HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.d. Approval of Rosemount Hills 5th Addition Preliminary Plat and Variance, 06-45-PP-VAGENDA ITEM: Case 06- 45 -PP -V Rosemount Hills 5th
Addition Preliminary Plat
AGENDA SECTION:
New Business
PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber, AICP; Senior Planner
AGENDA NO. ow.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Location Map, Preliminary
Plans, Engineering Memo dated
December 21, 2006, Parks Department
Memo dated December 26, 2006,
Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt
from December 26, 2006.
APPROVED BY:
�r
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat of
Rosemount Hills 5th Addition.
4 ROSEMOUNT
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Regular Meeting: January 16, 2007
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ISSUE
The applicant, John Tapper, owns an 11 acre parcel, located directly south of his residence at 12760
Chinchilla Avenue. This 11 acre site is predominately wooded with two wetlands on the site, one of which
bisects the parcel. The applicant proposes to subdivide the parcel into two lots and construct a 22 foot
wide private street across the wetland to serve the two created building sites. An additional lot west of the
subject parcel, not owned by Mr. Tapper, will also be served by the private drive. The RR Rural
Residential Zoning District allows a maximum density of 1 lot per 5 gross acres, which would allow the
parcel to be subdivided into two lots.
BACKGROUND
Applicant and property owner:
Location:
Area in Acres:
Comp Plan Designation:
Zoning District
Maximum Density:
Proposed Density:
Minimum Lot Size:
Proposed Lots Sizes:
John Tapper
Southern terminus of the Chinchilla Avenue Right -of -Way
(About a quarter mile south of McAndrews Rd W)
11.00 acres
Rural Residential
RR Rural Residential
1 Lot per 5 Gross Acres
1 Lot per 5.5 Gross Acres
2.5 Acres
5.05 and 5.95 Acres
John Tapper proposes to subdivide an approximate 11 acte parcel into two rural residential lots that would
be served by a 22 foot wide private street and individual wells and septic systems. The private street will
essentially function as a long joint driveway to serve the two parcels of this subdivision, as well as the
currently undeveloped Jordan parcel to the west. The RR Rural Residential Zoning District allows a
maximum density of 1 lot per 5 gross acres, which would allow the parcel to be divided into two lots. Mr.
Tapper has requested a variance to the Subdivision Ordinance to create lots without public street frontage.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The December 26, 2006 Planning Commission meeting discussion focused around how the tree
replacement ordinance is apphed to this property, how the pnvate street is to be constructed, and how
wetland mitigation will be handled. The Planning Commission determined that 75% of the significant
trees removed should be required to be replaced, resulting in the planting of 144 replacement trees.
Because of the wooded nature of the lot, some of the new trees may be located onto public land,
consistent with the zoning ordinance standards. The final location of the replacement trees will be
determined by the applicant and staff
The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, granted a variance to allow
the creation of lots without public street frontage that will allow a private drive to be constructed to serve
a maximum of three lots The Planning Commission also required 100% of the wetland mitigation to
occur on site by expanding the area of the two on -site wetlands.
One resident spoke against the project, particularly concerned that the access will be unsafe if the city
street standards would not be met and that he is concerned about how the stormwater would be treated
before reached the wetland. Staff explained that while the private drive will not meet street standards for a
public street, which are constructed to meet American's with Disability Act (ADA) standards, the private
drive does meet all the fire code standards which are designed to provide access to emergency vehicles.
Staff also explained that while the applicant has not submitted all the information to meet all of the City's
stormwater standards, the proposed prehmmary plat does contain significant stormwater infrastructure
that can be modified to meet our standards. The additional stormwater information will need to be
submitted prior to the approval of a final plat, but the provided stormwater calculations are sufficient for
preliminary plat approval.
Street Layout and Design
The plat depicts construction of a 22 -foot wide rural section road from the cul -de -sac, located south of the
mtersection of 127 Ct W and Chinchilla Ave, across the wetland that bisects the property and then divides
into two separate driveways. Each separate driveway will have a hammerhead turn around for emergency
vehicles.
To provide for the construction of this private street, the applicant has proposed to vacate existing
undeveloped Chinchilla Avenue right -of -way south of the existing cul -de -sac. This vacation is scheduled
on the agenda under Public Hearings. Once the right -of -way is vacated, the applicant will record an
private access easement over the former nght -of -way that will provide access for the two parcels of this
subdivision and the currently vacant Jordan parcel to the west. Beginning at the point were the private
street will enter the current 11 acre parcel and ending at the boundary of the two proposed parcels, the
applicant will record a 30 wide joint access easement for the two parcels. With the establishment of these
access easements, all the parcels will have a dedicated access to the existing Chinchilla Avenue cul -de -sac.
Stormwater Runoff
Per the City ordinance, the subdivision is required to comply with the City's adopted stormwater plan. The
preliminary plat proposes a variety of stormwater mechanisms, including swales, building pad ram gardens,
2
infiltration basins, and a swale check dam. There are some relatively minor revisions needed to the
stormwater infrastructure, which are stated within the engineering comments attached as a condition of
approval. These revisions are not expected to significantly change the proposed preliminary plat. With
these requested changes, the stormwater management proposed is found acceptable to meet the City's
stormwater management standards.
Drainage and utility easements will need to be recorded over the stormwater infrastructure to ensure its
continued effectiveness.
Wetland and Wetland Buffer Impact
The proposal includes a private dnve crossing of a wetland, which bisects the property, filling
approximately 2,500 square feet of the designated wetland. The wetland is classified by the City's Wetland
Management Plan as a Preserve wetland, which would require 3 to 1 wetland replacement totaling
approximately 7,500 square feet The mitigation will occur partially (about 4,000 square feet) along a low
area adjacent to the wetland and partially (about 3,500 square feet) adjacent to the wetland located in the
southeast corner of the site. These areas are generally acceptable to the City, but confirmation of the
existing wetland boundary and proposed wetland mitigation areas cannot be conducted outside the
growing season. A condition of approval states the apphcant must confirm the wetland and wetland
replacement areas during next year's growing season (after May 15, 2007) and adjust the apphcation to
comply with the WCA rules, if needed, subject to administrative approval. It is not expected that any
revisions would be significant.
The proposed pnvate dnve, stormwater infrastructure, wetland crossing, wetland mitigation, and
associated grading will impact the required 75 foot wide wetland buffers. The wetland buffer impacts are
shown on sheet C1 -2 of the proposed plans. It appears that the impact from the building pad rain garden
for Parcel 1 is not accurately shown on the plan, but either that impact could be added to the plan or the
rain gardens can be shifted to ehmmate any impact. Also, the wetland buffer for the wetland in the
southeast is not shown. These clarifications need to occur prior to final plat approval as conservation
easements will need to legally describe the buffer areas and be recorded with the plat.
The wetland buffer impacts are proposed to be mitigated through buffer averaging. Buffer averaging
allows additional buffer areas to be designated greater than 75 feet from the wetland on a one for one
basis. The proposed averagmg areas shown on the plan sheet are generally acceptable to City staff,
pending the above modifications.
Tree Removal
The proposed development removes 139 significant trees, 124 of which are 20 inches or less in size and 15
which are over 20 inches in 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 308
replacement trees. The applicant has provided a landscape plan that installs 236 trees, which plants a tree
in nearly every spot possible.
Generally, the tree removal cannot be avoided and still met the other City standards, such as stormwater
management and wetland mitigation. One exception is the location of the house pad and septic areas for
Parcel 2. The proposed house pad is near the western edge of the property. Moving the house pad to the
eastern side of Parcel 2, particularly near the open area in the southeast corner of Parcel 2, would reduce
the amount of trees removed, possibly by 25 trees or more. Staff has proposed a recommended condition
3
Total Number of Significant Trees
341
Total Trees Removed
150
Trees 20 inches or less Removed
133
Trees greater than 20 inches Removed
17
25% of Significant Trees
85
Number of Trees in excess of 25%
65
Trees 20 inches or less to be Replaced
58
Trees greater than 20 inches to be Replaced
7
Trees Replacement Required
144
of approval that the house pad and septic areas be moved to the eastern half of Parcel 2.
The apphcant continues to request an interpretation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance that only the trees
in excess of 25% removal need to be replaced Staff does not agree with this interpretation, and the
applicant's interpretation is inconsistent with the tree replacement plans of the Evermoor and Harmony
subdivision, as well as many of the recent commercial and industrial site plan approvals undertaken by the
City. Staff will concede that the Tree Preservation Ordinance is clumsily worded and can understand how
the applicant has arrived at their interpretation Furthermore, the replacement of every significant tree
removed can work well when subdividing former agricultural land where trees only exist m windrows or
surrounding farm buildings, but tree replacement can be difficult on heavily wooded parcels such as the
subject property. The 2.5 inch trees installed as replacement are generally valued at $300 a piece, which
would require approximately $92,000 worth of trees to be installed as a part of this subdivision. Staff will
concede that this is extreme for the development of two lots.
Staff proposes a compromise that tree replacement would be for those trees over 25% removal, including
all trees removed for public and private infrastructure and wetland mitigation, provided that a
proportionate amount of the trees larger than 20 inches in diameter are being replaced and that the
significant trees removed within the former Chinchilla Avenue right -of -way are included. The former
Chmchilla Avenue right -of -way was not included m the original tree replacement because it is outside the
formal plat, but these trees are being removed to construct mfrastructure to serve this development.
Using this tree replacement methods, tree replacement would occur as follows:
The number of replacement trees would be further reduced if the house pad on Parcel 2 is moved to the
eastern half of the lot.
In the past, some City Council members have expressed concern that the Tree Preservation Ordinance
does not lead developers to preserve trees but rather allows developers to replace them In the near
future, staff will be proposing amendments to the Tree Preservation Ordinance that may allow a number
of trees to be removed without replacement (but less than 25% of the trees) and encourages the
preservation of large and truly significant trees. Draft language will go before the Planning Commission in
2007.
Variance
The apphcant has received a variance from Section 12 -3 -5 Landlocked Parcels which states that the City
shall not permit landlocked parcels or parcels that are only served by pnvate easements. The proposed site
is surrounded by development and can only be served from the north by construction of a road through a
steeply wooded area and crossing a wetland. The Subdivision Ordinance recognizes that street standards
may be adjusted in environmental sensitive areas. Section 12 -3 -1 I states that that right -of -way dedication
may be reduced to 50 feet in width and street pavement width maybe reduced to 28 feet m areas that are
environmentally sensitive due to topography, forestation and /or wetlands The apphcant is proposing a
street pavement width of 22 feet due to the environmental sensitivity. Staff is agreeable to this standard if
the street is pnvate because it would serve only three lots (the two created by Rosemount Hills 5 Addition
and the one Jordan parcel to west) and so that the City would not need to maintain it for pubhc access.
Conversely, staff wants to make it clear that support of the private drive is in part derived from the fact that
only 3 lots will be served. If m the future additional development is requested by property owners, staff
would expect a pubhc road would need to be installed
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the approval of the preliminary plat for Rosemount Hills 5 Addition The variance
associated with the prehmmary plat has already been approved by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments.
5
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2007-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
ROSEMOUNT HILLS 5 111 ADDITION
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an
apphcation from John Tapper requesting Preliminary Plat of an eleven acre parcel into two parcels,
legally described as-
That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 115, Range 19, Dakota County,
Minnesota described as follows. Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 1, Block 2,
ROSEMOUNT HILLS SECOND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Dakota County, Minnesota; thence North 87 degrees 03 minutes 21 seconds East along the
south line of said ROSEMOUNT HILLS SECOND ADITION a distance of 604.78 feet to
the southeast corner of Lot 2, Block 2, said ROSEMOUNT HILLS SECOND
ADDITION; thence South 2 degrees 56 minutes 39 seconds East a distance of 720.26 feet;
thence South 87 degrees 03 minutes 21 seconds West a distance of 604.78 feet; thence
North 2 degrees 56 minutes 39 seconds West a distance of 720 26 feet to the point of
beginning. (Tide Commitment No. 114- 497979)
AND
That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 115, Range 19, Dakota County,
Minnesota described as follows. Commencing at the southwest corner of Lot 1, Block 2,
ROSEMOUNT HILLS SECOND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof,
said Dakota County; thence easterly, on an assumed bearing of North 87 degrees 03 minutes
21 seconds East, along the south line of said ROSEMOUNT HILLS SECOND
ADDITION, a distance of 604.78 feet to the southeast corner of Lot 2, said Block 2; thence
South 2 degrees 56 minutes 39 seconds East a distance of 720 26 feet; thence South 87
degrees 03 minutes 21 seconds West a distance of 604.78 feet to the point of beginning of
the land to be described, thence northerly to the southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence
westerly to the southeast corner of Lot 5, Block 1, said ROSEMOUNT HILLS SECOND
ADDITION, thence southerly to the hereinafter described "Pomt A"; thence easterly to the
point of beginning
WHEREAS, on December 26, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed
the Prehminary Plat; and
WHEREAS, on December 26, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount
conducted a pubhc hearing for review of the Prehminary Plat as required by Ordinance B, the
Subdivision Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council
apptove the Preliminary Plat subject to conditions, including that the City Council approve the
Vacation of the Right -of -Way of Chinchilla Avenue south of the cul -de -sac lying south of 127th
Court West; and
WHEREAS, on January 16, 2007, the City Council approved the Vacation of the Right -of -Way of
Chinchilla Avenue south of the cul -de -sac lying south of 127th Court West Preliminary Plat subject
to conditions; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Preliminary Plat of Rosemount Hills 5th Addition, subject to:
1. The City Council approval of the vacation of the Chinchilla Avenue right-of-way south of
the existmg cul -de -sac.
2. The recording of an access easement from the existing Chinchilla Avenue cul -de -sac to
serve the Jordan parcel and the two parcels of Rosemount Hills 5th Addition.
3. Relocation of the house pad and septic area for Parcel 2 to the eastern half of Parcel 2.
4. The installation of 144 replacement trees. This number may be reduced by the appropriate
number of trees saved due to relocation of the house pad and septic for Parcel 2, as
calculated using the tree replacement schedule. Replacement trees may be planted on site or
donated to the City for planting on public property in the general area
5. Confirmation of the wetland delineation and proposed wetland mitigation areas during the
2007 growing season. Any changes needed as a result of the confirmation shall be prepared
by the applicant and administratively approved by the City in accordance with the City
Wetland Management Plan
6 Revision of the wetland buffer area as a result of the building pad ram garden for Parcel 1
and the creation of appropnate wetland buffets around the southeast wetland. Wetland
buffers shall be recorded using the City's Conservation Easement format.
7. Recording of drainage and utility easements over all stormwater infrastructure.
8. Compliance with all conditions within the City Engineer's memorandum dated December
21, 2006
9. Collection of $6,800 fee -m -lieu of park dedication (2 lots times $3,400 per lot).
ADOPTED this 16th day of January, 2007 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
ATTEST:
Amy Domeier, City Clerk
William H Droste, Mayor
2
RESOLUTION 2007
RESOLUTION 2007
Motion by: Second by
Voted in favor:
Voted against
Member absent:
OPERTY ID NUMBER 34-01710- Ot7-60
E OWNER
YABLE 2006 TAXES
T TAX
ECIAL ASSESSMENTS
TAL TAX 8 SA
YABLE 2007 ASMNT USAGE RESIDENTIAL
NOTE Dimensions rounded to nearest foot
Copyright 2005, Dakota County
SITE MAP
20D6 ESTIMATED MARKET VALUES (PAYABLE 20D7) 2008 BUILDING INFORMATIDN (PAYABLE 2007)
JOHN 0 8 DIANE M TAPPER LAND 207,700 LOT SIZE (EXCLUDES NO DATA AVAILABLE
12760 CHINCHILLA BUILDING ROAD EASEMENTS)
ROSEMOUNT MN 55058 -3257 TOTAL 207,700
479,132 SQ FT
SCHOOL DISTRICT 190 1100 ACRES
LOCATION SW1 /4 SW1/4 SECTION 17 -115-19
PAYABLE 2007 HOMESTEAD STATUS NON HOMESTEAD
WATERSHED DISTRICT VERMILLION RIVER
1,791 5B
000
1,791 58
LAST QUALIFIED SALE
DATE AMOUNT
PLAT NAME SECTION 17 TWN 115 RANGE 19
TAX DESCRIPTION PT OF SW 1/4 BEG SW COR OF
LOT 1 BLK 2 ROSEMOUNT HILLS
2ND ADD N 87D 03M 21S E
This drawing is neither a legally recorded reap nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one 504 78 FT TO SE COR LOT 2
This drawing is a compilation of records, information and data located in vaious Cr, county and BLK 2 5 20 56M 39S E 720 25
state offices and other sources, affecting the area shown, and Ls to be used for reference purposes FTSB7D 0314 213 W 604 78 FT
only Dakota County Is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained If discrepancies are N 2D 56M 395 W 72026 FT TO
found, please contact Dakota County Survey and Land Information Department BEG
1711519
r.m., nom nr,wor]h r 70 2005 Parcels Uodated 11/15/2005 Aenal Photography 2004
CD
CD
CD
m.. IH ƒ {H
ii l 111!!
|1�
D'
L
I
CD
CD
CD
m.. IH ƒ {H
ii l 111!!
|1�
D'
L
s<
1
1
1 n
1 I i 'if u
li
(1 J =P 1111 1
Ir /;n I A I 1
Il, 1 1
l'/ 1
I f Iii I l l l !ll 11 1 1 1;
l 1 1 1 1 1 1
rte__ 1 !I1 i I 1 C C'''N I I I i
1 i 1 f f/ l/ I 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 c ve 1
ti l i r 11
l
Il I I] ll
/I flt l i %i I IIIII 1 111! 1
:j.t ik �f rt ii i p 1
I I. I( l 1 11111, 11ih fll
.14P .i I
l=Q
I i
1 i r
I I
j I 1 I
0
1 1■ i i i: 1 1 1 /'l
Imit
1
DJ
I j
111 II III II
4.41 Ill HUH UMHE 1- 1
i.... 1..,.: 11,111111111114111
o 1
1 1�1t4tii�141„ t,i flll,IT,, 1 4 iilllimit!!i
G 1411 114l t1 ;s4}FEfl,41EiI�4i4Ii1.1�411,4i 1 4 1 i
4 f n 1
131 ?i;I111∎111I1111111:11 li 111111 1 1 11 1 Iiilii111111{iilh;11
1 r
1 217 7_
r
aE
U
0
/1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1�
11 i
1 1 111/ i /1yr /rl %p1 \I IL
l e i l
T i 111 +i,
1 1 v
1
1
_1 1 I r 1 1 1/ 1 1 l l 1 1 I r Jv
i 1 1 1 1r1rrrll r
\\I I I i y /''w1----__
i l ii i li \i 1 n
a Scar- 9 A I! i l 1 1 1111 ycA AA I L I l �1 1 X V r
S 1
71/6 I
I
o, a
u
d
l
j a 1 �p iii['
�!fIUuI���IB�1Ui1E in
ENIEENEENEEInIIIEEEIEIIIIIIIIIE
ZI ES EEEmNmmmEmmm EMI
@i@@@@@@@Nni@@@@@@iH@G@@li@I@
MNmM 'i SmmEREMmmmmmmmmmm@ESEEEm@WE9Nmmmm EI "HE=
INEENNNNEEEI IN EEEEEE EEEAEEEEEEEEEENNEEmNEEEEEEEEEEEINSIEIENC EE
MEM mmmNMICEMN6mmm6m ME IBNmmZ EIR EMmmNmm mmmNEmmmmESm9mEmm
8@ E@@@@@@@@@ E@@@@ MME@@ NE@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@N@@@@@@ @B@ @M@@N@@NNN@@@
@9@ N@B@NEMBE @0999@ E@9 m 9B9m9@EE ISESEEEMEMBEEIENEMEEI
EEEEEE EINEEEEIE EINNEIEENEIEEEEEIEENEEIEEER EENIEE100o0 EEEEEEN�EEEEEEEEEEEEIEEEEEEEEEE�EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE INEI MEEEEEIN E
NN@ mImmmmm�Emmmm6m��m�6�Nmmmm�Bmm��mmm0mIEEM�NImmmmm mmm�m6��mmmm�mmm�mmmmmmm9mmmmmm6mmmmmNNm�N�mmm�m mm1
i
M N@ @@@9 @N@@@@I@@@@ @0@@@@@@@@ @6@@@@@@@@� @@@@@0@ @6@ @�N@@@N@@I@@@@@@@EEN6@
1 ISf ;E i3 ii -,:i J Fl ei 1 i iili:i Ei ?tl ii ii E if e l F ��f €F:: Fi?.E?::Ftlfi.�i� f
NMI INN EEE9IEEIEEIIEEEENENE MENZINEI N NIIINN�NE■ ®E ®EENEEIEEEEEEE EI :EEE EN M
�mmmmmmmmEmmmmmmNmm
NON I N IZEI E1 maNmCCEEmmmmmmmmmIZEZm6mmm @mISZ mmEmmmmmm ,,e .o mmmm
@@6@N@@@N F- .f@@@@ M9@@@@@@@ @9 @i In @@@@N@@@M®@M@I@@@@@
N
U
1 1
1 1
i
P
1 1
ma 9 l l
f i 1
11 '41,4 1 1
VI
V
-1
c I I
/CYO ria1
i ll t
ill I 1,1
21". I(;
1
-::::IM•ri \:--)11-in f f IS IS L I! .,f 0,
t i 1 (7,/,•11 .7C
N I 1 1
L, ,7,‘s---41 751/72-11-7.H-Y1749-4 1,7.7Cr
x 1 /iv/ y
"N 1 I i i V)4,
1,1„ir',‘,,,t,:,, f (IIIIIIIII I L- I IiII/H
I it
`Ail p I,
r lig :1 I il I
p•Li 1 hi
a ..i a
/g1E! 7q1.1i
ft 'i at 'ill ii
iligq
IN -,i,, 1
5, kit 7 I 1
c 3 i oi If i;
,kJ
I il 1 i I I
ij 01 lit I 11191h i I
I I II I
I V, I I I I Me j 11,11 Iv i
4 d
i I [I'
I 'Jilt il 1 ,i lid :no d di,: d
it
di i .1 i I .1 I r II
!I g 0,1:1 0 Uri irs
ii ti ill 0 11 ti
li livil ii iPiii ii.
i 1 11 1 iiiiii omi !go
4!
I 1.
ird
-J
0
CC
Z
0<
1...1
Z
5
L
0
Ui 0) 0
-J
CC
F-
0>
=0
A
rn
a
tr'r 1\\ l' lii i I
1
i S I i i i, 6 1 1 J y Jl� i v lI('f r l l I lr r l �r r ll r l ����w \loll 1�'i
11 „,i i I I r r r r I /'w�
1 I I
_fi tt i J I I I l` 4 'I I
r
I
il(i
p+;- rr
zip i i i3;
1
I
I I
I
I
II
1 1
I
P
1 q i
t n do i i ii
f
E
1
i
r} 0.
3 i
e
s i?li
i in'
J
1 1 q
1 n I11
11 I
ll LJ }1
1
iI1 E1
i
O
:'i( 1. 1'I I
jam"
e
c
h s }i
l
lad2 11'
STREET SECTION
MEMORANDUM
4 ROSEMOUNT
DATE: December 21, 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: Tapper Development Preliminary Plat and Variance Application
PUBLIC WORKS
Upon review of the resubmitted Tapper Development Rosemount Hills 5 Addition Site Plan
received on December 18, 2006, the Engineering Department offers the following comments:
General Comments
1) A Wetland Conservation Act permit for the proposed wetland impact shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval prior to final plat approval.
2) Drainage and utility easements shall be shown over all drainage areas, i.e. the proposed
storm water depression behind the Lot 1 building pad is not shown on the plans as
located within a drainage and utility easement and identified on the plat document.
3) The drainage and utility easement illustrated over the wetland onsite does not appear
to encompass the approximate 100 -year HWL of 938 3 based on the Comprehensive
Storm Water Management Plan Additionally, the flood storage volume being filled by
the proposed driveway crossing does not appear to be accounted for. The flood
storage volume filled by the driveway to elevation 938.3 should be mitigated, and as
previously mentioned, encompassed by a drainage and utility easement.
4) The wetland buffer width is contingent upon the RoseRAM wetland assessment and
wetland delineation which cannot be reviewed until the growing season.
Stone Water Management
1) The water quality calculations for removal of sediment and nutrients were not
provided m the submittal. The water quality calculations for the proposed devices
should be provided which demonstrate that the removal efficiency meets the City
cntenon. The skimming of debris m the storm water storage areas does not appear to
be included m the site design.
2) The infiltration calculations for the site were not provided in the submittal. The
infiltration calculations for the site should be provided for review.
3) The water quantity volume calculations submitted appear to provide for the
impervious area runoff volume increase. The grading plan for the Area 4 on the south
road will require revisions to function as proposed.
a. The driveway ditch on the west side of the driveway to the ditch block (Site 4 -DA
map) should be constructed to direct the runoff north within the west ditch. It
appears that the runoff to the ditch section from the southern portion of the
dnveway will flow directly to the wetland The grading plan should be revised in this
area.
b. The proposed ditch block at elevation 946 on the west side of the driveway appears
to be 2' above the driveway profile elevations. This would indicate that the driveway
runoff immediately east of the ditch block would not enter the storage area. The
proposed areas upstream of the ditch block storage area will required revision if the
driveway profile is not above the ditch block elevation of 946.
4) The overflow elevations from the proposed storm water storage areas adjacent to Lot
1 2 building pads should meet the City freeboard requirements to the low floor and
low building opening elevations. The low building and low floor elevations should be
illustrated on the plans
5) The storm water modeling for the proposed storm water storage areas should provide
for overflow sections from the depressions to the wetland The grading plan should
include defined and labeled emergency overflows (labeled as EOF with directional
arrows) for the proposed storage areas.
6) The runoff from the west side of Chinchilla Avenue does not appear to enter a storm
water management device and overland flow is directed to the wetland The grading
plan should either provide for a storm water management device in this area to receive
runoff poor to entering the wetland, or show through water quality calculations that
City sediment and nutrient removal requirements are achieved through overland flow
alone without a storm water management device.
Preliminary Plat
1) See General Comment 2.
2) See General Comment 3.
3) The wetland m the southeast area of the property does not show the required wetland
buffer.
4) Conservation easements shall be shown as encompassing all wetland buffers.
Grading Plan
1) See Storm Water Management Comments 3a and 3b.
2) The proposed storm water storage area north of the building on Lot 1 appears to be in
close proximity to the low building opening for the walk out. It may be beneficial to
construct an overland flow route to the storm water storage area in Site 6 adjacent to
the driveway.
3) The existing culvert at the Chinchilla Avenue cul -de -sac will require modification
based on the proposed driveway connection.
4) Grading required for storm water treatment depression on Parcel 1 appears to impact
wetland buffer. Where ponds are located within wetland buffers, the pond area will
not count toward the requited buffer, and the buffer shall be expanded beyond the
pond to equal the required buffer width.
SWPPP Plan
1) Turf re- estabhshment should be shown on the plan. Appropriate native seed mixes
should be used within the buffer areas. BWSR seed mix 1J7 Savannah Woodland
Edge, or other suitable woodland edge mix is recommended (applies to seeding shown
on Wetland Mitigation plan as well).
2) Silt fence needs to be shown on the down slope side of all graded areas
3) Category 3 erosion control blanket should be shown on all graded areas 3:1 or steeper
with a positive slope towards the wetland.
Landscaping Plan
1) Show placement of tree protection fencmg on plan view to protect those trees to
remain undisturbed at, or outside, the tree's drip line.
2) Because of the prevalence of Lophodernua needle cast, the planting of Picea pungens
is not recommended.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding the item listed above, please contact me at
651- 322 -2022.
,C ROSEMOLIN 1
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: December 26, 2006
Subject: Rosemount Hills 5 Addition Preliminary Plat/Tapper Property
After reviewing the most recent submittal for the Rosemount Hills 5 Addition Preliminary Plat, I
have the following recommendation:
Parks dedication should be collected on the two new lots being created. I am recommending
collecting cash in -lieu of land. Based on the current 2006 Fee Schedule the parks dedication
fees would be $6,800 (2 x 3,400).
Please call me at 651 322 -6012 if you have any questions about this memo.
C \Documents and Settngs ehz\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK2\Preliminary plat review memo 12 2606 doe
EXCERPT FROM MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 26, 2006
5.a. 06- 45 -PP -V Rosemount Hills 5 Addition Preliminary Plat and Variance. Senior
Planner Zweber presented this item The applicant, John Tapper, owns an 11 acre parcel,
located directly south of Ins residence at 12760 Chinchilla Avenue. This 11 acre site is
predominately wooded with two wetlands on the site, one of which bisects the parcel. The
applicant proposes to subdivide the parcel into two lots and construct a 22 foot wide private
street across the wetland to serve the two created building sites An additional lot west of the
subject parcel, not owned by Mr. Tapper, will also be served by the private drive. The RR
Rural Residential Zomng District allows a maximum density of 1 lot per 5 gross acres, which
would allow the parcel to be subdivided into two lots.
John Tapper proposes to subdivide an approximate 11 acre parcel into two rural residential lots
that would be served by a 22 foot wide private street and individual wells and septic systems.
The private street will essentially function as a long joint driveway to serve the two parcels of
this subdivision, as well as the currently undeveloped Jordan parcel to the west. The RR Rural
Residential Zoning District allows a maxnnum density of 1 lot per 5 gross acres, which would
allow the parcel to be divided into two lots. Mr Tapper has requested a variance to the
Subdivision Ordinance to create lots without public street frontage.
Mr. Zweber presented plans to show the street layout and design, the proposed stormwater
runoff, the impact to the wetland buffer, and tree removal and replacement. Mr. Zweber also
discussed the requested variance and the five findings the Board needs to reach in order to
approve the variance.
Mr. Zweber stated that Staff recommends approval of the variance to create two landlocked
parcels with that access easements are recorded to provide access to the Jordan parcel and the
two parcels of Rosemount Hills 5` Addition. Staff also recommends approval of the
preliminary plat of Rosemount Hills 5t Addition, subject to condrnons.
Chairperson Messner asked the Commission for any questions or comments.
Comnnssioner Palda asked about the City's tree ordinance. Mr. Zweber replied that there have
been different interpretations made in the past but no actual written record exists of how it has
been interpreted.
Commissioner Schultz questioned the turn arounds for emergencies and upkeep of the private
dove. Mr. Zweber pointed out on the plans the hammerhead turn- arounds for emergency
vehicles and stated that the private drive maintenance would the individual owners'
responsibilities. The fire code will govern how the road is to be maintained.
Commissioner Schwartz asked about the tree ordinance and whether or not there is a
chronological order to how it's been interpreted; more or less conservative recently Mr. Zweber
confirmed that it appears it has been more conservative and the City has been more strict when
a PUD is involved Staff usually requests other items to be strengthened in exchange for trees
removed, such as landscaping. Chairperson Messner asked if there has been a similar situation
where 344 trees have been destroyed Mr. Zweber cited one example off of Coffee, possibly,
but said that no other site he could find is similar to this
Chairperson Messner asked about wetland delineation and mitigation procedures and asked if
the wetland in the southeast corner of the site is classified as a preserved wetland Mr Zweber
pointed out the wetland areas on the site plan and described the delineation and mitigation
process. He also confirmed that the wetland m the southeast corner is a preserved wetland.
Chairperson Messner invited the applicant to come forward.
Jared Andrews of Loucks Associates, the planner and engineer for the project, approached the
Commission. He stated staff has been very helpful in working with this unique piece of
property and they could answer any questions the Commission had.
Chairperson Messner asked about the suggestion from Staff to preserve more trees by shifting
the house on Lot 2 further to the east. Mr. Andrews responded that they are try-mg to build two
walkouts on the wooded lots. He showed on the diagram of the site that moving the house to
the east runs into the wetland buffer which prevents them from having a walkout.
Chairperson Messner opened the pubhc hearing at 7:07p.m.
Bill Huffstutler, 3296 129 Court West, Rosemount, MN 55068, approached the Commission.
He stated that at the prior meeting, several residents expressed their disagreement with more
development in the neighborhood. He stated his concern with the environmental impact with
tree removal and stormwater runoff. He is also concerned with emergency services accessibility
with the proposed width and grade of the private drive. He presented an article from the
American Heart Association that stated many deaths by heart attack are due to inexcessibihty
and delay in services. He does not want the City to be sued and taxpayers as a result have to pay
for something that could be avoided by a more accessible road. Mr. Huffstutler asked the
Commission how a right -of -way was developed with a 9% grade. Mr. Zweber responded that
the right -of -way was approved m 1978 and the same would not happen by today's standards.
However, the 9% grade is acceptable to meet the fire code for a private drive The City's Fire
Marshall has accepted the proposed plans. Mr. Huffstutler also asked about the road upkeep m
the winter and how it's maintained so EMS services can get through and the environmental
impact of the materials used to keep the roads clean and stormwater management to protect the
wetlands Mr Zweber stated the owners will need to supply the information to the City to see
that they are meeting the requirements. Chairperson Messner confirmed that is one of the
conditions for approval.
There were no further public comments.
MOTION by Schwartz to close the Pubhc Hearing.
Second by Palda.
Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion approved. Pubhc heating was closed at 7:21p.m.
MOTION by Commissioner Messner of the Planning Commission, also sitting as the
Board of Appeals and Adjustments, to approve the variance request to allow creation of
two lots without public street frontage as part of Rosemount Hills 5 Addition, subject
to the following conditions.
1. The City Council approval of the vacation of the Chinchilla Avenue right -of -way
south of the existing cul -de -sac.
2. The recording of an access easement from the existing Chinchilla Avenue cul -de -sac
to serve the Jordan parcel and the two parcels of Rosemount Hills 5th Addition.
Second by Schultz.
Ayes. 5.
Nays. 0.
Commissioner Palda questioned if the tree replacement in Condition No. 4 could be done
elsewhere since the site is already a heavily wooded area. Mr. Zweber stated that 144 trees may
be difficult to place elsewhere, but there are some logical locations on the site to replace the
trees. Chairperson Messner stated that it should be up to the owner and the City to decide
where the replacement trees are placed. However, he also stated that the tree ordinance should
be reviewed at a later date for clarification.
Commissioner Schultz stated her concern about Project Engineer Dawley's report on
stotmwater management with respect to Condition No. 8 regarding how many items are missing
from the apphcant's materials Staff members stated that this is a prehminary plat and details are
often delayed until the final plat It was decided to add the word "all" m Condition No. 8.
Also added was Condition No. 9 with respect to park dedication fees.
Motion by Schultz to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of Rosemount Hills 5
Addition, subject to the following findings:
1. The City Council approval of the vacation of the Chinchilla Avenue right -of -way south
of the existing cul -de -sac
2. The recording of an access easement from the existing Chinchilla Avenue cul-de -sac to
serve the Jordan parcel and the two parcels of Rosemount Hills 5` Addition.
3. Relocation of the house pad and septic area for Parcel 2 to the eastern half of Parcel 2.
4. The installation of 144 replacement trees. This number may be reduced by the
appropriate number of trees saved due to relocation of the house pad and septic for
Parcel 2, as calculated using the tree replacement schedule. Replacement trees may be
planted on site or donated to the City for planting on pubhc property in the general area.
5. Confirmation of the wetland delineation and proposed wetland mitigation areas during
the 2007 growing season Any changes needed as a result of the confirmation shall be
prepared by the apphcant and admirustratively approved by the City m accordance with
the City Wetland Management Plan.
6. Revision of the wetland buffer area as a result of the building pad rain garden for Parcel
1 and the creation of appropriate wetland buffers around the southeast wetland.
Wetland buffers shall be recorded using the City's Conservation Easement format.
7. Recording of drainage and utility easements over all stonnwater infrastructure.
8. Comphance with all conditions within the City Engineer's memorandum dated
December 21, 2006.
9. Collection of $6,800 fee -in -lieu of park dedication (2 lots times $3,400 per lot) fees.
Second by Palda.
Ayes• 5.
Nays: 0.
Mr. Zweber stated that this item will go before the City Council at the meeting on January 16,
2007, for approval of the prehminary plat and review of the vacation request. The variance can
be appealed within the 10 day appeal period. After that period of time, they are able to submit
the final plat.
4 ROSEMOLINT
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Mayor and Council Members
From: Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator
Date: January 16, 2007
Subject: Council Agenda Updates
ADMINISTRATION
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: NEW BUSINESS
Item 9.d. Approval of Rosemount Hills 5t Addition Preliminary Plat and Variance,
06- 45 -PP -V. The Engineering Department has submitted a memorandum regarding the
development fees for the Trunk Storm Water Area Charge. The charges are reflected m the
draft resolution for consideration.
1
DATE: January 16, 2007
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: Tapper Development Preliminary Plat and Variance Application
As an amendment to the original plan review memorandum dated December 21, 2006 regarding the
resubmitted Tapper Development Rosemount Hills 5 Addition Site Plan received on December 18,
2006, the Engineering Department offers the following:
Estimated Cite Development Fees:
MEMORANDUM
4 ROSEMOUNT
0 Trunk Storm Water Area Charge* 8.8 acres $6665 /acre $58,652
PUBLIC WORKS
Trunk Storm Water Area Charges above are estimated based on the information provided by the
applicant in the current plan submittal. Future plan submittals may alter the areas of ponding
acreage and /or wetland delineation, consequently necessitating a recalculation of Trunk Storm
Water Area Charges to be collected with final plat /subdivision agreement
Should you have any questions or comments regarding the item listed above, please contact me at
651- 322 -2022.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an
apphcanon from John Tapper requesting Preliminary Plat of an eleven acre parcel into two parcels,
legally described as:
That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 115, Range 19, Dakota County,
Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 1, Block 2,
ROSEMOUNT HILLS SECOND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Dakota County, Minnesota, thence North 87 degrees 03 minutes 21 seconds East along the
south line of said ROSEMOUNT HILLS SECOND ADITION a distance of 604.78 feet to
the southeast comer of Lot 2, Block 2, said ROSEMOUNT HILLS SECOND
ADDITION; thence South 2 degrees 56 minutes 39 seconds East a distance of 720.26 feet;
thence South 87 degrees 03 minutes 21 seconds West a distance of 604.78 feet; thence
North 2 degrees 56 minutes 39 seconds West a distance of 720 26 feet to the point of
begmmng. (Title Commitment No. 114 497979)
AND
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2007-
A RESOLUTION APPROVINGTHE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
ROSEMOUNT HILLS 5 ADDITION
That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 115, Range 19, Dakota County,
Minnesota described as follows Commencing at the southwest comer of Lot 1, Block 2,
ROSEMOUNT HILLS SECOND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof,
said Dakota County; thence easterly, on an assumed bearing of North 87 degrees 03 minutes
21 seconds East, along the south line of said ROSEMOUNT HILLS SECOND
ADDITION, a distance of 604 78 feet to the southeast corner of Lot 2, said Block 2; thence
South 2 degrees 56 minutes 39 seconds East a distance of 720 26 feet, thence South 87
degrees 03 minutes 21 seconds West a distance of 604.78 feet to the point of begtntung of
the land to be described, thence northerly to the southwest corner of said Lot 1, thence
westerly to the southeast corner of Lot 5, Block 1, said ROSEMOUNT HILLS SECOND
ADDITION, thence southerly to the hereinafter described "Point A"; thence easterly to the
point of beginning.
WHEREAS, on December 26, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed
the Preliminary Plat; and
WHEREAS, on December 26, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount
conducted a public hearing for review of the Preliminary Plat as required by Ordinance B, the
Subdivision Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Convnissron adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council
approve the Preliminary Plat subject to conditions, including that the City Council approve the
Vacation of the Rtght -of -Way of Chinchilla Avenue south of the cul -de -sac lying south of 127th
Court West; and
RESOLUTION 2007
WHEREAS, on January 16, 2007, the City Council approved the Vacation of the Right -of -Way of
Chinchilla Avenue south of the cul -de -sac lying south of 127th Court West Prehrmnary Plat subject
to conditions, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Prehmmary Plat of Rosemount Hills 5th Addition, subject to:
1. The City Council approval of the vacation of the Chinchilla Avenue right -of -way south of
the existing cul -de -sac
2. The recording of an access easement from the existing Chinchilla Avenue cul -de -sac to
serve the Jordan parcel and the two parcels of Rosemount Hills 5th Addition.
3. Relocation of the house pad and septic area for Parcel 2 to the eastern half of Parcel 2.
4. The installation of 144 replacement trees. This number may be reduced by the appropriate
number of trees saved due to relocation of the house pad and septic for Parcel 2, as
calculated using the tree replacement schedule. Replacement trees may be planted on site or
donated to the Cite- for planting on pubhc property m the general area.
5. Confirmation of the wetland delmeanon and proposed wetland mitigation areas during the
2007 growing season Any changes needed as a result of the confirmation shall be prepared
by the apphcant and administratively approved by the City m accordance with the City
Wetland Management Plan.
6. Revision of the wetland buffer area as a result of the building pad rain garden for Parcel 1
and the creation of appropriate wetland buffers around the southeast wetland. Wetland
buffers shall be recorded using the City's Conservation Easement format.
7. Recording of drainage and utility easements over all stormwater infrastructure.
8. Compliance with all conditions within the City Engineer's memorandum dated December
21, 2006.
9. Collection of $6,800 fee -m -heu of park dedication (2 lots times $3,400 per lot).
10. Payment of the appropriate stormwater fees as described in the City Engineer's
Memorandum dated January 16, 2007 The estimated fee is the amount of $58,652, but this
fee is based on the incomplete mformatron provided by the apphcant and is subject to
revision based on the information yet to be provided.
ADOPTED this 16th day of January, 2007 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount
ATTEST:
Amy Domeier, City Clerk
William H Droste, Mayor
RESOLUTION 2007
Motion by. Second by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Member absent:
3