HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.a. Rosemount Family Housing (Dakota County Community Development Agency) Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Prelimiary Plat, and PUD Final Development PlanAGENDA ITEM: Case 06- 54 -CP, 06- 55 -ZA, 06- 56 -PP,
06 -58 -PUD Rosemount Family Housing
(Dakota County Community Development
Agency) Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat,
and PUD Final Development Plan
AGENDA SECTION:
New Business
PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber, AICP, Senior Planner
AGENDA NO. 1.4.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution approving the Rezoning and
Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
Rezoning Ordinance, Resolution
approving the Preliminary Plat and PUD
Final Development Plan, Draft PUD
Agreement, Resolution authorizing the
preparation of Plans and Specifications,
Location Map, Preliminary Plat, February
7, 2006 Site Plan, Proposed Site Layout
and Dimension Plan, Site Grading Plan,
Site Utility Plan, Building Plans and
Elevations, Engineering Memorandum
dated November 20, 2006, Park
Department Memorandum dated
November 20, 2006, Excerpt from the
November 28, 2006 Planning
Commission Meeting, February 7, 2006
City Council Executive Summary,
Excerpts from February 7, 2006 City
Council and January 10 and January 24,
2006 Planning Commission Minutes.
APPROVED BY:
27--
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a Resolution amending the Comprehensive
Plan changing the land use designation for the site from Transition Residential to Urban
Residential, subject to
approval by the Metropolitan Council
rezoning the site from R -1, Low Density Residential PUD to R -2, Moderate Density
Residential PUD.
Motion to adopt an Ordinance rezoning the site from R -1, Low Density Residential PUD to
R -2, Moderate Dens i Residential PUD.
hit
4 ROSEMOUNT
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Regular Meeting• December 19, 2006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Motion to adopt a Resolution approving the Preliminary Plat subject to:
1 Dedication of right -of -way of Connemara Trail and the new Dodd Blvd.
2. Dedication of drainage and utility easements completely over OutlotA and Outlot B.
3. Dedication of appropriate drainage and utility easement over Lot 1, Block 1 subject
to approval by the City Engineer.
4. Approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation as needed.
5. Conditions with the Engineering memorandum dated November 20, 2006.
and further approving the Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan subject to:
1. Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Rural Residential to Urban
Residential by the Metropolitan Council.
2. Execution of a PUD agreement.
3. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer regarding drainage,
easements, grading, storm water management and utilities including:
The applicant shall secure all permits agreements necessary for the proposed
crossing or grading of the pipeline easements.
The applicant will grade the new Dodd Blvd. as part of their project and provide a
cash deposit to the City to pay for its future construction
No parking will be permitted on the streets and turning radius information shall be
provided subject to approval by the Fire Marshal.
Additional storm water management detail is required including a maintenance plan
for the rain gardens.
Payment of connection and trunk fees required.
4. Park dedication in the form of cash in lieu of land in the amount of $108,800. (32
units x $3,400 per unit) based upon the 2006 fee schedule.
5. Approval and receipt of permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation as
needed.
6. Eighteen common parking spaces shall be provided, based upon sixteen for the 32
units and two for the office.
7. The applicant provide at a minimum, a setback of 20 feet between the units and the
private streets which will be sufficient for driveway parking. This requirement is in
recognition of the single stall garages proposed for the individual units.
8. Provide a minimum of a 20 -foot setback for the off street parking stalls and the new
Dodd Blvd right -of -way.
9. Any revisions necessary to the landscaping plan to conform to the sight triangle
standards for visibility at intersections will be required for all public and private
intersections within the development.
10 The applicant provide a final site plan and grading plan addressing listed conditions
for staff review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Motion to adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Engineer to prepare Plans and
Specifications for Dodd Blvd. subject to the deposit of money by the Dakota County
Community Development Agency.
2
4
ISSUE
At their February 7, 2006 meeting, the City Council approved the PUD Concept Plan, Comprehensive
Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat for 30 townhouse units, with conditions. One of the
conditions was that the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) was to work with
Lennar, the developer of the property to the west, to provide a joint access to the site from Connemara
Trail. The Dakota County CDA has purchase agreement for a portion of the Outlot D of Evermoor
Glendalough 7` Addition that would provide a direct access to Connemara Trail in the location of the
former Dodd Blvd. This new street access would then provide one access to the west to serve the
Glendalough neighborhood and one access into the CDA site. A second access remains to the north as
previously anticipated.
As a result of the additional property purchase, the Dakota County CDA has revised its concept plan to
include 32 units, an increase of two units from the original approval. Along with the revisions of the PUD
Concept Plan, Dakota County has also prepared and is asking for approval of the PUD Final
Development Plan of the project. The Final Plat for the development is expected m January 2007.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission discussion focused on the landscaping, off street parking stalls, and the
architectural appearance of the building elevations facing South Robert Trail, Connemara Trail, and Dodd
Blvd. All three of these issues have been revised since the Planning Commission meeting and those
revisions are discussed within the proper sections of the executive summary One exhibit, the color
renderings of the South Robert Trail and Dodd Blvd elevation, was not ready by the time that the
executive summary was finished. Those elevation renderings will be provided on the night of the City
Council meeting.
One resident spoke during the public hearing that the proposed CDA project is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, specifically m regards to land uses along northern South Robert Trail are to preserve
the rural feel of Rosemount, that the total number of units approved by the City in recent years exceeds
the projections within the Comprehensive Plan, and that PUDs are not allowed to exceed an overall
density of 6 units per acre. In response, it should be noted that there is more than a mile of guided rural
residential property along South Robert Trail between the northern City Lmuts and 132n Street, the 1998-
2020 Comprehensive Plan was limited by the Met Council's Empire wastewater treatment plant which is
now being expanded, and that the overall gross density is approximately 6 units per acre when including
the dedicated right -of -way and Outlots (which is common when calculating gross density)
BACKGROUND
Previous Development Proposal
At their February 7, 2006 meeting, the City Council had approved a 30 unit townhouse development
consisting of five 4 -unit buildings and two 5 -unit buildings. The density of this development was 6.25
units per acre. This development was proposed to be accessed through the Glendalough neighborhood by
an extension of a private drive from Tara Commons. The Planning Commission and City Council were
concern about accessing this site through the Glendalough neighborhood, proposed building setbacks
from the pnvate dive, and a number of other issues. Excerpts from the minutes of the Planning
Commission meetings and the City Council meeting are attached.
Current Development Proposal
Applicant and property owner:
Location-
Area in acres:
Comp Plan Designation:
Zoning:
Proposed Units:
Density:
Dakota County Community Development Agency.
Northwest corner of Connemara Trail and South Robert Trail
4.74 acres
Urban Residential and Transitional Residential
R -1 Low Density Residential and R -2 Moderate Density Residential
32 Townhouse Units
6.78 Units per Acre
Site Design
The proposed development consists of 32 units in two 3 -unit buildings, four 4 -unit buildings, and two 5-
utut buildings One of the five unit buildings will contain a handicap accessible unit on one end of the
building and a management office suite on the other end of the building. The two 3 -unit buildings are
placed closest to the public street and the Glendalough neighborhood, while the two 5 -unit buildings are
placed most mtenor to the development and farthest from the Glendalough neighborhood. The
development will construct a pubhc street that directly accesses onto Connemara Trail at the location of
the former Dodd Blvd and the individual units will be serves by a private road that loops throughout the
development and connects onto the new Dodd Blvd. at both ends At the southern intersection of the
loop road, a future access to the west that will serve the Glendalough neighborhood is planned.
The site includes recreational opportunities consistent with the PUD ordinance by inclusion of a tot lot,
half court basketball court, and sidewalk connections to the recreational trail on Connemara Trail and
future sidewalks to the west. Park dedication will be addressed through a payment m heu of land
dedication, consistent with the direction of the Parks and Recreation Commission.
All ordinance setback requirements are met for the proposed buildings and paved areas with the exception
of some on street parking spaces discussed below This is a change and an improvement from the original
approval m which one building was less than 20 feet from the curb of the access street.
Parking
Parking is provided by a one car stall garage for each unit, one parking spot m the driveway in front of the
garage, and 19 off street parking stalls, for a total of 83 parking stalls. By ordinance, each unit is required
to have 2.5 parking stalls per unit and the management office requires two stalls, for a total requirement of
82 stalls. While the number of proposed parking stalls exceeds the ordinance requitement, the proposal
would require two variances to two other sections of the parkmg requirements. First, the ordinance
requires a two -car garage of no less than 440 square feet for single family attached housing unit. In the
previous City Council approval, the City approved a variance to allow a one car stall garage.
The second variance would be from the R -2 zoning district which requires a 30 -foot parking setback for
parking other than in driveways. Two of the 19 stalls are located within 30 feet of the Dodd Blvd. right
of -way, but m excess of 20 feet One of the purposes of the parking setback requirement is so that a car
can be waitmg at the intersection and not be blocking the parking stalls. While the PUD does allow for
variances from the ordinance, staff would consider reducing the setback provided enough space is
available for at least one car to be queued at the intersection without blocking a parking space. For this
reason, staff could support a reduction of the parking setback to 20 feet, but cannot support a complete
elimination of the parking setback. The site plan before you tonight meets the 20 foot setback requested
by staff and recommended approval by the Planning Commission.
Tree Replacement
The proposed development removes twelve significant trees, nine of which are 20" or less in diameter and
three which are greater than 20" m diameter. The ordinance states that the developer shall plant two
replacement trees for each tree 20 inches in diameter or less removed and four replacement trees for each
tree greater than 20 inches m diameter removed. The proposed tree removal requires the installation of 30
replacement trees, which is fulfilled m the proposed landscape plan.
Landscape Plan
The landscape plan of the development maintains some of the trees abutting South Robert Trail and
installs landscaping along the Connemara Trail and new Dodd Blvd. frontages. Additional trees will be
installed around the tot lot and the basketball court, with foundation plantings around the buildings. The
landscape plan has been revised since the Planning Commission meeting to add trees m front of all
buildings and additional conifers along the South Robert Trail frontage One remaining concern is that
information should be provided to venfy that the trees proposed in the southeast corner of the site are
outside the sight triangle for the Connemara Trail and South Robert Trail intersection.
Building Architecture and Exterior Materials
Of the 32 units, eight are designed to be 3 bedroom units, twenty -three are 2 bedroom units, and one is a 2
bedroom, handicap accessible one story unit. The architecture of the buildings has a one story front
facade with hip roofs, brick -faced garages, and dormers over the garages. The rear facade of the 2
bedroom umts are a one story facade with two story dormer bump outs. The rear facade of the 3
bedroom units include a two story facade with two story dormer bump outs. Typically, the City looks to
embellish the front facades of the buildings to improve public views. Brick has been added, accenting the
garage facades as compared to the elevations depicted in the concept plan review.
At the Planning Commission meeting, there was discussion that the architectural detail of the building
elevations facing South Robert Trail, Connemara Trail, and Dodd Blvd was not to the level that the City
expects. Staff has been working with the CDA since the Planning Commission meeting to make
improvements. These improvements include brick on the dormer bumpouts along the rear elevations
facing Connemara Trail, and adding shake -style siding on the pediments. Initially, staff and the CDA
talked about placing the shake -style siding only on the pediments of the side elevations facing Dodd Blvd
and South Robert Trail, but for a consistent appearance, it was determined that all the pediments would be
treated with the shake -style siding of a different but complementary color from the lap siding.
Site Grading
The mass grading of the new Dodd Blvd. will be performed as a part of the site development, but the
infrastructure of Dodd Blvd. will be performed as a part of a City project. The CDA will be responsible
for the cost of infrastructure, including appropriate street lighting.
The grading of this site will in compass leveling the area for the house pads, grading for the new Dodd
Blvd. alignment, and creating some berming along the north property line. The site is currently elevated
above South Robert Trail and Connemara Trail, so no additional berming is proposed along those
frontages. Additional landscaping is proposed along the Connemara Trail and South Robert Trail
frontages.
Drainage
On -site stormwater management is proposed through swales and four rain gardens, one located at each
corner of the development. The overflow from these ram gardens drain into stormwater pipes that will
connect to the west with the stormwater infrastructure installed during the Glendalough 7 Addition. A
ram garden management plan will need to be provided to ensure that this infrastructure is in accordance
with the City's Stonnwater Management Plan
Utilities
Utilities to the site will be provided from the west by utilities that were extended to the site as a part of the
Glendalough 7` Addition utility construction. Sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewer connection will be
made to the Glendalough neighborhood during construction of the new Dodd Blvd. and a watermam stub
will be provided to the north to allow future watermain looping when the properties to the north develop.
The properties to the north will receive their sanitary sewer and water services from the Glendalough
neighborhood to the west. The property directly north of this site will contact a regional stormwater
pond.
Future Interface with the Glendalough Neighborhood
In approving this preliminary and final plat, the City recognizes that this will require a change m the layout
to the final phases of the Glendalough neighborhood. The changes associated with Glendalough are
relatively minor m nature and would only require a final plat approval based on the changes proposed
within this approval.
SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Rosemount Family Housing (Dakota County
Community Development Agency) Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and
PUD Final Development Plan, subject to conditions.
6
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND
REZONING FOR ROSEMOUNT FAMILY TOWNHOMES
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received
an application from Dakota County Community Development Agency requesting a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning approval concerning property legally
described as:
That part of Outlot D, EVERMOOR GLENDALOUGH 7 ADDITION,
according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying southeasterly
of a line described as follows:
Commencing at the northeast corner of said Outlot D; thence South 00 degrees 21
minutes 21 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the east line of said Outlot D, a
distance of 630.98 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described;
thence southwesterly, along a non-tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a
central angle of 29 degrees 13 minutes 01 seconds, a radius of 256.00 feet and an arc
distance of 130.54 feet, the chord of said curve bears South 50 degrees 35 minutes 49
seconds West; thence southwesterly along a tangential reverse curve, concave to the
southeast, having a central angle of 31 degrees 36 minutes 59 seconds, a radius of
316 00 feet and an arc distance of 174.37 feet to the south line of said Outlot D, the
chord of said curve bears South 49 degrees 23 minutes 50 seconds West and said line
terminating.
Being registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title no. 140566
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount
held a public hearing and reviewed the Comprehensive Plan changing the land use for the
property from Transition Residential to Urban Residential, and rezoning of the property from
PUD R -1, Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development to PUD R -2, Moderate
Density Residential Planned Unit Development for Rosemount Family Townhomes, and
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2006, the Planning Commission recommended approval of
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment changing the land use of the property from Transition
Residential to Urban Residential, and rezoning of the property from PUD R -1, Low Density
Residential Planned Unit Development to PUD R -2, Moderate Density Residential Planned
Unit Development, subject to conditions, and
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2006, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the
Planning Commission's recommendations; and.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Comprehensive Plan Amendment reguiding the property from Transition
Residential to Urban Residential, subject to approval by the Metropolitan Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Council of the City of
Rosemount hereby approves the rezoning of the property from PUD R -1, Low Density
Residential Planned Unit Development to PUD R -2, Moderate Density Residential Planned
Unit Development and will adopt an Ordinance to rezone the site.
ADOPTED this 19 day of December, 2006 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
ATTEST:
Amy Domeier, City Clerk
William H Droste, Mayor
Resolution 2006-
Motion by: Second by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Member absent:
City of Rosemount
Ordinance No. B-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE
Rosemount Family Townhomes
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance B, adopted September 19, 1989, entitled "City of Rosemount Zoning
Ordinance," is hereby amended to rezone the property located on north of Connemara Trail and
within the Southwest 1 /4 of Section 20, Township 115, Range 19, Rosemount, Minnesota, from PUD
R -1, Low Density Residential Planned Umt Development, to PUD R -2, Moderate Density
Residential Planned Umt Development, legally described as follows:
That part of Outlot D, EVERMOOR GLENDALOUGH 7 ADDITION, according to
the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying southeasterly of a line described
as follows•
Commencing at the northeast corner of said Outlot D; thence South 00 degrees 21 minutes
21 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the east line of said Oudot D, a distance of 630.98
feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence southwesterly, along
a non tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a central angle of 29 degrees 13
minutes 01 seconds, a radius of 256.00 feet and an arc distance of 130.54 feet, the chord of
said curve bears South 50 degrees 35 minutes 49 seconds West; thence southwesterly along a
tangential reverse curve, concave to the southeast, having a central angle of 31 degrees 36
minutes 59 seconds, a radius of 316 00 feet and an arc distance of 174.37 feet to the south
line of said Outlot D, the chord of said curve bears South 49 degrees 23 minutes 50 seconds
West and said lute terminating.
Being registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title no. 140566.
Section 2. The Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount, referred to and described in said
Ordinance No. B as that certain map entitled "Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount," shall not be
repubhshed to show the aforesaid rezoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the said zoning
map on file m the Clerk's office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for
in this Ordinance and all of the notation references and other information shown thereon are hereby
incorporated by reference and made part of this Ordinance.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication
according to law.
ENACTED AND ORDAINED into an Ordinance this 19 day of December, 2006.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
William H Droste, Mayor
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PRELMINARY PLAT FOR ROSEMOUNT FAMILY
TOWNHOMES
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received
an application from Dakota County Community Development Agency requesting a Planned
Unit Development Final Development Plan and Preliminary Plat approval concerning
property legally described as:
That part of the following description of property lying north of Connemara Trail
That part of the South 736.06 feet of the North one -half of the Southeast Quarter of Section
20, Township 115, Range 19 lying Westerly of the occupied right -of -way of State Highway 3
that lies North of the following described line.
Commencing at the Southwest corner of said North one -half of the Southeast Quarter, thence
North 00 degrees, 21 minutes, 21 seconds West assumed bearing along the West assumed
bearing along the West ]me of said North one -half of the Southeast Quarter a distance of
252 29 feet to the point of beginning of said line to be hereinafter described. thence South 71
degrees, 53 minutes, 11 seconds East a distance of 26215 feet to the Westerly right -of -way line
of State Highway Number 3 and said line there terminating, Dakota County, Minnesota.
AND
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-
That part of Outlot D, EVERMOOR GLENDALOUGH 7TH ADDITION, according to the
recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying southeasterly of a line descnbed as
follows:
Commencing at the northeast corner of said Outlot D; thence South 00 degrees 21 nunutes 21
seconds East, assumed bearing, along the east line of said Outlot D, a distance of 630.98 feet
to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described, thence southwesterly, along a non
tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a central angle of 29 degrees 13 minutes 01
seconds, a radius of 256.00 feet and an arc distance of 130 54 feet, the chord of said curve
bears South 50 degrees 35 minutes 49 seconds West; thence southwesterly along a tangential
reverse curve, concave to the southeast, having a central angle of 31 degrees 36 minutes 59
seconds, a radius of 316 00 feet and an arc distance of 174.37 feet to the south line of said
Outlot D, the chord of said curve bears South 49 degrees 23 minutes 50 seconds West and
said line terminating
Being registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title no 140566.
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount
held a public hearing and reviewed Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan and
Preliminary Plat; and
Resolution 2006-
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2006, the Planning Commission recommended approval of
the Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan and Preliminary Plat, subject to
conditions; and
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2006, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the
Planning Commission's recommendations; and.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Preliminary Plat, subject to.
1. Dedication of right -of -way of Connemara Trail and the new Dodd Blvd.
2. Dedication of drainage and utility easements completely over Oudot A and Outlot
B.
3. Dedication of appropriate drainage and utility easement over Lot 1, Block 1 subject
to approval by the City Engineer.
4. Approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation as needed.
5. Conditions with the Engineering memorandum dated November 20, 2006.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Council of the City of
Rosemount hereby approves the Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan, subject
to:
1. Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Rural Residential to
Urban Residential by the Metropolitan Council.
2. Execution of a PUD agreement.
3. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer regarding drainage,
easements, grading, storm water management and utilities including.
The applicant shall secure all permits agreements necessary for the proposed
crossing or grading of the pipeline easements.
The applicant will grade the new Dodd Blvd as part of their project and
provide a cash deposit to the City to pay for its future construction.
No parking will be permitted on the streets and turning radius information
shall be provided subject to approval by the Fire Marshal.
Additional storm water management detail is required including a maintenance
plan for the rain gardens.
Payment of connection and trunk fees required.
4 Park dedication m the form of cash in lieu of land in the amount of $108,800. (32
units x $3,400 per unit) based upon the 2006 fee schedule.
5. Approval and receipt of permits from the Minnesota Department of
Transportation as needed.
6. Eighteen common parking spaces shall be provided, based upon sixteen for the 32
units and two for the office.
7. The apphcant provide at a minimum, a setback of 20 feet between the units and
the private streets which will be sufficient for driveway parking. This requirement
is m recognition of the single stall garages proposed for the individual units.
8. Provide a minimum of a 20 -foot setback for the off street parking stalls and the
new Dodd Blvd right -of -way
ADOPTED this 19t day of December, 2006 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
ATTEST:
9. Any revisions necessary to the landscaping plan to conform to the sight triangle
standards for visibihty at intersections will be required for all pubhc and private
intersections within the development.
10. The applicant provide a final site plan and grading plan addressing hsted conditions
for staff review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Amy Domeier, City Clerk
William H. Droste, Mayor
Resolution 2006-
Motion by: Second by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Member absent:
THIS DECLARATION made this day of January, 2007, by the Dakota County
Community Development Agency (hereinafter referred to'as "Declarant
and
WHEREAS, Declarant is the owi the real property described on Attachment One,
attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is subject to certain zoning and land use restrictions
imposed by the City of Ro emo}mf,. Minnesota "City in connection with the approval of an
application-for a planne
and
DRAFT
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS
AND RESTRICTIONS
ment for a [residential, commercial, mixed use] development
on the Subject Property; and
F` T
WHEREAS, the City has approved such development on the basis of the determination by
the City Council of the City, that such development is acceptable only by reason of the details of the
development proposed and the unique land use characteristics of the proposed use of the Subject
Property; and that but for the details of the development proposed and the unique land use
characteristics of such proposed use, the planned unit development would not have been approved;
1
WHEREAS, as a condition of approval of the planned unit development, the City has
required the execution and filing of this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
(hereinafter the "Declaration and
WHEREAS, to secure the benefits and advantages of approval of' such planned unit
development, Declarant desires to subject the Subject Property to the terms hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Declarant declares that the Subject Property is, and shall be, held,
transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to the covenants, conditions, and restrictions,
hereinafter set forth.
1. The use and development of the Subjecf-Property shall conform to the following
documents, plans and drawings:
a. City Resolution No. 2006 Attachment Two
b. Final Plat, Attachment Three (fp-be approved in January, 2007)
c. Site Plan (Sheet C0.00 and C2 00), Attachment Four
d. Grading, Site 'Demolition, afid Erosion Control Plans (Sheets C1.00 and
C3.00), Attachment Five
e. Utility Plan, SWPPP, and Utility Details (Sheets C4.00, C5.00, and C6.00),
Attachment Six
f Landscape Plans (Sheets L1.00 and L2 00), Attachment Seven
Architectural Plans and Elevations (Sheets A1.00 to A1.50, A2.00, and
A2.10), Attachment Eight
h. Architectural Renderings, Attachment Nine
all of which attachments are copies of original documents on file with the City and are made a part
hereof.
g.
2
permits such other development and use
2. Development and maintenance of structures and uses on the Subject Property shall
conform to the following standards and requirements:
a. Parking stalls shall be located no less than 20 feet from any public street
right -of -way.
b. The architectural standards for building elevations facing South Robert
Trail, Connemara Trail, and Dodd Boulevard shall be higher than those interior to the
site. Additional architectural details on these elevations shall include brick exteriors on
the bump outs of the rear elevations and shake siding of a different tint complementary
color on the pediments of the side elevations.
c. Rain gardens shall be maintained by' the Declarant, subject to the submittal
3
and approval of a rain garden management plan to the City Engineer.
3. The Subject Property may only be developed and used in accordance with
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of these Declations unless the owner first secures approval by the City Council
of an amendment to the Planned wilt development pilawor a rezoning to a zoning classification that
In connection with the approval of developers of the Subject Property, the following
variances from City Zoning or Subdivision Code provisions were approved:
Section 11 15 F. Two Car Garages. Each unit within this development is
permitted to liat'e,a single stall garage provided that there is total off street parking provided
for an average of 2.5 stalls per unit.
b. Section 11 F.4.c. Parking Setback: Parking stalls maintain a minimum
of 20 feet of separation from the public street right -of -way.
In all other respects the use and development of the Subject Property shall conform to the
requirements of the City Code of Ordinances.
5. That part of the Subject Property platted as Outlot A and Outlot B may not be
improved without first securing from the City of Rosemount approval of a replatting of such outlots,
an amendment to the planned unit development of the Subject Property and an amendment to this
Declaration of Covenants.
DECLARANT
4
6. The obligations and restrictions of this Declaration run with the land of the Subject
Property and shall be enforceable against the Declarant, its successors and assigns' by the City of
Rosemount acting through its City Council. This Declaration maybe amended from time to time by
a written amendment executed by the City and the owner or owners of the lot or lots to be affected
by said amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned as duly ,authorized agents, officers or
representatives of Declarant haV *hereunto set thieir hands and seals as of the day and year first
above written.
By
Its
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss.
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this of 2007,
by the and
the for and on behalf of a
by and on behalf of, said
5
Notary Public
g Ott,
tt i,k
°t-t.
ADOPTED this 19 day of December, 2006.
ATTEST:
Amy Domeier, City Clerk
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2006
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION
OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
DAKOTA COUNTY CDA STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT #404
WHEREAS, the Dakota County CDA has requested the City of Rosemount prepare plans and
specifications for Dakota County CDA Street and Utility Improvements, City Project #404; and
WHEREAS, Dakota County CDA will deposit the necessary funds with the City for preparation of the
plans and specifications for City Project #404 prior to the commencement of work; and
WHEREAS, Dakota County CDA acknowledges that this action does not imply or guarantee City Council
approval of the final plat for Dakota County CDA.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount orders the
preparation of plans and specifications for said improvements of City Project #404.
William H Droste, Mayor
Motion by: Seconded by:
Voted m favor:
Voted against:
Member absent:
PROPERTY ID NUMBER 34-02010-015-
FEE CWNER
PAYABLE 2D05 TAXES
NET TAX
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
TOTAL TAX SA
PAYABLE 2006 ASMNT USAGE RESIDENTIAL
NOTE Dimensions rounded to nearest foot
0 00
SITE MAP
2005 ESTIMATED MARKET VALUES (PAYABLE 2006)
LAND
BUILDING
TOTAL
SCHOOL DISTRICT
LOCATION N'W1l4 SE1 /4 SECTION 20- 115 -19
PAYABLE 2005 HOMESTEAD STATUS NON HOMESTEAD
WATERSHED DSTRICT VERMILLION RIVER
LAST QUALIFIED SALE
DATE AMOUNT
Copyright 2005, Dakota County
This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intendee to be used as one
Ts drawing is a compilation of records, information and da-a ioca'ed in venoms city, county, and
state oFces and other sources, affecting the area shorn, and is to be _seo for reference purposes
only Dakota County is not responsible for any 'flatmates herein con'ained If discrepancies are
found, please contact Dakota County Survey and Land Information Departmen'
Man rata N mhcr R ;Tins Parcels I Iodated :0/2712005 Aerial Pholooraohv 2004
LOT SIZE
rag 276,900 TOTAL SO FT
6 35 TOTAL ACRES
136 56,450 ROAD RXN SO FT
2005 BUILDING INFORMATION (PAYABLE 2006)
NO DATA AVAILABLE
PLAT NAME SECTION 20 TWN 115 RANGE 19
TAX DESCRIPTION 5 736 O6 FT OF N 1/2 OF SE
1/4 LY 01 OF 5TH #3 SUBJ TO
ESMNTS OVER S 103 FT EX PT
N OF 3 100 FT A. 5 OF LINE
COM SW COR SAID N'12 OF SE
1/4 N 252 29 FT TO BEG OF
LINE 5 71053M115 E 262 15
FT TO W RAN 5TH #3 THERE
TERM
20 115 19
a
o e,
!G R 2!
{A \j
Preliminary Plot
RGSEMOUN FAMIL HOUSING
emmwn MN
CDA DAKOTA COUNTY
1228 Town Center Orlw
Eagan, Minnesota 55123
IREONs
=5=
MX 5B—II
v
O
0
0
a: a I INI>
DATE I nem a _yML_ r.rm.r aw
DATE: November 20, 2006
TO: Eric Zweber, Senior City Planner
CC: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
Andrew Brotzler, City Engineer
Kathie Hanson, Planning Department Secretary
FROM: Morgan Dawley, Project Engineer
RE: Rosemount Family Housing (Dakota County CDA) Preliminary Plat and
Variance Application
Upon review of the Rosemount Family Housing (Dakota County CDA) Preliminary Plat, Final Plat,
and Site Plan dated October 25, 2006 and received on October 25, 2006, the Engineering
Department offers the following comments:
Final Plat:
1. Dodd Boulevard right -of -way shall be labeled as such rather than as Dodd Road.
Site Plan Comments:
Site Demolition and Erosion Control Plan Sheet C1.00
1. Inlet protection is shown to be installed within Mn /DOT right -of -way on Trunk Highway 3.
Any work to be conducted within Mn /DOT right -of -way or roadway easement shall be by
permit. The applicant shall secure a permit from Mn /DOT for said work prior to grading
permit issuance.
2. Silt fence locations should be verified and revised to encompass the grading limits for the
site.
Site Layout and Dimension Plan Sheet C2.00
1. Private streets narrower than 28 feet will be required to be posted for "No Parking" to
maintain emergency vehicle access.
2. Turning radius information shall be provided to demonstrate that emergency vehicles (i.e.
fire trucks) are able to maneuver through the site.
Site Grading Plan Sheet C3.00
MEMORANDUM
4 ROSEMOUNT
PUBLIC WORKS
1. Grading for Dodd Boulevard shall be conducted by the developer concurrently with site
grading. Street and utility construction for Dodd Boulevard shall be conducted by the City
following certification by as -built survey of grading within right -of -way.
2. The applicant shall secure all necessary permits /agreements for work within pipeline
easements. The City shall work jointly with the applicant to obtain permits for street and
utility construction within Dodd Boulevard right -of -way that hes within gas pipeline
easements.
3. Proposed grading within Dodd Boulevard right -of -way shall reflect a 2.83' hold -down from
finished grade within the street section (bottom of select granular section). If onsite material
is. available that meets City specifications for select granular, this hold -down may be reduced
to 0 83' with the top 24" placed as select granular with the approval of the City Engineer.
4. Grades shown on the north property boundary appear to require offsite fill to be into
existing contours. The existing contours should extend 200' past the property boundaries.
If grading is to occur offsite, temporary construction easements shall be secured by the
apphcant and shown on the plans. Alternatively, revise grades to tie into existing contours
within property boundanes.
5. Slopes northeast of Ram Garden (NE) appear to be 2:1. Revise grades to show maximum
slope of 3:1 or addition of retaining wall.
6. Some swale areas appear to be less than 1% grade. Revise grades to show mm slope of
1 m green space areas with a preferred slope of 2% or addition of storm sewer.
7. Emergency overflow routes from low points shall be labeled.
8. A vertical curve profile for Dodd Boulevard shall be submitted for review and approval.
9. It is recommended that the emergency overflow route from Ram Garden (SE) be redirected
toward the Connemara Trail storm sewer inlet rather than east toward the retaining wall in
Mn /DOT Trunk Highway 3 right -of -way.
Site Utility Plan Sheet C4 00
1. Public utilities shall be located within the public nght -of -way street areas
2. Utilities interior to the site and outside City right-of-way shall be considered private utilities.
Additionally, the proposed rainwater gardens will be pnvately maintained.
3. Pnvate utilities shall be constructed in pnvate street areas rather than boulevards
Connections to public utilities shall be in street intersection areas in vicinity of t -t.
4. It is recommended that the draintile locations within the ram gardens be shown on the plans
and installed a maximum distance away from curbcut inlets to promote infiltration.
5. It is recommended that the depth of the ram garden systems be increased from 1' to a
minimum of 2' from fuushed grade to top of dramtile pipe.
General Comments:
1. Final plans shall be signed by a hcensed professional engineer.
2. Venfy plans submitted are projected on Dakota County coordinates, NAD83.
3. Gradmg for Dodd Boulevard shall be conducted by the developer concurrently with site
grading. Street and utility construction for Dodd Boulevard shall be conducted by the City.
4. All work within gas pipeline easements is subject to permit /agreement by Koch Pipeline
and /or Magellan Pipeline.
5. All work within Mn /DOT right -of -way or roadway easement is subject to permit by
Mn /DOT.
6. The estimated City development fees are as follows:
o Trunk Sanitar Sewer Area Charge
o Trunk Water Area Charge
o Trunk Storm Water Area Charge
o Storm Water Pondmg Fee
o GIS Fee
5.85 acres $107.,, acre $6,289
5.85 acres $4420 /acre $25,857
5.85 acres $6200 /acre $36,270
5 85 acres $5920 /acre $34,632
32 units $60 /unit $1,920
Should you have any questions or comments regarding the item listed above, please contact me at
651- 322 -2022.
�C ROSEMOUNT
PARKS AND RECREATION
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
Eric Zweber, Senior Planner
Jason Lindahl, Planner
Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator
Andy Brotzler, City Engineer
Morgan Dawley, Project Engineer
From: Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director
Date: November 20, 2006
Subject: Rosemount Family Housing CDA Project
The Parks and Recreation Commission will be reviewing the plans submitted by the CDA for the
Rosemount Family Housing project on Monday, November 27, 2006.
Staff will be recommending that the parks dedication be paid as cash in lieu of land. The cash
amount would be $108,800 (32 umts x $3,400 per unit) Staff will also be recommending that the
City secure ample space for a trail/sidewalk on both sides of the road labeled "Dodd Road" on page
two of the final plat. I will forward the Parks and Recreation Cominissron's comments to the
planning staff once completed.
Please call me at 651- 322 -6012 if you have any questions about this memo.
Excerpts from the November 28, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
5.a. 06 -54 -CP Rosemount Family Housing (Dakota County CDA). Community
Development Director presented this item. At their February 7, 2006 meeting, the City
Council approved the PUD Concept Plan, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and
Preliminary Plat for 30 townhouse units, with conditions. One of the conditions was that
the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) was to work with Lennar, the
developer of the property to the west, to provide a joint access to the site from Connemara
Trail. The Dakota County CDA has purchased a portion of the Outlot D of E ermoor
Glendalough 7` Addition that would provide a direct access to Connemara Trail in the
location of the former Dodd Blvd. This new street access would then provide one access to
the west to serve the Glendalough neighborhood and one access into the CDA site. A
second access remains to the north as previously anticipated.
As a result of the additional property purchase, the Dakota County CDA has revised its
concept plan to include 32 units, an increase of two units from the onginal approval. Along
with the revisions of the PUD Concept Plan, Dakota County has also prepared and is asking
for approval of the Final Plat and PUD Final Development Plan of the project. If the
Planning Commission and City Council were to recommend approval of all these requests,
this would be the last public approvals necessary prior to the CDA to beginning
construction.
At their February 7, 2006 meeting, the City Council had approved a 30 unit townhouse
development consisting of 5 four -unit buildings and 2 5 -unit buildings. The density of this
development was 6.25 units per acre. This development was proposed to be accessed
through the Glendalough neighborhood by an extension of a private drive from Tara
Commons. The Planning Commission and City Council were concerned about accessing
this site through the Glendalough neighborhood, proposed building setbacks from the
pnvate drive, and a number of other issues. Excerpts from the minutes of the Planning
Commission meetings and the City Council meeting are attached.
Ms. Lindquist reviewed the current site plan, comparing it to what was presented in
February, 2006. She reviewed the main issues. the project is requesting a master
development plan; and the new parcel needs additional approval for a comp plan
amendment and rezoning change to be tied into the CDA project.
Kari Gill, Deputy Executive Director, Dakota County CDA, gave an overview of the project
for those Commissioners who were not present last winter. The purchase of the new parcel
is contingent upon approval of this item. Ms. Gill presented slides showing the need for
workforce housing in Rosemount, guidelines for residents, ownership details of the project,
and property management of the project. She discussed other similar developments in
neighboring communities, showed pictures of other projects, and discussed details of the
Rosemount project. The architect of the project, Kim Bretheim, LHB, Inc., was also present
for questions.
Chairperson Messner opened the public heating at 6:47 p.m.
David Bartz, 13566 Crompton Court, stated he still has concerns with the project. He
presented slides summarizing his concerns including the following: the growth rate has far
exceeded the Comprehensive Plan, the small town feel goal in the Comprehensive Plan has
not been maintained, the proposed project exceeds the density for a PUD, single stall
garages do not meet the requirements, and the proposed project has less than half of the
land required for a PUD. He asked if this project would be approved if it was proposed by a
different developer. He mentioned that a local newspaper recently noted an objection to the
UMore park development as Rosemount would lose its small town feel. Mr. Bartz feels the
CDA project accomplishes that also.
There were no further public comments.
MOTION by Howell to close the Pubhc Hearing. Second by Schwartz.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Public hearing was closed at 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Schultz asked about the access road from Connemara. City Engineer
Brotzler responded that it did not make sense to have a separate driveway off of Connemara.
However, there is still the potential to extend the median m that road in the future.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if the project was to revert back to density of 6 units rather
than 6.5 units, how many units would that allow. Ms. Lindquist stated the reason why the
density shifted was because the road became a right -of -way which would allow 6.03 units per
acre. Chairperson Messner asked about the purpose of Outlot B. Mt. Zweber responded
that Outlot B is a separate Outlot west of Dodd Blvd and is essentially open space but it is
not dedicated to the City. Ms. Lindquist responded the current City Comp Plan does not
have a median plan designation and therefore, there is a wide designation in Urban
Residential. The City Council had mentioned proposing an amendment to the Comp Plan in
the future.
There were no further questions or comments by the Commission.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz to recommend that the City Council adopt
an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan changing the land use designation for the
site from Transition Residential to Urban Residential subject to approval by the
Metropolitan Council.
Second by Schultz.
Ayes: 5.
Nays: 0.
Motion by Commissioner Schultz recommend that the City Council adopt an
ordinance rezoning the site from Rural Residential to R -2, Moderate Density
Residential PUD.
Second by Howell.
Ayes: 5.
Nays: 0.
Motion by Chairperson Messner to recommend that the City Council approve the
preliminary plat and final plat subject to:
1. Dedication of right -of -way of Connemara Trail and the new Dodd Bvld.
2. Dedication of drainage and utility easements completely over Outlot A and
Outlot B.
3. Dedication of appropriate drainage and utility easement over Lot 1, Block 1
subject to approval by the City Engineer.
4. Approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation as needed.
5. Conditions with the Engineering memorandum dated November 20, 2006.
Second by Schultz.
Ayes. 5.
Nays: 0.
Motion by Commissioner Howell to recommend that the City Council approve the
Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan subject to:
1. Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Rural Residential to
Urban Residential by the Metropolitan Council.
2. Execution of a PUD agreement
3. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer regarding drainage,
easements, grading, storm water management and utilities including:
The applicant shall secure all permits agreements necessary for the
proposed crossing or grading of the pipeline easements.
The applicant will grade the new Dodd Blvd as part of their project and
provide a cash deposit to the City to pay for its future construction.
No parking will be permitted on the streets and turnmg radius information
shall be provided subject to approval by the Fire Marshal.
Additional storm water management detail is required including a
maintenance plan for the rain gardens.
Payment of connection and trunk fees required.
4. Park dedication in the form of cash m lieu of land in the amount of
$108,800. (32 units x $3,400 per unit) based upon the 2006 fee schedule.
5. Approval and receipt of permits from the Minnesota Department of
Transportation as needed.
6. Eighteen common parking spaces shall be provided, based upon sixteen for
the 30 units and two for the office.
7. The applicant provide at a minimum, a setback of 20 feet between the units
and the pnvate streets which will be sufficient for driveway parking. This
requirement is m recognition of the smgle stall garages proposed for the individual
units
8. Provide a minimum of a 20 -foot setback for the off street parking stalls and
the new Dodd Blvd.
9. Two additional trees shall be installed in front of the southern four -unit
building adjacent to the new Dodd Blvd.
10. Any revisions necessary to the landscaping plan to conform to the sight
triangle standards for visibility at intersections will be required for all public and
private intersections within the development.
11. The applicant obtains final building elevation approval including brick
wainscoting or similar accent on the rear and side elevations for City Council review
and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
12. The applicant provide a final site plan and grading plan addressing hsted
conditions for staff review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Second by Schwartz.
Ayes: 5.
Nays: 0.
Ms. Lindquist stated this item is scheduled for City Council on December 19, 2006.
AGENDA ITEM: Planning Cases 05- 50 -CP, 05- 51 -RZ, 05-
52 PUD and 05 -53 PP, Dakota County
Community Development Agency
Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
Rezoning, PUD Master Plan and
Preliminary Plat for Rosemount Family
Housing
AGENDA SECTION:
New Business
PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development
Director
AGENDA NO.
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolutions, Draft Ordinance,
Location Map, Site Demolition and Erosion
Control Plan, Site Layout and Dimension
Plan, Site Grading Plan, Site Utility Plan,
Landscape Plan, Site Tree Replacement
Plan, Preliminary Plat, CDA Supplemental
Information, Partnership Program
Information, Public Comments, Draft
01/24/2006 PC Minutes, 01/24/2006 PC
Packet, Draft 01/10/2006 PC Minutes,
01/10/2006 PC Packet
APPROVED BY
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Comprehensive Plan changing the land use
designation for the site from Transition Residential to Urban Residential subject to approval
by the Metropolitan Council and rezoning of the site from Rural Residential to R -2,
Moderate Density Residential PUD.
Motion to adopt an ordinance rezoning the site from Rural Residential to R -2, Moderate
Density Residential PUD.
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the preliminary plat, subject to conditions.
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Planned Unit Development Concept, subject to
conditions.
4 ROSEMOUNT
CITY COUNCIL
tin Februa 7, 2006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ISSUE
The Dakota County Community Development Agency "CDA has submitted apphcations to construct a
30-unit townhouse development on a 4.8 acre site located on the northwest corner of Connemara Trail
and STH 3, South Robert Trail. The townhouses will be owned and maintained by Dakota County CDA.
A number of issues need to be resolved prior to the project being ready for PUD Master Plan that would
commit the project to all of the design details of the project. Therefore, staff is reviewing the development
as a concept to provide a basis for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning In addition, the
plat will be comparatively simple, allowing for conditional approval of the prehminary plat. The site is
currently vacant, and although it has frontage along Highway 3 it is restricted from having direct access.
Access has been the pnmary
Commission at their meeting
alternatives are feasible and p
further in the memo.
BACKGROUND
Apphcant:
Location.
Property Owner.
Current Comp Plan design:
Proposed Comp Plan.
Current Zoning.
Requested Zoning:
Current use:
Preliminary Plat data:
Number of Units Density:
Surroundmg uses: Side
West
East
South
North
focus of the review and three alternatives were explored before the Planning
on January 24, 2006. The City's Traffic Engineer has determined that two
tactical to serve the project and the surrounding area. These will be explained
Dakota County Community Development Agency
Northwest comer of Connemara Trail STH 3, South Robert Trail.
Christopher Kathleen Ostertag
Transition Residential
Urban Residential
Rural Residennal
R -2, Moderate Density Residential
Vacant
Existing Parcel 5.65 acres
Proposed Lot 1, Block 1 4.8 acres
Outlot A (South of Connemara Trail) 0.18 acres
Right -of -way for Connemara Trail 0 67 acres
30 units 6 25 dwelling units /acre (Lot 1, Block 1)
Current use Zoning Comp Plan
Evermoor developmg residential R -1 (PUD): Transition Residential
Harmony developing residential R -2 R -3 (PUD) Urban and High
density residential
Cemetery S. of Connemara Tr. Public /Inst., Parks Open space
Rural Residennal Rural Res., Transition Residential
PLANNING COMMISSION OF JANUARY 24, 2006
At the meeting on January 24, 2006 several members of the public spoke regarding the project. There were
concerns expressed about the access to the site, the impact of the project on the surrounding area and the
home values of the adjoining neighborhoods, the amount of density of the project and a concern about
the number of exceptions to the R -2 ordinance standards. In some cases residents had interpreted that
some aspects of the project were variances when they are typical of how the ordinance is implemented In
other cases there are exceptions to the ordinance standards, such as having smgle -car garages versus two
car garages.
The Planning Commission discussed the three access alternatives and based upon the traffic engineers
information were comfortable that either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 provide reasonable and acceptable
access to the site and result in expected traffic counts and conditions for the adjouung neighborhood. The
majority of the Commission also supported medium density development on the site. They felt that the
site's location in the coimnumty, situated between single family to the west and Highway 3 to the east, with
Connemara Trail to the south, made this a good transition piece to the western neighborhoods. The
majority also recognized that the provision of workforce housing supported a goal and a need in the
community and that the PUD was an appropriate vehicle to design the project and ensure that the site plan
is successfully earned out. Ultunately, the Commission recommended approval of all apphcations on a 4 -1
vote. The dissenting vote was due to the concern about too much density in the area and the potential
impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods The recommended condrnons of approval before the City
Council are those recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF JANUARY 10, 2006
At the meeting of January 10, 2006 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the CDA proposal.
Nine people spoke during the public hearing, all in opposition to the project. Additionally, there were 28
2
emails received also opposing the project The opposition was primarily related to the rental nature of the
project and the mcorne levels of future residents. There was also some concern expressed over the density
of the development and the amount of medium density development within the area.
The Commission discussed several site plan issues but focused most on the access to the site. The
Commission continued the item to allow additional review of the access issue.
SITE ACCESS
There are three alternatives available to provide access to the site. WSB Associates has reviewed the
three alternattves and provided traffic information about each option. Their study and the concept
drawings of all three alternatives are attached.
Altemative 1
The first alternative is to provide access as initially anticipated through the Glendalough neighborhood. A
public road would be extended through dedicated right -of -way and then turned north to allow for a future
through street; generally paralleling Dodd Road. This is the access provided in the first subimttal. The
WSB study finds that this is an acceptable access option for development of the site The CDA site is
projected to generate 175 vehicle trips per day based upon the ITE manual. This combined with the
estimated trips on the Glendalough cul -de -sac would be approximately 350 vehicle taps per day. The
number of trips is consistent with the type of traffic expected on a local street, which are 500 -1000 daily
trips.
Because all of the proposals would include access to the north from the CDA site, additional taps may go
through the Glendalough neighborhood when the five lots to the north develop. However, it is expected
that many of the taps would go north. Assuming a 50/50 spht, the traffic generation, upon full
development, would still be within the acceptable daily trip range for a local street.
Alternative 2
The second alternative would extend the proposed cul -de -sac, Tara Commons Court, to Connemara Trail
One of the reasons this idea was initially discarded was that existing pipelines would need to be lowered to
make the grade connection between the cul -de -sac and Connemara. To avoid this cost the road was
planned to stop short of Connemara and the connection from the cul -de -sac to the CDA site planned.
During the hearing there was some concern expressed about adding another access point to Connemara
Trail as it is a designated collector street, prompting certain access and spacing guidelines. If the
Commission would recommend this option, staff would recommend the through connection at
Couchtown Avenue and Connemara Trail be disconnected. Local traffic would all be funneled through
Tara Commons or Glendalough Trail, which is already available. These two roads have received
preliminary plat approval but have not received final plat approval and therefore the changes could be
made with minor lot adjustments.
There was also concern expressed that this connection may be too close to the Highway 3 /Connemara
Trail intersection. While it is closer than desired because it is on the north side of the street, queuing for a
right -hand turn should not occur that would cause a back -up into the mtersection. In other words, if the
new road was on the south side, the left -hand turn movement may cause a back -up that could negatively
impact the Highway 3 /Connemara Trail intersection. Because there is very httle wait if any for the driver
when turning right, a back -up should not occur and therefore the stacking distance can be reduced.
Alternative 3
The final alternative is to provide a separate access to the CDA site near Tara Commons. This alternative,
similar to Alternative 2 would require lowering the pipeline Additionally, it would impact at least two lots
within the Glendalough plat, perhaps rendering them unbuildable. While this alternative seemed to have
3
some favor, it is actually more difficult to attain the appropriate road geometries required for a pubhc road.
Additionally, this option provides an additional access unto Connemara Trail which is undesirable since
the Glendalough neighborhood would maintain two other access points f to the west.
Staff recommends approval of either Alternative 2 or Alternative 1 for access to the CDA site and the
Glendalough neighborhood. Alternative 2 has the benefit of allowmg the two neighborhoods to directly
access Connemara Trail but does not bring an adjoining neighborhoods traffic through a different
residential neighborhood. However, this alternative requires cooperation between two different developers
and adds costs to the project because an existing pipeline will need to be lowered. Cost sharing, revision of
a prelmunaiy plat, and regrading of a portion of the Glendalough neighborhood would all need to be
accomplished.
If the two developers cannot come to an acceptable arrangement, staff and the Planning Commission were
equally comfortable with AIternatve 1. Alternative 1 is also acceptable from a traffic engineering
standpoint as the local roads proposed are designed to carry traffic volumes like that proposed, even under
a full build scenario. Because requiring only one alternative may make the developer negotiations difficult,
for the time being staff continues to have recommended conditions that recognize either of the two
alternatives. When the item is again before the Council for final master development plan approval, the
access issue will be fully resolved.
Site Density
The entire site is 5.65 acres including right -of -way for Connemara frail. Without the right -of -way, which
the city has obtained, the site is 4.98 acres. However, a portion of the site is located on the south side of
Connemara bringing the buildable area down to 4.8 acres. The CDA will not be retatnuhg ownership of the
southern outlot, as proposed in the plat. The net density calculation for the property is then 6 25 units per
acre. For comparison the GlenRose project recently approved (and rezoned to PUD R -2) was 7 units per
acre. The Brockway project m total was approximately 5 units per acre, although the calculation includes
the dedicated park and private open spaces. Round Stone within the Evennoor neighborhood is
approximately 8 units per acre During the most recent Comprehensive Plan update, for the 42/52 area,
the Commission recoirunended and the Council concurred adding a medium density residential
designation in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is as follows:
Urban Residential 1 -4 umts per acre
Medium Density Residential 4 -8 units per acre
High Density Residential 8 -20 units per acre
The CDA project falls within the Medium Density Residential designation and the density is consistent
with what would be expected in a townhouse project.
Site Landscaping
Another item discussed by the Planning Commission was the landscaping on the site, particularly along the
western edge of the development. It appears that much of the natural vegetation will be removed due to
site development and extension of the public toad. Staff is recommending that additional buffering to the
west, as well as along the eastern property line, be installed The initial condition required additional
shrubbery to supplement the deciduous trees proposed. Staff is recommending that the landscaping plan
be revised in the future, during the master development plan approval phase to include both coniferous
and deciduous trees as well as additional shrubbery.
Site Variances
Residents m the area have distnbuted information stating that there are numerous vanances needed to
approve the project. As the Council is aware, the PUD process allows the City to be flexible as related to
the standard zoning districts, should they so choose In this case the R -2 zoning is used as the basis for
evaluation of the project There are several areas where the site plan vanes from the ordinance standards
4
EXCERPTS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES JANUARY 10, 2006
Public Hearing:
5a. 05 -50 -CP Rosemount Family Townhomes (CDA Project) Comp Plan
Amendment, Rezoning, PUD Concept Plan and Final Development Plan and
Preliminary Plat. Mr. Pearson reviewed the staff report. The Dakota County Community
Development Agency "CDA has submitted applications to construct a 30 -unit townhouse
development on a site located on the northwest comer of Connemara Trail and STH 3,
South Robert Trail. The townhouses will be owned and maintained by Dakota County CDA.
The discussions and recommendations concerned a Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and PUD Concept Plan City Engineer Brotzler highlighted the
engineering comments regarding site access, grading, and stormwater issues.
Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Pearson.
Commissioner Schultz questioned the proposed urban residential land use for the site and
what other sites had the same land use designation. Mr. Pearson summarized other areas in
the City where the Urban Residential zoning is located and further noted this request is
similar to the Evermoor Roundstone and Waterford projects done in the past.
Commissioner Schultz inquired if stop signs would be placed on the Connemara
intersection Mr. Brotzler stated the traffic at the intersection will not warrant the placement
of stop signs and that the extension of the median is a possibility.
Ms. Lindquist stated that staff received several emails and voicemails. Ms. Lindquist
explained that m light of the interest m the project, it would be beneficial to the residents to
understand the issues that are facing the Planning Commission and potentially the Council
on this item. The land use designation is moving from Transitional Residential to Urban
Residential. It was not changed in the Evermoor project, it was kept Transitional Residential.
The Commission's job is to review the project based on the land use impacts associated with
the project. The Commission should not consider ownership versus rental or affordability
versus high end housing for residential projects The land use impacts are the same for either
scenario. When the City makes a determination that this project is a project they want to see
m the community they must find land use impacts for denial and not solely because it's a
rental versus home ownership project. Similarly, the City cannot say since it is affordable
housmg versus a million dollar home that we can deny the project. The City needs to
consider the appropriate land use for the site whether it be a muth family, single family or a
high density residential site. Then there will be a myriad of issues regarding the site plan. The
project does meet the goals set by the Council to offer a variety of housing in the
community.
Chairperson Messner invited the applicant to come forward. Kari Gill, Dakota County
Community Development Agency, gave the background on what the proposed
development. There is significant demand throughout Dakota County for affordable
housing. Ms. Gill stated the units are targeted to people earning around 50% of the median.
The average income in the developments is about $28,000. There is a tmmmum income
requirement and it is geared towards families that are working in modest paying jobs. Ms.
Gill stated the ownership of the project is a public pnvate partnership with 99% of the
development owned by a private partner. The Dakota County CDA has l% ownership. The
CDA does its own property management and its own staff to maintain the property and
1
individual units. Ms. Gill shared pictures of similar developments. The proposal is for 30
units, a small office, tot lot and a gazebo area Ms. Gill commented that as development
moves forward the CDA would work closely with the City to meet and exceed any
landscaping requirements. Ms. Gill was happy to answer any questions regarding the
development.
Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing.
Gene Rusco, 3553 Couchtown Path, respected the comments on the land use issues but still
feels his comments are important based on the stated need for low income housing. Mr.
Rusco quoted Professor Gary Painter of the USC School of Policy, Planning and
Development by stating low income housing programs negatively impact labor force
participation. He further suggested that City staff refer to the Journal of Housing Research
published by the Fannie Mae Foundation, Volume 12, Issue 1, published in the year 2001.
Mr. Rusco stated that studies show the only beneficiaries of low income housing are really
high income builders and investors. He further referred the Commission to the work of Ron
Feldmen of the Minnesota Fed who is cntical of the government's pretence of helping poor
people by subsidizing builders He urged the Commission to realize the cultural impact on
the community of this project. He asked the Commission to vote no on this project
Dean Smith, 3548 Cromwell Trail, urged the Commission to look at its policy manual. Mx.
Smith believes that public input should be solicited at an earlier time in the process. He
spoke about the potential crime issues. He further urged the Commission to slow down the
process to allow for more input and consideration.
Gary Anderson, 3418 Cromwell Trail, stated he is not convinced why this site was picked for
the CDA project given the amount of undeveloped land in Rosemount. He further stated
this project will deflate his property value. He added CDA projects elsewhere have a higher
police rate.
Joel Weiss, 13579 Crossmoor Avenue, said he is sympathetic with low income people. He
suggested though that job skills should be offered and not subsidized housing stating a
better choice for location would be near the technical college.
Leonarad Burridge, 13431 Cormack Circle, commented that many more people would be
here tomght to give comments if notice of the public hearing was given. Mr. Burridge stated
his reasoning for choosing to live in Evermoor. He asked the City to explore other options
but if this is the only site chosen that Evermoor residents receive better notice of the
process.
Kelly Henson- Evertz, 13113 Crolly Path, questioned the noticing of the public hearing. Ms.
Henson Evertz stated her concem with the high density housing and the traffic issues. She
believes there has to be a better location for the project somewhere else in Rosemount.
Barbara Harvey, 3566 Crosslough Trail, stated she would like the City to explore other
options and stated she had concerns over traffic.
2
Nancy Frosig, 3703 Crosslough Trail, stated she left the City of Richfield because of low
income housing and the crime. She asked the Commission not to change the neighborhood
feel
Lon Stormoen, 3474 Crumpet Path, stated she is curious about what other specific parcels
of land were entertained by the CDA. Ms. Stormoen was also concerned as to how this
parcel was chosen. Chairperson Messner commented that the site m question is what the
Planning Commission is looking at tonight. No Planning Commissioners are aware of what
other sites were entertained.
Darrell Pavelka, 3505 Couchtown Path, stated his concern about the land use issue in regard
to the intended designation for the property north of this site. Mr. Pearson stated the
property to north is guided Transition Residential and zoned Rural Residential. The City has
not entertained any development apphcations for that property. Mr Pavelka stated his
concern about potential trespassing at the pool and park in the Glendalough neighborhood.
MOTION by Schwartz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Zurn. Ayes. All.
Nayes: None. Pubhc Heanng closed.
Chairperson Messner asked the Commission for any additional follow -up comments or
questions.
Ms. Lindquist addressed the crime concerns raised. Police Chief Kalstabakken compiled
information from Hastings, Mendota Heights and Eagan who have CDA projects. Pohce
representatives stated they do not consider CDA projects a pohce problem area.
Additionally, Pohce Chief Kalstabakken stated the low income housing project at 145th and
Biscayne Avenue is not a problem property m the City.
Mr. Pearson stated development at the Technical Colleges would be a few years out given
the availability for urban services in that area.
Commissioner Powell questioned if there is a right -of -way platted from the cul -de -sac west
of the side coming from Glendalough to the east to make a connection. It should be noted
it's a through street and not a cul -de -sac
Commissioner Powell questioned how far in advance the development signs were placed at
the subject property. Ms. Lindquist responded the signs for development were installed
approximately two and a half months ago. Ms. Lindquist further clarified the City noticed
the area within 350 feet of the subject property. The notice the residents are referring to is a
notice distributed by the neighborhoods.
Commissioner Powell questioned if this property was ever included in the Evermoor project.
City Planner Pearson stated this parcel was not planned or platted out as part of Evermoor.
Commissioner Schultz asked Ms. Lindquist to address the pubhc in regards to the rules for
noticing a pubhc hearing. Ms. Lindquist stated the City adopts the same rules the State law
has in terms of pubhc notice and notification requirements. The City is required to notice
public hearings in the official newspaper by pubhcation 10 days prior to the meeting date.
3
The City is also required to notice property owners within 350 feet within the subject
property.
Mike Vipond, 3445 Couchtown Path, asked if Lundgren Brothers was notified of this
project. Ms. Lindquist stated that Lundgren Brothers was aware of this project several
months ago.
Com Powell asked the City Engineer to again review the roadway alignments
proposed because of the access issues. Mr. Brotzler again showed Alternate A to the
Commission including the public street access proposed to the site from the future
Glendalough street system. Staff is recommending a public street extension to the north to
provide for a secondary access as well as a continuous street extension to connect to Dodd
Road m the future. An alternate that is being reviewed would provide a separate public street
access to the proposed project site separate from the Glendalough development. Mr.
Brotzler stated the alignment is concept only. Chairperson Messner stated an obvious
Alternative C would be to extend the cul -de -sac out to Connemara Mr. Brotzler stated that
in 2005 when the Glendalough grading plan was developed by Lundgren's engineer it was
reviewed by the developer, its engineer and City staff. The developer had incurred costs to
lower the pipeline through the easement to accommodate the construction of Connemara
Trail as it is today. Due to the grades that were proposed on the grading plan there would've
been modifications to the grading plan and the proposed street to make a connection to
Connemara Trail. It would have required the pipeline to have been lowered and the
developer elected not to lower the pipeline trail.
Commissioner Schwartz asked the theory behind collector streets. Mr. Brotzler stated
collector streets are designed to carry a higher volume of traffic and by design are built to
support access from local streets. When the Evermoor development was planned, which
included the extension of Connemara Trail to Highway 3, there was access to the subject
property.
Commissioner Schwartz questioned why the project is allowed to have single car garages
Ms. Lindquist stated through the PUD process they are able to address the concern When
first working with the CDA several years ago, there was discussion with the Council about
amending the ordinance to allow single stall garages for affordable housing. It was felt at that
time the PUD process would allow that variation, should the City wish to approve the
project. Mr. Pearson stated the site plan allows for 20 foot setbacks of the garages to the
public street. When this site plan comes back again, there will be two and one half parking
spaces for each unit. Commissioner Schwartz stated her concern about parking because the
Roundstone area has a parking problem and it has caused a great deal of strife in that
particular community.
Commissioner Schultz asked staff to explain the landscaping requirements on the west side
of the property. Mr. Pearson responded that the landscaping plan shows a variety of trees,
but shrubs should be added between the trees. There might be some other potential areas of
landscaping on both sides of the street.
Chairperson Messner stated the Commission looks at land use plans and at what is an
appropriate use for property along Highway 3, along a collector street. The Commission is
4
not necessarily looking at the end use. Chairperson Messner apologized if the public thought
the Commission was only going to talk about the CDA and what they are proposing for the
site He stated he understands the public's concern, but the Commission is looking at the
land use.
Commissioner Powell shared his position. He has significant concern with the unresolved
access to the site. He did not favor direct access from Connemara Trail. Commissioner
Schwartz concurred with the access issue. Commissioner Schwartz feels there does not need
to be more density in that area of the City.
Chairperson Messner stated that given the access concerns, does the Urban Residential land
use designation seem to fit with this site located along Highway 3 and Connemara Trail.
Commissioner Powell stated he could support the motion to regutde the property but the
following three motions he could not support. Ms. Lindquist stated staff typically wouldn't
support reguiding the property if the Commission is not interested in rezoning at this time.
If the access issue is resolved, would the Commission be comfortable with a medium density
project or a single family project. Ms. Lindquist said staff could get the access issue wrapped
up by the next Commission meeting in two weeks, but if the Commission isn't going to
support the project regardless of the access issue, then the CDA would prefer the
Commission deny the project so it could go to the Council for discussion.
Commissioner Messner stated that other than the access issue that needs to be resolved, this
is the type of site that is suited for medium density housing. Commissioner Schwartz stated
that both sides of Highway 3 have significant density and doesn't support high density in
that area Commissioner Powell believes the number of units could be routed through the
cul -de -sac at Glendilough. He does not support a connection at Connemara or taking the
access to the north. Commissioner Zum agreed with Commissioner Powell to resolve the
access issues and reduce the number of units. Commissioner Schultz personally is for
changing the Comprehensive Plan and agrees with the access issues raised.
Ms. Lindquist suggested continuing the item to the January 24th meeting to br4 g back the
access information.
MOTION by Messner to continue this item to January 24, 2006. Second by Powell.
Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion carried.
EXCERPTS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 21, 2006
05 -50 -CP Rosemount Family Townhomes (CDA Project) Comp Plan Amendment,
Rezoning, PUD Concept Plan and Final Development Plan and Preliminary Plat.
Community Development Director Lindquist noted this item was continued from the
Planning Commission meeting held January 10, 2006. Ms. Lindquist provided additional
information from staff and a compilation of letters and e -mails received from Evermoor
residents. Ms l indquist indicated staff had met with the Dakota County Community
Development Agency (the "CDA to discuss options, but no conclusion had been reached.
Ms. Lindquist responded to the list of variances stated in a flyer distributed by Evermoor
5
residents and pointed out that several of the points were not variances but allowed by
ordinance or under the Planned Unit Development process. Ms. Lindquist stated a Master
Development Site Plan will address many of the more detailed issues as plans are developed.
Chuck Rickart, Traffic Engineer, WSB Associates, Inc. gave an overview of three
alternative access plans and pointed out the advantages and disadvantages of each
alternative. He indicated he preferred Alternate 2, but Alternate 1 would be feasible as well.
Chairperson Messner noted the Public Hearing was closed on January 10; however, he
would allow additional comments from residents. He requested those speaking to take into
account this is a land use issue such as zoning, land guiding, and access.
Gary Anderson, 3418 Cromwell Trail, thanked the Commissioners for allowing additional
comments. He stated there were far too many vanances for this site. The master association
and individual associations of Evermoor have enacted many covenants to protect the
residents. He had visited six CDA developments and none of the projects were built next to
smgle family residences.
Gene Rusco, 3553 Couchtown Path, requested a show of hands from the audience to
indicate if they are opposed the CDA development at the site near Highway 3 and
Connemara Trail. The audience displayed a majonty were opposed to the project.
Maureen Bartz, 13566 Crompton Court, questioned the overall appropriateness for the
project to be considered a PUD. In meeting existing ordinances, she believed the variances
allowed in this project exceed what should be allowed. She added that at the previous
meeting it was stated the Evermoor residents should have known about the access point to
the neighborhood. She agreed that anyone who researched the property should have known
about the access but also would have sent eh property was zoned rural residential. Ms. Bartz
noted that in Ordinance 7.2 A -1 b. a high standard of architectural and aesthetic
compatibihty is required with surrounding properties to ensure that will not adversely impact
the property values of the abutting properties. She stated the development does meet the
ordinance requirements.
Paul Essler, 13800 Claredowns Way, stated he moved to Rosemount 18 months ago and
planned to install a swimming pool that required a vanance. Mr. Essler added he was told by
City staff not to waste his time asking for a variance. Mr. Essler was trying to reconcile the
difference between his one needed variance and the nine variances requested for this project.
Marsha Regan, 13330 Cranford Circle, stated she had no problem with moderate income
housing, but focused on the physical structure of the housing development. Ms. Regan had
concerns with the traffic and parking impacts on the Glendalough neighborhoods. She also
questioned the zoning regulations which state that for town homes a maximum of six
dwellings may be attached per building except for when adjacent to R -1 zoning districts.
Jay Liberacki, Development Director for U S. Homes, handed out a packet with maps and
presentation notes. Mr. Liberacki showed the site in relationship to the Glendalough
neighborhood. He noted that this is not a flat area of ground and pointed out the slopes on
the plat. Mr. Liberacki stated the average person looking at the site and its access would not
6
have envisioned 30 town homes off the end of the cul -de -sac. He questioned where else the
City would have entertained an idea like this in Rosemount. He reviewed the different access
options. The first alternative would require bringing the site up to road grade. The second
option has some hidden costs with the moving of a water line, lowering the pipeline and
lowering the grade. The third option would allow continuity into the project. Mr. Liberacki
stated a couple of weeks ago he met with the CDA in hope of arriving at a compromise
where the CDA project would have its own dedicated access, not through Glendalough Mx.
Liberacki would like the dedicated access idea set on the table and stated it would be cheaper
than lowering the pipeline. Mr. Liberacki added he and Arcon Development are co- owners
of a parcel of land at Akron and County Road 42 and would be willing to talk to the CDA
about a parcel m that area.
Darrell Pavelka, 3505 Couchtown Path, stated his concerns with the density change to this
parcel and what effect this project, if approved, would have on the marketing of the adjacent
properties to the north. He assumes those properties will also be considered for medium
density residential. He stated he feels the traffic issue will become worse with the
development of the other properties. Mr. Pavelka stated this project will not broaden the tax
base.
Scott Rohr, 3964 154th Street West, stated some people in this town want this project. Mr.
Rohr stated this project is needed in Rosemount and asked people not to judge others based
upon their income.
Ross Allen, 13539 Crompton Court, was disappointed that the previous speaker indicated
the issue seems to be about race, ethnicity or financial bearing. He stated the neighborhood
concerns relate only to the land use.
Commissioner Zurn asked that the variances referred to in the neighborhood flyer be
addressed by City staff. Ms. Lindquist stated the flyer listed nine variances; however, the
PUD process allows a development to vary from the standard ordinance requirements. In
this case, the project is assessed based upon the R -2 zoning district although not held to
those standards necessarily. There is a slight increase in density from that expected in the R -2
district. The ordinance requires 6 units /acre and the density is 6.25 units /acre. There is a
variation from the normal garage requirements; however, there was previous discussion with
the Council to allow for single stall garages in affordable housing projects. Thirdly, the
variation from drainage to dram off site is not a variance and is allowed by the ordinance and
this site will pay an off site pondmg fee. The change of the street access and utility
easements, variation of storm water management, relaxation of setback requirements, and
payment of cash rather than the normally required set aside park land are not vanances but
rather typical outcomes related to development. The parking stall variance relates to the
single -stall garage issue. Ms. Lindquist added the PUD process allows developers to meet the
mtent of the ordinance without meeting all ordinance conditions. In staff's opinion there are
mitigating circumstances relating to the plan that allow some flexibihty. Ms. Lindgmst noted
one of the 10 acre exceptions for a PUD is when property is located in a transition area
between different land use categories or on a collector or arterial tumor principle street as
defined in the comprehensive plan.
Commissioner Schultz noted that Glendalough has smaller lots then allowed by ordinance.
7
Mr. Pearson responded that Glendalough is a classic example of a PUD that had a lot of
open space buffering the outer edges of the lots so the preliminary plat had a variety of lot
shapes that were not the typical rectangular lots. Most of the lots are smaller, more shallow,
and have reduced setbacks to allow maximum flexibility to the developer The setbacks m
Glendalough are not typical of those in an R -1 distnct and a PUD allowed the flexibility.
Commissioner Schultz questioned if the developer of Evermoor had the opportunity to
work with the property owner to purchase the property. Ms. Lindquist stated the developer
did not want to expand further due to the financial concerns.
Commissioner Zum questioned who would bear the cost of lowering the pipeline Ms.
Lindquist stated that it is something to be worked out between Lundgren and the CDA. It
appears the pipeline will need to be lowered under several of the different access scenarios.
Chairperson Messner questioned the wetland to the north and where the potential
connection to the north was drawn m Mr. Rickart stated the alternative was just a concept
based upon how the development could occur to the north.
Mr. Libetacki asked for a change in the access design for Alternative 2 and requested the
thru street be to the town homes and the turn movement into the single family Mr
Liberackr added he prefers as many turns as possible to discourage short -cut traffic m the
single family neighborhood.
Commissioner Powell questioned the Tara Commons Court right -of -way. Ms. Lindquist
stated the continuation to the east was part of the preliminary plat. Commissioner Powell
noted his concern with the access to the north with the existing development and how
access would be gained. He further questioned the long term disposition of the CDA project
in particular if the project is owned or sold after a period of time.
Mark Ulfers, Executive Director of the CDA, 3771 Denmark Trail, Eagan, stated the CDA
enters into a for -profit partnership. There is a hmited partnership with a corporate partner.
The last several partnerships have been with US Bank. The partnership exists for 15 years
and the CDA has the option of purchasing the project. It is in the CDA's interest to own the
property and they are making provisions to purchase in the future.
Comirussioner Powell asked staff to compare and contrast the CDA project with the
Roundstone development to visualize the future improvements. Ms. Lindquist stated the
density at Roundstone is about eight units per acre and is a different housing style. The back
to -back unites have access on both sides and there is more pavement area. Both projects use
private drives internal to the system.
Commissioner Schultz questioned if the roads will be public or private in the CDA
development. Ms Lindquist stated staff is interested m having a public road system so there
is a through access to the north to access all the rural residential parcels. The road from the
cul -de -sac would be public and up to the north, internal roads would be pnvate similar to
other townhouse projects.
Commissioner Powell clarified that police and pubhc safety have reviewed the project and
possess no strong objections. Ms. Lindquist stated he is correct.
8
Commissioner Zum questioned how many CDA projects abut up to single family projects.
Mr. Ulfers stated the Oak Ridge project in Eagan is next to single family homes as well as
having detached town homes literally on the property line.
Commissioner Schwartz stated her concerns about the access and density issues. She added
the recent City survey stated residents moved to Rosemount for the small town atmosphere
and that the overwhelming opinion of tax payers should be taken into consideration.
Commissioner Schultz asked Pohce Chief Kalstabakken to discuss crime considering the
flyers circulated in the neighborhood stating this was an issue. Pohce Chief Kalstabakken
noted that general comments are not only from the Rosemount Pohce Depati but are
also from other pohce departments throughout Dakota County. The CDA is regarded as a
very responsible property manager. The CDA is concerned with the long -term out come of
their projects. The CDA is reactive to tenant and police issues brought to their attention and
does not focus on turning out a profit on their projects. Mr. Kalstabakken referred the
Commission to the 20 unit townhouse project located at 145th and Biscayne and noted it is
not a problem property. The pohce department does track the problematic properties m the
City. The CDA has the lower average of calls for service.
A woman m audience questioned if the crime report was compared to single family or rental.
Police Chief Kalstabakken noted his comparison was against other rental projects in the
City. He listed the different variables that may cause the information to be distorted for
rental projects.
Chairperson Messner stated he viewed this site as being suited for town home or medium
density development based upon the location subject to working out access issues. In his
mind, there is not a clear indication whether Alternative 1 or 2 would be a preferred access
solution. Between the two concepts, one of the alternatives will work out given the number
of units and traffic projections.
MOTION by Messner to recommend that the City Council adopt an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan changing the land use designation for the site from
Transition Residential to Urban Residential subject to approval by the Metropohtan
Council. Second by Schultz. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, and Powell. Nays:
Schwartz. Motion approved 4 -1.
MOTION by Messner to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance
rezoning the site from Rural Residential to R -2, Moderate Density Residential PUD.
Second by Schultz.
Commissioner Powell stated based on the surrounding land uses, medium density zoning is
appropriate and the access issue previously raised has been significantly addressed and he
could support the remaining actions.
Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, and Powell. Nays: Schwartz. Motion approved 4 -1.
9
Commissioner Powell is comfortable with the access alternatives presented but hesitates to
handcuff future discussions by going with a specific alternative.
MOTION by Powell to recommend that the City Council approve the prehmuiary
plat subject to:
1. Dedication of right -of -way for the public street consistent with access
alternative 1 or 2 as found m the WSB traffic study and in conformance with
local street design requirements.
2. Dedication of appropriate drainage and utility easement subject to approval by
the City Engineer.
3. Approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation as needed.
4. Conformance with the requirements for final plat including execution of a
subdivision development agreement as needed for installation of public
infrastructure.
Second by Schultz. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, and Powell. Nays: Schwartz.
Motion approved 4 -1.
MOTION by Powell to recommend that the City Council approve the Planned Unit
Development Concept subject to:
1. Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Rural Residential to
Urban Residential by the Metropolitan Council.
2. Final development of the parcel is contingent of City approval of a site plan,
PUD Master Development Plan and execution of a PUD agreement.
3. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer regarding drainage,
easements, grading, storm water management and utilities including:
The street entering the development shall be public and located within a 60 ft.
right -of way and included on the plat.
The applicant shall secure all permits agreements necessary for the proposed
crossing or grading of the pipeline easements.
The applicant will grade the future northern road connection as part of their
project and provide a cash deposit to the City to pay for its future construction.
No parking will be permitted on the streets and turning radius information shall
be provided subject to approval by the Fire Marshal
Additional storm water management detail is required including:
a. Infiltration calculations.
b. Outlet elevations from ponds and control structures as noted.
c. Maintenance plan for the ram gardens.
Payment of connection and trunk fees required.
4. Park dedication in the form of cash m lieu of land in the amount of $90,000.
(30 units x $3,000 per unit) based upon the 2005 fee schedule.
5. Approval and receipt of permits from the Minnesota Department of
Transportation as needed.
6. Seventeen common parking spaces shall be provided, based upon 15 for the
30 units and 2 for the office.
7. The applicant provide at a minimum, a setback of 20 feet between the units
and the private streets which will be sufficient for driveway parking. This
10
requirement is in recognition of the single still garages proposed for the
individual units.
8. The northwest building must be re- oriented to create a more acceptable
setback to the anticipated public street right -of -way, as well as increase the
distance to the southerly building cluster inside the street loop.
9. Additional screening landscaping shall be mstalled along the Highway 3 right
of -way and along the western edge of the development, including both
coniferous and deciduous trees and shrubs.
10. The Scotch Pines specified in the landscaping plan shall be relocated
elsewhere on the site, and conformance with sight tnangle standards for visibility
at intersections will be required for all public and private intersections within the
development.
11. The applicant provide an acceptable public street access to the site consistent
with alternative 1 or 2 as defined in the WSB traffic study
12. The apphcant obtain final building elevation approval including brick
detailing on the front facades.
Second by Schultz. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, and Powell. Nays: Schwartz.
Motion approved 4-1.
Ms. Lindquist indicated this item will be on the February 7, 2006 City Council Agenda.
EXCERPTS OF THE ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS REGULAR
MEETING FEBRUARY 7, 2006
Dakota County Community Development Agency Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
Rezoning, PUD Master Plan and Preliminary Plat for Rosemount Family Housing,
Planning Cases 05- 50 -CP, 05- 51 -RZ, 05 -52 PUD, 05 -53 PP Community Development
Director Lindquist gave a review of the affordable housing plan proposed by the Dakota
County Community Development Agency (CDA). The location is the northwest corner of
Highway 3 and Connemara Trail. Ms. Lindquist reported the buildable site is 4 8 acres and a
30 -unit townhouse development is proposed. The Planning Commission majority supported
the concept because it is a transition area between Highway 3 and single family residential.
City Engineer Brotzler explained three street alignment options to provide access to the
townhome development. All options would include a pubhc street to the north connecting
nd
with 132 Court:
Option 1 Access: Allow a future street through the Glendalough neighborhood
connecting to the cul -de -sac at Tara Commons Court.
Option 2 Access: Access to Connemara Trail from Tara Commons Court,
connecting to the townhome project eliminating the cul -de -sac.
Option 3 Access: A separate access street onto Connemara Trail opposite to the
entry to Schwartz Pond Park and the Sports Dome. Mr. Brotzler stated that staff
does not support Option 3.
Ms. Lindquist recapped the public hearings where the public comments addressed concerns
for access, density, crime, and the quality of the project. Ms. Lindquist noted that a flyer
circulated by Evermoor residents spoke of nine vanances for this project, however, because
this development is a Planned Unit Development (PUD) these modifications are not
11
considered variances. Ms. Lindquist commented on each point of the Evermoor flyer. She
pointed out that the Evermoor development was also a PUD and had incorporated many of
these same issues into its development Staff recommends reguiding the property to Urban
Residential, rezoning to R -2 PUD, Preliminary Plat approval and approval of the PUD
Concept Plan. The CDA development must have a master development plan review also
which will require another public hearing and Planning Commission and City Council
approval.
Mayor Droste pointed out that the public hearing requirements had been met, however, he
would allow short statements by the public following City Council's clarification questions.
Council Member DeBettigmes questioned if the proposed streets had room for a fire truck
turn- around Ms. Lindquist reported that the Fire Marshal had not reviewed the various
options but the pubhc streets would meet all City standards. Council Member Sterner
inquired if the Parks and Recreation Commission had reviewed the project for trails. Ms.
Lmdgtust stated there were no trails requested for this project. Mr. DeBettignies inquired
about the density of the project. Ms Lindquist stated that R -2 zoning allows for 6 units per
acre and this project has 5.3 units per acre gross and 6 25 net. Mr. Sterner inquired about
densities in other housing projects. Ms. Lindquist reported the following:
Roundstone 8.7 units per acre
GlenRose 7.6 units per acre
Harmony 6.2 units per acre
Bards Crossing 14 2 units per acre
Rosemount Woods 3 4 units per acre
Council Member Shoe Corrigan inquired what the density was in Glendalough which is R -1.
Ms. Lindquist noted Glendalough is single family which would be 2 to 2.5 units per acre,
however, she did not have the density of Glendalough. Attorney VanCleve repotted later in
the meeting that the Glendalough density is 2 units per acre.
Executive Director of the Dakota County CDA, Mark Ulfers, stated that one of the goals of
the CDA is to provide high quality housing at an affordable price for those with modest
incomes He emphasized that this is not Section 8 type housing for extremely low income
households, but for those families with incomes up to $46,000. Mr. Ulfers pointed out that
this aids in job creation in retail and restaurant areas. He stated the CDA has fourteen
housing projects m Dakota County. Mr. Ulfers said the architect Mr Kim, received an award
for the design m Lakeville as the best new affordable housing. Mr. Sterner inquired as to
how large a family would be allowed in a unit. Mr. Ulfers said there a two and three
bedroom units which would allow two to six member families Mr. Ulfers commented that
applicants are screened for cnmmal history, credit history, landlord references, and income
verification. The CDA received 400 applicants for the last townhome project that opened.
Mr. DeBettignies inquired about Metropohtan Council's efforts to increase the number of
affordable units in the Metro Area. Mr. Ulfers did not have stansttcs on this but stated the
goals have been hindered by land availability with expensive land costs and reduced funding
from federal and state sources. Mayor Droste noted that m 2002 Metropolitan Council
reported that Rosemount had 534 units of family rental housing.
Mayor Droste opened the meeting for pubhc comment.
12
Kevin Strayton, 14335 Cormorant Way, stated he had been a resident for ten years and
this was the first time he was disturbed by community comments. Mr. Strayton was
concerned that Rosemount could not offer affordable homes for the young people raised
here. Mr. Strayton visited Lakeville's CDA project and talked with Lakeville police. All
comments were very positive and he could see no reason to deny this project.
Scott Rohr, 3964 154th Street West, was in favor of this project. Mr. Rohr stated
Rosemount is a great community with the best parks, a community center, a soon to come
library, and great schools. He did not believe neighborhood covenants should control
development.
Kevin Carroll, 3325 147th Street West, stated he was troubled by what was in the
newspapers. He noted this was an emotional issue for those who believed their home
values were in jeopardy. Mr. Carroll stressed it is important to look at the facts. He
summarized that the residents focused on increase in crime and lower aesthetics
standards. Mr. Carroll visited nine of the CDA projects and then contacted residents that
lived by three of the projects. Mr. Carroll stated that not a single person told him they had
any complaints about a current CDA project. Mr. Carroll spoke about the progress in
Rosemount and how some proposed projects had caused apprehension that now has been
dispelled. Mr. Carroll strongly supported the work force housing for residents of
Rosemount. He urged City Council to move forward with this project.
Maureen Bartz, 13566 Crompton Court, stated she had studied the zoning ordinance and
the 2020 Comprehensive Guide Plan for Rosemount. Ms. Bart questioned why this
project is using a Planned Unit Development (PUD) process when it is not listed in the R-
2 District. Mayor Droste noted response to questions will be addressed following the
comment period.
Tracy Dougherty, 12370 Blanca Avenue, stated she has lived in Rosemount since 1973.
She stated she is in favor of this type of housing but believed that it should be within
walking distance of city services and retail stores. Ms. Dougherty explained she
researched the bus system and found it would take over two hours to get to downtown St.
Paul and there is a ten -block walk to get to the bus stop. Ms. Dougherty stated she was
not in favor of the location of this project.
Dean Smith, 13542 Crompton Court, stated he was in opposition to this project. Mr.
Anderson stated that residents have become disengaged by the City process due to the
impression that this project was a "done deal." He urged Council to change the process to
keep it more positive. He thanked City Council for their volunteerism.
Gary Van Cleve, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Suite 1500, Minneapolis, from the Larkin
Hoffman Law firm, representing Lundgren Brothers, addressed access to the site. He
pointed out the cul -de -sac is included on the approved preliminary plat and he noted it
had been suggested that future development may allow access through the cud -de -sac.
Mr. VanCleve stated it was never envisioned that 30 units would be moving traffic
through the Glendalough residential neighborhood. He stated the increased traffic flow
13
would not be welcomed nor considered good land use planning and land use
management. Mr. Van Cleve stated Option 2 granting access through the Lundgren
development would likely involve additional expense and about 14 feet of fill. He
commented that Option 3, with a separate access point, makes four lots in Glendalough
undevelopable, which is not acceptable. Mr. Van Cleve presented two other options for
road alignment with a private road to the north. Mr. Van Cleve stated he and his clients
support the project but would suggest exploring other access options.
Dave Bruins, 4310 West 153rd Street, stated neighbors have seen a lot of development
changes for expanding housing. It is important to bring more people into the community
with a wide variety of housing changes. This is within walking distance of many good
things, schools from 0 -12. He fully supports this project.
Paul Essler, 13800 Clare Downs Way, stated he is opposed to this project due to land use
and precedent. Mr. Essler noted he develops land in northern Minnesota and understands
the land requirements and the developers needs. He acknowledged variances are the right
of government to allow for. He pointed out the City does not want a law suit from the
opposition or the developer. Mr. Essler noted he had requested a two -foot encroachment
into an easement on the back of his lot. Mr. Essler explained that staff did not support the
variance due to the concern over setting a precedent. Mr. Essler asked City Council to
consider how a court of law would rule on this.
Gene Rusco, 3553 Couchtown Path, reported at the last meeting the audience was asked
to restrict comments to land issues. Mr. Rusko noted that an alternate site had been
offered by another developer at the last meeting which he felt should be considered.
Marian Brown, 7754 142nd Street West, Apple Valley, commented she did not like
hearing "these people and those people" labels by residents. Ms. Brown noted how in the
past she could not find affordable housing in Rosemount. She noted she purchased a
home in Apple Valley although wanting one in Rosemount and she considered herself as
one of "those people."
Ross Allen, 13539 Crompton Court, believed this is not about socio economic standing.
Mr. Allen liked the small to feel of Rosemount and enjoys his neighborhood. Mr.
Allen stated the location for this affordable housing is not beneficial for those who might
live there or the neighbors.
Jim Corrigan, 12990 Shannon Parkway, stated he supported the townhome development
and looked forward to the new residents who will be an asset to Rosemount. He also
commented that he appreciated all those who spoke and the conciliatory tone applied.
Mayor Droste stated that there will be another public hearing in the future He thanked
everyone who addressed City Council. He noted that often project detail is determined
before the public hearing and this can leave the perception it is a done deal. However,
Mr. Droste stated that he has seen projects voted down, so it does happen that plans are
changed. Mr. Droste stated he agreed that bus service does not have adequate ridership to
increase services. The Robert Street Corridor is being considered for future
improvements.
14
Ms. Lindquist addressed the Planned Unit Development (PUD) which allows other
permitted uses. The Ordinance allows three uses under the R2 district that must be used
with a PUD. There are also permitted uses like single attached housing which can be used
with a PUD, but don't have to use a PUD.
Mr. Baxter inquired why this one qualifies.
Ms. Lindquist stated it is in a transitional area next to an arterial street which qualifies it
for a PUD. Ms. Lindquist noted that City Engineer Brotzler reported that a right -in and
right -out access as in Option 3 would not be desirable and staff has not yet examined
closure of the second access from Glendalough and if this configuration could serve the
entire neighborhood. Ms. Lindquist also stated that Option 3 would also be expensive due
to the need to lower a pipe line. She stated there is no technical reason to support Option
3 and it would not be policy to have two streets so near each other just to create a barrier
between developments. Ms. Lindquist noted design standards for local streets are 600 to
1000 trips per day. Ms. Lindquist responded to Attorney Van Cleve that the driveways to
the south are all private roads and the curves do not meet the public road standards.
Council Member Shoe Corrigan asked for clarification on the access and the need to
prevent any parcels to be land locked. She noted the Comprehensive Guide Plan guides
the property Transition Residential which means there is a potential of medium density.
Ms. Shoe Corrigan pointed out the developer of Glendalough had access to this
information.
Council Member DeBettignies stated that each resident will have 2 -1/2 parking spaces.
Ms. Lindquist stated there are 17 extra parking stalls for visitors and room for one car in a
single garage and one parked in the driveway. Ms. Shoe-Corrigan inquired about the
trails and Ms. Lindquist said there are no trails within the affordable townhome
development; however, the residents will have the same access to regional trails around
the area. Ms. Shoe-Corrigan directed a question to the City Attorney regarding a
developer that offered a new site. City Attorney LeFevere said the applicant has the right
to be addressed under the current application. An offer on another parcel is irrelevant to
this proceeding. Ms. Shoe Corrigan inquired if the City Council's decision could stand
before a court. Mr. LeFevere said that for rezoning and Comprehensive Guide Plan issues
the courts will defer to the local government and apply City regulations to lot layout and
subdivision regulations.
Mayor Droste commented also on the site offered by a developer and stated that it is
located beyond the MUSA line and would not be available for sometime. Staff and the
Council have held to the City regulations and he stated he was in favor of the project.
Mr. DeBettignies stated he appreciates all the e-mails and messages. The City is
compliant within the guidelines allowed by law. Ms. Lindquist stated the same question
came up at the Planning Commission meeting and that all regulations were complied with
on notice requirements. She noted that in addition to the public hearing notice a sign was
15
placed on the site to alert residents of the public hearing. Mr. Verbrugge emphasized the
City has set a higher standard by going beyond the requirements by law. Mr.
DeBettignies stated that taxes should be a moot issue because everyone does pay taxes.
Mayor Droste encouraged residents to serve the community by considering applying for
any of the four openings now on city commissions. Mr. Droste noted the 2020
Comprehensive Guide Plan was developed five years ago and soon the 2030 plan process
will begin He encouraged residents to get involved.
Council Member Baxter stated he favors approval for the Rosemount Family Housing.
He commended the audience for their interest in city government. He noted he favors the
concept and the diversity it offers the city. Mr. Baxter was delighted to have the
opportunity to have a partnership with the CDA who is a great landlord. He continued by
stating it is good to have transitional housing for many people who are the fabric of the
community. He also said it is consistent with his personal beliefs not to judge people by
the amount of money they make And, this affordable housing is consistent with the
development goals of Rosemount and it makes sense from a development standpoint. Mr.
Baxter did not believe people were disengaged with this process. Mr. Baxter explained
that the perception might be that Council has not given enough consideration to a project,
but in fact, most issues have been addressed at Council Work Sessions, then it goes to
Planning Commission and then it comes back to Council. There is a lot of information
gathered and staff has no hidden agenda with these issues and the goals and objectives of
Council are upheld. Mr. Baxter stated he had read all the e -mails and comments which
had concerns with property values. He researched the 2002 Maxfield Research Inc.
document which reported no decrease in property values with CDA townhome projects.
Mr. Baxter said Council will continue to work on access issues. He noted the job of
government should be to find if it fits the law, does it benefit the community, and then let
the private land owners and developers decide what they are willing to do.
Mr. DeBettignies reported the Maxfield Research Inc. report is available at
www.fhfund.org for those who wish to verify the facts.
Ms. Shoe Corrigan commented that she would not want any citizens to become
disengaged from the public process. She noted she is a social studies school teacher and
tries to further the ideals of participating in local government. The City Council
represents everyone in the community and you can't always base a decision on the vocal
minority. She has discovered that what implements change is usually based on personal
experience and there is a great need for affordable housing. Ms. Shoe Corrigan stated she
believes approval of this project is the right thing to do and favors the recommended
motions.
Council Member Sterner was in favor of this affordable housing. Mr. Sterner related how
affordable housing had helped a friend save for his first home and he later became a
successful business man.
Mayor Droste reviewed the location and how transitional housing is the right selection
for this site. Mr. Droste recalled how bus tours helped to determine the senior housing on
16
Cameo Avenue in 1995 and how families were not in favor of the project at first. Mr.
Droste stated that since that time, no residents have complained about that CDA project.
Mr. DeBettignies thanked everyone in the audience for expressing their opinions. He
noted there will be an opportunity to run for office for three City Council positions in
November. Mr. Baxter thanked the Planning Commission for their hard work on this
project to aid City Council.
Motion by Baxter. Second by Shoe Corrigan.
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Comprehensive Plan changing the land
use designation for the site from Transition Residential to Urban Residential subject
to approval by the Metropohtan Council and rezoning of the site from Rural
Residential to R -2, Moderate Density Residential PUD.
Ayes: 5.
Nays: 0. Motion carried.
Motion by Baxter. Second by Shoe Corrigan.
Motion to adopt an ordinance rezoning the site from Rural Residential to R -2,
Moderate Density Residential PUD.
Ayes: 5.
Nays: 0. Motion carried.
Motion by DeBettigmes. Second by Sterner.
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the preliminary plat, subject to conditions.
Ayes: 5.
Nays: 0. Motion carried.
Motion by Shoe Corrigan. Second by DeBettignies.
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Planned Unit Development Concept,
subject to conditions.
Mr. Sterner commented that he would hke Parks Recreation Commission to review
conditions 9. and 10. for additional landscaping and trails. Ms. Lindquist said the process
allows for another pubhc hearing and review by the Parks Recreation Commission and
Planning Commission.
Ayes: 5.
Nays: 0. Motion carried.
Mr. Verbrugge noted that a list of those who had commented by e -mail, letter, or phone will
be prepared to add to receive notice of the next pubhc hearing concerning the CDA
affordable housing.
17
91
O
O
0
!0000
i
2
Cn
0
j
gi
1
O
O
C Z z
0
O CD m e
z
z
0
I I
hg
X35
0
CO
O
Lu
0
0
S r
S 4Z
;0 El
)ƒ ce
<A gccz
1 588 3
g m
1a
cr
U U m
e
Y
IIVI'VI'II'II
ViHilll ILIVIVi1
IIIIIIIII
MEN
1 1111 i
11111 111
II NMI
IVum miollI
Jn Ij :il
�I1tl
0
1 r
C41
2
y
!I 2!
2
gn
or
|j