other cul -de -sac If something really needed to be built there, detached town homes would
also be an idea
I also do not see this land as an area that would prosper in retail Over the railroad tracks seems a little out of the way and
with the revitalization of downtown Rosemount I would think that should be a priority to add or relocate businesses It
would also be nice not to have every inch of Rosemount built on A little room for the residents is nice I also do not want to
see my property values go down
I moved from in area in Rosemount where I could stand in my driveway and look at the Cub's sign on Cty Rd 42 That was
not a welcome sight for me Now I have moved, wanting to stay in Rosemount, and may be running into the same issue
again
I can not attend the Tuesday night meeting and as a resident of the area wanted to voice my concerns
Thanks for your time
Theresa Franz -Scurr
Retail Banking Officer
Pinehurst Bank
757 Cleveland Avenue South, Suite 100
Saint Paul MN 55116
Phone 651 259 -1212
Fax 651- 259 -1233
Privileged and Confidential
The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is intended only for the use of the person or entity,
named above and is privileged and confidential An} dissemination, disnibution or copying of this communication
othei than to the peison or entity named above is strictly prohibited if you have received This commumcaLion in
error, please u nnediatc.1i noufv the sender bt phone and by replying to rhis message and then delete the message and
any attachments fiom your system Please immediately destroy any printouts or copies of the original message
11(22/2004
Page 1 of 1
Lindahl,Jason
From: Heather Tobias [Heather @berg Johnson com]
Sent Monday, November 22, 2004 1 57 PM
To Lindahl,Jason
Subject: Letter to the Planning Commission for the 11/23/04 meeting
Importance High
Jason,
My husband Marc spoke to you last week in regards to voicing our concerns regarding rezoning issues to land in our
development We are unable to attend the meeting on Tuesday, so I am attaching our letter to be taken into consideration
along with the others that will be at the meeting
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me during work hours at 952- 941 -5400, or at home, 651-423-
7140
Sincerely,
Heather Tobias
Berg- Johnson Associates, Inc
heather berg Jo hnson c om
11/22/2004
November 22, 2004
City of Rosemount
Planning Commission
2875 145 Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Re Opposition to Rezoning
Dear Planning Commission,
My husband Marc and I are residents of Rosewood Estates Unfortunately neither one of
us are able to attend the Public Hearing on Tuesday, therefore I am writing this letter to
voice our opposing concerns about rezoning
When we signed the purchase agreement to build our home, we were told that a church
would be going in on the property west of Biscayne Avenue in Rosewood Estates and that
town homes would be going in on the land north of County Road 42 and east of Highway
3, south of the railroad, on the other side of Business Parkway So when we received the
letter a w eek ago about the Public Hearing in regards to rezoning that land, we, as were
many of our neighbors, disappointed and concerned
One of the reasons we decided to build where we did was because we felt it would be a
safe place to raise our small children and were looking forward to spending the rest of our
lives here if the land in question were to be rezoned, we would not feel safe There are
concerns of increased traffic on the only street that runs through our development,
increased crime, and decreased value to our home and property Another concern of ours
is what type of business would go in The glare of lights is a possible concern as is any
delivery trucks that would be making their way down the already narrow street
I read an article in This Weekly by John Sucansky, 10/29/04 titled Rosemount
disappointed with results of redevelopment proposal To quote the first paragraph of
this article it states "A request for qualifications from potential developers for
Rosemount's downtown redevelopment project has netted only three interested
developers" The article goes onto further explain how disappointed the city is by that
Soto me, it would seem like poor planning to try and rezone that property w hen the city is
having a hard enough time trying to draw interest in the downtown redevelopment project
Rezoning to Commercial is not a part of Rosemount's 2020 Comprehensive Plan and we
would prefer it not be amended
We really like the neighborhood the way it is, and if this rezoning goes through, we may
have no other choice other than to sell our home and move
We have met with quite a few neighbors in our development and the sentiment for all of us
is the same Therefore, I strongly urge the Planning Conrinission to reject this proposal to
the City Council We are only a small group of residents and rely on you as the Planning
Commission to act as our "voice" to the City Council
What we would really like to see on that property located west of Biscayne Avenue in
Rosewood Estates is a church as was originally planned, more single family homes, an
area for a park, that would be available for the 55 plus children who reside in this
development, or a recreation center For the property located north of County Road 42 and
east of Highway 3, south of the railroad, we would really like to see town homes as was
originally planned or more single family homes
I thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns
Sincerely,
7Karc Tobias
.4feat(er7o&as
Marc Heather Tobias
14836 Boston Circle
To: Mayor Droste, City Council Members, City Adminstratton
From: Drew Storley 14808 Boston Circle, Rosemount
Regarding. Rezoning of residential areas surrounding Rosewood Estates
I passed over a petition from our entire neighborhood of 51 homes to the
planning commission last week unanimously requesting to keep the zoning
as is. I have another copy if the council and mayor should wish to see it at
some point.
I have one central question I would request each council member to
address in their eventual comments about this situation, be it tonight or on
the 21" when the decision about this development is made:
If the home in the neighborhood to the city, you researched
thoroughly, painstakingly sacrificed for, was committed to living in for 20-
30 years was about to have a gas station, restaurant or Target plunked down
in its back yard would you have built that dream in that location?
The city's leadership, past or present, made a decision. It zoned' /4 of
an entire area as a residential development Now one weekend after the one
year anniversary of my home living to this new wonderful neighborhood you
are considering turning 180 degrees and converting the remaining land back
to commercial, effectively surrounding our neighborhood of over fifty
homes with big box retail, gas stations, strip malls and who know what else.
There is a history of the property. Some may have always thought of it as
prime commercial land, but it didn't happen that way. To now go back on
the cities commitment for an opportunity for tax dollars at the expense of
your constituents would be unconscionable
That would effective erase our dream. No amount of burming, trees,
culdesacing or buffering would eliminate sights and smells of dumpsters no
more than 100 feet from some of our back yards, the 24/7 schedule of
delivery trucks dropping off goods, the employees taking smoke breaks with
a direct line of sight into our bedrooms, the invariable traffic that would
course through our neighborhood of over 85 children, most of whom are
under 10 years of age, the opportunity for vandalism and crime to our
homes, cars and friends as the eventual result of people hanging out and
moving through our neighborhood to get to and from those stores, the money
you will be taking directly out of our pockets by lowering the property
values of our homes, the single biggest investment most of us will make our
lifetime.
If you cared to listen you could hear over 50 different stories of how
these Rosemount residents of this neighborhood came to realize their dream
in the homes they built. No, its not Evermoor, but these are not starter
homes. They are dream homes for the people that live there. Retired
couples as well as young families, with wonderful variety and diversity in
family type, background, ethnicity and everything in between.
I've taught at the high school here in Rosemount for 9 years since
graduating from college It was my number one choice of where I wanted to
teach When I had the opportunity to go to Eastview when it opened I asked
to stay here My wife and I bought our starter home in Rosemount, and after
5 years when we had the opportunity to build, the ONLY opportunity we
could afford in Rosemount was this development. Otherwise, we would be
living in a city further south. Anywhere else would have cost too much.
The dream we had for our children in terms of the best schools was here in
this district, a safe friendly neighborhood with friends was here, in the
beginning stage of an area that was zoned and sold as a 75% residential
development
Like so many of my neighbors, and others in the newer Rosemont
developments we knew there would be a train making noise. We KNEW
that coming in. The impact it makes is noise. The greatest nuisance I have
suffered from the train is when stopped by the arms at 42 and 3 I watched
the engineer get out of the engine and run in to Kwik Trip for a 10 mmute
break while his train was stopped across the intersection Regardless, I
knew that BEFORE building my dream Like so many of my neighbors, and
I'm willing to bet others building in Rosemount, we would not knowingly
build in a area that would eventually be surrounded by commercial
development running up against our very backyard.
You might say that a great majority of the rest of Rosemount WANTS
commercial business in here That when asked, they have NO PROBLEM
with the idea I don't believe the rest of my neighbors in greater Rosemount
to be so callous and heartless that they would give you the same feedback if
they knew the whole story. I was ecstatic to learn of Applebee's going up in
an already designated commercial area on 42 I would not believe the city to
be in the right and would not feel good about saving a few dollars on my
property tax if I ruined someone else's dream for my dining convenience. I
believe others in this community would feel the same way knowing our
situation. Ask them, "do you want more restaurants The answer would be
"sure." Ask them, "should we build one up against your backyard I think
the answer would be obvious. Ask them, "should we mess up someone
else's dream and rezone their residential backyard to commercial property
to give you your restaurant I think you would hear many more "no's
than "yes's."
I have great respect for Rick Pearson and others in city hall for how
they have responded so professionally and quickly in the past regarding
concerns I have had. They are responsible for logically looking out for the
best interest of Rosemount's well guided plans for the future In this case,
moral responsibility has to take a role as well In the Rosemount Town
Pages Ms Lindquist stated, concerning the planning commission meeting
where many of these residents voiced their concerns for the first time, it was
the biggest turn out she has ever seen That is testament to the passion my
neighbors have for this neighborhood, it is evidence of their indignation at
feeling mislead, if not betrayed. The Town Pages stance given in its
editorial section stated that we have a "legitimate gripe YOUR planning
commission voted 4 -0 to not recommend this rezoning take place. Your
appointed committee of Rosemount residents responsible for important
decisions unanimously told you not to rezone.
Mike Olson, owner and developer of part of the property in question
stated at the planning commission meeting that he doesn't see commercial
use very feasible in his area, and that he even has already established some
plans for single family style townhomes to go in there He also stated that
he has no plans to spur commercial development. He and the city have
BOTH acknowledged that there is at this time no one even interested in
developing the area commercially.
So in this situation there is no plan, if there is one we have been lied
to. As stated by Mr. Verbrugge in the Rosemount This Week, there is no
tangible projection or even estimate of how this area allegedly could yield
broader tax base solutions through commercial development. You have
residents who were told they were building their dreams in an area 75%
residential, a developer with plans to continue that development, city
commissioners voting to keep the zoning as is, and lastly the city council
which allowed the beginnings of this development to take place under
current zoning conditions considering dumping back over the fence It just
doesn't make sense IF you consider the human factor, IF you consider the
effects of the dreams and lives on these residents of this neighborhood in
Rosemount. If you value the respect and trust given to you by your
constituents, keep these areas residential Retain the good faith promise that
you are serving ALL of Rosemount's residents and not sacrificing a few for
easier, seemingly logical solutions.
We know, if you keep these areas residential, you will be making
future planning tougher for those working in city hall. It will be more
difficult to find areas to develop commercially, but that course of action was
already decided when you let this development get started.
Please consider what decision you would make, if it was YOUR
backyard?
You will have to consider the effect of placing residential areas close to the train tracks if
making the decision to keep these areas residential, One major issue you will have to
personally risk in making this decision is how many complaints this may generate for
your voice mail in the future
I have two questions regarding this I would humbly request an answer to I am not trying
to ensnare anyone in a trap, but trying to alleNtate a concern I have about what the
priorities are in making this very important decision.
#1 Generally speaking, about how many complaints in the past 6 months have you
received concerning train noise from residential areas
Under 20 20 -50 50 -100 More than 100
#2 How many complaints in the past 6 months have you received concerning Knowlans
being knocked out of business because Cub was contemplating coming to town
Under 20 More than 20
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think there were more people at that immediate
time attending city council meetings concerning that issue compared to this one But
now no one is complaining, the average resident in Rosemount shops at Cub and will
probably like the competition ALDI's will bring It was a large headache to deal with at
the time, but faded and completely gone after a few years of distance to the decision
Compared to the train noise complaints, which may seem to linger like a shallow dull
ache behind the eyes that never really seems to go away, and might never do so Like the
employees and supporters of Knowlans the residents of this neighborhood will either
learn to live with the situation or move on Thus your headache may quickly fade
My concern is that you not make your decision to limit residential zoning in our area next
to railroad tracks because you may have to personally deal with the headache of listening
to complaints from individuals that failed to educate themselves about the property they
were buying in to The train has always run there, it probably always will Anyone can
find out how much traffic there is and what the regulations are on sounding the whistle I
researched the possibility of how much more traffic would be generated by the possibility
of a new power plant facility with many more hundreds of coal cars rumbling through
town when that was proposed a few years back That may have influenced our decision
in the end But the new power plant didn't happen We knew what we were getting
You may feel you have to consider the long range good of Rosemount in your decision.
Does commercial have to go in here to promote that agenda? Would it make logical
sense? Yes Should a neighborhood have been allowed to start here then No It was
developed, under certain parameters for the Rosemount people investing in their city.
People seeking to make the best life possible they can for their family's based on their
goals and dreams of what they wanted for their life in Rosemount
Service to the Community
I teach high school science There are many reasons why I went into the business
of teaching One was that I have the desire to serve people, to do the best I can to ensure
the success of future citizens of our community My number one choice for finding a
teaching position in the state of Minnesota was Rosemount High School Not Apple
Valley, not Eagan. not Bloomington, or Eden Prairie Chaska Shakopee or many of the
other areas I sent my application When Eastview opened, almost half the teachers
needed to go with the student population, I asked to stay
I love teaching the kind of kid I find in Rosemount, with the kind of parents and
faculty and community Rosemount has to offer My wife and I felt so strongly about this
school district and community that we bought our starter home off of Shannon Parkway
by the fire station When we outgrew that home and needed more space for our three
children, we researched every city south of the river for existing homes within reasonable
distance of my work for the best situation Rosemount, Burnsville, Apple Valley, Eagan,
Farmington, Inver Grove, Lakeville on down to Elko We searched for 6 months and
couldn't find what we wanted
One day at the end of looking at another set of houses in the Rosemount area my
realtor happened to drive by a model home We never considered the possibility of
having enough money to even think about building new, but he said give it a shot After
6 months he was willing to try anything He really earned his commission Needless to
say, after heavy financial deliberation, we found what we wanted, made adjustments and
sacrifices in our lifestyle to make it happen We then researched the entire area for our
new construction options We wanted to stay in this school district because we feel it has
the very best to offer, but the only place we could afford the house we wanted was here,
in Rosemount A development of the very same model we first walked in to After a 2
year struggle to build our home, we celebrated our one year anniversary in this home this
past weekend on December 5
Our dream was to build a home we could stay in for the next 20 -30 years. In our
previous neighborhood, there was only one other boy for my son to play with, no one for
my 2 daughters We wanted a neighborhood with friends for our kids We wanted a
friendly neighborhood with diversity of age as well as background and family make -up
The kind of neighborhood where you look out for each other's homes as well as children
Where you help each other out when needed We got just that We were looking to not
only build a house, but build on a dream of a Iife for our family in Rosemount
One good result of this situation is that I have met even more of my neighbors
over the past couple of weeks and I am absolutely thrilled by our common sense of what
this neighborhood means to us If you cared to consider them, you would hear from over
50 households similar stories as mine about what it took to get here and why
And that is why it is so painful to be in this situation now
Part of our research about this development was to ask what would go in around
us in the surrounding properties We were told by Ryan Real Estate that in the Western
area in question would go single family townhomes, that the Eastern portion would
potentially go a new church Knowing the difficulties the church was having I asked Bill
Ryan himself what would happen if the church did not go in He said residential of some
type, homes or townhomes, because it is zoned as urban/residential The city, by
allowing it to be zoned as residential, and begin to actually have it partially developed as
such committed to that direction For the city to turn 180 degrees now, 1 year after we
move in, and decide to switch back to commercial because of financial reasons, dollar
signs, is unacceptable We are asking that you honor the zoning set in place when you
allowed the start this residential development
A big question for me is does the city's leadership have a conscience Is it
willing to disregard the dreams of a minority of its residents in the name of lowering
property taxes by a few bucks and bringing convenience to the rest of the residents
Regardless of who decided to zone what as what, whether it was you or a previous
council or mayor, doesn't matter now It is now your dilemma and your decision as to
what kind of leadership this city is wanting to put forth for the future One that considers
every citizen based on the decisions that have already been made and moved on, or one
that will disregard its own commitments when a seemingly better opportunity might be
around the corner There has to be some continuity of commitment between councils and
leadership Because you might be newly elected doesn't necessarily mean you get to
disregard every decision and commitment that was made before your tenure
If you deg elop the rest of the area as residential, you will still increase the tax
revenue for the city There has been no actual estimate or number given as to how much
more taxes could be raised by commercial development, so it is an unsupported reason
If a big box retail like Target were to go in my backyard, they sometimes make deals with
cities to get tax incentives or relief to come in a build to begin with So for the first 20
years they night strike a deal to not pay one cent into the tax coffers of the city
Lets be honest, if you ask a typical Rosemount resident in one of the new
developments if they would like another family restaurant in the area they would say yes.
I was happy when Applebee's came to town But if you took the next step and asked
them would they'd be willing to build off their back yard they'd say no If you say as our
leadership that having talked to people the "rest of Rosemount" would like to see
businesses go in there you probably phrased the question via the former manner I would
be willing to bet you didn't explain our situation to them And I don't for a second
believe the rest of this city's resident's to be so callous and heartless to say since its not
my back yard, "who cares
It would be pure lip service to attempt to dissuade our concerns by saying burins
and trees w ill be designated to protect us Landscaping is generally left up to the
developer, and we already know what we got in this neighborhood concerning that issue.
Protecting our needs will be at best an after- thought, an asterisk in the building plan for
any developer or commercial business The city will make recommendations and might
attempt to build in provisions to try to ensure any business developer will honor them. but
in the end they will receive short shrift because the real goal of commercial development
will be realized
I know you are good people who feel you can serve your community by helping
to guide it forward in a healthy and proactive manner That is why you decided to run for
office You are professionals with years of experience in city hall and background
knowledge about how difficult it is to get things done in this city This piece of land is
really a clean slate to develop on as opposed to the complications of downtown and local
buy -outs in redevelopment It is an easier solution to solving commercial problems You
have seen the spurt of growth encouraged by Cub essentially replacing Knowlan's and
probably have designs on how to further that healthy growth by developing commercial
areas in the same manner You will need to grapple with the knowledge that this
neighborhood while thriving now, based on what we have learned and now know should
never have been built here It should all have been commercial from the start But now
we are here Are you going to cut the losses, the faith of good citizens with honorable
intentions and dreams of a permanent life supportive of Rosemount, and try to "get it
right' now? Getting it right would not mN olve totally disregarding the people of this
neighborhood Getting it right has to mean honoring what we were told not by realtors
and developers, but by city administrators and previous council members before deciding
to build here Your service has to not only include vision and long range planning, action
to carry out established goals, but action and consideration towards those you are
attempting to serve Thank you for your diligence and thoughtful consideration
Rosemount City Planning Commission Meeting 11/23/04
-Drew Storley of 14808 Boston Circle in Rosewood Estate neighborhood
that is adjacent to the areas being considered for rezoning
-There is room currently for 55 homes in the neighborhood, with 2 being
model homes and having 2 lots not built on as of yet. Of the 51 homes
owned I would like to present a petition signed by 49 of those homeowners
(the remaining 2 homeowners could not be reached as they are on vacation)
requesting the planning commission not rezone these residential areas under
consideration into to commercial properties.
-Our concerns, as you will hear from other folks here tonight, are mainly
these:
1) when we were presented plans for this area when considering whether to
build here or not, we were told, and shown maps, that the NW section under
consideration would be single family town homes We were told the SE
section was owned by the church, and when I specifically asked Bill Ryan
himself what would happen to that property if the church passed on the
opportunity, he stated that it would probably become single family homes.
We were not told of any possible rezoning where we would be surrounded
by a large commercial area of any of the 4 possible classifications. We
bought in to the idea, and were sold the idea, of having a family style
neighborhood with at best limited intrusion by a small commercial strip
adjacent to a church
2) By adding commercial areas with the current road structure you will be
significantly impacting the traffic and safety concerns for a family- oriented
neighborhood When the train stops traffic at 42 and 3 cars often speed
through the one curvy street in our neighborhood of over 80 children, most
under the age of 10, traveling over 50 mph trying to get to their alternate
route To be exact, there are 85 children with young family's still having
more children. To rezone these areas after we bought here thinking it a safe
area for our kids feels like a violation Because a developer or real estate
owner will be able to make more money, our children will be put in harms
way. There is no way with the current road structure to avoid the conclusion
that if this were commercially developed, cars would use our street to avoid
a difficult entry onto 42 and travel to and from these business locations
through our neighborhood street making it a main thoroughfare and
dangerous place to be
3) As we have discussed among ourselves, we would have had serious
doubts about building our dream homes in such a busy area and would not
have paid as much to live in a much more potentially dangerous
environment. We probably would have built elsewhere. Knowing this, we
feel surrounding our homes with businesses would make the resale of our
homes less attractive to potential future buyers thus a rezoning into
commercial areas would lower the property value of our homes Some could
make a callous response to this and say well, if you don't like what is
happening move The cost of building the same home has outpaced what
we could afford in the area of Rosemount where we wanted to make our
home and raise our children To say to us take a couple more years out of
your life to go through the same process again is not valuing the residents of
this fine city
In conclusion, there has been no stated rationale from the city for
considering the change. There is already a sign up on the church property
advertising commercial lots when the rezoning has not even taken place
We would like to ask Progress Land Company why they are advertising
commercial properties on residential areas We were told no more than a
week ago by city planners that there have been no developers involved in
acquiring these properties, but that the rezoning was being considered by the
city itself.
We didn't build into the area knowing that it would become commercial, and
now try to reverse decision We want the city to honor the zoning set in
place when we purchased our homes, which for myself and my wife is the
home we wanted to spend at least the next 20 years in We want the real
estate companies and developers responsible for selling us our properties to
honor their intentions to develop these areas in the manner they sold to us
when we bought their product
I can't help but wonder if we have been victims of a bait and switch.
Because the entire property might be too large to support entirely
commercial areas, develop one corner first with residential, and sell those
buyers on the idea that a great portion of the undeveloped area will also be
residential or low impact church property, then no more than a year later
rezone and begin making a more hefty profit on the remaining land,
inconsiderate of the homeowners and residents of the surrounded area. I
hope this is not the case I am asking that you consider these things when
making your decisions, thank you.
Storley, Drew
From: Adam Wnght @minnesotamutual com
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2004 4 03 PM
To: Drew Storley @district196 org
Subject: Rosewood Rezoning
Drew,
My wife had previously contacted you regarding a city wide petition to not
allow the rezoning After doing some research online, I think we might have
a legitimate case of "illegal spot zoning" The article below is exactly
what we are going through right now I will be sending this along to the
City Council as well Here is the information I found on this
Black's Law Dictionary defines "Spot Zoning" as the "granting of a zoning
classification to a piece of land that differs from that of the other land
in the immediate area The term refers to zoning which singles out an area
for treatment different from that of similar surrounding land and which
cannot be justified on the bases of health, safety, morals or general
welfare of the community and which is not in accordance with a
comprehensive plan
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division in Chicago
Title and Trust Co v Village of Skokie, 376 NE2d 313 said "Spot Zoning
is a change in zoning applied only to a small area which is out of harmony
with comprehensive planning for the good of the community, spot zoning is
zoning which violates a zoning pattern which is homogeneous, compact and
uniform
In Bright v City of Evanston, 206 NE2d 765, Appellate Court of Illinois,
First District, Third Division, the court held that spot zoning by a
legislative body is prohibited
The Second District Appellate Court of Illinois is the court of appeals to
which DuPage County cases are appealed and decisions of that court are the
law in DuPage County In a Second District Court of Appeals case, Concerned
Citizens for McHenry, Inc v City of McHenry, 395 NE2d 944, an
organization of citizens and individual homeowners brought an action for a
declaratory judgment and a mandatory injunction challenging the zoning
variations given to an applicant for the operation of a proposed retail
auto dealership in a residential area The applicant sought rezoning from a
single family residential to a commercial retail district The court found
"The intrusion of this (commercial Retail) zoning seems to us to
invoke the definition of spot zoning the rezoning ordinance in this
instance is directly contrary to the comprehensive plan of the City of
Page 1
McHenry as well as the recommendation from the zoning board of appeals that
the zoning not be granted Certainly those people who have constructed
their homes in this area should be able to place some reliance on the
continued existence of the zoning set forth by the plan An intrusion of a
business such as the one contemplated here directly adjacent to these homes
cannot be condoned merely because it fronts a highway
"In some respects the instant case is very similar to Schultz v Village of
Lisle in which a gas station was prohibited on a corner lot in a
residential area despite the fact that the residential area was located
between two areas zoned and developed for business uses
the primary justification for the rezoning of this property is the
anticipation of an increase of the tax base of the community We find that
such a justification is totally illusory and totally violative of all the
basic principles of zoning If the profit motive were the sole reason that
zoning authorities varied their classifications, then any use whatsoever
would be appropriate next to any other use so long as the maximum amount of
taxes could be generated for the community's use This is not the law We
emphatically state that an increase in the tax base is not sufficient of
itself to support rezoning In short, we are convinced that this is, in
fact, a case of spot zoning
Thanks(
Adam Wright
2542 148th St W
Page 2
Rosewood Estates Petition Map
ay
Nsll
o
r
v
Ca4uui or
IlopcCM1wrL
o
O
LLLJJJ
pd
I ,_U
4
o
a
II I
n
D
J,
II
d
go 0 0
0
as
o
k
o
i
o
L]
p
II h PI I/832 14 e IiS2 L4�
I F+ga 436 la S
n ,x895 5
7`131 �1 la
Putme
uuumm�[QmemB
Cmmrncvl 34tc
Pd Cwmevc ai S4k
PWrcd Ca ..l SR
y
Q
1320 0 1320 Feet
City of Rosemount Area of Interest
Properties that Signed
the Petition
Structures
Railroads
Road Center Lines
Parcel Lines
2 0 2
�owce umcom �mmp ma a up gnosemounr ✓anunn Ewa
Petition to the City of Rosemount to Oppose Rezoning Property North of County Road 42 and East of Hit!hway 3 South
of the railroad and West of Biscayne Avenue in Rosewood Estates fi•om Urban Residential to Commercial
We, the residents of Rosewood Estates and surrounding areas in Rosemount, MN, hereby adamantly oppose rezoning the property North of County
Road 42 and East of Highway 3 South of the railroad and West of Biscayne Avenue in Rosewood Estates Prom Urban Residential to Commercial
Rezoning to Commercial would enable businesses to go in and therefore increase the traffic on Business Parkway and 148 Street, which is a danger
to the many children and pedestrians who live here, and it would also decrease the property value of our homes We feel a more appropriate use of
land would be single family homes, town homes, or a church, as was originally anticipated
Name
Address
Phone
Si ature
1467
)C -1
Yin l�rr
s
Cz n
ti
,i `•r �-ti�
J Cl L7 ha Wit^
11
1 1
Cr
`,'l- ta.1%t._._
U 7 r
�7- 3�t-t 3F
,'ti��
(g -L
c�� 1�(•Y/L.
Lij ��i G.t-o
L a YZ
l�Cti i C
/�In.•1^` 1 i�l
F- �.'�J
c,2C 3 7
/!r� /7
l E,I,
P Z ('�r l c {5
l
L ✓�iS�
cat V T O 1
q S5 13
fa, 0 r'
-41;- L4u
C
Arm obj
(,'-1 4aJ -7 /ku
c-
V
l y
4ZAI CV 1,Q 3 V J6
Y9,i 1ev
<\AS
�D -Aa3 9(,
1 L� tiVt
h
b Z
r 4-t
5� 3�,�-
L'
V (,at 14 \'c Z
U -u2
j I I-j
Name
Address
Phone
Signature
1 CV
1 c1 TQ
�l 7 C-7
I ke
iAor�lC�h �'vC' ILti
/`I� Sf Gc.,�
7 �Z
-r.. '7
L_ A W i. Z y Ic.
.1 G I 1
J
J'
r
f a
t a y 5+ W.
Ile
1
f
t 7 Z l.J�q N: n r
13 2 1
19� vz
D eh N
/304,,
rX C RR Lz C
1 5" F ��I
a 54� 4/7
L c` L
c�<
L 7q Lis S4 W
Q.V\
at_4 �fLCN l
/Lf�
Z
t A
J
t15
`t;! -aY r
Name
Address
Phone
Si nature
JJ
i ca. 11
�s
!Y�- ccJ n�✓!YU2.
Ca Tz
i 2
C/1` 7� lvc
C- Z 4 I�r �j
/�72 2 -17 c/
a
t K S Lo
W"m Ac
166,11ATnil
Vol
S he I l Pa ssc i
65 f U 8-'" 61 W
5 1 4 532.8
�5 L C ile -c!
y C 1
Y, 5t
U��
TN MA
n
1 wQ
F
lUMC) v Ct
iGl
IYcaJ i7 B i Cl
%&l1 4i
�c l/U
[G�. i'2 PncG
l CScoe 41, rc'lee
2.2
INS? 3 Q
l
Name
Address
Phone
Si nature
7
s�
p
a- S'f Scam a v
-3.� a
t
Progress Land Company Parcels
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
LEGEND
Streets
Railroads
Source DaAow County GISDepa m W
Cory of Rosemount Commwtry Development Department
hovember2004
Parcels to be Reguided from
UR Urban Residential to C Commercial
350 0 350 700 Feet
Excerpt from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 23, 2004.
6A. CASE 04 -82 -CP Rosewood Estates Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment,
Community Development Director Lindquist reviewed the Staff Report The City has
initiated a reguiding of residentially designated propeity in the Rosewood Estates area of
the community The property proposed foi reguiding fronts along County Road 42. west
of Biscayne Avenue and north of existing commeicial, immediate]} east of the main line
railroad tracks
Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Ms Lindquist
Commissioner Powell requested a copy of the map exhibit Commissioner Zurn
questioned who bad ownership of the sites and how traffic would access the west site
Ms Lindquist responded that Progress Land owns the property in the Northwest and the
Lighthouse Community Church owns the property in the east Ms Lindquist explained
the traffic issues say ing one idea is to cul -de -sac Business Paikway so there is an actual
disconnect between the residential and commercial Chairpei son Messner had a question
about maintaining Business Parkway south of the proposed frontage road Ms Lindquist
said the County would leave the intersection as is until signal warrants were met The
County would close the median and allow for a right in and right out when the warrants
were met or a signal light would be put in at Biscayne Commissioner Powell asked
about the report indicating the whistle noise solution and what it included Nis Lindquist
said Council had a work shop session on that particular topic and that there are new
federal regulations that allow for cities to avert the whistle blowing requirement but they
require significant medians to be installed and additional road crossing systems The
whole idea is that people cannot go around the crossing bar because of the phy sical
constraints on the road Mr Pow ell stated the letter fi om Maxfield Research refers
specifically to big box development on County Road 42 Ms Lindquist said the
assumption is that the land area is such that it would be a larger user rather than a
specialty user as in the downtown
Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing
Drew Storely, 14808 Boston Circle, stated that he visited homes in the area and 49
owners signed a petition asking that the rezoning not happen Mr Storley spoke about
his concerns that when biuldmg they were told that the northwest would be single family
townhomes and the southeast was owned by the church He stated residents of the area
were not told of any possible rezoning and homeowners feel they are not treated fairly
and expressed traffic and safety concerns Finally, he asked the Commission honor the
zoning from when homes were built and honor the intentions that they were told when
they built homes Mr Storley handed the petition to the recording secretary
Renee Ward, 2602 148 Street West, stated she moved to Rosemount for the small town
feeling, peace and quiet, and privacy Ms Ward checked with the City before purchasing
the property that the lots behind her were zoned residential Ms Ward requested that the
City uphold the original commitment to the neighborhood
Matt Cassity, 14884 Brenner Court, questioned the access of the north side of the
commercial portion off of the Business Parkway and how the area would have isibility
but no access Ms Lindquist stated if the neighbors were concerned about traffic that
Business Parkway would be disconnected The neighborhood would come from the
north and the commercial traffic would come from Biscayne Mr Cassity wondered
what it meant when the report stated this would reduce reliance on residents Ms
Lindquist responded that right now the tax base in the Cit} is approximately 80%
residential and about 20% commercial The council is trying to reduce the tax burden on
residential properties and that bringing in commercial property is a tax benefit to
residents Mr Cassity asked for copy of the ordinance specifically regarding commercial
property relating to residential Ms Lindquist said it is in the zoning ordinance and that
the standards are dispersed throughout each zoning district and halve specific standards
Chairperson Messner stated that the meeting is to tall: about guiding of the property and
not specific rezoning Mr Cassity also wanted to know more about the church Ms
Lindquist said it is the Lighthouse Church City Planner Pearson gave the history of the
Lighthouse Church deg elopment Mr Cassity asked for clarification about stoplights on
Business Parkway and on Bremner Court Ms Lindquist stated the signal light would be
at Biscayne
Chairperson Messner stated to the audience that it would be helpful if comments are
made if you feel there is a difference between the potential regarding on the east side of
Business Parkway versus the land on the west side of Business Parkway and if they
viewed a distinction
Renee Ward, 2602 148 Street West, asked for clarification of Messner's request Ms
Ward's personal iew is when she chose her lot, Bill Ryan told her the west side was
commercial which is why she chose a lot further down and as far as the east side she was
told it was residential and called the city to make sure it was residential Ms Ward said
the only reason she bought that lot was because the east was zoned residential
Drew Storley, 14808 Boston Circle, stated the neighborhood was hoping both parcels
would remain residential and hopefully the west side would be residential Mr Storely
raised two other points stating the residents knew about railroad noise when they bought
their homes and the new signs posted by Progress Land Company ad`erhsmg the sale of
commercial lots
Mark Bany, 14652 Bloomfield Way, resides across from Biscayne Avenue and stated his
concerns about traffic Mr Bany also said the City has not wanted commercial property
in the past and it should stay that way
David Kulawczyk, 2614 148 Street West, spoke about the tax issues Mr Kulawczyk
stated he enjoys the pond and the kids in the area play mg in the courts of deg elopment
but is concerned about the service drive, lighting, traffic, dumpsters, noise and crime
Melissa Kennmger, 2734 148 Street West, said she would like to see a park on the west
side Ms Kemmnger stated she lip es near the railroad and the noise is not that bad and
feels people would buy townhomes along the railroad Ms Kennmger expressed her
concerned about property value and the crime rate She would like to keep the small
town feel.
Beth Wright, 2542 148 Street West, spoke to someone in City Planning when building
and that she knew about the railroad noise Ms Wright mentioned the bonuses of
mot ing to Rosemount and that she plans to live here a long time and asks the City to
reconsider and not move forward on the proposal
Vicki Myers, 14810 Boise Circle, stated she agreed with the objections already stated and
indicated she had previous experience living near commercial land Ms Myers feels the
commercial development will invite trouble She feels deceived about the proposed
change
Dav id Gatz, 2669 148`" Street West, declared the Council needs to answer a bigger
question and that is what to do with Rosemount Mr Gatz feels there is an attraction to
the small town feel and he understands the tax implementations He indicated people
don't want a lot of big commercial areas in the City
Terry Virden. 2729 148 Street West, mentioned he lives in the only house not separated
by a road near the commercial development and asked that the City stick to the original
plan
Mike Olson, Project Manager of Rosewood Project, Progress Land Company, clarified
items for the audience Mr Olson stated the parcel marked "W" on the map is a paicel
that was zoned residential right from the start About a year or more ago Progress Land
was approached by Ryan Constiuction who is an agent who works closely with Target
Progress Land told Ryan Construction they would be willing to sell the propert} to them
as long as they were the applicant The parcel that is marked "C" has been commercial
As far as the sign advertising commercial lots that is for the commercial lots and no one
has emerged as a commercial user to purchase the land Mr Olson stated he respected
the concerns of the people that have bought lots and that there is a real feasibility issue
with developing commercial land on the parcel marked "W" According to Mr Olson,
there has never been an apparent willingness by the county to put in a four -way signal at
the intersection between parcels "C" and "E" Mr Olson spoke of the frontage road
proposed through "E" and the interchange He feels the City has a need for commercial
property but Progress in not driving the change to the comprehensive plan Prior to
receiving notice from city of the comp plan amendment Mr Olson stated they had started
working on another residential concept for the development of parcel "W"
An unidentified audience member then questioned Mr Olson
Chairperson Messner asked that the audience come up and speak into microphone
Mike Olson stated there is a need for the City to have commercial development but that
he content if this doesn't pass
An unidentified woman questioned Mr Olson Chairperson Messner again addressed the
audience stating all comments need to be on the record Mr Messner stated this was a
city staff initiated proposal to reguide the property This is a first step in trying to figure
out if this type of proposed requiding should go forward
Mike Olson commented that Pastor Kraig owns parcel "E" and that he is not driving this
change
Chairperson Messner stated that specific questions for Mr Olson could be asked outside
Bobby Bany, 14652 Bloomfield Way, questioned what the reasons are for the City
rezoning commercial Ms Lindquist explained that Council goals prompted some initial
discussions with the Council about available commercial land in the City These were
two sites identified as potential commeicial due to their locational qualities Ms
Lindquist clarified that the City Council makes a determination based on the discussion at
the meetings and consistency with adopted goals
Melissa Kenninger, 2734 18 Street West, questioned why the residents were not made
aware of Target's interest Ms Kennmger asked about what kind of deN elopment to
expect south of County Road 42 and if Ryan Construction and Ryan Real Estate were
related companies
Mr Olson stated that there are probably 20 Ryan Construction companies in Minnesota
and they are not related Progress Land did not solicit Target and Target cancelled the
option with Progress Land because of access issues Mr Olson questioned how feasible
commercial is for the area
Community Development Director Lindquist addressed Ms Kennmger's concerns stating
the city's discussions with Target were fairl) recent Ms Lindquist also stated the land
south of County Road 42 is the University property and stretches to a 1 /2 mile west of
Highway 52 about 2,800 acres in Rosemount
Matt Cassity, 14884 Brenner Court, questioned how recent the Target offer came about.
Chairperson Messner stated the Target issue is not relevant but Mr Cassity said he felt it
was a valid concern Ms Lindquist stated the City talked to Target in May or June of this
year Mr Messner stated that companies are always out probing for new land but that
does not mean a deal will happen Mr Cassity said he cannot imagine a worse case
scenario than what is happening right now and opposes it
Drew Storley, 14808 Boston Circle, said he appreciated Mr Olson's input and asked if
Progress Land feels it is possible to deg elop residential land to the west and would it be
profitable
Mr Olson stated the main railroad spur development has been a perplexing problem
There is a difference between the spurs that run through and feed the main railroad track
The properties "C" and "W" front the main railroad and there is obviously more noise
and traffic Progress Land is open to the idea of doing residential along the railroad but
not sure the property along County Road 42 would work Mr Olson asked that Kraig
Kestner speak on the church's part
Pastor Kraig Kestner, 15587 Cherry Path, stated that the church has been trying to sell the
property for two years The Church is not in a financial position to build a church
Commissioner Zurn asked if Pastor Kestner has been approached by the CDA about low
income housing and townhomes Pastor Kestner said yes and that they have gone
through two appraisals and there was quite a disparity in the appraisals The County
withdrew their interest based on the Church's appraisal
Assistant Pastor Han ey Matson, 14950 Camfield Circle, stated he has experience with
the same issues with development near his residence Mi Matson said our trust is in God
and however it develops he is not pushing for it one way or another but that low income
housing and mall development all bring their own challenges
MOTION by Zurn to close the Public Hearing Second by Powell Ayes
Schultz, Zurn, Messner and Powell Nays None Motion carved.
Chairperson Messner asked for any follow -up discussion
Commissioner Powell asked for a copy of the exhibit used as a reference Mr Powell
had a few comments for the commission including concerns with creating the long cul-
de -sac, signals, timing and access Mr Powell said it already sounds like there is a
concept in the works for the west site for residential and he has seen other areas where
there is residential near railroad tracks Mr Powell was concerned with the ponds Mr
Powell commented that the overriding issue considered is that residents did a lot of
research when moving into the area and to have that change would have a significant
negative impact on the neighborhood and certain lots would be double fronted and for
those reasons and the public comment he would vote against reguiding the area to
commercial
Commissioner Schultz questioned what the Met Council thoughts would be on the issue
Ms Lindquist stated that typically the Met Council reviews comprehensive plan
amendments based on a regional systems impact and this wouldn't have one
Commissioner Messner had a question about the east parcel Given Dakota County's
position that there would be no signal regardless of the development in the East whether
low income housing, townhomes, commercial pioperty does any of those potential uses
dictate that some type of road commeet between Business Parkway and Biscayne Ms
Lindquist stated a road connection all the way through would make the most sense from
any kind of planning standpoint whether residential or commercial Mi Messner asked if
the spacing of that access unto Biscayne would have to be as far north as possible Ms
Lindquist answered yes stating you want as much stacking as possible at both of the
intersections
Mr Powell asked would the staff think that the City would consider vacating any portion
of Business Parkway as it sounds like it won't get any use with future development
Ms Lindquist stated that the intersection will stay open as long as the signal warrants
were not met When warrants are met at Biscayne or Business Parkway a signal will go
in at Biscayne and Business Parkway connected to a 3 /4 mteisection At some point those
options will be discussed
Commissioner Zurn thanked the audience for participating as well as Mr Olson and the
Pastors Mr, Zurn agreed with Powell and would vote against the motion
MOTION by Powell to not recommend that the City Council approve the
Comprehensive Amendment from UR Urban Residential to C Commercial
subject to Metropolitan Council approval Second by Zurn Ayes Schultz,
Zurn, Messner and Powell Nays None Motion carried
Ms Lindquist indicated that the City Council is the final determination on this matter and
the goes before the City Council on December 21, 2004
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
Planning Commission Meeting Date November 23, 2004
Tentative Citv Council Meeting Date December 21, 2004
AGENDA ITEM: CASE 04 -82 -CP Comprehensive Guide Plan
AGENDA SECTION:
Amendment from UR Urban Residential to C
Public Hearing
Commercial
PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development
AGENDA NO.
Director
ATTACHMENTS Location Map, 01 -14 -04 and 02 -11 -04 CC
APPROVED BY.
Minutes, 02 -11 -04 Council Packet, Mailing Ma
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to recommend that the City Council approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
from UR Urban Residential to C Commercial subject to Metropolitan Council approval
ACTION:
ISSUE
The City has initiated a reguiding of residentially designated property in the Rosewood
Estates area of the community The property proposed for reguiding fronts along County
Road 42, west of Biscayne Avenue and north of existing commercial, immediately east of the
main line railroad tracks. A location map of the two areas is attached
Staff is not recommending rezoning of the property at this time
BACKGROUND
In January 2004, the City Council discussed at a workshop session the idea of reguiding and
rezoning some of the existing property within the MUSA to commercial The site discussed
was north of existing commercial property along County Road 42, just west of the railroad
tracks The reason for the discussion was the lack of commercial land in the City, the
Council's goal of attracting additional businesses into the community, and the site's
desirability for residential development
Applicant Property Owner(s)
Area in Acres
Current use
Current Comp Plan Desig
Requested Comp Plan Desig
Current Zoning
City of Rosemount, Applicant
Progress Land Company, Owner
Western parcel 14 9 acres
Eastern parcel 17 3
Vacant
Urban Residential
Commercial
R1 Low Density Residential District
SUMMARY
Land Use
Last year, staff approached the City Council with the idea of regwding property east of Hwy 3
to commercial The suggestion was made in response to the lack of available commercial
land within the Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA) Attraction of more commercial
services for city residents, and increasing the commercial industrial tax base of the
community, are two goals of the City Council. The land use change is one strategy in helping
to implement those goals
Typically the City would look to reguide the property with a project However, the staff would
like to market this property as commercial and therefore is recommending the change now
Staff is not proposing to rezone the property at this time
The Rosewood area has always raised the question of what is an appropriate land use The
site is bordered on Biscayne Avenue to the east, County Road 42 to the south, 145 Street
and an existing industrial use to the north and Hwy 3 and a railroad to the west The
suitability for residential, given the proximity to the main rail line and several spurs, has been
raised by several planning bodies over the course of time The area, if developed as
residential, is also negatively impacted by its proximity to County Road 42 and an adjacent
industrial use
Further, as the City has allowed residential development to occur in the other sections of
Rosewood, more calls have been received about the rail noise While WSB did investigate
how to reduce the whistle noise situation, it appears that the solution at this time is
impractical and economically difficult
From a land use perspective the City currently has 142 33 acres of commercially zoned land
in the community Aside from the land south of the more western parcel, almost all
commercial land within the MUSA is developed This greatly diminishes the ability of the City
to achieve its commercial /service and tax base goals Staff has reviewed areas of the
community where land could be converted from residential to commercial, however, the
current development pattern also limits the ability to reguide property in other portions of the
city
Traffic and Access
Discussions with the Council in the early part of 2004 centered on reguiding of the most
western property covered by this application At the January meeting there was a question as
to whether having commercial development on this site would adversely impact the city's
effort for redevelopment in the Downtown Maxfield Research was asked to comment on this
question, as they were the consultant who conducted the Downtown market study Their
information indicated that the development of this site would not directly compete with the
Downtown as they would attract different commercial markets It is expected that the
Downtown will primarily draw specialty retail uses, while these properties would be
commercial more consistent with the current development pattern along County Road 42.
The original assumption was that Industrial Park Boulevard would be the primary access
point into the western commercial area Staff believed that the intersection would ultimately
be signalized allowing for full movements to and from the site After discussions with Dakota
2
County it became clear that a signal would not be located at this intersection but would rather
occur at Biscayne and County Road 42 The County's position is based upon the County
Road 42 corridor study which requires 1 /2 mile spacing along the principal arterial roadway
City staff determined that the most appropriate access for the entire commercial area would
then be to construct a frontage road, from Biscayne, along County Road 42 Because a
frontage road directing commercial customer traffic would run along 42, it was felt that the
property along the entire length of County Road 42 should be commercial This would allow
for construction of a commercial scale transportation system that would not traverse any
residential development The frontage road would act as the access for all businesses along
County Road 42, ending in the west, to the larger parcel
Staff recognizes that there may be concern by existing Rosewood residents about
commercial traffic going through the residential neighborhood Some preliminary designs
would allow disconnecting of Industrial Park Boulevard allowing commercial access from the
south and residential access from the Biscayne The final alignment of the road would be
somewhat dependent upon the desires of the neighborhood and the end user of the
commercial property
Process
When discussions have occurred about the change in land use on these two properties, the
Council and staff have committed to site plan techniques that would limit the negative affects
on existing homeowners It would be expected that significant berming and landscaping
would occur to mitigate lights and views from the commercial property to the existing
residents Detailed discussions such as this would occur during the site plan review process
The current application is for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land use from
Urban Residential to Commercial The process requires a public hearing and neighborhood
notice The notice has been sent to an expanded area to include all properties within the
Rosewood area that are listed in the County records At this time there is no specific user
interested in the property
There are several opportunities for the public to comment on the development of this site
Development of the site as a commercial property will require rezoning of the property to one
of the commercial zoning categories, which will require a public hearing and public
notification A site plan review would most likely occur during the rezoning process This
process will provide the details of the specific project Typically in an area such as this, where
there is a transition between land uses, the City would request the developer also hold a
neighborhood meeting to introduce the protect to the community prior to making a formal
application with the City
RECOMMENDATION
Staff supports the reguiding of the property at this time It is felt that the site locations lend
themselves more to a commercial than residential use This change is consistent with the
Council goals for increasing commercial services within the community and growing the
commercial /industrial tax base in the city
This application is the first step in the process for development of the site The city would like
to market the property as commercial which is easier with the reguiding There will be
3
additional opportunities for the public to be involved with the final disposition of the site The
rezoning and site plan process will permit residents to see what is recommended and
address specific detailed concerns about the use, architecture, lighting, traffic, and on -site
views However, it should be understood that if the reguiding takes place, it is expected that
some type of commercial use would ultimately develop the property
If the Planning Commission has reservations about commercial development on the property
the Commission should recommend against the application If there are specific aspects of a
future site plan that the Commission would like to see implemented, staff is interested in any
direction about potential future site plan issues
0
Progress Land Company Parcels
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
LEGEND
/Streets
Railroads
Saarae Dakota County GIS Deparbnent
Cary ofR— atount Cona uy Development Deparenent
November2004
Parcels to be Regwded from
UR Urban Residential to C Commercial
350 0 350 700 Feet
Excerpt from the Committee of the Whole Work Session of January 14, 2004
Rosewood Estates
Community Development Director Lindquist requested direction from City Council on
the land use for the parcel east of the railroad tracks on Highway 3 and north of CR 42
Discussion included commercial or business park uses along CR 42 and changing the
proposed single family homes to townhomes The entire business parcel would seem to
be more of a commercial use because of the closeness of the railroad The lot size would
alloy; a larger chain retail center Staff was asked to research interest in the site and to
inquire with Maxfield Associates how this might affect local businesses Mayor
Droste noted that the Downtown Redevelopment Committee should be consulted
Excerpt from the City Council Work Session of February 11, 2004
Rosewood Estates
Community Development Director Lindquist requested direction from City Council on
the land use for the parcel east of the railroad tracks on Highway 3 and north of CR 42
and the parcel considered the "church property The developer indicated they would
like townhomes on the western lot, but staff is interested in promoting commercial uses
on the property Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) submitted a
letter for a potential townhome development and the letter stated that Lighthouse
Community Church was considering selling some of its property CDA would require
about five acres for their protect Council indicated they were comfortable with a
possible land use change Mike Olson of Progress Land Company shared some concerns
his company has as property owner
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: February 11, 2004
AGENDA ITEM: Rosewood Estates Property
AGENDA SECTION:
Discussion
PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community DeN elopment Dir
AGENiTEM
ATTACHMENTS- Letter from Maxfield Research, Map, WSB Traffic
APPROVED BY:
Information
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Piovide staff direction
AUTHORITY ACTION:
At the last Council Work Session, staff raised a question about the land use for a property within the Rosewood
Estates area The property is currently designated for Urban Residential and is zoned Rl Low Density
Residential The developer has approached planning staff about rezoning the property to permit townhome units
and has provided a concept plan Staff questions whether this is a good location for residential uses and w ould
like to explore a commercial use on the site This would be consistent with the designation and zoning of the
property immediately south of the site
Council seemed receptive to having the property be rezoned and reguided to commercial One question was
what the change in land use of this parcel could do to the city's downtown redevelopment efforts Jay
Thompson, Maxfield Research, has provided a memorandum addressing this concern He conducted the recent
market study for the downtown project His letter indicates that he does not believe there will be any conflicts
between the commercial developer that would be attracted to the Rosewood site v ersus the downtown area
They are two different market niches
Potential traffic impacts to the existing neighborhood would also be a discussion point WSB is looking at some
traffic layouts that could reduce, but not eliminate, cut through traffic in the adjoining Rosewood neighborhood
Attached are some preliminary comments and alternative traffic concepts provided by WSB
Based upon the discussion at the February work session, staff will be talking to the property owner about
dev elopment on the site Should the Council indicate that the property might be a better commercial site than
residential, staff would initiate a comprehensiv e guide plan amendment We would wait to rezone the property
until a project was brought before the City for review
Given the above discussion, staff would also like to raise the disposition of the property immediately to the east,
the church property It appears that the church may be selling the property and is looking for suitable users Staff
has spoken to the CDA about using a portion of the 15 acre site They may be interested in using approximately
5 acres for affordable townhomes They are also looking into a single family affordable housing product that
might fit on this site According to representatives of the CDA, the church may be interested in keeping
approximately 3 acres for their future needs Additionally, there are 4 -5 acres of pondng on the site Subtracting
all of the stated uses, there is approximately 2 -3 acres for additional deg clopment Depending upon the site
design, staff could envision a commercial use locating at the southwest corner of the parcel That would put it
immediately across from commercial and would create a smaller commercial hub in the area
Staff would like discussion and direction on the preferred future land uses of the "church" parcel We would like
to confirm the Council's interest in having a CDA project on a portion of the site, of course, pending further
details We would also like know if the Council could support additional commercial on a portion of this site, so
long as it complements the other uses and is appropriately designed to handle traffic concerns
ifield
R It 11101 lnL
i
January 29, 2004
Ms Kim Lindquist
Community Development Director
City of Rosemount
2875 145` Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dear Ms Lindquist
It was a pleasure speaking with you on Monday about the impact that a big box retail store near
Downtow n Rosemount would have on the potential for retail in the Downtown As I understand,
there is a proposal to rezone a parcel on the northeast intersection of Highways 42 and 3 (east of
the rail road tracks) to allow big box retail
Our Market Potential Study for Downtown Rosemount, completed in November 2003, found
demand for an additional 59,000 square feet of retail space in the Downtown through 2008 This
demand was calculated for store types that are appropriate for a downtown environment that is,
smaller stores (about 5,000 square feet or less) that do not need large parking lots and that will
also be able to market their unique Downtown location as an experience that can't be found at
shopping centers Big box stores would not fit this retail category, and therefore, there would
likely be little competition between Downtown businesses and a big box store located on the
subject Site at Highways 42 and 3
In short, big box on the subject Site will not reduce our calculated retail demand in Downtown
In fact, it may strengthen the Downtown by generating additional traffic to the area, providing
Downtown businesses the opportunity to capture "spin -off' customers
If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me
Sincerely,
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC
Jay Thompson
Senior Research Analyst
615 1' Avenue NE #400, Minneapolis, MN 55413
(612) 335 -0012 fax (612) 9047979
W B
&Rss odes, bw
Memorandum
To: Andy Brotzler, P.E., City Engineer
City of Rosemount
From: Chuck Rickart, P E., P.T.O.E, Tra sportatzon Engineer
WSB Associates, Inc.
Date: February 3, 2004
Re: Rosewood Village Access
II'SB Project No. 1005 -47
The proposed Rosewood Village Development is planning a commercial area north of
CSAH 42 and west of existing Business Parkway With all access to this proposed
commercial area from Business Parkway, a potential issue exists for cut through traffic
between Biscayne Avenue and the commercial area, trying to avoid CSAH 42 Based on
this potential, two alternative access designs have been developed to help eliminate and/or
reduce this cut through traffic potential Each altemativ e is discussed below
Access Alternative 1 Residential One -Way Access
This access alternative would require Business Parkway to curve to the west lust
north of CSAH 42 A right turn only and one -way to the existing 148` Street
would be provided This alternative would eliminate all access from the residential
neighborhood to the proposed commercial area, and to CSAH 42 via Business
Parkway All traffic from the residential area north of CSAH 42 would be required
to access CSAH 42 at Biscayne Avenue Traffic entering the area would have the
option of taking the one -way in from Business Parkway or from Biscayne Avenue
The attached figure illustrates this alternative
Access Alternative 2 Residential Right In/Right Out Access
This alternative would be similar to Alternative 1, with Business Parkway curving
to the west into the commercial area with 148 Street teeing into Business Parkway
as a right in/ right out. In this alternative, the median would need to be extended
past the 148`' Street access to prevent left turning traffic from the commercial area
to turn onto 148 Street Similar to Alternative 1, traffic exiting the residential area
to the north of CSAH 42 would be required to access CSAH 42 at Biscayne
Avenue No left turn out would be allowed at Business Parkway The potential for
cut through traffic would exist for traffic from Biscayne Avenue going to the
commercial area using the right out from 148` Street The reverse movement from
the commercial area to Biscayne Avenue would not be allowed and traffic would
be required to use CSAH 42 to Biscayne Avenue The attached figure illustrates
this alternative
C IDoaanents and SeamgslglblLocal SelangslTemporary Internet FdesIOLK141020304- memo -ab doc
Mr Jeff Sandberg, P E
Apn13,2O02
Page 2
Both alternatives would require additional right-of-way and reconstruction of the roadways
from l ust north of CSAH 42 to approximately Brenner Court Based on review of the
geomctncs and potential for cut through traffic, Alternative I would provide the best
alternative for eliminating the potential cut through traffic However, this alternative also
eliminates access to the commercial area from the residential area between Biscayne
Avenue and Business Parkway
If you have any questions or require any additional information on these alternative access
configurations, please contact me at 763- 287 -7183
4150 Olson
Memorial
Highway
Suite 300
Minneapolis
Minnesota
55422
763 -541 -4800
763 -541 -1700 FAX IDacamenu and Sauagslg7blLo l Setangsl7emporary laternei FdeslOLK141020304nnan. -nb doc
Progress Land Company Parcels
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Notification Area
LEGEND
V Streets 350 ft Notification Area
Railroads Parcels to be Reguided to Commercial
Sauce Dakota Counry GIS Department& 350 0 350700 Feet
Qty ofRosemount Commumry Development Department
November2004
Excerpt from the Committee of the Whole Work Session of January 14, 2004
Rosewood Estates
Community Development Director Lindquist requested direction from City Council on
the land use for the parcel east of the iaihoad tracks on Highway 3 and north of CR 42
Discussion included commercial or business pack uses along CR 42 and changing the
proposed single family homes to townhomes The entire business parcel would seem to
be more of a commercial use because of the closeness of the railroad The lot size would
allow a larger chain ictail center Staff was asked to research interest to the site and to
inquire with Maxfield Associates how this nught affect local businesses Mayor
Droste noted that the Downtown Redevelopment Committee should be consulted
Excerpt from the City Council Work Session of February 11, 2004
Rosewood Estates
Community Development Director Lindquist requested direction from City Council on
the land use for the parcel east of the railroad tracks on Highway 3 and north of CR 42
and the parcel considered the "church property The developer indicated they would
like townhomes on the western lot, but staff is interested in promoting commercial uses
on the property Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) submitted a
letter for a potential townhome development and the letter stated that Lighthouse
Community Chinch was considering selling some of its property CDA would require
about fiN e acres for their project Council indicated the) were comfortable with a
possible land use change Mike Olson of Progress Land Company shared some concerns
his company has as property owner
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: February 11, 2004
AGENDA ITEM: Rosewood Estates Property
AGENDA SECTION
Discussion
PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Drr
AGENT E a
ATTACHMENTS: Letter from Maxfield Research, Map, WSB Traffic
APPROV ED BY:
Information
RECOMMENDED ACTION Provide staff direction
AUTHORITY ACTION:
At the last Council Work Session, staff raised a question about the land use for a property within the Rosewood
Estates area The property is currently designated for Urban Residential and is zoned R1 Low Density
Residential The developer has approached planning staff about rezoning the property to permit townhome units
and has provided a concept plan Staff questions whether this is a good location for residential uses and would
like to explore a commercial use on the site This would be consistent with the designation and zoning of the
property immediately south of the site
Council seemed receptive to having the property be rezoned and regraded to commercial One question was
what the change in land use of this parcel could do to the city's downtown redevelopment efforts Jay
Thompson, Maxfield Research, has provided a memorandum addressing this concern He conducted the recent
market study for the downtown project His letter indicates that he does not believe there will be any conflicts
between the commercial developer that would be attracted to the Rosewood site versus the downtown area
They are two different market niches
Potential traffic impacts to the existing neighborhood would also be a discussion point WSB is looking at some
traffic layouts that could reduce, but not eliminate, cut through traffic in the adjoining Rosewood neighborhood
Attached are some preliminary comments and alternative traffic concepts provided by WSB
Based upon the discussion at the February work session, staff will be talking to the property owner about
development on the site Should the Council indicate that the property might be a better commercial site than
residential, staff would initiate a comprehensive guide plan amendment We would wait to rezone the property
until a project was brought before the City for review
Given the above discussion, staff would also like to raise the disposition of the property immediately to the east,
the church property It appears that the church may be selling the property and is looking for suitable users Staff
has spoken to the CDA about using a portion of the 15 acre site They may be interested in using approximately
5 acres for affordable townhomes_ They are also looking into a single Emuly affordable housing product that
might fit on this site According to representatr, es of the CDA, the church may be interested in keeping
approximately 3 acres for their future needs Additionally, there are 4 -5 acres ofpondmg on the site Subtracting
all of the stated uses, there is approximately 2 -3 acres for additional development Depending upon the site
design, staff could envision a commercial use locating at the southwest comer of the parcel That would put it
immediately across from commeicial and would create a smaller commercial hub in the area
Staff would like discussion and direction on the preferred future land uses of the "church" parcel We would like
to confirm the Council's interest in having a CDA project on a portion of the site, of course, pending further
details We would also like know if the Council could support additional commercial on a portion of this site, so
long as it complements the other uses and is appropriately designed to handle traffic concerns
V afield
o, Resva"[1111L
January 29, 2004
Ms Kim Lindquist
Community Development Director
City of Rosemount
2875 t45` Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dear Ms Lindquist
It was a pleasure speaking with you on Monday about the impact that a big box retail store near
Downtown Rosemount would have on the potential for retail in the Downtown As I understand,
there is a proposal to rezone a parcel on the northeast intersection of Highways 42 and 3 (east of
the rail road tracks) to allow big box retail
Our Market Potential Study for Downtown Rosemount, completed in November 2003, found
demand for an additional 59 000 square feet of retail space in the Downtown through 2008 This
demand was calculated for store types that are appropriate for a downtown environment —that is,
smaller stores (about 5,000 square feet or less) that do not need large parking lots and that will
also be able to market their unique Downtown location as an experience that can't be found at
shopping centers Big box stores would not fit this retail category, and therefore, there would
likely be little competition between Downtown businesses and a big box store located on the
subject Site at Highways 42 and 3_
In short, big box on the subject Site will not reduce our calculated retail demand in Downtown
In fact, it may strengthen the Downtown by generating additional traffic to the area, proti idmg
Downtown businesses the opportunity to capture "spin -off' customers
If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC
Jay Thompson
Senior Research Analyst
615 1 Avenue NE 4400, Minneapolis, MN 55413
(612) 338 -0012 fax (612) 9047979
4
II,,�� A&
W B
AM�
Assoaates, lie.
Memorandum
To: Andy Brotyler, P E., City Engineer
City of Rosemount
From: ChuckRickart, P.E., P.T.O.E., Transportation Engineer
WSB Associates, Inc.
Date. February 3, 2004
Re: Rosewood Village Access
WSB Project No 1005 -47
The proposed Rosewood Village Development is planning a commercial area north of
CSAH 42 and west of existing Business Parkway With all access to this proposed
commercial area from Business Parkway, a potential issue exists for cut through traffic
between Biscayne Avenue and the commercial area, trying to avoid CSAH 42 Based on
this potential, two alternative access designs have been developed to help eliminate and/or
reduce this cut through traffic potential Each alternative is discussed below
Access Alternative 1 Residential One -Way Access
This access alternative would require Business Parkway to curve to the westlust
north of CSAH 42 A right turn only and one -w ay to the existing 148 Street
would be provided This alternative would elimin ate all access from the residential
neighborhood to the proposed commercial area, and to CSAH 42 via Business
Parka ay All traffic from the residential area north of CSAH 42 would be required
to access CSAH 42 at Biscayne Avenue Traffic entering the area would have the
option of taking the one -way in from Business Parkway or from Biscayne Avenue
The attached figure illustrates this alternative
Access Alternative 2 Residential Rn, In/Right Out Access
This alternative would be similar to Alternative 1, with Business Parkway curving
to the west into the commercial area with 148` Street teeing into Business Parkway
as a right in/ right out In this alternative, the median would need to be extended
past the 148` Street access to prevent left turning traffic from the commercial area
to turn onto 148 Street Similar to Alternative 1, traffic exiting the residential area
to the north of CSAH 42 would be required to access CSAH 42 at Biscayne
Avenue No left turn out would be allowed at Business Parkway The potential for
cut through traffic would exist for traffic from Biscayne Avenue going to the
commercial area using the right out from 148' Street The reverse movement from
the commercial area to Biscayne Avenue would not be allowed and traffic would
be required to use CSAH 42 to Biscayne Avenue The attached figure illustrates
this alternative
C (Documents and SetttngslajYLocal SeningsIT'emporary Internet FdesVLK141020304- memo -ab doc
Mr Jeff Sandberg, P E
April 3, 2002
Page 2
Both alternatives would require additional nght -of -way and reconstruction of the roadways
from lust north of CS AE 42 to approximately Brenner Court Based on review of the
geometries and potential for cut through traffic, Alternative 1 would prop ide the best
alternative for eliminating the potential cut through traffic However, this alternative also
eliminates access to the commercial area from the residential area between Biscayne
Avenue and Business Parkes ay
If you have any questions or require any additional information on these alternative access
configurations, please contact me at 763-287-718'
Olson
Memonal
Highway
Suite 300
Minreopolu
Minnesota
55422
763 -541 -4800
763 -541 1 700 FAX C IDxaments and Settings WjblLoca! Setttngsl Temporary lnternet FlfuIOLK /01020304- mutm -ab doe
F. bw
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator
Kim Lindquist, Community Develop ent D' ector
FROM: Gary Kalstabakken, Chief of Police
DATE: December 21, 2004
RE: Commercial Area Crime Activity — Eagan and Apple Valley Data
The staff of the Eagan Police Department provided the two (2) attached maps depicting
calls for service in the residential areas near the Eagan Target and Wal -Mart stores.
These two maps depict all calls for service. As the graphics on the maps indicate, the
areas near the stores do not have a higher level of calls for service than other similar
residential areas that are farther away from the retailers.
The two retail areas used in the Eagan maps do show a higher level of calls for service
than most residential areas. However, it is important to note that these calls include many
non - criminal public service calls, e.g. vehicle lockouts. Retail areas will generate calls
based upon the store's policies. Stores taking an aggressive approach to shoplifting
prevention and detection will result in increased police response to the store. There will
be other types of crimes that are directly related to retail establishments, such as,
credit/debit card fraud, forged checks, and forged drug prescriptions.
The information provided by Eagan, as well as Rosemount's own data from our retail
areas, shows that any crime or police calls for service does not spill over into the
adjoining residential areas.
Apple Valley PD did not provide any detailed information by Tuesday afternoon. The
police chief did state that his experience indicates that crime in their retail areas does not
negatively impact any adjoining or nearby residential areas.
Eagan Calls for Service - Density /Square Mile
(1/1/04 - 12/17/04)
As you can see, these three residential
neighborhoods close to Target do not
appear to have an extraordinarily high
�k number of Police calls,
i r - tr
Target Stores /Cliff Lake Center
Legend
Call Density
lowest
And
highest
" Eagan Calls for Service - Density /Square Mile
(1/1/04 - 12/17/04)
Legend
Call Density
lowest
m
highest
RYAH
w�Rne�.
ROSEMOUNT
DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPT SITE AND
FRONTAGE ROAD
ROSEMOUNT,
MINNESOTA
SITE PLAN
wr_bea.oN.a
wne.
C 1
pe vei4n[e
j
Page 1 of 2
Lindquist,Kim
From: Pat & Heidi [patandheidi @frontiernet.net]
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 10:03 PM
To: Lindquist,Kim
Subject: ROSEWOOD COMMENTS
My name is Patrick Nicklay and my wife Heidi and I live at 14891 Brenner Court. About five and a half years ago
we married and purchased our first home, a townhouse in Woodbury. Moving to Woodbury was a difficult
decision because it placed us a considerable distance from family and friends. However, the proximity to both of
our places of work, plus finding everything we wanted in a starter home was too difficult to resist. After the first
year or so, we really began to enjoy living in Woodbury, we lived in a quiet neighborhood and enjoyed yearly
activities such as Woodbury Days and the annual city -wide garage sale. However, after about three and a half
years we had outgrown our town home and knew it was time to think of something bigger, especially if we
planned on starting a family. When considering if we would stay in Woodbury, the most important factor was if it
was a city where we'd want to raise our children. Unfortunately, Woodbury has taken the initiative to forget about
being a people -first city, and quickly joined the business -first fray. First the Sam's Club opened, then a Super Wal-
Mart was announced, next came the plans for the new "Lifestyle Centers" that would include a new Best Buy and
all the trendy restaurants. It's extremely easy to sell this idea to residents of a city because people love the
concept of convenience. As long as it is in someone else's backyard, then who cares. Never mind the increase
in traffic and crime, as long as it's more convenient, then that's okay and maybe some people enjoy stop lights
every 250 feet. I sure didn't.
Therefore, when we decided to build a new home, Woodbury was never a consideration. We considered Apple
Valley, Farmington, Lakeville and Rosemount. Apple Valley was quickly eliminated for much of the same reasons
as Woodbury. I had three sisters and their families all living in Rosemount at the time and they all raved about the
community and the great school system, Leprechaun days and the flower garden at Central Park. They
forewarned us that the property taxes were probably higher than other cities, mainly because of Rosemount's
decision to limit commercial growth. The tradeoff certainly seemed worth it to us. After seeing numerous model
homes and looking at different lots in Farmington and Lakeville, we always kept coming back to Rosemount. We
loved the established small -town feel. We heard about the downtown revitalization project and it sounded like a
great concept. Rosemount offered more than we ever dreamed of. We found a great cul -de -sac lot in the
Rosewood Estates development and were extremely excited to build here. We asked about the neighboring
property and were told it was zoned residential, that a church would be going along the County Rd 42 corridor and
that the only commercially zoned property was a square section of land bordering County Rd 42 and Hwy 3. The
prospect of living within walking distance of both downtown and Central Park was a also a big draw, and being so
close to St. Joseph's church as well as the schools were also important factors. It's like filling out a wish list of
what you are looking for in a city, community, neighborhood and home and having each wish come true.
Rosemount felt like the place we wanted to be:..
We took the big plunge and began the building process. At times it was stressful, the choices were plentiful but
money was not. It was a fantastic and sometimes overwhelming process, but in the end we are excited to say we
truly got our dream home: a place to raise our children, to make friends, to be a part of the neighborhood and
community. We moved into our new home in February of 2004, we couldn't have been more pleased. The
neighborhood was beautiful and we felt the location could not be beat. After a wonderful but busy first summer,
weekends spent laying down sod, or landscaping our new yard, we watched our neighborhood grow into
something more truly unique and beautiful.
The news we recently received that Rosemount was considering rezoning the residential land around our home
and neighborhood and making it commercial arrived like a huge sucker punch. Visions of gas stations, strip
malls, restaurants or fast food joints immediately came to mind. All of this in our backyard and just down the
street from our house and neighborhood. The thought sickens me every time I think of it. When we envisioned
our dream home and a neighborhood that was safe and friendly for raising our children, we never once
envisioned having a gas station next door, or the semi - trailers and the additional traffic that would be generated
from commercial development. I ask you if that sounds like a dream to you? If that is the type of neighborhood
you would want your children raised in? It isn't to me.
12/21/2004
Page 2 of 2
The main argument in this debate is that the city of Rosemount had the opportunity to deem this land
commercial. The city, for whatever reason chose not to. It does not make sense to me or my neighbors for the
city to deem this land residential, pass all the building permits for homes to be built on this land, to see a beautiful
neighborhood and community develop and then yank all the dreams and hopes from the city's newest residents
with plans to add gas stations and restaurants literally right next door next door to $300,000 homes. If that was
the intent of the city, then the neighborhood should have never been deemed residential. If it was commercial
property from the very beginning, we would not be having this debate and the neighborhood's residents would
have built elsewhere. To go back after 55 homes are built and lived in, the sod is laid down, landscaping
completed and tell the residents that plans might change and instead of townhomes you might get a Target,
SuperAmerica or Taco Bell next door or in your backyard is a very disgusting thought. We built our homes with
the understanding our neighbors would be other people with the same dreams as ours, we did not build our home
only to see semi - trucks and thousands of cars streaming down the same roads our children ride their bike on.
I think the city needs to reflect upon its roots as a people -first community, a community where there are parks, not
gas stations in every neighborhood. While we do understand the city's desire to have additional commercial tax
based income to alleviate the tax strain upon its residents, at what cost is the city willing to make in order to
achieve those goals? Is it worth it to cheat hard working families out of their dream so other residents have more
dining options? Is it worth having to fear for our children's lives for fear a speeding car will run them over on the
way to the local liquor store? The city's own planning commission has rejected the proposal to make this change,
why have a planning commission if their advice is disregarded? Please honor the original intent for this land and
leave it for residential growth. I promise you that you will get a much better feeling in your heart when you drive
down County Road 42 and you see the children out riding their bikes in the summer or playing baseball and
soccer in the yards and not the sight of semi - trailers, parking lots, dumpsters and cars, cars, cars.
Sincerely,
Patrick and Heidi Nicklay
12/21/2004
Page 1 of 1
Lindquist,Kim
From: david.gatz @thomson.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 11:01 AM
To: Lindquist,Kim
Subject: ROSEWOOD COMMENTS
Ms. Lindquist and members of the Rosemount City Council:
I am writing this letter to urge the city council to not approve the proposed re- zoning of the properties abutting
Rosewood Estates from their current classification of Residential to Commercial. While I'm not against
commercial development in general, this particular change is bothersome for several reasons. The most obvious
reason for me is that it is close to my home. Putting that aside, there are other reasons why this proposal should
be voted down.
First, when moving into the neighborhood a LARGE number of families contacted the city inquiring about the
empty lots. They were assured that the lots were residential and that there were no plans to change that
classification. Now, one -year later, the city is (on its own initiative, not based on a petition by the current property
owners) seeking to change the classification from residential to commercial. As it sits, the owners of the 2
parcels stated at the planning commission meeting that they were fine with either classification, but wanted
closure on the issue.
Second, because of the relation of the properties to both County 42 and the Railroad tracks, the proposal is to run
a frontage road directly behind a row of 20 or so backyards to reach the commercial properties. Not only would
this be terribly unsightly for the residents (mine is not a property that would be directly affected), but it would be
highly impracticable and awkward for consumers actually using the commercial space (it is for this very reason
that Target no longer considers the properties a viable option.)
Third, the council's actions wreak of incompetent planning and /or dishonesty to the residents. Were the city up
front with its plans at the time people paid for their properties that would be okay (still an ill- conceived plan, but
okay). Had the city rezoned the whole area (including my neighborhood) commercial prior to the houses being
built it would have made sense (a larger space available, insulated from residential areas able to accommodate
commercial properties.) However, now the city is trying to remedy poor initial planning with even poorer current
planning and apparent dishonesty (given the short period of time from when people were assured of no plans to
re -zone and the initiative to actually re- zone.)
Finally, the proposed re- zoning runs counter to the charm and character of Rosemount. Part of Rosemount's
charm is that it isn't Apple Valley. Part of Rosemount's charm is the quaintness of its neighborhoods.
Rosemount's charm is it's "small town" feel. Proposals placing commercial space in resident's backyards runs
counter to what makes Rosemount a better community than its more commercialized neighbors.
I encourage all council members to vote against the proposal. This proposal has turned our neighborhood into a
politically active one. I, for one, will make this an issue upon which I will base future votes for city council and
mayor.
David Gatz
2669 148th St. W.
12/21/2004
Lindquist,Kim
From: Adam.Wright @minnesotamutual.com
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 2:36 PM
To: Lindquist,Kim
Subject: ROSEWOOD COMMENTS
Dear City Council Members,
The more I think about the potential rezoning of the land adjacent to Rosewood Estates,
the more frustrated I become. In the Star Tribune South section, the article includes a
comment from Kim Lindquist stating that the council wanted to "resolve it and move on."
Well believe me, after speaking with numerous neighbors regarding this, if the city
council does in fact vote to rezone the land to commercial, we will not just move on. We
will fight this in the court of law if need be. We are prepared for this and will fight
for what is right.
The downtown revitalization is something everyone in Rosemount will be happy to see,
however by moving in big box retail to Rosemount, it will destroy any chance of making the
downtown great. History shows once a big box retailer such as Target and Walmart move into
an area, the little guy always loses. The case can already be made in Rosemount by
Knowlans closing it's doors the day Cub Foods moved in. How can you expect the "small
niche shops" to be successful when you have multi - billion dollar stores shoving them out
of town. Do you really want all the work that has gone into the revitalization crushed by
this rezoning?
Don't deceive your residents this way. Remember, we gave you the power to make the right
decisions, don't make us regret doing so. Your job is to represents us as citizens, not to
fall prey to certain individuals looking to make a quick buck.
Sincerely,
Adam Wright
2542 148th St W
Rosemount, MN 55068
Ms. Lindquist and concerned others,
I have been observing the discussions and reports in the paper in regard to the Rosewood
addition. Simply put, my vote is for this to be utilized as a commercial opportunity first and some
sort of residential second. As a few of the people on staff and on the council know, I was
involved as a key figure in the Shannon Pond development a few years ago and am witnessing
many of the same arguments, concerns, pointed questions, indignation and emotion that was
evident with that situation.
In reviewing the current land, its relationship to the railroad line and Cty Rd 42, 1 can only deduce
that the best use for it is as commercial development. We are soon to be in 2005 and lighting
concepts, landscaping layouts and aesthetically pleasing buildings are available to developers
and investors. This doesn't need to be a "square box" enterprise, but can have an appeal to it (i.e.
Arbor Lakes) so that being next to it doesn't denote negative connotations. So the impact on
existing house can be buffered.
I also must say, that having lived in Rosemount for 16 years, I'd always assumed that this
property was going to be commercially developed and was somewhat surprised that any houses
had been built in that quadrant. This was based on my own paradigms of what I would find to be
attractive as a livable space. As a city, we need more commercial enterprises to help growth and
defray, to a certain extent, taxes. As I see it, even with the downtown initiative, which is perhaps
best defined as "slogging" forward, (no offense to all that are involved) because of the "small
town charm that is part of the discussion, any monies for the city in the way of tax revenue, are a
ways off. So designating the Rosewood area as commercial would bring another opportunity for
the city to help itself.
Two other notes I would like to make are 1) the professionalism and comportment that Ms.
Lindquist, Mr. Pearson, Mr. Messner and the city representatives held during the Planning
Commission meeting a few weeks ago was excellent, as it had all of the ingredients to turn into a
shouting match. It was controlled well, they should be commended. And 2} the argument from the
residents of '..'when I purchased the house the realtor told me this was zoned residential" is the
same one we proffered in our meetings years ago. I can understand the anger that these people
have, partly because this will be the only "new" house many will purchase and also being
Midwesterners, we tend to trust what is being told us. I don't know what can be done to control
this information /misinformation flow by the realtors and having them specifically pointing out to
the buyers that the undeveloped land next to them could change hands numerous times before it
is finally developed, with the vision of each new owner significantly different than the last. People.
purchasing new home are usually lost in the process and not reasoning thru future ramifications.
of their surrounding area. Maybe that is just more legislation that is unneeded, but I would say it is
the root of the issue at !'and. My apologies for being 8o verbose, but t!1 {S is an issue that ^ far
beyond what I've written here.
Thanks to all of you for the good work and service you do for our community.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,
Jim Burkhardt
4160 158th St. W.
Ilk
E
Thursday, December 16, 2004
Dear Mayor & Rosemount City Council Members,
We would like to express our concerns and objections to the proposed change to the 2020 Comprehensive Guide
Plan, by amending the plan to change the property North of Cty Rd 42 and East of Hwy 3 South, of the rail road
and West of Biscayne Avenue in Rosewood Estates from UR -Urban Residential to C- Commercial. We want to
thank you in advance for taking the time to read our letter with an open mind, understand our concerns, and think
through the full impact & result of the decision you will be making on Tuesday, December 21 St '
My husband and I have lived in Rosemount since 1999 (except for the 9 months that we spent living at my parent's
while waiting for our new home to be completed). We started looking for a new home, in a good community in
which to raise our children, after our first child, Jacob, was born in 2002. We looked at Lakeville, Farmington, Inver
Grove Heights, Woodbury, Apple Valley, Eagan and Rosemount. We really enjoyed Rosemount, loved the small
town community, believed in the mission of the city and were optimistic about the potential of the downtown area.
We settled on Rosewood Estates after much thought on what we wanted, location, connection to local builders, and
what we could get for the money. We, like many of our neighbors did our due diligence and investigated the land
that would be surrounding us and learned that it was zoned residential and it was being forecasted that the land
would be single family homes, town homes, and possibly a church, with a small area being commercial. We were
especially concerned about the future of the property surrounding our future neighborhood and its plans because
our house sits on the corner of 148" and Business Parkway. We felt reassured by the response of the city that the
land would be developed as residential. Now, in our home for less than a year, with our second child, Abigail, born
this fall, we are battling to keep our dream, of raising our children in a safe neighborhood, community focused city,
with small town character, and excellent schools, alive.
If commercial development is to be done across from our neighborhood it is going to bring many challenges that
weren't anticipated. One of these challenges is the increased amount of traffic surrounding our neighborhood. At .
the planning commission meeting, a traffic plan was presented that would create a dead -end, cul -de -sac at the end
of our street and all the commercial traffic would be routed through a new road just to the south of our development,
in many of the homes backyards. While this traffic plan may sound OK to those that aren't directly impacted, and
like it will address some of the traffic concerns, we are concerned about the validity of this plan. The design of this
plan has primarily one entrance /exit into the property. We are not sure that this plan would pass all of the coding
requirements and therefore we could end up with an entrance right off of our neighborhood, across the street from
our home. We feel this is just one example of plans that are premature. With unknown details in this area, the
traffic & safety impact on our neighborhood cannot be discounted. It was also interesting to hear that when there
was a possibilityfor a residential development - to go in on the property North of 42 they couldn't -get approval for a -- -
road off of Biscayne but when commercial came in al I of a sudden that road could be done. There are many other
things that will result from this change including a decrease in the value of our home, our single largest investment,
and that of all our neighbors, the safety for our children, increased crime rate in the area, the view, noise, & lighting
to mention a few.
The city officials have communicated during the planning commission meeting and various published articles, their
reasons for wanting to make this change.
One of these reasons is the tax burden relief that the city will benefit from with commercial businesses. In a
newspaper article, Mr. Verbrugge had commented that there is no estimate of how this change could yield a
broader tax base. If that is unknown, and the effect is just being assumed, this is an example of where there is lack
of data to justify reversing the commitment that was made by the City Council. That commitment being, this land
would be residential. It was because of this commitment, single family homes were built and now, with a portion of
the land developed, the City Council wants to go back on that commitment without enough details to justify such a
change.
Another reason for this purposed change is that additional amenities are desired by the majority of the residents of
Rosemount. We do not doubt that the answer of the residents of Rosemount to the question, "would you like more
restaurants" would be YES. However, if you ask the same question and add, the open land in your neighborhood is
being changed from residential to commercial use so these restaurants can be built there, the answer would be
NO. This story is completely different if the neighborhood would have been built knowing the surrounding land was
zoned commercial. The homes in our neighborhood were built on trust, and belief that the city was going to stand
behind their commitment to develop the land as planned. Also, it was mentioned by the developer of the land, that
the potential for commercial on this property is very limited and not highly desirable for many retailers for various
reasons including traffic pattern, access, and layout of land. If Progress Land, who would make more money from
00
r
selling the land as commercial, feels it is going to be difficult to use it in such a way, why not use it in a purpose that
fits the land. With the land empty or developed ineffectively it is a no win situation for the entire community. Also,
the developer commented that they were working on a town home proposal for a portion of the land when this
discussion to change the land use began. If Progress Land feels that they can develop it in a way that fits the land,
as residential, and being that was the intent of the city, per their comprehensive plan & the decision they made
when they approved the Rosewood Estates development, why not let them move forward.
Another reason given as to why this land should be reguided to commercial is the proximity of the railroad tracks
and Cty Rd 42. We really feel that this is just an attempt to justify this action as there are several residential
developments, within the city of Rosemount, built very close to the railroad tracks and major roads. Everyone that
has a home near the railroad tracks, whether it be our development or another (Claret Springs East, neighborhoods
North on Hwy 3 by Cliff, etc), knows that they are by railroad tracks and the noise associated with that when
purchasing their home. At the same time, the town home developments that are being planned for the land in
question would be sold with the buyer aware of the railroad tracks and traffic. This is much different than building a
home in a neighborhood, zoned strictly residential, then after the investment is made, having it reguided
commercial.
We understand the need for additional commercial development in our city but we need to work harder to look for
feasible possibilities that make sense. Some may see this as an easy way to add commercial land, but at who's
expense — the homeowners in the Rosewood Estates neighborhood, the residents of Rosemount and the future
commercial businesses. If this property, as stated earlier, is not ideal for commercial use, using it in this manner it
isn't going to be a win for anyone.
The decision for this land to be developed as residential was a commitment that was made a few years ago by the
Rosemount City Council and based on that commitment, it was developed. While the members on the City Council
change over the course of time, the commitment made by the previous council must still be honored If the City
Council operates independently of their predecessor's we, the citizens of the city of Rosemount, will end up with
constant change and no planned, organized vision for the future of our community. Now that the land is occupied
by over 50 homes, valued between the mid 280's and upper 360's, the City Council is proposing to change a
portion of the property. The Planning Commission review of this purposed change resulted in a 4 -0 vote against
making any change.
The City Council, we are sure is aware of the fact this is no small matter for the homeowners in Rosewood Estates.
We are sure you have received many communications from our neighborhood and have probably even seen the
articles in the Rosemount Town Pages, ThisWeek, and Star Tribune newspapers. We urge you to review all of the
- information, opinions and data (or in some cases lack of data) that relate to this issue before making your decision.
Then please consider the commitment that was made by the Rosemount City Council, your responsibility in your
elected position and the ownership you have for the decision that was already made on a piece of land which has
already been partially developed under the direction of the council. Lastly, please take a minute to imagine your
home sitting in our neighborhood, a brand new home that you built, which brought its own set of challenges,
surrounded by what you were told was residential with a picture painted of town homes, single family homes and a
possible church, to now be told that instead of more neighbors, your neighborhood was going to become
surrounded by commercial property and the challenges this will add as you raise your children. After reflecting on
these things, and your moral and ethical values, we are asking you to vote against the plan amendment to reguide
this property from UR — Urban Residential to C- Commercial.
Thank you for taking the time to read our letter. The decision you are going to make on Tuesday, December 21 is
going to have a tremendous affect on our family and over 50 other Rosemount families. If you have questions or
would like to talk please feel free to contact us by email or phone.
Sincerely,
Melissa & Thomas Kenninger
2734 148 Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
651 - 322 -5034
mkenninger @newhorizonsmn.com
Received via email 12/19/04
TO MAYOR DROSTE, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS RILEY, SHOE- CORRIGAN, DEBETTIGNIES,
AND STRAYTON: WE LIVE IN ROSEWOOD ESTATES, THE - CORNER OF BUSINESS
PARKWAY AND BRENNER COURT (14879). WE PURCHASED OUR LOT AND HOME IN
SEPTEMBER 2003 FOR APPROXIMATELY $350,000 PLUS..... WE RESEARCHED WITH THE
CITY ABOUT THE STAUTS OF THE PROPERY TO THE WEST OF US AND WE WERE
CLEARLY TOLD RESIDENTIAL EXCEPT FOR A SMALL PARCEL BY COUNTY ROAD 42
THAT WAS COMMERCIAL. NOW ONLY ONE YEAR LATER WE ARE BEING TOLD THE CITY
COUNCIL WANTS TO RE -ZONE THIS TO COMMERCIAL. RECONSIDER THIS. PUT
YOURSELF IN OUR NEW HOME, LOOKIING OUT AT A RETAIL STORE, GAS STATION,
ETC..... THANK YOU MIKE AND JEAN BROWN
l
qr
Page 1 of 2
Lindquist,Kim
From: Pat & Heidi [patandheidi @frontiernet.net]
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 10:03 PM
To: Lindquist,Kim
Subject: ROSEWOOD COMMENTS
My name is Patrick Nicklay and my wife Heidi and I live at 14891 Brenner Court. About five and a half years ago
we married and purchased our first home, a townhouse in Woodbury. Moving to Woodbury was a difficult
decision because it placed us a considerable distance from family and friends. However, the proximity to both of
our places of work, plus finding everything we wanted in a starter home was too difficult to resist. After the first
year or so, we really began to enjoy living in Woodbury, we lived in a quiet neighborhood and enjoyed yearly
activities such as Woodbury Days and the annual city -wide garage sale. However, after about three and a half
years we had outgrown our town home and knew it was time to think of something bigger, especially if we
planned on starting a family. When considering if we would stay in Woodbury, the most important factor was if it
was a city where we'd want to raise our children. Unfortunately, Woodbury has taken the initiative to forget about
being a people -first city, and quickly joined the business -first fray. First the Sam's Club opened, then a Super Wal-
Mart was announced, next came the plans for the new "Lifestyle Centers" that would include a new Best Buy and
all the trendy restaurants. It's extremely easy to sell this idea to residents of a city because people love the
concept of convenience. As long as it is in someone else's backyard, then who cares. Never mind the increase
in traffic and crime, as long as it's more convenient, then that's okay and maybe some people enjoy stop lights
every 250 feet. I sure didn't.
Therefore, when we decided to build a new home, Woodbury was never a consideration. We considered Apple
Valley, Farmington, Lakeville and Rosemount. Apple Valley was quickly eliminated for much of the same reasons
as Woodbury. I had three sisters and their families all living in Rosemount at the time and they all raved about the
community and the great school system, Leprechaun days and the flower garden at Central Park. They
forewarned us that the property taxes were probably higher than other cities, mainly because of Rosemount's
decision to limit commercial growth. The tradeoff certainly seemed worth it to us. After seeing numerous model
homes and looking at different lots in Farmington and Lakeville, we always kept coming back to Rosemount. We
loved the established small -town feel. We heard about the downtown revitalization project and it sounded like a
great concept. Rosemount offered more than we ever dreamed of. We found a great cul -de -sac lot in the
Rosewood Estates development and were extremely excited to build here. We asked about the neighboring
property and were told it was zoned residential, that a church would be going along the County Rd 42 corridor and
that the only commercially zoned property was a square section of land bordering County Rd 42 and Hwy 3. The
prospect of living within walking distance of both downtown and Central Park was a also a big draw, and being so
close to St. Joseph's church as well as the schools were also important factors. It's like filling out a wish list of
what you are looking for in a city, community, neighborhood and home and having each wish come true.
Rosemount felt like the place we wanted to be.
We took the big plunge and began the building process. At times it was stressful, the choices were plentiful but
money was not. It was a fantastic and sometimes overwhelming process, but in the end we are excited to say we
truly got our dream home: a place to raise our children, to make friends, to be a part of the neighborhood and
community. We moved into our new home in February of 2004, we couldn't have been more pleased. The
neighborhood was beautiful and we felt the location could not be beat. After a wonderful but busy first summer,
weekends spent laying down sod, or landscaping our new yard, we watched our neighborhood grow into
something more truly unique and beautiful.
The news we recently received that Rosemount was considering rezoning the residential land around our home
and neighborhood and making it commercial arrived like a huge sucker punch. Visions of gas stations, strip
malls, restaurants or fast food joints immediately came to mind. All of this in our backyard and just down the
street from our house and neighborhood. The thought sickens me every time I think of it. When we envisioned
our dream home and a neighborhood that was safe and friendly for raising our children, we never once
envisioned having a gas station next door, or the semi - trailers and the additional traffic that would be generated
from commercial development. I ask you if that sounds like a dream to you? If that is the type of neighborhood
you would want your children raised in? It isn't to me.
12/21/2004
a
T
Page 2 of 2
The main argument in this debate is that the city of Rosemount had the opportunity to deem this land
commercial. The city, for whatever reason chose not to. It does not make sense to me or my neighbors for the
city to deem this land residential, pass all the building permits for homes to be built on this land, to see a beautiful
neighborhood and community develop and then yank all the dreams and hopes from the city's newest residents
with plans to add gas stations and restaurants literally right next door next door to $300,000 homes. If that was
the intent of the city, then the neighborhood should have never been deemed residential. If it was commercial
property from the very beginning, we would not be having this debate and the neighborhood's residents would
have built elsewhere. To go back after 55 homes are built and lived in, the sod is laid down, landscaping
completed and tell the residents that plans might change and instead of townhomes you might get a Target,
SuperAmerica or Taco Bell next door or in your backyard is a very disgusting thought. We built our homes with
the understanding our neighbors would be other people with the same dreams as ours, we did not build our home
only to see semi - trucks and thousands of cars streaming down the same roads our children ride their bike on.
think the city needs to reflect upon its roots as a people -first community, a community where there are parks, not
gas stations in every neighborhood. While we do understand the city's desire to have additional commercial tax
based income to alleviate the tax strain upon its residents, at what cost is the city willing to make in order to
achieve those goals? Is it worth it to cheat hard working families out of their dream so other residents have more
dining options? Is it worth having to fear for our children's lives for fear a speeding car will run them over on the
way to the local liquor store? The city's own planning commission has rejected the proposal to make this change,
why have a planning commission if their advice is disregarded? Please honor the original intent for this land and
leave it for residential growth. I promise you that you will get a much better feeling in your heart when you drive
down County Road 42 and you see the children out riding their bikes in the summer or playing baseball and
soccer in the yards and not the sight of semi - trailers, parking lots, dumpsters and cars, cars, cars.
Sincerely,
Patrick and Heidi Nicklay
12/21/2004
Page 1 of 1
Lindquist,Kim
From: david.gatz @thomson.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 11:01 AM
To: Lindquist,Kim
Subject: ROSEWOOD COMMENTS
Ms. Lindquist and members of the Rosemount City Council:
I am writing this letter to urge the city council to not approve the proposed re- zoning of the properties abutting
Rosewood Estates from their current classification of Residential to Commercial. While I'm not against
commercial development in general, this particular change is bothersome for several reasons. The most obvious
reason for me is that it is close to my home. Putting that aside, there are other reasons why this proposal should
be voted down.
First, when moving into the neighborhood a LARGE number of families contacted the city inquiring about the
empty lots. They were assured that the lots were residential and that there were no plans to change that
classification. Now, one -year later, the city is (on its own initiative, not based on a petition by the current property
owners) seeking to change the classification from residential to commercial. As it sits, the owners of the 2
parcels stated at the planning commission meeting that they were fine with either classification, but wanted
closure on the issue.
Second, because of the relation of the properties to both County 42 and the Railroad tracks, the proposal is to run
a frontage road directly behind a row of 20 or so backyards to reach the commercial properties. Not only would
this be terribly unsightly for the residents (mine is not a property that would be directly affected), but it would be
highly impracticable and awkward for consumers actually using the commercial space (it is for this very reason
that Target no longer considers the properties a viable option.)
Third, the council's actions wreak of incompetent planning and /or dishonesty to the residents. Were the city up
front with its plans at the time people paid for their properties that would be okay (still an ill- conceived plan, but
okay). Had the city rezoned the whole area (including my neighborhood) commercial prior to the houses being
built it would have made sense (a larger space available, insulated from residential areas able to accommodate
commercial properties.) However, now the city is trying to remedy poor initial planning with even poorer current
planning and apparent dishonesty (given the short period of time from when people were assured of no plans to
re -zone and the initiative to actually re- zone.)
Finally, the proposed re- zoning runs counter to the charm and character of Rosemount. Part of Rosemount's
charm is that it isn't Apple Valley. Part of Rosemount's charm is the quaintness of its neighborhoods.
Rosemount's charm is it's "small town" feel. Proposals placing commercial space in resident's backyards runs
counter to what makes Rosemount a better community than its more commercialized neighbors.
I encourage all council members to vote against the proposal. This proposal has turned our neighborhood into a
politically active one. I, for one, will make this an issue upon which I will base future votes for city council and
mayor.
David Gatz
2669 148th St. W.
12/21/2004
Lindquist,Kim
From: Adam.Wright @minnesotamutual.com
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 2:36 PM
To: Lindquist,Kim
Subject: ROSEWOOD COMMENTS
Dear City Council Members,
The more I think about the potential rezoning of the land adjacent to Rosewood Estates,
the more frustrated I become. In the Star Tribune South section, the article includes a
comment from Kim Lindquist stating that the council wanted to "resolve it and move on."
Well believe me, after speaking with numerous neighbors regarding this, if the city
council does in fact vote to rezone the land to commercial, we will not just move on. We
will fight this in the court of law if need be. We are prepared for this and will fight
for what is right.
The downtown revitalization is something everyone in Rosemount will be happy to see,
however by moving in big box retail to Rosemount, it will destroy any chance of making the
downtown great. History shows once a big box retailer such as Target and Walmart move into
an area, the little guy always loses. The case can already be made in Rosemount by
Knowlans closing it's doors the day Cub Foods moved in. How can you expect the "small
niche shops" to be successful when you have multi - billion dollar stores shoving them out
of town. Do you really want all the work that has gone into the revitalization crushed by
this rezoning?
Don't deceive your residents this way. Remember, we gave you the power to make the right
decisions, don't make us regret doing so. Your job is to represents us as citizens, not to
fall prey to certain individuals looking to make a quick buck.
Sincerely,
Adam Wright
2542 148th St W
Rosemount, MN 55068
Ms. Lindquist and concerned others,
I have been observing the discussions and reports in the paper in regard to the Rosewood
addition. Simply put, my vote is for this to be utilized as a commercial opportunity first and some
sort of residential second. As a few of the people on staff and on the council know, I was
involved as a key figure in the Shannon Pond development a few years ago and am witnessing
many of the same arguments, concerns, pointed questions, indignation and emotion that was
evident with that situation.
In reviewing the current land, its relationship to the railroad line and Cty Rd 42, 1 can only deduce
that the best use for it is as commercial development. We are soon to be in 2005 and lighting
concepts, landscaping layouts and aesthetically pleasing buildings are available to developers
and investors. This doesn't need to be a "square box" enterprise, but can have an appeal to it (i.e.
Arbor Lakes) so that being next to it doesn't denote negative connotations. So the impact on
existing house can be buffered.
I also must say, that having lived in Rosemount for 16 years, I'd always assumed that this
property was going to be commercially developed and was somewhat surprised that any houses
had been built in that quadrant. This was based on my own paradigms of what I would find to be
attractive as a livable space. As a city, we need more commercial enterprises to help growth and
defray, to a certain extent, taxes. As I see it, even with the downtown initiative, which is perhaps
best defined as "slogging" forward, (no offense to all that are involved) because of the "small
town charm that is part of the discussion, any monies for the city in the way of tax revenue, are a
ways off. So designating the Rosewood area as commercial would bring another opportunity for
the city to help itself.
Two other notes I would like to make are 1) the professionalism and comportment that Ms.
Lindquist, Mr. Pearson, Mr. Messner and the city representatives held during the Planning
Commission meeting a few weeks ago was excellent, as it had all of the ingredients to turn into a
shouting match. It was' controlled well, they should be commended. And 2) the argument from the
residents of '.'when I purchased the house the realtor told me this was zoned residential" is the
same one we proffered in our meetings years ago. I can understand the anger that these people
have, partly because this will be the only "new" house many will purchase and also being
Midwesterners, we tend to trust what is being told us. I don't know what can be done to control
this information /misinformation flow by the realtors and having them specifically pointing out to
the buyers that the undeveloped land next to them could change hands numerous times before it
is finally developed, with the vision of each new owner significantly different than the last. People.
purchasing new home are usually lost in the process and not reasoning thru future ramifications.
of their surrounding area. Maybe that is just more legislation that is unneeded, but I would say it is
the root of the issue at hand. My apologies for being so verbose, but this is an iss le that goes far
beyond what I've written here.
Thanks to all of you for the good work and service you do for our community.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,
Jim Burkhardt
4160 158th St. W.
r
Thursday, December 16, 2004
Dear Mayor & Rosemount City Council Members,
We would like to express our concerns and objections to the proposed change to the 2020 Comprehensive Guide
Plan, by amending the plan to change the property North of Cty Rd 42 and East of Hwy 3 South, of the rail road
and West of Biscayne Avenue in Rosewood Estates from UR -Urban Residential to C- Commercial. We want to
thank you in advance for taking the time to read our letter with an open mind, understand our concerns, and think
through the full impact & result of the decision you will be making on Tuesday, December 21 s ' .
My husband and I have lived in Rosemount since 1999 (except for the 9 months that we spent living at my parent's
while waiting for our new home to be completed). We started looking for a new home, in a good community in
which to raise our children, after our first child, Jacob, was born in 2002. We looked at Lakeville, Farmington, Inver
Grove Heights, Woodbury, Apple Valley, Eagan and Rosemount. We really enjoyed Rosemount, loved the small
town community, believed in the mission of the city and were optimistic about the potential of the downtown area.
We settled on Rosewood Estates after much thought on what we wanted, location, connection to local builders, and
what we could get for the money. We, like many of our neighbors did our due diligence and investigated the land
that would be surrounding us and learned that it was zoned residential and it was being forecasted that the land
would be single family homes, town homes, and possibly a church, with a small area being commercial. We were
especially concerned about the future of the property surrounding our future neighborhood and its plans because
our house sits on the corner of 148 and Business Parkway. We felt reassured by the response of the city that the
land would be developed as residential. Now, in our home for less than a year, with our second child, Abigail, born
this fall, we are battling to keep our dream, of raising our children in a safe neighborhood, community focused city,
with small town character, and excellent schools, alive.
If commercial development is to be done across from our neighborhood it is going to bring many challenges that
weren't anticipated. One of these challenges is the increased amount of traffic surrounding our neighborhood. At .
the planning commission meeting, a traffic plan was presented that would create a dead -end, cul -de -sac at the end;
of our street and all the commercial traffic would be routed through a new road just to the south of our development,
in many of the homes backyards. While this traffic plan may sound OK to those that aren't directly impacted, and
like it will address some of the traffic concerns, we are concerned about the validity of this plan. The design of this
plan has primarily one entrance /exit into the property. We are not sure that this plan would pass all of the coding
requirements and therefore we could end up with an entrance right off of our neighborhood, across the street from
our home. We feel this is just one example of plans that are premature. With unknown details in this area, the
traffic & safety impact on our neighborhood cannot be discounted. It was also interesting to hear that when there
was a possibility for a residential development to go in on the property North of 42 they couldn't get approval for a - -
.road off of Biscayne, but when commercial came in all of a sudden that road could be done. There are many other .
things that will result from this change including a decrease in the value of our home, our single largest investment,
and that of all our neighbors, the safety for our children, increased crime rate in the area, the view, noise, & lighting
to mention a few.
The city officials have communicated during the planning commission meeting and various published articles, their
reasons for wanting to make this change.
One of these reasons is the tax burden relief that the city will benefit from with commercial businesses. In a
newspaper article, Mr. Verbrugge had commented that there is no estimate of how this change could yield a
broader tax base. If that is unknown, and the effect is just being assumed, this is an example of where there is lack
of data to justify reversing the commitment that was made by the City Council. That commitment being, this land
would be residential. It was because of this commitment, single family homes were built and now, with a portion of
the land developed, the City Council wants to go back on that commitment without enough details to justify such a
change.
Another reason for this purposed change is that additional amenities are desired by the majority of the residents of
Rosemount. We do not doubt that the answer of the residents of Rosemount to the question, "would you like more
restaurants" would be YES. However, if you ask the same question and add, the open land in your neighborhood is
being changed from residential to commercial use so these restaurants can be built there, the answer would be
NO. This story is completely different if the neighborhood would have been built knowing the surrounding land was
zoned commercial. The homes in our neighborhood were built on trust, and belief that the city was going to stand
behind their commitment to develop the land as planned. Also, it was mentioned by the developer of the land, that
the potential for commercial on this property is very limited and not highly desirable for many retailers for various
reasons including traffic pattern, access, and layout of land. If Progress Land, who would make more money from
s
selling the land as commercial, feels it is going to be difficult to use it in such a way, why not use it in a purpose that
fits the land. With the land empty or developed ineffectively it is a no win situation for the entire community. Also,
the developer commented that they were working on a town home proposal for a portion of the land when this
discussion to change the land use began. If Progress Land feels that they can develop it in a way that fits the land,
as residential, and being that was the intent of the city, per their comprehensive plan & the decision they made
when they approved the Rosewood Estates development, why not let them move forward.
Another reason given as to why this land should be reguided to commercial is the proximity of the railroad tracks
and Cty Rd 42. We really feel that this is just an attempt to justify this action as there are several residential
developments, within the city of Rosemount, built very close to the railroad tracks and major roads. Everyone that
has a home near the railroad tracks, whether it be our development or another (Claret Springs East, neighborhoods
North on Hwy 3 by Cliff, etc), knows that they are by railroad tracks and the noise associated with that when
purchasing their home. At the same time, the town home developments that are being planned for the land in
question would be sold with the buyer aware of the railroad tracks and traffic. This is much different than building a
home in a neighborhood, zoned strictly residential, then after the investment is made, having it reguided
commercial.
We understand the need for additional commercial development in our city but we need to work harder to look for
feasible possibilities that make sense. Some may see this as an easy way to add commercial land, but at who's
expense — the homeowners in the Rosewood Estates neighborhood, the residents of Rosemount and the future
commercial businesses. If this property, as stated earlier, is not ideal for commercial use, using it in this manner it
isn't going to be a win for anyone.
The decision for this land to be developed as residential was a commitment that was made a few years ago by the
Rosemount City Council and based on that commitment, it was developed. While the members on the City Council
change over the course of time, the commitment made by the previous council must still be honored If the City
Council operates independently of their predecessor's we, the citizens of the city of Rosemount, will end up with
constant change and no planned, organized vision for the future of our community. Now that the land is occupied
by over 50 homes, valued between the mid 280's and upper 360's, the City Council is proposing to change a
portion of the property. The Planning Commission review of this purposed change resulted in a 4 -0 vote against
making any change.
The City Council, we are sure is aware of the fact this is no small matter for the homeowners in Rosewood Estates.
We are sure you have received many communications from our neighborhood and have probably even seen the
articles in the Rosemount Town Pages, ThisWeek, and Star Tribune newspapers. We urge you to review all of the
information, opinions and data (or in some cases lack of data) that relate to this issue before making your decision.
Then please consider the commitment that was made by the Rosemount City Council, your responsibility in your
elected position and the ownership you have for the decision that was already made on a piece of land which has
already been partially developed under the direction of the council. Lastly, please take a minute to imagine your
home sitting in our neighborhood, a brand new home that you built, which brought its own set of challenges,
surrounded by what you were told was residential with a picture painted of town homes, single family homes and a
possible church, to now be told that instead of more neighbors, your neighborhood was going to become
surrounded by commercial property and the challenges this will add as you raise your children. After reflecting on
these things, and your moral and ethical values, we are asking you to vote against the plan amendment to reguide
this property from UR — Urban Residential to C- Commercial.
Thank you for taking the time to read our letter. The decision you are going to make on Tuesday, December 21 is
going to have a tremendous affect on our family and over 50 other Rosemount families. If you have questions or
would like to talk please feel free to contact us by email or phone.
Sincerely,
Melissa & Thomas Kenninger
2734 148 Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
651 - 322 -5034
mkenninger @newhorizonsmn.com
Received via email 12/19/04
TO MAYOR DROSTE, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS RILEY, SHOE- CORRIGAN, DEBETTIGNIES,
AND STRAYTON: WE LIVE IN ROSEWOOD ESTATES, THE CORNER OF BUSINESS
PARKWAY AND BRENNER COURT (14879). WE PURCHASED OUR LOT AND HOME IN
SEPTEMBER 2003 FOR APPROXIMATELY $350,000 PLUS..... WE RESEARCHED WITH THE
CITY ABOUT THE STAUTS OF THE PROPERY TO THE WEST OF US AND WE WERE
CLEARLY TOLD RESIDENTIAL EXCEPT FOR A SMALL PARCEL BY COUNTY ROAD 42
THAT WAS COMMERCIAL. NOW ONLY ONE YEAR LATER WE ARE BEING TOLD THE CITY
COUNCIL WANTS TO RE -ZONE THIS TO COMMERCIAL. RECONSIDER THIS. PUT
YOURSELF IN OUR NEW HOME, LOOKIING OUT AT A RETAIL STORE, GAS STATION,
ETC..... THANK YOU MIKE AND JEAN BROWN
Fi Page 1 of 1
I- j 6,0 Zk b ( I 1 �1
Lindquist,Kim
From: RATDOGMN @aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 6:19 PM
To: Lindquist,Kim
Subject: ROSEWOOD COMMENTS
Please consider the Rosewood Estates development rezoning vote as if it was your own backyard! The integrity
of city councils past, present and to come depend on it! If you can't trust your city council to do the right thing,
why stay in Rosemount!
12/21/2004